Round 2, Vote 7 (HOH Top Goaltenders)

[Canadiens1958]

1952-53 Toronto Maple Leafs

I think Lumley probably had a poor season, yes. Putting up a .912 on the Leafs in 1952-53 is not very impressive, considering that it ranked 5th out of 6 starters while league average was .916. Rollins was at .918 in Chicago, Henry was at .918 in Boston, and it is highly doubtful either of them had better team defences than Toronto's. Lumley went from the worst team in the league to one of the best defensively, and yet his league average adjusted save percentage only went up by .006. I don't see any way to argue that Chicago had a huge negative impact on his save percentage while at the same time letting Lumley off the hook for his first season in Toronto.

Lumley's Toronto tenure is perhaps an example of how "boom-and-bust" goalies can sometimes perhaps be overrated by evaluation schemes that rely heavily on awards voting. Lumley had two First All-Star years surrounded by years where he finished 5th and 6th in save percentage. Despite the two impressive awards, if you look at those four years combined Lumley's results do not look like anything special compared to the other goalies with >75 GP:

1. Jacques Plante: 136 GP, .929
2. Terry Sawchuk: 266 GP, .924
3. Glenn Hall: 78 GP, .923
4. Gerry McNeil: 119 GP, .921
5. Harry Lumley: 267 GP, .918
6. Jim Henry: 166 GP, .914
7. Gump Worsley: 185 GP, .914
8. Al Rollins: 238 GP, .908

Factoring in team defence, is Lumley clearly better in terms of save percentage than any of those other goalies? Maybe Rollins, but still I don't think .010 is an unreasonable team effect gap between Toronto and Chicago, particularly with the way the Leafs apparently played defence under Clancy. Maybe McNeil, if you want to argue that Montreal's defence was even better than Toronto's. Lumley was certainly not as consistently good as the top three guys, and there's not much between Lumley and Henry or Worsley, even though both of them guys played on worse teams.

Lumley deserves credit for all those games played, and it isn't really all that embarrassing to finish behind guys like Plante, Sawchuk and Hall, but where's the evidence of separation between Lumley and Henry, McNeil, Rollins, etc., even during the peak of Lumley's career?

If instead of going .912-.923-.929-.905 Lumley went .918-.918-.918-.918 over the same number of games played, he would have contributed exactly as much to the Toronto Maple Leafs as he actually did in terms of goals prevented. If anything the consistent version of Lumley would have been more valuable to the team considering that they missed the playoffs by just 2 points in 1952-53 and would have allowed 12 fewer goals against with .918 goaltending, while finishing at least 10 points clear of the 5th place team in both of Lumley's big years.

However, consistent Lumley would have ranked 5-5-4-4 in save percentage instead of 5-2-1-6, and probably would have never been an All-Star or attracted much Hart Trophy attention. Take those things off his resume, and is he still up for voting at this point in the ranking? Maybe not, yet really he would have been every bit as good.

Obviously there are team effects from having different players and coaches so having the same numbers four years in a row is a little unrealistic even if the goalie performance was identical, but I really do think the All-Star + Hart voting = goalie value approach is very problematic once we get outside the top 20 and are looking at goalies who don't have piles of award recognition. I think that approach often rewards randomness, inconsistency and the luck of the draw in terms of team situation.



I was a quite a big Lumley skeptic on my original list, but I have moved him up some after this discussion. As someone pointed out earlier, all the goalies have some warts at this stage.

We are going to look at the 1952-53 Leafs in detail before reaching conclusions about Harry Lumley's allegedly poor season.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/TOR/1953.html

An in depth analysis shows that the 1962-53 Leafs were decimated at the key center position, their main advantage over the rest of the NHL teams between 1947 and 1952.

Ted Kennedy missed 27 games yet was second in team scoring, Max Bentley missed 34 games, while Rudy Migay missed 30 games.Two other forwards missed time - George Armstrong missed 18 games while Howie Meeker missed 45 games. Yet Harry Lumley played poorly.

The team finished fifth, 27-30-13 despite missing two HHOF centers for 61 games. No other NHL team suffered such devastating loses during the 1952-53 season. Remove Abel, Schmidt and Lach from their teams for half a season and the results and goalie performances suffer. Leafs were without Kennedy AND Bentley for half a season. Yet Harry Lumley played poorly.

Truth of the matter is that Harry Lumley had an excellent season given the team circumstances.

Healthy team the next two seasons saw an improvement in GA - 36 and SV%:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/TOR/1954.html

and

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/TOR/1955.html

then Ted Kennedy retired:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/TOR/1956.html

Harry Lumley was excellent during his stay with the Maple Leafs once an in depth analysis of the team is completed.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I'll certainly re-visit my opinion of Gump. I came to this thinking that he was just a "likable loser" - not that he lost a lot, but that he wasn't an elite guy but very likable, a guy you could have a beer with. In fact, from the looks of Gump - described sometimes as a "bloated fire hydrant" - he may have a couple beer head start.

Is there any significant difference - perceived, I suppose - between say early-mid 1950's hockey and the hockey right before the league expanded (late 50's through mid-60's) in terms of talent level? Quality? The effects from the War were probably wearing off or almost completely worn off by the time the early 1950's rolled around. Is there any further talent bulge right before expansion that made the fans/league/players/coaches/any combination of the sort to believe that they had the pool to expand now (1966/1967 area)?

My question obviously directly relates to the goaltenders of the times in question. But not so much for the competition against other goalies (while relevant), but the defenders defending them, the shooters shooting on them.

Not goalies in particular, but my opinion is that the overall talent pool didn't fully recover from WW2 until the Jean Beliveau generation in the mid 1950s. There have been some hfboards studies on this, but if you look at the top scorers year by year, there is a lot more parity and depth in the late 50s and 60s than in the late 40s and early 50s. Also, very few of the top scorers of the early 50s continued being top scorers in the late 50s. Obviously, the studies I've seen have been forward-heavy, though. With many fewer goalies than scorers, it's hard to study them. The only thing noteworthy I can say is that Hall and Plante didn't come around until the mid 1950s.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Barrasso>Cujo>Worsley>Beezer

I personally don't believe that the USA "got it wrong" so often, going with Beezer so much more often than Barrasso during the meat and potatoes of these guys' careers. As an aside, both were eligible for enshrinement in the US HHoF in '06/07, and Beezer went in (no doubt partially on the strength of his tenure with Team USA vs Barrasso). Barrasso made it in two years later. I personally don't see how Barrasso can be > Beezer unless those Cup with the Penguins really, really mean a lot.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Three Differences

I'll certainly re-visit my opinion of Gump. I came to this thinking that he was just a "likable loser" - not that he lost a lot, but that he wasn't an elite guy but very likable, a guy you could have a beer with. In fact, from the looks of Gump - described sometimes as a "bloated fire hydrant" - he may have a couple beer head start.

Is there any significant difference - perceived, I suppose - between say early-mid 1950's hockey and the hockey right before the league expanded (late 50's through mid-60's) in terms of talent level? Quality? The effects from the War were probably wearing off or almost completely worn off by the time the early 1950's rolled around. Is there any further talent bulge right before expansion that made the fans/league/players/coaches/any combination of the sort to believe that they had the pool to expand now (1966/1967 area)?

My question obviously directly relates to the goaltenders of the times in question. But not so much for the competition against other goalies (while relevant), but the defenders defending them, the shooters shooting on them.

Three differences.

The players that had developed before the introduction of the Red Line were long gone.

The overall talent pool was deeper especially the top 9 forwards and top 4 defensemen on the playoff teams.

Collectively, the goaltending was better with the introduction of the two-goalie system. Goalies no longer played games nursing minor injuries or post injury - Plante mask game would never happen. Also the blowouts in season - teams playing three games in four nights or four in five would get smoked by a rested home team at the end of such a stretch were reduced.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

I think Barrasso may be getting punished because the second half of his career wasn't close to as good as the first half, and that's how people are remembering him.

I don't think Barrasso is being "punished" for the second half of his career any more than Beezer is being "punished" for spending his early/mid-30s playing for the expansion Florida Panthers (despite being a Vezina runner-up out there - still surprised about the resistance to the comparison to Luongo's rep while in Florida), and proving (imo) that the Rangers protected the wrong goalie (despite Richter being the one between the pipes in '94) when forced to make the decision before the dispersal draft.

Remember that Beezer was the first unprotected player chosen overall in that "draft", and 2nd all-star and Vezina runner-up in '93/94 when the Rangers won the Cup and Barrasso was already on his first step out of regular NHL starting goalie duties (Young/Wregget already taking over from Barrasso, and Richter was a career high 4th in all-star voting, and lagged behind Beezer in Vezina and all-star voting for the entire period after they were separated - sorry for bringing up someone who's not up for discussion yet).

 

[Michael Farkas]

Thanks for the informative responses re: talent in the 50's and 60's, gents.

Re: Barrasso. I'm not sure if he was "on his way out" especially when the name Wendell Young is brought into play.

He had Bowman as a coach in that time, and he liked to manage goalies in such a way. So that's why his first order of business when taking over in Pittsburgh was acquiring Ken Wregget at the deadline. A goalie who tended to falter down the stretch when given too many games. Hockey's Mr. October before Brian Savage (who is on this board, as coincidence would have it - Savage, that is).

Barrasso missed the lockout shortened season because of a wrist injury. Then I think it was a shoulder that cost him the '97 campaign. Now, Kevin Constantine is at the helm, a guy who was known to ride his goalies as hard as he'd ride his players - see: his use of Arturs Irbe on the early expansion Sharks. Barrasso was back in action in a big way.

Finally, he was booted when he basically refused to help mentor a young goalie (J.S. Aubin), instead electing to throw chairs at him...

But I don't think it's fair to say that Barrasso was on his way out the door, or whatever, (unless I'm misreading you, then I apologize) - he was the go-to guy every step of the way for the Pens in the 90's...rain or shine. As per the '96 playoffs...Wregget lost game 1 to Florida in the EC Finals, and they immediately jumped back to Barrasso before it got "out of control" - they got Wregget to back up Barrasso, period.

Also, regarding the USA thing. Barrasso, for the '96 World Cup and the '98 Olympics, was coming off season-costing injuries. And even with that, I still don't recall it being universal that Richter would be in there over Barrasso. I think it was a last minute decision because Richter was no prize pig himself and that's with the '96 World Cup performance still fresh in the USA's mind. They probably in all good conscious couldn't say no to Richter after that. Beezer had been better more recently than Barrasso when these teams were selected. Beezer was all-star caliber on an expansion team, Barrasso was injured on a team that showed very little substance behind a glossy surface...

 

[BM67]

A couple things about Connell:

King Clancy rated Connell as the best goalie he played with in Ottawa.

Connell never won a playoff game outside of his two Cup runs.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Thanks for the informative responses re: talent in the 50's and 60's, gents.

Re: Barrasso. I'm not sure if he was "on his way out" especially when the name Wendell Young is brought into play.

He had Bowman as a coach in that time, and he liked to manage goalies in such a way. So that's why his first order of business when taking over in Pittsburgh was acquiring Ken Wregget at the deadline. A goalie who tended to falter down the stretch when given too many games. Hockey's Mr. October before Brian Savage (who is on this board, as coincidence would have it - Savage, that is).

Barrasso missed the lockout shortened season because of a wrist injury. Then I think it was a shoulder that cost him the '97 campaign. Now, Kevin Constantine is at the helm, a guy who was known to ride his goalies as hard as he'd ride his players - see: his use of Arturs Irbe on the early expansion Sharks. Barrasso was back in action in a big way.

Finally, he was booted when he basically refused to help mentor a young goalie (J.S. Aubin), instead electing to throw chairs at him...

But I don't think it's fair to say that Barrasso was on his way out the door, or whatever, (unless I'm misreading you, then I apologize) - he was the go-to guy every step of the way for the Pens in the 90's...rain or shine. As per the '96 playoffs...Wregget lost game 1 to Florida in the EC Finals, and they immediately jumped back to Barrasso before it got "out of control" - they got Wregget to back up Barrasso, period.

"On the way out" in an overall career sense. Entering his 30s, stops appearing on all-star ballots, puts up only 3 seasons to "hang his hat on" between then and when he "retires", then becomes a journeyman veteran backup. Is there anything relevant to this level of comparison that contributes to Barrasso's case in this discussion after '93/94? Hitting a milestone 300 wins in '96/97 among the highlights at that point?

Also, regarding the USA thing. Barrasso, for the '96 World Cup and the '98 Olympics, was coming off season-costing injuries. And even with that, I still don't recall it being universal that Richter would be in there over Barrasso. I think it was a last minute decision because Richter was no prize pig himself and that's with the '96 World Cup performance still fresh in the USA's mind. They probably in all good conscious couldn't say no to Richter after that. Beezer had been better more recently than Barrasso when these teams were selected. Beezer was all-star caliber on an expansion team, Barrasso was injured on a team that showed very little substance behind a glossy surface...

Still though, at the end of days, Beezer puts up five straight seasons of 50+ quality games after his last appearance on a post season all-star squad in '93/94. What's the best we can say for Barrasso over the next 6 or 7 years that these guys played against each other? I'm not sure anyone even selects a healthy Barrasso over Vanbiesbrouck at any point in there, but that's just speculation based on an opinion, obviously.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Also, regarding the USA thing. Barrasso, for the '96 World Cup and the '98 Olympics, was coming off season-costing injuries. And even with that, I still don't recall it being universal that Richter would be in there over Barrasso. I think it was a last minute decision because Richter was no prize pig himself and that's with the '96 World Cup performance still fresh in the USA's mind. They probably in all good conscious couldn't say no to Richter after that. Beezer had been better more recently than Barrasso when these teams were selected. Beezer was all-star caliber on an expansion team, Barrasso was injured on a team that showed very little substance behind a glossy surface...

We also know that Barrasso was playing injured in the 1991 Stanley Cup finals, which should explain why he was left off of the 91' Canada Cup roster that took place in the summer.

 

[Czech Your Math]

Thanks for the informative responses re: talent in the 50's and 60's, gents.

Re: Barrasso. I'm not sure if he was "on his way out" especially when the name Wendell Young is brought into play.

He had Bowman as a coach in that time, and he liked to manage goalies in such a way. So that's why his first order of business when taking over in Pittsburgh was acquiring Ken Wregget at the deadline. A goalie who tended to falter down the stretch when given too many games. Hockey's Mr. October before Brian Savage (who is on this board, as coincidence would have it - Savage, that is).

Barrasso missed the lockout shortened season because of a wrist injury. Then I think it was a shoulder that cost him the '97 campaign. Now, Kevin Constantine is at the helm, a guy who was known to ride his goalies as hard as he'd ride his players - see: his use of Arturs Irbe on the early expansion Sharks. Barrasso was back in action in a big way.

Finally, he was booted when he basically refused to help mentor a young goalie (J.S. Aubin), instead electing to throw chairs at him...

But I don't think it's fair to say that Barrasso was on his way out the door, or whatever, (unless I'm misreading you, then I apologize) - he was the go-to guy every step of the way for the Pens in the 90's...rain or shine. As per the '96 playoffs...Wregget lost game 1 to Florida in the EC Finals, and they immediately jumped back to Barrasso before it got "out of control" - they got Wregget to back up Barrasso, period.

Also, regarding the USA thing. Barrasso, for the '96 World Cup and the '98 Olympics, was coming off season-costing injuries. And even with that, I still don't recall it being universal that Richter would be in there over Barrasso. I think it was a last minute decision because Richter was no prize pig himself and that's with the '96 World Cup performance still fresh in the USA's mind. They probably in all good conscious couldn't say no to Richter after that. Beezer had been better more recently than Barrasso when these teams were selected. Beezer was all-star caliber on an expansion team, Barrasso was injured on a team that showed very little substance behind a glossy surface...

It makes me chuckle to think that to prevent things from getting "out of control"... they turned to Barrasso. I just think when a goalie goes 7-1 entering the ECF, you should probably stick with him at least two games. After '93, I always felt more comfortable with Wregget for some reason. In game 6 in '96 he lets in the opening goal by clearing it off his d-man's leg into his own net, after a penalty was called. In game 7 it's tied 1-1 in the third period and he lets in a slapper from inside the blue line. In the second round in '99, he twice let in OT goals off rebounds in the opening couple minutes of OT. He had a winning record in the playoffs 4 times ('89, '91-'93) and a losing record in his other 9 playoffs. The Pens did flirt with more defensive systems (in '93 & '98, e.g.), but I don't think they could rely on Barrasso to carry the day, even as well as he played during their two Cups. It seemed like Wregget could bounce back from letting in a bad goal early more often than Barrasso, but that may be selective memory.

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

Finally, he was booted when he basically refused to help mentor a young goalie (J.S. Aubin), instead electing to throw chairs at him...

Sounds like something Eddie Belfour would do lol

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

It makes me chuckle to think that to prevent things from getting "out of control"... they turned to Barrasso. I just think when a goalie goes 7-1 entering the ECF, you should probably stick with him at least two games. After '93, I always felt more comfortable with Wregget for some reason. In game 6 in '96 he lets in the opening goal by clearing it off his d-man's leg into his own net, after a penalty was called. In game 7 it's tied 1-1 in the third period and he lets in a slapper from inside the blue line. In the second round in '99, he twice let in OT goals off rebounds in the opening couple minutes of OT. He had a winning record in the playoffs 4 times ('89, '91-'93) and a losing record in his other 9 playoffs. The Pens did flirt with more defensive systems (in '93 & '98, e.g.), but I don't think they could rely on Barrasso to carry the day, even as well as he played during their two Cups. It seemed like Wregget could bounce back from letting in a bad goal early more often than Barrasso, but that may be selective memory.

I posted a couple quotes earlier that offered some explanation for the 93' and 94' playoffs. I will look into some of the other years...96', 98', and 99' would probably offer the most as they were years where the Pens either upset another team or got upset.

 

[Czech Your Math]

The 1991 and 1992 Penguins (backstopped by Barrasso) allowed the 1st and 2nd most shots against per game in the playoffs by any Cup winning team of the modern era, right?

These are some of the highest in the last 30 years (just looked at sum of goalies' PO data, so EN shots not included):

Year Team GP SA Min SA/GP SA/60
==========================
2011 BOS 25 849 1,542 34.0 33.0
1993 MTL 20 656 1,311 32.8 30.0
1991 PIT 24 777 1,463 32.4 31.9
1984 EDM 19 601 1,146 31.6 31.5
1990 EDM 22 673 1,403 30.6 28.8
1992 PIT 21 638 1,273 30.4 30.1
2010 CHI 22 648 1,342 29.5 29.0
2009 PIT 24 694 1,471 28.9 28.3

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

These are some of the highest in the last 30 years (just looked at sum of goalies' PO data, so EN shots not included):

Year Team GP SA Min SA/GP SA/60
==========================
2011 BOS 25 849 1,542 34.0 33.0
1993 MTL 20 656 1,311 32.8 30.0
1991 PIT 24 777 1,463 32.4 31.9
1984 EDM 19 601 1,146 31.6 31.5
1990 EDM 22 673 1,403 30.6 28.8
1992 PIT 21 638 1,273 30.4 30.1
2010 CHI 22 648 1,342 29.5 29.0
2009 PIT 24 694 1,471 28.9 28.3

Must have been the shots against per 60 stat I remembered. Pittsburgh was 1 and 3 until 2011 Boston passed them (which is weird because Boston had a rep as a defensive team).

 

[Czech Your Math]

Must have been the shots against per 60 stat I remembered. Pittsburgh was 1 and 2 until 2011 Boston passed them (which is weird because Boston had a rep as a defensive team).

True, but if a team has a great goalie, it often makes sense for them to trade chances more.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

A couple things about Connell:

King Clancy rated Connell as the best goalie he played with in Ottawa.

Connell never won a playoff game outside of his two Cup runs.

Clancy played in Ottawa from 1921-22 to 1929-30. Clint Benedict was Ottawa's starter from 1912-13 to 1923-24. Alec Connell was Ottawa's starter from 1924-25 to 1930-31.

Clancy would have played with Benedict for 3 years, including only 1 of Benedict's 3 Cups in Ottawa. He was also there for Benedict's final playoffs in Ottawa where he bombed and was rumored to be drunk.

He played with Connnell for 6 years, including Connell's Cup in Ottawa, where Connell was good enough that the HHOF researchers awarded him the Retro Smythe.

 

[Michael Farkas]

until 2011 Boston passed them (which is weird because Boston had a rep as a defensive team).

Shot totals are not indicative of defensive team or offensive team. Not all defensive systems created equally. Wasn't like the Devils systems of the 90's, where shots were eliminated. 2011 Bruins, chances were eliminated.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Trend

Shot totals are not indicative of defensive team or offensive team. Not all defensive systems created equally. Wasn't like the Devils systems of the 90's, where shots were eliminated. 2011 Bruins, chances were eliminated.

Trend is to, for want of a better word,controlled chances or shots. Teams recognize the shots or chances cannot be eliminated. However they can be controlled by selectively leaving open ice depending on the oppositions strengths and weaknesses balanced against the teams defensive and goaltending strengths and weaknesses.

 

[Michael Farkas]

At Barrasso responses:

I really don't disagree. Except that Barrasso was the clear #1 to Wregget for duration of their careers. Wregget fine in spot duty, but couldn't hack it after so many games. See: this snippet from a post from another project I'm spearheading:
---

In 1994-95, he wears down over the course of even a short season:
January/February: 14-2-2, 2.98 GAA, .912 save pct.
March/April/May: 11-7-0, 3.43 GAA, .894 save pct.

Whole career. Starter for the 1988 Maple Leafs.
Starts out fine...wheels fall off...

October/November: 7-8-2, 4.26 GAA, .867 save pct., 1 shutout
December-April: 5-29-2, 4.63 GAA, .869 save pct., 1 shutout

1989 Leafs, limits starts further, still a tandem goalie, starts out hot:
October: 7-3-1, 2.80 GAA, .904 save pct.
Rest of the way: 2-17-1, 5.30 GAA, .849 save pct.

Leafs quickly tired of this and traded him in March.

Unfortunately for him, in Philly it was little better...

1990 Flyers:
October-December: 13-13-1, 2.84 GAA, .909 save pct.
January-March: 9-11-2, 4.17 GAA, .870 save pct.

When the Flyers saw something similar begin in 1991, they realized that they had not acquired what they thought they needed and made the move to send him to Pittsburgh without requiring a goalie back. Leaving them with a Dominic Roussel/Tommy Soderstrom/Stephane Beauregard trio for the 92-93 season.

Despite Wregget's playoff success in 1996, when the team got into any sort of a remotely tough spot (like losing game 1 to Florida), they immediately went to Barrasso again, feeling that he gave them the best chance to win. Wregget was steady when managed correctly, but overall could not handle the rigors of the starting position over the long haul.
---

See my Barrasso Penguins profile here: http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=56622503&postcount=30 - there's even a quote from May of 1996 when they switched back to Wregget despite his record and at the bottom it says "no offense to Wregget (though it's X'd out because it came from a different project) but Barrasso is better..." or something to that effect.

With all that said, I'm not at all defending Barrasso for selection this round or anything like that. Just trying to be honest in evaluating...realistically, our efforts should be focused elsewhere for now. We know Barrasso won't surpass Fuhr or anything...but about Barrasso vs. Rogie Vachon. Two guys frequently mentioned as "should be" or "close to" HHOF caliber.

Vachon strikes me as a dark horse this round, despite his lack of All-Star voting nods...he might be the guy most hurt by the GMs not voting on the Vezina until '82...

 

[Michael Farkas]

Trend is to, for want of a better word,controlled chances or shots. Teams recognize the shots or chances cannot be eliminated. However they can be controlled by selectively leaving open ice depending on the oppositions strengths and weaknesses balanced against the teams defensive and goaltending strengths and weaknesses.

100% correct. Game is too fast, center red line is out, trapezoid is in, you can't fully expect a team to allow 14 shots a game...shot quality (something we really don't have a metric for) is drastically reduced by teams like Boston, St. Louis, Detroit, etc. to help insulate their goalies. See: Thomas' stats before Chara/Julien, but still the same NHL team. See: Brian Elliott before arriving in St. Louis.

Save percentage becomes even more deceptive...no more valuable than GAA in today's game...those that dismiss one as a team stat, would be incorrect to fully endorse the other as an "individual" stat...

 

[Canadiens1958]

Teams and Shot Quality Metrics

100% correct. Game is too fast, center red line is out, trapezoid is in, you can't fully expect a team to allow 14 shots a game...shot quality (something we really don't have a metric for) is drastically reduced by teams like Boston, St. Louis, Detroit, etc. to help insulate their goalies. See: Thomas' stats before Chara/Julien, but still the same NHL team. See: Brian Elliott before arriving in St. Louis.

Save percentage becomes even more deceptive...no more valuable than GAA in today's game...those that dismiss one as a team stat, would be incorrect to fully endorse the other as an "individual" stat...

Teams do have metrics for shot quality, taken and allowed. The defensive and offensive zones are divided into sub zones. Provenance of each shot is defined and quality is evaluated. The actual sub zone definitions vary from team to team as is the quality. Midget AAA and major junior teams do the same. Teams will not share this internal data.

The Journal de Montreal offers glimpses at this metric in their next day reports for the past few seasons.

Also interested readers can get glimpses of the metric by looking at the shoot-out data for shooters and goalies available via the stat package at NHL.com .

 

[Canadiens1958]

Evidence

True, but if a team has a great goalie, it often makes sense for them to trade chances more.

Please provide evidence of such teams and coaches at the NHL level.

The opposite is in fact true.

 

[seventieslord]

Whole career. Starter for the 1988 Maple Leafs.
Starts out fine...wheels fall off...

October/November: 7-8-2, 4.26 GAA, .867 save pct., 1 shutout
December-April: 5-29-2, 4.63 GAA, .869 save pct., 1 shutout

1989 Leafs, limits starts further, still a tandem goalie, starts out hot:
October: 7-3-1, 2.80 GAA, .904 save pct.
Rest of the way: 2-17-1, 5.30 GAA, .849 save pct.

Leafs quickly tired of this and traded him in March.

Interestingly, the Leafs managed to get two 1st round picks in exchange for him.

Surely this has to be some kind of indication that he was still highly regarded.

Save percentage becomes even more deceptive...no more valuable than GAA in today's game...those that dismiss one as a team stat, would be incorrect to fully endorse the other as an "individual" stat...

the current value of save% is a matter for the courts, but sv% will always, always, always be more valuable than GAA.

1/sv% * SA/60 = GAA.

so GAA is just sv% multiplied by something the goalie has even less control over.

 

[seventieslord]

Decided to be back.

Having a long look at Alec Connell's career.

Judging by results, and composition of the team, I suspect he was robbed of a AST berth (likely 3rd and probably 2nd -- why did Worters ended up with that one?!?!?!) -- it's not like the Falcons were great, and remember, Goodfellow wasn't yet a D.

Who was the 3rd AST in 31-32?

I really like Connell for this round : certain Top-8 as far as I'm concerned.

You've always seemed to be just convinced that Connell was better than everyone else thinks, and I don't see anything that supports that.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Teams do have metrics for shot quality, taken and allowed. The defensive and offensive zones are divided into sub zones. Provenance of each shot is defined and quality is evaluated. The actual sub zone definitions vary from team to team as is the quality. Midget AAA and major junior teams do the same. Teams will not share this internal data.

The Journal de Montreal offers glimpses at this metric in their next day reports for the past few seasons.

Also interested readers can get glimpses of the metric by looking at the shoot-out data for shooters and goalies available via the stat package at NHL.com .

Oh I don't doubt that teams have access to their own information regarding this, however, like you said, they keep it. None of us have a backup goalie with a clipboard at our disposal. So we're left to guess. Or worse, just take the stats at face value.