I understand your logic. I just don't agree with your arbitrary quantitative thresholds for success. What if Greenville plays horrendous defense all season, Halverson plays really well, but finishes 9th in GAA? What if there are a handful of teams with great defenses and ECHL veteran goalies and Halverson finishes "only" fifth in SV%? What if his stats looks good but people that watch him say he looks shaky? There are just so many variables to consider. It's crazy to say "he needs to be top three or bust." Totally arbitrary.
I'm not talking about stats necessarily, but he should be putting up much better numbers than other Rabbit goalies regardless. If the Swamp is awful, I want reports that he's the only reason for keeping the Rabbits in the game.
Look at Talbot: Alabama was awful, but he still took them to the Sweet-16 and almost beat the #1 ranked Miami-Ohio by standing on his head that game. Then in Hartford in 2012-13, the team was awful, and their defense even worse (probably the worst in the AHL that year), but Talbot alnost got them into the playoffs. His stats weren't bad, but not great either, but only because defensive breakdowns meant he faced a ton of fastbreaks every game. Even without watching, just by stat-surfing you could tell that Talbot was not just a passanger, but a driver because the other 2 Pack goalies would get rocked every game (other than Missiaen's late season hot streak that dropped his GAA to a somewhat respectable 3.07).
If the Swamp is just as awful, I want to hear reports that Halverson's better than his stats suggest. I want to hear how he keeps the terrible team in games by being great. I want him giving up a lot less than other Swamp goalies.
What I don't want is Halverson being an average ECHL goalie. Average ECHLers do not make the NHL. To be an NHL starter, you need to abuse the AHL first, and to even crack the AHL, you need to be dominant in the ECHL. The gap between being an average ECHLer and an NHL starter is too vast to make up.