HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   New York Rangers (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=24)
-   -   Lundqvist and the NHL Playoffs (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1647559)

Crease 04-15-2014 09:03 AM

Lundqvist and the NHL Playoffs
 
In your eyes, has he done enough in the NHL Playoffs up until this point to be considered a "money" player yet?

mrjimmyg89 04-15-2014 09:05 AM

Let me know when he is in the NHL playoffs. He's been really good in the Stanley Cup playoffs though. Nothing else to prove there except winning the cup which isn't 100% in his control.

Sean Avery** 04-15-2014 09:07 AM

Quote:

I donít feel I have to prove I can play in the playoffs, absolutely not. My last seven years in Sweden, I won four championships, two professional, two in junior. Then the [2006] Olympics. I think Iíve played well in the playoffs. To win in the playoffs, itís about getting the group to be at its best at the right time. This is not tennis or golf. It is a team sport where together we have to push ourselves. Of course I need to play well, and I think I have done that in the playoffs. Yeah, Iíll leave it at that.
Lundqvist is right about Lundqvist

Bleed Ranger Blue 04-15-2014 09:11 AM

His regular season and playoff stats are nearly identical. Hes probably been the best goalie in the NHL over the last decade. You do that math.

Richter is considered great because "he" won a cup, which is a bunch of BS. Name a series that he absolutely stole for the Rangers.

Lundqvist has been done-in by teams that can't win a cup. This garbage that he needs to be a superhuman force and drag his team to a championship is ludicrous and not based in reality.

SnowblindNYR 04-15-2014 09:12 AM

I still say that his highs are higher in the playoffs and his lows lower, which in short series isn't ideal.

SingnBluesOnBroadway 04-15-2014 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue (Post 83415659)
His regular season and playoff stats are nearly identical. Hes probably been the best goalie in the NHL over the last decade. You do that math.

Richter is considered great because "he" won a cup, which is a bunch of BS. Name a series that he absolutely stole for the Rangers.

Lundqvist has been done-in by teams that can't win a cup. This garbage that he needs to be a superhuman force and drag his team to a championship is ludicrous and not based in reality.

Lundqvist doesn't score enough in the playoffs.

silverfish 04-15-2014 09:17 AM

30-37; 2.28; .920

What more do we want?

Crease 04-15-2014 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue (Post 83415659)
His regular season and playoff stats are nearly identical. Hes probably been the best goalie in the NHL over the last decade. You do that math.

Richter is considered great because "he" won a cup, which is a bunch of BS. Name a series that he absolutely stole for the Rangers.

Lundqvist has been done-in by teams that can't win a cup. This garbage that he needs to be a superhuman force and drag his team to a championship is ludicrous and not based in reality.

I certainly don't think he should be measured by the number of Cups he wins. In a 30 team league that's simply an unfair barometer. But "money" players elevate their game in the playoffs and neither the eye test nor stats suggest he does that consistently.

Jersey Girl 04-15-2014 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue (Post 83415659)
His regular season and playoff stats are nearly identical. Hes probably been the best goalie in the NHL over the last decade. You do that math.

Richter is considered great because "he" won a cup, which is a bunch of BS. Name a series that he absolutely stole for the Rangers.

Well, as nice as Messier's hat trick was in his 'We will win tonight' guarantee game six in New Jersey, down three games to two, Richter was sensational in keeping the Rangers in that game in the first place. The Devils absolutely stormed the Rangers for long portions of the first two periods, and Richter was off the charts incredible holding them off.

Without Mike Richter in that game, we are sitting on 74 years of futility right now.

Capt McDonut 04-15-2014 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sean Avery (Post 83415553)
Lundqvist is right about Lundqvist

Royal infallibility? Hahahaha but ya I hate when they do this in sports... Dan Carcillo won a Stanley cup does tht make him better? No he's a 4th liner who was on a good team. It's a team sports don't judge individuals for team awards

Bleed Ranger Blue 04-15-2014 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jersey Girl (Post 83415957)
Well, as nice as Messier's hat trick was in his 'We will win tonight' guarantee game six in New Jersey, down three games to two, Richter was sensational in keeping the Rangers in that game in the first place. The Devils absolutely stormed the Rangers for long portions of the first two periods, and Richter was off the charts incredible holding them off.

Without Mike Richter in that game, we are sitting on 74 years of futility right now.

I don't disagree.

I think Lundqvist could do the same thing and the team in front of him would'nt be able to score the 3 goals necessary for a comeback. In other words, we don't remember Richter's performance at all if the team in front of him doesn't come back.

Capt McDonut 04-15-2014 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jersey Girl (Post 83415957)
Well, as nice as Messier's hat trick was in his 'We will win tonight' guarantee game six in New Jersey, down three games to two, Richter was sensational in keeping the Rangers in that game in the first place. The Devils absolutely stormed the Rangers for long portions of the first two periods, and Richter was off the charts incredible holding them off.

Without Mike Richter in that game, we are sitting on 74 years of futility right now.

If Richter would've shut em up messier won't have had to score a hat trick... Lol jk just stirring the pot

Bleed Ranger Blue 04-15-2014 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crease (Post 83415929)
I certainly don't think he should be measured by the number of Cups he wins. In a 30 team league that's simply an unfair barometer. But "money" players elevate their game in the playoffs and neither the eye test nor stats suggest he does that consistently.

He'll likely go down as the best goaltender of this generation. One could argue he raises his game most nights he plays.

Did Brodeur elevate his game in the playoffs? Did Roy? Or could it be that the teams in front of them were so good that they alter the "eye test" a bit?

Crease 04-15-2014 09:28 AM

I'd be careful about that Roy mention. Three Conn Smythes and 23 playoff shutouts. Not all thanks to the team in front of him either. That '86 playoff performance goes down as one of the greatest performances by any player in the playoffs ever.

haveandare 04-15-2014 10:32 AM

Back to back shutouts in elimination games was pretty impressive.

Fitzy 04-15-2014 10:52 AM

He's had good games and bad games just like he has in the regular season.

The last of my concerns is Lundqvist, especially when we have a very in form backup that we can put in at any time.

Krampus 04-15-2014 10:57 AM

Save percentages are almost always higher in the playoffs than the regular season

http://www.quanthockey.com/TS/TS_SavePercentage.php

While not being bad, he certainly hasn't been as good as he can and should be

BlueSwag 04-15-2014 10:58 AM

I think Lundqvist has been fine in the playoffs, especially in the last three.
But does it really matter what goalie you have when the team in front of you put up these "impressive" numbers?

2.17
2.15
1.6
1.57

I think it's silly to expect Lundqvist to win the cup with that kind of support.

Hopefully AV's more offensive minded system can change that.

Crease 04-15-2014 11:16 AM

Like it or not, players' legacies are cemented in the playoffs. The argument isn't "Lundqvist isn't a big-game goalie because he hasn't won a Cup." That's lazy. The argument is "Lundqvist might not be considered a big game goalie because his regular season performances are by and large better than his post season performances." The reason Roy is considered the greatest goalie of all time despite Hasek's superhuman peak is because of his playoff performances.

This thread asks what Lundqvist's playoff legacy is at this point in his career and I get a lot of "It's a team game", "Not his fault the team doesn't score in front of him", and "Don't be spoiled." Sorry but that doesn't address the question.

Bleed Ranger Blue 04-15-2014 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crease (Post 83422177)
Like it or not, players' legacies are cemented in the playoffs. The argument isn't "Lundqvist isn't a big-game goalie because he hasn't won a Cup." That's lazy. The argument is "Lundqvist might not be considered a big game goalie because his regular season performances are by and large better than his post season performances." The reason Roy is considered the greatest goalie of all time despite Hasek's superhuman peak is because of his playoff performances.

This thread asks what Lundqvist's playoff legacy is at this point in his career and I get a lot of "It's a team game", "Not his fault the team doesn't score in front of him", and "Don't be spoiled." Sorry but that doesn't address the question.

They're really not though. Unless you are putting in a rather arbitrary qualifier than Lundqvist is expected to raise his game in the playoffs.

Crease 04-15-2014 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bleed Ranger Blue (Post 83422515)
They're really not though. Unless you are putting in a rather arbitrary qualifier than Lundqvist is expected to raise his game in the playoffs.

Isn't elevating your game in the playoffs the very definition of a "money" player?

Henrik4Hart 04-15-2014 11:25 AM

Aside from that 1 stinker in Pittsburgh I can't think of a time where I felt Hank let us down.

Maybe the game after the Drury goal but we all felt like crap after that game.

Bleed Ranger Blue 04-15-2014 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crease (Post 83422597)
Isn't elevating your game in the playoffs the very definition of a "money" player?

Not when your career averages are .920/2.26 in the regular season and .920/2.28 in the playoffs. Thats virtually identical. And when you're the best goalie in the league since 2005, thats just fine with me.

If he supposed to get bonus points in the playoffs if his regular season line was .908/2.55?

Lundqvist is the best goaltender in the league over the past decade, and he duplicates those stats in the playoffs. Thats just fine with me.

Ian 04-15-2014 11:33 AM

He was garbage in 06 (not unexpected in his first playoffs), and was so-so in 09 (Rangers were just overmatched vs Caps, so not surprising his stats were just okay).

Was very good in 07 and 13, and great in 12. Other years he was solid.

Very difficult for a goalie to carry a team all by himself, so if you're looking simply at W/L records he's been a bit underwhelming given his talent, but I think he's earned his paycheck in just about every playoff year since his first one.

Bleed Ranger Blue 04-15-2014 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ian (Post 83423117)
He was garbage in 06 (not unexpected in his first playoffs), and was so-so in 09 (Rangers were just overmatched vs Caps, so not surprising his stats were just okay).

Was very good in 07 and 13, and great in 12. Other years he was solid.

Very difficult for a goalie to carry a team all by himself, so if you're looking simply at W/L records he's been a bit underwhelming given his talent, but I think he's earned his paycheck in just about every playoff year since his first one.

He was hurt in '06.

Just "so-so" in '09 is laughable commentary. I think that series against the Caps might've been his best.

If you want to pinpoint a couple of games that disappointed me, Games 4 and 5 vs. the Devils in 2012 would be it.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:23 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.