Alex Ovechkin scored 23 goals in his last 22 regular season games, and Lundqvist held him to one goal on 30 shots in their 7 game playoff series.

I am biased, but it was pretty amazing

Alex Ovechkin scored 23 goals in his last 22 regular season games, and Lundqvist held him to one goal on 30 shots in their 7 game playoff series.

I am biased, but it was pretty amazing
- jimbro83

no need for bias to be impressed by that. i respect it.

Based purely off of season to season statistics.. 5 of Lundqvists 8 seasons he has had a save percentage over .920

His lowest save%? .912

Quick on the other hand..
In his 5 seasons, he has one year with a save % above .920, and 2 below Lundqvist's career low.

ALLLLL the while, Quick is playing on a defensively dominant team in the lowest scoring division in the league.


- jak521

no matter how hard you guys try to make it so...this didnt start as a debate about careers. the OP was pretty clear about that...so im not really sure what vezina nominations in 06,07,08 have to do with the stated topic.

that said, hanks had a great one.

Completely off topic, I was really surprised by the shot blocking disparity between the two teams. For some reason I never realized that the Kings weren't a very good shot blocking team.

Learn something every day.

"I think the cups > no cups line of reasoning, as a stop-gap argument, is insufficient. That being said, the fact that Quick has won a cup cannot be completely discounted."

See how that works guys? Cup wins can be a criteria for which goalie is better without being the be-all and end-all.
- Morris

this^^^^

the playoffs as a whole(not just the cup) is relevant. they absolutely are a part of the equation.

Completely off topic, I was really surprised by the shot blocking disparity between the two teams. For some reason I never realized that the Kings weren't a very good shot blocking team.

Learn something every day.
- Jason_Lewis

It can be a good and a bad thing.

For example. Bryz came from Phx, and they let him see the puck. He liked it that way. When he came to Philly and guys were diving left and right in front of shots, it had a negative results. He couldnt see the puck very well, deflection bothered him.

Each guy has their own preference in net.

Playoffs stats is a sampling issue. Goalie stats, even for very good or very bad goalies (relatively speaking) can be all over the place over 2 months of play. Virtually every team employs a starting goalie capable of getting hot enough to put up elite-looking numbers and win a Cup in the right circumstance.

To prove it: a blogger named the Contrarian Goalie looked at goalies who played from the beginning of the 2009-2010 season through December 2011 (when he wrote his post, a period of about 1.5 seasons). He discovered that 27 of 30 NHL teams employed at least one goaltender who managed to put up a .929 save percentage or better on at least one occasion on 600 or more consecutive shots in consecutive games (i.e., close to what you could expect to face in a long playoff run) during that timeframe. Two more only very narrowly missed the cutoffs. Only Columbus missed that threshold by an appreciable margin.

In other words: putting up great numbers over the length of playoff run is nothing special. Great goalies can do it more often, but almost any NHL starter can do it if the timing works out.

Jonathan Quick has been tremendous in the playoffs the last few seasons. There's no denying that. But is that because he's a "big game goalie" who suddenly becomes invincible in the playoffs, or is it because he and his team have been lucky enough to hit their hot streaks at the right time? Fans can disagree on this, but I tend to take the general perspective that goalies try their hardest in any situation (the internal competition these days being what it is), regardless of whether it's game 4 of the regular season or game 7 of the finals, and the chips sort of fall where they fall.

It makes more sense to me to evaluate a goaltender based on long-term regular season performance (i.e., several seasons' worth of information) or regular season and playoff combined performance (with numbers weighted appropriately by games played) than playoff alone. There's just not enough data and too much noise to be able to parse out team effects and whether or not those numbers are sustainable over the long term.

No one is saying Quick sucks. No one is saying having a great playoff and winning the Conn Smythe is completely irrelevant.

But one great playoff run and some other nice streaks here and there does not make up for the fact that, over the last 4 full seasons of play and more than 6,000 shots faced for each goaltender, Lundqvist has been the statistically superior goaltender in every season and has a combined save percentage 9 points better than Quick over that timeframe (.924 vs. .915). Nine points!

Nine points is the difference between average (.913 or so in today's NHL) and awful (.904). That's the difference between Lundqvist and Quick over the last four seasons. Quick has been good, Lundqvist has been elite.

If you want to make the argument that Quick is at Lundqvist's level now but doesn't yet have the established track record to prove it yet in the long-term data, that's fine. There's no way to really prove that hypothesis one way or the other apart from seeing how the numbers shake out over the next few years.

But if you want to claim Quick is better based on what each goaltender has already accomplished, you're barking up the wrong tree. Lundqvist's numbers over a sustained period of time are just way, way better at this point.

this^^^^

the playoffs as a whole(not just the cup) is relevant. they absolutely are a part of the equation.
- good2b_the_king

yeah totally. Sometimes you get guys who stand on their head and don't win (Hextall in '87, Giguere in '03, Roloson in '06), sometimes you get guys who play timely enough to win but weren't stellar (Fleury was better in 08 when they didn't win than he was in '09 when they did) and sometimes you get guys that put both together (Ward in '06, Quick in '11).

I think looking solely at cups is a disservice to the extremely relevant playoff numbers.

Completely off topic, I was really surprised by the shot blocking disparity between the two teams. For some reason I never realized that the Kings weren't a very good shot blocking team.

Learn something every day.
- Jason_Lewis

I don't think it's as much about the Kings not being good at blocking shots and more about the fact that the Kings play elite-level puck possession hockey.

If you look at the teams in the league that rack up the most hits or block the most shots, you'll find that most of them are not playoff teams, or else not particularly good ones. That might have something to do with strategy, but it's probably mostly about the fact that bad teams have a lot more opportunities to make hits or block shots because bad teams spend a lot of time playing without the puck.

I don't think it's as much about the Kings not being good at blocking shots and more about the fact that the Kings play elite-level puck possession hockey.

If you look at the teams in the league that rack up the most hits or block the most shots, you'll find that most of them are not playoff teams, or else not particularly good ones. That might have something to do with strategy, but it's probably mostly about the fact that bad teams have a lot more opportunities to make hits or block shots because bad teams spend a lot of time playing without the puck.
- Sven22

That's actually a really fantastic point and one I was thinking about after I saw those numbers. It's like hits. It's hard to have a high number of hits when you have the puck. Same goes for blocked shots.

Well done

Stanley Cups Won:

Quick: 1
Henrik: 0

I'd say that sums it up.
- MisterC

That sums up a one year wonder, The King has been better for a lot longer!!
The only thing he doesn't have is the Stanley cup, yet.

Good Day Sir!

And lest anyone accuse me of bias:

A few years ago I would have argued with anyone until I was blue in the face about how Osgood was a hall of famer. Two Stanley Cups as a starter! More than 400 wins! Great goals against average (until the last few years). I had ready-made counterarguments for all the usual complaints.

Well, I made an honest effort to look at the data and be as objective as I could and, you know what? Osgood was average. About as average as they come. The conclusion was absolutely inescapable once I'd committed to actually running the analysis and evaluating the data the way I would for any other player.

Taking off the blinders and being able to admit that, okay, your favorite player is actually pretty run-of-the-mill is an eye-opening experience. But I think it frees you up to not worry so much about whether "your" guy is the best.

Quick isn't as good as Lundqvist. So what? Quick is a very good goalie on a great team and if Kings can keep the band together for a while both are going to rack up a whole lot of wins and maybe a few more championships when all is said and done. The Rangers? Maybe not so much. Which would you rather have?

let me get this straight...

the playoffs dont matter.

the kings are great & the rangers suck.

consistency matters but only for as long as you say.

blocked shots matter. possesion matters...even though hank saw like 2 more shots a game(im pretty sure thats why we have a sv % stat).


cool story bro and sweet criteria...too funny!
- good2b_the_king

Yeah, that post was absolutely worthless.

Let's make it more elementary. Pick out the sports figure that differs from the rest:

Magic Johnson
Wayne Gretzky
Henrik Lundquist
Mickey Mantle

If you're argument begins and ends without championship stats, then your argument is a gong show. The great players help, and in some cases lead, their respective clubs into greatness.

Quick arguably led the Kings to a Cup. Did Lundquist? Negative. He choked, so how could you possibly sit their and tell us he's better. You can't. I will never be convinced he's better. If he wins a Cup, we'll talk again. Until then, he's not better. "Better" is defined by ALL stats, not just the ones you choose to include. People don't remember the silver stars; they remember the winners.

Yeah, that post was absolutely worthless.

Let's make it more elementary. Pick out the sports figure that differs from the rest:

Magic Johnson
Wayne Gretzky
Henrik Lundquist
Mickey Mantle

If you're argument begins and ends without championship stats, then your argument is a gong show. The great players help, and in some cases lead, their respective clubs into greatness.

Quick arguably led the Kings to a Cup. Did Lundquist? Negative. He choked, so how could you possibly sit their and tell us he's better. You can't. I will never be convinced he's better. If he wins a Cup, we'll talk again. Until then, he's not better. "Better" is defined by ALL stats, not just the ones you choose to include. People don't remember the silver stars; they remember the winners.
- Ersberg

I would never argue not to include championships, but you seem to be weighting them quite heavily. In fact, you're not weighting them at all, as the term 'weighting' implies some kind of quantitative rating.

What you're implying is that there is a qualitative difference between all players who have won a championship and all players that have not. That Lundqvist does not qualify for comparison because of the overwhelming difference that Quick has won a cup.

I tend to disagree with this line of reasoning, and would even if I was sure that Quick is better than Lundqvist AND cups wins are part of the reason.

Playoffs stats is a sampling issue. Goalie stats, even for very good or very bad goalies (relatively speaking) can be all over the place over 2 months of play. Virtually every team employs a starting goalie capable of getting hot enough to put up elite-looking numbers and win a Cup in the right circumstance.

To prove it: a blogger named the Contrarian Goalie looked at goalies who played from the beginning of the 2009-2010 season through December 2011 (when he wrote his post, a period of about 1.5 seasons). He discovered that 27 of 30 NHL teams employed at least one goaltender who managed to put up a .929 save percentage or better on at least one occasion on 600 or more consecutive shots in consecutive games (i.e., close to what you could expect to face in a long playoff run) during that timeframe. Two more only very narrowly missed the cutoffs. Only Columbus missed that threshold by an appreciable margin.

In other words: putting up great numbers over the length of playoff run is nothing special. Great goalies can do it more often, but almost any NHL starter can do it if the timing works out.

Jonathan Quick has been tremendous in the playoffs the last few seasons. There's no denying that. But is that because he's a "big game goalie" who suddenly becomes invincible in the playoffs, or is it because he and his team have been lucky enough to hit their hot streaks at the right time? Fans can disagree on this, but I tend to take the general perspective that goalies try their hardest in any situation (the internal competition these days being what it is), regardless of whether it's game 4 of the regular season or game 7 of the finals, and the chips sort of fall where they fall.

It makes more sense to me to evaluate a goaltender based on long-term regular season performance (i.e., several seasons' worth of information) or regular season and playoff combined performance (with numbers weighted appropriately by games played) than playoff alone. There's just not enough data and too much noise to be able to parse out team effects and whether or not those numbers are sustainable over the long term.

No one is saying Quick sucks. No one is saying having a great playoff and winning the Conn Smythe is completely irrelevant.

But one great playoff run and some other nice streaks here and there does not make up for the fact that, over the last 4 full seasons of play and more than 6,000 shots faced for each goaltender, Lundqvist has been the statistically superior goaltender in every season and has a combined save percentage 9 points better than Quick over that timeframe (.924 vs. .915). Nine points!

Nine points is the difference between average (.913 or so in today's NHL) and awful (.904). That's the difference between Lundqvist and Quick over the last four seasons. Quick has been good, Lundqvist has been elite.

If you want to make the argument that Quick is at Lundqvist's level now but doesn't yet have the established track record to prove it yet in the long-term data, that's fine. There's no way to really prove that hypothesis one way or the other apart from seeing how the numbers shake out over the next few years.

But if you want to claim Quick is better based on what each goaltender has already accomplished, you're barking up the wrong tree. Lundqvist's numbers over a sustained period of time are just way, way better at this point.
- Sven22

by all means youre entitled to your opinion but what you just wrote to support your opinion was filled with a ton of spin and even some completely false statements.

"one great playoff run"
false. i already answered this incorrect assumption. check his numbers to see.

"In other words: putting up great numbers over the length of playoff run is nothing special. Great goalies can do it more often, but almost any NHL starter can do it if the timing works out."

so in one agenda driven statement we're supposed to believe that there's no such thing as being "clutch"? great numbers over the course of a playoff run is nothing special??? this statement above is just crazy. of course any goalie can get hot over the course of a season! its getting hot at the right times(the playoffs) that makes all the difference in the world!!! its the focus, the determination and the nerve to do it when it counts. what youre trying to say is just absurd!

theres way too much for me to point out all the inaccuracies of your post but to summarize its basically everything that quick's better at(like the playoffs) you call a fluke...and the times that quicks been just as good you ignore.

ill give you the perfect example...take the year that hank won the vezina and quick won the conn smyth and the cup...who had the better season? you claim that hank has been better every single season. i disagree. heres why...

Hank
regular - 62g-1.97gaa-.930sv-8so
playoffs - 20g-1.82gaa-.931sv-3so

Quick
regular - 69g-1.95gaa-.929sv-10so
playoffs - 20g-1.41gaa-.946sv-3so

now, after looking at those numbers, can you get out of the way of your pride and acknowledge that quick had the better season? ill laugh if you dont because there is no doubt that over the course of the ENTIRE season that quicks numbers were better.

ill once again point out that this isnt or maybe i should say wasnt a debate about careers. it was cleary stated by the OP but you guys keep wanting to change the argument...so i guess ill keep pointing it out.

lastly ill ask you guys to notice that ive never argued anything bad about hank. ive clearly stated my bias and my opinion that i thought quick was #1. the only thing ive argued are the some of the points people make to discredit quick or what hes done. thats it. thats all.

Quick was great, but if you think Quick was THE reason the Kings managed to win a championship than you're seriously underselling the quality of your team's roster.

I didn't come up with this, but one quick-and-dirty tool used to eyeball team context where goaltending is concerned is something called "win threshold." Basically the question asks, "about how good or bad would my goaltending have to be in order for my team to be completely average overall?"

An average team by definition will score about as many goals as it gives up. It's also fair to say that a goaltender has almost no control over 1) the amount of goals his team scores or 2) the amount or quality of shots he has to face. So in order to calculate "win threshold," you simply look at the number of shots against that a team allows and figure out what save percentage they need in order to allow as many goals as they score.

In the 2011-12 playoffs, the Kings scored 57 goals and allowed 538 shots. In order for them to allow as many goals as they scored, they would only need a save percentage of .894 from their goaltending in order to win about half their games. Guess what: if you can win more than half your games with .900 goaltending, you have one hell of a great team. Quick proved that in practice this season, winning slightly more than half his games despite a .902 save percentage.

Quick was undeniably great in those playoffs, putting up a .946, so it's really no surprise that the Kings cleaned up the way they did. But the truth is that almost any NHL starting goalie playing reasonably well over that stretch would have had a very, very good chance to win a Stanley Cup with the Kings that year.

Which is why it's a in my view foolish to put so much stock in a "How many Cups?" argument. It's a team game. No player is good enough on his own. You need a great squad and you need to catch a lot of breaks.

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.
- Tomahawk

First, Quick did not start out the season well only to "falter" a few months in. Lets think about that for a second, the entire season was only a few months. Second the first game he let in 5 goals in the first time for ever. It took him a few months to get back into a rhythm, you've completely gotten things reversed.

Knowing this, there's no reason to even continue on with your post, because you're very mistaken in what you think you know. Just like there were still a majority of Kings fans saying that Quick was the starter, yes he had an issue with concentration at times, but he beat out Bernier fair and square, and there was only a small group of people who wanted to boot him for Bernier.

Alex Ovechkin scored 23 goals in his last 22 regular season games, and Lundqvist held him to one goal on 30 shots in their 7 game playoff series.

I am biased, but it was pretty amazing
- jimbro83

Impressive, but the best pure goal scorer in the game has only scored on Quick once, so to me that doesn't really say much.

Playoffs stats is a sampling issue. Goalie stats, even for very good or very bad goalies (relatively speaking) can be all over the place over 2 months of play. Virtually every team employs a starting goalie capable of getting hot enough to put up elite-looking numbers and win a Cup in the right circumstance.

To prove it: a blogger named the Contrarian Goalie looked at goalies who played from the beginning of the 2009-2010 season through December 2011 (when he wrote his post, a period of about 1.5 seasons). He discovered that 27 of 30 NHL teams employed at least one goaltender who managed to put up a .929 save percentage or better on at least one occasion on 600 or more consecutive shots in consecutive games (i.e., close to what you could expect to face in a long playoff run) during that timeframe. Two more only very narrowly missed the cutoffs. Only Columbus missed that threshold by an appreciable margin.

In other words: putting up great numbers over the length of playoff run is nothing special. Great goalies can do it more often, but almost any NHL starter can do it if the timing works out.

Jonathan Quick has been tremendous in the playoffs the last few seasons. There's no denying that. But is that because he's a "big game goalie" who suddenly becomes invincible in the playoffs, or is it because he and his team have been lucky enough to hit their hot streaks at the right time? Fans can disagree on this, but I tend to take the general perspective that goalies try their hardest in any situation (the internal competition these days being what it is), regardless of whether it's game 4 of the regular season or game 7 of the finals, and the chips sort of fall where they fall.

It makes more sense to me to evaluate a goaltender based on long-term regular season performance (i.e., several seasons' worth of information) or regular season and playoff combined performance (with numbers weighted appropriately by games played) than playoff alone. There's just not enough data and too much noise to be able to parse out team effects and whether or not those numbers are sustainable over the long term.

No one is saying Quick sucks. No one is saying having a great playoff and winning the Conn Smythe is completely irrelevant.

But one great playoff run and some other nice streaks here and there does not make up for the fact that, over the last 4 full seasons of play and more than 6,000 shots faced for each goaltender, Lundqvist has been the statistically superior goaltender in every season and has a combined save percentage 9 points better than Quick over that timeframe (.924 vs. .915). Nine points!

Nine points is the difference between average (.913 or so in today's NHL) and awful (.904). That's the difference between Lundqvist and Quick over the last four seasons. Quick has been good, Lundqvist has been elite.

If you want to make the argument that Quick is at Lundqvist's level now but doesn't yet have the established track record to prove it yet in the long-term data, that's fine. There's no way to really prove that hypothesis one way or the other apart from seeing how the numbers shake out over the next few years.

But if you want to claim Quick is better based on what each goaltender has already accomplished, you're barking up the wrong tree. Lundqvist's numbers over a sustained period of time are just way, way better at this point.
- Sven22

This post is incredibly long, so I'm only going to pick out two things. First the Kings were pretty much the opposite of "Hot" going into this years playoffs. Hell they practically backed into last years playoffs as well. They didn't really get rolling last year until the 2nd round, most people forget that. They beat Vancouver with only minutes left in game 1 off of a great play by Richards, Carter, and Penner, and Quick really needed to stand on his head that game. Game 3 was a 1 goal game that LA was outplayed in, and Quick also had to stand on his head most of game 5, until Doughty was able to take over in the 3rd, and then the Kings started to play better. Just because it was only 5 games, doesn't mean that Quick didn't have to play amazing. Same with St Louis, the first 5 minutes of game 1 could have (and should have) been 3-0 Blues, if not for Quick.

This year LA struggled in the playoffs, especially on the road, and Quick had to make amazing save after amazing save to keep them in games and win them. He was by far the best goalie in the playoffs this year, and up until the conference finals nobody was even close. The team around him completely collapsed in the conference finals though, likely as a result of being so injured from the previous two series, plus Chicago was the strongest overall team this year... So yes the previous two years, Quick has been a "money" goaltender, and not just enjoying the fruits of a hot team. He carried them into the playoffs last year and to the cup, and carried them past the first two rounds this year.

Second saying that only previous accomplishments count, is obviously going to lean towards the player who has almost twice as many games as the other. In terms of talent, both goalies are incredibly talented netminders, I think Quick's raw skill is slightly above Lundqvist, and so far he's demonstrated the ability to elevate his game to another level when the pressure is on, something that Lundqvist has not demonstrated at all. If Quick continues this trend, he'll go down as the better goaltender at the end of his career.

As of right now? If I have one game to win, I'm going to pick Quick 9 times out of 10. If it's a SCF game 7, that's who I want. If I want to win a regular season award then sure maybe I'll look to Lundqvist, but at the end of the day the amount of regular season awards doesn't mean much. Look at Vancouver and their Presidents Trophies for proof of that. People who argue that Lundqvist is the best goalie in the world because of his regular season success should also argue that Vancouver is the best team in the league because of their presidents trophy wins. So logically speaking that would essentially say that the Presidents Trophy is the better way of determining the best team instead of the Stanley Cup. Something I don't agree with. Playoffs are the best teams competing, and those who can perform the best against the best teams deserve the title.

@sven

you can spin all day long to make yourself feel better but the facts are that quicks cup run performance was universally claimed by analysts as one of the most dominant of all time playoff history. period. no amount of spin or nonsense will change that. rationalizing and minimizing also does not change that fact.

I really feel like there's a huge difference between the playoffs and a regular season stretch as long as a playoff stretch. Firstly, concentration of top-tier teams as opponents. Second, higher pressure situations against opponents that start to learn your strengths and weaknesses in repeated viewings. Finally, sampling: In the playoffs, you really only get one shot. If you blow it, you're done. Taking a stretch of regular season play of equivalent length is not the same, because they've had numerous chances to produce that stretch.

good2b_the_king,

I'll parse this out just a bit.

"One great playoff run": a bit hyperbole, admittedly so. Quick has been great in the playoffs for the last 3 years, which I said in an earlier post.

"Great numbers over one playoff run is nothing special": special is a loaded word. Let's change it to "uncommon." Obviously a guy who puts up .946 over 20 games is playing fantastic hockey. But historically speaking, is it particularly rare for a goaltender to put up those kinds of numbers over a 20-game stretch? It is not. Many goaltenders can and do. Quick did it one year in the playoffs, so good for him. But does that prove he's the best goalie in hockey? It does not. In my view it's sustained play, with the hot and cold streaks averaged out, that can prove that. Lundqvist has Quick absolutely hammered in this regard.

On clutchness: You and I won't agree here, but yes, my argument is that "clutchness" mostly does not exist, at least not nearly to the extent that fans make it out to be. Aside from maybe Daniel Briere, just about everybody who plays the game for a long enough period of time and gets enough playoff experience under their belt will see their regular season and playoff statistics coalesce around the same averages. Players play the game hard every night for the most part. Sometimes they get hot in the playoffs and sometimes they don't. Likewise, I don't generally believe one team winning and another team losing is evidence that the winning team was more "focused" or more "determined" or more "clutch" for the most part. Both teams give their all. One has to win. So it goes.

On GAA: since you included GAA in your statlines, let me say this: I don't care about it, at all. All GAA measures, essentially, is a goalie's save percentage (which he has a lot of control over) multiplied by the amount of shots he faces (which he has virtually no control over). It adds nothing that save percentage doesn't tell you, it corrects none of save percentage's flaws, and then it incorporates additional information driven entirely by the team in front of the goalie. It's useless.

On both men's 2011-12 seasons: I would argue Lundqvist had the better regular season based on his raw stats and team-specific adjustments. If you combine regular season plus playoffs it's probably Quick. That, however, does not negate the fact that over 5 seasons of work Lundqvist has been the much better of the two statistically.

And I'll say this again: Quick might be better RIGHT NOW. No way to tell. But statistically speaking based on what both men have accomplished, Lundqvist has a much stronger case, and that's borne out over the many thousands of shots each have faced over the last several years, rather than what one or the other managed to do in 20 games here, 20 games there.

@sven

you can spin all day long to make yourself feel better but the facts are that quicks cup run performance was universally claimed by analysts as one of the most dominant of all time playoff history. period. no amount of spin or nonsense will change that. rationalizing and minimizing also does not change that fact.
- good2b_the_king

I have no dog in this fight. In fact I like the Kings more than I like the Rangers (by a lot) and really don't know anything about either goaltender on a personal level.

I just happen to have a different view of the game than you and happen to think the majority of the facts support Lundqvist as the better goaltender. I have no agenda to sell. Is it really that hard to believe that a neutral hockey fan with no stake might not see things quite the same way that you do?

First, Quick did not start out the season well only to "falter" a few months in. Lets think about that for a second, the entire season was only a few months. Second the first game he let in 5 goals in the first time for ever. It took him a few months to get back into a rhythm, you've completely gotten things reversed.
- bluecoconuts

Hey, don't let the facts get in the way (SV% by month):

January .907
February .905
March .881
April .917

Yeah, that post was absolutely worthless.

Let's make it more elementary. Pick out the sports figure that differs from the rest:

Magic Johnson
Wayne Gretzky
Henrik Lundquist
Mickey Mantle

If you're argument begins and ends without championship stats, then your argument is a gong show. The great players help, and in some cases lead, their respective clubs into greatness.

Quick arguably led the Kings to a Cup. Did Lundquist? Negative. He choked, so how could you possibly sit their and tell us he's better. You can't. I will never be convinced he's better. If he wins a Cup, we'll talk again. Until then, he's not better. "Better" is defined by ALL stats, not just the ones you choose to include. People don't remember the silver stars; they remember the winners.
- Ersberg

Then By your elementary reasoning, Cam Ward, Marc Andre Fleury, Nik Khabibulan, JS Giguere are all better goalies than Hank right? If it begins and ends with Stanley Cups and Playoff success, then I'm guessing the Rangers should just trade Hank to the Pens for MAF straight up right? To Carolina for Ward straight up right?

Yeah, forget that no goalie ever started his career with as many consecutive 30+ win seasons ever, or that no current goalie has had as many Vezina nominations as Hank has in the modern era, or that Hank will easily surpass Richter's record as the winniest Ranger goalie ever, or that Hank has a gold medal, no....no one will remember him because he hasn't won a cup. Your a fool.

I really feel like there's a huge difference between the playoffs and a regular season stretch as long as a playoff stretch. Firstly, concentration of top-tier teams as opponents. Second, higher pressure situations against opponents that start to learn your strengths and weaknesses in repeated viewings. Finally, sampling: In the playoffs, you really only get one shot. If you blow it, you're done. Taking a stretch of regular season play of equivalent length is not the same, because they've had numerous chances to produce that stretch.
- Morris

THIS^^^^^EXACTLY^^^^^

perfectly put. this is the reason that quick is in the discussion. period. if you still choose hank, great...but this point is important.

i started pointing stuff out thinking that people would be surprised by how close quickies reg season numbers actually were to hanks. when combined with his playoff performances(as in plural) i thought it might create a few more open minds on the subject. somehow along the way i found myself defending the worth of playoff stats...which blows my mind.

I simply wanted this to have its own platform, as well as the poll, outside of the list that was posted previously. I also wanted to provide those statistics for people that were relevant to some of the arguments being brought up in the comments section of last blog (Like the divisional stats, the average shots against). I'm a big stat guy.
- Jason_Lewis

Ok, I take it back then. I honestly think both are are 1 and 2 right now in the NHL. Rask and Bobrovsky climbing up the list though. Rinne slipping a bit. Obviously Kings fans will say Quick, Ranger fans obviously will go with Lundqvist.