Too early to panic about Markstrom

[Inglewood Jack]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Right but to use the "oooh index" you'd have to watch every game with a head set and then compile a summary by team.

I feel like this is the ideal kind of thing you could run through an AI to get it done more easily and objectively

[Toonage]

Piped in crowd noise would fudge the numbers

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Well I said it's making a save and finishing.

You seemed to reply with finishing and the team not the goalie defensively, which is certainly your thing.

Will never say the stats have evolved to the point where it's perfect, but it's certainly a great way to measure something across all goaltenders and take a personal bias out of it.

It’s a good attempt, a work in progress, and a basis for discussion.

I do not say it’s exclusively team not goalie.

Generally, there are shots you should stop, those you could stop, and those you can’t stop

I believe that roughly (focus on the concept, not the exact numbers) that, say, somewhere over 80 but less than 90 percent of shots *should* be stopped. Team play (reference the Nashville 21 shot 3rd period) can affect these shots that can pad goalies’ stats. Team play can certainly impact quantity of shots that can’t be stopped. Goalies can make the difference on those *could be stopped* shots

So from the area of league average of sv.%, team play can contribute +/ say 10 or so points, and a goalie another 10 or so points (a poor goalie can also, of course, really affect his own downside)

There is no personal bias, by the way, in noting the shortcomings of the models. They simply don’t measure shot placement. A shot that ends up bar down can be classified the same as a shot put right in to the goalie’s logo.

And there’s not enough shots on a single game sample size for different quality of shots to come out in the wash.

I don’t simply read a number and say “look at me, I’m unbiased”. I look at a number, think about how it is calculated, and think about how all of the things I see, that are not measured, could impact that number if they were measured

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Right but to use the "oooh index" you'd have to watch every game with a head set and then compile a summary by team.

And you have to discount for the large block of fans (especially down south) who oooh over everything near the net.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

It’s a good attempt, a work in progress, and a basis for discussion.

I do not say it’s exclusively team not goalie.

Generally, there are shots you should stop, those you could stop, and those you can’t stop

I believe that roughly (focus on the concept, not the exact numbers) that, say, somewhere over 80 but less than 90 percent of shots *should* be stopped. Team play (reference the Nashville 21 shot 3rd period) can affect these shots that can pad goalies’ stats. Team play can certainly impact quantity of shots that can’t be stopped. Goalies can make the difference on those *could be stopped* shots

So from the area of league average of sv.%, team play can contribute +/ say 10 or so points, and a goalie another 10 or so points (a poor goalie can also, of course, really affect his own downside)

There is no personal bias, by the way, in noting the shortcomings of the models. They simply don’t measure shot placement. A shot that ends up bar down can be classified the same as a shot put right in to the goalie’s logo.

And there’s not enough shots on a single game sample size for different quality of shots to come out in the wash.

I don’t simply read a number and say “look at me, I’m unbiased”. I look at a number, think about how it is calculated, and think about how all of the things I see, that are not measured, could impact that number if they were measured

And you'd be right. But the inconsistency is applied across every team and every goaltender.

So to ignore the number you'd have to have a case where team X or goalie Y have specifically wrong numbers because they thwart the model more than their counterparts.

You have a huge bias towards goaltenders, you walk it out 12 times a year.

And I don't say "look at me" about anything.

But I certainly love that you can look something up that principally unbiased and negate someone who walks into every situation with an eye test bias and an inability to see anything but what they've told themselves to see (not pointing at you directly on that one)

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Bingo

And you'd be right. But the inconsistency is applied across every team and every goaltender.

So to ignore the number you'd have to have a case where team X or goalie Y have specifically wrong numbers because they thwart the model more than their counterparts.

You have a huge bias towards goaltenders, you walk it out 12 times a year.

And I don't say "look at me" about anything.

Didn’t say you do. I just said I don’t

But I certainly love that you can look something up that principally unbiased and negate someone who walks into every situation with an eye test bias and an inability to see anything but what they've told themselves to see (not pointing at you directly on that one)

You don’t need to ignore the number. You just take it with a grain of salt. Understand what it does, and what it doesn’t do. Use it as a basis for discussion, but use a ton of caution trying to use it as a proof point.

I agree. It’s principally unbiased. But also inadequate. To improve it, you’d have to measure so many qualifiers that become inputs, and that would thereby reduce the statistical significance.

Again, the Nashville third period. 21 shots. Nothing threatening. We all saw it.

The fact that the Flames have the third worst shooting percentage in the league is a perfect example. It’s not random. It is a consequence of how they are playing.

But what I am calling in this case ‘how they are playing’ just isn’t measured in the models.


On the goalie thing…
I am not sure what you mean by me having a ‘bias toward goaltenders’. The way it reads, it comes across as a bad thing.

I think it’s a heck of a lot better to understand if an actual shot is reasonably stoppable than to just say ‘oh, he’s gotta make a save’

If you cover 85 percent of the net, you have a good chance of Ovi’s one timer hitting you. But if it finds a hole, it’s going in. The goalie has pretty much nothing to do with the outcome other than how the 85 percent of the net he is covering matches up with where the shot goes. Because it’s physically impossible to react between when the shot is actually taken and when it finds its destination. Some people struggle with that. (Not pointing at you)

That’s not a bias toward goaltenders, it’s a bias towards science

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

You don’t need to ignore the number. You just take it with a grain of salt. Understand what it does, and what it doesn’t do. Use it as a basis for discussion, but use a ton of caution trying to use it as a proof point.

I agree. It’s principally unbiased. But also inadequate. To improve it, you’d have to measure so many qualifiers that become inputs, and that would thereby reduce the statistical significance.

Again, the Nashville third period. 21 shots. Nothing threatening. We all saw it.

The fact that the Flames have the third worst shooting percentage in the league is a perfect example. It’s not random. It is a consequence of how they are playing.

But what I am calling in this case ‘how they are playing’ just isn’t measured in the models.


On the goalie thing…
I am not sure what you mean by me having a ‘bias toward goaltenders’. The way it reads, it comes across as a bad thing.

I think it’s a heck of a lot better to understand if an actual shot is reasonably stoppable than to just say ‘oh, he’s gotta make a save’

If you cover 85 percent of the net, you have a good chance of Ovi’s one timer hitting you. But if it finds a hole, it’s going in. The goalie has pretty much nothing to do with the outcome other than how the 85 percent of the net he is covering matches up with where the shot goes. Because it’s physically impossible to react between when the shot is actually taken and when it finds its destination. Some people struggle with that. (Not pointing at you)

That’s not a bias toward goaltenders, it’s a bias towards science

Principally unbiased is the key though. If you step away from the principally unbiased but limited statistic into theory and guesstimate you open it up for a person to see what they want to see.

You need a replacement set of unbiased data to replace the one that's in place.

And not sure why you're picking the Nashville third period, it's a prime example of the stat working.

Calgary had zero high danger chances five on five in that period, and an expected five on five goals of 0.26. Literally got nothing done.

On the powerplay they piled up the shots and had some dangerous chances, but five on five they were meek.

The goalie thing I've never argued with your point ... those are all variables for sure. But when you step away from a number across all goaltenders you're adding a subjective opinion too it.

[BoLevi]

Be thankful the Flames have a good backup goaltender.

Too bad he's getting paid $6 million a year.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

Be thankful the Flames have a good backup goaltender.

Too bad he's getting paid $6 million a year.

Solid bump!

Added to the conversation and everything!

[Bill Bumface]

At least Markstrom isn't a pissy pants. He seems genuinely happy when Vladar wins, and I don't really see there being some distraction for the team if Vladar ultimately gets handed the reigns this season. Yeah, it sucks when an expensive guy isn't contributing, but it seems everyone involved wants to win, so it's about high time to go with the guy giving you the best shot and see what happens.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

At least Markstrom isn't a pissy pants. He seems genuinely happy when Vladar wins, and I don't really see there being some distraction for the team if Vladar ultimately gets handed the reigns this season. Yeah, it sucks when an expensive guy isn't contributing, but it seems everyone involved wants to win, so it's about high time to go with the guy giving you the best shot and see what happens.

It's pretty par for the course for goalies (though I daresay Smith was probably an exception, based on no evidence I can think of). and when you think about it, it's pretty great that goalies do that, since their position is the only one where you are directly being compared to one other guy on the team on a consistent basis.

The two actually play a very similar style and if anything's changed this year it's that Vladar has become more polished and Markstrom has sometimes become less so.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

At least Markstrom isn't a pissy pants. He seems genuinely happy when Vladar wins, and I don't really see there being some distraction for the team if Vladar ultimately gets handed the reigns this season. Yeah, it sucks when an expensive guy isn't contributing, but it seems everyone involved wants to win, so it's about high time to go with the guy giving you the best shot and see what happens.

The real question is what is their relative trade value.

The Flames don't have the horses to win much this year, so anything resembling a successful season will mean rolling the dice on keeping either Vladar or Markstrom, but not both. Upgrading scoring by downgrading goaltending depth seems like an obvious decision to make.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

It's pretty par for the course for goalies (though I daresay Smith was probably an exception, based on no evidence I can think of).

I seem to remember Tabaracci and Kidd not having the most cooperative relationship. They were put in a position where one loss meant you lost the net, so maybe that changed the dynamic a bit.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

I seem to remember Tabaracci and Kidd not having the most cooperative relationship. They were put in a position where one loss meant you lost the net, so maybe that changed the dynamic a bit.

Yeah I don't think they were buddy buddy.

[Inferno]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

The real question is what is their relative trade value.

The Flames don't have the horses to win much this year, so anything resembling a successful season will mean rolling the dice on keeping either Vladar or Markstrom, but not both. Upgrading scoring by downgrading goaltending depth seems like an obvious decision to make.

Then it's either trade Vladar or not. Markstrom has a NMC and isn't getting traded no matter how much some on here want him to be.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

I seem to remember Tabaracci and Kidd not having the most cooperative relationship. They were put in a position where one loss meant you lost the net, so maybe that changed the dynamic a bit.

Could well be. I recall Tabaracci not being a sweet fellow, and Kidd being a bit odd. So maybe it was personalities as opposed to competing for the same job.

What amuses me is that a few people here are pretty transparently hoping for one or the other of Vladar or Markstrom to perform less well, because they want to other to be the starter, when they themselves are much less so.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

If you cover 85 percent of the net, you have a good chance of Ovi’s one timer hitting you. But if it finds a hole, it’s going in. The goalie has pretty much nothing to do with the outcome other than how the 85 percent of the net he is covering matches up with where the shot goes. Because it’s physically impossible to react between when the shot is actually taken and when it finds its destination. Some people struggle with that. (Not pointing at you)

I agree with this. Like you, I dislike "he's gotta make that save" (also 'he's gotta bury that" for forwards). There are 80-90 mph shots.

The goal by Stamkos - he didn't aim that. It could have as easily glanced off Vladar's shoulder into the netting. But it didn't and he scored.

I like stats. They more often than not tell the right tale, especially over large chunks of time. But in a single game, sometimes not. That shot counts the same stats wise as a weak shot from the same spot by a fourth liner, as far as I can see.

[Flamesfan05]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

The real question is what is their relative trade value.

The Flames don't have the horses to win much this year, so anything resembling a successful season will mean rolling the dice on keeping either Vladar or Markstrom, but not both. Upgrading scoring by downgrading goaltending depth seems like an obvious decision to make.

Markstrom is worth like a 2nd rounder at best if anyone can even pick up his contract.

There isn’t too many established goalie trade. If the goalie is good you don’t want to trade him. If he is bad, nobody wants him. Markstrom is inching toward the latter

[Infinit47]

Bump.

After last night's game, of the 35 goalies who have played 20 or more games, Markstrom ranks:

30th is GSAA
30th in save percentage

Of those 35 goalies Markstrom sees the 7th fewest high danger chances per game.

He has 13 wins and 19 L/OTL's on the season.

It's baffling that he continues to get so many starts.

[PepsiFree]

I’m not sure why it’s baffling. Vladar isn’t going to get us a cup. Markstrom has at least shown the ability to be the best in the game. The only path to the finals is Markstrom figuring it out, as unlikely as it might be.