Henrik is the most dominant and accomplished regular season (read: no champsionships) goalie in the league, by quite a margin.

Quick is the best big game and money goalie in the league, by quite a margin.
- oniremosewa

Why does everyone act as if Hank's GAA doubles or SV% drops in the playoffs, his numbers belong with golatenders who have won Cups and better than most of them, if he gets some support from the offense (Torts is gone) he'll have his Cup(s)

Regular Season career gaa 2.25 and sv% .920
Playoffs career gaa 2.28 and sv%.920

So he just shows up in the regular season right?

That is incorrect; Lundqvist does have an Olympic Gold medal, just no Cup. But I'll agree with the rest.

If I want a goalie to carry me to a President's Trophy, give me Lundqvist.
If I need to win Game 7 of the SCF, give me Quick.

However, Lundqvist has been doing this year in, year out for 8 years now, and Quick has really only come on in the last 3. Either way, they're 1 and 2 with Rinne a distant third.
- jmatchett383

I'll tell you who most certainly isn't in the top 3 conversation right now: Carey Price. And I say this as a Habs fan. I'm so tired of defending him.

- cranford93

Nikolai Khabibulin > Vladislav Tretiak
Tom Barrasso > Ed Giacomin

Why does everyone act as if Hank's GAA doubles or SV% drops in the playoffs, his numbers belong with golatenders who have won Cups and better than most of them, if he gets some support from the offense (Torts is gone) he'll have his Cup(s)
- cranford93

Yeah, that's a pretty hyperbolic interpretation of what I wrote. All I said was that Quick is the better money goalie, which he's proven by, you know, winning the Cup. And the Smythe. Plus, it's not like LA iced this vastly more talented team. Quick just found a way to steal the games that Hank hasn't in the post-season.

Why does everyone act as if Hank's GAA doubles or SV% drops in the playoffs, his numbers belong with golatenders who have won Cups and better than most of them, if he gets some support from the offense (Torts is gone) he'll have his Cup(s)

Regular Season career gaa 2.25 and sv% .920
Playoffs career gaa 2.28 and sv%.920

So he just shows up in the regular season right?
- cranford93

It's not that his numbers drop. It's that it's supposed to be "harder" to score in the playoffs, so you'd expect his numbers to increase slightly. So...well yeah, I guess that's it. Whatever.

This, Lundqvist was great compared to quick this year and in the past.
- benny948

are you sure about that?

ill give you this year. quick had back surgery in the offseason and it took him a while to regain his explosiveness and flexibibility. but he did. as evidenced by his playoffs this year.

but are you really sure about the two years before that?

hank
2011 - 62g-1.97gaa-.930sv-8so
2010 - 68g-2.28gaa-.928sv-11so

quick
2011 - 69g-1.95gaa-.929sv-10so
2010 - 61g-2.24gaa-.918sv-6so

so in exatly the same number of games quick had a better gaa by .06 and hank had the better sv% by .011 and 3 more shutouts.

i realize exaggeration is the name of the game around here but the numbers just dont back you up...or maybe we just have a different understanding of what the phrase "great compared to" means?

are you sure about that?

ill give you this year. quick had back surgery in the offseason and it took him a while to regain his explosiveness and flexibibility. but he did. as evidenced by his playoffs this year.

but are you really sure about the two years before that?

hank
2011 - 62g-1.97gaa-.930sv-8so
2010 - 68g-2.28gaa-.928sv-11so

quick
2011 - 69g-1.95gaa-.929sv-10so
2010 - 61g-2.24gaa-.918sv-6so

so in exatly the same number of games quick had a better gaa by .06 and hank had the better sv% by .011 and 3 more shutouts.

i realize exaggeration is the name of the game around here but the numbers just dont back you up...or maybe we just have a different understanding of what the phrase "great compared to" means?
- good2b_the_king

How about instead of comparing statistical values and career trophies, we judge the goalies by just watching and observing how they play?

double tap

It's not that his numbers drop. It's that it's supposed to be "harder" to score in the playoffs, so you'd expect his numbers to increase slightly. So...well yeah, I guess that's it. Whatever.
- jmatchett383

this.^^

regular
Quick-286g-2.32gaa-.915sv-25shutouts
Hank-510g-2.25gaa-.920sv-45shutouts

playoffs
Quick-50g-2.03gas-.929sv-7shutouts
Hank-67g-2.28gaa-.920sv-8shutouts

hanks slightly better in the reg season(by 0.07gaa, .005sv)
quicks more than slightly better in the playoffs(by 0.25gaa, .009sv)

and this^^
and kings fans will take that all day long...

Naturally the mainstream hockey fans are going to pick the larger hockey market goalie as the better option, despite them being incorrect.

Cup>no cup. End of story.

How about instead of comparing statistical values and career trophies, we judge the goalies by just watching and observing how they play?
- jmatchett383

Okay, then again, Quick is the better goalie. Watch him in the playoffs.

this.^^

regular
Quick-286g-2.32gaa-.915sv-25shutouts
Hank-510g-2.25gaa-.920sv-45shutouts

playoffs
Quick-50g-2.03gas-.929sv-7shutouts
Hank-67g-2.28gaa-.920sv-8shutouts

hanks slightly better in the reg season(by 0.07gaa, .005sv)
quicks more than slightly better in the playoffs(by 0.25gaa, .009sv)

and this^^
and kings fans will take that all day long...
- good2b_the_king

No Rangers fan will disparage Quick in any way, great goaltender and I can't wait for the Olympics, it's tough not defend Hank who on a team that took a step back blanked the Caps in games 6 and 7 this season.

How about instead of comparing statistical values and career trophies, we judge the goalies by just watching and observing how they play?
- jmatchett383

are you asking for my permission?
just kidding...your sarcasm was loud and clear.

though, isnt that what ive done anyways? for the most part ive been saying "heres the numbers to show he belongs in this conversation" and "heres my opinion saying that i think quicks better".

Just throwing this out there, but how many times a year does Quick have to play against Crosby, Malkin, Giroux, Tavares, KovalchukmyNHLcareeraway, etc?

I just think that playing in a division with many of the top offensive talents is a bit harder.

2011-G/G rank in NHL
Pitt-1
Phila-2
NJ-15

SJ-13
PHX-18
Dal-22

especially after recovering from back surgery during the offseason...right?

hanks great. i have lots of respect for him.

that said, im just as biased as you guys and just as certain as you guys that id take quick for a game, a season or a playoffs over hank or any other goalie in the league. quick proved it the last two playoffs and two seasons ago when he deserved the vezina just as much if not more than hank. thats right, i said it. look at the numbers that year. ranger fans are real quick to use the team excuse if someone brings up the no cup for hank stat. so does that same thinking apply when considering quick vs hank in the 2011-2012 reg. season? the season that the rangers finished 1st in the east and the kings finished 8th? of course not. dont worry, i get it. hes your guy...and to be clear, i dont have a major problem with hank winning the vezina that year. personally, i thought quick deserved it. their numbers were identical. but if you consider hanks established track record vs quicks and the fact that hank plays on the east coast(much easier to be seen) i wasnt surprised in the least that hank won it. ...but you guys are crazy if you cant admit that quick had just as good a season as hank that year. thats right...crazy.

for those to lazy to look up their 2011-2012 stats

goalie A - 62g-1.97gaa-.930sv-8so(1st place team)

goalie B - 69g-1.95gaa-.929sv-10so(8th place team)

dont trip ranger fans. back your boy. i respect it...but honestly ask yourself how different this conversation would be if goalie B had won the vezina? because if he had then goalie B would have a cup, a vezina and the conn smyth all on his resume.

the point isnt "what if" or "what should of happened"...the point is that kings fans arent crazy for backing quick in this conversation.
- good2b_the_king

Quick had an unbelievable 2011-12 season. With that mentioned...

Maybe your memory is short, but prior to that Kings fans couldn't wait to give him the boot and hitch the wagon to Bernier... Quick was more known as Mr One-Softie-Per-Game than a Vezina candidate.

And since then, for those that are quick to use his back surgery as an excuse for his regular season numbers, he actually started the season out well before faltering a couple of months in. As for his eye-popping PO numbers, he did most of his damage against the 6th worst ranked offense in the league (SJ) before being humbled by the 'Hawks.

Hank's never had great teams in front of him, especially in terms of having a blueline to help bail him out regularly... even the '11-12 Rangers that finished 1st weren't a particularly talented team... they outworked opponents on the way to most of their W's. He certainly doesn't have near the depth that LA does to rely on, and he certainly doesn't have the top-end support that Quick enjoys. He just cranks out solid season after solid season, despite all the flux and inexperience around him -- he's been Vezina-worthy every year he's been in the league, practically.

On the other hand, it would be nice to see Quick put together more than 1 eye-popping campaign before it feels safe to say that he's not just the next Cam Ward -- a Cup, a few solid seasons, but a lot of adversity since.

No Rangers fan will disparage Quick in any way, great goaltender and I can't wait for the Olympics, it's tough not defend Hank who on a team that took a step back blanked the Caps in games 6 and 7 this season.
- cranford93

lets be clear, you have every right to defend hank. ive already stated that im biased and that id take quick but theres a part of me that believes hanks the #1 until someone unmistakenly takes it from him. to me, its 1 and 1A and theres plenty of reason for both sides to feel their guys the 1...but thats just my opinion.

lets be clear, you have every right to defend hank. ive already stated that im biased and that id take quick but theres a part of me that believes hanks the #1 until someone unmistakenly takes it from him. to me, its 1 and 1A and theres plenty of reason for both sides to feel their guys the 1...but thats just my opinion.
- good2b_the_king

I agree with 1 and 1A, to me after those 2 it's the start of the 2nd tier.

Okay, then again, Quick is the better goalie. Watch him in the playoffs.
- Ersberg

So now we're discounting regular season and international play and only counting a 1 1/2 month stretch? In that case, J.S. Giguere is a sure-fire HOFer.

I agree with 1 and 1A, to me after those 2 it's the start of the 2nd tier.
- cranford93

Agree here as well. They're head and shoulders above the rest of the field. Both are the only true elite guys in the game right now.

Okay, so tired of hearing the same arguments:

1. The merit of a goaltender has NOTHING to do with winning the Stanley Cup. If a goalie allows 1 goal every single playoff game and his offense can't score 2, he will never win the cup. Winning the Cup is a TEAM achievement, not an individual's. So stop bringing it up when we are talking about who is the better goalie.

2. The most important characteristic of who the best goalie is, is CONSISTENCY. There have been many many goalies that have posted great numbers 1 year, or even 3 or 4 years. The measure of true greatness in net is knowing what your getting over and over every single night without fluctuation.

3. Blocked shots. Sure we can easily say Hank had one of the best shot blocking teams in front of him but take that another step further. Look at the average shots against both goalies. Even with the Rangers blocking double digit shots night after night, they still surrender on average more shots on goal that LA does. What does that mean? LA is one of the worst shot blocking teams in the league but in order to still maintain a lower Shots against goal that the Rangers, one of the best, that means HIGH PUCK POSSESSION. This is a more important stat to consider than blocked shots because it means overall, the puck is in LA's zone MUCH MUCH less. The Rangers were a collapsing team that basically played the game in their own end and countered when they could. That puts EXTREME pressure on the goalie making him have to track the puck and exhaust him physically. This is one thing that no one is considering.

Lundqvist is the best goalie in the world right now. Thats not to say Quick can't be, but all things considered right now, Hank is. This new season will give us a nice look with the Rangers widely believed to play a more possession system under AV. Also, the new division make ups and realignment should bring at least a little more parity to each goalie's opposition teams during the season, although I still think the Metro division is tougher.

Okay, so tired of hearing the same arguments:

1. The merit of a goaltender has NOTHING to do with winning the Stanely Cup. If a goalie allows 1 goal every single playoff game and his offense can't score 2, he will never win the cup. Winning the Cup is a TEAM achievement, not an individual's. So stop bringing it up when we are talking about who is the better goalie.

2. The most important characteristic of who the best goalie is, is CONSISTENCY. There have been many many goalies that have posted great numbers 1 year, or even 3 or 4 years. The measure of true greatness in net is knowing what your getting over and over every single night without fluctuation.

3. Blocked shots. Sure we can easily say Hank had one of the best shot blocking teams in front of him but take that another step further. Look at the average shots against both goalies. Even with the Rangers blocking double digit shots night after night, they still surrender on average more shots on goal that LA does. What does that mean? LA is one of the worst shot blocking teams in the league but in order to still maintain a lower Shots against goal that the Rangers, one of the best, that means HIGH PUCK POSSESSION. This is a more important stat to consider than blocked shots because it means overall, the puck is in LA's zone MUCH MUCH less. The Rangers were a collapsing team that basically played the game in their own end and countered when they could. That puts EXTREME pressure on the goalie making him have to track the puck and exhaust him physically. This is one thing that no one is considering.

Lundqvist is the best goalie in the world right now. Thats not to say Quick can't be, but all things considered right now, Hank is. This new season will give us a nice look with the Rangers widely believed to play a more possession system under AV. Also, the new division make ups and realignment should bring at least a little more parity to each goalie's opposition teams during the season, although I still think the Metro division is tougher.
- xcheckmajor

Let's just all agree that Bryzgalov is the best goalie ever born, and that Hank and Quick can only dream to ever be as great as him.

i'm very interested to see what happens to the Kings Goals Against numbers this upcoming season now that rob scuderi is gone.

i'm very interested to see what happens to the Kings Goals Against numbers this upcoming season now that rob scuderi is gone.
- Why So Serious

I think it will depend a lot on if Mitchell is healthy. If not, the shots against will certainly go up as will scoring chances.

If Mitchell can come back and play like he did in 2011-2012 then I think we'll be okay but still not as good on D if we still had Scuderi. It's very difficult to replace a guy like that.

And big named offensive guns too? Your head shake is pretty much what I think of Lundqvist. He's Ryan Miller 2.0. Is he good? Sure. Is he great? Nope. Will he ever win a Stanley Cup? Not with the Rangers or maybe even ever.
- MisterC

can I get further clarification on this comment?

Goalies don't win Stanley Cups. Teams do.

Take Chris Osgood. I love Chris Osgood. Favorite goalie of all time, second favorite player after Lidstrom. He's the guy in my avatar.

Folks, Chris Osgood was an average goalie. I mean bang-on, almost exactly league average. Until the tail end of his career when his play dropped precipitiously, it was uncanny how closely his stats hovered around the league midpoint. He was consistently, dependably, almost aggressively average.

And he won 2 Cups as a starter. Yes, he had to play well to get those Cups (and he did), but it wasn't because he was uncommonly talented or because he could magically switch to a special "playoff mode" and become the best goalie in the league. He was an average goalie who, when he was playing well, was more than good enough to win a Stanley Cup on an elite team.

Jonathan Quick is a very good goalie. And he had a hell of a 2010-11 season for a team that may have finished 8th in the West, but anyone paying attention to the play on the ice or the possession statistics could have told you was one of the best teams in the league. If he can put up a few more years like that he's certainly in the conversation for best in the league. Maybe Quick is at that level now and will prove it with a few more seasons of Vezina-level play in the near future.

But going by the data we currently have, there is no solid case that I can see that would argue Quick above Lundqvist, at least any case supported by substantiated evidence as opposed to unprovable wishy-washy narratives.

Lundqvist has definitely been the better goalie over the last several years. Lundqvist is probably the better goalie right now. Lundqvist will probably be the better goalie over the next several years, but that's yet to be seen.