"Goaltending in the playoffs so much is about when you give up goals, giving your team a chance to stay in a game when the momentum's going against you or when you've had it. Brian Elliott simply didn't do that...Conversely, Jonathan Quick, he was timely, he was strong on his game. The St Louis Blues scored six goals in this series on Jonathan Quick, largely due in part to him not only being a talented goaltender, but to being dialed in to the time of the game and understanding that a save needed to be made, he was there all the way through the series." (Craig Button, TSN panel)
I'm pretty sure that Jonathan Quick probably does understand when a save needs to be made a lot better than Craig Button does. If any goalie is in a position to realize the importance of every goal against, it is the backstop for a Los Angeles team that ranked 29th in the league in scoring and played in nine 1-0 games this season. Even with the Kings' improved playoff offence, it seems very unlikely that Quick was taking anything for granted. Obviously any goalie who allows just six goals against in four games is making a lot of saves, not just a lot of "timely" saves, and Quick has been great so far in these playoffs because he has stopped nearly everything that has been thrown at him.
If you had to make a case for anything about the Kings being timely, it would be their scoring and possession game more so than their goaltending. Against St. Louis Quick was pretty great regardless of score, posting a save percentage of .947 or better during each of the key score differentials (down by 1, tied, leading by 1). The Kings' offence scored 1/4 (25%) while trailing by one, 6/33 (18.2%) while tied, and 3/35 (8.6%) when leading by one.
Los Angeles was also dominant on the shot clock over the Blues with the score tied. In game one shots were 16-16 and goals were 1-1 with the game tied, and a strong effort from Quick was a big factor in the result. In games two through four, however, the Kings outshot St. Louis 17-6 and outscored them 5-0 with the score tied. To score almost as many goals as shots allowed is amazing. In addition, the average distance on those half-dozen shots against was 42.2 feet and probably only a couple of them could even be marked down as scoring chances.
The biggest problem with Button's logic, though, is the implication that there is choice involved in goaltending. His absurd premise is that any goaltender can choose to stop any puck, if only they have the necessary clutchness or understanding of clutch play to know that it would be best for them to make that save, and that the difference between a goalie who performs well in a pressure situation and one that doesn't is merely a matter of knowledge or understanding. Anyone making that claim obviously doesn't understand how much making saves requires a netminder to play the percentages, particularly in today's NHL where key goals are often scored through screens or from deflections or on pucks ping-ponging around the crease or slot area.
Even if goalies can increase their focus or energy level and actually boost their results (which is debatable), that still doesn't mean they have any chance at all at stopping a screened double-deflection into the top corner no matter how well they understand the delicate balance of momentum at that exact point in the game. It really doesn't take a mathematical background or a detailed knowledge of expected win probabilities to understand that goals against are a bad thing in close hockey games. That simple knowledge is surely the most basic of prerequisites to tend goal in the NHL, and it seems preposterous that it actually has an impact on the outcome of any games.