My HoH Top 50 Players Of All Time!

[Michael Farkas]

Thanks qpq...this is why they pay you the big bucks around here...

 

[GuineaPig]

I think Roy's game seven in 2002 is a great mythbuster for the notion of "clutch play," because it is a performance so utterly irreconcilable with his reputation. Kasparaitis' floater is something likewise for Hasek. The tendency with a lot of these projects is to narrow a player's career down to a sample of just a few games to construct this grand, superhuman image of them. You gotta look at everything, the bad and the good.

I understand the argument for Roy over Hasek, but I can't say I agree with it. After all the talk about varying levels of competition for forwards, we're just going to skip it for goalies? Yeah Patrick Roy had a great regular season prime in the late '80s/early '90s, but dominating Jon Casey and Kelly Hrudey is a wee bit easier than having Roy and Brodeur as your competition.

edit: If anything, I feel Roy's later regular season play gets underrated just because he was going up against Hasek. He had a long stretch of elite play from 1993-2003.

 

[Neutrinos]

I see no reason for those 3 player to be in the top 20. They just don't have the resume everyone else in the top 20 has.

they would struggle to make my top 50

The OP didn't give any criteria, so I'm using my own

I generally favour peak/prime over career

 

[ImporterExporter]

I think Roy's game seven in 2002 is a great mythbuster for the notion of "clutch play," because it is a performance so utterly irreconcilable with his reputation. Kasparaitis' floater is something likewise for Hasek. The tendency with a lot of these projects is to narrow a player's career down to a sample of just a few games to construct this grand, superhuman image of them. You gotta look at everything, the bad and the good.

I understand the argument for Roy over Hasek, but I can't say I agree with it. After all the talk about varying levels of competition for forwards, we're just going to skip it for goalies? Yeah Patrick Roy had a great regular season prime in the late '80s/early '90s, but dominating Jon Casey and Kelly Hrudey is a wee bit easier than having Roy and Brodeur as your competition.

edit: If anything, I feel Roy's later regular season play gets underrated just because he was going up against Hasek. He had a long stretch of elite play from 1993-2003.

But GP it's not just about who you were competing with at the position but the style of play in the league as well.

Take adjusted SV% for example (like 3rd time I've posted this haha).

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=718221

Hasek is ahead of Roy, but not by much. Certainly less than you'd think by looking at raw data. This backs up my assertion that Hasek, while amazing, definitely benefited by playing the bulk of his career in a much lower scoring era than Roy did.

Even Brodeur looks better and he had a ridiculous workload season to season and career wise compared to most. He routinely started 70+ games a year which is absurd.

 

[GuineaPig]

Hasek is ahead of Roy, but not by much. Certainly less than you'd think by looking at raw data. This backs up my assertion that Hasek, while amazing, definitely benefited by playing the bulk of his career in a much lower scoring era than Roy did.

Even Brodeur looks better and he had a ridiculous workload season to season and career wise compared to most. He routinely started 70+ games a year which is absurd.

Hasek's raw numbers certainly are benefitted by playing in a low-scoring era. But I'm not talking about raw numbers, I'm talking about relative dominance. The corps of goalies Hasek was facing in his prime were much better than what Roy was playing against (the turnover in goalies was very extreme from 1985-1995).

Like compare Roy's competition from 1987 to 1994 and Hasek's from 1994 to 2002.

I don't think it's quite fair to give equal credit to Roy dominating Vanbiesbrouck as Hasek dominating Roy. It also leads to this bizarro version of Roy's career when you analyze it like this: it looks like he falls off dramatically into the '90s because other goalies are getting better. I say his Colorado years get underrated, because he was still a dominant regular season performer. Does anyone actually think that Roy got worse as a goalie after moving to the Avalanche?

 

[Canadiens1958]

1991 Onwards

Hasek's raw numbers certainly are benefitted by playing in a low-scoring era. But I'm not talking about raw numbers, I'm talking about relative dominance. The corps of goalies Hasek was facing in his prime were much better than what Roy was playing against (the turnover in goalies was very extreme from 1985-1995).

Like compare Roy's competition from 1987 to 1994 and Hasek's from 1994 to 2002.

I don't think it's quite fair to give equal credit to Roy dominating Vanbiesbrouck as Hasek dominating Roy. It also leads to this bizarro version of Roy's career when you analyze it like this: it looks like he falls off dramatically into the '90s because other goalies are getting better. I say his Colorado years get underrated, because he was still a dominant regular season performer. Does anyone actually think that Roy got worse as a goalie after moving to the Avalanche?

Yet for three season 1991 to 1993, Hasek spent more time in the minors than in the NHL and was an NHL back-up while Roy during the same stretch was a dominating NHL regular.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Hasek's raw numbers certainly are benefitted by playing in a low-scoring era. But I'm not talking about raw numbers, I'm talking about relative dominance. The corps of goalies Hasek was facing in his prime were much better than what Roy was playing against (the turnover in goalies was very extreme from 1985-1995).

Like compare Roy's competition from 1987 to 1994 and Hasek's from 1994 to 2002.

I don't think it's quite fair to give equal credit to Roy dominating Vanbiesbrouck as Hasek dominating Roy. It also leads to this bizarro version of Roy's career when you analyze it like this: it looks like he falls off dramatically into the '90s because other goalies are getting better. I say his Colorado years get underrated, because he was still a dominant regular season performer. Does anyone actually think that Roy got worse as a goalie after moving to the Avalanche?

GP, if you read up on that project I linked (and others in OP), you can see Roy's relative dominance was essentially the same as Hasek's. Yes, I agree the goalie names were better when Hasek was owning the mantle as best keeper in the world, but the era's (scoring levels) and competition at F also have to be considered.

Roy was going up against the likes of a prime Gretzky, Lemieux, Messier, Bourque, Yzerman, etc, etc.

These things matter.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

I don't think I am. Look, everyone understands that the mid 20's throughout the entire 1930's was THE original dead puck era in the NHL. So scoring is going to be down on a per game basis across the board.

I'm not out to pile on Howie Morenz but given his mythical status among readings and many contemporary sources, you'd think he was literally the "Babe Ruth of hockey". I'm sorry but that is the type of folk hero status that gets thrown around, people quote it and think it to be true. Or at the very least try to use it as some sort of major bullet point.

Anyone with baseball knowledge knows just how ridiculously dominant Babe Ruth was vs his peers. Basically every metric, numbers or otherwise, proves as much. Morenz did not blow the NHL away in the 20's or 30's.

I don't think the "Morenz was the Babe Ruth of hockey" comments were intended to be broken down and scrutinized in fine detail. More likely they were meant to frame Morenz in a way familiar to American fans new to hockey. Nobody is going to argue that Morenz was actually as dominant a player as Ruth, who is more aptly compared to Gretzky.

We know Morenz had a great 1924 and 1925.

pulled quickly from Wiki


In 1925 he scored 3 goals in 2 games vs Toronto St Patrick's in the league semi final's. The finals were canceled due to a players strike. In the Stanley Cup finals Montreal lost to the Victoria Cougers but Morenz played well netting 6 points in 4 games.

Remember, that is pre-consolidation of all pro talent. That's pre forward passing, pre offsides, etc.

And if you look at this stats AFTER those 2 runs, his production drops considerably. There is no arguing this, whether looking at playoff leaders or Montreal team leaders.

1927 - 1 goal in 4 games. Out in semi's.

1928 - 0 points in 2 games. Out in round 1. Art Gagne leads team with 2 points.

1929 - 0 points in 3 games. Out in round 1. Aurele Joliat leads team with 2 points.

-So by this point, over the past 3 years he has exactly 1 goal in 9 games. There is no sugar coating it. He's not producing, even in a very weak scoring era.

1930 - He has 1 goal in the 2 game Cup final. For the playoffs Morenz finishes with 3 goals. Leduc, Wasnie and Lepine all have 4 points.

1931 - He scores 1 lonely goal in 5 (FIVE) games in Cup final. 5 players score more, including Johnny Gagnon with 4 goals and 6 points. Overall for the playoffs Morenz has 5 points, Lepine, Mantha and Gagnon have more.

1932 - 1 goal in 4 games. Knocked out in round 1. 5 including Leduc, Gagnon, Joliat, Mondou and Larochelle score more.

1933 - Morenz was better with 3 assists in 2 games. Montreal still knocked in quarters. Ties with Joliat for team lead.

1934 - 2 points in 2 games. Montreal out in quarters. Ties with Larochelle for team lead.

1935 - 0 points in 2 games. Hawks out in round 1.

15 points in 35 games after consolidation. And in the 2 years Montreal did win the Cup, Morenz was almost completely shut down. We see far less talented players stepping up.

Other random players totals in same or similar time periods (all post consolidation #'s): This is to illustrate that there were many other players who provide as much ore better per game offense in the late 20's onward, in the playoffs.

Johnny Gagnon - 24 points in 32 games
Aurele Joliat - 19 in 40
Bill Cook - 24 in 46
Joe Primeau 23 in 38
Charlie Conacher 35 in 49
Harry Oliver 16 in 35
Johnny Gottselig 24 in 37 (without his swan 43-44 season. only kept the 30's)
Paul Thompson 22 in 48
Baldy Northcott 13 in 31

Even if we give him blanket credit for providing great defense in these postseason runs (i might add there is almost zero evidence of this in anything we've unearthed in the ATD over the years), it doesn't hide the fact that Morenz is bested by other lesser players over the same, or similar time periods, offensively, especially in the Cup finals in 1930 and 31.

If you take Aurele Joliat's stats over the exact same time period from 1927 through 1935 (Morenz's last playoff run), Joliat played exactly the same amount of games (35) and scored (16) points in that span. Morenz didn't even out produce Joliat on his own team offensively.

This is just a repetition of the stats, and my whole point was that they make Morenz look a lot worse than reality.

A post I made (#91) in the HOH Playoff project: http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=2353913&page=4

Not saying Morenz was a stud in the playoffs, but he certainly wasn't bad.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Look at what Roy did in huge Cup final series:

86: 113 saves on 125 shots in 5 games = .904 SV% (vs 25 shots per game average) WIN
89: 167 saves on 184 shots in 6 games = .908 SV% (vs 31 shots per game average) LOSS
93: 144 saves on 155 shots in 5 games = .929 SV% (vs 31 shots per game average) WIN
96: 147 saves on 151 shots in 4 games = .974 SV% (vs 37 shots per game average) WIN
01: 167 saves on 178 shots in 7 games = .938 SV% (vs 25 shots per game average) WIN

-To the novice 86 and 89 might seem average, but one has to remember what the league average's were at the time. And Roy actually outperformed Vernon both years (1 win and 1 loss).

Here is HO's adjusted playoff SV% numbers which back up Roy being far and away the most dominant playoff goalie:

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1185967

 

[quoipourquoi]

Does anyone actually think that Roy got worse as a goalie after moving to the Avalanche?

Yes. He would have stretches where he'd play like his younger self for half of the season and then the other half, he'd look below-average. 1997 and 2002 were the only seasons where he seemed to be able to play at a consistently top-level, and those were probably the years when his reputation was at its highest.

His final season is the perfect example. Vancouver is killing them in the standings in mid-January, and Patrick Roy is a ~.900 goaltender. Then he goes 20-3-4 with a .945 through April to win the division, and it seems like we've simultaneously seen the best and worst seasons of his career.

He was a little streaky when he was younger, but those were often good vs. exceptionally good halves, and not talk-about-his-retirement vs. chanting-play-forever halves.

I'd say everything between Nagano and Game 1 against LA in 2001 is largely unremarkable, but I'll take the other 15 years over the longevity from anyone but Gordie Howe, because we just don't see goaltenders being the #1 or #1a in the world for that long.

100m: Bernie Parent
200m: Terry Sawchuk
400m: Dominik Hasek

Patrick Roy doesn't do too bad in those events, but he'll take the 800m when few others are even finishing the race.

 

[ImporterExporter]

This is just a repetition of the stats, and my whole point was that they make Morenz look a lot worse than reality.

A post I made (#91) in the HOH Playoff project: http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=2353913&page=4

Not saying Morenz was a stud in the playoffs, but he certainly wasn't bad.

The case for three-time Cup champion Howie Morenz, info pulled from The Trail of the Stanley Cup.

1924. Morenz seems to have been the best player as Montreal went 6-0 over three series to win the Cup with relative ease. Had the winning goal in a 1-0 win, 2 goals in 4-2 win over Ottawa in the NHL Final. Had a hat trick in 6-1 win over Calgary in the Stanley Cup Final, Montreal beating the Tigers 2-0 in games without much trouble.

1925. Another great effort in the NHL Final. Two goals in 3-2 win over Toronto with Joliat injured, then scored again in a 2-0 win to advance. The Habs fell behind 2-0 to Victoria in the Stanley Cup series, but Morenz got a hat trick in Game 3 to stave off elimination before Montreal fell in Game 4.

1927. His play is described well in semi final series (2 games/total goals) as he scored and assisted in 2-1 total goals win. Ottawa got ahead of Montreal quickly in the division final (same format) and played kitty bar the door. Morenz and Joliat "tried hard but to no avail".

1928. This is a disappointing performance. Morenz took a lot of penalties as the Habs lost 3-2 total goals semi final.

1929. Montreal finished first and played first place Boston in a best-of-five semi final as the playoff format now dictated. Morenz was described as "always dangerous" with his rushes, despite a 1-0 loss in Game 1. Another 1-0 loss in Game 2, then a 3-2 loss "despite determined efforts of Morenz and Joliat".

1930. Morenz scored two goals including the OT winner to win 3-2 total goals series in the first round. It is mentioned that the Canadiens were tired after the long OT game, but had a very short turnaround before the next series began. As it happened, the opening game of this round went to quadruple OT. Montreal won this series 2-0 and it is interesting that subs scored all the goals. The Habs then upset Boston to win the Stanley Cup 2 games to 0. Morenz had one goal, and was described along with Lepine as the star in the deciding game.

1931. Had three assists in opening game defeat, little mention thereafter in a 3-2 series win over Boston. Morenz was described as "easily the outstanding player" after Game 2 loss in the Cup Final, despite 0 goals in playoffs. He is said to have put up a great performance in Game 3, a triple OT loss. Morenz "did everything but score" in a Game 4 win to send the Final to a decisive game. He finally scored in Game 5 to clinch Cup. It is mentioned that he was playing with an injured shoulder.

1932. Strong effort in opening 4-3 win over the Rangers in the semi-final. Long OT game loss in game 2, then played the very next night in NY, a 1-0 loss where it seems the teams were understandably tired. Joliat and Lepine were both injured in this game, and Montreal was ousted from the playoffs the next game.

1933. Two game/total goals, Montreal lost opener 5-2, and the Morenz line was outplayed by the Cooks and Frank Boucher. Morenz then started Game 2 on defense as coach Newsy Lalonde wanted 4 forwards on the ice to try and close the gap. This seemed to work as Morenz had two assists to pull the round to 6-5 total. Two late Ranger goals sealed the series.

1934. Morenz apparently played great and scored in 3-2 loss in the first game of another two game/total goals. It is said that the Canadiens had numerous injuries, and Morenz himself left injured in Game 2 as Montreal was eliminated.

1935. Now in Chicago. The Black Hawks lost 1-0 total goals in their opening round series. Morenz being stopped on two breakaways was the only specific mention of his play.

Morenz seems to have almost always figured prominently in his teams successes, with few instances where he clearly dropped the ball. His great playoff runs occurred at a time when there simply weren't many games to be played, and he had some prime years in an extremely low scoring environment. I don't think Morenz is a must include at this stage, but at the same time I don't think his resume is lacking compared to just-listed Sidney Crosby or Phil Esposito. They just have much more attractive and easier to quantify statistical profiles. If we're being fair to all eras (and why wouldn't we), we have to remember that modern players might not look so impressive at a glance if they only got to play 6 games during a Conn Smythe-level Cup run.

Well to be fair I never said he was bad either, but we differ on where he ends up exactly it seems. I don't think his totals are good. At best, I'd give him an average grade given his regular season outputs, and reputation.

His peak was the very first 2 runs in 24 and 25. No doubt. And as I said, if you break things down into pre consolidation/post consolidation, how impressive are those 2 years?

Are those pre consolidation runs any better than Frank Nighbor in the 1920 SCF against a very strong Seattle team? Jack Walker scored 6 points in 1925 vs Montreal in the final. Or Cyclone Taylor in 1918 when he potted 9 goals in 5 games in the SCF. Mickey MacKay and Alf Skinner actually had 10 points in that same series. Frank Foyston dominated the 1919 SCF until it was stopped due to spanish flu outbreak. He had 10 points in 5 games.

1927: He tried hard, played well but didn't produce in the final. A player of his caliber needs to be held to a higher standard.

1928: Poor performance. No further description needed.

1929: Like 1927, he was "always dangerous" but time and time again was shut down. By this point he's now had 1 point in past 9 playoff games. Again not even remotely close to acceptable, era be damned.

1930: Much better rebound, especially in the first round. As you stated didn't seem to do much in the semi's. In the finals, he may have been a star, but it was Albert Leduc and Mantha producing the most offensively.

1931: 3 of his 5 points for the playoffs come in 1 game in the first round. More talk about him being great, this and that, but he scores 1 goal in 5 games in the final. Injured? Fine, but there have been MANY greats who have played with bad injuries and produced massive results (from my team Mario Lemieux is a prime example). I'm not giving Morenz a pass here at all, unless it can be proved his arm was literally useless.

1932: 1 goal in 4 games. Not much reported on him even via your source. I'd give this a thumbs down.

1933: Poor game 1, better game 2. Montreal ousted. I'd say average.

1934: Seemed like he was great here, despite the early exist. Sucks as he went out injured.

1935: Nothing to note. Shut out in 2 games. Thumbs down?


Thoughts?

-As I've said all along that doesn't read like a a strong or really even good resume, especially if you're talking about a potential top 20 player all time. WAY to much inconstancy for me and even in the back to back Cup years others stepped up more than Morenz, carrying the offensive burden a lot more.

Look at the 20 people I have above Morenz. The handful of players who aren't noticeably ahead of him (IMHO) in the postseason (Mikita, Hasek, Shore, Bourque, maybe Bobby Hull and Brodeur) are all pretty far ahead of Mornez in terms of regular season resumes.

 

[Killion]

Yet for three season 1991 to 1993, Hasek spent more time in the minors than in the NHL and was an NHL back-up while Roy during the same stretch was a dominating NHL regular.

Wasnt he like 29 or something before he became a Starter with Buffalo? Definitely what you'd call a late bloomer. Amazing really that he was even still around at that age having never been a Starter AND frankly a questionable Backup. Unorthodox as he was. Gotta hand it to him for perseverance.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Wasnt he like 29 or something before he became a Starter with Buffalo? Definitely what you'd call a late bloomer. Amazing really that he was even still around at that age having never been a Starter AND frankly a questionable Backup. Unorthodox as he was. Gotta hand it to him for perseverance.

To me Hasek is the Gretzky of goalies.. completely unorthodox, using a technique that you couldn't possibly break down and teach to someone.. or at least have them successfully replicated it, and yet being super successful doing it.

 

[Sentinel]

I don't think Hasek was a late bloomer. He was a national team goaltender for CSSR at 19. It was an adjustment to NHL / Western way of life, more than anything.

The main reason why I brought up Roy's Games 6 and 7 of 02 is not because they were bloopers (every goalie has them), because they were against Hasek, Roy's main challenger for the GOAT title. You don't think he wanted to beat The Dominator? Yet he ended up with two of the biggest dents on his resume instead.

Can someone post the stats from Roy vs. Hasek head-to-head games? I remember them being pretty one-sided.

 

[Orange Dragon]

I don't think Hasek was a late bloomer. He was a national team goaltender for CSSR at 19. It was an adjustment to NHL / Western way of life, more than anything.

This. Also Hasek was stuck behind 2 times vezina winner Ed Belfour in Chicago.

 

[bobholly39]

I don't think Hasek was a late bloomer. He was a national team goaltender for CSSR at 19. It was an adjustment to NHL / Western way of life, more than anything.

The main reason why I brought up Roy's Games 6 and 7 of 02 is not because they were bloopers (every goalie has them), because they were against Hasek, Roy's main challenger for the GOAT title. You don't think he wanted to beat The Dominator? Yet he ended up with two of the biggest dents on his resume instead.

Can someone post the stats from Roy vs. Hasek head-to-head games? I remember them being pretty one-sided.

Head to head games are fun and i'm sure for the athletes themselves - meaningful. But overall, when evaluating a player's career and all-time ranking, head to head games with a specific player are completely useless.

Gretzky > Lemieux.

Gretzky also handily beat Lemieux in head to head games. If the opposite was true, had it been Lemieux handily beating Gretzky in head to head games, it wouldn't somehow propel Lemieux above Gretzky.

 

[MXD]

Head-to-head goaltending matchups are more meaningless than simply meaningless.

 

[quoipourquoi]

The main reason why I brought up Roy's Games 6 and 7 of 02 is not because they were bloopers (every goalie has them), because they were against Hasek, Roy's main challenger for the GOAT title. You don't think he wanted to beat The Dominator? Yet he ended up with two of the biggest dents on his resume instead.

Is losing to a 17-point favorite after playing well enough to steal 4 or 5 games really among the biggest dents on Patrick Roy's career? Hasek was only across from Ron Tugnutt in 1997, but I don't think it makes it any more excusable.

 

[threetimer*]

H2H stats are actually one of the crucial criterias when comparing the best of the best.

At least to me, and especially when the stat speaks clearly in someone's favor.

How do you take Roy over Hasek when -- in case you run into Hasek, which is not that unlikely, given he's in the best of the best category -- you'll probably lose...?

Lemieux beating Gretzky in their H2H would not take away from Wayne beating on the rest of the opposition the way he was.

But Lemieux' fans could say, "Wayne was the best player in the world... except for when he was playing against Mario."

And since Lemieux is the one who almost rivalled Gretzky's dominance...

It's pretty clear to me that H2H stats DO matter in cases like these.

When you compare two guys both of whom tower the rest by a similar / comparable margin, you take the one who towered the rest by a hair-wider margin even if he's clearly inferior in the H2H comparison against the other?

EDIT: The more I think about this the more clearly I see myself reaching a sweet portion of truth here. Yeah. Had Lemieux had the same statline against Gretzky that Gretzky actually HAS against Lemieux in their H2H, the "what-if" and "would of / could of" argument would have stood so much more ground than it does now. Of course, plenty of people would be pointing to Gretzky's incredible records, but some of the pro-Gretzky crowd would now be in "we believe in Mario!" camp, no doubt.

Not to mention: the Mario that beats Gretzky in H2H is most likely a better version of Mario. And that version of Mario might have... actually done even better... you know. That version of Mario might have actually beaten some of Gretzky's records.

 

[threetimer*]

Is losing to a 17-point favorite after playing well enough to steal 4 or 5 games really among the biggest dents on Patrick Roy's career? Hasek was only across from Ron Tugnutt in 1997, but I don't think it makes it any more excusable.

But Ron Tugnutt was never considered Hasek's main rival / equal, right?

(Although I never noticed Roy considered Hasek's main rival / equal either. Except on here.)

 

[quoipourquoi]

How do you take Roy over Hasek when -- in case you run into Hasek, which is not that unlikely, given he's in the best of the best category -- you'll probably lose...?

I mean, if you took that approach going into the 1996 Stanley Cup Finals, you'd think Colorado would probably lose with a goaltender who was 0-7-1 in the state of Florida at that point.

 

[threetimer*]

Wasnt he like 29 or something before he became a Starter with Buffalo? Definitely what you'd call a late bloomer. Amazing really that he was even still around at that age having never been a Starter AND frankly a questionable Backup. Unorthodox as he was. Gotta hand it to him for perseverance.

A late bloomer?

He was a teenage star in Europe and an accomplished international superstar with a crazy resume coming to the states.

He probably just knew that he was the best goalie in the world and that this part of the world simply needed a couple of years to catch up, that's all.

 

[threetimer*]

I mean, if you took that approach going into the 1996 Stanley Cup Finals, you'd think Colorado would probably lose with a goaltender who was 0-7-1 in the state of Florida at that point.

This is about Hasek and Roy, nothing and no-one else.

No Florida. No Miami, no Clearwater, no Apopka. No curious isolated stat sample from 1996.

We're talking about determining who's the greatest goaltender of all time. And yeah, we should probably heed their H2H in spite of the fact Roy one weird year went into the final with an exceptionally bad regular season stat against Florida and ended up winning -- because this is about Roy and Hasek.

Despite the stat Roy enjoyed against Florida that year, I'm sure you still thought he was a better choice than Beezer, right? So in this case, the H2H stat was irrelevant.

We're not comparing Roy with Florida Panthers 1996 though.

We're comparing him against a guy who saw eye to eye with him or was even better and on top of that seemed to be... beating him.

Of course, you can happily ignore / downplay H2G as a general criteria (and you don't even need aberrations a la Florida 1996 versus Roy).

But ignoring it when comparing the two best men against one another seems almost suicidal.

 

[ResilientBeast]

This is about Hasek and Roy, nothing and no-one else.

No Florida. No Miami, no Clearwater, no Apopka. No curious isolated stat sample from 1996.

We're talking about determining who's the greatest goaltender of all time. And yeah, we should probably heed their H2H in spite of the fact Roy one weird year went into the final with an exceptionally bad regular season stat against Florida and ended up winning -- because this is about Roy and Hasek.

Despite the stat Roy enjoyed against Florida that year, I'm sure you still thought he was a better choice than Beezer, right? So in this case, the H2H stat was irrelevant.

We're not comparing Roy with Florida Panthers 1996 though.

We're comparing him against a guy who saw eye to eye with him or was even better and on top of that seemed to be... beating him.

Of course, you can happily ignore / downplay H2G as a general criteria (and you don't even need aberrations a la Florida 1996 versus Roy).

But ignoring it when comparing the two best men against one another seems almost suicidal.

What? No, comparing head to head stats is irrelevant, too small sample size, too much variance

 

[threetimer*]

What? No, comparing head to head stats is irrelevant, too small sample size, too much variance

Yeah, when the sample size is too scarce, it can be misleading.

But "too much varience" sounds uh... weird because "too much variance" can be argued literally always as no team is like another and the same applies for the games.

I don't see that much varience there since Hasek was, uh, invariably beating Roy, however scarce the sample is.

Irrelevant -- just no. As I said, you can choose to ignore it and even justify ignoring it -- but it looks like putting one's head in the sand.