Players that should have Won the Conn Smythe?

[vadim sharifijanov]

no goalie was named but maybe it was this?

​

Two of the changes, announced during the summer, included the​

height of pads set at a maximum 38 inches and removal of the​

plastic flap many have sewn onto the top of the pad.​

​

Designed to protect the knees of butterfly-style goalies when​

they drop to the ice, the NHL determined that those plastic flaps​

could be manipulated to stop pucks going between the pads.​

​

But Garth Snow of the New York Islanders already claims to have​

been hurt by a shot because he can't wear the plastic flap.​

​

"I'm still working on that," Snow said. "I'm still going to​

make the save, it's just how much pain there will be making the​

saves."​

​

Snow has gone back to wearing pads that are similar to those he​

donned while playing for Vancouver and Philadelphia.​

​

"I've gained more mobility, and if anything it's probably made​

me quicker getting from Point A to Point B and playing pucks,"​

Snow said. "When I had longer pads, I wasn't as active (playing​

pucks)."​

​

The new equipment rules will be fully enforced at least until an​

independent arbitrator rules on the grievance.​

​

"We did a lot of research on this," Campbell said. "We​

certainly don't want to expose goaltenders (to injury) but when you​

have things hanging down between your legs in the five-hole, what​

are you supposed to do?"​

​

Campbell says union grievance against new goalie equipment rules ``lame''

Campbell says union grievance against new goalie equipment rules ``lame''

www.espn.com

it doesn't sound like colin campbell and garth snow are talking about the same thing though. i remember there was discussion around that time of guys wearing long pads so when they went into the butterfly, the tops of the pads would exceed their knee and effectively cover the fivehold. but i think what i'm remembering, and what campbell seems to be talking about, is something that's much less of a grey area. i swear there was a guy who had a piece of pad drop down between his legs everytime he went from the crouch to butterfly.

 

[Staniowski]

Re: Giguere '03

In the last couple days, I watched several periods of Anaheim's 1st and 2nd round series' (vs Detroit and Dallas) in the 2003 playoffs. Giguere was definitely nothing special, and certainly didn't deserve the Conn Smythe, based on what I watched.

I think the problem with a lot of opinions about this, is that people are just looking at numbers....but you can never judge goalies by just looking at numbers.

Anaheim is getting outshot in most of the games, but the Anaheim skaters are in control of the games....that is the first thing you notice. Anaheim is very well coached, they are playing a strict team game, they are playing defense all the time. The reason they are being outshot is that Detroit and Dallas are also playing good defense - but not as good as Anaheim - and they both have more talent than Anaheim....I'm not sure about the PP situations.

But, Anaheim is in control....they are playing the game that they want to play. Detroit and Dallas are not.

Anaheim is giving up very few quality scoring chances, and that's the reason they aren't giving up many goals. Giguere is facing a lot of low-danger shots - a lot of long shots, bad-angle shots, unscreened shots, weak shots....and few cross-ice passing plays. That's why there are so many saves, and so few goals. When there is an occasional good scoring chance, Giguere actually looks shaky. He's certainly not a great goalie, here.

Giguere is not the #1 reason for Anaheim's success in the '03 Playoffs.

 

[Giotrapani91]

Richard Brodeur 1982

I think 82 would’ve gone to Stan Smyl.

Re: Giguere '03

In the last couple days, I watched several periods of Anaheim's 1st and 2nd round series' (vs Detroit and Dallas) in the 2003 playoffs. Giguere was definitely nothing special, and certainly didn't deserve the Conn Smythe, based on what I watched.

I think the problem with a lot of opinions about this, is that people are just looking at numbers....but you can never judge goalies by just looking at numbers.

Anaheim is getting outshot in most of the games, but the Anaheim skaters are in control of the games....that is the first thing you notice. Anaheim is very well coached, they are playing a strict team game, they are playing defense all the time. The reason they are being outshot is that Detroit and Dallas are also playing good defense - but not as good as Anaheim - and they both have more talent than Anaheim....I'm not sure about the PP situations.

But, Anaheim is in control....they are playing the game that they want to play. Detroit and Dallas are not.

Anaheim is giving up very few quality scoring chances, and that's the reason they aren't giving up many goals. Giguere is facing a lot of low-danger shots - a lot of long shots, bad-angle shots, unscreened shots, weak shots....and few cross-ice passing plays. That's why there are so many saves, and so few goals. When there is an occasional good scoring chance, Giguere actually looks shaky. He's certainly not a great goalie, here.

Giguere is not the #1 reason for Anaheim's success in the '03 Playoffs. Yeah it’s kariya, Oates & sykora.

 

[Giotrapani91]

I thought he was one of the few two-way forwards on a team that was DEEP with them who could produce offensively as needed. This was a squad giving Travis Moen huge minutes, too.

If Travis Moen was given a puck and 3-4 traffic cones spaced five feet apart, he would be unable to complete the drill. He'd just retire on the spot.

And Rob Niedermayer was getting quite a bit of TOI as well. He was crafty but a non-entity on offense.

Pahlsson and McDonald did a lot for that team offensively in the shadows while being paired around those two at times.

Teemu Selanne had more points than both niedermayer & pronger, pronger has 1 assist, niedermayer had two, selanne had 3 assists in thd finals and was clutch in that postseason. 5 goals 10 assists 5 points.

I disagree with Giguere and don't hold that exclusivity principle.

Usually, the later rounds are weighted more heavily. He got a lot of stat line miles playing the expansion Wild in the WCF. A mirror image of the Ducks. I mean, Manny Fernandez had 1.37 GAA and .943 and didn't win a game. Then Giguere gave up 20 goals in the Final to a very average Devils offense.

Even if you can look the other way on his unsportsmanlike equipment (I do not), he had a walk in the park in the WCF and then gave up a bunch of goals in the Final and lost to a guy that had 7 shutouts in one postseason...

Hasek held the record for a year and he didn’t win it in 02 I think cuz he was on a great defensive team.

 

[JackSlater]

Teemu Selanne had more points than both niedermayer & pronger, pronger has 1 assist, niedermayer had two, selanne had 3 assists in thd finals and was clutch in that postseason. 5 goals 10 assists 5 points.


Hasek held the record for a year and he didn’t win it in 02 I think cuz he was on a great defensive team.

I doubt that Selanne received any serious consideration Pahlsson and Getzlaf at least would have gotten it before him among forwards.

Hasek had a Conn Smythe quality playoffs but you're right that the team he had around him would have taken away from him. I'd say that he also had to compete against memories of The Dominator, and while he was very good in 2002 he was not the peak Hasek of recent memory.

 

[sr edler]

Re: Giguere '03

In the last couple days, I watched several periods of Anaheim's 1st and 2nd round series' (vs Detroit and Dallas) in the 2003 playoffs. Giguere was definitely nothing special, and certainly didn't deserve the Conn Smythe, based on what I watched.

I think the problem with a lot of opinions about this, is that people are just looking at numbers....but you can never judge goalies by just looking at numbers.

Anaheim is getting outshot in most of the games, but the Anaheim skaters are in control of the games....that is the first thing you notice. Anaheim is very well coached, they are playing a strict team game, they are playing defense all the time. The reason they are being outshot is that Detroit and Dallas are also playing good defense - but not as good as Anaheim - and they both have more talent than Anaheim....I'm not sure about the PP situations.

But, Anaheim is in control....they are playing the game that they want to play. Detroit and Dallas are not.

Anaheim is giving up very few quality scoring chances, and that's the reason they aren't giving up many goals. Giguere is facing a lot of low-danger shots - a lot of long shots, bad-angle shots, unscreened shots, weak shots....and few cross-ice passing plays. That's why there are so many saves, and so few goals. When there is an occasional good scoring chance, Giguere actually looks shaky. He's certainly not a great goalie, here.

Giguere is not the #1 reason for Anaheim's success in the '03 Playoffs.

Yeah, admittedly I didn't watch too much of this myself when it all went down in real time, because my god I think I had better things to do, than watching some 1-1 post Y2K trap shit with Michelin men between the pipes, but if this is right what you're saying then it would probably explain why he looked so pedestrian in the SCFs against a team with some cynicism and depth and stuff of their own.

I think even in a scenario where he was otherworldly in the earlier rounds, against the *cough cough* Minnesota Wild, you can't really ignore a milder form of meltdown on the biggest stage possible, when all party trumpets are down, over seven games. You can't shouldn't.

As a rule I always get a little skeptic when people go nuts over some random goalie posting brief numbers, because, as you say, a lot of it is just coaching and systems and stuff. It happened again now last playoffs with Oettinger. And while Oettinger was very good, because yeah you probably need someone dialed in, Dallas played that exact type of game we're talking about. Plus Calgary was kind of an impotent paper tiger anyways who showed its true colors when they couldn't rattle a 40+ year old Mike Smith too much in the ensuing series, when the Oils adapted after Game 1.

A lot of the time it feels like excuses, too. Like "we couldn't beat this team because their goalie went Halak" ... Yeah, no. You couldn't beat that team because you just weren't overall good enough. It's like people pretending 2011 Canucks were dummying the Bruins and the only reason Boston won was because their goalie stood on his head spinning it 360 like that girl from The Exorcist. In real life it was the other way around, Bruins were dummying Vancouver for the majority of the series.

 

[Staniowski]

Yeah, admittedly I didn't watch too much of this myself when it all went down in real time, because my god I think I had better things to do, than watching some 1-1 post Y2K trap shit with Michelin men between the pipes, but if this is right what you're saying then it would probably explain why he looked so pedestrian in the SCFs against a team with some cynicism and depth and stuff of their own.

I think even in a scenario where he was otherworldly in the earlier rounds, against the *cough cough* Minnesota Wild, you can't really ignore a milder form of meltdown on the biggest stage possible, when all party trumpets are down, over seven games. You can't shouldn't.

As a rule I always get a little skeptic when people go nuts over some random goalie posting brief numbers, because, as you say, a lot of it is just coaching and systems and stuff. It happened again now last playoffs with Oettinger. And while Oettinger was very good, because yeah you probably need someone dialed in, Dallas played that exact type of game we're talking about. Plus Calgary was kind of an impotent paper tiger anyways who showed its true colors when they couldn't rattle a 40+ year old Mike Smith too much in the ensuing series, when the Oils adapted after Game 1.

A lot of the time it feels like excuses, too. Like "we couldn't beat this team because their goalie went Halak" ... Yeah, no. You couldn't beat that team because you just weren't overall good enough. It's like people pretending 2011 Canucks were dummying the Bruins and the only reason Boston won was because their goalie stood on his head spinning it 360 like that girl from The Exorcist. In real life it was the other way around, Bruins were dummying Vancouver for the majority of the series.

I don’t remember those playoffs much either....that's why I had to watch some video....

I'll try to watch some of the other two series too....but usually (not always) when a team allows more goals in one series than in another series, it's not because the goaltender plays any differently. Rather, it's just that the overall conditions of the game or series are different. A goaltender can get a shutout in one game and allow 5 goals in another game even though they performed the same in both games. This is the nature of hockey and of competition.

Smart hockey people never evaluate goaltenders using save percentage because save percentage doesn't tell you very much about the quality of goaltending.

 

[Giotrapani91]

I doubt that Selanne received any serious consideration Pahlsson and Getzlaf at least would have gotten it before him among forwards.

Hasek had a Conn Smythe quality playoffs but you're right that the team he had around him would have taken away from him. I'd say that he also had to compete against memories of The Dominator, and while he was very good in 2002 he was not the peak Hasek of recent memory.

Selanne was great in the Detroit series, & should’ve gotten consideration.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Yeah, admittedly I didn't watch too much of this myself when it all went down in real time, because my god I think I had better things to do, than watching some 1-1 post Y2K trap shit with Michelin men between the pipes, but if this is right what you're saying then it would probably explain why he looked so pedestrian in the SCFs against a team with some cynicism and depth and stuff of their own.

I think even in a scenario where he was otherworldly in the earlier rounds, against the *cough cough* Minnesota Wild, you can't really ignore a milder form of meltdown on the biggest stage possible, when all party trumpets are down, over seven games. You can't shouldn't.

As a rule I always get a little skeptic when people go nuts over some random goalie posting brief numbers, because, as you say, a lot of it is just coaching and systems and stuff. It happened again now last playoffs with Oettinger. And while Oettinger was very good, because yeah you probably need someone dialed in, Dallas played that exact type of game we're talking about. Plus Calgary was kind of an impotent paper tiger anyways who showed its true colors when they couldn't rattle a 40+ year old Mike Smith too much in the ensuing series, when the Oils adapted after Game 1.

A lot of the time it feels like excuses, too. Like "we couldn't beat this team because their goalie went Halak" ... Yeah, no. You couldn't beat that team because you just weren't overall good enough. It's like people pretending 2011 Canucks were dummying the Bruins and the only reason Boston won was because their goalie stood on his head spinning it 360 like that girl from The Exorcist. In real life it was the other way around, Bruins were dummying Vancouver for the majority of the series.

haha i started reading this and thinking, gee it sounds like you're describing tim thomas in the 2011 finals, just standing there letting weak shots from the outside hit him... and then the post goes there.

minnesota is kind of low hanging fruit when he knocked off the top two teams in the west to get to the third round, don't you think?

with giguere, i think it really is a case of a guy being just absolutely dialed in and that being imo absolutely a worthy thing to celebrate. in those first two rounds, which are what won him the conn smythe, he was almost flawless, even if it looked easy.

in his first playoff game, he faced 64 shots over more than five periods of hockey. he let in one goal in the first five minutes of the game, then shut the door against the number one offence in the league/defending champs for the next hour and thirty-nine minutes.

then after going on to sweep detroit, he beats dallas in game one in 5OT. that's more than two hours of hockey to outlast the number one team in the west/presidents trophy runners up.

six straight wins, four of them OT victories, more than two extra games-worth of overtimes. then, after his first loss in the seventh game (2-1), he pitches a shutout to go up 3-1 in the series.

over those two rounds, every single win was a one goal win. his goal support was 2.3 goals/game and they were outshot by double digits in 2/3 of the games. that is a ridiculous margin of error that he absolutely nailed.

and then when he finally faced a team on his own team's level (minnesota) he murdered them. and even in the finals, which are the only games i actively watched, there were a couple games where he wasn't great and people remember them because one of them was game one and that was a lot of people's first sustained glimpse that this giguere guy they'd been hearing about, but on the whole he was very very good and at times borderline unbeatable. i mean, he took the devils to seven and his goal support other than that one bizarre steve rucchin natural hat trick game was nonexistent.

imo, we can debate the ethics of his equipment, and we can debate the aesthetic merits of a blocking goalie, but i don't see a reasonable argument that he wasn't absolutely stellar.

 

[J bo Jeans]

Kessel had more goals, points and a better +/-, for starters. He led the Penguins in points and goals in that run.

Kessel: 10-12-22, +5
Crosby: 6-13-19, -2

Kessel is the reason why they didn't get bounced in R2 against Washington with 6 points in the series vs Crosby and Malkin's combined 4 points.

In addition, Kessel did not have a bad series with series results of:

3-3-6
2-4-6
4-2-6
1-3-4

You also can't say "well Crosby had a monster Finals" as the reason, he and Kessel scored the same amount of points in it with Crosby having 0-4-4 to Kessel's 1-3-4.

So led the team in points and goals, had no bad series and didnt get outplayed in the Finals by Crosby. What again was Crosby's case over Kessel besides the "he needs to have one" narrative in the media?

2017 I have no problem with Crosby winning the Smythe, but he didn't deserve it in 2016

People who actually watched the games would tell you the Crosby was more valuable. Clearly just stat watching.

How could a third line winger ever have been more valuable to your team than your #1 centre? Because he scored 3 more points over the course of the entire playoffs? Laughable.

To say he didn't deserve it is just dishonest. Kessel was close but he certainly wasn't more impactful than Crosby playing against bottom 6 players all playoffs.

 

[Voight]

Then give it back to Crosby for his 2009 performance.

When he had 3 points in the finals?

 

[LightningStorm]

People who actually watched the games would tell you the Crosby was more valuable. Clearly just stat watching.

How could a third line winger ever have been more valuable to your team than your #1 centre? Because he scored 3 more points over the course of the entire playoffs? Laughable.

To say he didn't deserve it is just dishonest. Kessel was close but he certainly wasn't more impactful than Crosby playing against bottom 6 players all playoffs.

HBK was the Pens best line all playoffs though. While I don't think Crosby was an unreasonable choice, name recognition did play a factor. Between him and Kessel I would've voted Kessel but honestly, I don't think a forward should've won the CS for the 2016 Pens. Their forward group was very deep and none of them stood out very strongly in the playoffs.

I would've voted for Letang. Was great out on the blueline and carried a heavy load with their D not being as deep as their forwards. With no individual forward standing out and Murray just having to make sure he didn't lose the game, I thought Letang deserved the CS.

In the end though, the 2016 Pens was such a strong team effort with no one standing out much individually that I don't think anyone can claim they were robbed of the CS, in spite of name recognition likely playing a strong role in Crosby winning it.

 

[Staniowski]

haha i started reading this and thinking, gee it sounds like you're describing tim thomas in the 2011 finals, just standing there letting weak shots from the outside hit him... and then the post goes there.

minnesota is kind of low hanging fruit when he knocked off the top two teams in the west to get to the third round, don't you think?

with giguere, i think it really is a case of a guy being just absolutely dialed in and that being imo absolutely a worthy thing to celebrate. in those first two rounds, which are what won him the conn smythe, he was almost flawless, even if it looked easy.

in his first playoff game, he faced 64 shots over more than five periods of hockey. he let in one goal in the first five minutes of the game, then shut the door against the number one offence in the league/defending champs for the next hour and thirty-nine minutes.

then after going on to sweep detroit, he beats dallas in game one in 5OT. that's more than two hours of hockey to outlast the number one team in the west/presidents trophy runners up.

six straight wins, four of them OT victories, more than two extra games-worth of overtimes. then, after his first loss in the seventh game (2-1), he pitches a shutout to go up 3-1 in the series.

over those two rounds, every single win was a one goal win. his goal support was 2.3 goals/game and they were outshot by double digits in 2/3 of the games. that is a ridiculous margin of error that he absolutely nailed.

and then when he finally faced a team on his own team's level (minnesota) he murdered them. and even in the finals, which are the only games i actively watched, there were a couple games where he wasn't great and people remember them because one of them was game one and that was a lot of people's first sustained glimpse that this giguere guy they'd been hearing about, but on the whole he was very very good and at times borderline unbeatable. i mean, he took the devils to seven and his goal support other than that one bizarre steve rucchin natural hat trick game was nonexistent.

imo, we can debate the ethics of his equipment, and we can debate the aesthetic merits of a blocking goalie, but i don't see a reasonable argument that he wasn't absolutely stellar.

Giguere certainly wasn't the primary reason for Anaheim's success in the 2003 playoffs.....and - based on what I've watched - he didn't deserve the Conn Smythe.

 

[Moridin]

"Should?"

Doug Gilmour in 1993 after leading the playoffs in scoring and winning the cup over the Canadiens in the final.

/STILL bitter

 

[sr edler]

haha i started reading this and thinking, gee it sounds like you're describing tim thomas in the 2011 finals, just standing there letting weak shots from the outside hit him... and then the post goes there.

minnesota is kind of low hanging fruit when he knocked off the top two teams in the west to get to the third round, don't you think?

with giguere, i think it really is a case of a guy being just absolutely dialed in and that being imo absolutely a worthy thing to celebrate. in those first two rounds, which are what won him the conn smythe, he was almost flawless, even if it looked easy.

in his first playoff game, he faced 64 shots over more than five periods of hockey. he let in one goal in the first five minutes of the game, then shut the door against the number one offence in the league/defending champs for the next hour and thirty-nine minutes.

then after going on to sweep detroit, he beats dallas in game one in 5OT. that's more than two hours of hockey to outlast the number one team in the west/presidents trophy runners up.

six straight wins, four of them OT victories, more than two extra games-worth of overtimes. then, after his first loss in the seventh game (2-1), he pitches a shutout to go up 3-1 in the series.

over those two rounds, every single win was a one goal win. his goal support was 2.3 goals/game and they were outshot by double digits in 2/3 of the games. that is a ridiculous margin of error that he absolutely nailed.

and then when he finally faced a team on his own team's level (minnesota) he murdered them. and even in the finals, which are the only games i actively watched, there were a couple games where he wasn't great and people remember them because one of them was game one and that was a lot of people's first sustained glimpse that this giguere guy they'd been hearing about, but on the whole he was very very good and at times borderline unbeatable. i mean, he took the devils to seven and his goal support other than that one bizarre steve rucchin natural hat trick game was nonexistent.

imo, we can debate the ethics of his equipment, and we can debate the aesthetic merits of a blocking goalie, but i don't see a reasonable argument that he wasn't absolutely stellar.

I guess there might be some truth or nuance to both sides of the argument here, but as a rule I still probably wouldn't give anyone the CS based on the first two rounds of the playoffs, especially not in a losing effort. And I think I'm someone who's still pretty high on earlier rounds, because my theory is that it's hard to win a Cup if you're bounced in any round, and sometimes your toughest match-up can be in round 1 or 2. Kings in 2012 for instance had a pretty cakewalk-ish schedule after they disposed Van in the 1st round.

 

[Michael Farkas]

The Kings were an 8 seed that played like three ~50 win teams, no? The Blues were the best defensive team in the league, Vancouver was near the best offense. They made it look easier than it was for a team that lost more games than it won during the year...

 

[sr edler]

Why even have playoffs when we can just look at the RS and call it a day, then Edler would be a back-to-back champion and Crosby have zero Cups, wait I like that actually. Vancouver missed their best goal scorer for most of the series with concussion symptoms, and LA added Carter, plus Luongo had some post 2011 issues going on. When Van threw in Schneider and got D. Sedin back halfway through the series it was fairly even (though LA still better), but before that it was most certainly not. Most Canucks fans didn't want to realize it at the time but the Sedins were already starting to get old and the window was closing fast.

Also, a David Backes/Brian Elliott led Blues team, call me crazy but I take that match-up 8 days a week.

And most 50 wins aren't really 50 wins anyways with all the shootout points.

My point wasn't to delegitimize LAs Cup in 2012, it was a great team, and it's kinda hard to do when they won again in 2014, but to claim they had some murderers' row competition that post-season, I don't agree with that. In 2014 though they had an actual tough series against Chicago, probably one of the better and most memorable series of the 2010s.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Was there a claim that the Kings faced a murderer's row of opponents? If so, then I missed it.

I mean, the Kings didn't exactly kill everyone after adding players either. They won 3 of 8 heading into the playoffs. The Blues falling back to earth or whatever is a product of mostly advanced scouting...Brian Elliott broke the save pct. record* and failed miserably in the playoffs...

I don't know, if you were responding to a claim that the Kings faced a bunch of killers, then my bad. Otherwise, it did come off as a little dismissive about the most dominant run on this side of the lockout to (and through?) that point outside the '08 Wings...

 

[Brodeur]

it doesn't sound like colin campbell and garth snow are talking about the same thing though. i remember there was discussion around that time of guys wearing long pads so when they went into the butterfly, the tops of the pads would exceed their knee and effectively cover the fivehold. but i think what i'm remembering, and what campbell seems to be talking about, is something that's much less of a grey area. i swear there was a guy who had a piece of pad drop down between his legs everytime he went from the crouch to butterfly.

The turn of the century Koho pads came with thigh boards that were noticeably larger than the other companies. Reebok bought them and their first gen pads had them as well before the league outlawed them coming out of the lockout. As somebody who had the first gen Reebok pads, those thigh boards definitely helped seal the five hole if you didn't have the tightest butterfly.

Giguere wasn't the only goalie who had the thigh boards, but I think he got put in the spotlight because of his playoff success.

After the lockout, they made it so the thigh protection had to be more form fitting. I do remember that the thigh boards would get caught in my pants with some regularity.

 

[NordiquesForeva]

I never liked the Nieuwendyk CS win in 1999. He would have been, like, 5th if I had a vote - behind Modano, Belfour, Hasek, and Zubov, in that order. Nieuwendyk's clutch goals are nice, but the fact is Modano was on the ice a lot more each game - as in, 6 minutes more - than Nieuwendyk, and Modano shouldered much more of the defensive and special teams burden and took on the harder matchups all the way through the playoffs. Seems like a no-brainer to me.

I feel the same way about Williams in 2014....I wouldn't have hesitated to give the CS to Kopitar. Kopitar was much more valuable to LA and critical to the Kings success that post-season, almost for the exact same reasoning as Modano vs. Nieuwendyk.

 

[JackSlater]

I never liked the Nieuwendyk CS win in 1999. He would have been, like, 5th if I had a vote - behind Modano, Belfour, Hasek, and Zubov, in that order. Nieuwendyk's clutch goals are nice, but the fact is Modano was on the ice a lot more each game - as in, 6 minutes more - than Nieuwendyk, and Modano shouldered much more of the defensive and special teams burden and took on the harder matchups all the way through the playoffs. Seems like a no-brainer to me.

I feel the same way about Williams in 2014....I wouldn't have hesitated to give the CS to Kopitar. Kopitar was much more valuable to LA and critical to the Kings success that post-season, almost for the exact same reasoning as Modano vs. Nieuwendyk.

It's more fun to write about game winning goals than it is two-way excellence.

 

[LightningStorm]

I never liked the Nieuwendyk CS win in 1999. He would have been, like, 5th if I had a vote - behind Modano, Belfour, Hasek, and Zubov, in that order. Nieuwendyk's clutch goals are nice, but the fact is Modano was on the ice a lot more each game - as in, 6 minutes more - than Nieuwendyk, and Modano shouldered much more of the defensive and special teams burden and took on the harder matchups all the way through the playoffs. Seems like a no-brainer to me.

I feel the same way about Williams in 2014....I wouldn't have hesitated to give the CS to Kopitar. Kopitar was much more valuable to LA and critical to the Kings success that post-season, almost for the exact same reasoning as Modano vs. Nieuwendyk.

The leading goal scorer of the cup winning team will always be in the conversation for the CS, and that's what Nieuwendyk was in 1999. Plus his 6 GWG tied the then record. Speaking of that, I think Modano only scoring 5 goals was why he wasn't really in the conversation, despite being the Stars leading scorer.

As much as I hate narratives being involved in CS voting, I do think that was the case here, in spite of this one being right in the end IMO. Nieuwendyk had missed the playoffs the previous year, so leading the team in goals and setting the record 6 GWG was a great story of "see what Dallas missed last postseason?" Especially with how in 1998, their offense dried up after he got hurt. Then in the 1999 WCF, Nieuwendyk was able to feast on the easier matchup he got with Modano playing against the Sakic line and Dallas having their checking line against Forsberg. Led that series in points as a result.

As I said on my list, I look at 1999 as a year where there were 2 right choices, in this case being Nieuwendyk and Belfour. Couldn't go wrong with either choice.

 

[NordiquesForeva]

The leading goal scorer of the cup winning team will always be in the conversation for the CS, and that's what Nieuwendyk was in 1999. Plus his 6 GWG tied the then record. Speaking of that, I think Modano only scoring 5 goals was why he wasn't really in the conversation, despite being the Stars leading scorer.

As much as I hate narratives being involved in CS voting, I do think that was the case here, in spite of this one being right in the end IMO. Nieuwendyk had missed the playoffs the previous year, so leading the team in goals and setting the record 6 GWG was a great story of "see what Dallas missed last postseason?" Especially with how in 1998, their offense dried up after he got hurt. Then in the 1999 WCF, Nieuwendyk was able to feast on the easier matchup he got with Modano playing against the Sakic line and Dallas having their checking line against Forsberg. Led that series in points as a result.

As I said on my list, I look at 1999 as a year where there were 2 right choices, in this case being Nieuwendyk and Belfour. Couldn't go wrong with either choice.

I could certainly get behind Belfour as a worthy CS winner, but I guess I just don't agree that Nieuwendyk was more valuable to the Stars that playoff season than Modano was. I get the GWG narrative in 1999, along with Dallas crashing and burning in 1998 without Nieuwendyk, but my view has always been that when determining who is the most valuable player on a winning team, watch/listen to the coach. Hitchcock - notoriously a difficult guy to play for - used Modano in every situation, averaging nearly 25 minutes of ice time/game - obviously a lot for a forward. Even in the conference finals vs. Colorado, when Nieuwendyk probably won the CS with 9 pts in 7 games (compared to Modano's 5 pts), Modano played 6 minutes more per game than Nieuwendyk - difficult minutes, against Forsberg or Sakic, and minutes on the PK. Nieuwendyk, to his credit, opportunistically scored against easier matchups, but I just don't think Nieuwendyk had the juice to get the better of either of those star Colorado center matchups at the time.

For the record, I think this is the kind of thing that people can respectfully disagree on, as I do understand the rationale for Nieuwendyk winning the CS. I liked Nieuwendyk as a player, and in a thread last month I argued that the Calgary/Dallas trade was a win-win for both teams as Nieuwendyk seemed to be the missing piece that put Dallas over the top in the late 90s (and perhaps even acted as a draw for some other veteran free agents). So I get that.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

I could certainly get behind Belfour as a worthy CS winner, but I guess I just don't agree that Nieuwendyk was more valuable to the Stars that playoff season than Modano was. I get the GWG narrative in 1999, along with Dallas crashing and burning in 1998 without Nieuwendyk, but my view has always been that when determining who is the most valuable player on a winning team, watch/listen to the coach. Hitchcock - notoriously a difficult guy to play for - used Modano in every situation, averaging nearly 25 minutes of ice time/game - obviously a lot for a forward. Even in the conference finals vs. Colorado, when Nieuwendyk probably won the CS with 9 pts in 7 games (compared to Modano's 5 pts), Modano played 6 minutes more per game than Nieuwendyk - difficult minutes, against Forsberg or Sakic, and minutes on the PK. Nieuwendyk, to his credit, opportunistically scored against easier matchups, but I just don't think Nieuwendyk had the juice to get the better of either of those star Colorado center matchups at the time.

For the record, I think this is the kind of thing that people can respectfully disagree on, as I do understand the rationale for Nieuwendyk winning the CS. I liked Nieuwendyk as a player, and in a thread last month I argued that the Calgary/Dallas trade was a win-win for both teams as Nieuwendyk seemed to be the missing piece that put Dallas over the top in the late 90s (and perhaps even acted as a draw for some other veteran free agents). So I get that.

I agree with most of your comments. I think Modano was better and more valuable than Nieuwendyk in 1999, and Nieuwendyk got the Conn Smythe largely due to his six game-winning goals (which was, at the time, the single-year record).

GWG are often a dubious stat. But in this case, Nieuwendyk really did score big goals for the Stars:

- game 3 vs Edmonton: gave Dallas a 3-2 lead with eight minutes remaining in 3rd period
- game 4 vs Edmonton: scored series-ending triple OT goal (plus tying goal late in 2nd period)
- game 2 vs St. Louis: scored OT goal (plus tying goal early in 2nd period)
- game 2 vs Colorado: gave Dallas a 3-2 lead with eight minutes remaining in 3rd period
- game 3 vs Colorado: a bit less heroic than the other examples, but scored the first goal in a 3-0 win (he scored/assisted on all three Dallas goals)
- game 4 vs Colorado: assisted on Hull's tying goal with less than four minutes left in third period (though Colorado won it in overtime)
- game 5 vs Colorado: gave Dallas a 3-2 lead early in the 2nd (the Stars lost as Forsberg had three points in the second half of the game)
- game 6 vs Colorado: assisted on Langenbrunner's goal that gave Dallas a 3-2 lead in the third period
- game 3 vs Buffalo: gave Dallas a 2-1 lead midway through the third period

I see the argument for Nieuwendyk, and it's pretty much the same argument as Williams over Kopitar in 2014(*). Clutch scoring vs a player who gets far more ice time and is much stronger defensively. It's a matter of preference, but I'd rank Modano over Nieuwendyk in 1999, and Kopitar over Williams in 2014, so I like to think I'm being consistent.

* At least in 2014, Williams had a huge SC Finals series, while Kopitar's offense dropped off. In 1999, Modano outscored and outplayed Nieuwendyk in that series (for those who think the finals do or should carry more weight).

 

[LightningStorm]

I could certainly get behind Belfour as a worthy CS winner, but I guess I just don't agree that Nieuwendyk was more valuable to the Stars that playoff season than Modano was. I get the GWG narrative in 1999, along with Dallas crashing and burning in 1998 without Nieuwendyk, but my view has always been that when determining who is the most valuable player on a winning team, watch/listen to the coach. Hitchcock - notoriously a difficult guy to play for - used Modano in every situation, averaging nearly 25 minutes of ice time/game - obviously a lot for a forward. Even in the conference finals vs. Colorado, when Nieuwendyk probably won the CS with 9 pts in 7 games (compared to Modano's 5 pts), Modano played 6 minutes more per game than Nieuwendyk - difficult minutes, against Forsberg or Sakic, and minutes on the PK. Nieuwendyk, to his credit, opportunistically scored against easier matchups, but I just don't think Nieuwendyk had the juice to get the better of either of those star Colorado center matchups at the time.

For the record, I think this is the kind of thing that people can respectfully disagree on, as I do understand the rationale for Nieuwendyk winning the CS. I liked Nieuwendyk as a player, and in a thread last month I argued that the Calgary/Dallas trade was a win-win for both teams as Nieuwendyk seemed to be the missing piece that put Dallas over the top in the late 90s (and perhaps even acted as a draw for some other veteran free agents). So I get that.

I think Nieuwendyk is an example of the debate as to whether one is willing to give the CS to a player who has a great opportunistic postseason, as he did here. I've always been one who is alright with giving players the Smythe for that.