A New 'Average' for NHL Goaltenders

There are three general trends in play there, and I’d link where I’d seen them if I had saved them. (He said, copping out.)

1. the more scoring events there are, the easier it is to rally
2. the lower the skill level, the easier it is to rally
3. but higher scoring events and lower skill levels make it harder to register upsets

Again, without the links where these things were investigated mathematically, I can’t offer you the objective evidence – but I can recall the logic that went along with it.

Trend #1 is fairly simple: when scoring events are rare, getting only a few points is usually sufficient to win. There just aren’t enough chances to erase that margin. Teams instinctively realize this, which is how we get strategies specifically designed to kill offensive opportunites: ranging in effectiveness from prevent defenses to the dreaded “trap.”

Trend #2 is also straightforward. What’s a one or two goal lead in a world where goalies aren’t inhumanly capable and defenders aren’t so fast and relentless? It’s easier for my team to erase (or blow) a three-goal lead than it is for a pro team, recent examples in the playoffs notwithstanding.

BUT – these kind of lead to Trend #3. If either team is more likely to rally from a deficit, it’s a stronger team, so in higher-scoring and lower-skill environments, where it is in fact easier to rally, we find far fewer upsets. The #8 seed in the NBA has a much much lower chance of advancing than the #8 seed in the NHL, in part because of the greater scoring environment. More events means more opportunites for greater skill to prevail.

For our purpose, it works out that higher seeds (and their elite goalies) won more often in the go-go 80’s in hockey than they do today, again partly due to the higher-scoring environment, but in this case, also due to lower overall skill in a vital area – goalkeeping. Ironically, the greater skill of an elite goalie makes a bigger difference in the higher-scoring environment than the lower. Back then, if Money von Pückstopper had a shaky moment and gave up a softie, it wasn’t a big deal – his team would almost certainly get it back from Shaky McSeiverson. And in an environment where each team gives up ten good scoring chances, MVP gets ten chances to contribute to his team’s success with great stops. He makes eight of those, while ol’ Shaky only stops half, and it’s smooth sailing.

In the aughts, however, were only two or three good chances, and thus far fewer opportunities for that advantage to assert itself. It’s a little easier to stop three good chances than ten, even if you’re Shaky. It also meant that if MVP only stopped two (and heck, they ARE good scoring chances), his team was stuck trying to make up a deficit in an environment where scoring was much less likely. Even if Shaky blew it with a softie, that only got the better team level. That’s before we get to the increase in overall skill, where Shaky has improved to at least competent, or (more likely) has been replaced by Wally Butterflier, who boringly blocks everything.

So that’s the dilemma… we love exciting hockey. We need the possibility of an exciting comeback to stay invested in an otherwise humdrum 2-0 game; but we want it through an increase in events, not a lower-skill environment. A 1-0 game is plenty exciting if there are many scoring chances; it’s painful if the only goal came from a fluke because there’s no open ice to create good plays.

Shooters used to aim low just because of that reason…(it was hard to move your feet). Do you think the “stack the pads”/ lay across the the goal thing led to the “elevated shot”? Do you think the “elevated shot” led to better glove hands leading to faking and opening up the 5 hole? Do you think opening the 5 hole led to the butterfly? I think all of these things can kind of be put in an evolutionary order…know what I mean?

You wonder how shooter tendencies went over the years and what caused what to evolve first.

Like playing small ball in a world where teams score five or six runs a game. Why play for only one run when the other team is going to blow that run right out of the water? But when teams only scored half that, then one run was a big deal. Unfortunately, even when the game changed, the brains behind it didn’t. They were stuck trying to build 3-2 teams in a 7-5 world. Same thing here… it’s easier to be passable, and more goalies have that acceptable skill, so going for the Big Game Guy is much less productive than it used to be… but people are still stuck in the “you need elite goalie to win Stanley Cup” world, which ended with the dawn of the Dead Puck Era, where Chris Osgood could win three Cups by punching the clock for the Detroit Red Wings – and even then, the Wings, who are by all accounts run by brilliant hockey minds, went out for Mike Vernon instead of trusting their perfectly serviceable starter. (And luckily Vernon was also perfectly serviceable, but it falsely reinforced the notion of the essential Big Game Goalie.)

You hear a lot more about spending more time in the video room. i assume that goes for goalies as well, especially as their level (and team budget) increases.
Expanded coaching staffs are also a help. I can’t remember the Islanders having a goalie coach in the dynasty years, now they have two. I think that also goes down to the developmental levels, as some teams have organizational goalie coaches, and I’d bet that the better college and junior teams employ somebody to help in that specialized capacity.

It’s not a one way road, the forwards have gotten bigger, faster, harder slap shots. Meanwhile the sticks have advanced allowing featherlike play of the puck. Better Skates help make players faster, lighter equipment speeds them up and allows more flexibility. It’s not just goalies who have improved equipment.