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

[Hockey Outsider]

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

It's available on the game logs from NHL.com, but you have to look them up manually. That's time-consuming, so I've only ever looked it up for a couple of players.

As I mentioned, Giguere looked ridiculously good based on that metric. I posted the results sometime within the past year or two, but the search function has stopped working again, so I can't find my earlier post about it.

 

[bobholly39]

It's available on the game logs from NHL.com, but you have to look them up manually. That's time-consuming, so I've only ever looked it up for a couple of players.

As I mentioned, Giguere looked ridiculously good based on that metric. I posted the results sometime within the past year or two, but the search function has stopped working again, so I can't find my earlier post about it.

Thanks...I couldn't find the boxscores on NHL.com initially for 2003, but I managed to find it.

Looks like Giguere in 2003 had:

9x 1st star or the game
3x 2nd star of the game
0x 3rd star of the game

So slightly better than both Price/Vasi in 2021

 

[Michael Farkas]

Looked briefly at the NHL API, it appears to have three stars data...not sure how far back...

This is one of those fantastical things that @pnep sometimes has out of nowhere...pnep: any data on 3 stars selections in a playoff?

 

[bobholly39]

I looked up Patrick Roy in 1993 - unless I somehow did it wrong, I think he was only one of the 3 stars 2x total, one time first star, one time 2nd star

 

[Michael Farkas]

Might be tricky because they had 11 overtime games or whatever it was and the timing of the voting/selection may have influenced things...if they weren't sure Roy was going to win, ya know...

 

[JackSlater]

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

This would be an interesting thread.

Largely unrelated but I once made an excel sheet going back to 1980 (at which point I got lazy) looking at how much offensive support each finalist goaltender received through the conference finals and then through the finals, compared to league average. I think some other poster else did something similar before. Hasek's offensive support was pretty good, as is the case with most finalists. It's not the be all and end all but people look at the names on that team and assume that they couldn't possibly score, but for three rounds they were good to great (in the conference finals).

 

[daver]

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.

I would say he "singlehandily" dragged them to the playoffs in 98 and 99 as much as any player could. Then continued to play at that same level in the playoffs. Maybe one or two goalies had better runs than him in the DPE in the same way that Howe didn't necessarily have the best playoff run in his era but he was arguably still the best statistically in the DPE.

It is worth noting that the Stars were at 3.00 GF going into the SCF and Hasek held them to two goals a game with a .937 sv%. He certainly did his job and the rest of the team could not give him the offense he needed.
I guess that's debatable if that should be described as better than "very good".

Is there another goalie that had the affect his team like Hasek did in '98 and '99? Take the 25th best team in Shots Against to 2nd in GAA.

Is there any goalie that has come close to this? Looks like Thomas in 10/11 did the same but in less games. The Bruins were 2nd to last in Shots Against and 2nd in GAA.

 

[jigglysquishy]

Gigeure 2003 is the first name that comes to mind. Detroit won the Cup the previous year and lead the NHL with 3.28 GF/G.

Giguere let in 6 goals in 4 games, with a .965%.

He then faced the #6 offense, Dallas, at 2.99 GF/G.

Giguere let in 10 in 6 games, with a .942%.

 

[Michael Farkas]

LA was 27th in shots against in 2012, Quick finished 1st in GAA (min. 40 games; 2nd if you include Brian Elliott's nonsense). Then Quick went on to dominate the postseason better than anyone mentioned in this thread so far.

 

[daver]

LA was 27th in shots against in 2012, Quick finished 1st in GAA (min. 40 games; 2nd if you include Brian Elliott's nonsense). Then Quick went on to dominate the postseason better than anyone mentioned in this thread so far.

LA was 5th in SAs in 11/12: NHL Stats And 4th best in the playoffs (at about same rate as the RS).

Quick was 3rd in sv% (min. 60 games).

 

[Michael Farkas]

LA was 5th in SAs in 11/12: NHL Stats And 4th best in the playoffs (at about same rate as the RS).

Quick was 3rd in sv% (min. 60 games).

I also think that Jean Beliveau was #96...

 

[Hockey Outsider]

I would say he "singlehandily" dragged them to the playoffs in 98 and 99 as much as any player could. Then continued to play at that same level in the playoffs. Maybe one or two goalies had better runs than him in the DPE in the same way that Howe didn't necessarily have the best playoff run in his era but he was arguably still the best statistically in the DPE.

It is worth noting that the Stars were at 3.00 GF going into the SCF and Hasek held them to two goals a game with a .937 sv%. He certainly did his job and the rest of the team could not give him the offense he needed.
I guess that's debatable if that should be described as better than "very good".

Is there another goalie that had the affect his team like Hasek did in '98 and '99? Take the 25th best team in Shots Against to 2nd in GAA.

Is there any goalie that has come close to this? Looks like Thomas in 10/11 did the same but in less games. The Bruins were 2nd to last in Shots Against and 2nd in GAA.

Don't get me wrong, there's no question Hasek dragged those teams into the playoffs. At his peak, Hasek was 100-61-37 while all the other Sabres goalies were 13-26-9. That's a massive impact (the difference between the team getting 98 pts vs 60 pts over 82 games).

What I was trying to say is Hasek didn't drag the team to the 1999 conference finals, because they scored a ton of goals. I'm not directing this comment at you, but I know people look at the roster almost 25 years later, and dismiss it as a joke. But, for whatever reason, the Sabres offense came to life in the first three rounds of the 1999 playoffs. Hasek obviously played well, but it's not like he didn't have any offensive support. Through the conference finals, the Sabres were (believe it or not) scoring more goals per game than the Red Wings, Avalanche, Stars, Devils and Leafs.

 

[Overrated]

I would say he "singlehandily" dragged them to the playoffs in 98 and 99 as much as any player could. Then continued to play at that same level in the playoffs. Maybe one or two goalies had better runs than him in the DPE in the same way that Howe didn't necessarily have the best playoff run in his era but he was arguably still the best statistically in the DPE.

It is worth noting that the Stars were at 3.00 GF going into the SCF and Hasek held them to two goals a game with a .937 sv%. He certainly did his job and the rest of the team could not give him the offense he needed.
I guess that's debatable if that should be described as better than "very good".

Is there another goalie that had the affect his team like Hasek did in '98 and '99? Take the 25th best team in Shots Against to 2nd in GAA.

Is there any goalie that has come close to this? Looks like Thomas in 10/11 did the same but in less games. The Bruins were 2nd to last in Shots Against and 2nd in GAA.

People here love to diminish him and even say he wasn't the sole reason Czechia won the Olympics. Yes the Czech team was great without Hasek but wouldn't stand any chance against the other top teams who were all super stacked super teams. It was the most stacked tournament ever and Hasek won it singlehandedly. You can deny it but these are the facts.

 

[jigglysquishy]

People here love to diminish him and even say he wasn't the sole reason Czechia won the Olympics. Yes the Czech team was great without Hasek but wouldn't stand any chance against the other top teams who were all super stacked super teams. It was the most stacked tournament ever and Hasek won it singlehandedly. You can deny it but these are the facts.

???

The Czechs outshot Russia in the Gold medal game. They also outshot Canada in the semis.

Sure, Hasek stopping 38 of 39 against the US in the quarterfinals was amazing. But it's hard to give sole credit to a goalie when his team outshoots the opposition.

There's so much weird hyperbole with goalies. No, Roy didn't win the Cup himself in 1986. No, Dryden wasn't irrelevant because his team was stacked. No, Hasek didn't win the Olympics by himself.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Yeah, I don't know how else to communicate this...I don't think anyone here is saying Hasek isn't a top X<5 goalie and didn't have a hell of a run in 1999 or that Steve Shields would have done it too...

It's really just putting to bed the hyperbole, like js just said, he was really good, he was on a good team, his team had tactics designed to help him (as many goalies did that have great numbers)...it's the whole concept that Hasek stood behind five garbage cans for six years that I'm just sick of...

There are several (all?) whole games of this run available for free right now...we don't have to guess...

 

[Overrated]

???

The Czechs outshot Russia in the Gold medal game. They also outshot Canada in the semis.

Sure, Hasek stopping 38 of 39 against the US in the quarterfinals was amazing. But it's hard to give sole credit to a goalie when his team outshoots the opposition.

There's so much weird hyperbole with goalies. No, Roy didn't win the Cup himself in 1986. No, Dryden wasn't irrelevant because his team was stacked. No, Hasek didn't win the Olympics by himself.

Does outshooting anyone even matter? It can be quite random. Czechia also outshot their competition by a single shot. That is all deleted in that single game against the USA so overall Czechia was outshot by quite a bit throughout the play-off stage. The best scorer on the team was the 14-18th best scorer of the tournament.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

???

The Czechs outshot Russia in the Gold medal game. They also outshot Canada in the semis.

Sure, Hasek stopping 38 of 39 against the US in the quarterfinals was amazing. But it's hard to give sole credit to a goalie when his team outshoots the opposition.

There's so much weird hyperbole with goalies. No, Roy didn't win the Cup himself in 1986. No, Dryden wasn't irrelevant because his team was stacked. No, Hasek didn't win the Olympics by himself.

He kinda did though.

2 GA in 3 games against Russia, Canada and the US.

2-1 shoot out win over Canada stopping all 5 shoot out attempts.

1-0 win over Russia.

.978 sv% and 0.67 gaa in the medal rounds. And the highest scoring Czech was the 18th highest scorer in the tournament

 

[JackSlater]

People here love to diminish him and even say he wasn't the sole reason Czechia won the Olympics. Yes the Czech team was great without Hasek but wouldn't stand any chance against the other top teams who were all super stacked super teams. It was the most stacked tournament ever and Hasek won it singlehandedly. You can deny it but these are the facts.

I would hope that you recognize that saying that Hasek was the sole reason Czech Republic won the Olympic tournament is invariably hyperbole. The Czechs played well overall, Hsaek was great, and they won. No player can ever be the sole reason... it's crazy to say otherwise.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Shots...like saves...don't really matter in general.

 

[Overrated]

I would hope that you recognize that saying that Hasek was the sole reason Czech Republic won the Olympic tournament is invariably hyperbole. The Czechs played well overall, Hsaek was great, and they won. No player can ever be the sole reason... it's crazy to say otherwise.

If you take it literally then of course no player can be the sole reason but there have been some performances where a single player made all the difference. Kind of like Maradona in 86. Even there his teammates for example performed well in the finals. That is all understood. The point is that it's one of the most impressive performances of all time in a knockout tournament and there is no reason to dispute that. The chance of the Czech Republic beating all the USA, Canada and Russia without Hasek would be diminished by like 90%. He made all the difference.

Fleury said "The Czech's mentality that day was: Let's just get to the shootout! Because they have one guy, one guy that has the same mentality of winning as guys like Gretzky and Shanahan and all those guys we had on our team and his name was Dominik Hašek". Of course that's your average Canadian chauvinism on display but that's how the guys who played against him really felt. Even in the Czech Republic he is to this day still viewed as the hard carry of the tournament.

 

[pnep]

Looked briefly at the NHL API, it appears to have three stars data...not sure how far back...

This is one of those fantastical things that @pnep sometimes has out of nowhere...pnep: any data on 3 stars selections in a playoff?

since 1991-92 season

File on MEGA

mega.nz

 

[JackSlater]

If you take it literally then of course no player can be the sole reason but there have been some performances where a single player made all the difference. Kind of like Maradona in 86. Even there his teammates for example performed well in the finals. That is all understood. The point is that it's one of the most impressive performances of all time in a knockout tournament and there is no reason to dispute that. The chance of the Czech Republic beating all the USA, Canada and Russia without Hasek would be diminished by like 90%. He made all the difference.

Fleury said "The Czech's mentality that day was: Let's just get to the shootout! Because they have one guy, one guy that has the same mentality of winning as guys like Gretzky and Shanahan and all those guys we had on our team and his name was Dominik Hašek". Of course that's your average Canadian chauvinism on display but that's how the guys who played against him really felt. Even in the Czech Republic he is to this day still viewed as the hard carry of the tournament.

Basically everyone knows that Hasek was the most important player on the team. Your post was dripping with hyperbole however, while complaining that people don't share in the hyperbole you were pushing. Hasek did not singlehandedly carry Czech Republic to the gold medal. He had a great tournament however and was the key player on that team and in the tournament. Hasek was great enough without playing pretend about the Olympics or the 1999 playoffs, where the teams in front of him did play well even if the names were not awe inspiring.

 

[daver]

Don't get me wrong, there's no question Hasek dragged those teams into the playoffs. At his peak, Hasek was 100-61-37 while all the other Sabres goalies were 13-26-9. That's a massive impact (the difference between the team getting 98 pts vs 60 pts over 82 games).

What I was trying to say is Hasek didn't drag the team to the 1999 conference finals, because they scored a ton of goals. I'm not directing this comment at you, but I know people look at the roster almost 25 years later, and dismiss it as a joke. But, for whatever reason, the Sabres offense came to life in the first three rounds of the 1999 playoffs. Hasek obviously played well, but it's not like he didn't have any offensive support. Through the conference finals, the Sabres were (believe it or not) scoring more goals per game than the Red Wings, Avalanche, Stars, Devils and Leafs.

Fair enough. This seems to be a battle of two narratives:

1. "Hasek carried his team like no other goalie could in the '99 playoffs and the Olympics"/ "Put Hasek in Roy's position and he also wins multiple Cups and Smythes to compliment his far superior Vezina and Hart trophy resume"

and the one that I responded to:

2. "Replace Hasek with a "good" goalie in '99 and the Sabres do just as well."


1. As we tend to see, more so than forwards, there were other goalies who reached Hasek's level, and arguably above, in the playoffs during the DPE. We usually do not see a forward outplay a Wayne or a Mario over the course of a Cup run, let alone get that particularly close.

In three instances, we saw Hasek play a lead role on a team that punched above it's weight. The Sabres were not a playoff caliber team in either '98 or '99 without Hasek in net. Not only did they get into the playoffs, they won five series as Hasek continued to play at his peak level and the Sabres stepped things up offensively. That the Sabres felt they could get more aggressive on the offensive side of things, and were not going anywhere if they didn't, is not an unreasonable take.

2. This is pure fantasy given that the Sabres are not even on the position to make a Cup run if not for Hasek and, IMO, is a far more unreasonable and unbelievable hypothetical than replacing Roy with Hasek on the Habs and AVs and expecting the same outcome.

It really comes down to what you value more, RS or playoffs, between these two.

Thankfully I do not have a dog in this fight as I think this is one of the great, destined to be perpetual, debates.

 

[Michael Farkas]

pnep, as always, is a legend.

Quick in 2012 (2011 in the sheet I believe):
5x 1st star
3x 2nd star
2x 3rd star

Pretty good for his low shot totals, and a bit more understated performance...Quick was also a Vezina favorite, so that factored in probably...there was maybe a tinge of "expectation" that he'd keep up his great 2012 run into the postseason, despite the Kings being 8th in the West...

 

[JackSlater]

Shots...like saves...don't really matter in general.

Always remember the porous defensive 2011 Stanley Cup champions, who allowed the second most shots in the NHL.

Fair enough. This seems to be a battle of two narratives:

1. "Hasek carried his team like no other goalie could in the '99 playoffs and the Olympics"/ "Put Hasek in Roy's position and he also wins multiple Cups and Smythes to compliment his far superior Vezina and Hart trophy resume"

and the one that I responded to:

2. "Replace Hasek with a "good" goalie in '99 and the Sabres do just as well."


1. As we tend to see, more so than forwards, there were other goalies who reached Hasek's level, and arguably above, in the playoffs during the DPE. We usually do not see a forward outplay a Wayne or a Mario over the course of a Cup run, let alone get that particularly close.

In three instances, we saw Hasek play a lead role on a team that punched above it's weight. The Sabres were not a playoff caliber team in either '98 or '99 without Hasek in net. Not only did they get into the playoffs, they won five series as Hasek continued to play at his peak level and the Sabres stepped things up offensively. That the Sabres felt they could get more aggressive on the offensive side of things, and were not going anywhere if they didn't, is not an unreasonable take.

2. This is pure fantasy given that the Sabres are not even on the position to make a Cup run if not for Hasek and, IMO, is a far more unreasonable and unbelievable hypothetical than replacing Roy with Hasek on the Habs and AVs and expecting the same outcome.

It really comes down to what you value more, RS or playoffs, between these two.

Thankfully I do not have a dog in this fight as I think this is one of the great, destined to be perpetual, debates.

The Sabres likely make the finals in 1999 with several goaltenders other than Hasek because of how well they played as opposed to the names on the back. A good goaltending performance behind a defensive team that scored the most goals in the conference should make the finals most times.