Brodeur Vs Roy - The Numbers
By: | Mar 16th 2009, 11:29pm EDT
As Martin Brodeur prepares to eclipse Patrick Roy's All-Time win mark on St. Patrick's Day (ironic, not in an Alanis Morrisette way), I thought I would look at some numbers that are routinely overlooked by the media in an assessment of his greatness.
Photo by Mike Lizzi
Personally, I have made it known on my site who I feel is the best goaltender of the post expansion era, and that is Patrick Roy.
Roy was also recognized as the greatest fantasy goaltender of the last 20 seasons in my evaluation of the best 100 fantasy goaltenders. But Roy benefited from being eligible for more regular seasons, the difference between the two was minuscule and Brodeur has plenty of opportunity to alter those results should he play a couple of more seasons.
My bias will ultimately push me towards Patrick Roy in the argument, but the difference statistically is more razor thin than most believe. It would be easy to look at their statistics and come to simple conclusions, just like it would be a simplistic assertion that Roy was better because he has more Cups, Conn Smyth trophies and won their only head to head match-up in the Stanley Cup Final.
I believe that their are a variety of factors to recognize greatness. Regular season success, longevity, acknowledgement that you are the best at your position, playoff success and innovation and career influence.
Where Brodeur will ultimately outdistance Patrick Roy is career statistics. He has better statistics across the board.
More wins and shutouts, a better goals against average, winning percentage and save percentage, all accomplished in 3 seasons less than Roy. Statistical dominance right?
But how accurate are these statistics?
In 16 seasons Brodeur has played only 43 games less than Roy, for a player that averages over 65 games a season he is setting the record in just over 2/3 of a season less. That is where the change of rules alters how the numbers are viewed.
In 2005-06 the NHL added the shootout to the rules. A rule that did not exist during Patrick Roy's career. So if Brodeur's 27 shootout wins are removed from his career numbers he would sit at 524 wins with 43 games to tie the mark in the same amount of games. Remove these wins and add them to his tie column and his winning percentage drops from .633 to .619.
If you assume that Brodeur will continue along at his adjusted pace his record would place him at 23-17-3 over those 43 games. Just about the same career pace as Patrick Roy.
So his win pace is essentially equal to that of Roy, which is a fair evaluator as there is very little to choose between each of their careers. Brodeur does own a significant advantage over Roy in goals against average. Is this accurate and fair to Roy who played over half of his career in an era where the league averaged over 3 goals per game (including the 1985-86 season where the league average was 4)? Contrast that to Martin Brodeur who has competed in only three of 16 seasons where the league has posted 3+ goals per game.
Over Roy's career the league average was 3.20 goals per game, for Brodeur the number is 2.84 a difference of close to 11%. When adjusted for the league scoring differential the gap in the goals against average becomes even closer.
Take a look at the adjusted numbers.
Outside of shutouts it is not as dominant as it initially looks. Their winning percentage is almost identical and Brodeur's goals against average advantage is reduced to .10, a 4% difference which translates into 41 goals over a whole career.
Considering that Roy faced an average of 3 extra shots per game, is it a stretch to say that this category is also a wash?
I did not project out the games that Brodeur has yet to play because I do not want to project the unknown. It is unfair to speculate fairly on what has yet to be. I think it is fair to say that it would be very tight for Brodeur to accomplish the feat in less games than Roy.
I understand that there remains a possibility that if the shootout point was removed that it may have altered the results of the OT finishes, maybe the Devils would have pushed for more regulation wins, but how dramatically would Roy's numbers have been altered had the first 13 seasons of his career included overtime periods in which teams played 4 on 4 and the losing team was awarded a guaranteed point? How many OT losses would have been credited as an OTL/T and not a L? How many games would the dominant teams he played on have produced victories instead of ties? How would this have altered his winning percentage? Would it have been enough to alter perceptions further?
What Martin Brodeur is about to accomplish tonight is amazing, and he does deserve full credit for such a coveted record. He is definitely in the argument for greatest goaltender of the post expansion era, but I don't feel it is as cut and dry as the media would have you believe.
I believe that my observations are fair to both goaltenders and I have already made my decision, but Brodeur has time to alter that decision. I encourage you to look at these overlooked factors and come to your own conclusions.
Leave a comment
Comments are moderated by users, administration, and protected by Akismet
Not all comments will be posted
Not all comments will be posted
Comments
Posted By: jean francois @ 7:56am EDT, Mar 17th 2009 -- Flag Comment
please check the average of shots then face roy and brodeur per game im sure that is almost 30 for roy and less than 25 for brodeur. verified and publish the results thank you
Posted By: Chris Boyle @ 8:13am EDT, Mar 17th 2009 -- Flag Comment
Roy faced 28353 shots in 60235 minutes. Just over 28 shots per 60 minutes.
Brodeur faced 24720 shots in 58254 minutes. Just over 25 shots per 60 minutes.
Also, I have already received plenty of emails about why Hasek is not in the article. I addressed Hasek in the first link as to why I thought Roy was the greatest of all-time.
His career as a starter did not begin until he was 29 years old and he his numbers are nowhere near Roy/Brodeur's. Since the piece is called the Numbers, I did not project out the close to 300 games that never existed in order to compare him.
Brodeur faced 24720 shots in 58254 minutes. Just over 25 shots per 60 minutes.
Also, I have already received plenty of emails about why Hasek is not in the article. I addressed Hasek in the first link as to why I thought Roy was the greatest of all-time.
His career as a starter did not begin until he was 29 years old and he his numbers are nowhere near Roy/Brodeur's. Since the piece is called the Numbers, I did not project out the close to 300 games that never existed in order to compare him.
Posted By: Jay @ 1:44pm EDT, Mar 17th 2009 -- Flag Comment
I understand that this is all subjective and that we're talking about overlapping eras but you are missing the big picture here. Numbers can be manipulated to say whatever you want. Even after you adjusted them to suit your argument, Brodeur still had slightly better numbers. It's pretty odd that you titled an argument for Roy with "The Numbers".
Posted By: Chris Boyle @ 2:09pm EDT, Mar 17th 2009 -- Flag Comment
It is not an argument for Roy. It is an attempt to even the playing field in regards to their numbers. Hence the title
Brodeur vs Roy - The Numbers
It is a look at numbers that have been skewed by rule changes and different era's. Are you really telling me those slightly better numbers mean anything? The .04 SV%? The .10 GAA? Over 1000 games this proves somebody is better?
How can you tell me I am manipulating numbers when the numbers have already been manipulated? Their wins are not equal because Brodeur was presented with 41 bonus opportunities to win games that Roy was not. He also had over half his career in which he was not saddled with a loss should he lose a game in OT.
This has a direct correlation to win/losse/ties. If there were broader game by game stats being kept into the 80s I could have analyzed how many games that Roy lost that were counted as losses and not OTL/T. All of these have a direct impact on statistics accrued.
You are putting your head in the sand if you fail to recognize the difference. What if next season the NHL decided to add 5 assists per goal and enlarge the nets and Crosby tied Gretzky's record in less games, would you say I was manipulating stats if I decided to mention it when comparing how Crosby set the new record?
I have already made up my mind as of today. I am self admittedly biased. But I presented the revised numbers to present them in context. It is unfair to Roy to ignore such significant factors.
If you feel you want to make your judgement based on inconclusive numbers slanted for goaltender's born in the 70s and 80s, be my guest.
Brodeur vs Roy - The Numbers
It is a look at numbers that have been skewed by rule changes and different era's. Are you really telling me those slightly better numbers mean anything? The .04 SV%? The .10 GAA? Over 1000 games this proves somebody is better?
How can you tell me I am manipulating numbers when the numbers have already been manipulated? Their wins are not equal because Brodeur was presented with 41 bonus opportunities to win games that Roy was not. He also had over half his career in which he was not saddled with a loss should he lose a game in OT.
This has a direct correlation to win/losse/ties. If there were broader game by game stats being kept into the 80s I could have analyzed how many games that Roy lost that were counted as losses and not OTL/T. All of these have a direct impact on statistics accrued.
You are putting your head in the sand if you fail to recognize the difference. What if next season the NHL decided to add 5 assists per goal and enlarge the nets and Crosby tied Gretzky's record in less games, would you say I was manipulating stats if I decided to mention it when comparing how Crosby set the new record?
I have already made up my mind as of today. I am self admittedly biased. But I presented the revised numbers to present them in context. It is unfair to Roy to ignore such significant factors.
If you feel you want to make your judgement based on inconclusive numbers slanted for goaltender's born in the 70s and 80s, be my guest.
Posted By: dfallz @ 2:42pm EDT, Mar 17th 2009 -- Flag Comment
in this article you are saying that brodeur has no losses in shoot out ... if you are taking his wins away and counting them as ties, ou must also take away his losses ... lastly the reason the gaa is lower now than before is because goalies have gotten better and they wear bigger equipment ... brodeur wears the tiniest equipment and still out performs all the other goalies ... roy was magnificent and won stanley cups on his own ... but brodeur has done that as well with more class
Posted By: Nik @ 2:50pm EDT, Mar 17th 2009 -- Flag Comment
Roy is hands down the #1 goalie! Brodeur is one of the greatest hands down but if they played exactly the same games, during the same time Roy would be number one..love the article and good luck to brodeur
Posted By: Tyler G @ 2:59pm EDT, Mar 17th 2009 -- Flag Comment
Maybe you should have put playoff stats into the picture. Roy, after all, is best known for playoff feats, like success in overtime and wins. I highly doubt that Brodeur can ever match Roy's playoff victories.
Posted By: Chris Boyle @ 3:22pm EDT, Mar 17th 2009 -- Flag Comment
dfallz
Brodeur's losses in the shootout register as ties. I never changed his losses because OT losses register as OTL/T. They were already included.
I am not getting into equipment, systems, playoffs, influence etc. Those were things I covered in my link to Roy as the Greatest of All-Time in the second paragraph.
This was only a look at the numbers and how NHL rule changes don't present the numbers properly. It is not meant to present an argument for Roy as the best, if it comes across as that, then I did a poor job of presenting it.
Brodeur's losses in the shootout register as ties. I never changed his losses because OT losses register as OTL/T. They were already included.
I am not getting into equipment, systems, playoffs, influence etc. Those were things I covered in my link to Roy as the Greatest of All-Time in the second paragraph.
This was only a look at the numbers and how NHL rule changes don't present the numbers properly. It is not meant to present an argument for Roy as the best, if it comes across as that, then I did a poor job of presenting it.
Posted By: Roy @ 3:56pm EDT, Mar 17th 2009 -- Flag Comment
All that needs to be looked at is the Stanley Cup finals from the 2001 season. The winner me!
Posted By: Geoff @ 4:15pm EDT, Mar 17th 2009 -- Flag Comment
Keep in mind that games didn't involve 'shootouts' when Roy played. With that said, how many of Brodeur's games or rather wins have been the direct result of a 'shootout'? Either way, he would break the record sooner or later anyway.
Posted By: Eric @ 9:12pm EDT, Mar 17th 2009 -- Flag Comment
The era's may be different but everything averages out in the end. There is still no consideration for the system that the Devil's patented and the fact that most of the Devil's teams never had a 90 or even 80 point scorer. They won with a stellar defense and he didnt have the advantage of playing behind the likes of Sakic and Forsberg in their primes. I think it is a wash and still think Marty is/will be the greatest goalie we will see in our lifetime. The system the Devils employed facilitated many of the goalie changes that were made in the nineties such as the restrictions on goalie puck control and crease dimensions. All in all, it is an interesting comparison between the 2 of the best goalies we may ever see.
Posted By: Gill @ 11:54am EDT, Mar 18th 2009 -- Flag Comment
I guess never being much of a fan of Roy, mostly because of the teams he played for, perhaps my arguments will lean me towards brodeur, but I think that your analysis spins things slightly incorrectly.
Several points have been mentioned here. Brodeur certainly did not have the offense power in front of him that Roy had, so it becomes difficult to compare. And certainly the quality of the defense impacts a goalie's stats...was Brodeur's defense better than Patrick Roy. Perhaps. Just from the simply fact that Roy faced a lot more rubber year in and year out, despite playing in probably less games. Nevertheless Brodeur's GAA numbers are kind of staggering, and if you just take the GAA of the years in which Brodeur and Roy were simultaneously in the league, Brodeurs GAA average is simply better in that period from 1993-2002, the wins are almost identical. And I think it is valid to believe that the effort NJ might put into an overtime period, knowing they brodeur in the shootout is a consideration.
But I think there are a few intangibles that make Brodeur better. He has many more shutouts than Roy, in less games, and that cannot be overlooked. A goalie who can fairly consistently shutout more than 10% of the games he plays in a season, has to get into the opponents head.
In addition, I believe, I have no statistics, but I think Brodeur is simply the best puck handling goalie I have ever seen. His ability to play the puck efficiently is a big reason why he doesn't see to much rubber.
Also there is something to be said about what a horse he is. He has 11 seasons so far in which he has played more than 70 games. While it is unknown whether Roy could handle the workload, we know Brodeur certainly can, and we know that a lot of goalies simply couldn't.
Several points have been mentioned here. Brodeur certainly did not have the offense power in front of him that Roy had, so it becomes difficult to compare. And certainly the quality of the defense impacts a goalie's stats...was Brodeur's defense better than Patrick Roy. Perhaps. Just from the simply fact that Roy faced a lot more rubber year in and year out, despite playing in probably less games. Nevertheless Brodeur's GAA numbers are kind of staggering, and if you just take the GAA of the years in which Brodeur and Roy were simultaneously in the league, Brodeurs GAA average is simply better in that period from 1993-2002, the wins are almost identical. And I think it is valid to believe that the effort NJ might put into an overtime period, knowing they brodeur in the shootout is a consideration.
But I think there are a few intangibles that make Brodeur better. He has many more shutouts than Roy, in less games, and that cannot be overlooked. A goalie who can fairly consistently shutout more than 10% of the games he plays in a season, has to get into the opponents head.
In addition, I believe, I have no statistics, but I think Brodeur is simply the best puck handling goalie I have ever seen. His ability to play the puck efficiently is a big reason why he doesn't see to much rubber.
Also there is something to be said about what a horse he is. He has 11 seasons so far in which he has played more than 70 games. While it is unknown whether Roy could handle the workload, we know Brodeur certainly can, and we know that a lot of goalies simply couldn't.
Posted By: Chris Boyle @ 12:31pm EDT, Mar 18th 2009 -- Flag Comment
GIll, I did not want to get into all the various factors in regards to their careers because there are way to many variables to deduce a legitimate winner.
Roy's early career was set under a Pat Burns system and the offensive firepower was not available to him. Comparing his numbers while they played together does not take systems into effect. Also, looking at Roy's numbers in his Vezina years is unfair to him because they are inflated because of an NHL where 3.5 goals were scored per game.
It is why I simplified it and just used numbers and sensical factors as to why they should be adjusted.
I presented the numbers for you to make up your own mind. I disagree with you and feel you are disregarding plenty of factors in regards to Roy, but the point of the column was not to persuade you. You are free to make your own mind up.
Roy's early career was set under a Pat Burns system and the offensive firepower was not available to him. Comparing his numbers while they played together does not take systems into effect. Also, looking at Roy's numbers in his Vezina years is unfair to him because they are inflated because of an NHL where 3.5 goals were scored per game.
It is why I simplified it and just used numbers and sensical factors as to why they should be adjusted.
I presented the numbers for you to make up your own mind. I disagree with you and feel you are disregarding plenty of factors in regards to Roy, but the point of the column was not to persuade you. You are free to make your own mind up.
Posted By: eattheworm @ 12:52pm EDT, Mar 18th 2009 -- Flag Comment
Has no-one noticed that Roy just left a comment? Nice to see you at the game in Montreal to watch Brodeur tie it. Class.
Posted By: MoonDragn @ 1:03pm EDT, Mar 18th 2009 -- Flag Comment
Eric, Devils had few 80,90 point scorers. Patrik Elias is a good example. It is true that the devils used a very tight defensive trap system during the 1995 stanley cup, but that system was Jacques Lemaire's and the system went when he did. The different NJ coaches over the years all had diff systems and in fact Pat Burns was NJ's coach for the 2003 Stanley cup.
Chris, it is ok if you want to discount shootouts, but then you have to also take in consideration all the other rule changes brought about to increase scoring. The clutching and grabbing changes, the trapezoid addition aimed at Brodeur, the red line etc. The game is also different now than it was back when Roy played, Composite sticks, more balanced teams cause of the Cap. If you only take one factor and remove it, then you really skew the results in favor of Roy. When Roy beat Sawchuk, he did it with more than 70 games per season and with overtime wins. Does this mean Roy is no better than Sawchuk?
Chris, it is ok if you want to discount shootouts, but then you have to also take in consideration all the other rule changes brought about to increase scoring. The clutching and grabbing changes, the trapezoid addition aimed at Brodeur, the red line etc. The game is also different now than it was back when Roy played, Composite sticks, more balanced teams cause of the Cap. If you only take one factor and remove it, then you really skew the results in favor of Roy. When Roy beat Sawchuk, he did it with more than 70 games per season and with overtime wins. Does this mean Roy is no better than Sawchuk?
Posted By: Chris Boyle @ 1:38pm EDT, Mar 18th 2009 -- Flag Comment
Sometimes I wonder if people read the whole post.
I have said it 3-4 times. I am not here to discuss who was better. I already created a whole post and linked it in the second paragraph about why I thought Roy was the greatest of the POST EXPANSION era. I also stated in this article that IMO I feel there are SIX factors to determine greatness.
I never ranked Roy against Sawchuk because it is impossible to rank a goaltender who played without a mask to one who did. You cannot compare era's that began 35 years apart. Is Roy better than Sawchuk? I don't know, would Gretzky have scored 215 pts in a season if he did not get to play Winnipeg, Hartford, Toronto etc in a watered down league where 360 players played in a league that would not have played in the original six era? Did europeans even out the talent pool? Has the talent pool been watered down? It is an argument that can NEVER be proved, statistics or otherwise.
As for all the changes (ie clutching grabbing etc) they were discussed in the part where I mentioned average scoring per season. There are no changes that have been made in the last 10 years that could come close to evening the playing field from the 80s. Roy played in an era where 215 pts were scored and Brett Hull had 3 straight 70 goal seasons. If I had the choice of a wooden stick and Grant Fuhr in net or a composite stick and JS Giguere, I am taking the wooden stick and Fuhr EVERY TIME.
Fuhr played in leather pads not synthetic ones, those were not introduced until the late 80s by Barrasso, Richard Brodeur and Reggie Lemelin. Would Broduer have been able to move as quickly with leather pads? Nobody knows. Would he have been effective wearing a 70s/early 80s inspired ghost mask? Nobody knows. Would Roy have dedicated his career to the butterfly if his face was exposed? Once again, nobody knows.
But I digress, I don't think I have made any outrageous leaps. Brodeur has been rewarded with 25 bonus wins and 41 extra opportunities. THAT IS A FACT. He played in a lower scoring era. THAT IS A FACT. So I used common sense to present a reasonable understanding of how the statistics would be affected. Nothing more, nothing less.
Come to whatever conclusions you want.
I have said it 3-4 times. I am not here to discuss who was better. I already created a whole post and linked it in the second paragraph about why I thought Roy was the greatest of the POST EXPANSION era. I also stated in this article that IMO I feel there are SIX factors to determine greatness.
I never ranked Roy against Sawchuk because it is impossible to rank a goaltender who played without a mask to one who did. You cannot compare era's that began 35 years apart. Is Roy better than Sawchuk? I don't know, would Gretzky have scored 215 pts in a season if he did not get to play Winnipeg, Hartford, Toronto etc in a watered down league where 360 players played in a league that would not have played in the original six era? Did europeans even out the talent pool? Has the talent pool been watered down? It is an argument that can NEVER be proved, statistics or otherwise.
As for all the changes (ie clutching grabbing etc) they were discussed in the part where I mentioned average scoring per season. There are no changes that have been made in the last 10 years that could come close to evening the playing field from the 80s. Roy played in an era where 215 pts were scored and Brett Hull had 3 straight 70 goal seasons. If I had the choice of a wooden stick and Grant Fuhr in net or a composite stick and JS Giguere, I am taking the wooden stick and Fuhr EVERY TIME.
Fuhr played in leather pads not synthetic ones, those were not introduced until the late 80s by Barrasso, Richard Brodeur and Reggie Lemelin. Would Broduer have been able to move as quickly with leather pads? Nobody knows. Would he have been effective wearing a 70s/early 80s inspired ghost mask? Nobody knows. Would Roy have dedicated his career to the butterfly if his face was exposed? Once again, nobody knows.
But I digress, I don't think I have made any outrageous leaps. Brodeur has been rewarded with 25 bonus wins and 41 extra opportunities. THAT IS A FACT. He played in a lower scoring era. THAT IS A FACT. So I used common sense to present a reasonable understanding of how the statistics would be affected. Nothing more, nothing less.
Come to whatever conclusions you want.
Posted By: Keith J Sauter @ 7:34pm EDT, Mar 18th 2009 -- Flag Comment
"Brodeur does own a significant advantage over Roy in goals against average. Is this accurate and fair to Roy who played over half of his career in an era where the league averaged over 3 goals per game (including the 1985-86 season where the league average was 4)? Contrast that to Martin Brodeur who has competed in only three of 16 seasons where the league has posted 3 goals per game."
This is nonsensical - Brodeur's GAA superiority is of course a fair comparison. You're actually penalizing Brodeur because the other goaltenders from Roy's time allowed more goals than other goaltenders from Brodeur's time. Neither Roy nor Brodeur can control what other goaltenders can or can't do - they can only control what happens in the games they themselves are playing in. In fact, this could be another point in Brodeur's favor, since it apparently illustrates that Brodeur was/is being opposed by higher quality goaltenders in the games that he's played, and thus the wins should have been harder to come by. I would also be interested in seeing a comparison of the goal support that Roy and Brodeur received from their respective teams - I would guess the Canadiens/Avalanche scored more goals for Roy than the Devils have scored in support of Brodeur. If my assumption is correct, then Brodeur is the better goalie because he HAD to be.
This is nonsensical - Brodeur's GAA superiority is of course a fair comparison. You're actually penalizing Brodeur because the other goaltenders from Roy's time allowed more goals than other goaltenders from Brodeur's time. Neither Roy nor Brodeur can control what other goaltenders can or can't do - they can only control what happens in the games they themselves are playing in. In fact, this could be another point in Brodeur's favor, since it apparently illustrates that Brodeur was/is being opposed by higher quality goaltenders in the games that he's played, and thus the wins should have been harder to come by. I would also be interested in seeing a comparison of the goal support that Roy and Brodeur received from their respective teams - I would guess the Canadiens/Avalanche scored more goals for Roy than the Devils have scored in support of Brodeur. If my assumption is correct, then Brodeur is the better goalie because he HAD to be.
Posted By: Keith J Sauter @ 8:12pm EDT, Mar 18th 2009 -- Flag Comment
"Outside of shutouts it is not as dominant as it initially looks."
You also can't just dismiss the difference in shutouts in one sentence. When one goalie has 50% more shutouts than another (over 16 year careers), in my opinion that's a pretty good argument that he's better.
You also can't just dismiss the difference in shutouts in one sentence. When one goalie has 50% more shutouts than another (over 16 year careers), in my opinion that's a pretty good argument that he's better.
Posted By: Chris Boyle @ 8:16pm EDT, Mar 18th 2009 -- Flag Comment
It is exactly what I am implying. When the Vezina trophy winner in 1989 posts a 2.49 GAA and that mark would trail 19 goalies in 1999 it is a clear indication that the era was lower scoring.
In 1989 SIX goaltenders out of 34 in the NHL (30 starts) finished the season with a sub 3.00 GAA. In 1999 THREE goaltenders out of 34 in the NHL (30 starts) finished the season with a 3.00 GAA.
So what is the assumption? That the 28 of the goaltenders in 1989 were incompetent and in 1999 31 of the goaltenders were not incompetent? Is that what you are saying?
I guess it is also a coincidence that Brodeur's four worst seasons in regards to his GAA also happen to be the seasons in which the league average for goals were at 3 and up? But it is not a factor at all right?
Brodeur's GAA in the 4 seasons where the league gave up an average of 3 goals a game is 2.44. In the 11 seasons in which he played where the league averaged below 3 a game his average is 2.12.
I guess it is also ridiculous to believe that if you added 8 more seasons to his career in which the league averaged 3-4 goals a game it would affect his goals against average in no way, am I interpreting what you said right?
And you are throwing out terms like nonsensical?
In 1989 SIX goaltenders out of 34 in the NHL (30 starts) finished the season with a sub 3.00 GAA. In 1999 THREE goaltenders out of 34 in the NHL (30 starts) finished the season with a 3.00 GAA.
So what is the assumption? That the 28 of the goaltenders in 1989 were incompetent and in 1999 31 of the goaltenders were not incompetent? Is that what you are saying?
I guess it is also a coincidence that Brodeur's four worst seasons in regards to his GAA also happen to be the seasons in which the league average for goals were at 3 and up? But it is not a factor at all right?
Brodeur's GAA in the 4 seasons where the league gave up an average of 3 goals a game is 2.44. In the 11 seasons in which he played where the league averaged below 3 a game his average is 2.12.
I guess it is also ridiculous to believe that if you added 8 more seasons to his career in which the league averaged 3-4 goals a game it would affect his goals against average in no way, am I interpreting what you said right?
And you are throwing out terms like nonsensical?
Posted By: Andrew @ 8:37pm EDT, Mar 18th 2009 -- Flag Comment
Great article Chris! People! Stop posting remarks towards things that he has already explained. If you aren't smart enough to get it the first time then read it again. If not then please do not comment. We cannot predict what Roy's numbers would look like if he played with shootout wins/ties etc. but likely he would have less losses and more wins that would take him over the top on Brodeur. Simply put he has more Vezina's more stanley's and he revolutionized the way goaltending is played today. Is there a goaltender more emulated in history then Roy?? No!! Brodeur patterned himself after Roy. Brodeur is awesome no question but isn't the best of all time. I challenge anyone to find a more dominating playoff performance then Roy in his rookie year of 1986.
Posted By: Chris Boyle @ 10:16pm EDT, Mar 18th 2009 -- Flag Comment
Roy had 20 shutouts in his first 8 years in the league. An era in which not one season offered up less than 3.45 goals per game.
When Brodeur entered the league in 1993-94 Roy registered 46 shutouts in 9 seasons. A much lower scoring era.
In 1989 the league registered 44 shutouts or 2.12 per 82 games played. 1n 1999 the league registered 157 shutouts or 5.67 per 82 games played. 1n 2009 the league has already registered 131 shutouts or 5.07 per 82 games played.
It is pretty easy to see the correlation to shutouts and why goaltenders like Brodeur and Belfour registered more than Roy and severely outdistance 80s contemporaries like Mike Liut (25), Grant Fuhr (25), Andy Moog (28) and Mike Vernon (27).
Roman Turek (27), Arturs Irbe (33), Tommy Salo (37), Felix Potvin (32) and Chris Osgood (47) were not better than Grant Fuhr (25) and Osgood's 47 does not solidify an argument for him being better.
When Brodeur entered the league in 1993-94 Roy registered 46 shutouts in 9 seasons. A much lower scoring era.
In 1989 the league registered 44 shutouts or 2.12 per 82 games played. 1n 1999 the league registered 157 shutouts or 5.67 per 82 games played. 1n 2009 the league has already registered 131 shutouts or 5.07 per 82 games played.
It is pretty easy to see the correlation to shutouts and why goaltenders like Brodeur and Belfour registered more than Roy and severely outdistance 80s contemporaries like Mike Liut (25), Grant Fuhr (25), Andy Moog (28) and Mike Vernon (27).
Roman Turek (27), Arturs Irbe (33), Tommy Salo (37), Felix Potvin (32) and Chris Osgood (47) were not better than Grant Fuhr (25) and Osgood's 47 does not solidify an argument for him being better.
Posted By: Keith J Sauter @ 11:39pm EDT, Mar 18th 2009 -- Flag Comment
OK,"nonsensical" may have been a bit harsh, HOWEVER:
100 divided by 66 equals 1.515, or in other words Brodeur had 51.5% more shutouts than Roy (I actually rounded down in my earlier post). THAT is the correct way to calculate percentages.
On the other hand, I may be willing to concede that had Brodeur played in earlier seasons, his GAA may have gone up. If Roy had played in subsequent seasons, his GAA may have gone down. Nevertheless, in the 10 concurrent seasons in which they both played a substantial number of games (leaving out Brodeur's 4 games played in 1991-92), Brodeur had a better GAA in 7 of them, Roy had a better GAA in 2, and one season their GAA's were the same.
During those same 10 seasons, when Roy had 46 shutouts, Brodeur had 64 (only 39.1% more but I think you get my point).
Of course, Brodeur's shutout superiority during that time in partly due to the increased number of games he played. From the 1995-96 season until Roy's retirement after 2002-03, he averaged almost 10 games more a season than Roy. However, that also illustrates Brodeur's superior endurance, and gives his edge in GAA even more weight (Brodeur has played 70 or more games in a season 11 times in his career - how many seasons did Roy play 70 games?).
I agree that with the shootout situation perhaps we should see how things stand after Brodeur has played 43 more games, but again I'd like to see a comparison of the goal support they received from their teammates.
Also to Andrew who posted above - Brodeur has more Vezinas than Roy, and there's a good chance he might equal Roy in Stanleys this year, or at least eventually.
One thing Brodeur does have that Roy doesn't is an Olympic gold medal, despite the fact that he actually allowed his backup to play in one of the games.
100 divided by 66 equals 1.515, or in other words Brodeur had 51.5% more shutouts than Roy (I actually rounded down in my earlier post). THAT is the correct way to calculate percentages.
On the other hand, I may be willing to concede that had Brodeur played in earlier seasons, his GAA may have gone up. If Roy had played in subsequent seasons, his GAA may have gone down. Nevertheless, in the 10 concurrent seasons in which they both played a substantial number of games (leaving out Brodeur's 4 games played in 1991-92), Brodeur had a better GAA in 7 of them, Roy had a better GAA in 2, and one season their GAA's were the same.
During those same 10 seasons, when Roy had 46 shutouts, Brodeur had 64 (only 39.1% more but I think you get my point).
Of course, Brodeur's shutout superiority during that time in partly due to the increased number of games he played. From the 1995-96 season until Roy's retirement after 2002-03, he averaged almost 10 games more a season than Roy. However, that also illustrates Brodeur's superior endurance, and gives his edge in GAA even more weight (Brodeur has played 70 or more games in a season 11 times in his career - how many seasons did Roy play 70 games?).
I agree that with the shootout situation perhaps we should see how things stand after Brodeur has played 43 more games, but again I'd like to see a comparison of the goal support they received from their teammates.
Also to Andrew who posted above - Brodeur has more Vezinas than Roy, and there's a good chance he might equal Roy in Stanleys this year, or at least eventually.
One thing Brodeur does have that Roy doesn't is an Olympic gold medal, despite the fact that he actually allowed his backup to play in one of the games.
Posted By: Chris Boyle @ 9:54am EDT, Mar 19th 2009 -- Flag Comment
The whole point of the article was to point out that the stats are deceiving. And they are, the non adjusted stats do not present a fair account of their careers.
Did Brodeur have a better average than Roy from 1993-94 to 2002-03? Yes, 2.18 to 2.37.
Is that offset by Roy having a superior SV% of .916 to .912 while facing over 1000 shots more in the same time period? (Was Roy's career SV% negatively affected from his years from 1986 - 1993 when only 25 goaltenders registered a .900 SV% over an 8 year period (30 games) when 33 goaltenders accomplished that feat in 2008?)
As for wins during that span, Brodeur averaged 45 per 82 GP, Roy 44 per 82 GP. Shutouts Brodeur 8 and Roy 6.
Do these numbers really present as overwhelming a case for Brodeur as they do on the surface? As for durability, Roy never had a major injury in his career and his lack of starts is not something that should be held against him, that is a coaching/management decision.
As for the Olympic Medal, it doesn't really mean anything. Henrik Lundqvist and Tommy Salo also have one. Roy was outstanding in Nagano in 1998, he allowed 1 goal in the 70 minute quarter final and 1 goal in a 5 shooter shootout. Lemieux has a gold medal and Gretzky doesn't, does that mean anything? Should we also credit Marty for his World Cup of Hockey title?
But once again I digress. An argument for greatest of all-time can be forged for either goaltender. There are plenty of factors outside of stats that define both of their legacies.
Roy was Brodeur's equal in production throughout their regular season careers if analyzed in a fair manner.
If Brodeur plays an extra 200 games it does not change MY perspective. But if he wins 2 more Cups and partners them with back to back Conn Smythe trophies, then that may alter MY opinion in his favour.
Did Brodeur have a better average than Roy from 1993-94 to 2002-03? Yes, 2.18 to 2.37.
Is that offset by Roy having a superior SV% of .916 to .912 while facing over 1000 shots more in the same time period? (Was Roy's career SV% negatively affected from his years from 1986 - 1993 when only 25 goaltenders registered a .900 SV% over an 8 year period (30 games) when 33 goaltenders accomplished that feat in 2008?)
As for wins during that span, Brodeur averaged 45 per 82 GP, Roy 44 per 82 GP. Shutouts Brodeur 8 and Roy 6.
Do these numbers really present as overwhelming a case for Brodeur as they do on the surface? As for durability, Roy never had a major injury in his career and his lack of starts is not something that should be held against him, that is a coaching/management decision.
As for the Olympic Medal, it doesn't really mean anything. Henrik Lundqvist and Tommy Salo also have one. Roy was outstanding in Nagano in 1998, he allowed 1 goal in the 70 minute quarter final and 1 goal in a 5 shooter shootout. Lemieux has a gold medal and Gretzky doesn't, does that mean anything? Should we also credit Marty for his World Cup of Hockey title?
But once again I digress. An argument for greatest of all-time can be forged for either goaltender. There are plenty of factors outside of stats that define both of their legacies.
Roy was Brodeur's equal in production throughout their regular season careers if analyzed in a fair manner.
If Brodeur plays an extra 200 games it does not change MY perspective. But if he wins 2 more Cups and partners them with back to back Conn Smythe trophies, then that may alter MY opinion in his favour.
Posted By: James @ 3:10pm EDT, Mar 19th 2009 -- Flag Comment
How can you ignore the issue of goal support? Honestly, much like quarterbacks and pitchers, the Wins column is all that really matters for Goaltenders. And I'm willing to bet that if Patrick Roy received the same lack of goal support that Marty Brodeur has received, you might see a change in his wins total. Maybe you should learn to adjust your stats fairly and not just as a means of trying to argue your biased opinion.
Posted By: James @ 4:15pm EDT, Mar 19th 2009 -- Flag Comment
So Brodeur needs to win a couple of Conn Smythe Trophies to sway your opinion does he...
Here's Brodeur's 1994-95 and 1999-00 Stanley Cup Winning Playoff Performances that did not earn him a Conn Smythe Trophy
1994-95
20 GP, 16 W, 4 L, 3 SO, 1.67 GAA, .927 SV%
1999-00
23 GP, 16 W, 7 L, 2 SO, 1.61 GAA, .927 SV%
Here's Patrick Roy's 2000-01 Stanley Cup Winning Playoff Performance that did earn him a Conn Smythe Trophy
23 GP, 16 W, 7 L, 4 SO, 1.70 GAA .934 SV%
Those Conn Smythe Trophies make a big difference in Brodeur vs. Roy debate, and obviously Marty hasn't played nearly well enough yet to earn one for himself. And correct me if I'm wrong but I'm guessing scoring was a bit higher in the NHL in 1994-95 then in 2000-01 Maybe you could adjust those numbers for me???
Or are perhaps, as you like to put it, Roy's 3 Conn Smythe Trophies as opposed to Marty's 0 perhaps a little bit deceiving...
Here's Brodeur's 1994-95 and 1999-00 Stanley Cup Winning Playoff Performances that did not earn him a Conn Smythe Trophy
1994-95
20 GP, 16 W, 4 L, 3 SO, 1.67 GAA, .927 SV%
1999-00
23 GP, 16 W, 7 L, 2 SO, 1.61 GAA, .927 SV%
Here's Patrick Roy's 2000-01 Stanley Cup Winning Playoff Performance that did earn him a Conn Smythe Trophy
23 GP, 16 W, 7 L, 4 SO, 1.70 GAA .934 SV%
Those Conn Smythe Trophies make a big difference in Brodeur vs. Roy debate, and obviously Marty hasn't played nearly well enough yet to earn one for himself. And correct me if I'm wrong but I'm guessing scoring was a bit higher in the NHL in 1994-95 then in 2000-01 Maybe you could adjust those numbers for me???
Or are perhaps, as you like to put it, Roy's 3 Conn Smythe Trophies as opposed to Marty's 0 perhaps a little bit deceiving...
Posted By: Chris Boyle @ 5:04pm EDT, Mar 19th 2009 -- Flag Comment
James, all you are offering up is conjecture. You have no idea what the goal support is, yet you sumise that Roy is a beneficiary. You also surmise that Brodeur's lack of goal support would be a disadvantage even though the lack of goal support would be a direct result of the system that is being played, offering different benefits for Brodeur.
I have not gone into individual goal support as I do not have individual game logs from the early 90s.
During their shared time in the NHL under the same scoring rules and non inflated/deflated eras:
The New Jersey Devils averaged: 2.95 goals per game (Projected out over an 82 game schedule - 242)
The Canadiens/Avalanche averaged: 3.10 goals per game (Projected out over an 82 game schedule - 254)
So that is 0.15 extra goals per game or 12 extra goals of support over 82 games. Has another myth come crashing down?
You likely forgot the 1999-2001 Devils who finished 2nd/2nd/1st in league scoring. An opinion based on information is much more valued than one based upon conjecture.
I am open to criticism, I expect it and enjoy it if well presented. YOUR factless partisan opinion offered me neither.
As for the Conn Smythe....
Should I award Belfour the 1999 Conn Smythe?
1998-99 - 23 GP, 16 W, 7 L, 3 SO, 1.67 GAA, .930 SV%
Or maybe Chris Osgood in 2008?
2007-08 - 19 GP, 14 W, 4 L, 3 SO, 1.55 GAA, .930 SV%
How about Hasek in 2002?
2001-02 - 23 GP, 16 W, 7 L, 6 SO, 1.86 GAA, .920 SV%
Khabibulin in 2004?
2003-04 - 23 GP, 16 W, 7 L, 5 SO, 1.71 GAA, .933 SV%
Did they deserve the award? Are we rewriting award history?
If so, can I give Roy the 2002 Vezina instead of Jose Theodore? Can we give him the MVP that year as well? While we are at it, he had the best statistical season in 1987-88, so one more Vezina for Patrick Roy. That brings us up to 5 Vezina's, one more than Marty Brodeur.
Absurd. Roy won three Smythe's, Brodeur has won ZERO. Your leaps are based on nothing but justifying your opinion. I have spent 30 paragraphs explaining that I was just trying to compensate for inflated goal totals from a higher scoring era and scoring changes that dramatically altered how wins are registered. Neither are ridiculous leaps, they actually help to clarify how close these two really are.
All you are doing is clouding the issue because you don't like what I said while showing your bias for Brodeur.
I have not gone into individual goal support as I do not have individual game logs from the early 90s.
During their shared time in the NHL under the same scoring rules and non inflated/deflated eras:
The New Jersey Devils averaged: 2.95 goals per game (Projected out over an 82 game schedule - 242)
The Canadiens/Avalanche averaged: 3.10 goals per game (Projected out over an 82 game schedule - 254)
So that is 0.15 extra goals per game or 12 extra goals of support over 82 games. Has another myth come crashing down?
You likely forgot the 1999-2001 Devils who finished 2nd/2nd/1st in league scoring. An opinion based on information is much more valued than one based upon conjecture.
I am open to criticism, I expect it and enjoy it if well presented. YOUR factless partisan opinion offered me neither.
As for the Conn Smythe....
Should I award Belfour the 1999 Conn Smythe?
1998-99 - 23 GP, 16 W, 7 L, 3 SO, 1.67 GAA, .930 SV%
Or maybe Chris Osgood in 2008?
2007-08 - 19 GP, 14 W, 4 L, 3 SO, 1.55 GAA, .930 SV%
How about Hasek in 2002?
2001-02 - 23 GP, 16 W, 7 L, 6 SO, 1.86 GAA, .920 SV%
Khabibulin in 2004?
2003-04 - 23 GP, 16 W, 7 L, 5 SO, 1.71 GAA, .933 SV%
Did they deserve the award? Are we rewriting award history?
If so, can I give Roy the 2002 Vezina instead of Jose Theodore? Can we give him the MVP that year as well? While we are at it, he had the best statistical season in 1987-88, so one more Vezina for Patrick Roy. That brings us up to 5 Vezina's, one more than Marty Brodeur.
Absurd. Roy won three Smythe's, Brodeur has won ZERO. Your leaps are based on nothing but justifying your opinion. I have spent 30 paragraphs explaining that I was just trying to compensate for inflated goal totals from a higher scoring era and scoring changes that dramatically altered how wins are registered. Neither are ridiculous leaps, they actually help to clarify how close these two really are.
All you are doing is clouding the issue because you don't like what I said while showing your bias for Brodeur.
Posted By: eric @ 6:43pm EDT, Mar 21st 2009 -- Flag Comment
All this animosity between colleagues, it makes me think this is a political debate over the greatest president of all time, GW or Lincoln?
I did take a few minutes to check a few stats since that our starting point for comparisons. I did find out that during Roy's career he had 13 or 14 seasons where he had a scorer(s) average over a point a game, while Marty had 4, including this one, during his career (something to consider).
Side question: Do any of you guys think that Marty/Patrick were a product of their system, a combination, or could they have played on any team and established the same numbers?
I did take a few minutes to check a few stats since that our starting point for comparisons. I did find out that during Roy's career he had 13 or 14 seasons where he had a scorer(s) average over a point a game, while Marty had 4, including this one, during his career (something to consider).
Side question: Do any of you guys think that Marty/Patrick were a product of their system, a combination, or could they have played on any team and established the same numbers?
Posted By: Scott @ 3:51pm EDT, Mar 30th 2009 -- Flag Comment
Want to make up new rules to discount Brodeur's breaking of the record? OK, so your sticking point seems to be the shoot-out victories and because Brodeur had several more of them. Sure, not every goalie had the advantage of winning in the shoot-out. How many wins would Bernie Parent of had in one season when he had 47 wins and 10 ties.
So, let's do it BY YOUR RULES and discount these advantages, however, why should we just stop at shootouts? Other goalies did not have the advantage of OT wins, why should Roy and Brodeur have the advantage?
When you take into account overtime/shootout wins then Brodeur passed Roy last years in terms of regulation wins (Roy had 98 OT wins while Brodeur has only had 51). Since Sawchuk, Hall, Plante, etc didn't have the OT advantage.....we should either consider all records with asterisks, or none with asterisks, including your picking and choosing of the ones that might try to help your argument of Roy somehow keeping the record.
So, there you have it, there is really no valid rebuttal you can have to this.......if it's not fair to count Brodeur's SO wins then it is not fair to count Roy's OT wins.......
So, shall we take a look at the revised statistics? LOL
So, let's do it BY YOUR RULES and discount these advantages, however, why should we just stop at shootouts? Other goalies did not have the advantage of OT wins, why should Roy and Brodeur have the advantage?
When you take into account overtime/shootout wins then Brodeur passed Roy last years in terms of regulation wins (Roy had 98 OT wins while Brodeur has only had 51). Since Sawchuk, Hall, Plante, etc didn't have the OT advantage.....we should either consider all records with asterisks, or none with asterisks, including your picking and choosing of the ones that might try to help your argument of Roy somehow keeping the record.
So, there you have it, there is really no valid rebuttal you can have to this.......if it's not fair to count Brodeur's SO wins then it is not fair to count Roy's OT wins.......
So, shall we take a look at the revised statistics? LOL
Posted By: scott @ 4:03pm EDT, Mar 30th 2009 -- Flag Comment
Also, to those using the argument of what team/system the goalies played for.....really? Are you going to use that argument? Scott Stevens, Scott Niedermayer and Brian Rafalski are all long gone but I remember people saying "we'll see how good Brodeur is now" or "he's just the product of a strong D".
All of his teammates have moved on, he is the constant.
Oh, but it's his great coach's and their systems. They have had EIGHT different head coaches during Brodeur's time there. Did they all just all of the sudden become defensive geniuses.
Oh, but he would face less shots on goal.....to spite ALL different players and coaches.
Did you people ever think that maybe that he is the one most responsible for that....since he is the BEST puck handler EVER so, teams dump the puck in to establish a forecheck and get some shots well good luck with that because he is there playing the puck out of his zone before that can happen, a THIRD Dman if you will. Seems like common sense to me that he is going to face less shots when you can't even establish a forecheck.
Roy vs. Brodeur is no comparison. Brodeur is CLEARLY heads and tails above him. In fact, I would argue Hasek was as well. Most people who are deeply engrained in the game of hockey and who have been around a long time do not consider Roy top 5 (I don't).
Did someone say 2001? Worst argument EVER! Did they play one on one?
As a Flyers fan....rant over.....getting sick to my stomach talking about how good Brodeur is.
All of his teammates have moved on, he is the constant.
Oh, but it's his great coach's and their systems. They have had EIGHT different head coaches during Brodeur's time there. Did they all just all of the sudden become defensive geniuses.
Oh, but he would face less shots on goal.....to spite ALL different players and coaches.
Did you people ever think that maybe that he is the one most responsible for that....since he is the BEST puck handler EVER so, teams dump the puck in to establish a forecheck and get some shots well good luck with that because he is there playing the puck out of his zone before that can happen, a THIRD Dman if you will. Seems like common sense to me that he is going to face less shots when you can't even establish a forecheck.
Roy vs. Brodeur is no comparison. Brodeur is CLEARLY heads and tails above him. In fact, I would argue Hasek was as well. Most people who are deeply engrained in the game of hockey and who have been around a long time do not consider Roy top 5 (I don't).
Did someone say 2001? Worst argument EVER! Did they play one on one?
As a Flyers fan....rant over.....getting sick to my stomach talking about how good Brodeur is.
Posted By: Jeremy @ 4:10pm EDT, Mar 30th 2009 -- Flag Comment
I don't know if you did this or not as i didn't read every post but if your taking away overtime did you also take away goals and shots in overtime?
