Lundqvist's career and why he's a HHOF

[CloutierForVezina]

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 it wouldn't punish Luongo for starting in the NHL at an earlier age.

Ya ok, agree to disagree here. We're obviously not seeing eye to eye. When comparing two players and one player put up 3 stellar seasons and 1 out-of-this-world season, it's not "fair" to cut them off just so they start at the same time. When comparing a player who entered the league at 20 and a player that entered the league at 23 it's not "fair" to compare rookie vs. rookie seasons.

Luongo has better career numbers, better longevity, played for (IMO) worse teams and has better international success. Lundqvist has a vezina win, which is significant and may understandably push him past Luongo by itself.

 

[The S5]

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


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".



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.

I get it, you really love Hank. You can make your tenuous argument all you want, but you aren't changing my mind.
Just to be clear, Hank carried garbage teams on his back consistently over his career? How many other players have done this? Hank must be the greatest player of all time.

 

[Siddi]

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

You didn't comment the part where he dismantles your claim about the backups putting up better numbers. Wonder why?

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 g

Luongo and Bobrovskiy both get destroyed by Hank when comparing playoff stats. Fleury higher peak? You must be f***ing joking Even you must admit that Fleury played behind superior teams and yet his career SV% is way lower then Hanks. Dont get me started on his playoff stats. There are more sub 900 outings than Girardi and Marc Staal own goals combined. Even the Penguins fans will tell you that they won cups despite Fleury not because of him.

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?

You are the one spewing nonsense. You got presented with stats comparing both goalies when on the same team but you failed to respond to it because it didn't fit your narrative.

I get it, you really love Hank. You can make your tenuous argument all you want, but you aren't changing my mind.
Just to be clear, Hank carried garbage teams on his back consistently over his career? How many other players have done this? Hank must be the greatest player of all time.

Great retort when backed into a corner by facts.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

Ya ok, agree to disagree here. We're obviously not seeing eye to eye. When comparing two players and one player put up 3 stellar seasons and 1 out-of-this-world season, it's not "fair" to cut them off just so they start at the same time. When comparing a player who entered the league at 20 and a player that entered the league at 23 it's not "fair" to compare rookie vs. rookie seasons.

Luongo has better career numbers, better longevity, played for (IMO) worse teams and has better international success. Lundqvist has a vezina win, which is significant and may understandably push him past Luongo by itself.

So lemme get this straight...I leave out 4 years of very average at best stats from Luongo so that he doesn't get penalized for starting as a younger rookie.

YOU come in, ignore that, and then cherrypick that I left out 1 great year (ignoring the 4 average-bad years I left out)

Then I clearly state that I was trying not to penalize Luongo for starting early as a rookie. I LITERALLY SAY THIS.

Your response? You talk about how unfair it would be to compare a 20 year old rookie Luongo to Hanks 23 year old rookie season as if I HADNT just showed you that I understood this from the beginning and you failed miserably to see that I was avoiding this.

You also are ignoring that I literally mentioned comparing 23 to 23 year old seasons too. I feel like you're selectively replying to make it seem like you have a better point or you are just having enormous reading failures.

When comparing two players and one player put up 3 stellar seasons and 1 out-of-this-world season, it's not "fair" to cut them off just so they start at the same time. .

Also again wtf ? 3 stellar seasons and 1 out of this world season being cutoff? You have to be the most biased person to look at Luongo's pre-2005 seasons and think this statement is anything but a laughable joke.

The OTHER thing I said that you blatantly ignored is how in 2005 it was a new era of hockey. Different rules. It's also the first time both players are going up against the same teams in the same league so it's the first time we can get a great 1 to 1 comparison which is AGAIN why I started with 05. (Love how you blatantly ignored how we could compare rosters too). Had you been reasonable and fair from the beginning you'd have found out that I don't have a problem with you looking at LUongos one great pre 05 season too. You jumped right to assuming the worst. I don't think this was about being fair though, it was about you trying to accuse me of being dishonest as if that would prove your point (It wouldn't) instead of actually basing your point around hockey.

You completely ignored the multitude of roster comparisons I made based on stats across several years . All you offered was a generic complaint about Luongo having a bad team at one point too. No stats, no details. You did not come into this discussion honestly or fairly.

You ignore the multitude of season comparisons I did to show that hank absolutely had worse teams he played for and bring nothing to that end of the discussion. And I was all ears for it, you just had NOTHING to say.

 

[Betelgeuse]

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.

I can appreciate the effort you've put in to your post, but I would find more credibility in a stance that has solid reasoning and clear communication.

Suggestions:
1. A sound argument should at least contain statistical backing. In some places you've referenced numbers, but you need to provide these. You have not a single number in your wall of text.
2. Avoid cliché and ambiguous phrases such as "he's extremely competitive and keeps it very serious". These qualities are not readily measurable nor observable.
3. Structure your writing. This is a patchwork of sentences.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

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.

You show me the quite good teams he had from 05-11.

Nobody is trashing the 2012-15 teams as bad teams, those were solid teams. Before that? After that? Some absolute atrocities. In his first 6 or 7 years he carried those atrocities into the playoffs. Nobody played on teams as bad as those for as long as that and came away with the stats that Hank did. If I'm wrong, show me.

I've got 3 or 4 guys talking about 'revisionist history' this, 'the Rangers teams were good' that. I'm not seeing anything approaching a real argument.

Bc it's flat out wrong. Hank, in his career NEVER had a team as good as some of the teams guys like Broduer, Luongo and FLeury were able to play on. He never got to play behind a trapping clutch and grab era juggernaut like Brodeur did (and that's not a shot that's just a fact that those teams were god like in that era, mastering what the rules allowed). As great as it was to watch the 2012-15 teams winning games and playoff series those were NOT elite teams. There wasn't a single elite player in sight. You wanna look at Nash's output and GP and talk about elite? LOL of course you don't bc you'd look silly. You wanna look at Nash's playoff performance and talk about elite? LOL of course not bc you'd be a joke for doing so. Same for St. Louis, Richards, Gomez, Drury, etc. Hanks first year? Jagr was a monster but it has to be pointed out that this was on a roster that was picked to be bottom 3 in the league bc of how bad it was. So he had the top talent that one year but the rest of the team was just SO bad. Gabs had two great years in the regular season but like I mentioned before the rest of the team was a joke.

Where were the Crosby/Malkin/Letangs? Where were the Sedins and Keslers? From top to bottom Hanks teams never even sniffed that kind of talent.

Were Luongo or Fleury ever on teams like the 2012-2015 NYR teams? How'd they do? How many times did Hasek or Roy play on teams with damn near no offensive talent like what hank had in 08-11? When did those guys play in net behind beer league defensemen like Hank did from 05-07?

People it's not a 1 to 1 comparison. They weren't on the same teams. If you can't look at the rosters you are wrong.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

I get it, you really love Hank. You can make your tenuous argument all you want, but you aren't changing my mind.
Just to be clear, Hank carried garbage teams on his back consistently over his career? How many other players have done this? Hank must be the greatest player of all time.

It's not about love or changing minds it's about your obvious inability to argue your point bc you know you're wrong. That's why you have done less than nothing to actually prove anything you're saying. Your joke of a stance begins and ends with cup wins...for a team game...

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

You didn't comment the part where he dismantles your claim about the backups putting up better numbers. Wonder why?



Luongo and Bobrovskiy both get destroyed by Hank when comparing playoff stats. Fleury higher peak? You must be ****ing joking Even you must admit that Fleury played behind superior teams and yet his career SV% is way lower then Hanks. Dont get me started on his playoff stats. There are more sub 900 outings than Girardi and Marc Staal own goals combined. Even the Penguins fans will tell you that they won cups despite Fleury not because of him.



You are the one spewing nonsense. You got presented with stats comparing both goalies when on the same team but you failed to respond to it because it didn't fit your narrative.



Great retort when backed into a corner by facts.

I get so frustrated by how it just feels so dishonest and lazy.

It's like, if the guys point is he didn't win a cup then that's his point. I think he knows how weak a point that is so he tried to dress it up with outright lies and hyperbolic claims about backups. he KNOWS it's a bad point so he ignored it completely when I, as you said, dismantle the stupid claim.

I get stuck with the other dude crying foul about fairness bc I left out one great Luongo year but he ignores the 4 other not so great years I also left out. He also ignores that I very fairly point out how Luongo has a great case too right from the get go and it's like wtf do I have to do?

Do any of them bring anything to the discussion? Of course not. Do any of them discuss the actual stats and facts that I bring up? Of course not.

 

[RageQuit77]

If Noora Räty retires before Henrik Lundqvist (unlikely, but possible), then she should get priority over Lundqvist in induction to the HHOF. Its not question only about stats, its also question of an overall global impact that is difficult intangible to enumerate, but objectively under our perception. Relative importance within her context is much higher than relative importance of his context.

And No! This isn't the place for sexist remarks, or belittling comments about women's hockey. Her career stats clean floor with any and every male goalie of the world, by far, and most significant parts of those stats are accumulated in circumstances against vastly superior teams and near overwhelming odds. Some of her hockey goalie records are likely going to be as unbreakable as they can, and future little girls making their first appearances on a grease will whisper her name with awe. If there are any goalie who can be said to be able to carry a whole team, then the first one to be mentioned is Noora Räty.

There should be proper hype thread for Noora somewhere in these pages.

 

[Siddi]

If Noora Räty retires before Henrik Lundqvist (unlikely, but possible), then she should get priority over Lundqvist in induction to the HHOF. Its not question only about stats, its also question of an overall global impact that is difficult intangible to enumerate, but objectively under our perception. Relative importance within her context is much higher than relative importance of his context.

And No! This isn't the place for sexist remarks, or belittling comments about women's hockey. Her career stats clean floor with any and every male goalie of the world, by far, and most significant parts of those stats are accumulated in circumstances against vastly superior teams and near overwhelming odds. Some of her hockey goalie records are likely going to be as unbreakable as they can, and future little girls making their first appearances on a grease will whisper her name with awe. If there are any goalie who can be said to be able to carry a whole team, then the first one to be mentioned is Noora Räty.

There should be proper hype thread for Noora somewhere in these pages.

Wrong thread buddy.

FYI 4 men and 2 women can get voted in any given year. They have seperate ballots. No male can be voted in over a female and vice versa.

 

[RageQuit77]

Wrong thread buddy.

FYI 4 men and 2 women can get voted in any given year. They have seperate ballots. No male can be voted in over a female and vice versa.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Of course. Wrong thread for the comment was pretty much intentional choice, but also comment for giving some other perspective to the things when certifiably great goalie figures out of the building infight on a door carpet of the HOFF (Pun intended) against brodeurs, roys, haseks and naturally among themselves too.

The Goddess of goaltending look upon them from the ceiling of the Hall.

Already dated, but still relevant article about what I meant with and what was the purpose of my comment. https://thehockeywriters.com/finland-noora-raty-hhof-goalie/

No further intrusions or off-topics from me in this thread.

 

[RorschachWJK]

You show me the quite good teams he had from 05-11.

Nobody is trashing the 2012-15 teams as bad teams, those were solid teams. Before that? After that? Some absolute atrocities. In his first 6 or 7 years he carried those atrocities into the playoffs. Nobody played on teams as bad as those for as long as that and came away with the stats that Hank did. If I'm wrong, show me.

I've got 3 or 4 guys talking about 'revisionist history' this, 'the Rangers teams were good' that. I'm not seeing anything approaching a real argument.

Bc it's flat out wrong. Hank, in his career NEVER had a team as good as some of the teams guys like Broduer, Luongo and FLeury were able to play on. He never got to play behind a trapping clutch and grab era juggernaut like Brodeur did (and that's not a shot that's just a fact that those teams were god like in that era, mastering what the rules allowed). As great as it was to watch the 2012-15 teams winning games and playoff series those were NOT elite teams. There wasn't a single elite player in sight. You wanna look at Nash's output and GP and talk about elite? LOL of course you don't bc you'd look silly. You wanna look at Nash's playoff performance and talk about elite? LOL of course not bc you'd be a joke for doing so. Same for St. Louis, Richards, Gomez, Drury, etc. Hanks first year? Jagr was a monster but it has to be pointed out that this was on a roster that was picked to be bottom 3 in the league bc of how bad it was. So he had the top talent that one year but the rest of the team was just SO bad. Gabs had two great years in the regular season but like I mentioned before the rest of the team was a joke.

Where were the Crosby/Malkin/Letangs? Where were the Sedins and Keslers? From top to bottom Hanks teams never even sniffed that kind of talent.

Were Luongo or Fleury ever on teams like the 2012-2015 NYR teams? How'd they do? How many times did Hasek or Roy play on teams with damn near no offensive talent like what hank had in 08-11? When did those guys play in net behind beer league defensemen like Hank did from 05-07?

People it's not a 1 to 1 comparison. They weren't on the same teams. If you can't look at the rosters you are wrong.

Sorry but I do not have the time or the interest to produce yearly rosters with accompanying detailed analysis. There were some good rosters nevertheless. I never claimed that any of the teams were elite.

 

[crowi]

I hope he doesn't make it due to being swe. I know he will make it and I'll be glad later.

 

[Plural]

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

Honestly though, is he THAT much worse than Brodeur?

 

[Pay Carl]

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.

crazy revisionist history

rangers teams in early part of the decade were STACKED. I’m sure the dude will be in HOF but this is just wrong

Rangers get everyone they wanted this decade, prob acquired more big names than any other team... Richards, MSL, E. Staal, Yandle, Shattenkirk, Nash, Panarin, I’m sure I’m forgetting some too

 

[biturbo19]

Luongo is a HOFer before Lundqvist. If Luongo gets in, i can stomach Lundqvist getting in as a "consistent compiler". But until then...he's certainly not a first ballot guy, and he's very fringe.

 

[Chimpradamus]

I can appreciate the effort you've put in to your post, but I would find more credibility in a stance that has solid reasoning and clear communication.

Suggestions:
1. A sound argument should at least contain statistical backing. In some places you've referenced numbers, but you need to provide these. You have not a single number in your wall of text.
2. Avoid cliché and ambiguous phrases such as "he's extremely competitive and keeps it very serious". These qualities are not readily measurable nor observable.
3. Structure your writing. This is a patchwork of sentences.

Yes, I could've put down alot more time to write this and revise it a couple of times, you're correct and used hours to dig up old stats.

I said myself in my first sentence that it should be at least above average and I think I managed that. You don't think I know it could've been better? But I don't want to put down hours on a simple post.

crazy revisionist history

rangers teams in early part of the decade were STACKED. I’m sure the dude will be in HOF but this is just wrong

Rangers get everyone they wanted this decade, prob acquired more big names than any other team... Richards, MSL, E. Staal, Yandle, Shattenkirk, Nash, Panarin, I’m sure I’m forgetting some too

Ever heard of albatross contracts in plural? A ridiculous amount of UFA underperformed and/ or were too isolated from good support from the rest of the mediocre roster to be able to really put up numbers. NYR got who their money throwing GMs wanted to sell tickets, many of them over the hill. Not who the teams needed.

 

[Siddi]

Luongo is a HOFer before Lundqvist. If Luongo gets in, i can stomach Lundqvist getting in as a "consistent compiler". But until then...he's certainly not a first ballot guy, and he's very fringe.

Based on what? Lundqvist is ahead of Luongo in literally every stat and even in the hardware department.

 

[DVon Du Nord]

Islanders fan for 20 some odd years here, and one thing I always say to Rangers fans.... (when we're trying to be amicable of course) is that Lundqvist is the most consistently good goaltender I've ever watched. It was like he walked into the dressing room every game and went "Alright lads, just put 2 or 3 in tonight and I'll take care of the rest".

 

[The S5]

You didn't comment the part where he dismantles your claim about the backups putting up better numbers. Wonder why?



Luongo and Bobrovskiy both get destroyed by Hank when comparing playoff stats. Fleury higher peak? You must be ****ing joking Even you must admit that Fleury played behind superior teams and yet his career SV% is way lower then Hanks. Dont get me started on his playoff stats. There are more sub 900 outings than Girardi and Marc Staal own goals combined. Even the Penguins fans will tell you that they won cups despite Fleury not because of him.



You are the one spewing nonsense. You got presented with stats comparing both goalies when on the same team but you failed to respond to it because it didn't fit your narrative.



Great retort when backed into a corner by facts.

We know Talbot had a better SV% and GAA in 2014 over 36 games.
Raanta had a 2.24 and 2.26 GAA in 2015 and 2016, 25 and 30 games respectively. Hanks was 2.48 and 2.74. Raanta SV% was 919 and 922. Hanks was 920 and 910.
As far as Georgiev, we can leave that as what will be based on a small sample size, but up to this point, Georgie has consistently outplayed Hank. The current rendition of Hank is one who finds himself out of position far too often, having to react to make routine saves look dramatic. He swims in his crease and finds himself on his stomach way too often. But, I will gladly concede on Georgie since I know its only a matter of time until he takes over the net. Him or Shesterkin.
So, my initial premise was that it was/is a false narrative that Hank carried teams on his back and never got the support that his backups received. My thought was that it is nonsense. Nothing you have stated changed that thought.

So,

 

[The S5]

It's not about love or changing minds it's about your obvious inability to argue your point bc you know you're wrong. That's why you have done less than nothing to actually prove anything you're saying. Your joke of a stance begins and ends with cup wins...for a team game...

What about "Hank will get into the HHOF" leads you to believe that I think he is/was a bad player?
So, because I disagree that Hank "carried all of those horrid Ranger teams on his back" and "Hank never got the support that his backups got" narrative, you decide to get butt hurt.
You even mention "team game", yet hang on to this narrative that it was all Hank and without him, those teams don't sniff the playoffs. I have addressed stats in previous posts, so I won't do it again.
Let it go man, just let it go.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

I know I have some replies but based on how the convo went b4 I have zero faith that anything remotely productive is actually being said.

Forgive me if you finally brought something resembling an argument in but I just can't risk that I'm going to keep running into the same wall over and over. I'm taking a break

 

[DelZottoHitTheNetJK]

Spicy take here and I know the pitchforks are about to come out but in his prime Lundqvist was the best there ever was. He played on some absolute trash teams and made saves that were simply unfathomable. I can't even begin to count the amount of games he completely stole for the Rangers that they had no business winning.

I'll never forget the game against Dallas, I believe it was the first game he ever played against his brother. One of the best goaltending performances I've ever seen

 

[Siddi]

I know I have some replies but based on how the convo went b4 I have zero faith that anything remotely productive is actually being said.

Forgive me if you finally brought something resembling an argument in but I just can't risk that I'm going to keep running into the same wall over and over. I'm taking a break

Same wall. Don't bother.

 

[Hi ImHFNYR]

Same wall. Don't bother.

I'm learning with old age lol