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.

Dominik Hasek retires, what is the legacy?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-18-2012, 07:38 PM
  #226
Morgoth Bauglir
Master Of The Fates
 
Morgoth Bauglir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Angband via Utumno
Posts: 3,130
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by leeaf83 View Post
Save percentage IMO is heavily flawed;

Goalie A makes a clean save with no rebound and then makes a clean puck handling play . 1 save
Goalie B makes a save and coughs up a rebound and needs to make 2 more. Next shift makes a puckhandling gaffe forcing him to make 2 more saves; 6 saves there.

Statistically goalie B looks better since he gets 6 saves compared to A's 1 but which one is sounder goaltending? Well goalie A is a microcausm of Roy while B is Hasek.

He wasn't doing it on purpose but Hasek made a lot of easy saves look hard and created more work for himself flopping around back there coughing up rebounds. He had the acrobatics to overcome it. Roy was far more technique than athleticism. This may also imply WHY Roy was so much better in the playoffs; everything gets put into a bigger microscope on the playoffs; scouting the opposition and matchups and all the video analysis make the pre game prep closer to football. How often do you think teams watch game tape of their upcoming opponents playing another team in the regular season? Probably not an awful lot but they sure do in the playoffs.... particularly before overtime is about to start.... see where I'm going here?
Thanks. You put into words what I was thinking but wasn't able to make coherent

Morgoth Bauglir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-18-2012, 07:44 PM
  #227
DickSmehlik
Registered User
 
DickSmehlik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: DC
Country: United States
Posts: 1,686
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MS View Post
Was Roy one of the best ever in the playoffs? Yes, absolutely.

However, he also spent all 18 of his NHL seasons on legitimate Cup contending squads. Top-5 (or so) teams in the league that were excellent whether he was there or not. Great opportunities to win with. And he definitely did amazing things to carry two fringe contenders to the Cup in 1986 and 1993. But hell, the 1986 team was the worst team he ever played on, and they won the Cup.



__________

On one hand, yeah, you get credit for what you actually accomplish, and Roy had better playoff results.

But the situations these players played in were entirely different. I see a dominant playoff goalie on a good team vs. a dominant playoff goalie on a crap team.

If Hasek had laid an egg in the playoffs a la Roberto Luongo or Tony Esposito, the playoffs vs. regular season thing would have more traction. But given how Hasek performed when it matters, I have a hard time letting postseason stuff overshadow Hasek's ridiculous regular-season dominance.
I think this is worth mentioning.

Roy never played on a team remotely bad as Hasek did for several seasons (and maybe to Roy's credit he got out of Montreal quick when their fortunes were turning).

Roy played on Montreal when it was still considered the New York Yankees of the NHL and Colorado teams that had 2 of the top 5 forwards in the game. Would have been interesting to see him on a sub-par team.

DickSmehlik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-18-2012, 07:51 PM
  #228
DickSmehlik
Registered User
 
DickSmehlik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: DC
Country: United States
Posts: 1,686
vCash: 500
Also what tips the scale to Hasek for me is the roughly decade when he, Roy and Brodeur where starting goalies in the NHL.

Hasek was clearly the superior goalie.

DickSmehlik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-18-2012, 07:59 PM
  #229
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,106
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DickSmehlik View Post
I think this is worth mentioning.

Roy never played on a team remotely bad as Hasek did for several seasons (and maybe to Roy's credit he got out of Montreal quick when their fortunes were turning).

Roy played on Montreal when it was still considered the New York Yankees of the NHL and Colorado teams that had 2 of the top 5 forwards in the game. Would have been interesting to see him on a sub-par team.
It's a complete myth, perpetuated by the ignorant and busted earlier in this thread, that Roy was playing on powerhouse Habs teams the whole time or that Hasek's Buffalo teams were that bad all the time.

In fact, the only Habs team that could be considered a powerhouse was the '89 team and while they made the finals, they still lost to an even bigger powerhouse team in Calgary in what was actually, with a lot of credit going to Roy, a close series.
It always seem to come back to name recognition when viewing those Sabre teams and those Sabres teams from 94-96, on paper with name recognition, should of been much better than their results indicated.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DickSmehlik View Post
Also what tips the scale to Hasek for me is the roughly decade when he, Roy and Brodeur where starting goalies in the NHL.

Hasek was clearly the superior goalie.
In the regular season and no one is debating that.


Last edited by Rhiessan71: 10-18-2012 at 08:08 PM.
Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-18-2012, 08:19 PM
  #230
leeaf83
Registered User
 
leeaf83's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,882
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to leeaf83 Send a message via Yahoo to leeaf83
Quote:
Originally Posted by DickSmehlik View Post
I think this is worth mentioning.

Roy never played on a team remotely bad as Hasek did for several seasons (and maybe to Roy's credit he got out of Montreal quick when their fortunes were turning).

Roy played on Montreal when it was still considered the New York Yankees of the NHL and Colorado teams that had 2 of the top 5 forwards in the game. Would have been interesting to see him on a sub-par team.
The habs didnt have a sniff at a title from 1980 to 1985. They were no longer the Lafleur led powerhouse by 1986. They went 14 years without making the final 4 once Roy left. Colorado/Quebec on the other hand hadn't won a playoff round in years once Roy got there and went into the tank when he left.

Hasek also had several questionable playoffs; 1994 he was great, 1995 he didnt have a single great game (lost in 5 to philly), missed in 96, had his flakey injury #1 in 1997 1998 he was very suspect the first 4 games against the caps (gave up a shot from the red line even), made the finals in 1999, got lit up in 5 games in 2000, was decent but nothing great in 2001. Went to the detroit power house in 2002 and not to take anything away but was only counted on to not lose games (which he didnt). Didnt play in 2003, had a flakey injury again in 2004 (remember he was criticized by his teammates for not wanting to come back and eventually gave back his salary), had another flakey injury in 2006 with Ottawa and chose not to play despite being cleared. 2007 he got upset first round by #8 seed edmonton and 2008 was brutal and got yanked for Osgood against the 8th seed. The biggest blemish on Roy's playoff record (which he made it all but 1 year and got injured twice) was the bottom falling out in 2002 after his hot dog blooper in game 6.

leeaf83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-18-2012, 08:22 PM
  #231
DickSmehlik
Registered User
 
DickSmehlik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: DC
Country: United States
Posts: 1,686
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
It's a complete myth, perpetuated by the ignorant and busted earlier in this thread, that Roy was playing on powerhouse Habs teams the whole time or that Hasek's Buffalo teams were that bad all the time.

In fact, the only Habs team that could be considered a powerhouse was the '89 team and while they made the finals, they still lost to an even bigger powerhouse team in Calgary in what was actually, with a lot of credit going to Roy, a close series.
It always seem to come back to name recognition when viewing those Sabre teams and those Sabres teams from 94-96, on paper with name recognition, should of been much better than their results indicated.




In the regular season and no one is debating that.
I am guessing you know very little about the Sabres from 94-96.

DickSmehlik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-18-2012, 08:24 PM
  #232
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 3,285
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by leeaf83 View Post
2007 he got upset first round by #8 seed edmonton
That was Legace in 2006, actually. Hasek went to the WCF against Anaheim in 2007. Played well, but the Ducks really got to him in three of his losses.

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-18-2012, 08:28 PM
  #233
leeaf83
Registered User
 
leeaf83's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,882
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to leeaf83 Send a message via Yahoo to leeaf83
Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
That was Legace in 2006, actually. Hasek went to the WCF against Anaheim in 2007. Played well, but the Ducks really got to him in three of his losses.
sorry thanks for the correction

leeaf83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-18-2012, 08:57 PM
  #234
Sinter Klaas
Registered User
 
Sinter Klaas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Making Lists
Country:
Posts: 696
vCash: 3643
Quote:
Originally Posted by leeaf83 View Post
The habs didnt have a sniff at a title from 1980 to 1985. They were no longer the Lafleur led powerhouse by 1986. They went 14 years without making the final 4 once Roy left. Colorado/Quebec on the other hand hadn't won a playoff round in years once Roy got there and went into the tank when he left.

Hasek also had several questionable playoffs; 1994 he was great, 1995 he didnt have a single great game (lost in 5 to philly), missed in 96, had his flakey injury #1 in 1997 1998 he was very suspect the first 4 games against the caps (gave up a shot from the red line even), made the finals in 1999, got lit up in 5 games in 2000, was decent but nothing great in 2001. Went to the detroit power house in 2002 and not to take anything away but was only counted on to not lose games (which he didnt). Didnt play in 2003, had a flakey injury again in 2004 (remember he was criticized by his teammates for not wanting to come back and eventually gave back his salary), had another flakey injury in 2006 with Ottawa and chose not to play despite being cleared. 2007 he got upset first round by #8 seed edmonton and 2008 was brutal and got yanked for Osgood against the 8th seed. The biggest blemish on Roy's playoff record (which he made it all but 1 year and got injured twice) was the bottom falling out in 2002 after his hot dog blooper in game 6.
The general tone that I get from your playoff examples is that Hasek had disappointing playoffs in the series that he lost. I know for instance Hasek played well in 1994 despite the loss and no one should fault him for losing to the Legion of Doom's nascent playoff series the next year. Another example is 1998. He played brilliantly every series but lost out to a better team in the end.

What is getting overlooked is that the burden of weight and expectations fell on Hasek's shoulders almost every series. That is a common occurrence in Hasek's tenure in Buffalo, with very few exceptions, the opponents > Sabres. That means Dom had to be that much better than the visiting team's goaltender to win, and he almost always was.

On another note, the Sabres, counting Hasek's first season in Buffalo, 1993, a backup year for him, but a year he statistically beat 3 other goaltenders on the team in all goaltending stats, missed the playoffs once during his 9 season tenure, 1996.

The Sabres since Hasek's departure 10 seasons ago, have missed the playoffs in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2008, 2009, 2012. I would argue that the quality of players from Hasek's peak dominance starting in 1996, hasn't changed much since then. Translation, he carried teams that had no business being in the playoffs, to the playoffs in almost every season, and carried them longer than they ever had for years (in 1998 it had been 18 years since the team had been to the Conference Finals, and in the next season, 24 years since it had been to the Cup Finals).

Sinter Klaas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-18-2012, 09:16 PM
  #235
chi777
Registered User
 
chi777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,336
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Heh, are you seriously not getting what Devil said?
It's still 6 Awards in only 2 seasons worth of work. He gets credit for being not only the best goalie but the best player in the league those 2 years but he doesn't get triple credit for the same body of work.

I get it. It's just stupid.

They're different awards for different things judged on by different people. Winning them all only reinforces how much more dominant of a player he was for those seasons. By this flawed logic Gretzky or Malkin only get credit for winning the Hart despite also winning the Art Ross and the Lindsey. It means that by your math, one Vezina is equal to a Vezina + a Lindsey + a Hart or that somehow winning a Hart invalidates any other trophy you might win in the same season. It's absurd.

chi777 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-18-2012, 09:20 PM
  #236
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 3,285
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinter Klaas View Post
The general tone that I get from your playoff examples is that Hasek had disappointing playoffs in the series that he lost. I know for instance Hasek played well in 1994 despite the loss and no one should fault him for losing to the Legion of Doom's nascent playoff series the next year. Another example is 1998. He played brilliantly every series but lost out to a better team in the end.

What is getting overlooked is that the burden of weight and expectations fell on Hasek's shoulders almost every series. That is a common occurrence in Hasek's tenure in Buffalo, with very few exceptions, the opponents > Sabres. That means Dom had to be that much better than the visiting team's goaltender to win, and he almost always was.

On another note, the Sabres, counting Hasek's first season in Buffalo, 1993, a backup year for him, but a year he statistically beat 3 other goaltenders on the team in all goaltending stats, missed the playoffs once during his 9 season tenure, 1996.

The Sabres since Hasek's departure 10 seasons ago, have missed the playoffs in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2008, 2009, 2012. I would argue that the quality of players from Hasek's peak dominance starting in 1996, hasn't changed much since then. Translation, he carried teams that had no business being in the playoffs, to the playoffs in almost every season, and carried them longer than they ever had for years (in 1998 it had been 18 years since the team had been to the Conference Finals, and in the next season, 24 years since it had been to the Cup Finals).
I don't think anyone questions that he added points to their regular season standings. What does come into question is whether or not he added extra series to their playoffs. They won six series with him in Buffalo (and one without him).

1998 ECQF: 18 Goals in 5 Games
1998 ECSF: 17 Goals in 4 Games
1999 ECQF: 12 Goals in 4 Games
1999 ECSF: 17 Goals in 6 Games
1999 ECF: 21 Goals in 5 Games
2001 ECQF: 21 Goals in 6 Games

Having a HOF goaltender is never a bad thing, but every series they won was won by offense. Of the 24 Wins in the above series, 22 of them saw Buffalo score at least three goals.

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-18-2012, 09:21 PM
  #237
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,106
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DickSmehlik View Post
I am guessing you know very little about the Sabres from 94-96.
My point was that too little is made of those later 90's Sabre teams because they didn't have name recognition.
When they had name recognition earlier in the 90's they were actually worse performing teams even though on paper, they should have been better.

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-18-2012, 09:22 PM
  #238
finchster
Registered User
 
finchster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Belgorod
Country: Russian Federation
Posts: 7,615
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to finchster
Hasek, Roy, and Plante could go either way for the best goalie ever, but I usually flip between Roy and Hasek.

finchster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-18-2012, 09:22 PM
  #239
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 3,285
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by chi777 View Post
I get it. It's just stupid.

They're different awards for different things judged on by different people. Winning them all only reinforces how much more dominant of a player he was for those seasons. By this flawed logic Gretzky or Malkin only get credit for winning the Hart despite also winning the Art Ross and the Lindsey. It means that by your math, one Vezina is equal to a Vezina + a Lindsey + a Hart or that somehow winning a Hart invalidates any other trophy you might win in the same season. It's absurd.
I think that judging any trophy to be equal to any other trophy is absurd. I've seen non-Hart seasons better than Hart seasons. I've seen non-Conn Smythe seasons better than Conn Smythe seasons. I've seen non-Vezina seasons better than Vezina seasons.

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-18-2012, 09:27 PM
  #240
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,106
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by chi777 View Post
I get it. It's just stupid.

They're different awards for different things judged on by different people. Winning them all only reinforces how much more dominant of a player he was for those seasons. By this flawed logic Gretzky or Malkin only get credit for winning the Hart despite also winning the Art Ross and the Lindsey. It means that by your math, one Vezina is equal to a Vezina + a Lindsey + a Hart or that somehow winning a Hart invalidates any other trophy you might win in the same season. It's absurd.
No one was using Vezina's to go against Harts and Pearson's though.
The argument, as it will always be between Hasek and Roy, is regular season awards and accomplishments vs post season awards and accomplishments.
Simply or really, not so simply, Conn Smythe's vs Hart's/Pearson's in this case.

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-18-2012, 09:44 PM
  #241
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 21,857
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by leeaf83 View Post
Save percentage IMO is heavily flawed;

Goalie A makes a clean save with no rebound and then makes a clean puck handling play . 1 save
Goalie B makes a save and coughs up a rebound and needs to make 2 more. Next shift makes a puckhandling gaffe forcing him to make 2 more saves; 6 saves there.

Statistically goalie B looks better since he gets 6 saves compared to A's 1 but which one is sounder goaltending? Well goalie A is a microcausm of Roy while B is Hasek.

He wasn't doing it on purpose but Hasek made a lot of easy saves look hard and created more work for himself flopping around back there coughing up rebounds. He had the acrobatics to overcome it. Roy was far more technique than athleticism. This may also imply WHY Roy was so much better in the playoffs; everything gets put into a bigger microscope on the playoffs; scouting the opposition and matchups and all the video analysis make the pre game prep closer to football. How often do you think teams watch game tape of their upcoming opponents playing another team in the regular season? Probably not an awful lot but they sure do in the playoffs.... particularly before overtime is about to start.... see where I'm going here?
Yes, yes, SV% is flawed, and Hasek made some saves look harder than they were. When you stop 70 of 70 shots against the #2 team in the league when facing elimination to force game 7, it doesn't really matter. When you stop 48 of 50 in a triple overtime 1-1 Stanley Cup Final and get beaten by a guy who stops 53 of 54, it doesn't matter. All three (including Belfour's '99, obviously) are examples of the exact same level of individual hockey that Patrick Roy played on his best playoff day. As good as stopping 63 of 63 against Florida in '96, as good as his 3 wins against Boston in '94 (which is one of his most comparable playoffs to the Dom Hasek experience). And better than any single performance at anytime during Roy's Smythe and Cup winning '01 playoffs, imo. If there was a measure of "level", I'm confident all 3 would appear beside/above any single game/series of Roy's if ranked.

Again, the only time Roy distinguishes himself is via more winning (if not more impressive/demanding) performances in the additional opportunities afforded by his team; not "better" ones. And that's why your tales of this untouchable "level" of Roy's is disingenuously misleading away from very real facts that his career playoff wins, winning %, and playoff hardware (all heavily team dependent) are very impressive, and that he, too, obviously has some incredibly noteworthy performances on his resume.

Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-18-2012, 10:00 PM
  #242
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 3,285
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
When you stop 48 of 50 in a triple overtime 1-1 Stanley Cup Final and get beaten by a guy who stops 53 of 54, it doesn't matter. All three (including Belfour's '99, obviously) are examples of the exact same level of individual hockey that Patrick Roy played on his best playoff day. As good as stopping 63 of 63 against Florida in '96, as good as his 3 wins against Boston in '94 (which is one of his most comparable playoffs to the Dom Hasek experience). And better than any single performance at anytime during Roy's Smythe and Cup winning '01 playoffs, imo.
So stopping 48/50 against Dallas and losing in overtime in Game 6 is better than stopping 49/50 in Games 6 and 7 against the #1 ranked offense in the league? Why, may I ask?

Goaltenders on their best playoff day get shutouts. Goaltenders on their best playoff run have 20-straight great games. That's what Patrick Roy did in 1993.

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-18-2012, 10:11 PM
  #243
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 21,857
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
So stopping 48/50 against Dallas and losing in overtime in Game 6 is better than stopping 49/50 in Games 6 and 7 against the #1 ranked offense in the league? Why, may I ask?

Goaltenders on their best playoff day get shutouts. Goaltenders on their best playoff run have 20-straight great games. That's what Patrick Roy did in 1993.
How many goalies have stopped 24/24 or 25/26 shots in their playoff day? Lots. Lots and lots. How many have 48(+) save single game performances. Don't bother checking, as I already have. But backing up, where was the pressure in those two games, with Colorado pouring a combined 7 goals through Brodeur in just 40 shots? On top of that, Roy never even came close to trailing in those games, being up 3-0 at the 2nd intermission of one game, and up 3-0 halfway through the 2nd period of the other.

Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-18-2012, 10:13 PM
  #244
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,482
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by leeaf83 View Post
Save percentage IMO is heavily flawed;

Goalie A makes a clean save with no rebound and then makes a clean puck handling play . 1 save
Goalie B makes a save and coughs up a rebound and needs to make 2 more. Next shift makes a puckhandling gaffe forcing him to make 2 more saves; 6 saves there.

Statistically goalie B looks better since he gets 6 saves compared to A's 1 but which one is sounder goaltending? Well goalie A is a microcausm of Roy while B is Hasek.

He wasn't doing it on purpose but Hasek made a lot of easy saves look hard and created more work for himself flopping around back there coughing up rebounds. He had the acrobatics to overcome it. Roy was far more technique than athleticism. This may also imply WHY Roy was so much better in the playoffs; everything gets put into a bigger microscope on the playoffs; scouting the opposition and matchups and all the video analysis make the pre game prep closer to football. How often do you think teams watch game tape of their upcoming opponents playing another team in the regular season? Probably not an awful lot but they sure do in the playoffs.... particularly before overtime is about to start.... see where I'm going here?
I agree with most of what you say here. But I disagree strongly with calling Roy a "clean puck handling goalie."

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-18-2012, 10:17 PM
  #245
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,106
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
Yes, yes, SV% is flawed, and Hasek made some saves look harder than they were. When you stop 70 of 70 shots against the #2 team in the league when facing elimination to force game 7, it doesn't really matter. When you stop 48 of 50 in a triple overtime 1-1 Stanley Cup Final and get beaten by a guy who stops 53 of 54, it doesn't matter. All three (including Belfour's '99, obviously) are examples of the exact same level of individual hockey that Patrick Roy played on his best playoff day. As good as stopping 63 of 63 against Florida in '96, as good as his 3 wins against Boston in '94 (which is one of his most comparable playoffs to the Dom Hasek experience). And better than any single performance at anytime during Roy's Smythe and Cup winning '01 playoffs, imo. If there was a measure of "level", I'm confident all 3 would appear beside/above any single game/series of Roy's if ranked.

Again, the only time Roy distinguishes himself is via more winning (if not more impressive/demanding) performances in the additional opportunities afforded by his team; not "better" ones. And that's why your tales of this untouchable "level" of Roy's is disingenuously misleading away from very real facts that his career playoff wins, winning %, and playoff hardware (all heavily team dependent) are very impressive, and that he, too, obviously has some incredibly noteworthy performances on his resume.
Well first off, as I have mentioned a couple of times already, Roy played that series vs Boston in '94 with appendicitis, he won 3 and lost 3. He missed game #3 and providing a 100% healthy Roy that doesn't miss that game, that series most likely has a different outcome.
I do find it funny that you picked this series to be the "most comparable to the Hasek experience" considering Roy wasn't even 100% for it

Second, it's not just about the raw stats and how many shots a goalie stops. It's which shots and the timing of when he stops them that have the much greater importance.
Being clutch as it were and there is absolutely no doubt that Roy was more clutch on a pretty vast scale than anyone else.
This is based on his completely ridiculous 40-16 PO OT record and his ability to push series to their max even when losing them, only 5 of the 11 series he lost (11 of 43 btw) went less than 7 games.

Bottomline...Hasek has neither the body of work in the playoffs (not even 50% of Roy's games played) or the success in the playoffs in that body of work (Roy's .616 winning % to Hasek's .570) to even match Brodeur or maybe even Belfour, let alone enough to come close to Roy.
So you can keep on spouting about save %'s and the like but the reality is that only the last shot really counts and Roy stopped that last shot more than anyone else did period!


Last edited by Rhiessan71: 10-18-2012 at 10:34 PM.
Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-18-2012, 10:17 PM
  #246
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,482
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by chi777 View Post
Hasek gets triple rewarded because he won 3 awards. He could have won any one of them and not won the others. The Conn Smythe is but one award so Roy gets credit for one award.
If Hasek had the exact same seasons he had but the Pearson/Lindsay trophy hadn't existed yet, would his 2 Hart winning seasons only be 2/3 as good?

If the players voted on playoffs version of the Pearson/Lindsay to go along with the Conn Smythe that is voted on by the writers, would each of Roy's Smythe winning seasons suddenly be twice as good?

Awards are created to recognize great performances. But winning multiple awards for the same performance doesn't automatically make that performance better or more meaningful.


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 10-18-2012 at 10:57 PM.
TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-18-2012, 10:21 PM
  #247
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 3,285
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
On top of that, Roy never even came close to trailing in those games, being up 3-0 at the 2nd intermission of one game, and up 3-0 halfway through the 2nd period of the other.
It's hard to "come close to trailing" when you're not letting pucks into the net, and even then, they came pretty close to trailing when Scott Gomez started kicking them in...


Again, you're acting like goaltenders are supposed to be measured by 70-save games or 63-save games. One shutout isn't going to win a series. It will win a Gold Medal (even if that team has already beaten your team a week ago), but it won't win an NHL playoff series. And that's what separates Roy from his contemporaries. He didn't just put on one unexpected 50-save game; he put on consistently great performances from Game #1 through Game #7 in Series #1 through Series #4.

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-18-2012, 10:56 PM
  #248
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 21,857
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Well first off, as I have mentioned a couple of times already, Roy played that series vs Boston in '94 with appendicitis, he won 3 and lost 3. He missed game #3 and providing a 100% healthy Roy that doesn't miss that game, that series most likely has a different outcome.
I do find it funny that you picked this series to be the "most comparable to the Hasek experience" considering Roy wasn't even 100% for it
No need for sarcasm at all, really. I'm just surprised you can't make the connection that I tried to make for you that imo the individual performance did not "merit" the team result in either case, making the result less a commentary on the goalies' contributions, and more so that of the teams playing in front of them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Second, it's not just about the raw stats and how many shots a goalie stops. It's which shots and the timing of when he stops them that have the much greater importance.
Being clutch as it were and there is absolutely no doubt that Roy was more clutch on a pretty vast scale than anyone else.
This is based on his completely ridiculous 40-16 PO OT record and his ability to push series to their max even when losing them, only 5 of the 11 series he lost (11 of 43 btw) went less than 7 games.
You are so right about the bolded part. And I see absolutely no way you're claiming a clear "victory" for Roy in that one, if you're willingly tossing aside the raw counting/accumulation stats, and if you're honestly considering/remembering what it was like to watch Hasek kill the number of penalties that he did (called on much more often than Roy, for sure). Because my opinion along is that both guys are equivalent on their highest level of "quality" play, on any measure between a single game and a single playoffs. The frequency/quantity beyond that is undeniable fact, and definitely/obviously/deservedly benefits Roy greatly in terms of career accomplishment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Bottomline...Hasek has neither the body of work in the playoffs (not even 50% of Roy's games played) or the success in the playoffs in that body of work (Roy's .616 winning % to Hasek's .570) to even match Brodeur or maybe even Belfour, let alone enough to come close to Roy.
So you can keep on spouting about save %'s and the like but the reality is that only the last shot really counts and Roy stopped that last shot more than anyone else did period!
Well, like I said in the last section, there's no denying the merit that comes with having been lucky enough to have played the most playoff games of anyone in league history (Roy 247 GP, Brodeur 205... Hasek 119), and get all the accumulated accolades that come with being one of the key players on such a great group of teams.

Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-18-2012, 11:05 PM
  #249
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 21,857
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
It's hard to "come close to trailing" when you're not letting pucks into the net, and even then, they came pretty close to trailing when Scott Gomez started kicking them in...


Again, you're acting like goaltenders are supposed to be measured by 70-save games or 63-save games. One shutout isn't going to win a series. It will win a Gold Medal (even if that team has already beaten your team a week ago), but it won't win an NHL playoff series. And that's what separates Roy from his contemporaries. He didn't just put on one unexpected 50-save game; he put on consistently great performances from Game #1 through Game #7 in Series #1 through Series #4.
They both did, so you should at least acknowledge that. As has been discussed, though, imo the burden of lack of volume/quantity of proof does not overly weigh down Hasek on the Series #1->4 bit, due to the inequity in the strength of their respective teams.

Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-18-2012, 11:19 PM
  #250
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,106
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
Well, like I said in the last section, there's no denying the merit that comes with having been lucky enough to have played the most playoff games of anyone in league history (Roy 247 GP, Brodeur 205... Hasek 119), and get all the accumulated accolades that come with being one of the key players on such a great group of teams.
Ok, so now it's luck that accounts for Roy's Playoff success...*pause for uncontrollable laughter*...yeah, that will about do it for taking any argument of yours seriously from here on out.

Have a good one

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 12:56 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.