Why does Roy only have 3 Vezinas?

[billybudd]

Hasek was a brilliant goalie and most probably better than Roy in the big picture, but also understand his position in Buffalo was an ideal showcase for the classic "man alone" goalie, of which there were many in the 1990s.

Eh, I dunno if I buy that.

The guys you mention--Joseph, Irbe--they had a lot of situations where, like Hasek, they made eye-popping, NHL2nite highlight saves, but their numbers reflected that they were being given a difficult task. It's not just that Hasek made crazy saves, but he made more of those and routine saves than anybody else did. It's not that the guy had the best highlight reel by a mile. It's that the guy who stopped the most pucks by far also had the best highlight reel by a mile. I mean look at this separation.

Player Season Finder | Hockey-Reference.com

And he's second in GAA, but not to Roy (Brodeur having a slightly better GAA is entirely understandable given the team circumstances...given the team circumstances and how good Brodeur was in his own right, that Hasek is even this close is outrageous to me).

 

[Tobias Kahun]

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.

Hasek is quite comfortably better than roy

 

[quoipourquoi]

Eh, I dunno if I buy that.

The guys you mention--Joseph, Irbe--they had a lot of situations where, like Hasek, they made eye-popping, NHL2nite highlight saves, but their numbers reflected that they were being given a difficult task. It's not just that Hasek made crazy saves, but he made more of those and routine saves than anybody else did. It's not that the guy had the best highlight reel by a mile. It's that the guy who stopped the most pucks by far also had the best highlight reel by a mile. I mean look at this separation.

Player Season Finder | Hockey-Reference.com

And he's second in GAA, but not to Roy (Brodeur having a slightly better GAA is entirely understandable given the team circumstances...given the team circumstances and how good Brodeur was in his own right, that Hasek is even this close is outrageous to me).

Why would you run a cumulative report that treats 9 saves on 10 shots in 1992-93 the same way it treats 9 saves on 10 shots in 2002-03 and try to derive meaning from it? More than that, we're again looking at a time frame where Hasek suffers major injuries in 5 seasons and takes a 6th year off entirely. It would be like running a points-per-game report for 1995-96 through 2005-06 and presenting it as evidence that Peter Forsberg belongs in the company of Lemieux, Jagr, Sakic, and Gretzky.

 

[Big Phil]

Should he have had more? I don't think he was "robbed" of any or anything. Let's look at the years prior to him winning.

1988 that is Fuhr's no problem. I know not everyone likes that he won it, but he was still the best goalie with the best season.

1989, 1990 and 1992 he earned his Vezinas.

1991 that was Belfour and it was nearly unanimous.

1993 Roy had a rough year actually. It might surprise people but thanks to a few playoff failures (I wouldn't call them failures, they lost to good teams, Boston more or less) a fan poll in January of that year suggested maybe it was time to part ways.

1994 excellent year. Probably as good or better than his Vezina years. But no one is beating Hasek that year and Beezer had a great year too. Roy finished a deserving 3rd.

1995 was an unsually rough year. Missed the playoffs the only time in his life

1996 I don't know why anyone thinks he deserved it. He was great in the postseason, but the first half with Montreal was not great. It was his mid season trade year. It was a respectable year, not a great one.

1997 Excellent year and cemented himself as Canada's starter for the 1998 Olympics if that was in doubt. But no one beats Hasek that year. Maybe you could argue he finishes ahead of Brodeur though.

1998, 1999, 2000 good years. He was among the best in the game, never the best in an individual year though and I can't argue that.

2001 probably his best year in a while. Was he really only 5th that year? Either way, lots of competition that year.

2002 I still would have had Theodore winning it, but I am fine with Roy finishing 2nd

2003 his last year, didn't deserve it but still had a good year.


This is how Roy finishes his career: 3 Vezinas, 4 1st team all-stars, 2 Seond team all-stars. That's 6 right there. It isn't Glenn Hall's 11 but it equals Hasek's 6. Plante had 7. Sawchuk had 7. Brodeur had 7. That is your top 6 goalies of all-time and in the regular season he is similar with them.

But Roy's bread and butter has always been in the postseason. He beats every other goalie in NHL history when it comes to this. Plante did win more Cups, but not in a 21-30 team league either and was not as important to the Habs as Roy was to his teams.

So yeah, he can still be #1 of all-time. I just think that lull between 1992 and 2002 where he doesn't get even a 2nd team all-star should have been better.

 

[billybudd]

Why would you run a cumulative report that treats 9 saves on 10 shots in 1992-93 the same way it treats 9 saves on 10 shots in 2002-03 and try to derive meaning from it? More than that, we're again looking at a time frame where Hasek suffers major injuries in 5 seasons and takes a 6th year off entirely. It would be like running a points-per-game report for 1995-96 through 2005-06 and presenting it as evidence that Peter Forsberg belongs in the company of Lemieux, Jagr, Sakic, and Gretzky.

That is the shared duration of the two careers where both players were starters.

Hasek and Roy have an 8 month age difference (with Hasek being older). The difference between Gretzky and Forsberg is 12 years. Your analogy makes no sense, whatsoever.

 

[quoipourquoi]

That is the shared duration of the two careers where both players were starters.

Hasek and Roy have an 8 month age difference (with Hasek being older). The difference between Gretzky and Forsberg is 12 years. Your analogy makes no sense, whatsoever.

It was more of a commentary on using per-game statistics from a time frame that perfectly matches a specific player who is constantly injured and then looking at the surrounding marquee names, but if you want an age based analogy, it would be like comparing Jacques Plante to the younger Terry Sawchuk from 1955-onward because it aligns with when Plante was a starting goaltender as though you didn't know that Terry Sawchuk was the best in the world immediately before that period.

 

[billybudd]

It was more of a commentary on using per-game statistics from a time frame that perfectly matches a specific player who is constantly injured and then looking at the surrounding marquee names, but if you want an age based analogy, it would be like comparing Jacques Plante to the younger Terry Sawchuk from 1955-onward because it aligns with when Plante was a starting goaltender as though you didn't know that Terry Sawchuk was the best in the world immediately before that period.

Neither Hasek nor Roy were "constantly injured" between 93 and 2003 and--for the second time now--they are the same age.

 

[GuineaPig]

Something I do find strange on this forum: people fixate on players having great individual seasons, rather than sustained excellent play. It doesn't matter to me at all that Roy had no Vezinas in the second half of his career. He was consistently excellent in that span and the clear second-best goalie to Hasek. His career would not have been better if he was alternating sub-par years with 0.930+ ones.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

re: age, yes roy, hasek, and belfour were all born in the same year. a longstanding debate has surrounded whether hasek lost some prime, even peak, years due to being stuck in the former czechoslovakia until the velvet revolution.

but otoh, roy established himself as a starter (finished top ten in rs games, sixth in GAA, made the all-rookie team) at 20, an incredibly young age. by contrast, when tbey won their conn smythes, cam ward was 22 and hextall was 23.

we don’t know whether hasek would have competed with roy from 86 up to 93. we know hasek was a top goalie in the czech league and world championships, but that competition is a far cry from historically dominating the NHL. maybe hasek was a late bloomer. i don’t think we can know.

we do, however, know that belfour, one of the top 15 goalies all time, was a late bloomer and doesn’t put it together until basically the moment hasek comes over. so it’s no certainty that just because post-94 hasek was post-94 hasek, that he could have played at that level in the late 80s or even early 90s. i mean, why was belfour not 91 belfour in 88?

at the same time, roy peaked early while still having a hall of fame second half of his career. keep in mind that up to 1994, roy played more playoff games than plante, sawchuk, and dryden’s entire careers. he was five short of hasek’s entire career, and 18 shy of billy smith, who held the all-time record at the time, and only five behind fuhr at the time. that’s a lot of miles and explains how roy goes from being top 2, or just about, virtually every year from 88 to 94 to “just” being a top 5 guy in the rs saving it for the playoffs.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Neither Hasek nor Roy were "constantly injured" between 93 and 2003 and--for the second time now--they are the same age.

And for the second time now, Jacques Plante is older than Terry Sawchuk who was already the best goaltender in the world (ever) before the older Plante had a starting job. You wouldn't compare the two and leave out 1951-1954 just because the older goaltender didn't have a starting job in the NHL, would you?

And yes, Dominik Hasek was constantly injured between 1992-93 and 2002-03.

1992-93: Loses his starting job with a two-month injury, necessitating a trade for Grant Fuhr.

1995-96: Suffers a 4-6 week injury to his medial collateral ligament late in the season. Would have kept him out of the first two rounds of the playoffs, but the Sabres didn't make them.

1996-97: Pulls himself out of the first round of the playoffs, then gets suspended. The Sabres win, but Hasek doesn't play in the second round either.

1998-99: Misses one month with a groin injury late in the season. Nearly loses a Vezina over it.

1999-00: Out for three months in the middle of the season.


Is your objection to the use of the word "constantly"? We could find something softer. Do you prefer "frequently" or "more often from season-to-season than not"? But if you only look at an averaging statistic, these don't raise the red flags you get with players like Forsberg and Malkin.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

The OP is asking why, if he is considered better than the listed players (including Hasek and Brodeur), does Roy not have as many Vezinas? Lapyi posited that the reason is because Roy is overrated to which I agree. Roy is a definite HOF goaltender with a CV to back it up. He is not, in my opinion, deserving to be anointed as GOAT at his position given the fact that he was not even the greatest of his peers. When I cite the duels that Roy lost to "lesser" goalies, I am recalling my disappointment from a Habs fan's perspective that these 'keepers outperformed Roy on those occasions. I'm not going off H-R statistics, just my memories from watching those series. I'm happy for the cups in 86 and 93, but am not deluded enough to believe we would have beaten the Oilers or Pens in those years. If Roy was not treated with such undeserving reverence, I would have no problem with his place as an all time top 10 goalie. He's just not in the upper echelon of that list for me.

if that's how you saw it that's how you saw it. i don't think it's a majority opinion but i'm not going to argue.

ftr, i followed the habs from '89 on and i thought roy losing to the stanley cup winning flames, the stanley cup finalist bruins, and another bruins team that might well have won the cup if cam neely hadn't gotten ulf samuelssoned didn't let his team down at all. they just got beaten, no different from brodeur against the rangers and flyers all those years between his cups, or hasek before detroit.

i think to a degree, roy has the misfortune to be competing against his own legacy. at least i assume that anyone wondering why roy couldn't have been the difference in '89 or '90, both teams that were presidents trophy winners, is asking why roy wasn't '86 or '93 roy every year. the only exception is that '91 series against hartford. that was a definite wtf for me.

i also think to a degree we would have seen roy get more vezina votes from '96 on if 1. he wasn't playing on such a such a star-studded team, and 2. if he hadn't set such a high bar for himself with his '88 to '92 regular seasons. similar to how gretzky can win the art ross trophy in 1994 and not get a single hart vote, while adam graves gets six, and igor larionov and archie irbe get one each.

 

[Canadiens1958]

And for the second time now, Jacques Plante is older than Terry Sawchuk who was already the best goaltender in the world (ever) before the older Plante had a starting job. You wouldn't compare the two and leave out 1951-1954 just because the older goaltender didn't have a starting job in the NHL, would you?

And yes, Dominik Hasek was constantly injured between 1992-93 and 2002-03.

1992-93: Loses his starting job with a two-month injury, necessitating a trade for Grant Fuhr.

1995-96: Suffers a 4-6 week injury to his medial collateral ligament late in the season. Would have kept him out of the first two rounds of the playoffs, but the Sabres didn't make them.

1996-97: Pulls himself out of the first round of the playoffs, then gets suspended. The Sabres win, but Hasek doesn't play in the second round either.

1998-99: Misses one month with a groin injury late in the season. Nearly loses a Vezina over it.

1999-00: Out for three months in the middle of the season.


Is your objection to the use of the word "constantly"? We could find something softer. Do you prefer "frequently" or "more often from season-to-season than not"? But if you only look at an averaging statistic, these don't raise the red flags you get with players like Forsberg and Malkin.

More often than Roy would suffice. No need for adverbs.

Re Plante vs Sawchuk. True about the age. Plante required an operation correcting a poorly set broken arm fromhis childhood and was asthmatic. Post 1955 both had various physical issues that kept them from playing full seasons. Sawchuk's other issues are well documented.

Still if you look at their performance and that of Glenn Hall in terms of GP in the old one goalie NHL having to play all the games in 3 games in 4 nights or 4 in 5 sequences, Brodeur, Hasek and Roy fade rather quickly.

 

[johnnybbadd]

re: age, yes roy, hasek, and belfour were all born in the same year. a longstanding debate has surrounded whether hasek lost some prime, even peak, years due to being stuck in the former czechoslovakia until the velvet revolution.

but otoh, roy established himself as a starter (finished top ten in rs games, sixth in GAA, made the all-rookie team) at 20, an incredibly young age. by contrast, when tbey won their conn smythes, cam ward was 22 and hextall was 23.

we don’t know whether hasek would have competed with roy from 86 up to 93. we know hasek was a top goalie in the czech league and world championships, but that competition is a far cry from historically dominating the NHL. maybe hasek was a late bloomer. i don’t think we can know.

we do, however, know that belfour, one of the top 15 goalies all time, was a late bloomer and doesn’t put it together until basically the moment hasek comes over. so it’s no certainty that just because post-94 hasek was post-94 hasek, that he could have played at that level in the late 80s or even early 90s. i mean, why was belfour not 91 belfour in 88?

at the same time, roy peaked early while still having a hall of fame second half of his career. keep in mind that up to 1994, roy played more playoff games than plante, sawchuk, and dryden’s entire careers. he was five short of hasek’s entire career, and 18 shy of billy smith, who held the all-time record at the time, and only five behind fuhr at the time. that’s a lot of miles and explains how roy goes from being top 2, or just about, virtually every year from 88 to 94 to “just” being a top 5 guy in the rs saving it for the playoffs.

Hasek was the Czech #1 goalie at the 1987 Canada cup. I remember watching some highlights of their games and he looked good. Would have definitely been an elite NHL starter in his early 20s.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Hasek was the Czech #1 goalie at the 1987 Canada cup. I remember watching some highlights of their games and he looked good. Would have definitely been an elite NHL starter in his early 20s.

That is why they are called highlights. 1987 and 1988 Internationally Hasek was so-so, especially 1988 Winter Olympics:

Canada Cup 1987 - Goalie Stats

Dominik Hašek - QuantHockey

 

[VMBM]

Hasek was named the best goalie at the 1987 World Championship; wouldn't call that so-so, even if his performance (to my understanding and from what I've seen it was good) at the 1987 CC is added.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Best goalie? One is named every tournament. Does not mean that the level of play is constant.

Back to Hasek. Look at his Quant hockey international stats from 1986 to 1991 and it is clear that his play was better in Europe than in North America.

The comparison to Roy who was playing in North America has to recognize this.

 

[Staniowski]

Hasek was a star goaltender since he was a teenager, and was one of the best goalies in the world in the late '80s. Unlike some of the other top Czechs of his generation - Pivonka, Svoboda, Klima - he didn't defect. At the time (1990) he came to North America, he was already a superstar and regarded as one of the best Czech hockey players of all-time. He was 25 years-old at the time, and had already won the Czechoslovak Player of the Year 3 times.

During his first 2 or 3 years in the NHL, he simply wasn't given the opportunity to be a starter. I assume it was a combination of things. First, he had the misfortune of being on the same team as Belfour, himself a great goalie, and second, his extremely unorthodox style probably clouded views of him. I think the Blackhawks were just not smart enough to realize how good he was. He didn't just come out of nowhere at the age of 28 to become the best goaltender of all-time; he was always that good.

There is a (true) story of a journalist asking Peter Klima circa 1991 - when Hasek was in the IHL - who the best goalie in the world was, and Kima said something like: "Dominik Hasek, easily". Of course the journalist had to think about who Hasek even was, and then said: "you mean, this goalie playing in the IHL is the best goalie in the world??" Klima said "Just wait, you will see".

As soon as he was given the chance to play, he was almost immediately the undisputed best goalie in hockey.

 

[VMBM]

Well, you yourself named single tournaments, like the 1988 Winter Olympics. Winning the Best Goalie award in 1987 and 1989 (WHCs) should mean something, and I don't know about him lacking consistency (lesser int. tournaments, exhibition games) either.

It's also important to note that Czechoslovakia was not a very good team in the late 1980s anymore, and I think even Sweden went by them back then. Their lack of success certainly wasn't Hasek's fault.

 

[Staniowski]

This is correct. The Canadian Hockey Association picked eight players who were guaranteed to make the 2002 Olympic team almost a year in advance (Lemieux, Sakic, Yzerman, Kariya, Nolan, Blake, Pronger and Neidermayer). There were certainly some controversies - for example, why did Nolan make it over MacInnis or Roy?

Roy was then invited to the September 2001 training camp (along with Brodeur, Belfour and Joseph). I believe he attended, and then withdrew in November. He officially gave the reason that he wanted to focus on the NHL season and playoffs (but it was widely rumoured that he was insulted that he wasn't one of the first eight players named).

Regardless, the CHA certainly wanted Roy on the team. (Looking back we can say the goaltending was good enough to win anyway - but of course nobody knew that at the time).

Roy was wanted to try out for the team. That doesn't mean he was wanted to eventually be one of the 3 goaltenders who made the team. And he certainly wasn't guaranteed of being the #1 goalie.

Almost certainly, the reason why there wasn't a goalie among the first 8 players is that it was unknown at that time who the #1 would be. I'm sure they didn't want to announce a goalie a year in advance and have that guy end up being the #3 goalie.

 

[quoipourquoi]

During his first 2 or 3 years in the NHL, he simply wasn't given the opportunity to be a starter. I assume it was a combination of things. First, he had the misfortune of being on the same team as Belfour, himself a great goalie, and second, his extremely unorthodox style probably clouded views of him. I think the Blackhawks were just not smart enough to realize how good he was. He didn't just come out of nowhere at the age of 28 to become the best goaltender of all-time; he was always that good.

In 1990, the Blackhawks gave him four games in the pre-season (3.00 GAA) before cutting him. Whether it was to save $140,000 or because Hasek couldn't communicate with his defensemen or because he wasn't good at playing the puck or because Ed Belfour played better than him - it was still an opportunity.

Hasek was expected to get one of the two spots, hence his $200,000 contract; Belfour wasn't, hence his $120,000 contract. That's why in October 1991, Belfour held out to get more money, giving Hasek a second opportunity at the starting job but without Belfour in the way. But he didn't have a great Canada Cup and he didn't have a great start to the season, so Waite took the job until November.

So the idea that he was "always [as] good" as he was in 1994-1999 is predicated on the faulty belief that his style precluded him from opportunities when instead the opportunities were there but were not necessarily capitalized on.

As soon as he was given the chance to play, he was almost immediately the undisputed best goalie in hockey.

Well, no, he was injured within two months. Pulled stomach muscle. Cost him seven weeks.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Roy was wanted to try out for the team. That doesn't mean he was wanted to eventually be one of the 3 goaltenders who made the team. And he certainly wasn't guaranteed of being the #1 goalie.

Almost certainly, the reason why there wasn't a goalie among the first 8 players is that it was unknown at that time who the #1 would be. I'm sure they didn't want to announce a goalie a year in advance and have that guy end up being the #3 goalie.

In March 2001, sure. But do recall Patrick Roy's status around November 2001: he was probably the best player in the NHL. The Hockey News named him MVP at mid-season, and he was coming off of increasing his stock in the 2001 playoffs.

Why do you suspect - as of November 2001 - that Patrick Roy would not be the starting goaltender?

 

[Staniowski]

In March 2001, sure. But do recall Patrick Roy's status around November 2001: he was probably the best player in the NHL. The Hockey News named him MVP at mid-season, and he was coming off of increasing his stock in the 2001 playoffs.

Why do you suspect - as of November 2001 - that Patrick Roy would not be the starting goaltender?

I don't know if he would have been the #1 goalie or not, and neither do you.

All I'm saying is, he didn't make the team, and there is no evidence that the team wanted him to be the starting goalie.

 

[Sentinel]

Roy shined in playoffs more than in the RS. That's all there is to it.

 

[Staniowski]

In 1990, the Blackhawks gave him four games in the pre-season (3.00 GAA) before cutting him. Whether it was to save $140,000 or because Hasek couldn't communicate with his defensemen or because he wasn't good at playing the puck or because Ed Belfour played better than him - it was still an opportunity.

Hasek was expected to get one of the two spots, hence his $200,000 contract; Belfour wasn't, hence his $120,000 contract. That's why in October 1991, Belfour held out to get more money, giving Hasek a second opportunity at the starting job but without Belfour in the way. But he didn't have a great Canada Cup and he didn't have a great start to the season, so Waite took the job until November.

So the idea that he was "always [as] good" as he was in 1994-1999 is predicated on the faulty belief that his style precluded him from opportunities when instead the opportunities were there but were not necessarily capitalized on.




Well, no, he was injured within two months. Pulled stomach muscle. Cost him seven weeks.

Say what you will, but Chicago obviously made a very big error with Hasek. It was Phil Esposito all over again. They could have had the best goalie in the world over the next decade if they had given him the opportunity.

He was always that good. Anybody who followed international hockey in the '80s (as I did) was well aware of Hasek and how good he was. It's certainly true that not as many people would have thought he was the best goalie ever, but he was obviously a very top goalie in the world.

Any suggestion that he just appeared out of nowhere and somehow put it all together and became the best goalie in the world at age 28, is nonsense. He was the same goalie in the '90s that he was in the late '80s.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Say what you will, but Chicago obviously made a very big error with Hasek. It was Phil Esposito all over again. They could have had the best goalie in the world over the next decade if they had given him the opportunity.

He was always that good. Anybody who followed international hockey in the '80s (as I did) was well aware of Hasek and how good he was. It's certainly true that not as many people would have thought he was the best goalie ever, but he was obviously a very top goalie in the world.

Any suggestion that he just appeared out of nowhere and somehow put it all together and became the best goalie in the world at age 28, is nonsense. He was the same goalie in the '90s that he was in the late '80s.

There's a pretty broad range of options between appearing out of nowhere (he didn't) and being the same goaltender in the 1980s that he was in the 1990s (he wasn't). Based on equipment weight alone, I don't know that he could be the same goaltender. But he was a good one, albeit one that didn't capitalize on every opportunity. Re-writing it as though the opportunities did not exist or trying to re-appropriate others' status while ignoring the effects Mitch Korn had on his career is where I think you're misrepresenting history (though not intentionally).

“He was so smart he knew exactly what was going to happen next, but he was too early,” Korn said. “So he showed his hand like a bad poker player, and that gave players a chance to adjust to Dom, and so he just didn’t have enough patience to make greatness of his ability to process what was going on.”

Korn, now the Washington Capitals’ goalie coach, compares playing goal to a 1,000-piece jigsaw puzzle.

“I believe Dominik Hasek’s one of the few guys that had all thousand pieces,” he said. “I can tell you when I met Dom, almost all of the thousand pieces were spread out all over the table, and they weren’t put together yet.”

So they worked on an array of goaltending skills – skating, handling the puck and even catching it.
“Literally, Dom had to learn how to close his glove and catch pucks,” Korn said. “He didn’t really close his glove to catch pucks.”

Later in 1992-93, the Sabres acquired goalie Grant Fuhr, another future Hall of Famer, and Hasek hurt some stomach muscles.

The injury gave Korn more time with Hasek.