Greatest Players of All-Time #5

[Bear of Bad News]

... oh sure. But still, and not to be obtuse, but I do actually separate players by position, like peas over here, carrots over there & so on. Break it right down. Left Wingers, Right Wingers, Centers, Left & Right Defence; Goalies. Offensive, Defensive, Utility.

Absolutely, and that's a very reasonable thing to do.

Especially in an economically-driven league, though, there's always going to be a reason to compare goaltenders against non-goaltenders.

 

[canucks4ever]

I'm glad roy and hasek are getting the respect they deserve. Both are top 10 players based on impact. I would chose Roy next.

 

[overg]

Ya. And I dont know what the Hell is going on in Lake County just outside of Detroit either but some kinda High Strangeness with that Cullen Finnerty case.... midway between Grand Rapids & Traverse City. You peoples kinda, weird.

I grew up in Grand Rapids and worked for five years in Traverse City. Am I being mocked or celebrated here?

As for comparing goalies to skaters, or forwards to defensemen, I think it's fair game. It's not much different than comparing players of the same position against different eras, in that you're not so much making "objective" comparisons (which player was absolutely "better") but rather "subjective" (how much better was Roy/Hasek than the average goalie, how much better was Gretzky than other forwards).

Since I started watching hockey a little over 20 years ago, there have been three players that I thought outright changed the entire complexion of the entire game when they were playing. Those were Mario Lemiuex, Dominic Hasek during his peak, and Roy when he went beast mode in the playoffs. That's not to say there haven't been a lot of other very, very, very dominant players out there, but with those three it seemed like they were a threat to win games, or even playoff series, entirely on their own, regardless of what their teams did. Of course that's hyperbole . . . no player has ever been able to win games or series single-handedly. But it *felt* like those players could do it.

I was a Wings fan in the late 90's. They were obviously one of the very strongest teams in the league during that time. And yet it always felt like a complete crap shoot as to whether they could beat the Sabers. And that was because Hasek was playing so out-of-this-world good during that time frame that he could, on his own, match the Wings' crazy-high talent level. There was no other goalie in the league at that time who I came even close to thinking that way about.

Mario Lemieux was the same way . . . I remember him literally *joking* about winning the scoring title in 1993 *while he was out with cancer*. And then he did it.

Roy in the '93 playoffs was the same way. The entire tenure of the Canadians' games shifted the closer it got to overtime, because he was so unbeatable in the extra periods that opponents felt like a regulation time tie was as good as a loss.

By way of contrast, the next two greatest players I've witnessed (at least during their peaks, which would exclude Gretzky and Bourque from consideration), Lidstrom and Jagr, were both incredibly dominant for years, but I don't think they ever had quite that aura about them . . . that they could single handedly win a game or series. They were both obviously the most important player on their teams for long stretches of time, and were both obviously all time greats. But it I don't find it difficult to rank their impact compared to the above three players. Nor for that matter do I find it difficult to compare their incredible long term dominance to players at other positions who would fall further down the list(e.g. Forsberg at center or Belfour in goal).

 

[quoipourquoi]

I grew up in Grand Rapids and worked for five years in Traverse City. Am I being mocked or celebrated here?

Go back to Grand Rapids, find a restaurant named Stella's, and order the Queso-Jalapeno hamburger.

I was a Wings fan in the late 90's. They were obviously one of the very strongest teams in the league during that time. And yet it always felt like a complete crap shoot as to whether they could beat the Sabres. And that was because Hasek was playing so out-of-this-world good during that time frame that he could, on his own, match the Wings' crazy-high talent level. There was no other goalie in the league at that time who I came even close to thinking that way about.

I don't mean to pick on you for this, but I've heard it before from Red Wings fans about Hasek, and it makes me chuckle a little bit, because Detroit was one of those teams that he notoriously struggled against (kinda like Roy against Philadelphia).

 

[Fred Taylor]

I think only 26% agree with you.


I'm certainly not surprised that he would come ahead in a all-positions poll without a discussion round. The support of his positioning at #5 is, to my understanding, primarily based off of his high peak, which puts him at an advantage after the big four since no one at his position has been selected yet. I don't think anyone believes Morenz, Beliveau, Richard, Hull, Bourque, Plante, Messier, or Roy peaked higher than anyone else at their position, so I would believe they would be splitting votes from the (apparent) other 74% of people that might be looking a little broader for career value not only in terms of what they brought to the table, but the baggage that they didn't bring.

I have no problem with Hasek at #5. But it's not a consensus or anything near a majority. Sometimes it can be a very vocal minority though, which has brought about quite a bit of investigation to many claims from his supporters: the value of Nagano, the strength of the 1998 and 1999 Sabres, the significance of a one-round .950 playoff, the Parent and Sawchuk comparison, etc. It's been a real hot topic lately, which was good, because I don't know that his career was put under the microscope the way it probably needed to be (and the way Brodeur's has been ridiculously picked over).

I imagine in this case, Fred Taylor is looking at a high peak, and that's totally fine. But when people vote Hasek while citing something like unadjusted cumulative save percentage, unadjusted losing percentage, the word "carried" in a playoff context, and anything of the sort, that's when we can say that the fish in our story is getting bigger and bigger every year, and that the work isn't quite done.

I've said it before: when looking at the best European players, the order may very well be Hasek, Jagr, then Lidstrom, but I imagine most people would draft Lidstrom, Jagr, then Hasek simply out of reliability. But I don't know who weighs that stuff into their selections and who doesn't, and whether they should or whether they shouldn't.

What I meant was Hasek has the most votes for 5th all-time, so my opinion is not an outlandish one.

 

[Laphroaig]

Hasek doesn't belong in the top ten. There are so many better options. I voted Beliveau.

 

[canucksfan]

What I meant was Hasek has the most votes for 5th all-time, so my opinion is not an outlandish one.

I don't think I have seen a credible list with Hasek being in the top 10 let along top 5.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

I don't think I have seen a credible list with Hasek being in the top 10 let along top 5.

If "credible" means "a list that you agree with", then doesn't this lead to a circular logic problem almost immediately?

 

[Eisen]

voted hasek. for me he has a peak that can challenge the big four and he has longevity too.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

voted hasek. for me he has a peak that can challenge the big four and he has longevity too.

Hasek - the player who just keeps getting better and better the longer he's been retired.

 

[Eisen]

Consensus? Where? Not on the history board, and I doubt in the general public, though that one's harder to gauge.

didn't he only lose that poll because one voter had him placed at 8th best goalie, rather outlandishly, i think.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

didn't he only lose that poll because one voter had him placed at 8th best goalie, rather outlandishly, i think.

"Consensus" would imply a large majority, and none of the goalies have even a bare majority preferring him as #1.

As for the HOH Top goalies project, Hasek and Roy would have been tied if you removed the lowest vote for each.

 

[canucksfan]

If "credible" means "a list that you agree with", then doesn't this lead to a circular logic problem almost immediately?

No. A credible list is a list done by hockey historians or people who have been around the game for a long time, not some joe blow on the side of the street corner.

I

 

[Eisen]

"Consensus" would imply a large majority, and none of the goalies have even a bare majority preferring him as #1.

As for the HOH Top goalies project, Hasek and Roy would have been tied if you removed the lowest vote for each.

agreed. hardly any player in any sport is a consensus vote.

 

[Eisen]

Hasek - the player who just keeps getting better and better the longer he's been retired.

i don't know. i watched most of hasek's career. i never saw a goalie being capable of what he did and it's not just the eye test. he has the numbers and trophies too.

 

[quoipourquoi]

No. A credible list is a list done by hockey historians or people who have been around the game for a long time, not some joe blow on the side of the street corner.

That's a little harsh. I can't remember Dryden's exact quote, which is sad, because he's a rather articulate fellow, but he talked about how the best players and the best hockey is the hockey we watched when we were young. And I don't know about everyone else, but I know he's right on target with me, because Mark Messier hockey is my hockey.

Now I don't think any of these so-called "hockey historians" are the guys who will say that Dominik Hasek is their hockey, because Hasek is relatively new - and he's a very polarizing player. But give it time. You'll see his name in the top-ten of lists down the road, because he was the type of player that really captured people's attentions, and the older hockey historians will continue to be replaced with newer hockey historians. And Joe Blow on the side of the street corner might be one of the new ones.

 

[overg]

No. A credible list is a list done by hockey historians or people who have been around the game for a long time, not some joe blow on the side of the street corner.

I doubt you'll find a more researched, thought about, and debated Top players in history list than the Top 70 list stickier at the top of this board. Having said that, if you compare it to the subsequent "top players by position" lists, you'll see quite a few players swapping one or more spots compared to the top 70 list (which itself had quite a few rankings change compared to its predecessor top 100 list.

Point being, there's a lot of room for debate and changed opinions even amongst those who love researching and debating these things.

Other point being Hasek was the highest ranked goalie in the top 70 list, and second highest in the top goalie list. It hardly seems "not credible" that a player judged 1st or 2nd all time at his position might end up on some people's top 5 all time, all positions list. You certainly don't have to agree with it, but you should probably work on a better argument than "Joe Blow on the street corner" if you want to discredit it, especially since you are talking to "Joe Blow" in this thread.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

i don't know. i watched most of hasek's career. i never saw a goalie being capable of what he did and it's not just the eye test. he has the numbers and trophies too.

Numbers just a little bit better than Roy when you adjust for era - in the regular season. Very good, but non-outlier numbers in the playoffs. 6 Vezinas, but never a finalist in any other year, and a few of those Vezinas were very close calls (a few weren't).

I don't see that as a resume anywhere near the Big 4.

 

[Eisen]

Numbers just a little bit better than Roy when you adjust for era - in the regular season. Very good, but non-outlier numbers in the playoffs. 6 Vezinas, but never a finalist in any other year, and a few of those Vezinas were very close calls (a few weren't).

I don't see that as a resume anywhere near the Big 4.

but roy himself is a player that wouldn't look out of place in a top 10 list.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

but roy himself is a player that wouldn't look out of place in a top 10 list.

Hey, I voted for Roy, so I can't complain too much about the votes for Hasek. I just think comparing his peak to the big 4 is crazy. Nobody would have done that back when he was playing.

 

[Eisen]

Hey, I voted for Roy, so I can't complain too much about the votes for Hasek. I just think comparing his peak to the big 4 is crazy. Nobody would have done that back when he was playing.

i didn't do it. in that way you are right. it came in hindsight for me too. i think it has lot has to do with the position.

 

[canucks4ever]

GVT is an advanced stat that seems to love Dominik Hasek. Its been a while since I've looked those numbers up, but his gvt was just off the charts. Such a dominant peak.

 

[canucksfan]

I doubt you'll find a more researched, thought about, and debated Top players in history list than the Top 70 list stickier at the top of this board. Having said that, if you compare it to the subsequent "top players by position" lists, you'll see quite a few players swapping one or more spots compared to the top 70 list (which itself had quite a few rankings change compared to its predecessor top 100 list.

Point being, there's a lot of room for debate and changed opinions even amongst those who love researching and debating these things.

Other point being Hasek was the highest ranked goalie in the top 70 list, and second highest in the top goalie list. It hardly seems "not credible" that a player judged 1st or 2nd all time at his position might end up on some people's top 5 all time, all positions list. You certainly don't have to agree with it, but you should probably work on a better argument than "Joe Blow on the street corner" if you want to discredit it, especially since you are talking to "Joe Blow" in this thread.

I don't have a problem with Hasek being the best goalie of all time. I do have a problem with him being voted the fifth best player of all time. I like Hull at 5. He had 9 top five Hart finishes. Hasek had 5. Hasek has the same amount of Hart Trophies as Hull did, two. Not fair to Hasek because LW is easier to get an Team All start selection but Hull had 10 first and 2 2nd and Hasek and 6 firsts.

I don't see how Hasek should be number 5.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

In 2009, ContrarianGoaltender (the guy who did the now-defunct brodeurisafraud blog before partly changing his mind about Brodeur) compared Hasek to Bobby Hull. At the time, it wasn't well received because there was a general consensus that Hasek wasn't in Bobby Hull's class as a player due to his negatives.

It's interesting to read 5 years later:

I'm not a voter, and I agree that one shouldn't vote a goalie in the top 10 just for the sake of doing so, but I find it a bit curious that no goalies ended up in the top 10 last time around. Don't you think the fact that no goalie got rated that high might be a sign that goalies are getting underrated? It's a similar argument to the one that certain dynasties are overrepresented because they have a 5 players in the top 50. I'm sure nobody is using quotas or trying to balance positions or team representation while they are voting, but that still doesn't mean the final result can't be biased in one way or another.

It doesn't seem plausible to me that there are 6-7 forwards and 3-4 defencemen better than the best goalie ever. Especially since goalie is the most important position in hockey. Wouldn't it be kind of strange if someone made a top 10 list of the best football players ever and didn't include a single quarterback? Whether you prefer Hasek, Roy, Plante or whoever as the best goalie, how does that guy not even make the top 10?

I think skater performance is easier to observe and less team dependent than goalie performance, which makes it tougher to analyze. I'm not sure that comparing different stat categories is the way to go, I'd rather try to express both results in a common currency.

I'm going to try to compare the peaks of Bobby Hull and Dominik Hasek, as was done earlier in this thread. If we look at the cutoff level for first line forwards by taking the number of teams in the league times 3 (e.g. in the Original Six, the 18th best scorer), we can get an estimate of what kind of production a player is going to get simply by virtue of getting first-line ice time. That can be used to compare to Bobby Hull's production to see how much additional production he contributes. We can then calculate how many goals Hasek saves compared to an average goalie by comparing his save percentage to league average and multiplying by the number of shots against.

I calculated the results for 8 peak seasons for each of them, 1962-1969 for Hull and 1994-2001 for Hasek.

From 1962-1969, the 18th or 36th best forward in the league averaged 22 goals and 51 points. Bobby Hull averaged 46 goals and 83 points. Therefore, Hull produced 24 more goals and 32 more points than can be expected for a player with first-line minutes.

From 1994-2001, Dominik Hasek's save percentage was .928, compared to the league average of .909. Over 13,650 shots Hasek saved 259 more goals than average, which is 32 goals per season.

This is just an attempt to approximate the level of dominance for both players, with no attempt made to account for variables like linemates, ice time, shot quality, league talent level, etc. But I'd put Hasek on about the same level as Hull in terms of his contribution to his team winning games. This is further suggested by the fact that they have almost identical career Hart Trophy voting shares, something that is actually in Hasek's favour since it is much harder to get Hart votes as a goalie than as a forward. I'd probably rank Hull ahead of Hasek, but I think the Dominator deserves a look in the top 8.

 

[canucksfan]

If I am reading that right, their peaks would be similar? If so, Hull has the edge over Hasek for non peak years.