Playoff Performers Voting Record - Canadiens1958

quoipourquoi

Goaltender
Jan 26, 2009
10,123
4,126
Hockeytown, MI
Round 1

Rank | Player | High/Low | Next
1 | Henri Richard | Highest | Next at 7
2 | Frank Nighbor | Highest | Next at 5
3 | Ted Kennedy | Highest | Next at 9
4 | Doug Harvey | |
5 | Jacques Plante | Highest | Next at 6
6 | Maurice Richard | |
7 | Red Kelly | |
8 | Gordie Howe | |
9 | Ken Dryden | |
10 | Patrick Roy | Lowest | Next at 4
11 | Terry Sawchuk | Highest | Next at 16
12 | Hap Holmes | Highest | Next at 47
13 | Jean Beliveau | Lowest | Next at 7
14 | Bobby Orr | |
15 | Serge Savard | Highest | Next at 19
16 | Turk Broda | |
17 | Martin Brodeur | |
18 | Bernie Parent | |
19 | Glenn Hall | Highest | Exclusive to List
20 | Clint Benedict | Highest | Next at 22
21 | Mark Messier | |
22 | Wayne Gretzky | Lowest | Next at 2
23 | Mario Lemieux | |
24 | Larry Robinson | |
25 | Denis Potvin | Lowest | Next at 19
26 | Paul Coffey | |
27 | Ray Bourque | |
28 | Nicklas Lidstrom | |
29 | Jacques Lemaire | |
30 | Bryan Trottier | |
31 | Dave Keon | Highest | Next at 33
32 | Sidney Crosby | |
33 | Bobby Clarke | Highest | Next at 34
34 | Mike Bossy | Lowest | Next at 32
35 | Jonathan Toews | Highest | Next at 46
36 | Joe Sakic | |
37 | Steve Yzerman | |
38 | Milt Schmidt | Highest | Exclusive to List
39 | Guy Lafleur | Lowest | Next at 26
40 | Bobby Hull | |
41 | Allan Stanley | |
42 | Scott Stevens | |
43 | Georges Boucher | Highest | Next at 54
44 | Earl Seibert | Highest | Next at 48
45 | Sylvio Mantha | Highest | Exclusive to List
46 | Eddie Shore | Highest | Exclusive to List
47 | Frank Foyston | |
48 | Jack Darragh | |
49 | Dickie Moore | |
50 | Bob Gainey | Highest | Exclusive to List
51 | Sergei Fedorov | |
52 | Doug Gilmour | |
53 | Chris Chelios | |
54 | Duncan Keith | |
55 | Brad Park | |
56 | Chris Pronger | |
57 | Billy Smith | |
58 | Dominik Hasek | |
59 | Peter Forsberg | Lowest | Next at 56
60 | Evgeni Malkin | |

  • Only list without Bernie Geoffrion

Round 2

Vote | 1st | 2nd | 3rd | 4th | 5th | 6th | 7th | 8th | 9th | 10th
1 | Harvey | Plante | Richard | Howe | Roy | Beliveau | Orr | Messier | Gretzky | Lemieux
2 | Kennedy | Harvey | Plante | Kelly | Dryden | Orr | Messier | Lemieux | Robinson | Potvin
4 | Richard | Nighbor | Dryden | Sawchuk | Broda | Robinson | Brodeur | Coffey | Lidstrom | Trottier
5 | Robinson | Dryden | Brodeur | Trottier | Bourque | Hull | Lidstrom | Fedorov | Sawchuk | Parent
6 | Savard | Brodeur | Crosby | Hull | Boucher | Kurri | Bourque | Sawchuk | Smith | McGee
7 | Lemaire | Moore | Brodeur | Sawchuk | Hull | Smith | Kurri | Keith | Stevens | Pronger
8 | Lemaire | Moore | Coffey | Bourque | Clarke | Smith | Parent | Sawchuk | Yzerman | Stanley
 

MXD

Original #4
Oct 27, 2005
50,668
16,394
You know what I understand the least about that Round 1 list?
Glenn Hall.
 

Johnny Engine

Moderator
Jul 29, 2009
4,972
2,352
Actually surprised to see Allan Stanley at 41, and barely cracking #10 in the last vote.
I distinctly remember, in the preliminary round, you mentioned him as one of several players who could push Patrick Roy out of the top spot.

Far from. Excellent case for Henri Richard at #1. ... [more about Richard] ...

Other very solid candidates.

Ted Kennedy, Red Kelly, Doug Harvey, Jacques Plante,Jean Beliveau, Allan Stanley,
who I would rank ahead of Roy.

Possibles Mark Messier, Terry Sawchuk, Brian Trottier, Billy Smith, Mike Bossy.

It was a pretty bold statement but in the end, Stanley isn't even ranked the highest out of the lists.

Did you move on this position, or did you mean something different by the above quote?
 

sr edler

gold is not reality
Mar 20, 2010
11,845
6,289
I like this list because it's unusual, but I also feel players are somewhat thrown in in sporadic bulks per era.
 

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,773
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
Moved

Actually surprised to see Allan Stanley at 41, and barely cracking #10 in the last vote.
I distinctly remember, in the preliminary round, you mentioned him as one of several players who could push Patrick Roy out of the top spot.



It was a pretty bold statement but in the end, Stanley isn't even ranked the highest out of the lists.

Did you move on this position, or did you mean something different by the above quote?

Moved. Basically could not rank Stanley ahead of Keon and Roy's OT record in the playoffs became more impressive the more I looked at it.
 

unknown33

Registered User
Dec 8, 2009
3,942
150
I didn't follow this project so I'm a bit confused.
Is this relative playoff performance compared to ability/regular season or why is Gretzky 22nd?
 

ImporterExporter

"You're a boring old man"
Jun 18, 2013
18,775
7,802
Oblivion Express
I'll give you credit Habs58. This list is certainly unique!

Gretzky at 22!!!!

Messier at 21!

Roy the 3rd rated G!

Hap Holmes and Glenn Hall so high?!

Sawchuck at 11??

Bourque on the same level as Lidstrom?!

Toews listed but no Patty Kane?

Lafleur at 39!!

Marty B like 25 spots better than Stevens?
 

ImporterExporter

"You're a boring old man"
Jun 18, 2013
18,775
7,802
Oblivion Express
Was there no vetting of the original lists?

Of the first 46 players listed, 23 of them are either the highest or lowest ranked.

I question this also.

Look, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but how can anyone with a long standing grasp of hockey history, look at Wayne Gretzky and say, "yeah, not a top 20 playoff performer of all time". :laugh:

Look at how drastic some of the highs/lows are compared to everyone else who submitted ballots. It's staggering.
 

Killion

Registered User
Feb 19, 2010
36,763
3,211
Was there no vetting of the original lists?

Of the first 46 players listed, 23 of them are either the highest or lowest ranked.
... and?
I question this also.

Look, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but how can anyone with a long standing grasp of hockey history, look at Wayne Gretzky and say, "yeah, not a top 20 playoff performer of all time". :laugh:

Look at how drastic some of the highs/lows are compared to everyone else who submitted ballots. It's staggering.

Easy. He's not. You apparently fail to grasp just what it is that quantifies a complete playoff performer.... I have no problem with this posters ranking 1-10, 11-20, well thought out, astute. If I have any criticisms at all, it would be that I dont believe Crosby nor any other current player belongs on the list (I would only permit retired players to be included). I certainly agree with his #1 pick etc.... would probably swap out Plante's ranking with Sawchuks, minor nits but beyond that?..... Job well done!
 

Johnny Engine

Moderator
Jul 29, 2009
4,972
2,352
Was there no vetting of the original lists?

Of the first 46 players listed, 23 of them are either the highest or lowest ranked.

As a screener, I'll submit that my (our) aim was not to enforce consensus on a survey that was deliberately designed to take in a range of perspectives, but rather to weed out errors and incomplete research. This list doesn't ignore any eras or teams wholesale, and does feature all the players with the most consensus about them (Roy, Gretzky, etc), even if it does rank them very differently from the norm. It's generally consistent with C58's usual thought patterns, and while the lists were anonymous, it wasn't hard to recognize where it likely came from, and that it represented the honest opinions of an informed contributor to the forum.
 

Dennis Bonvie

Registered User
Dec 29, 2007
29,206
17,561
Connecticut
As a screener, I'll submit that my (our) aim was not to enforce consensus on a survey that was deliberately designed to take in a range of perspectives, but rather to weed out errors and incomplete research. This list doesn't ignore any eras or teams wholesale, and does feature all the players with the most consensus about them (Roy, Gretzky, etc), even if it does rank them very differently from the norm. It's generally consistent with C58's usual thought patterns, and while the lists were anonymous, it wasn't hard to recognize where it likely came from, and that it represented the honest opinions of an informed contributor to the forum.

Good answer.
 

Killion

Registered User
Feb 19, 2010
36,763
3,211
As a screener, I'll submit that my (our) aim was not to enforce consensus on a survey that was deliberately designed to take in a range of perspectives, but rather to weed out errors and incomplete research. This list doesn't ignore any eras or teams wholesale, and does feature all the players with the most consensus about them (Roy, Gretzky, etc), even if it does rank them very differently from the norm. It's generally consistent with C58's usual thought patterns, and while the lists were anonymous, it wasn't hard to recognize where it likely came from, and that it represented the honest opinions of an informed contributor to the forum.

Good answer.

Damn straight, and Good Job Johnny. Way it should be done. :handclap:
 

ImporterExporter

"You're a boring old man"
Jun 18, 2013
18,775
7,802
Oblivion Express
... and?


Easy. He's not. You apparently fail to grasp just what it is that quantifies a complete playoff performer.... I have no problem with this posters ranking 1-10, 11-20, well thought out, astute. If I have any criticisms at all, it would be that I dont believe Crosby nor any other current player belongs on the list (I would only permit retired players to be included). I certainly agree with his #1 pick etc.... would probably swap out Plante's ranking with Sawchuks, minor nits but beyond that?..... Job well done!

I'd be eager to learn what constitutes "complete playoff performer". :popcorn:

I'm sorry but when the opinion that Wayne Gretzky's nearly 400 playoff points, 4 Cups, and a slew of other significant achievements = the majority, I'll give up learning anything more about hockey history. I'm not worried about that happening though. Why? Because despite such a low opinion by Habs58, Gretzky still ended up #1.

So are basically 98% of the people who participated in this ignorant to the notion of what a complete playoff performer is considering 98% of the rest of the voting bloc don't agree with you or Mr58? ;)

Not allowing active players to be a part of this? Sir, I have no words. What if a guy is 38 and nearly at the end of his rope and has a stellar playoff record. He's out because he simply isn't retired?? I simply don't get the idea of watering down the player pool by restricting it to only retired players. Jagr is still playing for crying out loud and his career is longer than almost every person in hockey history who IS retired! (not that I'd put him on this list).
 

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,773
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
Maybe One Day

I question this also.

Look, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but how can anyone with a long standing grasp of hockey history, look at Wayne Gretzky and say, "yeah, not a top 20 playoff performer of all time". :laugh:

Look at how drastic some of the highs/lows are compared to everyone else who submitted ballots. It's staggering.

Maybe one day you will understand. Not a question of looking at Gretzky but a question of looking at everyone and finding attributes that were superior to what Gretzky brought at playoff time.

Did Gretzky also bring elite defence like the centers or forwards above him? No. If Gretzky had played defensively like Crosby the last two seasons we have a different ranking. I just recognize that he did not.

Highs/lows. Fuction of appreciating and attributing value to defensive hockey. Example the rankings of Beliveau and Henri Richard. 1959 and 1968 without Beliveau but with Henri Richard Canadiens won the SC going away in a total of 9 games. 1962 with Richard lost for the playoffs but with Beliveau the team went silently losing in six in the semis.
 

Dennis Bonvie

Registered User
Dec 29, 2007
29,206
17,561
Connecticut
Maybe one day you will understand. Not a question of looking at Gretzky but a question of looking at everyone and finding attributes that were superior to what Gretzky brought at playoff time.

Did Gretzky also bring elite defence like the centers or forwards above him? No. If Gretzky had played defensively like Crosby the last two seasons we have a different ranking. I just recognize that he did not.

Highs/lows. Fuction of appreciating and attributing value to defensive hockey. Example the rankings of Beliveau and Henri Richard. 1959 and 1968 without Beliveau but with Henri Richard Canadiens won the SC going away in a total of 9 games. 1962 with Richard lost for the playoffs but with Beliveau the team went silently losing in six in the semis.

So is it safe to say you would not rank Gretzky or Lemieux as top 4 players all-time, period? After all, neither brought defense hockey to the table.
 

ImporterExporter

"You're a boring old man"
Jun 18, 2013
18,775
7,802
Oblivion Express
Maybe one day you will understand. Not a question of looking at Gretzky but a question of looking at everyone and finding attributes that were superior to what Gretzky brought at playoff time.

Did Gretzky also bring elite defence like the centers or forwards above him? No. If Gretzky had played defensively like Crosby the last two seasons we have a different ranking. I just recognize that he did not.

Highs/lows. Fuction of appreciating and attributing value to defensive hockey. Example the rankings of Beliveau and Henri Richard. 1959 and 1968 without Beliveau but with Henri Richard Canadiens won the SC going away in a total of 9 games. 1962 with Richard lost for the playoffs but with Beliveau the team went silently losing in six in the semis.


Gretzky didn't need to bring elite defense though. It wasn't a priority in the 80's. That wasn't how the league was structured or, for the most part coached. Teams weren't winning many games 2-1.

And quite frankly Gretzky's offense is so much better than anyone else it offsets his lack of defensive prowess in my mind. His offensive production is beyond absurd, era be damned.

Pavel Datsyuk never really killed penalties that I can ever remember. That doesn't mean he loses points for being arguably the most talented two way player of the last 20 years, especially defensively at even strength. The guy who coached him most of his career didn't believe it was prudent to put him out there.

Your last point focuses solely on a few specific players instead of the entire team. I agree Henri Richard is largely underappreciated, even on this sub forum, but blaming a 30 year old Beliveau directly seems harsh. Ralph Backstrom was basically a point per game player in the regular season and led the team in scoring, yet only had 1 point against Chicago. Same thing with Geoffrion. The team/Plante gave up 19 goals in 6 games. Lots of folks seemed to under perform that year.
 

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,773
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
Frank Nighbor

I'd be eager to learn what constitutes "complete playoff performer". :popcorn:

I'm sorry but when the opinion that Wayne Gretzky's nearly 400 playoff points, 4 Cups, and a slew of other significant achievements = the majority, I'll give up learning anything more about hockey history. I'm not worried about that happening though. Why? Because despite such a low opinion by Habs58, Gretzky still ended up #1.

So are basically 98% of the people who participated in this ignorant to the notion of what a complete playoff performer is considering 98% of the rest of the voting bloc don't agree with you or Mr58? ;)

Not allowing active players to be a part of this? Sir, I have no words. What if a guy is 38 and nearly at the end of his rope and has a stellar playoff record. He's out because he simply isn't retired?? I simply don't get the idea of watering down the player pool by restricting it to only retired players. Jagr is still playing for crying out loud and his career is longer than almost every person in hockey history who IS retired! (not that I'd put him on this list).

Complete playoff performer brings a 200 foot game defensively and offensively.:popcorn::popcorn:

Frank Nighbor moved from 95th in the Top 100 in 2008 to 16th in the latest project. Force of argument since he retired a long time ago. Cyclone Taylor, an offensive star but with playoff short comings unless playing with Nighbor in 1915, was not even in the 2017 discussion for playoff performers.:)

The 98% per cent is a pulled from the sky number. Rest understood the ranking. So you cannot support the 98% which is just fiction, part of your reality. Does not exist.

Active vs retired performers. Used to think like Killion but then realized that allowing active players provides great insight into the modern hockey mindset. Certain advantages as well. Without Duncan Keith and his very low hit total certain comparables would not have been possible. Easier and advantageous to live with than arguing against.
 

Killion

Registered User
Feb 19, 2010
36,763
3,211
I'd be eager to learn what constitutes "complete playoff performer". :popcorn:

I'm sorry but when the opinion that Wayne Gretzky's nearly 400 playoff points, 4 Cups, and a slew of other significant achievements = the majority, I'll give up learning anything more about hockey history. I'm not worried about that happening though. Why? Because despite such a low opinion by Habs58, Gretzky still ended up #1.

So are basically 98% of the people who participated in this ignorant to the notion of what a complete playoff performer is considering 98% of the rest of the voting bloc don't agree with you or Mr58? ;)

Not allowing active players to be a part of this? Sir, I have no words. What if a guy is 38 and nearly at the end of his rope and has a stellar playoff record. He's out because he simply isn't retired?? I simply don't get the idea of watering down the player pool by restricting it to only retired players. Jagr is still playing for crying out loud and his career is longer than almost every person in hockey history who IS retired! (not that I'd put him on this list).

That has already been explained to you by C58. :popcorn: ...

Thats fine, fine n' dandy if everyone else ranks Gretzky #1 All Time POP... Some of us March to different drummers Import/Export. What weve witnessed, seen, experienced... what we appreciated, respected, found far more desirable in a Playoff Performer. The quantifiable intangibles. Two way play, grit, guts, determination, leadership etc etc etc. Things you wont find on stat sheets.

.... and no, dont care... if a guys still playing at 55 I'm not including him in any All Time Ranking of anything, anywhere at anytime.... Good job I didnt make the Rules up for this one (or others) huh? ;)
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->