HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

HOH Top 70 Players of All Time (2009)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-10-2010, 03:37 PM
  #201
Jason MacIsaac
MARS Officer
 
Jason MacIsaac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Victoria, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,411
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Jason MacIsaac Send a message via Yahoo to Jason MacIsaac
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyle McMahon View Post
Every voter weighs things a little differently. Some value peak heavily, others not so much. It's a combination of all aspects of a player's career, and this is the result.

Your seemed to suggest that Lindros not appearing on the list is an inconsistency based on the rankings of Orr and Hasek, and I disputed this notion.
My beef is that Hasek is too high based on 5 or 6 year peak. Many will argue, Lindros during his 5 year period, was a top 10 forward all time in terms of total game. Why should Hasek's peak put him above the likes of Hall, Dryden, Sawchuk and Brodeur?

Jason MacIsaac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-10-2010, 03:51 PM
  #202
Reds4Life
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Reds4Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The Czech Republic
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,514
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason MacIsaac View Post
My beef is that Hasek is too high based on 5 or 6 year peak. Many will argue, Lindros during his 5 year period, was a top 10 forward all time in terms of total game. Why should Hasek's peak put him above the likes of Hall, Dryden, Sawchuk and Brodeur?
Lindros' prime is not really close to Hasek's prime. During Hasek's prime, he was clearly better than anyone else. There was no doubt about that. Lindros was behind at least Jagr all the time, and that's just forward position.


Last edited by Reds4Life: 04-10-2010 at 03:57 PM.
Reds4Life is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-10-2010, 04:38 PM
  #203
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 7,468
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason MacIsaac View Post
My beef is that Hasek is too high based on 5 or 6 year peak. Many will argue, Lindros during his 5 year period, was a top 10 forward all time in terms of total game. Why should Hasek's peak put him above the likes of Hall, Dryden, Sawchuk and Brodeur?
What you're losing sight of is accomplishments.

Hasek won 2 Hart Trophies. When he did it it was the first time a goalie had won one in 35 years.

6 Vezina Trpohies.

6 First team All-star selections.

Led the league 6 straight years in save percentage. And by plenty.

And he didn't get to the NHL until he was 26 and wasn't the #1 on his team until he was 29.

Lindros' accomplishments pale in comparison.

Dennis Bonvie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-10-2010, 04:49 PM
  #204
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
 
Hockey Outsider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,319
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason MacIsaac View Post
My beef is that Hasek is too high based on 5 or 6 year peak. Many will argue, Lindros during his 5 year period, was a top 10 forward all time in terms of total game. Why should Hasek's peak put him above the likes of Hall, Dryden, Sawchuk and Brodeur?
There's absolutely no comparison between Lindros and Hasek. Lindros was maybe a top ten forward of all time in his prime... if you pretend that injuries don't count and you pro-rate his accomplishments to 82 games. Hasek almost certainly had the greatest peak of any goalie ever.

Lindros was the best forward in the NHL in exactly one season (1995). Hasek was named the best goalie in the league six times. That alone should show far apart they are.

Lindros, at his best, was still behind Jagr in points-per-game, and wasn't that much farther ahead of Sakic and Forsberg. He was worse defensively than Sakic and Forsberg (though he did have a more imposing physical presence than any of the three). Even if you exclude the immortals (Gretzky and Lemieux), Lindros wasn't the clear-cut best forward in the league during the 1990's.

Hasek's statistical dominance of his position is almost Gretzky like -- six straight years leading the NHL in save percentage.

Brodeur is one of the greatest goalies of all time.Between 1994 and 2002, Hasek allowed 135 fewer goals than Brodeur while facing 1,060 more shots... generally while on weaker teams.

During his absolute peak (1994-1999), the average goalie posted a 90.2% save percentage. Patrick Roy was 2nd in the league at 91.5%. Hasek was first at 93.0%. Hasek was farther ahead of Roy (a top three goalie all time) than Roy was ahead of the average goalie!

Compared to Lindros, Hasek was clearly better in international hockey (see the 1998 Olympics) and in the playoffs (2nd best save percentage in playoff history).

There's absolutely no comparison between Lindros and Hasek based on their actual accomplishments. Hasek has a better peak and better longevity.

Hockey Outsider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-10-2010, 05:05 PM
  #205
Jason MacIsaac
MARS Officer
 
Jason MacIsaac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Victoria, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,411
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Jason MacIsaac Send a message via Yahoo to Jason MacIsaac
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Bonvie View Post
What you're losing sight of is accomplishments.

Hasek won 2 Hart Trophies. When he did it it was the first time a goalie had won one in 35 years.

6 Vezina Trpohies.

6 First team All-star selections.

Led the league 6 straight years in save percentage. And by plenty.

And he didn't get to the NHL until he was 26 and wasn't the #1 on his team until he was 29.

Lindros' accomplishments pale in comparison.
Arena bias is not taken into consideration. In New Jersey they had a -2.4 shot bias from 94-07. Buffalo had an average bias of +1.1 shots per game. Hasek still leads sv% and probably by bit but not quite what it is made out to be.

I can't take away from his accomplishments once again, he was voted by people who watch more then you or I (I would hope). But peak performance is only one part of the equation when evaluating a career.


Last edited by Jason MacIsaac: 04-10-2010 at 05:15 PM.
Jason MacIsaac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-10-2010, 05:08 PM
  #206
Jason MacIsaac
MARS Officer
 
Jason MacIsaac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Victoria, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,411
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Jason MacIsaac Send a message via Yahoo to Jason MacIsaac
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Outsider View Post
There's absolutely no comparison between Lindros and Hasek. Lindros was maybe a top ten forward of all time in his prime... if you pretend that injuries don't count and you pro-rate his accomplishments to 82 games. Hasek almost certainly had the greatest peak of any goalie ever.

Lindros was the best forward in the NHL in exactly one season (1995). Hasek was named the best goalie in the league six times. That alone should show far apart they are.

Lindros, at his best, was still behind Jagr in points-per-game, and wasn't that much farther ahead of Sakic and Forsberg. He was worse defensively than Sakic and Forsberg (though he did have a more imposing physical presence than any of the three). Even if you exclude the immortals (Gretzky and Lemieux), Lindros wasn't the clear-cut best forward in the league during the 1990's.

Hasek's statistical dominance of his position is almost Gretzky like -- six straight years leading the NHL in save percentage.

Brodeur is one of the greatest goalies of all time.Between 1994 and 2002, Hasek allowed 135 fewer goals than Brodeur while facing 1,060 more shots... generally while on weaker teams.

During his absolute peak (1994-1999), the average goalie posted a 90.2% save percentage. Patrick Roy was 2nd in the league at 91.5%. Hasek was first at 93.0%. Hasek was farther ahead of Roy (a top three goalie all time) than Roy was ahead of the average goalie!

Compared to Lindros, Hasek was clearly better in international hockey (see the 1998 Olympics) and in the playoffs (2nd best save percentage in playoff history).

There's absolutely no comparison between Lindros and Hasek based on their actual accomplishments. Hasek has a better peak and better longevity.
Way to play around with the stats, I hope Hasek let in less goals, he played probably 10 games on average less then Brodeur each season. Like I said in my post above, arena bias has been around for years but even a stats guy like you has ignored it.

Hasek is still a great goaltender, but he isn't in the top tier with Roy and Plante when you include durability, longevity and playoffs.


Last edited by Jason MacIsaac: 04-10-2010 at 05:13 PM.
Jason MacIsaac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-10-2010, 05:10 PM
  #207
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,278
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason MacIsaac View Post
Arena bias is not taken into consideration. In New Jersey they had a -2.4 shot bias from 94-07. Buffalo had an average bias of +1.1 shots per game. Hasek still leads sv% and probably by bit but not quite what it is made out to be.
This is true. While I agree with most of HO's post, I did cringe when he posted how many more shots Hasek faced than Brodeur. He obviously faced more shots, but the numbers are skewed by arena bias.

I know full well the NJ arena bias. Where did you find the Buffalo numbers?

What really convinced me of Hasek's greatness was that his GAA is so much better than anyone else who played in Buffalo during that time. It's something like half a goal difference per game vs. any backup. (The numbers are floating around somewhere on this board). Edit: I should say that I already knew Hasek was great, but not necessarily how great.

Either way, he was much better than Lindros. And his prime was more like 7-8 years, longer than Lindros' prime, and definitely longer than Sawchuk's.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-10-2010, 05:12 PM
  #208
Jason MacIsaac
MARS Officer
 
Jason MacIsaac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Victoria, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,411
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Jason MacIsaac Send a message via Yahoo to Jason MacIsaac
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
This is true. While I agree with most of HO's post, I did cringe when he posted how many more shots Hasek faced than Brodeur. He obviously faced more shots, but the numbers are skewed by arena bias.

I know full well the NJ arena bias. Where did you find the Buffalo numbers?

What really convinced me of Hasek's greatness was that his GAA is so much better than anyone else who played in Buffalo during that time. It's something like half a goal difference per game vs. any backup. (The numbers are floating around somewhere on this board).

Either way, he was much better than Lindros. And his prime was more like 7-8 years, longer than Lindros' prime, and definitely longer than Sawchuk's.
http://objectivenhl.blogspot.com/200...-how-some.html

As many have guessed, Florida over counts shots as well. There is a reason why their goaltenders always have great sv% other then talent.

Jason MacIsaac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-10-2010, 05:18 PM
  #209
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,278
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason MacIsaac View Post
http://objectivenhl.blogspot.com/200...-how-some.html

As many have guessed, Florida over counts shots as well. There is a reason why their goaltenders always have great sv% other then talent.
Interesting. I never saw those numbers before. This might be worthy of it's own thread. Luongo's save % tumbled when moved to Vancouver and this is probably a big reason why (Vancouver undercounts as much as NJ it seems in addition to the Florida overcounts). Also, Nashville's overcounting is just absurd.

Edit: Actually, the conclusion of the link you sent is that Florida's shot discrepancy is genuine, not an overcounting. The other points stand.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-10-2010, 05:35 PM
  #210
seventieslord
Registered User
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,331
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason MacIsaac View Post
I hope Hasek let in less goals, he played probably 10 games on average less then Brodeur each season.
The amount of games doesn't impact the number of goals, the number of shots faced does.

As HO said, "Hasek allowed 135 fewer goals than Brodeur while facing 1,060 more shots... generally while on weaker teams." your statement does not refute that or make it any less impressive.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-10-2010, 05:50 PM
  #211
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,278
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
The amount of games doesn't impact the number of goals, the number of shots faced does.

As HO said, "Hasek allowed 135 fewer goals than Brodeur while facing 1,060 more shots... generally while on weaker teams." your statement does not refute that or make it any less impressive.
The difference in shots isn't nearly that great due to arena bias. I'll try to estimate the effect. To do a real calculation would take more time than I feel like spending. Since the NJ effect has been shown to be real by comparing home and away shooting percentage, I'll use it. I'll ignore any possible effect from Buffalo, since the bias there hasn't been confirmed as actual bias. So if anything this estimate will still be unfavorable to Brodeur.

Assuming 2.5 shots per game of arena bias, multiplied by about 35 home games for Brodeur per year multiplied by 7 years (plus 2.5 times 20 estimated home games during the lockout year), we get a bias against Brodeur of about 660 shots.

So a more realistic estimate would be that Hasek allowed 135 goals less than Brodeur, while facing approximately 400 more shots. This assumes there is no shot bias in Buffalo and only takes into account the bias in NJ. This is also an estimate, a better estimate would use year by year numbers.

This statement also ignores 2 further facts:
1) Brodeur's puckhandling itself reduces shots against slightly. This needs to be taken into account further, and likely can be (though I don't feel like doing it).
2) You are comparing Hasek's prime to the first half of Brodeur's career, most of which was not during Brodeur's prime. There is a 7 year age difference between the two.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-10-2010, 05:52 PM
  #212
Kyle McMahon
Registered User
 
Kyle McMahon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Old NHL
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,375
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason MacIsaac View Post
My beef is that Hasek is too high based on 5 or 6 year peak. Many will argue, Lindros during his 5 year period, was a top 10 forward all time in terms of total game. Why should Hasek's peak put him above the likes of Hall, Dryden, Sawchuk and Brodeur?
I think you're underestimating Hasek's longevity. He was the best in the world at his position for nearly a decade. His peak was longer than Sawchuk's, and at least equally impressive. Dryden, Hall, and Brodeur never quite reached the same level of dominance in the opinion of most people.

Personally, I weigh a goalie's peak more than the other positions. As great as a forward or d-man may be, they need a reasonably strong supporting cast around them to win Stanley Cups. An all-time great goalie on top of his game can make a team of also-rans a contender.

Kyle McMahon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-10-2010, 05:59 PM
  #213
seventieslord
Registered User
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,331
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
The difference in shots isn't nearly that great due to arena bias. I'll try to estimate the effect. To do a real calculation would take more time than I feel like spending. Since the NJ effect has been shown to be real by comparing home and away shooting percentage, I'll use it. I'll ignore any possible effect from Buffalo, since the bias there hasn't been confirmed as actual bias. So if anything this estimate will still be unfavorable to Brodeur.

Assuming 2.5 shots per game of arena bias, multiplied by about 35 home games for Brodeur per year multiplied by 7 years (plus 2.5 times 20 estimated home games during the lockout year), we get a bias against Brodeur of about 660 shots.

So a more realistic estimate would be that Hasek allowed 135 goals less than Brodeur, while facing approximately 400 more shots. This assumes there is no shot bias in Buffalo and only takes into account the bias in NJ. This is also an estimate, a better estimate would use year by year numbers.

This statement also ignores 2 further facts:
1) Brodeur's puckhandling itself reduces shots against slightly. This needs to be taken into account further, and likely can be (though I don't feel like doing it).
2) You are comparing Hasek's prime to the first half of Brodeur's career, most of which was not during Brodeur's prime. There is a 7 year age difference between the two.
- Regardless, Brodeur was considered one of the best goalies in the league and Hasek's statistical dominance of him during that period is frequently used as an illustration of his overall dominance.

- As for the shot bias, that's a different conversation altogether; my post was in response to the "fewer games" excuse which was irrelevant. (apparently the shot bias really began in 2001-02 anyway)

- This is really nitpicky and not the conversation I want to get into right now, but any effects of puckhandling can be entirely outweighed, and then some, by "shot quality due to abundance or lack of PK situations" estimates.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-10-2010, 06:11 PM
  #214
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,278
vCash: 500
Agree that it's pointless to get into this, but just a few quick comments because I can't help myself

Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
- Regardless, Brodeur was considered one of the best goalies in the league and Hasek's statistical dominance of him during that period is frequently used as an illustration of his overall dominance
Brodeur was "one of the best," but the statement taken out of context is supposed to show how much better Hasek was than Brodeur. And without context, it highly exaggerates the difference. Brodeur had some really mediocre seasons in there, and was probably a bit higher than Joseph during this time overall. He wasn't in his prime til 2001 or 2002 - that's when he really became consistent. We don't compare Hasek's prime directly to Roy's first 8 years in the league (some of which he struggled to even keep the starting job), so why is a direct comparison with a 7 years younger Brodeur used?
Quote:
- As for the shot bias, that's a different conversation altogether; my post was in response to the "fewer games" excuse which was irrelevant. (apparently the shot bias really began in 2001-02 anyway)
Games is mostly irrelevant, true. I mean, there's the whole "going 10 minutes without a shot is really tough on a goalie mentally" thing, but I don't want to get into it now, at all.

That link shows that it started in 98-99, but got really big into the 2000s, two seasons reaching over 7 shots per game difference! I think 2.5 shots per game is a good conservative estimate if anything.

Quote:
- This is really nitpicky and not the conversation I want to get into right now, but any effects of puckhandling can be entirely outweighed, and then some, by "shot quality due to abundance or lack of PK situations" estimates.
They are both factors and may or may not cancel out. Either way, they are harder to quantify, true. I'll give you that we can ignore outside variables like puckhandling and "going 10 minutes without a shot" and "PK situations," whatever.
____________

1) None of the other factors affect the factual truth of what HO said. Shot recording bias does however, and it is something that can be quantifiable if someone takes the time to do it.

2) While the statement shows Hasek's dominance against a "good" NHL goalie, it should not be used as any valid comparison between Hasek and Brodeur, since it compares Hasek's prime to Brodeur's worst consecutive 8 year period.


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 04-10-2010 at 06:33 PM.
TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-10-2010, 06:35 PM
  #215
overpass
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,509
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Outsider View Post
Between 1994 and 2002, Hasek allowed 135 fewer goals than Brodeur while facing 1,060 more shots... generally while on weaker teams.
From the objectivenhl link: "In terms of New Jersey, it seems that the tendency for undercounting shots at Continental Airlines arena began during the 2001-02 season."

I think Hockey Outsider's point stands.

overpass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-10-2010, 06:46 PM
  #216
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,278
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by overpass View Post
From the objectivenhl link: "In terms of New Jersey, it seems that the tendency for undercounting shots at Continental Airlines arena began during the 2001-02 season."

I think Hockey Outsider's point stands.
NJ did have more home shots than away shots since 98-99 for whatever reason. You're right that farther down, it shows that that was the first year there is a provable bias (7+shots per game!!!)

Okay, so the statement might be technically correct (assuming we ignore the huge shot bias in 01-02), but what does it tell us? Hasek was a much better goalie during his best 7 year stretch than Brodeur was during his worst 7 year stretch.

I do take exception to the "while on a weaker team" business though. If you're going to give Hasek credit for the "team" factor, you'd better give Brodeur credit for his gamebreaking puckhandling.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-10-2010, 06:53 PM
  #217
Jason MacIsaac
MARS Officer
 
Jason MacIsaac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Victoria, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,411
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Jason MacIsaac Send a message via Yahoo to Jason MacIsaac
Quote:
Originally Posted by overpass View Post
From the objectivenhl link: "In terms of New Jersey, it seems that the tendency for undercounting shots at Continental Airlines arena began during the 2001-02 season."

I think Hockey Outsider's point stands.
With arena bias taken into effect, I would be interested to see Hasek's peak verses Brodeur's peak (last 7 years) since Hasek seems to be compared Brodeur's earlier years.

1993-94 the stand for goals per game
Adjusted value Hasek (6 years)
1993-94 - 53 gm, 7 SO, 1.95 GAA, .932 sv%
1994-95 - 41 gm, 5 SO, 2.29 GAA, .931 sv%
1995-96 - 58 gm, 2 SO, 2.91 GAA, .918 sv%
1996-97 - 67 gm, 5 SO, 2.53 GAA, .929 sv%
1997-98 - 72 gm, 13 SO, 2.56 GAA, .930 sv%
1998-99 - 64 gm, 9 SO, 2.30 GAA, .934 sv%

Adjusted Value Brodeur (5 years)
2002-03 - 73 gm, 9 SO, 2.46 GAA, .916 sv%
2003-04 - 75 gm, 11 SO, 2.55 GAA, .922 sv%
2005-06 - 73 gm, 5 SO, 2.70 GAA, .916 sv%
2006-07 - 78 gm, 12 SO, 2.39 GAA, .929 sv%
2007-08 - 77 gm, 4 SO, 2.52 GAA, .923 sv%

Stats are a little off, I judged 1 shot bias as 1% on the totals. Hasek is clearly still better but the remainder of Brodeur's career smashed Hasek's.

Edit: Hasek's peak actually destroys Brodeur's peak now that I think of it


Last edited by Jason MacIsaac: 04-10-2010 at 07:25 PM.
Jason MacIsaac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-10-2010, 07:11 PM
  #218
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,278
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason MacIsaac View Post
With arena bias taken into effect, I would be interested to see Hasek's peak verses Brodeur's peak (last 7 years) since Hasek seems to be compared Brodeur's earlier years.
Me too. I'm sure that Hasek would still come out ahead, but the difference would be much less than those numbers make it look.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-10-2010, 07:22 PM
  #219
nik jr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country: Congo-Kinshasa
Posts: 10,525
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyle McMahon View Post
I think you're underestimating Hasek's longevity. He was the best in the world at his position for nearly a decade. His peak was longer than Sawchuk's, and at least equally impressive. Dryden, Hall, and Brodeur never quite reached the same level of dominance in the opinion of most people.

Personally, I weigh a goalie's peak more than the other positions. As great as a forward or d-man may be, they need a reasonably strong supporting cast around them to win Stanley Cups. An all-time great goalie on top of his game can make a team of also-rans a contender.
hasek was also one of the best goalies of the '80s. not in the NHL, but this is not the top 100 NHLers.

and we do not know what his NHL accomplishments would have been if he had been in the NHL from the mid '80s. we also do not know what other goalies' (such as roy) accomplishments would have been.

hasek had great longevity. hasek is older than roy, and retired later.

nik jr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-10-2010, 10:17 PM
  #220
seventieslord
Registered User
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,331
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nik jr View Post
hasek was also one of the best goalies of the '80s. not in the NHL, but this is not the top 100 NHLers.

and we do not know what his NHL accomplishments would have been if he had been in the NHL from the mid '80s. we also do not know what other goalies' (such as roy) accomplishments would have been.

hasek had great longevity. hasek is older than roy, and retired later.
Aside from two seasons languishing as a backup, you could say that Hasek was the best goalie in his league from 1986 to 2001.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-10-2010, 11:37 PM
  #221
Blades of Glory
Troll Captain
 
Blades of Glory's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: California
Country: United States
Posts: 18,334
vCash: 500
The shot counting numbers are interesting. Any idea why there are some weird aberrations in individual seasons? Look at San Jose. They usually are right around average in terms of counting shots, but in 2003, they over-counted shots at an average of 5.1? I can't remember anything about that year that would make me understand such a rapid swing. Nabokov held out and Kipprusoff played the first month or so of the season, and the Sharks gutted their entire team at the deadline, but that's about it.

Blades of Glory is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-10-2010, 11:49 PM
  #222
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
 
Hockey Outsider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,319
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason MacIsaac View Post
Way to play around with the stats,
Play around with the stats? I hope you're not accusing me of tampering with evidence. I take that as a very serious accusation.

Link to evidence: here

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason MacIsaac View Post
I hope Hasek let in less goals, he played probably 10 games on average less then Brodeur each season.
You misunderstand. Hasek allowed 135 fewer goals than Brodeur despite facing 1,060 more shots. Games played has nothing to do with it - Hasek allowed fewer goals while facing significantly more shots.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason MacIsaac View Post
Like I said in my post above, arena bias has been around for years but even a stats guy like you has ignored it.
It's unfair to accuse me of "ignoring" evidence that you brought up after I posted my argument.

Your link doesn't support your argument though. It says "In terms of New Jersey, it seems that the tendency for undercounting shots at Continental Airlines arena began during the 2001-02 season". This would affect one out of the nine years in my sample.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason MacIsaac View Post
Hasek is still a great goaltender, but he isn't in the top tier with Roy and Plante when you include durability, longevity and playoffs.
Personally, my top tier is Hasek, Roy and Plante (probably in that order).

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I do take exception to the "while on a weaker team" business though. If you're going to give Hasek credit for the "team" factor, you'd better give Brodeur credit for his gamebreaking puckhandling.
I think it's almost unquestionable that Hasek played on weaker defensive teams, and that has to be taken into account.

At the same time, Brodeur's puckhandling is a significant skill, and that needs to be taken into account too. I think in December I tried to quantify exactly how beneficial Brodeur's superior puckhandling and durability were, compared to Hasek's peak. Although Hasek is still ahead, Brodeur is surprisingly close. I'll see if I can dig up that post.


Last edited by Hockey Outsider: 04-17-2010 at 02:28 PM.
Hockey Outsider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2010, 10:59 AM
  #223
Infinite Vision*
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,862
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nik jr View Post
hasek was also one of the best goalies of the '80s. not in the NHL, but this is not the top 100 NHLers.

and we do not know what his NHL accomplishments would have been if he had been in the NHL from the mid '80s. we also do not know what other goalies' (such as roy) accomplishments would have been.

hasek had great longevity. hasek is older than roy, and retired later.
I've never understood people knocking Hasek's longevity. He was drafted in 83, was an elite goalie before he came to the NHL, and was still an elite goalie in his 40's after the lockout. To me, Hasek clearly stands alone out of any goaltender in history, I just don't understand how some could not have him in their top 3 even.

Infinite Vision* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2010, 02:20 PM
  #224
seventieslord
Registered User
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,331
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan87 View Post
I've never understood people knocking Hasek's longevity. He was drafted in 83, was an elite goalie before he came to the NHL, and was still an elite goalie in his 40's after the lockout. To me, Hasek clearly stands alone out of any goaltender in history, I just don't understand how some could not have him in their top 3 even.
The bolded is exactly how I feel.

If you want to rate Plante or Roy ahead of Hasek, be my guest, but there should be no one else in the conversation.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2010, 02:32 PM
  #225
Reds4Life
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Reds4Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The Czech Republic
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,514
vCash: 500
Hasek is still playing by the way.
His team currently leads 2-0 in the finals of Czech Extraliga and Hasek just got shutout yesterday and his team won 1:0

Reds4Life 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 12:04 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.