General Hockey Thread 2011-2012

[Universe]

Done.

 

Still seeing flawed logic.

Of course.

[Phightins]

Of course.

 

I think I see what you are getting at, you just did a poor job with wording it.

 

I still disagree though.

[Universe]

I think I see what you are getting at, you just did a poor job with wording it.

 

I still disagree though.

Not really...

 

"Being a goaltender is not about how you win, it's about when you win and Hasek was terrible at it."

 

Exact point I was making. Hasek always manged to put up great stats but when the puck absolutely needed to stay out of the net, it didn't. I remember at least five or six games as a kid where he would have had a near perfect game just to watch a shot from an impossible angle beat him tying the game.

[DunkinDerozan]

Still think Roy>>>>>>Hasek

[NomarFachix]

Beezer >>>>>>> Hasek/Roy

[Check my Stats]

I am Canadian and while I consider myself indifferent, I think Hasek is better.

[EastCoastNiner]

Not really...

 

"Being a goaltender is not about how you win, it's about when you win and Hasek was terrible at it."

 

Exact point I was making. Hasek always manged to put up great stats but when the puck absolutely needed to stay out of the net, it didn't. I remember at least five or six games as a kid where he would have had a near perfect game just to watch a shot from an impossible angle beat him tying the game.

 

Oh, so you're saying that Hasek pretty much had to play a perfect game for the most part because he knew his team couldn't score, and he did play a near perfect game, yet he lets in one goal and now it's somehow his fault for letting it in at the "worst possible time"?

 

So, he can pretty much play a near perfect game and then allow one goal, and the Sabres lose 1-0, Hasek should be criticized or whatever you want to call it for letting his only goal in at a poor time.

 

I'll address this more tomorrow when I have more time.

[EastCoastNiner]

Also, one other thing before I go into a longer post. It seems like your main argument is going to revolve around the "timing" of Hasek's rare goals that he allowed in the playoffs, which I strongly disagree with. For some like Roy that is thought to have been so dominant in the playoffs, which he was at times, with much better teams in front of him for the most part, you would think he would be blowing Hasek's playoff stats out of the water...........but he's not.

 

Roy:

 

2.30 gaa

.918 sv%

 

 

Hasek:

 

2.02 gaa

.925 sv%

 

 

Also, I don't think it's stupid to think Roy is better, but I do think Hasek was better.

[Universe]

Oh, so you're saying that Hasek pretty much had to play a perfect game for the most part because he knew his team couldn't score, and he did play a near perfect game, yet he lets in one goal and now it's somehow his fault for letting it in at the "worst possible time"?

 

So, he can pretty much play a near perfect game and then allow one goal, and the Sabres lose 1-0, Hasek should be criticized or whatever you want to call it for letting his only goal in at a poor time.

 

I'll address this more tomorrow when I have more time.

When you have a 1-1 tie going into the third and let a weak wrist shot go by it is your fault. It's why he never dominated the playoffs. Difference between him and Roy is because it's more than just stats and that is what made Roy dominant is his play when it absolutely mattered.

 

Roy in '93 was spectacular and some of his best saves came in overtime. I'm not saying Hasek isn't one of the top goalies ever to play but he also played behind a defense first squad most of his career and also couldn't get it done when his team needed it the most.

[EastCoastNiner]

When you have a 1-1 tie going into the third and let a weak wrist shot go by it is your fault. It's why he never dominated the playoffs. Difference between him and Roy is because it's more than just stats and that is what made Roy dominant is his play when it absolutely mattered.

 

Roy in '93 was spectacular and some of his best saves came in overtime. I'm not saying Hasek isn't one of the top goalies ever to play but he also played behind a defense first squad most of his career and also couldn't get it done when his team needed it the most.

 

People act like Roy was always a dominant performer in the playoffs, but that's just not true at all. He had quite a few TERRIBLE playoff performances, far worse than Haseks'.

 

I think your whole reasoning about letting in the "bad goal at the worst time" holds little water. If those goals were the third or fourth goals he allowed in a game that "cost" his team the game, then I could see your point. However, when those goals you are referring to are most likely the first or second goal he allowed in a game, I don't think your argument and reasoning holds any water.

 

I don't have a problem with you thinking Roy is better because you are obviously not alone, but I disagree with your reasoning about Hasek.

[Phightins]

When you have a 1-1 tie going into the third and let a weak wrist shot go by it is your fault. It's why he never dominated the playoffs. Difference between him and Roy is because it's more than just stats and that is what made Roy dominant is his play when it absolutely mattered.

 

Roy in '93 was spectacular and some of his best saves came in overtime. I'm not saying Hasek isn't one of the top goalies ever to play but he also played behind a defense first squad most of his career and also couldn't get it done when his team needed it the most.

 

Using logic like this, you can spin any Player X to be better than any Player Y.

 

Both guys played 15+ years in the NHL. Massive sample sizes. Certainly enough to eliminate any fluke factors, or factors like the stuff you're bringing up. Raw numbers should be enough to go on with a sample size like this, and I think it's pretty clear Hasek has the edge. But if you prefer Roy, as ECN said, that is fine. You are clearly not alone, I will just choose to disagree 100%.

 

Also maybe I am missing something, but Hasek's postseason numbers are pretty dominant.

Edited March 25, 2012 by Phightins

[Universe]

People act like Roy was always a dominant performer in the playoffs, but that's just not true at all. He had quite a few TERRIBLE playoff performances, far worse than Haseks'.

 

I think your whole reasoning about letting in the "bad goal at the worst time" holds little water. If those goals were the third or fourth goals he allowed in a game that "cost" his team the game, then I could see your point. However, when those goals you are referring to are most likely the first or second goal he allowed in a game, I don't think your argument and reasoning holds any water.

 

I don't have a problem with you thinking Roy is better because you are obviously not alone, but I disagree with your reasoning about Hasek.

Roy doesn't have four rings by accident. He made the saves in the playoffs that were needed. Hasek just didn't make the ones that matter. He was a heck of a goalie but that held him down his entire career.

 

Like you said everyone has opinions on the debate. I'm just going with what I witnessed.

[Sħãlïq™]

http://i44.tinypic.com/erbb6c.jpg

[Phightins]

Roy doesn't have four rings by accident. He made the saves in the playoffs that were needed. Hasek just didn't make the ones that matter. He was a heck of a goalie but that held him down his entire career.

 

Like you said everyone has opinions on the debate. I'm just going with what I witnessed.

 

Hypothetically....

 

Put Hasek on the teams Roy had, and vice versa. Same outcomes?

 

With that in mind, how is it fair to judge individual NHL players based on championships won?

[Universe]

Hypothetically....

 

Put Hasek on the teams Roy had, and vice versa. Same outcomes?

 

With that in mind, how is it fair to judge individual NHL players based on championships won?

Put Roy on Hasek's team and you could have better stats which is the main argument for Hasek.

 

How is it fair comparing players with championships? That is an absolutely silly question. The whole point I'm explaining to you is that. Hasek on Roy's teams could have the same outcomes as before as you need to stop the puck at the right moments to even get to the championship and that is what he did.

[EastCoastNiner]

Put Roy on Hasek's team and you could have better stats which is the main argument for Hasek.

 

How is it fair comparing players with championships? That is an absolutely silly question. The whole point I'm explaining to you is that. Hasek on Roy's teams could have the same outcomes as before as you need to stop the puck at the right moments to even get to the championship and that is what he did.

 

So, putting a goalie with worse playoff statistics by a decent margin on worse teams is going to increase his stats?

 

Help me understand...........

[Universe]

So, putting a goalie with worse playoff statistics by a decent margin on worse teams is going to increase his stats?

 

Help me understand...........

More shots equals better numbers. Digging too much into the stats when it really is about performance.

[EastCoastNiner]

More shots equals better numbers. Digging too much into the stats when it really is about performance.

 

And, Hasek outperformed Roy as evidenced by his Vezina trophies compared to Roy over their timespan playing during the same time..............

 

How many Hart Trophies does Roy have?

 

Look, Conn Smythe's are HUGE, but I put more emphasis on the Vezina and Hart Trophy as they are won over a much longer period of time. This is especially true when the goalie winning those awards also played great in the playoffs, but came up short.

[Universe]

And, Hasek outperformed Roy as evidenced by his Vezina trophies compared to Roy over their timespan playing during the same time..............

 

How many Hart Trophies does Roy have?

 

Look, Conn Smythe's are HUGE, but I put more emphasis on the Vezina and Hart Trophy as they are won over a much longer period of time. This is especially true when the goalie winning those awards also played great in the playoffs, but came up short.

If you would prefer having a team with those kinda trophies then go ahead.

[Phightins]

If you would prefer having a team with those kinda trophies then go ahead.

 

Key word is highlighted.

[Built Ford Tough]

Just to talk about something other than Hasek/Roy, does anybody else think it would be more beneficial to finish 2nd than 1st in the West?

 

Lets say Dallas/Phoenix win the Pacific Division (the other finishes 7th), one of San Jose/Los Angeles finishes 8th and St. Louis holds onto 1st and Canucks stay 2nd.

 

If you are Vancouver, your road to the Stanley Cup Final is:

 

1st round: Dallas/Phoenix

2nd round: Dallas/Phoenix or Chicago

3rd round St. Louis or Nashville/Detroit

 

Now, if you are St. Louis, your road is:

 

1st round: SJ/LA

2nd round: Detroit/Nashville

3rd round: Vancouver

 

Strictly based on matchups alone, I'd much rather have Vancouver's path than St. Louis'. I know there is the whole "you have to go through them eventually" but still, I'll take the easier road where you are less likely to be banged up (just look at Vancouver in the Final last year, they were just physically spent after 3 hard fought series) than having to go through what is to likely be 3 very physical, hard fought series.

[Phightins]

Just to talk about something other than Hasek/Roy, does anybody else think it would be more beneficial to finish 2nd than 1st in the West?

 

Lets say Dallas/Phoenix win the Pacific Division (the other finishes 7th), one of San Jose/Los Angeles finishes 8th and St. Louis holds onto 1st and Canucks stay 2nd.

 

If you are Vancouver, your road to the Stanley Cup Final is:

 

1st round: Dallas/Phoenix

2nd round: Dallas/Phoenix or Chicago

3rd round St. Louis or Nashville/Detroit

 

Now, if you are St. Louis, your road is:

 

1st round: SJ/LA

2nd round: Detroit/Nashville

3rd round: Vancouver

 

Strictly based on matchups alone, I'd much rather have Vancouver's path than St. Louis'. I know there is the whole "you have to go through them eventually" but still, I'll take the easier road where you are less likely to be banged up (just look at Vancouver in the Final last year, they were just physically spent after 3 hard fought series) than having to go through what is to likely be 3 very physical, hard fought series.

 

Agreed.

 

On a similar yet unrelated note, the divisions are so unbalanced this year, in both conferences. Anybody think it's time for the NHL to change the playoff format up? I don't want to eliminate divisions, since I understand why the league wants to keep some value attached to winning the division. However, maybe adopt the NBAs format? Maybe have it so the division winner is guaranteed a seed no lower than 4 or 5. This year, it looks like Nashville/Detroit and Philadelphia/Pittsburgh (or New York) will be first round matchups. Meaning that two top level teams will be knocked out in the first round. I know that this is unavoidable sometimes with the current playoff format, but still something to think about.

 

And yes I know, this post should be taken with a grain of salt coming from a bitter Flyers fan <_< .

Edited March 27, 2012 by Phightins

[Universe]

Key word is highlighted.

Not sure if serious...

[Check my Stats]

Just to talk about something other than Hasek/Roy, does anybody else think it would be more beneficial to finish 2nd than 1st in the West?

 

Lets say Dallas/Phoenix win the Pacific Division (the other finishes 7th), one of San Jose/Los Angeles finishes 8th and St. Louis holds onto 1st and Canucks stay 2nd.

 

If you are Vancouver, your road to the Stanley Cup Final is:

 

1st round: Dallas/Phoenix

2nd round: Dallas/Phoenix or Chicago

3rd round St. Louis or Nashville/Detroit

 

Now, if you are St. Louis, your road is:

 

1st round: SJ/LA

2nd round: Detroit/Nashville

3rd round: Vancouver

 

Strictly based on matchups alone, I'd much rather have Vancouver's path than St. Louis'. I know there is the whole "you have to go through them eventually" but still, I'll take the easier road where you are less likely to be banged up (just look at Vancouver in the Final last year, they were just physically spent after 3 hard fought series) than having to go through what is to likely be 3 very physical, hard fought series.

 

The playoffs aren't a tree format, it resets after each round with the best team playing the worst. You try and finish as best you can, because if you are first, you instantly play the worst team left in your conference.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Stanley_Cup_playoffs

 

In that example, Boston played the 6th seed in the 2nd round, not a 4/5 seed. As far as I know, the system hasn't changed.

 

This is why playoff hockey pools are such a bitch lol, because you know nothing about who your team will be playing beyond the first round until the games start.

 

For all i know you could just be assuming that the 2nd and 3rd seeds win, but I don't know. I would just try to finish as best as possible because you never know what will happen once that puck drops.

Edited March 27, 2012 by Check my Stats

[Phightins]

Not sure if serious...

 

I am wondering the same thing.