Sentinel
Registered User
Hasek. Is not. Being. Compared to. Jonas Hedberg. But to Patrick Roy.Dominik Hasek has a losing record head to head against Johan Hedberg.
Since goalie records head to head matter for some reason.
Hasek. Is not. Being. Compared to. Jonas Hedberg. But to Patrick Roy.Dominik Hasek has a losing record head to head against Johan Hedberg.
Since goalie records head to head matter for some reason.
I wanted to highlight that but didn't because it wasn't super relevant. I agree that was a damn good team, but I don't think it's coincidence that they win after Gretzky leaves Edmonton and the playing field levels off a bit.Without getting off topic too much, don't downplay the talent level of the Flames' Cup winner. Tons of talent on that team.
I think those Habs teams get underrated personally. I mean, they're not dynasty-level teams of course, but they were still pretty solid (especially the '93 team). Like - in a post-lockout world where kinda middling teams win the Cup behind some streakiness from a key player or two at the right time, I don't think those Habs teams would stand out as particularly bad at all.
But your point is taken. This is a league where in recent memory you have three dynasties with at least 4 Cups to their name, and in that group the Habs (and the Flames) stick out quite a bit.
As far as controlling the game, it was possibly the finest 0-assist performance in the history of playmaking.
Credit him defensively if you like, but the GF numbers are more plus-taking than plus-making.
I enjoyed squinting at the old articles seventieslord posted, but am still probably putting him #10.
Think of it in a similar way to how you were previously arguing against goaltenders and saves not mattering only GA. Why judge Harvey differently? Harvey wins Norris in 1958 – Habs allow 158 GA. Harvey has an off year where he is slowed down by injury – Habs allow 158 GA. His shot blocks weren’t as valuable as the saves I guess.
I’m just trying to gauge the actual value of all those things he was doing. Because if it wasn’t preventing goals, Doug Harvey is becoming HOH’s defensive equivalent of overrating Peter Forsberg because HFBoards really likes how he did things.
Year | GP | GF/G | GA/G | Lg | Lg | PPGF/G | PPGA/G | Lg | Lg | Non-PPGF/G | Non-PPGA/G | Lg | Lg |
1951 | 11 | 2.09 | 2.27 | 2.06 | 2.06 | 0.27 | 0.27 | 0.24 | 0.24 | 1.82 | 2.00 | 1.82 | 1.82 |
1952 | 11 | 1.82 | 2.09 | 1.97 | 1.97 | 0.27 | 0.27 | 0.37 | 0.37 | 1.55 | 1.82 | 1.60 | 1.60 |
1953 | 12 | 2.83 | 1.92 | 2.75 | 2.75 | 0.42 | 0.25 | 0.33 | 0.33 | 2.42 | 1.67 | 2.42 | 2.42 |
1954 | 11 | 2.55 | 1.64 | 2.16 | 2.16 | 0.55 | 0.45 | 0.44 | 0.44 | 2.00 | 1.18 | 1.72 | 1.72 |
1955 | 12 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 2.88 | 2.88 | 0.83 | 0.58 | 0.81 | 0.81 | 2.17 | 2.42 | 2.06 | 2.06 |
Total | 57 | 2.46 | 2.18 | 2.36 | 2.36 | 0.47 | 0.37 | 0.44 | 0.44 | 1.99 | 1.82 | 1.92 | 1.92 |
Year | GP | GF/G | GA/G | Lg | Lg | PPGF/G | PPGA/G | Lg | Lg | Non-PPGF/G | Non-PPGA/G | Lg | Lg |
1956 | 10 | 4.20 | 1.80 | 2.80 | 2.80 | 1.00 | 0.60 | 0.70 | 0.70 | 3.20 | 1.20 | 2.10 | 2.10 |
1957 | 10 | 3.70 | 1.80 | 2.80 | 2.80 | 0.80 | 0.40 | 0.57 | 0.57 | 2.90 | 1.40 | 2.23 | 2.23 |
1958 | 10 | 3.50 | 2.00 | 3.09 | 3.09 | 1.00 | 0.60 | 0.94 | 0.94 | 2.50 | 1.40 | 2.16 | 2.16 |
1959 | 11 | 3.55 | 2.55 | 3.00 | 3.00 | 1.18 | 0.45 | 0.75 | 0.75 | 2.36 | 2.09 | 2.25 | 2.25 |
1960 | 8 | 2.64 | 1.00 | 2.11 | 2.11 | 0.27 | 0.09 | 0.31 | 0.31 | 2.36 | 0.91 | 1.81 | 1.81 |
1961 | 6 | 2.50 | 2.67 | 2.50 | 2.50 | 0.50 | 0.83 | 0.59 | 0.59 | 2.00 | 1.83 | 1.91 | 1.91 |
Total | 55 | 3.44 | 1.96 | 2.76 | 2.76 | 0.84 | 0.49 | 0.66 | 0.66 | 2.60 | 1.48 | 2.11 | 2.11 |
GP | GF/G | GA/G | Lg | Lg | PPGF/G | PPGA/G | Lg | Lg | Non-PPGF/G | Non-PPGA/G | Lg | Lg | |
1962 | 6 | 2.17 | 3.17 | 2.83 | 2.83 | 0.67 | 1.00 | 0.78 | 0.78 | 1.50 | 2.17 | 2.06 | 2.06 |
1963 | 5 | 1.20 | 2.80 | 2.84 | 2.84 | 0.60 | 0.40 | 0.75 | 0.75 | 0.60 | 2.40 | 2.09 | 2.09 |
1964 | 7 | 2.00 | 2.43 | 2.67 | 2.67 | 0.14 | 0.57 | 0.62 | 0.62 | 1.86 | 1.86 | 2.05 | 2.05 |
1965 | 13 | 2.69 | 2.00 | 2.58 | 2.58 | 1.62 | 0.54 | 1.08 | 1.08 | 1.08 | 1.46 | 1.50 | 1.50 |
1966 | 10 | 3.30 | 2.00 | 2.66 | 2.66 | 1.10 | 0.40 | 0.94 | 0.94 | 2.20 | 1.60 | 1.72 | 1.72 |
Total | 41 | 2.46 | 2.34 | 2.68 | 2.68 | 0.98 | 0.56 | 0.88 | 0.88 | 1.49 | 1.78 | 1.88 | 1.88 |
Player | ESP | GP | ESP/G | PPP |
Hull | 50 | 73 | 0.68 | 30 |
Ullman | 37 | 59 | 0.63 | 24 |
Mikita | 46 | 74 | 0.62 | 28 |
Howe | 33 | 55 | 0.60 | 31 |
H.Richard | 36 | 76 | 0.47 | 14 |
Beliveau | 37 | 79 | 0.47 | 39 |
Keon | 30 | 67 | 0.45 | 13 |
Duff | 38 | 87 | 0.44 | 23 |
Mahovlich | 26 | 62 | 0.42 | 19 |
Player | GP | ESG | ESG/G | ESP | ESP/G | PPG | 1G | GWG | OTG |
Beliveau | 63 | 28 | 0.44 | 50 | 0.79 | 8 | 8 | 7 | 0 |
M.Richard | 86 | 36 | 0.42 | 54 | 0.63 | 12 | 7 | 14 | 5 |
Geoffrion | 106 | 35 | 0.33 | 65 | 0.61 | 18 | 11 | 13 | 0 |
Lindsay | 68 | 22 | 0.32 | 42 | 0.62 | 9 | 4 | 6 | 2 |
Howe | 68 | 22 | 0.32 | 56 | 0.82 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 0 |
H.Richard | 49 | 13 | 0.27 | 39 | 0.80 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 0 |
Mackell | 64 | 15 | 0.23 | 36 | 0.56 | 4 | 7 | 4 | 0 |
Delvecchio | 62 | 14 | 0.23 | 31 | 0.50 | 9 | 4 | 3 | 0 |
Moore | 95 | 18 | 0.19 | 55 | 0.58 | 13 | 5 | 5 | 0 |
But we also have to consider that Beliveau, Geoffrion, Moore, and Henri Richard all saw their even strength scoring in the playoffs drop by quite a bit after Harvey left the team
But we also have to consider that Beliveau, Geoffrion, Moore, and Henri Richard all saw their even strength scoring in the playoffs drop by quite a bit after Harvey left the team, and maybe Harvey had a hand in driving these results from the 1950s.
And another point about Maurice Richard – but look at the goals against numbers in the playoffs for Montreal from 1951 to 1961. Montreal allowed 2.27 goals/game or fewer in all but 3 seasons – the three seasons when Richard did not play or played very little in the playoffs. Of course this could just be random and nobody thinks that Richard was secretly the most valuable defensive player on the Canadiens, but I thought it was interesting enough to mention.
1955 – Maurice Richard missed the playoffs – 3.00 GA/G
1959 – Maurice Richard played only 3 playoff games – 2.55 GA/G
1961 – Maurice Richard is retired – 2.67 GA/G
You're a peach.Non-voter, opinion does not matter.
I don't think Hasek was that far and away better than Jagr in the DPE.[MOD]
Hasek's WAS the "very, very." Defined the DPE as much as the Wings-Avs rivalry. Bourque defined the Bruins.
It is a pity Dom didn't play on the Wings from the beginning. They would meet with the Avs every year for a decade and his head-to-head record against Roy would be even more telling.
Since we're talking about Roy in playoffs...
How much of an "intangibles" bump should Roy get for his role in making the 96 Avalanche champions? For all the talk last round of Gretzky never winning after Edmonton - has any trade in the history of the NHL worked out as well as this one in relation to team needs/success?
They brought Roy on board for his goaltending skills - but also for his winning attitude/track record, and he helped a team with a ton of talent but who was going nowhere in terms of post-season success, into the promised land within his first year. And although he didn't win again until 2001, the Avalanche were a complete powerhouse in the late 90s thanks in large part to the reliability of Roy in nets, and some of their matchups against Detroit and even Dallas are truly memorable.
As much as Roy is given credit for taking 'lesser' Habs teams to cups in 86 and 93 - i don't think it should be understated how great his contributions post-trade was too.
Half of his posts infuriate me. The rest make me laugh my ass off.You're a peach.
S
Richard - Most of his dominance came in a league that was roughly AHL-quality. Lots of all-stars, but outside of Howe there wasn't much in the way of competition for those all-stars.
Second... Richard was a great forechecker, right?
Buffalo won nine playoff series in 8 playoff years with Hasek (victories under three different coaches: Muckler, Nolan, Ruff) and when he left the Sabres, the highly successful team and coach Ruff missed the playoffs for three years and everyone knew it was because of Hasek.... the Habs, ... immediately went into the toilet for a decade.
Thankfully we don't count games played as a determining factor (though someone at some point will argue for Luongo because of 1000 games played).
Isn't he though? One of the reasons he might not make my top 5 this round is he undoubtedly pulled *himself* out of action to the detriment of his team. We may not dive into the statistical backing for that super deeply, but I think it's certainly factored in for most of us.on the other hand, nobody is talking about career games played here. Save percentage, as valuable and helpful as it may be, is still a rate statistic. And being able to maintain a rate statistic over a larger sample is more impressive. That's why something like gsaa can be helpful, because it takes into consideration save percentage and how long they did it for. Hasek should be looked at more critically due to his relatively low season by season games played totals.
Hasek. Is not. Being. Compared to. Jonas Hedberg. But to Patrick Roy.
He averaged over 60 games a season over a 9-year stretch if you give him a mulligan for one season of 35.Hasek should be looked at more critically due to his relatively low season by season games played totals.
He averaged over 60 games a season over a 9-year stretch if you give him a mulligan for one season of 35.
The 6-year stretch in which he led the league in save percentage each season he played:
72
67
64
59
58
41
... there's no reason to knock him...
Yeah, kuddos to Glenn Hall for 500 consecutive games and Brodeur for workload too. And Luongo. Maybe give a brownie point or two for stamina.
We don't knock Crosby for time not played, being more rested, but for specific lack of performance totals when he did play.
immediately went into the toilet for a decade.
@BM67 Can we get Hasek head to head vs. Brodeur please? I want to know if I should be holding off voting for any goalies until Brodeur comes around...
Not for games not played... for points not scored!If we wouldn't knock Crosby for games not played, he'd be AT WORSE 6th overall, and I'm pretty sure this isn't happening anytime soon.
Not for games not played... for points not scored!