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.