Round 2, Vote 1 (HOH Top Goaltenders)

[Dennis Bonvie]

I guess First Team All Star selections would have to be considered the closest thing, but I am not convinced that they were all that similar to Vezina voting, particularly modern-day Vezina voting which is strongly influenced by save percentage rather than GAA and wins.

From 1935 to 1970 you can determine the First Team All-Star over 80% of the time by taking the GAA leader among all goalies who played in at least 75% of their team's games. The only two goalies who ever bucked the trend in that period were Gump Worsley in 1968, when he led the league in GAA but did not play in 75% of the games, and Glenn Hall, who did it five times (1957, 1958, 1960, 1964, 1968, 1969).

On top of that, from 1971 to 1979 the First All-Star goalie was the goalie with the most games played on the team that allowed the fewest goals against, making four and a half decades of results heavily biased by goals against average.

I think the First Team All Star results can be used to make a case for Glenn Hall, given the unique way he was able to break through the systemic bias, but I'm not sure they are that meaningful otherwise. I largely ignore All Star voting in my rankings, both because they are unreliable and team dependent and affected by other factors like narratives and games played, but also because I'm not convinced they are terribly useful for goalies given the high degree of random statistical variation from season to season. In short, it's far from easy to tell if you are picking out the best goalie season or the luckiest goalie season or the goalie who got the most help from his teammates. I think it's more useful to look at multiple seasons of play when rating goalies as the sample size becomes more meaningful.

Yet Brodeur won 2 Vezinas without being in the top 10 in save percentage and another coming in 8th.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

The fewer PPs faced is at least off set by the home shot under counting in NJ. Then factor in that Roy plays the majority of his minutes at home, and that there was generally shot over counting in Colorado, two factors that inflate his SV%.

You have stated in the past that NJ's special team advantage is off set by the home under counting, so why do you keep pointing out the PP difference as if it's the only factor to consider?

I don't think this should be (or can be) stated as a fact.

 

[overpass]

Glenn Hall in the playoffs - 1956-1967

Glenn Hall played for Detroit in the 1956 and 1957 playoffs, and for Chicago in the playoffs from 1959-1967. I have chosen to omit his post-expansion seasons from this analysis because the circumstances were very different from the pre-expansion years.

Here are Hall's aggregate playoff stats compared to the other goalies in this time period.

Rk* | Player | GP | W | L | GAA | SO
1 | Glenn Hall | 84 | 37 | 47 | 2.85 | 5
2 | Johnny Bower | 70 | 35 | 32 | 2.40 | 5
3 | Jacques Plante | 66 | 45 | 21 | 2.08 | 7
4 | Terry Sawchuk | 55 | 24 | 29 | 2.94 | 2
5 | Gump Worsley | 40 | 18 | 21 | 2.97 | 3
6 | All others* | 102 | 43 | 52 | 2.73 | 7

*Simmons (24), Crozier (22), Lumley (13), Hodge (12), Vachon (9), DeJordy (7), Bassen (5), Giacomin (4), etc.

Superficially Hall's record over this time is unimpressive. He won 5 playoff series and lost 9. His GAA is the highest of the group save Sawchuk and Worsley, and both of them played well outside of this time frame. In fact, the group of all other goaltenders outperformed Hall statistically.

Let's take a more detailed look at Hall's aggregate stats, breaking them down by period.

First period
Hall had a 0.914 SV% and a 2.82 GAA in the first period. On average his teams were outshot 10.9 - 9.4. His teams scored 2.17 GF/60 in the first period.

Hall allowed the first goal in 52 of 83 games. At the end of the first period, his team led 17 times, trailed 28 times, and was tied 38 times (17-28-38). This is a poor record and is a major reason for his team's lack of success, but it may be equally attributed to his team's poor offensive performance in first periods.

Second period
The second period was Hall's best statistically. He had a 0.916 SV% and a 2.71 GAA. On average his teams were outshot 9.3 - 10.8. His team scored 2.53 GF/60 in the second period - better than the first period but still not great.

In the 17 games his team led going into the second, Hall had a SV% of 0.923 and a GAA of 2.65. His team was outshot 11.5 - 9.6 on average, and scored 2.82 GF/60. His team ended the period leading 11 times, tied 5 times, and trailing 1 time (11-5-1). While Hall's aggregate GAA and SV% were good in this situation, it seems that only holding a lead 11 out of 17 times isn't very successful.

In the 38 games in which his team was tied going into the second, Hall had a SV% of 0.920 and a GAA of 2.59. His team was outshot 10.8 - 9.0 on average, and scored 2.05 GF/60 for him. His team ended these second periods in the lead 9 times, trailing 15 times, and tied 14 times (9-15-14). Not a good result, but Hall's individual numbers were solid. As with the first period results it may be attributed to lack of scoring support.

In the 28 games in which his team trailed going into the second, Hall had a SV% of 0.910% and a GAA of 2.90. His team was outshot 10.7 - 9.8, and scored 3.00 GF/60 for him. His team took the lead in 4 of these games, tied it up in 2 games, and still trailed in 22 games. While his team was offensively potent in this situation, they weren't able to make up the deficit most of the time - in part because of Hall's slightly weaker performance.

Third period

Hall's third period numbers were the weakest of all. He had a SV% of 0.899 and a GAA of 3.17 in the third period. On average his teams were outshot 10.4 - 9.2, and scored 3.00 GF/60 for him.

Hall's team led going into the third in 23 games. They won 19, lost 3, and went to OT in one. Hall had a SV% of 0.927 and a GAA of 2.48. His teams were outshot 11.3 - 11.0, and scored 2.48 GF/60. The aggregate numbers are good. Holding 19 of 23 leads seems like a low total to someone raised on hockey between the lockouts, but it's not bad.

Hall's team was tied going into the third in 21 games. They won 12 and lost 9. Hall had a SV% of 0.878 and a GAA of 0.300. His team outshot the opponents 9.9 - 8.2, and scored 4.71 goals/60. While Hall had a winning record in this situation, he could have done even better when supported with 33 goals in 21 periods and only facing about 8 shots a period.

Hall's team trailed going into the third in 37 games. They won 2 games, tied 3, and lost 32 games. Hall had a SV% of 0.888 and a GAA of 3.76. His team was outshot 11.1 - 8.0 in these situations, and scored 2.35 GF/60. Looks like Hall's team tended to fall apart when trailing in the third. Heavily outshot, low scoring, and allowed a lot of goals. Hall can certainly be given some blame for making it more difficult for his teams to come back. However, sometimes this was simply allowing the other team to run up the score in a game that was already lost.

Overtime
Hall played in three overtime games. He won 2, lost 1, and stopped 44 of 45 shots.

Summary
Falling behind in the first period was a major problem for Hall and his teammates. It looks like the skaters should receive a bit more blame for their inability to score, but Hall could have performed better as well.

Hall struggled when his team had fallen behind, performing the worst in these situations in both the second and third period. Considering that his team tended to fall behind, this was a bad combination.

Hall played well with the lead - he just didn't get a lead very often.

The team had mixed results with the score tied. They struggled in the second period but did well in the third - but the difference was almost entirely because the skaters could score in the third but not the second. Hall's individual stats were stronger in the second than in the third when tied, and were about average overall.

Period | SV% | GAA | SF/60 | GF/60 | SA/60
1st | 0.914 | 2.82 | 28.2 | 2.17 | 32.6
2nd | 0.916 | 2.71 | 27.8 | 2.53 | 32.3
Trailing | 0.910 | 2.90 | 29.4 | 3.00 | 32.1
Tied | 0.920 | 2.59 | 26.9 | 2.05 | 32.3
Leading | 0.923 | 2.65 | 28.9 | 2.82 | 34.6
3rd | 0.899 | 3.17 | 27.7 | 3.00 | 31.3
Trailing | 0.888 | 3.76 | 24.0 | 2.35 | 33.4
Tied | 0.878 | 3.00 | 29.7 | 4.71 | 24.6
Leading | 0.927 | 2.48 | 32.0 | 2.48 | 34.0

Overall it's clear Hall had a bit of an uphill battle much of the time. His teams tended to be outshot by their opponents and he would have had to win the goaltending battle for his team to have a chance. He didn't do so often enough.

Next up - I'll break down Hall's playoffs year by year.

 

[BM67]

I don't think this should be (or can be) stated as a fact.

Unlike the existence of "the system"?

Over the last 12 seasons, the Devils and their opponent both have higher shooting percentages in Devils home game than in Devils road games, and there have been 3.85 more shots per game in Devils road games than in their home games.

That enough of a fact for you?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Early Junior Drafts

Probably too specific of a question, but I'll pose it anyway without expectation. This trade was made in June of 1964, I have to assume that the draft took place in May or June of '64...and I know the draft was still in its infancy and doesn't look quite like the draft we know today for a few years yet...but if the Habs liked Dryden so much, why not pick him at 12 instead of Guy Allen (now to 14th). And why would Boston immediately (that is, without them stepping foot on the ice again, all four of them) trade pick #2 and #14 for #12 and #18. It seems very strange, more so by today's standard (where draft pick value has increased with advances in scouting), but even then, no one thought that to be a touch odd?

Actually an excellent question:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/draft/NHL_1964_amateur.html

Link to the 1964 draft. Note it is very limited in scope, mainly Toronto and Montreal centric. No western Canada picks. Limited to non-sponsorsed players. Teams drafted for talent as opposed to signability.

Issue was signability/assignability into the NHL teams junior system.

Dryden was set on the NCAA option. Not all draftees from Quebec were willing to play junior in Ontario, likewise Ontario draftees in Quebec. Others would only play for certain organizations. Some had a bit of jam/poker acumen to pull this off, some did not. So accommodating trades would get made. Better something than nothing attitude prevailed.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Unlike the existence of "the system"?

Over the last 12 seasons, the Devils and their opponent both have higher shooting percentages in Devils home game than in Devils road games, and there have been 3.85 more shots per game in Devils road games than in their home games.

That enough of a fact for you?

Those are facts.

But they do not prove under counting. What they prove is that more shots are taken on the road than at home in Devils games.

 

[BM67]

Those are facts.

But they do not prove under counting. What they prove is that more shots are taken on the road than at home in Devils games.

Yes, somehow both teams just magically shot 10% better in NJ over a 12 year span.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Home and Away

Overpass. Consider the Home and Away factor. 1960 Jacques Plante recorded three shutouts in four playoff road games.

110/112 = .982 SV% two goals in one game at 36:19(3 - 1) and 59:47PP(5-2).

First period away is more revealing then home and so on down the line.

Goalie is a big part of the process that neutralizes, last change advantages, rink size - Boston and Chicago were smaller rinks, 4-3 game scheduling edge, crowd edge, etc.

 

[Master_Of_Districts]

Personally, I find that the Luongo-esque rhythm goaltending is just as big of an issue. The difference between making 26 of 28 saves and 28 of 30 saves because the latter goaltender wants his team to let him feel the puck at the beginning of a game and the former goaltender is good-to-go from minute-one carries some heavy weight in cumulative save percentages. If a goaltender needs his team to let him see some blockable shots just to get his head in the game, then are the saves on those blockable shots really a positive personal contribution?


EDIT: @ tarheel's picture

So much is being made of something for which there is no evidence.

 

[Master_Of_Districts]

I find the "quality games" metric that quoipourquoi uses to be very useful. One of the main criticisms of cumulative save percentage is that it is an averaging stat, so good games and bad games are averaged together. So one really good game or one really bad game can skew the overall average.

Whereas in reality, a goalie just needs to be "good enough to win" or "good enough not to lose" in any given game. "Quality games" is useful in that it determines the number of games when a goalie had a save percentage above or below average. Whereas one really good or one really bad game could skew cumulative save percentage.

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

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

 

[Canadiens1958]

Home and Away II

Continuing about the importance of the home and away difference in the playoffs and the need for appropriate studies and metrics.

1956-60 Canadiens during the playoffs averaged 4.3 GF at home and 3 GF away. The value of a goal they scored on the road was greater than the value of a goal scored at home. The importance of not giving up a goal on the road was proportionately greater. During this period, Jacques Plante recorded 7 playoff shutouts, 5 Away / 2 Home.

While it is true that shutouts get blended in the GAA and SV%, 5 guaranteed wins do not get blended anywhere.

The home and away components are very important.

 

[Sturminator]

But Dryden was.

Isn't that the point C58 was making, that Dryden was just as important to Habs success as Lafleur?

If that's the point he's trying to make, he's only repeating what I said to begin with. But I think he's of the opinion that Dryden was more important, which is certainly legitimate, but I disagree.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Actually an excellent question:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/draft/NHL_1964_amateur.html

Link to the 1964 draft. Note it is very limited in scope, mainly Toronto and Montreal centric. No western Canada picks. Limited to non-sponsorsed players. Teams drafted for talent as opposed to signability.

Issue was signability/assignability into the NHL teams junior system.

Dryden was set on the NCAA option. Not all draftees from Quebec were willing to play junior in Ontario, likewise Ontario draftees in Quebec. Others would only play for certain organizations. Some had a bit of jam/poker acumen to pull this off, some did not. So accommodating trades would get made. Better something than nothing attitude prevailed.

So, am I reading you right in that it basically boiled down like this (give or take a little):

- Sponsorship still existed (what was it like A form, B form, C form or whatever?) so the thought-to-be best that were willing to commit at a young age were committed to an organziation already.

- The remainder that made it to 18 were set into the draft.

- Teams drafted almost exclusively for talent and figured out the logistics of it all after the fact (telling you the value of a draft pick wasn't anywhere close to its value today, of course). So nearly every prospect was on the same basic value level (in a trade) and it was just a matter of re-arranging the cards so that you could build the hand you were looking for (or the hand that you could reasonably build)...almost akin to "Go Fish"?

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

If that's the point he's trying to make, he's only repeating what I said to begin with. But I think he's of the opinion that Dryden was more important, which is certainly legitimate, but I disagree.

You have to admit, Dryden was more important in '71.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Situational analysis of Sawchuk's 1952 playoffs. The Red Wings swept the Leafs and Canadiens to win the Cup in only 8 games.

As in the previous year, period-by-period shots were apparently uncounted/unreported in two games (Games 3 and 4 of the Finals in Detroit). Italicized numbers below indicates data from the first 6 playoff games only. However, it's worth noting that Sawchuk had shutouts in both the unreported games -- so we know he had a perfect save% across the board.

Leafs
1 @ Detroit: 10-10-6 = 26
2 @ Detroit: 5-6-11 = 22
3 @ Toronto: 9-9-9 = 27
4 @ Toronto: 12-16-12 = 40

Canadiens
1 @ Montreal: 7-11-12 = 30
2 @ Montreal: 12-5-9 = 26
3 @ Detroit: = 25
4 @ Detroit: = 26

First periods - 3 goals, GAA of 1.13; 55 shots, sv% of .945
This was Sawchuk's "worst" period, if you can really characterize it that way. He never allowed more than one first-period goal in a game, and each time the Red Wings came back to tie or take the lead before the end of the period. It's worth noting, circumstantially, that the Gazette reported Sawchuk suffering from "jitters" early in the first period of the playoffs. Of course he settled in for a shutout in that game, so take that for what it's worth.

The only time in the entire playoffs that Sawchuk allowed the first goal was in Game 4 against Toronto, only three minutes into the game, and the Wings countered 90 seconds later.

Second periods - 1 goal, GAA of 0.38; 57 shots, sv% of .982
When Detroit was leading after 1 - 6 games, 1 goals, 38 shots, sv% .974
When Detroit was tied after 1 - 2 games, 0 goals, 16 shots, sv% 1.000
When Detroit was trailing after 1 - n/a

His GAA and save% speak for themselves; Sawchuk was nearly perfect in the final 2/3rds of all these games. His only second-period GA was in Game 3 against Toronto, with a 4-1 lead.

Maybe the more interesting thing here is that for the second consecutive season, Detroit never trailed after 1. That would be 16 games in a row when they were tied or better heading into the second frame.

Third periods - 1 goal, GAA of 0.38; 59 shots, sv% of.983
When Detroit was leading after 2 - 8 games, 1 goals, 59 shots, sv% .983
When Detroit was tied after 2 - n/a
When Detroit trailed after 2 - n/a

The level of team support here is staggering; Detroit led every single game heading into the third period. Sawchuk played up to his teammates, coming close to a total shutout in on 59 shots in third periods -- and that was against teams desperate to catch up. His only third-period GA was in Game 1 of the Finals, when Tom Johnson scored on a rebound to cut a 2-0 deficit in half.

Overtime - None

Detroit won every game in regulation.


This is an extreme example of the "great goalie, great team, or both?" conundrum. Sawchuk was spectacular during this playoff, both statistically and in terms of critical reviews. He closed out 8 high-stakes games in a row, stopping a total of 115 shots for a mind-numbing .991 save% percentage in the second and third periods of the first 6 games -- and that was before he added two more shutouts. On the other hand, he played only 2 games that involved a single-goal lead in the final minutes, and he never had to win a game in the third period. Detroit blatantly did not try to score while defending leads, choosing to simply choke their opponents' offense into submission with solid team defense. Bob Goldham earned the nickname "the Red Wings' second goaltender" due to his high level of support for Sawchuk.

Even taking team factors into consideration, it's hard not to put this in the category of "all time great playoff performances". Sawchuk might have benefitted from a dominant and conscientious team, but he was out-of-this-world when called upon to make a save.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Terry Sawchuk 1952 Playoffs

Still the home and away splits show 4 home shutouts, 0 away shutouts. Zero goals allowed at home. See what happens in 1953.

 

[Sturminator]

You have to admit, Dryden was more important in '71.

You've got me there. Of course, I was really trying to comment on the teams on which Dryden and Lafleur both played. I consider the 71' team sort of an outlier when discussing the 1970's Habs. That cup was really the last gasp of the previous dynasty, plus Dryden, and with the exception of Frank Mahovlich (and I guess Laperriere in his last effective partial season), the old guard were no longer leading the team by 1973. So I always kind of seperate that 1971 team in my mind when talking about the 70's Habs. But you're right, of course, and 1971 is arguably the most impressive moment of Dryden's career.

 

[Canadiens1958]

The Canadiens

The Canadiens post WWII to 1978 were a continium - the entry of Sam Pollock into the organization to his exit upon the arrival of Frank Selke Sr. from Toronto in 1946. Passing of the torch from veteran to newcomer at all levels including players, became the organizational culture.

The 1973 SC Championship was no exception. Veteran leaders were in place to lead and they did. Playoffs Henri Richard out-performed Lafleur taking responsibility for Bobby Clarke especially in Philadelphia.Cournoyer won the Smythe, Laperriere played thru a broken wrist with ice management.

Ken Dryden was just as effective as in 1971 without the "Wow" factor, - holding the Flyers to one goal in each away game in Philadelphia.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/MTL/1973.html

 

[quoipourquoi]

Well, let's get this right. Hasek was one of Fuhr's (some might prefer to say Puppa's, I guess) backups in '92/93 (I'm sure they had been banking on Puppa developing further/faster than he did after his '89/90 season)

Just wanted to flesh out this time-period a little, in case people think Hasek wasn't getting a fair shake early in Buffalo.

1992-93 Buffalo Sabres at the time of the trade:

Hasek: 10-9-2, 3.24 GAA, .894 SPCT, 0 SOs
Puppa: 11-5-4, 3.58 GAA, .890 SPCT, 0 SOs

Draper had a run of starts in January too, but it's not as if Hasek didn't get the opportunity to run away with the job had he outplayed the other goalies on the team's depth chart (just as he had the same opportunity in Chicago in 1990-91 and 1991-92) - which is exactly what he did when Fuhr was injured in 1993 when Hasek no longer had to look over his shoulder.

We always hear the hypothetical about what would happen if Hasek was Canadian, but what about this: If Fuhr's injury and Puppa's and Draper's trades do not leave Hasek as the only option in Buffalo, how soon does he break out of his shell? When he started taking over in Game #16, he was 0-3 and had an .896 on 96 shots - small sample size, but it wasn't screaming for him to take-over from Fuhr just yet the way his final season number of .930 most certainly would have.

He capitalized on the opportunity, but he didn't make the opportunity with his play. I would argue that Brodeur and Roy did, and it had nothing to do with nationality. Just another reason why I'm not convinced of Hasek's potential to be an NHL star until the time at which he ultimately did become one.

 

[pluppe]

Just wanted to flesh out this time-period a little, in case people think Hasek wasn't getting a fair shake early in Buffalo.

1992-93 Buffalo Sabres at the time of the trade:

Hasek: 10-9-2, 3.24 GAA, .894 SPCT, 0 SOs
Puppa: 11-5-4, 3.58 GAA, .890 SPCT, 0 SOs

Draper had a run of starts in January too, but it's not as if Hasek didn't get the opportunity to run away with the job had he outplayed the other goalies on the team's depth chart (just as he had the same opportunity in Chicago in 1990-91 and 1991-92) - which is exactly what he did when Fuhr was injured in 1993 when Hasek no longer had to look over his shoulder.

We always hear the hypothetical about what would happen if Hasek was Canadian, but what about this: If Fuhr's injury and Puppa's and Draper's trades do not leave Hasek as the only option in Buffalo, how soon does he break out of his shell? When he started taking over in Game #16, he was 0-3 and had an .896 on 96 shots - small sample size, but it wasn't screaming for him to take-over from Fuhr just yet the way his final season number of .930 most certainly would have.

He capitalized on the opportunity, but he didn't make the opportunity with his play. I would argue that Brodeur and Roy did, and it had nothing to do with nationality. Just another reason why I'm not convinced of Hasek's potential to be an NHL star until the time at which he ultimately did become one.

bolded the most important part.

 

[Sentinel]

Seriously fellas: where is Tretiak?

 

[tarheelhockey]

Terry Sawchuk in 1953. The Red Wings were upset by the Bruins in 6 games.

Tough to know what to make of this series, in light of how the Wings dominated the Bruins in 14 games during the regular season and trounced them 7-0 in Game 1. Suddenly the Bruins came alive and Sugar Jim Henry outplayed Sawchuk going forward. Shots in the critical Game 3 OT were 15-4 in favor of the Wings in only 12 minutes, yet the Bruins came away with the win.

1 @ Detroit: 10 - 9 - 8 = 27
2 @ Detroit: 9 - 8 - 6 = 23
3 @ Boston: 2 - 8 - 8 - 4 = 32
4 @ Boston: 8 - 16 - 8 = 32
5 @ Detroit: 5 - 6 - 5 = 16
6 @ Boston: 9 - 16 - 5 = 30


First periods - 6 goals, GAA of 3.00; 43 shots, sv% of .860

Needless to say, this is nothing like the first-period dominance the Wings enjoyed under Sawchuk the previous two playoff seasons. No particular game was extremely bad for Sawchuk; he simply let in 1 or 2 goals in the first period of all four of his losses, and the Bruins led at the end of all of those periods.

Sawchuk gave up the first goal in the first period of all four of the Wings' losses, for 4/6.

Second periods - 6 goals, GAA of 3.00; 63 shots, sv% of .905
When Detroit was leading after 1 - 2 games, 1 goals, 15 shots, sv% .933
When Detroit was tied after 1 - n/a
When Detroit was trailing after 1 - 4 games, 5 goals, 48 shots, sv% .896

Again, the game situations here were quite different than what Sawchuk had experienced in the past. He was respectable when attempting to stave off an increasingly confident Bruins team, only allowing multiple goals (3) in the second period of the horrific Game 4 where the Wings got pummeled. Don't take his high save% when defending a lead to mean too much; the Wings were running roughshod over the Bruins in those 2 games.


Third periods - 8 goals, GAA of 4.00; 40 shots, sv% of .800
When Detroit was leading after 2 - 2 games, 3 goals, 13 shots, sv% .769
When Detroit was tied after 2 - 1 games, 0 goals, 8 shots, sv% 1.000
When Detroit trailed after 2 - 3 games, 5 goals, 19 shots, sv% .737

These are some fairly awful numbers for a guy who had been lights-out in third periods for almost all his previous games. Games 2, 5 and 6 went particularly badly as the Wings enjoyed heavy SOG advantages (15-6, 8-5, 18-5) but Sawchuk still got torched for 2 or 3 goals at a time. That, combined with Henry's outstanding play, pretty much sunk Detroit in this series.


Overtime - 1 game, 1 goal, 4 shots, sv% of .750
As mentioned above, Detroit dramatically outshot the Bruins in a relatively short OT yet still lost on only 4 shots against. The OT winner doesn't sound particularly strong either, a 20-foot backhander by Jack McIntyre as he was being angled away on a 1-on-1 rush. That was a critical goal that turned the series permanently toward the Bruins.

I honestly am not sure what to make of all this. Everything that had been going right for Sawchuk through his first 15 playoff starts, went dramatically wrong in the next 5. The Wings as a whole were struggling, and Sawchuk followed their lead with some uncharacteristically un-clutch play late in games. That OT gaffe in Game 3 was particularly painful, as were his multi-GA third periods when facing only a handful of shots while trying to rally his team. Very tough to square this performance with his all-time great playoff a season earlier.

As C58 has noted, there is a fairly dramatic difference between his SOG situation and his GA results at home compared to the road.

 

[quoipourquoi]

bolded the most important part.

Hardly the most important part to a charge that he was either:

1. Not mentally prepared enough to outwork another goalie on the team depth chart to become a star in the NHL.

or

2. Not good enough of a player despite high praise from outside the NHL in the 1980s to produce at a star quality level until 1993-94.


We're dealing with a goaltender who produced a middling season in the IHL in 1991-92. The IHL. If it wasn't a case of lesser mental preparation or an over-estimation of ability in retrospect, than what was it that caused this (and may I say that he is fortunate that his growing pains are not reflected on a NHL-career evaluation or adjusted cumulative save percentage because he was struggling in the IHL)?

Again, I charge that he was not ready to be an NHL star in the 1980s, in response to TDDM's estimation that he might have been.

 

[Johnny Engine]

Seriously fellas: where is Tretiak?

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

Perhaps you would like to detail for us which of these 7 goalie that Tretiak is obviously better than. And try not to go with a nationalistic explanation, because very few of us care about that.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I´m sorry if you feel I mischaracterizing your argument. It was not my intention. Put it this way. I think that if Hasek was born in Canada his NHL Win/Lose stats would not change these numbers in a negative direction, what do you think if you took a wild guess.

I also showed that the numbers are bascally the same when eliminating the others pre 27 years.




Sure there are complicating factors but those usually even out and when you see this kind of separation from all others it´s a good bet you are witnessing something special.

We're good. I do think that Hasek's GAA over his backups is probably the most powerful argument for him. It's a massive difference.

But of course quality of backups matters, as does the fact that he was injured enough for his backups to actually have a decent sample against all teams, both good and bad.

May have to revise here.

Roy's best back-ups in Montreal were Brian Hayward,Steve Penney, Rollie Melanson and Ron Tugnutt. Last two were very short term. The rest were rather forgettable. Some became bottom tier Quebec semi pro goalies.

In Buffallo Dominik Hasek had backups like Grant Fuhr, Daren Puppa, Martin Biron, Steve Shields, Andrei Trefilov - Olympic and WHC team member, Dwayne Roloson.

Martin Brodeur had Hedberg, Clemmenson,Schwab, Vanbiesbrouck, Dunham, Terrari.

New Jersey did the best job of picking appropritae backups. Hasek had the best in Buffalo, Roy the weakest in Montreal.

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

Yes, somehow both teams just magically shot 10% better in NJ over a 12 year span.

At this point, I think it's fair to say that it's been statistically proven that different arenas count shots differently, and the stats have been backed up by video. The question is who was greatly affected by this other than Brodeur (save % artifically low) and Vokoun (save % artificially high). It's a project I suggested on the "by the numbers" board.

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

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

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?

Also see Roberto Luongo in the playoffs

Seriously fellas: where is Tretiak?

Available soon, but not yet. Please keep this thread on topic as to the goalies who are available.

Again, I charge that he was not ready to be an NHL star in the 1980s, in response to TDDM's estimation that he might have been.

Apparently I wasn't clear. I think Hasek was likely capable of being an NHL starter around 1986, NOT necessarily an NHL star. Just like Sawchuk was an NHL starter after 1955, though rarely showed signs of still being a star.