eva unit zero

Grant Fuhr was the starter ahead of Hasek in 1992-93. Hasek stole the starting job after Fuhr went down injured, and Fuhr was traded. Fuhr tweaked his style, rehabbed his injuries, and finished ahead of Hasek in Vezina voting in 1995-96 and was the top goalie in Hart voting that season. Biron's best years statistically came as Hasek's backup; he has never proven himself to be more than a journeyman starter at the NHL level and the fact that his stats were below Hasek's is hardly proof of Hasek being the greatest goalie ever. Roloson, Shields, Legace are also in this category; the four of them bounced around from team to team trying to prove they can hold onto a starter job; but they haven't been able to do so on a team that has also had any kind of success. Biron just came off the best season of his career and might be putting it all together, but the fact remains that he started less than 60 games behind the same Buffalo teams Hasek played for, and all before his 24th birthday. It's like asking why Biron didn't drag the Sabres to the Finals in 2002, and using that alone to say Hasek is the greatest goalie of all time. Biron has yet to be a full season starter for a playoff team for two consecutive seasons; he has proven nothing. Quality backup was an accurate description.

IMHO, Yzerman should have won in 97 and 02. That said, Lidstrom and Vernon were reasonable picks those years. Vernon had amazing stats in 97 and Lidstrom was the best player on the team in 2002, and played a significant role in the victory. The Wings did not win despite Osgood in 1998; Osgood at 2nd in voting was closer to the Conn Smythe in both 1998 and 2008 than Hasek was in 2002. Also: When I stated Hasek's save percentage was inflated in his Buffalo years...that doesn't mean he would have been hovering around .900 on most teams and was around .935 on Buffalo. I meant he was one of the top three goaltenders every year, and the style his team played added some padding to his numbers beyond his performance. I can't realistically estimate how much his numbers were padded, but my statement is to assume that if we had two equally talented goaltenders, and one played in a system that had the same effect as Buffalo's had for Hasek, that he would have better numbers because he would not be seeing any more difficult opportunities but would be making more saves. Likely this kind of effect would have been at most a .010 or .015 pad at the extreme range, probably less. Hasek still probably wins at least three Vezinas without it and is still compared to Roy...I just think his save percentages are inflated. The fact that his save percentage dipped down to .907 in 2003-04 and then rose up to .925 when he went to Ottawa and a different defensive scheme, before dropping back down to .913 and then .902 in the seasons following after he left Ottawa and returned to Detroit suggest that defensive schemes can have an effect on your save percentage and that the effect is that a defense in which the objective is simply limiting chances, save percentage will go down because overall chances will go down. In a defense in which the objective is limiting the QUALITY of those chances, save percentage will increase because the number of chances will be higher, but the quality will be lower for most chances.

I watched far more than 20 Buffalo games during Hasek's prime live, TYVM.

Hasek was not more important in turning the tide in Round 1 than: Steve Yzerman. The captain, amazing performances and leadership willed the team to win. Nicklas Lidstrom. Flawless defense and timely offense provided important momentum and gave the Wings a chance to come back when they had their backs against the wall. Hasek was important. All players on a Cup winning team are. But Hasek was not the MOST important player. And the suggestion that because they didn't win the next year without him means he should have won the Smythe is ludicrous, because then Vernon's Smythe should be taken away as the Wings did win the next year without him. Both Yzerman and Lidstrom were far more important than Hasek in Round one in 2002...and both Vernon and Osgood were more important during their Cup runs. You can be important without being MOST important. I guess I just don't like the fact that people like to say '<insert goaltender here> is only good because he has a good team in front of him' be it Osgood, Brodeur, or someone else and then turn around and say 'Man, that Hasek got 6 shutouts during that Cup run, he's like OMFGWTFBBQ!' when he has the two best defensemen in the league at the time and one of the best young defensemen, the best defensive team, and a bunch of top defensive forwards. I suppose you could call it my sense if fairness...if you are going to criticize one player for the quality of his teammates...the same standards must be applied to everyone else. Otherwise, it's meaningless and pointless.

Anaheim 2003 was a team that was built around its goaltender and a defense that was based on limiting their opponents to the perimeter, and preventing screens. They did not score much and were concerned primarily with preventing their opponents from scoring. The same description can be applied to the Buffalo teams Hasek played for. Both teams were very limited in their offense because they only had a handful of players who could be considered average or better offensively, but most of the team was defensively skilled and almost every line combination was a checking line. Players like Steve Thomas and Michael Peca exemplify this, as they were among the better offensive players on the two teams but were generally considered 'defensive grinders' who happened to be capable of a bit of offense. And what, exactly, about Hasek's 07-08 was underrated? He was somewhere between 25th and 35th among the league's goalies if you ranked their performance this season. He officially lost his job in Round 1 when he was pulled, but he was outplayed by Osgood all season. Osgood was, IMHO, one of the five best goaltenders in the league this past season.

Way to contradict yourself. Brodeur has an easy job because he only faces a few shots, but Hasek's numbers are poor because he only faces a few shots. Osgood also, assumedly, has an easy job from facing so few shots? You do realize that Brodeur had the best numbers last season and won the Vezina based on numbers, and the only reason he wasn't the first-team All-Star was the inexplicable Nabokov love-fest despite Nabokov's considerably worse numbers over the same number of games on a better team?

I've always felt Hasek's save percentage in Buffalo was an overrated number; here's why: Hasek faced a lot of shots in Buffalo...but the number of shots he faced was artificially high. Buffalo's defensive scheme was an unorthodox and highly effective unit that did a very good job of forcing the opposing team to the perimeter, and allowed the opposing team low quality perimeter shots. The defense would clear any potential screens from the goaltender's line of sight, making most shots 'easy' stops. Anaheim used the same sort of tactics to overcome the Wings in 2003. Because Buffalo allowed a high number of shots and did not score much, people assumed they had poor defense and Hasek was the team's only good player when the reality was that they had a great goaltender AND excellent team defense, but used an unorthodox defensive style. Hasek is probably one of the ten or fifteen best goaltenders ever...but he's not in the top three. For clarity's sake, I don't rank Roy there either. Roy gets ranked as a top-three goaltender based primarily on his Conn Smythe trophies...a trophy which didn't exist until ten years after Sawchuk's prime, and one he would likely have won at least once. As far as the "Hasek should have won the Smythe in 2002" argument is concerned...no. Hasek was about 6th in line to win the Smythe in 2002. Lidstrom, Yzerman, Fedorov, Chelios, Hull, and maybe THEN Hasek. It's hard to argue a goaltender as the most valuable player on a team when he has not only the league's best defenseman, but also the league's second best defenseman in front of him. To argue Hasek as more valuable than any of those five is to not have watched that playoff run because Hasek had his moments, but he also had some pretty major breakdowns. The five players I mentioned all came through like the stars they were at the time.

Glenn Hall was the first great butterfly goaltender. Not Patrick Roy. Just like how Jacques Plante was NOT the first goaltender to wear a mask; it was Clint Benedict.

I guess I interpreted it as a 'Holland has signed most of next year's roster and only has room enough to sign one of Hossa or Franzen. Who should he sign' type question rather than a 'Holland has a whole bunch of free agents and has to figure out who he can sign by deciding between Hossa and Franzen' because the second question implies that more players might be lost, and then it isn't just a Hossa v. Franzen question. The original question asked was a simple single player question, which fits more with the first interpretation. The OP said he hoped the Wings could keep all three of Z/Franzen/Hossa, but felt that it might come down to a decision between Franzen or Hossa, and asked for opinions on the choice between the two players. I've already stated I don't think it's likely that the Wings can keep Hossa under the cap with Z's contract, but if it comes down to that choice between Hossa and Franzen, the Wings keep Hossa 10 out of 10 times. No-brainer. It's like asking who do you keep from the 1995-96 Wings...Sergei Fedorov or Keith Primeau? One is a young power forward with plenty of skill who has shown signs of blossoming...the other is one of the best offensive players and two-way forwards in the world. They are about the same age. Who do you keep? Looking to Scotty Bowman for the answer, you keep the elite two-way forward; even if you have more of them. You don't give up elite two-way players for those that aren't if you don't have to.

Vanek's contract is front-loaded, and his cap number is just barely over 7 million. Given that he was arguably the Sabres' best player when he signed the deal, and two other Sabres forwards signed bigger deals the same summer (and have performed worse since) it's hard to call out Vanek as overpaid without calling out Drury and Briere. Vanek is also the only one of them who had yet to hit his prime, so a large contract for him was the most justifiable based on potential future gains. Hossa has already proven he is not just out for the cash; He wants to win in a system that suits his talents.

The question was put out there as a 'you can keep the rest of the team together, but can only keep one of these two.' That implies that all salary cap concerns are met; that the only reason we have to choose between the two is because we cannot fit both underneath the cap. In such a situation...the smart thing for every GM that has ever existed to do is to take Hossa over Franzen. If it were Hossa vs Franzen AND Hudler, or something like that, it wouldn't be as clear cut because more players are involved over a wider range of ages, and so you have to consider more factors. But Hossa is better now and will be better in the future than Franzen will ever be, and he's only a year older. If the decision is made as a one-for-one swap...there's no debate. Hossa will always be the better choice.

Why would the existence of a cap make the players' abilities different? If the existence of a cap changed ANYTHING, it would make it 'Hossa v Franzen+Hudler' or something like that...hence my point about it coming down to Hossa/Franzen. If it comes down to a Hossa/Franzen choice UNDER THE CAP, anyone who chooses to keep Franzen over Hossa is an idiot. Just for reference everyone....you realize they're basically the same age, right?

Ok, I'll rephrase. Fischer was the #3 defenseman on the Stanley Cup champions at an age when Ericsson WAS A FORWARD.

If we can keep Hossa and only lose Franzen, the choice is Hossa. Hossa is better offensively, better defensively, and while he may not be a big bruising forward, he's pretty strong and able to use it. If it ultimately comes down to 'Hossa or Franzen' as the choice...anyone who doesn't choose Hossa is an idiot, a homer, or both.

You mean Drew Henson.

The 'Talent spread too thin' argument doesn't hold water when referencing the 90s, Shoreline, In 1989, 95% of NHLers were Canadian in a 21-team NHL. By 2000, only 55% of NHLers were Canadian in a 30-team NHL. Assuming the same number of Canadian players, it should have been closer to 67%. If the talent was diluted by expansion, we'd have seen more than that. But we see fewer. Significantly fewer. Meaning the influx of Europeans and rise of Americans made the talent pool more than large enough to handle it. Now, the 70s and 80s are another story; from 1972 to 1991 there were at least 21 Major Pro hockey teams at all times that were filled almost exclusively with Canadians. Most diluted era in NHL history.

The only reasonable way it could work is if the league started with a large European division of no fewer than 20 teams, and ran it akin to Major League baseball. The two leagues would play no interleague games, or a few interleague games in a single extended trip followed by a homestand (or the reverse) and the playoffs would see the league champions play for the Cup.

It's probably test messages accidentally being sent to everyone. I experienced this with Pizza Hut's online ordering system a couple months back.

Well, it's pretty obvious why Yzerman's coming back. The Wings need to drop someone to clear some cap space, but don't want to get rid of Lilja. So the obvious answer is to trade Lidstrom for cap space. Zetterberg and Datsyuk have said they aren't ready for the 'C' so the only answer is to bring Stevie back. Yzerman will center Hossa, because ultimately we want to have a guy who has gotten 90 assists in that spot..and well, that's not Datsyuk. Come on guys...Yzerman is not coming back.

It's designed the way it is because that way, a 1.0 is the best you can possibly do, always, in any year. Your vote totals are expressed, basically, as a percentage of the possible amount of votes you could have received. Using the current 10-7-5-3-1 point system that has been in place since the early 90s or so, the shares will always add up to 2.6 because each ballot adds up to 26 points and first place votes are worth 10. The previous system was 5-3-1, so each ballot was worth 9 points and the total of all shares would have been 1.8.

Are you counting cap hits or salary? Because Meech has a two year deal that has him making the league minimum this year and next; but the league minimum goes up so his cap hit is $483k, not $475k. If you are counting salary you will also notice differences with Franzen, Filppula, Maltby, Hudler, Draper, Zetterberg, Cleary, Osgood, and Kopecky.

Then hopefully when the Wings have to either give up Hossa or give up Franzen-plus as it gets towards net summer, people don't start acting like asses about it as that's the only solution that solves it without losing any of those players.

I added the cap hits of Quincey and Chelios to the 22 players whose cap hits are listed here as 'on the roster' players. If those values are incorrect, then my values also, of course, would be.

$500k sounds even better. Doesn't mean it was gonna happen.

That's what most would have said about Hossa signing here in the first place. That's why it's called IDEAL. It's like the men's 4x100m relay at the Olympics. The Americans overcame an 'insurmountable' lead held by the French team and FIVE teams broke the world record. It happened, but the true story went beyond what would have been considered 'plausible' as a prediction. I expect Hossa to be gone after this season...but it's possible that he isn't. Likelihood suggests that one, possibly both, of Franzen and Hudler are gone if Hossa stays though. Hence the 'ideal' of being able to retain them all.