I am sorry but I don't agree with this narrative in the least. Hank is the single most consistent goalie I have ever seen. His numbers are what they are, stellar. You may recall soft goals and such but his numbers say that narrative is pure bunk.
Sure a goalie can run hot at a .940, it happens. You can flip a coin and it can land on heads 20 times in a row. So yeah he might have gotten outplayed in a series or a season by a hot goalie, it absolutely happened. However, when a goalie is .920 for 10+ years in a row, he doesn't give up a lot of softies, he doesn't give up a lot period.
I say this as someone that doesn't wear Hank underoo's, I just recognize him for what he is or was.
I don't think anyone disputes the final numbers, but it's not hard to go back and find articles or even discussions of Hank's dips.
Typically what would happen is that we'd have stretches where he was struggling and then he'd come out like a man possessed and so you'd have .890 balanced with an unreal .950 and you'd end up with a .920.
But during those .890 stretches it was like watching a completely different player --- not just one going through a rough patch.
As for the softies, I don't think that's necessary reflected when one looks at a box score per se. In theory, a goalie could give up two softies a game and still be a top goalie. Not saying that Lundqvist gave up two softies per game, but you get the point.
The weird thing with Lundqvist was that he would make amazing saves that no other goalie would make, and then give up a goal that most goalies should stop. That's what made it stand out more than your typical netminder.
But, at the end of the day, there is a reason why this narrative has been out there. It's kind of like stereotypes. They annoy us, they bug us, we won't always find them fair --- but they exist for a reason.