"To say the Rangers were a disaster would be understating it. Quick's .893 SV% has a lot more detail to it. Per NST, Quick faced 2.69 xGA/60 in his starts, which was a tad lower than Shesterkin. But Quick faced 8.08 high danger chances per 60, whereas Shesterkin "only" faced 7.93 high danger chances per 60. Where Quick struggled was in his medium danger chances, where Quick saved just 85.7% of chances compared to Shesterkin's 89.8%."
"Much like with Shesterkin, shot quality against matters. Neither goalie was bad, they were just hung out to dry on a regular basis. Quick's 8.08 HD shots against per 60 was tops in the NHL, Shesterkin was 5th. Yet they were both 1-2 in HD saves per 60, so it's not like they were bad. They were just under siege every single game."
"What I do find interesting is how all this lines up in Evolving-Hockey 's goalie charts. While I only focused on high danger chances, which to me is the most important stat of both team play and goalies standing on their heads, Quick didn't grade out well with his entire body of work. Medium danger chances against and his struggles likely played a role here, so this is where we'd like to see improvement from Quick."
Jonathan Quick posted a .893 save percentage while facing heavy defensive breakdowns in front of him. Per NST, Quick faced 2.69 xGA/60 in his starts and 8.08 high-danger chances against per 60, the highest in the NHL. Quick ranked among league leaders in high-danger save percentage but saved only 85.7% of medium-danger chances, trailing Igor Shesterkin's 89.8%. Evolving-Hockey goalie charts reflect weaknesses in his overall body of work driven by medium-danger struggles. Quick's high-danger performance compensated for frequent pressure, but improvement on medium-danger chances and better team defense are needed.
Read at Blue Seat Blogs
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]