Patrick Roy -- Was he REALLY that good?

[Dissonance]

I usually pick Hasek as the best goalie of all time, but I also think Roy's regular-season dominance gets underrated:

During Roy's first seven years, 1985-1992 (when he won all his Vezinas), his save percentage was 11 points better than his nearest competitors — Jon Casey and Ron Hextall. (I'm limiting to goalies who played at least 200 games in that span.)

By comparison, during Hasek's first seven years as starter, 1993-2000, he was fourteen points better than his nearest competitor — Patrick Roy.

So Roy basically had a seven-year stretch of near-Hasek-like regular-season dominance, plus another seven years when he was second in save percentage behind only Hasek.

Obviously save percentage isn't everything. And you could add that Roy played behind stronger teams and arguably had weaker competition than Hasek, etc. (Like I said, I rate Hasek higher.) But the answer to the initial question is yes. Even before you get into his playoff heroics, Roy really was that good.

 

[Cruor]

This seems absurd. I'd recommend judging Roy on his body of work, not on one game in Roy's rookie season (the game was in 1986, by the way, not 1985) where he's playing against one of the greatest teams of all time.

Just as absurd as writing off Hasek with view to his IHL games? Hasek's HHOF induction recently had some interesting quotes, he credited his time in the IHL with making him understand what was asked of him, and rising to the occasion. I think the narrative that he "wasn't good enough" before that doesn't hold water. If he had been born in NA he would have adapted far earlier than he did to the type of hockey being played.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Just as absurd as writing off Hasek with view to his IHL games? Hasek's HHOF induction recently had some interesting quotes, he credited his time in the IHL with making him understand what was asked of him, and rising to the occasion. I think the narrative that he "wasn't good enough" before that doesn't hold water. If he had been born in NA he would have adapted far earlier than he did to the type of hockey being played.

You're going to have to tell me more about what the hell you're talking about, since you seem to be ascribing some sort of opinion to me.

Just to clarify - do you disagree with what I actually said?

 

[The Panther]

But the answer to the initial question is yes. Even before you get into his playoff heroics, Roy really was that good.

Yes, of course. But actually your (excellent) post agrees with my OP -- that Roy wasn't the best ever. That's all I'm saying.

 

[The Panther]

This seems absurd. I'd recommend judging Roy on his body of work, not on one game in Roy's rookie season (the game was in 1986, by the way, not 1985) where he's playing against one of the greatest teams of all time.

Okay, obviously (or so I thought) I'm not doing that. As I stated in the OP, I watched his whole career. I judge him on the basis of that.

 

[The Panther]

can you explain why talking about how many times a goalie led the NHL in GAA is relevant at all?

Of course it's relevant. If a goalie had the best GAA, then he let in the fewest goals. If he let in the fewest goals, he helped his team a lot.

It's not like Roy played for the Smythe division in the 80s. His 1st team was mainly noted for its defense-first style; his 2nd team was more balanced but was also solid defensively. Given this situation, I might expect the Best of All-Time at his position to have led in GAA more than 3 times in 18 seasons. I don't think this is invalid at all.

GAA is just the inverse of save percentage (error rate) times shots against per game, so you're taking a useful stat and adding something to it that the goalie can't control.

Actually, he can control it -- by stopping the puck more! Of course GAA (like virtually any stat) is not definitive by itself or without considering context, but to say the goalie has "no control over it" is akin to saying the players have no control over who wins the game. Let's give the goalie some agency!

it's also a little too "binary" to care only about the times a player led the league in a category and not how many times they ranked very highly or take a bigger picture look at it.

Is that true when we're discussing the best of all time, though? If we're going to say he's the best of all time and then look at stats, we're bound to judge him by the most demanding standards of all time.

Roy's sv% performance in the regular season over the leaguewide average throughout his career is well ahead of anyone else aside from Hasek.

So basically you agree with me -- he wasn't the best of all time...?

 

[Rhiessan71]

Okay, obviously (or so I thought) I'm not doing that. As I stated in the OP, I watched his whole career. I judge him on the basis of that.

Regular season, sure, maybe not THE best but was amongst the best.
Playoff's however, he was THE best by a pretty incredible and at times a ridiculous margin.
So overall does he have a claim as the best ever? You bet your ass.

 

[seventieslord]

well thanks for at least not giving me anything difficult to reply to!

Of course it's relevant. If a goalie had the best GAA, then he let in the fewest goals. If he let in the fewest goals, he helped his team a lot.

It's not like Roy played for the Smythe division in the 80s. His 1st team was mainly noted for its defense-first style; his 2nd team was more balanced but was also solid defensively. Given this situation, I might expect the Best of All-Time at his position to have led in GAA more than 3 times in 18 seasons. I don't think this is invalid at all.

Actually, he can control it -- by stopping the puck more! Of course GAA (like virtually any stat) is not definitive by itself or without considering context, but to say the goalie has "no control over it" is akin to saying the players have no control over who wins the game. Let's give the goalie some agency!

sigh...

the thing that the goalie can't control, is shots against per game. That's completely on his team. I shouldn't have to explain this to you; you should have been able to put this together from what I said earlier.

If a goalie has a 92% save percentage, then they have an 8% error rate. They can control their error rate and save percentage by stopping more pucks. are you with me so far?

A goalie can have the exact same error rate of 8%, but facing 20, 30 and 40 shots per game can result in a GAA of 1.60, 2.40 and 3.20. This goalie is stopping pucks with the same proficiency in each scenario; the only difference is he's getting more pucks shot at him.

So again, GAA is nothing more than error rate (a derivative of save percentage, which the goalie does control), times shots against per game, which the goalie does not control. Therefore, if save percentage is part of the discussion - and it is, rightly so - then there is absolutely no need for GAA to be part of the discussion. I hope you can see that including it is nothing more than double dipping on save percentage while bastardizing it with meaningless noise.

Is that true when we're discussing the best of all time, though? If we're going to say he's the best of all time and then look at stats, we're bound to judge him by the most demanding standards of all time.

Yes, it's true when we're judging any player. If you try to rank defensemen solely on the basis of the number of norris trophies they won, your list will be terrible. Same if you try to rank forwards solely on the basis of total art ross trophies. It's important to know how close they were to the lead in other seasons, and how often.

As far as Roy is concerned - go look at the list of times he was top-10 in save percentage and compare that to any other goalie; his record is far superior. If your case for Roy being nowhere near the best of all-time is partially based on the fact that he "only" led the league in sv% four times, then it leads to the question - if he's nowhere near the best, then who is?

(Hasek, for example, led six times but was top-5 a total of nine times - just like Roy, and top-10 11 times - four times fewer than Roy)

It's just as silly to judge solely on the basis of instances leading the league, as it would be to judge solely on the basis of top-10s.

So basically you agree with me -- he wasn't the best of all time...?

Actually, that's not your position. Your position in the OP was "I don't see him as anywhere near the best ever". There's nothing wrong with thinking he wasn't the best of all-time. Roy, Hasek and Plante could be put in any order legitimately, depending on what you value. The reason you're hearing from me is because of your stated position in the OP.

And no, the fact that Hasek, and not Roy, is the most dominant goalie of all-time from a regular season save percentage standpoint does not mean I have to agree he is better or that Roy is not #1. There are obviously other things to consider - such as playoffs.

But this question is still puzzling, because if you expect me to anoint Hasek the best of all-time solely on that basis, then it should follow that you expect me to anoint Roy the 2nd best of all-time since he's the second most dominant by that metric. But that contradicts your stated position that "I don't see him as anywhere near the best ever". Doesn't it?

 

[The Panther]

the thing that the goalie can't control, is shots against per game. That's completely on his team. I shouldn't have to explain this to you; you should have been able to put this together from what I said earlier.

You're right -- you don't need to explain it to me. I'm pretty good at basic math, thanks.

The simple fact remains that the goalie who lets in the fewest goals gives his team the best chance to win.

GAA is nothing meaningful unto itself, perhaps, but at the same time we can't just dismiss it as an "error-rate". It is meaningful and important and shouldn't just be dismissed.

I hope you can see that including it is nothing more than double dipping on save percentage while bastardizing it with meaningless noise.

Nope. Don't see it.

As far as Roy is concerned - go look at the list of times he was top-10 in save percentage and compare that to any other goalie; his record is far superior. If your case for Roy being nowhere near the best of all-time is partially based on the fact that he "only" led the league in sv% four times, then it leads to the question - if he's nowhere near the best, then who is?

I don't know. I have no particular dog in the fight, but I can say Roy is not the best goalie I've seen. Therefore he's not the best ever. I definitely think Hasek was better. I'd also be inclined to rate Terry Sawchuk higher. Jacques Plante, too. I prefer Brodeur as well.

And no, the fact that Hasek, and not Roy, is the most dominant goalie of all-time from a regular season save percentage standpoint does not mean I have to agree he is better or that Roy is not #1.

I don't recall saying you have to do anything. You pointed out that Roy's regular season save-% is behind Hasek's, and I thought you were suggesting that Hasedk was better. Sorry if I mis-interpreted.

But this question is still puzzling, because if you expect me to anoint Hasek the best of all-time solely on that basis, then it should follow that you expect me to anoint Roy the 2nd best of all-time since...

This may shock you, but I don't expect you to do anything.

 

[Brooklanders*]

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.

So many Roy threads with the same theme.
In continously beating a dead horse you have the pro- Roy and pro-Hasek sides.

Sprinkle in Broduer and all the old guys that most have never seen play live.
For me Hasek was the best goalie ever.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Where was this large pro-Hasek/anti-Roy crowd when the top 40 goaltenders project was being done...

They weren't taking part in the project, since Hasek >>>>> Roy is the common opinion among posters who judge things based on what they saw post-1995 and not really paying mind to what happened beforehand (which is something that posters who actually participate in the projects have to do).

For posters with historical perspective, there are valid reasons for picking Hasek, of course. I'm just saying that "Hasek is an easy choice" is what you'd expect from posters who base their opinions exclusively on what they saw... post-1995 or so.

Just saying that it's often forgotten that by 1993, Roy already had a career that was HHOF-calibre and Hasek hadn't even established himself as a starter yet

 

[SladeWilson23]

He isn't the best of all time, but I definitely think he's the greatest of all time.

GREATEST OF ALL TIME
1. Roy
2. Brodeur
3. Plante
4. Hasek
5. Sawchuk

BEST OF ALL TIME
1. Hasek
2. Roy
3. Sawchuk
4. Plante
5. Brodeur

 

[bobholly39]

Top 10 finishes in GAA per season in career:

Brodeur - 15 times
Roy - 14 times
Hasek - 12 times


Top 10 finishes in SV% per season in career:

Brodeur - 6 times
Roy - 15 times
Hasek - 11 times

Roy has 18 full seasons played. 14 times in top 10 GAA, 15 times in top 10 SV%
Brodeur has 20 full seasons played. 15 times top 10 GAA, 6 times top 10 SV%
Hasek has 14 full seasons played. 12 times GAA top 10, 11 times SV% top 10


This is quick math. you also gotta figure out for Hasek - some of his "full" seasons are pretty low in games played compared to other two. But what this shows is that:

Hasek was always amongst the best, every year
Roy was always amongst the best, every year
Brodeur - quite a bit less than other two.


Playoffs? Roy has a HUGE edge over anyone else.

To answer the question - Yes, Roy EASILY has a case for best ever. Is it 100% certain he's best ever? No, i suppose it's debatable, Hasek has a case too. But to claim Roy doesn't belong in the conversation is foolish.

 

[struckbyaparkedcar]

They weren't taking part in the project, since Hasek >>>>> Roy is the common opinion among posters who judge things based on what they saw post-1995 and not really paying mind to what happened beforehand (which is something that posters who actually participate in the projects have to do).

And yet, discounting a vote that was as "based in pure fact" as an Antonin Scalia ruling, the majority had Hasek slightly ahead.

 

[Wrath]

And yet, discounting a vote that was as "based in pure fact" as an Antonin Scalia ruling, the majority had Hasek slightly ahead.

IIRC if we remove the two lowest votes for Roy and Hasek in that project they are exactly tied.

 

[seventieslord]

Nope. Don't see it.

You're upset that I'm talking to you like you don't understand, but right here you demonstrate that you simply don't understand. I have it two tries, that's enough. This thread exists because you had a rant you just had to post, full of terrible logic, that ultimately made no impact. You have an axe to grind and you're free to carry on, it's not against any rules. My particular brand of logic is of no use here, as there are plenty of others speaking up.

 

[Rhiessan71]

And yet, discounting a vote that was as "based in pure fact" as an Antonin Scalia ruling, the majority had Hasek slightly ahead.

For the purpose of this thread it doesn't really matter who actually finished #1 in that ranking.
Arguing whether Roy is THE best is one thing and something everyone has, quite often, a strong opinion on.
This thread however is about whether Roy even belongs in a conversation for that ranking.
He does, period and there really is no credible argument to the contrary. At least not in this section.
Also, as far as I'm concerned, it's an argument that deserves to be treated with some condescension.
Imo it's on the same level as someone trying to say that Howe, Orr or Lemieux don't belong in a conversation as the best player ever.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Agreed. What's the argument that Roy isn't "anywhere near the best ever"?

I know, I know...he had a sub-par game against the 1986 Edmonton Oilers as a rookie. I have to admit - that's pretty compelling.

Panther, feel free to add to the argument.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Any player with five top-5 Hart finishes while being the best player on four Finalists and the second-best on a fifth is probably that good.

 

[Bender]

Any player with five top-5 Hart finishes while being the best player on four Finalists and the second-best on a fifth is probably that good.

Ah...regular season best of all time...I thought we were asking about when it counts.

4 Stanley Cups
3 Conn Smythes - No other player has ever had more.

Yeah he's the best ever.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

okay i'll dignify the bad game roy had against the oilers when he was twenty years old:

roy is similar to gretzky in a way. after their respective rookie seasons, everyone was saying their performances were unsustainable. in both cases, commentators were saying the league would "figure him out" and a regression would follow. with gretzky, you just had to play him hard and take away his room to operate. only, of course, nobody could figure out how to do that. with roy, "you have to go high." and every once in a while, he'd get lit up and everybody would say "see, i told you so. they figured him out."

fast forward 20 years...

they were geniuses, they adapted, and both guys worked as hard on their games, at the highest possible levels of achievement, as anyone else in any sport, ever. 20 year old patrick roy was phenomenal. he won the conn smythe. but he wasn't as phenomenal as 23 year old patrick roy, and that guy wasn't as phenomenal as 27 year old patrick roy.

or was gretzky "not really that good" because the flyers kept him off the scoresheet in one playoff game when he was twenty years old?

 

[habitue*]

I'm so obviously biased that my view is going to be tainted, but I don't think Roy was the best goalie of his era, never mind best of all time. For me, Hasek was better than Roy. Obviously Roy is one of the best ever but I can't really compare him with guys I didn't see. Of guys I did see, then for me Hasek>Roy>Brodeur.

Roy was the most "competitive" goalie of his era. Way technically better than Hasek. Roy was always there in key games.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Way technically better than Hasek.

I wouldn't necessarily say that, particularly as today's goaltenders are learning and incorporating elements of Hasek's technique now.

Hasek's style was difficult to emulate - I used to teach the vertical angles element in particular.

Roy looks technically sound - now. At the time, coaches were asking if he wanted a pillow while he was lying on the ice. We know now that Roy was ahead of his time. We'll see that (collectively) about Hasek some day.

 

[Gigantor The Goalie]

I wouldn't necessarily say that, particularly as today's goaltenders are learning and incorporating elements of Hasek's technique now.

Hasek's style was difficult to emulate - I used to teach the vertical angles element in particular.

Roy looks technically sound - now. At the time, coaches were asking if he wanted a pillow while he was lying on the ice. We know now that Roy was ahead of his time. We'll see that (collectively) about Hasek some day.

Hasek is almost inhumanly flexible. He had to be taken to the doctors at a young age because they thought his bones were broken. I don't think you can teach what Hasek did.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Hasek is almost inhumanly flexible. He had to be taken to the doctors at a young age because they thought his bones were broken. I don't think you can teach what Hasek did.

His style certainly catered to his gifts, but the principles can be taught.