Round 2, Vote 3 (Stanley Cup Playoff Performers)

[danincanada]

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.

The Avalanche with Roy, Sakic, and Forsberg were kinda good.

Let's look at the goaltending for these series:

'99
Patrick Roy .938 sv%, playing in all 6 games.
Ranford, Maracle, Injured Osgood for a combined .886 sv%

'00
Patrick Roy .951 sv% playing in all 5 games
Osgood .906 sv% playing in all 5 games

Did you really expect Lidstrom and his team to overcome the mismatch in goaltending? When one team has a wall in net while the other has shoddy goaltending it's pretty simple, the team with the great goaltender usually wins.

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

LA lost to the stacked Cup champion Avs while the other 3 teams all made it all the way to the finals after beating the Red Wings. They were "lesser" teams in the regular season standings but proved to be a lot more than that during those playoffs.

Let's look at the goaltending match ups again:

'01
Osgood .905 sv%
Potvin .898 sv%

'03
Giguere .965 sv%
Joseph .917 sv%

'04
Kiprusoff .941 sv%
Joseph .928 sv%

'06
Roloson .929 sv%
Legace .884 sv%

'01 and '04 were not lost due to goaltending per se but in '03 and '06 that was a massive difference in the series.

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.

Do you think Lidstrom was being matched up against Pisani types? No, he was usually playing against top lines and we know he wasn't playing the whole game so it's disingenuous to pretend it all fell on him.

Lidstrom usually went up against Sakic, who only recorded 2 points in 6 games in '99, and 2 points in 5 games in '00. Meanwhile, the Forsberg/Deadmarsh combo did a lot of it's damage against Chelios and the second pairing. For instance in '99 Chelios was a -8 and guess what Deadmarsh was... a +8. In '00 Chelios was a -3 and Forsberg was... a +3.

 

[quoipourquoi]

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.

Chicago is the team Forsberg struggled against the most relative to Sakic and he still didn't do that bad. And more than that, he spent the next several playoff series against Chelios playing at a very high level. There is no kryptonite.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Did you really expect Lidstrom and his team to overcome the mismatch in goaltending? When one team has a wall in net while the other has shoddy goaltending it's pretty simple, the team with the great goaltender usually wins.

If we're going to be discussing him as the potential top playoff performer of his era (I would suggest it is Forsberg) and the largest driver of Detroit's success, then shouldn't his performances compensate for those of his goaltenders against teams like Los Angeles, Edmonton, Calgary, and Anaheim? He is a defensive defenseman, after all. If he isn't compensating for goaltending mismatches through stellar defense (while Detroit has the stronger forward lines) and needs his goaltenders to have good-to-great performances, then I'm not seeing his role as the team's most essential element. A very good element, but one secondary to his own goaltender (whomever that may be) on one end of the ice and secondary to the outstanding forward depth on the other end of the ice.

In other words... very rarely do I feel he was the fulcrum in a series, swinging it to Detroit from another team. He'd score his timely long bombs - which more often came against teams they were heavily favored against - and that's fantastic. But if he's not scoring someone to death and he's not making up for the gap between Felix Potvin and Chris Osgood or Dwayne Roloson and Manny Legace or JS Giguere and Curtis Joseph or Miikka Kiprusoff and Curtis Joseph, then I think his importance as an individual might be overstated by his early eligibility.

 

[MXD]

In other words... very rarely do I feel he was the fulcrum in a series, swinging it to Detroit from another team. He'd score his timely long bombs - which more often came against teams they were heavily favored against - and that's fantastic. But if he's not scoring someone to death and he's not making up for the gap between Felix Potvin and Chris Osgood or Dwayne Roloson and Manny Legace or JS Giguere and Curtis Joseph or Miikka Kiprusoff and Curtis Joseph, then I think his importance as an individual might be overstated by his early eligibility.

I suspect this was your point all along, but...

Without getting tangled in how a subject goaltender played in those very specific matchups, Is there even a gap in MANY of those cases?

I'd add, however, that Lidstrom's offense on the long run is really good at this juncture.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Sakic's 1996 is still the best playoff performance I've ever seen from a forward not named Mario Lemieux (though Malkin's Smythe year was awfully close). And I still have hockey nightmares about 2001 - Scott Stevens had no answer for Sakic, only time during Stevens' prime stint in NJ that basically ever happened.

I do think Forsberg tended to be better against their archrivals the Red Wings.

 

[MXD]

From 70ies VsX post (who should probably be stapled at the beginning of every thread)
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=127394025&postcount=3

DEFENSEMEN:

| Name | VsX5P
1 Denis Potvin | 442
2 Bobby Orr | 423
3 Paul Coffey | 405
4 Nicklas Lidstrom | 404
5 J.C. Tremblay | 368
6 Larry Robinson | 365
7 Al MacInnis | 360
8 Flash Hollett | 339
9 Chris Chelios | 329
10 Brad Park | 328
11 Larry Murphy | 323
12 Chris Pronger | 322
13 Sergei Zubov | 313
14 Ray Bourque | 308
15 Doug Harvey | 306
16 Brian Leetch | 303
17 Pierre Pilote | 301
18 Sandis Ozolinsh | 297
19 Scott Niedermayer | 296
20 Duncan Keith | 290
21 Brian Rafalski | 284
22 Serge Savard | 257
23 Guy Lapointe | 256
24 Pat Stapleton | 256
25 Paul Reinhart | 252
26 Harry Cameron | 250
27 Kris Letang | 250

I should add, for good measure, Red Kelly's score, which is 335, but which also includes his stint with the Leafs as a forward.

Orr, Coffey, Lidstrom and Robinson are all pretty high on the list, and in that order. Kelly would be right between Flash Hollett and Chris Chelios.

They got there quite... differently :

Orr got there with monster years in 70, 72 and 74. 12 points in 7 games (1971) was also pretty good, at least offensively. Only J.C. Tremblay, Laperrière and Stapleton outscored him, and that was 20, 20 and 18 games as opposed to 7. His fifth year would be 1969, with a very "mortal" 8 points (and one would think he had his word to say on Esposito's performance).

Robinson came to his numbers with seven double-digits playoffs performances (and one league-lead in scoring). I'm usually wary of VsX for the 80ies, but in 1987, where Robinson had 20 points in 17, the Oilers didn't break the system as much as they did during other playoffs. (As a sidenote -- 70ies, is Gretzky an outlier in this version?).

Coffey did this with 10 second digits seasons (and a monster year). One can say he was helped by Gretzky (don't get me wrong, Coffey also helped Gretzky), but it's probably a good reminder that his score is PROBABLY not affected in the slightest by playing with Mario Lemieux (missed games in 91, only two rounds in 89 -- i don't even think his season with Pittsburgh are considered).

Lidstrom did this with 9 double-digits seasons (and interestingly, one of his pretty good seasons was a non-final... where he wasn't the best scoring D on his team). Didn't have a monster year (but one of his good seasons scoring-wise is probably wasted as it happened in '09, where Malkin happened).

Keep in mind that Red Kelly is a pre-Orr defensemen, with all that his implies.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Goaltending

The Avalanche with Roy, Sakic, and Forsberg were kinda good.

Let's look at the goaltending for these series:

'99
Patrick Roy .938 sv%, playing in all 6 games.
Ranford, Maracle, Injured Osgood for a combined .886 sv%

'00
Patrick Roy .951 sv% playing in all 5 games
Osgood .906 sv% playing in all 5 games

Did you really expect Lidstrom and his team to overcome the mismatch in goaltending? When one team has a wall in net while the other has shoddy goaltending it's pretty simple, the team with the great goaltender usually wins.



LA lost to the stacked Cup champion Avs while the other 3 teams all made it all the way to the finals after beating the Red Wings. They were "lesser" teams in the regular season standings but proved to be a lot more than that during those playoffs.

Let's look at the goaltending match ups again:

'01
Osgood .905 sv%
Potvin .898 sv%

'03
Giguere .965 sv%
Joseph .917 sv%

'04
Kiprusoff .941 sv%
Joseph .928 sv%

'06
Roloson .929 sv%
Legace .884 sv%

'01 and '04 were not lost due to goaltending per se but in '03 and '06 that was a massive difference in the series.



Do you think Lidstrom was being matched up against Pisani types? No, he was usually playing against top lines and we know he wasn't playing the whole game so it's disingenuous to pretend it all fell on him.

Lidstrom usually went up against Sakic, who only recorded 2 points in 6 games in '99, and 2 points in 5 games in '00. Meanwhile, the Forsberg/Deadmarsh combo did a lot of it's damage against Chelios and the second pairing. For instance in '99 Chelios was a -8 and guess what Deadmarsh was... a +8. In '00 Chelios was a -3 and Forsberg was... a +3.

SV% is no longer taken as a serious indicator of goalie reliability on these boards. South of basic +/- and sinking fast.

Many teams, short list follows, - Chicago with Alf Moore in 1938, Toronto with Frank McCool in 1945,Montreal with McNeil/Plante in 1953,Toronto with Don Simmons in 1962, Detroit with Robert Champoux in 1964, Philly with Wayne Stephenson in 1976 and Michael Leighton in 2010, Buffalo with Roloson in 1999 have overcome goaltending circumstances or injuries(game(s) or series) to goaltenders to win the SC or at least go to the finals. Teams come together and compensate. Thank you for showing that teams with Lidstrom could not come together and compensate while a team with Pronger - Philly with Leighton in 2010 did a much better job of compensating. While teams with Siebert, Harvey,Horton/Stanley, Ted Kennedy, 1976 Flyers with Clarke and a generic defence managed to overcome such obstacles.

After all 1999 Buffalo could not match the 1999 Red Wings defence but they overcame the .851 SV% of Dwayne Roloson - not the best indicator but playing by your standards, to make the finals allowing Hasek to come back.

 

[MXD]

After all 1999 Buffalo could not match the 1999 Red Wings defence but they overcame the .851 SV% of Dwayne Roloson - not the best indicator but playing by your standards, to make the finals allowing Hasek to come back.

...I'm not saying your point is invalid, but context :

In Semi-Finals...

- Roloson managed to not outsuck Curtis Joseph in Game 1.
- Roloson lost Game 2.

And that was it for games started by Dwayne Roloson.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Playoff Rounds

From 70ies VsX post (who should probably be stapled at the beginning of every thread)
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=127394025&postcount=3



I should add, for good measure, Red Kelly's score, which is 335, but which also includes his stint with the Leafs as a forward.

Orr, Coffey, Lidstrom and Robinson are all pretty high on the list, and in that order. Kelly would be right between Flash Hollett and Chris Chelios.

They got there quite... differently :

Orr got there with monster years in 70, 72 and 74. 12 points in 7 games (1971) was also pretty good, at least offensively. Only J.C. Tremblay, Laperrière and Stapleton outscored him, and that was 20, 20 and 18 games as opposed to 7. His fifth year would be 1969, with a very "mortal" 8 points (and one would think he had his word to say on Esposito's performance).

Robinson came to his numbers with seven double-digits playoffs performances (and one league-lead in scoring). I'm usually wary of VsX for the 80ies, but in 1987, where Robinson had 20 points in 17, the Oilers didn't break the system as much as they did during other playoffs. (As a sidenote -- 70ies, is Gretzky an outlier in this version?).

Coffey did this with 10 second digits seasons (and a monster year). One can say he was helped by Gretzky (don't get me wrong, Coffey also helped Gretzky), but it's probably a good reminder that his score is PROBABLY not affected in the slightest by playing with Mario Lemieux (missed games in 91, only two rounds in 89 -- i don't even think his season with Pittsburgh are considered).

Lidstrom did this with 9 double-digits seasons (and interestingly, one of his pretty good seasons was a non-final... where he wasn't the best scoring D on his team). Didn't have a monster year (but one of his good seasons scoring-wise is probably wasted as it happened in '09, where Malkin happened).

So other than showing the benefit of extra playoff rounds 3 or 4 if the player had the benefit of a short preliminary round, vs 2, what is added to the discussion?

Doug Harvey over 15 playoff seasons averaged 9.2 playoff games per year, producing two double digit point totals. Pat Stapleton given three long series averaging six games per series did likewise(two double digit seasons higher totals). Harvey or Stapleton? Rather easy and obvious choice.

Another bogus stat soon to be dropping faster than SV%.

 

[MXD]

So other than showing the benefit of extra playoff rounds 3 or 4 if the player had the benefit of a short preliminary round, vs 2, what is added to the discussion?

Doug Harvey over 15 playoff seasons averaged 9.2 playoff games per year, producing two double digit point totals. Pat Stapleton given three long series averaging six games per series did likewise(two double digit seasons higher totals). Harvey or Stapleton? Rather easy and obvious choice.

Another bogus stat soon to be dropping faster than SV%.

I litterally don't understand this post.

And besides, I think we're knowledgeable enough as a group to contextualize this information, and besides, how relevant are Doug Harvey and Pat Stapleton at this point?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Context

...I'm not saying your point is invalid, but context :

In Semi-Finals...

- Roloson managed to not outsuck Curtis Joseph in Game 1.
- Roloson lost Game 2.

And that was it for games started by Dwayne Roloson.

Yes context matters. Teams will take a split on the road of the first two games in any playoff series whether the starting star goalie is playing or a depth back-up.

 

[MXD]

Yes context matters. Teams will take a split on the road of the first two games in any playoff series whether the starting star goalie is playing or a depth back-up.

...And the backup still outplayed the "star" on the other team. It happens.

My point was mostly that the Sabres didn't win a full round with Dwayne Roloson as a starter. They only won one game out of two. Your post made it sound like they won a full round with Roloson (or was just not clear about this), which was not case.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Not Surprising

I litterally don't understand this post.

And besides, I think we're knowledgeable enough as a group to contextualize this information, and besides, how relevant are Doug Harvey and Pat Stapleton at this point?

The chart made Stapleton and Harvey relevant.

Double digit. Since when is this a benchmark? Pulled out of the air or elsewhere - concession stand coffee between periods.

If a player - defenceman, scored 9 points in a two series playoff year it seems meaningless even though it may have represented close to double his RS pts to games ratio, making it a great playoff. Conversely a defenceman with 11 points in a playoff season over three or four series covering 20 to 28 games looks great when in fact if he scored 60 RS points he would be well below his expected performance.

Basically the stat favours the modern 3 to 4 series era especially in the playoffs when the schedule is never balanced nor is the strength of opposition.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Role

...And the backup still outplayed the "star" on the other team. It happens.

My point was mostly that the Sabres didn't win a full round with Dwayne Roloson as a starter. They only won one game out of two. Your post made it sound like they won a full round with Roloson (or was just not clear about this), which was not case.

Not the back-ups role. Keep the ship afloat until the starter is back, healthy rested.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

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.

How was Richard matched against a left winger (Hull), right winger (Howe) and defenseman (Orr)?

Technically, as a center, he wasn't matched against any of them. There were other Canadiens of some stature out there with Henri, correct? Plante or Dryden in net, Harvey or Savard or Laperierre on defense. Dickie Moore or Claude Provost on wing.

Not denying Henri Richard was a great playoff performer, but he seems to be getting a little too much credit. Either that or the voters completely missed the boat by making 4 of his teammates (so far) better playoff performers.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Not at all hard to construe tactically. F1 (or F2 depending on the forecheck) would be used against a d-man. Centers/wingers have had the ability to swap defensive/neutral zone roles for strength/handedness/other matchup purposes - both in terms of a match situation or a general principle (see: Kurri being the "defensive center" for Gretzky, Dupuis for Crosby, in certain circumstances...general principles such as the "left wing lock" employed by the Czechs to stymie the LHS Soviets in international competition...etc.).

Poor, non-adaptive coaches play "lane hockey" all the time...adaptive, successful coaches make adjustments.

All these things are not to be confused with "shadow" - a term of dubious distinction...

Video evidence would make these obvious to pick out.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Not at all hard to construe tactically. F1 (or F2 depending on the forecheck) would be used against a d-man. Centers/wingers have had the ability to swap defensive/neutral zone roles for strength/handedness/other matchup purposes - both in terms of a match situation or a general principle (see: Kurri being the "defensive center" for Gretzky, Dupuis for Crosby, in certain circumstances...general principles such as the "left wing lock" employed by the Czechs to stymie the LHS Soviets in international competition...etc.).

Poor, non-adaptive coaches play "lane hockey" all the time...adaptive, successful coaches make adjustments.

All these things are not to be confused with "shadow" - a term of dubious distinction...

Video evidence would make these obvious to pick out.

Sounds like a case for the coach being the more valuable one.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Utilization falls under coaching. Creating the right environment for success falls under coaching. But like I tell my players every year, "I'm not gonna score one goal this season...and I'm not gonna make one save..."

 

[quoipourquoi]

Joe Sakic and Peter Forsberg, 1995-2004

Player | Year | Opponent | GP | G | A | PTS | +/- | GWG | GWA | GWP
Joe Sakic | Total | All | 147 | 75 | 88 | 163 | 9 | 17 | 15 | 32
Peter Forsberg | Total | All | 133 | 57 | 97 | 154 | 47 | 12 | 22 | 34

Player | Year | Opponent | GP | G | A | PTS | +/- | GWG | GWA | GWP
Joe Sakic | Total | Chicago | 12 | 9 | 11 | 20 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 3
Peter Forsberg | Total | Chicago | 12 | 3 | 8 | 11 | -4 | 0 | 2 | 2
Joe Sakic | Total | Dallas | 19 | 6 | 8 | 14 | -1 | 0 | 1 | 1
Peter Forsberg | Total | Dallas | 19 | 7 | 13 | 20 | 12 | 1 | 1 | 2
Joe Sakic | Total | Detroit | 30 | 12 | 13 | 25 | -6 | 2 | 2 | 4
Peter Forsberg | Total | Detroit | 29 | 12 | 16 | 28 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 8
Joe Sakic | Total | Edmonton | 11 | 3 | 9 | 12 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 3
Peter Forsberg | Total | Edmonton | 10 | 9 | 9 | 18 | 5 | 0 | 4 | 4
Joe Sakic | Total | Florida | 4 | 1 | 4 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2
Peter Forsberg | Total | Florida | 4 | 3 | 2 | 5 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0
Joe Sakic | Total | Los Angeles | 12 | 4 | 2 | 6 | -3 | 0 | 1 | 1
Peter Forsberg | Total | Los Angeles | 13 | 3 | 12 | 15 | 9 | 0 | 5 | 5
Joe Sakic | Total | Minnesota | 7 | 6 | 3 | 9 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1
Peter Forsberg | Total | Minnesota | 7 | 2 | 6 | 8 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 2
Joe Sakic | Total | New Jersey | 7 | 4 | 5 | 9 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3
Joe Sakic | Total | New York | 6 | 4 | 1 | 5 | -4 | 1 | 0 | 1
Peter Forsberg | Total | New York | 6 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0
Joe Sakic | Total | Phoenix | 5 | 1 | 3 | 4 | -3 | 0 | 0 | 0
Peter Forsberg | Total | Phoenix | 4 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 2
Joe Sakic | Total | San Jose | 19 | 10 | 18 | 28 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 8
Peter Forsberg | Total | San Jose | 19 | 9 | 14 | 23 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 5
Joe Sakic | Total | St. Louis | 5 | 4 | 4 | 8 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2
Joe Sakic | Total | Vancouver | 10 | 11 | 7 | 18 | 7 | 2 | 1 | 3
Peter Forsberg | Total | Vancouver | 10 | 6 | 10 | 16 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 4

Joe Sakic

• Clearly better than Forsberg against Chicago and San Jose
• Played incredibly well against New Jersey and St. Louis (who Forsberg did not play)
• Arguably better statistically against the teams he played best against than Forsberg was against the teams Forsberg played best against, albeit in smaller sample sizes
• Noticeably worse against the teams he played worst against than Forsberg was against the teams Forsberg played worst against
• Minus-player against five teams, including Dallas and Detroit
• Recorded 4 game-winning points against San Jose in 1999 (1 goal, 3 assists)
• Recorded 3 game-winning points against New Jersey in 2001 (1 goal, 2 assists)

Peter Forsberg

• Clearly better than Sakic against Dallas, Detroit, Edmonton, and Los Angeles
• Played incredibly well against San Jose, even if Sakic was better against them
• Performance against Dallas and Detroit is at a high sample size, and might be the most important opposition of the era
• Minus-player against one team, Chicago, his toughest opponent
• Plus-minus dominance isn't limited to teams who famously matched Forsberg against their best checking lines
• Recorded 4 game-winning points against Detroit in 2000 (3 goals, 1 assist)
• Recorded 3 game-winning points against Los Angeles in 2001 (3 assists)
• Recorded 3 game-winning points against San Jose in 2002 (3 goals)
• Recorded 3 game-winning points against Detroit in 2002 (1 goal, 2 assists)

 

[Canadiens1958]

Line Matching

How was Richard matched against a left winger (Hull), right winger (Howe) and defenseman (Orr)?

Technically, as a center, he wasn't matched against any of them. There were other Canadiens of some stature out there with Henri, correct? Plante or Dryden in net, Harvey or Savard or Laperierre on defense. Dickie Moore or Claude Provost on wing.

Not denying Henri Richard was a great playoff performer, but he seems to be getting a little too much credit. Either that or the voters completely missed the boat by making 4 of his teammates (so far) better playoff performers.

1959 Hull was still a center. 1960 he moved to LW with Bill Hay taking over the center spot.

Howe was a RW, Orr a defenceman.

Regardless key to stopping Hull was keeping the puck away from him in full flight leaving the defensive zone. Easiest way to do this was forecheck the puck moving defenceman - Pilote and eliminate as much as possible the direct transition to Hull. Force Pilote to pass to his defensive partner or a trailing forward. Hull would have to slow down at the Red Line to stay onside so his checking winger could cover him. Usually M.Richard, or Provost or Houle. Key was Henri Richard or the center impeding Pilote.

Orr, basically the same, forecheck from the speed,mobile center,Henri Richard or Backstrom. Watch game 2 of the 1971 opening round when the Canadiens turn a 1-5 deficit into a 7 - 5 win. Richard and Pete Mahovlich create a 2 on 1 situation allowing Richard to steal the puck and score the turnaround goal. Basic issue was the Bruins were very average skaters and did not adjust well to such tactics.

Howe was reliant on Kelly or his center to get the puck to him in the offensive zone. Not a rushing winger. Teams either had to forecheck Kelly, explained previously in posts about the Red Wings unexpected eliminations in 1951, 1953 and 1957. Or limit the centers puck handling skills. Henri Richard was critical in both such situations.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

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.

I think what Richard brought to the table has more value in a playoff series than it does over the course of the regular season. Winning a playoff series is a different animal. Match-ups, strategy, circumstances...all that stuff evolves over the course of up to seven games against the same opponent. It would seem that no matter the conditions presented, Richard adapted and excelled.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Coaching

Utilization falls under coaching. Creating the right environment for success falls under coaching. But like I tell my players every year, "I'm not gonna score one goal this season...and I'm not gonna make one save..."

Agree about coaching. But coaching would not have made the typical Orr era Bruins better skaters. With Tommy Ivan,then Jimmy Skinner as head coach in 1954 and 1955 the Red Wings did interesting things to counter special attention paid Gordie Howe. Basically they extra shifted Howe and <lindsay, alternating Delvecchio(LHS) and Reibel(RHS) worked very well until 1956 when Blake stopped playing his key defensive centers Mosdell and Henri Richard in PK situations keeping them fresh for ES match-ups. Attitude was post PK you do not want to match your best against my defensive centers who can also score, fine then your best can sit. No difference to my team.

Bobby Hull, basically the same face the Richard line or sit.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Bernie Geoffrion vs Henri Richard 1956 to 1960

About time Geoffrion and H.Richard shows up.Every single person I know who saw Henri Richard play speaks very highly of him.By very highly I mean much higher than where he is usually ranked on this board.

Bernard Geoffrion

Geoffrion Playoff Finishes Among Montreal Players

52-53

Rk | Player | GP | G * | A * | PTS 1 | Bernie Geoffrion* | 12 | 6 | 4 | 10
2 | Maurice Richard* | 12 | 7 | 1 | 8
3 | Elmer Lach* | 12 | 1 | 6 | 7
4 | Dickie Moore* | 12 | 3 | 2 | 5
5 | Ken Mosdell | 7 | 3 | 2 | 5

53-54

Rk | Player | GP | G * | A * | PTS
1 | Dickie Moore* | 11 | 5 | 8 | 13
2 | Bernie Geoffrion* | 11 | 6 | 5 | 11
3 | Jean Beliveau* | 10 | 2 | 8 | 10
4 | Floyd Curry | 11 | 4 | 0 | 4
5 | Paul Masnick | 10 | 0 | 4 | 4

54-55

Rk | Player | GP | G * | A * | PTS 1 | Bernie Geoffrion* | 12 | 8 | 5 | 13
2 | Jean Beliveau* | 12 | 6 | 7 | 13
3 | Floyd Curry | 12 | 8 | 4 | 12
4 | Calum MacKay | 12 | 3 | 8 | 11
5 | Ken Mosdell | 12 | 2 | 7 | 9

55-56

Rk | Player | GP | G * | A * | PTS
1 | Jean Beliveau* | 10 | 12 | 7 | 19
2 | Bernie Geoffrion* | 10 | 5 | 9 | 14
3 | Maurice Richard* | 10 | 5 | 9 | 14
4 | Bert Olmstead* | 10 | 4 | 10 | 14
5 | Dickie Moore* | 10 | 3 | 6 | 9

56-57 (Retro-Conn Smythe)

Rk | Player | GP | G * | A * | PTS 1 | Bernie Geoffrion* | 10 | 11 | 7 | 18
2 | Jean Beliveau* | 10 | 6 | 6 | 12
3 | Maurice Richard* | 10 | 8 | 3 | 11
4 | Dickie Moore* | 10 | 3 | 7 | 10
5 | Bert Olmstead* | 10 | 0 | 9 | 9

57-58

Rk | Player | GP | G * | A * | PTS
1 | Maurice Richard* | 10 | 11 | 4 | 15
2 | Jean Beliveau* | 10 | 4 | 8 | 12
3 | Bernie Geoffrion* | 10 | 6 | 5 | 11
4 | Dickie Moore* | 10 | 4 | 7 | 11
5 | Doug Harvey* | 10 | 2 | 9 | 11

58-59

Rk | Player | GP | G * | A * | PTS
1 | Dickie Moore* | 11 | 5 | 12 | 17
2 | Marcel Bonin | 11 | 10 | 5 | 15
3 | Bernie Geoffrion* | 11 | 5 | 8 | 13
4 | Doug Harvey* | 11 | 1 | 11 | 12
5 | Henri Richard* | 11 | 3 | 8 | 11

59-60

Rk | Player | GP | G * | A * | PTS
1 | Henri Richard* | 8 | 3 | 9 | 12
2 | Bernie Geoffrion* | 8 | 2 | 10 | 12
3 | Dickie Moore* | 8 | 6 | 4 | 10
4 | Jean Beliveau* | | 5 | 2 | 7
5 | Marcel Bonin | | 1 | 4 | 5

Playoff VsX Best 5 years

Nice tables that seem to favour Bernie Geoffrion but do they.

Both Bernie Geoffrion and Henri Richard played 49 playoff games between 1956 and 1960. Geoffrion scoring 68 points while Henri Richard scored 47. However Geoffrion was the right point man on the Canadiens PP, scoring 26 PP points while Henri Richard scored only 7 PP points in sporadic appearances, mainly when Beliveau was hurt. At ES Geoffrion enjoys a 42 to 40 point edge. Marginal at best

Henri Richard centered the teams best defensive line with Moore and Maurice Richard or Marcel Bonin. Drawing the opposing teams most dangerous offensive playersHowe, Bathgate, Hull, Mahovlich, mackell. These match-ups combined for 27 points by the leading offensive threats, 9 on the PP or 18 ES points. Henri Richard and his linemates handily won the match-ups.

Bernie Geoffrion feasted on the New York Rangers throughout his career. RS and playoffs. Phil Watson coached Rangers never figured out how to defend the Canadiens PP. Interesting tidbit was that during the 1956 to 1960 era, the Canadiens faced each of the other five O6 teams exactly two times.

Geoffrion against:

Boston . 1957 and 1958 Finals. 11 games, 14 PTS.
Chicago. 1959 and 1960 semis, 10 games, 12 PTS.
Detroit. 1956 and 1958 Finala and semis, 9 games, 9 PTS.
New York. 1956 and 1957 semis, 10 games, 20 PTS.
Toronto, 1959 and 1960 Finals 9 games, 13 PTS.

Data culled in good faith from Leandre Normand s works about the Canadiens.

 

[Canadiens1958]

True

I think what Richard brought to the table has more value in a playoff series than it does over the course of the regular season. Winning a playoff series is a different animal. Match-ups, strategy, circumstances...all that stuff evolves over the course of up to seven games against the same opponent. It would seem that no matter the conditions presented, Richard adapted and excelled.

True. Very few players master the art of managing the same opponent in a balanced schedule - equal days off. Lost skill today.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Joe Sakic and Peter Forsberg, 1995-2004

Player | Year | Opponent | GP | G | A | PTS | +/- | GWG | GWA | GWP
Joe Sakic | Total | All | 147 | 75 | 88 | 163 | 9 | 17 | 15 | 32
Peter Forsberg | Total | All | 133 | 57 | 97 | 154 | 47 | 12 | 22 | 34

Player | Year | Opponent | GP | G | A | PTS | +/- | GWG | GWA | GWP
Joe Sakic | Total | Chicago | 12 | 9 | 11 | 20 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 3
Peter Forsberg | Total | Chicago | 12 | 3 | 8 | 11 | -4 | 0 | 2 | 2
Joe Sakic | Total | Dallas | 19 | 6 | 8 | 14 | -1 | 0 | 1 | 1
Peter Forsberg | Total | Dallas | 19 | 7 | 13 | 20 | 12 | 1 | 1 | 2
Joe Sakic | Total | Detroit | 30 | 12 | 13 | 25 | -6 | 2 | 2 | 4
Peter Forsberg | Total | Detroit | 29 | 12 | 16 | 28 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 8
Joe Sakic | Total | Edmonton | 11 | 3 | 9 | 12 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 3
Peter Forsberg | Total | Edmonton | 10 | 9 | 9 | 18 | 5 | 0 | 4 | 4
Joe Sakic | Total | Florida | 4 | 1 | 4 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2
Peter Forsberg | Total | Florida | 4 | 3 | 2 | 5 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0
Joe Sakic | Total | Los Angeles | 12 | 4 | 2 | 6 | -3 | 0 | 1 | 1
Peter Forsberg | Total | Los Angeles | 13 | 3 | 12 | 15 | 9 | 0 | 5 | 5
Joe Sakic | Total | Minnesota | 7 | 6 | 3 | 9 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1
Peter Forsberg | Total | Minnesota | 7 | 2 | 6 | 8 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 2
Joe Sakic | Total | New Jersey | 7 | 4 | 5 | 9 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3
Joe Sakic | Total | New York | 6 | 4 | 1 | 5 | -4 | 1 | 0 | 1
Peter Forsberg | Total | New York | 6 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0
Joe Sakic | Total | Phoenix | 5 | 1 | 3 | 4 | -3 | 0 | 0 | 0
Peter Forsberg | Total | Phoenix | 4 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 2
Joe Sakic | Total | San Jose | 19 | 10 | 18 | 28 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 8
Peter Forsberg | Total | San Jose | 19 | 9 | 14 | 23 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 5
Joe Sakic | Total | St. Louis | 5 | 4 | 4 | 8 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2
Joe Sakic | Total | Vancouver | 10 | 11 | 7 | 18 | 7 | 2 | 1 | 3
Peter Forsberg | Total | Vancouver | 10 | 6 | 10 | 16 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 4

Joe Sakic

• Clearly better than Forsberg against Chicago and San Jose
• Played incredibly well against New Jersey and St. Louis (who Forsberg did not play)
• Arguably better statistically against the teams he played best against than Forsberg was against the teams Forsberg played best against, albeit in smaller sample sizes
• Noticeably worse against the teams he played worst against than Forsberg was against the teams Forsberg played worst against
• Minus-player against five teams, including Dallas and Detroit
• Recorded 4 game-winning points against San Jose in 1999 (1 goal, 3 assists)
• Recorded 3 game-winning points against New Jersey in 2001 (1 goal, 2 assists)

Peter Forsberg

• Clearly better than Sakic against Dallas, Detroit, Edmonton, and Los Angeles
• Played incredibly well against San Jose, even if Sakic was better against them
• Performance against Dallas and Detroit is at a high sample size, and might be the most important opposition of the era
• Minus-player against one team, Chicago, his toughest opponent
• Plus-minus dominance isn't limited to teams who famously matched Forsberg against their best checking lines
• Recorded 4 game-winning points against Detroit in 2000 (3 goals, 1 assist)
• Recorded 3 game-winning points against Los Angeles in 2001 (3 assists)
• Recorded 3 game-winning points against San Jose in 2002 (3 goals)
• Recorded 3 game-winning points against Detroit in 2002 (1 goal, 2 assists)

Nice work.

By my memory, Forsberg was the more consistently dominant playoff performer, and this backs that up. Sakic did have the higher spike years though, both resulting in Cups, and one of those was with Forsberg injured. A close call between these two players. For me it might come down to Sakic just not getting it done against Dallas in those two seven-game losses in 1999 and 2000. The performance against New Jersey the next year certainly has redeeming quality though.