Patrick Roy -- Was he REALLY that good?

[BehindTheTimes]

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.

Since when did SV % factor in Shot quality. In case you missed it, much of the arguments put forth are SV % based. Bleeding shots wasn't the only thing looked at. The names on paper match the eye test and only further support everything we know about that season. Hasek won the Hart, Vezina and LBJ for a reason. Why don't you tell me the combined record of the teams who had a similar negative shot differential and then argue how good they were.

They were carried by Hasek.

 

[FerrisRox]

Since when did SV % factor in Shot quality. In case you missed it, much of the arguments put forth are SV % based. Bleeding shots wasn't the only thing looked at. The names on paper match the eye test and only further support everything we know about that season. Hasek won the Hart, Vezina and LBJ for a reason. Why don't you tell me the combined record of the teams who had a similar negative shot differential and then argue how good they were.

They were carried by Hasek.

Do you think anybody - like a single person in this thread - doesn't think that the 1999 Sabres were carried by Hasek?

I don't even know what you think you are responding to. Why are talking about how save percentage factors into shot quality?

Why are you talking about combined records of teams with negative shot differential?

Why do you think whether Hasek carried the team is up for debate?

I feel like you are reading secret messages in this thread that nobody else is seeing and you are responding to them.

 

[rocketdan9]

Okay, the thread title is just to get attention. I know Roy was good -- I watched pretty much his whole career, on and off, and I've always rated him very high.

Even so, I was sort-of stunned to see that this forum seems to consider him the #1 goalie ever. Really?? While I agree he was one of the best of his time, I don't see him as anywhere near the best ever.

I think one of the difficulties of evaluating Roy is that he played much of his career for two pretty stacked, good teams. This is in contrast to Hasek, who in his Buffalo days (which made his name) did not play for a stacked, great team, but still helped that team to the playoffs and very nearly the Stanley Cup. In other words, Hasek's contribution to his team in that mid-to-late-90s period is extremely clear. With Hasek, Buffalo was a contender. Without him, they were almost nothing.

But with Roy, it's hard to say how much he added. Certainly, he added a lot. But enough that we can say he's the greatest of all time...?

Maybe my judgement is clouded because I just watched the highlights of an Edmonton-Montreal match from 1985 when rookie Roy let in 4 of the first 5 shots he faced in the second period, but it seems to me that in the brief periods when Roy backstopped average-level teams, he was himself less than stellar (I'm not saying he was just average, but that he was less than stellar when his team was more average). At the end of his career, he sits with three Vezina trophies. Not small change, but not enough to suggest the greatest of all time.

What Roy did very well was turn it on in the playoffs, and to bounce back from weaker efforts. Nobody can argue with his three Conn Smythes. That forms the strongest argument for his 'greatest' status, I suppose. But he won it in 1986 on the bad of a very unremarkable rookie season, and then the 1993 and 2001 wins are in front of very stacked teams. I agree that Roy deserved the three Conn Smythes (certainly the '86 and '93 ones; perhaps '01 is more debatable), by the way.

From the stats: Roy led the NHL in save-% 4 times in 18 years. Good? yes. Great? yes. Best of all time..? Uhh... He led in GAA 3 times and wins 2 times. In 18 years. Is this the best goalie ever?


I dunno... I like Roy a lot and I think he was great. But I don't think he's the best ever. I'm just wondering if the legend of 'St. Patrick' is starting to take over from reality.

I hated him but yes he was

Could you get him off his game, by tapping into his emotions? absolutely

but also when he used his emotions positively and was focused... his butterfly style + solid reflex was second to none. Just seemed like was always in position

 

[The Panther]

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

You're taking this too far. Was my statement really that ridiculous?

I'll give you Satan, Peca, Curtis Brown (not exactly an All-Star, but good playoffs) and maybe Zhitnik (his first two years with L.A., anyway) as strong players with legit NHL big-roles to play (though Zhitnik was already past his peak by the late-90s). But otherwise?

The 1998-99 Sabres line-up of regulars includes the following:
Michal Grosek (career high of 50 points that season; otherwise a 20-point guy -- was their 3rd leading scorer)
Dixon Ward (team's 5th-leading scorer played for six teams in ten years)
Jason Woolley (was peaking on D around this time; outside of c.1998-2000 he's an undistinguished journeyman)
Brian Holzinger (career -62; once scored more than 36 points)

Okay, those are the "top" guys. Now for the lesser players who made up most of the roster:
Vaclav Varada (RW, career high 10 goals)
Geoff Sanderson (formerly productive player put up 12 goals and appeared washed-up)
Matthew Barnaby (11th in team scoring, despite being traded late in season. Nuff said.)
Derek Plante (no production after '97; short NHL career)
Daryl Shannon (journeyman defenceman; scored 3 goals)
Richard Smehlik (journeyman defenceman; scored 3 goals)
Wayne Primeau (long, undistinguished career... two years prior, was in -- wait for it! -- the AHL)
Jay McKee (6 points in 72 games)
Rob Ray (Nuff said.)

They did acquire Stu Barnes before the playoff run, which gave them that little extra forward depth (or a semblance of). But this is a rag-tag bunch of nobodies in the Stanley Cup Finals. I don't think this line-up (goaltender aside) compares favorably with contemporary clubs like, say, the 1998-99 Vancouver Canucks, which missed the playoffs by a mile.

It's an unanswerable question, but would anyone else besides Hasek (e.g., Roy) have been able to carry such a line-up to the Cup Finals?

 

[quoipourquoi]

It's an unanswerable question, but would anyone else besides Hasek (e.g., Roy) have been able to carry such a line-up to the Cup Finals?

Yes, of course. We’ve actually done the statistical analysis and linked to it on the last page. The threshold in the Ottawa series is definitely a tough one, but based on the Sabres’ offensive output in the 1999 playoffs and their shots allowed, the Sabres players did not leave their goaltending in an impossible position. The previous year’s Washington Capitals, for instance, put more pressure on their goaltending, and they made the Finals too.

 

[FerrisRox]

You're taking this too far. Was my statement really that ridiculous?

I'll give you Satan, Peca, Curtis Brown (not exactly an All-Star, but good playoffs) and maybe Zhitnik (his first two years with L.A., anyway) as strong players with legit NHL big-roles to play (though Zhitnik was already past his peak by the late-90s). But otherwise?

The 1998-99 Sabres line-up of regulars includes the following:
Michal Grosek (career high of 50 points that season; otherwise a 20-point guy -- was their 3rd leading scorer)
Dixon Ward (team's 5th-leading scorer played for six teams in ten years)
Jason Woolley (was peaking on D around this time; outside of c.1998-2000 he's an undistinguished journeyman)
Brian Holzinger (career -62; once scored more than 36 points)

Okay, those are the "top" guys. Now for the lesser players who made up most of the roster:
Vaclav Varada (RW, career high 10 goals)
Geoff Sanderson (formerly productive player put up 12 goals and appeared washed-up)
Matthew Barnaby (11th in team scoring, despite being traded late in season. Nuff said.)
Derek Plante (no production after '97; short NHL career)
Daryl Shannon (journeyman defenceman; scored 3 goals)
Richard Smehlik (journeyman defenceman; scored 3 goals)
Wayne Primeau (long, undistinguished career... two years prior, was in -- wait for it! -- the AHL)
Jay McKee (6 points in 72 games)
Rob Ray (Nuff said.)

I don't know whether you are doing it intentionally, but you are surely trying to twist and contort the facts to fit your narrative.

For example:

1) Claiming Geoff Sanderson was "formerly productive and washed up." He was one full season removed from a 36 goal year and went on to play nine more NHL seasons after that - and incredible feat for a washed up player. Incredibly, he also notched two more 30+ goal seasons and a 25 goal season as well. He also had ten points for the Sabres that playoff and quite clearly was a legit, solid NHL winger.

2) In an effort to marginalize and belittle their blue line, you grudgingly accept that maybe Alexei Zhitnik was a good NHLer "his first two years in LA." Conveniently, you leave out that with 15 points that spring, he was the Sabres leading scorer and hugely valuable part of the team. Jason Woolley, who you say was an "undistinguished journeyman" after this season (not sure why that matters, we're talking about this playoff run) also notched 15 points and also was the Sabres leading point getter. These are two very important parts of that blue line and that playoff run. Even stranger, you try to tear down Richard Smehlik and Jay McKee by posting their offensive production, which is a strange measuring stick considering both were defensive defenseman. (To recap, you have left out the offensive production of Woolley and Zhitnik, who led the team in scoring, but actually included the offensive production of the two top defensive blue liners on the team.) Seems ignorant at worst and disingenuous at best to frame them that way. Strangely, you leave out James Patrick altogether. He was the most experienced veteran on that blue line. This is a veteran that played over 1200 NHL games. Odd to leave him out, but including him certainly damages the narrative that this blue line was a ragtag group of nobodies that vanished into the abyss shortly after this playoff.

3) Why are you mentioning Matthew Barnaby or Derek Plante at all? Both of them were traded away from Buffalo during the season and neither of them have anything to do with the post-season run of the team. Again, seems rather disingenuous to include them on a list of Sabres in a conversation about the post season ... considering they have nothing to do with it.

4) Speaking of trades: Joe Juneau is also strangely absent from your list. Juneau was acquired for the post season and was an important veteran among the forwards (much like James Patrick was on their D) and chipped in 11 points in the 20 playoff games he played and was a key part of their forward group. Juneau, the previous spring, had gone to the Finals with the Washington Capitals and led them in scoring that post season with 17 points (tying him with Adam Oates.) Leaving him out but including Derek Plante, who didn't even play on the team, seems awfully suspicious.

 

[Frank Drebin]

Hasek and his 6 modern day Vezinas, 2 Hart Trophies, and Olympic gold is a distant #1.
Roy is usually in the #2 spot because of his 3 Conn Smythes to Brodeurs 0 and 4 cups to Brodeurs 3.

 

[Frank Drebin]

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.

Would you say Marian Hossa is a superior player to Alexander Ovechkin?

 

[Harry Kakalovich]

Would you say Marian Hossa is a superior player to Alexander Ovechkin?

You mean like do I think your question has anything to do with my comment? No I don't. It clearly has nothing to do with Patrick Roy and why people think he's the best goalie ever. I think the reason some people feel that way is because of Roy's playoff success. Why do you think many people rate Roy as the best goalie of all time? Personally I don't think it is a bias against Europeans. I think if Hasek had the playoff success and Roy had the regular season dominance people would rate Hasek over Roy in the same proportion. What do you think?

 

[BehindTheTimes]

Do you think anybody - like a single person in this thread - doesn't think that the 1999 Sabres were carried by Hasek?

I don't even know what you think you are responding to. Why are talking about how save percentage factors into shot quality?

Why are you talking about combined records of teams with negative shot differential?

Why do you think whether Hasek carried the team is up for debate?

I feel like you are reading secret messages in this thread that nobody else is seeing and you are responding to them.

So you don't have an answer. I get it. Carry on.

 

[Frank Drebin]

You mean like do I think your question has anything to do with my comment? No I don't. It clearly has nothing to do with Patrick Roy and why people think he's the best goalie ever. I think the reason some people feel that way is because of Roy's playoff success. Why do you think many people rate Roy as the best goalie of all time? Personally I don't think it is a bias against Europeans. I think if Hasek had the playoff success and Roy had the regular season dominance people would rate Hasek over Roy in the same proportion. What do you think?

I think Hasek had a better run in the 99 playoffs in a losing cause than Roy ever did.

I think the 6 vezinas and two Hart trophies speak for themselves. Hasek didn't have the opportunities that Roy did for post season success, but he was clearly the better goalie.

I'll also say that it would be a minority that would consider Roy to be greater than Hasek. Especially if you exclude Habs fans.

 

[The Panther]

Jason Woolley, who you say was an "undistinguished journeyman" after this season (not sure why that matters, we're talking about this playoff run) also notched 15 points and also was the Sabres leading point getter...

I'm not sure that emphasizing how a defensive defenceman (whom basically nobody but Sabres' fans remembers) with 15 points led the team in scoring is an argument working in your favor...

 

[FerrisRox]

I'm not sure that emphasizing how a defensive defenceman (whom basically nobody but Sabres' fans remembers) with 15 points led the team in scoring is an argument working in your favor...

You calling Jason Woolley a "defensive defensemen" makes clear what I already suspected - you're not really knowledgeable on this topic but that isn't stopping you from weighing in on it.

Jason Woolley was never a defensive defenseman. His game was always about offence and quarterbacking powerplays.
In his own words: "I was an offensive-defenseman. I think my greatest assets were the ability to see the ice, precision passing and my forward-like ability in the offensive zone. I was actually most confident when I was in the other teams’ end. I was probably most known for my no-look passing."

Two of his three seasons with Michigan State he was over a point-a-game. Then he joined the Canadian National Team (he played in the 1992 Olympics) and was a high scoring d-man posting 14-goals and 44 points in 60 games. He added five points in 8 games during the Olympics. (And became the first Canadian to ever score a shootout goal at the Olympics.)

In 1996, when he made his first trip to the Finals with the Panthers, he scored 34 points in just 52 games. The following year with the Penguins he 36 points in 57 games. His first year in Buffalo he put up 35 points and the year the Sabres went to the Final, Woolley's 43 points led the team from the blue line.

It's strange that you seem so adamant to denigrate this blue line group and yet it's clear you don't really know much about these players. What's the point of arguing a topic you don't know anything about?

 

[The Panther]

You calling Jason Woolley a "defensive defensemen" makes clear what I already suspected - you're not really knowledgeable on this topic but that isn't stopping you from weighing in on it.

Jason Woolley was never a defensive defenseman. His game was always about offence and quarterbacking powerplays.
In his own words: "I was an offensive-defenseman. I think my greatest assets were the ability to see the ice, precision passing and my forward-like ability in the offensive zone. I was actually most confident when I was in the other teams’ end. I was probably most known for my no-look passing."

Two of his three seasons with Michigan State he was over a point-a-game. Then he joined the Canadian National Team (he played in the 1992 Olympics) and was a high scoring d-man posting 14-goals and 44 points in 60 games. He added five points in 8 games during the Olympics. (And became the first Canadian to ever score a shootout goal at the Olympics.)

In 1996, when he made his first trip to the Finals with the Panthers, he scored 34 points in just 52 games. The following year with the Penguins he 36 points in 57 games. His first year in Buffalo he put up 35 points and the year the Sabres went to the Final, Woolley's 43 points led the team from the blue line.

It's strange that you seem so adamant to denigrate this blue line group and yet it's clear you don't really know much about these players. What's the point of arguing a topic you don't know anything about?

Okay I concede defeat here. The Sabres' all-star lineup, featuring the legendary Jason Woolley, was the equivalent of the 1977 Canadiens or 1987 Oilers.

 

[FerrisRox]

Okay I concede defeat here. The Sabres' all-star lineup, featuring the legendary Jason Woolley, was the equivalent of the 1977 Canadiens or 1987 Oilers.

Good to see you're being a grown up about it.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Yes, of course. We’ve actually done the statistical analysis and linked to it on the last page. The threshold in the Ottawa series is definitely a tough one, but based on the Sabres’ offensive output in the 1999 playoffs and their shots allowed, the Sabres players did not leave their goaltending in an impossible position. The previous year’s Washington Capitals, for instance, put more pressure on their goaltending, and they made the Finals too.

furthermore, were the 96 florida panthers better or worse than the 99 sabres? or were they more or less the same thing with three key players in common?

or could nobody but john vanbiesbrouck possibly have carried that team to the finals?

 

[Ofuzz]

First off, I was no fan of Patrick Roy but I definitely would put him on the Mount Rushmore of goaltenders. However............I really would have liked to have seen the goalie equipment size reduction started earlier than 2005 to see how Roy's stats would hold up. Because we've heard much about the huge size of his gloves/blockers/sweaters etc....
I always thought that Brodeur doesn't get the proper recognition as a top 3 or 4 goalie. Out of his 125 career shutouts, 50 of them still came after the NHL crackdown on equipment was implemented.
It's my only "what if" when evaluating Roy.

 

[The Panther]

furthermore, were the 96 florida panthers better or worse than the 99 sabres? or were they more or less the same thing with three key players in common?

or could nobody but john vanbiesbrouck possibly have carried that team to the finals?

Fair point. This was an era (late-90s) when lesser-talented teams all started playing defensive, take no risks, neutral-zone trap hockey in order to achieve some balance with the richer and more talented teams. Vanbiesbrouck did lead a low-talent team to the Finals (albeit with a much weaker W-L record than the Hasek Sabres).

I guess the question, though, is how many Hart trophies did Vanbiesbrouck win? I would apply a similar point of distinction between Roy and Hasek. Hasek was the MVP of the League twice, on less talented teams (like Vanbiesbrouck's Panthers). Roy was never the MVP of the League. Roy was voted MVP of the playoffs three times, a fantastic distinction, but my feeling is that Hasek was the real MVP of the 1999 playoffs, and, if he'd been on stronger teams during his prime, would have had better opportunities to win Cups (though this is obviously speculation). We also saw that as soon as a 37-year-old Hasek went to a strong team (Detroit), he immediately won the Cup in fine form (a .942 in the Finals!).

Any argument for Roy over Hasek, as I see it, rests entirely on performance in the NHL playoffs (2 to 8 weeks per year, if your team makes it). As far as NHL regular season goes, Hasek trumps Roy. As far as international hockey goes, Hasek trumps Roy. So, if Roy is greater than Hasek, he has to be WAY better than Hasek in the NHL playoffs for this to be true. And I don't see that at all.

 

[Tuna Tatarrrrrr]

I'll also say that it would be a minority that would consider Roy to be greater than Hasek. Especially if you exclude Habs fans.

How about no? I'd say it's clearly the opposite and the majority would consider Roy to be greater than Hasek especially outside of HF.

 

[Tuna Tatarrrrrr]

First off, I was no fan of Patrick Roy but I definitely would put him on the Mount Rushmore of goaltenders. However............I really would have liked to have seen the goalie equipment size reduction started earlier than 2005 to see how Roy's stats would hold up. Because we've heard much about the huge size of his gloves/blockers/sweaters etc....
I always thought that Brodeur doesn't get the proper recognition as a top 3 or 4 goalie. Out of his 125 career shutouts, 50 of them still came after the NHL crackdown on equipment was implemented.
It's my only "what if" when evaluating Roy.

Because Roy never played with smaller goalie equipment in the 80's right?

I'd like to see Hasek plays with smaller goalie equipment since he only dominated with huge goalie equipment from mid-90's until 2003. Coincidence?

 

[Tuna Tatarrrrrr]

We also saw that as soon as a 37-year-old Hasek went to a strong team (Detroit), he immediately won the Cup in fine form (a .942 in the Finals!).

Oh wow... He had a .942 save percentage on what many consider to be the greatest team in the last 20 years against... The Carolina Hurricanes... I'm very impressed.

 

[LateSleeper]

Btw yeah, Roy really was that good.

But Hasek was still better.

And I have this theory: If you sent the generally more insecure "Roy is the greatest goalie of all time" crowd on the polygraph test, they were asked if they believed Roy was a better goalie than Hasek and some of them, sweating and panting, still stubbornly replied "yes!", the polygraph would go bananas.

I think even most of these people subconsciously agree Hasek was better.

 

[Frank Drebin]

How about no? I'd say it's clearly the opposite and the majority would consider Roy to be greater than Hasek especially outside of HF.

I suppose you're right.

I just don't see it. Hasek had an Orr/Gretzky level of dominance over the position and league that Roy never did - although Roy did show that he could get it done when it mattered, although his teams were mostly favorites in the finals regardless.

 

[Ofuzz]

Because Roy never played with smaller goalie equipment in the 80's right?

I'd like to see Hasek plays with smaller goalie equipment since he only dominated with huge goalie equipment from mid-90's until 2003. Coincidence?

Oh I get that he played with small equipment in the 80's, but so did everyone else. I wasn't going on comparing him to other goalies, just a "what if " on comparison of his own stats pre-equipment and post-equipment crackdown. That's why I mentioned Brodeur, not as a comparison to Roy but as an example of what a great goalie can do regardless of the equip-change I guess. I would imagine that Roy could have done it as well......but we'll never know. That is my "what if".

 

[bobholly39]

Fair point. This was an era (late-90s) when lesser-talented teams all started playing defensive, take no risks, neutral-zone trap hockey in order to achieve some balance with the richer and more talented teams. Vanbiesbrouck did lead a low-talent team to the Finals (albeit with a much weaker W-L record than the Hasek Sabres).

I guess the question, though, is how many Hart trophies did Vanbiesbrouck win? I would apply a similar point of distinction between Roy and Hasek. Hasek was the MVP of the League twice, on less talented teams (like Vanbiesbrouck's Panthers). Roy was never the MVP of the League. Roy was voted MVP of the playoffs three times, a fantastic distinction, but my feeling is that Hasek was the real MVP of the 1999 playoffs, and, if he'd been on stronger teams during his prime, would have had better opportunities to win Cups (though this is obviously speculation). We also saw that as soon as a 37-year-old Hasek went to a strong team (Detroit), he immediately won the Cup in fine form (a .942 in the Finals!).

Any argument for Roy over Hasek, as I see it, rests entirely on performance in the NHL playoffs (2 to 8 weeks per year, if your team makes it). As far as NHL regular season goes, Hasek trumps Roy. As far as international hockey goes, Hasek trumps Roy. So, if Roy is greater than Hasek, he has to be WAY better than Hasek in the NHL playoffs for this to be true. And I don't see that at all.

Dominic Hasek - at his best - was better at 'stooping pucks' than anyone in history, even Roy. But Roy still had the better career and is the greater player. Playoffs obviously is a huge differentiator - but Patrick Roy has one of the greatest regular season resumes ever for a goalie - maybe top 2 after Hasek, when you adjust stats for era.

To make a parallel you'll enjoy. Lemieux is better at 'scoring goals' than anyone in history, even Gretzky. Most talented player ever maybe. But Gretzky still had arguably the greater career as a goal-scorer, and can be argued as #1 all time.