Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyersFan61290
for this example say we want to find the standard deviation for backup NHL goalie save percentage. the standard deviation is the sum of the differences between the average sv percentage and the individual NHL back sv percentages, squared. then you divide this resulting sum by the number of back up goaltenders taken into consideration minus 1. then you take the square root of this number. so the formula for standard deviation is:
sqrt((Σ(avgind)^2)/n1)
where n is the number of backup goaltenders. and it's crutial that you are summing the difference between the league average sv percentage and EACH individual's sv percentage, squared.
so when calculating the numerator, Σ(avgind)^2, it would look something like this: (avg sv %  backup 1 sv %)^2 + (avg sv %  backup 2 sv %)^2 + (avg sv %  backup 3 sv %)^2 + .....and so on.
then you could repeat this process for GAA. the resulting numbers should be fairly small and if Leightons numbers fall within plus or minus 1 or even 2 standard deviations of the average he could then be considered an NHL caliber backup if you're into this sort of stuff.
i don't have a list of all the numbers and i'm too lazy to compile them. if you couldn't follow my explanation and you still want to get this done i guess i could do the math if provided the numbers.

I'm gonna be honest with you, math is not my strong suit. Not even going to try to do that. I'll look into getting that list to you though. Haha.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak Invictus
Actually, there's a group of bottom feeders hovering near .900 clearly separated from the rest who are at .910 or above. There's a drop off, and Leighton is in the wrong group. Pair that with his usual GP and it s shows he shouldn't be considered a viable backup. He's a career minor league player fit only for emergency duty.
You want your backup goalie to produce .910 or above. Leighton falls below that.
Edit: only three of the goalies who outperformed Leighton's career numbers (stats you know I personally have an asterisk next to) barely outperformed him. Two guys with .903, one with .904. Then there's a leap to .909, the average, and 19 are above .910. If your backup doesn't get .910 it's safe to consider he's done a pretty bad job.
Edit: And only once in the current era does he get .910 or above. In his other stint as backup in Carolina he falls below. He meets it in Chicago before the rules change but I don't know what the backup average was, and it was 10 years ago anyways.

Ok, I guess there really is nothing further to say.