What we're discussing is Pavelec's performance on whether or not the Jets made the playoffs despite him. Not on whether or not Pavelec is a good goalie. I'm not trying to convince you on that, although we seemingly agree on that discussion point if we were to make it.
Descriptive vs predictive.
My point is that while Pavelec stopped 92% of shots rather than his norm 90.6%, it was grouped in a manner that was least productive towards helping the Jets win%... especially given the Jets were an above average outshooting team with average shooting percentage.
Pavelec did stop a higher percentage of shots than the average goalie did.
This fact does not change if you adjust for shot location.
If he were someone who maintained this for long periods of time (which he failed to do), I would also conclude he is likely to continue stopping pucks.
He did however perform below average for most of his season, and only performed well near the end.
This is why I say despite Pavelec, even though Pavelec did perform exceptionally well for a period.
This is pretty much the only reason/way I'd use QS%.
Ok. So when the better stat makes Pavelec look good and the inferior stat makes him look mediocre, we go with the inferior stat. I get it now.