Lundqvist and the NHL Playoffs

[Jabroni]

Hank's best single series was against the Caps in 2009. He almost willed us to the next round.

The game 5 in 2012 vs. the Devils was one of (if not) his single worst game.

Personally, I think Hank has been very good overall, and even great at times, but I would like to see that great level more in the playoffs.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Hank's best single series was against the Caps in 2009. He almost willed us to the next round.

The game 5 in 2012 vs. the Devils was one of (if not) his single worst game.

Personally, I think Hank has been very good overall, and even great at times, but I would like to see that great level more in the playoffs.

SO overblown. He had one average game (1), one very good game (2), one otherworldly God-like game (4), and one very good game that was blemished by a weakish goal late in the 3rd (7), and 3 God-awful horrendous games (3, 5, 6). He had the worst playoff games of his career in that series outside of his first series (that I've erased from memory and don't hold against him). That was the most inconsistent series he's had in his career. Statistically it was, I think his worst outside of 2006 and that's with 3 of the games him giving up 3 goals total. People remember his signature game 4, probably one of the most memorable games of his career and forget game 5 for example when he **** the bed, including a terrible deflating early goal and then 4 more followed.

IMO, his best series were the first 2 rounds in 2012, though he wasn't very good in a few of those particularly game 5 against Washington. Another good one, but also slightly inconsistent is his series against the Presidents' Trophy winning Sabres in 07. Last year's round 1, was inconsistent (1 bad game, 2 mediocre ones), but overall was good too.

 

[Inferno]

Quick gave up this goal in the playoffs the year he won the Conn Smythe...




Fatso did this in OT in the SCF



Henriks never given up as bad a goal as either of those in the playoffs.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Quick gave up this goal in the playoffs the year he won the Conn Smythe...




Fatso did this in OT in the SCF



Henriks never given up as bad a goal as either of those in the playoffs.

What does even mean? Give me 1 horrific goal over 2 really bad ones any day.

 

[Garfinkel1]

This is his year to prove it. I would argue this is THE most complete team Henrik has had in quite some time.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

This is his year to prove it. I would argue this is THE most complete team Henrik has had in quite some time.

I think ever. The Jagr teams early never had the defense we have now and hell other than 07-08 their depth was sort of iffy. 11-12 had 2 4th lines and last year was less deep. We just don't have one top end player playing like a top end player. I'm still hoping for MSL. With MSL I think his problem was pressure, but he's been better. With Nash, I really sometimes question his motivation.

 

[nyrleetch]

Are we not counting the Caps last year as a team that we "weren't supposed to beat"? Or Hank's back-to-back shutouts (especially the shutout in game 6) to help the team win the series as "taking over a series"?

Yeah I agree with you here. People can say we were supposed to beat these teams, yet Lundqvist comes up huge when we need him most. Look at the Ottawa series. Rangers should've beaten them pretty easily yet Lundqvist came up pretty clutch in game 6 and 7.

Lundqvist playoff stats are nearly identical to his regular season stats. Lundqvist is regarded as a top 3 goalie, so it's kind of tough for him to elevate his play to the next level in the playoffs when he's already so good to begin with. There's games where he's come up short when we needed him most, but in each case, in my opinion at least, he was the only reason we were even playing in those games. So do you fault the guy for not being able to carry the team yet again?

Interesting points all around though. I do agree that he needs a Stanley Cup to cement his legacy around the NHL, his legacy is already cemented with me as the greatest Rangers goalie in history.

 

[Khelvan]

Elevating your game in the playoffs is not a trait reserved only for middle- and lower-tier players.

Wayne Gretzky had a 1.92 ppg average in the regular season and 1.84 ppg in the playoffs. Mario Lemieux 1.88 and 1.61, respectively.

Clearly they had ups and downs over their career, but do you not consider either of these two players "money?"

 

[The Lunatic Fridge]

Back to back shutouts in the playoffs. One of which is in a game 7.

Nahhh the pressure always gets to him. He sucks.

 

[Raspewtin]

Back to back shutouts in the playoffs. One of which is in a game 7.

Nahhh the pressure always gets to him. He sucks.

Strawman arguments are fun.

I'd like to see how he plays this year, with the best D he's ever had in front of him.

 

[Crease]

Wayne Gretzky had a 1.92 ppg average in the regular season and 1.84 ppg in the playoffs. Mario Lemieux 1.88 and 1.61, respectively.

Clearly they had ups and downs over their career, but do you not consider either of these two players "money?"

Of course I consider them "money" in the playoffs. Some of their performances speak for themselves. Remember that a drop in points-per-game in the playoffs is not indicative of a drop in play because goal scoring is generally down in the playoffs compared to the regular season. See this chart. No bottom-feeders to beat up on, tighter defense, etc.

 

[jskramer83]

Hank's best single series was against the Caps in 2009. He almost willed us to the next round.

The game 5 in 2012 vs. the Devils was one of (if not) his single worst game.

Personally, I think Hank has been very good overall, and even great at times, but I would like to see that great level more in the playoffs.

A lot of people have been saying game 5 of this series was his worst. While it wasn't his best game blame can't be put on him for that game, as really it was my fault.

After going down 3-0 every time I went to the bathroom at msg that game, the rangers scored and eventually tied the game. I was stubborn and refused to stay in that stink nest of a restroom for the third period after noticing this trend and we lost as a result. For that I apologize to all of you fellow Ranger fans.

To make matters worse, the guy who was with took a picture of the score board when the Rangers tied the game taunting devils fans. Not to mention he was an Islanders fan. Hank didn't stand a chance that game!

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Back to back shutouts in the playoffs. One of which is in a game 7.

Nahhh the pressure always gets to him. He sucks.

Then **** the bed the next series. The Bruins were better than the Rangers, but he was bad. Personally, I never once said, nor read anyone say that the pressure ALWAYS gets to him. I've personally even said that some of his best games come in the playoffs, but also some of his worst.

 

[Fanned On It]

SO overblown. He had one average game (1), one very good game (2), one otherworldly God-like game (4), and one very good game that was blemished by a weakish goal late in the 3rd (7), and 3 God-awful horrendous games (3, 5, 6). He had the worst playoff games of his career in that series outside of his first series (that I've erased from memory and don't hold against him). That was the most inconsistent series he's had in his career. Statistically it was, I think his worst outside of 2006 and that's with 3 of the games him giving up 3 goals total. People remember his signature game 4, probably one of the most memorable games of his career and forget game 5 for example when he **** the bed, including a terrible deflating early goal and then 4 more followed.

IMO, his best series were the first 2 rounds in 2012, though he wasn't very good in a few of those particularly game 5 against Washington. Another good one, but also slightly inconsistent is his series against the Presidents' Trophy winning Sabres in 07. Last year's round 1, was inconsistent (1 bad game, 2 mediocre ones), but overall was good too.

See I don't think anyone can actually trust your opinion on whether Hank was good or bad in any given game because your definition of a "soft goal" or a "goal that was his fault" varies greatly from most knowledgable hockey fans.

 

[Cake or Death]

Yep. This is the type of thing that will be scrutinized when his playing career is over and we're trying to place him properly among all-time greats. His regular season resume is up there with the best of the best. But he's not going to have a chance to displace guys like Hasek, Roy, Dryden, Brodeur and other Top-10 guys unless he has playoff runs like those goalies did. Roy in '86 and '93. Dryden in '71. Brodeur in '07. Hasek in '99. Those performances carry significant weight in their all-time ranking. And it's not like carrying your team on your back is reserved for only the greatest of them all. Belfour, Cujo, Kolzig stole series. Giguere, Quick, Richter stole series. Cam Ward stole a series.

One, it's tough to scrutinize a guy's career when he still probably has about 40 percent of it left. Two, you're comparing him to some of the best ever goalies who all won Cups with multiple hall of famers in front of them. Was Roy great in 85-86? Sure. But he still had three HOF players in front of him in Robinson, Gainey and Chelios, and guys like Richer, Smith, Naslund, and Claude Lemiux weren't chopped liver. Lundqvist has never had a team close to that good in front of him. Hasek was superb in Buffalo in the playoffs, but still about a career .500 guy there without a great team before him. He finally wins a Cup... with FIVE hall of famers in front of him. Dryden in 71, as you alluded to, also had five hall of famers in front of him. How 'money' is it to win a Cup with five f-in hall of famers in front of you? Brodeur has 2 to 3 hall of famers in front of him on all of his Cup wins. Even Richter had 3 hall of famers in front of him when he won the Cup. Lundqvist has never played on a team as good as any of those 'money' goalies when they won anything that mattered. Stealing a few games in one series makes a guy 'money'? In my memory, no goalie I know of ever carried a mediocre team on their back and won a Cup, so I don't fully grasp the 'money' label. I mean is a goalie stealing a game or two to win a series still 'money' if said goalie loses the next series?

Lundqvist is a Vezina winner, a Gold Medal winner, five time Vezina finalist, Hart finalist, and is on his way to probably over 450 career wins. He has more regular season wins and shutouts than other goalie in the league since joining the league, without ever having a particularly great team on the ice with him. Future hall of famer, without question. And his playoffs haven't been bad either. Since joining the league, of all goalies that have played 40 or more playoff games, he is 4th in save percentage, GAA and wins. If he ever gets a good team in front of him, then he'll have a viable legit shot at winning a Cup, and maybe then he'll be 'money' I guess.

 

[Doctyl]

Depth wins cups and this year has a deep team. Should be interesting to say the least.

 

[Crease]

One, it's tough to scrutinize a guy's career when he still probably has about 40 percent of it left. Two, you're comparing him to some of the best ever goalies who all won Cups with multiple hall of famers in front of them. Was Roy great in 85-86? Sure. But he still had three HOF players in front of him in Robinson, Gainey and Chelios, and guys like Richer, Smith, Naslund, and Claude Lemiux weren't chopped liver. Lundqvist has never had a team close to that good in front of him. Hasek was superb in Buffalo in the playoffs, but still about a career .500 guy there without a great team before him. He finally wins a Cup... with FIVE hall of famers in front of him. Dryden in 71, as you alluded to, also had five hall of famers in front of him. How 'money' is it to win a Cup with five f-in hall of famers in front of you? Brodeur has 2 to 3 hall of famers in front of him on all of his Cup wins. Even Richter had 3 hall of famers in front of him when he won the Cup. Lundqvist has never played on a team as good as any of those 'money' goalies when they won anything that mattered. Stealing a few games in one series makes a guy 'money'? In my memory, no goalie I know of ever carried a mediocre team on their back and won a Cup, so I don't fully grasp the 'money' label. I mean is a goalie stealing a game or two to win a series still 'money' if said goalie loses the next series?

Lundqvist is a Vezina winner, a Gold Medal winner, five time Vezina finalist, Hart finalist, and is on his way to probably over 450 career wins. He has more regular season wins and shutouts than other goalie in the league since joining the league, without ever having a particularly great team on the ice with him. Future hall of famer, without question. And his playoffs haven't been bad either. Since joining the league, of all goalies that have played 40 or more playoff games, he is 4th in save percentage, GAA and wins. If he ever gets a good team in front of him, then he'll have a viable legit shot at winning a Cup, and maybe then he'll be 'money' I guess.

All good points regarding the supporting casts those goalies had. The intent of my post was to point out that Lundqvist's post-season resume (whatever it will be when all is said and done) will be scrutinized before he's placed accordingly among all-time greats. And the common trait among guys in the Top-10 seem to be at least one signature playoff run. Lundqvist obviously hasn't had one yet. I wasn't preemptively rating him; moreso musing about an omission to his resume thus far and the importance of having it filled.

 

[Fataldogg]

In your eyes, has he done enough in the NHL Playoffs up until this point to be considered a "money" player yet?

I don't know if I would say "money" but he has done well. He is reliable.

He has a .933SV% over his last 32 playoff games and has done well in the Game 7 slot (most important game of a series). People will say he has done poorly in a game here and there, and he has, but the stats don't lie. He's been a quality performer over the last two seasons. I am VERY happy with his performance. 11-12 we get eliminated in both Round 1 and Round 2 if not for him. Last year, we get eliminated in Round 1 if not for him and Brassard. He also seems to elevate his game these past two years in elimination games. The "myth" that he is bad in the post season is non-sense.

When we lost to the Devils, fans pinned it on Lundqvist even though the only two wins were shutouts. When we lost to the Bruins, Lundqvist "crapped the bed" according to a lot of fans, when we were clearly outplayed and outclassed.

The team doesn't lose series, if you look at a lot of fans, Lundqvist has lost us series (which I think is outrageous).

Overall, fans should be pleased. He has been our best player in the post season the past two years. He is getting paid a lot and puts up the numbers you want out of an elite goaltender in the playoffs. I'm more concerned with some of our other high paid and high profile stars not getting the job done.

 

[Fataldogg]

Then **** the bed the next series. The Bruins were better than the Rangers, but he was bad. Personally, I never once said, nor read anyone say that the pressure ALWAYS gets to him. I've personally even said that some of his best games come in the playoffs, but also some of his worst.

LOL I knew you would say that, that's why I posted it in my post.

He could have been better against Boston, but I don't think he was bad. A couple goals against Krug he wanted back. And one in particular against Chara.

That said, we had NO BUSINESS beating the Bruins. You can't even begin to blame Lundqvist for that series loss. They were the better team, in every respect. End of story on that. We faced off against a Stanley Cup Finalist who is better than any roster we've had since the lockout (including our 11-12 team) and they have carried their dominance over into this season. If we beat the Bruins, who also steam rolled the Penguins (who were a much better team than us too) than it would have been a huge, HUGE upset.

BTW: I'm looking at some of the goals now, and all of Fleury, Price, and Bobrovsky have had "stoppable" shots beat them in Game 1 of the post season. Now Bobrovsky has officially let up a bad goal (goal three against the Penguins). I can only imagine the **** storm if Lundqvist lets up a stoppable goal.

 

[Cake or Death]

All good points regarding the supporting casts those goalies had. The intent of my post was to point out that Lundqvist's post-season resume (whatever it will be when all is said and done) will be scrutinized before he's placed accordingly among all-time greats. And the common trait among guys in the Top-10 seem to be at least one signature playoff run. Lundqvist obviously hasn't had one yet. I wasn't preemptively rating him; moreso musing about an omission to his resume thus far and the importance of having it filled.

I think the last poll I saw HoH do here on goalies, they had Hank at like 38 or something, which is pretty amazing considering he was about mid-career at that point. Right now he's probably on pace to end up all-time 10th to 20-ish, I reckon. But without snagging a Cup, or at least winning a few more Vezinas, he isn't likely to crack the top 10 and should not be near the conversation with guys like Roy, Plante, Hall, Brodeur, Hasek, Sawchuk. Hasek is the only guy I could see ever being top 5 or 10 sans a Cup, but he was that much better than his contemporaries that he could not be denied that. But for Lundqvist, five more shutouts moves him top 20 all time, the same is true with 27 more wins. Hank is def getting etched well on the hall of fame radar and the 10-20 all-time best goalie zone. Can't complain about that.

 

[haveandare]

Then **** the bed the next series. The Bruins were better than the Rangers, but he was bad. Personally, I never once said, nor read anyone say that the pressure ALWAYS gets to him. I've personally even said that some of his best games come in the playoffs, but also some of his worst.

He didn't blow that series. The Bruins were better in every single way. Hank had a few bad goals, but the team gave him absolutely nothing the entire time, and his consecutive shutouts made that series happen in the first place.

 

[sousuffer]

The Richter thing is ridiculously overblown and biased because of the romance of the cup. Many younger fans only see replays of the highlights. Remember, Richter gave up a terrible goal to the Devils in Game 7 with 7 seconds left in the game and almost cost them the series. He also gave a up a goal in the last minute earlier in the series. Richter who was outplayed significantly in overtime of the very next game, Game 1 of the finals. In Game 5 of the finals, the Rangers battle back to tie the game....Richter gives up an iffy goal not 5 minutes later - Rangers lose and almost blow the 3-1 lead. Game 7 of the finals, Richter came up a crossbar away from OT (and he was clearly beaten). Not to mention the first two rounds were an absolute joke - he didn't need to be that good - it was like the Thrashers series. Richter had some great games, but the thought that he played his best (or that Lundqvist did not) in the most important games are not completely correct. He was great and clutch (penalty shot, other great saves in key moments), but his teammates picked him up when he needed them the most and the result skews our memory.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

He didn't blow that series. The Bruins were better in every single way. Hank had a few bad goals, but the team gave him absolutely nothing the entire time, and his consecutive shutouts made that series happen in the first place.

He didn't blow it, but he sucked. Game 2 was ours for the taking, we outplayed them and we lost 5 ****ing 2. Game one, if he's better we can win too, he gave up at least one weak goal. Game 3 wasn't really his fault, but we were up going into the 3rd. He was not good at all. Just because the team sucked doesn't mean he didn't, he's not Steve Mason, the standards for him are higher than "don't lose it".

 

[CDiablo]

Hasent had a great season but has been great since Janurary. I not sure if this team will go far in the playoffs but if we fall flat it wont be because of of Hank.

 

[Cake or Death]

The Richter thing is ridiculously overblown and biased because of the romance of the cup. Many younger fans only see replays of the highlights. Remember, Richter gave up a terrible goal to the Devils in Game 7 with 7 seconds left in the game and almost cost them the series. He also gave a up a goal in the last minute earlier in the series. Richter who was outplayed significantly in overtime of the very next game, Game 1 of the finals. In Game 5 of the finals, the Rangers battle back to tie the game....Richter gives up an iffy goal not 5 minutes later - Rangers lose and almost blow the 3-1 lead. Game 7 of the finals, Richter came up a crossbar away from OT (and he was clearly beaten). Not to mention the first two rounds were an absolute joke - he didn't need to be that good - it was like the Thrashers series. Richter had some great games, but the thought that he played his best (or that Lundqvist did not) in the most important games are not completely correct. He was great and clutch (penalty shot, other great saves in key moments), but his teammates picked him up when he needed them the most and the result skews our memory.

There is a lot of truth in this. It makes sense for people to fondly recall his good moments in '94. But people who were watching back then also remember him posting like an .830 save pct against the Flyers the next season in the playoffs, and the Garden cheering when he was pulled in game 3 after fanning on a weak wrist shot from the blue line, and him being sat the next game in favor of Glenn Healy iirc. Richter had moments where he was out of this world sensational, but he also let in more soft and ill-timed weak goals than Lundqvist could ever dream of. I'm not even sure people are entirely operating from selective memory either, I think Lundqvist has been so good, so consistently, that there are also ridiculous, almost super human expectations on him.