Quote:
Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache
Bingo, that’s just the same thing over again
I don’t dispute any of the high danger chance count, as I know how they are defined. I saw all of those things too.
What matters, when looking at a goalie’s work in a single game, is where those shots are placed. Nobody measures that. But it makes all the difference
That’s why I noted in post 93 my view on how each goal actually happened
Many of us have studied statistics. There are outlying data points in every data set. That’s what this is.
Just look at Johnny’s shot attempt from down low, over the shoulder. Usually doesn’t work. It usually hits the goalie or misses the net, even though there’s a hole there. Because players can’t shoot perfectly (sample evidence: all star game target shooting).
The day it does go in, Johnny happens to hit a hockey puck size hole over a goalie’s shoulder. Is that goalie worse than all the other goalies?
In my mind, not particularly.
On an average 33 shot night, that shot is worth .030. That one fluke could be the difference between .909 (good) and .879 (bad)
Like I say, none of what you say is wrong in terms of the stats. But like I say, something went by Vladar’s ear and I did not see Anderson have to put a blocker beside his ear to stop a comparable shot. I didn’t see a puck bounce off the crossbar right on to the stick of a wide open Flame, for Anderson to stop. There is no real estate between that statement and what is right. It didn’t happen. Both essentially unstoppable. Anderson faced different shots. I didn’t see any miraculous saves corresponding to equivalent shot placement. He was solid, but wouldn’t have saved those either.
|
For sure, and as I said they currently don't have a danger scale other than where on the ice the shot took place, and how the puck got to the shot ... both are important. Both mean a lot when you look at averages, but they don't handle the individual shot for sure.
But don't you think it's possible you might have a thing for backup goaltenders?