How the three-headed monster affected Islanders' stats
Editor's Note: More interesting work from BenHasna, who gives us some food for thought inside the numbers of guys like Kyle Okposo, Bruno Gervais, Blake Comeau and -- well pretty much the whole team...
In some of my recent comments about certain players I talked about how the goalies affected their individual stats. I found for example that Kyle Okposo's bad plus/minus was largely caused by the fact that Martin Biron struggled horribly when KO was on the ice. KO was only -3 combined with Dwayne Roloson and Rick DiPietro, but -15 with Biron, who stopped only 85.37% of the pucks when KO was on the ice.
There are a few similarly interesting cases and I thought some might want to take a look at all numbers, although we honestly can't draw too many conclusions about the performances of the last season and certainly can't make any predictions about the future based on these numbers. But it's fun and if anything shows that +/- numbers can be distorted quite a bit. The big table and further explanations follow after the jump.
Before talking about what kind of conclusions we can take and we cannot take, let's look at the big table first. It shows every player except for those who played only a couple of games or never got significant ice-time, such as Klementyev or Rechlicz for example. The data is as always provided by the great sites of Vic Ferrari. It includes even-strength numbers of all 82 games, obviously excluding empty-net situations.
|
|
|
Roloson |
Biron |
DiPietro |
overall |
||||
|
|
|
EVSV% |
+/- |
EVSV% |
+/- |
EVSV% |
+/- |
EVSV% |
+/- |
|
2 |
Streit |
93.08% |
13 |
88.35% |
-8 |
91.89% |
-3 |
91.52% |
2 |
|
4 |
Flood |
90.91% |
1 |
74.07% |
-5 |
- |
0 |
78.95% |
-4 |
|
7 |
Hunter |
93.81% |
2 |
92.98% |
-1 |
97.67% |
4 |
93.99% |
5 |
|
8 |
Gervais |
91.02% |
-8 |
90.10% |
-6 |
91.18% |
-5 |
90.78% |
-19 |
|
10 |
Park |
90.42% |
-8 |
92.13% |
1 |
88.64% |
-4 |
90.83% |
-11 |
|
11 |
Thompson |
90.00% |
-6 |
89.71% |
-7 |
75.00% |
-2 |
89.35% |
-15 |
|
12 |
Bailey |
92.31% |
4 |
92.00% |
-1 |
95.24% |
3 |
92.49% |
6 |
|
13 |
Schremp |
90.70% |
2 |
93.65% |
0 |
95.56% |
-2 |
92.41% |
0 |
|
14 |
Gillies |
82.35% |
-3 |
91.67% |
1 |
- |
0 |
86.21% |
-2 |
|
15 |
Tambellini |
91.54% |
-4 |
90.24% |
-4 |
100.00% |
0 |
91.12% |
-8 |
|
16 |
Sim |
91.41% |
-3 |
93.18% |
1 |
95.56% |
-2 |
92.38% |
-4 |
|
20 |
Bergenheim |
93.40% |
1 |
88.97% |
-3 |
91.67% |
-2 |
91.53% |
-4 |
|
21 |
Okposo |
90.77% |
-1 |
85.37% |
-15 |
85.37% |
-2 |
88.68% |
-18 |
|
24 |
Martinek |
93.75% |
2 |
93.24% |
-4 |
- |
0 |
93.51% |
-2 |
|
25 |
Sutton |
90.84% |
-2 |
94.53% |
-3 |
88.68% |
1 |
91.65% |
-4 |
|
26 |
Moulson |
91.38% |
5 |
92.98% |
-3 |
92.68% |
1 |
91.96% |
3 |
|
28 |
Jackman |
91.93% |
-2 |
93.46% |
-2 |
- |
0 |
92.54% |
-4 |
|
32 |
Witt |
89.01% |
-10 |
93.16% |
-7 |
81.82% |
-2 |
90.28% |
-19 |
|
38 |
Hillen |
91.58% |
-2 |
91.01% |
-6 |
88.24% |
1 |
91.21% |
-7 |
|
42 |
Reese |
89.74% |
-1 |
92.98% |
5 |
- |
0 |
91.11% |
4 |
|
44 |
Meyer |
88.35% |
-7 |
94.44% |
5 |
94.59% |
-2 |
90.83% |
-4 |
|
46 |
Martin |
90.00% |
0 |
92.31% |
-1 |
- |
0 |
91.30% |
-1 |
|
47 |
MacDonald |
95.14% |
9 |
91.30% |
-1 |
91.18% |
-2 |
93.33% |
6 |
|
51 |
Nielsen |
93.26% |
7 |
88.19% |
-9 |
95.56% |
3 |
92.03% |
1 |
|
56 |
Kohn |
92.86% |
-2 |
90.63% |
0 |
100.00% |
0 |
92.96% |
-2 |
|
57 |
Comeau |
89.25% |
0 |
91.06% |
2 |
82.98% |
-8 |
89.06% |
-6 |
|
58 |
Joensuu |
96.97% |
2 |
100.00% |
3 |
- |
0 |
98.04% |
5 |
|
91 |
Tavares |
90.64% |
-3 |
91.10% |
-6 |
84.62% |
-2 |
90.40% |
-11 |
|
93 |
Weight |
93.98% |
4 |
95.31% |
2 |
87.23% |
-5 |
93.03% |
1 |
|
|
overall |
91.52% |
-2 |
91.15% |
-15 |
91.01% |
-6 |
91.36% |
-23 |
Thanks to particularly this work of Tyler Dellow, we know a bit about even-strength save-percentage or more precisely about PDO, which is EVSV% plus even-strength shooting-percentage, on the team level. The idea there is that any particularly high or low numbers are not sustainable. We don't know a whole lot about these numbers on the individual level, though. It's not unlikely that the range is a little wider and that a particularly bad or extremely talented player is able to influence these numbers. But it's definitely not something that stands out when looking at the EVSV% of all players. Excellent (two-way) players like Crosby, Kesler, Okposo, etc. are towards the bottom of that list, whereas a few mediocre players rank at the top.
Even Brendan Witt managed to put together a relatively healthy 90.28% this season. And if we expected someone to make life really hard for the goaltenders, it probably would be Witt, who definitely wasn't on NHL level anymore this season and thus would be expected to allow more quality chances than other defenders. He certainly hurt his team and meant additional work for the goalies, but judging from these numbers here, the chances they gave up with Witt on the ice were not necessarily of higher quality than with everyone else.
However, luck seems to be what mostly drives this number here and it's probably fair to attribute some bad luck to everyone with a particularly bad number. That of course also means that we can't fault anyone. Biron's horrible number with Okposo for example was just bad luck/fluke. Biron proved with other guys that he is able to stop 91%+ of the pucks and Okposo proved his play doesn't pull down the numbers with Roloson for example. But it obviously means that Okposo's final -18 was almost entirely caused by bad luck. He could easily have been at around evens with an average save percentage.
Some interesting results
That's what we can do with these numbers therefore - tell who probably suffered a bit from bad luck last season. I'll present a few of the most interesting results below, but the table is of course pretty straight forward. As mentioned, most of the numbers don't mean a whole lot, but it's fun to look at them and might be interesting to get back to them at some point during the next season.
Blake Comeau's final -6 was affected heavily by the time he spent together with DiPietro. He went -8 in those few matches with DP, who stopped only 82.98% of the pucks with Comeau on the ice. Biron and Roloson were slightly below average with Comeau, too, and thus Comeau could easily have finished as a plus player last season.
Andrew MacDonald benefited from an enormous 95.14% with Roloson (+9) and was overall lucky to finish as a plus-player, as he was -3, at exactly average save percentages, with Biron and DiPietro combined.
Besides Jesse Joensuu (98.04%), in of course a very small sample size, Trent Hunter had the highest EVSV% with overall 93.99%. All three goalies did particularly well with Hunter on the ice. But that as said doesn't necessarily mean Hunter played outsanding hockey. It probably was just luck, although Hunter led the team already in 2008-09. He finished towards the bottom in 2007-08, though.
Mark Streit and Frans Nielsen have similar numbers, although they didn't spend particularly much time together. Streit had the same amount of ice-time with the other centers. Both however did particularly well with Roloson (around 93%) and struggled with Biron (around 88%). Streit, Nielsen as well as Dylan Reese and Matt Moulson were the only players who finished as plus-players without benefiting from particularly high save percentages.
The numbers of Freddy Meyer are just the other way around. Roloson struggled with Freddy (88.35%, -7), but Biron was excellent (94.44%, +5) with him.
Bruno Gervais had quite consistent numbers with all three goalies - consistently bad numbers, actually. All three goalies had roughly average save percentages with Gervais, but Bruno still finished -19 overall.
Submitted FanPosts do not necessarily reflect the views of this blog or SB Nation. If you're reading this statement, you pass the fine print legalese test. Four stars for you.
23 comments
|
3 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Great stuff Ben
Thanks so much for digging these up and posting him. That Okposo figure in front of Biron is eye-opening. Interesting to see Nielsen’s numbers similarly affected but to a lesser degree.
Definitely a fun way to look at it.
Lighthouse Hockey: More defensemen than we know how to spell.
+1
Heck, +5, Ben. It’s another piece to the puzzle – who played well, with whom, which skaters helped their goalies most and vice-versa. Really great stuff.
My latest contract is for 31 years.
Nice!!
Is it possible to do this with the defensemn that played with both rolodon and Dipietro for a full season? (not sure if we even have any). For example gervais 06-07 Dipietro vs gervais 09-10 roll-on. I’m interested in seeing if the “puck moving goalie” negatively impacts the D. But I think between DPs injuries and the defense injury carousel we have it will probably be impossible. I think that Witt and Gervais may be the only guys, and Witt was subject to wear and tear and Bruno had one anomaly good season.
by Keith Quinn on Aug 17, 2010 11:40 AM EDT via mobile reply actions
Sutton, Meyer, Gervais, Hillen and Streit were the only guys who played 50+ games, Streit was the only player with 80+ games, Bruno with 71 and Hillen with 69.
I think we talked about DP’s puck moving ability during the season. I think we sort of agreed that DiPietro’s passes helped the team get out of the defensive zone. Due to most of the dmen not being especially well at moving the puck (Hillen I believe was out for most of DP’s starts).
Dominik signed me for 20 years, and all I got was a press conference and a voided contract...
Contributor to Lighthouse Hockey not sure if I'm the Sniper or the Enforcer.
I guess an interesting way to look at Puck Handling goalie would be to see if the Islanders had better Zone starts with DiPietro or Rollie/Biron.
Dominik signed me for 20 years, and all I got was a press conference and a voided contract...
Contributor to Lighthouse Hockey not sure if I'm the Sniper or the Enforcer.
They did indeed have better zone starts with DiPietro. But for now, I’d be careful to attribute that to his puck handling skills. I have no idea really and it sure might have an effect, but the sample size is very small of course and the whole team simply might have played better hockey and driven the play up the ice better in those few games with DP.
EV defensive zone starts – EV offensive zone starts
DiPietro: 109-109=0
Roloson: 716-585=131
Biron: 349-296=53
correction
Sorry, I messed that up completely and somehow left out a good part of the season. Just forget those numbers above, please. But there seems to be something wrong with the data anyway, so I struggle to get the right numbers.
next try
I hope I’ve finally sorted things out and will give it another try. Turns out that the numbers above were relatively close to what should hopefully be the correct numbers indeed. But again, the sample size is certainly too small to draw any conclusions regarding DP’s puck handling skill really reducing defensive zone draws.
EV defensive zone starts – EV offensive zone starts; OPCT
DiPietro: 109-109=0; 50%
Roloson: 737-609=128; 45.25%
Biron: 373-332=41; 47.09%
For sure
DP played so few games, I’d bet his paint-by-numbers easy shutout of the Devils skewed a lot of things. That one was a cakewalk.
Lighthouse Hockey: More defensemen than we know how to spell.
I joined the lighthouse midway through swason
So I may have missed that. I have a different position though that applies to goalies (of the puck moving variety) and defensemen that comes from both playing and observing.
While DP may have helped with the occasional “outlet pass” or “home run” pass that resulted in a breakaway. I felt like more often, he missed, and there would be a lit of chasing.
Here’s why. When I was playing, if the d or goalie missed an outlet pass, generally it misses a forward who is returning to the defensive zone. This forces the forward to turn and chase the puck back o the neutral zone where they are now facing an onrushing forward or defenseman with speed in the opposite direction. Now it is very easy to make a diagonal pass or sidestep the forward and/or defense and return to the offensive zone. If they make it past the d, your forwards must collapse down low to contain, and now there is less if an opportunity to get out of your zone and d may end up out of position coring forwards. All of this chaos because of seeing an opportunity for a 100 foot pass now leaves that line exhausted because they are chasing the play and this becomes a huge problem
when you have the long change. Eventually, players look like they’re standing still, because they are essentially watching the puck go past them in either direction by a desperate defenseman attempting to clear, and an opportunistic member of the other team continuing to push the puck deep.
I agree with the poster who said an examination of “zone time” might point some of this out. In my experience though, we weren’t so much caught in our own zone as much as we were chasing in the neutral zone. What should really be looked at is possession time in the neutral zone, but I’m not sure that’s possible.
Hope that makes sense…so hard to express in writing how a hockey play looks in your head!
by Keith Quinn on Aug 17, 2010 12:49 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
I agree overall with the concepts your laying out — and particularly when DP hasn’t played and the defense isn’t used to him, I think overhandling creates problems. But I remember during DP’s starts there were some noticeable phases where everyone was on the same page and he seemed to be making up for a weak D by getting to the puck and dishing it out before they could get hemmed in. (Of course now I’m really busy and can’t look up everything, but just take my word for it, bwahaha.)
In other words, the benefit wasn’t so much initiating a dangerous breakout (which seems like once in a blue moon) but rather alleviating some of the constant pressure of the opposition’s forecheck. At least in theory that’s when DP’s much-ballyhooed puckhandling actually has some effect.
Lighthouse Hockey: More defensemen than we know how to spell.
Exactly
“In other words, the benefit wasn’t so much initiating a dangerous breakout (which seems like once in a blue moon) but rather alleviating some of the constant pressure of the opposition’s forecheck.”
And when it’s working it’s pretty, and when it’s not, it’s atrocious…and I guess since we’ve been bad and young for a while, we’ve gad more atrocious. I’m sure that there were even differences based on type of team we were playing “trapping” vs “traditional”. We probably did worse against trapping considering the neutral zone congestion.
by Keith Quinn on Aug 17, 2010 1:42 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
+/- swings
Its interesting to play with numbers, and right about now in the middle of August thats just about the only thing to do if you are a NYI or overall hockey fan.
Any explination why Nielson had a 16 point swing with Roloson on the positeve side?
Same for Streit, he had a +13 with Roloson and 21 point swing.
Conversly Meyer had 12 point swing with a +5 rating with Biron in net. (ps I did not really consdider these numbers wit DP in net)
Anybody have any thoughts?
Thanks for this post. This is an interesting piece and I was surprised..shocked really, to see how different the numbers are for a player depending on who is in net behind him. Are there any conclusions we can draw from this or do you think that this is the results are random.
there's a lot of noise in the numbers
In general you’d like to see more of a sample to be able to compare the effect of the goalies on the players… especially Biron’s small workload. Two or three bad games can kill the numbers. Since Biron’s gone to caddy for the Rags, that opportunity is gone. We still have a year for Roli and RDP comparisons, however.
My latest contract is for 31 years.
Biron was given a big enough amount of playing time to survey,
DP only had 7 starts, so his stats aren’t completely fair to sample, but I’m all for the Biron-26starts and Rollie-49starts comparison. Say what you want about how these numbers came to be, but they did. Rollie was a lot better goalie then Biron this year, both had bad streaks, but Biron as a whole was worse all around, even with a bit smaller workload. Hands down, Rollie is better and the reason the isles have so much trust in their goaltending going into this year with him and an injury-prone dp and 2 young no experience backups beyond that.
Go isles or Go home.
But mikb had a good point about a few bad games skewing the numbers. That is especially true when looking at individual forwards, ie: Okposo’s splits. I think what is most telling is the bottom number; the goalies overall plus minus.
Well, that’s not entirely telling, either, because how many goals the players score given which goalie is in net has of course an influence on that +/- figure, too. And it’s really not the goalie’s fault when the players don’t make their shots. And Roloson had by far the best help of them all in that regard.
EV shooting percentage:
Roloson: 8.75%
Biron: 7.08%
DiPietro: 5.59%
EV save percentage is more telling, I’d say, although you’re sure right about bad games skewing the numbers, or small sample sizes in general. Some people say you need around five seasons from a goalie to be able to estimate the true talent. So, just from these numbers, we certainly can’t draw any conclusions regarding who the better goalie is. Looking at career numbers, Biron seems to be the slightly better goalie than Roloson, actually. But I’d sure admit Roloson did a better job with the Islanders last season. Perhaps not by as much as it’s been reported everywhere, though.
Regarding the huge differences for certain players depending on who is in net behind him, I think that’s all pretty much random. We’re talking about relatively small amounts of shots here. Roloson faced 457 shots with Streit on the ice and around 300 with other busy guys (Gervais, Okposo, JT, etc.). For Biron, it’s 220 with Streit and around 150 with the other top-line players. For DP, it’s 68 and around 45.
It mostly puts some +/- figures into perspective, I’d say. For example, there’s really no need whatsoever to be worried about Okposo’s bad +/-. That’ll almost certainly not happen again.
EV save percentage is more telling, I’d say
When I first read these numbers I was focused on the plus minus and didn’t really pay attention to the save percentage numbers. Its really interesting, especially the disparity between some players and goalies. Flood with Roloson versus Biron for example. But of course there we are dealing with a really small sample size.
Biron seems to be the slightly better goalie than Roloson, actually. But I’d sure admit Roloson did a better job with the Islanders last season. Perhaps not by as much as it’s been reported everywhere, though.
I would agree with that. I thought Biron would get the bulk of playing time going into last season.
I'm not so sure
If I play 60 games and have four bad ones, and you play the other 20 and have three bad ones, then your numbers are going to suffer more. A small sample is easier to skew based on outlier results. For example, say we both have a 2.50 GAA. I start and get lit – five goals in 30 minutes. You come to the rescue and… well… get lit too, another five goals.
At the end of the game, my GAA is up to 2.57. Yours is up to 2.86. Whaa? Simple – I’ve played fifty full games, you’ve only played 10. That disastrous half-game shoves your small sample way off.
Like Ben said below – for a true evaluation you need a larger sample to help level off the luck and keep outlier games (good or bad) from unfairly impacting the overall picture. It works both ways, too – think about how many young goalies looked like the ghost of Sawchuck in their first season, and were then exposed; or backups on great teams who were given the keys elsewhere and promptly drove the team into a ditch.
I will agree that Roli outplayed Biron this season… not necessarily that he is the superior goalie overall. I’d look at both their careers to calculate that, and a variety of numbers to see if the effect is consistent. (And actually, I’d say Roli was a bit better overall, he’s been underrated for most of his career, but Biron is a perfectly serviceable keeper of the Osgood mold.)
My latest contract is for 31 years.
think about how many young goalies looked like the ghost of Sawchuck in their first season, and were then exposed; or backups on great teams who were given the keys elsewhere and promptly drove the team into a ditch.
That’s a good point. Look at Yann Davis last year. He had a better GAA and SV% then Marty B. Before him it was Scott Clemenson. Corey Schwab had a 0.63 gaa and .971 save percentage in 03-04. Vezina! Oh wait, he only played 3 games. On a side note I just looking at Hasek’s stats and I never realized that Marty Biron and Dwayne Roloson played together in Buffalo.
Heh, the thread format suckered me
And by “Ben said below”… of course I mean above. :P
My latest contract is for 31 years.

by 






























