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
Notices

The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Have we ever had a truly generational goalie?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-10-2012, 11:53 AM
  #201
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,469
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RabbinsDuck View Post
That's literally saying Gretzky is the only generational player ever... Which just means the definition of a "generational player" is obviously very subjective.
Surely a "generational player" is a player that comes along only once a generation (what else would the term mean). That is, every 20-30 years or so. If Gretzky is the only "generational" player, then the definition being used it too restrictive, since organized hockey's been around for over 130 years.

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2012, 12:17 PM
  #202
GuineaPig
Registered User
 
GuineaPig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Montréal
Posts: 2,210
vCash: 500
Damnit. I can't find that thread with the complete Vezina voting totals. Can anyone post a link?

GuineaPig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2012, 01:57 PM
  #203
Alpine
Registered User
 
Alpine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Moncton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,150
vCash: 500
Without reading all 9 pages
Georges Vezina..had a trophy named after him
Terry Sawchuk
Jacques Plante
Tony O
Ken Dryden
Dominick Hasek
Saint Patrick....was there a butterfly before him
Richard Brodeur

Alpine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2012, 02:11 PM
  #204
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,189
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpine View Post
Without reading all 9 pages
Georges Vezina..had a trophy named after him
Terry Sawchuk
Jacques Plante
Tony O
Ken Dryden
Dominick Hasek
Saint Patrick....was there a butterfly before him
Richard Brodeur
He was good... generational might be a stretch.

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2012, 02:12 PM
  #205
Johnny Engine
Registered User
 
Johnny Engine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,051
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
Surely a "generational player" is a player that comes along only once a generation (what else would the term mean). That is, every 20-30 years or so. If Gretzky is the only "generational" player, then the definition being used it too restrictive, since organized hockey's been around for over 130 years.
Unless you're talking about the time required to "generate" enough NHL players to replace the ones who will retire in that span of time. I've been following hockey for 19 years, and the NHL has more or less turned over completely during that time, if you exclude Teemu Selanne.

Johnny Engine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2012, 02:19 PM
  #206
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,407
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuineaPig View Post
Damnit. I can't find that thread with the complete Vezina voting totals. Can anyone post a link?
Stickied thread at the top of the board, starting with post 101

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2012, 02:28 PM
  #207
Sentinel
Registered User
 
Sentinel's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 4,865
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Hasek dominated voting in 1997 and 1998, but he only got 8 first place votes for the Vezina in 1999 though. When we're talking about a goalie that is purportedly on the same level as Gretzky or Orr, I would expect more than 8/27 NHL GMs to think he is the best goalie in the league that season

Edit: looking at GP, 1994 (which was an awesome season, perhaps a third generational one) is the only season Hasek seems to really be hurt by lack of starts
There was this little thing called "1999 Playoffs."

Sentinel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2012, 02:36 PM
  #208
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,407
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sentinel View Post
There was this little thing called "1999 Playoffs."
Really? Thanks for reminding me that the NHL had playoffs in 1999; I would have forgotten otherwise!

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2012, 02:53 PM
  #209
GuineaPig
Registered User
 
GuineaPig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Montréal
Posts: 2,210
vCash: 500
GM/media perception can be a tricky thing to base things off, because sometimes it just seems so off-base. I doubt many would accept that Lemieux's 88-89 season was not incredible and "generational" based on Hart voting for that year, for example. Despite that Joseph and his 0.919 ES Sv% received more first-place votes in '99 than Hasek, I don't see how one can convincingly claim Hasek was generational in '98, and then not in '99.

GuineaPig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2012, 03:45 PM
  #210
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,407
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuineaPig View Post
GM/media perception can be a tricky thing to base things off, because sometimes it just seems so off-base. I doubt many would accept that Lemieux's 88-89 season was not incredible and "generational" based on Hart voting for that year, for example. Despite that Joseph and his 0.919 ES Sv% received more first-place votes in '99 than Hasek, I don't see how one can convincingly claim Hasek was generational in '98, and then not in '99.
Listen, I think Hasek deserved the Vezina in 1999 too, and if he was less of an impact player than in his Hart years, it wasn't by much. But when he's being compared to Gretzky, Lemieux, and Orr, it damn well does matter than less than 1/3 of the GMs in the league gave him their first place vote.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2012, 03:51 PM
  #211
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,469
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Engine View Post
Unless you're talking about the time required to "generate" enough NHL players to replace the ones who will retire in that span of time. I've been following hockey for 19 years, and the NHL has more or less turned over completely during that time, if you exclude Teemu Selanne.
In any event, it's a period of time significantly less than 130 years.

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2012, 03:54 PM
  #212
WinterEmpire
Unregistered User
 
WinterEmpire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,494
vCash: 500
Prime Hasek was easily a generational talent. There has never been anyone like him before or after. I would even argue Roy might have also been one since he widely influenced the game of hockey for goalies with his butterfly.

WinterEmpire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2012, 05:40 PM
  #213
billybudd
5 cups pls
 
billybudd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 18,632
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Those "pluggers" provided Hasek with more offensive support in 1998 and 1999 than Roy or Brodeur got in most playoff years. Hell, Buffalo's offense carried them to the second round in 1997 with Steve Shields in goal for the majority of games.
Steve Shields wasn't exactly a bum and the Ottawa Senators were the worst team in the playoffs that year. I said that Buffalo had a bunch of pluggers. What I did not say is that these pluggers weren't capable of beating the worst team in the playoffs without Hasek.

As for scoring support, you happen to be out of your mind. In the years that Hasek was winning Vezinas, Buffalo was not consistently providing more goal support than Colorado and New Jersey (maybe before Lafontaine got decapitated by Francois Leroux, Buff outscored Jersey once over a season). This includes the two years you cited, where Buffalo was dead last in goal support among the teams these three goalies played for both times.


Quote:
Why is adjusted save percentage nonsense?. Do you think Gretzky would score over 200 points today and that the only reason there aren't 10-15 forwards today above 100 points is due to lack of talent? If you are going to adjust stats for forwards, you should do it for goalies too
Because it's nonsense. It normalizes variables that can't be normalized. While I certainly don't think Wayne Gretzky would have anything in the vicinity of 200 points now, I'm also not delusional enough to think if you put Kelly Hrudey behind the Kings today that he'd put up close to Quick's numbers because some bonus points theorem says he would.

billybudd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2012, 06:00 PM
  #214
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,407
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by billybudd View Post
Steve Shields wasn't exactly a bum and the Ottawa Senators were the worst team in the playoffs that year. I said that Buffalo had a bunch of pluggers. What I did not say is that these pluggers weren't capable of beating the worst team in the playoffs without Hasek.

As for scoring support, you happen to be out of your mind. In the years that Hasek was winning Vezinas, Buffalo was not consistently providing more goal support than Colorado and New Jersey (maybe before Lafontaine got decapitated by Francois Leroux, Buff outscored Jersey once over a season). This includes the two years you cited, where Buffalo was dead last in goal support among the teams these three goalies played for both times.
I was specifically referring to playoffs and should have specified Roy's Montreal years.

Buffalo, in the playoffs, provided Hasek with significantly more goal support than Brodeur received from 1997-1999. Neither Hasek or Brodeur ever did anything in the playoffs without receiving significant goal support.

When Buffalo went to the finals in 1999, they scored at a higher rate in the playoffs than the Canadiens did in for their 1986 and 1993 Cup years.

Buffalo's team defense was not close to Montreal or NJ's, but their scorers held up their end of the bargain in the playoffs.

Quote:
Because it's nonsense. It normalizes variables that can't be normalized. While I certainly don't think Wayne Gretzky would have anything in the vicinity of 200 points now, I'm also not delusional enough to think if you put Kelly Hrudey behind the Kings today that he'd put up close to Quick's numbers because some bonus points theorem says he would.
If Gretzky's numbers would be worse today, why wouldn't Hrudey's be better?

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2012, 06:48 PM
  #215
Bear of Bad News
Mod Supervisor
 
Bear of Bad News's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: San Angeles
Posts: 4,266
vCash: 663
Quote:
Originally Posted by billybudd View Post
Because it's nonsense. It normalizes variables that can't be normalized. While I certainly don't think Wayne Gretzky would have anything in the vicinity of 200 points now, I'm also not delusional enough to think if you put Kelly Hrudey behind the Kings today that he'd put up close to Quick's numbers because some bonus points theorem says he would.
I believe that what you've just said here is that, although adjusted statistics are nonsense, unadjusted statistics are also nonsense (for comparison's purpose).

So where does that leave us?

Bear of Bad News is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2012, 06:57 PM
  #216
OrrNumber4
Registered User
 
OrrNumber4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 8,967
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taco MacArthur View Post
I believe that what you've just said here is that, although adjusted statistics are nonsense, unadjusted statistics are also nonsense (for comparison's purpose).

So where does that leave us?
Besides optics? We have awards, rankings, articles, etc. And the subjective discussions that revolves around the merits of said accomplishments in a certain circumstances.

OrrNumber4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2012, 09:45 PM
  #217
Johnny Engine
Registered User
 
Johnny Engine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,051
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
In any event, it's a period of time significantly less than 130 years.
Oh, I didn't actually look at what you were arguing about when I made that comment, just trying to add another semantic dimension.

As far as your point goes, that's the reason why I'm unwilling to equate "generational" with the top-# players of all time — just because Gordie Howe raised the bar on what a person could accomplish while the sport was already half as old as it is now, and we've seen 2 more players approach that level since (3 if you want to include Lemieux), do the first 60 years of competitive hockey just not count?

If you want to call the top 4 "transcendental players", maybe that's better. The definition and esteem of a "generational player" should probably evolve and change with their own times.

Johnny Engine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2012, 09:49 PM
  #218
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,407
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Engine View Post
Oh, I didn't actually look at what you were arguing about when I made that comment, just trying to add another semantic dimension.

As far as your point goes, that's the reason why I'm unwilling to equate "generational" with the top-# players of all time — just because Gordie Howe raised the bar on what a person could accomplish while the sport was already half as old as it is now, and we've seen 2 more players approach that level since (3 if you want to include Lemieux), do the first 60 years of competitive hockey just not count?

If you want to call the top 4 "transcendental players", maybe that's better. The definition and esteem of a "generational player" should probably evolve and change with their own times.
Great point. If you want to define "generational player" as the best of his generation, then you can add guys like Howie Morenz, and possibly Hasek. Make another category for the big 4

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-16-2012, 09:23 PM
  #219
billybudd
5 cups pls
 
billybudd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 18,632
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taco MacArthur View Post
I believe that what you've just said here is that, although adjusted statistics are nonsense, unadjusted statistics are also nonsense (for comparison's purpose).
The belief that era factors influence scoring rates and the rejection of a bogus bonus points formula are two thoughts that cannot coexist seems to be what you're insinuating, here. I can't really say why someone would come to a conclusion like that.


Quote:
I was specifically referring to playoffs and should have specified Roy's Montreal years.

Buffalo, in the playoffs, provided Hasek with significantly more goal support than Brodeur received from 1997-1999. Neither Hasek or Brodeur ever did anything in the playoffs without receiving significant goal support.

When Buffalo went to the finals in 1999, they scored at a higher rate in the playoffs than the Canadiens did in for their 1986 and 1993 Cup years.

Buffalo's team defense was not close to Montreal or NJ's, but their scorers held up their end of the bargain in the playoffs.
So, in short, what you're telling me is Roy's got a good case as a generational player in goal. I already said that.

billybudd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-16-2012, 11:11 PM
  #220
Morgoth Bauglir
Master Of The Fates
 
Morgoth Bauglir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Angband via Utumno
Posts: 3,574
vCash: 500
My pick would be Roy (no surprise given my name and avi), and I'm happy so see Dryden get at least a shout-out.

I'm a little surprised, but I haven't seen Eddie Belfour mentioned. How does the panel see him stacking up with Roy, Hasek, and Broduer (who seem to get the most mentions)?


Last edited by Morgoth Bauglir: 10-12-2012 at 11:33 AM.
Morgoth Bauglir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-16-2012, 11:26 PM
  #221
tsujimoto74
Moderator
 
tsujimoto74's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Rochester
Country: United States
Posts: 14,477
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
My pick would be Roy (no surprise given my name and avi), and I'm happy so see Dryden get at least a shout-out.

I'm a little surprised, but I haven't seen Eddie Belfour mention. How does the panel see him stacking up with Roy, Hasek, and Broduer (who seem to get the most mentions)?
I would easily classify him as the 4th best goalie of the era in which all 4 played. He was very good, but nowhere near generational.

tsujimoto74 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-20-2012, 11:11 AM
  #222
DanZ
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 13,593
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
He certainly did in Detroit and Ottawa
And surprise, surprise, he won a Cup in Detroit and very well could have in Ottawa had he not been injured...

DanZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-20-2012, 11:12 AM
  #223
DanZ
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 13,593
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jill Sandwich View Post
It's not like those 80s and 90s Montreal teams were world beaters without Roy either.
They were certainly better than those Buffalo teams, no doubt about that...

DanZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-20-2012, 12:23 PM
  #224
RabbinsDuck
Registered User
 
RabbinsDuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Brighton, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 4,761
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Engine View Post
Oh, I didn't actually look at what you were arguing about when I made that comment, just trying to add another semantic dimension.

As far as your point goes, that's the reason why I'm unwilling to equate "generational" with the top-# players of all time — just because Gordie Howe raised the bar on what a person could accomplish while the sport was already half as old as it is now, and we've seen 2 more players approach that level since (3 if you want to include Lemieux), do the first 60 years of competitive hockey just not count?

If you want to call the top 4 "transcendental players", maybe that's better. The definition and esteem of a "generational player" should probably evolve and change with their own times.
I agree that The Big 4 were *more* than generational talents. Centennial talents? 4 in 100+ years but each are incredibly unique. I don't think any goalie has reached that level.


Last edited by RabbinsDuck: 09-20-2012 at 12:36 PM.
RabbinsDuck 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 01:01 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2016 All Rights Reserved.