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

[quoipourquoi]

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.

Here are the after-playoffs THN rankings from the yearbooks in the surrounding years:

1993
1. Mario Lemieux
2. Eric Lindros
3. Doug Gilmour
4. Chris Chelios
5. Pat Lafontaine
6. Teemu Selanne
7. Patrick Roy
8. Wayne Gretzky
9. Kevin Stevens
10. Jeremy Roenick

1994
1. Mario Lemieux
2. Doug Gilmour
3. Sergei Fedorov
4. Patrick Roy
5. Brian Leetch
6. Eric Lindros
7. Wayne Gretzky
8. Pavel Bure
9. Scott Stevens
10. Jeremy Roenick

1996
1. Mario Lemieux
2. Jaromir Jagr
3. Patrick Roy
4. Eric Lindros
5. Peter Forsberg
6. Paul Kariya
7. Chris Chelios
8. Mark Messier
9. Dominik Hasek
10. Ray Bourque


Going into the lockout season might be another moment to consider, since it gives us a look at a Lemieux-less league. Jagr, Sakic, and Hasek all started the season red hot (which matches what we’d see from them over the next half decade), but Roy was sitting at a .923 after the first month despite the Canadiens playing .500 hockey.

Given that he had a stronger track record, and that Gilmour and Fedorov (the other players ranked above Roy in 1994) hadn’t necessarily stood out at the beginning of 1995 the way they did the year before, it’s probably a short window where saying that based on his reputation, Patrick Roy is the best player in a Lemieux-less NHL is not a wrong answer.

I don’t think it’s as strong of an argument as 2001-2003ish though, because it relies on us not knowing what Jagr and Sakic and Hasek were going to do, whereas early-2000s Roy had fantastic numbers (particularly at even-strength) that stand out independent of his reputation.

But to make a reputation argument, going into Game 7 of the 2002 Western Conference Finals, Roy’s coming off of two-straight Game 7 shutouts in 2002, Hart/Pearson nominations in 2001-02, and the 2001 Conn Smythe. I don’t think the 7-0 result is nearly as funny if it hadn’t happened to the one person to whom we’d probably not expect it to happen: the best player in the world.

 

[MadLuke]

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.

So why do you disagree that Lidstrom had that advantage to win those Norris, if defenseman today has it and is a similar era strenght wise ?

 

[psycat]

So why do you disagree that Lidstrom had that advantage to win those Norris, if defenseman today has it and is a similar era strenght wise ?

I just don't see any, much, harder era to win them in. Sure up against Orr and probably the late 80s/early 90s might have been harder but other than that Lidström played in a totally average era(with him being the exception of course) for dmen talent.

People just like to point out that Lidström "faced weak competition"(even though there are in my opinion tops two stronger eras, and even then Orr is an obvious outlier) when fact is someone like Harvey faced worse while playing on a better team, yet you rarely see anyone bring that up.

 

[MadLuke]

I just don't see any, much, harder era to win them in. Sure up against Orr and probably the late 80s/early 90s might have been harder but other than that Lidström played in a totally average era(with him being the exception of course) for dmen talent.

Ok so you do not really thought that: he ones who benefit are the defencemen currently on display,

That what was the contradiction to me

Someone said: Late Lidstrom had the chance of a weak era to rack Norris.
You : No, it is defenceman now that benefit from a weak era.

Then saying that both era were about the same minus Lidstrom.

 

[JackSlater]

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.

If we exclude Lemieux since he wasn't playing, I think Roy's case would be bolstered with the general public if he had (in what I think would be a very defensible decision) won the 1992 Hart. I still think that most people considered Lemieux the world's best player even though he wasn't playing.

 

[Thenameless]

As a Montreal fan, I'd have to say that I never considered him to be the best player in the world at any point. He was certainly the best money goalie during some of those Cup runs, and a solid second to Hasek as best goalie once Hasek hit his stride.

 

[quoipourquoi]

If we exclude Lemieux since he wasn't playing, I think Roy's case would be bolstered with the general public if he had (in what I think would be a very defensible decision) won the 1992 Hart. I still think that most people considered Lemieux the world's best player even though he wasn't playing.

What also could have been a benefit is that while we saw a Roy/Gretzky series, we never saw a Roy/Lemieux series - with Pittsburgh getting upset in Game 7 of 1989, 1993, and 1996 just before it would have taken place, as well as falling short in the 2001 Eastern Conference Finals (meanwhile Montreal lost in the 1991 and 1992 Division Final, creating 6 near-misses in total).

Or a Roy/Messier series for that matter, with both teams getting knocked off in the 1992 Division Final before trading Stanley Cup wins in 1993 and 1994, then missing each other again when both exited the 1997 playoffs in the Conference Finals.

Had the league switched to a 1vs8 system earlier than it did, or had things shaken out slightly different, the perception of Roy relative to other stars might be shifted by head-to-head matchups.

 

[Rebels57]

He was considered the best goalie for a long time (Hasek was underrated at the time) until Brodeur unjustly supplanted him due to playing longer and for a stingier team.

 

[danincanada]

I just don't see any, much, harder era to win them in. Sure up against Orr and probably the late 80s/early 90s might have been harder but other than that Lidström played in a totally average era(with him being the exception of course) for dmen talent.

People just like to point out that Lidström "faced weak competition"(even though there are in my opinion tops two stronger eras, and even then Orr is an obvious outlier) when fact is someone like Harvey faced worse while playing on a better team, yet you rarely see anyone bring that up.

Most only compare Lidstrom’s era with the late 80’s/early 90’s, which may be the strongest era for elite two-way defenders. I don’t think it dropped off nearly as much as people pretend after that but yeah, Harvey and his era seems to avoid all the same criticism even though it was far more shallow and far weaker overall.

If it was so weak then why did someone as good as Pronger only garner one 1st team AS nomination his whole career? There were more teams and a deeper talent pool feeding the league so it took a lot to stand out that much.

 

[danincanada]

Here are the after-playoffs THN rankings from the yearbooks in the surrounding years:

1993
1. Mario Lemieux
2. Eric Lindros
3. Doug Gilmour
4. Chris Chelios
5. Pat Lafontaine
6. Teemu Selanne
7. Patrick Roy
8. Wayne Gretzky
9. Kevin Stevens
10. Jeremy Roenick

1994
1. Mario Lemieux
2. Doug Gilmour
3. Sergei Fedorov
4. Patrick Roy
5. Brian Leetch
6. Eric Lindros
7. Wayne Gretzky
8. Pavel Bure
9. Scott Stevens
10. Jeremy Roenick

1996
1. Mario Lemieux
2. Jaromir Jagr
3. Patrick Roy
4. Eric Lindros
5. Peter Forsberg
6. Paul Kariya
7. Chris Chelios
8. Mark Messier
9. Dominik Hasek
10. Ray Bourque


Going into the lockout season might be another moment to consider, since it gives us a look at a Lemieux-less league. Jagr, Sakic, and Hasek all started the season red hot (which matches what we’d see from them over the next half decade), but Roy was sitting at a .923 after the first month despite the Canadiens playing .500 hockey.

Given that he had a stronger track record, and that Gilmour and Fedorov (the other players ranked above Roy in 1994) hadn’t necessarily stood out at the beginning of 1995 the way they did the year before, it’s probably a short window where saying that based on his reputation, Patrick Roy is the best player in a Lemieux-less NHL is not a wrong answer.

I don’t think it’s as strong of an argument as 2001-2003ish though, because it relies on us not knowing what Jagr and Sakic and Hasek were going to do, whereas early-2000s Roy had fantastic numbers (particularly at even-strength) that stand out independent of his reputation.

But to make a reputation argument, going into Game 7 of the 2002 Western Conference Finals, Roy’s coming off of two-straight Game 7 shutouts in 2002, Hart/Pearson nominations in 2001-02, and the 2001 Conn Smythe. I don’t think the 7-0 result is nearly as funny if it hadn’t happened to the one person to whom we’d probably not expect it to happen: the best player in the world.

Where is Sakic in ‘96? 120 points and a CS didn’t mean much to THN?

 

[danincanada]

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, 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.

I dunno, if, according to you, Roy was the best player in the world around ‘01-02, Forsberg was also the best from the ‘02 playoffs and on, and Sakic had that incredible year in ‘01 then how didn’t they win more than just 1 Cup?

 

[quoipourquoi]

Potential Roy/Lemieux Matchups:

1989 - Montreal (115 pts) vs. Pittsburgh (87 pts)
1991 - Montreal (89 pts) vs. Pittsburgh (88 pts)
1992 - Montreal (93 pts) vs. Pittsburgh (87 pts)
1993 - Pittsburgh (119 pts) vs. Montreal (102 pts)
1996 - Colorado (104 pts) vs. Pittsburgh (102 pts)
2001 - Colorado (118 pts) vs. Pittsburgh (96 pts)

If that had happened, they’d probably be more closely linked than they already are for having the same birthday.

 

[quoipourquoi]

I dunno, if, according to you, Roy was the best player in the world around ‘01-02, Forsberg was also the best from the ‘02 playoffs and on, and Sakic had that incredible year in ‘01 then how didn’t they win more than just 1 Cup?

Because Dallas and Detroit had more substantially more depth. But yeah, considering all three were Hart/Pearson nominees in back-to-back-to-back seasons in the early-2000s, it’s not like all three wouldn’t come up in a discussion of the best player in that 2001-2003 time frame.

2001-2003 Hart/Pearson Nominees
Jarome Iginla
Jaromir Jagr
Joe Sakic
Joe Thornton
Jose Theodore
Mario Lemieux
Markus Naslund
Martin Brodeur
Patrick Roy
Peter Forsberg
Sean Burke

Burke, Forsberg, and Lemieux had injury problems in one or more years; Iginla, Naslund, and Thornton had lower-scoring years as they were accelerating into their greatness; Theodore was something of a one-off; Jagr was coming down from his highs that preceded this period.

Brodeur, Roy, and Sakic were probably the three most consistent. Whether they were as good as Burke, Forsberg, or Lemieux is debatable, but those would be probably the 6 names (Jagr and Naslund being among them just by shifting a year).

Others like Roman Cechmanek and Nicklas Lidstrom were consistently great while maybe never at any one point being considered the best at the end of a given year.

 

[danincanada]

Because Dallas and Detroit had more substantially more depth. But yeah, considering all three were Hart/Pearson nominees in back-to-back-to-back seasons in the early-2000s, it’s not like all three wouldn’t come up in a discussion of the best player in that 2001-2003 time frame.

2001-2003 Hart/Pearson Nominees
Jarome Iginla
Jaromir Jagr
Joe Sakic
Joe Thornton
Jose Theodore
Mario Lemieux
Markus Naslund
Martin Brodeur
Patrick Roy
Peter Forsberg
Sean Burke

Burke, Forsberg, and Lemieux had injury problems in one or more years; Iginla, Naslund, and Thornton had lower-scoring years as they were accelerating into their greatness; Theodore was something of a one-off; Jagr was coming down from his highs that preceded this period.

Brodeur, Roy, and Sakic were probably the three most consistent. Whether they were as good as Burke, Forsberg, or Lemieux is debatable, but those would be probably the 6 names (Jagr and Naslund being among them just by shifting a year).

Others like Roman Cechmanek and Nicklas Lidstrom were consistently great while maybe never at any one point being considered the best at the end of a given year.

Substantially more depth? Nah, the Avs had lots of good players around that core, too. That’s what made those series between the Wings, Avs, and Stars so great.

If the Grind Line was what tipped the scale then maybe the Avs trio wasn’t quite as great as you are trying to portray. All 3 teams had superstars and stars that could outplay the other in any given year.

 

[The Panther]

Here are the after-playoffs THN rankings from the yearbooks in the surrounding years:

1993
1. Mario Lemieux
2. Eric Lindros
3. Doug Gilmour
4. Chris Chelios
5. Pat Lafontaine
6. Teemu Selanne
7. Patrick Roy
8. Wayne Gretzky
9. Kevin Stevens
10. Jeremy Roenick

1994
1. Mario Lemieux
2. Doug Gilmour
3. Sergei Fedorov
4. Patrick Roy
5. Brian Leetch
6. Eric Lindros
7. Wayne Gretzky
8. Pavel Bure
9. Scott Stevens
10. Jeremy Roenick

Lol! Just a slight under-rating of Wayne Gretzky here. And over-rating of Chelios (in 1993). And how the heck was Lindros rated #2 after his injury-shortened rookie season?

 

[quoipourquoi]

Substantially more depth? Nah, the Avs had lots of good players around that core, too. That’s what made those series between the Wings, Avs, and Stars so great.

If the Grind Line was what tipped the scale then maybe the Avs trio wasn’t quite as great as you are trying to portray. All 3 teams had superstars and stars that could outplay the other in any given year.

I mean, there are 20 players on a team, not just 3. The 1997 Mighty Ducks of Anaheim had the #2 and #3 scorers in the NHL and .942 goaltending in their series against Detroit. Still swept. The 1996 Pittsburgh Penguins had the #1 and #2 scorers and .926 tandem playoff goaltending. Lost to the Panthers. If you’re going to try to sell us on an idea that Patrick Roy didn’t win enough in the playoffs, good luck.

Like, I’m not even sure I understand what you’re arguing here. Did any one of Sakic (2001), Roy (2002), or Forsberg (2003) not deserve Hart/Pearson nominations? Were they not also great in surrounding seasons - Sakic as a 1st Team All-Star and Olympic MVP (2002), Patrick Roy as a Conn Smythe winner (2001), Peter Forsberg as the leading playoff scorer (2002)?

It makes sense that any discussion about the best player in the first few years of the 21st century would involve all three.

 

[quoipourquoi]

And how the heck was Lindros rated #2 after his injury-shortened rookie season?

He did score over 2-points-per-game in the World Championships.

 

[Staniowski]

Patrick Roy was definitely never the best hockey player in the world, and never close.

Really, he was never even a top 5 player in any period. Bourque and Messier were easily better in the late-'80s and early-'90s. And he was certainly never a top 5 player during his Colorado years.

Roy was always overrated but he's becoming very overrated in recent years.

 

[JianYang]

I've always looked at goalies in a separate category than the other players.

Comparing roy to Lemieux is apples versus oranges. I just limit it to comparing roy against any other goalie. Growing up, roy and belfour seemed to be the most highly regarded, then hasek, and Brodeur arrived to the scene.

That was basically Roy's competition, unless I'm forgetting someone.

 

[82Ninety42011]

I don't recall any goalie to be considered the best player in league but Hasek for a brief time with when he was carrying the Sabres. He was insanely good for awhile and was just a joy to watch as his style was crazy and not anything one would be taught. He was just a freak and saved everything.

 

[The Panther]

Patrick Roy was definitely never the best hockey player in the world, and never close.

Really, he was never even a top 5 player in any period. Bourque and Messier were easily better in the late-'80s and early-'90s. And he was certainly never a top 5 player during his Colorado years.

Roy was always overrated but he's becoming very overrated in recent years.

In general, the regulars of this particular forum tend to slightly over-rate Patrick Roy, I think, while slightly under-rating players like Martin Brodeur, Maurice Richard, Mark Messier, Eric Lindros, etc.

But this is by degrees. I agree with you that Roy was never a top-5 player in general while with Colorado, but I think a strong argument can be made that he was a top-5 player in one or two seasons (c.2002?) while with Colorado.

However, he was right up there with Bourque and Messier, I think, at the tail-end of the 80s and early-90s. I mean, he was probably a top-5 player overall from about 1988 to 1993.

 

[The Panther]

I don't recall any goalie to be considered the best player in league but Hasek for a brief time with when he was carrying the Sabres.

There must have been threads on this topic before, but it would be interesting to discuss at which times in history (if any) a goaltender was the best player in the world. I suspect the consensus will be that no goaltender was ever generally the best in the world for any extended period of time, but that there are random seasons here-and-there where one would be the best performer for 70+ games.

Hasek is probably the closest we've seen, since expansion anyway, to a goaltender being considered the best player in the world, in general, although even for him he was up against peak-Jagr.

 

[BenchBrawl]

There must have been threads on this topic before, but it would be interesting to discuss at which times in history (if any) a goaltender was the best player in the world. I suspect the consensus will be that no goaltender was ever generally the best in the world for any extended period of time, but that there are random seasons here-and-there where one would be the best performer for 70+ games.

Hasek is probably the closest we've seen, since expansion anyway, to a goaltender being considered the best player in the world, in general, although even for him he was up against peak-Jagr.

I don't think any goalie in history had a better case than Hasek to qualify for your definition.

 

[BadgerBruce]

There must have been threads on this topic before, but it would be interesting to discuss at which times in history (if any) a goaltender was the best player in the world. I suspect the consensus will be that no goaltender was ever generally the best in the world for any extended period of time, but that there are random seasons here-and-there where one would be the best performer for 70+ games.

Hasek is probably the closest we've seen, since expansion anyway, to a goaltender being considered the best player in the world, in general, although even for him he was up against peak-Jagr.

Since expansion, you are likely correct — Hasek’s the closest.
But pre-expansion, a case could be made for Terry Sawchuk following his extraordinary the 51-52 season. Did he make the leap from “best goalie” to “best player”? Not quite in a world with Big Gordie peaking, but awfully close.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Since expansion, you are likely correct — Hasek’s the closest.
But pre-expansion, a case could be made for Terry Sawchuk following his extraordinary the 51-52 season. Did he make the leap from “best goalie” to “best player”? Not quite in a world with Big Gordie peaking, but awfully close.

That's the problem with Sawchuk, Gordie was there and peaking hard.