Big 4: 2 Questions

[Canadiens1958]

I mean your argument pretty much boils down to a goalie being the most important position, and when a goalie has a shutout (even a 3rd rate goalie) there's nothing more impactful to victory then that. Which I agree with. But it doesn't change that if i'm going into the Stanley cup finals, I wouldn't pass up on Gretzky, Orr or Lemieux for Roy. There's something to be said about the level of peak they had. At their best they're quite beyond Roy and anyone else.

Still with demonstratably stronger teams Gretzky won 4SCs, Lemieux and Orr won 2SCs each while Roy won 4 SCs.

 

[bobholly39]

As someone else stated earlier, you don't seem to understand how great Howe was. His scoring titles in the early 50s were by margins bested only by Gretzky.

Agree to disagree. I don't personally have Howes peak on the level of the other 3 but I'm aware that others (like you) disagree and have him on same level. No need to get into that debate here.

The argument is the same. A peak of that magnitude is unprecedented in hockey and i wouldn't pick someone else over them.

 

[bobholly39]

Still with demonstratably stronger teams Gretzky won 4SCs, Lemieux and Orr won 2SCs each while Roy won 4 SCs.

Yes you can't win a championship alone. At their best nobody dominated the game as much as them though.

 

[The Panther]

Still with demonstratably stronger teams Gretzky won 4SCs, Lemieux and Orr won 2SCs each while Roy won 4 SCs.

How are Gretzky's and Lemieux's teams "demonstrably stronger"?

Gretzky came in on a first-year expansion team. Do you really think if Roy had entered the League with, say, Hartford (which is similar to Mario's situation), he would have won 2 Cups by 1993?

Roy was actually one of the more fortunate players in League history in terms of being situated for success at his position and in his time. He was brought up by the Habs just when they were getting over their mid-80s flatline and developing a very strong team in a defence-first style (uncommon at the time). Then, just as Quebec was peaking from doormat to most-talented-team, he was traded there, and then retired just before their peak players started to slow down.

In 17 NHL regular seasons, Roy played for a winning team 16 times (94%). [The only non-winning team was a partial season.]
In 20 NHL regular seasons, Gretzky played for a winning team 12 times (60%). [One of these 12 is his first season in L.A. -- a team that had 68 points the year before he arrived.]
In 12 NHL regular season (of 40+ games), Lemieux played for a winning team 7 times (58%). [One of those 7 winning teams didn't even qualify for the playoffs.]

And it goes further than that. Roy very often back-stopped very strong teams:

In 17 NHL regular seasons, Roy played for a .600 or better team 8 times (47%). [Plus another season at .598, so really over 1/2 his career for .600 teams]
In 20 NHL regular seasons, Gretzky played for a for a .600 or better team 8 times (40%).
In 12 NHL regular season (of 40+ games), Lemieux played for a for a .600 or better team 2 or 3 times (I'm unclear about their record with him in 2000-01) (25%).

Team first-place finishes?

Roy 11 out of 17 (65%)
Gretzky 7 out of 20 (35%)
Lemieux 3 out of 12 (25%)

Bobby Orr's situation is a little harder to compare because of earlier era, smaller League, shorter career, etc.


Anyway, Patrick Roy is a playoff legend and deservedly so but let's not pretend his teams were noticeably weaker than the cumulative teams of Gretzky or Lemieux. In fact, they were far stronger.

 

[quoipourquoi]

I don't know that we can disassociate Montreal and Colorado's continued regular season success from Patrick Roy himself. The teams won division titles in 1992 and 2002 while finishing 14/22 and 18/30 in scoring respectively - not coincidentally resulting in Roy's best Hart finishes.

I mean, a top-10 save percentage in 15 seasons, and your team is not going to be under .500 that often. That a team could and often did have worse finishes despite having Gretzky and Lemieux kind of illustrates my point about how important reliable goaltending is. Gretzky and Lemieux could win scoring titles and still miss the playoffs because there's more to it.

Yes you can't win a championship alone. At their best nobody dominated the game as much as them though.

Consider that you're getting five separate four-round playoff runs spread out over 15 years where your goaltending allows just 55-67% of what an average goaltending performance against the same competition would allow. You can't win with that alone - of the top-20 four-round statistical performances (of which Roy is the only goaltender with multiple appearances; five), 11 of the 20 goaltenders lost in the Finals. But if you agree the hot goaltending is the most impactful element of victory, Roy takes a lot of pressure off of the scorers.

 

[The Panther]

That a team could and often did have worse finishes despite having Gretzky and Lemieux kind of illustrates my point about how important reliable goaltending is. Gretzky and Lemieux could win scoring titles and still miss the playoffs because there's more to it.

There's also a lot more to it than the result of goaltending. By 1998, Mike Vernon had won two Stanley Cups and a Conn Smythe, while Dominik Hasek had never been to the Finals. Now would he ever have won the Cup if he hadn't been traded to a stacked team.

In 1986-87, lest we forget, Brian Hayward had a better record and a better save-percentage than Roy.

I personally think team defense is the key to good goaltending results more than individual goaltenders, but we're getting off topic...

 

[quoipourquoi]

There's also a lot more to it than the result of goaltending. By 1998, Mike Vernon had won two Stanley Cups and a Conn Smythe, while Dominik Hasek had never been to the Finals. Now would he ever have won the Cup if he hadn't been traded to a stacked team.

In 1986-87, lest we forget, Brian Hayward had a better record and a better save-percentage than Roy.

I personally think team defense is the key to good goaltending results more than individual goaltenders, but we're getting off topic...

No doubt that Brian Hayward was a great piece of Montreal's two-goalie system in 1986-87 and 1987-88, but one only needs to check the Pat Burns era to see that team defense was not necessarily the key to good goaltending results:

Montreal Canadiens, 1988-89 - 1991-92
Patrick Roy: 125-58-25 (106-pt pace)
Backups: 49-46-17 (82-pt pace)

If not for Hayward's 20-13-3 record in Burns' first year (pretty great until you remember that Roy, undefeated in the Montreal Forum, went 33-5-6), the Pat Burns era Montreal team goes from underwater to a President's Trophy pace.

But after 1989 when Montreal had a top-5 offense, even with Burns' defensive mindset, Montreal just wasn't scoring enough for their backups to be a .500 team - 12/21 in 1989-90 (10-12-1), 9/21 in 1990-91 (14-15-5), 14/22 in 1991-92 (5-6-3). So if Patrick Roy wasn't lights-out fantastic in each playoff series during his three seasons between Finals appearances, Montreal was a vulnerable team.

On the whole, I think Edmonton without Gretzky would be better than Montreal without Roy, but in 1986-87 and 1987-88, I think both teams wouldn't be lost without either.

I do think it's important to discuss, however, because too often Roy is dismissed as a playoff goaltender when - as you have noted - he's also the starting goaltender behind 11 division titles in the regular season.

 

[bobholly39]

There's also a lot more to it than the result of goaltending. By 1998, Mike Vernon had won two Stanley Cups and a Conn Smythe, while Dominik Hasek had never been to the Finals. Now would he ever have won the Cup if he hadn't been traded to a stacked team.

In 1986-87, lest we forget, Brian Hayward had a better record and a better save-percentage than Roy.

I personally think team defense is the key to good goaltending results more than individual goaltenders, but we're getting off topic...

Brian Hayward - I mean this was still Roy's rookie year or close practically. Most goalies take 3-4 years to settle in comfortably into the role of #1 goalie. Just look at Hasek? The only reason you even notice this about Roy is because he stepped up BIG TIME in 86 as a smythe winner. A normal goalie wouldn't even have played #1 in 86, would have taken 2-3 years to settle in and his first good year would have been 89. It only looks bad because he was able to look so good so early. If you want to knock on Roy's resume i'd say do post post 88-89 once he hit his stride more fully.

No doubt that Brian Hayward was a great piece of Montreal's two-goalie system in 1986-87 and 1987-88, but one only needs to check the Pat Burns era to see that team defense was not necessarily the key to good goaltending results:

Montreal Canadiens, 1988-89 - 1991-92
Patrick Roy: 125-58-25 (106-pt pace)
Backups: 49-46-17 (82-pt pace)

If not for Hayward's 20-13-3 record in Burns' first year (pretty great until you remember that Roy, undefeated in the Montreal Forum, went 33-5-6), the Pat Burns era Montreal team goes from underwater to a President's Trophy pace.

But after 1989 when Montreal had a top-5 offense, even with Burns' defensive mindset, Montreal just wasn't scoring enough for their backups to be a .500 team - 12/21 in 1989-90 (10-12-1), 9/21 in 1990-91 (14-15-5), 14/22 in 1991-92 (5-6-3). So if Patrick Roy wasn't lights-out fantastic in each playoff series during his three seasons between Finals appearances, Montreal was a vulnerable team.

On the whole, I think Edmonton without Gretzky would be better than Montreal without Roy, but in 1986-87 and 1987-88, I think both teams wouldn't be lost without either.

I do think it's important to discuss, however, because too often Roy is dismissed as a playoff goaltender when - as you have noted - he's also the starting goaltender behind 11 division titles in the regular season.

I still say so much of your argument seems to be centering around the importance of a goalie, and how it's the most important position in hockey, which it is. So sure - even versus Orr's absolute best season or Gretzky's 215 point season - you can argue a goalie is more important then that. Gretzky can score 10 goals in a game and his team still loses 11-10. If a goalie has a shutout - they'll win, no matter what.

It's hard to compare a goalie to a forward when we're talking value.

Going into a playoff series, or game 7, or playoff season - the top 3 players I pick (assuming peaks) in some order are Gretzky, Orr and Lemieux no questions asked though. Their peaks are too high to pass up on them.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Brian Hayward - I mean this was still Roy's rookie year or close practically. Most goalies take 3-4 years to settle in comfortably into the role of #1 goalie. Just look at Hasek? The only reason you even notice this about Roy is because he stepped up BIG TIME in 86 as a smythe winner. A normal goalie wouldn't even have played #1 in 86, would have taken 2-3 years to settle in and his first good year would have been 89. It only looks bad because he was able to look so good so early. If you want to knock on Roy's resume i'd say do post post 88-89 once he hit his stride more fully.



I still say so much of your argument seems to be centering around the importance of a goalie, and how it's the most important position in hockey, which it is. So sure - even versus Orr's absolute best season or Gretzky's 215 point season - you can argue a goalie is more important then that. Gretzky can score 10 goals in a game and his team still loses 11-10. If a goalie has a shutout - they'll win, no matter what.

It's hard to compare a goalie to a forward when we're talking value.

Going into a playoff series, or game 7, or playoff season - the top 3 players I pick (assuming peaks) in some order are Gretzky, Orr and Lemieux no questions asked though. Their peaks are too high to pass up on them.

In a Game 7, I'm sure some people would want Roy.

But I would agree, for a playoff series or playoff run you take the Big (4) Guys.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Agree to disagree. I don't personally have Howes peak on the level of the other 3 but I'm aware that others (like you) disagree and have him on same level. No need to get into that debate here.

The argument is the same. A peak of that magnitude is unprecedented in hockey and i wouldn't pick someone else over them.

Fair enough.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Going into a playoff series, or game 7, or playoff season - the top 3 players I pick (assuming peaks) in some order are Gretzky, Orr and Lemieux no questions asked though. Their peaks are too high to pass up on them.

I don't think we disagree too much there. Single run, single series, single game - I'm taking a skater: Maurice Richard.

If I know I'm getting 15 playoff runs out of an individual player, that's when I'd take Patrick Roy. Knowing that based on his performances compared to the ~95 playoff teams that went four-rounds deep since 1979, I'd be getting three runs in that 90th percentile range and two more in the 80th percentile range - it's not a coin flip's chance, but I think it's a single draft pick that gets me the most value long-term to do maximum damage.

The brilliant thing about Patrick Roy's playoff career is that I think most people would be indifferent about which version they get - 1980s, 1990s, 2000s. Most players, you say their name and everyone can probably guess within a five year window what version you're talking about taking on this hypothetical playoff run. You say Gretzky, Lemieux, and Orr, and I'd say you're thinking mid-20s, mid-20s, and early-20s. Since 1965, other than Roy, the biggest gap between Conn Smythe wins is Gretzky: 1985 to 1988. Roy's came in 1986 and 1993 and 2001 - with Finals appearances in-between both gaps. Other than just the nature of the goaltending position itself, this would be where Patrick Roy distinguishes himself.

 

[bobholly39]

In a Game 7, I'm sure some people would want Roy.

But I would agree, for a playoff series or playoff run you take the Big (4) Guys.

Game 7 - sure maybe. I would DEFINITELY take Patrick Roy #1 all time for a playoff Overtime I think. As it becomes less about going out and "winning the game" then it is about "preventing the loss" long enough to allow others on your team to go win the game by scoring. And he's great in that sense.

But it still boils down a lot to the importance of a goalie to hockey. If you make the argument for Roy for a game 7 - I think I could stretch it out to also picking Hasek or a couple of other goalies in history above any positional player for a game 7, because how important the goalie is.

 

[bobholly39]

I don't think we disagree too much there. Single run, single series, single game - I'm taking a skater: Maurice Richard.

If I know I'm getting 15 playoff runs out of an individual player, that's when I'd take Patrick Roy. Knowing that based on his performances compared to the ~95 playoff teams that went four-rounds deep since 1979, I'd be getting three runs in that 90th percentile range and two more in the 80th percentile range - it's not a coin flip's chance, but I think it's a single draft pick that gets me the most value long-term to do maximum damage.

The brilliant thing about Patrick Roy's playoff career is that I think most people would be indifferent about which version they get - 1980s, 1990s, 2000s. Most players, you say their name and everyone can probably guess within a five year window what version you're talking about taking on this hypothetical playoff run. You say Gretzky, Lemieux, and Orr, and I'd say you're thinking mid-20s, mid-20s, and early-20s. Since 1965, other than Roy, the biggest gap between Conn Smythe wins is Gretzky: 1985 to 1988. Roy's came in 1986 and 1993 and 2001 - with Finals appearances in-between both gaps. Other than just the nature of the goaltending position itself, this would be where Patrick Roy distinguishes himself.

If you could take any player in history at their peak for a playoff run, series or game you'd pick Maurice Richard above Gretzky, Orr or Lemieux? That's surprising.

Assuming you get them at their best - how are any the big 3 (or 4) not a better option than Rocket Richard?

For the rest - about Roy - I agree. He has an impeccable career/track record for playoffs. I'm very big on him and his overall ranking for specifically that reason.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Game 7 - sure maybe. I would DEFINITELY take Patrick Roy #1 all time for a playoff Overtime I think. As it becomes less about going out and "winning the game" then it is about "preventing the loss" long enough to allow others on your team to go win the game by scoring. And he's great in that sense.

But it still boils down a lot to the importance of a goalie to hockey. If you make the argument for Roy for a game 7 - I think I could stretch it out to also picking Hasek or a couple of other goalies in history above any positional player for a game 7, because how important the goalie is.

History shows that Justin Williams will get you the best value in Game 7, but if you take him over the Big 4 and lose, I think the people in the arena will run you out of town on a rail.

I think Roy gives a greater advantage over a series as opposed to a single game. His already high quality game percentage increases while trailing in a series (77.7%), which explains why his team's usually didn't lose a short series. By contrast, Hasek - who actually fares better when momentum is on his team's side than Roy - has a middling quality game percentage when trailing in a series (53.6%). Roy liked the sight of his own blood.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

If you could take any player in history at their peak for a playoff run, series or game you'd pick Maurice Richard above Gretzky, Orr or Lemieux? That's surprising.

Assuming you get them at their best - how are any the big 3 (or 4) not a better option than Rocket Richard?

For the rest - about Roy - I agree. He has an impeccable career/track record for playoffs. I'm very big on him and his overall ranking for specifically that reason.

Playing in the 40s and 50s, The Rocket scored 82 goals in 133 playoff games. That's a higher percentage of GPG than anyone other than Mario & Bossy. No one else is close to him from that era. Probably played against a Hall of Fame goalie 75% of those games.

 

[quoipourquoi]

If you could take any player in history at their peak for a playoff run, series or game you'd pick Maurice Richard above Gretzky, Orr or Lemieux? That's surprising.

Yeah, in the short term, I'd want a mean-spirited game breaker. There have been some intense players, but Maurice Richard is what you would get if the Big Bad Wolf marked his territory from the opposing blue line in.

 

[Big Phil]

1a) Does/Do any other player(s) in the history of the sport have a legitimate claim to bump one of Gretzky, Orr, Howe or Lemieux off hockey's Mt. Rushmore? 1b) If so, who?

2) What was the exact achievement that clinched each one's membership in this ultra exclusive group?

Answers:

1 - No. Not yet at least. At the end of his career Crosby is going to have a very impressive resume and there will be those years that you look such as 2008, 2011, 2012, 2013 as years where he lead's the NHL in points if he weren't injured. Even so, there are more "what if" years for Mario as it is and more years where he actually accomplished it too (6 Art Rosses to 2) and he did it by bigger margins. Plus, at 30 years old Crosby is among the top 10 in points, which is not bad at all, but Mario was still dominating the NHL. So no, he's not there. Ovechkin from a goal scoring perspective only is up there but not an overall player. Malkin had too many down/injured years. We'll see with McDavid. But to be one of these guys you have to be the best for a long time to a large degree.

2 - Their peak value. No one has matched it. And the odd time Hasek had a season or two like one of their best it was only a couple years, maybe. Mario and Orr specifically get by for their peak value. Gretzky and Howe do too but as much for their longevity and full seasons of year in year out greatness, although Gretzky did it better than anyone.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Gretzky and Lemieux have the two greatest playoff runs by skaters in history. 84-85 and 91-92.

47 points in 18 games
34 points in 15 games

 

[quoipourquoi]

Gretzky and Lemieux have the two greatest playoff runs by skaters in history. 84-85 and 91-92.

47 points in 18 games
34 points in 15 games

On a per-game basis, sure, but I might take a more consistent round-to-round performance than 1992. Howe and Beliveau in 1955 and 1956? Bobby Orr in 1972? Both he and Esposito in 1970?

 

[The Panther]

Gretzky and Lemieux have the two greatest playoff runs by skaters in history. 84-85 and 91-92.

47 points in 18 games
34 points in 15 games

If we're talking about points here, it seems you're overlooking some Gretzky post-seasons:
1983 -- 38 points in 16 games (+20)
1988 -- 43 points in 19 games (+9)

Etc.

 

[Big Phil]

Last night I think it was Greg Millen who works with Paul Romanuk in the booth now (?) said as they were commentating the Pens game that it is possible when all is said and done that the best Penguin of all-time might not be #66. I don't see that happening though.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

If we're talking about points here, it seems you're overlooking some Gretzky post-seasons:
1983 -- 38 points in 16 games (+20)
1988 -- 43 points in 19 games (+9)

Etc.

Those ones I posted are the best adjusted. You can't compare scoring levels from 83 and 92. Much superior hockey in 92

 

[daver]

Those ones I posted are the best adjusted. You can't compare scoring levels from 83 and 92. Much superior hockey in 92

Yet 1985 is worth mentioning? If hockey took that much of a jump in nine years, you must think today's hockey is eons ahead.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Those ones I posted are the best adjusted. You can't compare scoring levels from 83 and 92. Much superior hockey in 92

Adjusted for league-wide scoring, Lemieux's 1992 postseason also falls behind Gordie Howe in 1955. Jean Beliveau in 1956, and Phil Esposito in 1970 (if you're looking solely at points per game).

(Before someone says "Lemieux had to compete against far more Europeans than Howe/Beliveau/Esposito/Gretzky, I'll let you know how many Europeans there were who scored more than ten points that spring (27 total) - just one, Jagr).

 

[The Panther]

Those ones I posted are the best adjusted. You can't compare scoring levels from 83 and 92. Much superior hockey in 92

Seriously?