Recalled/Assigned: Domingue assigned to Tucson
- Thread starter The Feckless Puck
- Start date
rt
The Kinder, Gentler Version
Coyotedroppings
Registered User
- Jul 16, 2017
- 6,567
- 5,401
Yep, well Raanta for the Vezina right! Who was the 8th ranked guy on that list anyway?
Domingue would fit well in Calgary, particularly now that he's picked up the 'hands in the air' shtick after a goal.
TheLegend
Megathread Gadfly
I guess that answers the alternate history question on Chad Johnson as well
That was certainly a hot take (and a half).
TheLegend
Megathread Gadfly
Coyotedroppings
Registered User
- Jul 16, 2017
- 6,567
- 5,401
Like all stats, it's strongly influenced by how the team in front of the goalie performs. The chart doesn't really correlate well with skill, although Domingue is where he should be. Literally just how far someone is from the league average.
Coyotedroppings
Registered User
- Jul 16, 2017
- 6,567
- 5,401
The claim is that it's the best metric for reducing your concern.
http://ingoalmag.com/analysis/gsaa-essential-statistic-evaluating-goaltenders/
I'm guessing you'd prefer the following? Itappears to be rightly so.
Would like to see this years chart for metric above.
Last edited:
If Louis Domingue were playing in net for the Penguins tonight it would be 12-1 instead of 7-1.
I fully understand the stat. I'm simply saying that, like all advanced stats, it has blind spots.
straight from the article:
I prefer shot quality metrics for raw goalie ability and quality start metrics for starter potential. (Domingue was a quality starter last year less than 50% of the time, Raanta almost 70%). Those stats tend to reflect things like Domingue flubbing routine shots (his low danger and medium danger stats are relatively bad) in all situations. Raanta grades out as the better goalie in pretty much every way.
Coyotedroppings
Registered User
- Jul 16, 2017
- 6,567
- 5,401
Salsa from the article:
What GSAA Does Well
What GSAA Does Well
- It is a very good stat at equalizing goalies across the league, regardless of the team that they play for. For example, a goalie that has a .925 save percentage and has faced a lot more shots than average is actually playing better than a goalie that has a .930 save percentage and has faced less shots. The first goalie has faced more scoring opportunities, and has saved more goals from going in based on their quality of play.
I don't like the stat because it's still strongly correlated with team performance, but it does not demonstrate causation. Bad teams that play bad in front of goalies will lead to lots of goals against, many of which are not the fault of the goalie. The stat is only really useful if you have a large delta between two goalies on the same team. It has very similar flaws to plus minus, because a goal going in is not necessarily the fault of the goalie, just as it can not be the fault of a skater. Carey Price is not why the Canadiens are bad.
Coyotedroppings
Registered User
- Jul 16, 2017
- 6,567
- 5,401
I think it's useful if your sample size is larger than one season. Domingue and Smith graded out well on that metric in 15-16 but if you open it up, Smith looks pretty pedestrian:
Coyotedroppings
Registered User
- Jul 16, 2017
- 6,567
- 5,401
Haven't seen anything for even as short a time frame as 15/16, but think it would be equally representative of any given time frame. A goalie can have periods of good and bad performance.
I would think that analysis of even a ten game stretch would shed light on Carey Price (as an example).
I would think that analysis of even a ten game stretch would shed light on Carey Price (as an example).
- Oct 26, 2006
- 18,530
- 11,294
- Oct 26, 2006
- 18,530
- 11,294
I really doubt that he's going to attract much interest with the numbers he has. With Langhamer headed back to Europe and Houser heading back to Fort Wayne, we're probably either going to be stuck with a three-headed goalie monster in Tucson or Chayka will just buy Louie out.
