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.

Hasek vs Roy in the 2002 Western Conference Finals

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-16-2012, 06:54 PM
  #26
struckbyaparkedcar
Zemgus Da Gawd
 
struckbyaparkedcar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Upstate NY
Country: Cote DIvoire
Posts: 13,680
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taco MacArthur View Post
Because I also know exactly what you meant (and I also know why you chose the word "gaffe").

If I may hazard a guess, I also know why you chose the phrase "Roy contingent" - because you see it as a Hasek vs. Roy streetfight, and you consider yourself a member of the "Hasek contingent". Is that accurate?
Nah.

I've defended each, Brodeur too, in various arguments across the boards here. I'm a Sabres' fan, and Hasek's my guy, but I don't really have a dogmatic love for any horse in this race, and the statistical back and fourth has been very enlightening.

I'm just questioning perceived double-standards that just happen to largely take place between Hasek/Roy. I'd wager that's because the claim each has to the throne overlaps way more.

struckbyaparkedcar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-16-2012, 06:59 PM
  #27
PhillyBluesFan
Registered User
 
PhillyBluesFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,700
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Dude!!!
The Sabres provided more offense to Hasek(2.81) that year than the Stars provided Belfour(2.78)! Not to mention that Brodeur received even less than either of them to win the Cup the following year in '00 (2.65GpG).
What part of that do you not understand?

And that the Habs only provided Roy with almost exactly the same goal support(2.80) in 1986 when scoring was a whopping 51% higher (5.27GpG in '99, 7.94GpG in '86).
The 86 Habs were superior defensively. Though.

PhillyBluesFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-16-2012, 07:27 PM
  #28
vadim sharifijanov
thanks chris
 
vadim sharifijanov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,371
vCash: 500
you know what, all this discussion and the roy/hasek '99 and 2000 discussion from the HOH goalie thread has made me rethink belfour. at his peak, which i take to be the back-to-back finals, he outplayed roy, then hasek in consecutive series to take the cup. then the next year he equalled roy (but the avs ran out of gas offensively in games 6 and 7) before finally being outplayed by brodeur. but even in the finals, except that disastrous game 1, belfour put up a 3OT shutout and won a 2-1 game when in his team only scored only one goal in the last four games, and only two goals in the game 2 win.

and i say this as someone who hated belfour since his rookie year in chicago (was rooting for roy and fedorov in '91, rooted for the sabres in '99, the devils in '00, and the avs both years).

vadim sharifijanov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-16-2012, 07:32 PM
  #29
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,407
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vadim sharifijanov View Post
you know what, all this discussion and the roy/hasek '99 and 2000 discussion from the HOH goalie thread has made me rethink belfour. at his peak, which i take to be the back-to-back finals, he outplayed roy, then hasek in consecutive series to take the cup. then the next year he equalled roy (but the avs ran out of gas offensively in games 6 and 7) before finally being outplayed by brodeur. but even in the finals, except that disastrous game 1, belfour put up a 3OT shutout and won a 2-1 game when in his team only scored only one goal in the last four games, and only two goals in the game 2 win.

and i say this as someone who hated belfour since his rookie year in chicago (was rooting for roy and fedorov in '91, rooted for the sabres in '99, the devils in '00, and the avs both years).
If Belfour was more consistent - if he didn't have down years between his Vezinas in Chicago and his Cups in Dallas, then have another down year before leaving Dallas - I think we'd be talking about the "big 4" rather than the "big 3" of Roy, Hasek, and Brodeur.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-16-2012, 09:07 PM
  #30
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,318
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhillyBluesFan View Post
The 86 Habs were superior defensively. Though.
To who?
'86 Habs were 4th in the league with 280GA

'99 Sabres were 2nd with 175GA

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-16-2012, 11:21 PM
  #31
ContrarianGoaltender
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 581
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
To who?
'86 Habs were 4th in the league with 280GA

'99 Sabres were 2nd with 175GA
The Habs allowed the fewest shots against in the league and were 4th in goals against.

The Sabres allowed the 23rd most shots against in the league, and were 2nd in goals against.

That's the impact of Hasek.

And I'm currently reading newspaper articles from 1986 and they are using words like "suffocating", "excellent", and "barbed-wire" to describe the Habs' defence.

ContrarianGoaltender is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-16-2012, 11:25 PM
  #32
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,407
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ContrarianGoaltender View Post
The Habs allowed the fewest shots against in the league and were 4th in goals against.

The Sabres allowed the 23rd most shots against in the league, and were 2nd in goals against.

That's the impact of Hasek.

And I'm currently reading newspaper articles from 1986 and they are using words like "suffocating", "excellent", and "barbed-wire" to describe the Habs' defence.
Yeah, I don't think a rookie Patrick Roy was that much of a difference-maker in the 1985-86 regular season. The narrative goes that his 1986 playoffs came out of nowhere, much like Dryden's 1971.

1985-86 Habs had a resurgent Larry Robinson and Bob Gainey, among others

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 01:31 AM
  #33
GuineaPig
Registered User
 
GuineaPig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Montréal
Posts: 2,210
vCash: 500
Also, people really need to stop using "goal support" as a measure of the strength of the team in front of a goalie because it's very misleading. Yeah, Buffalo scored 2% more goals per game in the '99 playoffs than Dallas. They also allowed 16% more shots (and 50% more shots on the PK).


As for the '02 playoffs, there's nothing much to be said. Great goalies can have terrible games. Though I do find it pretty funny that some who are positive that Roy has this innate, clutch ability to turn up his game to 11 when it really matters can reconcile that belief with the former one.

GuineaPig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 01:42 AM
  #34
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
Also, people really need to stop using "goal support" as a measure of the strength of the team in front of a goalie because it's very misleading. Yeah, Buffalo scored 2% more goals per game in the '99 playoffs than Dallas. They also allowed 16% more shots (and 50% more shots on the PK).


As for the '02 playoffs, there's nothing much to be said. Great goalies can have terrible games. Though I do find it pretty funny that some who are positive that Roy has this innate, clutch ability to turn up his game to 11 when it really matters can reconcile that belief with the former one.
When people say that "Hasek carried teams that couldn't score" I will continue to point out that in the playoffs, those teams could, in fact, score. You're absolutely right that we need to focus on defense (which is mostly but not entirely captured by shots allowed) just as much as goal support in determining how much help a goalie got.

As for the point that is relevant to this thread, Roy had a terrible game. It happens. It just happened less often with Roy than just about anyone else.


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 10-17-2012 at 02:48 AM.
TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 11:21 AM
  #35
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,318
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ContrarianGoaltender View Post
The Habs allowed the fewest shots against in the league and were 4th in goals against.

The Sabres allowed the 23rd most shots against in the league, and were 2nd in goals against.

That's the impact of Hasek.

And I'm currently reading newspaper articles from 1986 and they are using words like "suffocating", "excellent", and "barbed-wire" to describe the Habs' defence.
And not once have I debated the value of Hasek in the regular season but Hasek didn't have the same value in the playoffs that he had in the regular season.
Meanwhile, Roy almost always had more value in the playoffs than he did in the regular season.

And it's not just about being "given" opportunities either, that's a lame argument.
As Devil kinda touched on earlier with Belfour, both he and Brodeur were afforded opportunities that, if they had of taken of advantage of to the degree Roy did, this conversation wouldn't just be a two horse race.
It obviously takes more than just opportunity to amass a 151 PO wins, .616 PO winning%, .744 PO series winning%, an outrageous PO OT record of 40-16, 3 Conn Smythe's and 4 Cup rings.

Even though these numbers look good as it is, it's the context of these numbers vs his peers that is even more staggering.
People will argue that Roy only has that many wins because he played so many more games and while that is true, if you dig a little deeper you'll realise that out of the almost 40 more games played that Roy has on Brodeur, they are almost all wins.

We can go round and round on this all day, continue to make up excuses and rationalize for Hasek but the bottomlline is that Roy simply DID and most importantly, it's not just Hasek that he blew out of the water doing it.


(I wouldn't mind reading some of those papers about '86 and while you're at it, why don't you see what the papers were saying about the '93 Habs. I think you'll get a very different and unflattering story there )

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 11:43 AM
  #36
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 27,081
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
And it's not just about being "given" opportunities either, that's a lame argument.
Sure it is. And the "quality" of the chance (dictated in no small part by playoff seeding and resultant home ice advantage where applicable) is also a very real factor behind a team's chance to make it further than 1 round in the playoffs. Division leaders are going to enjoy home ice for at least the 1st round, giving them a much better chance at seeing two rounds instead of just one, for starters. From then on, sure, it's gets a little more complicated, but from the very start, we know that teams finishing the regular season high enough in the standings enjoy an advantage that is both tangible in last changes at home, familiar building, no travel, etc, AND I imagine it bears out statistically when looking historically at the % of higher seeds (specifically the modern 1, 2, 3 division leaders) that survive round 1 vs the number of "upsets".

So, Roy playing on a team that was a division leader in all 8 of his seasons there definitely provided him with an advantage when it comes to opportunities to amass not only playoff games played, but also obviously playoff wins (of any kind, be they "run-of-the-mill" or extraordinary/particularly impressive). Now, you can try to say that they finished seeded that high because of Roy, but how do we reconcile that with the fact that everyone seems to agree that Hasek was demonstrably the better regular season goalie most of that time, and yet enjoyed only season (I believe) where his team started the playoffs with home ice advantage until he joined Detroit (and consequently had enough opportunities to amass 2 Cups/rings)?

Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 11:57 AM
  #37
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,318
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
Sure it is. And the "quality" of the chance (dictated in no small part by playoff seeding and resultant home ice advantage where applicable) is also a very real factor behind a team's chance to make it further than 1 round in the playoffs. Division leaders are going to enjoy home ice for at least the 1st round, giving them a much better chance at seeing two rounds instead of just one, for starters. From then on, sure, it's gets a little more complicated, but from the very start, we know that teams finishing the regular season high enough in the standings enjoy an advantage that is both tangible in last changes at home, familiar building, no travel, etc, AND I imagine it bears out statistically when looking historically at the % of higher seeds (specifically the modern 1, 2, 3 division leaders) that survive round 1 vs the number of "upsets".

So, Roy playing on a team that was a division leader in all 8 of his seasons there definitely provided him with an advantage when it comes to opportunities to amass not only playoff games played, but also obviously playoff wins (of any kind, be they "run-of-the-mill" or extraordinary/particularly impressive). Now, you can try to say that they finished seeded that high because of Roy, but how do we reconcile that with the fact that everyone seems to agree that Hasek was demonstrably the better regular season goalie most of that time, and yet enjoyed only season (I believe) where his team started the playoffs with home ice advantage until he joined Detroit (and consequently had enough opportunities to amass 2 Cups/rings)?
AND again, my whole point was that it takes more than just opportunity as demonstrated by Brodeur and Belfour.

You're still talking coulda, shoulda, woulda.

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 12:05 PM
  #38
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 27,081
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
AND again, my whole point was that it takes more than just opportunity as demonstrated by Brodeur and Belfour.

You're still talking coulda, shoulda, woulda.
No more than you're talking couldn'ta, shouldn'ta, wouldn'ta, if you think about it, which is no more valid anyway, since ultimately I thought we were concerned with the relative level of play of either individual during whichever time period for the purpose of comparison.

Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 12:20 PM
  #39
struckbyaparkedcar
Zemgus Da Gawd
 
struckbyaparkedcar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Upstate NY
Country: Cote DIvoire
Posts: 13,680
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
When people say that "Hasek carried teams that couldn't score" I will continue to point out that in the playoffs, those teams could, in fact, score. You're absolutely right that we need to focus on defense (which is mostly but not entirely captured by shots allowed) just as much as goal support in determining how much help a goalie got.

As for the point that is relevant to this thread, Roy had a terrible game. It happens. It just happened less often with Roy than just about anyone else.
And people will continue to bring up that scoring A) being terrible on-paper and B) completely drying up in the series Hasek lost.

And again, the historical implications Roy's game 7 was never really relevant to the point of my posts which started this thread, which was to talk about the divergence in narratives between the 99 SCF, where Hasek lost to a better team while providing elite-level goaltending and the 2002 WCF, where Roy lost to a better team while being sub-par in two must win games.

struckbyaparkedcar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 12:23 PM
  #40
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,318
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
No more than you're talking couldn'ta, shouldn'ta, wouldn'ta, if you think about it, which is no more valid anyway, since ultimately I thought we were concerned with the relative level of play of either individual during whichever time period for the purpose of comparison.
No because having opportunities and taking advantage of them are two entirely separate things.

Not once but twice Hasek squandered opportunities in the playoffs with questionable injuries.
What about 06/07 while playing for the 113 point Wings and he couldn't even get them into the finals?
Also, everyone keeps talking about the team of "grinders" and "no names" that Hasek played with in Buffalo in the late 90's and took to the finals in '99.
"On paper" they didn't look like much yet looking at Buffalo from 93/94-95/96, "on paper" they should of been the better team based on personnel and name recognition but they weren't.

And by all means keep bringing up Hasek's 2nd ring where he lost his job to Osgood and rode the bench for 3 rounds.

Hasek, just like Brodeur and Belfour most definitely had opportunities (more than you're letting on for sure) but neither him nor anyone else took advantage of those opportunities to the level Roy DID!


Last edited by Rhiessan71: 10-17-2012 at 12:33 PM.
Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 12:31 PM
  #41
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,318
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by struckbyaparkedcar View Post
And people will continue to bring up that scoring A) being terrible on-paper and B) completely drying up in the series Hasek lost.

And again, the historical implications Roy's game 7 was never really relevant to the point of my posts which started this thread, which was to talk about the divergence in narratives between the 99 SCF, where Hasek lost to a better team while providing elite-level goaltending and the 2002 WCF, where Roy lost to a better team while being sub-par in two must win games.
Lets not exaggerate here, he was sup-par in only one game, game 7 and the whole team got shelled getting out shot 30-19.

And as far as '99 goes, I don't believe anyone is blaming Hasek for not winning that series. Belfour simply turned it up to Roy like levels to shut the door in the final 2 games and there's nothing Hasek could f done about that.
The biggest difference between the two, as I pointed out to you already I might add, is that Belfour turned it up a notch to close out that series in '99. Hasek did not and did not have to turn it up to beat Roy and the Av's in '02. If he had been able to turn it up a notch like Belfour in '99, that series wouldn't of gone past 4-5 games.
Both Roy in '02 vs the Wings and Hasek in '99 vs the Stars extended those series further than their teams had business being in but again it wasn't Hasek's goaltending in '02 that won the day for the Wings but it was Belfour's goaltending in '99 that did in the Sabres.
THAT is the difference.


Last edited by Rhiessan71: 10-17-2012 at 12:42 PM.
Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 01:24 PM
  #42
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,407
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by struckbyaparkedcar View Post
And people will continue to bring up that scoring A) being terrible on-paper and B) completely drying up in the series Hasek lost.

And again, the historical implications Roy's game 7 was never really relevant to the point of my posts which started this thread, which was to talk about the divergence in narratives between the 99 SCF, where Hasek lost to a better team while providing elite-level goaltending and the 2002 WCF, where Roy lost to a better team while being sub-par in two must win games.
But what's the point of comparing a series Hasek played well in and lost with one of the worst series of Roy's career?

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 01:37 PM
  #43
vadim sharifijanov
thanks chris
 
vadim sharifijanov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 13,371
vCash: 500
^ yeah. why not compare roy's series vs. the stars in the 2000 WCF to hasek's 1999 SCF against almost the exact same team?

identical GAA. both guys had sub-2.00 goal support. both guys were beaten by the same goalie at the peak of his powers. neither guy was at fault and both performed amazingly. the difference is that that's close to an average playoff season for roy, but it's the pinnacle of hasek's success.

vadim sharifijanov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 08:51 PM
  #44
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 27,081
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Lets not exaggerate here, he was sup-par in only one game, game 7 and the whole team got shelled getting out shot 30-19.

And as far as '99 goes, I don't believe anyone is blaming Hasek for not winning that series. Belfour simply turned it up to Roy like levels to shut the door in the final 2 games and there's nothing Hasek could f done about that.
The biggest difference between the two, as I pointed out to you already I might add, is that Belfour turned it up a notch to close out that series in '99. Hasek did not and did not have to turn it up to beat Roy and the Av's in '02. If he had been able to turn it up a notch like Belfour in '99, that series wouldn't of gone past 4-5 games.
Both Roy in '02 vs the Wings and Hasek in '99 vs the Stars extended those series further than their teams had business being in but again it wasn't Hasek's goaltending in '02 that won the day for the Wings but it was Belfour's goaltending in '99 that did in the Sabres.
THAT is the difference.
Are you even serious? You and that quoipourqui (or whatever) guy go on to no end alluding to how Roy "raises his level" in the playoffs, and I've seen the comparative SV% tables thrown around as proof. Now, of course credit goes to Belfour out-dueling beast mode Hasek, but to suggest Hasek didn't also "turn it up"? Hasek shattered the record for single season SV% in '99 with 0.937. Care to guess what his SV% was between the series tying game 4 and those last two games? 0.951.

That's right, the guy who just set an obscene SV% record in the regular season turned it up even more once they got down 2-1 in the series playing (what hopefully wouldn't be their last game) at home, finished out the series stopping 97 of 102 shots faced, forced triple overtime in a 1-1 Cup Final elimination game... and they still lost. Heck, even if you want to focus on those two losses, he stopped 67/72 (0.931) which isn't exactly much of a drop from record-breaking level...

In fact, his SV% for the whole Cup Final series was even slightly higher than his (then) regular season record, at 0.939 (vs 0.937... so no meaningful difference, but still). So to suggest that Hasek didn't turn it up to an obscenely high level, and point to the team result (elimination) or another relatively high level performance (Belfour's) as some sort of proof or legitimate interpretation, is just ridiculous and completely disingenuous toward an unbiased discussion. And in fact, contrary to your claim opening your second paragraph, I believe you are, in fact, penalizing (if not "blaming") Hasek for not winning that series, because it took one of the most amazing playoff goaltending performances of modern times to beat him.

Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 08:55 PM
  #45
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 27,081
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vadim sharifijanov View Post
^ yeah. why not compare roy's series vs. the stars in the 2000 WCF to hasek's 1999 SCF against almost the exact same team?

identical GAA. both guys had sub-2.00 goal support. both guys were beaten by the same goalie at the peak of his powers. neither guy was at fault and both performed amazingly. the difference is that that's close to an average playoff season for roy, but it's the pinnacle of hasek's success.
Well, it wasn't exactly the pinnacle of his success, since he ultimately won Cups afterwards. I'd call it pretty close to the pinnacle of his ability/level of play, though, taken from day 1 of regular season to the Final elimination game as a whole. Definitely speaks volumes about the supporting casts around either (and the opponents, to be fair), wouldn't you say?

Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 09:01 PM
  #46
Morgoth Bauglir
Master Of The Fates
 
Morgoth Bauglir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Angband via Utumno
Posts: 3,574
vCash: 500
Prehaps this thread might be helpfull:
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh....php?t=1185967

Morgoth Bauglir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 09:02 PM
  #47
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,318
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
Are you even serious? You and that quoipourqui (or whatever) guy go on to no end alluding to how Roy "raises his level" in the playoffs, and I've seen the comparative SV% tables thrown around as proof. Now, of course credit goes to Belfour out-dueling beast mode Hasek, but to suggest Hasek didn't also "turn it up"? Hasek shattered the record for single season SV% in '99 with 0.937. Care to guess what his SV% was between the series tying game 4 and those last two games? 0.951.

That's right, the guy who just set an obscene SV% record in the regular season turned it up even more once they got down 2-1 in the series playing (what hopefully wouldn't be their last game) at home, finished out the series stopping 97 of 102 shots faced, forced triple overtime in a 1-1 Cup Final elimination game... and they still lost. Heck, even if you want to focus on those two losses, he stopped 67/72 (0.931) which isn't exactly much of a drop from record-breaking level...

In fact, his SV% for the whole Cup Final series was even slightly higher than his (then) regular season record, at 0.939 (vs 0.937... so no meaningful difference, but still). So to suggest that Hasek didn't turn it up to an obscenely high level, and point to the team result (elimination) or another relatively high level performance (Belfour's) as some sort of proof or legitimate interpretation, is just ridiculous and completely disingenuous toward an unbiased discussion. And in fact, contrary to your claim opening your second paragraph, I believe you are, in fact, penalizing (if not "blaming") Hasek for not winning that series, because it took one of the most amazing playoff goaltending performances of modern times to beat him.
You can read infer or twist what I wrote anyway you want but I think I was pretty clear so...

At the end of the day, the proof is in the pudding, Hasek owns the regular season accolades while Roy owns the post season ones and no amount of whining, excuses or revisionism is going to change that for either one of them.
As far as Roy consistently raising his level in the playoffs, that is actually fact my friend, easily proven by his higher just about everything in the playoffs compared to his regular seasons.

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 09:03 PM
  #48
Wrath
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,929
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
Are you even serious? You and that quoipourqui (or whatever) guy go on to no end alluding to how Roy "raises his level" in the playoffs, and I've seen the comparative SV% tables thrown around as proof. Now, of course credit goes to Belfour out-dueling beast mode Hasek, but to suggest Hasek didn't also "turn it up"? Hasek shattered the record for single season SV% in '99 with 0.937. Care to guess what his SV% was between the series tying game 4 and those last two games? 0.951.

That's right, the guy who just set an obscene SV% record in the regular season turned it up even more once they got down 2-1 in the series playing (what hopefully wouldn't be their last game) at home, finished out the series stopping 97 of 102 shots faced, forced triple overtime in a 1-1 Cup Final elimination game... and they still lost. Heck, even if you want to focus on those two losses, he stopped 67/72 (0.931) which isn't exactly much of a drop from record-breaking level...

In fact, his SV% for the whole Cup Final series was even slightly higher than his (then) regular season record, at 0.939 (vs 0.937... so no meaningful difference, but still). So to suggest that Hasek didn't turn it up to an obscenely high level, and point to the team result (elimination) or another relatively high level performance (Belfour's) as some sort of proof or legitimate interpretation, is just ridiculous and completely disingenuous toward an unbiased discussion. And in fact, contrary to your claim opening your second paragraph, I believe you are, in fact, penalizing (if not "blaming") Hasek for not winning that series, because it took one of the most amazing playoff goaltending performances of modern times to beat him.
I'm not going to get into this debate as I'm not as well versed as any of you on this subject.... but did you just use a three game sample size as proof of "turning it up" in the playoffs?

So any goalie that puts up a high save percentage for three consecutive playoff games is a goalie that turns it up to an "obscenely high level" in the playoffs?


Anyways I think the point people are trying to make with Roy and the playoffs is that he "turned it up" to an "obscenely high level" numerous times in the playoffs...

Wrath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 09:22 PM
  #49
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 27,081
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrath View Post
I'm not going to get into this debate as I'm not as well versed as any of you on this subject.... but did you just use a three game sample size as proof of "turning it up" in the playoffs?

So any goalie that puts up a high save percentage for three consecutive playoff games is a goalie that turns it up to an "obscenely high level" in the playoffs?


Anyways I think the point people are trying to make with Roy and the playoffs is that he "turned it up" to an "obscenely high level" numerous times in the playoffs...
The point is that it's the same statistical "proof" method that has been used to favour Roy elsewhere, and this is what it bears out for Hasek. And no, the point isn't to inflate the meaning of a 0.951 SV% over a 3 game sample. The point is, though, that in these situations which Roy's teams have prevailed, Hasek's have not, and yet that says nothing about how either should compare relative to the other, since they have both on occasion measurably picked up their play (even from a level which couldn't reasonably be expected to surpass). In this case, Hasek measurably played at about the same level that he did for the entire record-breaking regular season... and yet that's not good enough to compare with any of Roy's performances as an individual in the playoffs because... his team ultimately lost, and Conn Smythes instantly erase any and all notion of the rest of the team's contribution to winning?

I think the concept is lost on many, about just what kind of player that would have to have been, to insert in Hasek's place, and turn that into a series where Buffalo not only perseveres longer, but ultimately prevails over Dallas. Ultimately the differences in the teams stack up to much more in the way of deciding differences (imo, of course) than anything we can say in a quantifiable way about the evaluation of "absolute level on play" of either goalie - even in the playoffs. Basically, even as a Habs fan and childhood Roy fanboy, I can't accept even "prime" Roy as a "no-brainer" pick over "prime" Hasek if I'm choosing a playoff goalie, let alone have that translate into rationale for ranking him (Roy) higher "overall".


Last edited by Ohashi_Jouzu: 10-17-2012 at 09:27 PM.
Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-17-2012, 10:11 PM
  #50
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,318
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
The point is that it's the same statistical "proof" method that has been used to favour Roy elsewhere, and this is what it bears out for Hasek. And no, the point isn't to inflate the meaning of a 0.951 SV% over a 3 game sample. The point is, though, that in these situations which Roy's teams have prevailed, Hasek's have not, and yet that says nothing about how either should compare relative to the other, since they have both on occasion measurably picked up their play (even from a level which couldn't reasonably be expected to surpass). In this case, Hasek measurably played at about the same level that he did for the entire record-breaking regular season... and yet that's not good enough to compare with any of Roy's performances as an individual in the playoffs because... his team ultimately lost, and Conn Smythes instantly erase any and all notion of the rest of the team's contribution to winning?

I think the concept is lost on many, about just what kind of player that would have to have been, to insert in Hasek's place, and turn that into a series where Buffalo not only perseveres longer, but ultimately prevails over Dallas. Ultimately the differences in the teams stack up to much more in the way of deciding differences (imo, of course) than anything we can say in a quantifiable way about the evaluation of "absolute level on play" of either goalie - even in the playoffs. Basically, even as a Habs fan and childhood Roy fanboy, I can't accept even "prime" Roy as a "no-brainer" pick over "prime" Hasek if I'm choosing a playoff goalie, let alone have that translate into rationale for ranking him (Roy) higher "overall".
See this is what you don't get, the "proof" is not in save%, the "proof" is in Roy's almost obscene and at times, outright obscene playoff records and accomplishments.
His playoff wins, his PO winning %, his ridiculous PO series winning % and his even more ridiculous PO OT record are so far ahead of anyone else with more/equal opportunity or not, it's not even funny.
You keep forgetting that Roy's accolades don't just bury Hasek, they bury EVERYBODY period!

And no one needs to cherry pick a series here or a block of games there citing save %'s with Roy to show why he is the playoff king!
Whether he was on an average team, a good team or a great team, it didn't matter. He came, he saw and kicked everyone's ass!

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 10:44 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.