Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time

[ImporterExporter]

Since we're doing 1/3 of the way evaluations, here are my short takes. I'm only going to put list players whose rankings I disagree with. "Overrated" and "underrated" means they are within 10 spots of where I place them, "very overrated" and "very underrated" are greater than 10 spots.


5. Hull. Overrated. Or, in the very least, should not be more than 5 spots higher than Ovechkin, especially given their relative teammates. If Ovechkin wins another Richard or Cup, he will overtake Hull in my book.

8. Harvey. Very overrated. Really had only Kelly to compete against for the "best d-man in the league" and played on a team of all-stars.

10. Bourque. Overrated, for reasons I have already stated many times.

11. Morenz. Overrated. His numbers in both RS and PO don't match his reputation.

13. Hasek. Very underrated. NHL just listed him as #1 goalie of all time, and I fully second that opinion. If anything, he should be within three spots of Roy.

17. Kelly. Very overrated. See "Harvey."

18. Potvin. A bit overrated. Sure, at the time he was viewed as bigger impact than Bossy and Trottier, but violence is not a big plus for me. Without the yet-unnamed Bossy he would win jack squat.

19. Plante. Very overrated. Backstopped one of two great teams in the league.

22. Ovechkin. Underrated. 17 spots between him and Hull borders on unjustifiable, given their achievements and linemates. I am looking forward to him winning more awards.

23. Lafleur. Underrated. Clearly the best forward on a dynasty who somehow doesn't get nearly the recognition of the 50s Habs.

26. Makarov. Very underrated. Matched Canadian stars (except Gretzky) pound for pound, while being a stellar two-way player. He is making ways in the minds of voters, which is good, but he still got ways to go. Needs to be in the Top 10.

27. Esposito. Underrated. Doesn't get nearly the same benefits that 50s Habs forwards do, while posting better stats than them.

28. Hall. Very overrated.

30. Brodeur. Overrated. I originally had him at #45, raised him since, but not to #30.

31. Trottier. Underrated. The Islanders dynasty doesn't get nearly as much credit as all others.

33. Taylor. Overrated.

34. Cook. Very overrated.

Obviously a few people who have not been placed yet are VERY underrated.

So basically every Soviet/RussianCzech is vastly underrated and half the Canadian players listed are overrated, some by massive degrees?

Why am I not surprised?

I will agree that Fetisov and Makarov probably should have been a bit higher, like 5 spots or so. Hasek is not vastly underrated. His postseason successes, or lack thereof cannot justify him over Roy. Period. End. of. Story. Don't pass go. Don't collect $200. So sick of that narrative. The gap between the two is much, much larger in the postseason than regular season. Roy's prime and bulk of career came during the highest scoring era in hockey history. Hasek played a long time in the dead puck era. It matters.

The NHL's lists are a big joke. Anyone with any real hockey history knowledge knows their top 100 is missing many qualified players.

100 Greatest NHL Players

They have Pavel Bure, Yvan Cournoyer, Grant Fuhr, Bob Gainey, Mike bleeping Gartner, Pat Lafontaine, Mike Modano, Adam Oates, Joe Nieuwendyk, Gilbert Perreault, Jean Ratelle, Denis Savard, Daryl Sittler, Billy Smith, Peter Stastny, Mats Sundin, Jon Toews, and I'm sure I missed a few other jokes scanning the list.

I'm willing to be just about all those guys I listed don't sniff our 100 and I give our folks here a lot more credit and wisdom than anyone working for NHL.com based on their compost.

Also, please, by all means, tell me who Bobby Hull skated with mostly at even strength and who Ovechkin has had the pleasure of skating next to basically his entire career?

Hint, Hull didn't play much with Stan Mikita. And Hull was clearly a better playoff performer, Cups be damned, because most sensible people don't just Cup count. Not to mention the only 2 times Hull got to play internationally was at the ripe ages of 36 and 38 and he dominated both times. What has Ovechkin done for team Russia, best on best? Nothing.

And if you want to see an active player who's achieved great, great things with relative average to garbage on either side of him at even strength for 99% of his career, you're focused on the wrong superstar of the era. Hint. He wears 87. I'll be glad to post the linemates for each if you want to argue.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Two quick comments on the list in the first post:

Are we sure Eddie Shore was born in the Northwest Territories? Fort Qu'Apelle is a town in southern Saskatchewan, about an hour away from Regina. I know that Wikipedia says Shore was born in the NWT but I'm fairly sure he's a Saskatchewan native.

Nitpicking, but should we list Ovechkin as LW/RW? He has three Richard trophies and three years as an all-star at RW. Not as clear-cut as Kelly or Messier, but might be worth showing him as dual position too.

I'd list Messier as a C/LW (C first).

Don't really care about whether we give Ovechkin RW or not - seems like either way could be justified.

 

[MXD]

Two quick comments on the list in the first post:

Are we sure Eddie Shore was born in the Northwest Territories? Fort Qu'Apelle is a town in southern Saskatchewan, about an hour away from Regina. I know that Wikipedia says Shore was born in the NWT but I'm fairly sure he's a Saskatchewan native.

.

I believe the Shore thing has already been covered in the thread - the designation North West Territories covered the area now called Saskatchewan at the time of Shore’s birth.

Here what I wrote earlier on (and I suppose it's correct since the info wasn't corrected)

At the time of Shore's birth, Saskatchewan didn't exist yet. Fort Qu'Apelle was located, and someone can correct me should I be wrong, in the District of Assiniboia, which was part of the North-West Territories.

In other words, listing Shore as being born in the North-West Territories is consistent with the reminder of the list (e..g, Ovechkin as being born in the USSR and Hasek in Czechoslovkia)

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

100 Greatest NHL Players

They have Pavel Bure, Yvan Cournoyer, Grant Fuhr, Bob Gainey, Mike bleeping Gartner, Pat Lafontaine, Mike Modano, Adam Oates, Joe Nieuwendyk, Gilbert Perreault, Jean Ratelle, Denis Savard, Daryl Sittler, Billy Smith, Peter Stastny, Mats Sundin, Jon Toews, and I'm sure I missed a few other jokes scanning the list.

Players in pink are NHLers not nominated by ANYBODY on our panel. Darryl Sittler is a candidate for "best Center nominated by no-one." [C.f.: Gordie Drillon, whom I tagged as possibly "best Right Wing nominated by no-one."]

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Here what I wrote earlier on (and I suppose it's correct since the info wasn't corrected)

At the time of Shore's birth, Saskatchewan didn't exist yet. Fort Qu'Apelle was located, and someone can correct me should I be wrong, in the District of Assiniboia, which was part of the North-West Territories.

In other words, listing Shore as being born in the North-West Territories is consistent with the reminder of the list (e..g, Ovechkin as being born in the USSR and Hasek in Czechoslovkia)

Good comment - I think you're right.

For any non-Canadians reading this - this jumped out when I first read the list. It seemed to be a geographic oddity. I know that Fort Qu'Apelle is about 2 hours from the US (North Dakota) border, yet the (modern) Northwest Territories is about as far north as Alaska.

This has been a good reminder about Canadian history. Shore was born in 1902. At the time, the Northwest Territories was enormous (even bigger than it is now - for any non-Canadians reading this, the modern NWT about double the size of Texas - or about the size of Peru).

Back then, the NWT was larger still, containing modern-day Alberta, Saskatchewan and Nunavut; northern Quebec; part of the Yukon; and most of Manitoba. So, when Shore was born, the NWT stretched from US border all the way to Ellesmere Island (a frigid, barren island deep inside the Arctic circle).

Anyway, this resolves the mystery. Lesson learned - remember that provincial boundaries can change over the course of a century.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Oh definitely. In fact, Ovechkin was magically able to play both wings simultaneously in 2013, according to the NHL.

Nice.

I’ve updated Alex Ovechkin to LW / RW. It’s obviously a little more fluid than the other multi-position players, but given that he was a 1st Team in both at different points, it makes sense to list both.

 

[Troubadour]

The gap between the two is much, much larger in the postseason than regular season.

Gap in GP?

Because Hasek has Roy's number in terms of GAA, SV% and shutouts per game even in the post-season. And the gap is definitely narrower than Hasek's dominance over Roy in the reg season.

 

[MXD]

Gap in GP?

Because Hasek has Roy's number in terms of GAA, SV% and shutouts per game even in the post-season. And the gap is definitely narrower than Hasek's dominance over Roy in the reg season.

That's exactly something I'd come with if I wanted to prop Hasek instead of, you know, actually assessing how two players performed. Anyways, as it is, you're brashly claiming that you're completely oblivious to the drastic change in scoring levels that happened right around the mid-90ies.

Oh, and players tend to get increased credit as their amount of games played increase. It was a very specific complaint addressed towards Hasek during the project.

 

[bobholly39]

Since we're doing 1/3 of the way evaluations, here are my short takes. I'm only going to put list players whose rankings I disagree with. "Overrated" and "underrated" means they are within 10 spots of where I place them, "very overrated" and "very underrated" are greater than 10 spots.


5. Hull. Overrated. Or, in the very least, should not be more than 5 spots higher than Ovechkin, especially given their relative teammates. If Ovechkin wins another Richard or Cup, he will overtake Hull in my book.

8. Harvey. Very overrated. Really had only Kelly to compete against for the "best d-man in the league" and played on a team of all-stars.

10. Bourque. Overrated, for reasons I have already stated many times.

11. Morenz. Overrated. His numbers in both RS and PO don't match his reputation.

13. Hasek. Very underrated. NHL just listed him as #1 goalie of all time, and I fully second that opinion. If anything, he should be within three spots of Roy.

17. Kelly. Very overrated. See "Harvey."

18. Potvin. A bit overrated. Sure, at the time he was viewed as bigger impact than Bossy and Trottier, but violence is not a big plus for me. Without the yet-unnamed Bossy he would win jack squat.

19. Plante. Very overrated. Backstopped one of two great teams in the league.

22. Ovechkin. Underrated. 17 spots between him and Hull borders on unjustifiable, given their achievements and linemates. I am looking forward to him winning more awards.

23. Lafleur. Underrated. Clearly the best forward on a dynasty who somehow doesn't get nearly the recognition of the 50s Habs.

26. Makarov. Very underrated. Matched Canadian stars (except Gretzky) pound for pound, while being a stellar two-way player. He is making ways in the minds of voters, which is good, but he still got ways to go. Needs to be in the Top 10.

27. Esposito. Underrated. Doesn't get nearly the same benefits that 50s Habs forwards do, while posting better stats than them.

28. Hall. Very overrated.

30. Brodeur. Overrated. I originally had him at #45, raised him since, but not to #30.

31. Trottier. Underrated. The Islanders dynasty doesn't get nearly as much credit as all others.

33. Taylor. Overrated.

34. Cook. Very overrated.

Obviously a few people who have not been placed yet are VERY underrated.

Huge issue with your Hull assessment. And honestly its been a recurring theme with many of your comments. Why does Ovechkin being close to Hull have to translate to how many players are in between? They can be really close yet there still be a lot of players in between. Tons of players in hockey history.

Regarding Hull: i was surprised at how high he went. Going into this i expected him to fall somewhat.

The difference between Hull and Ovi still exists at the NHL level (even though its shrinking). But Hull was a high profile player in the WHA for many years. Thats a differentiator.

 

[Troubadour]

That's exactly something I'd come with if I wanted to prop Hasek instead of, you know, actually assessing how two players performed. Anyways, as it is, you're brashly claiming that you're completely oblivious to the drastic change in scoring levels that happened right around the mid-90ies.

Oh, and players tend to get increased credit as their amount of games played increase. It was a very specific complaint addressed towards Hasek during the project.

Since I'm generally allergic to unearned smugness, here we go:

If that's exactly what you would come up with doing what you claim you would be doing then, that's your own coming out. Stop insidiously projecting yourself onto others. We're not all sleazeballs. Some of us just honestly think that Hasek was superior to Roy. And some of us say what we think instead of dancing around it.

As for the second paragraph, that's what I asked about, talking to that person I was actually talking to. And IE does not need you speak on his behalf, if anyone does.

 

[Sentinel]

So basically every Soviet/RussianCzech is vastly underrated and half the Canadian players listed are overrated, some by massive degrees?

Why am I not surprised?

You have somehow missed my claim that Lafleur, Esposito, Bossy, and Yzerman are all massively underrated, but hey, whatchagonnado...

I will agree that Fetisov and Makarov probably should have been a bit higher, like 5 spots or so. Hasek is not vastly underrated. His postseason successes, or lack thereof cannot justify him over Roy. Period. End. of. Story. Don't pass go. Don't collect $200. So sick of that narrative. The gap between the two is much, much larger in the postseason than regular season. Roy's prime and bulk of career came during the highest scoring era in hockey history. Hasek played a long time in the dead puck era. It matters.

You can be "sick of that narrative" all you want, but get used to living with it. Hasek played in the same exact era as Roy (just not in the NHL in the beginning). You can also keep ignoring their face-to-face record. I won't.

The NHL's lists are a big joke. Anyone with any real hockey history knowledge knows their top 100 is missing many qualified players.

Yet many more people will see them than our list. Once in a while they get things right. Like Hasek being better than Roy.

They have Pavel Bure, Yvan Cournoyer, Grant Fuhr, Bob Gainey, Mike bleeping Gartner, Pat Lafontaine, Mike Modano, Adam Oates, Joe Nieuwendyk, Gilbert Perreault, Jean Ratelle, Denis Savard, Daryl Sittler, Billy Smith, Peter Stastny, Mats Sundin, Jon Toews, and I'm sure I missed a few other jokes scanning the list.

I'm willing to be just about all those guys I listed don't sniff our 100 and I give our folks here a lot more credit and wisdom than anyone working for NHL.com based on their compost.

I sure hope Bure makes our list. I also have Perreault, Modano, and Toews on my list. So there.

Also, please, by all means, tell me who Bobby Hull skated with mostly at even strength and who Ovechkin has had the pleasure of skating next to basically his entire career?

Having THREE all-time greats on your TEAM is better than having ONE good player on your LINE. MUCH better.

Hint, Hull didn't play much with Stan Mikita. And Hull was clearly a better playoff performer, Cups be damned, because most sensible people don't just Cup count. Not to mention the only 2 times Hull got to play internationally was at the ripe ages of 36 and 38 and he dominated both times. What has Ovechkin done for team Russia, best on best? Nothing.

Allow me to refresh your memory.



"Cups be damned"... sure. Except this is what matters more than personal stats to players, all day, any day.

 

[bobholly39]

Since I'm generally allergic to unearned smugness, here we go:

If that's exactly what you would come up with doing what you claim you would be doing then, that's your own coming out. Stop insidiously projecting yourself onto others. We're not all sleazeballs. Some of us just honestly think that Hasek was superior to Roy. And some of us say what we think instead of dancing around it.

As for the second paragraph, that's what I asked about, talking to that person I was actually talking to. And IE does not need you speak on his behalf, if anyone does.

Haseks longevity at the NHL level leaves a lot to be desired.

I dont really care that its "not his fault " or that he "could have made it earlier " - since to me its all about what actually happened.

Roy is also a significant step up in playoffs (smythes, # of wins and the fact he made it past round 1 almost every year and even round 2, etc).

To me those were the 2 biggest factors in having Roy ahead.

I think if Hasek had an all time great playoff run (worthy of his hart seasons) i could have flipped them. Lemieux and Orr lack a ton of longevity too but they still each have 2 of the all time best playoff performances. Hasek doesnt have that.
I think Haseks seasons are also a step below orr and lemieux of course but theres no question that for a goalie theyre spectacular. If he had a playoff (or 2) worthty of them id have been tempted to overlook his lack of longevity.
To be clear im not saying Hasek was bad in playoffs - but peak playoff roy > peak playoff Hasek.

 

[Sentinel]

Huge issue with your Hull assessment. And honestly its been a recurring theme with many of your comments. Why does Ovechkin being close to Hull have to translate to how many players are in between? They can be really close yet there still be a lot of players in between. Tons of players in hockey history.

Regarding Hull: i was surprised at how high he went. Going into this i expected him to fall somewhat.

The difference between Hull and Ovi still exists at the NHL level (even though its shrinking). But Hull was a high profile player in the WHA for many years. Thats a differentiator.

Oh, and Ovi was not a high profile player in the KHL? Both times he played there in his adult career, he won (or contributed to) the league's championship title (2005 and 2013).

The difference at the NHL level is pretty small now. I'd say Ovi is one award / title away from overtaking Hull.

 

[Troubadour]

[MOD]

If we only compare Roy's and Ηasek's playoff numbers since 90/91, surprisingly for you, Roy's %SV remains at .918, his GAA actually gets worse at 2.34 and shootout rate per game improves somewhat to 0.103 per game, yet still remains below Hasek's.

Merry Christmas!

 

[bobholly39]

Oh, and Ovi was not a high profile player in the KHL? Both times he played there in his adult career, he won (or contributed to) the league's championship title (2005 and 2013).

The difference at the NHL level is pretty small now. I'd say Ovi is one award / title away from overtaking Hull.

Hes young. If you put their careers head to head Hull has more years still. At the nhl level theyre close (slight edge to Hull). WHA is that much more of a differentiator.

 

[Troubadour]

Haseks longevity at the NHL level leaves a lot to be desired.

I dont really care that its "not his fault " or that he "could have made it earlier " - since to me its all about what actually happened.

Roy is also a significant step up in playoffs (smythes, # of wins and the fact he made it past round 1 almost every year and even round 2, etc).

To me those were the 2 biggest factors in having Roy ahead.

I think if Hasek had an all time great playoff run (worthy of his hart seasons) i could have flipped them. Lemieux and Orr lack a ton of longevity too but they still each have 2 of the all time best playoff performances. Hasek doesnt have that.
I think Haseks seasons are also a step below orr and lemieux of course but theres no question that for a goalie theyre spectacular. If he had a playoff (or 2) worthty of them id have been tempted to overlook his lack of longevity.
To be clear im not saying Hasek was bad in playoffs - but peak playoff roy > peak playoff Hasek.

Conn Smythe is that award that says you were the best player on your team for about 25 games. Important games, yeah. But it absolutely does not mean you are the best player at your position league-wide, which is something that evades many of the better minds here.

You see, I was originally reacting to IE assessment how Roy had more on Hasek in playoffs than Hasek has on Roy in the regular season. Total numbers, undeniably, yeah. But that's as far as it goes.

 

[Sentinel]

Hasek was relevant as an elite goalie between 1987 (his first Extraliga's Goaltender of the Year award) to at least 2005-06 until his injury (2nd best Save% in NHL). You can even argue his 2006-07 season was pretty elite (and he was great for the Wings in playoffs that year)
I'd say this is a pretty good longevity.

I think if Hasek had an all time great playoff run (worthy of his hart seasons) i could have flipped them. Lemieux and Orr lack a ton of longevity too but they still each have 2 of the all time best playoff performances. Hasek doesnt have that.

Did you somehow miss the '99 Sabers run? Because if this was not an all time great playoff run (he had the CS practically wrapped up, if not for the Hull's crease goal), I don't know what is. Hell, even Lemieux's team won one round for him. Sabers aren't getting anywhere near playoffs, let alone the SCFinals if not for Dom.

And two out of three Wings playoffs were excellent for Dom.

peak playoff roy > peak playoff Hasek.

Nobody questions that. But peak RS Hasek > peak RS Roy by a bigger margin.

 

[Sentinel]

Hes young. If you put their careers head to head Hull has more years still. At the nhl level theyre close (slight edge to Hull). WHA is that much more of a differentiator.

Again. Ovechkin has 2 RSL/KHL titles in 2 years that he played there. Hull has 2 WHA title in 8. The difference between them is closer than you think.

 

[MXD]

There are arguments as to why Hasek would be a better player than Roy, but yours is one I'd raise if I really wanted to convince people of the opposite, because it mostly stems from a lack of basic knowledge about scoring levels. Bringing the comparison back to 90-91 made it even worse, because, not only that isn't even close to where scoring levels changed, but you'd also have to add one Connie Smythe win and one other great run.

Why not make the case that Hasek is superior to Maurice Richard or Doug Harvey or Sidney Crosby? Seems like more realistic targets than Patrick Roy to me.

 

[quoipourquoi]

[MOD]

If we only compare Roy's and Ηasek's playoff numbers since 90/91, surprisingly for you, Roy's %SV remains at .918, his GAA actually gets worse at 2.34 and shootout rate per game improves somewhat to 0.103 per game, yet still remains below Hasek's.

Merry Christmas!

You’re still running cumulative numbers prior to normalization, and that’s where the statistical analysis becomes somewhat problematic. If you’re treating a save and a shot in 1993 the same as you would a save and a shot in 2002 just because two players perform in both environments, then you’re losing some valuable data that puts each individual run in better context.

If you had two forwards who played from 1985-2004, but the first peaked from 1985-1994 while the second peaked from 1995-2004, then the first player is at a statistical advantage both for his peak numbers and for his career numbers.

That’s why the following is not just a descending order for save percentage:

Top Four-Round Performances, 1975-2017
Error Rate vs. Expectation
1. Patrick Roy, 1993 (55.7% on 647 shots)
2. John Vanbiesbrouck, 1996 (58.8% on 735 shots)
3. John Davidson, 1979 (59.2% on 535 shots)
4. Jean-Sebastien Giguere, 2003 (59.3% on 697 shots)
5. Tuukka Rask, 2013 (59.4% on 761 shots)
6. Richard Brodeur, 1982 (60.4% on 594 shots)
7. Jonathan Quick, 2012 (60.4% on 538 shots)
8. Dominik Hasek, 1999 (60.7% on 587 shots)
9. Patrick Roy, 1986 (61.3% on 504 shots)
10. Patrick Roy, 2001 (62.6% on 622 shots)
11. Olaf Kolzig, 1998 (62.6% on 740 shots)
12. Pelle Lindbergh, 1985 (62.6% on 487 shots)
13. Billy Smith, 1983 (64.4% on 494 shots)
14. Patrick Roy, 1989 (64.5% on 526 shots)
15. Martin Brodeur, 1995 (64.9% on 463 shots)
16. Arturs Irbe, 2002 (64.9% on 480 shots)
17. Kirk McLean, 1994 (65.6% on 820 shots)
18. Tim Thomas, 2011 (66.5% on 849 shots)
19. Patrick Roy, 1996 (66.9% on 649 shots)
20. Chris Osgood, 2008 (68.0% on 430 shots)


Still have to check to see if MAF bumped Osgood off-the-list, but Patrick Roy having a quarter of the top-20 normalized Finals runs during the four-round era (of which there is a field of roughly 100) when no other player ranks more than once is the type of deeper statistical analysis that HOH has been doing since the 2012 positional projects.

So knowing that, and knowing that Hasek’s quality game percentage drops to practically 50-50 when trailing in a playoff series whereas Roy’s increases to greater than 75% when trailing, and knowing that the 1997 playoffs played out the way they did in spite of the .926 that appears on the back of Hasek’s hockey cards for his playoffs, there’s a great deal of evidence that cumulative save percentage doesn’t tell the full story and that there is a bigger gap between playoff Roy and playoff Hasek than 6x 1st Team All-Star and 5x top-3 in Hart voting Hasek and 4x 1st Team / 2x 2nd Team All-Star (with two additional Vezina nominations) and 5x top-5 in Hart voting Roy.

Hasek’s regular season injury history (something that has precluded two other recent Centers from eligibility so far) seems to have played a factor in greater separation between the two than what one would typically see on HFBoards. However Hasek’s position overall seems relatively stable (still behind contemporary Bourque but in the same grouping); it’s the analysis of Roy that has elevated him into not the Venti-4 but instead the Grande-5 with Beliveau, Harvey, Hull, and Richard.

 

[bobholly39]

Did you somehow miss the '99 Sabres run? Because if this was not an all time great playoff run (he had the CS practically wrapped up, if not for the Hull's crease goal), I don't know what is. Hell, even Lemieux's team won one round for him. Sabres aren't getting anywhere near playoffs, let alone the SCFinals if not for Dom.

And two out of three Wings playoffs were excellent for Dom.


Nobody questions that. But peak RS Hasek > peak RS Roy by a bigger margin.

I think Hasek > all goalies in reg season. But he lacks longevity

I made a parallel with Orr and Lemieux. They too are better than any forward or defender in reg season (minus gretzky) but lack longevity. Orr and lemieuxs gap vs others is bigger than Haseks - but theres a parallel there.

What I'm saying is put both their playoff runs against anyone and Orr and Lemieux are among the 2 best ever.

Hasek? Yes 1999 was really great but you yourself said peak playoff Roy is better. Is Haseks best playoff even top 10 all time for a goalie?

Roys extra regular season longevity counters Haseks dominance at his peak. Roys playoffs close the gap and put him ahead.

Thats my argument.

Again. Ovechkin has 2 RSL/KHL titles in 2 years that he played there. Hull has 2 WHA title in 8. The difference between them is closer than you think.

Youre basically agreeing that Hull > Ovechkin in nhl and Hull > Ovechkin outside NHL. So im not sure why their rankings bother you so much.

I think with both Ovi and Crosby itll be easier to assess them with whole career. It sounds like your issue is more about Ovechkin being low than Hull being high

Also 8 high profile seasons >> 2. Hull was really good in the WHA.

 

[Theokritos]

Mod Note:

Stop targeting the other poster instead of the subject. Just because it's Christmas doesn't mean the rules won't be upheld.

 

[Troubadour]

You’re still running cumulative numbers prior to normalization, and that’s where the statistical analysis becomes somewhat problematic. If you’re treating a save and a shot in 1993 the same as you would a save and a shot in 2002 just because two players perform in both environments, then you’re losing some valuable data that puts each individual run in better context.

If you had two forwards who played from 1985-2004, but the first peaked from 1985-1994 while the second peaked from 1995-2004, then the first player is at a statistical advantage both for his peak numbers and for his career numbers.

That’s why the following is not just a descending order for save percentage:

Top Four-Round Performances, 1975-2017
Error Rate vs. Expectation
1. Patrick Roy, 1993 (55.7% on 647 shots)
2. John Vanbiesbrouck, 1996 (58.8% on 735 shots)
3. John Davidson, 1979 (59.2% on 535 shots)
4. Jean-Sebastien Giguere, 2003 (59.3% on 697 shots)
5. Tuukka Rask, 2013 (59.4% on 761 shots)
6. Richard Brodeur, 1982 (60.4% on 594 shots)
7. Jonathan Quick, 2012 (60.4% on 538 shots)
8. Dominik Hasek, 1999 (60.7% on 587 shots)
9. Patrick Roy, 1986 (61.3% on 504 shots)
10. Patrick Roy, 2001 (62.6% on 622 shots)
11. Olaf Kolzig, 1998 (62.6% on 740 shots)
12. Pelle Lindbergh, 1985 (62.6% on 487 shots)
13. Billy Smith, 1983 (64.4% on 494 shots)
14. Patrick Roy, 1989 (64.5% on 526 shots)
15. Martin Brodeur, 1995 (64.9% on 463 shots)
16. Arturs Irbe, 2002 (64.9% on 480 shots)
17. Kirk McLean, 1994 (65.6% on 820 shots)
18. Tim Thomas, 2011 (66.5% on 849 shots)
19. Patrick Roy, 1996 (66.9% on 649 shots)
20. Chris Osgood, 2008 (68.0% on 430 shots)


Still have to check to see if MAF bumped Osgood off-the-list, but Patrick Roy having a quarter of the top-20 normalized Finals runs during the four-round era (of which there is a field of roughly 100) when no other player ranks more than once is the type of deeper statistical analysis that HOH has been doing since the 2012 positional projects.

So knowing that, and knowing that Hasek’s quality game percentage drops to practically 50-50 when trailing in a playoff series whereas Roy’s increases to greater than 75% when trailing, and knowing that the 1997 playoffs played out the way they did in spite of the .926 that appears on the back of Hasek’s hockey cards for his playoffs, there’s a great deal of evidence that cumulative save percentage doesn’t tell the full story and that there is a bigger gap between playoff Roy and playoff Hasek than 6x 1st Team All-Star and 5x top-3 in Hart voting Hasek and 4x 1st Team / 2x 2nd Team All-Star (with two additional Vezina nominations) and 5x top-5 in Hart voting Roy.

Hasek’s regular season injury history (something that has precluded two other recent Centers from eligibility so far) seems to have played a factor in greater separation between the two than what one would typically see on HFBoards. However Hasek’s position overall seems relatively stable (still behind contemporary Bourque but in the same grouping); it’s the analysis of Roy that has elevated him into not the Venti-4 but instead the Grande-5 with Beliveau, Harvey, Hull, and Richard.

At first glance, that chart is really, really nice to Roy, but only two goalies a year really qualify for this. In other words, not a good way to compare goalies.

Yes, you can pompously shout out "only two goalies a year qualify for this, and look how many times Roy qualified!"

But seeing the company, and also seeing Roy has no non-winning four-round run in top ten, the impact of team effort naturally comes into question. And in the end, it's just a matter of seeing the glass half-full or half-empty. You call it a normalized stat, but I say it's just as misleading as comparing their cumulative stats.

Peak Hasek's losing four-round run beats two of Roy's Cup-and-Conn-Smythe-winning runs. Everyone will just take what they want from this.

The different peak timing and your analogy is a strange argument. Because Hasek did not play in the NHL in the eighties. And while everyone arguing this is naturally more on the Roy side, they automatically presume Roy's peak in the 80s beat Hasek in the 80s, which is pretty short-sighted.

It could have been the other way as well. Put the 80s Hasek in the 80s NHL and it's possible Roy's peak is no-peak because he wins nothing with Hasek rolling and he ends up outshone by Hasek to even greater extent. Because when we cut to the chase, Roy was the best goalie in the league only when Hasek wasn't playing.

 

[Sentinel]

I think Hasek > all goalies in reg season. But he lacks longevity.

Did you forget to counter my statement that Hasek's elite longevity is between 1987 (his first Best Goaltender award) and 2006 (excellent performance, prior to injury)?

Hasek? Yes 1999 was really great but you yourself said peak playoff Roy is better. Is Haseks best playoff even top 10 all time for a goalie?

I think so, but Hasek has one such playoff run, while Roy has at least 4.

Youre basically agreeing that Hull > Ovechkin in nhl and Hull > Ovechkin outside NHL. So im not sure why their rankings bother you so much.

That's not what I said at all. Hull ~ Ovechkin in NHL and Hull is marginally better than Ovechkin (very slightly) outside NHL. It's the "#5 vs. #22" that bothers me to no end.

 

[bobholly39]

At first glance, that chart is really, really nice to Roy, but only two goalies a year really qualify for this. In other words, not a good way to compare goalies.

Yes, you can pompously shout out "only two goalies a year qualify for this, and look how many times Roy qualified!"

But seeing the company, and also seeing Roy has no non-winning four-round run in top ten, the impact of team effort naturally comes into question. And in the end, it's just a matter of seeing the glass half-full or half-empty. You call it a normalized stat, but I say it's just as misleading as comparing their cumulative stats.

Peak Hasek's losing four-round run beats two of Roy's Cup-and-Conn-Smythe-winning runs. Everyone will just take what they want from this.

The different peak timing and your analogy is a strange argument. Because Hasek did not play in the NHL in the eighties. And while everyone arguing this is naturally more on the Roy side, they automatically presume Roy's peak in the 80s beat Hasek in the 80s, which is pretty short-sighted.

It could have been the other way as well. Put the 80s Hasek in the 80s NHL and it's possible Roy's peak is no-peak because he wins nothing with Hasek rolling and he ends up outshone by Hasek to even greater extent. Because when we cut to the chase, Roy was the best goalie in the league only when Hasek wasn't playing.

No offense but this post screams a whole lot of nothing to me.

Yes playoffs is smaller sample size than reg season and yes to get a lot of playoff games - esp within a single year - you have to actually win playoff rounds. But so what? Are you actually suggesting the value of 1 regular season game is as much as 1 playoff game? Because to me thats ludicrous and ive never heard that before. Whether you value overall playoffs or reg season is certainly worth of consideration since so many more reg season games.

Yes that chart shows Haseks best is better than 2 of 3 roys cup runs. But roy has the best run. And his 2nd 3rd 4th and 5th best ones are better than Haseks 2nd run. Thats why its net advantage Roy

Finally - who cares whether you believe Hasek might have done better in the nhl than roy or not in the 80s? We judge on what happened and hence its an advtantage to Roy. Otherwise its just a hypothetical.