Top 10 NHL Goalies so far based on analytics

[Three On Zero]

The top 10 goalies so far according to analytical data, thoughts?...... and I see I managed to remove Goalies from the thread title....

Click to read more...

 

[The Macho King]

Analytics for goalies suck.

 

[hockeeyyy]

Analytics for goalies suck.

Agreed. There’s simply not enough information to get much out of the position other than Goals Saved Above Expected.

 

[LEAFANFORLIFE23]

This is why I don't trust analytics, Demko is in a top 10 goalies list.

Stop it

 

[Chardo]

Analytics for goalies suck.

Analytics for hockey sucks.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Analytics for goalies suck.

Analytics in general are pretty bad. I mean, the data itself is fine but people misread it, rampantly.

The hockey world learned +/- was garbage, but somehow people have huge faith in it now that's it's been repackaged.

 

[Goose]

Analytics are like asking a newly graduated MBA to analyze your plumbing business that’s been running for 30 years.

You’re going to get a few useful insights, but you’re going to get a lot of horse apple takes from someone who doesn’t understand the realities of business and is likely to drive the business into the business into the ground if you handed it over to him as he is to help grow it.

 

[canuck2010]

I mean really, some of these guys have trouble stopping beach balls. I won't mention any names.

 

[Critical13]

A lot of hate in this thread but most of that list looks about right to me?

 

[Jeremy Hronek]

Why do so many people try to tear down analytics? I think they are fascinating.

 

[RogerR]

I hope Leafs take a shot at Kuemper.

 

[The Macho King]

Why do so many people try to tear down analytics? I think they are fascinating.

There are significant issues with the quality of the data being input (NHL public shot data is notoriously bad), and the context/lack of context a lot of this is used. Shot location is the basis for all of these conclusions.

Problem? It does not factor in situation. The most obvious being pre-shot movement. What is the better scoring chance - Ovechkin taking a one-timer from the top of the circle from a cross ice pass, or Pat Maroon banging on a shot right in front of the goalie where the goalie is in position? [Public] analytics are going to say that the Maroon shot is more dangerous.

It's got an extra issue when applied to goaltenders. An xG as far as judging a skater does not equal an xG for a goaltender because it only factors in the shot location, but not the quality of the shot. A player flubs a shot and it dribbles in unscreened? That's not the same as judging it by it's shot location. Shot from the blueline with a double screen? Also not factored in.

I think private data (NHL teams and some contractors) is probably much better, and why it's better is because the data collection is largely better.

 

[rubikscube]

TIL: Hellebuyck not a top 10 goalie

Makes perfect sense.

 

[Rabid Ranger]

I don't need analytics to tell me this isn't a strong era for goaltenders.

 

[brock0791]

TIL: Hellebuyck not a top 10 goalie

Makes perfect sense.

If you haven't started 66% of your team's games you shouldn't be on any list either

 

[ReginKarlssonLehner]

This is why I don't trust analytics, Demko is in a top 10 goalies list.

Stop it

this guy said stop it lmao, I agree

 

[PatriceBergeronFan]

That is largely a horrible list.

 

[aufheben]

Do people not understand what “so far” means?

Half of those guys aren’t even out of place to begin with.

 

[IceNeophyte]

View attachment 401965 The top 10 goalies so far according to analytical data, thoughts?...... and I see I managed to remove Goalies from the thread title....

6 of the Top 10 goalies by this measure are in the West.

 

[IceNeophyte]

This is why I don't trust analytics, Demko is in a top 10 goalies list.

Stop it

I like it, because it factors in that Vancouver's defense is hanging him out to dry. He has faced the highest expected goals of this list. If you add Laniken and Binnington, their expected goals are higher than the rest by far.

 

[Regal]

This is why I don't trust analytics, Demko is in a top 10 goalies list.

Stop it

It's one of those things where the different stats need to be put in perspective. Goalies on bad defensive teams tend to do better in goals saved above expected because the bar is already quite low and there's more margin for error. Even just changing it to a percentage saved relative to expected goals would push him down because of how high his expected goals against is.

 

[Doctor No]

The problem with this (okay, one problem with this) is that "analytics" encompasses many, many, many different techniques and approaches, some more sophisticated than others (and let's set aside the fact that no one worth worrying about uses analytics in isolation without blending them with traditional techniques as well).

No one ever starts a thread with "These are the top ten goaltenders by the eye test!", and if they did, no one would ever respond with "This is exactly why the eye test sucks and I'll never use it."

And yet, here we are.

 

[Not My Tempo]

There are significant issues with the quality of the data being input (NHL public shot data is notoriously bad), and the context/lack of context a lot of this is used. Shot location is the basis for all of these conclusions.

Problem? It does not factor in situation. The most obvious being pre-shot movement. What is the better scoring chance - Ovechkin taking a one-timer from the top of the circle from a cross ice pass, or Pat Maroon banging on a shot right in front of the goalie where the goalie is in position? [Public] analytics are going to say that the Maroon shot is more dangerous.

It's got an extra issue when applied to goaltenders. An xG as far as judging a skater does not equal an xG for a goaltender because it only factors in the shot location, but not the quality of the shot. A player flubs a shot and it dribbles in unscreened? That's not the same as judging it by it's shot location. Shot from the blueline with a double screen? Also not factored in.

I think private data (NHL teams and some contractors) is probably much better, and why it's better is because the data collection is largely better.

I always found this criticism of public analytics to be kinda strange to be honest. What should we use instead? Points? The eye test? Analytics are no where near perfect in hockey, but neither is any other method we use to form our opinions. It appears that analytics is held to a higher standard than the others for some reason.

That being said hockey is kinda a shit show of randomness at the NHL level, and I’ve found it to be a lot more enjoyable watching this year by not focusing on any stats, advanced and standard.

 

[The Macho King]

I always found this criticism of public analytics to be kinda strange to be honest. What should we use instead? Points? The eye test? Analytics are no where near perfect in hockey, but neither is any other method we use to form our opinions. It appears that analytics is held to a higher standard than the others for some reason.

That being said hockey is kinda a shit show of randomness at the NHL level, and I’ve found it to be a lot more enjoyable watching this year by not focusing on any stats, advanced and standard.

You put shit in, you get shit out.

Bad data is worse than no data. I'd be more inclined to rely on save percentage than GSAX.

 

[Gnova]

Why do so many people try to tear down analytics? I think they are fascinating.

Because a lot of HF posters have "fancy stat" altars erected in their bedrooms and pray to them daily.
If you dare to question their lord god analytica an effigy is burned in your name.

A few years back if anyone dared question holy corsi you were shunned and told that you were a non believer luddite. Now you barely ever hear that stat mentioned.