I bandied this idea with Doug and have not had time to do the math for the exact figures but the formula would go like this
(3.0 - GAA)*min/60+sv%*min/60
I have used 3.0 instead of the current 4.0 as a shut out would add a point.
As the save % is always positive this would reduce any negative on the GAA.
7 comments:
Rob, A very intersting adaptation!
Rob,
Would love to see how this would work out when you run the numbers but even though I'm really interested in using sv% - this is just an exercise.
What makes Mike's proposal so compelling for so many GMs is not simply that the numbers work out (which they do) or that once set it will never need to be revisited (which it won't) but that it is so simple.
I developed the current formula and like it but it is NOT simple. You end up with fractional points, at a minimum, and have a hard time accurately guaging how many point you have. Adding sv%, while an interesting idea, really only makes goalies more complicated. I don't think there will be much call for that.
I'm with Doug, and still a proponent of Mike's system over the current complications
I'd be interested in seeing what kind of numbers your system generates Rob, but unwilling to comment until that is infront of me. I would expect it to be about 0.1 point less each game from our 4.0 system. Still pretty high.
What really convinced me on Mike's was that it was generating the exact range of stats, year after year, that people felt was appropriate for goalies--and it was so damn easy to figure out.
It's an Occam's razor type situation: when two formulas are generating the same range of results, the simplest is probably the best one to be using.
R.
Either my math is way, way out to lunch, or your math is. Most likely it is mine because under this formula, I cam up with over 700 points for Price last year.
Confused? Yes.
Not sure what you did Mike but you should get 54.69 for Price. Essentially this will give you numbers slightly below what they got last year at the 4.0 baseline.
Hmmm.
My system gives Price 54 points.
Sounds similar, and much simpler.
Bob and I were discussing save percentage... the interesting thing is that those goalies that most observe as 'the best' (i.e. Brodeur, Luongon et al) do not rank all that high in save percentage. No idea why but anyway.
Mike's responses continue to be quite interesting that no matter what variation of stat we try - the simpler math seems to come up with similar stats....
Post a Comment