One-game Scouring Report for Jonathan Quick and Brian Elliott

From game 1 of the 2012 second-round series between the Los Angeles Kings and St. Louis Blues

Game 1 saw the Los Angeles Kings defeated the St. Louis Blues 2-1. Jonathan Quick combined multiple big saves, solid rebound placement and a high save-percentage to produce an above-average goaltending rating of 2.16. Brian Elliot struggled with his rebound control, earning him his first below-average rating of the playoffs.

The 6'1", 214 lbs Quick finished the regular season with a  31-14-8 record, a 2.41 goals against average, and a .919 save percentage. He has a career save percentage of .916 during the regular season, and .901 during the playoffs.

The 6'3", 204 lbs. Elliot finished the regular season with a 23-10-4 record, a 1.56 goals against average, and a .940 save percentage. He has a career save percentage of .909 during the regular season, and .892 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

Quick had an impressive short-handed rating of 2.50. He stopped all 4 shots he faced, and produced rebounds from 3 of those saves. None of these rebounds landed in the slot, and he made 1 short-handed save on a St. Louis scoring chance.

Elliott had a below-average short-handed rating of 1.70, as he stuggled with his rebound control. He stopped all 8 shots he faced, but allowed 5 rebounds; four of which landed in the slot. One of his 8 saves came on a Los Angeles scoring chance. 

QUICK	32	1	ELLIOTT
O REBOUND %	0.250	0.375	O REBOUND %
SAFE REBOUND %	1.000	0.200	SAFE REBOUND %
BIG SAVE%	0.250	0.125	BIG SAVE%
SAVE %	1.000	1.000	SAVE %
	32	1
SUCCESSFUL PUCK PLAYS	0	0	SUCCESSFUL PUCK PLAYS
UNSUCCESSFUL PUCK PLAYS	0	0	UNSUCCESSFUL PUCK PLAYS
PUCK PLAYS RATIO	N/A	N/A	PUCK PLAYS RATIO
	32	1
GOALTENDER RATING	2.50	1.70	GOALTENDER RATING
	32	1

OVERALL GOALTENDING RATING

Quick's even-strength play actually lowered his oveall rating. That said, he still hung on for a substantially above average rating. He stopped 28 of 29 saves, and allowed rebounds from 21 of those 28 saves. He did a great job controlling the placement of his rebounds, as only 8 of those 21 rebounds landed in the slot. He also made an impressive 9 saves on St. Louis scoring chances.

Quick was successful with all 3 of his pass-attempts. 

Elliott's even-strength play improved his overall rating to 1.82. His save-percentage helped his rating, while his rebound control was below-average. He stopped 26 of 28 shots, and allowed 17 rebounds. Eleven of those 17 rebounds landed in the slot, and he made 6 saves on Los Angeles scoring chances.

Elliott was successful with 2 of 5 pass-attempts, as well as his only attempt to dump the puck out of the defensive-zone. This gave him a puck-handling ratio of 1 successful play for every 1 unsuccessful play. 

QUICK	32	1	ELLIOTT
O REBOUND %	0.250	0.346	O REBOUND %
SAFE REBOUND %	0.619	0.353	SAFE REBOUND %
BIG SAVE%	0.321	0.192	BIG SAVE%
SAVE %	0.966	0.929	SAVE %
	32	1
SUCCESSFUL PUCK PLAYS	3	3	SUCCESSFUL PUCK PLAYS
UNSUCCESSFUL PUCK PLAYS	0	3	UNSUCCESSFUL PUCK PLAYS
PUCK PLAYS RATIO	N/A	1.00	PUCK PLAYS RATIO
	32	1
GOALTENDER RATING	2.16	1.82	GOALTENDER RATING
	32	1

Leblanc Gained Confidence as Season Progressed

Young prospect's offensive-zone numbers improved significantly

Louis Leblanc started the season injured, before joining the Hamilton Bulldogs. He played 31 games with Hamilton, scoring 11 goals and adding 11 assists. In 42 games with the Canadiens, he scored 5 goals and added 5 assists. He also posted a traditional plus/minus of plus-3. He averaged 1.38 shots per-game, and ended the season with a shooting percentage of 8.6%.


EVEN-STRENGTH RATIO

Even-strength ratio is the number of successful plays a player makes for every 1 unsuccessful play; the higher the number, the better a player performed. Leblanc ended the season with an even-strength ratio of 1.72 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play. This places him 18th among forwards who played for the Habs last season. Overall, the top ES ratio was earned by Josh Gorges at 2.62 successful plays for every 1 unsuccessful play.

Leblanc's ratio took a big dip mid-season. That said, it began to recover toward the end of the season; particularly over the course of the last 25 games.  It was inconsistency that hurt him through most of the season, as a ratio above 3.0 would be followed by one below 1.0. That said, he did not produce a sub-1.0 ratio over the season`s last 19 games.

OFFENSIVE-ZONE RISK/REWARD RATING

Leblanc ended  the season with an offensive-zone risk/reward rating of 0.40. He had the seventh-best o-zone rating among forwards who have played for the Habs this season. The top offensive-zone rating belonged to Max Pacioretty at 0.55.

As with his even-strength ratio, Leblanc`s offensive-zone risk/reward also took a dip at the mid-point of the season. That said, it began to improve as the season came to an end. Inconsistency was his biggest problem, as he would follow an o-zone rating above 0.40, with a rating below 0.  Overall, he earned 12 o-zone ratings above 0.60, and 11 o-zone ratings below 0.20.

OFFENSIVE-ZONE PASSING PERCENTAGE

Leblanc ended the season with an offensive-zone passing success-rate of 60%. Ninth-best among forwards who played with the Habs last season. The top success-rate belonged to David Desharnais at 65%.  Experience brought Leblanc confidence; as made apparent by his dramatically improved o-zone passing-percentage near the end of the season.

SHOTS PER-GAME AT EVEN-STRENGTH

Leblanc also improved his ability to get shots on net. As he was able to get substantially more shots through to the net toward the end of the season.

DEFENSIVE-ZONE RISK/REWARD RATING

As with his other ratings, Leblanc's defensive-zone rating took a dip in the middle of the season. He ended a defensive-zone risk/reward rating of 0.23; placing him 17th among forwards who played with the Habs during the 2011-12 season. Lars Eller earned the top d-zone rating among forwards at 0.67.

Leblanc produced a negative d-zone rating on 10 separate occasions. Expressed differently, a d-zone rating below 0 indicates that a player made more unsuccessful plays than successful plays in the defensive-zone during the game. The biggest improvement came over the course of the season's last 10 games, as Leblanc kept his rating in the positive during each of those last 10 games.

Improved consistency is all any team can really ask from a 21 year-old playing his rookie season in the NHL. Over the final 10 games of the 2011-12 season, Louis Leblanc not only improved his consistency, he also improved his play in the offensive-zone.

His preseason performance, combined with the Habs depth next year will dictate where Leblanc starts the 2011-12 season.

One-game Scouting Report for Holtby and Lundqvist

Goaltending ratings from Game 1 of the second-round series between the New York Rangers and Washington Capitals

Braden Holtby did a better job controlling rebounds, while Henrik Lundqvist simply stopped more shots, as the New York Ranger took a 1-0 lead in the series with a 3-1 win.

Braden Holtby is a 6'2", 203 lbs left-handed shooting goalie. The 22-year-old finished the regular season with a  4-2-1 record, a 2.49 goals against average, and a .922 save percentage. He had not played an NHL playoff game prior to this series.


The 6'1", 195 lbs. Lundqvist finished the regular season with a 39-18-5 record, a 1.97 goals against average, and a .930 save percentage. He has a career save percentage of .920 during the regular season, and .914 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

Holtby's earned a short-handed goaltending rating of 2.50. He stopped both shots he faced, and allowed 1 rebound from those 2 saves.

Lundqivst earned an identical rating, but saw more short-handed shots. He stopped all 6 shots he faced. He allowed 3 rebounds on those 6 saves, but none of the rebounds landed in the slot.

HOLTBY	70	30	LUNDQVIST
O REBOUND %	0.500	0.500	O REBOUND %
SAFE REBOUND %	1.000	1.000	SAFE REBOUND %
BIG SAVE%	0.000	0.000	BIG SAVE%
SAVE %	1.000	1.000	SAVE %
	70	30
SUCCESSFUL PUCK PLAYS	0	0	SUCCESSFUL PUCK PLAYS
UNSUCCESSFUL PUCK PLAYS	0	0	UNSUCCESSFUL PUCK PLAYS
PUCK PLAYS RATIO	N/A	N/A	PUCK PLAYS RATIO
	70	30
GOALTENDER RATING	2.50	2.50	GOALTENDER RATING
	70	30

OVERALL GOALTENDING RATING

Holtby's rebound control was significantly better than Lundqvist. So much better in fact, that it carried him to a higher overall rating; despite a substantially lower save-percentage.

Holtby stopped only 11of 14 shots. That said, he produced only 5 rebounds from those 11 saves, and only 1 rebound landed in the slot. Expressed differently, this means that Holtby allowed only one dangerous rebound the entire game! His save-percentage not only cost the game, but it also stopped him from earing a record-high rating. One of his 11 saves came on New York scoring chances, and he was successful with only 1 of his 3 pass-attempts.

Lundqvist had an slightly above-average overall rating of 1.94. He had a great save-percentage, but his rebound control was unusually weak. He stopped 17 of 18 shots, and allowed  12 rebounds from those 17 stops.  Five of those 12 rebounds landed in the slot, and he made 2 saves on Washington scoring chances. He was successfu with both of his pass-attempts.

HOLTBY	41	30	LUNDQVIST
O REBOUND %	0.545	0.294	O REBOUND %
SAFE REBOUND %	0.800	0.583	SAFE REBOUND %
BIG SAVE%	0.091	0.118	BIG SAVE%
SAVE %	0.786	0.944	SAVE %
	41	30
SUCCESSFUL PUCK PLAYS	1	2	SUCCESSFUL PUCK PLAYS
UNSUCCESSFUL PUCK PLAYS	2	0	UNSUCCESSFUL PUCK PLAYS
PUCK PLAYS RATIO	0.50	N/A	PUCK PLAYS RATIO
	41	30
GOALTENDER RATING	2.22	1.94	GOALTENDER RATING
	41	30

One-game Scouting Report for Mike Smith and Pekka Rinne

From game 1 of the second-round series between the Phoenix Coyotes and Nashville Predators

Game 1 saw Mike Smith earn a higher rating than his counterpart Pekka Rinne, as the Phoenix Coyotes beat the Nashville Predators by a score of 4-3. Smith's higher rating was the product of a solid save percentage combined by good rebound control. Rinne though, actually made a higher percentage of "big saves" than Smith.

The 6'4", 218 lbs Smith finished the regular season with a  38-18-10 record, a 2.21 goals against average, and a .933 save percentage. He has a career save percentage of .914 during the regular season, and .943 during the playoffs.

The 6'5", 209 lbs. Pekka Rinne finished the regular season with a 43-18-8 record, a 2.39 goals against average, and a .923 save percentage. He has a career save percentage of .921 during the regular season, and .914 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

Both goalies had low short-handed goaltending ratings.

Smith earned a short-handed rating of 1.56. He stopped 6 of 7 shots. He allowed rebounds on 5 of those 7 shots, and 4 of those 5 rebounds landed in the slot. Two of his 6 saves came on Nashville scoring chances.

Rinne only faced 1 short-handed shot during the game; which resulted in a goal against.

SMITH	41	35	RINNE
O REBOUND %	0.167	N/A	O REBOUND %
SAFE REBOUND %	0.200	N/A	SAFE REBOUND %
BIG SAVE%	0.333	N/A	BIG SAVE%
SAVE %	0.857	0.000	SAVE %
	41	35
SUCCESSFUL PUCK PLAYS	0	0	SUCCESSFUL PUCK PLAYS
UNSUCCESSFUL PUCK PLAYS	1	0	UNSUCCESSFUL PUCK PLAYS
PUCK PLAYS RATIO	N/A	N/A	PUCK PLAYS RATIO
	41	35
GOALTENDER RATING	1.56	0.00	GOALTENDER RATING
	41	35

OVERALL GOALTENDING RATING

 Both goalies' even-strength ratings boosted their overall ratings.

Smith earned an overall goaltending rating of 2.02. He had an impressive save-percentage, and solid rebound control. He stopped 39 of 42 shots, and produced rebounds from only 19 of those 39 saves. Eleven of those 19 rebounds landed in the slot, and he made 6 saves on Nashville scoring chances.

Rinne's rebound control and high "big save" percentage overcame his low save-percentage. He ended the game with an overall goaltending rating of 1.98. He stopped only 20 of 24 shots, and allowed rebounds from 11 of those 20 saves. Only 6 of those rebounds landed in the slot, and he made 6 saves on Phoenix scoring chances.

SMITH	41	35	RINNE
O REBOUND %	0.513	0.450	O REBOUND %
SAFE REBOUND %	0.421	0.455	SAFE REBOUND %
BIG SAVE%	0.154	0.250	BIG SAVE%
SAVE %	0.929	0.833	SAVE %
	41	35
SUCCESSFUL PUCK PLAYS	10	10	SUCCESSFUL PUCK PLAYS
UNSUCCESSFUL PUCK PLAYS	3	0	UNSUCCESSFUL PUCK PLAYS
PUCK PLAYS RATIO	3.33	N/A	PUCK PLAYS RATIO
	41	35
GOALTENDER RATING	2.02	1.99	GOALTENDER RATING
	41	35