Roy or Hasek?

[Dennis Bonvie]

Some Conn Smythe? It's a big trophy and he got 3 of them its a pretty big deal in my opinion. Colorado was a strong team but in 86 and 93 those teams weren't really that strong. That being said i have Hasek rank ahead but its close since Hasek didnt have a full career either in the NHL.

Not only does Roy have 3 Conn Smythe trophies, but he's the only player to have 3.

And that strong Colorado team was outplayed in the finals by the Devils, but Roy was that much better than Brodeur.

That said, Hasek is still #1 in my rankings.

 

[billingtons ghost]

Brodeur

 

[Laphroaig]

I give Roy the edge based largely on his four Cups and three Conn Smythe trophies. Strong arguments could also be made for Hasek, Brodeur or Sawchuk.

 

[Big Phil]

Here is the thing..............Hasek is the more dominant goalie, right? Not that Roy couldn't get in the heads of players, because he could, but Hasek did prior to the game. Hasek made saves that were just impossible to do without the hand of God. But he did them. This was mentally frustrating for players, and fans.

Put it this way, Buffalo is nowhere near the playoffs without him. He made that franchise in that era. Mike Peca should not be your best player, but you might be alright if Hasek is your goalie.

On the flip side, Roy is probably among the three best playoff performers of all-time. Gretzky and Rocket being the other two. It wasn't as if Roy's Montreal teams win without him. In 1986 and 1993 Montreal was not expected to win. Both years there were overwhelming favourites that got knocked out early and the Habs weren't even on the radar. In April of 1993 no one is thinking about Montreal. I know I wasn't. So you've got a guy who literally carried two good, but otherwise slightly above average teams to the Cup. Then he gets another two. The team he was traded from has literally never recovered from getting rid of him and overnight they became a team that all of the sudden could make mistakes. That Roy trade ruined the mystique that used to be the Montreal Canadiens. That's a lot of impact a player made, but that is what Roy did.

Even after a Vezina winning season Hasek never had that sort of impact while leaving Buffalo.

I don't know, can't we just say it is like picking between Disneyland and Disney World? Is there a wrong answer? In a 7 game series I pick Roy though. He is just less likely to have a distraction. For a season I pick Hasek. For a career..................hmm, even though Hasek always got the best of Roy in the regular season that postseason resume is too hard to pass up.

Roy, in a pinch.

 

[Doctor No]

Brodeur

If your intent is to be controversial, you should have just gone with your namesake.

 

[WJCJ]

Hasek was the best I have ever seen.

 

[billingtons ghost]

If your intent is to be controversial, you should have just gone with your namesake.

No - he's just conveniently left out of the conversation due to some false narratives about having better defensemen or 'system'; or stats monkeys using the really weak statistics we employ for goalies to make a case. The whole thread is a bit controversial when the all-time leader in most goalie categories is left out of the discussion.

I saw Roy in his prime, and he was a fantastic goalie - but he played on some very good defensive squads with Guy Charbonneau and Sakic up front (two of the best defensive C's I've ever seen) and Chelios, Schneider, Desjardins, Odelein, Blake and Bourque behind.

Brodeur played 40% of his career with zero great defensemen. Dano gone in 2003, Stevens and Nieder in 2004 and still ended up in the cup finals eight years later backstopping such lights as Bryce Salvador, Kurtis Foster and Matt Taormina on D.

Hasek had some good defensive forwards up front with Peca and his defense was underrated. That said, he faced a ton of rubber - and at the end of the day he had far more work to do than the other two.

If you are asking me who I want to step out there on the ice for a whole regular season, it is Brodeur. If it is to win one playoff game, it is Roy. If it is to steal a single game from a powerhouse opponent, it is Hasek.

I mean, the whole thread is silly - as it is just personal preference at the top 4 in goalies anyway. If someone says Sawchuk, well - the answer is they are correct as well.

 

[quoipourquoi]

No - he's just conveniently left out of the conversation due to some false narratives about having better defensemen or 'system'; or stats monkeys using the really weak statistics we employ for goalies to make a case.

Stats monkey?!

I am a regular monkey, thank you very much!

I get what you’re saying in that we have such a brilliant collection of top goaltenders - I think I have 7 in my top-35 players - that having a conversation between two of them might be too narrowly focused, because it’s like debating Crosby/Ovechkin without Malkin or Gretzky/Lemieux without Messier (don’t @ me).

But of the top goaltenders, I (and probably many others) feel that some of the seven answers you hear regarding best goaltender are more right than others.

I think there’s a reason you’ll hear Roy and Plante in the context of the Beliveau/Harvey/Hull/Richard block of career value or Sawchuk and Hasek in the context of the otherworldly five-year prime discussions, but Brodeur is almost entirely relegated to historical discussions exclusively with other goaltenders. I’d say Glenn Hall and Ken Dryden are in that same boat.

Assuming Martin Brodeur is your selection for greatest goaltender of all-time, how many skaters are we saying are better than literally every goaltender? For me, Martin Brodeur is about as good as Nicklas Lidstrom. Maybe it’s because they played at the same time, but I just see too many parallels between the two.

Now do you see Martin Brodeur at a higher level than this (Lidstrom)? Do you see him as a reasonable comparison point to Jean Beliveau and Maurice Richard the way many do of Patrick Roy? Or do you think the high-water mark for goaltending is more #15-25 range than #5-10?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Stats monkey?!

I am a regular monkey, thank you very much!

I get what you’re saying in that we have such a brilliant collection of top goaltenders - I think I have 7 in my top-35 players - that having a conversation between two of them might be too narrowly focused, because it’s like debating Crosby/Ovechkin without Malkin or Gretzky/Lemieux without Messier (don’t @ me).

But of the top goaltenders, I (and probably many others) feel that some of the seven answers you hear regarding best goaltender are more right than others.

I think there’s a reason you’ll hear Roy and Plante in the context of the Beliveau/Harvey/Hull/Richard block of career value or Sawchuk and Hasek in the context of the otherworldly five-year prime discussions, but Brodeur is almost entirely relegated to historical discussions exclusively with other goaltenders. I’d say Glenn Hall and Ken Dryden are in that same boat.

Assuming Martin Brodeur is your selection for greatest goaltender of all-time, how many skaters are we saying are better than literally every goaltender? For me, Martin Brodeur is about as good as Nicklas Lidstrom. Maybe it’s because they played at the same time, but I just see too many parallels between the two.

Now do you see Martin Brodeur at a higher level than this (Lidstrom)? Do you see him as a reasonable comparison point to Jean Beliveau and Maurice Richard the way many do of Patrick Roy? Or do you think the high-water mark for goaltending is more #15-25 range than #5-10?

Martin Brodeur played 70 or more games in 12 seasons. No other goalie ever did this.

https://www.hockey-reference.com/player/b/brodema01.html

So the closest skater comparable would be Gordie Howe in terms of longevity and durability.

Roy and Hasek had managed RS starts, combined they had one 70+ game RS.

Jacques Plante basically had a seven year prime, 1956-1962, injured in 1961, capped by his 1962 Hart, playing all 70 RS games.

Sawchuk's five year prime saw two below standard playoffs,1951 and 1953. Hasek had some controversial playoffs in his prime. Plante's seven year playoff prime produced a 44-17 W/L record.

 

[Sentinel]

Besides all the obvious metrics, I squarely give it to Hasek for having a winning face-to-face against Roy: in regular season, in playoffs, and in the Olympics.

 

[Troubadour]

The one who dominated the other(s).

 

[GuineaPig]

The team he was traded from has literally never recovered from getting rid of him and overnight they became a team that all of the sudden could make mistakes. That Roy trade ruined the mystique that used to be the Montreal Canadiens. That's a lot of impact a player made, but that is what Roy did.

Even after a Vezina winning season Hasek never had that sort of impact while leaving Buffalo.

I think you're overstating the importance of Roy in the trade a bit. It wasn't just that the Canadiens traded Roy. It was that they picked a shock jock with zero coaching experience (who they would fire next year) over their superstar and their captain. It was an organization that had a lot more problems than just losing Roy (who was of course massively important)

 

[quoipourquoi]

Besides all the obvious metrics, I squarely give it to Hasek for having a winning face-to-face against Roy: in regular season, in playoffs, and in the Olympics.

If we want to go full rocks, paper, scissors in the era, we may find that Hasek beats Roy, Belfour beats Hasek, CuJo beats Belfour, and Brodeur beats CuJo.

Or we can say that Roy losing a close series in 2002 in which his team was outshot 223-168 by a 17-point favorite isn’t any more indicative of his ability relative to the opposing goaltender than Hasek losing a close series in 1999 in which his team was outshot 199-152 by a 23-point favorite is indicative of his ability relative to the opposing goaltender.

I mean, it would have been great if they had met in the 1993 playoffs to really put the theory to the test (Montreal won in four-straight over Buffalo despite getting outshot 142-104) but much like tripping over a hockey stick en route to a fist fight, Hasek’s first of five major injuries while serving as Buffalo’s starting goaltender which led to Grant Fuhr’s arrival resulted in the preclusion of such a matchup.

 

[GuineaPig]

I mean, it would have been great if they had met in the 1993 playoffs to really put the theory to the test (Montreal won in four-straight over Buffalo despite getting outshot 142-104) but much like tripping over a hockey stick en route to a fist fight, Hasek’s first of five major injuries while serving as Buffalo’s starting goaltender which led to Grant Fuhr’s arrival resulted in the preclusion of such a matchup.

I'm a bit confused here. Fuhr played the entire 1993 playoffs, except for the rest of the "May Day" game after he got pulled. How do Hasek's later injuries play into this at all?

 

[Datsyukian Deke]

Definitely Hasek.

 

[quoipourquoi]

I'm a bit confused here. Fuhr played the entire 1993 playoffs, except for the rest of the "May Day" game after he got pulled. How do Hasek's later injuries play into this at all?

Hasek was Buffalo’s starting goaltender in Fall/Winter 1992 prior to the January 1993 injury that led to the Fuhr trade in February. With better health and the two in the same division, we could have seen a playoff matchup between Roy/Hasek much earlier - and then we wouldn’t have to find meaning in Roy’s 3-4 record against Hasek in the playoffs and the lone shootout loss in the Olympics.

On the flip side, if Roy isn’t out with a sinus operation, he’s in net for a 1991 Canada Cup game where Hasek let in 6 on 36.

Do people suppose that if Hasek was in net in 1993, Roy would play substantially worse against Buffalo? Do people suppose that if Roy was in net in 1991, Hasek would play substantially better against Canada?

I’m of the opinion that it wouldn’t have affected Roy vs. Buffalo in 1993 or Hasek vs. Canada in 1991.

 

[Troubadour]

If we want to go full rocks, paper, scissors in the era, we may find that Hasek beats Roy, Belfour beats Hasek, CuJo beats Belfour, and Brodeur beats CuJo.

Or we can say that Roy losing a close series in 2002 in which his team was outshot 223-168 by a 17-point favorite isn’t any more indicative of his ability relative to the opposing goaltender than Hasek losing a close series in 1999 in which his team was outshot 199-152 by a 23-point favorite is indicative of his ability relative to the opposing goaltender.

I don't get the first paragraph. This is about Roy and Hasek. You can't downplay the importance of their H2H by bringing up some other names to water down the fact that Hasek tends to beat Roy. Everyone south and west and east of Manitoba knows that Hasek was better than Belfour, thus their H2H is irrelevant. It's different with Hasek and Roy since they're on much more equal terms.

The gap between the Sabres and the Stars in 1999 was much wider and deeper than you could ever depict the gap to be between the Red Wings and the Avs in 2002. Put a healthy Forsberg on the rooster for the entire regular season and it's obvious Red Wings are no longer a "17-point favorite" but they beat the Avs in the PS anyway.

Put that same Forsberg on the Sabres in 1999 and they are no longer a no-offense team with a "let's-luck-one-in-and-let-Dom-do-the-rest" mentality. Not only he most likely narrows the regular season point gap; he actually gives the Sabres a chance to win in the end.

 

[quoipourquoi]

I don't get the first paragraph. This is about Roy and Hasek. You can't downplay the importance of their H2H by bringing up some other names to water down the fact that Hasek tends to beat Roy. Everyone south and west and east of Manitoba knows that Hasek was better than Belfour, thus their H2H is irrelevant. It's different with Hasek and Roy since they're on much more equal terms.

I disagree. Either head-to-head records are important or they’re not. And again, we’re talking about a head-to-head record in the playoffs/Olympics if the following:

Roy	Hasek
27/28	24/25
25/30	24/27
30/33	22/26
40/42	20/21
31/33	19/22
26/27	27/29
26/28	24/24
10/16	19/19

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Roy had the better save percentage four times, the same save percentage once, and the worst save percentage three times. I mean, aren’t we hanging our hat a little too heavily on Hasek’s 2-1 victory over Roy in Game 3 where Roy saw 42 shots to Hasek’s 21?

The gap between the Sabres and the Stars in 1999 was much wider and deeper than you could ever depict the gap to be between the Red Wings and the Avs in 2002. Put a healthy Forsberg on the rooster for the entire regular season and it's obvious Red Wings are no longer a "17-point favorite" but they beat the Avs in the PS anyway.

They had Forsberg and were still outshot to a greater extent than Dallas outshot Buffalo in 1999. Let’s not lose sight of just how much Detroit outplayed Colorado in 2002 and just how unlikely it was to draw a split leading into the disaster of a Game 7 with that differential.

Seriously, I don’t understand how any of this matters unless they were shooting on each other.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

No - he's just conveniently left out of the conversation due to some false narratives about having better defensemen or 'system'; or stats monkeys using the really weak statistics we employ for goalies to make a case. The whole thread is a bit controversial when the all-time leader in most goalie categories is left out of the discussion.

I saw Roy in his prime, and he was a fantastic goalie - but he played on some very good defensive squads with Guy Charbonneau and Sakic up front (two of the best defensive C's I've ever seen) and Chelios, Schneider, Desjardins, Odelein, Blake and Bourque behind.

Brodeur played 40% of his career with zero great defensemen. Dano gone in 2003, Stevens and Nieder in 2004 and still ended up in the cup finals eight years later backstopping such lights as Bryce Salvador, Kurtis Foster and Matt Taormina on D.

Hasek had some good defensive forwards up front with Peca and his defense was underrated. That said, he faced a ton of rubber - and at the end of the day he had far more work to do than the other two.

If you are asking me who I want to step out there on the ice for a whole regular season, it is Brodeur. If it is to win one playoff game, it is Roy. If it is to steal a single game from a powerhouse opponent, it is Hasek.

I mean, the whole thread is silly - as it is just personal preference at the top 4 in goalies anyway. If someone says Sawchuk, well - the answer is they are correct as well.

"I mean, the whole thread is silly-"

Great.

When I see a whole thread I find silly, I don't comment in it. That would be even sillier.

 

[bobholly39]

Besides all the obvious metrics, I squarely give it to Hasek for having a winning face-to-face against Roy: in regular season, in playoffs, and in the Olympics.

That's an awesome bragging rights argument between the 2. And i'm sure if Gretzky/Lemieux had faced in a high profile playoff matchup in their primes, the winner would similarly have had big time bragging rights.

But i don't see how this should factor much when ranking them all-time.

 

[VanIslander]

*"Yawn"*...

I've been a hockey fan since the 1970's and have always cheered against Roy (except when he played the Wings)... and yet, all things considered ...

It's clear as day to me that
Hasek is the GREATEST REGULAR SEASON GOALIE of all time,
and...
Roy is the GREATEST PLAYOFF GOALIE of all time.

No goalie has been greater for longer than Hasek:


No goalie has had better NHL playoff performances than Roy:



I am turning 50 years old soon and think none competes against those two since Dryden and Tretiak of my youth. (**** off if you think Brodeur is any way better than Roy or Hasek). Sawchuk, Hall and Plante are all legit top-5 all-time candidates, as is Vezina and two others.

 

[IceManCat]

Well Hasek for most exciting

 

[Troubadour]

I disagree. Either head-to-head records are important or they’re not. And again, we’re talking about a head-to-head record in the playoffs/Olympics if the following:

Roy	Hasek
27/28	24/25
25/30	24/27
30/33	22/26
40/42	20/21
31/33	19/22
26/27	27/29
26/28	24/24
10/16	19/19

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Roy had the better save percentage four times, the same save percentage once, and the worst save percentage three times. I mean, aren’t we hanging our hat a little too heavily on Hasek’s 2-1 victory over Roy in Game 3 where Roy saw 42 shots to Hasek’s 21?



They had Forsberg and were still outshot to a greater extent than Dallas outshot Buffalo in 1999. Let’s not lose sight of just how much Detroit outplayed Colorado in 2002 and just how unlikely it was to draw a split leading into the disaster of a Game 7 with that differential.

Seriously, I don’t understand how any of this matters unless they were shooting on each other.

Well, I see you didn't get it.

I was basically pointing out that mentioning the Red Wings being a 17-point favorite to the Avs in 2002 as anything even vaguely reminiscent of the quality gap that was between the Stars and the Sabres in 1999 is totally misleading, as the Avs missed their best player the entire regular season, which obviously affected their PTS. They were a different team by the time they faced the Red Wings in the semis, as their best player returned in a vintage fashion.

Meanwhile the Sabres' PTS were fully representative of their ability in the PS, thus the gap between the Stars and the Sabres in 1999 was wider by an even larger margin (than the gap between the RWs and the Avs in 2002) than even the RS numbers suggest.

This btw is what keeps me from entering many debates here. People tend to forget what they were arguing to begin with, and it all goes down after that.

Save percentage is completely obsolete when it comes to Olympics semis, as the match went to a shootout, and Roy let one in, was saved by the post on another, while Hasek basically killed Canada before it even began (please, can we once and for all agree on Lindros's post as a result of skating out of the optimal angle? He did not get unlucky. He waited too long because Hasek made him falter.)

"Four times out of" (bla bla) is completely useless here.

The truth is, even when we count out Roy's blowout from Game 7 in 2002, on average, Hasek still has the upper hand as far as the SV% goes, with average of 93.0259 to Roy's 92.714.

His best SV% is higher than Roy's best, his worst is better than Roy's worst (even when we exclude Roy's true worst), and I think you know what the result is.

The question is, why do we even exclude Roy's best. The blowout did happen. So uh, Roy's average SV% in their selected H2H sample is 88.9.

This makes Roy appear worse than Hasek by an unrealistic margin, but the truth is, when we exclude the wipe out, I think the numbers surprisingly accurately represent the small but important margin by which Hasek was the better goalie of the two.

Just my two cents, mister.

 

[Erik Alfredsson]

If I want to make the Playoffs: Hasek

If I want to win the Cup: Roy

 

[quoipourquoi]

Well, I see you didn't get it.

I was basically pointing out that mentioning the Red Wings being a 17-point favorite to the Avs in 2002 as anything even vaguely reminiscent of the quality gap that was between the Stars and the Sabres in 1999 is totally misleading, as the Avs missed their best player the entire regular season, which obviously affected their PTS. They were a different team by the time they faced the Red Wings in the semis, as their best player returned in a vintage fashion.

But they did have Forsberg in the 2002 series and were still heavily outplayed. I’ve given you the series shot differential twice now. Even if Forsberg makes them more than a 99-point regular season team (they had 95, 98, 96, and 118 leading into 2002 and just lost two top-4 defensemen from the previous season), they’re not adding a second Forsberg so they’re still getting outshot heavily. And you’re putting it all on the goaltender to make up for this ~55 shot disparity and saying it matters that it’s a 4-3 series loss despite the shot differential. Why?

The truth is, even when we count out Roy's blowout from Game 7 in 2002, on average, Hasek still has the upper hand as far as the SV% goes, with average of 93.0259 to Roy's 92.714.

His best SV% is higher than Roy's best, his worst is better than Roy's worst (even when we exclude Roy's true worst), and I think you know what the result is.

The question is, why do we even exclude Roy's best. The blowout did happen. So uh, Roy's average SV% in their selected H2H sample is 88.9.

This makes Roy appear worse than Hasek by an unrealistic margin, but the truth is, when we exclude the wipe out, I think the numbers surprisingly accurately represent the small but important margin by which Hasek was the better goalie of the two.

Just my two cents, mister.

And how many series have been won by cumulative save percentage?

Roy gave his teams a great chance to win 6 games out of 8, as did Hasek. If you want to argue that Roy gave his teams less of a chance to win in his two worst games than Hasek did in his two worst games of the eight, no one’s going to dispute that either. The problem is assigning this much retroactive value to 8 games in which the shots are lopsided as though it’s the only head-to-head matchup that either cared about in their careers.

But if you want to assert that it has such meaning, then I also want to hear if you believe Roy would play worse than he did against Buffalo in 1993 if Hasek was in net instead of Fuhr, or if Hasek would play better against Canada in 1991 if Roy was in net instead of Ranford.

Are you so confident in the meaning of this 3-4-1 head-to-head record in the playoffs/Olympics that you think the mere presence of the other would substantially alter their performances in 1991 and 1993?