Jump to content

Brodeur vs. Lundqvist


Recommended Posts

I just had an infuriating argument with a friend who claims that Henrik was better than Marty "in his day". I didn't need stats to tell me why that is so wrong, but I decided to look at some anyway. Here's a few things that jump out at me. 

1) Lundqvist played only 887 NHL games. Marty played 1266. 379 more games. If you look at Marty's 21 years, he had a major stat drop-off in 2010, which is when his Save Percentage dropped from .916 in 2009-10 to .903 in 2010-11. It would never go above .908 again. If you took Marty's first 887 games against Henrik's 887, I bet Brodeur completely wrecks him. 

2) Notwithstanding his last 5 seasons with a .909 save percentage, Marty ended his career at .912. Henrik is .918. Shot differential? Marty faced 6,099 more shots. 

3) Marty ended up with a career 2.24 GAA. Only time he had one above 3 was his first season (in 4 games), other than that his highest was his last yearn St. Louis (only 7 games) at 2.87. If you are talking full seasons, 2.57 in 2005-06 was his highest. Henrik ended at a career 2.43, was over 3 for his last two seasons. , and 2.98 and 2.74 the two seasons before that. Put those aside, his lowest was a 2.48. Lowest single season GAA? Marty again, 1.88 to Henrik's 1.97. 

4) Vezina Trophies: Marty won 4, Henrik 1. Jennings trophies? Marty won 5, pretty much playing 70 games every season. None for Henrik.

5) Stanley Cups: 3 for Marty. Henrik got to look at it once when he went to visit the HHOF, but he had to pay admission to do so. And when he lost to the Kings he got to watch another team carry it. Sure, Marty did that too, but after winning some. 

6) I looked at each guy's "career year" stat wise. Obviously there are other variables that make that not so reliable, but what the fvck, I figured I would make the comparison. In 1996-97, Marty played 67 games, with a .927 save percentage and 1.88 GAA, 10 shutouts, 37-14-13 record. Hasek beat him for the Vezina with a .930 and 2.27, 37-20-10 record.In 2011-12, the Queen played 62 games, .930 SV% and 1.97 GAA for a 39-18-5 record. There are several seasons (basically 1997-98 through 2009-10) where Marty's individual stats were not as good, but his won/loss record was better than that. 1997-98, for example, 9.17, 1.89, but 43-17-8. 

7) Who had more 40 win seasons? Marty 8, Henrik 0. 

😎 Who has the better playoff stats? Not gonna be surprised here:

Marty: .919, 2.02, 113-91 record. Multiple cups. 

Henrik .921, 2.30, 61-67 record. One cup protecting his tiny d!ck, that is all. 

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Rangers and King Nothing had a really strong window of opportunities to win the Cup and couldn't get the job done so when they whine that King Nothing didn't have amazing teams in front of him they conveniently forget this... 

2012 - finished 1st place in the East, only 2 points behind the president trophy winning Vancouver Canucks, lost to the Devils in 6 in the conference finals

2014 - faced the Kings in the Stanley Cup Finals, lost in 5

2015 - president trophy winners, lost in game 7 on home ice in the conference finals to Tampa

Summary - Marty's better. 

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Satans Hockey said:

The Rangers and King Nothing had a really strong window of opportunities to win the Cup and couldn't get the job done so when they whine that King Nothing didn't have amazing teams in front of him they conveniently forget this... 

2012 - finished 1st place in the East, only 2 points behind the president trophy winning Vancouver Canucks, lost to the Devils in 6 in the conference finals

2014 - faced the Kings in the Stanley Cup Finals, lost in 5

2015 - president trophy winners, lost in game 7 on home ice in the conference finals to Tampa

Summary - Marty's better. 

 

 

2AA898A7-57C3-47CF-BCDD-F39E5E2A26D0.gif

Oh and: 

51F92639-771D-4A21-BD6E-4E41A5A86312.gif

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, MadDog2020 said:

Kudos to you. I wouldn’t even be able to argue with your friend, because I’d be too busy trying to regain my breath from laughing so hard at him.

In fairness,  I saw who was calling me and I answered my phone "The Queen Is Dead". 

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Henrik was a damned good goalie.  Had a hell of a career.  Hall-Of-Famer.  Wasn't really his fault that his team was unable to win a Cup...he was rarely the issue when his teams failed to get it done in the playoffs.  Had much more to do with his teammates not scoring enough, and letting way too many series go 6+ games.  

BUT, it's really easy.  The conversation I've heard in many circles is Roy vs Hasek vs Brodeur.  Whoever people choose as their #1 out of those three, I have no issue...all three are all-time greats, you can't go wrong with any one of them, and there's compelling arguments to be made for one over the other two, no matter who you choose to champion...they are truly 1A/1B/1C, in any order.

No one ever calls Lundqvist the 1D of this group.  No one ever will.  That's all you need to know.  He'll always have his nose pressed up against their window.  If anyone wants to compare him to peers in a debate, it's probably more MAF vs Luongo vs Lundqvist.  Those guys were really good too.  No one's ever wondering aloud if they were among the best ever to play.  

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

The other thing to throw on top of the mountain of reasons Marty >>>>>>>>Lundqvist: Marty won two out of three head-to-head playoff meetings, including the most important series of the three- a series Marty won three weeks after his 40th birthday. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Colorado Rockies 1976 said:

Henrik was a damned good goalie.  Had a hell of a career.  Hall-Of-Famer.  Wasn't really his fault that his team was unable to win a Cup...he was rarely the issue when his teams failed to get it done in the playoffs.  Had much more to do with his teammates not scoring enough, and letting way too many series go 6+ games.  

BUT, it's really easy.  The conversation I've heard in many circles is Roy vs Hasek vs Brodeur.  Whoever people choose as their #1 out of those three, I have no issue...all three are all-time greats, you can't go wrong with any one of them, and there's compelling arguments to be made for one over the other two, no matter who you choose to champion...they are truly 1A/1B/1C, in any order.

No one ever calls Lundqvist the 1D of this group.  No one ever will.  That's all you need to know.  He'll always have his nose pressed up against their window.  If anyone wants to compare him to peers in a debate, it's probably more MAF vs Luongo vs Lundqvist.  Those guys were really good too.  No one's ever wondering aloud if they were among the best ever to play.  

I've always looked at those 3 like this:

Hasek was the best pure puck stopper of goalies I actually got to watch (I didn't get to see guys in the 50s, 60s, 70s who enter the greatest ever debate) If its game 7, I want Roy in net. But if I'm building a franchise, I go with Marty. The consistency and relative health he had for 20 years solves a lot of problems

Edited by Devil Dan 56
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Devil Dan 56 said:

I've always looked at those 3 like this:

Hasek was the best pure puck stopper of goalies I actually got to watch (I didn't get to see guys in the 50s, 60s, 70s who enter the greatest ever debate) If its game 7, I want Roy in net. But if I'm building a franchise, I go with Marty. The consistency and relative health he had for 20 years solves a lot of problems

Pretty much the same here.  I have Hasek as the best pure puck-stopper I've ever seen, Roy the most clutch (and who left while he still had something left in the tank), and Marty as the durability freak who had an insanely long prime, and showed the ability to raise his game in big spots.  Three of the best ever to play, yet quite different in what they excelled at specifically.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Devil Dan 56 said:

I've always looked at those 3 like this:

Hasek was the best pure puck stopper of goalies I actually got to watch (I didn't get to see guys in the 50s, 60s, 70s who enter the greatest ever debate) If its game 7, I want Roy in net. But if I'm building a franchise, I go with Marty. The consistency and relative health he had for 20 years solves a lot of problems

This is exactly how I feel. Gimme Roy for a game 7, gimme Marty to build around, and Hasek was just a freak when it came to pure puck-stopping.

Edited by MadDog2020
Link to post
Share on other sites

From a THN article debating the best goalie in Rag history: The Stanley Cups have not been there for Lundqvist, but in that sense, he’s most certainly not alone on the list of Ranger greats without the ultimate prize. In fact, only five goalies in franchise history – Lorne Chabot, Andy Aitkenhead, Davey Kerr and Mike Richter, along with his backup, Glenn Healy) – have their names etched on the Stanley Cup. (This is one of the NHL’s oldest franchises, but has fewer total Stanley Cups than the Edmonton Oilers and Pittsburgh Penguins. Sometimes I feel like not enough is made of how historically putrid the Rangers have been as an NHL franchise.) 🤣https://www.si.com/hockey/news/where-does-henrik-lundqvist-rank-among-ranger-goalies-all-time?fbclid=IwAR3MOqDobeve8GNnYR8OaH_ITg8AYQO-nZZx8nRto3t8E8YrobMLhjLm-eY

  • Like 2
  • Haha 2
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Colorado Rockies 1976 said:

Pretty much the same here.  I have Hasek as the best pure puck-stopper I've ever seen, Roy the most clutch (and who left while he still had something left in the tank), and Marty as the durability freak who had an insanely long prime, and showed the ability to raise his game in big spots.  Three of the best ever to play, yet quite different in what they excelled at specifically.  

I honestly had the same thoughts this morning. Could we go as to far as saying Hasek is greatest regular season goalie of all time? 6 Vezinas, 3 Hart nods, but only 2 Cups on stacked Red Wings teams.

Like Roy being Mr Game 7, Marty Mr Franchise, Hasek Mr Regular season?

Edited by jagknife
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Nicomo said:

Lundqvist didn’t even score any goals. What a loser. 

I missed that in my analysis. 

Regular season:

Lundqvist: 0 goals, 27 assists.

Brodeur: 2 goals, 45 assists. 

Playoffs:

Loser: 0 goals, 1 assist

Brodeur: 1 goal, 27 assists

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Lateralous said:

Lundqvist was a great goalie for a really long time but he belongs in a conversation with guys like Luongo and CuJo, not the big three.   

Speaking of the big three, it still really bothers me (more than it should) that Marty was like #6 on the best goalies of all time poll they did on the HF board at one point. There was a couple guys that played in the 50’s ahead of him iirc. Which personally I find ridiculous. No Europeans back then, no shooters using composite sticks, only 6 teams, etc. It’s really hard to compare different eras in any sport, but especially hockey.

The top 3 are the top 3 as far as I’m concerned. Like CR76 said, what order you put them in is up for debate. But Marty not top 3? Let alone top 5? GTFOH. 

People act like Marty was the only goalie to play on stacked teams. And it’s always conveniently left out that he had some great years AFTER Stevens and Niedermayer were gone. Including 2 Vezina trophies. That on top of having a rule made to limit his abilities, and the insane workload he had year after year more than make up for “bUt ThE TrAp!!!” and “hE SAw liKE 15 ShOtS A gAMe!”

:End rant

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Imo you have the 3 greatest goalies ever (Roy, haskek, brodeur).  Many many goalies fall below them from the 90s. I would group MAF, quick and Crawford in the same group, as they're all cup winners and played at the same time (similar to brodeurs group, but teams had more star players and they were not as good as their group).  

Far below that I would put lundqvist and luongo in the same group, both good goalies to never win a cup... but imo lundqvist has a bigger edge over luongo who was a bit overrated and never really carried his team, unlike lundqvist who single handedly got them to the Stanley cup finals against the kings.

 

And we need to get Chico in there, he still owns the record for most shutouts by an islanders goalie.  Somewhere near the bottom of any goalie list, but part of the best announcing duo with doc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, bobilly45 said:

Imo you have the 3 greatest goalies ever (Roy, haskek, brodeur).  Many many goalies fall below them from the 90s. I would group MAF, quick and Crawford in the same group, as they're all cup winners and played at the same time (similar to brodeurs group, but teams had more star players and they were not as good as their group).  

Far below that I would put lundqvist and luongo in the same group, both good goalies to never win a cup... but imo lundqvist has a bigger edge over luongo who was a bit overrated and never really carried his team, unlike lundqvist who single handedly got them to the Stanley cup finals against the kings.

 

And we need to get Chico in there, he still owns the record for most shutouts by an islanders goalie.  Somewhere near the bottom of any goalie list, but part of the best announcing duo with doc.

You think Corey Crawford is a better goalie than Lundqvist and Luongo???

image.gif.4de3a26110805fe5c1093cf7075e5e5c.gif

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nicomo said:

Speaking of the big three, it still really bothers me (more than it should) that Marty was like #6 on the best goalies of all time poll they did on the HF board at one point. There was a couple guys that played in the 50’s ahead of him iirc. Which personally I find ridiculous. No Europeans back then, no shooters using composite sticks, only 6 teams, etc. It’s really hard to compare different eras in any sport, but especially hockey.

The top 3 are the top 3 as far as I’m concerned. Like CR76 said, what order you put them in is up for debate. But Marty not top 3? Let alone top 5? GTFOH. 

People act like Marty was the only goalie to play on stacked teams. And it’s always conveniently left out that he had some great years AFTER Stevens and Niedermayer were gone. Including 2 Vezina trophies. That on top of having a rule made to limit his abilities, and the insane workload he had year after year more than make up for “bUt ThE TrAp!!!” and “hE SAw liKE 15 ShOtS A gAMe!”

:End rant

Honestly, I dont know how you even rank the goalies before the 80’s because the position and equipment was so much different.   I guess if you’re a little older it’s possible but as a 44 year old who grew up playing goalie throughout the 80s and 90s, I can only offer strong opinions on the 80s and beyond.   I think it’s pretty clearly a big three and then everyone else.  On top of the awards, trophy’s and stats, these three also changed the game.  Roy with the way he perfected the butterfly, Brodeur with the 3rd defenseman puck handling, etc.  I guess Hasek didn’t, since he kind of played in a way that couldn’t be replicated but he was so insanely dominant for about 10 years after getting a relatively late start to his NHL career that it really doesn’t matter.   

The only other goalie I‘ve seen that I thought might eventually get into this group was Jonathan Quick.  There was that three or four year period where he was absolutely unbeatable in the playoffs (and olympics if you don’t blame him for a 1-0 loss to Canada) and he popularized the Reverse VH technique that almost every goalie now uses, but alas he didn’t really stay at the top of his game nearly long enough.   
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Devil Dan 56 said:

I've always looked at those 3 like this:

Hasek was the best pure puck stopper of goalies I actually got to watch (I didn't get to see guys in the 50s, 60s, 70s who enter the greatest ever debate) If its game 7, I want Roy in net. But if I'm building a franchise, I go with Marty. The consistency and relative health he had for 20 years solves a lot of problems

thats basically what i say too. At the peak of his game.. Hasek was probably the best goalie in history at specific times. Roy was the more clutch goalie and Marty was the most consistent

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's really not even a conversation, on any level, for all of the reasons already discussed in this thread.  I will say though, that I didn't realize Lundqvist hadn't won 40 games in any season.  That's pretty alarming.  I mean, not even 1?!  That to me is incredibly surprising - if you ask me, a goalie winning 40 games in a season is a true measure of him putting his team on his back and carrying them a long way.  You could pretty easily make the argument that Lundqvist was not battle-tested because of this, which is essentially the exact opposite of Brodeur, with him being basically the most battle-tested warrior netminder of all-time (based on the fact that he played by far the most games all time, had the most wins, shutouts, a ton of playoff games, ton of 70+ game seasons, etc).  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Roy and Hasek each only had one 40 win season each, Lundqvist had seasons of 39, 38 and two 37. Given that only 35 guys in the history of hockey have had 40 win seasons, I’m not sure I would call Lundqvist not being one of them “alarming”. 

Of course, that said, 39 is not 40 so fvck the Queen. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NJDfan1711 said:

It's really not even a conversation, on any level, for all of the reasons already discussed in this thread.  I will say though, that I didn't realize Lundqvist hadn't won 40 games in any season.  That's pretty alarming.  I mean, not even 1?!  That to me is incredibly surprising - if you ask me, a goalie winning 40 games in a season is a true measure of him putting his team on his back and carrying them a long way.  You could pretty easily make the argument that Lundqvist was not battle-tested because of this, which is essentially the exact opposite of Brodeur, with him being basically the most battle-tested warrior netminder of all-time (based on the fact that he played by far the most games all time, had the most wins, shutouts, a ton of playoff games, ton of 70+ game seasons, etc).  

The wins aren't really that big of a deal, in trying to build up Marty (or deflate Lundqvist)...Marty was constantly starting 70+ games (with most of those teams being anywhere from good to championship material over that time...that's going to give a top goalie like Marty more opportunities to win 40+).  Lundqvist only started 70+ four times in his career (early on), and one season, won 39 out of his 62 games...give him a few more games, he probably wins 40 that year...I wouldn't call him not winning 40 in any given season "alarming". 

Marty started 70+ games 10 times, and I doubt you'll ever see anyone used that much from season to season again...these days, it seems like somewhere in the 60s is where most #1s are going to top out in GP.  And I don't see ANYONE touching Marty's all-time regular-season GP total, no way.  Guy played in 1266 regular season games and almost 74,438 minutes.  He definitely hung on too long, but even if you take out his final four decline seasons, he was in-his-prime Marty for 1076 regular season games and 63,251 minutes (had a .9137 save% for that part of his career).  Those GP and minutes numbers would still rank him tops on both lists all-time, if he had stopped right there, and that's yet another reason why he was one of the best...from his Age 21 through Age 37 seasons, the guy was as reliable and durable as they came, and at the top of his craft for much of that time.  No decline in any of those years (2001 is the one year where he really wasn't good, but that happens)...hell, like some have pointed out, he was actually BETTER when he was supposedly going to be exposed in the "new" NHL, without his defensive stalwarts in the lineup.  

mfitz pointed out that Lundqvist has played in "only" 887 regular season games, but that's good for 8th all-time.  All he has to do in play in 20 more games to move into 7th...that is impressive; that being said, there's definitely no metric I would ever try to use to even suggest Lundqvist was better than Marty at anything in particular (though I'm sure Ranger fans will say "Who had the better save%?" to try to make a case...they won't take the time to see how each goalie's save%s measure up compared to their peers...the fact is, save%s were higher for the balance of Lundqvist's career, compared to Marty's...and of course, no one handled the puck like Marty).  But I don't think all-time wins ever has to enter the conversation.  Marty enjoyed 16 in-his-prime Marty seasons, before declining, at Age 38.  For Lundqvist, it was 11 seasons, with his fall-off starting at Age 34.  One guy was simply at his best, for much longer, and with a hell of a lot of hardware to show for it to boot.  

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

The debate isn’t a debate. It’s not even close. Lundqvist also sucked when it mattered most. His overtime record must be abysmal because my memory of him is always his slouch and stare up to the ceiling for one of the countless ot goals against. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I mentioned in my initial post, none of this analysis was needed for me to know who was better. I was just bored and decided to look stuff up for comparison, and then post it here because having more things to discuss is always good. 

Even if its an easy debate. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.