Goalie Efficiency Model · Thompson & Lindgren

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

15Games in sample 397Shots analyzed 392Decided 50GA .872SV% in sample

NHL sample · 11.20.2025 – 04.05.2026 · 15 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 sample sizes — Thompson twelve tagged games, Lindgren fifteen. One goal moves Lindgren’s overall save % by about .003.
No single game carries his rates — 04.05 vs NYR (8 GA on 30 shots) holds 16% of his goals, and excluding it he is .884 overall.
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

Date	Opponent

Charlie Lindgren · games in the analyzed sample

Date	Opponent

Our Sample

Volume 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 · 397 shots analyzed · 50 goals against

Overall save %Overall

.000

342/392

High-danger save %High-danger

.000

79/118

26.1

shots faced per game

15 coded games

30%

of his shots were high-danger

NHL goalies we track: 31%

Lindgren carried the heavier per-game load — 26.1 shots per game to Thompson’s 20.7, across fifteen games to Thompson’s twelve, at an identical 30% high-danger share.
On high-danger itself both sat under the pool: Thompson .693 and Lindgren .669 against roughly .75 for the goalies we track — the tandem’s gap to the pool lives almost entirely in the high-danger tier.
The same held for movement — Lindgren pushed across the crease 51.1 times a game to Thompson’s 27.8, with 21.5 butterfly drops to 18.0 and 14.1 trips to the post to 10.2. Against the goalies we track (33.7 pushes a game) that puts Lindgren 52% above and Thompson 18% below — 1.8× the pushing load between the two of them.

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 - Set379.4%

Tracking Shuffles → Step Shuffle266.6%

Save selection share of saves

Logan Thompson

Butterfly Glove2913.4%

Blocking Body Save2612.0%

Charlie Lindgren

Butterfly Glove6619.4%

Butterfly Blocker5516.1%

Beaten share of goals

Logan Thompson

Around623%

Blocker High519%

Charlie Lindgren

Glove High1428%

Glove Mid1122%

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 · 392), saves carrying a technique tag (216 · 341), goals carrying a trajectory (26 · 50).

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 where he gets beat.
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 · Movement load

How much work the position asked of him

Goalie Workload Index

0

100 = group average · 12 games · 56 points less per-game movement load than Lindgren

96movement 88shots faced 90shorthanded 3.24difficulty per move

Every movement carries a 1–5 difficulty rating set by the goalie staff, so forty tracking shuffles and forty T-pushes do not score alike.

What to do with it

Drives off his right leg 5% more often — 175 to 158. A standing imbalance of that size is a strength and conditioning target.
56% of his movements are rated hard (4 or 5), in line with the group at 58% — 3.24 difficulty per movement. The demand is in the volume rather than the intensity.
No single kind of movement dominates — his load is evenly spread.

Load describes the work, not the result. On this corpus it does not predict save percentage, and a heavy night does not depress the next one. Read it for conditioning and scheduling.

Game by game · load index

Feb 2026

98vs NSHFeb 547vs PHIFeb 25125vs VGKFeb 27

Mar 2026

89vs UTAMar 3172at BOSMar 784vs CGYMar 983vs COLMar 2293at STLMar 2429at UTAMar 26102at VGKMar 2888vs PHIMar 31

Apr 2026

96at NJDApr 2

One bar per game, on the same index as the headline number — 100 is an average night for the goalies we track. His median night ran 93; the 1 gold bar sat 40% or more above it, the heaviest at BOS on Mar 7, at 172. On the chips vs is a home game and at is on the road. Games coded to date, Feb 2026 to Apr 2026.

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

No single game carries more than one of the eight forced-lateral goals — without his heaviest game (03.31 PHI) the area is still .632; that 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 a small population but a costly one: 4 goals on 5 such chances.

Logan Thompson · Development

Development keys

LT1 Forced lateral movement .600 (8 GA/20) · pool .741 · 8 of his 26 goals (31%) 20 clips On forced laterals — a low-to-slot feed, a net drive, a seam pass that moves him post to post — he is .600 against a pool .741, with eight of his 26 goals on 20 shots. The goals stem from late arrivals and late reads on connected passes — when the read comes early, he stays ahead of the play; when it comes late, he is left chasing it. On the rush, his drift timing needs refinement to handle the lateral pass. His own clean lateral saves show the fix — set and square early, well before the release. Development lever: sharpen set-play positional awareness to anticipate earlier. Dev Clips

LT2 Upper glove .821 (7 GA/39) · pool .882 · 12 of his 26 goals finish high incl. blocker 27 clips Beaten glove high or mid on 39 shots at .821 against a pool .882 — add blocker high and 12 of his 26 goals finish high. This connects directly to the forced-lateral pattern: late to position and still in motion at the release, the glove reacts lateral to his body instead of projecting forward to meet the trajectory line early. On clean glove saves the pattern reverses — at his target early, motion eliminated before release, glove projecting forward into the line. Same filter as Lindgren’s CL1: establish early and project forward. Dev Clips

LT3 Penalty kill .800 (7 GA/35) · pool .854 · 14% of his shots, 27% of his goals 30 clips On the kill he is .800 against a pool .854; 27 of the 36 PK shots come against set structure — seam play a coach can put straight on the board. He also leaves the most second chances here: 14 of 28 PK saves left a rebound, four attacked. The same pattern as his lateral and glove-side play: late to position, still in motion at the release, plus broader zone awareness. Seam pass, low-to-slot feed, or sight lines through traffic — delayed reads leave him reacting rather than anticipating. One development chain: anticipate earlier, arrive earlier, and the release finds him set. Dev Clips

Clip counts are what each area’s playlist plays for Thompson: 20 · 27 · 30, 68 clips in the deduped union of the three (77 before dedupe).

Charlie Lindgren · Profile

The rush was his strongest situation

Overall save % · in these games

.000

342/392 in sample · 15 games · pool .907

30%high-danger share .669high-danger save % 22.0%should’ve-had goals

Identity

The inverse of his partner’s profile: .780 in forced lateral movement (32/41, pool .738) and .932 off the rush (110/118) — the exposure that leads Thompson’s focus list is Lindgren’s best delta, and speed does not beat him.
The kill sat at the pool: .841 on 69 PK shots against a pool .850.
Second chances stayed clean: 36% of saves left a rebound, under the pool’s 40%, with 29 attacked.

By situation — where he grades wellNHL poolLindgren

Routine shots5 of his 50 goals.981.976 201/206

Rush chances8 of his 50 goals.917.932 110/118

Dot-lane shots.917.910 91/100

Quick releasecatch-and-shoot.876.891 41/46

Penalty kill4v5.850.841 58/69

Forced lateral movementGEM movement bucket · 41 shots — the exposure that leads Thompson’s focus list.738.780 32/41

Fifteen games, 41–207 decided shots per row. Forced lateral movement, quick release and the rush sit above the pool; the kill, the dot lane and routine shots sit at it. The pool for these rows includes an earlier-tagged Thompson sample (~9%); see slide one.

Charlie Lindgren · Movement load

How much work the position asked of him

Goalie Workload Index

0

100 = group average · 15 games · 56 points more per-game movement load than Thompson

146movement 115shots faced 203shorthanded 3.61difficulty per move

Every movement carries a 1–5 difficulty rating set by the goalie staff, so forty tracking shuffles and forty T-pushes do not score alike.

What to do with it

Push load is even between the legs (385 left, 382 right) — nothing to correct.
70% of his movements are rated hard (4 or 5) against 58% for the group — 58.3 a game at 3.61 difficulty per movement. His work is more demanding than the volume alone suggests.
His load leans hardest on pushing across the crease — 52% above the group. That is what to condition for if you are training his game rather than a template.
28% of his movement happens down a man, 103% more shorthanded work per game than the group. Penalty-kill conditioning earns its place in his week.

Load describes the work, not the result. On this corpus it does not predict save percentage, and a heavy night does not depress the next one. Read it for conditioning and scheduling.

Game by game · load index

Nov 2025

138at MTLNov 2057vs TBLNov 2275vs WPGNov 26

Dec 2025

175at SJSDec 3162at MINDec 16138at DETDec 21100vs NYRDec 31

Jan 2026

167vs ANAJan 5100at NSHJan 11206at COLJan 19310at EDMJan 24145at DETJan 29

Feb 2026

109at MTLFeb 28

Mar 2026

155at BUFMar 12

Apr 2026

178at NYRApr 5

One bar per game, on the same index as the headline number — 100 is an average night for the goalies we track. His median night ran 145; the 2 gold bars sat 40% or more above it, the heaviest at EDM on Jan 24, at 310. On the chips vs is a home game and at is on the road. Games coded to date, Nov 2025 to Apr 2026.

Charlie Lindgren · Analysis

Focus areas

By situationNHL poolLindgren

Upper gloveglove high + mid · 25 of his 50 goals — 50%.885.764 81/106

Through screens56 of the 73 against set OZ play.871.753 55/73

One-timersshot directly off the pass.866.779 60/77

Deflections32 shots.817.813 26/32

Controlled zone entriescoming into the offensive zone · 29 shots · goals in four different games.955.793 23/29

Two or more lateral movementsbefore the shot, excluding settled feet · non-routine.816.752 85/113

Slot shots27 of his 50 goals.851.767 89/116

High-danger save %39 of his 50 goals.753.669 79/118

Should’ve-had goalsshare of goals against, lower is better13.9%22.0% 11/50

04.05 vs NYR (8 GA) holds 16% of his goals; without it he is .884 — no row on this page leans on one night. Upper glove is .772 without its heaviest game; the zone-entry goals sit in four different games.

The organizing theme is sightline and the seam: screens and deflections together are 20 GA on 86 shots (.767, pool .865), five more goals come from the blue line through bodies (.896 vs .970), and set-play one-timers run .779 on 77.
Upper glove carries half his goals (25 of 50) — the one exposure he and Thompson share, on an identical filter.
His should’ve-had share: 22.0% against the pool’s 13.9%.

Charlie Lindgren · Development

Development keys

CL1 Upper glove .764 (25 GA/106) · pool .885 · 25 of his 50 goals (50%) 74 clips Half his goals finish glove high or mid — .764 against a pool .885, goals in 10 of his 15 games. He is confident and consistent low glove, and that low-protect tendency means the glove is often not established early: it arrives late, through rounded, non-forward routes, with the eyes deprioritized. When his feet are set and his hands present forward, upper saves are direct and clean. Same filter as Thompson’s LT2: establish the glove and present the hands forward before the release — route efficiency, not hand speed. Dev Clips

CL2 Screens and deflections .767 (20 GA/86) · pool .865 · screened alone .753, deflections .813 · 40% of his goals 82 clips Two obstructed-sightline exposures with one mechanism: shots through screens (.753, 18 GA/73 — 56 of the 73 in set OZ play) and deflections (.813, 6 GA/32), together 40% of his goals, plus five more from the blue line through bodies (.896 vs .970). The tandem contrast leads: Lindgren faces more screened shots than Thompson (73 to 46) and is .753 where Thompson is .913 — same structure, opposite results. Through traffic his search is active — feet and eyes working laterally, at times pulling off the screen and retreating deeper — and under pressure the save selection can stretch acrobatic, letting seams open in the coverage. The target picture: ground held at the screen, a quiet search, a compact save selection that keeps the coverage connected — a naturally demanding situation where the gains are won in inches. Dev Clips

CL3 Coming into the offensive zone .793 (6 GA/29) · pool .955 · goals in four different games 28 clips On controlled entries that become set play he is .793 where the pool is .955 — the widest delta in his profile, with goals in four different games. His rush number is the mirror (.933): pace on the entry is not the question; the settled play after it is. At 6’2”, depth management is central to his game, and the entries show two sides of one balance: when traffic forms around the crease, his depth can be controlled by the traffic in front rather than his own read — the ground is his to hold. When the play becomes a shot-only option with no pass available, the step forward is his to take — challenging removes the open look. Finding that balance — ground held against crease traffic, depth taken when the shot is the only option — is what tightens his OZ positioning. Dev Clips

CL4 One-timers .779 (17 GA/77) · pool .866 · Thompson .885 65 clips One-timers run .779 on 77 shots against a pool .866, with goals in ten different games — a set-play pattern: 48 of the 77 come out of OZP structure, and ten of the 17 goals finish glove high or mid. On low-to-slot plays and lateral setups where he is moving on his feet ahead of an obvious one-timer, his depth can stop short of his intent as he sets his feet for the release — and on grade-A chances, the coverage lives in that last push of depth. As with his OZ entries, when traffic forms around the net as he moves to the release point, he tends to settle deeper than would be optimal. The success picture is already on film: when he trusts his mobility to reach proper depth and set his feet before the release, the ice is his. Same balance as his entries: trust the mobility, take the depth, set before the release. Dev Clips

Clip counts are what each area’s playlist plays for Lindgren: 74 · 82 · 28 · 65, 202 clips in the deduped union of the four (249 before dedupe).

What this report is built on

Volume and Quality faced

Traffic and the perimeter didn’t beat him

How much work the position asked of him

Focus areas

Development keys

The rush was his strongest situation

How much work the position asked of him

Focus areas

Development keys

Goalie Development Report