Conn Smythe Tournament (1977-00) Round 2: 1996 Sakic vs 1986 Roy

[blundluntman]

MATCHUP #2 (Round 2): Joe Sakic (1996) vs Patrick Roy (1986)

Joe Sakic (1995-96):
22 GP 18 G 16 A 34 Points

Patrick Roy (1985-86):
20 GP 15 W 1.93 GAA .923 Sv% 1 Shutout

Round 2 Matchups:
Yzerman 98 vs Ranford 90 (Still Active) Thread
Sakic 96 vs Roy 86
Leetch 94 vs MacInnis 89
Roy 93 vs Lemieux 92
Lemieux 91 vs Gretzky 88
Gretzky 85 vs Lafleur 77

Round 1 Results

Click to read more...

 

[tabness]

To me this the most/only ainec matchup here for round 2, maybe Gretzky 1985 vs Lafleur 1977 also but I don't want to call that without being more familiar with Lafleur 1977 anyway.

I've posted before on the inflation of stature of Roy's 1986 before so I won't get into it again (seems like the deservedly respected 1993 run after the fact bumped up this run as well, I guess another factor is the primacy of save percentage for the past 25 years as the goalie stat of choice).

As for Sakic 1996, I am like most Wings fans who would definitely think Forsberg was better, and even if the numbers were close it just didn't seem that Sakic was as good as them whereas Forsberg was better than them.

But credit where credit is due that 1996 run is one of the strongest of this period, as Forsberg I believe was injured in the series against the Wings and Sakic did step up big time (still sucks how banged up the Wings were too of course).

It's a shame that he will have to run up against Gretzky or Lemieux (if he wins this of course the Roy 1986 stature is pretty steep nowadays even if undeservedly) because Sakic 1996 would have a real good shot to win the post 2000 poll series.

 

[Staniowski]

Roy '86 is without a doubt the most overrated Conn Smythe win of all-time. It's not that Roy didn't play well (he did), but it's kind of taken on a life of its own, and some people (mostly people who never watched the '86 playoffs) actually believe its one of the best CS wins ever.

It was actually one of the weaker Conn Smythe wins of the 1980s, and, in my opinion, Carbonneau deserved to win the award. The team's play revolved around him and he never played better in his career (my guess would be Carbonneau finished 3rd in the voting).

The save percentage (and GAA) that many people associate with Roy was achieved significantly because the forwards and defensemen so dominated the opposition that they gave up few good scoring chances.

This should easily be Sakic '96, which was truly a great performance.

 

[JackSlater]

Sakic had a really standout playoff run that year, Roy was more a better than usual version of the standard goaltender wins Conn Smythe in a team effort.

 

[Video Nasty]

Honestly, I’m scratching my head at some of the comments so far trying to brush aside Roy’s performance.

I dug through all 20 SCF finalists from 1980-1981 through 1989-1990, and the 1985-1986 Canadiens were last on the list in goals scored in a playoff run and dead last in GPG. 56 goals of support in 20 games during that era is anemic and the four other teams who scored less than 70 in a run all lost the Cup (1983-1984 Islanders, 1984-1985 Flyers, 1988-1989 Canadiens, and 1989-1990 Bruins).

While the playoffs normally see teams score less than they do in the regular season, they dropped from 4.13 GPG to 2.80 GPG. No one scored at or over PPG in the playoffs. Claude Lemieux, who played 20 regular season games over the previous three seasons and scored 2 goals, 1 of which was during this season, had 10 of their 56. The remainder of the team who potted over 350 goals managed 46 in 20 games. Great offensive support…

Of the five losses, Roy let up 2 goals or less three times. They scored 1 goal total in those three games. Of the other two losses, one would have required a shutout and the other letting up one goal.

Meanwhile, the Flames were the second highest scoring team in the league and kept it up in the playoffs, entering the Finals with 68 goals in 17 games (4.00 GPG). Roy held them to 12 in 5 (2.40 GPG; other goal was an empty netter).

Some can pretend all they like that Roy had little to do with putting up the best numbers during the entire 1980s playoffs, which fit in more during the late 90s and early 00s, but I don’t think it’s too convincing.

 

[tabness]

Honestly, I’m scratching my head at some of the comments so far trying to brush aside Roy’s performance.

I dug through all 20 SCF finalists from 1980-1981 through 1989-1990, and the 1985-1986 Canadiens were last on the list in goals scored in a playoff run and dead last in GPG. 56 goals of support in 20 games during that era is anemic and the four other teams who scored less than 70 in a run all lost the Cup (1983-1984 Islanders, 1984-1985 Flyers, 1988-1989 Canadiens, and 1989-1990 Bruins).

While the playoffs normally see teams score less than they do in the regular season, they dropped from 4.13 GPG to 2.80 GPG. No one scored at or over PPG in the playoffs. Claude Lemieux, who played 20 regular season games over the previous three seasons and scored 2 goals, 1 of which was during this season, had 10 of their 56. The remainder of the team who potted over 350 goals managed 46 in 20 games. Great offensive support…

Of the five losses, Roy let up 2 goals or less three times. They scored 1 goal total in those three games. Of the other two losses, one would have required a shutout and the other letting up one goal.

Meanwhile, the Flames were the second highest scoring team in the league and kept it up in the playoffs, entering the Finals with 68 goals in 17 games (4.00 GPG). Roy held them to 12 in 5 (2.40 GPG; other goal was an empty netter).

Some can pretend all they like that Roy had little to do with putting up the best numbers during the entire 1980s playoffs, which fit in more during the late 90s and early 00s, but I don’t think it’s too convincing.

it will be easier to understand by just watching some of the games

or failing that reading what Roy's own coach and the opponents had to say about his Conn Smythe win and how much should be attributed to his team's defense (somewhat unprecented really you simply did not see this sort of thing for Ranford or Hextall or Smith or even Vernon)

or failing even that just realizing that save percentage and goals against average are team stats primarily (sure you could make the argument that save percentage is slightly more useful in isolating a goalie's play than goals against average but hard to say it provides even a similar level of isolation to skater stats like everyone's favorite overrated stats of goals and points... it's more closer to wins)

 

[Video Nasty]

it will be easier to understand by just watching some of the games

Weird how many people will use that argument, while not bothering to watch the 2024 Playoffs and Finals to see McDavid’s impact.

Or how Crosby is given all the credit in the world for how his team performed.

Guess people understand the team effort only on a case by case basis.

But moving on…

Here’s what I’ve been able to dig up on what Coach Perron had to say back after they won Game 5 of the Finals: “Tonight, Patrick was fantastic again. I’m glad he’s won the Conn Smythe.”

Or:

“Veterans, especially those with a fist full of Stanley Cup rings, can be slow to embrace a new presence in the room. But by the holiday season, Robinson had seen enough of Roy to know the Canadiens had a gift in goal, and so he knocked on Perron's office door.

"He said, 'Coach, you have the right to put that kid in nets, because he is so good that even in practice I can't score on the guy,' " Perron says.

"And when Larry Robinson, a future Hall of Famer, tells you this, as a coach you get some confidence."

Roy played the bulk of Montreal's games down the stretch. When Penny got banged up again on the eve of the post-season, Perron was free to ride the rookie all the way to the Stanley Cup, clinching it against the Flames in Calgary.

“It afforded Perron his greatest memory of watching Patrick Roy in action. Canadiens' folklorists like to talk about another night earlier that same spring when a hostile full house at Madison Square Garden in New York chanted "Roy, Roy, Roy" for three periods and overtime, as Roy turned aside wave after wave of marauding Rangers until Montreal could get the win.

If that was the birth of Saint Patrick, Perron points to the third period of Game 5 of the final in Calgary as the canonization.

Montreal was clinging to a 4-3 lead and killing a five-on-three Flames' advantage when the rookie went to work.

"He was a skinny kid, and he was moving like crazy," Perron says. "Patrick did miracle saves on Al MacInnis, Joey Mullen, Joe Nieuwendyk, Gary Suter, Joel Otto, Lanny McDonald and Hakan Loob. He was just unbelievable. I thought that was his best game.”

I’m genuinely interested what the comments are you mentioned though.

 

[tabness]

Weird how many people will use that argument, while not bothering to watch the 2024 Playoffs and Finals to see McDavid’s impact.

Or how Crosby is given all the credit in the world for how his team performed.

Guess people understand the team effort only on a case by case basis.

But moving on…

Here’s what I’ve been able to dig up on what Coach Perron had to say back after they won Game 5 of the Finals: “Tonight, Patrick was fantastic again. I’m glad he’s won the Conn Smythe.”

Or:

“Veterans, especially those with a fist full of Stanley Cup rings, can be slow to embrace a new presence in the room. But by the holiday season, Robinson had seen enough of Roy to know the Canadiens had a gift in goal, and so he knocked on Perron's office door.

"He said, 'Coach, you have the right to put that kid in nets, because he is so good that even in practice I can't score on the guy,' " Perron says.

"And when Larry Robinson, a future Hall of Famer, tells you this, as a coach you get some confidence."

Roy played the bulk of Montreal's games down the stretch. When Penny got banged up again on the eve of the post-season, Perron was free to ride the rookie all the way to the Stanley Cup, clinching it against the Flames in Calgary.

“It afforded Perron his greatest memory of watching Patrick Roy in action. Canadiens' folklorists like to talk about another night earlier that same spring when a hostile full house at Madison Square Garden in New York chanted "Roy, Roy, Roy" for three periods and overtime, as Roy turned aside wave after wave of marauding Rangers until Montreal could get the win.

If that was the birth of Saint Patrick, Perron points to the third period of Game 5 of the final in Calgary as the canonization.

Montreal was clinging to a 4-3 lead and killing a five-on-three Flames' advantage when the rookie went to work.

"He was a skinny kid, and he was moving like crazy," Perron says. "Patrick did miracle saves on Al MacInnis, Joey Mullen, Joe Nieuwendyk, Gary Suter, Joel Otto, Lanny McDonald and Hakan Loob. He was just unbelievable. I thought that was his best game.”

I’m genuinely interested what the comments are you mentioned though.

brother i have no idea how the discussion necessitated bringing up McDavid (and of course Crosby) in this topic but here we are lol

Yes of course there is praise for Roy's run from his coaches and teammates, but of course this same effusive stuff is there as well for Ranford, Hextall, Smith, and yes even heavily criticized after the fact Mike Vernon, so I'm not sure how we can distinguish Roy from the other goalie runs with just that.

See this post in the entry for 1986 for what I am referring to, it is something I have not come across for other Conn Smythes at all:

Where can I find voting records for the Conn Smythe Trophy?

Hockey Reference has voting records for the other awards, but I'm not finding anything for the Smythe. Are historic ballots available anywhere to take a look at?

forums.hfboards.com

Agaib the point isn't to say that Roy didn't play well or deserved to win in 1986 - it's to bring a counterpoint to the dominant stature this win has taken on (after all without the comments I am referring to the win isn't the same "runaway" as for example Ranford in 1990 and you could very well argue that Ranford had a lot stiffer competition with Messier, Kurri, and Tikkanen)

Roy's 1986 looks very good from an adjusted save percentage standpoint and I believe that along with the general reputation of Roy post 1993 is what after the fact elevates the dominance of this run to a level beyond what it was considered back then (so as another example check out Roy's playoff reputation BEFORE the 1993 run, it is hardly sterling according to hockey's talking heads at the time despite this 1986 Conn Smythe)

As for the save percentage thing itself, I will simply put the idea out there that much of that save percentage standing out in the era is due to Montreal standing out in the era - a defensive team in an offensive era (same thing as like Pittsburgh's uniqueness as an offensive team in a defensive era during the dead puck era with a brief exception of the Constantine experiment)

 

[Video Nasty]

brother i have no idea how the discussion necessitated bringing up McDavid (and of course Crosby) in this topic but here we are lol

Yes of course there is praise for Roy's run from his coaches and teammates, but of course this same effusive stuff is there as well for Ranford, Hextall, Smith, and yes even heavily criticized after the fact Mike Vernon, so I'm not sure how we can distinguish Roy from the other goalie runs with just that.

See this post in the entry for 1986 for what I am referring to, it is something I have not come across for other Conn Smythes at all:

Where can I find voting records for the Conn Smythe Trophy?

Hockey Reference has voting records for the other awards, but I'm not finding anything for the Smythe. Are historic ballots available anywhere to take a look at?

forums.hfboards.com

Agaib the point isn't to say that Roy didn't play well or deserved to win in 1986 - it's to bring a counterpoint to the dominant stature this win has taken on (after all without the comments I am referring to the win isn't the same "runaway" as for example Ranford in 1990 and you could very well argue that Ranford had a lot stiffer competition with Messier, Kurri, and Tikkanen)

Roy's 1986 looks very good from an adjusted save percentage standpoint and I believe that along with the general reputation of Roy post 1993 is what after the fact elevates the dominance of this run to a level beyond what it was considered back then (so as another example check out Roy's playoff reputation BEFORE the 1993 run, it is hardly sterling according to hockey's talking heads at the time despite this 1986 Conn Smythe)

As for the save percentage thing itself, I will simply put the idea out there that much of that save percentage standing out in the era is due to Montreal standing out in the era - a defensive team in an offensive era (same thing as like Pittsburgh's uniqueness as an offensive team in a defensive era during the dead puck era with a brief exception of the Constantine experiment)

Thanks for providing those quotes. I couldn’t dig them up myself. Interesting either way. Neither of us are going to budge, but I do understand each of your posts on this topic. I still have to stick with mine, because any other team during that era loses with that GPG and a lesser performance than Roy.

 

[tabness]

Thanks for providing those quotes. I couldn’t dig them up myself. Interesting either way. Neither of us are going to budge, but I do understand each of your posts on this topic. I still have to stick with mine, because any other team during that era loses with that GPG and a lesser performance than Roy.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and what criteria they value in judging performances for sure.

I will just end by noting that you can say the exact same things about team defense for 1993 Roy, but in that case it seemed palpably different from what I saw, deserving of a place higher than Ranford and the others.

I'll also note that Roy in 1996 also played very well (aside from injuries goaltening was the main difference in the series against the Wings), but was just the runner up to Sakic (who by all indications won it running away).

There's a lot more of 1996 Avs than 1986 Habs online, but I personally don't see what makes Roy 1986 any better than Roy 1996.

The relative stats may favor 1986, but consider the difference in how good goaltending was between those periods, and how many more teams were playing more defensively.

 

[Craig Button]

Roy deserved the Conn Smythe over Sakic in 96

 

[bambamcam4ever]

Roy '86 is without a doubt the most overrated Conn Smythe win of all-time. It's not that Roy didn't play well (he did), but it's kind of taken on a life of its own, and some people (mostly people who never watched the '86 playoffs) actually believe its one of the best CS wins ever.

It was actually one of the weaker Conn Smythe wins of the 1980s, and, in my opinion, Carbonneau deserved to win the award. The team's play revolved around him and he never played better in his career (my guess would be Carbonneau finished 3rd in the voting).

The save percentage (and GAA) that many people associate with Roy was achieved significantly because the forwards and defensemen so dominated the opposition that they gave up few good scoring chances.

This should easily be Sakic '96, which was truly a great performance.

I admittedly was too young to see Roy in 1986, but I don't think his can be the most overrated Conn Smythe when compared to Thomas in 2011.

 

[centipede2233]

Roy had a .904 save% in the final vs calgary. But he got the smythe because no one stood out offensively. As mentioned, Carbonneau was likely the true mvp. He had a team best +9 and second on the team in even strength goals with 5.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Honestly, I’m scratching my head at some of the comments so far trying to brush aside Roy’s performance.

I dug through all 20 SCF finalists from 1980-1981 through 1989-1990, and the 1985-1986 Canadiens were last on the list in goals scored in a playoff run and dead last in GPG. 56 goals of support in 20 games during that era is anemic and the four other teams who scored less than 70 in a run all lost the Cup (1983-1984 Islanders, 1984-1985 Flyers, 1988-1989 Canadiens, and 1989-1990 Bruins).

While the playoffs normally see teams score less than they do in the regular season, they dropped from 4.13 GPG to 2.80 GPG. No one scored at or over PPG in the playoffs. Claude Lemieux, who played 20 regular season games over the previous three seasons and scored 2 goals, 1 of which was during this season, had 10 of their 56. The remainder of the team who potted over 350 goals managed 46 in 20 games. Great offensive support…

Of the five losses, Roy let up 2 goals or less three times. They scored 1 goal total in those three games. Of the other two losses, one would have required a shutout and the other letting up one goal.

Meanwhile, the Flames were the second highest scoring team in the league and kept it up in the playoffs, entering the Finals with 68 goals in 17 games (4.00 GPG). Roy held them to 12 in 5 (2.40 GPG; other goal was an empty netter).

Some can pretend all they like that Roy had little to do with putting up the best numbers during the entire 1980s playoffs, which fit in more during the late 90s and early 00s, but I don’t think it’s too convincing.

I did a deep dive into what writers were saying about the 1986 Habs playoff run in this post

The Habs were a very strong defensive team, and Roy also played very well. There's no contradiction there.

For me, the quote that carried the most weight was from Jean Beliveau, who said (in reference to Roy's goaltending) that "I have never seen anything like that, ever. Not from Gerry McNeil, not from Terry Sawchuk, not from Ken Dryden, not from Rogatien Vachon, not from anybody".

There was a similar quote from Bob Gainey, but that clip seems to have been eaten by the HFBoards server.

Every article that I could find from May 1986 says that Roy was either a contender for, or the outright favourite, for the Smythe (while several of them acknowledge that he was supported by a very strong defensive system).

All that being said - this was an outstanding playoff run from Sakic. I haven't made up my mind yet on which was stronger. My only hesitation with Sakic is he was underwhelming in the Stanley Cup finals (but his team was such an overwhelming favourite, it didn't really matter).

 

[Video Nasty]

I did a deep dive into what writers were saying about the 1986 Habs playoff run in this post

The Habs were a very strong defensive team, and Roy also played very well. There's no contradiction there.

For me, the quote that carried the most weight was from Jean Beliveau, who said (in reference to Roy's goaltending) that "I have never seen anything like that, ever. Not from Gerry McNeil, not from Terry Sawchuk, not from Ken Dryden, not from Rogatien Vachon, not from anybody".

There was a similar quote from Bob Gainey, but that clip seems to have been eaten by the HFBoards server.

Every article that I could find from May 1986 says that Roy was either a contender for, or the outright favourite, for the Smythe (while several of them acknowledge that he was supported by a very strong defensive system).

All that being said - this was an outstanding playoff run from Sakic. I haven't made up my mind yet on which was stronger. My only hesitation with Sakic is he was underwhelming in the Stanley Cup finals (but his team was such an overwhelming favourite, it didn't really matter).

Wow, you’re a legend. Exactly the kind of stuff I was looking for. Also didn’t want to give the impression that it was entirely Roy; no Cup run has ever been a solitary player.

As for Sakic, I agree, he had an unbelievable run, and when we’re looking at non-goalie and non-Gretzky/Lemieux Cup winning runs, he’s been my constant #1 for as far back as I can remember.

Definitely one of the hardest matchups to vote on.

 

[Staniowski]

any other team during that era loses with that GPG and a lesser performance than Roy.

First, Montreal didn't play any strong team in the '86 playoffs. None of the four series' was an upset.

Regarding the Habs' goals scored, it's the opposite of what you are saying or implying. Their GF and GA are attributed to the same thing, which is their commitment to playing their best defensive players a lot. Their top two lines in the '86 playoffs were centred by Guy Carbonneau and Brian Skrudland. This, more than any other reason, is why they scored little and also allowed little. If you watch, you will see this. The Habs wouldn't have won the Cup if they didn't give these two lines big amounts of ice-time.

The teams they played generally couldn't outplay and outchance these two lines. I think a lot of people mistakenly believe Montreal was getting outplayed and Roy was saving them. This is completely wrong. The Habs forwards and defensemen were almost always in control, and they made Roy's life relatively easy (similar to the Devils and Brodeur in '95).

Finally...the Habs could've won in '86 with a number of other goalies; Roy was not the best goalie in the '86 playoffs.

 

[Staniowski]

The arguments that you overwhelmingly hear, today, in favour of Roy and the '86 Conn Smythe are centred on two things:

1) Save Percentage, and 2) other people's opinions

Both of these things are very problematic.

 

[Dog]

Weird matchup but went with Roy as those numbers in 80s is incredible!

 

[bobholly39]

The arguments that you overwhelmingly hear, today, in favour of Roy and the '86 Conn Smythe are centred on two things:

1) Save Percentage, and 2) other people's opinions

Both of these things are very problematic.

I mean....what else are you going to go by? Player's attractiveness and how good they smelled?

 

[Thenameless]

I'm obviously a Habs fan that is thankful for Roy's '86 performance, but I think Sakic's '96 was even more outstanding. So, I went with Sakic.

The thing that makes it closer for me though is that Sakic was in the heart of his prime, while I think Roy was only a rookie that year, so really impressive in a different way. But, on just straight up performance, a slight edge to Sakic.

 

[Staniowski]

I mean....what else are you going to go by? Player's attractiveness and how good they smelled?

Well, you can use attractiveness if you want, but that's not what I'd do.

The goal here is to determine how well a goaltender played. Obviously, other people's opinions are full of problems, so that's out.

Save Percentage? It does a very poor job of measuring goalie performance. All it does is tell you how many goals were scored per number of shots, which obviously is about a lot more than the goaltender...

Knowledgeable hockey people never use Save Percentage (in the same way that most fans do).

You can never just look at stats and determine how well goaltenders played.

 

[DitchMarner]

The goal here is to determine how well a goaltender played. Obviously, other people's opinions are full of problems, so that's out.

I guess the credibility of opinions depends on how those opinions are developed. People go on sites like this one to gain knowledge. People read and absorb things people post thinking that will give them an idea of how things they didn't witness unfolded. If people are basing their opinions on things they've heard from others, the opinions may be accurate (it depends how knowledgeable/competent the sources are).

If people are only looking at things like save percentage, then yes, that can lead to shallow analysis and incorrect assumptions.

 

[Bouboumaster]

Not a strong case for both, but nobody can replace Roy if he's f***ing up, so I voted for him

I don't see anyone having a better case than Roy in 1993 IMO

 

[Bear of Bad News]

The corollary, of course, is that your opinions are other peoples' "other people's opinions".

Opinions have as many problems with them as statistics do. Neither are perfect, or perhaps even "good".

Behavioral economics tells you why.

 

[Gurglesons]

Hate comparing forwards and goaltenders.

Roy though.