KoZed Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 This is yet another awesome post. But one thing I dissagree with. Roy's teams did allow a lot of shots on net as well. I'd like to see the difference in shots per game of both goalies from 93-94 to 01-02. I bet its not that far off. All those years Roy won the Vezina, Habs had the best D in the league... they weren't allowing many shots, around 20 per games. But that was the offensive era, the scoring chances had much better odds to go in, because of smaller equipments, smaller players and all that. By the way.. if a Hart was so easy to win in the 90-s then why did Roy not get one? What about Brodeur? His team was built around him too....The fact that Theo won is irrelivant because when you say Theo won you're talking like he was just an average goalie that year. He put on the most unbelivable goaltending season seen by a habs goalie since about 15 years. It was magic. I never said Hart was easy to win. I said it was an in an era where defense and goalies were at its top; or scoring at its lowest if you prefer. The Theo example is relevant, because it shows how a good goalie on a shitty team could be such a difference maker that it got huge recognition. Says less about the goalie himself than about the era and style of the game then. Roy played 10 years in the league where the Hart was either Gretzky or Lemieux. Then another 10 years where he was automatically disqualified because he had Sakic and Forsberg on his team. Roy did in Montreal what Hasek did in Buffalo: carry an average group of skaters playing a good defensive system. He just never got the Harts for it. Doesn't mean he didn't do it. By the way.. Hasek was in no position to win a cup with those Sabres teams. He would often have only 2 good offensive players (with around 50 points if thats even considered good) So no matter how good a goalie you are, if your team cant score you just wont win. Roy, on the other hand was mostly on top 5 teams scoring wise in his career. Most teams couldn't score in Hasek's era neither. The margin was just smaller. And the Habs weren't a great offense in the 80's neither. They had 30 goals scorers and 80 pts guys when every team had 40-50 goals scorers and 90-100 points players, except for Richer's two 50 goals seasons. Shit, in 90-91 the Habs best scorer was Courtnall at 76 pts. Brett Hull had more goals alone than that (86) that season, and Gretzky finished the season with more than double that many points (163). Buffalo had Satan who could get 65-75 pts in an era where the top players could barely get 100 pts. In 98-99, the best offensive team was TO with 268 goals. The worse was TB with 179. Not even 100 goals difference. League average was 215 and Buffalo was at 207. Just an average team. 10 years earlier, the best team was at 376 and the worse at 251. League average was 300 goals and Montreal was at 315. So there isnt that much difference in offense, except that in Roy's time there was a lot more offense in general, ie. more chances of getting scored on and more difference in offense from team to team. Its easy to look good when you play on a defensive team in a defensive era. Its another thing to play on a defensive team in an offensive era like the Habs; or on an offensive team in a defensive era like the Avs. in 99-00, Buffalo scored 213 goals and allowed 204. Colorado scored 233 and allowed 201. Not big discrepancy there. So the statistical difference between those teams weren't that great, but in the context it was enough to peg Buffalo as a stingy defensive and Colorado as a offensive powerhouse. The only real Hasek achievement would be 96-97 when Buffalo finished 1st in their division with a bunch of subpar players. Yet that season Hasek had just a 0.05 GAA and a .007 SV% advantage on Roy. But it notched him a Hart and a Vezina. That's alot of silverware for very little statistical difference. Because Hasek was front and center on a team built around him, while Roy was just a big name on a big team. Following season was about the same, though because of Conferences differences, Hasek got the chance to play against defensive teams like NJ or Washington and crappy teams that couldn't buy a goal like Tampa, Florida, Carolina, Ottawa and etc. I mean... Hasek's got his Vezina streaks broken by guys like Jim Carey and Olaf Kolzig. What does that tells you about the quality needed to be named best goalie in that era? Or about the Eastern Conference for that matter? The Vezina trophy haven't been won by a West Conference goalie since Belfour in 1993. And the criterias have changed. In 88 Fuhr won the Vezina. His GAA was at 3.43 and his SV% at .881. Roy was 2.90 and 900. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aebischer4life Posted October 31, 2006 Author Share Posted October 31, 2006 All those years Roy won the Vezina, Habs had the best D in the league... they weren't allowing many shots, around 20 per games. But that was the offensive era, the scoring chances had much better odds to go in, because of smaller equipments, smaller players and all that. I never said Hart was easy to win. I said it was an in an era where defense and goalies were at its top; or scoring at its lowest if you prefer. The Theo example is relevant, because it shows how a good goalie on a shitty team could be such a difference maker that it got huge recognition. Says less about the goalie himself than about the era and style of the game then. Roy played 10 years in the league where the Hart was either Gretzky or Lemieux. Then another 10 years where he was automatically disqualified because he had Sakic and Forsberg on his team. Roy did in Montreal what Hasek did in Buffalo: carry an average group of skaters playing a good defensive system. He just never got the Harts for it. Doesn't mean he didn't do it. Most teams couldn't score in Hasek's era neither. The margin was just smaller. And the Habs weren't a great offense in the 80's neither. They had 30 goals scorers and 80 pts guys when every team had 40-50 goals scorers and 90-100 points players, except for Richer's two 50 goals seasons. Shit, in 90-91 the Habs best scorer was Courtnall at 76 pts. Brett Hull had more goals alone than that (86) that season, and Gretzky finished the season with more than double that many points (163). Buffalo had Satan who could get 65-75 pts in an era where the top players could barely get 100 pts. In 98-99, the best offensive team was TO with 268 goals. The worse was TB with 179. Not even 100 goals difference. League average was 215 and Buffalo was at 207. Just an average team. 10 years earlier, the best team was at 376 and the worse at 251. League average was 300 goals and Montreal was at 315. So there isnt that much difference in offense, except that in Roy's time there was a lot more offense in general, ie. more chances of getting scored on and more difference in offense from team to team. Its easy to look good when you play on a defensive team in a defensive era. Its another thing to play on a defensive team in an offensive era like the Habs; or on an offensive team in a defensive era like the Avs. in 99-00, Buffalo scored 213 goals and allowed 204. Colorado scored 233 and allowed 201. Not big discrepancy there. So the statistical difference between those teams weren't that great, but in the context it was enough to peg Buffalo as a stingy defensive and Colorado as a offensive powerhouse. The only real Hasek achievement would be 96-97 when Buffalo finished 1st in their division with a bunch of subpar players. Yet that season Hasek had just a 0.05 GAA and a .007 SV% advantage on Roy. But it notched him a Hart and a Vezina. That's alot of silverware for very little statistical difference. Because Hasek was front and center on a team built around him, while Roy was just a big name on a big team. Following season was about the same, though because of Conferences differences, Hasek got the chance to play against defensive teams like NJ or Washington and crappy teams that couldn't buy a goal like Tampa, Florida, Carolina, Ottawa and etc. I mean... Hasek's got his Vezina streaks broken by guys like Jim Carey and Olaf Kolzig. What does that tells you about the quality needed to be named best goalie in that era? Or about the Eastern Conference for that matter? The Vezina trophy haven't been won by a West Conference goalie since Belfour in 1993. And the criterias have changed. In 88 Fuhr won the Vezina. His GAA was at 3.43 and his SV% at .881. Roy was 2.90 and 900. Awesome post once again. This is the kind of discussion I really wanted to hear. One thing I will say though is that Roy was robbed of that Vezina in 1988 but it mightve been due to the fact that Fuhr played over 70 games that year and Roy under 50. Another thing... there were weak things in both conferences. Also, a 0.007 save % difference on 2000 shots is a 14 goals difference. Not A LOT but 14 goals is still 14 goals. That was one of the seasons where the two were close but in most years it was a 0.010-0.015 difference. Also, Jim Carey won the Vezina in 1996 because of the team he was on. Washington couldve made the present Theo looked like a superstar. And in 2000 when Kolzig won... Hasek was injured that year. By the way... I really dont think Roy faced an average of 20 shots in his montreal days. I doubt it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shortcat1 Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 Shortcat may have seen those guys Anyway will pick St. Pat :hlogo: Vézina, no but Plante, yes... one of the heroes of my youth. Go :hlogo: Go! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KoZed Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 By the way... I really dont think Roy faced an average of 20 shots in his montreal days. I doubt it... 86-87: 26.1 87-88: 27.7 88-89: 25.5 89-90: 28.2 90-91: 28.3 91:92: 26.9 92-93: 29.2 93-94: 28.7 ------------------ 27.7 That's the average shots Roy received in his first 8 years as a started in MTL. 3 seasons below 27, all below 30. 93-94: 26.7 94-95: 29.7 95-96: 34.0 96-97: 32.5 97-98: 31.8 98-99: 29.3 99-00: 28.9 00-01: 27.8 ----------------- 30.1 3 seasons above 30, only one below 27. Hence the big SV%. Its the Brodeur Syndrome: getting shunned because you play behind a defense that dont allow many shots, but the few shots you get are really good ones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
option+ Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 (edited) I'd call that "Ken Dryden syndrome" instead - Dryden used to get 10 shots a game, 9 of which were high-quality (only a slight exaggeration). Where are you getting those stats koZed? Is it a website? I'd love to take a look... Edited November 1, 2006 by option+ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KoZed Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 I'd call that "Ken Dryden syndrome" instead - Dryden used to get 10 shots a game, 9 of which were high-quality (only a slight exaggeration). Where are you getting those stats koZed? Is it a website? I'd love to take a look... HockeyDB and a good ol' calculator... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aebischer4life Posted November 1, 2006 Author Share Posted November 1, 2006 HockeyDB and a good ol' calculator... Hey bro nice stats... www.hockeygoalies.org is a brilliant site I found! It has every goalies stats from each game he has played in the nhl! Awesome! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.