Shot Distribution By Game State
The dominant statistic in the evaluation of goaltenders is save percentage. A goalie with a high save percentage is considered good and a goalie with a low save percentage is bad. Simple enough really. Now, it's quite obvious that the reality is somewhat more complicated than that. One of the problems that we don't often consider is the rather small spread between a good save percentage and a bad one. Although there are players with more extreme save percentages I usually consider anything above .920 excellent and anything under .900 poor. That's only two goals every one hundred shots. There's an awful lot of things other than "goaltender skill" that can eat that difference. After the jump we'll take a look at one of those things, namely the distribution of shots in various game states.
The following chart should be rather self-explanatory. I've included every goaltender who has faced a minimum of 400 shots so far this season and broken down each one's shots by the percentage faced in each game state. Remembering that the average goalie has a save percentage around .915 when on the power play and at even strength but around .870 while penalty killing, it's easy to see how shot distribution by game state might impact a goaltender's overall numbers. I've listed the goalies who benefited from a favourable distribution first.
So there is actually a pretty wide spread with Martin Brodeur taking home the most favourable distribution without a problem. The differences between teammates are also pretty interesting. In Tampa you have Mike Smith near the very top and Antero Nittymaki in dead last. I would assume that goaltenders have very little influence on these distributions and that they're mostly a function of team skill. If that's the case, we haven't reached a sample size where that's showing itself clearly.
So what difference does this make on overall save percentage? Well, if we take the numbers for an average goaltender and give him Martin Brodeur's shot distribution his overall save percentage would be at .909. If we give the same goaltender Antero Nittymaki's shot distribution his overall save percentage would be .904. A .005 shift in save percentage at the extremes is both not much and quite a bit. It means that for most goalies the effect will be small but that when we're comparing two guys near the margins (say Bryzgalov and Miller for the Vezina trophy) it could make a substantial difference. We've looked at save percentage here but a higher distribution of shots on the PK will also have an impact on the other prominent goaltending statistic, goals against average. When we're making comparisons between goalies I think it's worthwhile to take into consideration.
Nonetheless, the effect is still small. To illustrate this I'll use an example from the Edmonton Oilers. Jeff Deslauriers currently has the fifth most favourable distribution out of the 45 goalies who meet the criteria. Right now his overall save percentage is .906 but if we take his .913 EV save percentage and his .873 PK save percentage and plug them into J-S Giguere's shot distribution (he's had the fifth least favourable distribution) then his overall save percentage drops modestly to .904. On the one hand, this is a small difference. On the other hand this is 10% of the difference between an excellent goaltender and a bad one. Such is the nature of goaltender evaluation where the difference between poor and excellent is so small.
0 recs |
6 comments
|
Comments
So what you’re really saying is that Miikka Kiprusoff should be a front runner for the Vezina ;-)
You should send this to Robin Brownlee, Scott. He appears somewhat unclear on the concept.
Kiprusoff has had a really good season, no doubt about it. I certainly wouldn’t be crying bloody murder if he wins the Vezina if he continues at his current pace.
by Scott Reynolds on Jan 3, 2010 5:59 PM PST up reply actions
Scott: Excellent work! Sorry to be slow commenting.
At face value it stands to reason that the goaltender facing a lower percentage of shots on the PK (opposition PP) “should” have a better blended Sv%.
Just to again play Devil’s Advocate (pardon the pun), here’s a few thoughts of what might not show up in the numbers … those “complications” you so correctly referred to up top:
— The disciplined team that takes fewer penalties might tend to allow a high quality shot in a situation where other teams might take the penalty, thus affecting EV Sv% negatively but reducing PK SA. Trust the goalie to make the save and avoid the penalty might be a smart percentage play, even as it negatively affects one portion of those percentages.
— The goalie might contribute to the discipline of the team, esp. through adept handling of pucks that get behind the defencemen. If he is extraordinarily capable in this respect it might allow for a more simplified system for the skaters … “stand ’em up at the blueline and make them dump it in”.
— The goalie might contribute to the penalty killing unit in other ways than stopping pucks. Puckhandling, passing and direct clearing of the zone all might play a role, as might team systems which rely on this capability.
I’m not married to any of these ideas, just thought they were considerations worth mentioning. As you say, it’s a complex game, and the margins are razor thin.
Writer for The Copper & Blue and primary shareholder of Zorg Industries
"Never be ashamed of who you are" -- Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg
I’m not buying most of the puckhandling stuff in this particular comparison. I agree that the non-save skills are important but I’m not convinced that they’re more important on the PK than at EV. Not that they couldn’t be, of course, I just don’t see a compelling reason to believe that they would be without some kind of evidence. Those kinds of skills are hard to measure from goalie to goalie but I know CG has done some work on it. It’s an area that we need to improve on in order to get a better handle on in order to get a better handle on how goaltenders are helping their teams win.
As for the shot quality stuff, I’ll admit that I’m not that into it. I know that shot quality exists but I don’t think we have a good handle on measuring it and/or for goaltenders it’s evening out at EV. I know Gabe has tried to measure it for 2007-08 and 2008-09 and if we look at the top four guys on our list (Brodeur, Osgood, Miller, Smith) for those two seasons only Osgood is a considerable distance from the median on the “tougher shots” side in either season (I wasn’t able to find results for this season). I haven’t seen anyone who tries to measure shot quality suggest that these guys are the ones facing the tougher shots at even strength. And there’s enough conjecture on both sides to make a case that I’m not prepared to just grant it. On the one hand, maybe teams don’t take penalties and instead allow higher quality shots, on the other hand, maybe teams that don’t take penalties are stronger positionally and so aren’t forced into that decision as often.
by Scott Reynolds on Jan 5, 2010 9:58 AM PST up reply actions
Conjecture is the right word, hope you didn’t read any more into it than that.
maybe teams that don’t take penalties are stronger positionally and so aren’t forced into that decision as often.
… and maybe teams with a strong sweeper behind them are able to be stronger positionally and have fewer fears of being beaten to pucks that get behind them. Maybe. Haven’t even begun to look, am merely making a connection between NJD taking few penalties and having a great sweeper-keeper. Obviously it’s not as cut-n-dried as all that, although I would make a general comment that there’s more good puckhandlers in the top half of the above list (fewer PK SA) than are in the bottom half.
Writer for The Copper & Blue and primary shareholder of Zorg Industries
"Never be ashamed of who you are" -- Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg
by Bruce McCurdy on Jan 5, 2010 11:45 AM PST up reply actions

by 























