[Steve Holroyd]

Borrowing a few concepts from baseball and The Hockey Compendium, I've come up with a quick list of the greatest single-season performances by goalkeepers in U.S. Division 1 leagues.

Statistics can be deceptive in any scenario, but they seem particularly useless when evaluating soccer goalkeepers. Unlike hockey, where a goaltender is regularly involved in a game, a soccer keeper can see no shots and still garner the clean sheet. Meanwhile, those who remember Portland's Mick Poole know he labored with a lot of bad defensive teams and often topped people's "he'd be great if he was with the Cosmos" lists (in hockey this was known as the "Gilles Meloche Syndrome.") Looking at his stats today, though, you wouldn't be impressed. However, he was great.

What I've done is hardly rocket science, and is barely touching the surface of trying to provide relative meaning to goalkeeper stats. Using the GAA stat, I've compiled a list of the best performances as far as the difference between the leading goalkeeper and the second-best goalkeeper, the theory being that a 0.80 GAA doesn't mean much if the runner-up came in at 0.89--obviously, both benefitted from a low-scoring year. However, someone coming in at less than a goal a match while the runner up let in 1.30 a game obviously had a great year, going above-and-beyond the "average" generated by league scoring as a whole.

Using nothing more than the difference, here's the top 8:

1969 Manfred Kammerer (Atlanta Chiefs) 1.07 (-.50)

1983 Tino Lettieri (Vancouver Whitecaps) 0.86 (-.40)

1973 Bob Rigby (Philadelphia Atoms) 0.62 (-.38)

1984 Paul Hammond (Toronto Blizzard) 1.16 (-.34)

1925-26 Fall River Marksmen 1.16 (-.32)

1971 Mirko Stojanovic (Dallas Tornado) 0.73 (-.32)

1924-25 Findlay Kerr (Fall River Marksmen) 0.86 (-.30)

1979 Phil Parkes (Vancouver Whitecaps) 0.96 (-.30)

Some notes:

Rigby's GAA was the NASL record. Obviously, it was not earned in a weak season for scoring, making it all the more impressive.

The 1925-26 figure comes from the combined GAAs of Findlay Kerr and Tommy Blair. I have not broken that season down yet. Kerr played 28 games, while Blair split time between Boston and Fall River. This could drop from the list, especially since I get the feeling Kerr and Blair finished 1-2 that year.

As a frame of reference, keep in mind Tony Meola's stunning 2000 season (16 shutouts and a league-leading 0.92 GAA) was only .08 ahead of the runner-up, Kevin Hartman.

For the greatest season ever, one has to go to a Division "2.5" league--a young Kasey Keller (F.C. Portland) led the Western Soccer Alliance in GAA with an 0.38 figure, 0.62 ahead of his competition, in 1989.

I'd like to check these numbers against the average goals per game league-wide in a given season; I've long felt that Kerr's 24-25 season is the greatest ever, as the American Soccer League was a very high-scoring league (he put up a 0.86 GAA and 20 shutouts the same year Archie Stark scored 67 goals in 44 games). I have all the ASL stats from the 1920s, but it will take some time.

I recognize this still doesn't save the Mick Poole's of the world. But I'm working on it.

Anyway, this is a start. Whaddya think?

[NoSix]

Given the stats available, it may be the best you can do. I still feel that GAA is more a measure of team defense than goalkeeping ability. If I were going to rate keepers statistically I would look at a combination of save percentage and catch/punch percentage. Unfortunately, MLS doesn't seem to track unsuccessful catch/punch attempts, so in practice that would be hard to do right now.

[ChrisE]

So, Steve, I don't really think that you're going about this the right way. With what you're doing, you get, at best, a record of what goalkeepers had individually great seasons. But, do you really think that Bob Rigby 1973 was really that much better than Bob Rigby 1974 or Bob Rigby 1972? I think that a large part of GAA is simply how good the defense is in front of you, so it's inevitable that what you're measuring here is mostly how good a defense mixed in with a little goalkeeping ability and statistical variance.

The fact, for example, that Tony Meola only gave up .82 gpg in 2000 isn't lessened by the fact that Kevin Hartman only gave up .9 that year. That simply means that both of those goalies had tremendous years (or tremendous defences). It's not like goalscoring was down across the board in MLS that year (cf. Nick Rimando, 1.84 GAA). I think the reason that all of your goalies are in the pre-MLS days is that the quality of teams varied much more widely back then, not because the goalkeepers were any better (e.g. Tim HOward doesn't make your list, but I'd bet my arms that he's a better goalkeeper than Findlay Kerr was).

I've got to side with NoSix on this, and say that the best way to evaluate goalies is by using shot percentage and catches/punches (I don't think that should be a percentage, but whatever). Beineke ran some interesting statistics about save% and offensive traps in this thread:

http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showt...threadid=74498

As a sidenote, where did you get your stats for these goalkeepers?

[Steve Holroyd]

Originally posted by ChrisE
But, do you really think that Bob Rigby 1973 was really that much better than ... Bob Rigby 1972?

Yes, to a point of absolute certaintude...1973 was Rigby's rookie year.

As a sidenote, where did you get your stats for these goalkeepers?

I've compiled an all-time U.S. Division One goalkeeper database. The NASL and MLS stats are taken from media guides, etc. The 1920s ASL and 1894 APFL stats are from my own research (although I am indebted to Colin Jose for making my life a little easier in this regard).

I hear your criticisms about GAA being more a team defense indicator than a measure of GK effectiveness. The thought of using save percentage (I have the figures calculated in my database) has crossed my mind. It is an interesting statistic...for example, Shep Messing is often criticized as overrated and overhyped, yet he has the highest career save percentage out of any of his notable contemporaries (Mayer, Mausser, Rigby, DuBose, etc.) The problem is save percentage by itself is just as unrevealing as GAA...a guy with a .990 percentage saving 3 shots a game is not as impressive as one with a .900 percentage facing 15 shots.

The Hockey Cpmpendium raises the same concern for hockey goalies, and came up with an endurance formula which is appealing. Maybe I'll apply it to the NASL and MLS years and see what comes up.

[Steve Holroyd]

Originally posted by ChrisE
I think the reason that all of your goalies are in the pre-MLS days is that the quality of teams varied much more widely back then, not because the goalkeepers were any better (e.g. Tim HOward doesn't make your list, but I'd bet my arms that he's a better goalkeeper than Findlay Kerr was).

FWIW, I don't follow your logic on this...where the comparison is only between the #1 and #2 goalkeepers, how does the (admittedly) varied quality of NASL teams come into play? I can see this being a factor if I was comparing GAAs against the league goals-per-game average; then, the fact that everyone got to beat up on the 1968 Dallas Tornado would have some significance. But with the comparison being limited to #1 and #2, I think any league-wide disparity is less of an issue.

[ChrisE]

Originally posted by Steve Holroyd
Yes, to a point of absolute certaintude...1973 was Rigby's rookie year.

touche

I hear your criticisms about GAA being more a team defense indicator than a measure of GK effectiveness. The thought of using save percentage (I have the figures calculated in my database) has crossed my mind. It is an interesting statistic...for example, Shep Messing is often criticized as overrated and overhyped, yet he has the highest career save percentage out of any of his notable contemporaries (Mayer, Mausser, Rigby, DuBose, etc.) The problem is save percentage by itself is just as unrevealing as GAA...a guy with a .990 percentage saving 3 shots a game is not as impressive as one with a .900 percentage facing 15 shots.

I don't know anything about the NASL, so I don't really have much to say about Shep Messing. However, I don't follow why a guy with a .99 save percentage against 3 shots is not as impressive as the .9 guy facing 15 shots.

Are you simply assuming that if a guy is facing 3 shots instead of 15, the 3 shots he will face will not be as difficult to stop? I don't think that this is obvious at all, but I would be happy to hear an explanation.

Actually, the offside trap stats would seem to indicate the opposite - although a goalie whose team heavily employs the offside trap will face fewer shots, many that he does face will be significantly higher % shots (e.g. failed trap leads to one-on-one opportunity).

(for the record, I would take the .99 guy over the .9 guy any day; for every 10 goals .9 gives up, .99 gives up one)

[kenntomasch]

Originally posted by ChrisE

I don't know anything about the NASL, so I don't really have much to say about Shep Messing. However, I don't follow why a guy with a .99 save percentage against 3 shots is not as impressive as the .9 guy facing 15 shots.

I don't know that Steve meant literally .99 vs. .90 (nobody is going to stop 99% of the shots against him), but that all things being equal, the guy who faces more shots per game is being tested more often, and therefore his accomplishments are more impressive.

(for the record, I would take the .99 guy over the .9 guy any day; for every 10 goals .9 gives up, .99 gives up one)

The MLS career record was .756 by Brad Friedel coming into this year.

I don't know what the NASL record was, but Rigby's 1973 might be it. Here are the save percentages and SOG/90 minutes numbers for the NASL 'keepers Steve mentioned above:


1969 Manfred Kammerer (Atlanta Chiefs) - .789 (5.07 SOG/90 minutes)
1983 Tino Lettieri (Vancouver Whitecaps) - .864 (6.38 SOG/90 minutes)
1973 Bob Rigby (Philadelphia Atoms) - .907 (6.69 SOG/90 minutes)
1984 Paul Hammond (Toronto Blizzard) - .706 (3.95 SOG/90 minutes)
1971 Mirko Stojanovic (Dallas Tornado) - .892 (6.75 SOG/90 minutes)
1979 Phil Parkes (Vancouver Whitecaps) - .775 (4.29 SOG/90 minutes)

I looked at some other 'keepers, and about six shots on a goal a game is what you find from the guys with the higher percentages. I guess what happens is, if you're a defense that gives up more than six shots on goal a game, chances are your keeper isn't going to be saving a great percentage of them. Chances are you've got some problems defensively.

[Steve Holroyd]

My analogy about a guy stopping all of fewer shots being a lesser goalkeeper stopping a lower percentage of more shots may borrow too much from hockey concepts to be effective in soccer. This is the "endurance" factor the hockey book I referenced tried to address.

Having played some goal, I can empathize with your stats showing the impact the offsides trap can have on the "quality" of shots a keeper may be called upon to save. Offensive opportunities "breaking" a trap are often of the breakaway or "odd man rush" variety, forcing a keeper to come off his line earlier, etc. Because of the size of a soccer net, the "quality" of shots faced becomes more relevant than simple "endurance" (i.e., the number of shots faced). So, again, maybe my borrowing from hockey concepts leaves a lot to be desired.

Because only Americans bother to quantify soccer goalkeeper performance (a small percentage of Americans at that) and have only borrowed from hockey concepts to do so, a lot of this is underdeveloped. Much like QB ratings, maybe a figure combining GAA, the difference between the GAA and the league GAA (a plus/minus type of stat maybe), something that figures the offside trap and the frequency of its employ (a "strength of schedule" concept), balls touched/punched/saved, total shots faced per game, etc. etc. might reveal a GK rating that has some actual quantitative use.

One of the reasons I started this thread was to generate just this type of discussion.

You don't know anything about the NASL? Wow...thanks for making me feel old.

[ChrisE]

Originally posted by Steve Holroyd
My analogy about a guy stopping all of fewer shots being a lesser goalkeeper stopping a lower percentage of more shots may borrow too much from hockey concepts to be effective in soccer. This is the "endurance" factor the hockey book I referenced tried to address.

I understood the analogy, I just don't know how reliable it is.

Because only Americans bother to quantify soccer goalkeeper performance (a small percentage of Americans at that) and have only borrowed from hockey concepts to do so, a lot of this is underdeveloped. Much like QB ratings, maybe a figure combining GAA, the difference between the GAA and the league GAA (a plus/minus type of stat maybe), something that figures the offside trap and the frequency of its employ (a "strength of schedule" concept), balls touched/punched/saved, total shots faced per game, etc. etc. might reveal a GK rating that has some actual quantitative use.

I still don't trust the ranking a goalie by GAA, simply because it is so reliant on how good his defense was, and what kind of game his team is playing. For example, this year, Zach Thornton (1.22), Kevin Hartman (1.12), Nick Rimando (1.12), and Pat Onstad (1.03) had GAA's well below Tim Howard's (1.33). However, I don't think that there's many people who would claim that any of these guys were better GK's this year than Tim. Meanwhile, of those guys, only Hartman (.796) and Rimando (.778) had better save %'s than Tim (.777), and none had a higher C/P per 90.

Going back to your .99/3, .9/15 analogy, I think that GAA is an even worse measure than save percentage in this case. These guy's respective GAA would be .03 and 1.5. The guy who only faces 3 shots is going to look 50 times better than the guy who faces 15, if you're just basing it on GAA, whereas based on save percentage, he's only 10 times better. I think it's pretty clear why GAA is far far too dependent on a player's defense to be used to evaluate a goalie. It punishes goalies for facing more shots, whereas you want them to be rewarded.

I don't know if you've read any Peter Hirdt's columns, but he had one that seemed to indicate that the Catch/Punch statistic was much more important than is usually assumed:
http://www.mlsnet.com/content/03/analyze0801.html

You don't know anything about the NASL? Wow...thanks for making me feel old.

Well, I didn't know that Shep Messing played goal...

[NoSix]

Fundamentally, a goalkeeper has two (individual) defensive responsibilities - to save shots on goal and catch/punch passes by the opposing team. Therefore, I would propose to track:

Save Attempts (Shots on Goal Against) (SA)
Saves (S)
Catch/Punch Attempts (CPA)
Catches/Punches (CP)

Then I would use the weighted average of the save and catch/punch percentage as my goalkeeper rating (GR):

Save Percentage (SP): SP=S/SA
Catch/Punch Percentage (CPP): CPP=CP/CPA

Goalkeeper Rating (GR):
GR=(SA*SP+CPA*CPP)/(SA+CPA)=(S+CP)/(SA+CPA)

As an example, I calculated GR's for 2003 MLS goalkeepers. Since MLS fails to track CPA, I assume all keepers have a 100% CPP. This still serves the purpose of weighting the relative importance of shot blocking expertise and penalty area mastery for each keeper.

PLAYER SA S CP GR
Tim Howard 92 74 65 0.885
Pat Onstad 132 103 117 0.884
Jonny Walker 69 55 44 0.876
Kevin Hartman 184 149 81 0.868
Nick Rimando 129 100 71 0.855
Adin Brown 132 95 115 0.850
Zach Thornton 160 123 82 0.847
Jon Busch 139 104 88 0.846
Scott Garlick 121 83 97 0.826
Tony Meola 165 121 82 0.822
DJ Countess 173 115 88 0.778

According to this simple statistic, the top 3 keepers in MLS this year were Howard, Onstad, and Walker. I think it is a superior individual rating compared to GAA.