Cool article, it’s been a while since I’ve seen a killer goalie piece. I totally agree GAA is not the best statistic to use when comparing goalies, but on the flip side is it fair to discount one goalie over another because he had the fortune of a better team in front of him? You remove GAA and Vilde still has the better the save% and shutouts. It’s not his fault Calgary doesn’t cough up as many shots.
Just a heads up I’m not saying Vilde over Knox. More so just a counter argument.
10-27-2020, 12:06 AMkarlssens Wrote: Cool article, it’s been a while since I’ve seen a killer goalie piece. I totally agree GAA is not the best statistic to use when comparing goalies, but on the flip side is it fair to discount one goalie over another because he had the fortune of a better team in front of him? You remove GAA and Vilde still has the better the save% and shutouts. It’s not his fault Calgary doesn’t cough up as many shots.
Just a heads up I’m not saying Vilde over Knox. More so just a counter argument.
Firstly, as I mentioned earlier shutouts are effectively equivalent to GAA. Goalies that get shot on less have less shutouts. Secondly, my rationale behind it was focusing mainly on shots stopped, and Knox Booth stopped nearly 13 more shots per game compared to Vilde. The point isn't necessarily to punish goalies on good teams but to reward ones who put the team on their back. The fact is Knox Booth had way more of an impact on the team than Kata Vilde did. If we take the average save percentage from all goalies this year (~.916) and apply it to Booth's SHA the team lets in 31 more goals and he now has the third worst GA out of any goalie (right now Knox is 10th). By that same methodology, Kata Vilde lets in 23 and moves from 19th GA to 17th. So what does this mean? First off those ten more goals that Knox would have let in are HUGE, and probably represents anywhere from 3-6 games lost as a result. Second, it means that Knox Booth had way more of an impact on team success than Vilde did, while having a harder road to doing it. That's really the core of this article. Knox Booth was way more valuable to his team than Kata was.
I also have been keeping track of a graph of sv% compared with SHAA for every goalie performance over the year, which I'll put below. Take with the data what you will.
10-27-2020, 12:49 PM(This post was last modified: 10-27-2020, 12:54 PM by Wally.)
10-27-2020, 12:41 PMDuff101 Wrote:
10-27-2020, 12:06 AMkarlssens Wrote: Cool article, it’s been a while since I’ve seen a killer goalie piece. I totally agree GAA is not the best statistic to use when comparing goalies, but on the flip side is it fair to discount one goalie over another because he had the fortune of a better team in front of him? You remove GAA and Vilde still has the better the save% and shutouts. It’s not his fault Calgary doesn’t cough up as many shots.
Just a heads up I’m not saying Vilde over Knox. More so just a counter argument.
Firstly, as I mentioned earlier shutouts are effectively equivalent to GAA. Goalies that get shot on less have less shutouts. Secondly, my rationale behind it was focusing mainly on shots stopped, and Knox Booth stopped nearly 13 more shots per game compared to Vilde. The point isn't necessarily to punish goalies on good teams but to reward ones who put the team on their back. The fact is Knox Booth had way more of an impact on the team than Kata Vilde did. If we take the average save percentage from all goalies this year (~.916) and apply it to Booth's SHA the team lets in 31 more goals and he now has the third worst GA out of any goalie (right now Knox is 10th). By that same methodology, Kata Vilde lets in 23 and moves from 19th GA to 17th. So what does this mean? First off those ten more goals that Knox would have let in are HUGE, and probably represents anywhere from 3-6 games lost as a result. Second, it means that Knox Booth had way more of an impact on team success than Vilde did, while having a harder road to doing it. That's really the core of this article. Knox Booth was way more valuable to his team than Kata was.
I also have been keeping track of a graph of sv% compared with SHAA for every goalie performance over the year, which I'll put below. Take with the data what you will.
And the quality of shots Knox faced versus Vilde?
And shutouts are equivalent to GAA? So in your opinion, shutouts and wins have no place in goalie rankings?
10-27-2020, 02:51 PM(This post was last modified: 10-27-2020, 03:00 PM by Duff101.)
10-27-2020, 12:49 PMWally Wrote:
10-27-2020, 12:41 PMDuff101 Wrote: Firstly, as I mentioned earlier shutouts are effectively equivalent to GAA. Goalies that get shot on less have less shutouts. Secondly, my rationale behind it was focusing mainly on shots stopped, and Knox Booth stopped nearly 13 more shots per game compared to Vilde. The point isn't necessarily to punish goalies on good teams but to reward ones who put the team on their back. The fact is Knox Booth had way more of an impact on the team than Kata Vilde did. If we take the average save percentage from all goalies this year (~.916) and apply it to Booth's SHA the team lets in 31 more goals and he now has the third worst GA out of any goalie (right now Knox is 10th). By that same methodology, Kata Vilde lets in 23 and moves from 19th GA to 17th. So what does this mean? First off those ten more goals that Knox would have let in are HUGE, and probably represents anywhere from 3-6 games lost as a result. Second, it means that Knox Booth had way more of an impact on team success than Vilde did, while having a harder road to doing it. That's really the core of this article. Knox Booth was way more valuable to his team than Kata was.
I also have been keeping track of a graph of sv% compared with SHAA for every goalie performance over the year, which I'll put below. Take with the data what you will.
And the quality of shots Knox faced versus Vilde?
And shutouts are equivalent to GAA? So in your opinion, shutouts and wins have no place in goalie rankings?
Point A, the index doesn't give us shot quality so I can't use that and if there's a place somewhere that does that I'm missing I'd love for someone to point it out. In that case I would do a weighted average of shot quality and factor that in.
Point B, in short yes. Less shots per game increases the likelihood of a shoutout. Here's a graph of SHAA and this season's shutout numbers. So yes, shutouts and wins aren't indicative of goalie skill and serve as a team stat. However, they can be used to determine a goalie's team contribution. Save percentage is also a flawed stat but it's the best we have.
Let me posit a hypothetical for you. Let's say we have a goalie with a .950 sv%. That's ABSURDLY good. But if that goalie faces 60 shots a game the odds say that they'll let in 3 goals a game and probably have very few shutouts, and if the team around them is garbage they won't have that many wins either.
10-27-2020, 03:39 PM(This post was last modified: 10-27-2020, 03:41 PM by karlssens.)
10-27-2020, 12:41 PMDuff101 Wrote:
10-27-2020, 12:06 AMkarlssens Wrote: Cool article, it’s been a while since I’ve seen a killer goalie piece. I totally agree GAA is not the best statistic to use when comparing goalies, but on the flip side is it fair to discount one goalie over another because he had the fortune of a better team in front of him? You remove GAA and Vilde still has the better the save% and shutouts. It’s not his fault Calgary doesn’t cough up as many shots.
Just a heads up I’m not saying Vilde over Knox. More so just a counter argument.
Firstly, as I mentioned earlier shutouts are effectively equivalent to GAA. Goalies that get shot on less have less shutouts. Secondly, my rationale behind it was focusing mainly on shots stopped, and Knox Booth stopped nearly 13 more shots per game compared to Vilde. The point isn't necessarily to punish goalies on good teams but to reward ones who put the team on their back. The fact is Knox Booth had way more of an impact on the team than Kata Vilde did. If we take the average save percentage from all goalies this year (~.916) and apply it to Booth's SHA the team lets in 31 more goals and he now has the third worst GA out of any goalie (right now Knox is 10th). By that same methodology, Kata Vilde lets in 23 and moves from 19th GA to 17th. So what does this mean? First off those ten more goals that Knox would have let in are HUGE, and probably represents anywhere from 3-6 games lost as a result. Second, it means that Knox Booth had way more of an impact on team success than Vilde did, while having a harder road to doing it. That's really the core of this article. Knox Booth was way more valuable to his team than Kata was.
I also have been keeping track of a graph of sv% compared with SHAA for every goalie performance over the year, which I'll put below. Take with the data what you will.
I get where you're coming from and I don't deny Knox was more valuable to his team, but I've always seen the mcbride award as best goalie, not most valuable. It's the same argument that comes up when we discuss the Mexico each season. The two aren't mutually exclusive, and most of the time it's pretty cut and dry, but Vilde has so few shots against him (or at least compared to Knox) it really opens up the door for a potential award win by Knox. Curious to see where the committee goes.
My biggest concern is that you're leaning very heavily on shots against. Much like how every year people sort by blocks and say the best defender is the one with the most blocks or hits. It helps when your team doesn't have the puck.
10-27-2020, 12:41 PMDuff101 Wrote: Firstly, as I mentioned earlier shutouts are effectively equivalent to GAA. Goalies that get shot on less have less shutouts. Secondly, my rationale behind it was focusing mainly on shots stopped, and Knox Booth stopped nearly 13 more shots per game compared to Vilde. The point isn't necessarily to punish goalies on good teams but to reward ones who put the team on their back. The fact is Knox Booth had way more of an impact on the team than Kata Vilde did. If we take the average save percentage from all goalies this year (~.916) and apply it to Booth's SHA the team lets in 31 more goals and he now has the third worst GA out of any goalie (right now Knox is 10th). By that same methodology, Kata Vilde lets in 23 and moves from 19th GA to 17th. So what does this mean? First off those ten more goals that Knox would have let in are HUGE, and probably represents anywhere from 3-6 games lost as a result. Second, it means that Knox Booth had way more of an impact on team success than Vilde did, while having a harder road to doing it. That's really the core of this article. Knox Booth was way more valuable to his team than Kata was.
I also have been keeping track of a graph of sv% compared with SHAA for every goalie performance over the year, which I'll put below. Take with the data what you will.
I get where you're coming from and I don't deny Knox was more valuable to his team, but I've always seen the mcbride award as best goalie, not most valuable. It's the same argument that comes up when we discuss the Mexico each season. The two aren't mutually exclusive, and most of the time it's pretty cut and dry, but Vilde has so few shots against him (or at least compared to Knox) it really opens up the door for a potential award win by Knox. Curious to see where the committee goes.
My biggest concern is that you're leaning very heavily on shots against. Much like how every year people sort by blocks and say the best defender is the one with the most blocks are hits. It helps when your team doesn't have the puck.
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.
10-27-2020, 04:18 PM(This post was last modified: 10-27-2020, 04:19 PM by karlssens.)
10-27-2020, 03:58 PMDuff101 Wrote:
10-27-2020, 03:39 PMkarlssens Wrote: I get where you're coming from and I don't deny Knox was more valuable to his team, but I've always seen the mcbride award as best goalie, not most valuable. It's the same argument that comes up when we discuss the Mexico each season. The two aren't mutually exclusive, and most of the time it's pretty cut and dry, but Vilde has so few shots against him (or at least compared to Knox) it really opens up the door for a potential award win by Knox. Curious to see where the committee goes.
My biggest concern is that you're leaning very heavily on shots against. Much like how every year people sort by blocks and say the best defender is the one with the most blocks are hits. It helps when your team doesn't have the puck.
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.
10-27-2020, 05:04 PM(This post was last modified: 10-27-2020, 05:05 PM by Duff101.)
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.
10-27-2020, 12:49 PMWally Wrote: And the quality of shots Knox faced versus Vilde?
And shutouts are equivalent to GAA? So in your opinion, shutouts and wins have no place in goalie rankings?
Point A, the index doesn't give us shot quality so I can't use that and if there's a place somewhere that does that I'm missing I'd love for someone to point it out. In that case I would do a weighted average of shot quality and factor that in.
Point B, in short yes. Less shots per game increases the likelihood of a shoutout. Here's a graph of SHAA and this season's shutout numbers. So yes, shutouts and wins aren't indicative of goalie skill and serve as a team stat. However, they can be used to determine a goalie's team contribution. Save percentage is also a flawed stat but it's the best we have.
Let me posit a hypothetical for you. Let's say we have a goalie with a .950 sv%. That's ABSURDLY good. But if that goalie faces 60 shots a game the odds say that they'll let in 3 goals a game and probably have very few shutouts, and if the team around them is garbage they won't have that many wins either.
To point A... If it doesn't give you the stat it doesn't dilute the obvious that all 60 shots aren't high quality. In not knowing that you can't just assume all were high quality, but I also respect that you can't expect all to be low quality.
At some point this league needs to start negating this argument that a goalie on a good team is never good himself, just a "piece" of a good team. Every year there is another argument for a borderline playoff team for a goalie that "stood" on his head simply because their team bleeds shots. Unless you carry a stat-line that includes shutouts and some semblance of win consistency you simply can't keep considering them as front runners for the goalie award.
Hypothetical question I would pose is Who would you vote into the Hall of Fame:
Player 1 - 320-246-27, 2.45, .935, 60 SO - Three Championships
Player 2 - 280-277-33, 2.65, .931, 23 SO - Two GoTY Awards
Fact here is that the trend we are going towards is that Player 1 will absolutely start losing clout under the same pretense we value awards at if this trend continues. Simply because a goalie plays on a good team shouldn't be taking away from a good stat line and it is happening time and again. Vilde, hands down had an amazing season that has all of the "goaltender" checkboxes checked. There are ample examples of a mediocre statline with many wins... and not to call anyone out here, but that would be looking at the line of Blunt Man this season. Awesome team success, but Blunt had a rough go with the sim gods... Hell Cale had some lows as well but still hit 25 wins.
To point B... As an actual goalie, I probably would light someone on fire if they said a shutout wasn't indicative of goalie skill. While opportunity is more plentiful for a goalie with either a stout team or defensive strategy, that absolutely does not take away from the execution of the goaltender. His job is to make a save... make all of the saves.
I could honestly speak from both sides of the spectrum here. I've had shutouts after facing ten shots and shutouts facing 35+... both are mentally taxing and while I would much prefer god mode facing 40 shots, I would take a ten shot shutout and drink a six pack after, while adding a notch on my paddle as I do. What I'm trying to say is that shutouts to a goalie's skill is equivalent to a snipers ability to score. While, I absolutely credit my defensemen to stepping in and clearing out pucks and minimizing opportunities... a goalie's skill determines the final outcome.
You want to measure a shutout performance then look at the goalie rating of that specific game. You want to remove the one standalone statistic a goalie starts every game hopes to achieve... no thanks.
10-27-2020, 05:55 PM(This post was last modified: 10-27-2020, 05:57 PM by Duff101.)
10-27-2020, 05:23 PMWally Wrote:
10-27-2020, 02:51 PMDuff101 Wrote: Point A, the index doesn't give us shot quality so I can't use that and if there's a place somewhere that does that I'm missing I'd love for someone to point it out. In that case I would do a weighted average of shot quality and factor that in.
Point B, in short yes. Less shots per game increases the likelihood of a shoutout. Here's a graph of SHAA and this season's shutout numbers. So yes, shutouts and wins aren't indicative of goalie skill and serve as a team stat. However, they can be used to determine a goalie's team contribution. Save percentage is also a flawed stat but it's the best we have.
Let me posit a hypothetical for you. Let's say we have a goalie with a .950 sv%. That's ABSURDLY good. But if that goalie faces 60 shots a game the odds say that they'll let in 3 goals a game and probably have very few shutouts, and if the team around them is garbage they won't have that many wins either.
To point A... If it doesn't give you the stat it doesn't dilute the obvious that all 60 shots aren't high quality. In not knowing that you can't just assume all were high quality, but I also respect that you can't expect all to be low quality.
At some point this league needs to start negating this argument that a goalie on a good team is never good himself, just a "piece" of a good team. Every year there is another argument for a borderline playoff team for a goalie that "stood" on his head simply because their team bleeds shots. Unless you carry a stat-line that includes shutouts and some semblance of win consistency you simply can't keep considering them as front runners for the goalie award.
Hypothetical question I would pose is Who would you vote into the Hall of Fame:
Player 1 - 320-246-27, 2.45, .935, 60 SO - Three Championships
Player 2 - 280-277-33, 2.65, .931, 23 SO - Two GoTY Awards
Fact here is that the trend we are going towards is that Player 1 will absolutely start losing clout under the same pretense we value awards at if this trend continues. Simply because a goalie plays on a good team shouldn't be taking away from a good stat line and it is happening time and again. Vilde, hands down had an amazing season that has all of the "goaltender" checkboxes checked. There are ample examples of a mediocre statline with many wins... and not to call anyone out here, but that would be looking at the line of Blunt Man this season. Awesome team success, but Blunt had a rough go with the sim gods... Hell Cale had some lows as well but still hit 25 wins.
To point B... As an actual goalie, I probably would light someone on fire if they said a shutout wasn't indicative of goalie skill. While opportunity is more plentiful for a goalie with either a stout team or defensive strategy, that absolutely does not take away from the execution of the goaltender. His job is to make a save... make all of the saves.
I could honestly speak from both sides of the spectrum here. I've had shutouts after facing ten shots and shutouts facing 35+... both are mentally taxing and while I would much prefer god mode facing 40 shots, I would take a ten shot shutout and drink a six pack after, while adding a notch on my paddle as I do. What I'm trying to say is that shutouts to a goalie's skill is equivalent to a snipers ability to score. While, I absolutely credit my defensemen to stepping in and clearing out pucks and minimizing opportunities... a goalie's skill determines the final outcome.
You want to measure a shutout performance then look at the goalie rating of that specific game. You want to remove the one standalone statistic a goalie starts every game hopes to achieve... no thanks.
Quote:To point A... If it doesn't give you the stat it doesn't dilute the obvious that all 60 shots aren't high quality. In not knowing that you can't just assume all were high quality, but I also respect that you can't expect all to be low quality.
At some point this league needs to start negating this argument that a goalie on a good team is never good himself, just a "piece" of a good team. Every year there is another argument for a borderline playoff team for a goalie that "stood" on his head simply because their team bleeds shots. Unless you carry a stat-line that includes shutouts and some semblance of win consistency you simply can't keep considering them as front runners for the goalie award.
I'm gonna touch on this later but I think the data on this is pretty apparent. Less shots = more shutouts.
To the second point I didn't address this in my original post on goaliescore especially on the historical winners vs. McBride winners, but it's pretty clear that goalies on good teams have had a much better shot at the McBride than those on lesser ones.
S53 McBride Winner: Johannes Leitner - New England Wolfpack (Won Pres Trophy)
S54 McBride Winner: Elizabeth Doyle - Buffalo Stampede (Won Pres Trophy)
S55 McBride Winner: Peter Larson - Manhattan Rage (Second Overall Points, 4 points out of lead)
When the lowest points finish for a McBride winner is second overall in the FHM era, my question is isn't the mainstream argument (at least among opinions that matter for awards) the total opposite?
Quote:Hypothetical question I would pose is Who would you vote into the Hall of Fame: Player 1 - 320-246-27, 2.45, .935, 60 SO - Three Championships Player 2 - 280-277-33, 2.65, .931, 23 SO - Two GoTY Awards
Honestly I would say both.
Quote:To point B... As an actual goalie, I probably would light someone on fire if they said a shutout wasn't indicative of goalie skill. While opportunity is more plentiful for a goalie with either a stout team or defensive strategy, that absolutely does not take away from the execution of the goaltender. His job is to make a save... make all of the saves.
I could honestly speak from both sides of the spectrum here. I've had shutouts after facing ten shots and shutouts facing 35+... both are mentally taxing and while I would much prefer god mode facing 40 shots, I would take a ten shot shutout and drink a six pack after, while adding a notch on my paddle as I do. What I'm trying to say is that shutouts to a goalie's skill is equivalent to a snipers ability to score. While, I absolutely credit my defensemen to stepping in and clearing out pucks and minimizing opportunities... a goalie's skill determines the final outcome.
You want to measure a shutout performance then look at the goalie rating of that specific game. You want to remove the one standalone statistic a goalie starts every game hopes to achieve... no thanks.
There's one problem with this argument and it's pretty simple. IRL goalies run on a different sim engine. let's be honest, compared to real life FHM is a BRUTALLY simplistic way of simulating hockey and honestly could never hope to match up to the real thing barring some sort of highly unethical cloning technology. I'm going to post this graph again because I think it's clear as glass how this works IN FHM.
Real life is a whole different animal. When you go from FHM to real life a lot of stats just don't apply to some people. I personally never played in any meaningful capacity and that's why I don't claim that most of this (besides the GAA thing) really applies to a real hockey player playing on actual ice in an actual game. I'm going to say a few facts below this:
FACT: In FHM there is a DIRECT correlation between shutouts and shots per game.
FACT: A goalie in FHM that faces more shots is less likely to get a shoutout.
Using these two objective facts we can extrapolate that shutouts AS A STAT IN FHM are more influenced by the team around them than by the goalie themselves.
I am by no means diminishing the effort an IRL goalie puts into a game and into a shutout but the fact of the matter is that it's totally irrelevant to this discussion.
As I've said before I would LOVE to have an FHM shot quality indicator and use a weighted average to weight shots. But the fact is FHM doesn't give me that info so I have to assume that all shots are created equal, which I know isn't true but I don't have a choice. However, what I will say is that a goalie who faces 25 shots a game will most likely face less quality shots than a goalie who faces 40.
10-28-2020, 09:39 AM(This post was last modified: 10-28-2020, 09:54 AM by karlssens.)
ya I agree, less shots per game correlates to more shutouts.
10-27-2020, 05:04 PMDuff101 Wrote: 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.
In that particular case yes I totally agree, but nothing like that has ever come close to happening so I'm not sure it's a great example. Also if that did happen his/her GAA would be around 1.00 and his/her save % would be nuts (like 98%) and they'd be a slam dunk for best goalie regardless of wins.
karlssens
Duff101![[Image: unknown.png]](https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/371794882261549057/770688630234546176/unknown.png)
![[Image: Duff101.gif]](https://sig.grumpybumpers.com/host/Duff101.gif)
![[Image: Wally.png]](https://i.postimg.cc/gjsvkSr2/Wally.png)
![[Image: unknown.png]](https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/371794882261549057/770720898650472488/unknown.png)
![[Image: micool132.gif]](https://sig.grumpybumpers.com/host/micool132.gif)
![[Image: lUeg4KM.png]](https://i.imgur.com/lUeg4KM.png)
![[Image: awesomecakes.gif]](https://sig.grumpybumpers.com/host/awesomecakes.gif)
![[Image: beautifulphoenix.gif]](https://sig.grumpybumpers.com/host/beautifulphoenix.gif)
![[Image: scholz.png]](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/694020619620188191/1043347958755770378/scholz.png)
![[Image: tomasnz.gif]](https://sig.grumpybumpers.com/host/tomasnz.gif)
![[Image: pin1_1.gif?ex=661a1734&is=6607a234&hm=b8...1bf5caed8&]](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/548291024103931905/1180379100750286879/pin1_1.gif?ex=661a1734&is=6607a234&hm=b8de676d947328c8f7fc4859a6e75d548216388364e112bf8caa9391bf5caed8&)
