It is not my terminology, it is well know common hockey terminology used by basically everyone around the game.
you used it, so it is yours. obviously i'm not implying that uou invented the term out of mid air.
What I have stated multiple times is that Crow did not play well and let in 3 goals that he should have saved. They were savable shots.
and i already agreed with that, so why are you bothering to restate it?
The concept that all shots are savable is not realistic. Hockey is not played in a silo.
no, it is true by definition. a save is a shot that a goalie stops. so if there is a shot, and if there is a goalie, then that shot is eligible for being called a save should the goaltender get in between the puck and the goal. regardless of whether or not every shot is saved, every shot is, by the very definition of a save, in fact savable. now do you want to continue to argue about misleading, loosley defined cliches, or can we get to something that actually has substance?
Because it ignores too many factors. Using shots against with save percentage (then adding HDSA) is a much more detailed and customized way of looking at things. It allows you to have a better view of each team.
that doesn't mean it's weird, that means you disagree with my methodology. tell me, if my claims are "the team needed more saves from crow than average", "crow still came up with a bad game", and "a team that needs even more saves than that will lose more often than not" which claim is false?
It was not 7 more saves though. We are talking about 1 game. He should have made 3 more saves because he let in 3 shots that were savable not 7.
that's utterly ridiculous. you are saying that we should ignore the factual statement that craeford made more saves than average in favor of your own personal subjective evaluation of whether or not he should have made a save. again, i don't even disagree with your opinion here, but it's still just that, an opinion. it does nothing to counter the point i'm making, and it certainly doesn't take presidence over what can be objectivley shown to occur in reality.
This is your original comment where we started this discussion.
yeah, and i clearly say there that crow had a pretty bad game, but that the team did him no favors.
You said you watched highlights but not the game right? Crow was not really hung out to dry. All the team needed was him to save the shots that were savable.
when i first came into the thread i had only watched highlights, but now i've seen the whole game on a recording i made. i disagree with this assesment, especially looking at the two konecny goals. the team struggled to get the puck out of their own end, and gave up too many chances.
Is it safe to assume you have a STEM background? This is not meant in a negative way.
i'm a philosopher by training, so humanities not stem.