Lundqvist's career and why he's a HHOF

[Chimpradamus]

I know, he hasn't retired yet and he hasn't won a Cup, but he's still pretty much unanimous as a future HHOF member, regardless, on this forum. I think he's worthy of discussion today, since the quality of many threads aren't that high. This thread will be of better quality than most. Above average.

So, he was drafted in the 7th round and was supposed to be the backup of Kevin Weekes in 05/06. Weekes was injured in November and Lundqvist was now the Rangers #1 goalie - and #1 player for over 1½ decade. Constant MVP trophies, especially since he was so above anyone else on the team that they were merely worth mentioning. Even in their playoff runs. The question was never difficult, ever.

That isn't his most impressive part. The impressive part is he carried so many dysfunctional teams to achievements they wouldn't have been even close to, if he wasn't there. He prolonged a NYR rebuild that should've happened around the time when he arrived. Lundqvist changed the entire NYR strategy for very long, it didn't happen until over 10 years later. And they even had a cup final because of it. So close.

Let's talk his regular seasons. On HF, it was always Lundqvist, goalie x, goalie y and maybe goalie z for a long, long time. Flash in the pans, declining superstars or whatnot. The only remaining constant was Lundqvist. Pascal Leclaire, Luongo, Nabokov, Kipprusoff, Brodeur, Mason, Miller, Ward, or whoever, or Lundqvist that specific? Well. Guess who was always in the discussion? Lundqvist.

Guess why Lundqvist is considered as a HHOF member without a Cup? Because he was - and still to a greater extent is - incredibly consistent. He's extremely competitive and keeps it very serious, while he's smart enough to figure out HOW to keep it serious, every minute of every game, more than anybody. He doesn't weigh much and isn't that big, he has his muscles, sinews and mind.

Guess when he lost his mojo? When Vigneault ran a defensively suicidal system without barely any players - especially at defense - to suit his play. It was a total disaster. Then the official rebuild and the fire-sale happened. It's pretty tough to be a competitive star goalie on a team that openly doesn't want to win. He has been quoted to express that time was the toughest he had ever faced in the NHL. So he played like crap during the second half when the franchise mailed it in. Not weird to see.

But here comes the impressive part. Watch ANY advanced stats historically on goalies and you see Lundqvist everywhere. When they first started measuring quality chances and the goalie who stopped the most breakdowns, guess who was always up there to save the day? Well...

Statistically measuring the number of saves that statistically should've been goals, Lundqvist is up on Mount Everest, while any goalie - ANY goalie - is down at half the mountain he has built. It doesn't matter if it's the eye test or the statistical reading, Lundqvist's career has been damn, damn impressive.

He hasn't been a workhorse goalie, he has been a terminator goalie. Don't even get me started on his performances in the playoffs compared to his teammates, coaches and organization.

According to me, he is a modern day legend. He did what Hasek tried to do, but Hasek was smart enough to not stay in Buffalo, while having the consistency of Brodeur. So yeah, he's worthy of being in the HHOF. No, I don't say his peaks were as dominant as Hasek, but I compare their situations as the only true superstar on the team, to try to single handedly win the Cup. That's why I say he's a hybrid between Hasek (brilliance) and Brodeur (consistency).

Henrik Lundqvist: The epitome of elite consistency among goalies.

Click to read more...

 

[Roomtemperature]

He is and anyone who says he isn't is wrong and just trolling. And I hate the guy (as a player aka sports hate) and revel in his losses.

 

[Avsboy]

Delete

 

[Chimpradamus]

He is and anyone who says he isn't is wrong and just trolling. And I hate the guy (as a player aka sports hate) and revel in his losses.

That says it all I think. A Devils fan who hates him because he's a Ranger, still must adhorn to his love and principles of hockey and acknowledge he's been bloody brilliant during his career. Because he has consistently been performing some goddamn beautiful goaltending.

 

[KirkAlbuquerque]

He's a Hall of Famer AINEC.

And he's not even close to "past it".

 

[Captain Bowie]

No doubt he's in.

 

[EdJovanovski]

GOAT

 

[North Cole]

Yes.

 

[lomiller1]

Far and away the best goaltender of the last 20 years, so he should be an automatic for the HHoF

 

[ScaredStreit]

A thread arguing why Lundqvist is a HOFer is unnecessary...is there really an argument for him NOT being in the hall?

 

[ScaredStreit]

Far and away the best goaltender of the last 20 years, so he should be an automatic for the HHoF

HOFer but let's not get carried away. Lundqvist isn't on the same level of Brodeur, Hasek, or Roy.

 

[bobbyking]

HOFer but let's not get carried away. Lundqvist isn't on the same level of Brodeur, Hasek, or Roy.

Brodeur yes the other 2 probably not

 

[Chimpradamus]

HOFer but let's not get carried away. Lundqvist isn't on the same level of Brodeur, Hasek, or Roy.

As I said, he's a hybrid between the brilliance of Roy/ Hasek and the consistency of Brodeur, during very difficult working conditions, in fact much much worse working conditions than Brodeur ever had (a dysfunctional big franchise with a cigar smoking big shot GM who buys the finest toys he can buy and changes coaches and "long term strategy" like his whiskey). You cannot compare his career like that. Roy played splendidly for Montreal during a bad situation. He also won a Cup in Colorado. I have no doubts Lundqvist would've won a Cup (or a couple) if he moved from New York and joined Pittsburgh, Chicago, Washington or whoever. He wasn't exactly the reason a badly run franchise never won the Cup during his career, to put it like that. More of the extreme contrary. He was THE reason they ever had a shot at winning. That they even came that close is remarkable.

Hasek never won the Cup in Buffalo. That isn't exactly Hasek's fault. Neither that Roy couldn't win in Montreal. That's my point. Lundqvist was brilliant in a very tough situation. That puts Lundqvist in Roy's/ Hasek's corner more than Brodeur's corner (playing for a true contender all his career basically). Lundqvist still has the elite longevity of Brodeur, while never even being close to the stability Brodeur had on his team. Lundqvist had it tougher than both Hasek and Roy, teamwise, during their careers.

That says something. You cannot compare his situation to others. He had a different career and team situation.

 

[ScaredStreit]

As I said, he's a hybrid between the brilliance of Roy/ Hasek and the consistency of Brodeur, during very difficult working conditions, in fact much much worse working conditions than Brodeur ever had (a dysfunctional big franchise with a cigar smoking big shot GM who buys the finest toys he can buy and changes coaches and "long term strategy" like his whiskey). You cannot compare his career like that. Roy played splendidly for Montreal during a bad situation. He also won a Cup in Colorado. I have no doubts Lundqvist would've won a Cup (or a couple) if he moved from New York and joined Pittsburgh, Chicago, Washington or whoever. He wasn't exactly the reason a badly run franchise never won the Cup during his career, to put it like that. More of the extreme contrary. He was THE reason they ever had a shot at winning. That they even came that close is remarkable.

Hasek never won the Cup in Buffalo. That isn't exactly Hasek's fault. Neither that Roy couldn't win in Montreal. That's my point. Lundqvist was brilliant in a very tough situation. That puts Lundqvist in Roy's/ Hasek's corner more than Brodeur's corner (playing for a true contender all his career basically). Lundqvist still has the elite longevity of Brodeur, while never even being close to the stability Brodeur had on his team. Lundqvist had it tougher than both Hasek and Roy, teamwise, during their careers.

That says something. You cannot compare his situation to others. He had a different career and team situation.

Roy won 2 cups in Montreal.

More importantly if the only argument for Lundqvist being on the same level as a Roy/Hasek is that their situations were different...it's a pretty weak argument tbh.

 

[Brunomics]

HOFer but let's not get carried away. Lundqvist isn't on the same level of Brodeur, Hasek, or Roy.

I hate the guy because he was a ranger but He's just on the outside looking in. Only difference between those 4 is that he never had the complete team in front of him that had business really competing for a cup.

 

[The S5]

Far and away the best goaltender of the last 20 years, so he should be an automatic for the HHoF

Very debatable.
Yes, I had been on the fence, but based on goalies who are already in, Hank gets in.
What really gets me are the fanboys who think Hank carried every NYR playoff team on his back. That is complete nonsense.

 

[Hockeyholic]

As I said, he's a hybrid between the brilliance of Roy/ Hasek and the consistency of Brodeur, during very difficult working conditions, in fact much much worse working conditions than Brodeur ever had (a dysfunctional big franchise with a cigar smoking big shot GM who buys the finest toys he can buy and changes coaches and "long term strategy" like his whiskey). You cannot compare his career like that. Roy played splendidly for Montreal during a bad situation. He also won a Cup in Colorado. I have no doubts Lundqvist would've won a Cup (or a couple) if he moved from New York and joined Pittsburgh, Chicago, Washington or whoever. He wasn't exactly the reason a badly run franchise never won the Cup during his career, to put it like that. More of the extreme contrary. He was THE reason they ever had a shot at winning. That they even came that close is remarkable.

Hasek never won the Cup in Buffalo. That isn't exactly Hasek's fault. Neither that Roy couldn't win in Montreal. That's my point. Lundqvist was brilliant in a very tough situation. That puts Lundqvist in Roy's/ Hasek's corner more than Brodeur's corner (playing for a true contender all his career basically). Lundqvist still has the elite longevity of Brodeur, while never even being close to the stability Brodeur had on his team. Lundqvist had it tougher than both Hasek and Roy, teamwise, during their careers.

That says something. You cannot compare his situation to others. He had a different career and team situation.

He's a HOFER. No doubt. But your making it seem as though Henrik dragged a mediocre team all those years. Let's not kid ourselves here. From 05-06 through 2016-2017 the Rangers made the postseason all but one year. The one year they missed was because of a shootout loss. Hank was a big reason for their success. But they weren't a terrible roster by any means.

 

[Chimpradamus]

Roy won 2 cups in Montreal.

More importantly if the only argument for Lundqvist being on the same level as a Roy/Hasek is that their situations were different...it's a pretty weak argument tbh.

Not when you compare the support the goalies had, compared to the support Lundqvist had in terms of their career. Although claiming Roy didn't win in Montreal was a bad mistake by me.

Watch the defensemen who defended the net from 05/06 to 18/19. It's a travesty. Then watch the underperforming forward squads. Then watch the overpaid UFAs who - all of them - couldn't fix a broken ship and basically all underperformed, isolated from any understanding what the hell they were supposed to bring. Because they were brought in as big $$ names, not because they suited a team strategy. $ather wasn't a winning GM, he was a $ GM. The only team stategy was to sell tickets. How the hell do you otherwise kick Jagr and Nylander, to bring in Drury, Redden and Gomez? What the hell do they have in common in their strategy? None! They had no synergy, but they were the biggest names to buy.

How about keeping your gun under the table if no UFAs fit your game strategy? NYR: "What strategy? Want star exposure." ($ather)

How else do you buy in a combination of Ozolinsh, Redden, Shattenkirk, Yandle (etc) and not play them as offensive defensemen? How do you buy Gaborik (when Torts didn't want a player like Gaborik), Nash (when Torts wanted a player like Nash, but Vigneault didn't)... I can go on for 54 pages. It has been true pain to follow the Rangers for this long. Holy hell what a dysfunctional... I should stop there.

I actually feel sorry for Lundqvist in his career, because the big money support has mostly been about generating more money and the patience of a narcisstic board member at a company on the stock market. Or, they have been completely oblivious about certain layers of hockey. If they really tried, I must say $ather is one of the worst GMs I've ever seen in the game. He was just lucky to end up in a position he didn't deserve. But I don't know what his strategy was, maybe he bought Dolan$'s idea. Either that or complete incompetence.

 

[Dialamo]

If he's not a first ballot HHOF'er than I don't know what is. Great post.

 

[Super Hans]

Not sure why there are always HHOF discussions about a player and everyone completely ignores the player's international resume as if the HHOF is based solely on NHL accomplishments. If you want to build a case for Henrik (which I feel is already indisputable from his NHL career's standpoint), make sure you use his Team Sweden accolades.

 

[NeverBeNormal]

No Cups, one Final (2014), one Vezina (2012), one First team All Star (2012), one Second Team All Star (2013). I guess the most impressive thing about him is his 9 team MVPs (since when is that even a thing?) but you did a great job painting how terrible every other Ranger's been so I guess it's not as impressive as I thought.

 

[ScaredStreit]

Not when you compare the support the goalies had, compared to the support Lundqvist had in terms of their career. Although claiming Roy didn't win in Montreal was a bad mistake by me.

Watch the defensemen who defended the net from 05/06 to 18/19. It's a travesty. Then watch the underperforming forward squads. Then watch the overpaid UFAs who - all of them - couldn't fix a broken ship and basically all underperformed, isolated from any understanding what the hell they were supposed to bring. Because they were brought in as big $$ names, not because they suited a team strategy. $ather wasn't a winning GM, he was a $ GM. The only team stategy was to sell tickets. How the hell do you otherwise kick Jagr and Nylander, to bring in Drury, Redden and Gomez? What the hell do they have in common in their strategy? None! They had no synergy, but they were the biggest names to buy.

How about keeping your gun under the table if no UFAs fit your game strategy? NYR: "What strategy? Want star exposure." ($ather)

How else do you buy in a combination of Ozolinsh, Redden, Shattenkirk, Yandle (etc) and not play them as offensive defensemen? How do you buy Gaborik (when Torts didn't want a player like Gaborik), Nash (when Torts wanted a player like Nash, but Vigneault didn't)... I can go on for 54 pages. It has been true pain to follow the Rangers for this long. Holy hell what a dysfunctional... I should stop there.

I actually feel sorry for Lundqvist in his career, because the big money support has mostly been about generating more money and the patience of a narcisstic board member at a company on the stock market. Or, they have been completely oblivious about certain layers of hockey. If they really tried, I must say $ather is one of the worst GMs I've ever seen in the game. He was just lucky to end up in a position he didn't deserve. But I don't know what his strategy was, maybe he bought Dolan$'s idea. Either that or complete incompetence.

Hasek's Buffalo teams were worse, especially compared to some of the teams Lundqvist had 7-8 years ago or so. Hasek was still in the conversation as the GOAT before his cup with Detroit.

Hasek won 2 Harts and 6 Vezinas on teams just as bad as what Lundqvist has had to work with. Lundqvist is a great goaltender, 1st ballot HOFer...but has never been on that level.

Look at Hasek's numbers...and then remind yourself this was during the dead puck era and slightly before...on a team where he was playing behind guys that were brutal.

 

[NeverBeNormal]

Not sure why there are always HHOF discussions about a player and everyone completely ignores the player's international resume as if the HHOF is based solely on NHL accomplishments. If you want to build a case for Henrik (which I feel is already indisputable from his NHL career's standpoint), make sure you use his Team Sweden accolades.

2004 World Cup Best Goaltender
2004 World Cup All Star
2014 Olympic All Star (Price voted Best Goaltender)

 

[Chimpradamus]

He's a HOFER. No doubt. But your making it seem as though Henrik dragged a mediocre team all those years. Let's not kid ourselves here. From 05-06 through 2016-2017 the Rangers made the postseason all but one year. The one year they missed was because of a shootout loss. Hank was a big reason for their success. But they weren't a terrible roster by any means.

It depends. In 05/06 and 06/07, they were also carried by the Jagr/ Nylander/ Straka line. They had some quality. The defense and depth was still really bad. As for 07-11, it was really, really dysfunctional. Markus Näslund retired after one season of playing for the Rangers, he realized the mental and emotional agony of earning money there. He wasn't as good and the support was terrible and disorganized.

It was agonizing to watch that struggle during 08-11 to win points. So many nights of disbelief as a Rangers fan. Such terrible hockey. That was basically all Lundqvist to get into the playoffs all for one year (a shootout against Philly in the last game. Olli Jokinen missed, lol).

Then when Torts entered, he recognized all he had was Lundqvist. So he built a system around helping him. Hence the 6 man goalie system. Not without flaws, it was a hell of a bombardment and not without allowing quality scoring chances. The team did splendidly grinding themselves into a great winning record, but they were too banged up and not skilled enough to win a Cup. Goalies cannot score goals. The GF statistics during Torts was lower than soccer numbers. Check it up.

Then Vigneault arrived. He had the benefit of keeping Tort's hard work and defensive responsibility, until he reformed the team into a complete circus.

In terms of quality players? Every Cup winning team had usually at least three player who could win the Conn Smythe, due to their outstanding performances. For the Rangers? Lundqvist. Then Lundqvist again. Then any underperforming UFA on a hot run or McDonagh, but none were even really close to claim it. That's what I'm talking about. Lundqvist had no other Conn Smythe candidates to help him during his entire career. All winning teams had several.

Don't make me dig for the forwards that were the spear in New York during the dark era, where they still made the playoffs, because of Lundqvist. Point leader: Nikolai Zherdev. Yeah. And on and on.

 

[Super Hans]

2004 World Cup Best Goaltender
2004 World Cup All Star
2014 Olympic All Star (Price voted Best Goaltender)

You have to use the Team Sweden hardware too since people are always going to use the Stanley Cup against him.