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.

Dominik Hasek retires, what is the legacy?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-15-2012, 10:00 AM
  #101
Sentinel
Registered User
 
Sentinel's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 2,303
vCash: 500
Roy would have exchanged two of his Cup rings for one OG gold medal. In fact I'm not sure he wouldn't given all his Conn Smythes to face Robert Reichel over again.

Sentinel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-15-2012, 11:05 AM
  #102
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 20,736
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
Really?
Well, Colorado ended up 1st in their division every season Roy was there - even those regular seasons when Brodeur and Hasek were overshadowing Roy's performance - but that's only his last 8 seasons; not the entire 18.

Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-15-2012, 11:09 AM
  #103
seventieslord
Registered User
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,322
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sentinel View Post
Roy would have exchanged two of his Cup rings for one OG gold medal. In fact I'm not sure he wouldn't given all his Conn Smythes to face Robert Reichel over again.
Are you serious?

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-15-2012, 11:10 AM
  #104
Chalupa Batman
Mod Supervisor
 
Chalupa Batman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 21,952
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sentinel View Post
Roy would have exchanged two of his Cup rings for one OG gold medal. In fact I'm not sure he wouldn't given all his Conn Smythes to face Robert Reichel over again.
Do you have anything remotely similar to evidence for these claims?

Chalupa Batman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-15-2012, 11:41 AM
  #105
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,671
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
I think you’re forgetting that Mario’s game was much more PP-reliant than Jagr’s.

The claim that a peak Jagr was right in Mario’s league at even strength is not as absurd as you claim, and I recommend you consider the evidence instead of essentially plugging your ears and going “LALALALALA”.
That's not what I said though.
What I said is that Jagr at any time in his career did not match Mario at even strength from 88/89-92/93.
Only after Mario came back from Cancer did Jagr match or slightly out preform Mario at even strength.
I agreed that for career, it's Jagr but not for peak. For peak, only Gretzky and possibly Orr (I'd have to check the numbers) were as prolific or better than Mario at even strength at his peak.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sentinel View Post
Roy would have exchanged two of his Cup rings for one OG gold medal. In fact I'm not sure he wouldn't given all his Conn Smythes to face Robert Reichel over again.
And you know this how?

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-15-2012, 11:44 AM
  #106
vadim sharifijanov
Registered User
 
vadim sharifijanov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,143
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sentinel View Post
Roy would have exchanged two of his Cup rings for one OG gold medal. In fact I'm not sure he wouldn't given all his Conn Smythes to face Robert Reichel over again.
also, jimmy devellano's dad could totally beat up pierre lacroix's dad.

vadim sharifijanov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-15-2012, 11:48 AM
  #107
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 2,641
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sentinel View Post
Roy would have exchanged two of his Cup rings for one OG gold medal. In fact I'm not sure he wouldn't given all his Conn Smythes to face Robert Reichel over again.


Wait - you're saying that the goaltender who dropped out of the running for the 2002 Olympics at a time when he was considered the best player in the league (THN) because he wanted to defend his fourth Stanley Cup would trade two of those Stanley Cups for an Olympic Gold Medal?

No. Absolutely not.

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-15-2012, 11:58 AM
  #108
Beville
#ForTheBoys
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Engerlanddd!
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 3,518
vCash: 500
I love Hasek, but I struggle to categorise any of the big 3 - Brodeur, Roy and Hasek...

But Hasek would be number 1 if I had to choose...

Beville is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-15-2012, 12:10 PM
  #109
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 20,054
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sentinel View Post
Roy would have exchanged two of his Cup rings for one OG gold medal. In fact I'm not sure he wouldn't given all his Conn Smythes to face Robert Reichel over again.
Where are you getting this from Sentinel? Generally speaking, just about every North American born & raised player at least through Roys' generation & the ones that followed would much rather win one Stanley Cup let alone 2; never mind the Conn Smythes, Vezinas'. Sure it wouldve been nice, but still. Not on the same level as an 80+ game schedule, playoffs, facing the best night in night out. Theres a reason why they call the Stanley Cup the hardest trophy in sports to win. All due respect to the Olympics', some great hockey played, but a 10 day Tournament Format is a far cry from what it takes to win silverware in the NHL.

Killion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-15-2012, 12:12 PM
  #110
coldsteelonice84
Registered User
 
coldsteelonice84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 22,547
vCash: 1948
I'd have like to see him carry Buffalo to a championship to truely consider him the best ever without debate.

coldsteelonice84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-15-2012, 12:49 PM
  #111
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,207
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MS View Post

In 1994, 1998, and 1999 Hasek was ridiculous in the playoffs, including the series where his team was eliminated. He lost not because he wasn't a dominant playoff goalie, he lost because his team simply couldn't score - the guy once lost a playoff series where he posted a .950 save% and a 1.61 GAA. He was providing Conn Smythe-level goaltending, but on a team that couldn't get him into Conn Smythe positions.

.
Hasek lost in the 1994 first round because his team couldn't score, something that could be said for Martin Brodeur in his team's early losses in 1997 and 1998.

Buffalo's offense came alive in the playoffs in 1997 (where it was good enough to carry Steve Shields to the second round), 1998, and 1999.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-15-2012, 01:15 PM
  #112
Canadiens1958
Moderator
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,447
vCash: 500
1994 Playoffs Buffalo vs New Jersey

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Hasek lost in the 1994 first round because his team couldn't score, something that could be said for Martin Brodeur in his team's early losses in 1997 and 1998.

Buffalo's offense came alive in the playoffs in 1997 (where it was good enough to carry Steve Shields to the second round), 1998, and 1999.
From the results:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/team...994_games.html

both teams scored 14 goals. Difference was the distribution of the goals. Hasek had two shutouts so over the remaining 5 games the Devils scored 2.8 GPG. During the season the Devils enjoyed a 306 to 282 GF advantage.

Brodeur's zero shutout flat line performance carried the day this time. Great series.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-15-2012, 01:16 PM
  #113
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,358
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
That's not what I said though.
What I said is that Jagr at any time in his career did not match Mario at even strength from 88/89-92/93.
Only after Mario came back from Cancer did Jagr match or slightly out preform Mario at even strength.
I agreed that for career, it's Jagr but not for peak. For peak, only Gretzky and possibly Orr (I'd have to check the numbers) were as prolific or better than Mario at even strength at his peak.
Matching or outperforming Mario at the same time (same season) is not the same as having as good or better a peak or prime. It's no real surprise that a 18-20 y/o Jagr wasn't a match at ES for a 25-27 y/o Lemieux.

If by peak you mean on a per-game basis during each player's single best season, then Mario does have a clear edge due to his incredible '93 season. Like most, I don't tend to use 60 games as determining peak ability, but instead prefer ~3-5 full seasons.

Mario was the master on the PP. He may have been better at ES than Jagr, if he didn't have health issues, but he did, so he wasn't clearly better. It's my understanding that players are evaluated foremost on what they actually did. I never see anyone giving Jagr any extra Rosses, because he may have won them if the Pens' franchise hadn't basically imploded due to ineptness by management and ownership. It seems pretty clear to me that Lemieux and Jagr were in the same range at ES. The closer to a single season or per-game basis, the more it favors Lemieux, but the multiple full seasons tend to favor Jagr.

I'm not sure how Orr factors into this. If you mean "adjusted plus-minus" numbers, then Orr is at or near the top, esp. on a per-game or per-season basis. However, those numbers also favor Jagr as much or more as the ES point numbers. I believe he even gives Gretzky a battle on a career basis, but must defer to Overpass who has much more familiarity and more expertise with that data.

Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-15-2012, 02:18 PM
  #114
struckbyaparkedcar
Zemgus Da Gawd
 
struckbyaparkedcar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Upstate NY
Country: Cote DIvoire
Posts: 10,262
vCash: 500
One thing I don't understand, is how Hasek gets the "flake" tag in discussions like this, when given all sorts of knowns like the groin being a chronic thing, Buffalo having a questionable medical staff and criminal ownership group, and the Sabres not doing anything with Peca in 01 despite it being possibly their best shot at a Cup, while ignoring Roy ******** on the Habs.

struckbyaparkedcar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-15-2012, 02:27 PM
  #115
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,207
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by struckbyaparkedcar View Post
One thing I don't understand, is how Hasek gets the "flake" tag in discussions like this, when given all sorts of knowns like the groin being a chronic thing, Buffalo having a questionable medical staff and criminal ownership group, and the Sabres not doing anything with Peca in 01 despite it being possibly their best shot at a Cup, while ignoring Roy ******** on the Habs.
Roy had a feud with his coach and demanded a trade during the regular season. A far cry from refusing to play the second round of the playoffs when you're medically cleared (while publicly feuding with the coach).

Also, I never heard anything about Buffalo having a questionable medical staff. Can you explain further?

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-15-2012, 02:51 PM
  #116
LSnow
Registered User
 
LSnow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Finland
Country: Finland
Posts: 2,656
vCash: 500
Hasek is the best, not close..

LSnow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-15-2012, 02:52 PM
  #117
Chalupa Batman
Mod Supervisor
 
Chalupa Batman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 21,952
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LSnow View Post
Hasek is the best, not close..
No matter which horse someone has in the race, saying that it's "not close" is disingenuous.

Any time this argument comes up, the words "not close" is a quick way to get me to discount anything else that's used as evidence.

Chalupa Batman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-15-2012, 03:23 PM
  #118
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,671
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
Matching or outperforming Mario at the same time (same season) is not the same as having as good or better a peak or prime. It's no real surprise that a 18-20 y/o Jagr wasn't a match at ES for a 25-27 y/o Lemieux.

If by peak you mean on a per-game basis during each player's single best season, then Mario does have a clear edge due to his incredible '93 season. Like most, I don't tend to use 60 games as determining peak ability, but instead prefer ~3-5 full seasons.

Mario was the master on the PP. He may have been better at ES than Jagr, if he didn't have health issues, but he did, so he wasn't clearly better. It's my understanding that players are evaluated foremost on what they actually did. I never see anyone giving Jagr any extra Rosses, because he may have won them if the Pens' franchise hadn't basically imploded due to ineptness by management and ownership. It seems pretty clear to me that Lemieux and Jagr were in the same range at ES. The closer to a single season or per-game basis, the more it favors Lemieux, but the multiple full seasons tend to favor Jagr.

I'm not sure how Orr factors into this. If you mean "adjusted plus-minus" numbers, then Orr is at or near the top, esp. on a per-game or per-season basis. However, those numbers also favor Jagr as much or more as the ES point numbers. I believe he even gives Gretzky a battle on a career basis, but must defer to Overpass who has much more familiarity and more expertise with that data.
Lemieux
84/85 GP-73 ESP-67 ESP/G-0.91
85/86 GP-79 ESP-75 ESP/G-0.84
86/87 GP-63 ESP-69 ESP/G-1.10
87/88 GP-77 ESP-74 ESP/G-0.96
88/89 GP-76 ESP-102 ESP/G-1.34
89/90 GP-59 ESP-71 ESP/G-1.20
90/91 GP-26 ESP-31 ESP/G-1.19
91/92 GP-64 ESP-74 ESP/G-1.16
92/93 GP-60 ESP-96 ESP/G-1.60
93/94 GP-22 ESP-22 ESP/G-1.00
95/96 GP-70 ESP-73 ESP/G-1.04
96/97 GP-76 ESP-79 ESP/G-1.04
00/01 GP-43 ESP-43 ESP/G-1.00
02/03 GP-67 ESP-46 ESP/G-0.69

Jagr
90/91 GP-80 ESP-44 ESP/G-0.55
91/92 GP-70 ESP-60 ESP/G-0.85
92/93 GP-81 ESP-71 ESP/G-0.88
93/94 GP-80 ESP-70 ESP/G-0.88
94/95 GP-48 ESP-45 ESP/G-0.94
95/96 GP-82 ESP-95 ESP/G-1.16
96/97 GP-63 ESP-67 ESP/G-1.06
97/98 GP-77 ESP-64 ESP/G-0.83
98/99 GP-81 ESP-82 ESP/G-1.01
99/00 GP-63 ESP-67 ESP/G-1.06
00/01 GP-81 ESP-78 ESP/G-0.96
02/03 GP-75 ESP-45 ESP/G-0.60
05/06 GP-82 ESP-71 ESP/G-0.87


Sorry, I just don't see it.
Even when a 36-38 year old, recovered from cancer with a bad back, Mario comes back in 00/01, he is still slightly better than a 29-31 year old Jagr at even strength as evidenced by both the 00/01 and 02/03 seasons.
This is also the proof where adjusted stats lets you down and gives far too much weight to Jagr's numbers in the late 90's.

Jagr at no point in his career is on par with a pre-Cancer Lemieux at even strength. Only AFTER Mario comes back from Cancer is Jagr on par with him.
I still stand by that statement.

So maybe it isn't actually just about me plugging my ears saying "LALALALA" eh


Last edited by Rhiessan71: 10-15-2012 at 03:43 PM.
Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-15-2012, 04:34 PM
  #119
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,358
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Sorry, I just don't see it.
Even when a 36-38 year old, recovered from cancer with a bad back, Mario comes back in 00/01, he is still slightly better than a 29-31 year old Jagr at even strength as evidenced by both the 00/01 and 02/03 seasons.
This is also the proof where adjusted stats lets you down and gives far too much weight to Jagr's numbers in the late 90's.

Jagr at no point in his career is on par with a pre-Cancer Lemieux at even strength. Only AFTER Mario comes back from Cancer is Jagr on par with him.
I still stand by that statement.

So maybe it isn't actually just about me plugging my ears saying "LALALALA" eh
You refuse to see or acknowledge the evidence which contradicts your pre-formed conclusion.

Sure, Lemieux was better before and during '93. From '95 on, Jagr is as good or better at ES. I don't put too much into Lemieux's post-'97 numbers, because after that he played no more than 91 games in consecutive seasons. For instance, in 2001, he plays about half the season with Jagr on his line. The other half of the season, Jagr plays without Lemieux. Who would you expect to have the better PPG? When a player can barely play the majority of a season, if he's fortunate, then he's not going to be nearly as valuable as a similar player who can play the vast majority of every season. Give Jagr a couple seasons off to rest... tell him he only has to play half the season... and give him Lemieux on his line when he does play (but make Lemieux play without Jagr the other half), and I'm confident who would have had the best PPG.

Jagr was clearly better at ES on a career basis, simply due to durability and longevity. In their prime, it's closer, but I'd probably give the edge to Jagr, again simply due to durability. On a peak basis, it's about even, although Lemieux clearly has the better single season on a per game basis. As previously stated, the PPG of a single season in which Lemieux played 60 games isn't exactly definitive evidence that he was better at his peak ('93 also being an atypically good year for top scorers).

You may now re-insert your fingers in your ears and resume ignoring the facts. LALLALLALAL

Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-15-2012, 04:53 PM
  #120
struckbyaparkedcar
Zemgus Da Gawd
 
struckbyaparkedcar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Upstate NY
Country: Cote DIvoire
Posts: 10,262
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Roy had a feud with his coach and demanded a trade during the regular season. A far cry from refusing to play the second round of the playoffs when you're medically cleared (while publicly feuding with the coach).

Also, I never heard anything about Buffalo having a questionable medical staff. Can you explain further?
So Roy gets lauded for bouncing on a ****** coach, and Hasek gets dumped on for doing the same to a guy with exactly one NHL job since, that also ended with him beefing with various team elements. Additionally, Dom responded with physical violence to the guy making the most vocal case for the "he's quitting on his team" angle, determine from that what you will.

As for the medical staff, I'm not sure if their criticism from Buffalo fans comes before or after the Hasek v Nolan/Kelley/Doctors thing, but the medical staff from that period isn't held in the highest regard among at least a vocal segment of Sabres fans. Sadly, I don't have more than a few throwaway lines to corroborate this. I think they misdiagnosed several of Afinogenov's injuries over the years, but that's more speculation.


Last edited by struckbyaparkedcar: 10-15-2012 at 05:03 PM.
struckbyaparkedcar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-15-2012, 04:56 PM
  #121
MS
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 11,277
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
Really?
Yeah, not sure what’s controversial about this?

Remove the 1995 Habs, sure. That leaves 17 of 18.

Montreal was consistently a top-5/6 team in the league from 1986-1994, narrowly missing the President’s Trophy in 1988 and 1989. They posted dominant numbers with Brian Hayward in net for most of that stretch. Went 17-5 in front of Andre Raicicot in 1992-93. That was a good team.

Colorado 1996-2003 there isn’t really even an argument.

Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
What you’re saying is mostly true; however, Roy did outperform his backups by significant amounts so the level of success they’d have had without him would have been significantly less. Hasek is the only goalie in history who outperformed his backups by a considerably larger margin.
Roy out-performed his backups but his team usually had a hell of a winning % no matter who was in net.

I don’t think there can be any argument whatsoever that Roy’s situation was *far* more conducive to winning than Hasek’s was.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Hasek lost in the 1994 first round because his team couldn't score, something that could be said for Martin Brodeur in his team's early losses in 1997 and 1998.

Buffalo's offense came alive in the playoffs in 1997 (where it was good enough to carry Steve Shields to the second round), 1998, and 1999.
In 1998, the Sabres scored 11 goals in 6 games against Washington.

In 1999, the Sabres scored 9 goals in 6 games against Dallas.

Both of those series were practically unwinnable. He held the opposition to 2 or less goals in regulation 10 times in 12 games.

Again, in both of those seasons he was providing Conn Smythe-level utterly elite goaltending – as good as what Roy did – but his team just utterly crapped out offensively to kill their playoff runs. Frankly, it’s slightly surprising he didn’t win the Conn Smythe anyway in 1999 as his playoffs were only slightly off of Giguere’s 2003.

As brilliant as Roy was, he always received excellent (and consistent) goal support in his long playoff runs. Hasek did not. This is the problem with saying that Roy is better based on playoff resume.

As someone else already posted, Hasek’s playoff numbers are actually *better* than Roy’s during the stretch where both were #1 netminders.

MS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-15-2012, 04:58 PM
  #122
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,671
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
You refuse to see or acknowledge the evidence which contradicts your pre-formed conclusion.
No, I refuse to acknowledge the use of adjusted stats at face value that your "peak" argument is based on.

Quote:
Sure, Lemieux was better before and during '93. From '95 on, Jagr is as good or better at ES. I don't put too much into Lemieux's post-'97 numbers, because after that he played no more than 91 games in consecutive seasons. For instance, in 2001, he plays about half the season with Jagr on his line. The other half of the season, Jagr plays without Lemieux. Who would you expect to have the better PPG? When a player can barely play the majority of a season, if he's fortunate, then he's not going to be nearly as valuable as a similar player who can play the vast majority of every season. Give Jagr a couple seasons off to rest... tell him he only has to play half the season... and give him Lemieux on his line when he does play (but make Lemieux play without Jagr the other half), and I'm confident who would have had the best PPG.

Jagr was clearly better at ES on a career basis, simply due to durability and longevity. In their prime, it's closer, but I'd probably give the edge to Jagr, again simply due to durability. On a peak basis, it's about even, although Lemieux clearly has the better single season on a per game basis. As previously stated, the PPG of a single season in which Lemieux played 60 games isn't exactly definitive evidence that he was better at his peak ('93 also being an atypically good year for top scorers).

You may now re-insert your fingers in your ears and resume ignoring the facts. LALLALLALAL
The only thing I disagree with you on is peak and I showed exactly how Lemieux was more prolific at even strength from 88/89-92/93 than Jagr ever was.
Jagr's absolute peak in 95/96 only equals Mario's lowest year during the 5 years I cited.

If anyone has their ears plugged, it's you since I have never argued overall or career even once. Peak is the only thing I have been talking about and the only "evidence" you have to refute this are Jagr's adjusted numbers from the late 90's.

I watched both of their career's from the beginning and all I'm saying is that Jagr didn't reach the same level that Mario did in the late 80's/early 90's at even strength, special teams or anything.

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-15-2012, 05:00 PM
  #123
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,207
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by struckbyaparkedcar View Post
So Roy gets lauded for bouncing on a ****** coach, and Hasek gets dumped on for doing the same to a guy with exactly one NHL job since, that also ended with him beefing with various team elements.
Nobody is lauding Roy for his feud with the coach; I'm just saying that it's much more common and excusable to demand a trade in the regular season than to self-diagnose an injury in a playoff game, pull yourself without talking to your coach, and then refuse to rejoin the team when you are medically cleared.

Quote:
Additionally, Dom responded with physical violence to the guy making the most vocal case for the "he's quitting on his team" angle, determine from that what you will.
I see it as an unnecessary distraction from his teammates who were still playing in the 1997 playoffs.

Quote:
As for the medical staff, I'm not sure if their criticism from Buffalo fans comes before or after the Hasek v Nolan/Kelley/Doctors thing, but the medical staff from that period isn't held in the highest regard among at least a vocal segment of Sabres fans. Sadly, I don't have more than a few throwaway lines to corroborate this.
Okay. Wish you had more details. I don't remember other players having issues with the medical staff, though, but I could easily be wrong there.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-15-2012, 05:09 PM
  #124
SaintPatrick33
Conn Smythe Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,028
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to SaintPatrick33
Quote:
Originally Posted by MS View Post
In 1998, the Sabres scored 11 goals in 6 games against Washington.
Because Hasek got outplayed by Olaf Kolzig.


Quote:
Originally Posted by MS View Post
In 1999, the Sabres scored 9 goals in 6 games against Dallas.
Because Hasek got outplayed by Eddie Belfour.

SaintPatrick33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-15-2012, 05:11 PM
  #125
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,671
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Nobody is lauding Roy for his feud with the coach; I'm just saying that it's much more common and excusable to demand a trade in the regular season than to self-diagnose an injury in a playoff game, pull yourself without talking to your coach, and then refuse to rejoin the team when you are medically cleared.



I see it as an unnecessary distraction from his teammates who were still playing in the 1997 playoffs.



Okay. Wish you had more details. I don't remember other players having issues with the medical staff, though, but I could easily be wrong there.
And if you really want to talk about the difference, just 2 years before Roy was traded, he came down with appendicitis before game #3 of the Habs first round match up with the Bruins. A game the Habs lost 6-3. Roy convinced the Doctor's to let him play and he won game #4 5-2 and game #5 2-1 in OT before losing game 6 and 7.

Rhiessan71 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 08:26 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.