The Quality Of Goaltending

[Alastair_LighT]

The Quality of Goaltending:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- Near Impossible (NI) to save goal (the goalie would have to perform a highlight reel save to keep it out): 0.5 points.

- Hard (H) to save goal (the goalie would have to come up with a big save to keep it out): ........................ 1 point.

- Medium (M) difficulty to save goal (the goalie aught to have this about 80% of the time): ....................... 2 points.

- Weak (W) goal (the goalie aught to save this about 95%+ of the time): ................................................ 4 points.

- The maximum number of points a goalie can get in one game is 10.

- If a lop sided majority of fans think a goal deserves another ranking other than the rank I gave it the ranking of the goal will be changed.

- In the event that a game goes to overtime or a shootout the game will only count as 1 full game.

- In the event that a goalie gets injured, pulled, or replaces the other goalie, the general rule of thumb is that the goalie's points will be averaged over 3 periods (for example, if he had 2 points in 1 period, and then got injured, his point total for the game would be 6 points) and the game will count as one full game. However, exceptions may be made if for example the goalie plays 5 minutes of the game, has a shutout, and then gets injured. This would be a time where I would just ignore the 5 minutes played.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here are some typical games:

1W 3M ..... = 10+ points (horrific game)

1W 2M 1H. = 9 points (terrible game)

1W 2M ..... = 8 points (very bad game)

1W 1M 1H. = 7 points (bad game)

2M 2H ..... = 6 points (so-so game)

2M 1H ..... = 5 points (pretty good game)

2M .......... = 4 points (good game)

1M 1H...... = 3 points (very good game)

1M .......... = 2 points (excellent game)

1H .......... = 1 point (outstanding game)

1NI.......... = 0.5 points (stellar game)

Shutout ... = 0 points (perfect game)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Current Goaltending Quality Since March 1 2010:

Jaroslav Halak: 3.33 points (very good goaltending)

Carey Price: 5.00 points (pretty good goaltending)

Jaroslav Halak against the Boston Bruins on Saturday March 13 2010:

Goal #1: H -----> 1 point

Goal #2: H -----> 1 point

Total: 2.00 points (excellent game)

GAA: 2.00

Sv%: 0.913 (21/23 saves)

Average Total Since March 1 2010: 3.33 points (very good goaltending)

Jaroslav Halak against the Edmonton Oilers on Thursday March 11 2010:

Goal #1: M -----> 2 points

Goal #2: W -----> 4 points

Goal #3: W -----> 4 points

Goal #4: W -----> 4 points

Total: 10.00+ points (horrific game)

GAA: 3.69

Sv%: 0.840 (21/25 saves)

Shootout Sv%: 1.000 (5/5 saves)

Average Total Since March 1 2010: 3.60 points (good goaltending)

Jaroslav Halak against the Tampa Bay Lightnight on Tuesday March 9 2010:

Goal #1: NI -----> 0.5 points

Goal #2: H -----> 1 point

Goal #3: M -----> 2 points

Total: 3.50 points (good game)

GAA: 3.00

Sv%: 0.903 (28/31 saves)

Average Total Since March 1 2010: 2.00 points (excellent goaltending)

Jaroslav Halak against the Anaheim Ducks on Sunday March 7 2010:

Total: 0.00 points (perfect game)

GAA: 0.00

Sv%: 1.000 (21/21 saves)

Shootout Sv%: 0.750 (3/4 saves)

Average Total Since March 1 2010: 1.50 points (outstanding goaltending)

Carey Price against the Anaheim Ducks on Sunday March 7 2010:

Goal #1: W -----> 4 points

Goal #2: M -----> 2 points

Goal #3: W -----> 4 points

Total: 10.00+ points (horrific game)

GAA: 9.00

Sv%: 0.727 (8/11 saves)

Average Total Since March 1 2010: 5.00 points (pretty good goaltending)

Jaroslav Halak against the Los Angeles Kings on Saturday March 6 2010:

Goal #1: H -----> 1 point

Goal #2: M -----> 2 points

Total: 3.00 points (very good game)

GAA: 2.00

Sv%: 0.920 (23/25 saves)

Average Total Since March 1 2010: 3.00 points (very good goaltending)

Carey Price against the San Jose Sharks on Thursday March 4 2010:

Goal #1: H -----> 1 point

Goal #2: M -----> 2 points

Goal #3: H -----> 1 point

Total: 4.00 points (good game)

GAA: 3.05

Sv%: 0.925 (37/40 saves)

Average Total Since March 1 2010: 3.00 points (very good goaltending)

Carey Price against the Boston Bruins on Tuesday March 2 2010:

Goal #1: M -----> 2 points

Total: 2.00 points (excellent game)

GAA: 1.00

Sv%: 0.958 (23/24 saves)

Average Total Since March 1 2010: 2.00 points (excellent goaltending)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the remainder of the NHL season I am going to make a post about the quality of goaltending. The statistic "Average Total Since March 1 2010" means the goalie's average number of points he has acquired in NHL games played since March 1 2010. Some nights I work late so I won't be able to post the statistics until the next day.

[Alastair_LighT]

To all admins:

I've been given permission to post this although I'm not 100% sure this is the correct location for it. If not please let me know.

[roy_133]

lol this stat again...

It's flawed. It ignores the quality of saves a goalie makes on any given start and just subjectively credits them based on quality of goals. I'd like to see you justify this as telling us anything about the overall performance without factoring in the kinds of saves a goalie made.

So basically all you're doing it posting whether or not you thought the goal was weak. I mean it doesn't bother me but I can start my own thread with this same premise and do the samething and have totally different results then you. The point of stats is to take away objectiveness, not add more to the equation.

[JHaul]

lol this stat again...

It's flawed. It ignores the quality of saves a goalie makes on any given start and just subjectively credits them based on quality of goals. I'd like to see you justify this as telling us anything about the overall performance without factoring in the kinds of saves a goalie made.

So basically all you're doing it posting whether or not you thought the goal was weak. I mean it doesn't bother me but I can start my own thread with this same premise and do the samething and have totally different results then you. The point of stats is to take away objectiveness, not add more to the equation.

Can anyone start their own system and get their own threads too? I do'nt understand this AT ALL. The board is going to get all kinds of messy with threads for all the new "stats" people will be inventing.

[Alastair_LighT]

lol this stat again...

It's flawed. It ignores the quality of saves a goalie makes on any given start and just subjectively credits them based on quality of goals. I'd like to see you justify this as telling us anything about the overall performance without factoring in the kinds of saves a goalie made.

So basically all you're doing it posting whether or not you thought the goal was weak. I mean it doesn't bother me but I can start my own thread with this same premise and do the samething and have totally different results then you. The point of stats is to take away objectiveness, not add more to the equation.

GAA has its flaws (but it's a fact).

Sv% has its flaws (but it's a fact).

Quality of goaltending has it's flaws (but it's an opinion).

The way I look at it is it's just one more statistic to take into consideration to evaluate the goalie's performance, and although it's based on opinion (and not fact), I think that over a large sample size it will give pretty accurate results to how well the goalie truly performed. Maybe if I find the time & energy I'll go back and do this for the entire season.

One of the major concern I think people have is the following example:

What if a goalie faced 100 shots in one game and allowed 7 H goals. Are you telling me he played a very bad game? His save percent was 0.930. You've got to be kidding me!

My response:

Although you're absolutely right that there's no way he played a very bad game in this case there's also no realisitic chance of this happening. Also, if the statistic fails us 3 or 4 games out of 82 who really cares anyway? GAA and Sv% fail us at least 3 times per 82 games, probably a lot more. Statistics are going to lie sometimes, but as I've said, over a large sample size I believe this statistic will give accurate results.

Can anyone start their own system and get their own threads too? I do'nt understand this AT ALL. The board is going to get all kinds of messy with threads for all the new "stats" people will be inventing.

I've been given permission to post this. Anyone else who wants to post something will also have to get permission from an administrator so hopefully things won't get messy at all

[roy_133]

GAA has its flaws (but it's a fact).

Sv% has its flaws (but it's a fact).

Quality of goaltending has it's flaws (but it's an opinion).

The way I look at it is it's just one more statistic to take into consideration to evaluate the goalie's performance, and although it's based on opinion (and not fact), I think that over a large sample size it will give pretty accurate results to how well the goalie truly performed. Maybe if I find the time & energy I'll go back and do this for the entire season.

I've always loved stats in sports, probably from being a baseball fan (baseball is so far ahead of hockey in statistical analysis) and the reason I love stats is to take away objectivity in sports, of which there is plenty. All I see here is you basically saying which goals are or are not weak in your opinion and I fail to see how that's a stat. I'm not trying to be mean because I like you as a poster but this just doesn't make any sense to me, especially warranting it's own thread.

And over a large sample size it will not give accurate results because it will still just be your opinion, filled with a high margin for error with plenty of room for bias and just flat out subjectivity. Even if we were to take your opinion as gospel or fact it will wouldn't give us results as to how well the goalie performed because it's completely ignoring quality of saves which is atleast as important of a measuring stick.

One of the major concern I think people have is the following example:

What if a goalie faced 100 shots in one game and allowed 7 H goals. Are you telling me he played a very bad game? His save percent was 0.930. You've got to be kidding me!

My response:

Although you're absolutely right that there's no way he played a very bad game in this case there's also no realisitic chance of this happening. Also, if the statistic fails us 3 or 4 games out of 82 who really cares anyway? GAA and Sv% fail us at least 3 times per 82 games, probably a lot more. Statistics are going to lie sometimes, but as I've said, over a large sample size I believe this statistic will give accurate results.

lol that example is intentionally extreme so you can blow it off as unrealistic in your response.

Let's say Halak plays Tuesday, is peppered with high quality shots making several key saves early, gives up a "medium" goal midway through the game and misplays a puck in the 3rd that's a weak goal. We win 4-2, Halak made several great saves all night (which you completely disregard) and his score is a 6, which is just so-so. IMO he played very well because he made high quality stops.

I have a real game from this year. Carey vs Philly, we gave up under 17 shots, 1 goal on a Briere breakaway so he had a great GAA, great SV% and would have have what classified as an outstanding game when he simply just did his job.

It's not that rare, it happens all the time. You want to have a serious stat you need to get back to the drawing board and make sure the next one includes quality of stops made.

[Alastair_LighT]

I have a real game from this year. Carey vs Philly, we gave up under 17 shots, 1 goal on a Briere breakaway so he had a great GAA, great SV% and would have have what classified as an outstanding game when he simply just did his job.

It's not that rare, it happens all the time. You want to have a serious stat you need to get back to the drawing board and make sure the next one includes quality of stops made.

In response to your real example of Price vs the Flyers:

GAA, Save %, and The Quality of Goaltending all over rate his play in this game. This is because any stat system (even GAA and Sv%) can fail us over a small sample size.

In response to "You want to have a serious stat you need to get back to the drawing board and make sure the next one includes quality of stops made":

- Lets say that we invented a stat system that rated each shot a goalie faced on a scale from 1-10.

- Lets say that in one particular game Halak faces 30 shots with an average difficulty rating of 3.7.

- Lets say Price plays the next game and faces 33 shots at an average difficulty of 4.4.

- Lets say according to the quality of goaltending Halak and Price's scores were both 4.0 in these two games.

Who played better? The answer is Price, although the quality of goaltending fails to admit this, it claims they played equal.

So therefore the quality of goaltending is a bad stat right? Wrong, and here's why:

Since Halak and Price play for the same team with the same defence and the same offence one could expect that if the average difficulty rating of each shot for Halak is a 4.0 then the average difficulty of Price aught to be a 4.0 +/- 0.2 over an 82 game sample size.

Conclusion:

The fact that my system does not incorporate Average Shot Quality doesn't matter since my system is only being applied to two goalies who play on the same team, thus over a large sample size each goalie aught to face virtually the exact same Average Shot Quality. The quality of goaltending could not be applied to compare Brodeur, Price, and Halak without using two systems, namely:

- The Quality of Goaltending, &

- Average Shot Quality

I'll say this one more time for emphasis. Since Price and Halak play on the same team one could expect that over a large sample size each goalie should face roughly the same Average Shot Quality.

I will admit that my system is not overly useful over a small sample size but over an large sample size it should tell people exactly which goalie played better and by how much.

[roy_133]

A. Just because they play on the same team does not mean they face the same quality of shots. Yes, over time it will begin to even out but we're talking about over hundreds of games for it to become a usable sample size in that case, not 41 each per season. There's extreme margin for error in that and I think you know that.

All legitimate shot quality stats I've seen dismiss what you're saying and so does simple logic in regards to sample size. The room for error is extremely high.

B. that's ignoring the major flaw in the stat, subjectivity. It's basically at your discretion whether or not a goal was weak. You saw how many people disagreed with you ratings in the first place. To even begin to have this stat taken seriously you need to completely eliminate the subjectivity and bring a hard set of rules to define each goal. That aught to be real fun and tedious (to do it right).

I mean really, what if I created a stat that was measuring quality of shots faced per game, I continually scored Halak very low and Price very high. Would you take me the least bit seriously?

[Alastair_LighT]

A. Just because they play on the same team does not mean they face the same quality of shots. Yes, over time it will begin to even out but we're talking about over hundreds of games for it to become a usable sample size in that case, not 41 each per season. There's extreme margin for error in that and I think you know that.

All legitimate shot quality stats I've seen dismiss what you're saying and so does simple logic in regards to sample size. The room for error is extremely high.

B. that's ignoring the major flaw in the stat, subjectivity. It's basically at your discretion whether or not a goal was weak. You saw how many people disagreed with you ratings in the first place. To even begin to have this stat taken seriously you need to completely eliminate the subjectivity and bring a hard set of rules to define each goal. That aught to be real fun and tedious (to do it right).

I mean really, what if I created a stat that was measuring quality of shots faced per game, I continually scored Halak very low and Price very high. Would you take me the least bit seriously?

In response to part A:

I admit there's margin for error in a 82 game sample size but I think it's a big enough sample size that it will even out pretty fairly. I honestly believe the Average Shot Quality for Price and Halak will be very close over a 82 game sample size (41 for each give or take).

In response to part B:

I added a clause in the fine print (see the very first post in this thread) that states that if there is an overwhelming amount of opposition to one of my opinions I will change the quality of that goal since obviously I must be wrong if everyone else is disagreeing with me and no one is supporting me. This hopefully removes a lot of the subjectivity (although I need fans of my stat so that they can call me out when I make a mistake).

My dream is the make the quality of goaltending not my statistic but rather the forum's statisitic. Chances are my dream won't come true, but maybe some people will really enjoy reading what I have to say and start supporting it. I hope that you and others visit this page regularly and let me know if you think I should "upgrade" or "downgrade" the quality of a goal so that the stat can be ours and not mine alone.

PS: I upgraded the goal everyone was complaining about from W to M if you scroll through and find the game of Price vs the Ducks.

[roy_133]

Alastair you know I like you, we've exchanged PMs and my like/respect for you is why I feel comfortable debating this with you as I am but I think if you want this to be more then just a "stat" that is subjectively telling people whether or not you thought goals were weak you need to add more. You need to incorporate some shot quality to it and then you'll be on the right path. If you really want to get into it you can PM me/email me and I'll let you know the kind of thing I have in mind. I feel bad about derailing your thread with my objections so like I said, you have my email if you want to continue and get some suggestions.

[mtl1010]

^

nice professional debate up there

anyways, i'm not gonna say whether this stat is proper or not but this stat does intrest me... and ill be seeing what you put as the season goes along

[LeafsDog]

I've always loved stats in sports, probably from being a baseball fan (baseball is so far ahead of hockey in statistical analysis) and the reason I love stats is to take away objectivity in sports, of which there is plenty. All I see here is you basically saying which goals are or are not weak in your opinion and I fail to see how that's a stat. I'm not trying to be mean because I like you as a poster but this just doesn't make any sense to me, especially warranting it's own thread.

And over a large sample size it will not give accurate results because it will still just be your opinion, filled with a high margin for error with plenty of room for bias and just flat out subjectivity. Even if we were to take your opinion as gospel or fact it will wouldn't give us results as to how well the goalie performed because it's completely ignoring quality of saves which is atleast as important of a measuring stick.

lol that example is intentionally extreme so you can blow it off as unrealistic in your response.

Let's say Halak plays Tuesday, is peppered with high quality shots making several key saves early, gives up a "medium" goal midway through the game and misplays a puck in the 3rd that's a weak goal. We win 4-2, Halak made several great saves all night (which you completely disregard) and his score is a 6, which is just so-so. IMO he played very well because he made high quality stops.

I have a real game from this year. Carey vs Philly, we gave up under 17 shots, 1 goal on a Briere breakaway so he had a great GAA, great SV% and would have have what classified as an outstanding game when he simply just did his job.

It's not that rare, it happens all the time. You want to have a serious stat you need to get back to the drawing board and make sure the next one includes quality of stops made.

I was there

[Alastair_LighT]

Alastair you know I like you, we've exchanged PMs and my like/respect for you is why I feel comfortable debating this with you as I am but I think if you want this to be more then just a "stat" that is subjectively telling people whether or not you thought goals were weak you need to add more. You need to incorporate some shot quality to it and then you'll be on the right path. If you really want to get into it you can PM me/email me and I'll let you know the kind of thing I have in mind. I feel bad about derailing your thread with my objections so like I said, you have my email if you want to continue and get some suggestions.

Here's what I've got so far:

- Allow other people to recommend their opinion of the goals and if the majority of people disagree with the rank I gave it I'll change the goal's rank.

- Since both goalies play for the same team I am making the assumption (although it won't be perfect) that the Average Shot Quality will be equal for both goalies.

- I'd be interested to hear of any other ideas you happen to have.

One thing I have to say is that I only have a limited amount of time for this stuff. The quality of goaltending currently takes me 10 minutes or less to update after each game. I don't know if I'm willing to put hours and hours into this since I've got a lot of other things going on in my life and just do this for fun.

^

nice professional debate up there

anyways, i'm not gonna say whether this stat is proper or not but this stat does intrest me... and ill be seeing what you put as the season goes along

Awesome! You're very welcome here and I'm glad you like it

I was there

I think they needed to play that game with 2 pucks instead of just 1 to get more shots on goal lol

[gracie12]

- Allow other people to recommend their opinion of the goals and if the majority of people disagree with the rank I gave it I'll change the goal's rank.

this is still going to be a completely subjective end-result (you're asking people with varying degrees of expertise and available information - ie some will have seen it first hand, some on tv, some on highlights - and some, not at all, although they will still vote to support their favorite goalie). That said, its still a start.

- Since both goalies play for the same team I am making the assumption (although it won't be perfect) that the Average Shot Quality will be equal for both goalies.

Its a flawed assumption. Teams often play differently in front of different goalies. In fact, coaches will often tell players to play differently (ie. block shots for this goalie vs. keep the shooting lanes open for that goalie). Just go back & look at any backup when Roy was our #1 - they all had less shots per game & often less quality shots against per game. Roy wanted shots - and lots of them - as long as his dmen were there & ready to clear the rebound. Guys like Racicot and Hayward did not face the same type of shots - therefore it stands to reason, shot quality was different.

One thing I have to say is that I only have a limited amount of time for this stuff. The quality of goaltending currently takes me 10 minutes or less to update after each game. I don't know if I'm willing to put hours and hours into this since I've got a lot of other things going on in my life and just do this for fun.

This is reasonable, but you cant have it both ways.

You cant say "i want to develop this whole new stat and make it legitimate...but only if it takes me very little time" lol. If you truly want your stat/thread to take off, you need to invest time in it. If you dont want to, thats fine - and understandable, but be aware there really is no middle ground on this one.

[ruuvimeisseli]

The perfect goalie stat imo would be: A mix of S% (shot quality), Sv% (save percentage), GAA (Goals against average).

You stat is bias because it does not have shot quality, all the possiblities like 1 easy, 2 easy and coaching styles (like New jersey vs Toronto vs San jose)

[roy_133]

Also, I forgot to mention that not only is assuming shot quality an issue because of sample size but also because of opposition. Yes, the same team plays in front of both guys but they have had relatively significant differences in strength of schedule so that's another factor that needs to be accounted for.

For quality of shots to begin to even out you're going to need hundreds of games for each guy as a workable sample size I would imagine.

[Alastair_LighT]

jedimaas, 31Careyprice, roy_133,

Thank you all for your feedback. I agree with everything you guys have said but I haven't thought of a way to determine Average Shot Quality, especially when I can't even watch every game. Tonight I only caught the second half of the third period since I was at work.

In response to the three of you I'm interested in hearing any ideas of you guys have but I think for the time being, unless one of you has a brilliant idea, I'm just going to keep doing what I'm doing, and if you like it that's great and if not then that's okay too, no harm done.

With that said, the updated Quality of Goaltending is next

The Quality of Goaltending:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Near Impossible (NI) to save goal (the goalie would have to perform a highlight reel save to keep it out): 0.5 points.

Hard (H) to save goal (the goalie would have to come up with a big save to keep it out): ........................ 1 point.

Medium (M) difficulty to save goal (the goalie aught to have this about 80% of the time): ....................... 2 points.

Weak (W) goal (the goalie aught to save this about 95%+ of the time): ................................................ 4 points.

The maximum number of points a goalie can get in one game is 10.

If a lop sided majority of fans think a goal deserves another ranking other than the rank I gave it the ranking of the goal will be changed.

In the event that a game goes to overtime or a shootout the game will only count as 1 full game.

In the event that a goalie gets injured, pulled, or replaces the other goalie, the general rule of thumb is that the goalie's points will be averaged over 3 periods (for example, if he had 2 points in 1 period, and then got injured, his point total for the game would be 6 points) and the game will count as one full game. However, exceptions may be made if for example the goalie plays 5 minutes of the game, has a shutout, and then gets injured. This would be a time where I would just ignore the 5 minutes played.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here are some typical games:

1W 3M ..... = 10+ points (horrific game)

1W 2M 1H. = 9 points (terrible game)

1W 2M ..... = 8 points (very bad game)

1W 1M 1H. = 7 points (bad game)

2M 2H ..... = 6 points (so-so game)

2M 1H ..... = 5 points (pretty good game)

2M .......... = 4 points (good game)

1M 1H...... = 3 points (very good game)

1M .......... = 2 points (excellent game)

1H .......... = 1 point (outstanding game)

1NI.......... = 0.5 points (stellar game)

Shutout ... = 0 points (perfect game)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Current Goaltending Quality Since March 1 2010:

Jaroslav Halak: 3.11 points (very good goaltending)

Carey Price: 5.00 points (pretty good goaltending)

Jaroslav Halak against the New York Rangers on Tuesday March 16 2010:

Goal #1: M -----> 2 points

Total: 2.00 points (excellent game)

GAA: 2.00

Sv%: 0.950 (19/20 saves)

Average Total Since March 1 2010: 3.11 points (very good goaltending)

Jaroslav Halak against the Boston Bruins on Saturday March 13 2010:

Goal #1: H -----> 1 point

Goal #2: H -----> 1 point

Total: 2.00 points (excellent game)

GAA: 2.00

Sv%: 0.913 (21/23 saves)

Average Total Since March 1 2010: 3.33 points (very good goaltending)

Jaroslav Halak against the Edmonton Oilers on Thursday March 11 2010:

Goal #1: M -----> 2 points

Goal #2: W -----> 4 points

Goal #3: W -----> 4 points

Goal #4: W -----> 4 points

Total: 10.00+ points (horrific game)

GAA: 3.69

Sv%: 0.840 (21/25 saves)

Shootout Sv%: 1.000 (5/5 saves)

Average Total Since March 1 2010: 3.60 points (good goaltending)

Jaroslav Halak against the Tampa Bay Lightnight on Tuesday March 9 2010:

Goal #1: NI -----> 0.5 points

Goal #2: H -----> 1 point

Goal #3: M -----> 2 points

Total: 3.50 points (good game)

GAA: 3.00

Sv%: 0.903 (28/31 saves)

Average Total Since March 1 2010: 2.00 points (excellent goaltending)

Jaroslav Halak against the Anaheim Ducks on Sunday March 7 2010:

Total: 0.00 points (perfect game)

GAA: 0.00

Sv%: 1.000 (21/21 saves)

Shootout Sv%: 0.750 (3/4 saves)

Average Total Since March 1 2010: 1.50 points (outstanding goaltending)

Carey Price against the Anaheim Ducks on Sunday March 7 2010:

Goal #1: W -----> 4 points

Goal #2: M -----> 2 points

Goal #3: W -----> 4 points

Total: 10.00+ points (horrific game)

GAA: 9.00

Sv%: 0.727 (8/11 saves)

Average Total Since March 1 2010: 5.00 points (pretty good goaltending)

Jaroslav Halak against the Los Angeles Kings on Saturday March 6 2010:

Goal #1: H -----> 1 point

Goal #2: M -----> 2 points

Total: 3.00 points (very good game)

GAA: 2.00

Sv%: 0.920 (23/25 saves)

Average Total Since March 1 2010: 3.00 points (very good goaltending)

Carey Price against the San Jose Sharks on Thursday March 4 2010:

Goal #1: H -----> 1 point

Goal #2: M -----> 2 points

Goal #3: H -----> 1 point

Total: 4.00 points (good game)

GAA: 3.05

Sv%: 0.925 (37/40 saves)

Average Total Since March 1 2010: 3.00 points (very good goaltending)

Carey Price against the Boston Bruins on Tuesday March 2 2010:

Goal #1: M -----> 2 points

Total: 2.00 points (excellent game)

GAA: 1.00

Sv%: 0.958 (23/24 saves)

Average Total Since March 1 2010: 2.00 points (excellent goaltending)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the remainder of the NHL season I am going to make a post about the quality of goaltending. The statistic "Average Total Since March 1 2010" means the goalie's average number of points he has acquired in NHL games played since March 1 2010. Some nights I work late so I won't be able to post the statistics until the next day.

[SteenIsThaFuture]

Here's my post on goaltending analytics:

http://hockproject.blogspot.com/2009/12/su...ng-metrics.html

When it comes to goaltending analysis, we tend to hit a bit of a roadblock in the world of statistics. Now anyone who hasn’t gone to Brodeur is a Fraud and seen Philip’s amazing work needs to go immediately; my man CG has nit-picked every aspect of goaltending stats you could imagine. However, goaltending analysis is very hard to do, and the mainstream ideals that have been plugged into how we should do things has really twisted some people’s perception of how to rate a goaltender. Here are the three main goaltending statistics:

1. Wins

2. Goals Against Average (GAA)

3. Save Percentage (SV %)

These are typically the three major metrics you will see come up when a game commences or in any sort of basic goalie stats box or player card. However there are major, major flaws in all three of them that can completely discredit some if not all of their meaning/goals. Let’s start with the easy one, wins.

Nearly every baseball, basketball, hockey or sports statistician knows that a win share metric is the holy grail of their work. To be able to perfectly quantify how much wins a player contributed to their teams’ end of year totals. However it seems in the world of sports, be it pitchers, quarterbacks or in this case goaltenders, people see a position that has a lot of weight, and just sticks them with the “wins” stat rather than understanding they are responsible for a portion of them.

Nobody will deny that goalies are the most important player on the ice, but how important? Are they 20% of the game? 40%? 70%? The latter is obviously false but unless it was something crazy like that, it’s ridiculous to pin a win or loss on a goalie. This argument has been going on forever in baseball and most sensible people have stopped valuing pitchers wins, but it’s a trend that doesn’t seem to be ending anytime soon in hockey.

Even if a goaltender steals a game, absolutely dominates. Fifty saves, many highlight type stops, gets absolutely mauled with high-quality shots; someone still has to score the goal, so therefore did the goalie win the game, or did he win a large portion of the game? When a skater scores a hat-trick and his team is victorious, should he get a win? Also, if a defender allows multiple scoring chances that result in goals and his team is defeated, should he get a loss? This shouldn’t even be a debate, yet wins have become an intricate tool for the mainstream to use to judge goalies.

Overall, wins seem like a cop-out from giving a goalie a true win share.

Also just to do some analysis on the matter, I took the wins standings for goaltenders and matched them up against the SV % rankings of the top twenty net minders. Overall the top twenty goaltenders ranking in SV% were 59 spots higher than their wins rankings, for an average of 2.95 rise per goalie. While SV% isn’t a great, it’s definitely more reliable than wins and if wins were supposed to be a mark of a good goalie, the lack of correlation is embarrassing.

Now onto the next stats, Goals Against Average and Save Percentage today seem to be the go-to stats for analyzing performance, however, doesn’t something seem odd about using two different metrics to try and get the same goal? Here’s the thing firstly with GAA, it’s a metric that solely says the average goals per 60 minutes that went in when that goalie was between the pipes. It doesn’t say whether he the goalie played well or not. As a goalie, we assume less goals=better performance, but that’s not always the case. If a goalie faces less chances then the probability of a goal going in lessens with that.

Why’s this? Well the stat Save Percentage dictates that a goalie will save a certain percentage of shots he faces. So if a goalie is supposed to save 91 % of his shots, if the number of shots varies upwards or downwards then the GAA will vary with that. Think of it as:

GAA= (Shots Against * SV %) /60 minutes

So if GAA isn’t the solution, it must be Save Percentage right? Now that would be correct, except Save Percentage has one major flaw, it says every shot is equal. It values a breakaway as one shot, and a floater from the sideboards as one shot; which it should, because all the stat is trying to accomplish is say what percentage of shots goes in. However is that a fair metric to evaluate a goalie? Obviously not because all teams don’t allow the same quality of shots. There have been numerous work of this by Alan Ryder, Ken Krzywicki, and Chris Boersma amongst others.

Their work isn’t perfect, they use variables like shot distance, type situations etc. and use probability models to determine the percentage of times a shot under those circumstances should go in, however as Alan Ryder told me once in an e-mail,

"There are a number of people who currently find 'shot quality' to be not 'relevant (my words, not theirs), probably because they find it too much work. It is a hell of a lot of work! But it gets you a 10% refinement in your understanding of goaltending/defence (that is only weakly correlated with shots). "

And I think that defines the mantra that hockey statisticians strive by,

“It’s not about being perfect, it’s about being better than before.”

We are years away from having extremely reliant goaltending metrics, because even the advanced ones like Shot Quality are in some ways flawed, and until we get a form of Puck F/X or something like that where we can isolate exact variables it will be hard to pinpoint exact goaltender contribution. However, we are able to some things with goalie stats. Save Percentage tends to be somewhat reliant over a large time frame and Shot Quality gets better every year.

We are on the right track, but we have to know of the weaknesses all these metrics possess and know how to use them to best obtain our goal when objectively analyzing a goalie.

[Zonave]

This is a very neat concept, and I like the idea, but unfortunately it isn't perfect. It is impossible to rule out bias, shot average, and goal average, as these can be very opinionated(especially the unavoidable first issue). I think it is possible to tweak it and make it work very well, but I think it will

A) take more than 1 value to use

take a book to explain it all when it is hammered out.

That said, I like the idea, but I'm afraid it is realistically impossible at this time. I will still try to figure something out though. Everyone loves a puzzle

[Alastair_LighT]

GAA= (Shots Against * SV %) /60 minutes

I think this formula should be:

GAA = (Shots against in one game)*(1.000 - Sv%)*(60 minutes)/(minutes played)

Example:

Suppose a goalie faces 25 shots, allows 3 goals, has Sv% 0.880 (22/25), and plays 59 minutes of the game.

GAA = (25)*(1.000-0.880)*(60/59) = (25)*(0.120)*(60/59) = 3.05

Alternatively to calculate a goalie's GAA for an entire season you would use the formula:

GAA = (Shots against in one season)*(1.000 - Sv%)*(60 minutes)/(minutes played)

Example:

Suppose a goalie faces 1111 shots, allows 86 goals, has Sv% 0.923, and plays 2080 minutes this season.

GAA = (1111)*(1.000-0.923)*(60/2080) = (1111)*(0.077)*(60/2080) = 2.47

Interestingly this last example is Halak's numbers, but the website says his GAA is 2.48... The reason for this is because of rounding. I needed to carry more decimal places to get it exact.

One question for you:

Your post is interesting but it only tells us what the problem is; it doesn't solve the problem. Do you have any suggestions as to how to solve the problem?

I need a clever person to come up with a formula for this! lol

This is a very neat concept, and I like the idea, but unfortunately it isn't perfect. It is impossible to rule out bias, shot average, and goal average, as these can be very opinionated(especially the unavoidable first issue). I think it is possible to tweak it and make it work very well, but I think it will

A) take more than 1 value to use

take a book to explain it all when it is hammered out.

That said, I like the idea, but I'm afraid it is realistically impossible at this time. I will still try to figure something out though. Everyone loves a puzzle

Thanks for your support. If you think of something let me know

[SteenIsThaFuture]

I think this formula should be:

GAA = (Shots against in one game)*(1.000 - Sv%)*(60 minutes)/(minutes played)

Example:

Suppose a goalie faces 25 shots, allows 3 goals, has Sv% 0.880 (22/25), and plays 59 minutes of the game.

GAA = (25)*(1.000-0.880)*(60/59) = (25)*(0.120)*(60/59) = 3.05

Alternatively to calculate a goalie's GAA for an entire season you would use the formula:

GAA = (Shots against in one season)*(1.000 - Sv%)*(60 minutes)/(minutes played)

Example:

Suppose a goalie faces 1111 shots, allows 86 goals, has Sv% 0.923, and plays 2080 minutes this season.

GAA = (1111)*(1.000-0.923)*(60/2080) = (1111)*(0.077)*(60/2080) = 2.47

Interestingly this last example is Halak's numbers, but the website says his GAA is 2.48... The reason for this is because of rounding. I needed to carry more decimal places to get it exact.

That is the formula, by "/60" I meant do a rate formula per 60 minutes, which is what you described in greater detail. I typoed on the 1 - (A- B ) thing for the SV%.

One question for you:

Your post is interesting but it only tells us what the problem is; it doesn't solve the problem. Do you have any suggestions as to how to solve the problem?

I need a clever person to come up with a formula for this! lol

Well actually that was towards the end,

We are years away from having extremely reliant goaltending metrics, because even the advanced ones like Shot Quality are in some ways flawed, and until we get a form of Puck F/X or something like that where we can isolate exact variables it will be hard to pinpoint exact goaltender contribution. However, we are able to some things with goalie stats. Save Percentage tends to be somewhat reliant over a large time frame and Shot Quality gets better every year.

The solution is to use SV% and Shot Quality over large time spans and with reliable data. To further progress, we need to be able to start tracking the puck electronically.

The real solution is there is no solution, unless you want to manually see each shot and record a variable shot quality based on things like shot location, placement, velocity etc. But in reality, watching the goalie is the best solution with an objective, intelligent perspective, or using the aforementioned stats in large chunks. Goalie stats, even SV% in short or medium samples, by just looking at stats, are extremely unreliable. Wins and GAA should be mostly ignored though for reasons I stated. GAA might some slight, slight value in terms of how a goalie's rebound control and puck handling may lower the # of shots he faces, but that's minimal. Wins could only have value if a goalie provides "clutch" value, but in the long run, it usually ends up being so minimal/unimportant and very circumstance based that wins aren't even worth looking at 99.9% of the time.

[Alastair_LighT]

That is the formula, by "/60" I meant do a rate formula per 60 minutes, which is what you described in greater detail. I typoed on the 1 - (A- B ) thing for the SV%.

Well actually that was towards the end,

We are years away from having extremely reliant goaltending metrics, because even the advanced ones like Shot Quality are in some ways flawed, and until we get a form of Puck F/X or something like that where we can isolate exact variables it will be hard to pinpoint exact goaltender contribution. However, we are able to some things with goalie stats. Save Percentage tends to be somewhat reliant over a large time frame and Shot Quality gets better every year.

The solution is to use SV% and Shot Quality over large time spans and with reliable data. To further progress, we need to be able to start tracking the puck electronically.

The real solution is there is no solution, unless you want to manually see each shot and record a variable shot quality based on things like shot location, placement, velocity etc. But in reality, watching the goalie is the best solution with an objective, intelligent perspective, or using the aforementioned stats in large chunks. Goalie stats, even SV% in short or medium samples, by just looking at stats, are extremely unreliable. Wins and GAA should be mostly ignored though for reasons I stated. GAA might some slight, slight value in terms of how a goalie's rebound control and puck handling may lower the # of shots he faces, but that's minimal. Wins could only have value if a goalie provides "clutch" value, but in the long run, it usually ends up being so minimal/unimportant and very circumstance based that wins aren't even worth looking at 99.9% of the time.

First bolded part:

What does Puck F/X mean?

Second bolded part:

Shot Quality is a tough stat to get. It would be reasonable enough to assign some value to a shot from the blue line that took a deflection... but what about goals that are scored from rebounds with like 6 guys within a 2 metre radius of the goal? lol.. It's tough I think you're right that watching the goalie is really the only answer.

Third bolded part:

This third bolded portion in a way supports the Quality of Goaltending in as much as although I don't take the entire game into consideration I do take the goals the goalie allows into consideration and based on how I felt about the goals I assign a value to them. This is good news since you say "watching the goalie is the best solution with an objective, intelligent perspective". To improve my system you will no doubt recommend I watch more than just the goals... What specifically would you recommend I watch? And how would I assign a value to it?

[SteenIsThaFuture]

First bolded part:

What does Puck F/X mean?

In baseball we have something called Pitch F/X, it allows us to see what velocity a pitcher throws the ball at, where it lands, how much movement it has, what arm slot it came out of. We now have Hit F/X which tracks the velocity a hitter hits the ball at, how far it goes, the arc it goes at and what amount of time it takes to land.

In hockey, it would let you track shot velocity, exact place it came from, and exact place it went to. So ex:

Malkin shoots puck from coordinates (X,Y) at 75 MPH to coordinate (X,Y) of target, being the net. This kind of technology, which again does exist as it's in baseball, would allow us to take Shot Quality and many other advanced stats up by about 100 notches.

Second bolded part:

Shot Quality is a tough stat to get. It would be reasonable enough to assign some value to a shot from the blue line that took a deflection... but what about goals that are scored from rebounds with like 6 guys within a 2 metre radius of the goal? lol.. It's tough I think you're right that watching the goalie is really the only answer.

http://hockeystats.no-ip.org:81/goalies.php?id=2

Click SQN% for it, although I don't like that site as much as this one.

http://hockeyanalytics.com/Research_files/...9-Krzywicki.pdf

Mainly bc that SQ takes out rink bias, and I like his variables more than the former, althought the former runs throughout the season and the latter is updated post-season.

They have been able to take into account rebounds, using a time variable. After Shot A, if Shot B comes within <2 seconds, we assume it's a rebound or 2nd chance of some sort.

It's not perfect by any means, but I explained my stance on that in my first post.

Third bolded part:

This third bolded portion in a way supports the Quality of Goaltending in as much as although I don't take the entire game into consideration, I do take the goals the goalie allows into consideration, and based on how I felt about the goals, I assign a value to them. This is good news since you say "watching the goalie is the best solution with an objective, intelligent perspective". To improve my system, you will no doubt recommend I watch more than just the goals... What specifically would you recommend I watch? And how would I assign a value to it?

The fault is yes, only using goals. I really don't mind using subjectivity with no better option present, as long as the person doing it is objective and intelligent in general and for hockey means. Using only goals though, you use the GAA theory, which as explained previously is very flawed, to the point it should be obscured. Teams who allow low amounts of chances will give goalies a good QOG according to your system, basically the Brodeur effect.

If you want to perfect your analysis, you would have to do it shot by shot. Doing it on a 10 point basis may be too difficult/complicated, maybe do a system like this:

Option A: Easy shot to stop, should be made 95-97% of the time.

Option B: Average difficulty stop, should be made 88-91% of the time

Option C: Difficult stop, should be made 75-77% of the time.

And assign a point value per option.

The percentages don't matter, but what would be hard for you would be to porperly seperate those categories.

What I think you can do which is a little simpler, is measure the two extremes, as in saveable shots missed and quality chances saved. The first portion is a errors analysis. Something I and a journalist in Edmonton have devised, an FAQ is available here:

http://communities.canada.com/edmontonjour...rrors-stat.aspx

With details on the goalie portion here:

Goalies are most commonly assigned errors if they give up a juicy rebound, fail to stop a shot that an NHL goalie would be expected to stop, or fail to clear the puck properly, and a goal against is scored as a result.

NHL goalies stop nine out of ten shots, so we know that on the vast majority of shots, a goalie should make the save.

Generally, a goalie isn't handed an error if a hard shot comes in the kill-zone, the slot area, even if the goalie has a clear, unobstructed view of the shot. Shots from the slot area are extremely hard to stop.

However, if the shot from the slot is a weak one, or the goalie is badly out of position, if he falls down or make some other obvious mistake, he will be assigned an error.

On difficult shots from the slot, goalies are doing a damn fine job just to stop the initial blast. So they're not expected to kick the rebound into the corner, out of the danger area, and if there's a goal on such a rebound, it's not generally considered an error.

On shots from the point, however, or from outside, goalies are expected to kick rebounds into safe areas, or not to give up any rebound at all. When an NHL goalie is on his game, he will do just that. So if he does give up a rebound on a less difficult shot, and if a goal is scored, the goalie is assigned an error.

On most shots, one thing we look for is whether or not the shot goes in in off the post or near the post. If there's a hard shot that rings in off the post, a perfect shot, the goalie is often not given an error, unless that shot comes is a floater, or it comes from center ice. If the puck finds its way in and it's not an excellent shot, chances are that it's an error, that the goalie wasn't in the right spot at the right time.

More on how to assign errors in the link I gave you.

Part two would be to take scoring chances, anothe subjectively taken stat, and take a Scoring Chance SV% for the goaltender. My friend Olivier does this is at his blog for all players for the Habs.

http://enattendantlesnordiques.blogspot.com/

It's in French, but he speaks English, if you ask for the goalie stats he'll give em to you if you said I referred you (you can say Moneypuck). Obvious issue with SC is like with SQ, is not all SC are created equal, however it's the exterem and the goal prevention we're trying to get, so we have to live with the issue.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

With all that you'll have the two extremes, what the goalie prevented and what he allowed. You'll be missing the median, but as of now using subjective stats, that's the best system I can advise that doesn't require an extreme amount of work. The best part is the errors can be found on highlights, and the SC are tracked by others already.

Cheers.

[Alastair_LighT]

In baseball we have something called Pitch F/X, it allows us to see what velocity a pitcher throws the ball at, where it lands, how much movement it has, what arm slot it came out of. We now have Hit F/X which tracks the velocity a hitter hits the ball at, how far it goes, the arc it goes at and what amount of time it takes to land.

In hockey, it would let you track shot velocity, exact place it came from, and exact place it went to. So ex:

Malkin shoots puck from coordinates (X,Y) at 75 MPH to coordinate (X,Y) of target, being the net. This kind of technology, which again does exist as it's in baseball, would allow us to take Shot Quality and many other advanced stats up by about 100 notches.

http://hockeystats.no-ip.org:81/goalies.php?id=2

Click SQN% for it, although I don't like that site as much as this one.

http://hockeyanalytics.com/Research_files/...9-Krzywicki.pdf

Mainly bc that SQ takes out rink bias, and I like his variables more than the former, althought the former runs throughout the season and the latter is updated post-season.

They have been able to take into account rebounds, using a time variable. After Shot A, if Shot B comes within <2 seconds, we assume it's a rebound or 2nd chance of some sort.

It's not perfect by any means, but I explained my stance on that in my first post.

The fault is yes, only using goals. I really don't mind using subjectivity with no better option present, as long as the person doing it is objective and intelligent in general and for hockey means. Using only goals though, you use the GAA theory, which as explained previously is very flawed, to the point it should be obscured. Teams who allow low amounts of chances will give goalies a good QOG according to your system, basically the Brodeur effect.

If you want to perfect your analysis, you would have to do it shot by shot. Doing it on a 10 point basis may be too difficult/complicated, maybe do a system like this:

Option A: Easy shot to stop, should be made 95-97% of the time.

Option B: Average difficulty stop, should be made 88-91% of the time

Option C: Difficult stop, should be made 75-77% of the time.

And assign a point value per option.

The percentages don't matter, but what would be hard for you would be to porperly seperate those categories.

What I think you can do which is a little simpler, is measure the two extremes, as in saveable shots missed and quality chances saved. The first portion is a errors analysis. Something I and a journalist in Edmonton have devised, an FAQ is available here:

http://communities.canada.com/edmontonjour...rrors-stat.aspx

With details on the goalie portion here:

Goalies are most commonly assigned errors if they give up a juicy rebound, fail to stop a shot that an NHL goalie would be expected to stop, or fail to clear the puck properly, and a goal against is scored as a result.

NHL goalies stop nine out of ten shots, so we know that on the vast majority of shots, a goalie should make the save.

Generally, a goalie isn't handed an error if a hard shot comes in the kill-zone, the slot area, even if the goalie has a clear, unobstructed view of the shot. Shots from the slot area are extremely hard to stop.

However, if the shot from the slot is a weak one, or the goalie is badly out of position, if he falls down or make some other obvious mistake, he will be assigned an error.

On difficult shots from the slot, goalies are doing a damn fine job just to stop the initial blast. So they're not expected to kick the rebound into the corner, out of the danger area, and if there's a goal on such a rebound, it's not generally considered an error.

On shots from the point, however, or from outside, goalies are expected to kick rebounds into safe areas, or not to give up any rebound at all. When an NHL goalie is on his game, he will do just that. So if he does give up a rebound on a less difficult shot, and if a goal is scored, the goalie is assigned an error.

On most shots, one thing we look for is whether or not the shot goes in in off the post or near the post. If there's a hard shot that rings in off the post, a perfect shot, the goalie is often not given an error, unless that shot comes is a floater, or it comes from center ice. If the puck finds its way in and it's not an excellent shot, chances are that it's an error, that the goalie wasn't in the right spot at the right time.

More on how to assign errors in the link I gave you.

Part two would be to take scoring chances, anothe subjectively taken stat, and take a Scoring Chance SV% for the goaltender. My friend Olivier does this is at his blog for all players for the Habs.

http://enattendantlesnordiques.blogspot.com/

It's in French, but he speaks English, if you ask for the goalie stats he'll give em to you if you said I referred you (you can say Moneypuck). Obvious issue with SC is like with SQ, is not all SC are created equal, however it's the exterem and the goal prevention we're trying to get, so we have to live with the issue.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

With all that you'll have the two extremes, what the goalie prevented and what he allowed. You'll be missing the median, but as of now using subjective stats, that's the best system I can advise that doesn't require an extreme amount of work. The best part is the errors can be found on highlights, and the SC are tracked by others already.

Cheers.

Wow this is awesome. I can't believe I found someone who knows so much about all this lol I'll definitely read up on this stuff when I get some free time, maybe not this weekend but the one after that.

[Zonave]

So far, I have found 5 variables that need to be thought about:

1)goal difficulty(how easy the save would have been)

2)save difficulty(how easy the save was)

3)Clutch(making timely saves is important-for example, that pretty much defines Brodeur)

4)Goal differential(If your team is up 6-1, you will play differently than if it is 1-1)

5)Defensive help(for example, how many times did Hal Gill leave Price or Halak stranded)

I might have a potential formula-type thing, but it is complicated, and there may be kinks I am unaware of. It is a process. When you look at this, keep in mind the fact that every goal will have a value of 1-10 and every save has a value of 1-10. You can multiply these together to get a value between 1 and 100, the higher it is, the better a goalie is.

Evaluate every save(i know, a taxing process), giving it a value of 1-10(decimals ARE OK). Now, for each save, determine the timeliness(or clutch level) of the save. Write it down for after the game. Give it a value between 1 and 5(keep in mind whole number values will be easier to work with). 5 is the best possible time to make that save, like in overtime in game 7. Also, write a value between 1 and 5 for defensive help(same tip applies as with timeliness). If the defense left the goalie stranded, the value is a 5. After the game, look at each shot and its "help and time" values. These will be weighted. The weighting system is the exact same as used for grades, when say the homework is 30% of the grade, and the test is 70%. If you don't understand, I will explain it. So, you weight each shot by the difficulty and the weight values. You should get an average between 1 and 10, and it should tell how easy the goalies saves were, or how hard they were.

For example, lets say Halak makes 5 saves a game. His saves' difficulty and weights are listed below.

Diff Time Defense

5 2 3

7 1 3

2 1 1

8 3 5

4 2 4

Okay. So for shot 1, It is a five. It counts as 2 shots of a five and 3 shots as a five due to the weights. Similarily, shot 2 is 4 shots of 7, shot 3 is 2 shots of 2, shot 4 is 8 shots of 8, and shot 5 is 6 shots of 4. Multiply the shot difficulty by the total weight and add the five shots together. Then divide that number by the total number of the weights. So, the equation for saves is:

[(5x5)+(7x4)+(2x2)+(8x8)+(4x6)]/[5+4+2+8+6]=5.8 overall save performance

For goals, establish the difficulty. 10 is a goal that was pretty much impossible to stop. Apply the weights(1-5) for defensive strandage, 1 being horrible by the defense, and clutch, 1 being a horrible time to allow a goal. Do the same as you did with the saves.

For example, Price lets in 2 goals.

Diff Time Defense

3 3 5

7 4 2

So, (I'm skipping the explanation of saves, just appy it here) the equation is

[(3x8)+(7x5)]/[8+5]=4.53 goal value

The weights are completely applicable as decimals, but it can get a little messy. And some people freak out, panic, and die when they see decimals or fractions.

So, now you have 2 values you can do pretty much anything with. I would multiply them together, and get a "goalie performance rate" out of 100. But, if you wanted to, you could divide one by the other, or even plot them on a graph. Just keep in mind, the higher each of the goal and save values are, the better the performance was.

I suck at explanations, so if you have questions just ask.

Right now, I have no clue how to include goalie differential. Keep in mind, this is a rough sketch right now too, this is not set in stone by any means! Suggestions are welcome!

Alastair, I hope this is clever enough to get us started!