Halak: 229 minutes, 2 shutouts.........0.889 SV%

[Halak Ness Monster]

72 shots against in 5 games.

That's an average of 14.4 shots per game. It's tough to have a high SV% when you're facing almost 0 shots.

This thread is hilarious and ill-informed.

Halak has been pulled twice in those 5 games. He was taken out because of injury against Detroit in the 1st and in the 2nd against Nashville because of performance.

So your 14.4 average/game is quite off. Halak has only played 3 full games and 48 minutes in 2 others combined.

The number is right about 19 shots a game. (72 shots allowed divided by about 3.80 games).

Had he stayed in against Detroit, he would have faced 31 shots but instead only faced 11.

 

[Lord Helix]

I think Halak is overrated a bit, but those stats really don't mean a thing. He's still a legitimate starting goalie.

 

[MeowLeafs]

Ideally there would be a "quality of shot" stat (it will be subjective, I know). Maybe have 3 categories like low quality shot, average, and high. Then you have the save percentage for each of the three.

 

[izzy]

Only facing 15 shots a night makes it rough to have a good save percentage. Just 2 goals against devastates it.

 

[GuineaPig]

When you only face 15 shots a game it is hard to have a high save %.

How did Elliott and Halak do it last year?

 

[ThirdManIn]

Tough to draw any meaningful conclusions regarding goalie stats on such a small sample size (5 games).

But we were so starved for hockey until a couple of weeks ago. We may only be a handful of games into the season, but, damn it! We're all geared up for mid-season hockey talk

Yeah it's way too early to be drawing any conclusions on players.

 

[brendan]

no he isn't... he has always been kind of a mediocre goalie with some weaknesses (5-hole, juicy rebounds), who has had the ability to sometimes get into red-hot mental zones where his focus is crazy good.

Even during his hero playoff run with Montreal the wheels came off in the conf final when he flopped out of this razor edge zone he was in for the previous 2 series.

So yeah maybe he can be top 5, when he is playing his absolute, unbeatable best, but when you get this Halak is impossible to predict which makes him somewhat less than a top 5 goalie. He is kind of like Anderson in that regards, although Anderson is hot more frequently.

Halak is not a mediocre goalie at all

You just compared him to Anderson too

 

[BK201]

When you only face 15 shots a game it is hard to have a high save %.

Not really unless every shot is a decent scoring chance.

I've seen Elliot for seasons I seriously think the team in front of them is way better than people think and Elliot is not that great and Halak is ok nothing great nothing bad.

 

[mizzoublues29]

No, Save percentage means everything. You can look a little deeper to see how many shots the guy is facing and most people do in order to get a fully accurate read on the goalie. Watching the games helps too so you can see how the team defends in front of him. Context matters but the stat is still the best way we have to evaluate goalies.

I seriously hope this is a joke.

 

[AfroThunder396]

The suggests to me that the Blues defense allows very few shots against, but the ones the do allow are very high quality.

Shots (and therefore saves) are the most overrated stat in the game because there's enormous variations in shot quality and no way to accurately represent that. A higher SV% does not always mean a better goaltender, it could just as easily mean a team is allowing many low quality shots.

People say allowing few overall shots is good defense, yet the goaltender who faces few shots can end up with a stat line similar to Halak's. On the other hand, take Luongo's tenure in Florida where he was facing 35 shots a night of unknown quality. His SV% was excellent. Which goaltender is better? What if we found out all 35 of Luongo's shots were low percentage unscreened point shots, would that change your evaluation?

It's impossible to determine goaltending quality without actually observing the quality of scoring chances. SV% like all other metrics, is useless with no context. Not all shots are created equal.

 

[Evincar]

I seriously hope this is a joke.

Save % is the most accuarate stat to measure goalies.

 

[Blender]

How did Elliott and Halak do it last year?

Halak and Elliot averaged 26 shots/game last season.

Save % is the most accuarate stat to measure goalies.

Maybe, but it still doesn't account for quality of the shots.

 

[SneakerPimp82]

How did Elliott and Halak do it last year?

They faced more shots(26.1 last year vs. ~21 this year, if memory serves), and they were playing better as well. keep in mind, neither of these guys played during the lockout, so they're still a bit rusty to say the least. Thankfully, this year the Blues are scoring a LOT more and haven't needed that extra big save to win games.

 

[Frank Drebin]

Anyone who has ever played goal would tell you they'd rather see 30 shots a game than 15.

Its much harder to stay focused for 60 minutes when you're not getting any work.

Which is a big reason why Brodeur was so great. Very, very few mental lapses.

 

[SneakerPimp82]

The suggests to me that the Blues defense allows very few shots against, but the ones the do allow are very high quality.

Shots (and therefore saves) are the most overrated stat in the game because there's enormous variations in shot quality and no way to accurately represent that. A higher SV% does not always mean a better goaltender, it could just as easily mean a team is allowing many low quality shots.

People say allowing few overall shots is good defense, yet the goaltender who faces few shots can end up with a stat line similar to Halak's. On the other hand, take Luongo's tenure in Florida where he was facing 35 shots a night of unknown quality. His SV% was excellent. Which goaltender is better? What if we found out all 35 of Luongo's shots were low percentage unscreened point shots, would that change your evaluation?

It's impossible to determine goaltending quality without actually observing the quality of scoring chances. SV% like all other metrics, is useless with no context. Not all shots are created equal.

You take a look at his GAA during his time with the Panthers and it's right around 2.6, albeit with a high save percentage, which suggest quality chances coupled with very high shot totals. as has been said, each statistic is almost useless on its own, but when placed within the context of the accompanying stats and quality of team play, you can get a much better reading of which goalie is better.

 

[HanSolo]

If shutouts were useless, Steve Mason's Calder trophy would be in Bobby Ryan's trophy case right now.

And onto a less homeristic way of making my point, shutouts are still an impressive accomplishment. It means no matter how good or bad the defense was, there was one guy that made it impossible for the other team to win.

 

[JoelWarlord]

I seriously hope this is a joke.

It's the best we have right now. Save percentage isn't perfect but it's better than wins and GAA (which aren't all that useless).

 

[CoopALoop]

Anyone who has ever played goal would tell you they'd rather see 30 shots a game than 15.

Its much harder to stay focused for 60 minutes when you're not getting any work.

Which is a big reason why Brodeur was so great. Very, very few mental lapses.

Aint that the truth. My better games come from a 30+ shot night. Being active and in the right mindset is crucial for goaltending as a simple brain fart will lead to a goal.

Still, Halak facing and average of 14.4 shots a game is pretty indicative of a lower SV%.

Say Halak Faces a whopping 16 shots and 2 manage to get by him, he's looking at a measly save% .875

Couple that in with say a 22 shot night with the same GA and you're looking at a SV% of .909

6 shots brings it from subpar NHL standards to good NHL standards. While numbers don't lie, they sure do flirt with deceit.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Only facing 15 shots a night makes it rough to have a good save percentage. Just 2 goals against devastates it.

On the other hand, only facing 15 shots a night makes it much harder to have a two goals against night.

Most of the rigorous studies on the topic have come to the conclusion that workload levels and save percentage are largely uncorrelated at the NHL level.

(I suspect that there'd be a correlation at lower levels, such as the NCAA, since in those cases the shot volume might be a better proxy for shot quality).

 

[Bear of Bad News]

I seriously hope this is a joke.

Propose something more better (aside from various ways to risk adjust save percentage, which I assume isn't what you meant).

 

[Bear of Bad News]

If shutouts were useless, Steve Mason's Calder trophy would be in Bobby Ryan's trophy case right now.

Well, define useless. Do you mean in terms of assessing a goaltender's overall ability, or in terms of predicting what (superficial) voters will be impress with?

If it's the former, then I'd say that Steve Mason's shutouts had little ability to predict his career path:

http://hockeygoalies.org/bio/masons.html
(look under "REGULAR SEASON STATISTICS")

Despite his ten rookie season shutouts, Mason's save percentage was only one standard deviation above league average his rookie season.

One thing to remember - at a fixed save percentage, if you increase a goaltender's shutouts, then you must also increase his high-goal games (so that his save percentage stays fixed). In other words, at a fixed save percentage, the more shutouts a goaltender has, the more inconsistent his performance is.

 

[Ogopogo*]

That stat line is hilarious.

Another reason shutouts (and wins) are meaningless goalie stats.

ALL goalie stats are meaningless. The team in front of the goalie has a significant impact on the numbers

 

[intangible]

no he isn't... he has always been kind of a mediocre goalie with some weaknesses (5-hole, juicy rebounds), who has had the ability to sometimes get into red-hot mental zones where his focus is crazy good.

Even during his hero playoff run with Montreal the wheels came off in the conf final when he flopped out of this razor edge zone he was in for the previous 2 series.

Agreed. In my eyes he likely would be around #10-#12 at best. Guy's no where near top 5 or earned such a distinction. Let's not forget Elliott last year had similar stats, yet isn't as highly regarded. That's a pretty good indicator that it's the team, not the goalie, who's the cause of such great stats.

 

[542365]

no he isn't... he has always been kind of a mediocre goalie with some weaknesses (5-hole, juicy rebounds), who has had the ability to sometimes get into red-hot mental zones where his focus is crazy good.

Even during his hero playoff run with Montreal the wheels came off in the conf final when he flopped out of this razor edge zone he was in for the previous 2 series.

So yeah maybe he can be top 5, when he is playing his absolute, unbeatable best, but when you get this Halak is impossible to predict which makes him somewhat less than a top 5 goalie. He is kind of like Anderson in that regards, although Anderson is hot more frequently.

High glove is definitely his biggest weakness. I agree with pretty much everything else you said. When he's on, he is really, really good. When he's not on, he let's in quite a few softies. If he played at his best all the time, he might be a top 5 goalie. As he is, maybe a slightly above average starter.

 

[sh724]

On the other hand, only facing 15 shots a night makes it much harder to have a two goals against night.

Most of the rigorous studies on the topic have come to the conclusion that workload levels and save percentage are largely uncorrelated at the NHL level.

(I suspect that there'd be a correlation at lower levels, such as the NCAA, since in those cases the shot volume might be a better proxy for shot quality).

On the whole save percentage and workload are not correlated but if you break it down to goalie by goalie you will find some goalies do better with lots of shots and other goalies perform better with less shots.