Round 2, Vote 1 (HOH Top Goaltenders)

[BM67]

This is a compilation of some of my posts from the original HOH Top 100 project.

-

Plante was short changed on all-star selections because he played on a stacked team. Plante led Montreal to 5 straight Vezinas and Stanley Cups but was only voted 1st all-star twice during that run. When he won the Vezina after Harvey was traded, he won the Hart. No one thought he'd win it without Harvey, but before that he was expected to win the Vezina because of Harvey.

Plante's top 5 Hart record has to be looked at in the same light as his all-star teams. Beliveau is the only Canadiens to win the Hart during their 5 straight Cup run. In fact Beliveau and Harvey are the only Canadiens to finish in the top 5.

He was a 7 time all-star, and won the Hart Trophy in 1962. His 6 Stanley Cup wins, 10 Finals appearances, and 7 Vezina Trophies are all records for goaltenders. A Retro Conn Smythe win in 1960 also makes him the one of only two goalies with both a Hart and a Conn Smythe. Chuck Rayner is the other.

According to the unofficial SV% numbers, Plante had a SV% over .900 every year, regular season and playoff, until the playoffs of 72. He led the NHL in SV% 5 times in the regular season, and 4 times in the playoffs, including a record .942 (possibly .944) in 70-71. He had a high peak, consistency, and longevity like no other. (Plante's quality of competition played a big part in his post expansion SV%, but he still put up very good playoff numbers, and his RS numbers truly are incredible.)

As good as Roy was in the playoffs, his W% dropped from .618 to .616 in the playoffs, while Plante's climbed from .614 (.628 in playoff seasons) to .664.

Know something? While Blake at times hated Plante, he always insisted he was the best goaltender he'd ever seen.

"Especially those five years we won the Cup, eh?" Blake said. "I played with (Bill) Durnan, and he was the best I'd ever seen up to that time. Plante was better during those five years."

Blake knew it and so did Plante. His teammates knew it, even though he stretched their patience from time to time. It's true he played behind many of hockey's best players, starting with Doug Harvey on defence, Jean Beliveau, Dickie Moore, Maurice and Henri Richard, Boom Boom Geoffrion and others. The result was that on some nights, Plante's work was minimal because his colleagues controlled the puck most of the game, but he always made the big stops when the Canadiens needed them. No goaltender I have ever known was more confident in his ability to win.

- Red Fisher - The man in the mask

"If Jacques was in the nets today, I'd still be playing. That's how good he was." - Bob Plager, Hockey Digest 1981

Plante was in net as a junior team beat the Soviet National Team.

"Jacques Plante is the best goaltender I've ever seen." - Anatoli Tarasov

"He did it his own way, and he was so damn good, he could do it his way." - Red Fisher

-

Glenn Hall is the only goaltender to ever be voted the NHL's best 7 times. He won a Smythe and was further voted #2 goaltender in the league 4 times.

At first glance it looks like Hall should be ahead of Plante, but you have to look beyond the awards, and playoffs also factor in, and Hall doesn't shine there career wise.

Two of Hall's 1st team nods came over Plante by a combined voting margin of 5 points, 108 to 104 in 57-58 and 106 to 105 in 59-60. 7 to 3 doesn't tell the whole story. Plante was hurt because of the team he played on. He was not getting enough credit for helping his great team, until Harvey left, then he got the Hart. From 56 to 60 he won 5 Vezinas, 5 Stanley Cups, and gave the best goaltending that Toe Blake every saw, but was only a 1st team all-star twice.

Hall and Plante played together in St. Louis for 2 years, lets compare:

Player|GP|Min|W-L-T|GAA|SO|Sv%|GP|Min|W-L|GAA|SO|SV%
Hall69|41|2354|19-12-8|2.17|8|.928|3|131|0-2|2.29|0|.931
Plante69|37|2139|18-12-6|1.96|5|.940|10|589|8-2|1.43|3|.950
Hall70|18|1010|7-8-3|2.91|1|.904|7|421|4-3|2.99|0|.907
Plante70|32|1839|18-9-5|2.19|5|.919|6|324|4-1|1.48|1|.935
Hall|59|3364|26-20-13|2.39|9|.921|10|552|4-5|2.83|0|.913
Plante|69|3978|36-21-11|2.07|10|.932|16|913|12-3|1.45|4|.945

Plante is 2 years older than Hall and came out of a 3 year retirement, and out performed Hall. Hall played in St. Louis for 4 years and Plante for 2, yet they both had 12 playoff wins while there.

Compare Hall's Conn Smythe playoff to Plante's of the next season where he didn't win.

Player|GP|Min|W-L-T|GAA|SO|Sv%
Hall|18|1111|8-10|2.43|1|.916
Plante|10|589|8-2|1.43|3|.950

Based on their play in the Finals, Hall deserved the Conn Smythe and Plante didn't, but based on the entire playoffs, Plante was just as deserving. Basically the difference is that Montreal was pumped to play against Plante much more than they were against Hall.

Compare Plante in 71 when he was a 2nd team all-star to Hall in 69 and Worsley in 68 when they were 1st team members.

Player|GP|Min|W-L-T|GAA|SO|Sv%
Worsley|40|2213|19-9-8|1.98|6|.922
Hall|41|2354|19-12-8|2.17|8|.928
Plante|40|2329|24-11-4|1.88|4|.944

Hall won the Conn Smythe in 68, and was a 1st team all-star in 69. Plante on the same team played better in 69 & 70. Plante was better from 69 to 71 than Hall was from 68 to 70, but Hall has a Conn Smythe and a 1st team all-star to Plante's 2nd team all-star. I'm not saying take away the awards, but look beyond them.

Having a better year doesn't always get you a better award. Plante's numbers were better and he played behind a worse team in 71. If Plante had played the same in 68 or 69 he would have been the 1st all-star, so just pointing at 1st vs 2nd doesn't tell the story.

Playoff vs regular season career comparison:

Player|Yrs|POYrs|RSGP|POGP|RSW|POW|RSW%|POW%|Dif|RSGAA|POGAA|Dif|Cups
Brodeur| 19| 17| 1191| 205| 656| 113| .622| .554| -.068| 2.23| 2.02| -0.21| 3
Hall| 18| 15| 906| 115| 407| 49| .545| .430| -.115| 2.49| 2.78| +0.29| 1
Hasek| 16| 13| 735| 119| 389| 65| .617| .570| -.047| 2.20| 2.02| -0.18| 1(2)
Plante| 18| 16| 837| 112| 435| 71| .614| .664| +.050| 2.38| 2.14| -0.24| 6
Roy| 19| 17| 1029| 247| 551| 151| .618| .616| -.002| 2.54| 2.30| -0.24| 4
Sawchuck| 21| 15| 972| 106| 446| 54| .560| .529| -.031| 2.51| 2.54| +0.03| 4

I'll have to do a version of this chart removing non-playoff seasons.

-

When Goalie's World did their all-time goalie ranking in 2000, they said their biggest argument against Sawchuck being #1 is that he was never a 1st All-star after Hall and Plante were in the NHL.

Sawchuck first 5 (full) years vs rest of career (15 years, from 55-56 on)
345 games 199 wins 57 shutouts 1.94 GAA 3 1st A-S 2 2nd A-S 3 Vezina 3 Cups
626 games 248 wins 46 shutouts 2.82 GAA 0 1st A-S 2 2nd A-S 1 Vezina 1 Cup

Plante first 5 (full) years vs rest of career (11 years, from 59-60 on)
331 games 187 wins 44 shutouts 2.02 GAA 2 1st A-S 2 2nd A-S 4 Vezina 5 Cups
506 games 250 wins 38 shutouts 2.61 GAA 1 1st A-S 2 2nd A-S 3 Vezina 1 Cup

Hall first 5 (full) years vs rest of career (11 years, from 60-61 on)
358 games 154 wins 31 shutouts 2.52 GAA 3 1st A-S 1 2nd A-S 0 Vezina 0 Cups
548 games 253 wins 53 shutouts 2.48 GAA 4 1st A-S 3 2nd A-S 3 Vezina 1 Cup

-

It's been pointed out that Plante didn't do much with the Rangers. Let's take a look.

Compare Worsley and Plante before and after the trade.

Worlsey 62-63 67 GP 22 W 34 L 10 T 3980 Min 217 GA 2 SO 3.27 GAA 2317 Saves .914 SV%
Plante 63-64 65 GP 22 W 36 L 7 T 3900 Min 220 GA 3 SO 3.38 GAA 2222 Saves .910 SV%

Hmm... Doesn't look good for Plante, but what else changed?

Doug Harvey 62-63 68 GP 4 G 35 A 39 Pts 92 PIM
Doug Harvey 63-64 14 GP 0 G 2 A 2 Pts 10 PIM

I wonder how many GA 54 games of Harvey are worth?

Of course the next year there was no Harvey, and Plante had a knee injury that required surgery and he went into his three year retirement.

 

[seventieslord]

Honestly - it's a terrible stat that adds nothing over save percentage itself.

There's no evidence that some goalies are more likely to have extreme performances than others, relative to skill level.

You might be right. For one thing, Hasek has the best relative sv% and also the highest quality start percentage, right? So the two have to be correlated to some degree.

You might also be wrong though, and I haven’t seen enough evidence that you’re right. For example, does this correlation hold true for all other goalies, or are their outliers? (i.e. goalies who have a high sv% but it’s based on extremely hot-and-cold play, leading to a low QS%? Or the opposite?)

I had him 9th. Hopefully you don't think being the 9th best goalie of all time is some sort of grievous disrespect..

Well said.

Wasn't Brian Hayward the only one of those goalies to received Vezina and All Star votes when splitting time with Roy, Hasek, or Brodeur? Wasn't he considered the best backup in the NHL in the late 80s and a reason why Roy didn't play as many regular season games at the time?

Yes, and yes. Thank you for pointing this out.

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.

Thank you for digging this up so I didn’t have to.

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

…"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."

Seriously Muckler. It wasn’t THAT long ago and you’re not THAT old.

 

[Canadiens1958]

1955 Playoffs - Jacques Plante

Detailed look at Jacques Plante's 1955 playoff performance. Data culled from the HSP project and reference to BM67 post #123 this thread. Some introductory comments. 1953,1954,1955 playoffs reflect Dick Irvin Sr's coaching efforts using a goalie tandem - Plante / McNeil then Plante / Hodge. Looking at the results without getting into the two goalie tandem discussion. Dick Irvin Sr introduced a twist to the two goalie tandem at the start of the 1955 playoffs. Both goalies Jacques Plante and Charlie Hodge were dressed for the game then alternated without any pattern. No clear explanation for this was ever provided. Explanations ranged from novelty strategy, change of pace - goalies were allowed a warm-up when they entered the game, to Irvin Sr thumbing his nose at the NHL after the Maurice Richard suspension. Regardless of the reason(s) it is possible to attribute GA to specific goalies and estimated minutes played, total shots on goal, it is not possible to be accurate within periods all the time. A Montreal Gazette game story illustrates the situation. Game 2 Finals:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=p4EtAAAAIBAJ&sjid=WZkFAAAAIBAJ&pg=6935,965591


Semi Final vs Boston

Game 1 - Home, MTL 2 BOS 0, PLANTE 47:00 (16/16), HODGE 13:00 (4/4), GAME (4/6/10).
Game 2 - Home, MTL 3 BOS 1, PLANTE 24:00 (6/7), HODGE 36:00 (15/15), GAME (10/7/5) First goal 36:15.(3-1)
Game 3 - Away, MTL 2 BOS 4, PLANTE 43:00 (12/14), HODGE 17:00 (14/16), GAME (13/11/6) First goal 13:53.(0-1)
Game 4 - Away, MTL 4 BOS 3 OT, PLANTE (25/28), (8/12/8/0), First goal 36:15.(1-1)
Game 5 - Home, MTL 5 BOS 1, PLANTE (13/14), (6/5/3), First goal 35:52 (5 - 1).

Jacques Plante SV%

Home .946 35/37
Away .881 37/42
Series .911 72/79

Notes, ESG allowed only. the unique Montreal goaltending arrangement still produced shutout first periods in 4 of the five games


Final vs DETROIT

Game 1 - Away, MTL 2 DET 4, Plante (26/30) (7/9/14), First goal 34:00 (1 - 1).
Game 2 - Away, MTL 1 DET 7, Plante 43:00 (36/40), Hodge 17:00 (7/10) Game (12/25/13), First goal 2:15 (0 - 1).
Game 3 - Home,MTL 4 DET 2, Plante (35/37), (7/15/15) First goal 18:13 (2-1).
Game 4 - Home,MTL 5 DET 3, Plante (37/40) (13/10/17) First goal 12:38 (1 - 1).
Game 5 - Away, MTL 1 DET 5, Plante (36/41) (14/14/13) First goal 12:59 (1 - 1).
Game 6 - Home,MTL 6 DET 3, Plante (35/38) (15/10/13) First goal
13:36 (1-1).
Game 7 - Away, MTL 1 DET 3, Plante (30/33) (7/18/8) First goal 27:12 (0 - 1).

Notes. 3 PPG, 2SH,1 ENG allowed all Plante. Series the Canadiens were outshot 269 - 187. Outscored 27 - 20.


Jacques Plante SV%

Home .930 107/115
Away .888 128/144
Series .907 235/259

Overall Montreal(tandem) vs Detroit

Montreal goalies 242 / 269 = .900 SV%
Detroit goalie 167 / 187 = .893 SV%

The tandem arrangement did not seem to benefit the team or the two goalies. The 1955 playoffs were Dick Irvin Sr's last with Montreal.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

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.

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.

[list of quotes]

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.

i think you two are responding a semantic argument by QPQ, not an argument that hasek wasn't a hard worker in the ways that you both say.

i.e., i think what he means is that despite the fact that hasek by all accounts trained and practiced as hard as anyone ever, hasek's literal disappearing acts show that there is a point or a certain situation at which hasek stops working. which is difficult to reconcile with the phrase "one of the hardest-working goaltenders over the last 20 years." especially when you contrast that to some of hasek's contemporaries, who one imagines would continue to play goal even if their leg fell off.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

i think you two are responding a semantic argument by QPQ, not an argument that hasek wasn't a hard worker in the ways that you both say.

i.e., i think what he means is that despite the fact that hasek by all accounts trained and practiced as hard as anyone ever, hasek's literal disappearing acts show that there is a point or a certain situation at which hasek stops working. which is difficult to reconcile with the phrase "one of the hardest-working goaltenders over the last 20 years." especially when you contrast that to some of hasek's contemporaries, who one imagines would continue to play goal even if their leg fell off.

But again, by "disappearing act" or "stopped working" you're referring to is Hasek taking himself out of games. We already know he was harder on himself than probably any other goalie (haven't heard of any other goalies punishing themselves with a night on the cot in the equipment room...). So why is it so hard to believe that there were a few times when someone as eccentric as himself decided to shut it down when he didn't think he gave the team the best chance to win? Sure, he could have persevered instead (and risk further injury, the way he played), but if he didn't think it was best for the team, then... why bother? 'Cause a good ol' Canadian boy would?

But in the end, it's basically just a judgement on his personality that has pretty much no bearing on his talent, so what's the context we're supposed to take away from all this? Without, btw, actually knowing his motivation, judging from the lack of links to direct quotes/anecdotes so far "proving" one way or the other.

 

[quoipourquoi]

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.

It's not as if Hasek was continuously out-dueling HOFers for save percentage titles (the second-place finishers to Hasek's SPCT titles were Vanbiesbrouck, Thibault, Osgood, Puppa, Hackett, Kidd, Barrasso, and Dafoe). It's fun to list the HOFers, but they weren't generally the guys at the top of the list, and I don't think anyone will argue that Roy and Belfour did not peak prior to 1993-94 or that Martin Brodeur did not peak after 1998-99.

As good as Roy was in the playoffs, his W% dropped from .616 to .614 in the playoffs, while Plante's climbed from .614 (.628 in playoff seasons) to .664.

Forgive me, but I have Roy's winning percentage in the playoffs at 151-94 (.616): Roy, and when placed in the same context as pre-1983 (no RS overtime), his regular season winning percentage at 507-283-207 (.612).

i think you two are responding a semantic argument by QPQ, not an argument that hasek wasn't a hard worker in the ways that you both say.

i.e., i think what he means is that despite the fact that hasek by all accounts trained and practiced as hard as anyone ever, hasek's literal disappearing acts show that there is a point or a certain situation at which hasek stops working. which is difficult to reconcile with the phrase "one of the hardest-working goaltenders over the last 20 years." especially when you contrast that to some of hasek's contemporaries, who one imagines would continue to play goal even if their leg fell off.

Exactly this. Following a Hart season by removing himself from the playoffs isn't exactly striking a chord with me the same as Jacques Plante's nose and Patrick Roy's appendix. And with save percentage being an averaging statistic, it doesn't get proper reflection in the major crux of the Hasek argument when others are playing hurt while he's taking a breather.

 

[quoipourquoi]

But again, by "disappearing act" or "stopped working" you're referring to is Hasek taking himself out of games. We already know he was harder on himself than probably any other goalie (haven't heard of any other goalies punishing themselves with a night on the cot in the equipment room...). So why is it so hard to believe that there were a few times when someone as eccentric as himself decided to shut it down when he didn't think he gave the team the best chance to win? Sure, he could have persevered instead (and risk further injury, the way he played), but if he didn't think it was best for the team, then... why bother? 'Cause a good ol' Canadian boy would?

Ugh. I'm not even Canadian.

Yeah, it's great that he would self-sacrifice (which protects his averaging-stat based numbers from being hurt, by the way), but Patrick Roy didn't exactly stink out the joint when he came out of the hospital in 1994 - or out of the dressing room in 1993.

But in the end, it's basically just a judgement on his personality that has pretty much no bearing on his talent, so what's the context we're supposed to take away from all this? Without, btw, actually knowing his motivation, judging from the lack of links to direct quotes/anecdotes so far "proving" one way or the other.

Personally, I think a goaltender's ability to show up to his job is a pretty important part of winning championships.

 

[seventieslord]

It's not as if Hasek was continuously out-dueling HOFers for save percentage titles (the second-place finishers to Hasek's SPCT titles were Vanbiesbrouck, Thibault, Osgood, Puppa, Hackett, Kidd, Barrasso, and Dafoe). It's fun to list the HOFers, but they weren't generally the guys at the top of the list, and I don't think anyone will argue that Roy and Belfour did not peak prior to 1993-94 or that Martin Brodeur did not peak after 1998-99.

Brodeur had two huge sv% seasons in 97 and 98.

Roy was always well above average and almost always high in the top-10.

Belfour definitely had his moments.

when you're talking about an averaging stat like this, it's not always about who was 2nd. Also, when you look at the GP totals of some of those guys, clearly sample size matters.

 

[ContrarianGoaltender]

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?

I think our difference on this is based largely on different philosophies in evaluating goalies (and perhaps touches on some of the points that Overpass mentioned about rating talent level vs. rating accomplishments).

You seem to be arguing (please correct me if I'm misrepresenting you), that Hasek did what he did in the IHL and that therefore should be reflected in how he is rated, regardless of any situational factors. You also seem to give a very significant weighting to Hasek's IHL performance in '90-91 and '91-92 based on the percentage of games he played in that league compared to the percentage of games he played in the NHL.

As I see it, Hasek was only in the IHL at all in '91-92 because of structural factors largely outside of his control (playing on a team with an elite goalie that was also favouring a highly drafted but overhyped prospect that had a different waiver eligibility than Hasek), and that if you look at the entire picture there is plenty of evidence of his talent, so a two month strength is not particularly meaningful, particularly given that it didn't affect his standing in the Chicago organization (the team quickly recalled him and played him more after the recall than he ever did before), nor did it have any apparent impact on Hasek's NHL performance (.906 from the recall through to the end of the playoffs). The fact that you play more games as a starter in the minor leagues than as a backup in the NHL also doesn't make them more important, in my opinion.

If I'm trying to assess how good Hasek was and what he would have done on an average team in an average situation compared to what every other goalie would have done in that same situation, then I don't think his IHL '91-92 has any significance at all because in an average situation Hasek would never have been in the IHL in '91-92 in the first place. And, given the difference in situational opportunity among goalies trying to break into the NHL, I think that's an entirely reasonable thing to do.

If your philosophy is that you are what you did and nothing more, that's fine, take a few points off of Hasek's pre-1994 career because of that two month stretch, although let me point out again (I think we discussed this in another thread) that Hasek's relative IHL performance in '91-92 was probably not really that different when you consider that the Indianapolis Ice was a non-playoff team with the second-worst goals against record in the league that year:

1990-91:
Hasek: 20-11-1, 2.52
Waite: 26-18-4, 3.47

1991-92:
Hasek: 7-10-2, 3.56
Waite: 4-7-1, 4.53

Another way to avoid the problem of having that period not affect Hasek's career NHL numbers at all would be to assume that he did not get sent down and that he played as much as Jimmy Waite did in his absence (91 shots against). Let's say Hasek continued his October performance and stopped just 78 of them (.857). That drops his career save percentage by a whopping .0003. If his play was more in line what he did over the entire season as a whole (.890), then it would have been .0001. Either way, not very significant in the grand scheme of things.

 

[ContrarianGoaltender]

Also, there's Hasek vs. Waite in Chicago in '90-91 and '91-92 combined:

Hasek: 13-4-2, 2.58, .897
Waite: 5-7-4, 3.59, .851

Hasek was about a goal better than Waite in every team situation in those two years, suggesting that his IHL performance was actually roughly equivalent to his NHL performance, and Hasek's NHL performance (albeit it over a small sample size) was very good considering the scoring context.

It also further proves that the Blackhawks were insane to keep Waite and trade Hasek in 1992, but we already knew that.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Excellent post on Plante. I'm going to try to comment on all your major points.

This is a compilation of some of my posts from the original HOH Top 100 project.

-

Plante was short changed on all-star selections because he played on a stacked team. Plante led Montreal to 5 straight Vezinas and Stanley Cups but was only voted 1st all-star twice during that run. When he won the Vezina after Harvey was traded, he won the Hart. No one thought he'd win it without Harvey, but before that he was expected to win the Vezina because of Harvey.

Plante's top 5 Hart record has to be looked at in the same light as his all-star teams. Beliveau is the only Canadiens to win the Hart during their 5 straight Cup run. In fact Beliveau and Harvey are the only Canadiens to finish in the top 5.

He was a 7 time all-star, and won the Hart Trophy in 1962. His 6 Stanley Cup wins, 10 Finals appearances, and 7 Vezina Trophies are all records for goaltenders. A Retro Conn Smythe win in 1960 also makes him the one of only two goalies with both a Hart and a Conn Smythe. Chuck Rayner is the other.

Yes, to me, Plante is a rare case where a goalie's team was so stacked, it actually significantly hurt him in awards recognition. It's no coincidence that he basically received nil Hart recognition during the dynasty, then won the Hart the season after Harvey was traded.

According to the unofficial SV% numbers, Plante had a SV% over .900 every year, regular season and playoff, until the playoffs of 72. He led the NHL in SV% 5 times in the regular season, and 4 times in the playoffs, including a record .942 (possibly .944) in 70-71. He had a high peak, consistency, and longevity like no other. (Plante's quality of competition played a big part in his post expansion SV%, but he still put up very good playoff numbers, and his RS numbers truly are incredible.)

How do we view Plante's time with the Rangers? After the trade, his GAA ballooned, and he received very little awards recognition. If you believe the reconstructed save % numbers though, it seems Plante did about as well as you can expected on that team. I guess

As good as Roy was in the playoffs, his W% dropped from .618 to .616 in the playoffs, while Plante's climbed from .614 (.628 in playoff seasons) to .664.

Mostly a team stat, but interesting nonetheless.

- Red Fisher - The man in the mask

"If Jacques was in the nets today, I'd still be playing. That's how good he was." - Bob Plager, Hockey Digest 1981

Plante was in net as a junior team beat the Soviet National Team.

"Jacques Plante is the best goaltender I've ever seen." - Anatoli Tarasov

"He did it his own way, and he was so damn good, he could do it his way." - Red Fisher

The Tarasov quote holds a lot of weight for me; shows Plante's reputation before joining the Canadiens. What year did Tarasov say it though? (Meaning would he have been comparing Plante to Tretiak or did he say it before he "saw" Tretiak?)

Glenn Hall is the only goaltender to ever be voted the NHL's best 7 times. He won a Smythe and was further voted #2 goaltender in the league 4 times.

At first glance it looks like Hall should be ahead of Plante, but you have to look beyond the awards, and playoffs also factor in, and Hall doesn't shine there career wise.

Two of Hall's 1st team nods came over Plante by a combined voting margin of 5 points, 108 to 104 in 57-58 and 106 to 105 in 59-60. 7 to 3 doesn't tell the whole story. Plante was hurt because of the team he played on. He was not getting enough credit for helping his great team, until Harvey left, then he got the Hart. From 56 to 60 he won 5 Vezinas, 5 Stanley Cups, and gave the best goaltending that Toe Blake every saw, but was only a 1st team all-star twice.

Yeah, when comparing Hall to Plante, it should really be 5 Hall - 3 Plante - 2 effective ties. With the knowledge that Plante probably was underrated prior to the Harvey trade.

Hall and Plante played together in St. Louis for 2 years, lets compare:

Player|GP|Min|W-L-T|GAA|SO|Sv%|GP|Min|W-L|GAA|SO|SV%
Hall69|41|2354|19-12-8|2.17|8|.928|3|131|0-2|2.29|0|.931
Plante69|37|2139|18-12-6|1.96|5|.940|10|589|8-2|1.43|3|.950
Hall70|18|1010|7-8-3|2.91|1|.904|7|421|4-3|2.99|0|.907
Plante70|32|1839|18-9-5|2.19|5|.919|6|324|4-1|1.48|1|.935
Hall|59|3364|26-20-13|2.39|9|.921|10|552|4-5|2.83|0|.913
Plante|69|3978|36-21-11|2.07|10|.932|16|913|12-3|1.45|4|.945

Plante is 2 years older than Hall and came out of a 3 year retirement, and out performed Hall. Hall played in St. Louis for 4 years and Plante for 2, yet they both had 12 playoff wins while there.

Didn't Plante see mostly home games and Hall road games during this time?

Compare Hall's Conn Smythe playoff to Plante's of the next season where he didn't win.

Player|GP|Min|W-L-T|GAA|SO|Sv%
Hall|18|1111|8-10|2.43|1|.916
Plante|10|589|8-2|1.43|3|.950

Based on their play in the Finals, Hall deserved the Conn Smythe and Plante didn't, but based on the entire playoffs, Plante was just as deserving. Basically the difference is that Montreal was pumped to play against Plante much more than they were against Hall.

I think a big part of Hall's Conn Smythe was that he went above and beyond for a first year expansion team. By the following season (when Plante started in the playoffs), St Louis was in its second year, so the media story wasn't as great.

Compare Plante in 71 when he was a 2nd team all-star to Hall in 69 and Worsley in 68 when they were 1st team members.

Player|GP|Min|W-L-T|GAA|SO|Sv%
Worsley|40|2213|19-9-8|1.98|6|.922
Hall|41|2354|19-12-8|2.17|8|.928
Plante|40|2329|24-11-4|1.88|4|.944

Hall won the Conn Smythe in 68, and was a 1st team all-star in 69. Plante on the same team played better in 69 & 70. Plante was better from 69 to 71 than Hall was from 68 to 70, but Hall has a Conn Smythe and a 1st team all-star to Plante's 2nd team all-star. I'm not saying take away the awards, but look beyond them.

Having a better year doesn't always get you a better award. Plante's numbers were better and he played behind a worse team in 71. If Plante had played the same in 68 or 69 he would have been the 1st all-star, so just pointing at 1st vs 2nd doesn't tell the story.

This is not entirely accurate. Hall and Plante were in a platoon situation, and Hall usually got the tougher starts - against better teams and on the road. It's why Hall was a 1st Team All Star in 1968-69, despite Plante's better numbers.

Playoff vs regular season career comparison:

Player|Yrs|POYrs|RSGP|POGP|RSW|POW|RSW%|POW%|Dif|RSGAA|POGAA|Dif|Cups
Brodeur| 19| 17| 1191| 205| 656| 113| .622| .554| -.068| 2.23| 2.02| -0.21| 3
Hall| 18| 15| 906| 115| 407| 49| .545| .430| -.115| 2.49| 2.78| +0.29| 1
Hasek| 16| 13| 735| 119| 389| 65| .617| .570| -.047| 2.20| 2.02| -0.18| 1(2)
Plante| 18| 16| 837| 112| 435| 71| .614| .664| +.050| 2.38| 2.14| -0.24| 6
Roy| 19| 17| 1029| 247| 551| 151| .618| .616| -.002| 2.54| 2.30| -0.24| 4
Sawchuck| 21| 15| 972| 106| 446| 54| .560| .529| -.031| 2.51| 2.54| +0.03| 4

I'll have to do a version of this chart removing non-playoff seasons.

I'm really not sure what this chart is supposed to show.

When Goalie's World did their all-time goalie ranking in 2000, they said their biggest argument against Sawchuck being #1 is that he was never a 1st All-star after Hall and Plante were in the NHL.

Sawchuck first 5 (full) years vs rest of career (15 years, from 55-56 on)
345 games 199 wins 57 shutouts 1.94 GAA 3 1st A-S 2 2nd A-S 3 Vezina 3 Cups
626 games 248 wins 46 shutouts 2.82 GAA 0 1st A-S 2 2nd A-S 1 Vezina 1 Cup

Plante first 5 (full) years vs rest of career (11 years, from 59-60 on)
331 games 187 wins 44 shutouts 2.02 GAA 2 1st A-S 2 2nd A-S 4 Vezina 5 Cups
506 games 250 wins 38 shutouts 2.61 GAA 1 1st A-S 2 2nd A-S 3 Vezina 1 Cup

Hall first 5 (full) years vs rest of career (11 years, from 60-61 on)
358 games 154 wins 31 shutouts 2.52 GAA 3 1st A-S 1 2nd A-S 0 Vezina 0 Cups
548 games 253 wins 53 shutouts 2.48 GAA 4 1st A-S 3 2nd A-S 3 Vezina 1 Cup

I think it's time this board dropped the pretense that Sawchuk, Hall, and Plante all competed each other for awards recognition (a point I'll emphasize more later). Glenn Hall's first season as an NHL starter was 1955-56, after Sawchuk's peak was over. Plante's first season as an NHL starter was 1954-55, the last season of Sawchuk's peak. Hall and Plante competed against each other for awards recognition. Sawchuk wasn't much competition by that point.

It's been pointed out that Plante didn't do much with the Rangers. Let's take a look.

Compare Worsley and Plante before and after the trade.

Worlsey 62-63 67 GP 22 W 34 L 10 T 3980 Min 217 GA 2 SO 3.27 GAA 2317 Saves .914 SV%
Plante 63-64 65 GP 22 W 36 L 7 T 3900 Min 220 GA 3 SO 3.38 GAA 2222 Saves .910 SV%

Hmm... Doesn't look good for Plante, but what else changed?

Doug Harvey 62-63 68 GP 4 G 35 A 39 Pts 92 PIM
Doug Harvey 63-64 14 GP 0 G 2 A 2 Pts 10 PIM

I wonder how many GA 54 games of Harvey are worth?

Of course the next year there was no Harvey, and Plante had a knee injury that required surgery and he went into his three year retirement.

Interesting look at the Rangers years. I still have a tough time evaluating Plante's performance there.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Personally, I think a goaltender's ability to show up to his job is a pretty important part of winning championships.

Agree. And you have three seasons with three teams (1997, 2004, 2006) where Hasek essentially provided his team with zero value in the playoffs by not playing (he played the first few games in 1997 but then not only didn't play the rest, he was a distraction in the media). But of course, not playing hockey games doesn't hurt averaging stats like save percentage.

Fans might not think 2004 or 2006 was a big deal, but the GMs seemed to have, as neither asked Hasek to return the following season.

Edit: It's also a big part of Martin Brodeur's resume that GMs and coaches seem to appreciate a lot more than fans.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

One impression I've always had of Hasek was that he was one of the few psychologically offensive goalies. He was excellent at getting under opponents skin and getting them to play worse. The flip side was that his defense wasn't as strong, when opponents were able to overcome the offense, he could struggle with the recovery.

Conversely. Roy, Plante, Dryden and Brodeur had great defense. They didn't break their opponents like Hasek could. But they were significantly less likely to be broken as well.

 

[ContrarianGoaltender]

Plante was short changed on all-star selections because he played on a stacked team. Plante led Montreal to 5 straight Vezinas and Stanley Cups but was only voted 1st all-star twice during that run. When he won the Vezina after Harvey was traded, he won the Hart. No one thought he'd win it without Harvey, but before that he was expected to win the Vezina because of Harvey.

Does anyone have any quotes from any writers at that time saying that Doug Harvey was the reason they were voting for Hall ahead of Plante? Because given the evidence of that time period (the GAA leader was always named the First Team All-Star), it strikes me as a bit anachronistic to assume that Plante was getting shortchanged by playing on a really strong team. The Canadiens weren't the only dynasty of that era and although Doug Harvey was one of the best ever he wasn't the only star defenceman of that era, while Plante was pretty much the only goalie of the time period winning GAA titles and still not being automatically voted to the First All-Star Team.

I don't accept the argument that the 1962 Hart was some sort of admission that the previous years of All-Star voting were wrong. The two awards were given out based on very different criteria. Plante definitely lost some Hart votes because of Harvey and the rest of his great teammates, because Hart votes had a pretty obvious bias towards goalies on weaker teams (e.g. Rollins winning 1954 while not making an All-Star team, Worsley third and 1st among goalies in 1956 while not making an All-Star team, Sawchuk 4th and 1st among goalies in 1957 while not making an All-Star team). That doesn't mean Plante unfairly lost any All-Star votes though.

I think it's just as likely that the voters got it right and that they saw Hall as clearly better than Plante even though Plante had the All-Star advantage of playing behind a great defence and racking up great GAAs. And I say that even though I actually have Plante ahead of Hall on my list.

I think it's time this board dropped the pretense that Sawchuk, Hall, and Plante all competed each other for awards recognition (a point I'll emphasize more later). Glenn Hall's first season as an NHL starter was 1955-56, after Sawchuk's peak was over. Plante's first season as an NHL starter was 1954-55, the last season of Sawchuk's peak. Hall and Plante competed against each other for awards recognition. Sawchuk wasn't much competition by that point.

Terry Sawchuk had pretty strong Hart support throughout the time period when he was supposedly little awards competition:

1955-56: 11th, 2nd among goalies
1956-57: 4th, 1st among goalies
1957-58: None
1958-59: 4th, 1st among goalies, 2AST
1959-60: T7th, 2nd among goalies
1960-61: None
1961-62: None
1962-63: 3rd, 1st among goalies, 2AST
1963-64: T7th, T3rd among goalies

If you are relying on awards voting for that period don't you have to accept that Sawchuk was regarded fairly highly still around the league?

Did he have an advantage in Hart voting because he played on weaker teams? Sure, just he had a disadvantage in All-Star voting because he played on those weaker teams. I think it is a mistake to write off Sawchuk completely in that time period. His Boston years were actually pretty good save percentage-wise and he was still rated highly around the league. I don't think he really started to fall off that much until around '60-61 playing on some mediocre Detroit teams, and even then he came back pretty strong in '62-63 and '63-64, and then did well platooning with Bower in Toronto.

 

[Czech Your Math]

Agree. And you have three seasons with three teams (1997, 2004, 2006) where Hasek essentially provided his team with zero value in the playoffs by not playing (he played the first few games in 1997 but then not only didn't play the rest, he was a distraction in the media). But of course, not playing hockey games doesn't hurt averaging stats like save percentage.

Fans might not think 2004 or 2006 was a big deal, but the GMs seemed to have, as neither asked Hasek to return the following season.

Edit: It's also a big part of Martin Brodeur's resume that GMs and coaches seem to appreciate a lot more than fans.

The '97 playoffs is the real black mark IMO. To just take himself out in the middle of a game without explanation and seemingly not even attempt to come back over the next couple weeks is really strange.

2006 is a bit mysterious, but his injury came during the first game of the Olympics, and I don't see him faking injury at that time. It is not in his favor that Ottawa, a strong Cup contender, whose only other option in goal was Emery (who saw his first significant NHL action in 2006), decided not to bring back Hasek. However, maybe they decided he was too prone to injury, esp. at his age and given his acrobatic style, to rely on him.

Detroit is the least suspicious. They had other quality goalies and later brought Hasek back.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

One impression I've always had of Hasek was that he was one of the few psychologically offensive goalies. He was excellent at getting under opponents skin and getting them to play worse. The flip side was that his defense wasn't as strong, when opponents were able to overcome the offense, he could struggle with the recovery.

Conversely. Roy, Plante, Dryden and Brodeur had great defense. They didn't break their opponents like Hasek could. But they were significantly less likely to be broken as well.

i think roy for sure broke his opponents psychologically. the cockiness, the talking (on and off the ice), the showboating (including when that backfired in game 6, 2002), and of course the amazing goaltending. i think it all added up to an aura not only of invincibility, which he certainly had, but also that he was laughing at you as he was beating you.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Terry Sawchuk had pretty strong Hart support throughout the time period when he was supposedly little awards competition:

1955-56: 11th, 2nd among goalies
1956-57: 4th, 1st among goalies
1957-58: None
1958-59: 4th, 1st among goalies, 2AST
1959-60: T7th, 2nd among goalies
1960-61: None
1961-62: None
1962-63: 3rd, 1st among goalies, 2AST
1963-64: T7th, T3rd among goalies

If you are relying on awards voting for that period don't you have to accept that Sawchuk was regarded fairly highly still around the league?

Did he have an advantage in Hart voting because he played on weaker teams? Sure, just he had a disadvantage in All-Star voting because he played on those weaker teams. I think it is a mistake to write off Sawchuk completely in that time period. His Boston years were actually pretty good save percentage-wise and he was still rated highly around the league. I don't think he really started to fall off that much until around '60-61 playing on some mediocre Detroit teams, and even then he came back pretty strong in '62-63 and '63-64, and then did well platooning with Bower in Toronto.

So your take is that Sawchuk isn't as good as advertised from 1950-1955, but he's better than a lot of us are giving him credit for after 1955? How does that reconcile with your earlier statements that he is your lowest ranked of these 7 and has the lowest career GVT and save % of the 7? (considering save% and GVT records start in 1953, so they are mostly the result of his post-1955 years). Or HO's study that showed Sawchuk with a lower "points allocation" score than Hall, Plante, Bower, or Worsley after 1955?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

i think roy for sure broke his opponents psychologically. the cockiness, the talking (on and off the ice), the showboating (including when that backfired in game 6, 2002), and of course the amazing goaltending. i think it all added up to an aura not only of invincibility, which he certainly had, but also that he was laughing at you as he was beating you.

Roy sure broke Alexander Mogilny in the 2001 finals, to the point where he wouldn't even backcheck after yet another Roy save. Of course, Mogilny wasn't exactly the most mentally strong player.

 

[seventieslord]

So your take is that Sawchuk isn't as good as advertised from 1950-1955, but he's better than a lot of us are giving him credit for after 1955? How does that reconcile with your earlier statements that he is your lowest ranked of these 7 and has the lowest career GVT and save % of the 7? (considering save% and GVT records start in 1953, so they are mostly the result of his post-1955 years). Or HO's study that showed Sawchuk with a lower "points allocation" score than Hall, Plante, Bower, or Worsley after 1955?

I think he's probably saying "he's 7th on my list but don't be too fast to dogpile all over him, either."

It does make some sense though. Imagine the "chart" where he's on top of the world for 5 years and them bottoms out almost immediately. Not many careers actually go like that. It probably is more likely he wasn't as good as he looked from 50-55 and then was better than he looked from 55-65.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Detroit trading Sawchuk for the first time (to make room for Hall)

I think he's probably saying "he's 7th on my list but don't be too fast to dogpile all over him, either."

It does make some sense though. Imagine the "chart" where he's on top of the world for 5 years and them bottoms out almost immediately. Not many careers actually go like that. It probably is more likely he wasn't as good as he looked from 50-55 and then was better than he looked from 55-65.

Yes, but not many superstars struggle with alcohol like Sawchuk did. Here's an excerpt from the book, Glenn Hall, The Man They Call Goalie that explains why Detroit traded their superstar Terry Sawchuk in order to play Glenn Hall, who at that time was considered the best goalie prospect in the AHL.

Boston Bruin GM Lynn Patrick was in the market for a goalie... Like most in the NHL, Patrick knew that Glenn was the top minor-league prospect in the game, and assuming Sawchuk was untouchable, approached (Detroit GM) Adams about dealing for Glenn. Like Patrick, Adams knew that Glenn was ready for prime time, but unlike Patrick, Adams knew that Sawchuk was teetering on the edge of professional destruction because of alcoholism. When Adams turned the conversation away from Hall and towards Sawchuk, the Bruins GM was stunned...

Adams explained the trade: "We let Sawchuk go because we found ourselves with two top goalies. Hall is more advanced now than Sawchuk when he joined us, and all the players insist Glenn has been NHL material for this past year. It was a case of trading one of them, and Sawchuk is the more established player. Consequently, he brought the best offer."

Interestingly the reaction among Wings players and press of the day wasn't anger at trading Sawchuk. Adam's basic reasoning was dead-on. He had a right to be concerned about Sawchuk's potential future given what he knew about the man's personal demons and, despite the fact that Terry still had outstanding hockey left in him, he never again did equal his accomplishments of the previous five seasons. What outraged the players was that Adams got nothing even approaching equal value in return.

Jimmy Skinner, the Red Wings' coach at the time and Glenn's coach in Windsor recalled the trade. "We didn't want to lose either man. But we knew we couldn't keep them both. Jack told me that for the good of the league as well as the good of both men, we had to trade one. We had to share them. We kept Glenn because he was younger. As far as ability, it didn't really matter. They were both about the same, although Glenn had the better catch hand. But we really didn't want to see either man go."

Ted Lindsay thought that Detroit's weakness was defense and that if they had traded Sawchuk to Montreal (who had expressed interest in a goalie after Sawchuk beat rookie Plante in the 1955 finals), they could have gotten Doug Harvey or Tom Johnson. Lindsay said "with Johnson on defense we would have won five Cups in a row instead of Montreal, and with Harvey, we'd have won seven." But Jack Adams traded Sawchuk to Boston because he didn't want to trade him to Montreal - at the time, Montreal and Detroit were the two powerhouses in the league who often met in the finals.

Marcel Pronovost complained that "we didn't get (poop) from Boston."

-Glenn Hall: The Man They Call Mr. Goalie, Tom Adrahtas, pg 53-54

 

[nik jr]

This is a compilation of some of my posts from the original HOH Top 100 project.

-

Plante was short changed on all-star selections because he played on a stacked team. Plante led Montreal to 5 straight Vezinas and Stanley Cups but was only voted 1st all-star twice during that run. When he won the Vezina after Harvey was traded, he won the Hart. No one thought he'd win it without Harvey, but before that he was expected to win the Vezina because of Harvey.

goalies on great teams do not seem to have had problems getting AS selections. 1st AS was highly correlated with lowest GAA.

more important reason plante had only 3 1st AS selections may be glenn hall. hall was one of the only goalies before the modern era who played a full season and was voted 1st AS despite not having the best GAA.

Plante's top 5 Hart record has to be looked at in the same light as his all-star teams. Beliveau is the only Canadiens to win the Hart during their 5 straight Cup run. In fact Beliveau and Harvey are the only Canadiens to finish in the top 5.

henri richard was 4th in hart voting in '58 and moore was 5th in '59.

He was a 7 time all-star, and won the Hart Trophy in 1962. His 6 Stanley Cup wins, 10 Finals appearances, and 7 Vezina Trophies are all records for goaltenders. A Retro Conn Smythe win in 1960 also makes him the one of only two goalies with both a Hart and a Conn Smythe. Chuck Rayner is the other.

it seems to me that the main difference in '62 compared to '61 was plante's level of play, not the presence of harvey. i read something i think a few years ago that '61 was not a great season for plante, and that seems to be supported by stats and award voting. hodge and plante split games, and even though hodge played only 30, he got 1 vote for AS while plante got 0.

plante had a knee injury in '61 and i read today that there was some talk of a trade of plante+ for worsley.


'62 is sort of strange. habs had traded harvey, and also lost beliveau (27 games), richard (16 games), moore (13 games) and geoffrion (8 games) for parts of the season, but set a new record for goals (259) and finished 1st by 13p. habs' GA was 22 lower than previous season despite allowing more shots, backstrom and provost finished in top 10 in scoring (though neither were post season all stars) and talbot was 1st all star with harvey.

At first glance it looks like Hall should be ahead of Plante, but you have to look beyond the awards, and playoffs also factor in, and Hall doesn't shine there career wise.

Two of Hall's 1st team nods came over Plante by a combined voting margin of 5 points, 108 to 104 in 57-58 and 106 to 105 in 59-60. 7 to 3 doesn't tell the whole story. Plante was hurt because of the team he played on. He was not getting enough credit for helping his great team, until Harvey left, then he got the Hart. From 56 to 60 he won 5 Vezinas, 5 Stanley Cups, and gave the best goaltending that Toe Blake ever saw, but was only a 1st team all-star twice.

'58 seems strange. chicago was a weak team which almost finished last, but hall's unofficial sv% was only .909.

'60 was extremely close, but hall was also 3rd in hart voting (no votes for plante), had higher sv% and allowed only 5g more than plante, despite playing 3 more games and for a sub-.500 team.

When Goalie's World did their all-time goalie ranking in 2000, they said their biggest argument against Sawchuck being #1 is that he was never a 1st All-star after Hall and Plante were in the NHL.

Sawchuck first 5 (full) years vs rest of career (15 years, from 55-56 on)
345 games 199 wins 57 shutouts 1.94 GAA 3 1st A-S 2 2nd A-S 3 Vezina 3 Cups
626 games 248 wins 46 shutouts 2.82 GAA 0 1st A-S 2 2nd A-S 1 Vezina 1 Cup

Plante first 5 (full) years vs rest of career (11 years, from 59-60 on)
331 games 187 wins 44 shutouts 2.02 GAA 2 1st A-S 2 2nd A-S 4 Vezina 5 Cups
506 games 250 wins 38 shutouts 2.61 GAA 1 1st A-S 2 2nd A-S 3 Vezina 1 Cup

Hall first 5 (full) years vs rest of career (11 years, from 60-61 on)
358 games 154 wins 31 shutouts 2.52 GAA 3 1st A-S 1 2nd A-S 0 Vezina 0 Cups
548 games 253 wins 53 shutouts 2.48 GAA 4 1st A-S 3 2nd A-S 3 Vezina 1 Cup

this is a good point.

sawchuk also lost 1st AS to harry lumley in '54 and '55. peak sawchuk's competition does not look strong in hindsight. 2nd AS's from '51-'53 were chuck rayner, jim henry and gerry mcneil.

It's been pointed out that Plante didn't do much with the Rangers. Let's take a look.

Compare Worsley and Plante before and after the trade.

Worlsey 62-63 67 GP 22 W 34 L 10 T 3980 Min 217 GA 2 SO 3.27 GAA 2317 Saves .914 SV%
Plante 63-64 65 GP 22 W 36 L 7 T 3900 Min 220 GA 3 SO 3.38 GAA 2222 Saves .910 SV%

Hmm... Doesn't look good for Plante, but what else changed?

Doug Harvey 62-63 68 GP 4 G 35 A 39 Pts 92 PIM
Doug Harvey 63-64 14 GP 0 G 2 A 2 Pts 10 PIM

I wonder how many GA 54 games of Harvey are worth?

Of course the next year there was no Harvey, and Plante had a knee injury that required surgery and he went into his three year retirement.

seems unfair to say voters underappreciated plante b/c of harvey, but also that plante did not show very well with NYR b/c harvey was gone.

and as importantly, i don't think we can assume harvey was a great defensive player in '63 and '64. in '63, harvey was the highest scoring d-man (and had a fairly large lead in points over his rivals for norris) and missed only 2 games, but fared poorly in norris (6th) and AS voting (10th).


it seems to me that in the plante - worsley trade, habs added more than NYR, which seems to indicate that worsley was probably more valuable.

 

[ContrarianGoaltender]

So your take is that Sawchuk isn't as good as advertised from 1950-1955, but he's better than a lot of us are giving him credit for after 1955? How does that reconcile with your earlier statements that he is your lowest ranked of these 7 and has the lowest career GVT and save % of the 7? (considering save% and GVT records start in 1953, so they are mostly the result of his post-1955 years). Or HO's study that showed Sawchuk with a lower "points allocation" score than Hall, Plante, Bower, or Worsley after 1955?

Seventieslord has it right, I'm mainly disputing the narrative that Sawchuk suddenly fell off a cliff after 1955. His play dropped off, likely in large part due to his personal issues, but I don't think it really suffered that much until 1959 or 1960.

After looking at his numbers again I do think I may have been underrating his post-1955 team-adjusted performance a bit because team factors were significant in the original six. Sawchuk's save percentages weren't that great, but the value of his performance depended on how good his defence was. For instance, Sawchuk actually tracked Hall fairly closely in terms of save percentage right up until 1960.

1955-56: Hall .921, Sawchuk .911
1956-57: Hall .926, Sawchuk .921
1957-58: Hall .908, Sawchuk .906
1958-59: Hall .897, Sawchuk .896
1959-60: Hall .917, Sawchuk .907
1960-61: Hall .919, Sawchuk .896
1961-62: Hall .913, Sawchuk .887

Sawchuk probably wasn't much competition from 1959-1962, but he may not have been too far off the pace otherwise. Those are the years that really kill him relative to league average (.897 compared to .906 league average).

On the other hand Sawchuk was actually named a Second Team All-Star in 1958-59 when he finished dead-last in save percentage on a last-placed team, just one year after they voted Glenn Hall First Team All-Star on a non-playoff team. I don't think that's completely authoritative or anything but it does suggest that his teams weren't very good at all.

 

[pluppe]

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.

I have never suggested any such thing. Just that we need to see both sides of the coin. I think you should reread what i wrote instead of putting words in my mouth. I even said it points to Roy being more stable.

I have only objected to claims that I think are to certain and without enough context like this by quoipourquoi.

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.

I think this is taking it too far. If you think this is a valid deductions from the stats we have to agree to disagree.

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.

I still think we should be careful with this particular sample size since studies of clutchness based on much much larger samples have questioned it´s very existence. I´m not saying it is true in this case but it´s worth mentioning.

I also don´t understand why we are only looking at "trailing in a series"? Is it not as important to be stable when tying or leading? Is it then ok to relax? If those numbers show no difference I think you could question the deduction from the trailing numbers even more. Perhaps we are looking at only them because it holds Roy in the best of lights? What do I know but they would be interesting to se.

 

[nik jr]

Does anyone have any quotes from any writers at that time saying that Doug Harvey was the reason they were voting for Hall ahead of Plante? Because given the evidence of that time period (the GAA leader was always named the First Team All-Star), it strikes me as a bit anachronistic to assume that Plante was getting shortchanged by playing on a really strong team. The Canadiens weren't the only dynasty of that era and although Doug Harvey was one of the best ever he wasn't the only star defenceman of that era, while Plante was pretty much the only goalie of the time period winning GAA titles and still not being automatically voted to the First All-Star Team.

i have been searching through google's news archive and just now found something.

Canadiens' Ultimatum Gave Plante Desire
New York (AP) -- Jacques Plante, the masked goalie of the Montreal Canadiens, uncovered the incentives today behind the most sensational comeback in the National Hockey League.

"After all these years I have a real chance to prove myself," he said. "When we had the great defense with Doug Harvey, a lot of fans and writers said anybody could play goals for the Canadiens and still finish with the best record. Now that Harvey is gone and the defense is not what it used to be, what can they say?"
....
"Last summer the club officials called me into the office and told me I would have to play good goal or they would get somebody to take my place," Plante revealed. "I got a cut in salary, but they gave me a big incentive. If I win the Vezina Trophy again this year, I get a bonus of $3000 from the Canadiens and $1000 from the league."

Plante, recently voted the circuit's All-Star goalie for the first half of the 1961-62 season, holds a commanding lead in the Vezina Trophy competition. The award is given to the net-tender who permits the fewest goals. Plante won the trophy a record five straight times, starting with the 1955-56 campaign.

However, the 1960-61 season was a nightmare for the 33 year-old native of Mt. Carmel, Quebec. He suffered a knee injury and was subsequently shipped to the minors for three weeks.

"For a while, I thought my career was over," Plante said. "Even after I had an operation last spring, my knee gave me trouble. But I played a lot of tennis and golf and it finally got better. Then when I saw that Harvey went to the Rangers, I knew that I would have to work harder than ever before."

at that point in the season, plante had faced more shots than anyone but the combined total of boston's goalies chadwick and head.

plante's lower level of play was sometimes attributed to his use of the facemask, but plante said he was better b/c of it, and he wanted to prove that the mask was not a bad idea.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...AAIBAJ&pg=2976,1220083&dq=plante+harvey&hl=en


based on this article and the later trade, those 1961 trade rumors of plante+ for worsley were probably fairly accurate. but the column i read said plante, tom johnson and bonin for worsley, which the columnist dismissed as "wild."




edit: another article suggesting plante was penalized for his team's greatness. http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...AAIBAJ&pg=4491,4659872&dq=plante+harvey&hl=en

it also says habs' fans were more angry about plante's loss of 1st AS in 1st half of '59 to sawchuk than anything since maurice richard was suspended in '55. also says plante was sometimes booed on home ice, and that plante's roaming style sometimes made him look really bad, which probably hurt his reputation with various observers.

Terry Sawchuk had pretty strong Hart support throughout the time period when he was supposedly little awards competition:

1955-56: 11th, 2nd among goalies
1956-57: 4th, 1st among goalies
1957-58: None
1958-59: 4th, 1st among goalies, 2AST
1959-60: T7th, 2nd among goalies
1960-61: None
1961-62: None
1962-63: 3rd, 1st among goalies, 2AST
1963-64: T7th, T3rd among goalies

If you are relying on awards voting for that period don't you have to accept that Sawchuk was regarded fairly highly still around the league?

Did he have an advantage in Hart voting because he played on weaker teams? Sure, just he had a disadvantage in All-Star voting because he played on those weaker teams. I think it is a mistake to write off Sawchuk completely in that time period. His Boston years were actually pretty good save percentage-wise and he was still rated highly around the league. I don't think he really started to fall off that much until around '60-61 playing on some mediocre Detroit teams, and even then he came back pretty strong in '62-63 and '63-64, and then did well platooning with Bower in Toronto.

'57 may be an important inflection point. sawchuk was not an AS b/c he only played half of the season. he retired due to "nerves," after being the leader in AS voting for the 1st half. his numbers declined after '57. that decline could be due to other factors, but sawchuk's numbers were not much different from DRW's other goalies until '63 and '64, and his numbers were usually fairly well below bower's.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Brodeur had two huge sv% seasons in 97 and 98.

Roy was always well above average and almost always high in the top-10.

Belfour definitely had his moments.

when you're talking about an averaging stat like this, it's not always about who was 2nd. Also, when you look at the GP totals of some of those guys, clearly sample size matters.

My point is that people too often bring up the marquee names as if they had peaked at the same time as Hasek, and his high margins of save percentage leads were over a group of HOFers playing at their best - as opposed to the spike seasons of lower-end talent and the lesser seasons of high-end talent. Hasek saw Brodeur and Roy play at the level to which they earned their HOF-status just once: 1996-97. He bested them in the regular season (.930 to .927 and .923; Brodeur's playoff: .927; Roy's playoff: .932). Had Brodeur and Roy peaked from 1993-1999 instead of 2002-2008 or 1987-1992, Hasek doesn't have those types of leads.

I mean, Brodeur, Belfour, Hasek, Fuhr, and Joseph all suited up at one point or another in 1991-92, but we're not going to talk about that season as if everyone was in top-form either.

I think our difference on this is based largely on different philosophies in evaluating goalies (and perhaps touches on some of the points that Overpass mentioned about rating talent level vs. rating accomplishments).

That depends on which column you place an appearance in the second-round of the 1997 playoffs. Personally, I think that one falls under "expectations that should be met."

You seem to be arguing (please correct me if I'm misrepresenting you), that Hasek did what he did in the IHL and that therefore should be reflected in how he is rated, regardless of any situational factors. You also seem to give a very significant weighting to Hasek's IHL performance in '90-91 and '91-92 based on the percentage of games he played in that league compared to the percentage of games he played in the NHL.

I see it as this: His career adjusted save percentage is protected by him not getting regular minutes in the NHL until his prime in his late-twenties. I see his IHL play as evidence that despite some raw talent, he was not mentally prepared enough to be an NHL star - and while he had a very good 1992-93, he wasn't distancing himself enough from Daren Puppa or Grant Fuhr for me to believe that he would have been a Vezina contender from 1986-1993. Had he received regular minutes without competing at a top-tier level (which I don't believe he would, based upon his early NHL and IHL play), his career adjusted save percentage would decrease, just as Patrick Roy's career adjusted save percentage decreases because of out-of-prime play. Hasek's 1993-1999 (361 GP) makes up 49% of his career. Roy's 1987-1992 and late career 2001-2002 spike (371 GP) make up 36% of his career.

I see his World Championships to be even smaller of a sample size than his 1991-92 IHL play, and I believe that they are not as reflective of his potential to be an NHL star in the 1980s as others believe, because with 16 of 21 starters staying for the playoffs, there weren't too many relevant NHL goaltenders in those tournaments to which we can compare him. The closest we have is the 1987 Canada Cup, where John Vanbiesbrouck's performance was not at all reflective of his charting positions with NHL save percentage.

I think that putting on good performances in October and November is a reasonable expectation of star goaltender. If he wanted Jimmy Waite's job in 1990-91, he should have outplayed Ed Belfour. If he wanted Ed Belfour's job in 1991-92, he should have played well enough in the first week of splitting starts with Jimmy Waite for the team to not give in to Belfour's contract demands.

If he had the talent at the time, then there shouldn't have been a logjam of goaltenders in Chicago in the first-place (Ed Belfour, 74 Games). And I'm certainly not going to assume that while Roy and Belfour were trading Vezinas and Hart nominations that the best goalie in the world was "sulking" in Indianapolis. Because Hasek (one of the supposed "hardest-working goaltenders" over 1989-2009) "never gave up on a shot and contested every puck."