Round 2, Vote 1 (HOH Top Goaltenders)

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

In the regular season, yes. In the playoffs in the late 90s, the Sabres' offense tended to come alive, while the Devils' offense tended to stagnate.

1997:
Sabres 27 goals in 15 games (2.25 GPG) - Steve Shields plays most of the games.
Devils 27 goals in 10 games (2.70 GPG). 22 goals in 5 games in the first round (4.40 GPG). 5 goals in 5 games (1.00 GPG) while losing the 2nd round.

1998:
Sabres 46 goals in 15 games (3.07 GPG). 36 goals in 9 games (4.00 GPG) through 2 rounds. 11 goals in 6 games (1.83 GPG) in losing in the 3rd round - Washington actually scored 10 goals in those 6 games in regulation, but Kolzig beat Hasek 3 times in OT.
Devils 12 goals in 6 games (2.00 GPG)

1999:
Sabres 59 goals in 21 games (2.81 GPG). They score 50 goals in 15 games (3.33) in the three rounds they won. They score 9 goals in 6 games (1.50) in losing in the finals.
Devils 18 goals in 7 games (2.57 GPG)


Total:
132 goals in 51 games for Buffalo (2.59 GPG)
105 goals in 36 games for Buffalo in the 2 seasons with Hasek as a primary starter (2.92 GPG)
57 goals in 23 games for NJ (2.48 GPG)

Greater goal support is one reason why Buffalo advanced farther than NJ in the playoffs in the late 90s.

1996 (when both Hasek and Brodeur missed the playoffs) to 1999 is considered something of a "choking period" for NJ between their first 2 Cups, and lack of goal scoring was the primary reason (though Brodeur himself wasn't great in 1999).

Yeah... see... here's the thing though. Looking at the Sabres' "goal support" in aggregate is fine and all, but it ends up glossing over how streaky and unreliable it always seemed to be. In '97, they gave Hasek 1 or no goals of support in 5 of the 12 playoff games they played that year. In '98 they were clipping along decently until running into Kolzig, who basically did to the Sabres what Halak and the Habs did to Washington not so long ago. Still, it's not like Hasek, himself, didn't show up in those last deciding games vs Washington. Down 3-1 coming back home, he stops 34 of 35 shots to force a game 6. Kolzig was just one shot better in game 6, stopping 39/41 to Hasek's 35/38.

And then, yeah, '99. Faced the Jennings-winning Stars (and beast mode Belfour, especially in game 6), and not even Hasek in another Vezina-winning season could do much with 9 goals of support in that 6 game Final. But again, it's not like Hasek didn't show up. He stopped 186 of 198 shots that series (0.939 SV%). And that's what I mean about unreliable. Dump in a bunch of goals in the previous series against one of the weaker defensive teams in the league (Toronto among the worst in GA that year), then disappear when they're needed in the Final against a top defensive team.

Been happening to Dom since back in '94, against your Devils, after beating Brodeur in the 120 shots faced showdown in game 6 to force a game 7... where Hasek then stopped 44 of 46 shots... and his team mustered 18 total shots and only one goal. Although, that was the Mogilny/Hawerchuk Sabres, I believe, and not the "powerhouse" Plante/Audette/Peca edition.

 

[quoipourquoi]

No they are not unless I am blind. I am asking for the numbers when series are tied and when leading series. Do you have these?

I'm not sure how Hasek's consistency when he's in an equal or advantageous position in a series is a good counter for an argument that he struggles when faced with adversity (competition at his position, playing with injuries), but sure. Subtracting the trailing numbers from the total numbers gives us this:

Roy (Leading/Tied): 134-67; 66.7%
Roy (Trailing): 35-10; 77.7%
Roy (Difference): +10%

Hasek (Leading/Tied): 64-26; 71.1%
Hasek (Trailing): 15-13; 53.6%
Hasek (Difference): -18%


So, as you can see, Hasek's consistency falls significantly when his team is in a bad position, whereas Roy's consistency when down in a series offers his team the best chance to get back into the series.

In '97, they gave Hasek 1 or no goals of support in 5 of the 12 playoff games they played that year.

I think Steve Shields should be the one complaining about that...

 

[quoipourquoi]

Been happening to Dom since back in '94, against your Devils, after beating Brodeur in the 120 shots faced showdown in game 6 to force a game 7... where Hasek then stopped 44 of 46 shots... and his team mustered 18 total shots and only one goal. Although, that was the Mogilny/Hawerchuk Sabres, I believe, and not the "powerhouse" Plante/Audette/Peca edition.

Hasek made it up to them with his 1995 playoff:

Hasek: 27/31, .871
Hextall: 26/29, .897

Hasek: 21/24, .875
Hextall: 29/30, .967

Hasek: 18/19, .947
Hextall: 30/32, .938

Hasek: 23/27, .852
Hextall: 25/27, .926

Hasek: 24/30, .800
Hextall: 24/28, .857

 

[foame]

Dryden playoff-stats 1971-1979

Dryden playoff-stats for 1971-1979:

Went through Drydens playoffs games on HSP and created a spreadsheet for his periodical stats (Shots, Goals, Result) year by year, I tried to record the same stats that Overpass did for Hall and present it in the same way for an easier comparison. I haven't got time to fully analyze these numbers right now, so if someone want the spreadsheet please pm me.

First off, period-results:

Period Result (W/T/L)-Matrix
Year: 1971-1979

Period | _G_ | _W_ | _T_ | _L_
1 | 112 | 40 | 34 | 38
2 | 112 | 56 | 27 | 29
Leading | 40 | 33 | 2 | 5
Tied | 34 | 15 | 13 | 6
Trailing | 38 | 8 | 12 | 18
3 | 112 | 72 | 16 | 24
Leading | 56 | 52 | 4 | 0
Tied | 27 | 14 | 8 | 5
Trailing | 29 | 6 | 4 | 19
OT | 16 | 8 | 0 | 8
Total | 112 | 80 | 0 | 32

Rows = Gamestate for Montreal going into the period
Columns = Period result​

Dryden and Montreal seems to do very well when they lead the game going into a period, 33 of 40 times in the second and 52 of 58 times in the third did they defend their lead, combining for 85/98 overall or a 87% "period-win"-record when leading, comparing them with reg-season numbers from 97-98 (http://www.nhl.com/ice/teamstats.ht...=winPctAfterLead2P&viewName=recordWhenLeading), they look pretty good, particularly when takes the offensive/defensive syle of the eras in consideration.


I also counted the number of "First Goals Allowed" by Dryden during his playoff-games and in what kind of game-situation it was scored:

First Goal Allowed
Year: 1971-1979

Round: | Games | Even Strength | Powerplay | Short handed | Total | FGA/G
Quarter: | 41 | 8 | 8 | 0 | 16 | 0,39
Semi: | 39 | 12 | 6 | 2 | 20 | 0,51
Final: | 32 | 10 | 9 | 0 | 19 | 0,59
Total: | 112 | 30 | 23 | 2 | 55 | 0,49

The average for this stat should naturally be 0,5, which is exactly where Dryden lies and that did suprise me, since he played for the best team during the era and what's even more surprising is that either he or Montreal seemed to do worse against "tougher" opposition.


And here's the shots/goals for/against breakdown:

Glossary:
P/W/T/L = Periods played (Total = Games), Won, Tied, Lost
SP% D = Save Percentage for Dryden
GA/60 = Goals against Montreal per 60 min (not counting Empty Net)
SA/60 = Shots against Montreal per 60 min
SP% OPP = Save Percentage for Opposing Goalie
GF/60 = Goals for Montreal per 60 min (not counting Empty Net)
SF/60 = Shots for Montreal per 60 min,
SA/GA/SF/GF = Total Shots/Goals Against/For
(Dryden's statistics are on the left side, Opposing goalie on the right)

Numbers from The Hockey Summary Project.

TOTALS:
Year: 1971-1979

Period | _P_ | _W _ | _T _ | _L_ | _SP% D_ | _GA/60_ | _SA/60_ | _SP% OPP_ | _GF/60_ | _SF/60_ | _SA_ | _GA_ | _SF_ | _GF_
1 | 112 | 40 | 34 | 38 | 0,907 | 0,98 | 9,5 | 0,901 | 1,12 | 10,2 | 1068 | 110 | 1139 | 125
2 | 112 | 56 | 27 | 29 | 0,928 | 0,74 | 9,6 | 0,894 | 1,25 | 10,6 | 1073 | 83 | 1182 | 140
Leading | 40 | 33 | 2 | 5 | 0,933 | 0,7 | 9,8 | 0,915 | 1,03 | 11 | 393 | 28 | 439 | 41
Tied | 34 | 15 | 13 | 6 | 0,91 | 0,91 | 9,2 | 0,882 | 1,32 | 9,9 | 314 | 31 | 337 | 45
Trailing | 38 | 8 | 12 | 18 | 0,938 | 0,63 | 9,6 | 0,883 | 1,42 | 10,7 | 366 | 24 | 406 | 54
3 | 112 | 72 | 16 | 24 | 0,932 | 0,69 | 9,4 | 0,882 | 1,35 | 10 | 1052 | 77 | 1125 | 151
Leading | 56 | 52 | 4 | 0 | 0,94 | 0,61 | 9,4 | 0,88 | 1,38 | 10,1 | 528 | 34 | 563 | 77
Tied | 27 | 14 | 8 | 5 | 0,919 | 0,78 | 8,8 | 0,889 | 1,22 | 9,8 | 237 | 21 | 264 | 33
Trailing | 29 | 6 | 4 | 19 | 0,929 | 0,76 | 9,9 | 0,879 | 1,41 | 10,3 | 287 | 22 | 298 | 41
OT | 16 | 8 | 0 | 8 | 0,895 | | | 0,918 | | | 68 | 8 | 89 | 8
Total | 112 | 80 | 0 | 32 | 0,921 | 2,48 | 29,1 | 0,893 | 3,79 | 31,6 | 3261 | 278 | 3535 | 424

Some period-ratios:
These are all ratios of the goals/shots/saves scored in period 2/3 compared with either period 1 (P1) or period 2 (P2).

Period-ratios
Year: 1971-1979

Period | P | GF/GA P1 | GF/GA P2 | SF/SA P1 | SF/SA P2 | Saves D P1 | Saves D P2 | Saves OPP P1 | Saves OPP P2
1 | 112 | 1 | | 1 | | 1 | | 1 |
2 | 112 | 1,48 | 1 | 1,03 | 1 | 1,024 | 1 | 0,992 | 1
Leading | 40 | 1,29 | | 1,05 | | 1,03 | | 1,015 |
Tied | 34 | 1,28 | | 1,01 | | 1,004 | | 0,979 |
Trailing | 38 | 1,98 | | 1,04 | | 1,035 | | 0,979 |
3 | 112 | 1,73 | 1,16 | 1 | 0,97 | 1,028 | 1,004 | 0,978 | 0,986
Leading | 58 | 1,99 | 1,34 | 1 | 0,97 | 1,036 | 1,012 | 0,976 | 0,984
Tied | 26 | 1,38 | 0,93 | 1,04 | 1,01 | 1,013 | 0,99 | 0,986 | 0,994
Trailing | 28 | 1,64 | 1,1 | 0,97 | 0,94 | 1,024 | 1,001 | 0,976 | 0,983
Total | 112 | | | | | | | |

When I went through the games, it seemed like Montreal had some trouble when playing tight, tough games, specially against Boston, Buffalo and Islanders.

If there's enough interest for stats against a given team, opposing goalie or year, I can post it.

 

[Canadiens1958]

1999

Yeah... see... here's the thing though. Looking at the Sabres' "goal support" in aggregate is fine and all, but it ends up glossing over how streaky and unreliable it always seemed to be. In '97, they gave Hasek 1 or no goals of support in 5 of the 12 playoff games they played that year. In '98 they were clipping along decently until running into Kolzig, who basically did to the Sabres what Halak and the Habs did to Washington not so long ago. Still, it's not like Hasek, himself, didn't show up in those last deciding games vs Washington. Down 3-1 coming back home, he stops 34 of 35 shots to force a game 6. Kolzig was just one shot better in game 6, stopping 39/41 to Hasek's 35/38.

And then, yeah, '99. Faced the Jennings-winning Stars (and beast mode Belfour, especially in game 6), and not even Hasek in another Vezina-winning season could do much with 9 goals of support in that 6 game Final. But again, it's not like Hasek didn't show up. He stopped 186 of 198 shots that series (0.939 SV%). And that's what I mean about unreliable. Dump in a bunch of goals in the previous series against one of the weaker defensive teams in the league (Toronto among the worst in GA that year), then disappear when they're needed in the Final against a top defensive team.

Been happening to Dom since back in '94, against your Devils, after beating Brodeur in the 120 shots faced showdown in game 6 to force a game 7... where Hasek then stopped 44 of 46 shots... and his team mustered 18 total shots and only one goal. Although, that was the Mogilny/Hawerchuk Sabres, I believe, and not the "powerhouse" Plante/Audette/Peca edition.

Response to bolded. Excerp from post #152 by Rhiessen71 from the "Dominik Hasek Retires, What Is the Legacy?" thread.

Just for some perspective from when Belfour and the Stars beat Hasek and the Sabres in '99...
Going into the finals, Dallas had scored 51 goals in 17 games or 3.00GpG.
Buffalo had scored 50 goals in 15 games or 3.33GpG.

As a side note...including the minutes from the two OT games, Dallas only scored an average of 1.82 goals per 60mins in those finals and yet still won the Cup

Also, since some have forgotten that series, I'll remind folks of one very important thing.
After game 4, the series was tied 2-2 with every game decided by a single goal (empty netter in game 2).
In game 5 the Stars were out shot 23-21, Belfour posts a shutout.
In game 6 the Stars were out shot 54-50, Belfour only allowing a single goal.

So basically, Belfour OUTPLAYED Hasek in the last 2 games stopping 76 of 77 shots to win the Cup. Hasek stopped 67 of 71 shots.
So while Hasek did his job through those finals, Belfour did his better when it counted.

_______________________________________________________

Added considerations veteran coach Hitchcock vs younger Ruff. Dallas had a slightly better team defense.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/DAL/1999.html

Dallas had a slight edge in name player offense - Hull, Modano plus name recognition role and support players, yet going into the series the Sabres offense surpassed or matched Dallas.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Objective.

Dryden playoff-stats for 1971-1979:

Went through Drydens playoffs games on HSP and created a spreadsheet for his periodical stats (Shots, Goals, Result) year by year, I tried to record the same stats that Overpass did for Hall and present it in the same way for an easier comparison. I haven't got time to fully analyze these numbers right now, so if someone want the spreadsheet please pm me.

First off, period-results:

Period Result (W/T/L)-Matrix
Year: 1971-1979

Period | _G_ | _W_ | _T_ | _L_
1 | 112 | 40 | 34 | 38
2 | 112 | 56 | 27 | 29
Leading | 40 | 33 | 2 | 5
Tied | 34 | 15 | 13 | 6
Trailing | 38 | 8 | 12 | 18
3 | 112 | 72 | 16 | 24
Leading | 56 | 52 | 4 | 0
Tied | 27 | 14 | 8 | 5
Trailing | 29 | 6 | 4 | 19
OT | 16 | 8 | 0 | 8
Total | 112 | 80 | 0 | 32

Rows = Gamestate for Montreal going into the period
Columns = Period result​

Dryden and Montreal seems to do very well when they lead the game going into a period, 33 of 40 times in the second and 52 of 58 times in the third did they defend their lead, combining for 85/98 overall or a 87% "period-win"-record when leading, comparing them with reg-season numbers from 97-98 (http://www.nhl.com/ice/teamstats.ht...=winPctAfterLead2P&viewName=recordWhenLeading), they look pretty good, particularly when takes the offensive/defensive syle of the eras in consideration.


I also counted the number of "First Goals Allowed" by Dryden during his playoff-games and in what kind of game-situation it was scored:

First Goal Allowed
Year: 1971-1979

Round: | Games | Even Strength | Powerplay | Short handed | Total | FGA/G
Quarter: | 41 | 8 | 8 | 0 | 16 | 0,39
Semi: | 39 | 12 | 6 | 2 | 20 | 0,51
Final: | 32 | 10 | 9 | 0 | 19 | 0,59
Total: | 112 | 30 | 23 | 2 | 55 | 0,49

The average for this stat should naturally be 0,5, which is exactly where Dryden lies and that did suprise me, since he played for the best team during the era and what's even more surprising is that either he or Montreal seemed to do worse against "tougher" opposition.


And here's the shots/goals for/against breakdown:

Glossary:
P/W/T/L = Periods played (Total = Games), Won, Tied, Lost
SP% D = Save Percentage for Dryden
GA/60 = Goals against Montreal per 60 min (not counting Empty Net)
SA/60 = Shots against Montreal per 60 min
SP% OPP = Save Percentage for Opposing Goalie
GF/60 = Goals for Montreal per 60 min (not counting Empty Net)
SF/60 = Shots for Montreal per 60 min,
SA/GA/SF/GF = Total Shots/Goals Against/For
(Dryden's statistics are on the left side, Opposing goalie on the right)

Numbers from The Hockey Summary Project.

TOTALS:
Year: 1971-1979

Period | _P_ | _W _ | _T _ | _L_ | _SP% D_ | _GA/60_ | _SA/60_ | _SP% OPP_ | _GF/60_ | _SF/60_ | _SA_ | _GA_ | _SF_ | _GF_
1 | 112 | 40 | 34 | 38 | 0,907 | 0,98 | 9,5 | 0,901 | 1,12 | 10,2 | 1068 | 110 | 1139 | 125
2 | 112 | 56 | 27 | 29 | 0,928 | 0,74 | 9,6 | 0,894 | 1,25 | 10,6 | 1073 | 83 | 1182 | 140
Leading | 40 | 33 | 2 | 5 | 0,933 | 0,7 | 9,8 | 0,915 | 1,03 | 11 | 393 | 28 | 439 | 41
Tied | 34 | 15 | 13 | 6 | 0,91 | 0,91 | 9,2 | 0,882 | 1,32 | 9,9 | 314 | 31 | 337 | 45
Trailing | 38 | 8 | 12 | 18 | 0,938 | 0,63 | 9,6 | 0,883 | 1,42 | 10,7 | 366 | 24 | 406 | 54
3 | 112 | 72 | 16 | 24 | 0,932 | 0,69 | 9,4 | 0,882 | 1,35 | 10 | 1052 | 77 | 1125 | 151
Leading | 56 | 52 | 4 | 0 | 0,94 | 0,61 | 9,4 | 0,88 | 1,38 | 10,1 | 528 | 34 | 563 | 77
Tied | 27 | 14 | 8 | 5 | 0,919 | 0,78 | 8,8 | 0,889 | 1,22 | 9,8 | 237 | 21 | 264 | 33
Trailing | 29 | 6 | 4 | 19 | 0,929 | 0,76 | 9,9 | 0,879 | 1,41 | 10,3 | 287 | 22 | 298 | 41
OT | 16 | 8 | 0 | 8 | 0,895 | | | 0,918 | | | 68 | 8 | 89 | 8
Total | 112 | 80 | 0 | 32 | 0,921 | 2,48 | 29,1 | 0,893 | 3,79 | 31,6 | 3261 | 278 | 3535 | 424

Some period-ratios:
These are all ratios of the goals/shots/saves scored in period 2/3 compared with either period 1 (P1) or period 2 (P2).

Period-ratios
Year: 1971-1979

Period | P | GF/GA P1 | GF/GA P2 | SF/SA P1 | SF/SA P2 | Saves D P1 | Saves D P2 | Saves OPP P1 | Saves OPP P2
1 | 112 | 1 | | 1 | | 1 | | 1 |
2 | 112 | 1,48 | 1 | 1,03 | 1 | 1,024 | 1 | 0,992 | 1
Leading | 40 | 1,29 | | 1,05 | | 1,03 | | 1,015 |
Tied | 34 | 1,28 | | 1,01 | | 1,004 | | 0,979 |
Trailing | 38 | 1,98 | | 1,04 | | 1,035 | | 0,979 |
3 | 112 | 1,73 | 1,16 | 1 | 0,97 | 1,028 | 1,004 | 0,978 | 0,986
Leading | 58 | 1,99 | 1,34 | 1 | 0,97 | 1,036 | 1,012 | 0,976 | 0,984
Tied | 26 | 1,38 | 0,93 | 1,04 | 1,01 | 1,013 | 0,99 | 0,986 | 0,994
Trailing | 28 | 1,64 | 1,1 | 0,97 | 0,94 | 1,024 | 1,001 | 0,976 | 0,983
Total | 112 | | | | | | | |

When I went through the games, it seemed like Montreal had some trouble when playing tight, tough games, specially against Boston, Buffalo and Islanders.

If there's enough interest for stats against a given team, opposing goalie or year, I can post it.

Objective. But that was the objective when playing explosive. high powered offensive teams, reduced the game to a tight defensive game where the Canadiens excelled.

With Dryden, the Canadiens, never lost a series to Boston or the Islanders, split two with the Sabres - losing in 1975 when they got into a shoot-out winning in 1973 when playing a tight defensive game.

 

[Canadiens1958]

1959 & 1960 Playoffs - Jacques Plante

Second half of the 1957- 1960 era. Interesting from the standpoint that the semi-final and final opponents did not change and both - 1961 Chicago and 1962-64 Toronto became SC Championship teams.

Detailed look at Jacques Plante's 1957 - 1960 playoff performance, the last four of five consecutive SC Montreal Canadiens teams. Data culled from the HSP project and reference to BM67 post #123 this thread.

1959 Semi Final vs CHICAGO

Game 1 - Home, MTL 4 CHI 2,(13/15) (7/4/4), First goal 16:34 (1 - 1).
Game 2 - Home, MTL 5 CHI 1, (19/20) (6/6/8), First goal 14:35 (3 - 1)
Game 3 - Away, MTL 2 CHI 4, (27/31), (13/10/8), First goal 11:17 (0 - 1).
Game 4 - Away, MTL 1 CHI 3, (21/24) (9/6/9) First goal 18:08 (1 - 1).
Game 5 - Home, MTL 4 CHI 2, (30/32) (13/7/7) First goal 23:00 (4 - 1).
Game 6 - Away, MTL 5 CHI 4, (29/33) (12/12/9) First goal (1-1).

Jacques Plante SV%

1st period .895 51/57
2nd period .938 45/48
3rd period .860 43/50
Away .875 77/88
Home .925 62/67
Series .897 139/155

Notes,4PPGs - (2/1/1), 1 SHG - 1st period, 2ENGs games 3 and 4 skewing the numbers a bit.


1959 Final vs TORONTO

Game 1 - Home, MTL 5 TOR 3,(24/27) (7/9/11), First goal 4:53 (1 - 1).
Game 2 - Home, MTL 3 TOR 1, (29/30) (6/8/16), First goal 31:41 (1 - 1)
Game 3 - Away, MTL 2 TOR 3 OT, (25/28), (6/8/8/6) First goal 16:29 (0-1).
Game 4 - Away, MTL 3 TOR 2, (28/30) (12/10/8) First goal 43:45 (0 - 1).
Game 5 - Home, MTL 5 TOR 3, (33/36) (15/10/1) First goal 24:37 (3 - 1).


Jacques Plante SV%

1st period .935 43/46
2nd period .911 41/45
3rd period .926 50/54
Away .914 53/58
Home .925 86/93
Series .921 139/151

Notes. 1SHG - 1st period, 1 PPG - 2nd period

Jacques Plante 1959 playoff - overall SV% .908 278/306



1960 Semi Final vs CHICAGO

Game 1 - Home, MTL 4 CHI 3,(19/22) (4/9/9), First goal 16:15 (2 - 1).
Game 2 - Home, MTL 4 CHI 3 OT, (29/32) (7/8/14/3), First goal 13:13 (1 - 1)
Game 3 - Away, MTL 4 CHI 0, (23/23) (12/7/4), Shutout.
Game 4 - Away, MTL 2 CHI 0, (25/25) (7/8/10), Shutout.

Jacques Plante SV%

1st period .933 28/30
2nd period .969 31/32
3rd period .919 34/37
Overtime 1.000 3/3
Away 1.000 48/48
Home .889 48/54
Series .941 96/102

1960 Final vs TORONTO

Game 1 - Home, MTL 4 TOR 2,(27/29) (14/6/9), First goal 25:23 (3 - 1).
Game 2 - Home, MTL 2 TOR 1, (26/27) (11/9/7), First goal 19:32 (2-1)
Game 3 - Away, MTL 5 TOR 2, (32/34), (10/12/12), First goal 36:19 (3-1).
Game 4 - Away, MTL 4 TOR 0, (30/30) (8/8/14), Shutout.


Jacques Plante SV%

1st period .977 42/43
2nd period .914 32/35
3rd period .976 41/42
Away .969 62/64
Home .946 53/56
Series .958 115/120

Notes. 1 PPG - 3rd period, Game 3 with app 20 seconds left.

Jacques Plante 1960 playoff - overall SV% .950 211/222. After adopting the mask end of October 1959.

 

[tarheelhockey]

A rundown of Terry Sawchuk's 1954 playoffs. The Red Wings got past Toronto and an inconsistent Harry Lumley in five games, and eventually won the Cup by the narrowest of margins in a marquee matchup against the Habs. For the purposes of this project, perhaps the biggest story is that Sawchuk thoroughly outplayed Jacques Plante head-to-head in a Finals series that was up for grabs on both sides. Gerry McNeil finished the series for Montreal and played well.


1 @ Detroit: 12-12-13 = 37 (5-0 W)
2 @ Detroit: 6-11-10 = 27 (1-3 L)
3 @ Toronto: 10-4-15 = 29 (3-1 W)
4 @ Toronto: 7-9-11 = 27 (2-1 W)
5 @ Detroit: 16-12-7-3-1 = 39 (4-3 W)
TOTAL = 8 goals on 159 shots (.950)

1 @ Detroit 5-8-6 = 19 (3-1 W)
2 @ Detroit 11-6-11 = 28 (1-3 L)
3 @ Montreal 7-8-10 = 25 (5-2 W)
4 @ Montreal 12-10-6 = 28 (2-0 W)
5 @ Detroit 7-7-5-3 = 22 (0-1 OT L)
6 @ Montreal 10-11-9 = 30 (1-4 L)
7 @ Detroit 5-5-12-1 = 23 (2-1 OT W)
TOTAL = 12 goals on 175 shots (.931)

GRAND TOTAL = 20 goals on 334 shots (.940)

First periods - 7 goals, GAA of 1.75; 100 shots, sv% of .930

Strong starts were a feature of Sawchuk's play. He shut out his opponents in 7/12 first periods, and only allowed multiple goals once -- three PP goals in only 56 seconds in the second Finals game, two coming while down 5-on-3. It's worth noting that aside from that one-minute span, Montreal didn't score at all in the first periods of the first 6 Finals games.

Sawchuk gave up the first goal six times in 12 games -- three times in the first period, twice in the second and once in OT.

Second periods - 8 goals, GAA of 2.00; 118 shots, sv% of .932
When Detroit was leading after 1 - 4 games, 3 goals, 40 shots, sv% .925
When Detroit was tied after 1 - 5 games, 4 goals, 41 shots, sv% .902
When Detroit was trailing after 1 - 3 games, 1 goals, 29 shots, sv% .966

The save percentage distribution here is a little odd -- it implies that Sawchuk played differently in tie games, but I'm not sure that was really the case. Similar to his first-period performance, Sawchuk only gave up a single second-period goal in the Finals, except for allowing 3 in only two minutes of Game 6. Since that game was tied after 1, it appears his performance was altogether worse under those circumstances... but we're talking about a 2-minute departure from what was otherwise a save% over .970. Seems to me that Sawchuk generally played very well regardless of the context.

Third periods - 4 goals, GAA of 1.00; 40 shots, sv% of .965
When Detroit was leading after 2 - 3 games, 2 goals, 29 shots, sv% .931
When Detroit was tied after 2 - 6 games, 0 goals, 56 shots, sv% 1.000
When Detroit trailed after 2 - 3 games, 2 goals, 30 shots, sv% .933

If there's one thing Sawchuk could hang his hat on from this playoffs, it's that perfect save percentage in the third period of tie games. In fact, his third-period performance as a whole was really exceptional. He didn't really let in a meaningful third-period goal in this playoff season.

Overtime - 3 games, 1 goals, 8 shots, sv% of .875

The OT performances seem like random variation to me.

Worth noting in this playoff is that Sawchuk didn't seem to enjoy exceptional luck. On at least three occasions he made the initial save only to have the puck ricochet around and dribble into the net. Ken Mosdell's OT winner in the fifth game of the Finals, breaking a shutout, hit the far post and bounced back into the net. It's conceivable that with a little better luck, Sawchuk could have added another .010 to his already sterling save%.

Also noteworthy is that Sawchuk received some really outstanding protection from Red Kelly, Marcel Pronovost and especially Bob Goldham. Tony Leswick famously locked down Maurice Richard for the most part, while the defensemen did an outstanding job blocking shots.

But when you come down to it, a .940 is a .940. Sawchuk was outstanding in this run, and while he was rarely the singular difference in a game, he provided the Wings with such consistently strong goaltending that their opponents practically had to run them out of the rink in order to win.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Lumley / Sawchuk / Hall

There is a rather interesting connection featuring three of the top goalies of the Original 6 era. Harry Lumley, Terry Sawchuk, and Glenn Hall started in the Detroit organization under Jack Adams, coached by Tommy Ivan.

All three were traded very young at the pre prime / prime stage of their careers. Glenn Hall winding up in Chicago with Tommy Ivan as GM.

Perhaps in time for this debate, definitely by the time Lumley is considered I will have some interesting comparables.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Response to bolded. Excerp from post #152 by Rhiessen71 from the "Dominik Hasek Retires, What Is the Legacy?" thread.

Just for some perspective from when Belfour and the Stars beat Hasek and the Sabres in '99...
Going into the finals, Dallas had scored 51 goals in 17 games or 3.00GpG.
Buffalo had scored 50 goals in 15 games or 3.33GpG.

Well, for even more perspective, Buffalo faced one of the worst defenses in the playoffs against the Leafs in the Conference Finals. They had been scoring at almost exactly 3.0 GPG until that series. In any event, no one is honestly trying to use the goals scored stat to argue that Buffalo (as a team) had a better offense than a team that finished 9 points ahead of 2nd place overall in the regular season and scored 30 more goals over the course of the regular season, are they?

As a side note...including the minutes from the two OT games, Dallas only scored an average of 1.82 goals per 60mins in those finals and yet still won the Cup

Exactly. Buffalo's "superior" offense really let them down, didn't it.

Also, since some have forgotten that series, I'll remind folks of one very important thing.
After game 4, the series was tied 2-2 with every game decided by a single goal (empty netter in game 2).
In game 5 the Stars were out shot 23-21, Belfour posts a shutout.
In game 6 the Stars were out shot 54-50, Belfour only allowing a single goal.

So basically, Belfour OUTPLAYED Hasek in the last 2 games stopping 76 of 77 shots to win the Cup. Hasek stopped 67 of 71 shots.
So while Hasek did his job through those finals, Belfour did his better when it counted.[/QUOTE]

Well, "better job" I guess because he ended up on the winning side. But getting the decision aside, how do you split the hairs of "doing his job better" between a 53/54 vs 48/50 triple overtime performance decided by a controversial "in the crease" goal, just from reading a box score? But like I said in the post you originally quoted, Belfour was in beast mode to close that series, that's for sure. Belfour beast mode on a 1st seed overall team only barely beat Hasek and his Sabres, though, so that's some context right there.

_______________________________________________________

Added considerations veteran coach Hitchcock vs younger Ruff. Dallas had a slightly better team defense.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/DAL/1999.html

Dallas had a slight edge in name player offense - Hull, Modano plus name recognition role and support players, yet going into the series the Sabres offense surpassed or matched Dallas.

"Slightly better" team defense, okay, I won't argue too hard about that one. I think Lehtinen, Carbonneau, Keane, etc filling out the bottom lines made them a much better/deeper defensive squad, but whatever. "Slight edge" in name player offense, though? Come on now. Modano, Hull, Nieuwendyk, Zubov, Sydor vs... who would you like to name on Buffalo with that kind of offensive pedigree? Wonder what the accumulated career goals total is at this point for each of those squads...

But please, can everyone stop alluding to the Sabres as having an offense that "surpassed" anything? lol. One opportunistic series against the Leafs totally skews that stat in such a small sample. It was the only series they averaged more than 3 GPG, and in fact exceeded 4 GPG. They probably entered the series focused on scoring more goals, too, since they knew they'd be playing Roloson instead of Hasek to start the series.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

I think Steve Shields should be the one complaining about that...

Yup, you're right, only happened to Hasek in 1 of the 2 complete games he played that playoffs. I should have just said "gave the Sabres", since we were discussing the team's offense in front of either goalie, at that point.

Hasek made it up to them with his 1995 playoff:

Hasek: 27/31, .871
Hextall: 26/29, .897

Hasek: 21/24, .875
Hextall: 29/30, .967

Hasek: 18/19, .947
Hextall: 30/32, .938

Hasek: 23/27, .852
Hextall: 25/27, .926

Hasek: 24/30, .800
Hextall: 24/28, .857

Yeah, kind of reminds me of what Roy gave the Habs in '87 and again in '88 after leading them to the Cup in '86.

 

[quoipourquoi]

But please, can everyone stop alluding to the Sabres as having an offense that "surpassed" anything? lol. One opportunistic series against the Leafs totally skews that stat in such a small sample. It was the only series they averaged more than 3 GPG, and in fact exceeded 4 GPG. They probably entered the series focused on scoring more goals, too, since they knew they'd be playing Roloson instead of Hasek to start the series.

Because scoring at least three goals in eight of the ten games prior to the Toronto series did not give us that impression? It was consistent goal support.

13 times out of 15 Eastern Conference playoff games the Buffalo Sabres scored at least three goals - as opposed to just 35 times in the 82 regular season games. The offense was clicking in the Spring.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Yeah, kind of reminds me of what Roy gave the Habs in '87 and again in '88 after leading them to the Cup in '86.

Oh, boy, you should have looked that one up before mentioning it.


In 1987, Roy swept the Boston Bruins in the first round, lost Game 1 to Quebec, and didn't play again for three weeks, appearing in only one game in the ECF.

In 1988, Roy built up a 3-0 lead on the Hartford Whalers, lost Game 4, didn't start for two weeks, and played .907 hockey against Boston (league average: .880).


If you think Roy is the reason the Canadiens lost in 1987 or 1988, then I think you're alone in that. Hasek's poor performance was legitimately the biggest reason the Sabres lost in 1995.

 

[struckbyaparkedcar]

Because scoring at least three goals in eight of the ten games prior to the Toronto series did not give us that impression? It was consistent goal support.

13 times out of 15 Eastern Conference playoff games the Buffalo Sabres scored at least three goals - as opposed to just 35 times in the 82 regular season games. The offense was clicking in the Spring.

It was the PP more than the total offense, though. The Sabres' ES offense was middle of the pack at best among playoff teams (NHL.com makes me do manual 5v5 goals/game, which is the lamest, they were below Dallas, Pittsburgh and Toronto), while their power play clicked along at 20%.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Oh, boy, you should have looked that one up before mentioning it.


In 1987, Roy swept the Boston Bruins in the first round, lost Game 1 to Quebec, and didn't play again for three weeks, appearing in only one game in the ECF.

In 1988, Roy built up a 3-0 lead on the Hartford Whalers, lost Game 4, didn't start for two weeks, and played .907 hockey against Boston (league average: .880).


If you think Roy is the reason the Canadiens lost in 1987 or 1988, then I think you're alone in that. Hasek's poor performance was legitimately the biggest reason the Sabres lost in 1995.

We get it; Hasek was uncharacteristically terrible in the playoffs in 1995 against Lindros and company. I've pointed it out myself upthread too. I don't think anything more can really be said about it.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Because scoring at least three goals in eight of the ten games prior to the Toronto series did not give us that impression? It was consistent goal support.

13 times out of 15 Eastern Conference playoff games the Buffalo Sabres scored at least three goals - as opposed to just 35 times in the 82 regular season games. The offense was clicking in the Spring.

I like the "at least 3 goals part", since it was exactly 3 goals in 7/10 games against Ottawa and Boston (who ranked closely with Buffalo and Dallas in team GA in the regular season), and the other 3 games were 2, 2, and 4 (so GA/G <3). Granted, that's consistent. But here's something I want you to think about. Buffalo raised its GPG by way of facing the Leafs (rank 21/27 in GA), while Dallas raised its GPG (I believe) at the same point in the playoffs through facing Patrick Roy and the 2nd seed in the West Avalanche. If you don't think that's illustrative of the very real difference in calibre and level of play between Buffalo and Dallas that year, and what kind of play it took from Hasek to not only put up an 11-2 record in the playoffs to that point, but to give them a real chance in the Final, I dunno... The way Dallas was playing (lots of momentum/confidence from OT wins in earlier series', etc), and with the performances Belfour was putting up, Buffalo should have been sent home in 4.

But then, finally, I don't know about Buffalo's offense "clicking" so much that Spring anyhow. How many games was it that they failed to score more than 1 goal over the stretch? Something like 10 of their last 20 games leading up to the playoffs, if I'm not mistaken? Yup, double checked. It was 10 of the last 20, with four 1-1 ties, lol (and 7 games of 3+ goals). I'm not prepared to call that "clicking". C.F. Dallas that year, who scored 3+ goals in 10 of 20 leading up to the playoffs, or Colorado who scored 3+ in 15 of 20, etc...

They were, though, surprisingly consistent in the first couple of rounds, if not exactly prolific.

 

[overpass]

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.

Most of Sawchuk's support came in the midseason voting for the first half.

1956-57: A close third in midseason voting (Beliveau 51, Howe 43, Sawchuk 35.) Zero points in the end-of-season voting, because he didn't play in the second half. Probably no Hart support in a full-season voting system.

1958-59: Third place in midseason voting (Bathgate 67, Howe 36, Sawchuk 31.) Only 3 points in end-of-season voting.

1962-63: First place in midseason voting (Sawchuk 37, Mikita 35, Howe 30, Hall 21, Mahovlich 16.) Only seven points in the end-of-season voting (Howe 81, Hall 21, Mikita 19, Mahovlich 7, Sawchuk 7.)

This raises two questions. First, would Sawchuk have received as much voting support if all voting was done at the end of the season? It seems unlikely. Though it is interesting to see the first half results, which we don't see today.

Second, did Sawchuk have a stamina problem? Did he have a career-long pattern of fading over the regular season? If so, what are the implications for his ranking?

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Oh, boy, you should have looked that one up before mentioning it.


In 1987, Roy swept the Boston Bruins in the first round, lost Game 1 to Quebec, and didn't play again for three weeks, appearing in only one game in the ECF.

In 1988, Roy built up a 3-0 lead on the Hartford Whalers, lost Game 4, didn't start for two weeks, and played .907 hockey against Boston (league average: .880).


If you think Roy is the reason the Canadiens lost in 1987 or 1988, then I think you're alone in that. Hasek's poor performance was legitimately the biggest reason the Sabres lost in 1995.

All three examples remain statistical outliers in both players' playoff resumes. How much anyone wants to make of outliers like this is up to the individual, I suppose.

 

[quoipourquoi]

All three examples remain statistical outliers in both players' playoff resumes. How much anyone wants to make of outliers like this is up to the individual, I suppose.

Um... what is the statistical outlier in the 1987 and 1988 playoffs? That most goaltenders keep their job after one loss after they've respectively swept and built up a 3-0 series lead, but the Canadiens didn't let Roy keep his?

 

[Canadiens1958]

1954 Playoffs

Worth noting in this playoff is that Sawchuk didn't seem to enjoy exceptional luck. On at least three occasions he made the initial save only to have the puck ricochet around and dribble into the net. Ken Mosdell's OT winner in the fifth game of the Finals, breaking a shutout, hit the far post and bounced back into the net. It's conceivable that with a little better luck, Sawchuk could have added another .010 to his already sterling save%.

Also noteworthy is that Sawchuk received some really outstanding protection from Red Kelly, Marcel Pronovost and especially Bob Goldham. Tony Leswick famously locked down Maurice Richard for the most part, while the defensemen did an outstanding job blocking shots.

But when you come down to it, a .940 is a .940. Sawchuk was outstanding in this run, and while he was rarely the singular difference in a game, he provided the Wings with such consistently strong goaltending that their opponents practically had to run them out of the rink in order to win.

1954 Playoffs are interesting. Montreal used the Plante / McNeil tandem, switching their regular season workload:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/MTL/1954.html

Detroit went exclusively with Terry Sawchuk.

Once all was said and done. the deciding goal in OT of Game 7 was a lucky deflection past McNeil of Doug Harvey's glove.

Collectively the Canadiens SV% was .940 based on 280/298 while Sawchuk produced .940 based on 314/334. Difference in round-off - Canadiens slightly upwards to .940, Detroit slightly down to .940.

The point about Sawchuk's defensive support is open to debate. Detroit allowed 27.83 SOG against Toronto - weak offence and Montreal, Montreal allowed 27.09 against Boston and Detroit. Boston had outscored Toronto 177 to 152 in season. In season Montreal had outscored Detroit by 195 to 191.

Very interesting season and playoff.

 

[Rhiessan71]

The fact of the matter for Hasek in '99 is that Buffalo provided Hasek with 2.81GpG for those playoffs while Dallas provided Belfour with only 2.78GpG.

Then there's context.
The Habs only provided Roy with 2.80GpG in '86 and 3.30GpG in '93 when scoring was a HELL of a lot higher, especially in '86, than it was in '99.

More context...
Cup winning team GpG:
'85 5.44GpG
'86 2.80GpG
'87 4.14GpG

'88 4.83GpG
'89 Cal-3.73GpG Mont-3.19GpG
'90 5.14GpG

'92 3.95GpG
'93 3.30GpG
'94 3.52GpG

'98 3.41GpG
'99 Dall-2.78GpG Buff-2.81GpG
'00 2.65GpG

 

[struckbyaparkedcar]

To continue the offense tip, Dallas 99 offense actually got noticeably better in non-PP production from regular season to the playoffs, Buffalo's pretty much remained the same, dropping .02 goals/game.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

We get it; Hasek was uncharacteristically terrible in the playoffs in 1995 against Lindros and company. I've pointed it out myself upthread too. I don't think anything more can really be said about it.

Well, apparently it reminds some people of Roy in 1987 and 1988 (even though there's no real basis for that).

 

[quoipourquoi]

To continue the offense tip, Dallas 99 offense actually got noticeably better in non-PP production from regular season to the playoffs, Buffalo's pretty much remained the same, dropping .02 goals/game.

For this type of this discussion, I'm not sure it matters where a goaltender's goal-support is coming from - just that they have it, and that its existence lowers the win-threshold.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Well, apparently it reminds some people of Roy in 1987 and 1988 (even though there's no real basis for that).

If anything, it reminds me of Roy against Boston in 1992 - though that was a second-round matchup.