TOP 25 players since Gretzky (1979)

[Canadiens1958]

Again..................

Just like the team support in front of Brodeur, which was a great deal better than the team in front of Hasek, dictated the opposing teams strategy and how much room they had to work with. You cannot say "Bourque played on weaker teams, so his accomplishments are worth more than face value" without also saying the same thing about Hasek, who played on one of the worst teams in the league and carried them on his back.

I noticed you intentionally did not respond to that bit earlier. Overall career numbers is highly Dependant on playing for a great team for goaltenders.


Errr, what?
Hasek's time in Chicago was limited, but he went 13-4-2, with a 0.904 Save%(This is when the very best goalies in the league had average save% of 0.90 or lower) and Dominik Hasek was 4th in GAA both years

Buffalo was NOT a good team in 1992-93. They had 2 superstar forwards who ran up scoring against weak teams like everyone else did that year and another good forward, and a below average defense and depth and they just squeaked into the playoffs in the final spot. They went through 12 different defensemen for a reason that year.

Grant Fuhr left that weak Buffalo team after a terrible year and went on to have two good 30+ win seasons in StLouis.

Again, goalies are not skaters and as such cannot be targeted like defensemen with dump and chase strategies aimed at taking the d-man into the boards and tiring him physically.

Forwards were, Mogilny having a break-out career year until a badly broken leg in the play-offs derailed what had the potential to be a HOF career, Lafontaine and Hawerchuk, whose careers speak for themselves.

13-4-2 in app 20 games wow!!!!!!! Keenan has a history of starting the back-up goalies against weak teams. Again comparing results from a sampling of 20 games against others who play 2 - 3.5 times as much is rather weak. The best goalie after all did not play just 20 games. Analogy would be basing expected 1500m times on 100m times. Doesn't happen.

 

[Dark Shadows]

Again, goalies are not skaters and as such cannot be targeted like defensemen with dump and chase strategies aimed at taking the d-man into the boards and tiring him physically.

Forwards were, Mogilny having a break-out career year until a badly broken leg in the play-offs derailed what had the potential to be a HOF career, Lafontaine and Hawerchuk, whose careers speak for themselves.

13-4-2 in app 20 games wow!!!!!!! Keenan has a history of starting the back-up goalies against weak teams. Again comparing results from a sampling of 20 games against others who play 2 - 3.5 times as much is rather weak. The best goalie after all did not play just 20 games. Analogy would be basing expected 1500m times on 100m times. Doesn't happen.

In the end, you are still avoiding the point.

Brodeur played with a great squad in front of him, Hasek played with a subpar squad in front of him. No matter how good a goaltender is, he is not the whole team. Brodeur's better team helped his statistics, particularly in the wins column, while Hasek had to do nearly all the work to win games for the Sabres.

You CANNOT give points to one player for playing on a bad team while ignoring doing it for another player.

 

[Canadiens1958]

A Closer Look

An ECHL goalie could not put up a similar CV because he would make it to the NHL. When Hasek was dominating the Czechoslovakian league he did not particularly care about coming to North America, and did not really have the option for years anyway.




Yes, Mike Keenan does believe in hockey meritocracy. Ed Belfour earned the starting job by winning the Vezina trophy the year of Hasek's arrival, while Hasek only had the opportunity to play in 5 games. He managed to keep the job, as he was continually one of the top few goalies in the league while Hasek was there. Belfour was probably the second best starting goalie in the league while Hasek was in Chicago. Whether or not Hasek was better, he could not prove it in the 25 games he played over the course of the two seasons. And, as Thornton_19 pointed out, Hasek's statistics in the games he did play were pretty good anyway.




I was off by one year regarding Fuhr's arrival. My portrayal of Hasek's play in Buffalo, however, is accurate. Even in the 1992-93 season that you mentioned, Hasek ranked 7th in the league in save percentage, ahead of Patrick Roy, Grant Fuhr, Ron Hextall, Kelly Hrudey, Mike Vernon, Mike Richter, etc. That could hardly be considered weak goaltending.




That is true, but Fuhr faced and beat the Soviets with a supporting cast of Wayne Gretzky, Mario Lemieux, Paul Coffey, Ray Bourque, Dale Hawerchuk, Mark Messier, etc. Hasek faced his competition with a supporting cast of Vladimir Ruzicka, Jiri Hrdina, Dusan Pasek, etc. Please tell me how you figure wins is a good way to judge the goalies given the context of that tournament.




As described above, Hasek's play in his first few years was good, just not inhuman. He was unable to steal the starting job from a future Hall of Famer in Ed Belfour, or from another very good goalie in Daren Puppa before anyone realized how good he was. Brodeur had to steal a job from Chris Terreri, who was at best an average goaltender. He did win the Stanley Cup in 1995, but last I checked, there is more than just one player on the ice for each team in a typical hockey game.




Hasek performance in the 1999 playoff was among the best I have ever seen by a goaltender. Without Hasek, who knows if the Sabres even make it past the first round, nevermind all the way to the Stanley Cup Finals.




Weight has absolutely nothing to do with a goalie's durability or his coach's decision regarding how much to play him.




There are some parallels between their two careers in that both started at older ages. Hasek, as mentioned above, has a pretty good reason for that. Bower, not so much.

As for Bower vs Sawchuck, Bower was definitely better than Sawchuck when both were in the league. Sawchuck's career length does not make him better than Bower. His dominance in his first 6 seasons is what earns him his reputation.

1992-93. True Hasek did rank 7th in save percentage for 28 games BUT 35 goalies played more games than he did. Leaders in games played totaled 2 - 2.5 times more games.

 

[TANK200]

1992-93. True Hasek did rank 7th in save percentage for 28 games BUT 35 goalies played more games than he did. Leaders in games played totaled 2 - 2.5 times more games.

I see your point, and I'm certainly not saying Hasek should have been in contention for the Vezina trophy that year. But his performance in the games he did play was very good.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Goalies

In the end, you are still avoiding the point.

Brodeur played with a great squad in front of him, Hasek played with a subpar squad in front of him. No matter how good a goaltender is, he is not the whole team. Brodeur's better team helped his statistics, particularly in the wins column, while Hasek had to do nearly all the work to win games for the Sabres.

You CANNOT give points to one player for playing on a bad team while ignoring doing it for another player.

Strictly goalies vs goalies.Based on goalie criteria.If we give points then it is only fair to subtract points. Team strength(vague concept) is not the only consideration once we start down this slippery slope. Games played season/career, age entered the league, durability(ability to play 3 games in 4 nights), performance in one goal games, giving up the first goal in a game,protecting a one goal lead after two periods, regular season overtime performance( 4 on 4 is a different game), shoot-out performance, and that is before we start looking at head-to-head performance elite goalie against elite goalie, etc.

As for team strength - have yet to see a viable definition that factors in coaching and management, under performing, over performing or other variables that reflect team strength. Show me a metric that defines just how badly Toe Blake / Claude Ruel / Al McNeill outcoached Harry Sinden, Tom Johnson, Billy Reay from 1968 - 1971 or how badly Ted Nolan outcoached most NHL coaches while with Buffalo and we may go somewhere.

 

[nik jr]

Another thing that favours Hasek against Brodeur is that his vezina seasons consisted of him dominated in save% and overall stats.

In 2003 and 2004, Brodeur really wasn't the best goalie either year. He just got to play the most games and ended up winning the trophy cuz of it. In 2003 it would have went to either Turco, Cechmanek or Belfour if they played the same amount of games that Brodeur played.

In 2004, if either Kipper or Belfour played 70 games, the vezina was going to be thiers. Hell you can argue Luongo should have won it anyways. I mean its about the goalie thats best at stopping the puck, 'not the goalie that gets to play on a great team that wins games.' Luongo's save% in 2004 blew Brodeur's out of the water, give him a good team that year and he would have walked away with that trophy.

It's kinda funny cuz the only reason Belfour doesn't have 4 or 5 vezinas is cuz he always played roughly 60 games a year instead of 70. In 2000, 2003, and 2004, the vezina would have been his if his coach let him play 70 games instead of 60. Maybe not 2004, but 2000 would have definetly been eagle's 3rd vezina if he played a 70 game schedule.

2007 and 2008 are the only years Brodeur can really say he was the best.

which is why C1958 isn't even trying to argue brodeur was actually better, just that his team stats are better.

i guess osgood is a lock for HHOF, then.



like hasek and roy, belfour was better than brodeur for most of their careers.

hasek's margin over brodeur is much larger than brodeur's margin over belfour (if there is a margin.).
brodeur was obviously more consistent than belfour, but belfour's peak was higher.



luongo was better than brodeur in '07. brodeur won b/c he faced much fewer PP's.

'07 times SH
NJ: 271 (least)
VCR: 436 (5th most)

VCR was SH 165 more times. luongo was better at ES, SH and PP, but he had to PK much more. luongo lost the vezina by only 6 points, and finished higher in hart voting.


one of the main features of lemaire's defensive system was team discipline. NJ was SH fewer times than any other team in the last 15 years.

NJ rank in times SH, where 1st is fewest times SH
1994 3
1995 1
1996 1
1997 1
1998 3
1999 5
2000 12
2001 2
2002 1
2003 1
2004 1
2006 1
2007 1
2008 5


minnesota under lemaire has also been SH very few times.

minnesota's goalies also put up very, very similar numbers to brodeur, despite having less talent than NJ at every position.

Look at the overall career numbers and balance them. Top five for wins has to be viewed against the ranking for loses, for games played etc.

so, you make judgements not based on how good players actually were, but on career numbers that are highly influenced by teammates?

how does that make sense?

Focused on different teammates since Bourque and Lidstrom were NOT GOALIES- repeating ad infinitum. This dictates the opposing teams strategy.

Hockey is a team sport unlike golf.

how does that make any sense?

teammates do not matter much for goalies?

i don't see how osgood is outside of your top 20, then. even has a better winning % than brodeur.

Going back to the 1987 Canada Cup. Yes Dominik Hasek had a similar GAA as Grant Fuhr BUT you neglect two very important facts. Grant Fuhr faced the Soviets a few more times and WON.

fuhr also had vastly better teammates.

does that not matter?

So an overview of Hasek's first three NHL seasons show that he had very pedestrian results with teams Chicago and Buffalo that had above average talent. At this time Hasek was in the 26-32 age bracket, not a youngster.

T_19 already mentioned chicago, where hasek's numbers were very similar to belfour's, and among the best in the NHL.


in '93, fuhr, puppa and hasek all played a similar number of games.

hasek: 3.15, .896
fuhr: 3.47, .891
puppa: 3.58, .890

hasek's GAA was 6th and his sv% 7th.


brodeur's sv% has only been above 7th 4 times in 15 seasons, despite facing lower quality shots than almost every other goalie.

so i guess brodeur's individual performance has been really pedestrian?

Hasek's remaining years with Buffalo are well documented here BUT one comment needs to be made. In the 1999 Stanley Cup Finals going head to head against Ed Belfour, Dominik Hasek came out second best again.

buffalo came out 2nd. to the best team in the NHL.

hasek was clearly the best player in the '99 playoffs.

Again, goalies are not skaters and as such cannot be targeted like defensemen with dump and chase strategies aimed at taking the d-man into the boards and tiring him physically.

teammates are as important for goalies as for any other position.


hasek faced more shots than any other goalie during his peak, b/c his teammates were not very good. with DRW, he faced very few shots, b/c his teammates were much better.



NJ allowed very few shots, and took fewer penalties than any other team, making the goalies' job much easier than for most other goalies.

13-4-2 in app 20 games wow!!!!!!! Keenan has a history of starting the back-up goalies against weak teams. Again comparing results from a sampling of 20 games against others who play 2 - 3.5 times as much is rather weak. The best goalie after all did not play just 20 games. Analogy would be basing expected 1500m times on 100m times. Doesn't happen.

i thought wins were all that matters?

now you are going back to excuses for losers?


earlier in this thread you were using 2 goals to argue against belfour and win/loss stats from canada cup games where czechoslovakia was badly overmatched against hasek.

you were saying above that hasek's results in chicago and in '93 with buffalo were pedestrian, but now those games (in which hasek's stats were among the best in the NHL) are meaningless, b/c they contradict your argument.

 

[canucks4ever]

which is why C1958 isn't even trying to argue brodeur was actually better, just that his team stats are better.

i guess osgood is a lock for HHOF, then.



like hasek and roy, belfour was better than brodeur for most of their careers.

hasek's margin over brodeur is much larger than brodeur's margin over belfour (if there is a margin.).
brodeur was obviously more consistent than belfour, but belfour's peak was higher.



luongo was better than brodeur in '07. brodeur won b/c he faced much fewer PP's.

'07 times SH
NJ: 271 (least)
VCR: 436 (5th most)

VCR was SH 165 more times. luongo was better at ES, SH and PP, but he had to PK much more. luongo lost the vezina by only 6 points, and finished higher in hart voting.


one of the main features of lemaire's defensive system was team discipline. NJ was SH fewer times than any other team in the last 15 years.

NJ rank in times SH, where 1st is fewest times SH
1994 3
1995 1
1996 1
1997 1
1998 3
1999 5
2000 12
2001 2
2002 1
2003 1
2004 1
2006 1
2007 1
2008 5


minnesota under lemaire has also been SH very few times.

minnesota's goalies also put up very, very similar numbers to brodeur, despite having less talent than NJ at every position.


so, you make judgements not based on how good players actually were, but on career numbers that are highly influenced by teammates?

how does that make sense?


how does that make any sense?

teammates do not matter much for goalies?

i don't see how osgood is outside of your top 20, then. even has a better winning % than brodeur.


fuhr also had vastly better teammates.

does that not matter?



T_19 already mentioned chicago, where hasek's numbers were very similar to belfour's, and among the best in the NHL.


in '93, fuhr, puppa and hasek all played a similar number of games.

hasek: 3.15, .896
fuhr: 3.47, .891
puppa: 3.58, .890

hasek's GAA was 6th and his sv% 7th.


brodeur's sv% has only been above 7th 4 times in 15 seasons, despite facing lower quality shots than almost every other goalie.

so i guess brodeur's individual performance has been really pedestrian?


buffalo came out 2nd. to the best team in the NHL.

hasek was clearly the best player in the '99 playoffs.


teammates are as important for goalies as for any other position.


hasek faced more shots than any other goalie during his peak, b/c his teammates were not very good. with DRW, he faced very few shots, b/c his teammates were much better.



NJ allowed very few shots, and took fewer penalties than any other team, making the goalies' job much easier than for most other goalies.


i thought wins were all that matters?

now you are going back to excuses for losers?


earlier in this thread you were using 2 goals to argue against belfour and win/loss stats from canada cup games where czechoslovakia was badly overmatched against hasek.

you were saying above that hasek's results in chicago and in '93 with buffalo were pedestrian, but now those games (in which hasek's stats were among the best in the NHL) are meaningless, b/c they contradict your argument.

The only thing that hurts Belfour is that he had really crappy seasons in 96, 97 and 2002. However, in his vezina seasons he was actually the best goalie in most stats, unlike Broduer who just won the trophy based on games played and wins.

 

[tommygunn]

1. Gretzky
2. Lemieux
3. Bourque
4. Hasek
5. Roy
6. Lidstrom
7. Messier
8. Jagr
9. Fetisov
10. Sakic
11. Yzerman
12. Brodeur
13. Makarov
14. Coffey
15. Chelios
16. Stastny
17. Forsberg
18. Stevens
19. Ovechkin
20. MacInnis
21. Crosby
22. Leetch
23. Brett Hull
24. Kurri
25. Selanne

 

[nik jr]

The only thing that hurts Belfour is that he had really crappy seasons in 96, 97 and 2002. However, in his vezina seasons he was actually the best goalie in most stats, unlike Broduer who just won the trophy based on games played and wins.

belfour was also not the most likeable person. he also famously offered a police officer $1 billion.

but he was very close to brodeur as a hockey player. possibly better.

 

[tommygunn]

19. Valeri Vasiliev

Vasiliev, NHL?

 

[asdf]

Sorry, I know this is a bunch of pages back, but I had to respond.

the entire argument for brodeur rests on high career totals and rings. yzerman has better career totals than lemieux and more rings.

yzerman was always behind lemieux, as brodeur was always behind hasek (until hasek was over 40 years old).

I see what you're saying but I still think the gap between Yzerman/Lemieux is greater than the gap between Brodeur/Hasek.

I would say that Belfour/Hasek would be more analogous. Belfour had a few seasons where he was regarded as the best, and had a great career with numbers (better than Hasek) to back it up, but overall doesn't come anywhere near Hasek.

obviously, it is not a perfect comparison, but brodeur was in his prime in that span. look at his vezina votes. he was runner up twice.

I guess that's where our opinion differs. I think Brodeur has been better these past few seasons than he was before that.

Before the lockout I used to think Brodeur was horrifically overrated and that Dan Cloutier could have dominated on those Devils teams.

After the lockout ended and they implemented all the rule changes like the trapezoid, I remember Brodeur complained and I said that it was just sour grapes because he knew he was going to get exposed since he didn't have Stevens and Niedermayer to hide behind anymore.

He proved me way wrong.

looking at hasek in his late 30s and early 40s does not give a good idea of how good he was. hasek actually started declining around '00. i don't think there is much difference between brodeur before '03 and after '03.

'97 may have been brodeur's best season.

but even in '97, hasek won the vezina and hart by very large margins.

hasek received all but 4 of the 1st place hart votes, and all but 4 of the 1st place vezina votes.

Why can we use age for Hasek but not for Brodeur?

I guess if you don't think Brodeur is better now than earlier in his career, but that's where I disgree.

After the lockout Brodeur has been on significantly worse teams while facing more shots. His team seems to constantly go through player and coaching turnovers and he just keeps on winning.

The past number of seasons he has had a good number of Hart and Vezina voting shares. Just because he did not win the Hart shouldn't take away how valuable he is to his team.

brodeur did not take over in '02. theodore won the vezina and hart, and roy was 1st all star. hasek was still better than brodeur in '02.

I meant 02 as in 02/03. 01/02 was pretty much a wash between them.

hasek played 14 games from '03-'05. after that he was over the age of 40.
41 year old hasek was still better than brodeur in '06, though.

42 year old hasek was 3rd in all star voting.
'07 DRW was a similar environment to NJ before the lockout. hasek's stats that season were very close to brodeur's career average. 2.05, .913, 8SO
imo, '07 was the 1st season brodeur was better than hasek.

Again, it doesn't seem fair to apply ages in one set of circumstances and ignore them in another.

Hasek was injured a lot during that time, but that's a tough break and not Brodeur's fault. If they were anywhere close in games played then I think it would be a more apt comparison.

i think the only season brodeur was the best goalie was '08. several goalies were better in '03, '04 and '06. kiprusoff won in '06. luongo should have won in '07.

That is your opinion, but the voters disagree. Is the point you're making that the gap between Brodeur and the rest isn't as great as the gap between Hasek and the rest? Fine, but some of that is circumstance. If Luongo is dominating doesn't mean that Brodeur is dominating less.

if we look at them when they were the same age, hasek is still more impressive.

hasek won more awards and by larger margins and against better competition. hasek was considered the best player in the world by both NHL players and by journalists more than once.

Fair enough, but as I said before I think Brodeur still has a lot left in the tank. He seems to get better as he gets older as I think the past 2-3 seasons he has been better than the previous 2-3 seasons.

I don't have a problem saying Hasek was better, but I don't think Brodeur was a turd sandwich in comparison as quite a few think.

compare brodeur's playoff record from '06-'09, when NJ was fairly comparable to hasek's buffalo teams (NJ changed their defensive style and lost stevens and niedermayer), to hasek's playoff record at the same age (33-36).

hasek: 31-21

brodeur: 14-15


career playoff winning %
hasek: 57.0
brodeur: 56.6

hasek's career playoff winning % with buffalo: 53.6

This I agree. I think Brodeur still has to have a playoff or two where he dominates and carries his team deep into the playoffs.

 

[nik jr]

I see what you're saying but I still think the gap between Yzerman/Lemieux is greater than the gap between Brodeur/Hasek.

I would say that Belfour/Hasek would be more analogous. Belfour had a few seasons where he was regarded as the best, and had a great career with numbers (better than Hasek) to back it up, but overall doesn't come anywhere near Hasek.

i don't see much difference between belfour and brodeur (other than consistency), so, to me, that is almost the same comparison.

I guess that's where our opinion differs. I think Brodeur has been better these past few seasons than he was before that.

he may have been. it seems that brodeur's play dipped in the middle of his career (similar to belfour's) . that is the same period when NJ was 1 of the best offensive teams in the NHL, so that may have been a factor, but i don't know.


even if brodeur was better now than earlier in his career, i don't think he is very close to hasek.


at his peak, hasek was far better than the rest of the goalies.

i don't think brodeur was ever clearly the best goalie. even in his best seasons, others were very close or better.

Before the lockout I used to think Brodeur was horrifically overrated and that Dan Cloutier could have dominated on those Devils teams.

After the lockout ended and they implemented all the rule changes like the trapezoid, I remember Brodeur complained and I said that it was just sour grapes because he knew he was going to get exposed since he didn't have Stevens and Niedermayer to hide behind anymore.

He proved me way wrong.

cloutier was 1 of the worst starters. i never thought brodeur was nearly that bad.

i have seen a DRW fan argue that the difference between brodeur and osgood is small, but that is completely wrong as well.


brodeur's play after the lockout has been impressive. but hasek's play was much more impressive, imo.

Why can we use age for Hasek but not for Brodeur?

we can use age for both, but hasek was not in his prime after the age of 40. brodeur was in his prime before '02.

but i do think hasek was still better than brodeur even at age 41, and was close to brodeur even at age 42.

hasek sucked at age 43, though.

After the lockout Brodeur has been on significantly worse teams while facing more shots. His team seems to constantly go through player and coaching turnovers and he just keeps on winning.

The past number of seasons he has had a good number of Hart and Vezina voting shares. Just because he did not win the Hart shouldn't take away how valuable he is to his team.

all true, but to go back to the original point, yzerman also carried DRW in the late '80s and early '90s.
yzerman won the pearson in '89 (lemieux should have won), and was a hart finalist.

weak teammates:
goalies like cheveldae and hanlon and greg stefan.
d-men like chiasson and norwood and snepsts.
forwards like gallant, paul maclean, shawn burr and probert.

but lemieux was on another level.

Again, it doesn't seem fair to apply ages in one set of circumstances and ignore them in another.

comparing a 40 year old who came out of retirement to a 32 year old is not the same as comparing a 34 year old to a 26 year old.


but if we compare them:

hasek was better in '06.

hasek's '07 (age 42) was fairly close to brodeur, and very close to brodeur's career average.

That is your opinion, but the voters disagree. Is the point you're making that the gap between Brodeur and the rest isn't as great as the gap between Hasek and the rest? Fine, but some of that is circumstance. If Luongo is dominating doesn't mean that Brodeur is dominating less.

yes, that is my basic point. i also use the same standard for F's.

career numbers are not very useful, imo, and especially not career team numbers.

based on career numbers, someone could say that robitaille was the best LW ever, that osgood is top 10 all time, that yzerman was better than lemieux, or that ron francis is a top 10 F.


another way of comparing is to look at how far above average or above a certain other mark like 10th.

i think hasek would still be much more impressive in those comparisons.


but even if we compare them to each other:

brodeur: 101 SO, 999 games = .1011 SO/game
hasek: 81 SO, 735 games = .1102 SO/game

hasek faced more difficult shots and had less defensive support, but still had more SO/game than the goalie who will break the record for career SO.


hasek's career average sv% is .922. brodeur had 1 season of .922.

and that includes hasek's last season at age 43 where he was below average and his time as backup when .900 was a very high sv%. it also does not account for the extremely low number of PP's brodeur faced.

Fair enough, but as I said before I think Brodeur still has a lot left in the tank. He seems to get better as he gets older as I think the past 2-3 seasons he has been better than the previous 2-3 seasons.

maybe, but he barely beat luongo in '07, and barely beat nabokov in '08.

i think luongo should have won in '07. the main difference between the 2 was that vancouver was SH 165 more times than NJ.

for comparison, in '09, the difference between the least times SH (minnesota), 291 times, and the most times, (TB), 405 times, is just 114.


nabokov was 1st all star in '08. i don't think nabokov should have been a finalist. but using the same standard that led to brodeur winning in '03 and '04, nabokov should have won.

I don't have a problem saying Hasek was better, but I don't think Brodeur was a turd sandwich in comparison as quite a few think.

as a DRW fan, i can say that yzerman was not a turd sandwich in comparison to lemieux.

 

[overpass]

13-4-2 in app 20 games wow!!!!!!! Keenan has a history of starting the back-up goalies against weak teams. Again comparing results from a sampling of 20 games against others who play 2 - 3.5 times as much is rather weak. The best goalie after all did not play just 20 games. Analogy would be basing expected 1500m times on 100m times. Doesn't happen.

I haven't done a historical study of Keenan's goalie usage patterns, but that certainly wasn't true this year. Curtis McElhinney started six games. Four of the six were on the road, four of the six were against playoff teams, four of the six were in the second game of a back-to-back. In his other eight games played he was relieving Kipprusoff, and it's likely that the Flames were being outplayed in those games. He certainly wasn't being set up for success.

In fact, I'd suggest that Keenan's most prominent characteristic with goalies is that he is quick to pull his starting goaltender. This means that the backups will get a lot of partial games where they come into situations where their team is being outplayed. If Hasek's usage was anything like that with Chicago, his results were pretty good.

I'll add that blaming Hasek for his role in Chicago is probably missing the mark. Goalie is a notoriously difficult position for otherwise astute hockey men to evaluate, and Mike Keenan is probably one of the worst in this area.

Regarding your point on the small number of games Hasek played in those years - I wouldn't normally put much meaning into a small number of games played, but since I know that Hasek:
1. Had excellent results in Czechoslovakia and in international play before he was allowed to come to North America.
2. Had possibly the best sustained peak of any goaltender in history starting in 1993.
3. Didn't have a radical change in his style or any particular epiphany in 1993.

I would conclude that Keenan very likely failed to recognize what he had in Hasek, and that Hasek was probably a great goaltender since his early twenties who was unable to start in the NHL through no fault of his own, not a late developer a la Johnny Bower.

 

[shazariahl]

Regarding your point on the small number of games Hasek played in those years - I wouldn't normally put much meaning into a small number of games played, but since I know that Hasek:
1. Had excellent results in Czechoslovakia and in international play before he was allowed to come to North America.
2. Had possibly the best sustained peak of any goaltender in history starting in 1993.
3. Didn't have a radical change in his style or any particular epiphany in 1993.

I would conclude that Keenan very likely failed to recognize what he had in Hasek, and that Hasek was probably a great goaltender since his early twenties who was unable to start in the NHL through no fault of his own, not a late developer a la Johnny Bower.

That has always been my exact feelings on Hasek as well. I think the hawks had something great, but didn't really take a chance on him because they already had Belfour, who was one of the top goaltenders in the league. They didn't realize that they had an even better goaltender in Hasek. If they had, perhaps they would have traded Belfour, since he certainly would have been worth more money, seeing as how he was well established by then. Hasek was like the diamond in the rough. Unfortunately for Chicago, they traded him away, and someone else reaped the benefits.

By the time he went to Detroit, they knew exactly what they were getting - a goaltender that could help them win a cup. Which is exactly what happened.

 

[Dark Shadows]

Strictly goalies vs goalies.Based on goalie criteria.If we give points then it is only fair to subtract points. Team strength(vague concept) is not the only consideration once we start down this slippery slope. Games played season/career, age entered the league, durability(ability to play 3 games in 4 nights), performance in one goal games, giving up the first goal in a game,protecting a one goal lead after two periods, regular season overtime performance( 4 on 4 is a different game), shoot-out performance, and that is before we start looking at head-to-head performance elite goalie against elite goalie, etc.

None of that has as much to do with the caliber of players of the team in front of them. This is misdirection and artful dodging because the strength of the teams Hasek played for(Or rather, Weakness) is the biggest mark in his favor and you are trying to avoid it. Conversely, the biggest marks against Brodeur in his career have unfairly revolved around him playing behind that powerhouse of a defensive team.

I think Brodeur could have done well on a lesser team. But not as well as Hasek did on a MUCH lesser team, certainly not winning a cup on that Sabres squad. Once Hasek had gone to a good team, he immediately won a cup.

Brodeur's teams recently have been a bit weaker than in the past. Not anywhere near as weak as those sabres squads mind you, but weaker than his former teams. How come then, he has not been able to lead them past the second round since Stevens/Niedermayer and a few other important players left? He has been one/two for the Vezina every year between 2004-2008 so obviously he is as good as he ever was. Answer? Its a team game.

As for team strength - have yet to see a viable definition that factors in coaching and management, under performing, over performing or other variables that reflect team strength. Show me a metric that defines just how badly Toe Blake / Claude Ruel / Al McNeill outcoached Harry Sinden, Tom Johnson, Billy Reay from 1968 - 1971 or how badly Ted Nolan outcoached most NHL coaches while with Buffalo and we may go somewhere.

Again, you are avoiding the main theme.

The caliber of players on Brodeur's team were far higher. Players who can perform under any coach and system and perform at a high level. Hall of fame caliber players, and star players just under that tier.

Hasek's Sabres from the Conference final and Finals runs he went through were very poor. Teams he personally carried on his back. Their highest scoring forward in 1996-97 scored 22 goals and 46 points, and their top 2 defensemen were light years behind Stevens/Niedermayer.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

None of that has as much to do with the caliber of players of the team in front of them. This is misdirection and artful dodging because the strength of the teams Hasek played for(Or rather, Weakness) is the biggest mark in his favor and you are trying to avoid it. Conversely, the biggest marks against Brodeur in his career have unfairly revolved around him playing behind that powerhouse of a defensive team.

I think Brodeur could have done well on a lesser team. But not as well as Hasek did on a MUCH lesser team, certainly not winning a cup on that Sabres squad. Once Hasek had gone to a good team, he immediately won a cup.

The 2002 Red Wings a "good team?" They were a freaking all-star team. As long as Hasek didn't totally choke, they were pretty set to win. Best team assembled since the 80s Oilers. Ah, the "joys" of no salary cap.

As for your main point, no Brodeur wouldn't have done as well as Hasek playing for a bad team. But would Hasek have done as well playing for a great (but not all-star 2002 Wing-calibre) team? I'm not sure. Possibly. But some goalies play better when they face more shots. Luongo has said as much. Cujo was what I would call a "classic bad team goalie" - he could carry bad teams, but not finish the job on good teams. It's hard to say with Hasek. He played well his one season with Detroit and his half-season with Ottawa, but not as well as in Buffalo. But then, he was towards the tail end of his career.

Brodeur's teams recently have been a bit weaker than in the past. Not anywhere near as weak as those sabres squads mind you, but weaker than his former teams.

"A bit" weaker? They've been a lot weaker. Going from the best defensive core in the league to the bottom half (at least in terms of defensemen) is a big drop. They lost Stevens, Niedermayer, Rafalski, Daneyko, and replaced them with Paul Martin and a bunch of scrubs. Also, their defensive forwards aren't nearly as effective as they used to be.

The caliber of players on Brodeur's team were far higher. Players who can perform under any coach and system and perform at a high level. Hall of fame caliber players, and star players just under that tier.

But there are definitely goalies who play better on bad teams and some who play better on good teams. Right now, if I have to pick a goalie to backstop me in the playoffs, I pick Brodeur. But to carry a weak team? I'll take Luongo.

Hasek's Sabres from the Conference final and Finals runs he went through were very poor. Teams he personally carried on his back. Their highest scoring forward in 1996-97 scored 22 goals and 46 points, and their top 2 defensemen were light years behind Stevens/Niedermayer.

I don't know if I'd say very poor. They weren't particularly good offensively (though not significantly worse than the 95-99 Devils), but they played a great team defense that was built around Hasek's strengths (let him stop everything himself and clear the rebounds). Other than Satan, their main forwards were quite good defensively, led by Selke winner and leader Mike Peca. And I'd say their group of defensemen was better than what the Devils have now.

 

[Dark Shadows]

The 2002 Red Wings a "good team?" They were a freaking all-star team. As long as Hasek didn't totally choke, they were pretty set to win. Best team assembled since the 80s Oilers. Ah, the "joys" of no salary cap.

As for your main point, no Brodeur wouldn't have done as well as Hasek playing for a bad team. But would Hasek have done as well playing for a great (but not all-star 2002 Wing-calibre) team? I'm not sure. Possibly. But some goalies play better when they face more shots. Luongo has said as much. Cujo was what I would call a "classic bad team goalie" - he could carry bad teams, but not finish the job on good teams. It's hard to say with Hasek. He played well his one season with Detroit and his half-season with Ottawa, but not as well as in Buffalo. But then, he was towards the tail end of his career.

He would have done fine. He did phenomenal with a terrible team, and very very good with a stacked team. I would say that green light's him for doing well on a good team. In any case, although past his prime, he did show some very good performances with good teams at the end of his career. Detroit in 07, Ottawa in 06 before he hurt himself, etc

"A bit" weaker? They've been a lot weaker. Going from the best defensive core in the league to the bottom half (at least in terms of defensemen) is a big drop. They lost Stevens, Niedermayer, Rafalski, Daneyko, and replaced them with Paul Martin and a bunch of scrubs. Also, their defensive forwards aren't nearly as effective as they used to be.

I do not think they are anywhere near as bad as the Sabres were. I know you are a Devils fan and want to give props to your franchise goaltender, but objectively, I know you think the same. Just a year ago Madden was a Selke Runner up and a year before that, Pandolfo was 3rd. I would say they are still playing great defensive hockey in recent times.

But there are definitely goalies who play better on bad teams and some who play better on good teams. Right now, if I have to pick a goalie to backstop me in the playoffs, I pick Brodeur. But to carry a weak team? I'll easily take Luongo.

Certainly. But Hasek played well on weak teams, strong teams and stacked teams.

And again, I want to see Brodeur lead this weaker Devils squad to a cup. Canadians1958 seems hell bent on saying "Hasek just could not get it done

I don't know if I'd say very poor. They weren't particularly good offensively (though not significantly worse than the 95-99 Devils), but they played a great team defense that was built around Hasek's strengths (let him stop everything himself and clear the rebounds). Other than Satan, their main forwards were quite good defensively, led by Selke winner and leader Mike Peca. And I'd say their group of defensemen was better than what the Devils have now.

They were poor. Very poor.
Peca was easily the best forward on that team. Satan, while "Okay" offensively, was not a true star player, short of his single great season. The rest were shrubs compared to Jersey's team. Holzinger? Audette? Plante? None of these guys were great players.

Regarding defensive squads.......I would say that the current Devils squad was roughly equal to the Sabres during that time period, while their forward corps is, well, much better.


Devils, I know you are trying to do "Damage control" because of the unfortunate nature of these discussions reflecting poorly on players and the arguments made can seem like attacks on the player. We all do it, and I understand completely.

But tell me something. I could have sworn a week ago I saw you vote Dominik Hasek in ahead of Brodeur on your all time list. You must disagree with many of Canadian1958's criticisms of Hasek if that is the case no?

 

[overpass]

The 2002 Red Wings a "good team?" They were a freaking all-star team. As long as Hasek didn't totally choke, they were pretty set to win. Best team assembled since the 80s Oilers. Ah, the "joys" of no salary cap.

Yes, the Wings were great, but Hasek deserves some credit here. There have been many great teams that didn't win the Cup - just look at the 2001 Devils. I'm not even sure that those Devils didn't have a better group of skaters than the 2002 Wings. They scored 3.60 goals per game to the Wings' 3.06, and allowed 24.7 shots per game compared to the Wings' 26.3. The Wings had the big names, but most were past their prime and that doesn't always make a great team.

But there are definitely goalies who play better on bad teams and some who play better on good teams. Right now, if I have to pick a goalie to backstop me in the playoffs, I pick Brodeur. But to carry a weak team? I'll take Luongo.

Really? Is this 2003 still? Given the way they've played in the playoffs recently, I thought Luongo had proved pretty decisively that he's the best in the playoffs and regular season at this point. I'm not trying to bash Brodeur here. He's getting up in his late 30s, and Luongo is in his prime. It's no shame to be behind Luongo.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

He would have done fine. He did phenomenal with a terrible team, and very very good with a stacked team. I would say that green light's him for doing well on a good team. In any case, although past his prime, he did show some very good performances with good teams at the end of his career. Detroit in 07, Ottawa in 06 before he hurt himself, etc

I think he probably would have done fine. I just have a problem with the typical assumption that a goalie who can carry a bad team would automatically be a great fit on a great team.

There are huge mental differences between:
1) being able to handle being bombarded by shots; and being able to maintain concentration through slow periods before having to make a key save.
2) the pressure of knowing you are your team's only hope vs. the pressure of knowing that you are expected to win and anything less would be a choke.

Goaltending, more than any other position, is mental, and I don't think you can assume that a goalie who is great in one situation is automatically going to be great in another.

Certainly. But Hasek played well on weak teams, strong teams and stacked teams.

He did, but I think the sample size of "strong teams" (half a season in Ottawa?) is too small to conclude anything decisively. And as I said, he basically just had to not screw up to win the Cup in Detroit, and to his credit, he didn't.

And again, I want to see Brodeur lead this weaker Devils squad to a cup. Canadians1958 seems hell bent on saying "Hasek just could not get it done

I want to see this too. And not just for the obvious reasons.

Brodeur winning a Cup playing behind a team that isn't stacked at D would be huge for his legacy.

They were poor. Very poor.
Peca was easily the best forward on that team. Satan, while "Okay" offensively, was not a true star player, short of his single great season. The rest were shrubs compared to Jersey's team. Holzinger? Audette? Plante? None of these guys were great players.

I think we might have different definitions of "poor." If you are comparing Hasek's Sabres to all NHL teams in the league at the time, I think they were pretty average. If you are comparing them to just the 16 playoff teams, then yes, I agree they were quite poor other than in goal.

Regarding defensive squads.......I would say that the current Devils squad was roughly equal to the Sabres during that time period, while their forward corps is, well, much better.

Agree for the most part, though I do give the edge to the 99 Sabres D over the current Devils D. The Devils have a huge dropoff after Paul Martin, while the Sabres had a solid, but unspectacular group of 6, led by Zhitnik, who while no superstar, was no slouch either.

But I do agree that the difference in forwards in the Devils favor is greater than the difference in D.

But tell me something. I could have sworn a week ago I saw you vote Dominik Hasek in ahead of Brodeur on your all time list. You must disagree with many of Canadian1958's criticisms of Hasek if that is the case no?

It's funny. I agree with many (probably the majority) of Canadian1958's criticisms of Hasek, but I still don't think it's enough to push Brodeur over Hasek.

My top 5 in order is Roy, Plante, Hasek, Brodeur, Sawchuk.

Despite the fact that I have Hasek at a solid #3 all time, I think there's a huge tendency to overrate him around here, based largely on statistics.

I especially hate three arguments:
1) The "martyr goalie" argument, where a great goalie has to carry a bad team, but a goalie on a good team is discredited. Likewise, I think that people go way overboard in discrediting the Sabres of the late 90s. If anything, they were built for the playoffs in the early dead puck era (see Florida in 1996).

2) The assumption that we should "evaluate goalies like skaters" when their role is nothing alike. Forwards are counted on to win games; goalies are counted on not to lose them. Additionally, the mental game is what often separates the good goalies from the great ones, much moreso than is the case with forwards (Gretzky excluded).

3) The comparison of Hasek to Lemieux or any of the other top 4. The fact is that Gretzky, Howe, Lemieux, and Orr are the consensus best 4 players to ever play by anyone who has even a small amount of knowledge of the history of the game. And when it comes to goaltending, there is nothing close to a consensus as to the best of all time. Any of 8 goaltenders have been called "the best goalie of all time" by people who at least have some idea of what they are talking about. And even on the HOH board, people are torn between Hasek, Plante, Sawchuk, Hall, and Roy.

I have Hasek ahead of Brodeur, but I'm not going to pretend its an insurmountable gap. I said before, "Brodeur winning a Cup playing behind a team that isn't stacked at D would be huge for his legacy." Right now, I personally view the top goalies of all time in several tiers:

Tier 1: Roy, Plante, Hasek (a clear 3rd to me because of his negatives)
Tier 2: Brodeur, Sawchuk
Tier 3: Tretiak, Hall, Dryden

If Brodeur wins another Cup playing behind the D he has now, I have to reevaluate whether he gets bumped up to tier 1, especially if he gets a Conn Smythe.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Yes, the Wings were great, but Hasek deserves some credit here. There have been many great teams that didn't win the Cup - just look at the 2001 Devils. I'm not even sure that those Devils didn't have a better group of skaters than the 2002 Wings. They scored 3.60 goals per game to the Wings' 3.06, and allowed 24.7 shots per game compared to the Wings' 26.3. The Wings had the big names, but most were past their prime and that doesn't always make a great team.

Hasek definitely deserves lots of credit for 2002. He had to go through 4 rounds without screwing up, and he didn't. That's not an easy thing to do. But would the Wings have really been worse off with a good NHL goalie as opposed to a great one? I don't think so. (Note I'm counting Osgood as average, not good). Hasek did what he had to. But he didn't have to be great, like Brodeur did in 95 and 03. Just like Brodeur didn't have to be great in the regular seasons in the late 90s just to get his team into the playoffs, like Hasek did.

As for those stats, the 2001 Devils were a regular season team, but they were filled with players who couldn't raise their games in the playoffs, and it cost them.

I think the 2002 Wings were the best team the league had seen since the 80s Oilers, and not by a small margin. It wasn't just the "names," the team was a perfect mix of veteran superstars and up and coming guys, the chemistry was great, so many guys were great at both ends of the ice, etc. Yzerman and Fedorov had it in them to be great one last time.

I'm not discrediting Hasek for 2002 at all, I'm just saying that you can't conclude what he would have done playing for a team that was great for 10 years by what he did in one year playing for the best team in decades.

Really? Is this 2003 still? Given the way they've played in the playoffs recently, I thought Luongo had proved pretty decisively that he's the best in the playoffs and regular season at this point. I'm not trying to bash Brodeur here. He's getting up in his late 30s, and Luongo is in his prime. It's no shame to be behind Luongo.

Proved decisively that he's the best in the playoffs? What? He's won two playoff series in his career - both first round. Yes, he was spectacular in both series. But if spectacular first rounds made a goalie a great playoff performer, then Cujo was one of the best playoff performers of all time. Sure, Luongo had great stats in the second round in 2007, but he had a total mental breakdown on the goal that ended his season - that whole "the difference between a good and great goalie is mostly mental" thing. I'm actually quite interested in seeing what Luongo can do this year - right now, he's just as likely to be a Cujo as he is to be an all-time great.

 

[overpass]

Hasek definitely deserves lots of credit for 2002. He had to go through 4 rounds without screwing up, and he didn't. That's not an easy thing to do. But would the Wings have really been worse off with a good NHL goalie as opposed to a great one? I don't think so. (Note I'm counting Osgood as average, not good). Hasek did what he had to. But he didn't have to be great, like Brodeur did in 95 and 03. Just like Brodeur didn't have to be great in the regular seasons in the late 90s just to get his team into the playoffs, like Hasek did.

As for those stats, the 2001 Devils were a regular season team, but they were filled with players who couldn't raise their games in the playoffs, and it cost them.

I think the 2002 Wings were the best team the league had seen since the 80s Oilers, and not by a small margin. It wasn't just the "names," the team was a perfect mix of veteran superstars and up and coming guys, the chemistry was great, so many guys were great at both ends of the ice, etc. Yzerman and Fedorov had it in them to be great one last time.

I'm not discrediting Hasek for 2002 at all, I'm just saying that you can't conclude what he would have done playing for a team that was great for 10 years by what he did in one year playing for the best team in decades.

Agree that you can't conclude Hasek wins every year with a great team, but it's still to his credit that the one year he had a great team in his prime, he won the Cup.

The 2001 Devils may have been a "regular season team" (although most of those players had won the Cup the year before), but if you switch Roy and Brodeur in the finals against Colorado they very likely win the Cup. Roy significantly outplayed Brodeur that year.

Proved decisively that he's the best in the playoffs? What? He's won two playoff series in his career - both first round. Yes, he was spectacular in both series. But if spectacular first rounds made a goalie a great playoff performer, then Cujo was one of the best playoff performers of all time. Sure, Luongo had great stats in the second round in 2007, but he had a total mental breakdown on the goal that ended his season - that whole "the difference between a good and great goalie is mostly mental" thing. I'm actually quite interested in seeing what Luongo can do this year - right now, he's just as likely to be a Cujo as he is to be an all-time great.

"Decisively" may overstate Luongo's case, but there aren't any Patrick Roys in the league right now. He has a 0.946 save percentage in his career in the playoffs, all in the last three years. Since the lockout, Brodeur has a 0.919 save percentage and a 2.45 GAA. Not bad, but nothing special, and he hasn't gone past the second round either.If I had my pick of goaltenders for a playoff run, I wouldn't hesitate to pick Luongo.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Agree that you can't conclude Hasek wins every year with a great team, but it's still to his credit that the one year he had a great team in his prime, he won the Cup.

The 2001 Devils may have been a "regular season team" (although most of those players had won the Cup the year before), but if you switch Roy and Brodeur in the finals against Colorado they very likely win the Cup. Roy significantly outplayed Brodeur that year.

Of course, Roy significantly outplayed Brodeur in the finals in 2001. Roy won the Conn Smythe for a reason. And 2001 was one of Brodeur's worst playoff years ever, worse than most of the first round losses where he didn't get any scoring support. So why keep bringing it up? Even Roy had some off years in the playoffs.

As for the team in front of him, they lacked the intensity of the year before, and had quite a few players (Gomez and Mogilny especially) who barely showed up. True, they were so talented that they still almost won, but they weren't close to the 2002 Red Wings who were full of playoff warriors.

"Decisively" may overstate Luongo's case, but there aren't any Patrick Roys in the league right now. He has a 0.946 save percentage in his career in the playoffs, all in the last three years. Since the lockout, Brodeur has a 0.919 save percentage and a 2.45 GAA. Not bad, but nothing special, and he hasn't gone past the second round either.If I had my pick of goaltenders for a playoff run, I wouldn't hesitate to pick Luongo.

At this point, we just have to agree to disagree. I don't think save percentage is the best way to evaluate goaltenders, especially when they've never made it past the second round, especially when they were a big reason their team lost in the second round the one previous time they made it.

 

[overpass]

Of course, Roy significantly outplayed Brodeur in the finals in 2001. Roy won the Conn Smythe for a reason. And 2001 was one of Brodeur's worst playoff years ever, worse than most of the first round losses where he didn't get any scoring support. So why keep bringing it up? Even Roy had some off years in the playoffs.

I'm just pointing out that Brodeur did play on a team that was every bit as good as the 2002 Red Wings, and he lost it for them in the finals. Hasek didn't. That's a point in Hasek's favour. I realize you agree that Hasek deserves credit for the 2002 Red Wings, but I think it's interesting that Brodeur makes that case himself, as he didn't win a Cup with a comparable team.

Brodeur has had good years in the playoffs as well on lesser teams, but the topic of Hasek's year in 2002 came up so I'm just looking at their record on "great teams" right now. Of course Brodeur had other good playoff years.

At this point, we just have to agree to disagree. I don't think save percentage is the best way to evaluate goaltenders, especially when they've never made it past the second round, especially when they were a big reason their team lost in the second round the one previous time they made it.

It's not just the stats. If you watched Luongo play and you weren't impressed, I don't know what to say. But whatever, it's not a big deal.

 

[seventieslord]

I haven't really piped in this whole time on the goalies because I know if I really get into it I will devote an hour or two of my life to it, and I don't have the time with the ATD going on. But I wanted to point out something that is not usually mentioned:

Hasek did not lose a playoff series to a team with less points than him, until 2001 when he was 36. And, that was Lemieux's Pens, who were very close behind them and would have been ahead of them had they played the whole season with the lineup they had in the playoffs. After that, it was 2007, at age 42, versus the Ducks.

Hasek won all the series he "should" have won, and won many of the ones he "shouldn't" have won, too. It always took a better overall team to beat him. He wasn't going to get out-goaltended.

 

[Bialo Czerwoni]

1. Wayne Gretzky
2. Mario Lemieux
3. Patrick Roy
4. Mark Messier
5. Raymond Bourque
6. Martin Brodeur
7. Jaromir Jagr
8. Dominik Hasek
9. Joe Sakic
10. Steve Yzerman
11. Peter Forsberg
12. Chris Chelios
13. Paul Coffey
14. Niklas Lidstrom
15. Jari Kurri
16. Pavel Bure
17. Peter Stastny
18. Brett Hull
19. Al MacInnis
20. Scott Stevens
21. Brian Leetch
22. Ed Belfour
23. Brian Leetch
24. Sergei Fedorov
25. Teemu Selanne