Killion
Registered User
- Feb 19, 2010
- 36,763
- 3,217
Translated into the language of hockey, this means Hasek had an ability to make the shooter shoot or deke where Hasek wanted him to shoot or deke.
....precisely.
Translated into the language of hockey, this means Hasek had an ability to make the shooter shoot or deke where Hasek wanted him to shoot or deke.
Game 7 of 1991.
Not sure what your point is here. Usually the winning goaltender is the one who has outplayed the opposing side goaltender. Even if it's just one goal difference. That is hockey. 29-25 shots on goal is pretty damn close meaning the game could have gone either way. So what? Thanks to great goaltending on both sides it went to shootout. And Canada had pretty damn good team in '98.
Hasek was the king of shootouts. Hasek won over Roy in the shootout. I was not that surprised that Hasek won the shootout back in '98
You know, if they played some more hockey.
This is fantastic. Usually, people just keep arguing their view, from constantly changing angles, if need be. I love when someone is man enough, and patient enough, to actually rethink their opinion. That's what these boards should be - educational.
I've already chimed in on this thread, i think, but for my two cents - Hasek is #1. Save%, Harts, and Vezinas (the kind that are individual), those are the numbers that matter. Roy and Thomas are the only other goalies, in my time, that i've visibly seen destroy shooters mentally, Roy, obviously having a bigger career between those two.
I think one thing that I love about Hasek that doesn't get mentioned is that he was only 5'11. We know nowadays, that these 6'4 butterfly machines are going to be stopping the puck upwards of .920, and a couple will get over .930 every year. Dom's statistical reign will end... but he was nearly an 80's sized goalie!
Ummmm...depending on which site you go to, Hasek and Roy were BOTH about 6'1". Sites have both of them listed anywhere from 6'0" to 6'2" but 6'1" for each is the most common.
... whats the diff?. Since 20yrs ago "size matters"?. What about the likes of Roger Crozier?. 5' 6". Telekinetic. A frikin maskless acrobat Rhiessan?. Where were you?. Hung up on Cooper GP59XXXL's?. A Palmateer "Cheater", oversized jersey & a sheet of 4X8 as a Chest Protector back in 83?!!!.... wimp.
... sadly, just a matter of time before that particular abominations introduction & institution that it would be used like a yardstick. Its a wonder they dont use day-glo pucks in the SO, just to make sure everyone knows whats what....
Here we go, pretty damned close to the gloves I had.
Cooper GM12's?. Great gloves.... Id hazard to guess you likely outgrew those pads huh?. 3 strappers. Always hated the break-in period with the new ones.
Here we go, pretty damned close to the gloves I had.
I just don't know about the Conn Smythe argument. Look at the 1993-94 Buffalo vs. New Jersey series.
Without context it looks like a simple first round exit, but upon further inspection Hasek had a save % of .950! One can only go so far and say the best goalie wins no matter what, but you can't win 0-0.
http://www.hockey-reference.com/boxscores/199404270BUF.html
Look at this game. It took his team about double the length of a normal game to score and in the meantime he stopped all 70 shots.
It's not the goaltender's job to outduel the other, but to put his team in the best position to win.
You got me thinking of the best goalie performances while losing in the first round. The highest save percentage I found was .952 by Marty Turco in 2007. Did NJ undercount shots as far back as 1994? If so, Hasek's number might be more impressive (since 4 games were in NJ).
I just don't know about the Conn Smythe argument. Look at the 1993-94 Buffalo vs. New Jersey series.
Without context it looks like a simple first round exit, but upon further inspection Hasek had a save % of .950! One can only go so far and say the best goalie wins no matter what, but you can't win 0-0.
http://www.hockey-reference.com/boxscores/199404270BUF.html
Look at this game. It took his team about double the length of a normal game to score and in the meantime he stopped all 70 shots. Regardless of how you rank the 92-93 Canadiens relative to the 93-94 Sabres, Roy got goal support that Hasek could only dream of once the playoffs began.
It's not the goaltender's job to outduel the other, but to put his team in the best position to win.
I've argued before that Hasek in the '94 playoffs was the best goaltending in a losing effort, but there might be one from the '80s or before I simply don't know about.
I've argued before that Hasek in the '94 playoffs was the best goaltending in a losing effort, but there might be one from the '80s or before I simply don't know about.
Mike Liut had a .945 against Montreal in 1986. The league average save percentage was .874 compared to .895.
Hasek could only dream of 2.76 and 3.02 goal support - the two lowest goals-per-game of any champion between 1967 expansion and the 1997 Dead Puck Era?
Of course Buffalo struggled to score goals; they were shooting on Martin Brodeur. All of this talk about Hasek's 1994 playoffs and simply no talk of his 1995 playoffs...
I've said it before: Other goalies have had better save percentages in single series. Are we holding it against Roy because he had a .974 in a series in which he won?
Dominik Hasek's 1994 playoff performance lacks context. Normie Smith in 1936 had a better run in games 1 and 2 against the Maroons string together almost 12 shutout periods:
http://redwingslegends.blogspot.ca/2008/04/normie-smith.html
In a losing effort - rather interesting qualifier. Looking at the series as a whole shows that Hasek was below regular season norms for the first five games. .924 SV% vs a .930 SV% during the regular season.
Game 6 was the overtime 1-0 win and game 7 was the 2-1 loss despite stopping 44 of 46 shots. Effectively the two final games dictate perception.
But in his Conn Smythe years he also happened to have better goal support than Hasek would receive for the better part of his playoff career. Not saying Hasek is the better goalie all time, just referring to the Conn Smythe argument.
Hasek got better/equal goal support than the 1986 Canadiens gave Roy in 1998, 1999, 2001, 2002, and 2007 - every run of his that wasn't a first-round knockout with a low sample size (1994, 1995, 2000).
You cannot simply erase 1994 due to small sample size. Why? Because when goal support gets so low, it is impossible for the sample size to get any larger.