Should We Alternate Goalies in the Playoffs?

[Jocu 0]

I think you are confused about how goaltending stats are calculated my friend.

GAA is calculated by taking the number of goals allowed per 60 minutes played, rounded to two decimal points. To get the number, multiply the total number of goals allowed by 60 and divide by the total number of minutes played.

If anything, the SV% would be skewed. For reference, SV% is calculated by taking the number saves made divided by the total number of shots on goal, expressed in three decimal places.

So what was that about U of M math again?

Better D will always help pad GAA.

SV% is all goalie.

[imisssergei 0]

Better D will always help pad GAA.

SV% is all goalie.

You are preaching to the choir.

[Packer487 3]

I'm wondering why it doesn't surprise me that you go to U of M. But stats still indicate that Osgood has been better.

Not sure where you're going with that one...don't really care all that much. If it's a lame attempt to call me arrogant or something like that, yawn. Unless you're trying to say "It doesn't surprise me that you went to U of M because that's a strangely coherent argument" it was probably unnecessary.

And over the last month and a half Dom's stats have been better than Osgood's. If you were talking about for the season as a whole, I've already admitted that countless times.

And two can play that game. If Osgood keeps up his performance he has played better than Hasek the whole season.

If both goalies keeps up their performances, Osgood would have played better than Hasek for the season as a whole, yes. Dom would have been better for the last 75% of the season, however.

And his stats would be marginally better most likely.

Due to a bad month and a half by Dom, a full five months before the playoffs started. Read: A non-issue.

Even though Osgood would have better stats than Hasek, Hasek would have somewhat similar stats (dismissing October and November (which he was horrific) and all his bad starts, obviously, so really it's like 1/2) you would want him to start simply because you like him better.

Technically, if you're ignoring October and the first half of November, Dom would have better stats...I expect their GAAs will be pretty close by the end of the season (even counting October and November). Dom dug himself too big of a hole in save percentage to catch up there unless Osgood slumps.

I have no problem with Dom starting. He's playing much better in the last month. I just feel that Osgood has been the more consistent, better goaltender, who happens to lead the league in GAA and SV% and he's done it the whole season. So he should get the nod.

Wait, so if you have no problem with Dom starting, why do you think he'd only be starting because of his name? That doesn't even make sense. If he was just getting the job because of his name, I'd expect that you'd have a big time problem with him starting, because he wouldn't be getting the job based on anything but his name. If the playoffs started today, and Dom had gone "down the stretch" posting a 1.34 goals against and a .936, with 3 shutouts in his last 11 starts, could you really say that he only got the job because of his name--even if the other guy has been stellar? It's not like you couldn't make a case for Dom on his own merits...

Don't look at the GAA, look at the SV%. On a team like Detroit GAA is going to be padded.

If we were comparing Hasek to Tim Thomas, Khabibulin, or Kolzig I'd kind of agree. But both goalies play behind the same defense, which theoretically should pad both of their GAAs, no? And for the record, Hasek's save % over the past month and a half is better than Osgood's too (though just by the slimmest of margins...it's like .002 difference). It's weird trying to compare goalies on other teams. A team with worse defense probably gives up more shots on goal, but those shots are also probably of the tougher variety. So comparing the percentages isn't always fair either.

Just for reference, per TSN, here are the projected stats for each goalie:

Hasek: GP 40 W 25 L 11 T 4 MIN 2374.62 GA 87 SA 840 SO 4 GAA% 2.21 SA% .896

Osgood: GP 44 W 36 L 4 T 2 MIN 2589.5 GA 73 SA 1064 SO 4 GAA% 1.68 SA% .932

Projected stats for goalies aren't all that fun because their GAA and save percentage never change. Only the wins and losses do. Dom's stats are clearly on the upswing, but projections won't ever reflect that. It'd be pretty tough for Osgood to play any better than he already has...and I mean that as a compliment.

Better D will always help pad GAA.

SV% is all goalie.

SV% isn't all goalie. If goalie A faces 50 shots but the majority of them are from the perimeter because the defense isn't letting them get in close and goalie B faces 20 shots, but 3 of them are breakaways, 3 are 2 on 1s, and 7 and from the slot, who had the tougher game? If they both give up 2 goals, who had the better game? Whose save % is worse?

I guarantee you that Billy Sauer would tell you that the GLI Championship Game, where he faced like 37 shots over 4+ periods was much tougher than the night before against Providence where he faced 50 shots, but all but 2 or 3 were extremely low percentage. Sometimes shots on goal and save percentage aren't everything.

Also, what's considered a shot on goal and what isn't can vary from arena to arena. It's not an exact science, and I don't doubt that certain arenas are more liberal about it than others. So a goalie could play the same exact game in two different cities and have a significantly different save percentage.

I wish there was a way to standardize the "quality scoring chance" stat, because goals per quality scoring chance would probably be the best way to assess a goalie's performance. Under this system, a dump in that happens to go on net counts just the same as a breakaway or a point blank chance on a 5 on 3. Not all shots on goal are created equal.

Edited January 9, 2008 by Packer487

[SouthernWingsFan 854]

What is sad is that we cannot just realize that we may have the best goaltending tandem in history.

I thought I was the only one who was content with thinking about this and content with not making a 293 page essay on why Osgood is better than Hasek or why Hasek is better than Osgood.

[interminded 1]

Let's just win the Stanley Cup, how about that ??

[Offsides 21]

Let's just win the Stanley Cup, how about that ??

Oh...we're gonna win...it's just about how

[OsGOD 3]

I am already getting ready for the Ozzie/Howie debats now for the next three years....

[vangvace 12]

Both goalies are now front page on NHL's webpage for GAA!

[GMRwings1983 8,804]

Terry Sawchuk and Glenn Hall are the best goaltending tandem in history. Some others to consider are Grant Fuhr/Andy Moog, and Gump Lorsley/Rogie Vachon. I can't put Hasek at this point in his career and Chris Osgood as the best tandem in history over Sawchuk/Hall.

[dallas27 7]

I've come to the conclusion that it is useless. No matter what, Packer will automatically go to the 75% of the games Hasek played. Yet he won't make a case for Osgood. He will, by default and fanboyism, go to Hasek's 75% of the games he played and simply say that Hasek should be in net. Because now he is playing just as good as OSGOOD. And you wonder why I say Hasek will be in net in the playoffs because his name is Dominik Hasek and everything that is associated with it. Yes, as of the last whoever many starts he has been solid, nobody can argue that. But Osgood has been better the whole season. I'll break it down easy.

Osgood has arguably been the best goalie in the NHL so far.

Hasek has kept up 75% of the time.

So. Hasek should be in net.

[Packer487 3]

If you're naming a playoff starter, do you care how he played in October or do you care how he is playing at the current time? Hasek has given up 15 goals in his last 11 starts. It's pretty irrelevant to consider October at this point--and it will be even less relevant in April. He's clearly worked through whatever issues were plaguing him at the start of the season.

If the start of the season means that much in April, then we better find another defenseman, because Kronwall still blows. And we can't really count on Datsyuk to score us any goals since he only had 2 in the first 17 games or so. Never mind how either of them are playing right now....

He will, by default and fanboyism, go to Hasek's 75% of the games he played and simply say that Hasek should be in net. Because now he is playing just as good as OSGOOD. And you wonder why I say Hasek will be in net in the playoffs because his name is Dominik Hasek and everything that is associated with it.

emphasis mine

Do you even realize how much you're contradicting yourself in this thread? If he's playing every bit as well as Osgood at this point (or better, if you look at the numbers) then he wouldn't be getting the starter job because of his effing name.

He may have gotten the opportunity to play through his troubles because of his name and his track record in this league (and he's more than earned that right), but if he didn't get his game right, they wouldn't consider starting him in the playoffs. There's no way.

Babcock isn't an idiot. If Dom was still only stopping < 87% of the shots he was facing, they wouldn't be like "But that's Dominik Hasek! We should play him in the playoffs." That would be giving the guy the job based on his name. At this point, there's not really any difference in the play of the goalies, and if anything, Hasek has been better as of late. That's why I think you're off your rocker to say that he'd only be starting because of his name. It's not true.

Edit: You can clearly make a case for Osgood. It's really not all that difficult. I've never said "Start Hasek because Osgood is a bum". I've been extremely complimentary of Osgood's play. But come playoff time, if both goalies are playing at the same level, I'm taking the guy who has done well in the playoffs recently and who is arguably the best to ever play the game. And if he falters, I've got no problem putting the other guy in. Not sure what else you want me to say.

Edited January 9, 2008 by Packer487

[Viperar 16]

I am already getting ready for the Ozzie/Howie debats now for the next three years....

god help us

[imisssergei 0]

Technically, if you're ignoring October and the first half of November, Dom would have better stats...I expect their GAAs will be pretty close by the end of the season (even counting October and November). Dom dug himself too big of a hole in save percentage to catch up there unless Osgood slumps.

Projected stats for goalies aren't all that fun because their GAA and save percentage never change. Only the wins and losses do. Dom's stats are clearly on the upswing, but projections won't ever reflect that. It'd be pretty tough for Osgood to play any better than he already has...and I mean that as a compliment.

SV% isn't all goalie. If goalie A faces 50 shots but the majority of them are from the perimeter because the defense isn't letting them get in close and goalie B faces 20 shots, but 3 of them are breakaways, 3 are 2 on 1s, and 7 and from the slot, who had the tougher game? If they both give up 2 goals, who had the better game? Whose save % is worse?

I wish there was a way to standardize the "quality scoring chance" stat, because goals per quality scoring chance would probably be the best way to assess a goalie's performance. Under this system, a dump in that happens to go on net counts just the same as a breakaway or a point blank chance on a 5 on 3. Not all shots on goal are created equal.

So in one breath you say that Hasek will catch up to Osgood in some statistical categories, yet in another you say it's impossible because the only stats that change are wins and losses? I don't follow this logic.

What the poster means by Dom getting the nod because of his name is this. If both tenders finish out the season on an equal level, you have to look at something else to decide who gets the start. Osgood has had the better season, there is no denying that. So in that situation, if Dom gets the nod, it would be because of his name, and not his performance.

You could argue either way all day about GAA and SV%, either can be looked at as a padded stat. GAA will be directly effected by a good defense because you will have fewer defensive breakdowns, thus you will allow fewer quality scoring chances. You could use your argument about SV% being padded. However, over the course of time, you will see that the better defensive team, 9 out of 10 times doesn't allow many shots. Both stats are important. Personally, I believe that GAA is the padded stat, as it is more about the team than the tender. SV% is more about the tender. I mean look at Dom. It's the perfect example. Both Dom and Ozzie play behind the same team. Yet Dom SV% doesn't hold a candle to Ozzie's. Why? Because Dom sucked it up the first 3 months of the season while Ozzie was playing out of his mind.

As far as any standardization of a quality scoring chance, there will never be one because it's impossible. Yes, certain situations can be labeled as quality chances, break aways for instance. However, other situations where there is a clear advantage don't necessarily translate into a quality chance, such as a 5-3 PP.

[Packer487 3]

So in one breath you say that Hasek will catch up to Osgood in some statistical categories, yet in another you say it's impossible because the only stats that change are wins and losses? I don't follow this logic.

If you look at TSN's projected stats, the goals against average and the save percentage aren't going to change from the current mark. Even though Dom has improved his save percentage by like .031 in a month and a half's time and his stats are clearly improving from the averages he's put up to this point, the "projected stats" aren't going to take that into account. He has a .900 save percentage right now, so they project him at a .900 for the season.

I do think that in real life, their GAAs will be fairly close by the end of the season, but it'll be fairly impossible for Dom to get up to a .930 for the season because of the whole he dug for himself--thus he wouldn't catch Osgood in that category without Osgood slumping.

When I was talking about the wins and losses being the only things that change, I was merely referring to the projected stats on TSN.

What the poster means by Dom getting the nod because of his name is this. If both tenders finish out the season on an equal level, you have to look at something else to decide who gets the start. Osgood has had the better season, there is no denying that. So in that situation, if Dom gets the nod, it would be because of his name, and not his performance.

I know that's what he was trying to say. I just don't agree. Assuming both goalies finish the season on an equal level, that means that Dom will have played amazing hockey for what? 5 1/2 months? If he's given the starting nod, how can that not be because of his performance? To say that someone is only given a job because of their name implies that they didn't earn it on any of their own merits.

Again, if Dom was playing .870 hockey and they named him the starter in the playoffs anyway, then absolutely I'd agree with the point. But when a guy has gone a month and a half (or longer if we're assuming this continues) stopping almost 94% of the shots he's faced, he'd be more than deserving of starting the playoffs. I just don't buy that the goalies' play in October means a hill of beans come April, if things continue the way they have.

You could argue either way all day about GAA and SV%, either can be looked at as a padded stat.

I completely agree. Which is why I whole-heartedly disagree that save percentage is all about the goalie. There's a huge element of the defense in there too.

GAA will be directly effected by a good defense because you will have fewer defensive breakdowns, thus you will allow fewer quality scoring chances. You could use your argument about SV% being padded. However, over the course of time, you will see that the better defensive team, 9 out of 10 times doesn't allow many shots. Both stats are important. Personally, I believe that GAA is the padded stat, as it is more about the team than the tender. SV% is more about the tender.

I'd agree that Save % is more about the goalie than goals against is, but a team's defense can make a good goalie's save percentage look bad--or they can help it look better than it probably should be.

I mean look at Dom. It's the perfect example. Both Dom and Ozzie play behind the same team. Yet Dom SV% doesn't hold a candle to Ozzie's. Why? Because Dom sucked it up the first 3 months of the season while Ozzie was playing out of his mind.

First month and a half of the season. He's been great since mid-November.

And I would agree--for the most part--that save percentage is a good stat to compare goalies on the same team, because they're playing behind the same defense, which, for the most part, should be consistent night in and night out. Where it gets murkier is when you start having to translate it over to other teams because the quality of shots faced isn't going to be the same. That stat treats every goal and an equal and every shot on goal as an equal. And they really aren't.

As far as any standardization of a quality scoring chance, there will never be one because it's impossible. Yes, certain situations can be labeled as quality chances, break aways for instance. However, other situations where there is a clear advantage don't necessarily translate into a quality chance, such as a 5-3 PP.

I just wish it was possible, because that would be the best way to compare Osgood to Hasek to Tim Thomas to Chris Mason. Save percentage is probably as good of a stat as we've got, but I don't think it comes close to telling the entire story.

Then again, shots on goal are standardized and arenas still count them differently--whether to pad their own goalie's stats or to make the team look better. I don't think even something as theoretically simple as shots on goal is an unbiased stat. So maybe it would be possible for a QSC stat. Everyone tracks "Quality scoring chances" for the telecast anyway. I'd just be curious to see those numbers released. It'd be a biased stat as well, moreso than shots on goal, but tell me it wouldn't be interesting to see the numbers league-wide.

[imisssergei 0]

I know that's what he was trying to say. I just don't agree. Assuming both goalies finish the season on an equal level, that means that Dom will have played amazing hockey for what? 5 1/2 months? If he's given the starting nod, how can that not be because of his performance? To say that someone is only given a job because of their name implies that they didn't earn it on any of their own merits.

Again, if Dom was playing .870 hockey and they named him the starter in the playoffs anyway, then absolutely I'd agree with the point. But when a guy has gone a month and a half (or longer if we're assuming this continues) stopping almost 94% of the shots he's faced, he'd be more than deserving of starting the playoffs. I just don't buy that the goalies' play in October means a hill of beans come April, if things continue the way they have.

Here is what you are missing, or ignoring, I'm not sure which. The key factor is if the goalies finish the season playing on the same level, not finish the season with similar stats. That means, just looking at from now, till the end of the season. Dom would still finish with lesser stats. In that situation, if Dom gets the nod, how does it not directly relate to the name on the back of the jersey?

[rdwingguy 0]

“You never accept not playing,†Osgood said. “I know Dom is going to be the guy who plays in the playoffs; but I want to do everything I can to stay ready to show that I can still play up to a high level and show I can still be a No. 1 goalie.â€Â

http://www.nhl.com/nhl/app/?service=page&a...rticleid=349195

[FinRedWing 172]

Strange statement to say the least.

Well if he says so...

[vangvace 12]

and his hard work shows with the contract extension, but I have to wonder if this should have gone in the tandem or contract thread...

[Flip-check 6]

Is that Osgood quote even recent? I don't know Dan Rosen but I don't follow NHL.com writers either.

And the whole article seems strange. Why author something that emphasizes a guy's supposed backup role... when he hasn't played like a backup? And Babs was starting to count on Ozzie even before Dom's hip injury went public.

I doubt Chris would be making that statement from anytime in the past two months.

Edited January 10, 2008 by Flip-check

[Swede40 0]

I would like them to split time....at least in the first round.

[Guest Jeremy88]

Hey, if they alternate pitchers in the baseball playoffs, we can alternate goalies in the playoffs

[lfd250 1]

Ugh, the playoffs don't start until July, no wait that's when they end. But A lot can happen before April.

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

This all seems strangely familiar...

[Guest wingswillwincup]

i been saying it for the longest time ..... i wouldnt be surprised at all if hasek starts in the post season , id be shocked if he wasnt

[BeeRYCE 2]

Hey, if they alternate pitchers in the baseball playoffs, we can alternate goalies in the playoffs

This quote should be the convincer.