Round 2, Vote 1 (2009 update)

[RabbinsDuck]

I appreciate the efforts, but these things in no way relate to eachother.

Shutouts are far from an individual stat. The only goaltending stat that can be called individual is save percentage, and even that is still impacted by the team.

GAA are just a rehashing (inverse) of sv% with shots against (something that the goalie has no control over) thrown in. So yes, it has a lot to do with team. A lot more than assists. Immensely more than assists!

If anything, I can see goals and sv% loosely relating to eachother as "individual" stats. But assists and points (the sum of goals and assists) don't relate to GAA and shutouts in any theoretical way.

I applaud the efforts to compare Hasek's dominance to Hull's and I am open to the argument but the above is not very strong.

Yes, but assists and goals often have a lot to do with fellow players as well -- ultimately, if a player or goalie is consistently putting up good numbers in these areas, it is safe to assume they are individually gifted (like Hull and Hasek).

In Hasek's case, during his prime, it is easier to argue that his team hurt his GAA, rather than helped it. It is safe to say he played a very significant factor in the GAA average stat, especially during his years with the Sabres:

1994
Hasek 58 GP 1.95 GAA .930 SV%
Fuhr 32 GP 3.68 GAA .883% (+1.73)

1995
Hasek 41 GP 2.11 GAA .930 SV%
Stauber 6 GP 3.79 GAA .867 SV% (+1.68)
Fuhr 3 GP 4.00 GAA .859% (+1.89)

1996
Hasek 59 GP 2.83 GAA .920 SV%
Trefilov 22 GP 3.51 GAA .903 SV% (+.68)
Blue 5 GP 3.53 GAA .891 SV% (+.70)
Biron 3 GP 5.04 GAA .844 SV% (+2.21)
Shields 2 GP 3.20 GAA .875 SV% (+.37)

1997
Hasek 67 GP 2.27 GAA .930 SV%
Shields 13 GP 2.97 GAA .913 SV% (+.70)
Trefilov 3 GP 3.77 GAA .898% SV% (+1.50)

1998
Hasek 72 GP 2.09 GAA .932 SV%
Shields 16 GP 2.83 GAA .909 SV% (+.74)

1999
Hasek 64 GP 1.87 GAA .937 SV%
Roloson 18 GP 2.77 GAA .909 SV% (+.90)
Biron 6 GP 2.14 GAA .917 SV% (+.27)

2000
Hasek 35 GP 2.21 GAA .919 SV%
Biron 41 GP 2.42 GAA .909 SV% (+.21)
Roloson 14 GP 2.84 GAA .884 SV% (+.63)

2001
Hasek 67 GP 2.11 GAA .921 SV%
Biron 18 GP 2.55 GAA .909 SV% (+.44)
Norenen 1 GP 2.78 GAA .872 SV% (+.67)

Huge differences in GAA and SV%, every year. And his backups are not exactly chopped liver. These numbers strongly suggest the Sabers were a hindrance on Hasek's GAA (in addition to the fact they often led the league in shots allowed), and not a benefit, like it has been argued for other top goaltenders on strong teams. Broduer, for instance, often has very similar ind. statistics to his backup.

 

[overpass]

From 1950 to 1959, the top ten scorers (excluding Howe) were Lindsay, Richard, Geoffrion, Olmstead, Beliveau, Kelly, Sloan, Moore, Bathgate and Delvecchio.

From 1987 to 1996, the top ten scorers (excluding Lemieux) were Gretzky, Yzerman, Messier, Robitaille, Oates, Gilmour, Francis, Hawerchuk, Hull and Lafontaine.

Overall I think Howe faced slighlty tougher competition. Obviously Lemieux competed against Gretzky but Howe faced 7 players ranked in our previous list's top sixty (versus 3 for Lemieux). Howe faced 8 players on our top one hundred (versus 4 for Lemieux). I'd argue that Lemieux faced more star players (ie Hawerchuk, Oates, etc) but in terms of elite, generational talent (who would be most likely to actually compete with Howe for the Hart & Art Ross) Howe faced tougher competition.



Obviously it can't be denied that Howe played with good teammates, but I think you're exaggerating the impact it had. Howe & Lindsay played together in 1957; Howe scored 89 points (1st in league) and Lindsay scored 85 pts (2nd in league). Lindsay was traded to Chicago the next year and fell to just 39 points (31st in the league) while Howe lead the league in scoring on a per-game basis (though he finished 4th in the actual scoring race due to missing six games). When they split up, Howe still maintained Art Ross level production and only Lindsay showed any signs of slowing down.

Howe won the Art Ross in 1963 without Red Kelly, and won the Ross in 1957 when Kelly had an uncharacteristic off year. (Since we're talking about Howe vs Lemieux, it's worth mentioning that Lemieux had Coffey for a few of his Art Ross seasons).

Abel retired in 1952, so Howe still won four Art Ross trophies without him. (Of the two Art Ross trophies Howe won with him, Abel was 25 points behind in 1951 and 33 points behind in 1952, so it's unlikely Abel was the main reason for his success).

I think there's evidence that Sawchuk was at least partially a product of the Wings' strong defensive play, but I'll save that for another time.



Agreed that Mario dominated as much as any of the big four, but even if he was slightly better than Gretzky or Howe I don't think it makes up for either of their enormous advantage in consistency and longevity. FissionFire has already shown that, at the very least, Howe and Lemieux have comparable peaks -- but Howe was a Hart trophy finalist fifteen times while Lemieux only played 40+ games in a season thirteen times. Lemieux's peak advantage, if any, is very small and it just doesn't make up for Howe's massive advantage with so many Hart calibre seasons.

Good points all. For the record, I do have Howe over Lemieux due to consistency and length of prime, but I do think Lemieux has a case. I think Lemieux's best case is the old single game question "Which player do you take for one game?" That's hardly the only criterion, and Howe beats him by most other measures, but I think most fans would take Lemieux for the single game. If you consider that to be important enough, there's a case for him.

Regarding Howe's competition versus Lemieux's competition, I think the competition was a bit weaker in the first half of the 1950s than in the latter part of the decade. Howe's peak, where he was winning scoring titles by 20% or more, was clearly in the first half of the decade. Also, a significant percentage of the non-Howe star talent at the time was on Detroit, so he was essentially competing against a weaker league than Lemieux was. Of the 61 all-star spots from 1951 to 1955, Howe had 5, other Wings had 17, and the rest of the league had 39. That's almost a third of the non-Howe all-star spots on Detroit.

There's another important question about Howe's peak. Why did it end so early? Howe last ran away with the scoring title at the age of 25. After that, he was always in the top 5 and narrowly won twice. Essentially, his peak was over after the age of 25. He was still a terrific player after this, but any case that Howe's peak was better than Lemieux's rests on Howe's big seasons in his early 20s.

We know Bobby Orr's peak (and career) ended because of injuries. Gretzky fell off because of a combination of injuries, playing a ton of playoff games every year, and the rest of the league catching up. Lemieux never really dropped off, he just couldn't stay on the ice. Why did Howe drop off? I'm not aware of any injuries that affected his game at the time, if this was the case I'd like to know.

I think there were two things that changed for Howe. First, his team went from being historically dominant to being just another team. Second, a new generation of young players entered the league and gave Howe more competition. For example, in 1951-52 Howe led the league in scoring at the age of 23. Many of the other top scorers were quite a bit older and past their prime - 6 of the top 20 scorers were 30 or older. Only six years later, in 1957-58, Howe was the oldest player in the top 20 in scoring at the age of 29. A new generation had taken over the league, and Howe didn't stand head and shoulders above them as he had over his own age group.

Anyway, that's enough for me on Howe vs Lemieux, as I actually will probably have Howe above Lemieux. I just like discussing Howe's career trajectory.

Asides from the obvious that a goaltender is usually the most important player on the ice, I'd like to make a case that the top goaltender(s) easily belongs in the Top 10 of all-time, and could actually compete for that #5 spot most have Hull at.

I think it is a handy comparison between Hasek (whom I do consider the greatest goalie of all-time) and Hull because while Hull spent a portion of his career lighting up the WHA, Hasek spent a portion of career earning top goalie (5 times) and player (3 times) awards in Czechoslovakia.

Another thing about Hasek vs Hull - Hasek may have the edge in the playoffs also, which is not something you usually hear in a Hasek comparison.

 

[God Bless Canada]

Actually, Hasek's back-up were usually chopped liver. Roloson was a marginal NHL goalie at that time. Fuhr looked to be done in 1993-94 and 1995. Trefilov was a marginal NHL goalie (at best). Same with Blue. Shields was okay, and better than okay in the 1997 playoffs when Hasek quit on his team. Biron was fine. He kept the Sabres in the playoff picture in 1999-2000 when Hasek was injured.

And keep in mind the circumstances for when these goalies played. Usually it was in the second half of games in back-to-back nights. You usually didn't see Shields start on Wednesday at home in Boston when the Sabres had played at home two nights earlier again Montreal, and then had a Saturday game in Toronto. Shields, Roloson, Trefilov - they usually played in Anaheim Thursday after the Sharks had been in San Jose on Wednesday. Or they played the third period of a game during one of Hasek's (very) rare off nights, when it was 5-1 entering the third period. And the back-ups usually only had a couple of starts a month - not exactly an ideal situation for a goalie. Most goalies will tell you they want as many starts as possible.

One last note on Hasek: he hated it when his teammates blocked shots. He wanted to have a clear shot at the puck from the moment it left an opponent's stick. He didn't want to risk having a puck deflect off of a teammate's stick, skate or any other piece of equipment. If the Sabres were encouraged to block shots during the Hasek era, it probably would have cut down on the number of shots he faced.

But I'm sure your stats told you that.

Hasek was a truly remarkable goalie, one of the defining players of his generation. Teams are always searching for the next Hasek. He's probably the most aggressive goalie to ever play, and he had the skills and the swagger to match his aggression. My issue with him is nothing that will be found in any of the statistical smoke. My issue with Hasek is that he quit on his team three times, including twice in the playoffs (1997 and 2006). And he allowed himself to become a distraction in the playoffs. That's why he should be below Plante, Roy and Sawchuk. When it comes to goaltender, one of the single-most important traits is reliabililty. You need to know that your goalie is going to be there for you when the hockey matters most. And Hasek wasn't always there for his team when it came down to crunch time. It's not just a performance thing - every goalie is had a playoff hiccup. It's a showing up thing.

 

[God Bless Canada]

Good points all. For the record, I do have Howe over Lemieux due to consistency and length of prime, but I do think Lemieux has a case. I think Lemieux's best case is the old single game question "Which player do you take for one game?" That's hardly the only criterion, and Howe beats him by most other measures, but I think most fans would take Lemieux for the single game. If you consider that to be important enough, there's a case for him.

Regarding Howe's competition versus Lemieux's competition, I think the competition was a bit weaker in the first half of the 1950s than in the latter part of the decade. Howe's peak, where he was winning scoring titles by 20% or more, was clearly in the first half of the decade. Also, a significant percentage of the non-Howe star talent at the time was on Detroit, so he was essentially competing against a weaker league than Lemieux was. Of the 61 all-star spots from 1951 to 1955, Howe had 5, other Wings had 17, and the rest of the league had 39. That's almost a third of the non-Howe all-star spots on Detroit.

There's another important question about Howe's peak. Why did it end so early? Howe last ran away with the scoring title at the age of 25. After that, he was always in the top 5 and narrowly won twice. Essentially, his peak was over at age 25. Why was this? We know Bobby Orr's peak (and career) ended because of injuries. Gretzky fell off because of a combination of injuries, playing a ton of playoff games every year, and the rest of the league catching up. Lemieux never really dropped off, he just couldn't stay on the ice. Why did Howe drop off? I'm not aware of any injuries that affected his game at the time, if this was the case I'd like to know.

I think there were two things that changed for Howe. First, his team went from being historically dominant to being just another team. Second, a new generation of young players entered the league and gave Howe more competition. For example, in 1951-52 Howe led the league in scoring at the age of 23. Many of the other top scorers were quite a bit older and past their prime - 6 of the top 20 scorers were 30 or older. Only six years later, in 1957-58, Howe was the oldest player in the top 20 in scoring at the age of 29. A new generation had taken over the league, and Howe didn't stand head and shoulders above them as he had over his own age group.

Anyway, that's enough for me on Howe vs Lemieux, as I actually will probably have Howe above Lemieux. I just like discussing Howe's career trajectory.

One very simple reason why I take Howe over Lemieux for "just one game," which, to me, means a Game 7 situation. Howe could be the best player on the ice without registering a point. I don't think you could say the same thing about Mario. That's not a slight against Mario, but he wasn't a factor beyond the offensive side of the game. If Mario doesn't have a point, then it's probably one of the rare nights when he's floating. If Howe doesn't have a point, he's still going to be a dominant physical force, and an impact player in the "dirty areas" on the ice.

 

[BM67]

I love your numbers as always, but I think more people would be more receptive to them if they didn't look so....... numbery.

I am sure you understand what significant figures are. You can stand to cut off all of the above numbers at two decimal places. The rest of the digits after that do nothing but convolute the results.

I give you Bobby Hull's and Mike Bossy's AG2 numbers: 0.954118 and 0.954450.

Ray Bourque's and Eddie Shore's G2 5 numbers would be identical at 2 decimal places.

Most of the time the extra digits are unnecessary, but not all of the time.

 

[overpass]

I give you Bobby Hull's and Mike Bossy's AG2 numbers: 0.954118 and 0.954450.

Ray Bourque's and Eddie Shore's G2 5 numbers would be identical at 2 decimal places.

Most of the time the extra digits are unnecessary, but not all of the time.

There's no reason that we have to know that Bossy's AG2 number is 0.000332 better than Hull's. The point of significant digits is that there is no meaningful difference between the two; they are essentially equal.

The numbers are great, by the way, thanks for those.

 

[seventieslord]

I give you Bobby Hull's and Mike Bossy's AG2 numbers: 0.954118 and 0.954450.

Ray Bourque's and Eddie Shore's G2 5 numbers would be identical at 2 decimal places.

Most of the time the extra digits are unnecessary, but not all of the time.

There's no reason that we have to know that Bossy's AG2 number is 0.000332 better than Hull's. The point of significant digits is that there is no meaningful difference between the two; they are essentially equal.

The numbers are great, by the way, thanks for those.

Exactly.

And I agree, thanks for the good work, as always.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Counterpoint

Although I kind of see your point and agree with you on Patrick being a good influence, I can't agree with everything you say.

I'll be blunt: Would you say that the calmer Shore (no pun intended) was a great player? Is one conclusion of your argument that the more dominant Shore was great, but that his peak years aren't enough to overshadow Harvey's career?

More importantly, I still think you are seeing individual efforts in winning Cups as more important than they are, as one player can't win it on his own. That even goes for Gretzky, Howe, Orr and Lemieux.

When competition is fairly equal like in the 1930's NHL it is not a question of winning but losing. An elite player who stays out of the penalty box may not win the Stanley Cup for you but staying out of the penalty box will improve the team's chances. On the other hand an elite player who takes too many penalties or gets suspended like Maurice Richard for the complete 1955 playoffs will lose a Stanley Cup for his team because he has to be replaced by a weaker player.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Hasek was a truly remarkable goalie, one of the defining players of his generation. Teams are always searching for the next Hasek. He's probably the most aggressive goalie to ever play, and he had the skills and the swagger to match his aggression. My issue with him is nothing that will be found in any of the statistical smoke. My issue with Hasek is that he quit on his team three times, including twice in the playoffs (1997 and 2006). And he allowed himself to become a distraction in the playoffs. That's why he should be below Plante, Roy and Sawchuk. When it comes to goaltender, one of the single-most important traits is reliabililty. You need to know that your goalie is going to be there for you when the hockey matters most. And Hasek wasn't always there for his team when it came down to crunch time. It's not just a performance thing - every goalie is had a playoff hiccup. It's a showing up thing.

I disagree that Sawchuk should be ahead of Hasek (I Sawchuck 5th after Brodeur due to his lack of success - both individual and team - outside the early 50s dynasty), but I do agree with the general gist of what you say and have Roy and Plante ahead of Hasek. I like to say that it's the scorer's job is to win games, and the goalie's job not to lose them. A goalie, especially in the playoffs, is primarily there to be reliable, so the scorers can score enough to win games. And like you said, Hasek has had some famous flameouts with multiple teams.

Calling Hasek the Gretzky/Lemieux of goaltenders is unsupportable. He's more like the Jagr of goaltenders, whereas Roy is like the Messier. Hasek, like Jagr, has spectacular regular season stats, far better than anyone in his time. But he has more negatives associated with him than any other top goalie, just like Jagr has more negatives associated with him than any other top skater. Roy/Messier is the one with the well-deserved aura of being a champion. And reasonable people can certainly prefer either Messier/Jagr or Roy/Hasek over the other.

Seriously, can you imagine Gretzky/Lemieux/Orr/Howe being booed by their own fans for an entire season like Hasek was in Buffalo?

There is also the point that the people pointing to Hasek's raw statistics need to adjust for era. The dead puck era was home to the highest save percentages since it became an officially recorded stat, certainly much higher than the late 80s/early 90s when Roy had his regular season peak.

If you look at Roy's save % during his regular season peak, he was beating the competition by a level almost as high as Hasek. (I can find the numbers later if anyone requests them, but it was posted on this forum not that long ago). Certainly, the difference wasn't enough to make Hasek some transcendent superstar like the goaltender equivalent of Gretzky.

If Hasek is the Gretzky of goaltending in the regular season, then Roy is the Gretzky of goaltending in the playoffs. If anything, I think Roy has a better case for playing at a level that transcends a normal superstar.

What helped make Gretzky, Orr, Lemieux so special is they had playoff performances where they were as unstoppable as during the regular season. Two Conn Smythes each (and Gretzky would have had at least 3 if the writers weren't desperate to give someone else credit when they gave the first to Messier). Wayne Gretzky had 4 of the top 5 scoring playoffs of all time. The only goalie who can come close to that many dominant playoff performances is Patrick Roy, with his 3 CSs and 4 absolutely dominant playoff performances.

Was there ever a goaltender who had such a psychological effect on both his team and the other team in the playoffs? Was there another goalie in NHL history who was the first or second most important player on a Stanley Cup team 4 times? Sawchuk and Plante are the only guys who even have a case, and it's certainly debatable whether either was in the Top 2 in any give year. And the fact that Roy did it in the post-dynasty era with 20-30 teams makes it even more impressive. This isn't to say Hasek was a bad playoff performer at all (you could reasonable call him Top 10), but he wasn't close to Roy in that regards. Nobody was.

Morenz vs. the field for #10:
Originally, I had Roy at #8 as the only goaltender in my Top 10. I feel the gap between him and anyone else in the playoffs is higher than the gap between the #1 regular season goalie and anyone else. I'm considering dropping him to #11 and putting Morenz in the Top 10, for the simple fact that there is no consensus #1 goalie, whereas there is a pretty good consensus that Morenz was the best forward in the league for the decades before Richard and Howe hit the scene. Plante and Hasek are likely to be in my top 15, as well.

 

[ContrarianGoaltender]

In the same breath, we should be voting in goalies for the sake of having a goalie in the top 10. If you think Plante is good enough to be in the top 10, it should be on his own merits. It shouldn't be because you feel the need to have a goalie.

I'm not a voter, and I agree that one shouldn't vote a goalie in the top 10 just for the sake of doing so, but I find it a bit curious that no goalies ended up in the top 10 last time around. Don't you think the fact that no goalie got rated that high might be a sign that goalies are getting underrated? It's a similar argument to the one that certain dynasties are overrepresented because they have a 5 players in the top 50. I'm sure nobody is using quotas or trying to balance positions or team representation while they are voting, but that still doesn't mean the final result can't be biased in one way or another.

It doesn't seem plausible to me that there are 6-7 forwards and 3-4 defencemen better than the best goalie ever. Especially since goalie is the most important position in hockey. Wouldn't it be kind of strange if someone made a top 10 list of the best football players ever and didn't include a single quarterback? Whether you prefer Hasek, Roy, Plante or whoever as the best goalie, how does that guy not even make the top 10?

I think skater performance is easier to observe and less team dependent than goalie performance, which makes it tougher to analyze. I'm not sure that comparing different stat categories is the way to go, I'd rather try to express both results in a common currency.

I'm going to try to compare the peaks of Bobby Hull and Dominik Hasek, as was done earlier in this thread. If we look at the cutoff level for first line forwards by taking the number of teams in the league times 3 (e.g. in the Original Six, the 18th best scorer), we can get an estimate of what kind of production a player is going to get simply by virtue of getting first-line ice time. That can be used to compare to Bobby Hull's production to see how much additional production he contributes. We can then calculate how many goals Hasek saves compared to an average goalie by comparing his save percentage to league average and multiplying by the number of shots against.

I calculated the results for 8 peak seasons for each of them, 1962-1969 for Hull and 1994-2001 for Hasek.

From 1962-1969, the 18th or 36th best forward in the league averaged 22 goals and 51 points. Bobby Hull averaged 46 goals and 83 points. Therefore, Hull produced 24 more goals and 32 more points than can be expected for a player with first-line minutes.

From 1994-2001, Dominik Hasek's save percentage was .928, compared to the league average of .909. Over 13,650 shots Hasek saved 259 more goals than average, which is 32 goals per season.

This is just an attempt to approximate the level of dominance for both players, with no attempt made to account for variables like linemates, ice time, shot quality, league talent level, etc. But I'd put Hasek on about the same level as Hull in terms of his contribution to his team winning games. This is further suggested by the fact that they have almost identical career Hart Trophy voting shares, something that is actually in Hasek's favour since it is much harder to get Hart votes as a goalie than as a forward. I'd probably rank Hull ahead of Hasek, but I think the Dominator deserves a look in the top 8.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I'm not a voter, and I agree that one shouldn't vote a goalie in the top 10 just for the sake of doing so, but I find it a bit curious that no goalies ended up in the top 10 last time around. Don't you think the fact that no goalie got rated that high might be a sign that goalies are getting underrated? It's a similar argument to the one that certain dynasties are overrepresented because they have a 5 players in the top 50. I'm sure nobody is using quotas or trying to balance positions or team representation while they are voting, but that still doesn't mean the final result can't be biased in one way or another.

Until Roy, there was very little glamor in goalending (at least compared to other positions), so it's no surprise that the best athletes chose to be scoring forwards or defensemen who could move the puck / join the rush.

Also, you could say that no goalies in the top 10 would make them underrepresented, but we are likely to have 6 goalies in the top 30, which would make them overrepresented. I think this is a fair result, as there is no consensus #1 goalie, but a group of 6 or 7 who are considered above the rest.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

It doesn't seem plausible to me that there are 6-7 forwards and 3-4 defencemen better than the best goalie ever. Especially since goalie is the most important position in hockey. Wouldn't it be kind of strange if someone made a top 10 list of the best football players ever and didn't include a single quarterback? Whether you prefer Hasek, Roy, Plante or whoever as the best goalie, how does that guy not even make the top 10?

I think that's exactly the issue. There seems to be a strong consensus about the top four defensemen of all-time, and a fairly strong consensus about at least the top six forwards of all-time. There seems to be a three-way split between Hasek, Plante and Roy for the title of greatest goalie. Every voter might have (at least) one goalie in their top ten, but there might not be a single goalie in the actual top ten list because those votes are split three ways.

For example even if everyone thought that the best goalie of all-time should rank ahead of Beliveau, Le Gros Bill would still probably rank ahead of all goalies on our final list because some would put Hasek first, but others would put Roy, and others would put Plante.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

Actually, Hasek's back-up were usually chopped liver. Roloson was a marginal NHL goalie at that time. Fuhr looked to be done in 1993-94 and 1995. Trefilov was a marginal NHL goalie (at best). Same with Blue. Shields was okay, and better than okay in the 1997 playoffs when Hasek quit on his team. Biron was fine. He kept the Sabres in the playoff picture in 1999-2000 when Hasek was injured.

And keep in mind the circumstances for when these goalies played. Usually it was in the second half of games in back-to-back nights. You usually didn't see Shields start on Wednesday at home in Boston when the Sabres had played at home two nights earlier again Montreal, and then had a Saturday game in Toronto. Shields, Roloson, Trefilov - they usually played in Anaheim Thursday after the Sharks had been in San Jose on Wednesday. Or they played the third period of a game during one of Hasek's (very) rare off nights, when it was 5-1 entering the third period. And the back-ups usually only had a couple of starts a month - not exactly an ideal situation for a goalie. Most goalies will tell you they want as many starts as possible.

And those points are true for all goaltenders and their backups in the league (except when you have a tandem going) -- I challenge you to find me another modern, elite goalie who beat his backups by such a significant amount on a consistent, year-to-year basis.

In the years Roy led the league in GAA, his backups (Hayward, Melanson and Aebischer) were +.43, +.32 and -.10 GAA compared to Roy.

Last year Brodeur's backups actually had the chance to put in more games than Brodeur:
Brodeur: 19-9-3 2.42 GAA .916 SV%
Backups: 32-18-1 2.40 GAA .918 SV%

From 1994-2001, Hasek's backups were 79-95-21, with a 2.96 GAA and a .900 save percentage. Brodeur's backups were 58-62-12 with a 2.63 GAA and a .900 save percentage, facing 3.4 fewer shots per game. Hasek has outperformed his backups by a much larger degree than Brodeur and Roy.

One last note on Hasek: he hated it when his teammates blocked shots. He wanted to have a clear shot at the puck from the moment it left an opponent's stick. He didn't want to risk having a puck deflect off of a teammate's stick, skate or any other piece of equipment. If the Sabres were encouraged to block shots during the Hasek era, it probably would have cut down on the number of shots he faced.

But I'm sure your stats told you that.

I've heard this excuse before as a way to try and drag down Hasek's incredibly high save percentages -- it sounds extremely flimsy and pretty much has nothing to back it up.

Did Hasek "demand" this his first season as a starter in Buffalo, when he led the league with a .930 SV%? Or did it come later?

Even if you somehow show me the Sabres never blocked shots during all 9 years Hasek was there, you are going to then have to show me some sort of evidence that there is any correlation between Save percentage and blocked shots whatsoever.

Hasek was a truly remarkable goalie, one of the defining players of his generation. Teams are always searching for the next Hasek. He's probably the most aggressive goalie to ever play, and he had the skills and the swagger to match his aggression. My issue with him is nothing that will be found in any of the statistical smoke. My issue with Hasek is that he quit on his team three times, including twice in the playoffs (1997 and 2006). And he allowed himself to become a distraction in the playoffs. That's why he should be below Plante, Roy and Sawchuk. When it comes to goaltender, one of the single-most important traits is reliabililty. You need to know that your goalie is going to be there for you when the hockey matters most. And Hasek wasn't always there for his team when it came down to crunch time. It's not just a performance thing - every goalie is had a playoff hiccup. It's a showing up thing.

Yes, because Roy and Sawchuk were solid as a rock when it came to temperment and getting along with their teamates and coaches.

I'd almost be alarmed if my starting goalie wasn't a complete basketcase.

 

[ContrarianGoaltender]

For example even if everyone thought that the best goalie of all-time should rank ahead of Beliveau, Le Gros Bill would still probably rank ahead of all goalies on our final list because some would put Hasek first, but others would put Roy, and others would put Plante.

Sure, it's pretty clear that vote splitting is pushing guys down the list, but I would just expect that pretty much everyone would have at least one goalie in their own top 10 list, but there seems to be some lists without any goalies.

 

[God Bless Canada]

A simple question: did Roy or Sawchuk ever quit on their team in the playoffs? Roy quit on the Habs in 1995-96, but that was in December, not in April. Roy wasn't level-headed. Neither was Sawchuk. But they never quit on their teams during the most important hockey of the season.

I don't think there's been a modern, elite goalie who had such an abysmal collection of back-ups as Hasek. Outside of Biron and possibly Shields he never had a goalie who was playing at a high level at that stage in his career. (Roloson didn't start to play like a good NHL goalie until he got to Minnesota). Roy had Hayward. Hayward was widely considered one of the top back-ups in the league for four or five years. Brodeur had Chris Terreri (solid) and Mike Dunham (very solid).

Hasek didn't like his teammates to block shots. Period. And it did increase the number of shots he faced. Period. But it doesn't affect his legacy one bit to me. When I think of the Hasek legacy, it's an ultra-aggressive, ultra-cocky (not a bad thing) goalie who had the mindset that with his skills and quickness, he could stop anything and everything. It meant he never gave up on a play. And that's why he led the league in save percentage all those years.

And those points are true for all goaltenders and their backups in the league (except when you have a tandem going) -- I challenge you to find me another modern, elite goalie who beat his backups by such a significant amount on a consistent, year-to-year basis.

In the years Roy led the league in GAA, his backups (Hayward, Melanson and Aebischer) were +.43, +.32 and -.10 GAA compared to Roy.

Last year Brodeur's backups actually had the chance to put in more games than Brodeur:
Brodeur: 19-9-3 2.42 GAA .916 SV%
Backups: 32-18-1 2.40 GAA .918 SV%

From 1994-2001, Hasek's backups were 79-95-21, with a 2.96 GAA and a .900 save percentage. Brodeur's backups were 58-62-12 with a 2.63 GAA and a .900 save percentage, facing 3.4 fewer shots per game. Hasek has outperformed his backups by a much larger degree than Brodeur and Roy.


I've heard this excuse before as a way to try and drag down Hasek's incredibly high save percentages -- it sounds extremely flimsy and pretty much has nothing to back it up.

Did Hasek "demand" this his first season as a starter in Buffalo, when he led the league with a .930 SV%? Or did it come later?

Even if you somehow show me the Sabres never blocked shots during all 9 years Hasek was there, you are going to then have to show me some sort of evidence that there is any correlation between Save percentage and blocked shots whatsoever.



Yes, because Roy and Sawchuk were solid as a rock when it came to temperment and getting along with their teamates and coaches.

I'd almost be alarmed if my starting goalie wasn't a complete basketcase.

 

[MXD]

As for Shore's teams lack of playoff success compared to the regular season, remember that Shore played in a time where the top 2 teams/division winners met in the first round of the playoffs. Being first generally got you the hardest first round series.

Actually, there is already somebody wearing the goat horns of Bruins failures in the playoff. But it would be a little irrelevant to talk about this now.

Suffice to say that I do not punish the whole Bruins squad for lack of playoffs success -- because it's indeed how it's possible to describe them during that era, as they were really the best team during that decade. And they started earning success when a certain center and a certain goalie joined their squad.

 

[seventieslord]

I've heard this excuse before as a way to try and drag down Hasek's incredibly high save percentages -- it sounds extremely flimsy and pretty much has nothing to back it up.

Did Hasek "demand" this his first season as a starter in Buffalo, when he led the league with a .930 SV%? Or did it come later?

Even if you somehow show me the Sabres never blocked shots during all 9 years Hasek was there, you are going to then have to show me some sort of evidence that there is any correlation between Save percentage and blocked shots whatsoever.

Solid points.

I think what GBC is getting at is, Hasek managed to have such a great sv% partially due to his teammates letting more shots get through by not blocking them. But if this is the case, it means that they were low percentage shots that were easy to stop, and Buffalo's defensive record was always great despite the higher shot totals, then it would tell us shot-blocking as a whole is not a good idea.

Yes, because Roy and Sawchuk were solid as a rock when it came to temperment and getting along with their teamates and coaches.

I'd almost be alarmed if my starting goalie wasn't a complete basketcase.

Practically all goalies were flaky in some way or another. The only one I can think of off the top of my head in the top-10 who wasn't, was Brodeur.

The flakiness always comes into play when discussing where to place goalies among the skaters. Hasek, for example, would be a solid #1 goalie and #5-6 overall player if it wasn't for his failures of character at a couple junctures of his career. As it is, he's "one of the top-3" according to most people and a #8-15 overall.

Another thing is that all goalies have had some ups and downs. Beliveau, Harvey, Shore, Richard, Hull... they always kicked ass, year in, year out. But Plante looked like he was losing it one year in Montreal before winning the Hart. Then he looked mighty average in New York. Then he flamed out in the playoffs in his 40s even though he put up great regular season numbers. Roy let in some bad long shots. Lost some series he shouldn't have. Lost a few critical game 7s late in his career. Hasek supposedly quit on his team twice. Got a coach fired. Sawchuk was mediocre for much of the late 50s and 60s, with flashes of greatness. Hall followed up many excellent seasons with many disappointing playoffs. And so on.

So, do we penalize this when judging a goalie next to a skater? Or do we accept that having ups and downs, and being flaky, is just par for the course as far as goalies go, and "adjust" this aspect of their legacies?

It's something I've struggled with recently. I don't know the answer. I had Hasek/Roy/Plante at 10-11-12 on my submission but I'm open to changing that.

 

[MXD]

1994
Hasek 58 GP 1.95 GAA .930 SV%
Fuhr 32 GP 3.68 GAA .883% (+1.73)

1995
Hasek 41 GP 2.11 GAA .930 SV%
Stauber 6 GP 3.79 GAA .867 SV% (+1.68)
Fuhr 3 GP 4.00 GAA .859% (+1.89)

1996
Hasek 59 GP 2.83 GAA .920 SV%
Trefilov 22 GP 3.51 GAA .903 SV% (+.68)
Blue 5 GP 3.53 GAA .891 SV% (+.70)
Biron 3 GP 5.04 GAA .844 SV% (+2.21)
Shields 2 GP 3.20 GAA .875 SV% (+.37)

1997
Hasek 67 GP 2.27 GAA .930 SV%
Shields 13 GP 2.97 GAA .913 SV% (+.70)
Trefilov 3 GP 3.77 GAA .898% SV% (+1.50)

1998
Hasek 72 GP 2.09 GAA .932 SV%
Shields 16 GP 2.83 GAA .909 SV% (+.74)

1999
Hasek 64 GP 1.87 GAA .937 SV%
Roloson 18 GP 2.77 GAA .909 SV% (+.90)
Biron 6 GP 2.14 GAA .917 SV% (+.27)

2000
Hasek 35 GP 2.21 GAA .919 SV%
Biron 41 GP 2.42 GAA .909 SV% (+.21)
Roloson 14 GP 2.84 GAA .884 SV% (+.63)

2001
Hasek 67 GP 2.11 GAA .921 SV%
Biron 18 GP 2.55 GAA .909 SV% (+.44)
Norenen 1 GP 2.78 GAA .872 SV% (+.67)

Huge differences in GAA and SV%, every year. And his backups are not exactly chopped liver. These numbers strongly suggest the Sabres were a hindrance on Hasek's GAA (in addition to the fact they often led the league in shots allowed), and not a benefit, like it has been argued for other top goaltenders on strong teams. Broduer, for instance, often has very similar ind. statistics to his backup.

Well, with the notable exception of Fuhr, who was post-prime anyways, I see lots of chopping liver in that group, including a guy that might just be one of the five worst goaltenders to earn an NHL regular job in the 90ies (Stauber). Actually, the 1993 finals was a big mismatch between the pipes, but the respective backups were IMO fairly equals...

 

[God Bless Canada]

I think there are a few reasons why there isn't a goalie in the top 10.

For one thing, there isn't a consensus No. 1 goalie of all-time. Ask 10 people here for their No. 1, you'll get at least six answers: Plante because of the rings and the overall impact on the game (note: he's my pick); Roy because of the playoff performances; Sawchuk because of the wins, the records and the longevity; Hall because of the record first-team all-star births; Hasek because of the regular season dominance; and Brodeur because of the consistency, the longevity and the records. You might get a different answer, such as Tretiak (who is usually either wildly underrated or overrated) or Dryden (who had an absolutely incredible run of success, but didn't have much longevity, and was never viewed as the best player in the game). Bernie Parent might have had the best two-year run of all, even better than Hasek's, but doesn't have anything spectacular beyond that two-year run.

And it seems like every goalie has a detraction. Roy never really beat Hasek for individual team awards. Hasek quit on his teams. Sawchuk's numbers fell after the Red Wings dynasty ended. (Although I would say that has more to do with the departures of Lindsay and Kelly than Sawchuk's play). Brodeur and Hall have been/were hit or miss in the playoffs. Plante struggled somewhat after the Habs dynasty ended (although he was in his 30s at the time).

I think if there was that one clear-cut No. 1 goalie of all-time, there would be a better chance of having him in the top 10 players ever, not just on an aggregate list, but on individual lists. But there isn't. So it comes down to each voter's bias - what they seek or prefer in a goalie, and they don't like in a goalie.

The other reason is that goaltending has been more cyclical than any other position. It's a position that has had some wild swings over the years. And when you had an all-time great goalie, the competition was usually stacked. Plante had Sawchuk and Hall as competition. (And Johnny Bower, for that matter, a guy I have in my top 10). Hasek had Brodeur and Roy as competition.

 

[lextune]

^An excellent post.

Well said.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I think there are a few reasons why there isn't a goalie in the top 10.

For one thing, there isn't a consensus No. 1 goalie of all-time. Ask 10 people here for their No. 1, you'll get at least six answers: Plante because of the rings and the overall impact on the game (note: he's my pick); Roy because of the playoff performances; Sawchuk because of the wins, the records and the longevity; Hall because of the record first-team all-star births; Hasek because of the regular season dominance; and Brodeur because of the consistency, the longevity and the records. You might get a different answer, such as Tretiak (who is usually either wildly underrated or overrated) or Dryden (who had an absolutely incredible run of success, but didn't have much longevity, and was never viewed as the best player in the game). Bernie Parent might have had the best two-year run of all, even better than Hasek's, but doesn't have anything spectacular beyond that two-year run.

And it seems like every goalie has a detraction. Roy never really beat Hasek for individual team awards. Hasek quit on his teams. Sawchuk's numbers fell after the Red Wings dynasty ended. (Although I would say that has more to do with the departures of Lindsay and Kelly than Sawchuk's play). Brodeur and Hall have been/were hit or miss in the playoffs. Plante struggled somewhat after the Habs dynasty ended (although he was in his 30s at the time).

I think if there was that one clear-cut No. 1 goalie of all-time, there would be a better chance of having him in the top 10 players ever, not just on an aggregate list, but on individual lists. But there isn't. So it comes down to each voter's bias - what they seek or prefer in a goalie, and they don't like in a goalie.

The other reason is that goaltending has been more cyclical than any other position. It's a position that has had some wild swings over the years. And when you had an all-time great goalie, the competition was usually stacked. Plante had Sawchuk and Hall as competition. (And Johnny Bower, for that matter, a guy I have in my top 10). Hasek had Brodeur and Roy as competition.

I'm starting to think of the goalies in tiers and how that fits them into the Top 100. I'd be satisfied with Tier 1 (Roy, Plante, Hasek) in the 11-20 range, Tier 2 (Brodeur, Sawchuk) in 21-30, Tier 3 (Hall, Dryden, Tretiak) in 31-40. (Yes, I know most probably have Hall in Tier 2, but it's obviously too early to get into that in detail. For now, we are only discussing the Tier 1 guys).

Originally, I was of the mindset that I was putting the best goalie of all time (Roy in my mind) no lower than 8th, but I might be coming around to change my mind on that one.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

I think there are a few reasons why there isn't a goalie in the top 10.

For one thing, there isn't a consensus No. 1 goalie of all-time. Ask 10 people here for their No. 1, you'll get at least six answers: Plante because of the rings and the overall impact on the game (note: he's my pick); Roy because of the playoff performances; Sawchuk because of the wins, the records and the longevity; Hall because of the record first-team all-star births; Hasek because of the regular season dominance; and Brodeur because of the consistency, the longevity and the records. You might get a different answer, such as Tretiak (who is usually either wildly underrated or overrated) or Dryden (who had an absolutely incredible run of success, but didn't have much longevity, and was never viewed as the best player in the game). Bernie Parent might have had the best two-year run of all, even better than Hasek's, but doesn't have anything spectacular beyond that two-year run.

And it seems like every goalie has a detraction. Roy never really beat Hasek for individual team awards. Hasek quit on his teams. Sawchuk's numbers fell after the Red Wings dynasty ended. (Although I would say that has more to do with the departures of Lindsay and Kelly than Sawchuk's play). Brodeur and Hall have been/were hit or miss in the playoffs. Plante struggled somewhat after the Habs dynasty ended (although he was in his 30s at the time).

I think if there was that one clear-cut No. 1 goalie of all-time, there would be a better chance of having him in the top 10 players ever, not just on an aggregate list, but on individual lists. But there isn't. So it comes down to each voter's bias - what they seek or prefer in a goalie, and they don't like in a goalie.

The other reason is that goaltending has been more cyclical than any other position. It's a position that has had some wild swings over the years. And when you had an all-time great goalie, the competition was usually stacked. Plante had Sawchuk and Hall as competition. (And Johnny Bower, for that matter, a guy I have in my top 10). Hasek had Brodeur and Roy as competition.

Makes sense, and it's weird the 3 each were in the same era, though it does make comparisons easier.

For me, it just seems obvious Hasek is the pretty clear leader of the modern goalies and Plante of the old-timers -- and it would be nice to work from there.

I have never been convinced Hasek "quit" on any team, and his competitive drive is rarely questioned. Is this really what is holding a lot of people back from placing him higher on their lists? Hasek assualted a journalist for making that assumption - so I doubt he was "making a statement" by sitting out. The guy literally can not stay retired, for goodness sakes.

 

[seventieslord]

^^Agree. The "quitting" thing is a tad overblown. And Hasek has always been known as a big-time competitor. The guy is 44 now, and STILL wants to play.

 

[ContrarianGoaltender]

I don't think there's been a modern, elite goalie who had such an abysmal collection of back-ups as Hasek. Outside of Biron and possibly Shields he never had a goalie who was playing at a high level at that stage in his career. (Roloson didn't start to play like a good NHL goalie until he got to Minnesota). Roy had Hayward. Hayward was widely considered one of the top back-ups in the league for four or five years. Brodeur had Chris Terreri (solid) and Mike Dunham (very solid).

What? To me Hasek's backups look easily better than Roy's, and probably better than Brodeur's as well. Over 80% of the games played by Hasek's backups in Buffalo were by future or past starting goalies (Fuhr, Shields, Roloson, Biron). In contrast, Terreri and Dunham make up only about half of Brodeur's backup sample, and Hayward is only about a quarter of Roy's. You can't point out Andrei Trefilov and John Blue while ignoring the likes of Andre "Red Light" Racicot and Corey Schwab.

Roy's backups in Montreal almost to a man did way better as a Hab than when they played in other cities. That certainly includes Hayward, who did far better in Montreal (.889) than everywhere else (.862). Was he a top backup, or was Montreal a top defensive team? And then there was 68 games of stellar .880 play from Racicot, as well as Craig Billington and David Aebischer in Colorado. Still, Roy did not overperform his backups by anywhere close to the margin that Hasek did.

A simple question: did Roy or Sawchuk ever quit on their team in the playoffs? Roy quit on the Habs in 1995-96, but that was in December, not in April. Roy wasn't level-headed. Neither was Sawchuk. But they never quit on their teams during the most important hockey of the season.

I'm not convinced Hasek ever did actually quit on his team. Seems to me that case rests on a lot of hearsay and conjecture, and is nowhere near solidly established enough to be a reason to be knocking guys down on an all-time ranking list.

I have another simple question: Did Hasek ever lose an early round playoff series to a much lower seeded team? That's something he actually never did once in his entire career. That's not something any of the other guys can say. You can argue about how reliable he was in terms of suiting up for the game, but when he made it out to the crease he was very reliable.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Makes sense, and it's weird the 3 each were in the same era, though it does make comparisons easier.

For me, it just seems obvious Hasek is the pretty clear leader of the modern goalies and Plante of the old-timers -- and it would be nice to work from there.

I have never been convinced Hasek "quit" on any team, and his competitive drive is rarely questioned. Is this really what is holding a lot of people back from placing him higher on their lists? Hasek assualted a journalist for making that assumption - so I doubt he was "making a statement" by sitting out. The guy literally can not stay retired, for goodness sakes.

Well the Senators sure didn't want him back on their team after his half a year of Vezina-finalist-calibre hockey. Both Buffalo and Ottawa questioned the severity of his injuries in the playoffs - even if they were both full of crap, the fact that both teams did it tends to indicate that Hasek could be a distraction in the locker room at the most important time of year. The same time of year that Roy lived for.