[tigerthelion]

Goalie statistics are pretty meaningless, with the exception of save percentage. Goalies don't get wins, they prevent losses -- and even then, the quality of the defence in front of them has a lot to do with the GAA. Even the save percentage can be unreliable, if you take it over a small sample of games, because all shots are not equal.

I think you have to look to a lot of things that are less concrete, which of course means endless controversy.

I agree.

GAA, Save %, and Wins are what the voters look at. It is impossible to judge who had the best season, though. A goalie can stop 30 out of 31 shots but only be faced with five good scoring chances, while the other goalie can stop 29 out of 31 shots but have to deal with 15 good scoring chances. The first goalie would have the better numbers, but maybe not the best game. However, when handing out awards, stats are really the only thing to look at.

[ryan93]

Henrik Lundqvist has now been nominated for the Vezina in each of his 3 seasons in the NHL, pretty impressive in my books. I'll be honest, i never seen Evgeni Nabokov play much this season, so in his case all i can really go by are the #'s and highlights i've seen on tv/articles in the papers & net.
The first 3rd of the season, IMO Henrik Lundqvist was the definite frontrunner for this award, but then he had a slump for about a month before regaining his form down the stretch. He was far & away the Rangers best player & MVP all season long...but i think the stretch around Christmas will really hurt his chances. Brodeur has another solid season & i think he'll finish 2nd in voting. My prediction is it goes to Nabokov.

On a side note, Lundqvist was 7-0-1 against Brodeur in the regular season, and 4-1 against him in the playoffs (so 11-1-1 this year...and that one playoff loss was in OT).

[grimes]

With the Ducks out of the playoffs the media here in Toronto has really turned up the Brian Burke watch this morning. If they're to be believed he'll be the new Leafs GM by the end of the week, assuming he wants the job. He certainly would bring a culture change to the organization, but I'm not sure if he's really the best guy for the job. Yes, he's won a cup, but the foundations for that team were laid by his predecessor, and the Canucks teams he built were never anything spectacular. He's also made his fair share of questionable decisions over the years (i.e. signing Bertuzzi this season). Personally I'd have Ken Holland at the top of my list, although I'm not sure any amount of money would ever get him out of Detroit.

Jim Nill is the guy I want Vancouver to get, but he, like Holland, will probably be almost impossible to get out of Detroit.

You're probably right, though one would think Nill would want to step out from Holland's shadow and make a name for himself one day, so maybe there's a chance after all. If he's content being #2 his whole career, then you don't want him anyway.

[grimes]

Goalie statistics are pretty meaningless, with the exception of save percentage. Goalies don't get wins, they prevent losses -- and even then, the quality of the defence in front of them has a lot to do with the GAA. Even the save percentage can be unreliable, if you take it over a small sample of games, because all shots are not equal.

I think you have to look to a lot of things that are less concrete, which of course means endless controversy.

I agree.

GAA, Save %, and Wins are what the voters look at. It is impossible to judge who had the best season, though. A goalie can stop 30 out of 31 shots but only be faced with five good scoring chances, while the other goalie can stop 29 out of 31 shots but have to deal with 15 good scoring chances. The first goalie would have the better numbers, but maybe not the best game. However, when handing out awards, stats are really the only thing to look at.

Exactly. The people voting on these awards (Vezina is GM's I believe) watch a lot of hockey, but they aren't watching every game played by every team. All they can go by is the stats, and when you look at them as a complete set, spread out over the entire season, the numbers give a pretty good indication of who had a great season and who didn't. I agree with Skippy though that save percentage is the most meaningful stat, which is why this year's Vezina really could go either way. Nabokov beat Brodeur in every stat category except the most important one, and Brodeur did it with a weaker team in front of him than Nabokov.

[skippy the wonder dog]

I'd say save percentage is the only meaningful stat, really. But you're right, there's just no way you can watch enough hockey to get away from using stats.

[cferneyh]

I'd say save percentage is the only meaningful stat, really. But you're right, there's just no way you can watch enough hockey to get away from using stats.

Granted, I'm biased given that I work with numbers every day, but the assertion that goaltending stats are meaningless is hilarious.

Question: who would you rather have as your starting goaltender in the playoffs?

Goalie A: 23-10-3-2, 2.34, .924

or

Goalie B: 18-22-6-5, 2.90, .898

The answer, of course, is Goalie A, who is Dan Ellis (goalie B is Chris Mason). Given that those two play on the same team, how can you look at the stats and not come to the conclusion that Goalie A was the better goalie this season, regardless of how many Nashville games you've watched?

Can stats be misleading? Absolutely. But they are a pretty damn good barometer of how good a goalie is.

If you need more proof, check Andrew Raycroft's GAA and save % over the last two seasons. :lol:

[skippy the wonder dog]

By using two goaltenders on the same team you've eliminated the variables that make inter-team comparisons meaningless.

You haven't proven that those variables don't invalidate GAA as a meaningful stat when comparing goalies on different teams.

[cferneyh]

By using two goaltenders on the same team you've eliminated the variables that make inter-team comparisons meaningless.

You haven't proven that those variables don't invalidate GAA as a meaningful stat when comparing goalies on different teams.

If those goaltenders were on different teams and you wanted to dismiss the differences as "better scoring opportunities", or whatever, be my guest. But with parity being what it is these days, the difference of the top 10 or 15 teams defensive skill level is nowhere near as great as you are implying. Granted, having Detroit's D in front of you versus LA's is most certainly going to make a difference - I won't argue that - but it is laughable to imply that SJ or NJ have significantly different defensive abilities.

Good goalies tend to put up good numbers, bad goalies tend to put up bad numbers. It isn't really all that complicated. If you still want to dispute that fact - and I'm sure you do - take a look at the teams that allowed the most goals this season (Atlanta, Tampa, LA, Tor, EDM, Car, Ott, NYI) and tell me which of the starters on those teams should have been worthy of Vezina consideration, had their "weak D" not skewed their goaltending statistics.

[skippy the wonder dog]

If those goaltenders were on different teams and you wanted to dismiss the differences as "better scoring opportunities", or whatever, be my guest.

But they aren't on different teams. Your argument there is invalid: the fact that you can eliminate the variables by comparing goalies on the same team, and find meaningful differences in the stats, does not suggest that the variables between teams are not potentially significant.

If we saw differences like that between goalies on different teams, we'd have to decide if the differences were related overall team play, and then to what degree overall team play was reflected in the stats. And as soon as we do that, we're out of the world of numbers and into the world of gut feel.

Granted, having Detroit's D in front of you versus LA's is most certainly going to make a difference - I won't argue that - but it is laughable to imply that SJ or NJ have significantly different defensive abilities.

But I didn't say that. I said that the GAA alone is meaningless. Unless you take into consideration the overall team defensive play, it's not a valid yardstick. And that's exactly what you do above -- take the D into account.

One of the big problems with hockey stats is there is no meaningful way of measuring large and important aspects of the game. There's no truly valid way to measure a player's defensive abilities. Consequently, you can't separate defensive performance from goaltender performance using numbers.

If you still want to dispute that fact - and I'm sure you do - take a look at the teams that allowed the most goals this season (Atlanta, Tampa, LA, Tor, EDM, Car, Ott, NYI) and tell me which of the starters on those teams should have been worthy of Vezina consideration, had their "weak D" not skewed their goaltending statistics.

I didn't argue that any of those goalies are worthy of Vezina consideration. Where did I write that?

I'm just saying the stats can't stand alone.

This is one reason they vote on the Vezina. If it was all about stats, there'd be no need to vote on it.

[cferneyh]

One of the big problems with hockey stats is there is no meaningful way of measuring large and important aspects of the game. There's no truly valid way to measure a player's defensive abilities.

I disagree with you here, but all I have by way of my rebuttal is that when I was at the All Star Game this year I ended up chatting with a pro scout and he told me that scouts have EIGHTY-ONE metrics that they use to measure d-men. EIGHTY-ONE!

So yeah, for the casual fan, it is sometimes difficult to determine a player's defensive abilities, but trust me - those "in the know" have their measures. Eight-one of them in fact.

I'm just saying the stats can't stand alone.

I'm too lazy to scroll back, but didn't you say something like "goaltending stats are largely meaningless"?

[skippy the wonder dog]

One of the big problems with hockey stats is there is no meaningful way of measuring large and important aspects of the game. There's no truly valid way to measure a player's defensive abilities.

I disagree with you here, but all I have by way of my rebuttal is that when I was at the All Star Game this year I ended up chatting with a pro scout and he told me that scouts have EIGHTY-ONE metrics that they use to measure d-men.

That doesn't surprise me ... after all, they're going to pay those guys a lot of money. Let me put it a different way: none of the common, sports-media stats measures a player's defensive abilities.

Sports media continue to use a limited and largely useless set of stats to draw comparisons that more often than not are completely invalid.

I'm too lazy to scroll back, but didn't you say something like "goaltending stats are largely meaningless"?

I probably did. Perhaps I should have qualified it: "the goaltending stats used by sports media in North America, taken on their own, are largely meaningless with the exception of save %, which is revealing when the sample size is sufficiently large."

GAA is actually a measure of team defensive play, to which the goaltender makes a contribution that may vary in importance from one team to the next. 'Wins' is actually a measure of overall team play.

[cferneyh]

I don't disagree with you at all in that regard. In fact, I think I posted earlier this year that by and large, the people reporting the stats don't understand the stats. I got a number of good laughs this year when Greg Millen would state that "Mats Sundin is dominating the faceoff circle this game, winning 54% of his draws".

Umm, sure Greg. Winning 7 and losing 6 is "dominating".

[tommygunn]

One of the big problems with hockey stats is there is no meaningful way of measuring large and important aspects of the game. There's no truly valid way to measure a player's defensive abilities.

I disagree with you here, but all I have by way of my rebuttal is that when I was at the All Star Game this year I ended up chatting with a pro scout and he told me that scouts have EIGHTY-ONE metrics that they use to measure d-men. EIGHTY-ONE!

So yeah, for the casual fan, it is sometimes difficult to determine a player's defensive abilities, but trust me - those "in the know" have their measures. Eight-one of them in fact.

Interesting deduction.. :what

81 parameters to measure a defenseman, and you're saying they all concern defensive ability? Doubtful, would be an understatement.

I wonder exactly how many of those 81 are measurements of 'defensive ability'... :roll:

... people reporting the stats don't understand the stats.

Indeed. :lol:

[opiated]

seriously....Mike Gillis is the new GM of the nucks??? oh my god...he's Naslunds agent.... hock: hock: hock: hock: hock: hock: :censored :censored :censored :censored :nooooo :nooooo :nooooo :nooooo :nooooo :nooooo :nooooo :nooooo :nooooo :nooooo :nooooo :nooooo <!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://hipbase.com/forum/posting.php?mode=reply&f=4&t=7671#">posting.php?mode=reply&f=4&t=7671#</a><!-- l -->
:nooooo

[emperor penguin]

seriously....Mike Gillis is the new GM of the nucks??? oh my god...he's Naslunds agent.... hock: hock: hock: hock: hock: hock: :censored :censored :censored :censored :nooooo :nooooo :nooooo :nooooo :nooooo :nooooo :nooooo :nooooo :nooooo :nooooo :nooooo :nooooo <!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://hipbase.com/forum/posting.php?mode=reply&f=4&t=7671#">posting.php?mode=reply&f=4&t=7671#</a><!-- l -->
:nooooo

that signature quote is really ringing true now eh Ope