Winning Goaltenders, Save Percentage, and The Final Four
Lowetide likes to measure team success in pennants rather than Cups. Considering the amount of luck involved in a winning a Cup, there's not much less accomplishment in winning a Conference title, or in baseball parlance, a pennant. From Lowetide:
Before expansion in 1967, there were only 6 teams so getting your name on the Stanley was a lot easier than it is now with 30 teams. I'm not saying it was easy, but from 1928-1967 there are extremely few Norm Ullmans (guys who had terrific, borderline HOF careers without winning the Stanley) and since then there are several Norm Ullmans retiring each season.
There are also certain players who have been traded to heavy Cup favorites for the sole purpose of winning a Cup to complete their legacy, and even more ridiculous, one of them has his sweater retired for a single year of play. But that's a rant for another day.
I like to look at the final four, especially as it pertains to individual accomplishment. There remain very good players who were perhaps great in their prime that never made a Cup final because beating out fifteen teams is not an easy task. Curtis Joseph made two conference finals, but never a Cup final, and his best goaltending was probably wasted on first-round miracles in Edmonton. Last year, I looked at save percentages and rankings of final four goaltenders in each year since the lockout and compared their save percentage in season as well as since the lockout with how they did in the playoffs. The list has been updated, with Jaroslav Halak breaking a very important trend.
The number at the left is the individual save percentage rank in the NHL that season for qualifying goalies. In this case a "qualifying season" is one in which the goaltender played in 25 regular season games or more. In 05-06 there were 47 qualifying goalies, in 06-07 there were 44, 07-08 there were 44, in 08-09 there were 56 and the number of qualifiers in 09-10 was 47. The number to the right is the individual save percentage rank in the NHL since the lockout based on qualified goalies with more than a single season. There are 61 such goalies since 05-06.
| Yr. Rank | 2005-2006 | Ovr. Rank |
| 10 | Ryan Miller | 10 |
| 11 | Jean-Sebastien Giguere | 19 |
| 16 | Dwayne Roloson | 26 |
| 43 | Cam Ward | 37 |
| 2006-2007 | ||
| 7 | Ray Emery | 32 |
| 8 | Jean-Sebastien Giguere | 19 |
| 13 | Dominik Hasek | 12 |
| 16 | Ryan Miller | 10 |
| 2007-2008 | ||
| 5 | Marc-Andre Fleury | 29 |
| 13 | Martin Biron | 24 |
| 16 | Chris Osgood | 51 |
| 24 | Marty Turco | 38 |
| 2008-2009 | ||
| 6 | Nikolai Khabibulin | 40 |
| 14 | Cam Ward | 37 |
| 21 | Marc-Andre Fleury | 29 |
| 44 | Chris Osgood | 51 |
| 2009-2010 | ||
| 4 | Jaroslav Halak | 2 |
| 6 | Evgeni Nabokov | 23 |
| 20 | Antti Niemi | [NR] |
| 33 | Michael Leighton | [NR] |
Last year, I was able to say:
One thing you may notice that something is missing from the numbers in the right-hand column - values that are 10 and under. None of the post-lockout top 10 save percentage goalies have played for a pennant.
But now, Ryan Miller's stellar season actually pushed him into the top ten after the fact, and Jaroslav Halak's small sample size has him squarely in the top ten. Is Halak the exception to the rule, or will his hot streak come to an end as his save percentage eases down the list?
Except for Miller who, again, climbed the ladder this year with a marvelous season, the goaltenders on this list significantly outperformed their overall number for a single season. Marc-Andre Fleury has been average over the last five years, but his 2007-2008 season was an incredible aberration.
Signing a goalie to a massive contract and expecting consistent top ten numbers and playoff stability isn't wise. The goaltenders above generally played well above their careeer rates for a single season. The key, it seems, is building a strong foundation for a team (except for Montreal) and catching lightning in a bottle in goal.
33 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Interesting as always Derek. I agree with your conclusions, though obviously getting the best goalie you can ups your chances of the guy going on a hot streak. The only thing I wanted to ask about was Halak. Do you think he’s a flash in the pan, or a legitimate top ten goalie? We obviously don’t know the answer for sure, but I was curious about your opinion.
though obviously getting the best goalie you can ups your chances of the guy going on a hot streak.
The problem there, of course is paying for it. Since it’s rare that a goalie spends so much time significantly better than his peers, wasting a huge chunk of cap space on a gamble like that impacts your ability to build a team around him.
Do you think he’s a flash in the pan, or a legitimate top ten goalie?
I have no idea, honestly. I consider all things goalie to be akin to alchemy.
Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.
For sure it’s dangerous to bet big money on guys, but Marty Turco at $1.3M is a much better bet than Michael Leighton at $1.5M. I just think it’s important to remember that you can still get a pretty good goalie even if you’re “going cheap” in goal.
by Scott Reynolds on Oct 1, 2010 10:31 AM MDT up reply actions
No doubt. I don’t think we need to have qualifications on statements like that anymore.
Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.
I think it’s possible to get carried away with the theory though. In your last goaltending post you talked in the comments about the Leafs betting on a bunch of Euros with no positive NHL track record as a plan for 2011-12. IMO, that’s a pretty terrible plan. Looking at the Sharks this year, I think they’d have been better off spending a little bit more and paying Nabokov $4M or so (if he’d have taken that) than paying the two guys they’ve got now. If next summer sees the market still in steep decline, and Bryzgalov ends up being available at around 3.5M, I’d feel better about going with him and a backup than many of the tandems we’re seeing iced this year (Niittymaki and Niemi; Smith and Ellis; Osgood and Howard), even if the price is slightly higher.
by Scott Reynolds on Oct 1, 2010 10:47 AM MDT up reply actions
Largely agree, but less sure about Nabokov. At what point do you decide what you have isn’t working and needs changing? In 2006-10 Nabby posted a stellar 156-65-30 record in the regular season, and a very pedestrian 22-23 mark in the playoffs. Whereas Niemi = Stanley Cup champ, Niittymaki = Olympic MVP and they’re making less $$$ combined than Nabokov did on his own. I know, Stanley Cups ! ! ! 1 1 ! but on the other hand, Nabokov has zero of those despite repeated opportunities with a stacked team. So I certainly understand why Wilson has changed direction in that specific situation.
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 Oct 1, 2010 12:02 PM MDT up reply actions
Although Nabokov hasn’t been great for the Sharks in the playoffs (although his W-L record and lack of SC are, frankly, terrible pieces of evidence for that), I’m not convinced that getting less talented players is the best way to “change things up”.
by Scott Reynolds on Oct 1, 2010 12:45 PM MDT up reply actions
Funny how we wind up on opposite sides of the same argument. This time it’s me saying a couple of younger, cheaper goalies might be better than the big contract guy, and still we can’t seem to agree.
Btw, if a poor W-L record in the playoffs is terrible evidence of lack of playoff success, what markers do you prefer?
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 Oct 1, 2010 9:53 PM MDT up reply actions
We’re talking strictly about goaltender success here, correct?
by Scott Reynolds on Oct 2, 2010 12:58 AM MDT up reply actions
The two are fairly intertwined. But I’m interested in your theories about how Nabokov has been successful in the post-season.
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 Oct 2, 2010 11:23 AM MDT up reply actions
I think I’ve done a poor job of explaining myself, and using the word “success” is probably confusing things. All I’m saying is that judging any goaltender’s potential contribution to playoff success by whether or not his teams won is goofy. There are plenty of goaltenders who play well but have their teams lose, and others who play poorly but have their teams win. I will point out that I’ve already said that this hasn’t really been the case with Nabokov who hasn’t performed well in the playoffs over the last few seasons. Nonetheless, his overall track record in the last several seasons is superior to the guys that are replacing him, and the Sharks (probably) aren’t saving much money with the switch.
by Scott Reynolds on Oct 2, 2010 2:56 PM MDT up reply actions
it’s a false dichotomy though, because you don’t know what years and $ nabokov was willing to sign for. i wouldn’t mind as a sharks fan having nabokov back for one year, but nabokov is 35 – any multi-year deal could bring us right into his decline. while i’m not a huge fan of the niemi signing, each guy provides a theoretical safety net in case the other falters.
the sharks aren’t saving money this year, but that assumes again that nabokov could maintain his average level of play over the last few years.
In your last goaltending post you talked in the comments about the Leafs betting on a bunch of Euros with no positive NHL track record as a plan for 2011-12.
Winnipeg <> Europe.
Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.
I was thinking mostly of Gustavsson and Rynnas with that comment since they seemed like the best bet, but yeah, Reimer and Scrivens are two more in the mix. Still not one guy with any NHL success behind him in that group.
by Scott Reynolds on Oct 1, 2010 3:34 PM MDT up reply actions
Of course derek, but it is important to check the Defense-men on the teams. Most of those team would have some of the best D-corps in the NHL and very good checking lines I agree that when you have both of those, then you just need an average goalie to get to top 4. But if you have many defensive deficiencies, then you are much better off having a very good goalie. There is a higher chance that if a team is mediocre, then a very good goalie can take them to the playoffs over a bad one.
Success in post season will come only after making the post season. Where would montreal be this season without Halak, Buffallo without miller. And even Phoenix without Brygalov?
Sins can be forgiven but conscience is a killer.
Interestingly, aside from Halak most of the postseason goaltenders that made the conference finals didn’t have impressive save percentages either.
http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/statistics/?show=goalie&sortcol=7&sortdir=desc&prefilter=0-0
by Stephen's Beaven on Oct 1, 2010 9:32 AM MDT up reply actions
Ai! Sorry, that wasn’t intended to be a response to you, SumOil. This is what I get for staying up too late. http://xkcd.com/776/
by Stephen's Beaven on Oct 1, 2010 9:37 AM MDT up reply actions
I understand that. that is the point Derek is making.
What I am saying is that most of the teams that reached the top 4, had very good defense.
But for mediocre teams need good goaltenders to reach the post season. So while a good team may not need a very good goaltender, average teams do.
Sins can be forgiven but conscience is a killer.
What I am saying is that most of the teams that reached the top 4, had very good defense.
What is your definition of most? We have 20 teams that have made the final four. Of those 20, I doubt you can consider 05-06 Carolina, 06-07 Philadelphia, 07-08 Pittsburgh, 07-08 Dallas, 08-09 Carolina, 08-09 Pittsburgh, and 09-10 Montreal to have “very good” defense. In fact, they might be poor in my book. There are other groups in there that I can question as well, but off of the top of my head, there are 7 of 20 teams with poor defense.
Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.
So maybe teams don’t need to waste money on defencemen either, since clearly it’s possible to make the conference finals without a very good defence.
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 Oct 1, 2010 10:24 AM MDT up reply actions
Considering the amount of luck involved…
Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.
Well, yeah, there’s a gargantuan amount of luck involved, especially in the playoffs. One result is teams with very mediocre goaltending can win (‘08 Red Wings, ’10 Blackhawks), or teams with very mediocre defence can win (’06 Hurricanes), and even teams with middling forwards can win (’03 Devils). Just like teams with great pitching and just decent hitting can succeed in baseball, or vice versa.
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 Oct 1, 2010 11:40 AM MDT up reply actions
you have mentioned 7 teams out of 20. that is still 13 of 20 who would have very good defense.
Of which I think Pittsburg had a good D-corps
Gonchar who is/was top 5 d-man is the league at that time.
Whitney had a spectacular season just one season ago and that one was derailed by an injury. But he was considered one of the better yound D-men in the league at that time
and then some good defensive D-men. Scuderi, Orpik, Eaton.
09-10 montreal had the goalie who has spectacular numbers on in your table.
Teams with mediocre defense and goaltender are 5 of 20. so 20%.
Sins can be forgiven but conscience is a killer.
you have mentioned 7 teams out of 20. that is still 13 of 20 who would have very good defense.
No, I said that 7 out of 20 had poor defense and thirteen were left. Without looking further, I wouldn’t be to say how many were “very good”
Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.
Derek was referring to the regular season save percentage rankings. I was referring to the post season save percentages, although I didn’t articulate that very well.
by Stephen's Beaven on Oct 1, 2010 8:46 PM MDT up reply actions
Wasn’t Bryzgalov the goaltender if record in 2006? I seem to remember Giguere getting yanked partway through the Calgary series that year.
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there). Link now 100% less broken.
by Doogie2K on Oct 1, 2010 4:32 PM MDT via mobile reply actions
Other way around. Bryzgalov actually started both the 2006 and 2007 playoffs for Anaheim before they switched to Giguere. In ’07, it was because his baby was born prematurely. ’06 he was recovering from an injury. Or the other way around, I just remember it happened twice in a row.
Puck Worlds: Chasing Pucks from here to Turku.
For Twitter Updates on Puck Worlds, follow @puckworlds. For updates plus additional witty banter from yours truly, follow @saskhab.
Bryz started and lost the first game of the Calgary series, then they went with Giguere until Game 5, then put Bryz back in up until they went down 0-3 to the Oilers in round 3. So really, we’re both kind of right, but for all intents and purposes, Bryz is the one that “took them” to the conference final, with six straight wins over Calgary and Colorado.
(And yes, I did go back through the scoresheet archives.)
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there). Link now 100% less broken.
Yeah, Bryzgalov ended up playing more than Gigeure in the 2006 playoffs, so if we’re looking at who carried the team on the playoff run, he’s probably the more appropriate goaltender to use despite playing much less than Gigeure in the regular season.
by Scott Reynolds on Oct 1, 2010 5:03 PM MDT up reply actions

by 



























