Wednesday, January 7, 2009

Why Canadians Hate Hasek

Watching the world junior hockey final, it became clear why the average Canadian hockey fan hates (and therefore underrates) Dominik Hasek. It is because the cardinal sin in Canadian hockey is diving.

Canadians hate diving so much that they often see it even when it doesn't exist. Go down lightly once or twice, and every single time thereafter will be seen as a dive. Whenever Swedish goalie Jacob Markstrom was run in the final the fans thought it was a dive, and they got on Markstrom's case, booing him when he touched the puck and even when he was called up to accept the best goalie of the tournament award. Apparently the general consensus is that when you come out of your net to play the puck, and get hit during your follow-through with most of your weight on your lead foot, and that same plant foot is taken out by one of the fastest skaters on the ice plowing into you at top speed, knocking your stick out of your hands and spinning you around so fast that your helmet flies off and nearly clears the zone -- it must have been a dive. Bloggers everywhere are trying to outdo each other in hyperbole - according to one, it was "the worst dive in the history of sport." Give me a break.

I'm not saying Markstrom was completely innocent by any means, but I don't see how he had any chance of winning either of those collisions with Esposito or Della Rovere. How much he embellished is I guess a matter of opinion. I say not really that much on all except one of them, but you can judge for yourself from the Youtube clip.

Dominik Hasek usually left no doubt about his unsporting manipulation of referees. He knew exactly what he was doing when he was drawing contact or feigning injury, not to mention things like complaining to the referees and knocking the net off its moorings when the opposing team was just about to score. Those type of antics just do not mesh with the Canadian hockey worldview, and as a result Hasek pays the price in the court of public opinion. Take a look at this comment thread if you want to see what the average Canadian hockey fan thinks about Dominik Hasek. I recommend you don't, as it is basically a bunch of things like: "Hasek is the best at whining like a little girl" and "He is a diver and embellisher which could make him one of the all time greats if he played soccer" and "Domenik the quitter, you have got to be kidding me. He wouldn't even make it onto my top 15 all time list."

I think that sentiment is generally correct (i.e. Hasek had a greater-than-usual predisposition towards diving, embellishing, whining and possibly even quitting), but at the end of the day you have to evaluate the whole package, and for Hasek that includes his dominating puck-stopping abilities. It would have been better if Hasek did not do those things, but he grew up in an Eastern European country where they don't have a similar stigma against diving and he was also a bit of a jerk, that's just who he was. It is easy to exaggerate the negative tendencies, but diving (while regrettable and unsportsmanlike) really has little negative cost in terms of winning or losing games. It is really more of a style issue, and at the end of the day, performance is far more important than style for ranking hockey players.

33 comments:

Bill Morran said...

I agree entirely. I, and everyone I know, hate Dominik Hasek. Especially after his retirement antics that displaced Curtis Joseph (which pissed us all off being Leaf fans who grew up idolizing Joseph).

And so, growing up, the goalie heiarchy whenever I talked to anyone about hockey, whenever we traded hockey cards, played hockey video games, or even played street hockey was Curtis Joseph, Ed Belfour, Martin Brodeur, Patrick Roy, and Dominik Hasek.

Obviously bias as fuck. But no one cared.

To this day, everyone I know will always find reasons to criticize guys who they already dislike. Hasek and Roy are the two I know who get the most flack. Both were dicks, both played in a division against the Leafs.

But, at the end of the day, Dominik Hase stopped the puck better than any goalie ever. He was an ass hole, he was a whiner, and I wouldn't take him on my team, but he was still the best.

pghblackandgold.com said...

There's also the fact that he had little discernible style beyond the vague butterfly underpinnings, and you have all the people who say that he isn't any good because he doesn't "play goalie right".

*shrug*

In my experience between the pipes, the object is to get some part of your equipment in between the puck and the net. If you do that consistently, it doesn't matter if you're the picture of orthodoxy or if you flop like a fish out of water as far as I'm concerned.

Down Goes Brown said...

Re: Markstrom

The initial collision isn't a dive. But looking up at the ref, then putting his head down while kicking his feet in the air was a little bit much, no?

The Contrarian Goaltender said...

Sure, of course you'd like to see him get up rather than lie on the ice like that. But he jumped right back up to his feet after all the other hits, so I'm not entirely sure he wasn't still smarting a bit from the collision. That wouldn't be too surprising to me for an 18-year old kid that is probably not used to getting run.

Again, I'm not trying to defend Markstrom too much, he probably did try to embellish that one and maybe one or two of the others, but I think the crowd reaction was way overblown. I'm not sure he gets booed like that in any country except Canada, but I'd bet Canadian fans at pretty much every rink in the country would have done exactly the same thing.

Anonymous said...

the truth is that canadiens are much like new yorkers. they are largely ignorant to reality, and often just blindly build up one of their own, and act as if their guy is better than everyone else, regardless of what the numbers say. there was an interesting article about alexander ovechkin that interestingly enough pointed this out. they looked at 2 areas in which player popularity is largely determined by popular demand. beginning with jersey sales, crosby and carey price trump ovechkin by a landslide. the other market: a sidney crosby rookie card from a certain set supposedly sells for an astounding $12000, while ovechkins only sells for $3000. logic tells you these numbers dont make any sense, especially since anybody who has seen a hockey game in the last few years can tell you that ovechkin is by far the best, most complete player in the league. the difference is crosby and that primadonna carey price are both canadien, while ovechkin is not. the same is true for hasek.

Bruce said...

I, and everyone I know, hate Dominik Hasek. Especially after his retirement antics that displaced Curtis Joseph (which pissed us all off being Leaf fans who grew up idolizing Joseph).

I dunno about that, I know a few Leaf fans who figured Joseph got what he deserved in Detroit. Left the Leafs in the lurch, then wound up losing his starting asisgnment when Hasek changed his mind on retiring. Given Joseph's predilection to head for Greener pastures throughout his career -- his only loyalty was to his "family" -- some figured it was just desserts.

To this day, everyone I know will always find reasons to criticize guys who they already dislike. Hasek and Roy are the two I know who get the most flack. Both were dicks, both played in a division against the Leafs.

Belfour was a dick too, although many opinions on him changed 180 degrees when he showed up in Toronto. Especially media based ones. Personalities aside, to me Belfour was the most underrated of all five guys named here, Joseph the most overrated.

Anonymous said...

Canadians do not hate diving or else Crosby and Brodeur would not be popular.

Its simple...

Canadians hate Hasek because hes NOT Canadian.

If he was he would hold his rightfull spot as the greatest goalie who ever lived.

Anonymous said...

Crosby whines an awful lot, but really doesnt dive nearly as much as everyone makes it seem. Actually, I should clarify, it isnt everyone that thinks Crosby dives, it is primarily just morons who call themselves Flyers, or Rangers fans. It's hilarious hearing those idiots sometimes. Crosby could get jumped and you'll hear Ranger fans crying dive. Talk about two piss poor, classless fanbases.

And I dont think I've ever heard of Brodeur diving. But then again who are his biggest rivals, the Flyers and Rangers. What a shocker. I'm wondering which one of those whinning fanbases started claiming Brodeur dives. My guess again is that it is those Rangers fans who can't stand Brodeur simply because he plays in New Jersey, and has had more success in his career than the entire Rangers franchise.

Anonymous said...

Bottom line is this.

Broduer was never considered one of the best goalies in the leaugue his first 10 years.

As soon he won a Gold Medal on Team Canada in 2002 ( the same team he was NOT chosen to start for yet again) he started winning Vezina's

Anonymous said...

@ the guy who said Brodeur was never considered one of the best in the league during his first 10 years.

How exactly do you figure that? He never won a Vezina because Hasek was so dominant much of the first 8 years of his career, but other than that Brodeur was always considered one of, if not the best. I guess you missed all of the All Star Game appearances, Vezina nominations, and advertising that revolved around Brodeur? Saying he wasnt considering one of the best at any point in his early career is stupid. Sure he never started getting the credit he does now until after winning the gold for Canada, something Roy, Joseph and others could not do, but Brodeur was always mentioned as one of the best, even prematurely after his rookie season.

Anonymous said...

He was a 2nd team All Star only 2 times, I wouldnt call that alot.

Lots of goalies get Vezina nominations, not just the 3 finalist.

And Hasek won all those Vezinas because no one was even in his league, it wasnt even close. Kinda like Lemieux and Gretzky > and the rest of the NHL.

Even with Brodeurs Vezinas he has never been the clear cut best goalie in the league, other goalies always have a case as good or better than him, but he wins.

I just dont understand how someone who was never the best goalie in his prime, and even now isnt even that much better than other goalies in the league became the " Best Ever"

Anonymous said...

Its simple, average these numbers

goalie 1
2,1,1,1,3,2,9,10,6,12

goalie 2
3,2,3,2,2,3,2,3,2,2

goalie 3
1,7,1,1,1,1,1,5,6,2

Assuming those numbers are goalie ranks for specific years, which one was the best over the 10 year span when averaged together? Notice a trend here? Consistency is key. Even without ever being number 1. Brodeur has clearly been the best goalie in the league the past 2 years, same as the 2 years prior to the lockout. Every other year he has been a top 5 goalie, probably even top 3.

Anonymous said...

"Brodeur has clearly been the best goalie in the league the past 2 years"

False.

Luongo, Nabakov, and Lundqvist all have similar numbers to Brodeur, there is no huge gap between Brodeur and the rest of the gaolies in the NHL.

Im not saying Brodeur is a horrible goalie, but the clear cut best in the NHL? no

Best of All Time?? not a chance.

Clemmensen is proving this, how people continue to ignore this fact is insane.

I would even the say the Devils are stronger with Clemmensen in net, I have yet to see him give up soft and flat out horrible goals that Brodeur gives up on a nightly basis.

Anonymous said...

Please explain how Nabakov, and Lundqvist lol, have comparable numbers to Brodeur in the past 2 years. If by comparable you mean one solid season by Nabakov, or well, I have no idea why Lundqvist would even be in the conversation, then sure. As for Luongo, he has been strong, but Brodeur has been more consistent, plain and simple.

Scott Clemmenson's current play has little to do with how Brodeur plays. It's silly to even suggest that. Clemmenson has played well. I guess people trying to discredit Brodeur can't simply accept another goalie playing well, and constantly look at the success of his backup as something to knock him for, yet at the some time bring guys like Nabakov and again lol Lundqvist into the conversation. Not to mention you asked how a guy never the best could be seen as the greatest over a period of time, and I told you. How do you respond? By splitting hairs over Brodeur being good enough to win the Vezina the past 2 years, after you previously talked about how Hasek's Vezina's were a reason to consider him the best. While I agree Hasek was great, you can't say one guys awards count, and the other guys dont. I know your head must be spinning by now, but if you are going to bring yourself into a discussion, it is advised not to contradict yourself so frequently.

Anonymous said...

"Not to mention you asked how a guy never the best could be seen as the greatest over a period of time, and I told you."

No you didnt.

By your logic Ron Francis should be the greatest hockey player of All Time because he was consistently good, not great, for a long time.

Explain why after winning 2 Cups he AGAIN was not chosen to start for Team Canada? And after Roy ( the chosen starter) decided not to play he STILL wasnt chosen to start for Team Canada?

Hasek's Vezina's are different from Brodeur's because there was such a huge gap between Hasek and the rest of the goalies in the NHL. It was never close, it was Hasek by a mile.

What about Hasek's MVP's? He wasnt just voted best goalie but best player period.

With Brodeur's " Vezina's" there are always at least 2 other goalies with similar numbers to him, he doesnt stick out above his peers. Like he gets chosen by default... ever since the Gold Medal.


"Scott Clemmenson's current play has little to do with how Brodeur plays. "

Clemmensen is putting up almost identical numbers that Brodeur puts up year in and year out.

Has Clemmensen, who has always been a career back up, sundenly caught fire for 2 mounths?

Or is it that easy to play Goalie for the NJ Devils?

Anonymous said...

Why wasn't Brodeur chosen to start for Canada in 98? Because Roy's coach was also the coach for team Canada, and Roy came out and said before the starter was chosen that he would not show up if he didnt start every game. The same thing happened in 02. Curtis Joseph's coach happened to be the coach of team Canada. After Joseph played poorly in the opening game, Wayne Gretzky, you know the greatest hockey player ever, the guy who picked the team, demanded that Brodeur start, and guess what hapened? They won for the first time in 50 years.

Your Ron Francis point is hysterical because Francis was never one of the top 3 players in the league, let alone for 15-20 years. Try again.

And again with Clemmenson, you are just assuming because Clemmenson is playing well, and that it is just easy to play for New Jersey. Yet what about the guys you previously mentioned? Did you realize you contradicted yourself? Lundqvist lol? has looked like a backup compared to Steve Valiquette. And how do you explain Brian Boucher putting up numbers that make Nabakov look terrible. Yet you try to knock Brodeur because Scott Clemmenson still by your own admission, has only "almost" matched what Brodeur has been doing for over 15 years? Your points dont hold water.

Anonymous said...

"Why wasn't Brodeur chosen to start for Canada in 98?"

No he wasnt.

This just proves you know nothing about hockey.


"Your Ron Francis point is hysterical because Francis was never one of the top 3 players in the league, let alone for 15-20 years. Try again."

Its hysterical, yet this is why you say Brodeur is the "Best Ever"


You also seem to have a problem with Lundqvist.

Is that because he outplays Brodeur everytime the go head to head?

When Brodeur got hurt this year Devils fans all over NHL forums were saying that the "Devils were done", that they were "not gonna make the playoffs and hope to get in the Tavers sweepstakes".

Thats how important Brodeur is to the Devils, he IS the team.

And they were all wrong, the Devils are in first place in the Atlantic and doing just fine.

They OVERRATED his value and importance to the Devils, he's not that good, and he obviously is not the reaon they win.

Anonymous said...

Are you joking? You asked why Brodeur didnt start for Canada in 98, and I answered your question. Simply replying "No" shows you have no clue what you are talking about. Marc Crawford, coach of the Avalanche, coached team Canada that year. Roy said publicly that if he didnt start every game, you wouldnt play for the team. Pretty simple. Then, when Gretzky picked the team in 02, and Roy wasnt one of the first 8 chosen, he withdrew his name from consideration for the job. Typical Patrick Roy antics.

You ask how a guy who is never the best can be the best over a period of time. I said somebody who is consistently among the best i.e. top 3-5. You reply by mentioning Ron Francis?!?! who was at times not even the 3rd best player on his team! That is a terrible comparison, yet consistent with your entire argument.

Next you gave yourself away as a Ranger fan, which would definitely make sense given you lack of an argument, but I have nothing against Lundqvist. He just couldnt hold a candle to Brodeur. I think that this is the first time I have ever heard that comparison even suggested. Lundqvist consistently finished a WAY distant 3rd in Vezina voting, and in every year he was nominated, he didnt really have numbers that stood out amongst other top 10 goalies, while every time being light years behind Brodeur. As far as head to head, that is another indication of your lack of knowledge, because aside from win/loss record Lundqvist has hardly played better than Brodeur. The only difference is the Rangers were a better team than the Devils, and the Devils are a low scoring team, hence the Rangers won more often than not, and did so in low scoring trap filled games, not exactly rocket science. So if you are using a team influenced win/loss record, or even head to head statistics, you have just further shown you dont know what you are talking about.

But anyway, good job changing your original argument once proven wrong, Good job!

Anonymous said...

LETS GO RANGERS LOL

NEW YORK RANGER LAND... WHERE HATING ON THE DEVILS COMES BEFORE ROOTING FOR THE RANGERS

Anonymous said...

"The only difference is the Rangers were a better team than the Devils, and the Devils are a low scoring team, hence the Rangers won more often than not, and did so in low scoring trap filled games, not exactly rocket science. "

The Devils were a low scoring team last year, and so were the Rangers.

GF GA
NJ 206 197
NYR 213 199

The Devils and Rangers were 2 of the lowest scoring teams last year. That series came down to Goaltending, and Brodeur was horrible as usual.

Lundqvist badly outplayed Brodeur that series and Brodeur gave up horrible goal after horrible goal.

Brodeurs playoff round 2007-2008
W L GA SA S%
GP 5 1 4 16 147 .891


If Brodeur is so many "Light years" ahead of Lundqvist the Devils should have won. Both teams were just as low scoring, why didnt Marty stand on his head and take over the series?

Oh thats right, because he cant and never has.

By the way, Clemmesen is in the top 10 of every goalie stat, wins, GAA and S%.

The Devils might have the next " Best Ever!"

Anonymous said...

How quickly Ranger fans forget about 2005-06? Lundqvist sure shined then.

But of course we wont talk about that. I also supposed by using the whole "his team won A PLAYOFF SERIES head to head so he must be better" argument then both Ryan Miller and Marc Andre Fleury are better than Lundqvist? So which is it? Please clarify what you are saying? Regardless, once again you have proven you have no clue what is going on. Brodeur's career numbers against the Rangers are excellent. He has never given up 8 goals to them by the way.

On a quick note, I like how you drop all of your arguments the second you are proven wrong. At least you can acknowledge it.

But to finish you off, anyone following hockey could have told you the Rangers were better than the Devils last year. The difference was far more then you make it seem. The Rangers were 11-2 against New Jersey, if Lundqvist was so amazing than why couldn't he come close to replicating those numbers against other teams? Brodeur's supposedly "horrible numbers" against the Rangers were actually consistent with how he played against almost every other team. Good enough to be in the top 5 in every goaltending category and win another Vezina. Again you don't need to be a rocket scientist to see Lundqvist is no where near Brodeur. The fact that you admit to being a Ranger fan further takes away credibility because Ranger fans have made it obvious how jealous they are of Brodeur by the way they hype up all their goalies. Richter, Blackburn, Lundqvist.. all portrayed by the team and media to be what? The Rangers version of Martin Brodeur.. to quote Sam Rosen. Must suck having a huge franchise with tons of money and still taking a back seat to the next door neighbors. What drives Rangers fans nuts is that if Brodeur was a Ranger, they might have actually won something in the past decade.

Either way, your arguments are second rate. You are consistently proven wrong, thus you just jump to another argument. The fact that you even try to compare a guy like Lundqvist, who has been playing spectacular this year lol, to Brodeur, or even Luongo, is laughable at best.

Oh wait, I think I figured it out. As a Ranger fan, it must drive you nuts that even with Brodeur and Luongo out Lundqvist still isnt even a serious Vezina candidate, and that yes, Scott Clemmenson, will likely finish higher than him in voting.

Anonymous said...

"How quickly Ranger fans forget about 2005-06? Lundqvist sure shined then."

Yeah he did, he was hurt but I guess that doesnt matter. I guess it didnt matter that Jagr, who was the MVP that year, seperated his shoulder in game 1.

It doesnt surprise that you cherish that playoff series, seeing as its the only playoff series your team has ever won against the Rangers.

"He has never given up 8 goals to them by the way."

Of course he hasnt, he always gets pulled when ever he lets up 5 or more.

"Must suck having a huge franchise with tons of money and still taking a back seat to the next door neighbors. What drives Rangers fans nuts is that if Brodeur was a Ranger, they might have actually won something in the past decade."

Youre right, it must also suck being so successfull and no one giving a crap.

What bothers you more as a Devils fan?

Messier's game 6 Hat trick and guarantee?

Game 7 Matteau! Matteau!

Walking over your teams defeated body to one of the most historic Stanley Cups in NHl history?

Adam Graves sending your team home ....yet again in overtime?

How about last year when the NYR fans took over " The Rock!" and had a party in your building?

Does anyone even know who the Devils beat for their 3 Cups?

Does anyone care?

Did anyone show up to the parades in the parking lot?

The difference between Lunqvist and Brodeur is this.

If Lundqvist played for another NHL team we would probably still hear about him.

If Brodeur played his first 10 years on the Florida Panthers we wouldnt even know who he was.

"What drives Rangers fans nuts is that if Brodeur was a Ranger, they might have actually won something in the past decade."


What drives Devils fans nuts is that if Brodeur wansnt there goalie they would have 4 Cups instead of 3.

Anonymous said...

FINALLY!! THE JEALOUS RANGER FAN COMES OUT OF HIS SHELL!!!

And why am I all of a sudden a Devils fan? What because I can say Brodeur is better than Lundqvist? I hate to break it to you but outside the misery of Ranger land, NOBODY CONSIDERS LUNDQVIST AS GOOD AS BRODEUR.

And yea I am sure New Jersey fans can't stand the fact that Martin Brodeur is their goalie lol.

But anyway thanks for confirming your agenda. Bashing Brodeur on an anti-Brodeur site so you can subtly try to slip Lundqvist into the same company as Brodeur, Luongo, and Nabakov lol.

Thanks for a few laughs. LETS GO RANGERS!!! LOL

Anonymous said...

You see the thing is, a large majority of the people who frequent this site to bash Brodeur have an agenda. As the Ranger fan above just showed, all it takes is a little bit a trash talk to expose their true intentions, i.e. sneak Lundqvist into this conversation.

There are a select few, who seem to actually care about number crunching and debating different aspects of the game and the position as it has evolved, but the majority are simply trying to bash Brodeur. Most of the time it is jealousy, i.e. exhibit A Ranger fan a few posts back. Other times it is the few, but loyal Hasek supporters who are pissed Hasek never got the credit he deserved. The truth is, everybody knows that the whole "best ever" thing is subjective. Therefore it shouldn't be hard for a Roy fan to recognize what Brodeur has done, or a Brodeur supporter to appreciate what Hasek has done, etc. It is all debatable, and all subjective. Thus red flags go up anytime somebody sits here and tries to bash Brodeur, because more often than not, as the poor fellow a few posts up just exemplified, they are just a fan of a rival team/player, and pissed off at the attention a guy they hate gets.

The Contrarian Goaltender said...

Let's try to keep the discussion on goaltending and away from a general Rangers vs. Devils debate.

The truth is, everybody knows that the whole "best ever" thing is subjective.

This is true, and this does account for some of the disagreement. Some people place what I consider to be a completely irrational weighting on consistency, longevity, and durability. I'm sure they think I'm equally irrational in the way I pretty much overlook all of those things, and that makes it tough to come to a consensus in an all-time debate.

However, that does not mean that every argument is equal. It also does not mean that your criteria can change. For example, someone who thinks that Brodeur's durability is important and the main reason for his greatness better have Glenn Hall ranked #2 or they are being inconsistent. They can't get out of that simply by claiming that "everything is subjective."

It is also not correct to describe someone's performance record as subjective. We know how many goals they allowed, how many saves they made, etc. The subjectivity is in the adjustment for team defence, and possibly in the goalie's impact on team shot prevention, but that's it. In short, your criteria are subjective, but the may you apply that criteria to evaluating goalies must not be.

I'm not saying I'm perfect in this area because we all have our biases, but it is nevertheless what we should strive for.

The Contrarian Goaltender said...

Question for the pro-Brodeur Anonymous: Who was better, Bobby Orr or Ray Bourque?

Just checking the consistency of how you apply your "average league rank over the course of a career determines greatness" criterion.

Anonymous said...

From the Original Anonymous: Can the NYR & NJ Anonymouses go to a "fan site", & get off this more statistically-based site?

These highschool arguments are boring me ("you're just jealous!!" "no way I'm not!! YOU'RE jealous!!"). Yeeeeesh.

Anonymous said...

Question for the pro-Brodeur Anonymous: Who was better, Bobby Orr or Ray Bourque?

.........

That is a good question and honest to God the only reason I would take Orr is because Bourque never won anything. He got a handout Stanley Cup in Denver, while Orr did it with his team. If Bourque had lets say 2 or 3 cups with Boston, I would easily take him over Orr.

The way I approach the all time greatest debate factors a lot of things. First and foremost, is if I were a GM and building a franchise, who would be that building block for the future. Not having to worry about replacing a guy for 15-20 years, all while consistently getting "top 3" performance at that position would easily outweigh 7-10 years of "best at his position" performance.

Now this is not to say their wouldnt be exceptions if the disparity wasn't great enough, i.e. the terrible comparison used earlier, Ron Francis would not get the nod over Pavel Bure, but a guy like Brendan Shanahan or Steve Yzerman would.

Now I would be interested in hearing who would be your All Time greatest piece by piece team, but I can guarantee, at least if you use the same criteria you do for evaluating goalies, that the team I pick would have more success long term than yours would. I am guessing using your rational that the blueline might be Orr, and Leetch, while I would prefer Bourque and Lidstrom. My point being that while it is in MOST cases debatable who was better at their peak, it isnt debatable who was better long term. After all, hockey more than most other sports, is a team game, and should be evaluated as such. Just my 2 cents.

Sean McAllister said...

You have WAY too much time on your hands

Anonymous said...

... as opposed to someone who writes the Just A Little Concerned right-wing garbage blog...

Anonymous said...

Hey, my little bro just wrote a nasty comment! (#30) Delete it!! haha

Ron said...

Balanced and fair assessment. Canadians as a whole dislike seeing a player dive. Referencing anonymous comments way back there, no, we dont support our own countrymen who dive...and its a constant source of embarrassment when it happens. I am curious about the further comment that diving doesn't effect a game outcome either way.... Logic would dictate its not worth doing then no?

sNaFu said...

stumbling upon this late while searching for something related so i thought i'd chime in...

#1)Markstrom was nominated for ALL the Oscars and won half them with that performance, he was a clown and I cant see how ANY hockey fan, (even his own) would be proud of that nonsense.
#2)Euros are unfairly given a bum rap for diving but since you almost never see a N.A. player execute a super-dive the stereotype is not completely unwarranted.
#3)Hasek is one of the best goaltenders of all time...he's in that rare club with Sawchuk, Roy, Tretiak, etc. He not only wins games, he steals them and very few goalies can accomplish that