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

[Overrated]

Averaging stats may be all right. But averaging stats don't win series.

he still won two cups eventually, yeah the first one when he wasn't the best player on the team anymore and the second as a back up goalie but it's still two cups

 

[jigglysquishy]

he still won two cups eventually, yeah the first one when he wasn't the best player on the team anymore and the second as a back up goalie but it's still two cups

Using the 2008 Cup to boost Hasek is one of the most bizarre arguments I've ever heard. He didn't play a game after the first round, and posted a .888. You could have replaced him with any AHL goalie and the result is the same.

I have him first amongst goalies, but the 2008 argument has zero merit. And I say this as someone who thought he was going to win the Smythe as I watched the 02 Cup live.

 

[Overrated]

Using the 2008 Cup to boost Hasek is one of the most bizarre arguments I've ever heard. He didn't play a game after the first round, and posted a .888. You could have replaced him with any AHL goalie and the result is the same.

I have him first amongst goalies, but the 2008 argument has zero merit. And I say this as someone who thought he was going to win the Smythe as I watched the 02 Cup live.

So you think winning the cup or any other trophy doesn't matter at all as long as you don't carry your team? I mean with the exception of few stars you could run the same argument just about any player on the team. He was still part of a winning team and was still certainly better than minor league goalies even in his last season.

 

[norrisnick]

So you think winning the cup or any other trophy doesn't matter at all as long as you don't carry your team? I mean with the exception of few stars you could run the same argument just about any player on the team. He was still part of a winning team and was still certainly better than minor league goalies even in his last season.

It's not even a matter of not carrying the Wings. If he doesn't get yanked out of net the Wings don't make it out of the 1st round.

He personified the addage of a goalie can't win you a game but he can certainly lose one. The goals he gave up were inexcusably bad.

 

[Overrated]

It's not even a matter of not carrying the Wings. If he doesn't get yanked out of net the Wings don't make it out of the 1st round.

He personified the addage of a goalie can't win you a game but he can certainly lose one. The goals he gave up were inexcusably bad.

I'd like to see these inexcusably bad goals he let in. He was just post prime and definitely worse than Osgood but he was still part of the winning team for the biggest club trophy there is. Don't see the reason why should this cup not be included in his accomplishments.

 

[daver]

He's been overrated by some Hart finishes since 2010 but it's a better gauge than mindless pointing to a trophy count at least. But regardless the case for Ovechkin being a top ten player has to be based on his 2006-2010 period and then being elite (though not really one of the league's best players generally) for a long time outside of that period.

He was a solid #2 Hart candidate in 2013. Wins it due to Crosby taking a puck to the face.

He was a Top 3 forward, arguably #1 in 14/15, albeit in off year for elite seasons by forwards. Bit overrated with a #2 Hart finish.

He was Top 5/10 in 15/16. Finishes 6th in Hart voting.

He was Top 5/10 in 17/18. Finishes 9th in Hart voting.

Starting in 14/15 he put an effort in on the defensive side of things (i.e. he wasn't a clear liability) for a few season. Then had one of the better Smythe wins of his era.

In 21/22, another 50 goal season at age 37 and 10th in Hart voting.

Since 2010, 1st in goals, 3rd in points and 6th in PPG (among Top 20 scorers):

NHL Stats

The official source for NHL Stats including skaters, goalies, teams stats and more.

www.nhl.com

IMO, he was still in the conversation for league's best player after the 10/11 season, then was in the conversation for Top 3 forward through the 15/16 season, Top 5/10 through the 2018 season.

In a vacuum, a Top 10 player "before age 25/after his first five seasons", a Top 50 to 100 type player from 2010 onwards.

 

[jigglysquishy]

I'd like to see these inexcusably bad goals he let in. He was just post prime and definitely worse than Osgood but he was still part of the winning team for the biggest club trophy there is. Don't see the reason why should this cup not be included in his accomplishments.

He literally did not play for the last 3 rounds. When we're talking about a placing him in the top 10, being a backup goalie has literally zero positive impact.

Replace Hasek with my dead Grandpa and they still win the Cup.

 

[norrisnick]

I'd like to see these inexcusably bad goals he let in. He was just post prime and definitely worse than Osgood but he was still part of the winning team for the biggest club trophy there is. Don't see the reason why should this cup not be included in his accomplishments.

They're on youtube. And it's not just the goals themselves, it's the fact that it was multiple in quick succession because he was still beating himself up about the first one. In 3 consecutive games he gave up goals on back to back shots. 11 seconds apart, 9 seconds apart, 32 seconds apart.

 

[Overrated]

He literally did not play for the last 3 rounds. When we're talking about a placing him in the top 10, being a backup goalie has literally zero positive impact.

Replace Hasek with my dead Grandpa and they still win the Cup.

When I try to rank players I usually split them into 3 categories: peak, career and accomplishments/trophies and weigh them respectively 50%/25%/25%. Yeah him being a below average goalie his last season gets him 0 points in career and longevity from me but him winning the cup still gets some points from me in the last category. Some what ifs about any other NHL goalie being able to perform in his spot is irrelevant because they didn't win the cup and Hasek did. You could say that about any subpar 4th liner "Replace this 4th liner with some other guy from some other team and they still win." It's not a good argument. You either win or you don't. Hasek won.

 

[jigglysquishy]

When I try to rank players I usually split them into 3 categories: peak, career and accomplishments/trophies and weigh them respectively 50%/25%/25%. Yeah him being a below average goalie his last season gets him 0 points in career and longevity from me but him winning the cup still gets some points from me in the last category. Some what ifs about any other NHL goalie being able to perform in his spot is irrelevant because they didn't win the cup and Hasek did. You could say that about any subpar 4th liner "Replace this 4th liner with some other guy from some other team and they still win." It's not a good argument. You either win or you don't. Hasek won.

What did Hasek contribute in the 2008 playoffs? He literally didn't play in the last 3 rounds.

Hasek won, technically, but he didn't really win in any meaningful sense. If you're not playing hockey, you're not contributing to your all time ranking.

 

[Overrated]

What did Hasek contribute in the 2008 playoffs? He literally didn't play in the last 3 rounds.

Hasek won, technically, but he didn't really win in any meaningful sense. If you're not playing hockey, you're not contributing to your all time ranking.

There are relatively strict rules which apply in order to be engraved on the cup. Hasek played half of the regular season (technically the cup qualifications) and the first round of the play offs. It's not like Ronaldo in 94 who never even played in the cup nor in the qualifications and was on the bench the whole time. Then I could see the reason to exclude him. Hasek still played and was part of the team's success.

 

[norrisnick]

There are relatively strict rules which apply in order to be engraved on the cup. Hasek played half of the regular season (technically the cup qualifications) and the first round of the play offs. It's not like Ronaldo in 94 who never even played in the cup nor in the qualifications and was on the bench the whole time. Then I could see the reason to exclude him. Hasek still played and was part of the team's success.

I get the sentiment, and I don't necessarily disagree with it. The only reason this particular instance is a sticking point is because the Wings won in spite of Hasek rather than with his contributions. During the playoffs his contributions were more negative than positive, so he was replaced. He gets full credit for his 40ish games in the regular season and all that. And had the Wings just gone with Osgood from the beginning and Dom was the backup the whole way, I doubt anyone would make note of it. It's that he played, played poorly, and had to be replaced that causes the issue.

 

[JackSlater]

He was a solid #2 Hart candidate in 2013. Wins it due to Crosby taking a puck to the face.

He was a Top 3 forward, arguably #1 in 14/15, albeit in off year for elite seasons by forwards. Bit overrated with a #2 Hart finish.

He was Top 5/10 in 15/16. Finishes 6th in Hart voting.

He was Top 5/10 in 17/18. Finishes 9th in Hart voting.

Starting in 14/15 he put an effort in on the defensive side of things (i.e. he wasn't a clear liability) for a few season. Then had one of the better Smythe wins of his era.

In 21/22, another 50 goal season at age 37 and 10th in Hart voting.

Since 2010, 1st in goals, 3rd in points and 6th in PPG (among Top 20 scorers):

NHL Stats

The official source for NHL Stats including skaters, goalies, teams stats and more.

www.nhl.com

IMO, he was still in the conversation for league's best player after the 10/11 season, then was in the conversation for Top 3 forward through the 15/16 season, Top 5/10 through the 2018 season.

In a vacuum, a Top 10 player "before age 25/after his first five seasons", a Top 50 to 100 type player from 2010 onwards.

Yeah I know where he finished in Hart voting those years, and I do not think that he was the best player in 2013 (even accounting for Crosby, the obvious best player that year, missing a quarter of the season) or the second best player in 2015. Obviously Hart voting is not even intended to be for the best player, and I do think that his value to his team in 2013 was higher than how I would rank him as a player. I'm not very impressed by Ovechkin post-2010 in an all time sense but for adding longevity he's done a good job.

 

[Michael Farkas]

They're on youtube. And it's not just the goals themselves, it's the fact that it was multiple in quick succession because he was still beating himself up about the first one. In 3 consecutive games he gave up goals on back to back shots. 11 seconds apart, 9 seconds apart, 32 seconds apart.

Highlighting the importance of timeliness of saves, quality of goals against and how it contributes to winning games and series. Missed by averaging stats. The top save pct. years in playoff history are primarily first round losses. The only one in the top 15 that's worth much is Quick in 2012. And that's probably been easily the best playoff performance in the cap era. I think he let in one bad goal in the entire playoffs. Just never allowed teams to get into a series. Absolutely dominant. For some reason the bizarrely uneven performance by Thomas in 2011 gets more credit, but they were worlds apart...worlds. Averaging stats are a tough way to evaluate a playoffs...

 

[Michael Farkas]

Not like he can score the goals for them.

One of the 1st round losses he lost in 7 despite a .950/1.62 line.

Let's not act like Roy didn't benefit from playing behind prime Robinson, Chelios, Gainey, Carbonneau

I don't think anyone would act like Roy didn't benefit from that...

But it's not about Hasek scoring goals. It's about the quality of goals that he gives up in big spots...his last goal as a Sabre is in game 7 OT at home and it's a limp 40 foot wrist shot from Darius Kasparaitis...

The series that you're talking about...he surrenders an early lead by giving up a 60 footer right through him from Bruce Driver...

Advanced scouting work on where Hasek preferred to take shots from (and where Buffalo forced teams to) versus what areas teams were able to get to exposed Hasek in really big moments...

Now, I still have Hasek really high up (like most people), but this whole idea that he was on an expansion team and he was alone and he was clutch and he was this and that because of some ratio stats...it's a lot of plop for me...

 

[MXD]

Not like he can score the goals for them.

One of the 1st round losses he lost in 7 despite a .950/1.62 line.

Let's not act like Roy didn't benefit from playing behind prime Robinson, Chelios, Gainey, Carbonneau

...Patrick Roy indeed didn't play behind prime Gainey and Robinson.

 

[Lavar Ball]

5. Crosby
6. Hasek
7. Richard
8. Beliveau
9. Harvey
10. Jagr

 

[daver]

It is interesting that there are quite a few players with solid arguments for #5 but noone get particularly close to the Big 4.

Hasek's peak has the best argument being is "Big Four-like" but falls short clearly on other fronts. Some are higher on the "Greatest Playoff Performer" list but noone objectively takes any of those players over the Big Four for a playoff run (except maybe for a goalie).

Crosby's per game offensive impact after 18 seasons measures very well with Howe's 20 year Top 5 run but injuries obviously leave that at the notable level.

McDavid's regular season resume has potential but a lower peak, so far, vs. Mario and Wayne and playoff success, so far, might keep him in the Best of Rest category.

 

[Michael Farkas]

One of those recent lists (maybe more) would suggest that, say, the 1958 Canadiens had (at least) the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th best players in the history of the game...and that's not including Jacques Plante...

 

[buffalowing88]

I don't think anyone would act like Roy didn't benefit from that...

But it's not about Hasek scoring goals. It's about the quality of goals that he gives up in big spots...his last goal as a Sabre is in game 7 OT at home and it's a limp 40 foot wrist shot from Darius Kasparaitis...

The series that you're talking about...he surrenders an early lead by giving up a 60 footer right through him from Bruce Driver...

Advanced scouting work on where Hasek preferred to take shots from (and where Buffalo forced teams to) versus what areas teams were able to get to exposed Hasek in really big moments...

Now, I still have Hasek really high up (like most people), but this whole idea that he was on an expansion team and he was alone and he was clutch and he was this and that because of some ratio stats...it's a lot of plop for me...

It's not only a lot of "plop" (which I am now adopting into my everyday vocabulary), but it's also Hasek's legacy. His prime was right at the time I was watching every single game and he would occasionally be taken advantage of from those bizarre shots from a football field (or at least that's what it felt like) away.

He was also just an absolute headcase the last few years here. Poor Steve Shields or Andrei Trefilov would get called into duty last second because he'd suddenly feel a twinge and that was that. Whether it was playoff game or not, if he didn't feel 100 percent, he didn't play. By the time he went to Detroit, I had a pretty bad taste in my mouth from Hasek. I know he's an all-time great but he's also a bit of an ass in the way that Roy wasn't. Roy would play and be an ass. Hasek would sit out and be an ass.

 

[Neutrinos]

He was a solid #2 Hart candidate in 2013. Wins it due to Crosby taking a puck to the face.

He was a Top 3 forward, arguably #1 in 14/15, albeit in off year for elite seasons by forwards. Bit overrated with a #2 Hart finish.

He was Top 5/10 in 15/16. Finishes 6th in Hart voting.

He was Top 5/10 in 17/18. Finishes 9th in Hart voting.

Starting in 14/15 he put an effort in on the defensive side of things (i.e. he wasn't a clear liability) for a few season. Then had one of the better Smythe wins of his era.

In 21/22, another 50 goal season at age 37 and 10th in Hart voting.

Since 2010, 1st in goals, 3rd in points and 6th in PPG (among Top 20 scorers):

NHL Stats

The official source for NHL Stats including skaters, goalies, teams stats and more.

www.nhl.com

IMO, he was still in the conversation for league's best player after the 10/11 season, then was in the conversation for Top 3 forward through the 15/16 season, Top 5/10 through the 2018 season.

In a vacuum, a Top 10 player "before age 25/after his first five seasons", a Top 50 to 100 type player from 2010 onwards.

I think we need to be mindful not to equate offensive production with the overall value of a player

From '04 - '10
Player A = 271 goals, 524 points in 475 games (Rocket 1x)
Player B = 175 goals, 506 points in 472 games

What conclusions can we draw from those numbers? If Player B is a top 5 forward, is it fair to say Player A must be as well?

Player A is Kovalchuk, and he finished -32 during that stretch
Player B is Datsyuk, and he finished +152

 

[Sentinel]

The 1999 Sabres make it to the finals without Hasek provided he is replaced by a good goaltender. That team outscored every other team in Eastern conference play on a per game basis in those playoffs and scored at least two goals every game while maintaining its defensive style. He was great but it's a myth that he carried the team by himself to the finals.

This is such a ridiculous piece of revisionism that makes me want to gauge my eyes out.

A team lead by offensive geniuses Jason Wooley, Alex Zhitnik (top two scorers were both defensemen, scoring 15 points in 21 games each), Curtis Brown, and Dixon Ward!

If the name on that goalie's back is anything other than "HASEK," that team doesn't make it out of the second round.

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

It's not only a lot of "plop" (which I am now adopting into my everyday vocabulary), but it's also Hasek's legacy. His prime was right at the time I was watching every single game and he would occasionally be taken advantage of from those bizarre shots from a football field (or at least that's what it felt like) away.

He was also just an absolute headcase the last few years here. Poor Steve Shields or Andrei Trefilov would get called into duty last second because he'd suddenly feel a twinge and that was that. Whether it was playoff game or not, if he didn't feel 100 percent, he didn't play. By the time he went to Detroit, I had a pretty bad taste in my mouth from Hasek. I know he's an all-time great but he's also a bit of an ass in the way that Roy wasn't. Roy would play and be an ass. Hasek would sit out and be an ass.

This got me to searching for a re-post from the 'Top-100" project. I can't quote it- since it's a closed thread. I can copy-paste it, however:

"Hašek? He's the caboose here. He has the weakest axle of the group. Who knows what kind of mess you have to clean up if he snaps. He's says he can't go tonight because he has a finger boo-boo. That's got to be just great for morale when your checking-line forwards are doing veterinary-ointment soaks so that they can answer the bell for the mid-February trip to the Garden."

 

[Michael Farkas]

This is such a ridiculous piece of revisionism that makes me want to gauge my eyes out.

A team lead by offensive geniuses Jason Wooley, Alex Zhitnik (top two scorers were both defensemen, scoring 15 points in 21 games each), Curtis Brown, and Dixon Ward!

If the name on that goalie's back is anything other than "HASEK," that team doesn't make it out of the second round.

I think the "any good goalie" thing is the opposite side of "Hasek was all by himself, facing a 5 on 0 for 60 straight minutes...periodically Miro Satan would emerge from the bench to score a single goal."

Hasek and Tim Thomas weren't similar in play style...but fans get all horned up for highlight reel saves without context...like, yeah, Hasek was super unique...I got it. But he wasn't some impenetrable force that only lost games because he had no offense around him. In the playoffs, when teams have to advance scout for the series, Hasek could be solved.

One thing that's nice for the whole mysticism of Hasek (where his whole career is on tape) is that losing early in the playoffs as much as he did probably helped keep his playoff career save pct. high. Many of the best individual playoffs in save pct. are in first round losses...

 

[bobholly39]

This is such a ridiculous piece of revisionism that makes me want to gauge my eyes out.

A team lead by offensive geniuses Jason Wooley, Alex Zhitnik (top two scorers were both defensemen, scoring 15 points in 21 games each), Curtis Brown, and Dixon Ward!

If the name on that goalie's back is anything other than "HASEK," that team doesn't make it out of the second round.

In a 4 year span, Vanbiesbrouck, Kolzig and Hasek all took eastern teams to the Stanley Cup Finals who probably had no business being there. Remove the goalie from each of those team - and I'm not so sure I don't have Buffalo as the best of those 3 rosters.

Hasek 939 sv% 1.77 GAA 19 games
Kolzig 941 sv% 1.95 GAA 21 games
Vanbiesbrouck 932 sv% 2.25 GAA 22 games (1996 was higher scoring league)

Does Hasek even stand out here among these 3?

Even in 1999 itself - Belfour, the winning goalie has a 930 sv% and 1.67 GAA. Was Hasek better than him? Sure maybe, but not by a ton.

People sometimes try to give too much importance to the 1999 playoffs when looking at Hasek.

Hasek was a really good playoff performer - but he's still very far behind someone like Roy for playoffs.