Round 2, Vote 1 (HOH Top Goaltenders)

[TheDevilMadeMe]

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.

If anyone wants to talk about goalies who aren't yet available for voting, there are plenty of other threads to do it in, including the stickied thread.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

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.

Fair enough. We can flesh out those numbers a little more, though. I mean, we have the benefit of hindsight and can look back at Hasek's distinct pattern of statistically low October splits, and then the ridiculous level he'd hit after that. Regardless of how he got his opportunity, his talent must have been obvious (even just in practice), so all he needed was an extended look.

Even if that didn't end up happening in Buffalo, I'd imagine that (like Chicago) they wouldn't take too much time to find him another home where he'd have a better chance, or at least a prospective playoff team looking for depth some year at the trade deadline (or maybe he goes back home and we never know). Maybe that scenario even ends up with him getting his first Cup sooner, albeit in a backup role. And then maybe that exposure gives him a better shot somewhere else if he never ended up winning the battle for the starting position on the defending champion, or then... then... ... lots of interesting hypothetical tangents/discussions, but we do actually know how it all played out in the end, regardless.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Details

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>



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.

Issue with Patrick Roy was that his physical maturity did not catch-up to his hockey maturity until the age of 24-25. Hayward was probably the best back-up that did not have starter qualities. Andy Moog had starter qualities.

Dominik Hasek in 1986. Interesting hypothetical BUT there is a major bump in the road to make it stick:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/CHI/1990.html

1989-90 Chicago regular season goalies were Jacques Cloutier, Alain Chevrier - lead goalies on non-playoff 1985-86 teams plus Greg Millen oft used back-up on playoff St.Louis 1985-86. Ed Belfour was called-up and shared playoff playing time. 1990-91 Dominik Hasek did not beat out Belfour for the starters role, Jacques Cloutier received more back-up playing time, Hasek played a bit more than Millen in the third back-up role,moving up to main back-up by the playoffs.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/CHI/1991.html

Unless we are looking at 1986 Detroit with Greg Stefan or Los Angeles with Bob Janeczyk or Pittsburgh with Roberto Romano there were few sure openings for the #1 job and the teams did find solutions within the NHL for 1986-87 season. Glen Hanlon was added in Detroit, Rollie Melanson in LA, Gilles Meloche stepped up in Pittsburgh.

1986-87 NHL rookie goalies include Ron Hextall and Chris Terrari who was a contemporary of Hasek at the 1986 WHC. Terrari never clearly established himself as a #1 NHL goalie, certainly not with 1986-87 New Jersey.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/NJD/1987.html

Also note how Karl Friesen, Canadian born West German international goalie at WHC and the Olympics with NA training did in the NHL.Friesen was competent and solid.

 

[ContrarianGoaltender]

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.

Hasek did take over the starting job in Buffalo in '92-93 by outplaying the other goalies on the depth chart. He did it even though he had another typically slow start and Puppa was putting up better numbers than him in the early part of the season, which suggests that the team thought he was the more talented goalie.

October: Puppa 8 GP (.904), Hasek 4 GP (.851)
November: Puppa 7 GP (.908), Hasek 7 GP (.888)
December: Puppa 4 GP (.821), Hasek 10 GP (.903)

What happened then was Hasek pulled a stomach muscle, and did not play again until after the Sabres had acquired Grant Fuhr. At the time of the injury Hasek had played in 12 of the Sabres' last 14 games. The only reason Tom Draper got in the net at all was because of Hasek's injury.

Would the Sabres have traded for Fuhr if Hasek had stayed healthy? There's no way to know, but it's reasonable to suggest that if the team might not have seen their goaltending situation as such a big problem if they didn't have to play their #3 guy for nine games in a row because of Hasek's injury and Puppa's struggles.

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.

Again, Hasek outplayed Puppa, and Draper was never ahead of him on the depth chart. If Fuhr didn't get injured, maybe Hasek would have taken longer to win the starting job, just like if Hasek didn't get injured in '93 Buffalo may have never traded for Fuhr. Sometimes you need to catch a few breaks to establish yourself as an NHL goalie. Teams don't always make the right decisions, and it takes a large sample size to know for sure what you have with a goalie.

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.

Again, coaching staffs don't always get it right. There's also the fact that teams favour their prized prospects and give them the development opportunities because there are only so many minutes to go around, that's what Hasek was up against with Chicago and Jimmy Waite.

Patrick Roy got crushed in his first taste of real NHL action in October 1985 (4.82, .817 in 5 GP), and the Habs kept going right back to him because they had nobody else that was any good. If Roy put up results like that in a real goalie battle against an established netminder he might have found himself on the bench or suddenly in the minors like Hasek did. Roy didn't really start consistently putting up elite save percentage numbers in the regular season until the second half of 1986-87. I don't really want to knock Roy at all because obviously he was amazing in the 1986 playoffs and it's different to break into the NHL at a youngster, but he did walk into a strong team that desperately needed a goalie and was willing to give him every chance to succeed. Outplaying Doug Soetaert and Steve Penney is a far cry from being up against future Hall of Famers, so I'm not sure how relevant Roy's experience is to the case of Dominik Hasek.

 

[Crease]

Just wanted to say how much I'm enjoying these debates. As a goaltender who grew up in the 90s looking up to Roy & Hasek (not Brodeur, I was more of a Richter guy ) it's nice to see how they stack up against the greats I could only read about. Thanks for doing this.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Issue with Patrick Roy was that his physical maturity did not catch-up to his hockey maturity until the age of 24-25. Hayward was probably the best back-up that did not have starter qualities. Andy Moog had starter qualities.

i would go even farther than that. hayward was a full-fledged 50-60 game starter the two years before he went to montreal. and he made the playoffs both years-- those jets finished fourth overall in the league in '85, but limped into the playoffs in the top heavy smythe division the next year. he only got fringe votes throughout his career, but still hayward finished 5th in vezina voting in '85, 7th in '87 and 4th in '88 (ahead of roy who was his teammate both years). he also got fringe votes in '89, when roy won the vezina. but weirdly that was the end for hayward as a legit NHL goalie, backup or otherwise. his game took a nosedive in 1990 and he had a few more backup years but lost way more games than he won from then until he was out of the league.

also weirdly, roy barely got a sniff of the vezina voting in '88, but was the second team all-star and other than barrasso who was close, decisively so.

but the point is, in the time he was roy's teammate (except 1990), hayward was actually a 1b and a credible starter on probably half the teams in the league.

 

[quoipourquoi]

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.

I agree that he could have been a starter, but as to the "star" language, this is what I was responding to:

The Golden Hockey Stick Voting Records are consistent with the idea that Hasek was likely capable of being a good NHL starter beginning in 1986 at the age of 21, about the same age Roy and Brodeur got their starts in the NHL. By 1987 at the age of 22, he may have been capable of being a star in the NHL once he adjusted to the different style.

Again, if you're granting him one year of adjustment (and I'll repeat myself: What adjustment did Hasek need that Roman Cechmanek did not?) to be capable of being a star player, then why would he have played so poorly in his second season in the IHL? Why would he have not better prepared himself in the early Chicago seasons when he was given two separate opportunities to have played his way into a job? Why would he not have statistically blown Puppa out of the water in 1992-93 (or even Fuhr)?

Either it took until Fuhr's injury in November 1993 for Hasek to mentally prepare himself to be a star #1 goalie (the fourth year of his North American career; and I don't think his stretch of just 9 complete games of the 14 games prior to his injury in January 1993 counts as being a star #1 goalie with the full faith of the Sabres, TCG), or he wasn't ready to breakout as the world-beater, .930 goaltender until he was 29-years-old - which isn't an unheard of age for a goalie to hit his stride in the NHL (we've seen it happen as late as 34 just recently). Even John Vanbiesbrouck, a 1963 goaltender who probably could have been named the best goaltender at an international tournament in the 1987 Canada Cup (.922 to Hasek's .894 and Fuhr's .893), undoubtedly peaked that same season at 30. I'm not convinced that we missed out on Hasek making a significant NHL impact had he come over earlier.

Instead, his NHL adjusted career save percentage doesn't take the hit for his lackadaisical IHL season (26-years-old), whereas Roy's career statistics are affected by his average rookie season (20-years-old), as they makeup 4.2% of his career. HockeyOutsider's career adjusted save percentage obviously isn't going to reflect that Hasek was able to work out his late-twenties growing pains in a different league entirely (same as the previously alluded-to Tim Thomas, whose career average is similarly protected), whereas Roy's knock an entire .002 off of his unadjusted career average as he was thrown into the fire straight out of Granby and Sherbrooke because he won a league championship.


I ask, because many have followed Hasek more closely: What did he need to break-out as fast as 1965's Patrick Roy and Ed Belfour did in their first opportunities (1985 and 1990, respectively) to crack into the NHL? Drive or ability?

Patrick Roy got crushed in his first taste of real NHL action in October 1985 (4.82, .817 in 5 GP), and the Habs kept going right back to him because they had nobody else that was any good. If Roy put up results like that in a real goalie battle against an established netminder he might have found himself on the bench or suddenly in the minors like Hasek did. Roy didn't really start consistently putting up elite save percentage numbers in the regular season until the second half of 1986-87. I don't really want to knock Roy at all because obviously he was amazing in the 1986 playoffs and it's different to break into the NHL at a youngster, but he did walk into a strong team that desperately needed a goalie and was willing to give him every chance to succeed. Outplaying Doug Soetaert and Steve Penney is a far cry from being up against future Hall of Famers, so I'm not sure how relevant Roy's experience is to the case of Dominik Hasek.

Because even after he won the Stanley Cup, Roy had to keep fighting for starts on a team that was quick to give a goalie the hook (Roy was replaced in the playoffs in both 1987 and 1988 for losing a single game - despite sweeping the first round in 1987 and building a 3-0 lead in the first-round of 1988). Montreal didn't "give him every chance to succeed" after trading for Hayward in 1986. Roy's response to competition was to place 5th, 1st, 1st, and 1st in save percentage until he was finally Montreal's only playoff goaltender in 1990.

Yes, even in 1989, Montreal was giving playoff starts to Brian Hayward.


My lady-friend is waking up. Gotta go! I hope I was coherent!

 

[Sturminator]

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.

Well, no team changes all of its personnel overnight, but the turnover from 1971 to 1973 was quite significant. The Habs' best forward and defenseman from 71' (Beliveau and Tremblay, respectively) were gone by 73', and vital role players like Harper and Ferguson had also moved on (Backstrom was traded during the 71' season, so he doesn't really count). Perhaps I see too much significance in Beliveau's retirement as a transitional moment. It always seemed like a different team to me without Beliveau on the ice.

 

[ContrarianGoaltender]

Again, if you're granting him one year of adjustment (and I'll repeat myself: What adjustment did Hasek need that Roman Cechmanek did not?) to be capable of being a star player, then why would he have played so poorly in his second season in the IHL?

Why do you keep talking about Hasek's "second season" in the IHL? He was demoted to the IHL for two months in 1991 when Belfour returned from his holdout, mainly because Hasek had to clear waivers while Jimmy Waite did not, according to the Chicago Sun-Times.

"Because Hasek, 26, is a second-year pro, he doesn't have to clear waivers." Oct 29, 1991.

"Hasek probably would have to go because, unlike Waite, he doesn't have to clear waivers." Jan 10, 1992.

Hasek was recalled at New Year's and stayed up with Chicago for the rest of the season and through the playoff run. He played 20 games in the IHL in those two months and he didn't play particularly well. He sulked and talked to his agent about going back to Europe. He's hardly the first European player to take a demotion poorly after feeling (entirely justifiably, given his '90-'91 All-Star IHL season) that he had nothing left to prove at the minor league level. If you want to knock him for his attitude then feel free to do so, but to suggest that those two months prove anything at all about Hasek's pre-1993 ability is a big stretch, IMO.

Why would he have not better prepared himself in the early Chicago seasons when he was given two separate opportunities to have played his way into a job? Why would he not have statistically blown Puppa out of the water in 1992-93 (or even Fuhr)?

Because he was a slow starter. I already presented detailed evidence of that before. Again, his late-season stats were very good relative to the era. There is every reason to believe that if he had been given more playing time he would have made inroads, as he did in '91-92 where he played in 16 of the Hawks' final 39 games after his recall despite Belfour having pretty much owned the crease before that, and as he did in '92-93 where he was taking over the starting role when he got injured. Should Hasek have prepared better over those offseasons? Probably. Does that mean he wasn't capable of becoming a star? I don't see how that follows.

Instead, his NHL adjusted career save percentage doesn't take the hit for his lackadaisical IHL season (26-years-old), whereas Roy's career statistics are affected by his average rookie season (20-years-old), as they makeup 4.2% of his career. HockeyOutsider's career adjusted save percentage obviously isn't going to reflect that Hasek was able to work out his late-twenties growing pains in a different league entirely (same as the previously alluded-to Tim Thomas, whose career average is similarly protected), whereas Roy's knock an entire .002 off of his unadjusted career average as he was thrown into the fire straight out of Granby and Sherbrooke because he won a league championship.

During the two months Hasek was temporarily sent down to the IHL in 1991, Jimmy Waite started only two games in relief of Ed Belfour. And from the time Hasek got called back up again to the end of the season, he put up a .906 save percentage (in a year where league average was .888 and league leader Roy had .914). So if he never got demoted he probably wouldn't have played much, but would likely have done just fine when he did. I fail to see how that had any significant impact on his career statistics.

Not to mention that anything Roy lost in his career average by breaking in early he gained back by retiring at the age of 37, while Hasek lost .002 off his own unadjusted career average (and presumably more off of his adjusted career average) by playing in the NHL into his forties. Hasek faced 16.6% of his career shots against past the age of 40, after Roy had long since retired and at an age where very few are still effective as NHL goalies.

I ask, because many have followed Hasek more closely: What did he need to break-out as fast as 1965's Patrick Roy and Ed Belfour did in their first opportunities (1985 and 1990, respectively) to crack into the NHL? Drive or ability?

Why don't we ask Hasek's Buffalo goalie coach, Mitch Korn?

“He had great skill but no order,” Korn described. “Dominik Hasek was like a 1000-piece jigsaw puzzle – he had all the pieces, but they were scattered all over the table. My job was to help him put those pieces together so his game had order.

“It was positioning, it was save selection, it was patience,” Korn described. “Dom knew what was happening before it ever happened. And as a result, when he would react, the shooter would re-react, and he would get in trouble. So he had to get some more patience.”

Hasek always had the talent. Watch him play in the 1987 Canada Cup or the 1992 Stanley Cup Finals, you see the same signature Hasek moves that he was later pulling off in his Vezina runs, you see the quickness, you see the flexibility, you see the anticipation. I do think Hasek benefited from the coaching of Korn, who is considered one of the best goalie coaches in the game, and that did help him go from very good to great. But I also think he was capable of figuring things out himself, given that he is widely recognized as a mad genius of goaltending, and I think that shows in the fact that his numbers got better the more he played.

Yes 1993-94 was Hasek's fourth North American season, but at the time of Fuhr's injury in '93 he still had just 47 starts in the NHL, 19 of them in October or November. And at the time of Fuhr's injury, Hasek's career save percentage in the NHL was .887 in Oct/Nov, and .906 from December onwards. That's .906 when league average was around .885. For comparison's sake, from 1990-91 to the end of November 1993, Patrick Roy had a .908 save percentage.

So yes, I think Hasek did need to harness his talent a bit in the early years, but as his goalie coach said he had all the pieces to be a great goalie. He needed some coaching to maximize his potential but mainly he just needed to play. I think there is plenty of evidence that he was fully capable of NHL stardom if he had been given the opportunity in the late '80s and early '90s.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Brian Hayward

i would go even farther than that. hayward was a full-fledged 50-60 game starter the two years before he went to montreal. and he made the playoffs both years-- those jets finished fourth overall in the league in '85, but limped into the playoffs in the top heavy smythe division the next year. he only got fringe votes throughout his career, but still hayward finished 5th in vezina voting in '85, 7th in '87 and 4th in '88 (ahead of roy who was his teammate both years). he also got fringe votes in '89, when roy won the vezina. but weirdly that was the end for hayward as a legit NHL goalie, backup or otherwise. his game took a nosedive in 1990 and he had a few more backup years but lost way more games than he won from then until he was out of the league.

also weirdly, roy barely got a sniff of the vezina voting in '88, but was the second team all-star and other than barrasso who was close, decisively so.

but the point is, in the time he was roy's teammate (except 1990), hayward was actually a 1b and a credible starter on probably half the teams in the league.

Second year he had a .842 SV% over 52 games in Winnipeg. His career SV% numbers part of link below:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/h/haywabr01.html

 

[pluppe]

I agree that he could have been a starter, but as to the "star" language, this is what I was responding to:



Again, if you're granting him one year of adjustment (and I'll repeat myself: What adjustment did Hasek need that Roman Cechmanek did not?) to be capable of being a star player, then why would he have played so poorly in his second season in the IHL? Why would he have not better prepared himself in the early Chicago seasons when he was given two separate opportunities to have played his way into a job? Why would he not have statistically blown Puppa out of the water in 1992-93 (or even Fuhr)?

Either it took until Fuhr's injury in November 1993 for Hasek to mentally prepare himself to be a star #1 goalie (the fourth year of his North American career; and I don't think his stretch of just 9 complete games of the 14 games prior to his injury in January 1993 counts as being a star #1 goalie with the full faith of the Sabres, TCG), or he wasn't ready to breakout as the world-beater, .930 goaltender until he was 29-years-old - which isn't an unheard of age for a goalie to hit his stride in the NHL (we've seen it happen as late as 34 just recently). Even John Vanbiesbrouck, a 1963 goaltender who probably could have been named the best goaltender at an international tournament in the 1987 Canada Cup (.922 to Hasek's .894 and Fuhr's .893), undoubtedly peaked that same season at 30. I'm not convinced that we missed out on Hasek making a significant NHL impact had he come over earlier.

Instead, his NHL adjusted career save percentage doesn't take the hit for his lackadaisical IHL season (26-years-old), whereas Roy's career statistics are affected by his average rookie season (20-years-old), as they makeup 4.2% of his career. HockeyOutsider's career adjusted save percentage obviously isn't going to reflect that Hasek was able to work out his late-twenties growing pains in a different league entirely (same as the previously alluded-to Tim Thomas, whose career average is similarly protected), whereas Roy's knock an entire .002 off of his unadjusted career average as he was thrown into the fire straight out of Granby and Sherbrooke because he won a league championship.


I ask, because many have followed Hasek more closely: What did he need to break-out as fast as 1965's Patrick Roy and Ed Belfour did in their first opportunities (1985 and 1990, respectively) to crack into the NHL? Drive or ability?



Because even after he won the Stanley Cup, Roy had to keep fighting for starts on a team that was quick to give a goalie the hook (Roy was replaced in the playoffs in both 1987 and 1988 for losing a single game - despite sweeping the first round in 1987 and building a 3-0 lead in the first-round of 1988). Montreal didn't "give him every chance to succeed" after trading for Hayward in 1986. Roy's response to competition was to place 5th, 1st, 1st, and 1st in save percentage until he was finally Montreal's only playoff goaltender in 1990.

Yes, even in 1989, Montreal was giving playoff starts to Brian Hayward.


My lady-friend is waking up. Gotta go! I hope I was coherent!

Bolded: That is some of the most narrow-minded logic I have ever seen. Do you really not see any other possible explanation?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Dominik Hasek - The Questions

Why do you keep talking about Hasek's "second season" in the IHL? He was demoted to the IHL for two months in 1991 when Belfour returned from his holdout, mainly because Hasek had to clear waivers while Jimmy Waite did not, according to the Chicago Sun-Times.

"Because Hasek, 26, is a second-year pro, he doesn't have to clear waivers." Oct 29, 1991.

"Hasek probably would have to go because, unlike Waite, he doesn't have to clear waivers." Jan 10, 1992.

Hasek was recalled at New Year's and stayed up with Chicago for the rest of the season and through the playoff run. He played 20 games in the IHL in those two months and he didn't play particularly well. He sulked and talked to his agent about going back to Europe. He's hardly the first European player to take a demotion poorly after feeling (entirely justifiably, given his '90-'91 All-Star IHL season) that he had nothing left to prove at the minor league level. If you want to knock him for his attitude then feel free to do so, but to suggest that those two months prove anything at all about Hasek's pre-1993 ability is a big stretch, IMO.



Because he was a slow starter. I already presented detailed evidence of that before. Again, his late-season stats were very good relative to the era. There is every reason to believe that if he had been given more playing time he would have made inroads, as he did in '91-92 where he played in 16 of the Hawks' final 39 games after his recall despite Belfour having pretty much owned the crease before that, and as he did in '92-93 where he was taking over the starting role when he got injured. Should Hasek have prepared better over those offseasons? Probably. Does that mean he wasn't capable of becoming a star? I don't see how that follows.



During the two months Hasek was temporarily sent down to the IHL in 1991, Jimmy Waite started only two games in relief of Ed Belfour. And from the time Hasek got called back up again to the end of the season, he put up a .906 save percentage (in a year where league average was .888 and league leader Roy had .914). So if he never got demoted he probably wouldn't have played much, but would likely have done just fine when he did. I fail to see how that had any significant impact on his career statistics.

Not to mention that anything Roy lost in his career average by breaking in early he gained back by retiring at the age of 37, while Hasek lost .002 off his own unadjusted career average (and presumably more off of his adjusted career average) by playing in the NHL into his forties. Hasek faced 16.6% of his career shots against past the age of 40, after Roy had long since retired and at an age where very few are still effective as NHL goalies.



Why don't we ask Hasek's Buffalo goalie coach, Mitch Korn?



Hasek always had the talent. Watch him play in the 1987 Canada Cup or the 1992 Stanley Cup Finals, you see the same signature Hasek moves that he was later pulling off in his Vezina runs, you see the quickness, you see the flexibility, you see the anticipation. I do think Hasek benefited from the coaching of Korn, who is considered one of the best goalie coaches in the game, and that did help him go from very good to great. But I also think he was capable of figuring things out himself, given that he is widely recognized as a mad genius of goaltending, and I think that shows in the fact that his numbers got better the more he played.

Yes 1993-94 was Hasek's fourth North American season, but at the time of Fuhr's injury in '93 he still had just 47 starts in the NHL, 19 of them in October or November. And at the time of Fuhr's injury, Hasek's career save percentage in the NHL was .887 in Oct/Nov, and .906 from December onwards. That's .906 when league average was around .885. For comparison's sake, from 1990-91 to the end of November 1993, Patrick Roy had a .908 save percentage.

So yes, I think Hasek did need to harness his talent a bit in the early years, but as his goalie coach said he had all the pieces to be a great goalie. He needed some coaching to maximize his potential but mainly he just needed to play. I think there is plenty of evidence that he was fully capable of NHL stardom if he had been given the opportunity in the late '80s and early '90s.

The waiver interpretation has to be balanced against the trade from Chicago that was a somewhat complex 3-way with Buffalo, Winnipeg and Chicago involving one other goalie Stephane Beauregard:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/b/beaurst01.html

Looking at the actual players without the draft picks you have Beauregard, Ruutu and Hasek,reflecting perceived NHL value in 1992.

Slow starter combined with Mitch Korn comments. If Hasek was a slow starter in the 1990-92 time frame then he would have been in 1986 as a less experienced goalie. Likewise the coach identified problems from 1992 would have been at least equal if not worse in 1985. The 1986 -1990 non-NHL accomplishments have to be taken in this light as well. These accomplishments only made him more ready by 1990 yet as his Buffalo goalie coach states there was plenty of work to do when Hasek arrived in Buffalo.

Hasek past 40. gets compared to Roy who retired at 37. Other goalies under consideration in this round played past 40.

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

Hasek played 140 NHL regular season games past 40 plus 22 playoff games. Jacques Plante played 223 NHL regular season games plus 31 in the WHA, nailing a .942 SV% over 40 games at age 42 with a weaker team.Plante also played 22 playoff games at a comperable age. Plante played longer, more and better than Hasek ever did past 40 and Plante played on weaker teams Plante's data

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid[]=4310

Even Johnny Bower outplayed Hasek past 40 during the regular season:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/b/bowerjo01.html

The best overall comparable would be Johnny Bower in terms of entry into the NHL, a few attempts before becoming established late in his career.Hasek may have had a greater "Wow" factor than Bower that is not reflected in team contributions.

 

[pluppe]

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.



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>



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.



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



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



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.

Bolded: No it doesn´t . Numbers will always vary in these cases because of random variance. The question is if there is additional variance because of differences in ability. Otherwise the fact that 2 goalies have different quality starts % for 100 games says nothing about what is likely for the next 100.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Ken Dryden

Well, no team changes all of its personnel overnight, but the turnover from 1971 to 1973 was quite significant. The Habs' best forward and defenseman from 71' (Beliveau and Tremblay, respectively) were gone by 73', and vital role players like Harper and Ferguson had also moved on (Backstrom was traded during the 71' season, so he doesn't really count). Perhaps I see too much significance in Beliveau's retirement as a transitional moment. It always seemed like a different team to me without Beliveau on the ice.

J.C Tremblay was benched at times by Al McNeill, something that Claude Ruel was not willing to do. Nice "Wow" factor in terms of offensive stats, career 3rd / 4th best defensive dman on the team.

Led by better coaching -Scotty Bowman.

Still had the defensive core post 1971, healthy Savard, young Lapointe, veteran Laperriere.Forwards RHS - Henri Richard to go with LHS centers led by Lemaire speed wingers led by Cournoyer. Anchored by Ken Dryden in goal who stirred the drink.

 

[BM67]

Fair enough. We can flesh out those numbers a little more, though. I mean, we have the benefit of hindsight and can look back at Hasek's distinct pattern of statistically low October splits, and then the ridiculous level he'd hit after that. Regardless of how he got his opportunity, his talent must have been obvious (even just in practice), so all he needed was an extended look.

Even if that didn't end up happening in Buffalo, I'd imagine that (like Chicago) they wouldn't take too much time to find him another home where he'd have a better chance, or at least a prospective playoff team looking for depth some year at the trade deadline (or maybe he goes back home and we never know). Maybe that scenario even ends up with him getting his first Cup sooner, albeit in a backup role. And then maybe that exposure gives him a better shot somewhere else if he never ended up winning the battle for the starting position on the defending champion, or then... then... ... lots of interesting hypothetical tangents/discussions, but we do actually know how it all played out in the end, regardless.

Lots of goalies see practice as an evil to be endured, but nothing springs to mind in this regard with Hasek. He gets a bad rap as a teammate from some, but what is Hasek's reputation as a practice goalie?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Interesting Point.

Lots of goalies see practice as an evil to be endured, but nothing springs to mind in this regard with Hasek. He gets a bad rap as a teammate from some, but what is Hasek's reputation as a practice goalie?

Very interesting point.

In practice goalies bring different qualities.

Integral to the defensive preparation for the upcoming game(s). Good practice opportunity for the forwards offensive skills balanced somewhat by the fact that Hasek was very different style wise compared to other NHL goalies.

The value of a goalie teammate is his ability to communicate in game with the skaters. This skill is developed in practice. Johnny Bower was great in this regard as was Jacques Plante.

Plante and Brodeur had the ability to play the puck negating offensive strategies, especially the dump and chase. The harmony to do this effectively would have been developed in practice.

Goalies study other goalies and communicate opposing goalie weaknesses to their teammates for offensive opportunities.

On a team the two goalies in a tandem either work together in varying degrees in this regard or like Ed Belfour tend to the other extreme, hostile and protective of information.

These aspects of goaltending reflect teammate and completeness attributes.

 

[Canadiens1958]

1953 Playoffs - Jacques Plante

Detailed look at Jacques Plante's 1953 playoff performance. Data culled from the HSP project and reference to BM67 post #123 this thread. Some introductory comments. 1953,1954,1955 playoffs reflect Dick Irvin Sr's coaching efforts using a goalie tandem - Plante / McNeil then Plante / Hodge. looking at the results without getting into the two goalie tandem discussion.

Semi Final vs Chicago

Games 1 - 5 were played by Gerry McNeil. Jacques Plante made his NHL Playoff debut in Game 6.

Game 6 - Away, MTL 3 CHI 0, SOG 5/12/6,Shutout
Game 7 - Home, MTL 4 CHI 1, SOG 11/13/10,First goal 34:15 (1 - 1)

Final vs Boston

Game 1 - Home, MTL 4 BOS 2, SOG 8/2/12, First goal 2:04 (0 - 1)
Game 2 - Home, MTL 1 BOS 4, SOG 13/13/9, First goal 3:55 (0 - 1)

Notes. 2 PPG allowed of 7, 1-1st period, 1-3rd period. Game 1 Final. Never allowed an opponent to comeback and win.


Gerry McNeil returned after game 2, winning the last three games including an away shutout and a game 5 OT home shutout in the SC winning game. Last three games Gerry McNeil generated a .967 SV%, 59/61.

Jacques Plante SV%
1st period 35/37 = .946
2nd period .37/40 = .925
3rd period .35/37 = .946
Home .923
Away 1.000
Series .939

 

[overpass]

Bolded: No it doesn´t . Numbers will always vary in these cases because of random variance. The question is if there is additional variance because of differences in ability. Otherwise the fact that 2 goalies have different quality starts % for 100 games says nothing about what is likely for the next 100.

Let's say for the sake of argument that the only difference is random variation. Why should we look at the aggregate numbers as the default measure of the goalie's performance rather than a game-level stat - which is how hockey games are won and lost, on an individual basis?

And I don't think I've seen you, MasterOfDistricts, or anyone else present evidence that there is zero skill component in the distribution of goals against.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Second year he had a .842 SV% over 52 games in Winnipeg. His career SV% numbers part of link below:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/h/haywabr01.html

The team in front of him was affected by injuries, poor defensive performances by the defense, and bad coaching. Long was replaced by John Ferguson mid-season. Babych was traded out, Marois brought in, and Carlyle missed a chunk of time (including the playoffs I believe). But seriously, how tight was a defense led by Carlyle and a very young Ellet ever going to be??

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Detailed look at Jacques Plante's 1953 playoff performance. Data culled from the HSP project and reference to BM67 post #123 this thread. Some introductory comments. 1953,1954,1955 playoffs reflect Dick Irvin Sr's coaching efforts using a goalie tandem - Plante / McNeil then Plante / Hodge. looking at the results without getting into the two goalie tandem discussion.

Semi Final vs Chicago

Games 1 - 5 were played by Gerry McNeil. Jacques Plante made his NHL Playoff debut in Game 6.

Game 6 - Away, MTL 3 CHI 0, SOG 5/12/6,Shutout
Game 7 - Home, MTL 4 CHI 1, SOG 11/13/10,First goal 34:15 (1 - 1)

Final vs Boston

Game 1 - Home, MTL 4 BOS 2, SOG 8/2/12, First goal 2:04 (0 - 1)
Game 2 - Home, MTL 1 BOS 4, SOG 13/13/9, First goal 3:55 (0 - 1)

Notes. 2 PPG allowed of 7, 1-1st period, 1-3rd period. Game 1 Final. Never allowed an opponent to comeback and win.


Gerry McNeil returned after game 2, winning the last three games including an away shutout and a game 5 OT home shutout in the SC winning game. Last three games Gerry McNeil generated a .967 SV%, 59/61.

Jacques Plante SV%
1st period 35/37 = .946
2nd period .37/40 = .925
3rd period .35/37 = .946
Home .923
Away 1.000
Series .939

Why was Plante traded to the Rangers? Did the Canadiens feel he was starting to go downhill or were there other factors?

 

[Master_Of_Districts]

Let's say for the sake of argument that the only difference is random variation. Why should we look at the aggregate numbers as the default measure of the goalie's performance rather than a game-level stat - which is how hockey games are won and lost, on an individual basis?

And I don't think I've seen you, MasterOfDistricts, or anyone else present evidence that there is zero skill component in the distribution of goals against.

http://nhlnumbers.com/2012/5/11/the...stent-goaltenders-vs-inconsistent-goaltenders

This study is strongly supportive, if not outright conclusive.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Lots of goalies see practice as an evil to be endured, but nothing springs to mind in this regard with Hasek. He gets a bad rap as a teammate from some, but what is Hasek's reputation as a practice goalie?

Doing a quick search involving the words Dominik+Hasek+practice+habits returned a lot of things similar to:

"Whether it was a regular practice, a morning game-day skate, or a pregame warm-up, Dominik Hasek never gave up on a shot and contested every puck. It was easy to see why he was one of the best goalies of his era." (link)

"In spite of being supplanted as starter, Hasek remained a faithful supporter of Osgood and a diligent worker in practice."

"As Hasek's NHL career was winding down in Detroit, Bedard recalled that Hasek never lost his desire to challenge himself. "He was never satisfied if there was a puck [that beat him] that he should have had," Bedard said. "My toughest thing was getting him off the ice after practice." Hasek was an exemplary teammate even when, at the end, he gave way to Osgood as the Wings’ starter.

"He was a good partner to Chris Osgood and Manny Legace. He didn’t feel threatened. The only person to threaten Dom was Dom. He was very aware of who he was and what he’d accomplished," Bedard said."
(link to above quotes)

etc.

 

[Master_Of_Districts]

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

[/B]

No.

You'd expect to observe some discrepencies based on chance alone.

 

[Canadiens1958]

1954 Playoffs - Jacques Plante

Detailed look at Jacques Plante's 1954 playoff performance. Data culled from the HSP project and reference to BM67 post #123 this thread. The goalie tandem issue referred to in the 1953 playoff post was still at hand.

Semi Final vs Boston

Game 1 - Home, MTL 2 BOS 0, SOG 3/4/6, Shut Out
Game 2 - Home, MTL 8 BOS 1, SOG 7/12/10, First goal 33:02 (6-1)
Game 3 - Away, MTL 4 BOS 3, SOG 8/7/8, First goal, 20:40 (1-1)
Game 4 . Away, MTL 2 BOS 0, SOG 6/15/3,Shut Out


Notes. 0 first period goals allowed, 0 PPG allowed, Bruins never led.

SV%
1st period 1.000 24/24
2nd period .947 36/38
3rd period .921 25/27
Home .976 41/42
Away .936 44/47
Series .955 85/89

Final vs Detroit Red Wings

Game 1 - Away, MTL 1 DET 3, SOG 9/6/13, First goal 13:44 (0 - 1)
Game 2 - Away, MTL 3 DET 1, SOG 7/8/11, First goal 36:37 (3 - 1)
Game 3 - Home, MTL 2 DET 5, SOG 5/8/12, First goal 14:27 (0 - 1)
Game 4 . Home, MTL 0 DET 2, SOG 6/9/9, Shut Out


Notes. Games 1 & 2, 3PPG and 1SHG allowed. Game 3 1 PPG allowed, Game 4, 1 ENG allowed. ENGs not factored out of SV%.

SV%
1st period .917 33/36
2nd period .929 39/42
3rd period .881 37/42
Home .894 59/66
Away .926 50/54
Series .908 109/120

Overall, 4 of 11 goals allowed were PP goals, 1 ENG. Never allowed an opponent to comeback and win.

Gerry McNeil replaced Jacques Plante for the last three games registering an OT road shutout in game 5, a 4-1 home win in game 6 but losing on the road 2 - 1 in OT.

Gerry McNeil's performance .966 SV%, 86/89.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Jacques Plante

Why was Plante traded to the Rangers? Did the Canadiens feel he was starting to go downhill or were there other factors?

Jacques Plante was asthmatic. After his 70 game, Hart Trophy, 1961-62 season, he played only 56 games during the 1962-63 season. The team did not want a goalie tandem. Worsley was available.

Plante played one full season - 1963-64 then became a tandem goalie the rest of his career.