Round 2, Vote 1 (HOH Top Goaltenders)

  • PLEASE check any bookmark on all devices. IF you see a link pointing to mandatory.com DELETE it Please use this URL https://forums.hfboards.com/
Status
Not open for further replies.

overpass

Registered User
Jun 7, 2007
5,423
3,395

Thanks for the link. Looks like a pretty good study, although it's limited to hockey in the 2011-12 season so may not be generalizable to all of hockey history.

Let's set aside the question of whether goalies actually have different innate abilities when it comes to the distribution of goals allowed, separate from their skill in aggregate goals allowed. You have asserted that where the performance broken down by distribution differs from the aggregate performance, we should rate based on the aggregate performance. Why? Can you defend this assertion? A statistic based on the distribution of goals allowed may do a better job than than an aggregate statistic of measuring the goaltender's contribution to team success.

It seems like you have an unstated philosophical stance that goalies should be rated based on their abstract talent rather than their actual contribution to winning, and you are making sweeping assertions based on this stance. Can you justify this? Many participants may not share this view.
 

Nalyd Psycho

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
24,415
16
No Bandwagon
Visit site
Jacques Plante was asthmatic. After his 70 game, Hart Trophy, 1961-62 season, he played only 56 games during the 1962-63 season. The team did not want a goalie tandem. Worsley was available.

Plante played one full season - 1963-64 then became a tandem goalie the rest of his career.

Ironically, by that point in his career, Wosley was also a tandem goalie.
 

vadim sharifijanov

Registered User
Oct 10, 2007
29,493
17,584
"He was a good partner to Chris Osgood and Manny Legace. He didn’t feel threatened. The only person to threaten Dom was Dom. He was very aware of who he was and what he’d accomplished," Bedard said."

i'm curious about the back up thing. we know brodeur has usually had great relationships with his backups.

as the quote above indicates, and i believe it, hasek never went "belfour" on his backups because he was dominik hasek. curious about the osgood/hasek dynamic in 2008, which i've never heard a peep about. but looking back at hasek's career, he took himself out of the lineup a lot more often than someone else (i.e., osgood) did.

so we know also that belfour was a lunatic. whether he did in fact intentionally hurt alex auld in a barfight, we have heard lots over the years about backing up belfour being a thankless task and him being a paranoid freak. maybe it makes sense, being that he had to claw his way into the league, and when he got there he was one of three young guys, the others being golden boy jimmy waite and a guy who turned out to be even better than he was.

most curious about roy though. i don't think i've ever heard anything about him and his backups, other than that aebischer liked him a lot, and that i think billington was practically his goalie coach. but if belfour is a maniac, then roy is a complete and utter sociopath competitively, and i wonder if the backups he left in his wake in montreal were a result of him completely destroying them psychologically. like, you hear stories of michael jordan effectively ending guys' careers in practice just because he's a competitive freak and needs to flex his muscles. of any hockey player ever, i'd imagine that roy would be the guy who couldn't help himself in this regard.

'87-'89, he splits the workload with hayward, who is really good and i would argue a legit starter in his own right. roy can't have liked this right?

then in 1990, hayward nosedives, at the age of 29, and is out of the league by 33. he couldn't even stick as a backup with the expansion sharks.

and then what the hell happened to j.c. bergeron and andre racicot? maybe they both sucked. or maybe the pressure of being roy's backup, and having to deal with him on top of that, ruined them. both were pretty highly touted coming out of juniors and the minors.
 

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,783
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
1962-63 Season

Ironically, by that point in his career, Wosley was also a tandem goalie.

1962-63 season saw Worsley play 67 games vs 56 for Plante.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/w/worslgu01.html

Worsley suffered a serious groin injury in the 8th 1963-64 game providing Charlie Hodge to play the rest of the season and playoffs.

Plante played 65 games for the Rangers but wilted late in the year.

The two goalie system was in place for the 1964-65 season.
 

Ohashi_Jouzu*

Registered User
Apr 2, 2007
30,332
11
Halifax
1962-63 season saw Worsley play 67 games vs 56 for Plante.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/w/worslgu01.html

Worsley suffered a serious groin injury in the 8th 1963-64 game providing Charlie Hodge to play the rest of the season and playoffs.

Plante played 65 games for the Rangers but wilted late in the year.

The two goalie system was in place for the 1964-65 season.

Right, but like Nalyd said, by the time Plante was a "tandem goalie" ('93/94 I believe he quoted you as saying) so was Worsley, who had season highs of 51 and 40 GP sprinkled lovingly into his final 10 seasons after '93/94. I'm not sure if you posted this to refute his claim or not, though.
 

Nalyd Psycho

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
24,415
16
No Bandwagon
Visit site
1962-63 season saw Worsley play 67 games vs 56 for Plante.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/w/worslgu01.html

Worsley suffered a serious groin injury in the 8th 1963-64 game providing Charlie Hodge to play the rest of the season and playoffs.

Plante played 65 games for the Rangers but wilted late in the year.

The two goalie system was in place for the 1964-65 season.

I'm not saying the logic of the move wasn't sound at the time of the move, just that it's ironic that how it played out was that they got exactly what they wanted to avoid.
 

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,783
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
Players

I'm not saying the logic of the move wasn't sound at the time of the move, just that it's ironic that how it played out was that they got exactly what they wanted to avoid.

From the team objectives the result had certain ironies. From the player standpoint Plante saw the implementation of the two goalie system that he had advocated, Worsley got to play on quality teams. Both saw their careers extended in the long run.

One of the more interesting trades in NHL history.
 

pluppe

Registered User
Apr 6, 2009
693
3
Why don't you provide another explanation?

Snappy one-liners contribute nothing to our understanding of these 7 goalies

Of course I can see many possibilities.

A coach who did not like him. A slow starter. Random variance. Untimely injuries. Backups on hot streaks. Or one of the reasons he presented.

I think this board is amazing in many ways and I don´t write long posts beacuse a) I don´t have the time and b) I don´t have the historical knowledge. But I do know bad deduction when I see it and I am quite well-read on bias. And I think many often miss the possibility that chance plays a roll when it always does. To take those number and say that it means either this or that is wrong and I think I am allowed to point this out so. The reason I did not present any other explanations in this particular case was because I think it is so very obvious that there were and I seriously wanted to know if he could not find any. Then Contrarian goaltender did a much better job than I ever could.
 

Master_Of_Districts

Registered User
Apr 9, 2007
1,744
4
Black Ruthenia
Thanks for the link. Looks like a pretty good study, although it's limited to hockey in the 2011-12 season so may not be generalizable to all of hockey history.

Let's set aside the question of whether goalies actually have different innate abilities when it comes to the distribution of goals allowed, separate from their skill in aggregate goals allowed. You have asserted that where the performance broken down by distribution differs from the aggregate performance, we should rate based on the aggregate performance. Why? Can you defend this assertion? A statistic based on the distribution of goals allowed may do a better job than than an aggregate statistic of measuring the goaltender's contribution to team success.

It seems like you have an unstated philosophical stance that goalies should be rated based on their abstract talent rather than their actual contribution to winning, and you are making sweeping assertions based on this stance. Can you justify this? Many participants may not share this view.

I'd analogize it to a statistic that measures high-leverage points among skaters. Such a stat undoubtedly does a superior job of measuring contribution to winning as compared to raw points.

But what's the significance? Based on the available evidence, there's no talent among skaters for scoring in high leverage situations, once you control for offensive ability in general. In other words, the deviations in high leverage points versus raw points are the product of luck. So to reward or punish players for performing better or worse in high leverage situations is to reward them for being lucky or unlucky (as the case may be).
 
  • Like
Reactions: BehindTheTimes

pluppe

Registered User
Apr 6, 2009
693
3
Let's say for the sake of argument that the only difference is random variation. Why should we look at the aggregate numbers as the default measure of the goalie's performance rather than a game-level stat - which is how hockey games are won and lost, on an individual basis?

And I don't think I've seen you, MasterOfDistricts, or anyone else present evidence that there is zero skill component in the distribution of goals against.

I was just pointing out that those numbers did not prove anything. And since we in this particular case (unless I am mistaken) began with pointing to a sample of 28 games (Hasek trailing in the playoffs) I think we should be very careful when drawing conclusions.

Other than that I don´t think I really follow what you mean. Are you arguing that perhaps we should measure on a game basis rather than a seasonal basis? Could you explain it in another way?
 

quoipourquoi

Goaltender
Jan 26, 2009
10,123
4,130
Hockeytown, MI
Why do you keep talking about Hasek's "second season" in the IHL? He was demoted to the IHL for two months in 1991 when Belfour returned from his holdout, mainly because Hasek had to clear waivers while Jimmy Waite did not, according to the Chicago Sun-Times.

"Because Hasek, 26, is a second-year pro, he doesn't have to clear waivers." Oct 29, 1991.

"Hasek probably would have to go because, unlike Waite, he doesn't have to clear waivers." Jan 10, 1992.

Hasek was recalled at New Year's and stayed up with Chicago for the rest of the season and through the playoff run. He played 20 games in the IHL in those two months and he didn't play particularly well. He sulked and talked to his agent about going back to Europe. He's hardly the first European player to take a demotion poorly after feeling (entirely justifiably, given his '90-'91 All-Star IHL season) that he had nothing left to prove at the minor league level. If you want to knock him for his attitude then feel free to do so, but to suggest that those two months prove anything at all about Hasek's pre-1993 ability is a big stretch, IMO.

I'm talking about it because his "sulking" as you've termed it here and elsewhere does not get reflected in his NHL record, thus making the previously posted career adjustment look better than it should be. He played a bigger stretch of games in the IHL in 1991-92 than he ever did in any international tournament prior to joining the Blackhawks organization. So with you telling me to look at the 1987 Canada Cup (where John Vanbiesbrouck shined brighter than anyone despite not being a threat to an NHL save percentage title until seven years later in his thirties), I would ask why that should hold greater weight than him being unprepared for NHL hockey in October or IHL hockey in November when the IHL had more than triple the sample size?


TCG said:
Not to mention that anything Roy lost in his career average by breaking in early he gained back by retiring at the age of 37, while Hasek lost .002 off his own unadjusted career average (and presumably more off of his adjusted career average) by playing in the NHL into his forties. Hasek faced 16.6% of his career shots against past the age of 40, after Roy had long since retired and at an age where very few are still effective as NHL goalies.

With Roy leaving in 2002-03 with the third-highest even strength save percentage among starters after having led that metric the season prior in 2001-02 and having placed higher than Hasek in 2000-01, I suppose we are in disagreement as to whether or not an extra season may have been detrimental or beneficial to Patrick Roy's career numbers. But once again, we're at the mercy of a career-compilation averaging statistic that neither includes Hasek's minor league struggles nor the numbers he would have achieved had he been a starter or part of a two-goalie system, which in my estimation would be hovering around Top-Ten (think 1992-93) as opposed to outright leading the league.


TCG said:
Yes 1993-94 was Hasek's fourth North American season, but at the time of Fuhr's injury in '93 he still had just 47 starts in the NHL, 19 of them in October or November. And at the time of Fuhr's injury, Hasek's career save percentage in the NHL was .887 in Oct/Nov, and .906 from December onwards. That's .906 when league average was around .885. For comparison's sake, from 1990-91 to the end of November 1993, Patrick Roy had a .908 save percentage.

But are October and November not an important part of the schedule?

TCG said:
So yes, I think Hasek did need to harness his talent a bit in the early years, but as his goalie coach said he had all the pieces to be a great goalie. He needed some coaching to maximize his potential but mainly he just needed to play. I think there is plenty of evidence that he was fully capable of NHL stardom if he had been given the opportunity in the late '80s and early '90s.

It seems to me as if he needed a team's confidence in net to be in him alone but didn't earn the right to play based upon his own October/November preparation.

Doing a quick search involving the words Dominik+Hasek+practice+habits returned a lot of things similar to:

"Whether it was a regular practice, a morning game-day skate, or a pregame warm-up, Dominik Hasek never gave up on a shot and contested every puck. It was easy to see why he was one of the best goalies of his era." (link)

"In spite of being supplanted as starter, Hasek remained a faithful supporter of Osgood and a diligent worker in practice."

"As Hasek's NHL career was winding down in Detroit, Bedard recalled that Hasek never lost his desire to challenge himself. "He was never satisfied if there was a puck [that beat him] that he should have had," Bedard said. "My toughest thing was getting him off the ice after practice." Hasek was an exemplary teammate even when, at the end, he gave way to Osgood as the Wings’ starter.

"He was a good partner to Chris Osgood and Manny Legace. He didn’t feel threatened. The only person to threaten Dom was Dom. He was very aware of who he was and what he’d accomplished," Bedard said."
(link to above quotes)

etc.

Personally, I'm not going to challenge Hasek's acceptance of Chris Osgood in 2007-08, but I will challenge Daccord calling Hasek one of the "hardest-working goaltenders over the last 20 years" in 2009, when on three occasions (with three teams), he had made the decision not to continue his season.

most curious about roy though. i don't think i've ever heard anything about him and his backups, other than that aebischer liked him a lot, and that i think billington was practically his goalie coach. but if belfour is a maniac, then roy is a complete and utter sociopath competitively, and i wonder if the backups he left in his wake in montreal were a result of him completely destroying them psychologically. like, you hear stories of michael jordan effectively ending guys' careers in practice just because he's a competitive freak and needs to flex his muscles. of any hockey player ever, i'd imagine that roy would be the guy who couldn't help himself in this regard.

'87-'89, he splits the workload with hayward, who is really good and i would argue a legit starter in his own right. roy can't have liked this right?

then in 1990, hayward nosedives, at the age of 29, and is out of the league by 33. he couldn't even stick as a backup with the expansion sharks.

and then what the hell happened to j.c. bergeron and andre racicot? maybe they both sucked. or maybe the pressure of being roy's backup, and having to deal with him on top of that, ruined them. both were pretty highly touted coming out of juniors and the minors.

I'd say there is definitely pressure to play behind Roy, and Roy certainly didn't like splitting starts with Hayward. His response was to play better than Hayward though - not sulk in the IHL (going 25-0-4 at the Forum in 1989 finally put him in the #1 spot). Hayward started to come off the tracks a little bit after that, and he didn't get as many home starts as a result.

I was just pointing out that those numbers did not prove anything. And since we in this particular case (unless I am mistaken) began with pointing to a sample of 28 games (Hasek trailing in the playoffs) I think we should be very careful when drawing conclusions.

Other than that I don´t think I really follow what you mean. Are you arguing that perhaps we should measure on a game basis rather than a seasonal basis? Could you explain it in another way?

Hasek also trails Roy in the percentage of quality games in the regular season, the playoffs, and the raw number of quality games in the NHL, since it's reasonable to reward goalies who play more often.

And again, despite Roy trailing in a series 45 times to Hasek's 28, he had 10 below-average games to Hasek's 13, so you can increase Hasek's sample size all you like because he's not passing Roy in that metric.

When Hasek is down in a series, he's almost a coin-flip to deliver a above-average game; Roy will seven out of nine times, hence the reason why it was so rare to take his teams out in less than a seven game series. He gets more consistent when backed into a corner, while Hasek gets less consistent. And there's a parallel to the respective mental strength of Roy's reaction to Hayward threatening his job, and Hasek's reaction to having to compete for a regular job in 1990-1993.
 

Ohashi_Jouzu*

Registered User
Apr 2, 2007
30,332
11
Halifax
Personally, I'm not going to challenge Hasek's acceptance of Chris Osgood in 2007-08, but I will challenge Daccord calling Hasek one of the "hardest-working goaltenders over the last 20 years" in 2009, when on three occasions (with three teams), he had made the decision not to continue his season.

Well, when everyone around him refers to him as a hard worker, fierce competitor, and diligent about his preparation, then you're basically forced to come up with another reason as to why he "quit" (in the absence of an "accepted" explanation), and the onus certainly isn't on any of us to defend that aspect of Dominik Hasek.

Having said that, here comes a Ken Holland anecdote in Dom's defense here:

"We played Colorado, outshot them badly, 40-something to like 16, and we lost 4-1. Dom didn't have a very good game that night. I went home and came back to the rink in the morning and the guy at the security gate told me that Hasek's car was in the parking lot all night. When I went in the building, I found out that Dom had spent the night sleeping on a cot in the stick room. He was punishing himself because he didn't play to the level he expected of himself.

"I'd always heard he was a difficult guy, different guy to have on teams and not necessarily a popular player, but I haven't known many competitors like him. That year, we beat Colorado in seven games in the Conference final and Dom outplayed Patrick Roy and we went on to win his first Stanley Cup."

And from the same link, here's another of his coaches, John Muckler:

"He used to scare the hell out of me because he didn't play by the book," said Muckler, who was his coach and general manager, first with the Buffalo Sabres, later with the Ottawa Senators. "I knew he stopped pucks. But I didn't know how he stopped them. That's what bothered me. He had a sense for the game like no one I've ever seen in goal and a tremendous competitive spirit.

"I remember one time we played New Jersey in the first round of the playoffs. The series went seven games. There was one game that went about four overtime periods. (Martin) Brodeur was in goal for Jersey. Dom was in goal for us. I think they each faced about 70 shots, first time in hockey history that happened in a game. (Dave) Hannan scored for us and we forced a Game 7. We lost 2-1 in the seventh game. They went on to win the Cup that year."

(link)

Still think it's too far-fetched to think he reached a couple of points in time along the way where he knew he was expected to pull off miracles night after night, felt unable to perform to those standards, and just felt that it would be best if the team went with someone else he had more confidence in for a few games? Kind of eccentric for a guy to just pull that and make a coach deal with it, but this is Hasek we're talking about. And, didn't Bryzgalov basically say the same kind of things about himself when he hit that small rough patch? Goalies are harder on themselves than I think you might realize.
 

overpass

Registered User
Jun 7, 2007
5,423
3,395
Glenn Hall in the playoffs year by year

1956
Detroit was the defending Cup champions, and second in the league in the regular season.

The semifinal was against fourth place Toronto, who finished below 0.500. Detroit won in 5 games, outshooting Toronto 180-147 and outscoring them 14-10 (with at least 3 goals in the four games they won.) Hall's numbers: 2.00 GAA, 0.932 SV%

The final was against Montreal, who had been the dominant team of the regular season. Montreal made short work of Detroit in five games, outscoring them 18-9 and outshooting them 158-124. Hall's numbers: 3.60 GAA, 0.886 SV%.

High point: Hard to say. Detroit won all three home games comfortably against a much weaker Toronto team. The one road win was a comeback OT win after Hall had allowed three 1st period goals.

Low point: Game 1 against Montreal. Detroit went into the second intermission with a two goal lead. Montreal bombarded Hall with 18 shots in the third, and scored on four. Hall and Detroit lost a great chance to steal a game on the road and take the lead in the final. It wsntNot entirely Hall's fault - Larry Hillman went down to injury halfway through the game and other d-men Red Kelly and Marcel Pronovost were playing hurt, so it was a team-wide collapse. But the Wings could have used some excellent goaltending and didn't get it.

Overall: Hall and Detroit beat a team that was clearly weaker and lost to a team that was clearly better. Can't say Hall did much to stand out in this playoff, and his Game 1 collapse in the final was a failure to step up.

1957
The Wings climbed back to first place in the regular season, and faced a surprising third place Boston squad.

Boston upset the Wings in a five game series. Boston narrowly outshot the Wings 129-124 and outscored them 15-14 over the series. Hall's numbers: 3.00 GAA, 0.884 SV%.

High point: Not much. In Hall's one win he was spotted 7 goals.

Low point: The Game 5 loss. Playing at home. Facing elimination. Ted Lindsay scores a go-ahead goal early in the third - and then Hall allows 3 goals on 6 shots in the third to lose the game.

Overall: Rough series for Detroit and especially for Hall

1959
Hall, now on an up-and-coming Chicago team, faced a dynasty Montreal Canadiens team in the semifinals.

Chicago was outshot 220-147 in the series, outscored 21-16, and lost in six games. Not a bad result, considering the disparity in team strength.

High point: Chicago's wins at home in Games 3 and 4. They managed to hold serve at home despite being outshot in both games, and Hall's 69 saves on 72 shots was a big part of the reason.

Low point: The first period of Game 5. Montreal scored four and put it away early. Game 6 was also tough - facing elimination at home, Hall allowed five goals on 37 shots, including four that broke a tie and gave Montreal the lead.

Overall: Can't blame Hall for this loss, Chicago was overmatched. There were high points and low points for Hall but an upset might have been too much to ask.

1960
Once again the third-place Hawks finished slightly below 0.500 and faced the dynasty Canadiens in the semi-final.

Chicago was outshot 118-94, outscored 14-6, and swept in four games. Hall had a 3.37 GAA and an 0.885 SV%.

High point: Hall kept the Habs scoreless in the first period of Games 3 and 4 at home - but his teammates couldn't score at home.

Low point: The Hawks scored 3 goals in each of Games 1 and 2 in Montreal, but Hall allowed 4 in both.

A tough matchup, but Hall didn't play very well either.

1961
Once again the third-place Hawks faced the league-leading Canadiens in the semifinal. This time, however, the Hawks pulled the upset. Despite being outshot 225-176, they outscored Montreal 16-15 and won in six games. Hall was 4-2 with a 2.18 GAA and a 0.933 SV%

In the final, the Hawks faced a fourth-place Detroit team that had upset the Leafs. Once again the Hawks won in 6 games, as Hall captured his only Stanley Cup as a starter. The shots were very close (198-194 Detroit) and the Hawks outscored the Wings 19-12. Hall was 4-2 with a GAA of 2.00 and a SV% of 0.939.

High point
The Game 3 overtime win against Montreal. Hall stopped 24 overtime shots and 53 of 54 total shots as Chicago won 2-1 in the third overtime period. Hall also posted back-to-back shutouts in Games 5 and 6 against Montreal, stopping a combined 56 shots.

Hall was solid against Detroit, but nothing stands out. The teams were more evenly matched, and Chicago's skaters scored goals.

Low point
Game 1 against Montreal was tied 2-2 going into the third period, and the Hawks had a chance to steal the first game on the road. Hall allowed four goals in the third period.

Overall
Hall was outstanding against Montreal. This was the same Montreal team that had just won the last five Stanley Cups, and they outshot Chicago by quite a bit once again. Hall's play was a big reason that the dynasty ended. Hall also played well against Detroit - he may not have won them any games but he didn't lose them any either.

1962
Once again the Hawks finished third in the league and drew a semifinal matchup with the league leading Montreal Canadiens. And once again the Hawks won in six games. This year the teams were almost even in shots - Montreal had the edge 204-195. Chicago outscored Montreal 19-13. Hall went 4-2 with a GAA of 2.00 and a SV% of 0.936.

In the final, Chicago faced a new contender, a strong Toronto club. Toronto won in six games, outscoring Chicago 18-13 and outshooting them 204-177.

Home teams carried the play in this final. Toronto won two at home, Chicago won the next two at home, Toronto won at home, and then finally closed it out on the road. Punch Imlach commented after Game 4 that the Chicago crowd was worth two goals, and in Game 5 the Toronto crowd showed up determined to out-do the Chicago crowd. Dink Carroll wrote after Game 5 that it was hard to remember a series in which home ice and the home crowd had meant so much.

High point: Game six against Montreal. Hall's 41 save shutout sent Chicago through to the finals.

Low point: Game 5 against Toronto. With a chance to go up in the series, Hall allowed Bob Pulford to score 17 seconds into the game, energizing the Toronto crowd. Chicago battled back to take a 3-2 lead early in the second, but Hall allowed three goals within five minutes in the second and ended up allowing eight goals. Hall also played well for most of Game 6, but allowed Toronto to scored two goals in the third period right after Bobby Hull had given Chicago a 1-0 lead.

Overall: Hall played well against Montreal. But his Game 5 performance in the final may have cost the Hawks their second straight Cup.

1963
The Hawks challenged for the regular season title this year, finishing one point short. They faced a strong fourth place team, the Detroit Red Wings, in the semifinal. Detroit won in six games. Chicago was outshot 171-241 and outscored 25-19 in a high-scoring series. Hall's GAA was 4.17 and his SV% was 0.896.

Chicago won the first two games at home, scoring five goals in both games and outshooting Detroit in both. But in games 3-6, Detroit outshot Chicago by 27, 21, 15, and 21 shots respectively and scored four, four, four, and seven goals. It looks like a team-wide collapse.

High points: Very few. Hall managed to make a five goal lead hold up in each of the first two games, but still allowed six goals.

Low points: The whole series was pretty bad, but the third period of Game 6 was the worst. With the score tied at four headed into the third, Hall allowed three goals on 18 shots in the third.

Overall: A very poor series for Hall and for Chicago's defensive performance as a team. Not a good showing for their strongest regular season team yet.

1964
Another strong regular season team in Chicago (1 point out of first). Another first round loss to the Detroit Red Wings, this time in 7. The Hawks were outshot 228-200 and outscored 24-18. Hall had a GAA of 3.24 and a SV% of 0.902.

High points: Hall stopped 39 of 41 shots in an OT win on the road in Game 4.

Low points: Five goals against at home in Game 2 - you really should win a home game where your team scored four goals. Game 6 was also poor, as Hall was pulled in the third after allowing five goals. And in a home Game 7, he allowed two goals in the first five minutes.

Overall
Another poor series for Hall and the Hawks.

1965
For the third straight seasons Chicago played Detroit in the semifinal, but this time Detroit had home ice advantage. Chicago won a close 7 game series, outscoring Detroit 23-19 despite being outshot 218-187. Hall's GAA was 2.60 and his SV% was 0.929. He won 4 games and lost 2, as Denis DeJordy started and lost Game 2.

Chicago faced Montreal in the final. Montreal had home-ice advantage, which turned out to be vital as the home team won every games. Montreal outshot Chicago 205-165 and outscored them 18-12. Hall's GAA was 2.25 and his SV% was 0.922.

High points: A Game 6 shutout against Detroit when facing elimination. Only allowed one goal in each of Chicago's home games against Montreal.

Low points: Benched for Game 2 in Detroit. Pulled in Game 5 against Montreal after allowing four goals. Allowed four first period goals in Game 7 of the Cup finals.

Overall: Hall was fine overall, but really blew it in Game 7 against Montreal. Bobby Rousseau scored 14 seconds into the game and it got worse from there.

1966
For the fourth straight season Chicago faced Detroit in the semifinal, this time with home ice advantage. Detroit outshot Chicago 181-153, outscored them 22-10, and beat them in six games. Hall's GAA was 3.80 and his SV% was 0.874.

High points: Solid 2-1 wins in Game 1 and Game 3, stopping 29 of 30 shots each time.

Low points: Seven goals against at home in Game 2. Five goals against in the pivotal Game 5 - at home, and the Hawks had scored three goals.

Overall: The Hawks appear to have been outplayed overall, and Hall certainly didn't play well either.

1967
Chicago's strongest regular season team yet lost to the geriatric Maple Leafs in the semifinal. While they were finally able to outshoot an opponent (222-206) they couldn't outscore them (14-18).

Hall was a platoon goalie at this point in his career, with Denis DeJordy playing most of the regular season games. Hall started games 3 and 6, and took over for Denis DeJordy early in Game 4. He went 1-2, with a GAA of 2.73 and a SV% of 0.924. Nothing special either way.

1968
Hall got a chance to be a starter again on the expansion St. Louis Blues. He led them to two playoff series wins in the expansion division, beating Philadelphia and Minnesota in seven games and posting a 2.35 GAA. But the Montreal Canadiens were a formidable opponent for an expansion team, and they swept Hall and the Blues in a four game series.

High point: A 44 save overtime win against Minnesota in Game 7.

Low point: Allowed two overtime goals in a combined three minutes in Games 1 and 3 of the Finals.

Overall: Won the Conn Smythe on a team that had little chance of beating a real NHL team in the final. Strong performance.

1969 and 1970
Part-time goaltender, nothing special about his performance.

Career

Overall, it looks as if Hall had more shaky playoff performances than strong playoff performances. He had some tough matchups in the late 1950s against the dynasty Canadiens, but other than that his teams lost some very winnable series.

One thing to consider is that his teams were almost always outshot, so there's certainly blame to go around.
 

overpass

Registered User
Jun 7, 2007
5,423
3,395
I'd analogize it to a statistic that measures high-leverage points among skaters. Such a stat undoubtedly does a superior job of measuring contribution to winning as compared to raw points.

But what's the significance? Based on the available evidence, there's no talent among skaters for scoring in high leverage situations, once you control for offensive ability in general. In other words, the deviations in high leverage points versus raw points are the product of luck. So to reward or punish players for performing better or worse in high leverage situations is to reward them for being lucky or unlucky (as the case may be).

I can go along with this line of argument when rating active players. In that case "lucky/unlucky" means roughly those things which we don't expect to have any bearing on future performance. Set those things aside and focus on "talent", meaning those things which will drive future performance.

But in this discussion we are discussing the past performance of players only. The future is not a consideration. How can a particular distribution or timing of performance* be described as lucky or unlucky in this context? Players are responsible for their performance, just as any person is responsible for their actions. If they come up short in a big spot, that's on them. You only get one career in hockey, and at the end of it you are what you did.
 

steve141

Registered User
Aug 13, 2009
1,147
245
I will challenge Daccord calling Hasek one of the "hardest-working goaltenders over the last 20 years" in 2009, when on three occasions (with three teams), he had made the decision not to continue his season.

Unless you have any personal insight into this that will counter what his teammates and managers say, there's just no basis for saying that Hasek was not a hard worker or did not practice:

  • Hasek had a playing style that relied heavily on athleticism, and was probably one of the most athletic goaltenders ever. There is no way that you reach and maintain that level of athleticism without a rigorous training regime.
  • Hasek's professional career lasted 30 years. That is four more than Chelios' and four short of Gordie freaking Howe. You are not going to convince me that that is possible without a severe passion for the game and a willingness to give it all every day.
 

pluppe

Registered User
Apr 6, 2009
693
3
I can go along with this line of argument when rating active players. In that case "lucky/unlucky" means roughly those things which we don't expect to have any bearing on future performance. Set those things aside and focus on "talent", meaning those things which will drive future performance.

But in this discussion we are discussing the past performance of players only. The future is not a consideration. How can a particular distribution or timing of performance* be described as lucky or unlucky in this context? Players are responsible for their performance, just as any person is responsible for their actions. If they come up short in a big spot, that's on them. You only get one career in hockey, and at the end of it you are what you did.

I think this is a complicated way of looking at things. Nobody is 100% responsible for their performance. I will take an extreme example. Stephen Bradbury has an olympic gold in short track from 2002. He was "responsible for his performance" in that his strategy was to hang back because he felt inferior to the others in skating but he was not "responsible for the results" in that so many of the people he was competing against fell that he won gold.

You could look at this and say he was better than the others and you could argue this but you could also argue he was more lucky. The truth is probably somewhere in between. That he has now finished his career does nothing to change the fact that luck had a lot to do with it. Therefore you can not only look at the results but we need to try to pinpoint the performance.

That is why I feel that when doing so should always be careful when evaluating only what you did and taking that at face value. And this carefullness should be higher whan the sample size is lower. In this case we are talking about a large difference in a very small sample size and a very small difference in a larger sample size. The numbers supports that Roy may have been more stable but are by no means conclusive.

One thing that I feel are always lost when comparing numbers between Brodeur, Roy and Hasek and that is relevant in this discussion is that Roys number compared to his peers in the regular season are at it´s most impressive when he did not have to compete with Hasek, Belfour and Brodeur. The 80s are not as strong when it comes to goalies and I imagine that 3 players of that caliber in a league of 21 number 1 goalies would make a significant difference on how easy it would be to separate from your peers and would affect adjusted stats. On the other hand Roy partly influenced this change and should get credit for that but it is worth mentioning when looking only at stats.
 

pluppe

Registered User
Apr 6, 2009
693
3
Hasek also trails Roy in the percentage of quality games in the regular season, the playoffs, and the raw number of quality games in the NHL, since it's reasonable to reward goalies who play more often.

One thing that I feel are always lost when comparing numbers between Brodeur, Roy and Hasek and that is relevant in this discussion is that Roys number compared to his peers in the regular season are at it´s most impressive when he did not have to compete with Hasek, Belfour and Brodeur. The 80s are not as strong when it comes to goalies and I imagine that 3 players of that caliber in a league of 21 number 1 goalies would make a significant difference on how easy it would be to separate from your peers and would affect adjusted stats. On the other hand Roy partly influenced this change and should get credit for that but it is worth mentioning when looking only at stats.


And again, despite Roy trailing in a series 45 times to Hasek's 28, he had 10 below-average games to Hasek's 13, so you can increase Hasek's sample size all you like because he's not passing Roy in that metric.

I don´t think you understand what random variance is. This sample size is simply too small to make much of a prediction.

When Hasek is down in a series, he's almost a coin-flip to deliver a above-average game; Roy will seven out of nine times, hence the reason why it was so rare to take his teams out in less than a seven game series. He gets more consistent when backed into a corner, while Hasek gets less consistent. And there's a parallel to the respective mental strength of Roy's reaction to Hayward threatening his job, and Hasek's reaction to having to compete for a regular job in 1990-1993.

Which you prove here. You say these things as if they are facts that explain 100% of the events. As if they can be used as perfect predictors. They don´t and they can´t.

I see that their playoff stats are pretty similar on the whole. Does that mean that Hasek has better numbers when leading in series? When tying? If so, does that then mean that Roy relaxes to much sometimes? No, of course not. It could mean that, but It could also just be random variance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BehindTheTimes

Sturminator

Love is a duel
Feb 27, 2002
9,894
1,070
West Egg, New York
J.C Tremblay was benched at times by Al McNeill, something that Claude Ruel was not willing to do. Nice "Wow" factor in terms of offensive stats, career 3rd / 4th best defensive dman on the team.

Led by better coaching -Scotty Bowman.

Still had the defensive core post 1971, healthy Savard, young Lapointe, veteran Laperriere.Forwards RHS - Henri Richard to go with LHS centers led by Lemaire speed wingers led by Cournoyer. Anchored by Ken Dryden in goal who stirred the drink.

Tremblay was always terrific in the playoffs, though, and specifically had a strong run in 1971. With Laperriere hobbled for a good chunk of the year, J.C. was definitely the Habs' best defenseman, on the whole, that season.
 

overpass

Registered User
Jun 7, 2007
5,423
3,395
I think this is a complicated way of looking at things. Nobody is 100% responsible for their performance. I will take an extreme example. Stephen Bradbury has an olympic gold in short track from 2002. He was "responsible for his performance" in that his strategy was to hang back because he felt inferior to the others in skating but he was not "responsible for the results" in that so many of the people he was competing against fell that he won gold.

You could look at this and say he was better than the others and you could argue this but you could also argue he was more lucky. The truth is probably somewhere in between. That he has now finished his career does nothing to change the fact that luck had a lot to do with it. Therefore you can not only look at the results but we need to try to pinpoint the performance.

That is why I feel that when doing so should always be careful when evaluating only what you did and taking that at face value. And this carefullness should be higher whan the sample size is lower. In this case we are talking about a large difference in a very small sample size and a very small difference in a larger sample size. The numbers supports that Roy may have been more stable but are by no means conclusive.

One thing that I feel are always lost when comparing numbers between Brodeur, Roy and Hasek and that is relevant in this discussion is that Roys number compared to his peers in the regular season are at it´s most impressive when he did not have to compete with Hasek, Belfour and Brodeur. The 80s are not as strong when it comes to goalies and I imagine that 3 players of that caliber in a league of 21 number 1 goalies would make a significant difference on how easy it would be to separate from your peers and would affect adjusted stats. On the other hand Roy partly influenced this change and should get credit for that but it is worth mentioning when looking only at stats.

I have no issue with using specific factors to put a player's performance into context. If one player had stronger teammates than another, or faced weaker competition than another, that's very relavant.

I take issue with the idea that goaltenders should be evaluated as hockey-playing robots for whom we only need to estimate their talent level. Let's give them enough credit to judge them as men who are responsible for their actions. The idea that everyone's actions are simply random flips of a weighted coin is dehumanizing. Look at Tony Esposito allowing a goal from centre ice in Game 7. At least give the man a chance to take responsibility for his actions! Saying "Tony Esposito, a goalie of 0.918 talent, randomly happened to allow a 1% shot. No credit or blame should be assigned except as it affects our overall estimate of his talent level" is ridiculous. One might as well say "Jacques Lemaire was the favourite of Athena so Athena clouded the mind and confused the vision of Tony Esposito." Neither gives any credit to human performance.

You use of the term "small sample" in this context is revealing. A sample is a subset of a population from which one can make inferences about the characteristics of the population. Let's say that we look at Patrick Roy's playoff record. It's not a "small sample" or indeed a sample at all - it's the entire population when it comes to Patrick Roy's playoff record! The only reason one would call it a sample is if one is only interested in Roy's aggregate record, meaning one has made the assumption that there is zero difference between playoff performance or any other performance. Same goes for any high-leverage situation, such as performance when behind in a series. Calling it a "sample" when looking back on a player's career devalues these situations and makes the assumption that one is interested in abstract talent level rather than actual performance in actual situations.
 

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,783
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
1995-96 to 2000-01 Sabres Teams

The following presents an overview of the 1995-96 to 2000-01 Sabres. First complete post 1994-95 partial season thru the end of Hasek's tenure with the Sabres. The focus is on the eastern conference, looking at the competition to make the playoffs and reach the Stanley Cup Finals.

Coaching and Management featured John Muckler,Ted Nolan, Lindy Ruff. In terms of the eastern conference the Sabres were consistently within the top three coaches and management, up there with the Devils - Lemaire and Lou L centric without Robbie Ftorek like stumbles.

Defense two elite internationals anchored the Sabres defence - Richard Smehlik and Alexei Zitnick. Not Ray Bourque, Brian Leetch or Eric Desjardins caliber but ideal for Hasek's game and defending against the European influences that changed NHL offences. Also Michael Peca was the perhaps the top defensive NHL center during the 1995-96 to 1999-2000 era. One Selke.

Offense Front line offense 20 + goal scorers and support scoring 10-19 goals define offense. Teams with balanced offence enjoy great success - late forties Leafs, sixties Canadiens and Leafs, post 1995 Red Wings are just some examples. Teams with limited elite offence - sixties Hawks, nineties Penguins tend to underachieve if not supported with balanced depth offence.

For the era under consideration:

20+ Goal Scorers

Pittsburgh 27
New Jersey 25
Philadelphia 24
Buffalo 22

10 - 19 Goal Scorers

Buffalo 32
New Jersey 31
Philadelphia 28
Pittsburgh 24

Combined

New Jersey 56
Buffalo 54
Philadelphia 52
Pittsburgh 51

At all levels, the Buffalo Sabres were in the solid to elite levels in the eastern conference for the era in question. Pretending they were a weak, non-playoff team without one player simply does not hold upon examination.

True they had the goaltending but it was very well supported by Michael Peca and his ability to shutdown the opposing #1 center. Supported by a forward group and defensemen that could take advantage and generate offence to win. A defensive group appropriate for the team. Coaching and management that sustained the team building and balance with excellent pre game and in game adjustments/strategies. Plus management with excellent additions and acquisitions.
 

tarheelhockey

Offside Review Specialist
Feb 12, 2010
86,037
141,728
Bojangles Parking Lot
I know I'm not helping things by focusing so heavily on Sawchuk at the moment, but can someone make the case for Plante?

My biggest issue with ranking him has always been a sense that he benefitted tremendously from his team situation. Now that I'm splitting hairs, I'm not sure whether that's fair or not.
 

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,783
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
Plante

I know I'm not helping things by focusing so heavily on Sawchuk at the moment, but can someone make the case for Plante?

My biggest issue with ranking him has always been a sense that he benefitted tremendously from his team situation. Now that I'm splitting hairs, I'm not sure whether that's fair or not.

Case for Plante is being made in stages. You are helping tremendously by focusing on Sawchuk.
 

Sturminator

Love is a duel
Feb 27, 2002
9,894
1,070
West Egg, New York
I take issue with the idea that goaltenders should be evaluated as hockey-playing robots for whom we only need to estimate their talent level. Let's give them enough credit to judge them as men who are responsible for their actions. The idea that everyone's actions are simply random flips of a weighted coin is dehumanizing. Look at Tony Esposito allowing a goal from centre ice in Game 7. At least give the man a chance to take responsibility for his actions! Saying "Tony Esposito, a goalie of 0.918 talent, randomly happened to allow a 1% shot. No credit or blame should be assigned except as it affects our overall estimate of his talent level" is ridiculous. One might as well say "Jacques Lemaire was the favourite of Athena so Athena clouded the mind and confused the vision of Tony Esposito." Neither gives any credit to human performance.

An excellent point, and well-stated. We are not simply judging who were the most talented players here. We are also judging what those people actually did with their talent, their ultimate destiny as hockey players, if you will. It's not fair, at all, but it is human.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad