Patrick Roy?

[Bear of Bad News]

But if stats are your thing, Fuhr did lead the NHL in shutouts in 1987-'88.

For most of us who have "stats as our thing", shutouts aren't going to convince us. Given a save percentage, an increase in shutouts just says that a goaltender was more inconsistent in his performance (because with a fixed save percentage, an increase in shutouts means a corresponding increase in high-goal performances).

I'm a Fuhr fan, and I believe that his value to the Oilers was in more than is measured in his save percentage, but his shutouts aren't going to convince me.

 

[Big Phil]

For most of us who have "stats as our thing", shutouts aren't going to convince us. Given a save percentage, an increase in shutouts just says that a goaltender was more inconsistent in his performance (because with a fixed save percentage, an increase in shutouts means a corresponding increase in high-goal performances).

I'm a Fuhr fan, and I believe that his value to the Oilers was in more than is measured in his save percentage, but his shutouts aren't going to convince me.

Okay fine, I am not a "stats only" guy either, but if you are picking a team in either one of 1987 or 1988 don't you think Fuhr would pretty much be the unanimous choice as the better goalie?

 

[McGuillicuddy]

Okay fine, I am not a "stats only" guy either, but if you are picking a team in either one of 1987 or 1988 don't you think Fuhr would pretty much be the unanimous choice as the better goalie?

Doesn't the result pretty much speak for itself here? Fuhr was outstanding. The end justifies the means in this case.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Okay fine, I am not a "stats only" guy either, but if you are picking a team in either one of 1987 or 1988 don't you think Fuhr would pretty much be the unanimous choice as the better goalie?

Without question. Of the other reasonable choices at the time, Moog was seen as Fuhr's backup, the sheen was off of Pete Peeters and Mike Liut (justifiably or not), Billy Smith was basically done, Hextall, Roy, Hrudey and Vernon were too inexperienced, and the other Canadian starters weren't ever considered on that level.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Without question. Of the other reasonable choices at the time, Moog was seen as Fuhr's backup, the sheen was off of Pete Peeters and Mike Liut (justifiably or not), Billy Smith was basically done, Hextall, Roy, Hrudey and Vernon were too inexperienced, and the other Canadian starters weren't ever considered on that level.

That's pretty much the way I remember it too and you're absolutely right with Fuhr. It was only ever about one stat with him in his prime...WINS!
Scoring goals on Fuhr was never overly hard unless it was the goal that tied the game or took the lead with. Fuhr was among the best that ever played in denying those goals imo.

 

[Big Phil]

Without question. Of the other reasonable choices at the time, Moog was seen as Fuhr's backup, the sheen was off of Pete Peeters and Mike Liut (justifiably or not), Billy Smith was basically done, Hextall, Roy, Hrudey and Vernon were too inexperienced, and the other Canadian starters weren't ever considered on that level.

My point exactly

 

[Bear of Bad News]

My point exactly

I never claimed otherwise.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Scoring goals on Fuhr was never overly hard unless it was the goal that tied the game or took the lead with. Fuhr was among the best that ever played in denying those goals imo.

I'd love to see someone explore this hypothesis rigorously. Was Fuhr (or Cheevers, for that matter) really better than his contemporaries when the score was tied (or close), or is it a myth?

Many times, I've thought about doing this, but the best that I could see being done (with the data available) is GAA for each game situation (since we'd known for exactly how long each goaltender played, and how many goals were allowed, under each game situation). Better would be save percentage for each game situation (or even quality-adjusted save percentage), but we barely have that information now - we're not getting it for the mid-1980s.

 

[Canadiens1958]

1987 Team Canada Goalies

Overlooked to date is the question of the best suited goalie for Team Canada. Remember short training camp no system or team playing a tight defensive system.

Patrick Roy was used to playing in a tight defensive system employed by the Canadiens. Grant Fuhr was used to a free wheeling Oiler team where defense was a good offense. A description that also fit the 1987 Team Canada.

Maybe Patrick Roy was the better goalie but Grant Fuhr was the best goalie for the type of team that the 1987 Team Canada was going to be.

 

[GuineaPig]

I'd love to see someone explore this hypothesis rigorously. Was Fuhr (or Cheevers, for that matter) really better than his contemporaries when the score was tied (or close), or is it a myth?

Many times, I've thought about doing this, but the best that I could see being done (with the data available) is GAA for each game situation (since we'd known for exactly how long each goaltender played, and how many goals were allowed, under each game situation). Better would be save percentage for each game situation (or even quality-adjusted save percentage), but we barely have that information now - we're not getting it for the mid-1980s.

http://brodeurisafraud.blogspot.com/2007/07/grant-fuhrs-big-saves-fact-or-fiction.html

And more in-depth: http://brodeurisafraud.blogspot.com/2008/12/grant-fuhr-and-clutch-play.html

 

[Bear of Bad News]

http://brodeurisafraud.blogspot.com/2007/07/grant-fuhrs-big-saves-fact-or-fiction.html

And more in-depth: http://brodeurisafraud.blogspot.com/2008/12/grant-fuhr-and-clutch-play.html

Very interesting - thanks! I knew that I had seen these before somewhere.

This methodology (in link two) is a different approach - and likely preferable - to the GAA by situation approach that I mentioned above.

 

[BraveCanadian]

That's pretty much the way I remember it too and you're absolutely right with Fuhr. It was only ever about one stat with him in his prime...WINS!
Scoring goals on Fuhr was never overly hard unless it was the goal that tied the game or took the lead with. Fuhr was among the best that ever played in denying those goals imo.

Yeah I'm a "clutch" skeptic but even I have to concede that Fuhr seemed to pour it on when it mattered.

And you're right about the WINS.. Fuhr didn't care what the score was as long as he won - and that was a good thing because the Oilers in their prime were more interested in having a fun time in the regular season than anything else.

They were so good they could coast through the regular season, so I do think Fuhr was the perfect goalie for them because he didn't seem to let being scored on bother him as long as they were getting W's.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Fuhr won the Vezina, the Cup twice, a Canada Cup and almost the Hart in a 12 month span from 1987 to the spring of 1988. If he wasn't the best goalie in the world at that period of time then I'll be darned. No save percentage stat will change my mind on that one. But if stats are your thing, Fuhr did lead the NHL in shutouts in 1987-'88.

He lead the league in shutouts with 4 (tied with Clint Malarchuk and Glen Hanlon, who respectively played 21 and 28 games fewer than Grant Fuhr). Roy had 3 shutouts in 30 fewer games.

Grant Fuhr's individual accolades were because of his overwhelmingly increased Games Played numbers without Andy Moog - not because of an elevation in play (he had identical statistics in GAA and SPCT the year prior) - and no Hart voting record will change my mind on that one.

He and Hextall had a bad camp. Roy and Hrudey had a good camp. If you weren't insistent that Roy had an international championship under his belt this would be a non-issue, but unfortunately this is the only Canada Cup team that he had the opportunity to make, and he was good in his single game against Team USA.

And it's also worth noting that Fuhr was fourth in Save Percentage and fifth in Goals Against Average of the six teams in the tournament - distantly behind John Vanbiesbrouck. Canada won because Sergei Makarov, Vladimir Krutov, and Valeri Kamensky were not prime Wayne Gretzky, Mario Lemieux, and Mark Messier - not because of the 4 goals Fuhr let in on the first 9 shots of the deciding game.

He's great, but the goaltender with the Gold Medal around his neck or the Stanley Cup in his hands isn't necessarily the best goaltender, and if Roy or Hrudey had been dressed instead, things might not have to have been so dramatic.

It isn't a huge impact on a player's career but it doesn't hurt when you have a sparkling international resume

Using the phrases "lays a licking" and "mops the floor" makes it appear that you consider it a big enough impact on their careers relative to each other to be worth replying.

Except for the fact that Brodeur did play as good as Roy did and also came home with a gold twice as a starter.

But what is it about Brodeur's play that makes you believe he was as good as Roy was in the Canada jersey? He was given six opportunities as Canada's starter going into a best-on-best tournament and came away with two tournament victories (a seventh international tournament - not best-on-best - also left him fruitless).

1996 World Cup? He was absolutely lit up by Team USA for 4 goals on 25 shots in the first game of the tournament (August 31, 1996). Team Canada went with Joseph for the rest of the games. It was pretty much the inverse of the 2002 Olympics - one major difference: Ever since 2002, people tend to remember that Joseph came up short in the Gold Medal game, but not that Brodeur lost just as big to the same team.

2005 World Championship? He lets in 4 goals on 25 shots against Slovakia in the Quarterfinals, but advances thanks to two third-period goals from Thronton/Nash/Gagne. In the Semifinals, he lets in 3 goals in 12 minutes after the Canadians built up a 4-0 lead. Finally in the Gold Medal game, he was out-dueled by Vokoun, letting in a goal in the first 4 minutes.

2006 Olympics? He played well enough, but letting in even just two goals against Italy on 20 shots was a bit much (as was 2 of 18 against Switzerland). Going into the Quarterfinals, Canada went with the .915 Brodeur over the .929 Luongo. Neither goalie was going to score a goal against Russia, but Luongo was notably the better Canadian goalie in the tournament.

2010 Olympics? Recent enough that you remember Brodeur against the Americans.


So do two Gold Medals as the starting goaltender in six best-on-best tournaments in which he started as the #1 goaltender (.333 Gold Medal Percentage) really look overwhelmingly special when Canada goes four-for-six (.666 Gold Medal Percentage) in every best-on-best where Brodeur wasn't the starter? Does his .917 (578 saves on 630 shots) really look better than Roy's .944 (168 saves on 178 shots) because he happened to play five extra tournaments on a team favored to win the championship at 1:2 odds?


And have you yet come up with a source that Patrick Roy's ego stopped him from joining the 2002 Canadian Olympic team (when he was certainly the best goaltender in the league - and not in a Fuhr way) as opposed to the Colorado Avalanche's losing record and his inflamed knees?

 

[Big Phil]

I never claimed otherwise.

Was trying to make a point to the other poster

He lead the league in shutouts with 4 (tied with Clint Malarchuk and Glen Hanlon, who respectively played 21 and 28 games fewer than Grant Fuhr). Roy had 3 shutouts in 30 fewer games.

Grant Fuhr's individual accolades were because of his overwhelmingly increased Games Played numbers without Andy Moog - not because of an elevation in play (he had identical statistics in GAA and SPCT the year prior) - and no Hart voting record will change my mind on that one.

It means nothing to you that a teammate of Gretzky's actually finished higher than him in MVP voting while he was on the Oilers? Yes, Gretzky missed 16 games, but still, this is Wayne Gretzky we are talking about. So what if Fuhr played 75 games. Since when is it accurate to penalize a goalie for playing the lion's share of his team's games? If anything I think it made him even more valuable that year. Moog who was often someone he could lean on, was gone. This put all the onus on him and he delivered. The people who witnessed the 1988 season felt it necessary to elevate Fuhr's season to a spectacular level. Not good enough?

And it's also worth noting that Fuhr was fourth in Save Percentage and fifth in Goals Against Average of the six teams in the tournament - distantly behind John Vanbiesbrouck. Canada won because Sergei Makarov, Vladimir Krutov, and Valeri Kamensky were not prime Wayne Gretzky, Mario Lemieux, and Mark Messier - not because of the 4 goals Fuhr let in on the first 9 shots of the deciding game.

He's great, but the goaltender with the Gold Medal around his neck or the Stanley Cup in his hands isn't necessarily the best goaltender, and if Roy or Hrudey had been dressed instead, things might not have to have been so dramatic.

Hrudey probably got named to the team because of that classic Easter Epic game in the spring of 1987. Other than that, there isn't reason to believe Hrudey would have fared well against the onslaught of the Russians. Roy did have the Conn Smythe in 1986, but it would almost be like putting Cam Ward on the team in 2007. Yeah he's good but he's still very young and hasn't paid his dues yet. I don't know how Roy would have fared, but the Russians weren't the 1986 Rangers or Flames either. They came at you in droves. Fuhr was definitely the best goalie suited for that type of game. He did what great goalies do, he buckled down when the chips were down. Games #2 and #3 of the final are classic examples of how reliable Fuhr could be in the net when the game was on the line. Honestly, look at the miraculous saves he made in overtime in Game #2. There is no Gretzky to Lemieux without Fuhr's heroics first.

Using the phrases "lays a licking" and "mops the floor" makes it appear that you consider it a big enough impact on their careers relative to each other to be worth replying.

I am just saying internationally is just an area that Brodeur has the far better resume than Roy. That is hard to argue.

But what is it about Brodeur's play that makes you believe he was as good as Roy was in the Canada jersey? He was given six opportunities as Canada's starter going into a best-on-best tournament and came away with two tournament victories (a seventh international tournament - not best-on-best - also left him fruitless).

1996 World Cup? He was absolutely lit up by Team USA for 4 goals on 25 shots in the first game of the tournament (August 31, 1996). Team Canada went with Joseph for the rest of the games. It was pretty much the inverse of the 2002 Olympics - one major difference: Ever since 2002, people tend to remember that Joseph came up short in the Gold Medal game, but not that Brodeur lost just as big to the same team.

2005 World Championship? He lets in 4 goals on 25 shots against Slovakia in the Quarterfinals, but advances thanks to two third-period goals from Thronton/Nash/Gagne. In the Semifinals, he lets in 3 goals in 12 minutes after the Canadians built up a 4-0 lead. Finally in the Gold Medal game, he was out-dueled by Vokoun, letting in a goal in the first 4 minutes.

2006 Olympics? He played well enough, but letting in even just two goals against Italy on 20 shots was a bit much (as was 2 of 18 against Switzerland). Going into the Quarterfinals, Canada went with the .915 Brodeur over the .929 Luongo. Neither goalie was going to score a goal against Russia, but Luongo was notably the better Canadian goalie in the tournament.

2010 Olympics? Recent enough that you remember Brodeur against the Americans.


So do two Gold Medals as the starting goaltender in six best-on-best tournaments in which he started as the #1 goaltender (.333 Gold Medal Percentage) really look overwhelmingly special when Canada goes four-for-six (.666 Gold Medal Percentage) in every best-on-best where Brodeur wasn't the starter? Does his .917 (578 saves on 630 shots) really look better than Roy's .944 (168 saves on 178 shots) because he happened to play five extra tournaments on a team favored to win the championship at 1:2 odds?

1996 and 1998 he wasn't the starter. He was a babe in the woods in 1996. Yeah he won a Cup, but think about Roy in 1987, that's pretty much how Brodeur was perceived in 1996. 2002 he got the reigns and people forget just how good he was in net. In the 5 games he played he allowed only 9 goals. In 2004 remember he was hurt for the semi game against Luongo. Canada wins that by the skin of their teeth thanks to a couple of soft goals Luongo allowed to let the Czechs back in the game. He rebounded in overtime but still, there was a sigh of relief when it was announced Brodeur was back in net for the championship game vs. Finland. Then he wins a tight game. He was the best goalie in the world in 2004 and he proved it yet again.

2006 he didn't play bad, but didn't win. The team in front of him didn't give him a lot of support. Kind of like Roy in 1998. In a way, these two tournaments offset each other. Neither goalie played bad, neither goalie won. 2010 it was clear, and still is, that Brodeur was showing his age. To be fair, he had one bad game and then he got yanked for good. It happened to Roy as well as he got older. 2002 and 2003 are not memorable playoffs for him. As for Brodeur, he was 37-38 years old. Luongo came in and played very shaky and streaky goaltending and it was a reversal compared to how Brodeur would play in important games. Luongo almost cost us the gold medal thanks to a shaky goal in the gold medal game. Regardless of what anyone says about Brodeur, in international play there was never a time when he choked in an important game.

So if you want to know why I give Brodeur the edge in international play, well, that's a start right there. The guy was invited to 6 top flight tournaments. He started in 4 of them, won gold twice, lost another time and then got unseated the last time in a winning cause. That's some pretty good range for the guy I've got to say

And have you yet come up with a source that Patrick Roy's ego stopped him from joining the 2002 Canadian Olympic team (when he was certainly the best goaltender in the league - and not in a Fuhr way) as opposed to the Colorado Avalanche's losing record and his inflamed knees?

Just out of curiousity, do you really have a decent argument that Roy was better than Fuhr in 1987 or 1988? Fuhr was more seasoned, more experienced, calm under pressure, had won more at that point, had a better Vezina voting record, etc. It all reversed when drugs got the best of Fuhr and Roy started winning Vezinas, but keep in mind one thing, there was a time that Fuhr was the best goalie in the world and it is a pretty universal thought.

We don't know for sure if it was Roy's ego. I do know that two Red Wings played very well in the playoffs and won their third Cup all the while participating - and in Yzerman's case being among the best players - in the Olympics. There is nothing that says you can't win twice in a year. Was it his ego? We don't know. All we know is that he choked the year he planned on being "rested" for the playoffs. Roy never had the perception as the most selfless player in the world, so there is that possibility that he couldn't stand even the thought of sharing a spot.

 

[quoipourquoi]

It means nothing to you that a teammate of Gretzky's actually finished higher than him in MVP voting while he was on the Oilers? Yes, Gretzky missed 16 games, but still, this is Wayne Gretzky we are talking about. So what if Fuhr played 75 games. Since when is it accurate to penalize a goalie for playing the lion's share of his team's games?

Because it's the ONLY reason he was second in MVP voting.

1983-84: .883 SPCT, 3.91 GAA
1984-85: .884 SPCT, 3.87 GAA
1985-86: .890 SPCT, 3.93 GAA
1986-87: .881 SPCT, 3.44 GAA
1987-88: .881 SPCT, 3.43 GAA
1988-89: .876 SPCT, 3.83 GAA

Grant Fuhr in 1987-88 was the same goalie he always was. He only won the Vezina and received a Hart nomination because of the 75 games; it had nothing to do with personal improvement or being the best puck-stopper in the league. The save percentage statistic was relatively new to NHL bookkeeping and did not stick out like a sore thumb back then the way it does in retrospect with newly increased focus on the less-team influenced goaltending numbers.

Hrudey probably got named to the team because of that classic Easter Epic game in the spring of 1987. Other than that, there isn't reason to believe Hrudey would have fared well against the onslaught of the Russians.

Hrudey was named to the team because he shut out his exhibition game.

Games #2 and #3 of the final are classic examples of how reliable Fuhr could be in the net when the game was on the line.

Remember how Game 3 started?

1996 and 1998 he wasn't the starter.

Martin Brodeur WAS the starter in the 1996 World Cup. He lost his job to Curtis Joseph when he laid an egg in the first game of the tournament against the United States. I said this in the above post.

2002 he got the reigns and people forget just how good he was in net. In the 5 games he played he allowed only 9 goals.

Patrick Roy let in 5 goals in his first 5 games in 1998. That was enough to knock Canada out of Gold Medal contention. He played better than Brodeur did in 2002, but Brodeur had twice the goal support in the elimination rounds. I've covered this.

He rebounded in overtime but still, there was a sigh of relief when it was announced Brodeur was back in net for the championship game vs. Finland. Then he wins a tight game. He was the best goalie in the world in 2004 and he proved it yet again.

Miikka Kiprusoff has a strong argument, but I don't take away how good Brodeur was in the 2004 World Cup.

2006 he didn't play bad, but didn't win. The team in front of him didn't give him a lot of support. Kind of like Roy in 1998. In a way, these two tournaments offset each other.

Patrick Roy: 4-2, 1.30 GAA, .942 SPCT (not counting shootout goal as actual goal)
Martin Brodeur: 2-2, 2.01 GAA, .923 SPCT

So no, they were not the same quality of performance, and they do not offset each other.

To be fair, he had one bad game and then he got yanked for good. It happened to Roy as well as he got older. 2002 and 2003 are not memorable playoffs for him.

It's absolutely irrelevant to this thread, but why do people forget that he had two Game 7 shutouts in the 2002 Playoffs before the one Game 7 from his career that everyone remembers?


Focus on my main arguments:


1. Brodeur won only two best-on-best tournaments of the six that he started, despite Canada's 4-2 Gold Medal record in best-on-best tournaments without him, meaning that winning a Gold Medal for Canada is statistically probable in multiple tries.

2. His play in the 1996 World Cup, 2005 World Championship, and 2010 Olympics left a lot to be desired - and Luongo was a better goalie in the 2006 Olympics.

3. Patrick Roy played excellent in 1998, and his loss to the Czech Republic was because of the team's lack of offense in the elimination round - which was a problem that Brodeur did not have in 2002 when putting up worse individual numbers.

Just out of curiousity, do you really have a decent argument that Roy was better than Fuhr in 1987 or 1988?

Because he had Save Percentages of .892 (5th) and .900 (1st) to Fuhr's .881 (22nd) and .881 (19th) and had a better camp (38 saves on 40 shots) despite playing the same United States team that scored 6 against Fuhr.

So, yes, I have a decent argument as to why Patrick Roy should've been on the 1987 Canada Cup team. You're welcome to advocate for Hextall's spot now that I've corrected your mistake about him legitimately breaking Sylvain Turgeon's forearm in practice.

We don't know for sure if it was Roy's ego. I do know that two Red Wings played very well in the playoffs and won their third Cup all the while participating - and in Yzerman's case being among the best players - in the Olympics. There is nothing that says you can't win twice in a year.

You may not have read it earlier:

Colorado Avalanche before Nagano: 29-13-16
Colorado Avalanche after Nagano: 10-13-1

Colorado Avalanche when Roy bowed out of Salt Lake City: 10-12-1

He was considering retirement at the end of 2001-02. He wanted to defend the Stanley Cup more than he wanted to win a Gold Medal.

All we know is that he choked the year he planned on being "rested" for the playoffs.

Playing 21 playoff games in 43 days kinda defeats the whole idea of rest, but hey, it was the only season in a four year span that Brodeur's Devils didn't make the Finals, if you want to mention both sides of the exhaustion argument.

And you're still not providing a source about Roy only backing out of the 2002 Olympics because he wasn't named #1. And you're still not providing a reason as to why Roy (who had just recorded three consecutive shutouts) wouldn't be named #1 when these were the season statistics on the week he dropped out of the race.

Roy: 2.01 GAA, .927 SPCT
Joseph: 2.18 GAA, .910 SPCT
Brodeur: 2.65 GAA, .894 SPCT


He would've been the starter, Big Phil. Two months had passed since he, Belfour, Brodeur, and Joseph were told that they'd have to play for the spot (and seven months since he was not named to the initial eight). So knowing that he would've been the starting goaltender as he was the best player in the NHL in the first half of 2001-02 (THN), would you like to reconsider his position of prioritizing the Stanley Cup Playoffs (in what could've been his last season) over the Salt Lake City Olympics, or are you going to continue your assertion that he was upset about not being named the starting goaltender? Because if you do the latter, please detail these three problems that your argument overlooks:

1. Why did he not drop out in April (initial eight) or September (camp)?
2. Why would he not be the starting goaltender?
3. A source.

 

[Big Phil]

Because it's the ONLY reason he was second in MVP voting.

1983-84: .883 SPCT, 3.91 GAA
1984-85: .884 SPCT, 3.87 GAA
1985-86: .890 SPCT, 3.93 GAA
1986-87: .881 SPCT, 3.44 GAA
1987-88: .881 SPCT, 3.43 GAA
1988-89: .876 SPCT, 3.83 GAA

Grant Fuhr in 1987-88 was the same goalie he always was. He only won the Vezina and received a Hart nomination because of the 75 games; it had nothing to do with personal improvement or being the best puck-stopper in the league. The save percentage statistic was relatively new to NHL bookkeeping and did not stick out like a sore thumb back then the way it does in retrospect with newly increased focus on the less-team influenced goaltending numbers.

You don't see how a goalie who excels in 75 games can be seen as valuable? Do it in 45 games and it's alright. Do it in 75 games and it's another level.

Besides, there is ample evidence that Fuhr was the best goalie in the world for a brief period. Provide an example of who was the better goalie, who is it in your mind? I'd say there was a 5 year period overall that Fuhr was the best in the world.

Remember how Game 3 started?

I do. It was a two very offensive teams playing a wide open style of game. There was bound to be goals scored. Fuhr was shaky early, but he stood out when the game was on the line. When Canada got back into the game he didn't let them down.

Martin Brodeur WAS the starter in the 1996 World Cup. He lost his job to Curtis Joseph when he laid an egg in the first game of the tournament against the United States. I said this in the above post.

Incorrect. The first game of the 1996 World Cup was a 5-3 win for Canada against Russia. Joseph was in net. Brodeur played the 2nd game vs. the US. I don't believe he was ever intended to be the starter. However, you can cut him some slack, he was a young pup at that time, far from his prime.

It's absolutely irrelevant to this thread, but why do people forget that he had two Game 7 shutouts in the 2002 Playoffs before the one Game 7 from his career that everyone remembers?

Because he did a major choke job in Game 6 with the Statue of Liberty play. Then looked horrible in Game 7, probably the worst game of his career. It is highlighted because he intentionally took time off to prepare for the playoffs.

1. Brodeur won only two best-on-best tournaments of the six that he started, despite Canada's 4-2 Gold Medal record in best-on-best tournaments without him, meaning that winning a Gold Medal for Canada is statistically probable in multiple tries.

You have it wrong there. Brodeur was a starter only 4 times. The two other times, 1996 and 1998 he was not the starter and played one game between the two tournaments. In his prime he won 2 out of 3 major tournaments as the starter. The 4th time he was old. Still a pretty good international resume.

So, yes, I have a decent argument as to why Patrick Roy should've been on the 1987 Canada Cup team. You're welcome to advocate for Hextall's spot now that I've corrected your mistake about him legitimately breaking Sylvain Turgeon's forearm in practice.

He didn't have nearly the experience of playing in the big games as Fuhr did at that point. I think you are looking back to 1987 as if Roy was the Roy we all know today. He wasn't. He didn't have a reputation as a clutch goalie at that time. Think Cam Ward in 2007 a year after his Cup win as well. Would Cam Ward make the Olympic team over Brodeur? Doubt it. Fuhr was a seasoned vet by then who thrived on the style of play the Soviets played.

I would have had no problem with Roy being there ahead of Hextall. I just don't see how you'd have put him ahead of Fuhr at that time. Hextall had less experience than Roy. Maybe he was a heat of the moment pick. Maybe Keenan saw something, but either way he's the guy to ask. Roy over Hextall in 1987 I can see. Roy over Fuhr I cannot.

He was considering retirement at the end of 2001-02. He wanted to defend the Stanley Cup more than he wanted to win a Gold Medal.

Brodeur won a Cup in 2000, made the final in 2001, won the Olympic gold in 2002 and won the Cup again in 2003 and then won a World Cup in 2004. For whatever reason, Brodeur had no problem winning the Cup and starting - and winning - for Canada. I tend to reward Brodeur more for that than I bash Roy for it. The best way to judge someone is to see what they accomplished on the ice. That was quite the run for Martin there.

 

[BenchBrawl]

maybe he's a separatist and doesn't care that much for all we know

 

[double5son10]

Regarding Roy in '87, my personal feeling that he was cut was that it had nothing to do with his performance or career to that point or his not wanting to accept the back-up position, at least vis-a-vis Hextall. I think at the time everyone involved in the selection process had agreed Fuhr was going to be the starter-he had the best pedigree of those invited to camp, no question. Roy was cut because co-GM Bobby Clarke and coach Mike Keenan wanted to use the Canada Cup, both the camp and the tournament itself, as a means to give their Flyers players the experience of playing w/ and against the best. How else to explain Derrick Smith (?) getting an invite to the camp, or Doug Crossman and Rick Tocchet making the team.
Roy getting cut certainly took co-GM Serge Savard by complete surprise, and appears to have surprised Roy as well.
From Ed Willes book "Gretzky to Lemieux: the Story of the 1987 Canada Cup"
'Savard tells a different version of the story. According to the Habs' former general manager, it was decided at a meeting the night before the cuts were announced that Roy would stay with the team. Savard then awoke to news that Roy had been released and realized he had a problem on his hands. "They played a trick on me with Patrick", Savard says. "I think he would have played a backup role. Then they changed their minds without talking to me. I had to live with Patrick on my team. Everyone knew he wasn't going to play in the tournament, but he still thought it was insulting and blamed me. I thought about resigning after that. I thought it was really bad. But I wasn't going to quit.'
Keenan and Clarke have since been the primary sources of the Roy wouldn't be a back-up/team player opinion. Playing politics with the selection process is certainly nothing new; today we all know how much Eagleson tried to influence the process on behalf of his clients. Perhaps I'm mistaken in my view, given what quality people Bobby Clarke and Mike Keenan are but given the chance to prop up their own guy in Hextall, give him the chance at a huge learning experience, and at the same to sow a little dischord for one of their prime competitors in the Wales Conference, I'd say they took it.

 

[GuineaPig]

You don't see how a goalie who excels in 75 games can be seen as valuable? Do it in 45 games and it's alright. Do it in 75 games and it's another level.

Except he didn't excel. He had a save percentage of 0.881. The average save percentage was 0.880.

Over the course of the 75 games Fuhr played, he let in two goals less than the "average" goalie would've. By way of comparison, Patrick Roy was 25 goals above average, in only 45 games.

 

[Theokritos]

1996 World Cup? He was absolutely lit up by Team USA for 4 goals on 25 shots in the first game of the tournament (August 31, 1996).

That was the second game of the tournament actually. BigPhil is right:

The first game of the 1996 World Cup was a 5-3 win for Canada against Russia. Joseph was in net. Brodeur played the 2nd game vs. the US.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Incorrect. The first game of the 1996 World Cup was a 5-3 win for Canada against Russia. Joseph was in net. Brodeur played the 2nd game vs. the US. I don't believe he was ever intended to be the starter. However, you can cut him some slack, he was a young pup at that time, far from his prime.

You're right on the point of it being the second game, but I can't help but feel that you're not addressing the more important aspect of that point: He was pretty bad in that game, the 2005 World Championships, the 2010 Olympics, and was not as good as Luongo in the 2006 Olympics. That's four best-on-best tournaments in which he did not lead Canada to Gold, and while he and Joseph may have split the first two games of 1996, Brodeur's play ensured that Joseph would start the rest of them, especially the best-of-three against Team USA.


My point about Fuhr's play in 1987 and 1988 stands. He wasn't excelling. Either a person acknowledges that his statistics left a lot to be desired or he/she doesn't. His reputation was earned in the 1984 Playoffs, but now that save percentage is one of the staples of evaluating performance, there is no way a goaltender, no matter how much run-and-gun hockey his team plays, would not draw a Chris Osgood comparison with Grant Fuhr's statline.


And just so I'll stop harping on about it, will you be addressing:

1. How well Patrick Roy played in Nagano
2. The Nagano effect on the Avalanche
3. The likelihood of Patrick Roy starting as of November 2002 and the reasonableness of the belief that he waited seven/two months to drop out because he wasn't named the starter in April/September

That's the point of the thread itself, and I believe we've diverted to Fuhr and potshots about Patrick Roy's 2002 Playoff for far too long.

 

[PearJuice*]

I've always thought that both Roy and Fuhr were a bit overrated.

 

[Rhiessan71]

I've always thought that both Roy and Fuhr were a bit overrated.

With Fuhr, I can see that, even if I don't really agree.
With Roy, not even a little. He is the undisputed modern playoff king in Trophies, stats, OT dominance on a level that no other goalie is even on the same planet and what you saw with your own eyes.

Brodeur is the overrated one to me, at least in the sense that he does not belong in the same breath as Roy and Hasek. Just my opinion though.

 

[Big Phil]

Except he didn't excel. He had a save percentage of 0.881. The average save percentage was 0.880.

Over the course of the 75 games Fuhr played, he let in two goals less than the "average" goalie would've. By way of comparison, Patrick Roy was 25 goals above average, in only 45 games.

Doing something in 75 games is more important than in 45 games. Besides, the Habs and Oilers played two totally different styles. The Habs relied more on defense while the Oilers were more run and gun. It is only natural that Fuhr's save percentage isn't otherworldly. More importantly, he was arguably the glue of the Oilers that year during a very difficult transition in their franchsie.

You're right on the point of it being the second game, but I can't help but feel that you're not addressing the more important aspect of that point: He was pretty bad in that game, the 2005 World Championships, the 2010 Olympics, and was not as good as Luongo in the 2006 Olympics. That's four best-on-best tournaments in which he did not lead Canada to Gold, and while he and Joseph may have split the first two games of 1996, Brodeur's play ensured that Joseph would start the rest of them, especially the best-of-three against Team USA.

I'm not sure I would quite call the 2005 Worlds a best on best. Either way, he won a Silver, not a gold, but still it isn't as if he came away empty handed.

My point about Fuhr's play in 1987 and 1988 stands. He wasn't excelling. Either a person acknowledges that his statistics left a lot to be desired or he/she doesn't. His reputation was earned in the 1984 Playoffs, but now that save percentage is one of the staples of evaluating performance, there is no way a goaltender, no matter how much run-and-gun hockey his team plays, would not draw a Chris Osgood comparison with Grant Fuhr's statline.

His STATS always left a lot to be desired. To appreciate him you had to look at the context of the games he played in. His style of play suited the Oilers. His style allowed them to play the wide open style they played. The reputation he had of being sharp when the game was on the line was not a myth. Every player who ever played with him contends this. Gretzky claims that if he had to play a Game 7 that Fuhr is the goalie he'd want in net. Yes, Gretzky is over complimentary sometimes, but you wouldn't hear Steve Yzerman say that about Osgood. You can't compare Osgood to Fuhr. Not if you saw the two of them play. It would be obvious rather quickly which goalie you would want on your team.

A modern comparison might be Fleury. Here's a guy who has piled up a ton of wins in his young career and just might do some damage on the all-time lists. He plays on a Pens team that has normally left him wide open. He's been there to bail them out a ton of times. He is almost impossible to beat on a breakaway and there are many times when he has made a miraculous save to preserve the game. Are his stats and GAA eye popping? Nope, not always, but like Fuhr he plays a game where he relies on his reflexes and he often seems to be able to make that nail in the coffin save when the game is tight. I don't know why, no one does, but he is a goalie who seems to rise up to that occasion. Fuhr did, Smith did and Roy did. To have watched them you just knew this right away.

Save percentage is only half the battle. What is more impressive, a goalie who makes 23 out of 25 saves but loses in overtime or a goalie that stops 30 of 33 and wins the game 4-3, including a last second point blank opportunity? Give me the latter.

And just so I'll stop harping on about it, will you be addressing:

1. How well Patrick Roy played in Nagano
2. The Nagano effect on the Avalanche
3. The likelihood of Patrick Roy starting as of November 2002 and the reasonableness of the belief that he waited seven/two months to drop out because he wasn't named the starter in April/September

Patrick did play well in Nagano. He didn't carry his team on his back quite like Hasek, but he played well enough that he was not someone that anyone would have blamed.

The Nagano effect might have hurt the Avs, but if that's the case, why did the Wings win a second Cup in a row with Yzerman and Shanahan on Team Canada? Not to mention a slew of other players who played in the Olympics. The "Olympic hangover" is a poor excuse for not winning a Cup. Most elite teams have several players participating regardless. Detroit didn't seem effected by it in 1998 and 2002. Carolina didn't have a lot of players participate in 2006 but the Hawks had their core at the Olympics in 2010. Toews, Seabrook and Keith were all there and then won a Cup afterwards. Poor excuse.

The majority would have had Roy as the starter in 2002. This is what made his withdrawal puzzling. There might have been whispers about Joseph being the starter but that was it. Belfour had the experience but was clearly never considered as good as Roy and Brodeur believe it or not made a few people nervous to start. Roy was the safest pick. Why he backed out is not something anyone can honestly answer except for Roy. But regardless he chose not to play. I refuse to give the guy any brownie points for a tournament that he probably would have been the starter. He wasn't there and cannot be rewarded for it. Brodeur was there and did a fine job and should be rewarded for it. That's how I look at it.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Doing something in 75 games is more important than in 45 games. Besides, the Habs and Oilers played two totally different styles. The Habs relied more on defense while the Oilers were more run and gun. It is only natural that Fuhr's save percentage isn't otherworldly. More importantly, he was arguably the glue of the Oilers that year during a very difficult transition in their franchsie.

I don't disagree that a run-and-gun team can significantly alter a goalie's save percentage by offering greater quality scoring chances against (to stick with evaluating Patrick Roy himself, one needs only to look at his numbers with Colorado in the 1990s and compare them to his numbers with the more defensive-minded Avalanche in 2001-02), but with Grant Fuhr, he wasn't remotely close to leaders of the statistic. There needs to be more than a lackadaisical defense to bridge the gap in error rate between .881 and .900 goaltenders, especially when we know that Fuhr was capable of posting a better save percentage within the same defensive system in the past.

And 75 games of the same type of hockey Fuhr was playing in the years immediately prior (which not surprisingly went unrewarded in terms of serious Vezina and Hart consideration) were notable for quantity but lacking in quality, and that's my point. I don't object to a goalie playing 75 games being thought of highly in terms of value, but it doesn't make him the best goalie.

His STATS always left a lot to be desired. To appreciate him you had to look at the context of the games he played in. His style of play suited the Oilers. His style allowed them to play the wide open style they played. The reputation he had of being sharp when the game was on the line was not a myth. Every player who ever played with him contends this. Gretzky claims that if he had to play a Game 7 that Fuhr is the goalie he'd want in net. Yes, Gretzky is over complimentary sometimes, but you wouldn't hear Steve Yzerman say that about Osgood. You can't compare Osgood to Fuhr. Not if you saw the two of them play. It would be obvious rather quickly which goalie you would want on your team.

A modern comparison might be Fleury. Here's a guy who has piled up a ton of wins in his young career and just might do some damage on the all-time lists. He plays on a Pens team that has normally left him wide open. He's been there to bail them out a ton of times. He is almost impossible to beat on a breakaway and there are many times when he has made a miraculous save to preserve the game. Are his stats and GAA eye popping? Nope, not always, but like Fuhr he plays a game where he relies on his reflexes and he often seems to be able to make that nail in the coffin save when the game is tight. I don't know why, no one does, but he is a goalie who seems to rise up to that occasion. Fuhr did, Smith did and Roy did. To have watched them you just knew this right away.

I don't mind the Fleury comparison (and I suppose I think a little more of Osgood than you do), but a money goalie isn't necessarily the best goalie in a given time. For instance, no one confuses Fleury with being the best goalie in the NHL.

Save percentage is only half the battle. What is more impressive, a goalie who makes 23 out of 25 saves but loses in overtime or a goalie that stops 30 of 33 and wins the game 4-3, including a last second point blank opportunity? Give me the latter.

But both of those goalies in your hypothetical have a solid save percentage (.920 and .909), so the winner naturally looks better. The Fuhr/Roy comparison (.881 and .900) would be a goalie making 28 saves on 32 shots with a breakaway save compared to a goalie making 27 saves out of 30 shots, with both of them being just as likely to win. Over a full season, an extra goal per handful of shots adds up.

Save percentage is a lot of the battle when one of the goalies has the best one in the league while the other has the 19th. And if a math professional wants to crunch the numbers, I'd love to hear the difference in terms of goals allowed over a course of the season between .900 and .881.

Patrick did play well in Nagano. He didn't carry his team on his back quite like Hasek, but he played well enough that he was not someone that anyone would have blamed.

But he kinda did, and that's the issue here when you're equating him with 2006 Brodeur. Look at the Czech game: Slegr scores the first goal of the game 50 minutes into the match when the Czechs are outshooting Canada 25-16. At that moment of the tournament, Canada's chances of a Gold Medal are put into jeopardy by only the fifth goal in five games to beat Roy. You can't spend one post talking about how stellar Brodeur was in only letting in 9 goals in 5 games in 2002 when Roy only lets in 5 goals in 5 games to get knocked out in the semifinals. Even Hasek let in 6 goals in 5 games to advance. Roy was on Hasek's level when Canada got knocked out (.959 to Hasek's .957), and even with the Canadian roster having one eye on the Finnish forwards parked in the slot and one eye on the plane ride home, he finished the tournament with a .942 in six games (Brodeur in 2002 had a .917).

What did he have to do in Nagano to get credit in your eyes? Because I honestly don't see how you can not give him more credit than Brodeur in 2002 without flat-out saying that you're weighing team accolades into a comparison of individual talents. If you think Brodeur in 2002 played better than Roy in 1998, then there is just something fundamentally different about the way in which you and I weigh goaltenders. But at the very least, it has provided good conversation.

The Nagano effect might have hurt the Avs, but if that's the case, why did the Wings win a second Cup in a row with Yzerman and Shanahan on Team Canada? Not to mention a slew of other players who played in the Olympics. The "Olympic hangover" is a poor excuse for not winning a Cup.

Because Sakic injured his knee in the 1998 Olympics, missing 18 games and killing the Avalanche's momentum, and Roy didn't want to risk the same thing happening to his already injured knees when the 2002 Avalanche were in a fight just to make the playoffs?

The majority would have had Roy as the starter in 2002. This is what made his withdrawal puzzling. There might have been whispers about Joseph being the starter but that was it. Belfour had the experience but was clearly never considered as good as Roy and Brodeur believe it or not made a few people nervous to start. Roy was the safest pick. Why he backed out is not something anyone can honestly answer except for Roy.

And he did answer it, but you said it was a "lie." Why? If you admit that you don't know and acknowledge that he was the best pick, why did you say that he lied? It's just unnecessary defamation of an already polarizing hockey personality.