Winnipeg Jets G Ondrej Pavelec: Project Helium – Regulated Goalie Value (RGV) Second Game Study
Now that I have one Regulated Goalie Value (RGV) study under my belt, I think it would make sense for another. Since the previous study was only one game, it makes sense to provide a comparison. I chose Winnipeg Jets G Ondrej Pavelec to study for the first article, and I am going to write another Pavelec article, this time using stats form a different game.
For those who didn’t have an opportunity to read the first Pavelec study, I am going to recap the whole purpose behind RGV. The NHL’s goals against average is based on each goal being valued as the same. My formula is a bit different, with most of the goals valued below zero. That will likely change in the near future, as the results coming in have caused concerns on my end.
This study is going to be another loss of Pavelec’s, as I wanted to keep things as close to the same as possible. The game was between the Winnipeg Jets and the Calgary Flames, which was played on March 16th, 2016.
The final score was 4-1 in favor of the Flames.
Note: the total goals counted against Ondrej Pavelec will be the same, as there were two empty net goals scored by the Stars in the first study.
The scoring recap (Calgary goals only)
Quick reference to the RGV article
(1st Pd)
5:38: J (0.8139)
12:48: J (0.8139)
18:20: G+G1 (0.8712)
(2nd Pd)
no goals scored by the Flames
(3rd Pd)
19:56 PPG: G+M+M3 (1.001)
After the four goals were totaled up using the formula, Winnipeg Jets G Ondrej Pavelec’s RGV value for this game was 3.500 (first game was 3.3503) . Once again, his RGV is lower than his actual GAA.
More from Editorials
- The problem with another expansion franchise in the NHL
- Should the NHL make referees give postgame interviews?
- Why Carolina Hurricanes fans should be excited for the 2023-24 season
- Should The Seattle Kraken Consider Trading Shane Wright?
- Why any NHL team would be lucky to add Phil Kessel to their roster
I have found a couple of major flaws in RGV. First, it doesn’t make sense to add value when a goalie gives up a power play goal, but to subtract value due to the fact that a power play is tougher to defend. Also, I need to value some of the variables above one (outside of neutral zone goals), which is what is causing the formula to show a result much different than GAA.
In order to get the true value that I want for RGV, the variables will need some work. That is something I am going to do over the next couple of weeks, as there is no way to value goalies if almost every variable is below one. Some goalies will give up weaker goals, and therefore they need to be charged with a value above one when they allow that goal (from that point of the ice).
Next: Winnipeg Jets End of Year Review, Grades
All in all, this formula is going to get a bit of an overhaul before you see another player study. I think there are some ways to write this, which will be revealed when I show the new RGV formula in the near future. I realize this formula might be a bit confusing, but I am trying to bring it into focus.
Long-term, finding the exact formula won’t be easy, and may take several tries. However, I think this is doable, and is something that makes sense long-term. Stay tuned, as the adjusted RGV formula is coming soon.
Source: www.nhl.com