10-27-2020, 04:18 PMkarlssens Wrote:

10-27-2020, 03:58 PMDuff101 Wrote: For goalies, aren't most valuable and best kind of one and the same? If a goalie puts the team on his back and stands on his head shouldn't that goalie be seen as higher quality, even with slightly lesser stats?

To the second point I actually sort of agree. I feel like this metric is incomplete without a metric for shot quality and I'd love to reanalyze this with a new equation that factors in quality or real scoring chances but I don't think FHM provides those and if it does it's not in the index. I'm by no means a statistical expert and I'm sure this metric is flawed but at the end of the day I'm using it moreso as a voter guide than as a definitive measure of quality. I do think Knox Booth should win the McBride this year but I'm not naive enough to think my stat is the only way of measuring goalies or even that it's perfect. Also I'm not really using pure numbers as I'm focusing more on a per-game basis.

I feel ya, it's a bit tough without a rough idea of shot quality. Typically yes most valuable and best overlap (and it makes our job a heck of a lot easier haha), but it's something that comes up quite a bit when we discuss the Mexico award. If your team is stacked it tends to take a bit away from the individual stats. Knox had to work harder to earn his 20 wins, but he still had 21 losses. The goal is to win and Vilde has 36 dubs. If Knox' winning % wasn't sub 500 it would certainly help his argument.

My problem with using wins is that they aren't really a full picture. I think we can agree that a goalie who only lets in about a goal per game on 50 shots would be a very good goalie but what if they're on a team that can't score in a whorehouse? Wins are dependent not just on a goalie performing well, but on an offense in front of the goalie producing. You can't win if your offense hangs you out to dry.