Any game that goes into a second overtime must contain some solid goaltending. Both Antti Niemi and Jaroslav Halak had solid save percentages. Halak's best work was done controlling the placement of his rebounds, while Niemi was able to limit the total number of rebounds he did allow.
The 6'2", 210 lbs Niemi finished the regular season with a 34-22-9 record, a 2.42 goals against average, and a .915 save percentage. He has a career save percentage of .916 during the regular season, and surprisingly low .905 during the playoffs.
The 5'11", 182 lbs. Halak finished the regular season with a 26-12-7 record, a 1.97 goals against average, and a .926 save percentage. He has a career save percentage of .918 during the regular season, and .922 during the playoffs.
My scouting reports for goalies focus on their ability to make saves, make big saves, control rebounds, and maintain good balance. 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 performs.
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.
SHORT-HANDED GOALTENDING RATING
Halak's ability to control the placement of his rebounds while short-handed helped his short-handed goaltending rating. His well above-average SH rating of 1.90 is even more impressive when we consider how low his actual save-percentage was. He stopped 5 of 6 shots, and allowed rebounds on 3 of those 5 saves. His best work was done controlling the placement of those rebounds, as only 1 of the 3 rebounds he produced landed in the slot.
Niemi's short-handed goaltending rating of 1.57 was lower than Halak's due to the poor placement of the rebounds he allowed. Like Halak, he stopped 5 of 6 shots, and allowed 3 rebounds on those 5 saves. The difference in rating comes down to the placement of these rebounds, as 2 of the 3 landed in the slot.
HALAK4131NIEMI
O REBOUND %0.4000.400O REBOUND %
SAFE REBOUND %0.6670.333SAFE REBOUND %
BIG SAVE%0.0000.000BIG SAVE%
SAVE %0.8330.833SAVE %
4131
SUCCESSFUL PUCK PLAYS01SUCCESSFUL PUCK PLAYS
UNSUCCESSFUL PUCK PLAYS00UNSUCCESSFUL PUCK PLAYS
PUCK PLAYS RATION/AN/APUCK PLAYS RATIO
4131
GOALTENDER RATING1.901.57GOALTENDER RATING
4131
OVERALL GOALTENDING RATING
Halak's even-strength play actually lowered his overall goaltending rating to 1.84. This average rating was hurt by his tendency to allow too many rebounds during the game. That said, he did a good job keeping these rebounds out of the slot. Overall, he stopped 31 of 34 shots. He allowed 22 rebounds from those 31 saves, and was able to keep 12 of those rebounds from landing in the slot. He made 3 saves on shots that would be considered traditional scoring-chances.
He was successful with 5 of his 7 attempted passes, but failed with both of his attempts to dump the puck out of the defensive-zone; producing a low puck-handling ratio of 1.25 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play.
Niemi's impressive overall save-percentage helped push his overall goaltending rating above Halak's. He also did a good job controlling the existence of rebounds by either deflecting shots out of play, or simply holding on to the puck. He stopped 40 of 42 shots, and produced rebounds from 23 of those 40 saves. Thirteen of these 23 rebounds landed in the slot. He also made 3 saves on shots that could be considered scoring chances.
Niemi did a better than expected job when it came to handling the puck. He completed 10 of 12 pass-attempts for a puck-handling ratio of 5 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play.
HALAK4131NIEMI
O REBOUND %0.2900.425O REBOUND %
0.5450.435SAFE REBOUND %
BIG SAVE%0.0970.075BIG SAVE%
SAVE %0.9120.952SAVE %
4131
SUCCESSFUL PUCK PLAYS510SUCCESSFUL PUCK PLAYS
UNSUCCESSFUL PUCK PLAYS42UNSUCCESSFUL PUCK PLAYS
PUCK PLAYS RATIO1.255.00PUCK PLAYS RATIO
4131
GOALTENDER RATING1.841.89GOALTENDER RATING
4131
Keep in mind, these are only 1-game scouting reports. As such, they are only meant as a reflection of Halak's and Niemi's play during this one game.
