Johnny DangerFace Posted February 19, 2014 Report Share Posted February 19, 2014 You can't eyeball correlations. Period. Even if they look random. This year may be a correlation, and last year there may not have been meaning they don't contradict each other Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJFIVEOH Posted February 19, 2014 Report Share Posted February 19, 2014 You can't eyeball correlations. Period. Even if they look random. This year may be a correlation, and last year there may not have been meaning they don't contradict each other If there was a correlation between shots on goal and save percentage, then there would be consistency year after year. In this case, there isn't. The trendline isn't there for appearance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted February 19, 2014 Report Share Posted February 19, 2014 This year, yes it shows that the more shots a goaltender faces the less likely they are to have a high save percentage. Last year on the other hand was just the opposite. Based on the fact that the trends do not agree with each other and the fact that there is relatively no grouping in the scatterplot tells me that save percentages have little to nothing to do with number of shots faced per game. If I have time I'll put together 2011-12 when there was a full season. If there was a correlation between shots on goal and save percentage, then there would be consistency year after year. In this case, there isn't. The trendline isn't there for appearance. Okay I am following you now. Does Miller have an increase or decrease based on shots per game average? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spndnchz Posted February 19, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2014 You can't eyeball correlations. Period. Even if they look random. This year may be a correlation, and last year there may not have been meaning they don't contradict each other But what about the correlation of Ryan's eyeballs? :blink: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Dwight Drane Posted February 19, 2014 Report Share Posted February 19, 2014 If there was a correlation between shots on goal and save percentage, then there would be consistency year after year. In this case, there isn't. The trendline isn't there for appearance. Well.. 1) How many penalties have been called this year compared to last year, thus creating a possible shooting gallery effect? 2) How many different goalies have played this year compared to last year, and how has their workload been different over the course of the season? 3) How has the change in systems of new coaches effected both the quality and amount of shots faced by goaltenders on the same team? 4) How has the change in rules, specifically no touch icing, effect both the amount of faceoffs in offensive zones, and freshness of players? etc., etc., etc. This is why the eye test rules. You can spend the next 3 years finding the proper variables for this year, and by the time you do the whole thing has changed again. But....I do appreciate the info and effort. The first thing I did was to look at Lundqvist under AV over Torts. Then Luongo. But what about the correlation of Ryan's eyeballs? :blink: Chz...where you been? Hope the job is treating you well. I know you are joking, but in years past, the discussion about Miller giving up goals in the last minute of the period has included this. If indeed Miller relies on hyperfocusing, then like most accidents occur within 1 mile of the home....his happen within 1 minute of intermission. He could very well be relaxing, even subconsciously. You know how you can be in the car for an hour....and once you get a minute away from the house, you feel like you really need to pee? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny DangerFace Posted February 19, 2014 Report Share Posted February 19, 2014 If there was a correlation between shots on goal and save percentage, then there would be consistency year after year. In this case, there isn't. The trendline isn't there for appearance. I'm just saying correlations are a statistical measurement, but no ones doing any stats. So they don't mean anything! Booooo that's the nerdy stats guy in me. I'll leave now, go sabres. Ummm go Ulmark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJFIVEOH Posted February 19, 2014 Report Share Posted February 19, 2014 Okay I am following you now. Does Miller have an increase or decrease based on shots per game average? It appears he performs better with more shots on goal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Dwight Drane Posted February 19, 2014 Report Share Posted February 19, 2014 Olympics! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGR4GM Posted February 19, 2014 Report Share Posted February 19, 2014 It appears he performs better with more shots on goal. Thank you that is really interesting. Obviously this would very by netminder but it appears Miller is better when more involved in the game. Hard to say but I may come back to this tomorrow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJFIVEOH Posted February 19, 2014 Report Share Posted February 19, 2014 (edited) Well.. 1) How many penalties have been called this year compared to last year, thus creating a possible shooting gallery effect? 2) How many different goalies have played this year compared to last year, and how has their workload been different over the course of the season? 3) How has the change in systems of new coaches effected both the quality and amount of shots faced by goaltenders on the same team? 4) How has the change in rules, specifically no touch icing, effect both the amount of faceoffs in offensive zones, and freshness of players? etc., etc., etc. You've supported my point that some advanced stats become too advanced to have any theoretical significance. At what point do you include so many variables that makes each case completely irrelevant because there is simply no way to find any correlation anywhere? If you can't take a broad statistic and find some kind of correlation, ther certianly isn't going to be any thing to be found the deeper you dig. All the variables you mention are meaningless (as you point out) because there doesn't appear to be any correlation between the two major varibales that I compared already. If there was a correlation then you could dig deeper to find why some goaltenders have a higher save percentage. I did this just to find if there was a correlation. I used to be a goaltender and I preferred to have a high workload. I think I was sharper and mentally it kept me from thinking too much if I had more to do. Now we can sit here and look at Miller's record with 40+ shots, I recall he had some insane winning percentage when faced with a ton of shots which tells me that he thrives when the team plays a wide open game. I also remember some stat about Craig Anderson having a super high win percentage when faced with 40+ shots. I wanted to see if there was a pattern. Apparently not. Edited February 19, 2014 by JJFIVEOH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted February 19, 2014 Report Share Posted February 19, 2014 Shots and save percentage and pretty much every goalie stat is so hard to actually draw anything out of. Certain teams approach games/specific goaltenders very differently. You could have a team that goes by the theory of just putting it on net, hoping for a tip of deflection. If you aren't getting those tips and deflections then it could just be a lot of weak shots and easy saves that translates to little scoring. You could have a team that is very selective and only takes a few shots because they want to find the perfect spot. This could translate to more scoring than just firing 50 at the net because maybe you have better shooters who can snipe one on any opportunity. We've seen some bad teams put up a lot of shots and not score and some good teams only put up a few and score a lot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spndnchz Posted February 19, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2014 Well.. 1) How many penalties have been called this year compared to last year, thus creating a possible shooting gallery effect? 2) How many different goalies have played this year compared to last year, and how has their workload been different over the course of the season? 3) How has the change in systems of new coaches effected both the quality and amount of shots faced by goaltenders on the same team? 4) How has the change in rules, specifically no touch icing, effect both the amount of faceoffs in offensive zones, and freshness of players? etc., etc., etc. This is why the eye test rules. You can spend the next 3 years finding the proper variables for this year, and by the time you do the whole thing has changed again. But....I do appreciate the info and effort. The first thing I did was to look at Lundqvist under AV over Torts. Then Luongo. Chz...where you been? Hope the job is treating you well. I know you are joking, but in years past, the discussion about Miller giving up goals in the last minute of the period has included this. If indeed Miller relies on hyperfocusing, then like most accidents occur within 1 mile of the home....his happen within 1 minute of intermission. He could very well be relaxing, even subconsciously. You know how you can be in the car for an hour....and once you get a minute away from the house, you feel like you really need to pee? Job is awesome. I'm still reading everything (except the political thread, lol) Just don't have much time to put a coherent post together. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jsixspd Posted February 21, 2014 Report Share Posted February 21, 2014 (edited) Shut outs don't matter at all.... except when they matter... like in the Canada/US game today. Of course that wasn't an important game or anything..... :rolleyes: Oh, and also.... I bet if Miller had earned 4 or 5 shutouts a season for the last couple years... we'd be hearing that it was another indicator that Miller was great from some of the same who contest it doesn't make any difference at all. Edited February 21, 2014 by Jsixspd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny DangerFace Posted February 21, 2014 Report Share Posted February 21, 2014 Shut outs don't matter at all.... except when they matter... like in the Canada/US game today. Of course that wasn't an important game or anything..... :rolleyes: Oh, and also.... I bet if Miller had earned 4 or 5 shutouts a season for the last couple years... we'd be hearing that it was another indicator that Miller was great from some of the same who contest it doesn't make any difference at all. "A shutout occurred today. That means it's an indicator of quality of goalie. Miller doesn't have shutouts" Don't you ever wonder why no one else uses number of shutouts to measure quality of goalie? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jsixspd Posted February 22, 2014 Report Share Posted February 22, 2014 They don't matter specifically because it's a statistic that Miller falls off the radar screen in, because he hasn't achieved one in years. But I'm quite confident that those stating it isn't important - if Miller were within the top ten in that stat - they would use it to demonstrate how good Miller is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoss Posted February 22, 2014 Report Share Posted February 22, 2014 Since we're a few days away from the trade freeze being lifted, let's see if the opinion has changed at all: Where does Ryan Miller end up? -Minnesota? -Washington? -St. Louis? -Anaheim? -Does Ryan Miller get the rare shutout (on the trade market) and end up staying? -Other? (Specify) I'll go with St. Louis. I flip flop on this daily, but I think St. Louis realizes that Halak isn't their guy. Especially after watching one of the worst Olympic performances by a goalie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claude_Verret Posted February 22, 2014 Report Share Posted February 22, 2014 Im exhausted. Ryan Miller can't become an ex-Sabre soon enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lanny Posted February 22, 2014 Report Share Posted February 22, 2014 (edited) Since we're a few days away from the trade freeze being lifted, let's see if the opinion has changed at all: Where does Ryan Miller end up? I think St Louis as well, Sabres get an above average prospect in return. St Louis has too much going for them to risk not making a move that can improve their goaltending. Edited February 22, 2014 by Lanny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted February 22, 2014 Report Share Posted February 22, 2014 They don't matter specifically because it's a statistic that Miller falls off the radar screen in, because he hasn't achieved one in years. But I'm quite confident that those stating it isn't important - if Miller were within the top ten in that stat - they would use it to demonstrate how good Miller is. It's taking every fiber of my being to be cordial in my response. You're wrong. You're wrong about this statement, about the "value" of shutouts, and about the importance of plus/minus that you tout all the time. Just stop with statistics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJFIVEOH Posted February 22, 2014 Report Share Posted February 22, 2014 Mark my words, Miller won't get moved at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny DangerFace Posted February 22, 2014 Report Share Posted February 22, 2014 (edited) It's taking every fiber of my being to be cordial in my response. You're wrong. You're wrong about this statement, about the "value" of shutouts, and about the importance of plus/minus that you tout all the time. Just stop with statistics. It's just ridiculous and makes no sense. It is trolling in my opinion. Miller has no shutouts he is therefore not good LOL. Mark my words, Miller won't get moved at all. You think he resigns? Edited February 22, 2014 by Numark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trettioåtta Posted February 22, 2014 Report Share Posted February 22, 2014 It's taking every fiber of my being to be cordial in my response. You're wrong. You're wrong about this statement, about the "value" of shutouts, and about the importance of plus/minus that you tout all the time. Just stop with statistics. It's just ridiculous and makes no sense. It is trolling in my opinion. Miller has no shutouts he is therefore not good LOL. Don't argue with idiots because they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJFIVEOH Posted February 22, 2014 Report Share Posted February 22, 2014 (edited) You think he resigns? Not sure what's going to happen. I just get this feeling that the trade deadline will be very anticlimactic. I don't think Murray is going to get enough offered in return to ship Miller out and he'll rather keep him here and try to re-sign him before the season ends..... gives them time to try and convince him to stay. Nothing against Miller, I just don't see a playoff bound team making a move that significant and I don't see a non-playoff team trading for a pending UFA. St. Louis might be in need of a goaltender, but they have a team with pretty good chemistry and I don't see them risking losing that chemistry (good or bad) before the playoffs start. Edited February 22, 2014 by JJFIVEOH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lanny Posted February 22, 2014 Report Share Posted February 22, 2014 (edited) Mark my words, Miller won't get moved at all. You think he resigns? I think it's feasible that Murray walks, he said GMs were testing him. If all he's getting offered is a 2nd or lower I could see him making a point for future deals. But he also made a point of wanting to take care of the player, and keeping Miller here for the rest of the year certainly doesn't do that. Edited February 22, 2014 by Lanny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudacek Posted February 22, 2014 Report Share Posted February 22, 2014 Mark my words, Miller won't get moved at all. Mark mine, he will. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.