Injury Report: Henrik Lundqvist Injury Thread Part 2 [Mod Warning Post 410]

[Matt4776]

I also find it amusing that people are comparing career save percentages when first, Hank played with an awful team in the mid 2000s. Even if we ignore that, a save percentage of .925 in 2006 (or 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010.etc) will put you at worst around ~3rd in the league in save percentage. You would absolutely be a very strong Vezina candidate with that save percentage (obviously depending on other factors such as team strength, GAA, shutouts, just simple eye test.etc).

Save percentages are going up across the board now.

 

[Doctyl]

This! For years including this season many people had said that without Hank Rangers wouldn't even make the playoffs. I was so brain washed that for a moment I was even questioning how other teams play without Hank. This insane myth is now melted away.

Please put Talbot on the 09 team. I would love to see if he could drag them to the playoffs.

 

[trueblue35]

At times Lundqvist been good, and at times he has been bad. In either case, he has never been able to elevate his game to the point that is needed to win a Stanley Cup.

 

[Doctyl]

At times Lundqvist been good, and at times he has been bad. In either case, he has never been able to elevate his game to the point that is needed to win a Stanley Cup.

Yes it's all Lundqvist's fault that the Rangers haven't won a Stanley Cup.

 

[OnlyTruth]

At times Lundqvist been good, and at times he has been bad. In either case, he has never been able to elevate his game to the point that is needed to win a Stanley Cup.

This is so true. I often see others go an extra step to do this.

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

Sample size is subjective. How many games does a goalie have to play to get credit?
In your opinion, if Rask played as many games as Lundqvist why do you think his save % would suddenly drop below his? It doesn't make sense to me.

I evaluate goalies based on what team they've played for and their save %.
I like to make a judgement if a goalie faces at least 1000 shots at the NHL level.

Save % since last year (playoffs included), goalie's facing 1000+ shots:
1. Talbot = .9327
2. Price = .9309
3. Rask = .9258
4. Schneider = .9254
5. Varlamov = .9243
6. Luongo = .9228
7. Lundqvist = .9222
8. Elliott = .9217
9. Mason = .9212
10. Bishop = .9206

As you can see, these goalies are all very close and only 1.21% separates #1 from #10. That 1.21% difference could easily be due to team defense.
This tells you the goalie position is the most negligible of all positions in the NHL. That alone should be enough evidence to make you see why NHL goalies (especially Lundqvist) are overpaid.

Not to mention that Lundqvist and Talbot both play for the same team and Talbot's save % is 1.05% higher.

Okay. Here we go... Strength of competition, divide opponents into 3 groups, top, sub and bottom:

Henrik Lundqvist has played 2323 minutes so far. 1005 of those were against top8 overall teams (MTL, ANA, TBL, STL, NYI, DET, PIT, VAN). 551 were against sub-par teams (MIN, WSH, WPG, OTT, CGY, FLA, DAL, COL) and 767 against bottom teams (SJS, PHI, NJD, CBJ, CAR, TOR, EDM, BUF).

Top 8: 17GP, 8-8-1 record
Sub 8: 9GP, 6-2-1 record
Bot 8: 13GP, 11-2-0 record

Talbot has played a total of 1860 minutes so far. 678 top8, 481 minutes against sub8 and 691 against bottom8.

Top 8: 12GP, 6-3-3 record
Sub 8: 9GP, 6-1-2 record
Bot 8: 12GP, 8-4-0 record

Talbot has his top minutes against bottom teams during this season, while Lundqvist has his top minutes against top teams. Yet, Lundqvist has a better record in those minutes against top teams than Talbot does, who gets most wins against bottom teams.

Agree. This is a point that most on this board don't get. Hank got his fan club (deservedly so) and stood out for many years because we did not have very good teams.

Hot goalies can carry a sub par team in the playoffs. Hank at times had done that but was not great enough to carry us all the way like a hasek had for example.

But if you have a very good team like Chicago (which I think our team is on par with) then you can do it with a decent rent-a-goalie which Talbot can be.

Nothin against Hank but this team can win it without him given what the TEAM had done while he's out.

Lundqvist has carried a team with players like Mike Rupp, John Mitchell, Stu Bickel, Artem Anisimov, Brandon Dubinsky and Brandon Prust all the way to the conference finals. He has carried a team with a washed up Richards, Carcillo, Boyle etc to the Finals. There comes a point where the offense has to chip in to win games as well. Chicago has Toews and Kane. We have nobody that is close to the talent Kane has, maybe Nash. They have Keith and Seabrook on defense.

Playoff experience is overrated. Yes goalies have more pressure but that is counteracted by the fact that teams tighten up defensively.

Really? I believe Hank got pulled in game 6 in Philly. He had a good series vs the pens. We beat the habs because Price got hurt and after they beat the Bs they thought they won the cup already. We got to the SCF due to some breaks. Overall he played well but it was not all Hank. He would not have won the Conn Smyth. wake up.

Eh, yes. He was our best player in the play offs. We beat 3 good teams and Lundqvist was an integral part to those wins. We did not beat Philly because they had Emery, we did not beat Pittsburgh because Marty's mom died and we did not beat Montreal because Kreider ran over Price. Since Tokarski has a better save percentage over a smaller sample size, he should have been a better goalie than Price. Just going by your logic here... So, Kreider running over Price made that series more difficult.

Oh god so do you agree with these two and think that Tokarski is just as good as Price?

Skapski has a higher SV% than Hasek. He is the only active goalie with a SV% higher than .950!!!

Honestly I'm just baffled by some people here. It's fantastic that Talbot is playing well, but are we really comparing his month-long hot stretch to Hank's career? He has been fantastic for a decade, won the Swedish championships and Olympics at 23, carried the Swedish team to a silver medal last year, and has consistently put up amazing numbers for 10 seasons. He definitely would have won the Conn Smythe had the Rangers won last year – he made 40 saves in 3 of the games in the SCF and almost 50 saves in the last game. He was unreal in the last game against the Pens and the last against the Habs.

He deserves the money. He deserves to get the start in the playoffs. He's the face of the franchise. He was putting up great numbers before he got injured. Unless he somehow is completely out of shape I don't see why a backup goalie with no playoff experience would get the start over the amazingly competitive guy who has put up great numbers in the playoffs for almost a decade and made 50 saves in the final game last year.

This guy has put more thought into his 1st post on HF Boards than the other 3 combined over the course of their time on here. This guy is better than the other 3. Don't worry about sample size. This 1 message is better than the hundreds of messages of the other 3! FACT!

 

[JohnC]

Derick Brassard does not believe in the overratedness of sample size. Shame on you Derick Brassard.

 

[Mac n Gs]

Derick Brassard does not believe in the overratedness of sample size. Shame on you Derick Brassard.

1.000 save% Hank is literally a brick wall in net.

 

[JohnC]

1.000 save% Hank is literally a brick wall in net.

Those are Skapski type numbers

 

[AIexisLafreniereNYR]

Hankey bear <3333

 

[Matt4776]

Those are Skapski type numbers

Don't you take the King's name in vain. You need at least one full regulation game to be considered an elite goalie in the NHL.

 

[Doctyl]

I never want to read that Hank doesn't step it up in the playoffs again

Really good question - for better or for worse, I'm using a z-test assuming a binomial distribution on save percentage. This, of course, assumes that save percentage is a perfect binomial, which presents its own problems, but it's the best that I've thought of so far.

I look at a goaltender's overall playoff performance, and my null hypothesis is that (in a given type of elimination game) the goaltender will perform similarly to his overall level.

I haven't tried putting the two types of elimination games together yet (I think that they'd be different kinds of "clutch" situations), but it's certainly something that would be straightforward to try.

There are some results that could be considered statistically significant. For instance, when a goaltender can eliminate an opponent:

Andy Moog (556 expected saves, 574 actual saves, p value 0.010)
Jose Theodore (219 expected saves, 228 actual saves, p value 0.018)
Ed Belfour (661 expected saves, 675 actual saves, p value 0.030)

When a goaltender can be eliminated:
Henrik Lundqvist (589 expected saves, 609 actual saves, p value 0.0011)
Tim Cheveldae (188 expected saves, 197 actual saves, p value 0.023)
Frank Pietrangelo (143 expected saves, 150 actual saves, p value 0.028)

In mutual elimination games:
Henrik Lundqvist (159 expected saves, 166 actual saves, p value 0.024)
Dwayne Roloson (92 expected saves, 97 actual saves, p value 0.030)

Neat to see Chevy on that middle list.

 

[Synergy27]

It's amazing to me that this conversation has gone as far as it has. Are people now claiming that not only is Talbot only marginally worse than Lundqvist, but that he actually might be better?

The thought that Talbot may only be slightly worse than Lundqvist and therefore, risks associated with sample size aside, the team might be better off trading Lundqvist for an impact player at another position actually has some merit in my eyes. Of course, you could end up being wrong and Talbot can come crashing down to to earth. But if he really is this good, and there exists a universe in which you can trade Lundqvist for say, Malkin straight up, you do it.

That said, as far as the team TODAY and in the upcoming playoffs is concerned, you play the better goalie. It's very simple. Unless you think Talbot will actually perform better than Lundqvist, you play Lundqvist. The cap, and potential optimal roster designs are irrelevant right now. The team is what it is until the playoffs are over.

Fortunately for us, the team that we like IS ****ing awesome, and should be even awesomer when their superstar goalie gets back between the pipes.

 

[Mac n Gs]

It's amazing to me that this conversation has gone as far as it has. Are people now claiming that not only is Talbot only marginally worse than Lundqvist, but that he actually might be better?

The thought that Talbot may only be slightly worse than Lundqvist and therefore, risks associated with sample size aside, the team might be better off trading Lundqvist for an impact player at another position actually has some merit in my eyes. Of course, you could end up being wrong and Talbot can come crashing down to to earth. But if he really is this good, and there exists a universe in which you can trade Lundqvist for say, Malkin straight up, you do it.

That said, as far as the team TODAY and in the upcoming playoffs is concerned, you play the better goalie. It's very simple. Unless you think Talbot will actually perform better than Lundqvist, you play Lundqvist. The cap, and potential optimal roster designs are irrelevant right now. The team is what it is until the playoffs are over.

Fortunately for us, the team that we like IS ****ing awesome, and should be even awesomer when their superstar goalie gets back between the pipes.

Yeah, but you could only have Talbot in net AND cap space? Cap space is literally GOAT next to first round picks.

 

[Doctyl]

Im going to leave this here

Last but not least (for tonight), Henrik Lundqvist just might be the "king" of helping his team get back into series:

Situation | GP | W | L | Actual SV% | Expected SV% | S+/30
All Games|92|43|48|0.926|0.909|+0.49
Can Eliminate|14|8|5|0.912|0.909|+0.08
Can be Eliminated|20|12|8|0.958|0.910|+1.44
Mutual Elimination|6|5|1|0.965|0.908|+1.71

(Unlike the above table, these results form do not form a partition. Mutual Elimination games are included in all three "elimination" categories)

(Yes, Lundqvist's overall save percentage from my logs does not match his career totals either).

When the Rangers are down, Lundqvist appears to not be out - the "can be eliminated" results are borderline statistically significant; he goes from +0.49 G+/30 (all playoff games) to +1.44 G+/30 (in games where Lundqvist can be eliminated).

This includes the +1.71 G+/30 in mutual elimination games, listed here:

Game | Result | Score | Shots | Exp Saves | Actual Saves
4/28/2009 at Washington|L|1-2|24|21.8|22
4/26/2012 vs. Ottawa|W|2-1|27|24.7|26
5/12/2012 vs. Washington|W|2-1|23|20.9|22
5/13/2013 at Washington|W|5-0|35|31.6|35
4/30/2014 vs. Philadelphia|W|2-1|27|24.6|26
5/13/2014 at Pittsburgh|W|2-1|36|32.7|35

 

[The Gloaming]

Cory Schneider has a higher sv % and lower GAA than Brodeur. Therefore Schneider is GOAT.

 

[Miamipuck]

I never want to read that Hank doesn't step it up in the playoffs again

So you expect the 4 or 5 people that are making their case against Hank to understand binomial distribution, p-scores and null hypothesis?
That's mighty ambitious of you, I must say.

 

[The Gloaming]

Derick Brassard does not believe in the overratedness of sample size. Shame on you Derick Brassard.

Stupid Nash. Can't even score on a washed up goalie who is worse than Talbot.

Oh, have I mentioned that I love Brassgod?

 

[Riche16]

I come to this thread to read about today's practice updates since the KING is back and instead find more unreadable BS about Talbot being better than Hank.

 

[trueblue35]

I never want to read that Hank doesn't step it up in the playoffs again

Again, at points he has but at other times he hasn't. Do the stat lines show this. Of course not. In order to see it you have to watch the game and note many things which are not shown on the stat line.

P.S. No one on the boards seems to ever mention game 2 of the SC finals where at the 18min mark goal 3 was scored by LA. For the next 10+ mins you can see him dwelling on the goal. It gets to the point where at the 12:40 mark there is a time out called and he spends the next 40seconds arguing with the ref about a call that happened 10+ mins ago. And about a min later LA scores the tying goal so send it to overtime.

 

[nevesis]

 

[we want cup]

Be still my beating heart.

 

[JohnC]

P.S. No one on the boards seems to ever mention game 2 of the SC finals where at the 18min mark goal 3 was scored by LA. For the next 10+ mins you can see him dwelling on the goal. It gets to the point where at the 12:40 mark there is a time out called and he spends the next 40seconds arguing with the ref about a call that happened 10+ mins ago. And about a min later LA scores the tying goal so send it to overtime.

LOL the same goal that haunts this entire fan base because the league flat out admitted it should've been waived off for goalie interference?

Whatevs go watch game 6 against the Caps in 2013 or games 5-7 against the Pens last year. The man did everything he could to keep us going and most certainly would've won the Conn Smythe if we won it all.

 

[The Gloaming]

I predict that in whichever game Hank returns, the team will give their best effort of the season.

Also, why is this Talbot nonsense spanning two threads? Can we have one thread dedicated to this crap and clean up the other ones? This thread is for injury updates reguarding Henrik Lundqvist. Not the "Cam Talbot should be the starter" thread.

 

[darko]

At times Lundqvist been good, and at times he has been bad. In either case, he has never been able to elevate his game to the point that is needed to win a Stanley Cup.

This is wrong and incorrect on so many levels.