What this report is built on
- Two goalies, two competitive contexts — Hart’s 16 tagged games are a playoff run and Hill’s 14 are regular season, so the two sets of rates are not like for like. Each is measured against the pool, never against the other.
- No single night carries either set of rates — Hart’s heaviest game holds 10% of his goals and excluding it he is .911; Hill’s heaviest game holds 14% of his goals and excluding it he is .879.
- Baseline (“pool”) = every goalie we track, all clubs — 3,874 decided shots, each goalie measured against the others, never against himself — not a league average
| Date | Opponent | Dec | SA | GA | Sv% | TOI |
|---|
| Date | Opponent | Dec | SA | GA | Sv% | TOI |
|---|
Volume and Quality faced
- The shot diet was not the same — 21% of the shots Hart faced were Grade-A against 29% for Hill and 30% across the goalies we track, which is real context underneath his .905. On Grade-A itself both sit under the pool: Hart .709 and Hill .641 against .725.
- Rebound control is what separates them — 25% of Hart’s saves left a rebound and 31% of Hill’s, against 41% across the goalies we track. Those rebounds were attacked on 10% and 7% of saves against the pool’s 14%, so the second chances are being created rather than paid for.
- The same held for movement — Hart pushed across the crease 34.4 times a game to Hill’s 31.5, with 26.4 butterfly drops to 18.5 and 14.0 RVH sequences to 8.5. Against the tracked group (33.6 pushes a game) that puts Hart 2% above and Hill 6% below — 1.1× the pushing load between the two of them.
Quick releases and the perimeter didn’t beat him
- A puck that arrives early is not what beats him: .967 on quick releases (30 shots, pool .879) and .952 on deflections (20/21).
- The perimeter and the dot lane are his: .984 from the blue line (63/64) and .946 from the dot lane (122/129, pool .909).
- Goal quality is level with the pool: 5 of 39 goals carry a should’ve-had qualifier (12.8%, pool 14.3%). 25% of his saves left a rebound, 36 of those attacked.
Deflections and the quick-release row rest on 21 and 30 shots — comfortable margins on modest populations. No shot in this report enters the pool it is measured against.
Movement load
- Drives off his left leg 9% more often. A standing imbalance of that size is a strength and conditioning target.
- 66% of his movements are rated hard (4 or 5) against 58% for the group — 43.4 a game at 3.52 difficulty per movement. His work is more demanding than the volume alone suggests.
- His load leans hardest on post play, which loads the hips — 39% above the group. That is what to condition for if you are training his game rather than a template.
- 23% of his movement happens down a man, 22% more shorthanded work per game than the group. Penalty-kill conditioning earns its place in his week.
One bar per game — 100 is an average night. vs home, at away. Light gold is above 100, full gold 40% or more above his median of 109; heaviest at home to UTA at 206.
Focus areas
Rows marked context describe how it went; the rest are situations a coach can work on. The rows overlap, so their shares of one goal set do not sum to it.
Development keys
Low and wide is where he was hardest to beat
- Low is sealed: 1.000 low glove (29 shots) and .971 low blocker (34/35), .978 across every low trajectory (91/93, pool .945).
- Wide angles suit him: 1.000 from the blue line (29 shots, pool .957) and .917 from dead angles (33/36); on the rush shot itself he is .955 (42/44).
- Goal quality matches the pool: 5 of 35 goals carry a should’ve-had qualifier (14.3%, pool 14.3%). 31% of his saves left a rebound, 16 of those attacked.
Dead angles, quick attacks off turnovers and deflections rest on 36, 35 and 22 shots. No shot in this report enters the pool it is measured against.
Movement load
- Drives off his left leg 6% more often. A standing imbalance of that size is a strength and conditioning target.
- 64% of his movements are rated hard (4 or 5) against 59% for the group — 36.4 a game at 3.47 difficulty per movement. His work is more demanding than the volume alone suggests.
- No single kind of movement dominates — his load is evenly spread.
- 24% of his movement happens down a man, 18% more shorthanded work per game than the group. Penalty-kill conditioning earns its place in his week.
One bar per game — 100 is an average night. vs home, at away. Light gold is above 100, full gold 40% or more above his median of 105; heaviest at home to PIT at 147. Hollow = short appearance, too few shots to read as a full night.
Focus areas
Rows marked context describe how it went; the rest are situations a coach can work on. The rows overlap, so their shares of one goal set do not sum to it.