Stoppable goals correlation with save percentages

[Bleedred]

As per request from @Ripshot 43 before the season started, I have been reviewing every goal against in the league on every night since the season started. Early on, I made the mistake of not just making a chart with every goalie to play this year and keeping track that way. So the other night, I had to go through almost a month's worth of reviews and count them and put down every goalie in the league on a file on my computer, and count their stoppable goals and type them down. Then update them for the remainder of the season. I think this is a great opportunity to see if save percentages and poor goalie play will be congruent, at least over a full season. Absolutely they aren't necessarily on a game by game basis. I've never done this for every goalie in the league, but have been doing it for the goalies of my favorite team for years now. I remember finding in Brodeur's first decline year in save percentage, the stoppable goals went up. And they went up by a lot in his last year in the league. I think for the goals against Cory Schneider in 15-16, fewer than 20% of the goals he allowed were stoppable. Then the next year, his save percentage went down to commode and the stoppable goal count was something closer to 30%, which continued into the next year and I don't expect it to change this year. I also remember watching Darling's goals against, just because he had a historically bad season last year and almost 50% of his goals against were stoppable. It was definitely well over 40%. I wanna see if the eye test really confirms to me that the goalie is playing as poor as the save percentage indicates over a full season.

So this is what I've found so far. This is probably gonna be long, but I'm listing every goalie that's played a minute this year and their save percentages, as well as the stoppable goals against. There's still some anomalies here, as it's very early in the season. I've found Grubauer has a low stoppable goal count for his poor save percentage, I've also found Hellebuyck has a higher stoppable goal count so far for having a just slightly below league average save percentage. Varlamov, Rinne, Halak and Brossoit all have higher save percentages and lower stoppable goal counts. While Allen, Smith, Ward and Holtby all have poor save percentages and all have hit double digits in stoppable goals already.

It looks like I'm gonna have to break this up into two posts, because 67 goalies that have played at least one game this year and that's gonna be a long post. So let me get to that!

Click to read more...

 

[Bleedred]

Roberto Luongo: .957% - 2 goals against, 0 stoppable.
Laurent Brossoit:. 957% - 5 goals against, 0 stoppable.
Darcy Kuemper: .957% - 4 goals against, 1 stoppable.
Jaroslav Halak: .952% - 11 goals against, 3 stoppable.
Pekka Rinne: .948% - 11 goals against, 1 stoppable.
Thomas Greiss: .944% - 12 goals against, 4 stoppable.
Devan Dubnyk: .937% - 21 goals against, 6 stoppable.
Semyon Varlamov: .936% - 19 goals against, 4 stoppable.
John Gibson: .936% - 26 goals against, 6 stoppable.
Mikko Koskinen: .935% - 6 goals against, 2 stoppable.
Andrei Vasilevskiy: .935% - 20 goals against, 6 stoppable.
Linus Ullmark: .934% - 8 goals against, 2 stoppable.
Casey DeSmith: .933% - 10 goals against, 3 stoppable.
Ryan Miller: .932% - 8 goals against, 0 stoppable.
Antti Raanta: .929% - 19 goals against, 5 stoppable.
Robin Lehner: .928% - 16 goals against, 6 stoppable.
David Rittich: .927% - 13 goals against, 5 stoppable.
Frederik Andersen: .924% - 27 goals against, 7 stoppable.
Anton Khudobin: 923% - 7 goals against, 1 stoppable.
Ben Bishop: .923% - 23 goals against, 9 stoppable.
Jusse Saros: .917% - 18 goals against, 6 stoppable.
Henrik Lundqvist: .917% - 28 goals against, 7 stoppable.
Aaron Dell: .913% - 11 goals against, 3 stoppable.
Keith Kinkaid: .913% - 26 goals against, 7 stoppable.
Jack Campbell: .912% - 23 goals against, 6 stoppable.
Jimmy Howard: ,912% - 29 goals against, 8 stoppable.
Anders Nilsson: .912% - 16 goals against, 5 stoppable.
Carter Hutton: .910% - 29 goals against, 8 stoppable.
Craig Anderson: .909% - 39 goals against, 9 stoppable.
Peter Budaj: .909% - 1 goal against, 0 stoppable.
Corey Crawford: .907% - 20 goals against, 1 stoppable.
Carey Price: .907% - 26 goals against, 7 stoppable.
Connor Hellebuyck: .907% - 33 goals against, 10 stoppable.
Cam Talbot: .904% - 28 goals against, 8 stoppable.
Tukka Rask: .902% - 17 goals against, 8 stoppable.
Marc-Andre Fleury: .901% - 29 goals against, 6 stoppable. (surprised by this)
Martin Jones: .900% - 27 goals against, 7 stoppable.
Jacob Markstrom: .899% - 30 goals against, 8 stoppable.
Antti Niemi: .898% - 10 goals against, 1 stoppable.
Alexander Georgiev: .897% - 11 goals against, 3 stoppable.
Sergei Bobrovsky: .895% - 29 goals against, 8 stoppable.
Alex Stalock: .895% - 10 goals against, 0 stoppable.
Brian Elliott: .893% - 30 goals against, 7 stoppable.
Philipp Grubauer: .893% - 18 goals against, 2 stoppable (surprised by this also)
Scott Darling: .893% - 6 goals against, 3 stoppable (not surprised by this)
Garret Sparks: .892% - 7 goals against, 3 stoppable.
Curtis McElhinney: .892% - 11 goals against, 4 stoppable.
Matt Murray: .890% - 28 goals against, 6 stoppable.
Cory Schneider: .889% - 4 goals against, 2 stoppable.
Braden Holtby: 888% - 34 goals against, 12 stoppable.
Louis Domingue: .887% - 12 goals against, 0 stoppable. (1 was a blowout 7 goal against game)
Cam Ward: .887% - 32 goals against, 11 stoppable. (not surprised at all)
James Reimer: .885% - 21 goals against, 6 stoppable. (surprised it's not more stoppable goals, but he seems to fail the eye test even in his good years)
Phoenix Copley: .882% - 10 goals against, 4 stoppable.
Malcolm Subban: .881% - 7 goals against, 2 stoppable.
Joonas Korpisalo: .881% - 17 goals against, 3 stoppable. (surprisingly low for how poor the save percentage is, but that's 5 game samples for you)
Petr Mrazek: .880% - 22 goals against, 7 stoppable.
Jake Allen: .879% - 41 goals against, 14 stoppable.
Jonathan Bernier: .873% - 19 goals against, 8 stoppable.
Chad Johnson: .872% - 6 goals against, 2 stoppable.
Mike Smith: .871% - 34 goals against, 12 stoppable.
Calvin Pickard: .851% - 15 goals against, 5 stoppable.
Jonathan Quick: .845% - 17 goals against, 4 stoppable.
Michael Hutchinson: .839% - 14 goals against, 6 stoppable.
Mike McKenna: .808% - 6 goals against, 4 stoppable.
Mike Condon: .800% - 8 goals against, 3 stoppable.
Michael Neuvirth: .727% - 6 goals against, 1 stoppable.

So there's some surprises and some that aren't surprising. I still think we're too early in the season, where just one or two good or bad games will either sink a save percentage or blow it up. There's a lot of fluctuation this early int he season, but guys like Holtby, Allen, Ward and Smith have been horrific. Mrazek has been poor. Pickard and Bernier have also been brutal in a smaller number of games, while Hutchinson and McKenna have been terrifyingly bad in a very small number of games. Vasilevskiy has a high count of stoppable goals from me for a .935%, but I think 4 of them came in the same game a week or two ago. Crawford has a very low number from me for being just below the current league average, but it's definitely early. Rinne looks to be VERY good in both save percentage and eye test so far.

 

[Bleedred]

Just wanted to credit @MNNumbers for asking me to do this thread.

 

[SniperHF]

Do you have any specific criteria in addition to eye test that determines what is "stoppable"?

 

[MNNumbers]

Bleed....

I see 2 ways to use this data:

1- Is a team playing the right goalie?
2- For starters only (so as not to have too much information at hand....), does the data settle down to a certain % being normal for 'good' goalies?

As an example of #2, I'm guessing that the top 10 goalies in the league (starters only) probably average 25-30% stoppable goals.

Agree?

 

[Bleedred]

Do you have any specific criteria in addition to eye test that determines what is "stoppable"?

There is some gray area. One thing I often times get torched for is when I count a goal stoppable if there is a screen. I certainly won't nail the goalie on a screen that there's a player right in front of him or a maze of players, but some people are very liberal with screens. Like a ''Screen'' where the guy screening is 25 feet from the goalie? Or there's a guy skating around well in front of him? I'm not counting that as a screen. Am I doubting the goalie was screened on those shots? No, but do I think he should have saw it or did a better job? Yes. I also find myself counting a simple wrist shot to the glove side as being stoppable (especially if it's high short side), where many would say ''Nice shot''. Not denying that it's a nice shot or that the shooter shouldn't get credit, but I'm still counting it stoppable, even if pretty forgivable compared to other stoppable goals. I'm gonna count most goals that go through the goalie as a stoppable one, but there is context needed. If it goes through the goalie through a weird deflection, I'm not gonna count it as a stoppable goal. If it goes through the goalie while he's sliding (like through the legs of a sliding goaltender), I'm not gonna count it as stoppable.

I actually tend to usually not call it stoppable if it's far side or stick/blocker side high, unless it comes from long distance. I usually also don't ding on one timers, unless I feel the goalie was in position by the time the shot got to him and it just beats him. One timers are harder to stop, because the goalie is usually not in position. I don't nail them on MOST deflections, but some really slow re-directs from distance or a soft re-direct through the pads while the goalie is in position, I may count against the goalie. I will count some breakaways against the goalie, if it goes through them. If it beats them through the 5-hole while sliding, I usually don't nail the goalie with that one. Like if he's deked or sliding and it goes through the pads, I won't count it as stoppable. I'll also count a goal as stoppable on the goalie, if they made an error that caused the shot to be taken in the first place, even if the actual shot wasn't stoppable. Like yesterday, on one of the goals against McKenna, he cleared the puck around the boards and it went to a Sabre. This resulted in a goal a few seconds later. If another Senators player took possession of the puck before that, I wouldn't have dinged McKenna on this goal, but his team never had possession of it again after his play of the puck until after it was in the back of the net. I also gave John Gibson off on a goal last week against the Sharks, where it was very subtle. He put the puck back in play instead of covering it and a goal was scored seconds later. There was also another goalie who did this the other night (I forget who?) and I gave him a stoppable goal on it.

We'd have to go over some games. I've been reviewing them every night on the Devils forum in the out of town scoreboard thread. If you'd like, I could copy and paste those to this thread also.

 

[Bleedred]

Bleed....

I see 2 ways to use this data:

1- Is a team playing the right goalie?
2- For starters only (so as not to have too much information at hand....), does the data settle down to a certain % being normal for 'good' goalies?

As an example of #2, I'm guessing that the top 10 goalies in the league (starters only) probably average 25-30% stoppable goals.

Agree?

I'm thinking for elite goalies, it's probably lower than 30% of the goals against, except maybe in anomaly years or if the save percentage isn't corroborating with the stoppable goals against.

I'm thinking it's probably 25% for the average goalies, over 30% for the poor ones and maybe closer to 20% for the really good ones.

It is still a little early in the season to see that aligning with the save percentages and the stoppable goal percentages and all of that. Dubnyk's is kind of high for how high his save percentage is right now, while guys like Crawford and a few others aren't really congruent with their personal numbers of as now. Rinne and Varlamov's certainly are so far on the top end. I'd say Gibson's are also. While Allen, , Smith, Holtby and Ward's definitely are on the lower end.

 

[Bleedred]

Anybody watching the Sabres/Rangers game right now. Two quick goals were just scored on Hutton.

Now the first goal, I'm not dinging him, I felt he was definitely screened, two guys in front of him.

Second goal goes to his glove side high on the short side. He's getting dinged on that one from me.

 

[SniperHF]

but I'm still counting it stoppable, even if pretty forgivable compared to other stoppable goals.

Right, just trying to get a feel for where you're coming from. All goals you'd think a goalie could have saved aren't equal to be sure. Low power blue line shot through traffic, that weird knuckle puck that flew over Raanta a few nights ago, or a goal from the redline.

 

[Bleedred]

Right, just trying to get a feel for where you're coming from. All goals you'd think a goalie could have saved aren't equal to be sure. Low power blue line shot through traffic, that weird knuckle puck that flew over Raanta a few nights ago, or a goal from the redline.

Definitely! Although I just rank all stoppable goals as stoppable in doing this review. So the goal on Condon from the opposing blue line gets counted the same in my review as that goal that Vesey just scored on Hutton, even though of course the goal Vesey just scored on Hutton is much more forgivable than that goal on Condon.It would probably be too much work to rank terms of stoppability haha, so I just base it on whether the goalie had a good chance at it or not.

 

[SniperHF]

It would probably be too much work to rank terms of stoppability haha, so I just base it on whether the goalie had a good at it or not.

And that kind of thing would probably even out over 50+ starts, at least in large part.

 

[Bleedred]

And that kind of thing would probably even out over 50+ starts, at least in large part.

Definitely. I feel like what I've counted and what the numbers say don't mean a whole lot right now, because it's still too early. It's what I was saying about single game stats earlier (even though these more than just single game stats, but not more than 10 for most of these guys). I'll use the Devils game against the Lightning the other night. The Lightning scored 8 goals, but I only thought one goal was stoppable. Kinkaid allowed 7 of them, yet just one stoppable goal. Now the week before, Kinkaid allowed 4 goals on 36 shots in an OT loss to the Predators. I feel like 3 of the 4 goals he allowed in that game were stoppable though. So he plays worse on paper against Tampa than he does to Nashville, but the eye test made him look worse against Nashville, but it evened out in the end.

I always said, blowout losses isn't where poor goaltending hurts you. It's those close losses, where you lose 3-2 or 4-3 and one or two of the goals are stoppable ones. Now in that Ottawa/Buffalo game on Saturday, I counted 4 stoppable goals out of 6 allowed on McKenna and 2 stoppable goals out of 3 allowed on Anderson, so I think goaltending definitely made that score blow up in that game, even though I find most blowouts are not due to goalies playing poorly.

As far as tonight's games go, 15 goals allowed by goalies and I just counted two stoppable. The Vesey goal on Carter Hutton and the Blue Jackets first goal that beat Gibson 5-hole.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Finally a big step in the right direction on goalie analytics...bravo.

 

[patnyrnyg]

Interesting, and not easy to do based on the subjective nature.

 

[patnyrnyg]

Definitely. I feel like what I've counted and what the numbers say don't mean a whole lot right now, because it's still too early. It's what I was saying about single game stats earlier (even though these more than just single game stats, but not more than 10 for most of these guys). I'll use the Devils game against the Lightning the other night. The Lightning scored 8 goals, but I only thought one goal was stoppable. Kinkaid allowed 7 of them, yet just one stoppable goal. Now the week before, Kinkaid allowed 4 goals on 36 shots in an OT loss to the Predators. I feel like 3 of the 4 goals he allowed in that game were stoppable though. So he plays worse on paper against Tampa than he does to Nashville, but the eye test made him look worse against Nashville, but it evened out in the end.

I always said, blowout losses isn't where poor goaltending hurts you. It's those close losses, where you lose 3-2 or 4-3 and one or two of the goals are stoppable ones. Now in that Ottawa/Buffalo game on Saturday, I counted 4 stoppable goals out of 6 allowed on McKenna and 2 stoppable goals out of 3 allowed on Anderson, so I think goaltending definitely made that score blow up in that game, even though I find most blowouts are not due to goalies playing poorly.

As far as tonight's games go, 15 goals allowed by goalies and I just counted two stoppable. The Vesey goal on Carter Hutton and the Blue Jackets first goal that beat Gibson 5-hole.

I agree, but I also think WHEN it happens is more crucial. A goalie gives up what most would call a terrible goal in the 1st period, and they lose 4-3, it is one thing. He gives up a terrible goal with less than 10 minutes left in the 3rd and they lose 4-3, it is another. Especially, if it is a situation where a team is down 3-2, pouring it on with chances, just can't score. You get that feeling that it is going to come just keep pressing. Then, their goalie gives up a lousy one and the wind comes out of their sails.

 

[542365]

Appreciate the hard work. This is very interesting.

I wish we had some sort of statcast system for hockey. Statcast in baseball has been super interesting to me, especially from a defensive perspective. Guy makes some crazy diving catch and everyone goes apeshit, but you look at the statcast data and he just got a bad jump or took a bad route to it and then had to make a diving catch to make up for it. Sometimes the opposite is true too. A guy gets an unbelievably good jump on the ball and tracks it perfectly and makes an incredibly difficult catch look routine.

I don't even know how it would work in hockey. Shot velocity would be a factor, area of the ice where the shot came from, redirections, proximity of other skaters, inches needed to move blocker/glove/pad in order to make a save, maybe spin rate of the shot to determine if it's wobbling on the way in etc. Would be extremely difficult to make it an objective operation. There will always be some subjectivity to whether a goalie should've stopped a shot or not. I may start doing this just with Jake Allen/Johnson and pick up where you left off. I don't have the patience to do it with every goalie though

Are you planning on doing this all season? If so, it would be interesting to see how much we differ by the end of the season with Allen/Johnson considering it's subjective.

EDIT: Also, do you consider the shooter when determining if a goal is stoppable or not? Ovi is going to score more goals than Ryan Reaves in the same spot on the ice with the same conditions.

 

[SavageSteve]

I applaud this level of study but also leads me to ask one question: will somewhere in the stats reflect a goalie's ability to 'erase' or 'steal' unstoppable shots that should have been goals?

That eye-test quality often seems to be the difference between solid goalies and Vezina Finalists, so being able to quantify that would seem to be useful in evaluating IMO.

 

[Bleedred]

Appreciate the hard work. This is very interesting.

I wish we had some sort of statcast system for hockey. Statcast in baseball has been super interesting to me, especially from a defensive perspective. Guy makes some crazy diving catch and everyone goes ape****, but you look at the statcast data and he just got a bad jump or took a bad route to it and then had to make a diving catch to make up for it. Sometimes the opposite is true too. A guy gets an unbelievably good jump on the ball and tracks it perfectly and makes an incredibly difficult catch look routine.

I don't even know how it would work in hockey. Shot velocity would be a factor, area of the ice where the shot came from, redirections, proximity of other skaters, inches needed to move blocker/glove/pad in order to make a save, maybe spin rate of the shot to determine if it's wobbling on the way in etc. Would be extremely difficult to make it an objective operation. There will always be some subjectivity to whether a goalie should've stopped a shot or not. I may start doing this just with Jake Allen/Johnson and pick up where you left off. I don't have the patience to do it with every goalie though

Are you planning on doing this all season? If so, it would be interesting to see how much we differ by the end of the season with Allen/Johnson considering it's subjective.

EDIT: Also, do you consider the shooter when determining if a goal is stoppable or not? Ovi is going to score more goals than Ryan Reaves in the same spot on the ice with the same conditions.

Thanks for your interest and it's definitely something I plan to do all season long. As the objective will be to tally everything up after the regular season ends and see if the big losers in save percentage are consistent with the big winners in stoppable goals. I've been doing it with Devils goalies for years, but never posted the results publicly or anything.

I'd consider the shooter in terms of stoppability, like an Ovechkin snipe high short side is not as bad as a Ryan Reaves snipe high to the short side, but in the counting I'd still count either stoppable all the same. Without picking it apart.

For instance (and I remember this because it's my own team's goalie) I remember Schneider allowing a goal to Ovechkin in the regular season finale last year. It was one timed and high to the short side. Schneider was in position for it, but left the short side open and it went in. I dinged Schneider on this and I remember a few replies saying ''But it's Ovechkin! The best goal scorer in the league!'' My reply? Ovechkin doesn't score on 100% of the shots he fires at goalies. He actually only scored on 13.8% of the shots he fired at goalies last year. That means goalies are making a save on 86%-87% of the shots Ovechkin fires at them. If Ovechkin scored almost every time he fired a shot like that, he'd be at least a 100 goal scorer. Same thing with Stamkos in game 3 of the playoffs last year. Stamkos fires a shot and it leaks through Schneider's arm and dribbles in. ''It's Stamkos! One of the best shooters in the league!''. Stamkos has a 16.5% career, which means goalies have stopped 83.5% of the shots they've fired on net. To be fair to Schneider, that was the only stoppable goal he allowed in the series out of 6 allowed in total and we actually won that game.

 

[Bleedred]

I applaud this level of study but also leads me to ask one question: will somewhere in the stats reflect a goalie's ability to 'erase' or 'steal' unstoppable shots that should have been goals?

That eye-test quality often seems to be the difference between solid goalies and Vezina Finalists, so being able to quantify that would seem to be useful in evaluating IMO.

You could track goalies making saves on shots that could have been goals, but it would be very hard, as I'd need to watch every shot that was saved and there's just enough time, nor resources for me or any one person to be able to do that. With what I'm doing right now, I just watch the video highlights of every goal scored. I go to NHL.com (which is real fun sometimes with their site! NOT!) and watch the highlight game recap for each game and just fast forward and jump to each goal and the replays the show. If I'm split on a particular goal, then I just open the app on my phone and look at the video of that particular goal, as you'll get more replays and sometimes the announcers will break down if that shot was deflected or something.

 

[Bleedred]

I agree, but I also think WHEN it happens is more crucial. A goalie gives up what most would call a terrible goal in the 1st period, and they lose 4-3, it is one thing. He gives up a terrible goal with less than 10 minutes left in the 3rd and they lose 4-3, it is another. Especially, if it is a situation where a team is down 3-2, pouring it on with chances, just can't score. You get that feeling that it is going to come just keep pressing. Then, their goalie gives up a lousy one and the wind comes out of their sails.

In terms of stopabiliy, I would agree, but I only count what goals were and weren't stoppable, just because dissecting all of them would be too much to post.

There's a narrative over on the Devils board that since his Devils tenure began, Cory Schneider has a propensity for allowing a terrible goal late in a game. I don't think this is true, but it does seem to happen a lot lately, since he's been on the decline the last 2 years now. His first game back from a month+ injury last year, he allowed a HORRIFIC goal against the Panthers from behind the goal line. The worst goal he allowed last year, quite easily. It was 1-1 in that game and he had played great for the first 53 or 54 minutes of the game. Then with about 6 or 7 minutes (it was definitely under 10, but I seem to remember 6 or 7+ minutes left), he lets in that backbreaker. The Ovechkin stoppable goal I referenced a couple posts ago. The Devils come back from 3-1 and tie the Capitals in the regular season finale, then he lets in that Ovechkin goal in the 3rd period and that was game.

The other night against Detroit in his only start this season, he allows a shorthanded goal with 6 or 7 minutes left and it was the difference. You could argue the goal wasn't his fault, as it was a breakaway and short handed, but that doesn't mean it wasn't stoppable. He had the puck on a clean wrister, but it falls out of his glove and lays in the crease for the rebound to be put in.

 

[Bleedred]

While I'm on the topic of rebounds, I don't usually count rebound goals as a stoppable goal, unless it's a REALLY bad rebound or if it's a rebound caused by the puck leaking through the goalie or coming out of his glove and laying in the crease and someone putting it in. I did ding James Reimer on a poor rebound a couple weeks ago, where he head butted it right to the guy from the other team and it was put in. If it's a really weak shot and the goalie has it, but drops it, I'll sometimes ding the goalie on that.

 

[geosh761]

I think the idea is great and I agree that sticking with what works for you and seeing what comes out of it is probably a good approach for the moment. No point in changing the method every week. At the same time, I do see some shortcomings worth noting (perhaps for the next season). So, without further ado, let me get to my hobby of telling people that do the work, how to do it ;-).

I would argue that you're drawing the line between stoppable and unstoppable way too high. Partly it's because my opinion on what's stoppable differs (and in fact, I think the word 'stoppable' will incite questions/flame every time you'll use it -- I don't have a better one, though). Mostly, however, it's for another reason. Following the quality of goals scored against can tell a bad goalie from a pretty good one. But imho that would require you to distinguish between soft goals and Ovechkin shots. On the other hand, I don't think it can really be used to decide the pretty good vs. elite, no matter how you set the criteria (being elite would be more about the goals prevented that just won't appear in your data).

Following this logic, it would seem more natural for me to distinguish between

1. Soft goals (should-haves) : screw-ups, freak puck bounces, misreading play (moving way too late/early, losing track of puck), leaving an obvious hole, ... You could judge the goalies over this number without any context.
   
2. Normal goals (could-haves) : shots when defense is doing a reasonable job (cutting passing lanes, approaching players), goals from rebounds (at least the cheaper ones), moderate screening, ... This number could be still quite telling of the goalie if related to other stats, like shots against.
   
3. Would-be-great-to-have (stoppable only on statistical basis) : breakaways, defense screw-ups, 2 on 1, deflections, shots after fast cross ice passes, shots through traffic, ... An elite goalie would be expected to stop some percentage of these shots, but not any one of them in particular. And since there is no way to evaluate this percentage with our data and the absolute number would be heavily determined by the team's defense, I would definitely keep this category separate. (And Ovechkin/Stamkos on the point with all the time and space to place his shot is certainly in this category in my book.)

Imho, category 1 would separate the lame and quirky ones. Category 2 could separate the good from the meh (the team defense would affect the number but you can argue that a great goalie should deal with it). Category 3 seems really to be really more related to the team defense rather than goalie alone.

 

[geosh761]

Looking at it now, what you're doing is not so different to what I mention, after all. I think we just have one big difference in how we look at things.
It seems to me that to decide whether a shot is stoppable, you look a lot at its placement the moment it goes into the net. To me, that's not all that relevant, I'm really looking at what's happening on the ice the moment just before the play/shot is made and asking myself, to what extent I would expect a save/goal. I consider how much time/space/position the scorer has, whether the goalie can focus just on him or whether he has to consider passes, whether the goalie is in position (if not, whether it's his fault and whether he can be expected to move quick enough).

I'll try to give you a few arguments, why I use the criteria I use, take them or leave them:

• Principially, I believe that to compare something across the league, the basic idea should be as high-level and non-arbitrarily as possible. To me, the three categories in my previous post would translate as 1) How often does the goalie screw up? 2) How many goals does he get from 'normal' plays? 3) How many goals does he get when the defense is not there. Sure, the interpretation is still subjective as hell, but, to exaggerate a little, it prevents a goalie falling into one category if he gets more goals through his glove side and another if he gets scored on through stick side.
  
• Giving too much importance to the shot placement, you could introduce some kind of bias. When you distinguish between glove/stick, far/short, etc., what if there's a goalie that actually has preferences that you wouldn't expect?
• The shot placement is likely to even-out throughout the league over the season. If not, perhaps the goalie has some weakness that the opposing teams are exploiting or he has some particular style of positioning. You don't want to filter that out.
  
• The on-ice situation is closely related to the team's defense. That is not likely to even out over the year and you do want to filter it out.
  
• The on-ice situation is probably easier to assess than shot placement, perhaps making the study more sustainable over the long term?

That being said, I also see why you're doing what you're doing. Perhaps I should just start logging that myself in parallel, once I find some time.

PS: How do you actually store the information, practically? You keep some kind of database? Spreadsheets? You get to download a list of goals somewhere or you're filling in by hand? Also, your experience may vary, but I really prefer to watch the recaps on youtube rather than nhl.com (for me faster loading, better buffering, easier navigation with keyboard arrows...).

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

I applaud this level of study but also leads me to ask one question: will somewhere in the stats reflect a goalie's ability to 'erase' or 'steal' unstoppable shots that should have been goals?

That eye-test quality often seems to be the difference between solid goalies and Vezina Finalists, so being able to quantify that would seem to be useful in evaluating IMO.

Honestly, if you just polled HF on every single goal, with a wide agreement on the criteria and consistent voters among every poll, I reckon you'd get some pretty solid results. Obviously that isn't practical but just throwing that out there.

 

[Michael Farkas]

To be fair, if the vast majority of HF knew the score, there wouldn't be such a great need for this...

You could assemble a reasonable panel of people that know the game, that would be fine...but opening it up to the "public", as it were, is exactly the opposite of what you want. Sorry to sound like a clown, but that popular vote won't work.