Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo
Sure you do, you're smarter than that.
You're basically saying what you saw is right, and those that don't agree are hung up on basic stats like a .860 save percentage ... which is a blind spot. You label it cognitive dissonance because of course there has to be a reason that they disagree with you because you are ... of course ... right.
|
Hey, I am interested in discussing what is reasonably expected from a goalie.
I see people saying that the goalie let in 6 so he wasn’t good enough. That’s the start of the conversation. I think it is a good idea to take a more detailed look than at goals and sv%
There are shots a goalie should save, shots he could save, and shots he can’t
Those shots come in different proportions each game.
Like I say, there is a difference between a shot that goes in to a goalie’s logo, and one that goes over his shoulder beside his ear. Those shots are measured the same, first as raw shots affecting sv%, and for some more advanced purposes if they have the same criteria (location, shot type etc.).
But that actual shot placement doesn’t figure in to statistics
And sample size of a single game is low and very subject to the events leading up to each shot, and shot placement
These are pretty basic things that are easy to understand. But people prefer not to
You say Anderson made ‘more big saves’. I’m saying I saw a puck whiz over past Vladar’s ear, but don’t recall Anderson throwing a blocker up beside his ear. Not all shots are made equal.
What is wrong with being right? I don’t think it’s something to apologize for