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 : Head-to-Head (Game-by-Game)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-26-2013, 12:41 PM
  #26
nik jr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country: Congo-Kinshasa
Posts: 10,798
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
That's akin to saying that because Wayne Gretzky had great seasons in the 1990, 1991, 1992, and 1994, we should assume that his prime had not yet ended and the players who beat him out for the Hart Trophy and Lester B. Pearson Award could be considered to have been competition for him in, say, the early-to-mid 1980s.

Asking for any top-20 player to perfectly follow a mythical "general pattern" or career trajectory is unreasonable, because they're not a general player.
gretzky's decline is completely consistent with the usual pattern of F's peaking in their mid 20s and declining around age 30, and he also had a back injury in 1991 which weakened him throughout his later career. gretzky also played more than average b/c of long playoffs and canada cups.

i recognize that the pattern has hundreds of exceptions, but i don't see any reason to think roy started to decline in 1992. it seems to me just too convenient for the reasons i mentioned earlier.

another piece of evidence is that roy's backups had better numbers in that period than they did in other parts of their careers.

Quote:
Considering he wouldn't have won another Vezina with or without Hasek, yes, I believe people would still acknowledge that he had peaked somewhere between 1988-1992 while still finding the switch to become that goaltender again every Spring.
i don't think it is surprising that his relative numbers are worse, since roy in montreal played for the best defensive team with fewest PP's against, in an offensive period and with weaker competition, whereas later he played for a more offensive team in a defensive period against stronger competition.

i think you can also make a strong argument that GM's often shortchanged roy in vezina voting.


i think several of roy's seasons after '92 were certainly good enough to win before '93. certainly '94, '97 and '02. roy had a relatively mediocre '93 (though obviously not in playoffs), and his troubles in mid '90s with crumbling habs are well known.

although roy's rank in sv% was rarely in top 2 or 3 after '92, it was often very close, and i don't think there was much of a difference between roy in late '90s and the vezina finalists. even from '97-'03, roy's sv% was 2nd among goalies with 200 games. among goalies with 100 games, roy was 4th after turco, hasek and cechmanek, and turco was a backup for 2 of those 3 seasons.


difference in sv% between roy and vezina runner up brodeur in '97 and '98 is probably mostly due to NJD's superior team D and fewer PP's allowed (NJD allowed 100 fewer than colorado in each season).

in '99, roy was near the top in ES sv%, ahead of joseph and dafoe, but his overall numbers were pulled down by PK. montreal's avoidance of penalties and usually strong PK would limit that effect.

in 2000, roy's 10th place in sv% does not look great, but he was only .005 behind the leader, which is not a big difference. roy's ES sv% was better than the goalies with higher sv%, but not as good on PK. with dallas' PKers, which i think set a record that season, roy would probably have won the vezina.


roy's numbers would probably look better in the vs X systems that have become common in the all time draft, instead of the usual top 10, top 20 rankings.




i can't say when roy's prime ended. it's entirely reasonable that it ended in mid or late '90s. the question is complicated by many things: habs' decline in mid '90s, increasingly defensive style of NHL, arrival of more and more europeans and americans, increase in size of goalies' equipment, proliferation of butterfly goaltending.



Quote:
Well it certainly didn't help his numbers any, but he was winning save percentage titles by huge margins.
why would it not help his numbers?

roy's backups during that period posted better numbers in montreal than elsewhere.

hayward in montreal: .889
hayward elsewhere: .863

racicot '90-'92 in montreal: .889
racicot during rest of career: .873


habs allowed fewest PP's in every season from '84-'92, other than '87 and '88. and in '87 and '88, they were only 1 from the lead.

i am fairly sure these teams allowed fewest PP's from '87-'92.

habs: 1922
vancouver: 2127
capitals: 2134
STL: 2140
TML: 2240

average PP's allowed during that span: 386.5
habs' average PP's allowed during that span: 320


Quote:
Funny, that's exactly how I would describe Terry Sawchuk.
sawchuk was an alcoholic who suffered from depression, had troubles with his family and was regularly injured. he had many, many problems. sawchuk also contracted mononucleosis in 1956 or 1957, which can cause long term problems. halfway through '57, he retired, citing "nerves."

but that disparity between sawchuk before and after the trade to boston is one of the reasons sawchuk has been viewed skeptically by some posters. sawchuk's numbers often did not stand out a lot from his backups.

sawchuk was apparently outstanding for boston in '57, though. b/c of the mid-season and post-season voting system, sawchuk was nearly a hart finalist despite playing only 34 games.

the arrival of hall, plante, worsley and bower probably also contributed to sawchuk's lesser results in all star voting. sawchuk's competition in early '50s (rayner, lumley, rollins, henry, mcneil) is widely considered not as good.



another question is how much sawchuk benefited from the small and unbalanced state of the league at the time.

early '50s sawchuk was the only goalie who did not have to play the most dominant line to that point in history, with howe, lindsay and red kelly at their peaks. kelly scored as much as a 1st line F. DRW also had very good depth beside their elite players. every other goaler had his stats pulled down by having to face them 14 times every season.


Quote:
And which series are they going to win that they didn't already win? The one where they could only beat Roy 7 times in 153 shots after having a 2-0 lead (1999)? The one where they could only beat Roy 7 times in 144 shots, period? Where does it become one-sided?
i think DRW could have won all those series. hardest would be 2000 certainly, since they only scored 8g in 5 games, and 1 was EN. 2000 was also the start of hasek's decline after his groin injury.

but even winning 4 of 5 series i think qualifies as a one sided rivalry.

roy was certainly not unbeatable in '96. he was at .905 for WCF, and had a couple of bad games.

ranford totally melted down after very good play in games 1 and 2 in '99. teams generally don't play very well when their goaltending turns to crap, and teams generally play with more confidence when they are not worrying about their goalie. after game 2, DRW's goalies allowed 19 GA on 117 shots (.838).

nik jr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-26-2013, 02:43 PM
  #27
pluppe
Registered User
 
pluppe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 693
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taco MacArthur View Post
For Roy:

http://hockeygoalies.org/bio/nhl/montreal.html
http://hockeygoalies.org/bio/nhl/colorado.html

For Hasek:

http://hockeygoalies.org/bio/nhl/chicago.html
http://hockeygoalies.org/bio/nhl/buffalo.html
http://hockeygoalies.org/bio/nhl/ottawa.html
http://hockeygoalies.org/bio/nhl/detroit.html

I'd probably use z-score as the metric of choice in an "against backups" comparison (since GD and GAR are weighted by playing time). By that metric, Roy matched Hayward in 1986-87 (his age-21 season) and then pulled away.

I've got the data necessary to do a "strength of schedule" - which may be important here - and it's going to be a summer project.
Thank you very much, These numbers seem to underscore Haseks regular season dominance and that Roy was a bit better in the postseason.

But do I understand it correctly when thinking that the advantage of playing less against the PP is not adjusted for in the Z-score?

Would love to see that study by the way!

pluppe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-26-2013, 02:56 PM
  #28
Bear of Bad News
Mod Supervisor
 
Bear of Bad News's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Windsor
Posts: 5,428
vCash: 663
These don't include adjustments for proportion of time spent at even strength, shorthanded, and on the power play - although it could be done (I'd probably need to do it on a team-wide basis in order to be consistent for older seasons where that information isn't available at a goaltender-level basis).

I'll put something up once I've got the strength of competition thing cracked.

Bear of Bad News is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-26-2013, 03:35 PM
  #29
pluppe
Registered User
 
pluppe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 693
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taco MacArthur View Post
These don't include adjustments for proportion of time spent at even strength, shorthanded, and on the power play - although it could be done (I'd probably need to do it on a team-wide basis in order to be consistent for older seasons where that information isn't available at a goaltender-level basis).

I'll put something up once I've got the strength of competition thing cracked.
Thats how I read it (hated statistics when I was studying). So thank you very much for doing this

pluppe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-26-2013, 03:43 PM
  #30
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,572
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nik jr View Post
i don't see why roy's prime should be considered to end in '92. it seems very unlikely to me, based on roy's usually very high level of play a decade later, and the general pattern of goalies not peaking early and then declining in their mid 20s.

more evidence that roy's prime did not end in '92 is that he was 2nd to hasek in sv% from '93-'03 (among goalies with 200 games), was a vezina finalist in '94, '97 and '02, was 4th in vezina voting in '03, 5th in '98, was a hart finalist in '02, and won 2 conn smythes.

if hasek had never come to NHL, i don't think more than a few people would even make an argument that roy's prime ended in '92.
I would argue that Roy's prime ended in 1994; 1995 was the first year he did not finish top-ten in save percentage - due both to team decline and his own poorer play. The next season he was dealt to the second-best team in the league, and jumped back into the top ten; but the team was better than most he had played for and in the regular season he wasn't the same Roy that received a Vezina nomination in 1994. Perhaps in 96-97 that could be argued (one could easily make the argument that Ozolinsh was a first-team All-Star due to Roy), but he was not conistently top-three as he was from 1988 through 1994 (save for his "down" year of 1993).

Quote:
roy would not have to play worse for the rivalry to be one sided. DRW's goalies were a problem in all those series.

DRW's sv% in those series vs colorado
'96: .859 --- (osgood)
'97: .905 --- (vernon, osgood)
'99: .886 --- (ranford, maracle, injured osgood)
'00: .9055 -- (osgood)
'02: .923 --- (hasek)
Hasek on Detroit playing like he did in the 1999 playoffs certainly puts Detroit ahead in 1996, and possibly one or both of 99 and 00, and further ahead in 97. It definitely becomes more one-sided. At the same time, if Osgood were in net and played as he did in 1998 (save for the first couple of games of the playoffs), or even moreso 1999 (pre-injury), 2008 or 2009, it is just as one-sided as it would be with Hasek.

Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
That's akin to saying that because Wayne Gretzky had great seasons in the 1990, 1991, 1992, and 1994, we should assume that his prime had not yet ended and the players who beat him out for the Hart Trophy and Lester B. Pearson Award could be considered to have been competition for him in, say, the early-to-mid 1980s.
Gretzky's prime ended after the 1990-91 season. It could be argued that his prime would have been extended had Suter not wrecked him in the Canada Cup, but we don't know. Much like Yzerman and the Steen hit in 1993-94; Yzerman quite possibly could have been the dominant offensive force of the 1990s instead of Jagr if not for that hit (outside of his playing style change, the back injury affected his shot and therefore took him out of the "elite goal scorer" category).

Quote:
Considering he wouldn't have won another Vezina with or without Hasek, yes, I believe people would still acknowledge that he had peaked somewhere between 1988-1992 while still finding the switch to become that goaltender again every Spring.
Peak and prime are vastly different. Mark Messier arguably hit his peak in 1989-90, when he was almost 30. It could be argued that he was better in 87-88, but didn't have the same PP opportunity; but nevertheless his "best season" was 89-90. Jaromir Jagr's best season was also at almost 30. Ron Francis hit his peak in his mid 30s (granted, he was with Jagr, but he was still playing the best hockey of his career in 94-95). But many top offensive players hit their (offensive) peaks in their early to mid 20s; Steve Yzerman peaked at 23. So did Sergei Fedorov. Alex Ovechkin was 21 when he scored 65.

Quote:
And which series are they going to win that they didn't already win? The one where they could only beat Roy 7 times in 153 shots after having a 2-0 lead (1999)? The one where they could only beat Roy 7 times in 144 shots, period? Where does it become one-sided?
If Osgood had been healthy and played the whole series in 1999, the Wings are far more likely to win that series. Osgood had a .948 against Anaheim; that's 30 points higher that Roy's first-round sv%, and ten points higher than what Roy had in the second round. He was Detroit's best player that playoffs, and when he was injured it pretty much killed all hope of another Cup that season. The results of the first two games of the Colorado were more due to excellent play by Detroit's defense than Ranford's play. He was "adequate" in those games, and in the next two games he was terribad (pulled both times, 8 goals in 38 shots ). Osgood was put in because Ranford and Maracle were terrible (too bad we didn't keep Hodson!) and Osgood's movement was pretty limited due to his injury. Osgood playing at the level that got him a .948 in round one wins Detroit the series (Osgood doesn't blow games 3 and 4 the way Ranford did, where Detroit scored 3 and 2 goals on 47 and 33 shots, respectively). Detroit matched up well against Dallas, so there's a good chance the Wings win that series as well. And Buffalo wouldn't have fared any better against Detroit than they did against Dallas.

Obviously, 1999-esque Hasek is the same as I've outlined with a healthy Osgood in 1999; unlikely (at minimum) to blow that 2-0 lead; thus putting Detroit in line for a 4-0 sweep (or perhaps 4-1, regardless a significant series win). Three in a row; four if you also flip the 1996 series (Detroit would have murdered Florida just as hard.)

It definitely puts a light on how Osgood's inexperience vs. Colorado's sick offense in 1996, combined with Osgood's injury/Ranford's meltdown in 1999 potentially cost the Wings the label as a "true" dynasty. Imagine... five straight finals, four straight Cups, five Cups in seven. Plus one of the best seasons ever. They were (possibly) an improved goaltending performance in 96 and a lack of goaltending injury in 99 away from that.

pdd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-26-2013, 03:52 PM
  #31
quoipourquoi
Moderator
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 6,322
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nik jr View Post
i think DRW could have won all those series. hardest would be 2000 certainly, since they only scored 8g in 5 games, and 1 was EN.
Yeah, I imagine that would be a hard series to win. So why do you think they could have? Buffalo provided Hasek with 8 goals of support in 5 games against Philadelphia that year, so if that's not enough to out-duel Brian Boucher...


Quote:
Originally Posted by nik jr View Post
ranford totally melted down after very good play in games 1 and 2 in '99. teams generally don't play very well when their goaltending turns to crap, and teams generally play with more confidence when they are not worrying about their goalie.
So shouldn't they have been playing with confidence going into two home games with a 2-0 series lead with the way Ranford was playing (65 saves on 67 shots) instead of letting Patrick Roy eat their lunch in four-straight?


Quote:
Originally Posted by nik jr View Post
roy was certainly not unbeatable in '96. he was at .905 for WCF, and had a couple of bad games.
I know that a .905 is supposed to provoke some sort of negative reaction since we're a few years away from that being a respectable number, but considering the average save percentage against the Red Wings that season was .877, a .905 against the 62-win team is rather good, particularly because it's a win-loaded .905:

In the four wins: .959 on 121 shots
In the two losses: .771 on 48 shots

Detroit blew the doors off his house twice, but they couldn't get anything on him in the other four games (which was the story in 1999 as well). The playoffs aren't a race to have the best cumulative save percentage; it's better to give all of the goals in one or two games than to spread it out over all six. So I don't know that I buy that a playoff rivalry in which the Avalanche won 17 games to the Red Wings' 13 is going to become lopsided in the other direction.


Quote:
Originally Posted by nik jr View Post
another piece of evidence is that roy's backups had better numbers in that period than they did in other parts of their careers.
I don't think anyone disagrees that Brian Hayward played well for Montreal in 1987 and 1988, hence the team handing him the keys in the playoffs after Roy's first loss in each respective run. But don't pretend that Roy didn't pull away from Hayward when he won his first two Vezinas while they were still on the same defensive team:

1989
Roy: 33-5-6, 2.47, .908
Hayward: 20-13-3, 2.90, .887

1990
Roy: 31-16-5, 2.53, .912
Hayward: 10-12-6, 3.37, .878


Quote:
Originally Posted by nik jr View Post
roy had a relatively mediocre '93 (though obviously not in playoffs), and his troubles in mid '90s with crumbling habs are well known.
Which when you compare them to five-straight years of being named to the post-season All-Star team, it indicates he has exited his prime.


Quote:
Originally Posted by nik jr View Post
although roy's rank in sv% was rarely in top 2 or 3 after '92, it was often very close, and i don't think there was much of a difference between roy in late '90s and the vezina finalists.
If he wasn't very good, I don't know that people would consider him to be one of the best goaltenders of all-time. That's not evidence that he was as good in the late-1990s as he was in the late-1980s and early-1990s though.


Quote:
Originally Posted by nik jr View Post
difference in sv% between roy and vezina runner up brodeur in '97 and '98 is probably mostly due to NJD's superior team D and fewer PP's allowed (NJD allowed 100 fewer than colorado in each season).
In 1998, it had a lot more to do with Colorado and Roy in particular performing poorly after the Olympics.


Quote:
Originally Posted by nik jr View Post
i can't say when roy's prime ended. it's entirely reasonable that it ended in mid or late '90s.
How can you say this after you've already said all of this:

"even from '97-'03, roy's sv% was 2nd among goalies with 200 games. among goalies with 100 games, roy was 4th after turco, hasek and cechmanek, and turco was a backup for 2 of those 3 seasons."

"in '99, roy was near the top in ES sv%, ahead of joseph and dafoe, but his overall numbers were pulled down by PK. montreal's avoidance of penalties and usually strong PK would limit that effect."

"in 2000, roy's 10th place in sv% does not look great, but he was only .005 behind the leader, which is not a big difference. roy's ES sv% was better than the goalies with higher sv%, but not as good on PK. with dallas' PKers, which i think set a record that season, roy would probably have won the vezina."


You're trying to make an argument that his prime ends sometime in the mid-late-1990s, when there's evidence that he was better in the 2000s than he was in anytime from 1993-1999.


Quote:
Originally Posted by nik jr View Post
i recognize that the pattern has hundreds of exceptions, but i don't see any reason to think roy started to decline in 1992. it seems to me just too convenient for the reasons i mentioned earlier.
It seems you're specifically arguing for Roy's prime to extend to the time at which Hasek's prime had ended and no further. Which would be convenient if you were trying to make Hasek's prime look better by saying that Roy, one of the best goaltenders of all-time, was playing his best hockey at the same time but wasn't coming close.

Which, of course, runs contrary to the seven total first-place Vezina votes Roy received from 1993-2001 when compared to the 48 first-place Vezina votes he received from 1988-1992 when there were fewer GMs.


Quote:
Originally Posted by nik jr View Post
sawchuk was an alcoholic who suffered from depression, had troubles with his family and was regularly injured.
And yet he has what many consider to be one of the top peaks at the position at the ages of 20-25. So why is it so improbable that Roy did the same at a slightly later age? Because it doesn't follow a mythical career curve?

Tell me, which is more likely: That Patrick Roy peaked at an early time, or that he has a 16-year prime?

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2013, 04:12 AM
  #32
Darth Yoda
Registered User
 
Darth Yoda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Grovebranch's Crease
Country: Sweden
Posts: 3,420
vCash: 931
Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
That's akin to saying that because Wayne Gretzky had great seasons in the 1990, 1991, 1992, and 1994, we should assume that his prime had not yet ended and the players who beat him out for the Hart Trophy and Lester B. Pearson Award could be considered to have been competition for him in, say, the early-to-mid 1980s.

Asking for any top-20 player to perfectly follow a mythical "general pattern" or career trajectory is unreasonable, because they're not a general player.

It's not as if Dominik Hasek followed Patrick Roy's pattern when his pre-1994 statistics were shielded from the top teams:


Dominik Hasek, 1991
Above-Average Offense: 54/61
Below-Average Offense: 31/32

Dominik Hasek, 1992
Above-Average Offense: 178/204
Below-Average Offense: 191/209

Dominik Hasek, 1993
Above-Average Offense: 364/411
Below-Average Offense: 281/309

Dominik Hasek, Cumulative
Above-Average Offense: .882 (596/676)
Below-Average Offense: .915 (503/550)


Patrick Roy, 1991
Above-Average Offense: 678/748
Below-Average Offense: 556/614

Patrick Roy, 1992
Above-Average Offense: 821/903
Below-Average Offense: 830/903

Patrick Roy, 1993
Above-Average Offense: 1056/1198
Below-Average Offense: 566/616

Patrick Roy, Cumulative
Above-Average Offense: .897 (2555/2849)
Below-Average Offense: .915 (1952/2133)

Hasek had allready proven himself on the international stage, came in at the same time as Eddie Belfour, and probably needed some time to adjust to north american surroundings. I'm certainly not claiming Hasek was at his peak back then, only that we should try to have some understanding about the situation he and the Eagle was in here.
As with Roy's in one way or another lower level of competition when he won his Vezinas. For sure his 1992 one probably was the hardest to win though.


Last edited by Bear of Bad News: 06-27-2013 at 01:49 PM. Reason: Flaming
Darth Yoda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2013, 12:46 PM
  #33
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,581
vCash: 500
Really not sure why anyone is shocked by this or even mildly surprised.
Roy learned pretty quickly that while regular season accomplishments are all well and good, it‘s the Playoffs that matter.

Roy isn‘t ranked as high as he is because of what he did in the regular Season heh.


P.S.
@Eva...
Osgood has no place in this thread, nor does he have any business being in the same conversation as Roy or Hasek.
Give it a rest, thanks.

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2013, 01:57 PM
  #34
quoipourquoi
Moderator
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 6,322
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Yoda View Post
For christs sake man, give it a break with this old news. Hasek had allready proven himself on the international stage, came in at the same time as Eddie Belfour, and probably needed some time to adjust to north american surroundings. I'm certainly not claiming Hasek was at his peak back then, only that we should try to have some understanding about the situation he and the Eagle was in here.
As with Roy's in one way or another lower level of competition when he won his Vezinas. For sure his 1992 one probably was the hardest to win though.
Well if you're not claiming that Hasek was playing his best at the same time that Patrick Roy was playing his best (1988-1992), then why is it such a problem to not expect Roy to be playing his best when Dominik Hasek was playing his best (1994-1999) - the latter making up most of this head-to-head sample? Had more than 80 minutes of this comparison been played prior to 1993-94, don't you believe it would be beneficial to Patrick Roy?

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2013, 02:02 PM
  #35
Darth Yoda
Registered User
 
Darth Yoda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Grovebranch's Crease
Country: Sweden
Posts: 3,420
vCash: 931
Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
Well if you're not claiming that Hasek was playing his best at the same time that Patrick Roy was playing his best (1988-1992), then why is it such a problem to not expect Roy to be playing his best when Dominik Hasek was playing his best (1994-1999) - the latter making up most of this head-to-head sample? Had more than 80 minutes of this comparison been played prior to 1993-94, don't you believe it would be beneficial to Patrick Roy?
I've just been trying to say that the pattern during the eighties was what it was. New young goalies popping up vertually every season dismantling another one just like them. It's no definite proof that Roy had his regular season peak also post-92, but i'm certainly inclined to consider that situation. And even he did'nt, he might still have had lesser opposition during his Vezina years than later winners so when comparing him to them 88-92 might not be worth as much as three Vezinas normally would. But dont get me wrong, a couple of modern goalies was allready in the league in 88-89 so the field was not total ****.


Last edited by Darth Yoda: 06-27-2013 at 03:29 PM.
Darth Yoda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2013, 04:11 PM
  #36
Morgoth Bauglir
Master Of The Fates
 
Morgoth Bauglir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Angband via Utumno
Posts: 3,743
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Yoda View Post
I've just been trying to say that the pattern during the eighties was what it was. New young goalies popping up vertually every season dismantling another one just like them. It's no definite proof that Roy had his regular season peak also post-92, but i'm certainly inclined to consider that situation. And even he did'nt, he might still have had lesser opposition during his Vezina years than later winners so when comparing him to them 88-92 might not be worth as much as three Vezinas normally would. But dont get me wrong, a couple of modern goalies was allready in the league in 88-89 so the field was not total ****.
The field wasn't total **** even without the couple of so-called "modern" goalies. This constant bashing of 80s goaltenders is really getting tiresome to the point of nauseating.

Morgoth Bauglir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2013, 05:30 PM
  #37
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,573
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
The field wasn't total **** even without the couple of so-called "modern" goalies. This constant bashing of 80s goaltenders is really getting tiresome to the point of nauseating.
Agreed.

There are a number of factors in play that have certainly affected a lot of change in the position but that does not take away from the goalies at the time.

I don't recall anyone contemporary saying goaltending in general was poor during the 80s.

The game just went much more offensive and east west at times, defensemen were given the green light more than probably ever, and the goaltending style of play at the time was to make plays to stop the puck -- not setup and let the play hit you.

Not to mention equipment restrictions even if someone tried to play a passive style at that time.. Virtually impossible.

BraveCanadian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2013, 05:46 AM
  #38
Darth Yoda
Registered User
 
Darth Yoda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Grovebranch's Crease
Country: Sweden
Posts: 3,420
vCash: 931
Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
I don't recall anyone contemporary saying goaltending in general was poor during the 80s.
You dont think there's a reason that the pure standup goalie dissappeared? The best ones managing to stick in the league but more and more had it against them.

Darth Yoda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2013, 06:09 AM
  #39
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,581
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Yoda View Post
You dont think there's a reason that the pure standup goalie dissappeared? The best ones managing to stick in the league but more and more had it against them.
As BC already mentioned, it had more to do with the introduction of the synthetic equipment.
Most goalies (myself included) instantly went from standup to hybrid overnight.

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2013, 06:37 AM
  #40
Darth Yoda
Registered User
 
Darth Yoda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Grovebranch's Crease
Country: Sweden
Posts: 3,420
vCash: 931
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
As BC already mentioned, it had more to do with the introduction of the synthetic equipment.
Most goalies (myself included) instantly went from standup to hybrid overnight.
Okey. But who do you think would be best at playing hybrid or even more so butterfly, the guys doing from pee-wee, or the ones starting to do it while in the middle of their senior careers? This can also be seen in real life NHL, when first in 1984 Tom Barrasso popped up winning the Calder and Vezina, followed the year after by Pelle Lindbergh(Whos style i'm not very updated on though), but then the year after Beezer, then Hextall, then Fuhr managed to pop one in, but then it continued again with Roy and then Belfour.

Darth Yoda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2013, 07:23 AM
  #41
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,581
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Yoda View Post
Okey. But who do you think would be best at playing hybrid or even more butterfly, the guys doing from pee-wee, or the ones strating to do it while in the middle of their senior careers?
You have to be a standup first before you are a good hybrid. It's a different school of thought to be a pure butterfly.
One is aggressive, the other passive.

So the answer to your question is the ones playing pure butterfly from peewee made better butterfly goalies.

Again though, it was the equipment that made goalies better, not because 80's goalies sucked. Style of play had a lot less to do with it that you believe, unless of course you think Brodeur has been an ineffective goalie

The new equipment covers a lot more of the net, is much better protection and is like a 1/10th of the weight.
So regardless of style, you cover more net, are much quicker both on your feet and off, not to mention much improved arm speed, your recovery time is a fraction of what it was and endurance is barely an issue now as you're not playing in heavier equipment in the third period that you were in the first.


Should also be noted that a lot of these older goalies that people like to refer to as "Butterfly goalies" would be considered hybrids by today's standards.
Guys like Tony O, Bouchard and Barasso who went down more than most but, like Brodeur, still made a lot of saves on their feet.


So the reality is that the goalies in the 80's didn't suck, the equipment did.


Last edited by Rhiessan71: 06-28-2013 at 07:29 AM.
Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2013, 08:37 AM
  #42
GuineaPig
Registered User
 
GuineaPig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Montréal
Posts: 2,299
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
So the reality is that the goalies in the 80's didn't suck, the equipment did.
I think that is very, very, over-simplistic. If you shift the date in question to 1990, you have almost every goalie using the newer, light-weight pads (I'm not certain if there were holdouts, there might've been), but many goalies still retained their style. And frankly, their technique was pretty awful. Basic positioning, stances, and movement was inferior to your average goalie today.

If you look at some of the goalies that "survived" into the '90s, like Hextall, Vernon, and Fuhr... it ain't pretty. Their technique is markedly inferior to your average goalie today.

GuineaPig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2013, 08:54 AM
  #43
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,581
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuineaPig View Post
I think that is very, very, over-simplistic. If you shift the date in question to 1990, you have almost every goalie using the newer, light-weight pads (I'm not certain if there were holdouts, there might've been), but many goalies still retained their style. And frankly, their technique was pretty awful. Basic positioning, stances, and movement was inferior to your average goalie today.

If you look at some of the goalies that "survived" into the '90s, like Hextall, Vernon, and Fuhr... it ain't pretty. Their technique is markedly inferior to your average goalie today.
You mean their butterfly technique and it means absolutely **** because none of those three were butterfly goalies.
You think Brodeur looks "pretty" compared to say Carey Price? No sir.
What about Tim Thomas or what about what was IMO the very "ugliest" goalie ever, a certain Mr. Hasek?

Don't confuse technique or how "pretty" they look with winning or stopping the puck.
There was more to Patrick Roy than simply being a technically sound butterfly goalie.


Best analogy I can come up with is from baseball...just because a player has a beautiful swing, that doesn't mean he can hit a curve ball.

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2013, 09:11 AM
  #44
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 29,749
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuineaPig View Post
I think that is very, very, over-simplistic. If you shift the date in question to 1990, you have almost every goalie using the newer, light-weight pads (I'm not certain if there were holdouts, there might've been), but many goalies still retained their style. And frankly, their technique was pretty awful. Basic positioning, stances, and movement was inferior to your average goalie today.

If you look at some of the goalies that "survived" into the '90s, like Hextall, Vernon, and Fuhr... it ain't pretty. Their technique is markedly inferior to your average goalie today.
And yet, I find goalies of today actually get caught off their angles both more often and "worse" than goalies of yesteryear, and positioning basics don't get much more fundamental than that.

Now, you can say that the game and players are faster today (truth), but relative to the play in front of them, goalies (to my eye) are having a harder time maintaining their angles than they used to. It's harder to tell because of the relative area they take up with the gear, but I think more goalies are aggressively "over-playing" passes, etc. more than they used to.

And on that topic ("over-playing"), I also think goalies these days (because of the speed of the game) are caught guessing and "buying what the shooter is selling" more often than they used to (out of necessity?). They seem to get bailed out constantly by the more structured/disciplined/aggressive defensive systems of today.

Basically, positioning, reflexes, and ability to read the play used to win the day as opposed to girth and "technique". Of course, it's also hard to compare the reflexes of goalies who were called on to move vastly differently weighted/shaped/protective gear around.

Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2013, 09:43 AM
  #45
GuineaPig
Registered User
 
GuineaPig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Montréal
Posts: 2,299
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
You mean their butterfly technique and it means absolutely **** because none of those three were butterfly goalies.
You think Brodeur looks "pretty" compared to say Carey Price? No sir.
What about Tim Thomas or what about what was IMO the very "ugliest" goalie ever, a certain Mr. Hasek?

Don't confuse technique or how "pretty" they look with winning or stopping the puck.
There was more to Patrick Roy than simply being a technically sound butterfly goalie.


Best analogy I can come up with is from baseball...just because a player has a beautiful swing, that doesn't mean he can hit a curve ball.

I'm not talking about their butterfly technique. I'm talking about basic things.

Take Hextall for example. Have you ever seen the way he set up in his stance? He did the classic "bring the blocker down in front of the right pad," making it both harder for him to make saves with his blocker, minimizing his profile while facing the shooter, and opening up his five-hole. Not to mention that the guy never got low enough in his stance, couldn't move cross-crease fluidly or without lifting his stick up the ice, and a dozen other glaring technical flaws...

And yet he was a premier goalie when he started out.

GuineaPig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2013, 11:09 AM
  #46
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,581
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuineaPig View Post
I'm not talking about their butterfly technique. I'm talking about basic things.

Take Hextall for example. Have you ever seen the way he set up in his stance? He did the classic "bring the blocker down in front of the right pad," making it both harder for him to make saves with his blocker, minimizing his profile while facing the shooter, and opening up his five-hole. Not to mention that the guy never got low enough in his stance, couldn't move cross-crease fluidly or without lifting his stick up the ice, and a dozen other glaring technical flaws...

And yet he was a premier goalie when he started out.
What part of being "pretty" doesn't make you a good goalie nor does being "ugly" make you a bad one did you not understand exactly?

And again, you're confusing the cookie cutter techniques of today with the stop the puck by any means necessary and however worked best for you of the past.

I know exactly how Hextall played, he cheated to his blocker side, gave the shooter more room on his glove side because he had a very quick glovehand and he was aggressive as all hell, he forced players to go where he wanted them to go as much as possible.

Standup/Hybrid goalies are always going to be more vulnerable low/5 hole, just like butterfly goalies are more vulnerable high.
The percentages have always favoured taking away the low shots over the high shots but when you were in the older equipment is was not an option to go down on every single shot. You would be dead tired by the 3rd period doing that.

The non-water retaining characteristics and vastly reduced weight of the new equipment changed all this.
Goalies could now play the better percentages all the time.
Previously you did whatever you needed to do to not only succeed in games but also to survive them.

You can argue with me all day and you're not going to get anywhere. I played goal, I was in Junior when the new equipment first started showing up, I lived it first hand.
I KNOW how it changed the fundamentals and lifted previous restrictions of the position.

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2013, 11:32 AM
  #47
GuineaPig
Registered User
 
GuineaPig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Montréal
Posts: 2,299
vCash: 500
I'm not talking about being pretty or being ugly. Hextall's stance was inefficient. It was inefficient for hybrid, it was inefficient for butterfly, it was inefficient in general. It made him smaller, reduced his mobility, and gave up room in the five-hole unnecessarily.

Compare this:

With this:

This isn't about style of play. This is about basic flaws that no goalie worth his salt would have today.

And I started playing goalie with the old equipment (hell, my pads are still late-'90s style because I have never been able to afford new ones). I know what it's like. I know how heavy it gets after three periods. I realize the limitations of the butterfly with that equipment. But when you look at the early/mid 90s where every goalie had made the transition in equipment, it was the older goalies who still looked out of place (and showed it, statistically).

GuineaPig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2013, 12:13 PM
  #48
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,775
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuineaPig View Post
I'm not talking about being pretty or being ugly. Hextall's stance was inefficient. It was inefficient for hybrid, it was inefficient for butterfly, it was inefficient in general. It made him smaller, reduced his mobility, and gave up room in the five-hole unnecessarily.

Compare this:

With this:

This isn't about style of play. This is about basic flaws that no goalie worth his salt would have today.

And I started playing goalie with the old equipment (hell, my pads are still late-'90s style because I have never been able to afford new ones). I know what it's like. I know how heavy it gets after three periods. I realize the limitations of the butterfly with that equipment. But when you look at the early/mid 90s where every goalie had made the transition in equipment, it was the older goalies who still looked out of place (and showed it, statistically).
I see what you're saying, but wasn't Hextall more of a one-season wonder, than a guy who was actually consistently good in the 1980s? The guy won the Vezina and Conn Smythe in the same year, then it seemed the rest of the league figured him out.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2013, 12:26 PM
  #49
Bear of Bad News
Mod Supervisor
 
Bear of Bad News's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Windsor
Posts: 5,428
vCash: 663
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I see what you're saying, but wasn't Hextall more of a one-season wonder, than a guy who was actually consistently good in the 1980s? The guy won the Vezina and Conn Smythe in the same year, then it seemed the rest of the league figured him out.
Compared to the league, Hextall was above average for more than just his rookie year:

http://hockeygoalies.org/bio/hextall.html

His first three NHL years he was 44, 11, and 23 goals better than average. Then he was injured most of 1989-90, and was basically average until 1995-96 (20 goals above average).

Actually, his career path follows a roughly-typical NHL goaltender's - with his career peak over his first five years, then trailing off.

Bear of Bad News is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-28-2013, 12:38 PM
  #50
GuineaPig
Registered User
 
GuineaPig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Montréal
Posts: 2,299
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I see what you're saying, but wasn't Hextall more of a one-season wonder, than a guy who was actually consistently good in the 1980s? The guy won the Vezina and Conn Smythe in the same year, then it seemed the rest of the league figured him out.
Hextall was just one example, but I think he's a good one. He came into the league as one of the first to incorporate butterfly elements, which had clear benefits when compared to stand-up. Once the rest of the league shifted in style though, whatever initial advantage he had was lost and his technical flaws showed themselves. But he still had some productive seasons towards the end of his career and made it to the finals again in '97. I mostly chose him because he was the goalie I saw the most of growing up that was from that time period.

But there are plenty of examples. Very few goalies of the pre-Roy era were able to adapt to the '90s, regardless of the changes in equipment.

GuineaPig is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:08 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2017 All Rights Reserved.