Round 2, Vote 2 (HOH Top Goaltenders)

[tarheelhockey]

I'd draw that squiggly line in the mid-90s, and point to expansion as a major motivator for that paradigm shift.

I think you're into something, though. I generally put a lot of stock in save% but it has lost some value as coaching and systems have begun to "create" great goaltending seasons out of the clear blue.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I expect that anyone who holds that extreme of an opinion on the matter will see their opinion get very little consideration. How is it actually, and absolutely, worthless?

It's worth something for measuring team defense.

In what way does GAA reflect on individual goaltending performance? We could sit here all day and come up with seasons where GAA had no bearing on how goalies' performances ranked.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I expect that anyone who holds that extreme of an opinion on the matter will see their opinion get very little consideration. How is it actually, and absolutely, worthless?

I do agree to some degree with where you were trying to go by the end of the post, though.

Sorry, I was typing this quickly (trying to turn my attention to the Indianapolis Colts game) and didn't get to explain everything I wanted.

GAA has a bit more value than "none" certainly. And I think that's another thing that varies by era. In the 1980's, given the wide-open systems, the goalies were not only the last line of defense, but sometimes the only line of defense on some teams...their GAA is noteworthy. In high scoring eras (which seem to coincide with it being a "player's game" in my estimation), GAA would have a bit more value. I didn't mean to imply it was totally worthless, but was merely reacting to the recent suggestion that it is...whether it's true or not.

I'm also a believer in comparing to other team goaltenders. You see how Hasek generally blows his competition away (his backups)...Tony Esposito seems to be the same way...then you have to try to measure the backup's quality, quality of competition they faced (especially if it's only very limited)...like for Brodeur's backups, they always played so little that it's difficult to get a good feel. Billy Smith and Chico Resch, on the other hand, seem to really be comparable with the only thing decidedly separating them (and it's no small feat) is that Billy Smith was a money goalie of all-time proportions...

Anyway, I'll just have to play catch-up on defending these ideals against what I expect to be a fair amount of resistance because there are certain exceptions to these rules and stats can't necessarily reflect them...plus the understanding of coaching styles will need to get significant play especially if one is going to make claims of GAA or save pct. being a team stat...

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

It's worth something for measuring team defense.

In what way does GAA reflect on individual goaltending performance? We could sit here all day and come up with seasons where GAA had no bearing on how goalies' performances ranked.

On the other hand, a .920 save percentage is the same regardless of whether you're facing 20 shots a game or 40, while the GAA will fluctuate wildly in similar circumstances. Save percentage is always a better indicator of goalie play than GAA.....at least when save percentage stats are available of course.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Save percentage is always a better indicator of goalie play than GAA.....

I think this should and will come under a good deal of scrutiny when we start talking about modern goalies that are below this "Elite HHOF" level we are currently at.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

On the other hand, a .920 save percentage is the same regardless of whether you're facing 20 shots a game or 40, while the GAA will fluctuate wildly in similar circumstances. Save percentage is always a better indicator of goalie play than GAA.....at least when save percentage stats are available of course.

Correct.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

It's worth something for measuring team defense.

In what way does GAA reflect on individual goaltending performance? We could sit here all day and come up with seasons where GAA had no bearing on how goalies' performances ranked.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Passion

I'm probably too late to the party by now, but anyway I wanted to ask the other voters how you're treating Drydens absence from the game for a full year to pursue another interest and his relatively early retirement?

I've read Dryden's book and he seemed to lack the passion that nearly every other great player has had, the love for the game that makes them continue to train, develop, evolve and play until their body brakes down. Considiring the vilifying of other stars (Dionne, Turgeon, Fedorov, Sundin) and the abuse they get for their lack of "passion", I'm concerned that we haven't brought up this point about Dryden, how it affects our view of him. For example, what other canadian stars in the last 30-40 years have retired from hockey at that age while still being in great physical shape?
Jim Carey?
Jimmy Carson?
Alexandre Daigle?


Personally, I think he was in a very fortunate situation in Montreal, they did not have any suitable goalie to replace him right away: Larocque was too young to be relied upon and Bowman/Pollock didn't seem to be very confident in Thomas' playoffs-abilities. In my opinion his absence and probably also his early retirement should account for some negative points, mainly because he was able to play but chose not to and with that, he put his team in a awkward situation with no real successor in place for him (he discusses his conversations with Pollock in his book, but it seems like Pollock didn't really believe him). In some way, it's almost the same thing that Durnan did (which is close to inexcusable).

People like to point to Drydens playoff/regular-season record, that he stepped up his play when it mattered the most but as revealed by the numbers in the "Situational Playoff Stats"-table that CG recentely posted (http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=55403047&postcount=163 ), those comments aren't backed up much by the recorded data. Additionally I find the amount of "First Goals Allowed" to be much higher than expected (http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?p=55025709&highlight=#post55025709).

Passion is a very misunderstood element in a hockey players make-up.

You have Ken Dryden's Academic Passion - detached analysis, Dominik Hasek's Artistic Passion - sacrificing for the art of the position, Maurice Richard and his Hate to Lose Passion and various other versions.

Issue is how the player focuses and harvests his passion into performance.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Old and New

I think the case for Brimsek over Durnan, made in this very thread, is a good example of judging goalies on the basis of contemporary accounts rather than GAA leaders.

Vezina or Benedict will be another if/when they make it as opposing candidates

Just an example of revisionism in 2012 that is spinning a debate between old and new into something that resembles academic study.

Frank Brimsek is preferred by the reports of his day by those who favourd the old pre Red Line era. Bill Durnan supporters prefer the new, more explosive post Red Line Game.That's what the debate was about. Readers should simply apprecitate this.

The issue is should goalies be evaluated by how they adapted to different rules and circumstances. Should failing to adapt be viewed as a virtue?

 

[Rob Scuderi]

Just an example of revisionism in 2012 that is spinning a debate between old and new into something that resembles academic study.

Frank Brimsek is preferred by the reports of his day by those who favourd the old pre Red Line era. Bill Durnan supporters prefer the new, more explosive post Red Line Game.That's what the debate was about. Readers should simply apprecitate this.

The issue is should goalies be evaluated by how they adapted to different rules and circumstances. Should failing to adapt be viewed as a virtue?

Seeing as Brimsek made the 2nd All-star team three times after WW2 I'd have to question why you think that. Not having the same playoff success as before the War isn't such an easy dismissal for me (not that it should be particularly salient comparing to Durnan's playoff failures)

Quotes that come after Brimsek and Durnan retired surely aren't filtered through this claim of yours with no explanation. I could see why you're hesitant to put too much stock into quotes before the redline was introduced, but how do you explain the Watson quote in the 50s for example?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Voters and Commentators

Seeing as Brimsek made the 2nd All-star team three times after WW2 I'd have to question why you think that. Not having the same playoff success as before the War isn't such an easy dismissal for me (not that it should be particularly salient comparing to Durnan's playoff failures)

Quotes that come after Brimsek and Durnan retired surely aren't filtered through this claim of yours with no explanation. I could see why you're hesitant to put too much stock into quotes before the redline was introduced, but how do you explain the Watson quote in the 50s for example?

Overlooking the nature of voters. Voters were watching before and after the Red Line was introduced. Did they adjust their perception, criteria and appreciation of goalies accordingly?

You have a rather obvious anti Durnan bias. Shown up thread that in 1945 and 1947 Bill Durnan performed at or better than he did during the regular season. So step up and show how in 1945 and 1947 he was a failure. Throw in 1949 a RS vs PO GAA average of 2.10 vs 2.18 so overall in the three losing playoffs his GAA was better than during the regular season - hardly failures. 1950 - he realized his time was up and retired.

Phil Watson, probably the worst coach from the O6 era suddenly becomes a great goaltending expert. Defined the Mendoza line for any coaching metric.

Explain how that happened? Played mainly in the pre Red Line era and coached accordingly. Could not manage his goalies. Did you check the background or pedigree of the source - Phil Watson?

 

[Rob Scuderi]

Overlooking the nature of voters. Voters were watching before and after the Red Line was introduced. Did they adjust their perception, criteria and appreciation of goalies accordingly?

You have a rather obvious anti Durnan bias. Shown up thread that in 1945 and 1947 Bill Durnan performed at or better than he did during the regular season. So step up and show how in 1945 and 1947 he was a failure. Throw in 1949 a RS vs PO GAA average of 2.10 vs 2.18 so overall in the three losing playoffs his GAA was better than during the regular season - hardly failures. 1950 - he realized his time was up and retired.

Phil Watson, probably the worst coach from the O6 era suddenly becomes a great goaltending expert. Defined the Mendoza line for any coaching metric.

Explain how that happened? Played mainly in the pre Red Line era and coached accordingly. Could not manage his goalies. Did you check the background or pedigree of the source - Phil Watson?

I'm familiar with Osgood Worsley so yes I'm aware of Phil Watson's handling of goalies. That said, I'm not sure how it compromises his opinion of, "Which goalie was the toughest to play against?"

The burden of proof isn't on me to explain why Brimsek wasn't gaining inflated vote totals after the war vaulting him above some talented goalies. He certainly had a good reputation, but where's the evidence he wasn't earning his accomplishments?

Scroll back a few pages and you'll see how strong my anti-Durnan bias is. It seemed like people were quick to rank him 3/3 of the WW2 group, where I disagree, so I'm not sure my opinion of him is as lowly as you think.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Gaa

It's worth something for measuring team defense.

In what way does GAA reflect on individual goaltending performance? We could sit here all day and come up with seasons where GAA had no bearing on how goalies' performances ranked.

Worth a lot for measuring team defense and goaltending performance.

The SV% advocates start from an erroneous premise that there is actual merit in allowing a SOG. There is no merit as it exposes the team to a possible GA. Don't give-up any SOGS and the team does not get scored upon.

Likewise goalies. Why give-up SOGs? Cut-off the centering pass, poke check the attacking forward, kill shooting angles, play the puck efficiently, transition, communicate well with the skaters, etc. Reduces SOGs, GAA but also reduces the SV% "Wow" factor. So the goalie must be a bad goalie.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Anti Durnan Bias

Seeing as Brimsek made the 2nd All-star team three times after WW2 I'd have to question why you think that. Not having the same playoff success as before the War isn't such an easy dismissal for me (not that it should be particularly salient comparing to Durnan's playoff failures)

Quotes that come after Brimsek and Durnan retired surely aren't filtered through this claim of yours with no explanation. I could see why you're hesitant to put too much stock into quotes before the redline was introduced, but how do you explain the Watson quote in the 50s for example?

See the bolded. You have failed to support it with facts while I have shown that it is not an accurate portrayal.

Yet you have failed to withdraw it or amend the claim. Voting is over. Harm is done.

As for Phil Watson. Toughest goalies are always the ones that a player or team loses to.

 

[Rob Scuderi]

See the bolded. You have failed to support it with facts while I have shown that it is not an accurate portrayal.

Yet you have failed to withdraw it or amend the claim. Voting is over. Harm is done.

As for Phil Watson. Toughest goalies are always the ones that a player or team loses to.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=55373905&postcount=124

How can we rate Durnan as an impressive playoff goalie in this bunch?

How can we tear Brimsek down on the basis of playoffs when he ended up winning the same amount?

You harped on Brimsek for losing in the first round three times after the war as if that's all the matters, yet you're quite content to explain away Durnan's losses in the finals (2 times to Brimsek's 2 times) and his "realization that he wasn't good enough" in '50.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Playoff Performance

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=55373905&postcount=124

How can we rate Durnan as an impressive playoff goalie in this bunch?

How can we tear Brimsek down on the basis of playoffs when he ended up winning the same amount?

You harped on Brimsek for losing in the first round three times after the war as if that's all the matters, yet you're quite content to explain away Durnan's losses in the finals (2 times to Brimsek's 2 times) and his "realization that he wasn't good enough" in '50.

Durnan's playoff performance over his first three losing playoff years was batter globally than then his regular season. You have not produced an iota of evidence to contradict this.

Brimsek in his three post Red Line semi finals playoff loses produced the following GAA comparable vs regular season.

2.92/2.80, 2.80/3.79, 2.72/3.04. Brimsek's performance globally at the same time was worse.

1950 Brimsek with Chicago saw his GAA drop significantly in the regular season and missed the playoffs. Durnan had his third best regular season GAA average but time caught up with him in the plays, 3.33 GAA, better thean Brimsek's 3.79 two years previous but still weak enough to make Durnan realize that the time had come.

Realize that you have nothing that constitutes evidence of your position.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Worth a lot for measuring team defense and goaltending performance.

The SV% advocates start from an erroneous premise that there is actual merit in allowing a SOG. There is no merit as it exposes the team to a possible GA. Don't give-up any SOGS and the team does not get scored upon.

Likewise goalies. Why give-up SOGs? Cut-off the centering pass, poke check the attacking forward, kill shooting angles, play the puck efficiently, transition, communicate well with the skaters, etc. Reduces SOGs, GAA but also reduces the SV% "Wow" factor. So the goalie must be a bad goalie.

Jeez, think that might be a straw man? We're talking about the top-10 goalies of all time here -- none are even close to being bad.


As to GAA vs Sv%, let's look at a hypothetical game, a tie between Brimsek and Durnan, reported in different ways.

1) Bruins 2 Canadiens 2

Ok, we know that neither goalie managed to win (or lose) and that in GAA terms they were both above-average. Now how are we going to rank their performances? The only possible conclusion from this data is that they were perfectly equal -- not only is that nearly impossible, it's logically dubious to draw such a conclusion from this data. Chances are one of them was better than the other, but GAA isn't going to reveal anything helpful.

2) Bruins 2 Canadiens 2
Brimsek 14/16 Durnan 34/36

Well, this fills in the picture quite a bit, doesn't it? Just based on the shot counts, we can make a reasonable inference that the Habs were badly outplayed but that Durnan kept them in the game. It's not 100% rock solid, since there's no accounting for the actual scoring chances and no way to know how Brimsek may have intangibly affected the game. But it's probably an 80/20 likelihood that Durnan was the much better goalie here.

3) Bruins 2 Canadiens 2
Brimsek 14/16 Durnan 34/36

"Bill Durnan held the Habs in the game until the final minute of regulation, when a long soft shot from center ice trickled between Brimsek's skates to tie the game. Boston outshot their opponents 8-0 in overtime, but Durnan's outstanding goalkeeping preserved the tie."

Unless the writer above is an absolute liar, Durnan definitely played the better game, and we can rank them with total confidence.


Extrapolate these examples across careers. If all you use is GAA, you have a good idea who got the best game outcomes but absolutely no idea whose performances were the best. If you add Sv%, you get a reasonably sound idea of who had the best games -- not flawless, but good enough for thumbnail judgments. Confirmation comes from direct accounts of gameplay (or even better, archival video) which, more often than not, simply reinforces the message we got from Sv%.

The exception to that last line would be cases like Elliott last season, where nobody who actually followed the NHL seems to think that Sv% was reflective of the goalie's individual performance. I think Mike is onto something in challenging conventional wisdom about the past ~15 years of Sv% records, and I'm looking forward to seeing what fruit that conversation will bear.

 

[Rob Scuderi]

Durnan's playoff performance over his first three losing playoff years was batter globally than then his regular season. You have not produced an iota of evidence to contradict this.

Brimsek in his three post Red Line semi finals playoff loses produced the following GAA comparable vs regular season.

2.92/2.80, 2.80/3.79, 2.72/3.04. Brimsek's performance globally at the same time was worse.

1950 Brimsek with Chicago saw his GAA drop significantly in the regular season and missed the playoffs. Durnan had his third best regular season GAA average but time caught up with him in the plays, 3.33 GAA, better thean Brimsek's 3.79 two years previous but still weak enough to make Durnan realize that the time had come.

Realize that you have nothing that constitutes evidence of your position.

I was under the impression the redline was added in the '43-'44 season. If so you're cutting off Brimsek's best performance of the period, head-to-head with Durnan no less.

He had 4 playoffs after WW2 with the redline. He lost in the finals once ('46) besting his regular season GAA (despite his best efforts like Durnan's runs in '45 and '47 where he's blameless) and managed to best it one more time ('47) in one of his three first round defeats.

You're telling me I should care so greatly that his GAA over a 5 game period dropped from his regular season average two of the times he lost first round series 4 games to 1 near the end of his career?

How is this worth mentioning, let alone so important that everything he did in the playoffs before the war and immediately after it no longer matters?

Also, I care as much about Brimsek's final year with the Hawks as you do for Durnan's decision to put his team first in 1950. If only Brimsek had been so noble.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Hypothetical

Jeez, think that might be a straw man? We're talking about the top-10 goalies of all time here -- none are even close to being bad.


As to GAA vs Sv%, let's look at a hypothetical game, a tie between Brimsek and Durnan, reported in different ways.

1) Bruins 2 Canadiens 2

Ok, we know that neither goalie managed to win (or lose) and that in GAA terms they were both above-average. Now how are we going to rank their performances? The only possible conclusion from this data is that they were perfectly equal -- not only is that nearly impossible, it's logically dubious to draw such a conclusion from this data. Chances are one of them was better than the other, but GAA isn't going to reveal anything helpful.

2) Bruins 2 Canadiens 2
Brimsek 14/16 Durnan 34/36

Well, this fills in the picture quite a bit, doesn't it? Just based on the shot counts, we can make a reasonable inference that the Habs were badly outplayed but that Durnan kept them in the game. It's not 100% rock solid, since there's no accounting for the actual scoring chances and no way to know how Brimsek may have intangibly affected the game. But it's probably an 80/20 likelihood that Durnan was the much better goalie here.

3) Bruins 2 Canadiens 2
Brimsek 14/16 Durnan 34/36

"Bill Durnan held the Habs in the game until the final minute of regulation, when a long soft shot from center ice trickled between Brimsek's skates to tie the game. Boston outshot their opponents 8-0 in overtime, but Durnan's outstanding goalkeeping preserved the tie."

Unless the writer above is an absolute liar, Durnan definitely played the better game, and we can rank them with total confidence.


Extrapolate these examples across careers. If all you use is GAA, you have a good idea who got the best game outcomes but absolutely no idea whose performances were the best. If you add Sv%, you get a reasonably sound idea of who had the best games -- not flawless, but good enough for thumbnail judgments. Confirmation comes from direct accounts of gameplay (or even better, archival video) which, more often than not, simply reinforces the message we got from Sv%.

The exception to that last line would be cases like Elliott last season, where nobody who actually followed the NHL seems to think that Sv% was reflective of the goalie's individual performance. I think Mike is onto something in challenging conventional wisdom about the past ~15 years of Sv% records, and I'm looking forward to seeing what fruit that conversation will bear.

You are basing everything on a hypothetical as opposed to a real account that may be defined by a date and crosschecked against multiple reports.Do not recall regular season OT in the O6 era.Hello Mr Strawman. Let's keep it real.

Still a bottom line issue. The goals that are allowed. Regardless of whether reflected by SV% or GAA the type and quality of goals allowed is the real issue. If a goalie has stretches of bad games or gives up bad goals this has to be recognized and weighed against his contemporaries.

Most definitely Mike is onto something. Something that people associated with hockey figured out years ago when SV% was first introduced. Superficial media friendly stat, no substance, quick fix that blends quality shots with the wasted shots, takes away a large percentage of goaltending skills from the discussion. Worst part is that it is based on the false premise that actually allowing shots has merit.

Analogy would be rating a person's or a fire department's ability to put out fires when the real measure is preventing fires. Until people appreciate this then false reads of talent - Brian Elliott will dominate the discussion.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Losing

I was under the impression the redline was added in the '43-'44 season. If so you're cutting off Brimsek's best performance of the period, head-to-head with Durnan no less.

He had 4 playoffs after WW2 with the redline. He lost in the finals once ('46) besting his regular season GAA (despite his best efforts like Durnan's runs in '45 and '47 where he's blameless) and managed to best it one more time ('47) in one of his three first round defeats.

You're telling me I should care so greatly that his GAA over a 5 game period dropped from his regular season average two of the times he lost first round series 4 games to 1 near the end of his career?

How is this worth mentioning, let alone so important that everything he did in the playoffs before the war and immediately after it no longer matters?

Also, I care as much about Brimsek's final year with the Hawks as you do for Durnan's decision to put his team first in 1950. If only Brimsek had been so noble.

If losing does not matter then you are welcome to your appreciation.

Gerry McNeil's play in the 1950 playoffs gave the Canadiens a better chance to win as evidenced by the results.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/MTL/1950.html

Like I said going in - simple anti-Durnan bias, failing to recognize that the results proved that he was right. McNeil performed at Durnan's regular season level.

 

[tarheelhockey]

You are basing everything on a hypothetical as opposed to a real account that may be defined by a date and crosschecked against multiple reports.Do not recall regular season OT in the O6 era.Hello Mr Strawman. Let's keep it real.

I was simply illustrating a point about GAA vs Sv%. There was no purpose in digging for an historical example, as I'm sure all of us have seen thousands of hockey games and can easily recall games to fit the hypothetical template.

I don't even see a need to waste time explaining this.

Still a bottom line issue. The goals that are allowed. Regardless of whether reflected by SV% or GAA the type and quality of goals allowed is the real issue. If a goalie has stretches of bad games or gives up bad goals this has to be recognized and weighed against his contemporaries.

Well for that matter, wins are the real bottom line aren't they? Why not just count wins instead of goals?

For that matter, why not just count Stanley Cups? Why bother researching anything? The best goalies of all time are Ken Dryden and Jacques Plante, followed by Grant Fuhr. Case closed, time for the next project!

Worst part is that it is based on the false premise that actually allowing shots has merit.

Is it really based on that premise? I don't see that at all. It simply tells you what percentage of shots the goaltender saves; it doesn't give extra credit to bad defense.

Analogy would be rating a person's or a fire department's ability to put out fires when the real measure is preventing fires. Until people appreciate this then false reads of talent - Brian Elliott will dominate the discussion.

Which is why verification is important. Brian Elliott has been brought up specifically to illustrate why we DON'T rank goalies based entirely on Sv%. We have discussed Brodeur's, Roy's and Hasek's Sv% extensively in this context over the past 3 weeks, and even talked a bit about Fuhr's even though he's not up for voting. It seems to me you're arguing against a position nobody is actually taking.


What I would like to know is how you figure it's ok to use GAA as an absolute metric for evaluating goaltenders, as you've been doing with Durnan. The team effect of GAA is obvious, as is the playoff effect. You're talking up Durnan's drops in GAA as if GPG didn't drop across the board in the playoffs.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Durnan's playoff performance over his first three losing playoff years was batter globally than then his regular season. You have not produced an iota of evidence to contradict this.

Full marks to Durnan for playing well in losses during the '45 and '47 playoffs.

But then there's 1949, Game 7, score tied halfway through the game:

It took Detroit less than six minutes to put the Wings one up on Reise's surprising backhand looper. His own team was a man short at the time and big Leo's shot caught just about everybody in the arena, including goalie Bill Durnan, of Canadiens, by surprise.

Another paper indicates that this shot came from about 40 feet out.

Tough to assign legendary status to a goaltending performance that includes a shorthanded Game 7 winning goal scored on a looping backhand from beyond the faceoff circles by an offensively challenged defenseman.

 

[tarheelhockey]

The playoff effect of GAA in 1945, 1947 and 1949. It's amazing what happens when you take the worst defensive teams out of the picture.

Season | NHL Reg GAA | NHL PO GAA | Durnan Reg GAA | Durnan PO GAA
1945|3.68|2.36|2.42|2.41
1947|3.16|2.46|2.30|1.92
1949|2.72|2.13|2.10|2.18

Boy, don't those numbers tell a story? Durnan's regular season GAAs were ludicrously far ahead of the league average... but once you eliminate the bottom two teams from competition, Durnan's numbers come right back into line with the pack. Think that might have something to do with playing on the best team in the league every year while other teams are recruiting amateurs to fill in for enlistment losses?

More to the point we were discussing, Durnan did not actually "get better" in the playoffs in 1945 or 1949. He went from being preposterously far below league average to above league average as soon as the playoffs started. Simply lowering his personal stat by 0.01 isn't a meaningful improvement when the rest of the league lowered by 1.26!

Again, though, full marks for 1947. Both the numbers and the writers indicate that he was in fact quite good during those losses. He won every game that his team scored more than 2 goals.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Simply lowering his personal stat by 0.01 isn't a meaningful improvement when the rest of the league lowered by 1.26!

Durnan: 2.42 RS, 2.41 P
Lumley: 3.22 RS, 2.14 P
McCool: 3.22 RS, 2.23 P
Bibeault: 4.55 RS, 3.02 P

With the Leafs (shooting on Durnan) averaging 3.66 in the season and the Red Wings (shooting on Bibeault) averaging 4.36, I'd say that it is more of a case of McCool letting in far fewer goals-per-game than expected (2.23 instead of 4.46) than anything. It would be harder for Durnan's numbers to improve by the same rate as McCool's because he let in far fewer in the season.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Durnan: 2.42 RS, 2.41 P
Lumley: 3.22 RS, 2.14 P
McCool: 3.22 RS, 2.23 P
Bibeault: 4.55 RS, 3.02 P

With the Leafs (shooting on Durnan) averaging 3.66 in the season and the Red Wings (shooting on Bibeault) averaging 4.36, I'd say that it is more of a case of McCool letting in far fewer goals-per-game than expected (2.23 instead of 4.46) than anything. It would be harder for Durnan's numbers to improve by the same rate as McCool's because he let in far fewer in the season.

Right, it's not like he did badly. A 0.01 difference is just not a meaningful improvement.