Patrick Roy -- Was he REALLY that good?

[Doctor No]

I think he is probably the most over-rated player in history.

Go on...

 

[Tuna Tatarrrrrr]

I think he is probably the most over-rated player in history.

 

[FerrisRox]

That might explain it, yes. The back-up generally gets "easier" opponents.

I'm trying to remember the public perception of Roy at the time. He obviously felt the pressure; hence, his little meltdown against Detroit that night.

Jocelyn Thibault was not Patrick Roy's backup.

 

[The Panther]

Jocelyn Thibault was not Patrick Roy's backup.

Yes, of course you're right; he was part of the big trade.

He did rather well with Montreal that season, and in the short previous season with Quebec. There was always that chance that Thibault would be a new star in goal... he had a good career, but it looks like he never really matched his 1995 and 1995-96 form again.

 

[The Roy Of Ottawa]

Martin Brodeur holds all the important records. Unpopular opinion: Brodeur better than Roy.

 

[blogofmike]

Martin Brodeur holds all the important records. Unpopular opinion: Brodeur better than Roy.

I was gone when we decided that playoff records were unimportant.

 

[The Roy Of Ottawa]

I was gone when we decided that playoff records were unimportant.

MARTIN BRODEUR NHL REGULAR SEASON RECORDS

Most Games Played - Martin Brodeur (1,266)
Most Games Won - Martin Brodeur (691)
Most Minutes Played - Martin Brodeur (74,438)
Most Saves Made - Martin Brodeur (31,709)
Most Shutouts - Martin Brodeur (125)

MARTIN BRODEUR NHL PLAYOFF RECORDS

Most Games Played - Patrick Roy (247), Martin Brodeur (205)
Most Games Won - Patrick Roy (151), Martin Brodeur (113)
Most Minutes Played - Patrick Roy (15,205), Martin Brodeur (12,717)
Most Saves Made - Patrick Roy (6,565), Martin Brodeur (5,258)
Most Shutouts - Martin Brodeur (24), Patrick Roy (23)

 

[ImporterExporter]

YES.

 

[barbu]

The main help in 93 was that the Islanders beat the Pens. But without Roy I doubt the Habs win against Quebec - they fell down 0-2 in that series and Roy willed a win in game 3 - put the team on his back. So without Roy the Habs probably don't get to take advantage of the Pens losing in round 2.

Not really. The habs badly outplayed Québec in that game and only Hextall kept it close. And Roy was actually not that good the first two games either.

He was insane the last 3 rounds for sure. But he wasn't dominant in the first round.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

one thing i think we’ve never talked about is every team roy defeated in 93 was in the top six in goals. and it’s not like scoring competition wasn’t steep af that year.

sure they mostly sucked in net and were not the devils on d, but they all could score. except on roy.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Not really. The habs badly outplayed Québec in that game and only Hextall kept it close. And Roy was actually not that good the first two games either.

He was insane the last 3 rounds for sure. But he wasn't dominant in the first round.

34/37, 34/37, 34/35, 25/27, 35/37, 28/30 is a pretty good statline against a team that shot 13.9% in the regular season.

That means he allowed just 46.1% of the number of goals (13) Quebec would be expected to score on the same number of shots (28.2).

It’s true that Montreal threw 50 shots at Hextall in a 2-1 victory in Game 3. But having just 2 goals of support while facing 35 shots isn’t a cakewalk. But that’s kind of the story of 1993: Montreal underperformed offensively in their run, while their goaltending more or less halved the number of expected goals.

 

[JianYang]

Yes this doesn't stand to scrutiny neither, but I was arguing against "the very stacked team" comment.To me a very stacked team is not the 1993 Montreal Canadiens, but perhaps people have a different definition than me.

They were a good team no doubt, but they weren't Colorado of the late 90s.

In the late 80s to early 90s, the habs had ridiculous, and maybe even unprecedented level of depth in their defensive pipeline.

By 1993, some of that depth was already pissed away, but they still had 3 young guys from that pipeline who went on to have really good careers in Odelein, Schneider, and Desjardins.

That 1993 club does get underrated in the grand scheme of things. They got 102 points despite roy having a poor regular season. They also happened to finish 3rd in the division, I believe. That sounds mediocre, but it was still the 6th best in the entire league.

 

[Langdon Alger]

Hasek didn't win against Dallas in 99 with Peca as his best teammate and Pronger didn't win against Carolina in 06 with Peca as his best teammate. Roy in 93 had a Peca like/calibre player in Guy Carbonneau plus players like Desjardins, Damphousse, Bellows, Muller, Keane. Dallas Stars in 1999 was a significantly better team than any team the Canadiens beat en route to their 1993 Stanley Cup victory.

True, but there were lots of upsets that year. Does Montreal beat Boston if they get by Buffalo? If yes, do they beat the two time defending champion Penguins if they knock off the Isles? They also could have had a tougher opponent in the finals than LA. Chicago and Detroit got knocked off in round 1. Hell, Toronto likely puts up more of a fight than the Kings did, although I do think Montreal still wins against Toronto that year.

A lot went right for Montreal that year in terms of who they had to face. They still played very well. Not sure we’ll see another team win ten straight overtime playoff games.

 

[quoipourquoi]

That 1993 club does get underrated in the grand scheme of things. They got 102 points despite roy having a poor regular season. They also happened to finish 3rd in the division, I believe. That sounds mediocre, but it was still the 6th best in the entire league.

But consider that through March 3rd, his .899 save percentage was right there with Vezina nominees Joseph and Belfour’s .904 and Barrasso’s .896. He was also two wins (28) behind Belfour (30), and very much in the Vezina conversation, as the Montreal Canadiens held a 4-point lead over the Pittsburgh Penguins for the President’s Trophy.

The Canadiens then went 7-10 to finish the season, and Roy’s statistics reflected it.

You can’t say the Canadiens got 102 points “despite” something Roy did when 88 of those points where from the first 67 games of the season when Roy was playing great.

The 3.02 goals-per-game in the playoffs for a Stanley Cup champion in a season when teams scored 3.63 on average is kinda mediocre though.

 

[The Wizard of Oz]

Roy never had an average season let alone a bad one. His consistently is astounding. The only thing you can argue is the teams he was behind. The thing is Brodeur has the same critique and has lesser advanced stats. I frankly can’t imagine what Marty has on him besides stick skills.

 

[JianYang]

But consider that through March 3rd, his .899 save percentage was right there with Vezina nominees Joseph and Belfour’s .904 and Barrasso’s .896. He was also two wins (28) behind Belfour (30), and very much in the Vezina conversation, as the Montreal Canadiens held a 4-point lead over the Pittsburgh Penguins for the President’s Trophy.

The Canadiens then went 7-10 to finish the season, and Roy’s statistics reflected it.

You can’t say the Canadiens got 102 points “despite” something Roy did when 88 of those points where from the first 67 games of the season when Roy was playing great.

The 3.02 goals-per-game in the playoffs for a Stanley Cup champion in a season when teams scored 3.63 on average is kinda mediocre though.

I'm comparing roy to roy. It was a volatile year for him, and the critics were on him.

It got to the point where Demers had to take him aside and reassure him that no matter what happens, he's going to stick with him. Roy has mentioned that himself.

 

[quoipourquoi]

I'm comparing roy to roy. It was a volatile year for him, and the critics were on him.

It got to the point where Demers had to take him aside and reassure him that no matter what happens, he's going to stick with him. Roy has mentioned that himself.

Yes, Demers said that following Game 2 vs. Quebec.

But understand that if you say they earned 102 points “despite” Patrick Roy, that’s a claim that doesn’t really hold up under scrutiny, particularly when checking the strength of schedule in deployment relative to Racicot.

And there’s a difference between having a season that isn’t to the level of the high standard he set from 1988-1992 and having “a poor regular season”. If you meant the former, that’s perfectly valid, but you said the latter.

He wasn’t the only reason Montreal was 4 points ahead of Pittsburgh through March 3rd, but he was still the most important individual player to their success. And I can’t think of better supporting evidence than the fact that their fade down the stretch coincided with a dip in Roy’s performance - and their subsequent 16-4 playoff run coincided with his elevated performance despite (there’s that word again) Montreal posting arguably the worst offensive numbers of a Stanley Cup champion since 1967 expansion.

 

[c9777666]

4 Cups, 3 Conn Smythes.

Need I say more?

 

[JianYang]

Yes, Demers said that following Game 2 vs. Quebec.

But understand that if you say they earned 102 points “despite” Patrick Roy, that’s a claim that doesn’t really hold up under scrutiny, particularly when checking the strength of schedule in deployment relative to Racicot.

And there’s a difference between having a season that isn’t to the level of the high standard he set from 1988-1992 and having “a poor regular season”. If you meant the former, that’s perfectly valid, but you said the latter.

He wasn’t the only reason Montreal was 4 points ahead of Pittsburgh through March 3rd, but he was still the most important individual player to their success. And I can’t think of better supporting evidence than the fact that their fade down the stretch coincided with a dip in Roy’s performance - and their subsequent 16-4 playoff run coincided with his elevated performance despite (there’s that word again) Montreal posting arguably the worst offensive numbers of a Stanley Cup champion since 1967 expansion.

Like I said before, I'm comparing roy to roy. That was the implication the whole time. What I'm basically saying is that roy was struggling by his standards, and the heat was on. He even changed his pads before the start of the playoffs, which is unheard of.

The narrative is that that team was carried by Roy to the Cup. Definitely, he was the man in the playoffs behind that 16-2 run in the last 18 games. But in the regular season, he wasnt his in his usual form, and I feel like many people assume he was lights out in the regular season too, which isn't true.