Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo
And you're welcome to your opinion for sure.
But why are you so defensive about Rittich?
His numbers in a much bigger sample size have been sub starter for 11 starts dating back to the beginning of the new year.
|
Not the conversation I thought we were having. Really, this isn’t even about Rittich, specifically. It’s about whether the goalie in this situation played well or not, based on shot quality and expectations.
I have shared my opinion on numbers such as save percentage. It is a flawed stat because of failure to factor in shot quality, and shot quality distribution
And this Tampa game is a poster boy for when the basic statistics don’t tell the whole story. That makes it conversation worthy.
Hrudey has said on the telly that a goalie can let in 5 but play well. I say the same. 6, even.
A lot of people look at stats, count shots and goals, and classify the play based on that.
When Kipper took the step change from .920 ish with Sutter and Playfair to sub .910 with Keenan, I didn’t think he forgot how to play net. Some people thought his play dropped off. He still was really damn good. Team D went by the wayside, and it affected his results. It’s a stat that needs context.
You and I both look at regular and advanced stats a lot.
I understand the flaws in how danger tier is classified, and also understand the concept of statistical significance.
Really what it comes down to is that you are looking at the outcome, based on numbers, and classifying the performance based on that. Not considering the detail and context behind those numbers.
I am more interested in how the goalie actually played.
You took offense to ‘spreadsheet take.’ (Fine, numbers based take - I know you can do math without a spreadsheet, but wasn’t the point)
No secret I like Rittich as a goalie, but that is because he is really good.
Just I can tell what is stoppable from what isn’t.
If Brian Burke can say he judges goalies based on what they should stop, not what they could stop, I won’t apologize for looking at things the same.