Player Discussion Henrik Lundqvist Pt. II

[broadwayblue]

Because you have to look what kind of goals he gave up.

just stop.

 

[ltrangerfan]

Lundy is not the problem. He's doing his job.

Holtby is matching Lundy stride for stride. The two goalies are the MVP's to date.

If Lundy wants a shot at improving his Legacy (he'll be well regarded even if he loses) he needs a cup. Otherwise he'll always be mentioned favorably but below the goalies who won championships.

 

[JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK]

Lundqvist is just beyond unbelievable at this point. His critica are the same.

 

[nevesis]

Lundy is not the problem. He's doing his job.

Holtby is matching Lundy stride for stride. The two goalies are the MVP's to date.

If Lundy wants a shot at improving his Legacy (he'll be well regarded even if he loses) he needs a cup. Otherwise he'll always be mentioned favorably but below the goalies who won championships.

Individuals don't win Stanley Cups, teams win them.

 

[JESSEWENEEDTOCOOK]

I assume that's about me. Because I'm posting an unpopular opinion I'm trying to bait people, ok.

Its an opinion with absolutely zero objective evidence to back it up.

 

[Riverdale]

Individuals don't win Stanley Cups, teams win them.

And there's plenty of people on this board who think Hank needs to pitch a shutout every game to be a true champion. If he doesn't then he isn't putting the team on his back.

Hank has had an incredible series, and so has Holtby. He is not only the best player on this team but the best goalie this franchise has ever had. Going into games 6 and 7 there is no other goalie in the NHL I'd want.

 

[Ori]

I want to buy one shutout pls. do it tomorrow - you can do it!

 

[Vitto79]

Because you have to look what kind of goals he gave up.

All people are saying is blaming the goalie when he's out up these numbers is insane . Do you want a shutout every time ? rhe team needs 3 goals and the Rangers will win

 

[2Leetch_94]

Because you have to look what kind of goals he gave up.

I've seen every goal he's given up this series. My point still stands. He's not going to post a shutout every single game. He gave up one goal in G3 that went off Yandle, I guess he wasn't desperate enough then either? You focus on one questionable goal and ignore the numerous great saves he made in G4 to try and make it seem like he's not "desperate" enough. It's silly. He's held the opponent to one goal six out of ten times this postseason. What more do fans expect from him? The team has to score goals, too.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Lundy is not the problem. He's doing his job.

Holtby is matching Lundy stride for stride. The two goalies are the MVP's to date.

If Lundy wants a shot at improving his Legacy (he'll be well regarded even if he loses) he needs a cup. Otherwise he'll always be mentioned favorably but below the goalies who won championships.

Not by me. Lundqvist has surpassed richter a while ago in my opinion. He can't make the team in front of him score goals.

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

Lundqvist has been invisible Saturday night. It's not what you have done. It's what have you done for me lately.

 

[BlueshirtBlitz]

Anyone watching Lundqvist in these playoffs who can say with a straight face that he hasn't been an absolute stalwart is out of their minds.

 

[Open Mind]

Honestly, he wasn't bad game 4, but if he can play like he did today, why not play like this in a pivotal game 4? He gets desperate when it's an elimination game and that's great, but 3-1 is a huge hole where no matter how desperate he is the margin after that is razor thin. No telling when a 2 on 0 can happen. Why not be desperate earlier?

One, how can you assume/mind read what anyone's desperation level is? Two, are you out of your mind? The guy comes back from injury, barely getting any games in to get his rhythm and timing before the playoffs start, and he's at a sv% of .942. How anyone can complain about that, when he's been so stellar this playoffs and imho is hands down our best player so far, is absolutely mind blowing to me.

I don't think it's even slightly debatable he's the best NYR goalie of all-time. In fact, he's getting close to being arguable as the top NYR of all-time (I don't think he is, but you sure could make a case for him). But you're certainly looking at his name among the very best NY Rangers ever along with the likes of Boucher, Leetch and Cook.

 

[Edge]

Not by me. Lundqvist has surpassed richter a while ago in my opinion. He can't make the team in front of him score goals.

I'm kind of torn.

On the one hand, Lundqvist has shattered almost every mark by Richter.

On the other hand, if it's game 7 and the season or the cup is the line, I take Richter.

Can't say there is a factual basis behind the decision. Just a strong inner feeling.

 

[Reaganomics]

I'm kind of torn.

On the one hand, Lundqvist has shattered almost every mark by Richter.

On the other hand, if it's game 7 and the season or the cup is the line, I take Richter.

Can't say there is a factual basis behind the decision. Just a strong inner feeling.

You realize Hank has one of the better records in game 7's and elimination games of all-time? He's not only the best goalie in franchise history, he has a proven record of being the clutchest, constantly raising his game in the playoffs.

 

[Open Mind]

I'm kind of torn.

On the one hand, Lundqvist has shattered almost every mark by Richter.

On the other hand, if it's game 7 and the season or the cup is the line, I take Richter.

Can't say there is a factual basis behind the decision. Just a strong inner feeling.

I may have agreed a few seasons back. But that series where Hank posted back to back shutouts against Washington in games 6 and 7 and what he did against the Pens last season swayed me. To re-visit an article after the Pens series last season:

Lundqvist set an NHL record as the first goaltender in NHL history to record five consecutive wins in Game 7s. After a sensational 36-save effort at Madison Square Garden in Game 6, Lundqvist was again sublime in turning away 35 of 36 shots faced from Pittsburgh on Tuesday night. Here’s a closer look, just in case that’s not convincing enough: the 32-year-old franchise netminder has an absolutely mind-boggling 0.80 goals against average, .973 save percentage and one shutout in his last five Game 7’s.​

I'm pretty okay with Hank in a game 7 these days, though I can't disagree with your sentiment as I'd be equally okay with prime Mike Richter.

 

[darko]

Lundqvist is just beyond unbelievable at this point. His critica are the same.

Looks locked in. He's looked ridiculous at times but this is probably the best I've seen him. At least right up there with his other performances.

 

[darko]

I'm kind of torn
On the one hand, Lundqvist has shattered almost every mark by Richter.

On the other hand, if it's game 7 and the season or the cup is the line, I take Richter.

Can't say there is a factual basis behind the decision. Just a strong inner feeling.

No chance. I loved Richter but game 7 I'm taking Hank. His record in games 7 and elimination games in particular is crazy good.

 

[darko]

Start Talbot next game IMO

Agree. Hank is not desperate enough.

 

[Edge]

I love and respect the hell out of what Lundqvist has done the last few years.

But I take the guy who does it in Game 7 of the cup finals, with 54-year old elephant on his back.

Sorry, but I take Richter every time and don't look back.

One NY Rangers starting goalie in the past 75 years has his name on the cup. That's who I go with.

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

I love and respect the hell out of what Lundqvist has done the last few years.

But I take the guy who does it in Game 7 of the cup finals, with 54-year old elephant on his back.

Sorry, but I take Richter every time and don't look back.

One NY Rangers starting goalie in the past 75 years has his name on the cup. That's who I go with.

There is no doubt that Richter was a monster in 94, but he also let in several crucial, untimely goals in the final two rounds that forced the Rangers to play some tight overtimes.

I know this is hypothetical, but do you think the Ranger wouldn't have won it in 1994 if Lundqvist were the goalie?

I know the following comparison may appear to minimize Mike Richter, but I'm using it highlight the issue with the quality of a team and the impact a goaltender had in their era.

The Blackhawks had the second longest cup drought [49 years]. Antti Niemi had a great playoffs in their 2010 Stanley Cup victory on an awesome team, so would you take him over Ed Belfour or Tony Esposito?

Mike Richter had a sweet spot where he was elite, and his career was cut short early by a freak accident on a Ranger franchise that was swirling down the bowl.

Henrik Lundqvist is arguably one of if the not the best goaltender of his era.

I understand that there is induced parity in this league, but if the current/recent Ranger teams were as stacked as the 1991-1994 teams, do you think Lundqvist wouldn't have captured the cup already?

If the Rangers offense didn't dry up in the playoffs for this year and last year, the Rangers would be a shoe-in for a repeat [I understand that can't know this for certain].

Note: On numerous occasions, I've defended Mark Messier on out of context debates.

 

[Edge]

There is no doubt that Richter was a monster in 94, but he also let in several crucial, untimely goals in the final two rounds that forced the Rangers to play some tight overtimes.

I know this is hypothetical, but do you think the Ranger wouldn't have won it in 1994 if Lundqvist were the goalie?

I know the following comparison may appear to minimize Mike Richter, but I'm using it highlight the issue with the quality of a team and the impact a goaltender had in their era.

The Blackhawks had the second longest cup drought [49 years]. Antti Niemi had a great playoffs in their 2010 Stanley Cup victory on an awesome team, so would you take him over Ed Belfour or Tony Esposito?

Mike Richter had a sweet spot where he was elite, and his career was cut short early by a freak accident on a Ranger franchise that was swirling down the bowl.

Henrik Lundqvist is arguably one of if the not the best goaltender of his era.

I understand that there is induced parity in this league, but if the current/recent Ranger teams were as stacked as the 1991-1994 teams, do you think Lundqvist wouldn't have captured the cup?

Note: On numerous occasions, I've defended Mark Messier on out of context debates.

That's a very good question. I wouldn't say that the winning of the cup automatically raises a player. For example, there is no way in the world I take Crawford or Niemi over Lundqvist. For that matter, I wouldn't take Fleury either. I'm looking for a a guy who doesn't make the most saves, he makes the key saves at the key times. That's so often overlooked in hockey, especially as we've tried turning it into a data-driven, formula based activity. I think what gets overlooked is just how hard it is to win a Stanley cup. There seems to be this underlying frustration that great players, such as Lundqvist, don't have a championship when, statistically speaking, inferior players do. But it's not that simple, nor is it that east to quantify. In some cases, stopping 26 of 28 shots actually was more valuable than stopping 39 of 40. It's timing, momentum, a vibe that can't really be explained. I can't really provide a logical, factual basis for my response - I would be BSing if I tried. It's just something I can't shake.

Honestly I don't know if Lundqvist wins the cup in 1994. Casting aside the significant changes to the game in the two decades since the 1994 win, I'm not sure how Lundqvist responds in a far more wide open Rangers system, with a defense that wasn't necessarily as, well, defensive. I'm not sure he makes that key save, at the right time on Pavel Bure. In the same situation he might very well have a higher safe percentage or stop a goal that Richter allows. But does he do it at the right time? Does he do it in the moment his team can build energy from his save? Does he do it at the moment that frustrates the other team? When I really stop and think about, my gut doesn't give me a yes answer. That's why all the statistics in the world go out the window in a marathon cup run. The Stanley cup playoffs are the pro sports equivalent or march madness. Season statistics, natural talent, probabilities all go into a blender and the end result isn't always what your head says it should be.

Frankly, I don't think Richter gives up some of the leads the Rangers gave up against LA last season. I think he probably induces more cardiac arrest, but I'm not sure he gives LA that crucial moment.

Lundqvist is, for the most part, is incredibly consistent. Richter could be very streaky. However, when he was locked-in, during his prime, he was amazing. When he was locked in, teams got frustrated and fell off their game.

In the realm of out of context debates, i often wonder how Richter would've performed in a defensive system as good as the current Rangers and without having to lose a significant portion of his career to sharing duties with another 300 game winning goalie in John Vanbiesbrouck.

In my mind it doesn't feel that long ago. And yet Lundqivst is approximately as close to Richter at this point, as Richter was to Giacomin in 94.

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

That's a very good question. I wouldn't say that the winning of the cup automatically raises a player. For example, there is no way in the world I take Crawford or Niemi over Lundqvist. For that matter, I wouldn't take Fleury either. I'm looking for a a guy who doesn't make the most saves, he makes the key saves at the key times. That's so often overlooked in hockey, especially as we've tried turning it into a data-driven, formula based activity. I think what gets overlooked is just how hard it is to win a Stanley cup. There seems to be this underlying frustration that great players, such as Lundqvist, don't have a championship when, statistically speaking, inferior players do. But it's not that simple, nor is it that east to quantify. In some cases, stopping 26 of 28 shots actually was more valuable than stopping 39 of 40. It's timing, momentum, a vibe that can't really be explained. I can't really provide a logical, factual basis for my response - I would be BSing if I tried. It's just something I can't shake.

This is an eye-test statement, but I've witnessed many saves that appeared routine due to Lundqvist's vision and positioning that were crucial; however, these saves didn't make the highlight real because they appeared routine. Lundqvist has stoned some great plays, leaving the other players' heads shaking that looked as if the King was in warm-ups.

Richter was not as good at positioning as Lundqvist, but boy o' boy, could Richter make the saves look pretty when he stoned them. His splits were fantastic!

Honestly I don't know if Lundqvist wins the cup in 1994. Casting aside the significant changes to the game in the two decades since the 1994 win, I'm not sure how Lundqvist responds in a far more wide open Rangers system, with a defense that wasn't necessarily as, well, defensive. I'm not sure he makes that key save, at the right time on Pavel Bure. In the same situation he might very well have a higher safe percentage or stop a goal that Richter allows. But does he do it at the right time? Does he do it in the moment his team can build energy from his save? Does he do it at the moment that frustrates the other team? When I really stop and think about, my gut doesn't give me a yes answer. That's why all the statistics in the world go out the window in a marathon cup run. The Stanley cup playoffs are the pro sports equivalent or march madness. Season statistics, natural talent, probabilities all go into a blender and the end result isn't always what your head says it should be.

In regard to Bure, Richter even said that Bure did the same move at the All-Star game that year [he made that save too]. I am not diminishing such a clutch save, against such a dominant player, but Lundqvist is the best goaltender in the shootout [so far], and he grew up with a shoot out, so I think he stood a good shot at stoning Bure. But this was one of the best, and most crucial saves I've seen in playoff history, so it's hard to debate.

Frankly, I don't think Richter gives up some of the leads the Rangers gave up against LA last season. I think he probably induces more cardiac arrest, but I'm not sure he gives LA that crucial moment.

Richter caused several heart attacks with untimely goals in the several late stages of games in the Devil and Canuck series(s).

Lundqvist is, for the most part, is incredibly consistent. Richter could be very streaky. However, when he was locked-in, during his prime, he was amazing. When he was locked in, teams got frustrated and fell off their game.

Yes. I mentioned that Richter was most certainly elite during a sweet spot in his career. I was trying to highlight that Lundqvist has been dominant for 95% [yes, this isn't an exact statistic] of his career. And he's arguably been one of the best if not the best goaltender of his generation.

In the realm of out of context debates, i often wonder how Richter would've performed in a defensive system as good as the current Rangers and without having to lose a significant portion of his career to sharing duties with another 300 game winning goalie in John Vanbiesbrouck.

I don't think this is fair to the Beezer. I do think Richter's win total was mostly affected by his unfortunate career ending injury, and the awful Ranger teams from 99 onward.

In my mind it doesn't feel that long ago. And yet Lundqivst is approximately as close to Richter at this point, as Richter was to Giacomin in 94.

I still think it's unfair to hinge the Richter v. Lundqvist debate on the cup.

In regard to Giacomin, the Rangers and he were unfortunate that there were some awesome teams while the Rangers were excellent in the 70s.

 

[Edge]

This is an eye-test statement, but I've witnessed many saves that appeared routine due to Lundqvist's vision and positioning that were crucial; however, these saves didn't make the highlight real because they appeared routine. Lundqvist has stoned some great plays, leaving the other players' heads shaking that looked as if the King was in warm-ups.

Richter was not as good at positioning as Lundqvist, but boy o' boy, could Richter make the saves look pretty when he stoned them. His splits were fantastic!

You're right, it is an eye-test statement and it resulted in players kicking the bench in frustration and the entire vibe of a period or game changing as well.

That's the funny thing about the marathon, it's as much perception and psychology as it is reason. Maybe even more so.

In regard to Bure, Richter even said that Bure did the same move at the All-Star game that year [he made that save too]. I am not diminishing such a clutch save, against such a dominant player, but Lundqvist is the best goaltender in the shootout [so far], and he grew up with a shoot out, so I think he stood a good shot at stoning Bure. But this was one of the best, and most crucial saves I've seen in playoff history, so it's hard to debate.

You're right. And my response would be that it's one thing to know what's coming. It's another to know how to stop it.

But if we're going to get hypothetical, we'd have to account for Richter being more acquainted with the shoot out if he played in the era and Lundqvist being less acquainted if he played in that era. We'd also have to account for how Lundqvist would react to being run and bumped. This is where these thins get difficult - too many variables.

Richter caused several heart attacks with untimely goals in the several late stages of games in the Devil and Canuck series(s).

And I've seen Lundqvist let in his share of softies.

Yes. I mentioned that Richter was most certainly elite during a sweet spot in his career. I was trying to highlight that Lundqvist has been dominant for 95% [yes, this isn't an exact statistic] of his career. And he's arguably been one of the best if not the best goaltender of his generation.

To which I would reply that I'm not picking a guys for an award or a hall of fame, I'm picking them to give me that extra edge at the most crucial time.

Bottom line is Richter's got the ring. Eveything else is theoretical.

I don't think this is fair to the Beezer. I do think Richter's win total was mostly affected by his unfortunate career ending injury, and the awful Ranger teams from 99 onward.

I gotta disagree here. Three some odd seasons in a two (even three) goalie system, coupled with poor teams after the age of 31 is pretty significant. Add it all up and we are talking 5 seasons.

I still think it's unfair to hinge the Richter v. Lundqvist debate on the cup.

I think it depends on what one is debating. Who is the best overall goalie the Rangers have had, or who do i start with the cup and the season on the line. I think our discussion is focused on the latter. The guy I pick is the only guy to get it done in an 85 year span. If I'm in a Game 7, I go with the guy who I know got it done. Not the guy who I think might or should or probably will get it done.

 

[charliemurphy]

I would think it can only be fairly debated as to who you would have in a Game 7 if it were in the right context.
Would Richter have had or would have been more successful in today's NHL? Vice versa with Lundqvist in the late 80's-90's?
I have to be biased and go with Richter because he did it but have to admit that apart from hoisting the cup there really isn't much else for Lundqvist to do... it would be a damn shame if his name doesn't end up on the cup.