HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Is Henrik Lundqvist An HOFer?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-08-2012, 10:02 AM
  #51
SidGenoMario
Registered User
 
SidGenoMario's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Saskatoon, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,407
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corto View Post
Or if Datsyuk doesn't get injured the year after that, MAF has zero rings.

Revisionist history, yay.
There's no revisionist history, we're only talking about MAF's 2 performances, and how he did his part good enough for his team to be in the position to win 2 Cups.

SidGenoMario is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2012, 10:15 AM
  #52
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,795
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
It's not like Luongo was the reason they won the gold, Henrik had the more impressive Gold medal performance.
That's not how this works. Winning a championship is listed on an individual player's resume despite it being a team accomplishment.

People say "Luongo's never won anything, that means he's not clutch!"

The response is, of course "He won the championship in the most pretigious and difficult international tournament." (.927 tournament save percentage, .944 in the gold-medal game, 1.000 in overtime)

The retort comes back "Yeah, but they would have won it without him!" (Generally translates to: championships are important, unless they're won by a player I don't like.)

That's simply not valid. If you want to consider team accomplishment when evaluating players, you have to accept them for everyone. And if you're going to go through and analyze each player's performance, why then use the shorthand of championships? And then, what about players who dominated in playoffs but played for mediocre teams, and therefore never actually won a championship? The "Championships" crowd will still say "Yeah, what did he ever win?"

In my experience, trotting out championships is an effort to support a predetermined conclusion, not as a data point to make a determination.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GuineaPig View Post
I've always found it amusing how hard people have tried to downplay Luongo's performance in 2010.
Agreed, and moreover the focus on team accomplishments when evaluating individual players is pretty short-sighted sometimes.

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2012, 10:23 AM
  #53
GuineaPig
Registered User
 
GuineaPig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Montréal
Posts: 2,136
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post

Agreed, and moreover the focus on team accomplishments when evaluating individual players is pretty short-sighted sometimes.
Absolutely. But I always find it hilarious that people have tried to re-assert the narrative that "Luongo is a choker, and never plays well in high-pressure situations" over games where he played well.

Likewise, I don't hold Lundqvist's lack of playoff success against him. He hasn't played well, but he also hasn't played much. I expect he'll have many good playoff runs in his future.

The weird flipside is Fleury, who hasn't played all that well over his career in the playoffs (and outside of 2008, where he admittedly was great, he's been downright bad), but will nevertheless have fans claiming he's the most "clutch" goalie in the league.

GuineaPig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2012, 10:38 AM
  #54
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 40,944
vCash: 500
The thing with Luongo's 2010 olympics is that we have the benefit of an incredibly large sample of hockey fans who watched his performance, so we don't need to rely on looking at box score afterwards to judge his performance.

And he was not as good as his box score; did not inspire his teammates that he was unstoppable.

I wouldn't neccessary say that Canada won in spite of him (though he sure didn't help his case in the Gold medal game), but they didn't win because of him either. He was just there.


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 03-08-2012 at 11:53 AM.
TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2012, 10:50 AM
  #55
WhipNash27
Quattro!!
 
WhipNash27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Westchester, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 15,587
vCash: 500
If he retired today, I'd say no. Will he be? I'd say there's a very good chance.

WhipNash27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2012, 10:56 AM
  #56
Bobo420
Registered User
 
Bobo420's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 848
vCash: 500
If he keeps playing the way he does for another 5 or so years, I say yes. I think he should easily win the Vezina this year, everytime I see him play he's been stellar.

Bobo420 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2012, 11:23 AM
  #57
iamjs
Unregistered User
 
iamjs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 9,208
vCash: 500
Right now? no. Not even close.

Add a few Vezinas and a Cup and then maybe.

iamjs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2012, 04:28 PM
  #58
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,447
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbeee View Post
I think he is product of his team, closer to Osgood than Lundqvist. That doesnt mean he is bad, but IMO HOF is not near for him. He has time to add some great seasons to his resume but now he has no monster-season.
He has often been left for dead in his career. The Pens haven't always been a team that put up a wall in front of him. Fleury has saved their bacon many, many times. He is not a product of the Pens. I don't see the Osgood comparison. Osgood rarely had a time when he was called upon to bail out the Red Wings. There aren't many times in his career when you felt he stole a game. Fleury has done that with the Pens. He is closer to Fuhr than he is Osgood for sure, not only in style, but in importance to his team's success. I personally haven't forgotten his athleticism on some plays in 2009. After Thomas, probably the goalie who had the best playoff run since the lockout.

Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
MAF has pretty much hovered at average throughout his career… usually a bit above. He is forming a Mike Vernon career thus far, so you should love him. But, he hasn’t come close to the Vezina and hasn’t deserved to.
9th in Hart voting last year. Not bad. Showed just how people viewed him with the abscence of Crosby and Malkin. If he ends up with a Vernon career then all I can say is that things could be worse for him. Vernon may never get into the HHOF but his name forever hovers when goalies are brought up. He's 27 now, so he has a lot more to tack onto his career. This guy could win three more Cups.

Quote:
Originally Posted by God Made Me View Post
If you had to pick 1 right now, who has a better chance Henrik or Luongo?
This should be a gimme - Luongo. Lundqvist didn't enter the NHL until 2005. Luongo was a 2nd team all-star in 2004 and a World Cup winner (partial credit) by then. Had a Hart caliber season in 2007 and finished only behind Crosby that season. He has his warts in the postseason but played well up until the final last year. He just laid an egg in every game the Canucks lost and had a very bi-polar series. But it still beats Lundqvist's playoff resume and he certainly beats him in Vezina voting.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2012, 04:39 PM
  #59
Skarjak
Registered User
 
Skarjak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 790
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by iamjs View Post
Right now? no. Not even close.

Add a few Vezinas and a Cup and then maybe.
This. He's never even been that far in the playoffs. Why would anyone suggest he could even be close to being a HOFer?

I swear it should be renamed the "Hall of Not So Bad". You should need a serious collection of trophies and the Stanely Cup to get in.

Skarjak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2012, 05:01 PM
  #60
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,952
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
9th in Hart voting last year. Not bad. Showed just how people viewed him with the abscence of Crosby and Malkin.
I have to nitpick this one. This doesn't really show how "people viewed him" because what really happened was that 15 of 120+ voters named him on their ballots. We really don't know what the other 100+ voters thought. Maybe they saw him as average, maybe they'd have named him if the ballot was 8 names long. We don't know. Hart voting means a lot for the top guys, but exponentially less as we go down the list, and is a weak indicator of greatness or value when such a small percentage of the ballots is involved.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2012, 05:11 PM
  #61
Victory*
We're Still In It
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Country: Poland
Posts: 1,260
vCash: 500
Not yet, but he will be once his career is done.

And MAF a hall of famer? Hahah funny.

Victory* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-08-2012, 08:00 PM
  #62
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,447
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
I have to nitpick this one. This doesn't really show how "people viewed him" because what really happened was that 15 of 120+ voters named him on their ballots. We really don't know what the other 100+ voters thought. Maybe they saw him as average, maybe they'd have named him if the ballot was 8 names long. We don't know. Hart voting means a lot for the top guys, but exponentially less as we go down the list, and is a weak indicator of greatness or value when such a small percentage of the ballots is involved.
Not crazy at all when you think of it. He had 58 votes in total. Actually had one 1st place vote (no I don't agree with that, but still). Had more 2nd place votes than Pekka Rinne who finished 4th. Had a few 3rd and 4th place votes too. Enough people figured he was a difference maker last year. Finished higher than Stamkos. Finished higher than Henrik Sedin. And you know as well as I do that goalies never get the benefit of the doubt with the Hart, so 9th is not bad at all. It isn't as if he finished 20th with a 5th place vote and I am making a case for it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Victory View Post
Not yet, but he will be once his career is done.

And MAF a hall of famer? Hahah funny.
So Lundqvist will be one once his career is done but the mere mention of Fleury and it makes you laugh? (Sigh) Well, it reminds me of the days when I literally got laughed at by people on these boards back in 2007 when I predicted Martin St. Louis would be a HHOFer. We'll revisit Fleury's case in 5-6 years from now, it probably won't be very comical by then.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2012, 01:54 AM
  #63
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,952
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
Not crazy at all when you think of it. He had 58 votes in total. Actually had one 1st place vote (no I don't agree with that, but still). Had more 2nd place votes than Pekka Rinne who finished 4th. Had a few 3rd and 4th place votes too. Enough people figured he was a difference maker last year. Finished higher than Stamkos. Finished higher than Henrik Sedin. And you know as well as I do that goalies never get the benefit of the doubt with the Hart, so 9th is not bad at all. It isn't as if he finished 20th with a 5th place vote and I am making a case for it.

58 voting points, not 58 votes. Sorry, but it is a terrible argument to hang your hat on when just over 10% of voters put him on their ballots. If stamkos was on 12 ballots, do you really think that means people saw fleury as a bigger difference maker? The VAST MAJORITY of the voters named NEITHER player; therefore, we don't really know what the vast majority thought. We know that 15 likely preferred fleury and 12 likely preferred stamkos. The other 100? No clue.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2012, 02:02 AM
  #64
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 34,236
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by iamjs View Post
Right now? no. Not even close.

Add a few Vezinas and a Cup and then maybe.
A comment to this effect seems to surface in every HOF thread.

My canned response: are there any goalies with "a few" Vezinas who are NOT in?

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2012, 02:51 AM
  #65
Theokritos
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,141
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skarjak View Post
You should need a serious collection of trophies and the Stanely Cup to get in.
So if Hašek retires in 2001, he's not a Hall of Famer? With six Vezinas?

Theokritos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2012, 09:25 AM
  #66
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 34,236
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theokritos View Post
So if Hašek retires in 2001, he's not a Hall of Famer? With six Vezinas?
Apparently in 2001 Roy and Belfour were the only qualified goalies since Dryden.

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2012, 10:30 AM
  #67
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,795
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuineaPig View Post
Absolutely. But I always find it hilarious that people have tried to re-assert the narrative that "Luongo is a choker, and never plays well in high-pressure situations" over games where he played well.

Likewise, I don't hold Lundqvist's lack of playoff success against him. He hasn't played well, but he also hasn't played much. I expect he'll have many good playoff runs in his future.

The weird flipside is Fleury, who hasn't played all that well over his career in the playoffs (and outside of 2008, where he admittedly was great, he's been downright bad), but will nevertheless have fans claiming he's the most "clutch" goalie in the league.
Indeed. Cam Ward is also viewed as CLUTCH. He's so clutch that he can't even get his team into the playoffs most of the time!

I have yet to see anyone invoking "clutch" play to not also engage in selective representation of evidence. They focus on the good performances of the players want to big up, and focus on the bad performances of the players they want to bring down. Similarly, they hand-wave any evidence that does not support their position on a player.

No one has been able to demonstrate clutch ability in any organized, convincing way. It's all anecdotes and opinions.

And besides that, whenever someone says Player X plays his best in the playoffs, I always ask "Why is it all right for him to not play his best ALL THE TIME? Doesn't being a playoff clutchy player mean he doesn't give his best the rest of the time? How is that a positive quality?"

Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
My canned response: are there any goalies with "a few" Vezinas who are NOT in?
Good point. If you're seen as the best goaltender in the world multiple times, you should be automatic. Team success or no team success.

For the years the Vezina was awarded on merit, the following goalies have won three or more:

George Hainsworth: 3
Tiny Thompson: 4
Bill Durnan: 3
Patrick Roy: 3
Dominik Hasek: 6
Martin Brodeur: 4

Clearly "a few Vezinas" is far above the minimum requirement for Hall-of-Fame status. Many Hall of Fame goalies have less than "a few" Vezinas.

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2012, 10:54 AM
  #68
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 40,944
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe
And besides that, whenever someone says Player X plays his best in the playoffs, I always ask "Why is it all right for him to not play his best ALL THE TIME? Doesn't being a playoff clutchy player mean he doesn't give his best the rest of the time? How is that a positive quality?"
The answer would be that they are human beings and it is unreasonable to expect a human being to perform at peak level 82 times in a given year.

Quote:
Good point. If you're seen as the best goaltender in the world multiple times, you should be automatic. Team success or no team success.

For the years the Vezina was awarded on merit, the following goalies have won three or more:

George Hainsworth: 3
Tiny Thompson: 4
Bill Durnan: 3
Patrick Roy: 3
Dominik Hasek: 6
Martin Brodeur: 4

Clearly "a few Vezinas" is far above the minimum requirement for Hall-of-Fame status. Many Hall of Fame goalies have less than "a few" Vezinas.
[/quote]

I'm confused. As far as I know, the Vezina wasn't awarded on merit when Hainsworth, Thompson, and Durnan played. But that would just make your point stronger.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2012, 12:31 PM
  #69
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,795
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
The answer would be that they are human beings and it is unreasonable to expect a human being to perform at peak level 82 times in a given year.
So add the playoffs to that, and then the same reasoning can be used for any player who performs worse in the playoffs.

It's easy to say the playoffs are more important, but the playoffs aren't guaranteed either. You need to play well in the regular season to even make the playoffs in the first place (and a higher seed generally means easier opponents in the postseason as well), so playing better in the playoffs is not automatically preferable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I'm confused. As far as I know, the Vezina wasn't awarded on merit when Hainsworth, Thompson, and Durnan played. But that would just make your point stronger.
It was awarded on merit from inception to 1946, and then from 1982 to the present.

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2012, 12:39 PM
  #70
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,795
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I'm confused. As far as I know, the Vezina wasn't awarded on merit when Hainsworth, Thompson, and Durnan played. But that would just make your point stronger.
You know, I'd never actually looked at it before, but it seems that the "most valuable" goaltender (which is who the award was supposed to go to) always just happened to play for the team that allowed the fewest goals each season before 1946. The change that year looks to simply be a codification of accepted practice. Interesting.

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2012, 01:25 PM
  #71
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,952
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
It was awarded on merit from inception to 1946, and then from 1982 to the present.
That's....... not correct.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2012, 01:51 PM
  #72
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 34,236
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
Indeed. Cam Ward is also viewed as CLUTCH. He's so clutch that he can't even get his team into the playoffs most of the time!
I see your overall point and don't really disagree that consistency is as important as "clutchness". But if you ask anybody, and I mean ANYBODY, who has followed Ward's career they will confirm that he raises and lowers his level of play based on the intensity around him. When the team is sleepwalking, he is good enough but very beatable. But he turns into a different player when there's a sense of urgency and focus. The eyeball test is unmistakeable.

Part of it has to do with his demeanor.... you'll rarely meet a more "normal" goalie personality-wise. Just completely calm, stable all the time. When the chips are down, he doesn't seem to mind the extra pressure at all. Just takes the effort up a notch while remaining unflappable. It's visible in his body language.

That said, I don't think he's remotely close to a HOF induction. Maybe for that exact reason -- a lack of consistency. If he was in that playoff zone all the time, he'd be a Vezina candidate.

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2012, 02:33 PM
  #73
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 40,944
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
That's....... not correct.
This conversation led to what was an interesting discovery to me.

I have read old newspaper articles that said the Vezina went to the most valuable goaltender and was confused. Apparently, that was in the definition of the award until 1946 even if it appears to have been awarded like the Jennings. I guess by 46, that was viewed as stupid

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2012, 03:13 PM
  #74
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,952
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
This conversation led to what was an interesting discovery to me.

I have read old newspaper articles that said the Vezina went to the most valuable goaltender and was confused. Apparently, that was in the definition of the award until 1946 even if it appears to have been awarded like the Jennings. I guess by 46, that was viewed as stupid
that is interesting!

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2012, 03:49 PM
  #75
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,795
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
That's....... not correct.
It was supposed to be. But they just gave it to the goalie on the best defensive team. I'd never compared the two lists before now, for whatever reason.

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:20 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.