NHL Thread

[Thom Yorke]

Originally Posted by The Ascension

Think I can safely say that Lundqvist does not have nor deserve a reputation for "fizzling out".

What else would you call it? You're never going to be as good in the series you lose, but he certainly has a reputation for crashing back down to the earth when the Rangers inevitably get eliminated.

Originally Posted by Ninetales

No i wasnt criticizing him, just saying that could be the reason people gravitate to giving him more praise than he deserves.



Quick has had what a mediocre playoffs and a shutout in game 3 of the finals?



When it matters most is when a puck is coming towards the net. And Lundqvist is better at keeping them out.

If you're so big on numbers, look up what Quick has done in elimination games this postseason (AKA when it really matters). Does it matter that he was giving up 5 a game to San Jose early if he completely shut them down in 4 straight to close them out? The guy just embodies this Kings team, and IMO is the most crucial part of why they've been so successful the last 3 years. They go through the motions in the regular season, just enough to get by, and just take off in the playoffs. It's not a coincidence that they've faced the stiffest competition in the league and are about to be 10-1 in those series.

[The Ascension]

Originally Posted by Thom Yorke

What else would you call it? You're never going to be as good in the series you lose, but he certainly has a reputation for crashing back down to the earth when the Rangers inevitably get eliminated.

Well, outside of this year and 2012, he has never had an above average team in front of him, and even in those years, the team in front of him had notable flaws and issues.

Do I think Lundqvist could have been better in this series? Yes, sure. That being said, he's not the one who has been turning pucks over to the Kings in prime scoring position, nor is he the one who has been unable to keep the Kings away from the front of the net.

I am fairly confident in saying that if the Rangers had Quick, they'd be in the same predicament they are now. Actually, no, I'll go further. If the Rangers had Quick, they wouldn't have gotten out of the second round.

For the record, this isn't me saying that Lundqvist is the ONLY reason the Rangers made it to the finals - he isn't. I think that saying he's the main reason is fairly accurate, though. That, and tremendous overall depth throughout the lineup.

[Thom Yorke]

Originally Posted by The Ascension

Well, outside of this year and 2012, he has never had an above average team in front of him, and even in those years, the team in front of him had notable flaws and issues.

Do I think Lundqvist could have been better in this series? Yes, sure. That being said, he's not the one who has been turning pucks over to the Kings in prime scoring position, nor is he the one who has been unable to keep the Kings away from the front of the net.

I am fairly confident in saying that if the Rangers had Quick, they'd be in the same predicament they are now. Actually, no, I'll go further. If the Rangers had Quick, they wouldn't have gotten out of the second round.

For the record, this isn't me saying that Lundqvist is the ONLY reason the Rangers made it to the finals - he isn't. I think that saying he's the main reason is fairly accurate, though. That, and tremendous overall depth throughout the lineup.

I mentioned before in this thread that I thought the Rangers always collapsed well around the net and their D-core has been very strong for years now. He's had a ton of support over the years. Maybe not the goal-support all the time, but great defensive structure around him to help him out. In a Conference as shallow as the East is, the Rangers are and were far from an average team.

I realize I sound very anti-Lundqvist, but I think he's one of the best goalies (albeit the pool of elite goalies is not very deep nowadays), and is certainly number 1 when you consider body-of-work in the regular season. But ultimately, I don't care about that if you drop-off in the playoffs, relative to his own level of play, and others.

I look at Rask the same way. He's so damn consistent for such long periods of time, but I don't have confidence in him coming up big all the time. He can even look dominant in the playoffs at times (outdueling Vezina winner Ryan Miller in 2010 while being an underdog, or holding Crosby/Malkin and company to 2 goals in a series), but I don't know if (or think) he has what it takes to elevate his game all the time like Quick does.

[The Ascension]

Originally Posted by Thom Yorke

I mentioned before in this thread that I thought the Rangers always collapsed well around the net and their D-core has been very strong for years now. He's had a ton of support over the years. Maybe not the goal-support all the time, but great defensive structure around him to help him out. In a Conference as shallow as the East is, the Rangers are and were far from an average team.

I agree that he has had some very good defensive rosters in front of him, particularly in the last few years (and this year in particular). In 2012, the lack of goal support was too much to overcome. The current defensive structure has been weakened by the Kings' punishing forecheck and net front presence, though. Staal/Girardi look absolutely lost, and even McDonagh has had some massive brain farts defensively. This series has been a culmination of bad bounces, sloppy play, poor puck management, and playing a flat out better team. The Rangers are definitely one of the better teams in the league - the Kings, on the other hand, are arguably the best hands down.

I realize I sound very anti-Lundqvist, but I think he's one of the best goalies (albeit the pool of elite goalies is not very deep nowadays), and is certainly number 1 when you consider body-of-work in the regular season. But ultimately, I don't care about that if you drop-off in the playoffs, relative to his own level of play, and others.

He doesn't drop off in the playoffs, though.

Average regular season GAA/sv% for career: .920/2.26
Average playoff GAA/sv% for career: .921/2.26

I look at Rask the same way. He's so damn consistent for such long periods of time, but I don't have confidence in him coming up big all the time. He can even look dominant in the playoffs at times (outdueling Vezina winner Ryan Miller in 2010 while being an underdog, or holding Crosby/Malkin and company to 2 goals in a series), but I don't know if (or think) he has what it takes to elevate his game all the time like Quick does.

The notion that Quick elevates his game "all the time" in the playoffs does not ring true, IMO. He's had two excellent playoffs runs, but he hasn't proven much outside of those two performances. His regular season numbers are spotty and inconsistent at best. He hasn't even been that great this year in the playoffs, and his average numbers attest to that. The goal support in front of him has been absolutely tremendous.

I think it's pretty safe to say that Lundqvist is a better goaltender than Quick. It's just that the upgrade from Quick to Lundqvist isn't near enough to make up for the difference in quality between the Kings' forward group and the Rangers'.

[Ninetales]

Originally Posted by Thom Yorke

If you're so big on numbers, look up what Quick has done in elimination games this postseason (AKA when it really matters).

Ok.

Sv% in elimination games this year:

Quick - 0.947
Lundquist - 0.970

Aka "when it really matters"