Hockey Terminal
Be a GM

Compare players, 2015-16 season

At a glance

Cam Ward Mike Condon

Save %Goals againstWorkloadGamesGoals savedThe typical playerCam Ward: Save %, 0.909, 31st percentileCam Ward: Goals against, 2.35 a game, 53rd percentileCam Ward: Workload, 25.8 shots a game, 16th percentileCam Ward: Games, 52 games, 69th percentileCam Ward: Goals saved, -0.04 above expected per 60, 40th percentileMike Condon: Save %, 0.903, 11th percentileMike Condon: Goals against, 2.56 a game, 19th percentileMike Condon: Workload, 26.5 shots a game, 31st percentileMike Condon: Games, 55 games, 74th percentileMike Condon: Goals saved, -0.32 above expected per 60, 11th percentile

On the radar, each spoke runs from the lowest at the centre to the league leader at the rim, among the 62 goalies who played at least a quarter as many games as the busiest. The gap between two players on a spoke is the real gap between their numbers. The dashed shape is the typical player. Hover over a dot for the number.

The numbers

Cam Ward G, CHI 2015-16 Mike Condon G, OTT
52 Games played 55
23 Wins 21
17 Losses 25
1 Shutouts 1
1,343 Shots against 1,458
1,221 Saves 1,317
122 Goals against 141
0.909 Save % 0.903
2.41 Goals against average 2.71
Expected goals, while he was in net
119.9 Expected goals against 124.6
-2.1 Goals saved above expected -16.4
-0.04 Saved above expected per 60 -0.32
6.3% Chance per attempt faced 6.2%
Rating, in goals
+10.1 Goals above replacement -3.7
+1.7 Wins above replacement -0.6
Contract
$6.3M Cap hit $575K
$3M Worth at the going rate -$312K
-$3.3M Value: worth minus cap hit -$887K

The better value in each stat is highlighted. Stats where more is not clearly better, such as games played, are not judged. Bars show each value against the larger of the two. What the advanced numbers mean