One of the primary objectives of this evaluation system is to easily create insights that, even at face value, can provide a development path forward for goaltenders. Even so, evaluators should strive to not let the evaluation event be the end of the conversation. There are myriad benefits to providing even the most basic feedback to the goaltenders you evaluate, even if they do not continue within your organization. The broader goaltending community should strive to make this shift.
Using the scoring methodology and rating criteria in this manual, it is easy to analyze a goaltender’s strengths and areas for continued development. Without any further processing, the baseline rating system should provide a high-level understanding; negative scores are areas of focus, positive scores are strengths, and scores at or near zero are appropriate for the given level of competition (but may also be a desired area for continued development).
However, using a spreadsheet tool such as the one within the resource kit, evaluators can leverage radar charts to provide a more helpful visualization of a goaltender’s traits.
<aside> 🔍 You can learn more about how to use the Google Sheets spreadsheet tool through the corresponding YouTube video here.
</aside>
In a radar chart like this, the term “well rounded” is quite literal. A goaltender’s objective is to rise above the baseline rating of zero while developing skills equally, producing a rounder graph — though it is important to remember that all athletes and humans will still retain distinct strengths and weaknesses.
These charts can be overlaid as a means of direct comparison, aiding with the selection process as detailed in Making Selections. Additionally, organizations that evaluate for internal development purposes can calculate a graph of mean (average) values among a group of goaltenders, helping determine organization-wide priorities and season development plans.
The benefit of this evaluation system is that a goaltender’s strengths and areas for development are readily accessible, even after a single evaluation. Evaluators can use ratings to identify these positive and negative traits and, in tandem with any written comments, construct valuable, coachable feedback for the athlete. In many cases, this process takes fewer than five minutes.
Note that athletes are often too focused on numbers or ratings, conflating self-worth with their ratings, comparing against one another, and misunderstanding the context behind the evaluations. Therefore, we do not recommend providing the athlete any numbers or charts alongside their feedback.
The form below is an example of how this feedback may be presented (download template here).
