My HoH Top 50 Players Of All Time!
- Thread starter ImporterExporter
- Start date
BM67
Registered User
H2H is such a small portion of their careers though, only a few % of their NHL games.
Roy 1276 career NHL games RS and PO, only 49 games vs Brodeur and Hasek.
Hasek 854 career NHL games RS and PO, only 50 games vs Brodeur and Roy.
Brodeur 1471 career NHL games RS and PO, only 51 games vs Hasek and Roy.
They each faced each other once in the playoffs, with all 3 series going 7 games. Brodeur beat Hasek, Roy beat Brodeur, and Hasek beat Roy.
Roy 1276 career NHL games RS and PO, only 49 games vs Brodeur and Hasek.
Hasek 854 career NHL games RS and PO, only 50 games vs Brodeur and Roy.
Brodeur 1471 career NHL games RS and PO, only 51 games vs Hasek and Roy.
They each faced each other once in the playoffs, with all 3 series going 7 games. Brodeur beat Hasek, Roy beat Brodeur, and Hasek beat Roy.
ResilientBeast
Proud Member of the TTSAOA
I really enjoyed watching Hasek and Roy take shots on one another. Head to head stats do not matter when there are 12 people on the ice.
That is, individual players matter in sports like tennis, not hockey.
But we're comparing individual players here.
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
I think his chief rival (the insecurities about continuing a season despite getting cleared by team doctors) has a better head-to-head record against Hasek than anyone does over Patrick Roy. Maybe Philadelphia, but it's probably close.
It's not like North America didn't see him in three best-on-best tournaments prior to him getting a starting job. I totally buy the argument that he could have been an NHL starter prior to 1992-93, but if he's the best goaltender in the world, you'd expect that with as many small-sample high-statistical-fluctuation tournaments he played in, he'd drop a Nagano or two or three on the world.
1984 Canada Cup
Myshkin: .940
Barrasso: .888
Peeters: .874
Hasek: .867
1986 WC
Belosheikin: .915
Hasek: .901
1987 WC
Belosheikin: .923
Hasek: .923
Burke: .895
1987 Canada Cup
Vanbiesbrouck: .922
Hasek: .894
Mylnikov: .894
Fuhr: .893
1988 Olympics
Myllys: .928
Moog: .900
Burke: .893
Richter: .842
Hasek: .835
1989 WC
Mylnikov: .922
Burke: .918
Hasek: .915
1990 WC
Irbe: .950
Casey: .914
Hasek: .904
1991 Canada Cup
Ranford: .939
Richter: .904
Hasek: .871
Good goaltender prior to 1994 - at times, very good - but not the best goaltender.
I get it, but this sort of argument could be applied across all the historical facts and stats.
ResilientBeast
Proud Member of the TTSAOA
Killion
Registered User
- Feb 19, 2010
- 36,763
- 3,215
Yeah, I get your point RB... Hockey is a game of many battles involving all of the players, its a game of mistakes & he who makes the least number of mistakes individually & collectively wins the game..... However..... Some games are referred to, called "A Battle of Goaltenders" or that "this game was a Battle Between the Goalies" when you have two evenly matched clubs, and the Goalie's as the Last Line of Defence coming up big time & time again. Playoff OT's for example. When its one-sided, one team superior to the other, the better team throwing everything but the kitchen sink at the opposing Goalie & getting stoned while your guy barely tested, thats not really a "Battle of Goaltenders", thats like Team Canada vs Hasek who single handedly beat a superior force.
Huh? I was talking about the relevance of H2H when comparing the 2 of the best guys. I see a big, big red herring dangling there. This is Roy vs. Florida 1996 all over again.
So how and when did Hasek become the best goalie in the world? Which bench was it? Or did it happen in Indianapolis?
At what age? 30?
Okay. Barely a starter till 30, a sudden and miraculous five-time Vezina winner from there. Makes much more sense than having even some not-so-good tournaments during the 80s and then getting choked in the NHL because of his style.
(Yeah, irony, because I saw this before.)
Yep. So why compare goalies, centers, wings, forwards and defensemen. It's always the team.
EDIT: I'm off, gentlemen. The first post conveyed what was in my mind, not into bickering. Everyone have a nice afternoon.
Last edited:
ResilientBeast
Proud Member of the TTSAOA
Ah, because I don't say Gretzky > Lemieux because Gretzky was more productive in the head to head matchups
I say that because Gretzky dominated his peers as a collective to a greater extent which is how I do my historical rankings.
ImporterExporter
"You're a boring old man"
This. 6 days a week and twice on Sunday's.
H2H is much more relevant in tennis, or even golf. I don't think there are many people who would argue otherwise.
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
Tim Thomas won the first of two Vezinas at 34. Martin Brodeur won the first of four at 30. Jacques Plante is slightly older than Terry Sawchuk, but it doesn't mean Terry Sawchuk can't reach his best earlier than Jacques Plante reaches his.
If you're legitimately the best goaltender in the world at a time when Patrick Roy and Kirk McLean are top-4 in Hart Voting and the only thing standing in your way is Jimmy Waite and an unsigned Ed Belfour, how do you end up in Indianapolis in the first place?
H2H comparisons are worse than worthless because usually they're only being made as the case for/against someone; essentially they're only brought up in the first place if the aim is to mislead.
Are there people who argue that Hasek was legitimately the best in the world in 1991? Seems like an attempt to extend his peak retroactively into the past.
I think you could make the argument that Hasek wasn't given a fair chance in Chicago because of his strange style (he had an 0.897 sv% over 13 games, so it's not like he was poor or even mediocre when he got a chance to play). But claiming he was secretly the best in the world or something at that time seems bizarre
Are there people who argue that Hasek was legitimately the best in the world in 1991? Seems like an attempt to extend his peak retroactively into the past.
I think you could make the argument that Hasek wasn't given a fair chance in Chicago because of his strange style (he had an 0.897 sv% over 13 games, so it's not like he was poor or even mediocre when he got a chance to play). But claiming he was secretly the best in the world or something at that time seems bizarre
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
We definitely don't see that "this part of the world simply needed a couple of years to catch up" argument too often anymore, but for whatever reason, it seems to go hand-in-hand with the head-to-head arguments.
Sentinel
Registered User
The only way I could disagree with this more is if you said that hockey is measured by statistics or the moon is made of cheese. I can't begin to tell you, how much I disagree with you.
50 H2H games is A HUGE sample size. The fact that no Roy (I get it, he is a Canadian icon) fan acknowledges his losses to Hasek when they went face to face doesn't change the fact that he did lose to Hasek.
Sure, hockey is a team game. It's beyond me, why goaltenders have "WINS" by their name on any stats site.
Oh, and Roy didn't just "lose" to Hasek in 98 and 02. He lost in such ways that will be FOREVER remembered by ANYONE who was alive in those years.
Johnny Engine
Moderator
- Jul 29, 2009
- 4,979
- 2,361
The only way I could disagree with this more is if you said that hockey is measured by statistics or the moon is made of cheese. I can't begin to tell you, how much I disagree with you.
50 H2H games is A HUGE sample size. The fact that no Roy (I get it, he is a Canadian icon) fan acknowledges his losses to Hasek when they went face to face doesn't change the fact that he did lose to Hasek.
Sure, hockey is a team game. It's beyond me, why goaltenders have "WINS" by their name on any stats site.
Oh, and Roy didn't just "lose" to Hasek in 98 and 02. He lost in such ways that will be FOREVER remembered by ANYONE who was alive in those years.
- What do you think statistics do, other than provide quantifiable information about the game? (aka, "measuring" it)
- Are WINS not a statistic?
The Panther
Registered User
Interesting list by the OP. It's reasonable, all things considered. (Certainly better than some of the published nonsense, like Stan Fischler's steaming piles of poo.)
For me, Patrick Roy is ranked a bit too high. Is he in my top-50? Yes, of course. But not in my top-10 and probably not top-20. Though I generally dislike the "perfect storm" type of nonsense arguments, I think Roy's context is noteworthy: he played the first half of his career on one of the few "defense-first" NHL teams of the late-80s/early-90s, and then just as that team was entering a decline he was traded to a dynasty-team on the rise, where he played out his years. Despite this, from age 27 to 35 he failed to be named 1st or 2nd-team All Star any season. (He also lost at the Olympics.)
Obviously, he had already done enough by age 26 to be one of the greats of his time, but... top 10 player of all-time? I don't see it.
I've come around to the thinking that Lidstrom deserves to be ranked higher than Bourque -- they're close enough to flip a coin over, but since Lidstrom has more Norrises and more Stanley Cups, I think he gets it. But that's a "whatever".
Anyway, interesting list.
For me, Patrick Roy is ranked a bit too high. Is he in my top-50? Yes, of course. But not in my top-10 and probably not top-20. Though I generally dislike the "perfect storm" type of nonsense arguments, I think Roy's context is noteworthy: he played the first half of his career on one of the few "defense-first" NHL teams of the late-80s/early-90s, and then just as that team was entering a decline he was traded to a dynasty-team on the rise, where he played out his years. Despite this, from age 27 to 35 he failed to be named 1st or 2nd-team All Star any season. (He also lost at the Olympics.)
Obviously, he had already done enough by age 26 to be one of the greats of his time, but... top 10 player of all-time? I don't see it.
I've come around to the thinking that Lidstrom deserves to be ranked higher than Bourque -- they're close enough to flip a coin over, but since Lidstrom has more Norrises and more Stanley Cups, I think he gets it. But that's a "whatever".
Anyway, interesting list.
Hasek went from a back up to a best goaltender in the world, virtually overnight, at the age of thirty.
Trying to give another example of something like this, you naturally failed.
Does Martin Brodeur really remind you of Hasek's career arc as to bring him up as an argument in this context? Did he go from a back up to a sudden Vezina winner?
Thomas would probably be closer, but not quite there, either. And hey, he was unorthodox too. Not sure whether you realize Thomas actually sorta underlines the Hasek rule I'm trying to wrap your brain around.
As for the bolded part, that's not really an argument against Hasek, is it. That's more of a proof how totally wrong people were about him from the start. The big difference between the man responsible for Hasek's stint in the AHL and you is that he would probably admit having been wrong by now.
Btw, that man had to start learning Chinese to get a gig these days. I wonder if you'll learn, too.
Canadiens1958
Registered User
Long List
Ignoring Hasek's Czech or International background and performance has a certain convenience. Internationally he was on a roller coaster, posted upthread. He was 26 when he came over to North America. So effectively four years to rise thru the ranks in NA including the IHL not the higher AHL..
In this context his performance is no different than George Hainsworth, Bill Durnan, Jacques Plante, Johnny Bower, Frank Brimsek, lesser degree Ed Giacomin, and a few others.
Martin Brodeur, initially thru midget and junior, then The AHL he was underplayed, sharing the workload with a slight majority of games. Jacques Lemaire saw that he had a workhorse, franchise cornerstone. Quite similar to Hasek in the Czech league where he was basically a one goalie system.
Ignoring Hasek's Czech or International background and performance has a certain convenience. Internationally he was on a roller coaster, posted upthread. He was 26 when he came over to North America. So effectively four years to rise thru the ranks in NA including the IHL not the higher AHL..
In this context his performance is no different than George Hainsworth, Bill Durnan, Jacques Plante, Johnny Bower, Frank Brimsek, lesser degree Ed Giacomin, and a few others.
Martin Brodeur, initially thru midget and junior, then The AHL he was underplayed, sharing the workload with a slight majority of games. Jacques Lemaire saw that he had a workhorse, franchise cornerstone. Quite similar to Hasek in the Czech league where he was basically a one goalie system.
ImporterExporter
"You're a boring old man"
Honestly, the fact that Brodeur handled such a ridiculous workload is something he doesn't get enough credit for.
Consider that Broduer started 70 or more games 12 times in his career (including 10 straight at one point and a high of 78). Roy and Hasek combined to do that exactly ONCE.
