Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Ziemc97

The 2019-2020 NHL Gear Report- Trends and Analysis

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Hi everyone, 

During this extended period off the ice waiting to both watch and play hockey again, I put together a little end-of-year report to look at the performance of each of the goalie equipment brands present in the NHL and their respective athletes.

I took performance statistics from NHL.com and manually assigned a primary gear manufacturer (must wear at least said brands pads) to every goaltender in order to compare each brand's weighted and aggregate statistics in a head to head manner. I did two sections:

1. The past 5 years of gear trends amongst each years top 50 goaltenders.

  1. Number of Goaltenders Wearing Brand
  2. Games Played by Brand
  3. Playoff Performance by Brand
  4. # of Gear Changes by Brand

2. The 2020 season in a more in depth manner. 

  1. Win Percentage
  2. Marketing Value 
  3. Marketing Effectiveness
  4. Conclusion and Recommendations

If you're interested in the full results, please read the attached file or view this Google Doc links: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yNTHGFHf5hsb_oHYv3uYt4n-4aTLii9D/view?usp=sharing

If you have any questions or concerns, I'd love to discuss!

ziemc97

 

The 2020 Gear Report 1.3.pdf

Edited by Ziemc97
Continuing Updates
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The past 5 years of gear trends amongst each year's top 50 goaltenders

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Number of Goaltenders Wearing Brand

This is exactly what it sounds like- the number of goaltenders each year wearing each brand. 

Results:

  1. CCM (114 Cumulative)
  2. Vaughn (67 Cumulative)
  3. Bauer (36 Cumulative)
  4. Brian's (27 Cumulative)
  5. Lefevre* (3 Cumulative)

1848836776_ScreenShot2020-07-02at3_23_17PM.png.5ac7cec751eea956dd36c93ef6d2b647.png1670200994_ScreenShot2020-07-02at3_23_23PM.png.1d9164dc45195a594a370f34183e3895.png

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Games Played by Brand

The cumulative and average number of games played by each brand over the last 5 years.

Results:

  1. CCM (5123.5)
  2. Vaughn (2890) 
  3. Bauer (1738)
  4. Brian's (1048)
  5. Lefevre* (65.5- Exact numbers for this season are unknown; used GP/2 as switches were roughly halfway through the year). 

154247292_ScreenShot2020-07-02at3_30_02PM.png.d388590d06ded3f0b74e5ecbd7ad9892.png116028840_ScreenShot2020-07-02at3_30_10PM.png.8aa99f3fdd3975bbab5a4ae9f2f65f3e.png

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Playoff Representation by Brand

The cumulative and average number of goalies in the playoffs by each brand over the last 5 years (Some goaltenders counted up to 5 times over 5 years being summed).

Results: 

  1. CCM (50)
  2. Vaughn (32)
  3. Bauer (15)
  4. Brian's (6)

1133862427_ScreenShot2020-07-02at3_36_25PM.png.caf05fcde58f3df28090bb405ae60ec4.png397743684_ScreenShot2020-07-02at3_36_32PM.png.c21e1938f258919aa991cf57a10cd107.png

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Playoff Games Played by Brand

The cumulative and average number of playoff games played by each brand over the last 5 years.

Results: 

  1. CCM (287)
  2. Vaughn (207)
  3. Bauer (115)
  4. Brian's (34)

1940040406_ScreenShot2020-07-02at3_41_17PM.png.cf20b19e7cfacf934acf3a77d9514565.png

92757943_ScreenShot2020-07-02at3_41_05PM.png.d5df7c721cbc45fca80f6ad9b5d26cc1.png

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Gear Changes

The number of goaltenders who have switched into, and out of, brands to have played in past 5 seasons. This doesn't mean they switched in the last 5 seasons, just that they played during this period, and have switched from another brand at some point, ie, Price used to wear Vaughn.

Results: 

  1. Lefevre (+7)
  2. Bauer (+5)
  3. CCM (-1)
  4. Vaughn (-11)

1545654010_ScreenShot2020-07-02at3_47_54PM.png.7348ec4aa28a297f1e64cb566c09d3ed.png

Screen Shot 2020-07-02 at 3.41.05 PM.png

Edited by Ziemc97
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Just a quick question, how do you factor in goalies that split brands? And I assume this just counts gloves and leg pads?

Edited by coopaloop1234

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, coopaloop1234 said:

Just a quick question, how do you factor in goalies that split brands? And I assume this just counts gloves and leg pads?

I just used the 'dominant' brand on the goalie, so if they use Vaughn pads, helmet, stick but CCM gloves, they are a Vaughn goaltender. For a total gear mutt, like Koskinen who uses Vaughn pads, CCM gloves, a Warrior stick and a Bauer helmet, pads>everything else in terms of visibility, so he too counts as a Vaughn athlete. Not perfect but I felt it was a decent compromise.

Edited by Ziemc97

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Ziemc97 said:

I just used the 'dominant' brand on the goalie, so if they use Vaughn pads, helmet, stick but CCM gloves, they are a Vaughn goaltender. For a total gear mutt, like Koskinen who uses Vaughn pads, CCM gloves, a Warrior stick and a Bauer helmet, pads>everything else in terms of visibility, so he too counts as a Vaughn athlete. Not perfect but I felt it was a decent compromise.

Interesting way to do it for sure. I guess there isn't any clear cut way. So if there's a tie breaker in any category, whichever brand the leg pad is becomes the deciding factor?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The In Depth 2020 Season

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Full Results

The table below shows the full results from the 2019-2020 season by brand. 

1765832412_ScreenShot2020-07-02at4_01_07PM.png.105f249c1f3fcc3fdd9a177d596f86da.png

1. Win Percentage

  1. Lefevre (52.1%)
  2. Brian's (50.2%)
  3. Vaughn (49.9%)
  4. CCM (47.5%)
  5. Bauer (44.7%)

2. Brand Representation

The number and % of athletes wearing each brand.

  1. CCM (30)
  2. Vaughn (25)
  3. Bauer (18)
  4. Brian's (8)
  5. Lefevre (5)

981822279_ScreenShot2020-07-02at4_01_19PM.png.fbe978c67d07db1006b6f578c16014e5.png

3. Marketing Value

Marketing Value Equation = (Team Market Value/Av Market Value)  +  (GP/Av GP)  +  (SV%/ Av SV%)  +  (Wins/ Av Wins)

This equation factors in the 3 most important performance metrics used to compare goaltenders in terms of overall success. It also includes the value of the franchise relative to the mean; this was done to assess the second-hand marketing value that comes from the franchise promoting their players. Logically, a goaltender playing in Toronto will receive a promotional push with more capital backing and more viewers on whatever product the team pushes out. Similarly, a goaltender playing in Phoenix will innately be less valuable to a gear manufacturer as they, through no fault of their own, will have less of a following and capital backing.  

This was done to assess the marketing ‘value’ each goaltender brings to a brand, and how each brand is performing using the NHL platform.146420833_ScreenShot2020-07-02at4_10_16PM.png.ef4ce366b61c26a93da75bb5b024e47b.png

Cumulative MK Value Rankings:

  1. CCM (158)
  2. Bauer (77.3)
  3. Vaughn (75.7)
  4. Brian's (16.8)
  5. Lefevre (10.3)

528346542_ScreenShot2020-07-02at4_11_42PM.png.a6e5e39ba79e4f39206d2cd9bce7945d.png

4. Marketing Effectiveness

Marketing Effectiveness Equation
 = (Brand Count/Average Count)+(Brand Total Wins/Average Wins)+(Brand GP/Average GP)+(Brand Sv%/Average Sv%)+(Brand Market Value/ Av. Market Value)


  This equation is the summation of the brand’s overall effectiveness in their athletes versus the average. A brand that, overall, had more wins, higher games played and SV% versus the industry average, and a cumulative market value of their athletes that’s greater than average, will have a higher number than those who do not.

Results:

  1. CCM (0.96)
  2. Bauer (0.55)
  3. Vaughn (0.5)
  4. Brian's (0.25)
  5. Lefevre (0.24)

1090099192_ScreenShot2020-07-02at4_17_46PM.png.faa5efbba0e65d626ab5ee6f656f5e97.png

END OF DATA

Edited by Ziemc97
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, coopaloop1234 said:

Interesting way to do it for sure. I guess there isn't any clear cut way. So if there's a tie breaker in any category, whichever brand the leg pad is becomes the deciding factor?

Correct- all about visibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...