Roy or Hasek?

[Canadiens1958]

Some really excellent stuff here...



I mean for me - we are stuck with really poor metrics to gauge goaltender performance until those guys implement Valiquette's golden road shot qualification. I think at the end of the day someone like Fuhr or Barasso or Quick or (god forbid me saying this) Richter might end up the 'best' goaltender at stopping unstoppable shots. Hasek might be there too.

Agree that we do not have the best goalie metrics. Conversely lets look at the goaltending position from another perspective.

Perhaps the value of a goalie is facing the lowest number of unstoppable shots? Getting into and holding the optimum position.

This would favour goalies like Martin Brodeur and Jacques Plante.

Also, with video readily available, it is possible to recognize when goalies give up goals due to positional or executional weaknesses.

Not talking about showboating mistakes - Statue of Liberty goal, rather mistakes that a Midget AAA should not make.

 

[Connor McConnor]

Hasek was easily the better goalie as evidenced by his better stats and individual awards on worse teams. Roy was probably my favourite goalie to watch growing up but as amazing as he was, I don't think he was a better goalie than Hasek.

 

[billingtons ghost]

I’d like to highlight something here, and that is the use of cumulative save percentage. Even though you’re using a 1994-2003 overlap for both players, running a cumulative save percentage report does not work, as it will treat 18 saves on 20 shots in 1994 the same as 18 saves on 20 shots in 2003 - essentially meaning one who has to perform better in 1994 to get equal credit for something more commonplace in 2003.

Cumulative reports across a series of seasons that have seen substantial changes to what is considered normal are essentially broken.

Here’s a look at their error rate vs. expectation in the years in which their teams went three rounds deep in the overlap.

Martin Brodeur, 1994 - 66.9% on 531 shots
Martin Brodeur, 1995 - 64.9% on 463 shots
Martin Brodeur, 2000 - 70.8% on 537 shots
Martin Brodeur, 2001 - 96.2% on 507 shots
Martin Brodeur, 2003 - 68.8% on 622 shots

Patrick Roy, 1996 - 66.9% on 649 shots
Patrick Roy, 1997 - 72.5% on 559 shots
Patrick Roy, 1999 - 82.5% on 650 shots
Patrick Roy, 2000 - 69.6% on 431 shots
Patrick Roy, 2001 - 62.6% on 622 shots
Patrick Roy, 2002 - 87.9% on 572 shots

Now, that’s essentially the best of Martin Brodeur’s playoff career - all of his championships and all but one of his finals runs (97.2% on 629 shots) - but we’re missing three finals runs from Roy. Even if we argue about whether they’re equal in the playoffs or if one is marginally ahead from 1994-2003, we can’t exactly put 1986-1993 from Roy and 2004-2012 from Brodeur on the back burner as though they do not help explain the disparity presented by Hockey Outsider.

1986-1993 includes 108 of Roy’s 247 playoff games where he often played better than he did in the above years. 2004-2014 includes 66 of Brodeur’s 204 playoff games where he often played worse than he did in the above years.

Interesting. Thanks for the education. I'm not completely sure what conclusions can be drawn - because we're again talking about quantity and not necessarily quality of shots as the game changed - so we're still kinda stuck with the flawed metrics - but it is certainly interesting.

At the end of the day - the question of Roy or Hasek? has to be answered with 'in what scenario?'

If I'm picking someone to play a playoff series - it's Roy.
If I'm picking someone to steal a period for me against a superior opponent - it's Hasek.
If I'm picking someone to build a team around for the next 20 years - it's Brodeur.

 

[jason1919spezza]

Hasek, and it’s not that close when you realize the fact that he “could” have come over to the NHL in 1983 if it weren’t for politics. I will give the extra credit for Hasek, since it was out of control for him to come over to NA. Guys like Hasek and Stastny needs extra credit, just like there are athletes outside of hockey who have lost some years due to war/politics/systems (for example, Joe DiMaggio, Jackie Robinson, Ichiro for baseball). Some will say “oh, but Hasek took time to adjust longer...etc.”. Fine, add that time span and he would still get a productive 5-7 years to his resume. That will blow past Roy to the point where there will be no legitimate conversation about it lol.

Hasek has also dominated (I mean literally) his peers to the point where during his peak/prime, nobody was even close to him, and that also includes Roy and Broduer. Bringing the same old topic about “playoffs”, and Hasek not being able to win as much as Roy/Brodeur is absolutely silly lol. And it’s not like Hasek was a “terrible” playoff performer too. Roy has had terrible performances in the playoffs, which has cost his team (which was a VERY good team by the way) to win more series.

But again, some members (I’m not even going to name them since it’s obvious), will continuously try to downplay every european player, while rating Canadian players to ridiculous stature.

I can already imagine people crying with the “you’re playing the Canadian bias BS”, but it’s true. The bias in Hfboards has become so great to the point where people are trying to defend and damage control it. No wonder many veterans have left this forum or stopped commenting on it frequently (including myself).Its hard to take memebers seriously when newcomers and veterans alike are spreading threads/commments such as “Crosby is an unanimous 5th greatest player”, “Malkin is an unanimous top 15 player”, “Murray is the next Roy/Hasek/Brodeur”, “Fleury is the modern Hasek”, ...etc. Let me guess, “Letang is the next Bourque” lol. Give me a break.

It’s funny how people view Crosby’s “lost peak” due to his inability to stay healthy as some kind of accomplishment, while Hasek gets condemned for not being able to play until his late 20’s (or technically borderline 30’s when you consider his prime). There are a lot of fishy things going on in this forum with some members and their own personal “agenda” (and yes, some of them are veterans), but my expectation is at a point where it’s almost “predictable” by looking at the thread title lol. Whether that is “The History of hockey” or anywhere else.

 

[quoipourquoi]

I think attacking a strawman poster who hates European players and loves per-game statistics and Sidney Crosby does you a disservice, @jason1919spezza

If you want to assert that Dominik Hasek would have dominated the NHL in the 1980s the way he did from 1994-1999, surely you can provide evidence to accompany this theory. Instead, going off of all of the best-on-best tournaments that ranged from good (1987) to less than good (1984, 1991) and all of the non-best-on-best World Championships where he was good but still didn’t lead the tournament in save percentage, I can’t help but notice the lack of any Nagano-esque runs to signify his status as the uncrowned best goaltender in the world.

More than that, he couldn’t beat out Ed Belfour and Jimmy Waite for Chicago’s starting role in 1990, nor could he beat out Jimmy Waite for Chicago’s starting role in 1991 while Belfour held out until November. And more than even that, he was Buffalo’s starter for months in 1992-93 (November to early January before his injury), and he was good, but he wasn’t exactly Curtis Joseph or Ed Belfour or Felix Potvin that year.

So it’s a question of what amount of “extra credit”. Enough to pass Ken Dryden in value, despite Dryden arguably peaking higher and being better in the playoffs? I think so. Enough to pass Patrick Roy? Given Roy’s long-term dependability, I would disagree. If a skater sustains the number of long-term injuries that Hasek sustained in Buffalo (a pattern that did not end in Detroit and Ottawa), it does not go unnoticed, as anything less than 82 GP means something happened. But with no set expectation of GP for goaltending since the days of Glenn Hall, it’s more difficult for us 20 years after the fact to look at a goaltender’s GP and know if he’s getting hurt, if his coach uses tandems, if the team is testing out a younger goaltender for the future, etc.

And hey, if you want to talk Hasek’s playoffs, we’ll talk Hasek’s playoffs. Great in his two deep runs in 1998 and 1999 - and 1994 is a go-to example for excellent play in an opening round loss. I don’t know that he necessarily asserted himself well enough to go deep in other years - regardless of how the Buffalo skaters played. 1995 was something of a disaster. 1996 saw him sustain an injury immediately before the playoffs, so even if Buffalo had snuck in, he wouldn’t have played. 1997 had Buffalo run with Shields during another injury. 2000 saw him have a few quality games in the middle of a 5-game loss that could have gone better. 2001 was a situation where he really only stood out in Games 3 and 5 of a 7-game loss.

His Stanley Cup with Detroit came with an EvE beyond most Conn Smythe winners (81.4) - and the worst of the Red Wings’ Stanley Cup goaltending runs in the era - so it’s not like it adds a whole lot relative to a Patrick Roy, even though it’s checking the box for “Stanley Cup Champion”. And not that 2003-2008 should be held too heavily against him, but he was retired in 2003, left his team in 2004, wouldn’t play while cleared to do so in 2006, was great in a Conference Final run in 2007, and was replaced for a championship in 2008.

So other than 1994 (5 quality games in a 7 game series), I don’t see too much of an indication that he was unfairly deprived of a comparable playoff career due to his team. And he’s not exactly the first or last hockey player to play great in a losing series in their career. Put him in Chicago in the 1980s - assuming he secures the starting position - and I think the best case scenario is that he has some runs leading into a third-round Oilers matchup. Because if you’re only winning Bronze in a non-best-on-best, how do you expect to win a Campbell Bowl with Chicago?

 

[danincanada]

His Stanley Cup with Detroit came with an EvE beyond most Conn Smythe winners (81.4) - and the worst of the Red Wings’ Stanley Cup goaltending runs in the era - so it’s not like it adds a whole lot relative to a Patrick Roy, even though it’s checking the box for “Stanley Cup Champion”. And not that 2003-2008 should be held too heavily against him, but he was retired in 2003, left his team in 2004, wouldn’t play while cleared to do so in 2006, was great in a Conference Final run in 2007, and was replaced for a championship in 2008.

Do you actually think Hasek provided the worst goaltending of the Red Wings 4 Cups though? I think that's clearly Osgood in '98 and frankly, it's not close. Crunch the numbers all you want but Hasek had 6 shutouts in that run, including shutting out the Avs in games 6 and 7. Osgood never faced a team like the '02 Avs in his run and even his bounce back game 6 against the Stars, which was the biggest test of that run, was because he allowed that brutal OT goal to Langenbrunner the game before. There was also the Roenick long shot in game 3 of the first round that tied the game they lost 3-2, the MacInnis long shot that sent a game to OT in game 3 of the second round that they won, and the stupid goal he gave Bondra in game 2 of the finals. Osgood had his moments but some of any of those goals could have been series altering for a lesser team and he had a doozy in every series.

Hasek at a minimum would be right up there with Vernon in '97 and ahead of Osgood in '08 for me. He was huge when they really needed him and he didn't cost them games like Osgood did in '98. None of them faced a ton of work but Hasek won the big showdown with Roy, like Vernon did in '97. Osgood was never able to beat Roy head to head. His best chance was probably '99 because he played great in the first round but got injured in and tried to play that way when Ranford got exposed for still playing the obsolete stand up style.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Here’s how they stack up - round by round:

		R1	R2	R3	R4
97 - Vernon	71.0	84.4	58.2	85.8	53.4
98 - Osgood	77.6	116.6	65.5	56.1	72.2
02 - Hasek	81.4	94.3	82.2	82.3	63.4
08 - Osgood	68.0	19.7	90.2	71.8	66.4

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Osgood was awful in the first three games against Phoenix in 1998 - so much so that his cumulative numbers never recovered - but of the four above runs, he was easily the best statistically in rounds 2-4. Of all the Finalists since the four-round era began, his numbers in Rounds 2-4 actually rank 12th. He put himself into a hole with 13 GA on 80 shots and dug himself out with just 35 GA on the next 508.

Hasek similarly had Detroit in an uncomfortable position in Round 1 (4 GA in both Game 1 and Game 2) but didn’t bounce back as strong as Osgood did, and Detroit had to close out Vancouver in another 4 GA game from Hasek in Game 6.

At any rate, Hasek in 2002 isn’t anything to write home about. Like many champions, it had its moments and is obviously above average (because average performances usually don’t last four rounds), but overall, it’s something like 57th in EvE of the 75 four-round runs going back to 1979.

 

[Sentinel]

Here’s how they stack up - round by round:

		R1	R2	R3	R4
97 - Vernon	71.0	84.4	58.2	85.8	53.4
98 - Osgood	77.6	116.6	65.5	56.1	72.2
02 - Hasek	81.4	94.3	82.2	82.3	63.4
08 - Osgood	68.0	19.7	90.2	71.8	66.4

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Osgood was awful in the first three games against Phoenix in 1998 - so much so that his cumulative numbers never recovered - but of the four above runs, he was easily the best statistically in rounds 2-4. Of all the Finalists since the four-round era began, his numbers in Rounds 2-4 actually rank 12th. He put himself into a hole with 13 GA on 80 shots and dug himself out with just 35 GA on the next 508.

Hasek similarly had Detroit in an uncomfortable position in Round 1 (4 GA in both Game 1 and Game 2) but didn’t bounce back as strong as Osgood did, and Detroit had to close out Vancouver in another 4 GA game from Hasek in Game 6.

At any rate, Hasek in 2002 isn’t anything to write home about. Like many champions, it had its moments and is obviously above average (because average performances usually don’t last four rounds), but overall, it’s something like 57th in EvE of the 75 four-round runs going back to 1979.

This is where the stats can be successfully filed in the dustbin. They mean jack squat. I, and every other person, who watched every game of the Wings' four Cups, agree with danin to a T. Hasek's 02 performance stands head and shoulders above Osgood's 98, which the Wings won pretty much despite him, not because of him. Hasek shut the door for the Avs when it mattered. Osgood's best run was actually 09.

 

[danincanada]

Here’s how they stack up - round by round:

		R1	R2	R3	R4
97 - Vernon	71.0	84.4	58.2	85.8	53.4
98 - Osgood	77.6	116.6	65.5	56.1	72.2
02 - Hasek	81.4	94.3	82.2	82.3	63.4
08 - Osgood	68.0	19.7	90.2	71.8	66.4

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Osgood was awful in the first three games against Phoenix in 1998 - so much so that his cumulative numbers never recovered - but of the four above runs, he was easily the best statistically in rounds 2-4. Of all the Finalists since the four-round era began, his numbers in Rounds 2-4 actually rank 12th. He put himself into a hole with 13 GA on 80 shots and dug himself out with just 35 GA on the next 508.

Hasek similarly had Detroit in an uncomfortable position in Round 1 (4 GA in both Game 1 and Game 2) but didn’t bounce back as strong as Osgood did, and Detroit had to close out Vancouver in another 4 GA game from Hasek in Game 6.

At any rate, Hasek in 2002 isn’t anything to write home about. Like many champions, it had its moments and is obviously above average (because average performances usually don’t last four rounds), but overall, it’s something like 57th in EvE of the 75 four-round runs going back to 1979.

Since you didn't answer my question (Do you actually think Hasek provided the worst goaltending of the Red Wings 4 Cups though?) I'll assume you take these EvE numbers as gospel so they speak for you. I'm sure they factor in completely blowing moments and games for your team, forcing them to play more games and head to OT when the game should already be over. If Hasek's run, where he shutout the other team in 26% of the games, is "nothing to write home about" then how would someone describe a goalie who looked like he attended the same camp on how to let in long range shots as Hextall/Snow did for the '97 finals. It was only '98 so that camp must have still been open! Those neutral zone goals usually kill teams. Luckily for Osgood he had an amazingly resilient team in front of him to help bail him out every time. If Osgood was on a weaker team they may have just been Dan Cloutier moments when looking back at his career.

 

[Doctor No]

Hasek finished the Colorado series strong in 2002, but he wouldn't have needed to finish the Colorado series strong if he'd started off even average - particularly in Game Two (four goals on 26 shots in an overtime loss) and Game Four (three goals on 22 shots in a one-goal loss). That series could have easily been a four-game Detroit sweep, and we'd never have had to hear about the Statue of Liberty play again.

 

[Doctor No]

Percentage of playoffs where each goaltender had below-average/average/above-average statistical performances:

Vernon 1997: 12% / 37% / 51% (Conn Smythe)
Osgood 1998: 19% / 38% / 43%
Hasek 2002: 34% / 22% / 44%
Osgood 2008: 23% / 29% / 48%

 

[Doctor No]

Just pulled the Free Press sports sections between May 26 and May 29, 2002, and they largely used terms to describe Hasek that were synonymous with "inconsistent".

 

[quoipourquoi]

Since you didn't answer my question (Do you actually think Hasek provided the worst goaltending of the Red Wings 4 Cups though?)

Of the four? Yes.

Hasek's run, where he shutout the other team in 26% of the games

Of course, the 6 shutouts (with three of those being under 20 shots) is somewhat offset by the 8 games under-.900 - including 3 against both Vancouver and Colorado, which is playing with fire if the Red Wings’ skaters aren’t carrying the play.

Yes, I’ll take Osgood’s bad goals in 1998 followed by the Roberto Luongo-esque “I would have stopped that” articles written in the press, because Osgood curbstomped St. Louis and Dallas both before and after those goals.

 

[MarkusNaslund19]

I think in terms of absolute peak it's Hasek. His 96-97 and 97-98 seasons were the best I've seen by any goaltenders. Along with Luongo in 06-07 and Price a couple of years ago.

But with that said, when it counted it's Roy and it's not close.

I know the argument will be made that Hasek played for worse teams for most of his career, and it's true, but his phantom knee injury in 97 as well as the way that 06 ended with the Senators just leaves a bad taste in your mouth.

Still an all-time great, but I think you have to go with Roy if you're a great team.

 

[danincanada]

Of the four? Yes.

Of course, the 6 shutouts (with three of those being under 20 shots) is somewhat offset by the 8 games under-.900 - including 3 against both Vancouver and Colorado, which is playing with fire if the Red Wings’ skaters aren’t carrying the play.

Yes, I’ll take Osgood’s bad goals in 1998 followed by the Roberto Luongo-esque “I would have stopped that” articles written in the press, because Osgood curbstomped St. Louis and Dallas both before and after those goals.

Did Osgood curb stomp them or did the team in front of him do it? MacInnis and Langenbrunner didn't look curb stomped when they took those slap shots from centre. It was amusing as the run went on because everyone was trying long shots on Osgood because the odds got pretty good that one would go in. Somehow he screamed dominant to you though, or at least more dominant than '02 Hasek. Curb stomped makes it sound like he stole games and the series from both but we both know that's not what happened. Just because Fuhr was old and the team got into Belfour's head doesn't mean Osgood was amazing. He wasn't and he didn't need to be. That actually goes for all four Cup runs. The only goalie they won in spite of was '98 Osgood in my opinion. It's easy to say the long shot goals were just single goals in hindsight but he put his team in a tough spot each time and they usually bailed him out.

Hasek in '02 faced better teams overall, too, especially in the most critical series. This wasn't the '99 Stars that Osgood faced, it was the Stars before they signed Hull and Nieuwendyk was hurt. Who had more firepower, the '02 playoff Avs or the '99 playoff Stars? If I had a time machine and had to substitute Osgood in for Hasek in '02 I'd be a very nervous Red Wings fan.

 

[Doctor No]

Hasek in '02 faced better teams overall, too, especially in the most critical series.

Average postseason opponent strength (minutes weighted):

Vernon 1997: 0.37 goals/game above average
Osgood 1998: 0.41 goals/game above average
Hasek 2002: 0.38 goals/game above average
Osgood 2008: 0.37 goals/game above average

Average postseason shooting percentage (shots weighted):

Vernon 1997: 8.4%
Osgood 1998: 9.3%
Hasek 2002: 8.2%
Osgood 2008: 9.1%​

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Of course, the 6 shutouts (with three of those being under 20 shots) is somewhat offset by the 8 games under-.900 - including 3 against both Vancouver and Colorado, which is playing with fire if the Red Wings’ skaters aren’t carrying the play.

i tend to think of the first two games of the vancouver series in 2002 the same way i think of the first two games of roy's quebec series in 1993. not to compare the rest of hasek's postseason to '93 roy because i don't compare anyone to '93 roy, and definitely not to compare those '02 canucks to the young proto-avs because barf, but the arcs of those two cup winners' first series are very similar.

game one: damn, that young team packs a surprising amount of punch. still, they only barely beat us, decently deep into overtime. we got this.

game two: yikes, what the heck was that? okay now it's time to really get serious. we are embarrassing ourselves.

game three: okay, closer than you'd like but that's more like it.

game four: yeah, they don't think they can win this.

games five and six: isn't that cute? they pushed us a little (detroit game six/montreal game five). see ya kids, thanks for warming up our goalie.

 

[danincanada]

i tend to think of the first two games of the vancouver series in 2002 the same way i think of the first two games of roy's quebec series in 1993. not to compare the rest of hasek's postseason to '93 roy because i don't compare anyone to '93 roy, and definitely not to compare those '02 canucks to the young proto-avs because barf, but the arcs of those two cup winners' first series are very similar.

game one: damn, that young team packs a surprising amount of punch. still, they only barely beat us, decently deep into overtime. we got this.

game two: yikes, what the heck was that? okay now it's time to really get serious. we are embarrassing ourselves.

game three: okay, closer than you'd like but that's more like it.

game four: yeah, they don't think they can win this.

games five and six: isn't that cute? they pushed us a little (detroit game six/montreal game five). see ya kids, thanks for warming up our goalie.

Makes sense. Hasek allowed 9 goals in the first two games while Roy allowed 7, and looking back those were the biggest personal stumbles for both. Osgood in '98 allowed 10 for the record since he's come into the conversation. Hasek was not very good early in the Vancouver series, no doubt, but neither was a lot of the team in front of him and they ran into a pretty good young team who didn't know any better. They lost their groove late in the season, after they mistakenly put it in cruise control, and fortunately for them it came back in game 3 when they needed it. I don't recall feeling let down by Hasek after that in that run.

It's a tangent but I'm very surprised I have to debate on who had the weakest Cup run of the three. I thought that would be obvious to anyone who watched. One stat I would like to know is how many of the shots Osgood faced were from another zone. You just don't usually see that many attempts at long goals in an NHL game but in that run it became routine.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Makes sense. Hasek allowed 9 goals in the first two games while Roy allowed 7, and looking back those were the biggest personal stumbles for both.

Roy allowed 6 on 74 shots, while Hasek allowed 8 on 45 shots.

 

[danincanada]

Roy allowed 6 on 74 shots, while Hasek allowed 8 on 45 shots.

I must have missed an empty netter? Osgood was 10 goals on 48 shots so he wins. I'm not so sure these small sample sizes mean much though.

 

[goeb]

I think Hasek is undoubtedly the best goalie ever. Unfortunately it took him a while to get to the NHL.

Roy did some amazing things with those Habs teams but I think the fact that Hasek was able to lead the Sabres to the finals in 1999 (while being competitive in a finals in which the Sabres were badly outmatched on paper) is very admirable. I still think Hasek deserved the Smythe that year despite his team losing. ...I also think he deserved the Hart Trophy over Jagr; which would have given him 3 straight Hart Trophies.

Sabres had very little all-star talent on their teams during Hasek's prime and I can't recall any HOF talent being on there between 1997-1999. Aside from Zhitnik I can't even recall a defenseman on the Sabres during that time.

Roy's performance though in 1986 is one for the record books, especially in the puck era of the 80's. Habs still had some great players though and future HOFs. 1992-93 team wasn't as good but still better than any team Hasek played with on the Sabres.

Unfortunately we never really got to see them go head to head during their prime year sin the playoffs; however, I believe they faced off in the 1998 Olympic semifinals. I can only imagine how Detroit would have fared against the Avalanche from 1996 to 2001 if they had Hasek during that span.

 

[bobbyking]

Hasek has back to back hart's and 5 more top 3 finishes .he's the Gretzky of goalies. A goalie winning a hart is much harder then winning the Smythe

 

[Tuna Tatarrrrrr]

Hasek has back to back hart's and 5 more top 3 finishes .he's the Gretzky of goalies. A goalie winning a hart is much harder then winning the Smythe

LOL so why was Roy the only one PLAYER to win the award three time in the history of the game over players like Gretzky, Lemieux and Orr?

 

[sr edler]

LOL so why was Roy the only one PLAYER to win the award three time in the history of the game over players like Gretzky, Lemieux and Orr?

If you want to white knight for Québécois players in every single thread then at least try to put in some effort instead of just posting single sentences beginning with "LOL".

 

[Tuna Tatarrrrrr]

If you want to white knight for Québécois players in every single thread then at least try to put in some effort instead of just posting single sentences beginning with "LOL".

I don't always begin with "LOL", but everytime I do is because it's well-deserved.