Hasek's top 3 seasons

Discussion in 'The History of Hockey' started by archstanton, Sep 13, 2011.

View Users: View Users
  1. archstanton

    archstanton Registered User

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2010
    Messages:
    34
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    24
    Location:
    Vancouver
  2. TheDevilMadeMe

    TheDevilMadeMe Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2006
    Messages:
    47,313
    Likes Received:
    1,301
    Trophy Points:
    169
    Location:
    Brooklyn
    Awards:
    I'm not sure if 1997-98 was his best season, but have there been any other seasons in which a goalie led the league in both games played and save percentage?

    I think 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99 were probably his three best seasons because he maintained such a high level of performance over so many games. Although now that I think about it, his stats in 1993-94, a significantly higher scoring season, are ridiculous. I'd say it's probably between those 4 seasons.

    Honestly, his 2002 playoffs were pretty run of the mill compared to other Cup winning goalies.
     
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2011
  3. 1993-94, 1996-97, and 1997-98 are IMO his three best seasons. Followed by 98-99 and 05-06, his most underrated season. If he didn't get injured that year before the all-star break I swear Ottawa would have a cup by now.
     
  4. connellc

    connellc Registered User

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2010
    Messages:
    248
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    34
    Honestly, I wathched the entire Wings run in 2002, and Hasek performance was pretty ho-hum for him. He was good and set the record for shutouts for goalies at the time, but he wasn't peppered with shots night in and night out but he did make the saves when needed.

    I remember Hasek getting a rough start for and being booed at the Joe after being down 0-2 to Vancouver in the first round with the crowd chanting "we want Osgood". It wasn't his fault; however, I can't really remember a stolen game by Dom. I think his best game was game 6 against the Avs or maybe game 3 against Vancouver.
     
  5. Big Phil

    Big Phil Registered User

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2003
    Messages:
    26,248
    Likes Received:
    451
    Trophy Points:
    229
    The best is surely 1997-'98. He was a lock for the Hart that year where as it wouldn't have been a shock in 1997 had it gone to Kariya, or Mario again. My top three in order for him are:

    1997-'98, 1998-'99, 1996-'97.

    In 1993-'94 he won his first Vezina and I always got the feeling he wasn't as established at that time. We didn't know if he was a flash in the pan yet or not. By 1998 he was seasoned and we all knew about him. 2001-'02 was an ordinary season by his standards. He was solid, but not spectacular in the Cup win. He did what he had to do
     
  6. GuineaPig

    GuineaPig Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2011
    Messages:
    2,345
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Location:
    Montréal
    In terms of pure performance, '93-94 might be his best. Especially considering that as his backup, Grant Fuhr put up a 0.883 save percentage, a whole 0.047 worse.

    I'd rank 'em like this (in terms of performance and value to his team):
    1997-98
    1998-99
    1993-94
     
  7. VanIslander

    VanIslander Don't waste my time

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2004
    Messages:
    27,900
    Likes Received:
    2,164
    Trophy Points:
    187
    Has a highlight video ever been made of his saves? Particularly from his Buffalo years.

    He had so many amazing ones. It was a joy to watch (heart stopping, head shaking kind of awesome).
     
  8. archstanton

    archstanton Registered User

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2010
    Messages:
    34
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    24
    Location:
    Vancouver
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpMq5nBDPe8

    bad quality, though
     
  9. VanIslander

    VanIslander Don't waste my time

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2004
    Messages:
    27,900
    Likes Received:
    2,164
    Trophy Points:
    187
    From the Czech Extraliga playoffs in 2010! (I didn't know he was still playing: This video really makes me wish I could see more Euro hockey in addition to the NHL).

    12 wins, 1 loss, .937 save percentage in the 2010 playoffs and the championship! - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1D2Bo-i7U1Y&feature=related

    (after that, in 2010-2011 he played for Spartak Moscow in the KHL and the 46 year old put up a respectable 23-18-3 record with .915 save percentage before getting trounced in a first round playoff sweep)
     
  10. ssh

    ssh Registered User

    Joined:
    May 22, 2008
    Messages:
    94
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    A more illustrative way to put it: the likelihood of a shot faced by the goalies going in on average:

    vs Hasek: 0.070
    vs Fuhr: 0.117
     
  11. SkittlyRit

    SkittlyRit Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2006
    Messages:
    116
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Toronto, Canada
    That is no more "illustrative" than the way it was originally expressed.
     
  12. MadLuke

    MadLuke Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2011
    Messages:
    2,971
    Likes Received:
    108
    Trophy Points:
    81
    Change the number for a .980 % goalies and a .990% goalie.

    You will see how it is more illustrative.

    If you say that the difference between the 2 is a .01 save percentage you do not see that the second goalie is twice as much better than the first.

    If you say that the first goalie let twice a much shot goes in as the second it is way more illustrative.
     
  13. ssh

    ssh Registered User

    Joined:
    May 22, 2008
    Messages:
    94
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    How about this then? Number of shots needed to score a single goal (again this is on average, during the games they played, no other considerations apply):

    Hasek: 14.3
    Fuhr: 8,5
     
  14. SkittlyRit

    SkittlyRit Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2006
    Messages:
    116
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Toronto, Canada
    I think what you mean is that the second goalie is twice as effective (because he would let in half as many goals per game, assuming an equal number of shots). You have no basis for saying he is twice as good.
     
  15. ssh

    ssh Registered User

    Joined:
    May 22, 2008
    Messages:
    94
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Here's listed the number of shots needed to score a goal vs. a goalie with a particular sv%.

    svpct shots/goal
    0,99 100,0
    0,98 50,0
    0,97 33,3
    0,96 25,0
    0,95 20,0
    0,94 16,7
    0,93 14,3
    0,92 12,5
    0,91 11,1
    0,90 10,0
    0,89 9,1
    0,88 8,3
    0,87 7,7
    0,86 7,1
    0,85 6,7
    0,84 6,3
    0,83 5,9
    0,82 5,6
    0,81 5,3
    0,80 5,0
     
  16. ssh

    ssh Registered User

    Joined:
    May 22, 2008
    Messages:
    94
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Certainly. So far nobody has objectively defined what twice as good even means in hockey. There isn't an agreed upon definition of "good" that can be used to quantify ability.
     
  17. MadLuke

    MadLuke Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2011
    Messages:
    2,971
    Likes Received:
    108
    Trophy Points:
    81
    Your right (could be other factor) twice as good result, only twice as good if they are in exactly same situation and face the same shoot quality for a sustained period of time.

    But a .990 goaly will be about twice as good as a .980 in my mind and will obvisouly have a 100% better GAA.
     
  18. MadLuke

    MadLuke Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2011
    Messages:
    2,971
    Likes Received:
    108
    Trophy Points:
    81
    I would say: good ability to help a team winning hockey games by any way.

    Twice as good will mean twice as good at helping your team winning hockey games, and could translate in twice as good at making your team scoring more goal than the others team, so the easiest position for judging this should be goalie, twice as good a making your team scoring more goal than the other team should translate to be twice as good. Making the opposition scoring half the goal than an other goaler maybe make you twice as good, but again maybe is how much you separate yourself from the average nhler goalie that count.
     
    Last edited: Sep 14, 2011
  19. MadLuke

    MadLuke Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2011
    Messages:
    2,971
    Likes Received:
    108
    Trophy Points:
    81
    Very hard to say for sure, the exception could be for pure think player a pure goal scorer that score twice as many goal from an other could be twice as good, but again maybe the delta from the average player is a better metric, how much more goal by ice time you score because it is you taking the ice time instead of the average nhler, like a 60 goal scorer is twice as good than a 40 goal scorer, because it put twice as many goal from the average offensive players (20 goals).

    But I would not trade my 60 goal scorer for 2 40 goal scorer because it easy to find a 25 goal scorer and have a better team... so it is maybe exponential.
     
  20. MatthewT

    MatthewT Registered User

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2008
    Messages:
    16,592
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    ****ing olympics
     
  21. KingGallagherXI

    KingGallagherXI Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2009
    Messages:
    3,890
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    56
    97-98 and 98-99 are locks, and I'd pick 93-94 over 96-97 because his numbers compared to the competition were better.

    93-94
    Hasek 58 GP .930 S%
    Vanbiesbrouk 57 GP .924 S%
    Roy 68 GP .918 S%
    Average save percentage .895

    96-97
    Hasek 67 GP .930 S%
    Brodeur 67 GP .927 S%
    Roy 62 GP .923 S%
    Average save percentage .905

    So by your logic, a goalie with a .999 S% is 10 times better than a goalie with .990, and a goalie with 1.000 S% is infinitely better than a goalie with a .999?
     
    Last edited: Sep 14, 2011
  22. alanschu

    alanschu Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2005
    Messages:
    8,225
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    84
    Location:
    Edmonton, Alberta
    I still get all this information when I just see the save percentages...
     
  23. tony d

    tony d Registered User Sponsor

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2007
    Messages:
    68,009
    Likes Received:
    1,621
    Trophy Points:
    169
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Office Worker
    Location:
    Behind A Tree
    1) 1997-1998
    2) 1998-1999
    3) 1993-1994
     
  24. archstanton

    archstanton Registered User

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2010
    Messages:
    34
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    24
    Location:
    Vancouver
    Hasek led the KHL with 7 shutouts.
     
  25. MadLuke

    MadLuke Registered User

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2011
    Messages:
    2,971
    Likes Received:
    108
    Trophy Points:
    81
    Yes if you are able to calculate it directly in your head to doubt, they are different way to describe the same statistic.

    Miles per gallons and liters per 100 km are also exactly the same information but some people will have a better idea of the car gaz consomption with one or the others.

    One others good examples is the temperatures in kelvin or celcius.

    a gaz at 10 celcius could look to be 2 times more energetics than a 5 celcius gaz.
    But in Kelvin your cleary see that they are about the same (278 vs 283).

    Something at -272 and -271 celcius could seem to be very equal energetically but if you say it in kelvin you directly see whitout calculation that the gaz at 2 kelvin is two times more energetics than the gaz at 1 kelvin. But the information was exactly, 100% the same.
     

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"