Is Henrik Lundqvist An HOFer?

[Michael Farkas]

Except it is the only way to measure it since Thomas has only played those years. He was a rookie when he was 31. Selanne has been playing since the mid 90s, and OV since 06, so it is a stupid analogy.

You've tripped the alarm. Here comes some nonsense about Finland and NCAA and other miscellany...

 

[quoipourquoi]

Except it is the only way to measure it since Thomas has only played those years. He was a rookie when he was 31. Selanne has been playing since the mid 90s, and OV since 06, so it is a stupid analogy.

You completely missed the point. I'm not saying that you can't compare an overlap; I'm saying that you can't count the number of seasons each player was better and expect that to mean anything, because there are different degrees of better: marginally or significantly. In my example, old Selanne was marginally better three times and Ovechkin was significantly better three times, but a 3-3 tie is meaningless because anyone with eyes knows that Ovechkin was better overall. In the Thomas and Lundqvist save percentage comparison, Thomas beat out Lundqvist by much bigger margins in 2008, 2009, and 2011 than Lundqvist beat out Thomas by in the remaining four seasons, therefore saying Lundqvist was better in the regular season because it's "4-3" isn't telling the full story anymore than saying that Ovechkin and Selanne were equal from 2007-2012.

So it's not a stupid analogy. Meanie.

 

[quoipourquoi]

You've tripped the alarm. Here comes some nonsense about Finland and NCAA and other miscellany...

 

[GuineaPig]

I should point out that each season is a pretty small sample sizes as it is; comparing players based on individual seasons that have been cherry-picked is going to be a flawed endeavour any way you slice it.

 

[seventieslord]

With Phil (over the past few years I have been here) it seems to be very simple:

If they won the Cup/medal/game they were great and got er done.

If they did not win the Cup/medal/game they were lacking or choked.

And it counts double for goaltenders.

Come to think of it, you're right. Pretty much any time I've had a disagreement with Phil, it's the result of his view of a player being distorted by how much he won... or didn't win.

 

[mrhockey193195]

Sorry to bump and old thread. Been thinking a lot lately about Ed Belfour's career, and how his Blackhawk years compare with Lundqvist's career to date. There are a good number of similarities - both goalies were consistently at the top of the league during those respective stretches, both goalies had "reputations" of not performing as well as expected in the playoffs, and neither goalie was able to separate themselves from their fellow elite contemporaries (Roy and Hasek for Belfour, and Brodeur/Luongo/Thomas/Quick for Lundqivst) to become the undisputed best goalie in the world.

I know the Belfour-Lundqvist comparison has been made a few times, but I thought it would be interesting to bring it up again since the years now match up pretty well: Belfour was traded when he was 31, and Lundqvist is soon to turn 32...and both goalies started in the NHL when they were 23.

Belfour in Chicago:
2 Vezinas (1991, 1993)
2 1st AST (1991, 1993)
1 2nd AST (1995)
3 Jennings (1991, 1993, 1995)
1 SC Finals appearance, 1 WCF appearance

Lundqvist:
1 Vezina (2012)
1 1st AST (2012)
1 2nd AST (2013)
1 WCF appearance


At the time of Belfour's trade, what was his reputation? And how similar was it to Lundqvist's reputation now?

 

[Big Phil]

Hmmm, maybe the Belfour comparison is legit. To be honest, if Lundqvist is thought of the way Belfour is by the end of his career, mission accomplished. As far as Vezina voting and such it is pretty similar. But the thing with Belfour was that he was considered to be an erratic goalie not unlike Ron Hextall (but just better) who could never control his emotions in order to win a Cup. He let in the odd soft untimely goal in the postseason and he had trouble with his back ups. Chicago lost at times they could have won as well. I can't say Lundqvist has choked so to speak, but he just hasn't played great in the postseason where he has lifted his team anywhere.

Belfour I think had better teams and for the longest time was thought of as a goalie that couldn't win the big one. I tend to blame Belfour's playoff failures more on himself than Lundqvist not getting the Rangers further.

For example, Belfour wins the Vezina and the Calder in 1991. He is the back up goalie on the Canada Cup team. He isn't asked to play in the 1996 World Cup. He isn't asked to play in the 1998 Olympics. He wins a Cup with Dallas in 1999, plays great while doing it, takes the team to the final in 2000 and in both years beating Roy and the Avs to do it and all of the sudden he is added to the 2002 Olympic team as a third stringer, and rightly so. So if that gives you any indication of how the hockey world perceived Belfour, then there you go.

I wouldn't call Lundqvist a choker. Prior to 1999 many did with Belfour.

 

[Sentinel]

I dunno, Belfour was pretty formidable in mid-90s Chicago. In the 95 WCF he kept them in the series against Detroit much longer than they should've. I don't know his stats, but my eyeball test says he won the Hawks a lot more games than lost them.

As for not being called for the 98 Olympics, well, Roy and Belfour were better goalies, and it takes someone like CuJo, with a very positive attitude, to be a #3. And what Belfour did in 99 and 00 was nothing short of incredible.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Hmmm, maybe the Belfour comparison is legit. To be honest, if Lundqvist is thought of the way Belfour is by the end of his career, mission accomplished. As far as Vezina voting and such it is pretty similar. But the thing with Belfour was that he was considered to be an erratic goalie not unlike Ron Hextall (but just better) who could never control his emotions in order to win a Cup. He let in the odd soft untimely goal in the postseason and he had trouble with his back ups. Chicago lost at times they could have won as well. I can't say Lundqvist has choked so to speak, but he just hasn't played great in the postseason where he has lifted his team anywhere.

Belfour I think had better teams and for the longest time was thought of as a goalie that couldn't win the big one. I tend to blame Belfour's playoff failures more on himself than Lundqvist not getting the Rangers further.

For example, Belfour wins the Vezina and the Calder in 1991. He is the back up goalie on the Canada Cup team. He isn't asked to play in the 1996 World Cup. He isn't asked to play in the 1998 Olympics. He wins a Cup with Dallas in 1999, plays great while doing it, takes the team to the final in 2000 and in both years beating Roy and the Avs to do it and all of the sudden he is added to the 2002 Olympic team as a third stringer, and rightly so. So if that gives you any indication of how the hockey world perceived Belfour, then there you go.

I wouldn't call Lundqvist a choker. Prior to 1999 many did with Belfour.

but belfour is also an interesting case here because if he never has '99 and '00, where he outdueled roy in consecutive years, he probably isn't a hall of famer. he's probably somewhere in the ballpark of liut or vachon or beezer or luongo or cujo, probably a little ahead of all those guys because he has multiple vezinas and better counting stats, but below the cut off for the HHOF. seems like the cup and/or winning head-to-head match ups against the best of his peers criteria will also come down on lundqvist's career.

 

[mrhockey193195]

but belfour is also an interesting case here because if he never has '99 and '00, where he outdueled roy in consecutive years, he probably isn't a hall of famer. he's probably somewhere in the ballpark of liut or vachon or beezer or luongo or cujo, probably a little ahead of all those guys because he has multiple vezinas and better counting stats, but below the cut off for the HHOF. seems like the cup and/or winning head-to-head match ups against the best of his peers criteria will also come down on lundqvist's career.

Assuming that most people agree with me that Quick and Lundqvist have been the #1 and #2 goalies the past couple of years, and assuming that stays the same moving forward, I think it would be really interesting if they were in the same conference and met in the playoffs somewhat regularly. I think those matchups would have the potential to propel one (or possibly both) goalies to higher heights than they've already reached.

Who knows, maybe Lundqvist moves out west after this year (God, I hope not).

 

[Big Phil]

I dunno, Belfour was pretty formidable in mid-90s Chicago. In the 95 WCF he kept them in the series against Detroit much longer than they should've. I don't know his stats, but my eyeball test says he won the Hawks a lot more games than lost them.

The overtime goal from Konstantinov is an example of things we could see from Belfour back then. Just an ugly sight. 1993 again he lets in a goal that was his fault that ends a series, this time against an inferior team. This is the 1993 goal:



This is the Konstantinov goal in 1995, in fact all three overtime winners in that series. Belfour looks weak on all of them.



The thing with Belfour is that he was a very good goalie even at that time, but you could throw him off his game very easily. He could get rattled. He left the net a lot to play the puck and it cost him quite often. As we see with the St. Louis game in 1993. As a Leaf fan who saw a lot of Chicago in those days I can remember hoping the Leafs would dump it in and Belfour would cough it up while he plays it.

1991 is another year where Belfour played poorly in the postseason.

but belfour is also an interesting case here because if he never has '99 and '00, where he outdueled roy in consecutive years, he probably isn't a hall of famer. he's probably somewhere in the ballpark of liut or vachon or beezer or luongo or cujo, probably a little ahead of all those guys because he has multiple vezinas and better counting stats, but below the cut off for the HHOF. seems like the cup and/or winning head-to-head match ups against the best of his peers criteria will also come down on lundqvist's career.

I don't know, I think a Cupless Belfour is still in the HHOF. Joseph never won the Cups either, but his Vezina record is inferior to Belfour. Plus we would at least have Belfour backstopping the Hawks to the 1992 Cup final. I think without the years in Dallas he's still a HHOFer and gets in on the strength of being an Esposito/Giacomin type. He'd be a two-time Vezina winner, and the only one that may or may not get in with that on their resume is Tim Thomas.

 

[mrhockey193195]

I don't know, I think a Cupless Belfour is still in the HHOF. Joseph never won the Cups either, but his Vezina record is inferior to Belfour. Plus we would at least have Belfour backstopping the Hawks to the 1992 Cup final. I think without the years in Dallas he's still a HHOFer and gets in on the strength of being an Esposito/Giacomin type. He'd be a two-time Vezina winner, and the only one that may or may not get in with that on their resume is Tim Thomas.

How close do you think Henrik is from achieving pre-cup Belfour status then? Another Vezina, a few more consistent years at a similar level to his first eight seasons...would that be enough for him to become a Giacomin/Belfour in Chicago HOF candidate? I think the fact that Hank hasn't been below 6th in Vezina voting in any given year might help his cause a good amount.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

I don't know, I think a Cupless Belfour is still in the HHOF. Joseph never won the Cups either, but his Vezina record is inferior to Belfour. Plus we would at least have Belfour backstopping the Hawks to the 1992 Cup final. I think without the years in Dallas he's still a HHOFer and gets in on the strength of being an Esposito/Giacomin type. He'd be a two-time Vezina winner, and the only one that may or may not get in with that on their resume is Tim Thomas.

hmm, you might be right. i wonder if he'd never been traded to dallas what his career would have looked like. would he have retired the third winningest goalie of all time? if we shave, say, 50-75 wins off of his career total, he's not that far from beezer is he?

and as i recall, didn't he receive a disproportionate amount of the blame for '92? he didn't even start game 4. and guys like cheevers of giacomin, those kinds of goalies from belfour's generation weren't/aren't getting into the HHOF, assuming cujo, osgood, vernon, even barrasso remain on the outside looking in.

 

[Big Phil]

hmm, you might be right. i wonder if he'd never been traded to dallas what his career would have looked like. would he have retired the third winningest goalie of all time? if we shave, say, 50-75 wins off of his career total, he's not that far from beezer is he?

and as i recall, didn't he receive a disproportionate amount of the blame for '92? he didn't even start game 4. and guys like cheevers of giacomin, those kinds of goalies from belfour's generation weren't/aren't getting into the HHOF, assuming cujo, osgood, vernon, even barrasso remain on the outside looking in.

I think you have to take into account his Vezina finishes. He wins two of them, and has a slew of other times he's in the top 10. Even without a Cup, he would be a hard guy to leave out. Beezer had that one big year in 1986 but I don't think he is thought of higher than a Cupless Belfour.

How close do you think Henrik is from achieving pre-cup Belfour status then? Another Vezina, a few more consistent years at a similar level to his first eight seasons...would that be enough for him to become a Giacomin/Belfour in Chicago HOF candidate? I think the fact that Hank hasn't been below 6th in Vezina voting in any given year might help his cause a good amount.

I think he is relatively close to Belfour pre-Cup as it is.

 

[VanIslander]

Not yet.

 

[Hardyvan123]

He is getting pretty darn close, even in the toughest potion to make it into the HHOF.

Not being below 6th in voting over 8 years already, and probably a pretty good bet for a 9th must be HHOF level right?

It sure is enough of a peak or prime in my books.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

I think you have to take into account his Vezina finishes. He wins two of them, and has a slew of other times he's in the top 10. Even without a Cup, he would be a hard guy to leave out. Beezer had that one big year in 1986 but I don't think he is thought of higher than a Cupless Belfour.

just ran the top tens--


JVB

hart: 5th ('86), 3rd ('94)

vezina: 1st ('86), 6th ('87), 6th ('88), 4th ('89), 6th ('92), 2nd ('94), 6th ('95), 7th ('96), 8th ('97),


eagle

hart: 3rd ('91)

vezina: 1st ('91), 4th ('92), 1st ('93), 7th ('94), 2nd ('95), 4th ('98), 7th ('99), 4th ('00), 3rd ('03), 7th ('04)



belfour has easily the edge in top five vezina finishes, and you're right big phil, kind of eye-opening all the 2nd/3rd/4th place finishes compared to beezer. a clear cut above, even just looking at regular season performance.