Round 2, Vote 1 (Stanley Cup Playoff Performers)

[bobholly39]

Also, I know right away that I won't be ranking Joe Sakic very high, because he's very clearly the worse (or, at the very least, less dominant) player in that group, but there's definitely something to be said for his OT game log.

He also was the best forward by far in Overpass's analysis on post# 120 about goals scored to either "tie a game/go ahead".

His "clutchness" is impressive.

60% of his career playoff goals either tied a game, or broke a tie.

 

[Dom]

Bobby Orr Game 7 log

Date | Team | | Opp | Res | G | A | P | +/- | S | Min
18/04/1971|BOS||MTL|L|0|0|0

Games 1
Goals 0
Assists 0
Points 0
Record 0-1

Denis Potvin Game 7 log

Date | Team | | Opp | Res | G | A | P | +/- | S | Min
11/04/1975 (Game 3)|NYI||NYR|W|2|0|2
26/04/1975|NYI|@|PIT|W|0|0|0
13/05/1975|NYI|@|PHI|L|0|1|1
29/04/1978|NYI||TOR|L|1|0|1
13/04/1982 (Game 5)|NYI||PIT|W|0|0|0
10/04/1984 (Game 5)|NYI||NYR|W|0|0|0
10/04/1987 |NYI|@|WAS|W|0|0|0
02/05/1987 |NYI|@|PHI|L|1|0|1

Games 8
Goals 4
Assists 1
Points 5
Record 5-3

Doug Harvey Game 7 log

Date | Team | | Opp | Res | G | A | P | +/- | S | Min
08/04/1952|MTL||BOS|W|0|0|0
07/04/1953|MTL||CHI|W|0|0|0
16/04/1954|MTL|@|DET|L|0|0|0
14/04/1955|MTL|@|DET|L|0|0|0
18/04/1968|STL|@|PHI|W|0|1|1
03/05/1968|STL||MIN|W|0|0|0

Games 6
Goals 0
Assists 1
Points 1
Record 4-2

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Gordie Howe Game 7 log

Date | Team | | Opp | Res | G | A | P | +/- | S | Min
05/04/1949|DET||MTL|W|1|0|1
09/04/1950|DET||TOR|W|0|0|0
23/04/1950|DET||NYR|W|0|0|0
16/04/1954|DET||MTL|W|0|0|0
14/04/1955|DET||MTL|W|1|0|1
09/04/1964|DET|@|CHI|W|1|2|3
25/04/1964|DET|@|TOR|L|0|0|0
15/04/1965|DET||CHI|L|1|1|2

Games 8
Goals 4
Assists 3
Points 7
Record 6-2

Howe was injured in 1950 and didn't play in either of those Game 7s.

 

[BraveCanadian]

He also was the best forward by far in Overpass's analysis on post# 120 about goals scored to either "tie a game/go ahead".

His "clutchness" is impressive.

60% of his career playoff goals either tied a game, or broke a tie.

Isn't that situation going to be the case a lot more often for players who played in low scoring eras?

Less total scoring events would make me assume so..

 

[bobholly39]

Isn't that situation going to be the case a lot more often for players who played in low scoring eras?

Less total scoring events would make me assume so..

Yep that was brought up before and has to be taken into consideration.

But aren't guys like Beliveau, Howe and Richard also part of a lower scoring era? He scores much better than those guys do.

 

[BraveCanadian]

But aren't guys like Beliveau, Howe and Richard also part of a lower scoring era? He scores much better than those guys do.

I didn't actually read the post but are we talking better as in he did it more times or better as in he did it more often per opportunity?

The number of games played in 4 round 7 game playoffs are going to affect the number opportunities to be in those "clutch" situations to an extreme degree in comparison to older times.

 

[blogofmike]

Not the point. Lemieux arrived in the NHL in the transition phase to the Short Shift Era so he does not bring a body of work to the discussion that mayn be reviewed like Gretzky does.

Regardless, Gretzky saw a drop in the 30-35% range of his ES performance as the Short Shift Era progressed into the nineties.Sakic was basically a SSE player, Yzerman was similar to Lemieux. Range basically explains the difficulty of pinning down when each team changed to a short shift game.

The timeline doesn't mesh. Gretzky was uber-dominant in 1982, well before Lemieux arrived, through 1987, three years after Lemieux arrived.

At ES his playoff numbers are still elite. And his RS numbers decline if you describe the progression of the Short-Shift era as "Canada Cup 1991." Through 1991 he had stayed, at a minimum, above 1.25 ESPPG (100 per 80). Immediately after that moment, I don't believe he never cracks 70. Oddly enough as scoring declined throughout the decade, Gretzky's ES scoring from the first two Rangers years (97 and 98) is comparable in raw numbers to the 92-94 years. You could argue he was better at age 37 in 1998 than he was at age 31 in 1992.

 

[blogofmike]

Everyone does have some off years, yes. More a response to the notion that Gretzky never had any. I believe he did, just like everyone else.

Indeed, but Gretzky and Lemieux's off years are merely average for a #1 centre. They didn't bring anything more to the table than their peers would have, but weren't performing badly. By the same token, I have Joe Sakic having only one "bad" year.

Also, I know right away that I won't be ranking Joe Sakic very high, because he's very clearly the worse (or, at the very least, less dominant) player in that group, but there's definitely something to be said for his OT game log.

I am higher on Sakic than Lafleur. He achieved a level of consistently good, occasionally great play, without the valleys Lafleur went through.

 

[blogofmike]

So I says to myself I says, Self, maybe we can figure out Doug Harvey's PK contributions by figuring out how Montreal killed penalties when Harvey was in the box. That guy took tons of penalties. It didn't work out, but I already made the table.

Year | Opponent | GP | Opp RS GF | Tm GSAA | Opp RS GA | Tm GFAA | TGF | TGA | PPG | PPO | PP% | Harvey PPGA | Harvey PK | PPGA | PPO | PK% | SpTm
1952 | Bruins | 7 | 162 | -4.2 | 176 | 0.4 | 18 | 12 | 2 | 15 | 13.3% | 0 | 1 | 0 | 16 | 100.0% | 113.3%
1952 | Red Wings | 4 | 215 | -1.3 | 133 | -5.6 | 2 | 11 | 1 | 11 | 9.1% | 2 | 3 | 3 | 15 | 80.0% | 89.1%
1953 | Black Hawks | 7 | 169 | -2.9 | 175 | 0.5 | 18 | 14 | 2 | 15 | 13.3% | 0 | 1 | 1 | 16 | 93.8% | 107.1%
1953 | Bruins | 5 | 152 | -1.9 | 172 | 3.7 | 16 | 9 | 2 | 11 | 18.2% | 0 | 1 | 1 | 10 | 90.0% | 108.2%
1954 | Bruins | 4 | 177 | -6.1 | 181 | 5.7 | 16 | 4 | 2 | 15 | 13.3% | 0 | 4 | 0 | 14 | 100.0% | 113.3%
1954 | Red Wings | 7 | 191 | -5.1 | 132 | -1.2 | 12 | 14 | 4 | 19 | 21.1% | 0 | 2 | 4 | 32 | 87.5% | 108.6%
1955 | Bruins | 5 | 169 | -3.1 | 188 | 2.6 | 16 | 9 | 4 | 20 | 20.0% | 0 | 1 | 2 | 19 | 89.5% | 109.5%
1955 | Red Wings | 7 | 204 | 6.6 | 134 | 6.6 | 20 | 27 | 5 | 24 | 20.8% | 0 | 2 | 6 | 33 | 81.8% | 102.7%
1956 | Rangers | 5 | 204 | -5.6 | 203 | 9.5 | 24 | 9 | 7 | 16 | 43.8% | 0 | 2 | 3 | 23 | 87.0% | 130.7%
1956 | Red Wings | 5 | 183 | -4.1 | 148 | 7.4 | 18 | 9 | 3 | 17 | 17.6% | 0 | 3 | 3 | 24 | 87.5% | 105.1%
1957 | Rangers | 5 | 184 | -1.1 | 227 | 5.8 | 22 | 12 | 4 | 16 | 25.0% | 0 | 2 | 1 | 23 | 95.7% | 120.7%
1957 | Bruins | 5 | 195 | -7.9 | 174 | 2.6 | 15 | 6 | 3 | 15 | 20.0% | 0 | 1 | 1 | 15 | 93.3% | 113.3%
1958 | Red Wings | 4 | 176 | -4.1 | 207 | 7.2 | 19 | 6 | 7 | | | | | 1 | | |
1958 | Bruins | 6 | 199 | -11.1 | 194 | -1.6 | 15 | 6 | 3 | | | | | 4 | | |
1959 | Black Hawks | 6 | 197 | -0.9 | 208 | 3.2 | 21 | 16 | 9 | 29 | 31.0% | 1 | 6 | 5 | 25 | 80.0% | 111.0%
1959 | Maple Leafs | 5 | 189 | -1.5 | 201 | 3.6 | 18 | 12 | 4 | 22 | 18.2% | 1 | 3 | 2 | 19 | 89.5% | 107.7%
1960 | Black Hawks | 4 | 191 | -4.9 | 180 | 3.7 | 14 | 6 | 2 | 13 | 15.4% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 12 | 100.0% | 115.4%
1960 | Maple Leafs | 4 | 199 | -6.4 | 195 | 3.9 | 15 | 5 | 1 | 16 | 6.3% | 0 | 2 | 1 | 16 | 93.8% | 100.0%
1961 | Black Hawks | 6 | 198 | -1.0 | 180 | -0.4 | 15 | 16 | 4 | 28 | 14.3% | 1 | 4 | 4 | 21 | 81.0% | 95.2%
Totals | | 101 | 187.1 | -3.5 | 179.4 | 3.0 | 314 | 203 | 59 | 302 | 19.5% | 5 | 38 | 37 | 333 | 88.9% | 108.4%

33 for 38 makes them 86.8% when killing a Harvey penalty, but it may not be significant.

I used BigMouthSports because they kindly bold the penalties that resulted in agoal. Their data for 1951 and 1958 wasn't as good. The special teams totals omit 1958. If the Habs score multiple times on 1 PP (they did at least once in 54 against Detroit) it counts as a 2 for 1 in the PP%. I tried to omit Harvey penalties when an opponent took a penalty at the same time.

GSAA was how many goals the Habs "saved" above their opponent's regular season average GPG multiplied by the length of the series.

GFAA was the same thing, but goals for the opponent and GA for Montreal.

Thought I'd look at Detroit for context of PP or PK numbers:

Year | Opponent | PPG | PPO | PP% | PPGA | PPO | PK% | SpTm
1952 | Leafs | 4 | 23 | 17.4% | 0 | 13 | 100.0% | 117.4%
1952 | Habs | 3 | 15 | 20.0% | 1 | 11 | 90.9% | 110.9%
1953 | Bruins | 1 | 8 | 12.5% | 3 | 12 | 75.0% | 87.5%
1954 | Leafs | 3 | 24 | 12.5% | 1 | 17 | 94.1% | 106.6%
1954 | Habs | 4 | 32 | 12.5% | 4 | 19 | 78.9% | 91.4%
1955 | Leafs | 6 | 20 | 30.0% | 3 | 15 | 80.0% | 110.0%
1955 | Habs | 6 | 33 | 18.2% | 5 | 24 | 79.2% | 97.3%
1956 | Leafs | 3 | 20 | 15.0% | 4 | 15 | 73.3% | 88.3%
1956 | Habs | 3 | 24 | 12.5% | 3 | 17 | 82.4% | 94.9%
1957 | Bruins | 4 | 24 | 16.7% | 1 | 22 | 95.5% | 112.1%
1958 | Habs | 1 | | | 7 | | |
1960 | Leafs | 4 | 20 | 20.0% | 3 | 17 | 82.4% | 102.4%
1961 | Leafs | 2 | 14 | 14.3% | 2 | 18 | 88.9% | 103.2%
1961 | Hawks | 5 | 24 | 20.8% | 2 | 23 | 91.3% | 112.1%
Total | | 48 | 281 | 17.1% | 32 | 223 | 85.7% | 102.7%

 

[Canadiens1958]

Short Shift Era

The timeline doesn't mesh. Gretzky was uber-dominant in 1982, well before Lemieux arrived, through 1987, three years after Lemieux arrived.

At ES his playoff numbers are still elite. And his RS numbers decline if you describe the progression of the Short-Shift era as "Canada Cup 1991." Through 1991 he had stayed, at a minimum, above 1.25 ESPPG (100 per 80). Immediately after that moment, I don't believe he never cracks 70. Oddly enough as scoring declined throughout the decade, Gretzky's ES scoring from the first two Rangers years (97 and 98) is comparable in raw numbers to the 92-94 years. You could argue he was better at age 37 in 1998 than he was at age 31 in 1992.

Looks like you do not appreciate the expression Short Shift Era.

NHL games since the mid 1980s - Mike Keenan time in Philadelphia are played in mainly 30 second to 45 second shifts. Previously they were played in longer shifts - longer as you go back further from upwards of 2 minute to skaters playing the whole or virtually the whole game without substitution.

So Lemieux and Yzerman had a brief exposure to longer shifts,Sakic did not.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

First, I agree that everyone has off years, even Gretzky. But his off years don't really compare to the off years of most others even here in the top players list.

Second, you can't hold it against Gretzky that he played against a lot of sub .500 teams. All you can do is look at how he did vs the competition he had. He was great in the finals against top teams too. As for piling on more points in blowouts than Messier, that could well be true, but he scored more than Messier regardless, so that only stands to reason.

Besides, considering the Oilers blew a 5-0 lead to the Kings in the playoffs to get eliminated, I don't think letting up in a playoff game regardless of score is something to be admired. One of Gretzky's best traits was that he was usually just as hungry when he was up 9-2 as he did when he was down 4-3 in the 3rd. We've all seen games with some crazy comebacks.

It's not a matter of holding it against him, it's just pointing out the potential for disparities in opponent strength between the players up for voting. Nothing more. Gretzky's performances against Philadelphia and Boston in various final series show that he could beat up on elite teams as well.

Not every team style is the same (well, they are now but didn't use to be). Edmonton circa 1981 to 1988 did not have the same style of winning hockey games that Montreal had in the same era, for example. The Edmonton team was built to win primarily by offense (and did pretty well at it). They still could win 1-0 games in the Finals, but by and large it was a team built around Gretzky's offensive skill. (This was moderated after the '86 loss to Calgary and then losing Coffey... but it was still a team that could score other teams to defeat.)

So, while I agree that no one players gets a "free pass" for different aspects of the game, it would be absurd to hold young-Gretzky to the same expectation of a two-way game, as, say, Guy Carbonneau. It would likely be more appropriate to compare 1981-1988 Gretzky with other 1st-line forwards on other offensive teams. For example, if you compared him with Denis Savard or Dale Hawerchuk or Marcel Dionne.

It's also worth noting that while defense in the traditional sense was clearly not Gretzky's forte, he was killing penalties regularly in the playoffs and often taking D-zone face-offs, etc. I would say his defensive value is of average level of 1st-line forwards of his time. (On the other hand, when the player is +28 in 18 playoff games, does anyone really care what his traditional defensive skill is? And should we?)

Well, that isn't actually very much when you're looking at a six-year period of going to the Finals every year but one. We could turn it around and say from 1983 to 1988 the Oilers' opponent was a plus .500 team in 15 of 22 series. (And two of the seven sub-.500 were Calgary in '83 and Detroit in '87, both strong teams on the rise. The Flames in '83 lost only five games at home all season.)

In addition, from 1983 to 1988 the Oilers defeated Chicago (104 points), Minnesota (1st in division), the Islanders (2nd overall, Cup champs), Philly (1st overall), Detroit (1st in division, albeit a weak 1st), Philly again (2nd overall), Calgary (1st overall), Detroit again (1st in division, 5th overall). So, it's not like it was a cake-walk.

In fact, of the seven sub-.500 opponents you refer to, only one (Detroit '87) occurred in the third or fourth round (and Detroit in '87 was a really good team).

I would suggest looking at Gretzky's stats those years based on the third and fourth-round only if you're thinking he was beating up mostly weak teams. You'll find it isn't so.

Of course he piled-on in blowouts more than Messier. He also scored points in close games and first-periods more than Messier. He scored more than twice as many points as Messier.

He did indeed, but never with Edmonton.

Gretzky was mediocre in 1990 (albeit he was injured and missed three games), good (Vancouver) and terrible (Edmonton) in 1991, and terrible in 1992. But he was great in 1989 and 1993 and 1997, and good in 1996.

Basically, he was awesome every playoff year except when he had to play against Edmonton (exception being 1989).

I don't doubt that this is the case due to Gretzky simply scoring more points than Messier, but do you have the numbers by chance? I suspect that they might be close in that regard in 1984 or 1987 specifically.

I don't know that it's about giving Gretzky a "free pass" as much as it's about not holding it against him.

The Oilers (and Kings?) playstyle were designed around making Gretzky Score. His Job was to score, and not play defense. You certainly can't hold that against him.

Doesn't mean you can't give credit to more defensive forwards for the contributions they made on defense, i just think you can't hold it against Gretzky.

If the coach says "go score, nothing else". That was his job, and that's what he should be evaluated on.

If there are a lot of examples where Gretzky was a problematic defensive liability that cost games, than sure, you can start holding that against him. Not sure that was really the case though.

Btw same logic above applies to Lemieux.

But you must consider that the same conditions that allowed for the amazing offensive displays also have a few instances where they didn't work out so well for the team. Gretzky deserves all the praise in the world for years like 1985 and 1988. But it also opens him up to some mild criticism for years like 1982 or 1991. That's all. I'm not advocating against Gretzky, just pointing out some reasons as to why somebody might not vote him #1.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

I didn't actually read the post but are we talking better as in he did it more times or better as in he did it more often per opportunity?

The number of games played in 4 round 7 game playoffs are going to affect the number opportunities to be in those "clutch" situations to an extreme degree in comparison to older times.

With regards to Sakic's clutchness, his 1996 playoffs stand out. Almost every goal he scored that spring was of at least reasonable importance. And he nearly broke the single-playoff goals record, so that's saying something.

You can make a strong argument that Colorado loses to any of Vancouver, Chicago, or Detroit without Sakic's contributions. He really was that valuable in every round right from the get-go. Those Avalanche weren't exactly loaded top to bottom like later editions were. Patrick Roy's performance in this particular Cup run doesn't stand out like his other three championships do.

 

[bobholly39]

I didn't actually read the post but are we talking better as in he did it more times or better as in he did it more often per opportunity?

The number of games played in 4 round 7 game playoffs are going to affect the number opportunities to be in those "clutch" situations to an extreme degree in comparison to older times.

Sorry didn't get a chance to respond earlier. Seriously go check out post# 120 on page 5 of this thread, it's awesome.

60% of Sakic's career playoff goals were goals scored that either tied a game, or broke a tie.

In comparison:

31% for Richard
34% for Howe

Those are the 2 lowest of any forwards listed in vote 1. Both arguably playing in very low scoring era too like Sakic (even lower?).

Beliveau is at 51%. Second highest of this round (Lemieux 3 at 49%).

I don't see how # of games or opportunities affect anything as i'm not talking about "raw totals", but more about how many of his goals were either tying goals or go-ahead goals. So basically when Sakic scored, it was an "important" goal 60% of the time.

Gretzky is at 41%, and Messier at 42%. Unlike Sakic they played a lot of years in a higher scoring era, so you have to maybe give those 2 guys the benefit of the doubt a bit. Lemieux at 49% looks pretty good also in a higher scoring era, though i'd still pick Sakic ahead with his 60%.

So Sakic for clutchiness is #1 by far in the above analysis, and #1 by far for OT goals/points too. Not sure that's enough to raise him super high in this first vote, but it should be a strong consideration.

 

[bobholly39]

With regards to Sakic's clutchness, his 1996 playoffs stand out. Almost every goal he scored that spring was of at least reasonable importance. And he nearly broke the single-playoff goals record, so that's saying something.

You can make a strong argument that Colorado loses to any of Vancouver, Chicago, or Detroit without Sakic's contributions. He really was that valuable in every round right from the get-go. Those Avalanche weren't exactly loaded top to bottom like later editions were. Patrick Roy's performance in this particular Cup run doesn't stand out like his other three championships do.

In terms of "intangibles" this was Roy's finest/most important performance by far imo. I still say without Roy Avalanche don't become a stanley cup champion. That trade to Colorado is what propelled Avalance into success. Which is why I still say that, at least "intangibly"-speaking - Roy was the most valuable player for Colorado in 1996. Sakic may have out-performed him on the ice, but still think it's thanks to Roy they win.

 

[quoipourquoi]

In terms of "intangibles" this was Roy's finest/most important performance by far imo. I still say without Roy Avalanche don't become a stanley cup champion. That trade to Colorado is what propelled Avalance into success. Which is why I still say that, at least "intangibly"-speaking - Roy was the most valuable player for Colorado in 1996. Sakic may have out-performed him on the ice, but still think it's thanks to Roy they win.

1995-96 really needed all three of Roy, Sakic, and Forsberg (who faced the big defensive matchups against Chicago and Detroit, opening up more ice for Sakic in those series). Patrick Roy had a .935 or better in 13 of Colorado's wins, while Sakic recorded points in 13 of Colorado's wins, meaning that there were another three games each where one of the other had picked up the slack.

Patrick Roy - 13 Wins
Vancouver: 29/31, 28/28
Chicago: 30/31, 32/34, 22/23
Detroit: 29/31, 35/35, 29/31, 23/24
Florida: 25/26, 27/28, 32/34, 63/63

Joe Sakic - 13 Wins
Vancouver: 1, 2, 3, 2
Chicago: 1, 3, 2
Detroit: 1, 1, 2, 3
Florida: 4, 1

Joe Sakic - Roy's Other 3 Wins
3G (VAN - Game 5), 1G,1A (VAN - Game 6), 1G,1A (CHI - Game 6)

Patrick Roy - Sakic's Other 3 Wins
22/23 (CHI - Game 5), 25/26 (FLA - Game 1), 63/63 (FLA - Game 4)


Sakic was more productive in their losses, which is why I feel he can't not win the Conn Smythe, but I'd say if anyone was more important, it'd be Sakic in the first two rounds, and Roy in the last two.

 

[The Panther]

In terms of "intangibles" this was Roy's finest/most important performance by far imo. I still say without Roy Avalanche don't become a stanley cup champion. That trade to Colorado is what propelled Avalance into success.

Have to say, I disagree with all of this.

First, I don't see how you can think Roy's 1996 playoff is more important than 1986 or 1993. Neither of those Montreal teams was likely passing the 1st or 2nd-round of the playoffs with a lesser goalie in there (1989 as well).

As for Roy propelling the Avalanche into success -- not so much. Quebec was the #2 team in the NHL in the (shortened) 1995 season, behind only Detroit, before Roy got there.

It's debatable whether the team could have won the '96 Cup with another goaltender besides Roy. I personally think they could have. But I'm sure the '86 and '93 Habs were winning exactly nothing without him.

 

[Kant Think]

This will come as a shock, but Joe Sakic is good in overtime. He doubles Gretzky in both goals and assists. Here is Sakic and Lafleur:

Player | Year | Wins | Losses | Goals | Assists
Joe Sakic|Total|25|19|8|5
Wayne Gretzky|Total|20|18|4|2
Mark Messier|Total|22|15|0|5
Guy Lafleur|Total|9|13|2|2
Jean Beliveau|Total|15|7|1|0
Mario Lemieux|Total|7|4|0|0
|||||
Joe Sakic|1993|1|2||
Joe Sakic|1995||1||
Joe Sakic|1996|5|2|2|
Joe Sakic|1997|1|1||1
Joe Sakic|1998|1||1|
Joe Sakic|1999|3|1||2
Joe Sakic|2000|1|1||
Joe Sakic|2001|3|3|1|
Joe Sakic|2002|3|2||1
Joe Sakic|2003||2||
Joe Sakic|2004|3|1|2|
Joe Sakic|2006|3|1|1|1
Joe Sakic|2008|1|2|1|
Guy Lafleur|1972||||
Guy Lafleur|1973|1|2||
Guy Lafleur|1974||1||
Guy Lafleur|1975|1|2|1|
Guy Lafleur|1976||||
Guy Lafleur|1977|1|1||1
Guy Lafleur|1978|1|1|1|
Guy Lafleur|1979|4|1||1
Guy Lafleur|1980|1|||
Guy Lafleur|1981||||
Guy Lafleur|1982||1||
Guy Lafleur|1983||||
Guy Lafleur|1984||1||
Guy Lafleur|1985||3||
Guy Lafleur|1989||||

Sakic was definitely a beast in the playoffs, but I wonder how much of his success can be attributed to Roy/his era. Compared to Gretzky, whose majority of games occurred in the high-scoring 80s and were ( I assume) much more likely to end quickly, Sakic played in front of a goaltender known to be golden in overtime, played the bulk of his games in the dead-puck era and therefore had more time to score those points. Given more min/overtime, star players should be able to record more points/overtime.

I'm not trying to belittle Sakic, he was actually my favorite player when he was playing.


Quick observation: if the above is true, it would also apply to Richard (it hurts inside when you make an argument against players you really like).

Here's Maurice Richard. 6 goals and 1 assist over 17 wins and 12 losses - with the assists on 3 goals unaccounted for:

• 
  
  
  Player | Year | Wins | Losses | Goals | Assists
  Patrick Roy|Total|40|18||
  Joe Sakic|Total|25|19|8|5
  Maurice Richard|Total|17|12|6|1 (1-4)
  Wayne Gretzky|Total|20|18|4|2
  Mark Messier|Total|22|15|0|5
  Guy Lafleur|Total|9|13|2|2
  Jean Beliveau|Total|15|7|1|0
  Mario Lemieux|Total|7|4|0|0
  |||||
  Maurice Richard|1944|1|||
  Maurice Richard|1945||1||
  Maurice Richard|1946|2|1|1|
  Maurice Richard|1947|2|1||
  Maurice Richard|1949|1|1||???
  Maurice Richard|1950|1|||???
  Maurice Richard|1951|3|4|3|
  Maurice Richard|1952|1|||???
  Maurice Richard|1953|1|1||1
  Maurice Richard|1954|1|1||
  Maurice Richard|1956||||
  Maurice Richard|1957|1|1|1|
  Maurice Richard|1958|2||1|
  Maurice Richard|1959||1||
  Maurice Richard|1960|1|||
  

• 
  
  Am I the only one who thinks the 1951 line is incredible?
  
  3 victories and 4 defeats, but 3 goals in overtime! He basically received no help in OT that year scoring wise, but managed to win 3 games for MTL. That has to be the most goals (points?) in overtime in a single year.

 

[bobholly39]

Have to say, I disagree with all of this.

First, I don't see how you can think Roy's 1996 playoff is more important than 1986 or 1993. Neither of those Montreal teams was likely passing the 1st or 2nd-round of the playoffs with a lesser goalie in there (1989 as well).

As for Roy propelling the Avalanche into success -- not so much. Quebec was the #2 team in the NHL in the (shortened) 1995 season, behind only Detroit, before Roy got there.

It's debatable whether the team could have won the '96 Cup with another goaltender besides Roy. I personally think they could have. But I'm sure the '86 and '93 Habs were winning exactly nothing without him.

We've had this argument earlier in this and also in another thread. I'm not going to try and convince you because we won't agree.

But to clarify I'm not saying Roy played better in 96 then the other 2 Canadien cups or even that he was more "valuable" to his teams performances.

But in terms of intangibles. I had nordiques as perennials chokers up to 96. As a lot of other strong regular season teams have been in the playoffs in the past 20 years. As soon as Roy shows up they turn into a contender and somewhat of a mini-dynasty. So "intangible-wise" I think his presence in 96 had tremendous value.

It's an opinion. Can't really prove "intangibles". But strong off his performance in 93 with 10 OT wins I think his presence in Colorado is what created a winning mentality to led to all their success

 

[quoipourquoi]

But in terms of intangibles. I had nordiques as perennials chokers up to 96. As a lot of other strong regular season teams have been in the playoffs in the past 20 years. As soon as Roy shows up they turn into a contender and somewhat of a mini-dynasty. So "intangible-wise" I think his presence in 96 had tremendous value.

Two playoffs in recent years (1993 and 1995), both with home ice advantage, and both saw Quebec leaving in 6 games. Picking up Claude Lemieux, Sandis Ozolinsh, Mike Keane, and Patrick Roy is pretty significant. Whether they could win without some or all is going to be unknown, but there's a reason The Hockey News said Patrick Roy was the third-best player in the world in the Summer of 1996 (Lemieux, Jagr), and I don't think it had too much to do with his regular season.

He's a regular goaltender until springtime, when he dons cape and mask to become Super Goalie. When money and honor are at stake, Roy will cash in.

I'd say he had more bad games in the 1996 playoffs than he did in 1986, 1989, 1993, and 2001 (maybe even combined...), but I don't know that he didn't have just as many if not more amazing ones.

 

[Kant Think]

I just sent my final list and had Lemieux, Plante and Potvin switch around in my top 10 since last week.

I also have them all back-to-back.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

In terms of "intangibles" this was Roy's finest/most important performance by far imo. I still say without Roy Avalanche don't become a stanley cup champion. That trade to Colorado is what propelled Avalance into success. Which is why I still say that, at least "intangibly"-speaking - Roy was the most valuable player for Colorado in 1996. Sakic may have out-performed him on the ice, but still think it's thanks to Roy they win.

Roy may well have been the tipping point, but I don't think that necessarily correlates to him being the most valuable. I've never heard Butch Goring called the MVP of the Islanders dynasty, or Shanahan described as such for the Red Wings.

Colorado gave Roy overwhelming offensive support in 1996. They scored 3+ goals in regulation time in 17/22 games. 4+ in 10 of those games. That's 17 games where a merely decent goaltending performance should give you a chance at victory, and 10 games where a run-of-the-mill replacement starter is expected to win. He allowed 0 or 1 regulation GA (so in other words, gave his team a chance to win with a below average offensive showing) in 8/22 games. Not bad, but nothing special for a SC winning goaltender. Vernon and Osgood were about the same in the next two playoffs. He was 9/22 in this metric in 1986 (significantly higher league scoring environment), 4/20 in 1993 (surprisingly bad for how revered this campaign is, but being unbeatable in OT is obviously a huge positive), and 13/23 in 2001.

Now, you did specifically mention intangibles as your reason why Roy was Colorado's best player in 1996. But I feel these intangibles would need to be pretty exceptional to come to that conclusion, because tangibly speaking Colorado had to score their way to the Final that year.

 

[quoipourquoi]

He allowed 0 or 1 regulation GA (so in other words, gave his team a chance to win with a below average offensive showing) in 8/22 games. Not bad, but nothing special for a SC winning goaltender. Vernon and Osgood were about the same in the next two playoffs. He was 9/22 in this metric in 1986 (significantly higher league scoring environment), 4/20 in 1993 (surprisingly bad for how revered this campaign is, but being unbeatable in OT is obviously a huge positive), and 13/23 in 2001.

I think you may be understating the value of the 2-3 GA games, given the amount of shots 1993 Montreal and 1996 Colorado allowed compared to 1980s Montreal and 21st Century Colorado - and especially 1990s Detroit.

 

[seventieslord]

We've had this argument earlier in this and also in another thread. I'm not going to try and convince you because we won't agree.

But to clarify I'm not saying Roy played better in 96 then the other 2 Canadien cups or even that he was more "valuable" to his teams performances.

But in terms of intangibles. I had nordiques as perennials chokers up to 96. As a lot of other strong regular season teams have been in the playoffs in the past 20 years. As soon as Roy shows up they turn into a contender and somewhat of a mini-dynasty. So "intangible-wise" I think his presence in 96 had tremendous value.

It's an opinion. Can't really prove "intangibles". But strong off his performance in 93 with 10 OT wins I think his presence in Colorado is what created a winning mentality to led to all their success

...you're not incorrect

 

[Kyle McMahon]

I think you may be understating the value of the 2-3 GA games, given the amount of shots 1993 Montreal and 1996 Colorado allowed compared to 1980s Montreal and 21st Century Colorado - and especially 1990s Detroit.

1996 Colorado is clearly the worst team defensively out of Roy's 4 Cup winners, I'll grant you that.

Looking through the 1996 game summaries, I believe you are correct that I've under-estimated the value of allowing 3 GA in regulation time. In games not involving the Avalanche, teams still posted a 12-13 record in regulation when their goaltender limited the damage to precisely 3 GA. This is a lot better than I would have guessed.

For reference, this is a goaltender's likelihood of winning a game in regulation in which his allowed exactly 3 GA in the years surrounding 1996. I state "his team" because I didn't consider situations where a goaltending change was made in game, or an empty net goal was scored. Not accounting for empty-netters does have the potential to skew results, but this works both ways (a 2 GA game can enter the sample size, a 3 GA game can be removed from it by virtue of an EN goal being scored), so I think it is still relatively accurate.

1994: 15-13 (.536)
1995: 8-13 (.381)
1996: 12-13 (.480)
1997: 12-17 (.414)
1998: 8-22 (.267)

Outside of 1998, a 3 GA against game isn't nearly as bad as I figured it would be.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Red Fisher Great Canadiens

Red Fisher on great Canadiens. In no particular order. Some interesting comments, contrasts and insights.

Henri Richard:

https://www.nhl.com/news/henri-richard-11-cups-and-maybe-most-valuable-ever-in-montreal/c-405330

Important Frank Selke Sr comment.

Jean Beliveau:

http://montrealgazette.com/sports/h...beliveau-was-a-special-man-on-and-off-the-ice

A lot including Beliveau/Geoffrion captain vote.

Doug Harvey:

http://www.montrealgazette.com/spor...rvey+Best+defencement+time/7172967/story.html

Being Doug Harvey.

Maurice Richard:

https://www.nhl.com/news/maurice-ri...intense-ever-in-the-sport-or-country/c-405790

Fisher started covering the Canadiens with the arrival of Toe Blake.

Jacques Plante:

http://dennis-kane.com/red-fisher-talks-about-jacques-plante/

Too much mask.

Others as time permits.