Penguins Prediction Rewind: Matt Murray returned to upper echelon of NHL goalies | TribLIVE.com
Penguins/NHL

Penguins Prediction Rewind: Matt Murray returned to upper echelon of NHL goalies

Jonathan Bombulie
1444736_web1_gtr-picsofweek11-040119
Chaz Palla | Tribune-Review
Penguins goaltender Matt Murray makes a save on the Predators’ Viktor Arvidsson on a break away in the third period March 29, 2019 at PPG Paints Arena.

Last summer, beat writer Jonathan Bombulie made a series of predictions leading up to the start of the 2018-19 season. Some were OK. Some were hilariously off the mark. In this series, Bombulie will explain what he was thinking and where his logic went off course.

THE QUESTION

Will Matt Murray’s save percentage be better or worse than last season’s .907?

A. A little better (.908 to .920)

B. A lot better (.920 or better)

C. The same or worse (.907 or worse)

THE PREDICTION

B. A lot better (.920 or better)

THE RIGHT ANSWER

A. A little better (.908 to .920)

THE RATIONALE

• It was hard to imagine Murray having a more trying season than he did in 2017-18. He suffered a lower-body injury in November, dealt with the death of his father in January and suffered a concussion in February. For a goalie who never had a save percentage worse than .920 previously in his pro career, it looked like rock bottom.

• Perception of Murray’s game was tainted by recency bias at this time last summer. He was just coming off a .905 save percentage in a six-game loss to Washington. Predicting he would soon return to the upper echelon of goalies was not exactly en vogue.

WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED

• This prediction was extraordinarily close to being correct. If Murray had made one more save – just one – his save percentage for the season would have rounded up to .920. Instead, it was .919, so technically, the prediction was wrong.

• Murray started off the season poorly, going 4-5-1 with a .877 save percentage until he was shut down with a lower body injury on Thanksgiving. After he came back in the middle of December, he was one of the top 10 goalies in the league, going 25-9-5 with a .930 save percentage.

THE FLAWS IN THE LOGIC

• When it comes to predicting performance, a variable that is difficult to account for is health. Given Murray’s extensive injury history, it’s probably safe to assume he’ll be limited physically for one reason or another at some point over the course of a long, 82-game season. This prediction didn’t take that into consideration.

• The prediction also didn’t take into account how frequently the Penguins would give up breakaways and odd-man rushes, especially shorthanded. Take away just a couple of the seven shorthanded goals the Penguins allowed while Murray was on the ice and his save percentage would shoot past .920 for the season.

LESSONS LEARNED

• It’s hard for a goalie to finish the season with a save percentage better than .920. Know how many qualifying goalies did that in the NHL last season? Nine. The Penguins haven’t exactly played the stingiest defense in the league over the last few years. To predict one of their goalies will have a save percentage that high is risky.

Follow the Pittsburgh Penguins all offseason long.

Jonathan Bombulie is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Jonathan by email at [email protected] or via Twitter .

Categories: Sports | Penguins
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.