Athletic team goaltending rankings: Calgary #5

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

This I agree with for sure


A large portion of every goalie’s stats is a reflection of team defense

When Minnesota was a trapping snooze fest and Roloson and Manny Fernandez were rocking save percentages above .930, they weren’t near the best goalies in the league.

Similarly, look for former Boston goalies to “regress” when they move to new locations

Not taking the bait ....
Not taking the bait ...

[CsInMyBlood]

Wolf's entire career has revolved around people doubting him because of his size and hes proved the doubters wrong at every level.

Is this season going to be easy for him? Nope, the Flames are obviously not going to have a strong roster especially on defense.

As long as he can hang in there for a couple of seasons as our D core gets stronger with the additions of some of our D prospects coming up the pipe while he gets his experience being an NHL goalie and dosen't wilt under that scenario, it can only make him better.

There will be some really rough nights. But knowing his attitude and against all odds mindset, I'm not going to bet against the kid.

[CSharp]

Originally Posted by butterfly

Jennings is a team defense award.

I would say this for the Vezina as well. Both awards are awarded to the goalie(s) of a team. I'm not even sure if a goalie has ever won a Vezina on a team that has a losing record - wait, that was Vanbiesbrouck with the NYR in 85-86 season back in the good old days when a 3.33GAA and a 0.887SV% is considered outstanding.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

I think what people might be missing about "goals saved above expected" is that it's not a measurement of goals vs saves or shots etc... it's a measurement of "expected goals" vs all goals allowed.

What's an "Expected Goal" (xG)?


What is "Goals Saved Above Expected" (GSAx)?


So you take the total of all expected goals a goalie has face, and you subtract all goals they've allowed. If you end up with a positive result, it means the goalie has allowed less goals than they were expected to. A negative means they've allowed more goals than they were expected to.

It doesn't mean that all goals against are considered equal. It means if you allow 60 goals, but only 40 of them were actually expected to go in (based on the above definition of an Expected Goal), then you've allowed 20 more goals than you should have. If you allow 40, but you were expected to allow 60, then you've saved 20 more goals than you should have.

Shot selection, location, etc is already factored into whether an expected goal has occured or not, so trying to argue that "all goals are not created equal" is moot in this case. The stat is already aware of that, and has already factored it all in.


Edit: I don't mean to sound "matter of fact" about the validity of the stat itself, I'm only confident in my understanding of what the stat is and how to apply it (in addition to other factors) in my thinking about a goalie's abilities. I'm more than willing to be convinced that the stat is flawed, but I need logical evidence to support the idea... and the idea has to originate from a demonstrated understanding of what the stat actually represents.

Edit 2: The quoted definitions above are from Monepuck (they also provide a "learn more" link to Natural StatTrick for xGs).

How the stat is flawed, I have explained many times. So will do the short version.

An expected goal is just a refinement on shot percentage, based on shot context.

The ice is broken in to various locations. Shots from the slot, for example, have higher probability of going in than shots from the point. Other things are considered. What type of shot, time since previous events. That’s the basis of the model - using the context of the shot, based on things that are measured, only up until the time the puck leaves the stick

Absolutely nothing is measured or therefore matters in those models with respect to where the shot is aimed. Consider two shots of identical context - one shot into the goalie’s logo and the other a snipe over his shoulder under the bar.

That’s the goalie’s challenge. To stop the puck where it’s going after it’s shot. If it isn’t measured, it’s a shortcoming of the model

Defensive positioning, pressure the shooter is under - not included in the model.

The model effectively takes the average shot which is say 90.5 likely to be stopped, and puts it into buckets where there are, say, 78 percent likely, or 99 percent likely.


So, basically the time and space and opportunity to aim, and the defensive breakdowns can pretty much torpedo the stat

**
It’s a good stat, GSAx is an improvement over GSAA because it fine tunes based on measurable things (shot context)

Where the shot is taken from is factored in

Where the shot is aimed isn’t factored in

I have argued that team defense has a lot more to do with a goalie having good stats or not

**

Since you reference Moneypuck, I will share some data from Moneypuck

What we can do is look at this GSAx stat. I will propose look at the top 20 goalies. To avoid low volume statistical outliers, let’s set the threshold at 20 games played. And to even the basis for comparison, let’s look at GSAx per 60. Sound good?

Ok. So what do we see


FLA - Stolarz - .801
LA - Rittich - .607
WPG - Brossoit - .582
WPG - Hellebuyck - .557
BUF - Levi - .496
VAN - Demko - .438
BOS - Swayman - .430
STL - Hofer - .379
NYR - Quick - .372
BOS - Ullmark - .370
NYI - Varlamov - .342
TOR - Jones - .323
STL - Binnington - .301
TOR - Woll - .294
CGY - Markstrom - .290
FLA - Bobrovsky - .274
NYR - Shesterkin - .222
WAS - Lindgren - .222
NAS - Lankinen - .206
LAK - Talbot - .206


So what do we see?

Out of the top 20 goalies in the league, 14 came from 7 teams with 2
LAK, FLA, WPG, BOS, NYR, STL, TOR

The remaining came from 6 teams with 1
CGY, BUF, VAN, NYI, WAS, NAS


Let that list sink in.

I think it pretty darn clearly illustrates that the stat has shortcomings. Not in what it measures - calculations are calculations - but more so in how people interpret it and the weight they give it

People want badly for it to be a really good gauge of an individual goalie’s play. Sorry. It really is not. It reflects team play.

It just doesn’t make sense that, if it was really a reflection of the individual goalie’s skill, that in a league of 32 teams, 7 teams would have both their starter and backup within that top 20

[Bingo]

^ but your using wins as a matter of fact as a better stat?

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Bingo

^ but your using wins as a matter of fact as a better stat?

Let’s not smash the two ideas and try to make it like the intent was making the same point, that they are apples to apples, when obviously they are not


Obviously absolute W-L is largely based on team play.

The W-L comment was made in context of whether Vladar was ‘adequate’. Looking at W-L for two goalies on the same team should be a reasonable basis to establish adequacy

I mean this is a city where we had Kipper for years going roughly ~40-20-x while the backups were rarely able to scrape together .500. Meanwhile Vladar’s W-L behind the same team has generally been better or equal to Markstrom’s the past few years.


Where the conversations do come together is that you see starters and backups on good teams grouped together in that top 20

So, in fact, it does lead the same direction.

Goalie stats (such as both GSAx and W-L) are a good measure of the team in front of the goalie

[Bingo]

Someone suggested Vladar wasn't very good and you introduced wins to defend him.

Wasn't the point only Vladar isn't/wasn't very good?

Seems to me the topic hasn't changed. You introduced wins to defend him, but don't like GSAA as a measure.

I've always agreed that GSAA (and other stats) are flawed, but wins certainly wouldn't top GSAA in my pecking order.

As it stands I think GSAA and GSAx are the best of the bunch until something better comes along.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Someone suggested Vladar wasn't very good and you introduced wins to defend him.

Wasn't the point only Vladar isn't/wasn't very good?

Seems to me the topic hasn't changed. You introduced wins to defend him, but don't like GSAA as a measure.

I've always agreed that GSAA (and other stats) are flawed, but wins certainly wouldn't top GSAA in my pecking order.

As it stands I think GSAA and GSAx are the best of the bunch until something better comes along.

And this is where I disagree with you. A bad stat is worse than no stat, because when a stat is presented, it is assumed to be expressing information. But if that information is flawed, quoting the stat provides negative value.

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

And this is where I disagree with you. A bad stat is worse than no stat, because when a stat is presented, it is assumed to be expressing information. But if that information is flawed, quoting the stat provides negative value.

Nonsense. You can make valid measurements using a broken ruler.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

Nonsense. You can make valid measurements using a broken ruler.

LOL

A broken rules is still a correct measuring tool with the piece that you have.

Flawed stats are worse less than no stats - especially when the stat user isn't aware that the stats are flawed.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

And this is where I disagree with you. A bad stat is worse than no stat, because when a stat is presented, it is assumed to be expressing information. But if that information is flawed, quoting the stat provides negative value.

Is it bad though?

Or is it not evolved as far as it's likely to go?

Creating zones of danger, and entry types to the zone is a solid step in adding more colour to what each goalie actually faces.

Greater separation of where and how and by who etc is a great add down the road.

But a way to measure degree of difficulty to any degree is better than just save percentage which has zero definition at all.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Is it bad though?

Or is it not evolved as far as it's likely to go?

Creating zones of danger, and entry types to the zone is a solid step in adding more colour to what each goalie actually faces.

Greater separation of where and how and by who etc is a great add down the road.

But a way to measure degree of difficulty to any degree is better than just save percentage which has zero definition at all.

A good exercise would be to have a poll to rank goalies, then compare that to what these stats say are the best goalies. As DeluxeMustashe showed above, the correlation between the two lists is not all that strong. That being the case, the next question is: which list is more accurate and more useful? While we can't be certain, because the former list is just based on opinion, I think most people would agree that the former list is more useful. If the latter is giving us information that doesn't correlate with what we are seeing, it is either telling us something we don't see, or it's telling us something that isn't accurate - or more specifically, isn't accurate at what we want it to be illustrating (i.e. who are the best goalies?)

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

A good exercise would be to have a poll to rank goalies, then compare that to what these stats say are the best goalies. As DeluxeMustashe showed above, the correlation between the two lists is not all that strong. That being the case, the next question is: which list is more accurate and more useful? While we can't be certain, because the former list is just based on opinion, I think most people would agree that the former list is more useful. If the latter is giving us information that doesn't correlate with what we are seeing, it is either telling us something we don't see, or it's telling us something that isn't accurate - or more specifically, isn't accurate at what we want it to be illustrating (i.e. who are the best goalies?)

I think that works for the league's best.

It wouldn't do much for sorting out backups.

Without a better stat to come along, GSAA is the best weighting system to separate good from bad because it takes a few good steps towards weighting scoring chances by the location and entry point. That's a solid start.

I have yet to see a good argument why it isn't the best available ... which is a very different argument than pointing out why it's flawed.

[GioforPM]

Where I come to is - Markstrom was a sought after goalie with a .500 winning percentage and a .905 save%. Wolf and Vladar, with the same team in front of them, won at almost identical rates as Markstrom and were only slightly behind in save%. I know Markstrom was a GSAx darling, but then again David Rittich is way up there - that stat has a real mishmash of what people think are good and bad goalies.

[SuperMatt18]

The problem with the stats are also context of what they are seeing. Using a raw ranking of GSAA is potentially flawed.

But you can also leverage GSAA/60 and xG Against/60 to help provide additional context.

For example 65 goalies played above 1800 minutes the past 2 seasons and they almost nicely split into 3 groups.

Goalies that faced tough volume (xG > 3.0 xGA/60): 26 goalies
Goaltes that faced average volume (xG between 2.75 and 3.0): 23 goalies
Goalies that faced easier volume (xG less than 2.75 xGA/60): 16 goalies

Of the goalies that faced tough volume Ilya Sorokin, Stolarz, Saros, Woll, and Lankinen finished top 5 in GSAA/60 (+0.25 or better) , and Allen, Kahkonen, Merzlikins, Soderblom, and Martin performed the worst (-0.35 or worse)

Of the goalies that faced moderate xGA/60 the top 5 were Ullmark, Hellebuyck, Swayman, Varlamov, and Shesterkin (+0.30 GSAA/60 or better) and Markstrom, Husso, Quick, Ersson, and Campbell were bottom 5 (-0.15 or worse).

And of the goalies that faced easier xGA/60 the top 5 were Broissoit, Gustavsson, Daccord, Oettinger, and Thompson (+0.23 GSAA or better) and the bottom 5 were Copley, Grubaruer, Raanta, Jones, and Vladar (-0.16 or worse, Vladar the worst at -0.47).

Maybe I'm wrong but to me those groups at least directionally make sense, especially once you start to account for minutes played.

Sorokin and Saros play a ton of minutes against tough competition and have succeeded, Stolarz, Woll and Lankinen too...but in much smaller sample sizes.

Ullmark, Hellebuyck, Swayman, Varlamov, and Shesterkin (with Demko right behind them) have strong performance but with better team performance in front of them as well.

Markstrom, Husso, Quick, Ersson, and Campbell have struggled even with okay team performance in front of them. For Markstrom this is heavily weighted by the 22-23 season.

Broissoit, Gustavsson, Daccord, Oettinger and Thompson have had strong performance in more favourable minutes, with only Oettinger really playing a true starters workload.

Copley, Grubauer, Raanta, Jones, and Vladar have not performed well even though they are playing in softer minutes. All of them playing backup minutes. For this group Vladar is last place in GSAA and the traditional GAA (3.21) AND SV% (.887), so really whether it's the advanced metric or the traditional metrics...his ranking is poor.

So any way you slice it, it doesn't look great for Vladar these past two seasons. He's shown flashes but has largely been inconsistent and you hope it's injury related, but I also wouldn't be surprised if he's in the AHL by mid-season.

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I think that works for the league's best.

It wouldn't do much for sorting out backups.

Without a better stat to come along, GSAA is the best weighting system to separate good from bad because it takes a few good steps towards weighting scoring chances by the location and entry point. That's a solid start.

I have yet to see a good argument why it isn't the best available ... which is a very different argument than pointing out why it's flawed.

Bingo, I sure hope you had a typo. GSAA is absolutely *not* the best.

It is sv% with league average as a reference point and zero of the value add intended by GSAx

GSAx introduces the shot location and context stuff

I am pretty sure you get this and it’s a typo, but it makes it hard to discuss when people in general have strong opinions but are not aligned on the fundamentals

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by SuperMatt18

The problem with the stats are also context of what they are seeing. Using a raw ranking of GSAA is potentially flawed.

But you can also leverage GSAA/60 and xG Against/60 to help provide additional context.

For example 65 goalies played above 1800 minutes the past 2 seasons and they almost nicely split into 3 groups.

Goalies that faced tough volume (xG > 3.0 xGA/60): 26 goalies
Goaltes that faced average volume (xG between 2.75 and 3.0): 23 goalies
Goalies that faced easier volume (xG less than 2.75 xGA/60): 16 goalies

Of the goalies that faced tough volume Ilya Sorokin, Stolarz, Saros, Woll, and Lankinen finished top 5 in GSAA/60 (+0.25 or better) , and Allen, Kahkonen, Merzlikins, Soderblom, and Martin performed the worst (-0.35 or worse)

Of the goalies that faced moderate xGA/60 the top 5 were Ullmark, Hellebuyck, Swayman, Varlamov, and Shesterkin (+0.30 GSAA/60 or better) and Markstrom, Husso, Quick, Ersson, and Campbell were bottom 5 (-0.15 or worse).

And of the goalies that faced easier xGA/60 the top 5 were Broissoit, Gustavsson, Daccord, Oettinger, and Thompson (+0.23 GSAA or better) and the bottom 5 were Copley, Grubaruer, Raanta, Jones, and Vladar (-0.16 or worse, Vladar the worst at -0.47).

Maybe I'm wrong but to me those groups at least directionally make sense, especially once you start to account for minutes played.

Sorokin and Saros play a ton of minutes against tough competition and have succeeded, Stolarz, Woll and Lankinen too...but in much smaller sample sizes.

Ullmark, Hellebuyck, Swayman, Varlamov, and Shesterkin (with Demko right behind them) have strong performance but with better team performance in front of them as well.

Markstrom, Husso, Quick, Ersson, and Campbell have struggled even with okay team performance in front of them. For Markstrom this is heavily weighted by the 22-23 season.

Broissoit, Gustavsson, Daccord, Oettinger and Thompson have had strong performance in more favourable minutes, with only Oettinger really playing a true starters workload.

Copley, Grubauer, Raanta, Jones, and Vladar have not performed well even though they are playing in softer minutes. All of them playing backup minutes. For this group Vladar is last place in GSAA and the traditional GAA (3.21) AND SV% (.887), so really whether it's the advanced metric or the traditional metrics...his ranking is poor.

So any way you slice it, it doesn't look great for Vladar these past two seasons. He's shown flashes but has largely been inconsistent and you hope it's injury related, but I also wouldn't be surprised if he's in the AHL by mid-season.

Quite honestly, 1800 min (* I am assuming you mean per season) is a conversation worthy filter, it takes out those goalies that play 20-30 games. You may want to set your cutoff at the minute level for ~64 goalies rather than 41

That’s really isolating very close to 1 goalie per team, and thereby eliminating the ability to consider team effects

There is a significant valuation of this stat by its users as indicative of individual goalie performance. Going towards 1 goalie per team kind of defeats the purpose, no?


Second thing, look at GSAx. As flawed as it is, it at least is attempting to refine GSAA

[Snuffleupagus]

It amazes me how people bring up Wolfs size like he's 5'5 or something and can't cover the net, when Kiprusoff arrived in Calgary he was an inch taller and 7lbs heavier.

[dino7c]

the best part of this list is watching people get butthurt

[SuperMatt18]

Originally Posted by DeluxeMoustache

Quite honestly, 1800 min (* I am assuming you mean per season) is a conversation worthy filter, it takes out those goalies that play 20-30 games. You may want to set your cutoff at the minute level for ~64 goalies rather than 41

That’s really isolating very close to 1 goalie per team, and thereby eliminating the ability to consider team effects

There is a significant valuation of this stat by its users as indicative of individual goalie performance. Going towards 1 goalie per team kind of defeats the purpose, no?


Second thing, look at GSAx. As flawed as it is, it at least is attempting to refine GSAA

It was set at 65 goalies, so should have caught 2 per team for the most part. It was 1800 minutes over the last 2 seasons, which is about 30 games, and 65 goalies met that criteria.

Which was intentional as I wanted ~2 goalies per team and to include most backups.

And I was just using Natural Stat Trick, so easier to filter and manage it, but yeah if if felt like doing more effort I'd pull in GSAx and pull in that too for consideration.