Thanks to a Jlikens post on the mind-bogglingly good fortune of the Boston Bruins so far, I've been working my way through Hockey Numbers recently (with a more Calgary-centric focus).
Some pretty interesting stuff. Most notably, the shot quality and expected goal differential work, which gives us an idea of how well a team is doing at generating and denying scoring chances.
The charts are big and scary, but terms are defined at the bottom. Basically what you're looking at here is a measure of the quality of shots for and against (shots from 12' go in far more often than shots from 30' for example) multiplied by gross shots for and against to yield an expected GD number.
The ES results for Calgary by this method are good. Very good. The Flames share the second best SQF (shot quality for) score in the league. Their SQA is just average, but they also tend to out shoot the bad guys, resulting in the second best EGD in the league (+14) behind the mighty San Jose Sharks. Keep in mind, this isn't actual ES GD (sometimes good quality shots don't go it and sometimes your goalie lets in a floater), but what this indicates is that only the Sharks significantly outchance the opposition more than the Flames so far*.
*(for interest sake, check out Detroit's numbers. They are third behind the Flames in terms of EGD, but they do it with pure out-shooting: they tend to give up high quality chances and generate low ones, but end up in the black because the shot differentials are so high).
Other items of interest:
- Calgary's ES SV% is a 25th ranked 88% - ahead of only Toronto, NYI, St.Louis, Dallas and Buffalo. How does Kipper have a SV% above .900 you ask then? Look no further than the 91.9% save rate on the PK. How ridiculous is that? Also, according to Java Geeks SV% numbers for shot quality, Kipper has struggled to stop average (89%) shots so far. MceLhinney's figure in this regard, for a point of reference, is 94%.
- Sticking with goaltending because it's a contentious point in Calgary these days, Kipper's contribution to GD this year has apparently been a negative one.
According to the linked graph, the Flames haven't exactly gotten the bounces either. The spike in expected GD seems to coincide with the Flames "turn around" after the Sharks debacle. That passes the sniff test, although I would like to see how the values for this output are generated.
- As I've wrestled with this Kipper @ 5.83M/year thing, I've started to get closer and closer to the conclusion that the Detroit model of spending money on skaters rather than goaltending makes the most sense. Low and behold, Java has a discussion on the very topic and he basically comes to the same conclusion:
It would appear good strategy would be to build a good team and then you can throw any goaltender in front without too much worry so long as the goaltender is at least average...
It would appear that Detroit is playing smart by spending very little on goaltending and spending on defense, Boston and Thomas are following similar logic. Of course this is all in the perspective on wins. What this says about the value of a goaltender is hard to say, due to the fact that a goaltender is worth more on a bad team and less on a good team. The best way to find out how good a goaltender appears to be: throw him on a bad team. Take Lalime, hugely successful in Ottawa (a team that doesn’t need a stellar goaltender), but failed miserably in St. Louis.
The study on which he based his discussion is a couple of years old now, but it looks more and more to me like the conclusions are sound. I've come around quite a bit on this topic since Kipper carried the team to almost-glory back in 03-04. I was a convert for a short time after that - a stone-cold "build the team from the net out" zealot I think. Time, experience and a growing body of data suggests otherwise to me now, however.
The re-structuring of my "goaltending effects" schema really began this summer when I looked at the value of drafting goaltenders and came to the conclusion that it was basically nil. I think the conclusion that "good skaters mostly the drive results" further enhances my thoughts on the issue and reveals why it's so damn hard to reliably find a great tender in the draft - the quality of your goalie is greatly determined by the quality of the surrounding team. Therefore, Gm's should concentrate on drafting and signing the best skaters they can find - then even an average tender can pile up the all-important wins (as we saw with Nabby last year and - yes - Kipper this year) and it won't cost an arm and a leg. Just make sure the guy can make it on time for practices and doesn't fight team mates while he's there...
PS - Im not trying to poke anyone in the eye with this post, as I know it will probably be unpopular to conclude that goaltending isn't all that important to success in general and that Kipper isn't all that good anymore in particular. I welcome discussion on the matter though since my own thoughts are still formative.
9 comments:
Did you happen to be listening to FAN 960 on Friday afternoon? Eric Francis and Rob Kerr were looking at the first half, and (for a while) talking about their MVPs (top 3).
EF said ~ "as of late Kipper has been 'very competent', but I wouldn't go any further than that". Kerr otoh had Kipper *as his MVP*.
I'd pass this off as "Well, Kerr's a goalie himself, whaddya expect", but then Darren Dreger on TSN last night (not that, unlike Kerr, I give an ounce of weight to his opinion) had Kipper as his Vezina Winner here at the halfway point. Vezina!!!
There are enough people who are 100% Kipper backers (including, it would seem, the coach) that I can't totally dismiss the love. But the question that needs to be answered by these folks, I think, is, "Say this was an elite team of skaters but only getting average goaltending -- what would that look like? Whether that be W-L, or GAA and SV% or whatever?"
I think the answer that's most likely to be true is "a lot like it looks right now". Good record, middling SV%, identical stats for the backup, etc. But maybe I'm missing something.
I can't get around it either Matt, and I think a lot of this Kipper love comes from favorable memories of his previous dominance.
If we could somehow erase the collective recollections of everyone that saw him from 03-06, would there be anyone suggesting that Kipper is an MVP or Vezina candidate this year based solely on his performance and stats? I really, really doubt it.
There was a comment at LT's place recently by someone who noted that a reputation in the league, once earned, is very difficult to drop and tends to color the perceptions of observers going forward. That sounds about right to me and probably appropriate here.
Lol Im sure that last P.S. was directed partially at me as I get pretty heated over it but I gotta say that is a really good post. You backed it all up with numbers and am now starting to see it from your perspective (and Detroits for that matter). Problem is Kipper is around for 5 more years...
Lol Im sure that last P.S. was directed partially at me as I get pretty heated over it but I gotta say that is a really good post.
Actually, I didn't have any commenters in particular in mind...I just know it's been a contentious issue since day one around here, so I figured I'd head off any indignant sputtering at the pass.
Im not certainly not hoping or cheering for Kipper to be just average...it's just, that's the way the prevailing info looks to me at this point.
Kipper, is like the modern day Fuhr? Makes the big save, lets a couple more in.
The games they do win, he usually makes a big save (sometimes of the goal robbing variety). The games they lose, he usually lets a floater in.
I dunno if that's deserving of the Vezina, but it seems to be the goalie Kipper is evolving into, which I really don't mind, as long as it gets the job done. Plus he has the potential to get hot.
The "big save" is a narrative device, I think - a myth. Fuhr made "big saves" because his team out-scored the bad guys a lot. If the Flames weren't scoring like they are, Kipper's mediocre SV% would be a lot more relevant to the clubs success and suddenly no one notices the saves anymore (just the goals that go by).
As an example - Kipper let in 4 goals against the Oilers recently. Presumably, though, he made a number saves on difficult shots in that game (ie; big saves). Only, of course, they are only considered big saves because his team scored 6 goals and ended up winning.
Clutch is clutch. I agree with what you're saying, to a point. Keeping the tying/winning goal out in the final 10 min with the big save(s), regardless of the score is a attribute that some players have, and some don't.
I wish I had an example to give, but in all honesty I only have my siv like memory to rely on.
Keeping the tying/winning goal out in the final 10 min with the big save(s), regardless of the score is a attribute that some players have, and some don't.
This feels a lot like a Brett Favre point. He's clutch because he had a lot of game-winning drives... except a good amount of the time he was the one that got the team into the situation of being down in the last quarter.
The problem, beyond arguing whether clutch does or does not exist, is that Kipper is making 'big saves' only because he got his team into that position in the first place. A better goaltender would win a game 4-2. Kipper lets in the goal that makes it 4-3 and then gets lauded for not letting in the goal making it 4-4.
This feels a lot like a Brett Favre point. He's clutch because he had a lot of game-winning drives... except a good amount of the time he was the one that got the team into the situation of being down in the last quarter.
That's a great comparison. However, that is a team game. You have to take into account dropped balls, sloppy route running, defensive pressure allowed to get through the line. Just like You have to account for bad bounces, sloppy defensive chances and quality scoring chances. By saying Kipper only made the "big save(s)" is to say he always let in a softie prior to that (which I don't believe has been the case most of the time).
I.E. SJ's two goals
1. Scrambled play where Clowe gotopen in the slot and let a beauty rip past kipper.
2. Bad bounce, defelection of Thornton's shot off of Dion's stick and into the net.
All this kinda supports Kent's theory on the money being spent on the players around the goalie instead of the goalie. It also shrivels the importance of a SO, seeing as it could have been how the team played as opposed to the goalie earning them. Same with blowouts.
But I guess I'll drop this all since the "big save" is a... theory/label. And the gentle ribbing of the clutch save comment :P.
P.S. Sorry to be beating a dead horse on this post (since it's out of date and irrelevant), I just don't have the time to make a post right away all the time.
Go Flames Go.
Post a Comment