Who are your 5th -10th best players of all time, today?

[JackSlater]

Here's how Roy and Hasek rank in Goals Versus Average (which combines save percentage with workload):

• Roy - 1st (1989), 1st (1990), 1st (1992), 2nd (1988), 2nd (1991), 2nd (2002), 3rd (1987), 3rd (1994), 3rd (1997), 5th (1998), 6th (2000), 6th (2003), 7th (1993), 7th (1996), 7th (1999), 10th (1995)
• Hasek - 1st (1995), 1st (1996), 1st (1997), 1st (1998), 1st (1999), 2nd (2001), 2nd (1994), 7th (2006), 8th (2000), 10th (2002)

If we cancel out similar finishes (and I'll also cancel out a 7th for Roy with an 8th for Hasek), and we're left with:

• Roy - 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 3rd, 5th, 6th, 6th, 7th
• Hasek - 1st, 1st

There's a much wider range in how goalies perform from year to year, compared to skaters. Roy brought enormous value to his teams by being consistently excellent year after year. From 1987 to 2003 (a span of 17 seasons), he placed lower than 7th in GVA only twice. I'm not saying that's the same as Gordie Howe with 20 straight years in the top five in scoring, or Ray Bourque with 19 out of 22 seasons placing in the top five in Norris voting - but it's not far off either. Would you trade someone with two scoring titles and little else (ie Dickie Moore) for someone who was a top 7 scorer eight times (ie Joe Sakic)?

Just to show Roy's consistency. From 1980 to 2022, here's how many times each goalie placed 7th or higher in GVA (granted an arbitrary cutoff) - Roy did it 15 times. Hasek and Luongo are next at 8 times. Lundqvist and Vanbiesbrouck did it 7 times. Brodeur 6 times. Then Joseph, Barrasso, Hrudey and Moog five times each. It's a very tough standard (Belfour and Price don't even qualify).

You can say I'm being disingenuous because Hasek clearly peaked higher. And that's true. Hasek has all five of the highest seasons in GVA between them (then Roy has 9 of the next 12). Can you argue that Hasek's peak trumps anything Roy ever did? Possibly. If the question is who's the "better" or more naturally talented goalie, I think it's almost impossible to choose Roy.

But if the question is "greatest" (which is generally how we make our top X lists), I'd go with Roy. Hasek has the higher peak, but Roy ends up ahead in career GVA. He was much more consistent from year to year (which is rare for a goalie). He still led the league in GVA three times (so he wasn't a compiler - and nobody else from 1980 onwards has done this more than twice). And Roy's playoff resume is vastly superior (where, adjusted for era, he stopped the puck more effectively than Hasek, over a much larger number of games).

That does a good job of summarizing Roy's case as far as I understand it. Extremely reliable with a great peak and top end playoff performances. I'd still take Hasek but Roy does have some advantages over him.

 

[tinyzombies]

Let's deal with some statistical realities:

Crosby's Top Ten Art Ross placings in terms of % behind the leaders (#1, #2) are clearly superior to Beliveau's. He stands apart from his peers moreso than Beliveau stood apart from his peers in terms of Top 3, Top 5 and Top 10 Art Ross placings.

To not recognize that finishing in the Top 3 Top 5, or Top 10 of a peer group that is six times larger is likely more impressive (and is proven once you take a closer look) is disingenuous.

The same thinking applies to Hart finishes, Crosby's Hart finishes should be viewed as more impressive as he stands apart from his peers moreso than Beliveau stood apart from his peers in terms of Top 3, Top 5 and Top 10 Hart placings.

The same thinking can be applied to Cup wins. It is disingenuous to think that comparing Cup wins straight up from a six team league (actually a three team league for significant amount of time) vs. a 30 team league is statistically disingenuous.

Crosby's peer in per game offensive impact is Howe, not Beliveau.

Beliveau’s peer WAS Howe. And Hull.

 

[daver]

Beliveau’s peer WAS Howe. And Hull.

What is this supposed to mean?

 

[tinyzombies]

What is this supposed to mean?

That makes his finishes more impressive. And he was the best player in '56 too with a still primelike Rocket.

 

[The Macho King]

That does a good job of summarizing Roy's case as far as I understand it. Extremely reliable with a great peak and top end playoff performances. I'd still take Hasek but Roy does have some advantages over him.

Consistency as a good/great goalie is underrated, especially in the cap era. That's the biggest credit I give guys like Lundquist, Luongo, and Vasi types over the Thomas, Bobrovsky, and to a lesser extent Price types.

Knowing you are getting 55-60 quality starts a season every season is worth way more than the random spike/goaltending is voodoo years when building a contender.

 

[norrisnick]

Consistency as a good/great goalie is underrated, especially in the cap era. That's the biggest credit I give guys like Lundquist, Luongo, and Vasi types over the Thomas, Bobrovsky, and to a lesser extent Price types.

Knowing you are getting 55-60 quality starts a season every season is worth way more than the random spike/goaltending is voodoo years when building a contender.

Bingo. Not being a bad goalie is significantly more important than occasionally being a great one.

A goalie can't win you games, but he can certainly lose them.

 

[tinyzombies]

For me, it's all about Jacques Plante. He's the God of goalies.

I think both Roy and Hasek in certain seasons benefitted from clubs that were tilted defensively. The difference, though, is that Roy's club was already built that way when he joined, whereas Hasek's wasn't. Hasek's club changed its style to be built around the defense/goaltending.

But your comment is correct in one sense -- in Montreal, Roy's team was stacked with great defensemen and two-way forwards who sheltered him a great deal. At no time in his prime years did Hasek play behind great defensemen (Sabres did have some very good two-way forwards).

Roy was no longer dominant once he played for a club that was more balanced in both ends, and actually quite offensive at times (meaning Colorado). But Hasek was completely dominant when playing for a club with no big names aside from him. Hasek was completely dominant in 1993-94, and Buffalo #1 defensively, but if you look at the names of the Dmen, it's basically a bunch of nobodies, with the top guys arguably being Petr Svoboda and Craig Muni.

I bet Hasek's GSAA would be far ahead of Roy in the regular season. In the playoffs however, Roy was a different animal. But the position has changed so much. Go look at some of the goals Roy used to let up. Today those would get you sent down.

 

[JackSlater]

Consistency as a good/great goalie is underrated, especially in the cap era. That's the biggest credit I give guys like Lundquist, Luongo, and Vasi types over the Thomas, Bobrovsky, and to a lesser extent Price types.

Knowing you are getting 55-60 quality starts a season every season is worth way more than the random spike/goaltending is voodoo years when building a contender.

Yeah I agree. Spectacular plays by goaltenders tend to be overrated when judging them but what you want is someone who is consistent and will blow as few games as possible. It's only somewhat related but the Tim Thomas highlight reel always makes me laugh when people bust it out because it means so little.

 

[tinyzombies]

Yeah I agree. Spectacular plays by goaltenders tend to be overrated when judging them but what you want is someone who is consistent and will blow as few games as possible. It's only somewhat related but the Tim Thomas highlight reel always makes me laugh when people bust it out because it means so little.

Statistics haven’t really caught up to goaltending the GS AAA is with the best we have, but for the eye test to me the best I’ve seen is Carey Price at his peak

 

[JackSlater]

Statistics haven’t really caught up to goaltending the GS AAA is with the best we have, but for the eye test to me the best I’ve seen is Carey Price at his peak

Yeah I'm not really convinced that goaltending statistics are worth all that much until they account for shot quality, and even then you would have to account for goaltenders who are able to kill shots before they happen. Regarding Price I do think that he is generally underrated by the public and that he was the best goaltender in the NHL for several years, as the players seemed to attest to.

 

[tinyzombies]

Yeah I'm not really convinced that goaltending statistics are worth all that much until they account for shot quality, and even then you would have to account for goaltneders who are able to kill shots before they happen. Regarding Price I do think that he is generally underrated by the public and that he was the best goaltender in the NHL for several years, as the players seemed to attest to.

He’s the best I’ve ever seen at his peak. Hasek probably the most talented but didn’t have the profly so who knows what might have been. Could have only made him better tho…

 

[JackSlater]

He’s the best I’ve ever seen at his peak. Hasek probably the most talented but didn’t have the profly so who knows what might have been. Could have only made him better tho…

I think Price would have been monstrous on a team that built around him with a good roster rather than one that prayed for him to bail them out. Not the best ever in my opinion but a great and somewhat underappreciated talent/career.

 

[tinyzombies]

I think Price would have been monstrous on a team that built around him with a good roster rather than one that prayed for him to bail them out. Not the best ever in my opinion but a great and somewhat underappreciated talent/career.

If he was on the Bruins or LA Kings…. Forget it

 

[jigglysquishy]

, and even then you would have to account for goaltenders who are able to kill shots before they happen.

I could not agree more.

Forcing a bad shot, or better yet, completely taking away the shot, is the single most valuable skill for a goalie to have.

In general, hockey advanced stats are still in their infancy, but none more so than for goalies.

 

[filinski77]

This is going to be an unpopular opinion on the HoH forum, but Ovechkin and Crosby having the longetivity and high finishes in the international era of the NHL is significantly more impressive than a lot of the O6 guys in my opinion.

Bobby Hull for example, if you compare Ovechkins goal and point finishes vs. only Canadian players, he wipes the floor with Hull.

I understand that there was nothing Hull could have done about this, but if we are going to compare ‘relative’ rankings (ie. point, goal, hart finishes) I truly believe that qualitatively, being top 10 is much harder year over year now, than it was pre-80’s for example.

 

[LightningStorm]

I have nothing definitive here. as 5-15 seems to be within the same tier as each other. I'll give it a try right now, and this post is basically me thinking out loud.

5. Jagr
6. Hasek
7. Bourque
8. Crosby
9. Beliveau
10. Hull
11. Ovechkin
12. Potvin
13. Harvey
14. Lidstrom
15. Esposito

Just a rough draft though. When people have asked me where Crosby ranks, my general answer has always been borderline top 10, and #8 fits with that. Him and Beliveau are razor thin, but I think Sid has accomplished what he has with a greater degree of difficulty.

For d-men, I feel comfortable putting Bourque at #2 behind Orr for the sheer number of years he was great. Potvin over Harvey is an unpopular opinion, but I'm impressed with how Denis had the 2nd greatest peak for a d-man after Orr.

As for why I have Jagr at #5, his 1998-2001 peak and his longevity really stand out to me.

I don't think neither @jigglysquishy nor @The Panther are wrong in their approaches to McDavid's career. If healthy, I fully expect to rank him #5 by the time he retires. For me personally though, 10-12 seasons is roughly how long I usually like a player's career to last before I start thinking about their all time ranking, with the exception of players who unfortunately had their careers cut short like Orr. McDavid's career has been long enough for me to say that I think his peak has passed Crosby and Ovechkin, and if he keeps up his pace this season I'll feel pretty safe saying his prime has too.

 

[Overrated]

Jagr
Howe
Makarov
Bourque
McDavid

 

[daver]

This is going to be an unpopular opinion on the HoH forum, but Ovechkin and Crosby having the longetivity and high finishes in the international era of the NHL is significantly more impressive than a lot of the O6 guys in my opinion.

Bobby Hull for example, if you compare Ovechkins goal and point finishes vs. only Canadian players, he wipes the floor with Hull.

I understand that there was nothing Hull could have done about this, but if we are going to compare ‘relative’ rankings (ie. point, goal, hart finishes) I truly believe that qualitatively, being top 10 is much harder year over year now, than it was pre-80’s for example.

The faulty logic in this analysis is that you have gotten into the realm of a hypothetical scenario with a clear agenda as to why you went into that realm.

Context as to league size needs to be considered when comparing raw scoring finishes when you have two players with similar offensive resumes but it is not reasonable to bring a player up a clear level statistically. This doesn't require a thought experiment of removing players from the league and throwing out subjective interpretations masquerading as arguments.

I like the narrative that "OV started out like Bobby Hull then morphed into Brett Hull" after his peak. OV's longevity makes him the "Gordie Howe" of goalscorers; maybe didn't reach the goalscoring peak of a few others but his ability to stay among the elite goalscorers for an unprecedented amount of time is worthy of serious consideration in comparison to his direct peers (Hull, Jagr, Richard, Lafleur).

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I have nothing definitive here. as 5-15 seems to be within the same tier as each other. I'll give it a try right now, and this post is basically me thinking out loud.

5. Jagr
6. Hasek
7. Bourque
8. Crosby
9. Beliveau
10. Hull
11. Ovechkin
12. Potvin
13. Harvey
14. Lidstrom
15. Esposito

Just a rough draft though. When people have asked me where Crosby ranks, my general answer has always been borderline top 10, and #8 fits with that. Him and Beliveau are razor thin, but I think Sid has accomplished what he has with a greater degree of difficulty.

For d-men, I feel comfortable putting Bourque at #2 behind Orr for the sheer number of years he was great. Potvin over Harvey is an unpopular opinion, but I'm impressed with how Denis had the 2nd greatest peak for a d-man after Orr.

As for why I have Jagr at #5, his 1998-2001 peak and his longevity really stand out to me.

I don't think neither @jigglysquishy nor @The Panther are wrong in their approaches to McDavid's career. If healthy, I fully expect to rank him #5 by the time he retires. For me personally though, 10-12 seasons is roughly how long I usually like a player's career to last before I start thinking about their all time ranking, with the exception of players who unfortunately had their careers cut short like Orr. McDavid's career has been long enough for me to say that I think his peak has passed Crosby and Ovechkin, and if he keeps up his pace this season I'll feel pretty safe saying his prime has too.

Where's The Rocket?

 

[rfournier103]

No order...

*Martin Brodeur ~ His win total speaks for itself. Over 100 more wins than second place Patrick Roy. I know he had an incredibly long career, but I can't hold that against him.

*Alex Ovechkin ~ Number Two all-time in goals scored. There is no way anyone can have over 800 goals and not be in the Top Ten.

*Ray Bourque ~ Over 400 goals and 1500 points. Number Three all-time in +/- behind Bobby Orr and Larry Robinson, and ahead of fourth-place Wayne Gretzky. In MY opinion, the second-best defenseman in history after Orr.

*Patrick Roy ~ Number One all-time in playoff wins with 151, 38 more playoff wins than Brodeur in 3 fewer seasons, and three Conn Smythe Trophies won in three different decades: 1986; 1993; 2001.

*Maurice Richard ~ Doesn't quite have the numbers that others on this list have, but he was dominant in his era in a way that puts him on this list, and there are very few players in NHL history I'd rather have on the ice if I were down by a goal with less than two minutes to go.

*Jaromir Jagr ~ Second all-time in career points with 1921, and Number One all-time in game-winning goals with 135. Jagr made a difference in the NHL standings and record books. Won the Art Ross Trophy five times. Tied with Esposito and behind only Lemieux; Howe; and Gretzky for most Ross wins.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

I bet Hasek's GSAA would be far ahead of Roy in the regular season. In the playoffs however, Roy was a different animal. But the position has changed so much. Go look at some of the goals Roy used to let up. Today those would get you sent down.

My thread and hockey-reference.com both have Roy slightly ahead of Hasek in GVA. My thread has Roy ahead 456-442, and HR.com has Roy ahead 461-413. I'm not sure why we have different numbers as it's a pretty simple calculation, but Roy would be ahead between 3% and 12%. This is probably the best statistical measure of "career value" that we can get for a goalie. Obviously Hasek is ahead on a per-game basis though.

 

[tinyzombies]

My thread and hockey-reference.com both have Roy slightly ahead of Hasek in GVA. My thread has Roy ahead 456-442, and HR.com has Roy ahead 461-413. I'm not sure why we have different numbers as it's a pretty simple calculation, but Roy would be ahead between 3% and 12%. This is probably the best statistical measure of "career value" that we can get for a goalie. Obviously Hasek is ahead on a per-game basis though.

That has nothing to do with gsaa tho. The Buffalo system would actually allow medium danger shots … they were ahead of their time. In a way they kind of invented it because Hasek would tell them to force shooters to certain areas even if it was in close- as long as he had an advantage on the angle

 

[Felidae]

With people that value peak play above prime and consistency. I can see why Bourque is ommitted. Other then that though, he honestly seems like a slam dunk player in the top 10 to me. He seems to have the best case for elite longevity ever excluding Howe, and it looks like he's solidly 2nd place.

We're talking about a player that finished top 5 in norris voting 19 times, and never finished outside of the top 10 his entire 22 year career.

When you stack his norris finishes up against the likes of Lidstrom and Harvey, theres a noticeable gap in Bourque's favour.

Enough so that the 2 extra Norris wins shouldn't trump 19 years vs 13 years of top 5 Norris finishes. Lidstrom has 3 finishes just outside the top 5. So even if we're being generous by including those 3 years, he still has 3 other years where he was completely left off the Norris voting.

Lidstrom would have had to been top 5 in Norris voting his entire 20 year career to beat Bourque in that regard.

 

[tinyzombies]

With people that value peak play above prime and consistency. I can see why Bourque is ommitted. Other then that though, he honestly seems like a slam dunk player in the top 10 to me. He seems to have the best case for elite longevity ever excluding Howe, and it looks like he's solidly 2nd place in that regard.

We're talking about a player that finished top 5 in norris voting 19 times, and never finished outside of the top 10 his entire 22 year career.

When you stack his norris finishes up against the likes of Lidstrom and Harvey, theres a noticeable gap in Bourque's favour.

Enough so that the 2 extra Norris wins shouldn't trump 19 years vs 13 years of top 5 Norris finishes. Lidstrom has 3 finishes just outside the top 5. So even if we're being generous by including those 3 years, he still has 3 other years where he was completely left off the Norris voting.

Lidstrom would have had to been top 5 in Norris voting his entire 20 year career to beat Bourque in that regard.

Crosby also said Lidstrom is the best dman he ever faced. They're pretty close in value, it's just another apples and oranges thing I think. But I agree with you, I have Bourque ahead.

 

[Felidae]

Crosby also said Lidstrom is the best dman he ever faced. They're pretty close in value, it's just another apples and oranges thing I think. But I agree with you, I have Bourque ahead.

Crosby would be right, but he also never faced Bourque or any other defenseman in contention for 2nd best of all time.