Busting The Patrick Roy Myth

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

In 1995, Hasek's Sabres scored more goals, had a better powerplay, a better shot differential, and finished higher in the standings than Roy's Canadians.

In 1997, Hasek's Sabres won their division (Roy's Avalanche were better though).

And yet, when we look at the rosters and compare, you know damn well that we'd all prefer to play behind those Habs and/or Avalanche teams. The importance of the existence (vs non-existence) of Hall of Famers in a lineup isn't lost on anyone here, I'm sure, and then there's the calibre of player as we proceed further and further down the depth chart.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Roy was incredible in the 96 playoffs. Red Wings broke the regular season record, Russian Five was tearing the league apart, and he stopped them. Give the devil his due.

Well, Fedorov had 9 points in 6 games that series, and Konstantinov and Fetisov had an even +/- for the series at least (couple points each, I believe). Kozlov and Larionov were a bit disappointing, but even they still managed to have big games. Kozlov had a multi-point game when the Red Wings poured 5 goals past Roy (for the second time that series), for example. Roy did shut the door, though, in game two, which was probably one of Larionov's best or the series "unfortunately" (for the Wings).

 

[Quatre Vingt Treize]

Why do Hockey fans still believe the myth that Roy won with undermanned teams?

The 86 Habs were ridiculously talented with:
2 HOF defensemen(Chelios and Robinson)
3 great forwards(Lemiuex, Naslund and Smith)
2 of the greatest defensive forwards ever(Gainey and Carbonneau)

and on top of that Roy lucked out and didn't have to play a single division winner in the playoffs

Not repeating(or at least getting back to the Cup Finals) in 87 should of been considered a travesty. Roy got lit up like a Christmas tree against the Flyers in the playoffs.

The 93 Habs probable had the easiest road to the Cup in NHL history beating:
104 point Nords
86 point Sabres
87 point Isles
88 point Kings

Roy also got great goal support

The 96 Avs The most glaringly stupid of all the "Roy carried them on his back" narratives.

The 96 Avs were the highest scoring Stanley cup winner of the last 20 seasons.

The 01 Avs do I even have to go in to this? They were basically an all star team.

In conclusion we can say not only were none of the championship teams Roy played on were undermanned but they were so great that they probable could of won without a HOF caliber goalie. Roy also blew it on another team that should of at least played for a Stanley Cup(87 Habs)

Did Roy play much against Flyers in the '87 playoffs? I remember we took him out in favour of Hayward in the Quebec series. That was the year we got a break Fraser called a goal against us back.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

whoa, just went through this thread. whoa.

two thoughts: 1. the premise of this thread is, of course, ridiculous. was roy the only reason his teams won? of course not. did he have help? who doesn't? is he more responsible for his teams' four cups than any other player who ever won four cups? hard to think of anyone else.

2. '86 habs vs. '99 stars. i think it's a legitimate comparison. we look back and think of those stars as a powerhouse, and the '86 habs as a team that overachieved. to me, they were basically the same team only the habs had more in goal and the stars had a true number one center. you even have three players who were at the beginnings of their careers in '86 at ending their careers with dallas at the end of the millennium.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

2. '86 habs vs. '99 stars. i think it's a legitimate comparison. we look back and think of those stars as a powerhouse, and the '86 habs as a team that overachieved. to me, they were basically the same team only the habs had more in goal and the stars had a true number one center. you even have three players who were at the beginnings of their careers in '86 at ending their careers with dallas at the end of the millennium.

Dallas in '99 finished first in the NHL by 9 points over the second-place team.

Montreal in '86 finished 7th, 32 points behind the first-place team, at a time with significantly less parity that in '99.

We think of Dallas as a powerhouse because they had the most points in the regular season, and the best goal differential. If that's not a powerhouse, I don't know what is.

Keane, Carbonneau, Ludwig, Skrudland...more like the '89 Habs than '86 it seems.

 

[overpass]

Dallas in '99 finished first in the NHL by 9 points over the second-place team.

Montreal in '86 finished 7th, 32 points behind the first-place team, at a time with significantly less parity that in '99.

We think of Dallas as a powerhouse because they had the most points in the regular season, and the best goal differential. If that's not a powerhouse, I don't know what is.

Keane, Carbonneau, Ludwig, Skrudland...more like the '89 Habs than '86 it seems.

If you look at h-r's Simple Rating System (based on regular season goal differential and strength of schedule) the 86 Habs and 99 Stars were very similar.

86 Habs: SRS of 0.70
99 Stars: SRS of 0.76

 

[GuineaPig]

Of course, it helped. Colorado's defense was excellent, but Roy was the most important part. By game 6, Alex Mogilny had basically given up...

Oh, I'm aware. I just think that people using how many goals a team scores as the only level of "team support" (or vice versa, how many goals the other team scores as the sole measure of a goalie's performance) to be misleading.

As you're fond of pointing out, Hasek got more goal support (2.76 per game compared to 2.52 in the regular season) in the '99 playoffs. But Buffalo also allowed more shots (31.3/game compared to 30.0 in the regular season), took more penalties (5.6 times shorthanded/game compared to 4.9), and allowed more shots on the PK (7.7/game to 6.4), so I don't think it's reasonable to conclude that his team played much better in the playoffs.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

If you look at h-r's Simple Rating System (based on regular season goal differential and strength of schedule) the 86 Habs and 99 Stars were very similar.

86 Habs: SRS of 0.70
99 Stars: SRS of 0.76

SRS doesn't consider parity though. 0.76 in 1999 is not the same thing as 0.76 in 1986. The smaller the spread in goal differential, the smaller the SRS absolute values.

 

[overpass]

SRS doesn't consider parity though. 0.76 in 1999 is not the same thing as 0.76 in 1986. The smaller the spread in goal differential, the smaller the SRS absolute values.

Right. Montreal was 3rd in SRS in 1986, and Dallas was 1st in SRS in 1999.

But it's not clear that parity should be considered. Vadim sharifjanov was comparing the strength of their rosters, not their standing relative to other teams in the league.

 

[Habsfunk]

The best Habs' team Roy played on was the 1989 team. In 1986, Richer, Lemieux, Carbonneau, Chelios and Corson (not to forget Roy) were all young and inexperienced. By 1989 they had three more seasons under their belt and were really clicking. Add in Mats Naslund and Bobby Smith providing offense up front, and Bob Gainey, Brian Skrudland and Mike McPhee as defensive forwards, and you had a very strong and balanced group of forwards. The defense was led by Chris Chelios, who won the Norris that year, and he was complemented by (an aging) Larry Robinson, Rick Green, Craig Ludwig and Petr Svoboda.

The only thing the 86 team had over that group was that Robinson and Gainey were younger and better that year.

That 89 team lost to the Flames in the finals, so there's no way you could say the 86 Habs were better than the 89 Habs.

 

[Rhiessan71]

The best Habs' team Roy played on was the 1989 team. In 1986, Richer, Lemieux, Carbonneau, Chelios and Corson (not to forget Roy) were all young and inexperienced. By 1989 they had three more seasons under their belt and were really clicking. Add in Mats Naslund and Bobby Smith providing offense up front, and Bob Gainey, Brian Skrudland and Mike McPhee as defensive forwards, and you had a very strong and balanced group of forwards. The defense was led by Chris Chelios, who won the Norris that year, and he was complemented by (an aging) Larry Robinson, Rick Green, Craig Ludwig and Petr Svoboda.

The only thing the 86 team had over that group was that Robinson and Gainey were younger and better that year.

That 89 team lost to the Flames in the finals, so there's no way you could say the 86 Habs were better than the 89 Habs.

The ‘89 Habs were better than the ‘86 Habs but not by as much as the ‘89 Flames were better than the ‘86 Flames.
The ‘89 Flames were a powerhouse, anyone thats tries to say otherwise doesn‘t have a clue what they are talking about!

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Right. Montreal was 3rd in SRS in 1986, and Dallas was 1st in SRS in 1999.

Right. Montreal was 3rd, 0.55 behind first and 0.47 behind 2nd.

All I'm saying is that Dallas can rightly be considered a powerhouse in the context of its time, while Montreal cannot.

But it's not clear that parity should be considered. Vadim sharifjanov was comparing the strength of their rosters, not their standing relative to other teams in the league.

In terms of winning the Cup, the strength of a team's roster has no meaning unless it's considered relative to the teams it's competing against. Rosters are not built in a vaccuum.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

SRS night be useful in a given season to weed out "luck" factors. But look at how much better Dallas was in the 5 year period surrounding 1999 than Montreal was in the 5 year period surrounding 1986. This is overall points finishes:

Montreal:
1984: 11/21
1985: 5T/21
1986: 7/21
1987: 5/21
1988: 2/21

1997: 3T/26
1998: 1/26
1999: 1/27
2000: 5T/28
2001: 5/30

 

[Oowatanite]

This whole thread is rediculous and the OP is bordering on trolling. There is no myth. Patrick Roy was one of the best goalies of all time period.

 

[overpass]

Right. Montreal was 3rd, 0.55 behind first and 0.47 behind 2nd.

All I'm saying is that Dallas can rightly be considered a powerhouse in the context of its time, while Montreal cannot.


In terms of winning the Cup, the strength of a team's roster has no meaning unless it's considered relative to the teams it's competing against. Rosters are not built in a vaccuum.

In a direct sense, Montreal did not compete against Edmonton or Philadelphia in the playoffs. Both were eliminated by other teams. Similarly, Detroit and New Jersey were not direct competitors to Dallas in the 1999 playoffs.

I think the 86 Habs can be compared to the 99 Stars both in terms of their rosters and in terms of their strength vs playoff competitors.

 

[overpass]

SRS night be useful in a given season to weed out "luck" factors. But look at how much better Dallas was in the 5 year period surrounding 1999 than Montreal was in the 5 year period surrounding 1986. This is overall points finishes:

Montreal:
1984: 11/21
1985: 5T/21
1986: 7/21
1987: 5/21
1988: 2/21

1997: 3T/26
1998: 1/26
1999: 1/27
2000: 5T/28
2001: 5/30

Fair point. But remember that SRS adjusts for strength of schedule, unlike points. Montreal played in the stronger conference top to bottom, and Dallas played in the weaker conference top to bottom.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

This whole thread is rediculous and the OP is bordering on trolling. There is no myth. Patrick Roy was one of the best goalies of all time period.

Agreed - Hasek backers feel the need to downplay Roy's playoff achievements, which does not work very well - Roy is hands down the greatest playoff goalie in history and amongst the greatest post-season performers ever. That's just a fact.

 

[PhillyBluesFan]

Kinda hard to beat a division winner pre-94 if you win your own division... unless you win rounds 1 and 2 and the other division winner in your conference does the same. similar story post-94. If you win your division you are definitely not facing a division champion in round 1, and almost certainly not in round 2 either (it would be a 2/3 matchup and those are rare because 1, 2, 3 all have to win, and that never happens)

This stat is really silly without context. So he beat 4 division winners. How many beat him? And at least 3 division winners lose every year, so who are the goalies always beating them? Is there any real correllation between being a great goalie and being the goalie on a team that upsets a division winner?

4/34 is an insane amount of luck. If you don't want to use divsion winners as the measure Roy beat 6 teams with a .600 pts%. As for his record against division winners he was 4-7(IIRC) and thats not to say "Roy couldn't beat good teams" that just says that he's like every other player in history not some super clutch guy who carried teams to Cups.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

4/34 is an insane amount of luck.

Prove it.

 

[PhillyBluesFan]

The best Habs' team Roy played on was the 1989 team. In 1986, Richer, Lemieux, Carbonneau, Chelios and Corson (not to forget Roy) were all young and inexperienced. By 1989 they had three more seasons under their belt and were really clicking. Add in Mats Naslund and Bobby Smith providing offense up front, and Bob Gainey, Brian Skrudland and Mike McPhee as defensive forwards, and you had a very strong and balanced group of forwards. The defense was led by Chris Chelios, who won the Norris that year, and he was complemented by (an aging) Larry Robinson, Rick Green, Craig Ludwig and Petr Svoboda.

The only thing the 86 team had over that group was that Robinson and Gainey were younger and better that year.

That 89 team lost to the Flames in the finals, so there's no way you could say the 86 Habs were better than the 89 Habs.

I would take the 86 team over 89 team. Robinson, Naslund and Gainey were much better iin 86 more than making up the difference in how much better Chelios, Richer and Svboda got.

 

[MXD]

whoa, just went through this thread. whoa.

two thoughts: 1. the premise of this thread is, of course, ridiculous. was roy the only reason his teams won? of course not. did he have help? who doesn't? is he more responsible for his teams' four cups than any other player who ever won four cups? hard to think of anyone else.

2. '86 habs vs. '99 stars. i think it's a legitimate comparison. we look back and think of those stars as a powerhouse, and the '86 habs as a team that overachieved. to me, they were basically the same team only the habs had more in goal and the stars had a true number one center. you even have three players who were at the beginnings of their careers in '86 at ending their careers with dallas at the end of the millennium.

Bobby Smith was CERTAINLY a legit no. 1 center in 1986 (not Lemieux, Gretzky, Stastny or Hawerchuck caliber, but Smith was a much better player -- or more like, a much better fit a 1st C -- than a guy like Patrik Sundstrom, 37-years old Gilbert Perreault or Dave Poulin, and certainly better or more fit as a 1st C than every guy they faced in the playoffs that season (Francis or Ferraro (which raises question about Francis at that time...), Linsman/Pederson, Ridley and Quinn), . However, there is an argument to be made than that Habs team had no legit 2nd Center (Guy Carbonneau was not a 2nd C in the "purest" sense of the term, even if, all in all, he was a better player than most, if not all (except Messier or some odd cases) actual 2nd C's in the league at that time, and while Ryan Walter was a pretty good player, he was probably not a bona-fide 2nd line C at that point).

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Hasek won 12 playoff series in his career, 3 over division winners. Of course, by then, 6/16 playoff teams were division winners, vs 4/16 the majority of Roy's career.

1998 was the last season of 4 divisions, and it was the first time Hasek won a series as the starting goalie. Buffalo made it to the second round in 1997 with Steve Shields starting the majority of games.

 

[PhillyBluesFan]

Prove it.

Its logic, he won the Whales conference 3x the winner of the Patrick division got upset in all 3 years. In 86 and 93 he lucked out and the winner of the Adams division got upset also.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Its logic, he won the Whales conference 3x the winner of the Patrick division got upset in all 3 years. In 86 and 93 he lucked out and the winner of the Adams division got upset also.

It's not logic (okay, perhaps it's poor logic, or logic applied poorly).

When you play in a format where (1) there aren't as many division winners, (2) division winners can't play until the conference finals, and (3) your team wins the division a lot, it's statistically likely that you won't play a lot of other division winners.

So with that in mind, prove that he was lucky (let alone "insanely lucky") in this regard.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Hasek won 12 playoff series in his career, 3 over division winners. Of course, by then, 6/16 playoff teams were division winners, vs 4/16 the majority of Roy's career.

1998 was the last season of 4 divisions, and it was the first time Hasek won a series as the starting goalie. Buffalo made it to the second round in 1997 with Steve Shields starting the majority of games.

Can someone run the numbers on Grant Fuhr? It would take me a little while to determine which series he was the starter for. I like Fuhr as a comparable because he won a lot of series when there were only 4 divisions, like Roy.