Michael Farkas
Celebrate 68
Don't think you think you know what I think to think for me...I think you think you're saying something here, but of course not, skaters (especially 5 on 5) play a free-flowing game, up and down, sometimes a team has possession a lot longer, some teams create more dangerous opportunities. So we don't care as much about "averages" because doing things like controlling possession, creating more chances, very valuable. How does that relate to goaltenders?
This isn't my point. This is yours. "What is a goalie but averages"
The answer is: everything. I'm just trying to figure out how you came to your conclusion.
Context matters. The query was about playoff series (which, I find important). A single game extreme example doesn't help this discussion. Or put another way, "I think you think you're saying something here, but of course not..." hahayes, this is how small sample sizes work. Sam Gagner had 8 points one game, that doesn't make him the best player ever at peak value because of that one game
Well, perhaps there isn't documentation to that effect...but reading the room, it's quite clear that it's held in the highest regard. Unless it's not...in which case, how did we get into this discussion in the first place...?Nobody said it was...
Yeah, I mean, you can frame it however you like. The notion that it would be bad to contextualize numbers with evaluation is...interesting. If it becomes another "rate stat", is that bad? You haven't seen it publicly...what if this rate stat correlates to winning way more often than the other two existing stats? What if it correlated with whatever your talent evaluation process for goalies is (if any)?So one rate stat for a different one..?
Ok, so not save % or GAA, but the "Michael Farkas Certified Bad Goal Against That Really Lets the Air out of a Balloon"... that's still an averaging/rate stat. If you don't like save %, fine, I doubt anyone considers a certified end all be all, sort by SV%, call it a day and be done. Whether you use a real or hypothetical different measure, you're still measuring a goaltender by a rate, based on shots faced, minutes played, you have to. It's the nature of the position in the sport they play. In baseball, we measure everything by rate, because how else can you? By plate appearances or pitches thrown just shows how much a manager believed in you/how they viewed you compared to alternative options, but it says nothing about actual performance. Similar to a goaltender. You can make a note if a guy started 65 games a bunch of years in a row and the implication of that, but the performance itself is going to be rate-based.
I'm not vehemently against...math...or types of math...I don't know how else to address your concerns to be honest...
I do look at both. Who says that I don't? But what's more likely for someone like you to do: evaluate every developing offensive opportunity against OR evaluating the two or three goals that a goalie gives up a night?It'd be relatively easy? Interesting theory... So you only look at the goals given up and not the save made? Why not both?
I'm not trying to put the evaluation process on some nebulous, unreachable pedestal...quite the opposite. I want hockey fans to be better at seeing the game well. And part of that is, where possible, make it as approachable as you can.
So if I said..."you can't just look at saves, you have to look at every developing offensive zone opportunity against" well, who has time for that? So a reasonable person would brush me off and tell me to get lost...and they're right.
But if we make it bite sized - and I've personally done this, some private analytics groups do this - by just evaluating what's easily available, you get a little closer to where you want to be.
There isn't enough information there to render a decision, as extreme of an example as this is.For one, it's a measure of how effectively he was in fact stopping pucks. If you think a 5 save shutout is the same as a 50 save shutout, that's a different one for me.