Quote:
Originally Posted by GranteedEV
Hiller allowed 79 goals in 654 shots.
With a league average SV% of .915 that drops down to 55 goals. Hiller was worth -24 goals. Flames allowed 257 goals. If Hiller were average that becomes 233 goals, good for 21st in NHL.
Ortio allowed 55 goals on 564 shots.
With a league average SV% of .915 that drops down to 48 goals. Ortio was worth -7 . If Hiller+Ortio were average that becomes 226 goals allowed good for 18th place.
Drops down to 220 if Ramo were league average, or 16th place.
Basically that's -6 EN goals against because we didn't get saves earlier in games. Backstrom was also worth -4 goals -> 210GA would have been good for 11th. Tied with the Sharks who won the west. And not with elite Vezina goaltending but league average SV%.
SV% isn't wholely goalie independant but no one would suggest we got the calibre of goaltending we have gotten from Elliott, Johnson, Smith, and Rittich. Ramo and Ortio were waived that year and Hiller should have been.
|
Why would you apply league average sv% to Hiller and Ortio though? My main point was that our defensive systems that season didn’t allow for average numbers, thus why were at the bottom for total goals allowed.
Saying that we’d be average in goals allowed if we had league average sv% is just pointing out the obvious. It’s like saying if we had even better than average sv%, we’d allow even less goals allowed. Fact is, we were dead last in goals allowed or at the very least, one of the worst in the league with Hartley at the helm.
Hartley did some good work here, but so too has Gulutzan no matter how little of credit people want to give him. Instead, people just bicker about lack of facial expressions, or lack of talking on the bench or the lack of timeouts. It’s embarrassing reading this kind of garbage criticism. As if everyone here has watched all other 30 coaches in the league this closely to see their nuances.