Vezina: Lundqvist (Quick deserves it but for some reason, I think Lundqvist is going to get it, perhaps due to East Coast bias? Just a feeling)
Norris: Weber or Karlsson... Weber is more deserving, but Karlsson's numbers are ridiculous
Norris: Weber (One of the only dman this year to have more takeaways than giveaways, Karlson was 17 more gives than takes) If precedent means anything he should win.
Adams: Kevin Dineen (FLA), maybe tippet again
I feel the same way. Weber is much tougher and much better defensively, and faces much harder match-ups in a much harder division, but Karlsson has a good 150% as many points as him. So hard to decide.
He has the best overall numbers and two more shutouts than anyone else.
Shutout numbers are irrelevant. Is letting in 0, 3, and 3 any better than letting in 2, 2, and 2? No. All the important information in shutouts is contained in GAA and SV%.
Lundqvist has a slightly higher (essentially equal) even strength save percentage as Quick. PK save percentages are notoriously randomness-prone and vary wildly from season to season, and Quick's save percentage advantage is entirely there. Quick has also been the worse goalie historically. Both those things suggest that Quick has benefited from randomness more than Lundqvist.
Quick's advantage in save percentage is very small.
Lundqvist plays in the easier conference but Quick plays in the easier division. I'm going to say Lundqvist's schedule was slightly harder.
Lastly, as someone who watches a lot of hockey, and as a Sharks fan who's seen Quick a lot, Lundqvist just looks like the better goalie. Quick seems to face a lot of low-quality shots from LA's defensive style of play.
The Rangers don't have to be the opposite extreme for there to be a significant difference.
The Rangers are a relatively defensive team. The Kings are a very defensive team. Given how close they are in save percentage, that's very relevant.
It's also a question less of how defensive the team is as the shot quality they allow. If a team is defensive by allowing fewer shots, that reflects in the goalie's save percentage. But if a team is defensive by allowing lower quality peripheral shots, it doesn't. And from watching both teams a lot, especially the Kings, Quick seems to face significantly more of these.
Quick is a great goalie but Lundqvist was the best goalie in the NHL this year.
You sound like the type of guy that would have told us a year ago that Karlsson ever becoming a Norris candidate was laughable.
And then he went on to gain a lot of support to become the 2nd youngest ever to win it.
Never forget, you aren't that smart.
As i see Karlsson def. being in the race for Norris( even tough, i don't think he will win it yet) he is not one of the Hart Candidates. Malkin, Stamkos and Quick are probably the guys. Lundqvist maybe but not Karlsson.
Shocked so many people think Quick will win the Vezina. I dont say he doesnt deserve it but really ? The numbers are pretty much identical. One led his team to the top of the Atlantic divison/Eastern conference and has been one of the best for years already.
Yeah, but it is this way with goalies for some reason.
Vezina shall be given to the best goalie.
No doubt, a goalies stats is more influenced by the team infront of him then any other position.
Still, if you look back at the top 3 over the years, it's a very stat driven trophy.
Now Quick is a very good goalie for sure. But if you look at the Rangers season (playing without Staal and Sauer for long parts), the shots Hanks faced, I think he should be pretty high in the Hart race and that he is tough to challenge for the Vezina.