Quote:
Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache
I understand that you think that. Shot counts and goal counts do not provide context.
A one timer top corner and a shot into the chest have different likelihood of being stopped. Not controversial, I hope.
There is a reason Tampa has scored 5 plus in 22 of their last 41 games.
Smith let in 4 against Pittsburgh. They weren’t awful but I wouldn’t say they were all great. He gave a NHL level performance.
Malkin’s goal wasn’t horrible but wasn’t great. It was stoppable. Went through the goalie. That goal goes in some of the time.
Stamkos’s one timer wasn’t. When he places that shot where he intends to, it’s going in. Pretty much all the time. Now if he blasts it in to the goalie’s chest or glove, well, that happens too. But that’s not the shot he took.
And as far as strength, that’s a bit of a red herring at this level of statistical significance. The Flames defensive breakdowns against Tampa created numerous grade A scoring chances. Pittsburgh had nowhere near the chances.
It still comes down, for me, to what was actually scored and how, not how many other shots are stopped that are expected to be stopped. I basically don’t care about that easily stoppable 80-85 percent of all shots, which are a non issue until a goalie flubs them.
Stats without context and interpretation are just not sufficient to make a satisfactory case.
|
Your posts make me glad there are things like stats to actually measure goaltenders. Otherwise I'd have to check with you for every game story as to whether or not giving up six (Rittich above average against Tampa in a loss) in a loss, or giving up basically four powerplay goals against Pittsburgh in a win was an average NHL performance.
Who has time for that kind of analysis, especially with the fact that when it's done it's one person's opinion and nothing else, and said opinion may have a bias or two.