No worries about Hasek.

[Majsheppard 203]

BTW for anyone who insults Osgood and thinks he cannot win you seem to be missing some marbles. I did some math and I think it illustrates how solid we are in net.

This season Hasek only has a .009 save percentage advantage over Osgood. So out of 1000 shots Osgood will let in nine more goals. With the two goaltenders facing a combined 22.45 shots per game, that would mean nine more goals statistically would be let over 44.54 games!

With 28 games maximum in the playoffs, 5.66 goals extra would be let in assuming Osgood plays four rounds of 7 game series. This year we have scored on average 1.297 goals per game more then allowed, or we win our games by 1.297 goals on average. This goal differental would come out to allowing .202 goals more per game. Meaning we would still be in the black by 1.095 goals per game.

I don't worry that much about that. When Osgood won the cup with us, he let in 48 playoff goals in 22 games with a .925 save percentage. While Hasek let in 45 goals in 23 games with a .920 save percentage. The difference is quite small statistically.

I want to also remind those who had no faith in Holland, to learn your lession and keep a little faith for the Wizard.

Our goaltending is rarely the reason we get beat, it is our opponents goaltending that is....

[maltbymaniac 13]

BTW for anyone who insults Osgood and thinks he cannot win you seem to be missing some marbles. I did some math and I think it illustrates how solid we are in net.

This season Hasek only has a .009 save percentage advantage over Osgood. So out of 1000 shots Osgood will let in nine more goals. With the two goaltenders facing a combined 22.45 shots per game, that would mean nine more goals statistically would be let over 44.54 games!

With 28 games maximum in the playoffs, 5.66 goals extra would be let in assuming Osgood plays four rounds of 7 game series. This year we have scored on average 1.297 goals per game more then allowed, or we win our games by 1.297 goals on average. This goal differental would come out to allowing .202 goals more per game. Meaning we would still be in the black by 1.095 goals per game.

I don't worry that much about that. When Osgood won the cup with us, he let in 48 playoff goals in 22 games with a .925 save percentage. While Hasek let in 45 goals in 23 games with a .920 save percentage. The difference is quite small statistically.

I want to also remind those who had no faith in Holland, to learn your lession and keep a little faith for the Wizard.

Our goaltending is rarely the reason we get beat, it is our opponents goaltending that is....

bravo bravo couldnt have put it any better

[wingsfan40 0]

Interesting numbers...The question is what will we do after this season?

[Majsheppard 203]

Interesting numbers...The question is what will we do after this season?

Not my job to worry beyond the playoffs. Which I am very interested in getting to, I got a good feeling about this years squad. Knock on wood.

[Zetter is Better 0]

MATH ! I hate MATH. lol. Because I got a 54% in it

[HockeyCrazy3033 168]

Great post!

And anyone who knows about the Wings past playoffs will realize that they don't lose the series because of goaltending, but because of lack of scoring. Osgood is always at his best come playoff time.

Anyways, i'm sure Dom will fine, and if for some wacked out reason he is not, I have no doubt in my mind Ozzie could get the job done.

[BeeRYCE 2]

Interesting numbers...The question is what will we do after this season?

We shall cross that bridge when we get to it.

[KrazyGangsta 79]

i cant wait for the playoffs .... lol will i cry cause we won the cup or will i cry cause we go out AGAIN !!!

[Majsheppard 203]

Great post!

And anyone who knows about the Wings past playoffs will realize that they don't lose the series because of goaltending, but because of lack of scoring. Osgood is always at his best come playoff time.

Anyways, i'm sure Dom will fine, and if for some wacked out reason he is not, I have no doubt in my mind Ozzie could get the job done.

Thanks!

I told you I know a thing or two about hockey. I mean it too.

Of course I didn't expect you to disagree with me about how Osgood can get it done.

[Guest Crymson]

BTW for anyone who insults Osgood and thinks he cannot win you seem to be missing some marbles. I did some math and I think it illustrates how solid we are in net.

This season Hasek only has a .009 save percentage advantage over Osgood. So out of 1000 shots Osgood will let in nine more goals. With the two goaltenders facing a combined 22.45 shots per game, that would mean nine more goals statistically would be let over 44.54 games!

With 28 games maximum in the playoffs, 5.66 goals extra would be let in assuming Osgood plays four rounds of 7 game series. This year we have scored on average 1.297 goals per game more then allowed, or we win our games by 1.297 goals on average. This goal differental would come out to allowing .202 goals more per game. Meaning we would still be in the black by 1.095 goals per game.

I don't worry that much about that. When Osgood won the cup with us, he let in 48 playoff goals in 22 games with a .925 save percentage. While Hasek let in 45 goals in 23 games with a .920 save percentage. The difference is quite small statistically.

I want to also remind those who had no faith in Holland, to learn your lession and keep a little faith for the Wizard.

Our goaltending is rarely the reason we get beat, it is our opponents goaltending that is....

I appreciate your nod to the positive side, but I find it another unwarranted lash against Hasek that he has become, in your eyes, somewhat "unnecessary" to the team's success. I've taken several semesters of engineering calculus, calculus-based physics, etc--I know enough to get around, at least. Math--statistics, rather--does not work in the way you have presented. You have failed to take into account important outside factors. Chief amongst these this season are the number of Osgood's starts and the teams he has started against.

Ozzie has started 12 games. Of these, three have come against Chicago, two against the Blues, one against Columbus, two against the Kings, one against the Wild, one against the Stars, one against the Preds, and one against the Sharks. As you have it there, Ozzie has played 67% (8) of his games against teams who are amongst the worst in the NHL, and has won 6 (75%) of those (I did not include his loss against CBJ in which he replaced Dom). He has played 30% (4) of his starts against teams which could be considered "good" (though Minnesota would best be called average). In those contests, he lost against the Wild, lost against the Predators, and was yanked against the Sharks. He played a great game against Dallas.

These statistics show that, regardless of Osgood's save percentage, he has compiled 6 out of his seven victories (85%) against mediocre teams, while only winning 25% of his contests against worthy opponents, all of whom we might meet in the playoffs. Bad sign. Keep in mind that Ozzie's low number of starts does equal a low sample size, thus reducing the amount of data we have available to make a statistical judgment; it could possibly alter the data in either direction.

I do respect Osgood, and I certainly hope that he has the capability to pick up the slack if Dom sustains an injury. I have confidence in him, and do not subscribe to whatever idiotic track of thought which suggests that I must dislike one goaltender in supporting the other. Certainly there might be other extraneous factors on Osgood's record, amongst these that he hasn't had a tremendous amount of time to get his play up to speed. However, I find any notion that Osgood is even close to Dom's equal ludicrous, as do I find ridiculous the idea that we'll be able to work off of him in the playoffs at his current standard.

Like it or not, Dom is a big part of our success right now. His play has ranked around the best amongst all goalies in the NHL this season; he is not a simple replaceable part.

EDIT: I've compiled Dom's corresponding stats and matched them against Ozzie's below. All percentages are rounded to the nearest integer.

I included Ozzie and Dom's starts in which they were pulled (Ozzie's in San Jose, and Dom's in San Jose and Columbus) as losses for each of them, but I did not include the two games (CBJ and SJS) games in which Ozzie replaced Dom as losses for Ozzie.

Dom

Total games played against playoff-caliber teams: 30

Percentage of total games played: 65%

Victories: 20

Victory percentage: 67%

Percentage of total wins: 61%

Total games played against non-playoff-caliber teams: 16

Percentage of total games played: 35%

Victories: 13

Victory percentage: 69%

Percentage of total wins: 39%

Ozzie

Total games played against non-playoff-calibre teams: Eight

Percentage of total games played: 67%

Victories: Six

Victory percentage: 75%

Percentage of total wins: 86%

Total games played against playoff-calibre teams: Four

Percentage of total games played: 33%

Victories: One

Victory percentage: 25%

Percentage of total wins: 14%

Possible sources of error (plus many others; sports carry too many extraneous factors to list):

1) Ozzie's sample size is low both absolutely and relatively to to Dom's sample size.

2) The effect of injuries cannot be taken into account.

3) Differences in rosters across all games cannot be taken into account.

4) Which goals were caused purely by non-goalie error were not traced-- I did not take the time to evaluate every last goal. However, we can assume that such gaffes were equally distributed per each game and thus per each goalie's games played.

5) Goalies sometimes have bad games. This cannot be accounted for. Ozzie's lower number of games makes for a single bad game having a greater effect on his statistics. Then again, goalies sometimes play incredible games as well.

As a culmination of these sources of error, Ozzie's lower number of games against quality teams makes his overall performance against them, which is the most important factor, difficult to make any sort of statement on. He may have had a run of bad games against these teams or may have had no help, or he may simply have simply been outplayed.

However, the sheer number of extraneous factors inherent to sports likely makes any statistical analysis on the subject, including mine, so fraught with error as to be useless. In the end, we will only be able to make a true judgment after we see what actually happens.

Edited March 4, 2007 by Crymson

[puckloo39 5,686]

I appreciate your nod to the positive side, but I find it another unwarranted lash against Hasek that he has become, in your eyes, somewhat "unnecessary" to the team's success.

I've taken several semesters of engineering calculus, calculus-based physics, etc. Math doesn't work this way. Many factors intervene. Chief amongst these this season are the number of Osgood's starts and the teams he has started against. Ozzie has started 13 games. Of these, three have come against Chicago, two against the Blues, two against Columbus, two against the Kings, one against the Wild, one against the Stars, one against the Preds, and one against the Sharks.

As you have it there, Ozzie has played 70% (9) of his games against teams who are amongst the worst in the NHL, and has only won 6 (67%) of those. He has played 30% (4) of his starts against teams which could be considered "good" (though Minnesota would best be called average). In those contests, he lost against the Wild, lost against the Predators, and was yanked against the Sharks. He played a great game against Dallas.

These statistics show that, regardless of Osgood's save percentage, he has compiled 6 out of his seven victories (85%) against mediocre teams, while only winning 25% of his contests against those worthy opponents whom we might meet in the playoffs. Bad sign.

I do respect Osgood, and I certainly hope that he has the capability to pick up the slack if Dom sustains an injury. I have confidence in him, and do not subscribe to whatever idiotic track of thought which suggests that I must dislike one goaltender in supporting the other. Certainly there might be other extraneous factors on Osgood's record, amongst these that he hasn't had a tremendous amount of time to get his play up to speed. However, I find any notion that Osgood is even close to Dom's equal ludicrous, as do I find ridiculous the idea that we'll be able to work off of him in the playoffs at his current standard.

Like it or not, Dom is a big part of our success right now. His play has ranked around the best amongst all goalies in the NHL this season; he is not a simple replaceable part.

Beautiful post, my friend. I couldn't possibly agree more with every point you made. Bravo.

edit: if I could make it fit, I would make your post my signature!

Edited March 4, 2007 by puckloo39

[Offsides 21]

I find any notion that Osgood is even close to Dom's equal ludicrous, as do I find ridiculous the idea that we'll be able to work off of him in the playoffs at his current standard.

Like it or not, Dom is a big part of our success right now. His play has ranked around the best amongst all goalies in the NHL this season; he is not a simple replaceable part.

No doubt Dom is a big part of our success right now...as was Legace last year. As was Osgood when he was #1 here, and continues to be as backup as we continue to win with him in net.

But here's a really easy equation for you...Dom and Oz both have lead this team to a Cup, so they are both capable and 2 of the few netminders currently playing that have a Cup to their name.

Luckily, Dom will probably BE PERFECTLY fine and so we won't have to worry about it. But don't act like regular season success guarantees us playoff success.

Edited March 4, 2007 by Offsides

[puckloo39 5,686]

Far be it from me to put words in the mouth of someone as eloquent as Crymson, but I think he objects to any notion that blithely dismissing Hasek as a factor in winning the Cup is a mistake. Numbers only tell so much of the story, and he posed a convincing counterpoint to the initial post.

I suspect Crymson shares my dismay that there are folks in Wingland who believe Hasek had no impact on winning the Cup in 2002. That is ludicrous, but that is the way it is. I am sure some fans remember Ozzie letting in the GWG in the playoffs where we were ousted, which doesn't take away any contributions he made to the Cup win. It's just a matter of perception and personal opinion.

I think we are lucky to have 2 Stanley Cup winners in goal. And you are correct, Offsides, what happens in regular season is (usually) no indication of what the playoffs will bring... 2002 being the exception.

[zata40 3]

BTW for anyone who insults Osgood and thinks he cannot win you seem to be missing some marbles. I did some math and I think it illustrates how solid we are in net.

This season Hasek only has a .009 save percentage advantage over Osgood. So out of 1000 shots Osgood will let in nine more goals. With the two goaltenders facing a combined 22.45 shots per game, that would mean nine more goals statistically would be let over 44.54 games!

With 28 games maximum in the playoffs, 5.66 goals extra would be let in assuming Osgood plays four rounds of 7 game series. This year we have scored on average 1.297 goals per game more then allowed, or we win our games by 1.297 goals on average. This goal differental would come out to allowing .202 goals more per game. Meaning we would still be in the black by 1.095 goals per game.

I don't worry that much about that. When Osgood won the cup with us, he let in 48 playoff goals in 22 games with a .925 save percentage. While Hasek let in 45 goals in 23 games with a .920 save percentage. The difference is quite small statistically.

I want to also remind those who had no faith in Holland, to learn your lession and keep a little faith for the Wizard.

Our goaltending is rarely the reason we get beat, it is our opponents goaltending that is....

[WingMachine91 0]

couldnt agree more and do believe that if hasek goes down we are screwed. osgood is not the same goalie he was when he won the cup. even then he was pretty good, but not hasek quality. now osgood is average at best, and is in no way capable of carrying this team to a cup. the goals he lets in are pure crap. i have absoluty no confidence in him. he may have some good saves, but the goals he lets in are backbreaking, hes pretty much another manny now.

[SouthernWingsFan 854]

I suspect Crymson shares my dismay that there are folks in Wingland who believe Hasek had no impact on winning the Cup in 2002. That is ludicrous, but that is the way it is.

To think that people assume that Hasek had no impact in winning it all in 2002 is ludicrous as well.

[Offsides 21]

Let me assess the situation here:

OMGZ! Someone said something GOOD about Ozzie...OH NOES! QUICK say really good stuff about Hasek...we cannot stand for Ozzie to be as good as Hasek...even in...lyke knitting. Hasek IZ LYKE the best knitter EVER.

Far be it from me to put words in the mouth of someone as eloquent as Crymson, but I think he objects to any notion that blithely dismissing Hasek as a factor in winning the Cup is a mistake. Numbers only tell so much of the story, and he posed a convincing counterpoint to the initial post.

Numbers only tell part of the story. Ozzie has NEVER had any impact on the Wings at all...you are right. Well, except for a negative impact. Any blithe mention that Ozzie could even deserve to breath the same air as Hasek is just...preposterous.

BTW, I can use big words too, but I find that sarcasm just works better for me.

I am sure some fans remember Ozzie letting in the GWG in the playoffs where we were ousted, which doesn't take away any contributions he made to the Cup win. It's just a matter of perception and personal opinion.

Just for the record. Whoever is in the losing team's net always lets in the game winning goal. Too bad Hasek's never been ousted from the playoffs or you'd know that. Apparently, though, it doesn't have any bearing at all on his accomplishments, you felt that need to needle in that little point, no?

couldnt agree more and do believe that if hasek goes down we are screwed. osgood is not the same goalie he was when he won the cup. even then he was pretty good, but not hasek quality. now osgood is average at best, and is in no way capable of carrying this team to a cup. the goals he lets in are pure crap. i have absoluty no confidence in him. he may have some good saves, but the goals he lets in are backbreaking, hes pretty much another manny now.

Well, let's either hope that Hasek doesn't go down, or that it doesn't really matter what you think.

Edited March 4, 2007 by Offsides

[SouthernWingsFan 854]

Anyways, I'm not worried about either of them if they stay healthy.

Hasek's the #1 guy, no questions asked.

If he goes down, we have a backup goalie who has already won a Cup in the past, and while he probably shouldn't be relied on to carry a team or steal 4 games in a row, he is still a very capable goalie that could start for many teams still, in spite of the opinions of some people in here who hate him with a passion.

It's that simple, I don't know why this is even a major discussion.

[Seraph 240]

I appreciate your nod to the positive side, but I find it another unwarranted lash against Hasek that he has become, in your eyes, somewhat "unnecessary" to the team's success. I've taken several semesters of engineering calculus, calculus-based physics, etc--I know enough to get around, at least. Math--statistics, rather--does not work in the way you have presented. You have failed to take into account important outside factors. Chief amongst these this season are the number of Osgood's starts and the teams he has started against.

Ozzie has started 12 games. Of these, three have come against Chicago, two against the Blues, one against Columbus, two against the Kings, one against the Wild, one against the Stars, one against the Preds, and one against the Sharks. As you have it there, Ozzie has played 67% (8) of his games against teams who are amongst the worst in the NHL, and has won 6 (75%) of those (I did not include his loss against CBJ in which he replaced Dom). He has played 30% (4) of his starts against teams which could be considered "good" (though Minnesota would best be called average). In those contests, he lost against the Wild, lost against the Predators, and was yanked against the Sharks. He played a great game against Dallas.

These statistics show that, regardless of Osgood's save percentage, he has compiled 6 out of his seven victories (85%) against mediocre teams, while only winning 25% of his contests against worthy opponents, all of whom we might meet in the playoffs. Bad sign. Keep in mind that Ozzie's low number of starts does equal a low sample size, thus reducing the amount of data we have available to make a statistical judgment; it could possibly alter the data in either direction.

I do respect Osgood, and I certainly hope that he has the capability to pick up the slack if Dom sustains an injury. I have confidence in him, and do not subscribe to whatever idiotic track of thought which suggests that I must dislike one goaltender in supporting the other. Certainly there might be other extraneous factors on Osgood's record, amongst these that he hasn't had a tremendous amount of time to get his play up to speed. However, I find any notion that Osgood is even close to Dom's equal ludicrous, as do I find ridiculous the idea that we'll be able to work off of him in the playoffs at his current standard.

Like it or not, Dom is a big part of our success right now. His play has ranked around the best amongst all goalies in the NHL this season; he is not a simple replaceable part.

EDIT: I've compiled Dom's corresponding stats and matched them against Ozzie's below. All percentages are rounded to the nearest integer.

I included Ozzie and Dom's starts in which they were pulled (Ozzie's in San Jose, and Dom's in San Jose and Columbus) as losses for each of them, but I did not include the two games (CBJ and SJS) games in which Ozzie replaced Dom as losses for Ozzie.

Dom

Total games played against playoff-caliber teams: 30

Percentage of total games played: 65%

Victories: 20

Victory percentage: 67%

Percentage of total wins: 61%

Total games played against non-playoff-caliber teams: 16

Percentage of total games played: 35%

Victories: 13

Victory percentage: 69%

Percentage of total wins: 39%

Ozzie

Total games played against non-playoff-calibre teams: Eight

Percentage of total games played: 67%

Victories: Six

Victory percentage: 75%

Percentage of total wins: 86%

Total games played against playoff-calibre teams: Four

Percentage of total games played: 33%

Victories: One

Victory percentage: 25%

Percentage of total wins: 14%

Possible sources of error (plus many others; sports carry too many extraneous factors to list):

1) Ozzie's sample size is low both absolutely and relatively to to Dom's sample size.

2) The effect of injuries cannot be taken into account.

3) Differences in rosters across all games cannot be taken into account.

4) Which goals were caused purely by non-goalie error were not traced-- I did not take the time to evaluate every last goal. However, we can assume that such gaffes were equally distributed per each game and thus per each goalie's games played.

5) Goalies sometimes have bad games. This cannot be accounted for. Ozzie's lower number of games makes for a single bad game having a greater effect on his statistics. Then again, goalies sometimes play incredible games as well.

As a culmination of these sources of error, Ozzie's lower number of games against quality teams makes his overall performance against them, which is the most important factor, difficult to make any sort of statement on. He may have had a run of bad games against these teams or may have had no help, or he may simply have simply been outplayed.

However, the sheer number of extraneous factors inherent to sports likely makes any statistical analysis on the subject, including mine, so fraught with error as to be useless. In the end, we will only be able to make a true judgment after we see what actually happens.

Bravo, on this reply. As I was reading the original message, I was thinking the exact same thing. As a back-up, your minimum duty is to at least match the winning numbers of the starter. If you're truly better or on the same level as the starter, then you should have much better numbers since you're playing the lower tier teams. In this case, Osgood is doing the minimum. Hasek is the one out there earning the difficult points against the hard teams.

You can also think of it like this: Osgood is not as good of a goalie as Hasek because (even though they have similar save percentages) the quality of the shots Osgood has faced have been lower than Hasek's.

Edited March 4, 2007 by The Nephilim

[Guest Crymson]

Let me assess the situation here:

OMGZ! Someone said something GOOD about Ozzie...OH NOES! QUICK say really good stuff about Hasek...we cannot stand for Ozzie to be as good as Hasek...even in...lyke knitting. Hasek IZ LYKE the best knitter EVER.

Numbers only tell part of the story. Ozzie has NEVER had any impact on the Wings at all...you are right. Well, except for a negative impact. Any blithe mention that Ozzie could even deserve to breath the same air as Hasek is just...preposterous.

BTW, I can use big words too, but I find that sarcasm just works better for me.

Just for the record. Whoever is in the losing team's net always lets in the game winning goal. Too bad Hasek's never been ousted from the playoffs or you'd know that. Apparently, though, it doesn't have any bearing at all on his accomplishments, you felt that need to needle in that little point, no?

Well, let's either hope that Hasek doesn't go down, or that it doesn't really matter what you think.

I think you're seeing things in black and white here. Saying good things about Osgood? I don't think anyone argues. Disagreeing with the notion that the team would be fine without Hasek, because Osgood is around to replace him, it hardly shooting down a compliment for Osgood.

Anyways, I'm not worried about either of them if they stay healthy.

Hasek's the #1 guy, no questions asked.

If he goes down, we have a backup goalie who has already won a Cup in the past, and while he probably shouldn't be relied on to carry a team or steal 4 games in a row, he is still a very capable goalie that could start for many teams still, in spite of the opinions of some people in here who hate him with a passion.

It's that simple, I don't know why this is even a major discussion.

I think some misperceive a comment along the lines of "Osgood is not as proficient a goalie as Hasek" as meaning "Osgood sucks." I believe Hasek is a better goalie. Does that mean I believe Osgood is worthless? Does it mean that I hate him? No and no. It means only that I feel Hasek is better for the job than is Oz.

The bloated post I've made above did not carry the intention of squelching any hope that Ozzie could pick up the slack if needed. I certainly hope he can and, should such a need arise, I will keep the faith, root for him, and hope for the best. I intended, as stated, to combat the notion that Hasek is somehow unnecessary; that Hasek is someone who be replaced with no repercussions should the need arise; that Hasek has not been a star player for us this season.

Edited March 4, 2007 by Crymson

[puckloo39 5,686]

Let me assess the situation here:

OMGZ! Someone said something GOOD about Ozzie...OH NOES! QUICK say really good stuff about Hasek...we cannot stand for Ozzie to be as good as Hasek...even in...lyke knitting. Hasek IZ LYKE the best knitter EVER.

Numbers only tell part of the story. Ozzie has NEVER had any impact on the Wings at all...you are right. Well, except for a negative impact. Any blithe mention that Ozzie could even deserve to breath the same air as Hasek is just...preposterous.

BTW, I can use big words too, but I find that sarcasm just works better for me.

Just for the record. Whoever is in the losing team's net always lets in the game winning goal. Too bad Hasek's never been ousted from the playoffs or you'd know that. Apparently, though, it doesn't have any bearing at all on his accomplishments, you felt that need to needle in that little point, no?

Well, let's either hope that Hasek doesn't go down, or that it doesn't really matter what you think.

Clearly, sarcasm is a fine weapon. Whatever floats your boat.

I never said Ozzie had no impact or a negative impact on the Wings. You decided that's what I said. I said Hasek had a big impact on the Wings win in 2002. That's a fact which has nothing to do with Ozzie.

I didn't mention the GWG as a knock on Ozzie -- just saying that that is what some people remember, rather than his accomplishments. Which is too bad. You need to step back and not assume that I am zinging Ozzie everytime I mention anything, it's your interpretation that made it negative.

It's Saturday and Ozzie's not in goal. Wait, there's no game today.

For the record, I know Sabre fans who still just remember Dom letting in the GWG vs the Pens in 2001... that's all they remember. Not Hasek carrying the team to playoff after playoff, including the finals in 1999. They forget the fact that Hasek was the franchise in the 90's. So, it goes both ways. You don't need to get all wound up because it's me saying whatever I have to say. I am clearly not the only Hasek fan here.

[SouthernWingsFan 854]

I think some misperceive a comment along the lines of "Osgood is not as proficient a goalie as Hasek" as meaning "Osgood sucks." I believe Hasek is a better goalie. Does that mean I believe Osgood is worthless? Does it mean that I hate him? No and no. It means only that I feel Hasek is better for the job than is Oz.

Nothing to do with Hasek vs. Osgood IMO. There's no comparison between the two for better/worse when both are equally healthy.

I'm talking about the people who just obsessively hate him only from a few soft long-shot goals back in the day and don't give any other reasons to dislike him because of that.

[Majsheppard 203]

I just don't understand why a defense for Chris Osgood being a very capable is see as an attack on Hasek.

I don't understand how it has to be one or the other. Really what is that all about.

As for Crymson's use of Osgood having alot fewer games as a reason for throwing out the numbers, I would rather question why he doesn't get any chances.

I always think of Goaltenders as replaceable parts, because they are the last line of defense. A good team will keep the puck out of scoring postions and help the goaltender keep low percentage shots the only option.

Good postioning is 90 percent of the game and rebound control is another five percent. I still think every goaltender we have played the past decade could win a championship with our teams provided they received the right help.

The point of the thread was to try and stop people from arguing against Osgood as it silly. We are luck to have two of the best statistical goaltenders of their generation on the same team, and not have to pay them a kings ransom as they are considered past their prime. Anyone who have watched them this year, knows they are not. There are some numbers to back it up.

That is my point.

[Offsides 21]

I think you're seeing things in black and white here. Saying good things about Osgood? I don't think anyone argues. Disagreeing with the notion that the team would be fine without Hasek, because Osgood is around to replace him, it hardly shooting down a compliment for Osgood.

No, it's like...someone said something positive about Ozzie and you felt the need to post a freaking 2 page report on how Ozzie's not as good as Dom, even though everyone knows that Hasek's one of the best ever. What is the point? Seriously.

And then, Puckaloo just likes to poke me with a stick. No one's said bad stuff about Hasek here, there's not need to drag in DNA evidence that Hasek is higher on the evolutionary scale than Osgood. GRAR.

[Seraph 240]

I just don't understand why a defense for Chris Osgood being a very capable is see as an attack on Hasek.

Because you tried to compare Osgood's numbers to Hasek's and compared them using faulty statistical logic. See my post above. Your "defense" of Osgood was misleading.