HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Dominik Hasek retires, what is the legacy?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-15-2012, 05:32 PM
  #126
struckbyaparkedcar
Zemgus Da Gawd
 
struckbyaparkedcar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Upstate NY
Country: Cote DIvoire
Posts: 10,469
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Nobody is lauding Roy for his feud with the coach; I'm just saying that it's much more common and excusable to demand a trade in the regular season than to self-diagnose an injury in a playoff game, pull yourself without talking to your coach, and then refuse to rejoin the team when you are medically cleared.
Fair, it's just that "being a flake" is one of the most gone-to criticisms against Hasek, and so many people fail to take into account that the Sabres' issues at the time went way, way further than the guy between the pipes. Muckler and Nolan were going at each other as well in 97, and Nolan got Muckler canned. Not to mention the next guy letting Peca twist in 01 and not doing anything with that asset when the Sabres were on the verge of a Cup run. Oh, and the team was being owned by a soon to be convicted felon this whole time. Roy and Brodeur never had that level of organizational unrest, and Roy and Marty both demonstrated less than 100% team commitment when things went south with their clubs, either demanding a trade from Montreal or testing the UFA waters.

Quote:
I see it as an unnecessary distraction from his teammates who were still playing in the 1997 playoffs.
Fair. Others see it as a guy who was committed to winning finally snapping at a fundamental part of his game being questioned, especially considering Nolan's noted personality issues of his own and Kelley's connections with the team.

Quote:
Okay. Wish you had more details. I don't remember other players having issues with the medical staff, though, but I could easily be wrong there.
I think they botched a few things with Afinogenov pre-lockout as well. I wish there was someone older than I around to get the details straight. At the very least, the Hasek debacle brought the staff under lasting scrutiny among Buffalo fans, deserved or not.

struckbyaparkedcar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-15-2012, 05:37 PM
  #127
MS
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 12,009
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Nobody is lauding Roy for his feud with the coach; I'm just saying that it's much more common and excusable to demand a trade in the regular season than to self-diagnose an injury in a playoff game, pull yourself without talking to your coach, and then refuse to rejoin the team when you are medically cleared.
Whoa, back up a bit here.

Roy didn’t just ‘demand a trade’. He fully walked out on his team and went home, because he didn’t like that his coach left in him a game too long.

How many other star players (or any players, frankly) have walked out on their teams mid-season in the last 20 years? I can’t think of a single one. Doug Gilmour was probably the last in 1991 with Calgary over a contract dispute.

Let’s not start calling what happened with Roy ‘common’. Time passing and how well the situation turned out for him might make it seem more ‘normal’ now, but it was shockingly unprofessional at the time. I don’t care who your coach is – if you’re under contract, you play.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
Because Hasek got outplayed by Olaf Kolzig.




Because Hasek got outplayed by Eddie Belfour.
If you lose a series 4-0 and allow 4 goals while your team scores 0, you’ve technically been ‘outplayed’ by your counterpart. Doesn’t mean you weren’t spectacular. Doesn’t mean that the reason you lost is because your team didn’t score. ‘Outplayed’ is also open to interpretation – in the Dallas series, Buffalo was horribly outshot in most of those games and Belfour had virtually nothing to do by comparison.

And when you look at the way those teams were built, it’s not bloody surprising they couldn’t score. They were awful teams carried to where they were solely because of Hasek.

Hasek was brilliant in the 1998 and 1999 playoffs from start to finish.

MS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-15-2012, 05:41 PM
  #128
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,901
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MS View Post
Whoa, back up a bit here.

Roy didn’t just ‘demand a trade’. He fully walked out on his team and went home, because he didn’t like that his coach left in him a game too long.

How many other star players (or any players, frankly) have walked out on their teams mid-season in the last 20 years? I can’t think of a single one. Doug Gilmour was probably the last in 1991 with Calgary over a contract dispute.

Let’s not start calling what happened with Roy ‘common’. Time passing and how well the situation turned out for him might make it seem more ‘normal’ now, but it was shockingly unprofessional at the time. I don’t care who your coach is – if you’re under contract, you play.
It's about as common as the guy from the french media that has been bashing you at length and feuding with you for years being made your head coach

Roy didn't just walk out because Mario left him in too long. This was about something that had years of history behind it.

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-15-2012, 05:42 PM
  #129
struckbyaparkedcar
Zemgus Da Gawd
 
struckbyaparkedcar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Upstate NY
Country: Cote DIvoire
Posts: 10,469
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
And if you really want to talk about the difference, just 2 years before Roy was traded, he came down with appendicitis before game #3 of the Habs first round match up with the Bruins. A game the Habs lost 6-3. Roy convinced the Doctor's to let him play and he won game #4 5-2 and game #5 2-1 in OT before losing game 6 and 7.
Was the team simultaneously being ripped apart by feuding from the highest levels of ownership, management and coaching down? Then it doesn't apply.

struckbyaparkedcar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-15-2012, 05:43 PM
  #130
struckbyaparkedcar
Zemgus Da Gawd
 
struckbyaparkedcar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Upstate NY
Country: Cote DIvoire
Posts: 10,469
vCash: 500
Oh wait, but "the Montreal media" is to blame when Roy wants to skip town. ****ing precious.

And look, my point isn't that Roy specifically is a bad guy or anything, but that when all three of Hasek, Brodeur and Roy were faced with organizational instability beyond their control, they looked out for #1, not the team. Period. They just had to deal with different levels of dysfunction.


Last edited by struckbyaparkedcar: 10-15-2012 at 05:48 PM.
struckbyaparkedcar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-15-2012, 05:49 PM
  #131
SaintPatrick33
Conn Smythe Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,044
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MS View Post
If you lose a series 4-0 and allow 4 goals while your team scores 0, you’ve technically been ‘outplayed’ by your counterpart. Doesn’t mean you weren’t spectacular. Doesn’t mean that the reason you lost is because your team didn’t score. ‘Outplayed’ is also open to interpretation – in the Dallas series, Buffalo was horribly outshot in most of those games and Belfour had virtually nothing to do by comparison.

And when you look at the way those teams were built, it’s not bloody surprising they couldn’t score. They were awful teams carried to where they were solely because of Hasek.

Hasek was brilliant in the 1998 and 1999 playoffs from start to finish.
Sounds to me like your minimizing the efforts of the goalies who outdueled him. Kolzig was brilliant in that series and Belfour was brilliant in the finals. And they deserve credit for it.

It's not like Hasek was facing offensive powerhouses either: Washington scored all of 8 more goals in the regular season than Buffalo did and spent most of playoffs struggling to score more than 3 goals in a game. Dallas was a typical Ken Hitchcock "try-to-win-every-game-1-to-0" team.

SaintPatrick33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-15-2012, 06:28 PM
  #132
ficohok*
Mrzim Kanadu !
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Zagreb
Country: Croatia
Posts: 1,175
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
It's about as common as the guy from the french media that has been bashing you at length and feuding with you for years being made your head coach

Roy didn't just walk out because Mario left him in too long. This was about something that had years of history behind it.
Sorry for OT: What was that ?

ficohok* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-15-2012, 06:32 PM
  #133
MS
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 12,009
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by struckbyaparkedcar View Post
Oh wait, but "the Montreal media" is to blame when Roy wants to skip town. ****ing precious.

And look, my point isn't that Roy specifically is a bad guy or anything, but that when all three of Hasek, Brodeur and Roy were faced with organizational instability beyond their control, they looked out for #1, not the team. Period. They just had to deal with different levels of dysfunction.
Yup.

In comparing Roy and Hasek, the 1996 Roy situation and the 1997 Hasek situation are so similar that you either knock both down equally for it or knock neither down at all.

There were external pressures on both of them that led to the reaction it did, but both flaked out far more than they should have and were very unprofessional.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
Sounds to me like your minimizing the efforts of the goalies who outdueled him. Kolzig was brilliant in that series and Belfour was brilliant in the finals. And they deserve credit for it.

It's not like Hasek was facing offensive powerhouses either: Washington scored all of 8 more goals in the regular season than Buffalo did and spent most of playoffs struggling to score more than 3 goals in a game. Dallas was a typical Ken Hitchcock "try-to-win-every-game-1-to-0" team.
Of course they deserve credit for it.

But return again to the Roy vs. Hasek debate.

You can either claim that Hasek's teams couldn't score, or that he faced ridiculous opposition goaltending, or a combination .... but again, whatever the situation, the fact of the matter is that Roy was never in that position during his Cup runs.

In his 4 Cups, Roy never had to win a playoff series where his team scored less than 2 goals/game. And looking over his career, it doesn't look like he ever won a playoff series in that position.

Hasek was put in the position for 3 of the 4 healthy, in-his-prime playoffs he had with Buffalo, where his team scored ~1.5 goals/game in the series they were eliminated.

So again, if Roy had won series (leading to Cups) where his team scored 1.5 goals/game over the course of the series, while Hasek did not ... fair enough, point for Roy. But that didn't happen.

MS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-15-2012, 07:04 PM
  #134
Sentinel
Registered User
 
Sentinel's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 2,468
vCash: 500
If it was between winning the Cup and the OG gold, Roy would undoubtedly pick the Cup. But having won 4 Cups and 0 golds... Plus, I remember reading that Roy regretted that decision not to participate in the SLC Games (although it may have something to do with the fact that he would have won gold there, but instead ended up with nothing).

In the goaltenders list I rank Roy behind Tretiak anyway. It's a pity Tretiak gets near zero recognition here.

Sentinel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-15-2012, 07:05 PM
  #135
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,391
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
No, I refuse to acknowledge the use of adjusted stats at face value that your "peak" argument is based on.
And I refuse to take raw stats at face value, when the lowest ESG/game from '85-93 was still significantly higher than any season since '93.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
The only thing I disagree with you on is peak and I showed exactly how Lemieux was more prolific at even strength from 88/89-92/93 than Jagr ever was.
Jagr's absolute peak in 95/96 only equals Mario's lowest year during the 5 years I cited.

If anyone has their ears plugged, it's you since I have never argued overall or career even once. Peak is the only thing I have been talking about and the only "evidence" you have to refute this are Jagr's adjusted numbers from the late 90's.
In '96, Jagr outscored every other player by 19+ ES points (25% above the next highest player)... but that only "equals" Mario's lowest year from '89-93, despite Mario only leading the league in ES points twice during that span (once by 1 and the other by 9 or less than 10%)?? Oh right, because adjusting for league scoring level isn't allowed... and neither is using season totals, only PPG levels are allowed by your logic. The thing is, Mario scored 374 actual (not adjusted) ES points from '89-93... while Jagr scored 375 actual ES points from '96-00 (it would have been more if '95 had not been a shortened season), despite the league ES scoring level being over 25% higher from '89-93 than from '96-00.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
I watched both of their career's from the beginning and all I'm saying is that Jagr didn't reach the same level that Mario did in the late 80's/early 90's at even strength, special teams or anything.
I'm sure your eyes factored in the lower league quality and/or greater ease with which players scored during Mario's prime vs. Jagr's. They certainly factored in the fact that Mario was missing substantial portions (even majorities) of seasons, right?

If your definition of peak is on a per-game basis at absolute top of their games, then I'd lean towards Mario also at ES. However, that's absolute peak ES ability, not peak ES value over even a full season.

Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-15-2012, 07:08 PM
  #136
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,901
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mannheim View Post
Sorry for OT: What was that ?
Before Mario Tremblay became head coach of the Habs, he was the Don Cherry of french media where he had been talking shots at Roy and feuding with him for years.

As some predicted at the time(Red Fisher was one of them I believe), it was only a matter of time before something big happened between the two of them.

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-15-2012, 07:12 PM
  #137
vadim sharifijanov
Registered User
 
vadim sharifijanov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,784
vCash: 500
^ they had also been teammates, of course. any stories from those years?

vadim sharifijanov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-15-2012, 07:33 PM
  #138
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,901
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
And I refuse to take raw stats at face value, when the lowest ESG/game from '85-93 was still significantly higher than any season since '93.
That doesn't matter though because even when they go head to head in the same seasons they are about equal almost every single time and the Mario per-Cancer was clearly a level above the Mario after Cancer.

Quote:
In '96, Jagr outscored every other player by 19+ ES points (25% above the next highest player)... but that only "equals" Mario's lowest year from '89-93, despite Mario only leading the league in ES points twice during that span (once by 1 and the other by 9 or less than 10%)?? Oh right, because adjusting for league scoring level isn't allowed... and neither is using season totals, only PPG levels are allowed by your logic. The thing is, Mario scored 374 actual (not adjusted) ES points from '89-93... while Jagr scored 375 actual ES points from '96-00 (it would have been more if '95 had not been a shortened season), despite the league ES scoring level being over 25% higher from '89-93 than from '96-00.
A little perpective please. Remind us all again exactly who Mario was just beating out or losing to in ES scoring during those years again?

The names Gretzky or Yzerman mean anything to you at all?

Who was Jagr beating out?

And just for the record...you wanna go on about how Jagr fared in 95/96...Mario scored 1 more ES point in a whopping 22 less games just 3 years previous to that so....

Tell ya what, how about posting the top 3 ES scorers from Mario's best 5 seasons and then the top ES scorers from what you consider Jagr's 5 best seasons and we can let context decide. See if any names from one list stand out just a bit compared to the other heh.

Quote:
I'm sure your eyes factored in the lower league quality and/or greater ease with which players scored during Mario's prime vs. Jagr's. They certainly factored in the fact that Mario was missing substantial portions (even majorities) of seasons, right?
Just like they factor in the Mario I saw before Cancer and the Mario I saw after.


Last edited by Rhiessan71: 10-15-2012 at 07:48 PM.
Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-15-2012, 07:36 PM
  #139
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,391
vCash: 50
Tremblay shouldn't have left Roy in to continue to be shelled, esp. knowing that Roy was a hothead. Roy gave the Habs a choice, and they sided with the coach over their HOF goalie.

I thought there were rumors about Roy having trouble with his wife straying with at least one of his teammates in Montreal... but perhaps I'm misremembering?

Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-15-2012, 07:42 PM
  #140
vadim sharifijanov
Registered User
 
vadim sharifijanov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,784
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
Tremblay shouldn't have left Roy in to continue to be shelled, esp. knowing that Roy was a hothead. Roy gave the Habs a choice, and they sided with the coach over their HOF goalie.

I thought there were rumors about Roy having trouble with his wife straying with at least one of his teammates in Montreal... but perhaps I'm misremembering?
the rumour is mathieu schneider, i believe. but by that point, they'd already traded schneider and muller for turgeon and malakhov. i've heard another rumour that there was also chelios and roy's wife before that trade. but these are all just rumours.

vadim sharifijanov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-15-2012, 07:59 PM
  #141
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,391
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
That doesn't matter though because even when they go head to head in the same seasons they are about equal almost every single time and the Mario per-Cancer was clearly a level above the Mario after Cancer.
They only went head to head over a couple full seasons when both were in their prime: '96 and '97. Jagr wasn't in his prime in '93 (age 20 to start the season)... Mario was past his prime after that (and couldn't play full seasons). Jagr had a higher ES PPG in both '96 & '97. Mario was better in '93, ability-wise, but he still only managed 60 games, so not sure how much (if at all) more valuable he was at ES than Jagr in later years.

There are two main differences in how we are evaluating these two greats: First, you are using raw stats instead of adjusted stats. Second, you are using per-game metrics instead of per-season metrics. While adjusted stats aren't perfect, they are better than raw stats when comparing across different seasons. Per-game metrics are useful in assessing ability, but not value. I was talking about value, which is generally how most of us evaluate how players should be ranked. I don't see Kent Nilsson in many top 100 lists, because he wasn't close to being that valuable. He may have had top 100 ability, but that isn't how players are ranked.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
A little perpective please. Remind us all again exactly who Mario was just beating out or losing to in ES scoring during those years again?

The names Gretzky or Yzerman mean anything to you at all?

Who was Jagr beating out?
Leaders in ES points:

1989- Lemieux 102, Yzerman 101, Gretzky 100, Nicholls 87
1990- Gretzky 96, Yzerman 79, Messier 71, Lemieux 71
1991- Gretzky 103, Hull 86, Oates 73, Recchi 72, Sakic 71
1992- Stevens 81, Lemieux 74, Roberts 67, Ferraro 66, Yzerman 66 (Jagr 60)
1993- Lemieux 96, Yzerman 87, Selanne 83, Lafontaine 83, Oates 78, Mogilny 78 (Jagr 71)
1994- Fedorov 81, Jagr 70, Recchi 69, Lindros 67, Gilmour 66, Gretzky 62 (won Ross), Oates 62
1995- Lindros 46, Jagr 45, Renberg 45, Zhamnov 40, Sakic 37, Francis 37, LeClair 37
1996- Jagr 95, Nedved 76, Lindros 75, Lemieux 73, Mogilny 71, Forsberg 70, Fedorov 65, Francis 63, Sakic 62, Kariya 61, LeClair 60, Selanne 59, Turgeon 59, Messier 58, Oates 58
1997- LeClair 81, Lemieux 79, Selanne 76, Jagr 67, Sundin 67, Gretzky 65
1998- Selanne 67, Jagr 64, Gretzky 60, LeClair 60, Bure 56
1999- Jagr 82, Lindros 65, LeClair 65, Demitra 60, Sakic 56, Kariya 55
2000- Bure 72, Jagr 67, Amonte 59, Sakic 58, Selanne 54, LeClair 53, Kariya 52
2001- Jagr 78, Sakic 66, Elias 64, Bure 59
2002- Iginla 64, Naslund 59, Lindros 57, Murray 56, Bertuzzi 55, Samsonov 55, Jagr 54
2006- Thornton 72, Jagr 71

Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-15-2012, 08:17 PM
  #142
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,901
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
They only went head to head over a couple full seasons when both were in their prime: '96 and '97. Jagr wasn't in his prime in '93 (age 20 to start the season)... Mario was past his prime after that (and couldn't play full seasons). Jagr had a higher ES PPG in both '96 & '97. Mario was better in '93, ability-wise, but he still only managed 60 games, so not sure how much (if at all) more valuable he was at ES than Jagr in later years.

There are two main differences in how we are evaluating these two greats: First, you are using raw stats instead of adjusted stats. Second, you are using per-game metrics instead of per-season metrics. While adjusted stats aren't perfect, they are better than raw stats when comparing across different seasons. Per-game metrics are useful in assessing ability, but not value. I was talking about value, which is generally how most of us evaluate how players should be ranked. I don't see Kent Nilsson in many top 100 lists, because he wasn't close to being that valuable. He may have had top 100 ability, but that isn't how players are ranked.
So basically what you're saying is that you believe Jagr has a higher even strength peak because he was able to play more games even though on a game by game basis Lemieux was clearly better during his pre-Cancer peak.

As far as adjusted stats goes, you also gotta temper their results.
All I know is what I mentioned earlier about 00/01 and 02/03 that the fact that a 36-38 year old, recovered from cancer, with a bad back Mario was just as effective as a 29-31 year old Jagr on an even strength game by game basis makes me call into question of your adjusted rankings of Jagr's late 90's seasons.
Especially when that Mario is not even remotely close to the Mario from 89-93.
Something certainly doesn't smell right there my friend.


Quote:
Leaders in ES points:

1989- Lemieux 102, Yzerman 101, Gretzky 100, Nicholls 87
1990- Gretzky 96, Yzerman 79, Messier 71, Lemieux 71
1991- Gretzky 103, Hull 86, Oates 73, Recchi 72, Sakic 71
1992- Stevens 81, Lemieux 74, Roberts 67, Ferraro 66, Yzerman 66 (Jagr 60)
1993- Lemieux 96, Yzerman 87, Selanne 83, Lafontaine 83, Oates 78, Mogilny 78 (Jagr 71)
1994- Fedorov 81, Jagr 70, Recchi 69, Lindros 67, Gilmour 66, Gretzky 62 (won Ross), Oates 62
1995- Lindros 46, Jagr 45, Renberg 45, Zhamnov 40, Sakic 37, Francis 37, LeClair 37
1996- Jagr 95, Nedved 76, Lindros 75, Lemieux 73, Mogilny 71, Forsberg 70, Fedorov 65, Francis 63, Sakic 62, Kariya 61, LeClair 60, Selanne 59, Turgeon 59, Messier 58, Oates 58
1997- LeClair 81, Lemieux 79, Selanne 76, Jagr 67, Sundin 67, Gretzky 65
1998- Selanne 67, Jagr 64, Gretzky 60, LeClair 60, Bure 56
1999- Jagr 82, Lindros 65, LeClair 65, Demitra 60, Sakic 56, Kariya 55
2000- Bure 72, Jagr 67, Amonte 59, Sakic 58, Selanne 54, LeClair 53, Kariya 52
2001- Jagr 78, Sakic 66, Elias 64, Bure 59
2002- Iginla 64, Naslund 59, Lindros 57, Murray 56, Bertuzzi 55, Samsonov 55, Jagr 54
2006- Thornton 72, Jagr 71
Speaks for itself I think.

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-15-2012, 08:23 PM
  #143
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,950
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MS View Post


In 1998, the Sabres scored 11 goals in 6 games against Washington.

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

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

Again, in both of those seasons he was providing Conn Smythe-level utterly elite goaltending – as good as what Roy did – but his team just utterly crapped out offensively to kill their playoff runs. Frankly, it’s slightly surprising he didn’t win the Conn Smythe anyway in 1999 as his playoffs were only slightly off of Giguere’s 2003.
The Sabres scored 11 goals in 6 games and that was "practically unwinnable?" This is the height of the dead puck era. You would think that a Smythe-calibre goalie would be capable of winning a series like that in a low scoring era.

The Sabres actually outscored the Capitals in regulation through 6 games (11-10). The difference in the series? Olaf Kolzig and the Capitals won 3 games in overtime over Hasek and the Sabres.

There's a lot of revisionism going on about Hasek's 1999 playoffs too. What makes it more impressive than what Kolzig did in 1998? What about Vanbiesbrouck in 1996 or Irbe in 2002?

Quote:
As brilliant as Roy was, he always received excellent (and consistent) goal support in his long playoff runs. Hasek did not. This is the problem with saying that Roy is better based on playoff resume.
Did you not expect anyone to fact check this one either?

1986 playoffs. Habs win the Cup, scoring 56 goals in 20 games (2.80 GPG).
1989 playoffs. Habs lose in the finals, scoring 67 goals in 21 games (3.19 GPG).
1993 playoffs. Habs win the Cup, scoring 66 goals in 20 games (3.30 GPG), keeping in mind that 10 of those goals were in OT. They scored 56 in 20 (2.80 GPG) in regulation.

Roy's Avalanche teams provided him with great goal support, the Canadiens did not.

Compare to the three straight seasons Buffalo made the second round in the late 90s:

1997 playoffs. Sabres lose in the second round with Steve Shields playing. Sabres score 27 goals in 12 games (2.25 GPG).
1998 playoffs. Buffalo loses in the ECF to Kolzig and the Capitals. Sabres score 46 goals in 15 games (3.07 GPG). They score 36 goals in 9 games (4.00 GPG) through the two rounds that they win.
1999 playoffs. Buffalo loses in the finals to Belfour and the Stars. They score 59 goals in 21 games (2.81 GPG). They score 50 goals in 15 games (3.33) in the three rounds they won.

I trust I don't need to remind you of how much higher scoring the NHL was in 1986, 1989, and 1993 than it was in 1997, 1998, and 1999.

Talk about Montreal's great defense if you want, but Hasek received significantly better goal support in Buffalo than Roy received in Montreal during his long runs. Roy didn't start to receive great goal support until he was traded to Colorado.

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

1) removes 2 of Roy's Conn Smythes, and his 1989 season when he was every bit as good as Hasek in 1999.
2) ignores the fact that Roy's teams tended to advance deeper into the playoffs when both were #1 netminders, thus Roy's numbers include more games against better competition. This is somewhat countered by the fact that Hasek's Sabres were often (but NOT always) a lower seed.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-15-2012, 08:48 PM
  #144
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,950
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by struckbyaparkedcar View Post
Oh wait, but "the Montreal media" is to blame when Roy wants to skip town. ****ing precious.

And look, my point isn't that Roy specifically is a bad guy or anything, but that when all three of Hasek, Brodeur and Roy were faced with organizational instability beyond their control, they looked out for #1, not the team. Period. They just had to deal with different levels of dysfunction.
Not the "Montreal media" in general. Mario Tremblay, who was known as one of the biggest Roy-bashers in the Montreal media then became coach of the Canadiens.

There are also stories that, in practice, Tremblay would often make an example of his star goalie by calling him out for things he would let teammates get away with.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MS View Post
Yup.

In comparing Roy and Hasek, the 1996 Roy situation and the 1997 Hasek situation are so similar that you either knock both down equally for it or knock neither down at all.
Nonsense. Two ways they are different:

1) Roy's freakout was during the regular season. Hasek's was during the playoffs.
2) Hasek was still refusing to play for his team weeks later, after having a chance to cool off.

Quote:
You can either claim that Hasek's teams couldn't score, or that he faced ridiculous opposition goaltending, or a combination .... but again, whatever the situation, the fact of the matter is that Roy was never in that position during his Cup runs.
But you also need to recognize that when Buffalo actually did advance in the playoffs, they provided Hasek with excellent goal support.

Quote:
In his 4 Cups, Roy never had to win a playoff series where his team scored less than 2 goals/game. And looking over his career, it doesn't look like he ever won a playoff series in that position.

Hasek was put in the position for 3 of the 4 healthy, in-his-prime playoffs he had with Buffalo, where his team scored ~1.5 goals/game in the series they were eliminated.

So again, if Roy had won series (leading to Cups) where his team scored 1.5 goals/game over the course of the series, while Hasek did not ... fair enough, point for Roy. But that didn't happen.
Here is a more complete look at the series Buffalo lost when Hasek was in his prime.

Buffalo in 1994 scored 14 goals in a 7 game 1st round loss (2.00GPG)
Buffalo in 1995 scored 13 goals in a 5 game first round loss (2.60GPG), but Hasek blew it with the only truly bad playoffs of his prime, with an .863 save percentage.
(Buffalo in 1997 scored 13 goals in a 5 game second round loss with Steve Shields in net. Perhaps they would have had a better chance of advancing if Hasek decided to play).
Buffalo in 1998 scored 11 goals in a 6 round loss in the ECF (1.83 GPG). Washington actually scored 1 fewer goal in regulation, but Buffalo lost all 3 OT games.
Buffalo in 1999 scored 9 goals in a 6 round loss in the finals (1.50 GPG)
Buffalo in 2000 scored 8 goals in a 5 round first round loss. (1.60 GPG)
Buffalo in 2001 scored 17 goals in a 7 game second round loss. (2.43 GPG). Buffalo lost games 5 and 7 in OT and won game 6 in OT.

Again, it's two sides of the same coin. When the Sabres advanced, they provided Hasek with better goal support than the Canadiens provided Roy in 1986 before you even adjust for era. When they lost, they tended not to score as much.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-15-2012, 08:53 PM
  #145
struckbyaparkedcar
Zemgus Da Gawd
 
struckbyaparkedcar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Upstate NY
Country: Cote DIvoire
Posts: 10,469
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Not the "Montreal media" in general. Mario Tremblay, who was known as one of the biggest Roy-bashers in the Montreal media then became coach of the Canadiens.

There are also stories that, in practice, Tremblay would often make an example of his star goalie by calling him out for things he would let teammates get away with.
And Ted Nolan has had a grand total of one NHL job since, with a history of feuds and a noticeable persecution complex. And he got Muckler fired in the process of losing his spot in Buffalo, whom Hasek sided with.

Again, it's not that Roy didn't have it rough in Montreal, but anyone accusing Hasek of flaking in 97 is substantially underrating the amount of dysfunction going on in Buffalo.

struckbyaparkedcar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-15-2012, 09:31 PM
  #146
SaintPatrick33
Conn Smythe Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,044
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Not the "Montreal media" in general. Mario Tremblay, who was known as one of the biggest Roy-bashers in the Montreal media then became coach of the Canadiens.

There are also stories that, in practice, Tremblay would often make an example of his star goalie by calling him out for things he would let teammates get away with.
Tremblay also had a habit of firing pucks at Roy's throat in practice.....not something likely to endear him to Casseau.

SaintPatrick33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-15-2012, 09:41 PM
  #147
MS
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 12,009
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
The Sabres scored 11 goals in 6 games and that was "practically unwinnable?" This is the height of the dead puck era. You would think that a Smythe-calibre goalie would be capable of winning a series like that in a low scoring era.

The Sabres actually outscored the Capitals in regulation through 6 games (11-10). The difference in the series? Olaf Kolzig and the Capitals won 3 games in overtime over Hasek and the Sabres.

There's a lot of revisionism going on about Hasek's 1999 playoffs too. What makes it more impressive than what Kolzig did in 1998? What about Vanbiesbrouck in 1996 or Irbe in 2002?
Yeah, 11 goals in 6 games + 3 OTs is practically unwinnable.

How many series since the dead puck era began have been won by a team that scored less than 2 goals/game? I can think of one – Canucks against Dallas, 2007.

If your team scores less than 2 goals/game in an NHL playoff series, your chances of winning are next-to-nil. It’s like trying to come back from 3-0. For comparison’s sake, five times in his career (1988, 1990, 1997, 2000, 2002), Roy’s teams scored <2 goals/game in a playoff series in front of him. He lost all 5 series. Exact same story as Hasek.

As for those other goalies – yeah, they were great, too. Vanbiesbrouck’s 1996 playoffs is the biggest feather in any HHOF argument for him.

There have been many goalies who have produced dynamic, Conn Smythe-calibre goaltending in the playoffs at points of their career (.910-.920 pre-94, .930-.940 post-94). Some, like Hasek, have done it on underdog teams. Some, like Roy, on contending teams.


Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe
Did you not expect anyone to fact check this one either?

1986 playoffs. Habs win the Cup, scoring 56 goals in 20 games (2.80 GPG).
1989 playoffs. Habs lose in the finals, scoring 67 goals in 21 games (3.19 GPG).
1993 playoffs. Habs win the Cup, scoring 66 goals in 20 games (3.30 GPG), keeping in mind that 10 of those goals were in OT. They scored 56 in 20 (2.80 GPG) in regulation.

Roy's Avalanche teams provided him with great goal support, the Canadiens did not.

Compare to the three straight seasons Buffalo made the second round in the late 90s:

1997 playoffs. Sabres lose in the second round with Steve Shields playing. Sabres score 27 goals in 12 games (2.25 GPG).
1998 playoffs. Buffalo loses in the ECF to Kolzig and the Capitals. Sabres score 46 goals in 15 games (3.07 GPG). They score 36 goals in 9 games (4.00 GPG) through the two rounds that they win.
1999 playoffs. Buffalo loses in the finals to Belfour and the Stars. They score 59 goals in 21 games (2.81 GPG). They score 50 goals in 15 games (3.33) in the three rounds they won.

I trust I don't need to remind you of how much higher scoring the NHL was in 1986, 1989, and 1993 than it was in 1997, 1998, and 1999.

Talk about Montreal's great defense if you want, but Hasek received significantly better goal support in Buffalo than Roy received in Montreal during his long runs. Roy didn't start to receive great goal support until he was traded to Colorado.
You don’t win in the playoffs based on cumulative totals. Each round is unique.

The fact that Buffalo scored a bunch of goals in an early round doesn’t make a series where they scored almost nothing any more winnable.

Roy received *consistent* support. Again, he never had to win a series where his team scored less than 2 goals/game. 0 times in 20 rounds in years where he went to the Finals.

1986 was the only year where is goal support was really ‘low’, but it wasn’t ‘destitute’. His other 4 runs it was quite adequate at worst and then outstanding with Colorado.

Again, Roy was 0-5 when his team scored under 2 goals/game in the playoffs, too.

Hasek was simply never in the sorts of plum situations Roy was – on a contending team, getting quality goal support. Until 2002, when he was past his prime … and he won.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe
A comparison that

1) removes 2 of Roy's Conn Smythes, and his 1989 season when he was every bit as good as Hasek in 1999.
2) ignores the fact that Roy's teams tended to advance deeper into the playoffs when both were #1 netminders, thus Roy's numbers include more games against better competition. This is somewhat countered by the fact that Hasek's Sabres were often (but NOT always) a lower seed.
Absolutely. Again, nobody is arguing that Roy didn’t have more playoff success than Hasek did.

The point is that, in a nearly decade-long window where both guys won Cups, their numbers were nearly identical. Roy did it for longer, and on teams more geared for success. But was the actual level of their play much different? No, not really.

(2) is rubbish, though – Roy received a lot more ‘soft’ games in the early rounds against poor #7-8 seeds than Hasek did. It evens out.

MS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-15-2012, 10:01 PM
  #148
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 2,923
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vadim sharifijanov View Post
^ they had also been teammates, of course. any stories from those years?
Roommates.

And so far none have you have gotten the story behind Le Trade right.

First of all, the Canadiens traded Roy earlier in the season. Before it went through with the league, Corey fired Savard. Given his relationship with Lacroix, Roy likely knew this.

Second, Roy went to Corey, and while cameras picked up on it, it was Houle and Tremblay who told the media exactly what Roy had said. Roy had apologized both to the Canadiens and in a subsequent press conference for his reaction to Tremblay leaving him in net. Despite this, the Canadiens suspended him.

Third, Houle ultimately made the decision - not Roy. They sat Roy down and told him what they were doing.




The fact that we're comparing a playoff in which Hasek quit on his team to a season in which Roy won the Stanley Cup is kind of ridiculous...

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-15-2012, 10:12 PM
  #149
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 2,923
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MS View Post
You don’t win in the playoffs based on cumulative totals. Each round is unique.

The fact that Buffalo scored a bunch of goals in an early round doesn’t make a series where they scored almost nothing any more winnable.
You know that Kolzig and Belfour had higher save percentages than Hasek in their respective rounds, right? It wasn't just a matter of throwing more pucks on the Buffalo net; the opposition was stopping at a higher rate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MS View Post
Roy received *consistent* support. Again, he never had to win a series where his team scored less than 2 goals/game. 0 times in 20 rounds in years where he went to the Finals.
Removing the ENG against Hartford in Game 3 and the last minute goal in a 5-3 win in Game 5, and that's exactly what he did in 1986 - a year in which the average team scored more than double that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MS View Post
1986 was the only year where is goal support was really ‘low’, but it wasn’t ‘destitute’.
It was the lowest of any Stanley Cup winner between expansion and the 2005 lockout. 1993 was second lowest.

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-15-2012, 10:35 PM
  #150
MS
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 12,009
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Nonsense. Two ways they are different:

1) Roy's freakout was during the regular season. Hasek's was during the playoffs.
2) Hasek was still refusing to play for his team weeks later, after having a chance to cool off.
Hasek’s was tied to an injury. Most people (I think) believe he was actually hurt to some extent (Sabres’ staff diagnosed him with an mild MCL sprain), he just handled it incredibly strangely.

Hasek was also still with the team. He didn’t go home, didn’t demand a trade – just said he was hurt and couldn’t play. Which might well have been the truth.

Roy just utterly quit on his team. There is no grey area there.

In any case – like I said, I treat them in the same fashion. Both were flakes and drama queens who had one giant meltdown in their careers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe
But you also need to recognize that when Buffalo actually did advance in the playoffs, they provided Hasek with excellent goal support.

Here is a more complete look at the series Buffalo lost when Hasek was in his prime.

Buffalo in 1994 scored 14 goals in a 7 game 1st round loss (2.00GPG)
Buffalo in 1995 scored 13 goals in a 5 game first round loss (2.60GPG), but Hasek blew it with the only truly bad playoffs of his prime, with an .863 save percentage.
(Buffalo in 1997 scored 13 goals in a 5 game second round loss with Steve Shields in net. Perhaps they would have had a better chance of advancing if Hasek decided to play).
Buffalo in 1998 scored 11 goals in a 6 round loss in the ECF (1.83 GPG). Washington actually scored 1 fewer goal in regulation, but Buffalo lost all 3 OT games.
Buffalo in 1999 scored 9 goals in a 6 round loss in the finals (1.50 GPG)
Buffalo in 2000 scored 8 goals in a 5 round first round loss. (1.60 GPG)
Buffalo in 2001 scored 17 goals in a 7 game second round loss. (2.43 GPG). Buffalo lost games 5 and 7 in OT and won game 6 in OT.

Again, it's two sides of the same coin. When the Sabres advanced, they provided Hasek with better goal support than the Canadiens provided Roy in 1986 before you even adjust for era. When they lost, they tended not to score as much.
Again, it’s the losses that are the issue.

The goals don’t carry over, and Hasek was consistently left in a position where he would have had to have been utterly superhuman to allow his team to continue to advance (save 1995).

Hasek was 0-4 in series where his team scored <2 goals/game. Roy was 0-5. Problem for Hasek is that almost every season ended with his team drying up offensively.

Roy had more opportunities on better teams that didn’t hit an offensive wall as the playoffs went along.

MS 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 07:12 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.