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

[daver]

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

I don't see how anything I have been posting is doing this. I would say that posting +/- stats with no context is more egregious than posting offensive stats with no context.

Not saying that Hart recognition is the be all, end all but Datysuk got more Hart recognition than Kovalchuk so there was clear recognition of his contribution besides offense. In a similar vein, post 2010 OV was appropriately left off Hart ballots in years where he was notably not providing any value other than offense (or was a minus value as in 13/14).

His post age-25 career is likely below quite a few players who are below him in the last HOH Top 100 but it did have value.

His 2018 CS was well earned as he was notably contributing in all ends of the ice. That he was very inconsistent in this regard throughout his career shouldn't take away from appropriate recognition.

His immediate all-time peers, offensive-minded wingers, are Hull, Richard, Jagr and LaFleur. I may be wrong in thinking that there should be no huge talk of "overall value" when comparing the resumes of these players. As much as you can point out that OV morphed into a triggerman and was more one dimensional as his career progressed, it can be argued that he has been the most effective with his physicality.

Once you rate him among those players (IMO, next to Jagr in the Top 10 to 20 range below Hull and Richard), then, generally speaking, you can compare his overall value with all other forwards with similarly impressive offensive resumes to differentiate them. Someone like Messier could be an exception.

At the end of the day, he was able to get the puck in the net like no other. That it can be argued that he was positioned to do this like no other is noteworthy but not to the extent he loses much ground to clearly inferior offensive players.

 

[JackSlater]

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.

No, it's a fact that Buffalo was the highest scoring team in the Eastern conference playoffs, and it is a fact that Buffalo scored at least two goals in every game in the Eastern conference playoffs in the heart of the dead puck era, and it is true that Buffalo retained its defensive style while doing so. People like to perpetrate the fantasy that Hasek carried the team kicking and screaming to the finals because it's Hasek, but it is lazy and isn't true. Teams win games based on how players perform and not based on what their names are. It's pretty common for these cinderella teams to make the finals and they don't all have Hasek, though yes Hasek was still great in those playoffs.

 

[daver]

No, it's a fact that Buffalo was the highest scoring team in the Eastern conference playoffs, and it is a fact that Buffalo scored at least two goals in every game in the Eastern conference playoffs in the heart of the dead puck era, and it is true that Buffalo retained its defensive style while doing so. People like to perpetrate the fantasy that Hasek carried the team kicking and screaming to the finals because it's Hasek, but it is lazy and isn't true. Teams win games based on how players perform and not based on what their names are. It's pretty common for these cinderella teams to make the finals and they don't all have Hasek, though yes Hasek was still great in those playoffs.

Your opening salvo was "The 1999 Sabres make it to the finals without Hasek provided he is replaced by a good goaltender"

NHL Stats

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

www.nhl.com

Hasek's sv% during the '99 playoffs was 9.39, his GAA was - 1.77.

In the DPE era, '97 to '04, among goalies who played in three rounds 31 goalies), his GAA is 3rd best and GAA was 10th best. Objectively, it was a Top 3 - 5 goalie performance in that time period among that group.

Presuming that most teams do not reach the 3rd round without "good" goaltending, I don't think your claim is reasonable.

Hasek's playoff performance perhaps is not Roy-like but, like Jagr in the same timeframe, it is befitting his regular season stature. He doesn't lose points with his playoffs but doesn't gain any like Roy did.

 

[JackSlater]

Your opening salvo was "The 1999 Sabres make it to the finals without Hasek provided he is replaced by a good goaltender"

NHL Stats

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

www.nhl.com

Hasek's sv% during the '99 playoffs was 9.39, his GAA was - 1.77.

In the DPE era, '97 to '04, among goalies who played in three rounds 31 goalies), his GAA is 3rd best and GAA was 10th best. Objectively, it was a Top 3 - 5 goalie performance in that time period among that group.

Presuming that most teams do not reach the 3rd round without "good" goaltending, I don't think your claim is reasonable.

Hasek's playoff performance perhaps is not Roy-like but, like Jagr in the same timeframe, it is befitting his regular season stature. He doesn't lose points with his playoffs but doesn't gain any like Roy did.

Buffalo played a defensive style while being the highest scoring team (and very consistent in that scoring) in the Eastern conference those playoffs. Within three years of 1999 on either side you had Vanbiesbrouck, Kolzig, and Irbe make the finals on similarly unimpressive rosters. Hasek being great does not mean that Buffalo was carried by him in that particular year. You need a great goaltending performance to carry a team when the team isn't scoring or is porous defensively. For the 1999 playoffs, in Eastern conference play at least, Buffalo was neither of those things. Score two or more goals every game in the dead puck era, in the playoffs no less, while playing reasonably defensive hockey and you'll win more often than you lose.

 

[Overrated]

No, it's a fact that Buffalo was the highest scoring team in the Eastern conference playoffs, and it is a fact that Buffalo scored at least two goals in every game in the Eastern conference playoffs in the heart of the dead puck era, and it is true that Buffalo retained its defensive style while doing so. People like to perpetrate the fantasy that Hasek carried the team kicking and screaming to the finals because it's Hasek, but it is lazy and isn't true. Teams win games based on how players perform and not based on what their names are. It's pretty common for these cinderella teams to make the finals and they don't all have Hasek, though yes Hasek was still great in those playoffs.

Didn't the Sabres utilize a strategy where they would purposefully leave Hasek exposed hoping he'd salvage the situation? This is what I saw said by his NHL contemporaries in the documentaries about Hasek. They were seeded 7th out of 8 for their conference. The fact that they had a good run doesn't mean it would have happened without their key piece of the puzzle

 

[JackSlater]

Didn't the Sabres utilize a strategy where they would purposefully leave Hasek exposed hoping he'd salvage the situation? They were seeded 7th out of 8 for their conference. The fact that they had a good run doesn't mean it would have happened without their key piece of the puzzle

Sometimes I suppose, mainly they played to Hasek's strengths and made sure that he saw shots rather than having the players try to block them. The players tried to keep his sight lines clear and focused on potential rebounds. It was the right strategy to play to Hasek's strengths as he was by far the best player on the team. But again, this was a defensive team that performed better than usual offensively through three rounds in those playoffs. In the regular season they were second defensively (obviously Hasek played a huge role) and only 17/27 offensively. Buffalo went from scoring 2.52 goals per game in the regular season to 3.33 in the Eastern conference playoffs.

From what I remember when I looked into this a while ago, Buffalo was extremely consistent in Eastern conference play (two goals or more every game) and usually scored early in the game (useful for a team that was more comfortable defending than chasing) plus in the East finals they scored a ton of goals for the era. It's basically the recipe for a cinderella Stanley Cup finalist provided they get good goaltending, and of course Buffalo did. But it gets simplified to "Hasek carried those no name bums" because of what his name is. He was great but the team was playing over its head regardless of Hasek.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Didn't the Sabres utilize a strategy where they would purposefully leave Hasek exposed hoping he'd salvage the situation?

Absolutely not. That's just a ridiculous thought, with all due respect. Also, these games are available.

 

[jigglysquishy]

I've poured through the first 5ish discussion threads of the top 100. I've moved Hasek down and Hull up, largely due to the reasoning of @Michael Farkas

 

[Michael Farkas]

Guards! ...he's cool. In fact, get him a beer...

Also, I love Hasek...it's not about disliking him. I had the biggest Hasek poster in my room as a kid. He's a supernova. But we're talking about the very uppermost players in the history of the game, I just don't see these guys up quite that high...I don't have any goalie in my top 15 I don't think...everyone has a "yeah, but..." for me and maybe that's the nature of a position where your stats can basically only go down as the game goes on...

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

No, it's a fact that Buffalo was the highest scoring team in the Eastern conference playoffs, and it is a fact that Buffalo scored at least two goals in every game in the Eastern conference playoffs in the heart of the dead puck era, and it is true that Buffalo retained its defensive style while doing so. People like to perpetrate the fantasy that Hasek carried the team kicking and screaming to the finals because it's Hasek, but it is lazy and isn't true. Teams win games based on how players perform and not based on what their names are. It's pretty common for these cinderella teams to make the finals and they don't all have Hasek, though yes Hasek was still great in those playoffs.

9 of their 12 wins in the Eastern Conference rounds were by 1 goal. They only outscored Boston and Toronto by only 3 goals each.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I've poured through the first 5ish discussion threads of the top 100. I've moved Hasek down and Hull up, largely due to the reasoning of @Michael Farkas

Farkas Effect strikes again!

 

[JackSlater]

9 of their 12 wins in the Eastern Conference rounds were by 1 goal. They only outscored Boston and Toronto by only 3 goals each.

Yes, Buffalo played a lot of close games. Even if your claim about goal differential against Toronto was true (the Boston part is true) it doesn't matter much since series are not decided by goal differential, better yet +3 (or +5) goal differentials. Buffalo put up two goals or more every single game while playing a defensive style. In the dead puck era that is giving your goaltender a chance to get a win every single night.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Guards! ...he's cool. In fact, get him a beer...

Also, I love Hasek...it's not about disliking him. I had the biggest Hasek poster in my room as a kid. He's a supernova. But we're talking about the very uppermost players in the history of the game, I just don't see these guys up quite that high...I don't have any goalie in my top 15 I don't think...everyone has a "yeah, but..." for me and maybe that's the nature of a position where your stats can basically only go down as the game goes on...

That makes you an outlier, no?

 

[Michael Farkas]

That makes you an outlier, no?

Not for long

But yeah, probably...I'm comfortable there.

 

[Overrated]

Absolutely not. That's just a ridiculous thought, with all due respect. Also, these games are available.

At 1:39 Michael Peca said: Once we lost guys like LaFontaine in the early mid 90s we had to manufacture offense collectively and a lot of that involved taking risk once in a while. If we had to give Dominik a breakaway 2 on 1 we knew we were fine.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Are you of the belief that the Sabres didn't play a defensive structure that was beneficial to Hasek? Are you of the belief that the Sabres would - with purpose - surrender breakaways and 2 on 1's with any sort of outside-of-the-norm rarity...? Are you of the belief that no other team would take categorically similar risks (with categorically similar results) to try to score a goal when needed?

I mean, what are we talking about here? He's a really good goalie that could stop guys on breakaways. So was Brodeur. So was Roy. So was Plante. Murray Bannerman wasn't. Yutaka Fukufuji wasn't. Casey DeSmith isn't.

 

[Felidae]

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.

Ultimately I do think Hasek ranks behind Roy regarding the postseason. But how much of it is actually because Roy was better than Hasek in the playoffs, rather than having more opportunity to actually perform, and have a signature run?

I mean, Hasek played a lot of postseason games, but it's still 128 less than Roy.

Roy has 3 Smythes and he gets all the credit for it. But moreso than any other award, the Smythe is the most circumstantial.

Hasek with the exception of 1998 (the losing team, we know how much the smythe is stacked against the losers) and 2002 past his prime, never had the opportunity to have a Smythe worthy run.

Yet his career postseason stats still look excellent. He's 11th all time. The players ahead of him? Didn't even play half the games he did in the postseason. Next highest is Thomas with 51 GP, Hasek has 119. He's 2nd all time for players with more than 100 games in the playoffs.

I think it'd be interesting to see a list of who led the league in SV% the most during postseason. Since many goalies like Roy are not in the top 10 mostly due to the era they played in.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I think it'd be interesting to see who led the league in SV% the most during postseason.

Plante 6x. Not including anything before 1953 (min. 5 games)

 

[daver]

Sometimes I suppose, mainly they played to Hasek's strengths and made sure that he saw shots rather than having the players try to block them. The players tried to keep his sight lines clear and focused on potential rebounds. It was the right strategy to play to Hasek's strengths as he was by far the best player on the team. But again, this was a defensive team that performed better than usual offensively through three rounds in those playoffs. In the regular season they were second defensively (obviously Hasek played a huge role) and only 17/27 offensively. Buffalo went from scoring 2.52 goals per game in the regular season to 3.33 in the Eastern conference playoffs.

From what I remember when I looked into this a while ago, Buffalo was extremely consistent in Eastern conference play (two goals or more every game) and usually scored early in the game (useful for a team that was more comfortable defending than chasing) plus in the East finals they scored a ton of goals for the era. It's basically the recipe for a cinderella Stanley Cup finalist provided they get good goaltending, and of course Buffalo did. But it gets simplified to "Hasek carried those no name bums" because of what his name is. He was great but the team was playing over its head regardless of Hasek.

NHL Stats

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

www.nhl.com

Not sure why you keep calling Buffalo a "defensive team" when they were 23rd (out of 27) in shots against per game.

Meanwhile, they were #2 in GAA. The #1 team in GAA (Dallas) was 3rd in SA. The #3 team in GAA (Ottawa) was #5 in SA. No other team was close to having this much of a discrepancy between their SA ranking and GAA ranking.

In the playoffs, they were still below average in SA and above average in GAA but their GAA was influenced by the time Roloson spent in net. Hasek himself was #1 in sv% and #3 in GAA in those playoffs. In the playoffs, their SF increased while their Shots Against stayed the same. It was Hasek being Hasek and an uptick in their offense that got them to the SCF where they then faced a truly "defensive" team.

It was even more impressive in 1998 when the the Sabres were last in SA and 3rd in GAA.

Of the 32 teams that made the CFs between '97 and '04, the teams that had the biggest discrepancies between SFs and SAs sees Buffalo at #2 (98) and #4 (99). It should come as no surprise that Hasek twice took a team tto the CFs that likely only makes the playoffs because of him to begin with.

To say that replace Hasek with a "good" goalie and the Sabres reach two CFS and a SCF is frankly a ridiculous claim.

Even without digging into the numbers, it could be one of the safest assumptions to make; that the three time in a row Vezina winner and a Hart winner who was dominating the competition in a Big 4ish type manner, had two playoff runs where he "dragged", at best, a mediocre regular season team on a deep playoff run.

It should come as no surprise that some give this almost as much value as Roy's playoff resume.

 

[JackSlater]

NHL Stats

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

www.nhl.com

Not sure why you keep calling Buffalo a "defensive team" when they were 23rd (out of 27) in shots against per game.

Meanwhile, they were #2 in GAA. The #1 team in GAA (Dallas) was 3rd in SA. The #3 team in GAA (Ottawa) was #5 in SA. No other team was close to having this much of a discrepancy between their SA ranking and GAA ranking.

In the playoffs, they were still below average in SA and above average in GAA but their GAA was influenced by the time Roloson spent in net. Hasek himself was #1 in sv% and #3 in GAA in those playoffs. In the playoffs, their SF increased while their Shots Against stayed the same. It was Hasek being Hasek and an uptick in their offense that got them to the SCF where they then faced a truly "defensive" team.

It was even more impressive in 1998 when the the Sabres were last in SA and 3rd in GAA.

Of the 32 teams that made the CFs between '97 and '04, the teams that had the biggest discrepancies between SFs and SAs sees Buffalo at #2 (98) and #4 (99). It should come as no surprise that Hasek twice took a team tto the CFs that likely only makes the playoffs because of him to begin with.

To say that replace Hasek with a "good" goalie and the Sabres reach two CFS and a SCF is frankly a ridiculous claim.

Even without digging into the numbers, it could be one of the safest assumptions to make; that the three time in a row Vezina winner and a Hart winner who was dominating the competition in a Big 4ish type manner, had two playoff runs where he "dragged", at best, a mediocre regular season team on a deep playoff run.

It should come as no surprise that some give this almost as much value as Roy's playoff resume.

Of course Buffalo was a defensive team. It played to Hasek's strengths - allowing him to see shots and focusing on any rebounds that might come from them. They were willing to give up shots that other teams blocked (hence the relatively high shots against) because Hasek stopped the shots that he saw, but they were in position to get rebounds (more dangerous chances, hence lower goals against plus Hasek being elite). It was a defensive strategy to make the most use of Hasek's talent. You could also just watch Buffalo play rather than twisting and turning trying to will your misconception into reality.

But again - a defensive team was the highest scoring team in the Eastern conference, as well as the most consistent team in terms of scoring. Good goaltending would have been enough to get them to the finals most likely, just as it was with other cinderella teams that made the final in surrounding years without Hasek.

 

[Overrated]

Of course Buffalo was a defensive team. It played to Hasek's strengths - allowing him to see shots and focusing on any rebounds that might come from them. They were willing to give up shots that other teams blocked (hence the relatively high shots against) because Hasek stopped the shots that he saw, but they were in position to get rebounds (more dangerous chances, hence lower goals against plus Hasek being elite). It was a defensive strategy to make the most use of Hasek's talent. You could also just watch Buffalo play rather than twisting and turning trying to will your misconception into reality.

But again - a defensive team was the highest scoring team in the Eastern conference, as well as the most consistent team in terms of scoring. Good goaltending would have been enough to get them to the finals most likely, just as it was with other cinderella teams that made the final in surrounding years without Hasek.

Grošek said that if it weren't for Hasek they would never get into the finals. Peca said they would sometimes go for a risky play knowing Hasek could salvage the situation. But yeah the whole team played a style which made it easier for Hasek to inflate his stats and they would get into the finals with just about any decent goaltender.

 

[JackSlater]

Grošek said that if it weren't for Hasek they would never get into the finals. Peca said they would sometimes go for a risky play knowing Hasek could salvage the situation. But yeah the whole team played a style which made it easier for Hasek to inflate his stats and they would get into the finals with just about any decent goaltender.

Would Washington have gotten to the finals the year before if not for Kolzig? Or Florida without Vanbiesbrouck three years earlier? Or Carolina without Irbe in 2002? Every cinderella team needs a goaltender to provide good goaltending. There were other goaltenders who could have played behind a defensive team that scored the highest in the conference and made the final - it was not, despite the dumbed down version, just Hasek carrying the team. As far as how Buffalo played, Hasek instructed them on what he wanted, and it was for him to see the shots while the defence focused on rebounds, so yes he faced more shots than he would have on a team with a strategy devoted to blocking more shots.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

In 1999, the Sabres never would have beat the Senators without Hasek. He was named first or second star in all four games. He deserves a ton of credit for that series.

But Buffalo was (surprisingly) not overly reliant on Hasek the rest of the way. During their final 17 games of the postseason, Hasek was named the game's first star only twice. And only twice more was he named the 2nd/3rd star (so that's four times in 17 games). Granted, four times was more than any other Sabre - but Peca, Barnes, Primeau and Sanderson were each named three times. (Not that the "three stars" voting is perfect, but it should give us a rough sense of whether one player dragged the team. I'd have to dig up my old post, but in 2003, Giguere was one of the three stars in virtually every game for the Ducks - that's a good example of a goalie almost singlehandedly dragging an underdog to the Stanley Cup finals).

The Sabres scored 3 goals (pretty good for that era) 14 times in a span of 15 games. Outside of the Ottawa series (where Hasek truly did make the difference), the Sabres allowed more than 30 shots in just five of their final 17 games (two of which went into OT).

Hasek was great in 1999, but there's this myth on HFBoards that he singlehandedly dragged the Sabres to the Stanley Cup finals (as much as any one player can "singlehandedly" do anything). He was stellar in the first round, but merely very good the rest of the way.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Grošek said that if it weren't for Hasek they would never get into the finals. Peca said they would sometimes go for a risky play knowing Hasek could salvage the situation. But yeah the whole team played a style which made it easier for Hasek to inflate his stats and they would get into the finals with just about any decent goaltender.

Yeah, and Pat Quinn said (paraphrase), "The reputation of the Buffalo Sabres defensively, has trailed far behind Hasek's stardom. But that team can play...not that Dom isn't great, but..."

What is Grosek gonna say about his teammate and countryman when he was probably asked directly about Hasek? "Dom who? I miss Trefilov and John Blue..."

Come on...no one is saying Hasek wasn't important. But it's time to dispel the "Hasek was by himself" in the 1999 playoffs thing...

 

[bobholly39]

In 1999, the Sabres never would have beat the Senators without Hasek. He was named first or second star in all four games. He deserves a ton of credit for that series.

But Buffalo was (surprisingly) not overly reliant on Hasek the rest of the way. During their final 17 games of the postseason, Hasek was named the game's first star only twice. And only twice more was he named the 2nd/3rd star (so that's four times in 17 games). Granted, four times was more than any other Sabre - but Peca, Barnes, Primeau and Sanderson were each named three times. (Not that the "three stars" voting is perfect, but it should give us a rough sense of whether one player dragged the team. I'd have to dig up my old post, but in 2003, Giguere was one of the three stars in virtually every game for the Ducks - that's a good example of a goalie almost singlehandedly dragging an underdog to the Stanley Cup finals).

The Sabres scored 3 goals (pretty good for that era) 14 times in a span of 15 games. Outside of the Ottawa series (where Hasek truly did make the difference), the Sabres allowed more than 30 shots in just five of their final 17 games (two of which went into OT).

Hasek was great in 1999, but there's this myth on HFBoards that he singlehandedly dragged the Sabres to the Stanley Cup finals (as much as any one player can "singlehandedly" do anything). He was stellar in the first round, but merely very good the rest of the way.

Do you have data about how many times a player/goalie was named among the 3 stars per playoff run? I don't know of any easy way to look that up. Is there a website that tracks these statistics?

I always though Carey Price's run in the 2021 playoffs was spectacular, but I don't know how that compares historically. In 2021 playoffs, Carey Price was:

7x 1st star of the game
1x 2nd star of the game
3x 3rd star of the game

Not sure how to look up older games/runs.

And as you said - obviously three stars voting is nowhere near a perfect representation of value, but it does give a good sense at least.

Out of curiosity, I looked up Vasi in 2021 playoffs, since he won the smythe. Pretty comparable to Price, slightly better:

8x 1st star
2x 2nd star
1x 3rd star