Goalie A vs Goalie B

[John Eichel da GOAT]

Goalie A
34 GP
21-7-4
2.41 GAA
.923 Save %

Goalie B
52 GP
35-14-3
2.56 GAA
.917 Save %

Click to read more...

 

[bh53]

Are you really trying to prove Francouz > Vasilevskiy?

 

[John Eichel da GOAT]

Are you really trying to prove Francouz > Vasilevskiy?

Well way to ruin it 10 seconds in. Obv I dont think he is better, but for those who swear by stats like save % and GAA, its an interesting comparison.

 

[LokiDog]

I took B. The minor drop off in statistics over the larger sample size is more impressive, IMO.

 

[John Eichel da GOAT]

One is obviously a starter, where the other shares time, but interesting to see the stats and both have comparable teams in front of them when you see who they were.

 

[780il]

Definitely B, the extra almost 20 games played are huge.

 

[John Eichel da GOAT]

Definitely B, the extra almost 20 games played are huge.

I suppose the argument there is "What if" goalie A received those same game opportunities. Would he flourish or fail?

 

[SotasicA]

I suppose the argument there is "What if" goalie A received those same game opportunities. Would he flourish or fail?

You don't know, and that's the catch. 34 games is backup level. That's like 25-30 starts (the rest GP coming from relief duty).

 

[John Eichel da GOAT]

You don't know, and that's the catch. 34 games is backup level. That's like 25-30 starts (the rest GP coming from relief duty).

Could be an argument that since he is in a backup role, he may receive weaker opponents, but I havent dug that far yet.

 

[qqaz]

I'll take the known quantity, who's thriving while playing a starter's load.

 

[ole ole]

Goalie A
34 GP
21-7-4
2.41 GAA
.923 Save %

Goalie B
52 GP
35-14-3
2.56 GAA
.917 Save %

Are both goalies playing behind the same team?

 

[Adele Dazeem]

Wins are all that matters.

 

[wabagee]

Wins are all that matters.

Wins are all that matters.

Hellebuyck had the second most wins, he’s a workhorse.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

Workload matters.

There are an absolute TON of NHL goalies who can be goalie A or better in 30-40 games. The problem is, they often melt down right after that with a true starter's workload. Playing upwards of 50 at a top-10 level is very, very impressive.

 

[John Eichel da GOAT]

Are both goalies playing behind the same team?

Comparable. Avs vs Lightning. Id give the edge to the Lightning still for having the better team.

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

There are an absolute TON of NHL goalies who can be goalie A or better in 30-40 games. The problem is, they often melt down right after that with a true starter's workload. Playing upwards of 50 at a top-10 level is very, very impressive.

Francouz had a higher individual save percentage than all but a few team in the NHL had combined save percentage from their goaltenders. If what you’re saying is true, then it only follows logically that almost every single NHL team should be icing 3 goaltenders for roughly 27 games per season, since nearly all of them would significantly improve by playing 3 goaltenders with Francouz’s numbers. It also logically follows that there’s a massive, massive market inefficiency with regards to goaltenders right now.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

Francouz had a higher individual save percentage than all but a few team in the NHL had combined save percentage from their goaltenders. If what you’re saying is true, then it only follows logically that almost every single NHL team should be icing 3 goaltenders for roughly 27 games per season, since nearly all of them would significantly improve by playing 3 goaltenders with Francouz’s numbers. It also logically follows that there’s a massive, massive market inefficiency with regards to goaltenders right now.

I think that's a pretty popular perception these days, is it not? That people should be platooning goalies? I've heard for years how Brian Elliott and countless other 40-game good goalies were going to be the ones to get it done only to fall flat on their faces to a true workload starter with 'lesser' stats. It's more complicated than just raw save percentage obviously but there's gotta be some relationship between ability/endurance that, by and large, Stanley Cup winning goalies play typically many more games. As it pertains to the question I know goalie B is a workload starter--or, at the very least, CAN play 52 games at a high level in a season--so my bias is going to let me choose him comfortably over a guy who is excelling in a backup workload. That's not to say Goalie A can't emerge into more, of course. I'm just very, very wary of guys who do very well for 30-40 games in comparisons to guys who do very well for 50-60 games.

 

[biturbo19]

I think that's a pretty popular perception these days, is it not? That people should be platooning goalies? I've heard for years how Brian Elliott and countless other 40-game good goalies were going to be the ones to get it done only to fall flat on their faces to a true workload starter with 'lesser' stats. It's more complicated than just raw save percentage obviously but there's gotta be some relationship between ability/endurance that, by and large, Stanley Cup winning goalies play typically many more games. As it pertains to the question I know goalie B is a workload starter--or, at the very least, CAN play 52 games at a high level in a season--so my bias is going to let me choose him comfortably over a guy who is excelling in a backup workload. That's not to say Goalie A can't emerge into more, of course. I'm just very, very wary of guys who do very well for 30-40 games in comparisons to guys who do very well for 50-60 games.

The thing about those sort of guys who can do well for 30-40 games in a backup/fill-in/platoon type of role, is that by the nature of it, their stats can end up kind of flattered by the fact that their deployment tends to be skewed toward when they're riding a "hot streak". ie. When a 40 game guy is playing, it's generally because he's performing well. If/when they go cold, it's the other half of the tandem that is more likely to be tending the net. There's a sort of built in element of "protection" and flattery to the role.

Which makes the idea of a tandem/platoon setup kind of attractive, when you think about the idea of being able to just "ride the hot hand". Though things can get really bad, really quickly if you hit a stretch where neither half of the duo is playing particularly well. Especially if it happens to fall at a critical point of the season, or worse...the playoffs. That's when you really miss the rock solid workhorse who doesn't tend to have quite those same sort of slumps, even if there's some appreciable "inefficiency" to it.


The other thing, is that a lot of those guys who can give you some quality results for 30-40 games or so in a backup/fill-in/platoon role, on the surface to me at least, often seem to be vulnerable to more volatile year to year. One year they may get a run of games where they're riding a hot streak and getting the starts at the right time and everything is peachy. Results are good. But the next year, maybe it doesn't work out as well, and their cold streak happens to align at the wrong time, maybe while the other half of the tandem is also hitting an iceburg-like cold streak, and suddenly the team's goaltending situation is taking on water faster than they can bail it out. Results can sink substantially, and they might go from a .923 one year, to a sub .900 pit of despair the next.

I mean, all goalies have up and down years. But part of the value in those bona fide workhorse "True #1 Goaltenders" is that they generally sort of smooth out some of the volatility. They don't typically sink down to those same deep lows that a lot of the 30-40 game type guys can be prone to from time to time. There's value in that sort of stability/reliability.

 

[KirkAlbuquerque]

Didn’t Brian Elliott post a .938 and sub 2 GAA one year in St. Louis?

 

[NHL WAR]

Didn’t Brian Elliott post a .938 and sub 2 GAA one year in St. Louis?

1.56 and .940 with 9 shutouts in 36 starts back in 11-12. Led league with a .930 in a platoon role a few years later, as well

 

[KirkAlbuquerque]

1.56 and .940 with 9 shutouts in 36 starts back in 11-12. Led league with a .930 in a platoon role a few years later, as well

yeah, crazy numbers. But no one considered him the best goalie in the league then. Backups often times have better GAA and sv% because of smaller sample sizes and easier matchups. I think hockey fans would be savvy enough to know this.

 

[Fig]

I'm suddenly curious to know what technically are the average drop offs in games played.

For instance, what's the average, high/low and median SV% of goalies for 1, 3, 5 and 10 years for the following games played:

10 or less
10-20
20-30
30-40
40-50
50+

I wonder if it would give insight in where the average drop off occurs etc. and also get an idea about some of the starters work load theories/myths that are touted and starter vs platoon theories at a glance.

 

[Midnight Judges]

I don't think you can go off of numbers alone. You have to know what defense they are playing behind because it makes a huge difference.

 

[Kairi Zaide]

Wins are all that matters.

Not when comparing individual impact of goalies playing behind different teams.

 

[Kairi Zaide]

I don't think you can go off of numbers alone. You have to know what defense they are playing behind because it makes a huge difference.

That's where advanced goaltending metrics such as GSAx and goalie GAR come in handy, and while not perfect, are far more representative of a goalie's impact than SV%, GAA and (lol) wins - since, as you imply, the latter lack context - badly.