Adjusted Save Percentage

[Hockey Outsider]

check out beeeezers sv% on FLA and with his other teams

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=5541

same story with luongo, alot less fluctuation with vancouver

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=26791

and vokoun

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=18609

I don't see any unexplainable differences.

Luongo - 92.1% in Florida (2003-2006); 91.9% in Vancouver (2007-2009); simple average (unweighted)

Vokoun - 92.0% in Nashville (2006-07); 92.3% in Florida (2008-09); simple average (unweighted)

Both of these variances are minor and can easily be explained by normal season-to-season variations.

I'll admit that Vanbiesbrouck posted his best numbers in Florida but that's because:

1) he was clearly at his goaltending peak as a Panther (I think most fans who watched his career would attest to that)

2) perhaps more importantly, his entire tenure on the Rangers was during a high-scoring, low - save percentage era. When he was a Panther (1994-1998), scoring was falling and the average save percentage starting rising above 90%. It looks like his numbers improved significantly (which I think you're attributing to Florida shot bias?), but this change was smaller than you think because some of the improvement in Vanbiesbrouck's numbers was due to general scoring trends that affected every NHL goalie.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

If we look at pre-lockout and trapezoid I think it is very fair to say he prevented around 4 shots a game. Since Brodeur did not give up many goals in those seasons this would have a huge effect on his save %. Let's look at '97-'98 and Brodeur vs. Dunham.

I see what you're trying to do, but you'd need to do this comparison for multiple seasons for a few reasons:

1. If you look at only one season, it's possible that Brodeur had an uncharacteristically good year in terms of puckhandling, or his backup had an uncharacteristically bad year. Looking at more years reduces the risk of looking at a sample that contains a fluke performance.

2. Brodeur has had many backups over the years. For all we know, Dunham may be a really bad puckhandler. If you're comparing Brodeur to multiple goalies over multiple years, we can probably assume that these numerous goalies approximate the league average. Looking at several goalies will allow us to make a meaningful comparison between Brodeur and the average goalie.

If we pro-rate Brodeur's save % with the added 4 shots a game that would leave him with 1788 shots against and a new save % of .927 (instead of .917). If we do this with the following 6 seasons it is around a .01 increase in save %. I don't think it would put the Devils as a below average defensive team either.

Let me clarify. Between 1994 and 2009, the average team allowed 28.5 shots per game. During that time frame, the Devils have allowed 25.7 shots per game. (Source: "Team SOG data, 1988-2009" in the Yahoo "Hockey Analysis Group"). This is the lowest amount in the league.

The Devils allowed 2.8 shots per game less than the average team. If Brodeur stopped 4 shots a game due to his puckhandling, that means that the rest of the Devils team allowed 1.2 more shots per game than the average team. That just doesn't make sense to me -- the Devils played conservatively and two Hall of Fame defensemen. They were clearly an above average defensive team, which means the extreme claims like Brodeur saved 5-10 shots per game due his puckhandling are obviously false.

You also don't take into consideration face-offs and flow of the game I know the TCG is working on a study which better exemplifies this and I'm interesting to see where it leads. Brodeur tilted the ice to the opposition side allowing the Devils to have more shots for and against. If you look at when Hasek's teams shots for are close to or above their shots against, his save % drops.

That sounds interesting. Faceoffs are an area that aren't really studied, as far as I know. Do you have a link for that? Thanks.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Options

You bring up a good point -- save percentage is, by definition, an average. An average doesn't take into account whether a goalie is consistent, or plays better in certain situations. For example:

Goalie A: 91% in all game situations
Goalie B: 91% in "normal" situations, 89% in blowout games, 93% in close situations
Goalie C: 91% in "normal" situations, 91% in blowout games, 89% in close situations

Let's assume that there are roughly the same number of blowouts and close situations (OT and tied third periods?) so all three goalies have the same save percentage: 91%.

Save percentage would tell you that all three goalies are equally good, but common sense tells you that Goalie B is the most valuable. Who cares that his level of performance drops a little bit when the outcome of the game is essentially decided -- he's unbeatable when his team really needs him. Goalie C is the opposite, shutting down opponents in the middle of blowouts while faltering in critical situations.

The interesting questions are:
- Are there any goalies who exhibit this type of clutch ability in the regular season?
- How much clutch ability do they demonstrate?
- Is it consistent & repeatable over many years, or is it just a product of small samples sizes?
- Even if we think we've found a goalie with clutch ability, how much of that is due to the goalie, and how much is due to the team?

Perhaps it comes down to how much the SV% stat may be fine tuned or fragmented as desired. Regular season vs playoff. By period. By opponent. By score. By segment during the season. By result - in wins, loses, ties (pre gimmick tiebreakers).etc.

Also balanced against other stats or against individual and team results.

The SV% stat, adjusted or not, is going to be very interesting once it becomes possible to apply it to goalies on the pre 1983-84 era. Glimpses indicate that some of the old O6 era goaltenders performed at a level that is unexpected.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Just wondering, why isn't Henrik Lundquist on the list? Not enough time in the league?

Correct. Lunqvist's career adjusted save percentage is 91.5%, which ranks him behind only Hasek, Roy and Luongo. Of course, the real question is if he can sustain this for his entire career.

- Something doesn't look right. It seems that more recent goalies appear higher on this list more often, and the 80s goalies appear lower.

The reason the more recent goalies appear near the top is because they're still active. You're seeing Nabokov, Biron, Giguere, Vokoun and Luongo rank higher than they "should" because they're still in their prime. Their numbers will drag down over time as they age and pass their prime. (You see the same phenomenon if you look at adjusted points per game).

Also keep in mind that nobody on the first list has a really bad save percentage (because my threshold is 400 games, and you have to be at least a pretty decent goalie to play that much in the NHL). 90.5% is my baseline average and only two goalies are more than 0.5% below that. (Cloutier, Cheveldae and Snow are the worst goalies over 300 games).

Four of the five worst goalies on the original list (with a 400 game cut-off) started in the eighties and played long careers: McLean, Ranford, Wregget and Healy (Millen being the exception). This makes sense to me -- they had long careers (their average save percentage falls as they're past their prime) and I'd say that none of those four really did a great job of adapting to the changes in goaltending techniques over time.

- Something also just doesn't seem right to me about the methodology. it's late and I wouldn't be able to articulate it that well. But wouldn't it make sense to just calculate a goalie's error rate (1 - sv%) for each season, and then compare it to the league average, coming up with a percentage above or below average, and then weigh that season by shots faced, and then add up all seasons?

Good point. That probably would have been faster (though not necessarily any more correct).

First of all, congrats on the best attempt at making save % a more meaningful comparison that I have seen.

I think you should add another disclaimer though:

3. Save percentage assumes that the criteria of a "shot" is standardized throughout the league, and there is evidence that this is not the case:

http://www.puckprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=351

Stats aside, anyone who has watched the Devils on a regular basis can remember more than one first period where either team officially had 0, 1, or 2 shots, and Doc Emrick was laughing, "Well it certainly seems like they had more than that."

Thanks. Hmm, at a first glance that certainly raises some doubts about the record-keeping at the Meadowlands. Has anyone looked into this?

I just have a couple of points to add. I don't think your examination of durability is entirely fair to Roy. While it may be correct from a strict value standpoint to just look at average games started, it's worth noting that Roy spent his first few years in a league in which starting goalies started fewer games on average and backups got more work. He wasn't as durable as Brodeur, but if you adjust for era the gap is closer.

Roy is a bit tricky. His peak was in the late eighties & early nineties, when starters usually only played around 55 games per year. He proved that he was capable of playing ~65 games per year later in his career, when he had a lower adjusted save percentage. I strongly suspect that this was simply due to aging, and that he could have handled a higher workload when he was younger & in his prime, but I can't really prove that.

In other words: I think my analysis underrates Roy.

Second, I think one area you left unexamined is shot quality due to power plays against. This article on Puck Prospectus gives an overview of the impact power plays can have on a goalie's save percentage. Brodeur faced far fewer power plays than average over his career in New Jersey, and Roy also benefited from the same effect in Montreal.

This is definitely a big issue. Ideally save percentage can be standardized (so you take each goalie's save percentage in all three game situations and weigh them 75%-20%-5% for ES-PK-PP)? I think it's pretty safe to say that a goalie has very little impact on the proportion of shots he faces in each game situation (unless you have a PIM machine like Smith of Hextall ) but it can have a big impact on their stats.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

\This is definitely a big issue. Ideally save percentage can be standardized (so you take each goalie's save percentage in all three game situations and weigh them 75%-20%-5% for ES-PK-PP)? I think it's pretty safe to say that a goalie has very little impact on the proportion of shots he faces in each game situation (unless you have a PIM machine like Smith of Hextall ) but it can have a big impact on their stats.

About once per year I have simultaneous thoughts where something seems so obvious but I would never have come up with it on my own. This is one of those times.

 

[Gunnar Stahl 30]

I don't see any unexplainable differences.

Luongo - 92.1% in Florida (2003-2006); 91.9% in Vancouver (2007-2009); simple average (unweighted)

Vokoun - 92.0% in Nashville (2006-07); 92.3% in Florida (2008-09); simple average (unweighted)

Both of these variances are minor and can easily be explained by normal season-to-season variations.

I'll admit that Vanbiesbrouck posted his best numbers in Florida but that's because:

1) he was clearly at his goaltending peak as a Panther (I think most fans who watched his career would attest to that)

2) perhaps more importantly, his entire tenure on the Rangers was during a high-scoring, low - save percentage era. When he was a Panther (1994-1998), scoring was falling and the average save percentage starting rising above 90%. It looks like his numbers improved significantly (which I think you're attributing to Florida shot bias?), but this change was smaller than you think because some of the improvement in Vanbiesbrouck's numbers was due to general scoring trends that affected every NHL goalie.

but it doesnt explain why florida has been at the bottom of the list in shots against for the last 10 years. i just think save % is just as flawed as any other stat in the nhl

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Perhaps it comes down to how much the SV% stat may be fine tuned or fragmented as desired. Regular season vs playoff. By period. By opponent. By score. By segment during the season. By result - in wins, loses, ties (pre gimmick tiebreakers).etc.

Also balanced against other stats or against individual and team results.

The raw data exists, it's just a matter of putting it into a useable format. I've tried before (in Excel) and it just wasn't worth the effort. I think somebody with better technical skills may be able to do it though.

I fear that this data can be mis-used, as it can be broken down into situations that are so small they're statistically meaningless - like save percentage in third periods, on the road, when protecting a lead, against a playoff-bound team, on a Tuesday. You see a lot of this in baseball. Anyway, it's better to have the data (even if it can be mis-used or misunderstood) than to not have it at all.

The SV% stat, adjusted or not, is going to be very interesting once it becomes possible to apply it to goalies on the pre 1983-84 era. Glimpses indicate that some of the old O6 era goaltenders performed at a level that is unexpected.

"The Hockey Compendium" by Jeff Z Klein and Karl Eric Reif has goalie save percentage stats for (from what I remember) 1955-1967, plus a few years in the seventies. A few different websites and chat groups (including the HOH section) are working to fill in the gaps. We must be pretty close by this point. Does anybody know which seasons are still missing?

The raw numbers for some of the Original Six goalies are very impressive. 92% were not uncommon for Plante, Hall and Bower.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

but it doesnt explain why florida has been at the bottom of the list in shots against for the last 10 years. i just think save % is just as flawed as any other stat in the nhl

Yes, one possibility is that Florida is inflating their shot counts. Another possibility is that they've just had really bad defensive teams that give up a lot of shots. Look at their blueline over the past ten years: link. It's not a pretty sight.

I fully agree that save percentage isn't perfect (as I noted in my initial post), but I think it's less flawed than a lot of other stats, I'm trying to improve on it further.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Brodeur is not only a great puck handler, but also has superior rebound control and is an above average pokechecker. A 4 shot a game difference may not be unreasonable when all are accounted for. Of course it's almost impossible to determine what the impact of these skills are compared to the average.

Also one needs to account for the impact of a missed pokecheck, and a turnover while wandering from the net have. If Brodeur prevents 1000 shots, but also gives up 18 high quality chances, only the high quality chances have an impact on his stats.

It's unfair to Brodeur, eh? When he does a good job puckhandling, he gets no credit for it in terms of save percentage. Only the mistakes cost him.

Is more shots faced per game the sign of lesser team defense? To me the Devils are more about preventing a shot from a high quality scoring area, than about preventing the shot at all.

Defenses should minimize the quantity and quality of shots against, not necessarily just quantity. It goes without saying that a team's doing a good job if they allow 10 bad-angle or faraway shots, as opposed to even 2-3 breakaways.

I think there's a pretty good correlation, as the teams that allow the fewest (most) shots are usually regarded as the best (worst) defensive teams. From 1994-2009 the teams that have allowed the fewest shots on average were NJ, Detroit, Dallas, St. Louis and Philadelphia, and the teams that have allowed the most shots on average were Winnipeg, Atlanta, Hartford, Florida and Pittsburgh. At a quick glance those lists sounds about right.

Other factors such as the unbalanced schedule will also impact how much relevance the league average sv% has as well. A quick look at the 96-97 season indicates that Hasek faced an above average shooting Northeast Division, and thus his numbers are probably even more impressive than as viewed just against the league average.

This is definitely another valid factor that ideally should be accounted for.

 

[BM67]

Defenses should minimize the quantity and quality of shots against, not necessarily just quantity. It goes without saying that a team's doing a good job if they allow 10 bad-angle or faraway shots, as opposed to even 2-3 breakaways.

I think there's a pretty good correlation, as the teams that allow the fewest (most) shots are usually regarded as the best (worst) defensive teams. From 1994-2009 the teams that have allowed the fewest shots on average were NJ, Detroit, Dallas, St. Louis and Philadelphia, and the teams that have allowed the most shots on average were Winnipeg, Atlanta, Hartford, Florida and Pittsburgh. At a quick glance those lists sounds about right.

Here are the top 5 teams by fewest GA in 08-09

Team|GA|GAA|SA/60
Bos|185|2.24|30.47
Min|191|2.31|30.40
SJ|197|2.37|26.84
NJ|199|2.40|29.09
Chi|203|2.46|28.29

Boston and Minnesota were below average in SA/60. NJ allowed 0.67 fewer SA/60 than the average of 29.76.

Here are the top 5 teams by fewest SA/60 in 08-09

Team|SA|SA/60|GAA
SJ|2226|26.84|2.37
CBJ|2272|27.34|2.58
Det|2269|27.40|2.84
LA|2290|27.66|2.60
Dal|2295|27.71|2.92

Dallas and Detroit were below average (2.73) in GAA.

San Jose is the only team on both lists, and two teams on each list are below the league average in the other stat.

Stats from team page links from http://www.hockey-reference.com/leagues/NHL_2009.html

 

[seventieslord]

This is definitely a big issue. Ideally save percentage can be standardized (so you take each goalie's save percentage in all three game situations and weigh them 75%-20%-5% for ES-PK-PP)? I think it's pretty safe to say that a goalie has very little impact on the proportion of shots he faces in each game situation (unless you have a PIM machine like Smith of Hextall ) but it can have a big impact on their stats.

Exactly!

Or.... normalize to the average of that season.

One other possibility to include SH shots without focusing too much on them, would be to use just two categories - PP and non-PP. There does not appear to be any statistical pattern to SH shots and they should probably be about as dangerous as ES shots. This way their highly random variance gets spread out among the goalie's ES shots faced.

Also, we'd want to find a model to approximate the PP and non-PP percentages prior to 1999. I bet TCG has something. With that data we could approximate situational percentages reasonably well back to 1968.

"The Hockey Compendium" by Jeff Z Klein and Karl Eric Reif has goalie save percentage stats for (from what I remember) 1955-1967, plus a few years in the seventies. A few different websites and chat groups (including the HOH section) are working to fill in the gaps. We must be pretty close by this point. Does anybody know which seasons are still missing?

I believe that we have an unbroken string of seasons going back to 1954. The best sources we have at the time are:

1954-1967: THC
1968-1979: Goaltenders: The Expansion Years (which I put into a thread)
1980-1982: Data from the HSP
1983-present: Official NHL numbers

 

[reckoning]

For the benefit of those of us who aren't good at math, could somebody please walk me through the formula of adjusting save percentage based on the amount of time a goalie plays in the three situations compared with the league average. I've tried it before and just got confused. Should it be done to adjust the number of shots, giving extra weight to PP shots, then calculate the save percentage based on goals allowed?

I'd imagine this would really bump up Bernie Parent's numbers.

 

[seventieslord]

For the benefit of those of us who aren't good at math, could somebody please walk me through the formula of adjusting save percentage based on the amount of time a goalie plays in the three situations compared with the league average. I've tried it before and just got confused. Should it be done to adjust the number of shots, giving extra weight to PP shots, then calculate the save percentage based on goals allowed?

I'd imagine this would really bump up Bernie Parent's numbers.

I think you are right that this would bump up Bernie Parent's numbers, possibly to the point where he could be shown to have outperformed Dryden.

I'll try to walk you through a good algorithm for it, although there are probably a few ways to go about it.

- Add up all shots taken in that season. Calculate the percentage of shots taken in each situation. Let's say it's 75, 20, 5.

- Calculate goalie's sv% in each situation.

- Weight their sv% by the situational averages so that goalie X's save percentage reflects what it would have looked like if he faced an average in situational shot breakdown as opposed to what he actually faced.

- You would then have a list of goalies with "unbiased" sv%, at least from a situational perspective, which, IMO, is about 80% of the battle.

- At that point you could adjust these numbers or normalize them based on the seasonal average (which should match the seasonal weighted average, I think) if you were looking to compare by season.

- This would cover at least 1998-99 to the present. To go beyond that, you would need to approximate each goalie's situational percentages from each season using PPOA, as well as most likely PPGA and shots against. I don't have a model for this in the works, but I know TCG did this for Brodeur, Roy, Hasek, Belfour and Joseph and I'm sure it is based off of the results of "known" seasons and works, so you may want to email him for that method.

With that model and some quick spreadsheet work, it would not be too hard to ultimately calculate unbiased adjusted sv% records dating back to the 1964 season, when official PP records started to be kept. Perhaps further, if the HSP shows PP records in the game sheets (as in, montreal was 2 for 5 on the PP tonight) - which, I can't remember if they do. But if they do, we could have unbiased adjusted sv% records going back to the start of shot records... at this point, all I can confirm from the HSP is that shot totals were on game sheets in the 1953-54 season, not in the 1939 season, but they were in the 1931 season. (which makes sense becuase I have found numerous references to shot totals from the 1927-1931 years but precious few during the 30s and 40s)

 

[overpass]

I've been wanting to create a method for adjusting save percentage for times shorthanded for a while now. The reason I haven't is that I don't have the goalie stats broken down by special teams and team. The timeonice data posted earlier is simply stripped from nhl.com. This data would be perfect, except that goaltenders who played for two or more teams in a year have their stats all listed with their final team. I need to be able to get the team numbers for each individual year to compare with the team numbers on times shorthanded and create a model.

If I can ever get those numbers, I'll certainly try to create a model and post something about it.

 

[seventieslord]

I've been wanting to create a method for adjusting save percentage for times shorthanded for a while now. The reason I haven't is that I don't have the goalie stats broken down by special teams and team. The timeonice data posted earlier is simply stripped from nhl.com. This data would be perfect, except that goaltenders who played for two or more teams in a year have their stats all listed with their final team. I need to be able to get the team numbers for each individual year to compare with the team numbers on times shorthanded and create a model.

If I can ever get those numbers, I'll certainly try to create a model and post something about it.

Couldn't you approximate that more than reasonably using the numbers of the goalies who played with that team for the whole season?

 

[seekritdude]

How far do irbe and hackett go up if you take out those 2 one of the worst teams ever san jose shark years? Dudes were getting on average I think like 38 shots against them a game? lol

 

[overpass]

I finally put together a model for estimating pre-1999 power play shots against for goalies.

The model is based on a regression I ran on all goalie stats from 1999-2000 to 2008-09, excluding the numbers from teams that traded a goalie in mid-season from 1999-2000 to 2002-03, because nhl.com doesn't show the numbers by team for that time.

Basically, the model predicts the % of each team's shots against that were power play shots (which tend to go in at a higher rate). The explanatory variables are times shorthanded (team) and power play goals against (team).

The heart of the model is the formula y=0.0478252464788219+0.000347588335941872*(x1*82/x3)+0.000404559286778014*(x2*82/x3)

where x1=times shorthanded (team), x2=power play goals against (team), x3= games played (team), and y=% of shots against that were power play shots.

A slightly rearranged and easier to understand version is y=0.048+0.00035*(successful penalty kills)+0.00075*(unsuccessful penalty kills), with both variables adjusted to an 82 game season.

From there, I estimate power play goals against for individual goalies using (player GA)/(team GA)*(team PPGA). It should also be possible for anyone who is interested to find the actual totals using the Hockey Summary Project data for available seasons.

You can download a spreadsheet here which includes the relevant calculations.

What to do with this information? For in-season comparisons, I would suggest adjusting the numbers with the formula:
PP-adjusted SV% = a*(goalie's estimated PPSV%)+b*(goalie's estimated non-PPSV%)

where a = the league average of shots that were PP shots (which can be estimated using the same model)
and b = 1-a, or the league average of shots that were not PP shots.

For cross-season comparisons, the 80-20 rule is pretty good, where the numbers are given the weight of 0.80 for non-PPSV% and 0.20 for PPSV%.

Disclaimer: This model was created using data from the 1999-2000 season to the 2008-09 season. Strictly speaking, it is not statistically valid outside of those years. The more the hockey played in a given season or by a given team differs from hockey in these years, the less valid the model is. I think the results look pretty good for most of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s where I tested it. On the other hand, the model may not be very good for, say, Ron Low in 1975, as there are no teams even remotely comparable to the 1975 Capitals in the last decade. Also, I ran the numbers for 1964 (the farthest back this model can go) and thought the results looked off. Exercise caution and good judgment in this model's application.

 

[overpass]

I applied the model I just described to Bernie Parent's career.

I estimate that 19.3% of the shots Parent faced were power play shots. League average was 17.6%. From this estimate, Parent's career SV% was 0.880 for power play shots and 0.924 for non-power play shots. If he had faced a league-average percentage of power play shots, his career save percentage would have been 0.916 instead of 0.915, or 1.1% better.

Most of this effect came in his 1974 and 1975 seasons, at his peak. I estimate that, with a league average percentage of power play shots faced:

In 1974, his SV% would have been higher by 0.0033 (4.8% better)
In 1975, his SV% would have been higher by 0.0042 (5.1% better)

Much of Parent's value comes from his terrific two-season peak, and the fact that he faced significantly more power play shots in those seasons makes it even more impressive.

This example also helps to show the range of the effect that team discipline or lack thereof might have on a goalie's stats. On a single-season basis, there may be a small but significant effect. This is less likely over a career. Parent's stats were slightly hurt by facing more power plays. Martin Brodeur and past Montreal goalies likely saw their stats boosted by facing fewer power plays. But for most goalies, it most likely evens out over their careers.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Here's another thread that has a broken link and missing tables.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Here's another thread that has a broken link and missing tables.

Noted. I'm fairly sure I have all the tables for this one (though they may be a few years out of date). Will confirm later this week.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Here's another thread that has a broken link and missing tables.

I updated this thread (in the sense that I posted the tables I had from back in 2009). The data is now almost a decade out of date, but I'll get around to updating it at some point.

 

[Rick Kehoe]

Save percentage is, in my opinion, the best statistic to evaluate a goalie with. Every goaltending statistic (save percentage, wins, GAA, shutouts, etc) is influenced by the goalie’s team, however save percentage is less team-dependent than the others. I think this is intuitively obvious to anyone who studies goaltending, but I’ll explain if anybody’s curious.

The problem with save percentage is that it’s highly era-dependent. The purpose of this study is to adjust save percentage so that it’s comparable across seasons. I have data for 1983-2009.

Career Adjusted Save Percentage (min 400 games)

Name	Adj GP	Adj SA	Adj Sv	Sv%
Dominik Hasek	741	21368	19768	92.5%
Patrick Roy	1040	29471	27114	92.0%
Roberto Luongo	517	16744	15360	91.7%
Martin Brodeur	1009	26215	23943	91.3%
Tomas Vokoun	486	14928	13628	91.3%
John Vanbiesbrouck	872	25316	23110	91.3%
Guy Hebert	488	15379	14029	91.2%
Jean-Sebastien Giguere	436	12837	11707	91.2%
Ed Belfour	957	25678	23406	91.2%
Andy Moog	686	19252	17548	91.1%
Kelly Hrudey	664	20724	18888	91.1%
Daren Puppa	423	12179	11096	91.1%
Curtis Joseph	923	27638	25168	91.1%
Ron Hextall	605	16727	15211	90.9%
Mike Richter	660	20122	18294	90.9%
Martin Biron	407	12147	11043	90.9%
Tom Barrasso	746	22001	19999	90.9%
Evgeni Nabokov	471	12872	11697	90.9%
Sean Burke	804	24389	22162	90.9%
Marty Turco	433	11044	10035	90.9%
Felix Potvin	636	18855	17121	90.8%
Jon Casey	401	11172	10143	90.8%
Dwayne Roloson	435	12861	11674	90.8%
Bob Essensa	404	11976	10869	90.8%
Mike Liut	466	12993	11789	90.7%
Nikolai Khabibulin	661	19627	17807	90.7%
Jeff Hackett	473	14210	12891	90.7%
Jose Theodore	474	14133	12810	90.6%
Chris Osgood	690	18559	16809	90.6%
Olaf Kolzig	703	20961	18980	90.5%
Don Beaupre	585	16927	15318	90.5%
Jocelyn Thibault	558	16424	14856	90.5%
Tommy Salo	511	14333	12949	90.3%
Patrick Lalime	400	11085	10012	90.3%
Grant Fuhr	787	22904	20680	90.3%
Ron Tugnutt	498	14570	13154	90.3%
Mike Vernon	768	20514	18518	90.3%
Arturs Irbe	556	16034	14473	90.3%
Glenn Healy	418	12188	10996	90.2%
Ken Wregget	559	17368	15653	90.1%
Greg Millen	416	12054	10859	90.1%
Bill Ranford	628	18796	16925	90.0%
Kirk McLean	616	17573	15817	90.0%

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Career adjusted save percentage is only part of the discussion, any goaltender list with Tomas Volkun ranked so highly is problematic. The fatal flaw with this stat is the fact it doesn't rank the quality of save. Not all saves, like tackles in football, are created equal. I think we'd find the elite goaltenders at the top if we factored in this reality. Also, a poor goalie will never be the starter for a 60 win NHL team. Even with strong defensemen, a weak goaltender would surrender way too many goals for his team to win that many games. Wins will always be part of the evaluation process for goaltenders.

 

[Doctor No]

In the post you quoted, HO acknowledges "that Every goaltending statistic...is influenced by the goalie’s team", and that's true.

With that said, wins are significantly more influenced by the team than save percentage is.

Among the efforts to improve upon save percentage (and there are many), incorporating wins into the process isn't one of the better ones.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Here's another thread that has a broken link and missing tables.

It only took me six months, but I've updated this (data through 2018) and have replaced it with a new thread - https://hfboards.mandatory.com/threads/adjusted-save-percentage-regular-season-1956-2018.2510213/

 

[SladeWilson23]

SV% is actually equally as team effected as GAA. Strong defensive teams deflate goalies' SV%.

Simply put, no matter how good or bad a team is defensively, they will all allow roughly the same number of high danger chances. Due to this reason, goalies who play on strong defensive teams will face a higher percentage of high danger chances than goalies who play on bad defensive teams.

The difference between good defensive teams and bad defensive teams comes in the quantity and not quality. Reason for this is quite simple. All teams know how to take away the middle of the ice. It's taking back the puck and keeping it out of the zone that not all teams can do effectively.

All goalies since the 80's have lower cumulative SV%'s in their lower shot volume games than they do in their higher shot volume games.