Lundqvist and the NHL Playoffs

Ian

Mike York fan club
Jul 5, 2007
1,711
10
Long Island, NY
He was hurt in '06.

Just "so-so" in '09 is laughable commentary. I think that series against the Caps might've been his best.

If you want to pinpoint a couple of games that disappointed me, Games 4 and 5 vs. the Devils in 2012 would be it.

Games 1/2/4 of the Caps series might be the best he's ever played in the playoffs.

But he was cooked after that, and 5/6 might be two of his worst besides that 06 year.

I'm not saying it was his fault, because that team just got ran over by the Caps once Henrik stopped standing on his head, but in retrospect he looked average in more than half of those games.

Agreed on those two games as well. I know the ice was **** in 08 GM1 vs Pitt, but I wish he could have made some stops there as well. Think that would have changed the whole series.
 

Crease

Chief Justice of the HFNYR Court
Jul 12, 2004
24,109
25,589
Not when your career averages are .920/2.26 in the regular season and .920/2.28 in the playoffs. Thats virtually identical. And when you're the best goalie in the league since 2005, thats just fine with me.

Is he supposed to get bonus points in the playoffs if his regular season line was .908/2.55?

Lundqvist is the best goaltender in the league over the past decade, and he duplicates those stats in the playoffs. Thats just fine with me.

Elevating your game in the playoffs is not a trait reserved only for middle- and lower-tier players.
 
Last edited:

GAGLine

Registered User
Sep 17, 2007
23,514
19,506
Well, as nice as Messier's hat trick was in his 'We will win tonight' guarantee game six in New Jersey, down three games to two, Richter was sensational in keeping the Rangers in that game in the first place. The Devils absolutely stormed the Rangers for long portions of the first two periods, and Richter was off the charts incredible holding them off.

Without Mike Richter in that game, we are sitting on 74 years of futility right now.

Down 3 games to 2 against washington last year, Lundqvist posted back to back shutouts to close out the series and get the Rangers into the 2nd round.

Down 3 games to 2 against ottawa in 2011-12, Lundqvist gave up 3 goals total in the final 2 games to close it out.

If the Rangers had gone on to win the cup in either year, Lundqvist's play in those games would have been every bit as important as Richter's was in the devils series. But we didn't, so it's forgotten.
 

SnowblindNYR

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Nov 16, 2011
52,144
30,729
Brooklyn, NY
Aside from that 1 stinker in Pittsburgh I can't think of a time where I felt Hank let us down.

Maybe the game after the Drury goal but we all felt like crap after that game.

I remember every playoff game he played except the ones I missed (only games 5 and 6 last year against Boston). I can go right down the line and tell you. Lundqvist has either been sensational or bad most playoff games, rarely in the middle.

06- Throw away, nothing else to say

07-

Atlanta series:

Game 1 was mediocre, though not really bad
Games 2-4 were very good but he didn't have to be great (game 4 though he came up big as the team had a slow start)

Buffalo series:

Game 1 was bad
Game 2 was mediocre, though the 3 goals weren't really his fault, but he didn't really do much to help.
Games 3-5 he was fantastic, I still say game 6 was the best game of his career to that point and still is one of the best of his career, **** Drury.
Game 6 he started a REALLY annoying trend of coming up small after a ridiculously good game that you felt like he was the best goalie ever.

08-

Devils series:

Games 1-2 were good, he only gave up a goal in both, but was still shaky looking, the Devils hit a lot of posts.
Games 3-5 were all pretty mediocre as he gave up 3 or more goals to the Devils for the first time that season, thank God Marty was just awful

Penguins series:

Game 1 was definitely an underrated game by him, if you can call it that. The Pens came out flying, he played very well and gave us a chance. Then they scored what was like 5 fluky ass goals and the team blew a 3-0 lead and made Lundqvist look way worse than he played. It was one of those games where I sincerely feel bad for him.

Game 2 was a great game, he gave up a goal to Jordan Staal that wasn't his fault and then they added an empty netter to win it 2-0.

Game 3 was another example of Lundqvist being disappointing after a great game. We went down 3-1, tied it quickly and he quickly gave up the tie and we lost 5-3. Brutal game.

Game 4 he was good, got a shutout, I think the D played well too, I don't recall him having to steal it.

Game 5 was very good, the team sucked and he kept them in it. The OT goal was stoppable, but whatever, he was the only reason we were in OT to begin with.

09-

Caps series: Most polarizing series ever

Game 1: He was mediocre, but Theodore was even worse, we won 4-3. Ok, that's a bit harsh, he wasn't bad, but nothing special at all.

Game 2: Good game on D, but still very impressive to beat THAT team 1-0 by Hank. Good game.

Game 3: Brutal game, gave up 5 I think.

Game 4: One of the best games of his career and really the game people think of when they say that he almost stole this series. Signature game.

Game 5: After that game 4, he looked like a clown in this game, plain and simple. Gave up one of the worst goals ever to start the game and it got worse.

Game 6: Another bad game, not as bad as game 5.

Game 7: Actually an excellent game by him, first goal was a total fluke though the game winner could have and probably should have been stopped.

10-

No playoffs, but was amazing in the shootout loss that knocked us out.

11-

Caps Series

I'd say none of the games were especially awful and none of the games were great. Game 4, was the closest to great, but one of the reasons we were in the position to blow a 3-0 lead was one of the goals was scored after Lundqvist dropped the puck instead of controlling the rebound, he was great otherwise and especially in OT, stoning Ovechkin on a breakway. Thanks Gaborik! But this is a series I don't remember that well.

12-

Sens Series

Game 1- Good, no complaints, didn't have to steal this one though

Game 2- No complaints really, I think this was the game MDZ scored into his own net too.

Game 3- Great game, 1-0 win, we were in our zone the whole game (shocker).

Game 4- Eh game, we blew a 2-0 lead and lost in OT AGAIN. Ugh.

Game 5- On the one hand he was excellent most of the game, on the other hand Spezza's winner was a super softy.

Games 6-7- Very good, not sure if he had to steal either, especially not game 7 that the team was excellent in.

Caps Series

Game 1- Good, not spectacular, Holtby sucked, but he gave up only 1.

Game 2- Eh, I thought it was a weaker game by him, we could have won this one.

Game 3- Great game by him, triple OT.

Game 4- Actually don't remember how well or poorly he played in this game, I seem to remember the team playing poorly. I would think this game was ok.

Game 5- Only reason we needed Richards' heroics is because Lundqvist gave up a big goal in the 3rd that frankly was weak. Mediocre game.

Game 6- The team was AWFUL, he only let in 2 goals, good game.

Game 7- The team was great in front of him, but still 1 goal against in a game 7 is very good.

NJ series

Game 1- He was great with the shutout, the team wasn't that good.

Game 2- Not his best game, but I think he got a little more grief than he deserved.

Game 3- Carbon copy of game 1

Game 4- Awful, as was the team

Game 5- Even worse, just terrible

Game 6- Very good, but what are you going to do?

13-

Caps series

Game 1- Gave up the type of goal I haven't seen him give up all season and frankly the breakaway goal was one that he stops 8 times out of 10 last season. This is what I mean, he has games that he doesn't have in the regular season.

Game 2- He was amazing one of the best games of his career.

Games 3-4- Pretty mediocre, gave up 3 in both.

Game 5- Amazing again.

Game 6-7- Didn't have to be as amazing as in 2 and 5, but had an historic back to back shutouts in games 6 and 7.

Bruins series

Games 1- Bad, only 3 goals against, 2 weak ones that came out of nowhere. Those don't go in in the regular season and he just had such a great finish to the last series (see a trend?_

Game 2- One of the worst of his postseason career, we were actually much better than Boston in this game but Girardi, MDZ, and Hank ****ed up badly. Nash even showed up. Ugh.

Game 3- Not terrible, but the first time in years we gave up a lead going into the 3rd and lost in regulation. Not good either.

Games 4-5- I missed these, so no idea.
 

haveandare

Registered User
Jul 2, 2009
18,939
7,468
New York
Not when your career averages are .920/2.26 in the regular season and .920/2.28 in the playoffs. Thats virtually identical. And when you're the best goalie in the league since 2005, thats just fine with me.

If he supposed to get bonus points in the playoffs if his regular season line was .908/2.55?

Lundqvist is the best goaltender in the league over the past decade, and he duplicates those stats in the playoffs. Thats just fine with me.

Bingo.

He's great in the regular season, and he's just as great in the post season. Almost exactly as great. With a goalie who can and does put up those numbers, and the kind of spending that this team does, the team shouldn't be relying on Hank to be historically incredible for rounds upon rounds. Him being great should be enough. He can carry a ton of the weight, but not literally all of it, and he shouldn't have to.

Historically, has he ever really cost the team a playoff series? Every time that they've been beat that I can recall in recent memory, Hank's been good, and the team-wide offense has been terrible. He's the least of my worries.

As ususal, it will come down to whether or not the Rangers can score in playoffs. That's what will determine how far they go, not whether or not Hank can put up a Quick-like freak performance.
 

strongbad3689

Registered User
Feb 4, 2008
82
0
I remember every playoff game he played except the ones I missed (only games 5 and 6 last year against Boston). I can go right down the line and tell you. Lundqvist has either been sensational or bad most playoff games, rarely in the middle.


Bruins series

Games 1- Bad, only 3 goals against, 2 weak ones that came out of nowhere. Those don't go in in the regular season and he just had such a great finish to the last series (see a trend?_

Game 2- One of the worst of his postseason career, we were actually much better than Boston in this game but Girardi, MDZ, and Hank ****ed up badly. Nash even showed up. Ugh.

Game 3- Not terrible, but the first time in years we gave up a lead going into the 3rd and lost in regulation. Not good either.

Games 4-5- I missed these, so no idea.

I don't remember Game 4, but I was at Game 5 (unfortunately) and the team was garbage. It was such a crappy game to watch and being the crowd with Bruins fans was not fun. They scored a power play goal (I think) in the first and that was it. They had zero chances and they would have won only if Hank pitched a shutout. He wasn't great but the team was just awful
 

GAGLine

Registered User
Sep 17, 2007
23,514
19,506
I put together some stats to look at the Rangers GF/G and GA/G in both the regular season and playoffs over the last 3 years, along with the GF/G and GA/G of their opponents.

I also included the regular season numbers for this year.

NHL Season | Opponent | Opponent Reg Season GF/G | Rangers Reg Season GA/G | Rangers Playoff GA/G |Opponent Reg Season GA/G| Rangers Reg Season GF/G | Rangers Playoff GF/G
2013-14|Philadelphia|2.84|2.32||2.77|2.61|
2012-13|Washington|3.05|2.25|1.71|2.71|2.63|2.29
2012-13|Boston|2.65|2.25|3.2|2.21|2.63|2.00
2011-12|Ottawa|2.96|2.22|1.86|2.88|2.71|2.00
2011-12|Washington|2.66|2.22|1.86|2.76|2.71|2.14
2011-12|New Jersey|2.63|2.22|2.5|2.5|2.71|2.33
2010-11|Washington|2.67|2.38|2.6|2.33|2.73|1.6

6 playoff series over the last 3 years. Rangers were 3-3 in those series.

In the 3 series that they won, the Rangers' GA/G was lower than their regular season average. In the 3 series that they lost, the Rangers' GA/G was higher than their regular season average.

I don't think it's fair to hang that all on Hank. Boston was a clearly better team last year. Washington beat us in 5 games in 2010-11. They were 2nd to vancouver for the President's Trophy that year. New Jersey wasn't a better team I don't think, but their 4th line abused us. The entire team failed there, not just Hank.

In all but the boston series, the Rangers GA/G was less than their opponent's GF/G during the regular season.

The bigger issue is our scoring. In every single series, whether we won or lost, our playoff GF/G was significantly lower than our regular season average, even against opponents with a poor regular season GA/G.

That to me points to a lack of scoring depth, though this year's team is probably the deepest we've had in that regard. We'll see how they do against philly.
 

HockeyBasedNYC

Feeling it
Aug 2, 2005
19,821
11,417
Here
Question is - put Lundqvist on any of the past 5 Cup winning teams and then ask yourself could he have performed as well as any of these guys to win just one:

Corey Crawford
Jonathan Quick
Tim Thomas
Antti Niemi
Marc-Andre Fleury

Sure why not. Now put any of those goalies in the net for the Sweden Gold win. Same feeling? Completely different tournament, but interesting thought nonetheless.

Theres an argument out there that suggests that great goalies put the team on their back and get them to the promised land. But how many times has that happened really?
 

Callagraves

Block shots
Jan 24, 2011
6,373
2
He's been good in the playoffs, great at times. He hasn't always been phenomenal; if he was, we'd have a cup by now.
 

Callagraves

Block shots
Jan 24, 2011
6,373
2
Question is - put Lundqvist on any of the past 5 Cup winning teams and then ask yourself could he have performed as well as any of these guys to win just one:

Corey Crawford
Jonathan Quick
Tim Thomas
Antti Niemi
Marc-Andre Fleury

Yes
Maybe
Maybe
Yes
Yes
 

HockeyBasedNYC

Feeling it
Aug 2, 2005
19,821
11,417
Here
I put together some stats to look at the Rangers GF/G and GA/G in both the regular season and playoffs over the last 3 years, along with the GF/G and GA/G of their opponents.

I also included the regular season numbers for this year.

NHL Season | Opponent | Opponent Reg Season GF/G | Rangers Reg Season GA/G | Rangers Playoff GA/G |Opponent Reg Season GA/G| Rangers Reg Season GF/G | Rangers Playoff GF/G
2013-14|Philadelphia|2.84|2.32||2.77|2.61|
2012-13|Washington|3.05|2.25|1.71|2.71|2.63|2.29
2012-13|Boston|2.65|2.25|3.2|2.21|2.63|2.00
2011-12|Ottawa|2.96|2.22|1.86|2.88|2.71|2.00
2011-12|Washington|2.66|2.22|1.86|2.76|2.71|2.14
2011-12|New Jersey|2.63|2.22|2.5|2.5|2.71|2.33
2010-11|Washington|2.67|2.38|2.6|2.33|2.73|1.6

6 playoff series over the last 3 years. Rangers were 3-3 in those series.

In the 3 series that they won, the Rangers' GA/G was lower than their regular season average. In the 3 series that they lost, the Rangers' GA/G was higher than their regular season average.

I don't think it's fair to hang that all on Hank. Boston was a clearly better team last year. Washington beat us in 5 games in 2010-11. They were 2nd to vancouver for the President's Trophy that year. New Jersey wasn't a better team I don't think, but their 4th line abused us. The entire team failed there, not just Hank.

In all but the boston series, the Rangers GA/G was less than their opponent's GF/G during the regular season.

The bigger issue is our scoring. In every single series, whether we won or lost, our playoff GF/G was significantly lower than our regular season average, even against opponents with a poor regular season GA/G.

That to me points to a lack of scoring depth, though this year's team is probably the deepest we've had in that regard. We'll see how they do against philly.

Good analysis.

I dont know how many times Ive stated it but if you look at the Rangers PP woes last postseason, thats the reason they got knocked out. If they scored a modest 3-5 more goals on the PP (they had tons of chances) spread out across both of those series they dont go to7 against Washington and they probably win on one of the first 2 road games against Boston. It was that close. A PP goal here or there (just a normal PP avg) wouldve made an enormous difference.
 

Jersey Girl

Registered User
Sep 28, 2008
4,200
179
Question is - put Lundqvist on any of the past 5 Cup winning teams and then ask yourself could he have performed as well as any of these guys to win just one:

Corey Crawford
Jonathan Quick
Tim Thomas
Antti Niemi
Marc-Andre Fleury

Yeah, Quick was insanely good that year, for four playoff series in a row. Cannot accurately say any goalie could do what he did that season, for that length of time. Thomas was pretty spectacular too.
 

GAGLine

Registered User
Sep 17, 2007
23,514
19,506
Good analysis.

I dont know how many times Ive stated it but if you look at the Rangers PP woes last postseason, thats the reason they got knocked out. If they scored a modest 3-5 more goals on the PP (they had tons of chances) spread out across both of those series they dont go to7 against Washington and they probably win on one of the first 2 road games against Boston. It was that close. A PP goal here or there (just a normal PP avg) wouldve made an enormous difference.

Yup. A good PP can help overcome the extra tight defenses in the playoffs.

Last year we went 2-28 against washington and 2-16 against boston. Those 4 PP goals came in 4 different games and we won 3 of those games, scoring 4 goals in each game. 3 of our losses came in OT. A PP goal in any of those would have probably resulted in a win, but we went 0-10 in those games.
 

HockeyBasedNYC

Feeling it
Aug 2, 2005
19,821
11,417
Here
Yeah, Quick was insanely good that year, for four playoff series in a row. Cannot accurately say any goalie could do what he did that season, for that length of time. Thomas was pretty spectacular too.

Agree Thomas was outstanding and Quick was out of his mind. But we've seen Lundqvist hit those levels, so its not impossible. Point is, with the right team this thread doesnt exist. BUT, it is fair because THATS LIFE.

See DAN MARINO.
 

HockeyBasedNYC

Feeling it
Aug 2, 2005
19,821
11,417
Here
Yup. A good PP can help overcome the extra tight defenses in the playoffs.

Last year we went 2-28 against washington and 2-16 against boston. Those 4 PP goals came in 4 different games and we won 3 of those games, scoring 4 goals in each game. 3 of our losses came in OT. A PP goal in any of those would have probably resulted in a win, but we went 0-10 in those games.

Yeah i forget the percentages but i broke it down to where if the Rangers just had an average PP good enough for 15th in the league (where they are now, exactly) - that would have given them something like 4 more goals. Like you said, 4 goals in 2 tight series is gigantic.
 

Jersey Girl

Registered User
Sep 28, 2008
4,200
179
Agree Thomas was outstanding and Quick was out of his mind. But we've seen Lundqvist hit those levels, so its not impossible. Point is, with the right team this thread doesnt exist.

I don't disagree with your overall point - I'm a huge Hank fan, and I think with another franchise he would have won already. Heck if Hank had played with same seasons Brodeur played with the Devils, he may have out-Brodeur'd Brodeur.

That said, we have seen Hank hit the level Quick was at, but never for four playoff series in a row in the same Stanley Cup year. As much as I love Hank, it's not fair to Quick to say 'someone else could have done it' -even Hank - if they didn't actually do it.
 

Richter Scale

Registered User
Aug 4, 2012
1,393
0
I'm of the opinion that the whole team needs to be better. But that includes Lundqvist. To be a money player, his game needs to be elevated in the playoffs -- and yes, even from the already high-level game that he currently plays. That doesn't mean I'm saying that he has been bad. It just means he needs to be better - mostly more consistent - once it comes to be this time of year.

It is certainly true that Sather has not given him a team in front of him of the past few years that is a legit contender. But at the same time this team is not, realistically (at least as far as I can tell), going to be in the echelon of Pitt/Chi/Bos or Det/Col/NJD from the 90s and early 00s. And there are plenty of teams that weren't in that echelon that have won a cup or got to the SCF -- and a huge part of how they did that is with a goalie who played out of his mind in the playoffs. So, if this team is going to win a cup, Hank needs to be one of those goalies, and needs to be better in the playoffs. Simple as that.

--

Regarding the quote from Hank posted earlier in this thread -- I find it interesting that he doesn't think he needs to play better to win a championship. Reminds me of Nash from last season's "breakup day" answering a similar question about his playoff performance with the opinion that he played "good." Yea, he was fine -- but he needed to be a lot better in those playoffs. Same can be said of Lundqvist in my mind, and it is a little concerning to me that he took the attitude he did when answering that question.

Granted, it is an awkward question to begin with, and on the flip side I don't want him thinking he was trash in the playoffs. But sorry, he has had plenty of moments where he could have been better.

--

I remember posting a number of analyses of the different angles to this question during last year's playoffs. I'll try to dig those up and re-post here.
 

StepansLabyrinth

Rational Police
Jul 2, 2009
1,845
1
He's had a few lackluster postseasons (mainly before he was recognized to be the player he is today)... However, he's been great over the last two postseasons and has held up to his reputation.

The question on how a top-level player can raise their game is pretty legitimate. If a player plays elite all season, how could they expected to be better come the postseason? In most cases, I'd consider equaling production for top talent to be enough to be a "top playoff performer". It's MUCH harder to go from good to great than it is to go from bad to average. To go from great to sublime is almost impossible, that's why it almost never happens.

With all that said, his SV% over the last two playoffs is .933. That's higher than his career high, with around a half-season sample size in regards to shots against. That's absolutely raising his game over the last two years and elite goalie production in any context.
 

Richter Scale

Registered User
Aug 4, 2012
1,393
0
Question is - put Lundqvist on any of the past 5 Cup winning teams and then ask yourself could he have performed as well as any of these guys to win just one:

Corey Crawford
Jonathan Quick
Tim Thomas
Antti Niemi
Marc-Andre Fleury

Yes.
No.
No.
Yes.
Yes.

Expand that to the early 2000's and you get a lot more No's from me.

The Yes's all come from two teams (Pitt and Chi) that in many ways have been (in my mind) the exceptions to the rule that you need great goaltending to win in the playoffs. Those teams had the offense to make up for any ****** goaltending they got from those guys. Though even in the years Pitt and Chi won, they also got the best out of their respective goaltenders from that year.
 

HockeyBasedNYC

Feeling it
Aug 2, 2005
19,821
11,417
Here
I don't disagree with your overall point - I'm a huge Hank fan, and I think with another franchise he would have won already. Heck if Hank had played with same seasons Brodeur played with the Devils, he may have out-Brodeur'd Brodeur.

That said, we have seen Hank hit the level Quick was at, but never for four playoff series in a row in the same Stanley Cup year. As much as I love Hank, it's not fair to Quick to say 'someone else could have done it' -even Hank - if they didn't actually do it.

I agree. This is where he is. He's gonna have to play out of his mind if he wants one.
 

SnowblindNYR

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Nov 16, 2011
52,144
30,729
Brooklyn, NY
Lundqvist has never beaten a team he wasnt supposed to beat, unless you want to count the Thrashers.

Strange. Lots of mediocre teams with no-name goalies have upset Cup favorites in early rounds.

I agree with this. Don't know how it's the Thrashers though, that team wasn't good. The Sabres were the closest he came, ****ing Drury.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad