Round 2, Vote 1 (HOH Top Goaltenders)

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Exactly. I don't see how anyone can give Roy as much credit for being significantly better than the likes of Hextall, Vanbiesbrouck, Barasso, and Casey, when Hasek did the same to a much superior crop of goaltenders.

Adjusted save percentage compares a goalie to the league average, not just the guys on top, right?

I realize the talent pool expanded as the Europeans came over in the 1990s, but the number of teams expanded too.

The only way the adjusted save percentages would be skewed is if the increase in talent in the 1990s disproportionately favored goaltenders over other positions, and I'm not sure if that's true.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

The Tretiak reference is an absolutely terrible one as he was actually playing against the best Europeans most of the time. Not like in the 80's and 90's where those best Europeans were mostly in the NHL.

All the best from the USSR and most of the best from Czechoslovakia were still in Europe until the early 90s. And staying in Europe seemed more desirable for the Swedes and Finns until the early 90s too. I don't think competition in Europe was quite as strong as it was in the 70s, but it was a big step up from today, when all the best players actually are in the NHL.

Hasek is literally the youngest professional hockey player in history,

I see this line spoken a lot here, and in my opinion, it's meaningless. Ignoring everything Hasek did in Europe is unfairly punishing him because of where he happened to be born. But giving him credit for playing in the Czech Elite League is giving him extra credit for where he was born, and in turn unfairly punishing goalies who happened to be born in North America, where the professional leagues strictly prohibit underage players (the WHA made an exception for Gretzky at 17, that's it).

Yes, Hasek played in the elite league of Czechoslovakia at 16. In my opinion, that says more about the declining hockey program in Czechoslovakia than anything else. Regardless, the AHL has a minimum required age.

Hasek really didn't start to get recognition as one of the best goalies in Czechslovakia, let alone Europe, until he was 20 or 21 years old.

 

[Canadiens1958]

NHL vs Other Leagues

Comes down to a question of age and who else was playing in the league in question.

Harry Lumley played as an 18 year old in the NHL playing 74% of the Red Wings regular season games and 100% of the playoffs including game 7 in the semi finals and finals. The NHL that season included 18 skaters who had HHOF careers and 1 other goalie who had a HHOF career.

The various minor and junior leagues featured skaters like Gordie Howe, Jean Beliveau, Bobby Hull, and goalies, sometimes juniors playing in adult pro leagues, like Terry Sawchuk, Glenn, Hall, Jacques Plante, Patrick Roy. They all played against a high level of competition in these leagues including players that went on to solid or HHOF NHL careers.

Produce the actual evidence about the strength of a league and the information will be considered.

But Dominik Hasek's level of play in the CEL and competition between the ages of 17 and 20 does not even compare to Harry Lumley.

Hasek:
http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/h/hasekdo01.html

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

at 17 and 18 Lumley played more games, performing better against HHOF quality opponents including the likes of Maurice Richard, Toe Blake, Elmer Lach on a regular basis.

 

[pluppe]

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

But like I pointed out earlier and nik jr pointed out now Roys numbers (and especially his peak) are higly likely inflated by his team situation and competition. And it could be very telling that the moment his tems dicipline goes down his save% numbers starts declining. Haseks on the other hand should probably be adjusted up.

 

[pluppe]

I think you and MasterOfDistricts are fine posters and worth responding to. I don't mean to denigrate you by responding to you. I simply had something to say and wanted to get it across clearly in one post rather than breaking it up into point-by-point responses to different posts.

And I appreciate your opinions as well. I just think we disagree a little in this.

I'm quoting an article that you never linked to because someone else linked to it, and because it's a good example of the "statistical philosophy" that all performance only has value as a sample of ability, rather than having value as an end in itself. You have not stated this explicitly but it is implied in all your posts when you talk about small samples and random variation.

And I will say again that it is not implied. What is implied is that it plays a role and I stand behind this.

You've asked why I have responded to you specifically. Here's one of your previous posts that explains why.



(For context you were responding to a post that said "Er doesn't the fact that different goalies have different "quality starts" numbers kind of prove that some are more likely to have extreme performances than others?" Which was itself a response to a post saying "There's no evidence that some goalies are more likely to have extreme performances than others, relative to skill level." So you did not establish the "likely" framework, but you are posting within it. I disagree with the whole "likely" framework as it applies to this project. IMO it's about evaluating past performance, not projecting into the future.)

Anyway, I saw this post as fitting with the "statistical philosophy" I was attacking. In order to be more specific about how I disagree with it, I have reworded your paragraph to reflect my views. Hope this helps.

Numbers will always vary in these cases because of random variance specific factors unaccounted for in the model such as home/road, support from the team in front of the player, and opposing shooters making their shots. The question is if there is additional variance because of differences in ability performance. Otherwise the fact that 2 goalies have different quality starts % for 100 games says nothing about what is likely for the next 100 their actual performance was for those 100 games.

I think I understand what you are saying and agree that that quote was not my most eloquent. If i would change something it would be the "says nothing" to "proves nothing" because I do think it points at something.

And if it is the word random variance that you don´t like I should say that I use it pretty much as "factors outside of the individuals control"

Now I realize that you have primarily been saying that random variation may play a role in performance distribution, as opposed to MasterOfDistricts saying it does play a role. But since I disagree that random variation is a factor when assessing historical performance, I disagree with your view as well. And in fact, in pointing to sample sizes in this thread, you are implicitly saying that random variation does play a role in performance distribution.

But do you then agree with me that we should look at what happened and try to assess to what degree factors outside of the individuals control affected the historical performance.

I will use robots as an example even though this often backfires but I think it may prove a point. If you did have these robotgoalies that you spoke about with precisely identical talents playing out their careers their results would also vary. If we then were to evaluate their careers we could just say that that one accomplished the most and therefore is the greatest. But I don´t think that is what we are trying to do here. I think what you are trying to answer is what goalies individual control was the most positive.

Now Real world goalies are not robots and are to a large part responsible for the differences in outcome. But the forces/reasons/contexts/ that affects the variance in the robots performance are at play in their world as well. Ad therefore needs to be taken under consideration.

at your Roy comment. How would these seven goaltenders rank by this evaluation method?

I don´t really know much aboud the others selfimage but the little I do know about Roys cockiness makes me think he would be hard to beat.

But seriously, I'm not only talking about the views of specific goaltenders here, or even goaltenders in general. I'm saying that our universal human experience* is that we perform better at some times that others (at our jobs, in our relationships, in life), and that we are responsible for our good performance and our bad performance. As human beings, goaltenders experience their career in this way. I think it is extremely wrong to call a universal human experience an attribution error because someone has run a crude statistical model that hasn't found a large difference between actual distribution and random distribution. Attribution errors may exist but I think there is a high burden of proof for statistical methods when attempting to go against human experience.

*Or if it's not universal it's the dominant way that people have experienced the world, and much better than blaming any variation in performance on the whims of the gods, or randomness, or whatever.

I don´t think it is up for debate weather people have biases or not. I think every fan looking at their reactions to calls against their team and the opposition can see this.
I also think we should see the coltural differences in this. I come from Sweden and here we are very much socialized to see external explanations for performance whereas my image of the american way is much more internal. You are responsible for your actions to a larger degree. Both have their pros and cons but it at least shows that you can´t take this as evidence of underlying reason.

What it comes down to is that I think that some posters have reached too deductive conclusions from too little evidence outside of small sampled numbers. Or what do you think about my reasoning in this answer to qpqs deductions (which I might have missed but I don´t think he answered).

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

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.

I think you are very biased here. Your way is one way of looking at it but couldn´t somebody claim something like "Winning the first game or a game 7 is the most important thing in the playoffs so performing when tying is the best quality in a goaltender. That Hasek performed worse when trailing probably has to do with that Buffalo as a team realized they were not good enough to overcome the situation, gave up and did not support their goalie."

And if you believe that Roy actually lifted his performance +10% when trailing you have to answer why he did not do this in the other playoff games? Do you really want a goalie who lacks the motivation to give it his best when tying a series in the most important time of the year.

Now I want to point out that I don´t believe in these statements. I´m just showing that it is very easy to choose arguments that suits your agenda.

In this case I am not surprised that the numbers vary so much when it is such a small sample. I find it highly unrealistic that these numbers shows such clear clutchness when larger studies are having problems finding it at all. That is a hot topic and I am not actually sure what I believe but I am sure that if clutchness exists you are overrestimating it in this example because I find it very hard to believe that a goalie that has an amazing "cluthgap" of a staggering +24% when trailing suddenly are -4% in all other games in the playoffs where every game is a high pressure game. A 28% clutch swing. That would be the most selective clutch ability I have ever seen. In this case random variance as part of the explanation is a much better hypothesis in my eyes.

I would like to say though that I would guess there are some truth to the numbers. I think Roy might have had a little better resilience when down. I think Hasek might have been a little more at risk of breaking down and I would guess that on the whole these differences are small and that they are very close in the playoffs with an edge to Roy because of his slightly better stats over a larger sample that resulted in a phenomenal trophy case. This is what the numbers also tell me. Just not to the simplified extent your very selective analysis claims.

Do you think his deductions are sound or do you think any of the variations in these numbers were affected by things outside of their control and that the deductions should leave more room for this interpretation, even though the acctual numbers are historical facts?

 

[steve141]

Hasek is literally the youngest professional hockey player in history

Do you have a source for this? I know there have been some 16 year olds in the SEL (Adam Larsson is the most recent example I can recall). I guess it depends on when in the year they made their debute.

Yes, Hasek played in the elite league of Czechoslovakia at 16. In my opinion, that says more about the declining hockey program in Czechoslovakia than anything else.

I think it's more a case of different traditions in Europe and NA. NA has a strong tradition of junior/college sports, whereas good European juniors get promoted to play with the seniors as soon as they are good enough. It's not really a hockey thing, since I'd say the case is the same in soccer and other sports as well.

Hasek getting promoted early probably just means he was a very talented junior. Which is not surprising considering his career as a senior. You are not going to convince me that Eric Lindros wasn't better at 16 than some NHL players at 25. Doesn't make either league any worse.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

I see this line spoken a lot here, and in my opinion, it's meaningless. Ignoring everything Hasek did in Europe is unfairly punishing him because of where he happened to be born. But giving him credit for playing in the Czech Elite League is giving him extra credit for where he was born, and in turn unfairly punishing goalies who happened to be born in North America, where the professional leagues strictly prohibit underage players (the WHA made an exception for Gretzky at 17, that's it).

Yes, Hasek played in the elite league of Czechoslovakia at 16. In my opinion, that says more about the declining hockey program in Czechoslovakia than anything else. Regardless, the AHL has a minimum required age.

Hasek really didn't start to get recognition as one of the best goalies in Czechslovakia, let alone Europe, until he was 20 or 21 years old.

That's fair, I just list it to point out he was on the radar at a young age. Coupled with Best Goaltender at the World Junior Championships and I think it is extremely fair to say his NHL career would have begun much, much sooner had he been N. American. He was not some late bloomer who came out of nowhere in his late 20s.

steve141:

Do you have a source for this? I know there have been some 16 year olds in the SEL (Adam Larsson is the most recent example I can recall). I guess it depends on when in the year they made their debute.

Read it a few times, though it's possible someone younger has come along.

 

[Canadiens1958]

IIHF WJC UNDER 20 Best Goalie

That's fair, I just list it to point out he was on the radar at a young age. Coupled with Best Goaltender at the World Junior Championships and I think it is extremely fair to say his NHL career would have begun much, much sooner had he been N. American. He was not some late bloomer who came out of nowhere in his late 20s.



Read it a few times, though it's possible someone younger has come along.

List of WJC Under 20 Best Goalie Award Winners follows:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IIHF_World_Under_20_Championship_Directorate_award_winners

Hardly an indication of future NHL or hockey success. Vast majority of post 1980 top 20 goalies did not win this award.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Europe vs NA

I think it's more a case of different traditions in Europe and NA. NA has a strong tradition of junior/college sports, whereas good European juniors get promoted to play with the seniors as soon as they are good enough. It's not really a hockey thing, since I'd say the case is the same in soccer and other sports as well.

Hasek getting promoted early probably just means he was a very talented junior. Which is not surprising considering his career as a senior. You are not going to convince me that Eric Lindros wasn't better at 16 than some NHL players at 25. Doesn't make either league any worse.

Europe favours the old club system in sports. Similar to the NHL in sponsorship days. A junior playing with adults means a certain level of talent but also indicates that the club lacks talent or depth at a position.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

List of WJC Under 20 Best Goalie Award Winners follows:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IIHF_World_Under_20_Championship_Directorate_award_winners

Hardly an indication of future NHL or hockey success. Vast majority of post 1980 top 20 goalies did not win this award.

Still points to Hasek being a very good, young goalie... Who obviously went on to get much better. If that was all Hasek accomplished before the NHL you might have a point.

 

[Killion]

Europe favours the old club system in sports. Similar to the NHL in sponsorship days. A junior playing with adults means a certain level of talent but also indicates that the club lacks talent or depth at a position.

Very true, and your earlier mention of Harry Lumley is a good example of that. He actually played his first NHL games as a 17yr old thanks in large part to his outstanding performances from the age of 15 on up in the OHA with Barrie during the war years when talent was indeed scarce. The development of goaltenders still pretty rudimentary to non-existent. Wasnt really until the 50's that systems were instituted to develop sustainable longer-term career goaltenders.

"Apple Cheeks" as he was nicknamed got nailed for something like 13 or 14 goals in his first two games, given a one-way bus ticket to one of those old decrepit Our Lady of Spain arenas' in Indianapolis or wherever. Eventually getting re-called after "catching up" to the increased size & speed of the game, as the difference's from top level (todays AAA rating at the amateur levels) to Jr.B to Major Junior to the Minor Pro's to the NHL are significant. On another level to further illustrate, Ken Dryden had a great deal of trouble with the Russian game, reluctantly making adjustments after several blow-outs, but even then unable to overcome the psychological damage done, lacking the kind of total confidence & commitment it takes to shut an opponent out & down thereafter.

Lumley, Sawchuk, Vachon to a certain extent & others who have followed were "phenom's", as its rare for a Goaltender to be able to immediately make the transitions from level to level, those that do often burning out after one, three or five seasons. Amongst certain enlightened amateur & Junior organizations, NHL clubs "back in the day", rather than rushing a kid up, they'd slowly do so, whereby even if he was capable of playing Jr.A he'd be assigned to the Jr.B club, groomed & tutored, a handful of call-ups followed by a year or 2 at the 'A' level, an apprenticeship in the Minors (which in a lot of cases, Johnny Bower for example) wound up being like, forever.

It takes an astute combination of Management, Scouting & Coaching, handling, in catching and relying upon a shooting star, many of whom can be "difficult" (Sawchuk) and inconsistent. The mark of the truly great ones is in their ability to adapt & change their game up. No one in the history of the position did that better than Jacques Plante, Brodeur, Hasek & Tim Thomas enlightened & studious enough to follow suit who through reinvention & hard work in practice were able to achieve what they did/have. In many respects Hasek & Thomas (but 2 examples) real throwback's as they came up through tier's, understudying, sustaining their peaks through change, innovation, adaptation, peaking at later ages.

 

[quoipourquoi]

With the knowledge Hasek won a Vezina in his first year as a starter in the NHL, quickly going on to dominate a HHoF field, it gets a little hard to blow off best goalie at World Junior Championship, multiple Best Goalie at World Championship, and multiple best goalie and player in his country awards or suggest he was a late bloomer, especially when so many eastern euros also took a while to adjust their game to N. America.

The way some of you blow off Hasek's international accomplishments makes me wonder if Tretiak even makes your Top 40.

It took him four years. Four years since his last Golden Stick. Four years since his last Best Goaltender. Eleven years since his Junior Best Goaltender.

It took Roman Cechmanek four games to make the adjustment.

Hasek is literally the youngest professional hockey player in history, wins pretty much everything he can outside of the NHL - moves to another country/continent/culture without knowing the language and struggles in limited opportunities - then immediately dominates the NHL for years.

Limited opportunities? Do most rookie goaltenders get put into a position where they're told that they and two others will be able to compete in training camp for the starting position of a franchise (with the winner eventually going on to receive 74 games)? Do most second-year goaltenders get put into a position where they're told that the 74-game goaltender is a free agent contract-holdout, and that they and the remaining goaltender can compete for his job in October of the regular season? Do most third-year goaltenders inherit a season-split with another goaltender on a new team (only to go on to display the first instance of a career full of long-term injuries)?

He had opportunities in every season. Two he blew because he didn't recognize the importance of playing hockey in September and October and November, and one in which he had to be replaced long-term because he was injured (just as he would be in 1997, 2000, 2004, 2006, and 2008).

Exactly. I don't see how anyone can give Roy as much credit for being significantly better than the likes of Hextall, Vanbiesbrouck, Barasso, and Casey, when Hasek did the same to a much superior crop of goaltenders.

Do you want to go by marquee names or do you want to go by the performances provided? Roy, Belfour, Fuhr, and Joseph peaked before Hasek. Brodeur peaked after Hasek. Hackett, Hebert, Richter, Carey, and Kidd peaked similar years to Hasek. I don't see the fascination with beating a crop of marquee goaltenders out of their prime, especially when they were mostly staying relevant because of the playoffs.

1994-1999 Finishes in SPCT
Roy: 3, 4, 7, 8, 10
Belfour: 8, 10
Joseph: 6
Brodeur: 3, 4, 5, 7

But we still remember them from that era because they were often the best playoff goaltenders.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Early 1960's

Lumley, Sawchuk, Vachon to a certain extent & others who have followed were "phenom's", as its rare for a Goaltender to be able to immediately make the transitions from level to level, those that do often burning out after one, three or five seasons. Amongst certain enlightened amateur & Junior organizations, NHL clubs "back in the day", rather than rushing a kid up, they'd slowly do so, whereby even if he was capable of playing Jr.A he'd be assigned to the Jr.B club, groomed & tutored, a handful of call-ups followed by a year or 2 at the 'A' level, an apprenticeship in the Minors (which in a lot of cases, Johnny Bower for example) wound up being like, forever.

It takes an astute combination of Management, Scouting & Coaching, handling, in catching and relying upon a shooting star, many of whom can be "difficult" (Sawchuk) and inconsistent. The mark of the truly great ones is in their ability to adapt & change their game up. No one in the history of the position did that better than Jacques Plante, Brodeur, Hasek & Tim Thomas enlightened & studious enough to follow suit who through reinvention & hard work in practice were able to achieve what they did/have. In many respects Hasek & Thomas (but 2 examples) real throwback's as they came up through tier's, understudying, sustaining their peaks through change, innovation, adaptation, peaking at later ages.

Adapting to the mask was a big factor in the late 1950s/early 1960's. The various NHL goalies were toying with masks in practice but none could get permission to wear them in games.

Plante adapted very quickly but it took the November 1,1959 injury to show he could sustain excellent performance during games, wearing a mask.

In the early sixties, Andre Gagnon and Rogie Vachon were the leading goalies in the MMJHL, followed by Bernie Parent, Andre Gill, Bob Champoux. Parent adapted quickly to the mask, Vachon struggled, Gagnon never did while Gill and Champoux had their ups and downs.

Does not take much to influence a career.

 

[Sanf]

Something about Haseks early years (mostly from Pardubice team site)

1981-1982 Got his chance to play in Pardubice because of injuries of the starter and the second goalie Milan Keckes wasn´t playing that impressive.

1982-1983 Stole the starter role from Jaroslav Radvanovsky (6th in goalies in golden stick votes at 1979 but I guess not really one of the top goalies from the league?). Had eleven games win streak at one point of the season and Pardubice ended up in Bronze which was best result in 7 years. Played his first national team match 15th february 1983 (CSSR-SWE 2-3) and was selected the best player of the match. Was the #2 in WHC (selected over Karel Lang GS results 1980 8. 1981. 15 1982 8. ). Hasek was 10. in GS votings (2. from goalies).

1983-1984 This was probably Jaromir Sindels best year. Hasek competed from the place to olympics but Kralik was selected as backup although his season wasn´t that impressive and he suffered from injury. Hasek 9. in gs results (2. from goalies). Pardubice ranked third in season

1984-1985 Was the starter in 1984 Canada cup but it didn´t went well from Hasek or CSSR. Statisticaly this wasn´t a great year for him. Didn´t get chosen to WHC but was still ranked 17. in gs votings (2. from goalies) Pardubice was ranked 4. in season.

I promised to write something about Dzurilla and Holecek, but its quite unimportant at this point. I try again when their time is in discussion.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

But like I pointed out earlier and nik jr pointed out now Roys numbers (and especially his peak) are higly likely inflated by his team situation and competition. And it could be very telling that the moment his tems dicipline goes down his save% numbers starts declining. Haseks on the other hand should probably be adjusted up.

Again, adjusted save percentage is based off league average save percentage. This isn't awards voting, it isn't based off the quality of #2; it is based off the average of all the goalies in the league. And I'm not sure that the average of the 26-30 teams worth of goalies during Hasek's prime was all that much better than the average of 21 teams worth of goalies during Roy's prime.

As for team discipline, Roy definitely got a lot of help there in Montreal, but there's more to it than that. His statistical regular season peak is from 1988-1992, and he stayed in Montreal until 1996. It was pretty early in my hockey watching career, but I remember Roy was considered easily the best goalie in the league for some time, but the luster wore off before he left Montreal - he was still considered one of the best and the most clutch, but not far ahead of everyone as he was before.

 

[Killion]

Adapting to the mask was a big factor.. Does not take much to influence a career.

... ya, certainly "The Mask" was an innovation that psychologically altered the way in which goalies approached the game. Contemporaneously, improvements were made to both the Blocker and more significantly to the Trapper. Pad design as well, led by old "Pop" Kenesky out of Hamilton Ontario also provided much in way of increased flexibility & protection affecting crouch to upright stance. Still though, guys like Sawchuk, Champoux & Bower were playing it old school, maskless, using a short pad, top straps practically undone, playing horizontally and face first. Then along came the curved stick which in the hands of Bathgate, Geoffrion, Hull & Mikita forced further changes.

 

[Rhiessan71]

One of the most important factors in the difference between the Euro leagues and the NHL/AHL is still being ignored. Not a single poster championing the Euro leagues has even attempted to respond to or counter this point since I made pages ago.
Namely, a much denser and physically demanding schedule that has about 60% more games per season.
There is simply no getting around this extremely important distinction!

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

One of the most important factors in the difference between the Euro leagues and the NHL/AHL is still being ignored. Not a single poster championing the Euro leagues has even attempted to respond to or counter this point since I made pages ago.
Namely, a much denser and physically demanding schedule that has about 60% more games per season.
There is simply no getting around this extremely important distinction!

You have a point. I don't put that much stock into Hasek's supposed incredible longevity, as much of it is spent in Euro leagues that are lower paced and have a much shorter schedule, so much less wear and tear on the body. It's not like Hasek was the pillar of health in the NHL

On the other hand, I don't think you can just write off Hasek's years in Europe in the 1980s. It's not his fault he was born behind the Iron Curtain, and while a few from Czechoslovakia did defect, it was incredibly difficult. And from ages 21-25 or so, Hasek was known as the best goalie in Europe, so those aren't just write off years

 

[RabbinsDuck]

One of the most important factors in the difference between the Euro leagues and the NHL/AHL is still being ignored. Not a single poster championing the Euro leagues has even attempted to respond to or counter this point since I made pages ago.
Namely, a much denser and physically demanding schedule that has about 60% more games per season.
There is simply no getting around this extremely important distinction!

Considering it is difficult to get any credit at all for international play, I think that bias is already built in.

Though many of the goalies already up for discussion played about 60% of the season of someone like Broduer - shorter schedules and the coaching tendency to play backups more pre-late 90s.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Emil "Pops" Kenesky

Emil "Pops" Kenesky was the provider of goalie pads to the leading NHL goalies from 1924 onwards.Terry Sawchuk, Glenn Hall to Ron Hextall, just a small sampling of NHL goalies who wore Kenesky pads:

http://www.keneskysports.com/history.html

http://hamiltonsportshalloffame.com...011/09/27/emil-“pops”-kenesky-hockey-builder/

Note the weight of each pad - 17lbs.

Would be interesting to see how some modern goalies would perform in test evaluation situations wearing the Kenesky pads and other old equipment from the O6 era.

 

[Sanf]

One of the most important factors in the difference between the Euro leagues and the NHL/AHL is still being ignored. Not a single poster championing the Euro leagues has even attempted to respond to or counter this point since I made pages ago.
Namely, a much denser and physically demanding schedule that has about 60% more games per season.
There is simply no getting around this extremely important distinction!

You have to remember that there were international games and tournaments in season. It also ment travelling and tighter schedule.

Regular season games+playoffs+international games from Hasek
(very quickly counted)
1984-1985 49 GP
1985-1986 78 GP
1986-1987 75 GP
1987-1988 60 GP
1988-1989 66 GP
1989-1990 51 GP
edit. Before 1985 the amount were relatively small because no playoffs were played in Czech league and Hasek was mostly second goalie in national team.

Then there are possible team eurocups or other team tournaments or practice games.

But I do admit (when talking earlier euros) I have some problems how would they have handled the hard season and that the opponents are elite night after night.

edited Counted very quickly and very wrong. Now it should be right

 

[Rhiessan71]

You have a point. I don't put that much stock into Hasek's supposed incredible longevity, as much of it is spent in Euro leagues that are lower paced and have a much shorter schedule, so much less wear and tear on the body. It's not like Hasek was the pillar of health in the NHL

On the other hand, I don't think you can just write off Hasek's years in Europe in the 1980s. It's not his fault he was born behind the Iron Curtain, and while a few from Czechoslovakia did defect, it was incredibly difficult. And from ages 21-25 or so, Hasek was known as the best goalie in Europe, so those aren't just write off years

As I said earlier, I don't ignore or discount Hasek's non-NHL work. I just refuse to give it the ridiculous weight some are, to the point where they actually believe it should make up the gap or most of the gap in Roy and Brodeur's NHL seasons.

I mean lets take a good parallel like Jagr, here's a guy that would go on to be one of, if not the best player in the NHL other than Gretzky or Lemieux that we've seen in the last 20 years.
At 17 he was 7th in scoring in the Czech league that was being dominated by Robert Reichel and Jiri Dolezal(who?) and Jagr didn't crack the NHL top 10 till his 4th year or win his first Art Ross till his 5th season. Jagr's first season in the NHL, he only scored 7 more points than he did in the Czech league despite playing 29 more games.

Back to Hasek. From the stories I have read about him and what I actually remember of him from his early days in the NHL, it wasn't that people didn't see brilliance in his play at times, they did. His issue was consistency. He would look so good one game and then completely **** the bed the next.
It took him a couple of seasons to "put it together" at an NHL level.

Another important point, to me at least as a goalie playing Junior B/C and Senior A leagues in the late 80's/early 90's, is the goalie equipment factor. I have serious doubts that Hasek could of played his unique style SUCCESSFULLY at an NHL level let alone on an NHL schedule until the good ultra light, non-water retaining synthetic equipment came out in the very early 90's.

So again, giving Hasek credit for his non-NHL play is one thing but giving it the kind of weight it would need to make up any real ground on Roy or Brodeur's NHL seasons...not a chance.

 

[pluppe]

Again, adjusted save percentage is based off league average save percentage. This isn't awards voting, it isn't based off the quality of #2; it is based off the average of all the goalies in the league. And I'm not sure that the average of the 26-30 teams worth of goalies during Hasek's prime was all that much better than the average of 21 teams worth of goalies during Roy's prime.

That is true. But I do think Hasek faced a little better competition even on league average.

As for team discipline, Roy definitely got a lot of help there in Montreal, but there's more to it than that. His statistical regular season peak is from 1988-1992, and he stayed in Montreal until 1996. It was pretty early in my hockey watching career, but I remember Roy was considered easily the best goalie in the league for some time, but the luster wore off before he left Montreal - he was still considered one of the best and the most clutch, but not far ahead of everyone as he was before.

But is it not interesting that this decline (at least if we are talking save%) coincided exactly with Montreals change in dicipline from the 91/92 to 92/93 season (acctually just beaten in save% by Hasek in his according to many not very good 3rd season).

 

[pluppe]

It took him four years. Four years since his last Golden Stick. Four years since his last Best Goaltender. Eleven years since his Junior Best Goaltender.

It took Roman Cechmanek four games to make the adjustment.




Limited opportunities? Do most rookie goaltenders get put into a position where they're told that they and two others will be able to compete in training camp for the starting position of a franchise (with the winner eventually going on to receive 74 games)? Do most second-year goaltenders get put into a position where they're told that the 74-game goaltender is a free agent contract-holdout, and that they and the remaining goaltender can compete for his job in October of the regular season? Do most third-year goaltenders inherit a season-split with another goaltender on a new team (only to go on to display the first instance of a career full of long-term injuries)?

He had opportunities in every season. Two he blew because he didn't recognize the importance of playing hockey in September and October and November, and one in which he had to be replaced long-term because he was injured (just as he would be in 1997, 2000, 2004, 2006, and 2008).



Do you want to go by marquee names or do you want to go by the performances provided? Roy, Belfour, Fuhr, and Joseph peaked before Hasek. Brodeur peaked after Hasek. Hackett, Hebert, Richter, Carey, and Kidd peaked similar years to Hasek. I don't see the fascination with beating a crop of marquee goaltenders out of their prime, especially when they were mostly staying relevant because of the playoffs.

1994-1999 Finishes in SPCT
Roy: 3, 4, 7, 8, 10
Belfour: 8, 10
Joseph: 6
Brodeur: 3, 4, 5, 7

But we still remember them from that era because they were often the best playoff goaltenders.

Bolded: I don´t think you should claim that as some sort of facts?

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

Exactly. I don't see how anyone can give Roy as much credit for being significantly better than the likes of Hextall, Vanbiesbrouck, Barasso, and Casey, when Hasek did the same to a much superior crop of goaltenders.

Soooooo.....Hextall, Vanbiesbrouck, and Barrasso are suddenly crud goalies? Did I miss something somewhere?