Yet somehow the best ones tend to have the lowest GAAs and highest save %s, and the worst have the highest GAAs and lowest save %s.
Strange coincidence that.
Not at all, the problem is that oftentimes "the best" goalies are determined to be that way because of their stats, not their play. On top of that, a fantastic goalie on a terrible team is usually considered to be bad, regardless of their play (e.g. Carey Price). Meanwhile, a terrible goalie on a good team is regarded as being good (e.g. Jimmy Howard).
All you need to see how useless goalie stats are for leaguewide comparisons is to look at a few journeyman goalies. Craig Anderson is a good example. Unless you think that a plane ride from Colorado to Ottawa suddenly turned him into a star in 10-11 (His stats improved by 1.23 GAA and 0.042 Sv%) it's pretty apparent that those stats measure something other than the goalie's play. His move from Chicago to Florida (although over an offseason) had a similar jump. Then suddenly he was mediocre, then terrible in Colorado.
Grabbing just random other goalies here: Roloson's trade to Edmonton improved his GAA by 0.57. Dan Ellis left Nashville and his stat line degraded 0.24 and 0.020 until he moved to Anaheim where it jumped back up 0.54 and 0.28. Mike Smith, good in Dallas, awful in Tampa, great in Phoenix.
The fact of the matter is goalie stats don't rate the goalie. They rate mostly the defensive play of the team in front of them. They're certainly not useful for comparing goalies across divisions, much less across the entire league.
The fact of the matter is goalie stats don't rate the goalie.
Keep writing volumes of trivia and declaring your opinions are fact and maybe you'll convince one other person. Give your totally subjective list of the five best goalies in the NHL and let's see where their GAA and SV% rank. Lundqvist is just a residual of Torterella's Trap and the Rag$ shot blocking emphasis? Quick is only good because LA has a solid D and D first system? Same for Rinne - only good because he had Weber and Suter and a defensivley responsible cast of characters in front of him? Where did their GAA and SV% rank? Those three didn't help their team win, they were really interchangeable with Joe Blow from wherever? If so, with who?
You like trivia numbers. Look at the last five years of Vezina Finalists and tell us who the Finalists really should have been since GAA and SV% is meaningless.
No one is denying that the system a team plays has an influence on the GAA and SV%, but over a season, the GAA and SV% is the best objective measure of a goalie's performance that we have.
I was over on NHL.com reading about the Wild's projected line up. They were using Falk for the 3rd D pairing over Stoner. Would you guys rather see Stoner or Falk play in the 3rd D pairing because personally I would rather see Stoner.
I'd rather not have Falk playing on the wrong side of the ice when we have the personnel to help that. If Brodin's not keeping Prosser out of a spot, I would hope either Prosser or Kampfer takes that last spot on the right side.
It's all on paper at this point so who knows. They could gel & do well. Or they could be all over the place and useless. Until they get the product on the ice, it's all speculation. I don't they're as bad as most people think they are. But, they're not likely to be in the top 10 best.
GA has/had alot to do with team defense and netminding, so I wouldn't use those numbers to grade the blueline accurately. I think the defense will be much imroved this year and hopefully Brodin can add to the need for a sound reliable stay at home bl'er. With the retooling Fletch did, I think the Wild could be a really tough team to play against, very gritty with more talent on both sides of the puck.
I was over on NHL.com reading about the Wild's projected line up. They were using Falk for the 3rd D pairing over Stoner. Would you guys rather see Stoner or Falk play in the 3rd D pairing because personally I would rather see Stoner.
Healthy Stoner hands down. Healthy Stoner is a really good hockey player. He's big, hits, clears the crease, fights, and actually pretty decent at the position, skating, and puck-moving side of the game.
If Stoner wasn't injured all the time, I think he would be our #4 Dman at this point in his career. But he hasn't been. He gets injured all the time, which limited his development over the last few seasons, and forces him to re-fight for his position whenever he comes back.
Falk has a lot of potential, but he's no longer a young prospect. He's frustrating because he's "almost" there on a lot of things, but he's not where he needs to be. He's "almost" sound defensively. He's "almost" physical. He "almost" has a good shot. He's "almost" a good skater and puck-mover. But a bunch of "almosts" makes a "never".
Falk has a lot of potential, but he's no longer a young prospect. He's frustrating because he's "almost" there on a lot of things, but he's not where he needs to be. He's "almost" sound defensively. He's "almost" physical. He "almost" has a good shot. He's "almost" a good skater and puck-mover. But a bunch of "almosts" makes a "never".
Falk's in the NHL, so he's not really a "never;" he's more of a "sometimes."
Falk's in the NHL, so he's not really a "never;" he's more of a "sometimes."
Falk's in the NHL because our next best options are pretty grizzly. His biggest problem is in a similar vein as Stoner's, you don't know how many real games you'll get out of him. With Stoner, you never know if he's going to be healthy. With Falk, you never know which player is going to show up. Will you get the aggressive, calm, physical player who will show up at both ends of the rink? Or will you get the soft, panicky, lost player who you can't wait until he's stapled to the bench?
Good Falk is better (IMO more valuable--not quite as physical but better skater and better offensive instincts) than Good Stoner, but...the arc swings too wide IMO. Bad falk is also quite a bit worse than bad stoner. He is younger though, so i'd give him a few points for potential.
Stoner is far more consistent than Falk and while he doesn't have the offensive upside or skills, every other facet of his game is superior. While Falk may grow into an every day NHL'er, my money is on Stoner.
Yeah, meaningless stats, the worst you can use to rate a goalie, except for any others.
