If Dominik Hasek's career would have been 10 years earlier in Buffalo

[mrhockey193195]

But he didn't stand out in the 80s.

I'm not saying it was definitely the pads, I'm just trying to figure out what it was that sparked him from being a mediocre backup, .890 type goalie, to a .930 perennial Vezina winner in one season.

How much of it can we attribute to him adjusting to NA? We see a lot of players - even in the modern game (e.g., Zuccarello) - that take a few years to get used to the new environment before thriving. Larionov & Loob come to mind.

Granted, I can't think of any goalies that fit the bill...

 

[quoipourquoi]

How much of it can we attribute to him adjusting to NA? We see a lot of players - even in the modern game (e.g., Zuccarello) - that take a few years to get used to the new environment before thriving. Larionov & Loob come to mind.

Granted, I can't think of any goalies that fit the bill...

Cechmanek was relatively seemless, though not necessarily every experience will be the same. The change in play that he experienced in his transition would have been less drastic than Hasek's, yes?

 

[mrhockey193195]

Cechmanek was relatively seemless, though not necessarily every experience will be the same. The change in play that he experienced in his transition would have been less drastic than Hasek's, yes?

It seems like a lot of the modern european goalies that came over when they were >23 years old made the transition pretty seamlessly. Good example with Cechmanek. Lundqvist, Nabokov, Backstrom as well.

Maybe Kiprusoff is a counter example? How about a guy like Soderstrom? I don't remember what his reputation was in Sweden before he came over, but he certainly flopped in the NHL. Granted - he was given a fair shake, so maybe that was just him not being a great goalie to begin with.

As per the bolded, I agree. On the ice and off the ice, the transition was harder in the 80s and early 90s. The playing styles were still relatively separated from each other, and the political climate was much more tense (with Eastern Europe vs. the west).

 

[overpass]

Look at the sequence:

Waite - 25/28
Hasek - 31/35
Waite - 19/23
Hasek - 28/34
Waite - 25/27
Waite - 28/31
Waite - 18/20

The rotation stopped when Waite had a strong game, and another, and another. Then when Waite had a 5 GA game six starts later, Hasek got the next start, had a good game, started the next game, and was gone by the 1st period.

Waite - 13/18
Hasek - 24/26
Hasek - 7/10

Hasek's statistics recovered for the season based on his performance when he came back in January 1992, but 90 saves on 105 shots while Belfour is out doesn't leave me suspicious at all about why he didn't become Chicago's starter. Waite played his way out of the rotation and then played his way back into it. Hasek got back-to-back starts days before Belfour signed and then shanked the second start.

It makes for a nice hypothetical if Hasek could have established himself sooner, but the opportunities afforded to him in his first three seasons could have been capitalized on by better performances - or in the case of 1992-93, not being hurt. That they weren't makes me much more suspicious as to whether he was really any better pre-1990 than, say, Ed Belfour. We ask how he suddenly became the best goaltender in the world in 1994, but we could just as easily ask how did he go from being the best goaltender not in the NHL in the 1980s to being worse than Ed Belfour, who was also not in the NHL.

But given 1990-91 through 1992-93, I don't see a consistent Vezina contender who could have made a difference for 1980s Buffalo. Probably just someone who could push Barrasso into a tandem.

Hasek always struggled in October. His career monthly splits are striking. 0.904 SV% in October, and his other months ranged from 0.919 to 0.931. His career October W/L record was only 48-46-8. Its very possible that if he was installed as the starter in Chicago he would have picked it up in November and dominated.

Of course Mike Keenan couldn't know at the time that Hasek needed a month of regular season play to really get going.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Slightly more credence to my "rhythm" player remarks from a while back perhaps, good catch...

 

[VanIslander]

10 years earlier, in 1982-83 the Buffalo Sabres swept Montreal and then lost a close 7-game series against the Bruins. Boston then pushed the two-time defending champion Islanders to Game 6 of the conference finals where Bossy had an epic four-goal night. So, maybe the Sabres could have stopped the Islanders dynasty if Hasek (instead of Buffalo's Bob Sauve) had been in net to be the difference in the Game 7 against Boston and if he could have stopped Bossy from scoring 4 goals in Game 6 of the conference finals and gotten a Game 7 win.

The top scorer for Buffalo that season was Gilbert Perreault. A rookie defenseman named Phil Housley scored 66 points, then he scored 3 goals and 7 points in the 10 playoff games. Defenseman Mike Ramsey had 4 playoff goals as did left winger Lindy Ruff.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Hasek always struggled in October. His career monthly splits are striking. 0.904 SV% in October, and his other months ranged from 0.919 to 0.931. His career October W/L record was only 48-46-8. Its very possible that if he was installed as the starter in Chicago he would have picked it up in November and dominated.

Of course Mike Keenan couldn't know at the time that Hasek needed a month of regular season play to really get going.

Now imagine a goaltender like Hasek with a unique style and heavier equipment who performs so much worse in October and place him in the 1980s when the tandem system was more common and he's likely to see more exposure in October. Might not get too many starts after splitting the first month, let alone contend for any Vezinas.

But also note, he did take a starter's role in Buffalo in mid-November 1992 for ~25 games of their schedule (during which he played 19 before getting injured) and was good but not dominant - something he very much was the same time next year.

 

[Sentinel]

10 years earlier, in 1982-83 the Buffalo Sabres swept Montreal and then lost a close 7-game series against the Bruins. Boston then pushed the two-time defending champion Islanders to Game 6 of the conference finals where Bossy had an epic four-goal night. So, maybe the Sabres could have stopped the Islanders dynasty if Hasek (instead of Buffalo's Bob Sauve) had been in net to be the difference in the Game 7 against Boston and if he could have stopped Bossy from scoring 4 goals in Game 6 of the conference finals and gotten a Game 7 win.

The top scorer for Buffalo that season was Gilbert Perreault. A rookie defenseman named Phil Housley scored 66 points, then he scored 3 goals and 7 points in the 10 playoff games. Defenseman Mike Ramsey had 4 playoff goals as did left winger Lindy Ruff.

I am one of Hasek's biggest fans here (I even ranked him above Lemieux in my own "Best of" list), but neither he, nor anyone else could stop that Islanders team. Granted, he would have received bigger support from Perreault, etc. than he did from Holzinger and Wooley in 1999... but then again those Stars were no Islanders.

 

[VanIslander]

I am one Hasek's biggest fans here (I even ranked him above Lemieux in my own "Best of" list), but neither he, nor anyone else could stop that Islanders team.

It's hard to fathom that history could have been any different, but if you look at the specifics, the difference between winning and losing for Buffalo and the Isles wasn't so great.

Buffalo pushed the Islanders to six games in the Isles first Stanley Cup championship playoff year. And Boston - the team that edged Buffalo in Game 7 in 1982-83, beat the mighty Isles 5-1 and 4-1 and only Bossy's heroics was the difference in Game 6. Throw Hasek into the mix (and bench Ben Sauve) and suddenly the (remember: Scotty Bowman-coached) Sabres could have won Game 7 against Boston and Hasek could have stolen one game at home against the Isles in the conference final, setting up a winner-take-all Game 7 that is always unpredictable.

Bowman's Sabres beat the Isles in two of their three meetings in the regular season that year, 5-1 at home and 5-3 on Long Island.

 

[threetimer*]

Now imagine a goaltender like Hasek with a unique style and heavier equipment who performs so much worse in October and place him in the 1980s when the tandem system was more common and he's likely to see more exposure in October. Might not get too many starts after splitting the first month, let alone contend for any Vezinas.

But also note, he did take a starter's role in Buffalo in mid-November 1992 for ~25 games of their schedule (during which he played 19 before getting injured) and was good but not dominant - something he very much was the same time next year.

It's almost pathological.

Never mind the existent evidence of extraordinary ability Hasek displayed in his years with the Sabres (and flashes were already there even with the Blackhawks), had he begun earlier, it would have always ended up the worst possible way

Evaluating players by their worst and then extrapolating it almost arbitrarily usually signals a critic / hater. Talking to them is pointless.

 

[Theokritos]

Evaluating players by their worst and then extrapolating it almost arbitrarily usually signals a critic / hater. Talking to them is pointless.

You're mixing up "critic" and "hater". There is nothing wrong with being a "critic". Talking to a "critic" is only pointless for someone who is the counterpart of a "hater": a "fanboy", emotionally and dogmatically set on not accepting counter arguments.

On this board it's not welcome to label people who are critical of a player as "haters". Just like it is not welcome to label people who are more apprecitative of a player as "fanboys".

 

[Cruor]

You're mixing up "critic" and "hater". There is nothing wrong with being a "critic". Talking to a "critic" is only pointless for someone who is the counterpart of a "hater": a "fanboy", emotionally and dogmatically set on not accepting counter arguments.

On this board it's not welcome to label people who are critical of a player as "haters". Just like it is not welcome to label people who are more apprecitative of a player as "fanboys".

There's being a critic, and then there's finding fault with pretty much everything Hasek has ever done while propping up Roy.

 

[quoipourquoi]

There's being a critic, and then there's finding fault with pretty much everything Hasek has ever done while propping up Roy.

I can't seem to recall anyone comparing him to 1984-1993 Patrick Roy here - which would be largely fruitless. The comparisons made have been to Tom Barrasso (Buffalo's starting goaltender in the time period proposed in the OP), Ed Belfour (to whom Hasek lost a starting role), and Jimmy Waite (who earned a starting role in Chicago over Hasek).

Feel free to present a counter-argument as to why he would fare any better trying to take Tom Barrasso's job than he did trying to earn a job over Ed Belfour and Jimmy Waite while acknowledging the following that actually was discussed:

• The differences in equipment, particularly as it pertains to weight and water absorption affecting the signature quick vertical movement of his arms and legs - a more kinetic style than the butterfly which was also less of a style than a save selection at the time for similar disadvantages in equipment
• Best-on-best tournaments (and even non best-on-best tournaments where he was never a save percentage leader despite 16/21 NHL teams making the playoffs, thereby heavily restricting the quality level of goaltenders against whom he would compete statistically in World Championships)
• Performing worse than Tom Barrasso at the 1984 Canada Cup - while Barrasso was also a teenager (something often used to prop up Hasek beyond what was warranted by the performance itself) and saw more time while Hasek largely split time with Jaromir Sindel (174 to 126 minutes)
• That in the first season in which he was tried as an NHL starter, he finished 7th in save percentage - .015 back from the league leader - which while good was not indicative that his ability relative to the best goaltenders in the NHL was in 1992-93 (let alone 1984-1992) what it would be later
• 1965-born Ed Belfour, who we should be able to agree was objectively better than 1965-born Dominik Hasek from 1990-91 through 1992-93, was not NHL-ready in 1988-89 - five years after 1965-born Tom Barrasso was named the best goaltender in the NHL - telling us that not every goaltender is going to be on the same time table and therefore we shouldn't just assume Hasek would have been a dominant NHL goaltender in the 1980s
• The effects of tandem goaltending in the era
• Habitual poor starts to seasons

I mean, we're talking about the Gretzky/Lemieux of goaltenders; if the argument that he was already the best goaltender in the world in the 1980s and could have been a difference maker on likely a worse Sabres team can be made, it shouldn't be hard to make it - or at least contribute more than telling me who my favorite player is. Instead, I think we're taking a goaltender with three blown opportunities to become a starter in the early-1990s and placing him a tougher environment for goaltenders to keep a starting job and with worse equipment. It's not ideal for Hasek.

And if the argument isn't even that - if we're saying that while evidence suggests he wasn't as good as Barrasso or Belfour or other NHL goaltenders from 1984-1993 but that he could have been if a coach put blind faith in him and handed him a starting role in the NHL so he could get acclimated against the best players in the world instead of the best players in Czechoslovakia, then I think we're letting our hindsight rate a decade of potential instead of decade of performance.

Preparation and opportunity have to meet. If the former is missing in September and October then you won't capitalize on the latter. And if you're not performing like the best goaltender in the world, then I'm going to put on my critic hat in a discussion on whether you're the missing piece to the 1983 and 1988 Stanley Cup Champion Buffalo Sabres.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Evaluating players by their worst and then extrapolating it almost arbitrarily usually signals a critic / hater. Talking to them is pointless.

Unrelated to the fact that I've never seen this particular bias from QPQ...if you feel that talking to [him] is pointless, then you don't get to take backhanded slaps at him either.

Don't talk to him, but don't talk about him, either. Understand?

 

[quoipourquoi]

As much as I am genuinely entertained by everyone's schtick, I do think we should return to the topic - whether it be addressing 1980s Buffalo's best windows for success with different goaltending or the likelihood of Hasek cementing his role as a starting goaltender in the 1980s environment.

 

[bobholly39]

I mean. Dominik Hasek was a pretty fantastic goalie.

He would have figured it out?

If Chicago had given him the ball and said "you're our starter" for a full year, he'd become the goalie he did. Getting a few starts here and there isn't really enough to say he wasn't good enough at that point.

Put Hasek in an 80's environment and same thing happens.

 

[Killion]

I mean. Dominik Hasek was a pretty fantastic goalie.

He would have figured it out?

If Chicago had given him the ball and said "you're our starter" for a full year, he'd become the goalie he did. Getting a few starts here and there isn't really enough to say he wasn't good enough at that point.

Put Hasek in an 80's environment and same thing happens.

That would not be a certainty at all, no. Its been said that hockey is 95% mental, 5% ability, innate ability, hard work & practice. Goaltenders that old axiom amp'd up. Like 98% mental. Now, I cant say with 100% certainty that a younger Hasek in getting lit up the way he would have been wouldnt have had the mental toughness & IQ to have bucked up, dealt with it & made adjustments, excelled; but I find the idea that at that young age, the arc of his development that followed such a scenario unlikely. Some players are late bloomers as you know, Hasek most definitely in that category. Nothing wrong with it, not criticism. Just the way the bottle spins. Others blossoming to early. Done by 22, 25. Some Goalies (and skaters) you see it once theyve completed Junior or made a huge bang in international play. Theyve peaked. No longer have the mental drive, focus to go on. Not fun anymore or whatever. Hasek's career arc for him based on everything he accomplished at the end of the day ideal though sure, as a younger man he was frustrated, didnt feel he was getting the opportunities he deserved.

 

[ContrarianGoaltender]

Some players are late bloomers as you know, Hasek most definitely in that category. Nothing wrong with it, not criticism. Just the way the bottle spins. Others blossoming to early. Done by 22, 25. Some Goalies (and skaters) you see it once theyve completed Junior or made a huge bang in international play. Theyve peaked. No longer have the mental drive, focus to go on. Not fun anymore or whatever. Hasek's career arc for him based on everything he accomplished at the end of the day ideal though sure, as a younger man he was frustrated, didnt feel he was getting the opportunities he deserved.

Hasek was a late bloomer? What?

- playing pro hockey at 16 against men in Czechoslovakia
- named best goalie at the world juniors at the age of 17, with two years of eligibility remaining
- playing in senior internationals including the world championships at 18
- drafted through the Iron Curtain at 18
- starting in a best-on-best tournament at 19
- Czech League best player and best goalie, world championships best goalie at 22
- rated by many as best goalie outside NHL in his early 20s

All of the above things happened before Ed Belfour was ever drafted or signed by an NHL team. It is interesting that many of the people who doubt Hasek put almost zero weighting on anything that happened outside of the NHL and Canada Cups. It's fine to be extremely North America-centric, I guess, but that's not the only choice available.

And if the argument isn't even that - if we're saying that while evidence suggests he wasn't as good as Barrasso or Belfour or other NHL goaltenders from 1984-1993 but that he could have been if a coach put blind faith in him and handed him a starting role in the NHL so he could get acclimated against the best players in the world instead of the best players in Czechoslovakia, then I think we're letting our hindsight rate a decade of potential instead of decade of performance.

What evidence do you have that Barrasso was ever better than Hasek, other than a marginally better performance over a handful of games at the 1984 Canada Cup?

Barrasso's combined Buffalo save percentages adjusted to league average and translated into 1992-93's environment puts him at just .892, a lower number than Hasek recorded in each of his first three seasons in the NHL. From 1991 to 1993, Barrasso averaged .894, again lower than Hasek over the same stretch.

Hasek's chronic slow starting would also not have been a problem at all in Buffalo in the 1980s, considering this is what Barrasso did in October and November on an annual basis:

1983-84: 9-2-2, .883, 2.89
1984-85: 3-6-1, .864, 3.36
1985-86: 9-8-1, .874, 3.32
1986-87: 1-8-1, .857, 3.82
1987-88: 1-5-3, .880, 3.75*
1988-89: 2-7-0, .842, 4.95**

*-missed almost three weeks due to injury in Nov 1987
**-was traded because of poor play

And considering Barrasso's 3-8, .861 record in the playoffs as a Sabre, there's not much reason to think that he'd be hogging the net come April either. There's a huge difference between late '80s Barrasso and early '90s Belfour in terms of performance, it doesn't follow that failing to unseat one means you couldn't unseat the other. There's not even that much of a hypothetical stretch to make here: Buffalo shipped Barrasso out of town to hand the reins to Daren Puppa, and we already know from 1992-93 who to bet on in a Puppa vs. Hasek competition.

I think the evidence is on the side of Hasek overtaking Barrasso fairly easily after 1984, unless you think the Dominator would be significantly worse in the mid-'80s than he was in the early '90s and you place pretty much zero value on anything that happens outside of the NHL.

I am unsure why you seem to be insinuating that a 1980s tandem would be a tougher situation for a goalie that always started slow and had to play his way into form. A tandem splits playing time by definition, early season performance wouldn't matter much at all because the goalies would share starts anyway. Sure, the other guy might get a run of starts early on, but the team would make sure there was some level of parity, and then later in the season the pendulum would reverse. It would probably just take a couple of months to do it, like it did for Hasek vs Puppa in 1992-93 and Fuhr in 1993-94. An '80s style tandem would therefore likely be one of the best possible places that Hasek could have found himself in, as opposed to the 1990 Blackhawks which was probably very close to the worst possible scenario given their crowded crease and and their coach who loved to ride his #1. It would have been much, much easier to get playing time as part of a tandem and use game success to win over his skeptical coaches than never getting much of a chance to play being stuck behind high minutes eating future Hall of Famers.

Barrasso only played 61% of Buffalo's minutes from 1983-1989, meaning that the backups got plenty of looks. Even in his Vezina year, Bob Sauve played in 40 games and played almost as many minutes (2375) as Hasek did in 1991-92 and 1992-93 combined (2443). On the other hand, if you look at the top 10 single seasons in games played between 1983-84 and 1991-92, half of the list consists of Grant Fuhr and Mike Keenan goalies, which definitely wouldn't be a surprising stat to Dominik Hasek.

 

[bobholly39]

That would not be a certainty at all, no. Its been said that hockey is 95% mental, 5% ability, innate ability, hard work & practice. Goaltenders that old axiom amp'd up. Like 98% mental. Now, I cant say with 100% certainty that a younger Hasek in getting lit up the way he would have been wouldnt have had the mental toughness & IQ to have bucked up, dealt with it & made adjustments, excelled; but I find the idea that at that young age, the arc of his development that followed such a scenario unlikely. Some players are late bloomers as you know, Hasek most definitely in that category. Nothing wrong with it, not criticism. Just the way the bottle spins. Others blossoming to early. Done by 22, 25. Some Goalies (and skaters) you see it once theyve completed Junior or made a huge bang in international play. Theyve peaked. No longer have the mental drive, focus to go on. Not fun anymore or whatever. Hasek's career arc for him based on everything he accomplished at the end of the day ideal though sure, as a younger man he was frustrated, didnt feel he was getting the opportunities he deserved.

Yeah if you look at the reply posted by the poster right below yours...it's not really about Hasek being a late bloomer. He wasn't really put in a position to succeed until he was given the ball in Buffalo.

would more mental toughness by Hasek have had him usurp Belfour's job in chicago? Maybe.

But put Hasek in the NHL at say age 21 on a team who gives him the full starter job. Odds are he figures out it sooner than he did. And goes on to have success in the NHL earlier than he did in real life.

When you have so much talent, you're bound to be good. Remember this is one of the top talents in history of the NHL. If he's capable of dominating the regular season in a way no goalie in the history of the game ever did by age ~30 - odds are he could have done pretty damn well at age 25 or earlier too.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Harry Lumley

Hasek was a late bloomer? What?

- playing pro hockey at 16 against men in Czechoslovakia
- named best goalie at the world juniors at the age of 17, with two years of eligibility remaining
- playing in senior internationals including the world championships at 18
- drafted through the Iron Curtain at 18
- starting in a best-on-best tournament at 19
- Czech League best player and best goalie, world championships best goalie at 22
- rated by many as best goalie outside NHL in his early 20s

All of the above things happened before Ed Belfour was ever drafted or signed by an NHL team. It is interesting that many of the people who doubt Hasek put almost zero weighting on anything that happened outside of the NHL and Canada Cups. It's fine to be extremely North America-centric, I guess, but that's not the only choice available.

Sounds a lot like Harry Lumley. WWII era playing in the NHL as a 17 year old.

https://www.hockey-reference.com/players/l/lumleha01.html

Regular as a teenager. Three time SC finalist - one win with Detroit but never found his niche or recognition until his 3rd regular team Toronto during his second year with the Leafs at age 27.

Also for a tandem to work there has to be compatibility and synergy between the goalies. Dryden Larocque, Edwards/Sauve. No guarantees in Buffalo with Barrasso and Hasek.

 

[Killion]

....If he's capable of dominating the regular season in a way no goalie in the history of the game ever did by age ~30 - odds are he could have done pretty damn well at age 25 or earlier too.

Noble try bob.... but there really isnt a thing you can say to convince me of that.... not being obtuse, not being argumentative, based on my own experiences playing the position & observances, research & readings of over 50yrs. I understand where your coming from & as I said, no "slight" to Hasek. His persistence, dedication & "fight" beyond laudable, admirable. One of the Greatest's Ever.

 

[VanIslander]

Hasek needed many years to perfect his technique.

 

[bobholly39]

Noble try bob.... but there really isnt a thing you can say to convince me of that.... not being obtuse, not being argumentative, based on my own experiences playing the position & observances, research & readings of over 50yrs. I understand where your coming from & as I said, no "slight" to Hasek. His persistence, dedication & "fight" beyond laudable, admirable. One of the Greatest's Ever.

It's different for a goalie though.

A forward? A forward is easy. Just look at Jagr. You score enough goals and you'll play. Questions about you? It's ok you figure out as you go, because you're good enough to play. All Jagr to do to play was be more valuable than a 3rd or 4th liner on the Pitt roster. And he was.

A goalie? The only way Hasek was playing in Chicago was having the Blackhawks give Ed Belfour's starting job away. Those were the years he was winning the Vezina too. It just wasn't going to happen, was never in the cards.

Just imagine you teleport a 25 year old Hasek into today's NHL. And he starts with Montreal. Is there anything at all Hasek could ever do to take over Price's job? It's just not going to happen.

But start him in say....Vegas. or Arizona. Or some other lowly team, where they give him a chance as a starter. And his talent eventually allows him to establish himself.

So yeah, different circumstances and he would have been a strong NHL goalie sooner than he was. It's all about getting that chance.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Hasek was a late bloomer? What?

- playing pro hockey at 16 against men in Czechoslovakia
- named best goalie at the world juniors at the age of 17, with two years of eligibility remaining
- playing in senior internationals including the world championships at 18
- drafted through the Iron Curtain at 18
- starting in a best-on-best tournament at 19
- Czech League best player and best goalie, world championships best goalie at 22
- rated by many as best goalie outside NHL in his early 20s

All of the above things happened before Ed Belfour was ever drafted or signed by an NHL team. It is interesting that many of the people who doubt Hasek put almost zero weighting on anything that happened outside of the NHL and Canada Cups. It's fine to be extremely North America-centric, I guess, but that's not the only choice available.

And yet Ed Belfour, who we know was not NHL-ready in 1988-89, still beats him for a job. Looking at someone's age in a tournament doesn't necessarily indicate a performance on par with NHL goaltenders. I have no issue looking at his World Championship and Olympic performances which largely put him on par with Mylnikov, Irbe, and Canadian goaltender Sean Burke statistically.

I suppose if Sean Burke didn't have a starting job in the NHL until he hit his prime in his 30s, similar concessions could be made for how good he would have been if someone would just give him a shot. And like Hasek in the 1987 Canada Cup, Burke had a few flashes of brilliance in 13 games in 1987-88 that would make you think he was better than he probably showed for the next 10 years in the league.

What evidence do you have that Barrasso was ever better than Hasek, other than a marginally better performance over a handful of games at the 1984 Canada Cup?

Tom Barrasso was the best goaltender in the NHL in 1984, and your above bullet points for Dominik Hasek at that time are essentially participation ribbons until a few years later.

I am unsure why you seem to be insinuating that a 1980s tandem would be a tougher situation for a goalie that always started slow and had to play his way into form. A tandem splits playing time by definition, early season performance wouldn't matter much at all because the goalies would share starts anyway. Sure, the other guy might get a run of starts early on, but the team would make sure there was some level of parity, and then later in the season the pendulum would reverse. It would probably just take a couple of months to do it, like it did for Hasek vs Puppa in 1992-93 and Fuhr in 1993-94.

Unless you end up being the third goalie and out of the rotation altogether from the early starts. For one, we'd have to imagine Bob Sauve doesn't exist to give him much of a shot of playing a game in 1983-84. When was the first time Daren Puppa (drafted by Buffalo the same year as Hasek) received regular rotation time? Fall 1985 and Fall 1987? And he actually played pretty well compared to the Barrasso numbers you posted, but it's a fight up-river to get consistent work until 1988-89 - even for a goaltender who makes the best of early-season exposure.

Assuming Buffalo drafts Hasek and not Puppa, that's realistically when he gets his window.

An '80s style tandem would therefore likely be one of the best possible places that Hasek could have found himself in

A goaltender who does his best work when he isn't competing for his spot? In an environment that necessitates that he compete for his spot? In October?

 

[quoipourquoi]

The only way Hasek was playing in Chicago was having the Blackhawks give Ed Belfour's starting job away. Those were the years he was winning the Vezina too. It just wasn't going to happen, was never in the cards.

It's honestly posts like this that turn me into a broken record about September-October 1991. Ed Belfour gave Ed Belfour's job away.

The Carey Price parallel doesn't work at all. Carey Price is an established starter. Unless Jacques Cloutier is supposed to be Carey Price, as he was the incumbent goaltender in Fall 1990. Either way, when the quote out of training camp is that "We don't feel we have a number one goaltender who can compete with other number one goaltenders around the league right now," it's not a matter of being a little worse than Carey Price. That's a quote that says they had no confidence in any of them.