Lundqvist Sucks In Big Games

[Traitor8]

If I state an opinion with a bunch of supporting data and you respond with literally nothing but an opinion, and zero to back it, your response is irrelevant. Explain why he is or isn't number one, or explain why someone else is or is not better. Otherwise, your opinion on the matter is irrelevant.

I explained it over and over again. You say look at Lundqvist stats over his career, he is so good, he is so much better than ...

That doesn't make sense. I have never argued that Henrik doesn't have better career stats or better career thus far than many goalie but I'm talking about today, is Henrik considered the best goalie without an argument?

I personally would list Quick #1 and then you got a big pot where Rask, Lundqvist, Price among other goalies are in.

 

[Miamipuck]

He didn't. He said that Lundqvist hasn't outplayed Tokarski this series and he is right.

"Everybody talks about how he's a great goalie. Has he been better [than Tokarski] this series? I don't think so" - Rene Bourque

Even better, it's just as dumb as saying Tokarski is the better goalie. No he isn't right.

 

[Cake or Death]

I explained it over and over again. You say look at Lundqvist stats over his career, he is so good, he is so much better than ...

That doesn't make sense. I have never argued that Henrik doesn't have better career stats or better career thus far than many goalie but I'm talking about today, is Henrik considered the best goalie without an argument?

I personally would list Quick #1 and then you got a big pot where Rask, Lundqvist, Price among other goalies are in.

I can at least buy into the bolded as some kind of viable counter response. And I watch enough hockey around the league that if someone feels Quick is the best, I won't argue against them. Fact is, we could argue in circles using selective stats to support our cases with both guys, but I have no issue personally with someone stating Quick... he has a pretty stellar playoff resume.

 

[jerseyjinx94]

I didn't say anything wrong or anything to antagonize Rangers fans. I'm just stating my opinion and the opinion shared by many fans around the league. That opinion is that Lundqvist is a great goalie but to say he's "the best" is absurd.

You bring up the length of time a goalie has been at his peak but that describes more somebody's career than the fact that he's actually better. Rask is 27, Price is 26, Quick is 28 so of course Lundqvist has had a better track record thus far because he's had more years to add to his stats but this doesn't mean that today, as we speak, he's considered #1 based on the history of his career. It doesn't work that way.

Imagine you go up to somebody and say "well, Lundqvist was a beast in 2009 and 2010 so this means that today, in 2014, he's a better goalie than player X" ...

First off, it may not be "intended" to antagonize anyone, but it's surely reckless as to that fact, considering what transpired the night before and what is at stake. You should know better.

Secondly, of course his consistency matters. That's part of what makes him so great. Until Rask or Quick consistently put up numbers that Hank CONTINUES TO PUT UP, they will be a notch below him. I left Price off because he is not yet in this equation. He's too inconsistent.

I don't understand what you don't understand about past stats. So is Ben Bishop the best goalie in the league? If all you look at is 2014, then yes he is. You have to take everything into consideration, and that includes the fact that for 10 years Hank has been a top 3 goalie in the game, and no one else during that stretch has been. To me, that shows a level of play that no one else has yet reached. Until those other guys can prove that they can do that, or Hank's game slips, whichever comes first, he is the best in the league.

Mind you, it's not like we're pointing to the past years and being like "LOOK HOW GOOD HE WAS IN 2009!" The thing is, he's still that good. He hasn't declined. He made an adjustment this year with AV's style but figured it out in December and still put up amazing numbers. So like I said, still high performance level, 10 years of consistency vs. equal performance level, a few years consistency or better performance level, no years consistency.

Does that make it clearer?

 

[poeman]

He really looked tired and sloppy on his efforts on this goals. Like he was slow...We need him to pull out here with his teammates. Bring the energy and control the pace of the game at Home

 

[jerseyjinx94]

I can at least buy into the bolded as some kind of viable counter response. And I watch enough hockey around the league that if someone feels Quick is the best, I won't argue against them. Fact is, we could argue in circles using selective stats to support our cases with both guys, but I have no issue personally with someone stating Quick... he has a pretty stellar playoff resume.

Yeah, but including Price just totally discredited himself. I can buy into Quick being better too only because of the Cup ring.

 

[Doctyl]

Dude just quit trolling. You come into our boards and start crapping on Lundqvist, you're clearly just trying to stir **** up here

 

[sark76]

2 games to dispel this thread...very strong suspicion he does.

 

[Fletch]

jinx...

the rub is that everyone has their own definition of best. It is a subjective term, but becomes less subjective if you provide guidelines for determining the best, which then again becomes subjective as the terms to include are. Many will say Lundqvist because he's been fairly consistent throughout a period of time and seems (save for last night's game) to now be playing the best hockey of his career. Some will say others and base their opinion on a shorter period of time. A playoff series. A few playoff series. A couple regular seasons. Every season there will be a different "best" goalie. Every playoffs there will be a different "best" goalie. I'm sure last season many would've said Crawford during the playoffs. A season before Quick. Some in Jersey were probably still saying Brodeur. Everyone uses different criteria and thus the differing opinions. Some do not want to back it up with numbers - and sometimes, the numbers do lie. Can the best goalie in the league play behind the worst team in the league? Would it be reasonable to assume his stats would be that of a goalie who plays behind the best team in the league? Tough stuff. Also, for whatever reason, there are Lundqvist detractors and they will find whatever reason possible to bring out the negative, and perhaps whoever wins the Cup is the best goalie, and each season that will likely change. Or another goalie got robbed because his team sucked in front of him. Personally, it's hard for me not to include the today, and the yesterday for Lundqvist and say it would be difficult to state he's not top 5, probably top 3, and has been since he gained that consistency once joining the league.

 

[Miamipuck]

He really looked tired and sloppy on his efforts on this goals. Like he was slow...We need him to pull out here with his teammates. Bring the energy and control the pace of the game at Home

I wish Av could have pulled 3/4 of the team with Hank, they were all pathetic last night.

 

[poeman]

I wish Av could have pulled 3/4 of the team with Hank, they were all pathetic last night.

Every team goes through stinkers in a run alot of the time...Just need to hope this was a stinker and not like the Penguins series where they fell flat.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

I wish Av could have pulled 3/4 of the team with Hank, they were all pathetic last night.

Agreed. Talbot sucked too. Tokarski sucked as well. No goalie was safe.

Just a sloppy, wild game.

 

[Vickers8]

Even better, it's just as dumb as saying Tokarski is the better goalie. No he isn't right.

Dusty and his 852 save pct last night really stood out

 

[Miamipuck]

Dusty and his 852 save pct last night really stood out

Yeah I want to know how Tokarski inspired enough confidence to talk **** about Hank.

 

[Miamipuck]

Agreed. Talbot sucked too. Tokarski sucked as well. No goalie was safe.

Just a sloppy, wild game.

Lost in all of this was Tokarski was worse than Hank last night.

 

[McRanger]

Every team goes through stinkers in a run alot of the time...Just need to hope this was a stinker and not like the Penguins series where they fell flat.

They looked exactly like they did in the Pitt series before the run.

Despite scoring 4 goals you can count on one hand the amount of crisp passes successfully completed.

 

[GordonGecko]

Henrik Lundqvist playoff games after letting in 4+ goals: 5-1 with 1.17 Goals per game with a save % of .963.

 

[McD27]

Lost in all of this was Tokarski was worse than Hank last night.

and we still lost..

 

[Miamipuck]

and we still lost..

I am not denying that, the rest of team was just brutal. My point was the game was winnable, they're goalie was awful for once, they showed up expecting to win, instead of playing to win.

 

[McD27]

Henrik Lundqvist playoff games after letting in 4+ goals: 5-1 with 1.17 Goals per game with a save % of .963.

actually a negative as I believe in the law of averages. Same goes for game 7 if we don't win tomorrow.

 

[Miamipuck]

actually a negative as I believe in the law of averages. Same goes for game 7 if we don't win tomorrow.

How is that a negative?

 

[Sentinels]

Lost in all of this was Tokarski was worse than Hank last night.

Not sure if Tokarski was worse, outside of the first goal he let in, the rest of the goals weren't really his fault. He did make a big lucky save on the 2 on 1 and made the important saves in the 3rd.

 

[McD27]

I am not denying that, the rest of team was just as culpable. My point was the game was winnable, they're goalie was awful for once, they showed up expecting to win, instead of playing to win.

that's exactly what bothers me. It was so winnable especially after we tied it up. 4 goals on like 19 shots. I worry that sometimes these missed opportunities result in changing the whole dynamic of a series.

 

[Miamipuck]

Not sure if Tokarski was worse, outside of the first goal he let in, the rest of the goals weren't really his fault. He did make a big lucky save on the 2 on 1 and made the important saves in the 3rd.

I guess you missed the part he was fighting the puck all night long. He made easy long shots look difficult and he was out of position quite a bit. Kreiders goal he was way out of the net. I have been watching hockey for 38 years, I can tell when a goalie isn't sharp. He was awful last night.

 

[Vickers8]

I guess you missed the part he was fighting the puck all night long. He made easy long shots look difficult and he was out of position quite a bit. Kreiders goal he was way out of the net. I have been watching hockey for 38 years, I can tell when a goalie isn't sharp. He was awful last night.

I agree he's shaky at best, he has 5 guys clogging the front of the net to protect him, so we can't get to the rebounds, if we get to some of these rebounds he will look even worse