482 replies to this topic

[ThirtyEight]

Okay, so I made this chart, which contains some goalie 'advanced stats'

Some definitions:

Quality Start = Any game where a goalie stops more than the league average percentage of shots (currently .914) or gives up less than three goals while stopping 88.5% or more of the shots he faces. Quality starts have resulted in a winning percentage of roughly .775.

Bail-Out = The percentage of games where a goalie didn't record a quality start but the team still won the game. That is, the goalie gets the win while stopping less than 88.5% of the shots, or while giving up three or more goals and stopping between 88.5 and 91.3% of shots.

Really Bad Start = Anytime a goalie fails to stop more than 85% of the shots he faces. This equates to roughly a 10% chance of the team winning the game.

I chose to ignore April as it is very close to the playoffs so the way the team plays and the way the goalies are rotated changes alot

Some facts:

• The best goalies will record ~60% quality start percentage while 55% will identify you as above average.
  
• The best goalies will record ~10-12% RBS rate
  
• High BO rate indicates being carried by the team, low BO rate indicates that the team rarely helps you out if you're not at your best.
  
• High BO% + Low QS% = being carried by team
  
• Low BO% + High QS% = unlucky to a certain extent

What I learnt:

• Smith and Enroth are very streaky - they have a high number of QS, but also have double the average bad game rate
  
• Enroth is unlucky - the team never bails him out - a lot of his QS are wasted
  
• Miller was elite two years ago
  
• Miller was average last year, but that coms from a bad December/January (when he admits he came back too early)
  
• This year he has been average - but that comes from march alone - which a) isn't over and b) maybe he has given up on the team
  
• Lundqvist was crazy good last year
  
• The Sabres and Rags live and die by their goalie

The reason the debate about Enroth rages is because he flips between being elite and an AHL goalie

For anyone wondering, Miller's QS was .723 during his Vezina campaign

Attached Files

•  Screen Shot 2013-03-21 at 14.42.47.png   358.19K   57 downloads

Edited by ThirtyEight, 21 March 2013 - 10:14 AM.

[LGR4GM]

Smith being Mike Smith I would assume?

So basically what this shows is Miller is consistent but average? Correct?

[HopefulFuture]

I don't need charts on his career performance, I've watched it over the past 7 years.
Is he average? No
Is he a game changer? More often than not, No
Does this thread really make a difference in the larger goal of bringing a Stanley Cup Championship to Buffalo? Ummmm.......No

Miller is an above average netminder, but not significantly above average whereby he cannot be considered expendable in an effort to bring a Cup to Buffalo.
His salary is a hinderence, however, to that end when taken in context to his overall career performance under that contract, IMHO.
Afterall, it's nice and all that he received "personal recognition" in 1 season for his ability to elevate his game play at his position, but it did nothing to bring a Championship to Buffalo that year. And over all, his performance has done nothing to contribute on a major scale to such end as well.

[ThirtyEight]

LGR4GM, on 21 March 2013 - 10:46 AM, said:

Smith being Mike Smith I would assume?

So basically what this shows is Miller is consistent but average? Correct?

No. Miller has been Vezina, Elite, Average-to-above-average, and this season is too early to call. Last year is hard to call, because he played injured for at least all of December (his words)

[d4rksabre]

I dig this. Think you could do each Stanley Cup winning goalie since the last lockout?

[JJFIVEOH]

d4rksabre, on 21 March 2013 - 11:23 AM, said:

I dig this. Think you could do each Stanley Cup winning goalie since the last lockout?

In the last 10-15 years, most of them weren't elite besides Thomas and Broduer. And some would argue Thomas wasn't elite.

[LGR4GM]

JJFIVEOH, on 21 March 2013 - 11:39 AM, said:

In the last 10-15 years, most of them weren't elite besides Thomas and Broduer. And some would argue Thomas wasn't elite.

Damn you Jonathan Quick for sucking so much in last years playoffs! Damn you!

lol jk, I understand what you mean.

Edited by LGR4GM, 21 March 2013 - 11:46 AM.

[WildCard]

I'd be more interested in seeing Hasek's stats compared to Miller; see the comparison of a true elite/one we really lived and died by and one who seems to think he's Hasek's second-coming

[DHawerchuk10]

HopefulFuture, on 21 March 2013 - 10:54 AM, said:

I don't need charts on his career performance, I've watched it over the past 7 years.
Is he average? No
Is he a game changer? More often than not, No
Does this thread really make a difference in the larger goal of bringing a Stanley Cup Championship to Buffalo? Ummmm.......No

Miller is an above average netminder, but not significantly above average whereby he cannot be considered expendable in an effort to bring a Cup to Buffalo.
His salary is a hinderence, however, to that end when taken in context to his overall career performance under that contract, IMHO.
Afterall, it's nice and all that he received "personal recognition" in 1 season for his ability to elevate his game play at his position, but it did nothing to bring a Championship to Buffalo that year. And over all, his performance has done nothing to contribute on a major scale to such end as well.

Well said.

When I speak of "average", I am really alluding to his ability (or lack thereof) to be a game-changer.  In the grand scheme of things when ranked against other goalies, I am sure he can rank as above average, but what does that matter?  Stats can be cherry-picked to support either side of the argument here, and as mentioned, don't stack up to a championship or even a winning team.  I think its more important to believe your own eyes when watching Miller.  And I see a goalie whose ability can be replaced at a lower salary level, and the "savings" can be used to strengthen the team in other areas.   Certainly everybody has a different perception, but that is what makes this argument so compelling.

Furthermore, "eliteness" would suggest a talent that can overcome shortcomings of the team.  Ryan Miller can't do this, and even many apoligists here have said, "well, he would do better with a better defense".  To me, that is like admitting he is not elite.  Every goalie would do better with a better defense.  The key is to perform at a high level and win games given what you have.  ***Disclaimer:  I realize our defense has been extremely putrid this year, thus using this year to judge Miller's career performance is somewhat of an outlier.

[JJFIVEOH]

LGR4GM, on 21 March 2013 - 11:44 AM, said:

Damn you Jonathan Quick for sucking so much in last years playoffs! Damn you!

lol jk, I understand what you mean.

He did put on quite a show last year!

[DHawerchuk10]

WildCard, on 21 March 2013 - 11:46 AM, said:

I'd be more interested in seeing Hasek's stats compared to Miller; see the comparison of a true elite/one we really lived and died by and one who seems to think he's Hasek's second-coming

Even the stats here don't do the argument justice as the rules and styles of play were different.  However, there were nights that Hasek imposed his confidence on the entire building, and you KNEW he wasn't going to be beaten.  That's beyond elite, that is a generational talent.  Sadly, even that didn't translate into a championship for Buffalo, but at least it came within a whisker.

[IKnowPhysics]

Good effort, OP.  I appreciate time and thoughtfulness put into new ways of looking at statistics.


What stood out to me a little, is that the three stats you tracked: the first is determined in a major way by games in which a team allows more than three (which correlates strongly to winning/losing, of course), the second is defined by a team winning/losing the game, and the third correlates strongly to the team winning/losing.  As a result, I am totally unsurprised by this- sort of:

ThirtyEight, on 21 March 2013 - 10:01 AM, said:

What I learnt:

• The Sabres and Rags live and die by their goalie

I would suggest that any team's winning percentage, if that's what you used to define living and dying, would track those three stats because of their correlation to winning/losing, but not necessarily as a result of the performance of the goaltender.  It's sort of akin to comparing two goaltenders' performance over a season by comparing the number of wins- there's several other factors and the causal relationship isn't necessarily intact.  It seems like these stats could make ANY team live and die by their goalie.  If there's evidence to the contrary of what I'm supposing, ie a goaltender was considered by the stats to be elite that belonged to a losing team OR a winning team that has a starting goalie that's bad in these stats, I'd be interested to see that.

[JJFIVEOH]

DHawerchuk10, on 21 March 2013 - 12:00 PM, said:

Even the stats here don't do the argument justice as the rules and styles of play were different.  However, there were nights that Hasek imposed his confidence on the entire building, and you KNEW he wasn't going to be beaten.  That's beyond elite, that is a generational talent.  Sadly, even that didn't translate into a championship for Buffalo, but at least it came within a whisker.

That's why I make comparisons to the rest of the league at the time. In terms of save percentages, Hasek was a career .922 and Milles is a career .915. Hasek played at a time when scoring was higher and save percentages were generally around .008-.01 lower than they are today.

[weave]

JJFIVEOH, on 21 March 2013 - 12:05 PM, said:

That's why I make comparisons to the rest of the league at the time. In terms of save percentages, Hasek was a career .922 and Milles is a career .915. Hasek played at a time when scoring was higher and save percentages were generally around .008-.01 lower than they are today.

The bolded surprises me if accurate.  I remember those days as the heydays of The Trap and clutch-and-grab hockey.  Is there data you've seen that counters this?

[TrueBluePhD]

Really nice stuff 38.  I'd really like to see these numbers in context of team possession, particularly Fenwick close.  I'd also like a much expanded sample of players/years, but that's a crap ton of work I wouldn't expect anybody to do outside of trying to get a paper published

Edit: actually, I'd like to see the entire analysis breaking out even strength from special teams play.  Again, it's a lot of work, so it's fine if you don't want to or don't have the time to do it.

Edited by TrueBluePhD, 21 March 2013 - 12:14 PM.

[Eleven]

weave, on 21 March 2013 - 12:09 PM, said:

The bolded surprises me if accurate.  I remember those days as the heydays of The Trap and clutch-and-grab hockey.  Is there data you've seen that counters this?

That was my reaction too.  Maybe the earlier part of Hasek's career was during the tail end of Big Scoring, but I don't think the bulk of his career was.

[X. Benedict]

When the Sabres are on their 5th or 6th goalie, looking for a steady guy to begin each year....you may, you might, you could just might miss Ryan Miller.

I've spent nearly a decade not worrying about the goal-tending.

Now if you are from Toronto, Philly, Tampa, Columbus, or a host of other teams... even Chicago right now should be worried about goal-tending.

That's all.

[JJFIVEOH]

weave, on 21 March 2013 - 12:09 PM, said:

The bolded surprises me if accurate.  I remember those days as the heydays of The Trap and clutch-and-grab hockey.  Is there data you've seen that counters this?

Take this for what it's worth. Looks like pre-1997 scoring was higher than it is now. Then again, post-2003 lockout scoring was high for a couple of years. Most of Hasek's games played were pre-1997. I guess an argument could be made either way.

http://www.quanthock...oalsPerGame.php

[K-9]

I don't know. Miller can often be above average debate. And, depending on how nuanced the discussion,  Miller debate can border on sublime at times.

GO SABRES!!!

[TrueBluePhD]

X. Benedict, on 21 March 2013 - 12:12 PM, said:

When the Sabres are on their 5th or 6th goalie, looking for a steady guy to begin each year....you may, you might, you could just might miss Ryan Miller.

I've spent nearly a decade not worrying about the goal-tending.

Now if you are from Toronto, Philly, Tampa, Columbus, or a host of other teams... even Chicago right now should be worried about goal-tending.

That's all.

I honestly think that's part of the problem with some Sabres fans.  We haven't gone through a decade of searching for even average goaltending, so what we do have goes under-appreciated.  I'm pretty sure Philly fans would give a limb to get consistently above average goaltending.

[JJFIVEOH]

Eleven, on 21 March 2013 - 12:11 PM, said:

That was my reaction too.  Maybe the earlier part of Hasek's career was during the tail end of Big Scoring, but I don't think the bulk of his career was.

Looks like the bulk of his career was during the decline of big scoring, but still higher than it is today.

I'm just comparing save percentages year by year. http://www.quanthock...lies-stats.html

[TrueBluePhD]

JJFIVEOH, on 21 March 2013 - 12:15 PM, said:

Take this for what it's worth. Looks like pre-1997 scoring was higher than it is now. Then again, post-2003 lockout scoring was high for a couple of years. Most of Hasek's games played were pre-1997. I guess an argument could be made either way.

http://www.quanthock...oalsPerGame.php

No, unless by "most" you mean "less than half".

Edit: How in the world did Hasek ever enter this debate?  He should never be compared to Miller, as nobody is arguing Miller is in that class.  Hasek is arguably the best goaltender of all time; all we're saying about Miller is he's been one of the better goaltenders in the league since he became a starter.

Edited by TrueBluePhD, 21 March 2013 - 12:24 PM.

[X. Benedict]

TrueBluePhD, on 21 March 2013 - 12:17 PM, said:

I honestly think that's part of the problem with some Sabres fans.  We haven't gone through a decade of searching for even average goaltending, so what we do have goes under-appreciated.  I'm pretty sure Philly fans would give a limb to get consistently above average goaltending.

I think I forgot about Edmonton and NY Islanders.....I'm not sure I can name their regular starters at the moment.

[Claude_Verret]

X. Benedict, on 21 March 2013 - 12:12 PM, said:

When the Sabres are on their 5th or 6th goalie, looking for a steady guy to begin each year....you may, you might, you could just might miss Ryan Miller.

I've spent nearly a decade not worrying about the goal-tending.

Now if you are from Toronto, Philly, Tampa, Columbus, or a host of other teams... even Chicago right now should be worried about goal-tending.

That's all.

TrueBluePhD, on 21 March 2013 - 12:17 PM, said:

I honestly think that's part of the problem with some Sabres fans.  We haven't gone through a decade of searching for even average goaltending, so what we do have goes under-appreciated.  I'm pretty sure Philly fans would give a limb to get consistently above average goaltending.

Yep.  Don't know what ya got 'til it's gone.

[PromoTheRobot]

I've played goal for decades so of course that makes me far more qualified to judge Miller than any of you.   Miller has been an elite goaltender.  But goalies are also a product of the defense in front of them.  No goalie can win every game when the players in front of him are not only doing a bad job but also setting up the opponent with their errors.

Unlike soccer where the goalie has about a 20% chance to make a save, in hockey it's around 50/50 goalie to shooter.  Even the best goalies leave holes.  If a shooter can find and exploit these holes they score.  Any shooter left alone improves his chances to hit that hole exponentially.  Pucks shot from close range move faster than human reaction time.

So you could have the greatest goalie in hockey history and he would look like a sieve if his defense was so inept that shooters had a good number of uncontested shots in close....sort of like the Sabres this season.

PTR

Edited by PromoTheRobot, 21 March 2013 - 12:31 PM.

[JJFIVEOH]

TrueBluePhD, on 21 March 2013 - 12:20 PM, said:

No, unless by "most" you mean "less than half".

Edit: How in the world did Hasek ever enter this debate?  He should never be compared to Miller, as nobody is arguing Miller is in that class.  Hasek is arguably the best goaltender of all time; all we're saying about Miller is he's been one of the better goaltenders in the league since he became a starter.

Do you really need to add the snide comment? Yes, I said pre-1997. Perhaps I shouldn't have becuase if you read the rest of it I was comparing different times in the league not specific years. i.e. end of the big scoring era and the beginning of today's boring hockey. There is no exact year or date this all happened. Case in point if you go to the chart I posted, most of Hasek's games were played at a time when scoring was higher than today which is an essential factor when comparing. Perhaps you missed this post.

JJFIVEOH, on 21 March 2013 - 12:19 PM, said:

Looks like the bulk of his career was during the decline of big scoring, but still higher than it is today.

I'm just comparing save percentages year by year. http://www.quanthock...lies-stats.html

And no, he's not one of the better goaltenders in the league. He was one of the best in the league for a year, that is all.

Edited by JJFIVEOH, 21 March 2013 - 12:32 PM.

[Robviously]

All I know is this: I've got Miller Fatigue™.  He's a good goalie, and sometimes he's a great goalie.  But I'm basically exhausted from watching him, talking about him, and listening to his interviews where he somehow manages to sound condescending and suicidal at the same time (how???).  

Obviously that's a terrible reason to trade him or not re-sign him, but it would be so great to have someone new to be excited about.  That is, an awesome young prospect on the way (note to Darcy: this exciting young netminder can come over via trade....like maybe if we're having a fire sale.....).

It's been Miller time since 2005.  I'm feeling very Don Draper-y and thinking I could get more interested in something if it's new.

Just talking about my feelings.

Edited by Robviously, 21 March 2013 - 12:38 PM.

[HopefulFuture]

weave, on 21 March 2013 - 12:09 PM, said:

The bolded surprises me if accurate.  I remember those days as the heydays of The Trap and clutch-and-grab hockey.  Is there data you've seen that counters this?

,
Actually weave, this is a solid point, but when you look at the disparity in the league back in the 90's on scoring, although over half the league at the time had scoring down, there were teams who consistently out performed in scoring over all. The Trap was a big issue to be sure, but there were teams who just had the talent to overcome it. Hasek did well against all competition, which to me, in any event, speaks on generational talent.

Miller on the other hand, does indeed have to contend in a different environment, but that makes his impact on the team no more or less relevant when taken into context of his contract and performance under said contract indicators. He's not worth 6.5 mil a season cap hit wise given the rule changes to end the Trap Era.
But I still believe him to be an above average netminder none-the-less. As was pointed out, some of that money could have gone to improvements elsewhere on the roster with the same or potentially higher results then we've received to date. Of course, in the interest of full disclosure, it could have potentially had lower results, in which case, we'd have drafted higher quality talent over those years

[TrueBluePhD]

JJFIVEOH, on 21 March 2013 - 12:31 PM, said:

Do you really need to add the snide comment? Yes, I said pre-1997. Perhaps I shouldn't have becuase if you read the rest of it I was comparing different times in the league not specific years. i.e. end of the big scoring era and the beginning of today's boring hockey. There is no exact year or date this all happened. Case in point if you go to the chart I posted, most of Hasek's games were played at a time when scoring was higher than today which is an essential factor when comparing. Perhaps you missed this post.

And no, he's not one of the better goaltenders in the league. He was one of the best in the league for a year, that is all.

I will continue to make snide comments so long as you continue to use crappy stats without context to assert facts which aren't facts, all the while fully rejecting more detailed and valid analysis.

[JJFIVEOH]

TrueBluePhD, on 21 March 2013 - 12:44 PM, said:

I will continue to make snide comments so long as you continue to use crappy stats without context to assert facts which aren't facts, all the while fully rejecting more detailed and valid analysis.

Disprove that Hasek played more games in seasons that had lower scoring than this year, or last year for that matter. I provided my links, let's see yours. I also provided stats in the other thread showing why I think he is an average goaltender aside from his Silver/Vezina year. The only retort you've had was from your heart.

[TrueBluePhD]

JJFIVEOH, on 21 March 2013 - 12:51 PM, said:

Disprove that Hasek played more games in seasons that had lower scoring than this year, or last year for that matter. I provided my links, let's see yours. I also provided stats in the other thread showing why I think he is an average goaltender aside from his Silver/Vezina year. The only retort you've had was from your heart.

My evidence is in the Miller trade thread. You don't think SV% should be taken in context of even strength versus special teams and team puck possession. As such, there is nothing I can present which you will accept.

[JJFIVEOH]

TrueBluePhD, on 21 March 2013 - 01:02 PM, said:

My evidence is in the Miller trade thread. You don't think SV% should be taken in context of even strength versus special teams and team puck possession. As such, there is nothing I can present which you will accept.

You criticized my stats on Hasek. What does this have to do with Hasek? It's pretty simple to disprove, all you need are last years GPG average for the league, GPG averages from the years Hasek played and the number of games Hasek played in each year. Throw in a little bit of arithmetic and you're good to go.

Nevermind. I've got better things to do with my time.

Edited by JJFIVEOH, 21 March 2013 - 01:10 PM.

[LGR4GM]

Dominik Hasek is probably the best GT or at least one of the best of all time... it would be like me comparing Gretzky to ANYONE.  Buffalo needs to get the ###### over Hasek... guy retired and left over a decade ago, move on.

[X. Benedict]

Robviously, on 21 March 2013 - 12:38 PM, said:

All I know is this: I've got Miller Fatigue™.  He's a good goalie, and sometimes he's a great goalie.  But I'm basically exhausted from watching him, talking about him, and listening to his interviews where he somehow manages to sound condescending and suicidal at the same time (how???).  

Obviously that's a terrible reason to trade him or not re-sign him, but it would be so great to have someone new to be excited about.  That is, an awesome young prospect on the way (note to Darcy: this exciting young netminder can come over via trade....like maybe if we're having a fire sale.....).

It's been Miller time since 2005.  I'm feeling very Don Draper-y and thinking I could get more interested in something if it's new.

Just talking about my feelings.

It took me a second to get the Draper reference. I was thinking about the guy who came up for a cup of coffee when we had Fuhr and Poops.

Very few goalies inspire great affection.  

But I think the hardest positions to fill in this game are #1 center, and franchise goalie.


Having said all that.....I think this is a good time to move Miller. Except.....I don't see a plan B in sight for goal-tending that makes this team better, or immediate answers to the problem at center.  

This team could easily have a goalie problem and a center problem.

Move Miller and I don't trust Darcy to fix either problem in the short run. In the long run, I'm hopeful about Grigs, Girgs, and Hodgson going forward but most likely that lineup is still a few years away from seasoning.

[TrueBluePhD]

JJFIVEOH, on 21 March 2013 - 01:10 PM, said:

You criticized my stats on Hasek. What does this have to do with Hasek? It's pretty simple to disprove, all you need are last years GPG average for the league, GPG averages from the years Hasek played and the number of games Hasek played in each year. Throw in a little bit of arithmetic and you're good to go.

Nevermind. I've got better things to do with my time.

You missed the entire point of what I said. I didn't criticize your stats on Hasek, I said you were wrong about the years where most of his career took place. Somebody's a little defensive for no reason.

[Grumpy]

He's not Dom, but he is better than average. He's played behind a soft poke-check defense his entire time here.  NO ONE ends up on their A$$ in front of our net after a scrum for the last 15 years on a consistent basis, unless their skates were dull. Watch what happens to our forwards when we play in Boston or Philly.  Or, just watch te final 8 teams in the playoffs this year.  Officials let you protect your goalie.  The Sabres don't, It's a reflection of how we draft and acquire players. DR?

[87168]

Put Miller on a contending team and watch the difference.

I wonder what the lines will be with Vanek out.

Edited by 87168, 21 March 2013 - 02:11 PM.

[LGR4GM]

Grumpy, on 21 March 2013 - 01:56 PM, said:

He's not Dom, but he is better than average. He's played behind a soft poke-check defense his entire time here.  NO ONE ends up on their A$$ in front of our net after a scrum for the last 15 years on a consistent basis, unless their skates were dull. Watch what happens to our forwards when we play in Boston or Philly.  Or, just watch te final 8 teams in the playoffs this year.  Officials let you protect your goalie.  The Sabres don't, It's a reflection of how we draft and acquire players. DR?

You mean players that have the competitive drive of a toaster?

[PASabreFan]

X. Benedict, on 21 March 2013 - 12:12 PM, said:

When the Sabres are on their 5th or 6th goalie, looking for a steady guy to begin each year....you may, you might, you could just might miss Ryan Miller.

I've spent nearly a decade not worrying about the goal-tending.

Now if you are from Toronto, Philly, Tampa, Columbus, or a host of other teams... even Chicago right now should be worried about goal-tending.

That's all.

Think Philly was worried about goaltending when Boucher finished up Game 7 while Miller pouted under his skull cap?

[Robviously]

X. Benedict, on 21 March 2013 - 01:48 PM, said:

It took me a second to get the Draper reference. I was thinking about the guy who came up for a cup of coffee when we had Fuhr and Poops.

I Google'd the quote and it was Dr. Miller saying "[Don Draper] only likes the beginning of things!" in Season 4.  There's a lot of that going around, Faye.

X. Benedict, on 21 March 2013 - 01:48 PM, said:

Very few goalies inspire great affection.  

But I think the hardest positions to fill in this game are #1 center, and franchise goalie.


Having said all that.....I think this is a good time to move Miller. Except.....I don't see a plan B in sight for goal-tending that makes this team better, or immediate answers to the problem at center.  

This team could easily have a goalie problem and a center problem.

Move Miller and I don't trust Darcy to fix either problem in the short run. In the long run, I'm hopeful about Grigs, Girgs, and Hodgson going forward but most likely that lineup is still a few years away from seasoning.

I usually love all of our goalies.  Hasek is still the only jersey with a name on it that I own.  I liked Biron.  I liked Miller a ton for a long time.  I like Enroth now.  I even liked Noronen for a while (I was at his first game).

I'm just ready for something new.

And like I said in another thread, once Pominville and Miller are gone, the book is completely shut on the 2006 team and we can move on.