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