The Metric Lab is a deep dive using the FantasyLabs Tools to analyze the predictiveness of different statistics and proprietary data. The series provides analysis by looking at the dynamics of value, ownership, and consistency by using our massive database of historical trends.
“What NHL Metrics Should I Prioritize in my Models and Goalie Selection?”
This is probably the most important question to answer if you are new to DFS hockey. The impetus for this entire series comes from Jonathan Bales’ books, but he probably wouldn’t waste his time with hockey, at least until the prize pools increase a bit: #howrich. Your loss, bro.
Wins are weighted significantly in both DraftKings & FanDuel scoring, so it can be frustrating to construct a great lineup only to see an underperforming goalie hold it back. Is it possible to find more consistency at this variance-filled position by chasing goaltenders who, you know . . . win a lot of games?
Naturally, using Vegas moneylines can be a great place to start in goalie selection, but it’s possible there’s value in attacking the position from a different angle as well.
Baseline Trend and Goalie Winning Percentage (Month) %
How can we quantify teams/goalies with recent success? Using our Goalie Winning Percentage metric in the short term (by month), and our Trends tool, we can compare the Plus/Minus values to both Consistency Ratings and ownership percentages.
Plus/Minus: A player’s actual points minus his expected points in the context of his salary-based expectations. Note that DFS scoring is typically lower for NHL than other sports like NFL or NBA, so the NHL Plus/Minus values we see are likely to be small.
Consistency: The percentage of games in which a player has produced within a standard deviation of his expected points based off of historical scoring and pricing. Can be used to identify high-floor players for cash games.
Let’s compare how goalies typically perform in both the top and bottom halves of the Goalie Winning Percentage buckets:
50-99th percentile Winning Percentage (Month)
0-49th percentile Winning Percentage (Month)
From a macro perspective, it’s not surprising at all that goalies who win more games provide more value and are more consistent. The incredible thing is how close the ownership is between the two. I considered ending this article with “play good goaltenders on good teams,” but let’s keep trudging along.
The following charts highlight goalies using different percentile buckets for our Goalie Winning Percentage metric. More importantly, the impact on Plus/Minus in comparison to both Consistency and Ownership is where the true value lies in these charts.
There’s a ton to unpack here, but let’s also loop in our Vegas Moneyline Rating chart as well (for reference):
The small sample for Goalie Winning Percentage (Month) in the top-one percentile bucket was removed. If we removed the same bucket from the Vegas Moneyline Rating chart, these charts would actually be quite comparable.
However, the public does not seem to be making decisions that align with Goalie Winning Percentage even though the Plus/Minus values and Consistency Ratings are similar on a macro level. A significant ownership discount can certainly be an edge in guaranteed prize pools, especially if the resulting performance is comparable.
That said, I still believe in weighing moneylines in your decision-making process at goalie. It makes sense that goalies perform better as heavy favorites, because Vegas makes money. The most important takeaway here is that ownership tends to mirror Vegas moneylines more than short-term winning percentages.
Let’s dive deeper into how Goalie Winning Percentage impacts goaltenders at different price points.
Salary Breakdown
Does paying up for a goaltender — even one who’s expected to accrue a win — give you a false sense of security? It’s important to remember that with a high-priced goalie you may have a tougher time jamming in a top-tier shooter or Corsi monster. This chart looks at players in the same percentile buckets as above, but it breaks things down by salary and has removed samples (counts) fewer than 25.
The top-five percentile buckets lead every salary range, but goalies priced at $8,000 or higher on DraftKings dominate the top tier for both Plus/Minus and Consistency.
An example: Last week the Predators faced the Oilers. The game was expected to be fast-paced with both teams falling in the top half of Corsi Expectation offense. Pekka Rinne, who was $8,300 on DraftKings with a top-five percentile Goalie Winning Percentage over the past month, logged 34 saves and was the highest-scoring goalie on the entire slate. Also, Rinne was only the sixth-highest owned goaltender among eight total games. People are still hesitant to pay all the way up, but there are circumstances in which it can definitely pay off.
At just 5.4 percent ownership, the biggest edge in tournaments lies with those priced down at $7,000-$7,400 but who also rank in the top-five percentile in Goalie Winning Percentage. In this bucket, it seems that DraftKings has discounted high-performing goaltenders in tough matchups. Roberto Luongo was priced down all the way to $7,000 against the Toronto Maple Leafs back in February, yet he was in the 95th percentile in Goalie Winning Percentage over the past month. He finished well above his salary-based expectation at sub-five percent ownership.
Outside of the top-five percentile bucket, goaltenders priced below $7,000 on DraftKings have performed well below our baseline trend, but there is considerable upside in targeting unique situations in this range at low ownership.
Note: Upside figures show the percentage of games in which a player has scored at least one-half standard deviation above his point expectation based on salary. Can be used to identify high-upside players for tournaments.
As is the case with the Save Prediction metric, the only goaltenders who have performed above their salary-based expectations in the bottom 50 percentile are those priced at $8,000 and above. This makes a certain amount of sense, given that the most talented goaltenders — or at the least those on the strongest teams — should be the most expensive.
Photo via Ron Chenoy-USA TODAY Sports
