What the HELL is going on with Henrik Lundqvist?

[Radek27]

Well the debate of Richter vs Lundqvist will be put to rest soon when we get to the goalies on the all-time team thread.

 

[patnyrnyg]

Dude lol nothing any NHL player does needs to impress you. You are on the sidelines watching the games from a fkn couch: Lundqvist is actually in the NHL.

Now, THAT is an intelligent remark. You are on your couch, as well. What does your opinion mean? Do you think Lundqvist cares what ANY of us think? No, it is a message board last time I checked.

 

[patnyrnyg]

I liked Richter more. His athleticism I think was of a higher order. I mean, he could do the six-goalie system all by himself (hyperbole, but close) by doing those upright pipe-to-pipe splits. He really was comparatively alone on the ice, when you consider the defensive help he got. His glove hand was great... and seeing him, an American Olympian, and lifelong Ranger, lifting the Cup - let's say it gave a lot of pride.

What do people see in Lundqvist's actual game, as he plays on the ice, that makes them think he's the "best"? To me he's very, very good, mostly in a positional sense. His glove has always been a sore spot. It seemed to me the low shot blocking always helped him stay upright to assist with the high shots.

I agree. If the shooter can lift the puck, it is likely getting by Lundqvist as he is on his knees faster than a $2 hooker. Lundqvist has never played behind a team worse defensively that than the 98-2002 Rangers.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

I liked Richter more. His athleticism I think was of a higher order. I mean, he could do the six-goalie system all by himself (hyperbole, but close) by doing those upright pipe-to-pipe splits. He really was comparatively alone on the ice, when you consider the defensive help he got. His glove hand was great... and seeing him, an American Olympian, and lifelong Ranger, lifting the Cup - let's say it gave a lot of pride.

What do people see in Lundqvist's actual game, as he plays on the ice, that makes them think he's the "best"? To me he's very, very good, mostly in a positional sense. His glove has always been a sore spot. It seemed to me the low shot blocking always helped him stay upright to assist with the high shots.

Richter's athleticism was fun to watch -- it also helped turn him into an injury riddled disaster towards the end of his career.

Much like the style of play debates around here, it seems like too many people put a premium on entertainment value over results and production.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

I agree. If the shooter can lift the puck, it is likely getting by Lundqvist as he is on his knees faster than a $2 hooker. Lundqvist has never played behind a team worse defensively that than the 98-2002 Rangers.

Hey I actually agree with you on something! Oh by the way, how did Richter fair in those years?

 

[chosen]

I liked Richter more. His athleticism I think was of a higher order. I mean, he could do the six-goalie system all by himself (hyperbole, but close) by doing those upright pipe-to-pipe splits. He really was comparatively alone on the ice, when you consider the defensive help he got. His glove hand was great... and seeing him, an American Olympian, and lifelong Ranger, lifting the Cup - let's say it gave a lot of pride.

What do people see in Lundqvist's actual game, as he plays on the ice, that makes them think he's the "best"? To me he's very, very good, mostly in a positional sense. His glove has always been a sore spot. It seemed to me the low shot blocking always helped him stay upright to assist with the high shots.

Hank is not great with puckhandling. Richter might have been the worst I ever saw. This led to an extra 5-10 faceoffs in front of him. That was a glaring weakness, to me.

 

[CHGoalie27]

I agree. If the shooter can lift the puck, it is likely getting by ANYONE as he is on his knees faster than a $2 hooker. Lundqvist has never played behind a team worse defensively that than the 98-2002 Rangers.

One hasn't had it any better than the other.

Richter had Leetch at the very least.

Fixed in bold too.

 

[CHGoalie27]

Hey I actually agree with you on something! Oh by the way, how did Richter fair in those years?

I can help, his numbers were ALSO not telling of his skill and worth in net.

 

[CHGoalie27]

Well the debate of Richter vs Lundqvist will be put to rest soon when we get to the goalies on the all-time team thread.

Will we get to it 10-15 games from now, when they're all tied up in wins?

 

[SingnBluesOnBroadway]

Debate between Richter and Lundqvist? Hell, there's a debate between Lundqvist and Talbot.

 

[CHGoalie27]

Richter's athleticism was fun to watch -- it also helped turn him into an injury riddled disaster towards the end of his career.

Much like the style of play debates around here, it seems like too many people put a premium on entertainment value over results and production.

Honestly, judging entertainment value is a ****load more reliable than reading the stats.

LOL>>> "3, 4 goals? he must not have played like he normally does!" -People who have no clue.

Just to remind everyone, a goalie also doesn't get excused from a mark against like the skaters do being shorthanded. (+/-)

On a stat sheet, there is no difference between a "soft goal" (and I mean one EVERYONE agrees is soft) and a garbage goal by an unguarded forward.

Remember folks, Richter in the skills competitions made everyone else look silly. How were his stats compared to theirs?

 

[CharlieCharleschuk]

Richter's athleticism was fun to watch -- it also helped turn him into an injury riddled disaster towards the end of his career.

Much like the style of play debates around here, it seems like too many people put a premium on entertainment value over results and production.

I'm sorry that you only remember the last couple of years of his career. He was always amazing to watch. Yes, when he was 33 or 34 he started having some joint issues. I think a sprained knee that caused a few missed games and a surgery in 2000. Then his other knee the next season. Then a silver medal for USA in 2002. Then a skull fracture due to an insane rising shot off his mask.

His played 14 years in the NHL.

So, I'm interpreting your statement about entertainment vs. results as discounting Richter's Stanley Cup and Olympic/WC achievements. I'm also interpreting it as discounting the fact that Richter never played hockey in a defensive system.

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

I'm sorry that you only remember the last couple of years of his career. He was always amazing to watch. Yes, when he was 33 or 34 he started having some joint issues. I think a sprained knee that caused a few missed games and a surgery in 2000. Then his other knee the next season. Then a silver medal for USA in 2002. Then a skull fracture due to an insane rising shot off his mask.

His played 14 years in the NHL.

So, I'm interpreting your statement about entertainment vs. results as discounting Richter's Stanley Cup and Olympic/WC achievements. I'm also interpreting it as discounting the fact that Richter never played hockey in a defensive system.

I remember his entire career. I remember a promising, entertaining, yet inconsistent goalie who split time with Beezer through '93. I remember a goalie who was great from 94-97, especially in big games. And I remember a goalie who was hurt and behind some truly terrible teams afterward.

I think Lundqvist has been better for longer, and thats the deciding factor for me. Team accomplishments mean very little to me when judging the value of a goaltender.

 

[CharlieCharleschuk]

I remember his entire career. I remember a promising, entertaining, yet inconsistent goalie who split time with Beezer through '93. I remember a goalie who was great from 94-97, especially in big games. And I remember a goalie who was hurt and behind some truly terrible teams afterward.

I think Lundqvist has been better for longer, and thats the deciding factor for me. Team accomplishments mean very little to me when judging the value of a goaltender.

Ok, but he didn't start having any injury issues until 00 so you're painting him inaccurately when you say he was hurt after 97.

Lundqvist has been in the league only 9 years at this point, so he hasn't been better "longer". Anyway - how do you judge Lundqvist better if he has not accomplished as much? Or are you saying because Lundqvist has a Vezina, he's better, on the level of a Kiprusoff, Bobrovsky or Miller, for instance.

And please tell me how does the team defensive performance (which is a "Team accomplishment" in any sense of the term) not influence goalie performance? How can you discount that these two guys played on two entirely, completely, absolutely different teams in terms of how they protected the crease?

 

[Bleed Ranger Blue]

Ok, but he didn't start having any injury issues until 00 so you're painting him inaccurately when you say he was hurt after 97.

Lundqvist has been in the league only 9 years at this point, so he hasn't been better "longer". Anyway - how do you judge Lundqvist better if he has not accomplished as much? Or are you saying because Lundqvist has a Vezina, he's better, on the level of a Kiprusoff, Bobrovsky or Miller, for instance.

And please tell me how does the team defensive performance (which is a "Team accomplishment" in any sense of the term) not influence goalie performance? How can you discount that these two guys played on two entirely, completely, absolutely different teams in terms of how they protected the crease?

Of course theres different factors, different eras, different styles of play, etc. Its why this debate will never die.

But if you're asking me what I value more when judging goaltender performance, I think a Vezina trophy far far far outweight a Cup championship

 

[Clausewitz]

The current Buffalo team and those Luongo Panther teams didn't win a thing. Isn't that what this conversation is about? Team wins and goaltender performance are 2 different things. Richter's quote, I'd assume, is about team accomplishments and winning.

Here we are, 14 years into Sather's tenure, and we're still expecting a goaltender to carry mediocre teams to a Stanley Cup. And some folks lash out at Lundqvist when he can't. Its twisted and perverse logic. Its scapegoating is what it is.

Precisely: Luongo and Miller have been phenomenal in front of terrible teams. I just wanted to lend another example to a point with which I agree.

 

[InjuredChoker]

Mediocre play of Rangers’ Lundqvist won’t last.

pretty good read imo.

 

[CharlieCharleschuk]

But if you're asking me what I value more when judging goaltender performance, I think a Vezina trophy far far far outweight a Cup championship

See, I think the defensive-minded players in front of Lundqvist really helped him throughout his career - not that there's anything wrong with that! The problem is that then there's no way to quantify what that's meant to his legacy.

I submit that this season to this point has shown how Lundqvist would fare in a wide-open system. He's definitely not bad but he's not the guy we all remember. Suddenly when the team picks up its play, he looks better - but strangely everyone starts looking better.

It's weird that way.

 

[CharlieCharleschuk]

Mediocre play of Rangers’ Lundqvist won’t last.

pretty good read imo.

Good read. More shots from the slot, like we've all seen.

 

[Cake or Death]

Well the debate of Richter vs Lundqvist will be put to rest soon when we get to the goalies on the all-time team thread.

This, to me, is no debate at all. If people are griping here about Hank letting in soft or bad goals, this place would have been lighting up quite a bit at all the bad goals Richter let in. To me, Richter and VBK is much more of a debate and I still personally have Richter behind VBK. It was awesome watching Richter win a Cup, but he did so with a very stacked team that finished like a dozen points ahead of the next nearest team in a season they should have won the Cup. But if anyone remembers what VBK did in 1985-86, that was something to behold.

In 1985-86, VBK won a Vezina and 31 games on a team with a losing record. The Rangers were 36-38-6 that season. VBK was 31-21-5, the rest of the NYR goalies that season were a combined 5-17-1. VBK would carry that 78 point team to the conference finals, beating the NHL's 2nd and 3rd best teams in rounds 1 and 2 (Philly 53-23-4, 110 pts and the Caps 50-23-7, 107 pts). VBK and the Rangers would run into a better Mtl team in round 3 and eventual Conn Smythe winner Patrick Roy, and lose out. But watching VBK win a Vezina on a losing team, than carry that team in successive playoff rounds past two teams that finished 30 pts higher in the same division... that was, for my money, more amazing than anything I'd seen Richter do any individual season as a NYR.

 

[Shadowtron]

I remember his entire career. I remember a promising, entertaining, yet inconsistent goalie who split time with Beezer through '93. I remember a goalie who was great from 94-97, especially in big games. And I remember a goalie who was hurt and behind some truly terrible teams afterward.

I think Lundqvist has been better for longer, and thats the deciding factor for me. Team accomplishments mean very little to me when judging the value of a goaltender.

Wasn't Richter also sent down to the minors for a brief stint in 93?

 

[AlternateSideParking]

Losing teams can't get carried to a CF by a goalie.

Wait a minute.

 

[CharlieCharleschuk]

Wasn't Richter also sent down to the minors for a brief stint in 93?

Apparently he was, for some rehab.

 

[Jersey Girl]

This, to me, is no debate at all. If people are griping here about Hank letting in soft or bad goals, this place would have been lighting up quite a bit at all the bad goals Richter let in. To me, Richter and VBK is much more of a debate and I still personally have Richter behind VBK. It was awesome watching Richter win a Cup, but he did so with a very stacked team that finished like a dozen points ahead of the next nearest team in a season they should have won the Cup. But if anyone remembers what VBK did in 1985-86, that was something to behold.

When revising history, people tend to include the stuff that validates their point, and leave out stuff that contradicts their point.

In the 1994 playoffs Richter also truly came up huge many times when his defense wasn't so incredible, most importantly in game six at New Jersey down three games to two. Richter was spectacular, and without his heroics the Messier guarantee is no different from Patrick Ewing's many guarantees.

 

[Cake or Death]

When revising history, people tend to include the stuff that validates their point, and leave out stuff that contradicts their point.

In the 1994 playoffs Richter also truly came up huge many times when his defense wasn't so incredible, most importantly in game six at New Jersey down three games to two. Richter was spectacular, and without his heroics the Messier guarantee is no different from Patrick Ewing's many guarantees.

You'll have to do a much better job than that of explaining where I revised history. Actually pointing out an example - anything whatsoever - in my post where I did so would be a great start.