Round 2, Vote 6 (Stanley Cup Playoff Performers)

[quoipourquoi]

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, Black Gold Extractor, 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, June 2nd at midnight and continue through Sunday, June 4th at 11:59pm. Eastern time zone. Send PMs to quoipourquoi. I will release the results of the vote on Monday, June 5th.

Vote 6 Candidates

• Bernie Parent
• Billy Smith
• Bobby Hull
• Chris Pronger
• Doug Gilmour
• Duncan Keith
• Frank Boucher
• Frank Mahovlich
• Frank McGee
• Jari Kurri
• Martin Brodeur
• Paul Coffey
• Phil Esposito
• Ray Bourque
• Scott Stevens
• Serge Savard
• Sergei Fedorov
• Sidney Crosby
• Steve Yzerman
• Terry Sawchuk

Click to read more...

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Two new defensemen available, and I think they're viable candidates immediately. Savard and Keith are both Conn Smythe winners, both were the top defenseman on multiple Cup winning rosters. Savard of course winning four more on a team where he was seemingly the second option after Robinson. Keith is arguably the most successful playoff performer of the salary-cap era, and could reasonably have three Conn Smythe's. Stevens and Coffey have both been available for a couple rounds, but I don't think either of them have a clear leg up on Savard or Keith.

Yzerman doesn't have a lot going for him outside of the Cup years, although we're getting to the point where most candidates are going to have some blemishes on their record. I think his teammate Fedorov is the easy choice in a head to head comparison. Crosby seems quite comparable at this juncture.

Mahovlich is interesting. Very feast-or-famine resume. History certainly seems to have remembered Keon as the guy who was driving the bus on those 60's Leaf teams, which were known for defense and goaltending more than scoring. Yet Mahovlich has appeared before Keon, Horton, Bower, or Stanley. I'm a little surprised by that to be honest. Do Mahovlich's efforts in 1971 and 1973 with Montreal push him over the top?

Battlin' Billy Smith joins Parent, Sawchuk, and Brodeur. New York didn't start winning Cups until Smith became the unquestioned starter. Why Resch in 1978 and 79 for the Isles?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Mahovlich was clearly behind the unavailable Tim Horton and George Armstrong on the 60s Leafs dynasty, right? Does what he did on the Canadiens afterwards make up the gap?

 

[Canadiens1958]

1960 Leafs

Mahovlich was clearly behind the unavailable Tim Horton and George Armstrong on the 60s Leafs dynasty, right? Does what he did on the Canadiens afterwards make up the gap?

No it does not.

Another example of the offensive mindset in the project. Geoffrion and Lafleur greatly overrated. Lemaire and Moore ignored.

Red Kelly from the sixties Leafs is in but as a career achievement.

Tim Horton, credit gets split with Alan Stanley. League was stronger at RW than LW. Both were excellent at clearing the slot, transitioning. Classic pairing, results far surpassed the sum of individual skills. Support gets split.

George Armstrong, Dave Keon, Bob Pulford - all three much more important. Again support gets split.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Two new defensemen available, and I think they're viable candidates immediately. Savard and Keith are both Conn Smythe winners, both were the top defenseman on multiple Cup winning rosters. Savard of course winning four more on a team where he was seemingly the second option after Robinson. Keith is arguably the most successful playoff performer of the salary-cap era, and could reasonably have three Conn Smythe's. Stevens and Coffey have both been available for a couple rounds, but I don't think either of them have a clear leg up on Savard or Keith.

Yzerman doesn't have a lot going for him outside of the Cup years, although we're getting to the point where most candidates are going to have some blemishes on their record. I think his teammate Fedorov is the easy choice in a head to head comparison. Crosby seems quite comparable at this juncture.

Mahovlich is interesting. Very feast-or-famine resume. History certainly seems to have remembered Keon as the guy who was driving the bus on those 60's Leaf teams, which were known for defense and goaltending more than scoring. Yet Mahovlich has appeared before Keon, Horton, Bower, or Stanley. I'm a little surprised by that to be honest. Do Mahovlich's efforts in 1971 and 1973 with Montreal push him over the top?

Battlin' Billy Smith joins Parent, Sawchuk, and Brodeur. New York didn't start winning Cups until Smith became the unquestioned starter. Why Resch in 1978 and 79 for the Isles?

Better during the regular season.

Smith's playoff record was 88-36. Consider Jacques Plante was 71-36.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Better during the regular season.

Smith's playoff record was 88-36. Consider Jacques Plante was 71-36.

As good a reason as any, I suppose. Although there doesn't look to have been a clear difference between Smith and Resch in 1978 regular season, and Smith appears to have been strong in the 1977 playoffs, getting the bulk of the action. His record in the 1979 playoffs is better than Resch's, but he had fewer starts.

Smith's record is exceptional. During the 1980-1984 dynasty years his record in OT is 12-1. 16-4 overall, a superior win percentage to Patrick Roy, lauded for his OT heroics.

Smith already has three teammates on the list, and is typically seen as a fairly distant fourth in terms of importance to that dynasty. I took a quick preliminary look the try and establish just how vital his contributions were or weren't.

1980. Won 6 games in OT, losing only one. Crucial OT wins included Game 2 against Buffalo to take command of the semi-final series, and of course Game 1 and 6 of the Final. In 20 games started, Smith gave up two goals or fewer 9 times, which was almost a certain win in this scoring environment. Got yanked or gave up 4+ in regulation on six occasions. Overall, too many OT wins to assume the Isles still win with anybody else in net. I'd rate his importance as high in this run.

1981. The offensive support provided by his teammates was simply unbelievable in this season. The Islanders scored 5+ goals in every single win they recorded that playoffs. With that kind of onslaught, it's difficult to envision them losing unless they got utterly awful goaltending themselves. Smith allowed two or fewer in 9/17 games, only gave up 4+ in regulation or got the hook four times. By that metric he performed just as well as the previous year, but was under very little pressure throughout.

1982. Another great run of OT games, in which Smith went 4-0, including the do-or-die Game 5 against Pittsburgh. Performance against the Rangers in the second round seems to have been adequate but not great. Won 4-3 in OT with the series tied 1-1, gave up three or more goals in 5/6 games. Strong in a sweep of Quebec, which was actually somewhat close. A couple weaker games, a couple strong ones in the sweep of Vancouver. This one is a little tougher to judge without having actually seen it in real life. My impression is that Smith played well enough to win, but didn't do anything above and beyond what you'd expect from a competent starting netminder.

1983. A Conn Smythe speaks for itself. Held the all-time great Oilers offense to just 6 goals in the Final, sporting a .953 save percentage and a shutout in Game 1. The leadup to the Final? Another offensive explosion from the Islanders, who scored 5+ in all but one of Smith's wins. Smith seems to have been generally strong, but was at little risk of losing in most games due to the huge goal support.

1984. Almost seems to be the inverse of 1983. Got blitzed by Edmonton in the Final, but the Islanders might not have made it there without him. Won games 4-1 and 3-2 in OT in the first round when facing elimination against the Rangers (Islanders were outshot 44-25 in the deciding game). Won Game 2 in OT against Washington to avoid falling behind 2-0 in the series in the Patrick Final. Isles fell behind 2-0 to Montreal before Smith limited the Habs to just five goals in the next four games, all wins.

I'd conclude that out of the goaltenders available in this round, Smith has a case for top spot. Got a lot of help from the offense, much in the way Martin Brodeur got a lot of help from his defense. In terms of volume, he has Parent beat. Evaluating Parent's value to the Flyers (two Smythe's, afterall) will be necessary to compare. Sawchuk's career was much more up-and-down, but if you ignore the chronological aspect, he actually has a similar looking career - four Cups where he was of varying importance.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

No it does not.

Another example of the offensive mindset in the project. Geoffrion and Lafleur greatly overrated. Lemaire and Moore ignored.

Red Kelly from the sixties Leafs is in but as a career achievement.

Tim Horton, credit gets split with Alan Stanley. League was stronger at RW than LW. Both were excellent at clearing the slot, transitioning. Classic pairing, results far surpassed the sum of individual skills. Support gets split.

George Armstrong, Dave Keon, Bob Pulford - all three much more important. Again support gets split.

Even offensively, Mahovlich didn't stand out in the playoffs for the Leafs (as he did in the regular season).

Top playoff scorers on the Leafs teams that won 3 straight Cups from 1962-1964:

1. George Armstrong 15-19-34
2. Red Kelly 10-21-31
3. Dave Keon 19-10-29
4. Frank Mahovlich 10-19-29
5. Tim Horton 4-20-24
6. Bob Pulford 14-9-23

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...=S&is_playoffs=Y&threshhold=5&order_by=points

Those are the only 20+ point Leafs across those three years.

And of course, Mahovlich was easily the weakest of the 6 defensively.

In 1967 (sometimes but not always considered part of the dynasty), leading Leafs scorers were Pulford, Mahovlich, and then Horton/Keon with Keon winning the Conn Smythe. Armstrong didn't do much; I believe he was injured.
http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/TOR/1967.html

IMO, if Mahovlich deserves to be on the list over Armstrong, Keon, or Horton, it largely rests on what he did in Montreal after the trade.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Early Years

Even offensively, Mahovlich didn't stand out in the playoffs for the Leafs (as he did in the regular season).

Top playoff scorers on the Leafs teams that won 3 straight Cups from 1962-1964:

1. George Armstrong 15-19-34
2. Red Kelly 10-21-31
3. Dave Keon 19-10-29
4. Frank Mahovlich 10-19-29
5. Tim Horton 4-20-24
6. Bob Pulford 14-9-23

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...=S&is_playoffs=Y&threshhold=5&order_by=points

Those are the only 20+ point Leafs across those three years.

And of course, Mahovlich was easily the weakest of the 6 defensively.

In 1967 (sometimes but not always considered part of the dynasty), leading Leafs scorers were Pulford, Mahovlich, and then Horton/Keon with Keon winning the Conn Smythe. Armstrong didn't do much; I believe he was injured.
http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/TOR/1967.html

IMO, if Mahovlich deserves to be on the list over Armstrong, Keon, or Horton, it largely rests on what he did in Montreal after the trade.

1967 - if Pappin(led playoff scoring) and Stemkowski are ignored...

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/TOR/1967.html

1959 Mahovlich/Harris/Ehman line lead the Leafs to a semi-finals upset over Boston, coming back from 0-2 to win in 7.

1960 Mahovlich/Kelly with a filler at RW drove the semi-final win over Detroit.

Both times minimalized vs Montreal in the finals.

Montreal. Was an important piece but did not stir the drink.

 

[MXD]

I said last round that Savard could go (or at least start) right at the top of next (this) round, depending on how things went. It didn't quite happen, but he still starts in a very favourable spot as far as I'm concerned.

And I also said something about Crosby not being necessarily the best "active" playoff performer, and the other option being, basically, Duncan Keith.

Indeed, Savard and Keith look very good in that group. We'll see if it holds up to scrutiny.

Billy Smith ... well I see him as something of a poor-man's Broda, in that there's no way he would be considered as good as he is (or that high in the pecking order) if he wasn't something else in the playoffs. The issue is : he wasn't as good in the regular season (but how much of that is era-based due to games being split quite evenly between goalies, or just due to playing his prime with a coach that tended to tandem his goalies?) and I certainly cannot call him a more "crucial" player to his team in the playoffs as a whole. It's not a stretch to suggest that he's the best candidate in that group amongst goaltenders, but him going in now would involve a gap that's slightly too "small" for my liking between both goalies. Of course Broda went a tad later than he should, but, well, c'est la vie.

And then the issue that there might be some better candidates amongst unavailable ones...

Mahovlich is also certainly not the first '60ies Leafs I'd vote for, too (if you consider Kelly has gotten in as a Wing, too).

Yzerman is logical as the 3rd Red Wing, but I see him as a guy who has the same "issues" as Gilmour, but otherwise none of the huge runs and relatively less important to his team as a whole.

 

[bobholly39]

Jarri Kurri needs to get in.

Should it even matter how much help Gretzky gave him? Hockey is a sports based on results first and foremost. Even if Gretzky did much of the work in creating/generating the offense - the fact that Kurri scored all these goals and assisted on all others counts just the same. I don't think Kurri should be that far behind Messier based on Edmonton tbh if at all (Messier does have more then Kurri after Edmonton).

106 goals, 127 assists, 233 points...I honestly had him pretty high initially.

He is easily for me the best forward in this grouping at first glance. Crosby could surpass him (half career vs full career) one day, but not yet.

I'm kinda shocked at how little support he got last round.

I'm curious to hear arguments from people who don't have Kurri near the very top in this round, in terms of who is above him and why

 

[BenchBrawl]

I'm not sure Keith and Savard are better than Stevens.I feel Stevens was more of the go-to guy on his team than Keith/Savard.I give him credit for being the main guy the team was build around.Apparently NJ players thought this was Brodeur, but I disagree with them, the arrogant ***** that I am.Brodeur shouldn't make the list at all.I think Stevens is the best playoff defenseman this round.

I disagree that Keith is in competition with Crosby for best playoff performer of this era.Crosby is #1 for me this round (and I assume he might reach another SC Finals before voting is open, which will solidify his case).He took this dead franchise and turned it into gold.Keith's career could have turned way differently if he didn't end up in Chicago in some sort of perfect storm (which he was a part of).The same is not true for Crosby; I can see him ended up anywhere and doing the same thing he did in Pittsburgh (obviously Malkin helped a great deal, but whatever, it's not a perfect storm scenario as far as I'm concerned).

Unsure about Gilmour, Yzerman, Fedorov, Esposito, Boucher.You could throw Malkin and even Modano in that group, and they all look similar (though honestly Malkin is starting to look better than all of them).

Pronger's continuous movement from team to team pisses me off.I feel this is his fault to some degree, and not just the circumstances.He does have massive runs though, but right now I can't see him ahead of Savard, Keith and Stevens.

I don't know what to do with Bourque, and this has been true from day one.

Kurri pisses me off because I don't know what to do with him.I guess he has to get in now just looking at his h-r page.The *****, playing with Gretzky and stuff.How dare he?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Offence and Jari Kurri.

Jarri Kurri needs to get in.

Should it even matter how much help Gretzky gave him? Hockey is a sports based on results first and foremost. Even if Gretzky did much of the work in creating/generating the offense - the fact that Kurri scored all these goals and assisted on all others counts just the same. I don't think Kurri should be that far behind Messier based on Edmonton tbh if at all (Messier does have more then Kurri after Edmonton).

106 goals, 127 assists, 233 points...I honestly had him pretty high initially.

He is easily for me the best forward in this grouping at first glance. Crosby could surpass him (half career vs full career) one day, but not yet.

I'm kinda shocked at how little support he got last round.

I'm curious to hear arguments from people who don't have Kurri near the very top in this round, in terms of who is above him and why

Offence or generating offence. 2 for 1.

Jari Kurri:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/k/kurrija01.html

Overall Kurri:

200 GP 106G 127A 233PTS

Edmonton:

146 GP 92G 110A 202PTS

Elsewhere

54 GP 14G 17A 31 PTS

Looks like a replaceable parts type player. Without results elsewhere.

http://www.nhl.com/stats/player?agg...er=gamesPlayed,gte,&sort=points,goals,assists

Basically much closer to Glenn Anderson than Gretzky or Messier.

http://www.nhl.com/stats/player?agg...er=gamesPlayed,gte,&sort=points,goals,assists

 

[Canadiens1958]

Serge Savard Part 1

Serge Savard. First we will look at how goals and points are generated without a player getting any credit:

1979 Game 7 semi-finals vs Boston. Lafleur`s game tying goal. Note the subtle interference by Serge Savard in the neutral zone that gives Lafleur a bit of space from Don Marcotte and the opportunity to score:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3o5YkiRuTC4

No assist awarded to Savard.

Overtime game winning goal by Yvan Lambert:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l22FV4105p8

Classic brush check by Serge Savard, stealing the puck from the Bruin skater, first pass transition keeping the play onside and creating the winning goal. 3rd pass on the goal no point for Savard.

None of the remaining defencemen could come close to executing such a play. Only Harvey, Orr and Serge Savard.

Definitely not Stevens or Pronger who were not strong enough skaters for such a finesse move and could not make a transition pass so quickly. The others could not cover the ice as efficiently.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Scott Stevens

I'm not sure Keith and Savard are better than Stevens.I feel Stevens was more of the go-to guy on his team than Keith/Savard.I give him credit for being the main guy the team was build around.Apparently NJ players thought this was Brodeur, but I disagree with them, the arrogant ***** that I am.Brodeur shouldn't make the list at all.I think Stevens is the best playoff defenseman this round.

I disagree that Keith is in competition with Crosby for best playoff performer of this era.Crosby is #1 for me this round (and I assume he might reach another SC Finals before voting is open, which will solidify his case).He took this dead franchise and turned it into gold.Keith's career could have turned way differently if he didn't end up in Chicago in some sort of perfect storm (which he was a part of).The same is not true for Crosby; I can see him ended up anywhere and doing the same thing he did in Pittsburgh (obviously Malkin helped a great deal, but whatever, it's not a perfect storm scenario as far as I'm concerned).

Unsure about Gilmour, Yzerman, Fedorov, Esposito, Boucher.You could throw Malkin and even Modano in that group, and they all look similar (though honestly Malkin is starting to look better than all of them).

Pronger's continuous movement from team to team pisses me off.I feel this is his fault to some degree, and not just the circumstances.He does have massive runs though, but right now I can't see him ahead of Savard, Keith and Stevens.

I don't know what to do with Bourque, and this has been true from day one.

Kurri pisses me off because I don't know what to do with him.I guess he has to get in now just looking at his h-r page.The *****, playing with Gretzky and stuff.How dare he?

Scott Stevens was fortunate to be on the same team as Martin Brodeur. Yeah a few hits - Lindros etc but what about the misses that no one talks about? Who was the goalie that saved his hide? Martin Brodeur.

1969 Serge Savard won the Conn Smythe outplaying Bobby Orr in the semi-finals, defensively and offensively:

6 game series. Orr 1G and 3A. Savard 3G and 4A.

http://bigmouthsports.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/1969-Stanley-Cup-Playoff-boxscores-MTL.pdf

Stevens could not even skate with Orr, let alone outplay him defensively and offensively.

 

[bobholly39]

Offence or generating offence. 2 for 1.

Jari Kurri:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/k/kurrija01.html

Overall Kurri:

200 GP 106G 127A 233PTS

Edmonton:

146 GP 92G 110A 202PTS

Elsewhere

54 GP 14G 17A 31 PTS

Looks like a replaceable parts type player. Without results elsewhere.

http://www.nhl.com/stats/player?agg...er=gamesPlayed,gte,&sort=points,goals,assists

Basically much closer to Glenn Anderson than Gretzky or Messier.

http://www.nhl.com/stats/player?agg...er=gamesPlayed,gte,&sort=points,goals,assists

So to the bolded. I actually agree with you 100%. I probably actually credit Gretzky more than even you do for Kurri's career/work. I just think more highly of Gretzky than most in that regards.

What i'm saying though is that - *despite that* - Kurri's numbers alone should still get him in.

At some point it starts to matter less "why" a player performed than the fact that he *did* perform.

It's like we're punishing Kurri for playing with Gretzky. When in truth - we should be rewarding him for the numbers he produced....no?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Appreciate

So to the bolded. I actually agree with you 100%. I probably actually credit Gretzky more than even you do for Kurri's career/work. I just think more highly of Gretzky than most in that regards.

What i'm saying though is that - *despite that* - Kurri's numbers alone should still get him in.

At some point it starts to matter less "why" a player performed than the fact that he *did* perform.

It's like we're punishing Kurri for playing with Gretzky. When in truth - we should be rewarding him for the numbers he produced....no?

Simple appreciation of how and when the numbers were produced.

Same as with Serge Savard. Raw numbers do not tell the story. See my post about Serge Savard Part 1

 

[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:

MOST TIMES LEADING TEAM IN GOALS IN PLAYOFFS

Player | Times
Bobby Hull* | 8
Steve Yzerman* | 7
Sidney Crosby | 5
Jari Kurri* | 5
Phil Esposito* | 5
Frank Mahovlich* | 4
Sergei Fedorov* | 3
Frank Boucher* | 1
Doug Gilmour* | 1
Paul Coffey* | 1
Scott Stevens* | 1
Chris Pronger* | 1
Duncan Keith | 1
Ray Bourque* | 0
Serge Savard* | 0

MOST TIMES LEADING TEAM IN ASSISTS IN PLAYOFFS

Player | Times TOTAL
Doug Gilmour* | 7
Sergei Fedorov* | 7
Ray Bourque* | 7
Sidney Crosby | 5
Chris Pronger* | 5
Frank Boucher* | 4
Phil Esposito* | 4
Steve Yzerman* | 4
Scott Stevens* | 3
Frank Mahovlich* | 3
Bobby Hull* | 2
Paul Coffey* | 2
Duncan Keith | 2
Jari Kurri* | 0
Serge Savard* | 0

MOST TIMES LEADING TEAM IN POINTS IN PLAYOFFS

Player | Times
Steve Yzerman* | 9
Doug Gilmour* | 8
Sergei Fedorov* | 8
Phil Esposito* | 5
Bobby Hull* | 5
Sidney Crosby | 4
Ray Bourque* | 4
Chris Pronger* | 3
Frank Mahovlich* | 3
Frank Boucher* | 2
Paul Coffey* | 2
Duncan Keith | 1
Scott Stevens* | 1
Jari Kurri* | 0
Serge Savard* | 0

MOST TIMES PLACING IN TOP FIVE IN PLAYOFFS - GOALS

Player|1st|2nd|3rd|4th|5th|Total
Bobby Hull* | 3 | 1 | 1 | | 1 | 6
Phil Esposito* | 3 | | 2 | | | 5
Frank Mahovlich* | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | | 5
Jari Kurri* | 4 | | | | | 4
Doug Gilmour* | | | | | 3 | 3
Frank Boucher* | 1 | | | 1 | | 2
Sidney Crosby | 1 | | | | | 1
Sergei Fedorov* | 1 | | | | | 1
Paul Coffey* | | | 1 | | | 1
Steve Yzerman* | | | | 1 | | 1
Ray Bourque* | | | | | | 0
Scott Stevens* | | | | | | 0
Chris Pronger* | | | | | | 0
Serge Savard* | | | | | | 0
Duncan Keith | | | | | | 0

MOST TIMES PLACING IN TOP FIVE IN PLAYOFFS - ASSISTS

Player|1st|2nd|3rd|4th|5th|Total
Bobby Hull* | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | | 5
Phil Esposito* | 2 | 1 | 1 | | | 4
Frank Boucher* | 2 | 1 | | | 1 | 4
Sergei Fedorov* | 2 | | 1 | | 1 | 4
Frank Mahovlich* | 1 | | 2 | | 1 | 4
Jari Kurri* | | | 1 | 2 | 1 | 4
Sidney Crosby | 1 | 1 | | | 1 | 3
Doug Gilmour* | 1 | 1 | | | 1 | 3
Paul Coffey* | | 1 | 1 | | 1 | 3
Ray Bourque* | | | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3
Steve Yzerman* | 1 | 1 | | | | 2
Duncan Keith | 1 | | | | 1 | 2
Chris Pronger* | | | 1 | 1 | | 2
Scott Stevens* | | | | | | 0
Serge Savard* | | | | | | 0

MOST TIMES PLACING IN TOP FIVE IN PLAYOFFS - POINTS

Player|1st|2nd|3rd|4th|5th|Total
Bobby Hull* | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | | 5
Frank Mahovlich* | 1 | | 2 | | 2 | 5
Phil Esposito* | 3 | | 1 | | | 4
Jari Kurri* | | 1 | 2 | 1 | | 4
Doug Gilmour* | 1 | 1 | | 1 | 1 | 4
Sergei Fedorov* | 1 | 1 | 1 | | | 3
Paul Coffey* | | 1 | | 1 | 1 | 3
Frank Boucher* | 2 | | | | | 2
Steve Yzerman* | 1 | 1 | | | | 2
Sidney Crosby | 1 | 1 | | | | 2
Chris Pronger* | | | 1 | | | 1
Duncan Keith | | | | 1 | | 1
Ray Bourque* | | | | | | 0
Scott Stevens* | | | | | | 0
Serge Savard* | | | | | | 0

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

Player|GP|Goals|TMG|Percentage
Bobby Hull* | 119 | 62 | 332 | 18.7%
Frank Boucher* | 55 | 16 | 118 | 13.6%
Phil Esposito* | 130 | 61 | 457 | 13.3%
Sidney Crosby | 124 | 49 | 383 | 12.8%
Jari Kurri* | 200 | 106 | 844 | 12.6%
Frank Mahovlich* | 137 | 51 | 417 | 12.2%
Doug Gilmour* | 182 | 60 | 542 | 11.1%
Steve Yzerman* | 196 | 70 | 700 | 10%
Sergei Fedorov* | 183 | 52 | 568 | 9.2%
Paul Coffey* | 194 | 59 | 867 | 6.8%
Ray Bourque* | 214 | 41 | 695 | 5.9%
Chris Pronger* | 173 | 26 | 506 | 5.1%
Duncan Keith | 122 | 18 | 377 | 4.8%
Scott Stevens* | 233 | 26 | 686 | 3.8%
Serge Savard* | 130 | 19 | 530 | 3.6%

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

Player|GP|Assists|TMG|Percentage
Doug Gilmour* | 182 | 128 | 542 | 23.6%
Sidney Crosby | 124 | 88 | 383 | 23%
Sergei Fedorov* | 183 | 124 | 568 | 21.8%
Bobby Hull* | 119 | 67 | 332 | 20.2%
Ray Bourque* | 214 | 139 | 695 | 20%
Chris Pronger* | 173 | 95 | 506 | 18.8%
Frank Boucher* | 55 | 20 | 118 | 16.9%
Phil Esposito* | 130 | 76 | 457 | 16.6%
Duncan Keith | 122 | 62 | 377 | 16.4%
Steve Yzerman* | 196 | 115 | 700 | 16.4%
Frank Mahovlich* | 137 | 67 | 417 | 16.1%
Paul Coffey* | 194 | 137 | 867 | 15.8%
Jari Kurri* | 200 | 127 | 844 | 15%
Scott Stevens* | 233 | 92 | 686 | 13.4%
Serge Savard* | 130 | 49 | 530 | 9.2%

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

Player|GP|Points|TMG|Percentage
Bobby Hull* | 119 | 129 | 332 | 38.9%
Sidney Crosby | 124 | 137 | 383 | 35.8%
Doug Gilmour* | 182 | 188 | 542 | 34.7%
Sergei Fedorov* | 183 | 176 | 568 | 31%
Frank Boucher* | 55 | 36 | 118 | 30.5%
Phil Esposito* | 130 | 137 | 457 | 30%
Frank Mahovlich* | 137 | 118 | 417 | 28.3%
Jari Kurri* | 200 | 233 | 844 | 27.6%
Steve Yzerman* | 196 | 185 | 700 | 26.4%
Ray Bourque* | 214 | 180 | 695 | 25.9%
Chris Pronger* | 173 | 121 | 506 | 23.9%
Paul Coffey* | 194 | 196 | 867 | 22.6%
Duncan Keith | 122 | 80 | 377 | 21.2%
Scott Stevens* | 233 | 118 | 686 | 17.2%
Serge Savard* | 130 | 68 | 530 | 12.8%

A few comments on the new additions:

- Savard's offensive numbers are poor (he's in last place or tied for last in all nine categories), but he's obviously here for his defensive play.

- Keith`s numbers are generally comparable to Pronger`s, but in general aren`t quite as good. Both were at least contenders for the Conn Smythe three times.

- I was surprised that Mahovlich`s numbers were so close to Esposito`s. Both were below average defensively and rarely the best player on their teams.

- Yzerman`s numbers are all over the place. He has more years leading his team in points, and more than anyone except Hull in leading them in goals. On the other hand, he really only had three seasons where he was among the playoff scoring leaders in any offensive category (1998, 1999 and 2002). His contribution to his team`s offense is weakest among forwards, but that`s because he played a lot of games while past his offensive prime (same thing with Trottier).

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Scott Stevens was fortunate to be on the same team as Martin Brodeur. Yeah a few hits - Lindros etc but what about the misses that no one talks about? Who was the goalie that saved his hide? Martin Brodeur.

1969 Serge Savard won the Conn Smythe outplaying Bobby Orr in the semi-finals, defensively and offensively:

6 game series. Orr 1G and 3A. Savard 3G and 4A.

http://bigmouthsports.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/1969-Stanley-Cup-Playoff-boxscores-MTL.pdf

Stevens could not even skate with Orr, let alone outplay him defensively and offensively.

I will call this, a load of Bull.

Either you never watched Devils playoff games or you have a clear bias. Because you know too much about the game to make such a statement.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Jarri Kurri needs to get in.

Should it even matter how much help Gretzky gave him? Hockey is a sports based on results first and foremost. Even if Gretzky did much of the work in creating/generating the offense - the fact that Kurri scored all these goals and assisted on all others counts just the same. I don't think Kurri should be that far behind Messier based on Edmonton tbh if at all (Messier does have more then Kurri after Edmonton).

106 goals, 127 assists, 233 points...I honestly had him pretty high initially.

He is easily for me the best forward in this grouping at first glance. Crosby could surpass him (half career vs full career) one day, but not yet.

I'm kinda shocked at how little support he got last round.

I'm curious to hear arguments from people who don't have Kurri near the very top in this round, in terms of who is above him and why

Agree 100%.

And though Gretzky did most of the offensive work (after all, he was the best ever at that end) someone had to play defense in the other end. Kurri not only did it, he did it very, very well. As a winger with center responsibility.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Watched

I will call this, a load of Bull.

Either you never watched Devils playoff games or you have a clear bias. Because you know too much about the game to make such a statement.

Definitely watched.

Really no different than some of the alleged big hitters today. Look good when they connect, but how many times did Subban miss Marchand and kiss the boards while Price saved his hide?

Just like scorers not scoring on every shot.

Or reverse the equation, Stevens was bolder with his hitting than he was elsewhere because he knew that he had Martin Brodeur looking after him if he missed.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Offence or generating offence. 2 for 1.

Jari Kurri:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/k/kurrija01.html

Overall Kurri:

200 GP 106G 127A 233PTS

Edmonton:

146 GP 92G 110A 202PTS

Elsewhere

54 GP 14G 17A 31 PTS

Looks like a replaceable parts type player. Without results elsewhere.

http://www.nhl.com/stats/player?agg...er=gamesPlayed,gte,&sort=points,goals,assists

Basically much closer to Glenn Anderson than Gretzky or Messier.

http://www.nhl.com/stats/player?agg...er=gamesPlayed,gte,&sort=points,goals,assists

The offense on it's own may have been replaceable. Or the defensive side of things. But the full package? No, I don't think Kurri fits the description of a replaceable part. Excellent penalty killer, and could play center when required post-Gretzky, which is not common for a winger. Effective integration with a superior player isn't always a given either. See Esposito/Bobby Hull, Gretzky/Brett Hull.

Edmonton didn't actually experience much roster turnover from 1990 to 1991. Kurri leaving to play in Europe was the one major change. They went from winning the Cup convincingly over the President's Trophy winning Bruins (16-6 overall) to losing to a sub-.500 North Stars team in the Campbell Final (9-9 overall). His absence was clearly felt.

Kurri is the top winger available as I see it, though I would listen to arguments for Hull, who performed well in many losing causes and clearly had less help. I think Mahovlich is a pretty distant third in this race.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Definitely watched.

Really no different than some of the alleged big hitters today. Look good when they connect, but how many times did Subban miss Marchand and kiss the boards while Price saved his hide?

Just like scorers not scoring on every shot.

Or reverse the equation, Stevens was bolder with his hitting than he was elsewhere because he knew that he had Martin Brodeur looking after him if he missed.

If only Serge Saved had strong playoff goaltending; am I right?

 

[BenchBrawl]

Comparing Stevens with Subban, really? Even if we concentrate strictly on the big open-ice hits aspect of the game, Stevens was in people's head way more than Subban ever was.Stevens is in competition as the greatest open-ice hitter ever.His presence alone was a distraction to opponents.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Tools.

If only Serge Saved had strong playoff goaltending; am I right?

Defencemen adapt to the circumstances, others drive circumstances. Some much better than others.

Serge Savard drove circumstances with finesse, precision or physically using the appropriate tool for the moment.

 

[MXD]

Okay... That's a bit random, but am I the only person who could really do without Martin Brodeur in that group? I mean, everyone else has some kind of redeeming factor (and if they don't, they will eventually -- looking at you Steve Yzerman).

And Brodeur had instances where he was outright bad.