MadLuke
Registered User
- Jan 18, 2011
- 10,987
- 6,454
The save percentage-GSAA debate
- Thread starter MadLuke
- Start date
-
Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates
tarheelhockey
Offside Review Specialist
Interesting to see Hrudey and Vokoun on the level of a Price or Bower. I'm not entirely sure what to make of that... I've always thought of them both as overlooked, but were they that good?
MadLuke
Registered User
- Jan 18, 2011
- 10,987
- 6,454
There is some lower competition "hole", like in between Luongo and Lundqvist or the 70s big name until Roy, but during the stratch Vokoun:
| 2005-06 NHL .919 (5th) |
| 2006-07 NHL .920 (5th) |
| 2008-09 NHL .926 (2nd) |
| 2009-10 NHL .925 (3rd) |
| 2010-11 NHL .922 (9th) |
While he was playing a good volume of game, peak Patrick roy was playing a relatively lower amount of games.
Not a single top 10 in save percentage outside of it.
Roy per game GSAA from 87-88 to 91-9 was of .69, Vokoun peak at .46 and adjusted in a raw way to a 3 gpg average value of a goals is still significantly above prime Roy in a per game way.
When I look at "adjusted GSAA" over a relatively long period of 5 year's, the only name that stands out to me is Gleen Resch (the rest is full of Hasek, Dryden, Bower, Esposito, Roy, Cujo, Parent, Thomas, Vanbiesbrouck, Worsley, Billy Smith and other suspect.
Mike Palmateer show up one time (4th position).
Without any surprise of the save percentage stats available era, Hasek 94-95 to 98-99 seem by a giant amount the best.
To go back to Vokoun from the lockout to 2011 or so, from the high volume numbers one he has the best save percentage by a good amount and
NHL Stats
The official source for NHL Stats including skaters, goalies, teams stats and more.
www.nhl.com
Is .934 at ev strenght was the best, so not just a push from an lower ratio of shot from the power plays.
Dingo
Registered User
- Jul 13, 2018
- 2,081
- 2,107
Hasek is part of The Big Five. He was actually arguably MORE dominant than Mario, as Mario went from #1 or #2 to being dominant, when healthy, over a faded Wayne. Hasek dominated Roy while being the same age as him. Even though Hasek’s career was a bit short due to political reasons, he had as many great, healthy years as Orr and Mario.
And, he stood out as a goalie over a long period, which hasnt happened as many times, i dont think, for goalies as it has for forwards, or d for that matter.
And, he stood out as a goalie over a long period, which hasnt happened as many times, i dont think, for goalies as it has for forwards, or d for that matter.
There is some lower competition "hole", like in between Luongo and Lundqvist or the 70s big name until Roy, but during the stratch Vokoun:
[TABLE=collapse]
[TR]
[TD]2005-06 NHL .919 (5th)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2006-07 NHL .920 (5th)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2008-09 NHL .926 (2nd)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2009-10 NHL .925 (3rd)[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2010-11 NHL .922 (9th)[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
While he was playing a good volume of game, peak Patrick roy was playing a relatively lower amount of games.
Not a single top 10 in save percentage outside of it.
Roy per game GSAA from 87-88 to 91-9 was of .69, Vokoun peak at .46 and adjusted in a raw way to a 3 gpg average value of a goals is still significantly above prime Roy in a per game way.
When I look at "adjusted GSAA" over a relatively long period of 5 year's, the only name that stands out to me is Gleen Resch (the rest is full of Hasek, Dryden, Bower, Esposito, Roy, Cujo, Parent, Thomas, Vanbiesbrouck, Worsley, Billy Smith and other suspect.
Mike Palmateer show up one time (4th position).
Without any surprise of the save percentage stats available era, Hasek 94-95 to 98-99 seem by a giant amount the best.
To go back to Vokoun from the lockout to 2011 or so, from the high volume numbers one he has the best save percentage by a good amount and
NHL Stats
The official source for NHL Stats including skaters, goalies, teams stats and more.
Is .934 at ev strenght was the best, so not just a push from an lower ratio of shot from the power plays.
I thought I read somewhere not long ago that goalies who face more shots generally have a higher save percentage than those who face fewer, is that not actually true?
I remember always thinking Vokoun looked like one of the best goalies I had ever seen.
Doctor No
Registered User
- Oct 26, 2005
- 9,306
- 4,097
There is definitely a (small) positive correlation between shots/60 and save percentage, which I attribute primarily to two things:
(1) Score effects - when teams are trailing, they trade volume ("get something on net and maybe we'll get lucky") for quality, so the goaltender leading in the third period typically sees their save percentage go up.
(2) Shot counting bias - when official scorers have a bias on shot counting, it's (obviously?) on shots that aren't going in the net (hopefully scorers can agree on the ones that go in the net). Consequently, more liberal scorers are (a) increasing shot counts for goaltenders and (b) increasing save percentages for the same goaltenders.
MadLuke
Registered User
- Jan 18, 2011
- 10,987
- 6,454
I am not sure but almost certainly for something like GSAA higher shot volume open the door to make more of a difference (like Luongo had for a while), a bit like more game played, I will try to do it by shot received has well.
When you look at team save percentage and team shots against, the correlation is almost 0 from memory. For individual goaltender, I imagine there must be at least a small one, has you get retired from game when you get a lot of goals on few shots and stay all the way on the opposite situations.
More and more I am starting to go toward that notion, saving .8 goal a game in that era would be incredible, would it be a good enough representation.
Some modification I wonder about doing:
- Using only goaltender that played 45% of more the season (i.e. number one type) has the base for the save percentage instead of a league wide
- Using a 3 goal a game against goaltender average to compare between years
- Among the top 3 goaltenders that are not you in the league during a season, how well you did
Dingo
Registered User
- Jul 13, 2018
- 2,081
- 2,107
i didnt know there was a correlation in shots and save%. I had never looked into it other than to see how many times a goalie has had THE highest save% WHILE facing the most shots, which turned out to be Hasek, possibly twice, i cant remember now.
I always felt like (yes, that is not scientific) that it must be rare for the reason that more shots should mean more rebounds, sustained pressure, second chances.
But yes, teams definitely start throwing everything on goal when trailing. I guess a goalie on a more often winning team would benefit more from this than a goalie on a non offensive/losing team
edit - can one of you smart guys list where each shots faced leader finished in save% and vice versa??
i ask a lot of some of you guys. I personally think this site‘s best feature is the work done by the math heads.
I always felt like (yes, that is not scientific) that it must be rare for the reason that more shots should mean more rebounds, sustained pressure, second chances.
But yes, teams definitely start throwing everything on goal when trailing. I guess a goalie on a more often winning team would benefit more from this than a goalie on a non offensive/losing team
edit - can one of you smart guys list where each shots faced leader finished in save% and vice versa??
i ask a lot of some of you guys. I personally think this site‘s best feature is the work done by the math heads.
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
- Jan 16, 2005
- 9,593
- 16,259
In addition to what's been mentioned, a couple of other comments (quoting myself from an older thread):
At the individual game level, it appears that there's a positive relationship between shots faced and save percentage. In other words, goalies who face more shots in a single game are more likely to have a higher save percentage.
At the season or career level, there's essentially zero relationship between shots faced and save percentage.
This sounds confusing because how can something be true at the game level, and not at the seasonal level? There are two explanations:
1. There's a wide range in shots faced at the individual game level. It's rare, but not really exceptional, to see a goalie face <20 shots, or >35 shots, in a single game. (From 2006 to 2020, in the regular season, there have been 171 instances of a goalie facing at least 50 shots in a game; and 278 instances of a goalie facing no more than 15 shots in a game - with a minimum of 50 minutes played so the data isn't getting skewed from goalies who are pulled early). You simply don't get that range in shots at the seasonal level, where usually the spread from most to fewest shots faced per game is perhaps 10 shots. So maybe this phenomenon would hold true if one goalie averaged 18 shots per night over the course of a season, and another averaged 43; but that simply doesn't happen at the NHL level. The phenomenon, if it really does exist, is ultimately irrelevant because the spread in shots faced (at the season and career level) is so small.
2. There are likely game-specific effects that, by definition, don't impact an entire season. It's generally accepted that losing teams will try to shoot the puck more, and often these are less dangerous shots (ie throw the puck on net from the point). So it might look like the goalie is doing better when he's facing more shots - but the real reason is he's facing more, easier shots which inflate his save percentage, but that has nothing to do with his actual level of performance.
My conclusion, which I think is supported very clearly by the data, is you shouldn't draw conclusions from a single game's save percentage (especially when you're comparing two goalies who faced a significantly different number of shots). But the impact of shot volume at the season and career level is essentially zero.
At the individual game level, it appears that there's a positive relationship between shots faced and save percentage. In other words, goalies who face more shots in a single game are more likely to have a higher save percentage.
At the season or career level, there's essentially zero relationship between shots faced and save percentage.
This sounds confusing because how can something be true at the game level, and not at the seasonal level? There are two explanations:
1. There's a wide range in shots faced at the individual game level. It's rare, but not really exceptional, to see a goalie face <20 shots, or >35 shots, in a single game. (From 2006 to 2020, in the regular season, there have been 171 instances of a goalie facing at least 50 shots in a game; and 278 instances of a goalie facing no more than 15 shots in a game - with a minimum of 50 minutes played so the data isn't getting skewed from goalies who are pulled early). You simply don't get that range in shots at the seasonal level, where usually the spread from most to fewest shots faced per game is perhaps 10 shots. So maybe this phenomenon would hold true if one goalie averaged 18 shots per night over the course of a season, and another averaged 43; but that simply doesn't happen at the NHL level. The phenomenon, if it really does exist, is ultimately irrelevant because the spread in shots faced (at the season and career level) is so small.
2. There are likely game-specific effects that, by definition, don't impact an entire season. It's generally accepted that losing teams will try to shoot the puck more, and often these are less dangerous shots (ie throw the puck on net from the point). So it might look like the goalie is doing better when he's facing more shots - but the real reason is he's facing more, easier shots which inflate his save percentage, but that has nothing to do with his actual level of performance.
My conclusion, which I think is supported very clearly by the data, is you shouldn't draw conclusions from a single game's save percentage (especially when you're comparing two goalies who faced a significantly different number of shots). But the impact of shot volume at the season and career level is essentially zero.
MadLuke
Registered User
- Jan 18, 2011
- 10,987
- 6,454
If we accept the idea that better goaltenders have better save percentage and that teams will play better goaltender more than average goaltender that could introduce some bias, I think simply looking at teams shot faced and teams shot percentage would give some idea by itself.
List of time the goaltender faced the most shots also had the highest save percentage among goaltender with at least 35 games played:
Outside the 06 (where the low number of team made that rather likely to happen), seem to have happened those times:
[TABLE=collapse]
[TR]
[TD]Season[/TD]
[TD]FullName[/TD]
[TD]Games[/TD]
[TD]ShotsAgainst[/TD]
[TD]yearlyShotsAgainstRank[/TD]
[TD]SavePercentage[/TD]
[TD]yearlyShotsPercentageRank[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]19731974[/TD]
[TD]Bernie Parent[/TD]
[TD]73[/TD]
[TD]2006[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]0.932203[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]19791980[/TD]
[TD]Tony Esposito[/TD]
[TD]69[/TD]
[TD]2109[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]0.902798[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]19841985[/TD]
[TD]Pelle Lindbergh[/TD]
[TD]65[/TD]
[TD]1926[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]0.899273[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]19861987[/TD]
[TD]Ron Hextall[/TD]
[TD]66[/TD]
[TD]1929[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]0.901503[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]19901991[/TD]
[TD]Ed Belfour[/TD]
[TD]74[/TD]
[TD]1883[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]0.909719[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]19921993[/TD]
[TD]Curtis Joseph[/TD]
[TD]68[/TD]
[TD]2202[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]0.91099[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]19971998[/TD]
[TD]Dominik Hasek[/TD]
[TD]72[/TD]
[TD]2149[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]0.931596[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
7 times since 1968, 50+ seasons on a league that was 12 teams for a while, histor yof the shots against leaders and their save percentage finish
[TABLE=collapse]
[TR]
[TD]Season[/TD]
[TD]FullName[/TD]
[TD]Games[/TD]
[TD]ShotsAgainst[/TD]
[TD]SV%[/TD]
[TD]yearlySV% Rank[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]19681969[/TD]
[TD]Cesare Maniago[/TD]
[TD]64[/TD]
[TD]2080[/TD]
[TD]0.905[/TD]
[TD]10[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]19691970[/TD]
[TD]Gary Smith[/TD]
[TD]65[/TD]
[TD]2230[/TD]
[TD]0.913[/TD]
[TD]8[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]19701971[/TD]
[TD]Gary Smith[/TD]
[TD]71[/TD]
[TD]2226[/TD]
[TD]0.885[/TD]
[TD]17[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]19711972[/TD]
[TD]Roger Crozier[/TD]
[TD]63[/TD]
[TD]2197[/TD]
[TD]0.903[/TD]
[TD]8[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]19721973[/TD]
[TD]Gilles Meloche[/TD]
[TD]59[/TD]
[TD]2041[/TD]
[TD]0.885[/TD]
[TD]15[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]19731974[/TD]
[TD]Bernie Parent[/TD]
[TD]73[/TD]
[TD]2006[/TD]
[TD]0.932[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]19741975[/TD]
[TD]Tony Esposito[/TD]
[TD]71[/TD]
[TD]2047[/TD]
[TD]0.906[/TD]
[TD]6[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]19751976[/TD]
[TD]Denis Herron[/TD]
[TD]64[/TD]
[TD]2211[/TD]
[TD]0.89[/TD]
[TD]10[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]19761977[/TD]
[TD]Tony Esposito[/TD]
[TD]69[/TD]
[TD]2353[/TD]
[TD]0.901[/TD]
[TD]7[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]19771978[/TD]
[TD]Denis Herron[/TD]
[TD]60[/TD]
[TD]2125[/TD]
[TD]0.901[/TD]
[TD]8[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]19781979[/TD]
[TD]Tony Esposito[/TD]
[TD]63[/TD]
[TD]2099[/TD]
[TD]0.902[/TD]
[TD]4[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]19791980[/TD]
[TD]Tony Esposito[/TD]
[TD]69[/TD]
[TD]2109[/TD]
[TD]0.903[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]19801981[/TD]
[TD]Tony Esposito[/TD]
[TD]66[/TD]
[TD]2239[/TD]
[TD]0.89[/TD]
[TD]9[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]19811982[/TD]
[TD]Mike Liut[/TD]
[TD]64[/TD]
[TD]2030[/TD]
[TD]0.877[/TD]
[TD]10[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]19821983[/TD]
[TD]Greg Millen[/TD]
[TD]60[/TD]
[TD]2053[/TD]
[TD]0.863[/TD]
[TD]26[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]19831984[/TD]
[TD]Greg Millen[/TD]
[TD]60[/TD]
[TD]1811[/TD]
[TD]0.878[/TD]
[TD]15[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]19841985[/TD]
[TD]Pelle Lindbergh[/TD]
[TD]65[/TD]
[TD]1926[/TD]
[TD]0.899[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]19851986[/TD]
[TD]Rejean Lemelin[/TD]
[TD]60[/TD]
[TD]1785[/TD]
[TD]0.872[/TD]
[TD]18[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]19861987[/TD]
[TD]Ron Hextall[/TD]
[TD]66[/TD]
[TD]1929[/TD]
[TD]0.902[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]19871988[/TD]
[TD]Grant Fuhr[/TD]
[TD]75[/TD]
[TD]2061[/TD]
[TD]0.881[/TD]
[TD]16[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]19881989[/TD]
[TD]Kelly Hrudey[/TD]
[TD]66[/TD]
[TD]1941[/TD]
[TD]0.882[/TD]
[TD]13[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]19891990[/TD]
[TD]Kirk McLean[/TD]
[TD]63[/TD]
[TD]1797[/TD]
[TD]0.88[/TD]
[TD]16[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]19901991[/TD]
[TD]Ed Belfour[/TD]
[TD]74[/TD]
[TD]1883[/TD]
[TD]0.91[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]19911992[/TD]
[TD]Tim Cheveldae[/TD]
[TD]72[/TD]
[TD]1978[/TD]
[TD]0.886[/TD]
[TD]12[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]19921993[/TD]
[TD]Curtis Joseph[/TD]
[TD]68[/TD]
[TD]2202[/TD]
[TD]0.911[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]19931994[/TD]
[TD]Curtis Joseph[/TD]
[TD]71[/TD]
[TD]2382[/TD]
[TD]0.911[/TD]
[TD]5[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]19941995[/TD]
[TD]Patrick Roy[/TD]
[TD]43[/TD]
[TD]1357[/TD]
[TD]0.906[/TD]
[TD]7[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]19951996[/TD]
[TD]Grant Fuhr[/TD]
[TD]79[/TD]
[TD]2157[/TD]
[TD]0.903[/TD]
[TD]19[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]19961997[/TD]
[TD]Felix Potvin[/TD]
[TD]74[/TD]
[TD]2438[/TD]
[TD]0.908[/TD]
[TD]13[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]19971998[/TD]
[TD]Dominik Hasek[/TD]
[TD]72[/TD]
[TD]2149[/TD]
[TD]0.932[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]19981999[/TD]
[TD]Guy Hebert[/TD]
[TD]69[/TD]
[TD]2114[/TD]
[TD]0.922[/TD]
[TD]6[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]19992000[/TD]
[TD]Olie Kolzig[/TD]
[TD]73[/TD]
[TD]1957[/TD]
[TD]0.917[/TD]
[TD]4[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]20002001[/TD]
[TD]Arturs Irbe[/TD]
[TD]77[/TD]
[TD]1947[/TD]
[TD]0.908[/TD]
[TD]17[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]20012002[/TD]
[TD]Olie Kolzig[/TD]
[TD]71[/TD]
[TD]1977[/TD]
[TD]0.903[/TD]
[TD]24[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]20022003[/TD]
[TD]Marc Denis[/TD]
[TD]77[/TD]
[TD]2404[/TD]
[TD]0.903[/TD]
[TD]27[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]20032004[/TD]
[TD]Roberto Luongo[/TD]
[TD]72[/TD]
[TD]2475[/TD]
[TD]0.931[/TD]
[TD]3[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]20052006[/TD]
[TD]Roberto Luongo[/TD]
[TD]75[/TD]
[TD]2488[/TD]
[TD]0.914[/TD]
[TD]9[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]20062007[/TD]
[TD]Miikka Kiprusoff[/TD]
[TD]74[/TD]
[TD]2190[/TD]
[TD]0.917[/TD]
[TD]9[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]20072008[/TD]
[TD]Tomas Vokoun[/TD]
[TD]69[/TD]
[TD]2213[/TD]
[TD]0.919[/TD]
[TD]11[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]20082009[/TD]
[TD]Miikka Kiprusoff[/TD]
[TD]76[/TD]
[TD]2155[/TD]
[TD]0.903[/TD]
[TD]26[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]20092010[/TD]
[TD]Craig Anderson[/TD]
[TD]71[/TD]
[TD]2233[/TD]
[TD]0.917[/TD]
[TD]11[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]20102011[/TD]
[TD]Cam Ward[/TD]
[TD]74[/TD]
[TD]2375[/TD]
[TD]0.923[/TD]
[TD]7[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]20112012[/TD]
[TD]Pekka Rinne[/TD]
[TD]73[/TD]
[TD]2153[/TD]
[TD]0.923[/TD]
[TD]6[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]20122013[/TD]
[TD]Ryan Miller[/TD]
[TD]40[/TD]
[TD]1270[/TD]
[TD]0.915[/TD]
[TD]9[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]20132014[/TD]
[TD]Semyon Varlamov[/TD]
[TD]63[/TD]
[TD]2013[/TD]
[TD]0.927[/TD]
[TD]2[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]20142015[/TD]
[TD]Braden Holtby[/TD]
[TD]73[/TD]
[TD]2044[/TD]
[TD]0.923[/TD]
[TD]8[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]20152016[/TD]
[TD]Henrik Lundqvist[/TD]
[TD]65[/TD]
[TD]1944[/TD]
[TD]0.92[/TD]
[TD]13[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]20162017[/TD]
[TD]Cam Talbot[/TD]
[TD]73[/TD]
[TD]2117[/TD]
[TD]0.919[/TD]
[TD]10[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]20172018[/TD]
[TD]Frederik Andersen[/TD]
[TD]66[/TD]
[TD]2211[/TD]
[TD]0.918[/TD]
[TD]13[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]20182019[/TD]
[TD]Connor Hellebuyck[/TD]
[TD]63[/TD]
[TD]2051[/TD]
[TD]0.913[/TD]
[TD]19[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]20192020[/TD]
[TD]Connor Hellebuyck[/TD]
[TD]58[/TD]
[TD]1796[/TD]
[TD]0.922[/TD]
[TD]2[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]20202021[/TD]
[TD]Connor Hellebuyck[/TD]
[TD]45[/TD]
[TD]1335[/TD]
[TD]0.916[/TD]
[TD]6[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]20212022[/TD]
[TD]Connor Hellebuyck[/TD]
[TD]66[/TD]
[TD]2155[/TD]
[TD]0.91[/TD]
[TD]20[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]
0.905660377
[/TD][TD]
10.20754717
[/TD][/TR]
[/TABLE]
Average at the bottom, median finish for the shots against leaders being 9th in the league in save percentage among the 35 games or more goaltenders, most shots against will be highly correlated by high game played, many years it seem to have simply been that like 88 or 96 Fuhr or 91 Belfour,, low shot against by game but played a lot of them, 2015 Holtby has well.
Last edited:
Staniowski
Registered User
Just to be clear - there's no debate in the hockey world about Save Percentage (or GSAA)....smart hockey people have never used Save Percentage when assessing a goalie's talent or performance.
Save Percentage is not a valid measurement of a goaltender's performance, and this is obvious. All goals (except empty-net goals) go through the goaltender. When shots are taken, goals are scored, or saves are made. As is obvious, this is partly about the goalie, and partly about other players.
Save percentage is very easy to understand, and it should never be considered a goaltending statistic.
MadLuke
Registered User
- Jan 18, 2011
- 10,987
- 6,454
I am not sure what information we are supposed to get from such trivial statement here.
Well yes, again not sure anyone ever said save percentage is hard to understand.
Does not seem that obvious, considering how much debate there is about shot quality and history of teams collecting statistics about shot percentage before it became an official counted statistics.
Will it ever exist any statistics that is not partly about the goalie, partly about other players, partly before what happened before that shifts, etc... ? Lot of things is being said that could be said about other statistics, usually clearly much more so.
Staniowski
Registered User
If one goaltender has a save percentage of .921 and another goaltender has a save percentage of .907....
we don't know which goaltender performed better....whether the time period is 1 game, several games, a season, or many seasons.
You need more information than save percentage (or GSAA).
we don't know which goaltender performed better....whether the time period is 1 game, several games, a season, or many seasons.
You need more information than save percentage (or GSAA).
Bear of Bad News
"The Worst Guy on the Site" - user feedback
- Sep 27, 2005
- 14,718
- 30,396
And what's the information that allows you to uniquely determine the better goaltender in this case, where everyone (or even the vast majority) will agree?
Don't give us any more "all smart hockey people" arguments - Farkas gets credit because he's demonstrated his scouting credentials. He's proven that he can educate us. You have yet to do that.
(No shit, save percentage isn't perfect. No one thinks that it is. However, nothing is (including "watch the games")).
Staniowski
Registered User
Save Percentage is the worst statistic in hockey because it's the most misunderstood.
Bear of Bad News
"The Worst Guy on the Site" - user feedback
- Sep 27, 2005
- 14,718
- 30,396
Kudos to you for bumping a three-day-old thread to remind us that hockey statistics require context to properly understand them.
MadLuke
Registered User
- Jan 18, 2011
- 10,987
- 6,454
And the correlation will not be better than between the played that scored 60 points and the one that scored 45 ?
Some player that scored since 2018-2019 a
45 pts seasons:
Dougthy
Burns
Hedman
Letang
Klingberg
Karlsson
Kreider
Barzal
Some that scored 60 pts season
Barbashev
Nyquist
Perron
Do we not know much less if the 60 pts players had a better or worst season than the 45 points players had than in the case of a significant different save percentage in average ?
If you mean by that, that the statistics is such a better one than all others to resume a player to a single number that people do it way too much which it make it the worst overused one, yes that could be the case, because absolutely no one would consider that Nyquist was better than Hedman at hockey simply for having scored a lot more points like one could do when looking at save percentage.
Last edited:
The Panther
Registered User
Yeah, I don't get what @Staniowski is banging on about here, either. It's beyond obvious that save percentage---like every other individual statistic assigned to players---is contextualized by a host of team / opponent / era / situational factors. Does anyone over 15 not know this? I doubt it. Certainly every regular on this particular forum does.
But calling it "the worst statistic in hockey because it's the most misunderstood" doesn't make sense. Just to start with the obvious, how is save percentage "worse" than goals-against-average? Up to the late-80s or so, TV broadcasters would always show the individual goalie's GAA---a stat that has even less to do with individual ability than save percentage. Prioritizing save percentage is an improvement on prioritizing GAA. So, right there, it's not the worst statistic. (Then, we could get into non-goalie stats like plus/minus, which is often thrown around as if it determines a player's defensive ability, etc..)
And how is save percentage "the most misunderstood"? It's saves divided by shots. It's probably the most understood.
Save percentage isn't the be-all-and-end-all of individual goalie stats, but neither is any other stat. And, when considering just some very basic context, it's very useful and interesting.
But calling it "the worst statistic in hockey because it's the most misunderstood" doesn't make sense. Just to start with the obvious, how is save percentage "worse" than goals-against-average? Up to the late-80s or so, TV broadcasters would always show the individual goalie's GAA---a stat that has even less to do with individual ability than save percentage. Prioritizing save percentage is an improvement on prioritizing GAA. So, right there, it's not the worst statistic. (Then, we could get into non-goalie stats like plus/minus, which is often thrown around as if it determines a player's defensive ability, etc..)
And how is save percentage "the most misunderstood"? It's saves divided by shots. It's probably the most understood.
Save percentage isn't the be-all-and-end-all of individual goalie stats, but neither is any other stat. And, when considering just some very basic context, it's very useful and interesting.
Staniowski
Registered User
Save Percentage is worse than GAA because the former is taken seriously by many people....GAA, on the other hand, is widely believed to be something that's worse than Save Percentage, and is generally not taken seriously. Therefore GAA is not nearly as big of a problem as Save Percentage.
But Save Percentage and GAA are both very problematic for the exact same reason.
Staniowski
Registered User
The calculation of Save Percentage that you refer to - about shots and saves - is precisely why it is so misunderstood. It seems obvious, at first glance perhaps, that this should, more or less, measure quality of goaltending. But it doesn't.
Bear of Bad News
"The Worst Guy on the Site" - user feedback
- Sep 27, 2005
- 14,718
- 30,396
MadLuke
Registered User
- Jan 18, 2011
- 10,987
- 6,454
Yet, only goaltender that have been considered among if not the best of their generation achieved to sustain the best run at that statistics over a significant period of time ? Which is maybe a circular argument has like you said with so many people thinking it is some proxy for quality of goaltending it influenced that people thought of Roy-Luongo-Hasek-Dryden-Plante-Lundqvist-Smith-Hall-Bower-Parent-Esposito has being some of the best.
Dingo
Registered User
- Jul 13, 2018
- 2,081
- 2,107
Wins is a team stat
GAA is a team defence stat
Save % is an individual stat that is influenced by team defence, and to some degree, team success.
GAA is a team defence stat
Save % is an individual stat that is influenced by team defence, and to some degree, team success.
Michael Farkas
Celebrate 68
I'll never understand - especially today (meaning, the last 25-30 years or so - how GAA is a team stat and save pct is an individual stat. They are both impacted, chiefly, by the exact same thing: goals against.
Save is the expected result. It has no real value to the game. However, the single biggest emotional influence on the game is a bad goal against. Every goalie is giving up two goals...so what difference does it make if you do it on 17 shots or 34 shots?
I remember an old argument about Ovechkin's shooting percentage back in the day...some folks calling him a "volume shooter" and remarking about how underwhelming that 10 or 11 (or whatever) percent scoring rate is...but my thought is: you'd be upset if Ovechkin was a 10% shooter on 1000 shots? Of course not.
It's a touch disingenuous maybe, but - generally speaking - no one gives a rat's behind about shots or shooting percentage for players...but somehow the same stat is considered gospel for goaltenders...
And then you throw in that, to some degree, teams can control the amount of shots they give up from a tactical perspective. Like the old Claude Julien Bruins were all about giving up perimeter shots, then they'd eat rebounds with some of the great box out men that they had...so, you sit there and allow long shots, you pump up save pct numbers for virtually any goalie that walked through the door...meanwhile, you look at some of the DPE Devils teams, they defended lines and fought against shots (back then, longer shots were still threatening). So NJ protected lines, more than their net, so that forced dump-ins, and limited shots. So, Brodeur takes a lot of flack for not having an amazing save pct. but that is not representative of his play...because, like I said, everyone gives up 2...so what choice did Brodeur have? He didn't give up 3, because otherwise, who cares...? No one's talking about the guy giving up 3. Should he have given up 1? Then there'd be no discussion, he'd be clearly the best ever.
It might be interesting to see what save percentages look like on certain chances broken down by shot location on the net...but in its current state of "every shot is equal", it doesn't do much for me.
Though, there's that thread floating around where me and a former pro goalie sat down and put goaltenders into tiers of talent and compared it against their save pct. It's not like save pct. has an inverse relationship with talent or anything...but I just don't know how many times save pct. has to spit out completely random names at the top of it before folks start to go, "hmm, ya know, maybe we better take a different angle on this..."
Plus/minus got thrown away when it started spitting names like Andrej Mezsaros and what's his ass on Washington that washed out of the league like a year later...
Save is the expected result. It has no real value to the game. However, the single biggest emotional influence on the game is a bad goal against. Every goalie is giving up two goals...so what difference does it make if you do it on 17 shots or 34 shots?
I remember an old argument about Ovechkin's shooting percentage back in the day...some folks calling him a "volume shooter" and remarking about how underwhelming that 10 or 11 (or whatever) percent scoring rate is...but my thought is: you'd be upset if Ovechkin was a 10% shooter on 1000 shots? Of course not.
It's a touch disingenuous maybe, but - generally speaking - no one gives a rat's behind about shots or shooting percentage for players...but somehow the same stat is considered gospel for goaltenders...
And then you throw in that, to some degree, teams can control the amount of shots they give up from a tactical perspective. Like the old Claude Julien Bruins were all about giving up perimeter shots, then they'd eat rebounds with some of the great box out men that they had...so, you sit there and allow long shots, you pump up save pct numbers for virtually any goalie that walked through the door...meanwhile, you look at some of the DPE Devils teams, they defended lines and fought against shots (back then, longer shots were still threatening). So NJ protected lines, more than their net, so that forced dump-ins, and limited shots. So, Brodeur takes a lot of flack for not having an amazing save pct. but that is not representative of his play...because, like I said, everyone gives up 2...so what choice did Brodeur have? He didn't give up 3, because otherwise, who cares...? No one's talking about the guy giving up 3. Should he have given up 1? Then there'd be no discussion, he'd be clearly the best ever.
It might be interesting to see what save percentages look like on certain chances broken down by shot location on the net...but in its current state of "every shot is equal", it doesn't do much for me.
Though, there's that thread floating around where me and a former pro goalie sat down and put goaltenders into tiers of talent and compared it against their save pct. It's not like save pct. has an inverse relationship with talent or anything...but I just don't know how many times save pct. has to spit out completely random names at the top of it before folks start to go, "hmm, ya know, maybe we better take a different angle on this..."
Plus/minus got thrown away when it started spitting names like Andrej Mezsaros and what's his ass on Washington that washed out of the league like a year later...
MadLuke
Registered User
- Jan 18, 2011
- 10,987
- 6,454
That a strange premise.
In 1998-1999, some teams were giving up 3.5 goals a game, some 2.05 goals a game:
1998-99 NHL Summary | Hockey-Reference.com
Check out the Eastern, Western Conference and Playoff series Standings, Statistics, Leaders and more for the 1998-99 NHL season on Hockey-Reference.com
www.hockey-reference.com
The big difference between the Sabres giving up only 2.13 goals against versus the Canucks giving up 3.15 was not shots against it was a .929 save percentage versus a .893.
How much Hasek being better than Garth Snow is being expressed here versus the teams they played for or who they played against can be debated, but when Hasek was not in net and replaced by an quality number 2 goaltender in the upcoming Dwayne Roloson, it was nothing special.
Under that rounding error, some years everyone was scoring 0 goals, just look at the emotional boost of when the rare goal got scored.
We could look instead of goal let in against instead of save, .900 becoming 0.1, it would be more speaking and how big the difference between .925 and .900 would become way more obvious to some and would remove all the talk about save is the expected result, but obviously it would be the exact same statistic.
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Hot Take: Mathieu Olivier is the best fighter in the league.- Latest: Gaylord Q Tinkledink
