Busting The Patrick Roy Myth | Page 6 | HFBoards - NHL Message Board and Forum for National Hockey League
Toggle sidebar

Busting The Patrick Roy Myth

Taco MacArthur said:
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.
Click to expand...

From 75-98(the 4 division format) the Stanley Cup winner has had to beat a division winner in all but 5 seasons, 2 of those 5 were the 86 & 93 Habs.
 
TheDevilMadeMe said:
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.
Click to expand...

From 84-88 the Oilers beat 6 division winners
 
overpass said:
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.
Click to expand...
As I understand it, however, SRS does not consider the scoring environment. Playing in a lower-scoring era, goal differentials will be more tightly bunched, drawing the best and worst teams toward zero relative to higher-scoring times.

A great team playing in 1986 can be +110 while in 1999 they might be +80 (a difference of about 0.37 in SRS as I understand it), with the same point total, because there were simply fewer goals scored in 1999. Their SRS, assuming equal SOS, would be lower in 1999 than in 1986, simply because of the lower scoring environment.

It's no coincidence that the absolute values of SRS in the late 1990s/early 2000s are significantly lower than in the 1980s, which makes the statistic of dubious value for comparing teams from different times.

Which in turn suggests that a scoring level-adjusted SRS would be desirable. Anyone done any work on that? If not I might have to.
 
TheDevilMadeMe said:
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.
Click to expand...

1982: 0-1 in series, 0-0 against div. winners
1984: 4-0, 2-0
1985: 4-0, 1-0
1986: 1-1, 0-0
1987: 4-0. 1-0
1988: 4-0, 2-0
1989: 0-1, 0-0
1991: 2-1, 1-0
1993: 1-1, 1-0
1997: 0-1, 0-0
1998: 1-1, 0-0
1999: 1-1, 0-1

overall: 22-8
against div winners: 8-1
 
Iain Fyffe said:
As I understand it, however, SRS does not consider the scoring environment. Playing in a lower-scoring era, goal differentials will be more tightly bunched, drawing the best and worst teams toward zero relative to higher-scoring times.

A great team playing in 1986 can be +110 while in 1999 they might be +80 (a difference of about 0.37 in SRS as I understand it), with the same point total, because there were simply fewer goals scored in 1999. Their SRS, assuming equal SOS, would be lower in 1999 than in 1986, simply because of the lower scoring environment.

It's no coincidence that the absolute values of SRS in the late 1990s/early 2000s are significantly lower than in the 1980s, which makes the statistic of dubious value for comparing teams from different times.

Which in turn suggests that a scoring level-adjusted SRS would be desirable. Anyone done any work on that? If not I might have to.
Click to expand...

I hadn't realized SRS was a differential stat only. In that case you're right, it isn't really comparable across seasons. I'll concede the Stars were a better team, although there are some similarities.
 
Here's the playoff series which Roy lost:

87- Lost to Flyers 1st in Patrick (only played 1/6 games with 1L)
88- Lost to Boston 2nd in Adams (only played 3/5 games with 3L)
89- Lost to Calgary 1st in Smythe and NHL
90- Lost to Boston 1st in Adams and NHL
91- Lost to Boston 1st in Adams
92- Lost to Boston 2nd in Adams

During the 4 division era, Roy lost 4/6 to a Division winner, 1/6 to the Stanley cup winner, 3/6 to a Stanley cup finalist and only in '92 did MTL lose to a team with a lower point total.

Change in divisions. Still 4, but with more teams per division.
94- Lost to Boston 2nd in Northeast (only played 6/7 games with 3L)
97- Lost to Detroit 2nd in Central
98- Lost to Edmonton 3rd in Pacific

Roy lost to a non-division winner each time, only Boston had higher point totals.

6 Division format.
99- Lost to Dallas 1st in Pacific and NHL
00- Lost to Dallas 1st in Pacific
02- Lost to Detroit 1st in Central and NHL
03- Lost to Minnesota 3rd in Northwest

Roy lost to a division winner 3/4 times, Stanley Cup winner 2/4 times and Stanley Cup finalist 1/4. Only Minnesota had fewer points.

In summary, of the 13 series Roy lost 8/13 teams had higher point totals, 7/13 won their division, 4/13 won the cup, and 4/13 were Stanley Cup finalists.

I'm not sure what exactly this proves other than when Roy lost it was generally to a good team.
 
Stansfield said:
Here's the playoff series which Roy lost:

87- Lost to Flyers 1st in Patrick (only played 1/6 games with 1L)
88- Lost to Boston 2nd in Adams (only played 3/5 games with 3L)
89- Lost to Calgary 1st in Smythe and NHL
90- Lost to Boston 1st in Adams and NHL
91- Lost to Boston 1st in Adams
92- Lost to Boston 2nd in Adams

During the 4 division era, Roy lost 4/6 to a Division winner, 1/6 to the Stanley cup winner, 3/6 to a Stanley cup finalist and only in '92 did MTL lose to a team with a lower point total.

Change in divisions. Still 4, but with more teams per division.
94- Lost to Boston 2nd in Northeast (only played 6/7 games with 3L)
97- Lost to Detroit 2nd in Central
98- Lost to Edmonton 3rd in Pacific

Roy lost to a non-division winner each time, only Boston had higher point totals.

6 Division format.
99- Lost to Dallas 1st in Pacific and NHL
00- Lost to Dallas 1st in Pacific
02- Lost to Detroit 1st in Central and NHL
03- Lost to Minnesota 3rd in Northwest

Roy lost to a division winner 3/4 times, Stanley Cup winner 2/4 times and Stanley Cup finalist 1/4. Only Minnesota had fewer points.

In summary, of the 13 series Roy lost 8/13 teams had higher point totals, 7/13 won their division, 4/13 won the cup, and 4/13 were Stanley Cup finalists.

I'm not sure what exactly this proves other than when Roy lost it was generally to a good team.
Click to expand...

These are great numbers and I think they further prove what i have been saying all along which is Roy didn't "carry teams to the cup" or overachieve or any of the other lame narratives.
 
overpass said:
I hadn't realized SRS was a differential stat only. In that case you're right, it isn't really comparable across seasons. I'll concede the Stars were a better team, although there are some similarities.
Click to expand...

The Stars won 5 straight division titles from 1997 to 2001 (and 7 of 9 between 1997 and 2006).

The won two straight President's Trophies in 1998 and 1999, before winning the 1999 Cup (which they followed up by making it to the 2000 finals).

When they won the Cup in 1999, the general perception was "about time" or "they deserved it after being a great team for so long." Dallas was a great team, on a similar level as Detroit and Colorado, but not for as long.

I was not following hockey for Montreal's 1986 Cup, but the impression I get from those who did was that it came out of nowhere
 
PhillyBluesFan said:
These are great numbers and I think they further prove what i have been saying all along which is Roy didn't "carry teams to the cup" or overachieve or any of the other lame narratives.
Click to expand...

This is saying that your not serious about this.


How can you say that Roy did not carry the habs team to the cup, by looking at the fact that when he loose in the playoff it was to very good team ? (and usualy in long series)
 
PhillyBluesFan said:
These are great numbers and I think they further prove what i have been saying all along which is Roy didn't "carry teams to the cup" or overachieve or any of the other lame narratives.
Click to expand...

No offense intended, but you seem like the one with the narrative.
 
As far as I am concerned there shouldn't be any extreme side on the Roy issue. Roy had a better team in front of him compared to Hasek's Sabres teams. But the Habs had significantly less talent on those teams than the favourites. To top it off, while you could never count Montreal out with Roy in there the truth is at the beginning of the postseason in 1986 and 1993 no one picked the Habs to win. This is probably because both of those years were littered with wild upsets and they featured two-time reigning Cup champs where the Cup was theirs to lose.

So the OP is right in the way that the 1986 and 1993 Habs were not bad teams. In fact they were what I would state as merely "good" teams without Roy but they were not going to win the Cup without Roy in there and everyone knew it. Not to mention the performance Roy gave in those years far outweighed any contribution another player gave.

Those Habs teams are not bad because they finished 7th and 6th in points. That's not bad, but again they were not considered contenders. In 1986 you would have easily picked the Oilers, Flames, Flyers, Capitals and probably even the Isles ahead of them. In 1993 the Pens were the heavy favourite and Chicago, Boston, Vancouver and probably even Detroit would have been taken more seriously. So that weighs in Roy's favour for sure. Not to mention if you did a poll as the worst teams to win the Cup post expansion those two teams would come up with the 1995 Devils, 2006 Canes, etc.

In 1996 that was Joe Sakic all the way. Roy played well but that is probably the "worst" of the Cup performances of his. In 2001 I have always felt Sakic could have gotten the Smythe again but I have no issue with Roy winning it . Overall he is the best playoff goalie of all time and it is really hard to argue against that
 
'86 and '93 was known as the year of the upset. After '86 NHL changed some of the rules to cut down on potential upset if I am not mistaken.

Habs were a good team built on players with great will to win, not just Roy. Carbonneau, Lemieux, Muller, Naslund to name a few. Roy played a big part, if not for him we don't get past Rangers in '86. He was a good money goalie. Is he as big as his legend? Probably not as upsets paved the way for the Habs, but still a good money goalie.
 
overpass said:
I hadn't realized SRS was a differential stat only. In that case you're right, it isn't really comparable across seasons. I'll concede the Stars were a better team, although there are some similarities.
Click to expand...
Definitely some similarities - the '99 Stars are the '86 Habs turned up to 11. And as I mentioned they had Carbonneau, Keane, Ludwig and Skrudland. That team loved them some ex-Montreal checkers - they had Brent Gilchrist a couple of seasons before and Mike McPhee a few years before that as well. Not surprising, considering the GM.

Big Phil said:
So the OP is right in the way that the 1986 and 1993 Habs were not bad teams. In fact they were what I would state as merely "good" teams without Roy but they were not going to win the Cup without Roy in there and everyone knew it.
Click to expand...
Exactly. If the OP's point was that these teams are probably a little better than most people give them credit for, I'd be right on board with that. But instead we had to go down Hyperbole Road, and it's just full of potholes even if it does seem to be a shortcut. I prefer Realism Avenue - not as exciting or interesting to some as dodging dangerously, but it's solid and gets you where you need to go.
 
I've looked at the five teams Roy played on that reached the Stanley Cup finals.

Offense

Season | RS GF | RS GA | Change
1986 | 4.13 | 2.8 | -32.1%
1989 | 3.94 | 3.19 | -19.0%
1993 | 3.88 | 3.3 | -15.0%
1996 | 3.98 | 3.64 | -8.5%
2001 | 3.29 | 3 | -8.9%
Average | 3.84 | 3.19 | -17.1%

Roy's team scored significantly less in the playoffs. On average, they scored 17% fewer goals per game in the playoffs, compared to the regular season. In general, teams score less in the playoffs, but it's roughly a 10% drop (if someone has the exact numbers for those seasons, please let me know). Thus, Roy's team scored even less than we would expect, even taking the general drop in offense into account.

Shots allowed

Season|RS SA|PO SA|Change
1986 | 26.8 | 24.9 | -6.8%
1989 | 26.3 | 26.3 | -0.3%
1993 | 29.8 | 30 | 0.8%
1996 | 28.5 | 26.8 | -6.2%
2001 | 24.7 | 25.7 | 4.0%
Average | 27.2 | 26.7 | -1.8%

This table compares shots allowed per minute in the regular season and playoffs, multiplied by sixty. On average, Roy's teams tightened up somewhat in the playoffs, preventing an extra 0.5 shots for every 60 minutes.

Roy's save percentage

Season|RS Sv%|PO Sv%|Change
1986 | 87.5% | 92.3% | 4.8%
1989 | 90.8% | 92.0% | 1.2%
1993 | 89.4% | 92.9% | 3.5%
1996 | 90.8% | 92.1% | 1.3%
2001 | 91.3% | 93.4% | 2.1%
Average | 90.0% | 92.5% | 2.6%

In each of the five times that Roys' teams advanced to the Stanley Cup finals, he played significantly better in the playoffs, compared to the regular season.

Summary

When Roy's teams advanced to the Stanley Cup finals, they were clearly weaker offensively (compared to the regular season) while being virtually unchanged defensively. On the other hand, Roy played significantly better in the postseason each time. This (along with the fact that he holds three Conn Smythe trophies) provides evidence that Roy was an essential part of his teams' playoff success.
 
Last edited:
PhillyBluesFan said:
OMG you can't be serious.

The Habs outside of goal had 2 HOF defensemen, 7 selke trophies and didn't play a single division winner. My grandmother could of played in the net and won a cup.
Click to expand...
Good lord. You talk about these guys like they were all in the prime of their careers during the cup winning season.

Most of those Selke/Hall of famers you are listing were either past their hall of fame performance primes, or had not yet reached it.

Robinson had a resurgent season, but make no mistake, that was not 70's Robinson you were seeing. Nor was Chelios yet remotely close to Norris caliber.

Had you actually watched those playoffs there would be no question in your mind just how instrumental Roy was, and how clutch and amazing he was.
 
MadLuke said:
This is saying that your not serious about this.


How can you say that Roy did not carry the habs team to the cup, by looking at the fact that when he loose in the playoff it was to very good team ? (and usualy in long series)
Click to expand...

Yes he lost to teams that were better and beat teams that the Habs were better than. He didn't carry anything or overachieve or any of the other stuff
 
PhillyBluesFan said:
Yes he lost to teams that were better and beat teams that the Habs were better than. He didn't carry anything or overachieve or any of the other stuff
Click to expand...
You say they were better. Were they 15-5 better in '86? Were they 16-4 better in '93? I rather doubt it. You're telling us they were an .800 team in 1993, that that's what you should have expected of them in the playoffs?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Latest posts

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom