Pundits will always point to statistics to create bold clickbait headlines proclaiming that ‘Jonathan Quick is not an elite goaltender.’ That tends to be a major bug-a-boo for many Kings fans, being among the leaders on a list of pet peeves. While others share a knowing chuckle with their fellow Kings fans – cry all you want about elite goaltending, we know that whenever the Kings have Jonathan Quick in net, the team will be favored to win.

The Steve Masons, Andrew Hammonds, & Devan Dubnyks of the world all had ‘elite’ seasons – being among Top 4 in even strength save percentage & ultimately all three have goalie controversy written all over them next season.

Other members of the elite fraternity of goalies, Pekka Rinne, Carey Price, Henrik Lundqvist, have all failed to do what Quick was able to do — either carry a team on the back of his spectacular play to the Cup (2012) or consistently winning the goalie battle, series by series, against goaltenders that included Lundqvist & two Stanley Cup winners – Crawford & Niemi (2014).

So the ‘experts’ won’t honor him with the title of being elite – even though those who study the nuances of goaltending for a living, like In Goal Magazine’s Kevin Woodley, consistently marvel at Quick’s “layers of technique…that allow him to use those incredible raw skills & physical tools more efficiently & effectively.”

The purpose of this post isn’t too rehash the ‘is Quick elite?’ argument (too late)…rather it’s part of a series of articles that intend to assess the various advanced stats from last season to see what happened to the Los Angeles Kings.

The premise of this blog is to examine play at even strength. Anyone can be a hero when you outnumber the other team & vice versa. When evaluating the performance of a goalie it seems as if this is the best place to start – at even strength.

Season GP GA60 SA60 CA60 SV% 2014-15 72 1.89 (8) 26.05 (3) 48.52 (3) 0.928 (16) 2013-14 49 1.71 (3) 23.70 (2) 45.43 (3) 0.928 (18)

Stats courtesy of Puckalytics Rankings based on a minimum of 1000 minutes played.

These are Jonathan Quick’s numbers from the past two seasons at even strength with how he ranks compared to his peers in parentheses. While his save percentage is consistently in the middle of the pack – his goals against per 60 minutes rank amongst the top goalies in the league. Last season, only Price, Mason, Dubnyk, Rinne, Hammond, Petr Mrazek, & Cory Schneider ranked higher. Obviously, those results have been aided by the team defensive system instilled by the Kings to control possession & in turn limit shots coming in Quick’s direction.

Even while shorthanded, there was no noticeable deviation in Quick’s performance.

Season GP GA60 SA60 CA60 SV% 2014-15 72 6.69 (17) 47.50 (4) 96.22 (12) .859 (24) 2013-14 49 6.46 (15) 47.42 (5) 92.39 (7) .864 (22)

Rankings based on a minimum of 200 shorthanded minutes played.

This is clearly an area that the team, & Quick, needs to improve in. Some of it is on the goaltender, while some of it is on the penalty killers. Players like Matt Greene & Jarret Stoll struggled short handed last season, while Quick’s save percentage continued to be subpar. Of course, any save percentage while a man down is subjective. Even Lundqvist had a save% less then Quick & Martin Jones had a .821 sv% (albeit in a much smaller sample size). Regardless, if the team could manage to align their GA60 with their SA60 & CA60 then you would likely see a few more wins coming the Kings way.

A peculiar stat that had been a trademark for the Kings was the reversal in fortune when holding leads going into the third period. This used to be among the Kings proudest calling cards & then this past season happened. According to Rich Hammond on April 7, “Kings have .771 win% when leading after two periods. Only teams worse: Buffalo, Edmonton, Florida, & Dallas. This used to be a huge strength.”

Interestingly enough, the stats would argue that Quick was actually better this season than last playing with a lead.

Season GP GA60 SA60 CA60 SV% 2014-15 72 1.74 (1) 26.30 (2) 49.41 (1) .934 (22) 2013-14 49 2.12 (11) 25.53 (3) 48.00 (3) .917 (23)

Stats courtesy of Puckalytics Rankings based on a minimum of 500 minutes played with a lead.

Even though it didn’t feel like it – looking at the data you would presume that the Kings & Quick were lights out playing with a lead last season at even strength & they played with it a lot. Only the Rangers & Jets had more time at even strength playing with a lead then the Kings. Does this add validity that the Kings were often victims of dose of bad puck luck? Had they used up all of their juju with the hockey gods in the 2014 playoffs?

One last set of data backs the idea that Jonathan Quick lived up to expectations in 2014-15. Recently, Don’t tell me about heart, developed a measurement of a goaltender’s expected save percentage compared to his actual save percentage.

In their introduction to the stat – DTMAH explained that they had developed, “a brand new goalie stat which compares a goalie’s current even-strength save percentage to what we would expect an average goalie’s save percentage to be given the quality of competition faced by that goalie.” The stat factors in the variance of different shooter’s ability to finish & went about measuring how an average goalie would be expected to perform. More from DTMAH…

Only 5 on 5 play was considered since we already know that it is preferable to all strength conditions. A player’s finishing ability was calculated as a 110 shot running average of a player’s shooting percentage. Using the same research methods I applied in earlier studies with regards to shooting stabilization, I found that at 5 on 5 a player (using both forwards and defence in this sample) will see their shooting percentage stabilize at around 110 shots. Using this rolling average instead of just a player’s career average helps account for aging (player’s skill sets do improve/deteriorate during their career) and changes in league environment (shooting percentage was lower in 2014 than in 2002). If a player never amassed at least 110 shots in their career, they were giving the shooting percentage of a replacement level player set at 6.48% here. (If anyone finds a better number than 110 please let me know, it wouldn’t be a real inconvenience to alter it). I coined this new metric xSV% which is simply just the difference between the goaltenders actual save percentage and what we would expect an average goaltender to achieve in similar circumstances.

So how does Quick measure up? Here’s a visual representation created by Null_Hypothesis Hockey based on Don’t Tell me about Heart. Conor Tompkins of Null_Hypothesis Hockey explains, “The black line indicates the Expected Save %, and the bar indicates the Actual Sv%. The color of the bar is determined by the xGSAA for that year (xGSAA is the number of goals the goalie prevented or allowed in relation to what was expected).” The Expected Save % in the last two seasons has been fairly consistent – .922 & .925 – & Quick has played up to the expectations of an average goaltender. The aforementioned ‘elite’ goaltenders are among the goalies who performed noticeably better than what was expected. Goalies are, “sorted left to right by xGSAA. The black lines indicate the Expected Save %, and the colored bars indicate the goalie’s Actual Save %.” As you can see, goalies mentioned earlier as being elite, or having career years, are among the leaders in xGSAA. How many of you just turned your computer sideways? So it appears that the stats support what most Kings fans concluded by simply watching Jonathan Quick play on a nightly basis. He had a good season. He didn’t have his best season – 2011-12 will be hard to top, but in many ways his play was an improvement compared to the 2013-14 regular season. As long as Quick plays up to expectations, the team should be good enough around him to win the majority of their games. Clearly, the team had other problems then Quick last season or as Quick’s stats playing with a lead indicate that the team may simply have been victims of bad puck luck. If there was a clear area of improvement for Quick it would be his save percentage on the penalty kill. If Quick could improve his PK SV% from .859 to .894 (Cory Schneider’s %) that would mean nine less goals scored on the opponents power play. That would have a significant impact on the fortunes of the team. So, there is little statistical proof to place the blame for not making the playoffs on Quick – but if he can make some improvements he will be a key catalyst to getting the team back to where it belongs next season.