Lundqvist - Two Weak Games, Bounce Back Buddy

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

I do agree with that.

Anyway, when us goalies reflect on a performance, we want pretty much every goal back. Screens, maybe I should have done more to look around the defenseman before the shot got off. Two-on-ones, maybe I should not have cheated too much towards the potential pass. Breakaways, I should have let him make the first move. Deflections, I just wasn't quick enough to adjust on that one.

At the end of the day, its about making the saves that need to be stopped. Clutchness measured. No one remembers the softies that Richter gave up. They remember him slamming the door shut on Vancouver's best player on the road in Game 4 of the finals, securing a 3-1 series lead. I cannot tell you how differently Richter's legacy would be if Bure scores on that penalty shot and Vancouver goes on to win the game and series. It's interesting how things work out.

Great point. The signature playoff moment is what Lundqvist lacks, but I still maintain its because he lacks a good enough team to get him there.

Ill remember that Game 4 Bure moment for as long as I live. It buries a lot of other ugly Richter moments including:

- the 1992 Ron Francis goal from beyond the blueline
-1994 2nd round vs. Caps - Kevin Hatcher scores from his own end
-1994 Game 7 vs. Devils - late goal
-1994 Game 1 vs. Canucks - late goal
-1994 Game 5 vs. Canucks - a real stinker

 

[Jersey Girl]

They wouldve with Henrik Lundqvist. Maybe multiple cups.

Maybe...maybe not. Stating they would have won with Lundqvist is your opinion. Stating they did win with Mike Richter is a fact.

Not sure what your point is - Messier won 5 cups without Richter. Are you disagreeing that Richter had the luxury of much, much better players in front of him?

While Richter certainly did have much, much better players on that team, Hank is on a team that plays a much, much more defensive system, designed to protect our goalie, than Richter was. Richter did not have that benefit.

Please note I am not here to disparage Hank...I love Hank, and I'm rooting with all my heart he accomplishes everything Mike Richter did in the playoffs. But people who rationalize what Mike Richter did, and what he meant to that Ranger team, either do not remember or were too young to appreciate Mike Richter's role in that championship.

Hank's play in the Stanley Cup semifinals was...looking for a word...inconsistent? Not Hank-like? What Mike Richter did in the semifinals and Stanley Cup finals was special.

Let's Go Hank!!!

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Maybe...maybe not. Stating they would have won with Lundqvist is your opinion. Stating they did win with Mike Richter is a fact.



While Richter certainly did have much, much better players on that team, Hank is on a team that plays a much, much more defensive system, designed to protect our goalie, than Richter was. Richter did not have that benefit.

Please note I am not here to disparage Hank...I love Hank, and I'm rooting with all my heart he accomplishes everything Mike Richter did in the playoffs. But people who rationalize what Mike Richter did, and what he meant to that Ranger team, either do not remember or were too young to appreciate Mike Richter's role in that championship.

Hank's play in the Stanley Cup semifinals was...looking for a word...inconsistent? Not Hank-like? What Mike Richter did in the semifinals and Stanley Cup finals was special.

Let's Go Hank!!!

I remember 1994 just fine, and I remember Richter being the 3rd biggest piece of that winning puzzle behind Leetch and Messier.

Lundqvist is the most important piece to this organization for the past 8 seasons, and no one else comes close, at all. Hes not going to play perfect, just like Richter didnt play perfectly - despite the romanticized versions of a cup win. The bigger issue is Richter had quite a few guys capable of bailing him out while Lundqvist has nobody.

 

[Bluenote13]

I remember 1994 just fine, and I remember Richter being the 3rd biggest piece of that winning puzzle behind Leetch and Messier.

Lundqvist is the most important piece to this organization for the past 8 seasons, and no one else comes close, at all. Hes not going to play perfect, just like Richter didnt play perfectly - despite the romanticized versions of a cup win. The bigger issue is Richter had quite a few guys capable of bailing him out while Lundqvist has nobody.

Agreed.

Playing a defensive system guarantees nothing for goalies, look at Brodeur. As much as we all would love to crucify him for the teams in front of him, he still had to make big saves when it mattered and he did. Just like Hank does. 35, 48, 32 shots faced the last 3 games, yeah, thats some 'defensive shutdown' infront of him.

Fans take him for granted, just like Leetch who was 'not a good leader', remember that one ?

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Agreed.

Playing a defensive system guarantees nothing for goalies, look at Brodeur. As much as we all would love to crucify him for the teams in front of him, he still had to make big saves when it mattered and he did. Just like Hank does. 35, 48, 32 shots faced the last 3 games, yeah, thats some 'defensive shutdown' infront of him.

Fans take him for granted, just like Leetch who was 'not a good leader', remember that one ?

Shot totals don't mean that much. What are the chances against? Until the 3rd period last game, the chances weren't anything special and then the team completely fell apart. The chances weren't anything special in game 1 either, except when the Bruins hit the post.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Agreed.

Playing a defensive system guarantees nothing for goalies, look at Brodeur. As much as we all would love to crucify him for the teams in front of him, he still had to make big saves when it mattered and he did. Just like Hank does. 35, 48, 32 shots faced the last 3 games, yeah, thats some 'defensive shutdown' infront of him.

Fans take him for granted, just like Leetch who was 'not a good leader', remember that one ?

Sure do. He took over the C and presided over some of the ********* teams known to man. If he were a "good leader" they would've competed.

 

[Crease]

Sure do. He took over the C and presided over some of the ********* teams known to man. If he were a "good leader" they would've competed.

NY sports fans don't like the quiet leaders. They prefer players who aren't as capable, as long as they wear their hearts on their sleeves. Another good example, Carlos Beltran of the Mets.

 

[nyranger61494]

NY sports fans don't like the quiet leaders. They prefer players who aren't as capable, as long as they wear their hearts on their sleeves. Another good example, Carlos Beltran of the Mets.

How about Ryan Callahan? Some people on this board fly off the handle because Callahan refuses to in the media after disappointing Rangers performances. Some in the fanbase hate how Torts is in dealing with the media and how much he airs and some hate that Cally doesn't do just that...you can't please everybody.

 

[nyranger61494]

Great point. The signature playoff moment is what Lundqvist lacks, but I still maintain its because he lacks a good enough team to get him there.

Ill remember that Game 4 Bure moment for as long as I live. It buries a lot of other ugly Richter moments including:

- the 1992 Ron Francis goal from beyond the blueline
-1994 2nd round vs. Caps - Kevin Hatcher scores from his own end
-1994 Game 7 vs. Devils - late goal
-1994 Game 1 vs. Canucks - late goal
-1994 Game 5 vs. Canucks - a real stinker

Tremendous post. I was too young to remember but have gone back and re-watched every playoff game from 1994 and the Devils/Canucks series games multiple times. Richter had his share of great and poor moments alike. His role in the Messier Guarantee game is greatly overshadowed by the Captain but he was superb. It's a little hard to fault him on the Zelepuke-in goal because he got about three or four hacks at Richter before it finally went in but it's an excellent point.

The goal at the end of Game 1 vs Vancouver was uber soft and the Rangers had over 50 shots in the game. Leetch rings it off the iron in OT and then Vancouver scores on pretty much their first and only good scoring chance in the extra frame.

I know a lot of Rangers fans (some on this board) who contend that 1992 team was better than the 1994 team and should have hoisted the Cup but that Francis goal really sunk them.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

How about Ryan Callahan? Some people on this board fly off the handle because Callahan refuses to in the media after disappointing Rangers performances. Some in the fanbase hate how Torts is in dealing with the media and how much he airs and some hate that Cally doesn't do just that...you can't please everybody.

Callahan leads by example - on the ice, despite some limited capabilities. Hes the perfect captain for the type of team this is. Reminds me of Kelly Kisio a bit.

Fans are emotional. They want the leaders of their team to be emotional too. Unfortunately, they dont realize that one of the major keys to being successful is the ability to keep one's emotions in check.

 

[Nac Mac Feegle]

Agreed.

Playing a defensive system guarantees nothing for goalies, look at Brodeur. As much as we all would love to crucify him for the teams in front of him, he still had to make big saves when it mattered and he did. Just like Hank does. 35, 48, 32 shots faced the last 3 games, yeah, thats some 'defensive shutdown' infront of him.

Fans take him for granted, just like Leetch who was 'not a good leader', remember that one ?

To be brutally honest, team defense this year is horrible compared to last season. Guys aren't setting up properly to block shots all that often (actually look a bit timid after the heavy shots Girardi and Staal took this year) and end up simply standing there blocking Lundvist's view instead of blocking the puck most of the time. The defensemen seem to look lost quite a bit, which I really don't remember last year where they were much more aggressive on the puck carrier and boxing out the slot. And the forwards have been lax at covering their assignments in the defensive zone as well. It's almost like half the team forgot the basics of defensive style hockey. All seem to be a lot of odd-man rushes against this year.

It's like the team is trapped between last year's ultra defensive team style, and trying (but not knowing how) to open it up a little. It's like they're in no man's land mentally.

 

[Jersey Girl]

NY sports fans don't like the quiet leaders. They prefer players who aren't as capable, as long as they wear their hearts on their sleeves. Another good example, Carlos Beltran of the Mets.

Some guy named Derek Jeter disagrees...

Eli Manning too.

Be careful when you generalize.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Some guy named Derek Jeter disagrees...

Eli Manning too.

Be careful when you generalize.

Winning cures all ills.

 

[Jersey Girl]

Winning cures all ills.

Exactly! The statement about NY not liking quiet leaders is just silly.

 

[Crease]

Exactly! The statement about NY not liking quiet leaders is just silly.

Yes I chose my words poorly. What I meant, but didn't say, is that all else being equal NY sports fans prefer emotional leaders to quiet ones.

 

[Crease]

Getting back to the topic at hand, Lundqvist is 31. He realistically can be expected to have another 3 or 4 excellent seasons, then all bets are off. Not everyone has the longevity of Roy or Hasek. Hopefully Sather and Gorton can figure out how to take advantage of his prime years while he's still in them.

 

[Kwayry]

Yes, but the debate at hand boils down to three schools of thought:

1. Lundqvist plays sufficiently in the playoffs.
2. Lundqvist does not play sufficiently in the playoffs, and it's partly his fault.
3. Lundqvist does not play sufficiently in the playoffs, but it's not his fault.

I fall into category 2 and haven't heard a convincing argument for 1 and 3 yet.

I can buy this way to frame the debate, but then you have to define what sufficiently means.
It is by definition a subjective term.
If I define it as in Hank plays sufficiently in the playoffs to give the team a chance to win games, then I am in the 1st category.
Somebody else said it right, Hank doesn't have a signature moment in the playoffs. My issue is the team in front of him doesn't give him a chance at that signature moment. Last season, it was a lack of scoring, this season it's lack of scoring, putrid PP and defensive breakdowns.
If zoom out a little bit, although it's certainly reasonable to ask questions about Hank, my opinion is he is the least of this team's problems. There are bigger issues that need to be addressed.

 

[Crease]

I can buy this way to frame the debate, but then you have to define what sufficiently means. It is by definition a subjective term. If I define it as in Hank plays sufficiently in the playoffs to give the team a chance to win games, then I am in the 1st category.

I was waiting for someone to ask for clarification.

Some take their game to a higher level in the playoffs. Some stay on par with their regular season play. And some lose a step.

For me, sufficently means at least staying on par with their regular season play. Wayne Gretzky scores 35 points in 19 playoff games in 1983. Incredible. But well below his 2.45 PPG pace that season. He could do better. And he showed it. The following year? 47 points in 18 playoff games. They brought down the Islanders dynasty that Spring.

Lundqvist has had individual playoff games where he was other-worldy, absolutely. He's also had quite a few clunkers by his standards. And those clunkers are more frequent in the playoffs than in the regular season.

He's certainly performed well enough to give a team with average scoring ability a chance to win. I won't argue that. I'm only arguing that he's far more consistent in the regular season than in the playoffs. He could do better by his own standards.

If zoom out a little bit, although it's certainly reasonable to ask questions about Hank, my opinion is he is the least of this team's problems. There are bigger issues that need to be addressed.

No argument here.

 

[Kwayry]

Lundqvist has had individual playoff games where he was other-worldy, absolutely. He's also had quite a few clunkers by his standards. And those clunkers are more frequent in the playoffs than in the regular season.

I'll have to disagree with that. Maybe they are more visible, but more frequent? i don't buy it.
I can only think of 1 game in last 2 seasons where he might have had a clunker. That was last game and even that is debatable. Lousy defense in front of him had a lot to do with it.

I'm only arguing that he's far more consistent in the regular season than in the playoffs.

What do you base that on?
Here are his playoff stats last 2 seasons.
2011-12 20 GP, 10W, 10L, SV% .931, GAA 1.82
2012-13 9 GP, 4W, 5L, SV% .935, GAA 2.10
Please note that this includes last game 5 goals against.
Prior to last game, he was at a 1.875 GAA, which is about last season's PO clip. Sounds consistent enough to me.

I'd agree to this: Shutting out the caps in game 6 with a 1 goal lead was a master piece. Yes, he got a lot of help from the Dmen, but he was there to clean up any mistakes.
Following that up with a game 7 shutout was tremendous.
He has not played at the same level yet, but this is only 2 games in the Boston series.

He could do better by his own standards.

He sure could

 

[Richter Scale]

I'm copying and pasting this post from a pre-game thread of game 5 of the Caps series, since it is relevant here (and I'm going to follow it up with some more stats in the next post that take a closer look at what is behind these #s):

I thought this was an interesting discussion from the pre-game thread, so I wanted to carry it over to here...

I would like to look at the teams those players have played for. Hasek played for the Wings. Roy the Habs and the Avs. Broduer won how many Cups? That helps pad stats.

No doubt that every single one of those teams were great - but they all also lived or died with their goaltenders. And by bringing this up, you are right that there are a lot of factors that can influence whether a team goes far in the playoffs or not. Just because you have a hot goalie, doesn't mean the team is going to make a deep playoff run if the rest team in front of them isn't up to snuff.

But the one constant is that if you don't have a goalie that has elevated their game come playoff time, you generally won't be winning a Cup.

In the seasons that the Red Wings had subpar playoff goaltending, they didn't win cups. Same goes for the Devils and the Avs.

- If Brodeur doesn't play out of his mind in the playoffs, there is no way the Devils have all of those cups.

- If the Wings don't get career performances from Mike Vernon in 96-97 (.927 SV % and 1.76 GAA), Chris Osgood in 97-98 (.918 SV % and 2.12 GAA), and Ozzy again in 07-08 (0.930 SV %, 1.55 GAA) they don't win any of those cups.

- If Hasek doesn't become a brick wall, there is no way the Sabres make it to the Stanley Cup Finals against the Stars. On the Wings' most recent Cup win, Hasek actually got pulled in the playoffs, and Ozzy played amazingly for them for the remainder of the playoffs (.930 SV%, 1.55 GAA). That doesn't happen, the Wings don't win the cup in 07-08.

- In the seasons that Roy gave up bad goals in the late 90s (often against the Wings) in the playoffs, the Avs got knocked out. Those were amazing Avs teams.

Did it generally help that those goalies had good teams in front of them? Sure. But in the years that those goalies didn't put up stunning performances in the playoffs or gave up a few too many softies, their team didn't win the cup. They were still on great teams those years that they lost. That didn't change.

Of course, I'd agree the Rangers aren't on those teams' levels - at least not that we've been shown so far this year - but that just emphasizes the point all the more; in order for them to succeed, Hank needs to play lights out.


Some #s to add to the food for thought (and because I'm a stats nerd)...

Stats for the goalies of the teams you brought up in the years they won the cup compared to career #s (+ Dom's 98-99 run):

[TABLE="head;title=list"]Goalie | Team | Season | Career SV % | Career GAA | PO SV % | PO GAA
Patrick Roy | Canadiens | 85-86 | 0.910 | 2.54 | N/A | 1.93
| Canadiens | 92-93 | 0.910 | 2.54 | 0.929 | 2.13
| Avalanche | 95-96 | 0.910 | 2.54 | 0.921 | 2.10
| Avalanche | 00-01 | 0.910 | 2.54 | 0.934 | 1.70
Mike Vernon | Red Wings | 96-97 | 0.890 | 2.98 | 0.927 | 1.76
Chris Osgood | Red Wings | 97-98 | 0.905 | 2.49 | 0.918 | 2.12
| Red Wings | 07-08 | 0.905 | 2.49 | 0.930 | 1.55
Dominik Hasek | Sabres | 98-99 | 0.922 | 2.20 | 0.939 | 1.77
| Red Wings | 01-02 | 0.922 | 2.20 | 0.920 | 1.86
Martin Brodeur | Devils | 94-95 | 0.913 | 2.23 | 0.927 | 1.67
| Devils | 99-00 | 0.913 | 2.23 | 0.927 | 1.61
| Devils | 02-03 | 0.913 | 2.23 | 0.934 | 1.65 [/TABLE]




The SC winners since 2000:

[TABLE="head;title=list"]Team | Goalie | Season | Career SV % | Career GAA | PO SV % | PO GAA
LA Kings | Jonathan Quick | 11-12 | 0.915 | 2.32 | 0.946 | 1.41
Boston Bruins | Tim Thomas | 10-11 | 0.921 | 2.48 | 0.940 | 1.98
Chicago Blackhawks | Antti Niemi | 09-10 | 0.917 | 2.34 | 0.910 | 2.63
Pittsburgh Penguins | Marc-Andre Fleury | 08-09 | 0.910 | 2.66 | 0.908 | 2.61
Detroit Red Wings | Chris Osgood | 07-08 | 0.905 | 2.49 | 0.930 | 1.55
Anaheim Ducks | J.S. Giguere | 06-07 | 0.913 | 2.53 | 0.922 | 1.97
Carolina Hurricanes | Cam Ward | 05-06 | 0.910 | 2.74 | 0.920 | 2.14
Tampa Bay Lightning | Nikolai Khabibulin | 03-04 | 0.908 | 2.72 | 0.933 | 1.71
New Jersey Devils | Martin Brodeur | 02-03 | 0.913 | 2.23 | 0.934 | 1.65
Detroit Red Wings | Dominik Hasek | 01-02 | 0.922 | 2.20 | 0.920 | 1.86
Colorado Avalanche | Patrick Roy | 00-01 | 0.910 | 2.54 | 0.934 | 1.70 [/TABLE]


The only two teams to win in that time with goalies not beating their career (or season #s) were the 08-09 Penguins and the 09-10 Blackhawks. All the others elevated their performances significantly.

I love Hank, and I think he's great. But it is really true that he, in general, needs to find another gear in the playoffs. It is not a coincidence that the one year he put up monster #s in the playoffs which were even better than his regular season performance (career avg and in that particular season) was a year in which the Rangers made their deepest run in over a decade - last year. It is also not a coincidence that the one series in which his play dropped off that year, was the series that the Rangers lost (0.906 SV %, 2.5 GAA). If the Rangers want to go far, he needs to be stellar.

 

[Richter Scale]

In the majority of the analyses that I do below, I do not include Pittsburgh or Chicago’s Stanley Cup winning teams, as they are teams that won the cup despite relatively poor performances from their goalies. In my opinion, they represent outliers / an exception to the rule that you simply need good goaltending to win a cup.


As with all stats, they don’t tell the full story. But here are some stats that support both sides of the argument:

Hank's Team Needs to Do Better In Front of Him:

Avg shots per game faced by goalies:

[TABLE="head;title=list"]Team | Goalie | Season | Avg Shots Per Game
NYR | Henrik Lundqvist | 12-13 | 36.2
| | 11-12 | 29.6
| | | |
LA Kings | Jonathan Quick | 11-12 | 28.4
Boston Bruins | Tim Thomas | 10-11 | 36
Detroit Red Wings | Chris Osgood | 07-08 | 24.2
Anaheim Ducks | J.S. Giguere | 06-07 | 27
Carolina Hurricanes | Cam Ward | 05-06 | 27.4
Tampa Bay Lightning | Nikolai Khabibulin | 03-04 | 27.7
New Jersey Devils | Martin Brodeur | 02-03 | 27.6
Detroit Red Wings | Dominik Hasek | 01-02 | 26.4
Colorado Avalanche | Patrick Roy | 00-01 | 28.8 [/TABLE]

When looking at last year, Hank supporters can’t really fall back on this argument. This is, however, clearly a problem with this year’s team so far in the playoffs.


# of Playoff Games in Which the Goalie’s Team Outshot Their Opponent vs. Opponent Outshooting the Goalie’s Team:

[TABLE="head;title=list"]Team | Goalie | Season | # of Games Team Outshot Opponent | # of Games Opponent Outshot Team
NYR | Henrik Lundqvist | 12-13 | 4 | 5
| | 11-12 | 11 | 9
| | | |
LA Kings | Jonathan Quick | 11-12 | 12 | 7
Boston Bruins | Tim Thomas | 10-11 | 9 | 16
Chicago Blackhawks | Antti Niemi | 09-10 | 12 | 8
Pittsburgh Penguins | Marc-Andre Fleury | 08-09 | 17 | 7
Detroit Red Wings | Chris Osgood | 07-08 | 17 | 0
Anaheim Ducks | J.S. Giguere | 06-07 | 10 | 6
Carolina Hurricanes | Cam Ward | 05-06 | 11 | 10
Tampa Bay Lightning | Nikolai Khabibulin | 03-04 | 11 | 12
New Jersey Devils | Martin Brodeur | 02-03 | 15 | 6
Detroit Red Wings | Dominik Hasek | 01-02 | 16 | 7
Colorado Avalanche | Patrick Roy | 00-01 | 10 | 11 [/TABLE]

This chart is interesting – it clearly shows that compared to most championship teams in the last decade, the Rangers need to do a better job in this department. Only about 50 % of their games are they outshooting their opponent. This is an issue. In 7 of the last 11 Stanley Cup winners the winning team typically outshot their opponent. Obviously this doesn’t tell you whether they were quality chances or not – but I think it certainly indicates something; not necessarily a surprise that a championship team outshoots their opponent more often than not. The interesting thing in this chart is that there were so many – 4 out of 11 – where the winning team only outshot their opponent about 50 % of the time, or were actually outshot more often than not. Seems to show pretty clearly that a goalie elevating their performance can take a less talented/dominant team to the cup.


---

Hank needs to do a better job for his team to have a chance at the cup:

- In the last 29 playoff games Hank has played, he has a much worse win % both when his team is outshooting their opponent and when they are being outshot than goalies on championship teams.
- Perhaps most concerning is that when the NYR are outshooting their opponent, Hank is just 7-7 (0.500). Goalies on championship teams have a win percent almost 25 % higher than Hank’s in those types of games, at 0.739 (minus Pitt and Chi).
- Also of concern is that when NYR is outshot Hank is 7-8 (.467). Goalies on championship teams again have close to a 20 % higher win rate than Hank at 0.653. While the Rangers need to do a better job of not letting this happen as much as they do (per the charts in the above section), Hank needs to steal more of these types of games.

Both of those figures need to improve.

Here is the relevant chart (Record in games where team outshot opponent vs. got outshot by opponent):

[TABLE="head;title=list"]Team | Goalie | Season | Record in Games When Team Outshoots Opponent | Win % in Those Games | Record in Games When Team is Outshot by Opponent | Win % in Those Games
NYR | Henrik Lundqvist | 12-13 | 2-2 | .500 | 2-3 | .400
| | 11-12 | 5-6 | .455 | 5-4 | .556
| | Total | 7-8 | .467 | 7-7 | .500
| | | |
LA Kings | Jonathan Quick | 11-12 | 9-3 | .750 | 6-1 | .857
Boston Bruins | Tim Thomas | 10-11 | 4-5 | .444 | 12-4 | .750
Detroit Red Wings | Chris Osgood | 07-08 | 13-4 | .765 | N/A – 0 games | N/A
Anaheim Ducks | J.S. Giguere | 06-07 | 8-2 | .800 | 4-2 | .667
Carolina Hurricanes | Cam Ward | 05-06 | 10-1 | .909 | 4-6 | .400
Tampa Bay Lightning | Nikolai Khabibulin | 03-04 | 7-4 | .636 | 9-3 | .750
New Jersey Devils | Martin Brodeur | 02-03 | 12-3 | .800 | 2-4 | .333
Detroit Red Wings | Dominik Hasek | 01-02 | 11-5 | .688 | 5-2 | .714
Colorado Avalanche | Patrick Roy | 00-01 | 8-2 | .800 | 7-4 | .636
| | Total | 82-29 | .739 | 49-26 | .653 [/TABLE]




# of games giving up 3 goals or more:

[TABLE="head;title=list"]Team | Goalie | Season | # Games Giving Up 3 goals or More | # of Games Keeping Opponent to 2 goals or Less
NYR | Henrik Lundqvist | 12-13 | 5 | 4
| | 11-12 | 8 | 12
| | | |
LA Kings | Jonathan Quick | 11-12 | 3 | 17
Boston Bruins | Tim Thomas | 10-11 | 9 | 16
Detroit Red Wings | Chris Osgood | 07-08 | 5 | 13
Anaheim Ducks | J.S. Giguere | 06-07 | 5 | 12
Carolina Hurricanes | Cam Ward | 05-06 | 8 | 15
Tampa Bay Lightning | Nikolai Khabibulin | 03-04 | 8 | 15
New Jersey Devils | Martin Brodeur | 02-03 | 7 | 17
Detroit Red Wings | Dominik Hasek | 01-02 | 9 | 14
Colorado Avalanche | Patrick Roy | 00-01 | 8 | 15 [/TABLE]

In 3 rounds last year, Hank had just as many – or more – 3+ goal games as most of the winning goalies did in 4 rounds. Only 2 games into the second round this year, Hank is on pace to far exceed that # unless he steps it up.

Also of relevance is the distribution of these 3+ goal games: Are they evenly spread throughout 4 rounds, or clumped in a few rounds typically? I went through and looked at this – and the short answer is that they are typically spread out. The interesting tidbit is that on the championship winning teams, if their goalie gave up 3+ goals more than three times in a single round, that round went to 7 games all but one time (excluding Pitt and Chi) in the past 12 years. Of 11 times that a goalie on a championship team gave up 3+ goals in a single round, 10 of those series went to game 7.

Last year, Hank gave up 3+ goals in 2 games vs Ottawa, 2 games vs. Washington, and 4 games vs. New Jersey. A good argument could be made that he needs better goal support in the OTT and WSH series that year. But he absolutely didn’t help himself – or his team – in that New Jersey series by giving up 3+ goals in four out of six games. This year? We’ll see. 3 games in which he gave up 3+ goals against WSH – series goes to 7 games (shouldn’t be a surprise based upon the above stats). So far, 2 games against Boston. We’ll see how things go from here…

---

Last thing I wanted to examine was the goal support argument. So I looked at record and win % dependent upon goals allowed.

Record and Win % in 3+ Goal Games vs. 2 Goal Or Less Games:

[TABLE="head;title=list"]Team | Goalie | Season | Record in 3+ Goal Games | Win % in 3+ Goal Games | Record in 2 Goal or Less Games | Win % in 2 Goal or Less Games
NYR | Henrik Lundqvist | 12-13 | 2-3 | .400 | 2-2 | .500
| | 11-12 | 0-8 | 0.000 | 10-2 | .833
| | Total | 2-11 | .154 | 12-4 | .750
| | | | | |
LA Kings | Jonathan Quick | 11-12 | 0-3 | 0.000 | 16-1 | .941
Boston Bruins | Tim Thomas | 10-11 | 4-5 | .444 | 12-4 | .750
Detroit Red Wings | Chris Osgood | 07-08 | 2-3 | .400 | 12-1 | .923
Anaheim Ducks | J.S. Giguere | 06-07 | 3-2 | .600 | 10-2 | .833
Carolina Hurricanes | Cam Ward | 05-06 | 3-5 | .375 | 13-2 | .867
Tampa Bay Lightning | Nikolai Khabibulin | 03-04 | 1-7 | .125 | 15-0 | 1.000
New Jersey Devils | Martin Brodeur | 02-03 | 1-6 | .143 | 15-2 | .882
Detroit Red Wings | Dominik Hasek | 01-02 | 3-6 | .333 | 13-1 | .929
Colorado Avalanche | Patrick Roy | 00-01 | 4-4 | .500 | 12-3 | .800
| | Total | 21-46 | .313 | 123-16 | .885 [/TABLE]


As I said earlier: It is a fact of life that scoring declines and games tighten up in the playoffs. In order for your team to have a good shot at winning the game, your goalie typically needs to keep the opposition to 2 goals or less.

Goal support was a fine argument to make about last year’s team – they were awful in this regard. That they could not win even once in the 8 games Hank gave up 3+ goals is pretty sad. But despite this, they did win most of the games he kept the opponent to less than 3 goals. This year, however, Hank has gotten that goal support to a degree (though it is an admittedly small sample size). The team needs to do a better job this year of winning the games he keeps the opponent to 2 goals or less, but they’ve also bailed him out of just as many games in which he gave up 3+ goals.

---

Seems to me from all of that information that there isn’t one clear cut answer. Hank needs to be better, but so does the team in front of him. At the end of the day – both extremes in this argument seem to be wrong. Hank needs a stronger team (whether that is personnel or effort is up for debate) in front of him. But the team also needs Hank to do better come playoff time. Those on the side of the argument who refuse to allow any blame to be laid at Hank’s feet miss the point many reasonable posters are making: It isn’t that he is a bad goalie. It is that he simply needs to be better and more consistent when it comes to the playoffs. Maintaining his regular season stats aren’t going to be enough to win a cup. He needs to find another level in the playoffs.

 

[AlternateSideParking]

Lundqvist has had plenty of opportunities. The blaming teammates gig can only last so long.

News flash: he's not the only goalie in NHL history who had to carry a team in the playoffs.

What star-studded roster did Cam Ward have? Or Beezer in 96? Or Montreal in 93? Or Buffalo in 99? Or the Rangers in 79?

It comes down to closing out games, something Lundqvist does inconsistently in the postseason.

It doesn't matter if the score is 9-8 or 1-0 heading into the third. Protecting a one-goal lead or a tie score is what a goalie needs to do 4 games of every round if he wants to immortalize himself.

Henrik hasn't done that yet. Clocks ticking.

 

[JohnC]

Oy vey give it a rest

 

[Doctor King Schultz]

Hank was great as usual for the most part. I'm not blaming him because a team should provide you with more than 1 goal, goal support but still... I thought he misplayed the game winner.

It seemed like he thought the puck was already in because 1) It went behind him and that bounce on the red line was almost miraculous and 2) the Bruin in front of him started celebrating.

Him being the outstanding goalie he is had enough time to find the puck in front of him. No one will ever know but him.

Edit: In the post game interview Lundqvist said he didn't see the puck

 

[roxchipsi8]

this team sucks and played terribly. They deserved to lose. But they still had a chance to steal this one up 1 going into the third. Another Long shot squeaks and then on the second, henrik fumbles a handoff to DZ that eventually leads to some weird bounces and the losing goal.