Why does Roy only have 3 Vezinas?

[Melrose Munch]

Plante - 7
Durnan - 6
Hasek - 6
Dryden - 5
Brodeur - 4
Sawchuk - 4

Roy at points is considered to be better then all of these guys, why does he have only 3 Vezinas?

Click to read more...

 

[ESH]

I guess because voters only gave it to him 3 times. Which years would you have given it to him?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Initially the Vezina was awarded to the regular goalies, then tandem on the team that allowed the fewest GA during the regular season.

Starting with the 1981-82 NHL RS the Jennings would be the appropriate comparable and the totals for Brodeur, Hasek and Roy change.

NHL William M. Jennings Trophy Winners | Hockey-Reference.com

 

[quoipourquoi]

He lost a 4th on a tie-break while receiving more Vezina support than four other winning seasons in the 20 years between his 1st and Brodeur's 4th (Carey in 1996, Hasek in 1999 and 2001, Brodeur in 2004).

He still took the 1st Team selection in 2002 (his 4th), had two additional 2nd Team selections in 1988 and 1991, and two additional Vezina nominations in 1994 and 1997.

Vezina - Voting Share
1989 - 82.86%
1990 - 86.67%
1991 - 96.19%
1992 - 86.36%
1993 - 78.33%
1994 - 76.15%
1995 - 80.00%
1996 - 40.00%
1997 - 92.31%
1998 - 96.92%
1999 - 54.07%
2000 - 78.58%
2001 - 56.67%
2002 - 70.00%
2003 - 87.33%
2004 - 59.33%
2006 - 93.33%
2007 - 81.33%
2008 - 75.33%

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

Plante - 7
Durnan - 6
Hasek - 6
Dryden - 5
Brodeur - 4
Sawchuk - 4

Roy at points is considered to be better then all of these guys, why does he have only 3 Vezinas?

the answer is in your post...because of Hasek and Brodeur. More often than not, they were better than Roy.

Also Dryden, Sawchuk and Durnan's Vezinas are different...pre 1981-82 the Vezina was simply the Jennings Trophy. It wasnt a voted on award until then

 

[Melrose Munch]

He lost a 4th on a tie-break while receiving more Vezina support than four other winning seasons in the 20 years between his 1st and Brodeur's 4th (Carey in 1996, Hasek in 1999 and 2001, Brodeur in 2004).

He still took the 1st Team selection in 2002 (his 4th), had two additional 2nd Team selections in 1988 and 1991, and two additional Vezina nominations in 1994 and 1997.

Vezina - Voting Share
1989 - 82.86%
1990 - 86.67%
1991 - 96.19%
1992 - 86.36%
1993 - 78.33%
1994 - 76.15%
1995 - 80.00%
1996 - 40.00%
1997 - 92.31%
1998 - 96.92%
1999 - 54.07%
2000 - 78.58%
2001 - 56.67%
2002 - 70.00%
2003 - 87.33%
2004 - 59.33%
2006 - 93.33%
2007 - 81.33%
2008 - 75.33%

the answer is in your post...because of Hasek and Brodeur. More often than not, they were better than Roy.

Also Dryden, Sawchuk and Durnan's Vezinas are different...pre 1981-82 the Vezina was simply the Jennings Trophy. It wasnt a voted on award until then

1) He should have won in 1996 over Carey
2) This hurts the arguement that he's the best of all time.

 

[ESH]

1) He should have won in 1996 over Carey

He was 9th in Vezina voting that year. He’d have to pass quite a few guys before Carey

 

[K Fleur]

the answer is in your post...because of Hasek and Brodeur. More often than not, they were better than Roy.

Also Dryden, Sawchuk and Durnan's Vezinas are different...pre 1981-82 the Vezina was simply the Jennings Trophy. It wasnt a voted on award until then

Brodeur’s first Vezina win came in Roy’s final season.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

1) He should have won in 1996 over Carey
2) This hurts the arguement that he's the best of all time.

eh, yes and no on '96. I can see why they gave it to Carey.

argument for Carey

2.26 GAA vs 2.78 GAA
153 GA in 71 games vs 165 in 61
9 shut outs to 2

argument for Roy

.908 sv% vs .906
.557 win % vs .492
faced almost 200 more shots in 10 less games

my take is they probably give it to Roy if he plays the full year in Montreal

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

Brodeur’s first Vezina win came in Roy’s final season.

true, but he was posting better numbers than Roy for years head to head too

 

[quoipourquoi]

1) He should have won in 1996 over Carey

He doesn't need the 1996 Vezina to be considered the best goaltender in the world in 1996. If we're walking away from the 1995-96 NHL season thinking that Jim Carey is better than Patrick Roy, then we're assigning too much weight to an individual award.

 

[Jumptheshark]

Because of Marty and dom

 

[tony d]

Competition I think. Still Roy's the best goalie ever. As to Jim Carey, he was a good goalie for a brief time but fizzled at. Had quite the run as a comedy actor though.

 

[Iapyi]

Roy is the most over rated player in history. There were always other guys better then him. He was never good enough to play for Team Canada.

 

[Melrose Munch]

eh, yes and no on '96. I can see why they gave it to Carey.

argument for Carey

2.26 GAA vs 2.78 GAA
153 GA in 71 games vs 165 in 61
9 shut outs to 2

argument for Roy

.908 sv% vs .906
.557 win % vs .492
faced almost 200 more shots in 10 less games

my take is they probably give it to Roy if he plays the full year in Montreal

This makes sense but I don't know how voters didn't see Carey was a one time event. Roy was the same from October to early summer in 1996.

He doesn't need the 1996 Vezina to be considered the best goaltender in the world in 1996. If we're walking away from the 1995-96 NHL season thinking that Jim Carey is better than Patrick Roy, then we're assigning too much weight to an individual award.

But that is what the award is for. It may not be true, but history shows the NHL writers felt Carey > Roy.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

This makes sense but I don't know how voters didn't see Carey was a one time event. Roy was the same from October to early summer in 1996.

same reason Bill Belichick doesnt win coach of the year every season despite being the best coach.

voters get sick of familiarity, and are more likely to hold an "out of nowhere/ blow away expectations" player higher. Its the curse of excellence...you produce your regular level of greatness and they shrug saying "so, you're supposed to do that"

with the Belichick example, its why everyone rolls their eyes when someone points out the Patriots have won 9 straight division titles or been to 7 straight conference championship games.

edit: to be fair, it did look like Carey was the start of something special...he did go 18-6-3 .913/2.23 in 28 games as a rookie the year before. they couldn't have known in 1996 that he'd pull a Raycroft

 

[Thenameless]

1) He should have won in 1996 over Carey
2) This hurts the arguement that he's the best of all time.

2) I think a lot of people concede that Hasek is the better regular season goalie, and capable of the more spectacular save. Roy makes up ground with his playoff heroics having won his 3 Conn Smythes. Colorado may have had strong teams, but there is no way Montreal wins in 1986 and 1993 unless Roy badly outplays opposing goalies - which he did in a big way.

 

[K Fleur]

Roy is the most over rated player in history. There were always other guys better then him. He was never good enough to play for Team Canada.

Roy played for Team Canada in ‘98 and his numbers were stellar.

Team Canada wanted Roy back for the ‘02 team, but he declined.

 

[Iapyi]

Rot played for Team Canada in ‘98 and his numbers were stellar.

Team Canada wanted Rot back for the ‘02 team, but he declined.

In 02 Rot thought he was above everyone else and that he should be named the starter just because. He was not wanted on the team. There were better goalies then him anyway.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

2) I think a lot of people concede that Hasek is the better regular season goalie, and capable of the more spectacular save. Roy makes up ground with his playoff heroics having won his 3 Conn Smythes. Colorado may have had strong teams, but there is no way Montreal wins in 1986 and 1993 unless Roy badly outplays opposing goalies - which he did in a big way.

to be fair, it's not Hasek's fault Buffalo went nowhere in the playoffs. He certainly dragged that team beyond what their ceiling should've been.

career playoffs:

65-49-0
2.02 gaa
.925 sv%

the '99 Finals run, he posted a .939/1.77 and a .920/1.86 in his 1st Cup

 

[quoipourquoi]

But that is what the award is for. It may not be true, but history shows the NHL writers felt Carey > Roy.

History also shows those same NHL writers that voted on the All-Star selections putting Patrick Roy on the cover of Sports Illustrated and The Hockey News yearbook that Summer, the latter calling him the best player in the NHL after Lemieux and Jagr. If you only look at the awards - whether it be by count or assignment in an individual season - you'll miss the forest for the trees.

 

[K Fleur]

In 02 Rot thought he was above everyone else and that he should be named the starter just because.

Ok but that does nothing to support your argument that he “was never good enough to play for team Canada”.

He was not wanted on the team. There were better goalies then him anyway.

Yet he was invited to participate so clearly he was wanted on the team.

 

[quoipourquoi]

In 02 Rot thought he was above everyone else and that he should be named the starter just because. He was not wanted on the team. There were better goalies then him anyway.

He was wanted on the team. That's why he was invited to the September 2001 camp. And he would have been named starter, considering he was coming off of a Conn Smythe and had a .927 to eventual starter Joseph's .910 and eventual backup Brodeur's .894 at the time of his withdrawal. But the Avalanche were a sub-.500 team, and he's still the same person who went public in 1998 about the detrimental effect Nagano had on he and his teammates.

I mean, if you wanted to make a point about him being unwanted, you could have brought up World Cup 1996. But Canada wanted Patrick Roy in 2002, and if they didn't name him to the team, it would have been a bigger news story than Rob Zamuner in 1998.

 

[Stephen]

It's actually not so much Martin Brodeur as it was Ed Belfour, who was the same age as Roy and Hasek, and snagged two Vezina's in the early 90s when Roy and the Canadiens were at their peak during that era.

 

[Iapyi]

He was wanted on the team. That's why he was invited to the September 2001 camp. And he would have been named starter, considering he was coming off of a Conn Smythe and had a .927 to eventual starter Joseph's .910 and eventual backup Brodeur's .894 at the time of his withdrawal. But the Avalanche were a sub-.500 team, and he's still the same person who went public in 1998 about the detrimental effect Nagano had on he and his teammates.

I mean, if you wanted to make a point about him being unwanted, you could have brought up World Cup 1996. But Canada wanted Patrick Roy in 2002, and if they didn't name him to the team, it would have been a bigger news story than Rob Zamuner in 1998.

I don't think anyone of us can come along almost 20 years later and say anyone "would have been named starter". I could just as easily say that if he was good enough to be on the team he would have been named the 3rd stringer.

I also don't remember it as him withdrawing. He played his selfish card about insisting on being the starter and the team told him to take a flying leap, thus he was not wanted on the team. It was the team decision for him to not be a part of the team.

Looking at the previous years save% to determine anything? I don't think so.