cujo said:
Michael, I'm sorry but you're just being... well I don't even know what you're being. The point that you made is that hockey is based on the dichotomy of individual success and team strength... I don't think that point is going to be refuted. But, in order to talk about GOALTENDING in general terms, you have to look at individual stats. Admittedly, Roy has great numbers... so by superficial examination you could argue that he is the best goalie ever. However, when you consider the team aspect of his performance (the argument that both Chizip and I have subscribed to 
), his statistics get exaggerated. The same type of discussion emerges when talking about other money goalies like Brodeur. Individual success is how you fair individually... some of the best goalies ever haven't been afforded the opportunity to play for a team like the Devils or Avalanche of recent years... you can't deny their abilities simply because of their teammates shortcomings. If you need further examples... all you have to do is ask.
Obviously there is a discrepancy in how we look at netminding ability... and that's fine. Honor Roy as much as you want, because his career has meritted an ovation or two. But, when you start asking questions about who the best goalie of all time is... then there's a problem. We are all biased... so, I don't see any of us backing off or accepting another idea.
PS- I see Michael as more of the Curly from the Three Stooges.
First of all, I am looking at indivdual stats, but I'm also looking at his team stats. Whether you like it or not, wins are an integral component of a goaltender's worth. They are ultimately judged on that alone. They are paid to win hockey games, and I don't buy the argument that Roy only played for great teams. He single handedly won the Cup in his rookie year in '86. Talk to any commentators, players and coaches alike, and they'll tell you that. He beat the NY Rangers all by himself, making 20 saves in the final OT for the win. He then proceeded to carry the Canadiens all the way to the Cup, stoning the Flames time and time again in the finals. He did the same thing in 93. LA totally outplayed them, outshooting them, outchancing them, but they couldn't beat Patrick Roy. You don't win 10 OT games *in a row* without spectacular goaltending. That's what he did. Talk all you want about being on great teams, but I just don't buy that argument as to why he had a great career. Yes, he played on some fine teams (especially once he got to Colorado), but that doesn't take away from the fact he carried his team to the Stanley Cup on at least two occasions, if not more. You could make the same argument that Lemieux was better than Gretzky because Lemiuex didn't play on the great Oiler teams that Gretzky did. You could say that his stats were "exaggerated".
Speaking of which, I really disagree with that statement:
"...when you consider the team aspect of his performance...his statistics get exaggerated."
How can stats "get exaggerated"? Stats are stats. They do not lie. People may draw conclusions based on those stats that are off base, but those are simply conclusions. You could say that Giggy has the best stats (GGA) since WWII and therefore claim he's the best goaltender of the modern era, but while that conclusion is obviously off base, to say that his stats are exaggerated is bogus. The fact remains, he has the best playoff stats of the modern era, and no one can take that away from him.
Anyway, you also say that I'm not looking at Roy's individual abilty - once again, totally bogus statement. I am most definitely considereing his individual talent. He is the most talented goaltender I've ever seen play. Now maybe that's just my opinion, but 90% of the hockey world agrees with me, so I don't think I'm all that off base. It's the same thing as making the argument that Lemieux was better than Gretzky in his prime. But all arguments to that end--just like yours and Chizip's--are based on the "what if" component. I prefer to use what actually happened, rather than "what if he'd played on a great team" to back up my claims, that's all.
PS: I still haven't revealed which one of you is Abbott and who is Costello.
That was the name the Canadian Navy gave me anyway 
