NHL Network: Top 10 Goalies of ALL TIME

[shadow47 1]

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.

I've often felt your opinion was overrated, here's why:

I can send you fifty game tapes proving Buffalo's defense was pathetic, absolutely pathetic. To be a Buffalo fan and have to rewatch these games and the number of times Rick Jeanneret was forced to say," Wilson clears, NOT OUT!!!" you would not believe it. Why don't you ******* BE THERE before you start making grand statements about overrated statistics. You're just basing this on some baseless arguments dotting the Jim-Kelley-loyalist media. You aren't exactly proclaiming Dominik's 2007-08 as underrated are you?

Comparing Anaheim 2003 to Buffalo of any year is a ******* disgrace.

[puckloo39 5,686]

I've often felt your opinion was overrated, here's why:

I can send you fifty game tapes proving Buffalo's defense was pathetic, absolutely pathetic. To be a Buffalo fan and have to rewatch these games and the number of times Rick Jeanneret was forced to say," Wilson clears, NOT OUT!!!" you would not believe it. Why don't you ******* BE THERE before you start making grand statements about overrated statistics. You're just basing this on some baseless arguments dotting the Jim-Kelley-loyalist media. You aren't exactly proclaiming Dominik's 2007-08 as underrated are you?

Comparing Anaheim 2003 to Buffalo of any year is a ******* disgrace.

don't worry about it, he dismisses Hasek's 2002 playoffs, as well. He just set a shut out record which had stood for decades, and was a key to turning the tide in round one, was stellar in the WCF, and played great in the triple OT vs. Carolina, to name a couple of instances which were integral in the win. We won't go into the fact that the Wings couldn't get out of round one after 2002... until Hasek came back. But yeah, Dom had no impact in Detroit.

This really is stupid. There are those who will never appreciate Hasek, no matter what information is put in front of them. And I assume many who don't get the Dominator never saw Dom play in Buffalo.

Edited September 16, 2008 by puckloo39

[eva unit zero 271]

I've often felt your opinion was overrated, here's why:

I can send you fifty game tapes proving Buffalo's defense was pathetic, absolutely pathetic. To be a Buffalo fan and have to rewatch these games and the number of times Rick Jeanneret was forced to say," Wilson clears, NOT OUT!!!" you would not believe it. Why don't you ******* BE THERE before you start making grand statements about overrated statistics. You're just basing this on some baseless arguments dotting the Jim-Kelley-loyalist media. You aren't exactly proclaiming Dominik's 2007-08 as underrated are you?

Comparing Anaheim 2003 to Buffalo of any year is a ******* disgrace.

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.

[shadow47 1]

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.

You are claiming Hasek's Buffalo years' save percentage is inflated due to a high number of low quality shots. I am stating that if you plan on doing this, you should adjust for the underrating of Hasek in 07-08 based on his low save percentage as a result of Detroit decreasing the amount of low quality shots against. His (half)season in Ottawa would suggest he is capable of handling a high shot total (he was close to the league lead in save percentage that year) at an advanced age. I really think you are buying into others (detractors) opinions on Dominik's shot quality in Buffalo, you don't have to explain to me what it was I was seeing, I watched all the games, and rewatch many. Buffalo was a low scoring team, obviously, low scoring teams have no choice but to attempt to play defensive games, unfortunately they sucked at it. I beg you, please watch at least 20 random games from those seasons and get back to me.

Edit: Buffalo was NOT a defense first team...they were a forecheck team that relied on its transition game and the fact they had the best goaltender in the league. Lindy Ruff hated changing on the fly because it would prevent the team from getting in on the players exiting the defensive zone, Hasek started his "must get rid of the puck rather than cover" crap so Buffalo's small, quick forwards like Audette, Dawe, etc. could get the puck up-ice and generate a rare scoring chance that wouldn't be possible if they were just skating and attacking. Smehlik was slow and sloppy with the puck, Wilson was a 6'4" softy non-NHLer, most nights the Sabres looked asleep...even though the management actually tried building Hasek a team in 2001, I don't blame him for asking for a trade.

Edited September 16, 2008 by shadow47

[eva unit zero 271]

don't worry about it, he dismisses Hasek's 2002 playoffs, as well. He just set a shut out record which had stood for decades, and was a key to turning the tide in round one, was stellar in the WCF, and played great in the triple OT vs. Carolina, to name a couple of instances which were integral in the win. We won't go into the fact that the Wings couldn't get out of round one after 2002... until Hasek came back. But yeah, Dom had no impact in Detroit.

This really is stupid. There are those who will never appreciate Hasek, no matter what information is put in front of them. And I assume many who don't get the Dominator never saw Dom play in Buffalo.

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.

[eva unit zero 271]

I beg you, please watch at least 20 random games from those seasons and get back to me.

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

[shadow47 1]

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.

I was struggling to edit my post and gave up...in my opinion Yzerman should've won it in 2002. I've never seen a player play with pain the way 19 did that season... ...Nik is Nik but him winning makes about as much sense as Recchi/Selanne winning MVP in the All-Star in SJ the year Nolan called his shot (technically was asking Hasek to let one in after stopping two breakaways as admitted by Nolan)...yeah, Dom was a part of a great, HOF team in 2002 and finally won a Cup...and yes, Vernon was basically worthless and won the Conn Smythe because no one else stood out that year, and the Wings won in '98 DESPITE Osgood. Yes, that is accurate. Osgood was solid in 2008, great.

Edit: If you saw 20 games live of Hasek's in his prime you would not be slagging him.

Edited September 16, 2008 by shadow47

[Reilly 24]

Ha.

If Dominik Hasek was Canadian, he would be recognized as he best goalie ever.

[haroldsnepsts 4,826]

Brodeur has always believed his own press. It's a failing on his part. Oh, well.

Regarding Dom, it never fails to amaze me how hard people work to convince themselves and others that a player who was clearly revolutionary and stellar in his NHL and international career ... was actually terrible. Just amazing, not to mention ridiculous.

No worries, though, discussing it doesn't change the record books or the truth.

What possible evidence do you have of this?

You constantly lament the personal attacks on Dom, yet you throw out crap like that regarding Brodeur.

[FireCaptain 563]

A guy who has 6 Vezinas, 2 Harts, a Cup ring, and the reputation as the best goalie in the world in the late 90's doesn't belong on the top 10 goalies of all time?

Um, 2 cup rings.

Other than that - post on!

[eva unit zero 271]

I was struggling to edit my post and gave up...in my opinion Yzerman should've won it in 2002. I've never seen a player play with pain the way 19 did that season... ...Nik is Nik but him winning makes about as much sense as Recchi/Selanne winning MVP in the All-Star in SJ the year Nolan called his shot (technically was asking Hasek to let one in after stopping two breakaways as admitted by Nolan)...yeah, Dom was a part of a great, HOF team in 2002 and finally won a Cup...and yes, Vernon was basically worthless and won the Conn Smythe because no one else stood out that year, and the Wings won in '98 DESPITE Osgood. Yes, that is accurate. Osgood was solid in 2008, great.

Edit: If you saw 20 games live of Hasek's in his prime you would not be slagging him.

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.

[Doggy 130]

I've often felt your opinion was overrated, here's why:

I can send you fifty game tapes proving Buffalo's defense was pathetic, absolutely pathetic. To be a Buffalo fan and have to rewatch these games and the number of times Rick Jeanneret was forced to say," Wilson clears, NOT OUT!!!" you would not believe it. Why don't you ******* BE THERE before you start making grand statements about overrated statistics. You're just basing this on some baseless arguments dotting the Jim-Kelley-loyalist media. You aren't exactly proclaiming Dominik's 2007-08 as underrated are you?

Comparing Anaheim 2003 to Buffalo of any year is a ******* disgrace.

Great post. FYI, eva watches stats more than games.

[egroen 384]

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.

That is a common excuse to try and lessen Hasek's truly unique accomplishments in Buffalo. Buffalo did not play a "team defense" like Anaheim '03 (IE. The Trap), they were a forechecking team, and quite horrible at it. They gave up more shots than any team in the NHL. It is well documented they gave up a lot of odd man rushes; a lot of 2 on 1 and 3 on 1.

If that was even remotely true, Hasek's backups would be putting up great save percentages as well, especially since they were playing easier teams most of the time. Hasek's backups were 79-95-21, with a 2.96 GAA and a .900 save percentage -- Big difference. And he had talented backups (Grant Fuhr, Martin Biron, Dwayne Roloson, Steve Shields, Manny Legace).

Edited September 16, 2008 by egroen

[shadow47 1]

Buffalo did not play a "team defense" like Anaheim '03 (IE. The Trap) ...

If that was even remotely true, Hasek's backups would be putting up great save percentages as well, especially since they were playing easier teams most of the time. Hasek's backups were 79-95-21, with a 2.96 GAA and a .900 save percentage -- Big difference. And he had talented backups (Grant Fuhr, Martin Biron, Dwayne Roloson, Steve Shields, Manny Legace).

Game. Set. Match.

Let's see what there is in the fridge...

[Doc Holiday 0]

Roy revolutionized how goalies today play the game, he is responsible for the butterfly.

QFT

[dallas27 7]

I didn't know we were handicapping him for age. I thought we were comparing him to the rest of the goaltenders in the NHL based on performance. He wasn't very good.

Regular season Save % .902 and playoffs was .888%. His save percentage puts him outside the top 30 goaltenders for the regular season and he lost his job in the postseason because of poor play. And that was behind the Red Wings. If Osgood's numbers are inflated as people claim due to Detroit's defensive prowess, how bad would Hasek's numbers have been on an average team?

Like I said, easily top 10 Best goalies all time. Even top 5. But no revisionist history--he was not a "very good goalie" last year.

To be fair, any negative stat for Hasek is automatically discounted. It's the equivalent of taking a mulligan until you hit the shot 2 feet from the pin.

[egroen 384]

Roy revolutionized how goalies today play the game, he is responsible for the butterfly.

He did not originate it of course, but he certainly helped make it more popular.

We do have him to thank for goalies stuffing themselves with padding until they look like the Michelin man.

[dallas27 7]

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.

This much is true. But Roy still revolutionized it. Roy's size, positioning and butterfly changed what is the standard for NHL goalies.

[Roland 0]

This much is true. But Roy still revolutionized it. Roy's size, positioning and butterfly changed what is the standard for NHL goalies.

As much as I hate to admit it, you're 100% correct.

[eva unit zero 271]

That is a common excuse to try and lessen Hasek's truly unique accomplishments in Buffalo. Buffalo did not play a "team defense" like Anaheim '03 (IE. The Trap), they were a forechecking team, and quite horrible at it. They gave up more shots than any team in the NHL. It is well documented they gave up a lot of odd man rushes; a lot of 2 on 1 and 3 on 1.

If that was even remotely true, Hasek's backups would be putting up great save percentages as well, especially since they were playing easier teams most of the time. Hasek's backups were 79-95-21, with a 2.96 GAA and a .900 save percentage -- Big difference. And he had talented backups (Grant Fuhr, Martin Biron, Dwayne Roloson, Steve Shields, Manny Legace).

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.

[Slave 31]

where's the gump?

[egroen 384]

You are throwing out red herrings at this point. The point is, perfectly fine backups put up perfectly average numbers for backups. If Buffalo had played such great "team defense" and allowed mainly perimeter shots, this would not be the case, and their numbers would look very good as a result. Most view the fact Hasek played for such a lousy team as Buffalo as making his numbers even more impressive... and you want to argue playing for a bad team somehow inflated his numbers. Many of the all-time greats suffered the intant they were off their dynasty teams -- Sawchuk and Plante are two great examples. Not the case with Hasek, and he proved he could win the Cup with a good team in front of him in 2002.

Hasek's numbers are out of this world.

In fact, from 1993-94 until 2001-02, Dominik Hasek faced 1,060 more shots than Martin Brodeur, and gave up 135 fewer goals. Brodeur is definitely someone who benefited from a "team defense" ie. The Trap... he was facing arguably a lot of perimeter shots. But of course his numbers were not nearly as good as Hasek's.

I know it makes some people uncomfortable, perhaps because he is not the most likeable guy at times, and they try and "explain it away" as a result... but that Buffalo team really sucked at everything but goaltending. Hasek was really that good, the best that has ever played.

I see the same thing with Jagr, as his accomplishments get "explained away" and I think it is mostly because of the fact he is a jerk.

Edited September 17, 2008 by egroen

[eva unit zero 271]

Did Jagr ever play on a line without a top-end offensive center?

Centers Jagr played with for full seasons during his career include:

Martin Straka, Ron Francis, Robert Lang, Mario Lemieux, Michael Nylander, Scott Gomez

Jagr has had a great career...but he has played with some great linemates for his entire career also. Why is it that some people are given the 'Oh, he was great because of who he played with' tag but others who played with great players get the 'Man, he's such a great player, look at all the division titles and Cup championships' stuff.

Anyway...as I said before...the defense Hasek played behind in Buffalo played defense with the purpose of limiting chances. If you wanted to take unscreened shots from the point all day, they would let you. Not saying that's all that ever happened...but Brodeur's defense in New Jersey was much more aggressive about preventing shots; Brodeur faced more quality chances per shot. Hasek was still the best goalie of the decade...but I think the stat differences overstate the difference in their play.

But an interesting look at the two goalies' domination: At Brodeur's current age, Hasek had just won his sixth Vezina in eight seasons. Brodeur has just won his fourth; given that he had won the two going into the lockout and has won two of three since, it is safe to assume he would have most likely won it had there been a season that year. So while Hasek had been the league's top goaltender six of eight seasons, and would not again be named as such, Brodeur has been the league's top goaltender five of six seasons. He has been arguably just as dominant over the past six seasons as Hasek was during his prime; possibly even moreso.

Given that Brodeur was a Vezina contender for ten seasons before that, can you now see why I am not so quick to just say 'Oh yeah, Hasek is the greatest goaltender ever, I mean he has six Vezinas!' because he might not even be the best of his era. That distinction could belong to Brodeur.

[StormJH1 231]

Hasek should be considered among the Top 5 of all time. But it's so difficult to compare goalies across different leagues, countries, eras, and equipment that it's almost pointless to talk about #2 vs. #3, or so on.

I think a lot of people struggle with Hasek as one of the all-time greats b/c (like Tretiak), probably his most defining moment was not in an NHL game--it was the 1998 Nagano Olympics. North Americans consider those games a failure because it was embarassing for the NHL, U.S., and Canada, but that was a pivotal moment in the (complete) internationalization of the sport. Hasek taking Jagr and a handful of non-NHL players and beating virtual all-star teams stocked with NHL'ers from other countries was a MUCH more significant acheivement than his winning the Cup with a loaded Red Wings team in 2002. And people tend to overlook this because, at the time, he was the equivalent of today's Roberto Luongo...a very good goalie to amazing regular season things (well and almost winning a Cup in '99) with a very average Sabres team.

But Hasek is also overrated from the standpoint that he NEEDED to be as athletically and acrobatically gifted as he was to compensate for the fact that he was erratic, and didn't have the consistency and positioning of Brodeur, Roy, and some of the all-time greats. It's true that Hasek could make impossible saves from positions that perhaps no other goalie in history ever could or will. But Roy or Brodeur in the same game might have made a much more boring (but equally effective) save, that wouldn't have played as well on SportsCenter. That's why evaluating goalies is so impossible, from a historical standpoint. But based on his hardware, international importance, and sheer skill, yeah, he's Top 5 for sure.

[jawbreaker 0]

Hasek should be considered among the Top 5 of all time. But it's so difficult to compare goalies across different leagues, countries, eras, and equipment that it's almost pointless to talk about #2 vs. #3, or so on.

I think a lot of people struggle with Hasek as one of the all-time greats b/c (like Tretiak), probably his most defining moment was not in an NHL game--it was the 1998 Nagano Olympics. North Americans consider those games a failure because it was embarassing for the NHL, U.S., and Canada, but that was a pivotal moment in the (complete) internationalization of the sport. Hasek taking Jagr and a handful of non-NHL players and beating virtual all-star teams stocked with NHL'ers from other countries was a MUCH more significant acheivement than his winning the Cup with a loaded Red Wings team in 2002. And people tend to overlook this because, at the time, he was the equivalent of today's Roberto Luongo...a very good goalie to amazing regular season things (well and almost winning a Cup in '99) with a very average Sabres team.

But Hasek is also overrated from the standpoint that he NEEDED to be as athletically and acrobatically gifted as he was to compensate for the fact that he was erratic, and didn't have the consistency and positioning of Brodeur, Roy, and some of the all-time greats. It's true that Hasek could make impossible saves from positions that perhaps no other goalie in history ever could or will. But Roy or Brodeur in the same game might have made a much more boring (but equally effective) save, that wouldn't have played as well on SportsCenter. That's why evaluating goalies is so impossible, from a historical standpoint. But based on his hardware, international importance, and sheer skill, yeah, he's Top 5 for sure.

Great post! In my opinion NA tends to overlook, or underrate international hockey (especially, when they don't win). I can bet that for Nick his GWG against Finland, and a gold medal as a result is at least as important as all these Stanley Cups.