Quote:
Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache
Depends how seriously you take things here, I guess. Being technically correct, well, that’s the best kind of correct, isn’t it? Just kidding around, man. I thought that was obvious.
I do notice, though, that you still are using save percentages across what I consider to be small sample sizes, and do not appear to have acknowledged the principles the article I linked on save percentage.
No opinion on the comment about 6 goals on 600 shots making a delta of .010, or essentially what could be the difference between good and bad.
Just using straight up sv% to evaluate goalies still. I find it somewhat amusing. I agree there isn’t much better simple data available. And I find the results as the starting point of the discussion, not the end.
|
Metrics show both goaltenders have faced similar degree of difficulty in terms of shots, so save percentage as a total may not be fair from team to team (that was a good article, and I remember it from a few years back)
But when comparing two goaltenders from the same team it's still a pretty decent way of boiling things down.