I was more referring to the situation/clutch factor than the action itself. (the action was more like a CF diving for a fly ball). Rask seems more like a positional guy than the reflex/athletic type.
If I had to rate Rask for GPHM, it would be something like:
My Tim Thomas ratings:
Fair enough then.
As for Rask being more positional it is a thing being taught to goalies now and has been the thing for a number of years as well. Focus on your positioning and then use your athleticism only when you have to. That said in regards to your ratings I don't think that they are too far off at all. I would put Rask's ath and ref at 90 and 92 respectively though. Also Thomas' control I would drop to 85-88 area. He was well known for giving big rebounds. It would give him a chance to recover for any rebound chances but it also acted as a double edge sword against him.
Honestly, I see Rask as being a poor man's Lundqvist (I mean this more tongue and cheek as I'm not saying Rask is bad, more that Lundqvist is/was better. Also not talking about how they play but more the saves they make vs goals they let in). They are both great goalies who can make unbelievable saves but then the stuff they let in makes you scratch your head. The Marchand line change goal I'd say was more unstoppable than the O'Reilly tip. Pietrangelo dangled him and the other defender, that happens. All playoffs Rask was playing out of his mind and making glorious saves, but the O'Reilly tip was still stoppable imo. Sure that is a tricky shot to handle as it was tipped, but O'Reilly was high enough in the slot that he at the very least could have played the shot as tho he expected the tip. He could see ROR and knew the tip was coming. I think he could have reacted differently than leaving his pads a mile apart for that shot. His positioning was fine but it was one of the weaker goals he let in during the finals rather than it being a bad goal. That being said, I am less of a goalie analyst than any other position but there are my 2 cents lol
This I fully agree actually. That still doesn't change the fact that how he reacted to it meant that it wasn't saveable. Ideally, and only because we know what happened, he would have slid slightly to the blocker side while dropping into a butterfly stance closing off the bottom of the net for any deflections while also getting into position to make the save on the initial shot. That then still leaves him very vulnerable to any high deflections, especially high glove, which him staying upright as he did would be better for. Thus it could be argued that Rask played it for an unknown tip direction, which is what I think he did. However, either way it gets played if the shot has a chance of getting tipped you have to commit to either covering low or as much of the net as you can and either way if you get it wrong you lose as there is no way to recover. It is a no-win scenario for goalies which is why I said earlier that the only defense is not letting the shot get tipped in the first place via the defender tying up the other players stick. While deflection plays can be seen in that the possibility is there it is impossible to read where the puck is going to be deflected. It is very easy to second guess this play seeing what happened however it is also a bit unfair because of how it is impossible to read where the puck is going to be deflected. Had Rask known that it was going to be deflected 5 hole I am sure he would have done something very different to cover the first shot and the deflection. Remember hindsight is 20/20.