GDT: Wind @ Snow 10/21 | 10pm

[The Stranger]

I think there would have to be some work/research to set the percentages though. 97%, 60%, 10%, 0% are arbitrarily set and can vastly change the outcome. Also, is there any shot that is truly "no chance"? Unless a teammate falls on the goalie and he is unable to move, I can't see how any other shot can be 0% chance. It may be a low % to save it, but not 0%.

OK, so I had a vague recollection of this article when I was setting the percentages for the routine and difficult shot:

Boyle has calculated the expected save percentage on a clean shot to be .949, but it's .651 on shots immediately following a pass. From the goalie's perspective, any play which forces a change in angle and depth increases the difficulty on the save. Factor in differences in the number of these chances each team gives up, and you get an indication of how shot quality can affect a goalie's statistics.​

http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=744483

So maybe instead of 97% it's 95% for a routine save...and 65% for a difficult save.

I'd be quite interested to see a goalie ranked that way.

Edit: What jumps to mind is that screened shots are neither routine nor difficult... I feel like they get stopped around 80% of the time. How do they fit here?

How about for shots where the goalie is screened, and expected save percentage gets reduced by 15%. So if the save would be a routine save if it weren't for the screen, the routine screened shot expected SV% goes to 80%...and a difficult shot with a screen goes to 50%.

 

[Boom Boom Apathy]

My memory's not the greatest, and I'm at work currently so I can't look up the highlight. Did Lack simply give up a rebound on a 2-on-1 shot or did he attempt to cover it and simply miss?

If it's the former, I'd put the blame on the defense. If it's the latter, then it falls into that "The goaltender ****ed up the shot" category and I'd blame both, leaning more blame toward the goaltender.

It was 2-1 and a shot was taken, not a particularly difficult one and Lack kinda let it squibble through his legs. Not a good play on his part IMO and I'm sure one he'd want to have back and it looked like it was sitting behind him, then the FL player was not tied up and poked it in.

But that's not really the point, my point is that it's way too simplistic to just say "if the defense had a breakdown, a goal can't be blamed on the goalie". There are times when the defense can break down AND the goalie can play it poorly. It doesn't have to be an either/or.

 

[Unsustainable]

I'd be quite interested to see a goalie ranked that way.

Edit: What jumps to mind is that screened shots are neither routine nor difficult... I feel like they get stopped around 80% of the time. How do they fit here?

Depends, if it's on the glove side and high.... 40% for Ward?

 

[Unsustainable]

I think there would have to be some work/research to set the percentages though. 97%, 60%, 10%, 0% are arbitrarily set and can vastly change the outcome. Also, is there any shot that is truly "no chance"? Unless a teammate falls on the goalie and he is unable to move, I can't see how any other shot can be 0% chance. It may be a low % to save it, but not 0%.

It think a system of:

95.872%

83.357%

67.745%

42.198%

1.732%

 

[tarheelhockey]

It think a system of:

95.872%

83.357%

67.745%

42.198%

1.732%

I nominate Lethargic to handle the calculations on this one.