Carey Price or Henrik Lundqvist?

[Machinehead]

With records being remotely the same. There is two argument.

1. Health. Theres no denying Hank was healthier than Price, thus had a greater impact.
2. Team support. We both know which team was better here.

Lundqvist was retired most of these years LMAO

Here's the list of seasons that Lundqvist was in his prime for:

Rick Nash 12-13
Derek Stepan 12-13
Rick Nash 14-15

When you look at the guys Lundqvist and Price actually were in their primes with, it's a very similar list.

The parameters feel like they were set just to get a bunch of Panarin seasons in there to make an extremely disingenuous point. Panarin was on a Rangers team where Lundqvist was the starter for exactly zero seasons.

 

[Machinehead]

Regardless, and I won't speak for Montreal, I don't feel scoring was necessarily the "problem" for Lundqvist. His contending teams were typically just outside the top 10 in goals scored and the 2014-15 Rangers were 3rd in goals scored.

The problem is that the front office took the approach of "ah f*** it, we have Lundqvist" and just let the other team shoot as much as they wanted to. they filled up their top 4 with PK specialists who couldn't stop zone entries if they had a gun.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

With records being remotely the same. There is two argument.

1. Health. Theres no denying Hank was healthier than Price, thus had a greater impact.
2. Team support. We both know which team was better here.

With no context this is not a reasonable comparison. Zibanejad and Panarin had those seasons after Lundqvist left his prime, starting 19-20. He was already 37-38 years old.

Edit: Some of those seasons I think Lundqvist was retired as Machinehead said. I think his last season was 19-20, but those stats go to 21-22.

 

[Mrb1p]

Lundqvist was retired most of these years LMAO

Here's the list of seasons that Lundqvist was in his prime for:

Rick Nash 12-13
Derek Stepan 12-13
Rick Nash 14-15

When you look at the guys Lundqvist and Price actually were in their primes with, it's a very similar list.

The parameters feel like they were set just to get a bunch of Panarin seasons in there to make an extremely disingenuous point. Panarin was on a Rangers team where Lundqvist was the starter for exactly zero seasons.

Its not a direct comparison, the OP just took the 20 best seasons in the Bergevin years. Suzukis 21 22 season is there too. Read between the lines. The Habs never had anyone like Nash, Stepan had better seasons than Plekanec and Zibanejad, Hayes also played durint Hanks tenure, even if it was at the end.

You can replace Panarin and Zibby by Jagr, Nylander, Gaborik, Richards, Zuccarelo and its still as real.

Everything was included in the OPs post by the way, but dont worry Im there for you.

Regardless, and I won't speak for Montreal, I don't feel scoring was necessarily the "problem" for Lundqvist. His contending teams were typically just outside the top 10 in goals scored and the 2014-15 Rangers were 3rd in goals scored.

The problem is that the front office took the approach of "ah f*** it, we have Lundqvist" and just let the other team shoot as much as they wanted to. they filled up their top 4 with PK specialists who couldn't stop zone entries if they had a gun.

Its true for Hank but its even more true for Price. Their big acquisition was Jeff Petry. And then Edmundson and Chiarot.

The Rangers acquired the likes of Mcdonagh Skjei, Trouba, Yandles on D and Nash, Gaborik, Richards, jagr, Shannahan, etc at F.

With no context this is not a reasonable comparison. Zibanejad and Panarin had those seasons after Lundqvist left his prime, starting 19-20. He was already 37-38 years old.

Edit: Some of those seasons I think Lundqvist was retired as Machinehead said. I think his last season was 19-20, but those stats go to 21-22.

Read above.

 

[abo9]

Bigger impact on their franchise how?

I think Price is the better goalie, so voted for him. But Habs are a more storied franchise, so depending on what you mean by impact, maybe it's Henrik.

Better career? Price had absolutely horrible luck with health, so you can argue Lundqvist may have had the better overall career.

Speaking of health, you might say that there's no other top player in the history of hockey who had worst injury luck than Price, 3x over, that impacted his team as greatly as his 3 injuries have:

1. 2014 playoffs. High off Olympic success. Carrying Habs to round 3 and beyond....only gets run over by Kreider in conference finals game 1, is injured. Habs are out.

2. 2015-2016 season. Starts the season super hot, has Habs #1 in league in early November. He looks to be on pace (only 1 month in of course...) to once again be favorite for hart/lindsay/vezina after winning year before....and goes down to injury. Habs go from 1st in overall league with Price to last in overall league without Price. Huge difference....

3. 2021 playoffs. Habs have no business winning even 1 round, but Price is fantastic and carries team to the finals. They do lose to Tampa. Next season - Price is out to injury. Habs go from cup finalists to absolute dead last in standings again...

It's pretty crazy how night and day difference it makes in those 3 instances with a healthy Price vs an injured Price for the habs...

This might be an unpopular take, but I'm not convinced that Price suffered from bad injury "luck". He was targetted, and Montreal was a small, soft team until he got a career altering injury.

Case in point, was the Kreider injury "bad luck", or just a natural result of other team's tactics to solve Price? How many times has Price been ran over with little to no retribution from a soft defense? We've seen him lose tenper over being run over, he famously hit Kreider in the boards, etc. Bergevin added a bunch of meatheads too late.

By 2021, he was already on the way out. From what I understand, he played those playoffs injured the whole time - because his knee was chronically injured already for a couple years.

As far as the OP's question... I think Price was the better goalie, but I'm not sure about organizational impact. I think Price had a bigger hockey impact - that Cup run was nothing short of a miracle. But when I think Habs, there's a lot of historic players that come first, and Price has a lot of competition even amongst goalies. When I think Rangers, Lundqvist appears.

On a sidenote, Price was probably most impactful to Marc Bergevin and the Canadiens staff, who always looked better than they were due to Price carrying those rosters on his shoulders lol

 

[ijuka]

With records being remotely the same. There is two argument.

1. Health. Theres no denying Hank was healthier than Price, thus had a greater impact.
2. Team support. We both know which team was better here.

Yeah, Habs were the better team, even if you use irrelevant stats to support your point.

When was the last year of Lundqvist's prime, 15-16? Nash and Stepan. Woohoo.

You're making the point that the Rangers teams somehow were obviously stronger than the Habs teams, but as I can recall, Lundqvist had to deal with some terrible skaters.

 

[bobholly39]

This might be an unpopular take, but I'm not convinced that Price suffered from bad injury "luck". He was targetted, and Montreal was a small, soft team until he got a career altering injury.

Case in point, was the Kreider injury "bad luck", or just a natural result of other team's tactics to solve Price? How many times has Price been ran over with little to no retribution from a soft defense? We've seen him lose tenper over being run over, he famously hit Kreider in the boards, etc. Bergevin added a bunch of meatheads too late.

By 2021, he was already on the way out. From what I understand, he played those playoffs injured the whole time - because his knee was chronically injured already for a couple years.

As far as the OP's question... I think Price was the better goalie, but I'm not sure about organizational impact. I think Price had a bigger hockey impact - that Cup run was nothing short of a miracle. But when I think Habs, there's a lot of historic players that come first, and Price has a lot of competition even amongst goalies. When I think Rangers, Lundqvist appears.

On a sidenote, Price was probably most impactful to Marc Bergevin and the Canadiens staff, who always looked better than they were due to Price carrying those rosters on his shoulders lol

Yeah I don't know if Kreider injuring Price was just bad luck or if it was intentional (if not to outright injure him, at least to make contact/intimidate). But that's not really what I meant by luck.

I meant bad luck in terms of timing of the injuries. Each of his 3 key injuries happened at the absolute worst time possible for him - and they each had an extremely dramatic effeft on his team. His team went from round 3 and rolling towards finals with him to eliminated right away without him in 2014, or from top of league/cup finalists to absolute dead last in league without him.

Even when you look at Lemieux, Orr, Forsberg, Crosby and other greats who had big health issues in their career - I doubt you'll find anyone with 3 distinct examples of an injury happening at the worst time possible, and also having such a direct and dramatic impat on team results.

 

[DaPhazz]

Lundqvist.

Habs fans were willing to replace Price with Halak at one point.

And then Price became the best goaler in the world for a while.

 

[DaPhazz]

Still remember what NHL players responded each year when naming NHL's best goaltender?

I'll take that one.

 

[Mrb1p]

Yeah, Habs were the better team, even if you use irrelevant stats to support your point.

When was the last year of Lundqvist's prime, 15-16? Nash and Stepan. Woohoo.

You're making the point that the Rangers teams somehow were obviously stronger than the Habs teams, but as I can recall, Lundqvist had to deal with some terrible skaters.

Yeah Lundqvist had a much shorter prime than Price, thats true. With that being said, those stats were only for Bergevins tenure.

Before that we obviously have Jagr, Nash, Gaborik, Richards Gomez, Shanahan and +++.

The only reason why the Habs were the better team was that because Price had a greater impact on the team, not only by his steady goaltending, but by his puck play, which is only bested by Brodeur, if that.

 

[Voight]

Price probably peaked higher (in the RS), but Lundqvist had more very good to great years.

If you go by their Vezina seasons aka their peaks, they are pretty much even.

Lundqvist 2012 - .930SV%, 1.97GAA

Price 2015 - .933SV%, 1.96GAA

 

[HolyHagelin]

Yeah Lundqvist had a much shorter prime than Price, thats true. With that being said, those stats were only for Bergevins tenure.

Before that we obviously have Jagr, Nash, Gaborik, Richards Gomez, Shanahan and +++.

The only reason why the Habs were the better team was that because Price had a greater impact on the team, not only by his steady goaltending, but by his puck play, which is only bested by Brodeur, if that.

Go back up thread and look at the “vezina finishes” for each again, then re-read the bolded. Repeat until you understand the exercise.

 

[ijuka]

Yeah Lundqvist had a much shorter prime than Price, thats true. With that being said, those stats were only for Bergevins tenure.

Before that we obviously have Jagr, Nash, Gaborik, Richards Gomez, Shanahan and +++.

The only reason why the Habs were the better team was that because Price had a greater impact on the team, not only by his steady goaltending, but by his puck play, which is only bested by Brodeur, if that.

So what you're saying is that you gave some completely useless and irrelevant and misleading statistics for the question at hand? I assume that this was mainly done to cause false impressions, which isn't a very ethical way of using data. Why quote them if they were irrelevant, if that was not the purpose?

 

[Mrb1p]

Go back up thread and look at the “vezina finishes” for each again, then re-read the bolded. Repeat until you understand the exercise.

Price and Hank started their career at similar times, they both become elite starters at 23, Price was still very much elite when he retired at 34, in fact, he was still the best in the league, as evidenced by his PO run. Hank had a bit less of a longer run, he was the best in the league until 12-13, the year before Price took over the mantle.

I have little doubt that if he could play, Price would still be the best today.

So what you're saying is that you gave some completely useless and irrelevant and misleading statistics for the question at hand? I assume that this was mainly done to cause false impressions, which isn't a very ethical way of using data. Why quote them if they were irrelevant, if that was not the purpose?

No, what Im saying is that you just needed to read the whole thing instead. It was right in the embedded tweet, lol.

 

[HolyHagelin]

Price and Hank started their career at similar times, they both become elite starters at 23, Price was still very much elite when he retired at 34, in fact, he was still the best in the league, as evidenced by his PO run. Hank had a bit less of a longer run, he was the best in the league until 12-13, the year before Price took over the mantle.

I have little doubt that if he could play, Price would still be the best today.

No, what Im saying is that you just needed to read the whole thing instead. It was right in the embedded tweet, lol.

Making something up that is starkly and directly contradicted by the evidence that you *quoted me telling you to look at* is a weird debating tactic, but you do you

 

[danisonfire]

Price is the clear #1 if you factor in GSAx (Goals saved above expected). That being said when you factor in Hank's health I think either can be interchangeable. It is sad what happened to Price's knee.

I still like my list from 2015 (for the most part).

Please Name Me 5 Better Goalies than Cory Schneider?

Heh. I've watched a lot of Schneider since he came into the league and always come away very impressed. He's also got every solid statistical analysis on his side. Pretty sure a lot of people just go by reputation at this point. Sure, whether or not he is top 5 is debatable, but some of the...

forums.hfboards.com

 

[Mr Bojanglez]

I hate Lundqvist. And I think most of those Rangers teams were better than some will give them credit for.

But its Lundqvist. In spite of my hatred of him as a player, and despite that I think most of those teams were not awful.... he was such a great player.

 

[DitchMarner]

Zuccarello led the Finals squad with 59 points. They emphatically did not have scoring. They had Lundqvist.

That's true, but in their President's Trophy season the Rangers were third in GF. The following season they were seventh and then they were fourth in 2017. I doubt the Habs had a three-season stretch where they were top ten in goals at any point during Price's career.

 

[mrhockey193195]

Posting this thread from HOH that I started on Hank's supporting cast throughout his career (and there is some discussion about Price as well).

TL;DR: Henrik had one season in his career as a starter where he had a teammate playing at a HOF level (his rookie year, where Jagr was 54-69-123). He had historically terrible support compared to other all-time greats, and unprecedented success for someone with such bad support.

Worst Supporting Cast throughout a HOFer's Career

Fair warning, I'm coming at this question from a very biased place. With the recent announcement that Henrik Lundqvist will be inducted into the HOF as part of the class of 2023, a lot of discussion has bubbled up amongst the masses about the fact that he did not win a Stanley Cup and will be...

forums.hfboards.com

I'm biased, but Hank is the easy winner for me here. Price had the best individual season, but their primes were comparable and Hank had the far superior longevity as an elite goalie. There was a point circa 2015 or 2016 where Hank's worst season (which at that point, after ~10 seasons, was 07-08 with a statline of 37-24-10, 2.23, .912, 10 SO) was comparable with Price's career averages.

 

[Voight]

Yeah Lundqvist had a much shorter prime than Price, thats true. With that being said, those stats were only for Bergevins tenure.

Before that we obviously have Jagr, Nash, Gaborik, Richards Gomez, Shanahan and +++.

The only reason why the Habs were the better team was that because Price had a greater impact on the team, not only by his steady goaltending, but by his puck play, which is only bested by Brodeur, if that.

Price was nominated twice for the Vezina during his prime (worth noting they are the only two nominations in his entire career as well). ... Lundqvist was nominated six times during his prime ...

His prime was a helluva lot longer than Prices. Its not even close.

 

[S E P H]

Price had higher highs, but Lundqvist had the better career. Tough because both were amazing, but I think I give the slight edge to Lundqvist.

 

[Kupo]

Throughout Lundqvist's NHL career, the Rangers were not eliminated from playoff contention entering a game in 880 of his 887 regular season appearances.

Lundqvist posted a .920 SV% or better in eight different seasons in his NHL career, including seven consecutive seasons from 2009-10 - 2015-16. Since shots on goal and saves were first tracked in 1955-56, Lundqvist is one of three goaltenders to have eight different seasons with a .920 SV% or better (along with Hall of Famers Dominik Hasek and Roberto Luongo)

In 27 career playoff appearances in which both he and the Rangers faced elimination, Lundqvist posted a 16-11 record, along with a 2.03 GAA, a .935 SV%, and 3 SO. Lundqvist's 16 career wins when facing elimination are the most by a goaltender in NHL history.

Lundqvist career playoffs: 61-67 2.30GAA .921 SV%. The Offensive Powerhouse Rangers averaged 2.32 Goals Per Game during Lundqvist's playoff career.

If you're voting for Price, then you're either a Ranger Hater, or a Habs fan.

 

[Caps8112]

the king. sucks he never won a cup. legendary capital tho.

 

[UnSandvich]

One other thing that gets a bit lost is that Lundqvist took 3rd place in Hart voting the year he won the Vezina, but he finished behind Malkin’s 109 points and 60 goal Stamkos. In contrast, the Art Ross winner had just 87 points the year Price won the Hart, and wasn’t even a Top 5 finisher in Hart voting.

 

[Voight]

One other thing that gets a bit lost is that Lundqvist took 3rd place in Hart voting the year he won the Vezina, but he finished behind Malkin’s 109 points and 60 goal Stamkos. In contrast, the Art Ross winner had just 87 points the year Price won the Hart, and wasn’t even a Top 5 finisher in Hart voting.

In any other season, Price doesn't win the Hart/Pearson, he truly benefitted from the circumstances at hand.