I think it's goofy that Lundqvist won the Vezina over Smith and Quick. It's a regular season 'best goalie' award - and can anyone really make the case that he was more important to the Rangers than the other two were to the Coyotes and Kings? The Kings posted one of the lowest goal differentials among playoff teams and the Coyotes were even lower still. Here's just a cold hard numbers comparison: Smith (Coyotes) 38-18-10 .930 sv% 2.21 gaa 8 shutouts Quick (Kings) 35-21-13 .929 sv% 1.95 gaa 10 shutouts Lundqvist (Rangers) 39-18-5 .930 sv% 1.97 gaa 8 shutouts So it's a tough choice, but if you factor in 'intangibles' I wouldn't pick Lundqvist over those two.
It's a regular season award. Rangers went from 8th to 1st and Lundqvist was a huge part of that. His stats were essentially the same as Quicks or Smiths, but team improvement probably means more than goal differential. And he really was the difference maker in NY in Dec/Jan. He was the favorite for the award and he got it. nothin' goofy, daffy or micky mouse about that.
In my post I mention that it's a regular season award. Team improvement is a tough measuring stick. Way too many variables. From what point to what point? I think Quick faced much more adversity than Lundqvist. We could have very well been watching Dallas and Colorado in the playoffs instead of LA and Phoenix if Smith and Quick had missed two weeks of the regular season, especially February-March. If your team is #1 in the East and #2 in the league, it's surely a testament to your abilities but it's harder to tell if you were truly the best at your position. He's certainly worthy of the award, don't get me wrong, but it's a little daffy. I it could have gone to the other two and been correct as well. I guess the Rangers need something to be happy about.
