I can compare them enough to know that Anderson's .898 SV% and 3.32 GAA aren't a better fit to fill in for a Murray injury than DeSmith's .921 SV% and 2.40 GAA. If you think a goalie should get a .24 SV% and a .93 GAA margin of error because of his team, I'd love to see what you have to support that idea.
So produce something to support that dumbass idea or try peddling that baseless garbage somewhere else, I guess?
Apparently not. Because the crux of my issue was asking why anyone should care about your distinction when DeSmith has proven he's capable of of producing those numbers on the Pens for the amount of time we'll need him to.
Get back whenever.
You're great at moving goal posts. Let me remind you your inital comment, since you have already forgot.
You said that both backups had much better numbers than Anderson (As in that actually means anything), and now for some unknown reason you're arguing that DeSmith has good enough numbers on the Pens to cover in Murrays absence... Which I never even talked about. All I've said is that you can't compare numbers just like that, which really is obvious to anyone that knows anything about hockey.
Sure, both backups had better numbers than a number of starting NHL goalies as well that are clearly better than Desmith and Jarry let's not kid ourselves. Having a good save percentage on a good team does not mean much, especially in a limited role. It is true that the Pens should NOT trade for Anderson and that is the reason why I never mentionned that they should. They are just fine with DeSmith and Jarry.
However using their save% to compare them to other goalies, that play behind some of the worst teams in the league and that also that give up the highest amount of high danger scoring chances against .... that really cannot be compared as a basis for your less than logical analysis and it is straight up stupid.