IL Preseason Media Poll

[wgdsr]

has anyone done any stats analysis showing that a lower volume of shots faced resulted in a higher save percentage? laxreference?

I haven’t done any work on it, but it makes logical sense. Just from the sense that in general, goalies that face less shots are usually on good defensive teams. That would generally lead to the opposition shooting poorer shots. Trying to remember a time when ND had a questionable goalie. Face offs could skew that. Probably the best way to test it is to start with shots per possession, but good luck finding that stat.

but i don't think it necessarily makes logical sense. some teams play at a faster pace. some teams play opponents that like to play faster. some teams lose more faceoffs. the opposite is true of all of those as well.

seems pretty easy, percentage of saves versus number of shots faced. just scanning the last couple years of goalie stats, there doesn'r look to even be a correlation. but that's just an eye test.

I am not sure how faster pace or face offs affects shots per possession. My point was shots per possession is probably a good indicator of the quality of your defense. The 6 in front of your goalie are going to affect the quality of shots that your Goalie sees. I would bet a lot of money that if you paired Entenmann on Yale, his save percentage would drop and vice versa (paired Paquette with ND's defense)

I did something real quick (I am too lazy to do a regression).. It is far from scientific, but here is what I found.
Goalies that faced more than .39 shots per minute had an average of 49.7% save percentage. 56.8% of that group was sub 50% in save percentage

The sub .39 group averaged 51.1% with only 33% having a save percentage below 50%.

5 goalies faced less than .34 shots per minute and they averaged 52.5% save percentage. Only Denver goalie (Kleban) was below 50% at 47.3%..
5 goalies face .49 shots per minute and they averaged 47% save percentage. Not a single goalie hit the 50% mark.

Cutting the list into 25% (ncaa site only lists 67 goalies)..
Group 1 was at 50.3% (lowest shorts per minute)
Group 2 was at 51.5%
Group 3- 49.9%
GRoup 4- 49.5%

i think we're talking past each other a bit. my question related to volume of shots, and inintially u said it made logical sense. that's what i replied to that to me doesn't automatically track, but it's something that peeps throw out there regularly. at the very end, you mentioned shots per possession as a possible indicator of the quality of those shots.

above, your final quartile breakdown has the largest sample size and seems to confirm what i saw with the naked eye on stats. a middle quartile has the best save percentage, and the highs and lows are very concentrated. doesn't look like volume of shots has much effect at all, if any.

[coda]

has anyone done any stats analysis showing that a lower volume of shots faced resulted in a higher save percentage? laxreference?

I haven’t done any work on it, but it makes logical sense. Just from the sense that in general, goalies that face less shots are usually on good defensive teams. That would generally lead to the opposition shooting poorer shots. Trying to remember a time when ND had a questionable goalie. Face offs could skew that. Probably the best way to test it is to start with shots per possession, but good luck finding that stat.

but i don't think it necessarily makes logical sense. some teams play at a faster pace. some teams play opponents that like to play faster. some teams lose more faceoffs. the opposite is true of all of those as well.

seems pretty easy, percentage of saves versus number of shots faced. just scanning the last couple years of goalie stats, there doesn'r look to even be a correlation. but that's just an eye test.

I am not sure how faster pace or face offs affects shots per possession. My point was shots per possession is probably a good indicator of the quality of your defense. The 6 in front of your goalie are going to affect the quality of shots that your Goalie sees. I would bet a lot of money that if you paired Entenmann on Yale, his save percentage would drop and vice versa (paired Paquette with ND's defense)

I did something real quick (I am too lazy to do a regression).. It is far from scientific, but here is what I found.
Goalies that faced more than .39 shots per minute had an average of 49.7% save percentage. 56.8% of that group was sub 50% in save percentage

The sub .39 group averaged 51.1% with only 33% having a save percentage below 50%.

5 goalies faced less than .34 shots per minute and they averaged 52.5% save percentage. Only Denver goalie (Kleban) was below 50% at 47.3%..
5 goalies face .49 shots per minute and they averaged 47% save percentage. Not a single goalie hit the 50% mark.

Cutting the list into 25% (ncaa site only lists 67 goalies)..
Group 1 was at 50.3% (lowest shorts per minute)
Group 2 was at 51.5%
Group 3- 49.9%
GRoup 4- 49.5%

i think we're talking past each other a bit. my question related to volume of shots, and inintially u said it made logical sense. that's what i replied to that to me doesn't automatically track, but it's something that peeps throw out there regularly. at the very end, you mentioned shots per possession as a possible indicator of the quality of those shots.

above, your final quartile breakdown has the largest sample size and seems to confirm what i saw with the naked eye on stats. a middle quartile has the best save percentage, and the highs and lows are very concentrated. doesn't look like volume of shots has much effect at all, if any.

The bottom quartile and top quartile are very different. My point was on shots per possession, which is something I can not find. Even looking over the normal stats there seems to be some correlation. Like I said lower shots per possession is more of a defensive stat and it is logical that goalie would perform better behind a good defense, than a poor one.

[wgdsr]

are you saying 50.3% vs 49.5% are very different? or that it's best to be facing a middle quartile (in the 26% percentile up to and including a very median-like 50% but not over)?

[coda]

are you saying 50.3% vs 49.5% are very different? or that it's best to be facing a middle quartile (in the 26% percentile up to and including a very median-like 50% but not over)?

yes.. The spread on save percentage is not very big.
There 47% of tier 1 are below 50%
17% of tier 2 are below 50%
53% of tier 3 are below 50%
and 65% of tier 4 are below 50%

so the odds of your goalie being below 50% dramatically improves based on shots per minute.