The Brodeur/Roy/Hasek debate

[MadLuke]

Also note that it's only when it's the Roy vs Hasek debate. Play off results get rarely mentioned with other players. Interestingly Hasek has a better sv% than Roy in the play offs too so the only thing the Roy side has are the Conn Smythe awards.

That an interesting claim, is that true if the playoff result gap is large between 2 players being compared, say Lafleur vs Dionne vs Jagr ? Crosby vs Ovechkin in December 2017.

I would absolutely love to see Roy get two Smythes playing with buffalo.

He has 3 of them, the 1986 and specially the 1993 Canadians get often underrated but I feel calling them stacked would be going on the other side of the pendulum.

 

[Sadekuuro]

Considering his name in Hebrew and Latin refers to shining, brightness and light (lat. "Lucifer" is literally the "light-bringer"), your objection has to be dismissed.

You beat me to it Yeah, isn't he the Morning Star?

 

[Theokritos]

You beat me to it Yeah, isn't he the Morning Star?

That's correct.

 

[HarrySPlinkett]

He has 3 of them, the 1986 and specially the 1993 Canadians get often underrated but I feel calling them stacked would be going on the other side of the pendulum.

Four Habs had 80+ points in 1993.

Ten guys had 40+ points, including two D-men.

Roy was 27. Desjardins, Schneider and LeClair were all 23.

Top-10 in Goals For (9) and Goals Against (7),

They were well-constructed and deserved to be there. They probably deserve to be held in higher esteem, considering they beat the Gretzky Kings.

But I’d agree, “stacked” is a bit much.

 

[hacksaw7]

Devils fan and I'm going 1. Hasek 2. Roy 3. Brodeur. When it comes to pure puckstopping and clutch netminding, both Roy and Hasek were better. Brodeur was good to very good, freakishly durable, and was maybe the best puck handling goaltender of all time, but when it came to stopping the puck he was a cut below both Hasek and Roy.

 

[MadLuke]

Say that at the time you had 19 serious team

Four Habs had 80+ points in 1993. Top-10 in Goals For (9) and Goals Against (7),

52 players scored 80 points that season, 182 had 40 points, and one of the 80 points guys was Lebeau.

Being 9 in goal for is right in the middle of the 19 serious teams, goals against a little bit better than the median among playoff teams.

If Montreal was stacked, so was the Bruins, Hawks, Nordiques, Wings, Flames, Leaf, Canucks of the time, it starts to be a lot of stacked teams and make it hard to win the cup against all the other one.

The biggest reason Roy part in 1993 get overrated is the list of opponent Montreal faced past the Nordiques, injuried Mogilny Sabres, injured Turgeon Isles followed by the Kings, instead of say facing Boston-Pittsburgh like planned (they were not the underdog in a single series), not that they were actually a secret stacked powerhouse, what happen with them in 94 and 95 showed that.

 

[HarrySPlinkett]

Hockey’s a bit random. Point is, they had enough. They weren’t the 2003 Ducks.

 

[SeanMoneyHands]

Hasek for sure. He had pylons playing in front of him during his prime years in Buffalo while Roy had Bourque, Foote, Blake, Ozolinch, Morris etc and Brodeur had Stevens, Niedermayer, Rafalski, Daneko, White, etc.

 

[jigglysquishy]

Hasek for sure. He had pylons playing in front of him during his prime years in Buffalo while Roy had Bourque, Foot, Blake, Morris etc and Brodeur had Stevens, Niedermayer, Daneko, White, etc.

Those 1986 Habs were wild, with Bourque and Foote and Blake.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

Those 1986 Habs were wild, with Bourque and Foote and Blake.

Yeah, poor Roy had to play behind stiffs like Chelios, Robinson, Gainey and Carbonneau in '86.

In fact, he was unlucky enough to play behind them all in their primes at the same time

 

[JianYang]

Roy played in a offensive system. Brodeur played in a defensive system.

Roy also played with good defensive teams in Montreal. Although scoring was generally higher back then, Lou clearly looked to the habs as a model for what he built in new Jersey.

 

[hacksaw7]

Four Habs had 80+ points in 1993.

Ten guys had 40+ points, including two D-men.

Roy was 27. Desjardins, Schneider and LeClair were all 23.

Top-10 in Goals For (9) and Goals Against (7),

They were well-constructed and deserved to be there. They probably deserve to be held in higher esteem, considering they beat the Gretzky Kings.

But I’d agree, “stacked” is a bit much.

Thy were a 102 point teams, thing is the surprise 104 point Nords and the regular season dominance of the Bruins that year (and the rise of the Leafs though not the same conference) sort of overshadowed Montreal in 92/93, and the Habs finished the season going 7-11 in their last 18 games. They weren't going into the playoffs with much juice, but they were solid top to bottom.

 

[JackSlater]

I am firmly on Hasek's side of the Hasek-Roy debate but the "if Hasek were Canadian" argument always induces eye-rolling. It seems far easier to find a Canadian who will pick Hasek over Roy than it is to find a European to pick Roy over Hasek, and I do question how many Roy games a typical European fan could have possibly seen. The same is true for peak Hasek games really.

 

[Foppberg]

I don't see how Brodeur is anywhere near Roy, and especially Hasek.

 

[cjm502]

Brodeur was consistently solid but had nowhere near the sheer ability of the other two. I'll take Hasek, there was a stretch where he was the definition of stealing games.

 

[MadLuke]

Sometime I think that about Brodeur, but it is easy to underrate him.

From 93-94 to Roy retirement:
NHL Stats

They are almost playoff twins, that Roy second career half versus peak Brodeur but still, we went over 138 playoff games, 83W-55L, .922%, 1.83 GAA, 20 SO, 3 Stanley Cup.

 

[vikash1987]

One of the earlier comments---about their abilities to stop the puck in clutch situations---got me thinking about their stats in "elimination" playoff games.

From the game logs, I calculated the following:

1) In playoff games in which their teams could eliminate the opposition:

Hasek: .937 Sv% on 509 shots (18 games)

Brodeur: .926 Sv% on 1,088 shots (39 games)

Roy: .919 Sv% on 1,597 shots (57 games)


2) In playoff games in which their teams faced elimination:

Hasek: .929 Sv% on 434 shots (12 games)

Roy: .926 Sv% on 664 shots (24 games)

Brodeur: .919 Sv% on 680 shots (27 games)


Of course, these Sv%'s are sensitive, in that an outlier game here or there could have a significant effect up or down (e.g., Hasek's 70 save game in '94, which ironically was against Brodeur). But at least this gives some added perspective on what they did in the clutch.

 

[cupcrazyman]

It's certainly defensible. What makes it so hilarious to you?

Just wondering if Hasek losing his starting job to Osgoode during the Wings
Cup victory would tip the scales in favour of Brodeur being the better playoff goalie in their careers ?

Very close but hardly an argument that's laughable.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Just wondering if Hasek losing his starting job to Osgoode during the Wings
Cup victory would tip the scales in favour of Brodeur being the better playoff goalie in their careers ?

Very close but hardly an argument that's laughable.

If a 43-year-old goaltender being subbed out in the playoffs for a borderline Hall of Fame goaltender is what changes your mind on this, so be it.

 

[The Panther]

The way I see it so far:

1A) Jacques Plante
1B) Dominik Hašek
3) Vladislav Tretiak
4) Ken Dryden
5) Patrick Roy
6) Martin Brodeur
7) Terry Sawchuk
8) Frank Brimsek
9) Glenn Hall
10) I do not know

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

One of the earlier comments---about their abilities to stop the puck in clutch situations---got me thinking about their stats in "elimination" playoff games.

From the game logs, I calculated the following:

1) In playoff games in which their teams could eliminate the opposition:

Hasek: .937 Sv% on 509 shots (18 games)
View attachment 508606
Brodeur: .926 Sv% on 1,088 shots (39 games)
View attachment 508607
Roy: .919 Sv% on 1,597 shots (57 games)
View attachment 508608

2) In playoff games in which their teams faced elimination:

Hasek: .929 Sv% on 434 shots (12 games)
View attachment 508609
Roy: .926 Sv% on 664 shots (24 games)
View attachment 508610
Brodeur: .919 Sv% on 680 shots (27 games)
View attachment 508611

Of course, these Sv%'s are sensitive, in that an outlier game here or there could have a significant effect up or down (e.g., Hasek's 70 save game in '94, which ironically was against Brodeur). But at least this gives some added perspective on what they did in the clutch.

i was curious about how era informs this, so i split the numbers from '94 and after, and '86-'93. very crude and inexact, but here's what came out:

1. possibility to eliminate

hasek .936 (fell .001)
brodeur .926
roy 882/936 = .942

(roy's numbers pre-'94 are: 585/634 = .923)

2. facing elimination

hasek .934 (rose .005)
brodeur .919
roy 365/396 = .922

(roy's numbers pre-'94: 250/268 = .932)


i'm not sure what this tells us, really. but some observations:

- if you take away that 2002 game 7 against detroit, roy's post-'93 facing elimination SV% rises to .934, same as hasek's, so point taken about small samples and single events skewing things majorly

- re: single events and small samples again, look how subtracting one '93 playoff loss raises hasek's facing elimination SV% .005

- roy's '86-'93 SV% facing elimination is absolutely bonkers. this, of course, is where he makes his bones as the greatest playoff goalie of all time.

- taking away '86-'93, which again is all by itself more than a hall of fame playoff career, and roy's possibility to eliminate SV% rises to godly

 

[The Panther]

- roy's '86-'93 SV% facing elimination is absolutely bonkers. this, of course, is where he makes his bones as the greatest playoff goalie of all time.

- taking away '86-'93, which again is all by itself more than a hall of fame playoff career, and roy's possibility to eliminate SV% rises to godly

Depends on how you look at it. Being great when facing elimination is great, but it also means you've gotten to the point of facing elimination (i.e., you've probably lost three games already). Better to not get there!

Possibility-to-eliminate save percentage is also great, of course, but most goalies already with the upper hand will come through, assuming your team is even or stronger with the opponent.

I dunno, to me, it's about what the goalie does with what you've got in front of you. If we're talking about Brodeur, Roy, and Hasek, there's no doubt in my mind that Hasek had the least in front of him, and there's also no doubt in my mind that Hasek had the most individual domination of the three during his six or seven peak years.

So, if you had the least help and the most domination, you're probably the best.

 

[MadLuke]

Depends on how you look at it. Being great when facing elimination is great, but it also means you've gotten to the point of facing elimination (i.e., you've probably lost three games already). Better to not get there!

I am not sure of the relevance he is not praising how many times those goaltenders faced elimination (which imo is not a bad thing at all, to have a lot of facing elimination games you need to have one many of those to survive to the next one), but how they did in them, once you play in those the better being obviously the better and if a player does not win the Stanley cups every season of is career he played in them, it is not really an option to not get there anyway.

My first reflex about all this is seemed to be overanalyzing, there are not many if any low stake playoff games to go back to first sentiment if winning game 2 would made you not play those games the better and if you win the series in 4, arguably the most important game was the first game, followed by the second, followed by third and the least important one was the last (if we would have to rank them)

Playoff hockey is already playoff hockey, but that could be a modern vision of it, I remember an article about Montreal having issue selling ticket in the first 2 round in the 70s because he had yet to be serious hockey for the fans.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

I am not sure of the relevance he is not praising how many times those goaltenders faced elimination (which imo is not a bad thing at all, to have a lot of facing elimination games you need to have one many of those to survive to the next one), but how they did in them, once you play in those the better being obviously the better and if a player does not win the Stanley cups every season of is career he played in them, it is not really an option to not get there anyway.

My first reflex about all this is seemed to be overanalyzing, there are not many if any low stake playoff games to go back to first sentiment if winning game 2 would made you not play those games the better and if you win the series in 4, arguably the most important game was the first game, followed by the second, followed by third and the least important one was the last (if we would have to rank them)

Playoff hockey is already playoff hockey, but that could be a modern vision of it, I remember an article about Montreal having issue selling ticket in the first 2 round in the 70s because he had yet to be serious hockey for the fans.

i agree with all this

my point was just that, for era and scoring rate reasons, averaging roy’s stats from 1986 to 2003 and comparing them to hasek and brodeur’s averages from 94 on is going to yield a very different picture than if you compared their stats in common years, regardless of how small or large the sample.

 

[oilexport]

Hasek is better then Roy. If you peeled off all the layers of oversized equipment, Roy wouldn't stand a chance against Hasek.

Marty 3rd....