Luongo's Totals

[Primus099]

Its pretty obvious to me he was still playing junior, if you keep a player under 20 on your NHL team, you can't send him down to the minors, he has to go back and stay in junior.

Most highly drafted players go to garbage teams, but my point was Luongo spent almost no time in the minors. He didn't even earn a starting job in the NHL with the Islanders, he was traded because Milbury didn't like his work ethic.

As per Wikipedia:

In January 2000, Luongo was publicly criticized by Islanders GM Mike Milbury for having gone looking for an apartment in New York on a game day before letting in seven goals to the Boston Bruins. Milbury told the media, "You can't do that in the NHL. You have to prepare yourself."

Seven goals against the Boston Bruins, you say....some things never change.

[Smashian Kassian]

Giguere played in the SCF Finals twice in 4 seasons, and was the MVP in one of them, despite NOT winning the Stanley Cup the first time. I would say that he was a little more than just a 'flash in the pan'

Luongo plays and wins a lot of regular season games, but until he can deliver in the playoffs, there is no direct comparison.

Even the '2007' version of Luongo which everyone seems to think was the best was beaten in 5 games up by Giguere's Ducks.

I will say that Luongo is the more talented of the two goalies, but Giguere has always been a battler, especially in the playoffs. He has this knack for playing better every round. Luongo on the other hand, well some games he shows up, and others, he seems to forget how to play goal. He's a bit of a mental midget.

[Get real canuck fans]

You just have this hate for Luongo where you can't give him credit.

You are using team awards to justify your argument Giguere is just as good if not better.

Compare the 2, look at there statistics. Giguere had 1 playoff run, he had a huge peak in the 2003 playoffs, but he could never sustain it, and never came close.

Your argue just doesn't work because 2007 Luongo >>> 2007 Giguere. But which team won the series? There you go.

Just go look at the stats between the 2. Giguere had a good body of work from his ducks days but it started to go downhill in 08 and he hasn't been the same goalie since.

And btw, Roberto Luongo has a better career SV% & GAA than Patrick Roy. And he's only 4 shutouts behind Roy, despite playing 300 less games.

Obviously he isn't Roy, but hes up there, and will go down as one of the very best of all time. Thats a generational talent.

[Smashian Kassian]

Comparing Roys and Luongos numbers is borderline retarded. Scoring is miles lower now than at anytime Roy played. Guess Luongo never had any good playoff runs according to you because the year Giggy won the Conn Smythe his team lost, and he did win a cup in another year.

[John Garret's moustache]

The thing is that Luongo is past his prime. At 39 years old I highly doubt he'll even be our starter anymore, nevermind picking up 50 games, 25 wins and 4 shutouts. Also the next five years will likely affect his career GAA and SV% negatively.

Sure, Luongo is an amazing goalie, but his stats

will not be top 5 all time when he retires.

[poetica]

[Edited for brevity.]....

My point is that it doesn't seem to matter what the team in front of Luongo does. If they score a bunch, Luongo gives up more than that, if they dont score, Luongo will give up a ton anyway. This obviously isn't how it's been every playoff game but it's happened every year that Luongo's been the starter after 2007. Despite the team's scoring problems every year except for '09 and '10, these numbers show that Luongo hasn't been very good overall in the playoffs, that is all I'm trying to say. And chances are that with his age advancing, the team declining (possibly/probably), his desire to play for this team potentially gone, and the likelihood of him having to play most of the regular season games (if he stays) and being worn out for the playoffs, his performances and therefore stats will not likely get better, but worse. If this team continues to be built from the goaltender out then my worry is that we're really screwed and can look forward to more 8-1/7-2 type games in the playoffs, assuming we get that far.

Sorry for the rant everybody.

[shazzam]

only 3 goalies has been inducted into the HHOF the past decade

Fuhr

Roy

Belfort

Hasek and Broduer will be the next ones

Just look up all the accomplishments and awards these goalies has collected and tell me whether Luongo even belongs in the discussion.

[Riviera82]

Believe it or not, I actually do see your point and even understand your frustration....to a point. You're right, Luo is inconsistent in the playoffs and needs to work on that. That we actually agree on, but there are few major points where we seem to differ...

First, while I acknowledge Luo's inconsistency, I think you overestimate it and put far more weight on it than it deserves based on the false belief that an "elite" goalie wouldn't be inconsistent. That's simply not true. If you look at almost any goalie's game by game stats you'll see inconsistency, and most of them have at least a bad series or two on their records as well. It's simply far more rare to find a goalie who isn't at least somewhat inconsistent than it is to find one who is. (I can offer examples if you want, but in the interest of keeping this reply novella length, I omitted them.)

Second, I think you stubbornly ignore the context of stats because you think they're just "stories" made up to make Luo sound good rather than what they actually are -- additional facts that should be considered. For example, you looked at his stats in 08/09 and 09/10 and our scoring and decided that we must have lost because of Luo, but that's not entirely true. Of course his play was an important factor, but it's not the whole story.

In 08/09, Luo was actually spectacular in our round 1 sweep of St Louis, earning a .962 SV% and only allowing 5 goals in 4 games (including 1 shutout.) Obviously he did more than give his team a chance to win every game in that series. In Round 2 Luo did struggle against Chicago, but not as bad as you might think. Over that 6 game series Luo had 2 bad games, including a 5 GAA and a 7 GAA game. Of the other 4 games, he allowed 3 GAA in 2 games, 2 GAA in 1 game (which we lost in OT), and 1 GAA in another. All of those games should have been winnable, but we only managed to win 2. (We even lost one game 2-1 in OT.) Luo should have been better, but it's simply untrue to say that he lost us that series.

You're right that Luo's stats in 09/10 sucked, but if you look closer you see that that didn't mean he didn't give the team a chance to win. In the first round against LA, Luo had 2 bad games in which he allowed 4 GAA, including the game in which he was pulled after only 33 minutes. (The team actually won one of those 4 GAA games.) Despite what his stats might make you think, though, Luo did his part in the other 4 games where he allowed only 2 GAA in 3 games, and 3 GAA in 1 game, which we lost in OT. Obviously, regardless of his overall stats, in reality Luo did give his team a chance to win that series. And we did.

In round 2 against Chicago, Luo had 3 bad games. He allowed 5 GAA in 2 games and 6 GAA in another. Though it doesn't excuse Luo's play, it is fair to note that in the 6 GAA game, 4 of Chicago's goals came during their 8 PPOs (and big boy Byfuglien drew 3 of them, proving it wasn't just Luo's skin he was getting under.) Though we did score 4 goals in that game, it's hard to argue that giving up 8 PPOs, half of which resulted in goals, didn't negatively impacted the game too.

In the other 3 games of that series, Luo allowed 1 GAA in 2 games and 3 GAA in another. While we won the 1 GAA games, we lost the 3 GAA game. That game was certainly not out of reach, especially being that they didn't scored their 3rd goal until 18:30 of the 3rd period. (They also added an EN at 19:12.) During that game, we had 6 PPOs but only managed to score on 1 of them. (Chicago had 2 and didn't score on either.) Luo's play might not have been great in that game, but it wasn't terrible and the team certainly had the opportunity to win. We didn't win that game because the truth is most of our scoring in that series came in games we didn't need it. Our 2 wins came with a margin of 9-2. Not insignificantly, we also scored exactly 9 goals in the other 4 games we lost. So, as fair as it is to say that Luo's play effected the outcome of that series, it's equally fair to point out that timing of our scoring also played a major role. Timing, it seems, is everything.

Case and point: In 09/10, Luo allowed 17 GAA in 6 games against LA in round 1 (allowing 4+ in 2 games) and 21 GAA in 6 games against Chicago in round 2 (allowing 4+ in 3 games). Result: a 2nd round booting. That same year, Niemi allowed 17 GAA in 6 games against us in round 2 (allowing 4+ in 2 games) and 21 GAA in 6 games against Philly in the SCF (allowing 4+ in 4 games). Result: a Stanley Cup. Just like Boston the following year, Chicago won because they were able to support their goalie when he didn't have a stellar game. And just like our own team the following year, we lost because we couldn't.

[Get real canuck fans]

Believe it or not, I actually do see your point and even understand your frustration....to a point. You're right, Luo is inconsistent in the playoffs and needs to work on that. That we actually agree on, but there are few major points where we seem to differ...

First, while I acknowledge Luo's inconsistency, I think you overestimate it and put far more weight on it than it deserves based on the false belief that an "elite" goalie wouldn't be inconsistent. That's simply not true. If you look at almost any goalie's game by game stats you'll see inconsistency, and most of them have at least a bad series or two on their records as well. It's simply far more rare to find a goalie who isn't at least somewhat inconsistent than it is to find one who is. (I can offer examples if you want, but in the interest of keeping this reply novella length, I omitted them.)

Second, I think you stubbornly ignore the context of stats because you think they're just "stories" made up to make Luo sound good rather than what they actually are -- additional facts that should be considered. For example, you looked at his stats in 08/09 and 09/10 and our scoring and decided that we must have lost because of Luo, but that's not entirely true. Of course his play was an important factor, but it's not the whole story.

In 08/09, Luo was actually spectacular in our round 1 sweep of St Louis, earning a .962 SV% and only allowing 5 goals in 4 games (including 1 shutout.) Obviously he did more than give his team a chance to win every game in that series. In Round 2 Luo did struggle against Chicago, but not as bad as you might think. Over that 6 game series Luo had 2 bad games, including a 5 GAA and a 7 GAA game. Of the other 4 games, he allowed 3 GAA in 2 games, 2 GAA in 1 game (which we lost in OT), and 1 GAA in another. All of those games should have been winnable, but we only managed to win 2. (We even lost one game 2-1 in OT.) Luo should have been better, but it's simply untrue to say that he lost us that series.

You're right that Luo's stats in 09/10 sucked, but if you look closer you see that that didn't mean he didn't give the team a chance to win. In the first round against LA, Luo had 2 bad games in which he allowed 4 GAA, including the game in which he was pulled after only 33 minutes. (The team actually won one of those 4 GAA games.) Despite what his stats might make you think, though, Luo did his part in the other 4 games where he allowed only 2 GAA in 3 games, and 3 GAA in 1 game, which we lost in OT. Obviously, regardless of his overall stats, in reality Luo did give his team a chance to win that series. And we did.

In round 2 against Chicago, Luo had 3 bad games. He allowed 5 GAA in 2 games and 6 GAA in another. Though it doesn't excuse Luo's play, it is fair to note that in the 6 GAA game, 4 of Chicago's goals came during their 8 PPOs (and big boy Byfuglien drew 3 of them, proving it wasn't just Luo's skin he was getting under.) Though we did score 4 goals in that game, it's hard to argue that giving up 8 PPOs, half of which resulted in goals, didn't negatively impacted the game too.

In the other 3 games of that series, Luo allowed 1 GAA in 2 games and 3 GAA in another. While we won the 1 GAA games, we lost the 3 GAA game. That game was certainly not out of reach, especially being that they didn't scored their 3rd goal until 18:30 of the 3rd period. (They also added an EN at 19:12.) During that game, we had 6 PPOs but only managed to score on 1 of them. (Chicago had 2 and didn't score on either.) Luo's play might not have been great in that game, but it wasn't terrible and the team certainly had the opportunity to win. We didn't win that game because the truth is most of our scoring in that series came in games we didn't need it. Our 2 wins came with a margin of 9-2. Not insignificantly, we also scored exactly 9 goals in the other 4 games we lost. So, as fair as it is to say that Luo's play effected the outcome of that series, it's equally fair to point out that timing of our scoring also played a major role. Timing, it seems, is everything.

Case and point: In 09/10, Luo allowed 17 GAA in 6 games against LA in round 1 (allowing 4+ in 2 games) and 21 GAA in 6 games against Chicago in round 2 (allowing 4+ in 3 games). Result: a 2nd round booting. That same year, Niemi allowed 17 GAA in 6 games against us in round 2 (allowing 4+ in 2 games) and 21 GAA in 6 games against Philly in the SCF (allowing 4+ in 4 games). Result: a Stanley Cup. Just like Boston the following year, Chicago won because they were able to support their goalie when he didn't have a stellar game. And just like our own team the following year, we lost because we couldn't.

[DownUndaCanuck]

only 3 goalies has been inducted into the HHOF the past decade

Fuhr

Roy

Belfort

Hasek and Broduer will be the next ones

Just look up all the accomplishments and awards these goalies has collected and tell me whether Luongo even belongs in the discussion.

[Primus099]

Luongo will not be HoF worthy unless he wins a Cup, no matter how many wins he accumulates in the regular season. He may end up as high as 5th or higher in wins/shutouts etc., but if Lu doesn't win a cup within the next few seasons he will be the best goalie to have never won the Cup.

[JeremyCuddles]

Kiprusoff's numbers actually surprise me. 124 less games played and only 29 less wins. And he played for Calgary !!!

[hockeyfan90]

Luongo is an overrated goalie

[Riviera82]

Marcel Dionne never won the cup, and he's in the Hall.

winning the cup isn't a requirement

[poetica]

Niemi got bailed out because his team ran into sieves in the form of Luongo against Vancouver and Leighton and Boucher for the Flyers (who have both played very limited games since). Thomas did have a weak round against Tampa and had the good luck of running into Roloson who was very hot in the 1st 2 rounds and did not allow more than 3 goals in any game in the 1st 2 rounds, but melted down against the Bruins and had games where he allowed 3 in 17 minutes,,4 in another game,,and a game of 6 in 2 periods. It is like saying the Flyers were able to overcome bad goaltending against the Penguins, which is true but only because Fleury was just a tad more brutal than Bryz. Lu's ego took a large kick to the nether regions with his meltdown vs the Bruins on the largest stage the NHL has to offer, Lu is a great fair weather goalie when things are running smooth, but once the going gets tough he is not elite often enough. Even in our run in 2010-11 he was 1.80 gaa and .939 sv % at home, and let in more than double the goals on the road with a 3.76 gaa and ,878 save% on the road. Thank god the Olympics were in Canada and Lu could sleep in his own bed or chances are in just about any other situation Lu would have folded like a cheap tent,

[danjr]

I posted in a thread about this a year ago. I figured he was a lock for top five in the main stats.

[5Fivehole0]

Not to knock Luongo but wins in today's era have a huge advantage over goalies prior to the 04/05 season. How many goalies on that list didn't have the benefit of shootout wins. Luongo has over 30 shootout wins, prior to the 04 season goalies were not awarded for that and would be giving a tie instead. Imagine what some of the other goalies would have if they had shootouts in the majority of their playing career. To put this into perspective if Brodeur went even just went 50% in his career ties he'd be at 721 total reg season wins, Roy would have 616, Belfore 539. In fact if people want to look at wins they should be looking at winning % rather than just wins. Luongo isn't even in the top 25 in that category even with his skewed 30+ shootout wins added to his totals.

As a goalie your greatness is defined by how you play in big games. To say Luongo is a top 5 even a top 10 goalie in the all-time list is absurd. He has put together some good season and that is all and good but that does not make you elite by any means. But other than some strong regular season campaign he doesn't have much.

As of (right now) what makes Luongo's career any better than Kiprusoff, Nabokov, Tim Thomas, Joseph, Osgood, Lundqvist

Look at some of the past greats such as Dryden, Hall, Plante, Espisito, Sawchuk Tretiak(even though he didn't even play in the NHL). They played in a different era and Dryden played under 500 games but yet is still considered to be one of the game's best. Goalies are defined by how they played in important games and have the hardware that came along with it.

The difference that between Luongo and the all-time elite goalies is that elite goalies can elevate their game to the next levels when it matters. Levels that no other goalie can match. When goalies do this they win hardware, Patrick Roy has 3 conn smythe, and has been named the best goalie of that year 3 times. Brodeur has 4 vezina's

Not once has Luongo ever even been named the league's best goalie for any year of his career. This is a tuff pill to swallow is you're in the Luongo is an all-time greatest camp.

Don't get me wrong, Luongo is a very good goalie. One of the better(not the best) goalies in the league today. But unless he puts up some all star seasons that bring him some serious hardware (stanley cup, conn symthe, vezina) you can't even consider him to be in the top 10 of all time. There is still some time left in his career to achieve that and I hope he does. Nothing would make me more happy than the canucks to win a cup but after whats happened this last season I have a feeling some of his pasion to give everything to this org. will have faded or maybe it will be the opposite and light a fire under neath of him.

[Mustapha]

You just have this hate for Luongo where you can't give him credit.

[ForsbergTheGreat]

Luongo was also playing for NYI and Flordia for the beginning of his career... 2 of the worst teams in the NHL in that time... No wonder his win% is so low... Funny that he's ranked #3 in save % (300 +W's) behind #1Hasek and #2 Thomas

[Mustapha]

First if you want to talk about the teams luongo start playing with you have to think of the other end of the spectrum, he's also played on a 2 time president trophy winning team which has feasted on playing on a very weak devision.

Secondly you then go and used wins as a criteria after you've already just put down the importance of win, then you use 300W as a criteria for determining save %, funny you stop at 300 why not 250.

Thirdly save % is a complete inaccurate way to rank a goalies all-time career as it wasn't even been kept accurately until the late 80's. Tell me what is Dryden's save %, what is Hall %.

All I'm trying to say is that as of right now Luongo is no where close to being as one of the all time greats and even if he has a few more winning season with no real hardware he still wont be considered one of the best.