Patrick Roy?

[Bear of Bad News]

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,

Over complimentary sometimes? Gretzky might be the single biggest backslapper in the history of the NHL. He uses kudos as punctuation.

If he gives a player a compliment, I'm not sure that it isn't best to just ignore it entirely.

 

[Big Phil]

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.

I'm willing to bet that Mike Liut had a better save percentage than Grant Fuhr for most of the 1980s. In fact, I looked it up, he did. However, would you want Liut in the net come crunch time over Fuhr? I don't think anyone would. Now, Liut was not as good as Roy, but you get the picture. Stats don't always show the whole picture. In 1987 for a couple of years Roy wasn't as good of a goalie as Fuhr. Stats are a good tool, and I use them to but I always feel it is important not so much how many saves you make, but WHEN those saves are made. Few did it better than Fuhr, which far more makes up for his less than sexy stats.

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.

He did well in Nagano. I certainly never said he didn't. He let in a goal against Slegr and then allowed two past him in the shootout, (Jagr hit the post). So I would say he played very well especially in the USA game, but not legendary. I am not saying Brodeur played legendary in 2002, but very well also. The only thing is that Brodeur's extra times he played in high level tournaments certainly trump the times Roy didn't. Therefore conventional wisdom suggests Brodeur had a better international career, which he did. It's a small window where Brodeur beats Roy, but it exists. That is all I am saying. I am not prepared to put Brodeur > Roy on an all-time list or anything

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?

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

And that's fine, he didn't want to play, he didn't want to risk it. However you are basically giving Roy credit for doing nothing. He does not get any credit for the 2002 Olympics just because we as fans suggest he probably had the starter's job to lose. Brodeur gets credit in that department. It's almost like giving Crosby credit for the Art Ross last year just because he "probably" would have won it. Corey Perry for example had a better year than Crosby in 2011. Give him credit for what he actually DID, not for his potential. Same thing applies with Brodeur and Roy. One actually did win, the other COULD have won.

 

[quoipourquoi]

I'm willing to bet that Mike Liut had a better save percentage than Grant Fuhr for most of the 1980s. In fact, I looked it up, he did. However, would you want Liut in the net come crunch time over Fuhr? I don't think anyone would. Now, Liut was not as good as Roy, but you get the picture. Stats don't always show the whole picture. In 1987 for a couple of years Roy wasn't as good of a goalie as Fuhr. Stats are a good tool, and I use them to but I always feel it is important not so much how many saves you make, but WHEN those saves are made. Few did it better than Fuhr, which far more makes up for his less than sexy stats.

There are two assertions going on here:

A. Grant Fuhr is the best money goalie

B. Grant Fuhr is the best goalie


A does not necessarily prove B. But you seem content to only attempt to prove A, and then you re-state B as if it should logically follow.

He did well in Nagano. I certainly never said he didn't. He let in a goal against Slegr and then allowed two past him in the shootout, (Jagr hit the post). So I would say he played very well especially in the USA game, but not legendary. I am not saying Brodeur played legendary in 2002, but very well also. The only thing is that Brodeur's extra times he played in high level tournaments certainly trump the times Roy didn't. Therefore conventional wisdom suggests Brodeur had a better international career, which he did. It's a small window where Brodeur beats Roy, but it exists. That is all I am saying. I am not prepared to put Brodeur > Roy on an all-time list or anything

It's not legendary because he didn't win a Gold Medal and his performance never gets talked about by Canadians, but he still played exceptionally well. Roy played better than Brodeur in the Olympics. His play (despite his fourth place finish) was better than any of Brodeur's individual runs, and certainly better in a cumulative sense:

Roy
6 GP, 4 W, 1 L, 1 SOL, 1.30 GAA, .942 SPCT, 1 SO

Brodeur
11 GP, 6 W, 1 SOW, 3 L, 1 T, 2.08 GAA, .911 SPCT, 0 SO


And I don't have to be Gordon Bombay to tell you that hitting the outside of the post doesn't count as beating a goaltender. Hasek throwing his stick at Lindros on the other hand...

And that's fine, he didn't want to play, he didn't want to risk it. However you are basically giving Roy credit for doing nothing. He does not get any credit for the 2002 Olympics just because we as fans suggest he probably had the starter's job to lose. Brodeur gets credit in that department. It's almost like giving Crosby credit for the Art Ross last year just because he "probably" would have won it. Corey Perry for example had a better year than Crosby in 2011. Give him credit for what he actually DID, not for his potential. Same thing applies with Brodeur and Roy. One actually did win, the other COULD have won.

I'm not giving Roy credit for the 2002 Olympics. It's just that it doesn't matter to me AT ALL who has a Gold Medal and who doesn't. And it's not like Luc Robitaille jumped up a few points in my book on June 13, 2002 either. When it comes to evaluating players against each other, winning or losing championships doesn't matter; it's about individual performance. The moment that changes on HOH is the moment we become the HHOF, and I don't mean that in the positive job security kind of way.

So I'm giving Roy credit for Nagano. I'm explaining to you why he didn't have a Canada Cup resume or another Olympic, but I'm giving him credit for Nagano. A lot of credit for Nagano. More credit for Nagano than I give Brodeur for Salt Lake City, Torino/Turin, or Vancouver. Because no matter what medals they did and did not win, Roy played better. It doesn't make a difference in the grand scheme of things (6 games and 11 games respectively), but Roy played better.


The only reason I bring up that Roy would've been the starter in 2002 had he not dropped out is because that's the original point of this thread. EpicNeilTime asked why Roy dropped out, and I explained the situation. And then you called Patrick Roy a liar. I don't mind not coming to a consensus with you about Fuhr, Liut, Nagano, or pretty much anything else, but you can't expect me sit back on that point. It's the man's reputation.

Other goalies get the reputation of being a flake (and I really don't want to go into all of that), but Roy has escaped all of that. Roy is known as the guy who will walk out of the hospital and make 99 saves on 102 shots for your team in a first-round series loss, and we know this because he did. If a goaltender with inflamed knees says he could use a two-week break that will not impact his professional hockey club, then sometimes it's best just to give him the benefit of a doubt rather than accuse him of lying.

That's all. We're running in circles now. Like I said, good debate.

 

[Big Phil]

There are two assertions going on here:

A. Grant Fuhr is the best money goalie

B. Grant Fuhr is the best goalie


A does not necessarily prove B. But you seem content to only attempt to prove A, and then you re-state B as if it should logically follow.

It doesn't always follow in that mold. However, sometimes it does, and in this case Fuhr was the best money goalie in the game at the time and he was the best goalie in the game as well. You won't find many, if any, people on here arguing that claim. I am not sure why it is difficult for you to fathom that a 4 time Cup winner, with one Canada Cup, a Vezina and a 1st and 2nd all-star team was a better goalie than a young Roy up until 1988. To be polite, there really isn't a debate for Roy in this case. Eventually, Roy became the all-time better goalie, but he was not at that time. You really have an axe to grind with Fuhr don't you?

It's not legendary because he didn't win a Gold Medal and his performance never gets talked about by Canadians, but he still played exceptionally well. Roy played better than Brodeur in the Olympics. His play (despite his fourth place finish) was better than any of Brodeur's individual runs, and certainly better in a cumulative sense:

Roy
6 GP, 4 W, 1 L, 1 SOL, 1.30 GAA, .942 SPCT, 1 SO

Brodeur
11 GP, 6 W, 1 SOW, 3 L, 1 T, 2.08 GAA, .911 SPCT, 0 SO

Actually..................combine the Olympics and the World Cup which you should do, and you'll see that Brodeur licks him in best to best competition internationally.

Roy - 4-1-1 (1 tournament)
Brodeur - 12-4-1 (6 tournaments, 3 as full-time starter, 2 golds)

I hate to be that guy that says /thread so quickly, but...........

I'm not giving Roy credit for the 2002 Olympics. It's just that it doesn't matter to me AT ALL who has a Gold Medal and who doesn't. And it's not like Luc Robitaille jumped up a few points in my book on June 13, 2002 either. When it comes to evaluating players against each other, winning or losing championships doesn't matter; it's about individual performance. The moment that changes on HOH is the moment we become the HHOF, and I don't mean that in the positive job security kind of way.

So I'm giving Roy credit for Nagano. I'm explaining to you why he didn't have a Canada Cup resume or another Olympic, but I'm giving him credit for Nagano. A lot of credit for Nagano. More credit for Nagano than I give Brodeur for Salt Lake City, Torino/Turin, or Vancouver. Because no matter what medals they did and did not win, Roy played better. It doesn't make a difference in the grand scheme of things (6 games and 11 games respectively), but Roy played better.

You seem to be stuck on that, so I'll let it go. I think a loser often can play better than a winner in some circumstances. But I do credit the winner for coming through as well which you have to give him credit for. Brodeur played in some tight games in 2002 where Canada beat Finland and then the USA which was a close game until the end. He also played very well in the 2004 World Cup against Finland in a tight championship game. Give me Brodeur's international resume anyday of the week. You take Roy's. I'm fine with not taking the one with a sole 4th place finish. And before you respond to that, yes, HOW you play matters, but how you finish also does. I like to combine the two.

The only reason I bring up that Roy would've been the starter in 2002 had he not dropped out is because that's the original point of this thread. EpicNeilTime asked why Roy dropped out, and I explained the situation. And then you called Patrick Roy a liar. I don't mind not coming to a consensus with you about Fuhr, Liut, Nagano, or pretty much anything else, but you can't expect me sit back on that point. It's the man's reputation.

Other goalies get the reputation of being a flake (and I really don't want to go into all of that), but Roy has escaped all of that. Roy is known as the guy who will walk out of the hospital and make 99 saves on 102 shots for your team in a first-round series loss, and we know this because he did. If a goaltender with inflamed knees says he could use a two-week break that will not impact his professional hockey club, then sometimes it's best just to give him the benefit of a doubt rather than accuse him of lying.

That's all. We're running in circles now. Like I said, good debate.

It is only an opinion. Not an uncommon one either. I know what Roy said, whether or not I believe him to be a liar is up to me, and I do not know in my mind if he was telling the truth or not. That's just my opinion. In my honest opinion I think if he were one of the original 8 named he wouldn't have backed out prior to the rest of the team being named. That is just my feeling. Now, do I think he should have been one of the ones named? Sure, but that whole process was stupid anyway with naming 8 guys off the start.

 

[quoipourquoi]

You really have an axe to grind with Fuhr don't you?

Absolutely not. He was one of the first goaltenders I emulated. I'm a fan of pretty much every player on the dynasty Oilers, straight down to Dr. Randy Gregg, and I'm the first guy to stand up for his 1984 Playoff. But Patrick Roy had surpassed him. Even with a Hart nomination for playing 75 games, Patrick Roy was a better goalie than Fuhr by 1987-88.


I'm not going to respond to the rest because you raised no new points, and I've argued my case well enough.

 

[Big Phil]

Absolutely not. He was one of the first goaltenders I emulated. I'm a fan of pretty much every player on the dynasty Oilers, straight down to Dr. Randy Gregg, and I'm the first guy to stand up for his 1984 Playoff. But Patrick Roy had surpassed him. Even with a Hart nomination for playing 75 games, Patrick Roy was a better goalie than Fuhr by 1987-88.


I'm not going to respond to the rest because you raised no new points, and I've argued my case well enough.

I'm pretty sure I raised some new points. You shortchanged Brodeur on how much he played internationally. I think once a goalie wins three times as many games as another it is safe to say that goalie has a more sparkling international career.

You know, we can do a poll on Fuhr vs. Roy in 1987-'88. This is what this board is all about. I'll start the poll and we can use that thread for that personal debate since this one was originally intended for different reasons. But I will say this:

Hart 1988
Lemieux - 292
Fuhr - 106

Vezina
Fuhr - 78
Barrasso - 22
..........
Brian Hayward - 14
.......
Roy - 8

Goalie 1st team all-star
Fuhr - 297 (58 first place votes)
Roy - 64 (2 first place votes)

For some reason 1988 was a weird year where a lot of goalies after Fuhr were all bundled up by the voters. Roy was a 2nd team all-star in 1988, barely, but was 8th in Vezina voting. In both categories Fuhr whipped the competition and for some reason there was 5-6 goalies who all finished relatively close to each other. It is worth noting however, that in Vezina voting Roy lost out to his own partner in Hayward. But I will start that poll and we'll talk over there

 

[Bear of Bad News]

But I will start that poll and we'll talk over there

We don't need that poll, and we can talk in here.

 

[GuineaPig]

I still don't see how anyone can argue that Fuhr was a better goalie in 1987-88.

It would be like arguing Kiprusoff was a better goalie than Hiller last year.

 

[McGuillicuddy]

He let in a goal against Slegr and then allowed two past him in the shootout, (Jagr hit the post).

The bolded part is crap. I hear it all the time on TV and it ticks me off.

A puck that hits the post has not beaten the goalie. As a long-time goalie myself I know that a very large percentage of shots that ring off the post behind me have just skimmed past me to the point of brushing my glove/jersey/pad/etc. on the way by. If the trajectory of that same shot had been altered in such a way that it was heading straight for the goal (and not the post) then that same trajectory would have also brought it closer to me to the extent that I very likely could have deflected it away.

When a shooter tells me afterwards that he had me beat it just shows he lacks subtlety (a common deficiency among forwards ). My job as a goalie is to stop pucks from getting in the net; it is not to stop pucks from hitting the post.

Anyways, carry on .

 

[Bear of Bad News]

The bolded part is crap. I hear it all the time on TV and it ticks me off.

Agreed - and not sure how I missed it when it was originally posted. The goaltender's job is not to stop shots from hitting the post.

Big Phil, did you trade in your Roygrinding axe for a larger one this holiday season?

 

[gifted88]

I'm willing to bet that Mike Liut had a better save percentage than Grant Fuhr for most of the 1980s. In fact, I looked it up, he did. However, would you want Liut in the net come crunch time over Fuhr? I don't think anyone would. Now, Liut was not as good as Roy, but you get the picture. Stats don't always show the whole picture. In 1987 for a couple of years Roy wasn't as good of a goalie as Fuhr. Stats are a good tool, and I use them to but I always feel it is important not so much how many saves you make, but WHEN those saves are made. Few did it better than Fuhr, which far more makes up for his less than sexy stats.

Am I crazy for saying yes?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I'm pretty sure I raised some new points. You shortchanged Brodeur on how much he played internationally. I think once a goalie wins three times as many games as another it is safe to say that goalie has a more sparkling international career.

You know, we can do a poll on Fuhr vs. Roy in 1987-'88. This is what this board is all about. I'll start the poll and we can use that thread for that personal debate since this one was originally intended for different reasons. But I will say this:

Hart 1988
Lemieux - 292
Fuhr - 106

Vezina
Fuhr - 78
Barrasso - 22
..........
Brian Hayward - 14
.......
Roy - 8

Goalie 1st team all-star
Fuhr - 297 (58 first place votes)
Roy - 64 (2 first place votes)

For some reason 1988 was a weird year where a lot of goalies after Fuhr were all bundled up by the voters. Roy was a 2nd team all-star in 1988, barely, but was 8th in Vezina voting. In both categories Fuhr whipped the competition and for some reason there was 5-6 goalies who all finished relatively close to each other. It is worth noting however, that in Vezina voting Roy lost out to his own partner in Hayward. But I will start that poll and we'll talk over there

Stats 1987-88:

Patrick Roy: 23-12-9, 0.900, 2.90
Brian Hayward: 22-10-4, 0.896, 2.86

Voters obviously considered Roy something of a product of his team in 1987-88.

If the internet were popular in the late 80s/early 90s, we probably would have had a RoyIsAFraud blog.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Liut is one of the more underrated goaltenders of the 1980s - he gets blamed frequently for his lack of team success, but he usually didn't have the horses.

He's essentially the Dan Fouts of the NFL.

 

[canucks4ever]

Liut is one of the more underrated goaltenders of the 1980s - he gets blamed frequently for his lack of team success, but he usually didn't have the horses.

He's essentially the Dan Fouts of the NFL.

Except dan fouts had horses to play with, joiner and winslow were hof'ers. On topic, I think roy was the best goalie by 88, fuhr got more recognition because of team success and games played.

 

[Big Phil]

Am I crazy for saying yes?

I am not a doctor, but.........yes I believe so

Big Phil, did you trade in your Roygrinding axe for a larger one this holiday season?

My main arguments were that Roy wasn't a better goalie than Fuhr until the 1988-'89 season. That was his breakout year and the transition of when the drugs got the best of Fuhr for a while. For some reason people are thinking about Roy from 1988 onwards rather than 1988 and prior. To me, someone who watched hockey at that time it was as clear as day who the best goalie in the world was for a while.

It is obvious to me that not only the voters who witnessed it felt this way in 1988, or 1987 for that matter, but our eyes did too. Who would you trust in net in 1988 over either one of them? I am actually shocked that Roy is getting as much love as he is

 

[Bear of Bad News]

My main arguments were that Roy wasn't a better goalie than Fuhr until the 1988-'89 season. That was his breakout year and the transition of when the drugs got the best of Fuhr for a while. For some reason people are thinking about Roy from 1988 onwards rather than 1988 and prior. To me, someone who watched hockey at that time it was as clear as day who the best goalie in the world was for a while.

And as evidence for this claim, you're using the number of shots that hit the post in the 1998 Nagano shootout?

 

[Big Phil]

And as evidence for this claim, you're using the number of shots that hit the post in the 1998 Nagano shootout?

What does 1998 have to do with 1988? Have you even been reading any of my posts as to why Fuhr was better in 1988? There are plenty of arguments I posted in favour of Fuhr. I suppose you'd have taken Roy at that time?

 

[Bear of Bad News]

What does 1998 have to do with 1988?

Trace back this particular thread, and you'll find the comments that you made about Nagano. Hopefully that helps.

If you're going to bring up Nagano, and then complain when people respond to you, I'm not sure what to tell you.

 

[Big Phil]

Trace back this particular thread, and you'll find the comments that you made about Nagano. Hopefully that helps.

If you're going to bring up Nagano, and then complain when people respond to you, I'm not sure what to tell you.

It was a totally different discussion regarding Brodeur and Roy's international careers and Roy in 1998. When the comparison has turned to Fuhr vs. Roy the comparison is generally around 1987 or 1988 and who was considered better. Nagano has never had anything to do with that topic.

But getting back to the topic, you would have taken Roy over Fuhr in the 1987 Canada Cup? If so, why?

 

[GuineaPig]

I would've taken Roy over Fuhr because Roy was playing a lot better at the time.

 

[Big Phil]

I would've taken Roy over Fuhr because Roy was playing a lot better at the time.

Would you have trusted a sophomore (think how we might have viewed Cam Ward in 2007 after a Conn Smythe as a rookie as well) over a seasoned vet of three Cup winners and then the clear cut Vezina winner the next year in 1988? I don't think people are thinking about Roy and Fuhr at that time in their careers. It really should be a no brainer. It was to everyone who was watching them at the time. Why has time been so forgiving to Roy and hard on Fuhr?

 

[GuineaPig]

Would you have trusted a sophomore (think how we might have viewed Cam Ward in 2007 after a Conn Smythe as a rookie as well) over a seasoned vet of three Cup winners and then the clear cut Vezina winner the next year in 1988? I don't think people are thinking about Roy and Fuhr at that time in their careers. It really should be a no brainer. It was to everyone who was watching them at the time. Why has time been so forgiving to Roy and hard on Fuhr?

Because the predominant view on goaltending has come to consider save percentage as the best indicator of performance, rather than games played or wins.

Cam Ward in 2007 had a track record of mediocre play, with one small sample of excellent play. Patrick Roy in 1987 had a track record of excellent play with a small sample of phenomenal play.

 

[Big Phil]

Because the predominant view on goaltending has come to consider save percentage as the best indicator of performance, rather than games played or wins.

Cam Ward in 2007 had a track record of mediocre play, with one small sample of excellent play. Patrick Roy in 1987 had a track record of excellent play with a small sample of phenomenal play.

Save percentage, like any other stat is part of a mosaic of methods you can use to decide who was a better goalie. It isn't the sole one. You have to take things into context as well, the Habs at that time were a pretty conservative team defensively while the Oilers, especially in the regular season, were a pretty loose team on that end. That's going to hurt your GAA and save % considering you probably are facing higher quality shots against.

Roy was not "Patrick Roy" back then you have to remember. His reputation hadn't been solidified. I find it crazy that a veteran goalie already proven to be a winner and clutch in important situations would be thought of as an inferior goalie to a two year player who had won a Conn Smythe but then got pulled in his next playoff year. I can only mention 50 timrd that thr voters who actually saw Roy and Fuhr play back then voted clearly in favour of Fuhr. That Keenan clearly didn't want to pass up Fuhr on Team Canada in 1987 (who see saw a lot of in the 1987 Stanley Cup final).

But I will leave you with this, if you polled 21 of the GMs in the NHL at that time 1987 or 1988, and asked them which goalie they wanted in their nets, Fuhr or Roy, do you believe the majority would pick Roy? I don't and I am shocked this is a discussion that has lasted this long.

 

[JackSlater]

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.

This was a big factor. Many people at the time were convinced that Fuhr would be better in open games, which seemed inevitable in 1987. I don't know know if this is true, but it definitely player a role in Roy not being selected. Keenan's CC team selection was often terrible.

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?

To be fair, 2005 World Championship was not a best on best Brodeur certainly was not very good in it though. I do not see a reason to view international accomplishments as an advantage for Brodeur over Roy.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Stats 1987-88:

Patrick Roy: 23-12-9, 0.900, 2.90
Brian Hayward: 22-10-4, 0.896, 2.86

Voters obviously considered Roy something of a product of his team in 1987-88.

If the internet were popular in the late 80s/early 90s, we probably would have had a RoyIsAFraud blog.

Well...

1984
Fuhr: .883
Moog: .882

1985
Fuhr: .884
Moog: .894

1986
Fuhr: .890
Moog: .889

1987
Fuhr: .881
Moog: .882

1988
Fuhr: .881
Ranford: .899

1989
Fuhr: .876
Ranford: .877

1990
Fuhr: .868
Ranford: .887


Maybe they'd both have their name on there.

two year player who had won a Conn Smythe but then got pulled in his next playoff year.

Well, now I know you're repeating yourself, because I already fielded this one.

Patrick Roy's 1987 Playoffs
Roy makes 116 saves on 127 shots in four games over five days to sweep the Boston Bruins and advance to the second round. The Canadiens have to wait eight days for the next game. Quebec wins Game #1 7-5, and Patrick Roy is relieved of his duty.

That's a move that would make Mike Keenan blush, but somehow it's a key point of your argument as to why Roy isn't as good as we remember?

Why has time been so forgiving to Roy and hard on Fuhr?

Why does Roy need forgiveness from time?

Many people at the time were convinced that Fuhr would be better in open games, which seemed inevitable in 1987. I don't know know if this is true, but it definitely player a role in Roy not being selected.

Roy played better at camp, even with the wide-open games. 38 saves on 40 shots. Hrudey did as well. Hextall bombed, injured a teammate, and still got dressed. The Gretzky to Lemieux book pretty much covers it: The goalies were picked before any consideration was given to how they played, so much so that Roy was cut without Savard's knowledge.

But I will leave you with this, if you polled 21 of the GMs in the NHL at that time 1987 or 1988, and asked them which goalie they wanted in their nets, Fuhr or Roy, do you believe the majority would pick Roy? I don't and I am shocked this is a discussion that has lasted this long.

It's all a matter of save percentage not being the in vogue goaltending statistic until Patrick Roy went from simply leading it to lapping his marquee competition in it. GMs liked Wins prior to 1988-89, and that's why outside of 1983-84, six of the first seven Vezina winners for whom the GMs voted were the league leaders in Wins (and these league leaders in Wins routinely won the Vezina by solid margins).

So instead of going by the voting record of GMs that we already know was heavily influenced by Wins (which are heavily influenced by Games Played... which Grant Fuhr had a lot of in 1987-88 after Moog was gone), why don't you tell us what it was about Grant Fuhr that improved from 1986-87 to 1987-88? Tell us what it was that Patrick Roy specifically was lacking in comparison to Grant Fuhr in 1987-88. Tell us something that would make us believe that it was more than just the same trend that dictated practically every Vezina before it.

If you want time to be forgiving to Grant Fuhr, you have to advocate for him, because the statistics - both relative to his teammates and the rest of the league - do not.