Lundqvist's career and why he's a HHOF

[The S5]

I dunno, from the more recent crop I could see Price, Fleury, Quick, Rask and Rinne all having a shot of getting there one day. And a few other guys who have a lot of work to do, but it is not unforeseeable.

Luongo with numbers equal or better than Hank. Fleury with the hardware and higher peak. Bob with 2 Vezina's (will be hard to argue against him if he gets another).

 

[Whalers Fan]

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).

Esposito played in an era with no overtime or shootout, though, which meant fewer opportunities for wins.

Comparing goalie wins in a vacuum doesn't work. Several of my friends who are Red Wings fans argue that Chris Osgood belongs in the HoF, listing his 400 wins as his major accomplishment. My counter argument is that Tom Barrasso belongs in then, too, since he has as many wins if you adjust for overtime -- plus he won an individual trophy (Calder) -- something Osgood never came close to doing. Also, Osgood played behind a stacked team, where just an average goalie (which he was) could succeed.

 

[Whalers Fan]

And yet, his name is on the Cup.

Name on the Cup = champion. Simple as that.

Using that argument, Michel "Bunny" Larocque was a four time Stanley Cup champion. He was also a four time Vezina Trophy winner, in an era when the award was given to the principal goalies on the team allowing the fewest goals in the regular season.

Nobody thinks Bunny Larocque belongs in the Hall of Fame.

 

[RorschachWJK]

Does he belong in the HOF? Yes, I guess so but then Luongo should get in also, probably a few others, too. Is Lundqvist in the same group as Hasek, Roy, Brodeur and a couple others? No, he ain't that special.

 

[Asheville]

So you dont think he is a HHOF?

He's definitely a HHOFer. He's got the stats. Lundqvist being considered the best goalie of his era speaks to how weak/mediocre goaltending has been for nearly 20 years. And the excuses made for him being Cupless are just that. He's just never been good enough for a single playoff to get the job done. He's had plenty of talented players around him throughout his career.

 

[TGWL]

Well, he did get outplayed by Quick in the most important series of them all.

Well, that defines his career.

What were the high danger scoring chances in that series? 60+ Kings / 40+? NYR?

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

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.

He's definitely a HHOFer. He's got the stats. Lundqvist being considered the best goalie of his era speaks to how weak/mediocre goaltending has been for nearly 20 years. And the excuses made for him being Cupless are just that. He's just never been good enough for a single playoff to get the job done. He's had plenty of talented players around him throughout his career.

Until around 2011 they were a terrible roster-mediocre roster at best. Go look at those rosters. Hank and Jagr dragged teams that had no business being anywhere near the playoffs. Once Jagr left, corpses like Gomez, Drury, Redden were the highlight of the team. It was ATROCIOUS. At one point they got Gaborik but the team was so bereft of talent around him that outside of Gabs we had Erik Christensen as the first line center by default. Wojtek Wolski and Nik Zherdev couldn't even stay in the league but the NYR were feeding them top line minutes for a year or more.

They had a year where the top line was Callahan, Dubs and Anisimov....none of them got over 60 points. Even the teams that got to the finals featured guys who were nowhere near all stars- like Callahan, Dubs, Stepan. Nash got concussed and was a shell of himself with one single year being the exception. Brad Richards was a disaster. St. Louis came here and immediately had a 13 game goal scoring drought. Hank absolutely carried middling...if not outright atrocious teams lined with the corpses of big names.

 

[CauZuki]

Hasek - Brodeur - Lundqvist , I have no problem with putting him in that category , in terms of top goalies by era.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

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.

The ONLY one who got anywhere near a 'large sample size' was Talbot bc he filled in for several weeks in a row at one point. He still only had 21 and then 36 GP in the season. He was also a starting quality goaltender playing behind a team with fantastic chemistry, a team that had already been winning for a few years, a team with a great defensive structure that knew how to grind out wins and keep the score down. What would have happened if he had been asked to play for 60 like Hank? What would have happened if he had been forced to play behind worse teams?

What happened to Talbot after he was given a workload similar to Hanks on Edmonton?

2.55 GAA
2.39
and he never got below 3 again....yea...really shows how much better these backups were

Pretending that Raanta and LOL Georgiev have any real bearing on this discussion when none of them were factors until close to 10 years into Hans career? After Hank had already toiled among pure garbage for 6 of those years? Nonsense.

 

[TGWL]

He's definitely a HHOFer. He's got the stats. Lundqvist being considered the best goalie of his era speaks to how weak/mediocre goaltending has been for nearly 20 years. And the excuses made for him being Cupless are just that. He's just never been good enough for a single playoff to get the job done. He's had plenty of talented players around him throughout his career.

The last couple of years he's reached playoffs, sure, but prior to that I think you need to check his stats. He was absolutely outstanding in several playoff runs. When you post 1.8 through 20 games, 2.14 through 25 games, and 2.11 through-out 19 games, it's hard to say the goalie wasn't good enough to get it done.

As far as plenty of talent, please stop.. Yes, he missed his opportunity the last few seasons they reached the playoffs, but as far as talent early on, he's had Jagr who put up over 100 points and Gaborik who put up 40 goals. Great teams.

Also, the game has changed, I don't think we've had mediocre goaltending for nearly 20 years. I think most are just comparing it to a different game.

 

[RorschachWJK]

The ONLY one who got anywhere near a large sample size was Talbot who was a legit starting quality goalie playing behind a team with fantastic chemistry, a team that had already been winning for a few years. A team with a great defensive structure that knew how to grind out wins and keep the score down.

Pretending that Raanta and LOL Georgiev have any real bearing on this discussion when none of them were factors until close to 10 years into Hans career? After Hank had already toiled among pure garbage for 6 of those years? Nonsense.

What happened to Talbot after he was given a workload similar to Hanks on Edmonton?

2.55 GAA
2.39
and he never got below 3 again.

Highlighted the key detail for you. You're welcome.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

Highlighted the key detail for you. You're welcome.

That was actually part of my point.

Hank (with a heavy workload) on terrible-middling teams?

Fantastic, Vezina worthy numbers for years. Carries every team but one to the playoffs

Talbot?
Ok-good for 2 years before dropping off a cliff. One playoff.

 

[CloutierForVezina]

I'm obviously biased from my flair, but I truly don't see what makes Lundqvist a clear cut #1 for his era over Luongo. Both had incredible longevity and consistent excellence. Both got close to winning up a cup but came up just short. Both had multiple vezina-worthy seasons (but only Lundqvist actually won one). Both had a significant amount of international success.

I see them as virtually neck-and-neck. I can't see one making the HHOF and not the other, it would be a travesty.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

I'm obviously biased from my flair, but I truly don't see what makes Lundqvist a clear cut #1 for his era over Luongo. Both had incredible longevity and consistent excellence. Both got close to winning up a cup but came up just short. Both had multiple vezina-worthy seasons (but only Lundqvist actually won one). Both had a significant amount of international success.

I see them as virtually neck-and-neck. I can't see one making the HHOF and not the other, it would be a travesty.

Do a side by side comparison of the rosters each had starting in 2005 (especially the rangers D omg) and then look at their stats. That's why he's clear cut #1.

I'm not saying you can't argue Luongo's case, but that's the case for Hank

If you look based solely on point scoring it actually doesn't look terrible in 06 -07 and 07-08.

But the defensemen at that time for the NYR? Karl Rachunek? Pock? Malik, Ozolinsh, Poti (LOL).

Brutally bad. By the time you get to 08-09 and going forward the Canucks are getting 80-100+ point seasons out of their forwards.

The Rangers?

Well in 08-09 they had NO ONE go over 60 points.

In 09-10? They had 3 guys above 43 points. LOL

In 2010 the Canucks top 5 scorers? 104, 94, 73, 50, 50

The Rangers? One single player above 48. Dubinski had 54.

These teams were JOKES.

 

[Hatfield]

I heard a podcast the other day where Sean McIndoe (Down Goes Brown) pointed out that the only goalies drafted after 1973 who are now in the HOF are: Roy, Hasek, Brodeur, Belfour and Fuhr. It would be very lofty company, but also highlights that it can be very tough for goalies to make it in. He deserves to be in at some point, but might not be 1st ballot.

 

[CupsOverCash]

Hes a HOF. He was so instrumental in the Rangers success earlier this decade. Great goalie.

 

[The S5]

The ONLY one who got anywhere near a 'large sample size' was Talbot bc he filled in for several weeks in a row at one point. He still only had 21 and then 36 GP in the season. He was also a starting quality goaltender playing behind a team with fantastic chemistry, a team that had already been winning for a few years, a team with a great defensive structure that knew how to grind out wins and keep the score down. What would have happened if he had been asked to play for 60 like Hank? What would have happened if he had been forced to play behind worse teams?

What happened to Talbot after he was given a workload similar to Hanks on Edmonton?

2.55 GAA
2.39
and he never got below 3 again....yea...really shows how much better these backups were

Pretending that Raanta and LOL Georgiev have any real bearing on this discussion when none of them were factors until close to 10 years into Hans career? After Hank had already toiled among pure garbage for 6 of those years? Nonsense.

I have been hearing this false narrative for Hank's career. Yes, he has been a top 5 goalie each year, up until the last 4 or so. Yes, he will get into the HHOF. But, peoples selective memories don't change facts.

FWIW, comparing Talbot in Edmonton to his time in NY is the real nonsense. Why not compare goalies when they were playing with the SAME TEAM?

 

[Chimpradamus]

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.

Thank you. That I can make other people happy makes me happy. Of course I try to be a bit more "dramatic" (heh) when I'm up for it.

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.

Yes, I realized that, I remembered it really wrong and apologized in an earlier post. Maybe I should've changed my original post, but meh, a mistake is a mistake.

I have been hearing this false narrative for Hank's career. Yes, he has been a top 5 goalie each year, up until the last 4 or so. Yes, he will get into the HHOF. But, peoples selective memories don't change facts.

FWIW, comparing Talbot in Edmonton to his time in NY is the real nonsense. Why not compare goalies when they were playing with the SAME TEAM?

So if that is a false narrative, can you construct the more correct narrative in this thread? I'd like to see it.

 

[Riddum]

There a lot of guys with lesser resumes than Hank that are in the Hall of Good

 

[sabremike]

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.

But to be fair no goalie in history is even close to The Dominator. In his prime he was having performances on a nightly basis that would've been career bests for like 95% of the other goalies in the league. But that said I think people badly underrate Hank. Think about it: did he ever play on a team with an in his prime HOF player on the roster?

 

[RorschachWJK]

Some of the Rangers teams during Lundqvists time were actually quite good, some average and some were above average. Not like all of them were putrid as some seem to claim.

 

[The Wizard of Oz]

I heard a podcast the other day where Sean McIndoe (Down Goes Brown) pointed out that the only goalies drafted after 1973 who are now in the HOF are: Roy, Hasek, Brodeur, Belfour and Fuhr. It would be very lofty company, but also highlights that it can be very tough for goalies to make it in. He deserves to be in at some point, but might not be 1st ballot.

It’s backwards how low the standards are for forwards and how high they are for goalies. I’d say defensemen are the only group the Hall is usually right on.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

I have been hearing this false narrative for Hank's career. Yes, he has been a top 5 goalie each year, up until the last 4 or so. Yes, he will get into the HHOF. But, peoples selective memories don't change facts.

FWIW, comparing Talbot in Edmonton to his time in NY is the real nonsense. Why not compare goalies when they were playing with the SAME TEAM?

It's a true narrative and it's you who has a selective memory here.

I don't think you even get what you're saying

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. .

FWIW S5 seems to be relying on an extremely small section of Hanks career (3-4 years) to argue against a stance that Hank had to carry teams for significant chunks of his entire career (14+ years). The evidence he presents is that the numbers for his backups were good from 2013-now. Firstly, how on Earth would the numbers for his backups (13-17) have any bearing on 05-12?

Also he tries to point to 'Large sample sizes' for the backups from 2013-17...about that...
Hank started 63, 46, 65, 57, and 63 games in those 2013-17-seasons. Now a typical NHL season has 82 games...making it impossible for the backups to have a "large sample size".

In order to buy into the false narrative, you must believe that, somehow, the players performed consistently worse in front of Hank.

Here S5 conveniently ignores the quality of teams Hank played for from 05-now. Which is the much more reasonable stance fans take when debating Hanks career. Some fans do complain about how players arbitrarily played less hard bc they expected Hank to bail them. That stance is very weak and is much easier to attack.

In case you're wondering, he mentioned Georgiev's numbers too didn't he? But I only mentioned 2013-2017 above. Why is that? Bc they didn't make the playoffs and both goalies numbers are in the same 3 GAA area behind a rebuilding team. Hank is old. Why would we use these last few years as representative of the rest of his career? It'd be a complete waste of time.

One last point, we seem to be ignoring that backups are not always put out against the best competition.

 

[CloutierForVezina]

Do a side by side comparison of the rosters each had starting in 2005 (especially the rangers D omg) and then look at their stats. That's why he's clear cut #1.

Oh ya, let's cut off arguably Luongo's best season of his career. Ok. That makes sense that Lundqvist looks better when you do that.

The Rangers?

These teams were JOKES.

We gonna pretend he didn't play half his career for Florida, or that Vancouver wasn't a wasteland when he got there and only put a decent team around him for a few years?

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

Oh ya, let's cut off arguably Luongo's best season of his career. Ok. That makes sense that Lundqvist looks better when you do that.



We gonna pretend he didn't play half his career for Florida, or that Vancouver was a wasteland when he got there and only put a decent team around him for a few years?

We gonna ignore that I literally addressed this already?

Also wtf are you talking about? Cutoff his best season? Hank wasn't in the league yet that's why I started with 05. You want to include his seasons before 05? Want to go rookie season-rookie season? Go right ahead. Luongo would get crushed. I thought it'd be more fair to wait until; 05 so we could do direct roster comparisons AND they'd be playing against the same teams during the same era AND it wouldn't punish Luongo for starting in the NHL at an earlier age.

Want to start looking from Luongo's season when he was 23 years old and compare Hanks 23 year old season and then go from there?

Cool Luongo still looks like dog shit for a few years compared to Hank early on.

You're accusing me of trying to "leave out his best year" when I left out 5 years of dog shit too