You may recall Hasek being raked over the coals for failing to dominate in the minors. Given the final voting result, it may have cost him the #1 spot.
The difference between Hasek and Durnan (and throw Bower in there too) and the other candidates is that the former NEED some kind of validation from the minor leagues to validate their quality of play well into their 20s. The others were dominating world-class competition at the same age, so the reason for scrutinizing a candidate's lower-level performances should be obvious.
Hasek had years of international best on best competition supporting an argument that by 1986-87 he was an NHL goalie yet this was contrasted to his early 1990s performance in the IHL.
The goalies I listed were not carrying the burden of a claim that they should have been in the NHL earlier.
Was the dominance of Plante, Hall, Sawchuk, Brodeur, and others at the junior, minor levels ever a consideration? No.
That's right, no. No one needs to grasp at straws of minor league excellence to make their case for those goalies because of their NHL resumes. Even Hasek seems only marginally impacted by such circumstances, since the prevailing opinion of the strength of his NHL resume still secured 2nd overall in the polls.
Last edited by Ohashi_Jouzu: 11-15-2012 at 05:27 PM.
The Pittsburgh Pirates played home games in Boston vs the Bruins on Mar. 16, 1929, and Jan. 9, 1930. They also played a home game vs the Bruins in Fort Erie on Feb. 12, 1930.
Boston had an extra home game against Ottawa in 1932-33.
Chicago forfeited a game against Boston on March 14, 1933 after a disputed OT goal. OT ended after 3 minutes rather than the normal 10 minutes. LINK
How did Smith even get up here? May be a naive question. Is he really better than Fuhr even?
I'm always open to ideas and further education, but I don't see myself picking Smith for a very long time...
I would say no.
I'm also very surprised that Smith is up for voting before Fuhr.
I have Holecek, Belfour, Broda, and Durnan all high this round, but have no idea as to the order and am certainly open to arguments for others. I'm planning on posting more about Holecek and Belfour later, but that shouldn't stop anyone else.
I'm happy with Tony Esposito being a couple of spots below Belfour, but I'm open to change my mind.
Parent is very hard for me to rank. I see a legit case for him to be ranked over Belfour (which means also over Espo). But I also see a legit case for Espo over Parent.
If I got by my rankings last round, Parent would be in my top 4, but I'm not sure whether to keep him there or not.
From what I recall, Espo was more highly regarded during his career than Belfour was during his.
Hasek had years of international best on best competition supporting an argument that by 1986-87 he was an NHL goalie yet this was contrasted to his early 1990s performance in the IHL.
The goalies I listed were not carrying the burden of a claim that they should have been in the NHL earlier.
I'm not saying the weight assigned to Hasek's minor league experience was completely fair -- but it was part of the conversation. As far as I can tell so far, the project has a pretty consistent standard that minor/junior performance is part of the whole package, and especially so when the experience continues into the middle of the career.
TBH, I'm willing to hear an argument for ignoring lower levels, but it's kind of hard to understand why we would give a 25-year-old a pass for a mediocre senior league season and punish a 23-year-old for a mediocre NHL season. Seems reasonable to expect these guys to perform well at every level.
Developmentally, it's usually ok. But a major change - even to a lower level - could result in negative results for certain types of players. For instance, Hasek moving from the Czech league to the IHL. It's a step down, so you might expect better results. Off hand, I don't know the results and I'm just doing a hypothetical.
The best goalies, in my - and many - opinion, are the ones with the best anticipation. Goalies that see the play develop, know what pass-shot combo is coming and react to make the save. Hasek, despite his slinky-like, reflexive stylings, was wonderful at anticipation...and using his anticipatory skills combined with previously mentioned geometric understanding of the position, he became one of the top goalies in history.
When you drop down a level, speed changes, player types can change, decision-making changes, skill generally lowers. This is actually turns into a negative for our great anticipators: Hasek, Brodeur, etc.
I'll switch to Brodeur, as he has one of the highest hockey IQs in history, when Brodeur sees someone wind up for a shot or set up for a one timer or whatever, he has a beat on where that's going to go and at what speed it's going to go. When you're playing with lower-level players, these timings are thrown off. So when No Hands Johnny flubs a bouncing pass to Slow Shot Jimmy, Brodeur - in his mind - has already gotten the shot, made the save and maybe turned it into a breakaway the other way. In reality, the shot is knuckling through the air aimlessly like so many chicken wings in William Shatner's sweetest of dreams...
Goal. But only because they're so bad at hockey, that the timing of a good player is so thrown off.
Similar theory, but way different practice: A knuckleball pitcher in baseball.
So if the player(s) in question is advanced mentally (usually past his developmental stage) but is stuck with lower-level players, you actually might see poorer than expected results, in my opinion (especially if he's played at a higher level previously). I would suggest that Martin Brodeur, for instance, would put up worse numbers in the AHL than the NHL.
Open to interpretation and other individual circumstances certainly, but that's my take or a take.
I'm not saying the weight assigned to Hasek's minor league experience was completely fair -- but it was part of the conversation. As far as I can tell so far, the project has a pretty consistent standard that minor/junior performance is part of the whole package, and especially so when the experience continues into the middle of the career.
TBH, I'm willing to hear an argument for ignoring lower levels, but it's kind of hard to understand why we would give a 25-year-old a pass for a mediocre senior league season and punish a 23-year-old for a mediocre NHL season. Seems reasonable to expect these guys to perform well at every level.
Context matters. A 23 year old in the NHL is playing at the elite level regardless of the era.
25 year old in a Senior league, example Durnan, was in a transient league with players flowing thru the league.
When you drop down a level, speed changes, player types can change, decision-making changes, skill generally lowers. This is actually turns into a negative for our great anticipators: Hasek, Brodeur, etc.
I'll switch to Brodeur, as he has one of the highest hockey IQs in history, when Brodeur sees someone wind up for a shot or set up for a one timer or whatever, he has a beat on where that's going to go and at what speed it's going to go. When you're playing with lower-level players, these timings are thrown off. So when No Hands Johnny flubs a bouncing pass to Slow Shot Jimmy, Brodeur - in his mind - has already gotten the shot, made the save and maybe turned it into a breakaway the other way. In reality, the shot is knuckling through the air aimlessly like so many chicken wings in William Shatner's sweetest of dreams...
Goal. But only because they're so bad at hockey, that the timing of a good player is so thrown off.
Hall appeared to be even quicker than he really was, because of his great anticipation. "There's a very fine line between anticipation and cheating," he likes to say. It is a line he often would tread. He would, for example, leave the left corner open to an opponent, perhaps a tantalizing six inches, then, when the player put his head down to shoot, Hall would slide over and take that corner away. "Reeling them in," he called it.
Expansion eventually ruined this ruse, however. Hall would give some no-name one side of the net and, when the head went down, move over to cover the corner. Then—bang!—the jerk would put a shot right where Hall had been standing, and it would get through his legs. "The guy would raise his stick and think he was a hockey player," Hall says in disgust. "We all had trouble with that at first."
Developmentally, it's usually ok. But a major change - even to a lower level - could result in negative results for certain types of players. For instance, Hasek moving from the Czech league to the IHL. It's a step down, so you might expect better results. Off hand, I don't know the results and I'm just doing a hypothetical.
The best goalies, in my - and many - opinion, are the ones with the best anticipation. Goalies that see the play develop, know what pass-shot combo is coming and react to make the save. Hasek, despite his slinky-like, reflexive stylings, was wonderful at anticipation...and using his anticipatory skills combined with previously mentioned geometric understanding of the position, he became one of the top goalies in history.
When you drop down a level, speed changes, player types can change, decision-making changes, skill generally lowers. This is actually turns into a negative for our great anticipators: Hasek, Brodeur, etc.
I'll switch to Brodeur, as he has one of the highest hockey IQs in history, when Brodeur sees someone wind up for a shot or set up for a one timer or whatever, he has a beat on where that's going to go and at what speed it's going to go. When you're playing with lower-level players, these timings are thrown off. So when No Hands Johnny flubs a bouncing pass to Slow Shot Jimmy, Brodeur - in his mind - has already gotten the shot, made the save and maybe turned it into a breakaway the other way. In reality, the shot is knuckling through the air aimlessly like so many chicken wings in William Shatner's sweetest of dreams...
Goal. But only because they're so bad at hockey, that the timing of a good player is so thrown off.
Similar theory, but way different practice: A knuckleball pitcher in baseball.
So if the player(s) in question is advanced mentally (usually past his developmental stage) but is stuck with lower-level players, you actually might see poorer than expected results, in my opinion (especially if he's played at a higher level previously). I would suggest that Martin Brodeur, for instance, would put up worse numbers in the AHL than the NHL.
Open to interpretation and other individual circumstances certainly, but that's my take or a take.
Difference is that in the case of Martin Brodeur you are portraying his development by going from the finished NHL product backwards to the his youth hockey days. His development happened in the opposite direction.
Have a bit of an edge here as I saw Martin Brodeur play from his early youth hockey days onwards:
Martin Brodeur was always big for his age until he reached the pros.At the pro level, 6'2", 220lbs is nowhere near eye-catching big.
Yet if you look at his midget, junior stats - linked, his SV% and GAA were not impressive, nor were the actual games played.Obvious that when drafted he was a work in progress.
Two things happened by the time Martin Brodeur reached Utica - lighter equipment and Martin Brodeur reached his "Man Strength" as opposed to being a big kid. Objective in Utica was seeing how the various factors came together. In Utica he became faster and stronger, showing that he was fully capable of playing against men. The actual SV% or GAA in the AHL mattered little. He was NHL ready. The results testify to this decision - SV% and GAA plus GP are much better in the NHL than in the developmental leagues.
Same is true for Sawchuk, Plante, Hall, Brimsek, and other goalies. Just a matter of context and the era.Will not comment on Hasek at this point.
Sadly this is not how the development process of a goalie is viewed. There is a paradoxical mindsight that a goalie has to dominate at the pre NHL levels but at the NHL level, dominance is to be denigrated at the slightest opportunity.
I flip flop on the two of them all the time. I will weigh the pros and cons of each next round, as there's no way Smith gets in here, and Fuhr will surely be up next round.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Bonvie
From what I recall, Espo was more highly regarded during his career than Belfour was during his.
You are probably right. But, competition at the goal position probably had a lot to do with that.
And I'm the biggest Espo supporter here.
Actually, surprisingly, I'm not, at least a few had him higher than I did!
I flip flop on the two of them all the time. I will weigh the pros and cons of each next round, as there's no way Smith gets in here, and Fuhr will surely be up next round.
You are probably right. But, competition at the goal position probably had a lot to do with that.
And I'm the biggest Espo supporter here.
Actually, surprisingly, I'm not, at least a few had him higher than I did!
I probably ranked Esposito and Belfour too high on my original list.
But Belfour had a big advantage over Esposito in that he played for Keenan, Sutter and especially Hitchcock. Defensive coaches that were big on disipline. Belfour was also outplayed by his own backups in a number of season, mainly Jeff Hackett and Marty Turco.
Belfour was also outplayed by his own backups in a number of season, mainly Jeff Hackett and Marty Turco.
There weren't many goalies in the league with better numbers than Hackett and Turco.
1996: Hackett, 3rd Place in save percentage
1997: Hackett, 2nd Place in save percentage
-
2001: Turco, 1st Place in save percentage
2002: Turco, 4th Place in save percentage
There weren't many goalies in the league with better numbers than Hackett and Turco.
1996: Hackett, 3rd Place in save percentage
1997: Hackett, 2nd Place in save percentage
-
2001: Turco, 1st Place in save percentage
2002: Turco, 4th Place in save percentage
So what does that say about the teams Belfour played for?
I can give Belfour a pass for being outplayed by Turco, seeing as Turco went on to a long and successful career as a starter.
Hackett was pretty good for a while IIRC. One of those guys who you couldn't figure out how he didn't end up a starter. Then he flamed out for reasons I honestly never followed... was he just not really that good, or was there something else?
Anyway, Hackett was more than a backup at that point. He was definitely starter-quality for a while.
So what does that say about the teams Belfour played for?
It's not like Belfour was a bust in his debut in Toronto (.922 - 5th place overall, 1st among goalies with 60+ games - to backup Kidd's .896; Joseph had a .906 with the Maple Leafs in the previous season).
Top Ten Finishes in Save Percentage
Turco: 1, 1, 4
Fernandez: 4, 5, 6
Hackett: 2, 3, 5, 9
Not every backup goaltender is created equal. Ed Belfour happened to have three backups that were good enough to become starters (four, if you include Hasek). Of course, Ed Belfour was a significantly better playoff goaltender than the above three.
Look at his stretch from 1994 to 2000: .921, .923, .929, .922, .930, .931
Do those three backups have a memorable playoff run outside of Turco's first-round loss to Vancouver in 2007?
Hackett was the one that ended up with vertigo, right?
Asymmetric dysfunction of the vestibular system. CorrectMr. Farkas. Possibly caused
by an undiagnosed concussion, or mebbe all that flying rubber just finally caught to him....
Hackett was also enough of a threat to Belfour that the latter was famously ugly to him off the ice. Clearly Belfour didn't see him as a run-of-the-mill benchwarmer.
I can give Belfour a pass for being outplayed by Turco, seeing as Turco went on to a long and successful career as a starter.
Hackett was pretty good for a while IIRC. One of those guys who you couldn't figure out how he didn't end up a starter. Then he flamed out for reasons I honestly never followed... was he just not really that good, or was there something else?
Anyway, Hackett was more than a backup at that point. He was definitely starter-quality for a while.
I, too, remember thinking Hackett was starter quality for a while. He seemed to be able to post high personal numbers in a backup situation but couldn't maintain them when he was getting more starts.
I'd hesitate to say for sure that he or Turco was actually "outplaying" Belfour, once competition and sample size are considered.
They were both excellent backups though - two of the best of that era.
I'd hesitate to say for sure that he or Turco was actually "outplaying" Belfour
I'd definitely say that Turco was outplaying him in Dallas, but from 2001-2003, Turco might have been the most consistent regular season goalie in the league (only Cechmanek and Burke strike me as contenders to such a claim).
Hackett in 1996 and 1997 as well (he played 76 games for Chicago in those two seasons to Belfour's 83), but that was really the low point of Belfour's regular season career - but Hackett was subsequently torn to shreds by Joe Sakic in the playoffs.
Honestly, if it wasn't for his consistently great playoffs in the mid/late-1990s, he might not have been remembered as more than an early-peak player with a post-twenties slump and two career revivals in two new cities.
Very inconsistent in the regular season, but come Spring, he came to play. He actually has a higher percentage of quality games in the playoffs than Martin Brodeur, which isn't exactly an easy thing to claim.
I'd definitely say that Turco was outplaying him in Dallas, but from 2001-2003, Turco might have been the most consistent regular season goalie in the league (only Cechmanek and Burke strike me as contenders to such a claim).
Hackett in 1996 and 1997 as well (he played 76 games for Chicago in those two seasons to Belfour's 83), but that was really the low point of Belfour's regular season career - but Hackett was subsequently torn to shreds by Joe Sakic in the playoffs.
Honestly, if it wasn't for his consistently great playoffs in the mid/late-1990s, he might not have been remembered as more than an early-peak player with a post-twenties slump and two career revivals in two new cities.
Very inconsistent in the regular season, but come Spring, he came to play. He actually has a higher percentage of quality games in the playoffs than Martin Brodeur, which isn't exactly an easy thing to claim.
Not really the numbers of a top 15 goalie all-time.
And you are correct, much better playoff performer. But that seems to be the strong point for many of the candidates this round (Broda, Smith, Parent, Bower).
Not really the numbers of a top 15 goalie all-time.
And you are correct, much better playoff performer. But that seems to be the strong point for many of the candidates this round (Broda, Smith, Parent, Bower).
And this brings me to my next question:
Is Ed Belfour basically Turk Broda reincarnated 50-60 years later? I do think Belfour has a slightly better peak than Broda, but not by much probably.
EDIT: And Broda was probably a little better in the playoffs too
