Hasek vs. Roy vs. Brodeur

[dcinroc]

Roy for carrying 2 mediocre Habs teams and 2 decent Avs teams to the Cup, while winning 3 Conn Smythes. He simply got it done.

Also revolutionized the goalie position by inspiring many to excell at it after a decade of poor goaltending and offensive hockey.

I don't intend to knock Roy, but I think people are off the mark when they say that Roy carried those Canadiens teams.

The only thing the Canadiens lacked was a dominant goal scorer since Lafleur was slowing down and didn't mesh well with Montreal's more physical, conservative style at that time. Essentially, they were one player away from being considered among the best teams of that decade. Obviously, any team needs a quality goaltender to go far in the playoffs or to be a consistent contender and Roy provided that.

The year before Roy took over as starter, the Canadiens were first in their division with 94pts and lost in the division finals. Those playoffs exposed Penney's weaknesses but the core of a very good team was in place...they just needed a goalie who could perform in the playoffs. They had 4 quality lines and perhaps the best group of defensmen in the league (Robinson, Green, Ludwig, Chelios and Svboda, plus guys like Lalor and Kurvers).

 

[amnesiac*]

I don't intend to knock Roy, but I think people are off the mark when they say that Roy carried those Canadiens teams.

The only thing the Canadiens lacked was a dominant goal scorer since Lafleur was slowing down and didn't mesh well with Montreal's more physical, conservative style at that time. Essentially, they were one player away from being considered among the best teams of that decade. Obviously, any team needs a quality goaltender to go far in the playoffs or to be a consistent contender and Roy provided that.

The year before Roy took over as starter, the Canadiens were first in their division with 94pts and lost in the division finals. Those playoffs exposed Penney's weaknesses but the core of a very good team was in place...they just needed a goalie who could perform in the playoffs. They had 4 quality lines and perhaps the best group of defensmen in the league (Robinson, Green, Ludwig, Chelios and Svboda, plus guys like Lalor and Kurvers).

I agree, but he was far from being a "Chris Osgood" on the 4 teams with which he won. Especially winning 2 Cups/Smythes in an offensive era (86 & 93) compared to say what Brodeur had to face in a very defensive era (not to knock Marty either), but I think Roy had the tougher job of the 3 overall. Roy also had to face powerhouse teams like Dallas and Detroit during his runs with Colorado, unlike Hasek and Brodeur (yes, Marty did beat Dallas in 2000).

If Hasek and Marty won their Cups and Vezinas outside of the dead puck era I would maybe give one of them the edge, but Roy is the only one not only to have played in a very high scoring era, but to have been the best goalie in the world during this era. He had to face much tougher shot quality in the first half of his career (86-94), much more than Marty or Hasek ever did in their whole career.

 

[GregNYR19]

besides everyone elses stats and stuff....PATRICK ROY HAS WON 3 CONN SMYTHE TROPHIES..........case closed hasek and brodeur never had a chance at coming near this. this is an individual award, and people r gonna argue that "ohh its the playoffs" well u have to make the playoffs 1st dont u?? 3 conn smythes, that says a TON...this is why patrick roy is the best goaltender of this era hands down no questions asked

 

[nik jr]

Roy for carrying 2 mediocre Habs teams and 2 decent Avs teams to the Cup, while winning 3 Conn Smythes. He simply got it done.

Also revolutionized the goalie position by inspiring many to excell at it after a decade of poor goaltending and offensive hockey.

in all 4 of roy's cup wins combined, he beat a team with more wins just once.
not my idea of carrying teams to the cup.

in both '86 and '93, the best teams were all upset, which cleared the field for the habs to win. none of the habs' opponents were elite teams.


it's also odd to describe the '93 habs, which had the best record in the NHL until the last month of the season as mediocre, and the avs teams as decent.

'96: 3rd overall
'97: 1st
'98: 7th
'99: 4th
'00: 7th
'01: 1st
'02: 4th
'03: 6th

in '98, '00, '02 and '03, sakic and/or forsberg missed around 1/4 of the season.

I agree, but he was far from being a "Chris Osgood" on the 4 teams with which he won. Especially winning 2 Cups/Smythes in an offensive era (86 & 93) compared to say what Brodeur had to face in a very defensive era (not to knock Marty either), but I think Roy had the tougher job of the 3 overall. Roy also had to face powerhouse teams like Dallas and Detroit during his runs with Colorado, unlike Hasek and Brodeur (yes, Marty did face Dallas in 2000).

If Hasek and Marty won their Cups and Vezinas outside of the dead puck era I would maybe give one of them the edge, but Roy is the only one not only to have played in a very high scoring era, but to have been the best goalie in the world during this era. He had to face much tougher shot quality in the first half of his career (86-94), much more than Marty or Hasek ever did in their whole career.

brodeur faced DRW in '95, who were heavily favored. in '03 he faced ottawa (1st overall). in '00 he faced philadelphia, (2nd overall)

hasek faced colorado in '02, when forsberg was at his best, roy very narrowly lost the vezina to theodore, and only 1 season after sakic won the hart.

it's odd that you made this argument, considering that the teams roy faced in the '86 and '93 playoffs were generally mediocre (NYR, LAK, boston, hartford, NYI, buffalo). and there's florida.

 

[NOTENOUGHJTCGOALS]

brodeur faced DRW in '95, who were heavily favored. in '03 he faced ottawa (1st overall). in '00 he faced philadelphia, (2nd overall)

hasek faced colorado in '02, when forsberg was at his best, roy very narrowly lost the vezina to theodore, and only 1 season after sakic won the hart.

it's odd that you made this argument, considering that the teams roy faced in the '86 and '93 playoffs were generally mediocre (NYR, LAK, boston, hartford, NYI, buffalo). and there's florida.

I think the argument is that Roy's teams got knocked off in 97, 99, 2000, and 2002 by powerhouse teams while Jersey often got beat by some not so powerhouse teams.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I think the argument is that Roy's teams got knocked off in 97, 99, 2000, and 2002 by powerhouse teams while Jersey often got beat by some not so powerhouse teams.

Jersey from 1997-1999 (the choking years) had a DREADFUL playoff offense. When you rely on Bobby Holik to score goals for you in the playoffs, you aren't going to go very far.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

You started off well, but imploded at the end. Sorry, there's just no way Brodeur was better than either of them.

Did you know when Brodeur won the cup with the Devils in 2000, his sv% was lower than the league average? And I still hear he got jobbed out of the Smythe...

And in 2001, he faced an obscenely low 20.2 shots per game and posted an .897 sv%, lowest among all goalies with 7+ games. Talk about a classic case of a team carrying a goalie to the cup!

You know, it's pretty easy to cherrypick years when a goalie was bad in the playoffs. Want to talk about 1995, when he was the best goalie in the playoffs? Or 2003, when he stole the ECFs from a much more skilled Ottawa team and had three shutouts in the finals?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

GAA is a team stat
Wins is a team stat
Jennings is a team award
Stanley Cup is a team award

Your argument is basically that Brodeur is better because the team he was on is better? Sorry, that's just crazy. Until he can have ONE season as dominating as the 6-year span of dominance Hasek produced he doesn't even belong in the conversation.

This is mildly off-topic, but all the arguments against Brodeur can be made against Plante. 7 Vezinas? It was a "team award" back then. 5 Stanley Cups? Team award. Lots of wins? Definitely team award.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

i don't think that's true. he was great other than game 7. his statue of liberty gaffe was just one play.

he had several worse series in the '80s, and was worse in '03 against minnesota.

Good point about the 80s. I guess I should have said "one of the worst series of his years in Colorado." It wasn't as bad as the Minnesota series, but I think it was clear even by the last Detroit series that Roy didn't have "it" anymore.

 

[kovalev47]

Again with the Stanley Cup argument. How many goalies have won a Cup without a team playing well around them? ZERO. Stanley Cups are won by a team, not by a goalie. A goalie can lose you one, but they can't win one alone. If they could, why's it been so friggin long since the Vezina winner won the Cup in the same season?

Conn Smythe's are a better indication, but they aren't perfect either. Neither Roy nor Brodeur ever matched the level of play Hasek displayed in taking an injury-depleted below-average Sabres team to Game 6 in the Finals, yet he doesn't have a Smythe. To an extent the Conn Smythe is also a team award to a lesser extent since you have to be on a team which can make it to the finals to win it. Hasek was never on a team that was anything but a longshot to make it that far until leaving Buffalo (at which point he was past his prime). He certainly proved his mettle on his first great team, outdeuling Roy in posting back-to-back shutouts in Game 6 and 7 to bring the Wings back from the brink. And then there was the Olympics. If a goalie can be given all that credit, they also should deserve the blame when they flame out while on a heavily favored team, and Roy's been on more teams that didn't meet expectations than Hasek's been for sure.

Roy broke into the league as a starter playing with Robinson, Gainey, Chelios - all top 100 or borderline top 100 players. He also had Lemieux and Carbonneau.

Brodeur broke into the league as a starter playing with Fetisov, Stevens, and Niedermayer - again all top 100 or borderline top 100 players. He also had Lemieux and Daneyko.

Hasek broke into the league as a starter playing with Hawerchuk and LaFontaine - bordertime top 100 guys not known as defensive players. He also had, um, Phillipe Boucher? Donald Audette? Matthew Barnaby? Yep, definitely a cast of characters who scream Cup contender from the get-go.

When Roy went to the finals, his teams looked like this:
1986: Mats Naslund, Claude Lemieux, Bobby Smith, Larry Robinson, Guy Carbonneau, Chris Chelios, Stephane Richer, Shayne Corson
1989: Larry Robinson, Chris Chelios, Eric Desjardins, Claude Lemiuex, Mats Naslund, Bob Gainey, Stephane Richer, Shayne Corson, Guy Carbonneau, Bobby Smith
1993: Vincent Damphousse, Kirk Muller, Eric Desjardins, Mathieu Schneider, John LeClair, Guy Carbonneau
1996: Joe Sakic, Peter Forsberg, Valeri Kamensky, Adam Deadmarsh, Sandis Ozolinsh, Claude Lemieux
2001: Joe Sakic, Peter Forsberg, Ray Bourque, Rob Blake, Adam Foote, Milan Hejduk, Chris Drury, Alex Tanguay

When Brodeur went to the finals, his teams looked like this (see if you notice a pattern):
1995: Scott Stevens, Scott Niedermayer, Ken Daneyko, Bobby Holik, John MacLean, Claude Lemiuex, Bill Guerin, Neal Broten, Brian Rolston, Stephane Richer
2000: Scott Stevens, Scott Niedermayer, Bobby Holik, Patrik Elias, Petr Sykora, Jason Arnott, Claude Lemieux, Scott Gomez, Brian Rafalski, Ken Daneyko, Alexander Mogilny
2001: Scott Stevens, Scott Niedermayer, Brian Rafalski, Ken Daneyko, Patrik Elias, Petr Sykora, Alexander Mogilny, Scott Gomez, Jason Arnott, Bobby Holik
2003: Scott Stevens, Scott Niedermayer, Brian Rafalski, Scott Gomez, Patrik Elias, Joe Nieuwendyk, Jamie Langenbrunner

When Hasek went to the finals, his teams looked like this:
1999: Alexei Zhitnik, Jason Woolley, Stu Barnes, Joe Juneau, Brian Holzinger, Vaclav Varada, Richard Smehlik, Dixon Ward, Erik Rasmussen, Geoff Sanderson
2002: Steve Yzerman, Sergei Fedorov, Nicklas Lidstrom, Brendan Shanahan, Chris Chelios, Brett Hull, Igor Larionov, Luc Robitaille, Steve Duchesne, Pavel Datsyuk

So tell me, out of those 11 teams, which one really doesn't look anything like a squad that should play for the Cup ever? You can't blame Hasek for being stuck on a team where ownership refused to even attempt to ice a championship caliber squad. Hasek essentially took a lottery team to Game 6 of the Finals. Neither Roy nor Bordeur can even claim that any of those Cup teams would have even missed the playoffs with just a league-average goalie in their place.

You are right that it takes a team to win the Stanley Cup. But, what gurantee is there that Hasek would have won the Stanley Cups if he was in net instead of Roy especially in a city like Montreal where there is a lot of pressure? We don't know if Hasek would have buckled under the pressure of playing in Montreal.

Also if we only go by numbers, Hasek only had significantly higher playoff save percentage numbers in 1997-1998 and 1998-1999. The rest of the seasons where both goalies made the playoffs their save percentages were similar. Also those two seasons were career years for Hasek which he never repeated again after that in terms of save percentage in the post season. Two seasons don't make a career I feel. I can see it being debatable that Hasek might be better than Brodeur, but I just didn't see Hasek playing as well as Roy.

Another thing I would argue is that Hasek was more out of position than Roy, so he made more flashy type saves and more rebound saves. I dunno man, I guess we see things differently on this issue.

 

[RoyBoyCoy]

Roy>Brodeur>Hasek

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Another thing I would argue is that Hasek was more out of position than Roy, so he made more flashy type saves and more rebound saves. I dunno man, I guess we see things differently on this issue.

This is definitely true. Hasek's unorthodox style led to far more rebounds than the average NHL goalie. Most goalies who let up that many rebounds would be out of the NHL in no time, but Hasek had such godlike reflexes and anticipation of where the rebounds would go. Still, it definitely did inflate his save percentage, at least a bit. Just like Brodeur's puckhandling deflated his save percentage, at least a little bit.

 

[chaosrevolver]

I honestly dont think Brodeur is top-5 alltime in net. The other two are.

Roy
Hasek


Brodeur

 

[kovalev47]

This is definitely true. Hasek's unorthodox style led to far more rebounds than the average NHL goalie. Most goalies who let up that many rebounds would be out of the NHL in no time, but Hasek had such godlike reflexes and anticipation of where the rebounds would go. Still, it definitely did inflate his save percentage, at least a bit. Just like Brodeur's puckhandling deflated his save percentage, at least a little bit.

Yeah true. Roy's puck handling / wandering out of the net also slightly lowered his save percentage too. It was amusing to watch though

 

[Master_Of_Districts]

This is definitely true. Hasek's unorthodox style led to far more rebounds than the average NHL goalie. Most goalies who let up that many rebounds would be out of the NHL in no time, but Hasek had such godlike reflexes and anticipation of where the rebounds would go. Still, it definitely did inflate his save percentage, at least a bit. Just like Brodeur's puckhandling deflated his save percentage, at least a little bit.

There are several problems with this argument.

1. Rebound shots have a much higher probability of resulting in a goal than non-rebound shots. The notion that conceding rebounds could actually inflate a goalie's save percentage is laughable.

2. If what you're saying is true, Brodeur should have faced fewer shots than his backup, and Hasek more. However, both Hasek and Brodeur faced virtually the same number of shots (shots/60, to be exact) as their backups. If anything, Hasek seems to have faced slightly fewer shots than his backups (Biron, Shields, Roloson), at least during the Buffalo years. A similar trend exists for Brodeur, although I doubt it's statistically significant in either case.

source: http://www.hockeygoalies.org/

 

[BM67]

The winning percentage of teams each faced in the playoffs:

Roy (46 series) 0.566
Hasek (25 series) 0.585
Brodeur (31 series) 0.597

Series record vs. teams 0.600+

Hasek 5W 5L
Roy 7W 7L
Brodeur 8W 6L

 

[cupcrazyman]

1)Roy
1b)Brodeur
3)Hasek

 

[Bear of Bad News]

The winning percentage of teams each faced in the playoffs:

Roy (46 series) 0.566
Hasek (25 series) 0.585
Brodeur (31 series) 0.597

Series record vs. teams 0.600+

Hasek 5W 5L
Roy 7W 7L
Brodeur 8W 6L

For all three of these goaltenders, how many of the series occurred after the institution of the three-point overtime games? These games have artificially inflated the "0.500" level and consequently the "0.600" level as well.

My guess is that Brodeur has played quite a few more games against "0.600+" teams in this fashion than either Roy or Hasek. For the same reason, my guess is that Brodeur's opponent-winning-percentage, as stated above, is inflated.

 

[seventieslord]

There are several problems with this argument.

1. Rebound shots have a much higher probability of resulting in a goal than non-rebound shots. The notion that conceding rebounds could actually inflate a goalie's save percentage is laughable.

2. If what you're saying is true, Brodeur should have faced fewer shots than his backup, and Hasek more. However, both Hasek and Brodeur faced virtually the same number of shots (shots/60, to be exact) as their backups. If anything, Hasek seems to have faced slightly fewer shots than his backups (Biron, Shields, Roloson), at least during the Buffalo years. A similar trend exists for Brodeur, although I doubt it's statistically significant in either case.

source: http://www.hockeygoalies.org/

Nice one!

 

[BM67]

For all three of these goaltenders, how many of the series occurred after the institution of the three-point overtime games? These games have artificially inflated the "0.500" level and consequently the "0.600" level as well.

My guess is that Brodeur has played quite a few more games against "0.600+" teams in this fashion than either Roy or Hasek. For the same reason, my guess is that Brodeur's opponent-winning-percentage, as stated above, is inflated.

Pre OTL Pt

Roy 35S 0.552 (10 series vs sub-500 teams)
Hasek 14S 0.571 (2 series vs sub-500 teams)
Brodeur 12S 0.583 (1 series vs sub-500 teams)

Adjusted for schedule length (mainly 95 season)
Roy 0.552 (Roy missed playoffs in 95)
Hasek 0.572
Brodeur 0.591

With OTL Pt
Hasek 11S 0.603
Brodeur 19S 0.605
Roy 11S 0.610

Cup years
Roy86 0.527
Roy93 0.543
Brodeur95 0.646
Roy96 0.604
OTL Pt
Brodeur 00 0.618
Roy01 0.604
Hasek02 0.582
Brodeur03 0.591

Series record vs. teams 0.600+

Hasek 5W 5L (2-3/3-2 before/after OTL)
Roy 7W 7L (3-5/4-2 before/after OTL)
Brodeur 8W 6L (3-2/5-4 before/after OTL)

 

[FissionFire]

I agree, but he was far from being a "Chris Osgood" on the 4 teams with which he won. Especially winning 2 Cups/Smythes in an offensive era (86 & 93) compared to say what Brodeur had to face in a very defensive era (not to knock Marty either), but I think Roy had the tougher job of the 3 overall. Roy also had to face powerhouse teams like Dallas and Detroit during his runs with Colorado, unlike Hasek and Brodeur (yes, Marty did beat Dallas in 2000).

If Hasek and Marty won their Cups and Vezinas outside of the dead puck era I would maybe give one of them the edge, but Roy is the only one not only to have played in a very high scoring era, but to have been the best goalie in the world during this era. He had to face much tougher shot quality in the first half of his career (86-94), much more than Marty or Hasek ever did in their whole career.

WAit, you are seriously saying that Roy is the only goalie who can claim to be the best during an era? I think Hasek can clearly stake a claim as the best of his era. Roy's never had a season like Hasek's prime, and neither has Brodeur.

This is mildly off-topic, but all the arguments against Brodeur can be made against Plante. 7 Vezinas? It was a "team award" back then. 5 Stanley Cups? Team award. Lots of wins? Definitely team award.

Definitely, which is why Plante IMO isn't the best goalie ever either although his Hart trophy is pretty impressive. Only one of the Roy/Plante/Hasek/Brodeur quartet accomplished what he did on below-average teams.

You are right that it takes a team to win the Stanley Cup. But, what gurantee is there that Hasek would have won the Stanley Cups if he was in net instead of Roy especially in a city like Montreal where there is a lot of pressure? We don't know if Hasek would have buckled under the pressure of playing in Montreal.

And what guarantee do you have that he would have buckled? You can't say that "he might have choked" without also saying "he might have excelled". As for the evidence, I would point to his Game 6 & 7 performances in 2002 and his Olympic gold as a solid starting place to show he doesn't crack under pressure. Detroit can be a pressure-cooker for goalies and carrying the hopes of an entire country on your shoulders to gold is pretty strong as well.

Also if we only go by numbers, Hasek only had significantly higher playoff save percentage numbers in 1997-1998 and 1998-1999. The rest of the seasons where both goalies made the playoffs their save percentages were similar. Also those two seasons were career years for Hasek which he never repeated again after that in terms of save percentage in the post season. Two seasons don't make a career I feel. I can see it being debatable that Hasek might be better than Brodeur, but I just didn't see Hasek playing as well as Roy.

So your argument is that Roy upped his game more in the playoffs? You're right, he improved his save percentage by .008 in the playoffs (.910 to .918). There just one problem, Hasek's level of play was already so high there really wasn't much room to improve at all. Sure he only upped his save percentage by .003 in the playoffs, but the number show that he still blows Roy away with a career .925 playoff save percentage, a gap of .007 - almost as large a gap as Roy improved his play come playoffs. Roy would have had to increase his level of play once again by a large margin to simply equal Hasek.

Another thing I would argue is that Hasek was more out of position than Roy, so he made more flashy type saves and more rebound saves. I dunno man, I guess we see things differently on this issue.

Yes sure, because giving up rebounds is the best way to pad stats for a goalie. Could it maybe be possible that his amazing reflexes actually allowed him to even make initial saves on shots that nobody else in the league could have touched?

This is definitely true. Hasek's unorthodox style led to far more rebounds than the average NHL goalie. Most goalies who let up that many rebounds would be out of the NHL in no time, but Hasek had such godlike reflexes and anticipation of where the rebounds would go. Still, it definitely did inflate his save percentage, at least a bit. Just like Brodeur's puckhandling deflated his save percentage, at least a little bit.

Hasek's unorthodox style didn't create rebounds. His amazing reflexes allowed him to get to shots and make saves that other goalies simply never have a chance on. The fact that he was able to keep alot of those rebounds out of the net is even more amazing. Claiming that giving up rebounds actually pads a goalies stats is ludicrous since the majority of goals in the NHL are scored off the rebound.

 

[Randall Graves*]

Hasek is the best goalie I have ever seen, he has the resume to back up what I saw. I don't think it's that close really, if he had been on stronger teams he would've probably had a conn smythe too.

 

[amnesiac*]

WAit, you are seriously saying that Roy is the only goalie who can claim to be the best during an era? I think Hasek can clearly stake a claim as the best of his era. Roy's never had a season like Hasek's prime, and neither has Brodeur.

No, I meant Roy was the only one of the 3 who played in a high scoring era, and was also the best goalie in the league at that time (late 80s/early 90s). Hasek and Brodeur pretty much played their whole careers in the dead puck era (post 94), and hence faced lower quality shots (generally) throughout their prime and careers compared to Roy.

 

[seventieslord]

Heck, if that goal in 1999 was called off like it should have been and that game went the other way, he may have had a Smythe even without a powerhouse team, regardless of what happened in game 7.

 

[kovalev47]

And what guarantee do you have that he would have buckled? You can't say that "he might have choked" without also saying "he might have excelled". As for the evidence, I would point to his Game 6 & 7 performances in 2002 and his Olympic gold as a solid starting place to show he doesn't crack under pressure. Detroit can be a pressure-cooker for goalies and carrying the hopes of an entire country on your shoulders to gold is pretty strong as well.

Fair enough on that point. I don't feel two games are sufficient enough to see whether he could handle the Montreal pressure day in and day out. However, you are right, we just don't know if he could or couldn't handle it.

So your argument is that Roy upped his game more in the playoffs? You're right, he improved his save percentage by .008 in the playoffs (.910 to .918). There just one problem, Hasek's level of play was already so high there really wasn't much room to improve at all. Sure he only upped his save percentage by .003 in the playoffs, but the number show that he still blows Roy away with a career .925 playoff save percentage, a gap of .007 - almost as large a gap as Roy improved his play come playoffs. Roy would have had to increase his level of play once again by a large margin to simply equal Hasek.

Well the problem with comparing carreer average is that it includes different years save percentage. Hasek played a lot more seasons when the trap system was in full effect while Roy played played in an era when it was more open ice hockey, pre 1994 about. That's why I compared the individual playoff seasons against each other instead.

Yes sure, because giving up rebounds is the best way to pad stats for a goalie. Could it maybe be possible that his amazing reflexes actually allowed him to even make initial saves on shots that nobody else in the league could have touched?

Fair enough on this point too. But it also is possible that he was always out of position so he was forced to make that save. I guess it's how you perceive the shot But yeah its definately a debatable point.