Ken Dryden vs. Dominik Hasek

[livewell68]

Exactly, the 1996 vezina was a joke. Hasek and Puppa were the best goalies at actually stopping the puck, but from some reason team stats matter, the art ross isnt judged by how successfull a guy's team is, it is based on how they themselves did. Jim Carey was just an average goalie that year. Al Rollins won a hart in a year where his team finished last.

Art Ross? Aren't we talking about the Vezina here?

 

[Epsilon]

So am I. But it pretty clearly exists. And it was even worse in his heyday than it is now.

In Hasek's case, it's not just international biases, it's that a clear section of the Canadian hockey press and fanbase developed a full-on hatred for him due to the result of the 1998 Olympics.

 

[toob]

In Hasek's case, it's not just international biases, it's that a clear section of the Canadian hockey press and fanbase developed a full-on hatred for him due to the result of the 1998 Olympics.

I dont see a clear section of this at all in fact i would say that many in the Canadian media overstated Hasek's role in that game and the Olympics as a whole (Czech's were playing good for anyone who watched despite how they looked on paper)

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I dont see a clear section of this at all in fact i would say that many in the Canadian media overstated Hasek's role in that game and the Olympics as a whole (Czech's were playing good for anyone who watched despite how they looked on paper)

Yeah, I think there was definitely some bias against Hasek in the media. But I think it's a combination of

1) the North American media doesn't care at all about what he did outside the NHL
2) he wasn't exactly the friendliest guy with the media
3) he didn't play in Toronto (there was a definite big push for Cujo over Hasek at one point).

But I think Hasek's 1998 Olympics have become very overrated and shoved into the traditional narrative of "Canada can only lose if the other team's goalie steals the show."

 

[quoipourquoi]

he didn't play in Toronto (there was a definite big push for Cujo over Hasek at one point).

That push was made by the GMs, not the media.

 

[Big Phil]

Yeah, I think there was definitely some bias against Hasek in the media. But I think it's a combination of

1) the North American media doesn't care at all about what he did outside the NHL
2) he wasn't exactly the friendliest guy with the media
3) he didn't play in Toronto (there was a definite big push for Cujo over Hasek at one point).

But I think Hasek's 1998 Olympics have become very overrated and shoved into the traditional narrative of "Canada can only lose if the other team's goalie steals the show."

Full marks to Hasek and all for the 1998 Olympics but I think the sexy storyline of stopping 5 Canadian shooters in the shootout ges overplayed at times. He was good in the game - not great because he didn't have to be. Canada didn't pour it on until overtime. There were a couple of "rolaids" moments for Hasek when he looked shaky in overtime as well. But the shootout? I'll say that only Fleury and Lindros did anything decent. Fleury came in and tried to go high on Hasek only to hit the top of his shoulder and go up in the air. Bourque let a low percentage shot go in the top right hand corner that Hasek turned away. Nieuwendyk played with the puck way too much and actually missed the net by a decent margin. Lindros charged in and had Hasek beat and on his back but rang it off the post. Even Hasek's reaction makes you think he wasn't sure if it was in. Then Shanahan doddles in on him and slowly tries a couple of dekes before running out of room on his forehand.

I don't consider the 1998 Olympics Hasek's shining moment. He was legendary in the 1997-'98 regular season and otherworldly in the 1998 playoffs. Same thing for 1999 but a longer Cup run. That was Hasek at his best, not the 1998 Olympics. The Czech team trapped a lot and played "not to lose" rather than "to win". Even Jagr who was the best forward in the world at the time didn't have a lot of impact.

 

[Derick*]

I like how the argument nearly immediately turned into Hasek v. Roy, haha. I think that answers your question better than anything.

 

[canucks4ever]

Art Ross? Aren't we talking about the Vezina here?

When jarome iginla won the pearson, was his team's horrible record a factor, no? Not only did Hasek have the best save%, he took way more shots than the rest of the goalies that year. I wouldnt mind if they gave the vezina to darren puppa, jim carey was a middle of the pack goalie.

 

[quoipourquoi]

I wouldnt mind if they gave the vezina to darren puppa, jim carey was a middle of the pack goalie.

Calling him a "middle of the pack goalie" is an oversimplification. Carey was inconsistent. Just the same as no one had as many on nights as Carey (9 shutouts to Brodeur's 6, Puppa's 5, and Hasek's 2), no one had as many off nights as Carey (8 games below .800, tanking his save percentage from .918 to .906). He certainly didn't run away with it with his five 1st-Place votes, but given the fact that he finished 2nd in Wins, 3rd in GAA, 1st in SOs and hadn't had one of his atrocious games in the months preceding the vote while his competition was finishing with losing records and fifty-game seasons (Hasek, himself, finished with a 3-9 slump), Carey was bound to appear on some ballots.

In all likelihood, Brodeur was going to be the winner until that third period against Ottawa in Game 82, which ended up being the reason that Puppa made the playoffs. Puppa was probably the best goalie from game-to-game, but it made sense why Carey won at the time. I don't particularly like it, but it makes sense. Why Cechmanek didn't win in 2001 or at least appear on a greater number of ballots than he did... I can't make sense of it.

 

[canucks4ever]

Calling him a "middle of the pack goalie" is an oversimplification. Carey was inconsistent. Just the same as no one had as many on nights as Carey (9 shutouts to Brodeur's 6, Puppa's 5, and Hasek's 2), no one had as many off nights as Carey (8 games below .800, tanking his save percentage from .918 to .906). He certainly didn't run away with it with his five 1st-Place votes, but given the fact that he finished 2nd in Wins, 3rd in GAA, 1st in SOs and hadn't had one of his atrocious games in the months preceding the vote while his competition was finishing with losing records and fifty-game seasons (Hasek, himself, finished with a 3-9 slump), Carey was bound to appear on some ballots.

In all likelihood, Brodeur was going to be the winner until that third period against Ottawa in Game 82, which ended up being the reason that Puppa made the playoffs. Puppa was probably the best goalie from game-to-game, but it made sense why Carey won at the time. I don't particularly like it, but it makes sense. Why Cechmanek didn't win in 2001 or at least appear on a greater number of ballots than he did... I can't make sense of it.

Having 9 shutouts also means he had more games where he was horrible. GAA, all that indicates is playing on a better team and facing less shots.

In 1996, Jim Carey ranked 13th/21 for all goalies that played over 50 games in terms of save percentage. So in terms of actually 'stopping the puck', he was middle of the pack.

If they dont want to give the vezina to hasek because his team didnt do well, then give it to puppa or hextall. Carey's vezina is among the worst in the last 20 years.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Having 9 shutouts also means he had more games where he was horrible.

So... what you're saying is that you didn't read my post?

 

[canucks4ever]

So... what you're saying is that you didn't read my post?

What I am saying is that if goalies were judged the same way forwards are when it comes to 'individual awards', Hasek or Puppa would have gotten the award.

Nowadays, games played and save% are the only stats that matter for the Vezina. GAA, shutouts are not that useful.

 

[HalifaxforNhl100]

Dryden would perhaps impressed maybe a bit more if he had continued about as long as Hasek
But were incredibly good goaltenders
The two with highest capacity still alltime imo

 

[The Panther]

A thirteen year thread bump may be a new record in my time here...

 

[HalifaxforNhl100]

12 or 13
Yea but I didnt
cope or manage myself to
search after a better thread…
felt so
Greatest goalies
tho i may
could..
yeah ok

Though in fact
Taboo to bump old threads…
Have never really understood
why
I have wanted to have rational
opinions ideas about that thing
But ok, maybe it
can be seen as a little
confusing if many bumps
old threads tho
if someone bumps my threads
if their 100 years old or more
I would just be glad

 

[Professor What]

A thirteen year thread bump may be a new record in my time here...

An 18-year-old thread got bumped the other day.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

It’s okay to bump threads if there’s a legitimate reason to do so.

(In case someone quotes me later, doing it to gloat or confuse people viewing a poll are not legitimate.)

 

[Moose Head]

Dryden was great and the best goalie in the NHL during his career. But it would be interesting how he is thought of if the Iron curtain falls in 1970 instead of 1990 and Tretiak and Holochek are part of his competition in the NHL for accolades. Roy, Brodeur and Belfour competed against Hasek. Outside of 72 and 79, and the odd exhibition game, Dryden didn’t compete on a regular basis against potentially his Hasek.

 

[Stephen]

In Hasek's case, it's not just international biases, it's that a clear section of the Canadian hockey press and fanbase developed a full-on hatred for him due to the result of the 1998 Olympics.

Negative coverage of Dominik Hasek came out of Buffalo in 1997, where Hasek had a public feud with Ted Nolan, spilling over into Nolan vs Muckler, everyone getting fired after a very public power struggle that went up to management and ownership levels.

https://thehockeynews.com/news/thn-archives-nolan-hasek-butt-heads-regier-takes-over

He also got a bad guy personality for his run in with Jim Kelley in 1997:

https://www.chicagotribune.com/1997/04/26/hasek-spits-at-writers-feet-then-pushes-and-swings-at-him/

Has nothing to do with international bias from Canada, thank you very much.

 

[Fatass]

Dryden all day, every day.

 

[Mike C]

Negative coverage of Dominik Hasek came out of Buffalo in 1997, where Hasek had a public feud with Ted Nolan, spilling over into Nolan vs Muckler, everyone getting fired after a very public power struggle that went up to management and ownership levels.

https://thehockeynews.com/news/thn-archives-nolan-hasek-butt-heads-regier-takes-over

He also got a bad guy personality for his run in with Jim Kelley in 1997:

https://www.chicagotribune.com/1997/04/26/hasek-spits-at-writers-feet-then-pushes-and-swings-at-him/

Has nothing to do with international bias from Canada, thank you very much.

In other words, the guy's a dick

 

[Mike C]

Actually...you implied that Dryden didn't have much to do with making the Habs great and they would of won without him which was clearly not always the case as I once again bring up '71 where the Habs won on Dryden's back not the other way around.

The year Dryden held out, the team gave up 50 plus more goals than the year before and got bounced in the 1st round

 

[Mike C]

In comparison to every other player that is in the top 40 all-time ranking going by the THN.

Lafleur at 12? Come on.

Bossy in the top 20?

Trottier top 30?

It was Potvin who was the cornerstone of that dynasty.

Dryden # 25? Really?

Kurri was a great two-way player but how good would his offensive stats have been had he not played along side the "Great One"?

Then there's Messier Mr. Overrated himself. We all know how reliable his title of "The Greatest Captain of all-time" really is considering what he did in Vancouver and during his second stint in New York with all those overpaid, lazy players. A good captain could have had more influence in trying to right the ship, instead Messier was a big part of the problem.

Even being awarded 2 Hart trophies is a bit of a question mark. Him finishing ahead of Jagr in the Hart voting in 1995-96 is another one. Messier is a player that lived off of his "reputation" when that reputation wasn't necessarily 100% deserved.

Potvin and Bossy were cornerstones indeed. Trottier was the backbone. Bryan Trottier and playoff Billy are the 2 factors that the team could not afford to lose

 

[Mike C]

Look up Roy's playoff OT record and then come back and tell me that their respective records are "close".
His PO OT record is so ridiculous that no one else is even remotely close to him.
40-18 with the next closest being Belfour at 22-20.
Not to mention his NHL record of 12 straight PO OT wins in a row from '93-'96.
Which BTW is only two less wins than Hasek has total.

Look, Hasek was better than Roy overall, especially in the regular season but come playoff time, Roy was better.
Trying to argue otherwise is no different than trying to make a case that Roy was as good as Hasek in the regular season. He makes a decent case but falls noticeably short in the end.

You say "Sure, Roy has 3 Conn Smythes" like it's something to be dismissed, not like it's also an NHL record or anything.

No one remotely close??

Billy Smith with a 16-5 .762 says hi to those lauding the guy with a 40-18 .690

 

[The Panther]

Dryden is before my time, but to me he's always the most difficult goalie to 'rate' (not that I spend much time rating goalies... or thinking about goalies).

At least in North American professional + collegiate + NHL hockey, Dryden is surely the "winningest" goalie of all time in terms of wins-losses, no?

ECAC (US College): 76-4-1 (94.4 win%)
AHL RS: 16-7-8 (64.5 win%)
NHL RS: 258-57-74 (75.8 win%)
NHL playoffs: 80-32 (71.4 win%)

His entire career is all-killer, no-filler. The only area in which he wasn't completely win-dominant is international hockey, but even then there's only a tiny sample size of, like, 8 games over three tournaments, and he still went .500.

So, we get into the eternal dilemma of how much of his teams' successes to attribute to him...?

On the one hand, everyone seems to agree that Dryden deserved the 1971 Conn Smythe. Also, as noted, without him in 1973-74, the Habs suddenly dropped 21 points in the standings and went out in the first round (then gained 14 points when he returned the next year). And once he retired in 1979, the Montreal Dynasty was over.

On the other hand, even without him in 1973-74, Montreal was still one of the best teams in the League and had pretty good defence, despite Wayne Thomas (I've never heard of this guy until today) as the main starter. He had 10 NHL games under his belt before that no-Dryden season started, but was the top goalie on the Habs that year, and they had a .635 season, which is still really good. Then, you can also look at the back-up goalies behind Dryden: 'Bunny' Larocque went 96-18-18 during the years he backed-up Dryden. I repeat, the back-up goalie went 96-18-18 (!!!) for five seasons while backing-up Dryden. Now, sure, it was the 1970s and Larocque probably faced a lot of crappy teams, but still that is the most insane record for a back-up I have ever seen in my life. Then, there's the fact that after Dryden retired (and after Bowman left town), the Habs didn't exactly fall apart defensively. In 1979-80, they had the 3rd-best NHL defense, in 1980-81 the #1 NHL defense, and in 1981-82 the #1 NHL defense (#1 of that decade, in fact, with mostly forgettable Wamsley and Herron sharing the Jennings trophy).

So, it's hard to say. But I think the point with Dryden is that even though he was placed into the most favorable position for a goalie (i.e., Montreal anytime in the 60s, 70s, 80s, early-90s), he was the guy who kind of pushed them over the edge, even though he wasn't the straw that stirred the drink.