HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk > Polls - (hockey-related only)

How many of Brodeur's Vezinas did he deserve to win

View Poll Results: How many of Brodeur's Vezinas did he deserve to win
all 4 125 60.10%
3 of 4 44 21.15%
2 of 4 26 12.50%
less than 2 13 6.25%
Voters: 208. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-03-2009, 09:33 PM
  #101
WarriorOfGandhi
Was saying Boo-urns
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Country: Scotland
Posts: 13,397
vCash: 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I was responding to a post where you made an erroneous assertion about statistics and corrected it. Plug it into your own calculator, please.
I said Luongo played better (though not overwhelmingly) than Brodeur, which is a reference to how they performed when I watched them play. It had nothing to do with percentages, averages, exemplars, or any other category that took place off the ice.

WarriorOfGandhi is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2009, 09:41 PM
  #102
Gunnar Stahl 30
...In The World!
 
Gunnar Stahl 30's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Marty's Better
Country: Iceland
Posts: 14,908
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarriorOfGandhi View Post
I said Luongo played better (though not overwhelmingly) than Brodeur, which is a reference to how they performed when I watched them play. It had nothing to do with percentages, averages, exemplars, or any other category that took place off the ice.
how can you say he played better? brodeurs gaa was like 2.03. and save percentage 9.17. both great numbers. if broduers save percentage was .931m(or whatever it was) like luongos, his gaa would have been like 1.7 or 1.8 or something. those would be ridiculous numbers

Gunnar Stahl 30 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2009, 09:42 PM
  #103
NJ_Devil_Boy
Registered User
 
NJ_Devil_Boy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Toronto, CANADA
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,840
vCash: 500
4 + the one Hasek won.

NJ_Devil_Boy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2009, 09:48 PM
  #104
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,108
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarriorOfGandhi View Post
I said Luongo played better (though not overwhelmingly) than Brodeur, which is a reference to how they performed when I watched them play. It had nothing to do with percentages, averages, exemplars, or any other category that took place off the ice.

This is what you said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by WarriorOfGandhi View Post

04, Luongo should've won it. I hate to use the "he's on a bad team" cliché but Luongo kept ahead of Brodeur the entire season with the exception of the win-loss tally, which was more a reflection of the respective teams they played behind.
Which is false, since Brodeur was ahead of Luongo in 3 of the 4 major statistics.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2009, 10:55 PM
  #105
WarriorOfGandhi
Was saying Boo-urns
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Country: Scotland
Posts: 13,397
vCash: 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunnar Stahl 30 View Post
how can you say he played better? brodeurs gaa was like 2.03. and save percentage 9.17. both great numbers. if broduers save percentage was .931m(or whatever it was) like luongos, his gaa would have been like 1.7 or 1.8 or something. those would be ridiculous numbers
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
This is what you said:



Which is false, since Brodeur was ahead of Luongo in 3 of the 4 major statistics.
Since apparently I haven't made myself clear:

I came to that conclusion and formed my opinion because I WATCHED THEM PLAY


Last edited by WarriorOfGandhi: 01-03-2009 at 10:57 PM. Reason: grammar is hard
WarriorOfGandhi is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2009, 12:31 AM
  #106
Gunnar Stahl 30
...In The World!
 
Gunnar Stahl 30's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Marty's Better
Country: Iceland
Posts: 14,908
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarriorOfGandhi View Post
Since apparently I haven't made myself clear:

I came to that conclusion and formed my opinion because I WATCHED THEM PLAY
you saw atleast 30 games of each goalie and remember them so vividly?

Gunnar Stahl 30 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2009, 12:41 AM
  #107
haakon84
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,212
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TANK200 View Post
Yes, he did. But his first two Vezina trophies were basically "most games played" awards. Only in these past two seasons was he actually the best goalie in the league.





I will use save percentage as a means of comparing Brodeur to the best goalies in the league in 2003 and 2004. I use this statistic because it is the one that goaltenders individually have the most control over.


2002-2003
Turco's Sv%: .932
Brodeur's Sv%: .914

If both goalies had faced the same number of shots that year (say 2000, since it is a reasonable amount), Turco would have allowed 36 fewer goals than brodeur over the course of the season. Pretty big difference.


2003-2004
Luongo's Sv%: .931
Brodeur's Sv%: .917

If both goalies had faced the same number of shots that year (again assume 2000 shots), Luongo would have allowed 28 fewer goals than brodeur over the course of the season. Again, pretty big difference.


It's clear that both Turco and Luongo were far superior to Brodeur in the years that he won his first two Vezina trophies. Just because Turco only played 55 games in 2002-2003 and Luongo was on the worst team in the league in 2003-2004 does not mean that Brodeur was better.

I'm not going to say that I know more than the NHL GMs, but I will say that they were wrong in both of their selections. Just so you know, being knowledgable does not necessarily make you correct. Why do you think there are so many poorly managed teams in the NHL?
I am tired of this argument.

Player A playing stellar 75 games >>> Player B playing great 50 games with Player C playing mediocre 25 games

Answer this question how is Player B better than Player A in the 20 games he DID NOT play?

That's why games matter idiots.


Last edited by haakon84: 01-04-2009 at 12:52 AM.
haakon84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2009, 12:47 AM
  #108
haakon84
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,212
vCash: 500
Let's look at 96-97

Brodeur:
64GP
37-14-13
1.88 GAA
.927 save%
10 Shutouts

Hasek:
66GP
37-20-10
2.27 GAA
.930save %
5 shutouts

Devils won the Jennings trophy by 15+ goals, played in a tougher division, scored 5 less goals than Buffalo.

Where's the how many Vezina's did Hasek deserve thread?

haakon84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2009, 01:12 AM
  #109
wildone26*
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,163
vCash: 500
Hasek in his 8 year or so prime was by far the best goaltender in the world. In his prime he reached a higher level than either Roy or Brodeur ever reached (well with the possible exception of Roy in the playoffs), but it wasnt sustained nearly as long. As for the 96-97 stats he played on a much worse overall team and much worse defensive team, still had the better SV%, still had the same # of wins with only 2 more games played. No brainer Hasek the winner that year as well as every year he won of course.

wildone26* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2009, 01:14 AM
  #110
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,108
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haakon84 View Post
Let's look at 96-97

Brodeur:
64GP
37-14-13
1.88 GAA
.927 save%
10 Shutouts

Hasek:
66GP
37-20-10
2.27 GAA
.930save %
5 shutouts

Devils won the Jennings trophy by 15+ goals, played in a tougher division, scored 5 less goals than Buffalo.

Where's the how many Vezina's did Hasek deserve thread?
Hasek was the King of Save Percentage, so he's God according to the stats nerds on hfboards.

When it's a close call, go with the superstar veteran. In 96-97, Hasek was the superstar veteran, just like Brodeur is now. Both the Vezina and Norris have been that way since I've been watching hockey.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2009, 01:17 AM
  #111
haakon84
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,212
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nashfan24 View Post
Hasek in his 8 year or so prime was by far the best goaltender in the world. In his prime he reached a higher level than either Roy or Brodeur ever reached (well with the possible exception of Roy in the playoffs), but it wasnt sustained nearly as long. As for the 96-97 stats he played on a much worse overall team and much worse defensive team, still had the better SV%, still had the same # of wins with only 2 more games played. No brainer Hasek the winner that year as well as every year he won of course.
Well Ted Nolan won coach of the year that year so he must have not played on a much worse team. They were also in a much worse division.

That was also one of the lowest GAA of the modern era and the fact that it was sustained over a 60+ games season is very impressive.

It's a no brainer because his name is Hasek.

haakon84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2009, 01:22 AM
  #112
haakon84
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,212
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Hasek was the King of Save Percentage, so he's God according to the stats nerds on hfboards.

When it's a close call, go with the superstar veteran. In 96-97, Hasek was the superstar veteran, just like Brodeur is now. Both the Vezina and Norris have been that way since I've been watching hockey.
Oh I know. I remember watching the two teams and they both played strong TEAM defense hockey. Especially during Nolan's years.

People like to think Brodeur and Hasek are the same age as well. They had the same amount of experience Brodeur's first 10 years as an NHL goaltender. Funny how they both won their first Vezina at about the same age yet it's not seen that way. On HfBoards Brodeur won his Vezina only after Hasek cooled.

Brodeur's past couple of seasons have been the best in his career, he has set the wins mark, the most minutes per season mark, faced 2000+ shots and posted >.920 save %.

It's a shame that he lost a season to the lockout, he could have equaled Hasek's dominance.

haakon84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2009, 01:30 AM
  #113
ContrarianGoaltender
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 569
vCash: 500
I really would be interested in hearing a Devils fan directly acknowledge and try to explain the blatant double standard that allows them to argue that Brodeur deserves both the 2008 Vezina and the 2004 Vezina. It is simply impossible to construct a goaltending evaluation system, based on the numbers, that ranks Brodeur #1 both times. Either the high wins, high shutouts, low save percentage, low shots against goalie on a top team is better, or the lower wins, lower shutouts, higher save percentage goalie facing more rubber on a weaker team is better. Pick one of them and apply the standard equally. If you do, then no matter which one you go with you will end up with fewer than 4 deserving Vezinas for Brodeur, unless you want to argue for some other criteria being relevant.

If you want to argue Brodeur should have won more Vezinas, that is fine, but that is a different argument and doesn't have anything to do with 2004 or 2008.

ContrarianGoaltender is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2009, 01:31 AM
  #114
WarriorOfGandhi
Was saying Boo-urns
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Country: Scotland
Posts: 13,397
vCash: 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunnar Stahl 30 View Post
you saw atleast 30 games of each goalie and remember them so vividly?
Of course not, but I remember thinking at the end of the season that Luongo deserved the award over Brodeur (although I'm pretty sure the asinine term "robbed" never crossed my mental lexicon). Just like I thought at the end of that season's playoffs that Kipprusoff played better in the Finals than Khabibulin, regardless of what the stats said

WarriorOfGandhi is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2009, 01:40 AM
  #115
haakon84
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,212
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Center Shift View Post
I really would be interested in hearing a Devils fan directly acknowledge and try to explain the blatant double standard that allows them to argue that Brodeur deserves both the 2008 Vezina and the 2004 Vezina. It is simply impossible to construct a goaltending evaluation system, based on the numbers, that ranks Brodeur #1 both times. Either the high wins, high shutouts, low save percentage, low shots against goalie on a top team is better, or the lower wins, lower shutouts, higher save percentage goalie facing more rubber on a weaker team is better. Pick one of them and apply the standard equally. If you do, then no matter which one you go with you will end up with fewer than 4 deserving Vezinas for Brodeur, unless you want to argue for some other criteria being relevant.
Explain why he shouldn't have won it in 2008? Look at all the stats I posted. The Devils were a miserable offensive team and Brodeur stood on his head. The stats Brodeur was better in, he was better by a larger margin than the ones Nabokov bested him in.

41-6-2

Thats his record when they scored more than one goal.

I have not heard one good argument on why he did not deserve it last year and why Nabokov should have won it.

EDIT: Why are you coupling both seasons?

They were two different races under two different circumstances and it was decided Brodeur's play was the best under the different circumstances.

This doesn't make sense, there is no double standard.

The only double standard is everyone thinking Brodeur's crap smells like crap and Hasek's crap smells like roses.


Last edited by haakon84: 01-04-2009 at 01:50 AM.
haakon84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2009, 01:43 AM
  #116
ContrarianGoaltender
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 569
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haakon84 View Post
Explain why he shouldn't have won it in 2008? Look at all the stats I posted. The Devils were a miserable offensive team and Brodeur stood on his head. The stats Brodeur was better in, he was better by a larger margin than the ones Nabokov bested him in.

41-6-2

Thats his record when they scored more than one goal.

I have not heard one good argument on why he did not deserve it last year and why Nabokov should have won it.
Brodeur should have won it in 2008. I agree with you. I think the choice was pretty obvious, and that Nabokov's season was very much overrated.

In my view, however, Brodeur shouldn't have won it in 2003 or 2004, and my point is that a lot of the arguments that go in his favour in 2008 would go against him for the earlier Vezinas.

ContrarianGoaltender is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2009, 01:43 AM
  #117
ALine9900
 
ALine9900's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: NYC
Posts: 4,000
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haakon84 View Post
Explain why he shouldn't have won it in 2008? Look at all the stats I posted. The Devils were a miserable offensive team and Brodeur stood on his head. The stats Brodeur was better in, he was better by a larger margin than the ones Nabokov bested him in.

41-6-2

Thats his record when they scored more than one goal.


I have not heard one good argument on why he did not deserve it last year and why Nabokov should have won it.
Haha.

ALine9900 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2009, 01:48 AM
  #118
haakon84
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,212
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Center Shift View Post
Brodeur should have won it in 2008. I agree with you. I think the choice was pretty obvious, and that Nabokov's season was very much overrated.

In my view, however, Brodeur shouldn't have won it in 2003 or 2004, and my point is that a lot of the arguments that go in his favour in 2008 would go against him for the earlier Vezinas.
Why not in 2003 and 2004? Brodeurs numbers and play for both seasons are comparable to any other Vezina winner; ever.

It's not like he won with a:
2.25 GAA a .905 save% and 37 wins with 5 shutouts

in 2003 Turco did not play enough games. How was he better than Brodeur in the games he did not play?


Last edited by haakon84: 01-04-2009 at 01:54 AM.
haakon84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2009, 01:52 AM
  #119
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,108
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Center Shift View Post
I really would be interested in hearing a Devils fan directly acknowledge and try to explain the blatant double standard that allows them to argue that Brodeur deserves both the 2008 Vezina and the 2004 Vezina. It is simply impossible to construct a goaltending evaluation system, based on the numbers, that ranks Brodeur #1 both times. Either the high wins, high shutouts, low save percentage, low shots against goalie on a top team is better, or the lower wins, lower shutouts, higher save percentage goalie facing more rubber on a weaker team is better. Pick one of them and apply the standard equally. If you do, then no matter which one you go with you will end up with fewer than 4 deserving Vezinas for Brodeur, unless you want to argue for some other criteria being relevant.

If you want to argue Brodeur should have won more Vezinas, that is fine, but that is a different argument and doesn't have anything to do with 2004 or 2008.
1) Statistical Argument
First 2004. For Brodeur: 38-25 = difference of 13 wins. 2.42-2.03 = difference of 0.39 GAA, 11-7 = difference of 4 shutouts. For Luongo: 931-.917 = difference of .014 save %

Now 2008. For Brodeur: .920-.910 = difference of .010 save %. For Nabokov: 46-44 = difference of 2 wins. 2.17-2.14 = difference of 0.03 GAA. 6-4 = difference of 2 shutouts

In 2004, Brodeur blew Luongo out of the water in every category but save %. In 2008, Brodeur and Nabokov had incredibly similar stats, with a slight edge to Nabokov. Except save %, which was a much larger discrepancy.

2) Realistic Argument 1
Luongo missed the playoffs in 2004. Huge strike against him. The Vezina generally goes to the MVP of goalies, and how much worse could the Panthers be?

3) Realistic Argument 2
Like I said earlier in the thread, when two players have a great case for the Vezina, it goes to the superstar veteran. This is also true of the Norris trophy.


To be fair, I do honestly think that 2004 should be Brodeur's only controversial Vezina. He was slightly, but clearly better than Luongo in 2007 and Nabokov in 2008. In 2003, Turco was slightly better in the games he played, but Brodeur played so many more games, he helped his team more than Turco did. The old "Turco sure wasn't helping his team win (the job of any NHL player) in the games he didn't play" argument. And not surprisingly, Turco's stats went down in subsequent years as he played more games (not singling out Turco; this happens to most goalies).

I do think Brodeur was a good choice in 2004, since their was already a precedent for goalies failing to make the playoffs having an uphill climb to win the Vezina. But I can see where others might say, "What the hell else was Luongo supposed to do playing behind that horrible team?"


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 01-04-2009 at 02:02 AM.
TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2009, 01:56 AM
  #120
ContrarianGoaltender
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 569
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haakon84 View Post
Why not in 2003 and 2004? Brodeurs numbers and play for both seasons are comparable to any other Vezina winner; ever.

in 2003 Turco did not play enough games. How was he better than Brodeur in the games he did not play?
Here is a partial list of Vezina Trophy winners:
1982: Billy Smith, 46 games played
1984: Tom Barrasso, 42 games played
1989: Patrick Roy, 48 games played
1990: Patrick Roy, 54 games played
1994: Dominik Hasek, 58 games played

Define: "not enough games".

Marty Turco set a modern-day record for the lowest GAA in a season in 2002-03, as well as putting up the fourth highest official save percentage mark ever recorded. He may not have been better than Brodeur in the games he did not play, but he was record-breaking in the games he did play, and in my book that more than makes up for it the missing 10 games or so to meet your arbitrary standards.

ContrarianGoaltender is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2009, 02:03 AM
  #121
nik jr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country: Congo-Kinshasa
Posts: 10,526
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Hasek was the King of Save Percentage, so he's God according to the stats nerds on hfboards.

When it's a close call, go with the superstar veteran. In 96-97, Hasek was the superstar veteran, just like Brodeur is now. Both the Vezina and Norris have been that way since I've been watching hockey.
it wasn't a close call.

Quote:
VEZINA: Dominik Hasek 120 (22-3-1); Martin Brodeur 73 (3-18-4); Patrick Roy 25 (1-3-11); Guy Hebert 10 (0-2-4); Curtis Joseph 2 (0-0-2); Mike Richter 2 (0-0-2); Andy Moog 1 (0-0-1); John Vanbiesbrouck 1 (0-0-1)
22 GMs (and the vast majority of hockey fans) thought hasek was the best goalie.
3 thought brodeur was.
1 thought roy was the best.

hasek also won the hart and the pearson.

so 3 different groups, the GMs, the writers and the players, all thought hasek was the best.

hasek was better than brodeur until hasek was about 40 years old.

nik jr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2009, 02:06 AM
  #122
haakon84
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,212
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Center Shift View Post
Here is a partial list of Vezina Trophy winners:
1982: Billy Smith, 46 games played
1984: Tom Barrasso, 42 games played
1989: Patrick Roy, 48 games played
1990: Patrick Roy, 54 games played
1994: Dominik Hasek, 58 games played

Define: "not enough games".

Marty Turco set a modern-day record for the lowest GAA in a season in 2002-03, as well as putting up the fourth highest official save percentage mark ever recorded. He may not have been better than Brodeur in the games he did not play, but he was record-breaking in the games he did play, and in my book that more than makes up for it the missing 10 games or so to meet your arbitrary standards.
Why are you obsessed with standards?

Brodeur played in 18 more games for his team and had 10 more wins.

He also posted a 2 GAA and a .915 save %. with 9 shutouts.

You posted no goaltender since the position has drastically changed.

haakon84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2009, 02:11 AM
  #123
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,108
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Center Shift View Post
Here is a partial list of Vezina Trophy winners:
1982: Billy Smith, 46 games played
1984: Tom Barrasso, 42 games played
1989: Patrick Roy, 48 games played
1990: Patrick Roy, 54 games played
1994: Dominik Hasek, 58 games played

Define: "not enough games".

Marty Turco set a modern-day record for the lowest GAA in a season in 2002-03, as well as putting up the fourth highest official save percentage mark ever recorded. He may not have been better than Brodeur in the games he did not play, but he was record-breaking in the games he did play, and in my book that more than makes up for it the missing 10 games or so to meet your arbitrary standards.
If you want to go there, Brodeur set the modern-day record for GAA average in 96-97, so perhaps we can "give" him the 97 Vezina if we "take away" the 2003 one?

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2009, 02:13 AM
  #124
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,108
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nik jr View Post

hasek was better than brodeur until hasek was about 40 years old.
Brodeur didn't hit his prime until Hasek was about 40 years old. This statement is as true as yours.

Edit: And as for the rest of your post, Brodeur received 24 of 30 first place votes in 2003. So Turco's 2002-03 2nd place finish seems comparable to Brodeur's 2nd place finish in 1997.


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 01-04-2009 at 02:32 AM.
TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-04-2009, 02:13 AM
  #125
haakon84
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,212
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nik jr View Post
it wasn't a close call.



22 GMs (and the vast majority of hockey fans) thought hasek was the best goalie.
3 thought brodeur was.
1 thought roy was the best.

hasek also won the hart and the pearson.

so 3 different groups, the GMs, the writers and the players, all thought hasek was the best.

hasek was better than brodeur until hasek was about 40 years old.
By 40 you mean 36.

His last great season was when he was on one of the most stacked teams of all time.

Coincidentally he put up Brodeur like numbers.

41-15-8
2.17 GAA
.915 save %
5 SO

Maybe not playing on a team like the Devils helped Hasek's his legacy otherwise he may have put up measly Brodeur numbers his whole career.

Oh and Brodeur is 36 now.

haakon84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:54 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.