Goalie pts are currently based on a 4pt baseline - that is a FunHL goalie will get 4pts for a 60minute shutout. Usually we, and by we I mean the FunHL Disputes Comittee (currently Dan, Bob and Rob), review the baseline annually and adjust it, if deemed necessary, up or down a half-point. There is no magic in the half-point adjustment but it seems to have worked. There has been a call from some quarters, including myself, to have the DC adjust goalie stats downward for next season. Why? I can give you 10 good reasons...
Here are the top 15 FunHL Pointing Players from last season (not counting TGs):
1 - E.Nabokov 141.39
2 - M.Brodeur 141.00
3 - H.Lundquist 127.00
4 - R.Luongo 114.29
5 - A.Ovechkin 112
6 - E.Malkin 106
7 - J-S.Giguere 103.71
8 - M.Turco 102.22
9 - R.Miller 101.41
10 - J.Iginla 98
11 - M.Legace 97.15
12 - P.Datsyuk 97
13 - M.Kiprusoff 96.02
14 - N.Backstrom 96.02
15 - J.Thornton 96
Ten of the top Fifteen highest pointing players are goaltenders, clearly goaltending stats are horribly out of whack with reality and need to be reigned in. When the pool's stats say that M.Legace is worth more than P.Datsyuk or J.Thornton - isn't the arguement over? Well, maybe not.
Is the above list a reflection of how we as a pool actually rank players? Yes goalies seem to have gotten more points this past season, but the change from the previous season wasn't THAT big - so why would 12 clever FunHL GMs wait so long to draft a goalie? By the same token, why would any GM draft a defenseman in the first or second round - let alone have one as his FP!? Well, because position matters. We judge players based on their "relative value" far more than their absolute value.
There are many different ways to guage relative value but one straightforward way to do so is to face the reality that everyone will need to dress the same number of lw, c, rw, d and g. Three of each forward position (36 of each), six defensemen (72) and one goalie (12). The worst left-winger you should have to play will be the left-winger with the 36th most pts of all the left-wingers in the league. Last season that left winger would have gotten you 42pts. If you happen to have A.Ovechkin as your FP, way to go Collin, then your number one left-winger not only gets you 112pts to lead the league in pts but also happens to be 70pts more than the worst left-winger that should be dressed in the league.
So what does the top Fifteen players list look like if we set it up by comparing relative value by position:
1 - A.Ovechkin +70
2 - J.Iginla +57
3 - E.Malkin +54
4 - E.Nabokov +53
5 - M.Brodeur +53
6 - H.Zetterberg +50
7 - N.Lidstrom +49
8 - D.Alfredsson +48
9 - P.Datsyuk +45
10 - I.Kovalchuk +45
11 - J.Thornton +44
12 - S.Gonchar +44
13 - A.Kovalev +43
14 - M.Gaborik +42
15 - M.St.Louis +42
Now this list looks almost exactly how we collectively value player value in our league. The three Hart-finalists are in the top three positions. Only two goaltenders make the top 15, though clearly are right up at the top of the list. Only two defensemen make the top 15, but again few would quibble with their being there. Compared on straight points, N.Lidstrom is the 60th best player in the league - clearly a poor reflection of his actual value. So the question perhaps should not be simply a concern for the number of pts a goaltender gets but how many more pts that goaltender gets than the 12th best goalie that gets played, his relative value.
Last season the top 12 goalies (based on the 4pt baseline) were as follows:
1 - E.Nabokov 141.39
2 - M.Brodeur 141.00
3 - H.Lundquist 127.00
4 - R.Luongo 114.29
5 - J-S.Giguere 103.71
6 - M.Turco 102.22
7 - R.Miller 101.41
8 - M.Legace 97.15
9 - M.Kiprusoff 96.02
10 - N.Backstrom 96.02
11 - I.Bryzgalov 93.96
12 - Tomas Vokoun 88.68
The worst goalie you should have to play garners you 88pts. Is that too high? Perhaps. Its about 11pts higher than the worst "first-line" center you would play, who got 77pts last year (A.Kopitar btw) who was 11pts higher than the worst first-line right-winger (66pt M.Hossa) and 12pts higher than the worst first-line left winger(65pt Z.Parise, C.Stillman, P.Kariya - ok, there were three tied at 65pts :-)). The worst top-line defenseman only got 36pts.
So what happens if we went to the 3.5pt baseline? Well the top goalies drop from being 120-140pt players to being 90-100pt players.
1 - E.Nabokov 103.06
2 - M.Brodeur 102.38
3 - H.Lundquist 91.13
4 - R.Luongo 78.93
5 - J-S.Giguere 76.08
6 - M.Turco 71.69
7 - N.Backstrom 67.86
8 - M.Legace 66.85
9 - R.Miller 63.98
10 - I.Bryzgalov 63.82
11 - P.Leclaire 62.18
12 - C.Huet 59.86
On a relative scale, only Nabokov and Brodeur make the top 15 players list barely squeaking in at position 14 and 15. The worst first-line goalie, C.Huet at less than 60pts, has less pts than any of the worst first-line forwards. While on an absolute scale, Nabokov and Brodeur come in behind Ovechkin and Malkin but ahead of Iginla - I think this is too big a "hit" to the relative value of all goalies.
I said before that there is no magic to the half-point adjustment "standard" for the DC. It's a nice easy way to calculate a goalie's points in your head when you see a score on the tv or hear it on the radio but that's about it. We all know that OTL and OTW can skew those quick mental calculations anyway. Not to mention should your goalie be "Keanan'ed" for a shift of two in the second period. Anyone who has done the quick mental tally of their TG's exploits for the night already knows that a fight is worth a minimum 1.25pts (and hopefully many more misconduct minutes and pts) so the quarter-point is already well ingrained into the pool. So what happens if we calculated goalie stats based upon a 3.75pt baseline and split the difference between the current option and the 3.5pt alternative?
Well, goalie stats change again to:
1 - E.Nabokov 122.06
2 - M.Brodeur 121.69
3 - H.Lundquist 109.06
4 - R.Luongo 96.56
5 - J-S.Giguere 89.88
6 - M.Turco 86.81
7 - R.Miller 82.63
8 - M.Legace 82.13
9 - N.Backstrom 82.06
10 - I.Bryzgalov 78.88
11 - M.Kiprusoff 77.88
12 - P.Leclaire 74.63
Well Nabokov and Brodeur are still the two highest pointing players in the league, though not by nearly as great a margin as they were using last season's 4pt baseline. By way of a relative comparison, Nabokov and Brodeur are still the only two goalies in the top 15, fitting in around the middle of the list between Lidstrom and Alfredsson at around +48. The worst top-line goalie, P.Leclair at 74pts, is lower-pointing than the worst top-line center but is higher-pointing than the worst top-line wingers.
Is the 3.75pt baseline perfect? Hardly, but I think it is a reasonably close approximation of goalie value - at least based on last season's stats.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
30 comments:
Sigh. To paraphrase the Great Communicator 'Now there you go again'.
Doug: When the pool's stats say that M.Legace is worth more than P.Datsyuk or J.Thornton - isn't the arguement over? Well, maybe not.
- Actually, 'Yes', I think clearly, the argument is over. Further, I believe you think this too.
Doug: By the same token, why would any GM draft a defenseman in the first or second round - let alone have one as his FP!? Well, because position matters. We judge players based on their "relative value" far more than their absolute value.
- Except that we are not talking about relative value for Goaltenders but 'actual' value - which is something else entirely.
If 'relative' value was the issue there wouldn't be any controversy about goaltending stats EVER. We could stay with our original 5.0 for a shutout and dismiss the 200pt goaltenders that result as merely being their 'relative' value.
We can see how Doug will continually confuse this issue as we move forward. Here is how he describes the problem with adjusting back to 3.5...
Doug: While on an absolute scale, Nabokov and Brodeur come in behind Ovechkin and Malkin but ahead of Iginla - I think this is too big a "hit" to the relative value of all goalies.
- Here we have the issue in a nutshell. As Doug notes using 4.0 creates a plethora of 100 pt goaltenders - and to answer his question from above, having a bunch of players valued better than Datsyuk is silly - a point he seems to acknowledge however fitfully.
Doug: I said before that there is no magic to the half-point adjustment "standard" for the DC.
- It may not be 'magic' but it is the standard we have always relied upon, and it has worked for us in the past. In part this is because it allows for relatively easy calculations of your own stats as the scores come in. Indeed the last time we looked at adjusting the goaltending stats (to 4.0 after the lockout scoring showed a statistical increase), it was clear that while scoring was up it wasn't up enough to fully justify the use of 4.0 - and that 3.75 was in fact the best number. And so we had then a confirmation of our historical perspective - we use .5 increments, no more, no less, whenever we adjust the stats. As such we went from 3.5 to 4.0 - which as I noted at the time, was a stretch.
Yet here we are now debating yet again the use of 3.75 when we have clearly established precedents that this is out of bounds. Some things never change.
Doug: Is the 3.75pt baseline perfect?
- Not only is it not perfect, as I note above, it is by virtue of a two decades of precedent explicitly not allowed.
The correct answer still remains a return to 3.5. Indeed, I would suggest it was an optimistic mistake for us to have assumed the rise in offense would hold (or go up as many assumed) rather than return to the downward spiral we've seen.
One suggestion I might make is to find a way to hardline the decision on when stats need to be adjusted. i.e. lets consider tagging the goaltending stats adjustments to the actual number of goals scored in a season in the NHL. This would give us a bright line that we would know has been crossed.
For example, if goalscoring were to drop by another goal per game overall we would automatically drop the scoring stat from 3.5 to 3.0, or on the other hand if goalscoring were to go up league wide by a goal per game we would then be in a position to automatically move from 3.5 to 4.0. We'd have to do the statistical leg work to ensure that the targets are set correctly, but once we have league scoring stats for the previous season in hand we could make our adjustments automatically without having to debate the matter every single time.
Cam, I just deleted a double post of yours. No sense scaring off the others. If there was something in it different from your first post, please forgive.
As to the relativity question, you haven't actually answered the question I posed for the valuation of defensemen which is at the heart of this issue.
Tomas Plekanec got 69pts, Sergei Gonchar got 68pts. I don't think Plekanec is more valuable than Gonchar and neither do you. So why isn't there a big outcry for how we are undervaluing d-men in our game? Because we can all sort out the relative value of this good d-man vs that good left-winger. We are clever monkeys and are able to compare apples and oranges.
The relative value of goalies is actually a far greater concern to me than the absolute value because of the scarcity issue. Our system of calculating goalie stats (be it 4pt or 3.5pt) creates a couple of superstar goalies, a couple of really good goalies and a bunch of guys who you hope don't hurt you too much.
If the absolute value of a top goalie was 500pts would it drastically skew the pool? Not if the worst goalie you would play got you 450pts. It would be the same as it is now.
First the double posting was a mistake, so I am pleased you corrected that for me. On to the debate;
Doug said: Tomas Plekanec got 69pts, Sergei Gonchar got 68pts. I don't think Plekanec is more valuable than Gonchar and neither do you. So why isn't there a big outcry for how we are undervaluing d-men in our game?
Cameron: I take your point as granted, there is a relative difference in value between Plekanec's points as a winger and Gonchar's as a defenseman - that being that Plekanec is at the bottom of scoring for the wingers while Gonchar is at the top of the defensemen.
The real point worth making here is that goaltenders are a calculated stat - whereas the defensemen are not. So while we don't worry (ever) about the fact that defenseman scoring is way down over historical levels (once upon a time they were 100 pt players too), we have worried about when we get the goalie calculation wrong.
The way I see this is actually very simple. The DC has a simple set of questions to ask re goaltenders:
1. Are the stats clearly out of whack? (Yes)
2. Will they be more out of whack if we make an adjustment by .5 goals? (No)
If Yes, and No, then they make the change. Very simple.
Should we worry excessively about the fact that a partial adjustment (.2579) gives us a more aesthetic result? No.
Should we consider other systems, calculation parameters, etc? Sure, I don't object to looking at them, but I am extremely skeptical about adjusting something as basic as how we work our goaltending stats at this stage of the pool's life.
So long as we keep the range of options we want the DC to consider (are the stats insane on their face?) I'm happy with their role.
But when we engage in the kind of 'Hey, what if we blow it all up and start over'? kind of speculation I think we do damage to the agreement we reached some five years back to not make the pool about the rules more than the people.
In this case, your suggestion that we eschew decades of history and start using fractions other than half a point to make corrections opens the floodgates to alienation.
Remember the pool was meant to operate without spreadsheets (though we currently use them), without e-mail (though we all have it), and with calculations that can be accomplished sans calculator (though we all own one).
I guess I am saying that even if 3.75 is somehow aesthetically more pleasing, it still shouldn't be in the realm of consideration.
Interesting though that we can go from 100+ pt top-end defensemen to a 70 pt ceiling on defensemen and yet we still see a consistent pattern entry draft after entry draft of two or three defensemen taken every year. It isn't the points a player gets that are the "value" its the points a player gets vs someone else at that position.
Doug: It isn't the points a player gets that are the "value" its the points a player gets vs someone else at that position.
Cameron: This is a revelation to you? Yes we could have left the scoring at its original 5.0 per shutout. But that would mean we would have 200 point goaltenders. Maybe thats ok for you (and in truth, I know it isn't), but it would mean that they are effectively twice as valuable as the best players at any other position - and I think it is clear that they are not.
Ultimately what we want is to value goaltenders 'correctly', and in part one of the reasons we want to do this is so that when we make trades involving goaltenders and other players we can achieve some sort of apples/oranges comparison that is sensible.
Consider this, I have two goaltenders who are both quality starters, but my defense is weak. You have lousy goaltending but a great defense.
But if the points for goaltenders are way out of whack how are you going to afford my 200 point starting goaltender? The points I get back from the one you offer me will sit on my bench and thus not be worth me trading for. Are you going to throw five or six guys my way to make the deal work?
The point for keeping goaltenders in sync with the rest of the league is in part (along with the pure aesthetics) to keep the market for trades active by 'pricing' their output correctly.
I myself like 3.75 because 3.75 is 1.25 per period. While 3.5 is 1.16666 and 4.0 is 1.3333. Using 3.5 would actually eliminate some rounding issues. Since the goaltender calculation is a formula it really does not matter what the number is as the official stats keeper is going to use a formula to calculate the actual stats no an estimation in the head and plug in the correct value.
To me the relative difference between players in a position is more important than difference between positions. Cam your lists even support the fact. You sort by position first not total points. Most of us draft by position because we need to dress a line up composed of each position. The relative points within a position is much more important which is why Defenceman are made FPs and drafted in the first round.
Cam made a very interesting suggestion about ultimately linking the goalie baseline to the NHL's average goals per game.
Since the start of the pool the NHL's goals per game average has dropped from around 7 to the current 5.57 - reaching a low of 5.14 just before the lockout. Post-lockout it jumped more than a goal a game to 6.17 and has eased back from that high.
When it became clear that scoring had gone up, we replied by boosting the baseline up by half a goal to 4.0. A fitting adjustment considering that scoring had risin by a goal (or a half goal per team). Since 2005-06 scoring has dropped by .6 goals per game (or .3 goals per team). Sounds to me like a .25pt adjustment downward is perfectly in order.
While the 5.57 goal per game average is lower than the last two seasons, it is still higher than every pre-lockout season from 97-98 through to 03-04. When we last moved from from a 4pt baseline to a 3.5 pt baseline we had had three consecutive seasons of NHL goal per game averages under 5.5 (5.28, 5.27 and 5.49 from 97-98 to 99-00).
Half-point adjustments are going to result in big swings in absolute points - over 30pts for a goalie playing 60 or more games. Perhaps we can contemplate the quarter-point adjustment when we are merely looking to tweak stats.
Ok first things first, I am not saying that relative value within a position is important, as Rob notes, that is why we sort our lists by position.
However, I am saying that we can't just set the stats for goaltenders and let them stay that way no matter what. 200 pt goaltenders would make trading a starting goalie without getting one back impossible. Or we could have a scenario where (if goalscoring soars - I wish) that the best goaltenders are only worth 60 pts while at the bottom end they are worth 30.
So let us jettison the rhetoric from the early part of Doug's post as there is clearly a need to keep the goaltenders from swinging in either direction, and our solution to that is to adjust the stats when they go 'insane'.
The question then is by how much?
Both of you have suggested that a .25 adjustment might be more reasonable - and in the past I might have agreed with you. However, we have a tradition of only doing so in .5 increments - and for a good reason - it allows easy hand calculations.
Further I don't see any vast difference between dropping by .25 or .5 in this specific case - both solve the problem (which as I note we all agree is obvious), but only the .5 solution is in agreement with our traditions.
In other words, we already have the solution in hand, it works, and I see no reason for us to pursue some other methodology.
I know the temptation to monkey with the system is strong, but seriously, the way it is works just fine.
To paraphrase Mal from Firefly 'Stop trying to improve us'.
And let me add, how weird is it that I have become the voice of conservatism in the pool? Strange days.
Well if we are keeping with the tradition of the pool as a basis for the DC's decision then it is only fair to point out that we have NEVER in all the decades of the pool (ok, 17 years - 16 seasons) dropped from a 4.0 standard when the NHL's goals per game have been above 5.5.
I just think, as do you Cam, that goalie stats are high (just not as high as you) and suggested a compromise.
You had suggested that my 3.75 solution was based on an esthetic consideration. While I'm not sure that that is such a bad thing, it seems to me that your insistance on the 3.5 number is also based more on esthetics as well: firstly that a half-point adjustment is somehow more "natural" than a quarter point - which is really odd IMO given that the 60 minute game is almost becoming the exception; and secondly that a goalie's proper status should be less than a top centre.
Let me put this as clearly as I can, the DC (that is 'DISPUTE' Committee - NOT 'RULES' committee) has no mandate to monkey with the stats willy-nilly. The whole point of structuring it this way is so that we have consistency from year to year and predictability as to the outcome.
They do have a mandate to raise or lower the goalie stats by .5 as necessary to keep them in line with the pool.
By suggesting a 'compromise' solution you are in fact granting the DC more leeway than they actually have. More to the point, I am unaware that there is even a dispute for you to offer a compromise on.
The stats speak for themselves, current goaltending numbers are out of whack, and they are much, much less out of whack when we lower it back to 3.5.
And frankly that is all the consideration the DC is expected to give the matter.
DC not RC - correct, agreed, no dispute.
But you need to look at what the rules say about their role with respect to goalie stats. Here are the key rules:
5.1 As noted below, some statistics are subject to a calculation in order to determine points earned. These include goaltender, tough guy and plus-minus points, collectively referred to as “figured” points. All figured points are subject to off-season review, and may be changed between seasons. Once the Entry Draft begins, all figured point calculations are fixed for the duration of the ensuing season, and cannot be changed until the following off-season.
No worries here.
7. Goaltender points are calculated by multiplying four (4.0) by the number of games they played for that week, then subtracting the number of goals allowed for the week. The number of games played during a week is calculated by dividing the number of minutes played by the Goaltender by sixty (60). Partial games are included in this calculation, as are minutes played in overtime games.
[Note: For simple calculation, a 60 minute shutout is worth 4.0 points.]
When the calculation was based on 3.5, the above said 3.5 instead of 4.0.
8. The two players designated as a Team’s Tough Guys (TG), receive points normally, or as a plus-minus player if so played, but in addition receive a quarter (1/4) point for every penalty minute received in that week.
I include this just to remind everyone that the rules already contemplate 1/4pts when dealing with CALCULATED STATS, the area of DC purvue at issue. This is hardly a willy-nilly adjustment of the rules.
52. The Disputes Committee, may be persuaded by, but is not bound by, its previous decisions and is to decide each case on its own merits. The DC may select any Disputants’ submitted proposed resolution or impose one of its own devising.
May be persuaded by past history of adjusting by increments of .5, but are not bound by those past decision.
There are additional rules to ensure that changes do not happen during the course of a season (absent unanimity) and that the rules, as ammended, need to be given to all GMs. But that is is as far as guidance.
The DC can NOT change the formula: Goalie Pts=(X-GAA)*(MIN/60) but there is no rule as to what 'X' is to be and certainly nothing to limit changes of 'X' to increments of .5 only.
I deleted my previous comment after reworking things.
How about simplifying goalie stats even more.
This way there are more options open to a GM when picking a goaltender considering we can only play 1 (ONE) per week.
0-pt for a L
1-pt for a OT
2- pts for a W
1 extra point for a SO
I used Nabokov's stats from 07-08
46 wins, 8 OTL, 6 SO
This gives him 106 FuNHL points.
These numbers put him in the second spot overall, tied with Malkin.
Brodeur's stats put him at 98 FuNHL points. Good for a tie with Iginla.
So, we have 2 goalies in the top 5. I do not think that is unrealistic for goalie value.
And why should a goalie not lead the league in points? Only 12 can be dressed at any one time.
Hey Mike, thanks for joining the fray.
Interesting proposal but a change like that would have to wait for next season and go through the proper process. That would actually be a rule change as opposed to an adjustment to a calculated stat.
More generally, I think the idea has always been to try and focus, as much as possible, on the contribution of the individual player as opposed to the team.
Roberto Luongo is a much better goaltender than the team he plays on. Our current way of calculating stats - focusing on his GAA as opposed to Vancouver's record - reflects that much better than your proposed option.
Certainly something to look at, but again that would be a discussion for next year.
So three GMs with goaltender FPs can decide to ignore almost two decades of precedent and change the goaltender calculation in their favour without a unanimous vote, and the leagues statistician backs them up on legal technicality.
If that is how its going to be, count me out.
Actually Bob seems to favour the 3.5 number, though he isn't catagorically opposed to 3.75 were Goals Per Game to rise from where they are now, and Dan has not weighed in.
My comments are as GM of the Highlanders, not as statskeeper but if you feel I am abusing my position I withdraw. I still feel that GMs are allowed to discuss any topics here and I will continue to do so.
That said, this is not worth the use of the Bill Rule so I encourage the DC to choose to vary the goalie stats to 3.5 as Cam suggests. I have said all along that goalie stats are high, I simply felt that 3.5 dropped them too much but I can live with 3.5.
I think Bob's idea of finding an objective Goals per Game standard is a great idea but I would ask that we spend some less-heated time looking at where to draw the lines.
I thought i already posted in here but i guess i didnt :(
Here is my opinion being another biased position as i do not have a goalie FP either and i would like to see those GMs express their opinions.
I echo both concerns.. the fact goalies are literally in a league of their own and forwards barely touch them is an issue. My biggest concern is the disparity from goalie to goalie is so vast. Perhaps we need to play 2 goalies a week to lower the dispartity somewhat..an almost 60 point difference which is assuming u played one of the top 12 goalies in this list all year and it is possible to be even worse. I would be curious what the point totals were without goalies included in them.
1 - E.Nabokov 141.39
2 - M.Brodeur 141.00
3 - H.Lundquist 127.00
4 - R.Luongo 114.29
5 - J-S.Giguere 103.71
6 - M.Turco 102.22
7 - R.Miller 101.41
8 - M.Legace 97.15
9 - M.Kiprusoff 96.02
10 - N.Backstrom 96.02
11 - I.Bryzgalov 93.96
12 - Tomas Vokoun 88.68
my concern on the other side is if the point totals are diminished how does it affect the 3rd of the pool with goalie FPs and how much they paid to acquire them.
In response to Doug's comment about focusing on the individual player and not the team...there is no I in team.
Players get points off of other players' efforts.
I think the point system I suggested is consistent from year to year, and would bring more goalies in to play for us to choose from.
We have seen many goalies with decent W-L records, but have little value to us because of the current system we use.
Fluery for instance in the last 2 seasons had very reasonable W-L records, but got low point value using our system.
My opinion is to move to 3.75 as a compromise here. As Mike states, and Doug also alluded to, why is there a problem with goalies having elite stats? Who says Ovechkin or Crosby or Iginla or whoever is better than Luongo or Brodeur??? IF you ask any NHL coach or GM who the most valauable player on their team is - or even who their top 2 or three players are - there is a very high (let's say 90-100%) chance they will name their goalie. My opinion is that its closer to 100% but I'll go with 90% for the sake of argument. In the FUNHL - we dress 9 forwards, 6 d-men and 1 goalie. So... 15 non-goalies and 1 goalie. I agree that a 140 pts goalie vs 110 pt top forward is too high of a disparity - and thus dropping to 3.75 makes sense. Without rehashing all the numbers -it appears to me that dropping to 3.5 now puts goalies behind the 8 ball compared to elite forwards.
There has been some disparity of goalies such as Legace, Bryzgalov etc being up there in the stats. Holy crap guys... stop thinking about the FUNHL for just a second and think about the incredible value these two guys had to their teams last year!!! Without Legace or Bryzgalov, those two teams would have been disasters instead of just bad.
Anyway, hope this can be resolved peacefully!
I meant in last paragraph that there has been some 'disparaging' of Legace and Brygalov being up there in the stats... [which is kind of unfair]
Oh - and I just have to add here as it might be buried in an earlier post - SHAME on Doug and Bob for their slamming of Mr. Fleury. Come on guys - if ever there was a player who played the game passionately, with guts and his entire soul AND was so incredibly skilled...if you guys go back and watch how he played, you would remember how incredibly valuable he was to the Flames and also to the league. Plus he helped win a cup!
Cam, Suprised you only realized now that the three members of the DC all have FP goaltenders.
We actually have had some email discussion and have even thought about a formula change. Communication is slow going with three timezones and two very busy people in Dan and Myself.
The biggest problem with Mike's suggestion though is partial games are not accounted for. That is why we have avoided that system for the entire life of the pool. The formula method is great and should not be abandoned.
In our discussions I do not think the tradition of plus or minus a half point as really entered into it.
Actually, the RC self-interest angle is a little rich given that every GM in the pool, save one, has either an FP, RFA or prospect goalie on their roster.
The one GM who doesn't - Cam.
Some of these goalie assets are clearly more integral to the teams in question than others. Richard is probably not banking too heavily on T.Rask and I can assure you that R.Dipietro does not form the backbone of my team next year and while I like J.Bernier's potential - I will try for a higher-pointing goalie (3.5 or not) come September.
Doug: Actually, the RC self-interest angle is a little rich given that every GM in the pool, save one, has either an FP, RFA or prospect goalie on their roster.
The one GM who doesn't - Cam.
Cameron: The only thing rich about pointing out the self interest of those involved in this decision is that you would think to equate the presence of RFA goaltenders on some FUNHL rosters with the status of FP netminders. Now THAT is rich.
Just so we don't steer too far from what my position actually is;
- I object to 3.75 on precedent.
- I object to the notion that the DC (especially one with so much self interest involved) can overturn this precedent without a full FUNHL vote.
However, I don't object to considering changing the stats, using part scores, etc. so long as the DC doesn't do so without a full vote (unanimity required).
As I said earlier, the DC is expected to answer one simple questions on the matter; are the stats out of whack? And if so we move by half a point. If not, we leave them be. Anything else should require full consent of the league.
F*ck with the rules and precedent all you want to, but whenever you do you should expect to need full compliance from the league.
So you are saying we can leave at base GAA at 4.0, change to 3.0, 3.5, 4.5 or 5.0; but can cannot change the base value to anything else just because it does not represent your idea of a usuable number.
I agree if we change the structure of the formula then the pool as a whole needs to vote on the new formula, but we currently have a mechanism in place to allow the base rate to be changed by the DC/RC. The covenant does not put on restrictions as to what form that number may take. Maybe DC/RC should start looking at 3.66, 3.825, 3.91 to see if that looks better.
While precedent can be used in coming to a decision. Precedent does not have to make the decision. For someone who I traditionally think of as a non-conformist, it is time to start thinking out of the box.
Cam, you and now Doug have asked the RC/DC to review goaltender stats and make a decision on what the base GAA should be. I now ask the RC/DC to come up with a number for this year by Sep 2. We may also come up with a proposal for a formula change for future years but this year will need to be based on the existing formula with only the Base GAA changing if necessary.
The questions are actually really simple.
1- Do goalie stats, a calculated stat, need to be adjusted for the upcoming season?
2- If so, by how much do we alter the baseline?
3- Is an alteration of the baseline by any amount not divisible by .5 a fundamental change and therefore not permissible.
I'll be honest, I never gave any thought to this last question until Cam raised it - but it IS a valid question and should NOT be dismissed out of hand.
Even if the DC is not bound by precedent, which it is not, you may consider it and there is reason to do so here. If a significant number of GMs feel that moving off the half-point standard is an issue (not becuase of the result but because it is a fundamental change in the practice of establishing the goalie baseline) then it is hard not to say that it IS a fundamental change.
I'm biased because I churn out the stats by way my spreadsheet pretty much every day so quarter-point, two-thirds of a point are really not much of an issue for me but I may be unique here.
It is clearly a huge deviation from past practice as far as Cam is concerned and that shouldn't be simply dismissed as Cam being Cam. If the DC feels that a .25 adjustment as opposed to a .5 adjustment is a fundamental change (even if optimal and desirable because of its effect) then that is changing the rules mid-stream and the DC shouldn't do it barring an actual change in the rules.
I do not get the sense that most, or indeed any more than one, feel that the .5 adjustment ratio is a fundamental element of the goalie stats but we should check around.
Just to rehash some potential stats:
If we change to a 3.5 baseline... a goalie playing 70 games at a 2.25gaa, which we would consider a top notch season, would garner 87.5 points. That goalie should instead be up there with Crosby, Ovechkin et al. A 3.75 baseline would equal 105 pts for said goalie and a 4.00 baseline would equal 122.5 pts which I can appreciate is perhaps too high (even though said goalie playing 70games at a 2.25 gaa is pretty darn remarkable). I know that aesthetics are nice but stats are a weird creature and the last time I talked to them, they told me that they don't give a damn about what humans think.
And am still waiting for profuse apologies and bowing of heads in shame from Doug and Bob re. their thoughts on Fleury. ;-) ;-)
This long post and prolonged commentary shows debate isn't dead but also the point is moot. Past precedent/tradition has shown only 0.5 pt increment changes to the shutout standard. I have put forward a rule proposal [accepting a friendly amendment from Doug] for the league to consider out on email. Once I have completely thought it through, I'll post it to the Blog. The DC has not discussed formally Goalie Stats but we have informally talked different ideas that would require rule changes. I do think a decrease in the shutout standard to 3.5 is in keeping with past precedent. However, because changes in this standard is variable, it should be tied to Goals Per Game as set by the end of each NHL season. This will be the basis of my rule change argument and further liberates this decision from the DC.
BTW Cam and I have a coke bet as I believe the GPG will increase this year...Cam doesn't.
Further, please start another post as 29-30 comments is rather long.
Post a Comment