Round 2, Vote 1 (HFNYR Top Goalies All-Time)

[haohmaru]

I figured Lundqvist would be atop a lot of lists. Here's why he's not atop mine: with the exclusion of this past off-season, Lundqvist has not played as well in the playoffs as he has during regular seasons. Richter didn't do that at every turn in the playoffs either but he did it more times IMHO. The stats don't tell the whole story. Being a money goalie is about making the key saves.

And, yes, the Cup matters to me. Maybe if the Rangers had more than 4 Cups, it wouldn't matter as much to me...but they don't.

Richter was great in the Cup year. That year he made all the big saves. And he didn't just win because he had a great team in front of him. In 96 Richter led the US team to the Gold Medal in the World Cup and that was a US squad that wasn't stacked at ever position. Guys like Bryan Smolinski made the squad.

And Richter was the MVP of the tournament. Comparing Richter to Chris Osgood is simply unjustified.

Sure Richter didn't win the Vezina but he was up against 3 of the greatest of all time in Hasek, Roy and Brodeur. As far as other individual awards, like the Hart, Richter wasn't the best player on his team. Messier and Leetch attracted the spotlight when people were looking for reasons why the Rangers were successful. Richter also had worse defensive defenses in front of him than Lundqvist and he never played behind a defensive system.

If all things were equal I'd agree with this. But, they aren't.

The "Richter" Rangers had generational talent at key positions. Messier is arguably top 5 or top 10 centers to have ever played the game. Leetch is generally considered the best American defenseman in the history of the game. The '93-94 Rangers (and '91-92, '92-93) were SUPPOSED to win.

Glen Anderson HHOF
Leetch HHOF
Messier HHOF
Gartner HHOF (yeah, traded, but value was there. 62 goals in '93-94)
Kovalev (possibly in the hall)

Henrik's Rangers have all been middle of the road clubs. His playoff stats are better than his regular season stats - 2.26/.920 vs 2.25/.922

Ask yourself if the '93-94 Rangers had Lundqvist - would they have done worse? Probably not. In fact, the '92-93 Rangers would've probably been less of a disappointment. How many times have Henrik's teams not qualified for the playoffs? Once.

Would Richter have brought the 2013-14 Rangers to the Final? Probably not.

I like Mike. He's not in the same league as Lundqvist and Henrik hasn't had nearly the same guys in front of him to work with.

 

[Greg02]

Chief, if you have Richter in front of Lundqvist what does the rest of your list look like?

 

[Zil]

If Richter were as good as Lundqvist, then the Rangers win the Cup in 92 and maybe they don't feel the need to destroy their long-term contention window by dealing away Weight, Amonte, and later Norstrom.

 

[eKardz]

I have beezer at the bottom of my list. He just doesn't do it for me. The Rangers only have 4 stanley cups, if they had as many as Montreal then the decision might be different, but each cup has an enormous value on this poll. Richter is ahead of beezer cause of the cup. Dave Kerr put up some of incredible numbers in a short time and won a cup. Chabot and Aitkenhead not here or good long enough while here. I mean if we are just looking for good rangers goalies, why not Johnny bower, he was here for a season. Success in NY the cups have to factor in, big time. Beezer, great goalie, can never be ahead of richter in rangers lore.

 

[Cake or Death]

I figured Lundqvist would be atop a lot of lists. Here's why he's not atop mine: with the exclusion of this past off-season, Lundqvist has not played as well in the playoffs as he has during regular seasons. Richter didn't do that at every turn in the playoffs either but he did it more times IMHO. The stats don't tell the whole story. Being a money goalie is about making the key saves.

And, yes, the Cup matters to me. Maybe if the Rangers had more than 4 Cups, it wouldn't matter as much to me...but they don't.

Richter was great the Cup year, but he really only had 2, maybe 3 very good playoffs. He was average, sometimes bad, the rest of the time. But here's an interesting question. I thought McLean outplayed Richter in 94 but was on the inferior team. Flip Richter and McLean that season and are the results any different? I doubt it. I still think the better TEAM wins.

Winning a Cup is a team endeavor. Funny, I was just listening to hall of fame NBA player Rick Barry talk about how shocked he is anyone can have Jordan ahead of Chamberlain. Barry said something to the tune of, "This isn't tennis, one player alone doesn't win championships. Great teams win championships and Jordan was on much better teams than Wilt. You can't fault Wilt for being on teams with bad management. When Wilt finally had some players around him, he finally won some titles."

Richter was great in the Cup year. That year he made all the big saves. And he didn't just win because he had a great team in front of him. In 96 Richter led the US team to the Gold Medal in the World Cup and that was a US squad that wasn't stacked at ever position. Guys like Bryan Smolinski made the squad.

And Richter was the MVP of the tournament. Comparing Richter to Chris Osgood is simply unjustified.

All good, but it's their time in NY only. Richter's international play is of no more relevance here than Lundqvist's gold medal with Sweden.

Sure Richter didn't win the Vezina but he was up against 3 of the greatest of all time in Hasek, Roy and Brodeur. As far as other individual awards, like the Hart, Richter wasn't the best player on his team. Messier and Leetch attracted the spotlight when people were looking for reasons why the Rangers were successful. Richter also had worse defensive defenses in front of him than Lundqvist and he never played behind a defensive system.

It's not just a matter that he didn't win a Vezina or an AST selection against those guys, it's more that in 14 years he only twice cracked the top 5 in either category. Heck, Daren Puppa managed that too during Richter's career and also managed to snag a 2AST. It's not that Richter wasn't better than the top three you'd mentioned, he wasn't better than the next three either.

Richter was a very good goalie, but still against his peers he was generally in the 8-10 range when he had a very good team in front of him and was generally regarded outside the top 10 when he didn't. 14 seasons, some of them with outstanding teams, and only once in the top 5 in save percentage.

 

[Chief]

If all things were equal I'd agree with this. But, they aren't.

The "Richter" Rangers had generational talent at key positions. Messier is arguably top 5 or top 10 centers to have ever played the game. Leetch is generally considered the best American defenseman in the history of the game. The '93-94 Rangers (and '91-92, '92-93) were SUPPOSED to win.

Glen Anderson HHOF
Leetch HHOF
Messier HHOF
Gartner HHOF (yeah, traded, but value was there. 62 goals in '93-94)
Kovalev (possibly in the hall)

Henrik's Rangers have all been middle of the road clubs. His playoff stats are better than his regular season stats - 2.26/.920 vs 2.25/.922

Ask yourself if the '93-94 Rangers had Lundqvist - would they have done worse? Probably not. In fact, the '92-93 Rangers would've probably been less of a disappointment. How many times have Henrik's teams not qualified for the playoffs? Once.

Would Richter have brought the 2013-14 Rangers to the Final? Probably not.

I like Mike. He's not in the same league as Lundqvist and Henrik hasn't had nearly the same guys in front of him to work with.

You need to take a look at who was on Richter's Rangers. They weren't very talented teams for a lot of Richter's career. Do names like Kevin Stevens, MacLean, Kamensky, Quintal ring any bells? How about Fleury battling a drug addiction? Or Lindros and his wonky head. Even guys like Turcotte and Ogrodnick who were good players, weren't world beaters. And even the guys you named: Glen Anderson??? He was at the end of his career and was not playing at a high level on the Rangers. Kovalev was very good in the Cup run but he had his best years wearing other uniforms. Gartner? Again, a very good scorer but am I really supposed to be impressed by him when I put him up against Jagr - who had the most dominant offensive season by any Ranger forward ever? And what Gaborik and Nash haven't been better scorers than Gartner and Kovalev?

As a side note you hit on one of my pet peeves by not even mention Graves, who continues to be underrated.

Maybe we should look at the coaches Richter played under. Yes, one year of Keenan and then mostly guys who never distinguished themselves at all like Campbell, Low, Trottier. Sure Muckler was here but he hardly did a bang up job with his Ranger crew.

And it's not just the coaches. The organization took a turn for the better after the 04-05 lockout.

You could also argue that the blueline groups Lundqvist has had in front of him have been better defensively than what Richter had to play with which has helped his game.

I get the arguments for Lundqvist but he hasn't accomplished enough when it matters (meaning the playoffs) for everyone to consider this a slam dunk. If you want to talk about regular seasons only, then sure, Lundqvist would get my vote as well. But the PO's and rings matter to me.

 

[Cake or Death]

Good times...

 

[AHB*]

Lundqvist will be in the hall of fame someday and there's a possibility we will consider him the best player in franchise history when all is said and done. He is, quite easily, much better then Richter.

 

[haohmaru]

You need to take a look at who was on Richter's Rangers. They weren't very talented teams for a lot of Richter's career. Do names like Kevin Stevens, MacLean, Kamensky, Quintal ring any bells? How about Fleury battling a drug addiction? Or Lindros and his wonky head. Even guys like Turcotte and Ogrodnick who were good players, weren't world beaters. And even the guys you named: Glen Anderson??? He was at the end of his career and was not playing at a high level on the Rangers. Kovalev was very good in the Cup run but he had his best years wearing other uniforms. Gartner? Again, a very good scorer but am I really supposed to be impressed by him when I put him up against Jagr - who had the most dominant offensive season by any Ranger forward ever? And what Gaborik and Nash haven't been better scorers than Gartner and Kovalev?

As a side note you hit on one of my pet peeves by not even mention Graves, who continues to be underrated.

Maybe we should look at the coaches Richter played under. Yes, one year of Keenan and then mostly guys who never distinguished themselves at all like Campbell, Low, Trottier. Sure Muckler was here but he hardly did a bang up job with his Ranger crew.

And it's not just the coaches. The organization took a turn for the better after the 04-05 lockout.

You could also argue that the blueline groups Lundqvist has had in front of him have been better defensively than what Richter had to play with which has helped his game.

I get the arguments for Lundqvist but he hasn't accomplished enough when it matters (meaning the playoffs) for everyone to consider this a slam dunk. If you want to talk about regular seasons only, then sure, Lundqvist would get my vote as well. But the PO's and rings matter to me.

If you take a look at what I was talking about, specifically, it's that the '91, '92, '93, and possibly '94 Ranger teams in front of Richter were/are better than any teams that have played in front of Lundqvist. I brought up Hall of Fame players because they played on that team, at the same time, along with a complement of core players and borderline Hall of Fame players (Larmer, Lowe, Tikkanen, and Zubov). Richter played with some crappy teams further along in his career, but the lineups that he played with in those 3 or 4 years were better than any team in front of Lundqvist.

And, truth be told, the '93-94 Rangers BARELY won. The Messier "guarantee" game was about Richter early, but they don't win that game without the performance from the much maligned Alexei Kovalev. Leetch had one of the greatest playoff performances by a defenseman. Ever.

I say that if Lundqvist were the goalie then, they still would've won. Do you disagree with that?

And, please, let's not talk about Mr. Invisible in the playoffs Rick Nash in the same sentence with a guy like Mike Gartner. Same for Gaborik - and I like Gaborik. He's not Mike Gartner.

I didn't mention Graves (who I think belongs in the Rafters) because he was a complementary player. So was Zubov (big mistake moving him). So was Beukeboom. So was Larmer. Not taking anything away from them, but name the last Rangers team that had two Hall of Famers on it, much less three (two of which were in there prime). Sure, Anderson was tailing off but he was another Oilers piece to the puzzle. As was the late acquisition of MacTavish. Reuniting a winning team proved successful.

Look at "the core" of each of the teams during those early 90's years and match them up with any team ahead of Lundqvist.

Leetch, Messier, Graves, Zubov, Nemchinov, Lowe, Larmer, Verbeek, Nedved, Beukeboom, Gartner, Nedved, Kovalev, Amonte, Weight, Tikkanen, Turcotte, Patrick, etc...

You can make the argument that Richter didn't do enough in 3 of 4 of those years. Fair to lay it at his feet? Fairer than laying it at Lundqvist's - Richter had the better teams in front of him.

Have we ever had a center like Messier (in his prime) before or after? Not really. Another Brian Leetch? Definitely not - though McD is making huge strides to get there.

Jagr was generational and carried a team on his back to the playoffs. He was a monster. He, and Lundqvist, were pretty much what those teams had.

 

[Cake or Death]

You need to take a look at who was on Richter's Rangers. They weren't very talented teams for a lot of Richter's career. Do names like Kevin Stevens, MacLean, Kamensky, Quintal ring any bells? How about Fleury battling a drug addiction? Or Lindros and his wonky head. Even guys like Turcotte and Ogrodnick who were good players, weren't world beaters. And even the guys you named: Glen Anderson??? He was at the end of his career and was not playing at a high level on the Rangers. Kovalev was very good in the Cup run but he had his best years wearing other uniforms. Gartner? Again, a very good scorer but am I really supposed to be impressed by him when I put him up against Jagr - who had the most dominant offensive season by any Ranger forward ever? And what Gaborik and Nash haven't been better scorers than Gartner and Kovalev?

As a side note you hit on one of my pet peeves by not even mention Graves, who continues to be underrated.

Maybe we should look at the coaches Richter played under. Yes, one year of Keenan and then mostly guys who never distinguished themselves at all like Campbell, Low, Trottier. Sure Muckler was here but he hardly did a bang up job with his Ranger crew.

And it's not just the coaches. The organization took a turn for the better after the 04-05 lockout.

You could also argue that the blueline groups Lundqvist has had in front of him have been better defensively than what Richter had to play with which has helped his game.

I get the arguments for Lundqvist but he hasn't accomplished enough when it matters (meaning the playoffs) for everyone to consider this a slam dunk. If you want to talk about regular seasons only, then sure, Lundqvist would get my vote as well. But the PO's and rings matter to me.

I think you may be devaluing the team's impact on '94. Richter, and the Rangers team, easily cruised through the first two rounds that season. In round 3, Richter had an excellent game 6, but the series victory had more to do with the Rangers simply being the superior team. The 3 games the Devils won, Richter faced 85 shots, Brodeur faced 86. The 4 games NY won, Richter faced 109 shots, Brodeur faced 173. Is it surprising NY won 4 games with such a gross shot disparity?

Marty had the much higher save pct (.934 to .922), but Brodeur faced 36 percent more shots in that series. Was it a huge shock that NY won games 2, 3 and 7 when they outshot the Devils 40-16, 50-31 and 48-32 in those games?

Same in the Cup Final. McLean had a superior save pct (.919 to .910), was the better goalie of the two according to pretty much everyone I remember watching it back then, but McLean was on the inferior team and saw a lot more shots.

Richter won, made some key saves when it mattered. But some gaffes, like his horrible game 5 in the SCF were brutal. I remember the team coming back from a 3-0 deficit in the third to tie it and Richter letting in like 3 goals in the last 10 minutes. Richter was terrible that game and I was terrified that was gonna turn the series, especially when the Canucks pelted us 4-1 (iirc) the next game and pushed it to game 7. Then, that huge performance from McLean in game 1 looked even huger.

I wouldn't minimize the team too much. Richter saw a lot less rubber the last two rounds. I'm not suggesting the Rangers won in spite of Richter or anything stupid. But he was out-performed the last two rounds and just happened to be on the superior team. Last two rounds, McLean and Brodeur both saw 35-plus shots 4 times each. Richter only saw 35-plus shots once each series. Richter got killed both those games and let in 10 goals. Fortunately, McLean and Brodeur combined to face 100 more shots than Richter those two rounds.

 

[Cake or Death]

Just to add, I have huge respect and appreciation for Richter. Hard working, stand up guy whose legacy only brightens with all he continues to do. But in doing something like this, I am trying to look at things as honestly and objectively as I can. And in being objective, he was a borderline top 10 goalie, who won a Cup with a superb team in front of him, who also had a lot of bad seasons and mediocre playoffs, as well.

Remember Richter's 93 playoffs? Of course not. He had a crap season, was sent to the minors, and the Rangers became the first team in NHL history to miss the playoffs after winning the President's Trophy the season before. Sure, the team had issues. But VBK still posted a winning record record that season. Richter was like 13-20 and a huge component of the team missing the playoffs. That was a team that had no business missing the playoffs and when looking at the big picture, I have to look at stuff like that too.

Richter won the year he was 'supposed to win,' but he honestly didn't elevate the team all too much when he didn't have a beast roster in front of him. Guys like Rayner and VBK did. Rayner wins a Hart, drags a losing team to a Cup Final game 7 OT, and gets into the Hall with a losing record. VBK wins a Vezina on a losing 85-86 team, takes them to the Conf Final, and posted a 31-21-5 winning record on a losing team while the backups combined for a 5-17-1 record.

Chief, I sincerely don't recall Richter ever really elevating a team like those other two did. And he certainly never elevated his team as much or as consistently as Lundqvist has. Hank has been pretty damn stellar and in the 4 plus decades I've been watching the team I don’t recall any goalie who gives the team a chance to win the way Lundqvist does. I can't recall anyone who's close.

Sorry for the long ass posts. But I don't value team achievements quite so much. I go more by eye test when I can, and how guys did against their contemporaries, and I have Richter 6th here and a fairly decent distance behind Hank. Just clarifying why.

 

[Greg02]

Have we ever had a center like Messier (in his prime) before or after? Not really.

This is a few projects ago, but Frank Boucher.

 

[Chief]

If you take a look at what I was talking about, specifically, it's that the '91, '92, '93, and possibly '94 Ranger teams in front of Richter were/are better than any teams that have played in front of Lundqvist. I brought up Hall of Fame players because they played on that team, at the same time, along with a complement of core players and borderline Hall of Fame players (Larmer, Lowe, Tikkanen, and Zubov). Richter played with some crappy teams further along in his career, but the lineups that he played with in those 3 or 4 years were better than any team in front of Lundqvist.

And, truth be told, the '93-94 Rangers BARELY won. The Messier "guarantee" game was about Richter early, but they don't win that game without the performance from the much maligned Alexei Kovalev. Leetch had one of the greatest playoff performances by a defenseman. Ever.

I say that if Lundqvist were the goalie then, they still would've won. Do you disagree with that?

And, please, let's not talk about Mr. Invisible in the playoffs Rick Nash in the same sentence with a guy like Mike Gartner. Same for Gaborik - and I like Gaborik. He's not Mike Gartner.

I didn't mention Graves (who I think belongs in the Rafters) because he was a complementary player. So was Zubov (big mistake moving him). So was Beukeboom. So was Larmer. Not taking anything away from them, but name the last Rangers team that had two Hall of Famers on it, much less three (two of which were in there prime). Sure, Anderson was tailing off but he was another Oilers piece to the puzzle. As was the late acquisition of MacTavish. Reuniting a winning team proved successful.

Look at "the core" of each of the teams during those early 90's years and match them up with any team ahead of Lundqvist.

Leetch, Messier, Graves, Zubov, Nemchinov, Lowe, Larmer, Verbeek, Nedved, Beukeboom, Gartner, Nedved, Kovalev, Amonte, Weight, Tikkanen, Turcotte, Patrick, etc...

You can make the argument that Richter didn't do enough in 3 of 4 of those years. Fair to lay it at his feet? Fairer than laying it at Lundqvist's - Richter had the better teams in front of him.

Have we ever had a center like Messier (in his prime) before or after? Not really. Another Brian Leetch? Definitely not - though McD is making huge strides to get there.

Jagr was generational and carried a team on his back to the playoffs. He was a monster. He, and Lundqvist, were pretty much what those teams had.

The Ranger teams immediately before Mess got to NY were not great and once Mess got to NY, he changed the mindset, but I think people think some of those teams were better than they were. There's a reason they didn't win more Cups - and Richter was part of the equation for sure...just like Lundqvist is now. For every "name" you can trot out from the 90's, I can throw our Jagr, Shanahan, St. Louis, Naslund, Richards, who played with Lundqvist.

In the end, I don't think Lundqvist has elevated his game in the playoffs for most of his career. Richter was far from perfect in the playoffs as well but he did have a few playoff seasons that were stellar and the Cup run was one of them. I don't think a franchise that has only won 4 Stanley Cups can undervalue the players who helped get them those Cups.

 

[haohmaru]

The Ranger teams immediately before Mess got to NY were not great and once Mess got to NY, he changed the mindset, but I think people think some of those teams were better than they were. There's a reason they didn't win more Cups - and Richter was part of the equation for sure...just like Lundqvist is now. For every "name" you can trot out from the 90's, I can throw our Jagr, Shanahan, St. Louis, Naslund, Richards, who played with Lundqvist.

In the end, I don't think Lundqvist has elevated his game in the playoffs for most of his career. Richter was far from perfect in the playoffs as well but he did have a few playoff seasons that were stellar and the Cup run was one of them. I don't think a franchise that has only won 4 Stanley Cups can undervalue the players who helped get them those Cups.

Completely disagree. And, facts bear it out. Lundqvist's save % and GAA are better in the post season than they are in the regular season - and his numbers since he entered the league are staggering. If memory serves, since he entered the league he leads in wins, GAA, SO's, and is 2nd in save % since he's been in the league. And his playoff numbers are BETTER.

How many years did Messier play with the NYR? Leetch? Graves? And you're throwing out guys like Shanahan (2) Jagr (3) Richards (3) Naslund (1) St. Louis (1) who, collectively, played equal to or less years for the Rangers than Leetch did. Or Messier did. Or Graves did.

Furthermore, you're comparing Richards to Messier? Naslund to Messier? Richards was benched in the playoffs last year and was a liability this year. They aren't remotely similar.

My "big names" played 10+ years for the Rangers. Your "big names" played 10 years for the Rangers COMBINED.

The '91-94 team rosters were better than anything Lundqvist has had to work with.

 

[haohmaru]

This is a few projects ago, but Frank Boucher.

Great NYR center. Hard to compare the two - different eras, different competition levels, and different circumstances.

 

[Chief]

Richter won the year he was 'supposed to win,' but he honestly didn't elevate the team all too much when he didn't have a beast roster in front of him. Guys like Rayner and VBK did. Rayner wins a Hart, drags a losing team to a Cup Final game 7 OT, and gets into the Hall with a losing record. VBK wins a Vezina on a losing 85-86 team, takes them to the Conf Final, and posted a 31-21-5 winning record on a losing team while the backups combined for a 5-17-1 record.

Hey Cake, I'm not looking to bash Lundqvist, I'm just explaining the factors I weigh heavily. VBK had a lot of great qualities but he played in 38 playoff games and only won 13 (and 8 of those game in one postseason). That's not going to get him over Richter.

Rangers Playoffs:
Richter 41 wins in 76 playoff games.
VBK 13 wins in 38 playoff games.
Lundqvist 43 wins in 92 playoff games.

 

[Chief]

Completely disagree. And, facts bear it out. Lundqvist's save % and GAA are better in the post season than they are in the regular season - and his numbers since he entered the league are staggering. If memory serves, since he entered the league he leads in wins, GAA, SO's, and is 2nd in save % since he's been in the league. And his playoff numbers are BETTER.

How many years did Messier play with the NYR? Leetch? Graves? And you're throwing out guys like Shanahan (2) Jagr (3) Richards (3) Naslund (1) St. Louis (1) who, collectively, played equal to or less years for the Rangers than Leetch did. Or Messier did. Or Graves did.

Furthermore, you're comparing Richards to Messier? Naslund to Messier? Richards was benched in the playoffs last year and was a liability this year. They aren't remotely similar.

My "big names" played 10+ years for the Rangers. Your "big names" played 10 years for the Rangers COMBINED.

The '91-94 team rosters were better than anything Lundqvist has had to work with.

The numbers actually don't bear out what your saying. Lundqvist's Save % and GAA is worse in about half oh his playoff seasons than in his regular seasons. Look it up.

As for the other players on the Ranger teams: how many seasons did Larmer or Verbeek or Anderson or MacT or Tikkanen play with the Rangers? Those were guys you listed as well. But it doesn't matter. Great teams win most of the championships and goalies who aren't great rarely win with those teams. Everyone trots out Osgood but he's the exception not the rule.

I'm not expecting to change your mind and I'm fine with that. The reality is there is no "right" answers to the list we're making. We're just looking for a concensus.

 

[haohmaru]

Hey Cake, I'm not looking to bash Lundqvist, I'm just explaining the factors I weigh heavily. VBK had a lot of great qualities but he played in 38 playoff games and only won 13 (and 8 of those game in one postseason). That's not going to get him over Richter.

Rangers Playoffs:
Richter 41 wins in 76 playoff games.
VBK 13 wins in 38 playoff games.
Lundqvist 43 wins in 92 playoff games.

Again, not that black and white. Lundqvist has much, MUCH better playoff numbers in GAA and Save % in playoff games than Richter does. And his playoff numbers > regular season numbers (which are at #1 in nearly every category since he entered the league). Lundqvist is consistent, durable, and elite by any measure. Much more so than Richter.

Goalies can steal games and sometimes a series. They can't steal 16 games or 4 series. Richter had better players/rosters in front of him for at least 4 years than the Henrik ever has.

Just look at the stats of the LA series - chances, quality chances, shots. LA mauled the NYR yet the Rangers were a step away in 3 games (2OT, and an OT) from winning the thing. That's because of, not in spite of, their goaltending.

 

[haohmaru]

The numbers actually don't bear out what your saying. Lundqvist's Save % and GAA is worse in about half oh his playoff seasons than in his regular seasons. Look it up.

Now you're being selective. Lundqvist's career numbers are better in the playoffs than they are in the regular season. The "numbers" bear that out. It's a fact.

Furthermore, Richters numbers were sub .900 in save % in 5 out of his 8 playoff years.

1988–89 New York Rangers NHL 1 0 1 58 4 0 4.14 .867
1989–90 New York Rangers NHL 6 3 2 330 19 0 3.45 .896
1990–91 New York Rangers NHL 6 2 4 313 14 1 2.68 .923
1991–92 New York Rangers NHL 7 4 2 412 24 1 3.50 .894
1993–94 New York Rangers NHL 23 16 7 1417 49 4 2.07 .921
1994–95 New York Rangers NHL 7 2 5 384 23 0 3.59 .878
1995–96 New York Rangers NHL 11 5 6 662 36 0 3.26 .883
1996–97 New York Rangers NHL 15 9 6 939 33 3 2.11 .932

88-89 terrible (though it's one game)
89-90 terrible
91-92 awful
94-94 awful
95-96 awful

Look at his regular season stats and compare in those bad playoff years. Much much worse than any of Lundqvist's deviations from norm.

As for the other players on the Ranger teams: how many seasons did Larmer or Verbeek or Anderson or MacT or Tikkanen play with the Rangers? Those were guys you listed as well. But it doesn't matter. Great teams win most of the championships and goalies who aren't great rarely win with those teams. Everyone trots out Osgood but he's the exception not the rule.

They were role players. I was pretty clear about that. Richter isn't a "great" goalie by most measures - regular season, playoffs, etc... He had stronger teams in front of him and, IMHO, underperformed even during the Stanley Cup run when he was bettered by Maclean and Brodeur. The Rangers just had the better team in front of their goalie. Richter was top 10 during his era, but that's about it.

I'm not expecting to change your mind and I'm fine with that. The reality is there is no "right" answers to the list we're making. We're just looking for a concensus.

There's really little argument to be made, other than a ring, for Richter over Lundqvist. Richter isn't in my top 3. He wasn't an elite goalie despite winning a Cup.

 

[Cake or Death]

Hey Cake, I'm not looking to bash Lundqvist, I'm just explaining the factors I weigh heavily. VBK had a lot of great qualities but he played in 38 playoff games and only won 13 (and 8 of those game in one postseason). That's not going to get him over Richter.

Rangers Playoffs:
Richter 41 wins in 76 playoff games.
VBK 13 wins in 38 playoff games.
Lundqvist 43 wins in 92 playoff games.

You honestly can't compare 3 guys who had different teams in front of them and entirely different circumstances. I'll give you an example, with a Hall of Famer's opinion on it, which will show how flawed the 'winning' BS is and how much the team affects it. 1971 draft. Montreal picks 1st. They were undecided between two highly touted guys, but chose Lafleur. Next, Detroit selected Marcel Dionne.

So how good was Dionne? Look at the famed Triple Crown line: Dionne, Taylor, Simmer. They set a record one season as the top scoring line in NHL history. But before playing with Dionne, Simmer played 4 seasons with 24 career points and could barely stick in the NHL. Taylor was a 15th rd pick who hadn't done much either. Before Simmer and Taylor, Dionne was already one of the best in the league - already close to 700 points, a career 1.30 PPG, 50 goal and 120 point seasons, and had a 1AST as top Center in the league. So let's look at the affect Dionne had on these two...

Career PPG – Regular Season

| Taylor | Simmer
before Dionne|0.67|0.30
with Dionne|1.24|1.22
after Dionne|0.68|0.88

Career PPG – Playoffs

| Taylor | Simmer
with Dionne|0.91|0.93
w/o Dionne|0.57|0.44

Clearly, Dionne was a phenomenal player who made a HUGE impact on these two. But Dionne played his entire career on crap teams, like 1980-81 where Dionne had 58 gls and 135 pts, and LA's second and third line centers had 26 and 20 points. Unreal bad. Yet Dionne gets this stupid stigma as a guy who didn't deliver, despite the fact he retired as the third leading scorer all-time behind Howe and Gretzky. On the flip side, Lafleur wins Harts and Cups and is labeled a winner.

I don't see it that way. To me, Dionne was a great player on terrible teams; Lafleur was a great player who won Cups playing alongside 8 hall of famers. Yet Dionne gets stigmas, Lafleur gets praise. Stupidest thing I've ever seen. Bobby Clarke spoke highly of Dionne and said had the draft gone reverse we could very well be speaking of Dionne as the winner and Lafleur in Dionne's shoes.

This is why I look so deeply at circumstance and team makeup, how these guys did against their peers within these circumstances, and pay so little mind to team accomplishments like championships.

 

[Chief]

Cake: We ARE trying to compare guys who had different teams in front of them and entirely different circumstances and I don't think that what actually happened in the playoffs should be ignored. Now, I do understand your point but I think most people would agree that goalies have a greater impact on the game than a single forward does.

I don't believe the teams in front of Lundqvist have been consistently worse than the teams Richter played in front of. And when he has been on worse teams, I don't think the disparity was that great. It's not like Richter was playing for dynasty teams and Lundqvist was playing in front of lottery teams. That, combined with other factors like the styles of play played by the teams in front of them, and of the teams against them, the competition in general, etc...are all factors that level the playing field a bit for me.

Anyway, the votes are in at this point.

 

[Crease]

I received ballots from just about everyone. Although some were "invalid" - either incomplete or containing a non-candidate. A reminder that for this round a valid ballot contains a ranked 1-6 of ALL candidates posted in post #2 of this thread. I've sent PMs to those that need to re-submit.