Roy vs Hasek
Konstantinos Roussos
An interesting question that has yet to be resolved in this group is
wether Hasek or Roy had the better year last year.
At a glance it would seem that Hasek clearly had the better year.
He had a lower GAA, had .930 save percentage and won the Vezina.
Roy had a GAA which was .6 more, a .918 save percentage and was not
even an all star.
However, a closer examination reveals that
1) Roy faced more shots per game than Hasek 32 vs 25
2) Roy played in more games than Hasek
If you adjust for that fact then Roy had statistically an equivalent year
to Hasek. Considering Roy's importance to the Habs vs Hasek's I think it is
fair to say that once again the voters for the Vezina misinterpreted the
statistical evidence.
cheers,
kostadis
--
-Kernighan n' Ritchie -
John Michael Santore
> Konstantinos Roussos (k...@cs.brown.edu) wrote:
> : Hi!
I think there's more to the choice than statistical data myself.
> Well, I am a Sabres fan, but I agree with you. I think Hasek was more
> consistent, but he didn't have the pressure on him to perform like Roy
I've seen Hasek under some serious pressure back when he played with
the Hawks... he was consistant then too... I think hypothesizing
pressure is also not a straight stat thing... of those 7 more shots
per game, how many were good scoring chances, etc.
> did. If Roy didn't do the job, Montreal lost. If Hasek struggled, there
> was Fuhr to back him up. Hasek's GAA was clearly the stat that won him
> the Vezina, and I think deservedly so, but I think Roy was a "more
> valuable player to his team" and probably should have won the Hart over
Actually I believe Beezer should have won that honor... if anything he
carried the Panthers to a few points shy of a playoff berth their
inaugural year.
> Fedorov. Of course many would say how can the MVP be a goalie and not be
> the best goalie? Well, I think this happened last year. Frankly, I'd
> feel better with Fuhr in net than Hasek (Hasek's style frightens me!).
> If one of the two has to be traded, I'd move Hasek (who would clearly
> bring more in a trade than Fuhr) and take my chances with Grant for 2 or
> 3 years. Who knows what may come along in the meantime?!
> Alex
Hell send Hasek to the Flyers :-).... Trading him would be the dumbest
thing that buffalo could do. Fuhr IMO is washed up, and Hasek has
shown himself to be HIGHLY consistant when he gets ice time or when it
counts. I refer to some of the hawks playoffs games 3 years back
(stanley cup final game 4 vs the Pens... he stuffed Lemieux on a
breakway like 3 or 4 times.) He was also consistantly the best
european goalie for several seasons and won several goaltending awards
there too. I don't think it's a fluke, I think Muckler didn't play
him enough the season before last (puppa or draper instead of Hasek?
that's just plain pathetic IMO) Granted, he plays a very unique
style, and is prone to lots of out of net risks, but he's shown he can
pull it off. I wouldn't be surprised if he won the Vezina again this
season too. I have a lot of respect for Roy as a 'tender, but I
believe Hasek undoubtedly deserved the vezina.
-John Santore
Hasek for Vezina in 95 :-)
=============================================================================
____________________
/ \ "We break the surface tension
\_________ ____ \ with our wild kinetic dreams"
/ / \ \ -Rush, Grand Designs
\_______ / (*) ) )
/ / /\___/ / Go Philadelphia Flyers!
\_____ / / /
/ / \_______/ John Santore (js...@andrew.cmu.edu)
\________/
Rush - Yes - King Crimson - Emerson Lake & Palmer - Marillion - Gentle Giant
=============================================================================
Alex A Goddard
: Hi!
Well, I am a Sabres fan, but I agree with you. I think Hasek was more
consistent, but he didn't have the pressure on him to perform like Roy
did. If Roy didn't do the job, Montreal lost. If Hasek struggled, there
was Fuhr to back him up. Hasek's GAA was clearly the stat that won him
the Vezina, and I think deservedly so, but I think Roy was a "more
valuable player to his team" and probably should have won the Hart over
Konstantinos Roussos
Hi!
The Vezina Trophy is awarded to the best goalkeeper of the past season.
Montreal under Demers did not play a defence first system as Buffalo did.
Roy faced more shots per game, i.e. more rebounds, more chances to get
scored on than Hasek. The bit about 'quality' vs 'bad-quality' shots
really rankles when
a) an acknowledge problem among serious hockey observers was the
Montreal defence's inability to clear the slot consistently -- therefore better
shots on Roy, more screened shots on Roy
b) Muckler was praised for creating an outstanding defensive system
around Hasek.
c) Demers wanted more goals from his forwards and defencemen and
left Roy to fend for himself.
Hasek had an outstanding season, but not better than Roy's.
Gaetano Insalaco
In a previous article, js...@andrew.cmu.edu (John Michael Santore) says:
>Hell send Hasek to the Flyers :-).... Trading him would be the dumbest
>thing that buffalo could do. Fuhr IMO is washed up, and Hasek has
>shown himself to be HIGHLY consistant when he gets ice time or when it
>counts. I refer to some of the hawks playoffs games 3 years back
>(stanley cup final game 4 vs the Pens... he stuffed Lemieux on a
>breakway like 3 or 4 times.) He was also consistantly the best
>european goalie for several seasons and won several goaltending awards
>there too. I don't think it's a fluke, I think Muckler didn't play
>him enough the season before last (puppa or draper instead of Hasek?
>that's just plain pathetic IMO) [snip]
People forget that Hasek had injury probs (hamstring I believe) and also
was not very impressive when he did play that year. Why else would Muckler
play either Puppa or Draper both of whom the Sabres were looking to ship out
of town.
Fuhr has looked very good in camp, and except for one real weak goal, good in
the one exhibition game so far. The reality of the situation is that Haseks
contract demands are unreasonable as far as the Sabres are concerened
(3 million+ per year) and Fuhr is there to basically keep Hasek's salary in
line. I doubt Fuhr would be traded until Hasek is signed to a new deal, and
if talks completely break down then Hasek could possibly be traded. I think
it would be a mistake but it's not completely out of the realm of possibility.
If anybody goes to the Flyers, I would expect it to be Fuhr. Hell, Clarke
likes them old veterans right? Someone posted that Roussel is getting jeered
when he does make a save; if so, I can hardly imagine what the response will
be to Soderstrom after the horrible season he had. The Flyers need a real
goalie, how about Fuhr for Yushkevich :).
Guy
--
"Please don't feed my television set"
Andrew W. Korbut
In a previous article, k...@cs.brown.edu (Konstantinos Roussos) says:
>However, a closer examination reveals that
>1) Roy faced more shots per game than Hasek 32 vs 25
>2) Roy played in more games than Hasek
>
>If you adjust for that fact then Roy had statistically an equivalent year
>to Hasek.
Huh? What, pray tell, magical formula did you use to derive this result?
And regardless, who cares about the stats, I mean, Montreals whole team
concept is geared around Roy, which means he might face 32 point shots and
shots from the boards but everybody on the whole damn team is always
positioned to clear the rebounds away. Easy saves. They've been doing this
for years, and it works.
The Sabres defense is largely clueless. I mean, they got rid of Svoboda in
Montreal because he wasn't doing the job in front of Roy. Hasek kept this
team in every game he played. He never got blown out of the rink, never
had to be pulled. Roy was yanked about 5 or 6 times by Demers to keep his
GAA and Save % from ballooning up to a point where Roy would not be
considered for the Vezina. Sure, it's another stat but a telling one.
No matter, the master plan worked since Roy was one of the Vezina finalists.
Thank whatever deity is available that the people actually voting on these
awards watch a few games and have just a bit of a clue, and were not fooled
by Demers and the Montreal media. Roy's season last year probably wasn't
among the top 3 in the league, and certainly a far cry from the performance
of both Hasek and Vanbiesbrouck.
>Considering Roy's importance to the Habs vs Hasek's I think it is
>fair to say that once again the voters for the Vezina misinterpreted the
>statistical evidence.
Well, if that's your criteria, then I must agree. Roy is much more
important to the success of the Habs than Hasek is. Perhaps if Montreal
traded for Hasek, then he too would be important to the success of the
Habs.
Regardless, this has nothing to do with the Vezina. The Vezina goes to the
best goalie during that season, period. Not to the one most important to
his team (Vanbiesbrouck), not to the one with the greatest career up to that
point. You must be thinking about some other awards.
Aside from drawing conclusions out of the thin air, I don't suppose
you have any other reasons for claiming this, do you? I mean, just about
everyone who knows anything at all about hockey concedes that Hasek may not
be the goalie they'd choose first if they had their pick of any in the league,
but the season he had last year was the best by any goalie in at least a
decade, maybe two. And that's *all* that's considered for the Vezina.
--
----------
[The Devil's Advocate]
av...@freenet.buffalo.edu Don't mistake lack of talent for genius.
Tim May
Joesph finally has some defense..what his stats this season!
tim
michael scott mitchell
Like you said, if you compare the GAA's of the two goalies, you'll
decide that Hasek is better than Roy, but looking at the average # of
shots that Hasek faced versus Roy you could easily come to the
conclusion that Roy is better. After all, if you face 10 shots and let
in 2 for a 2.0 GAA and the other goalie faces 2 shots and 1 goes in for
a 1.0 GAA, then obviously the first goalie looks better than the second,
that's why you defer to the save percentage. Here we also see that
Hasek did better than Roy, which allows us to assume that if Hasek had
to face an average of 32 shots a game, he would still stop more, on
average, than Roy. Or if Roy faced only 25 shots, he'd still let the
same percentage of the pucks go through, for a slightly higher GAA.
After all, if you want to start getting into who faces more shots you
should compare Curtis Joseph and Patrick Roy.
Raymund Edward Mears
>cheers,
>kostadis
Who cares how many shots Roy faced in a game? Hasek saved 93% of those on
him and Roy saved around 91.5% of those on him. THAT is the reason Hasek
won the Vezina. If he had saved 93% of the shots on him and had a GAA of
4.5, he probably would have won the Vezina anyway. Sure, his sub-2.00 GAA
this year was a big eye catcher, but if Roy had faced only 25 shots per game
he would have had a GAA above 2.00. I know that not all shots are equal, and
that the more shots you face, the harder they get, but Hasek was able to stop
all kinds. No goalie has has had a better year since at least 1980, and
Hasek was rewarded for being the best goalie in the world last season.
Ray
Konstantinos Roussos
You answer this question :
Easier to stop 12 of 13
or 24 of 26?
cheers,
kostadis
p.s. if he had stopped 93% shots and had G.A.A he would undoubtably
have been the best last year.
clare
>People forget that Hasek had injury probs (hamstring I believe) and also
>was not very impressive when he did play that year. Why else would Muckler
>play either Puppa or Draper both of whom the Sabres were looking to ship out
>of town.
played that season except when Fuhr was hot. Remember HE was the one that
bailed the Sabres out of game four against Boston when Fuhr was yanked
for stinking up the joint. He should have been the number one goalie. My
"Muckler likes Western Canadians and Ontarians and hates everyone else" theory
might be screwy but it would explain why Hasek didn't play regularly.
>Fuhr has looked very good in camp, and except for one real weak goal, good in
>the one exhibition game so far.
I counted three weak goals; the terrible long slap shot, the weak rebound off
the shot from a bad angle, and Brett Lindros shoving him into the net. And I
don't care that he was good after that; after you give up three goals the team
is so far behind it doesn't matter how good you play:
I wish I had a nickle for every time I've heard Buffalo media say "After a shaky
start Fuhr was great". Great, that's real helpful. So he had a shaky start, then
flopped all over the place in stopping 2-1's and 3-1's when the team abandons
defense to try to get the goals back he gave up in the first place. Sorry folks
I've never bought that one and I don't now either.
>The reality of the situation is that Haseks
>contract demands are unreasonable as far as the Sabres are concerened
>(3 million+ per year) and Fuhr is there to basically keep Hasek's salary in
>line.
Hasek as one of the best goalies in the league asking for three million dollars
is not unreasonable if they can give Brad May $5M over four years. But of
course the Sabres really can't afford everyone. Maybe they should trade Brad
May for a pile of sticks.
>I doubt Fuhr would be traded until Hasek is signed to a new deal, and
>if talks completely break down then Hasek could possibly be traded. I think
>it would be a mistake but it's not completely out of the realm of possibility.
If they trade Hasek I will want my money back from season tickets. He's the
only reason I got them this year. Did you see that stop on the 2-0? He took
away the pass, and waited and waited until the guy only could shoot, then
promptly stuffed his pad into the guys stick. It never was an issue that they
wouldn't score... I was amazed.
--
Bill Clare, Eastman Kodak Company Internet: cl...@bisco.kodak.com
mail code 35424 -- 901 Elmgrove Road Phone: (716) 726-9419
Rochester, New York 14653-5424 May $5M, Hasek <$800K. I don't get it..
Any opinions expressed herein belong to me and not to my employer.
Gaetano Insalaco
In a previous article, cl...@bisco.kodak.com (clare) says:
>
>>People forget that Hasek had injury probs (hamstring I believe) and also
>>was not very impressive when he did play that year. Why else would Muckler
>>play either Puppa or Draper both of whom the Sabres were looking to ship out
>>of town.
>Hasek was very impressive in 92-93. He was much better than any goalie they
>played that season except when Fuhr was hot. Remember HE was the one that
>bailed the Sabres out of game four against Boston when Fuhr was yanked
>for stinking up the joint. He should have been the number one goalie. My
>"Muckler likes Western Canadians and Ontarians and hates everyone else" theory
>might be screwy but it would explain why Hasek didn't play regularly.
Hasek was not very impressive as he couldn't take the starting job away from
either Puppa or Draper and so the Sabres overpaid for Fuhr. They didn't want
another playoff series with Tom Draper as the starting goalie. Screwy is
be a good word for your theory about Muckler, what about Mogilny and Kurri? If
you play well he likes you, it's that simple. I love how everybody has these
"Hasek looked great before last year, I always said they should play him".
Hasek looked like he could be good, but he wasn't by any strech playing like
he is now.
>>Fuhr has looked very good in camp, and except for one real weak goal, good in
>>the one exhibition game so far.
>I counted three weak goals; the terrible long slap shot, the weak rebound off
>the shot from a bad angle, and Brett Lindros shoving him into the net. And I
>don't care that he was good after that; after you give up three goals the team
>is so far behind it doesn't matter how good you play:
The rebound from between the legs was real bad. The slap shot was a good shot
and there's not much any goalie can do about a 6'4" 215lbs player ramming him
into the net. Where was the defense? Obviously the Sabres weren't far enough
behind that it didn't matter since they came back to win the game.
>>The reality of the situation is that Haseks
>>contract demands are unreasonable as far as the Sabres are concerened
>>(3 million+ per year) and Fuhr is there to basically keep Hasek's salary in
>>line.
>Hasek as one of the best goalies in the league asking for three million dollars
>is not unreasonable if they can give Brad May $5M over four years. But of
>course the Sabres really can't afford everyone. Maybe they should trade Brad
>May for a pile of sticks.
Brad May played out his option and was in postion to force a big money deal.
Hasek has had 1 good season and still has option to play out. 1 season
does not make a career, just ask Warren Young and Rob Brown; or as a Sabres
fan you should well remember how good Darren Puppa looked for 1 year and then
turned in to a big pile of crud for 3 years. Hasek was great last year, and
looks like he could continue it this year, but that's no reason to break the
bank, especially on a money strapped team like the Sabres. There's also no
reason to give in to his demands as not too long ago his meathead agent was
saying that Hasek wanted $5 million a year which he is in no way worth after
just 1 year. Bill Ranford has been one of the top goalies for 3 or 4 years
and he just got $3 million canadien. Hasek has a ways to go. I hope he's
able to do it, maybe the Sabres could finally win something.
Lydia Mancini
[stuff deleted]
>Huh? What, pray tell, magical formula did you use to derive this result?
>And regardless, who cares about the stats, I mean, Montreals whole team
>concept is geared around Roy, which means he might face 32 point shots and
>shots from the boards but everybody on the whole damn team is always
>positioned to clear the rebounds away. Easy saves. They've been doing this
>for years, and it works.
It only seems to work for Roy I guess. Why have JC Bergeron, Frederic Chabot,
Rollie Melanson, Andre Racicot, Les Kuntar and Ron Tugnutt not benefitted from
the same system if the saves are so easy?
Montreal's whole concept is geared around Roy because when Patrick Roy is on
his game, and plays with composure and a high concentration level, he can
save every shot he sees. Not many other goalies can do this.
If you want to get into shot qualities and quantities, consider this:
The Canadiens failed miserably when Roy wasn't in nets. This is no fluke.
When Patrick Roy is playing, and on his game, he lifts his team and boosts
their confidence and level of play. That's why you saw them play well against
contenders last year (with Roy in nets) and poorly against expansion teams.
>The Sabres defense is largely clueless. I mean, they got rid of Svoboda in
>Montreal because he wasn't doing the job in front of Roy.
Svoboda was a decent defenseman in Montreal. Although, I miss those blind
passes in front of the net. Someone should have kept a tally on how many
resulted in goals :-) However, his clashes with Pat Burns figures prominently
in his trade.
>Hasek kept this
>team in every game he played. He never got blown out of the rink, never
>had to be pulled. Roy was yanked about 5 or 6 times by Demers to keep his
>GAA and Save % from ballooning up to a point where Roy would not be
>considered for the Vezina. Sure, it's another stat but a telling one.
If you let in 3 goals in one game, all coming before the final period, your
average is 3.00. If you are yanked after 2 periods, your average baloons up
to 4.5 (3 goals / 40 min * 60 min).
In a large share of games, the Canadiens allowed the most shots in the final
period. Pulling Patrick Roy actually lowered his SP.
>No matter, the master plan worked since Roy was one of the Vezina finalists.
It didn't, Patrick Roy didn't win :-)
>Thank whatever deity is available that the people actually voting on these
>awards watch a few games and have just a bit of a clue, and were not fooled
>by Demers and the Montreal media.
Get off the media. The media here is many things (I'd call them blood thirsty
scandal cravers), least of all blind. Only until 1993 when Roy won the Conn
Smythe did the media finally get off his back.
>Roy's season last year probably wasn't
>among the top 3 in the league, and certainly a far cry from the performance
>of both Hasek and Vanbiesbrouck.
I got a different impression when I watched the games. The game in Toronto in
February was outstanding, so was that 2-0 shutout against New Jersey last
October.
>>Considering Roy's importance to the Habs vs Hasek's I think it is
>>fair to say that once again the voters for the Vezina misinterpreted the
>>statistical evidence.
>Well, if that's your criteria, then I must agree. Roy is much more
>important to the success of the Habs than Hasek is. Perhaps if Montreal
>traded for Hasek, then he too would be important to the success of the
>Habs.
A goaltender is always important to the success of his club. Just as Detroit.
Patrick Roy is a proven playoff perfromer. Hasek isn't, not yet.
>Regardless, this has nothing to do with the Vezina. The Vezina goes to the
>best goalie during that season, period. Not to the one most important to
>his team (Vanbiesbrouck), not to the one with the greatest career up to that
>point. You must be thinking about some other awards.
I agree. Hasek was the best goalie for the 1993-1994 regular season,
statistically or otherwise.
>Aside from drawing conclusions out of the thin air, I don't suppose
>you have any other reasons for claiming this, do you? I mean, just about
>everyone who knows anything at all about hockey concedes that Hasek may not
>be the goalie they'd choose first if they had their pick of any in the league,
>but the season he had last year was the best by any goalie in at least a
>decade, maybe two. And that's *all* that's considered for the Vezina.
Hasek's performance is ONE OF the best performances in the last decade.
-- Lydia
--
(==)(==)(==)(==)(==)(==)(==)(==)(==)(==)(==)(==)(==)(==)(==)(==)(==)(==)(==)
Lydia Mancini | "Oh drat these computers are so naughty and so
sha...@cs.mcgill.ca | complex. I could pinch them."
McGill University | -- Marvin The Martian from Loony Tunes
Beni D
: Hi!
: cheers,
: kostadis
:
Anyone who saw Hasek pratically win the Sabres vs. Devils series this year knows that he can have a great game(especially game six, the 4OT 1-0 Sabres win in which Hasek made over 70 saves). Until he can do it year in out, I think Roy is a better goalie. Hasek and Martin Brodeur should be the great goalies of the next 10 years(am I'm not only saying that because I'm a Devils fan!!)
Brian Scott Kazmierczak
Gaetano Insalaco <aa...@freenet.buffalo.edu> wrote:
>If anybody goes to the Flyers, I would expect it to be Fuhr. Hell, Clarke
>likes them old veterans right? Someone posted that Roussel is getting jeered
>when he does make a save; if so, I can hardly imagine what the response will
>be to Soderstrom after the horrible season he had.
Of course, I believe Soderstrom had heart surgery last season, so perhaps
you could forgive him for a bad rookie season in the NHL.
>Guy
B
Brian Scott Kazmierczak
>Anyone who saw Hasek pratically win the Sabres vs. Devils series this year
>knows that he can have a great game(especially game six, the 4OT 1-0
>Sabres win in which Hasek made over 70 saves). Until he can do it year
>in out, I think Roy is a better goalie. Hasek and Martin Brodeur should be
>the great goalies of the next 10 years(am I'm not only saying that because
>I'm a Devils fan!!)
Hmmm. that'd be nice if Hasek could play the next 10 years, but remember,
he'll be 39 in 10 years.
B
ET TU, BRUTE?
>Hasek as one of the best goalies in the league asking for three million dollars
>is not unreasonable if they can give Brad May $5M over four years. But of
>course the Sabres really can't afford everyone. Maybe they should trade Brad
>May for a pile of sticks.
Correction:
Hasek wants 5 million. The Sabres are offering 3 million. And... one more
thing:
If you think May's salary is too much, then why keep Svoboda? 1 million to sit
and watch the games is one hell of a good job opportunity. Worthless comes to
my mind.
Ciao.
Zaynab
----------------------------------------------------------------
| "Life's a bitch, now so am I!" | Zaynab Alnakeeb |
| -Catwoman | University of Buffalo |
| GO CANUCKS!! GO SABRES!! | v090...@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu |
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Scott Kazmierczak
Konstantinos Roussos <k...@cs.brown.edu> wrote:
>
> [ blah blah blah ]
>
>If you adjust for that fact then Roy had statistically an equivalent year
>to Hasek.
Hmm. Perhaps, just perhaps, if Hasek had played more games, he would have
had an even better year? btw - at a glance, I can't see what formula you
used to get Roy's statistics equal to Haseks using those two factors.
> Considering Roy's importance to the Habs vs Hasek's I think it is
>fair to say that once again the voters for the Vezina misinterpreted the
>statistical evidence.
A) Of course Hasek's performance wasn't of much importance to the Habs :)
B) I follow the Sabres closely and thought he was quite important to the
Sabres success.
C) I think you are thinking of the MVP award, not the Vezina.
>cheers,
>kostadis
B
Konstantinos Roussos
Hi!
The formula I used is straight out of the Klein and Reif Hockey compedium.
It goes something like this:
Efficiency = Saves / Total Shots * 100
spg = Total Shot * 60 / Minutes played
rating = (Efficiency * 6 + spg) /.6
Roy 968
Hasek 976
=> statistically equivalent since after
950 they are both having awesome years.
As a frame of reference in the years 81 - 87 only 3 goal keepers had
ratings over 950.
Robert Trifts
k...@cs.brown.edu (Konstantinos Roussos) wrote:
>Hi!
>
>The formula I used is straight out of the Klein and
>Reif Hockey compedium.
>
>It goes something like this:
>
>Efficiency = Saves / Total Shots * 100 spg = Total
>Shot * 60 / Minutes played
>
>rating = (Efficiency * 6 + spg) /.6
>
>
>Roy 968
>Hasek 976
>
>=> statistically equivalent since after 950 they are
>both having awesome years. As a frame of reference in
>the years 81 - 87 only 3 goal keepers had ratings over
>950.
The key is consistency. Hasek has the potential to be the next
Roy, but he remains unp[roved opver time. I'd say the same for
Potvin and to a lesser extent, Brodeur.
Let's have this discussion in three years time. Then a
comparison will be of some value.
.Robert
robert...@canrem.com
rtr...@inforamp.net
Thomas DeGagne
>From: k...@cs.brown.edu (Konstantinos Roussos)
>Subject: Re: Roy vs Hasek
>Date: Sun, 18 Sep 1994 17:25:10 GMT
>Hi!
>The formula I used is straight out of the Klein and Reif Hockey compedium.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>It goes something like this:
>Efficiency = Saves / Total Shots * 100
>spg = Total Shot * 60 / Minutes played
>rating = (Efficiency * 6 + spg) /.6
>Roy 968
>Hasek 976
>=> statistically equivalent since after
>950 they are both having awesome years.
>As a frame of reference in the years 81 - 87 only 3 goal keepers had
>ratings over 950.
>cheers,
>kostadis
>--
> -Kernighan n' Ritchie -
The Klein and Reif Hockey compendium is a terrific book. I highly recommend
it to any hockey lover. It combines statistical analysis of hockey issues
while being very funny.
>
alexb...@delphi.com
>>=> statistically equivalent since after
>>950 they are both having awesome years.
>>As a frame of reference in the years 81 - 87 only 3 goal keepers had
>>ratings over 950.
>
a real comparison can be made, Roy has won 2 cups,and played nearly 10 seasons!
Alex "33" Jones