Patrick Roy -- Was he REALLY that good?

[Doctor No]

He certainly didn't change the way the game was played for Hasek. Hasek's style is almost impossible to repeat, that doesn't make him any less great in my eyes, that makes him even greater.

Is your claim that Hasek didn't learn anything from Roy (either directly or through coaches), and vice-versa?

Your claim is surely false.

And the principles that Hasek used, most notably his mastery of vertical angles and deception, can certainly be taught (and have been taught).

 

[VictoriaJetsFan]

Roy and Hasek are/were the greatest of their era. No one else is close. gun to my head would probably pick Hasek, but Roy's accomplishments are super special and will most likely never be repeated. I think Roy was the mentally toughest goalie of all time.

 

[Rebels57]

Hasek is the only goaltender you could argue was better than Roy. On the other hand, Brodeur is the most overrated goalie in history.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Is your claim that Hasek didn't learn anything from Roy (either directly or through coaches), and vice-versa?

Your claim is surely false.

And the principles that Hasek used, most notably his mastery of vertical angles and deception, can certainly be taught (and have been taught).

Throw in Hasek's ability to adapt to the shooter's handedness which is also teachable.

 

[Staniowski]

FYI, I just noticed that Sportsnet is going to show Game 6 of the '89 Finals this evening, if anybody wants to see Roy in the heart of his Habs years. I think it's a 30th anniversary special of the Flames Cup win.

 

[BehindTheTimes]

Is your claim that Hasek didn't learn anything from Roy (either directly or through coaches), and vice-versa?

Your claim is surely false.

And the principles that Hasek used, most notably his mastery of vertical angles and deception, can certainly be taught (and have been taught).

That is my claim, yes.

 

[Stuzchuk]

Roy and Hasek are/were the greatest of their era. No one else is close. gun to my head would probably pick Hasek, but Roy's accomplishments are super special and will most likely never be repeated. I think Roy was the mentally toughest goalie of all time.

prime/peak, I'd go with Hasek as well but career I HAVE TO say Roy

 

[FerrisRox]

Patrick Roy is the best goaltender I have ever seen play.

 

[The Panther]

Brodeur is the most overrated goalie in history.

Brodeur is probably the most under-rated goalie on this forum.

 

[Harry Kakalovich]

If Hasek was Canadian the idea that Roy was a better goaltender than Hasek would be laughable. But Hasek wasn't Canadian.

I think most people judge players by playoff success, myself included. It's hard to think of Hasek as better than Roy in that way. He was generally a playoff loser. Same goes with Lundqvist, another very good goalie but who probably won't be remembered as much as more successful Cup winning goalies.

Roy won 2 cups in Montreal practically on his own. That's hard to top. Then he went to Colorado and won 2 more. Right or wrong, the playoffs is where success is measured in the NHL.

 

[double5son10]

It's really hard to make this argument stick, when Roy dragged an 87-point team to the Cup.

That's not just the worst team to win the Cup in the modern era, but also worse than the '99 Sabres. And Roy was the hands-down Smythe winner who pulled it off.

Actually no, the '86 Canadiens were not "the worst". Their 87 points ranked them the 7th best team in the NHL that season. Compare that to the Kings, who had the 13th best record in '2012 and 9th best record in 2014 (Sabres had the 9th best record in '99 for FWIW). No shootouts or loser points in '86 and the Habs were playing in the most competitive division in hockey that year. The '86 Canadiens were 6th in GF & 4th in GA. The team had two HoF defensemen in Robinson & Chelios and arguably the two greatest defensive forwards in the game in Gainey & Carbonneau. Throw in HoVG players like Smith, Naslund, and Lemieux and that team was not lacking quality.

Most importantly there wasn't a better club at shot suppression: they gave up the fewest shots on net in the RS (2165 or 27 SA/G), over 300 shots fewer than league avg. (2484 or 31 SA/G) and they tightened up even further in the playoffs, throwing a blanket over the opposition. Montreal only surrendered over 30 shots three times in their twenty playoff games. Only the Rangers in the legendary OT game (47 shots) and Calgary in the Cup clincher (33 shots) put over the RS league avg. in shots on Roy. Against Hartford Roy lost game 6 in spite of only facing 17 shots, Liut getting the shutout in the 1-0 loss. Roy also had wins in games where he only faced 22 shots (2x) , 21 shots (3x), and 20 shots.
Their shot suppression in the Finals was unreal: During the regular season Calgary, the #2 offense behind rivals Edmonton, had led the league in shots, with 2765, an avg. of 34.56. In the three rounds up to the Finals the Flames had put 561 shots on net, just above their RS avg. at 35/game. Yet in the five games of the Finals they were limited to 124 shots, or 24.8/game. In game four in Montreal Roy pitched a 1-0 shutout, but he only faced 15 shots!!!

While Roy was excellent, and I think rightfully deserved the Conn Smythe, this notion that the Canadiens were a bad team carried through the playoffs solely by Roy is IMV a false narrative. He was outstanding when he had to be, but he was GREATLY aided by a top-class defense, as the numbers show.

 

[Staniowski]

Actually no, the '86 Canadiens were not "the worst". Their 87 points ranked them the 7th best team in the NHL that season. Compare that to the Kings, who had the 13th best record in '2012 and 9th best record in 2014 (Sabres had the 9th best record in '99 for FWIW). No shootouts or loser points in '86 and the Habs were playing in the most competitive division in hockey that year. The '86 Canadiens were 6th in GF & 4th in GA. The team had two HoF defensemen in Robinson & Chelios and arguably the two greatest defensive forwards in the game in Gainey & Carbonneau. Throw in HoVG players like Smith, Naslund, and Lemieux and that team was not lacking quality.

Most importantly there wasn't a better club at shot suppression: they gave up the fewest shots on net in the RS (2165 or 27 SA/G), over 300 shots fewer than league avg. (2484 or 31 SA/G) and they tightened up even further in the playoffs, throwing a blanket over the opposition. Montreal only surrendered over 30 shots three times in their twenty playoff games. Only the Rangers in the legendary OT game (47 shots) and Calgary in the Cup clincher (33 shots) put over the RS league avg. in shots on Roy. Against Hartford Roy lost game 6 in spite of only facing 17 shots, Liut getting the shutout in the 1-0 loss. Roy also had wins in games where he only faced 22 shots (2x) , 21 shots (3x), and 20 shots.
Their shot suppression in the Finals was unreal: During the regular season Calgary, the #2 offense behind rivals Edmonton, had led the league in shots, with 2765, an avg. of 34.56. In the three rounds up to the Finals the Flames had put 561 shots on net, just above their RS avg. at 35/game. Yet in the five games of the Finals they were limited to 124 shots, or 24.8/game. In game four in Montreal Roy pitched a 1-0 shutout, but he only faced 15 shots!!!

While Roy was excellent, and I think rightfully deserved the Conn Smythe, this notion that the Canadiens were a bad team carried through the playoffs solely by Roy is IMV a false narrative. He was outstanding when he had to be, but he was GREATLY aided by a top-class defense, as the numbers show.

The issue is not really how good the '86 Habs were compared to other Cup winners, but rather how they compared to other teams within that season. You mentioned they finished 7th overall in the NHL. True, but more importantly only 3 teams were significantly better (or better at all). Once Edmonton - the favourite of close to 100% of the hockey world heading into the playoffs - Philadelphia and Washington lost, it was wide open. The Habs won 4 series and they didn't upset anybody. So if you watched those playoffs in realtime, it was not a surprise at all that the Canadiens won the Cup. My recollection is that the Habs forwards and defensemen outplayed their counterparts on the other teams in all 4 series. Yes, Patrick Roy played very well in the '86 playoffs, a significant improvement on their goaltending in previous seasons, but he was not dominating these playoffs, stealing series. This is not what happened. In the Hartford series, Roy was the 2nd best goaltender. Habs are lucky Liut was injured for part of the series.

Again, Roy played very well, as good as the team could have hoped, but the Habs were a very good team with a lot of good players, and great leaders.

I have no big problem with Roy winning the Conn Smythe (because the Conn Smythe is a relatively unimportant trophy anyway), but if it were my decision it would have gone to someone else.

 

[Albatros]

And the principles that Hasek used, most notably his mastery of vertical angles and deception, can certainly be taught (and have been taught).

Still it's worth remembering that Hašek is older than Roy, and was coached by Tretiak rather than North American coaches once he eventually joined the NHL.

 

[Staniowski]

Actually no, the '86 Canadiens were not "the worst". Their 87 points ranked them the 7th best team in the NHL that season. Compare that to the Kings, who had the 13th best record in '2012 and 9th best record in 2014 (Sabres had the 9th best record in '99 for FWIW). No shootouts or loser points in '86 and the Habs were playing in the most competitive division in hockey that year. The '86 Canadiens were 6th in GF & 4th in GA. The team had two HoF defensemen in Robinson & Chelios and arguably the two greatest defensive forwards in the game in Gainey & Carbonneau. Throw in HoVG players like Smith, Naslund, and Lemieux and that team was not lacking quality.

Most importantly there wasn't a better club at shot suppression: they gave up the fewest shots on net in the RS (2165 or 27 SA/G), over 300 shots fewer than league avg. (2484 or 31 SA/G) and they tightened up even further in the playoffs, throwing a blanket over the opposition. Montreal only surrendered over 30 shots three times in their twenty playoff games. Only the Rangers in the legendary OT game (47 shots) and Calgary in the Cup clincher (33 shots) put over the RS league avg. in shots on Roy. Against Hartford Roy lost game 6 in spite of only facing 17 shots, Liut getting the shutout in the 1-0 loss. Roy also had wins in games where he only faced 22 shots (2x) , 21 shots (3x), and 20 shots.
Their shot suppression in the Finals was unreal: During the regular season Calgary, the #2 offense behind rivals Edmonton, had led the league in shots, with 2765, an avg. of 34.56. In the three rounds up to the Finals the Flames had put 561 shots on net, just above their RS avg. at 35/game. Yet in the five games of the Finals they were limited to 124 shots, or 24.8/game. In game four in Montreal Roy pitched a 1-0 shutout, but he only faced 15 shots!!!

While Roy was excellent, and I think rightfully deserved the Conn Smythe, this notion that the Canadiens were a bad team carried through the playoffs solely by Roy is IMV a false narrative. He was outstanding when he had to be, but he was GREATLY aided by a top-class defense, as the numbers show.

Yes, a bad team being carried solely by Roy is definitely a false narrative. It's similar to the false narrative of Hasek carrying the Czechs in '98.

A lot of people just seem to accept these false narratives without even watching the games.

 

[Staniowski]

And everybody should be aware that Montreal had the 2nd best record in the NHL overall during the years Roy played there. And they were close enough to Calgary that you could say they tied for 1st.

The Habs went to the finals 3 times in this period - '86, '89, '93 - and they didn't upset anybody in any of these 3 playoffs, in the 12 series they played (meaning they didn't play anybody with significantly better records).

Along with Calgary, they had the deepest group of forwards and defensemen in the league in this era. Look at the defensemen they had circa 1989, 1990....and they traded them all away, which is the biggest reason why the team declined.

 

[Howie Hodge]

While Hasek's style concerning vertical angles and deception, and his ability to adapt to the shooter's handedness may be coachable, to find a lythe, coordinated, and agile athlete of his calibur would be far more difficult.

Very - very fast feet and hands.

I have trained on the soccer field with Dominik. He could do things the Pro's present were not capable of doing.
(Buffalo Blizzard, 1994.)

To clarify, I'd imagine guys Messi and Ronaldo could do what Dom did with a soccer ball.

 

[Albatros]

Yes, a bad team being carried solely by Roy is definitely a false narrative. It's similar to the false narrative of Hasek carrying the Czechs in '98.

Hašek did do that though with his save percentage of .961 while no Czech player recorded more than five points in the tournament and the top scorer Jágr scored just one goal. Even in their convincing 4:1 quarterfinal victory against the Americans they were outshot 19:39. Had it been Čechmánek or Hnilička instead they wouldn't have had any chance of winning gold. Roy he eliminated in the direct shootout duel, preventing all five Canadian attempts.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Actually no, the '86 Canadiens were not "the worst". Their 87 points ranked them the 7th best team in the NHL that season. Compare that to the Kings, who had the 13th best record in '2012 and 9th best record in 2014 (Sabres had the 9th best record in '99 for FWIW). No shootouts or loser points in '86 and the Habs were playing in the most competitive division in hockey that year. The '86 Canadiens were 6th in GF & 4th in GA. The team had two HoF defensemen in Robinson & Chelios and arguably the two greatest defensive forwards in the game in Gainey & Carbonneau. Throw in HoVG players like Smith, Naslund, and Lemieux and that team was not lacking quality.

Most importantly there wasn't a better club at shot suppression: they gave up the fewest shots on net in the RS (2165 or 27 SA/G), over 300 shots fewer than league avg. (2484 or 31 SA/G) and they tightened up even further in the playoffs, throwing a blanket over the opposition. Montreal only surrendered over 30 shots three times in their twenty playoff games. Only the Rangers in the legendary OT game (47 shots) and Calgary in the Cup clincher (33 shots) put over the RS league avg. in shots on Roy. Against Hartford Roy lost game 6 in spite of only facing 17 shots, Liut getting the shutout in the 1-0 loss. Roy also had wins in games where he only faced 22 shots (2x) , 21 shots (3x), and 20 shots.
Their shot suppression in the Finals was unreal: During the regular season Calgary, the #2 offense behind rivals Edmonton, had led the league in shots, with 2765, an avg. of 34.56. In the three rounds up to the Finals the Flames had put 561 shots on net, just above their RS avg. at 35/game. Yet in the five games of the Finals they were limited to 124 shots, or 24.8/game. In game four in Montreal Roy pitched a 1-0 shutout, but he only faced 15 shots!!!

While Roy was excellent, and I think rightfully deserved the Conn Smythe, this notion that the Canadiens were a bad team carried through the playoffs solely by Roy is IMV a false narrative. He was outstanding when he had to be, but he was GREATLY aided by a top-class defense, as the numbers show.

i agree in general—the 1986 habs were a good team, better than their 87 pt record.

that said, and here’s where i do agree with the “percentile” argument: 7th out of 21 teams vs 9th out of 27 (same amount of pts as #8, but lost the tiebreaker)... assuming the distribution of talent across teams is pretty equal, i don’t see a lot of daylight there.

objectively, yes the 86 habs were a stronger team. but all 1986 teams were stronger than their late 90s counterparts. the powerhouses were stronger, the good teams were stronger, the average teams were stronger, the garbage teams were stronger. there were 138 more roster spots in 1999 so all those good players you listed were more spread around.

 

[Staniowski]

Hašek did do that though with his save percentage of .961 while no Czech player recorded more than five points in the tournament and the top scorer Jágr scored just one goal. Even in their convincing 4:1 quarterfinal victory against the Americans they were outshot 19:39. Had it been Čechmánek or Hnilička instead they wouldn't have had any chance of winning gold. Roy he eliminated in the direct shootout duel, preventing all five Canadian attempts.

The Czech win in '98 was a great team effort. Nobody would suggest Hasek didn't play very well, but the whole team played well. I know the Americans outshot them badly, and Hasek might have been the difference in that game (I don't remember much from that game), but the games against Canada and Russia were team efforts won primarily because of the style they played. And the Czechs outshot both Canada and Russia.

It's probably true they wouldn't have won gold without Hasek, but that's different than saying they won because of him. They probably wouldn't have won gold without Jagr or Reichel either, or the great team game they played.

I don't think Roy was any worse in the shoot out than Hasek. I think Reichel and Jagr were the 2 most dangerous shooters on either team. If Canada had Lemieux, Sakic, Kariya, Turgeon, it could've been a very different story in the shootout.

But Hasek played great, no doubt about it.

 

[Canucks1096]

Roy was definitely a great goalie but Hasek was better. When Hasek became a number 1 goalie in 1993/1994. Hasek pretty much took the best goalie reputation away from Roy. During that time Hasek had 13 nhl awards vs 2 nhl awards for Roy. GAA and SP during that time frame was better than Roy as well. They met twice not including the regular season. Olympics and playoff conference finals. Hasek was better than Roy in both. Roy was no match for Hasek

If Roy didn't go to Col and stay in Mon. Roy would definitely still be in the hhof and still be one of the best goalies but his legacy might of changed.

Roy has never ever carried an average team to the playoffs and won a few rounds. Roy always need the stacked team he has. His early Mon day people need to remember he did have Robinson and Chelios playing infront of him. As well as one of the best Defensive forwards in the 80s in Guy Carbonneau as well.

 

[The Panther]

Roy was definitely a great goalie but Hasek was better. When Hasek became a number 1 goalie in 1993/1994. Hasek pretty much took the best goalie reputation away from Roy. During that time Hasek had 13 nhl awards vs 2 nhl awards for Roy. GAA and SP during that time frame was better than Roy as well. They met twice not including the regular season. Olympics and playoff conference finals. Hasek was better than Roy in both. Roy was no match for Hasek

If Roy didn't go to Col and stay in Mon. Roy would definitely still be in the hhof and still be one of the best goalies but his legacy might of changed.

Roy has never ever carried an average team to the playoffs and won a few rounds. Roy always need the stacked team he has. His early Mon day people need to remember he did have Robinson and Chelios playing infront of him. As well as one of the best Defensive forwards in the 80s in Guy Carbonneau as well.

I agree with your gist, but maybe it's taking it a bit far to say "Roy was no match for Hasek". They should be considered great peers and equally important goalies, but I do agree that Hasek takes it.

I mean, aside from playoff individual hardware (basically, Roy's 3 x Conn Smythes), it's not even close, is it?:

International hockey
I mean, this is no contest. Hasek was the best player for his country from about 1983. He was a starter in the '84 and '87 Canada Cups, while Roy didn't start until the '98 Olympics. And then Hasek beat Roy in that Olympics.

NHL regular season
1st-team All Stars
6 - Hasek (not even an NHL starter until age 28/29)
4 - Roy
Vezina trophies
6 - Hasek
3 - Roy
Harts / Pearsons
2 - Hasek
0 - Roy

I mean, Hart trophies for the goaltender are quite rare and remarkable, and Hasek did it not once, but twice (Roy finished 2nd in 1992, but a way distant 2nd), in about 300 fewer games played than Roy.

But what really impresses me about Hasek's regular season performance is the two goaltenders' won-lost records:
389-223 Hasek (.636)
551 - 315 Roy (.636)
(This is ignoring ties, btw.)

In other words, they have exactly the same career winning-percentage, at least in games that were decided. But there is no way you'd expect that, given Roy's strong team in his younger days and then his moving straight to a powerhouse, just as it came together. So, that's impressive.

Hasek's notable teammates, 1993-94:
Hawerchuk
Mogilny
Audette
Khmylev
Plante
May

Roy's notable teammates, 1993-94:
Damphousse
Bellows
Muller
Schneider
Keane
Dionne
LeClair
Carbonneau
Desjardins

Hasek's notable teammates, 1998-99:
Satan
Peca
Grosek
Brown
Ward
Woolley
Holziner
Zhitnik

Roy's notable teammates, 1998-99:
Forsberg
Sakic
Lemieux
Deadmarsh
Hejduk
Drury
Kamensky
Ozolinsh
Fleury (playoffs)
Foote
Lefebvre


I mean, whose situation would you rather be in? Not to mention, Hasek's defence-core, in Buffalo, reads like a laundry list of no-names. More than half the D-men he led to the Finals in 1999 I can't even remember, if I've ever heard of them. Basically, journeymen and AHL-ers were his defence-core while he was winning Vezinas and Harts.

(In fairness, Hasek did join an awesome team in 2001-02, of course, but I think that merely evens out with Roy's great cast c.1987 to 1990.)

 

[The Panther]

I think most people judge players by playoff success, myself included. It's hard to think of Hasek as better than Roy in that way. He was generally a playoff loser. Same goes with Lundqvist, another very good goalie but who probably won't be remembered as much as more successful Cup winning goalies.

If you want to argue that Roy had more success in the playoffs than Hasek, that's one thing (he should have had more success, given his two relatively favorable situations through his prime). But it's absurd to claim that Hasek was "generally a playoff loser". Hasek did the following in the NHL playoffs:
-- 65-49 record (.570) -- that's a winning record
-- .925 save percentage + 2.02 GAA (both better than Roy's numbers, albeit Roy played a higher proportion of his games in the higher-scoring period; Regardless, amazingly good numbers)
-- won the Stanley Cup as starter; won a 2nd Cup as 43-year-old back up; took largely AHL-Sabres team to 6 games of the Finals

This is not the resume of "a playoff loser", unless you consider Jari Kurri and Joe Sakic's playoff histories to be sub-par. This is, in fact, the resume of a fantastic playoff performer, one of the greatest of his time.

Roy won 2 cups in Montreal practically on his own.

This narrative really needs to stop. Yes, Roy was the best player on Montreal's Cup winners in 1986 and in 1993, no doubt. Full marks for those Conn Smythes (less so for '01, but we won't go there). The best NHL team he backed in Montreal was the 1989 team that lost in the Finals (Roy lost in the Finals to Mike Vernon twice, amazingly). Montreal was the best defensive team in the League during Roy's tenure. He was a huge part of that defense, no doubt, but he was just as much a statistical beneficiary of it.

As far as the '86 team goes, they were on pace for a 100-point season at mid-year, before having a late-season slump that reduced their point total. (Their record was better before Roy became the starter, actually.) They were 4th-best defensively in the regular season, then 1st in 1986-87 when Brian Hayway's numbers were better than Roy's. In 1987-88, they were 1st defensively again, with Hayward's numbers again matching Roy's. I'm not taking anything away from Roy -- who hadn't reached his peak as a player yet -- but it just goes to show that even with an average goalie in net, the c.1985-88 Habs were very good defensively. (The year before coming to Montreal and winning the Jennings, Hayward posted a 4.80 GAA in Winnipeg.)

Similarly, the '93 team was very good in line-up. They had 102-points on the season. They weren't outstanding in any one area, but had a very balanced line-up and could roll 4 lines all night. Roy got super-hot and pushed them over the edge starting in game three of the playoff run.


Have you seen Hasek's supporting case in 1999 when his team won the Conference??

 

[LateSleeper]

Hasek's notable teammates, 1998-99:
Satan
Peca
Grosek
Brown
Ward
Woolley
Holziner
Zhitnik

Geoff Sanderson. Stu Barnes. Dick Smehlik.

They were no powerhouse, but the Sabres 99 were not that bad. Of course they stood and fell with Dom. However, they were exactly that type of team that can provide a decent headache to literally anyone.

 

[Doctor No]

took largely AHL-Sabres team to 6 games of the Finals

I'm excited, because if we keep having these discussions for another ten years of so, people will be comparing the 1998-99 Sabres roster to "Hasek and basically an NCAA Division III team".

Ironic that it then took you less than two paragraphs to say that "[a similar Roy narrative] really needs to stop."

 

[DANOZ28]

goalies that really impressed me since the 80's very good liut; fuhr; Vernon. then great roy ; brodeur but the best I've ever seen was hasek.