Gentle Man
09/12
Let's get it done!
Getting rid of the context for the data might be why you are misunderstanding and minimizing the impact those numbers have on on-ice result.
Since you are clearly not reading what I'm writing, go look at their glossary and you'll see that it's not a raw data.
What math are you doing? saves x rebounds per save? 847 x 0.059 ?
Let's assume your math is relevant, minimizing those 20 chances is foolish. This stats "rebounds" is shots within 3 seconds of each others and they are 4 times more likely to result in goals. Those are 20 very dangerous opportunity that an average goalie wouldn't give up.
Just for fun: 0.044, 0.041, 0.043, 0.063, 0.059
If you had to guess, where do you think the major drop off in play occurred?
You missing the point, or intentionally avoiding it is also quite tiresome. You want people to consider Bob good after one game despite his body of work over the season or even just the last month. That's silly because you'd never call Yandle good if he had one good game because you are not blind to the 50 prior games where he was bad. But for Bob, he's always as good as his last good game, no matter how few and far in-between they are.
I am referring to the money puck stats, not natural stat trick. Moneypuck doesnt explicitly use the 3 second metric. And you are playing too much importance/placing too much blame on just the goalie.
Yes, Driedger has outperformed Bob, rebounds included. I have said this many times. But for some reason, you cannot accept that Bob faces more difficult shots during his games? You cannot explicitly just lay blame on him because you feel his inability to control rebounds is leading to his tougher times in net. He has a tougher time in net because he faces more difficult chances and is generally busier than Driedger.
I understand what you are trying to get at. Other team takes a shot, rebound is produced. Team regains control and resets and they cycle and they produce another shot after the 3 seconds. So on, and so forth. Rebound clearing is not just a goalie thing....this is a TEAM thing. I mean, if you are going to create this scenario, what if I ask "What if there are more icings that occur when he is in net." What if Driedger received favorable starts? What if Driedger got the games after losses occur? So on and so on.
And no, I am not minimizing the 20 shots. I am saying the 20 shots is not enough to sway the math when factoring in all the shots faced through a whole season.
Ill leave you with this.
If a goalie gives up more rebounds than this model predicts, it may be a sign that the goalie has poor rebound control or that goalie plays for a team that struggles clearing out the front of the net. Cole Anderson of Crowd Scout Sports has also done research into expected rebounds, with a focus on the goaltending side.
Yes, both can be true. And yes, Ill agree both has been true for this team. I wouldnt call it a struggle, but it has been a challenge. And even if you remove the 20 extra shots from Bob's totals, he still faced more shots and high danger chances than Driedger. Plus, who's to say the shot following the scenario you keep on hammering about (after the 3 seconds thing), isnt a lower quality than the original shot. The follow up shot 5 seconds after could be from the point which is low danger.
Plus you arent even factoring that Bob may give up more rebounds because he faces tougher shots? You aren't considering the original shot was already a difficult chance. Too much singular blame is being placed by your scenario.