Greatest Players of All-Time #5

[bobholly39]

Why did he only play one tournament? Injuries? Considered not good enough? Attitude problems?

I'm partly being a bit intentionally silly, sort of attempting to immitate the way I think some/many here look at non-NHL play. It is often used as an argument against European players that they "didn't prove themselves enough against the best players". For example, some used that argument against Makarov (who did excel on three Canada Cups and also "proved himself" during other similar games, while also winning 9(!) soviet scoring titles and some during World Championships, where he also was a regular All Star, etc...). Using the same logik, Roy is rather "unproven" internationally. For example, he never excelled on European sized rinks. In my opinion, Europeans often have "proved themselves" more than North Americans, but it is often used against them that they don't have as good NHL longevity or NHL prime/peak as the players they're being compared to.

(The above is a general reply, not directed to you.)

Partly off-topic:
Imagine the NHL of the 1980s also having the 7 best Soviet teams, totalling 28 teams. The Soviet teams will play half their games on home ice, with large rink size. Imagine how a team like CSKA would dominate, and how their star players would end up high in basically all statistical categories. We also know that there were teams of non-CSKA players, who used to defeat NHL team when playing against them (usually away), and who had first line players that likely would have ended up high in the NHL scoring.
That would have been fair.
But most people here basically just look at the NHL as it was and seems to automatically assume that basically all the best players played there. They didn't. The guys finishing 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 in the NHL scoring, might have ended up 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17, if the best Soviets had played there on the same terms.
Back in the 1970s and 1980s, Soviet was probably more competitive vs Canada than they are now. Today we see guys like Malkin, Datsyuk, and peaking Ovechkin "proving" they are as good as the best Canadians. Why wouldn't the 1970s and 1980s Soviets have done it, if putting the best Soviet teams in the NHL and let them play half their games at home?
The forum is quite unbalanced when comparing North Americans to Europeans, not realizing it was harder back in the 1990s for young Russians to "prove themselves" early on in the NHL than it is today. North American players get used at a young age to play in North America. European players oftens first stay a year or two longer in Europe (where good hockey is being played too!), and also might take another year or so to adapt to NHL play. As goes for the 1980s stars, most of the best Soviet players of the 1980s were also past their prime when entering the NHL, making it even harder to adapt. Despite that, the North American players often are looked upon as "excelling earlier", while Europeans needing more time, without giving enough respect to the context.

Few things.

1. Why did Roy only play one tournament? Well, the post above yours kinda sums it up. That being said,if you are considering all-time greatest rankings, I suppse you could try and make an argument to use Roy's lack of international record against him, and maybe it counts for just a tiny bit, but not much.

If Roy had played and not had success - you hold that against him, sure. But that's not the case. The one tiny sample size he does have - he excelled in.



2. I get your overall argument that american fans may not always take into consideration non-NHL exploits as strongly as NHL exploits. Example, when you were arguing for Makarov in the other thread, that argument in particular can be worth quite a bit. But I don't think it's as relevant when discussing Roy vs Hasek. At least not in my view.

My argument against Hasek is that in the head to head Roy vs Hasek career IN THE NHL - I think Roy is on top. And unlike Makarov, Hasek was absolutely phenomenal in the NHL - so using his NHL record probably helps him more than hurts him. If you were to use Hasek's non NHL accomplishments in other leagues - well I think he did even better in the NHL, didn't he? So I don't think it's hurting him.

My argument for Roy - it's extremely simple. Goalies, more than any other position, are judged by ability to win.
Roy was better at "winning" then Hasek. It's that simple. Was Hasek better at stopping pucks through certain stretches? Was Hasek even more valuable in the season to his team's in Buffalo than Roy usually was in Montreal? Yes to both probably. But Roy always foun a way to win, something Hasek didn't.

Even in Hasek's best years in buffalo he got eliminated in the first round of playoffs while only winning 1 game three times. I understand that a goalie can't win a cup by himself - but the very best goalie of all-time, in his very best peak-years - should be able to steal at least 2-3 games in a round 1 playoff matchup.
Roy always won at least 3 games in post season play in every single one of his NHL seasons (barring only 1 season where he missed playoffs). I think that's impressive enough to put him atop Hasek.

 

[Theokritos]

Why did he only play one tournament? Injuries? Considered not good enough? Attitude problems?

See post above yours.

he never excelled on European sized rinks.

1998 Olympics were on European sized rinks and he was excellent.

It is often used as an argument against European players that they "didn't prove themselves enough against the best players". For example, some used that argument against Makarov

I think the point is that it's one thing to excel in a two week tournament and another over a whole season (~80 games).

Imagine the NHL of the 1980s also having the 7 best Soviet teams, totalling 28 teams... We also know that there were teams of non-CSKA players, who used to defeat NHL team when playing against them (usually away), and who had first line players that likely would have ended up high in the NHL scoring.

In my opinion you're overrating the Soviet league a bit, but that's probably stuff for another thread. I'm thinking about coming up with one, but some preparation (research) is needed.

 

[plusandminus]

1998 Olympics were on European sized rinks and he was excellent.

Oh, I'm so into Canada Cups I didn't even consider that (despite knowing it). Well, then he has somewhat proved himself on large sized rinks, but on the other hand he hasn't proved himself internationally on small sized rinks, has he?. ;-) (<- Not so seriously meant.)

In my opinion you're overrating the Soviet league a bit, but that's probably stuff for another thread. I'm thinking about coming up with one, but some preparation (research) is needed.

Looking forward to that.

 

[plusandminus]

My argument for Roy - it's extremely simple. Goalies, more than any other position, are judged by ability to win.
Roy was better at "winning" then Hasek. It's that simple. Was Hasek better at stopping pucks through certain stretches? Was Hasek even more valuable in the season to his team's in Buffalo than Roy usually was in Montreal? Yes to both probably. But Roy always foun a way to win, something Hasek didn't.

I'm only replying to this part, as I otherwise basically agree with you.

Thanks for explaining. I'm personally not much into the "winning" reasoning. 40 year old Ray Bourque won a Stanley cup, but was he a better player (or more of a "winner") than he was in the 1980s or 1990s? Hasek won Stanley cup at age 40 or so. But was he a bigger winner or better player then than earlier in his career?

I think winning has so much to do with teammates. Even though there have been many cases where the star player made the difference (like Gretzky during the 1987 Canada Cup ;-)), I mostly buy the reasoning that Bourque having Lidstrom's teammates might have resulted in him having more cups, while Lidstrom playing with Bourque´s teammates probably would have fewer Stanley Cups.
Now, I seem to go even more cross-topic, so I end here.

 

[quoipourquoi]

I understand Hasek did well in non-best-on-best tournaments, but outside of Nagano, his best-on-best tournaments weren't that special, especially before he hit his peak in the mid-1990s (and I think Ottawa would have preferred if he stopped going to them afterward...).

Take the 1991 Canada Cup, when he has a pretty good chance to impress coming off of those three World Championship performances - which is especially important, because Ed Belfour was a free agent at the time (and would be well into 1991-92). Hasek kinda laid an egg there after a hot start, giving up 15 of 82 in the final three games of the round robin as Czechoslovakia was eliminated, ultimately allowing more goals individually than any other team on 28 SA/game.

Even in the 1987 Canada Cup where he upset the United States and John Vanbiesbrouck - who was having one hell of a tournament himself - in the round robin to win the final spot in the playoff round (kind of an ugly goal to give to Chris Nilan though), he was spotted a 2-0 lead against Canada before letting in 5 goals himself. And obviously, he was thrown into the fire a little too early in the 1984 Canada Cup, notably getting pulled just minutes into the game against Canada after going down 0-2 early.

He would have been a fine NHL-capable goaltender in the late-80s/early-90s, but I don't see any indication when he went up against the best players that he was ready to be the Dominik Hasek that we all know any earlier than he was. In fact, going by the best-on-best tournaments, I kinda think his career is protected a little bit by not having to play much in the NHL before his prime, because if he wasn't Grant Fuhr, Patrick Roy, Ed Belfour, or Curtis Joseph, then we would probably all take that into account instead of playing the What If? game with him so often.

So I'm in the group that is more concerned with Hasek being the goaltender of record in just 75% of Buffalo's playoff games during his three-year run as probably the best player in the world (1997-1999) than anyone's international record, because that's rather alarming to go down twice in three years.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

I think the point is that it's one thing to excel in a two week tournament and another over a whole season (~80 games).

How about 6x~80 ("consecutive seasons"), then?

 

[Bear of Bad News]

My argument for Roy - it's extremely simple. Goalies, more than any other position, are judged by ability to win.

First, I agree that this is largely true.

However, the fact that something is commonplace does not necessarily make it reasonable. If the sport had evolved to judge goaltenders alphabetically (with Astrom much better than Zanier, for instance), would that make it proper to continue to do so? Knowledge evolves.

If we make the blanket assumption that goaltenders have no impact upon offense, and non-goaltenders have no impact upon defense, then we would come to the conclusion that goaltenders would have exactly 50% impact on whether or not a team wins. If we make the (reasonable) assumption that goaltenders have less impact on offense than non-goaltenders have on defense, then our conclusion is that goaltenders have less than 50% impact on whether or not a team wins.

So why should we judge goaltenders this way? Yes, a team's job is to win games - and every player's task is to contribute to that effort. How does a goaltender best contribute to that effort? By stopping as many of the shots that he faces as possible.

Imagine a new CEO coming in and saying that her #1 goal for the year was to "increase stock price". Well, that's great, but how do you do that?

 

[livewell68]

I think it will be a complete joke if Hasek is voted in before Beliveau, Roy, Richard, Hull, Bourque and Morenz.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I think it will be a complete joke if Hasek is voted in before Beliveau, Roy, Richard, Hull, Bourque and Morenz.

Exhibit A of why the major HOH projects use a ranking system rather than multi-choice polls. At the moment, whoever wins this poll will do so with only about 25% support. Who knows what the other 75% thinks of him compared to the others?

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Exactly - at some point, you have to remember what this is, and take it with that level of seriousness in mind.

 

[Fred Taylor]

Well, I have Hasek ranked 5th, and I would like to think that my opinion is not a joke. I don't see how ranking the consensus #1 goaltender of all-time at 5th place is a joke. That's not to say you would be wrong in putting Roy, Beliveau, Harvey, Hull, Richard, or Morenz here, but you wouldn't be wrong putting Hasek here either. Seems to me most agree with me.

 

[Killion]

Seems to me most agree with me.

Sorry Fred. I dont. Do not believe that Goalies should be ranked & rated against skaters.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Well, I have Hasek ranked 5th, and I would like to think that my opinion is not a joke. I don't see how ranking the consensus #1 goaltender of all-time at 5th place is a joke. That's not to say you would be wrong in putting Roy, Beliveau, Harvey, Hull, Richard, or Morenz here, but you wouldn't be wrong putting Hasek here either. Seems to me most agree with me.

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

 

[canucksfan]

Well, I have Hasek ranked 5th, and I would like to think that my opinion is not a joke. I don't see how ranking the consensus #1 goaltender of all-time at 5th place is a joke. That's not to say you would be wrong in putting Roy, Beliveau, Harvey, Hull, Richard, or Morenz here, but you wouldn't be wrong putting Hasek here either. Seems to me most agree with me.

Because he isn't the consensus #1 goalie of all time. One could make a strong argument for Roy or Plante.

 

[Plural]

Well, I have Hasek ranked 5th, and I would like to think that my opinion is not a joke. I don't see how ranking the consensus #1 goaltender of all-time at 5th place is a joke. That's not to say you would be wrong in putting Roy, Beliveau, Harvey, Hull, Richard, or Morenz here, but you wouldn't be wrong putting Hasek here either. Seems to me most agree with me.

I don't think Hasek is the consensus #1. If something, I've seen Hasek's star getting lower. If the trend continues he won't even be the consensus #1 Czech player.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Seems to me most agree with me.

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.

 

[Killion]

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.

Why would you measure, rate & rank a skater against a goaltender anyway?

 

[quoipourquoi]

Why would you measure, rate & rank a skater against a goaltender anyway?

Well, if you want to draft one, they're lumped together. They're all still hockey players. Sometimes they compete for the same awards. But I totally understand why separating them would result in better analysis (which is what made the positional project so much better than another top-100).

Even if their roles were different, I still think it's possible to compare a Belfour to Fedorov. Harder, sure, but possible. You're going to be relying more on stories and quotes than numbers though.

As for why... because we all like talking about hockey a little too much.

 

[Sentinel]

Dominick Hasek. I personally rank him above Lemieux. He certainly stole more games than Lemieux.

On Hasek vs. Roy: funny how people who judge goalies on their "ability to win" (why are they being judged on that any more than centers? says who?) disregard the times when these two faced each other. Hasek has the winning record against Roy in the regular season (on weaker teams), internationally (on a weaker team), and in playoffs. In 2002, with his back against the wall, Hasek pulled two shutouts. Roy pulled his "Statue of Liberty" and then came down like a meteor.

Dom all the way.

 

[Killion]

Even if their roles were different, I still think it's possible to compare a Belfour to Fedorov.

I dont go there quoipourquoi. Absolutely separated practically & intellectually. Its Apples~Oranges as is Defenceman~Forwards, Left to Right Wingers to Centers. When you eat do you mix your peas with mashed potatos & beef or whatever? Is that what you people do in Michigan?

 

[quoipourquoi]

I dont go there quoipourquoi. Absolutely separated practically & intellectually. Its Apples~Oranges as is Defenceman~Forwards, Left to Right Wingers to Centers. When you eat do you mix your peas with mashed potatos & beef or whatever? Is that what you people do in Michigan?

We mostly just pronounce "t" sounds as "d" sounds, sir.

 

[Killion]

We mostly just pronounce "t" sounds as "d" sounds, sir.

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.

 

[Theokritos]

Hasek has the winning record against Roy...internationally (on a weaker team)

A 100% winning record even. Otherworldly!

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Why would you measure, rate & rank a skater against a goaltender anyway?

I think that you *have* to - they're both hockey players. It's difficult because they have different roles, but something being difficult doesn't mean that it shouldn't be done.

You could apply the same logic and say that you shouldn't compare forwards to defensemen. Some might even go further and say that offensive forwards can't be compared to defensive forwards.

Ultimately, hockey players are hockey players.

 

[Killion]

Ultimately, hockey players are hockey players.

... 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.