Place Your Bets! (Vanek, Miller trade edition)

[Weave]

No offense Weave, but that was the interpretation I got too. You can't just focus on the stats that favor your point. You can say the quality of the shot is important, the location of the shot, the situation (PP or PK). And you are correct. But when you're comparing two goaltenders on the same team, none of the advanced stats are really that relevant because both goaltenders have the same team in front of them, and over the course of so man games they will both face similar shots in terms of quality, etc.

 

Some advanced stats are important to evaluate, but I'm not convinced this recent fad of highly advanced stats is really meaningful. 100 people could sit here and create some imaginative advanced stats and eventually somebody will look smart because it will highlight a point they are trying to prove..... until they enter all the other players from around the league and they find out their version of advanced stats isn't any more meaningful than the rest. Some of the things that have been posted on here regarding advanced stats are just silly.

 

A goaltenders job is to stop pucks. Period. There are many aspects to their game, no doubt. But no matter what they do an how they do it, at the end of the day they need to stop pucks.

 

Your interpretation of my post was " all of Millers goals came during pk's,, so if you remove that stat he has a better save percentage than Enroth? Emphasis on the 1st phrase? Because that was what I bolded to reply to. Frankly, it is an asinine interpretation of the point given the context of the prior posts.

 

Comparing goalies from the same team I think that PK performance has some relevance, even if it is limited due to sample size. But I don't think that PhD was limiting his commentary to Enroth vs. Miller, and in the case of league wide comparisons PK SV% has much less relevance.

 

No offence JJFIVEOH, your posts suggesting that advanced stats are cherry picking data to limit analysis to " Tuesdays, at home, when it's partly cloudy and wearing blue underwear" indicates pretty strongly to me that you have resorted to mocking that which you do not understand. ;)

[JJFIVEOH]

Your interpretation of my post was " all of Millers goals came during pk's,, so if you remove that stat he has a better save percentage than Enroth? Emphasis on the 1st phrase? Because that was what I bolded to reply to. Frankly, it is an asinine interpretation of the point given the context of the prior posts.

 

Comparing goalies from the same team I think that PK performance has some relevance, even if it is limited due to sample size. But I don't think that PhD was limiting his commentary to Enroth vs. Miller, and in the case of league wide comparisons PK SV% has much less relevance.

 

No offence JJFIVEOH, your posts suggesting that advanced stats are cherry picking data to limit analysis to " Tuesdays, at home, when it's partly cloudy and wearing blue underwear" indicates pretty strongly to me that you have resorted to mocking that which you do not understand. ;)

 

That's not quite the way I interpreted that. I interpreted it as saying we can narrow down the stats to find something that Miller was good at. Come on now, even you said some advanced stats have such a small data set that they're unreliable, now you say they have some relevance. Either way, it's not really the point right now.

 

I understand quite a bit, thanks. I was hoping you would understand the sarcasm. You can think of all the advanced stats that you want, but in the end they all add up to overall save percentage. Advanced stats are important for a coach and a player to determine what needs improvement, where a player's strengths and weaknesses are and can also be used to determine the weaknesses of opposing players. But that's where you draw the line. When it's all said and done, when comparing players, it's about the overall numbers because the advanced stats are used to improve a player's overall numbers.

[tom webster]

Well even if you break it down to even strength save %... Miller was 25th this season (15th among starters)... Enroth was 10th in the league (7th in starters if you call him a starter).

 

So advanced statistics say Miller is average/below average even still...

 

The biggest point to take home about analytics, they are worthless with such a small sample size as Enrioth offers.

Second biggest point, it takes some in depth objective analysis to make them worth anything.

Third biggest point, they are just another tool for someone to twist and mold to prove their point.

Carry on.

[Hoss]

The biggest point to take home about analytics, they are worthless with such a small sample size as Enrioth offers.

Second biggest point, it takes some in depth objective analysis to make them worth anything.

Third biggest point, they are just another tool for someone to twist and mold to prove their point.

Carry on.

 

I mean I don't really care for the Enroth argument. I just threw that in there because people always bring up Enroth.

 

What Enroth does doesn't have too much of an impact on any Miller decisions, in my opinion. The Miller decision is based on the what direction the team wants to go in and what direction Miller wants to go in. If the team doesn't want him here, trade him. If Miller doesn't want to be here, trade him. At least one of those two things are likely true.

[TrueBlueGED]

I'm not going to go back and quote 10ish different posts on the subject, so allow me to summarize:

 

1) As Weave said, I'm not limiting this to Enroth vs. Miller at all. I'm not cherry-picking statistics to say Miller is the greatest of all time. Cumulative save percentage isn't a bad stat, it's not like using +/- in a vacuum to evaluate a player. It's just that even strength save percentage is a better stat. It has superior predictive value, meaning current even strength save percentage can more accurately predict future goaltending performance than can cumulative save percentage. This isn't a myth, it's not a biased take to make Miller look better, it's just the way it is. If something has better predictive value, it's not a massive leap to suggest it also has better explanatory value, meaning it's a better indicator of current goaltender performance.

 

2) I don't even consider EVSV% to be an advanced stat, certainly not along the lines of Fenwick close. At its base level, it's taking a traditional statistic and purging it of meaningless error. Yes, SHSV% is meaningless error. How else do you explain regular ~15 point swings among top goaltenders? It's just a bad stat, and unless necessary (pre-1999 data), shouldn't be used.

 

3) As tom webster said, none of this really applies to Enroth because his sample size is just too small for any of it to matter. Without looking up the article, I believe with <200 games started, it doesn't matter what SV% statistic you use, they're basically pretty terrible at predicting future performance. Based on stats alone, Enroth could just as easily flourish into a good starter as become a mediocre backup, we just don't know yet.

 

4) In rebuttal to the "the goaltender's job is to stop the puck, regardless of situation" line of reasoning, I say: when constructing a team, you want to do the best you can to assemble a team that can compete as best as possible in the future. In doing so, you're going to want to use the statistics which best predict future results, and in this case, that is even strength save percentage rather than cumulative. When trying to build a contending team, why would you want to use a statistic which has less predictive value than an easily-accessed alternative?

[Hoss]

I'm not going to go back and quote 10ish different posts on the subject, so allow me to summarize:

 

1) As Weave said, I'm not limiting this to Enroth vs. Miller at all. I'm not cherry-picking statistics to say Miller is the greatest of all time. Cumulative save percentage isn't a bad stat, it's not like using +/- in a vacuum to evaluate a player. It's just that even strength save percentage is a better stat. It has superior predictive value, meaning current even strength save percentage can more accurately predict future goaltending performance than can cumulative save percentage. This isn't a myth, it's not a biased take to make Miller look better, it's just the way it is. If something has better predictive value, it's not a massive leap to suggest it also has better explanatory value, meaning it's a better indicator of current goaltender performance.

 

2) I don't even consider EVSV% to be an advanced stat, certainly not along the lines of Fenwick close. At its base level, it's taking a traditional statistic and purging it of meaningless error. Yes, SHSV% is meaningless error. How else do you explain regular ~15 point swings among top goaltenders? It's just a bad stat, and unless necessary (pre-1999 data), shouldn't be used.

 

3) As tom webster said, none of this really applies to Enroth because his sample size is just too small for any of it to matter. Without looking up the article, I believe with <200 games started, it doesn't matter what SV% statistic you use, they're basically pretty terrible at predicting future performance. Based on stats alone, Enroth could just as easily flourish into a good starter as become a mediocre backup, we just don't know yet.

 

4) In rebuttal to the "the goaltender's job is to stop the puck, regardless of situation" line of reasoning, I say: when constructing a team, you want to do the best you can to assemble a team that can compete as best as possible in the future. In doing so, you're going to want to use the statistics which best predict future results, and in this case, that is even strength save percentage rather than cumulative. When trying to build a contending team, why would you want to use a statistic which has less predictive value than an easily-accessed alternative?

 

I agree with the part about Enroth's sample size and all that. My listing of Enroth's stat wasn't really to add or subtract from the debate, I just know that a lot of people want to talk about him so I thought I'd leave that there for them.

 

My issue with the talk about "advanced" statistics (specifically even strength save %) with Miller is this: It STILL shows that he's been mediocre lately. It doesn't make him look better (or worse). It pretty much places him right where his regular statistics leave him: mediocrity. At least for this last season. So I'm not sure why it's being used to boost him back up when the % isn't even good.

 

So I was wondering why it's being used. Care to explain? Maybe I'm confused (likely)?

[TrueBlueGED]

I agree with the part about Enroth's sample size and all that. My listing of Enroth's stat wasn't really to add or subtract from the debate, I just know that a lot of people want to talk about him so I thought I'd leave that there for them.

 

My issue with the talk about "advanced" statistics (specifically even strength save %) with Miller is this: It STILL shows that he's been mediocre lately. It doesn't make him look better (or worse). It pretty much places him right where his regular statistics leave him: mediocrity. At least for this last season. So I'm not sure why it's being used to boost him back up when the % isn't even good.

 

So I was wondering why it's being used. Care to explain? Maybe I'm confused (likely)?

 

Simply, to refute the idea that he was great in his Vezina year and he's never reached that peak again. He has, and for all but 1 season since his won that trophy. Where that places him relative to the rest of the league is entirely unrelated to the point I'm trying to make.

 

(I could make the argument that Miller maintaining the same even strength save percentage in the face of the Sabres tanking possession numbers makes his recent performance more impressive than his Vezina season, but I"m not currently making that argument)

[JJFIVEOH]

I'm not going to go back and quote 10ish different posts on the subject, so allow me to summarize:

 

1) As Weave said, I'm not limiting this to Enroth vs. Miller at all. I'm not cherry-picking statistics to say Miller is the greatest of all time. Cumulative save percentage isn't a bad stat, it's not like using +/- in a vacuum to evaluate a player. It's just that even strength save percentage is a better stat. It has superior predictive value, meaning current even strength save percentage can more accurately predict future goaltending performance than can cumulative save percentage. This isn't a myth, it's not a biased take to make Miller look better, it's just the way it is. If something has better predictive value, it's not a massive leap to suggest it also has better explanatory value, meaning it's a better indicator of current goaltender performance.

 

2) I don't even consider EVSV% to be an advanced stat, certainly not along the lines of Fenwick close. At its base level, it's taking a traditional statistic and purging it of meaningless error. Yes, SHSV% is meaningless error. How else do you explain regular ~15 point swings among top goaltenders? It's just a bad stat, and unless necessary (pre-1999 data), shouldn't be used.

 

3) As tom webster said, none of this really applies to Enroth because his sample size is just too small for any of it to matter. Without looking up the article, I believe with <200 games started, it doesn't matter what SV% statistic you use, they're basically pretty terrible at predicting future performance. Based on stats alone, Enroth could just as easily flourish into a good starter as become a mediocre backup, we just don't know yet.

 

4) In rebuttal to the "the goaltender's job is to stop the puck, regardless of situation" line of reasoning, I say: when constructing a team, you want to do the best you can to assemble a team that can compete as best as possible in the future. In doing so, you're going to want to use the statistics which best predict future results, and in this case, that is even strength save percentage rather than cumulative. When trying to build a contending team, why would you want to use a statistic which has less predictive value than an easily-accessed alternative?

 

4) I'm sorry, I just can't buy it, that a GM drafts and trades for players based on a goaltender's EVSP. Especially when the difference between bad and great is tenths of a percentage point.

[Hoss]

Simply, to refute the idea that he was great in his Vezina year and he's never reached that peak again. He has, and for all but 1 season since his won that trophy. Where that places him relative to the rest of the league is entirely unrelated to the point I'm trying to make.

 

(I could make the argument that Miller maintaining the same even strength save percentage in the face of the Sabres tanking possession numbers makes his recent performance more impressive than his Vezina season, but I"m not currently making that argument)

 

Ah, alright. Well I guess that's a different argument then the one I'm trying to refute so it's more of a confusion on my point.

 

To be honest, I would still think we should trade Miller if he was playing above average because I just think it's right for the future of the team. (Probably wouldn't think that if he was among the league's best, but he's not so I guess that's irrelevant).

[TrueBlueGED]

4) I'm sorry, I just can't buy it, that a GM drafts and trades for players based on a goaltender's EVSP. Especially when the difference between bad and great is tenths of a percentage point.

 

I haven't made such an assertion. If you're a GM trying to address the goaltender position, there's a number of metrics available to base your selection on. Why would you choose the metric with less predictive value? This exercise can, and should, be completely independent of other potential player transactions.

 

Ah, alright. Well I guess that's a different argument then the one I'm trying to refute so it's more of a confusion on my point.

 

To be honest, I would still think we should trade Miller if he was playing above average because I just think it's right for the future of the team. (Probably wouldn't think that if he was among the league's best, but he's not so I guess that's irrelevant).

 

Seeing as I think we're in for a long-haul rebuild, I also think we should trade Miller. Doesn't make much sense to sign a 33 year old goaltender to a long-term extension when you won't compete until near the end of that extension.

[...]

 

 

(I could make the argument that Miller maintaining the same even strength save percentage in the face of the Sabres tanking possession numbers makes his recent performance more impressive than his Vezina season, but I"m not currently making that argument)

 

I almost wish you would, because it's a good argument. I'm not his biggest fan, but I do respect the guy. I think I would like to see him traded/moving on just to see what he'd do a on legitimately competitive team.

 

 

 

Seeing as I think we're in for a long-haul rebuild, I also think we should trade Miller. Doesn't make much sense to sign a 33 year old goaltender to a long-term extension when you won't compete until near the end of that extension.

 

It only makes sense if the team believes:

 

A) the rebuild will take one season

B) their only chance to not completely tank the next several seasons is to keep the only player who has kept their numbers mediocre (as opposed to horrible)

 

I'm not convinced yet that Regier is willing to intentionally tank a season or two, despite the fact he has made moves that nearly guarantee it. If Miller and Vanek go this season, then I might start leaning that way all other things being equal.

 

 

[JJFIVEOH]

I haven't made such an assertion. If you're a GM trying to address the goaltender position, there's a number of metrics available to base your selection on. Why would you choose the metric with less predictive value? This exercise can, and should, be completely independent of other potential player transactions.

 

Why stop there? Why not separate deflected shot save percentage, that's not predictive either. Screened shot save percentage? Hell, let's just narrow it down to 5 on 5, point blank, unscreened in regulation save percentage. Let's go one more step, each season before the year starts, every goaltender will face 20 different players from around the league in slap shots, breakaways and wrist shots. Each goaltender will then be given a ranking that will stay with them until the following year. It will take all variables out of the equation since each goaltender will all face identical tests. :P

 

Seriously, this was about Miller vs Enroth. Most of us agree Miller should be gone, so this is all moot. Even though Enroth had better numbers (the ones I'm concerned with) I think Miller has a bad attitude and will just be a distraction to a young team trying to find it's identity.

[Weave]

Why stop there? Why not separate deflected shot save percentage, that's not predictive either. Screened shot save percentage? Hell, let's just narrow it down to 5 on 5, point blank, unscreened in regulation save percentage. Let's go one more step, each season before the year starts, every goaltender will face 20 different players from around the league in slap shots, breakaways and wrist shots. Each goaltender will then be given a ranking that will stay with them until the following year. It will take all variables out of the equation since each goaltender will all face identical tests. :P

 

I know it was at least a bit tongue in cheek but this is what leads me to believe you still don't understand the use of stats. Yet another sarcastic post tries to paint a value that has good sample size and coverage of situations as one that is so specific as to have a focused area of use. Your dislike for the stat is totally misplaced. Even strength save % is exactly what you don't want to admit it to be, the situation with the most sample size, covering the largest number of shooting situations, and therefore most truly representative of goalie performance.

 

Seriously, this was about Miller vs Enroth. Most of us agree Miller should be gone, so this is all moot. Even though Enroth had better numbers (the ones I'm concerned with) I think Miller has a bad attitude and will just be a distraction to a young team trying to find it's identity.

 

I am totally ready to see a Miller-less Sabres. Not because of his attitutde or because of his stats. I think he'd be just fine attitude-wise on a team that puts in a good solid effort, and I think his numbers justify his salary. But I think the team needs to move on from him. Another change to make this rebuild more complete, a vet out and assets in. And, as mentioned above, there is no point in extending the goalie-for-now when this team doesn't have a now. I think Enroth is the right guy to proceed with. But it isn't because of any disparity in stats between he and Miller.

[JJFIVEOH]

I know it was at least a bit tongue in cheek but this is what leads me to believe you still don't understand the use of stats. Yet another sarcastic post tries to paint a value that has good sample size and coverage of situations as one that is so specific as to have a focused area of use. Your dislike for the stat is totally misplaced. Even strength save % is exactly what you don't want to admit it to be, the situation with the most sample size, covering the largest number of shooting situations, and therefore most truly representative of goalie performance.

 

 

I was being a little tongue in cheek myself, but I would like to know exactly what I'm misunderstanding. You can't just judge a player based on the largest data set and ignore the rest because they don't represent a dependable a data set because of their smaller size. Vanek had 0 goals in 24 games this past season.

[Weave]

I was being a little tongue in cheek myself, but I would like to know exactly what I'm misunderstanding. You can't just judge a player based on the largest data set and ignore the rest because they don't represent a dependable a data set because of their smaller size. Vanek had 0 goals in 24 goals this past season.

 

TBPhD is probably a much better source for this than I am but I'll give it a shot. The part I bolded is exactly what you attempt to do with predictive statistics. If the largest, broadest statistical set available is not a reliable predictor of performance (and straight up SV% is exactly that, unreliable as a performance predictor. TBPhD mentioned Y-T-Y swings on the order of 15pts. That is huge) then you break the data down into subsets to determine which if any subset is a reliable predictor of performance. TBPhD touched on it upthread, Y-T-Y overall SV% swings pretty wildly for nearly every goalie in the league, making it a terrible predictor of performance. But if you break out even strength SV% the year to year swings are much, much smaller and make it a much more reliable predictor of performance.

 

It isn't about massaging the data to find a subset that makes Miller look better. Frankly, it isn't TBPhD's data. The data is from independent sources that have 0 vested interest in the Miller should stay/go debate.

[Ross Rhea]

I know it was at least a bit tongue in cheek but this is what leads me to believe you still don't understand the use of stats. Yet another sarcastic post tries to paint a value that has good sample size and coverage of situations as one that is so specific as to have a focused area of use. Your dislike for the stat is totally misplaced. Even strength save % is exactly what you don't want to admit it to be, the situation with the most sample size, covering the largest number of shooting situations, and therefore most truly representative of goalie performance.

 

 

 

I am totally ready to see a Miller-less Sabres. Not because of his attitutde or because of his stats. I think he'd be just fine attitude-wise on a team that puts in a good solid effort, and I think his numbers justify his salary. But I think the team needs to move on from him. Another change to make this rebuild more complete, a vet out and assets in. And, as mentioned above, there is no point in extending the goalie-for-now when this team doesn't have a now. I think Enroth is the right guy to proceed with. But it isn't because of any disparity in stats between he and Miller.

 

In the end what does this matter? It was all about trying to prove Miller as better than Enroth. Even though his sample size is smaller, it is proven out by the "advance stats" that Miller is actually statistically worse than Enroth in just about every stat and with the identical same team in front of him. The constant Miller justification excuses are maddening.

[JJFIVEOH]

TBPhD is probably a much better source for this than I am but I'll give it a shot. The part I bolded is exactly what you attempt to do with predictive statistics. If the largest, broadest statistical set available is not a reliable predictor of performance (and straight up SV% is exactly that, unreliable as a performance predictor. TBPhD mentioned Y-T-Y swings on the order of 15pts. That is huge) then you break the data down into subsets to determine which if any subset is a reliable predictor of performance. TBPhD touched on it upthread, Y-T-Y overall SV% swings pretty wildly for nearly every goalie in the league, making it a terrible predictor of performance. But if you break out even strength SV% the year to year swings are much, much smaller and make it a much more reliable predictor of performance.

 

It isn't about massaging the data to find a subset that makes Miller look better. Frankly, it isn't TBPhD's data. The data is from independent sources that have 0 vested interest in the Miller should stay/go debate.

 

Trust me, I see where both of you guys are coming from. Advanced stats can be helpful and beneficial in many ways. Although, I think the majority of the benefits are for helping to improve a players game. Whether or not Miller allows so many shorthanded goals which brings down his overall numbers, the fact is he still allows those shorthanded goals and it counts on the scoresheet. When it comes down to Vezina balloting, the league doesn't say "Well this guy finished with the best save percentage, but this guy deserves it because if you take out all the statistical anomalies he was the best goalie in the league." It doesn't work like that. If you really want to sugarcoat it, then we need to label each shot, based on difficulty, that Miller and Enroth faced throughout the entire year because I would bet that Enroth faced tougher shots. After that, take the save percentage and factor in difficulty rating. Enroth got the majority of his starts AFTER Darcy traded away key veterans and Enroth was left with an inexperienced D-core in front of him.

 

To me, comparing two players by bringing up advanced stats is simply sugarcoating the message. I see your point completely and I respect your opinion. I just happen to disagree. ;)

[TrueBlueGED]

I was being a little tongue in cheek myself, but I would like to know exactly what I'm misunderstanding. You can't just judge a player based on the largest data set and ignore the rest because they don't represent a dependable a data set because of their smaller size. Vanek had 0 goals in 24 games this past season.

 

Actually you can, and you should. Why in the world would you want to make future bets based on unreliable data, or more specifically to this case, data which is unnecessarily muddied? If you're betting on the future (which is essentially what GMs do when they hand out contracts), don't you want to make your bets based on the best available data? And if one measure has proven to have better predictive power, wouldn't you want to use that as opposed to an alternative with less predictive power? You still haven't answered this fundamental question, so I'll ask a third time: why would you choose to use a metric which has less predictive power than an easily-accessed alternative?

 

Trust me, I see where both of you guys are coming from. Advanced stats can be helpful and beneficial in many ways. Although, I think the majority of the benefits are for helping to improve a players game. Whether or not Miller allows so many shorthanded goals which brings down his overall numbers, the fact is he still allows those shorthanded goals and it counts on the scoresheet. When it comes down to Vezina balloting, the league doesn't say "Well this guy finished with the best save percentage, but this guy deserves it because if you take out all the statistical anomalies he was the best goalie in the league." It doesn't work like that. If you really want to sugarcoat it, then we need to label each shot, based on difficulty, that Miller and Enroth faced throughout the entire year because I would bet that Enroth faced tougher shots. After that, take the save percentage and factor in difficulty rating. Enroth got the majority of his starts AFTER Darcy traded away key veterans and Enroth was left with an inexperienced D-core in front of him.

 

To me, comparing two players by bringing up advanced stats is simply sugarcoating the message. I see your point completely and I respect your opinion. I just happen to disagree. ;)

 

Just because Vezina balloting doesn't work that way, doesn't mean it shouldn't. It's like when Lupul said contracts aren't handed out on the basis of Corsi...maybe not, but they probably should be. Once again, PKSV% is not meanigful data when trying to assess goaltending ability--it's too random and too small of a sample to draw any conclusions from. There's a reason why SV% becomes a better predictor of future performance when special teams are removed from it.

 

Regarding shot difficulty and defense quality, there's actually a substantial number of articles that show blue line quality has nothing to do with goaltender performance. There's also research showing that shot quality evens out over time so as long as your sample size is large enough, tracking individual shot quality would be pointless. And once again, for emphasis, none of this stuff can be applied to Enroth anyway because his total sample of games started and shots faced is too small for the variance to have worked itself out yet. He needs to gather at least three times as many starts as he has for statistics to be used in any meaningful way with him.

[JJFIVEOH]

OK, Miller is the best thing since sliced bread. It seems like you're just contradicting everything I say now, just for entertainment.

 

 

Factor attitude into any one of these cherry picked stats. Because Miller's attitude sucks and he's a distraction. He can be the best goaltender in the league even strength, on Tuesdays, at home (but not blue line strength because that doesn't count, neither do point blank shots from 16.5-21 feet out) and it all doesn't matter because he's detrimental to the team.

[Eleven]

OK, Miller is the best thing since sliced bread. It seems like you're just contradicting everything I say now, just for entertainment.

 

 

Factor attitude into any one of these cherry picked stats. Because Miller's attitude sucks and he's a distraction. He can be the best goaltender in the league even strength, on Tuesdays, at home (but not blue line strength because that doesn't count, neither do point blank shots from 16.5-21 feet out) and it all doesn't matter because he's detrimental to the team.

 

No he's not.

[Ross Rhea]

Actually you can, and you should. Why in the world would you want to make future bets based on unreliable data, or more specifically to this case, data which is unnecessarily muddied? If you're betting on the future (which is essentially what GMs do when they hand out contracts), don't you want to make your bets based on the best available data? And if one measure has proven to have better predictive power, wouldn't you want to use that as opposed to an alternative with less predictive power? You still haven't answered this fundamental question, so I'll ask a third time: why would you choose to use a metric which has less predictive power than an easily-accessed alternative?

 

 

 

Just because Vezina balloting doesn't work that way, doesn't mean it shouldn't. It's like when Lupul said contracts aren't handed out on the basis of Corsi...maybe not, but they probably should be. Once again, PKSV% is not meanigful data when trying to assess goaltending ability--it's too random and too small of a sample to draw any conclusions from. There's a reason why SV% becomes a better predictor of future performance when special teams are removed from it.

 

Regarding shot difficulty and defense quality, there's actually a substantial number of articles that show blue line quality has nothing to do with goaltender performance. There's also research showing that shot quality evens out over time so as long as your sample size is large enough, tracking individual shot quality would be pointless. And once again, for emphasis, none of this stuff can be applied to Enroth anyway because his total sample of games started and shots faced is too small for the variance to have worked itself out yet. He needs to gather at least three times as many starts as he has for statistics to be used in any meaningful way with him.

 

So all the Miller fans can stop using "the defense sucks in front of him" excuse?

[TrueBlueGED]

So all the Miller fans can stop using "the defense sucks in front of him" excuse?

 

Poor phrasing on my part. What I meant was individual defenders make about zero difference. Quality team defense, and more importantly puck possession, are different matters entirely.

[JJFIVEOH]

No he's not.

 

:lol:

[Paul Kruse]

He epseciallly mad.

[Hoss]

Poor phrasing on my part. What I meant was individual defenders make about zero difference. Quality team defense, and more importantly puck possession, are different matters entirely.

 

Which, to me, means that coaching/system is the biggest part of how team defense performs. Which is something I've always thought. There's no denying that it's been nothing but trash in front of Miller for a few years now.

 

But I think he might have experience so many struggles over a few years that he might be broken goods at this point. So I don't really know if the idea of him going to a team with a better defense will make him perform at a high level again.

 

I know it was at least a bit tongue in cheek but this is what leads me to believe you still don't understand the use of stats. Yet another sarcastic post tries to paint a value that has good sample size and coverage of situations as one that is so specific as to have a focused area of use. Your dislike for the stat is totally misplaced. Even strength save % is exactly what you don't want to admit it to be, the situation with the most sample size, covering the largest number of shooting situations, and therefore most truly representative of goalie performance.

 

Technically, overall save percentage would represent this. But I understand what you're getting at.