The legacy of Henrik Lundqvist

[Honour Over Glory]

You need commas and periods. But I think I get what you’re saying. And I disagree. I dislike Crosby as much as the next guy, but he has earned his stripes.

If you're judging him by his first two years then sure what you assume makes sense and it's very obtuse of you and the many that do because people here seem to want to hate Sid no matter what.

 

[Crazy Cizikas]

If you're judging him by his first two years then sure what you assume makes sense and it's very obtuse of you and the many that do because people here seem to want to hate Sid no matter what.

Obtuse? No, I’m free spirited. I do have an opinion, though.

 

[Fataldogg]

Factually, Lundqvist faced weaker forwards taking weaker shots. NYR as well as almost every other team scored more than Montreal did the entire season, just as they scored more the following season. The idea that Montreal magically transformed into an offensive powerhouse for that one series is simply untrue. Nothing against Lundqvist, but the Habs make most goalies look far better than they are.

Regular season does not matter. And dont go by raw scoring talent. Pacioretty is a far better goal scorer than anyone the Rangers had/have. I dont care what people say about his post season accolades.

Montreal had more high danger chances and a better corsi in the series. They outplayed the Rangers. That cannot be disputed. Its statistics.

Price let in basic goals against the likes of Tanner Glass. If a Glass scored on Lundqvist with that type of goal in the post season, HFNYR would have exploded.

You cant say Price was as good when he ha worse stats, faced less chances, less high danger chances, and his team had greater puck possession. Any argument for that is non sense IMO.

 

[Honour Over Glory]

Obtuse? No, I’m free spirited. I do have an opinion, though.

Opinion is fine when it's backed up with facts but when you're just basing your opinion on popular opinion that isn't even formulated by your own experience then yes you're obtuse.

 

[Crazy Cizikas]

Opinion is fine when it's backed up with facts but when you're just basing your opinion on popular opinion that isn't even formulated by your own experience then yes you're obtuse.

So tell me about how your opinion is more correct than mine.

 

[Ocoee]

I'm starting to think you have troubles with comprehensive reading.

My first post was a response two 2 guys (arguably 3) completely going against everyone's opinion on this topic.

My second post was a direct response to you, claiming I'm "generalizing everyone" when I called out the few who have shown not to be trusted on anything hockey related.

Learn to comprehend text my friend.

Who did you call out?
Edit: I am legitimately asking. you went from posting in the world cup thread to the ray emery thread to here. You did not call out anyone. You posted a vague response that you thought was appropriate without reading anything.

 

[IamNotADancer]

Who did you call out?
Edit: I am legitimately asking. you went from posting in the world cup thread to the ray emery thread to here. You did not call out anyone. You posted a vague response that you thought was appropriate without reading anything.

Wtf are you smoking?

Aside from it not mattering at all where I post, I am starting to wonder if YOU actually read this thread at all.
As I already stated there are 2 guys in here who have an opinion about this particular topic at hand that goes completely against anyone who follows hockey without any sort of bias. Why don't you go find it.

It's not my problem that you can't see a connection there, why don't you start reading the damn thread instead of saying my comments were "random".

Anyone who reads the whole thread knows exactly WHO I am talking about, stop being lazy.

 

[Derg12]

Henrik tops my list of NHL'ers that I want to see win a Cup. One of my favorite non-homer players of all-time ..

 

[Honour Over Glory]

So tell me about how your opinion is more correct than mine.

You mean the quotes of him throwing his Rangers team mates under the bus, rushing the refs to complain and flipping the net?

Outside of those facts sorry I don't have any hfboard narrative like most do about Sid in relation to this.

 

[Michel Beauchamp]

He gave up a goal by Tanner Glass for god's sake. I don't think Hank would ever let someone like Jordie Benn score on him in a playoff game.

Torrey Mitchell ?

Alexei Emelin ?

 

[Michel Beauchamp]

I don’t think I’ll ever figure this post out.

Why ?

It's quite clear...

 

[Michel Beauchamp]

You don't know what factually means.

Do you ?

 

[Ocoee]

Wtf are you smoking?

Aside from it not mattering at all where I post, I am starting to wonder if YOU actually read this thread at all.
As I already stated there are 2 guys in here who have an opinion about this particular topic at hand that goes completely against anyone who follows hockey without any sort of bias. Why don't you go find it.

It's not my problem that you can't see a connection there, why don't you start reading the damn thread instead of saying my comments were "random".

Anyone who reads the whole thread knows exactly WHO I am talking about, stop being lazy.

lol ok.

 

[Michel Beauchamp]

Montreal had more high danger chances and a better corsi in the series. They outplayed the Rangers. That cannot be disputed. Its statistics.

Only if you really believe in the magical powers of the Emperor's New Clothes aka the so-called "advanced stats".

 

[PlamsUnlimited]

Hank is my favorite current NHLer, my 2nd favorite of all time behind Hasek. I pray he wins a cup still...

One of the best and most consistent careers by a goaltender in the current NHL. You don't see it anymore. After Hasek, Roy, Marty especially because he played A LONG time and my age has only recently eclipsed his years played, Hank is one of the few to do it and put up numbers even with shitty Rangers teams.

He is not the reason his team loses despite the overreaction from our board. He has clunky games sure. But every goaltender has.

 

[Nasti]

his 2 best chances were in 14 and 15...however the refs allowed a giant goon by the name of King to pummel hank in the crease as a shot was coming in from the blueline in Game 2 of the finals. Goal was allowed to stand and the series was lost right then and there...funny how in the off season the league apologized to hank and the rangers and came out with the stupid interference replay rule, but that doesn't help anybody right now...next chance was 2015 but Zucc gets a concussion in round 1 and then Hank blows a routine wrist shot in OT of game 3 against tampa in the ECF and the series get lost right there.

I remember the first play you mentioned very well. The score was still 4-3 Rangers in the third period. I remember Lundqvist still complaining to the officials 5 minutes later and just shortly before allowing the tying goal. That was the moment I thought to myself that Lundqvist gets rattled easily.

 

[IslesFan2017]

I have no problem saying that Lundqvist deserves better than he's had in his career. I look back at the 2012 and 2015 playoffs as his best chances to win (2014, I just think the Kings overwhelmed the Rangers in the Finals) and it's just too bad that he never had great offensive support or defense men consistently. Otherwise, one of those seasons, maybe things go right and the Rangers win the Cup.

 

[Blueblood2]

One of the most overrated goalies of this generation. Hes had a good long career but the 1 vezina was debatable at best. He certainly isnt the best since the Roy/Brodeur/Hasek/Belfour era like people make him out to be.

As a goalie myself his body language and yelling at defenceman after goals has always left a bad taste in my mouth. And then theres his abuse of the equipment rules with his stupidly oversized gear giving goalies a bad rep.

Where is the proof on this? Did the NHL decide not to make Hank adhere to the rules or is this just those of you who dont like Hank use because you cant come up with anything better.

 

[Blueblood2]

I have no problem saying that Lundqvist deserves better than he's had in his career. I look back at the 2012 and 2015 playoffs as his best chances to win (2014, I just think the Kings overwhelmed the Rangers in the Finals) and it's just too bad that he never had great offensive support or defense men consistently. Otherwise, one of those seasons, maybe things go right and the Rangers win the Cup.

The Rangers have not had an elite offensive player in all the years Hank has been here. Top teams usually have at least two elite offensive players

 

[Lshap]

Regular season does not matter. And dont go by raw scoring talent. Pacioretty is a far better goal scorer than anyone the Rangers had/have. I dont care what people say about his post season accolades.

Montreal had more high danger chances and a better corsi in the series. They outplayed the Rangers. That cannot be disputed. Its statistics.

Price let in basic goals against the likes of Tanner Glass. If a Glass scored on Lundqvist with that type of goal in the post season, HFNYR would have exploded.

You cant say Price was as good when he ha worse stats, faced less chances, less high danger chances, and his team had greater puck possession. Any argument for that is non sense IMO.

Your argument isn't fact based.

- Pacioretty is weak in the playoffs. You may not care, but the stats do (as well as Habs fans, obviously). Almost every goalie he faced in the playoffs has stopped him.
- Price letting in a goal by Tanner Glass is evidence? Lol. Lundqvist let in a goal by Torrey Mitchell. What a silly argument.
- Montreal's Corsi is exactly what I mentioned previously. They spent two seasons prioritizing their possession numbers while having poor scoring. This is their system. You'd like to imagine Henrik Lundqvist was responsible for stopping all those great shots; truth is every goalie in the NHL has done the same. Montreal doesn't lack shots, it lacks shooters.

 

[Lshap]

Factually, for this statement to be a fact, you would need to have measured the quality of every chance Lundqvist and Price faced that series, and compare. Otherwise, you’re just making assumptions based on past performance.

I watched the series and saw the same well-intentioned but futile system from Montreal that I saw from them during the season, which continued into the next season. You're right that I don't have statistical data on the shot-quality taken during those six games, but I did cite all the data from the season that led up to it, and the one that followed. I guess you can call my opinion a six-game assumption based on 164 games of facts.

 

[Fataldogg]

Your argument isn't fact based.

- Pacioretty is weak in the playoffs. You may not care, but the stats do (as well as Habs fans, obviously). Almost every goalie he faced in the playoffs has stopped him.
- Price letting in a goal by Tanner Glass is evidence? Lol. Lundqvist let in a goal by Torrey Mitchell. What a silly argument.
- Montreal's Corsi is exactly what I mentioned previously. They spent two seasons prioritizing their possession numbers while having poor scoring. This is their system. You'd like to imagine Henrik Lundqvist was responsible for stopping all those great shots; truth is every goalie in the NHL has done the same. Montreal doesn't lack shots, it lacks shooters.

What I am saying is fact.

Corsi in favor of Montreal.
Scoring chances in favor of Montreal.
High Danger Scoring Chances for in favor of Montreal.

You can claim "it doesn't matter because Montreal doesn't have shooters" but it doesn't change the FACT that they statistically out performed the Rangers in a number of categories, not just Corsi.

And I'd also like to know, what snipers or "shooters" do the Rangers have? McDonagh was their top point getter in 13-14 (when Lundqvist eliminated Montreal the first time) with 17 points. Who has been their shooters? Rick Nash? Brad Richards? Kevin Hayes? JT Miller? They're all TERRIBLE in the playoffs. Almost every goaltender has fantastic statistics against the Rangers in the playoffs. Ask any person who follows New York. Their scoring is abysmal in the post season. So, I don't want to hear the sob story that Montreal doesn't have shooters and can't score.

Price can use that argument against almost every goaltender but Lundqvist. Lundqvist has played with mediocre at best offensive cores, and brutal to adequate defensive cores in his career.

I also saw someone bring up "Price peaked significantly higher." How and when was this? Because he won a Hart in a historically low scoring year? Let's look at their best two consecutive seasons (peak).

Lundqvist
11-12 Regular Season: 1.97GAA and .930SV%
11-12 Playoffs: 1.82GAA and .931SV% (20 games)

12-13 Regular Season: 2.05GAA and .926SV%
12-13 Playoffs: 2.14GAA and .934SV% (12 games)

Price
13-14 Regular Season: 2.32GAA and .927SV%
13-14 Playoffs: 2.32GAA and .919SV% (12 games)

14-15 Regular Season: 1.95GAA and .933SV%
14-15 Playoffs: 2.23GAA and .920SV% (12 games)

In what universe did Price peak higher as a goaltender?

 

[Newsworthy]

Is he the best Swedish goalie all time?

 

[FrozenJagrt]

I'm not a fan of counting cups when determining a player's legacy. No one can win alone, and sometimes really good teams fall victim to bad bounces at the wrong time. Conversely, there are some players who maybe aren't as good as one would think given the number of Cups they've won. Hell, Claude Lemieux is one of a small handful of players who won with three different teams, but no one would take him over Sundin would they?

What I've seen from Henrik is a goaltender who has consistently been in the upper echelon of his position from day one. A guy who gives his team a chance every single night. One of the best of his generation and a definite Hall of Famer.

 

[FrozenJagrt]

Is he the best Swedish goalie all time?

Some would argue Lindbergh, but Lunqvist has definitely had the greatest career (through no fault of Lindbergh's obviously)