Los Angeles Kings: Jonathan Quick Named as a Vezina Trophy Finalist
It's been assumed all season long, but now it's official. Jonathan Quick has been named as a Vezina finalist.
It comes as no surprise to Kings fans, who have seen the Connecticut native turn into a revelation for the franchise. He has broken a multitude of Kings records in goal and led the team to three consecutive postseason appearances.
The U-Mass alumni was drafted 73rd overall back in the 2005 NHL entry draft by the L.A. Kings.
Quick, 26, started 69 games this year for the Kings and posted a 1.95 goals against average, second in the league, a .929 save percentage, fifth in the league, and a league-leading 10 shutouts.
But the most impressive thing about Quick this season was what he had to work with. The Kings ended the season as the 29th-ranked offense and likely would not be anywhere near the playoffs if not for his performance.
His competitors have solid arguments in their own right, though.
Rinne, 29 and a Vezina finalist last season, posted a .923 save percentage and had a 2.39 goals against average. Neither of those numbers were in the top five, but where Rinne separates himself is in the amount of shots he faced and the number of games he played.
Who do you think wins the Vezina?
Rinne was a workhorse for the Preds this season, starting 73 games, winning 43, and facing a league-high 1,987 shots.
Lundqvist, 30, is perhaps the most statistically impressive of the three, as he is in the top four in goals against average, save percentage, wins and shutouts. The thing that will likely play a factor into Lundqvist's performance is New York's third-ranked defense and 11th overall offense.
All three candidates, in my opinion, are incredibly worthy of the award. But unfortunately, only one can take it home.
Interesting to note that all three goaltenders who are finalists were drafted outside of the first two rounds. Quick was a third-round pick, Lundqvist a seventh-round pick and Rinne an eighth-round pick.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?