The Legend of Lundqvist

[Doctor No]

A lot has been written about Lundqvist record in "elimination" games.

His record in the last game of a series in which the Rangers either won Game 7 or lost the series is now 7-9.

He admittedly has won a few games where the Rangers were facing elimination (that is trailing 0-3, 1-3 or 2-3).

I'm a bit confused. Why are you only counting seven-game series victories for Lundqvist, but counting *all* of the series losses?

Perhaps this question has been addressed, but it seems like quite an effort to paint Lundqvist in a worse light.

 

[Doctor No]

Im pretty sure thats exactly what Jonathan Quick did in 2012...

Quick received 2.52 goals of support per game in the 2012 playoffs:
http://www.hockeygoalies.org/bio/quick.html

(click on POSTSEASON STATISTICS, column GFA = Goals For Average)

Among goalies that played 400 minutes or more in those playoffs, he received more goal support than Braden Holtby (1.89), Pekka Rinne (2.17), Brian Elliott (2.10), Tim Thomas (2.01), Craig Anderson (1.72), Martin Brodeur (2.13), Henrik Lundqvist (1.97), and Mike Smith (2.16).

Among goalies that played 400 minutes or more in those playoffs, Quick received *less* goal support than Ilya Bryzgalov (3.47). That's it.

It's still a team game, and no goaltender wins games by themselves over the long haul. Not even Quick.

 

[Boom Boom Geoffrion*]

He absolutely was part of the problem. Had he not let in 12 goals in two games in this series, Rags would now be in the finals. And he's not the best goalie in the world right now (Price is probably).

Just stop it already people. You're just embarrassing yourself with these claims.
Yes, Lundqvist is a good and USUALLY consistent. But he's not the second coming of Hasek and he's also partly the reason why Rangers lost.

And despite giving up those goals, Lundqvist still managed to put up a sparkling .928 sv% with a 2.11GAA. Both of those meaningful statistics trump what Price put up this postseason.

You need to re-think your whole strategy in how you evaluate players because you're miles apart from reality. Lundqvist was most definitely not part of the problem.

 

[Zippy316]

Sv% doesn't tell the whole story. Tampa got some scoring chances in this series that are about as automatic as you get, and he even stopped quite a few of those; Stamkos in game 5, Stamkos in game 6, Paquette in game 7, Johnson in game 7.

The only thing you can really fault him for is game 3 in overtime because that was a weak goal, and while his defense was legendary in its futility that night, he didn't make that big save.

It's true people have talked up our defense as elite while still defending Lundqvist. Fans being homers, what a surprise. They've been wrong about our defense. That only time it's ever been even decent is last year, and we lost Stralman and basically lost McDonagh who was a body bag all year.

I completely agree with all of this.

However, it's confusing to put a finger on why the Rangers haven't won the Cup yet. They had their collapse and block every shot years under Tortorella, they had last year where their defense was stellar, and they had this year where their offense was stellar. They've basically been a different team in each of their runs to the cup and Lundqvist has been stellar in all three.

He's human obviously so he can't save everything. But he's definitely one of the top three goalies in the league right now and one of the best playoff performers as far as goalies go. I don't care if he hasn't won a cup or not -- well I do care I'm a Devils fan -- he is still one hell of a playoff performer. He can't do everything and he's certainly given the Rangers a chance to win time and time again.

 

[Machinehead]

I completely agree with all of this.

However, it's confusing to put a finger on why the Rangers haven't won the Cup yet. They had their collapse and block every shot years under Tortorella, they had last year where their defense was stellar, and they had this year where their offense was stellar. They've basically been a different team in each of their runs to the cup and Lundqvist has been stellar in all three.

He's human obviously so he can't save everything. But he's definitely one of the top three goalies in the league right now and one of the best playoff performers as far as goalies go. I don't care if he hasn't won a cup or not -- well I do care I'm a Devils fan -- he is still one hell of a playoff performer. He can't do everything and he's certainly given the Rangers a chance to win time and time again.

It's hard to win a Cup and there's a ton of variance involved.

http://objectivenhl.blogspot.com/

There's an interesting piece which basically determines that the best team in the league wins the Cup about 22% of the time. Now I'm not saying the Rangers are definitely the best team, but it just shows how hard it is and how much parity there is.

He's put us in a position a few years in a row now to the win the Cup and that's all you can ask. The rest is how the dice fall.

 

[haveandare]

Eh, it was tonight too IMO. Certainly. The first goal was soft but what was the Ranger's plan? A 1-0 double OT win? They had 11 shots going into the third period and then, down 2-0 facing elimination, no shots in the final 7 minutes.

This exactly. The skaters were absolutely horrendous. I don't know how anybody can look at those shot numbers and say the rest of the guys gave Hank any kind of chance.

 

[JAS 39 Gripen]

Some of you are just trolligt, right?...... Right?

The King is the best goalie in the world, deal with it

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

Some of you are just trolligt, right?...... Right?

The King is the best goalie in the world, deal with it

This is exactly the attitude that people are questioning. It's not definitive. Most consistently good over the last decade? Absolutely. Best EVERY year? No, but absolutely up there (I can't recall offhand a year he was out of the top 3-5--but correct me if I'm wrong). Won't LOSE you many games, that's for sure. And is leaving a hell of a legacy that SHOULD lead to the HoF. But unquestionably the best? Nope. And that's not a knock on Henrik, we just live in a reality where the goaltending position is getting so impossibly good that it's hard for one to distinguish himself consistently over the others.

It's hard to win a Cup and there's a ton of variance involved.

http://objectivenhl.blogspot.com/

There's an interesting piece which basically determines that the best team in the league wins the Cup about 22% of the time. Now I'm not saying the Rangers are definitely the best team, but it just shows how hard it is and how much parity there is.

He's put us in a position a few years in a row now to the win the Cup and that's all you can ask. The rest is how the dice fall.

Didn't get a chance to read the article but very much true. Once you hit especially the final four, I don't think it's a stretch (especially as they both went 7!) to say that ANY of those teams could win the cup, it just takes everything going right once you're at this highest level. But make no mistake--there IS a winner and no consolation prize. It SHOULD rightly exalt the winners (and the diminishing of team cup wins around here is unbelievable sometimes), but I think oftentimes the runners-up (and conference finalists, more often) get a worse rap than they should.

 

[kingsholygrail]

Quick will go down in hockey history as another Cam Ward except his team was good enough to carry him to a 2nd Cup win. 1 season in his entire career with a SV% over .920 makes him far from the best goalie in the league.

And like someone else said, what does it say about Quick that he couldn't win it in Sochi or even make the playoffs with a Cup champion roster in front of him this year?

Nothing. Quick actually has nothing to prove at this point in his career.

 

[MikeModano9]

Best in the league imo. Not another goalie I'd take for the next 3-5 years .

 

[Fataldogg]

Nothing. Quick actually has nothing to prove at this point in his career.

You are kidding yourself if you think Quick didnt take winning a Gold Medal for his country seriously. Its the last thing he has to do. And Id bet it would be one of the biggest moments in his career to get a Gold medal for USA.

He doesnt have much left to prove, but I think even Quick wants another shot starting for USA.

 

[Kraniumm]

Lundqvist = Luongo. For a period of time in their careers, they're considered to be the best or among the best goaltenders in the world, but they're also Cupless and were ultimately outperformed by their counterparts in the playoffs.

And to address the other discussion comparing Lundqvist to Hasek, no, he's no Hasek. Hasek did more with less and was the best player in the league for a couple of years.

Lundqvist is certainly one of the top 3-5 goalies in the league though, and that group is usually in a rotation between himself, Quick, Price, Rinne and Rask. Same applies with any other position too, there's no constant as to who is the best as it rotates between Ovechkin, Crosby, Malkin and Stamkos or with Karlsson, Keith, Subban, Doughty and Weber for dmen. So long as they're consistently performing in that upper echelon, they're among the best.

From year to year you can make a case for who the best is in their respective positions, but can anyone definitively say there's been a single player who has been the clear cut best at his position year after year? Nope.

Yep, pretty much.

(I'm always curious as to how those goalies/teams would fare if they had swapped around. Time machine style.)

 

[Michel Beauchamp]

The only thing 'The King' has been consistent is in how he fails each playoffs.

His 'stellar' numbers are a result of him playing in an inferior conference where the bottom half of the draw wouldn't even make the playoffs in the western conference. The same way Ovechkin scored a ton of goals in the Southleast Division against inferior teams.

I decided to look it up.

2005-06: 32 games - 16 goals against the Southeast, 49 games - 36 goals against the rest of the league

2006-07: 32 games - 25 goals, 50 games - 21 goals

2007-08: 32 games - 22 goals, 50 games - 43 goals

2008-09: 24 games - 16 goals, 55 games - 40 goals

2009-10: 19 games - 10 goals, 53 games - 40 goals

2010-11: 24 games - 8 goals, 55 games - 24 goals

2011-12: 22 games - 10 goals, 56 games - 28 goals

2012-13: 18 games - 16 goals, 30 games - 16 goals

Those 2006-07 and 2012-13 seasons really stuck in mind, did they?

 

[Michel Beauchamp]

So in series where the Rangers lose at least 3 games, Lundqvist still manages to win the series 7 of 16 times...

...and wins 100 % of the rest.

Nope.

If you only look at Game 7 scenario, he is 6-2.

 

[aufheben]

I'm a bit confused. Why are you only counting seven-game series victories for Lundqvist, but counting *all* of the series losses?

Perhaps this question has been addressed, but it seems like quite an effort to paint Lundqvist in a worse light.

I think you answered your own question.

Just checked...

Dallas Stars 261 goals
New York Rangers 252 goals
New York Islanders 252 goals


Fascinating how a team that can't score was tied for second highest scoring team in the NHL.

Regular season G/GP: 3.02
Post-season: 2.37

To put that in perspective, Chicago, Anaheim, and Tampa Bay averaged 3.29, 3.56, and 2.75..

 

[Michel Beauchamp]

I'm a bit confused. Why are you only counting seven-game series victories for Lundqvist, but counting *all* of the series losses?

Perhaps this question has been addressed, but it seems like quite an effort to paint Lundqvist in a worse light.

It's Ok.

I had not posted the following when you posted the above.

Nope.

If you only look at Game 7 scenario, he is 6-2.

But the next poster does not have that excuse...

I think you answered your own question.
(...)