HOH Top 40 Stanley Cup Playoff Performers of All Time

[Nadal On Clay]

Can someone explain me why Frank Foyston is ahead of Evgeni Malkin? I literally never heard of him before..

 

[Doctor No]

Can someone explain me why Frank Foyston is ahead of Evgeni Malkin? I literally never heard of him before..

Won Stanley Cups with three different franchises (could have won two with Seattle if not for the Spanish Flu), Hall of Famer (1958). Averaged one goal per Stanley Cup game that he played in.

 

[Nadal On Clay]

Won Stanley Cups with three different franchises (could have won two with Seattle if not for the Spanish Flu), Hall of Famer (1958). Averaged one goal per Stanley Cup game that he played in.

Do you have his playoffs stats?

 

[Doctor No]

Frank Foyston - Wikipedia

 

[bobholly39]

Can someone explain me why Frank Foyston is ahead of Evgeni Malkin? I literally never heard of him before..

Keep in mind this is an all-time playoff list, so if you're not familiar with historical hockey before more recent times, you have to actually take the time to look up older guys before you assume their resumes aren't as good as more modern guys.

Also - 2017 playoffs weren't taken into account. Vote was done before. I think if this was redone now Malkin for sure comes in somewhere in the top 40 - wherever that ends up being, as 2017 was pretty significant for him.

 

[Nadal On Clay]

Keep in mind this is an all-time playoff list, so if you're not familiar with historical hockey before more recent times, you have to actually take the time to look up older guys before you assume their resumes aren't as good as more modern guys.

Also - 2017 playoffs weren't taken into account. Vote was done before. I think if this was redone now Malkin for sure comes in somewhere in the top 40 - wherever that ends up being, as 2017 was pretty significant for him.

Yeah, I read some of the pages of the thread. There was some interesting discussions.

Also I thought that it was a NHL list only. This is why Foyston was kind of a weird choice for me.

 

[Thenameless]

At Worst



At worst an OT goal or assist has 1/16th of the value of winning the SC.

I don't like arguing, but this is not completely true. We have to be a little bit more precise, and say "At worst an OT goal or assist has 1/16th of the value of winning the SC......to the team that eventually wins the SC." There are a lot more than 16 wins in any given playoff year, but unless a team can win 16 games, it's "close, but no cigar" - in essence, they don't realize the full value of the 1/16th. I think that this is what ImporterExporter is trying to say. A game-winning goal is more valuable to a team that eventually wins the Stanley Cup, than to a team that gets eliminated.

I'm enjoying reading about this discussion.

 

[Marotte Marauder]

I sure would love to have Glenn Anderson on my team in the playoffs.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Obviously a homer here, but Crosby winning a 3rd straight Smythe would simply be legendary, especially in a salary cap era. Gretzky set all the major offensive records. Orr revolutionized the game from the back end. Beliveau won, and won, and won.

Hypothetically speaking, does Crosby move into the top 5 here easily with a 4th Cup (3rd straight) and 3rd consecutive Smythe?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Obviously a homer here, but Crosby winning a 3rd straight Smythe would simply be legendary, especially in a salary cap era. Gretzky set all the major offensive records. Orr revolutionized the game from the back end. Beliveau won, and won, and won.
d.
Hypothetically speaking, does Crosby move into the top 5 here easily with a 4th Cup (3rd straight) and 3rd consecutive Smythe?

Too early to say. One comment. Would cause the relationship between NHL RS and PO numbers, awards and value to be reviewed.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Obviously a homer here, but Crosby winning a 3rd straight Smythe would simply be legendary, especially in a salary cap era. Gretzky set all the major offensive records. Orr revolutionized the game from the back end. Beliveau won, and won, and won.

Hypothetically speaking, does Crosby move into the top 5 here easily with a 4th Cup (3rd straight) and 3rd consecutive Smythe?

Don't count your penguins before they hatch. Unless someone is strictly looking at award counts and not performances, I don't know how anyone can answer that question. Is he going to win one with 19 points and a minus-2 while Logan Couture scores 30 points? Then I don't think anyone is going to care to say that he's Ted Kennedy yet.

Bernie Parent won two-straight and he didn't even make this top-40 list. Jack Darragh, basically the same.

Let's at least wait until he has more points in these three-consecutive years than Joe Sakic had in just seven rounds before we say he's easily anything.

Everyone needs to ease off on projections from current players.

 

[bobholly39]

Obviously a homer here, but Crosby winning a 3rd straight Smythe would simply be legendary, especially in a salary cap era. Gretzky set all the major offensive records. Orr revolutionized the game from the back end. Beliveau won, and won, and won.

Hypothetically speaking, does Crosby move into the top 5 here easily with a 4th Cup (3rd straight) and 3rd consecutive Smythe?

His 2 smythes are rather weak. Not very weak - but not very strong either. In an all time sense.

Gretzky, Lemieux, Beliveau, Sakic....just to name a few. They all have much stronger smythes imo.

3 smythes will be huge. Not as huge as a particularly very "strong" 3rd smythe would be. And i think only way he wins a 3rd smythe is if it's very, very strong (or voter fatigue will play against him winning it, especially if it's 3 years in a row).

So yes a very strong 3rd smythe will start moving him up exponentially imo. And it should. Smythes count for a lot.

Will certainly be a very fun discussion to have in a couple of months if it comes to fruition.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Don't count your penguins before they hatch. Unless someone is strictly looking at award counts and not performances, I don't know how anyone can answer that question. Is he going to win one with 19 points and a minus-2 while Logan Couture scores 30 points? Then I don't think anyone is going to care to say that he's Ted Kennedy yet.

Bernie Parent won two-straight and he didn't even make this top-40 list. Jack Darragh, basically the same.

Let's at least wait until he has more points in these three-consecutive years than Joe Sakic had in just seven rounds before we say he's easily anything.

Everyone needs to ease off on projections from current players.

Nobody is counting anything before they hatch. I simply posted a hypothetical.

People really need to get off this 19 points -2 dead horse. Logan Couture didn't exactly blow up in round 4 and his team was handily whipped by Pitt in the finals (Martin Jones is the only reason that series wasn't closed out as a sweep or 5 games). Nobody else separated themselves on the Pens either that year. It's a weak Smythe but at the end of the day it's a major achievement. I watched every second of that run and Sid's impact went far beyond 19 points. Defensively he was great, especially in the finals shutting down the Pavelski/Thornton line. He scored a couple of massive goals (namely the OT winner in the conference finals when his team was down 0-1 in the series), set up a few others, etc. He was whipping Couture in the dot to the point where LC had to complain to the media about Sid "cheating". Plus minus is largely a useless stat as well. Your post is largely based on stat watching and doesn't include the nuances that also matter this time of year.

His 2nd Smythe, while not legendary, was certainly strong. He was 1 point behind Malkin (in 2 fewer games btw) for the league lead, was better than Geno in the finals, led the postseason in assists and again raised his defensive game ala Stevie Y (specific name drop especially for you ;-). I was at game 5 vs Nashville, when Pitt blitzed them 6-0 to go up 3-2. I've seen all but a couple of Sid's postseason games over his career and that was one of his greatest performances to date. He won the Smythe that night and for good reason.

And so far this year, he's at 7 points through 3 games (4 goals and 3 assists) with all 4 goals coming at ES. Hence why I asked a hypothetical question. Winning 3 Smythe's in a row has never been done before in the history of the game. It would be a monumental achievement. And of course we're still way early in the process. The Pens are certainly not a lock to advance anywhere.

 

[quoipourquoi]

The performance makes the Conn Smythe - not the other way around. No one is going to get off the 19 points and minus-2 dead horse if other people continue to assign greater value to his actual play in the 2016 playoffs than it deserves.

There is nothing monumental or historic about what he is doing. Sergei Fedorov from 1995-1998 had better two-way performances for four years. Messier for three of four years before that (1987, 1988, 1990). Trottier before him. Would anyone take Crosby's 2016 and 2017 over Gilmour's 1993 and 1994? Or even Crosby's own 2008 and 2009?

History is long, and you don't even have to look at too much of it. Acting like he should leapfrog all but four players in history because of a hypothetical Conn Smythe this year (which could mean a performance anywhere on the scale of Scott Niedermayer to Wayne Gretzky) is placing the Conn Smythe on a pedestal that it or any other trophy doesn't necessarily deserve.

People don't care about Patrick Roy's 1993 because he won the Conn Smythe, and they don't not care about Wayne Gretzky's and Doug Gilmour's 1993 because they didn't. Awards are shorthand.

 

[bobholly39]

The performance makes the Conn Smythe - not the other way around. No one is going to get off the 19 points and minus-2 dead horse if other people continue to assign greater value to his actual play in the 2016 playoffs than it deserves.

There is nothing monumental or historic about what he is doing. Sergei Fedorov from 1995-1998 had better two-way performances for four years. Messier for three of four years before that (1987, 1988, 1990). Trottier before him. Would anyone take Crosby's 2016 and 2017 over Gilmour's 1993 and 1994? Or even Crosby's own 2008 and 2009?

History is long, and you don't even have to look at too much of it. Acting like he should leapfrog all but four players in history because of a hypothetical Conn Smythe this year (which could mean a performance anywhere on the scale of Scott Niedermayer to Wayne Gretzky) is placing the Conn Smythe on a pedestal that it or any other trophy doesn't necessarily deserve.

People don't care about Patrick Roy's 1993 because he won the Conn Smythe, and they don't not care about Wayne Gretzky's and Doug Gilmour's 1993 because they didn't. Awards are shorthand.

Trophies matter more than you think imo.

Patrick Roy has 3 smythes. Could have 4 (maybe even 5).

Gretzky has 2 smythes. I think he should have 4 or 5. He "could" have 6.

I think - changing absolutely nothing to his performances - if Gretzky ended up with 4 or 5 smythes instead of 2 - he'd be held in even higher regard than he is now for playoffs, by quite a bit. There was a lot of discussion about Gretzky #1 here - i think there would have been less discussion and he'd have been seen as a much bigger slam dunk with 4 smythes.

You mentioned Bernie Parent. His 2 smythes is what warrants him even being up for discussion here. Chris Osgood had pretty strong back to back playoffs in 08-09. Nobody talks about him - but people talk about Parent. He was mentioned quite a few times during this project.

So yeah - Conn Smythes matter more than you think.

 

[daver]

Trophies matter more than you think imo.

Patrick Roy has 3 smythes. Could have 4 (maybe even 5).

Gretzky has 2 smythes. I think he should have 4 or 5. He "could" have 6.

I think - changing absolutely nothing to his performances - if Gretzky ended up with 4 or 5 smythes instead of 2 - he'd be held in even higher regard than he is now for playoffs, by quite a bit. There was a lot of discussion about Gretzky #1 here - i think there would have been less discussion and he'd have been seen as a much bigger slam dunk with 4 smythes.

You mentioned Bernie Parent. His 2 smythes is what warrants him even being up for discussion here. Chris Osgood had pretty strong back to back playoffs in 08-09. Nobody talks about him - but people talk about Parent. He was mentioned quite a few times during this project.

So yeah - Conn Smythes matter more than you think.

I doubt that anyone in this project was taking points away from him for only having two Smythes.

As for Crosby, four Cup runs, the most in his era, being the best player in three of those runs plus a 4th run that has the 2nd highest point total and highest goals total should stand up pretty well against his peers. Like his regular season resume, he doesn't have a weakness other than longevity.

 

[bobholly39]

I doubt that anyone in this project was taking points away from him for only having two Smythes.

As for Crosby, four Cup runs, the most in his era, being the best player in three of those runs plus a 4th run that has the 2nd highest point total and highest goals total should stand up pretty well against his peers. Like his regular season resume, he doesn't have a weakness other than longevity.

It's not about taking away points from Gretzky for not having 4 smythes. But if he had 4 smythes instead of 2 - he'd get "additional points" in this project, to use your analogy.

I think Crosby deserved both of his last 2 smythes.
BUT - you can make an argument that Kessel could have won in 2016, and maybe even Malkin in 2017.

Changing nothing to Crosby's actual performances - wouldn't his resume look a lot weaker with 0 smythes than 2, even with the 4 cup runs?

Trophies matter. You have to be able to look past them and not obsess over trophy count - but acting as if trophies don't hold a lot of significance too is wrong imo.

 

[daver]

It's not about taking away points from Gretzky for not having 4 smythes. But if he had 4 smythes instead of 2 - he'd get "additional points" in this project, to use your analogy.

I think Crosby deserved both of his last 2 smythes.
BUT - you can make an argument that Kessel could have won in 2016, and maybe even Malkin in 2017.

Changing nothing to Crosby's actual performances - wouldn't his resume look a lot weaker with 0 smythes than 2, even with the 4 cup runs?

Trophies matter. You have to be able to look past them and not obsess over trophy count - but acting as if trophies don't hold a lot of significance too is wrong imo.

If you have two performances or careers are of similar value, then the one that took the Smythe (s) should get the advantage as one would think the non-Smythe performance was perhaps outdone by a teammate or they didn't win the Cup or even get to the SCF.

That's about all I would limit it to. A Smythe should not bring a player up to the value of another player who has a clearly better performance or resume.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Changing nothing to Crosby's actual performances - wouldn't his resume look a lot weaker with 0 smythes than 2, even with the 4 cup runs?

Trophies matter. You have to be able to look past them and not obsess over trophy count - but acting as if trophies don't hold a lot of significance too is wrong imo.

If you haven't been alive long enough to have witnessed the 2016 and 2017 playoffs and subsequently formulated an opinion on who performed the best and how well they performed relative to other players throughout Stanley Cup history, then sure, I can understand acting like the binary assignment of Conn Smythe/Not a Conn Smythe is a big deal to you specifically, because along with the statistical record, it is the most accessible evidence you have for its value.

2016 Crosby equals 2003 Giguere equals 1994 Leetch equals 1985 Gretzky equals 1972 Orr. 2016 Crosby is superior to 2010 Briere and 1996 Vanbiesbrouck and 1988 Messier and 1981 Bossy and 1970 Esposito. That's what the Conn Smythe tells you. And it's lying.

If I asked for someone's opinion on the best players in the 2017-18 season, I'd like to think they could answer me today and not wait until the awards show to tell me if someone had a significant season.

 

[Thenameless]

Frank Foyston - Wikipedia

Thanks, that's a pretty nice resume, especially for the playoffs.

 

[ImporterExporter]

The performance makes the Conn Smythe - not the other way around. No one is going to get off the 19 points and minus-2 dead horse if other people continue to assign greater value to his actual play in the 2016 playoffs than it deserves.

There is nothing monumental or historic about what he is doing. Sergei Fedorov from 1995-1998 had better two-way performances for four years. Messier for three of four years before that (1987, 1988, 1990). Trottier before him. Would anyone take Crosby's 2016 and 2017 over Gilmour's 1993 and 1994? Or even Crosby's own 2008 and 2009?

History is long, and you don't even have to look at too much of it. Acting like he should leapfrog all but four players in history because of a hypothetical Conn Smythe this year (which could mean a performance anywhere on the scale of Scott Niedermayer to Wayne Gretzky) is placing the Conn Smythe on a pedestal that it or any other trophy doesn't necessarily deserve.

People don't care about Patrick Roy's 1993 because he won the Conn Smythe, and they don't not care about Wayne Gretzky's and Doug Gilmour's 1993 because they didn't. Awards are shorthand.

"Deserves"?

That's completely subjective, for one, and two, if you're only going to look at 19 points and -2 then I'm done talking with you about it. We agree it's a weak Smythe. Where we don't agree is the impact 87 had in other areas, which were substanstial if you actualy watched every game of that run. Sid was brilliant sans the Washington series. He was toting around a nobody like Conor Sheary (you can look him up since you've probably only heard of him 2-3 times) or Bryan Rust (see, Sheary, Conor), and a grinder in Hornqvist who I absolutely love as a player, but one that isn't exactly a dominant 1st line offensive player. People want to harp, Kessel, Kessel, Kessel and guess what? Kessel was on the 3rd line. He plays next to no defense. He doesn't take faceoffs, kill penalties, etc. His line was getting every favorable matchup you could imagine at ES. Sid and Malkin's lines were the focal point of the opposition.

Nothing historic? LOL.

Guy leads his team to the first back to back titles in the cap era. That alone is historic. And like it or not he's 1 of 3 players to win the Smythe in back to back years. You can shout Bernie Parent, but the problem with Parent is his postseason resume is tied to 2 seasons. That's it. Nothing worth a damn before or after really.

Fedorov had the distinction of playing on one of the greatest hockey teams ever assembled (90s Wings). Same thing with Trottier who wasn't even the most imporant/best player on his own team during their dynasty (that'd be Potvin) and also played in an inflated scoring era compared to today. Gilmour? Please. 92-93 is one of the most prolific offensive years ever (Mario was on pace for 200+ points). And in neither season did Gilmour even make the Cup finals. I'd have given the Conn Smythe to Erik Karlsson after 3 rounds last year easily, but theres a reason why nobody has ever won it without making the finals and generally winning.

The Conn Smythe is an incredibly valuable trophy. Gretzky, who's #1 in this project has 2 (probably should have had 4). Roy, #2, has 3. Maurice Richard would have likely had 2-3 had the award existed. Beliveau won the inagural Smythe as a -1 btw. Another guy who would have multiple had the award existed.

 

[quoipourquoi]

People want to harp, Kessel, Kessel, Kessel and guess what? Kessel was on the 3rd line.

Did I say Kessel? I said Logan Couture and Brent Burns. They had great playoffs; Crosby had a good playoff that received an award because someone on Pittsburgh had to get one. It's Patrick Kane in 2013. It's Scott Niedermayer in 2007.

And like it or not he's 1 of 3 players to win the Smythe in back to back years.

It's not about liking it or not liking it; it's about assigning value to it.

Logan Couture can't win the 2016 Conn Smythe Trophy. Erik Karlsson can't win the 2017 Conn Smythe Trophy. Doug Gilmour can't win the 1993 Conn Smythe. Sergei Fedorov can't win the 1995 Conn Smythe Trophy.

But they can and did have better playoffs than Sidney Crosby in 2016 and 2017. And they should be treated as having had them, regardless of which team's representative gets a trophy because of traditional voting trends.

The Conn Smythe is an incredibly valuable trophy. Gretzky, who's #1 in this project has 2 (probably should have had 4). Roy, #2, has 3. Maurice Richard would have likely had 2-3 had the award existed. Beliveau won the inagural Smythe as a -1 btw. Another guy who would have multiple had the award existed.

We looked at the strength of the performances - not the count. You said it yourself - Gretzky could have four. Richard and Beliveau could have more if it existed. Notice how no one went into a panic despite the performances not aligning perfectly with trophy distribution? You told us how valuable the Conn Smythe was and followed up by telling us three examples of why these players can't possibly be defined by it.

And it's because the trophy is not the quality of the performance. It can be used as a reference tool, but winning or not winning doesn't affect anything that happened. It's a reflection on what happened from a small group of people who usually only look at one team even though 16 played.

So yeah, nothing historic; it's trivia. And if you think a repeat of his 2016 with a Conn Smythe playoff while players on the losing team outscore him by double-digits would make him a better playoff performer than all but four players, I return your LOL with a challenge for you to articulate why his 2016-present run is historic without using the words "Conn" or "Smythe".

 

[tarheelhockey]

Yeah, I read some of the pages of the thread. There was some interesting discussions.

Also I thought that it was a NHL list only. This is why Foyston was kind of a weird choice for me.

Foyston was one of those guys who, in an era of relatively few teams, just always seemed to be in the spotlight.

Bear in mind that during much of the time he played in the PCHA, that league was just as good if not better than the NHL. It's probably easier from a modern standpoint to think of it as Western Conference (PCHA) and Eastern Conference (NHL), and Foyston was consistently one of the very best players out west. Never quite the MVP, but he was almost always a top player on a good team, could play just about any position on the ice effectively, and was consistently the guy who put a dagger in the other team. Just a great all around player in general, though not such a superstar to be remembered at the level of an Eddie Shore or Howie Morenz.

 

[ResilientBeast]

Foyston was one of those guys who, in an era of relatively few teams, just always seemed to be in the spotlight.

Bear in mind that during much of the time he played in the PCHA, that league was just as good if not better than the NHL. It's probably easier from a modern standpoint to think of it as Western Conference (PCHA) and Eastern Conference (NHL), and Foyston was consistently one of the very best players out west. Never quite the MVP, but he was almost always a top player on a good team, could play just about any position on the ice effectively, and was consistently the guy who put a dagger in the other team. Just a great all around player in general, though not such a superstar to be remembered at the level of an Eddie Shore or Howie Morenz.

just a note, Foyston was PCHA league MVP one year (or whatever their Hart equivalent was)

 

[ImporterExporter]

Did I say Kessel? I said Logan Couture and Brent Burns. They had great playoffs; Crosby had a good playoff that received an award because someone on Pittsburgh had to get one. It's Patrick Kane in 2013. It's Scott Niedermayer in 2007.



It's not about liking it or not liking it; it's about assigning value to it.

Logan Couture can't win the 2016 Conn Smythe Trophy. Erik Karlsson can't win the 2017 Conn Smythe Trophy. Doug Gilmour can't win the 1993 Conn Smythe. Sergei Fedorov can't win the 1995 Conn Smythe Trophy.

But they can and did have better playoffs than Sidney Crosby in 2016 and 2017. And they should be treated as having had them, regardless of which team's representative gets a trophy because of traditional voting trends.



We looked at the strength of the performances - not the count. You said it yourself - Gretzky could have four. Richard and Beliveau could have more if it existed. Notice how no one went into a panic despite the performances not aligning perfectly with trophy distribution? You told us how valuable the Conn Smythe was and followed up by telling us three examples of why these players can't possibly be defined by it.

And it's because the trophy is not the quality of the performance. It can be used as a reference tool, but winning or not winning doesn't affect anything that happened. It's a reflection on what happened from a small group of people who usually only look at one team even though 16 played.

So yeah, nothing historic; it's trivia. And if you think a repeat of his 2016 with a Conn Smythe playoff while players on the losing team outscore him by double-digits would make him a better playoff performer than all but four players, I return your LOL with a challenge for you to articulate why his 2016-present run is historic without using the words "Conn" or "Smythe".

Red bolded gets a why ? from me.

I take it Logan Couture was better because he scored more points? Beyond that, where do you assign "better" "value" to him vs Crosby? None of those guys you listed were definitivly "better" than Sid, especially if you're talking Crosby last year. In large part because their teams either didn't make the Cup finals or lost there. How much "value" do you place on good stats for the losing teams? The league has rarely ever given the Smythe to somebody on the losing side. For good reason. Winning matters. You can say that winning is wholly a team accomplishment and I agree. But you can also apply that logic to individual stats once you break things down piece by piece. Who are the oppenents. Who are the players linemates? What era are they playing in? Etc.

I'll say this again. Winning matters. Being THE guy (Couture wasn't. Feds wasn't. Karlsson certainly was for Ottawa but they didn't even make the finals. Same thing with Gilmour) matters. Crosby faces the toughest assignments every night. He has, in recent years been deployed in a more 200 foot fashion. This was abundantly clear if you watched every minute of the Cup finals vs San Jose. You know how many goals Pavelksi and Thornton scored in 6 games? 1. An empty netter. Guess you was up against them most of the series? Sid's line. So yeah, Sid certainly didn't blow up the stat sheet, but he was very strong defensively at ES, was great in the dot and simply played a very well rounded game. Couture scored a bunch of points, but what exactly did that get him and the Sharks? If all you want to do is throw scoring numbers at me, sure, lots of guys had better 2 or 3 round runs. Hell, even 4 round runs.

Sid in recent years is sacrificing offense for a 200 foot game. His favorite player growing up was Steve Yzerman. The parallels between the two in terms of playing style is striking but not surprising. Sid pre Mike Sullivan was a guy you could peg for 100+ points if healthy with flashes of good defensive play. As he's slowed down a bit he's taken it upon himself to be more involved defensively. He and Sullivan speak about it often. The importance of being engaged all over the ice. Good defensive play often leads to offensive chances. And you've seen Sid start to get some legitimate Selke votes over the past few seasons because he's chosen to buy into that mindset, which again, isn't surprising given who he idolized growing up and his work ethic in general.

I don't think Couture was necessarily better. Or Doug Gilmour, who took advantage of a ridiculously inflated scoring period and didn't have to face the toughest oppenent a Cup final would have presented. Karlsson was my MVP through 3 rounds (even with the loss vs Pitt) but again he gets the benefit of not having a finals appearance to possibly "hurt/enchance" his numbers. Sid went against Nashville and was strong. He won the Smythe because he outplayed Malkin and Rinne (by a lot) who were all neck and neck heading into the finals.