Patrick Roy -- Was he REALLY that good?

[The Panther]

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

The reason the Roy narrative needs to stop is because it's a false premise. As I've shown (above), the Canadiens were a very good defensive team with or without Roy in net, circa 1986-1988. The 'Hasek narrative' is mostly true, which is why there's no irony here. I did a quick study a while ago (it's on another thread that I can't find right now) of how Roy's and Hasek's back-up goaltenders fared in each player's six best seasons. To no one's surprise, Hasek's team dropped off way more when he wasn't in net than Roy's team(s) when he wasn't in. There is a blindingly obvious difference here.

Seriously, post-1982 Canucks, has anybody ever seen a less impressive defence-core than the 1999 Sabres in the Stanley Cup Final? Who are these nobodies?:
Woolley
Zhitnik
Warrener
McKee
Smehlik
Patrick (aged 35)
Shannon

 

[Doctor No]

The 'Hasek narrative' is mostly true

Yes, I do understand that you claim that.

And if you've never heard of the "nobodies" on defense with the Sabres that year, then I don't know what to tell you. They were particularly good at defense, for one. Except for Zhitnik, who was a solid power play quarterback.

And you know what else the "backup study" relies upon? The quality of the backup goaltenders involved (and usually a small sample size to boot).

 

[Canadiens1958]

The reason the Roy narrative needs to stop is because it's a false premise. As I've shown (above), the Canadiens were a very good defensive team with or without Roy in net, circa 1986-1988. The 'Hasek narrative' is mostly true, which is why there's no irony here. I did a quick study a while ago (it's on another thread that I can't find right now) of how Roy's and Hasek's back-up goaltenders fared in each player's six best seasons. To no one's surprise, Hasek's team dropped off way more when he wasn't in net than Roy's team(s) when he wasn't in. There is a blindingly obvious difference here.

Seriously, post-1982 Canucks, has anybody ever seen a less impressive defence-core than the 1999 Sabres in the Stanley Cup Final? Who are these nobodies?:
Woolley
Zhitnik
Warrener
McKee
Smehlik
Patrick (aged 35)
Shannon

2006 Carolina SC Champs with Cam Ward.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Yes, I do understand that you claim that.

And if you've never heard of the "nobodies" on defense with the Sabres that year, then I don't know what to tell you. They were particularly good at defense, for one. Except for Zhitnik, who was a solid power play quarterback.

And you know what else the "backup study" relies upon? The quality of the backup goaltenders involved (and usually a small sample size to boot).

Plus they played in unison with their goalies and forwards lead by Mike Peca.

Hasek's main attributes especially playing handedness are greatly enhance by skaters taking the stick side properly

 

[Harry Kakalovich]

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??

I never said Hasek wasn't a good goalie, I'm just saying playoffs define success. As a Habs fan I watched all those Habs teams and also Buffalo with Hasek. Neither the Habs nor the Sabres were powerhouses but they were good teams. Roy won the Cups, Hasek didn't - therein lies the difference.

 

[Harry Kakalovich]

The reason the Roy narrative needs to stop is because it's a false premise. As I've shown (above), the Canadiens were a very good defensive team with or without Roy in net, circa 1986-1988. The 'Hasek narrative' is mostly true, which is why there's no irony here. I did a quick study a while ago (it's on another thread that I can't find right now) of how Roy's and Hasek's back-up goaltenders fared in each player's six best seasons. To no one's surprise, Hasek's team dropped off way more when he wasn't in net than Roy's team(s) when he wasn't in. There is a blindingly obvious difference here.

Seriously, post-1982 Canucks, has anybody ever seen a less impressive defence-core than the 1999 Sabres in the Stanley Cup Final? Who are these nobodies?:
Woolley
Zhitnik
Warrener
McKee
Smehlik
Patrick (aged 35)
Shannon

Zhitnik was good

 

[quoipourquoi]

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.

Noteworthy, however, is that of all Stanley Cup Finalists of the four-round era (1979-onward), the 1986 Montreal Canadiens ranked the absolute lowest in terms of playoff offense versus their regular season offense.

1979-2017 - Teams "Carried" to the Stanley Cup Finals by Goaltending (GvE and TvE Analysis)

Shot suppression was still good, but overall, they placed the 9th most difficult threshold vs. expectation on their playoff goaltending among Stanley Cup Finalists from 1979-2017.

 

[Harry Kakalovich]

Yes, I do understand that you claim that.

And if you've never heard of the "nobodies" on defense with the Sabres that year, then I don't know what to tell you. They were particularly good at defense, for one. Except for Zhitnik, who was a solid power play quarterback.

And you know what else the "backup study" relies upon? The quality of the backup goaltenders involved (and usually a small sample size to boot).

Yeah I agree the Sabres were a pretty good team back then.

 

[Harry Kakalovich]

Noteworthy, however, is that of all Stanley Cup Finalists of the four-round era (1979-onward), the 1986 Montreal Canadiens ranked the absolute lowest in terms of playoff offense versus their regular season offense.

1979-2017 - Teams "Carried" to the Stanley Cup Finals by Goaltending (GvE and TvE Analysis)

Shot suppression was still good, but overall, they placed the 9th most difficult threshold vs. expectation on their playoff goaltending among Stanley Cup Finalists from 1979-2017.

Roy really stood on his head in 86 and 93.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

hm i wonder who was the better goalie, brian hayward or robb stauber/andrei trefilov/steve shields?

 

[Albatros]

Trefilov and Shields were legit in Buffalo, Stauber not so much.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

jason woolley and rhett warrener, 1/3 of the florida defense that made the finals

warrener, also a key defender on the calgary cup finalists

mckee, excellent penalty killer on the 2006 buffalo eastern finalists, injured during that fateful game seven loss to carolina

 

[sr edler]

Zhitnik was good

According to Canucks clublore he shut down Bure in the 2nd round of the 93 playoffs en route to the McSorley illegal stick finals.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

According to Canucks clublore he shut down Bure in the 2nd round of the 93 playoffs en route to the McSorley illegal stick finals.

yup. rookie zhitnik was awesome.

my two most memorable defensemen shadow jobs of that spring were both soviet rookies—him on bure, which resulted in bure’s ecstatic turnaround goal with wells draped all over him, and kasparaitis on mario.

 

[Neutrinos]

I think it would make for a better discussion if this thread was about Grant Fuhr

 

[The Panther]

I can't believe there are fans who actually believe prime-Hasek's supporting cast wasn't distinctly weaker than prime-Roy's. That kind of blows my mind.

 

[LateSleeper]

I can't believe there are fans who actually believe prime-Hasek's supporting cast wasn't distinctly weaker than prime-Roy's. That kind of blows my mind.

It's more that nobody believes Hasek's supporting cast was of an AHL variety. I understand it was a hyperbole and means to demonstrate something which could be true in its core, but you can't expect acceptance of this method from the people who disagree with your general point.

You were literally begging for people to come out and stand up for Zhitnik and some other guys.

 

[Doctor No]

I can't believe there are fans who actually believe prime-Hasek's supporting cast wasn't distinctly weaker than prime-Roy's. That kind of blows my mind.

"I can't believe that people responded to my deliberately ridiculous statements."

 

[Tuna Tatarrrrrr]

I can't believe there are fans who actually believe prime-Hasek's supporting cast wasn't distinctly weaker than prime-Roy's. That kind of blows my mind.

LOL more like "I can't believe how I overrate Hasek to help me support my statements."

 

[The Panther]

Maybe "AHL" was over-stating it... Or maybe not.

I'll bet that if the NHL hadn't expanded from 1991 onward, at least half the late-90s' Sabres' team would not have been in the NHL.

 

[Doctor No]

Maybe "AHL" was over-stating it... Or maybe not.

No problem. Just let us know when you're ready to have a discussion befitting the History sub-forum, and not one that's better of in the Polls sub-section.

 

[BehindTheTimes]

I can't believe there are fans who actually believe prime-Hasek's supporting cast wasn't distinctly weaker than prime-Roy's. That kind of blows my mind.

I'm having a bit of trouble with this too.

 

[BehindTheTimes]

Yes, I do understand that you claim that.

And if you've never heard of the "nobodies" on defense with the Sabres that year, then I don't know what to tell you. They were particularly good at defense, for one. Except for Zhitnik, who was a solid power play quarterback.

And you know what else the "backup study" relies upon? The quality of the backup goaltenders involved (and usually a small sample size to boot).

They gave up 30 SA per game and were 5th worst. By which metric were they particularly good at defense?
They took 26.2 shots per game for 8th worst. They weren't a very good team at all.

 

[FerrisRox]

I can't believe there are fans who actually believe prime-Hasek's supporting cast wasn't distinctly weaker than prime-Roy's. That kind of blows my mind.

You made a ridiculous, hyperbolic statement and now your flabbergasted that nobody agreed with it?

I don't even believe *you* agree with it.

 

[FerrisRox]

They gave up 30 SA per game and were 5th worst. By which metric were they particularly good at defense?

Is this a legit question or are you trying to make some kind of point?

Without factoring in the system the team plays and where the shots are coming from and how many of them are rebounds that went uncleared, I'm not sure how you think simply stating how many shots they allowed somehow proves or doesn't prove the quality of a teams defense.

For that matter, you say they were fifth worst surrendering 30 shots. Where would they rank if they gave up say, 27 shots a game? How closely are these teams clustered to know how bad 5th worst really is?

A team that gives up 30 shots, but many are from outside high scoring areas and the D clears away the rebounds so the goalie doesn't have to stop those is quite obviously in a better spot than a team that gives up 25 shots but the goalie has to handle five rebound shots a few tap in from the top of the crease.

Context matters. You are ignoring it altogether and then acting like you're making a point.