After almost two years of debates, where every shot became a goaltending controversy, Montreal has chosen to go with Halak.
In spite of Halak’s performance against Washington and Pittsburgh, Montreal decided to go with Price.
There are a bunch of questions:
- Did Halak outplay Price this year?
- Is Price a step-down?
- WTH?
Let’s look at each one.
1. Did Halak outplay Price this year?
If we look at averages, Halak and the most useless of stats Wins, Halak outplayed Price.
But if we dig a little deeper, it’s not so clear.
The problem with averages is that they miss the point about goalies. Goalies either have good games or they have bad games. If you read this blog, you’ll recall that last year I observed that the difference between great and not-so-great goalies is how often they put great games together.
Let’s define a great game with a save pct >= .920 and let’s also agree that there has to be more than 30 or more shots.
Using that math we discover that Halak had 17 such games and Price had 13. So Halak outplayed Price!
Okay let’s define a good game with a save pct >= .900 and let’s also agree that there has to be more than 30 or more shots.
Using that math we discover that Halak had 2 such games whereas Price had 9.
So if we look at the good and great games, Halak had 19, Price had 22 … not so clear cut any more. And if you consider that Halak had 19 of 43 starts that were good or great and Price had 22 of 39 it’s even less clear.
2. Is Price a step down?
Not really. Halak is better if you expect to be routinely have 40+ shots directed at your net. At 40+ shots, a .920 is more valuable than a .900 save percentage. At .900 you are letting in 4 goals. At .920 sometimes you can keep it to three goals letting you win a few more games.
If you don’t expect to be routinely outshot, then Halak isn’t necessarily that much better.
More to the point, Price was good to great as often as Halak, whereas Halak was great a few more times.
So you’re trading off some great for more good…
3. WTH?
It’s not that complicated. As much as I poo-poo’ed Corsi, the reality is that if you can keep shots to below 30 a game you need good goaltending not great goaltending.
Montreal’s problem last year was the lack of a credible third and fourth line. The combination of Moore, Eller et al gives Montreal a third and fourth line.
Halak’s 17 great games were not going to move the competitive needle effectively. On the other hand if you could keep the shots down, you could rely on Price’s good goaltending and less frequent great goaltending to win you some games.
So it all boils down to the cap. Given the holes elsewhere, spending big dollars on a goalie who wasn’t that great that often, made no sense given you had another goalie who was good just as often.
