Discounting goalies due to dmen & coaching
- Thread starter VanIslander
- Start date
Gilles Meloche is a classic example of a goalie playing behind a putrid team. They say the goaltender is the last line of defense. In Oakland and Cleveland, Meloche was the only defense. His stats in Oakland and Cleveland belie his true abilities. Remove him from the Seals and insert him with a contender in the early to mid 70's, Meloche would get the credit he deserves. And he would maybe have won a Cup before the Montreal dynasty. Extremely underrated.
On the other side of the spectrum is Jim Carey. Wins the Vezina in his second year and seems to have a long career ahead of him. Turns out Washington's defense system masked Carey's weaknesses. Once he was traded to Boston, Carey was exposed as a mediocre goaltender.
On the other side of the spectrum is Jim Carey. Wins the Vezina in his second year and seems to have a long career ahead of him. Turns out Washington's defense system masked Carey's weaknesses. Once he was traded to Boston, Carey was exposed as a mediocre goaltender.
Maybe you could elaborate a bit more on the specifics so some of us can have an easier time replying.
Iron Mike Sharpe
Registered User
- Dec 6, 2017
- 949
- 1,123
Yeah, I dunno, hard to say with Dryden, I think he probably would have done well on other teams. Bunny Larocque, on the other hand... I also think Gerry Cheevers fits this category. Always thought he was average and overrated, had a very strong D in front of him.
Rogie Vachon in LA for sure. And as the 70s wore on the Hawks looked a lot better than they actually were because of Tony Esposito. John Vanbiesbrouck seemed to thrive no matter how good/bad the team was in front of him.
Canadiens1958
Registered User
Logical transposition does not work. If a then been does not imply if -A then -B. Specifically if the king is guillotined he will die.It does not
follow that if the king is not guillotined he will not die. Obviously the king will die. The how and when being unknown. Or cream always rises to the top.
Killion
Registered User
- Feb 19, 2010
- 36,763
- 3,215
This is a forever time "unknown". Calls for major massive speculation. Youd have to know what kind of personality the goalie in question had. Was he a "take charge" type? A natural leader? Did he totally instill confidence & quiet in his teammates to the point that they believed were World Beaters no matter what? What style does he play? Technical? Reactive? Truculent & aggressive? Does he communicate? Does he pay attention to Coaching instructions & understand what the Defencemen & Forwards are supposed to be doing & then on the ice ORDER his players to execute precisely that when locked in Defensively?. Is he consistent? Can he skate, play the puck properly involved in transition from Defence to rush? Does he have "vision"?. Mentally tough? Shake off goals or meltdown?. Does he thrive under pressure? 35-40-50 shots a game or does he crater and at what point?
Adding, contributing factors.... did you have weak Coaching, dysfunctional Management & or Ownership that was forever playing head games with their players which affected performance.... inability to close the deal, lack of killer instinct, system or just wide open roll the lines Pond Hockey & so on (?). Just so many variables..... Of all the Goalies Ive watched & studied including psychological make-up, full top to bottom inside out who regardless of whether they played for bottom feeders or teams highly disciplined & or just stacked stood out to me.... and not enough inf on pre WW2 Goalies to speak with much authority as what would be required to fully dissect such a thesis on an individual basis..... I'd be going with guys like Frankie Brimsek, Harry Lumley, Bill Durnan, Terry Sawchuk, Jacques Plante, Lorne Worsley, Glenn Hall, Johnny Bower, Eddie Johnston, Roger Crozier, Ed Giacomin, Bernie Parent, Billy Smith, Grant Fuhr, Andy Moog, Eddie Belfour, Patrick Roy, Kirk McLean, Curtis Joseph & Martin Brodeur & those are just the obvious ones to anyone who's played the position at an appreciable level & studied it very VERY closely.
As for Dryden.... no. I dont see him having much of a career if he winds up in Washington or any club playing below .500 hockey. I dont see Hasek excelling in such conditions at all, as in none whatsoever. What I also see are a number of guys who back in the day, 6 NHL team era never really got the chance to show what they could do and who were absolutely top tier NHL caliber but with only 6 openings..... then when they mandated the 2 dressed, so what? Who the Hell wants to go from Starter in high level Minors to Backup in the NHL? If you have the kind of PRIDE required to be that good, no thanks. Stay in the Minors. Work ethic, pride, attitude, thats huge. Not some second string fiddle to anyone. Eff that. So ya, all kinds of guys who gutted it out in the minors in the late 40's through the 60's. All levels. USHL, EHL, WHL, QSHL, AHL, IHL etc. And if you really wanna know the position, best be boning up on quite a number of them as well. Guys who I absolutely add to those Ive mentioned above who if given the opportunity to string together Starts.... handled properly. Roberto Luongo wouldve likely made my list but he was mishandled which I felt did affect his confidence at times so some inconsistencies.... I also didnt like his lack of aggression. "Too nice".... gotta take the edge of your Blocker to the mouths of Crease Sitters, chop the ****er down, make room for yourself, keep those Shooting Lanes open. You cant see the puck your screwed....
Just a myriad, wide range of tangibles, intangibles to consider, dissect, and as I said, calls for speculation.... For example.... Ive got Sawchuk in there right? Yet he cratered in Boston. Thats not good. Real bad. So, lets shave that list down even further yes?.... and youd'd be lookin at a far shorter list.... Brimsek, Durnan, Plante, Worsley, Giacomin, Smith, Fuhr, Moog, Belfour, Roy & Brodeur in terms of actual Stanley Cup Winners EXCLUDING Giacomin..... Seriously complicated ????? What about Vachon & Vernon? Cup Winners.... Maniago? Meloche? Bruce Gamble? On & on. Ive seen, studied them all. Guys in there who were for periods every bit as good as Plante, Fuhr etc just in bad situations, whatever...
Last edited:
McGarnagle
Yes.
- Aug 5, 2017
- 28,805
- 38,327
It's just common sense that a great defensive system will make a goalie perform better than a wild mess of a defense, but some take it to the extreme and dismiss the goalie's performance altogether.
There's the guy on here who hates Tim Thomas and always claims that Julien's system pushed the opposition to low percentage peripheral shots. I mean, that aspect of it is true, Tim Thomas went from looking like an AHL reject under Dave Lewis to a Vezina winner under Julien. But once you set up the defensive system and your defense provides its support, the guy in the crease still has to do the job. Given the conditions, they still need to get credit for what they do.
There's the guy on here who hates Tim Thomas and always claims that Julien's system pushed the opposition to low percentage peripheral shots. I mean, that aspect of it is true, Tim Thomas went from looking like an AHL reject under Dave Lewis to a Vezina winner under Julien. But once you set up the defensive system and your defense provides its support, the guy in the crease still has to do the job. Given the conditions, they still need to get credit for what they do.
LeafsNation75
Registered User
I have always wondered if someone like Tuukka Rask would have put up the same numbers in Toronto if they never traded him? Some people have said a major reason for his success in Boston was playing with Zdeno Chara on the Bruins defense, where as the Leafs teams from 2006 - 2017 didn't have the best set of players during those years. Of course that's assuming they still make the same moves even with Rask on the team.
mrhockey193195
Registered User
Killion, I respect your opinions immensely, but this one seems odd to me. Wouldn't you say that the Sabres from 94 to 2000 had the exact conditions that you just claimed Hasek had no chance of excelling in? That team was the definition of mediocre, and while they had a good defensive system, I wouldn't have called them a defensive powerhouse by any stretch. Sure, they weren't the Capitals circa 1975, but most people believe that those teams wouldn't have sniffed the playoffs without Hasek, let alone winning playoff rounds and even making the finals.
Killion
Registered User
- Feb 19, 2010
- 36,763
- 3,215
Thanks, and I too enjoy your posts, respect your opinions but no, not in his case as in a guy who would be transcendent of the ages & eras' & who would excel in whatever era in which you dropped him. I have "issues" with the game, with the way its taught, Coached & played since the early 90's (earlier in terms of development) though there have of course been a considerable number of beyond excellent players, goalies, teams & Coaches during the period your highlighting. Hasek is certainly one of them. I had issues with Hasek, still do. Im not going to explain my reasoning why I feel the way I do about him for to do so would be seen as character assassination, lighting the wick, real nice conflagration to follow & I'm nor here to engage in such... as ro do so would be to invite "Killions an idiot pyromaniac... no respect for modern era players... xenophobe Redneck... old man shaking fist at clouds"..... the usual charming stuff..... lets start WW3 & get into that debate & argument all over again?.... No thanks. But if you want him, g'head & Draft him. He aint playin on my team but more than happy to face him as an opponent. The so called "Dominator"? Sorry. Boys got some big holes & gaps in his game. Upstairs in particular. Physically & technically beatable high. And... Bats in the Belfry. Just wait him out. Olympic World Class Diver. Great.... if your playing Soccer. Ha?... Ya... come at me Bro...
Last edited:
True, but you can also focus on the tangible first. Bill Durnan for example won the Vezina (GA version) 6 of 7 years. A similar Habs team with the same coach and similar offensive production allows an extra 34 GA and falls to 3rd of 6 teams the following year.
His successor McNeil has a good playoff run and is dubbed "The Magician" for surviving the first round in spite of the team in front of him.
So perhaps the stellar results were more goalie-driven then team-driven in that particular case.
ted2019
History of Hockey
If it wasn't for Hasek, those Buffalo teams wouldn't have made the playoffs. He carried those teams and with a better team in front of him, he would've won multiple cups during those years.
Canadiens1958
Registered User
Re Durnan/McNeil. Overlooks that Durnan was 6', 190 lbs while McNeil was 5'7'', 155 lbs. Also Ken Reardon retired before the 1950-51 season, while another physycal defenceman Emile Bouchard missed 18 games.
In his short career McNeil adapted to Durnan levels except goaltending in the league got stronger as well-Sawchuk, Rollins, Worsley, Plante, Hall, Bower arrived within five seasons.
In his short career McNeil adapted to Durnan levels except goaltending in the league got stronger as well-Sawchuk, Rollins, Worsley, Plante, Hall, Bower arrived within five seasons.
That is a fair point over time, but there is an immediate dropoff before most of those guys arrive. League scoring is comparable to 1950 for a few years, but the consistent #1 defensive team f the late 40s becomes a consistent #3 for the early 50s.
Canadiens1958
Registered User
The Panther
Registered User
I agree. The Sabres' lineup, esp. from about 1996-1999, is the late-90s' equivalent of the California Golden Seals of the late-70s, yet the Sabres had three solid winning seasons in a row, went to the Conference Finals once and the Cup Finals once. There was a reason for that, and it wasn't the coach, the system, the forwards, or the defencemen.
Poor Ken Dryden -- he never gets the benefit of the doubt in threads like this, yet Patrick Roy somehow always does even though he basically spent his entire career behind great teams as well (and Dryden won the international best-on-best he was in, while Roy lost).
Let's take a moment to look at how the Habs did before, without, and after Dryden:
1970: missed playoffs
Dryden joins in spring '71
1971: win Stanley Cup
1972: 108 points (3rd overall)
1973: 120 points (1st overall), win Stanley Cup
Dryden leaves
1974: 99 points (4th overall), lose 1st-round of playoffs
Dryden re-joins
1975: 113 points (tied 1st overall)
1976: 127 points (1st overall), win Stanley Cup
1977: 132 points (1st overall), win Stanley Cup
1978: 129 points (1st overall), win Stanley Cup
1979: 115 points (2nd overall), win Stanley Cup
Dryden retires
1980: 107 points (3rd overall), lose 2nd-round of playoffs
As for "if Dryden played for another team", how about the three years he played college hockey for Cornell Big Red? He went 76-4-1. And he went 16-7 one partial season in the AHL.
Let's show some respect.
That is correct. And also 2 of the 6 names you listed. The average NHL GA total remained steady. Montréal was giving up a larger share in 51 and 52 than they were in 1950.
mrhockey193195
Registered User
mrhockey193195
Registered User
I completely agree with you. Dryden is criminally underrated. Though, I can understand why when Dryden himself talks about being a replaceable component to a well oiled machine. His self-commentary in "The Game" doesn't help his cause.
Killion
Registered User
- Feb 19, 2010
- 36,763
- 3,215
Yeah how bout you do that & tell me why you'd denigrate Buffalo's Roster & Coach Ted Nolan, pinning all of their success on Hasek..... then explain why in international competition Kenny Dryden wasnt able to adapt his game, had a real mental block when it came to dealing with the Cycle Game in deep.
Now dont get me wrong, Drydens performance in the 71 Playoffs one for the ages, spectacular thereafter throughout his NHL career but on the World Stage, not so much... and that included his time in the crease with the Canadian National Team prior to his pro career.... As for his time spent at Cornell, that school a total powerhouse under who would become somewhat an infamous, semi cartoon character in Ned Harkness. It was he who recruited Dryden, Ken opting to go the College rather than Major Junior route as is well known & documented. Harkness one of if not the greatest talent scouts & Coaches in NCAA Hockey History. Like a much nicer, kinder & gentler version of Scotty Bowman meets Sam Pollock of College Hockey.
If were talking NHL exclusively then yes, he would have made my cut & there are a few guys on my list who didnt face international competition so I simply "projected" based on their styles, headspaces. Dryden did play international & came up short. I call that a mental weakness, Achilles Heel back there in the crease. Plante had no such problems playing for a Junior team. Adapted. My criteria is universal. In 72 Dryden did adjust his game after getting lit up & played solidly enough but still let in some goals that he should not have..... finally, look at who he was playing with, behind in Montreal. Are you kiddin me? I dont like to think anyone is "dispensable" as it shows a lack of respect but realistically there were others at that time every bit as capable as Dryden at the NHL level who could have replaced him & performed equally well, rose to the occasion with equal aplomb, won all that silverware.
Last edited:
Canadiens1958
Registered User
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
Factually, the Buffalo Sabres did win a playoff round without Hasek in 1997, though I don’t disagree with your assertion that most people don’t believe it happened. Based on goal support, their thresholds in the series they won from 1993-2001 does show that an explosion of offense was often a large part of success:
1993: 19 goals, 136 shots allowed (mostly Fuhr)
1997: 14 goals, 204 shots allowed (mostly Shields)
1998: 18 goals, 176 shots allowed
1998: 16 goals, 158 shots allowed
1999: 12 goals, 162 shots allowed
1999: 16 goals, 154 shots allowed
1999: 19 goals, 140 shots allowed (split Roloson)
2001: 21 goals, 176 shots allowed
Their victories over Ottawa in 1997 and 1999 stand out as the only two series Buffalo won from 1993-2001 with a threshold greater/equal to .900 (again, one of those being the Steve Shields series in Hasek’s 1st Hart Trophy season).
Mostly, I recall the series that demanded excellent goaltending to be the ones where Buffalo still lost in spite of great performances from Hasek (New Jersey, Washington, Dallas) which has retroactively morphed into stories of the 1999 team getting dragged to the Finals - when statistically, several teams from the surrounding years like Anaheim, Florida, Washington, Carolina (and even New Jersey in 2003 and Dallas in 2000) were more dependent on their goaltending to reach the Finals than 1999 Buffalo.
https://hfboards.mandatory.com/thre...-by-goaltending-gve-and-tve-analysis.2452059/
So putting Hasek on 1970s Washington? I don’t know that it’s comparable to 1992-93 Buffalo. For one, we’re losing the coaching aspects that can often be a perfect storm in a goaltender’s refinement. Two, Buffalo was a playoff team going back to 1988 with the luxury of a lot of offensive depth that was expendable (Andreychuk) when they needed a goaltender to replace Dominik Hasek during his pulled stomach muscle in 1992-93. If that happens to a team without movable assets or goaltending depth, the season might not be salvaged.
Killion
Registered User
- Feb 19, 2010
- 36,763
- 3,215
I certainly didnt overlook it or underrate its importance however the OP asks that you do that..... "discounting goalies due to dmen, coaching"... I can do that in a vacuum & so can you C58, no problem.....
But absolutely your 110% correct, HUGE factor. Uh?
Almost every good goalie has more then a few screws loose. Comes with the territory when you're willing to be blasted by hard rubber at 90+ mph on a regular basis.
