Toggle sidebar

Confirmed with Link: Lundqvist named Vezina Trophy finalist

Shocked at the amount of places I'm reading comments that people are not sure how Lundqvist is final three. Anyone who says that is clueless and simply does not watch enough hockey. Lundqvist was every bit as good as Bob this season, on a team that performed close to the same as Columbus offensively.

Sorry, but Lundqvist should win this. Bob's stats are ever so slightly better, but not nearly enough to make him be that first goalie to win it for a non-playoff team. Not to mention that Lundqvist and Niemi played 14 percent more hockey than Bob, the equivalent of 7 more games, and both won enough games to get their teams in. Bob had a great season, but not great enough to be that first guy to win this without making the playoffs.
 
Lol at people saying Hank didn't have a good season.

You guys do realize he put up his second best statistical season this year, right?
 
Punxrocknyc19 said:
good thing the Flyers traded Bobrovsky although they were stupid to do so :laugh: if the Flyers kept Bobrovsky and became their #1 maybe they would have made the playoffs.... Bryzgalov has been bad this year and a distraction.. good luck with that....
Click to expand...

I always felt that the Flyers buried Bob & trading him would be a mistake.

Anyway, this is about Hank. Congrats.
 
Cake or Death said:
Shocked at the amount of places I'm reading comments that people are not sure how Lundqvist is final three. Anyone who says that is clueless and simply does not watch enough hockey. Lundqvist was every bit as good as Bob this season, on a team that performed close to the same as Columbus offensively.

Sorry, but Lundqvist should win this. Bob's stats are ever so slightly better, but not nearly enough to make him be that first goalie to win it for a non-playoff team. Not to mention that Lundqvist and Niemi played 14 percent more hockey than Bob, the equivalent of 7 more games, and both won enough games to get their teams in. Bob had a great season, but not great enough to be that first guy to win this without making the playoffs.
Click to expand...

Cannot base this on stats alone. I know you watched a lot of Columbus games...Bob was ridiculous.
 
Jersey Girl said:
Cannot base this on stats alone. I know you watched a lot of Columbus games...Bob was ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Not disagreeing: he was ridiculous. I simply don't think he was ridiculous enough to create a new precedent and be that first guy that wins a Vezina on a non-playoff team. I also think we're spoiled watching Lundqvist be so good every year that we forget how damn good he is, but he also was ridiculous quite often and had an amazing season overall.
 
Cake or Death said:
Not disagreeing: he was ridiculous. I simply don't think he was ridiculous enough to create a new precedent and be that first guy that wins a Vezina on a non-playoff team. I also think we're spoiled watching Lundqvist be so good every year that we forget how damn good he is, but he also was ridiculous quite often and had an amazing season overall.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying anything against Hank, and I have a feeling he may win the award on reputation alone. That said, I think if the award does go to Bob, there can be no complaints. You can definitely make an argument he was the best goalie this year...which, after all, is the whole point of the award.

I guess I just don't understand why fans (not just Ranger fans...all fans...in all sports) get so hung up on whether their guy wins an individual award. The only award I'm hung up on a Ranger winning is the Conn Smythe...because it means we probably won the Cup! The rest is just window dressing.

If anything, you can make an argument that another Vezina (or two) for Hank will wind up costing the Rangers more salary cap room in his next contract.
 
Jersey Girl said:
I'm not saying anything against Hank, and I have a feeling he may win the award on reputation alone. That said, I think if the award does go to Bob, there can be no complaints. You can definitely make an argument he was the best goalie this year...which, after all, is the whole point of the award.

I guess I just don't understand why fans (not just Ranger fans...all fans...in all sports) get so hung up on whether their guy wins an individual award. The only award I'm hung up on a Ranger winning is the Conn Smythe...because it means we probably won the Cup! The rest is just window dressing.

If anything, you can make an argument that another Vezina (or two) for Hank will wind up costing the Rangers more salary cap room in his next contract.
Click to expand...

We've seen more than a few guys win awards on reputation. Seems to be the benefit given to guys who have been consistently excellent for a long time. I agree with you, the hardware is meaningless to a large degree. But long range another Vezina or two will definitely help his case in terms of a hall of fame nod.

And I wouldn't have a problem if Bob won it, I am just going by what voting history has done for 70 years in not awarding it to a non-playoff goalie. But the Jackets were fun to watch, and it's a blast how Prospal is still like an excited kid out there. Good stuff.
 
Tell me again how Lundqvist sucks in the playoffs and how he drags the rest of the team down.

**** this moronic POS team. Everyone but Lundqvist sucks.
 
http://snyrangersblog.com/2012-13-p...ers-would-have-been-without-henrik-lundqvist/

"They note that if Lundqvist’s .926 save percentage, fifth in the league, was replaced by the league average if .912, the Rangers would have given up 17 more goals.

They estimate that two goals equal one point in the standings and that not having Lundqvist would have cost the Rangers four wins/eight points. They note that the Rangers made the playoffs by five points this season so it’s likely that with just an average goalie the Rangers would not have made the playoffs.

In his career, Lundqvist has led the Rangers to the playoffs in seven of his eight seasons, but replacing him over that time with an average goalie would have seen the Rangers give up 162 more goals over that span and likely only make the playoffs twice."
 
Which shows his value, but somewhat disputes the claim that we'd "Be a lottery team" - which has always been hyperbole, I feel.
 
turcotte8 said:
http://snyrangersblog.com/2012-13-p...ers-would-have-been-without-henrik-lundqvist/

"They note that if Lundqvist’s .926 save percentage, fifth in the league, was replaced by the league average if .912, the Rangers would have given up 17 more goals.

They estimate that two goals equal one point in the standings and that not having Lundqvist would have cost the Rangers four wins/eight points. They note that the Rangers made the playoffs by five points this season so it’s likely that with just an average goalie the Rangers would not have made the playoffs.

In his career, Lundqvist has led the Rangers to the playoffs in seven of his eight seasons, but replacing him over that time with an average goalie would have seen the Rangers give up 162 more goals over that span and likely only make the playoffs twice."
Click to expand...
A WAR (Wins against replacement) stat for goalies would be pretty cool if someone could formulate it
 
Fitzy said:
Which shows his value, but somewhat disputes the claim that we'd "Be a lottery team" - which has always been hyperbole, I feel.
Click to expand...

Well, every team that misses the PO's is a "lottery team," so saying that we'd be a lottery team w/o him is very true.
 
Grind Jam Grind said:
Well, every team that misses the PO's is a "lottery team," so saying that we'd be a lottery team w/o him is very true.
Click to expand...

I guess with the new rules, technically you're correct. It means in somewhat less formal terms a bottom 5 team.
 
Fitzy said:
I guess with the new rules, technically you're correct. It means in somewhat less formal terms a bottom 5 team.
Click to expand...

Nah, even before the new rules, every team that missed was in the lottery. The only rule that changed is that the winner now picks first, whereas it used to be that the winner would only move up 4 spots.

Case in point, the 2011 Devils. Missed the playoffs, not the top 5 worst team, but moved up from 8th to 4th.
 
Grind Jam Grind said:
Nah, even before the new rules, every team that missed was in the lottery. The only rule that changed is that the winner now picks first, whereas it used to be that the winner would only move up 4 spots.

Case in point, the 2011 Devils. Missed the playoffs, not the top 5 worst team, but moved up from 8th to 4th.
Click to expand...

It has been a long weekend. Right again.

Incidentally, I still think its a crime Rask wasn't nominated. He's consolidated his good play with this postseason, even though it doesn't affect the voting, I think he'd be a strong Conn Smythe candidate should Boston win.
 
Fitzy said:
It has been a long weekend. Right again.

Incidentally, I still think its a crime Rask wasn't nominated. He's consolidated his good play with this postseason, even though it doesn't affect the voting, I think he'd be a strong Conn Smythe candidate should Boston win.
Click to expand...

Maybe.

But Krejci is red hot too. 19 points in 12 games.
 
Say goodbye to future Vezina nominations Hank. Now that Torts is gone you're not gonna be a good goalie according to some :nod:
 
jcman said:
Say goodbye to future Vezina nominations Hank. Now that Torts is gone you're not gonna be a good goalie according to some :nod:
Click to expand...

It's going to be interesting to say the least. On the one hand, chances are the Rangers are going to play a less defensive system.

On the other hand, if the new coach doesn't demand shot blocking like Torts did, Henrik will see way more shots from the point, and less shots will be deflecting off our own guys and in.

I'd say Hank rolls around the end of the season with a 2.3-2.45 GAA next year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom