Player Discussion Henrik Lundqvist

[ReggieDunlop68]

And Hank already has 57 more wins than the winningest American goalie in the league's history (Vanbiesbrouck). If Lundqvist was American, there wouldn't be a 'discussion for greatest American born goaltender"; it would begin and end with him.

And if Lundqvist were Canadian, particularly French Canadian, they would garnish their Kraft dinners with his post game sweat

 

[The S5]

Hahahahahahaha. You clearly don't know me. This is the first time I have been called a Hank fan. I am pretty sure the majority of people here can tell you I am very, very hard on Lunqvist and criticize him more than I maybe should. Lundqvist is the better goalie compared to Richter though. Winning a cup doesn't change that. Is Ovechkin all of a sudden a better player after winning the cup? No. He's the same. His legacy might have benefited from it, sure. But winning a cup doesn't make you better.

Lundqvist is better than Richter

I think I said that Hank was a better goalie than Richter in an earlier post. I didn't comment on who was, technically, the better goalie (which is extremely difficult to quantify). I did comment on who I thought was the GREATEST Ranger goalie. Who reached the greatest height? Who brought the glory?

 

[The S5]

And Hank already has 57 more wins than the winningest American goalie in the league's history (Vanbiesbrouck). If Lundqvist was American, there wouldn't be a 'discussion for greatest American born goaltender"; it would begin and end with him.

And he was outplayed in his only Finals appearance by another American goaltender.
It's all about the championships.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Richter is a prime example of the type of very good goalies capable of playing elite hockey and winning championships.

But besides the cup there was also the World Cup, the 97 playoffs, the Olympics and other factors.

Personally, I always felt Richter's legacy took a bit of a hit because he was still playing for one of the few teams that didn't embrace a lockdown. trap-style defense in the 90s. Coupled with the Rangers essentially being a trainwreck after the age of 31 for him (God, to look at some of those rosters/defenses playing in front of him), I actually think we've come to undervalue Richter with time.

All true, but it's also a question of longevity with him. I think he was one of, if not THE, best big-game goaltenders from 94-97. Game 6 vs. the Devils in 94, the 96 World Cup, solid in the unexpected 97 run. That was a great 3-4 year run he had.

I just think Lundqvist's consistency over 13 years (and with a team nowhere near the level of the mid-90's Rangers) is more of a marvel.

 

[Edge]

All true, but it's also a question of longevity with him. I think he was one of, if not THE, best big-game goaltenders from 94-97. Game 6 vs. the Devils in 94, the 96 World Cup, solid in the unexpected 97 run. That was a great 3-4 year run he had.

I just think Lundqvist's consistency over 13 years (and with a team nowhere near the level of the mid-90's Rangers) is more of a marvel.

I tend to agree.

At this point, Lundqvist is in his own tier as a Ranger. I'd argue (probably with some controversy) that not even Brian Leetch is in that category.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

I tend to agree.

At this point, Lundqvist is in his own tier as a Ranger. I'd argue (probably with some controversy) that not even Brian Leetch is in that category.

I don't think people who didn't see Leetch play in his prime understand what a dynamic player he was. He's another guy that fell on hard times like Richter after 97 due to injuries and the burden of the captaincy. But in the 7-8 years of his prime through the 90's, he was breathtaking to watch most nights.

 

[Edge]

I don't think people who didn't see Leetch play in his prime understand what a dynamic player he was. He's another guy that fell on hard times like Richter after 97 due to injuries and the burden of the captaincy. But in the 7-8 years of his prime through the 90's, he was breathtaking to watch most nights.

Definitely, but it's impossible not to take into account that he was essentially done as a truly elite player just after his 29th birthday --- which is truly unfortunate.

But when I factor in longevity, performance compared to his peers, and the ability to put the team on his shoulders --- no one has down it for as long, or as well as Lundqvist.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Definitely, but it's impossible not to take into account that he was essentially done as a truly elite player just after his 29th birthday --- which is truly unfortunate.

But when I factor in longevity, performance compared to his peers, and the ability to put the team on his shoulders --- no one has down it for as long, or as well as Lundqvist.

If Lundqvist does not win a cup, I don't think I'll take it as hard for any other player for as long as I live. It'll be a real travesty

 

[Amazing Kreiderman]

I think I said that Hank was a better goalie than Richter in an earlier post. I didn't comment on who was, technically, the better goalie (which is extremely difficult to quantify). I did comment on who I thought was the GREATEST Ranger goalie. Who reached the greatest height? Who brought the glory?

That doesn't make Richter the greatest Rangers goalie. By those standards, he's tied with 3 other goalies.

Championships don't make someone the greatest. Not on their own. Is Andersson the greatest Swedish player we ever had because he won a cup with us?

 

[Edge]

If Lundqvist does not win a cup, I don't think I'll take it as hard for any other player for as long as I live. It'll be a real travesty

That's understandable.

He's defined an era for the Rangers and his desire to win is in rare company.

In many ways, I think his consistency has almost made it easy to take him for granted.

It's one thing to have good stretches, or good seasons. But Lundqvist has been doing this for so long at this point.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

And he was outplayed in his only Finals appearance by another American goaltender.
It's all about the championships.

They faced the exact same shots?

No

So we can't definiteively say who was better because it's a TEAM game. If Lundqvist's team gave up a ton of harder shots to save...

Did you take this into account at all? For this reason it's NOT all about the championships. Not when evaluating an individual in a team sport

 

[ReggieDunlop68]

I don't think people who didn't see Leetch play in his prime understand what a dynamic player he was. He's another guy that fell on hard times like Richter after 97 due to injuries and the burden of the captaincy. But in the 7-8 years of his prime through the 90's, he was breathtaking to watch most nights.

Leetch never even remotely solo† carried his team as Lundqvist has let alone for as long a Lundqvist has.

†Although his performance in 1994 was remarkable, he most certainly did not solo carry that team, or any other team.

 

[The S5]

They faced the exact same shots?

No

So we can't definiteively say who was better because it's a TEAM game. If Lundqvist's team gave up a ton of harder shots to save...

Did you take this into account at all? For this reason it's NOT all about the championships. Not when evaluating an individual in a team sport

Did you watch the Finals? Quick was the better goalie.
If you can't watch a game and see who was the better player, just stop watching. You can simply read analytics and play fantasy hockey.

 

[The S5]

That doesn't make Richter the greatest Rangers goalie. By those standards, he's tied with 3 other goalies.

Championships don't make someone the greatest. Not on their own. Is Andersson the greatest Swedish player we ever had because he won a cup with us?

Richter was a fantastic goaltender, with or without the Cup. The Cup puts him over the top.
You are entitled to your opinion. Mine is that Hank will never live up to his hype without a Cup.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

Did you watch the Finals? Quick was the better goalie.
If you can't watch a game and see who was the better player, just stop watching. You can simply read analytics and play fantasy hockey.

I like the aggressive way you opened that response and then insulted me for asking an intelligent, valid, rational question.

How are you so sensitive to a fault that I hit a nerve by asking if you considered the quality of shots and different opposition both goalies faced + the different D they had in front of them? All you said was "Quick won a cup so he was better". So far, you admitted to completely ignoring actual hockey and just settling for watching a singular stat.

If you did consider these multiple facets of the game of hockey then maybe you could provide some kind of analysis based on what you saw to support your claims...which is kind of the exact opposite of fantasy hockey where you stat watch only.

There's a difference between analysis of hockey vs stat analytics. I'm asking for your analysis of hockey.

 

[Mac n Gs]

This argument is actually happening? Let’s blame Hank when we turtled after we took the lead and let LA pound away.

Didn’t we have like 25% of the shot share when leading in that series. Yeah, Hank’s fault.

 

[mrmovies779]

Did you watch the Finals? Quick was the better goalie.
If you can't watch a game and see who was the better player, just stop watching. You can simply read analytics and play fantasy hockey.

Quick didn't face half the pressure or high quality chances Hank did.His team winning doesn't change the fact.

 

[UnSandvich]

This argument is actually happening? Let’s blame Hank when we turtled after we took the lead and let LA pound away.

Didn’t we have like 25% of the shot share when leading in that series. Yeah, Hank’s fault.

Quick didn't face half the pressure or high quality chances Hank did.His team winning doesn't change the fact.

Now folks, let's not let facts get in the way of narrative here

 

[The S5]

I like the aggressive way you opened that response and then insulted me for asking an intelligent, valid, rational question.

How are you so sensitive to a fault that I hit a nerve by asking if you considered the quality of shots and different opposition both goalies faced + the different D they had in front of them? All you said was "Quick won a cup so he was better". So far, you admitted to completely ignoring actual hockey and just settling for watching a singular stat.

If you did consider these multiple facets of the game of hockey then maybe you could provide some kind of analysis based on what you saw to support your claims...which is kind of the exact opposite of fantasy hockey where you stat watch only.

There's a difference between analysis of hockey vs stat analytics. I'm asking for your analysis of hockey.

My hockey analysis is that Quick outplayed Hank. There you go.
Have you ever played the game at any advanced level?

 

[The S5]

Quick didn't face half the pressure or high quality chances Hank did.His team winning doesn't change the fact.

Absolutely untrue. Complete nonsense.
Take off your rose colored Hank glasses. Quick made a ton of unreal saves while Hank didn't.

 

[Inferno]

My hockey analysis is that Quick outplayed Hank. There you go.
Have you ever played the game at any advanced level?

No but I did sleep at a holiday inn Express.

 

[Synergy27]

All y'all getting trolled pretty good in here...

 

[Filthy Dangles]

Absolutely untrue. Complete nonsense.

I'm pretty sure this can be verified objectively

 

[UnSandvich]

Now, I'm expecting a NUMBERS ARE NOT HOCKEY REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE, but I just want to point out, per Corsica:

At 5v5

We were outshot 163-105 (39.18% shot share)
CF%- 43.49%
FF%- 41.32%
xGF%- 41.26
Hits for-168 (Against was 170)

Expecting Hank to win that series is like expecting the liquor store to give you single-malt scotch for the price of a bottle of Jack Daniels

 

[ThirdEye]

From what I remember Quick wasn't that good in that series... his team definitely bailed him out a bunch of times. At the least he was far off from what we saw during his first cup win