Islanders Rx: More offense, better defense, level goaltending

Fun question, big question. Need to replace Park’s FO ability on the PK, probably Sutton’s presence, and frankly need to be better than last year.

I suppose at forward, that’s an area where they might pick up an inexpensive guy late in the summer.

If your team has a terrible PK unit, you’re going to see a lot of turnover trying to find the right players to fix it. At the end of the year, you’re going to see a lot of those people leave the team.

One really good sign: taking so many fewer penalties than last season and drawing more than they gave up. That shows that they’re being taught properly and executing well, but the resulting percentages show that they don’t have the skill to capitalize…. not yet, anyway. But I can see a sudden jump forward considering that they have so many young players still growing into their talents.

This is going to be a very hard team to call.

Good point. That reminds me of you bringing that up during the season, how they were suffering on nights where they faced a lot of PPs. I bet that’s another huge variable in the alchemic PK mix that doesn’t show up in the season-long numbers. I don’t know how to systematically account for that.

For comparison I looked up some other poor-to-average teams. The results actually surprised me:

BUF: 26 @ 5+ PK
TB: 28 @ 5+
CLG: 27 @5+
StL: 34 @ 5+ (ouch)

COLO: 23 @ 5+, then 3 of 5 games in playoffs
DET: 12 @ 5+, then 8 of 12 (!) games in playoffs
NJ: 9 @ 5+, then 4 of 5 in playoffs
MON: 28 @ 5+, then 8 of 19 in playoffs

Incidentally, the two last-place finishers? Toronto had only 19 games of 5+ penalty kills, and Edmonton only 18. The two Stanley Cup finalists were 24 and 10 of 22 (Chicago), and 31 and 8 of 23 (Philadelphia).

One thing I noticed was that the other teams had a few games of 8 or more (Philly had THREE straight against the Devils and won every time), up to being short 10 or 11 times. The Isles had no game over seven. But they also only had one game of zero times shorthanded.

What I also saw that stuck out was FIVE games where the kill was only 1-3, including three times from Nov 11 to Dec 5; then a game of 0-2, two games of 0-1, and two of 2-4. They were 1-8-1 in those 10 games. Then you get to the more trying games where they gave up many chances (there are three 2-5 games, a 3-6, and even a 3-7). Those five games were admittedly tough to take as well, but they won two of them.

I’ll definitely give him a shot for a reserve, but I don’t think the isles will at all give him a starting job at the beginning of the year. He’s fallen greatly in the depth charts imo, from all the signings and the way youngsters played last year. I’d put him as our #8-10(I’d put him at 9 or 10 realistically) d-man on the overall depth chart from all that I’ve seen.

Gervais will be put to good use. They’ll send him around to have a few beers with fans in the upper reaches of the Coliseum.

really messed up both there stats. if you take away the last 3 games id say Biron was more like .900 and Roli was more like .913. and with the amount of games we lost last season by one goal, every little bit helps, even minute percentages

It’s always a little awkward with save percentage because a few digits difference can be misleading. (e.g. when you’ve each faced 100 shots, the guy who allowed 10 goals has a .900 pct., while the guy who allowed 8 is at .920.) If you extrapolate their save pct. to 1000 shots against (the Isles allowed 2615 shots last year), then Roloson would theoretically have allowed 93 while Biron would have allowed 104. Some of the stat wonks try to come up with “shot quality,” but many of the other stat wonks poo-poo the idea that SQ is something measurable.

Just to paint the edges more, Biron faced 55% of the shots Roloson faced (859 vs. 1555). His goals allowed were 61% of what Roloson gave up (89 vs. 145 … Playing with % can be really misleading; I’m just trying to illustrate the difference in games, samples.)

Another factor can be save % on the PK, which some of the stat guys believe is beyond the goalie’s control from year to year. If that’s the case, it’s possible Biron was hurt more than Roloson by PK luck, since Biron’s PK save % was .833 while Roloson’s was .857. (I’d argue against that interpretation, since watching both on the PK I was much less impressed by how BIron handled reads, angles and side-to-side on the PK. Of course, then comes knocking on the door But He Was Rusty argument.)

Thanks for bringing this up. I try to throw figures to think about into the mix just to stir thought and debate, but all the stats deserve questioning and elaboration. (Again, another reason I love hockey.)

I was a fan of Biron, I wanted to see him come here and thought he would win the starters job. That being said, even if the difference between them was small percentage wise, Rollie was by far superior. Rollie had his off nights, but nothing compared to the stomach turning horribleness of some of Biron’s goals. If you argue that he didn’t have any offensive support, I’d argue that his tendency to give up poor goals when the Islanders were winning periods (and outshooting the competition) tended to crush the Islanders morale.

Quite simply, Its better to give up 3 goals in the 3rd period, then to give up a goal every period.

It works out to 11 more goals over the course of 1000 shots. For a very good team that only allows 25 shots per game (think the champion Blackhawks, who were actually below that number this season), that works out to 2,050 shots in a year. That’s 22 or 23 more goals for a full season. For a team that gives up more shots the difference becomes a bit more critical: 30 shots per game puts you at 2460 for the year, or about 27 more goals for a full season. Doesn’t sound like a big deal, but you’re looking at a lot of points and wins lost.

Then consider that the team that allows only 25 shots is probably a much better team to begin with than the 30 shot team – creating more chances and thus better-able to handle weaker goalkeeping. The lower one’s margin for error, the more serous a problem you have if your goalie is a marshmallow factory.

This site does a very good job with goaltending numbers, if you’re so inclined to read further.

but that shows even more how much better rollie was then biron. It mostly depends on workload too(shots, games played, etc and more things). Overall Biron had a really rough season even for a backup while Rollie played like an average starting nhl goaltender. Some of the goals biron let in made me want to shoot myself.

To try and help this stat, the difference between an average starting goaltender and a great high-end goaltender can be as small as that .011 margin (Vokoun .925 vs Turco .913) .But there is more to tell again when analyzing such as Lundqvists .921 save percentage on 2109 shots vs Jimmy Howards .924 on 1849 shots, lundqvist now looks like a magician compared to howard and that saying is even before we talk about how bad the rangers d is vs how good the wings d is.D-cores in front of them and more play a huge role. The analyzing could be never ending.

Gotta subtly drop my personal tastes in there every now and then…

To your last point, does that mean you want them to pick up another goalie? I’m of a mind to let them run with Ageless Roloson and the Shell of DiPietro, and let the inevitable emergency backup make his case by excelling in Bridgeport. I like Lawson and Mikko.

(And welcome to the site, by the way! Thanks for joining.)