Best case for Hall of Fame | Quick , Hellebuyck

[Frolov 6'3]

Yes, and I'm correct about all these points.

You response was to say something about me getting data from hockeydb (which doesn't even provide GSAA info). You're really out of your realm on this.

He won the Stanley Cup in 2014 as well with three playoff wins in a game 7, three. One more playoff win in game 7 in 2013 too. He never lost one game 7 in LA. In 2013 he had a SV% of .934 and GAA of 1,86 in 18 GP and LA went to the WCF while just two players had more than 10 playoff points. It was all Quick. In 2018 he was the only LA player that showed up.

Facts

You are very much wrong here already, let alone the rest. You are making up your own nonsense and just says without shame; “I am correct about all these points.”

 

[JKG33]

He won the Stanley Cup in 2014 as well with three playoff wins in a game 7, three. One more playoff win in game 7 in 2013 too. He never lost one game 7 in LA. In 2013 he had a SV% of .934 and GAA of 1,86 in 18 GP and LA went to the WCF while just two players had more than 10 playoff points. It was all Quick. In 2018 he was the only LA player that showed up.

Facts

You are very much wrong here already, let alone the rest. You are making up your own nonsense.

This. If LA gets by Chicago in 2013 Quick gets his 2nd Conn Smythe.

In 2018 it's batshit insane to put up a .947 and go 0-4.

In 2022 he was the only reason the series went to 7 games, Edmonton has had a much easier time vs LA since he's been gone.

 

[SmytheKing]

I'm always going to laugh when I see people say that Quick isn't HOF worthy. Him and Carey Price have almost identical numbers (quick has more wins and SO's but he's played more games so...) but some people here think that one of them is one of the top 5 goalies of all time and the other isn't a HOF worthy player. Ok.

Now's the time where someone chimes in with something about Price only having one PPG player his whole career and ignoring that Quick didn't have more than that either.

Both of them will be in the HOF and it's not really even a debate.

 

[Fantomas]

He won the Stanley Cup in 2014 as well with three playoff wins in a game 7, three. One more playoff win in game 7 in 2013 too. He never lost one game 7 in LA. In 2013 he had a SV% of .934 and GAA of 1,86 in 18 GP and LA went to the WCF while just two players had more than 10 playoff points. It was all Quick. In 2018 he was the only LA player that showed up.

None of this contradicts what I said. When I say "great playoff run," I'm obviously not talking about those that stop short of the finals. This doesn't take away from the fact that Quick played well in 2013, but you have to look at the big picture.

I get that you're a Kings fan and have an emotional stake in this issue. You've made that very clear. Maybe just move on.

 

[BigKing]

None of this contradicts what I said. When I say "great playoff run," I'm obviously not talking about those that stop short of the finals. This doesn't take away from the fact that Quick played well in 2013, but you have to look at the big picture.

I get that you're a Kings fan and have an emotional stake in this issue. You've made that very clear. Maybe just move on.

I'm a Kings fan but I'm not upset or emotionally invested in trying to prove you wrong, just as a preface for the following RE: 2014 since your take isn't an exclusive one.

The Kings played a real murderer's row just to make the SCF. Any of the three teams they played could have been picked to win the whole thing and there wouldn't be a huge argument against that prediction. Yes, he got lit up the first two games of the SJ series, but then he went out and won four straight elimination games, including a Game 7 on the road. Allows three goals over the last three games combined.

Ducks series, he wins two elimination games that includes another Game 7 on the road. Allows three goals in the two elimination games.

Chicago in the WCF that everyone said was the "real" SCF. Numbers aren't insane but that Hawks team was insane. Goes into Chicago and wins Game 7. No goals allowed in the 3rd or, obviously, OT.

Rangers get dismissed since the "real" SCF already happened, Still, doesn't allow a goal against in the 3rd period or OT of any game in the series, Game 3 in NY shutout and his only loss was a game he gave up only two goals. Game 1 went to OT, Games 2 and 5 went to 2 OTs.

All this to say that narrative matters, which is a big reason why Williams won the Smythe that year. Quick already had the "best big-game goalie" thing going for him after the 2012 performance and then another great showing in 2013. Some sort of fancy stat can say the Kings won in spite of him in 2014, but that ignores the actual hockey being played and is completely false. Winning seven elimination games with four of them being on the road against elite competition is a big deal. Tack it on to the American records he holds--narrative again--and I think he gets in pretty easily.

While being exciting doesn't get you in the HHOF, it doesn't hurt that he was also immensely entertaining.

As for the OP's question: winning three awards that say you are the best at your position kind of makes you a lock, even if the team awards elude you. That said, I think they both get in.

 

[MS]

Quick is a dead lock who will probably get in on the first ballot. There is zero debate to be had here. Automatic.

Hellebuyck is also pretty much there. There are no multiple Vezina winners or multiple AS1 goalies (since the Vezina only dates from 1982) who aren't in the HHOF. If he retired tomorrow *maybe* voters would hold the lack of playoff success against him but if he has another couple strong statistical seasons and clears 400 wins even the playoff success won't matter.

 

[Jaytee]

...since the Vezina only dates from 1982...

The Vezina dates from 1927. The criteria for awarding it changed after 1981, but it was always basically for what was considered the "best" goalie during the season.

 

[Sniper99]

Quick is in, no question, Save it (pun intended) with the GSAA stat. Hes got 3 rings, dont care if the 3rd one was only a "cup of coffee" with Vegas. Hellebuyck has a good resume goin for him, hope he gets a ring soon.

 

[MS]

The Vezina dates from 1927. The criteria for awarding it changed after 1981, but it was always basically for what was considered the "best" goalie during the season.

What? Definitely not. From 1946-1981 it was a team award given to the goalies on the team with the lowest GAA, identical to the Jennings today.

The 1981 winners were Dennis Herron/Michel Larocque/Richard Sevigny who were not even close to the best goalies in the NHL. For historical purposes, the standard/accepted way to determine who the 'best goalie' was during that 1946-81 period is by using AS voting.

 

[Nasti]

He has pretty much the exact same reg season #s as Fleury, who everyone wants to consider a lock

The funny thing is that Fleury is kind of the anti-Quick. He had some god awful playoffs that cost the Penguins.

 

[The Eyeball Kid]

​

These are the numbers that stand out the most, to me anyway.
If LA's offense was equal, Quick would have been 47-9-13.

G W L T/O GAA SV% SO SHOTS
QUICK 69 35 21 13 1.95 .928 10 1863
LUNDQUIST 62 39 18 5 1.97 .929 8 1753

Quick lost
2-1 11 times
1-0 6 times

Lundquist lost
2-1 3 times
1-0 2 times


As someone stated, 9 GM's didn't even have Quick on the ballot.
That is just nuts.
Seven gave first place votes to Pekka Rinne, Mike Smith and Brian Elliott.

They are both going in.

Thought for my first post it should be solid.
Bring on da playoffs!!!!

​

 

[Statto]

It's about cups and playoff success. If you play a primary role in elevating a franchise to a place they never been before and have the stats to match its a no brainer



In 2011-12 Quick had
1.97 GAA and .929 save percentage 10 shutouts.
And he had a chunk of 1-0 games where he had to hold the fort.

Playoffs
1.41 GAA and .947 save percentage

Lundquist had 1.97 and a .930 regular season
Playoffs 1.82 and .930

Rangers ranked 11th in goals scored, Kings ranked 29th

9 GMs left Quick off their ballot completely for the Vezina. Meaning they did not even vote him 3rd best in a year he finished runner up to Henrik.


Have no problem with Henrik winning it, he is a Hall of Famer. But to have 9 GMs say Quick was not top 3 that year is not even reasonable. And why some of these awards as the magical key to get in the hall should be taken with a grain of salt.

Quick has the numbers where it matters and should be first ballot. Conn Smyth that same year he finished 2nd in the Vezina tells me he just might have been the best goalie that year. Playoffs numbers + regular season spell that out. He just crushed opponents souls with his ability to make remarkable saves.

And he has made a career of doing same.

I have always said Quick should have had that Vezina. The lack of offense from the Kings that year in the regular season should have meant he won. He played with a pressure of having to keep teams to less than 2 goals nightly that Hank didn’t have.

Hanks a great of the game and there was one other season I thought he was worthy of the Vezina (forget now which), but that year should have been Quick. The ballot thing was ludicrous.

 

[Statto]

​

These are the numbers that stand out the most, to me anyway.
If LA's offense was equal, Quick would have been 47-9-13.

G W L T/O GAA SV% SO SHOTS
QUICK 69 35 21 13 1.95 .928 10 1863
LUNDQUIST 62 39 18 5 1.97 .929 8 1753

Quick lost
2-1 11 times
1-0 6 times

Lundquist lost
2-1 3 times
1-0 2 times


As someone stated, 9 GM's didn't even have Quick on the ballot.
That is just nuts.
Seven gave first place votes to Pekka Rinne, Mike Smith and Brian Elliott.

They are both going in.

Thought for my first post it should be solid.
Bring on da playoffs!!!!

​

Hadn’t seen this quote, thanks. Saves me digging out my old post on this!