Round 2, Vote 1 (HOH Top Goaltenders)

[Theokritos]

There were four team playoffs in 71 and 73 but they changed back to old format

You are right, thanks for the correction.

I have these. I suppose it changed to the best goalie award after 77.

Great, thanks!
According to the link (http://statshockey.webnode.cz/all-stars/extraliga/) the all-star teams start in 1969, the same year the Zlata Hokejka was introduced. Hardly a coincidence. But the results are not 100% d'accord. For example: Jan Hrbatý makes the team in 1970 over Jiří Kochta and both Holík brothers even though all three rank higher in the Zlata Hokejka voting. It would be interesting to know who the voters were for both awards.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

This is the sort of thing that can be so, so influential to the hockey culture. Experts ranking the all-time greats in a clear, concise format. Anyone seeing the names on that list for the first time, or who has only a passing familiarity, develops a mental totem pole which is reinforced with each updated version.

And then I stop and think... how many "regular NHL correspondents and members of the national media" are at all qualified to make such a list? Seriously? How many of them have studied the Sawchuk/Plante/Hall debate in nitty gritty detail? How many of them literally just looked at career wins, shutouts and GAA?

Not to toot our own horn too loudly here, but I could probably name 20 regulars of this board who would be better qualified than a typical NHL team correspondent to have input on such a list. They've proven it with their written work on the subject, both here and in other venues. It's kind of amazing to think that this might be the best team ever assembled to work on an all-time ranking of goaltenders. Hopefully, the proof will be in the pudding.


This is a great point. Sawchuk was the first star goalie to be seen by everybody, everywhere. Hard to understate how much that means to a player's reputation, and especially a goalie in an era of very few recorded stats. People far and wide could actually SEE that he was the best in the league.



I'm getting ready to post a summary analysis on his peak playoff years. The save percentages are staggering compared to modern goalies, with a couple of noteworthy situational exceptions.

Something that would really help me out is if anyone has some kind of average sv% from the early/mid 1950s, or at least some peers who would provide good comparisons.

Wow, full of ourselves this morning, aren't we?

Many here do no more than play with numbers to determine "who was better".

Making judgements on players that played before many were even born, having to factor so many variables that it really is impossible to determine, we really shouldn't get too cocky. People that work (and have played) at the highest level of the game still have an insight and access to insight most of us don't have.

Not saying great work isn't done here. The HOH is like a Godsend for hard core fans.
I truly appreciate the conversations here. I've learned a lot about the game and its history. But lets not assume we are the final authority on hockey just yet.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Wow, full of ourselves this morning, aren't we?

Many here do no more than play with numbers to determine "who was better".

Making judgements on players that played before many were even born, having to factor so many variables that it really is impossible to determine, we really shouldn't get too cocky. People that work (and have played) at the highest level of the game still have an insight and access to insight most of us don't have.

Not saying great work isn't done here. The HOH is like a Godsend for hard core fans.
I truly appreciate the conversations here. I've learned a lot about the game and its history. But lets not assume we are the final authority on hockey just yet.

Piping in here to agree about this one..

I always find it funny when we think we know better than correspondents in some cases and then turn around and base a lot of our arguments on those same articles and voting records in others.

I mean occasionally we do have the value of hindsight and perhaps really do know better -- but I think most times that is just revisionism and patting ourselves on the back.

Now if we're talking about the guys currently writing for THN then I'd probably agree we know better.

 

[VanIslander]

Are we so sure that the greatest goaltender of all-time was a 1950-1990s NHLer?

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Are we so sure that the greatest goaltender of all-time was a 1950-1990s NHLer?

Be that as it may, these are the candidates up for the vote. Let's stick to discussing the candidates up for the vote.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Maybe if you assign playoff games four times as much weight as regular season games.

Which, frankly, only an incredibly biased or incredibly innumerate person would do.

So if Patrick Roy has double the career playoff value of Dominik Hasek (which I have illustrated that he does by splitting his career into two parts: Montreal and Colorado), are you maintaining that this is irrelevant because a playoff game should not carry any more weight than a regular season game? That is to say, the Los Angeles Kings were not 16-4 so much as they were 56-31-15?

Perhaps we should call up Joe Thornton and Marcel Dionne, so we can let them know that composure isn't a real thing. Or do hockey-playing "robots" not answer telephones?

What I lived through this season I wouldn't wish to an enemy. I need to keep working. I understand the fans. They paid their money and want the show. But many forget that we are not robots, but living people. We have feelings, worries.

Here's the thing: I do think playoff games are worth more than regular season games. And so does the NHL. And so do the NHL players. So if you're of the mentality about Patrick Roy in 1993 that he won the Conn Smythe in 20 games but it means less because Ed Belfour won the Vezina in 71 games, then by all means vote for someone else, put someone else in net, etc.

I'm comfortable with not believing that the President's Trophy is worth more than the Stanley Cup. If that means I'm assigning a two-round or a four-round playoff four times as much value per game as a 70-84 game season, then yeah, I'm comfortable being an "incredibly biased or incredibly innumerate person" in your eyes, because NHL hockey players do the same.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Roy is not that far behind Hasek in the regular season using save % adjusted by era

Then of course you must consider the gap to #1.

But how big was the gap between Hasek and Roy in the regular season? In terms of peak as defined by adjusted save percentage, Roy isn't all that far behind.

These are Hockey Outsider's numbers, which are a simple adjustment based on league average save percentage. All are as of 2009. They don't take into account arena affects (which artificially hurt Brodeur's numbers and inflate Vokoun and likely Hebert) or shot prevention (which adds to Brodeur and to a slightly lesser extent Belfour's value).

Career Adjusted Save Percentage (min 400 games)

Goalie|Save Percentage
Dominik Hasek | 92.5%
Patrick Roy | 92.0%
Roberto Luongo | 91.7%
Martin Brodeur | 91.3%
Tomas Vokoun | 91.3%
John Vanbiesbrouck | 91.3%
Guy Hebert | 91.2%
Jean-Sebastien Giguere | 91.2%
Ed Belfour | 91.2%
Andy Moog | 91.1%

Best Peak

Goalie|Save percentage
Dominik Hasek | 93.3%
Patrick Roy | 93.1%
John Vanbiesbrouck | 92.4%
Curtis Joseph | 92.2%
Ed Belfour | 92.2%
Tom Barrasso | 92.1%
Martin Brodeur | 92.1%
Roberto Luongo | 92.1%
Kelly Hrudey | 91.9%
Tomas Vokoun | 91.8%

This is how Hockey Outsider put it:

Patrick Roy is incredibly underrated from a save percentage perspective. His peak occurred in the high-scoring late eighties and early nineties. He towered over his peers with almost Hasek-like dominance, but his raw numbers aren’t impressive because his played during an era that was very unfriendly to goalies.

Both tables and the quote from this thread: http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=718221

Hasek did win 6 Vezinas (more than Brodeur or Roy), but he never came close to winning the Vezina in any other seasons while the two of them did. These are their complete Vezina records, reposted from post 9:

name|1st|2nd|3rd|4th|5th|total
Martin Brodeur|4|3|2|2|2|13
Patrik Roy|3|2|2|1|2|10
Dominik Hasek|6|0|0|0|1|7

Vezina Voting Shares of All votes

Player|Times|Share
Martin Brodeur|15|5.4072
Dominik Hasek|11|4.7591
Patrick Roy|17|4.6216

Vezina Voting Shares of 1st place votes

Player|Times|Share
Dominik Hasek|7|3.6348
Martin Brodeur|12|3.0830
Patrick Roy|10|2.9413

 

[ContrarianGoaltender]

Making judgements on players that played before many were even born, having to factor so many variables that it really is impossible to determine, we really shouldn't get too cocky. People that work (and have played) at the highest level of the game still have an insight and access to insight most of us don't have.

I agree that we should all approach this task with some measure of humility, but I'm not convinced that we should automatically assume that people who have played and worked at the highest level of the game are experts on goaltending.

Here's Dick Irvin Jr. from Withour Fear: Hockey's 50 Greatest Goaltenders:

"Gump Worsley told me that he never had any coaching at all. Neither did Glenn Hall or Terry Sawchuk, or any of the guys from that era. Gump told me that when he came to Montreal, he was thinking, 'Now I will be able to talk goaltending because I have Toe Blake and this guy is a genius.' The first time that something went wrong he went to Toe and asked him, and Toe said, 'Don't ask me. I don't know anything about goaltending', and walked away."

"When I was growing up, I remember thinking my father knew everything about hockey. When he told me he knew absolutely nothing about goaltending, I was shattered."

In today's NHL, with video study and specialized goalie coaches and detailed shot tracking, I would agree that we should have some respect for insider knowledge. If you look at things like Vezina voting, free agent signings, playing time decisions, international teams, etc., I think today's decision-makers get it right more often than they did in the past (and not just the far past, it's much better today than even the '80s or '90s). But for the old guys that we never saw play, it's really hard to know how much relative value to put on what their contemporaries said about them. Some of them may have been reliable sources, others may have been heavily biased by team factors or just parroting conventional wisdom.

 

[BM67]

I notice that the annoyingly incomplete record I put together HERE for Petr Briza is actually more complete than anything I can find for Hasek.

Does anybody know of a decent site for Hasek's Czech stats?

 

[Sanf]

I notice that the annoyingly incomplete record I put together HERE for Petr Briza is actually more complete than anything I can find for Hasek.

Does anybody know of a decent site for Hasek's Czech stats?

I guess someone could find better but here is something. Playoff stats are missing.

http://www.hcpce.cz/clanek.asp?id=2745

 

[Pominville Knows]

Terry Sawchuk 1951-1955 had a regular season GAA that range between 1.90 and 1,99. Harry Lumley in 1954 and 1955 finished at 1.86 and 1.94, slightly better than Sawchuk.Lumley's overall stats below:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/l/lumleha01.html

Lumley with the Leafs played on a very defensive team led by the best defensive forward of the early to mid fifties - Ted Kennedy. The 1955 season despite their strong defense saw the Leafs produce a 24-24-22 record, 23-24-22 with Lumley in goal.

Harry Lumley is a Top 6 Original 6 goalie. Like Terry Sawchuk and Glenn Hall he came up thru the Detroit system(Jack Adams/Tommy Ivan - later Chicago GM). Starting goalie on the Red Wings 1950 SC Championship team and 1948 and 1949 SC Finalists. Traded after the 1950 season to Chicago to make room for Terry Sawchuk.

Basic problem with the Detroit(Adams) / Chicago(Ivan) teams post 1955 was that neither was willing to invest or build bottom 1/3 to 2/3 team strength and depth.

Despite that, you dont think Glenn Hall and Jaques Plante was better than Terry Sawchuk not counting his time on those great Detroit teams? Is there even a playoff case against Hall without those seasons, or even putting them in perspective?

 

[Rhiessan71]

But how big was the gap between Hasek and Roy in the regular season? In terms of peak as defined by adjusted save percentage, Roy isn't all that far behind.

These are Hockey Outsider's numbers, which are a simple adjustment based on league average save percentage. All are as of 2009. They don't take into account arena affects (which artificially hurt Brodeur's numbers and inflate Vokoun and likely Hebert) or shot prevention (which adds to Brodeur and to a slightly lesser extent Belfour's value).

Career Adjusted Save Percentage (min 400 games)

Goalie|Save Percentage
Dominik Hasek | 92.5%
Patrick Roy | 92.0%
Roberto Luongo | 91.7%
Martin Brodeur | 91.3%
Tomas Vokoun | 91.3%
John Vanbiesbrouck | 91.3%
Guy Hebert | 91.2%
Jean-Sebastien Giguere | 91.2%
Ed Belfour | 91.2%
Andy Moog | 91.1%

Best Peak

Goalie|Save percentage
Dominik Hasek | 93.3%
Patrick Roy | 93.1%
John Vanbiesbrouck | 92.4%
Curtis Joseph | 92.2%
Ed Belfour | 92.2%
Tom Barrasso | 92.1%
Martin Brodeur | 92.1%
Roberto Luongo | 92.1%
Kelly Hrudey | 91.9%
Tomas Vokoun | 91.8%

This is how Hockey Outsider put it:



Both tables and the quote from this thread: http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=718221

Hasek did win 6 Vezinas (more than Brodeur or Roy), but he never came close to winning the Vezina in any other seasons while the two of them did. These are their complete Vezina records, reposted from post 9:

name|1st|2nd|3rd|4th|5th|total
Martin Brodeur|4|3|2|2|2|13
Patrik Roy|3|2|2|1|2|10
Dominik Hasek|6|0|0|0|1|7

Vezina Voting Shares of All votes

Player|Times|Share
Martin Brodeur|15|5.4072
Dominik Hasek|11|4.7591
Patrick Roy|17|4.6216

Vezina Voting Shares of 1st place votes

Player|Times|Share
Dominik Hasek|7|3.6348
Martin Brodeur|12|3.0830
Patrick Roy|10|2.9413

Hmmmm...this is very interesting and to be honest, it might just be enough to put me back in the Roy camp overall.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I agree that we should all approach this task with some measure of humility, but I'm not convinced that we should automatically assume that people who have played and worked at the highest level of the game are experts on goaltending.

Here's Dick Irvin Jr. from Withour Fear: Hockey's 50 Greatest Goaltenders:



In today's NHL, with video study and specialized goalie coaches and detailed shot tracking, I would agree that we should have some respect for insider knowledge. If you look at things like Vezina voting, free agent signings, playing time decisions, international teams, etc., I think today's decision-makers get it right more often than they did in the past (and not just the far past, it's much better today than even the '80s or '90s). But for the old guys that we never saw play, it's really hard to know how much relative value to put on what their contemporaries said about them. Some of them may have been reliable sources, others may have been heavily biased by team factors or just parroting conventional wisdom.

And this doesn't exist with us?

Seems that team factors still heavily bias many and how could it not? When you follow a team and then have to make comparisons between the top players on your own team and others that you don't see as often, I would think there would have to be some bias.

That said, I certainly see your point in terms of goaltenders specifically. There are probably a lot of people in the game that know no more about goaltending than we do. But they do have better access to those that do know.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Many here do no more than play with numbers to determine "who was better".

I absolutely agree, but that sort of behavior hasn't been a big factor in either this list (so far) or the defenseman list. I can't speak to the top-100 because I wasn't here for that one. For the most part, the arguments presented here have been grounded in reality instead of fantasy-style metrics.

Making judgements on players that played before many were even born, having to factor so many variables that it really is impossible to determine, we really shouldn't get too cocky. People that work (and have played) at the highest level of the game still have an insight and access to insight most of us don't have.

Not saying great work isn't done here. The HOH is like a Godsend for hard core fans.
I truly appreciate the conversations here. I've learned a lot about the game and its history. But lets not assume we are the final authority on hockey just yet.

Final authority? Not a chance. We're just one link in a very long chain.

The value of critical expertise is something worth thinking about as we get into this project. I for one am a big believer in researching primary sources as the starting point for evaluating players, for the precise reason that hindsight evaluations like ours and TSN's are only as good as their contributors. For the most part, canonical rankings of goaltenders have been based on received wisdom and trophy-counting rather than original research, and that makes it pretty hard to trust the opinion of people who haven't demonstrably gone a step farther in their investigation of history. Very few mainstream personalities fit that description, and of those that do, you still get guys like Fischler whose credibility can be suspect at times. The few remaining legitimate, published, mainstream hockey historians seem to operate individually rather than collaborating as panels for this sort of project (unless SIHR or the HHOF has compiled a ranking that I'm unaware of). Unless it's coming from the desk of someone in that small group of experts, I'm not inclined to give much weight to opinions of hockey "history" in the media.

It's not do much that we're very good at this... just that the general body of work to date has been so badly lacking. It's hard to believe that we still don't have published save percentages for years in which shot counts were very conveniently printed in the major newspapers, and that we wouldn't have anything prior to the early 1980s except for dogged amateurs who did the work on the NHL's behalf. The same can be said of historic box scores, which are only partially compiled on a single amateur website. That says something about how much of the burden falls to nearly-anonymous hacks like us, rather than the inside experts who spend most of their time hobnobbing and following current events.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Boston Garden and Puckhandling

One of the more interesting aspect of the debate so far is the importance of puckhandling for goaltenders. The best of the goalies under consideration would be a coin flip between Jacques Plante and Martin Brodeur.Sawchuk and Hall were average, Dryden was poor, while Roy progressed to average around Hasek's level. Different eras produced different puckhandling demands on goalies. The trapezoid era neutralized the advantage a puckhandling goalie brought to the game.

The biggest difference was at the Boston Garden, the smallest NHL rink into the 1990s. Except for the Bobby Orr years, the Bruins were a dump and chase team with big wingers that were very adept at plastering the opposing defensemen in the corners to get possession after a dump in. The other small rinks - Chicago and Buffalo were not factors. Chicago had Bobby Hull and Stan Mikita so visiting teams would be happy to see them dump the puck. Buffalo had Gilbert Perreault, likewise dumping would hurt the home team.

The major impact of the dump and chase is that executed properly it will create a brief odd man advantage for the offensive team as the defenseman checked out of the play struggles to get back into position.

The impact of a excellent puckhandling goalie may be illustrated by playoff results.

1953 - 1958 Playoffs
Detroit

1953 with Terry Sawchuk upset loss to Bruins allowed 12 goals in 3 games at Boston Garden.

1957 with Glenn Hall, upset loss to Bruins allowed 6 goals in 2 games at Boston Garden,

New York Rangers

1958 with Gump Worsley, upset loss to Bruins, allowed 21 goals in 4 games at Boston Garden. Note 2nd place Rangers lost the home ice advantage because of a scheduling situation with the circus.

Montreal Canadiens

1953,1954,1955,1957,1958, mainly with Jacques Plante plus Gerry McNeil and Charlie Hodge who were above average puck handlers, won all five series, allowing 23 goals in 11 Boston Garden games, 8W-3L.

1970s Canadiens

Ken Dryden was a poor puckhandler. The 1971 Bruins were mainly a puck control team with an offence focused on Bobby Orr. the 1977-1979 Bruins favoured the dump and chase but Ken Dryden was supported by big puck moving defensemen who neutralized the Bruins without help from the goalie, allowing 23 goals in 8 games while producing a 3W-5L record in Boston. The difference in the fifties Canadiens vs late seventies Canadies W/L results is telling about the importance of puckhandling goalies.

1986-1995

Patrick Roy who developed into and average puckhandler over time and Martin Brodeur who was excellent at the Jacques Plante level.Especially critical factor when Cam Neely was healthy. The Bruins would target Petr Svoboda.

Canadiens and Bruins played 8 series - 1986 - 1992, 1994. In 20 games at the Boston Garden they allowed 57 goals in 20 games, 7W/13L while winning 3 of 8 series. At times Patrick Roy was replaced by Brian Hayward a better puckhandler.

Martin Brodeur faced the Bruins in the 1994 and 1995 playoffs. Two series victories, 11 goals allowed in 6 games at Boston Gardens, 6W/0L, 2 shutouts.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I absolutely agree, but that sort of behavior hasn't been a big factor in either this list (so far) or the defenseman list. I can't speak to the top-100 because I wasn't here for that one. For the most part, the arguments presented here have been grounded in reality instead of fantasy-style metrics.



Final authority? Not a chance. We're just one link in a very long chain.

The value of critical expertise is something worth thinking about as we get into this project. I for one am a big believer in researching primary sources as the starting point for evaluating players, for the precise reason that hindsight evaluations like ours and TSN's are only as good as their contributors. For the most part, canonical rankings of goaltenders have been based on received wisdom and trophy-counting rather than original research, and that makes it pretty hard to trust the opinion of people who haven't demonstrably gone a step farther in their investigation of history. Very few mainstream personalities fit that description, and of those that do, you still get guys like Fischler whose credibility can be suspect at times. The few remaining legitimate, published, mainstream hockey historians seem to operate individually rather than collaborating as panels for this sort of project (unless SIHR or the HHOF has compiled a ranking that I'm unaware of). Unless it's coming from the desk of someone in that small group of experts, I'm not inclined to give much weight to opinions of hockey "history" in the media.

It's not do much that we're very good at this... just that the general body of work to date has been so badly lacking. It's hard to believe that we still don't have published save percentages for years in which shot counts were very conveniently printed in the major newspapers, and that we wouldn't have anything prior to the early 1980s except for dogged amateurs who did the work on the NHL's behalf. The same can be said of historic box scores, which are only partially compiled on a single amateur website. That says something about how much of the burden falls to nearly-anonymous hacks like us, rather than the inside experts who spend most of their time hobnobbing and following current events.

If you're comparing us to Stan Fischler, by all means pump out your chest and express total confidence.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Nhl

Despite that, you dont think Glenn Hall and Jaques Plante was better than Terry Sawchuk not counting his time on those great Detroit teams? Is there even a playoff case against Hall without those seasons, or even putting them in perspective?

Believe in comparing all seasons and factors of their NHL careers then reaching a decision.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

One of the more interesting aspect of the debate so far is the importance of puckhandling for goaltenders. The best of the goalies under consideration would be a coin flip between Jacques Plante and Martin Brodeur.Sawchuk and Hall were average, Dryden was poor, while Roy progressed to average around Hasek's level. Different eras produced different puckhandling demands on goalies. The trapezoid era neutralized the advantage a puckhandling goalie brought to the game.

The biggest difference was at the Boston Garden, the smallest NHL rink into the 1990s. Except for the Bobby Orr years, the Bruins were a dump and chase team with big wingers that were very adept at plastering the opposing defensemen in the corners to get possession after a dump in. The other small rinks - Chicago and Buffalo were not factors. Chicago had Bobby Hull and Stan Mikita so visiting teams would be happy to see them dump the puck. Buffalo had Gilbert Perreault, likewise dumping would hurt the home team.

The major impact of the dump and chase is that executed properly it will create a brief odd man advantage for the offensive team as the defenseman checked out of the play struggles to get back into position.

The impact of a excellent puckhandling goalie may be illustrated by playoff results.

1953 - 1958 Playoffs
Detroit

1953 with Terry Sawchuk upset loss to Bruins allowed 12 goals in 3 games at Boston Garden.

1957 with Glenn Hall, upset loss to Bruins allowed 6 goals in 2 games at Boston Garden,

New York Rangers

1958 with Gump Worsley, upset loss to Bruins, allowed 21 goals in 4 games at Boston Garden. Note 2nd place Rangers lost the home ice advantage because of a scheduling situation with the circus.

Montreal Canadiens

1953,1954,1955,1957,1958, mainly with Jacques Plante plus Gerry McNeil and Charlie Hodge who were above average puck handlers, won all five series, allowing 23 goals in 11 Boston Garden games, 8W-3L.

1970s Canadiens

Ken Dryden was a poor puckhandler. The 1971 Bruins were mainly a puck control team with an offence focused on Bobby Orr. the 1977-1979 Bruins favoured the dump and chase but Ken Dryden was supported by big puck moving defensemen who neutralized the Bruins without help from the goalie, allowing 23 goals in 8 games while producing a 3W-5L record in Boston. The difference in the fifties Canadiens vs late seventies Canadies W/L results is telling about the importance of puckhandling goalies.

1986-1995

Patrick Roy who developed into and average puckhandler over time and Martin Brodeur who was excellent at the Jacques Plante level.Especially critical factor when Cam Neely was healthy. The Bruins would target Petr Svoboda.

Canadiens and Bruins played 8 series - 1986 - 1992, 1994. In 20 games at the Boston Garden they allowed 57 goals in 20 games, 7W/13L while winning 3 of 8 series. At times Patrick Roy was replaced by Brian Hayward a better puckhandler.

Martin Brodeur faced the Bruins in the 1994 and 1995 playoffs. Two series victories, 11 goals allowed in 6 games at Boston Gardens, 6W/0L, 2 shutouts.

This is way overstated.

Brodeur has hardly had his advantage nuetralized by the trapezoid.

And though Roy may have made himself into an average puck-handler, his risk taking (ego-driven?) still made him the biggest give-away artist of the greatest goalies.

Actually, Chris Terrier played and won all 3 games in Boston in 1994 playoffs.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Regular Season vs Playoffs

Two distinct seasons. Two distinct evaluations.

Regular season features scheduling quirks and reflects how a player performs over app 6 or 7 months against multiple opponents. Playoffs eliminate the scheduling quirks and players face one opponent over a series that may take up to seven games.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

This is way overstated.

Brodeur has hardly had his advantage nuetralized by the trapezoid.

And though Roy may have made himself into an average puck-handler, his risk taking (ego-driven?) still made him the biggest give-away artist of the greatest goalies.

This is true. The trapezoid definitely reduced the ability of puckhandlers to affect that game, but didn't take it away. The narrative of the NJ/Philadelphia series this past year was that Brodeur's puckhandling hurt the Philly dump and chase game so much, it was a key factor in Giroux's frustration that led to his suspension for the decided game 5. Whether that is true or not, it was a dump in that Brodeur got to first that immediately proceeded Giroux's head shot.

And yes, Roy did have his hilarious giveaways on occasion.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Trapezoid

This is way overstated.

Brodeur has hardly had his advantage nuetralized by the trapezoid.

And though Roy may have made himself into an average puck-handler, his risk taking (ego-driven?) still made him the biggest give-away artist of the greatest goalies.

All goalies including Martin Brodeur are limited to where they can handle the puck. That Martin Brodeur can do it better from the limited area is small compensation for the denied ability to rove the complete deep defensive zone and play the puck.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Hasek did win 6 Vezinas (more than Brodeur or Roy), but he never came close to winning the Vezina in any other seasons while the two of them did. These are their complete Vezina records, reposted from post 9:

name|1st|2nd|3rd|4th|5th|total
Martin Brodeur|4|3|2|2|2|13
Patrik Roy|3|2|2|1|2|10
Dominik Hasek|6|0|0|0|1|7

And that's before we note that not only did Roy come close to a fourth Vezina in 2001-02, he was literally tied with the winner. Also, he had a second-team All-Star from 1987-88 that doesn't even appear on that chart (possibly because writers were quicker to pick up on the value of save percentage than the GMs were).

 

[BM67]

1985-86 - VEZINA: Patrick Roy T9th-11th 1 (0-0-1)
1986-87 - VEZINA: Patrick Roy 10th 2 (0-0-2); ALL-STAR: Patrick Roy 4th 29 (1-4-12)
1987-88 - VEZINA: Patrick Roy 8th 8 (0-2-2); ALL-STAR: Patrick Roy 2nd 64 (2-15-9)
1988-89 - HART: Patrick Roy 4th 2 (0-0-2); VEZINA: Patrick Roy 1st 87 (15-3-3); ALL-STAR: Patrick Roy 1st 291 (52-10-1)
1989-90 - HART: Patrick Roy T5th-6th 8 (0-1-5); VEZINA: Patrick Roy 1st 91 (15-5-1); ALL-STAR: Patrick Roy 1st 304 (59-3-0)
1990-91 - VEZINA: Patrick Roy 2nd 44 (1-12-3); ALL-STAR: Patrick Roy 2nd 144 (1-43-0)
1991-92 - HART: Patrick Roy 2nd 105 (1-27-19); VEZINA: Patrick Roy 1st 95 (17-3-1); ALL-STAR: Patrick Roy 1st 303 (54-11-0)
1992-93 - VEZINA: Patrick Roy 6th 3 (0-1-0); ALL-STAR: Patrick Roy 7th 2 (0-0-2)
1993-94 - HART: Dominik Hasek 2nd 86 (6-15-11); Patrick Roy 5th 26 (3-3-2); VEZINA: Dominik Hasek 1st 99 (15-8-0); Patrick Roy 3rd 34 (3-3-10); Martin Brodeur T7th-8th 5 (0-1-2); ALL-STAR: Dominik Hasek 1st 224 (40-6-6); Patrick Roy 3rd 86 (7-13-12); Martin Brodeur 6th 5 (0-1-2)
1994-95 - HART: Dominik Hasek 3rd 23 (3-2-2); VEZINA: Dominik Hasek 1st 104 (17-6-1); Martin Brodeur T8th-9th 7 (0-2-1); ALL-STAR: Dominik Hasek 1st 73 (14-1-0) (Only 15 votes for Hart and All-star teams, 26 for Vezina.)
1995-96 - HART: Martin Brodeur 12th 9 (0-0-1-1-1); VEZINA: Martin Brodeur 4th 31 (4-3-2); Dominik Hasek 8th 9 (1-1-1); Patrick Roy 9th 5 (1-0-0); ALL-STAR: Martin Brodeur 3rd 84 (12-6-6); Dominik Hasek 7th 8 (0-2-2); Patrick Roy T8th-11th 1 (0-0-1)
1996-97 - HART: Dominik Hasek 1st 519 (50-2-1-0-0); Martin Brodeur 4th 115 (0-7-6-11-3); Patrick Roy 8th 31 (0-2-2-0-7); VEZINA: Dominik Hasek 1st 120 (22-3-1); Martin Brodeur 2nd 73 (3-18-4); Patrick Roy 3rd 25 (1-3-11); ALL-STAR: Dominik Hasek 1st 237 (40-12-1); Martin Brodeur 2nd 174 (13-35-4); Patrick Roy 3rd 47 (0-5-32)
1997-98 - HART: Dominik Hasek 1st 499 (43-7-4-0-0); Martin Brodeur 4th 115 (1-5-7-8-11); VEZINA: Dominik Hasek 1st 126 (24-2-0); Martin Brodeur 2nd 57 (2-14-5); Patrick Roy 5th 5 (0-1-2); ALL-STAR: Dominik Hasek 1st 259 (50-3-0); Martin Brodeur 2nd 159 (3-47-3); Patrick Roy 6th 1 (0-0-1)
1998-99 - HART: Dominik Hasek 3rd 172 (4-10-8-5-7); Martin Brodeur T16th-17th 1 (0-0-0-0-1); VEZINA: Dominik Hasek 1st 73 (8-10-3); Martin Brodeur 4th 17 (1-1-9); Patrick Roy T8th-9th 1 (0-0-1); ALL-STAR: Dominik Hasek 1st 220 (35-13-6); Martin Brodeur 6th 21 (3-0-6); Patrick Roy 8th 4 (0-1-1)
1999-2000 - HART: Martin Brodeur 12th 6 (0-0-0-2-1-3); Dominik Hasek T17th-20th 1 (0-0-0-0-1); VEZINA: Martin Brodeur 5th 8 (0-1-5); Patrick Roy 7th 5 (0-1-2); Dominik Hasek 8th 4 (0-1-1); ALL-STAR: Martin Brodeur 3rd 48 (2-9-11);
2000-01 - HART: Martin Brodeur 5th 64 (0-4-4-4-4); Dominik Hasek, BUF 8th 42 (0-3-2-3-2); VEZINA: Dominik Hasek 1st 85 (9-12-4); Martin Brodeur 3rd 42 (7-2-1); Patrick Roy 5th 19 (2-1-6); ALL-STAR: Dominik Hasek 1st 160 (19-18-11); Martin Brodeur 3rd 143 (18-15-8); Patrick Roy 4th 46 (3-7-10)
2001-02 - HART: Patrick Roy 3rd 283 (8-15-12-11-5); (Hasek and Brodeur are no better than 11th with 10 points.); VEZINA: Patrick Roy 2nd 105 (12-15-0); Martin Brodeur 5th 7 (1-0-2); Dominik Hasek 6th 6 (0-1-3); ALL-STAR: Patrick Roy 1st 226 (30-24-4); Dominik Hasek 4th 31 (1-4-14); Martin Brodeur 5th 6 (0-1-3)
2002-03 - HART: Martin Brodeur 3rd 311 (14-12-11-10-2); Patrick Roy 12th 10 (1-0-0-0-0); VEZINA: Martin Brodeur 1st 131 (24-3-2); Patrick Roy 4th 17 (1-2-6); ALL-STAR: Martin Brodeur 1st 243 (39-14-6); Patrick Roy 6th 12 (1-1-4)
2003-04 - HART: Martin Brodeur 3rd 213 (2-14-11-11-7); VEZINA: Martin Brodeur 1st 89 (15-4-2); ALL-STAR: Martin Brodeur 1st 307 (39-33-13)
2005-06 - HART: Martin Brodeur 12th 22 (0-0-0-6-4); VEZINA: Martin Brodeur 2nd 48 (2-10-8); Dominik Hasek T7th-8th 4 (0-1-1); ALL STAR: Martin Brodeur 2nd 232 (6-59-25); Dominik Hasek 7th 20 (0-5-5)
2006-07 - HART: Martin Brodeur 3rd 763 (21-45-39-12-7); Dominik Hasek T22nd-26th 1 (0-0-0-0-1); VEZINA: Martin Brodeur 1st 122 (16-14-0); Dominik Hasek 5th 5 (0-0-5); ALL STAR: Martin Brodeur 1st 607 (91-50-2); Dominik Hasek 3rd 58 (0-3-49)
2007-08 - HART: Martin Brodeur 5th 239 (1-8-19-21-15); VEZINA: Martin Brodeur 1st 113 (15-12-2); ALL STAR: Martin Brodeur 2nd 475 (56-61-12)
2008-09 - ALL STAR: Martin Brodeur 8th 7 (1-0-2)
2009-10 - HART: Martin Brodeur 8th 16 (0-0-2-0-6); Martin Brodeur 3rd 32 (1-6-9); ALL STAR: Martin Brodeur 3rd 136 (6-16-58)

Here is a table showing vote share, % of a unanimous vote, for the Hart/Vezina/All-star team for Roy, Hasek and Brodeur.

If a unanimous Vezina win would be 105 points, then 1 point would be 0.0095 and 87 points would be 0.8286.

Year|Roy H|Hasek H|Brodeur H|Roy V|Hasek V|Brodeur V|Roy A|Hasek A|Brodeur A
1985-86|0|0|0|0.0095|0|0|0|0|0
1986-87|0|0|0|0.019|0|0|0.1074|0|0
1987-88|0|0|0|0.0762|0|0|0.2032|0|0
1988-89|0.0063|0|0|0.8286|0|0|0.9238|0|0
1989-90|0.0254|0|0|0.8667|0|0|0.9651|0|0
1990-91|0|0|0|0.419|0|0|0.4364|0|0
1991-92|0.3043|0|0|0.8636|0|0|0.9323|0|0
1992-93|0|0|0|0.025|0|0|0.008|0|0
1993-94|0.0963|0.3185|0|0.2615|0.7615|0.0385|0.3185|0.8296|0.0185
1994-95|0|0.3067|0|0|0.8|0.0538|0|0.9733|0
1995-96|0|0|0.0167|0.0385|0.0692|0.2385|0.0038|0.0302|0.317
1996-97|0.0574|0.9611|0.213|0.1923|0.9231|0.5615|0.1774|0.8943|0.6566
1997-98|0|0.9241|0.213|0.0385|0.9692|0.4385|0.0038|0.9774|0.6
1998-99|0|0.3071|0.0018|0.0074|0.5407|0.1259|0.0143|0.7857|0.075
1999-00|0|0.0017|0.0103|0.0357|0.0286|0.0571|0|0|0.1684
2000-01|0|0.0677|0.1032|0.1267|0.5667|0.28|0.1508|0.5246|0.4689
2001-02|0.4565|*|*|0.7|0.04|0.0467|0.7533|0.1033|0.02
2002-03|0.0161|0|0.5016|0.1133|0|0.8733|0.04|0|0.81
2003-04|0|0|0.2029|0|0|0.5933|0|0|0.5904
2005-06|0|0|0.0172|0|0.0267|0.32|0|0.0315|0.3654
2006-07|0|0.0007|0.5336|0|0.0333|0.8133|0|0.0811|0.849
2007-08|0|0|0.1784|0|0|0.7533|0|0|0.7143
2008-09|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0.0107
2009-10|0|0|0.012|0|0|0.2133|0|0|0.2076
Total|0.9623|2.8876|2.0037|4.6215|4.759|5.407|5.0381|5.231|5.8718

* In 2001-02 neither Hasek or Brodeur were in the top 10, but could have received up to 10 points in voting for a 0.0161 share.

Top 10 in Hart voting

Player|1st|2nd|3rd|4th|5th|6th|7th|8th|9th|10th
Brodeur|0|0|3|2|2|0|0|1|0|0
Hasek|2|1|2|0|0|0|0|1|0|0
Roy|0|1|1|1|2|0|0|1|0|0

Top 10 in Vezina voting

Player|1st|2nd|3rd|4th|5th|6th|7th|8th|9th|10th
Brodeur|4|3|2|2|2|0|1|1|0|0
Hasek|6|0|0|0|1|1|1|2|0|0
Roy|3|2|2|1|2|1|1|2|2|1

Top 10 in All-star voting

Player|1st|2nd|3rd|4th|5th|6th|7th|8th|9th|10th
Brodeur|3|4|4|0|1|2|0|1|0|0
Hasek|6|0|1|1|0|0|2|0|0|0
Roy|4|2|1|2|0|2|1|2|0|0

Top 15 seasons by vote share

Player|Year|Hart Share|Player|Year|Vezina Share|Player|Year|All-star Share
Hasek|96-97|96.11|Hasek|97-98|96.92|Hasek|97-98|97.74
Hasek|97-98|92.41|Hasek|96-97|92.31|Hasek|94-95|97.33
Brodeur|06-07|53.36|Brodeur|02-03|87.33|Roy|89-90|96.51
Brodeur|02-03|50.16|Roy|89-90|86.67|Roy|91-92|93.23
Roy|01-02|45.65|Roy|91-92|86.36|Roy|88-89|92.38
Hasek|93-94|31.85|Roy|88-89|82.86|Hasek|96-97|89.43
Hasek|98-99|30.71|Brodeur|06-07|81.33|Brodeur|06-07|84.9
Hasek|94-95|30.67|Hasek|94-95|80|Hasek|93-94|82.96
Roy|91-92|30.43|Hasek|93-94|76.15|Brodeur|02-03|81
Brodeur|96-97|21.3|Brodeur|07-08|75.33|Hasek|98-99|78.57
Brodeur|97-98|21.3|Roy|01-02|70|Roy|01-02|75.33
Brodeur|03-04|20.29|Brodeur|03-04|59.33|Brodeur|07-08|71.43
Brodeur|07-08|17.84|Hasek|00-01|56.67|Brodeur|96-97|65.66
Brodeur|00-01|10.32|Brodeur|96-97|56.15|Brodeur|97-98|60
Roy|93-94|9.63|Hasek|98-99|54.07|Brodeur|03-04|59.04

 

[Hardyvan123]

So if Patrick Roy has double the career playoff value of Dominik Hasek (which I have illustrated that he does by splitting his career into two parts: Montreal and Colorado), are you maintaining that this is irrelevant because a playoff game should not carry any more weight than a regular season game? That is to say, the Los Angeles Kings were not 16-4 so much as they were 56-31-15?

Perhaps we should call up Joe Thornton and Marcel Dionne, so we can let them know that composure isn't a real thing. Or do hockey-playing "robots" not answer telephones?



Here's the thing: I do think playoff games are worth more than regular season games. And so does the NHL. And so do the NHL players. So if you're of the mentality about Patrick Roy in 1993 that he won the Conn Smythe in 20 games but it means less because Ed Belfour won the Vezina in 71 games, then by all means vote for someone else, put someone else in net, etc.

I'm comfortable with not believing that the President's Trophy is worth more than the Stanley Cup. If that means I'm assigning a two-round or a four-round playoff four times as much value per game as a 70-84 game season, then yeah, I'm comfortable being an "incredibly biased or incredibly innumerate person" in your eyes, because NHL hockey players do the same.

I'm always curious and changing my thinking on how to value the regular season and the playoffs for any player.

Since playoff success, or even the ability to make the playoffs or have an impact is largely team driven, I have a hard time giving playoffs more than 20% of the total equation or even as much as that.

Wondering what your ballpark splits are in this matter.

 

[nik jr]

This is the problem I have with Brodeur.

When Roy played in a similar situation to Brodeur's, he's first 4 times in Save % and second once. In his entire career, Brodeur has never been in the top 2.

In a similar situation in Dallas (under Ken Hitchcock), Marty Turco had 2 firsts and a 4th in Save % as well as 2 firsts and 2 thirds in Goals Against. Broduer has only led the league once Goals Against (2 seconds and 2 thirds) in his career.

i think those are not entirely the same, b/c of their different eras.

it was easier for team D and discipline to help move sv% upward during roy's time in montreal than during brodeur's career. i think an improvement in team D in late '80s would have a bigger effect on shot quality than an equally large improvement 10 years later, b/c team D of late '80s was at a lower level. the higher the sv%, the greater % of GA come from shots that are very difficult or nearly impossible to stop (deflections, shots into a mostly open net, etc).

i think it is also entirely fair to say that brodeur faced a lot tougher competition than roy did in montreal. when better goalies entered the league in early '90s, roy's margin over 2nd in sv% dropped, he lost 2 vezinas to belfour, and his sv% rankings after '92 are similar to brodeur's.

'88
roy: .900
peeters: .898
hayward: .896
stefan: .896
barrasso: .896
hrudey: .896

'89
roy: .908
casey: .900
takko: .899
vernon: .897
weeks: .893

'90
roy: .912
liut: .905
puppa: .903
malarchuk: .903
fitzpatrick: .898

'91
belfour: .910 -- (rookie season)
roy: .906
richter: .903 --- (1st full season)
peeters: .902
hrudey: .900

i did not know this until now, but '91 blackhawks allowed the most PP's against (425). habs allowed the fewest (282).

'92
roy: .914
joseph: .910 --- (1st full season)
essensa: .910 --- (entered NHL in '89, top 10 in sv% each season from '90-'93)
vanbiesbrouck: .910
fitzpatrick: .902

.93
joseph: .911
potvin: .910 --- (rookie season)
belfour: .906
barrasso: .901
vanbiesbrouck: .900
puppa: .898
hasek: .896
roy: .894


basically, the idea is that other goalies may have partly caught up to roy, rather than that roy peaked in late '80s/early '90s and then declined somewhat. it seems unusual for a goalie's peak to end at age 26, and coincidentally when his team's D is no longer elite and no longer allowing the fewest PP's.

the more obvious reason to think roy did not really decline after '88-'92 was we saw how great roy was after '92, and his numbers were still generally elite. roy was 2nd in cumulative sv% from '94-'02.

roy was a vezina finalist in '94, '97 and '02. he was 5th in vezina voting in '98 and '01, and was a hart finalist in '02 and 5th in hart voting in '94.


the change from standup goaltending to butterfly goaltending, of which roy was at the leading edge, may also be important. roy's butterfly style may have given him an advantage against the primarily standup goalies of his time, but that advantage may have gone away as the butterfly became more and more common.

It would be interesting to trace the development of Sawchuk's legacy compared to Plante and Hall. Did his contemporaries see something we don't? Did the career wins and shutout records mean that much? How long did it take for him to cement the top spot? How many critics were never convinced?

Might not matter for this project, but it would be a nice read.

that is one of the reasons i never vote in these projects.

it seems to me the general consensus of those who watched their careers was that sawchuk was better than hall and plante, but plante seems to be the general consensus here.

but if we judged on award voting, as is common with many other players, hall would win. he obviously does not have the best playoff career, but he did win the '68 smythe, and may have won another in '61 (i know HHOF said pilote, but that is not definitive). hall was also voted 1st AS with 3 different teams, which counters some of the arguments of team effects which are always important in debates about goalies.