click to enlargeBy my eye, there is no real upwards trend here, unlike last year. Rather, the trend is towards less volatility: prior to game 20, Kipper went from terrible to excellent and then back to terrible again. Things seem to have plateaued since, however, with his SV% hovering just above that .900 mark. If you're wondering, the 6-1 loss to SJS that seems to have sparked the team's turn-around was game #17...
So what are we seeing here? Given that the Flames made a marked effort to change strategy and focus after the Sharks shellacking, is the reduction in SV% variability entirely a reflection of the club's adjustment (that's my initial interpretation, but Im open to suggestions)? If so, what does that say about Kiprsuoff and team effects on goaltending as a whole?
Of course, raw SV% is only a small part of the picture. What I haven't included here is shot totals, shot quality and strength of opposition. Still, what the chart suggests to me is we're hovering right around Kipper's ceiling since the turn-around (his SV% has been a respectable .910 from game 21 on). The good news is that that isn't a terrible number. The bad news is it isn't a particularly great number either - a .910 SV% is good for about 20th in the league currently. Peers in that range include: Rinne, Johnson, Sanford, Giguere and Halak. Interestingly, Curtis McElhinney's SV% through his meager 4 games, 100 shots and zero wins has been - that's right - .910...
Tiny, miniscule sample size I know, but a suggestive coincidence nonetheless.
7 comments:
I think you nailed pretty well. Kipper's performance seems to match the performance of the team pretty closely. That means, on the one hand, that we can't expect him to steal a game when the rest of the team is playing poorly (see Chicago on Sunday). But it also means he's not losing games where the forwards are playing well (see San Jose on Tuesday).
I'm finding it really hard to write anything interesting about Kipper other than that. I think it's because, honestly, the only stat I care about as a fan is # of wins. If Kipper plays 70+ games and earns 40+ wins, and posts a .901 sv% and 2.95 GAA, I'll be satisfied.
I'm finding it really hard to write anything interesting about Kipper other than that. I think it's because, honestly, the only stat I care about as a fan is # of wins. If Kipper plays 70+ games and earns 40+ wins, and posts a .901 sv% and 2.95 GAA, I'll be satisfied.
Fair enough. The question for me going forward is: could the Flames be getting this kind of performance from someone else for half the price?
Kevin, since Kipper's entire contribution to Wins is stopping pucks, it seems awfully relevant to me to look at how well he's doing it. Todd Bertuzzi's record this season is 24-12-4, same with Langkow, Bourque, and Sarich. You really want to stop at "Nuff said!" regarding all those players too? Adam Pardy's record is 16-7-3! Tremendous!
Kent: I was trying to find good ways of answering that question, actually. Looking at other teams (especially teams that are doing well), I found one example that made me think: Anaheim.
Giguere is getting paid 6M, a bit more than Kipper. His numbers are pretty similar to Kipper, except he's played fewer games. Giguere's backup, Hiller, is clearly outplaying him and only coss 1.3M.
I could see an argument that even if Kipper's numbers aren't spectacular, he still earns his pay by playing 70+ games. Paying 6M for a starting goalie isn't such a big deal if you can cheap out on the backup because the backup will never play. But the Anaheim situation demonstrates the hole in that argument. What if we're sitting on someone like Hiller?
Giving McElhinney the start in the remaining back-to-back games would be 8 starts, including 3 in April which is when we'll be wanting to rest Kipper anyways. Kipper would still get 70+ GP. And it would allow us to test two hypotheses: is Kipper playing worse because of the lack of a break, and is McElhinney the man to replace Kipper over the next few years?
Matt: Don't get me wrong, I don't think everyone should stop with their analysis. I just meant me, personally. Hopefully that bit above will appease you :)
looking at the chart...how does one obtain a 110% save percentage?
@ wildermode:
That's what happens when Excel just spits out a graph and the upper and lower limits aren't adjusted. :)
(I'd also wipe out the horizontal gridlines, change the scale on the lower axis to include finer detail (major break every five games, say), nix the fill of the background so it isn't midtone gray, and delete the legend since you are only measuring one variable and it isn't necessary. But that's just the once-upon-a-time lab assistant in me talking.)
You guys are putting wayyy too much thought into the graph's esthetics. Or, I put in way to little.
I did purposely make the upper limit 110% though - just to have some visual clearance. It looked...awkward to have values stopping at the very top of the graph.
Post a Comment