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
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
Does anyone actually think that Roy got worse as a goalie after moving to the Avalanche?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...?
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.
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.
What? No, comparing head to head stats is irrelevant, too small sample size, too much variance