Lundqvist - Two Weak Games, Bounce Back Buddy

[Crease]

Lundqvist's regular season and playoff statistics are virtually identical. So if we rave about his multiple Vezina caliber seasons, why is that not enough in the playoffs?

Because, traditionally speaking, the game is checked much tighter in the playoffs. Scoring goes down. Goals are harder to come by. To have worse or identical stats in the playoffs is an indication that a goalie is regressing in the clutch. Obviously more goes into it, like strength of competition. But even when you start looking at the resumes of guys like Giguere, Quick, Anderson, Joseph they all managed to take it to the next level in the playoffs consistently despite not having the legends of the game in their primes playing in front of them.

I think Lundvist is an exceptional regular season goaltender. And he's extremely consistent, which kudos to him. But he's not necessarily the best at his best, nor is he consistently able to take it to the next level in the playoffs. But when people point this out, the typical response is "look at the team in front of him", or "be grateful, because Mike Dunham". Neither are particularly convincing counterarguments for me.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Weren't there quite a few games where Lundqvists STATS (b/c that's what you're giving us here) were bad but his play was good. games where we got shutout 4-0 (I think it happenned twice in one series). games where we only score a single goal even going into OT. Double OT. The GA isn't enough to provide an accurate analysis.

For instance watching game 1 the other day that was a worse game for him than several games where he gave up 3 or more in the PO's. I'd argue this game 1 game was one of his worst because it single handedly cost us a split on the road and possibly this series. Game 1 was much worse and much more backbreaking as John said than Game 2 in terms of Lundqvist's performance.

I didn't really mention games that I thought his stats were worse than his play. I mentioned mostly games where he was really bad. For example, game 1 against the Pens in 2008 is one of the rare instances where he gave up a ******** of goals (5) and I can't even blame him. The breakdown was something like 3 fluke bounces and 3 unstoppable shots. I mentioned the Sabres game 5 as one of the best I've seen. I also mentioned game 6 as being a bit deceptive due to D and bad luck. The 3 Devils games where he gave up 3 or more, I didn't mention that there were a lot of bad bounces. Still he was shaky in those games. I have a good memory for these things.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Lundqvist's regular season and playoff statistics are virtually identical. So if we rave about his multiple Vezina caliber seasons, why is that not enough in the playoffs?

I give Roy and Brodeur tons of credit. They were great. Its also a lot easier when you have several generational talents playing in front of them like they did. Besides 1 season of Jagr, find me that on the Rangers.

You cant expect any goaltender to carry a team to a cup thats simply not good enough to win a cup.

Reason the stats are so close is:

1) Tighter checking in the playoffs (though a game like yesterday that obviously didn't come to fruition).

2) His great games. If his play most of the regular season is an 8 consistently, his play in the playoffs is usually a bunch of 10s and 6s. It averages out to good stats. However, you can have a goalie be this up and down.

 

[AlternateSideParking]

I wonder how well Richter would have done in a post-lockout, defense-oriented system.

The only time Richter and Beezer saw 5 guys collapsing below the circles, they were wearing the other team's jerseys.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Reason the stats are so close is:

1) Tighter checking in the playoffs (though a game like yesterday that obviously didn't come to fruition).

2) His great games. If his play most of the regular season is an 8 consistently, his play in the playoffs is usually a bunch of 10s and 6s. It averages out to good stats. However, you can have a goalie be this up and down.

1.) I think the "tight checking" argument is a weak one considering the playoffs consist of better teams than the regular season. Thats a bit of a wash if you ask me.

2.) I cant have an intelligent conversation with you about Lundqvist's playoff performance when you simply keep making up statistics.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

I wonder how well Richter would have done in a post-lockout, defense-oriented system.

The only time Richter and Beezer saw 5 guys collapsing below the circles, they were wearing the other team's jerseys.

Well, I know he wouldnt have a Stanley Cup without Mark Messier and Brian Leetch. Generational talents.

Outside of one season of Jagr, you tell me where this type of talent is to be found in Lundqvist's 8 seasons.

 

[Crease]

Well, I know he wouldnt have a Stanley Cup without Mark Messier and Brian Leetch. Generational talents.

Outside of one season of Jagr, you tell me where this type of talent is to be found in Lundqvist's 8 seasons.

-0.50 GAA and +0.011 SV% improvements in the 1993-94 playoffs. Can I ask you how much Messier and Leetch helped Richter stop a higher percent of shots and shave a half a goal off his 1993-94 regular season GAA?

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

-0.50 GAA and +0.011 SV% improvements in the 1993-94 playoffs. Can I ask you how much Messier and Leetch helped Richter stop a higher percent of shots and shave a half a goal off his 1993-94 regular season GAA?

Not denying Richter's greatness during (most of) that run.

But what are you implying here? That he did it all by himself? Not that generational players on their roster raised their games for the playoffs?

 

[Cake or Death]

With all due respect, Mike Richter isn't on the same level as Lundqvist. Richter was very athletic and dynamic, and did make some amazing saves. But he also let in a lot of bad goals, had some very mediocre seasons, never sniffed a Vezina, and won a Cup with a team with five 1000 point scorers, two hall of famers, and Leetch and Zubov running his PP. Lundqvist has never had a NYR team remotely like that anywhere near him (unless he did it in EA Sports).

Lundqvist is the best in the world and a hall of fame caliber goalie. What he does with consistency season after season, Richter did not do, despite having much, much better teams in front of him. The only season I saw from a NYR goalie that rivals Lundqvist's season after season norm was VBK in 85-86. VBK led the league in wins that season, was 31-21-5, won the Vezina and carried an under .500 club to the third round. Other than that amazing season, Lundqvist's typical season in, season out level of play hasn't been seen by this franchise since Ed Giacomin. Just my observation/opinion.

I've been watching the team 40 years and I don't even have Richter ahead of VBK, let alone putting him in the equation with Lundqvist. On that note, the last extremely in-depth History of Hockey goalie top 40 poll already has Lundqvist in the all-time top 40 and ahead of Richter. And Lundqvist is still active and in his prime. When all is said and done, it is not unrealistic he will retire with 450 wins, and may eclipse 500, and a fairly certain entry to the hall of fame.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

With all due respect, Mike Richter isn't on the same level as Lundqvist. Richter was very athletic and dynamic, and did make some amazing saves. But he also let in a lot of bad goals, had some very mediocre seasons, never sniffed a Vezina, and won a Cup with a team with five 1000 point scorers, two hall of famers, and Leetch and Zubov running his PP. Lundqvist has never had a NYR team remotely like that anywhere near him (unless he did it in EA Sports).

Lundqvist is the best in the world and a hall of fame caliber goalie. What he does with consistency season after season, Richter did not do, despite having much, much better teams in front of him. The only season I saw from a NYR goalie that rivals Lundqvist's season after season norm was VBK in 85-86. VBK led the league in wins that season, was 31-21-5, won the Vezina and carried an under .500 club to the third round. Other than that amazing season, Lundqvist's typical season in, season out level of play hasn't been seen by this franchise since Ed Giacomin. Just my observation.

I've been watching the team 40 years and I don't have Richter ahead of VBK, let alone putting him in the equation with Lundqvist. On that note, the last extremely in-depth History of Hockey goalie top 40 poll already has Lundqvist in the all-time top 40 and ahead of Richter. And Lundqvist is still active and in his prime. When all is said and done, it is not unrealistic he will retire with 450 wins, and may eclipse 500, and a fairly certain entry to the hall of fame.

Richter had Roy, Brodeur, and Hasek during his generation, so hes handicapped right off the bat, I think.

No taking away from what he did in 94-97. He was certainly amongst the best big-game goaltenders during that time. What he did in the 96 world cup was beyond amazing.

But as you said, those great moments with Richter were fleeting, and came with all-time great positional players in front of him.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

1.) I think the "tight checking" argument is a weak one considering the playoffs consist of better teams than the regular season. Thats a bit of a wash if you ask me.

2.) I cant have an intelligent conversation with you about Lundqvist's playoff performance when you simply keep making up statistics.

1) I don't think it's a wash. There are not that many great offensive teams in the league anymore honestly. Plus a good defense always beats a good offense (provided we're not talking about the Pens, and even then look at last night). In the NHL teams are talented enough that if you play super loose defense like we did much of the regular season they'l make you pay, even if they're the worst team in the league.

2) I'm not making up statistics. Look at the Caps series. He had 3 games where he allowed 3 goals or more in 4 games to start the Caps series. The only time he did that this year in the regular season this year is the first 3 games of the season when it was the lockout coming off an offseason with no preseason. Then he had 4 amazing games that made his stats look great. That's a dangerous game with any team, much less a not so great offensive team like the Rangers. Ovechkin scores into the empty net in game 6, then they get a bounce off a skate in OT and the Caps win in 6 games, even though Lundqvist wouldn't play any worse in game 6 than he did.

My ratings weren't a stat, but I'm glad to see you misunderstood it. It was just something to help illustrate the point more easily. I would have probably been better off saying that if he shuts a team out one game and allows 3 the next, he'd have a 1.50 GAA like if he allowed 1 one game and 2 the next. Except the latter gives you a better chance to win both games when your team is not an offensive powerhouse. But I wonder if you'd say I was making up stats there too.

 

[Crease]

Not denying Richter's greatness during (most of) that run.

But what are you implying here? That he did it all by himself? Not that generational players on their roster raised their games for the playoffs?

I guess what I'm arguing is that Richter, independent of the team in front of him, generally played better in the playoffs than he did in the regular season. Was it partially due to the team in front of him? Sure, I can concede that. But also, to some degree at least, on his own merit.

I decided, out of curiousity, to look at Lundqvists regular season and playoff splits against same teams. Doing so controls for the "competition effect" on overall stats. Here's the breakdown:

[table="head;title=list"]Year | Opponent | RS SV% | RS GAA | PO SV% | PO GAA | SV% +/- | GAA +/-
2005-06 | Devils | 0.938 | 1.64 | 0.835 | 4.41 | -0.103 | 2.77
2006-07 | Thrashers | 0.903 | 2.69 | 0.939 | 1.5 | 0.036 | -1.19
2006-07 | Sabres | 0.903 | 2.9 | 0.917 | 2.41 | 0.014 | -0.49
2007-08 | Devils | 0.956 | 1.09 | 0.917 | 2.35 | -0.039 | 1.26
2007-08 | Penguins | 0.916 | 1.86 | 0.902 | 2.78 | -0.014 | 0.92
2008-09 | Capitals | 0.882 | 3.57 | 0.908 | 3 | 0.026 | -0.57
2010-11 | Capitals | 0.955 | 1.34 | 0.917 | 2.25 | -0.038 | 0.91
2011-12 | Senators | 0.905 | 2.92 | 0.945 | 1.7 | 0.04 | -1.22
2011-12 | Capitals | 0.859 | 3 | 0.927 | 1.66 | 0.068 | -1.34
2011-12 | Devils | 0.94 | 1.4 | 0.918 | 2.18 | -0.022 | 0.78
2012-13 | Capitals | 0.942 | 1.44 | 0.947 | 1.66 | 0.005 | 0.22
2012-13 | Bruins | 0.913 | 2.95 | 0.9 | 3.53 | -0.013 | 0.58
[/table]

Even if we exclude his injury-riddled series against the Devils in 2006, Lundqvist improved his SV% in 6 of 11 series and improved his GAA in 5 of 11 series.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

I guess what I'm arguing is that Richter, independent of the team in front of him, generally played better in the playoffs than he did in the regular season. Was it partially due to the team in front of him? Sure, I can concede that. But also, to some degree at least, on his own merit.

I decided, out of curiousity, to look at Lundqvists regular season and playoff splits against same teams. Doing so controls for the "competition effect" on overall stats. Here's the breakdown:

[table="head;title=list"]Year | Opponent | RS SV% | RS GAA | PO SV% | PO GAA | SV% +/- | GAA +/-
2005-06 | Devils | 0.938 | 1.64 | 0.835 | 4.41 | -0.103 | 2.77
2006-07 | Thrashers | 0.903 | 2.69 | 0.939 | 1.5 | 0.036 | -1.19
2006-07 | Sabres | 0.903 | 2.9 | 0.917 | 2.41 | 0.014 | -0.49
2007-08 | Devils | 0.956 | 1.09 | 0.917 | 2.35 | -0.039 | 1.26
2007-08 | Penguins | 0.916 | 1.86 | 0.902 | 2.78 | -0.014 | 0.92
2008-09 | Capitals | 0.882 | 3.57 | 0.908 | 3 | 0.026 | -0.57
2010-11 | Capitals | 0.955 | 1.34 | 0.917 | 2.25 | -0.038 | 0.91
2011-12 | Senators | 0.905 | 2.92 | 0.945 | 1.7 | 0.04 | -1.22
2011-12 | Capitals | 0.859 | 3 | 0.927 | 1.66 | 0.068 | -1.34
2011-12 | Devils | 0.94 | 1.4 | 0.918 | 2.18 | -0.022 | 0.78
2012-13 | Capitals | 0.942 | 1.44 | 0.947 | 1.66 | 0.005 | 0.22
2012-13 | Bruins | 0.913 | 2.95 | 0.9 | 3.53 | -0.013 | 0.58
[/table]

Even if we exclude his injury-riddled series against the Devils in 2006, Lundqvist improved his SV% in 6 of 11 series and improved his GAA in 5 of 11 series.

Good breakdown.

Are you conceding that Lundqvist is the better regular season goaltender? Because, if thats the case, I think its unfair to ask someone who is already great to raise their game even further.

In other words, it was easier for Richter to up his game in the playoffs because he was never particularly great in the regular season. Lundqvist, due to his consistently great seasons, doesnt have much room to grow.

 

[Crease]

Are you conceding that Lundqvist is the better regular season goaltender? Because, if thats the case, I think its unfair to ask someone who is already great to raise their game even further.

It was my opinion all along that Lundqvist is more talented than Richter, and generally better in the Regular Season than in the Playoffs. There is something about your second sentence that bothers me though. We'll call it a difference in ideology. Back to the Centers thread for me.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Good breakdown.

Are you conceding that Lundqvist is the better regular season goaltender? Because, if thats the case, I think its unfair to ask someone who is already great to raise their game even further.

In other words, it was easier for Richter to up his game in the playoffs because he was never particularly great in the regular season. Lundqvist, due to his consistently great seasons, doesnt have much room to grow.

a) Plenty of great players raise(d) their game in the playoffs. Lundqvist is a potential HOFer and the best post-lockout goalie, I don't know why it's unfair.

b) He could play on the same level in the playoffs and before you give me stats, I don't mean have half the games be amazing and half be awful. The same level means great but not as amazing as those games consistently. However, the fact that he's shown he can raise his game from the regular season in some games, even under adverse situations (back to back game, in a game 7 against the Caps), it shouldn't be too much to ask of him to have those games, but most of the rest of the time be regular season Lundqvist. He's shown he can do it. Why does he have to "crash" into mediocrity when he' not having those amazing games?

 

[Vickers8]

Substandard Hank won't cut it, we need our best player and best tender in the league at his best

 

[Cliffy1814]

a) Plenty of great players raise(d) their game in the playoffs. Lundqvist is a potential HOFer and the best post-lockout goalie, I don't know why it's unfair.

b) He could play on the same level in the playoffs and before you give me stats, I don't mean have half the games be amazing and half be awful. The same level means great but not as amazing as those games consistently. However, the fact that he's shown he can raise his game from the regular season in some games, even under adverse situations (back to back game, in a game 7 against the Caps), it shouldn't be too much to ask of him to have those games, but most of the rest of the time be regular season Lundqvist. He's shown he can do it. Why does he have to "crash" into mediocrity when he' not having those amazing games?

You hit it on the head SB. Stats don't tell the story because there is an inconsitency in his game. Even during the regular season he has some very medicore stretches. ( first 25 games this year were medicore).

He has given up 8 goals and had the B's have hit iron six times in two games (beat 14 times). He could very easily pitch back to back shutouts again in this series, but he still got beat 14 times in two games. That can't happen.

what's great is he almost always comes out of it and goes back to being "Hank". In a seven game series the damage might already be done though.

BTW, as we talk about stats and which players "raise" their game in the playoffs, I wonder how many people know that Derek jeter is a better regular season hitter than post season hitter. You'd think he hits about .500 in post season the way he is revered by the media.

Perception is not always reality

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

You hit it on the head SB. Stats don't tell the story because there is an inconsitency in his game. Even during the regular season he has some very medicore stretches. ( first 25 games this year were medicore).

He has given up 8 goals and had the B's have hit iron six times in two games (beat 14 times). He could very easily pitch back to back shutouts again in this series, but he still got beat 14 times in two games. That can't happen.

what's great is he almost always comes out of it and goes back to being "Hank". In a seven game series the damage might already be done though.

BTW, as we talk about stats and which players "raise" their game in the playoffs, I wonder how many people know that Derek jeter is a better regular season hitter than post season hitter. You'd think he hits about .500 in post season the way he is revered by the media.

Perception is not always reality

This is especially so when you micromanage a sample size and start making things up.

...like how you decided that shots hitting a goal post count as beating the goalie.

 

[Drewbackatu*]

Why am I "embarrassing" myself? You don't think that with his regular season success, if Hank played like he did in the regular season (elite level) with a lot more regularity but also had the types of HOF games that he's had in the playoffs over the years, you don't think he'd be considered in that league? Real difference is that Roy is a playoff ace, while Lundqvist lowers his play in the playoffs. If what I said happened in the playoffs (maybe not EVERY year, even Roy wasn't GREAT every year), he'd be one of the greats. He's shown that he can have AMAZING games in the playoffs. He's shown that he can have consistently elite play in the regular season. If he somehow put the 2 together he'd be àgreat. The AMAZING games don't need to come at a ridiculous rhate. Just, if he was in regular season Lundqvist form more often in the playoffs he'd be one of the best ever. Seems like, instead of considering my scenario you think with your emotions and don't want Roy's name to be tarnished.

Sotrry! I didn't mean to sound condescending and it's nothing to dó wíth tarnishing Roy's name or legacy. Hànk will probably end up with top 5-8 numbers when all is said and done but he will ultimately be judged by winning a Stanley Cup or two.
It really is a shame that we're stuck with an owner who doesn't give a flying **** about the hockey team and flaunts it by hiring an out of touch, senile old fool as "GM For Life" 13 years ago who is still trying for like the 3rd or 4th time to construct a team around a franchise goalie who has just completed his 8th season as a Ranger and has yet to win anything to date because of said GM who hasn't accomplished **** since 1990!

That's the real story here; not whether or not Hank will ever be lumped in with the Roys, Brodeurs or Haseks of the hockey world.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Sotrry! I didn't mean to sound condescending and it's nothing to dó wíth tarnishing Roy's name or legacy. Hànk will probably end up with top 5-8 numbers when all is said and done but he will ultimately be judged by winning a Stanley Cup or two.
It really is a shame that we're stuck with an owner who doesn't give a flying **** about the hockey team and flaunts it by hiring an out of touch, senile old fool as "GM For Life" 13 years ago who is still trying for like the 3rd or 4th time to construct a team around a franchise goalie who has just completed his 8th season as a Ranger and has yet to win anything to date because of said GM who hasn't accomplished **** since 1990!

That's the real story here; not whether or not Hank will ever be lumped in with the Roys, Brodeurs or Haseks of the hockey world.

I think if Lundqvist upped his level in the playoffs instead of regressed we could have won last year due to the competition (though the Kings were tough but I don't think they're THAT talented) and even would have a shot this year. I don't think that the roster is THAT bad. I think it's good enough that a HOFer can win it with them. Roy won twice with 2 teams that left something to be desired. Hasek brought the Sabres kicking and screaming into the Finals and won 2 games in the finals against a great Stars team. I guess HOF and GOAT worthy like those 2 is two different things. I feel like Hank has the ability, but not the mental makeup. I always thought his mental makeup sucked. In previous years he was prone to having games where he'd lose focus and wouldn't be able to stop a beach ball all of a sudden and every shot would go in (way worse than yesterday). He would also go on long stretches of abysmal play. Though, it's hard to tell if he's over that, as recent as last year he was awful in March, early April.

 

[Fataldogg]

Richter won the Stanley Cup and he was a huge piece of it. Had Leetch not had a historic playoff run, Richter was a solid candidate for the Conn Smythe along with Messier.

But a team wins the Stanley Cup. The 93-94 Rangers team is far superior to any team the Rangers have iced post lock out. Despite their record, the Rangers in 93-94 were MUCH better than the Rangers of 11-12. The Rangers of 93-94 were a top team in the NHL because they had quality offense (Messier, Graves, Kovalev), elite scoring defense man (Leetch, Zubov), top tier shut down defense men (Beukeboom), and a top goaltender (Richter).

The reason the Rangers of 11-12 were a top team was because of defensive system anchored by an excellent top pair (Girardi and McDonagh both exceeded expectations that season) and an elite goaltender (Lundqvist). Their team was too shallow offensively. Gaborik was the catalyst, outside of him, everyone missed expectations.

TODAY, the Rangers don't have one defense man who was as complete as Brian Leetch, they don't have one defense man who was as gifted as Leetch or Zubov, they don't have one forward who was at Messier's level in 93-94, and they're missing players who were historically big playoff performers (Messier and Leetch).

If you took a prime Leetch and a leader like Messier who still had plenty left in the tank like Messier, the Rangers would win a Cup with Lundqvist, regardless of Lundqvist having a bad game.

The problem is, when Lundqvist stands on his head, his team can't generate the offense for him. When Lundqvist is underwhelming, the team plays a hard game. They're rarely on the same page. And for every bad game Lundqvist plays, the defensive core and offensive core play five.

Nash, Callahan, McDonagh and co. aren't Messier, Leetch, Zubov and co. People need to realize that.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

You hit it on the head SB. Stats don't tell the story because there is an inconsitency in his game. Even during the regular season he has some very medicore stretches. ( first 25 games this year were medicore).

He has given up 8 goals and had the B's have hit iron six times in two games (beat 14 times). He could very easily pitch back to back shutouts again in this series, but he still got beat 14 times in two games. That can't happen.

what's great is he almost always comes out of it and goes back to being "Hank". In a seven game series the damage might already be done though.

BTW, as we talk about stats and which players "raise" their game in the playoffs, I wonder how many people know that Derek jeter is a better regular season hitter than post season hitter. You'd think he hits about .500 in post season the way he is revered by the media.

Perception is not always reality

Well I didn't think he was mediocre at all in the first 25 games. He was bad to start the year, but due to the lockout expected. He wasn't at the level of 11-12 after that for a while, but IMO he wasn't mediocre. I think all thing considered this may have been his MOST consistent season. Remember March-early April last year when he couldn't help but allow 3 goals in every game. He's had these stretches every year, not as much this year, with the exception of the first 3 games. Still, it becomes more noticeable when it happens in a small sample size of playoff games and in the most important games of the season. If you take into account all of the games that 1 off month he has is a drop in the water compared to how often it happens in the playoffs.

 

[Fataldogg]

I think if Lundqvist upped his level in the playoffs instead of regressed we could have won last year due to the competition (though the Kings were tough but I don't think they're THAT talented) and even would have a shot this year. I don't think that the roster is THAT bad. I think it's good enough that a HOFer can win it with them. Roy won twice with 2 teams that left something to be desired. Hasek brought the Sabres kicking and screaming into the Finals and won 2 games in the finals against a great Stars team. I guess HOF and GOAT worthy like those 2 is two different things. I feel like Hank has the ability, but not the mental makeup. I always thought his mental makeup sucked. In previous years he was prone to having games where he'd lose focus and wouldn't be able to stop a beach ball all of a sudden and every shot would go in (way worse than yesterday). He would also go on long stretches of abysmal play. Though, it's hard to tell if he's over that, as recent as last year he was awful in March, early April.

I vehemently disagree. And I'm not quite sure what hockey you're watching. Lundqvist stepped up his game, played some of the best hockey of his career in the 11-12 post season, and it took the Rangers 7 games to beat the 8th and 7th seed. Really, put that in perspective. I don't think anyone here will say Lundqvist was underwhelming in the post season last year. And it still took 7 games to beat the two lowest seeds. And I know people will criticize him for his inconsistent performance against the Devils, where his only two wins were shutouts. That's not a team contending for the Cup. Sorry, but it just isn't.

This season, again, Lundqvist played one of the best series of his career, putting in some of the best performances of his career, to beat the Capitals in 7 games. Again, I don't think anyone can criticize Lundqvist for his performance against the Capitals.

If you're goaltender is playing great hockey, and it always takes 7 games to beat teams with significantly less points than you (11-12) or teams with a virtually identical record (12-13) than you're not a team built for the Cup.

People are deluding themselves if they think otherwise. The goaltender faces too much responsibility for this team winning. That's the reality of it. It's a team built from the net out and there isn't enough of a presence amongst the entire team.

Lundqvist wins the Rangers a lot of games. When Lundqvist isn't playing well, how many games does the team win for him? Honest question. Not many.

And I'm trying to be objective. I know Lundqvist played a poor game last game. But until his team can step up and win a game for him, score a goal in an OT for him, etc, it's hard to always blame the goaltender. And frankly, I'm sick of it.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Richter won the Stanley Cup and he was a huge piece of it. Had Leetch not had a historic playoff run, Richter was a solid candidate for the Conn Smythe along with Messier.

But a team wins the Stanley Cup. The 93-94 Rangers team is far superior to any team the Rangers have iced post lock out. Despite their record, the Rangers in 93-94 were MUCH better than the Rangers of 11-12. The Rangers of 93-94 were a top team in the NHL because they had quality offense (Messier, Graves, Kovalev), elite scoring defense man (Leetch, Zubov), top tier shut down defense men (Beukeboom), and a top goaltender (Richter).

The reason the Rangers of 11-12 were a top team was because of defensive system anchored by an excellent top pair (Girardi and McDonagh both exceeded expectations that season) and an elite goaltender (Lundqvist). Their team was too shallow offensively. Gaborik was the catalyst, outside of him, everyone missed expectations.

TODAY, the Rangers don't have one defense man who was as complete as Brian Leetch, they don't have one defense man who was as gifted as Leetch or Zubov, they don't have one forward who was at Messier's level in 93-94, and they're missing players who were historically big playoff performers (Messier and Leetch).

If you took a prime Leetch and a leader like Messier who still had plenty left in the tank like Messier, the Rangers would win a Cup with Lundqvist, regardless of Lundqvist having a bad game.

The problem is, when Lundqvist stands on his head, his team can't generate the offense for him. When Lundqvist is underwhelming, the team plays a hard game. They're rarely on the same page. And for every bad game Lundqvist plays, the defensive core and offensive core play five.

Nash, Callahan, McDonagh and co. aren't Messier, Leetch, Zubov and co. People need to realize that.

Lundqvist has now played 9 games in this year's playoffs and has allowed 3 or more goals in regulation in almost half of them (4 times). This is not 93-94. Only a select few teams can score 4 goals consistently in the playoffs.

Hell we did it 3 times! We did it ONCE in 20 games last year. Stop the woe is Lundqvist his team is the worst in NHL history.

 

[Fataldogg]

Lundqvist has now played 9 games in this year's playoffs and has allowed 3 or more goals in regulation in almost half of them (4 times). This is not 93-94. Only a select few teams can score 4 goals consistently in the playoffs.

Sorry, you're delusional. I'm having a hard time taking this seriously. Respond to the bold sections in my last post. If you think this team is built for a serious run, you're kidding yourself. How did Lundqvist play last year in the first two rounds? How come it took the Rangers 7 games to win each set against low seeds? How good to Lundqvist play against the Capitals? Why did it take them 7 games to beat them?

Nash, Richards, Callahan and most of all Tortorella are the biggest reasons this team is 4-5 in the post season. If you can't see that, I don't know what to tell you.