Goalie Efficiency Model · GEMGoalie Development Report
Washington Capitals
Sports Performance Analysis · G.E.M.Prepared for Washington Capitals Hockey Operations · Confidential — not for redistribution 01 /
Read This First

What this report is built on

Logan Thompson
G · Washington Capitals · NHL
12Games in sample 255Shots analyzed 248Decided 26GA .895SV% in sample
NHL sample · 02.05 – 04.02.2026 · 12 games
Charlie Lindgren
G · Washington Capitals · NHL
6Games in sample 156Shots analyzed 155Decided 21GA .865SV% in sample
NHL sample · 01.19 – 04.05.2026 · 6 games
Every number in this report describes what happened in this analyzed sample — not the season, and not the goalie in general.
  • Two goalies, two very different sample sizes — Thompson twelve tagged games, Lindgren six. One goal moves Lindgren’s overall save % by about .006, so every Lindgren rate is a flag to check on video, not a settled number.
  • One Lindgren game carries 38% of his goals against — 04.05 vs NYR, 8 GA on 30 shots. Excluding it he is .896 overall. Every rate on his slides was checked against that game, and where it changes the story the slide says so.
  • Baseline (“NHL pool”) = the other NHL goalies we track — 2,005 shots, includes backups — not a league average. Thompson’s rows always exclude his own shots from the pool.
  • The pool contains a 180-shot Thompson sample from GEM’s own earlier tagging (~9% of it), so Lindgren’s baselines are not fully independent of his tandem partner. It never mixes into either goalie’s own numbers on these slides.
Logan Thompson · games in the analyzed sample
DateOpponent
Charlie Lindgren · games in the analyzed sample
DateOpponent
Our Sample

Workload and quality faced

Logan Thompson
NHL · 255 shots analyzed · 26 goals against
Overall save %Overall
.000
222/248
High-danger save %High-danger
.000
52/75
20.7
shots faced per game
12 coded games
30%
of his shots were high-danger
NHL goalies we track: 31%
Charlie Lindgren
NHL · 156 shots analyzed · 21 goals against
Overall save %Overall
.000
134/155
High-danger save %High-danger
.000
38/56
25.8
shots faced per game
6 coded games
36%
of his shots were high-danger
NHL goalies we track: 31%
  • Lindgren carried the heavier per-game load in half as many games — 25.8 shots per game to Thompson’s 20.7, and a 36% high-danger share to 30%.
  • On high-danger itself both sat under the pool: Thompson .693 and Lindgren .679 against roughly .75 for the goalies we track — the tandem’s gap to the pool lives almost entirely in the high-danger tier.
  • Six games is a workload sketch for Lindgren, not a profile.
What the movement data shows
Most-used chains share of all shots
Logan Thompson
Post Entry Feet → Step Out - Set228.9%
Drift → Post Entry Feet187.3%
Charlie Lindgren
Post Entry Feet → Step Out - Set1811.6%
Step Shuffle → Step Shuffle1811.6%
Save selection share of saves
Logan Thompson
Butterfly Glove2913.4%
Blocking Body Save2612.0%
Charlie Lindgren
Butterfly Blocker2921.6%
Butterfly Glove2518.7%
Beaten share of goals
Logan Thompson
Around623%
Blocker High519%
Charlie Lindgren
Around419%
Glove High419%
Chains are consecutive movement pairs, counted once per shot wherever they fall in the chain. GEM codes up to five movements, the save selection and the trajectory on every shot. The three blocks carry three different denominators, because the fields do: decided shots (248 · 155), saves carrying a technique tag (216 · 134), goals carrying a trajectory (26 · 21).
Logan Thompson · Profile

Traffic and the perimeter didn’t beat him

Overall save % · in these games
.000
222/248 in sample · 12 games · pool .906
30%high-danger share .693high-danger save % 11.5%should’ve-had goals
Identity
  • Sees it, stops it: .913 through screens (46 shots, pool .853) and .900 on deflections — obstructed sightlines are not his problem.
  • Strong off the pass: .885 on one-timers (46/52) against a pool .850, and .955 from the dot lane.
  • Goal quality is not the story: 3 of 26 goals carry a should’ve-had qualifier (11.5%, pool 14.3%). 41% of his saves left a rebound, 27 of those attacked.
By situation — where he grades wellNHL poolThompson
Routine shots2 of his 26 goals.979.986 143/145
Dot-lane shots.907.955 64/67
Through screens46 shots.853.913 42/46
Deflections20 shots.818.900 18/20
Long possessions3+ movements before the shot.878.889 96/108
One-timersshot directly off the pass.850.885 46/52

Deflections and screens rest on 20 and 46 shots — comfortable margins on modest populations. Every row on this page excludes his own shots from the pool.

Logan Thompson · Analysis

Focus areas

By situationNHL poolThompson
Forced lateral movementGEM movement bucket · 8 of his 26 goals · −.141 against the pool.741.600 12/20
Slot shots17 of his 26 goals.855.764 55/72
High-danger save %23 of his 26 goals.752.693 52/75
Upper gloveglove high + mid · 7 goals — 12 of 26 finish high including blocker side.882.821 32/39
Penalty kill4v5 · 27 of his 36 PK shots came against set OZ structure.854.800 28/35
Controlled zone entriescoming into the offensive zone · 18 shots.953.889 16/18

The lead row was checked for game concentration: no single game carries more than one of the eight forced-lateral goals’ weight — without his worst game (03.31 PHI) the area is still .632. His worst game holds 4 of 26 goals on 8% of his shots, so no rate on this page leans on one night.

  • The theme is lateral: 8 of 26 goals on forced lateral movement, and Around leads his beaten chart (6 goals) — when he is beaten, the puck moves him and goes around, not through.
  • 17 of 26 goals come from the slot; outside the interior he is at or above the pool nearly everywhere.
  • In-tight chaos is small but brutal: 4 goals on 5 such chances.
Logan Thompson · Development

Development keys

WT1 Forced lateral movement .600 (8 GA/20) · pool .741 · 8 of his 26 goals (31%) — his largest single goal cluster 20 clips On plays the tagging codes as a forced lateral — a low-to-slot feed, a net drive across him, a seam pass that moves him post to post — he is .600 against a pool .741, and those 20 shots carry eight of his 26 goals. The population is not one entry pattern: Rush 9, OZP 8, quick attacks 3. Everywhere else he holds up or better, so it is the puck arriving laterally, not the shot itself, that beats him. The clips must answer: is he late leaving the first post, or arriving square but deep and losing the second puck? Twenty shots is a small population — the eight goals are the evidence, not the rate. Dev Clips
WT2 Upper glove .821 (7 GA/39) · pool .882 · add blocker high and 12 of his 26 goals finish high 39 clips Beaten glove high or glove mid on 39 tracked shots at .821 against a pool .882 — and with the five blocker-high goals added, nearly half his goals finish high. The filter is identical to Lindgren’s WL1, deliberately, so one coach verdict can be promoted across both. A trajectory records where the puck finished, not why the hand was late: the clips must show whether the head is down through traffic, or whether he is already dropping at release and taking the glove down with him. Dev Clips
WT3 Penalty kill .800 (7 GA/35) · pool .854 · 14% of his shots, 27% of his goals 36 clips On the kill he is .800 against a pool .854, and 27 of the 36 PK shots are set OZ structure rather than scramble — seam play against an established unit, the situation a coach can put straight on the board. It is also his leakiest spot for second chances: 14 of his 28 PK saves left a rebound (50%, against 41% overall), four of those attacked. The clips must answer whether the seam is beating him east-west across the royal road or he is losing the shot through the box — and whether the four attacked rebounds share a save selection. Dev Clips

Clip counts are the shots each area’s filter selects for Thompson: 20 · 39 · 36, 84 clips in the deduped union of the three (95 before dedupe). All three areas are proposed from filter analysis and await clip review — the player marks each with its open question.

Charlie Lindgren · Profile

Speed and the kill were his side of the net

Overall save % · in these games
.000
134/155 in sample · 6 games · pool .907
36%high-danger share .679high-danger save % 23.8%should’ve-had goals
Identity
  • The inverse of his partner’s profile: .952 off the rush (40/42) and .800 in forced lateral movement, both clear of the pool — speed and movement are not what beat him.
  • The kill was a strength: .906 on 32 PK shots against a pool .850.
  • Second chances were clean: 40% of saves left a rebound, right at the pool’s 40%, and only 10 were attacked.
By situation — where he grades wellNHL poolLindgren
Rush chances2 of his 21 goals.917.952 40/42
Dot-lane shots.917.938 30/32
Penalty kill4v5.850.906 29/32
One-timersshot directly off the pass.866.879 29/33
Two or more lateral movementsbefore the shot, excluding settled feet · non-routine.816.842 48/57
Forced lateral movementGEM movement bucket · 25 shots.738.800 20/25

Every row on this page rests on 25–57 decided shots from a six-game sample — read them as a shape, not a settled grade. The pool for these rows includes an earlier-tagged Thompson sample (~9%); see slide one.

Charlie Lindgren · Analysis

Focus areas

By situationNHL poolLindgren
Upper gloveglove high + mid · 8 of his 21 goals — 38%.885.778 28/36
Through screens22 of the 30 against set OZ play.871.767 23/30
Deflections12 shots.817.750 9/12
Controlled zone entriescoming into the offensive zone · 15 shots · 2 of the 4 goals in one game.955.733 11/15
Slot shots12 of his 21 goals.851.765 39/51
High-danger save %18 of his 21 goals.753.679 38/56
Should’ve-had goalsshare of goals against, lower is better · well above the pool rate13.9%23.8% 5/21

The NYR game was checked against every row. 04.05 (8 GA) holds 38% of his goals; without it he is .896 overall. Upper glove (.774) and screens-plus-deflections (.786) hold without it — those lead his development keys. Controlled zone entries fall to .846 on 13 shots, which is why that area ships as a question, not a finding. The should’ve-had rate is not the NYR game talking: only 2 of the 5 are in it.

  • The organizing theme is sightline: screens and deflections together are 9 GA on 35 shots (.743, pool .865), with three more goals from the blue line through bodies (.857 vs .970).
  • Upper glove carries 38% of his goals — the one exposure he and Thompson share, on an identical filter.
  • His should’ve-had share, 23.8% against the pool’s 13.9%, is either real or a tagging-consistency artefact — six games cannot settle it.
Charlie Lindgren · Development

Development keys

WL1 Upper glove .778 (8 GA/36) · pool .885 · 8 of his 21 goals (38%) · holds at .774 without the NYR game 36 clips His most robust gap, and the one that survives every cut: .778 on shots finishing glove high or glove mid, carrying 38% of his goals — still .774 with the 8-goal NYR game removed. The filter is identical to Thompson’s WT2, deliberately, so one coach verdict promotes across both. The question, asked of both goalies together: is the glove late, or is it in the right place and the eyes are not? Dev Clips
WL2 Screens and deflections .743 (9 GA/35) · pool .865 · screened alone .767, deflections .750 · 43% of his goals 35 clips Two obstructed-sightline exposures grouped because they share a mechanism: shots through a screen (.767, 7 GA/30 — 22 of the 30 against set OZ play) and deflections (.750, 3 GA/12), still .786 without the NYR game. The tandem contrast is the sharpest fact here: Thompson faces more screened shots and is .913 on them, .900 on deflections — two goalies behind the same structure, opposite results on the same tags. The clips must answer whether the difference is depth against the screen or how each finds the puck — and whether Thompson already has the answer Lindgren needs. Dev Clips
WL3 Coming into the offensive zone .733 (4 GA/15) · pool .955 · the widest delta in the corpus, and the most fragile 15 clips On controlled entries that become set play he is .733 where the pool is .955 — but two of the four goals are in the NYR game, and without it the area is .846 on 13 shots. His rush number is the mirror image (.952, above pool): speed does not hurt him; the pause between the entry and the shot might. Watch the four goals first — where is he when the puck crosses the line, and is he still tracking the carrier when the puck moves off him? If the mechanism is not there, this area should be withdrawn rather than reworded. Dev Clips

Clip counts are the shots each area’s filter selects for Lindgren: 36 · 35 · 15, 71 clips in the deduped union of the three (86 before dedupe). All three areas are proposed from filter analysis and await clip review — the player marks each with its open question.

Goalie Efficiency Model

Goalie Development Report

Logan Thompson Washington Capitals · NHL  ·  Charlie Lindgren Washington Capitals · NHL
Prepared for Washington Capitals Hockey Operations · Confidential — not for redistribution
Click to begin