• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

The ****ing Offseason Thread - 2016

zeke said:
and if you don't like aggregate save percentage...even strength save percentage

Career

Reimer (28) 215gms, .925
Andersen (27) 125gms, .925
Bernier (28) 213gms, .922
Enroth (28) 147gms, .921

3yrs (i.e. since freddy joined the league)

Reimer 111gms, .925
Andersen 125gms, .925
Bernier 151gms, .923
Enroth 94gms, .919


the main difference being that both reimer and bernier have shown the ability to be well above average goalies in a starting role, while neither andersen nor enroth have.
Click to expand...

A .925 even strength save percentage would be 22nd amongst NHL goalies who played at least 1500 even strength minutes last year, and tied with Martin Jones. Note 32 goalies played 1500 even strength minutes... basically everyone on the list made 35 starts and above.

http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/rat...0&teamid=0&type=goals&sort=SvPct&sortdir=DESC

Its in the below average area for a starting goalie.

So yeah, Reimer and Bernier and Anderson all fall in various categories of below average starter when using even strength save percentage. (note thats just the stat you've used and presented... not getting into whether they actually are below average, but by this metric they are).
 
Last edited:
hockeeyyy said:
I don't know if you're far-sighted or something, but there's a link there just for you. Literally the best resource for analytics, including Sportsnet writer.

Oh, you want more supporting evidence? Oh okay. Here's another layer of zone adjusted Corsi ESSV% in close score effects in which Andersen ranks sixth overall among all goaltenders in the last three seasons with 100 games played or more. Bernier? 20th overall. Oh, you think it's too strict? Okay, let's try 2,000 minutes instead. Well, well, well. Looks like Mr. Andersen is at 7th. Greiss suddenly appeared at 2nd. Bernier? 26th. Reimer? Dead last.
Click to expand...

Not a big fan of Corsi Save%. For teams that block lots of shots, or cut down shooting lanes forcing the opponent to miss the net a lot, it would increase the goalies Corsi Sv%. Its a bit of a flawed stat for looking at a goalie.

Where are you getting the high danger, and medium danger scoring chances?
 
zeke said:
flipping between random splits (4yrs then 5yrs then 3yrs then whatever) is blatant slewing right off the bat.

AND a link to a Steve "I don't get why borderline 4th liner Bozak was better without Kessel in production ans possession this year" Burtch is not evidence, especially since the tweet refers to a bizarre 4 year split when Andersen has only been in the league 3yrs - the definition of manipulating stats to fit a narrative.

AND that's even allowing that fenwick save percentage - i.e. giving goalies full credit for missed shots - is even a useful stat, which is likely silly right off the bat.

AND even if we DO actually look at fenwick save% fairly we get this:

3yrs (i.e. since Andersen made the NHL) - min 4000 minutes (36 qualified goalies)

14. Andersen 125gms, .9477
17. Reimer 111gms, .9472
20. Bernier 151gms, .9466
22. Enroth 94gms, .9453

Career (72 goalies qualified)

14. Andersen 125gms .9477
16. Reimer 215gms .9476
23. Enroth 147gms .9466
26. Bernier 209gms .9462

AND now you're bringing in Corsi which means you're giving goalies credit for blocked shots which is even more bizarre.

AND you're using a 2500 minute cutoff for which Andersen just makes (2654) to skew the stats as far to his favor as humanly possible.



This type of blatant and silly stats manipulation is not gonna fly for a guy trying to talk down.
Click to expand...

Fenwick Save% is a bit of a strange stat too... giving goalies credit for shots that miss the net... which could be due to a defender pressuring the shot, or cutting down the shooting lane. Yes it can also be the goalie cutting angles and forcing missed shots. Team effects are definitely there though, so I'm not a big fan of that one for comparing goalies either.

I would like to see where the High Danger stat is coming from though. Thats an interesting one.
 
Last edited:
hockeeyyy said:
Ah, yes. A peer reviewed, and universally accepted measure of puck possession is something others shouldn't care about because it hurts your argument to defend Reimer and Bernier. I mean, 30 NHL teams are already using puck possession measures of shot counting, including missed, blocked, and deflected shots. But I guess we should just not care because we don't want you to have some sort of mid-life crisis over whether the last twenty years of learning to multiply up to 12 is useless.
Click to expand...

Fenwick and corsi for skaters is great. I'm not sure why we care about Fenwick Save% when its so heavily influenced by team effects of how much pressure the defending team has on the puck.
 
Last edited:
I would agree that the overall numbers both seem to show that overall Reimer, Bernier and Andersen have been similar quality goalies. But they don't factor in the consistency. Reimer and Bernier get there by having two amazing years, and two non NHL caliber years. Andersen has been between .914 and .923 every year, while Reimer and Bernier have been anywhere from the low .900s to the high .920s.

An average goalie, that is consisently average is actually a really good thing. And a goalie that you cannot rely on from year to year is a terrible thing. One will keep you in it every year and the other will sink you 50% of the time. Finding a consistent goalie is really hard and really important.

Whether he is worth a 5 year deal remains to be seen though. But if the next 5 are anything like the last 3 then he'll earn it.
 
Yes. And, not all SV%'s are the same. Andersen has shown a lot more consistency in his young career than Reimer or Bernier has shown.

I remember I brought this up in a separate goalie thread before ... but Andersen had a very low % of 'bad starts' or 'subpar starts' and his consistency was among the elites of the league.

Screen Shot 2016-06-30 at 6.29.08 PM.jpg

Does it mean he deserved the 5 yrs extension? For sure not. I actually don't like the goalie, but consistency is at least here he's separated himself from Reimer and Bernier.
 
I would've loved a better goalie acquisition but who moved that is better than Andersen? I'm giving Shanahan and co the benefit of the doubt here as for the most part they've delivered on their promise of building this team the right way. Lou has proven historically to make the right call when it comes to investing in a goalie long term.

I think the defense has its work cut out for them this year so having a goalie that can be consistent will be good for them.
 
Bishop is an even bigger investment in terms of dollars it would take to resign him. Likely for even longer than the 5 years Andersen got. I'd argue he'd cost more in terms of assets to acquire despite only having 1 year left on his contract. Leafman you're right that he might not have even waived his NTC to come here. Tampa might not want what we are offering anyway. If i were them i'd want immediate help to the team.

Other than Bishop i don't see a realistic option that is clearly better, affordable in dollars and cost acquisition.
 
I doubt Bishop was ever seriously available at any kind of reasonable price. What's the incentive for Tampa to trade him when they're trying to win a Cup this year? They may as well just roll the dice and take their shot with him regardless of where his future lies, like they did with Stamkos last year.

The expansion draft doesn't really play in to things either, since Bishop's a pending UFA.
 
leafman101 said:
According to Bishop Tampa had a deal done with Calgary and they were talking extension before the Flames got Elliott.
Click to expand...
Really, eh? I wonder what king's ransom the Flames were offering for him.

Whatever it was, I'm sure it was less than what Tampa would have demanded from a division rival.
 
I think you guys are underrating Andersen a bit.

@BKerr -- FSv% isn't a be-all end all. But what it does is remove the shallow values of even strength shots and measures the activity of a goaltender -- it's further useful because it can help us determine, on a year to year basis, whether a trend can be seen via proxy of a team's possession metrics. We know that the Ducks have been trending upwards in their possession stats over the last four years (48.8% in 2012-13, 50.1% in 2013-14, 51.7% in 2014-15, 53.5% in 2015-16), so we know that Andersen has the benefit of a team that possesses the puck more often than not. It also hews closer to ESSv% than CSv%, so it does have an impact on making a determination of a goaltender's abilities. Even separating the two metrics, Andersen finished 7th overall for simple even strength save percentage among all 39 qualified goaltenders with 1,500 minutes played at close / zone adjusted. He finished 5th overall at Fenwick close / zone adjusted. The two players who dropped were Crawford and Rask --- both goaltenders playing behind significantly strong possession teams. He rises up to 3rd at Corsi close / zone adjusted. The other two goaltenders who dropped along with Crawford and Rask were Anderson and Elliot. The only two goaltenders who finished above Andersen were Price and Luongo -- we know their background.

This paints a picture of a goaltender who has an extremely promising outlook going forward. Reimer and Bernier, by the same measures, were at or near the bottom in all categories. And it's not just team effect -- Hiller struggled badly for four straight years, culminating into last year's disaster. So did Jones, Neuvirth, etc. Even Schneider struggled at even strength metrics.

If you want his LD / MD / HD metrics, he's doing fairly well. LDSv% are generally noise between goaltenders for the most part -- there's such little space between top to bottom that it isn't the most reliable as it fluctuates from year to year. Andersen finished third last in that category among goaltenders who have played 1,500 minutes at close / zone adjusted even strength. We can toss that away. His MDSv% is the most impressive -- he sits 1st overall. And by a very large margin as well. For HDSv%, he's at 15 out of 39 -- this might be a small concern, but that will be figured out, hopefully soon. Reimer finished ahead of Andersen by two-tenths of a percent -- 13th overall.

I don't see the concern any more. I've been taking time over the summer to look at Andersen with a more tolerant view, and I think the Leafs hit a home-run here.
 
2 things. I dont see why we need to adjust for close. A goalies ability to make saves when up two or down two is important too.

The abilty to make saves when up two or three goals and protecting that lead is absolutely huge. Why would we discount those situations?

Also where are you looking up HDsv%
 
BKerr said:
2 things. I dont see why we need to adjust for close. A goalies ability to make saves when up two or down two is important too.

The abilty to make saves when up two or three goals and protecting that lead is absolutely huge. Why would we discount those situations?

Also where are you looking up HDsv%
Click to expand...

As to why, it removes the score effects of shots. By neutralizing the situation, it removes the biases from the equation if that makes sense?

http://www.corsica.hockey/ -- enjoy saying goodbye to your social life.
 
Removing score effects is great for skaters and i understand why.

I dont see why we would do it for goalies.

Protecting 2 goal leads and not letting them get cut to one goal leads is important.

The score effects will effect possession but we arent measuring possession... we are measuring puck atopping ability.

Just because using close is a good way to judge players doesnt automatically mean we should use it for goalies too. There has been an adoption that its a good thing with no critical thinking if the possition is different
 
BKerr said:
Removing score effects is great for skaters and i understand why.

I dont see why we would do it for goalies.

Protecting 2 goal leads and not letting them get cut to one goal leads is important.

The score effects will effect possession but we arent measuring possession... we are measuring puck atopping ability.

Just because using close is a good way to judge players doesnt automatically mean we should use it for goalies too. There has been an adoption that its a good thing with no critical thinking if the possition is different
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. The effect of trailing or leading by two or more goals is smaller than using close. Since most of the game is played within one goal or less, it's just a larger pool of data. Close already attributes one goal leading or trailing.
 
Yeah, I don't see the value of score effects on goaltending unless someone wants to present work that the quality of shots are altered by score effects, and not just the quantity of shots (which we know are altered by score effects)
 
Leafin' said:
I would've loved a better goalie acquisition but who moved that is better than Andersen? I'm giving Shanahan and co the benefit of the doubt here as for the most part they've delivered on their promise of building this team the right way. Lou has proven historically to make the right call when it comes to investing in a goalie long term.

I think the defense has its work cut out for them this year so having a goalie that can be consistent will be good for them.
Click to expand...

were we really at a juncture where we needed to settle for whatever goalie was available? couldn't we have gone with cheaper options for now and waited for an top goalie to come available?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top