Right. He can’t control the shots, all he can control is how he responds to them.
Seriously, what could he actually have done better, and I mean something he can control here, that would see him being, in your words, ‘at his best’?
Been luckier?
Seriously, if you look at the goals, and be specific, tell me what could be done better. I honestly do not see what he could have done.
Except stopping more. How? Beats me.
I've said for years in game stories that you can't simply point to how tough a shot was and absolve the goaltender completely. You certainly can't for every goal he gives up.
It's their job to square up on the shooter, have the angle, have their net to make sure they save 81% of the tough shots, 91% of the medium shots and 97.5% of the easy ones.
It just doesn't work to look at every goal and say he should have had that. No chance on that etc.
Yeah obviously some goals allowed are so putrid it's 100% on the goalie. And occasionally there is absolutely nothing any goalie in the world could have done to save a shot.
But the rest of the time, there is sharing of blame and credit on goals and so it helps to look at results over time (like a full game or series of games) to assess a goalie's performance.
And that's not a spreadsheet take. Nor am I spreadsheet jockey.
I think that is common sense, and numbers help summarize the results of such a view better than a goal by goal breakdown, shot by shot breakdown.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Strange Brew For This Useful Post:
Well, that is simply a spreadsheet take. (2 posts up) No offense.
Those statistics come out of grouping a very large number of shots based on some criteria, right? What they don’t factor in is the most important thing.
Look, if Stamkos gets the same pass in the same place, and takes a one timer, where does that shot go? In to the goalie’s logo? High and wide? Off the post? Top corner?
You are dealing with a statistically insignificant number of shots of a certain type in a game.
Rittich should stop perhaps 91 percent of shots from that general category. But Stamkos’s one timer is not reflective of the mean shot out of that category. Not even close.
Nor are the other shots I described. Your model ignores differentiating between likelihood of scoring based on shot placement.
Say you could measure enough to create a category of shots that are perfectly placed, that a goalie has to move to save, that arrives more quickly than human reflexes allow, and is therefore physically unstoppable? I wonder what the expected save percentage on that would be,
Last edited by DeluxeMoustache; 02-13-2019 at 10:23 AM.
Well, that is simply a spreadsheet take. (2 posts up) No offense.
Those statistics come out of grouping a very large number of shots based on some criteria, right? What they don’t factor in is the most important thing.
Look, if Stamkos gets the same pass in the same place, and takes a one timer, where does that shot go? In to the goalie’s logo? High and wide? Off the post? Top corner?
You are dealing with a statistically insignificant number of shots of a certain type in a game.
Rittich should stop perhaps 91 percent of shots from that general category. But Stamkos’s one timer is not reflective of the mean shot out of that category. Not even close.
Nor are the other shots I described. Your model ignores differentiating between likelihood if scoring based on shot placement.
Say you could measure enough to create a category of shots that are perfectly placed, that a goalie has to move to save, that arrives more quickly than human reflexes allow, and is therefore physically unstoppable? I wonder what the expected save percentage on that would be,
Why would anyone need a spreadsheet to walk out the opinion that goalies need to stop a strong majority of the tough ones or it's not a good night?
I find this quite funny. "Decent" and "Average" are so close in my books.
Rittich looked OK. But to absolve a goalie of all blame with a .778 sv% is a bit of a stretch. He didn't cost them the game, but he certainly didn't play well enough to steal them one either. And yes, I saw the goals. Great goalies make saves they shouldn't some times. Unfortunately, Rittich didn't do that last night.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to kevman For This Useful Post:
Some teams take 30 shots and not a single one is as good as the 5 clean goals Tampa got.
Heck, add 30 muffins from the point to last night’s game and you are around .900
Classifying performance based on sv% is what I call spreadsheet take
Even trying to segment shots in to danger tiers doesn’t work. Because it considers the situation where the shot originates, but not the details of the shot itself. Was it drilled in to the logo or placed top shelf? How hard was it shot? How much time did the goalie have to react to it? Did the goalie have to move laterally?
It’s so obvious to me that different shots have different likelihood of being stopped, and on some shots, that likelihood is approaching zero.
I notice you won’t look at the actual goals and tell me how the guy could actually stop them. Just that he should. Thanks, coach.
Even the guys that write books on analytics accept the limitations and put them in context.
I gave you my opinion on that succinctly.
I said I don't absolve goalies for giving up too many goals in a game because the shots were tough. They have to stop the lion's share of them.
I honestly can't believe how long a discussion over the comment "average" has gone for a goalie that stopped 78% of the shots he faced last night. I keep expecting Ashton Kutcher to pop out and yell you've been punked!
Some teams take 30 shots and not a single one is as good as the 5 clean goals Tampa got.
Heck, add 30 muffins from the point to last night’s game and you are around .900
Classifying performance based on sv% is what I call spreadsheet take
Even trying to segment shots in to danger tiers doesn’t work. Because it considers the situation where the shot originates, but not the details of the shot itself. Was it drilled in to the logo or placed top shelf? How hard was it shot? How much time did the goalie have to react to it? Did the goalie have to move laterally?
It’s so obvious to me that different shots have different likelihood of being stopped, and on some shots, that likelihood is approaching zero.
You don't need a spreadsheet. Just put the calculator app on the first page of your phone and you're good.
I said I don't absolve goalies for giving up too many goals in a game because the shots were tough. They have to stop the lion's share of them.
I honestly can't believe how long a discussion over the comment "average" has gone for a goalie that stopped 78% of the shots he faced last night. I keep expecting Ashton Kutcher to pop out and yell you've been punked!
Because of the term spreadsheet take, I believe.
I thought Rittich was solid last night.
You justify your opinion based on counting events.
I base mine on the events themselves.
We can agree to disagree on the usefulness of the numbers.
You justify your opinion based on counting events.
I base mine on the events themselves.
We can agree to disagree on the usefulness of the numbers.
Once again ... please vacate the space between my ears. Not yours.
I watched a hockey game and deemed the goalie average. I'm fine with you disagreeing with that assessment. I'm not fine with you authoritatively telling me how I came up with it.
Last night was one of the many games I watch late, and because of that I can't second screen stats at all for fear of seeing the final score. So no ... it wasn't counting stats at all.
He was average.
Shots on goal aren't counting stats.
He didn't stop enough of them.
I find this quite funny. "Decent" and "Average" are so close in my books.
Rittich looked OK. But to absolve a goalie of all blame with a .778 sv% is a bit of a stretch. He didn't cost them the game, but he certainly didn't play well enough to steal them one either. And yes, I saw the goals. Great goalies make saves they shouldn't some times. Unfortunately, Rittich didn't do that last night.
One of the reasons the Lightning are so good is that when they have an off game, their goalie can steal a win anyway.
I keep thinking back to this game in particular as I happened to watch it. The ice was tilted the Leafs way all night:
If our goalie is stealing games occasionally it’s easy to forgive games when he gets no help. But ya gotta bail them out once and a while.
Once again ... please vacate the space between my ears. Not yours.
I watched a hockey game and deemed the goalie average. I'm fine with you disagreeing with that assessment. I'm not fine with you authoritatively telling me how I came up with it.
Last night was one of the many games I watch late, and because of that I can't second screen stats at all for fear of seeing the final score. So no ... it wasn't counting stats at all.
He was average.
Shots on goal aren't counting stats.
He didn't stop enough of them.
Right. Counted stats? Shots are counted.
If he didn’t stop enough, then logically something that went in should have been stopped.
Which and how?
Just because shooters don’t cooperate with the probabilities in their shot placement doesn’t mean a goalie had an opportunity to stop anything extra
If he didn’t stop enough, then logically something that went in should have been stopped.
Which and how?
Just because shooters don’t cooperate with the probabilities in their shot placement doesn’t mean a goalie had an opportunity to stop anything extra
You're right. Got my lingo mixed up ... I meant to say shots are traditional stats and not advanced in any way that needs models or spreadsheets.
I've said now four times that I don't absolve goaltenders for tough shots or games with tough shots going in as they have to stop the lion's share of them.
You're either ignoring that or not seeing it. Not sure which.
You're right. Got my lingo mixed up ... I meant to say shots are traditional stats and not advanced in any way that needs models or spreadsheets.
I've said now four times that I don't absolve goaltenders for tough shots or games with tough shots going in as they have to stop the lion's share of them.
You're either ignoring that or not seeing it. Not sure which.
I see what you are saying and not ignoring it.
I see it as flawed. Some shots are physically impossible to stop, when placed perfectly enough and shot quickly enough. That is not something you appear to care about factoring in.
I consider Rittich to have been solid based on what appears to be physically possible in the situation
You keep coming back to essentially quantity of saves vs shots. Your expectation and opinion is driven / informed or whatever by numbers.
Like I said, I base my opinion on the actual events, not on the count of them.
I don’t judge the performance of a goalie based on the physically unreasonable or impossible.
To me a goalie can let in 6, and still have played well.
I see it as flawed. Some shots are physically impossible to stop, when placed perfectly enough and shot quickly enough. That is not something you appear to care about factoring in.
I consider Rittich to have been solid based on what appears to be physically possible in the situation
You keep coming back to essentially quantity of saves vs shots. Your expectation and opinion is driven / informed or whatever by numbers.
Like I said, I base my opinion on the actual events, not on the count of them.
I don’t judge the performance of a goalie based on the physically unreasonable or impossible.
To me a goalie can let in 6, and still have played well.
And you're welcome to your opinion for sure.
But why are you so defensive about Rittich?
His numbers in a much bigger sample size have been sub starter for 11 starts dating back to the beginning of the new year.
The reason is because DMs comparisons are so opinion based. Why are the saves that Rittich made not saveable but the ones Smith makes are? Even on obvious bad goals like the spin around one the other game we get explanations like the skate obstructed the view. When one goalie can do no wrong and the other goalie can do no right I tend to discount the opinion.
I see it as flawed. Some shots are physically impossible to stop, when placed perfectly enough and shot quickly enough. That is not something you appear to care about factoring in.
I consider Rittich to have been solid based on what appears to be physically possible in the situation.
To me a goalie can let in 6, and still have played well.
Your basic concept of Rittich letting in 6 perfect unstoppable goals is flawed.
On all of the goals Rittich was on his knees protecting the bottom of the net. Just staying up right before the shot would have given him a fighting chance. He was well back in the net and was not reading the play like a great goalie.
The "talent" that Tampa had was hitting the upper quarters of the net. The pucks were going in without touching either Rittich or the goal posts/ cross bars.
Talented teams like the Bolts, Flames, Jets, Sharks are going to have 5-10 high quality (eye test) scoring chances a game.... A good goalie reads the play, positions himself and saves at least half of them.
Relative to the rest of his play this year this was a substandard game.
If Smith was in goal there would be a general consensus that he cost the Flames the game.
His numbers in a much bigger sample size have been sub starter for 11 starts dating back to the beginning of the new year.
Not the conversation I thought we were having. Really, this isn’t even about Rittich, specifically. It’s about whether the goalie in this situation played well or not, based on shot quality and expectations.
I have shared my opinion on numbers such as save percentage. It is a flawed stat because of failure to factor in shot quality, and shot quality distribution
And this Tampa game is a poster boy for when the basic statistics don’t tell the whole story. That makes it conversation worthy.
Hrudey has said on the telly that a goalie can let in 5 but play well. I say the same. 6, even.
A lot of people look at stats, count shots and goals, and classify the play based on that.
When Kipper took the step change from .920 ish with Sutter and Playfair to sub .910 with Keenan, I didn’t think he forgot how to play net. Some people thought his play dropped off. He still was really damn good. Team D went by the wayside, and it affected his results. It’s a stat that needs context.
You and I both look at regular and advanced stats a lot.
I understand the flaws in how danger tier is classified, and also understand the concept of statistical significance.
Really what it comes down to is that you are looking at the outcome, based on numbers, and classifying the performance based on that. Not considering the detail and context behind those numbers.
I am more interested in how the goalie actually played.
You took offense to ‘spreadsheet take.’ (Fine, numbers based take - I know you can do math without a spreadsheet, but wasn’t the point)
No secret I like Rittich as a goalie, but that is because he is really good.
Just I can tell what is stoppable from what isn’t.
If Brian Burke can say he judges goalies based on what they should stop, not what they could stop, I won’t apologize for looking at things the same.
