Ranking the top-40 goaltenders by Goals Allowed Per Expected Goal Against

ccman68

Registered User
Dec 9, 2017
4,107
4,381
105042A3-6F53-4A40-98A6-E8CDC05697D4.jpeg


Here is what I like to use since it agrees with my opinion.

All this is kind of a waste of time though since you can take 100 shots from exactly the same spot on the ice and they could all have a different likelihood of going in based on the shooter and how they and the defense are positioned.
 

VoluntaryDom

Formerly DominicBoltsFan / Ⓐ / ✞
Oct 31, 2016
23,285
5,532
Tampa FL
I haven’t seen an expected goal model from HockeyViz, but Evolving Hockey also ranks Vasilevskiy well below average.

Among the 40 goaltenders who faced a minimum of 3,600 unblocked shot attempts over the past 3 years, Vasilevskiy’s delta fenwick SV% of -0.17% ranks 28th according to Evolving Hockey. Pretty much right in line with where Corsica and Natural Stat Trick place him.



Yes, it accounts for mostly shot location but a few other factors as well. It does not account for shooters.

Corsica model explained: Shot Quality And Expected Goals: Part I | Corsica

Natural Stat Trick model explained (with much less detail):

last year it had vasy as 8th best. EH also doesnt have ES data only all situations, so tampas garbage 16-18 PK works against him but our great 18-19 PK works in his favor
 

TomasHertlsRooster

Don’t say eye test when you mean points
May 14, 2012
33,360
25,417
Fremont, CA
So are you saying I should be open minded to the idea that Brian Elliot may actually be a better goalie than Carey Price, and it's simply a pre conceived notion that Price is better?

Same goes for Talbot/Halak/Smith over Vasi/Rask.

Doesn't pass the eye test.
Doesn't pass the sniff test.
Doesn't match other arguably more important statistics.

First off, this passes the sniff test quite well compared to the other metrics that are out there. If you rank the best 40 skaters by GAR or whatever, you will find many more red flags in that list than you will in this one.

You mention arguably more important statistics. Here is SV% over the past 3 seasons, and the teams they played for in each season:

Vasilevskiy: .921 (TBL, TBL, TBL)
Price: .915 (MTL, MTL, MTL)
Rask: .915 (BOS, BOS, BOS)

Halak: .914 (NYI, NYI, BOS)
Smith: .911 (ARI, CGY, CGY)
Talbot: .909 (EDM, EDM, EDM/PHI)
Elliott: .909 (CGY, PHI, PHI)

Now look at the defenses that they played in front of. Is it really so crazy to suggest that the gap in SV% could be explained by the way these defenses play in front of them?

Just look at how Halak and Rask performed on the same team this season. Halak posted a .922 SV%, and Rask posted a .912 SV%.
 

Frank Drebin

He's just a child
Sponsor
Mar 9, 2004
33,476
19,462
Edmonton
First off, this passes the sniff test quite well compared to the other metrics that are out there. If you rank the best 40 skaters by GAR or whatever, you will find many more red flags in that list than you will in this one.

You mention arguably more important statistics. Here is SV% over the past 3 seasons, and the teams they played for in each season:

Vasilevskiy: .921 (TBL, TBL, TBL)
Price: .915 (MTL, MTL, MTL)
Rask: .915 (BOS, BOS, BOS)

Halak: .914 (NYI, NYI, BOS)
Smith: .911 (ARI, CGY, CGY)
Talbot: .909 (EDM, EDM, EDM/PHI)
Elliott: .909 (CGY, PHI, PHI)

Now look at the defenses that they played in front of. Is it really so crazy to suggest that the gap in SV% could be explained by the way these defenses play in front of them?

Just look at how Halak and Rask performed on the same team this season. Halak posted a .922 SV%, and Rask posted a .912 SV%.
Before we go any further, and I only ask you this because I respect you as a knowledgeable poster:

Are we really going to pretend to play devils advocate that maybe just maybe those 4 goalies were actually better than Price, Vasi and Rask over the past 3 seasons? Now keep in mind you're not saying they'd do relatively equal if the roles were reversed - you're saying that if the roles were reversed the Vezina winners would do worse than the sieves and the sieves would outplay the vezina winners, by a considerable margin .Is Ryan Miller really a better goalie than MAF? We've just been watching the games wrong and these stats tell the actual truth?

Really?
 

TomasHertlsRooster

Don’t say eye test when you mean points
May 14, 2012
33,360
25,417
Fremont, CA
View attachment 250249

Here is what I like to use since it agrees with my opinion.

All this is kind of a waste of time though since you can take 100 shots from exactly the same spot on the ice and they could all have a different likelihood of going in based on the shooter and how they and the defense are positioned.

This is all a waste of time because expected goal models don’t encapsulate every variable that goes into a shot? That is rich coming from a guy who uses charts Evolving Hockey’s RAPM estimated impacts on expected goals to dogmatically state that one player is superior to another based on nothing but said chart.

Also, that chart you posted contains one season’s worth of evidence, and the expected goal model is not even available on the Internet.

last year it had vasy as 8th best. EH also doesnt have ES data only all situations, so tampas garbage 16-18 PK works against him but our great 18-19 PK works in his favor

It’s pretty weird to see you and the above poster suddenly skeptical of these metrics. You’ve gone so far as to call Sean Couturier the best player in the NHL based on the results of one regression model which attempts to isolate his impact on goals, shot attempts, and expected goals according to one expected goal model.

Why is it that now you are skeptical of the results from three expected goal models in comparison to Fenwick SV%? There is nothing remotely as complicated here as the method used to calculate RAPM.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LGB

VoluntaryDom

Formerly DominicBoltsFan / Ⓐ / ✞
Oct 31, 2016
23,285
5,532
Tampa FL
This is all a waste of time because expected goal models don’t encapsulate every variable that goes into a shot? That is rich coming from a guy who uses charts Evolving Hockey’s RAPM estimated impacts on expected goals to dogmatically state that one player is superior to another based on nothing but said chart.

Also, that chart you posted contains one season’s worth of evidence, and the expected goal model is not even available on the Internet.



It’s pretty weird to see you and the above poster suddenly skeptical of these metrics. You’ve gone so far as to call Sean Couturier the best player in the NHL based on the results of one regression model which attempts to isolate his impact on goals, shot attempts, and expected goals according to one expected goal model.

Why is it that now you are skeptical of the results from three expected goal models in comparison to Fenwick SV%? There is nothing remotely as complicated here as the method used to calculate RAPM.
being more complicated doesnt make it bad. i also much prefer EW's xg model to pretty much every other public model that i have looked into. and also even regardless of the xg components of rapm couturier is still a beast by the goals and corsi ones, and those are universally agreed upon things to measure unlike xG which varies by model.in fact i am going to try and manually do GSAA for vasy based on EW's xG model and see how far i get before wanting to tear out my eyebrows
 

TomasHertlsRooster

Don’t say eye test when you mean points
May 14, 2012
33,360
25,417
Fremont, CA
Before we go any further, and I only ask you this because I respect you as a knowledgeable poster:

Are we really going to pretend to play devils advocate that maybe just maybe those 4 goalies were actually better than Price, Vasi and Rask over the past 3 seasons? Now keep in mind you're not saying they'd do relatively equal if the roles were reversed - you're saying that if the roles were reversed the Vezina winners would do worse than the sieves and the sieves would outplay the vezina winners, by a considerable margin .Is Ryan Miller really a better goalie than MAF? We've just been watching the games wrong and these stats tell the actual truth?

Really?

No, I'm not trying to predict how they would perform if the roles were reversed. It's quite possible that goalies like Elliott, Miller, and Smith would falter when used in a workhorse starter role. I mentioned in the OP that I would take a goaltender like Frederik Andersen, with a proven track record of consistent performance in that workhorse starter role, over goaltender like Philipp Grubauer, even if Grubauer ranks better by this metric.

What I am saying is that once you account for shot quality, these two metrics say that Smith and company performed better than Vasilevskiy and company over the past three seasons.

Regarding Miller and Fleury in particular, Miller actually has a higher raw SV% than Fleury over the past 3 seasons. (Although both round up to .917%) Once you factor in the defenses that they played in front of over those 3 seasons, it makes sense that Miller's numbers come up looking stronger.

Look at the shots that Fleury faced:

fleurma84


fleurma84


fleurma84


fleurma84


fleurma84


fleurma84

And now look at the shots that Miller faced:

millery80


millery80


millery80


millery80


millery80


millery80

Miller has generally played behind weaker defenses. And has literally posted a superior raw SV%. Why is it so crazy to say that Miller has performed better in the minutes he has played?
 
Last edited:

TomasHertlsRooster

Don’t say eye test when you mean points
May 14, 2012
33,360
25,417
Fremont, CA
Using data from Hockeyviz, let's look at Halak and Rask over the past 3 seasons:

Look at the defense that Rask played in front of in 2016-2017 and 2017-2018:

raskxtu87


raskxtu87


raskxtu87


raskxtu87

Now compare that to the defense that Halak played under:

halakja85


halakja85


halakja85


halakja85

Is it not pretty clear, judging from these 8 images, that comparing Halak and Rask side-by-side without adjusting for shot quality will be very flattering to Rask? This is like comparing point totals when one guy plays with Connor McDavid and the other guy plays with Chris Tierney. When we compare players in that manner, we are perfectly fine with adjusting for the environment around these players. Why shouldn't we also do this for goaltenders?

Now look at 2018-2019, when they played for the same team, and therefore played under a very similar defense:

halakja85


halakja85


raskxtu87


raskxtu87

2018-2019 is the only season where they have faced shot quality that is remotely similar, and Rask still faced somewhat easier shots. Despite that, Halak posted a .922 SV%, and Rask posted a .912 SV%.

After looking at this information and seeing, with your eyes, the kind of shots that they faced - as opposed to just numbers on a spreadsheet, which say that Halak faced tougher shots. Does it now make some sense to say that, considering that Rask's SV% is only .001 higher than Halak's over the past 3 seasons, that after adjusting for shot quality, Halak has out-performed Rask in the minutes that he has played?
 

Frank Drebin

He's just a child
Sponsor
Mar 9, 2004
33,476
19,462
Edmonton
I can't see the images but I find it hard to accept that a journeyman goalie like Halak who actually played himself out of the league in the 16-17 season and is playing out the rest of his career as a backup outplayed Rask for any considerable period of time, adjusted for quality of defense and competition.

We actually see it quite often where a backup posts similar or even better numbers than their starters - this is due to many factors: easier opponents, lighter schedule, team plays more cautious, etc. Coaches don't choose goalies on title, they play the guy who gives them the best chance to win. 30+year old backups are not better than starters. Full stop.

I understand the desire to quantify these types of things but respectfully I think this method is severely flawed when you consider the results.
 

TomasHertlsRooster

Don’t say eye test when you mean points
May 14, 2012
33,360
25,417
Fremont, CA
I can't see the images but I find it hard to accept that a journeyman goalie like Halak who actually played himself out of the league in the 16-17 season and is playing out the rest of his career as a backup outplayed Rask for any considerable period of time, adjusted for quality of defense and competition.

We actually see it quite often where a backup posts similar or even better numbers than their starters - this is due to many factors: easier opponents, lighter schedule, team plays more cautious, etc. Coaches don't choose goalies on title, they play the guy who gives them the best chance to win. 30+year old backups are not better than starters. Full stop.

I understand the desire to quantify these types of things but respectfully I think this method is severely flawed when you consider the results.

Do these work?






Blue/green mean less shots from that area. Red/purple mean more shots from that area.

Now, after looking at the massive discrepancy in shots that these goaltenders faced in the 2 years that they played for different teams. Then considering their numbers in the one year that they played for the same team. Then considering that over a 3-year sample, Rask's SV% is .001 higher than Halak's. Is it that crazy to say that Halak's performance, on a per-shot basis, has been much superior to Rask's?

I think that the biggest flaw with this method that I have not addressed is the one that you brought up; that it does not account for the shooters that these goaltenders face. I think this will pretty much even out over a large sample, though I could see backup goaltenders playing against slightly weaker shooters, since they generally play against weaker teams. However, the deviation in workload is something that I addressed in the OP, and I said that if I were just making a list, I would take a guy like Andersen over Grubauer due to consistently strong performances under a heavier workload.

I also disagree that coaches don't choose goalies on title. I think coaches largely do make their decisions based on title and perception of players based on past performance. They eventually adapt based on recent performance but it takes them some time to do so; it doesn't happen overnight.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Frank Drebin

Chrisinroch

Registered User
Jan 5, 2013
1,951
1,289
The Golden Triangle
Seeing Dubnyk, Allen and Ward at the bottom of the list and Gibson, Bobrovsky and Grubauer at the top (ironically the goalies I get the most glimpses of, except for Gibson, no one likes the Ducks) validates this method for me. Even though Dubnyk is my team's goalie, I think he's one of the most overrated goalies in the recent history. I have never liked him apart from that miracle run after he got traded to Minnesota.

He lets in some absolute stinkers on low quality scoring chances. Those are deflating.
 

Frank Drebin

He's just a child
Sponsor
Mar 9, 2004
33,476
19,462
Edmonton
Do these work?






Blue/green mean less shots from that area. Red/purple mean more shots from that area.

Now, after looking at the massive discrepancy in shots that these goaltenders faced in the 2 years that they played for different teams. Then considering their numbers in the one year that they played for the same team. Then considering that over a 3-year sample, Rask's SV% is .001 higher than Halak's. Is it that crazy to say that Halak's performance, on a per-shot basis, has been much superior to Rask's?

I think that the biggest flaw with this method that I have not addressed is the one that you brought up; that it does not account for the shooters that these goaltenders face. I think this will pretty much even out over a large sample, though I could see backup goaltenders playing against slightly weaker shooters, since they generally play against weaker teams. However, the deviation in workload is something that I addressed in the OP, and I said that if I were just making a list, I would take a guy like Andersen over Grubauer due to consistently strong performances under a heavier workload.

I also disagree that coaches don't choose goalies on title. I think coaches largely do make their decisions based on title and perception of players based on past performance. They eventually adapt based on recent performance but it takes them some time to do so; it doesn't happen overnight.
Another assumption that @Chrisinroch alluded to is that all goalies stop all low percentage shots and the only shots that matter are the ones in the hot zone.

These goalies may very well be better at stopping the harder shots (although I'm still doubtful about that), but even at the NHL level we see soft, deflating goals at inopportune times. Some goalies are notorious for letting in low concentration goals and that's what separates the men from the boys - nightly focus.

Tldr there is way more to goaltending than stopping high danger scoring chances
 

TomasHertlsRooster

Don’t say eye test when you mean points
May 14, 2012
33,360
25,417
Fremont, CA
Another assumption that @Chrisinroch alluded to is that all goalies stop all low percentage shots and the only shots that matter are the ones in the hot zone.

These goalies may very well be better at stopping the harder shots (although I'm still doubtful about that), but even at the NHL level we see soft, deflating goals at inopportune times. Some goalies are notorious for letting in low concentration goals and that's what separates the men from the boys - nightly focus.

Tldr there is way more to goaltending than stopping high danger scoring chances

That assumption isn’t present though. These calculations account for all goals allowed - those from high danger zones, and those from low danger zones. This isn’t just HDSV%.

Hypothetically, say two goaltenders each face two identical shots: one of them being a one-timer directly from the front of the net with a 99% chance of scoring, and the other being a muffin from behind the blue line with a 1% chance of scoring. If one goaltender allows a goal on the shot with a 99% chance of scoring, but stops the goal on the shot with a 1% chance of scoring, and the other one allows the muffin from center ice but makes the incredible save. Both will have allowed one goal on one expected goal.
 

VoluntaryDom

Formerly DominicBoltsFan / Ⓐ / ✞
Oct 31, 2016
23,285
5,532
Tampa FL
@JoeThorntonsRooster as promised, i calculated GSAA by EW's model for vasy for the entire season. i ended up with 54 games instead of 53, so it might be a bit off, but generally pretty good.
upload_2019-8-18_20-8-44.png

it shows that while he did finish the year a bit below average, he was above average until a slump down the stretch, which backs up the idea that he is overworked. also, if you remove a couple 6-5 wins back to back during the points streak that he backstopped, he would be well above average. pretty much an average goalie, which i guess doesnt really surprise me. but yeah i was probably wrong in calling him above average. most goalies are average or pretty close to it with some wild year to year variance.

with that said the contract is absolutely horrendous. but vasy does have similar tools to john gibson, who broke out of his average-ness to become the best goalie in the league. if vasy can improve his focus the way gibson did, he could come sort of close to living up to the money. for now hes an average goalie on an elite team.

EDIT: found my mistake(s), next post will be updated graph
 
Last edited:

nbwingsfan

Registered User
Dec 13, 2009
20,842
14,549
Rask has had a sub-.920 save percentage four years in a row. Three of those years, .915 or worse.

He had an amazing peak but he is absolutely a below average goalie right now.

I feel for goaltenders in particular, it takes forever and a day for opinions to change on them despite it being the most volatile position.

Didn’t watch much of the post-season did you? Because that’s the only way I could see you came to the conclusion that he is a below average goalie.
 

Bleedred

Travis Green BLOWS! Bring back Nasreddine!
Sponsor
May 1, 2011
128,935
55,938
Big surprise that Keith Kinkaid and Cory Schneider are near the bottom in this ranking too.

NOT!

Also not surprised to see Jake Allen and Cam Ward at the bottom. Ward has been horrific for years now and shouldn’t have even played in the NHL last year when he had no contract going into the offseason.

Also glad to see Dubnyk at the bottom. He usually looks solid to good in save percentage, but he always ranks low in advanced goalie metrics and he ranked pretty mediocre on my eye test last year.

This ranking also helps confirm to me that Hellebuyck is pretty overrated, as I’ve suspected.

Gibson usually ranks very high for me, so that’s no shock.

I think Miller’s (lack of) games played skews his a bit. He’s a more sparsely used backup over the past two seasons. Don’t think he’d rank nearly that high if he were used in a more larger role.

As overrated as Price is at times (especially the generational talk) I do think he’s way too low on here. Perhaps his horrific 17-18 season majorly influences this.

I think Vasilevskiy is also too low, but I don’t think Rask is. Rask has been a .915% or .916% goalie the last 4 years, even including his playoffs with his regular seasons in that time. I think he’s still living off a reputation from pre-2015 and this past year’s playoffs (and it was certainly Conn Smythe worthy) will even further fuel that reputation.
 

ZeroPucksGiven

Registered User
Feb 28, 2017
6,338
4,275
I’d imagine you have absolutely nothing to back this ridiculous claim up.

The team you play on has a major effect in terms of how people view goaltending

Crawford was viewed as overrated since he was on stacked teams
Funny even though his team has turned for the worst, he's putting up respectable numbers. Now he's "underrated"...that's how the winds blow in fans' minds
 

Burke the Legend

Registered User
Feb 22, 2012
8,317
2,850
What is "expected GA"?? Sounds like one of those made up HFboards stats.

OP if you're going to use fake stats to make a ranking at least add your definition of it somewhere into your long post.
 

Lshap

Hardline Moderate
Jun 6, 2011
27,274
24,845
Montreal
Didn’t watch much of the post-season did you? Because that’s the only way I could see you came to the conclusion that he is a below average goalie.

Agreed. As a Habs fan, it pains me to say that Rask was the Bruins' best player, by far, through most of the playoffs. He was terrific. Quite obviously, he was outplayed by Binnington in the finals.

Big surprise that Keith Kinkaid and Cory Schneider are near the bottom in this ranking too.

NOT!

Also not surprised to see Jake Allen and Cam Ward at the bottom. Ward has been horrific for years now and shouldn’t have even played in the NHL last year when he had no contract going into the offseason.

Also glad to see Dubnyk at the bottom. He usually looks solid to good in save percentage, but he always ranks low in advanced goalie metrics and he ranked pretty mediocre on my eye test last year.

This ranking also helps confirm to me that Hellebuyck is pretty overrated, as I’ve suspected.

Gibson usually ranks very high for me, so that’s no shock.

I think Miller’s (lack of) games played skews his a bit. He’s a more sparsely used backup over the past two seasons. Don’t think he’d rank nearly that high if he were used in a more larger role.

As overrated as Price is at times (especially the generational talk) I do think he’s way too low on here. Perhaps his horrific 17-18 season majorly influences this.

I think Vasilevskiy is also too low, but I don’t think Rask is. Rask has been a .915% or .916% goalie the last 4 years, even including his playoffs with his regular seasons in that time. I think he’s still living off a reputation from pre-2015 and this past year’s playoffs (and it was certainly Conn Smythe worthy) will even further fuel that reputation.
This model should never be used as a definitive ranking. The overall job of a goalie is far wider than any individual subset of shots. While it's interesting to re-order goalies based on how they do against this or that type of shot, games are decided by the vast majority of shots which aren't represented here.
 
Last edited:

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->