The Quality of Goaltending 2010-2011

[Alastair_LighT]

Here are the rules for this year. It's nearly identical to last year.

The Quality of Goaltending Rules:

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

There are four types of goals:

- Near Impossible (NI) goals worth 0.5 points:

The goalie didn't even have a chance, or would have had to come up with an absolutely massive save to keep it out.

- Hard (H) goals worth 1.0 point:

You can't really blame the goalie, but it was possible to save. Some examples of hard goals would be: most breakaways, most screened shots with a tip in, and a wicked wrist shot from the slot area (this might be NI depending on how well placed the shot is).

- Medium (M) goals worth 2.0 points:

Medium goals occur when some blame can be put on the goalie and he definitely could have had it, but he just didn't make the save this time. Some examples might be a screened slap shot along the ice with an insignificant tip or no tip that just finds a way by (especially through the five-hole), and a poorly executed breakaway that still finds a way in.

- Weak (W) goals worth 4.0 points:

Although the defence might be to blame too, the goalie definitely could have had this and should save this on most nights. Some examples might be: an unscreened (meaning the goalie can see it the whole way) wrist shot from an angle that squeezes by, and an unscreened slap shot along the ice from the blue-line that goes five-hole.

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

Here are some general rules:

- 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, or pulled, 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 examples of typical games:

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

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

1W 2M ..... = 8 points (horrible game)

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

2M 2H ..... = 6 points (bad game)

2M 1H ..... = 5 points (so-so 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)

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

Here is the most important category, the overall quality of goaltending:

Over a season an amazing GAA would be 2.25 or under.

It would be impossible however to have a GAA of 0.00 over the length of an entire NHL season.

The best goaltending any person could realistically hope for would be 2.25 H (hard) goals per game over a season.

Thus, for the goalie's average point totals, the following system will be used:

Less than or equal to 2.25 points (top notch goaltending)

Less than or equal to 2.60 points (stellar goaltending)

Less than or equal to 2.95 points (outstanding goaltending)

Less than or equal to 3.30 points (excellent goaltending)

Less than or equal to 3.65 points (very good goaltending)

Less than or equal to 3.90 points (good goaltending)

Less than or equal to 4.25 points (so-so goaltending)

Less than or equal to 4.60 points (bad goaltending)

Less than or equal to 4.95 points (very bad goaltending)

Less than or equal to 5.30 points (horrible goaltending)

Less than or equal to 5.50 points (terrible goaltending)

Greater than 5.50 points (reprehensible goaltending)

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

[FirstStar]

We're doing this again this year?

Take the issue's you had last year and try to fix them for this year. It may take you a lil while before you find a perfect system, but it'll be worth it in the end.

G'luck.

[Nine1One]

question, what if the goal would have had to been a highlight real save, but the reason it went in was because of horrible positioning?

[Alastair_LighT]

question, what if the goal would have had to been a highlight real save, but the reason it went in was because of horrible positioning?

Good question!

My answer would be, if the goalie was in horrible positioning then it was his own fault... and thus the goal would probably be medium or weak. I guess by making a highlight reel save, what I really mean is, is if the goalie did everything he was supposed to do, and was faced with an impossible or near impossible situation, then it'll only count as 0.5 points against him.

[MkGee]

decent article you get here

[Zonave]

Oh what fun! I look forward to collaboration to refine this system.

I was also wondering(given Carey's apparent condition right now), if the goalie's condition should be taken as a factor. I think that a goalie feeling sick or coming back early from an injury is going to happen so little that it is neglible. But you never know, there are perfectionists out here.

[Zonave]

Call me crazy, I give Price a 3.

The first 2 were .5 each for lack of defense/being stranded.

The 3rd goal was a tough one, but I think his positioning could have been a little better. I would call it medium.

.5+.5+2=3,very good game

[Nine1One]

I'd give him a 3 based on the last 2 goals. I didnt get to see the first one. He should have had the second but it would have been hard.

[Alastair_LighT]

The Quality of Goaltending

Overall Goaltending Quality Since October 7 2010:

Carey Price: 3.50 (very good goaltending)

Game 01 Carey Price against the Toronto Maple Leafs on Thursday October 7 2010:

Goal #1: NI ----> 0.50 points (even though he could see it, sometimes you just have to credit the shooter [or tipper in this case]. It was an absolutely perfect top corner tip from point-blank range.)

Goal #2: H ----> 1.00 points (There is no way this was near impossible to save. Similarly, there's no way I expect Price to save this 80%+ of the time, so it's going to be a hard goal).

Goal #3: M ----> 2.00 point (even though we left the guy in the open, Price could see the puck very clearly, and all that was required was a fairly routine kick save in my opinion).

Total: 3.50 points (very good game)

GAA: 3.05

Sv%: 0.875 (21/24 saves)

Record: 0-1-0

For anyone who doesn't like what they see, remember it's the first game. The Quality of Goaltending will take about 20 games before it actually becomes meaningful since things need to average out first.

Also, anyone who disagrees with my reasoning is welcome to suggest how they would rank the goals so long as they give a good explanation for their rankings, and if enough of you disagree with me, I'll change my rankings.

[Certagemmy]

The third goal hit halfway up the back of the net. It was over his pad, so you can't say that a kick save would have stopped it. Other than that, I agree with your completely insignificant assessment of his performance.

[Rogie]

1st goal - .5

that`s near impossible to save,without making an incredible reaction save.....and the guy was left alone,untouched in front.

2nd goal - .5

it`s a break away, for a guy who`s a scoring threat,and he made a great initial save....puck barely made it across the line.Gorges back-checking didn`t even put the effort of trying a dive..just a weak defensive effort.Left hanging.

3rd goal - 1

Spacek/Pylon lets player walk right around him,...just pitiful,horrific,defence.....and the shooter got lucky and scored on a backhand.....which is a tough shot for a goalie to stop,especially a situation like this.

The player shouldn`t even have been allowed to get the shot off,let alone score.

More crapulent defence,...left hanging.

Despite the woeful effot put forth by his teammates,....with the exception of PK,Eller and Boyd.......Price kept his team in the game to the very end.

He should get a bonus of -5 for that too.

Personally,I score it a 1.5 between outstanding and excellent.

*40 yrs practicing the art of goaltending,Jacque Plante was my first instructor,and I`ve been learning and playing with the best ever since.

[Zonave]

For anyone who doesn't like what they see, remember it's the first game. The Quality of Goaltending will take about 20 games before it actually becomes meaningful since things need to average out first.

Also, anyone who disagrees with my reasoning is welcome to suggest how they would rank the goals so long as they give a good explanation for their rankings, and if enough of you disagree with me, I'll change my rankings.

You get final word? Fair enough.

[mtl_--33-AK-27--33-_mtlc]

The Quality of Goaltending

Overall Goaltending Quality Since October 7 2010:

Carey Price: 3.50 (very good goaltending)

Game 01 Carey Price against the Toronto Maple Leafs on Thursday October 7 2010:

Goal #1: NI ----> 0.50 points (even though he could see it, sometimes you just have to credit the shooter [or tipper in this case]. It was an absolutely perfect top corner tip from point-blank range.)

Goal #2: H ----> 1.00 points (There is no way this was near impossible to save. Similarly, there's no way I expect Price to save this 80%+ of the time, so it's going to be a hard goal).

Goal #3: M ----> 2.00 point (even though we left the guy in the open, Price could see the puck very clearly, and all that was required was a fairly routine kick save in my opinion).

Total: 3.50 points (very good game)

GAA: 3.05

Sv%: 0.875 (21/24 saves)

Record: 0-1-0

For anyone who doesn't like what they see, remember it's the first game. The Quality of Goaltending will take about 20 games before it actually becomes meaningful since things need to average out first.

Also, anyone who disagrees with my reasoning is welcome to suggest how they would rank the goals so long as they give a good explanation for their rankings, and if enough of you disagree with me, I'll change my rankings.

Fair assessment.I think when you not sure if the performance was very good or just good you should look at the Sv%.If it's under certain level say 0.89, rule against the goalie and if it's say over 0.92 then rule in his favor.

[ruuvimeisseli]

Imo the 3rd is a medium, 1st was NI, 2nd goal either NI/H

[GetThePuckOut_mtl]

The Quality of Goaltending

Overall Goaltending Quality Since October 7 2010:

Carey Price: 3.50 (very good goaltending)

Game 01 Carey Price against the Toronto Maple Leafs on Thursday October 7 2010:

Goal #1: NI ----> 0.50 points (even though he could see it, sometimes you just have to credit the shooter [or tipper in this case]. It was an absolutely perfect top corner tip from point-blank range.)

Goal #2: H ----> 1.00 points (There is no way this was near impossible to save. Similarly, there's no way I expect Price to save this 80%+ of the time, so it's going to be a hard goal).

Goal #3: M ----> 2.00 point (even though we left the guy in the open, Price could see the puck very clearly, and all that was required was a fairly routine kick save in my opinion).

Total: 3.50 points (very good game)

GAA: 3.05

Sv%: 0.875 (21/24 saves)

Record: 0-1-0

For anyone who doesn't like what they see, remember it's the first game. The Quality of Goaltending will take about 20 games before it actually becomes meaningful since things need to average out first.

Also, anyone who disagrees with my reasoning is welcome to suggest how they would rank the goals so long as they give a good explanation for their rankings, and if enough of you disagree with me, I'll change my rankings.

Agree with goals 1 & 2. Goal #3 was well-placed by the shooter (above the pad, requiring a good blocker save), and I would expect a goalie to make that save only about 50% of the time, therefore giving it a (H)ard ranking.

What I would suggest is changing the (M)edium classification to 50%, then adding an (A)verage classification of 80% with 3 points. In that scenario, I would then agree with NI+H+M for 3.5 points. Your overall game result (Good game, so-so, etc.) may have to be adjusted a bit to accommodate though.

[leafs_295_ca]

so what was prices level for that game

[Alastair_LighT]

Wow I"m happy to see so much feedback!

The whole 95%+ thing, 80%+ thing is really more of a guideline. It doesn't literally have to be 80%... like muybe 70% of the time you'd expect him to save it... it's still a fairly medium goal.

Hard is when it's maybe 1/3 he'd save it or maybe 1/2, and near impossible is like 1/10 or 0/10 he'd save it, maybe 2/10 (or 1/5) at best. The point is, is thre's a lot of grey area, and if a majority of people disagree with something I call H, and want it to become M, then I'll make the change.

As far as creating a new catagory called "average" goals goes, the way I look at it is this... I barely want to punish a goalie for letting in a NI or H goal, and give him a lot of punishment for a weak one. Medium is just sorta those goals where it's like "ah he coulda had it, but can't really blame him either", and I feel 2 points is pretty fair for that type of goal.

Anyway, keep the suggestions coming though, I'm fairly rigid about the way I've set it up already, but you never know, I might make changes if enough people feel it's a good idea and it doesn't make me have to do x10 more work haha.

And Price's game last night was excellent other than the 3rd goal. So overall I think very good is a pretty fair rating.

[JuniorSTLB]

2 Weak goals=bad game? Despite making 5+ near impossible saves?

[Alastair_LighT]

2 Weak goals=bad game? Despite making 5+ near impossible saves?

You see that's the thing. Yes it's true it would be called a weak game, but the Quality of Goaltending doesn't work all that well from night to night. Its real strength is when you look at it over a large number of games... so you have to let things average out is what I'm saying. Perhaps one game he lets in 2 weak goals on 50 shots... but then in another game he might get a shutout on 15 shots... so like I said, it averages out over time, and it's the big picture that's valuable, not any one particular game.

[Nine1One]

well he shouldnt have let those weak ones in D< jk jk In all honesty i think this is just a fun way to try and determine how price is doing at least thats how i see it.

[Alastair_LighT]

well he shouldnt have let those weak ones in D< jk jk In all honesty i think this is just a fun way to try and determine how price is doing at least thats how i see it.

Yup yup I'm on board with that.

[Nine1One]

just wondering is a gaa of 3.9 really a quality of good goltending? the gaa seems alittle wierd to me btw

[Alastair_LighT]

just wondering is a gaa of 3.9 really a quality of good goltending? the gaa seems alittle wierd to me btw

You have to remember that all goalies, without any exception, are going to have games where they have 10 pointer nights. Just let the season unfold and you'll see that 3.90 is actually a pretty decent rating. You can also look at last seasons Quality of Goaltending by visiting this link... http://forum.canadiens.com/index.php?showt...80&start=80. You'll notice that Halak was at 3.09, which is considered excellent goaltending. Price didn't really play that many games from March onwards, so the Quality of Goaltending hasn't gotten a chance to rank him yet. I never started doing this until March last season, and at that point, Halak was our #1. I think Price might have played about 10 games last season when I was counting.

One last thing to note, the ranking system has changed slightly from last year. Pretty good goaltending has been removed and is now considered so-so.

[leafs_295_ca]

what was his quality of goaltending vs the penguins

[Alastair_LighT]

The Quality of Goaltending

Overall Goaltending Quality Since October 7 2010:

Carey Price: 3.00 (excellent goaltending)

Alex Auld: n/a

Game 02 Carey Price against the Pittsburgh Penguins on Saturday October 9 2010:

Goal #1: NI ----> 0.50 points

Goal #2: M -----> 2.00 points

Total: 2.50 points (excellent game)

GAA: 2.00

Sv%: 0.947 (36/38 saves)

Record: 1-1-0

Very nice job by Carey tonight! He had some huge saves and kept us in it until we were finally able to get 2 quick ones.

Poor Penguins, they get ZERO points for that haha