Is Henrik Lundqvist An HOFer?

[GuineaPig]

Also, a while back I compiled three-year averages of ES SV% for both regular season and post-season play. The results look good for Thomas, but are less favourable for Lundqvist.

It's certainly ridiculous to claim Thomas' perception is based off a single playoff run.

 

[struckbyaparkedcar]

He does carry it to the playoffs. If you watch Ranger games, rs or po, you see that he drags the team as far as they go. Without him we would probably have made the playoffs once since the lockout. And yes he deserved the Vezina last year. He was better than Quick. Also how can you be for sure he would not have kept his sv% up. For all we know it could have been higher if he played the same amount of games.

See, this is why I can't take the Ludnqvist fan club seriously. The Rangers were top ten in shots allowed in each of the first three seasons after the lockout and had a top ten offense in 2006. Them being a stingy defensive team returned in 10-11 and has been the case every season since. But you "only would have made the playoffs once" in a league that is structurally designed to have two below average teams in the playoffs at any given time.

And because Quick and Smith each played more games and had slightly lower save percentages, and because every season where Lundqvist has played more, his numbers are worse.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

The two Vezina's kind of help too... And the fact that he got hip surgery after his down year in 2010 and came back with a Vezina/Smythe/Cup.

And Lundqvist shouldn't be in the Hall unless he starts carrying his dominance into the playoffs. He shouldn't even have won the Vezina last season, as there was basically no way he maintains his SV% with Quick's games played.

Lundqvist played in the best division in hockey, featuring the two best offensive teams (Pittsburgh and Philly) in 2011-12, and overall the Eastern Conference was much more offensive than the Western Conference that year. He deserved the Vezina last year.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Right. Elliott and Anderson are climbing out of the "journeyman" category and into the "HHOFer" category like Thomas. This needs time.
Thomas only gets a "free pass" in retrospect, if they would have successfully traded Thomas for Simon Gagne like there was discussion at the time, those bad seasons define his career. Instead, Boston/Julien keep him and it changes the perception. He was just bad, flat out terrible, and we all knew it.

Elliott had his "amazing" season and now he gets a year off, and if St. Louis/Hitchcock can lock things up again, I'm sure one of Elliott or Halak will have another "amazing" season. Anderson should get a "year off" too, maybe young Robin Lehner will lead the league in GAA and save pct. and then Anderson will come back and do the same thing the next season.

We're just willfully not seeing the forest through the trees right now to reverse justify previous positions/beliefs...

Thomas' one playoffs: 1.98 / .940 save pct.
Rask's one playoffs so far: 1.85 / .940 save pct.

And once again, the goalie behind one of the better (or best) defensive team has the most saves in the playoffs on the most shots against. It's just modern defending 101 all over again...it's happening all over again. Of course, I hope this series goes seven.

And I love Rask, but he's been a little up and down in these playoffs, but has gotten stronger as the playoffs goes on. What he's done in the series vs. Pittsburgh is simply amazing though.

I have never heard anyone (other than you just now) mention Elliott or Anderson as possible HHOFers.

What seasons was he just flat out terrible?

 

[struckbyaparkedcar]

Lundqvist played in the best division in hockey, featuring the two best offensive teams (Pittsburgh and Philly) in 2011-12, and overall the Eastern Conference was much more offensive than the Western Conference that year. He deserved the Vezina last year.

Or is the East more offensive because it had seven of the ten worst defensive teams? I think that's also somewhat offset by the gaps in their respective team's offenses during the regular season, and that slimmer margin for error coupled with Quick's increase in games played was the difference for me vs. Lundqvist's wins/slightly better save%/quality of division.

And Lundqvist's season certainly passed muster for a Vezina year, and it's a shame because Quick and Smith each had very, very excellent cases.

 

[La Cosa Nostra]

He isn't even close to the HoF.

Great goalie yeah, but not even near hall worthy.

 

[Kale Makar]

If he can get 350 wins, or at least 315, and get at least one more Vezina, he should make it, especially if he keeps his .920 SV% and a GAA under 2.30.

 

[Hardyvan123]

If he can get 350 wins, or at least 315, and get at least one more Vezina, he should make it, especially if he keeps his .920 SV% and a GAA under 2.30.

I'd be surprised if he didn't make 400 wins.

He has 276 wins right now and averages 36 wins in each of his 1st full 7 seasons.

 

[Killion]

I'd be surprised if he didn't make 400 wins.

Will he last that long though Hv? The way the positions
played, prone to injury, crease crashing, bit iffy yes?

 

[Crease]

Will he last that long though Hv? The way the positions
played, prone to injury, crease crashing, bit iffy yes?

Lundqvist will be 32 at the start of next season. Four more seasons with 30 wins will get him there. It raises the question though, what is considered a significant wins milestone given that there are no longer ties?

400 Win Club before Shootouts:
Roy
Sawchuk
Plante
Belfour
Esposito
Hall
Fuhr
Brodeur

350 Win Club before Shootouts:
Joseph
Vernon
Vanbiesbrouck
Moog
Barasso
Vachon

300 Win Club before Shootouts:
Worsley
Lumley
Smith
Osgood
Burke
Broda
Richter

Totals for Hasek (389), Luongo (348), Nabokov (335), Khabibulin (332), Kiprusoff (319), Kolzig (303) were all somewhat aided by shootouts. But for example, Hasek was at 296 before the introduction of shootouts so he gets into the 300 Win Club on his own merit.

 

[Michael Farkas]

And Lundqvist shouldn't be in the Hall unless he starts carrying his dominance into the playoffs. He shouldn't even have won the Vezina last season, as there was basically no way he maintains his SV% with Quick's games played.

First sentence: he does. You're missing some awesome play.
Second: In terms of 60 minute blocks, only five "games" separate Lundqvist from Quick last year. He really would have imploded that badly had he played in them? I respect the difference between 60, 61, 62 from 66, 67, 68, it's bigger than meets the eye, but Lundqvist is a workhorse of a goaltender and has been since he's been in the league basically. Seems unlikely. And anyhow, the GMs like the ability to play a lot of games and win them, so Lundqvist playing more games would have only helped his cause more.

 

[Michael Farkas]

The lowest save percentage Thomas had in a series was 0.916. Let's compare that to other "lowest" series for recent Smythe winners:

Quick: 0.939 (vs Phx)
Ward: 0.901 (vs BUF)
Giguere: 0.910 (vs NJ)
Roy: 0.898 (vs VAN)

I don't see how Thomas' playoffs can be considered to be remarkably up-and-down (besides, what you're essentially doing is reducing an already small sample size to something even smaller). Quick is really a massive anomaly with regards to how stable his save percentage was between series.

This just seems like grasping at straws.

I mentioned the goals he gave up, the quality and timing of them, you responded with save percentages for other goalies. Doesn't add up, they have nothing to do with each other, with all due respect.

It's certainly ridiculous to claim Thomas' perception is based off a single playoff run.

Career perception of him being clutch or a "playoff goalie". He's not. Non-NHL playoffs, NHL playoffs, international competition, he cannot be trusted. A peak here, a peak there, just more of the same for a wishy-washy career. Even the very playoffs that we cling to with him was laced with inconsistency throughout, nearly ending the whole "cute story" thing dead in its tracks in the first round.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I have never heard anyone (other than you just now) mention Elliott or Anderson as possible HHOFers.

What seasons was he just flat out terrible?

Of course you haven't, they aren't there yet. The cut-off is TWO seasons of note, not one. They're half way there!

Anytime before Julien basically. Including the decade or more that he wasn't good enough to play in the NHL.

 

[bigbuffalo313]

See, this is why I can't take the Ludnqvist fan club seriously. The Rangers were top ten in shots allowed in each of the first three seasons after the lockout and had a top ten offense in 2006. Them being a stingy defensive team returned in 10-11 and has been the case every season since. But you "only would have made the playoffs once" in a league that is structurally designed to have two below average teams in the playoffs at any given time.

Except that the rangers are far below average and would have been a lottery team every year, like before 04

And because Quick and Smith each played more games and had slightly lower save percentages, and because every season where Lundqvist has played more, his numbers are worse.

La never won the cup and the devils won three. Look how that turned out.

 

[Crease]

Except that the rangers are far below average and would have been a lottery team every year, like before 04

You would literally have to go back to 1985 for the last time the Rangers were bottom-five in the NHL in points. They were not a lottery team every year before 2004, like you are suggesting here. You can argue that Lundqvist helped them get over the hump from finishing 9-11 in the Eastern Conference, like they routinely did prior to the lockout.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Ups and Downs

The lowest save percentage Thomas had in a series was 0.916. Let's compare that to other "lowest" series for recent Smythe winners:

Quick: 0.939 (vs Phx)
Ward: 0.901 (vs BUF)
Giguere: 0.910 (vs NJ)
Roy: 0.898 (vs VAN)

I don't see how Thomas' playoffs can be considered to be remarkably up-and-down (besides, what you're essentially doing is reducing an already small sample size to something even smaller). Quick is really a massive anomaly with regards to how stable his save percentage was between series.

This just seems like grasping at straws.

Not how the game is coached, played or evaluated. Basically each game is broken down by the team into 5 or 10 minute segments from start to finish with variations.

A close tp flat line .abc SV% across all segments is more desirable or valuable than a roller coaster version.

 

[GuineaPig]

Career perception of him being clutch or a "playoff goalie". He's not. Non-NHL playoffs, NHL playoffs, international competition, he cannot be trusted. A peak here, a peak there, just more of the same for a wishy-washy career. Even the very playoffs that we cling to with him was laced with inconsistency throughout, nearly ending the whole "cute story" thing dead in its tracks in the first round.

Yeah, Price playing great in the first round was a direct result of Thomas' inability to be consistent, apparently.

Are you seriously trying to claim that the guy with a career 0.933 save percentage in the playoffs is a bad playoff goalie?

Not how the game is coached, played or evaluated. Basically each game is broken down by the team into 5 or 10 minute segments from start to finish with variations.

A close tp flat line .abc SV% across all segments is more desirable or valuable than a roller coaster version.

That would be nice if it were possible, but perceptions of "consistency" amongst goalies seems to be mostly illusory.

Also, wouldn't that end up making shutouts sort of a "negative" stat? I mean, if one goalie's got 10 and the other 0, it's probable the former stops more pucks, but if you have two goalies with identical save percentages (and GP), the one with more shutouts would be "less consistent."

 

[Canadiens1958]

Playoff Goalies

Yeah, Price playing great in the first round was a direct result of Thomas' inability to be consistent, apparently.

Are you seriously trying to claim that the guy with a career 0.933 save percentage in the playoffs is a bad playoff goalie?



That would be nice if it were possible, but perceptions of "consistency" amongst goalies seems to be mostly illusory.

Also, wouldn't that end up making shutouts sort of a "negative" stat? I mean, if one goalie's got 10 and the other 0, it's probable the former stops more pucks, but if you have two goalies with identical save percentages (and GP), the one with more shutouts would be "less consistent."

Find such a pairing of goalies in NHL history then we will examine and discuss the question.

As for your .933 SV% playoff goalie there are issues that have to be addressed.

The impact of the .067 shots that are goals.

Skewed to the start of the game, first five or ten minutes, balanced against the impact of the first goal in a playoff game and winning. Home and road splits, etc.

Key goals vs other goals. NHL teams have their own definitions - see Tor/Bos game 7 this year for an illustration how this works and the value of the key saves Rask made at 1-4 and 2-4.

Overtime. How is the cumulative .933 SV% impacted by overtime performance. Does the overtime SV% raise or lower the metric to .933?

As for shutouts being a "negative stat", using your 10 : 0 playoff ratio. Playoff games are played to win. Impossible to lose a shutout. A 10 win edge would require a lot of mitigation over the course of a playoff career.

Hendrik Lundqvist has played 67 career playoff games. Despite 8 shutouts his record is 30 W - 37 L. Unless a case may be supported that with zero shutouts he would have more wins and fewer loses the value of shutouts should carry the day.

 

[bigbuffalo313]

You would literally have to go back to 1985 for the last time the Rangers were bottom-five in the NHL in points. They were not a lottery team every year before 2004, like you are suggesting here. You can argue that Lundqvist helped them get over the hump from finishing 9-11 in the Eastern Conference, like they routinely did prior to the lockout.

Maybe not a lottery team but we they wouldn't be making the playoffs as often.

 

[struckbyaparkedcar]

Except that the rangers are far below average and would have been a lottery team every year, like before 04

So a lockout and a full season of the 1B to the Hart are meaningless. Got it.

Also, they completely blew up the pre-2004 team, so why would you use that roster to project anything about the Rangers?

La never won the cup and the devils won three. Look how that turned out.

The history of a franchise is pretty much in no way directly comparable to the career trends of one player.

 

[bigbuffalo313]

So a lockout and a full season of the 1B to the Hart are meaningless. Got it.

Also, they completely blew up the pre-2004 team, so why would you use that roster to project anything about the Rangers?


The history of a franchise is pretty much in no way directly comparable to the career trends of one player.

So what if they blew it up. Teams blow it up all the time and they still don't improve. The lockout didn't make them any better. Also the franchise thing is not comparable, but it didn't happen so by your logic it could not have possibly happen.

 

[struckbyaparkedcar]

First sentence: he does. You're missing some awesome play.

Second: In terms of 60 minute blocks, only five "games" separate Lundqvist from Quick last year. He really would have imploded that badly had he played in them? I respect the difference between 60, 61, 62 from 66, 67, 68, it's bigger than meets the eye, but Lundqvist is a workhorse of a goaltender and has been since he's been in the league basically. Seems unlikely. And anyhow, the GMs like the ability to play a lot of games and win them, so Lundqvist playing more games would have only helped his cause more.

I wouldn't call him a dominant postseason goaltender, he's consistent, and consistently very good, but his postseason resume lacks a truly standout performance. Even if you credit him for the mediocre teams in front of him, he doesn't have any particularly shocking upsets (Washington this season and 2007 Atlanta are the closest, and those teams were a combined four points better than the Rangers), New York has crumbled under adversity after gaining the upper hand against great teams (Drury in 07, 3-1 series lead to the Caps in 09), and the one time he had a strong regular season team in front of him, they lost to a 6th seed, with Lundqvist spotting his opponents three and two goals in the last two games of the series (with New York battling back to tie each contest before surrendering the winner).

Lundqvist's playoff resume doesn't really add to his case for me.

And he wouldn't have to bomb those five, just play far enough below average to drive his S% down two points, and there's basically no way to calculate how much the extra work effects the rest of the games he's playing over that period of time. That season is the fewest games he's played since 2006, and also happens to be his highest save percentage. While I don't think it's a complete career outlier, I do think his numbers are slightly inflated for this reason.

And even if he gets a few more wins with that greater workload, Smith and Quick's superior save percentages and more difficult team situations (LA's terrible offense/Smith's absurd amount of shots faced) probably get played up a little more.

 

[struckbyaparkedcar]

So what if they blew it up. Teams blow it up all the time and they still don't improve. The lockout didn't make them any better. Also the franchise thing is not comparable, but it didn't happen so by your logic it could not have possibly happen.

Your reading comprehension needs a ton of work, and this is some of the most blatant examples of straw-manning I've read in this sub-forum.

Saying that the 05-13 Rangers would suck because the 04 and before Rangers did, when those teams had completely different players and coaches (sans 20 games of Renney at the end of 04) is completely and utterly nonsensical.

Moving on, I never said it was impossible, I'm saying between his statistical comparables (Smith and Quick, who each played five more games) and the history of his career, it is incredibly likely that his league-leading save percentage is driven down to even/slightly below his competition, and given the popularity of that stat, the entire Vezina narrative last year changes. All of a sudden, Quick is posting "better" numbers on the second worst offensive team in the league, while Smith is doing the same while facing a bunch more shots.

And yes, your Kings/Devils anecdote is equally nonsensical and terrible.

 

[bigbuffalo313]

I wouldn't call him a dominant postseason goaltender, he's consistent, and consistently very good, but his postseason resume lacks a truly standout performance. Even if you credit him for the mediocre teams in front of him, he doesn't have any particularly shocking upsets (Washington this season and 2007 Atlanta are the closest, and those teams were a combined four points better than the Rangers), New York has crumbled under adversity after gaining the upper hand against great teams (Drury in 07, 3-1 series lead to the Caps in 09), and the one time he had a strong regular season team in front of him, they lost to a 6th seed, with Lundqvist spotting his opponents three and two goals in the last two games of the series (with New York battling back to tie each contest before surrendering the winner).

Lundqvist's playoff resume doesn't really add to his case for me.

And he wouldn't have to bomb those five, just play far enough below average to drive his S% down two points, and there's basically no way to calculate how much the extra work effects the rest of the games he's playing over that period of time. That season is the fewest games he's played since 2006, and also happens to be his highest save percentage. While I don't think it's a complete career outlier, I do think his numbers are slightly inflated for this reason.

And even if he gets a few more wins with that greater workload, Smith and Quick's superior save percentages and more difficult team situations (LA's terrible offense/Smith's absurd amount of shots faced) probably get played up a little more.

He had 1 terrible year and two bad years, but every other year has been amazing so I am not sure what you are talking about.

the one time he had a strong regular season team in front of him, they lost to a 6th seed,

1-He had a strong regular season team, yes, but a horrible post season team.
2-That sixth seed had 102 points and would have been 5th had the southeast team not gotten auto 3rd
3-An 8th seed won the cup that year. Tells how much seeds really matter.

 

[bigbuffalo313]

Your reading comprehension needs a ton of work, and this is some of the most blatant examples of straw-manning I've read in this sub-forum.

Saying that the 05-13 Rangers would suck because the 04 and before Rangers did, when those teams had completely different players and coaches (sans 20 games of Renney at the end of 04) is completely and utterly nonsensical.

Well maybe I said that the Rangers would suck because they actually do and I have actually watched the games. I only brought up the pre-lockout teams to say how bad the team would actually be.

Moving on, I never said it was impossible, I'm saying between his statistical comparables (Smith and Quick, who each played five more games) and the history of his career, it is incredibly likely that his league-leading save percentage is driven down to even/slightly below his competition, and given the popularity of that stat, the entire Vezina narrative last year changes. All of a sudden, Quick is posting "better" numbers on the second worst offensive team in the league, while Smith is doing the same while facing a bunch more shots.

Likely=/=would have. He could have easily kept his sv% up or increased it if he played more.

And yes, your Kings/Devils anecdote is equally nonsensical and terrible.

So you admit that saying his sv% would have definitely gone down is nonsensical and terrible?