This sorta reminds me of the day my Mom pulled me aside to tell me she had finally grasped football. She said, "okay, I've got this game. When you have the ball you should always go forward, never backwards, and you should try to avoid just running to the side. When the other team has the ball then you should get the ball back, right?"
I guess we're all conveniently forgetting that the PK was like 75% in the playoffs. If the goalies stop 80% of the shots your PK will suck, and if they stop 92%, it will be great - shot prevention or allowance can't make up for those sorts of gaps.
I thought to myself, yep, that covers it--she's ready to coach. I guess hockey is the same way. If you block shots the other team doesn't score and if you don't then they do.
I'm just kidding Triumph. I think youre just trying to illustrate how thin the margin for error is between a good and poor PK, it's just the way you worded it or the way I read it hit my funny bone.
Seriously though, there is so much more to the story than those number IMO. I can't help but wonder if there are PKs that disprove this point. Let me explain. If you have a very good goalie behind a crap PK then it would not surprise me that he would be bombarded before finally succumbing and letting in a goal on the PK. Think Chico Resch with the Rockies and Devils. It would've been easy to have a crap GAA with a decent save PCT because the defense was sooooo porous.
OTOH, a good defense with a crap goalie would appear the exact opposite in theory. The goalie would have fewer shots against but, being a mediocrity, would allow in enough goals to undermine an otherwise good performance by the PK. I don't have a ready example here.
So if you're examining the PK units, a high save percentage may simply be a sign of a porous defense and a low save percentage might be a good defense. Come to think of it, didn't that hurt Marty in the '90s? He faced relatively few shots because of the Devs D?
Edited by AEWHistory, 24 February 2013 - 04:27 AM.