HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

HOH Top-40 Goalies Voter Record - Canadiens1958

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-10-2013, 02:43 AM
  #101
Master_Of_Districts
Registered User
 
Master_Of_Districts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Black Ruthenia
Country: Belarus
Posts: 1,746
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Post Buffalo with a better team, Detroit, facing fewer SOG/G, Hasek's SV% ranged between .902 and .915, around league averages.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...hasekdo01.html
He was older - performance generally declines with age for players >30.

Hell, Hasek's performance showed signs of decline in Buffalo in the 1999-00 and 2000-01 seasons.

If you can't appreciate this, you are truly hopeless.

Master_Of_Districts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-10-2013, 03:27 AM
  #102
GuineaPig
Registered User
 
GuineaPig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Montréal
Posts: 2,127
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Master_Of_Districts View Post
He was older - performance generally declines with age for players >30.

Hell, Hasek's performance showed signs of decline in Buffalo in the 1999-00 and 2000-01 seasons.

If you can't appreciate this, you are truly hopeless.
From what I remember, Hasek's groin injury in '99-00 caused him to lose a fair deal of his quickness and flexibility. His ES SV% went from 0.946(!) in 1998-99 to consecutive years of 0.923, 0.924, and 0.925. Then after three years off it rebounded to 0.939, 0.932, 0.928.

GuineaPig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-10-2013, 09:22 AM
  #103
tombombadil
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: West Kelowna, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,030
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pluppe View Post
I hope this post is allowed as I have really tried to be factual and I think this is the right place to put it.

I feel that C1958s Hasek votes tainted this whole project, at least for me, and I did not follow it much after the first round because of it. You may think that I should not complain since I am not a participant but I feel I have to speak my mind.

The "allowed rebounds argument" is a garbage argument. Goaltending is about preventing goals and all stats (gaa, comparisons to backups, playing with more pp shots against, etc) show that Haseks rebound control did not prevent him from doing so better than all of his contemporaries. It resembles saying player A, who scored 40 goals, is a better goalscorer than player B, that scored 60 goals, because he has a better shooting%. Or that player A, who registered 14 seconds round the ice, is a faster skater than player B, who registered 12 seconds, because his stride is more like the one you teach at practice. Or that I am a better golfer than Jim Fyruk because my swing i prettier. Hasek found a way thats better than what common wisdom preaches. It is written over his whole resume. Deal with it.

Voting Dzurilla 41 also seems strange as no weight seem to be put on Haseks International resume. Is Dzurilla really that much more acclaimed internationally?

I also think it is interesting to note that C1958, being a fan of Montreal, votes two Canadiens goalies #1 & #2 while voting Hasek, their usually biggest contender for the top spot, as far away from them as he can (while sticking another Canadiens goaltender inbetween while he is at it). I claim this is a tactical vote.

And I am glad that TDMM also remembers how C1958 is perhaps the largest reason that the second top 100 project only reached 70. In Sweden we have a saying that goes "One time is no time, twice is a habit". I hope that it is not allowed to happen again because I really appreciate the work all of you put in and it is fantastically educational. If not by banning then perhaps by thinking about eliminating outliers in voting. I think the results of this outlier shows the need. When there pretty much is a consensus top 3 a #7 vote has a relatively huge impact. This system really premiers tactical voting. Especially if you are the only one doing it. That one votes like this and then goes and questions the integrity of others that has put in a lot of hard work is unfortunate.
I'm right with you.

tombombadil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-10-2013, 11:12 AM
  #104
Mike Farkas
Hockey's Future Staff
Moron!
 
Mike Farkas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 5,046
vCash: 500
If nothing else, this is at least pretty consistent from what I can tell. C1958 puts a lot of weight on evaluation, which should be a major part of the process but would preclude many from the conversation...so it's not.

Being consistent with using evaluation as a primary means of deciding who to vote for is - in an unweighted vacuum - no different than the person that puts all the Conn Smythe winning goalies at the top of the list, or the person that sorts by shutouts to decide who the best was...obviously, there are pluses and minuses to each sorting method (some are certainly better than others) but it seems that whenever it's stat-based it's "well, at least it's consistent" but here, when it's abstract and not quantifiable, it confuses and enrages people...perhaps they feel left out? I really don't know. Taco says not to speculate too much, so I won't.

For the record, I don't really agree with C1958's thoughts on Hasek. Though I value style considerably more than most. I think Hasek is an exception to the rule just because it was so above and beyond. It's unmatched, in my opinion.

But in thinking of his previous posts, they appear to be in line and consistent at least.

Mike Farkas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-10-2013, 03:07 PM
  #105
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 7,834
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Farkas View Post
If nothing else, this is at least pretty consistent from what I can tell. C1958 puts a lot of weight on evaluation, which should be a major part of the process but would preclude many from the conversation...so it's not.

Being consistent with using evaluation as a primary means of deciding who to vote for is - in an unweighted vacuum - no different than the person that puts all the Conn Smythe winning goalies at the top of the list, or the person that sorts by shutouts to decide who the best was...obviously, there are pluses and minuses to each sorting method (some are certainly better than others) but it seems that whenever it's stat-based it's "well, at least it's consistent" but here, when it's abstract and not quantifiable, it confuses and enrages people...perhaps they feel left out? I really don't know. Taco says not to speculate too much, so I won't.

For the record, I don't really agree with C1958's thoughts on Hasek. Though I value style considerably more than most. I think Hasek is an exception to the rule just because it was so above and beyond. It's unmatched, in my opinion.

But in thinking of his previous posts, they appear to be in line and consistent at least.
But this isn't ice dancing. There are no points for artistic composition or being asthetically pleasing.

I guess it would be like me saying Ron Bloomberg was one of the greatest hitters ever because he had the most perfect swing I've seen. Or better yet, Mel Ott and Yogi Berra were not great hitters because they did everything wrong at the plate.

Dennis Bonvie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-10-2013, 03:31 PM
  #106
Mike Farkas
Hockey's Future Staff
Moron!
 
Mike Farkas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 5,046
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Bonvie View Post
But this isn't ice dancing. There are no points for artistic composition or being asthetically pleasing.
Please, don't confuse what I mean to mean aesthetics. It's not about that. It's adaptability and sustainability. Proper talent evaluation prevents people from getting sucked into tricks, one-hit wonders, products of systems. And the inverse, allows people to realize the greatness of some in beneficial positions.

It's something that's been discussed countless times, but continues to be purposefully ignored or disparaged...for obvious reasons.

Recent example: Brian Elliot...

Me: He's not that good.
The field: Look at his stats!
Me: It's not sustainable because he's not that talented, over the course of time he will be found out.
Real life: He's brutal. And the owner of the save pct. record*

Chris Osgood, Jean Sebastien Giguere, your quitter friend, all not very sustainable skill sets. Giguere in four other organizations could not even become a starter due to weaknesses in his game. Thomas wasn't NHL caliber due to weaknesses. Why did Osgood never come in conversation here despite his statistics? Same with Cechmanek?

Thus, why I spent several hours watching Billy Smith in various contests. The question loomed "was he just a product of his system or did he make the system work?" and I made a post of my findings, it was a positive review and he ended up going above Fuhr.

Seen at other positions as well. Matt Carle stole some Norris votes a few years ago when paired with Chris Pronger. Prior to that, he was tossed around to a couple organizations, might have been on his way out of the league due to his level of play vs. his contract.

Andreas Lilja, fringe NHLer, career kept alive by being paired with Nicklas Lidstrom. Andrej Meszaros leads the league in plus/minus one year because he was facing tertiary opposition. Handed a blank check and given major minutes and he flops.

These incidences are not random. Who leads a defensive pair, who's the squeaky third wheel on a line, what goalie's statistics is a product of the system that he's a part of...these are all indeterminable by box scores, all very determinable by a keen eye. Of extreme importance to understanding the game (which includes making lists like this). Even if one can't identify talent, it's important to know and respect that the game goes far beyond a piece of paper.

Mike Farkas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-10-2013, 04:34 PM
  #107
unknown33
Registered User
 
unknown33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Europe
Country: Marshall Islands
Posts: 3,081
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Farkas View Post
Please, don't confuse what I mean to mean aesthetics. It's not about that. It's adaptability and sustainability. Proper talent evaluation prevents people from getting sucked into tricks, one-hit wonders, products of systems.
Now how does this work for Hasek?
I don't think he was ever exposed as a trick, one-hit wonder or product of a system.


Last edited by unknown33: 02-10-2013 at 04:47 PM.
unknown33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-10-2013, 04:48 PM
  #108
Mike Farkas
Hockey's Future Staff
Moron!
 
Mike Farkas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 5,046
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by unknown33 View Post
Now how does this work for Hasek?
Depends on who is doing the analysis. Personally, I recognize Hasek as a cut above. He's superhuman, no one else has gotten remotely close to matching what he did on the ice in the way that he did it.

The same person that scouted shooter tutor extraordinaire Jean-Sebastien Giguere, might not think too highly of a Hasek, perhaps.

That's what I mean when I say, "it's not about aesthetics, it's about sustainability, adaptability, etc." ...I'm not ranking goalies on perfect butterfly technique, it's not about the looks, it's an understanding of strengths and weaknesses and how they relate to the teams that employed the player in question.

Hasek just can't be duplicated. He's so incredibly strong with some attributes that it covers for relative weaknesses in others in my books. C1958, evidently, does not feel the same way. Which is more fair than people give it credit for, but again, I don't see it his way either in this instance.

We make these judgments calls all the time, how about in the ATD...?

Mario Lemieux: If he wasn't at a superhuman level of offensive wizardry, where would he go? He didn't really play defense by the book. If Mario had even just Forsberg-level stick sorcery, what would happen? However, because he was just so far off the charts offensively, you look the other way defensively.

Bobby Clarke and Mark Messier: Neither were superhuman offensively, neither led the league in points, neither ever had a top-5 finish in goals...but their overall ability becomes a launching pad.

We make these calls all the time. With goaltenders, it can be a little more subtle, as evaluating them is difficult even for pros.

"Don't take goalies in the first round!" they say now...I mean, just think about that, professional scouts are scared to use a first round pick...not first overall, not top-5, top-30 (!) on a goaltender because they are so unsure of their ability to call it right. Just because it is difficult, doesn't mean it doesn't need to be done though.

Perhaps I didn't give a direct enough answer. Hasek, for me, was so off the charts with his positives that his negatives were largely marginalized. It is interesting that Hasek doesn't have the strongest playoff resume. This isn't totally unexpected, as teams have time to gear up and game plan just for him. Sometimes with these unorthodox goalies, failures can occur when they are facing the same team over and over and over again. The opponent learns quick. Still though, Hasek, for me, was adaptable and sustainable across the board because his strengths far outweighed his weaknesses. Thus, I had and have a high opinion of him.


Last edited by Mike Farkas: 02-10-2013 at 04:53 PM.
Mike Farkas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-10-2013, 05:38 PM
  #109
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 7,834
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Farkas View Post
Please, don't confuse what I mean to mean aesthetics. It's not about that. It's adaptability and sustainability. Proper talent evaluation prevents people from getting sucked into tricks, one-hit wonders, products of systems. And the inverse, allows people to realize the greatness of some in beneficial positions.

It's something that's been discussed countless times, but continues to be purposefully ignored or disparaged...for obvious reasons.

Recent example: Brian Elliot...

Me: He's not that good.
The field: Look at his stats!
Me: It's not sustainable because he's not that talented, over the course of time he will be found out.
Real life: He's brutal. And the owner of the save pct. record*

Chris Osgood, Jean Sebastien Giguere, your quitter friend, all not very sustainable skill sets. Giguere in four other organizations could not even become a starter due to weaknesses in his game. Thomas wasn't NHL caliber due to weaknesses. Why did Osgood never come in conversation here despite his statistics? Same with Cechmanek?

Thus, why I spent several hours watching Billy Smith in various contests. The question loomed "was he just a product of his system or did he make the system work?" and I made a post of my findings, it was a positive review and he ended up going above Fuhr.

Seen at other positions as well. Matt Carle stole some Norris votes a few years ago when paired with Chris Pronger. Prior to that, he was tossed around to a couple organizations, might have been on his way out of the league due to his level of play vs. his contract.

Andreas Lilja, fringe NHLer, career kept alive by being paired with Nicklas Lidstrom. Andrej Meszaros leads the league in plus/minus one year because he was facing tertiary opposition. Handed a blank check and given major minutes and he flops.

These incidences are not random. Who leads a defensive pair, who's the squeaky third wheel on a line, what goalie's statistics is a product of the system that he's a part of...these are all indeterminable by box scores, all very determinable by a keen eye. Of extreme importance to understanding the game (which includes making lists like this). Even if one can't identify talent, it's important to know and respect that the game goes far beyond a piece of paper.
Fair enough. I misinterpreted what you meant by style.

As for my friend, the quitter, is it more likely that he didn't get a chance to play in the NHL because of his weaknesses, or because of coaches and scouts that viewed goaltenders as you do?

And doesn't it even seem odd to you that a guy who was "not NHL calibre" could win the Vezina twice and a clear-cut Conn Smythe? That would make goaltender a seemingly insignifcant position, no?

Dennis Bonvie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-10-2013, 06:16 PM
  #110
Mike Farkas
Hockey's Future Staff
Moron!
 
Mike Farkas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 5,046
vCash: 500
To the last question, the answer is absolutely yes. See SC Finalist goalies from 1967-2004, then compare from 2006-2012. Goaltender went from most important to least important position in recent years as seen by the plateauing of talent and caliber of goalies on impactful teams. Largely plug and play.

Mike Farkas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-10-2013, 08:31 PM
  #111
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,994
vCash: 500
Evaluations

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Farkas View Post
If nothing else, this is at least pretty consistent from what I can tell. C1958 puts a lot of weight on evaluation, which should be a major part of the process but would preclude many from the conversation...so it's not.

Being consistent with using evaluation as a primary means of deciding who to vote for is - in an unweighted vacuum - no different than the person that puts all the Conn Smythe winning goalies at the top of the list, or the person that sorts by shutouts to decide who the best was...obviously, there are pluses and minuses to each sorting method (some are certainly better than others) but it seems that whenever it's stat-based it's "well, at least it's consistent" but here, when it's abstract and not quantifiable, it confuses and enrages people...perhaps they feel left out? I really don't know. Taco says not to speculate too much, so I won't.

For the record, I don't really agree with C1958's thoughts on Hasek. Though I value style considerably more than most. I think Hasek is an exception to the rule just because it was so above and beyond. It's unmatched, in my opinion.

But in thinking of his previous posts, they appear to be in line and consistent at least.
Evaluations also address the issue of skills what could have or will improve the the subject player's performance.

Counting or sorting approaches do not address the question of improvement. Counting AST teams does not reveal what a player was lacking.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2013, 01:09 AM
  #112
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 3,203
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Farkas View Post
Perhaps I didn't give a direct enough answer. Hasek, for me, was so off the charts with his positives that his negatives were largely marginalized. It is interesting that Hasek doesn't have the strongest playoff resume. This isn't totally unexpected, as teams have time to gear up and game plan just for him. Sometimes with these unorthodox goalies, failures can occur when they are facing the same team over and over and over again. The opponent learns quick. Still though, Hasek, for me, was adaptable and sustainable across the board because his strengths far outweighed his weaknesses. Thus, I had and have a high opinion of him.
I think that is part of the reason why the media does not rate him as high as we have - despite awarding him six 1st Team All-Star selections. How many selections does he maintain if the voting is conducted after the playoffs? 1994, 1998, 1999; absolutely. 1995, 1997, and 2001 would come under serious fire from the phenomenal playoffs of Ed Belfour, Martin Brodeur, and Patrick Roy.

Our group voted in the poll that playoff success is just as important to our rankings as regular season success - and I would wager that the hockey media, while also being suckers for record-breakers, share that belief.

Or imagine if we had done an isolated Playoff All-Star Team project prior to this list.

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2013, 02:44 AM
  #113
GuineaPig
Registered User
 
GuineaPig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Montréal
Posts: 2,127
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
I think that is part of the reason why the media does not rate him as high as we have - despite awarding him six 1st Team All-Star selections. How many selections does he maintain if the voting is conducted after the playoffs? 1994, 1998, 1999; absolutely. 1995, 1997, and 2001 would come under serious fire from the phenomenal playoffs of Ed Belfour, Martin Brodeur, and Patrick Roy.
Part of this just boils down to team strength, again. Goalies have good and bad stretches of games. Often, Hasek's teams were totally reliant upon him winning them every playoff round. Looking at individual playoffs is a pretty bad way to assess a goalie's performance, just because the sample size is so small even if the goalie went to the Cup.

Random example: how would we view Roy if his Colorado teams couldn't get past Vancouver in the first round in '96 and '01? In both cases, Roy wasn't impressive (0.891 and 0.898 save percentages, respectively) but Colorado got past them anyways (in 6 and 4 games). Hell, Hasek's in the same boat (0.897 against Vancouver in the first round in '02).


Last edited by GuineaPig: 02-11-2013 at 02:51 AM.
GuineaPig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2013, 03:01 AM
  #114
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 3,203
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuineaPig View Post
Part of this just boils down to team strength, again. Goalies have good and bad stretches of games. Often, Hasek's teams were totally reliant upon him winning them every playoff round. Looking at individual playoffs is a pretty bad way to assess a goalie's performance, just because the sample size is so small even if the goalie went to the Cup.
I would love to hear an explanation as to why Hasek's 1995, 1997, and 2001 playoffs were hurt by the rest of the Buffalo Sabres, since those were the 1st Team All-Star years cited that would have been affected by voting in June.

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2013, 03:13 AM
  #115
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 3,203
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuineaPig View Post
Random example: how would we view Roy if his Colorado teams couldn't get past Vancouver in the first round in '96 and '01? In both cases, Roy wasn't impressive (0.891 and 0.898 save percentages, respectively) but Colorado got past them anyways (in 6 and 4 games). Hell, Hasek's in the same boat (0.897 against Vancouver in the first round in '02).
This implies that the save percentages weren't a result of a more wide-open game that allowed the Avalanche and Red Wings respectively to generate more offense - particularly in the case of Roy vs. the Canucks in 1996, which by your statement that it "wasn't impressive" indicates that you've missed that series. It also overlooks the fact that save percentages in 4-6 game samples are largely affected by high-GAA losses that while only costing a team 25% of a series are often impossible to recover from in terms of SPCT (a recently cited example had one game in a 22-game playoff costing Chris Osgood .009 points). Series are won with four wins and fewer than four losses - not a high cumulative save percentage.

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2013, 03:18 AM
  #116
GuineaPig
Registered User
 
GuineaPig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Montréal
Posts: 2,127
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
This implies that the save percentages weren't a result of a more wide-open game that allowed the Avalanche and Red Wings respectively to generate more offense - particularly in the case of Roy vs. the Canucks in 1996, which by your statement that it "wasn't impressive" indicates that you've missed that series. It also overlooks the fact that save percentages in 4-6 game samples are largely affected by high-GAA losses that while only costing a team 25% of a series are often impossible to recover from in terms of SPCT (a recently cited example had one game in a 22-game playoff costing Chris Osgood .009 points). Series are won with four wins and fewer than four losses - not a high cumulative save percentage.
I'm not overlooking anything. My post consisted of two points: that goalies with stronger teams are able to build larger samples of playoff play, and that interpreting those samples individually is often a misleading way to evaluate play because of how small they are.

GuineaPig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2013, 04:26 AM
  #117
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 3,203
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuineaPig View Post
I'm not overlooking anything. My post consisted of two points: that goalies with stronger teams are able to build larger samples of playoff play, and that interpreting those samples individually is often a misleading way to evaluate play because of how small they are.
You very clearly are overlooking the context of the project in which the average voter placed playoff performance as a 4.57/5.00 (higher than even regular season performance) - something I went as far as to reference in the post to which you first replied. Not everyone shares your philosophy that a playoff game is no more significant than any other game.

With that said, revisit my point: Does Dominik Hasek get elected best goaltender of the season in June 1995, June 1997, or June 2001 when weight is given to the playoffs? 1995 was a short season in which the 2nd Team All-Star Ed Belfour has a rather excellent playoff while Hasek has the worst of his career. 1997 saw Hasek pull himself out of the playoffs while 2nd and 3rd Place Brodeur and Roy perform strongly. 2001 was a good season of Hasek's, but one in which Roy produced a stronger even-strength SPCT, 40 Wins, and a Conn Smythe run.

It's possible that neither we nor the media elects him the best goaltender more than three times if the vote is held after all hockey is played. If everything came down to regular season play, Ed Belfour would have struggled to remain a marquee name through much of the 1990s. As it stands, despite Hasek's stretch of SPCT titles, other goaltenders continued to build reputations in this time-frame by their playoffs - hence the media not ranking Hasek as high as HFBoards often does.

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2013, 08:10 AM
  #118
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,994
vCash: 500
Sample Size

Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
You very clearly are overlooking the context of the project in which the average voter placed playoff performance as a 4.57/5.00 (higher than even regular season performance) - something I went as far as to reference in the post to which you first replied. Not everyone shares your philosophy that a playoff game is no more significant than any other game.

With that said, revisit my point: Does Dominik Hasek get elected best goaltender of the season in June 1995, June 1997, or June 2001 when weight is given to the playoffs? 1995 was a short season in which the 2nd Team All-Star Ed Belfour has a rather excellent playoff while Hasek has the worst of his career. 1997 saw Hasek pull himself out of the playoffs while 2nd and 3rd Place Brodeur and Roy perform strongly. 2001 was a good season of Hasek's, but one in which Roy produced a stronger even-strength SPCT, 40 Wins, and a Conn Smythe run.

It's possible that neither we nor the media elects him the best goaltender more than three times if the vote is held after all hockey is played. If everything came down to regular season play, Ed Belfour would have struggled to remain a marquee name through much of the 1990s. As it stands, despite Hasek's stretch of SPCT titles, other goaltenders continued to build reputations in this time-frame by their playoffs - hence the media not ranking Hasek as high as HFBoards often does.
Very true, countering the small sample size argument to dismiss the playoffs or unfavourable data. Grow the sample size to include the playoffs or unfavourable data.

The more information that is considered the clearer the picture that emerges.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2013, 08:14 AM
  #119
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 7,834
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
You very clearly are overlooking the context of the project in which the average voter placed playoff performance as a 4.57/5.00 (higher than even regular season performance) - something I went as far as to reference in the post to which you first replied. Not everyone shares your philosophy that a playoff game is no more significant than any other game.

With that said, revisit my point: Does Dominik Hasek get elected best goaltender of the season in June 1995, June 1997, or June 2001 when weight is given to the playoffs? 1995 was a short season in which the 2nd Team All-Star Ed Belfour has a rather excellent playoff while Hasek has the worst of his career. 1997 saw Hasek pull himself out of the playoffs while 2nd and 3rd Place Brodeur and Roy perform strongly. 2001 was a good season of Hasek's, but one in which Roy produced a stronger even-strength SPCT, 40 Wins, and a Conn Smythe run.

It's possible that neither we nor the media elects him the best goaltender more than three times if the vote is held after all hockey is played. If everything came down to regular season play, Ed Belfour would have struggled to remain a marquee name through much of the 1990s. As it stands, despite Hasek's stretch of SPCT titles, other goaltenders continued to build reputations in this time-frame by their playoffs - hence the media not ranking Hasek as high as HFBoards often does.
Its sounding like Hasek's playoff performances hurt his reputation.

His GAA is 2.02, 10th all-time. His SP is .925, 6th all-time. That's still better than Roy, Brodeur and Belfour.

Dennis Bonvie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2013, 08:27 AM
  #120
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 21,757
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
You very clearly are overlooking the context of the project in which the average voter placed playoff performance as a 4.57/5.00 (higher than even regular season performance) - something I went as far as to reference in the post to which you first replied. Not everyone shares your philosophy that a playoff game is no more significant than any other game.
There was an awful lot of Cup counting and sample size comparison in the earlier rounds, suggesting that a lot of those votes for the importance of "playoffs" was not weighted just on individual performance, but also team performance/success. Half of the Conn Smythes that have gone to goalies in NHL history, for example, went to guys that struggled to make this list (the Ranfords, Vernons, Wards, Hextalls, Gigueres, etc), while those with multiple Cups (especially the "dynasty" goalies) did very well in the polls.

I share the other poster's concern that a blanket "playoffs matter more than anything else" approach also forces people (presumably yourself included) to conclude that last year Mike Smith and Braden Holtby were better goalies than Rinne and Lundqvist, for example. I mean, they had higher SV% in last year's playoffs than those two Vezina finalist goalies, over multiple rounds of sample size, so it must mean something, right?

Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2013, 08:51 AM
  #121
GuineaPig
Registered User
 
GuineaPig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Montréal
Posts: 2,127
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Very true, countering the small sample size argument to dismiss the playoffs or unfavourable data. Grow the sample size to include the playoffs or unfavourable data.

The more information that is considered the clearer the picture that emerges.
I'm of the mind that there's little to distinguish between playoffs and regular season play, with the primary differences being usually tougher competition and less numbers of penalties (which probably more or less counter each other's effect on shot quality).

I think it's much more informative to view Patrick Roy's 1992-93 campaign as 82 games of 0.909 save percentage than as 62 of 0.894 and 20 of 0.929. Or Brian Elliott's most recent season as 46 games, 0.934.

EDIT: Better yet, how about three-year averages? It's been well-displayed that 82 games is really an insufficient sample and can be severely affected by simple chance. I think asking "Was goalie x ever the best goalie over a three-year span?" is a better question than "Was goalie y ever the best goalie in one regular season?" I can imagine someone like Roberto Luongo getting a much better (and in my opinion, accurate) assessment from that kind of accounting.


Last edited by GuineaPig: 02-11-2013 at 09:00 AM.
GuineaPig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2013, 09:10 AM
  #122
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
 
Hockey Outsider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,379
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Bonvie View Post
Its sounding like Hasek's playoff performances hurt his reputation.

His GAA is 2.02, 10th all-time. His SP is .925, 6th all-time. That's still better than Roy, Brodeur and Belfour.
True, but keep in mind that Roy played significantly more playoff games in a higher-scoring era. Based on adjusted save percentage, Roy is ahead of Hasek (but it's close). Still the qualitative factors (Roy maintaining his excellent level of player over more than double the sample size; and generally advancing farther in the playoffs therefore likely facing tougher opposition) show that Roy was the better playoff performer.

Hockey Outsider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2013, 11:54 AM
  #123
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,015
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Farkas View Post
To the last question, the answer is absolutely yes. See SC Finalist goalies from 1967-2004, then compare from 2006-2012. Goaltender went from most important to least important position in recent years as seen by the plateauing of talent and caliber of goalies on impactful teams. Largely plug and play.
I'm gonna go record right now that I 100% agree with this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
You very clearly are overlooking the context of the project in which the average voter placed playoff performance as a 4.57/5.00 (higher than even regular season performance) - something I went as far as to reference in the post to which you first replied. Not everyone shares your philosophy that a playoff game is no more significant than any other game.
A playoff game is Much more significant than a regular season game, obviously. But are six playoff games more important than a whole season? That's the problem with weighing playoffs too highly. Looking at a regular strong solid career, it ends up being 600 games versus 80 or something.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2013, 12:25 PM
  #124
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 32,456
vCash: 500
I really don't agree with Hasek at #7, but at the same time I don't see a huge problem with Roy edging him for #1 by such a tiny margin. Hasek simply has more warts than Roy, plain and simple. While his highs seemed higher (to me, anyway) it is also easier to attack his weaknesses. Perhaps a goalie who has those kinds of deficiencies in his portfolio deserves to be a tiny step behind one whose flaws are less significant.

And I say that having voted Hasek #1 and having started the project assuming that everyone else would agree.

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2013, 12:33 PM
  #125
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,994
vCash: 500
Exam Time

Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post

A playoff game is Much more significant than a regular season game, obviously. But are six playoff games more important than a whole season? That's the problem with weighing playoffs too highly. Looking at a regular strong solid career, it ends up being 600 games versus 80 or something.

Exam time or life in general follows similar or less favourable.ratios.

Ratio of class time to exam time often is less favourable than playoff to regular season time. Audition time ratio to practice time is less favourable. Performer has to do it when called, not at some leisurely pace. The if the world could only listen to Bill singing in the shower everyday argument does not work well.

Defining moment time is always a very small fraction of the mundane drudge time.

Canadiens1958 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 04:06 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.