Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay Random
When Smith was the unquestioned starter back in October, the Flames were giving up high-danger scoring chances right along with the worst teams in the league – culminating in the 9-1 wipeout against Pittsburgh.
But Smith isn't playing 82 games, nor is any goalie, especially a backup. So the point is moot.
However, let's go with your numbers. The Flames' Pythagorean expectation is for a .605 winning percentage, not allowing for loser points. If you subtract 7 goals against, that changes to .634. (To save time, I use 2 as the exponent, which is just slightly off from the number the stat wonks use for hockey.) So the expected difference in the standings is between four and five points – since you asked.
But that assumes that the team as a whole improves its save percentage by .009. Obviously, changing backup goalies is not going to make your starter that much better.
Not the difference between .886 and .895. So again, the point is moot.
However, if that's what you're looking for—
In his first seven games played (up to and including the Pittsburgh debacle), Smith gave up 25 goals on 186 shots – an .866 save percentage. In the 16 games he's played since then, he has given up 41 goals on 392 shots – which is an .895 percentage.
So if you would absolutely take an .895 percentage from Smith, you should be happy, because you've got it. Nothing is going to scrub out his awful performance in October, or the bad team defence during that time. But I doubt you would be happy if he continued at an .895 clip for the rest of the season as backup. Nor should you be happy if another backup delivers an .895 save percentage, just because his name does not happen to be Mike Smith.
The Nilsson-McKenna trade was widely described as ‘doofus for doofus’. You're not going to move any needles by acquiring another doofus.
|
So much wrong with this conversation. Never mind save percentage. It’s pretty much meaningless, and we can explore that later.
In short, most shots taken are generally stoppable, most goalies stop them, and that is probably 80-85 percent at least. Some shots are unstoppable, and team D has a lot to do with that.
Consider bad goals Mike Smith has given up at bad times and points Mike Smith has cost the Flames in the standings.
Smith hasn’t lost games based on calculations of save % and placing the odd goal here and there randomly over the course of that stretch of games. He has lost by letting in bad goals at bad times.
I hate to say it. The guy is pretty much done.
Even if he can put together a few good games here and there, he can’t do it consistently. He can’t win the bulk of the expected games and then steal some more. It’s over.