Busting The Patrick Roy Myth

[Nalyd Psycho]

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.

Neither of those Hall of Fame d-men were in their prime.

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

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.

Was contemplating a witty, biting rejoinder but decided this poster wasn't worth it.

 

[blogofmike]

I'm fine with the general assertion that Roy didn't carry his team to victory single-handedly, and he had solid defensive players in front of him...but to suggest he was a scrub because he was on winning teams is odd, to say the least.

 

[PhillyBluesFan]

I'm fine with the general assertion that Roy didn't carry his team to victory single-handedly, and he had solid defensive players in front of him...but to suggest he was a scrub because he was on winning teams is odd, to say the least.

There are players I think are astronomically overrated like Crosby and Lidstrom,, Roy isn't overrated at all I think Roy is the third best goalie ever. But people who act like he carried terrible habs teams are ridiculous.

 

[patnyrnyg]

I have never heard anyone say that Roy carried the Avs in either year. I HAVE heard he was the final piece for the 96 team. Considering the year before they were the 1st seed in the East and got bounced in the first round. In 86, he held the Rangers to only 9 goals in 5 games and the only game the Habs lost they were shutout.

 

[patnyrnyg]

Neither of those Hall of Fame d-men were in their prime.

Exactly. Robinson was past his prime, Chelios hadn't entered his prime but that time. Neither had Lemieux or Carbonneau.

 

[pdd]

Neither of those Hall of Fame d-men were in their prime.

I think I'm going to start using this language the next time Osgood gets criticized:

"The only key defensive player in his prime for the Wings in the mid-90s with Osgood in net was Konstantinov."

Chelios was 9th in Norris voting the previous year as a rookie.

Robinson was 14th the previous year and was a FINALIST in 85-86.

Not their primes, but they were still pretty good.

 

[BamBamCam*]

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.

Those wins didn't happen, Montreal put their farm team out, figured we needed a confidence boast. True story.

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

I think I'm going to start using this language the next time Osgood gets criticized:

"The only key defensive player in his prime for the Wings in the mid-90s with Osgood in net was Konstantinov."

Chelios was 9th in Norris voting the previous year as a rookie.

Robinson was 14th the previous year and was a FINALIST in 85-86.

Not their primes, but they were still pretty good.

Is it really necessary to interject the Red Wings into every topic even when said topic HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE RED WINGS?????

 

[pdd]

Is it really necessary to interject the Red Wings into every topic even when said topic HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE RED WINGS?????

The topic is "Roy wasn't that good, it was all the team in front of him."

That's literally the statement used to discredit Osgood. So I felt the general view of Osgood was a modern comparable to that argument, especially given the "very good players not quite in their prime" situation.

Am I wrong in my assessment?

 

[King Forsberg]

The topic is "Roy wasn't that good, it was all the team in front of him."

That's literally the statement used to discredit Osgood. So I felt the general view of Osgood was a modern comparable to that argument, especially given the "very good players not quite in their prime" situation.

Am I wrong in my assessment?

It's not that he thinks you're wrong, it's that it has nothing to do with this thread and will only drag it off topic.

 

[pdd]

There are players I think are astronomically overrated like Crosby and Lidstrom

Because seven Norrises and ten first-team selections isn't enough to justify placement as one of the top handful of defensemen ever...

Roy isn't overrated at all I think Roy is the third best goalie ever. But people who act like he carried terrible habs teams are ridiculous.

It's just as ridiculous to imply (as you have) that he wasn't easily the most important player on those teams in the postseason. There is a middle ground, and that's where the truth lies.

 

[pdd]

It's not that he thinks you're wrong, it's that it has nothing to do with this thread and will only drag it off topic.

Comparing "this goalie's success is a result of his team" to "this goalie's success is a result of his team" is off-topic?

Holy ****. I've been doing it wrong all these years.

TIL: Comparing similar situations is not a valid debate tactic.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Because seven Norrises and ten first-team selections isn't enough to justify placement as one of the top handful of defensemen ever...

Being put among the top handful of D-men ever has NEVER been the issue. It's the one step further stuff that is and everyone around here knows it.

It's just as ridiculous to imply (as you have) that he wasn't easily the most important player on those teams in the postseason. There is a middle ground, and that's where the truth lies.

24-6 as a Hab and 40-16 overall when the next best goalie is like 22-24 tends to say different.

I'll simply repeat something from page 1 of this thread...

Either way, there's a lot more to this than who Roy played with.
His absolutely ridiculous and insane playoff OT record of 40-16 (24-6 as a Hab!!!), next closest is Belfour at 22-24.
The fact that out of the playoff series he lost, he lost more of them in 7 games than he lost in 4, 5 or 6 games combined.
That he has close to 40 more PO wins than any other goalie 151-94 (.616 winning %) to Brodeur's 113-91(.554 winning %).


Roy's playoff resume:
Total Series: 43
Series wins: 32
Series losses: 11 (1 in 4 games, 2 in 5 games, 2 in 6 games and 6 in 7 games)

Basically, if you had Roy in net, your team only had about a 11% chance of being eliminated in less than 7 games and about a 75% chance of winning.
THAT is ridiculous!

 

[King Forsberg]

Comparing "this goalie's success is a result of his team" to "this goalie's success is a result of his team" is off-topic?

Holy ****. I've been doing it wrong all these years.

TIL: Comparing similar situations is not a valid debate tactic.

You're serious aren't you? No one in this thread is comparing Osgood to Roy. The thread is about Patrick Roy and the teams he was on. Even when you brought up Osgood it wasn't in relation to Roy. It was pretty much next time someone says Osgood is overrated I'll say this.

 

[pdd]

You're serious aren't you? No one in this thread is comparing Osgood to Roy. The thread is about Patrick Roy and the teams he was on. Even when you brought up Osgood it wasn't in relation to Roy. It was pretty much next time someone says Osgood is overrated I'll say this.

This whole thread is basically about bashing Patrick Roy because his Stanley Cup teams weren't Hasek's Buffalo teams. While Roy was clearly the MVP of his teams in at least 86 and 93 (I didn't think he should have won his third, despite excellent play), those were good teams with good players that played against teams that were not as good as they were.

That's what players like Osgood, or others are often criticized for; they are a "product". Even if they themselves are clearly one of the best players on a very good or great team. Martin Brodeur gets the same treatment, and people bring up "he played behind Stevens and Niedermayer for so long." Yeah... and? In the mid to late 90s, Stevens was finishing anywhere from 5-20 or not at all in Norris voting, and Niedermayer almost never got any votes. At the same time, Brodeur was a regular Vezina finalist. He was the one getting a large number of Hart votes.

The statement that Roy's 86 Habs had good defense is certainly true; they had two of the league's top defensive forwards in Gainey and Carbo, as well as two top defensemen in Robinson and Chelios, and many other players who were decent to good in their own end, especially for the time. But that doesn't mean that Roy himself was not the key to winning the Cup. They were better in the regular season than the other teams they played, save perhaps the Flames (Calgary finished with two more points). But Had Roy put in the same .875 sv% that he did in the regular season, that's an extra 1.2 goals per game that he's giving up. They got out of the first round with a 3-0 sweep of Boston; two of which were won by a goal. The second round was a seven game series against Hartford, with the final game going to OT. If we simply add a goal to Roy's games, we end up with a regulation win for Hartford in games 4 and 7, ending Montreal's run after round 2. If we continue to project the "plus one" to what the games looked like after that, they go to OT in game 1 against the Rangers, lose game 3, and the series is 3-2 after 5 in favor of the team that won game 1. Against Calgary, they lose game 2, and go to OT in games 4 and 5. That makes it L-L-W-?-? for the final round.

I think that's a pretty secure argument that Roy deserved the Smythe. No, he didn't carry them. But it was still "we're picking the goalie because he deserves it, not because we don't know who to pick."

 

[Dark Shadows]

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.

Its amazing how you can twist the wording of something to make a team sound stacked, but ignore the meat and potatoes.

The 86 Habs version of Larry Robinson was having a resurgent year, but he was still not the player he had been when he was 28 and had been on the downswing. Chris Chelios was nobody at this point. In his 2nd full NHL year, missing half the season with a knee injury after missing games from the previous season/Playoffs with Ankle/knee injuries.

Certainly Gainey and Carb were great defensive forwards. But the other cup winners at the time had multiple superstar 100+ point forwards and better scoring depth by a mile. Mats Naslund had his only great year and carried the scoring.

But anyone who watched Roy's playoffs knew he was stealing the show and the reason they won those cups. At no point did anyone think anyone else was winning the Smythe.

 

[pdd]

Its amazing how you can twist the wording of something to make a team sound stacked, but ignore the meat and potatoes.

The 86 Habs version of Larry Robinson was having a resurgent year, but he was still not the player he had been when he was 28 and had been on the downswing. Chris Chelios was nobody at this point. In his 2nd full NHL year, missing half the season with a knee injury after missing games from the previous season/Playoffs with Ankle/knee injuries.

Certainly Gainey and Carb were great defensive forwards. But the other cup winners at the time had multiple superstar 100+ point forwards and better scoring depth by a mile. Mats Naslund had his only great year and carried the scoring.

But anyone who watched Roy's playoffs knew he was stealing the show and the reason they won those cups. At no point did anyone think anyone else was winning the Smythe.

If you simply look at statistics, there's one that stands out which I've already noted:

Roy's regular season save percentage was .875, but his playoff save percentage was .923. That difference (.048) is worth an additional ~1.2 on his GAA, and Montreal won several games by one goal, often in overtime. The 1993 Habs had RS Roy (.894) and playoff Roy (.929) for a .035 gap, adding ~1.1 to the GAA. How many overtime playoff games did Montreal win in 1993?

Also, with regards to the 100+ scoring forwards... Edmonton and Quebec were the only teams with multiple 100-point forwards in 85-86. Montreal scored exactly as many goals as Quebec did, in the same division.

 

[Wrath]

There are players I think are astronomically overrated like Crosby and Lidstrom,, Roy isn't overrated at all I think Roy is the third best goalie ever. But people who act like he carried terrible habs teams are ridiculous.

That's okay.... only if you accept that Hasek didn't carry "terrible" Sabres teams either.

By this logic no goaltender, forward, nor defenseman ever carried a team to the cup since all cup winners (and finalists) have great depth. However, Roy certainly is in the running for greatest playoff hockey player of all time, so say what you will...

Also, since we all know your #1 goalie is Hasek, who is your #2? Brodeur?

 

[Dark Shadows]

If you simply look at statistics, there's one that stands out which I've already noted:

Roy's regular season save percentage was .875, but his playoff save percentage was .923. That difference (.048) is worth an additional ~1.2 on his GAA, and Montreal won several games by one goal, often in overtime. The 1993 Habs had RS Roy (.894) and playoff Roy (.929) for a .035 gap, adding ~1.1 to the GAA. How many overtime playoff games did Montreal win in 1993?

Also, with regards to the 100+ scoring forwards... Edmonton and Quebec were the only teams with multiple 100-point forwards in 85-86. Montreal scored exactly as many goals as Quebec did, in the same division.

I was looking more along the lines of which teams won the Cup each year.

He cites that the 89 Flames, 90 Oilers and 92 Pens were weaker teams than the Habs when in fact, they were very very strong teams and had good scoring depth and defense.

But really after Mats Naslund, who had a career year, who was Montreal relying on for scoring?

The 89 Flames had two 50 goal scorers in Mullen/Nieuwendyk. Gilmour was already in the running for the Selke at this point and chipping in great offense. Al Mac and Suter were both excellent offensive defensemen, and Macoun/McCrimmon were terrific defense defensemen. Hakan Loob was better than Montreal's next best scorer. And vernon was a pretty good goaltender, but not roy obviously.

Overall comparing those two teams, I would take the flames any day if you put a Vernon caliber goalie on the habs.

When I look at the Oilers, yes they were no longer Gretzky fueled, but only a madman would take Montreal's top 2 lines over the Oilers. Messier/Simpson/Anderson and Tikkanen/Kurri/Whoever

The 92 pens needs no explanation. I am in shock he is trying to claim the habs were better when taking goalies out of the equation.

 

[canucks4ever]

I feel Patrick Roy is underappreciated. His year-by year save% rankings are so dominant for his position and he's an all time great in the playoffs. Roy should be a top 10 player all time IMO, HOH underrates him because he peaked after the islanders dyansty. I would easily take roy on my team over a mikita, shore or even bobby hull. Roy's save% longevity and his playoffs cant be ignored. Hes a top 6-12 all time player IMO.

 

[Bill_Crosby*]

Just throwing this out there for discussion.

Do you think if you were to take Roy off either of those Avalanche Cup Winners and were to replace him with Ed Belfour, for example, do you think they still walk away winners?

I don't have a strong opinion either way but I think it gets to the op's point that he seems to be arguing that Roy benefited from playing on some great teams as much as those teams benefited from having him in net.

 

[Wrath]

Just throwing this out there for discussion.

Do you think if you were to take Roy off either of those Avalanche Cup Winners and were to replace him with Ed Belfour, for example, do you think they still walk away winners?

I don't have a strong opinion either way but I think it gets to the op's point that he seems to be arguing that Roy benefited from playing on some great teams as much as those teams benefited from having him in net.

I would say for 2001 definitely not. Patrick Roy was amazing against a stacked devils team (held them to almost half their usual scoring clip IIRC).

For 1996 I'd say it's plausible, depending on how hot/cold Belfour is. If he can win against the Wings in the WCF then yes. Joe Sakic was also on fire that playoffs.

 

[pdd]

I would say for 2001 definitely not. Patrick Roy was amazing against a stacked devils team (held them to almost half their usual scoring clip IIRC).

For 1996 I'd say it's plausible, depending on how hot/cold Belfour is. If he can win against the Wings in the WCF then yes. Joe Sakic was also on fire that playoffs.

I would have gone the other way, and said that 2001 was more likely.

 

[gifted88]

There are players I think are astronomically overrated like Crosby and Lidstrom,, Roy isn't overrated at all I think Roy is the third best goalie ever. But people who act like he carried terrible habs teams are ridiculous.

Would you agree that Roy was the Habs best player for the '86 and '93 playoffs?