Devils goaltending: judge the save that prevents the next shot

NHL.com’s latest camp report puts Allen, Rittich and Daws in New Jersey’s goaltending competition. The club’s offseason notebook also records Rittich’s arrival. Our proposed way to judge the position starts with a less dramatic moment than the highlight save: where does the puck go after the first stop?

A goalkeeper can make two saves on a possession because the second was unavoidable, or because the first returned a manageable shot to a dangerous area. The final save total treats both sequences generously. An editorial assessment should ask whether the extra work had to exist.

The first save can finish the danger

Consider two hypothetical shots from a similar location with a clear sightline. One is held or directed towards an area a defender can reach first. The other drops into the middle with an attacker still available. Both initially stay out, but they leave very different jobs for the team.

Our preference is for the repeatable action that reduces the next threat. That does not mean every puck must be caught, or that a rebound automatically identifies an error. A screened shot, a deflection or a late pass across the goal can reduce the options enormously. The judgement needs to begin before contact, with the problem the goalie was actually asked to solve.

We would therefore separate clean looks from disrupted ones when comparing performances. Otherwise, an apparently tidy evening behind a well-organised defence can be rewarded more highly than a difficult performance in which the goalie repeatedly prevented an immediate goal.

Recovery is not the same as scrambling

When a second action is necessary, the question becomes whether the goalie regains a useful position without losing the next threat. A dramatic reach can be the right response to an emergency. It can also be the consequence of committing too far on the first movement.

We would watch repeated situations rather than prescribe one ideal technique from the stands. Is the goalie still able to respond if the puck carrier passes instead of shooting? Does the recovery leave a manageable angle, or require another exceptional rescue? The purpose is not to remove instinct. It is to distinguish athletic solutions from avoidable disorder.

The defenders still own their next assignment

Rebound control cannot excuse a skater who stops tracking an attacker. Once the first shot has been taken, the defender has another decision: find the puck, protect the receiving lane or establish position against the opponent. Chasing the same loose puck as a teammate can leave the most dangerous player unattended.

That is why we would assess the whole defensive sequence while still assigning responsibility carefully. A save into a recoverable area should count positively even if a teammate loses the retrieval. An awkward rebound should not disappear from the review merely because a defender clears it successfully.

This connects with our rookie-camp argument about useful shifts without a puck touch: the action that helps a teammate may be less conspicuous than the action that ends up on the highlight reel.

Our verdict: compare the problems before the totals

The strongest objection is that preventing goals matters more than stylistic neatness. We agree. A goalie who repeatedly makes demanding saves deserves credit, even when the technique looks untidy. But a short sample can make easier assignments look like superior performance unless the opportunities are compared honestly.

We would favour evidence of repeatable control across comparable situations, not announce a winner from one preseason total. Track the first shot, the second chance and the defensive recovery together. The best performance may be the one that makes the rest of the shift uneventful.

Cover photograph: Unsplash, illustrative ice-hockey imagery; not a photograph of the players discussed.