Best player in the world: 1999

[Albatros]

Goalies can't tilt the ice. All goalies can do is delay a loss. Some of these figures of speech are getting out of control.

At the highest level every team always has scoring chances, defending against those is about just as valuable as scoring itself.

 

[MessierII]

Goalies can't tilt the ice. All goalies can do is delay a loss. Some of these figures of speech are getting out of control.

While true a goalie can individually impact a game greater than anyone. They are the most important player.

 

[norrisnick]

While true a goalie can individually impact a game greater than anyone. They are the most important player.

Yes and no. A bad goalie impacts a game far more than a great one. It's more important to not have a bad goalie, than it is to have a great one. A bad one can lose a game for you. A great goalie can only ever delay a loss without support from his skaters. So yes, the position is important to meet a baseline. But beyond that the skaters have more control over the game.

 

[MessierII]

Yes and no. A bad goalie impacts a game far more than a great one. It's more important to not have a bad goalie, than it is to have a great one. A bad one can lose a game for you. A great goalie can only ever delay a loss without support from his skaters. So yes, the position is important to meet a baseline. But beyond that the skaters have more control over the game.

If a goalie plays out of his mind good you win about 90% of the time. If a goalie plays terrible you lose about 90% of the time. Even bad teams are going to score some goals. This is even more true in the playoffs or tournament where a red hot goalie can literally carry you to the prize.

 

[Felidae]

Goalies can't tilt the ice. All goalies can do is delay a loss. Some of these figures of speech are getting out of control.

That's true in that goalies can only delay a loss.

At the same time, I don't think it's outlandish to say that individually, a goaltender has more impact on the game than your best forward.

After all, they are out their for the entire game. A forward will be on the ice for a quarter of the time at most. Obviously forwards are moving around and doing more with their ice time but that also doesn't necessarily equate to more valuable or efficient.

Theoretically, a forward can score as many times as they want but still lose the game. A goalie never getting scored on never loses.

I mean, just compare the impact a bad goalie that can't stop a beach ball. It's much worse than a forwards bad game who will at worst, be a giveaway machine and not generate but can still be bailed out by even a single teammate..like a goalie. It takes a much more concentrated team effort to protect a goalie that can't make saves, at least imo.

 

[DaveG]

Yes and no. A bad goalie impacts a game far more than a great one. It's more important to not have a bad goalie, than it is to have a great one. A bad one can lose a game for you. A great goalie can only ever delay a loss without support from his skaters. So yes, the position is important to meet a baseline. But beyond that the skaters have more control over the game.

I mean yes with a caveat.

To say a goalie can only delay loss isn't quite accurate. A goalie can give a team that has absolutely no business being in a game a good chance to win. I can't count the number of times I saw guys like Lundqvist stand on their heads against the Canes while getting absolutely pelted with good scoring chances only to see the other team win due to a weird deflection or a mental breakdown by the goalie on the other end of the ice.

The only 2 full seasons out of a goalie that I've seen that I'd put up against Hasek's 99 season (including post-season run) here are Shesty 2 years ago and Thomas in 2011. And both 100% had better supporting casts than the 99 Sabres, significantly better in that Boston team.

 

[norrisnick]

I mean yes with a caveat.

To say a goalie can only delay loss isn't quite accurate. A goalie can give a team that has absolutely no business being in a game a good chance to win. I can't count the number of times I saw guys like Lundqvist stand on their heads against the Canes while getting absolutely pelted with good scoring chances only to see the other team win due to a weird deflection or a mental breakdown by the goalie on the other end of the ice.

The only 2 full seasons out of a goalie that I've seen that I'd put up against Hasek's 99 season (including post-season run) here are Shesty 2 years ago and Thomas in 2011. And both 100% had better supporting casts than the 99 Sabres, significantly better in that Boston team.

And how many times have you seen said goalie lose because their team didn't get that bounce?

 

[DaveG]

And how many times have you seen said goalie lose because their team didn't get that bounce?

far less than I've seen them win. It's probably about 75-25 and that 25 the guy on the other side of the ice was seemingly equally locked in that night. Though mind you being a long-time Canes fan I've seen my share of shit teams that can still put up a ton of shots.

 

[norrisnick]

far less than I've seen them win. It's probably about 75-25 and that 25 the guy on the other side of the ice was seemingly equally locked in that night. Though mind you being a long-time Canes fan I've seen my share of shit teams that can still put up a ton of shots.

I was intrigued about the concept of 1-0 games so I quickly looked it up. Lundqvist won 12 games with a 1-0 score. He lost 17 games with an 0-1 score. Not sure that it means anything, was just curious.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Alright yeah I moved to the Hasek camp.

 

[biturbo19]

I Voted for Bure because i don't think i understand the question. I also do not think i care.

 

[Cruor]

So this is a good example of why you don't just trophy watch, someone on the first page said "it's hard to go against a hart and pearson", well not necessarily. The answer is Hasek.

 

[Video Nasty]

So this is a good example of why you don't just trophy watch, someone on the first page said "it's hard to go against a hart and pearson", well not necessarily. The answer is Hasek.

Same person also amended their vote and did it publicly, but I agree overall.

 

[Midnight Judges]

So this is a good example of why you don't just trophy watch, someone on the first page said "it's hard to go against a hart and pearson", well not necessarily. The answer is Hasek.

It is hard to go against it. But not impossible. I don't see anything wrong with that.

 

[Regal]

I voted Jagr but I’m rethinking. The playoff run is a good argument, especially when we didn’t get something similar from Jagr.

I do agree with Norrisnick though that in general there’s a bit of diminishing returns with goalies as you get closer to zero and that it’s more important to not have a bad goalie than to have a great one. Unlike NN, I still think high end forwards who can control play are, in general, the most valueable players. Still, Hasek was something else.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

I’d have taken Hasek. Jagr is a fine choice though.

 

[SillyRabbit]

In the 1998-99 season, Jagr won the scoring title by 20 points over 2nd place.

He was put onto a line with Kip Miller and Jan Hrdina.

Miller and Hrdina both scored 42 points that season (and yes, they both played the full season, no injures).

Jagr scored 127 points. 85 points more than either of his linemates.

Jagr was a one-man offensive machine who carried the Penguins.

1998-99 was arguably his most impressive season for me.

I'd take him here without hesitation, even knowing what Hasek did in the playoffs.

 

[Albatros]

In the 1998-99 season, Jagr won the scoring title by 20 points over 2nd place.

He was put onto a line with Kip Miller and Jan Hrdina.

Miller and Hrdina both scored 42 points that season (and yes, they both played the full season, no injures).

Jagr scored 127 points. 85 points more than either of his linemates.

Jagr was a one-man offensive machine who carried the Penguins.

1998-99 was arguably his most impressive season for me.

I'd take him here without hesitation, even knowing what Hasek did in the playoffs.

Miller and Hrdina didn't play nearly the full season with Jágr though. Hrdina was a fairly obscure rookie that started the season in a very limited role, but climbed the depth chart by performing solidly when given opportunities. Eventually with Jágr he was basically his Swiss army knife that would do all the little things right, while Miller was a very good playmaker but also a liability defensively. Basically his only job was getting Jágr the puck which he did well (Jágr later brought him to Washington for the same task). Meanwhile the Penguins were also rolling a line with Kovalev, Lang, and Straka, which forced the opponents to choose whether they would prioritize neutralizing Jágr and his helpers or a full scoring line.

 

[Mrb1p]

1998-1999, like the previous one.

Would've been interesting if we made it the calendar year, it removes a lot of bias for trophies and such.

With that said, for this season I think its pretty easy Jagr.