Both goalies have good size, great balance, and strong lateral movement. There is no doubt that they are top-end goalies in their age-group. The next step for both netminders is to improve their consistency, play-reads, and rebound control.
The numbers included in these tables are based on four games of data for each goalie. Vasilevski's data was compiled during 2 WJHC games, as well as 2 games from the recent Canada Russia Challenge Tournament. Subban's data is from two OHL games, aas well as 2 games from the recent Canada/Russia series. Obviously, more data is necessary to help create more definitive ratings. But, for the purpose of this post I will work with the data I have, and continue to compile more data in the future.
It is also important to note that Vasilevski averaged a higher quality of competition during the games scouted.
*An explanation of the system I use to rate goaltenders is available at the bottom of this page.
*The averages included here were compiled from 50+ goaltending scouting reports
SHORT-HANDED
NO REBOUND %
The average rate at which goaltenders scouted using this system have been able to avoid giving up any short-handed rebounds is 36%. Expressed differently, this means that 36% of short-handed shots faced by the goaltenders were either deflected out of play or held for a whistle. As such, the higher the number, the better the rebound control.
Malcolm Subban has a higher "no rebound" percentage than Vasilevski. Subban deflected the puck out of play or froze 29% of the shots he faced short-handed, while Vasilevski did the same with 26% of shots.
SAFE REBOUND %
The average rate at which goaltenders were able to keep the rebounds they produced short-handed out of the slot was 43%. Expressed differently, this means that 43% of the short-handed rebounds produced by goaltenders landed outside of the slot.Again, the higher the number, the better the rebound control.
Andrei Vasilevski has a substantially higher "safe rebound" percentage than Subban. Fifty-one percent of the rebounds he produced short-handed landed outside of the slot, while 40% of Subban's short-handed rebounds could be described as safe.
BIG SAVE %
The percentage of short-handed saves made that were produced on shots considered scoring chances was 19%. Expressed differently, this means that 19% of the total short-handed saves made by goaltenders came on shots considered scoring chances. The higher the number, the higher the quality of saves.
Both Subban and Vasilevski had substantially-higher short-handed "big save" percentages than the average. Twenty-nine percent of short-handed saves made by Subban came on scoring chances, while Vasilevski 28% of Vasilevski's saves were scoring chances. This is as much a reflection of each goalies talents, as it is a reflection of the lack of defensive-maturity shown by junior-aged teams.
SAVE %
This number is the percentage of shots faced that a goalie stops. It is identical to the traditional save-percentage used to evaluate goaltenders.
The average short-handed save percentage produced in games scouted was 88%. Vasilevski's short-handed save percentage of 93% was substantially above-average, while Subban's SH save percentage of 78% was substantially below average.
SHORT-HANDED RATING
The average short-handed rating produced was 1.87. Thanks to an impressive short-handed save percentage, Vasilevski has an above-average short-handed goaltending rating of 1.98. Subban's rating of 1.75 was hurt by his low save-percentage, as well as his inability to keep a higher percentage of rebounds out of the slot.
PUCK HANDLING RATIO
The average short-handed puck-handling ratio produced by goaltenders short-handed is 3.46. This means that goaltenders made an average of 3.46 successful passes, or dump-outs for every 1 unsuccessful pass or dump-out.
Neither Subban nor Vasilevski has attempted any short-handed passes, or dump-outs during the games scouted.
EVEN-STRENGTH
NO REBOUND %
The average rate at which goaltenders scouted using this system have been able to avoid giving up any even-strength rebounds is 35%.
Vasilevski has a higher even-strength "no rebound" percentage than Subban. Vasilevski deflected the puck out of play or froze 35% of the shots he faced at even-strength, while Subban did the same with 34% of shots.
SAFE REBOUND %
The average rate at which goaltenders were able to keep the rebounds they produced at even-strength out of the slot was 52%.
Subban has a higher "safe rebound" percentage at even-strength. Fifty-four percent of the rebounds he produced landed outside of the slot, while 51% of Vasilevski's short-handed rebounds could be described as safe.
BIG SAVE %
The percentage of even-strength saves made by goaltnders scouted that were produced on shots considered scoring chances was 20%.
Both Subban and Vasilevski had higher ES "big save" percentages than the average. Twenty-five percent of even-strength saves made by Subban came on scoring chances, while Vasilevski 22% of Vasilevski's saves were on scoring chances. Again, This is as much a reflection of each goalies talents, as it is a reflection of the lack of defensive-maturity shown by junior-aged teams.
SAVE %
The even-strength save percentage produced in games scouted was 93%. Vasilevski's short-handed save percentage of 93% was average, while Subban's save percentage of 91% was slightly below average.
SHORT-HANDED RATING
The average even-strength rating produced was 2.00. Thanks to an above-average "safe reound" percentage, as well as an above-average "big save" percentage, Subban was able to push his even-strength goaltending rating above-average. Vasilevski's slightly above-average ES rating was helped by his save-percentage, as well as his "no rebound" percentage.
PUCK HANDLING RATIO
The average puck-handling ratio produced by goaltenders at even-strength is 7. This means that goaltenders made an average of 7 successful passes, or dump-outs for every 1 unsuccessful pass or dump-out.
Subban has shown himself to be the better puck-handler, with a puck-handling ratio of 12 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play.
Vasilevski has a below-average puck-handling ratio of 5 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play.
*This metric has yet to produce enough events. As such, the average will likely change substantially over time.
My scouting reports for goalies focus on their ability to make saves, make big saves, and control rebounds. The results of these attributes are added together to produce the goaltender's rating. The highest possible rating is 4.00, while the lowest possible rating is 0.00. The higher the value the better a goalie has played.
The first number involved in the calculation is the percentage of saves a goalie makes without giving up a rebound. For example, if a goalie makes 10 saves and gives up only 1 rebound his "no rebound percentage" is .900. Again, the higher the number, the better a goalie performed.
The next number in the calculation is the percentage of safe rebounds a goalie gives up for each rebound allowed. Rebounds deflected outside of the main slot are considered safe. As such, a safe rebound is defined as a rebound outside of an imaginary line drawn from each goalpost to the corresponding board-side hash mark. As an example of this calculation, if a goalie gives up 10 rebounds and deflects 9 of those pucks outside the slot, his "safe rebound percentage" is .900. Again, the higher the number, the better a goalie performs.
The next number is the percentage of saves that would be considered "big saves". A big save is defined as any save made on a play that would be considered a traditional scoring chance. As an example of this calculation, if a goalie makes 5 big saves on 20 shots his "big save percentage" would be .250. Once again, the higher the number, the better a goalie performs.
I also track how a goalie controls the puck. I do this by tracking his successful or unsuccessful pass-attempts, as well as his successful or unsuccessful attempts to dump the puck out of his zone. The resulting numbers are used to produce a ratio of successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play.