Round 2, Vote 1 (Stanley Cup Playoff Performers)

[quoipourquoi]

Round 2. (Fight!)

Procedure

• You will be presented with an increasingly large number of players based on their ranking in the Round 1 aggregate list
• Players will be listed in alphabetical order to avoid creating bias
• You will submit ten names in a ranked order, #1 through #10, without ties
• Results of this vote will be posted after each voting cycle, but the individual ballots themselves will remain secret until the completion of this project
• The top-5 players will be added to The List, and the process will repeat itself for a total of eight voting cycles (#1-5 in Vote 1, #35-40 in Vote 8)

Eligible Voters
All voters are equal, but some voters are more equal than others

• Anyone is eligible to submit a ballot in any voting cycle, so long as it falls within the designated voting period and contains ten names in ranked order
• The results of the open voting will be posted after each voting cycle
• Ballots from voters who have submitted an approved Round 1 ranking of 60 players (which was used to shape the aggregate list) will have their votes tabulated both in the open ranking and in the History of Hockey ranking
• BenchBrawl, blogofmike, bobholly39, Canadiens1958, drmagg, Johnny Engine, Kyle McMahon, Mike Farkas, MXD, quoipourquoi, seventieslord, TheGeneral
• The History of Hockey ranking will be used to assemble The List
• You may continue to submit a ranked #1-60 list to quoipourquoi until further notice in order to be eligible for the History of Hockey ranking

Guidelines

• Respect each other. No horseplay or sophistry!
• Stay on topic and don't get caught up in talking about non-eligible players or non-Stanley Cup Playoff performance
• Participate, but retain an open mind throughout the discussion
• Do not speculate who cast any particular ballot. Do not make judgments about the mindset of whoever cast that particular ballot. All individual ballots will be revealed at the end of the project.

The actual voting period will open up on Friday, March 24th at midnight and continue through Sunday, March 26th at 11:59pm. Eastern time zone. I will release the results of the vote on Monday, March 27th.


Vote 1 Candidates

• Bobby Orr
• Denis Potvin
• Doug Harvey
• Gordie Howe
• Guy Lafleur
• Jacques Plante
• Jean Beliveau
• Joe Sakic
• Mario Lemieux
• Mark Messier
• Maurice Richard
• Patrick Roy
• Wayne Gretzky

I'll jump back in when Mrs. Quoipourquoi falls asleep. Let's do this!

Click to read more...

 

[Hockey Outsider]

All data has been compiled in good faith. Let me know if you see any errors.

Here's some raw data to (hopefully) start the discussion:

CONN SMYTHE TROPHIES (asterisks denotes winner of the "retro" Conn Smythe per SIHR research project)

Player|Times
Maurice Richard* | 3***
Jean Beliveau* | 2*
Gordie Howe* | 2**
Wayne Gretzky* | 2
Mario Lemieux* | 2
Bobby Orr* | 2
Guy Lafleur* | 1
Mark Messier* | 1
Joe Sakic* | 1
Doug Harvey* | 0
Denis Potvin* | 0

MOST TIMES LEADING TEAM IN GOALS IN PLAYOFFS

Player|Times
Maurice Richard* | 8
Jean Beliveau* | 7
Joe Sakic* | 7
Gordie Howe* | 7
Wayne Gretzky* | 6
Mario Lemieux* | 6
Guy Lafleur* | 4
Mark Messier* | 2
Bobby Orr* | 1
Doug Harvey* | 0
Denis Potvin* | 0

MOST TIMES LEADING TEAM IN ASSISTS IN PLAYOFFS

Player|Times
Wayne Gretzky* | 14
Gordie Howe* | 7
Mark Messier* | 5
Guy Lafleur* | 5
Doug Harvey* | 5
Jean Beliveau* | 5
Bobby Orr* | 4
Mario Lemieux* | 3
Joe Sakic* | 3
Denis Potvin | 2
Maurice Richard* | 0

MOST TIMES LEADING TEAM IN POINTS IN PLAYOFFS

Player|Times
Wayne Gretzky* | 14
Gordie Howe* | 10
Joe Sakic* | 8
Guy Lafleur* | 7
Mario Lemieux* | 7
Jean Beliveau* | 6
Maurice Richard* | 4
Mark Messier* | 4
Bobby Orr* | 3
Denis Potvin* | 2
Doug Harvey* | 0

MOST TIMES PLACING IN TOP FIVE IN PLAYOFFS - GOALS

Player | 1st | 2nd | 3rd | 4th | 5th | Total
Maurice Richard* | 5 | 4 | | 1 | | 10
Gordie Howe* | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | | 7
Jean Beliveau* | 1 | 3 | 3 | | | 7
Wayne Gretzky* | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | | 6
Guy Lafleur* | 2 | 1 | 2 | | | 5
Mark Messier* | | 2 | 2 | 1 | | 5
Mario Lemieux* | 1 | 2 | | 1 | | 4
Joe Sakic* | 2 | 1 | | | | 3
Bobby Orr* | | | 1 | | | 1

Doug Harvey* | | | | 1 | | 1
Denis Potvin* | | | | | | 0

MOST TIMES PLACING IN TOP FIVE IN PLAYOFFS - ASSISTS

Player | 1st | 2nd | 3rd | 4th | 5th | Total
Gordie Howe* | 1 | 5 | | 3 | 1 | 10
Jean Beliveau* | 3 | | 1 | 2 | 3 | 9
Wayne Gretzky* | 6 | 1 | | 1 | | 8
Doug Harvey* | | 3 | 2 | 2 | | 7
Mark Messier* | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | | 5
Denis Potvin* | 1 | 1 | 2 | | 1 | 5
Maurice Richard* | | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 5
Guy Lafleur* | 2 | 1 | | 1 | | 4
Bobby Orr* | 2 | | | 2 | | 4
Joe Sakic* | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | | 4
Mario Lemieux* | 1 | 2 | | | | 3

MOST TIMES PLACING IN TOP FIVE IN PLAYOFFS - POINTS

Player | 1st | 2nd | 3rd | 4th | 5th | Total
Jean Beliveau* | 1 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 10
Gordie Howe* | 6 | | | 2 | 1 | 9
Maurice Richard* | 2 | 2 | 4 | | 1 | 9
Wayne Gretzky* | 6 | | 1 | | 1 | 8
Guy Lafleur* | 3 | 1 | 1 | | | 5
Joe Sakic* | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | | 5
Mark Messier* | 1 | 2 | 2 | | | 5
Mario Lemieux* | 2 | 1 | | | | 3
Bobby Orr* | 1 | 1 | 1 | | | 3
Denis Potvin* | | 1 | 1 | 1 | | 3
Doug Harvey* | | | | | 1 | 1

PLAYERS WHO SCORED LARGEST PERCENTAGE OF THEIR TEAMS' GOALS (MIN 50 GAMES)

Player|GP|Goals|TMG|Percentage
Mario Lemieux* | 107 | 76 | 391 | 19.4%
Maurice Richard* | 133 | 82 | 442 | 18.6%
Joe Sakic* | 172 | 84 | 503 | 16.7%
Gordie Howe* | 157 | 68 | 452 | 15%
Wayne Gretzky* | 208 | 122 | 856 | 14.3%
Jean Beliveau* | 162 | 79 | 558 | 14.2%
Guy Lafleur* | 128 | 58 | 488 | 11.9%
Mark Messier* | 236 | 109 | 954 | 11.4%
Bobby Orr* | 74 | 26 | 287 | 9.1%
Denis Potvin* | 185 | 56 | 674 | 8.3%
Doug Harvey* | 137 | 8 | 416 | 1.9%

PLAYERS WHO ASSISTED ON LARGEST PERCENTAGE OF THEIR TEAMS' GOALS (MIN 50 GAMES)

Player|GP|Assists|TMG|Percentage
Wayne Gretzky* | 208 | 260 | 856 | 30.4%
Mario Lemieux* | 107 | 96 | 391 | 24.6%
Bobby Orr* | 74 | 66 | 287 | 23%
Joe Sakic* | 172 | 104 | 503 | 20.7%
Gordie Howe* | 157 | 92 | 452 | 20.4%
Mark Messier* | 236 | 186 | 954 | 19.5%
Jean Beliveau* | 162 | 97 | 558 | 17.4%
Denis Potvin* | 185 | 108 | 674 | 16%
Guy Lafleur* | 128 | 76 | 488 | 15.6%
Doug Harvey* | 137 | 64 | 416 | 15.4%
Maurice Richard* | 133 | 44 | 442 | 10%

PLAYERS WHO SCORED OR ASSISTED ON LARGEST PERCENTAGE OF THEIR TEAMS' GOALS (MIN 50 GAMES)

Player|GP|Points|TMG|Percentage
Wayne Gretzky* | 208 | 382 | 856 | 44.6%
Mario Lemieux* | 107 | 172 | 391 | 44%
Joe Sakic* | 172 | 188 | 503 | 37.4%
Gordie Howe* | 157 | 160 | 452 | 35.4%
Bobby Orr* | 74 | 92 | 287 | 32.1%
Jean Beliveau* | 162 | 176 | 558 | 31.5%
Mark Messier* | 236 | 295 | 954 | 30.9%
Maurice Richard* | 133 | 126 | 442 | 28.5%
Guy Lafleur* | 128 | 134 | 488 | 27.5%
Denis Potvin* | 185 | 164 | 674 | 24.3%
Doug Harvey* | 137 | 72 | 416 | 17.3%

 

[Michael Farkas]

Ok, feeling good so far...all of my top 9 are here in vote 1, and 11 of 13.

I never thought I'd ever say this...but I'm into hearing the case for Bobby Orr here...just 74 games, and what, 4 out of 8 first round exits...(that might be incorrect, as I didn't check that)? I know he's #4 and all, but I'm not sure he applies here...

 

[MXD]

Vote 1 Candidates

• Bobby Orr
• Denis Potvin
• Doug Harvey
• Gordie Howe
• Guy Lafleur
• Jacques Plante
• Jean Beliveau
• Joe Sakic
• Mario Lemieux
• Mark Messier
• Maurice Richard
• Patrick Roy
• Wayne Gretzky

I'll jump back in when Mrs. Quoipourquoi falls asleep. Let's do this!

Huumm...
Okay. Not bad, not bad!

- Is Mr. quoipourquoi a voter?
- Was that grouping due to breaks or 13 was a fixed number?
- Is there anyone in that group who just makes you, like, say "Nope. Not now."... regardless of who is not up for voting and before arguments starts?

First things first : Who was the weakest player in that group, regardless of playoffs achievements. I'm pretty sure we all have our opinions for strongest player (usually, 99 or 4), but for weakest... Lafleur or Sakic, anyone? And do they compensate with their playoff output?

 

[MXD]

Ok, feeling good so far...all of my top 9 are here in vote 1, and 11 of 13.

I never thought I'd ever say this...but I'm into hearing the case for Bobby Orr here...just 74 games, and what, 4 out of 8 first round exits...(that might be incorrect, as I didn't check that)? I know he's #4 and all, but I'm not sure he applies here...

Yeah, I got Top-8, and 10 out of 14... But I have to admit that my #23 has made it.

 

[MXD]

(merge with above).

Actually, the worst problem with Orr is probably not his low-ish amount of Cups (in that group at least), but that his team really, but really should've won more

 

[bobholly39]

Ok, feeling good so far...all of my top 9 are here in vote 1, and 11 of 13.

Exact same breakdown for me. Top 9 here, and 11 of 13. Also my #14 and 18, so not bad.

I'd say looking at the list, the only names with any reasonable argument for #1 are:

Roy
Gretzky
Richard
Beliveau
Howe

I don't necessarily think Howe should be #1 (may not even be top 5) - but his longevity has to at least make us look at his accomplishments and consider him and not discount him outright.

No one else has a case at #1 imo.

Gretzky easily over Lemieux/Messier/Sakic in terms of modern forwards.
Roy easily over Plante overall imo (unless someone disagrees?)
I don't think any of the defensemen have a real case for #1 overall.
Lafleur doesn't have a case for #1 best forward either (i'd have him towards lower end of the names at first glance)
That leaves Beliveau/Richard/Howe as possibilities, to go along with Gretzky/Roy.


Anyone else think there's an argument for someone else at #1 outside of those 5?

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Ok, feeling good so far...all of my top 9 are here in vote 1, and 11 of 13.

I never thought I'd ever say this...but I'm into hearing the case for Bobby Orr here...just 74 games, and what, 4 out of 8 first round exits...(that might be incorrect, as I didn't check that)? I know he's #4 and all, but I'm not sure he applies here...

Orr and Lemieux both suffer from having very little substance outside of their two huge years.

It would be very tough for me to rank them ahead of guys like Potvin or Messier who may not have peaked as high, but have so many more excellent playoff runs.

Apparently I ranked Joe Sakic much lower than the majority. But, I chose to punish players for years where they didn't play up to expectations. Sakic had that 1998-99-00 stretch where he just wasn't that great in the playoffs for whatever reason.

 

[MXD]

Anyone else think there's an argument for someone else at #1 outside of those 5?

I don't... and frankly, at first glance, including Howe in that group feels a bit generous to Howe.

 

[bobholly39]

Huumm...
Okay. Not bad, not bad!

- Is Mr. quoipourquoi a voter?
- Was that grouping due to breaks or 13 was a fixed number?
- Is there anyone in that group who just makes you, like, say "Nope. Not now."... regardless of who is not up for voting and before arguments starts?

First things first : Who was the weakest player in that group, regardless of playoffs achievements. I'm pretty sure we all have our opinions for strongest player (usually, 99 or 4), but for weakest... Lafleur or Sakic, anyone? And do they compensate with their playoff output?

In terms of being voted top 5, yeah a few players jump out at me as having no realistic shot. They are:

Sakic
Lafleur
Orr

I think anyone else is worth considering

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

All data has been compiled in good faith. Let me know if you see any errors.

CONN SMYTHE TROPHIES (asterisks denotes winner of the "retro" Conn Smythe per SIHR research project)

Player|Times
Maurice Richard* | 3***
Patrick Roy | 3
Jean Beliveau* | 2*
Gordie Howe* | 2**
Wayne Gretzky* | 2
Mario Lemieux* | 2
Bobby Orr* | 2
Guy Lafleur* | 1
Mark Messier* | 1
Jacques Plante* | 1*
Joe Sakic* | 1
Doug Harvey* | 0
Denis Potvin* | 0

added the goalies for you

 

[bobholly39]

Orr and Lemieux both suffer from having very little substance outside of their two huge years.

It would be very tough for me to rank them ahead of guys like Potvin or Messier who may not have peaked as high, but have so many more excellent playoff runs.

Apparently I ranked Joe Sakic much lower than the majority. But, I chose to punish players for years where they didn't play up to expectations. Sakic had that 1998-99-00 stretch where he just wasn't that great in the playoffs for whatever reason.

I wouldn't want to discount Lemieux too quickly. Imo he has no shot at being at the very top of the list, but pitting him against someone like Messier needs consideration.

Lemieux's PPG is 1.607
Messier's PPG is 1.25

Lemieux's GPG .710 (#1 all time)
Messier's GPG .462 (27th all time)

172 points in 107 games is remarkable.

I also don't think Lemieux and Orr should be grouped in the same category. Orr seems to have some years where he didnt do much, in first round exits. Lemieux doesn't seem to have any weaknesses in his resume per se, outside of lack of longevity. He seems to have put up strong numbers every time he made the playoffs.

 

[The Panther]

One thing about Lemieux's playoff numbers -- though, in fairness, it may be affected by his fatigue from injuries later on -- is that he didn't keep up his pace, relatively, in any of his last 5 playoff appearances (and that's 5 out of 8, overall).

In 1993, he had that huge season and was going gangbusters at the end of the season, after his radiation treatment -- I think he had 18 goals in the last 9 games or something. But in the playoffs 18 points in 11 games. It's not exactly poor (it would be fabulous for anyone but he and Wayne), but it is a big drop from where he was all season. In 1994, 7 points in 6 games, first-round exit. In 1996, he had another massive season, and then a good but not (by his standards) spectacular 27 points in 18 games, after the Panthers worked him and Jagr over. 6 points in 5 games right before his first retirement, and then 17 points in 18 games in 2001, after his huge 1/2 season. From his 27th birthday to the end, Mario put up 75 points in 58 games. It sounds great (and it is), but by his standards and considering each of these playoff entries was on a very high-scoring, competitive team, I do think his production after his two big years is *slightly* disappointing. It's a 106-point pace over 82 games, compared to a 168-point pace in the regular season those same years. Obviously, you expect a certain lowered production in the playoffs (esp. when the player is eliminated), but I would say Lemieux's 1993 to 2001 playoff numbers (again, this represents 63% of his entire playoff samples) are not better than, say, Joe Sakic's or Forsberg's or Crosby's. There is a big drop outside of those two big seasons.

(Actually, his 1989 numbers are also a big drop from the regular season, but I can't criticize him for 12 goals in 11 games, esp. because back then he really had to carry the team.)


Having said all of which, I'm not sure I could place a Mark Messier over Lemieux in playoff performance. Of course, it's all coming down to how much value we want to put on number of appearances, value-to-team, etc., etc....

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

I also don't think Lemieux and Orr should be grouped in the same category. Orr seems to have some years where he didnt do much, in first round exits. Lemieux doesn't seem to have any weaknesses in his resume per se, outside of lack of longevity. He seems to have put up strong numbers every time he made the playoffs.

i was neither alive, nor have i done the research. but do you know that orr "didn't do much," or are you just looking at his offensive stats?

 

[BenchBrawl]

Maurice Richard

Here's a good post from TheDevilMadeMe about Richard's playoff goal scoring

Maurice Richard's playoff goal scoring

We all know that The Rocket's legend is based on his ability to score goals in the playoffs, so I thought I would examine just how much better than everyone else he was.

I think it's fair to consider only players who peaked before expansion, since playoff scoring was generally low during this period and the playoffs were only 2 rounds long.

I realize it might seem a bit hypocritical to consider only goal scoring, after my rants about how we need to consider a player's overall offense via points. To an extent, that might be true. But I'm also bit of a hockey traditionalist in how I view this. And there is a reason that the Hart Trophy basically tracks the Art Ross, while the Conn Smythe conversation is just as likely to follow the goals race as the points race - there is just something to be said for being able to finish things off in the playoffs, when the games are tighter and the pressure is higher.

Total career playoffs goals among pre-expansion players

1. Maurice Richard 82
2. Jean Beliveau 79
3. Gordie Howe 68
4. Bobby Hull 62
5. Stan Mikita 59

All these players played a number of seasons after expansion, except for Richard.

Top career playoffs GPG among pre-expansion players

1. Maurice Richard 0.617
2. Bobby Hull 0.521
3. Gordie Drillon 0.520 (only 7 seasons)
4. Jean Beliveau 0.488
5. Bernard Geoffrion 0.439
6. Gordie Howe 0.433 (includes a ton of post-prime seasons)

Maurice scored 16.6% more goals per game in the playoffs than Bobby Hull

Put it in context

To properly consider their goals per game averages, let's knock off the Rocket's 1944 and 1945 playoffs when he obliterated competition hurt by World War 2 to the tune of 18 goals in 15 games across both seasons. But to be fair, we should also knock off his 1959 and 1960 seasons (1 goal in 12 games), when he was injured and past his prime, and openly said that he would have retired if he didn't enjoy playing with his younger brother so much (and was used in a more defensive role FYI).

We are left with 63 goals in 103 career playoff games or 0.612 goals per game over a period of 13 seasons (including 11 playoff years).

In other words, in the playoffs, the Rocket averaged 4.3 goals per 7 game series over a sample size of 103 games over 13 years that took him through the lowest scoring period in NHL history (early 1950s) after the advent of the Red Line. Truly extraordinary!

Compare to Bobby Hull's 60 goals in 110 playoff games over 11 seasons after the age of 22 and before he left for the WHA - 0.545 goals per game.

Maurice Richard's scored 11% more goals per playoff game over 13 seasons (11 playoffs) than Bobby Hull did over his 11 season prime NHL playoff career (10 playoffs). If anything, these numbers are favorable for Bobby Hull, since he didn't play in the super low-scoring early 1950s.

Gordie Howe is a harder comparison because he played for so long, but his playoff peak appears to be the 16 season stretch between 1949 and 1965 (15 playoffs). In this time frame, Howe has 60 goals in 123 games - 0.488 goals per game. Note that I picked such a long stretch because the first and last year of the stretch actually bring the average up. Howe's average is dragged down by several seasons in the early 1960s.

Maurice Richard scored 20% more goals over his best 13 year (non-WW2) stretch than Howe did over his best 16 year stretch. Howe obviously had more assists and overall points, so it isn't a complete comparison of their offensive value, however, especially since Howe was arguably a better playmaker than goal scorer.

In conclusion

We've all heard statements that the Rocket was "the best ever from the blueline in" or "a highly specialized weapon." There has been a lot of emphasis over the past few years on what Maurice isn't an all-time great at - he's "middling" defensively, an unimpressive playmaker, and while he took more abuse than perhaps any other star player ever and never backed down, he wasn't one to really initiate body checking. But I think we've been forgetting just what the upside is - just how special the specialized weapon was.

Random fact: Richard's record 6 playoff overtime goals wasn't broken until 2006, despite the fact that teams only needed to win 2 playoff rounds to win the Cup in Richard's era.

 

[The Panther]

Thanks for that; that's a great post by TheDevilMadeMe. I do feel that Rocket Richard is generally under-rated on here (let's not even get into the main discussion forum where all hockey prior to Sergei Fedorov is dismissed as irrelevant). Maurice Richard was the #1 RS goal-scorer in NHL history from 1917 to 1963 or whenever Howe passed him. That's about half a century as the top goal-scorer, ever, and he did it playing 50, 60, 70 (at most)-game seasons. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he had the single-season highest GPG from 1917 to 1982 (albeit a War-weakened season, but who else did it? Nobody was close).

I don't think there is any doubt (not in my mind) that Maurice Richard is the #1 playoff goal-scorer, ever.

He was under-served by awards and hardware during his career. I think I figured (in an ongoing thread) that by today's standards, he should have won about 11 major individual awards (Harts, Conn Smythes, 'Richards'), but in fact only won 1.

Where his legacy tends to get debated a bit in his 'overall' game, such as his playmaking or checking and whatnot. I can't comment on this since I didn't see him play, and I bet even those on here who did see him mainly saw him towards the end. Despite his playoff heroics right up to 1958, I don't think Richard after 1951 or so is quite the same Richard as in the 1940s when he leaner and meaner and faster.

Anyway, he is #1 in playoff goal-scoring. No doubt in my mind. The dominance is crazy if you consider what numbers he could have put up in a four-playoff-round system. If you multiply his 82 goals by two, it's 164, which is 42 more playoff goals than Gretzky.

Such a dominant pure goal-scorer, in such an era, however, is very difficult to compare to a player like Wayne Gretzky.

 

[BenchBrawl]

At first glance

- Gretzky is #1.
- Probably Richard vs Béliveau vs Roy for #2-4.Looking forward to compare them.
- Harvey vs Potvin for best defenseman.Orr last of the group.
- Roy > Plante
- Orr and Lemieux not looking good.
- I have tier #1 (Gretzky, ?), tier #2 (Richard, Béliveau, Roy), tier #3 (Harvey, Lafleur, Messier, Potvin, Howe), tier #4 (Sakic, Plante, Lemieux, Orr)

 

[BenchBrawl]

Thanks for the data Hockey Outsider

 

[bobholly39]

One thing about Lemieux's playoff numbers -- though, in fairness, it may be affected by his fatigue from injuries later on -- is that he didn't keep up his pace, relatively, in any of his last 5 playoff appearances (and that's 5 out of 8, overall).

In 1993, he had that huge season and was going gangbusters at the end of the season, after his radiation treatment -- I think he had 18 goals in the last 9 games or something. But in the playoffs 18 points in 11 games. It's not exactly poor (it would be fabulous for anyone but he and Wayne), but it is a big drop from where he was all season. In 1994, 7 points in 6 games, first-round exit. In 1996, he had another massive season, and then a good but not (by his standards) spectacular 27 points in 18 games, after the Panthers worked him and Jagr over. 6 points in 5 games right before his first retirement, and then 17 points in 18 games in 2001, after his huge 1/2 season. From his 27th birthday to the end, Mario put up 75 points in 58 games. It sounds great (and it is), but by his standards and considering each of these playoff entries was on a very high-scoring, competitive team, I do think his production after his two big years is *slightly* disappointing. It's a 106-point pace over 82 games, compared to a 168-point pace in the regular season those same years. Obviously, you expect a certain lowered production in the playoffs (esp. when the player is eliminated), but I would say Lemieux's 1993 to 2001 playoff numbers (again, this represents 63% of his entire playoff samples) are not better than, say, Joe Sakic's or Forsberg's or Crosby's. There is a big drop outside of those two big seasons.

(Actually, his 1989 numbers are also a big drop from the regular season, but I can't criticize him for 12 goals in 11 games, esp. because back then he really had to carry the team.)


Having said all of which, I'm not sure I could place a Mark Messier over Lemieux in playoff performance. Of course, it's all coming down to how much value we want to put on number of appearances, value-to-team, etc., etc....

One thing to keep in mind is that when evaluating Lemieux's playoff record as part of this project, we should only be comparing him to other player's playoff records. Thats means that:

- Lemieux's own regular season record
- Lemieux's expectations based on his ability

Shouldn't really be getting consideration.

To take the 93 playoffs for example. 18 points in 11 games, no cup. Because he's Lemieux, and because he was coming off 160 in 60, 2 straight cups, and the amazing comeback during the season, is only 18 points in 11 games somewhat disappointing? Sure, maybe. Maybe you expected something more of him. Heck maybe people expected this to be the year Lemieux would win a 3rd cup AND break Gretzky's single playoff season point record.

But if you compare 18 points in 11 games to anyone else he's up against in this list's 5th or 6th best playoff season - i think it holds up quite well.

 

[bobholly39]

At first glance

- Gretzky is #1.
- Probably Richard vs Béliveau vs Roy for #2-4.Looking forward to compare them.
- Harvey vs Potvin for best defenseman.Orr last of the group.
- Roy > Plante
- Orr and Lemieux not looking good.
- I have tier #1 (Gretzky, ?), tier #2 (Richard, Béliveau, Roy), tier #3 (Harvey, Lafleur, Messier, Potvin, Howe), tier #4 (Sakic, Plante, Lemieux, Orr)

I don't think Gretzky at #1 should be set in stone just yet. It is where i'm leaning towards, but I want to look at Patrick Roy also first.

A goalie's job in the playoffs is to "win games". GAA, SV%...all that is secondary. It's about game-in/game-out letting in less goals then your opposition. And Roy was was great at winning games in the playoffs.

Gretzky has 17 playoff seasons. 208 total games. 12.23 games per year, on average.
Roy has 17 playoff seasons. 247 total games. 14.53 games per year, on average. Both in the 4 round best of 7 series era of course.

I'd say Gretzky played on better teams than Roy overall in their careers at first glance, skewed heavily by the dynasty Oilers. Roy plays a more important position then Gretzky. And Roy, on average, made it to round 3 every year (14.5 games is at least conf finals).

Obviously this isn't exact science. Teams can make it to round 3 in 12 games after all. All i'm saying is I think Roy deserves consideration for #1 before you write him off, as he deserves a lot of credit for willing his teams far into the playoffs every year. He only lost in round 1 3x in his whole career, and 2 of those were in games 7, one in game 6.

 

[bobholly39]

i was neither alive, nor have i done the research. but do you know that orr "didn't do much," or are you just looking at his offensive stats?

I was responding to Kyle McMahon who claimed Orr had very little substance outside of his 2 huge years. All I was saying is to not group Lemieux into that generalization, because for Lemieux that is not the case. I feel as though Lemieux absolutely does have substance outside of his 2 big years. I wasn't trying to downplay Orr per se, though at a preliminary glance his stats do look weak in those 4 years.

If you feel that is unjustified for Orr too, you can make the case

 

[The Panther]

To take the 93 playoffs for example. 18 points in 11 games, no cup. Because he's Lemieux, and because he was coming off 160 in 60, 2 straight cups, and the amazing comeback during the season, is only 18 points in 11 games somewhat disappointing? Sure, maybe. Maybe you expected something more of him. Heck maybe people expected this to be the year Lemieux would win a 3rd cup AND break Gretzky's single playoff season point record.

But if you compare 18 points in 11 games to anyone else he's up against in this list's 5th or 6th best playoff season - i think it holds up quite well.

Yes, of course -- it's clear that even slightly disappointing Lemieux production is way better than all but a handful of players in history.

But I disagree with you that comparisons to other (regular season) performances are completely irrelevant. Here's my point: We can look at Messier or Sakic or M. Richard or Roy, and find many playoffs where they played at or above their general (regular season, if you like) peak level of performance. With Lemieux, there is his 2-years of Cups in '91 and '92... and that's basically it for his career. (Yeah, I guess there is '89 as well, but still a clear drop from that season's production.)

We all know Lemieux is the more talented player than Messier or Sakic or M.Richard or Roy -- the thing is, though, how many times did he perform at his peak level in crunch time compared to those guys?

 

[MXD]

Yes, of course -- it's clear that even slightly disappointing Lemieux production is way better than all but a handful of players in history.

But I disagree with you that comparisons to other (regular season) performances are completely irrelevant. Here's my point: We can look at Messier or Sakic or M. Richard or Roy, and find many playoffs where they played at or above their general (regular season, if you like) peak level of performance. With Lemieux, there is his 2-years of Cups in '91 and '92... and that's basically it for his career. (Yeah, I guess there is '89 as well, but still a clear drop from that season's production.)

We all know Lemieux is the more talented player than Messier or Sakic or M.Richard or Roy -- the thing is, though, how many times did he perform at his peak level in crunch time compared to those guys?

The thing with this is... they played above and beyond their general peak level of performance... which was significantly lower than Lemieux's general peak level of performance. So it goes both way.

I'm not even taking sides here.

 

[bobholly39]

Yes, of course -- it's clear that even slightly disappointing Lemieux production is way better than all but a handful of players in history.

But I disagree with you that comparisons to other (regular season) performances are completely irrelevant. Here's my point: We can look at Messier or Sakic or M. Richard or Roy, and find many playoffs where they played at or above their general (regular season, if you like) peak level of performance. With Lemieux, there is his 2-years of Cups in '91 and '92... and that's basically it for his career. (Yeah, I guess there is '89 as well, but still a clear drop from that season's production.)

We all know Lemieux is the more talented player than Messier or Sakic or M.Richard or Roy -- the thing is, though, how many times did he perform at his peak level in crunch time compared to those guys?

Well. I feel very strongly AGAINST the idea of penalizing players for anything in the playoffs. To me anything is a "net positive". If you have 10 games and 3 points one year, and the 2nd player has no playoffs, the first player gets at least somewhat of a positive bump compared to nada for player 2. Others have argued that player 1 shouldn't a positive bump, but a "negative" because of bad performance.

I can come around to the idea of penalizing players in extreme cases where they really disappointed though or under performed. I refer back to Sakic in 2000. 17 games played, 9 points. That's pretty bad for him. If some people want to "penalize" him for that a little bit, maybe.

I don't think Lemieux has even a single playoff year where you could say he disappointed though. Did he not play at his "absolute best" some years? Sure, maybe. Did others (Sakic, Messier, M Richard, Roy as you refer in your post) play at their "absolute best" more often than Lemieux in the playoffs? Again, sure, maybe? Should it matter? I don't think so.

I think you need to compare Lemieux's playoff seasons where you say he "wasn't at his best" to the "best" of the other guys and see whose level of play is better to differentiate.

I don't think you put a specific Sakic playoff above a Lemieux playoff because Sakic's play was his "peak" and Lemieux's wasn't. If Lemieux still played better in those playoffs than Sakic, than it's Lemieux > Sakic

 

[Michael Farkas]

I was less focused on the "penalty" and more focus on individualized great playoffs. The more "great" playoffs you had, the more I think you should be rewarded.

Ultimately, the goal is to win the Stanley Cup, of course. A Cup can, in theory, be won in large part on the back of a heroic effort. To put it in "dumb" terms, I'd more interested in a player that had five 30-point playoffs out of 15 than I am in a player that had fifteen 18 to 22-point playoffs out of sixteen in the same era.

Those players with the multitude of high-impact playoffs are the ones that I believe should be on the list first/highest. In other words, Peak playoffs > Prime playoffs > Career playoffs to speak in the terms of the positional or all-time lists. And, to be clear, that's not a reference to the player's career "peak", I mean, their very best playoffs (and how many) vs. the field is what I'd like to see (or at least introduce to the group)...

If that makes any sense in text form...