SB Nation Philly Editor's Pick
Michael Leighton Is Not Very Good At Hockey
by Justin F. on Mar 23, 2011 11:58 PM EDT
Email
Print(Title inspired by the wonderful folks at The Good Phight)
Since the Flyers lost in a shootout to the Washington Capitals last night, there has been a lot of talk about how the Flyers goalies are "not good enough" and they need to call up current Phantoms goalie Michael Leighton because only god saves more than Michael Leighton and he is better than the two knuckleheads named the Flyers currently have in goal. Does this sound about right to everyone?
Well, it is true that this is what a lot of people have been saying, but the claims they make that Leighton is the better goaltender are completely false and are frustratingly misinformed. Before we get into statistics, though, let me just say that anybody judging a goalie over a single game and a shootout is being completely absurd. Shootouts are like spinning a roulette wheel. In Game 82 against the Rangers, the Flyers got lucky and the roulette wheel came up an orange number. Last night, the Flyers got unlucky and it came up a white number. Also, why are people saying Brian Boucher "sucks at shootouts" and therefore the Flyers need to recall Michael Leighton for the playoffs because of it? Stop me if I am stating the obvious, but there are no shootouts in the playoffs. Okay, so the people who make that jump are probably in the minority of those screaming for Leighton, but still, people look at the past few games that Boosh and Bob played and all of a sudden believe Michael Leighton is a god who saves more than Bernie Parent. Or whatever it is he and his five-hole are being called these days
Let's take a look at even strength save percentages this year, shall we: Why ESS%? Because it is one of, if not the most informing stats about a goalkeeper that we have. Goals against average is much too dependent on the play of other players on the ice, and save percentage factors in shots and goals given up while short-handed or on the power play, where the defense is set much differently than normal, in addition to being up or down a man. All numbers taken and derived from data on NHL.com
Brian Boucher, career ESS%: .911
Brian Boucher, since start of 2008-2009 season ESS%: .918
Brian Boucher, 2010-2011 ESS%: .921
Sergei Bobrovsky, 2010-2011 (also career) ESS%: .921
Brian Boucher and Sergei Bobrovsky, combined 2010-2011 ESS%: .921
Michael Leighton, career ESS%: .908
Michael Leighton, since start of 2008-2009 season ESS%: .908
Michael Leighton, 2009-2010 season with Flyers (because 1 game in 2010-2011 is insufficient to say anything): .916
What does this say? Well, it says what the title says, "Michael Leighton is not very good at hockey." He is a career .908 ES% goalie who has not outperformed Brian Boucher and Sergei Bobrovsky by any stretch of the imagination. If you go by career, numbers, Boucher is a better goalie than Leighton. If you go since 2008, Boucher is a better goalie than Leighton. If you go for the small sample sizes, Brian Boucher's most recent season with the Flyers is better than Michael Leighton's most recent season with the Flyers. Boosh has admittedly played better than his career numbers the past 3 years, but look at Leighton. His career ESS% is .908. His ESS% since 2008 is .908. But in the 2nd half of the 2009-2010 season he is at .916. Whoa. Holy playing way above your true talent level, Batman! And even Leighton playing above his true talent level has not eclipsed the numbers that Brian Boucher and Sergei Bobrovsky have put up this year. And while Brian Boucher has been playing above his career numbers as well, he has consistently been playing better than his career average the past three years, while Leighton's high numbers come in only a 5-month span. The goalie with the consistently higher numbers over the past few years is always going to be a better gamble than the goalie who had decently high numbers for a five-month span.
Brian Boucher is not a great goaltender. Sergei Bobrovsky is a rookie. While none of the two can considered a slam dunk between the pipes, one thing is for certain: They are both certainly better and more capable of playing Flyers' goaltender in the playoffs than Michael freaking Leighton and his five hole, the ghost of which still haunts the Wells Fargo Center to this day.
For those that want to play around with data, I have Bob's, Boosh's and Leighton's, shots faced, shots saved, and ESS% numbers by year in this handy-dandy spreadsheet I made.
This item was written by a member of this community and is not necessarily endorsed by Broad Street Hockey.
76 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Who is saying to bring up Leighton?
I think anyone who watched last year’s Cup finals knows he isn’t very good…
by FooFighter1124 on Mar 24, 2011 12:17 AM EDT reply actions
It was mentioned a few times in the 3rd period thread of the Caps game.
Nice work, Justin. I don’t see how anybody could logically argue with this.
Mourning Gagne forever.
And by several people on Twitter and Facebook. I know to most of the regulars this is just preaching to the choir, but I hope this reaches the readers who do not comment but feel like the Flyers need to call up Leighton.
Writer at SB Nation's Philadelphia Union blog, The Brotherly Game. Follow me on Twitter.
Thanks for the compliment as well. I thought I added a thanks in there before I published my above comment, but obviously I did not. Odd.
Writer at SB Nation's Philadelphia Union blog, The Brotherly Game. Follow me on Twitter.
our goaltending isnt great, but i think its good enough to get the job done and nothing has shown me so far that it isnt. One bad game or a few mediocre doesnt change my mind. But people who say to bring leighton back up just go watch last years winning goal. im sure you will quickly change your mind, very good post.
Let’s not forget about the future Hall of Famer that makes our goalies look good.
Simon Gagne may move between towns, wear new jerseys and call different arenas home, but at the end of the day, he will always be a Philadelphia Flyer.
by PursuitOfLappyness on Mar 24, 2011 4:59 AM EDT reply actions
I don't disagree with your overall idea to stick with Boosh/Bob
But career ESS%s of .911 and .908 are hardly significant enough to declare one mediocre and the other “bad”.
To that end, I will re-iterate the fact that in the past four seasons, Brian Boucher has been playing at or above his career average in the last 3 seasons, whereas Leighton only managed that feat for five-months. Brian Boucher is a solid back-up goaltender in the NHL, and will be that for the rest of his career. Michael Leighton is a career AHL goaltender who may see some call-ups if a goalie or two gets injured, whether it be now or down the road with another team.
Writer at SB Nation's Philadelphia Union blog, The Brotherly Game. Follow me on Twitter.
So Boosh is due for regression because he’s been outperforming for so long, right?
/kidding
Lightning strikes once, Hextall strikes twice!
You shouldn’t have added kidding, because… he has been outperforming for so long.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999 and Matt Calvert since May 2010
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Mar 24, 2011 5:05 PM EDT up reply actions
agreed. this is pretty much an opinionated article, comparing a rookie, career backup and a goalie who has been shuffled around from team to team his whole career.
stats can be misleading, just depends on how you look at them. for example-
GP W L MIN GA SO GAA SV%
leightons career playoff numbers ahl/nhl- 19 9 8 1300 27 5 1.25 .980
pretty disgusting numbers for a goalie at any level.
Michael Leighton does not have a 0.980 career AHL/NHL Playoff Save Percentage
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999 and Matt Calvert since May 2010
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Mar 24, 2011 4:21 PM EDT up reply actions
In fact, Leighton’s career Professional Playoff numbers are:
33 GP, 986 shots against, 0.941 Sv%
Know why that’s so inflated? It’s only 986 shots. And he has a 0.956 sv% in the AHL Playoffs.
Stats can be misleading when they are achieved in small samples. Like 1,000 shot samples. Or, Michael Leighton’s 09-10 season. Which is why you look at his career numbers and last three years.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999 and Matt Calvert since May 2010
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Mar 24, 2011 4:25 PM EDT up reply actions
Where to begin?
AHL playoff numbers are completely irrelevant as the competition is different in the AHL in the NHL. When saying that a guy should or should not be part of an NHL team, stats about how he performed against the likes of the Hershey Bears and the Wilkes-Barre Scranton Penguins, and the Philadelphia Phantoms are completely irrelevant because the competition is much lesser and it is a different league. Who cares that he lost a 5-OT game playing against the likes of a developing Andreas Nodl, a developing Ryan Potulny, and a developing Jared Ross, Steve Downie, and so on and so forth. Guys in the AHL are not fully developed and ready for the NHL, so you can’t take a goalie’s numbers against AHL competition, playoffs or otherwise, and use it as an argument that he should be a goalie of an NHL team.
Games played: Who gives a shit if he played 19 playoff games or 91 playoff games?
Wins-losses: Dependent on the team around him. Meaningless stat.
Goals against average: Dependent on the team around him. Very weak stat.
Minutes: Just because a guy gets minutes does not mean he is any good. Remember, the only reason Leighton played in the NHL playoffs last season was because Boucher went down with an injury.
Shutouts: Dependent on the team around him. Meaningless stat.
Save percentage: First of all, the number you present is almost impossible. Secondly, it is still dependent on the team around him and various situations. This treats PP, PK, and even strength as the same, when playing goalie on the PK is much more difficult and wields much more goals than even strength play. That is why I used ESS%. I will not use AHL stats, but Michael Leighton’s ESS% in the NHL playoffs (all games were in 2010 with the Flyers) is .920. While that number may not seem awful, consider that this is over a period of 14 games and due to that small sample size, nothing meaningful can be taken away from it. And when you consider that that number is well above Leighton’s career ESS% average and is .001 point less than what Bob and Boucher have been combining for a .921 ESS% thus far this year (72 games), there is no argument that Leighton should receive any playing time over these two.
Writer at SB Nation's Philadelphia Union blog, The Brotherly Game. Follow me on Twitter.
but Michael Leighton’s ESS% in the NHL playoffs (all games were in 2010 with the Flyers) is .920. While that number may not seem awful, consider that this is over a period of 14 games and due to that small sample size, nothing meaningful can be taken away from it.
But it’s the PLAYOFFS! He’s clutch.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999 and Matt Calvert since May 2010
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Mar 24, 2011 5:07 PM EDT up reply actions
But career ESS%s of .911 and .908 are hardly significant enough to declare one mediocre and the other "bad".
I’m trying to find out if this is true, but I can’t figure out what test I should be using. I know it’s going to be non-parametric, but Pearson’s won’t work. Does anyone have any better ideas?
Mourning Gagne forever.
98th v. 109th in the NHL since 1998. I’m betting it’s not significant.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999 and Matt Calvert since May 2010
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Mar 24, 2011 5:25 PM EDT up reply actions
my whole post didnt go up for some reason i apologize !
GP W L MIN GA SO GAA SV%
leightons career playoff numbers ahl/nhl- 19 9 8 1300 27 5 1.25 .980
14 8 3 757 31 3 2.46 .916
boucher- AHL totals 18 9 7 977 46 0 2.82 .908
NHL totals 34 17 14 1964 72 2 2.20 .913
My reply to your first comment stands, though I will once again point out that with both Boucher and Leighton, you are using numbers from a very small sample size, and nothing meaningful can be taken from the (admittedly mostly useless stats) you posted.
Writer at SB Nation's Philadelphia Union blog, The Brotherly Game. Follow me on Twitter.
Was this really needed?
First of all, nothing people say on this blog has any impact on what the team does. The only way Michael Leighton would see any time with the Flyers is if either Boosh or Bob were to sustain an injury.
Second, your title is just completely wrong. Michael Leighton is very good at hockey — that is why he is a professional Hockey player, something tens of thousands of young men aspire to and only a small percentage ever achieve. Everyone understands he’s a journeyman who hasn’t been able to retain a fulltime NHL job, but he’s also not had a lot of opportunities, and when he did have one, he made the most of it.
Leighton saved the season last year and took the team on one of the most incredible and awe inspiring playoff runs ever. He had the misfortune to let in a soft goal at the worst possible time, but people seem to forget the shelling the team took in that game. It’s not like he let in a goal on 3 shots from the point — the Flyers were outshot 41 – 24!
Due to sample size, and the fact that you can’t really compare the two teams year to year. Just to site one of what could be many examples, llast year’s team had a terrible 3rd D pairing, and got by on special teams play, while this year’s team has 6-7 solid D and is one of the best 5 on 5 teams in the NHL, not to mention a lot more disciplined in terms of taking bad penalties than they were last season.
Overall, this post just rubbed me the wrong way from the get-go. You could have tried to make your point without insulting a guy who played exceedingly well with injuries and under unimaginable pressure.
You could have tried to make your point without insulting a guy who played exceedingly well with injuries and under unimaginable pressure.
Michael Leighton is not an NHL-level goaltender. Is that insulting?
I also can’t stand the “under unimaginable pressure” argument. What player does that not apply to? Why does it only get brought up when a player fails?
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999 and Matt Calvert since May 2010
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Mar 24, 2011 6:02 PM EDT up reply actions
It’s your opinion that he failed. I don’t agree. It’s also your opinion that he’s not an NHL level goal tender, but that also is irrelevant, because he played a half of a season in the NHL and took his team to the SCF. You don’t like him, never liked him, and are happy to see him gone. We get it Geoff this is not news to anyone who’s read the blog. However, to get right down to it… no it’s not insulting. You are stating an opinion rationally and without any other nonsense. What is insulting is the title of the original post, and some of the turns of phrase employed by it.
Average NHL goalies stop 0.917% of their shots. Michael Leighton ranked 101 out of 119. That’s not NHL-level.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999 and Matt Calvert since May 2010
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Mar 25, 2011 4:11 PM EDT up reply actions
Due to a certain number of comments here and on other sites, yes it was
Like I mentioned above, the title is an allusion to a couple posts on The Good Phight. Go through their recent archives this year. You’ll see what I mean.
Michael Leighton had the misfortune of letting in a lot of soft goals at a lot of bad times. Nothing about him last year is any better than Boosh/Bob this year.
What do you want me to say? “EVERY PERSON IN THE FLYERS ORGANIZATION IS GREAT LET’S JUST BOW DOWN AND KISS THEIR PRETTY ASS?” No. So Leighton is probably a million times better than me at goalie. I know that and do not care. My point is he is not better than Boosh and Bob.
Geoff mentioned this above me, but isn’t “pressure” a constant for all players? What player who succeeds in the NHL does not do it under “unimaginable pressure?”
Writer at SB Nation's Philadelphia Union blog, The Brotherly Game. Follow me on Twitter.
Again, what is written on The Good Phight is completely irrelevant, and necessitates nothing. Boosh and Bob have both played well throughout the season. I’m not sure why some yahoo complaining about a bad game or a bad shootout performance threatens you so much.
No pressure is not a constant for all players. I played Division 1 college hockey and in 2 national championships, as well as philly high school playoffs, and countless tournaments growing up. Pressure is not a constant and effects people in different ways, but if you don’t think that certain games and situations are more stressful, I can only infer that you never walked so much as a couple of yards in the shoes of the guy you are belittling. It would be wonderful to be a robot and just go out and play the same way all the time, but that just isn’t the reality, and to suggest that it is is silly.
Some people seem to be able to deal with that pressure and excel. Others don’t. It’s a mysterious thing. Leighton had a history of turning in some phenomenal performances in the AHL championship and in my opinion he showed that he holds up pretty well when under duress, considering that the team played the majority of the playoffs with their back against the wall.
You guys want to discount the pressure Leighton was under, and how he reacted to it, so be it. I guess that Boosh didn’t deserve any credit for backstopping the shootout win against the Rangers on the final day of the season either.
It’s several yahoos on several websites. Not just here.
The title of the post was an allusion to another blog! It is not meant to be wholly taken seriously! That’s why I say it is an allusion to TGP! Of course he is better than me and of course being in the AHL is better than most, but get over the title. It’s not like I called his mother a filthy whore or something. Geez. Here. Read up.
Brian Boucher did not experience the same pressure? What about Antti Niemi? Was the pressure different for him? What about Chris Osgood and people constantly saying he is not a very good goalie, only to rise above all and win those Stanley Cups? Marc-Andre Fleury? Psssst, with the exception of Boosh who is already proven better, they all won. So we should treat someone who got pulled from the Stanley Cup Finals in two of the six tgames as someone who deserves better. The guy is not a fucking NHL goaltender, and that is the fucking end of it.
Writer at SB Nation's Philadelphia Union blog, The Brotherly Game. Follow me on Twitter.
Like I told penguinsfan, when he proves me wrong by sustaining a high NHL ESS% over several years, I will proudly admit how wrong I was. But I don’t see that happening.
Writer at SB Nation's Philadelphia Union blog, The Brotherly Game. Follow me on Twitter.
You also named Osgood in your response to me as not a good goalie – yet here, you’re saying he is because of his Cup wins? Make up your mind …
Maybe it should read "reformedpenguinsfan" since I have retired my Lemeiux jersey ... and purchased an Orange and Black Pronger jersey.
by MaximumTalbot on Mar 25, 2011 1:32 PM EDT up reply actions
I never said Osgood was a good goalie. He is not. And he damn sure is not a Hall of Famer. Osgood has had the benefit of playing in front of some great teams and gotten hot at some very appropriate times. I was mocking Gizmoitus who said Leighton faced unimaginable pressure. My response was to say, Chris Osgood, a goalie somewhat better than Leighton facing similar “pressure” (if not more so because of his “doubters” and the Red Wings being constant favorites while Leighton and the Flyers were playing with house money last year) and Osgood (although more appropriately, Osgood’s team) won, and Leighton significantly contributed (although the Blackhawks being an all round better team contributed more so) to his team losing.
Writer at SB Nation's Philadelphia Union blog, The Brotherly Game. Follow me on Twitter.
That’s really the point Justin. Who exactly are you to mock me or anyone else?
Let’s review - Leighton gets injured. Boosh replaces him. In literally the first game he’s back from his injury he has to replace Boosh who is out with 2 strained knees in a must win game. On top of that, you are a guy obtained off waivers. If you can’t understand that is more pressure than average then you just want to argue.
Was Michael Leighton under pressure when he was putting up a .906 ESS% in his career excluding the 2009-2010 season?
Writer at SB Nation's Philadelphia Union blog, The Brotherly Game. Follow me on Twitter.
You just don’t get it. The way an “argument” works is that you make a series of assertions. Ostensibly these are in favor of your argument. I made a point about the above average amount of pressure the man dealt with — pressure that has crippled many a player, and he deserves credit for coming through under those conditions. You attacked me on that point and I rebutted your comments. Now you want to bring up an entirely unrelated question. Of course the pressure is not the same, and you knew previously what I was referring to.
You also know that Leighton has not had many opportunies … he’s often been an injury call-up, quickly replaced after a few games. As people have stated multiple times in this thread, you can’t call a small sample of successful games an anomaly and then come back and call a small sample of unsuccessful games important and get away with that argument just because it happens to support your own bias.
He’s faced over 2,000 shots. That is enough of an opportunity.
Let me get this straight. FACT: Michael Leighton is downright putrid when there is “no pressure.” But when there is “pressure” he plays above his career averages, although we should not rip him for it because he alone knows this kind of pressure? So basically what you are getting at is if Michael Leighton only played in games where he started on the bench, the starter got injured, he came in, and the team goes home with a loss he is Dominik Hasek, but in every other instance he is complete crap although we should forgive him if he does not play well because the “pressure” is too much? You make my head numb.
Michael Leighton faced 2233 shots in his career. 718 of them were with the Flyers in 2009-2010. That’s a paltry 32.1%. One sample is significantly larger than the other.
Writer at SB Nation's Philadelphia Union blog, The Brotherly Game. Follow me on Twitter.
No pressure is not a constant for all players. I played Division 1 college hockey and in 2 national championships, as well as philly high school playoffs, and countless tournaments growing up. Pressure is not a constant and effects people in different ways, but if you don’t think that certain games and situations are more stressful, I can only infer that you never walked so much as a couple of yards in the shoes of the guy you are belittling.
And all the players in certain games and situations felt the same pressure. It’s about how they manage the pressure, and Leighton managed the pressure by letting in a really soft goal from a really bad angle to lose in the Stanley Cup Finals.
Discussing Leighton is useless (with me).
I believe Jeff Reese significantly changed his game so logically I have no interest in overweighting his lifetime stats. How can you make a simple assessment of his talent after major back surgery and one NHL game? Seems like Ray Emery is doing pretty well after major surgery. I believe anyone’s performance is more stressful when they have a wife, a child and a newborn to provide for.
I believe Jeff Reese significantly changed his game so logically I have no interest in overweighting his lifetime stats.
Then how else do you judge him?
How can you make a simple assessment of his talent after major back surgery and one NHL game? Seems like Ray Emery is doing pretty well after major surgery.
Oh, so you don’t.
I believe anyone’s performance is more stressful when they have a wife, a child and a newborn to provide for.
So… Bobrovsky and Boucher are under immense stress, but Danny Briere isn’t?
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999 and Matt Calvert since May 2010
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Mar 24, 2011 9:45 PM EDT up reply actions
The stress that goalies are under is different than the stress that other players are under. You can make a lot of mistakes as a player and they don’t result in goals. When goalies make a mistake it’s usually catastrophic.
That’s my observation from playing years of competitive hockey as well as having a brother who was the Philly high school hockey championship MVP.
But I don’t think any pro athelete is under any more game stress just because they have a family. If anything my observation as a parent is that you probably benefit from the perspective that having a child tends to bring to one’s life.
I have to agree with Gizmoitus. While I never played hockey, I was a goalie in soccer, and somehow when the team in front of me screwed the pooch and the opponent scored from it, it was still on my head. The goalie is the last line of defense, the subject of the ‘puck stops here’ line – everyone sees his mistakes far more glaringly than (say) the defenseman who didn’t make the clearing attempt, or the forward that whiffed on his check, or (for that matter) the excellent play that the scorer makes. There’s a reason that so many professional goalies are complete head cases …
I also don’t think that bashing Michael Leighton is justified. He DID carry the team in the push to the playoffs last season, and he DID give some great goaltending in the playoffs themselves. The big softie to end it sucked, but really – doesn’t this just prove the point about the pressure these guys are under? ONE GOAL, one mistake, and everyone is ready to run him outta town. You see in the post that his ESS% in last season was 0.916 – statistically comparable to everything Boucher and Bobrvosky have done this season (a 0.005% difference!). You can also compare that ESS% to goalies that have been in the league much longer for far more games, (just looking at this years stats for simplicity) and his ESS% from last year of 0.916 is better than this season’s ESS% showings from: Khabibulin, Conklin, Brodeur, Halak, Kiprusoff, Anderson, Mason, Dipietro, Ellis, Osgood, Turco, Giguere, Raycroft, Budaj, Leclair, and Niittymaki. Would you argue that ALL those guys are ‘not very good at hockey’? That’s 16 NHL-quality goalies, with some really big names on the list – even ones that various people claimed the Flyers absolutely needed to acquire in the off-season.
I am not arguing that Michael Leighton is an elite goaltender. I’m not even saying that he’s better than Bob and Boosh. What I am saying is that he’s a helluva lot better than Justin is giving him credit for here, and belittling the guy because you’re bitter about losing the SCF last year may be understandable but not just.
Maybe it should read "reformedpenguinsfan" since I have retired my Lemeiux jersey ... and purchased an Orange and Black Pronger jersey.
by MaximumTalbot on Mar 25, 2011 9:50 AM EDT up reply actions
Please tell me you did not call Osgood, Raycroft, and Pascale LeClair quality goaltenders. Please tell me you did not do that. Please for the love of pete tell me you did not say Leighton is good because he is better than those schmucks.
He is as good as I am giving him credit for. Like I mentioned, the .916 ESS% is over a small sample size. You can’t tell how good a goaltender is from 5 months of play. I used those numbers to make the point of “this is what you saw Leighton do at his very, very best, now look what Bob and Boosh have been doing this year.” Leighton is not a .916 goalie. He never will be. He is far worse than that.
And while Boucher may not be a .921 goalie as well, he has been playing at or above his career average since the 2007 season whereas Leighton spent some time in the .800s before getting hot in Philly.
And it just so happens that I am one of the least bitter people about that Chicago series on here. The guy is just not an NHL caliber goalie. When he proves me wrong, I"ll let you know, but I do not anticipate that happening.
Writer at SB Nation's Philadelphia Union blog, The Brotherly Game. Follow me on Twitter.
You can not apply the small sample size rule willy nilly.
The year Leighton “spent some time in the .800s” he faced a total of…. 82 shots. Get fucking real and quit being disingenuous.
by SuburbanElite on Mar 25, 2011 10:43 AM EDT up reply actions
You missed the point of that remark, but whatever. I said “some time,” not “significant time indicating he is a below .900 ESS% goalie.” Just like he was on a hot streak in Philly, that was a cold streak in Carolina and not a valid measurement of his true ability.
If you want my honest to goodness opinion, the following stat is the most important one here.
Brian Boucher, since start of 2008-2009 season ESS%: .918
Michael Leighton, since start of 2008-2009 season ESS%: .908
Career numbers, especially for goalies that have been playing professionally for awhile, can go back to far and assess performances that are no longer applicable and/or the goalie has improved through development. If you go back to recently and rely solely on 2009-2010 or 2010-2011 numbers, you risk small sample sizes. But if you want to know why I am so animated about Boucher being better than Leighton, the numbers above me are why. The sample size is fairly big (or as big as you can get with back-up goalies without going too far back), and one has clearly performed head and shoulders better than the other.
Writer at SB Nation's Philadelphia Union blog, The Brotherly Game. Follow me on Twitter.
I wouldn’t call 0.010 difference ‘head and shoulders above’. I’d call it statistically insignificant. That’s one less save per 100 shots (three to four full games, give or take). And as Suburban says above, you can’t judge a goalie (unless you really just want his ability as a backup, not a starter) on a few games here, and a few games there.
Oh, and to return to what I already said – you really want to call Osgood out as not being a quality goaltender? You mean the guy who is TENTH ALL TIME in NHL regular season wins, and has three Cup wins (two as a starter) as well? I note you choose to ignore the remainder of the names I listed – like Marty Brodeur and Mikka Miprusoff – because they don’t support your theory.
Fact is, one season is not enough to judge a goalie. Sure, Marty Brodeur is one of the best of his generation. Sure, he’s having a rotten year. BUT he’s still there. Frankly, talking about ‘career’ numbers in respect to Leighton is silly – the guy only really had the rough equivalent of one-and-a-half NHL seasons (104 games). I say he has potential, unproven perhaps, but potential. You could argue it’s late for him to show it. You could argue that Boucher has been more CONSISTENT over his career than Leighton. You CANNOT argue that Leighton isn’t an NHL-caliber goalie, because he is. That was the only point I think everyone has a beef with – no one responding here has said that Leighton is/was better (or even more appropriate) than the Bob/Boosh combo, but you refuse to accept that.
So I call bullshit on your ‘least bitter’ comment. While everyone has their favorite whipping boy on the team (I’ll admit – mine’s Hartnell), I don’t think you’ve supported your argument that Leighton (and his five-hole) isn’t NHL-quality. There’s a degree of unreasonable and illogical in the level of dislike displayed in this posting and your comments thereafter. I don’t ‘like’ Jeff Carter or Danny Briere – but I certainly respect them as players for what they can do. I feel like you had an initial presumption that Leighton was no good, and then no matter what numbers or comparisons people have presented, you haven’t budged – even (to me) in the face of superior logical evaluation.
Maybe it should read "reformedpenguinsfan" since I have retired my Lemeiux jersey ... and purchased an Orange and Black Pronger jersey.
by MaximumTalbot on Mar 25, 2011 1:29 PM EDT up reply actions
Fact is, one season is not enough to judge a goalie
Which is why I took matters to highlight numbers in the last 3 seasons. And when the majority of goaltenders hover around a 3% range, the difference is statistically significant.
I don’t think you’ve supported your argument that Leighton (and his five-hole) isn’t NHL-quality
I will concede the point that he is good enough to play back-up on bad teams, but nothing more.
I feel like you had an initial presumption that Leighton was no good, and then no matter what numbers or comparisons people have presented, you haven’t budged – even (to me) in the face of superior logical evaluation.
ESS% is a volatile statistic. Look at Tim Thomas this season and last season. Again, this is why I highlighted the last 3 years in the above comment. But you are yet to put together a statistical argument saying otherwise. Instead, you are focusing on rankings in one season. For some perspective, let’s stick Leighton’s .908 since the start of the 2008-2009 season and plug it in to the 2010-2011 ESS% season rankings to see where he fits in. Note: In this ranking, I am only including goaltenders who have played 30 more games. It is an admittedly an arbitrary cut off, but Richard Bachmann is rated, and he faced 1 shot. He has a 1.000 ESS%. This should not count.
Anyway, Leighton’s .908 in the last 3 years, if it was his ESS% this season, would be 34th out of 37 eligible NHL goaltenders (only besting grandpa Khabibulin, Dan Ellis, and Brian Elliott). To once again illustrate that a number you do not think is statistically significant actually is statistically significant, Boucher is 21st on that list and Bobrovsky is 18th on that list. Boucher is a career back-up and Bobrovsky is a rookie whose true talent is of yet unknown. By every measurement, Michael Leighton is worse than them and significantly so.
Also, “superior logical evaluation?” Cut the sanctimonious bullshit. Either find meaningful statistics that argue Leighton is not what I say he is, or do not continue to reply.
Writer at SB Nation's Philadelphia Union blog, The Brotherly Game. Follow me on Twitter.
I really don’t know where you get the idea that he’d be 34 out of 37 “eligible” goaltenders. I’m using NHL.com for the numbers, and it shows that .908 is only 0.001 behind Martin Brodeur, and ahead of Khabby, Mason, Turco, Osgood, McIlhenney, Ellis, Elliot, DiPietro, and Conklin. Within the difference of ONE SAVE in 100 shots, you have Howard, Bernier, Kiprusoff, Dubnyk, Anderson, Garon, Niitty, Leclair, S. Mason, Halak, Theodore, Raycroft, Budaj, Giguere, and Gus. In goalies with at least 20 games this season (so at least reasonably utilized backups and starters), he’d rank 45th out of 52 … admittedly not good, but the variance between between a 0.908 and the top-ten (0.930) is not much. And there’s names in that top-ten you may not expect to see there … Everyone wrote Carey Price off, for instance. In fact, as you point out the undisputed leader in most goaltending categories, Tim Thomas, lost his starting job just last season, and at Leighton’s age had played a whopping FOUR (4) NHL-level games!!! Would you have argued in Thomas’ case then that he wasn’t an NHL goalie? You want stats? The R-squared for ESS% on goalies with over 20 starts is 0.81 … which basically means there’s not much in the way of variability between the top and bottom (and if you toss out Thomas’ 0.947 at the top, even less variance – R2 = 0.97). And that’s all the statistics you’ll get from me that I generate myself – I hate ’em.
But I don’t need them. You emphasize that you took stats over three seasons … but you CAN’T because Leighton hasn’t played three seasons as a starter! (Assuming that 2003 was rushing him into a big pile of no-good.) There’s no comparison there!!!
Futhermore, I said (several times now, it seems) that I am NOT arguing if Bob or Boosh are BETTER than Leighton. I think they are. What I am asserting is that Leighton is definitely of quality to play at the NHL level. If Bob and Boosh are 18th and 21st, that means there are AT LEAST ten teams’ starters that are worse than them. Leights could easily be one of those, right???
You’re finally conceding a tiny bit – you have to remember, the Oilers and Islanders are NHL teams. I already said Leighton isn’t an elite goalie, and there’s questions about him being a serviceable starter … your initial statement was that he wasn’t NHL-caliber, and THAT is why everyone jumped in your shit.
Not only has your argument changed with every response, but there wasn’t any logic in it to begin with because you keep arguing the point that Bob and Bocher are better goalies … and that SIMPLY WASN’T MY ARGUMENT (or, if I may speak for them, anyone else’s here) – so my sanctimonious attitude is still justified. I have found plenty of statistics that argue Leighton is or at least could be an NHL-caliber goalie, and you haven’t sufficiently refuted one of them. Continuing to requote ESS% at the same time you admit it’s a volatile stat … I just don’t know how to argue with that lack of logic.
So, you ‘win’ – last reply. Hopefully someone else has the patience to continue here, because I know I’m not alone … seeing as how NONE of the responses have been in agreeance with you.
Maybe it should read "reformedpenguinsfan" since I have retired my Lemeiux jersey ... and purchased an Orange and Black Pronger jersey.
by MaximumTalbot on Mar 25, 2011 3:29 PM EDT up reply actions
NONE of the responses have been in agreeance with you
FooFighter1124 agrees with me, ToddTheFox agrees with me, Geoff agrees with me, hintzy64 agrees with me. But I guess they are all nobodies, am I right?
ESS% is volatile from season to season, but, when you factor it in over a period of multiple seasons (such as 3), you get a much better sample and a good indicator of how good a goaltender is in the NHL.
Because some goaltenders who played in very few games are factored in equally with those who have played all year, I used a qualifier of having played 30 or more games this year in order to be factored into the list. That eliminates McElhinney, Osgood, DP, Conklin, Turco, Bernier, and Theodore from consideration (I may have glossed over 1 or 2). The entire list looks like this. That’s how there are so few goaltenders, because I need something to eliminate the likes of Jacob Markstrom, who has only seen 7 shots this year, but is the NHL’s current leader this season in ESS% because he saved all 7 shots and NHL.com does not have a minimum number of games to qualify for consideration. 30 is an arbitrary number I came up with, but was nonetheless a number I felt allowed goalies who get playing time to be included while cutting off the Jacob Markstroms of the league and not limiting it to just the workhorses of the league.
Also, none of the goalies directly above or below where I slotted Leighton are having particularly strong seasons. To quote The Rock, it does not matter what their name is.
Your argument for Leighton seems to be centered around the concept of “there is little difference between goaltenders” (which is not true; look at Dan Ellis with a .901 this year and Henrik Lundqvist with a .931 this year; it is only a .03 difference, but is there any mistaking the two) and “based on 5 decent months with the Flyers Leighton should be given the opportunity to prove himself he is better than his numbers indicate.” I have conceded the point that Leighton could be a back-up on a bad hockey team (which is more than Geoff could concede to you). If he can go three seasons with an NHL team, and maintain an ESS% better than his career average of .908 (which itself is a thoroughly terrible number), I will admit to you I am wrong about Leighton. But until he does that (and this will never happen for a reason mind you), I stand by this post.
Writer at SB Nation's Philadelphia Union blog, The Brotherly Game. Follow me on Twitter.
I have conceded the point that Leighton could be a back-up on a bad hockey team (which is more than Geoff could concede to you).
And I won’t. Because the list of goalies who have faced at least 1,000 even-strength shots at or below 0.908 ES S% since 1998 is:
Jean-Sebastien Aubin
Chris Terreri
Michael Leighton
John Grahame
Mark Fitzpatrick
Damian Rhodes
Jani Hurme
Peter Skudra
Ken Wregget
Dan Cloutier
Jeff Deslauriers
Karri Ramo
Dany Sabourin
Dominic Roussel
Kirk McLean
Corey Schwab
Steve Passmore
Johan Holmqvist
Robbie Tallas
Glenn Healy
Mika Noronen
Bill Ranford
Hannu Toivonen
Grant Fuhr
How many of those guys are in the NHL? One. Jeff Deslauriers, and only when Nik Khabibulin is in jail/injured.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999 and Matt Calvert since May 2010
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Mar 25, 2011 4:32 PM EDT up reply actions
Holy crap
I wish I had access to the stats you had. If I had known that. Geez.
Writer at SB Nation's Philadelphia Union blog, The Brotherly Game. Follow me on Twitter.
It’s from a spreadsheet Eric was kind enough to put together for me.
You can get it from this post: http://www.broadstreethockey.com/2011/2/2/1970183/data-dump-nhl-goalies-special-teams-save-percentage-since-1998
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999 and Matt Calvert since May 2010
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Mar 25, 2011 4:35 PM EDT up reply actions
Damn, I forgot all about that. Thanks!
Writer at SB Nation's Philadelphia Union blog, The Brotherly Game. Follow me on Twitter.
I admit – I missed Todd’s response, and apologize for the over-generalization. I don’t see how Foofighter’s or Hintzy’s comments lean one way or the other. And Geoff doesn’t count … because I said so.
Yes, ESS% can be a decent indicator. But as you say, you need a large enough sample size. I still think 104 games doesn’t cut the mustard to judge, so you can’t snag Leighton on his low score (especially since his career # includes that shell-shocker he got in Chicago in ’03).
And yes, your limit of 30 games cuts out more goalies – I would say eliminates most of the backups, no? Unless it’s a tandem goaltending situation, what backup plays more than 30 games??? SO ok, among starters, Leighton doesn’t measure up (using the already questionable measure of ESS%) – sure, ya got me. But when I ran the numbers, I let in goalies that had 20 starts as a minimum, because that accounts for a reasonable backup goalie’s workload. It does still eliminate the one-game-wonders, but it also expands the list beyond the #1 goalies for the teams. I figured that it was a better measure, since we were arguing if Leighton should PLAY in the NHL, not START in the NHL.
There’s a big difference between goaltenders – until you remove the statistical outliers and look at the median numbers. The median ESS% is about 0.913 this season, and that really is barely above Leighton’s 2009 number. It does put him one standard deviation below average, but how big is that translated into games won or lost? (Yes, I get it – the Osgood argument comes in to play here … bad goalie, good team.)
SO finally we can agree? Your final paragraph says Leighton can play back-up on an NHL squad. That was my entire point from the get-go. PHEW.
Maybe it should read "reformedpenguinsfan" since I have retired my Lemeiux jersey ... and purchased an Orange and Black Pronger jersey.
by MaximumTalbot on Mar 25, 2011 4:35 PM EDT up reply actions
Large enough sample? How about those with 2,000 ES Shots at or below Leighton?
Jean-Sebastien Aubin
Michael Leighton
John Grahame
Damian Rhodes
Peter Skudra
Dan Cloutier
Kirk McLean
Corey Schwab
Grant Fuhr
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999 and Matt Calvert since May 2010
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Mar 25, 2011 4:38 PM EDT up reply actions
Back-up on a bad team with weak goaltending. Though now that I have Eric’s list that Geoff provided, I am not even convinced of that anymore.
Whatever, I do not think anyone is changing anyone’s mind at this point.
Writer at SB Nation's Philadelphia Union blog, The Brotherly Game. Follow me on Twitter.
Is a 0.928 goalie not head and shoulders above 0.918?
0.010 is statistically significant, when NHL goalies fall between 0.910 and 0.930. That’s a huge difference.
Man-crushin' on Boucher since 1999 and Matt Calvert since May 2010
Broad Street Hockey - Makin' it look mean since 1967.
SB Nation Philly - Associate Editor
by Geoff Detweiler on Mar 25, 2011 4:14 PM EDT up reply actions
Since the comment you’re replying to said
Sure, Marty Brodeur is one of the best of his generation.
I feel compelled to point out that you’re linking to a website called Brodeur Is A Fraud.
I know Brodeur isn’t the best of his generation, but I don’t think he is as bad as they make him out to be either.
Mourning Gagne forever.
Well, 70th percentile from among the selected set of goalies who perform well enough to get 250+ games is certainly not bad at all.
There’s nothing embarrassing about being behind Hasek, Luongo, Roy, Vokoun, Thomas, Lundqvist, Giguere, Lehtonen, Kiprusoff, Bryzgalov, Nabokov, Fernandez, Turco, Backstrom. The problem is that most people don’t put him behind more than one or two of those guys.
I think that his longevity and ability to stay healthy would move him ahead of some of the last 8 in that list.
Mourning Gagne forever.
Well, it’s not like he had a higher peak performance and has a reduced average because he played so long. He never had a .93 ESS% in a year with more than 30 starts (whereas each of the people right above him did).
But yeah, it’s not unreasonable to say that .922 for 1000 starts is more of an accomplishment than being .924 for 500.
You’ve missed the point entirely, not I.
I agree whole heartedly with your assessment that Boucher is the better goaltender. What I disagree with is the size of gap you’ve placed between their skill sets and stats.
Regardless of who we think is better, we have the correct tandem playing right now. That being said, I would have to think Laviolette would go to Leighton in the playoffs over Backlund if it were to come down to it.
by SuburbanElite on Mar 25, 2011 3:54 PM EDT up reply actions
While Raycroft and Leclair may not be great goalies – they have had enough time in the NHL with enough games to justify their NHL caliber. I’d argue Leighton is at least as good as those two, just without the opportunity.
Maybe it should read "reformedpenguinsfan" since I have retired my Lemeiux jersey ... and purchased an Orange and Black Pronger jersey.
by MaximumTalbot on Mar 25, 2011 1:33 PM EDT up reply actions
Leighton has played 104 NHL games, only 27 of which was with Philly last year. While less than both Raycroft and Leclaire, Leighton is far from a guy who has never had an opportunity. Look at his career profile. He’s had opportunities with multiple teams. He just failed to make something of them.
Writer at SB Nation's Philadelphia Union blog, The Brotherly Game. Follow me on Twitter.
Also, when you consider that most NHL goaltenders who have played significant time this year (read: goalies who played a lot this season not named Tim Thomas) are somewhere between a .930 and .900 even strength save percentage, the .005 difference is really much greater and much more pronounced than it would initially seem. To write them another way that might make things clearer. Most who have played significant time this year average between 90% and 93%. The difference you cite in recent play (not a good metric, but whatever) is a .5% difference. It’s 91.6% against 92.1%.
Writer at SB Nation's Philadelphia Union blog, The Brotherly Game. Follow me on Twitter.
Again – a half a percent??? That’s one save per 200 shots. ONE. While that may be that one rotten five-hole goal in the last game of the SCF, it may also not be. I stand by my assertion that you have bias against.
Maybe it should read "reformedpenguinsfan" since I have retired my Lemeiux jersey ... and purchased an Orange and Black Pronger jersey.
by MaximumTalbot on Mar 25, 2011 1:30 PM EDT up reply actions
If you think I am so biased, find stats that prove me wrong. It’s that simple.
Writer at SB Nation's Philadelphia Union blog, The Brotherly Game. Follow me on Twitter.
Like Geoff said above, when the best and worst goalies are only 2% apart, differences of 0.5% have to be considered significant. Otherwise you’re not arguing that Leighton isn’t bad; you’re arguing that there aren’t any bad goalies.
Incidentally, that isn’t entirely wrong — of the active goalies with at least 5000 career ES shots, the best is Vokoun at .928 and the worst is Boucher at .911. Goalies face an average of about 20 ES shots per start, so that 0.017 difference between the very best and the very worst in a playoff series is only one or two goals.
But the people advocating for Leighton to get the job in the playoffs aren’t doing it because they don’t think goaltending matters all that much. They’re making that argument out of fear, because they don’t like what they’ve seen from Boucher or Bob lately, and they’re completely missing the point that judging a goalie on his last several games is like trying to guess the outcome of a baseball game based on watching one at bat.
You’re right that Leighton doesn’t have an enormous sample size. He might be better than his career numbers. But we have enough of a sample to say that it’s unlikely that he’s a lot better, and he’d have to get a lot better to reach even the average.
by Eric T. on Mar 25, 2011 6:24 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
Fully agreed.
Maybe it should read "reformedpenguinsfan" since I have retired my Lemeiux jersey ... and purchased an Orange and Black Pronger jersey.
by MaximumTalbot on Mar 26, 2011 11:51 AM EDT up reply actions
Well, I use the period after JR. The season turned around and while I believe you pointed out that it was all about offensive production, I still feel (scary word I know) that Leighton deserves some credit for the results on the ice even if it was all about the GF. With a small sample, I look for trend not p<.05:. I also loved the idea of a Cinderella story journeyman putting on the Orange and Black and doing well. So the trend seemed real good to me.
My assessment of ML is TBD. Maybe he is done. Back surgery is pretty major but then again so is avascular necrosis and Emery shows what is possible. I’m saying I think’s cavlier to just say ML is not NHL caliber when he was a year ago.
The third point is too subjective but Briere has been a success and done pretty well for his 3 kids. ML moved like 8 times in 7 years or something. He was on the verge of being completely washed-up. Every person is unique but man that’s alot of pressure.
Whoa, I just noticed this got tagged with SB Nation Philly’s Editor’s Pick. To whomever promoted it, I thank you for the honor.
Writer at SB Nation's Philadelphia Union blog, The Brotherly Game. Follow me on Twitter.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Broad Street Hockey
Related FanShots on Broad Street Hockey
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
SBNation.com Recent Stories
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Devils eliminate Rangers in Game 6, ending fear of the past, setting course for the future
- Adam Henrique sends New Jersey Devils to Stanley Cup Final with OT goal vs. Rangers (VIDEO)
- Watch Ilya Kovalchuk’s Game 6 goal for Devils, a.k.a. power-play porn (VIDEO)
- Devils look to eliminate Rangers in Game 6; Hal Gill’s broken tibia (Playoff Puck Previews)
- Conan O’Brien joins long list of LA media that don’t really know what’s going on with the Kings
