Quote:
Originally Posted by Infinit47
They literally try to quantify all of that in determining high danger, medium danger and low danger scoring chances. They apply the same expected save results and compare against the actual outcome.
If you look at goalies who've played 8 games or more Markstrom had the lowest save percentage in both low and high danger scoring chances compared to expected. Over 5 games Markstrom was objectively worse than Mike Smith unless you are of the opinion that those models are completely made up.
Markstrom had an .852 save percentage for God's sake. He was downright terrible. Not saying other people weren't terrible too, but that doesn't mean Markstrom wasn't putrid.
The goalie apologizing in Calgary is next level. I guess that's what happens when you haven't had a good goalie in like 15 years.
|
My understanding is that high medium and low danger chances all are based on where the shot comes from, and not factors like deflections, crazy bounces to an open man, 2 on 1s, breakaways, etc. and that all bears on save % as well, of course. I stand to be corrected on how they calculate but I don't think I'm wrong there.
Over 5 games Markstrom made more tough saves than Smith IMO. He had some bad ones, mostly game 1 and a major league puckhandling gaffe in game 4 (the exact same as Smith's except Coleman was at a worse angle than RNH).