Who's the 5th best ever?

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Francis is not even top 5 in his generation let alone all time. That being said a very good player. Has a spot on any roster

 

[bobholly39]

I dont think its fair to say Haseks prime is lacking. He has 6 Vezinas against the best goaltending competition at the position of all time. When I think peak I think of a 1/2/3 year peak but a 6-8 year period could definitely be their prime. So 6 years as the best at his position plus a few more very high end seasons, youre looking at roughly 8 or 9 years of elite play from Hasek.

Playoff resume lacks because of so much time spent in Buffalo for sure but if they win that cup against Dallas the narrative is completely changed too. But still it isnt great. He also has that gold medal in Nagano that helps kinda balance out the playoff aspect.

I dont really like ranking goalies along side players but if we're doing it here I think Hasek has a very strong claim to 5th best. I'm not sure he actually was 5th best all time because goalies are tough but I think hes the hardest one to argue against at this spot as well

Hasek is definitely lacking. 3 big goalies of his era are him, Roy and Brodeur.

Brodeur has 1266 games and 691 wins. 20 seasons as a #1 goalie
Roy has 1029 games and 551 wins. 18 seasons as a #1 goalie
Hasek has 735 games, 389 wins.....12 or so seasons as a #1 goalie.

Hasek has 119 career playoff games (45 of those are at age 37+)
Roy has 247 career playoff games
Brodeur has 205 career playoff games.

As you can see - Hasek is severely lacking vs those two.

I think for position players usually, peak might be best 2-4 years, prime like a 6-8 years. But for Brodeur/Roy, their prime is almost their whole career, as they had fantastic longevity/consistency as #1 goalies, in both regular season and playoffs. Hasek has the stronger peak - but he definitely lacks vs the other 2 in prime and longevity.

I'm not saying Brodeur > Hasek - Hasek is obviously higher all-time. I'm just saying - Hasek's NHL career is lacking in longevity and prime/elite seasons. That hurts him.

If he had started at the NHL at age 19-20 like Roy and Brodeur and been able to be a dominating goalie from the start - there's a good chance he could have made a "bi 5". Of course - this is assuming he would have been good enough to sustain that level all those years, which is far from sure.

I don't have Hasek at #5. I have him closer to #10-12 - I prefer Roy for his playoffs. I can understand the argument for Hasek though, but personally i don't put him as high as #5

 

[wetcoast]

Both Jagr and Lemieux had a chance to make their own dynasty, and I was cheering for both of them to do so after they won their first two Cups together. They failed to make it three in a row in Game 7 against an Islanders team that they should have beaten handily. The Bruins team that had the Habs in trouble in Game 7 of the 1979 Semi's was much better than the 1993 Islanders - Lafleur saved the Habs against those Bruins.

No doubt both Jagr and even Mario aren't known as the biggest "winners" in history but their individual performance was hardly lousy in the series loss to the NYI and hell Jagr was merely 20 years old in that season.

I agree that if Dionne and Lafleur had switched places, history could be written very differently (I actually feel bad for Dionne with respect to this specific scenario). However, other stars have been put into pressure situations before and while some succeed, some also fail.

Sure but at the end of the day there is no denying that the Habs dynasty probably wins 3 or even 4 SC's even with an average NHL RW replacement for Lafleur, they had plenty of depth players and dominance on the Big 3 D and Dryden to find ways to win.

I have no problems if one over elevates Lafleur but if they do so they need to knock down one or more of the HHOF players on that dynasty but as it is people give "bonus" indivudal points of merit for a dynasty when it's really a team and league dynamics type of thing.

What we do know is that Lafleur succeeded under the greatest pressure, and that's really all that he could have done. He's a big part of why the Habs ran the table for four straight years. Even superior players in Orr, Gretzky, and Lemieux faltered when their teams were overwhelming favourites to win it all.

Yes what you say has a partial truth but all 3 of those players have a far better overall playoff resume than Lafleur as well.

Just because Lafleur faltered individually in the playoffs in non dynasty years doesn't change that fact.

So, in short, yes Lafleur's resume falls very short of that of other greats when it comes to body of work and longevity.

It falls really short outside of his 6 year peak, like embarrassingly short for how how some have Lafleur.

But, it could also be said that his peak matches even the best of the best, especially where results are concerned.

Individually it's a very good peak but it's not like Orr wasn't decimated by injuries and the NHL was diluted with players in the WHA as well.

Player Season Finder | Hockey-Reference.com

He has a healthy lead over Dionne over 6 years but look at his supporting cast as well.

I don't necessarily want the guy who's guaranteed to win the Art Ross every year; I'd rather have an Art Ross candidate that's guaranteed to show up big in the playoffs every year. There is a subtle, but real difference there.

The thing is that Guy showed up for a 6 year period and then did little else in the playoffs in his career, so some of his "results" were team driven.

Don't get me wrong Lafleur is a top 30ish of all time player but he is a long way from #5 overall.

 

[wetcoast]

Hasek is definitely lacking. 3 big goalies of his era are him, Roy and Brodeur.

Brodeur has 1266 games and 691 wins. 20 seasons as a #1 goalie
Roy has 1029 games and 551 wins. 18 seasons as a #1 goalie
Hasek has 735 games, 389 wins.....12 or so seasons as a #1 goalie.

Hasek has 119 career playoff games (45 of those are at age 37+)
Roy has 247 career playoff games
Brodeur has 205 career playoff games.

As you can see - Hasek is severely lacking vs those two.

I think for position players usually, peak might be best 2-4 years, prime like a 6-8 years. But for Brodeur/Roy, their prime is almost their whole career, as they had fantastic longevity/consistency as #1 goalies, in both regular season and playoffs. Hasek has the stronger peak - but he definitely lacks vs the other 2 in prime and longevity.

I'm not saying Brodeur > Hasek - Hasek is obviously higher all-time. I'm just saying - Hasek's NHL career is lacking in longevity and prime/elite seasons. That hurts him.

If he had started at the NHL at age 19-20 like Roy and Brodeur and been able to be a dominating goalie from the start - there's a good chance he could have made a "bi 5". Of course - this is assuming he would have been good enough to sustain that level all those years, which is far from sure.

I don't have Hasek at #5. I have him closer to #10-12 - I prefer Roy for his playoffs. I can understand the argument for Hasek though, but personally i don't put him as high as #5

The thing about hasek here is that you are completely ignoring his time in Europe before coming to the NHL.

He was a 3 time winner of the Golden Stick award for top Czech hockey player before he came to the NHL and his dominance at the 98 Olympics is why the Czechs won their first and only ever Gold medal in the Olympics for hockey.

Also for his NHL peak he lead the NHL for 6 straight years in save % for the freaking Buffalo Sabers and his prime in the NHL is a solid 10+ years.

Not too shabby for a guy who became an NHL starter at the age of 29.

 

[bobbyking]

Hasek is definitely lacking. 3 big goalies of his era are him, Roy and Brodeur.

Brodeur has 1266 games and 691 wins. 20 seasons as a #1 goalie
Roy has 1029 games and 551 wins. 18 seasons as a #1 goalie
Hasek has 735 games, 389 wins.....12 or so seasons as a #1 goalie.

Hasek has 119 career playoff games (45 of those are at age 37+)
Roy has 247 career playoff games
Brodeur has 205 career playoff games.

As you can see - Hasek is severely lacking vs those two.

I think for position players usually, peak might be best 2-4 years, prime like a 6-8 years. But for Brodeur/Roy, their prime is almost their whole career, as they had fantastic longevity/consistency as #1 goalies, in both regular season and playoffs. Hasek has the stronger peak - but he definitely lacks vs the other 2 in prime and longevity.

I'm not saying Brodeur > Hasek - Hasek is obviously higher all-time. I'm just saying - Hasek's NHL career is lacking in longevity and prime/elite seasons. That hurts him.

If he had started at the NHL at age 19-20 like Roy and Brodeur and been able to be a dominating goalie from the start - there's a good chance he could have made a "bi 5". Of course - this is assuming he would have been good enough to sustain that level all those years, which is far from sure.

I don't have Hasek at #5. I have him closer to #10-12 - I prefer Roy for his playoffs. I can understand the argument for Hasek though, but personally i don't put him as high as #5

The best goalie season s of all time largely belong to hasek

 

[JackSlater]

Hasek is definitely lacking. 3 big goalies of his era are him, Roy and Brodeur.

Brodeur has 1266 games and 691 wins. 20 seasons as a #1 goalie
Roy has 1029 games and 551 wins. 18 seasons as a #1 goalie
Hasek has 735 games, 389 wins.....12 or so seasons as a #1 goalie.

Hasek has 119 career playoff games (45 of those are at age 37+)
Roy has 247 career playoff games
Brodeur has 205 career playoff games.

As you can see - Hasek is severely lacking vs those two.

I think for position players usually, peak might be best 2-4 years, prime like a 6-8 years. But for Brodeur/Roy, their prime is almost their whole career, as they had fantastic longevity/consistency as #1 goalies, in both regular season and playoffs. Hasek has the stronger peak - but he definitely lacks vs the other 2 in prime and longevity.

I'm not saying Brodeur > Hasek - Hasek is obviously higher all-time. I'm just saying - Hasek's NHL career is lacking in longevity and prime/elite seasons. That hurts him.

If he had started at the NHL at age 19-20 like Roy and Brodeur and been able to be a dominating goalie from the start - there's a good chance he could have made a "bi 5". Of course - this is assuming he would have been good enough to sustain that level all those years, which is far from sure.

I don't have Hasek at #5. I have him closer to #10-12 - I prefer Roy for his playoffs. I can understand the argument for Hasek though, but personally i don't put him as high as #5

That's not really fair to Hasek. He was the dominant goaltender in Europe before his NHL career began but couldn't leave due to politics. When he gets to the NHL he's stuck behind a top 20ish goaltender of all time in Belfour, who goes on to win the Vezina in Hasek's rookie season. Shortly after Hasek gets to Buffalo he is elite. I'm not sure that Hasek should get the longevity credit that Brodeur and Roy get, but we can't just pretend that he was nothing before 1993.

 

[Thenameless]

Don't get me wrong Lafleur is a top 30ish of all time player but he is a long way from #5 overall.

Well, for accuracy's sake, I don't have Guy at #5 either. I just have him higher than most. If you have him at 30ish, I'd probably place him somewhere in the mid teens. I think consensus tends to be in the low to mid 20's these days?

 

[bigbabybuda]

I went with Hasek. He is the best goalie I've ever seen and it's not even close imo. The teams he played on in Buffalo were not good but he took them to a cup final regardless. He has the most Vezinas and is the only goalie to win 2 Harts. His later Cups with Detroir cemented his NHL legacy.

In Nagano he took a team that had no place even competing for a medal all the way to gold. After the game Gretzky called him the best player in the game period. That right there says it all. It's hard to rank goalies with positional players but imo I cant see him going any lower than 5th.

 

[bigbabybuda]

I also should state the the absence of Ovechkin in this poll is ludicrous. His resume is every bit that of Crosbys atm
If Crosby was to stay healthy his entire career his would be slightly better but if, if and buts were...

He is more than likely going to finish second in goals scored in the history of the game and if he decides to play to 40 which with his fitness and health I dont see why he couldn't he might be the all time leading goal scorer in the history of the game. I personally think he already is the best goal scorer in the history of the game. To not have him here as an option is a travesty.

 

[dortt]

That's not really fair to Hasek. He was the dominant goaltender in Europe before his NHL career began but couldn't leave due to politics. When he gets to the NHL he's stuck behind a top 20ish goaltender of all time in Belfour, who goes on to win the Vezina in Hasek's rookie season. Shortly after Hasek gets to Buffalo he is elite. I'm not sure that Hasek should get the longevity credit that Brodeur and Roy get, but we can't just pretend that he was nothing before 1993.

Also, Muckler made a big mistake going with Fuhr over Hasek in the 1993 playoffs

These were Fuhr's numbers for the Sabres that year. Dom, while not elite by any means in 1992-93, was still slightly better than what Fuhr managed to put up. Playoffs, Fuhr was simply horrific

1992–93

Buffalo Sabres

NHL

29

11

15

2

1694

98

0

3.47

.891

8

3

4

474

27

1

3.42

.875

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

The only reason Buffalo won that series was Andy Moog was worse than a traffic cone. Hasek had to come in after 1 period of game 4 due to Fuhr not being able to stop anything and he only allowed one goal in 2+ periods of play. The way the playoffs broke down that year, that decision may have cost Buffalo a cup

 

[wetcoast]

Well, for accuracy's sake, I don't have Guy at #5 either. I just have him higher than most. If you have him at 30ish, I'd probably place him somewhere in the mid teens. I think consensus tends to be in the low to mid 20's these days?

I just threw out 30 as his bottom ranking it's probably higher depending on which day I look at the top 100.

 

[daver]

I also should state the the absence of Ovechkin in this poll is ludicrous. His resume is every bit that of Crosbys atm
If Crosby was to stay healthy his entire career his would be slightly better but if, if and buts were...

He is more than likely going to finish second in goals scored in the history of the game and if he decides to play to 40 which with his fitness and health I dont see why he couldn't he might be the all time leading goal scorer in the history of the game. I personally think he already is the best goal scorer in the history of the game. To not have him here as an option is a travesty.

Regular season is debatable from strictly an offensive perspective. Crosby has a clear edge in the # of elite seasons (and no winning the Richard does not mean OV was automatically better than Crosby in a particular season.

Add in all around play and it is clear to Crosby.

Playoff resumes are not close (no ifs or buts etc.....)

That being said, OV should be in the poll given some of the other names.

 

[bobholly39]

The thing about hasek here is that you are completely ignoring his time in Europe before coming to the NHL.

He was a 3 time winner of the Golden Stick award for top Czech hockey player before he came to the NHL and his dominance at the 98 Olympics is why the Czechs won their first and only ever Gold medal in the Olympics for hockey.

Also for his NHL peak he lead the NHL for 6 straight years in save % for the freaking Buffalo Sabres and his prime in the NHL is a solid 10+ years.

Not too shabby for a guy who became an NHL starter at the age of 29.

His time before the NHL is simply not worth as much as time in the NHL would have been. I'm not saying it has 0 value, just a lot less. WHA doesn't hold same value as NHL, this is even less.

That's not really fair to Hasek. He was the dominant goaltender in Europe before his NHL career began but couldn't leave due to politics. When he gets to the NHL he's stuck behind a top 20ish goaltender of all time in Belfour, who goes on to win the Vezina in Hasek's rookie season. Shortly after Hasek gets to Buffalo he is elite. I'm not sure that Hasek should get the longevity credit that Brodeur and Roy get, but we can't just pretend that he was nothing before 1993.

It's not about being fair though. It's just about objectively looking at his resume. If Gretzky came into the NHL at age 25 vs 19 - his resume would be a lot crappier. We wouldn't still give him the benefit of all those great seasons because "well - you just know he would have dominated in the NHL". You judge what their is.

Hasek vs Roy (and Brodeur since i brought him up) suffers from a much shorter prime at the NHL level. If he had played the full 18-20 seasons as a #1 starter as the other 2 (and assuming it would have been at a level of play befitting his ability) - he'd likely be way beyond Roy all-time. As it is, it's almost flip a coin territory depending on what you value more.

Regarding Belfour - that's too bad on him tbh. You have to earn your ice time - some get it easier than others, but it is what it is, and it took him a few extra years to establish himself as a #1 goalie.

 

[Midnight Judges]

I also should state the the absence of Ovechkin in this poll is ludicrous. His resume is every bit that of Crosbys atm
If Crosby was to stay healthy his entire career his would be slightly better but if, if and buts were...
y.

It’s a hugely biased Canadian forum. It’s what they do.

 

[JackSlater]

It's not about being fair though. It's just about objectively looking at his resume. If Gretzky came into the NHL at age 25 vs 19 - his resume would be a lot crappier. We wouldn't still give him the benefit of all those great seasons because "well - you just know he would have dominated in the NHL". You judge what their is.

Hasek vs Roy (and Brodeur since i brought him up) suffers from a much shorter prime at the NHL level. If he had played the full 18-20 seasons as a #1 starter as the other 2 (and assuming it would have been at a level of play befitting his ability) - he'd likely be way beyond Roy all-time. As it is, it's almost flip a coin territory depending on what you value more.

Regarding Belfour - that's too bad on him tbh. You have to earn your ice time - some get it easier than others, but it is what it is, and it took him a few extra years to establish himself as a #1 goalie.

Objectivity is fair, and it is what your post is lacking. It's incredibly lazy and not remotely objective to dismiss Hasek's early years just because they are not easy to compare to his NHL prime. The thread was about the fifth best player ever, not "fifth best NHL resume ever" and we have more than enough evidence to conclude that Hasek was a very good goaltender before he suddenly broke out and won the Vezina in 1994. Conflating "resume" with "quality" is a common issue though and I'm not surprised to see it clung to in this way.

 

[bobholly39]

Objectivity is fair, and it is what your post is lacking. It's incredibly lazy and not remotely objective to dismiss Hasek's early years just because they are not easy to compare to his NHL prime. The thread was about the fifth best player ever, not "fifth best NHL resume ever" and we have more than enough evidence to conclude that Hasek was a very good goaltender before he suddenly broke out and won the Vezina in 1994. Conflating "resume" with "quality" is a common issue though and I'm not surprised to see it clung to in this way.

I take this thread as to who we rank 5th all time as a player. ie - greatest player, and to me that usually means resume (not just NHL resume, overall resume, but NHL is by far the most important part). Who the "best" is is more about peak and not really what i'm looking at here. If we disagree on this, than it's just semantics and not sure why we're arguing.

But for Hasek - his resume outside of the NHL is simply not as important to me because he wasn't playing against the world's top talent, in the NHL. Yes it is harder to compare - but it's also simply worth less.

Both Roy and Brodeur have him beat on longevity imo because they have 18-20 years at the NHL level as starters.

 

[JackSlater]

I take this thread as to who we rank 5th all time as a player. ie - greatest player, and to me that usually means resume (not just NHL resume, overall resume, but NHL is by far the most important part). Who the "best" is is more about peak and not really what i'm looking at here. If we disagree on this, than it's just semantics and not sure why we're arguing.

But for Hasek - his resume outside of the NHL is simply not as important to me because he wasn't playing against the world's top talent, in the NHL. Yes it is harder to compare - but it's also simply worth less.

Both Roy and Brodeur have him beat on longevity imo because they have 18-20 years at the NHL level as starters.

That's a nonsense way to look at it in a thread looking for the fifth best player ever. It would only make sense if the thread was title "fifth best NHL resume ever" but fortunately that isn't the title. It is foolish to punish Hasek essentially for being a Czech who wasn't allowed to go play in the NHL when he happened to be a high end goaltender. He was not a worse player because due to his country's politics he was not allowed in the NHL. Players are not resumes and it's very lazy to equate the two.

 

[wetcoast]

It’s a hugely biased Canadian forum. It’s what they do.

You really need to ask the OP instead of throwing out the usual wild accusations here.

I agree that Ovechkin should have been an option given some of the other names but his case really would be below pretty much all of the other options here as it is a poll for 5th best player of all time, not the best goal scorer.

Regular season is debatable from strictly an offensive perspective. Crosby has a clear edge in the # of elite seasons (and no winning the Richard does not mean OV was automatically better than Crosby in a particular season.

Add in all around play and it is clear to Crosby.

Playoff resumes are not close (no ifs or buts etc.....)

That being said, OV should be in the poll given some of the other names.

 

[Midnight Judges]

You really need to ask the OP instead of throwing out the usual wild accusations here.

OK you got me. The country that voted for Don Cherry to be one of their greatest people in history is totally opposed to nativism and bias.

 

[wetcoast]

OK you got me. The country that voted for Don Cherry to be one of their greatest people in history is totally opposed to nativism and bias.

I always treat arguments on their face value and what they present and what backs up an opinion.

Where that poster is from has zero influence on what I think of their post.

It would be nice is everyone did this.

Your line of thinking in this regard doesn't shed any light on any picture.

 

[Midnight Judges]

I always treat arguments on their face value and what they present and what backs up an opinion.

Where that poster is from has zero influence on what I think of their post.

It would be nice is everyone did this.

Your line of thinking in this regard doesn't shed any light on any picture.

Sure it does, it's just not the particular light you are in favor of.

 

[PB37]

I picked Eddie Shore.

14 year career, 8 top 5 Hart finishes, including 4 wins. League wide reputation as the meanest player in the game. Was probably the most dominant player of his generation.

 

[wetcoast]

Sure it does, it's just not the particular light you are in favor of.

Light is light.

I understand your pain seeing crosby 4th in scoring this year helps his case even more.

 

[Midnight Judges]

I always treat arguments on their face value and what they present and what backs up an opinion.

Where that poster is from has zero influence on what I think of their post.

It would be nice is everyone did this.

Your line of thinking in this regard doesn't shed any light on any picture.

I understand your pain seeing crosby 4th in scoring this year helps his case even more.

At least you were able to maintain the charade for a half hour.

 

[SotasicA]

... as the fifth best player of all time?

Yes. I'm a fan.

Plus I think it has to be a defenceman what with there being three forwards already in the top five. To make a full starting five, you know.