Dan Vladar and his advanced stats

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

^^ Yeah, but who has been luckier than Boston when it comes to goalies.

Thomas comes out of nowhere at age 28 and proceeds to put up numbers for years. Thomas getting really old? Well, let's see which of the Leafs' two prospect goalies we can trade for. They want to keep Pogge? OK, we'll trade for Rask. Rask is getting old? OK, we have Swayman - he looks good. And Buffalo let Ullmark walk? Let's grab him, making Vladar expendable.

Note: Vladar was traded and Ullmark signed on the same day - not sure what happened first, but it's clear Calgary wasn't in any Ullmark sweepstakes.

At what point to you attribute the luck to skill / development system / etc

Losers blame luck

[Toonage]

Originally Posted by Goriders

So does Wolf

lol, well yeah. Wolf has to work harder to cover his corners.

Vladar starts in his butterfly.

One is making life far more difficult on themselves.

[DeluxeMoustache]

I know people look at these new stats and think they are meaningful

Just a quick note on what xG and GSAx are

Every shot taken is classified by data such as its location, shot type, plus some other info on the preceding event. And it has a probability reflecting the likelihood of a shot within that bucket of shots similarly classified. xG (upon which GSAx is based) adds it all up and spits out a number

What it does not factor in are things like team defensive position, pressure the shooter is under, goalie positioning, the skill of the shooter, or where the shot goes off of the stick.

MacKinnon’s blast over his shoulder beside his head has the same xG contribution as a shot from same location by Kevin Rooney that is drilled straight in to the goalie’s logo. Both goalies are judged equally by the model on the outcome, because those shots have certain specific common attributes. But they are very different shots, demanding quite different responses from the goalies.

The open net tap in by Rantaanen that was fumbled by Weegar has the same xG as a shot from the same location with a goalie perfectly square and nothing to shoot at.

When Pachal fumbles the puck, and Carolina has a 2 on 0 perfectly executed and blasted past the goalie, that shot has a xG contribution based on the bucket of shot with similar basic attributes, taken by all players of all skill levels

A new sub NHL calibre D corps in shambles is giving up a lot of ridiculous opportunities where the goalie has to move laterally


Advanced stats aren’t that sophisticated. They don’t reflect what a goalie actually has to do on each shot.

If you just use your head and look at Colorado’s xG total on the night, you’d have to be a fool to think they only should have gotten that number of goals on the actual shots they got.

It only takes a few stinkers of games to have those stats build up, and the Canes and Avs games were exactly those kind of games

The D played like crap, the team watched the other team dictate the play, turned over pucks, missed checks, and they were horribly outplayed

There can be a difference between generally bad teams, and teams that have numerous egregious costly breakdowns

When you give high skilled shooters time and space and grade A opportunities, they will capitalize. When you make a habit of doing it repeatedly, then you will have results outlying statistical norms

To point at a simple model (just because they call it advanced stats doesn’t mean it is anything too sophisticated) and come to some conclusions about the goalie seems inadequate when you take a closer look and understand what the numbers are actually based upon

[Roof-Daddy]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

^^ Yeah, but who has been luckier than Boston when it comes to goalies.

Thomas comes out of nowhere at age 28 and proceeds to put up numbers for years. Thomas getting really old? Well, let's see which of the Leafs' two prospect goalies we can trade for. They want to keep Pogge? OK, we'll trade for Rask. Rask is getting old? OK, we have Swayman - he looks good. And Buffalo let Ullmark walk? Let's grab him, making Vladar expendable.

Note: Vladar was traded and Ullmark signed on the same day - not sure what happened first, but it's clear Calgary wasn't in any Ullmark sweepstakes.

I wanted the Flames to sign Ullmark, but I didn't think he's get a 4 years and $20 million and there was no way for the Flames to get him on that contract. He had a rough go in Buffalo, but who wouldn't? I thought there was a good goalie in there but thought he was looking at a show me contract. Boston was smart.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

I know people look at these new stats and think they are meaningful

Just a quick note on what xG and GSAx are

Every shot taken is classified by data such as its location, shot type, plus some other info on the preceding event. And it has a probability reflecting the likelihood of a shot within that bucket of shots similarly classified. xG (upon which GSAx is based) adds it all up and spits out a number

What it does not factor in are things like team defensive position, pressure the shooter is under, goalie positioning, the skill of the shooter, or where the shot goes off of the stick.

MacKinnon’s blast over his shoulder beside his head has the same xG contribution as a shot from same location by Kevin Rooney that is drilled straight in to the goalie’s logo. Both goalies are judged equally by the model on the outcome, because those shots have certain specific common attributes. But they are very different shots, demanding quite different responses from the goalies.

The open net tap in by Rantaanen that was fumbled by Weegar has the same xG as a shot from the same location with a goalie perfectly square and nothing to shoot at.

When Pachal fumbles the puck, and Carolina has a 2 on 0 perfectly executed and blasted past the goalie, that shot has a xG contribution based on the bucket of shot with similar basic attributes, taken by all players of all skill levels

A new sub NHL calibre D corps in shambles is giving up a lot of ridiculous opportunities where the goalie has to move laterally


Advanced stats aren’t that sophisticated. They don’t reflect what a goalie actually has to do on each shot.

If you just use your head and look at Colorado’s xG total on the night, you’d have to be a fool to think they only should have gotten that number of goals on the actual shots they got.

It only takes a few stinkers of games to have those stats build up, and the Canes and Avs games were exactly those kind of games

The D played like crap, the team watched the other team dictate the play, turned over pucks, missed checks, and they were horribly outplayed

There can be a difference between generally bad teams, and teams that have numerous egregious costly breakdowns

When you give high skilled shooters time and space and grade A opportunities, they will capitalize. When you make a habit of doing it repeatedly, then you will have results outlying statistical norms

To point at a simple model (just because they call it advanced stats doesn’t mean it is anything too sophisticated) and come to some conclusions about the goalie seems inadequate when you take a closer look and understand what the numbers are actually based upon

Tell me you keep this in a side file to copy and paste 6 times a year!

[Zary's-Mustache]

Dont want to quote that long post up there but your argument is weird because Markstrom plays in front of same team and his stats and advanced stats are some of the best in the nhl.

Do these stat counters favor markstrom and not Vladar?

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Zary's-Mustache

Dont want to quote that long post up there but your argument is weird because Markstrom plays in front of same team and his stats and advanced stats are some of the best in the nhl.

Do these stat counters favor markstrom and not Vladar?

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

At what point to you attribute the luck to skill / development system / etc

Boston didn't develop Ullmark. They were lucky that he was a UFA in a year when they had space to sign a goalie.

Boston is also a large U.S. market and an Original Six team. These things are not a matter of luck, but they certainly give a team an advantage that has nothing to do with either skill or development.

Losers blame luck

Well, duh. Winners aren't looking for anyone to blame. ‘Oh, noes! We didn't really earn that Stanley Cup. We only won it because X, Y, and Z’ – said no team ever.

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Bingo

This post has been sponsored by Red Wigglers, the Cadillac of worms!

[Erick Estrada]

I expect something will give in the offseason as the team will likely want to have Wolf pencilled in for next season. I can't imagine Vladar has any trade market being owed $2.2 million next season which is a lot for a guy that should probably be playing in the AHL.

[sketchyt]

Originally Posted by Zary's-Mustache

Dont want to quote that long post up there but your argument is weird because Markstrom plays in front of same team and his stats and advanced stats are some of the best in the nhl.

Do these stat counters favor markstrom and not Vladar?

It's a long post because it's a thoughtful one. I know it's weird to you, but you should really look into that.

And also, the argument is Markstrom is better than Vladar? Wow, expert analysis. No one ever argued that.

I'm not a Vladar fan, but spot duty with far less games will throw off stats.

[Toonage]

^^ I'm certain Markstrom will move, I'm just less certain it will be to New Jersey or for the return we all expect(ed)

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Tell me you keep this in a side file to copy and paste 6 times a year!

I freshened up the examples!

[Zary's-Mustache]

Originally Posted by sketchyt

It's a long post because it's a thoughtful one. I know it's weird to you, but you should really look into that.

And also, the argument is Markstrom is better than Vladar? Wow, expert analysis. No one ever argued that.

I'm not a Vladar fan, but spot duty with far less games will throw off stats.

So those advanced stats do a good job of telling a story. Not science but a great tool.

[ST20]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

To point at a simple model (just because they call it advanced stats doesn’t mean it is anything too sophisticated) and come to some conclusions about the goalie seems inadequate when you take a closer look and understand what the numbers are actually based upon

It's always good to give context and I appreciate the explanation.

However, this is not a one game issue. This is a 2-year issue with the majority of his games played with a full non-rebuilding line up. He's been 0.889 in save percentage over 47 games over the last two seasons and makes $2.2MM this year and next. You don't need advanced stats, or cherry-picked stats to see that he hasn't been good.

He's had some great AHL seasons against AHL shooters so why not send him down to work on his game and confidence while giving Wolf some deserved games. If someone claims him so what? The Flames get another $2.2MM in cap space to use next year while they get to see what they have in Wolf.

*edit: I would also argue that over a large sample size advanced stats become more meaningful because single game outliers tend to get averaged out. Shots from certain dangerous areas over a large sample size are generally more likely to go in than shots from non-dangerous areas. I think 47 games is a sufficient sample size without doing all the math.

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by sketchyt

It's a long post because it's a thoughtful one. I know it's weird to you, but you should really look into that.

And also, the argument is Markstrom is better than Vladar? Wow, expert analysis. No one ever argued that.

I'm not a Vladar fan, but spot duty with far less games will throw off stats.

It is a legit question about two goaltenders on the same team. A variance on the same team is definitely interesting especially when someone is saying they are disadvantageous towards Vladar.



I don't really have a horse in this race but people need to chill lol

[Bingo]

Yeah the numbers (model/methodology) can improve, but the numbers are consistent goaltender to goaltender.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Yeah the numbers (model/methodology) can improve, but the numbers are consistent goaltender to goaltender.

How about we look at it another way.

Rewatch the 13 goals over the last 2 games, and with no model whatsoever, ask yourself ‘should he / the average goalie have stopped that’?

The xG for those games were 3.21 and 3.02

Did those games against the Canes and Avs look like 3-2 games to you?

Because that’s what the fancy stats say they were, and that’s why some people are questioning the tending

Be honest

Are those what nice tight 3-2 games look like?
Or did they look very different in terms of skill and execution from both sides

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

How about we look at it another way.

Rewatch the 13 goals over the last 2 games, and with no model whatsoever, ask yourself ‘should he / the average goalie have stopped that’?

The xG for those games were 3.21 and 3.02

Did those games against the Canes and Avs look like 3-2 games to you?

Because that’s what the fancy stats say they were, and that’s why some people are questioning the tending

Be honest

Are those what nice tight 3-2 games look like?
Or did they look very different in terms of skill and execution from both sides

I'm always honest, first off.

I agree to a point for sure on the last two games. They were not that close. But score effects changed the trend in both.

Both games had the other team run up the score and then call it a day letting the Flames take over for the final 15-25 minutes and even up the end results.

If a goalie is ranked 63rd out of 63 goalies in low danger save percentage he's probably not having a great season.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

Boston didn't develop Ullmark. They were lucky that he was a UFA in a year when they had space to sign a goalie.

Boston is also a large U.S. market and an Original Six team. These things are not a matter of luck, but they certainly give a team an advantage that has nothing to do with either skill or development.



Well, duh. Winners aren't looking for anyone to blame. ‘Oh, noes! We didn't really earn that Stanley Cup. We only won it because X, Y, and Z’ – said no team ever.

Boston didn't do much to develop Rask either. He was Euro-trained mainly. And Toronto got impatient and wanted a starter right away, so they asked for former Calder winner Raycroft.