Another fun "Goalies Suck" stat

[JoeSchmoe]

38 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:

That's the thing I keep asking: who decides what's low danger, high danger or an expected goal? Just because something is based on "years of data" doesn't answer the question.

Not sure if this has been fine tuned since then (I should probably find out), but here's what it says on the Moneypuck website.

https://moneypuck.com/about.htm

[mjd1001]

2 hours ago, PromoTheRobot said:

I have to ask, do you consider breakaways soft goals? 1-on-0? 2-on-1?

No.

A soft goal example would be the many, and I mean MANY times UPL was in net the past year or so, and in the game day threads I pointed out, too many times, that UPL was set, in position, facing the shooter, didn't have to move laterally, and a shooter took a non-screened shot from 15 (or so) feet out that got by him. 

I hardly made those posts 2 years ago, but all of last year and already a few times this year he's let those in.

Edited 12 hours ago by mjd1001

[Broken Ankles]

On 12/7/2025 at 7:37 PM, PromoTheRobot said:

Who decides these goals that shouldn't have gone in? I'd really like to know how that judgement is made.

We know one thing.  You’re not on that panel. 

[Drag0nDan]

18 hours ago, DarthEbriate said:

Of course, but we go bonkers about everything.

Last year was bad. The season before was his first in the AHL (age 21) and he put up .910 in 45 games. He'd had good SHL numbers prior to that. Even now, he's a developing goalie who is years from his prime.

But he and Cossa (because either could've been taken depending on preference) were both mid-1st round grades as potential franchise goalies.

If you draft one of them, maybe you trade Reinhart for a different package. If you're a real GM, maybe you don't trade Reinhart ;-] 

Goalies don't seem to go as early in drafts so maybe there was some hope they'd slip.  Or maybe they were trying to negotiate a trade of reinhart for a 1st that would have potentially netted a goalie.  

Or they were doing nothing, which is also very possible and likely.  

11 hours ago, mjd1001 said:

No.

A soft goal example would be the many, and I mean MANY times UPL was in net the past year or so, and in the game day threads I pointed out, too many times, that UPL was set, in position, facing the shooter, didn't have to move laterally, and a shooter took a non-screened shot from 15 (or so) feet out that got by him. 

I hardly made those posts 2 years ago, but all of last year and already a few times this year he's let those in.

His tendency to ditch the post early to try to anticipate the cross-crease look.