[A] Player Evaluation: Corey Crawford

The most controversial topic for Blackhawk Nation this upcoming season has to be Corey Crawford. Suffering from the proverbial sophomore slump, Corey is expected to bounce back from his 2011-2012 campaign and lead the Blackhawks as their #1 goaltender heading into the season, barring any trades.



Corey is an interesting case as he has spent the last nine years within the Blackhawks organization after being drafted in 2003. Although he did struggle with consistency issues last season, it would be tough to cut ties with such a long investment in a player that has always been touted as the future plug in Chicago's net. There have been plenty of rumors circulating that the Blackhawks brass has been seeking out other options to take over the workload* but nothing has gained traction which leads me to believe it's not exactly a serious inquiry and they will be going into the year with Corey as the starter for the 2nd straight season.



[float='right']Related Content



Player Evaluation: Michael Frolik

DiCarlo discusses what's in store for Blackhawks forward Michael Frolik



Player Evaluation: Steve Montador

Ton gives his take on Chicago Blackhawks defenseman Steve Montador



Player Evaluation: Dave Bolland

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]DiCarlo takes a look at the Chicago Blackhawks center Dave Bolland[/font]



Player Evaluation: Niklas Hjalmarsson

Ton takes a look at Chicago Blackhawks defenseman Nik Hjalmarsson[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/font]

[/float]*Other options included Martin Brodeur and Roberto Luongo



ROLLING BACK THE CLOCK



In his minor-pro career, he was hardly considered a blue chip goaltender and really struggled with consistency issues at all levels. There is very little reason to believe that he will ever figure it out, but there is also every reason to believe that if he gets hot at the right time the Blackhawks could benefit greatly, but relying on that notion is equivalent to playing roulette.



Crawford made his mark in his rookie season when he backed up Marty Turco, only to steal the job after the first quarter of the season. He ended his first year with 33 wins, save percentage of 91.7% (92.4% at even-strength), and a 2.30 goals against average in 57 games. In the playoffs he battled hard and forced the President's trophy winning Vancouver Canucks to seven games, earning him the starting job for the following season. Unfortunately, he suffered from consistency issues (those words are a dagger to a goaltenders heart) after starting the season as the #1 goaltender, and at times, saw himself playing 2nd fiddle to Ray Emery before regaining his net in time for the playoffs. Needless to say, he didn't fare too well against the Coyotes which is why questions have circulated around his future in Chicago. Ultimately his numbers dipped as a result of his low's: winning 30 games, save percentage of 90.3% (91.5% at even-strength), and a staggeringly high 2.72 goals against average in 57 games.



Last year, I wouldn't say that he was terrible against the Coyotes because he was able to keep every game close. However, that series was a matter of inches, and he wasn't able to close the gap when it counted -- overtime. He wasn't able to stop two soft pucks when it counted and it ended up costing the Blackhawks two games in the series, but don't forget the year prior he was clutch against the Canucks.



THE SKINNY



He is capable of performing when his head is in the right place and I believe that mentally he was overloaded in the playoffs. It's difficult to find a goaltender that can push through the mental aspect of the high's and low's that they can experience through a full season, especially when things aren't going your way. But now Corey is entering his 3rd season in the NHL, he has a fresh start, and hopefully he can figure out how to battle his way through the mental game and roll through the playoffs. He has the team in front of him to do it, he just needs to remain confident and keep the team in front of him confident in his abilities.



Can he accomplish that this season? Who knows, history says he has two options after suffering the sophomore slump... he can be the next Steve Mason/Andrew Raycroft or he can bounce back and be the next Carey Price/Jonathan Quick. I think he will end up somewhere in between.



His save percentage was scrutinized last season but that stat is a marginal tool at determining the success of Chicago netminders without considering the quality of shots faced. On the Blackhawks, goaltenders aren't necessarily relied on to stop a heavy barrage of shots, so he'll have to stay focused on when the opposition does have a quality chance and react in timely fashion. Essentially, all that matters is that he makes the right save at the right time, more-so than the guy at the other end of the rink does. That statement simply didn't ring true enough times last season.



PREDICTION: 61 GAMES | 36 WINS | 0.911 SVP | 2.51 GAA | 2 SO



Click here to view the article

The "right save at the right time" is a bunch of bullshit that's been passed off as an adequate enough analysis for goalies for way, waaaaayyyy too long. Numbers matter. It's just more work.

On a team like the Blackhawks, the only number that matters is the number next to the win column, as they will rely on puck possession and high-octane offense for a good portion of the game and for the most part they'll outshoot their opponents.



Save percentage says very little. Let me ask you, why is it that most goaltenders have a worse save percentage when they are on the power-play than they do at even-strength or a lot of cases, the penalty-kill? It's ok, I'll tell you: quality shots. It's not the amount it's the quality, when teams are shorthanded and get an odd-man break, it is of higher quality than the shots pelting a goaltender on the power-play from the point and perimeter. Until you can determine that, (not only the area of which the shot was taken, but determining the type of play) the stat is nearly useless and a waste of time to look into any deeper than what it should be taken for in it's current use: a grain of salt.



Crawford won't be facing a barrage of shots on the Hawks. But he will have to make the right save at the right time. That comes with playing for Chicago, Khabby had to do it, Huet (Mr. Best Save Percentage) never did it, and Niemi had to do it. That's just the way the Blackhawks are built. I'm more concerned about his GAA and win column.



Of course, save percentage can be a reflection of solid goaltending, but far from the stat I would use to identify success. Like I said, grain of salt.

Every save is the "right" save at the "right" time. All of them. The majority of games are played within a one goal differential during most of regulation time. So the save he made at the start of the 1st period is just as big as the one he makes in the 3rd period. And you can determine quality of shots, it's been done, and there's been shown to be very little difference between teams and that shot quantity is much more correlated to save percentage. Mostly because today, the parity of talent, not just in goalies, but among all players league wide is high. This doesn't have to be a mystery anymore. Not today. I can understand back in the 80s or 70s or earlier, but not anymore. People don't like it because it's something for "propeller heads", as one person called it. It's the same in every sport. Advanced analysis in using all the tools and technology we have available to us now, hell just being able to watch every single game, has in a lot of aspects (in other major sports like MLB, NFL and the NBA as well) bucked much of the "old school" views of each respective sport on it's ass for being backwards thinking or just flat out wrong. The NHL is behind the curve (as usual) and has been slower to accept it.



Is it harder and more complex than just saying "He makes the right save at the right time" or "he just wins" ? Yes it is. Does it take more work and digging into numbers rather than throwing out those hockey cliches after hockey cliches as some kind of analysis? Yes it does. Is it easier for the league commentators and broadcasts teams to stick to those decades old sayings and cop outs and repeat them ad nauseam and not get too complicated for the sake of the broadcast? Probably. But does it further your understanding of the game and of the position? Undoubtedly, and that's the most important part.

Variable said:

Every save is the "right" save at the "right" time. All of them. The majority of games are played within a one goal differential during most of regulation time. So the save he made at the start of the 1st period is just as big as the one he makes in the 3rd period. And you can determine quality of shots, it's been done, and there's been shown to be very little difference between teams and that shot quantity is much more correlated to save percentage. This doesn't have to be a mystery anymore. Not today. I can understand back in the 80s or 70s or earlier, but not anymore. People don't like it because it's something for "propeller heads", as one person called it. It's the same in every sport. Advanced analysis in using all the tools and technology we have available to us now, hell just being able to watch every single game, has in a lot of aspects (in other major sports like MLB, NFL and the NBA as well) bucked much of the "old school" views of each respective sport on it's ass for being backwards thinking or just flat out wrong. The NHL is behind the curve (as usual) and has been slower to accept it.



Is it harder and more complex than just saying "He makes the right save at the right time" or "he just wins" ? Yes it is. Does it take more work and digging into numbers rather than throwing out those hockey cliches after hockey cliches as some kind of analysis? Yes it does. Is it easier for the league commentators and broadcasts teams to stick to those decades old sayings and cop outs and repeat them ad nauseam and not get too complicated for the sake of the broadcast? Probably. But does it further your understanding of the game and of the position? Undoubtedly, and that's the most important part.

Click to expand...

Why are you still talking? Show me these indisputable stats that will further my knowledge of the game and the position. (do I need to tell you I'm being sarcastic?)



Save percentage as it stands does not mean anything to me, by saying he needs to make the right save at the right time actually identifies that his save percentage needs to improve during pressure/timely situations... there is no stat for that, if there is post a link. The difference between a good and bad save percentage is not all about the quantity of shots -- which again means nothing without considering quality -- the main issue with save percentage (and common misconception) is because it shows nothing in terms of quality or clutch ability. Again check out goaltenders save percentages on the PK compared to on the PP. Their save percentage when they are up a man is generally worse. They face more shots when they are shorthanded, and you say that quantity is "more correlated" to save percentage, so why is it that their save percentages are worse on the PP than it is while they are shorthanded even though they face a fraction of the shots? Same goaltender, same team... different situation. Those situations, other than special teams, are not recorded. Good luck finding save percentages for odd-man advantages, rushes in transition, or back door plays.



There is no stat out there that explains the quality of shots or situations goaltenders face. That is the most important aspect if you really want to dive that deep into goaltending stats and save percentage. I think the closest they ever got to that was identifying the location of each shot -- which means nothing without knowing the type of play, speed of the shot, accuracy, etc.. etc..



This game is too fast to record every little angle of each stat. Therefore you are stuck with the eye test. Don't like it, watch baseball!

Regardless of your love or hate of Crawford, He has to treat this year like it's a contract year or he'll not get to play much in his contract year.



Whether or not the team D shits the bed again in the next season should be irrelevant to Crawford's case. It's possible to play behind a completely inept D and still come out looking good stats-wise or eye test-wise. That's what Crawford needs to do. Let the D worry about itself and stay sharp for every puck...but FFS don't over-think the play!

We've been through this before. I'm not saying shot quality is non-existent, that a shot from a certain location or a 2 on 1 is the same as a slap shot with full visibility. So yes of course, when two on ones, break aways on a botched power play, etc occur, those aren't going to favor a goalie's chances at all. They never will. That's such a small percentage of plays though (I believe something like less than 4 percent of all shots taken). At even strength, there's no noticeable difference. Here's one study: http://vhockey.blogspot.com/2009/07/shot-quality-fantasy.html



It's a case in which what was once thought as a sound theory proved to be false.Can outlier teams exist? Of course they could. The Blackhawks don't fit that profile though. They are a high puck possessing team, their shot differential has been among league leaders for the past several years, they've been a high scoring team, they were among the league leaders in power play time given to and least amount of PK time on ice (something which would have seemed impossible if you are in any of the game chats when a penalty is called). These are all luxuries most other goalies do not enjoy.

And very little of that has anything to do with keeping the puck out of the net---and there's no way we can expect to win ever game 7-5.



Our offense is fine, I don't think anyone is arguing that. Our defense (read: play by everyone behind the blueline) sucked. It doesn't matter what type of offense you have when every foray into our own zone is an adventure--as you wait with baited breath as to whether or not your ex-norris trophy winning stud D-man, and up-and-coming rookie is going to make an ill-advised no look pass that is intercepted (by my count, that happened at least once a game last year), whether or not anyone is going to take the body and clear the crease letting the opposents take up to 5 whacks at the puck at the netmouth, whether or not the breakout is going to start with a forward trying, and failing to skate through twice their weight in opponents, vets who should know better completely blowing coverage, and let's not forget the netminder bobbling routine saves.



If our offense is getting stoned, there's no way our defense will compensate and it wll be game 6 ugly. IMHO, with the personnel we have, we should have, and next year should, be better in the back end--that includes Crawford.

How about you just write a better article, Variable.

Yeah, sorry, forgot that there's absolutely no room for discussion or disagreement on a message board.



Look, this is always going to be a point of discussion with me, don't like it, please put me on ignore. Evaluation and analysis of goalie performance is horrible in the NHL. He's bringing up something that is and will always be skewed all over the place (PP% save percentage) that represents not even close to any sort of comparable sample size to 10 years worth of data on even strength save percentages and the results of the shot quality of that from team to team. Might as well just look at shoot out save percentages and say whoever fares best in that is the best "clutch" goalie that makes all the "right" saves at the "right" time. We should know better than that by now.

Please stop feeding the troll.

Yep, differing opinions on hockey, run for the hills.

Supra said:

Please stop feeding the troll.

Click to expand...

Helps when you can't see him TONY!!!

R K said:

Helps when you can't see him TONY!!!

Click to expand...

Ah to have that luxury

I also agree this is Crawfords year to prove himself, just as the COACHING STAFF. The players directly in front of him need to play better as well, primarily Keith and Leddy....

I just think this is the year we find out about what Corey is all about. He rocked his rookie season, sucked during the dreaded sophomore slump. So this is the make it or break it year if you ask me.

Variable said:

We've been through this before. I'm not saying shot quality is non-existent, that a shot from a certain location or a 2 on 1 is the same as a slap shot with full visibility. So yes of course, when two on ones, break aways on a botched power play, etc occur, those aren't going to favor a goalie's chances at all. They never will. That's such a small percentage of plays though (I believe something like less than 4 percent of all shots taken). At even strength, there's no noticeable difference. Here's one study: http://vhockey.blogs...ty-fantasy.html



It's a case in which what was once thought as a sound theory proved to be false.Can outlier teams exist? Of course they could. The Blackhawks don't fit that profile though. They are a high puck possessing team, their shot differential has been among league leaders for the past several years, they've been a high scoring team, they were among the league leaders in power play time given to and least amount of PK time on ice (something which would have seemed impossible if you are in any of the game chats when a penalty is called). These are all luxuries most other goalies do not enjoy.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the link, but I'll tell you that guys math is all over the place. 0.0133 isn't the difference of 2 goals, but more like the difference of 20+ goals in a season or more if you are a starting goaltender that sees over 1500 shots per season -- his sample size of 300 shots was used to skew the stats in his favor. If your calculation of 4% of all shots taken are of high quality is correct, (which I highly doubt) I'd venture to guess it wouldn't be the same number for each team and that's just a league average, even the difference between 4.4% and 3.6% could be the difference of 10+ shots (or more) throughout the season and if you ask me that is a big impact if you're talking about 0.8 of a percentage of shots that could be categorized as high quality. I'd be willing to bet that the percentage of high quality shots is closer to 20% or even as high as 30% each game. If it was 4% it would mean that there is a quality shot every 40 shots which is laughable -- if that were the case hockey would be pretty boring.



The Blackhawks may not fit your description, but they certainly fit mine. Again the quantity means nothing. The fact that they out-shoot teams means nothing when you are talking about our goaltending in Chicago. What means something to me is the amount of quantity vs quality and I'd venture to bet the ratio is higher for Blackhawks goaltenders than it is for at least 95% of the league. And I'm not arguing that they see more quality throughout a game either, just a higher quality to quantity ratio than the other guy (Ex: 15 shots, 5 quality compared to 30 shots, 7 quality). Which, back to my original point, means Crawford won't be relied on for his quantity of saves, because he'll probably see less shots than the other guy. He'll be relied on for his quality of saves. Don't take this wrong for the 5th time -- this doesn't mean he doesn't have to make the routine saves, or that every shot isn't the "right" save, it just means he has to stay solid, stop the routine saves, staying focused, and making the timely save when he needs to, essentially matching the other guy at the other end of the rink in terms of quality stops.



Crawford simply needs to be better in that area. There is no stat to explain it, and there probably never will be. There's no excuse, no one is blaming the team in front of him, that's just the way a Blackhawk goaltender needs to play in this day and era. Whether that is difficult or not is a whole other debate in itself -- some goaltenders like playing behind a team like that and others prefer more of a workload to keep focused. When I look at that, I tend to think it's harder to maintain a high save percentage when your on a team like the Blackhawks rather than the opposing team (I'm sure Crawford was beat in sv% by his opposition in at least 65-75% of his games this year, just a guess) and I think that's due to the lower quantity to high quality ratio -- that also does not mean it is harder to win. Whatever the case, lets hope Crawford figures it out.

R K said:

I also agree this is Crawfords year to prove himself, just as the COACHING STAFF. The players directly in front of him need to play better as well, primarily Keith and Leddy....

Click to expand...

I agree to a certain extent, but there's nothing Keith or Leddy can do if Crawford lets the garbage (IE: NSH, PHX x2) so he needs to play better himself. Khabby did just fine, so did Niemi on teams that were built with the same philosophy. Crawford won't need to make a ton of saves, he just needs to make the saves when called upon and remain focused.



If he doesn't get the job done this year I'd hate to see him traded to be honest. His contract is practically pennies compared to his role and I still think he would be a good back-up. To be honest, I still don't understand why they re-signed Emery. If either of the two needed to go it was him.

Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

Ton said:

I agree to a certain extent, but there's nothing Keith or Leddy can do if Crawford lets the garbage (IE: NSH, PHX x2) so he needs to play better himself. Khabby did just fine, so did Niemi on teams that were built with the same philosophy. Crawford won't need to make a ton of saves, he just needs to make the saves when called upon and remain focused.



If he doesn't get the job done this year I'd hate to see him traded to be honest. His contract is practically pennies compared to his role and I still think he would be a good back-up. To be honest, I still don't understand why they re-signed Emery. If either of the two needed to go it was him.

Click to expand...

The difference is Leddy isn't Campbell, Monty isn't Sopel, and Hammer doesn't have a vet to hold his hand this time around. We're coached on the same philosophy, but the players are different. IMHO that's the key difference. If Q was the coach he's cracked up to be, he should know that no matter what system you coach, you have to tweak it to the players you have, not try and make your players play a system they can't play.



Further, let's not forget our forwards are as much to blame for some of the biggest fuckups leading to high-percentage goals against (i.e. Sharp's play leading to the tying goal in game 4).



EVERYONE needs to play better when the puck is behind the blueline. I'm sure we can all agree on that.