Oh sure, let's ignore a player/goaltender's recent play, but rather focus on his play from several ago.

He was exceptional up through the playoffs of 2018 when there was an epic goaltending showdown between Quick and Fleury. 2018-19 and the first two months of 2019-20 weren't great, but that's not "hundreds of games." That's about 70 games.

So yes, I'm suggesting that you maybe overlook those 70 games since the 30 or so he has played since then have been very good.

You're in luck, I went and had a look. In 29 games, he's given up 7.14 more goals than expected and has a cap hit of 5.98 mil for it. Even a 2.9 mil cap hit doesn't make that a strong number. You arn't making your case stronger here.

You should do better research, because his cap hit isn't $5.98M.

Again, you haven't watched a single one of those 29 games, so crunching some numbers on a stats site isn't going to give you much insight into his play. After Christmas 2019 until the season was canceled, Quick had a 2.27 GAA and .923 SV%. This season, removing those two outlier games, he has a 2.51 GAA and a .913 SV%. He also passes the eye test.

The fact you need to make a quip about an obvious typo just shows that you don't really have ground to stand on here. The thing about GAA and save % is that they are more team stats than goalie stats. The strong thing about expected goals, xGSA, is it takes where shots are coming from into account. So even if he had those strong numbers, hes still giving up more goals than an average goalie would expect from those same locations. Paying a less than average goalie 5.8 mil AAV is not an asset in any scenario.

Speaking of research...Quick's numbers after Christmas last season


Hell of a thing to criticize someone's research for a typo then mess up your own numbers.

I did check my numbers. Twice.

This season, he has played 747:05 min. In the two games I mentioned, he played 57:23 and 21:04. Subtract out those two games, and he has 668:38 minutes this season (11.144 GP)

He has 37 GA so far this season. In the two outliers, he allowed 9 GA. So that leaves 28 GA in the remaining games. 28 GA / 11.144 = 2.51 GAA

This season, he has faced 358 shots thus far. In the two outliers, he faced 38 combined shots. So that leaves 320 shots in the remaining games. That leaves him with 292 saves on 320 shots. 292/320 = .913 SV%.

Feel free to double check my math.

I have websites to do it for me and as shown in the screenshot in the past post, you are doing something wrong. Should do better research.

My mistake, it was from January 1, 2020, not December 25, 2019.

Jonathan Quick 2019-20

You have a website that will show you split stats with 2 games filtered out? I'd like to see that website. Would prevent me from having to do my own calculations. Please show me your screenshot of Quick's stats from this season, not including the games on 1/28/2021 or 2/5/2021.

Also, I'm still waiting for your examples of the "lots of soft goals" that Quick has let in this year.

So now you want to discount even more games? By the time I'm done going through these games, how many will be left? This is why partial samples are irrelevant.

Every game since January 1, 2020 excepting the two games that I've mentioned several times and included highlights for above, which clearly show that none of the goals were Quicks fault. That includes a streak of 14 games last season and 11 games this season of exceptional play without a single stinker of his own making.

You said that he has been bad for "hundreds of games" and has let in "lots of soft goals" but have shown absolutely no evidence to back that up.

Why would I bother? You arn't making a real argument. 'Quick's been good in this very limited sample but only if you discount these games' isn't something that makes him a positive asset. Hell, even in that very limited sample he still hasnt been good as shown by his xGSA.

Quick has been very good recently. That is my argument. You seem to not be able to grasp that concept without some statistical evidence, so I was attempting to provide some stats that show that if you discount two outlier games where the goals allowed were clearly not his fault, that his stats are actually quite good.

You have claimed that the eye test cannot be relied upon without support from statistical evidence to back it up. I have claimed that statistical evidence by itself is insufficient to evaluate the performance of a goaltender, and some eye test is required. I have provided some statistics and justification that have shown that in the last 15 months (5 months of play), Quick has actually played very well. I am waiting for your examples of the eye test that show that he has not and is actually a negative-valued goaltender. So far, you have not done so and keep clinging to the "I don't need to watch games to know who is good and who isn't" fallacy.

Except upon investigation, your claim was shown to be false. He has still been a sub standard goalie, even in your small sample size.

Says you. I'm still waiting for your evidence, because all the prominent NHL talking heads agree that both of LA's goaltenders have been very good so far this season and are a reason why LA is overperforming this season. You have made claims that you have not even attempted to back up.

Says the stats and the fact hes allowed more goals than expected in that short time despite earning a high cap hit.

Beyond that, imagine saying 'its true because the media said so' to a Leafs fan. Lmfao. That humor will be plenty for me. Im heading off to bed.

Because the eye test, win-loss records, and recent statistics say so, in addition to the media (and Kings coaching staff BTW).

I have at least attempted to provide you with some stats that show that Quick is a good starting goaltender. You have made a ton of assertions of why he's so terrible without providing even a single video clip showing him letting in a goal he should have otherwise saved. GSAA is a stat that is supposed to show how many goals a goaltender saved or allowed compared with an average goaltender in the league. You contend that Quick's stat is so far in the red that he has negative value. I'm challenging you to show me a couple recent examples where Quick let in a shot that an average goaltender should have stopped. I can absolutely show you some examples where Quick stood on his head and saved some that an average goaltender would not have saved.

Well no, his recent xGSA shows otherwise. He allowed more goals than expected from an average goalie.



GSAA is a trash stat, its literal garbage. xGSA is the stat I'm using and you shouldn't confuse them. The point is that any goalie earning a high contract, 5.8m cap hit, with a long term remaining, 2 extra seasons, who stops less than the expected amount of goals is a negative asset. That should be self-explanatory and its laughable to argue otherwise which is why everyone in here has been telling you its a bad deal even neutral party fans.

You can abbreviate the stat however you want. The meaning is the same. It's the number of goals that a goaltender is expected to save/allow compared to a league average goaltender. Again, I challenge you to show me a couple examples of goals that Quick has allowed that an average goaltender would have saved. There aren't many. I can think of maybe one example.

You can argue that Quick is not worth the return I proposed. That is a different and more reasonable argument than that Quick is a negative-valued asset, even at 50% retention, and the Kings would have to pay to get rid of him, which is completely untrue, and you trying to suggest that "everyone in here" is suggesting as much is patently false.

xGSA and GSAA are far from the same thing. Here's an authority to point out the difference for you:

https://twitter.com/JFreshHockey/status/1234590266029477892
https://twitter.com/JFreshHockey/status/1234590822982725632
https://twitter.com/JFreshHockey/status/1234591815719890945

Like you said earlier ... research. Can't hope to have a productive conversation with someone who doesn't even know what he's talking about.

You're missing my point. I'm not saying that the stats are calculated the same way. I'm saying they're two different algorithms that describe the same thing. One could potentially be better than the other. It doesn't matter. The point is that both stats are trying to describe the same thing. How many goals a goaltender saves/doesn't save compared to a league average goaltender. I don't care which of GSAA or xGSA is good or isn't. I care that if you watch each of the 37 goals that Quick has allowed this season, only one or two of them are bad/soft goals (i.e. would have been stopped by a league average goaltender). The individual stats and the algorithms behind them are irrelevant to my argument.

Also, you're not doing your argument much good by quoting JFresh. The guy may make some beautiful visualizations, but his hockey analysis is bad, at best.

Someone didn't read the tweets. Guess I shouldn't be surprised you don't want to educate yourself at this point.

Looking at the one game you provided a working link for, I'm not even sure what you are looking for anymore. Quick has partial or entire responsibility for 4 of the 5 goals (every goal but the 5th). My personal favorite is the 4th one that goes straight through him. Clearly we can't take your opinion for anything as far as what are soft goals, the bias clearly shown with that 1 video is outstanding. We better stick to the unbiased takes, the stats.

I did read each of the tweets. They are JFresh telling me that GSAA is garbage and xGSA is fantastic and explaining the difference between the two. Like I said, the algorithm behind the two stats is irrelevant. GSAA stands for "Goals Saved Above Average". xGSA stands for "Goals Saved Above Expected." Both of them are comparing a goaltenders performance based on how many saves they are expected to make based on a standardized algorithm. If your xGSA is 0, you're considered an average goaltender. If your GSAA is 0, you're considered an average goaltender. If it's positive, you're great, if it's negative, you're bad. I get that JFresh takes issue with the algorithm behind the first. However, it doesn't change the fact that they're both trying to algorithmically judge if a goaltender is good or bad using numbers and not actually watching a single second of a hockey game.

Each and every once of the goals in that game were due to a defensive breakdown. The 4th goal might have been marginal (and the worst of the 5), but it was due to the Kings leaving Quick out to dry on a 2-on-1 after a bad change. I get that as a Leafs fan you've likely grown accustomed to poor defense and constant defensive breakdowns, but that's not normal. Jim Fox even says on the air, at length, that none of the 5 goals are on Quick, and he's normally not hesitant to call out Kings' goaltenders when they let in softies.

Not sure why the other embed didn't work. Here's the link to that video:

Kings vs Minnesota Wild - January 28, 2021

That goal is 100% on Quick. Odd man rushes and defensive breakdowns happen in every game, even for teams who arn't the Leafs, and they don't absolve the goalie of responsibility for stopping a shot. For the 4th goal, it was a 2 on 1 in which Quick had a defenseman covering the pass, which is his job in that situation while the goalies is the shooter. Quick was out of his net, in position to cover the shooter and the shooter just puts it right past him with a mediocre shot. Thats one Quick needs to have and yes, its a weak goal. Of course, the eye test and our interpretation of these goals are all very subjective and your bias is very clear here. Its why you should rely on the stats as well as the eye test and in this case both are pointing to Quick not being a strong goalie. This is further evidenced by the teams opinion of it, the fact that he's not the starter in LA anymore.

Quick hasn't lost the starting job in LA. What gave you the idea that he did? They've changed to a 1A/1B type rotation to prepare Petersen to be the goaltender of the future, but Quick is still very much the 1A. He recently missed a couple weeks with an injury, causing Petersen to get several consecutive starts, but up until his injury, both Quick and Petersen had started 12 games each. At the time of his injury, Quick had 6 wins in those 12 starts while Petersen only had 4.

I do utilize stats, but they should be secondary to the eye test. You exclusively rely on fancy stats and try to make assessments of players you don't watch. Why watch the games at all when you can just look at numbers on a spreadsheet, right?

Well I did look at the game you wanted me to and your take on it was hilariously bad. The eye test confirmed what the stats have told me. This is further evidenced by the fact that LA demoted him. Changing him to 1A/1B, still a demotion. It says a lot about what the team thinks of him and his value. It is all evidence of the fact he should have negative value and it all agrees with each other. The only thing disagreeing is you. Its time to take the loss.