Wins for a goalie are probably the most irrelevant stat there is for them. A goalie can win a game 65. Another one can lose a game 1-0. Which one played better?
Wins for a goalie are probably the most irrelevant stat there is for them. A goalie can win a game 65. Another one can lose a game 1-0. Which one played better?
Not true at all. Context is incredibly important. Let's say Halak gets an 11 save shut-out in a 1-0 shoot-out loss. His line:
1 OTL, 0.00 GAA, 1.000 SV%, 1 Shutout
Now, let's say Rinne wins a game 5-4 in a shootout, while the Red Wings pour on 67 shots. His line:
1 Win, 3.70 GAA, 0.940 SV%, 0 shutouts
Which goalie played better? Wins, just as every other stat, is a matter of context, and can't be disregarded, even for goalies. The complete and utter dismissal of them on these boards is sometimes borderline stupid.
Not true at all. Context is incredibly important. Let's say Halak gets an 11 save shut-out in a 1-0 shoot-out loss. His line:
1 OTL, 0.00 GAA, 1.000 SV%, 1 Shutout
Now, let's say Rinne wins a game 5-4 in a shootout, while the Red Wings pour on 67 shots. His line:
1 Win, 3.70 GAA, 0.940 SV%, 0 shutouts
Which goalie played better? Wins, just as every other stat, is a matter of context, and can't be disregarded, even for goalies. The complete and utter dismissal of them on these boards is sometimes borderline stupid.
Is there a way to measure shot quality yet? Because shots mean relatively very little if teams (Boston is guilty of this) keep bombing away from point with the goalie being able to see it all the way. That vs. a 2 on 1 where the goalie is stretched out presents a much less difficult save to make.
If wins mattered so much, Fleury would be a Vezina candidate every year.
Is there a way to measure shot quality yet? Because shots mean relatively very little if teams (Boston is guilty of this) keep bombing away from point with the goalie being able to see it all the way. That vs. a 2 on 1 where the goalie is stretched out presents a much less difficult save to make.
If wins mattered so much, Fleury would be a Vezina candidate every year.
I'm not sure there is any reliable stat tracker for "quality" shots, which is where the eye-test comes into play (and media attention certainly adds to that). And, despite the recent performances by NYRs defense, I feel their tenacious shot-blocking and back-checking style may work against Lundqvist in this case. Again, I still fully believe that barring a continuation of the melt-down lately, it's Lundqvist's to lose, but to have guys like Halak and Quick in the conversation as the #2 is just as disrespectful to Rinne. #2 is Rinne's spot to lose at this point.
Edit: In continuation, Rinne's wins ARE what set him apart. Quick can't get wins in a far worse division. Halak doesn't even play a starter's share of games in the same division. Rinne is winning games at an alarming rate going against 2-3 teams that are in the mix for best in the West 6 times a year each. Yes, his stats (GAA) aren't QUITE as good as Halak or Quick, although he is trending closer in that regard, but his win total sets him so far apart from the rest of the contender field that it makes up for smaller GAA differences or huge games played differences (Quick and Halak respectively). Also, the league-wide perception of the Predators being unable to generate huge amounts of offense negates the argument that Quick plays behind crappy goal-support.
I'm not sure there is any reliable stat tracker for "quality" shots, which is where the eye-test comes into play (and media attention certainly adds to that). And, despite the recent performances by NYRs defense, I feel their tenacious shot-blocking and back-checking style may work against Lundqvist in this case. Again, I still fully believe that barring a continuation of the melt-down lately, it's Lundqvist's to lose, but to have guys like Halak and Quick in the conversation as the #2 is just as disrespectful to Rinne. #2 is Rinne's spot to lose at this point.
Blocking shots only helps when the shot doesn't get to the net. How many goals have been scored off our own forwards and defensemen this year alone?
Blocking shots only helps when the shot doesn't get to the net. How many goals have been scored off our own forwards and defensemen this year alone?
That's the price you pay for playing the style the Rangers play. And those are still registered as "shots," so it's accounted for. The Rangers have 1109 blocked shots, the Predators are far behind at 1003. Both have played 68 games. Don't think that the number of "fluky" goals that have gotten behind Hank from blocks makes up for the 106 shots that DIDN'T get through from clean blocks.
That's the price you pay for playing the style the Rangers play. And those are still registered as "shots," so it's accounted for. The Rangers have 1109 blocked shots, the Predators are far behind at 1003. Both have played 68 games. Don't think that the number of "fluky" goals that have gotten behind Hank from blocks makes up for the 106 shots that DIDN'T get through from clean blocks.
And this is why there should be a way to measure quality of shots.
And this is why there should be a way to measure quality of shots.
I agree, 1000%. The practicality of that, though, is beyond achievable on any meaningful basis. What if it's from the same spot, but it's Steven Stamkos shooting vs. John Scott shooting? What if it's Chara vs. Malik? What if Ovechkin is shooting from in the slot vs. from his own end on a rolling puck? A player who's previous high in goals was 6 but has 45 on the year? There are too many "subjective" factors to even begin to try setting up a legitimate "quality of shot" stat, so it's understandable that there isn't one.
I agree, 1000%. The practicality of that, though, is beyond achievable on any meaningful basis. What if it's from the same spot, but it's Steven Stamkos shooting vs. John Scott shooting? What if it's Chara vs. Malik? What if Ovechkin is shooting from in the slot vs. from his own end on a rolling puck? A player who's previous high in goals was 6 but has 45 on the year? There are too many "subjective" factors to even begin to try setting up a legitimate "quality of shot" stat, so it's understandable that there isn't one.
That too. Datsyuk on a breakaway doesn't equal Scott on a breakaway, but Datsyuk on a breakaway isn't always going to try for some fancy Datsykian deke. Maybe the trajectory of the shot? Stamkos shooting and picking a corner is a lot harder to save than Stamkos shooting from the outside and hitting the goalie in the logo. Way too many factors to consider, but that's where people need to actually watch the game instead of saying "This goalie allowed 2 goals on 12 shots! He sucks!"
That too. Datsyuk on a breakaway doesn't equal Scott on a breakaway, but Datsyuk on a breakaway isn't always going to try for some fancy Datsykian deke. Maybe the trajectory of the shot? Stamkos shooting and picking a corner is a lot harder to save than Stamkos shooting from the outside and hitting the goalie in the logo. Way too many factors to consider, but that's where people need to actually watch the game instead of saying "This goalie allowed 2 goals on 12 shots! He sucks!"
And that last point is exactly my point. The other poster was attempting to discredit wins, saying they are the most irrelevant of all the goalie stats. But quite frankly, what team is going to play a goalie that they have no faith can win the game 60+ times a year (except the Blue Jackets, although Mason has finally shown SOMETHING lately)? It's almost as if leading the pack in wins by a large margin is a bad thing, for some people. SV% is just as irrelevant when examined in a singular light. So is GAA and even shutouts, and for the very reasons listed above. That's why ALL the stats are important, not just one or two. It's why Halak and his 45 starts won't be seriously considered. It's why Quick with his 65 starts and 30 wins won't be seriously considered. It's why Lundqvist is the front-runner and why Rinne is the #2.
And that last point is exactly my point. The other poster was attempting to discredit wins, saying they are the most irrelevant of all the goalie stats. But quite frankly, what team is going to play a goalie that they have no faith can win the game 60+ times a year (except the Blue Jackets, although Mason has finally shown SOMETHING lately)? It's almost as if leading the pack in wins by a large margin is a bad thing, for some people. SV% is just as irrelevant when examined in a singular light. So is GAA and even shutouts, and for the very reasons listed above. That's why ALL the stats are important, not just one or two. It's why Halak and his 45 starts won't be seriously considered. It's why Quick with his 65 starts and 30 wins won't be seriously considered. It's why Lundqvist is the front-runner and why Rinne is the #2.
Still though... It's pretty fun to make fun of Marty for allowing 4 goals on 12 shots. I won't grow out of that.
In reality, unless Henke slumps bad in the last month, he benefits by being the only of the three contenders in the East. The majority of the writers are in the East and the next two contenders (Rinne and Quick) split the vote in the West most likely. There are no writers in the East who are going to vote for Rinne or Quick over Henke. That's not to say whether this is the right or wrong vote (obviously I believe Henke deserves the trophy finally) but it comes down to numbers. When you are the only of the three candidates in the most heavily voter populated area, you win.
This award might have the most weight associated with the "qualitative" input among all given to players. Unless a goalie is way ahead of the rest of the competition in almost all statistical categories, a lot of consideration is given to "paying the dues" aspect of the goalie career. Most of you should remember a year when Roy received Vezina though most "observers" felt that Brodeur would be more deserving. Similarly, the last Vezina Brodeur received had a lot to do with his overall career compared to other nominees. Lundquist paid his dues and so far even based on stats alone, I think Lundqvist should win the award. But if during the remainder of the season some of his competition are going to come closer to his stats (or his stats would deflate to their levels) he should still (deservingly) get the award this year because the rest of them are not there yet in their overall careers.
