The New Jersey Devils Record When Martin Brodeur Gave Up a Soft Goal in 2009-10
by John Fischer on Sep 6, 2010 12:35 PM EDT
in Devils Issues, Views & Analysis
Email
Print
Back on August 22, I summarized the findings of my summer-long project of looking at all of the goals Martin Brodeur gave up in 2009-10 for the New Jersey Devils. Among other things, it proved that Martin Brodeur was not solely at fault for a majority of the goals against him. In response, I got this interesting comment from Todd the Fox:
This is really great work, John. I don’t know if you wanted to expand on this work at all, but looking at the percentage of soft goals compared to the percentage of team points per month could be interesting. As a goaltender myself (not in a league anywhere near the NHL), I know letting in a softie can demoralise the team a bit. I would be curious to know whether this affects the number of goals scored or points taken for a game/month.
While I can't fully answer that question, I can come closer to answering that question by finding out what the Devils' record was when Martin Brodeur let in a soft goal. Todd agreed that would suffice.
In the regular season, I counted 35 soft goals allowed by Brodeur. The soft goals occurred across 27 games; or approximately 35% of the games Brodeur played in 2009-10. The Devils record in those 27 games was 12-14-1. Without knowing the record for other goalies in the league, I can't tell you that a winning percentage of 44% was good or not in games where soft goals were allowed. I can tell you that it doesn't seem so awful on it's own.
However, in those 15 non-wins, the soft goal allowed turned out to be the eventual game-winning goal 11 times. That's definitely not good. That said, I wouldn't immediately turn around and say that Brodeur was solely at fault for losing those 11 games. January 26 is a good example where I wouldn't argue that. The first goal Brodeur gave up was soft; but it was also the eventual game winner since the Devils were shutout by Ottawa 3-0. A quick look back of my recap of that game gives a better picture of what went on in the game (the Devils stunk in that one).
Adding to that, take a look at the playoffs. Brodeur gave up 3 soft goals out of 15 in two games (Game 1 and 4), and two of them turned out to be game winners. But anyone who saw the Devils' "attack" in the first round would know full well that had a lot more to do with the Devils faltering than the play of the goaltender.
It's still a good way to put the earlier work into context. Incidentally, those 15 non-wins represented 55.56% of all the games Brodeur lost in that 2009-10; and in each of those games, Brodeur gave up more than just one goal. It's not as if one error by Brodeur necessarily cost the Devils the game 15 times last season. Nevertheless, thanks to Todd for his question and I hope you, the reader, found this somewhat interesting. Please leave your thoughts in the comments, and as usual, thanks for reading.
19 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
This definitely seems to support the idea that giving up a softie demoralizes the team. However, I think you did a great job explaining how the play by the rest of the team before some of these “softies” seemed to indicate the Devils were going to lose anyway, or at the very least did not deserve to win.
"Everything is status quo." - Lou Lamoriello
"*Heavy groan*" - The Entirety of Devils Nation
This statement:
However, I think you did a great job explaining how the play by the rest of the team before some of these "softies" seemed to indicate the Devils were going to lose anyway, or at the very least did not deserve to win.
Contradicts:
This definitely seems to support the idea that giving up a softie demoralizes the team.
Devils in my heart! Devils in my mind! Devils in my eyes! Devils until I die!
In Lou We Trust - The New Jersey Devils SBN Blog
Having a bad night is compounded by giving up a softie. Pretty much ensures a loss. Made sense to me.
"Everything is status quo." - Lou Lamoriello
"*Heavy groan*" - The Entirety of Devils Nation
Well, here’s why it doesn’t make sense to me. If the Devils’ play was so poor that they were going to lose, then how can a soft goal against demoralize a team that was already playing poorly? Maybe I just don’t understand; but if you’re playing at a rock-bottom level, giving up a soft one or a non-soft one isn’t going to make it any worse – it’s already bad.
Devils in my heart! Devils in my mind! Devils in my eyes! Devils until I die!
In Lou We Trust - The New Jersey Devils SBN Blog
Great work again, John.
However, in those 15 non-wins, the soft goal allowed turned out to be the eventual game-winning goal 11 times.
So, 31% of Brodeurs soft goals were game winners. I know it’s difficult to really say anything definitive about the effect of those goals, but it’s certainly interesting to speculate.
Backing Backlund for 2010-2011
Mourning Gagne forever.
but....
…but isn’t the idea of having a “game changing” goalie to make the save that changes the game? Had a great save been made instead of a soft goal, might that have altered the outcome?
Also, I remember reading the quote that was made stating that, you can look at every goal given up by a goalie and invariably, you’ll see a mistake made by the players in front of him. Well, obviously! If not, then you have a team playing perfect defense! The idea of the goalie is to be the last line of defense… to correct the mistakes made in front of him which, ultimately, led to the shot. Case in point, if the defense is doing a poor job in covering bodies in front of the net and the goalie gives up a juicy rebound, who’s at fault?
isn’t the idea of having a "game changing" goalie to make the save that changes the game?
Ideally. But no one is perfect.
The idea of the goalie is to be the last line of defense… to correct the mistakes made in front of him which, ultimately, led to the shot.
Not entirely true. They are supposed to be the last line of defense, but even the best, most disciplined and effective defense gives up shots. It’s not “correcting the mistakes” so much as playing their role within the defensive scheme, which is, ultimately, to keep the puck from crossing the goal line.
Case in point, if the defense is doing a poor job in covering bodies in front of the net and the goalie gives up a juicy rebound, who’s at fault?
At fault for what? The shot? The rebound? ??
Playing Devils' advocate since 1982.
Depends. Is it a soft goal? Did the goalie have a shot at controlling the rebound? Was he screened or otherwise impaired on the rebound shot?
If the defense is doing a poor job in covering bodies in front of the net and a rebound is given up on a shot that probably shouldn’t have been taken in the first place, how do you blame the goalie if someone cleans up the rebound?
Playing Devils' advocate since 1982.
I think Brodeur has a tough gig when it comes to allowing bad goals. The Devils’ defensive style of play lends itself to a situation where a soft goal on Brodeur carries more weight than a soft goal allowed by a goaltender on a higher scoring team. As a Caps fan, I see a lot of bad goals against (either defensive breakdowns, an utter lack of effort on the backcheck, or goaltending breakdowns). Of course, the Caps play an offensive system that can mitigate the effects of a weak goal.
A weak goal doesn’t rattle the Caps as much, because they generally score more goals. When you score 2-3 goals a night as a team, its much more difficult to rebound from a weak goal against, than when you score 3-4 goals per night as a team.
I am a hockey fan first, and a Caps fan second.
Maybe? I’d love to know how good or bad 12-14-1 stacks up among the league; but I’m not going to watch every goal allowed by most starting goalies, catergorize their goals allowed, and then figure out the same thing.
Devils in my heart! Devils in my mind! Devils in my eyes! Devils until I die!
In Lou We Trust - The New Jersey Devils SBN Blog
by John Fischer on Sep 7, 2010 1:59 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Ha. Puck Daddy links to ILWT quite a few times. It’s clear someone over there is a fan. But if I do all that work, I’m going to want a lot more than a link from Puck Daddy (laugh with me here).
Devils in my heart! Devils in my mind! Devils in my eyes! Devils until I die!
In Lou We Trust - The New Jersey Devils SBN Blog
at the least, I can do this:
Marty Brodeur’s non-shutout record: 36-25-6
I’m making the hopefully correct assumption that all the shutouts were wins and not 1-0 double shutout losses, because those are lame. Shutouts are excluded because we are interested in testing if allowing soft goals hurts the team’s ability to win as opposed to allowing only non-soft goals.
Brodeur had one no-decision this year, so these numbers will be off by one somewhere.
Devils record in games that Brodeur only allowed non-soft goals: 24-11-5 (.663 PTS%)
Devils record in games that Brodeur allowed at least 1 soft goal: 12-14-1 (.463 PTS%)
That’s a pretty significant difference, so clearly there is some effect here, though it is probably due to the devils playing worse overall in the games that Brodeur allowed soft goals.
It would also be somewhat interesting to see if goals were scored on the Devils at a greater rate after a soft goal against as opposed to before it, or if the devils offense was less productive before or after a soft goal against was allowed in a game.
On the Mike Weber bandwagon.
Everything wrong with the Sabres is Drew Stafford's fault.
It would also be somewhat interesting to see if goals were scored on the Devils at a greater rate after a soft goal against as opposed to before it, or if the devils offense was less productive before or after a soft goal against was allowed in a game.
You know, I’m kicking myself for not doing this sooner but if I record the time of each soft goal against, I can determine A) how many goals did the Devils score after the soft one; B) how many goals did the opposition score; and C) how much time the Devils did/did not have to make up for the soft one.
I think I found my next post. Thanks.
Devils in my heart! Devils in my mind! Devils in my eyes! Devils until I die!
In Lou We Trust - The New Jersey Devils SBN Blog
Another telling stat might be
How many of those 14 regulation losses were by 1 goal, regardless of whether the soft goal was the winner. If you lose 3-2, jump back in time to make the save on the soft goal, perhaps you’d have won some of those games in OT or SO
Go Devils
Go Jets
Like sports betting? Sign up with centsports and do it for free
I can answer that...with a list
Oct. 3 – 5-2 L to Flyers (Soft goals were the first, fourth and fifth ones allowed)
Oct. 5 – 3-2 L to Rangers (Soft goal was third) – 1
Oct. 16 – 4-2 L to Thrashers (Soft goal was third)
Oct. 28 – 4-1 L to Sabres (Soft goal were second and third)
Nov. 16 – 2-3 L at Flyers (Soft goal was third one) – 2
Dec. 2 – 5-2 L to Canucks (Soft goals were third and fourth)
Dec. 26 – 1-4 L at Capitals (Soft goals were first and second)
Jan. 14 – 3-4 L at Coyotes (Soft goal was second) – 3
Jan. 16 – 1-3 L at Avalanche (Soft goal was second)
Jan. 26 – 0-3 L at Senators (Soft goal was first)
Jan. 31 – 3-2 L to Kings (Soft goals were first and second) – 4
Mar. 5 – 3-5 L at Flames (Soft goals were first and fourth)
Mar. 28 – 1-5 L at Flyers (Soft goals was second)
Apr. 8 – 2-3 L at Panthers (Soft goals were first and third) – 5
So to answer your question: 5 games out of 14.
One logical follow-up to this is similar to the one Ubiquitous has asked earlier: What happened to the Devils offense after a soft goal was allowed? How many goals did the Devils score after a soft one between wins and losses?
The other logical follow-up is when these soft goals were allowed? Were they allowed early (meaning: the Devils had the time to make up the difference) or late in the game (where the Devils would be lucky to make up for it)?
I’m not sure which I’ll answer next.
Devils in my heart! Devils in my mind! Devils in my eyes! Devils until I die!
In Lou We Trust - The New Jersey Devils SBN Blog
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on In Lou We Trust
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Saturday’s Three Stars: Reimer, Vokoun post shutouts; St. Louis nets hat trick
- Fight Video: Ilya Kovalchuk KOs Flyers’ Brayden Schenn with nasty right hook
- Penguins’ Brooks Orpik launches Daniel Paille with massive hit (Video)
- Penguins, Bruins face their challenges in Eastern Conference showdown
- Olli Jokinen’s slump-buster is a Big Mac meal from McDonalds (Video)
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
