If Hasek had the exact same seasons he had but the Pearson/Lindsay trophy hadn't existed yet, would his 2 Hart winning seasons only be 2/3 as good?
If the players voted on playoffs version of the Pearson/Lindsay to go along with the Conn Smythe that is voted on by the writers, would each of Roy's Smythe winning seasons suddenly be twice as good.
Awards are created to recognize great performances. But winning multiple awards for the same performance doesn't automatically make that performance better or more meaningful.
It's a real award. They've been giving it out for more than 40 years. There's no point in dealing 'what ifs'.
Hasek is the only goalie to win the Hart, Lindsey, and Vezina in the same year. The only other goalie to win a Hart in the modern era didn't get the Lindsey the same year. The only other goalie to ever win the Lindsey didn't win the Hart or the Vezina that year. It's an accomplishment only Hasek can lay claim to.
To put it another way, he was voted by GM's, media, and his peers (essentially, everyone in NA pro hockey) that he was the best player in the world for two seasons in a row. A distinction never lauded upon Roy in his career, even for a single season.
Two goalies in the last 50 years have won the Hart. 5 goalies in the last 10 years have won the Conn Smythe (two goalies in the last two years, honestly). So even saying that for a goalie to win a Conn Smythe is equal to or better that a Hart is untrue. Equally so for the Lindsey as it's just as rare for a goalie to win one of those.
Ok, so now it's luck that accounts for Roy's Playoff success...*pause for uncontrollable laughter*...yeah, that will about do it for taking any argument of yours seriously from here on out.
Have a good one
Yeah, partially. What's the problem with that? Haven't we discussed this to enough of an extent for you to understand that I'm not saying (or even implying) that Roy would have 0 career accomplishment without luck, or anything hyperbolic of the sort?! Are you just being childishly obtuse for sport, because that's just trolling?
It's a real award. They've been giving it out for more than 40 years. There's no point in dealing 'what ifs'.
Hasek is the only goalie to win the Hart, Lindsey, and Vezina in the same year. The only other goalie to win a Hart in the modern era didn't get the Lindsey the same year. The only other goalie to ever win the Lindsey didn't win the Hart or the Vezina that year. It's an accomplishment only Hasek can lay claim to.
To put it another way, he was voted by GM's, media, and his peers (essentially, everyone in NA pro hockey) that he was the best player in the world for two seasons in a row. A distinction never lauded upon Roy in his career, even for a single season.
Two goalies in the last 50 years have won the Hart. 5 goalies in the last 10 years have won the Conn Smythe (two goalies in the last two years, honestly). So even saying that for a goalie to win a Conn Smythe is equal to or better that a Hart is untrue. Equally so for the Lindsey as it's just as rare for a goalie to win one of those.
Excellent point, albeit just one of many good ones on either side.
It's a real award. They've been giving it out for more than 40 years. There's no point in dealing 'what ifs'.
Hasek is the only goalie to win the Hart, Lindsey, and Vezina in the same year. The only other goalie to win a Hart in the modern era didn't get the Lindsey the same year. The only other goalie to ever win the Lindsey didn't win the Hart or the Vezina that year. It's an accomplishment only Hasek can lay claim to.
To put it another way, he was voted by GM's, media, and his peers (essentially, everyone in NA pro hockey) that he was the best player in the world for two seasons in a row. A distinction never lauded upon Roy in his career, even for a single season.
Two goalies in the last 50 years have won the Hart. 5 goalies in the last 10 years have won the Conn Smythe (two goalies in the last two years, honestly). So even saying that for a goalie to win a Conn Smythe is equal to or better that a Hart is untrue. Equally so for the Lindsey as it's just as rare for a goalie to win one of those.
To be fair, Liut not winning the Vezina in '81 is simply due to the award being handed out differently then.
Prior to '83, it was basically what the Jennings trophy is today.
Liut not winning the Hart that year is explained with one word...Gretzky.
Hasek in his best season doesn't take the Hart away from a guy that just broke the single season scoring record by 12 points either
And Theodore losing the Pearson to Iginla on a Flames team that missed the playoffs by a whopping 15 points in '02 was juuuust a bit of a joke.
Yeah, partially. What's the problem with that? Haven't we discussed this to enough of an extent for you to understand that I'm not saying (or even implying) that Roy would have 0 career accomplishment without luck, or anything hyperbolic of the sort?! Are you just being childishly obtuse for sport, because that's just trolling?
Of course you realise that the greater the sample size the lesser the effect luck will have on the outcome right?
It's a real award. They've been giving it out for more than 40 years. There's no point in dealing 'what ifs'.
In my opinion, there's no point in pretending that a great regular season is worth exactly three times as much as a great postseason because there are more awards given out in the regular season. But it seems we are so far apart on this one, we should just agree to disagree.
Quote:
Hasek is the only goalie to win the Hart, Lindsey, and Vezina in the same year. The only other goalie to win a Hart in the modern era didn't get the Lindsey the same year. The only other goalie to ever win the Lindsey didn't win the Hart or the Vezina that year. It's an accomplishment only Hasek can lay claim to.
To put it another way, he was voted by GM's, media, and his peers (essentially, everyone in NA pro hockey) that he was the best player in the world for two seasons in a row. A distinction never lauded upon Roy in his career, even for a single season.
Two goalies in the last 50 years have won the Hart. 5 goalies in the last 10 years have won the Conn Smythe (two goalies in the last two years, honestly). So even saying that for a goalie to win a Conn Smythe is equal to or better that a Hart is untrue. Equally so for the Lindsey as it's just as rare for a goalie to win one of those.
1 goalie has ever won 2 Harts
1 goalie (and 1 player) has ever won 3 Conn Smyths.
Both pretty unique accomplishments, wouldn't you say?
Of course you realise that the greater the sample size the lesser the effect luck will have on the outcome right?
You're right. For a team to win its division 8 times in a row takes more than just luck, obviously. Also takes far more than just a great goalie, also obviously. Luck doesn't determine home ice advantage, either, I suppose.
i spent this afternoon trying to teach feminist theory to college students mere hours before their weekend was about to start. the inability of people in this thread to understand each other is yet more frustrating.
You're right. For a team to win its division 8 times in a row takes more than just luck, obviously. Also takes far more than just a great goalie, also obviously. Luck doesn't determine home ice advantage, either, I suppose.
Too bad that, like has already been expressed to you like a million times now, Roy's playoff dominance isn't just measured against Hasek.
Hasek isn't even Roy's best competition for playoff superiority for pete's sake. You see, there's this Brodeur guy that enjoyed equal, if not better team situations and opportunities than Roy did. Yet Roy buries him too.
So again, I think you need to prove that Hasek even belongs in a playoff conversation with Brodeur and maybe even Belfour before Hasek is even viable competition for Roy in this regard.
Too bad that, like has already been expressed to you like a million times now, Roy's playoff dominance isn't just measured against Hasek.
Hasek isn't even Roy's best competition for playoff superiority for pete's sake. You see, there's this Brodeur guy that enjoyed equal, if not better team situations and opportunities than Roy did. Yet Roy buries him too.
So again, I think you need to prove that Hasek even belongs in a playoff conversation with Brodeur and maybe even Belfour before Hasek is even viable competition for Roy in this regard.
Go!
If you want to continue deflecting to the accumulation of team stats and accomplishments in an attempt to defend your comparative assessment of players' respective "levels of play", then there really isn't much more to be said, is there.
And my point has never been to "rank" or suggest any of these guys in any absolute order in terms of "playoff greatness". My point has always been that I submit that, in terms of the quality/level of play each team got from each player in question, Roy (imo) only distinguishes himself clearly above them in such terms in the aggregate (as afforded by his situation as much as his individual play, imo), not "best performance vs best performance", or even subjective assignment/use of a "level of play" scale; certainly not to a level that trumps the level that it takes to be considered the best player in the game for a 2 year period, and best goalie in the league for 6 of 8 consecutive years - whether that's based primarily on the ~80 games of the regular season or not. And since the "real" debate seems to be between Hasek and Roy's claim at #1 GOAT, I don't feel the need to belabour comparisons to Belfour or Brodeur at this point.
Random points since my last post;
-I don't claim Roy to be a great puckhandler, he was decent among goalies and held his own, maybe slightly above average. But Hasek was god awful in that regard. So thats a simple case where save percentage can be bloated; everything else being equal, a great puckhandling goalie will face fewer shots than a bad one simply because even if the bad puckhandler has the good sense to stay in his net (which Hasek did not always have), it can be the difference between getting the puck out of the zone and keeping it in. So hasek faced a lot of shots due to his weak puckhandling ability that Roy would not have. And the rebounds also increased the shot totals. So for instance it's already been brought up that Haseks best shutout was 70 saves to Roy's 63. Quite possible that you switch them for those 2 games and Roy faces less shots in the devils game and Hasek faces more in the panthers one.
-Hasek's best playoff games (the one against the devils and final game in 1999) have been brought up but it's only fair their worst playoffs be brought in; aside from 1985 and 1994 in which he was playing hurt/sick, Roys only memorable brutal playoff games were game 4 in 1997 and game 7 in 2002. Hasek had several in which his play was questioned. I've seen the argument that he had to beat the guy at the other end... well goalies to beat Hasek in a playoff series include Ron Hextall, Brian Boucher, Johan Hedberg, and nearly Dan Ellis (2008). Since 1993, the goalies to beat Roy in a series were Jon Casey (and not really, that was 1994 when Roy basically tied the series), Mike Vernon (conn smythe year in 1997), Curtis Joseph, Ed Belfour twice, Hasek, and Manny Fernandez/Roloson.
-I actually can't believe people are arguing that Roy was on stacked teams. There was a thread here not too long ago debating who would win a game between Haseks 2002 wins and the dynsasty oilers and a decent enough case made for the wings. The only one of Roy's cup winning teams that even came close to the amount of talent that wings team had was his 2001 avs. The fact that the habs came out of an era from 1984-1993 dominated by the flames, gretzky's oilers, and marios penguins with 2 cups is somewhat of a minor miracle.
As I mentioned earlier, when comparing 2 players careers and factoring in playoffs and regular seasons, the playoff emphasis increases for a goalie- the reason being playoffs have the extra scouting and emphasis on figuring out the other goalie. Regular season games, the players might get some extra tips on scoring on a particular goalie, pretty much any playoff series, the scouts, coaches and players will all go to great lengths to find a weakness in the other goalie and exploit it. Several times these teams were successful to some extent against Hasek. Nobody ever figured out Roy. The closest they came was a somewhat suspect five hole. The number of times where a team went against Roy only needing 1 goal but couldnt get it far exceeded the number of times they had that same situation with Hasek.
When I look at Roy's playoff performances, they are no doubt impressive. It would by no means be a stretch to call him the greatest playoff performer in the history of the game. The thing is, while playoff performance is ultimately more meaningful because the goal of every hockey team is to win the Cup, I don't really differentiate between playoff performance and regular season performance. I don't think that players (for the most part) don't try in the regular season, especially someone as competitive as Roy. For me, playoffs are just one part of the larger sample of a players' work.
So when I look at, say, Roy's 1992-93 season, I don't really accept that there's this separation between regular season and playoffs. I think that the people that argue that Roy had just this innate ability to play fantastic in the playoffs need to explain something here. Roy had a 0.894 SV% through 62 regular season games, and then a 0.929 SV% through 20 playoff games. To my mind, that just looks more like Roy had a mediocre regular season, with some bad luck and maybe some poor defense thrown in, and then regressed to his usual self in the playoffs (again perhaps with some luck and great defense).
While I'm not discounting Roy's ability (or claiming that his playoff play was too good over too large a sample for it to be solely accounted by luck), I don't buy that Roy didn't try his hardest (or even nearly his hardest) in the regular season and then just magically unlocked world-beating powers in the playoffs. It's also, as a sidenote, why I don't hold poor playoff performances against him as I find it hard to believe that he had this magic clutch ability.
If you want to continue deflecting to the accumulation of team stats and accomplishments in an attempt to defend your comparative assessment of players' respective "levels of play", then there really isn't much more to be said, is there.
And my point has never been to "rank" or suggest any of these guys in any absolute order in terms of "playoff greatness". My point has always been that I submit that, in terms of the quality/level of play each team got from each player in question, Roy (imo) only distinguishes himself clearly above them in such terms in the aggregate (as afforded by his situation as much as his individual play, imo), not "best performance vs best performance", or even subjective assignment/use of a "level of play" scale; certainly not to a level that trumps the level that it takes to be considered the best player in the game for a 2 year period, and best goalie in the league for 6 of 8 consecutive years - whether that's based primarily on the ~80 games of the regular season or not. And since the "real" debate seems to be between Hasek and Roy's claim at #1 GOAT, I don't feel the need to belabour comparisons to Belfour or Brodeur at this point.
Me deflecting? Are you freaking kidding me?
You tried to use Roy's supposed vast team superiority over the years and supposedly vast wealth of opportunities compared to Hasek to bridge the enormous gap between the two. (Two things that have had their severity debunked pretty harshly earlier in this thread btw.)
Yet, when we compare Roy with a goalie that could also be in the mix for GOAT, that had equal if not better team situations and opportunities, Roy buries him.
This absolutely proves that Roy's numbers and accomplishments in the playoffs are to due to a hell of a lot more than just team strengths and opportunities! WHAT PART OF THAT COMPLETELY DEBUNKING YOUR ARGUMENT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND EXACTLY???
But hey by all means lets make this about ranking performance vs performance.
Lets see how fast Hasek runs out of top playoff performances to go up against Roy's top ones.
Then lets find the % of total top series performances by both of them compared to their total series played and see where that leaves Hasek.
You are not going to like the results, I guaran-damn-tee it!
Last edited by Rhiessan71: 10-19-2012 at 03:09 AM.
Roys only memorable brutal playoff games were game 4 in 1997 and game 7 in 2002.
That's your memory, though, not history's. Just sayin'. Hartford poured 7 in against him once. Boston spanked him once in '90 and chased him out of the net by halfway through the next game as well. Montreal and Buffalo split the first 4 games of '91, despite Roy allowing 18 goals (on <120 shots) over those 4 games (Roy pulled in the 4th game). Boston laid another pounding on Roy in '92. I guess we're putting an illness asterisk on Roy's '94, which I'm cool with until people simultaneously disregard the impact of injury on Hasek at any time. Heck, even in '96 when the Avs won the Cup, there were two games where the Red Wings scored 11 goals on 48 combined shots against Roy.
Anyway, I hope you get the point without me going through '97-'03 as well. Each of these goalies has far more than just 2 "regrettable" performances over the entirety of their playoff careers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by leeaf83
-I actually can't believe people are arguing that Roy was on stacked teams.
I can't believe there are people who don't, honestly. First in the division before Roy joined, first in the division for 8 more years afterwards. A.K.A. made out really well from the Lindros trade. If you think that team is considered an "almost dynasty", and one of the 3 or 4 best teams of the entire 90s, primarily because of Patrick Roy, well... I don't think I have to list all the names of those who say "hello", but it bears reminding that it was Joe Sakic who won the Hart and Lindsay in '01 and Forsberg who won the Hart in Roy's last season with the Avalanche, not Roy, and neither has a reputation for "disappearing" in the playoffs, either.
You tried to use Roy's supposed vast team superiority over the years and supposedly vast wealth of opportunities compared to Hasek to bridge the enormous gap between the two.
Yet, when we compare Roy with a goalie that could also be in the mix for GOAT, that had equal if not better team situations and opportunities, Roy buries him.
This absolutely proves that Roy's numbers and accomplishments in the playoffs are to due to a hell of a lot more than just team strengths and opportunities! WHAT PART OF THAT COMPLETELY DEBUNKING YOUR ARGUMENT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND EXACTLY???
But hey by all means lets make this about ranking performance vs performance.
Lets see how fast Hasek runs out of top playoff performances to go up against Roy's top ones.
Then lets find the % of total top series performances by both of them compared to their total series played and see where that leaves Hasek.
You are not going to like the results, I guaran-damn-tee it!
Hyperbole and exaggeration (added bold sections) do not make your counter arguments any stronger, nor more valid. Sorry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuineaPig
I don't buy that Roy didn't try his hardest (or even nearly his hardest) in the regular season and then just magically unlocked world-beating powers in the playoffs. It's also, as a sidenote, why I don't hold poor playoff performances against him as I find it hard to believe that he had this magic clutch ability.
Hyperbole and exaggeration (added bold sections) do not make your counter arguments any stronger, nor more valid. Sorry.
Yeah, I'm the one deflecting....riiiiight.
Those sections you bolded are your freakin arguments for pete's sake and is Roy's burying of Brodeur in playoff accomplishments and performances honestly up for debate?
All I know at this point is I have answered every one of your points, point for point while I don't think you have even answered to 2/3's of mine....convenient
Oh and lets just gloss over the fact that Roy's AV teams didn't have a free ride to the finals every year, facing equal and even better teams than themselves in the Wings and Stars over and over again.
I guess that doesn't get any weight in your book eh
Several times these teams were successful to some extent against Hasek. Nobody ever figured out Roy.
Oh really? Ask Cam Neely, I bet he could give you some pointers and tips on how to score 19 goals on Patrick Roy in 24 playoff games, as he did from 1987 to 1991. If you can't get hold of him, really any one of his former Boston teammates would probably have some useful input, as I'm sure they would remember at least something of how they eliminated Roy's Canadiens five times in seven playoff seasons.
Why do I suspect that if Dominik Hasek had that same kind of futility against a single opponent it would surely be held up as ironclad evidence of his susceptibility to being figured out or his mental weakness or his lack of clutch play or some other label that is not currently being applied to Roy?
Last edited by ContrarianGoaltender: 10-19-2012 at 03:50 AM.
When I look at Roy's playoff performances, they are no doubt impressive. It would by no means be a stretch to call him the greatest playoff performer in the history of the game. The thing is, while playoff performance is ultimately more meaningful because the goal of every hockey team is to win the Cup, I don't really differentiate between playoff performance and regular season performance. I don't think that players (for the most part) don't try in the regular season, especially someone as competitive as Roy. For me, playoffs are just one part of the larger sample of a players' work.
So when I look at, say, Roy's 1992-93 season, I don't really accept that there's this separation between regular season and playoffs. I think that the people that argue that Roy had just this innate ability to play fantastic in the playoffs need to explain something here. Roy had a 0.894 SV% through 62 regular season games, and then a 0.929 SV% through 20 playoff games. To my mind, that just looks more like Roy had a mediocre regular season, with some bad luck and maybe some poor defense thrown in, and then regressed to his usual self in the playoffs (again perhaps with some luck and great defense).
While I'm not discounting Roy's ability (or claiming that his playoff play was too good over too large a sample for it to be solely accounted by luck), I don't buy that Roy didn't try his hardest (or even nearly his hardest) in the regular season and then just magically unlocked world-beating powers in the playoffs. It's also, as a sidenote, why I don't hold poor playoff performances against him as I find it hard to believe that he had this magic clutch ability.
It has nothing to do with "not trying." It's a matter of concentration and the ability to handle pressure.
These are human beings not probability machines, and it is incredibly difficult for a human to maintain peak concentration and performance 80-100 times in a calendar year. Different human beings react to high pressure situations in different ways, as well - some thrive, others have difficulty handling it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ContrarianGoaltender
Oh really? Ask Cam Neely, I bet he could give you some pointers and tips on how to score 19 goals on Patrick Roy in 24 playoff games, as he did from 1987 to 1991. If you can't get hold of him, really any one of his former Boston teammates would probably have some useful input, as I'm sure they would remember at least something of how they eliminated Roy's Canadiens five times in seven playoff seasons.
Why do I suspect that if Dominik Hasek had that same kind of futility against a single opponent it would surely be held up as ironclad evidence of his susceptibility to being figured out or his mental weakness or his lack of clutch play or some other label that is not currently being applied to Roy?
Yeah, for whatever reason, Boston (and especially Neely had Roy's number in the late 80s.
Yeah, for whatever reason, Boston (and especially Neely had Roy's number in the late 80s.
Because they were the two best teams in the same division and were forced to meet each other because of the Divisional Playoff system. In terms of Quality Games, Roy was 24-12 against them, contextualized for their own shooting percentage. And he swept them twice.
Those sections you bolded are your freakin arguments for pete's sake and is Roy's burying of Brodeur in playoff accomplishments and performances honestly up for debate?
All I know at this point is I have answered every one of your points, point for point while I don't think you have even answered to 2/3's of mine....convenient
Oh and lets just gloss over the fact that Roy's AV teams didn't have a free ride to the finals every year, facing equal and even better teams than themselves in the Wings and Stars over and over again.
I guess that doesn't get any weight in your book eh
Yeah, that is convenient accounting on your part. But yeah, let's just gloss over the fact that no one is saying anything exaggerated like "Roy had a free ride to the Finals"... though I'm not surprised anymore to see you interpret things thusly. He certainly had a much greater chance of seeing 2+ rounds each year than players on most of the other teams making the playoffs in at least 11 career post seasons due to playing on a team that was strong enough to win their division each year and get home ice advantage for (at least) round 1.
I still can't believe the overall strength of those Avalanche teams even without Roy is even debated. That team had two different Hart winners on it during his tenure. I think Pittsburgh is the only other team in modern history who can boast as much ('01 after Jagr won his, and Lemieux returned, and now, since Malkin has officially won a Hart). Colorado gets credit in your books for playing teams "better" than them in Dallas and Detroit, but you refuse to acknowledge that just about every team Buffalo faced was considered "better" than them? And count how many times Buffalo/Hasek enjoyed home advantage ice while in Buffalo. What was it, once, against Ottawa in '97?
But keep on sarcastically ignoring or exaggerating everything that's being presented to you as counter-argument, deflecting everything back to said collection of hyperbole, and furthermore claiming that no one is willing/able to formulate defenses to your "points".
Because they were the two best teams in the same division and were forced to meet each other because of the Divisional Playoff system. In terms of Quality Games, Roy was 24-12 against them, contextualized for their own shooting percentage. And he swept them twice.
Boston also swept Roy and the Habs once in '92. Just sayin'. I see your "quality games" stat there, but what does it mean? I'm not being argumentative in any way here, btw, I'm genuinely curious. It looks like you counted every single playoff win vs Boston as a "quality game", but threw out about a half dozen losses as "non-quality"... for some reason that can seemingly be described as "contextualizing for shooting %".
Yeah, that is convenient accounting on your part. But yeah, let's just gloss over the fact that no one is saying anything exaggerated like "Roy had a free ride to the Finals"... though I'm not surprised anymore to see you interpret things thusly. He certainly had a much greater chance of seeing 2+ rounds each year than players on most of the other teams making the playoffs in at least 11 career post seasons due to playing on a team that was strong enough to win their division each year and get home ice advantage for (at least) round 1.
I still can't believe the overall strength of those Avalanche teams even without Roy is even debated. That team had two different Hart winners on it during his tenure. I think Pittsburgh is the only other team in modern history who can boast as much ('01 after Jagr won his, and Lemieux returned, and now, since Malkin has officially won a Hart). Colorado gets credit in your books for playing teams "better" than them in Dallas and Detroit, but you refuse to acknowledge that just about every team Buffalo faced was considered "better" than them? And count how many times Buffalo/Hasek enjoyed home advantage ice while in Buffalo. What was it, once, against Ottawa in '97?
But keep on sarcastically ignoring or exaggerating everything that's being presented to you as counter-argument, deflecting everything back to said collection of hyperbole, and furthermore claiming that no one is willing/able to formulate defenses to your "points".
Sigh...you argue that Roy always had superior teams to Hasek's his entire career. I, among others show that most of those Habs teams were pretty comparable to most of Hasek's Sabre teams. You attempt to make your point by citing where the those Sabres teams were in the standings and how many goals they scored in the regular even though it was shown conclusively that they scored at a higher clip in the playoffs than they did in the regular season.
Not to mention that when it comes down to citing why those Habs teams were better, it's not so much about where they finished in the standings or how many goals they scored, it's about name dropping anyone of note from those teams.
Next you argue opportunity even though Hasek's teams made the playoffs every single year except '96, averaging 91 points a year from '97-'01 then played his next 5 seasons on teams averaging over 113 points a year. Previous to '94, he simply wasn't good enough or consistent enough to wrestle the starting job away from Belfour or Fuhr.
Lets not forget about the missed opportunities due to flakey/questionable injuries.
On top of all this and most importantly the entire validity of these arguments only survive in the confines of a bubble only containing Roy and Hasek. As soon as you add context, in this case Brodeur, that bubble pops extremely quickly, showing once again conclusively, that Roy's accomplishments are due to a lot more than just team strength and opportunity.
No one is debating the strength of those Av teams, just like no one is debating the strength of the Stars teams and especially the Wings teams that they were facing year in and year out including twice where they played both of them in the same year.
So you'll have to excuse me if I find that pretty much the 3 best teams in the league beating the **** out of each other every year to reach the finals is just as much as an obstacle as playing against teams that are "considered" better based solely on regular season standings.
And contrary to popular belief, Roy's Habs were not always considered clear favourites in every series they played either AND if they were considered favourites, it was because of Roy, not because of the actual team.
The reason I was starting to get overly sarcastic was because it's now been almost 2 pages since you have even argued a new point or coherently addressed a damaging counter point.
Your newest argument, if I recall, was about Luck and I think you know now that that was a huge mistake that cost you a ton of credibility in this debate.
So spare me the deflecting "hyperbole" comments. If that's all you have left, then this debate is pretty much over.
Last edited by Rhiessan71: 10-19-2012 at 02:15 PM.
Boston also swept Roy and the Habs once in '92. Just sayin'. I see your "quality games" stat there, but what does it mean? I'm not being argumentative in any way here, btw, I'm genuinely curious. It looks like you counted every single playoff win vs Boston as a "quality game", but threw out about a half dozen losses as "non-quality"... for some reason that can seemingly be described as "contextualizing for shooting %".
When it's contextualized, every game in which Roy's save percentage is above the expected save percentage relative to the Bruins' team shooting percentage is a Quality Game. Every game in which Roy's save percentage is below the expected save percentage relative to the Bruins' team shooting percentage is a non-Quality Game.
Previous to '94, he simply wasn't good enough or consistent enough to wrestle the starting job away from Belfour or Fuhr.
.
Wrong.
Hasek had posted better numbers than Belfour in both of his seasons in Chicago and Fuhr in the one season he backed him up in Buffalo. The reason he wasn't a starter was for reasons other than his play.
Oh really? Ask Cam Neely, I bet he could give you some pointers and tips on how to score 19 goals on Patrick Roy in 24 playoff games, as he did from 1987 to 1991. If you can't get hold of him, really any one of his former Boston teammates would probably have some useful input, as I'm sure they would remember at least something of how they eliminated Roy's Canadiens five times in seven playoff seasons.
Why do I suspect that if Dominik Hasek had that same kind of futility against a single opponent it would surely be held up as ironclad evidence of his susceptibility to being figured out or his mental weakness or his lack of clutch play or some other label that is not currently being applied to Roy?
Puckhandling was not a Patrick Roy strong point. Smaller Boston Garden rink surface favoured the Bruins dump and chase style of the 1980`s and 1990`s, at its peak with Cam Neely.
While the Bruins did not figure out Patrick Roy between the pipes per se, they put his puckhandling weakness to advantage repeatedly, especially at the expense of one smallish Canadiens` defenseman - Petr Svoboda.
