Nikolai Khabibulin Scoring Chances 2010-2011
What explanations can we explore to determine why the Oilers are giving up far more chances in front of Khabibulin compared to anyone else who plays in goal for them?
I asked that question of you, the reader, in mid-March. Commenters arrived at a "rebounds" consensus, but I don't believe anyone has done any work on the question. I don't know if goaltenders have a significant effect on scoring chance rates, but we needed a way to introduce the Nikolai Khabibulin review, so the season numbers are after the jump.
I've listed his rank among his teammates as if he were a skater:
Chance % Team Rank: 20/24
Diff/60 Team Rank: 21/24
Scoring Chances by Season Segment
TCF = season total even strength chances for; TCA = season total even strength chances against; SCF = segment even strength chances for; SCA = segment even strength chances against; Segment % = player scoring chance percentage during the season segment; Team Seg % = Oilers team scoring chance percentage during the season segment.
| Game # | TCF | TCA | SCF | SCA | Segment % | Team Seg % |
| 1-10 | 91 | 117 | 91 | 117 | 0.438 | 0.453 |
| 11-20 | 134 | 204 | 43 | 87 | 0.331 | 0.401 |
| 21-30 | 206 | 296 | 72 | 92 | 0.439 | 0.449 |
| 31-40 | 292 | 431 | 86 | 135 | 0.389 | 0.467 |
| 41-50 | 373 | 496 | 81 | 65 | 0.555 | 0.531 |
| 51-60 | 448 | 573 | 75 | 77 | 0.493 | 0.470 |
| 61-70 | 454 | 590 | 6 | 17 | 0.261 | 0.454 |
| 71-82 | 515 | 672 | 61 | 82 | 0.427 | 0.486 |
Scoring Chances Line Graph by Season Segment
*click to enlarge
He was 20th in chance percentage so the poor numbers on the graph are not a surprise.
Scoring Chances WOWY
| With Khabibulin | Without Khabibulin | Khabibulin Without | |||||||||
| # | CF | CA | % | CF | CA | % | CF | CA | % | ||
| 4 | 178 | 200 | 0.471 | 171 | 121 | 0.586 | 337 | 472 | 0.417 | ||
| 10 | 92 | 101 | 0.477 | 107 | 85 | 0.557 | 423 | 571 | 0.426 | ||
| 13 | 152 | 179 | 0.459 | 138 | 150 | 0.479 | 363 | 493 | 0.424 | ||
| 14 | 164 | 173 | 0.487 | 145 | 130 | 0.527 | 351 | 499 | 0.413 | ||
| 16 | 49 | 87 | 0.360 | 41 | 48 | 0.461 | 466 | 585 | 0.443 | ||
| 22 | 40 | 46 | 0.465 | 33 | 47 | 0.413 | 475 | 626 | 0.431 | ||
| 23 | 81 | 100 | 0.448 | 72 | 85 | 0.459 | 434 | 572 | 0.431 | ||
| 27 | 132 | 146 | 0.475 | 116 | 102 | 0.532 | 383 | 526 | 0.421 | ||
| 28 | 81 | 159 | 0.338 | 82 | 105 | 0.439 | 434 | 513 | 0.458 | ||
| 46 | 27 | 42 | 0.391 | 18 | 17 | 0.514 | 488 | 630 | 0.436 | ||
| 67 | 57 | 94 | 0.377 | 51 | 60 | 0.459 | 458 | 578 | 0.442 | ||
| 83 | 85 | 121 | 0.413 | 108 | 77 | 0.584 | 430 | 551 | 0.438 | ||
| 85 | 59 | 55 | 0.518 | 52 | 78 | 0.400 | 456 | 617 | 0.425 | ||
| 89 | 151 | 189 | 0.444 | 120 | 128 | 0.484 | 364 | 483 | 0.430 | ||
| 91 | 136 | 182 | 0.428 | 129 | 140 | 0.480 | 379 | 490 | 0.436 | ||
| 2 | 113 | 146 | 0.436 | 133 | 153 | 0.465 | 402 | 526 | 0.433 | ||
| 5 | 181 | 225 | 0.446 | 151 | 152 | 0.498 | 334 | 447 | 0.428 | ||
| 6 | 92 | 133 | 0.409 | 76 | 60 | 0.559 | 423 | 539 | 0.440 | ||
| 26 | 128 | 182 | 0.413 | 111 | 119 | 0.483 | 387 | 490 | 0.441 | ||
| 43 | 70 | 99 | 0.414 | 70 | 61 | 0.534 | 445 | 573 | 0.437 | ||
| 49 | 152 | 214 | 0.415 | 126 | 146 | 0.463 | 363 | 458 | 0.442 | ||
| 58 | 83 | 78 | 0.516 | 79 | 65 | 0.549 | 432 | 594 | 0.421 | ||
| 77 | 184 | 216 | 0.460 | 187 | 176 | 0.515 | 331 | 456 | 0.421 | ||
This is just bizarre. There's something going on here, but what? Taylor Hall without Khabibulin has a scoring chance percentage better than Alex Ovechkin. With Khabibulin he's Jason Chimera. Tom Gilbert posts numbers similar to those of Karl Alzner without Khabibulin. With him, he's Tyler Sloan. Ryan Whitney's numbers are better than those of John Carlson without Khabibulin. With him, he's the worst player on the Capitals. Ales Hemsky is better than Ovechkin without Khabibulin. With him, he's the worst player on the Caps. Ladislav Smid and Kurtis Foster were nearly even players without Khabibulin. Only three Oilers were better with Khabibulin: J.F. Jacques and Liam Reddox, and of course Ryan Jones, though Jones and Khabibulin were so bad together it was impossible for them to be worse apart from each other.
11 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
This article made me laugh… and then I realised Khabibulin is still signed for 2 more years.
So thanks Derek, for confusing my emotions!
You've got it all wrong!
Think about it this way:
With Khabi around for two more years, no matter how good a team we build in front of him, we’ll still be bad. We can be awesome except for him, and still pick up top 10 draft picks. Then, after the two years are over, we replace him with DD and someone else and (pause for dramatic effect)…..
STANLEY CUP CHAMPIONS!
It’s pretty exciting, and it sure is nice of Khabibulin for taking so much responsibility for ensuring our future success. Thank you Mr. Khabibulin, your noble sacrifice won’t soon be forgotten!
Let’s say the Oilers decided to address their goaltending this summer, and signed Vokoun to a 2 year, 11 mil deal. And let’s also assume Vokoun posts his normal .920 sv%. That would be a ~ 42 goal improvement on its own, assuming Khabibulin posts the same number of games/shots/sv%, etc. I think it’s reasonable to expect Khabi to be somewhat better next year, but I would still imagine you could reasonably expect Vokoun to be ~ 25 goals better than Khabibulin next year, plus less health concerns, etc.
I’m not saying they’ll take that approach, or even that they should (where does that leave Dubnyk if you’re trying to grrom him as a starter?), but if they did, how far are they away, really, from a playoff spot if they spend to the cap to address needs after hypothetically acquiring Vokoun?
by hockeysymposium on May 10, 2011 8:50 AM MDT reply actions
Impact on Dubnyk
These numbers are pretty worrying for Devan Dubnyk. It seems like Dubnyk faced a lot less quality chances than Khabi (or am I not understanding this chart)?
Perhaps rebounds is a reason and this is repeatable, but given the sample size isn’t there a chance this is just bad luck and Dubnyk will face more scoring chances and see a decrease is SV% because of it?
Could be. But this is now two years of bad luck for Khabibulin if that’s the case. And it’s not like this was a strength of opponent issue.
Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.
Yeah, I’m scratching my head too. Bad as Khabibulin played, there’s little doubt in my mind that Oilers played a disproportionate number of rotten games in front of him. Some of that was Renney throwing Khabibulin to the wolves a few times in unwinnable games (e.g. @ Calgary the day after Oilers had finished sweeping Vancouver), but man oh man, his record is just awful.
Much as I like to consider the goalie a part of the team rather than an island, it’s pretty hard to explain away scoring chance differentials like Taylor Hall’s and put the blame on the goalie. Did Khabi allow 80 more scoring-chance-causing rebounds than Dubnyk with Hall on the ice?
Let’s look at it this way. Khabibulin played 2701 minutes out of the 4947 total played by the three Oiler goalies. That’s 54.6%. He was on the ice for less than 52% of the chances for (both F and D) and around 58% of the chances against. Some of the latter might be rebounds. The former?
The other odd thing is that one would expect score effects to drive this bus in the other direction, given the Oilers were ALWAYS FUCKING LOSING when NK was in the pipes.
Writer for The Cult of Hockey, The Copper & Blue, and primary shareholder of Zorg Industries
"Never be ashamed of who you are" -- Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg
by Bruce McCurdy on May 10, 2011 9:57 AM MDT up reply actions
I have decided to look at the above information as an affirmation that Taylor Hall is a beauty. Glass half full and all that.
http://hockeyzen.com - An Oilers blog
My take is that NK was left in a bunch of games by Renney when things went really bad. He was in net for two 5 goal against games, four 6 goal against games and one 8 goal against games. In most situations, the coach will mercy pull the starter when things go horrible. Renney had a tendancy to leave him in and save DD for the next night. These kind of nights will really add up when you are talking about a sample size of 47 games started.
I am not trying to defend or mitigate his play, just that on nights where the rest of the team was looking at the clock and trying to get tossed, NK was left to get shelled.
Score effects usually take place when it’s close. You are leading by one and go into a defensive shell. The Oilers got blown out lots of nights and it was just a duck shoot.
Renney pulled his goalie just three times all year.
1) NK when he gave in 4 goals in the first 7 or 8 minutes in CAR.
2) NK after the second period of a 5-0 loss to CHI, after which he went on IR.
3) DD in third period of 4-0 loss to ANA.
In the latter case it was the second half of a back-to-back, where Khabi had lost to OTT of all teams the day before & Renney was trying to restore his confidence a little (it actually worked). Otherwise Renney left his starter in to take his lumps for the most part. The fact said starter was Khabibulin far more often than it was Dubnyk tells a tale in its own right.
Writer for The Cult of Hockey, The Copper & Blue, and primary shareholder of Zorg Industries
"Never be ashamed of who you are" -- Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg
by Bruce McCurdy on May 10, 2011 5:20 PM MDT up reply actions

by 



























