This is certainly quite interesting. Does anyone really think that
Herlofsky is a 'horrible' goalie? Based on the miraculous performance
he gave in the Beanpot finals, I can't agree with this perserverance
thing. I didn't quite comprehend all of the logistics of the formula,
but it seems a little suspect. Herlofsky is an incredible goaltender.
Considering that I am BC all the way through, you know I mean it. I
don't compliment BU often, but I'll give credit where it is due. I did
get a charge out of seeing Greg Taylor's name above the two Terriers.
What does it mean? Got me, but it will all sort itself out in a few
years when these guys are fighting for NHL jobs.
-Jeff
BC '96 GO EAGLES!
>After seeing JohnE's description of this and JohnH's ranking of CCHA
>goalies, I decided to see how the HE goalies stack up. Note that I
>only used HE stats (because the HE release does not give overall
>numbers for minutes played, etc.) and only evaluated the top 9 HE
>goalies as ranked by GAA since that's where the cutoff is on the release.
>
>GOALIE PERSEVERANCE (HOCKEY EAST)
>1 Legault, Merrimack 959 (excellent)
>2 Heinke, UNH 948 (very good)
> Veisor, NU 948 (very good)
>4 Reynolds, NU 943 (very good)
>5 Allison, Maine 931 (good)
> Taylor, BC 931 (good)
>7 Cavicchi, UNH 930 (good)
>8 Noble, BU 910 (poor)
>9 Herlofsky, BU 881 (horrible)
>
>Again, that is based on the formula JohnE posted.
>
>A couple of questions I have are:
>
>* What is a "reasonable" number of minutes played? HE teams have
>played, on average, about 1200 minutes. The goalies listed above have
>played anywhere from 477 minutes (Noble) to 1210 (Allison). (Maine
>has played 21 games including 6 overtime games.)
>
>* WHY is this formula supposed to mean anything? I ask because anyone
>can come up with a formula and claim it means something. And why is
>the formula set up the way it is - i.e., why multiply save% by 6?
>--- ---
>Mike Machnik [log in to unmask]
>Cabletron Systems, Inc. *HMM* 11/13/93
|
