They aren't though. Lundqvist's GAA and Save % are both better than Quick's, albeit the difference between the two is so small but it's in black and white that Lundqvist is better in both of those categories at this moment (these stats could change nightly though). Hank also has four more wins. The only stat that Quick has over him is shutouts; Quick's nine to Lundqvist's eight.
To correct you, Quick has played more games, which is definitely something to take into consideration. Both have played a majority of the games, but Quick has 66 GP compared to Lundqvist's 59.
With out Quick La has a ppg of .92, with out Lundqvist the Rangers have a ppg of 1.37. Quick's team is much worse without him.
I think when the difference in GAA is a couple hundreths of a goal, and the difference in SV% is a couple tenths of a percent, you can write the difference off as pretty negligible. Both goalies have pretty much identical stats in my mind. Hank with a few more wins (mainly due to the team in front of him), Quick though having played a few more games.
I think everyone could watch every game of both goalies and we'd still have a pretty even split in terms of who everyone thinks is more deserving. Can't go wrong either way, but I have my fingers crossed for Hank!
I think when the difference in GAA is a couple hundreths of a goal, and the difference in SV% is a couple tenths of a percent, you can write the difference off as pretty negligible. Both goalies have pretty much identical stats in my mind. Hank with a few more wins (mainly due to the team in front of him), Quick though having played a few more games.
I think everyone could watch every game of both goalies and we'd still have a pretty even split in terms of who everyone thinks is more deserving. Can't go wrong either way, but I have my fingers crossed for Hank!
fair enough.... looking at teams .600% winning or better
With out Quick La has a ppg of .92, with out Lundqvist the Rangers have a ppg of 1.37. Quick's team is much worse without him.
While those facts are true, the Vezina is awarded to the goaltender who is deemed to be the best at his position, not necessarily the goaltender who is most valuable to his team.
Bottom line is both of these goalies are really good and one of them will win it. It'll be extremely close and I'd hate to be one of the voters because I don't know who I'd pick; you can't go wrong with either of them. However, when one wins, the other one will have to be the loser, which is unfortunate considering how close it'll be and how great both of them have performed.
While those facts are true, the Vezina is awarded to the goaltender who is deemed to be the best at his position, not necessarily the goaltender who is most valuable to his team.
Bottom line is both of these goalies are really good and one of them will win it. It'll be extremely close and I'd hate to be one of the voters because I don't know who I'd pick; you can't go wrong with either of them. However, when one wins, the other one will have to be the loser, which is unfortunate considering how close it'll be and how great both of them have performed.
I agree but you were arguing that Hank's win should factor in, all I am saying is that we should also consider the fact that it is easier to win one the rangers than on the kings.
Lundqvist will win the Vezina. Will he win the Hart? No. He has not played like Jose Theodore in '02 and carry his team without his star center and only one player putting up more than 44 points.
Better stats? They are basically even and Quick's team is much worse than Lundqvist's.
Quick team might not be as good as Lundqvist, but Lundqvist still has young inexperienced defense to cover up for.
They are virtually neck and neck and either would be a fine choice. However, if Lundqvist can lead the Rangers to the President's trophy, I believe that is the benchmark that will sway voters his way.
Vancouver or St. Louis win President's than that benchmark is gone and vote can go either way.
You can really tell which NHL fans dont watch the games out West
.... Also think an anti-goalie bias comes into it. As a goalie myself I am, if anything, I'm pro goalie and believe that this years Vezina winner could easily win the Hart too. Will be interesting.
Hank and Quick are just about tied in my opinion. It could go either way. Do they give it to the guy who carried his team virtually by himself into the playoffs (hopefully), or do they give it to the guy who could have won it the past few years and hasn't. That's the only difference between the two, IMO. The stats are practically identical.
Quick team might not be as good as Lundqvist, but Lundqvist still has young inexperienced defense to cover up for.
And Quick doesn't? Half of the Kings D are pretty young. Doughty, Voynov, Martinez (he's a little older but doesn't have many years in the NHL) and Drewiske (again, not many years into the NHL). The Kings just pair it so that a vet is with a younger guy.
Be shocked if Lundqvist didn't win it. Quick may be pretty good this year, maybe even as good as Lundqvist, but Lundqvist wins it based on the fact that no one cares about LA and more people obviously know about Lundqvist.
Classic. Who do you think votes? People off the street? NHL GMs are the ones who will decide. Trust me, every single one of them, whether in the East or West, know just as much about Quick as Lundqvist. If they don't, they shouldn't be an NHL gm.
The whole " who's team is worse" argument really sucks and it's pointless to add it to the debate. It's about who the better goalie is, and objectively right now it's Lundqvist. He's got better stats. If in the last few games Quicks stats improve over Hanks, then he should win the Vezina, but I think it will go to Lundqvist this year no matter what. He's been so close so many times, I think it's his time this year.
...this is a tight one.
