Round 2, Vote 3 (Stanley Cup Playoff Performers)

[Canadiens1958]

Henri Richard, - 1960 Playoffs

The ultimate playoff performance. As stated upthread with an appropriate link Henri Richard was the leading NHL playoff scorer in 1960.

Impressive but not as impressive as his defensive play:

http://bigmouthsports.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/1960-SC-playoff-summaries-MTL.pdf

As stated previously Red Kelly was 3rd in playoff scoring that year with 11 points. But 9 of his points came against Detroit in 6 games. Playing against the Henri Richard Line in the finals, Kelly was held to 2 points - assists, one in the last minute on a PP in a 5-2 game 3 loss. 1 ES point in 4 games. Henri Richard contributed 7 PTS over the same span, 6 were ES pts. Defining dominance.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

HO, I see there's nothing on Frank Nighbor in your tables. Is he just "out of the purview" of the tables due to the era he played in?

Yes, I should have mentioned that. I only have playoff data back to 1926-27.

 

[Sentinel]

I have a feeling that 50s and 60s Canadians get too much love, at the expense of all other dynasties.

 

[MXD]

My big issue with Henri Richard being available at this point is that he didn't significantly went above and beyond his usual Henri Richardness, which usually gets him considered somewhere in the middle tier of the Top-100 best players of all time (by people who actually have a clue).

I mean, if you think Henri was a Top-15 player of all-time, then he might be worth your consideration at this point. Otherwise, I simply don't get it, unless one wants to give a ridiculous weight to total playoff games or raw number of Cups.... In which case there are two candidates from this round (respectively, Lidstrom and Kelly) who would also require quite a lot of love.

The above shouldn't be construed as "criticism" against support for Red Kelly or Niklas Lidstrom; Kelly definitely has a case as the best player from the current group (YMMV regarding Lidstrom, however)

I have a feeling that 50s and 60s Canadians get too much love, at the expense of all other dynasties.

Well, the 50ies team indeed was the better dynasty, so to speak, and nearly all of the key players (that means everyone that came up so far, minus Geoffrion, plus Dickie Moore who's eventually coming up, YMMV with Harvey) added some crucial performances on either side of the dynasty.

But I do agree. Sortof.

 

[steve141]

Yes, I should have mentioned that. I only have playoff data back to 1926-27.

I made a lazy attempt at calculating Nighbor's placements, using hockey-reference from 1918 and newspaper articles for the earlier playoffs. I think these might be missing a few games from the intra-league playoffs, but at least we have a rough comparison.


MOST TIMES LEADING TEAM IN GOALS IN PLAYOFFS

Player | Times
Joe Sakic* | 7
Mario Lemieux* | 6
Mike Bossy* | 6
Peter Forsberg* | 5
Bernie Geoffrion* | 4
Guy Lafleur* | 4
Bryan Trottier* | 3
Red Kelly* | 3
Frank Nighbor | 1
Bobby Orr* | 1
Paul Coffey* | 1
Nicklas Lidstrom* | 1
Henri Richard* | 0
Larry Robinson* | 0

MOST TIMES LEADING TEAM IN ASSISTS IN PLAYOFFS

Player | Times
Peter Forsberg* | 6
Frank Nighbor | 6
Guy Lafleur* | 5
Nicklas Lidstrom* | 5
Bryan Trottier* | 5
Bobby Orr* | 4
Larry Robinson* | 4
Mario Lemieux* | 3
Joe Sakic* | 3
Red Kelly* | 3
Mike Bossy* | 3
Bernie Geoffrion* | 2
Paul Coffey* | 2
Henri Richard* | 1

MOST TIMES LEADING TEAM IN POINTS IN PLAYOFFS

Player | Times
Joe Sakic* | 8
Mario Lemieux* | 7
Guy Lafleur* | 7
Peter Forsberg* | 6
Bernie Geoffrion* | 4
Frank Nighbor | 3
Bobby Orr* | 3
Bryan Trottier* | 3
Mike Bossy* | 3
Red Kelly* | 2
Nicklas Lidstrom* | 2
Larry Robinson* | 2
Henri Richard* | 2
Paul Coffey* | 2

MOST TIMES PLACING IN TOP FIVE IN PLAYOFFS - GOALS

Player|1st|2nd|3rd|4th|5th|Total
Bernie Geoffrion* | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 8
Guy Lafleur* | 2 | 1 | 2 | | | 5
Mike Bossy* | 3 | | 1 | | | 4
Mario Lemieux* | 1 | 2 | | 1 | | 4
Joe Sakic* | 2 | 1 | | | | 3
Frank Nighbor | 1 | 1 | 1 | | | 3
Peter Forsberg* | | 1 | | 1 | 1 | 3
Henri Richard* | | | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3
Bryan Trottier* | 1 | | | 1 | | 2
Red Kelly* | | 1 | | 1 | | 2
Paul Coffey* | | | 1 | | | 1
Bobby Orr* | | | 1 | | | 1
Larry Robinson* | | | | | | 0
Nicklas Lidstrom* | | | | | | 0

MOST TIMES PLACING IN TOP FIVE IN PLAYOFFS - ASSISTS

Player|1st|2nd|3rd|4th|5th|Total
Frank Nighbor | 3 | 2 | | 1 | 1 | 7
Bernie Geoffrion* | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | | 5
Guy Lafleur* | 2 | 1 | | 1 | | 4
Bobby Orr* | 2 | | | 2 | | 4
Joe Sakic* | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | | 4
Larry Robinson* | 1 | | 2 | | 1 | 4
Bryan Trottier* | 2 | 1 | | | | 3
Mario Lemieux* | 1 | 2 | | | | 3
Peter Forsberg* | 1 | 1 | | | 1 | 3
Henri Richard* | | 1 | 1 | | 1 | 3
Paul Coffey* | | 1 | 1 | | 1 | 3
Red Kelly* | | | 1 | 2 | | 3
Mike Bossy* | 1 | | 1 | | | 2
Nicklas Lidstrom* | | 1 | 1 | | | 2

MOST TIMES PLACING IN TOP FIVE IN PLAYOFFS - POINTS

Player|1st|2nd|3rd|4th|5th|Total
Bernie Geoffrion* | 2 | 3 | 1 | 1 | | 7
Guy Lafleur* | 3 | 1 | 1 | | | 5
Frank Nighbor | 3 | | 2 | | | 5
Joe Sakic* | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | | 5
Mike Bossy* | 1 | 2 | | | 1 | 4
Bryan Trottier* | 2 | 1 | | | | 3
Mario Lemieux* | 2 | 1 | | | | 3
Peter Forsberg* | 2 | | | | 1 | 3
Bobby Orr* | 1 | 1 | 1 | | | 3
Henri Richard* | 1 | | | | 2 | 3
Paul Coffey* | | 1 | | 1 | 1 | 3
Nicklas Lidstrom* | | | 1 | 1 | | 2
Red Kelly* | | | 1 | 1 | | 2
Larry Robinson* | 1 | | | | | 1

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Do those Nighbor numbers include the Stanley Cup finals or just the NHL playoffs?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Frank Selke Sr

My big issue with Henri Richard being available at this point is that he didn't significantly went above and beyond his usual Henri Richardness, which usually gets him considered somewhere in the middle tier of the Top-100 best players of all time (by people who actually have a clue).

I mean, if you think Henri was a Top-15 player of all-time, then he might be worth your consideration at this point. Otherwise, I simply don't get it, unless one wants to give a ridiculous weight to total playoff games or raw number of Cups.... In which case there are two candidates from this round (respectively, Lidstrom and Kelly) who would also require quite a lot of love.

The above shouldn't be construed as "criticism" against support for Red Kelly or Niklas Lidstrom; Kelly definitely has a case as the best player from the current group (YMMV regarding Lidstrom, however)



Well, the 50ies team indeed was the better dynasty, so to speak, and nearly all of the key players (that means everyone that came up so far, minus Geoffrion, plus Dickie Moore who's eventually coming up, YMMV with Harvey) added some crucial performances on either side of the dynasty.

But I do agree. Sortof.

Frank Selke Sr - builder of two dynasties in the O6 era - 1947 - 1951 Leafs while Smythe was in Europe. Selke acquired Ted Kennedy in a trade.

The moved to Montreal built the 1956-60 dynasty.

Guess he knew a bit about hockey. See link:

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

 

[Canadiens1958]

Frank Nighbor

Do those Nighbor numbers include the Stanley Cup finals or just the NHL playoffs?

Those so inclined could consider :

http://bigmouthsports.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/1920-Stanley-Cup-Playoff-boxscores-OTT.pdf

For the Stanley Cup 1918 onwards.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I felt the same way. I also felt Peter Forsberg should go before Joe Sakic, so maybe I'm seeing it a little different than everybody.

Henri Richard is probably going to be a popular addition, as he has come up briefly in other discussions. Don't know that anyone else is going to make too big of a splash from the newcomers. Lemieux, Orr, and Broda look like my top players at each position.

I think my order on Lemieux and Orr has changed three times. Should it be as close as I feel it is?

I like all of this.

And yes, Orr & Lemieux should be close, both dominate in their team's Cup wins.

Broda with 5 Cup wins on a team that had Ted Kennedy and.....who?

Kelly with 8 Cups on 2 different teams that are not Montreal and at 2 different positions.

 

[MXD]

Frank Selke Sr - builder of two dynasties in the O6 era - 1947 - 1951 Leafs while Smythe was in Europe. Selke acquired Ted Kennedy in a trade.

The moved to Montreal built the 1956-60 dynasty.

Guess he knew a bit about hockey. See link:

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

From the hyperlink :

"I have been blessed with some of the greatest players in NHL history," Selke said, "but game in, game out, Henri Richard may have been the most valuable player I've ever had."

That probably reinforces my point if anything, which is mostly that Henri Richard was an extremely valuable playoff performer due to his Henririchardness.

He was... basically, himself. Which is great, mind you. But we're looking at players who went above and beyond themselves, or otherwise were superior players.

And again, if his tenure as an excellent player resulting in an awful lot of team success is really crucial to his case, then the same credit has to be given to Kelly and Lidstrom, amongst others. I just can't see how he could come up ahead of those two on any front (there aren't many things I can't say right away I won't be budging on : this is one, or two, of them).

 

[Canadiens1958]

HenriRichardedness

From the hyperlink :


That probably reinforces my point if anything, which is mostly that Henri Richard was an extremely valuable playoff performer due to his Henririchardness.

He was... basically, himself. Which is great, mind you. But we're looking at players who went above and beyond themselves, or otherwise were superior players.

And again, if his tenure as an excellent player resulting in an awful lot of team success is really crucial to his case, then the same credit has to be given to Kelly and Lidstrom, amongst others. I just can't see how he could come up ahead of those two on any front (there aren't many things I can't say right away I won't be budging on : this is one, or two, of them).

In other words Henri Richard dictated the game during the playoffs. Precluding others from being their BobbyHullness, or BobbyClarkeness, or ........ so forth down the line. 1971 by preventing Bobby Orr from being his BobbyOrrness he turned defeat into victory.

More specifically for some unknown reason you have chosen to penalize Henri Richard for being the best at what a hockey player is supposed to be the best at. Dictating the game. Did we penalize others in this fashion?

If Nicklas Lidstrom had managed to dictate the game with Lidstromness as often, the Red Wings would have won more often, but he did not. Likewise Kelly with his Kellyness - shown that in 1951, 1953, 1957 when his Kellyness was minimized the Red Wings lost.

Could you show when and which player managed to minimize the effect of HenriRichardedness. Certainly not in 1971 after criticizing his coach for not playing him against Bobby Hull, Henri Richard went out in game 7 of the finals and dominated Hull on Chicago ice, scoring the game tying and series winning goals.

 

[MXD]

How exactly was Henri Richard the best hockey player on the planet at any point?

Because that's basically what you're saying.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Not at All.

How exactly was Henri Richard the best hockey player on the planet at any point?

Because that's basically what you're saying.

Not at all. No one has ever made the claim that Henri Richard was the best player on the planet. Although at various times he was the best skater(not the most powerfull like Bobby Hull).

Demonstratably Henri Richard when matched against claimants to the title of best player in the world - Bobby Hull specifically, but also Bobby Orr and Gordie Howe would find ways to reduce them to the status of mere mortals and give his team a much better chance to win.

Did this throughout his career from the 1956 playoffs onwards.

Start with 1956, the finals, Henri Richard in his first final. Last four games,Wings score five goals.Howe limited to 2 ES points over this stretch. Previous season without Henri Richard and lacking a RHS center to counter the Wings extra shifting Howe and Lindsay with Delvecchio(LHS) and Reibel(RHS) at center, Howe scored 8 ES PTS against Montreal in the finals.

http://bigmouthsports.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/1955-Stanley-Cup-Playoff-boxscores-DET.pdf

http://bigmouthsports.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/1956-Stanley-Cup-Playoff-boxscores-MTL.pdf

Find one player who dominated Henri Richard in the playoff throughout his career when matched head to head.

 

[Killion]

Not at all. No one has ever made the claim that Henri Richard was the best player on the planet. Although at various times he was the best skater(not the most powerfull like Bobby Hull).

Not the best, no, but arguably the most valuable player in the league & on the Canadiens roster throughout his 20yr career... some claim more valuable than Maurice, than Plante, Harvey, Beliveau, Savard & all the rest of them. Frank Selke Sr. said as much and Toe Blake while one not prone to hyperbole or elevating one player over another inferred as much.... And all this in a 5'7" 160lb package.

 

[steve141]

Do those Nighbor numbers include the Stanley Cup finals or just the NHL playoffs?

Like I said it was a lazy calculation based on hockey-reference. I don't think they are entirely consistent with the handling of the finals. They didn't have any numbers for 1920 for example, when I think Nighbor was also the leading scorer. I'll see if I can find time to look at newspaper box scores to get a more complete picture.

Still, I think the general picture is correct, i.e. he was usually the leading passer on his team, while Denneny, Darraugh and Nighbor took turns being the top goal scorer.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Nicklas Lidstrom - The Upsets

Between 1999 and 2006 Nicklas Lidstrom and the Red Wings were surprised by a number of teams. 1999 Avalanche after losing the first two at home cameback to beat the Wings in 6. Lost to the Avs again in 2000.

Lesser teams- 2001 LA, 2003 Anaheim, 2004 Calgary, 2006 Edmonton.

Much has been made about Lidstrom shutting down Lindros in the finals in 1997. Justifiably so.

However the difference makers in 1999 to 2001 were not Peter Forsberg and Joe Sakic or Luc Robitaille but Chris Drury and Adam Deadmarsh. League had figuredout how to play Deadmarsh but someone forgot to tell Lidstrom. 2003 Chistov and Krog, 2004 Martin Gelinas, 2006 Fernando Pisani of all players??????? Lead defenceman on a championship team cannot falter against the Fernado Pisani type NHLers in the playoffs.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Martin Brodeur

I really wish I had been able to participate in Round one.

As a Devils fan, no way should Martin Brodeur go up before Scott Stevens, if we are speaking strictly playoffs.

Longer career in the playoffs with the Devils than Stevens.

Only really weak playoff was 1999 but Stevens was there as well. Usually solid to outstanding. No Terry Sawchuk like series - 1951 outplayed by McNeil or 1953 against Boston when in six playoff games against Boston Sawchuk allowed more goals than he allowed the Bruins in 14 regular season games.

Still somewhat early for Martin Brodeur.

 

[Canadiens1958]

1920

Like I said it was a lazy calculation based on hockey-reference. I don't think they are entirely consistent with the handling of the finals. They didn't have any numbers for 1920 for example, when I think Nighbor was also the leading scorer. I'll see if I can find time to look at newspaper box scores to get a more complete picture.

Still, I think the general picture is correct, i.e. he was usually the leading passer on his team, while Denneny, Darraugh and Nighbor took turns being the top goal scorer.

1920 Ottawa won both halves of the regular season going directly to the SC final against the west.

 

[MXD]

Come to think of it, I don't have a second to waste on Richard at this point. Feel free to continue to do so.

 

[quoipourquoi]

However the difference makers in 1999 to 2001 were not Peter Forsberg and Joe Sakic or Luc Robitaille but Chris Drury and Adam Deadmarsh.

Not going to disagree on Joe Sakic playing less of a role, and Adam Deadmarsh is the common denominator in all three series, but Peter Forsberg was the largest offensive contributor in those rounds. He scored 8 points across Colorado's four-straight victories in 1999 and had a really strong encore in 2000:

On a four-on-three power play, Forsberg burst in alone on Nicklas Lidstrom, a perennial Norris Trophy finalist. Lidstrom dutifully pokechecked the puck, but it struck Forsberg's shin pad and caromed back onto his stick. Forsberg danced past Lidstrom, then pulled the puck inside to avoid the sliding Chris Chelios, a three-time Norris winner, before beaming one into the top corner. It was a dazzling play made at freeway speeds. "We're on the bench, and we could hardly believe it," says Colorado checking winger Dave Reid. "He made two great players look as silly as rookies."

Although that goal has been rerun more often than a Seinfeld episode, it was only Forsberg's second most audacious play of the series. In the Avalanche's 3-1 loss in Game 3, Forsberg was being hounded by Lidstrom behind the Detroit net. With severely limited options but seemingly limitless creativity, he passed the puck through Lidstrom's feet and off the back of the net to himself before circling for a scoring chance with the flummoxed Lidstrom in pursuit. "Maybe he got that one from Wayne Gretzky," says Red Wings scout Mark Howe, a former All-Star defenseman. "Some guys have that play. I saw [Edmonton Oilers wing] Ryan Smyth do it twice in one game. What I haven't seen is anybody do that to Nick."

Two nights later, in the pivotal match of the series, Forsberg helped Colorado steal a 3-2 overtime victory in Detroit by chipping the most delicate of passes over Chelios's stick on a two-on-one, a feed Chris Drury neatly converted. "Peter was the best player in this series," Lidstrom says. "By far."

 

[Epsilon]

Not going to disagree on Joe Sakic playing less of a role, and Adam Deadmarsh is the common denominator in all three series, but Peter Forsberg was the largest offensive contributor in those rounds. He scored 8 points across Colorado's four-straight victories in 1999 and had a really strong encore in 2000:

Forsberg was also by far the best Avalanche player in 2002 (both against the Wings and overall in their playoff run).

 

[quoipourquoi]

Forsberg was also by far the best Avalanche player in 2002 (both against the Wings and overall in their playoff run).

I'll have a breakdown of Forsberg/Sakic vs. every team in the playoffs later on today. In fairness to Sakic, 1996 and 1997 vs. Detroit was all him (Forsberg was concussed and struggled to walk in 1997, but them's the breaks). Ultimately, Forsberg does come out ahead or even from 1995-2004 against most teams (especially ones the played more often, like Detroit, Dallas, and Los Angeles), and the one's Sakic does better against are teams that Forsberg still performed incredibly well against (San Jose, for example).

The team that most had Forsberg's number? Chris Chelios and the Chicago Blackhawks. Probably explains why Forsberg was hitting that extra gear against Detroit in 1999, 2000, and 2002.

 

[danincanada]

The team that most had Forsberg's number? Chris Chelios and the Chicago Blackhawks. Probably explains why Forsberg was hitting that extra gear against Detroit in 1999, 2000, and 2002.

I don't recall watching much of either series but Forsberg did record 9 points in 6 games against Chicago in '97 so did Chelios really have his number in that series? I guess you could say that for '96 (only 2 points in 6 games) but Forsberg was still pretty young.

What I really don't understand is how you are seemingly trying to correlate Forsberg doing well against Detroit with Chelios being his kryptonite when Chelios was with the Red Wings then. I honestly don't know what you're trying to point to there. Typcially it seemed like Lidstrom and Sakic went head to head and Chelios and Forsberg went head to head in those showdowns.

 

[steve141]

Those so inclined could consider :

http://bigmouthsports.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/1920-Stanley-Cup-Playoff-boxscores-OTT.pdf

For the Stanley Cup 1918 onwards.

Big thanks, I hadn't seen that web site before. Saves me a lot of time going through the newspapers myself.

I'll do an update with the complete box scores later tonight.

 

[MXD]

I don't recall watching much of either series but Forsberg did record 9 points in 6 games against Chicago in '97 so did Chelios really have his number in that series? I guess you could say that for '96 (only 2 points in 6 games) but Forsberg was still pretty young.

What I really don't understand is how you are seemingly trying to correlate Forsberg doing well against Detroit with Chelios being his kryptonite when Chelios was with the Red Wings then. I honestly don't know what you're trying to point to there. Typcially it seemed like Lidstrom and Sakic went head to head and Chelios and Forsberg went head to head in those showdowns.

...It's probably worth mentionning that Chicago went from one of the best playoffs netminder of all-time in '96 to Jeff Hacket in '97...