Pav is starting to lose, back to Hutch ...

[Floyd]

Forget all those stats... only one we have to worry about is that we're a very close to the end of a typical Pavelec hot streak...  he's on fire for 10-15 games every year then back to his 90%ish save percentage.

 

How many games since that Blues goal?

[Mark F]

most important question....who scored the most points on this thread?

 

need a poll.

[Mr. Perfect]

Forget all those stats... only one we have to worry about is that we're a very close to the end of a typical Pavelec hot streak...  he's on fire for 10-15 games every year then back to his 90%ish save percentage.

 

How many games since that Blues goal?

No offence intended but I'm not sure it really matters that much. Hypothetically lets say it comes to an end but we still make the playoffs - Do you sit Pavelec for a rookie goalie who hasn't played well since late February? Not likely unless you're absolutely forced. I like Hutch, don't get me wrong but there's just some things that aren't very smart to do in this time of the season. Starting a rookie goalie in this stage of the season or in the playoffs (yes there are a select few exceptions) unless you're forced isn't the best way to extend your season.

 

For better or for worse it's Pavelec from here on out this year.

[sweep the leg]

 

 

 a goalie playing for Edmonton will naturally have a lower save percentage than one playing for Anaheim.  Just common sense.

 

Buffalo is the worst team in the league. Their current starter has a .923 SV%. Neuvirth had a .918 SV% with the Sabres before he was traded.  They both have better SV%'s than the Ducks starter.

[sweep the leg]

delete

[sweep the leg]

I didn't post it for the stats, I posted it to show that shot quality is not as irrelevant as some would have you believe.

 

What you don't realize is that because shot quality pokes a big hole in Corsi/Fenwick reliability, the advanced stats supporters have been fighting against recognizing shot quality for years and trying to make it seem illegitimate.  But the numbers say different.

 

And there are intangible factors at play as well.  A goalie playing behind a better team has more confidence, which allows him to play better.  Again, common sense.

Common sense says a good goalie will have confidence. A shitty goalie on a good team could easily played scared trying not to screw it up for the team. Example: Patrick Lalime & the Senators.

 

I'm not an advanced stats guy, nor am I discounting quality of shots. I just think that SV% is the best stat available to determine the quality of play for a goalie.

[Mr Dee]

most important question....who scored the most points on this thread?

Is it the most points scored or who allowed the most shots?

Shot percentage seems to be important.

[Jacquie]

I don't disagree at all with your last sentence. Hutch has clearly been benched recently. Just like Pavelec was earlier in the season.

So by your definition of benched, Price was benched against us and Elliott is benched tonight because not playing means benched.

[gbill2004]

I don't disagree at all with your last sentence. Hutch has clearly been benched recently. Just like Pavelec was earlier in the season.

So by your definition of benched, Price was benched against us and Elliott is benched tonight because not playing means benched.

So Price hasn't played 10 games in a row?

There's a difference between benched and giving your number one goalie a rest.

Jacquie that's a really childish point you made there comparing Price's situation to Hutch. That wasn't my definition at all. C'mon man!

[Atomic]

I didn't post it for the stats, I posted it to show that shot quality is not as irrelevant as some would have you believe.

 

What you don't realize is that because shot quality pokes a big hole in Corsi/Fenwick reliability, the advanced stats supporters have been fighting against recognizing shot quality for years and trying to make it seem illegitimate.  But the numbers say different.

 

And there are intangible factors at play as well.  A goalie playing behind a better team has more confidence, which allows him to play better.  Again, common sense.

Common sense says a good goalie will have confidence. A shitty goalie on a good team could easily played scared trying not to screw it up for the team. Example: Patrick Lalime & the Senators.

 

I'm not an advanced stats guy, nor am I discounting quality of shots. I just think that SV% is the best stat available to determine the quality of play for a goalie.

It is the best stat, yes, but still flawed.

[Atomic]

a goalie playing for Edmonton will naturally have a lower save percentage than one playing for Anaheim.  Just common sense.

Buffalo is the worst team in the league. Their current starter has a .923 SV%. Neuvirth had a .918 SV% with the Sabres before he was traded.  They both have better SV%'s than the Ducks starter.

Weren't you just lecturing about small sample sizes a few posts ago?

[The Unknown Poster]

Pavs was benched. Jets did everything to give hutch the starters job but have a ceremony at portage and main anointing him king of the net.

[Jacquie]

I don't disagree at all with your last sentence. Hutch has clearly been benched recently. Just like Pavelec was earlier in the season.

So by your definition of benched, Price was benched against us and Elliott is benched tonight because not playing means benched.

So Price hasn't played 10 games in a row?

There's a difference between benched and giving your number one goalie a rest.

Jacquie that's a really childish point you made there comparing Price's situation to Hutch. That wasn't my definition at all. C'mon man!

I'm not the one being childish. And don't "c'mon man" me.

Maurice didn't rotate goalies because they were both playing badly. And when he did go with Hutch it was because he was hot.

A player not playing doesn't necessarily mean that the player is playing badly or that he was benched.

[gbill2004]

I don't disagree at all with your last sentence. Hutch has clearly been benched recently. Just like Pavelec was earlier in the season.

So by your definition of benched, Price was benched against us and Elliott is benched tonight because not playing means benched.

So Price hasn't played 10 games in a row?

There's a difference between benched and giving your number one goalie a rest.

Jacquie that's a really childish point you made there comparing Price's situation to Hutch. That wasn't my definition at all. C'mon man!

I'm not the one being childish. And don't "c'mon man" me.

Maurice didn't rotate goalies because they were both playing badly. And when he did go with Hutch it was because he was hot.

A player not playing doesn't necessarily mean that the player is playing badly or that he was benched.

You made the comparison between Price and Hutch's situation and it was terrible. C'mon man.

[Jacquie]

I don't disagree at all with your last sentence. Hutch has clearly been benched recently. Just like Pavelec was earlier in the season.

So by your definition of benched, Price was benched against us and Elliott is benched tonight because not playing means benched.

So Price hasn't played 10 games in a row?

There's a difference between benched and giving your number one goalie a rest.

Jacquie that's a really childish point you made there comparing Price's situation to Hutch. That wasn't my definition at all. C'mon man!

I'm not the one being childish. And don't "c'mon man" me.

Maurice didn't rotate goalies because they were both playing badly. And when he did go with Hutch it was because he was hot.

A player not playing doesn't necessarily mean that the player is playing badly or that he was benched.

You made the comparison between Price and Hutch's situation and it was terrible. C'mon man.

Your not knowing the difference between a man and woman explains a lot.

[Mr. Perfect]

ZING!!

[New_Earth_Mud]

We won

[Jpan85]

1.000% Save percentage over the last two games will do.

[Goalie]

Time to ***** about back to back shut outs

[BomberFan]

After watching Pavs just post his first ever back-to-back shutouts, I fail to see what the fuss  about Pavs is all about. He's keeping us in the hunt, and doing a damn fine job of it.

[Noeller]

Never mind back to back shutouts, he's never won back to back games on consecutive nights at anytime in his career. Good on him. Dude was lights out.

[Jacquie]

In some really weird way "that goal" against the Blues seems to be the best thing that could have happened to him. He's been on fire since then.

[Ducky]

 

 

 

Psst, gbill - …………this is for you to have and use.

It surprises me how very few on here get it. A .915 vs .907 save % is an extra goal given up every 3rd game.

So Paul Maurice is wrong and all you guys are right...alrighty then. We will leave it at that.

You're probably right. I should have given up on this argument a long time ago. The guys in here just don't get it. And no logic or statistics will change that.

I am no mathematician but wouldn't that depend on shots per game?

Yes, I'm basing that extra goal Pavs gives up every 3rd game on an average of ~35 shots against per game. Could be plus or minus a bit. If you say 30 shots per game then it's roughly an extra goal every 3 games plus one period. I used those numbers to simplify my point, and they're based on my experience in watching hockey over the years.

Edit: I just checked and for this year the highest team was the Blackhawks at 34.1 shots on goal per game. Buffalo was lowest at 24.1 shots per game.

 

It is a difference of .008 so you would need 125 shots to make a goal. At 30 shots a game, it would be 4 games plus 10 minutes of a period...25 a game is 5 games. You need a new calculator.

[bearpants]

the team is playing great and Pavelec is making the saves he needs to make... any stats, league average comparison, salary cap hit, and personal bias is completely irrelevant right now... "just [keep] win[ning] baby"... sorry Al, had to adjust to quote a bit...

[kelownabomberfan]

In some really weird way "that goal" against the Blues seems to be the best thing that could have happened to him. He's been on fire since then.

 

Yup - worth the loss of a point, in that it's brought us a lot of points since.  Still, if we had that point right now...