Was Patrick Roy ever seen/talked about as the best player in the world during his career, or close?

[bobholly39]

There was a thread recently discussing Lidstrom, and how he was never in the running for best player in the world (something I agree with) - and it got me to thinking about Roy.

Roy has a fantastic resume - and is usually a strong candidate for the coveted #5 all time after the big 4. The general consensus is usually that Hasek may have peaked higher in the regular season, but Roy has the overall better body of work including playoffs, or something like that.

Coming back to my main point - was Roy ever seen or talked about as the best player in the game? I was really only starting to get into hockey when he was a Habs - but to me i don't recall that at all. One of the best goalies? Sure. An NHL all-star? Sure. But best player in the world? To me i don't recall him ever being talked of that way, or even close. His reputation during his career seems more in-line with Lundqvist's reputation throughout his prime, than to other top players all-time (including Hasek, who himself did have that going for him late 90s).

I know he was up against Gretzky, and then Lemieux for a lot of his career - but even excluding those 2, i don't think he was next in line.

Would like to hear opinions about that. I'm more interested in at the time accounts, vs the retroactively looking back now at certain years and deciding where he was the best player a certain year.

Click to read more...

 

[JackSlater]

Not that I recall. Early in his career it was Gretzky, then Lemieux, then most would probably say Hasek or Jagr. Roy was still great in the weak early 2000s but he was not at his best. I remember people saying that Roy might be the player that they feared the most or wanted on their team the most come playoff time though, and that was over a long period of time.

The problem for Roy is that at his absolute peak, say late 80s into the early 90s, everyone would say that either Gretzky or Lemieux was the best player in the world. From nearly the beginning of the 80s until 96 or 97 the answer could only really be Gretzky or Lemieux.

Being born the exact same day as Mario Lemieux is a big impediment to being recognized as the best player in the world at any point during your hockey career.

 

[CHGoalie27]

I think when an MVP is given out, ConnSmythe or Hart is recognition of the sort, no?

 

[Florbalista]

Hart yes, Conn Smythe, not so much. Conn Smythe (usually) entails being the best player on a cup winning team, but doesn't necessarily imply the best player in the league, or even the best player at your position.

 

[bobholly39]

Not that I recall. Early in his career it was Gretzky, then Lemieux, then most would probably say Hasek or Jagr. Roy was still great in the weak early 2000s but he was not at his best. I remember people saying that Roy might be the player that they feared the most or wanted on their team the most come playoff time though, and that was over a long period of time.

The problem for Roy is that at his absolute peak, say late 80s into the early 90s, everyone would say that either Gretzky or Lemieux was the best player in the world. From nearly the beginning of the 80s until 96 or 97 the answer could only really be Gretzky or Lemieux.

Being born the exact same day as Mario Lemieux is a big impediment to being recognized as the best player in the world at any point during your hockey career.

What about ignoring Gretzky/Lemieux though - was he even seen as 2nd best, or close?

 

[JackSlater]

What about ignoring Gretzky/Lemieux though - was he even seen as 2nd best, or close?

I definitely think that early 90s Roy, especially by the end of the 1993 playoffs, was in consideration for best player outside of Gretzky and Lemieux. By 1993 he had three of the previous four Vezina trophies, plus a second place, a second place Hart finish in 1992, and 1993 is one of the most dominant playoff runs ever. I think that Joe Blow hockey fan, especially in Eastern Canada, on average picks Roy as the best non-Gretzky/Lemieux player in summer 1993.

By general perception among the hockey fandom, my sense is that the choice for best player in the early 90s (outside of Gretzky/Lemieux) is pretty much split among Roy, Messier, Yzerman, Hull, and Bourque with no player standing out with a clear majority.

 

[BenchBrawl]

He peaked around the same time as Gretzky, Lemieux, Bourque and Messier. That alone is crazy competition—certainly tougher than at any time since. But they were other players peaking around that time too—like Yzerman, Gilmour, Brett Hull, so on. The market of great players was saturated.

 

[VanIslander]

I was 17, 24, 26 and 31 years old when he backstopped Stanley Cup championship teams.

I hated him.

I cheered AGAINST him every bloody series except the Finals against more disgusting/reviled... Calgary, L.A., Florida and New Jersey.

His swagger in '93 in Montreal and '96 on Colorado was undeniable. You couldn't wipe that grin off his face for long: he bounced back from bad games with terrific games.

Gawd i loathed his mug.

OF COURSE, he was THE MAN, or one of the men, if you wanna squeeze one or two others in, especially in Colorado with Forsberg, Sakic.

He was no ****'n Hasek, but he was Brady NFL like clutch: less skilled but performing best when it mattered most.

 

[Jumptheshark]

for best goalie and player he went toe to toe with Marty B

 

[VanIslander]

Marty B?

Don't make us laugh.

Brodeur had less respect than Belfour in the 90's.

Third fiddle? FOURTH fiddle.. until age and retirements weakened goaltending competition (like dman) competition.

Both Brodeur and Lidstrom benefited from era gaps in talent in the early 2000's.

Ugh.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I was 17, 24, 26 and 31 years old when he backstopped Stanley Cup championship teams.

I hated him.

I cheered AGAINST him every bloody series except the Finals against more disgusting/reviled... Calgary, L.A., Florida and New Jersey.

His swagger in '93 in Montreal and '96 on Colorado was undeniable. You couldn't wipe that grin off his face for long: he bounced back from bad games with terrific games.

Gawd i loathed his mug.

OF COURSE, he was THE MAN, or one of the men, if you wanna squeeze one or two others in, especially in Colorado with Forsberg, Sakic.

He was no ****'n Hasek, but he was Brady NFL like clutch: less skilled but performing best when it mattered most.

Can confirm that he was just the worst if you didn’t like him. The combination of arrogance and clutch play was infuriating.

Never made the Brady connection but it actually works really well.

 

[Ducks in a row]

I think when an MVP is given out, ConnSmythe or Hart is recognition of the sort, no?

You can be the best player and not win the Conn Smythe or Hart Trophy because being MVP doesn't make you the best just most valuable because of team success. Roy was good but never the best NHL'er.

 

[CHGoalie27]

You can be the best player and not win the Conn Smythe or Hart Trophy because being MVP doesn't make you the best just most valuable because of team success. Roy was good but never the best NHL'er.

Well yeah, 2014 especially- the best/most deserving player doesn't always win. When a goalie wins the trophy, it's a bit different too.

Gretzky and Lemieux were in the league when Hasek and Roy were winning trophies so it's hard for any goalie to be called the best NHLer. But if any goalie was to be called the best NHLer while he was active, he and Hasek would've been the ones fighting for the honor.

I'

 

[billybudd]

No. The gap between the very best skaters and the field during the first half of Roy's career was just too high. Higher than the gap between Roy and the goaltending field. The difference between Roy and Vernon or Richter (or whomever) was noticeable, but it was nothing compared to the difference between Lemieux and Hawerchuk or Gretzky and Stastny (etc).

In the second half of Roy's career, Hasek was (correctly) considered to be clearly better than he was. There was no opportunity for the #2-#5 goaltender, league-wide, to be considered the #1 player.

 

[billybudd]

I was 17, 24, 26 and 31 years old when he backstopped Stanley Cup championship teams.

I hated him.

I cheered AGAINST him every bloody series except the Finals against more disgusting/reviled... Calgary, L.A., Florida and New Jersey.

His swagger in '93 in Montreal and '96 on Colorado was undeniable. You couldn't wipe that grin off his face for long: he bounced back from bad games with terrific games.

Gawd i loathed his mug.

OF COURSE, he was THE MAN, or one of the men, if you wanna squeeze one or two others in, especially in Colorado with Forsberg, Sakic.

He was no ****'n Hasek, but he was Brady NFL like clutch: less skilled but performing best when it mattered most.

I also loathed it whenever I saw that he would be in the net. That stupid, arrogant look on his face only made it more frustrating when he delivered, which he usually did. I have much respect for this player, if belatedly.

Edit: probably the only time I cheered for him during his career was when he told Jeremy Roenick he couldn't hear him because he had his "two Stanley Cup rings plugging (his) ears." I had to hand it to him, as clapbacks to a loudmouth, it doesn't get any better than that.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Brodeur had less respect than Belfour in the 90's.

Maybe...but Brodeur had more respect than Belfour in the 2000's...when, similarly, Belfour didn't play half the decade...

 

[psycat]

Marty B?

Don't make us laugh.

Brodeur had less respect than Belfour in the 90's.

Third fiddle? FOURTH fiddle.. until age and retirements weakened goaltending competition (like dman) competition.

Both Brodeur and Lidstrom benefited from era gaps in talent in the early 2000's.

Ugh.

Nah the ones who benefit are the defencemen currently on display, with a prime Lidström in the league now a Gio wouldn't win the Norris(without Lidström that era would be pretty much the current one in terms of standout dmen). That said Lidström benefited from playing on great teams. Same could be said for players like Potvin, Harvey, Richard, Beliveau and so on to an even greater extent of course.

Actually even acknowledging that I rank Ovechkin above Crosby the former enjoyed much of his latter Rocket's in part because of lackluster competition, Stamkos might have been there if not for injury.

 

[NoMessi]

Nah the ones who benefit are the defencemen currently on display, with a prime Lidström in the league now a Gio wouldn't win the Norris(without Lidström that era would be pretty much the current one in terms of standout dmen). That said Lidström benefited from playing on great teams. Same could be said for players like Potvin, Harvey, Richard, Beliveau and so on to an even greater extent of course.

Actually even acknowleding that I rank Ovechkin above Crosby the former enjoyed much of his latter Rocket's in part because of lackluster competition, Stamkos might have been there if not for injury.

Same can be said of Crosbys rockets as well. Ovechkin would certainly win in 2010 if he didnt miss 10 games.

 

[MadLuke]

Nah the ones who benefit are the defencemen currently on display, with a prime Lidström in the league now a Gio wouldn't win the Norris(without Lidström that era would be pretty much the current one in terms of standout dmen).

That seem like a contradiction.

 

[psycat]

That seem like a contradiction.

Not at all. Both todays era and the one Lidström played in are pretty much average eras for dmen, there might be a better one or two and a couple of worse ones.

Of course the obvious difference is that Lidström's era had Lidström while the current one lacks a defenceman of that caliber. Lidström also overlapped with Bourque.

 

[The Panther]

Roy was never talked about as the best player in the game, no. Looking back at individual seasons, he may have been in the conversation during 1996-97, when Jagr missed games and Lemieux was starting to slow down a bit, but then you've got Lindros and Hasek, to name only two.

After that, Hasek and Jagr were too dominant for Roy to be considered, until maybe 2001-02...? (Would he have an argument as best player that season?)

But in general, no.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Certainly not clear-cut, but consider the period from his 2001 Conn Smythe through his 2001-02 season which saw him take the 1st Team All-Star selection over the Hart winner. Had it been the reverse (the playoffs following the season rather than preceding it), it’s probably a more common perception that he was the best player in the world.

At the very least, if you’re a card collector, it will explain why the 36-year-old goaltender was the player selected by Topps, Upper Deck, and Victory for the front of (by my count) 9 different series of cards the following season.

From the Top-100 project:

The Colorado Avalanche played 6 games between November 6th and November 18th in 2001, picking up 3 wins, 2 losses, and a tie across scores of 1-1, 0-1, 0-2, 1-0, 1-0, and 2-0. While it seems like a rather inconsequential stretch of time in a career that had already seen 4 championships and was accelerating towards becoming the first goaltender with 500 wins, it’s significant in that Patrick Roy, by stopping 171 of 175, had entered the conversation of best player in the world - something previously unattainable because of the road blocks created by Wayne Gretzky and Mario Lemieux in the late-1980s and early-1990s. He was already 36-years-old. Better late than never.

Five days later, he had dropped out of the Olympics. Five weeks later, he had earned that 500th win in a 2-0 shutout during which Dallas outshot Colorado 31-15.

From the day after Game 1 vs. Los Angeles when he was being written off in the press to the day he claimed #500 - something that was important to him for the Maurice Richard parallel it drew - Patrick Roy had stopped a cumulative 1185 of 1263 (.938) with 11 shutouts in 48 games. He was playing some of his best hockey in a league populated by goaltenders he had inspired when he first won the Stanley Cup 15 years prior.

If he’s not the best player in the world in 2001 or 2002, one could make an argument that he had the best regular season in 1991-92 even if it wasn’t necessarily as valuable as Mark Messier’s. That’s where Roy, the leader in GAA, Save Percentage, and Shutouts, helped the Montreal Canadiens to a Division Title despite the team placing 14th out of 22 teams in GF and having a losing record with his backups (Racicot and Melanson). The Canadiens won the Jennings by 29 GA. Only Mark Messier placed higher in Hart voting, but it would be difficult to argue either were a better player than Mario Lemieux.

1996 saw him place 3rd on The Hockey News’ ranking of players, behind only Mario Lemieux and Jaromir Jagr. But like in 1989 and 1992, the mere existence of Mario Lemieux probably makes it a non-starter.

So I’d say in that area around 2001/2002, yes, Patrick Roy is the best player in the world. 1991-92, no, but he might have had the best regular season. 1988-89, no, but he might have had the best season/playoff combined. 1995-96, no, but he thought so, and it’s the version of him I like best.

 

[bobholly39]

Certainly not clear-cut, but consider the period from his 2001 Conn Smythe through his 2001-02 season which saw him take the 1st Team All-Star selection over the Hart winner. Had it been the reverse (the playoffs following the season rather than preceding it), it’s probably a more common perception that he was the best player in the world.

At the very least, if you’re a card collector, it will explain why the 36-year-old goaltender was the player selected by Topps, Upper Deck, and Victory for the front of (by my count) 9 different series of cards the following season.

From the Top-100 project:



If he’s not the best player in the world in 2001 or 2002, one could make an argument that he had the best regular season in 1991-92 even if it wasn’t necessarily as valuable as Mark Messier’s. That’s where Roy, the leader in GAA, Save Percentage, and Shutouts, helped the Montreal Canadiens to a Division Title despite the team placing 14th out of 22 teams in GF and having a losing record with his backups (Racicot and Melanson). The Canadiens won the Jennings by 29 GA. Only Mark Messier placed higher in Hart voting, but it would be difficult to argue either were a better player than Mario Lemieux.

1996 saw him place 3rd on The Hockey News’ ranking of players, behind only Mario Lemieux and Jaromir Jagr. But like in 1989 and 1992, the mere existence of Mario Lemieux probably makes it a non-starter.

So I’d say in that area around 2001/2002, yes, Patrick Roy is the best player in the world. 1991-92, no, but he might have had the best regular season. 1988-89, no, but he might have had the best season/playoff combined. 1995-96, no, but he thought so, and it’s the version of him I like best.

Was waiting for your post on the topic.

I can see the argument for 2001-2002 timeframe, as that's the one that jumped out to me a bit too, but there's a lot of issues with that:

Hasek and Theodore won harts as goalies in surrounding years, and Roy didn't.
Lemieux return in top form. Jagr exploding again. Hasek still around. Sakic's big year.

I feel as though in 2001 his reputation was stellar by virtue of yet another cup/smythe, and the respect for his play and abilities were at an all-time high - but i don't know that that means he was really in contention for best player in the world.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Hasek and Theodore won harts as goalies in surrounding years, and Roy didn't.

A Hart Trophy in 2001-02 (immediately following the Conn Smythe in 2001) would probably give a definitive answer to our question. Having said that, the same voting electorate that awarded Jose Theodore the 2001-02 Hart Trophy did vote that Patrick Roy was the better player of the two:

Roy: 226 (30-24-4)
Theodore: 210 (26-25-5)
Burke: 55 (3-5-25)
Hasek: 31 (1-4-14)
Brodeur: 6 (0-1-3)

It kind of falls in line with the 1989 Hart Trophy, where despite losing the Hart Trophy to Wayne Gretzky, the exact same voters ranked Lemieux higher in All-Star voting (277-201). The differentiation between better and most valuable comes into play sometimes, and I don’t think it’s a coincidence that Patrick Roy’s best showings in Hart voting came in seasons where his teams underperformed offensively yet still won their division (1992: 14/22 in GF, 2002: 18/30 in GF).

But despite Colorado’s relatively weak showing in offense in 2001-02, unlike Iginla and Theodore, Roy had a teammate in Joe Sakic (also a 1st Team All-Star), and that definitely makes it less of a narrative of a goaltender single-handedly saving a team. And that’s often the narrative where we’ve seen goaltenders generate Hart support.

Lemieux return in top form. Jagr exploding again. Hasek still around. Sakic's big year.

Lemieux, as always, is a wild card. He didn’t have a great playoff in 2001, and while he wasn’t scoring goals in his 24 games in 2001-02 (just 6), his assists hadn’t fallen off from the pace the year before (25).

I’d say Roy had already matched Hasek as early as the 2000-01 regular season before outright surpassing him in the 2001 playoffs and 2001-02 regular season. Colorado struggled on the PK, but Roy’s even-strength save percentage was higher than Hasek’s (.925 to .924 in 2001; .934 to .925 in 2002). Had it not been for his struggles in the first-half of 2002-03, we could probably extend the window into Hasek’s retirement year, because the end of 2003 is where Roy had his 20-3-4 run (.945) where Colorado stole the division title.

Sakic is probably our #1 or #1a. He dropped almost 40 points from 2001 to 2002 and was still a 1st Team All-Star, so that kind of tells you how good his 2001 was. He also had the Olympics, and some really strong 1999 and 2000 seasons preceding the window. Perhaps the only flaw on Sakic’s resume was his performance against Dallas and Detroit in these years:

1999 DET: 6 GP, 1-1-2, -1
1999 DAL: 7 GP, 2-3-5, +0
2000 DET: 5 GP, 1-1-2, -1
2000 DAL: 7 GP, 0-3-3, -1
2002 DET: 7 GP, 2-3-5, -5

TOTAL: 32 GP, 6-11-17, -8

For that 1999-2002 period where Colorado won the Stanley Cup once and reached Game 7 of the Western Conference Finals the other three occasions, Sakic had the best regular seasons and the worst playoffs of their three stars.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

tbh, the only time you could make a somewhat credible argument for roy was going into the '94 season. mario is skipping the season and we wondered if he'd ever come back, hasek hadn't yet become hasek, fedorov hadn't yet become fedorov, lindros was entering his second year, hull had slowed down from his 70 goal seasons, messier was coming off a garbage year, bourque was coming off two non-norris years and got swept in the first playoffs.

but i think you'd still probably enter the season with gretzky coming off that '93 playoffs as #1 and roy as #2, or at the very best an extremely distant 1a.

and early in the season, roy was definitely already pushed back. gretzky had a six point game in the first week and had 17 points in the first 6 games, 35 points in the first month (15 games). fedorov had 9 goals in his first 8 games and 24 points in the first month (14 games). gilmour had 13 points in the first week (5 games) and he and lindros both had 25 in the first month (15 games each), and while roy was great in his first month too he wasn't that great. in fact, there were whispers that potvin, a.k.a. the next big thing, was passing him—potvin and the leafs started the year on a 9-0 run and potvin personally was putting up what we would soon be calling hasek-level stats.

in the first month, roy was rocking a 2.16 GAA (second to puppa, who somehow had a sub-2.00 GAA while going 3-7-2) and was leading the league with a .930 SV% (13 games, a 10,000th of a save ahead of potvin). hasek doesn't really get going until month two, and really becomes MVP hasek in the second half of month two when he wins 6 of 7, pitching three shutouts and allowing just 6 goals in those 7 games. but by that point any hope of roy holding the best player in the world reputation has vanished. beezer also starts to pull ahead in month two.