Feb
11

Chasing 400 wins

February 11, 2017, by

henrik lundqvist

I remember watching when Henrik Lundqvist first arriving on the scene in 2005. Kevin Weekes had just gone down with an injury, and the soon to be anointed King took over for a game. Then one game became two. Then two became two in a row. Then three in a row, and then he was the starter, appearing in 53 games that season and winning 30 of them.

That was his first 30 win season. He would win at least 30 in every non-lockout season following, and sits at 399 career wins. Usually I’m hesitant to use goaltender wins as a mark of success because it is a team oriented stat, but in watching Hank you know he carried a number of those Rangers teams much farther than they should have been. Without Hank, the post-Jaromir Jagr teams are non-playoff teams until 2011-2012.

It goes beyond wins too. Lundqvist hasn’t had a season below a .920 SV% since the 2008-2009 season. He topped out at a .930 SV% in 2011-2012, winning the Vezina in the process. Lundqvist’s point shares (estimated number of points in the standings he earned by starting in net) has never fallen below 9, and has been as high as 15 in the past. His GSAA is just absurd.

But the recent comparison has been to Carey Price, who himself is an elite goaltender. People seem to think Price is and always has been the better goalie. But he’s not:

It’s not even close really.

To get to 400 wins, you need a few things. It’s clear Hank has the skill. He’s a generational talent in net. One that wasn’t made by a stifling defense in the dead puck era. He played most of his years with a fairly porous defense, and still came out looking like a King.

Hank is already 12th all time in wins. He will be 9th by the time the season ends. He will probably be top-five in wins by the time he calls it a career. Brodeur’s 691 wins isn’t going to happen, but Hank has a sizable lead on Brodeur in career SV% (.920 vs. .912).

Henrik Lundqvist’s greatest flaw is that he is consistently elite. The norm is for him to win 30 games and have a SV% of .920. So when he doesn’t hit one of those marks (he’s at .911 SV% now), it seems like a down year. But let’s not forget that 400 wins is an incredible feat. Folks always complain about wanting generational talent, but we have been watching a generational talent for a decade.

"Chasing 400 wins", 5 out of 5 based on 16 ratings.
Categories : Players

40 comments

  1. Hockey Sittoo says:

    Hey King Sieveqvist! How about a name change just for one night?? Here’s hoping the Blueshirts get it done tonight and help Hank reach the 400 wins milestone! I’d also love to see Vesey and/or Buchnevich have a breakout night.

    • King Sieveqvist ! King Sieveqvist ! King Sieveqvist ! says:

      lol … the deal is … he wins a cup … the name is changed

  2. Walt says:

    I’m pulling for Hank to win his 400th, and many, many more in the future. The man reeks with class, and plays with plenty of heart.

    Now having said this, and there will be some ruffled feathers, this record is somewhat skewed, in that for many years we didn’t have shoot outs. Coming from Europe, Hank had experience with that format, and won plenty of games early in his career, while the rest of the NHL had to adjust. The rules have changed, so I understand everyone is playing under them today, but others played before that era, and their numbers won’t reflect it on the win side of the ledger……

    The last remark wasn’t in any way to detract from Hank’s accomplishments!!!!!!

    Here’s to another 400 wins by the man…………..

  3. DAVID k says:

    The only thing we need to be aware of is AV runs the season like a sprint and Anti needs to get some games in to stay sharp otherwise Hank will be out of gas for playoffs.

  4. Leatherneck says:

    He has been good however he is not a champion….and many games the team won it for him too. He is overrated and has two major flaws….he does not come out to play the angles and stays deep and is a liability with his stick. So this post is biased in some ways.
    Do I like Lundqvist….yes but I don’t consider him elite and he has fallen to Nash status with his contract. Nash and his contract vs production does have problems that holds the team back from getting better, this also applies to Lundqvist. Nash is a good player to have, but for 4 Mil…..not 7.8 Mil
    I honestly believe Cam Talbot was a better rounded goalie than Leaky. Talbot has better hockey IQ by a wide margin. Way too many times I have seen Lundqvist play the puck when he should have froze it because he had tired players on an extended shift.
    So is Leaky a star….ok…I will agree to that….elite? HELL NO he isn’t elite

  5. Bloomer says:

    A porous defense? Goal saved above exceptions? If Lundqvist was drafted by a team with a truly shoddy defence, he career would of turned out quite differently.

    An good example is Devan Dubnyk. For years, the Oilers a young team, had the worst defensive system in the league, Dubnyk a promising young Oiler goalie was traumatized to a point where he had zero confidence, Minnesota a team with a defence first style of play, picked him up. Now, with a .934 save percentage, Devan is a Vezina Trophy candidate.

    When Henk gets his 400th. win, it will be a great achievement. But he also had teammates along the way that contributed to that achievement. A team can not be successful without good goaltender. A goalie can not be successful without a good team in front of him. Hockey is very much a team sport, a goalie can not do it on his own, This concept is loss on this website. Hockey is not baseball, not even close.

    • Ray says:

      Amen. Lundqvist has fairly consistently made the Rangers a better team – and it has been an amazing ride – but he (nor anyone else) does not work miracles. And too many here promote Hank by running down the rest of the team.

      As you note Bloomer, on a really bad team, no one would have even noticed he was good.

    • JoeS. says:

      Absolutely! Thumbs up! ^

    • Reenavipul says:

      Coyotes were the ones who got Dubnyk off the scrap heap and coached him back up. Then they dealt him to Minny.

  6. 43 says:

    Fitting tribute.

  7. Kris says:

    Hank may be the most under appreciated elite goalie, considering the love affair with players like McIllarth always makes me laugh. Maybe when he retires hell be appreciated more.

    The cups argument to me is the worst. Niemi and Ward are cup winning goalie, had they been NYR goalies we dont sniff the playoffs. If Hasek retired a Sabre and didnt go to Detroit at 38 years old, he still be looked at as one of the best. If Marty was drafted by Calgary would he have half the records he has or would Trevor Kidd have those cups and records?

    Most Ranger fans get mad if you put Hank in the same sentence as Richter because Richter won. The cup is not won alone. Hanks never had a Messier, Leetch, let alone both at the same time with a Graves, Kovalev, Zubov. If Messier doesnt have his 3rd period game 6, Richter never wins the cup with us. Both are elite goalies, I dont compare athletes for different eras cause they were different games.

    Alot of people dont appreciate Hank, but they sure will miss his body of work when hes gone.

  8. Rich S says:

    hank is/was an excellent goalie……
    we can win a cup with him maybe next year if we …trade stepan for defenseman, somehow rid ourselves of girardi and maybe klein and maybe stall……and make defense average…AND
    NOT trade zib, buch, kreider, miller, hayes, vesey, and even grabner……
    Thia rangers team has so much offensive talent/firepower we can win with an average defense and average goalie…

    Although we lack a gretzky or messier or trottier or crosby or lemieux we go 9 deep and IMHO have as much offensive talent as the early 80 islanders and the late 80s oilers…..the 2 best offensive teams I have ever seen, and back then it was wide open hockey so the stats were inflated……
    This current rangers team LOADED….kreider, miller, vesey, hayes buch , grabner WOW!!!!
    Just NO stupid trades….be patient……
    To all those who argued and called for trading kreider, miller, hayes , vesey , hayes over the past few years time to eat big dish of CROW!!!!!!!!!!

  9. Peter says:

    It is ridiculous to have to argue whether Hank is an elite goalie. Of course he is. Is he as good as he was? Probably not; he is older and time waits for no one. Is he still damn good? Of course. Can he do it alone? Nope, nobody can.

  10. Hatrick Swayze says:

    Great article, thanks for writing. Hope he gets it tonight. It’s been a privelage to watch and root for him the past decade. Always smh at those who don’t give him his due, especially Rangers fans.

  11. JoeS. says:

    While we are talking of Brodeur… I could have had that record! Are we kidding..Scott Stevens and the trap…That defense was the best ever assembled, despite the fact they almost ruined the game, rules had to be changed. I cannot imagine what the King would have done in that system, with that D….

    • Hatrick Swayze says:

      A little over the top, Joe. Brodeur spanned time. He’s like lidstrom and other greats who remained well above replacement level over multiple decades, playing styles, etc. From clutch and grab to go go go. Guys like that are the TRUE talents we can all appreciate

      • Richter1994 says:

        I get what Joe is saying though. I remember the 1995 Cup, the Wings would have the puck in the Devs’ zone for over a minute straight, possessing the puck, and not getting one shot off.

  12. King Sieveqvist ! King Sieveqvist ! King Sieveqvist ! says:

    Elite goalie, yes … I know everyone hates hearing it but the 8.5 million cap hit kills it along with a few other cap hits the team has.So 8.5 mil you better stop the puck. 2 million could bring another D-man but we will never know

    • Hatrick Swayze says:

      Caphit is a separate conversation from on ice metrics. Would like to hear you’re thoughts on the latter. Name a goalie you’d rather roster from 2005-today.

      Sure Rask, Holtby, Price each have their year or so but who is at or near the top EVERY year. Your boy ain’t no sieve and we both know it.

  13. Richter1994 says:

    If the NHL has any credibility then Henrik is a first ballot HOFamer. Wins may be a byproduct of the team as a whole but he hasn’t gotten that much help getting 400 wins, over the 10+ years.

  14. King Sieveqvist ! King Sieveqvist ! King Sieveqvist ! says:

    But he’s won 400 games right ? Without much help , yet everyone says he cant win a Cup by himself ? What gives … Along with the “other goalies” not making 8.5 million a season … I know E3 is coming , lmao

  15. King Sieveqvist ! King Sieveqvist ! King Sieveqvist ! says:

    And Hat Trick … You rather Have the King then a Cup is pretty much what ur saying …

    • Richter1994 says:

      Ok, again, the teams that have won the Cup have had top 5 draft picks. When will or did the Rangers have top 5 draft picks? The highest picks were 6 and 10 in the last 15 years. The Rangers will never tank as making the playoffs is an annual goal which means they will draft 15 and higher.

      2nd. For some reason Hank Haters seem to think that paying their goalie tandems $2M less will get them a Cup. Who are the players that yo are getting that will offset not having the King? For $2M more in cap space?

      I have said it a million times, over 80% of the teams in the league are within $1M of cap usage for goalies if you add the 2 goalies together. And the teams that have those situations have elite players like Crosby, Malkin, McDavid, and Ovechkin in front f them.

      The thing that you and others are not admitting is that our elite player is in nets and without him the Rangers would not be even close to the success they have had if they didn’t have him. It’s basically all on him.

      Again, other than Jagr, who is elite that has played on this team in front of him? You can’t name 3 players in 12 years.

      • Richter1994 says:

        http://www.spotrac.com/nhl/positional/goaltender/

        Ok, here it is, and I was wrong about the salaries of goalie tandems in the NHL, but the point is that the bulk of the teams are within $2M to $4M of the Rangers. And what is it that the Rangers would do with that cap space that will make the Rangers a better team without Lundqvist?

        • King Sieveqvist ! King Sieveqvist ! King Sieveqvist ! says:

          Win the Cup … Lol … Just busting chops

          • Richter1994 says:

            I know most of the time you’re teasing but seriously, what do fans think the Rangers would do with a little extra cap space, without Lundqvist?

            • King Sieveqvist ! King Sieveqvist ! King Sieveqvist ! says:

              More then likely over pay a few more contracts … Nash – great hockey player , turned out here he’s a better both side of the puck player . only problem they signed him for big money to score goals. I can still live with the contract . Staal – was a decent defenseman before his brother hit em ,then the eye thing That contract blows . Girardi – was a great stay at home shot blocking mix it up defenseman , contract is killing us with AV’s system and the new NHL game of speed. Stepan- not a number 1 center , don’t think he ever will be , he’s too slow . StLouis trade had to be done but the cost was way too high . Picking McG and trying to make him something he was not wasted that pick . Signing Redden for that stupid contract hurt for a few years and loosing Sauer hurt for sure … Him and McD in top 4 pairings would have been still to this day and maybe longer .
              They tried hard to bring within but they didn’t stay the course … When do we finally get a first round pick again ??

              • Richter1994 says:

                I agree, terrible cap management.

                Forget about Lundqvist, instead of Ga nd Staal, you had Stralman and another decent D man on the left side at half Staal’s cost? Would they be much better? Yep. Addition by subtraction.

      • Kris says:

        Richter,

        I agree with what you said, however Id like to add to your thoughts. The first question is what UFA did they miss because of Hanks contract, that would put them in a better spot to win, none.

        As per the 1a 1b tandem, whats the last one of those to win? Wasnt Pitt/Chi/LA/Boston. Lets evaluate those goalies. Murray, looks to be a solid goalie but is too young make a true judgement on him. Fluery, after back to back finals winning the second one, he was brutal in many series after that. Crawford is a product of playing in Chicago, need proof Neimi (that two goalie system in Dallas not exactly working out). Tim Thomas, was great for what 2 seasons.

        Lastly, Quick who I think is the best of the list (Murray could change my mind after larger sample size), would he have won with us if him and Hank were switched, well never know? I personally dont think so. The Hank haters will point to the blown leads and Ill respond with Quick allowed LA to fall behind. LA had a better offense then us at the time and a better defense, goaltending was the only thing equal.

        Thats why I dont define goalies based on winning a cup.

        • Richter1994 says:

          Kris, look at the players on those teams. They have high skill players because, at one time or another, they had very high picks, and in most cases #1 overall picks, which is something the Rangers will never have.

          Having $2M to $4M more in cap space doesn’t give you a #1 overall pick. And it doesn’t get you a player on that level because they never become FAs. Stamkos was close to signing here but ended up back at TB.

          And even so, the Rangers could move cap space if they needed to. So harping on Lundqvist’s contract when he has been their best player his whole career is ridiculous. Not to mention the fact that without him this franchise would not have been close in their success that they have had.

Leave a Reply