2 U's, 2 K's--1 Vezina Trophy?
- Thread starter RedOctober3829
- Start date
It will be close between Varlamov and Rask, but I think East Coast bias will prevail and Tuukka takes it home.
Hopefully there's not a "beating the shit out of your girlfriend" category for the trophy, otherwise Varlamov would win in a landslide.
Rask stats
36-15-6 2.04 GAA .930 SV% 7 shutouts (Presidents winning team)
Varlamov stats
41-14-6 2.41 GAA .928 SV% 2 shutouts
Rask has 5 more shutouts a better goals against a slightly better save percentage but 5 less wins. I think Rask has had the better season.
36-15-6 2.04 GAA .930 SV% 7 shutouts (Presidents winning team)
Varlamov stats
41-14-6 2.41 GAA .928 SV% 2 shutouts
Rask has 5 more shutouts a better goals against a slightly better save percentage but 5 less wins. I think Rask has had the better season.
I think the huge shutout differential clinches it for Rask. It more than balances out that he played in fewer games and had fewer wins.
It's not even close, in my mind. Rask will probably win on reputation alone over the other guys, but his stats bear it out even more.
The Vezina belongs to Rask thanks to his rate stats, IMO, but there is an argument to be made for Varlamov. He played on a far worse possession team - Colorado was 26th in Corsi Against (where Boston was 6th) - and thus he faced about 400 more shots than Tuukka did. Considering Varlamov doesn't have a Norris trophy caliber defenseman in front of him nor does he play in the superb defensive system that Rask does, his season was very impressive indeed.
Rask is just more impressive. Not only does he have 7 shutouts, he also has 19 games where he allowed only one goal.
Rask is just more impressive. Not only does he have 7 shutouts, he also has 19 games where he allowed only one goal.
M
MentalDisabldLst
Guest
what's Corsi Against? I'm an idiot when it comes to hockey stats, but I assume you're not talking about Mr. Combover.
Corsi is essentially a +/- of all shot attempts (shots on goal, blocked shots, missed shots, posts...everything) in a game. It is used to try and measure possession with the basic theory behind it being that the more you're possessing the puck, the more you'll be shooting.
I think Rask wins. Biases don't come into play for the Vezina because the GM's vote on the award, not the writers. There is something to be said for Varly playing on a worse defensive team than the one Rask has in front of him, but Rask has him beat in pretty much all statistical categories.
I think Rask wins. Biases don't come into play for the Vezina because the GM's vote on the award, not the writers. There is something to be said for Varly playing on a worse defensive team than the one Rask has in front of him, but Rask has him beat in pretty much all statistical categories.
cshea said:
Yeah, I can definitely see people voting against him with an argument based on how good of a season Johnson had, basically saying that Tuuka was greatly helped by a defensive system so strong that it made Chad frickin' Johnson have all-world numbers (rate stats almost as good as Tuuka's) and therefore Varly had a greater degree of difficulty.
I still think Rask takes it though.
I think the one thing that might hurt him is the Corsi stuff, but more viewed through the lens of how good totally Chad's numbers look.
Rask: 36-15-6 2.04 GAA .930 SV% 7 shutouts (Presidents winning team)
Johnson: 17-4-3 2.10 GAA .925 SV% 2 shutouts.
Rask: 36-15-6 2.04 GAA .930 SV% 7 shutouts (Presidents winning team)
Johnson: 17-4-3 2.10 GAA .925 SV% 2 shutouts.
Do we really think that GMs put more than a cursory thought into these votes? Rask has a great season (arguably the best in the league) and has built up enough notoriety and recognition around the league that I think he takes it on that alone.
I think Varlamov is more deserving than Rask. As others have noted, you can't just blindly compare them without taking into account their teams.
Rask: 36-15-6, 2.04 GAA, .930 SV%
Backups: 18-4-3, 2.10 GAA, .926 SV%
Varlamov: 41-14-6, 2.41 GAA, .928 SV%
Backups: 11-8-2, 2.85 GAA, .904 SV%
Rask put up excellent numbers and was better at keeping the puck out of his net. That's a plus for him. However, the difference in Rask's numbers as compared to non-Rask starts is very small. The fact that the Bruins were able to put up a .926 SV% and 2.10 GAA without their starter in net is pretty telling that the system is working very well. When you look at Varlamov in Colorado, his numbers are excellent though his GAA is obviously higher than Rask. However, his backups fared significantly worse in net than he did. Rather than the .004 points of SV% differential in Boston between starter and backup, there was a .024 differential between Colorado's goalies. The jump in GAA was similarly large.
Finally, when Rask played the Bruins picked up 68.4% of available points, an excellent figure. That translates to 112 points over a full season. When Varlamov played, the Avalanche picked up 72% of points. Varlamov's 118 point pace is actually better than Rask's figure despite Colorado scoring less as a team. The big teller, again, is that Bruins backups earned 78% of points for a 128 point pace while Colorado backups earned just 57% of points for a 94 point pace.
The Bruins were an excellent team regardless of who was in net. The Avalanche played like an elite team with Varlamov in net and like a fringe playoff team without him.
Rask: 36-15-6, 2.04 GAA, .930 SV%
Backups: 18-4-3, 2.10 GAA, .926 SV%
Varlamov: 41-14-6, 2.41 GAA, .928 SV%
Backups: 11-8-2, 2.85 GAA, .904 SV%
Rask put up excellent numbers and was better at keeping the puck out of his net. That's a plus for him. However, the difference in Rask's numbers as compared to non-Rask starts is very small. The fact that the Bruins were able to put up a .926 SV% and 2.10 GAA without their starter in net is pretty telling that the system is working very well. When you look at Varlamov in Colorado, his numbers are excellent though his GAA is obviously higher than Rask. However, his backups fared significantly worse in net than he did. Rather than the .004 points of SV% differential in Boston between starter and backup, there was a .024 differential between Colorado's goalies. The jump in GAA was similarly large.
Finally, when Rask played the Bruins picked up 68.4% of available points, an excellent figure. That translates to 112 points over a full season. When Varlamov played, the Avalanche picked up 72% of points. Varlamov's 118 point pace is actually better than Rask's figure despite Colorado scoring less as a team. The big teller, again, is that Bruins backups earned 78% of points for a 128 point pace while Colorado backups earned just 57% of points for a 94 point pace.
The Bruins were an excellent team regardless of who was in net. The Avalanche played like an elite team with Varlamov in net and like a fringe playoff team without him.
Why should Tuukka be "punished" for having a good backup? Colorado used the ancient Giguere to back up Varlamov; Boston using the much younger Johnson. Is it really a surprise that Johnson's numbers are better than Giguere's? If the Colorado backups don't pick up points all that well that's likely a reflection of their own play rather than Varlamov bailing them out all year.
Plus, all but 3 of the non-Varlamov games were played by Giguere; Berra and Aittokallio played the other 3 and were beyond awful in a very limited number of minutes, so they badly skew the backup GAA numbers. Varlamov's GAA was 2.41, Giguere's was 2.62. That's not a huge gulf at all, really.
I think Johnson's numbers, while benefitting from the system in front of him, are more a reflection on Johnson than anything else. Also, if the goalies with the Bruins are just a product of the system, how come Khudobin has better numbers this year playing for Carolina than he did playing for Boston last year? (2.32, 920 for Boston last year, 2.30, 926 for Carolina this year). It's because he's good, just like Johnson is, and it doesn't have as much to do with the system as you're indicating.
Plus, all but 3 of the non-Varlamov games were played by Giguere; Berra and Aittokallio played the other 3 and were beyond awful in a very limited number of minutes, so they badly skew the backup GAA numbers. Varlamov's GAA was 2.41, Giguere's was 2.62. That's not a huge gulf at all, really.
I think Johnson's numbers, while benefitting from the system in front of him, are more a reflection on Johnson than anything else. Also, if the goalies with the Bruins are just a product of the system, how come Khudobin has better numbers this year playing for Carolina than he did playing for Boston last year? (2.32, 920 for Boston last year, 2.30, 926 for Carolina this year). It's because he's good, just like Johnson is, and it doesn't have as much to do with the system as you're indicating.
I'm a long time hockey fan but complete newb at analyzing anything but the most basic stats, but aren't the W-L/point numbers for goalies almost as flawed as they are for pitchers?
Sure, you leave out almost all of the "relievers blew my lead" factor, but if Varlamov has a better record than Rask despite giving up more goals per game, doesn't that speak more about the Colorado vs. Boston offenses than it does about Rask and Varlamov?
Given that they both scored a lot of goals, that would seem counter-intuitive. Is there data out there that gives any distribution breakdown on goals scored vs. goals allowed that might account for this discrepancy?
Sure, you leave out almost all of the "relievers blew my lead" factor, but if Varlamov has a better record than Rask despite giving up more goals per game, doesn't that speak more about the Colorado vs. Boston offenses than it does about Rask and Varlamov?
Given that they both scored a lot of goals, that would seem counter-intuitive. Is there data out there that gives any distribution breakdown on goals scored vs. goals allowed that might account for this discrepancy?
They basically are worthless and a product of the team. There's nothing like "pitching to the score" (which even is mostly bunk in baseball) in hockey -- goalies try equally hard to stop every puck. Maybe if you were up by 5 or something you'd relax but that rarely happens.Hendu for Kutch said:
I would like to see a breakdown of the teams played by each vs their backups (perhaps the overall sh% of opponents faced in games shortly before and after facing each goalie?). It is my impression that Claude and probably most teams would tend to use their better goalie against better teams, so that could skew the Tuukka / Johnson comparison as well.
Edit: The team may play to the score and therefore allow more shots, but there's not really anything the goalie can do but try to stop them all.
Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
It’s not a surprise at all that Johnson had better numbers than Giguere. I could have told you that would happen before the season started. Boston’s goalies consistently do this under Julien. Rask is a great goalie, but the Bruins also run a phenomenal system that’s incredibly friendly to goalies. The Bruins have led the NHL in SV% as a team in four of the past six seasons. Backups and starters alike do very well in Boston. Julien and the Bruins absolutely have a working system that makes goalies look better.
Year: Starter, Backup
2013-14: Rask (2.04, .930), Johnson (2.10, .925)
2012-13: Rask (2.00, .929), Khudobin (2.32, .920)
2011-12: Rask (2.05, .929), Thomas (2.36, .920)
2010-11: Thomas (2.00, .938), Rask (2.67, .918)
2009-10: Rask (1.97, .931), Thomas (2.56, .915)
2008-09: Thomas (2.10, .933), Fernandez (2.59, .910)
2007-08: Thomas (2.44, .921), Auld (2.32, .919)
Year: Rank of Bruins
2013-14: 2nd GAA, 1st SV%
2012-13: 3rd GAA, 3rd SV%
2011-12: 6th GAA, 7th SV%
2010-11: 3rd GAA, 1st SV%
2009-10: 2nd GAA, 1st SV%
2008-09: 1st GAA, 1st SV%
2007-08: 11th GAA, 6th SV%
Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
The difference between Varlamov’s 2.41 GAA and Giguere’s 2.62 GAA isn’t huge, but it’s certainly bigger than the difference between Rask and Johnson. Also, Giguere faced 3+ shots/game fewer than Varlamov, which helped suppress his GAA numbers. Their .927 SV% and .913 SV% respectively shows a pretty decent chasm in performance level. It is, again, a much greater difference than the one found between Rask and Johnson.
Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
It's certainly possible that Johnson is better than Giguere, if not quite likely at this point. But it doesn't explain why his numbers are THAT good. Do you think Johnson is better than Varlamov as well since his GAA was lower and SV% very comparable? Just how good do you think Johnson is? Because the numbers alone suggest he’s a top-10 goalie in the NHL.
Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
I don’t have a good reason for why Khudobin was as good if not better in Carolina this year as he was in Boston last year. The biggest thing may simply be sample size. We’re talking about 50 games over two seasons. However, looking behind just Khudobin, there are other data points to consider.
Rask has only known Boston, so it’s tough to compare him. But otherwise, Tim Thomas went from mediocre starter to Vezina-caliber the moment Julien came to Boston. In 108 games in Boston before Julien was coach, Thomas had a 3.00 GAA and .909 SV%. In 270 games under Julien, he posted a 2.28 GAA and .926 SV%. Auld put up his career best season in Boston. Johnson doesn’t have an NHL track record, but just put up his best numbers of his career next to his senior year in the CCHA.
Goalies of all levels thrive in Boston with Julien at the helm. This isn't to say Rask isn't talented or is not an elite goalie. I believe he absolutely is. I just think Varlamov was better.
When looking at all NHL goalies to win more than two games this year (70 of them), only six faced more shots on average than Varlamov (nobody actually faced more shots as Varlamov had a very comfortable lead in overall shots against). The only goalies to face more shots were, not surprisingly, from just three teams. They were from Toronto (Reimer, Bernier), Ottawa (Lehner, Anderson), and Washington (Holtby, Neuvirth). All three of those teams finished in the bottom half of the league and missed the playoffs. Colorado was 27th in Corsi differential this year (Boston 4th), 27th in Fenwick (Boston 6th), and 26th in shot differential (Boston 6th). The only thing that separated Colorado from being a very questionable wild card or lottery pick was Varlamov.
M
MentalDisabldLst
Guest
FAH stated what I wanted to in a much better way than I could.
To add on - Rask may well win and he'd be a deserving winner. However, Varlamov put up his numbers with Jan Hejda and Erik Johnson as his top pair. Advanced stats have long pinned Hejda as a guy who can eat minutes against good opposition, just not particularly well. Johnson had a good rebound season, but is still more of an offensive force - combined they played passable top-line defense which, when paired with an elite goalie, yields decent results.
Other than those two, here's Varlamov's defense in order of ES TOI/60:
Andre Benoit
Tyson Barrie
Cory Sarich
Nick Holden
Nate Guenin
Suffices to say these guys aren't on the Boston d-corps' level in terns of ability or defensive structure. Not surprisingly, the Avs ranked 6th in the league in shots allowed (sandwiched between Edmonton and Florida). The Bruins were 19th, with (as we know) the vast majority of those shots coming from the outside.
Rask was a part of the puzzle in capturing the best record and 2nd fewest goals conceded in hockey. Varlamov was the key cog in a team rebounding from the cellar to a viable playoff contender. Rask's stats may win out, but in terms of value added in net, I don't think there's anyone more deserving than Varlamov.
To add on - Rask may well win and he'd be a deserving winner. However, Varlamov put up his numbers with Jan Hejda and Erik Johnson as his top pair. Advanced stats have long pinned Hejda as a guy who can eat minutes against good opposition, just not particularly well. Johnson had a good rebound season, but is still more of an offensive force - combined they played passable top-line defense which, when paired with an elite goalie, yields decent results.
Other than those two, here's Varlamov's defense in order of ES TOI/60:
Andre Benoit
Tyson Barrie
Cory Sarich
Nick Holden
Nate Guenin
Suffices to say these guys aren't on the Boston d-corps' level in terns of ability or defensive structure. Not surprisingly, the Avs ranked 6th in the league in shots allowed (sandwiched between Edmonton and Florida). The Bruins were 19th, with (as we know) the vast majority of those shots coming from the outside.
Rask was a part of the puzzle in capturing the best record and 2nd fewest goals conceded in hockey. Varlamov was the key cog in a team rebounding from the cellar to a viable playoff contender. Rask's stats may win out, but in terms of value added in net, I don't think there's anyone more deserving than Varlamov.
Fuck. I really hate it when conversation in this forum is intelligent.
You both make good points.
You both make good points.
May be interesting to only me, but it shows the unpredictability of projecting goaltenders with all three finalists having been traded by their original teams.
The counterargument is that Chad Johnson played the vast majority of his games against non-playoff teams.Spelunker said:
PSK's post is excellent.
If there is a narrative component to these things, does Rask get any bump from how publicized it has been that the Bruins lost Seidenberg, Ference and McQuaid, have played 3 young defenseman and Miller, and a big constant has been Rask?
(Pay no attention to the monster Slovakian behind the curtain).
If there is a narrative component to these things, does Rask get any bump from how publicized it has been that the Bruins lost Seidenberg, Ference and McQuaid, have played 3 young defenseman and Miller, and a big constant has been Rask?
(Pay no attention to the monster Slovakian behind the curtain).
I'm not an expert but a couple studies have shown just a sliver of correlation between on-ice save percentage for defensemen.
http://www.broadstreethockey.com/2013/7/4/4487304/save-percentage-variability-regression-defense
http://hockeyanalysis.com/2012/02/09/defenders-effect-on-save/
There is much more of a repeatable effect for defensemen simply preventing shots in the first place. So while you'd think that you'd rather be goaltending behind Chara than the Avs d-men, I'd question the contention that the Bruins' systems and talent would influence their goaltenders save%.
It's possible that Chara is so good that he is one of the few defensemen who actually do help save%. But it seems like a very small effect if so. This year, Chara had an on-ice SV% of 93.9 at 5-on-5. The Bruins overall were 94.0% at 5-on-5. Last year Z was 94.2% while the Bs overall were 93.2%. Maybe that's something since he plays against the opponents' best players, but I'm not sure it's significant.
http://www.broadstreethockey.com/2013/7/4/4487304/save-percentage-variability-regression-defense
http://hockeyanalysis.com/2012/02/09/defenders-effect-on-save/
There is much more of a repeatable effect for defensemen simply preventing shots in the first place. So while you'd think that you'd rather be goaltending behind Chara than the Avs d-men, I'd question the contention that the Bruins' systems and talent would influence their goaltenders save%.
It's possible that Chara is so good that he is one of the few defensemen who actually do help save%. But it seems like a very small effect if so. This year, Chara had an on-ice SV% of 93.9 at 5-on-5. The Bruins overall were 94.0% at 5-on-5. Last year Z was 94.2% while the Bs overall were 93.2%. Maybe that's something since he plays against the opponents' best players, but I'm not sure it's significant.
Julien's usage of Johnson was very, shall we say, strategic. Johnson's rate stats were comparable to Rask because his opponents weren't:
Non-playoff teams:
Buffalo (3): Worst team in NHL
Florida (2): 2nd worst team in NHL
Edmonton (2): 3rd worst team in NHL
NYI (2)
Carolina (2)
Toronto (2)
New Jersey (2)
Ottawa (1)
Washington (1)
Winnepeg (1)
Playoff teams:
Columbus (2): As noted above, a terrible puck possession team
Dallas (1)
LA Kings (1)
Colorado (1)
Rask is a legitimate Vezina candidate... Johnson will fade back into mediocrity next year playing for a different team. He's a UFA - we can only hope that the Flyers will be fooled by the numbers and hand him a big contract.
Non-playoff teams:
Buffalo (3): Worst team in NHL
Florida (2): 2nd worst team in NHL
Edmonton (2): 3rd worst team in NHL
NYI (2)
Carolina (2)
Toronto (2)
New Jersey (2)
Ottawa (1)
Washington (1)
Winnepeg (1)
Playoff teams:
Columbus (2): As noted above, a terrible puck possession team
Dallas (1)
LA Kings (1)
Colorado (1)
Rask is a legitimate Vezina candidate... Johnson will fade back into mediocrity next year playing for a different team. He's a UFA - we can only hope that the Flyers will be fooled by the numbers and hand him a big contract.
I'll add that with all of this it's a small enough sample going to be very difficult to parse out the effect of the team vs. Tuukka or Varlamov even if we had great data (like a shotFX) which we don't. If Tuukka allows like 3 more goals his SV% for the year would drop below Varlamov, which could have happened with a few more power plays called or having Varlamov start against a couple good teams instead of bad ones any number of things out of the players' control. The difference between them in the sample size of the season is absolutely razor thin.
One thought I had after reading the stuff in this thread and the point: a negative hit to Rask because Johnson's numbers showed that the Bruins defense aids the goalie so much.
One thing that struck me this year (perception != reality?) is that Tuukka seemed to get the hard games (with perhaps one rest period) and Chad got the easier games in back to backs, etc. Is there a way to see what the opposition winning percentage was with each of our goalies (or the other Vezina candidates for that matter). I apologize if this should be an easy find, but hockey stats and I aren't exactly on speaking terms right now. If my perception is accurate, then Chad's numbers should be expected to be high as well. Prior year w/ Tuukka it seemed that Claude used more of a random distribution - I didn't see a pattern of one goalie getting the harder games.
So where could I look to get a handle on whether my perception is skewed?
Edit: Or what Eddie Jurak said... doh... how the heck did I miss that post.
One thing that struck me this year (perception != reality?) is that Tuukka seemed to get the hard games (with perhaps one rest period) and Chad got the easier games in back to backs, etc. Is there a way to see what the opposition winning percentage was with each of our goalies (or the other Vezina candidates for that matter). I apologize if this should be an easy find, but hockey stats and I aren't exactly on speaking terms right now. If my perception is accurate, then Chad's numbers should be expected to be high as well. Prior year w/ Tuukka it seemed that Claude used more of a random distribution - I didn't see a pattern of one goalie getting the harder games.
So where could I look to get a handle on whether my perception is skewed?
Edit: Or what Eddie Jurak said... doh... how the heck did I miss that post.
Any strength of schedule conversation should also point out that the West was much better than the East this year. Only one Western Conference team (Dallas) had a losing record against the East. Everyone else from the Western Conference even or better.
West record against East: 246-150-52 (100 points over one season)
East record against West: 202-188-58 (85 points over one season)
West record against East: 246-150-52 (100 points over one season)
East record against West: 202-188-58 (85 points over one season)
ForceAtHome said:
Against the West this year:
Rask: 12-4-5, 1.80, .938
Varlamov: 27-7-4, 2.49, .927
Against the East this year:
Rask: 24-11-1, 2.17, .926
Varlamov: 14-7-2, 2.28, .929
It looks like the best of the 4 splits is actually Rask vs. the west. Perhaps he was bored with the weak competition in the east? :lol:
An additional stat in Rask's favor: his even strength save percentage this year was .941 vs. Varlamov's .933.
Why should Rask be rewarded for playing behind the most tactically advanced defense in the NHL?Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
This award is dumb and voting may as well be done with a dart board, but that argument doesn't really help either way.
(I'd vote for Varlamov, though. Better individual season irrespective of defense.)
Note that the voting GMs all saw Rask play in Sochi, and shut out the US for the bronze. In the quarterfinals against Russia, Rask gave up 1 goal on 38 shots, while Varlamov got yanked after surrendering 3 in 15.
It's not supposed to matter, but it's hard to "unsee."
It's not supposed to matter, but it's hard to "unsee."
Carmine Hose said:
I kind of doubt that will factor. I suspect that the majority of voters will look at GAA, SV%, and the fact that Rask was on the President's Trophy winning Bruins and give him their top vote.