Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time (The Third)

[Michael Farkas]

Sure, the Canadian dominant sport has a lot of best all time players being Canadian. Also, the best all time franchise (maybe in all sports up to 1980) has a lot of players on the list as well. I'm not sure if we should have put spoiler tags on that in the beginning, but that was a predictable outcome.

Besides Sundin, who have some time for, who are all these players that are missing? Nearly all of the best players that had ever played up until, say, 1967 are Canadian. So you'll get virtually no one prior that isn't.

Then international competition starts to bubble up as we move forward there...many of those prominent players feature on the list (four in the top 50, I personally had pushed for Fetisov before we got to the teens I think) - that was the international presence of note for two decades. We had some participation from other international players that came over in this time: Stastny, Salming, etc. and they made the list. Is someone missing from that contingent that really has to be on here?

So, now we're at 1990 to about 2005. Because it's a snapshot in time from a few years ago now, so it's not like Kucherov would have made it. Players in the midst of their prime (or younger) really don't do to well on these (for good reason, really).

So you have the Soviet-dominated international competition of the 70's and 80's, the trickle-overs during that time, and then whatever happened during the end of the firewagon days into the DPE...that's not a lot of time for non-Canadians.

Who was not considered or didn't make the list that really needed to be here? It's not like there was a baseball equivalent of a color barrier in the NHL in 1961. There was just no one else good enough to make that league. What should we have done? Swapped out St. Louis for Sundin?

I'm not upset in the least, despite the tone of the text...I'm just curious as to where all of these outstanding non-Canadian players were playing before 1980 or whatever...this coming from a non-Canadian, of course...

 

[quoipourquoi]

I’m sure if Mats Sundin didn’t have an enormous NHL sample-size in his prime years, he would be on the list based on what would be expected of him from his best-on-best record. As it stands, that only 2 of 32 ballots had him ranked (100, 118) shows that he wasn’t getting much advocation.

 

[kruezer]

Kasatonov is a really interesting case, I think my thoughts on Iron Curtain defensemen has been changing a lot in the years since we did this project. I think at the time I fell into the usual belief that is out there that USSR (and to a lesser extent CSSR, Finn & Swede) defensemen are just Fetisov and a bunch of others that were okay. What about Ragulin? Vasiliev? The Non-USSR D?

This is not a post to give any answers, just to say I think I've (and the greater hockey community) tended to underrate non-Fetisov European defensemen. I need to re-evaluate.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I can get on board with re-evaluating the non-NHL Europeans.

That being said, I'm not sure there's much to re-evaluate at the top of the list. Looking at the list @plusandminus posted:

1 Can Gretzky
( 3 Can Orr)
4 Can Lemieux
7 Can Roy
10 Can Bourque
12 Can Crosby
13 Cze Hasek
15 Swe Lidstrom

The first 3 seem locked into place, the goalie ranking is defensible (and has been argued to death), the D ranking is defensible (and has also been argued to death). The only way I can see us moving Europeans up the list is by ranking Crosby lower, which seems less plausible with each passing year.

It may just be an oddity that we end up with a streak of Canadians at the top of the list. There doesn't necessarily need to be any systemic explanation for it.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I did the work on Vasilev as I recall and wasn't impressed. When I went back and looked for international d-men (non-Fetisov, as you termed them), the guy I think I liked the most was the Czech Pospisil...and he made my initial list.

Re: Sundin.

Looking at the centers at the bottom of my 120, who was he better than? Bergeron, Ullman, Datsyuk?

Maybe Ullman...? Maybe.

 

[quoipourquoi]

I can get on board with re-evaluating the non-NHL Europeans.

That being said, I'm not sure there's much to re-evaluate at the top of the list. Looking at the list @plusandminus posted:

1 Can Gretzky
( 3 Can Orr)
4 Can Lemieux
7 Can Roy
10 Can Bourque
12 Can Crosby
13 Cze Hasek
15 Swe Lidstrom

The first 3 seem locked into place, the goalie ranking is defensible (and has been argued to death), the D ranking is defensible (and has also been argued to death). The only way I can see us moving Europeans up the list is by either ranking Crosby lower, which seems less plausible with each passing year.

It may just be an oddity that we end up with a streak of Canadians at the top of the list. There doesn't necessarily need to be any systemic explanation for it.

I also don’t think we can ignore that health will, for some voters, serve as ceilings for four of the top-7 European players from the NHL-era. Up to now, Lidstrom, Jagr, and Ovechkin are the only ones that could challenge the top dozen or so spots without injuries serving as a glaring handicap on the resume (though we may see people soften on this for DPE-era players some day).

 

[quoipourquoi]

...did I just say Dead Puck Era Era?

 

[plusandminus]

Sure, the Canadian dominant sport has a lot of best all time players being Canadian. Also, the best all time franchise (maybe in all sports up to 1980) has a lot of players on the list as well. I'm not sure if we should have put spoiler tags on that in the beginning, but that was a predictable outcome.

Besides Sundin, who have some time for, who are all these players that are missing? Nearly all of the best players that had ever played up until, say, 1967 are Canadian. So you'll get virtually no one prior that isn't.

Then international competition starts to bubble up as we move forward there...many of those prominent players feature on the list (four in the top 50, I personally had pushed for Fetisov before we got to the teens I think) - that was the international presence of note for two decades. We had some participation from other international players that came over in this time: Stastny, Salming, etc. and they made the list. Is someone missing from that contingent that really has to be on here?

So, now we're at 1990 to about 2005. Because it's a snapshot in time from a few years ago now, so it's not like Kucherov would have made it. Players in the midst of their prime (or younger) really don't do to well on these (for good reason, really).

So you have the Soviet-dominated international competition of the 70's and 80's, the trickle-overs during that time, and then whatever happened during the end of the firewagon days into the DPE...that's not a lot of time for non-Canadians.

Who was not considered or didn't make the list that really needed to be here? It's not like there was a baseball equivalent of a color barrier in the NHL in 1961. There was just no one else good enough to make that league. What should we have done? Swapped out St. Louis for Sundin?

I'm not upset in the least, despite the tone of the text...I'm just curious as to where all of these outstanding non-Canadian players were playing before 1980 or whatever...this coming from a non-Canadian, of course...

I didn't say it is wrong that the list is so Canadian dominated. I just wrote that at first glance it is very obvious it is.

I mentioned 2(!) players who I personally think deserves to be on the list. I find that pretty reasonable.
I wrote that it's usually easy to say "That guy should be on the list!!", but harder to actually choose who to take out of the list. I acknowledged my lack of knowledge for the pre-1960 guys. I explicitly listed a couple of players I think Sundin and/or Kasatonov might deserve to be ahead of. I would think that basically each and every participant in the project would have guys they want higher or lower than the consensus..?

I acknowledged the Canadian dominance of the sport up to 1970 or so, by making a list of the players who were active from 1970 or so onwards.
My own top-3 would likely be Gretzky, Orr and Mario. So no difference there.
Then my top-9 would probably continue with guys like Hasek, Bourque, Lidstrom, Jagr, Makarov and Crosby. (I tend to change their order all the time.) That makes me have 8 out of 9 of the project's top-9. The only guy I have inserted is Makarov, which shouldn't be an absurd thought when reading in the Makarov vs Beliveaux thread. The only guy I have currently excluded is Roy. Again, I would imagine each participant have guys they would like to see higher or lower than the project as a whole had them..?


--- General comments about the projects and rankings, not directed to Mr Farkas personally ---

Those top-100 lists are frankly just the result of some hockey "nerds" [...edit: see my defintion of "nerd" in another post below], mainly North Americans (some perhaps not old enough to have lived through even the 1970s and 1980s), working together to dig into players and rank them. They do a good job, and the results are good references for debate. But I think one should be humble enough to say that those rankings are not "de facto" rankings.

Then some journalist, or even coaches like Scotty Bowman, makes a list. And immediately it is being criticized here, often using words like "that guy knows nothing", "what an idiot" and similar.

Consensus may change over time. Haven't for example some players moved up and down on the rankings over the years, due to more information and knowledge about them being gained? A few years ago, I personally was ridiculed and even bullied out of the forum for daring to argue for ranking Makarov ahead of Lafleur against guys I felt was seeing things a bit too much from a North American perspective. (That's why I asked if Lafleur is still considered ahead of Makarov.)

I do find some here to "overrate" the consensus/rankings, sort of referring to it as a "de facto" ranking, and that people of different opinion are simply wrong. I too appreciate and value consensus, but I also very much appreciate people being able to express alternate thoughts, angles and opinions without being ridiculed or dismissed for not following the "consensus" of the rankings. (This hasn't happened to me here in this thread, as the feedback was valid and respectful, but I see it happen quite often to people on the board.)

What do we really know about who was the best between for example Bourque and Lidstrom, or Harvey, or Fetisov? Pretty much anyone of them could be regarded as 2nd best of all time. Lidstrom do have all his Norrises. Harvey do have them too. Bourque do have all his All Star-finishes. Fetisov was at his prime regarded by some as the best defenceman in the world. If these things were black and white obvious, then like 90 % of the debates here would be unnecessary.

 

[ted2019]

I didn't say it is wrong that the list is so Canadian dominated. I just wrote that at first glance it is very obvious it is.

I mentioned 2(!) players who I personally think deserves to be on the list. I find that pretty reasonable.
I wrote that it's usually easy to say "That guy should be on the list!!", but harder to actually choose who to take out of the list. I acknowledged my lack of knowledge for the pre-1960 guys. I explicitly listed a couple of players I think Sundin and/or Kasatonov might deserve to be ahead of. I would think that basically each and every participant in the project would have guys they want higher or lower than the consensus..?

I acknowledged the Canadian dominance of the sport up to 1970 or so, by making a list of the players who were active from 1970 or so onwards.
My own top-3 would likely be Gretzky, Orr and Mario. So no difference there.
Then my top-9 would probably continue with guys like Hasek, Bourque, Lidstrom, Jagr, Makarov and Crosby. (I tend to change their order all the time.) That makes me have 8 out of 9 of the project's top-9. The only guy I have inserted is Makarov, which shouldn't be an absurd thought when reading in the Makarov vs Beliveaux thread. The only guy I have currently excluded is Roy. Again, I would imagine each participant have guys they would like to see higher or lower than the project as a whole had them..?


--- General comments about the projects and rankings, not directed to Mr Farkas personally ---

Those top-100 lists are frankly just the result of some hockey "nerds", mainly North Americans (some perhaps not old enough to have lived through even the 1970s and 1980s), working together to dig into players and rank them. They do a good job, and the results are good references for debate. But I think one should be humble enough to say that those rankings are not "de facto" rankings.

Then some journalist, or even coaches like Scotty Bowman, makes a list. And immediately it is being criticized here, often using words like "that guy knows nothing", "what an idiot" and similar.

Consensus may change over time. Haven't for example some players moved up and down on the rankings over the years, due to more information and knowledge about them being gained? A few years ago, I personally was ridiculed and even bullied out of the forum for daring to argue for ranking Makarov ahead of Lafleur against guys I felt was seeing things a bit too much from a North American perspective. (That's why I asked if Lafleur is still considered ahead of Makarov.)

I do find some here to "overrate" the consensus/rankings, sort of referring to it as a "de facto" ranking, and that people of different opinion are simply wrong. I too appreciate and value consensus, but I also very much appreciate people being able to express alternate thoughts, angles and opinions without being ridiculed or dismissed for not following the "consensus" of the rankings. (This hasn't happened to me here in this thread, as the feedback was valid and respectful, but I see it happen quite often to people on the board.)

What do we really know about who was the best between for example Bourque and Lidstrom, or Harvey, or Fetisov? Pretty much anyone of them could be regarded as 2nd best of all time. Lidstrom do have all his Norrises. Harvey do have them too. Bourque do have all his All Star-finishes. Fetisov was at his prime regarded by some as the best defenceman in the world. If these things were black and white obvious, then like 90 % of the debates here would be unnecessary.

Some of these "hockey nerds" are some of the most respected hockey historians in the World. Many belong to the Society for International Hockey Research.
SIHR | Society for International Hockey Research Which is a community of writers, statisticians, collectors, broadcasters, academics and fans of hockey history. So maybe you might want to change the bass in your voice when talking about people being " Hockey Nerds". As for Scotty Bowman and his lists, I'm sure that he didn't spend much time debating if such and such should be placed here and things like that. He probably just wrote a quick list and be on his marry way.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I think the most striking about the top-100 ranking in the OP, is seeing 12 Canadians at the top, and 20 av top-22 being Canadians. If I remember right, earlier (or positional) rankings were even more Canadian dominated.

I also notice Lafleur ahead of Makarov. Is that still the consensus?

Alexei Kasatonov really should have been on the list. I watched basically every international game the Soviets played from the late 1970s, and the difference between Fetisov and Kasatonov wasn't big. Sometimes Kasatonov was the better of the two, and sometimes (more often) Fetisov was.
Here is an example of Kasatonov leading the Soviets in scoring during the 1981 Canada Cup:
Team Soviet Union - Canada Cup 1981 - Player Stats

Mats Sundin also deserves to be on the list. He's 19th alltime in adjusted scoring (28th in unadjusted) and led his team in scoring (and goals and assists) probably through 10+ seasons. Great playoff stats as well.
NHL & WHA Career Leaders and Records for Adjusted Points | Hockey-Reference.com
Most of all, he dominated internationally, and among Swedes Sundin and Forsberg was seen as pretty much equally good. In best-on-best tournaments, Sundin usually was selected to the All Star Team, and in World Championships led the scoring and was elected best forward.

The gap between Hasek (13th) and Roy (7th) looks big considering they on this board seems to be looked upon as pretty much equally good. I think Hasek is quite ahead of Roy, and see Hasek as a top-10 with Roy out of the top-10. I think goalies are hard to rank. There was/is 1 goalie among 12-18 or so skaters on a team. Does that mean that we should place only 6-8 or so goalies top-100..?? Possibly not..? But perhaps having 15(!) goalies top-100 is a bit too many??

It's easy to say that a guy deserves to be on the list, but sometimes harder to say who to drop from the list. Unfortunately, I have little knowledge of the NHL prior to the 1960s. But for example Bill Gadsby looks like a guy that Kasatonov might be able to beat, and perhaps that Dit Clapper and possibly Tim Horton. I think Chara and Kasatonov where fairly comparable and might want to place Chara higher too .
Sundin probably beats some old-timers too. And I might place him ahead of Trottier.
But, unlike the participants I haven't much studied the old-timers.


By the way, here is how players born in the 1950s (oldest ones within paranthesis) or so and later placed according to the OP:

1 Can Gretzky
( 3 Can Orr)
4 Can Lemieux
7 Can Roy
10 Can Bourque
12 Can Crosby
13 Cze Hasek
15 Swe Lidstrom
16 Cze Jagr
18 Can Potvin
21 Can Messier
22 Rus Ovechkin
23 Can Lafleur
25 Sov Fetisov
26 Sov Makarov
(27 Can Esposito)
(29 Can Clarke)
30 Can Brodeur
31 Can Trottier
32 Can Sakic
36 Can Bossy
37 Can Robinson
40 Can Yzerman
41 USA Chelois
(43 Sov Kharlamov)
(46 Can Dryden)
(47 Can Park)
48 Can Coffey
50 Sov Tretiak
51 Swe Forsberg
52 Rus Malkin
59 Can Pronger
63 Can Dionne
64 Can Stevens
67 Can MacInnis
69 Fin Selanne
(70 Sov Firsov)
76 Fin Kurri
80 C/U Br.Hull
84 Swe Salming
85 Can Belfour
(86 Sov Mikhailov)
88 Rus Fedorov
89 Svk Chara
91 Can Thornton
93 USA Kane
95 C/U M.Howe
96 Can Lindros
97 USA Leetch
98 Can St.Louis
(99 Can Keon)

Still a Canadian domination.
(I did this for myself and decided to post it. Mistakes might exist. I wrote "C/U" on Brett Hull and Mark Howe intentionally, as their fathers were Canadian, but just do however you want to do.)

I think that when you consider that Canada DID dominate the sport for literally half of its existence, and even now, has about half the players in the NHL, that the number of Canadians on the list is fair. What I am NOT comfortable with is the lack of non-Canadians at the top of the list... but on the other hand, I don't know who to put there.

If Lidstrom peaked higher, he'd be top 10. If Hasek had more than 6 elite seasons (he was never a factor in Vezina voting in any of the seasons except the ones he won), he'd be top 10. If Jagr's had more than 8 elite seasons (95-01 with a blip in 06) and didn't have certain negatives, he'd be top 10. If Ovechkin didn't decline at a young age, he'd be top 10.

As for your individual players:

One issue with Kasatonov is that he's widely considered to be a step below Vasiliev by... basically everyone, right? And Vasiliev didn't even make the list (though he was in contention). Another issue is that playing at the same time as Kasatonov, Krutov was pretty clearly a better player.

IMO, Martinec and Maltsev are the two biggest snubs among non-NHL Euros, but Krutov has a case as well. I'd take any of them easily over Kasatonov.

With regards to Makarov vs Lafleur, it's a tough call. I think Lafleur got a lot of mileage out of being widely considered the best player in the world in the late 1970s, while many considered Fetisov better than Makarov. On the other hand, Makarov's prime was definitely longer than Lafleur's.

Based on his NHL career, Mats Sundin has no case whatsoever.

 

[plusandminus]

Some of these "hockey nerds" are some of the most respected hockey historians in the World. Many belong to the Society for International Hockey Research.
SIHR | Society for International Hockey Research Which is a community of writers, statisticians, collectors, broadcasters, academics and fans of hockey history. So maybe you might want to change the bass in your voice when talking about people being " Hockey Nerds". As for Scotty Bowman and his lists, I'm sure that he didn't spend much time debating if such and such should be placed here and things like that. He probably just wrote a quick list and be on his marry way.

Aren't we all more or less "hockey nerds"? I meant nothing wrong with that. Maybe "nerd" is a negative word in English, but it's not in Swedish. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs were "computer nerds". Carl von Linné was a "nerd" that decided to categorize flowers and species, creating a system used all over the world. Mozart, Beethoven, Lennon and McCartney probably were music nerds. To me a "nerd" is simply someone with a strong interest in something, who spends time learning a subject.

Anyway, despite the participants being guys with a strong interest and knowledge in hockey history, it's still not a "de facto" rankning.

 

[quoipourquoi]

I think that when you consider that Canada DID dominate the sport for literally half of it's existence, and even now, has about half the players in the NHL, that the number of Canadians on the list is fair. What I am NOT comfortable with is the lack of non-Canadians at the top of the list... but on the other hand, I don't know who to put there.

I would suggest the same about the top American defenseman, goaltender, and forward being #41, #56, and #80(ish) respectively. It seems like there would be representation in the form of a top-40 player at least (not even asking for a top-12 one), but it hasn’t exactly shaken out that way.

Now that Patrick Kane exists, there may actually be one, and it didn’t take overlooking flaws in a different American player’s resume to justify a higher placement so that the nationality column feels right. Just time.

Same with Finland. More medals in the best-on-best Olympic era than any other country. Just the two players though (69, 76), and not even a goaltender, which has been their bread and butter lately. It doesn’t feel like adequate representation, but... we can’t exactly overlook dozens of players just because we want a Miikka Kiprusoff to spice up the list. Have to wait and see if Tuukka Rask has a really good close to his career instead.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Aren't we all more or less "hockey nerds"? I meant nothing wrong with that. Maybe "nerd" is a negative word in English, but it's not in Swedish. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs were "computer nerds". Carl von Linné was a "nerd" that decided to categorize flowers and species, creating a system used all over the world. Mozart, Beethoven, Lennon and McCartney probably were music nerds. To me a "nerd" is simply someone with a strong interest in something, who spends time learning a subject.

Anyway, despite the participants being guys with a strong interest and knowledge in hockey history, it's still not a "de facto" rankning.

Especially to older generations, "nerd" had a historically negative connotation. Nerds were "probably smart losers" for a while. These days, it really isn't used...but these days, it's not really a negative. Geek/nerd are almost used ironically at this point in English.

Your point is well taken, at least to me - and I presume, most of us...

 

[plusandminus]

I think that when you consider that Canada DID dominate the sport for literally half of it's existence, and even now, has about half the players in the NHL, that the number of Canadians on the list is fair. What I am NOT comfortable with is the lack of non-Canadians at the top of the list... but on the other hand, I don't know who to put there.

If Lidstrom peaked higher, he'd be top 10. If Hasek had more than 6 elite seasons (he was never a factor in Vezina voting in any of the seasons except the ones he won), he'd be top 10. If Jagr's had more than 8 elite seasons (95-01 with a blip in 06) and didn't have certain negatives, he'd be top 10. If Ovechkin didn't decline at a young age, he'd be top 10.

As for your individual players:

One issue with Kasatonov is that he's widely considered to be a step below Vasiliev by... basically everyone, right? And Vasiliev didn't even make the list (though he was in contention). Another issue is that playing at the same time as Kasatonov, Krutov was pretty clearly a better player.

IMO, Martinec and Maltsev are the two biggest snubs among non-NHL Euros, but Krutov has a case as well. I'd take any of them easily over Kasatonov.

With regards to Makarov vs Lafleur, it's a tough call. I think Lafleur got a lot of mileage out of being widely considered the best player in the world in the late 1970s, while many considered Fetisov better than Makarov. On the other hand, Makarov's prime was definitely longer than Lafleur's.

Based on his NHL career, Mats Sundin has no case whatsoever.

I'd say Hasek was pretty elite prior to playing in the NHL. He excelled in the juniors, and soon dominated domestically and internationally. (This might be an example of where non-NHL accomplishments are being under valued..??)

In the NHL, Hasek initially got stuck behind a Vezina caliber goalie and didn't get to play a lot. When he did play, he put up exactly the same stats as Vezina guy Belfour, and former Vezina guy Fuhr. (Some might now say Hasek got easier games/opponents, and I cannot comment upon that as I don't know.)

Once Hasek got the benefit of being a starting goalie he started dominating the league with his play and trophy wise. He continued being strong until his 40s, and and played professionally until age 46. Within the NHL, he was elite for about the same amount of time as Bobby Orr, dominating in a fairly comparable manner. Hasek won 6 Vezina within 8 years, from age 29 to 36. I would say Hasek was by far the best goalie in the NHL during those 8 seasons as a whole.

You say he wasn't a Vezina factor in his other seasons...
In 1995-96, he played 59 games and led the league in save percentage. He did get Vezina votes, 1+1+1 (out of 26 voters), enough to finish 8th. He also was a clear 8th in the All Star voting, with 0+2+2 votes. Okay, far from the winner. His .920 is also great when compared to his backup goalies, who were .903, .891, .875 and .844.
In 1999-00, at age 35, he played just 35 games. He played 0 games from nov-jan. When he played, he was .919, which was basically tied for best, along a few other ranging from .920 to .917. His backup goalie was .909. Missing three months doesn't exactly help gaining lots of votes. But he surely still, while missing 3 months, was elite.
I've also heard about the term "voter fatigue", which might mean not voting for a guy that has already gotten lots of votes on previous occasions. I do not know anything about whether that also was a factor or not here.

But anyway... Some prefer Hasek, some prefer Roy.
I also think goalies are very hard to rank compared to skaters. There are so many times more skaters competing against each other than goalies. So how do I/we determine who was/is really the best player? (Most valuable might be easier, as great goalies in general carries high value for the team.)


Kasatonov... Some would have him top-100, some not. In the project, few/none seemed to want him there.
Vasiliev... I was a child when he played. I remember him as great allround, but came to think of Kasatonov as being a step better. I might very well be wrong, and would need to do more study on Vasiliev.
Martinec and Maltsev... Also only watched as a child, and would need to study more.

Sundin... Well, yes, NHL wise he doesn't appear top-100 if looking at peak, votings, etc. Possibly due to his longevity he has a case, and I can definitely see him at NHL all-time top-100 lists that put more appreciation into his long and stable career.
However, internationally I think he should be a lock (or how you say it), and possibly within top-50.
To me, there is a "mismatch" between Sundin's play for Sweden, and his play for Toronto. I think that mismatch is very interesting, which is one reason for me often writing about him here.

When Sundin played for QUE, he was two years younger than Sakic, but managed to keep pace with him and even outscored him one season (114 pts, +23, compared to 105 pts, -3). Considering the age difference, I would say Sundin appeared as Sakic's equal.
Then, their careers took different paths. Sakic got another great center in Forsberg, and kept producing at about 1.3 ppg, played on a contender, won Stanley Cups, a scoring title, etc. All while Sundin was stuck on a non-contender, and lesser skilled teammates, producing about 1.0 ppg.
Yet, internationally Sundin looked at least as good as Sakic.

Okay, we have what we have, basically a point per game guy, competing here against players with clearly better NHL stats and "careers". But... he was great internationally!

 

[quoipourquoi]

I'd say Hasek was pretty elite prior to playing in the NHL. He excelled in the juniors, and soon dominated domestically and internationally. (This might be an example of where non-NHL accomplishments are being under valued..??)

Would we say he dominated internationally? His best-on-best tournaments weren’t consistently excellent (1987 was very good; 1984 and 1991, not really good at all), and of the three World Championships he received accolades (in an era in which 16/21 NHL teams made the playoffs, thereby creating limited competition), he tied for the lead in save percentage in one (1987), and more or less received the martyr vote in the others - trailing 3 goaltenders in save percentage in both 1989 and 1990. In 1990 in particular, his .904 was behind Jon Casey’s .914 and Arturs Irbe’s .950.

So he’s good, but it’s not like there’s another Nagano in there, and there’s nothing really indicating he was any more elite than guys like Burke, Casey, and Vanbiesbrouck. So I don’t think we’re missing an extension of what he did from 1994-1999.

Once Hasek got the benefit of being a starting goalie he started dominating the league with his play and trophy wise.

Inaccurate, and pretty well covered in both this and the goaltender project. Dominik Hasek was a starting goaltender in 1992-93 for two months until the first of what would be five long-term injuries in eight seasons while in Buffalo. His quality of competition was a little weaker, but he was still very good. Just not what he would be in the subsequent seasons, which he has credited to working with Mitch Korn extensively during the down time here.

So I don’t know that we necessarily left any stones unturned here. We even went into the low-support on two of his Vezina Trophies which came with less than 1/3 first-place support in years that weren’t really the strongest for competition to begin with. And based on his placement relative to many other oft-injured players (including several other European players such as Malkin), I think his ranking was really fair.

Reminder that he came out of Vote 2 ahead of Bourque, Crosby, and Morenz for 10th place and lost ground to all of them in Vote 3.

 

[DN28]

Would we say he dominated internationally? His best-on-best tournaments weren’t consistently excellent (1987 was very good; 1984 and 1991, not really good at all), and of the three World Championships he received accolades (in an era in which 16/21 NHL teams made the playoffs, thereby creating limited competition), he tied for the lead in save percentage in one (1987), and more or less received the martyr vote in the others - trailing 3 goaltenders in save percentage in both 1989 and 1990. In 1990 in particular, his .904 was behind Jon Casey’s .914 and Arturs Irbe’s .950.

So he’s good, but it’s not like there’s another Nagano in there, and there’s nothing really indicating he was any more elite than guys like Burke, Casey, and Vanbiesbrouck. So I don’t think we’re missing an extension of what he did from 1994-1999.

Yes, I think we should say that he dominated. Stats-wise, Hasek's cumulative international SV% before NHL was very good (0.901 when the average of tournaments he played in was 0.884). Even in Hasek's only statistically below average tournament (OG 1988) Czechoslovak press actually called the goalies (=Hasek and Sindel) to be the best CSSR players at that Olympics.

This is the key, it's not only international accolades and stats but a contemporary recognition of Hasek as the best player on his team. CSSR' defense in the 2nd half of 1980s got so bad that the strategy almost become: "Let's put Hasek in net and just hope he'll steal a game."

I am not sure what "martyr vote" should mean but Hasek's international awards were well deserved. He was widely considered to be the best European goaltender, he didn't get any "pity votes".

I don't share the idea of "limited competition". I mean the NHL goalies actually played in those tournaments - unlike the most of 1970s, 1960s and so on. The goalie competition for Hasek was steadily increasing at the time. Of course, Hasek had to fight for recognition with other European goalies as well. Ever since Canada and USA started to send NHL players to World Championships from 1977 onwards, European netminders actually dominated award votings, indicating the quality of Euro goalies might have been even better than that of 1977-1990' North American goalies.

Hasek was also phenomenal performer domestically. He won single-handedly two league titles (1987, 1989) over much stronger army teams filled with National Team members. Hasek's Tesla Pardubice team played a high-risk game with plenty of breakaways coming on Hasek. When Hasek was drafted into Dukla Jihlava (army team) before the 89/90 season, League champion Tesla Pardubice suddenly fell to penultimate place and had to play in relegation group as the Pardubice team completely fell apart just without this one player. Save percentage wise, Hasek dominated his domestic competition already in 1984 when he'd had still been just a high school teenager.

It's interesting to speculate what Hasek's pre-NHL career translates to. In my opinion, it all comes down to this:

Unless I'm convinced otherwise, Hasek's collection of domestic and international awards, votings, stats and contemporary quotes from hockey-related personalities strongly suggests that he was the best European goalie and the best non-Green Unit European player of the 2nd half of 1980s. What does this equal to?

The best goalie in the world? Probably not.

Just a back-up NHL goalie? That also doesn't seem right.

Given how well in general the European goalies did past the 1990, and also during the 1980s and 1970s, I think Hasek being the 3rd best goalie in the world pre-NHL (below Roy and Fuhr) is a reasonable estimate.

 

[MXD]

Given how well in general the European goalies did past the 1990, and also during the 1980s and 1970s, I think Hasek being the 3rd best goalie in the world pre-NHL (below Roy and Fuhr) is a reasonable estimate.

This seems to unduly punish John Vanbiesbrook and Tom Barrasso for being the first very good american netminders (well, in a long time).

 

[quoipourquoi]

For what it’s worth, Hasek had a .835 in 217 minutes to Sindel’s .918 in 262 minutes for Czechoslovakia in the 1988 Olympics.

Given how well in general the European goalies did past the 1990, and also during the 1980s and 1970s, I think Hasek being the 3rd best goalie in the world pre-NHL (below Roy and Fuhr) is a reasonable estimate.

I wouldn’t necessarily disagree with this as it pertains to a longevity argument. To me, where Hasek is deficient is primarily health and reliability.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I wouldn’t necessarily disagree with this as it pertains to a longevity argument. To me, where Hasek is deficient is primarily health and reliability.

That's how I see it too.

Or to put it another way, I think Hasek had excellent longevity as an effective player. I just don't know if he had longevity as a truly elite player.

 

[DN28]

For what it’s worth, Hasek had a .835 in 217 minutes to Sindel’s .918 in 262 minutes for Czechoslovakia in the 1988 Olympics.

I wouldn’t necessarily disagree with this as it pertains to a longevity argument. To me, where Hasek is deficient is primarily health and reliability.

I was indeed surprised to see even Hasek´s .835 at '88 Olympics being talked positively in the press at the time (well not the stat itself but his performance...), but it goes to show the ongoing crisis of 1980s CSSR National team. Emigrations were more and more prevalent, up and coming talents which were supposed to take over key roles chose to find their luck in NHL instead (players like Petr Svoboda, Frantisek Musil, Michal Pivonka.. no stars by any means but still long-term NHLers). Obviously Peter Stastny would come in handy for the Czechoslovak team as well...

By the 1988 and the Calgary Olympics, players still in their primes also became available for the NHL. This allegedly changed the whole team chemistry. Writers claimed that players now being free to leave let them to abandon team-oriented play and just focus to chase the goals and to show off in front of NHL scouts. That was the issue there in 1988. Concretely, I believe it was Jiri Hrdina who literally stayed in Calgary in winter 1988 and moved on to play for the Flames after Olympic tournament ended.

Then there was the ongoing (unspoken) tension between Czechs and Slovaks in the team, a problem that remained unsolved until 1993.

To the 2nd point, you're right that reliability is an issue with Hasek. Typically for many goalies, Hasek lived in his own world following his own rules and this actually manifested in the 80s as well.

For example, Hasek did not appreciate him being drafted into the army team (Dukla Jihlava) for the ´90 season. He had set up his home-town Pardubice for a dynasty and I doubt he was consulted about this move.. Hasek still of course arrived to Dukla and did his thing nonetheless, but when (sometimes in 2nd half of the season) Dukla was scheduled to play against struggling Pardubice, at the time at the bottom of standings, Hasek declined to play the game.

..He simply stood in front of coaches and teammates and told them he´s sitting this one out as he´s not going to sink his original team to relegation.

You can imagine that this created a big scandal. Fair or not, majority of coaches, players and writers condemned Hasek for these mannerisms. I think the Federation punished Hasek financially and/or with forcibly missed league games.

Funny thing about this is that the same people, who publicly denigrated Hasek for his choice of not playing the game, still kept voting for him as the best CSSR player (1990 Golden Stick) at the same time. And who can blame them? Here are the league stats from that season:

1989-1990 season:

Save percentage of every goalie with 10+ games played, reg. season and playoffs combined:

1. Hašek (Jihlava): 40 games / 80 goals allowed / 938 saves / 2.13 GAA / 0.9214 %
2. Bříza (Sparta): 53 games / 137 goals allowed / 1379 saves / 2.64 GAA / 0.9096 %
3. Dragan (Košice): 47 games / 133 goals allowed / 1107 saves / 3.20 GAA / 0.8927 %
4. Hnilička (Kladno): 24 games / 70 goals allowed / 578 saves / 0.8920 %
5. Beňo (Košice): 16 games / 31 goals allowed / 254 saves / 0.8912 %
6. Fürbacher (Plzeň): 31 games / 89 goals allowed / 715 saves / 3.20 GAA / 0.8893 %
7. Tóth (Trenčín): 15 games / 44 goals allowed / 344 saves / 0.8866 %
8. Kameš (Kladno): 39 games / 139 goals allowed / 1075 saves / 4.02 GAA / 0.8855 %
9. Orct (Litvínov): 27 games / 93 goals allowed / 706 saves / 4.08 GAA / 0.8836 %
10. Horyna (Jihlava): 13 games / 41 goals allowed / 305 saves / 0.8815 %
11. Blažek (Zlín): 29 games / 86 goals allowed / 636 saves / 3.41 GAA / 0.8809 %
12. Cagaš (Vítkovice): 48 games / 173 goals allowed / 1204 saves / 3.80 GAA / 0.8744 %
13. Hartmann (Trenčín): 46 games / 155 goals allowed / 1072 saves / 3.84 GAA / 0.8736 %
14. Jelínek (Brno): 35 games / 128 goals allowed / 850 saves / 3.69 GAA / 0.8691 %
15. Gula (Č. Budějovice): 47 games / 191 goals allowed / 1246 saves / 4.26 GAA / 0.8671 %
16. Lang (Brno): 10 games / 41 goals allowed / 259 saves / 0.8633 %
17. Hrazdíra (Zlín): 29 games / 93 goals allowed / 585 saves / 3.88 GAA / 0.8628 %
18. Svoboda (Pardubice): 31 games / 94 goals allowed / 587 saves / 4.47 GAA / 0.8620 %
19. Barta (Pardubice): 23 games / 89 goals allowed / 530 saves / 0.8562 %
20. Lukeš (Litvínov): 34 games / 128 goals allowed / 755 saves / 4.62 GAA / 0.8550 %
21. Pejchar (Plzeň): 18 games / 70 goals allowed / 397 saves / 0.8501 %
View attachment 78661

By the late 1980s, Hasek outgrown the League with no other Czech or Slovak player particularly close to him.

 

[plusandminus]

For what it’s worth, Hasek had a .835 in 217 minutes to Sindel’s .918 in 262 minutes for Czechoslovakia in the 1988 Olympics.

You pick 4 games out of a 8-9 year long international career? And use that against a guy who has the following resume:

1982 (age 17): Best goaltender during EJC
1983 (age 17): Best goaltender during WJC, played 2 in games (age 18) at WC
1984: (age 19): played in several games at Canada Cup
1986: Best Czechoslovak league goalie
1987: Best Czechoslovak league goalie, best Czechoslovak player, WC All Star Team
1988: Best Czechoslovak league goalie, 4-5 not-so-great-games during Olympics
1989: Best Czechoslovak league goalie, best Czechoslovak player, WC All Star Team
1990: Best Czechoslovak league goalie, best Czechoslovak player, WC All Star Team

When Sweden played Czechoslovakia in the 1980s, Hasek was considered their best player. Most of the talk was about getting to score against this phantom, who used all the tricks in the book (including moving the goal posts) to make sure he wasn't scored on. Get the puck past Hasek, and look out for the Czechoslovakian counter attacks, and you had a pretty good chance at defeating them.

 

[quoipourquoi]

You pick 4 games out of a 8-9 year long internatonal career?

Um... I didn’t. The 1988 Olympics were directly referenced in the post I quoted, and I wanted to point out the contrasting statistics between the goaltenders.

My post prior to that specifically referenced the 1987, 1989, and 1990 World Championships, the fact he trailed several goaltenders in the 1989 and 1990 tournaments in save percentage (and merely tied for the lead in 1987) - meaning that despite only 5/21 NHL teams being able to send a goaltender to the tournament, Hasek wasn’t having dominant tournaments against his non-best-on-best competition. And he wasn’t crushing it against best-on-best competition in 1984 or 1991, nor was his .894 in a much stronger tournament for him in 1987 necessarily more revealing than Vanbiesbrouck’s .922.

Again, I referenced all six of these tournaments in an above post in response to you. Perhaps you missed it when you were looking up a Wikipedia bulletpoint resume.

 

[plusandminus]

Would we say he dominated internationally? His best-on-best tournaments weren’t consistently excellent (1987 was very good; 1984 and 1991, not really good at all), and of the three World Championships he received accolades (in an era in which 16/21 NHL teams made the playoffs, thereby creating limited competition), he tied for the lead in save percentage in one (1987), and more or less received the martyr vote in the others - trailing 3 goaltenders in save percentage in both 1989 and 1990. In 1990 in particular, his .904 was behind Jon Casey’s .914 and Arturs Irbe’s .950.

So he’s good, but it’s not like there’s another Nagano in there, and there’s nothing really indicating he was any more elite than guys like Burke, Casey, and Vanbiesbrouck. So I don’t think we’re missing an extension of what he did from 1994-1999.

I think DN28 did an excellent job commenting upon this.

Inaccurate, and pretty well covered in both this and the goaltender project. Dominik Hasek was a starting goaltender in 1992-93 for two months until the first of what would be five long-term injuries in eight seasons while in Buffalo. His quality of competition was a little weaker, but he was still very good. Just not what he would be in the subsequent seasons, which he has credited to working with Mitch Korn extensively during the down time here.

So I don’t know that we necessarily left any stones unturned here. We even went into the low-support on two of his Vezina Trophies which came with less than 1/3 first-place support in years that weren’t really the strongest for competition to begin with. And based on his placement relative to many other oft-injured players (including several other European players such as Malkin), I think his ranking was really fair.

Reminder that he came out of Vote 2 ahead of Bourque, Crosby, and Morenz for 10th place and lost ground to all of them in Vote 3.

Thanks for correcting me. Right should be right. I should perhaps have written "Once Hasek got the benefit of being healthy enough to be a regular starting goalie"..?

I don't remember following the goalie project. It's good the more stones of interest you unturned.

So some were into the idea of perhaps downgrading two of his Vezinas because he wasn't superior enough? I wasn't aware of that.

This made me curious (Vezina and All-Star):
1994: 15+8+0 (26 voters). 40+6+6 (54 voters). Outstanding in Vezina and AST.
1995: 17+6+1 (26 voters). 14+1+0 (15 voters). Outstanding in Vezina and AST.
1996: not many votes. Led league in save percentage.
1997: 22+3+1 (26 voters). 40+12+1 (53 voters). Outstanding in Vezina and AST.
1998: 24+2+0 (26 voters). 50+3+0 (53 voters). Outstanding in Vezina and AST.
1999: 8+10+3 (27 voters). 35+13+6 (56 voters). Outstanding in AST. CuJo and Dafoe close in Vezina.
2000: not many votes. 2nd in save percentage, basically tied for 1st-4th.
2001: 9+12+4 (32 voters) 19+18+11 (61 voters). Small but clear Vezina. Close to Cechm and Brod in AST.

I'm curious about the Harts too:
1994: 6+15+11 (54 voters). 2nd behind outstanding Fedorov. Just ahead of Beezer.
1995: 3+2+2 (15 voters). 3rd behind outstanding Lindros. Closely between Jagr and Coffey.
1997: 50+2+1+0+0 (54 voters). 1st. Outstanding.
1998: 43+7+4+0+0 (54 voters). 1st. Outstanding.
1999: 4+10+8+5+7 (56 voters). 3rd behind outstanding Jagr. Between Yashin and CuJo.
2001: 0+3+2+3+2 (62 voters). 8th, far behind outstanding Sakic.

(The above is written mainly for my own curiosity.)

My summary of the above is that he clearly was the best goaltender during the above 8 year period. Probably also the league's best player, as well as the MVP of that 8 year period.
I think we could even expand the period to a 10 year period, in which he if summarizing all 10 years might have been the best goalie, best player(?) and MVP.


By the way... Here are some thoughts on save percentage. First, I know save percentage needs context too (ES, PP, SH, team defense...), like other stats, and cannot always be taken at face value. But one thing that I think might be overlooked is how "sensitive" save percentage is.

I mean, one GA more or less modifies save percentage 0.06 percentage units or so for a goalie facing 1700 or shots during a season. Two GA means +/- 0.12. That's pretty much, like 91.81 vs 91.69, considering how close goalies can be to each other in save percentage. Since randomness (including lucky/unlucky bounces) plays a big part in hockey, we might see variations in save percentage due to randomness. A season contains many games, but still a goalie's GA could easily be affected by up to +/- 5 GA per season, just due to randomness. 5 goals indicates - for a starting goalie - +/- 0.3 percentage units. So a 91.5 % goalie might actually be somewhere within 91.2 - 91.8 %.
[Edit: I hope I got the math here correct.]
I mention this because I think that when goalies are close to each other in save percentage, we should think of it as them being quite equal.
Since here seem to be former goalies, and guys with a special interest in goaltending, this is hopefully well known.

However, to lead the league for 6(!!) straight seasons in save percentage (in a 26+ team league) is truly impressive! Even more so considering the influence of randomness.
Gretzky led the league in scoring for 6 straight seasons. Jagr, Esposito and Howe for 4 straight seasons.
Ovechkin has led the league in goalscoring 4 straight seasons, and 7 out of 8 seasons. Esposito had 6 straight wins.

 

[plusandminus]

Um... I didn’t. The 1988 Olympics were directly referenced in the post I quoted, and I wanted to point out the contrasting statistics between the goaltenders.

My post prior to that specifically referenced the 1987, 1989, and 1990 World Championships, the fact he trailed several goaltenders in the 1989 and 1990 tournaments in save percentage (and merely tied for the lead in 1987) - meaning that despite only 5/21 NHL teams being able to send a goaltender to the tournament, Hasek wasn’t having dominant tournaments against his non-best-on-best competition. And he wasn’t crushing it against best-on-best competition in 1984 or 1991, nor was his .894 in a much stronger tournament for him in 1987 necessarily more revealing than Vanbiesbrouck’s .922.

Again, I referenced all six of these tournaments in an above post in response to you. Perhaps you missed it when you were looking up a Wikipedia bulletpoint resume.

I don't know what to say here. I think you're right enough. And I found the Wikipedia bulletpoint resume exercise interesting to do, so perhaps it becomes a win-win for both of us.

 

[quoipourquoi]

However, to lead the league for 6(!!) straight seasons in save percentage (in a 26+ team league) is truly impressive! Even more so considering the influence of randomness.
Gretzky led the league in scoring for 6 straight seasons. Jagr, Esposito and Howe for 4 straight seasons.
Ovechkin has led the league in goalscoring 4 straight seasons, and 7 out of 8 seasons. Esposito had 6 straight wins.

That came up in both projects too, in reference to the differences between winning an accumulative race vs. an averaging statistic race. Scorers don’t win races while sitting out with injuries the way Hasek was able to at the end of 1995-96 during a close race with Puppa during Tampa Bay’s successful playoff push.

Just something to consider when glorifying the consecutive nature of the accomplishment.