Busting The Patrick Roy Myth

[Master_Of_Districts]

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.

I have.

1998-99 DAL

GF - 236
GA - 168
Schedule Difficulty (1=hardest) - 25th
ADJ GF - 234.0
ADJ GA - 170.2
ADJ Pythagorean Expectation - 0.634
ADJ Pythagorean Expectation Rank - 1st

1985-86 MTL

GF - 330
GA - 280
Schedule Difficulty (1=hardest) - 5th
ADJ GF - 329.6
ADJ GA - 272.7
ADJ Pythagorean Expectation - 0.582
ADJ Pythagorean Expectation Rank - 3rd

Schedule difficulty correction was based on 4 iterations.

 

[IComeInPeace]

When the Av's beat the Canucks in the first Rd and went on to win the Cup, I thought they won that series despite his play, not because he played so well...

And, I don't think it was just me. The general sentiment in Vancouver during the series was that we had to keep putting the puck at the net bc Roy was looking so shaky...that was really the only chance we had.

That era of hockey was hard to watch. I only watched Canuck games, so I can not comment on how well he played after that series, but he looked nothing like a super star against us.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

I have.

1998-99 DAL

GF - 236
GA - 168
Schedule Difficulty (1=hardest) - 25th
ADJ GF - 234.0
ADJ GA - 170.2
ADJ Pythagorean Expectation - 0.634
ADJ Pythagorean Expectation Rank - 1st

1985-86 MTL

GF - 330
GA - 280
Schedule Difficulty (1=hardest) - 5th
ADJ GF - 329.6
ADJ GA - 272.7
ADJ Pythagorean Expectation - 0.582
ADJ Pythagorean Expectation Rank - 3rd

Schedule difficulty correction was based on 4 iterations.

That's not what I mean. It looks to me like you've adjusted GF and GA based on SOS here (at least, that's my guess based on what you've presented). That's the same thing that SRS does effectively.

I meant adjusting the league scoring level, since it's easier to be +100 in a 4.00 GPG environment than it is in a 3.50 GPG environment, for example. I did some work on this today and should have some results to discuss soon.

 

[Master_Of_Districts]

That's not what I mean. It looks to me like you've adjusted GF and GA based on SOS here (at least, that's my guess based on what you've presented). That's the same thing that SRS does effectively.

I meant adjusting the league scoring level, since it's easier to be +100 in a 4.00 GPG environment than it is in a 3.50 GPG environment, for example. I did some work on this today and should have some results to discuss soon.

Yeah.

And using pythagorean expectation rather than goal differential - which I've done here - accomplishes that.

A team's pythagorean expectation will not vary as a function of the scoring context.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

And using pythagorean expectation rather than goal differential - which I've done here - accomplishes that.

A team's pythagorean expectation will not vary as a function of the scoring context.

It won't? A +100 team's pythagorean expectation varies based on the total goals the team is involved in. It's .640 at 400-300 and .692 at 300-200.

Edit: Sorry, you're saying that as long as the ratio of GF: GA remains constant, the pyth% will not change.

Why does Montreal's GA seem to be affected so much more in your analysis than their GF?

 

[MadLuke]

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

In a sens your are right (for 93 for sure, did not see 86) and it is true that in the quebec population we overstate how much those team should not have win (dispite the easy path).

But you do not see this in the history of hockey board.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

re: the '99 stars vs. '86 habs firestorm i seem to have started, i'd confused the regular season dominance of those '86 habs with the '88 and later versions of that team.

you're all right: the dallas team was a better team. in terms of just talent, i think they're close. but those '99 stars with hitchcock were more than the sum of their parts, and to a greater degree than the '86 habs were also greater than the sum of their parts.

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).

oh, i meant that bobby smith wasn't a legit #1 center on a cup winning team (in the modano, yzerman, sakic mould-- i.e. on the kinds of teams where guys like ron francis or '96 forsberg play on the second line). for sure smith was a legit #1 center on a normal NHL team and one of the better ones in the league at that.

same way i don't think '95 broten was a legit #1 center for a cup winner.

 

[BenchBrawl]

As a guy who followed Roy's career closely , this thread was unecessary.

Roy is a top 10 clutch player of all-time all team sports combined.

 

[CHGoalie27]

LOL Why do I get the feeling that this thread should've been about Martin Brodeur(best AND worst goalie ever)?

Roy is basically the greatest goalie of all time. Period. Not just when he was winning Cups and gathering trophies (which he just happened to have a **** load of).

 

[CHGoalie27]

As a guy who followed Roy's career closely , this thread was unecessary.

Roy is a top 10 clutch player of all-time all team sports combined.

Next to Mariano Rivera?

 

[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)

Penny almost did similar thing in '84.

 

[pdd]

3 Conn Smythes + easily #2 in 1996. Roy was a top 2 player on 4 Cup winners - no other goalie in history has close to that, even when there were only 6 teams in the league.

Vanbiesbrouck>Roy in 1996.

No goalie's EVER had better protection than Roy had in 86 and 87.

Mike Vernon in 1989 and 1997? Ed Belfour in 1999?

Or in 1997 and 1998 with Lidstrom, Yzerman, Fedorov, Konstantinov, Fetisov, Rouse?

Konstantinov didn't play on the 1998 team. He was in a wheelchair after nearly dying. Common mistake among non-Wings fans.

None of those are as good as what Roy had.

That's just a plain biased comment. Sorry. I agree Roy had good teams and lucked out in that some of the better teams were upset... but he was damn fine in those playoffs and his teams were not stacked with prime HOFers the way you're trying to put on.

Ummm...okay. I was a fan of both prior to Hasek's Cup, and I'm an American (and I was an American then, too). Where do I fit?

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.

Being fair, if Fedorov isn't playing with a broken rib (and then get another one broken by Aaron Miller) the Wings probably win that series.

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.

The 1993 Habs finished one point behind the 1993 Wings, finishing sixth overall, despite playing in a division with two of the league's top four teams in Boston and Quebec. The two teams (MTL and DET) both allowed 280 goals. Detroit scored 369 to Montreal's 326, but had the notoriously inconsistent Tim Cheveldae in net. Cheveldae had comparable regular season stats to Roy. Detroit was considered a favorite to win the Cup. Pittsburgh (56) and Boston (51) were the only teams with more than Montreal's 48 wins. If Roy was considered such a playoff monster, and Montreal truly was worthy of being a 102-point team... why wouldn't they be considered a favorite?

Not to mention the performance Roy gave in those years far outweighed any contribution another player gave.

That doesn't mean he carried the team. You could have 18 skaters who all contribute just a little bit less than a great goalie on an insanely stacked and dominant team, and it's not the goalie carrying the team but it is accurate to the statement you made.

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.

If you were to list information about the teams, such as where they ranked overall, what the quality of their opponents was, etc., 1993 Montreal would not be among the leaders. They beat an inexperienced Quebec team that finished with basically equal points (104 to 102) and then played an 86-point Buffalo team (109-point Boston had been upset), an 87-point Islander team (upset the 119-point Penguins), and an 88-point Kings team that had a negative GD in the regular season.

 

[wunderpanda]

In regards to the 86 team, how does Brian Hayward fit in? He and Roy won consecutive Jennings trophies while splitting time, Hayward played at least 35 games in those seasons as well. While I'm not trying to compare the two, it would seem the 86 Habs were a better team than they are given credit for, at least defensively.

 

[Hardyvan123]

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)

3 Conn Smythes + easily #2 in 1996. Roy was a top 2 player on 4 Cup winners - no other goalie in history has close to that, even when there were only 6 teams in the league.

You like save percentage based stats? Roy's playoff GVT blows every other goalie's out of the water.

The 1986 and 1993 Canadiens were very good teams, but outside of goal, they were easily the worst Cup winners of the pre-cap era since the expanded playoff format was introduced.

I think both of you can be right.

Those Habs teams didn't look great on paper but the best team doesn't always win the Cup, it's the team riding the wave and chemistry is often overlooked.

And Roy was just clutch when he had to be more so than any other goalie in playoff history IMO.

Goalies are like SP in baseball, they get too much credit for teams winning and too much blame for teams losing.

Winning the SC is a team effort.

 

[seventieslord]

In regards to the 86 team, how does Brian Hayward fit in?

He doesn't...

He and Roy won consecutive Jennings trophies while splitting time, Hayward played at least 35 games in those seasons as well. While I'm not trying to compare the two, it would seem the 86 Habs were a better team than they are given credit for, at least defensively.

Look at his save percentage stats compared to Roy when they played together.

And it was a different time, when to starters played a lot less across the board than they do now. Roy's lower gp totals say little about him and much about the era.

 

[BamBamCam*]

They beat an inexperienced Quebec team that finished with basically equal points (104 to 102) and then played an 86-point Buffalo team (109-point Boston had been upset), an 87-point Islander team (upset the 119-point Penguins), and an 88-point Kings team that had a negative GD in the regular season.

Since when and especially in 1993 was Montreal beating Boston an upset? It didn't/doesn't/will never matter if the Bruins win every game on the regular season, score 6 billion goals, never let a goal in their net; when they meet Montreal in the playoffs, the B's are going to lose.

I just strengthen your point. You're welcome

 

[Rhiessan71]

Since when and especially in 1993 was Montreal beating Boston an upset? It didn't/doesn't/will never matter if the Bruins win every game on the regular season, score 6 billion goals, never let a goal in their net; when they meet Montreal in the playoffs, the B's are going to lose.

I just strengthen your point. You're welcome

Montreal didn't beat Boston in '93, they swept Buffalo in the 2nd round who had just swept Boston in the 1rst round.

In fact, Boston had eliminated Montreal in the playoff's in 3 consecutive years leading up to '93 including a 4 game sweep in '92.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Since when and especially in 1993 was Montreal beating Boston an upset? It didn't/doesn't/will never matter if the Bruins win every game on the regular season, score 6 billion goals, never let a goal in their net; when they meet Montreal in the playoffs, the B's are going to lose.

I just strengthen your point. You're welcome

The small correction to this already made, you should know that post-'67 expansion, I think the playoff record between the two is only 64-49 in favour of the Habs - the Montreal dynasty of the 70s contributing the lion's share, of course. They've pretty much flip-flopped from core group to core group as far as who got the best of whom over the years, though, making it hardly such an exaggerated scenario like you painted, each time they meet.

 

[BamBamCam*]

Montreal didn't beat Boston in '93, they swept Buffalo in the 2nd round who had just swept Boston in the 1rst round.

In fact, Boston had eliminated Montreal in the playoff's in 3 consecutive years leading up to '93 including a 4 game sweep in '92.

Yes, I know I was being semi-facetious and over the top. I know that doesn't translate in type.

Side note:

I was in Czech Republic or Slovakia (I dont remember which train I was on) in 1992 and ran into a couple from Montreal seated near us.....

All I did was flash them the 4 fingers and zero fingers in my hands on the train, the guy knew exactly what I was talking about. It was funny, we all ended up traveling together for a little while. Honestly and no matter how you slice this, it really is a one sided rivalry with Montreal on top when it matters most and most of the time.

 

[Lacaar]

Roy was great when he was on a great team. Wasn't good enough to make a difference on a bad one.

He's not known to be half the goalie he is now if he didn't go cry baby.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gxlO243ztE

Watch those goals. That's not a great player playing hockey.. that's a pathetic cry baby knowing his team isn't any good. Instead of being a difference maker.

In the end it is the best thing that ever happend to him. He got traded to another great team... riding their coat tails to hhof'dom.

Give me Hasek 150 times a day over this loser.

 

[BamBamCam*]

The small correction to this already made, you should know that post-'67 expansion, I think the playoff record between the two is only 64-49 in favour of the Habs - the Montreal dynasty of the 70s contributing the lion's share, of course. They've pretty much flip-flopped from core group to core group as far as who got the best of whom over the years, though, making it hardly such an exaggerated scenario like you painted, each time they meet.

Alot longer than that, Montreal won every series from 1946 to 1987, the Bruins have only beaten them 7 times total out of 32 playoff matchups. The Habs have directly won 7 Stanley Cups beating the Bruins in the Finals nevermind 1971 and 1979. The B's rolled off 3 wins from 87 to 94 than proceeded to lose 3 in row. It's about as one sided as it gets, in Montreal's favor.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Alot longer than that, Montreal won every series from 1946 to 1987, the Bruins have only beaten them 7 times total out of 32 playoff matchups. The Habs have directly won 7 Stanley Cups beating the Bruins in the Finals nevermind 1971 and 1979. The B's rolled off 3 wins from 87 to 94 than proceeded to lose 3 in row. It's about as one sided as it gets, in Montreal's favor.

Which are all fair points. But in your exaggeration you typed "it didn't/doesn't/will never matter". Your examples take us up to '94, your wording includes the more recent past, the present, and the future. Counting series wins, it's only 3-2 in Montreal's favour since then, with Boston's two wins being the most recent, obviously.

 

[gifted88]

While I don't agree with most of what the OP is saying I think I get his point and somewhat agree. Patrick Roy was a big reason why his teams won cups, but it's dumb to say he was the only reason which is what "Roy carried those teams on his back" would imply.

I will say though, Roy's performance in the 86 playoffs made me a Habs fan and a Roy fan and got me into playing hockey as a goaltender.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Roy was great when he was on a great team. Wasn't good enough to make a difference on a bad one.

He's not known to be half the goalie he is now if he didn't go cry baby.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gxlO243ztE

Watch those goals. That's not a great player playing hockey.. that's a pathetic cry baby knowing his team isn't any good. Instead of being a difference maker.

In the end it is the best thing that ever happend to him. He got traded to another great team... riding their coat tails to hhof'dom.

Give me Hasek 150 times a day over this loser.

Wait, wait, wait...are you actually calling Roy a cry baby/suck and then saying you would take Hasek 150 times???
That‘s hilarious. You may want to brush up on your Hasek history.

 

[Killion]

That's not a great player playing hockey, that's a pathetic cry baby. ... traded to another great team, riding their coat tails to hhof'dom. Give me Hasek 150 times a day over this loser.

... yes, Ive heard this before, I guess we all have. As in...

* Roy Played behind defensive juggernauts
* Roy was a cheater because he used oversized gloves & jerseys
* Roy lacked character as witness his outburst in Montreal when shelled
* Roy ranks 19th in Save%'s, he ranks 33rd in GAA, 14th in Shutouts All Time...

not even enough meat on those bones to place him in the Top 5 All Time list, whereas Hasek? Better Save % and he faced way more shots than Patrick Roy ever did.... well, I'd take Roy 150 times a day and twice that on Sundays over Hasek, but I sure wouldnt call Dominic a "loser". I actually hated the way he played but my God, what a piece of work. Impossible not to admire, appreciate.