Yep. Basically because we’ve restricted teams to long shots mostly he’s faced not many and most have been the sort you’d expect to save. As
@Frostie often points out there’s a better stat that reflects the quality of shots faced, dunno if he’s got that handy for Wilson. I’d expect he looks a lot worse on that.
Yeah, exactly right.
Save % is basically worthless as a stat as it totally disregards both the quality and quantity of shots faced. You could have 1 keeper save 1 simple shot & have a 100% save percentage while another saves multiple really difficult shots that you'd never expect them to save but concedes say 1 in 10 of them. Who is the better shot stopper?
The stats used to show Wilson with the best Save % have him at 77.1% & Rotherham's Viktor Johansson at 77.0% (others actually have Johansson ahead). Johansson has made 50 saves more than Wilson (87 vs 37) though so not exactly a fair comparison.
Post shot expected goals (PSxG) is the best judge of the quality of shots. Think of it as a reverse xG, basically assesses how likely a Shot on Target was to be scored & therefore how likely a goalkeeper should be to save it.
Wilson has conceded 11 goals from a PSxG of 11.2 so very, very marginal over performance.
By comparison John Ruddy has conceded 20 goals from a PSxG of 26.9 i.e. he has theoretically prevented 7 goals more than you'd expect the average keeper to.
Wilson's PSxG is by far & away the lowest in the league, i.e. he faces far fewer high quality shots than any other goalkeeper therefore it stands to reason that he should concede far fewer goals & save a high % of shots.