The Best in History?

[eva unit zero 271]

Chris Osgood:

Date Opp Min W L OTL GA GAA SO Shots SV SV%

Oct. 10 CGY 60 1 0 0 2 2.00 0 21 19 .905 (+0.41)

Oct. 14 LA 60 1 0 0 1 1.00 0 28 27 .964 (+1.57)

Oct. 18 SJ 60 1 0 0 2 2.00 0 25 23 .920 (+0.45)

Oct. 26 SJ 60 1 0 0 1 1.00 0 11 10 .909 (+1.42)

Oct. 28 VAN 60 1 0 0 2 2.00 0 29 27 .931 (+0.48)

Oct. 30 EDM 60 1 0 0 1 1.00 0 16 15 .938 (+1.50)

Nov. 1 CGY 60 1 0 0 1 1.00 0 27 26 .963 (+1.57)

Nov. 7 NAS 65 1 0 0 2 1.85 0 30 28 .933 (+0.64)

Nov. 11 CHI 60 0 1 0 3 3.05 0 27 24 .889 (-0.68)

Nov. 13 STL 24 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 4 4 1.000 (+2.67)

Nov. 18 CBJ 65 1 0 0 4 3.69 0 40 36 .900 (-1.29)

Nov. 21 STL 60 1 0 0 0 0.00 1 12 12 1.000 (+2.67)

Nov. 24 CBJ 65 0 0 1 2 1.85 0 28 26 .929 (+0.63)

Nov. 27 CGY 60 1 0 0 3 3.02 0 22 19 .864 (-0.72)

Nov. 29 TBY 60 1 0 0 2 2.00 0 23 21 .913 (+0.43)

Dec. 1 PHX 60 1 0 0 2 2.00 0 26 24 .923 (+0.46)

Dec. 10 NAS 60 1 0 0 1 1.00 0 31 30 .968 (+1.58)

Dec. 15 FLA 60 1 0 0 2 2.00 0 35 33 .943 (+0.51)

Dec. 20 STL 59 0 1 0 3 3.06 0 24 21 .875 (-0.73)

Dec. 26 STL 60 1 0 0 0 0.00 0 20 20 1.000 (+2.67)

Dec. 29 PHX 60 1 0 0 2 2.00 0 34 32 .941 (+0.51)

Jan. 2 DAL 60 1 0 0 1 1.00 0 24 23 .958 (+1.55) Jan. 6 CHI 60 1 0 0 1 1.00 0 20 19 .950 (+1.53)

Total breakdown:

10 'great' games

9 'good' games

3 'bad' games

1 'awful' game

Those numbers look even better when you consider he posted a .900 on 40 shots in his only 'awful' game.

[imisssergei 0]

I'd hardly call a GAA of 2.11 mediocre. And while save percentage is a better indication I think, remember when he was only saving about 85 - 87% of his shots this season? Probably was even worse to start. Well now it's at .900 flat, and that seems to be a a fair standard to see if a goalie is doing well. Hasek can certainly improve on that, but where he started this season struggling with save percentage, he's certainly picked up his play to make it better over time. Sure a few shutouts can certainly make the numbers improve more quickly, but it's not like you go from saving 85% - 90% of shots in a season overnight, the same with your GAA going from 2.75 to 2.00.

A 2.11 GAA is good. But you have to take into consideration the team he is playing for. There is no denying that he played terrible the first 3 months. Any starting quality goaltender should be at around the 2.00 GAA while playing on this Wings team. The SV% is much more telling as to how he has played this season. In comparison with goalies who have played 19 or more games this season, Dom ranks tied for 29th in SV%. That is awful. Couple that with his acceptable GAA, and to call his stats mediocre is being polite.

[J-Swift 0]

A 2.11 GAA is good. But you have to take into consideration the team he is playing for. There is no denying that he played terrible the first 3 months. Any starting quality goaltender should be at around the 2.00 GAA while playing on this Wings team. The SV% is much more telling as to how he has played this season. In comparison with goalies who have played 19 or more games this season, Dom ranks tied for 29th in SV%. That is awful. Couple that with his acceptable GAA, and to call his stats mediocre is being polite.

Well, seeing as the three month mark of the season was less than a week ago, I have to disagree with you that Dom played awful for the first three months of the season. Furthermore, I think you're setting the bar a little high when you refer to a 2.11 GAA as merely "acceptable". That's actually better than the goals-against average he had in '02. And although I'll certainly agree that his save percentage is hardly "Hasek-like", it's a great deal better than it was just a couple weeks ago, which is a testament to how good he's played lately. I would have a tough time imagining Dom finishing with a .900 SV%.

I certainly wouldn't deny that Hasek had a very poor start. Dom has often been a slow starter, but this season was particularly bad, and I think his little hip injury could have had something to do with it. However, I think it's pretty clear that Hasek has been really good this past month or so, and seems to have put the first part of the season behind him.

[imisssergei 0]

Well, seeing as the three month mark of the season was less than a week ago, I have to disagree with you that Dom played awful for the first three months of the season. Furthermore, I think you're setting the bar a little high when you refer to a 2.11 GAA as merely "acceptable". That's actually better than the goals-against average he had in '02. And although I'll certainly agree that his save percentage is hardly "Hasek-like", it's a great deal better than it was just a couple weeks ago, which is a testament to how good he's played lately. I would have a tough time imagining Dom finishing with a .900 SV%.

I certainly wouldn't deny that Hasek had a very poor start. Dom has often been a slow starter, but this season was particularly bad, and I think his little hip injury could have had something to do with it. However, I think it's pretty clear that Hasek has been really good this past month or so, and seems to have put the first part of the season behind him.

While Hasek has played better in the last, 8 or so games, overall the first 3 months of the season were awful. Had he been a true number one for the Wings, I shutter thinking about his stats.

Again, 2.11 on this Wings team isn't very good. There are no two ways around it.

[Guest EZBAKETHAGANGSTA]

Wow, impressive work. One thing that of course is not accounted for is the fact that all goals against the goalie are weighted with "equal blame": how much of it was the goalie's fault and how much of it was the fault of the defense. There are situations where the goalie simply cannot be blamed. One game Dom gets three goals against, but one was flukey adn two were kicked in By Lids and Rafalski. That probably comes up as a "poor" game for Hasek.

OSGOOD WAS IN NET FOR THE FLUKE GAME

[SouthernWingsFan 854]

While Hasek has played better in the last, 8 or so games, overall the first 3 months of the season were awful. Had he been a true number one for the Wings, I shutter thinking about his stats.

Again, 2.11 on this Wings team isn't very good. There are no two ways around it.

I understand where you are coming from with your last couple of posts, but I got to re-emphasize J-Swift saying that you are setting the bar too high. 2.11 is good on any team and good for any 'tender in my mind regardless of if your team is great or stinks up the joint overall on defense.

In my mind you typically have a GAA below 2.25, you are usually playing stellar. 2.25 - 2.50, you could certainly improve, but it's not like you are costing your team all that much at least on the surface when scoring overall is up since the trap days of the late 90s/early 00s and with the new rules (though not at a brisk pace obviously).

[imisssergei 0]

I understand where you are coming from with your last couple of posts, but I got to re-emphasize J-Swift saying that you are setting the bar too high. 2.11 is good on any team and good for any 'tender in my mind regardless of if your team is great or stinks up the joint overall on defense.

In my mind you typically have a GAA below 2.25, you are usually playing stellar. 2.25 - 2.50, you could certainly improve, but it's not like you are costing your team all that much at least on the surface when scoring overall is up since the trap days of the late 90s/early 00s and with the new rules (though not at a brisk pace obviously).

But if you put any other starting tender on the Wings he has a sub 2.00 GAA. Dom should have a better GAA. There is no way Dom has the same GAA playing for Boston. Look at Thomas. His GAA is 2.23. But his SV% is tied with Osgood for best in the league at .932. If Thomas plays for Detroit, his GAA drop from 2.23 to a 1.57, good enough for best in the NHL. Remarkable, isn't it? If you put Hasek in Boston, his GAA shoots up to 3.13!!!!

[imisssergei 0]

Just for further comparison, if Osgood played on the Bruins, he GAA would be 2.17, still good enough for 8th overall.

[toby91_ca 620]

Just for further comparison, if Osgood played on the Bruins, he GAA would be 2.17, still good enough for 8th overall.

For fun, let's just ignore the fact that saying "if Osgood played for Boston, his GAA would be "x"" is completely unsupportable.

I'd like to understand how you have done your calculations, because you are obviously making a mistake someone. How is it possible that Thomas goes to Detroit and has a better GAA than Osgood, but at the same time, if Osgood went to the Bruins, he'd have a better GAA than Thomas. If it actually worked that way, I think the Wings and Bruins would be better off if they just swapped these guys, both teams win.

[Opie 308]

Just for further comparison, if Osgood played on the Bruins, he GAA would be 2.17, still good enough for 8th overall.

Instead Tim Thomas is there and is highly ranked and is actually first in SV%.

Osgood and Hasek are the best combo going on right now in the NHL and probably the best in quite a few years, but saying the are the best ever is a little bit of a homerism. Seriously look at the names thrown around this thread.

Plus if you consider it stat wise, Brodeur, luongo, and the others that play 60 games plus whatever scrub back up you can find would be better than those two.

Seriously 97-98, Brodeur and I were a better combo, even if my SV% was .195 and My GAA 9.63 (yes I know they are inversed trying to prove a point) he and I would still be a better combo. Because that year he had the following stats

43-17-8 (not stellar but we are getting to that part)

GAA 1.89

SV% .917

GA 130

Shots 1569

GP 70

That means I only had to play 12 games with my s***ty numbers and we are still and unbelievable combo, let alone if you put him with some one with more than 1.5 knees and who has actually stood between the pipes before.

But by definition it wasn't really a tandem, so that skews it a little!

Edited January 10, 2008 by Opie

[imisssergei 0]

For fun, let's just ignore the fact that saying "if Osgood played for Boston, his GAA would be "x"" is completely unsupportable.

I'd like to understand how you have done your calculations, because you are obviously making a mistake someone. How is it possible that Thomas goes to Detroit and has a better GAA than Osgood, but at the same time, if Osgood went to the Bruins, he'd have a better GAA than Thomas. If it actually worked that way, I think the Wings and Bruins would be better off if they just swapped these guys, both teams win.

I could have made a mistake, I'm not a math major! But here are my calculations, if I did something wrong, tell me.

Detroit give up roughly 23 shots per game, Boston roughly 32.

First, we will do Thomas. His SV% is .932. Inserting Thomas for his 28 starts on Detroit, he would face (28*23) 644 shots. This translates to (.068*644) 44 goals against. Assuming Thomas play 60 minutes in each game started he would have played (28*60) 1680 minutes. GAA is figuerd by multipling the number of goals allowed (44) by 60 and divide by the total number of minutes played(1680). So his GAA would be (44*60/1680) 1.57.

Using the same formula here is how you get Osgood, and Haseks.

Osgood, 23 GP .932 SV% at 32 SPG.

(32*23)= 736, (.068*736)= 50, (60*23)= 1380, GAA is (50*60/1380) 2.17

Hasek, 22 GP .900 SV% at 32 SPG

(32*22)= 704, (.100*704)= 70, (60*22)= 1320, GAA is (70*60/1320) 3.18

EDIT: The comparison was intended to show exactly how different Ozzie and Dom's GAA's really are, nothing more.

Edited January 11, 2008 by imisssergei

[eva unit zero 271]

I could have made a mistake, I'm not a math major! But here are my calculations, if I did something wrong, tell me.

Detroit give up roughly 23 shots per game, Boston roughly 32.

First, we will do Thomas. His SV% is .932. Inserting Thomas for his 28 starts on Detroit, he would face (28*23) 644 shots. This translates to (.068*644) 44 goals against. Assuming Thomas play 60 minutes in each game started he would have played (28*60) 1680 minutes. GAA is figuerd by multipling the number of goals allowed (44) by 60 and divide by the total number of minutes played(1680). So his GAA would be (44*60/1680) 1.57.

Using the same formula here is how you get Osgood, and Haseks.

Osgood, 23 GP .932 SV% at 32 SPG.

(32*23)= 736, (.068*736)= 50, (60*23)= 1380, GAA is (50*60/1380) 2.17

Hasek, 22 GP .900 SV% at 32 SPG

(32*22)= 704, (.100*704)= 70, (60*22)= 1320, GAA is (70*60/1320) 3.18

EDIT: The comparison was intended to show exactly how different Ozzie and Dom's GAA's really are, nothing more.

Except that Tim Thomas faces 33 shots per game, and Ozzie faces 24.6 spg. If you switched Ozzie and Thomas in terms of minutes played and shots faced, their GAAs would switch as they have identical save percentages. If Thomas faced Hasek's 21.1 shots per game, his GAA would be about 1.43. The same is true if Osgood faced Hasek's 21.1 shots.