View Single Post
Old
01-09-2013, 06:36 PM
  #91
ContrarianGoaltender
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 581
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
For the record, since your post is certainly more about Patrick Roy than Henrik Lundqvist or Roberto Luongo, Patrick Roy's Colorado career was discussed. It was stated that he was a high-prime goaltender with an extra HOF career stapled to the back-end of his career. And no one offered an argument to the contrary.
I'll deal with this one first. Your assumption is wrong, my post was primarily about Henrik Lundqvist and Roberto Luongo and modern goalies being underrepresented on this list, a drum I've been beating for the last two votes. I think Patrick Roy deserves a lot of credit for what he did in Colorado (as you'll recall, I was the guy arguing that Roy was a consistently elite goalie throughout his career), and yet he still did not have outstanding awards recognition. That is the entire point. I'm not trying to revisit the round one discussion, you don't need to defend your guy, you just need to vote for Lundqvist and Luongo.

Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
Lundqvist
4, 4, 7, 8, 10, 12, 18
Roy
2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 10, 13

In terms of save percentage, Colorado Roy has a clear edge over Lundqvist in terms of consistency and quality, meaning that Lundqvist's award-voting edge probably has less to do with stopping the puck and more to do with playing a high number of games each season and collecting Wins and Shutouts.
Sorry, but there's no clear edge there at all unless you're looking for one. At best there's a slight edge to Roy, and that's without factoring in that four of his seasons came against a 26/27 team league, the goalie pool is deeper now than it was in 1996, and team situations easily make up a few ranks here and there.

Roy in Colorado: .918 vs. .905 league average
Lundqvist, career: .920 vs. .909 league average
Luongo, career: .919 vs. .908 league average

Slight edge to Roy in the raw stats but not much more than that, again regular season only.

Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
But the issue here is that this is the BEST aspect of Lundqvist's career. He does not have a good playoff career. He did not play well en route to his Olympic Gold Medal. This is all that he has: A stretch of seven regular seasons that are slightly worse than the lesser half of a better goalie's regular season career. With no regard to his playoffs. With no regard to his Olympic tournament.
I very clearly stated that I was talking about regular season play only. Nobody is saying Lundqvist was as good as Roy overall, that would be completely ridiculous. Yet I'd still take Lundqvist or Luongo and stack them up against Roy's regular season results in Colorado and argue they are pretty similar. And they don't need to be better than or equal to Roy for this to be a strong argument. We're talking about eight seasons of the #1 goalie of all-time, if you're even close to that it means you're definitely doing something right.

If you're downgrading Lundqvist because you think he's not a playoff goalie or something, I'd disagree but fine, my post wasn't meant for you. But there are voters here (or, one voter at least) saying that Lundqvist isn't worth going in the top 60 because he's never done anything.

The point is that a very good goalie playing at a level far above league average is still not going to win awards every season, unless they are in a very favourable team situation. That was true with Roy, and it's true for active goalies like Lundqvist and Luongo.

Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
Because these things are the ONLY argument for Lundqvist. He is in this discussion because of his Vezina consideration.
That's not correct at all. I'm a stats guy who doesn't much care about awards voting, and I rate Lundqvist pretty highly (very likely to be in my top 4 this round) because of his save percentage results. TDMM rates him highly because of his consistency and dependability, and even guys who rely primarily on the eye test like Mike Farkas rate him high because of his skill (I agree with that evaluation by the way). There are plenty of reasons to like Lundqvist at this point.

ContrarianGoaltender is offline   Reply With Quote