Lundqvist's career and why he's a HHOF

[I Hate Philadelphia]

Guy freaking Carbonneau just made the HHOF, I don't think you have to worry about Henrik getting in.

 

[Chimpradamus]

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.

Hence why I don't want to place Lundqvist at Hasek's peak. That has a record of its own. But Lundqvist performed at a top level as a step below, but for a very long time. I still want to compare Hasek not winning a Cup in Buffalo to Lundqvist's failure in New York. You can never say New York had a powerful team. It was all about how far they could help carry Lundqvist. Neither Hasek in Buffalo nor Lundqvist in New York had the pieces to help them win.

That was especially obvious during Tortorella's tenure and he obviously realized Lundqvist was the key component towards winning. He tried the same in Columbus, but Bobrovsky was less focused. Still dominant in the regular season. Still not as focused as Lundqvist, especially not during the weight of the playoffs.

Lundqvist embraced the burden of the playoffs through his hatred to lose. Bobrovsky performed less good through his fear to fail. That's what separates Lundqvist from all modern goalies. Watch his elimination games. They are all incredible, except for maybe 2/40 or so.

 

[blinkman360]

As an Isles/Mets/Jets fan, he's one of those rare breeds who you hate but have to respect. He's definitely in the Jeter, Chipper Jones, Tom Brady club. Slam-dunk first-ballot.

 

[NeverBeNormal]

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

An Olympic Gold & Silver. In the five Olympics the NHL went to, no team from outside the "Big 6" has won a medal. Impressive for sure since it's best on best but it doesn't seal the deal for me since his NHL body of work represents so much more of his career.

 

[isles31]

Not sure theres too many people who think he isn't HHOF worthy. I could maybe see not being first ballot if he never gets a cup and the ballot is packed with guys who did but...hes one of the GOATS so even that is a reach.

 

[NeverBeNormal]

As an Isles/Mets/Jets fan, he's one of those rare breeds who you hate but have to respect. He's definitely in the Jeter, Chipper Jones, Tom Brady club. Slam-dunk first-ballot.

You forgot Jordan & Ali.

 

[Whalers Fan]

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.

You need to read up on your hockey history. Roy won two Cups in Montreal ('86 and '93), and played in the Cup Finals another time ('89). His performance in the '93 playoffs was probably the greatest I ever saw (it's between that and Dryden in '71).

I have no issue with Lundqvist in the HoF, but he's still not at the level of Brodeur, Roy or Hasek. Those are the three best goalies of the past 40 years.

 

[hockeyguru]

It's posts like these that make me wish he wouldn't be a hall of famer just so you hf posters would look wrong yet again.

 

[NeverBeNormal]

You need to read up on your hockey history. Roy won two Cups in Montreal ('86 and '93), and played in the Cup Finals another time ('89). His performance in the '93 playoffs was probably the greatest I ever saw (it's between that and Dryden in '71).

I have no issue with Lundqvist in the HoF, but he's still not at the level of Brodeur, Roy or Hasek. Those are the three best goalies of the past 30 years.

Agreed, how can you take someone seriously when they bring up Brodeur & Hasek but don't even know Roy won 2 Cups and 2 Smythes in Montreal in a discussion about Goalies?

 

[MXD]

Not being at Roy, Hasek or Brodeur level isn't something that should prevent a netminder from being inducted to the HHOF, since we're AT WORST talking about 3 of the 7 best of all-time (and 3 of the 5 as far as I'm concerned).

Thus, there should be no issue in calling Lundqvist for what he is : an obvious HHOF'er who isn't quite on the level of these three.

 

[BHD]

This shouldn't even be a discussion IMO. Even if you cheer for one of the Rangers' rivals, you have to acknowledge his career. Lundqvist will get in.

 

[The S5]

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.

That is a fairly common false narrative among Ranger fans. Teams don't make playoffs/ECF consistently because of one player.
Where the argument really falls apart is when Hank's backups consistently put up better numbers (Talbot, Raanta, Georgiev) in fairly large sample sizes. In order to buy into the false narrative, you must believe that, somehow, the players performed consistently worse in front of Hank. I've heard many fans use the excuse that the players were too comfortable in front of Hank and knew Hank would bail them out. This is just a ridiculous argument.
Hank will be in the HHOF, but lets not overstate his greatness.

 

[NeverBeNormal]

Not being at Roy, Hasek or Brodeur level isn't something that should prevent a netminder from being inducted to the HHOF, since we're AT WORST talking about 3 of the 7 best of all-time (and 3 of the 5 as far as I'm concerned).

Thus, there should be no issue in calling Lundqvist for what he is : an obvious HHOF'er who isn't quite on the level of these three.

"That's why I say he's a hybrid between Hasek (brilliance) and Brodeur (consistency)."

Right in the OP, the problem with this thread isn't the HHOF part (since for some reason it's almost unanimous here even though I posted a rather lackluster list of individual accomplishments), it's invoking those names to try and make a point.

 

[Machinehead]

There is no debate here.

Anybody who thinks he's not a Hall of Famer is wrong.

 

[Eisen]

Are there a lot of people arguing he shouldn't be in? He's a shoe in as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Rec T]

According to the talking heads bloviating on my TV last night... With last night's win he moved into a tie with Cujo for fifth place in all time wins. He's also within a couple of games of playing in his one thousandth game. Those two alone should get him in even without a Cup win or two.

 

[NeverBeNormal]

According to the talking heads bloviating on my TV last night... With last night's win he moved into a tie with Cujo for fifth place in all time wins. He's also within a couple of games of playing in his one thousandth game. Those two alone should get him in even without a Cup win or two.

82 game seasons now, wins and games played can't be quantified over history. Thus the reason he's tied with notable Hall of Famer Curtis Joseph... oh wait.

 

[Captain Bowie]

82 game seasons now, wins and games played can't be quantified over history. Thus the reason he's tied with notable Hall of Famer Curtis Joseph... oh wait.

Yeah, but rotating in a back-up goalie was not common back in previous eras as well. Guys like Sawchuk and Plante regularly played the 55-70 games a year that more modern goalies are used to.

Joseph wouldn't be the worst HHOF candidate either, but Lundqvist has a clear advantage over him in career GAA and SV%. Roberto Luongo falls in between these 2 by most metrics, and I am a believer that he should be in there one day as well.

 

[Trap Jesus]

He'll definitely get in. I feel like he may be one of the last ones for the foreseeable future to do it too considering it's becoming a position where there are more ups and downs and inconsistencies than ever before.

 

[RageQuit77]

No real topic here. Of course he will be in.

@Chimp After reading your comments (I do not quote here) I got hysteric stroke of laughing. Why? When reading your lamentations and cry about the sad state of NYR, I couldn't let my imagination idle and reject vivid visual mental landscapes of a muddy medieval field wherein the middle of it was a prisoner sentenced to a bottomless pit crying out his unfathomable agony for his destiny, while cold autumn rain pour upon him from above... soaring ravens waiting in the grey sky...

Mental image was so absurdly strong, and sad, that my only reaction to it was laugh my arse off. It was written inbetween the lines of your pessimistic samples of high hockey tragicomedy. You clearly love your tragic hero.

You are poet.

You're also not necessarily too wrong in your takes.

 

[MtoD]

Only thing worse than people who think he shouldn't be in the HoF are people who think he's a top 5 goalie of all time.

He will get in first ballot and there's no shame in not being among Hasek, Roy and Brodeur's tier. Putting him there is only a disservice IMO as it invites undue negative criticism of him.

 

[MXD]

82 game seasons now, wins and games played can't be quantified over history. Thus the reason he's tied with notable Hall of Famer Curtis Joseph... oh wait.

Lundqvist also passed Tony Esposito, who spent pretty much much his entire career in a 78 or 80 games/season NHL. Esposito is an actual notable HHOF'er, who is ALSO without a Stanley Cup (no role whatsoever in '69 with the Canadiens).

 

[Karl Eriksson]

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

Or Fleury. That hardware.

 

[end]

If Henrik Lundqvist can't make the Hall with the last 15 years of hockey he's played, not a single other goalie from the last 15 years can make the Hall. There is no way that Jonathan Quick or Carey Price or Braden Holtby are HOFers if Lundqvist isn't. In any given 15 years, 60 players will have earned the right to be a Hall of Famer, Lundqvist has to be among the top 60 players of the last 15 years.

The New York Rangers are 9th in the league in points since Lundqvist joined in 2006, including the recent downturn. During that time he has consistently been the Rangers best player. Is there another instance where a top team's best player for over a decade didn't make the Hall?

 

[NeverBeNormal]

Lundqvist also passed Tony Esposito, who spent pretty much much his entire career in a 78 or 80 games/season NHL. Esposito is an actual notable HHOF'er, who is ALSO without a Stanley Cup (no role whatsoever in '69 with the Canadiens).

That's an impressive one, I'll concede that. Also because my Dad's a lifelong Hawks fan and he's tortured by the fact Tony-O never won a Cup.