Originally Posted by Paul Smeenus (Post 1458816)

Well, no controversy about tonight's game, this series is all but over

Originally Posted by Ninetales (Post 1456619)

Welll in 2012-2013 (while Lundqvist and Quick were playing respectively),

Average 5on5 shot against distance NYR = 34.3
Average 5on5 shot against distance LA = 34.3

Exactly the same. And yet Quick allowed 4 more goals on over 200 less shots. The year before the rangers allowed shots from an average of 33.8 feet, while the kings kept opponents to a much better 36 feet. 2010-2011 was an even larger difference (32.1 to 36.5). So no, the Rangers were not a better team at keeping pucks away from the net than the Kings during Torts' tenure. And you can just look at the graphics to see that they have way more shots from in close than the kings.

Playoffs last year, Lundqvist had a better sv% than Quick, but also had shots from farther away. The year before was exactly the opposite (ie Quick having better sv% with shots from farther away. The differences between the two were also very similar). So basically they had nearly identical playoff numbers the last 2 years with lundqvist is significantly outplaying quick this year.



Im not really sure why youd concede that some of Rask's great numbers come with him playing on a great team, but defend quick's comparatively worse numbers on a similarly great team.

And im not knocking the Kings. They are a powerhouse and probably the best team in the league, but it's not because of Quick that they are winning. Crawford has similar career playoff numbers as Quick and hes getting lynched.

Originally Posted by Thom Yorke (Post 1458989)

Seems like the millionth argument we've had about stats vs. watching them play, but this series has completely encapsulated my views on these two goalies so far. You probably don't believe in players being clutch, elevating their games, or, in the case of goalies, making big saves when they have to (few numbers guys do), but Quick is just such a money goalie. There isn't any goalie in the NHL like him right now. He always comes up big when it matters most. Some of the saves he's made in crucial situations (overtimes, holding onto the lead while being peppered by the Rangers) have been nothing short of remarkable, and then Lundqvist just can't keep the puck out of his net when the Kings go the other way.

As for your comment on Rask, I never said that at all; that's just the opinion you're running with. What I said was Rask doesn't usually come up big at the right times. He's whimpered out in both playoff runs he's had to some degree, and he frequently seems to be the first to break in goaltending duels he's involved in.

Originally Posted by Thom Yorke

Seems like the millionth argument we've had about stats vs. watching them play, but this series has completely encapsulated my views on these two goalies so far. You probably don't believe in players being clutch, elevating their games, or, in the case of goalies, making big saves when they have to (few numbers guys do), but Quick is just such a money goalie. There isn't any goalie in the NHL like him right now. He always comes up big when it matters most. Some of the saves he's made in crucial situations (overtimes, holding onto the lead while being peppered by the Rangers) have been nothing short of remarkable, and then Lundqvist just can't keep the puck out of his net when the Kings go the other way.

As for your comment on Rask, I never said that at all; that's just the opinion you're running with. What I said was Rask doesn't usually come up big at the right times. He's whimpered out in both playoff runs he's had to some degree, and he frequently seems to be the first to break in goaltending duels he's involved in.

Originally Posted by Ninetales (Post 1458994)

I havent been able to see a lick of these finals unfortunately, so I cant really comment on it, but no generally I wont change my opinion of a player based on 1 shutout they had. Anyone can look good in small sample sizes.

Originally Posted by Paul Smeenus (Post 1458997)

Well what about 2 Conn Smythes in 3 years? He won it in '12, and my money is on him this year. I agree with Thom, when his team needs him to come up big, he delivers.

Originally Posted by Paul Smeenus (Post 1458997)

Well what about 2 Conn Smythes in 3 years? He won it in '12, and my money is on him this year. I agree with Thom, when his team needs him to come up big, he delivers.