"There's no doubt Quick was incredible for the Kings during L.A.'s Stanley Cup-winning run, but it took Quick a couple months (along with the rest of his teammates) to consistently perform at that level.
Lundqvist, on the other hand, was tremendous for the Blueshirts right out of the gate and did it all season long to lead his team to the best record in the Eastern Conference. That consistency is much appreciated by the GM community, which is likely one of the reasons he got the nod."
Henrik Lundqvist - 39-18-5, .930 sv. %, 1.97 GAA and 8 SO
Jonathan Quick - 35-21-13, .929 sv. %, 1.95 GAA and 10 SO
...while Proteau thinks it's consistency that clinched the Vezina for Hank over Quick, I think it had more to do with the final regular season standings. Their numbers were so similar and both were relied on so much by their teams, I think it ultimately came down to the GMs looking at Hank leading the Rangers to the top of the Eastern Conference, while Los Angeles struggled to make the playoffs.
...if the Vezina did include post season play, I think Quick gets the nod.
IMO, Quick wasn't as dominant in the cup finals as he was leading up to the finals. Too bad the Devils forgot to show up :) More wins, less losses, 7 fewer games played, higher save %. Imagine what Lundqvist would've done if he had played the extra 7 games.
Hank deserved the Vezina and was "due." Quick clearly would have won it if the playoffs were included. Bottom line, however, the Vezina is not the Stanley Cup. I'd much rather be in Quick's skates right now.
@TheNYRBlog Quick should've won MVP. He carried one of the worst offensive teams all season until they traded for Carter.
@TheNYRBlog this seems to happen every season... anti- #NYR bias around the league is louder than anything it seems
@IMLazzaro @MichaelDelZotto @ScottyHockey Ha! Ok, got the joke now. A little slow (hungover) this morning.