Final Post on Hasek vs. Roy in the Playoffs
I wanted to use the playoff projection method to focus a bit on some of Hasek's other playoff seasons, as some have criticized him for getting injured in 2006 and replaced in 2008. Again, note that equivalent seasons to Hasek's 2008 were not included for Sawchuk, Hall and Plante, and that Plante was the only other guy even playing in the playoffs past the age of 40 (Hasek was 43 in 2008). However, I'll run the numbers anyway.
The other question is how exactly to account for a goalie's absence. The 2006 Sens were expected to win 1.57 series and won 1. The 2008 Red Wings were expected to win 2.20 and won all 4. This suggests that counting the expectation against Hasek in seasons he didn't play or got replaced would substantially overestimate the actual cost to his teams of not having Hasek , considering they both won at least one playoff series and the '08 Red Wings did better than expected (obviously, since they won the Cup). A similar argument can actually be made for '97 as well, even if you assume that Hasek was completely faking injury, given that the Sabres were heavy underdogs against the Flyers and would have been longshots to win the Cup even with Hasek.
The options seem to be to either exclude those seasons from his numbers (as was done in the prior post), to count all team results for Hasek, or to give him zeroes on the team success side and fully credit him for the team expectations on the other. I have included a number of scenarios in the following table, with the first ones giving the total team results and the last ones penalizing Hasek for the full team expectancy in the given seasons. I also ran the numbers for Hasek for those who aren't willing to penalize him for either of these seasons or 1997.
Description|Series W|Exp Series|Diff|%|Cups|Exp Cups|Diff|%
All Hasek teams|18|12.25|+5.75|+47%|2|1.15|+0.85|+74%
Hasek + team in '06|13|10.05|+2.95|+29%|1|0.83|+0.17|+20%
Individual w/'06|12|10.05|+1.95|+19%|1|0.83|+0.17|+20%
Individual w/'08|12|10.68|+1.32|+12%|1|0.99|+0.01|+0%
Individual w/both|12|12.25|-0.25|-2%|1|1.15|-0.15|-13%
Individual w/o '97|12|7.34|+4.66|+63%|1|0.60|+0.40|+67%
Adjusting for Regular Season Goalie Achievement
One additional argument for Hasek is that during his regular season peak his individual contribution was so high that it made his teams look much better than they actually were, and that this helps underrate how much he himself did to help his teams succeed in the postseason relative to expectations. Helping a team grab a playoff spot is a vital first step that is not always guaranteed (Ken Dryden was the only goalie in this group to play on teams that always made the playoffs), and in general the better the regular season ranking, the easier the path to the Cup come playoff time.
I ran the numbers again for Roy and Hasek, to try to determine how strong their teams would have been with average goaltending. The win/loss record of the backups was left as is, and the team's winning percentage in the remaining games was estimated under the assumption that they had a league average starting goalie, based on the Pythagorean expected win formula of: (Team Goals per Game ^ 2) / (Team Goals per Game ^ 2 + ((1 - LgAvg save %) * Shots Against / 60 Minutes) ^ 2). This did not take into account shot quality or special teams factors, but it should still provide a better estimate of how good those teams would have been if they had an ordinary netminder instead of a superstar.
Doing this for both Roy and Hasek had a sizable impact on their expected team success. Because Roy was nearly always above average throughout his career, his team winning percentages dropped much across the board with the exception of 1986. Roy's 1994 Canadiens team were expected to finish 9th in the Eastern Conference with an average goalie, so Roy's expected playoff numbers for that year were revised to zero since he may not have been there in the first place if he wasn't a great goalie.
Hasek's effect on regular season winning was even greater than Roy's. The Sabres would not have been expected to make the playoffs in any year from 1995 to 2001 with an average starter, producing expected winning percentages that would have ranked them 11th, 12th, 10th, 11th, 10th and 9th in the Eastern Conference over that period.
Here are the full yearly numbers for Roy and Hasek, for both the actual team results and the average replacement starter scenario:
Goalie|Year|Actual Win%|Series W|Cup|Exp Series|Cup %|Avg Goalie Win%|Exp Series|Cup %
Roy|1986|.544|4|1|1.04|.082|.564|1.19|.110
Roy|1987|.575|1|0|1.27|.053|.552|1.10|.035
Roy|1988|.644|1|0|1.95|.220|.578|1.34|.088
Roy|1989|.719|3|0|2.66|.318|.594|1.49|.059
Roy|1990|.581|1|0|0.77|.062|.499|0.37|.012
Roy|1991|.556|1|0|1.01|.083|.501|0.69|.031
Roy|1992|.581|1|0|1.83|.175|.521|1.33|.073
Roy|1993|.607|4|1|1.19|.155|.551|0.74|.065
Roy|1994|.571|0|0|0.75|.033|.480|0.00|.000
Roy|1996|.634|4|1|1.42|.044|.653|1.54|.061
Roy|1997|.652|2|0|2.17|.248|.569|0.77|.015
Roy|1998|.579|0|0|1.11|.052|.519|0.77|.015
Roy|1999|.598|2|0|1.33|.069|.566|1.11|.039
Roy|2000|.585|2|0|0.89|.032|.549|0.69|.015
Roy|2001|.720|4|1|2.35|.306|.631|1.44|.088
Roy|2002|.604|2|0|0.95|.045|.571|0.75|.023
Roy|2003|.640|0|0|1.27|.095|.541|0.61|.013
Roy|Total|.620|32|4|23.95|2.07|.565|15.94|0.74
Goalie|Year|Actual Win%|Series W|Cup|Exp Series|Cup %|Avg Goalie Win%|Exp Series|Cup %
Hasek|1994|.565|0|0|0.60|.029|.550|0.52|.021
Hasek|1995|.531|0|0|0.50|.006|.432|0.00|.000
Hasek|1997|.561|0|0|1.14|.067|.427|0.00|.000
Hasek|1998|.543|2|0|0.78|.032|.429|0.00|.000
Hasek|1999|.555|3|0|0.59|.015|.448|0.00|.000
Hasek|2000|.518|0|0|0.35|.007|.466|0.00|.000
Hasek|2001|.598|1|0|0.82|.018|.524|0.00|.000
Hasek|2002|.707|4|1|2.16|.351|.619|1.22|.113
Hasek|2006|.689|0|0|1.57|.161|.657|1.28|.097
Hasek|2007|.689|2|0|1.54|.146|.625|1.00|.047
Hasek|2008|.701|0|0|2.20|.315|.696|2.14|.298
Hasek|Starter|.607|12|1|7.34|0.60|.525|2.74|0.18
Hasek|Teams|.625|18|2|12.25|1.15|.553|6.16|0.58
Based on these results, an average goalie on Roy's teams would still have been expected to win 16 playoff series. An average goalie on Hasek's teams from 1994 to 2008 would have been expected to win just 6, and really only 3 if we assume that an average goalie wouldn't be playing in the NHL past the age of 40. Hasek's prime numbers are particularly strong, as based on this measure his Buffalo teams won six playoff series while an average starter with the same teammates would be expected to win 0.5, and went to game 6 OT in the Finals despite having almost a zero chance of winning a Cup in that period with an average starting goalie in net (0.02).
The case can be made that Hasek let his teammates down some in the 1997 playoffs, but the Sabres were always a Cup longshot that year and it can be easily argued that Hasek was the main reason that the team with the third-worst win threshold in the league during the regular season was even in that playoff position in the first place. I am less willing to criticize Hasek for his injuries or struggles past the age of 40 when few other goalies were even able to play in the NHL, much less hold down a starting job in the playoffs.
And that's the sort of thing that's going to bother me here with this metric. Anytime I'm looking at a formula that tells me that Jacques Plante didn't win enough Stanley Cups, my skepticism really kicks in. It's like an unusually high expectation to be placed on a team with regular season success.
Ken Dryden managed to outperform expectations on great teams. And if you look at the entire original six era, I don't think it is out of line to suggest that Jacques Plante's teams won about what they were supposed to. He won 4 Cups with 7 regular season champions (57%). The other 18 regular season champs won 10 Cups (56%).
I know that Patrick Roy's 58.3% chance of beating the 1997 Detroit Red Wings every game wasn't exactly reflective of the 201-110 shot disparity that Roy faced compared to Vernon over six games.
Sure, just like everyone who watched the 1996 Avalanche-Red Wings series would have given the Avs a higher than 13.1% chance of advancing, but that's what I'm crediting Roy with for that series. I agree that regular season record does not perfectly encapsulate team strength, but I do think there is great value in systematic approaches, and I don't think they are effectively countered by a few examples where they don't necessarily exactly match up.