Quote:
Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache
No, that’s not it at all. Again, I have been sympathetic to Marky too.
I mentioned xGA because so many people point to it and say “see? The goalie sucked”
Seriously, a tap in from behind the goalie … how many xGA does it contribute?
In reality, if Pietrangelo is able to take that shot, it is a guaranteed goal
But there is no situation in the model for that situation. It gets lumped in a bucket with shots within a certain distance from the goal
I really am disappointed that your takeaway is that you think I particularly like ####ing backup goalie. Doesn’t matter who is in net, look at the facts.
It’s about people pointing to a model, nodding sagely and lamenting the knowledge it unearths about the state of the goaltending. When in reality, the sample size is such that one outlying event makes the result outside the bounds of the statistical significance
Clearly and quite obviously, we have an outlying event, and the model doesn’t capture it. Last game with Tanev’s own goal, this game with Pietrangelo’s.
|
I don't think anyone has to be all that fancy to point out Calgary goaltending hasn't been that good this year.
The models are helpful in my mind because the Flames don't give up a lot of shots and it's unfair to a goaltender to just point at save percentage if you give up say 20 shots but 9 of them are really difficult.
But from the simplest of stats to the most intense of models Calgary goaltending doesn't add up.
And they're getting torn apart specifically in medium danger chances ... not the super easy ones, not the really tough ones.
So pointing to a tap in three times this morning doesn't do it for me. Those happen to all teams and to all goaltenders. It's part of the averaging.