The legacy of Henrik Lundqvist

[IamNotADancer]

lol ok.

Thanks for playing though.

 

[Michel Beauchamp]

Thanks for playing though.

You really, really want to be King of this thread, n'est-ce pas ?

 

[Lshap]

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.

You're describing Montreal's stats against the entire league during entire seasons, not just one series against New York: Good Corsi, good number of scoring chances, very bad actual scoring. It wasn't Lundqvist having a biorhythm spike and shutting them down, it was the Habs being the Habs. Looking at that one series is like walking in in the middle of a movie. You've missed most of the story. Montreal has spent two seasons shooting a lot, generating a lot of potential chances, but not converting. That's not my opinion, it's right there in all the data.

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.

Whatever your issues with NYR forwards, they still scored more goals than Montreal over the last two seasons. Again, I'm not just talking about that one series, but the seasons before and after it. Yes, New York had underperforming players. Welcome to my world, man. No matter how far down you have to look to find New York, you'll find Montreal below them.

The consolation for both of us is that what goes up comes down, and the opposite, naturally. Our teams will reinvent and reinvigorate soon enough, so hopefully we can argue about who's better rather than who's worse.

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?

It wasn't me who brought this up so I won't comment, other than to say both sets of statistics are pretty damn high.

 

[IamNotADancer]

You really, really want to be King of this thread, n'est-ce pas ?

Lundqvist is the only King of this thread 'Champ

 

[Chimpradamus]

The most consistent workhorse by far of this generation. Quality with quantity. He played on some trash teams for more than half of his career, but still dragged them into the playoffs every season, where they had no business being (except for one season losing to Philly in the SO). When you see the bluelines he has played behind, you just laugh. When you see the goal support, especially in the playoffs, you laugh some more.

If you needed a goalie to win a game this past 13 years, he's the guy you would pick. He also raised his game in the playoffs, but the teams in front of him simply weren't good enough. All Stanley Cup teams have at least three star players that can help carry the burden. Lundqvist was alone in NYR, McDonagh was good, but not a star.

NYR was outplayed in every single series except for the one against Atlanta. Yet they were very close to winning it all, because their backbone was Lundqvist. That is an outlier.

He has been the best of this era. The stats show it, the advanced stats makes him look like he's in a league of his own compared to all other goalies and the eye test has confirmed it IMO. The only thing he's bad at is playing the puck.

If he would've played for a better franchise, he probably has a couple of cups by now and probably some more Vezinas. You don't get much hardware in a bad franchise as a goalie.

 

[ZEBROA]

Is he the best Swedish goalie all time?

He is Swedens only realy good goalie. No Lundy no Gold. It went well this year, but noone compares to Lundqvist. Thats our goaliegod.

Lindberghs carrer sadly ended to soon.
Peter "Pekka" Lindmark was realy great too.

So i dont care if people think he is overrated or has a temper or what not. Up til now he is the best we got and thats with a big margin.

 

[JKG33]

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.

Anyone with half a brain can tell the goalies who use oversized gear (Lundqvist Crawford Bishop Fleury etc) from the ones who dont (Quick Schneider Price Rask etc). You can tell who has the extra thigh rise and who has unneeded bulk on the chesty. Quick is one of the heaviest goalies in the league (relative to height), yet stand him next to some of these leaner guys and they look bigger cause of the chesty.

Since goalies equipment sizes aren't disclosed, and I have no interest in dropping a few grand on Lundqvist's pro return equipment, theres no scientific way to know for sure. But any idiot can tell with just a little bit of common sense.

I'm not saying the NHL gives him special treatment, I'm saying the rule is very open and hes one of the guys who abuses it the most. It's too bad the equipment changes are coming so late in his career, now when he declines people will say its cause of age and not cause they took away his big pads.

 

[Chimpradamus]

Anyone with half a brain can tell the goalies who use oversized gear (Lundqvist Crawford Bishop Fleury etc) from the ones who dont (Quick Schneider Price Rask etc). You can tell who has the extra thigh rise and who has unneeded bulk on the chesty. Quick is one of the heaviest goalies in the league (relative to height), yet stand him next to some of these leaner guys and they look bigger cause of the chesty.

Since goalies equipment sizes aren't disclosed, and I have no interest in dropping a few grand on Lundqvist's pro return equipment, theres no scientific way to know for sure. But any idiot can tell with just a little bit of common sense.

I'm not saying the NHL gives him special treatment, I'm saying the rule is very open and hes one of the guys who abuses it the most. It's too bad the equipment changes are coming so late in his career, now when he declines people will say its cause of age and not cause they took away his big pads.

His stats went up when the league decreased the size of the equipment, so much for that argument. A good goalie will perform well regardless of gear. And it's not like he was the "getting hit" kind of goalie, he has been quite active in his game, he has to since he has played so deep. Last season he's started to be more aggressive though.

---
Speaking of another thing, people know the backstory behind "Lundqvist flipping the net", right? He had been injured by - as always - McDonagh. He tried to get the attention of the refs to stop the play. He got pissed they either ignored him or couldn't hear him, so he stopped the game by himself. He was then on the IR for two weeks I think. I don't care if he would've take off his helmet or flipped the net to stop the play. Flipping the net was safer, but I guess people around here would've been whining less if he took off the helmet instead.

 

[JKG33]

The most consistent workhorse by far of this generation. Quality with quantity. He played on some trash teams for more than half of his career, but still dragged them into the playoffs every season, where they had no business being (except for one season losing to Philly in the SO). When you see the bluelines he has played behind, you just laugh. When you see the goal support, especially in the playoffs, you laugh some more.

If you needed a goalie to win a game this past 13 years, he's the guy you would pick. He also raised his game in the playoffs, but the teams in front of him simply weren't good enough. All Stanley Cup teams have at least three star players that can help carry the burden. Lundqvist was alone in NYR, McDonagh was good, but not a star.

NYR was outplayed in every single series except for the one against Atlanta. Yet they were very close to winning it all, because their backbone was Lundqvist. That is an outlier.

He has been the best of this era. The stats show it, the advanced stats makes him look like he's in a league of his own compared to all other goalies and the eye test has confirmed it IMO. The only thing he's bad at is playing the puck.

If he would've played for a better franchise, he probably has a couple of cups by now and probably some more Vezinas. You don't get much hardware in a bad franchise as a goalie.

So now NYR are a terrible franchise? They havent been sucessful (very few teams have) but a SCF, multiple ECF, countless 2nd round appearances and being a damn near playoff lock for 90% of his career is far from terrible.

I wonder what people would be saying if hed spent his career on truly terrible teams like Arizona, Edmonton, or Toronto. You know, kind of like Luongo did save for the 3 seasons where Vancouver was relevant.

 

[Chimpradamus]

So now NYR are a terrible franchise? They havent been sucessful (very few teams have) but a SCF, multiple ECF, countless 2nd round appearances and being a damn near playoff lock for 90% of his career is far from terrible.

I wonder what people would be saying if hed spent his career on truly terrible teams like Arizona, Edmonton, or Toronto. You know, kind of like Luongo did save for the 3 seasons where Vancouver was relevant.

I said bad franchise. It's you who called it a terrible franchise. And yes, many of the lineups he played behind were indeed trash. The countless of playoff appearances NYR has had the last decade and a half was because of their star goalie, there's no other way to put it. They had no business being in the playoffs many seasons and it certainly showed when they got there. Many, many playoff games was a shooting gallery against Lundqvist. The defense was very inconsistent and shaky, while the offense was mediocre down to terrible.

Just check up the lineups. They weren't pretty. The entire squads were switched - except for Lundqvist - basically twice for very good reasons. The revolving door in and out to the roster was spinning quite fast for a while.

As I've said before, NYR was outplaying the other team in ONE of all playoff series in Lundqvist's career. As for the rest, the opposition stood for the outplaying. All the NYR teams could hope for was that Lundqvist stood on his head for as long as he could muster.

It's abundantly clear whether Lundqvist should thank the NYR for his success, or the other way around.

 

[JKG33]

I said bad franchise. It's you who called it a terrible franchise. And yes, many of the lineups he played behind were indeed trash. The countless of playoff appearances NYR has had the last decade and a half was because of their star goalie, there's no other way to put it. They had no business being in the playoffs and it certainly showed when they got there. Many, many playoff games was a shooting gallery against Lundqvist. The defense was very inconsistent and shaky, while the offense was mediocre down to terrible.

Just check up the lineups. They weren't pretty. The entire squads were switched - except for Lundqvist - basically twice for very good reasons. The revolving door in and out to the roster was spinning quite fast for a while.

As I've said before, NYR was outplaying the other team in ONE of all playoff series in Lundqvist's career. As for the rest, the opposition stood for the outplaying. All the NYR teams could hope for was that Lundqvist stood on his head for as long as he could muster.

I did. Those were not bad teams. They had some real good top end talent. Nash and Gaborik in their primes. MSL was no slouch for a couple years. Stepan, Brassard, Kreider, Zuc, Miller are all good players. McD, Staal and Girardi in their prime on D isnt bad. On paper those teams had some talent are were far from bad.

 

[Frank Drebin]

He gets underrated because he's such a unlikable fellow on the ice. I almost think the opposite happens with price because he seems so chill.(when he's playing well of course)

It's too bad because he's quite enjoyable to watch when he's on his game.

 

[Chimpradamus]

I did. Those were not bad teams. They had some real good top end talent. Nash and Gaborik in their primes. MSL was no slouch for a couple years. Stepan, Brassard, Kreider, Zuc, Miller are all good players. McD, Staal and Girardi in their prime on D isnt bad. On paper those teams had some talent are were far from bad.

Ok, that's 2-4 years or so that NYR had at least a respectable team, how about the other 11-15 years? They had some good top end talent on paper, on occasion, but it didn't deliver. They had no other star players than Lundqvist, that's the problem. Other playoff teams had 2-3 stars mixed with good and mediocre players. NYR had Lundqvist, some good players and usually a bunch of mediocre players.

Look up the goal stats, it's not hidden information. During Lundqvist's career, NYR's playoff goals/ game is 28th in the league @2.37GF/G. Their PP? 28th. Their advanced stats were usually bad, especially high quality chances allowed. Lundqvist is lightyears ahead of any other goalie in saving expected goals for a reason. He had to be the best player on the ice in every series for NYR to have a chance to advance. If he was even just overall good, they were done for.

Nash was trash, Gaborik misplaced under Tortorella (6 goals in 25 games is not a star), MSL was good but not exactly in his prime, Stepan was fine (no more, no less), Brassard and Zuccarello was a good pair I'll admit, Kreider inconsistent, Miller also inconsistent. McD, Staal and Girardi did fairly well under Tortorella's panic system, but both Girardi and Staal were horrendeus with the puck, that was a huge problem. HUGE.

The closest to a second anchor on the team was McD, but he just a good #1D, not a star by any means. The SCF team NYR had was good, but it was not great by any means. They struggled in every single round, just as always and guess why they won those earlier rounds? Because their goalie was dominant. Because he had to.

The only time they had really good offense was then Straka - Nylander - Jagr dominated. But then the rest of the team was bad, especially that bad blueline. When you're surrounded by 0.5 PPG "star" players in the playoffs, you're not winning any cups unless you do it pretty much single handedly. Not even Hasek in his prime could do that.

He gets underrated because he's such a unlikable fellow on the ice. I almost think the opposite happens with price because he seems so chill.(when he's playing well of course)

It's too bad because he's quite enjoyable to watch when he's on his game.

That's a combination of his hatred to lose and the spotlight. Before there were guys like Hextall who hacked legs off. Others ask for (or more like demand) a trade out of nowhere because they are hung out to dry on one night.

But when Lundqvist glares at teammates for making the same mistakes, game in and game out as 3 years ago, he's the villain. When they screen goals that are easy shots for him, with a bad block attempt, should he be happy and cheer at them, when his responsibility for team success is so heavy?

When his D-men do nothing of what they are supposed to do, game in, game out, it's his fault for blowing a fuse. When they can't turn their head for half a second and get some ice awareness and only stare at the puck, it's his fault when they consistently don't do their jobs. And then after the game, he calms down and simply admits he has to play better, because he can't exactly ask of a teammate Chevy to become a Ferrari. He has never publicly blamed his team or teammates for losses, but I guess that doesn't account for anything.

Who said that hockey goalies are easy to get along with during a game, ever? If Lundqvist leads the way and his teammates don't pick up the pace, I don't understand why it's such heresy to show frustration. If you have a desire to win, it comes with its flaws. I can't understand why it's such a big thing that he gets angry at piss poor play by his teammates. He's not the coach, he's the goalie that they are supposed to help. How can it be his fault that he is the team?

I just find it extremely hilarious that a hockey goalie that hates to lose and loves to win, that is extremely competitive, gets scolded for exactly this, considering the culture he plays hockey in. Lundqvist plays better when he gets pissed off. Apparently that is a big problem in NA hockey culture. If Lundqvist is a headcase, then what the heck was Hextall and what the heck was Roy? Other star goalies usually have someone else to rely on. Lundqvist has had no one. And when he had teammates he could lean on (playing for Sweden), they won it all.
---
Also, the equipment size discussion is interesting. No one seems to mind that many teams dress 7'2" gorillas in net, but when an average sized guy plays goal, and has gear within the rules, it's an outcry, because he stops more pucks than others. Because it's his pads who makes the saves on the goalline for his entire career, talking of a very agile and acrobatic goalie. But the oversized gorilla in net cutting angles positionally, getting hit with pucks, is good goaltending. Ridiculous.

 

[The S5]

The most consistent workhorse by far of this generation. Quality with quantity. He played on some trash teams for more than half of his career, but still dragged them into the playoffs every season, where they had no business being (except for one season losing to Philly in the SO). When you see the bluelines he has played behind, you just laugh. When you see the goal support, especially in the playoffs, you laugh some more.

If you needed a goalie to win a game this past 13 years, he's the guy you would pick. He also raised his game in the playoffs, but the teams in front of him simply weren't good enough. All Stanley Cup teams have at least three star players that can help carry the burden. Lundqvist was alone in NYR, McDonagh was good, but not a star.

NYR was outplayed in every single series except for the one against Atlanta. Yet they were very close to winning it all, because their backbone was Lundqvist. That is an outlier.

He has been the best of this era. The stats show it, the advanced stats makes him look like he's in a league of his own compared to all other goalies and the eye test has confirmed it IMO. The only thing he's bad at is playing the puck.

If he would've played for a better franchise, he probably has a couple of cups by now and probably some more Vezinas. You don't get much hardware in a bad franchise as a goalie.

It's this type of post that makes me shake my head. Complete and utter fanboy post. '
Hank was one of the top goaltenders of his generation. Not the best, but consistently top 5. He has no Cup on his resume. Unfortunately, most of his legacy will be hype by fanboys.
Now, if he were to win a Cup in NY, his legacy would be huge.

 

[Its a Trap]

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.

This was complete sarcasm right..

 

[Michel Beauchamp]

Lundqvist is the only King of this thread 'Champ

I knew that you would come back with this or some thing similar...

You did not understand why I used "King" with a capital K.

Some of us do use our brains.

 

[haveandare]

Anyone with half a brain can tell the goalies who use oversized gear (Lundqvist Crawford Bishop Fleury etc) from the ones who dont (Quick Schneider Price Rask etc). You can tell who has the extra thigh rise and who has unneeded bulk on the chesty. Quick is one of the heaviest goalies in the league (relative to height), yet stand him next to some of these leaner guys and they look bigger cause of the chesty.

Since goalies equipment sizes aren't disclosed, and I have no interest in dropping a few grand on Lundqvist's pro return equipment, theres no scientific way to know for sure. But any idiot can tell with just a little bit of common sense.

I'm not saying the NHL gives him special treatment, I'm saying the rule is very open and hes one of the guys who abuses it the most. It's too bad the equipment changes are coming so late in his career, now when he declines people will say its cause of age and not cause they took away his big pads.

AKA, I can't or won't prove what I'm saying but you should believe me just because.

 

[IamNotADancer]

I knew that you would come back with this or some thing similar...

You did not understand why I used "King" with a capital K.

Some of us do use our brains.

"Using your brain" is obviously no sure fire bet that something smart will be said.

Not sure what exactly your problem here is but do carry on. You seem to enjoy yourself as much as a hamster enjoys rolling in dust.

 

[Michel Beauchamp]

"Using your brain" is obviously no sure fire bet that something smart will be said.

Not sure what exactly your problem here is but do carry on. You seem to enjoy yourself as much as a hamster enjoys rolling in dust.

First rule when you paint yourself in a corner: mock the poster.

Bravo.

 

[IamNotADancer]

First rule when you paint yourself in a corner: mock the poster.

Bravo.

Some of us do use our brains.

Indeed, applause, applause!

 

[Michel Beauchamp]

Indeed, applause, applause!

Except that I was not mocking you...

Big difference, enormous difference.

 

[Chimpradamus]

It's this type of post that makes me shake my head. Complete and utter fanboy post. '
Hank was one of the top goaltenders of his generation. Not the best, but consistently top 5. He has no Cup on his resume. Unfortunately, most of his legacy will be hype by fanboys.
Now, if he were to win a Cup in NY, his legacy would be huge.

So, which other goaltenders were consistently top 5 during the last 15 years or so, in the extremely competitive position of goaltending, that is so situational? Can you name them? Again, consistently, this is not cherry picking. And I'm sorry, this isn't tennis, I don't see what more Lundqvist could've done to bring the cup to NY. I mean, he wasn't Hasek and Hasek... oh, even Hasek couldn't single handedly bring the Cup to Buffalo either, even in his prime. Oops. Well, I guess Lundqvist should've done better than Hasek then, there we have it. Lundqvist couldn't top Hasek, what an overrated goalie.

The "fanboys" praise him because he has dominated as a goalie for 1½ decades, completely owned all other goalies in advanced stats, has excellent ancient hockey stats over 600+ games and has been able to give his team a chance to win more often than any other goalie on a regular basis, for 1½ decade. Maybe that's why the "fanboys" speak so highly of him? Just a thought.

If my fanboy post(s) makes you shake your head, your argument of "no cup" makes me laugh hysterically because of how silly of an argument it really is. I guess Ray Bourque was overrated until he made sure he went to Colorado. Then all of a sudden that turd turned into gold. Like that cup held much significance in any way to his career. Or Rob Blake. Or Ovechkin. Nope.

And if the number of cups holds such great significance to players' career (which I might incline you are correct to believe), then the HHOF is a club for political boy scouts collecting medals, not which players were the most impactful and greatest to ever play the game. Because "we only have winners", durr, durr.

 

[IamNotADancer]

Except that I was not mocking you...

Big difference, enormous difference.

Sure. Whatever helps you sleep easier. I'm sure you meant to compliment me.

Is there anything you like to contribute to the topic at hand or do you want to continue going back and forth?

 

[Machinehead]

So now NYR are a terrible franchise?

*Broadly gestures at one Cup in 78 years*

McD, Staal and Girardi in their prime on D isnt bad.

Do you even watch this sport? Do you even hockey?

Yes, he's been on good teams top to bottom, as I've said.

The defense he's played behind has been unprofessional his entire career. Unprofessional is the only way to describe it.

 

[Alf the dwarf]

Well, every nhl game since hockey ultimate team came there is Henrik lundqvist 99 card on every players hut team as starter goalie. I think that explains very well who's the boss.