Team logo
TeamDefensive Accountability
TeamGoaliesSkatersTrendsGame ReviewReports
Line ChemistryScoringCoaching View

Tracks who is tagged on the ice when there is a goal against, including short-handed goals against while on the power play. By comparing the team's tagged on-ice goals against to each player's individual presence, we can see who is repeatedly attached to defensive breakdowns or special-teams counterpunches.
This shows where goals-against exposure is concentrated.

Loading defensive accountability...
On-Ice GA per game (ranked, lowest = strongest)
0 Skaters
AccountableAt or below team avg On-Ice GA/GP
ReviewAbove team avg but within review range
High ExposureWell above team avg
#

Click a coloured badge in the table to open a more detailed report for that player.

Pro Tip
Why On-Ice GA/Game Beats a Traditional Minus Count

A traditional Minus is a raw counting stat that can easily distort a player's true defensive reliability. If a player misses games due to illness or tournament scheduling, their raw minus count stops climbing, making it look like their defensive play suddenly improved.

By converting raw defensive breakdowns into On-Ice GA per game, you create a highly accurate rate metric that measures consistent defensive containment.

Three Reasons On-Ice GA/Game is a Superior Metric

It Standardizes Volatility Across Schedules: Because a traditional minus is a raw cumulative total, players who log the most ice time or play in more games are unfairly penalized on the leaderboard. Dividing on-ice goals against by games played creates a level playing field, allowing you to accurately compare every skater's true defensive impact side-by-side.

It Measures Defensive Containment Pacing: A raw minus count only tells you the total history of breakdowns. On-Ice GA per game tells you exactly how many goals your team averages against per night whenever that specific player is on the ice, giving you a clear look at your game-to-game defensive resilience.

It Exposes High-Risk Defensive Blindspots: A player who was on the ice for 4 goals against over a 12-game stretch and a player who was on the ice for 4 goals against over a single 2-game weekend tournament both have a traditional score of -4. This metric exposes the massive structural difference, ranking the weekend player at a high-risk 2.0 goals against per game and the other at a reliable 0.3 goals against per game.