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

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

Yeah, he didn't really start getting good until about April. Before April, everyone was saying "What's wrong with Quick?" He was not anywhere near the same until the end of the season. He was not just fine at first and then got bad, he was not good until April when he started to get his game back. But don't let the fact you probably watched at most 5 games during the regular season of Quick get in the way.

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.
- Sven22

First of all, his 20-game playoff stretch in 2012 was amazing, and to say it's comparable to a similar 20-game regular season stretch is a joke. It is not something many goalies can and do.

Secondly, being "clutch" is not just succeeding under pressure, but excelling. Quick clearly does. It's definitely something to commend players for. At the same time though, a lack of success, namely Cup wins, does not mean a player couldn't be clutch. Bourque for example. If that trade never happens, and he retired a Bruin and never won a cup, only a complete fool would say he wasn't a clutch player, or a leader under pressure, just because his team never won.

I'm gonna have to just disagree with that whole GAA paragraph. Doesn't add anything that SA% doesn't tell you? Let's say in a full 60 minute game a goalie faces 20 shots, saves 19 and gets the win. Stats: W-1.00GAA-.950SV%. Let's say another goalie plays 78 minutes in a playoff game, faces 40 shots, stops 38 and loses 2-1. Stats: L-1.54GAA-.950SV%. GAA and SV% are different stats that tell different stories.

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!
- Prucha

Sorry, but Quick took a defensively-minded, albeit an arguably offensively anemic team to the end. Once Lundqvist has done the same, give us a jingle. Until then, you guys are wasting your breath.

do you guys even check the stats before you post?

quick
2012-2013 playoffs - 18g-1.86gaa-.934-3so

everything you just said is proved rubbish by one copy and paste of last years stats that every kings fan already knew...smh.
- good2b_the_king

Yet you fail to put his PO numbers into any kind of context... first, the only time LA has faced a playoff opponent that was actually a strong offensive team over the past couple of postseasons, Quick had turned in a sub-900 SV%:


2013
STL (17th-ranked offense)
SJ (24th-ranked offense)
CHI (2nd-ranked offense) .897%

2012
STL (21st-ranked offense)
PHX (18th-ranked offense)
NJD (15th-ranked offense)


Most of the other playoff opponents weren't exactly teams that struck fear into opposing goalies... while Quick still had to play very well to put up .940-.950SV% against those clubs, let's not pretend like he was shutting down a string of high-flying teams the past couple of postseasons.

Yet you fail to put his PO numbers into any kind of context... first, the only time LA has faced a playoff opponent that was actually a strong offensive team, Quick had turned in a sub-900 SV%:


2013
STL (17th-ranked offense)
SJ (24th-ranked offense)
CHI (2nd-ranked offense) .897%

2012
STL (21st-ranked offense)
PHX (18th-ranked offense)
NJD (15th-ranked offense)


Most of the other playoff opponents weren't exactly teams that struck fear into opposing goalies... while Quick still had to play very well to put up .940-.950SV% against those clubs, let's not pretend like he was shutting down a string of high-flying teams the past couple of postseasons.
- Tomahawk

Vancouver was 5th in 2011-12... Not a string of high scorers for sure, but leaving out the President's Trophy winning team to help your argument is a bit much.

You people are amazing. Take a look at Quick's stats before the last 2 years. I know this is about right now, but right now when it comes to performance is linked to the past when it comes to goalies. You can't say a goalie is the best just because of 1 year. I mean, clearly Lundqvist did not have as good a past season as Quick did, thats fact on paper. So when we are all arguing on who is better, we have to be talking about more than just this year. Quick hasn't even started dominating until these last 2 years. Prior to that, he was mediocre. This is why Pro Lundqvist people are so annoyed. Hank has been putting up ELITE numbers for 7 years now. He's played behind bad teams, non playoff teams, Conference leading teams, defensive teams, scoring teams, the Rangers have changed quite a lot in front of him since Jagr Nylander days. No matter what team is in front of Hank, he consistently puts up basically the same numbers and gets a Vezina nod almost every single year. Quick "coincidentally" has put up his Elite numbers only when the entire team became Stanley Cup Caliber. Before that, his numbers weren't that great.

Vancouver was 5th in 2011-12... Not a string of high scorers for sure, but leaving out the President's Trophy winning team to help your argument is a bit much.
- PancakesPenner

Oops, my mistake, didn't mean to leave out the first round.

Vancouver was missing Daniel Sedin, leading goal-scorer, for most of that series... and remember when the Kings met them a couple of postseasons prior when the Canucks were 2nd-overall in offense, Quick got shellacked in the final four games, and managed an .884SV% for the series.

Over a more meaningful sample they are not close in the regular season. Last four years combined, Hank is .924, Quick is .915. That is a substantial gap.

On "can and do" for putting up great numbers: I wanted to see if I could find a point within the last two years where Henrik Lundqvist put up equivalent numbers over an equivalent stretch of time as Quick in the 2012 playoffs. It wasn't hard.

In fact, I found more than that. From 11/26/2011 through 2/27/2012, a span of more than half a season (48 games), Lundqvist registered a .945 average. So basically the same efficiency except over almost 2.5 times the duration.

You can say, "yeah, but teams are better in the playoffs." Yes, but not necessarily better offensively. In the 2012 playoffs Quick faced the 4th, 11th, 17th, and 22nd best offenses in the NHL. I don't think we can say that Quick necessarily had it tougher or that his stats represent superior performance just because it was the playoffs.

And again, here's save percentage vs. GAA:

Save percentage = saves/shots allowed
GAA = (1 - save percentage) * shots allowed

When you look at it that way, you see that the only fundamental difference between save percentage and GAA is how many shots a goalie sees. Since a goalie has virtually no control over how many shots he faces, the only new information GAA adds is how good your skaters play defense, which is irrelevant to any discussion of goalie performance.

This argument will be settled next year. Quick will be up against more than the pathetic Pacific with the new alignment and he will play every team in the NHL. Lundqvist will have a more open system in front of him which will hopefully change the possession stats of the team, less blocked shots, etc... The Rangers intangibles should be a little more like LA's.

Yet you fail to put his PO numbers into any kind of context... first, the only time LA has faced a playoff opponent that was actually a strong offensive team over the past couple of postseasons, Quick had turned in a sub-900 SV%:


2013
STL (17th-ranked offense)
SJ (24th-ranked offense)
CHI (2nd-ranked offense) .897%

2012
STL (21st-ranked offense)
PHX (18th-ranked offense)
NJD (15th-ranked offense)


Most of the other playoff opponents weren't exactly teams that struck fear into opposing goalies... while Quick still had to play very well to put up .940-.950SV% against those clubs, let's not pretend like he was shutting down a string of high-flying teams the past couple of postseasons.
- Tomahawk

Now you guys are splitting hairs. I could easily argue that the LA defense didn't have it's best defensive defenseman in the line-up during the '13 playoffs. Ie Mitchell and Greene.

Put their defensive numbers into perspective if you're using team stats.

Over a more meaningful sample they are not close in the regular season. Last four years combined, Hank is .924, Quick is .915. That is a substantial gap.

On "can and do" for putting up great numbers: I wanted to see if I could find a point within the last two years where Henrik Lundqvist put up equivalent numbers over an equivalent stretch of time as Quick in the 2012 playoffs. It wasn't hard.

In fact, I found more than that. From 11/26/2011 through 2/27/2012, a span of more than half a season (48 games), Lundqvist registered a .945 average. So basically the same efficiency except over almost 2.5 times the duration.

You can say, "yeah, but teams are better in the playoffs." Yes, but not necessarily better offensively. In the 2012 playoffs Quick faced the 4th, 11th, 17th, and 22nd best offenses in the NHL. I don't think we can say that Quick necessarily had it tougher or that his stats represent superior performance just because it was the playoffs.

And again, here's save percentage vs. GAA:

Save percentage = saves/shots allowed
GAA = (1 - save percentage) * shots allowed

When you look at it that way, you see that the only fundamental difference between save percentage and GAA is how many shots a goalie sees. Since a goalie has virtually no control over how many shots he faces, the only new information GAA adds is how good your skaters play defense, which is irrelevant to any discussion of goalie performance.
- Sven22

That is not how GAA is calculated. It's an average of goals allowed by time on ice. Shots faced or allowed is not a part of it at all.

As far as the rest, just... no. Look, Lundqvist is amazing. Best argument I would even try to make is RIGHT NOW he's 1B to Quick's 1A. Easily the most consistent goalie in the league, by leaps and bounds. But this whole "regular season stats = playoff stats" is something I've never heard any hockey fan, of any team say before, and something I 100% disagree with.

Oops, my mistake, didn't mean to leave out the first round.

Vancouver was missing Daniel Sedin, leading goal-scorer, for most of that series... and remember when the Kings met them a couple of postseasons prior when the Canucks were 2nd-overall in offense, Quick got shellacked in the final four games, and managed an .884SV% for the series.
- Tomahawk

Oh believe me, I remember.

That is not how GAA is calculated. It's an average of goals allowed by time on ice. Shots faced or allowed is not a part of it at all.

As far as the rest, just... no. Look, Lundqvist is amazing. Best argument I would even try to make is RIGHT NOW he's 1B to Quick's 1A. Easily the most consistent goalie in the league, by leaps and bounds. But this whole "regular season stats = playoff stats" is something I've never heard any hockey fan, of any team say before, and something I 100% disagree with.
- PancakesPenner

Wait, how many Vezina trophies has Quick won, you know, the trophy that is DEFINED as the best goaltender in the league? Better yet, how many Vezina Finalists has Quick gotten, ONE. Lundqvist FIVE TIMES. I mean, even this past season, Quick didn't even get it and Lundqvist did and the Rangers had a pretty sub par season. Clearly 30 GMs in the league who I believe are a little more qualified at evaluating players know something more than you guys.

Jonathan Quick has yet to string together 70 games of pure dominance in his career. He came on when it matters most, in the 2012 Playoffs, thats what earned him the Cup. But Earning the Cup doesn't give you an automatic check to every other title in the league.

What, are you gonna argue that Sidney Crosby is not better than Jonathan Toews because Toews centered the Cup winning team? Is Duncan Keith better than Shea Weber or Chara because he was considered the #1 Dman on the CUP team? No, clearly you understand that winning the cup is a TEAM achievement when you compare those things, but of course when it comes to Quick and Lundqvist, all of a sudden the rest of the team doesn't factor into winning the cup, its All Quick right? So ridiculous.

Wait, how many Vezina trophies has Quick won, you know, the trophy that is DEFINED as the best goaltender in the league? Better yet, how many Vezina Finalists has Quick gotten, ONE. Lundqvist FIVE TIMES. I mean, even this past season, Quick didn't even get it and Lundqvist did and the Rangers had a pretty sub par season. Clearly 30 GMs in the league who I believe are a little more qualified at evaluating players know something more than you guys.

Jonathan Quick has yet to string together 70 games of pure dominance in his career. He came on when it matters most, in the 2012 Playoffs, thats what earned him the Cup. But Earning the Cup doesn't give you an automatic check to every other title in the league.
- xcheckmajor

Congrats, he got the Vezina. Truth be told though I would say Quick deserved it that year, but they gave it to Hank because he (Hank) deserved it the previous year but was denied.

Jim Carey has the same amount of Vezina's as Lundqvist though, so him and Hank are pretty equivalent, yeah?

If you look at Quick's numbers, the first five years of his career, he's been a Vezina finalist, has a Cup win, and a Conn Smythe all with numbers in the same ballpark as Lundqvist's first five years.

Lundqvist is four years older, and has been in his prime for a couple years now. Quick is just entering his, and has been progressing very well. And as far as not being nominated for the Vezina this year, he had back surgery in the off season, which for a goalie that plays the way he does is huge.

And he didn't earn the Cup, that's a team award. He did however earn the Conn Smythe. Which Hank has not. They both have an individual award. I'm happy with the one Quick earned.

Wait, how many Vezina trophies has Quick won, you know, the trophy that is DEFINED as the best goaltender in the league? Better yet, how many Vezina Finalists has Quick gotten, ONE. Lundqvist FIVE TIMES. I mean, even this past season, Quick didn't even get it and Lundqvist did and the Rangers had a pretty sub par season. Clearly 30 GMs in the league who I believe are a little more qualified at evaluating players know something more than you guys.

Jonathan Quick has yet to string together 70 games of pure dominance in his career. He came on when it matters most, in the 2012 Playoffs, thats what earned him the Cup. But Earning the Cup doesn't give you an automatic check to every other title in the league.

What, are you gonna argue that Sidney Crosby is not better than Jonathan Toews because Toews centered the Cup winning team? Is Duncan Keith better than Shea Weber or Chara because he was considered the #1 Dman on the CUP team? No, clearly you understand that winning the cup is a TEAM achievement when you compare those things, but of course when it comes to Quick and Lundqvist, all of a sudden the rest of the team doesn't factor into winning the cup, its All Quick right? So ridiculous.
- xcheckmajor

See above.

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?
- Sven22

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?
- Sven22

i believe you when you that you dont have a dog in the fight and i get that a neutral fan can disagree with me.

the reason i mentioned pride is because once people take a position sometimes their pride gets in the way of them admitting when they wrong. even when they know it.
you barely being able to give me a "probably" on the comparison of their 2011-2012 seasons is a perfect example of this.

"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."

there you go again with a bit of hyperbole sprayed all over this paragraph. its not a bit of hyperbole...its just inaccurate and incorrect.

once again, quick did it two years in the playoffs not one.

now to point out your crown jewel of hyperbole(inaccuracy)...

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)

in what fantasy land do these numbers equal "absolutely hammered"? or are their career numbers not sustained enough for you?

you claim your just an innocent poster who just disagrees but you dont act that way.
you've misrepresented the facts thru your statements/posts to try to support the position that you've taken...over and over again. thats my problem. not the disagreeing.

in regards to your view on "clutch", your silly notion that a 20 game stretch in the regualr season is equal to the playoffs and your thoughts on the playoffs in general...your views are so extreme and in the minority that ill pass on talking about how absurd they are. ill just point out that clutch is hitting a wide open net off a one timer in the playoffs when you only have one chance to hit it. not doing it 7-10 times in the regular season. clutch is hitting both free throws with no time on the clock to force overtime. not hitting 8-10 over the course of a season. clutch is putting up 20 points in 20 games in the playoffs and being the first captain to raise the stanley cup for your franchise ever. clutch is everywhere. you just for whateverson refuse to acknowledge it. which is your right. let me know that works out for ya...

That is not how GAA is calculated. It's an average of goals allowed by time on ice. Shots faced or allowed is not a part of it at all.

As far as the rest, just... no. Look, Lundqvist is amazing. Best argument I would even try to make is RIGHT NOW he's 1B to Quick's 1A. Easily the most consistent goalie in the league, by leaps and bounds. But this whole "regular season stats = playoff stats" is something I've never heard any hockey fan, of any team say before, and something I 100% disagree with.
- PancakesPenner

(1 - save percentage) * shots faced = goals against. Those are the same thing, expressed differently.

The textbook definition of GAA is goals against per 60 minutes, so if you have goals against and ice time you can calculate the GAA without knowing the shots against.

But because goals against can also be expressed as a function of saves and shots, you see that save percentage is hidden within GAA.

GAA = goals against / 60 minutes
Goals against = shots against - saves
Shots against - saves = (1 - saves/shots) * shots = (1 - save percentage) * shots
GAA = (1 - save percentage) * shots against per 60 minutes

The only new variable you're adding when you move from save percentage to GAA is how many shots your goalie faces per 60 minutes, something he cannot control.

This makes sense intuitively. A goalie who is likely to stop 9 out of 10 typical NHL shots is also likely to stop 90 of 100 or 900 of 1000, assuming a consistent average shot quality. Volume is irrelevant. The only things that matter are the goaltender's performance and shot quality.

But for GAA, volume does matter, and matters significantly. If two goalies are equally talented and face equal shot quality but goalie B faces 15% more shots against, his GAA will be 15% worse. That is hardly the goalie's fault.

@crosscheckmajor

"Jonathan Quick has yet to string together 70 games of pure dominance in his career."

once again putting your foot in your mouth...one sentence at a time.

Quick
2011 - 69g-1.95gaa-.929sv-10so

too easy.

Oops, my mistake, didn't mean to leave out the first round.

Vancouver was missing Daniel Sedin, leading goal-scorer, for most of that series... and remember when the Kings met them a couple of postseasons prior when the Canucks were 2nd-overall in offense, Quick got shellacked in the final four games, and managed an .884SV% for the series.
- Tomahawk

A young goalie in his first year as a starter, who was being rode to death with broken ribs and a newborn baby didn't perform that well in his young inexperienced team's first playoff appearance in nearly 10 years? Stop the presses. That LA Kings roster was awful, Randy Jones was getting ice time for crying out loud.

(1 - save percentage) * shots faced = goals against. Those are the same thing, expressed differently.

The textbook definition of GAA is goals against per 60 minutes, so if you have goals against and ice time you can calculate the GAA without knowing the shots against.

But because goals against can also be expressed as a function of saves and shots, you see that save percentage is hidden within GAA.

GAA = goals against / 60 minutes
Goals against = shots against - saves
Shots against - saves = (1 - saves/shots) * shots = (1 - save percentage) * shots
GAA = (1 - save percentage) * shots against per 60 minutes

The only new variable you're adding when you move from save percentage to GAA is how many shots your goalie faces per 60 minutes, something he cannot control.

This makes sense intuitively. A goalie who is likely to stop 9 out of 10 typical NHL shots is also likely to stop 90 of 100 or 900 of 1000, assuming a consistent average shot quality. Volume is irrelevant. The only things that matter are the goaltender's performance and shot quality.

But for GAA, volume does matter, and matters significantly. If two goalies are equally talented and face equal shot quality but goalie B faces 15% more shots against, his GAA will be 15% worse. That is hardly the goalie's fault.
- Sven22

Sorry man, you lost me at math. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to get back to my coloring book.

Better yet, how many Vezina Finalists has Quick gotten, ONE. Lundqvist FIVE TIMES.
- xcheckmajor

Congrats, you have the 1990's Buffalo Bills of goaltenders.

clearly the best goalie in the league is neither Quick or Lundqvist, it's obviously Corey Crawford. only the most recent success matters.

2013 Regular season 19-5 3 so 1.94 GAA, .926 SA%
2013 Playoffs 16-7 1 sp 1.84 GAA .932 SA%

But on a serious note, ignoring 7 years of being dominant, and still playing at the top is somehow not relevant? Counting 1.5 years of playing and ONE good run is somehow the most important factor? Talk about fan boys and ignoring plain facts.

My argument against Quick being #1 is that he needs to repeat this success a few more seasons and prove he can be as consistent. Injuries or not, if he does it than he earns the #1 title. If he doesn't then he falls into the Ward, Fluery, Giguere category, and only time will tell.

Lundqvist thus far has proven he is undisputed # 1.

@crosscheckmajor

"Jonathan Quick has yet to string together 70 games of pure dominance in his career."

once again putting your foot in your mouth...one sentence at a time.

Quick
2011 - 69g-1.95gaa-.929sv-10so

too easy.
- good2b_the_king

2011-2012, again I should have been more clear. I am saying excluding the Stanley Cup year. The only argument you people have revolve around the same 1 season's stats, over and over and over again. Your entire argument is based on that. Its nonsense. Its like Carolina fans telling everyone Cam Ward is the best goalie in the league the year after they won the cup. Again, when your talking about how good a goalie is, you don't just talk about 1 season. You look at the whole picture. Yes, Quick had an amazing year in 11-12. Congrats. Like I said, come back with the same argument when he's done it 5-6 times like Lundqvist has.

When it comes down to it, if you could give a numeric value to Lundqvist and Quick, Hank would be a 100 and Quick would be a 95. Every other starting goalie in the league is 90 at best with most in the 80s. If Quick can post the same type of numbers he had in 11-12 straight through to 2015, then I'll say he's just as good maybe better than Lundqvist. Until he does, its just not proven.

clearly the best goalie in the league is neither Quick or Lundqvist, it's obviously Corey Crawford. only the most recent success matters.

2013 Regular season 19-5 3 so 1.94 GAA, .926 SA%
2013 Playoffs 16-7 1 sp 1.84 GAA .932 SA%

But on a serious note, ignoring 7 years of being dominant, and still playing at the top is somehow not relevant? Counting 1.5 years of playing and ONE good run is somehow the most important factor? Talk about fan boys and ignoring plain facts.

My argument against Quick being #1 is that he needs to repeat this success a few more seasons and prove he can be as consistent. Injuries or not, if he does it than he earns the #1 title. If he doesn't then he falls into the Ward, Fluery, Giguere category, and only time will tell.

Lundqvist thus far has proven he is undisputed # 1.
- MatzCT

This is the issue, you're dealing in absolutes. ONLY regular season matters, ONLY previous success matters. You need to find a balance between the two. Previous success and current abilities, regular season and playoffs.

If you're going to argue previous success is the only thing that matters then the undisputed #1 is Brodeur.

2011-2012, again I should have been more clear. I am saying excluding the Stanley Cup year. The only argument you people have revolve around the same 1 season's stats, over and over and over again. Your entire argument is based on that. Its nonsense. Its like Carolina fans telling everyone Cam Ward is the best goalie in the league the year after they won the cup. Again, when your talking about how good a goalie is, you don't just talk about 1 season. You look at the whole picture. Yes, Quick had an amazing year in 11-12. Congrats. Like I said, come back with the same argument when he's done it 5-6 times like Lundqvist has.
- xcheckmajor

"If you ignore the good years, then he's a bad player."