Round 2, Vote 6 (Stanley Cup Playoff Performers)

[Canadiens1958]

Point

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.

Build this point and you will have a buyer.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Chris Pronger

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.

Chris Pronger was effective in keeping the opposition away from the slot without the open ice head shots. So was Chara. Point is the confidence to take such risks, being caught out of position, requires trust that the goalie will come thru.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Chris Pronger was effective in keeping the opposition away from the slot without the open ice head shots. So was Chara. Point is the confidence to take such risks, being caught out of position, requires trust that the goalie will come thru.

Who is this player you are describing? Because defense-first Scott Stevens didn't get caught out of position looking for hits. Young (pre-Brodeur) Scott Stevens did take more chances

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Build this point and you will have a buyer.

In the case of the Oilers, the drop in offensive production upon Kurri's departure is clear. They scored 43 fewer regular season goals, dropping from 6th to 11th in league scoring. They only allowed 9 fewer than the previous season, which actually dropped their team defensive rank from 9th to 12th. In the playoffs, the lack of offense continued. The 1991 team was a full goal per game worse than the 1990 team. Over half a goal worse defensively.

Special teams play was a big factor. Kurri was an elite penalty killer and PP goal scorer. Edmonton was excellent in both categories in the 1990 playoffs, 21% PP and 86% PK. Both dropped to a lousy 13% PP and 78% PK in the 1991 post season.

Mark Messier missing 27 regular season games and playing injured in the playoffs was the only other major factor that I can identify that would have contributed to Edmonton slipping from champion to average team.

On the other side of the coin, Gretzky and the Kings were a mild disappointment in the playoffs from 1989-1992, before breaking through in 1993. This just happens to be the only playoff year they had a healthy Jari Kurri in the lineup from start to finish. To extend it even further, the Mighty Ducks won the only playoff series in their franchise history pre-Giguere with a very solid depth contribution from Kurri in his lone year with that franchise.

If Kurri was a replaceable part, a lot of coincidences need to be explained away.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Scott Stevens

Who is this player you are describing? Because defense-first Scott Stevens didn't get caught out of position looking for hits. Young (pre-Brodeur) Scott Stevens did take more chances

The Scott Stevens who regularly strayed to his partners side while headhunting with the Devils. Early Scott Stevens you see hipchecks,etc.

Crossing over to the partner`s side is known as being out of position. Having faith in your goalie to save the day if you miss.

 

[quoipourquoi]

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.

I know what you mean. Most players haven't been the best player on three finalists in five years - and certainly not as the common denominator for three entirely different franchises. But there goes Chris Pronger, making it obvious that he's doing the heaviest lifting.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Compensation

In the case of the Oilers, the drop in offensive production upon Kurri's departure is clear. They scored 43 fewer regular season goals, dropping from 6th to 11th in league scoring. They only allowed 9 fewer than the previous season, which actually dropped their team defensive rank from 9th to 12th. In the playoffs, the lack of offense continued. The 1991 team was a full goal per game worse than the 1990 team. Over half a goal worse defensively.

Special teams play was a big factor. Kurri was an elite penalty killer and PP goal scorer. Edmonton was excellent in both categories in the 1990 playoffs, 21% PP and 86% PK. Both dropped to a lousy 13% PP and 78% PK in the 1991 post season.

Mark Messier missing 27 regular season games and playing injured in the playoffs was the only other major factor that I can identify that would have contributed to Edmonton slipping from champion to average team.

On the other side of the coin, Gretzky and the Kings were a mild disappointment in the playoffs from 1989-1992, before breaking through in 1993. This just happens to be the only playoff year they had a healthy Jari Kurri in the lineup from start to finish. To extend it even further, the Mighty Ducks won the only playoff series in their franchise history pre-Giguere with a very solid depth contribution from Kurri in his lone year with that franchise.

If Kurri was a replaceable part, a lot of coincidences need to be explained away.

You are describing compensation for defensive shortcomings as opposed to driving the defensive side of the game.

Specifically, look at the Canadiens 1975 to 1980:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/MTL/1975.html

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/MTL/1976.html

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/MTL/1977.html

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/MTL/1978.html

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/MTL/1979.html

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/MTL/1980.html

1975,1976 and 1980 the Lafleur/Shutt combo was centered mainly by Pete Mahovlich, then Pierre Larouche. Offensively the line performed but was compensating for defensive shortcomings. While the defensive numbers appear attractive the defensive play lacked cohesion which alowed teams like Buffalo and Minnesota to exploit weaknesses. 1977 to 1979, centered mainly by Lemaire the line was equally strong offensively but was cohesive defensively and in step with the other lines.

So far you have evidence of Kurri being part of the Gretzky entourage and helping to compensate for defensive shortcomings, some encouraging play post Gretzky in Edmonton and a brief spark with Anaheim.Conversely with Lemaire you would have evidence from his early years as a swing C/LW integrating the offensive and defensive play,later with Cournoyer and Lafleur while at times getting extras from the likes of Chuck Lefley.

You also see similar play from Keon and George Armstrong in the playoffs, Bobby Clarke making Leach viable briefly.

No evidence of Jari Kurri at this level. Great player but still Lemaire, Keon, Clarke, Armstrong lite.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Valid Point

I know what you mean. Most players haven't been the best player on three finalists in five years - and certainly not as the common denominator for three entirely different franchises. But there goes Chris Pronger, making it obvious that he's doing the heaviest lifting.

Valid point. The ability to integrate a team and surpass expectations given the hand you are dealt is a valuable characteristic at playoff time.

The lingering question is how do we balance this strength with other nomadic / semi-nomadic d-men - Stevens, Coffey or team anchor d-men like Bourque, Keith, Savard?

The demands between moving between three teams over five seasons and the flow thru of players in Chicago over five seasons that Duncan Keith faced weigh roughly the same.

 

[FinLurker]

No evidence of Jari Kurri at this level. Great player but still Lemaire, Keon, Clarke, Armstrong lite.

I'm not involved in this project, but when watching old Oilers games and positioning of Gretzky, Kurri and Coffey I'm often wondered how late Kurri comes to the offensive zone. There's countless Gretzky highlights where Gretzky, Coffey (and left wing) are at the zone and Kurri comes from second wave center or third wave defenseman position. Also in the defensive zone Kurri is quite regularly at center position, which allows Gretzky to pressure the defenceman at the blue line. And when the counter attack opportunity ensues Coffey is quite often leading the rush. To me this means that the effect of Gretzky to Kurri's offensive success is overblown and Kurri's effect to Coffey's and Gretzky's defensive game is underestimated. To me the better question would be how much of Gretzky's and Coffey's points are because of Kurri's defensive game, which allowed quite liberal offensive thinking for those two.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Basic Hockey

I'm not involved in this project, but when watching old Oilers games and positioning of Gretzky, Kurri and Coffey I'm often wondered how late Kurri comes to the offensive zone. There's countless Gretzky highlights where Gretzky, Coffey (and left wing) are at the zone and Kurri comes from second wave center or third wave defenseman position. Also in the defensive zone Kurri is quite regularly at center position, which allows Gretzky to pressure the defenceman at the blue line. And when the counter attack opportunity ensues Coffey is quite often leading the rush. To me this means that the effect of Gretzky to Kurri's offensive success is overblown and Kurri's effect to Coffey's and Gretzky's defensive game is underestimated. To me the better question would be how much of Gretzky's and Coffey's points are because of Kurri's defensive game, which allowed quite liberal offensive thinking for those two.

Basic hockey strategy from the era where you had a lead winger and a trailing winger on the rush and on the backcheck.

Coffey free-lanced, playing LD or RD, often switching during a shift.
Regularly he would join the rush on the RW as a LHS.

Kurri was a RHS playing RW.

Other than Lee Fogolin the Oilers did not have any RHS defencemen of consequence.

Kurri playing the trailer was the logical and default option.Benefit to Kurri offensively was that as a trailer behind a rushing defenceman who varied sides it was difficult to assign a checker to him.

His strength with the Oilers during the Gretzky and Coffey era was the ability to exploit offensively and defensively the favourable 2 on 1 triangles that developed due to the Oilers speed.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

No evidence of Jari Kurri at this level. Great player but still Lemaire, Keon, Clarke, Armstrong lite.

I can definitely listen to arguments for all of those players to be rated ahead of Kurri, especially Lemaire and Keon. But be that as it may, none are available for voting as of yet. I think it's reasonable to bring their names up for comparison purposes (I openly wondered where Savard and Chelios were when Pronger appeared), but how Kurri compares to other wingers Hull and Mahovlich and teammate Coffey is more relevant to this voting round.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Unless.....

I can definitely listen to arguments for all of those players to be rated ahead of Kurri, especially Lemaire and Keon. But be that as it may, none are available for voting as of yet. I think it's reasonable to bring their names up for comparison purposes (I openly wondered where Savard and Chelios were when Pronger appeared), but how Kurri compares to other wingers Hull and Mahovlich and teammate Coffey is more relevant to this voting round.

True. Unless one wishes to defer the complete group or focus on one, say Hull who was a playoff bright light in Chicago.

 

[The Panther]

Okay, did someone seriously say Jari Kurri was a "replaceable" part of his team?

When I read things like that, I have to wonder how (un-)knowledgeable hockey fans can be despite having (evidently) watched a lot of games over many years. That is just ridiculous. Borderline offensively stupid.

Who's the only NHLer since expansion (ever...?) to lead the playoffs in goals 4 times? Not Esposito, not Bossy, not Gretzky, not Hull. It's Jari Kurri. His playoff stats for Edmonton are otherwordly.

He scored 19 goals in 1985, matching Reg Leach's all-time record, but he was a bit inconsistent, scoring 12 (!) in one series against Chicago, and then going cold in the Finals until the last game. This contrasts with his other appearances in the Final, when he was a dynamo. Among others, this includes the OT game-winner in game 2 of the 1987 Final, and the game-winner in game 7.

Kurri was so clutch. It was he, even more than Gretzky, who put out the Flames in four-straight games in 1988. Kurri scored the game-winner late in the third period of game one, then scored the game-tier late in the third in game two (neither assisted by Gretzky), setting the stage for Wayne's famous OT winner (set up by Kurri). Kurri also scored the OT winner in game 4 against Detroit in 1988 (again not assisted by Gretzky), which basically killed the Red Wings off.

Oilers fans remember the classic 1990 first-rounder against Winnipeg, in which Edmonton trailed 3 games to 1. The Oilers sneaked out a game 5 victory at home, and then went to the white-out in Winnipeg for game 6, facing elimination again. After Winnipeg stormed back to tie in the third, it looked like the Oilers' were going out in the first-round for the second straight year. Enter Kurri the hero again, as his late third-period bomb won the game (and effectively the series).

Concluding his perfect 10 years with Edmonton, Kurri raised the bar yet again in the 1990 Finals. Game one, and Petr Klima ends one of the longest games in history in OT, assisted by...? Kurri. Then, in game two, on his 30th birthday -- and just days before his final game with Edmonton -- Kurri steals the show, scoring 3 goals and 2 assists in game two. The Stanley Cup was effectively won, again, thanks in large part to Kurri (not to forget Ranford).

Here's another factoid for ya: When Jari left the Oilers (and the NHL) in spring 1990, he walked away as the #1 NHL playoff goal-scorer in history.

Most of all, he was clutch. He was always there, the player who would get it done when it counted most (stand up Joe Thornton). Even in 1986, when he was partially shut down by the Flames, Kurri scored a couple of key goals and he set-up Messier for the game tier in game 7, at which point the Oil were gaining momentum and looked like on the verge of coming back (but we all know what happened).

One aspect of Kurri's game that has gone forever under-appreciated -- particularly by those who didn't see him play and think he was only a trigger-man for Gretzky -- is his passing and playmaking. He was undoubtedly one of the greatest passers I've ever seen. (He currently ranks 31st all time in assists, ahead of such players as Guy LaFleur, Peter Stastny, and Denis Potvin, and way ahead of players like Brett Hull and Mike Gartner). Obviously Gretzky's playmaking pushed Kurri's totals in goals, but at the same time Kurri's playmaking and skills assisted Gretzky's goals. As Harry Neale points out on HNIC broadcast in the '90 Finals, "Kurri is an excellent passer... when this guy touches the puck, good things happen."

Indeed, I personally think Kurri's ability to complement Gretzky (in Edmonton, that is) and play at his level is one of his two greatest achievements (after only his playoff heroics).

Kurri was obviously not a physical player, but not because he couldn't be -- he was strong and solid. He was very disciplined and rarely, if ever, took a bad penalty or lost his cool under pressure. He was tough (despite what idiots like Don Cherry thought.) There are memorable sequences, such as in the 1988 playoffs against Winnipeg, where Kurri was belted to the ice by a vicious cross-check and, in one motion, returned to his feet to slap home another back-breaking goal.

Finally, let's not forget that Kurri was a defensively solid player. It was he who would go back to join the back-check when Gretzky would be up-ice (a system those two worked to perfection). While scoring 50 goals a year, Kurri was also noted as one of the best 'defensive forwards' in the NHL at the time.

Unbelievably, Kurri's play actually improved for two seasons after Gretzky left Edmonton, and he assumed more of a leadership role as well.


The only knock on Kurri might be that he got a bit soft during 1990-91 in Italy and was never quite the same after he came back to the NHL. Having said that, 9 goals and 17 points in the playoffs, as a second-line center, isn't too bad. Hell, even when the Rangers crapped out in 1996, old-Kurri was tied for third in team scoring.


It's actually kind of insulting to Kurri that he's only now under consideration.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Replaceable

Okay, did someone seriously say Jari Kurri was a "replaceable" part of his team?

When I read things like that, I have to wonder how (un-)knowledgeable hockey fans can be despite having (evidently) watched a lot of games over many years. That is just ridiculous. Borderline offensively stupid.

Who's the only NHLer since expansion (ever...?) to lead the playoffs in goals 4 times? Not Esposito, not Bossy, not Gretzky, not Hull. It's Jari Kurri. His playoff stats for Edmonton are otherwordly.

He scored 19 goals in 1985, matching Reg Leach's all-time record, but he was a bit inconsistent, scoring 12 (!) in one series against Chicago, and then going cold in the Finals until the last game. This contrasts with his other appearances in the Final, when he was a dynamo. Among others, this includes the OT game-winner in game 2 of the 1987 Final, and the game-winner in game 7.

Kurri was so clutch. It was he, even more than Gretzky, who put out the Flames in four-straight games in 1988. Kurri scored the game-winner late in the third period of game one, then scored the game-tier late in the third in game two (neither assisted by Gretzky), setting the stage for Wayne's famous OT winner (set up by Kurri). Kurri also scored the OT winner in game 4 against Detroit in 1988 (again not assisted by Gretzky), which basically killed the Red Wings off.

Oilers fans remember the classic 1990 first-rounder against Winnipeg, in which Edmonton trailed 3 games to 1. The Oilers sneaked out a game 5 victory at home, and then went to the white-out in Winnipeg for game 6, facing elimination again. After Winnipeg stormed back to tie in the third, it looked like the Oilers' were going out in the first-round for the second straight year. Enter Kurri the hero again, as his late third-period bomb won the game (and effectively the series).

Concluding his perfect 10 years with Edmonton, Kurri raised the bar yet again in the 1990 Finals. Game one, and Petr Klima ends one of the longest games in history in OT, assisted by...? Kurri. Then, in game two, on his 30th birthday -- and just days before his final game with Edmonton -- Kurri steals the show, scoring 3 goals and 2 assists in game two. The Stanley Cup was effectively won, again, thanks in large part to Kurri (not to forget Ranford).

Here's another factoid for ya: When Jari left the Oilers (and the NHL) in spring 1990, he walked away as the #1 NHL playoff goal-scorer in history.


Most of all, he was clutch. He was always there, the player who would get it done when it counted most (stand up Joe Thornton). Even in 1986, when he was partially shut down by the Flames, Kurri scored a couple of key goals and he set-up Messier for the game tier in game 7, at which point the Oil were gaining momentum and looked like on the verge of coming back (but we all know what happened).

One aspect of Kurri's game that has gone forever under-appreciated -- particularly by those who didn't see him play and think he was only a trigger-man for Gretzky -- is his passing and playmaking. He was undoubtedly one of the greatest passers I've ever seen. (He currently ranks 31st all time in assists, ahead of such players as Guy LaFleur, Peter Stastny, and Denis Potvin, and way ahead of players like Brett Hull and Mike Gartner). Obviously Gretzky's playmaking pushed Kurri's totals in goals, but at the same time Kurri's playmaking and skills assisted Gretzky's goals. As Harry Neale points out on HNIC broadcast in the '90 Finals, "Kurri is an excellent passer... when this guy touches the puck, good things happen."

Indeed, I personally think Kurri's ability to complement Gretzky (in Edmonton, that is) and play at his level is one of his two greatest achievements (after only his playoff heroics).

Kurri was obviously not a physical player, but not because he couldn't be -- he was strong and solid. He was very disciplined and rarely, if ever, took a bad penalty or lost his cool under pressure. He was tough (despite what idiots like Don Cherry thought.) There are memorable sequences, such as in the 1988 playoffs against Winnipeg, where Kurri was belted to the ice by a vicious cross-check and, in one motion, returned to his feet to slap home another back-breaking goal.

Finally, let's not forget that Kurri was a defensively solid player. It was he who would go back to join the back-check when Gretzky would be up-ice (a system those two worked to perfection). While scoring 50 goals a year, Kurri was also noted as one of the best 'defensive forwards' in the NHL at the time.

Unbelievably, Kurri's play actually improved for two seasons after Gretzky left Edmonton, and he assumed more of a leadership role as well.


The only knock on Kurri might be that he got a bit soft during 1990-91 in Italy and was never quite the same after he came back to the NHL. Having said that, 9 goals and 17 points in the playoffs, as a second-line center, isn't too bad. Hell, even when the Rangers crapped out in 1996, old-Kurri was tied for third in team scoring.


It's actually kind of insulting to Kurri that he's only now under consideration.

Surprise, surprise, everyone in every occupation is a replaceable part.

Avs actually won an SC without Forsberg in the finals - injured, Pittsburg won a SC series without Mario Lemieux, Canadiens won an SC with both Beliveau and Maurice Richard injured, missing the finals.Red Wings won two series and an SC with Gordie Howe missing all but part of the first game due to a skull fracture. Then you have Lester Patrick, Don Simmons, Bob Champoux ...... long list, replacing great or key players for a game or two.

Back at you. Defined by your own words.

 

[Sentinel]

I will side with Kyle and Panther here. Kurri is criminally underrated here.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

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.

Over the 8 year stretch that covered the Devils 3 Cups, Steven's was +41, leading the playoffs twice. Guess Brodeur was looking after him more often than anyone else.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Expected

Over the 8 year stretch that covered the Devils 3 Cups, Steven's was +41, leading the playoffs twice. Guess Brodeur was looking after him more often than anyone else.

Stevens was the ES TOI leader as well so what would you expect?

Just an example of excellent cohesive team play.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Stevens was the ES TOI leader as well so what would you expect?

Just an example of excellent cohesive team play.

ES TOI leader leads to expectance of best +/-? Since when?

Current ES TOI leaders of Pens & Preds are not close +/- leaders on their respective teams.

 

[MXD]

ES TOI leader leads to expectance of best +/-? Since when?

Current ES TOI leaders of Pens & Preds are not close +/- leaders on their respective teams.

Well, if ES TOI leaders aren't +/- leaders on a team with good goaltending, it means two things :

- Some players who are sheltered shouldn't be.
- The ES TOI leaders should probably not be ES TOI leaders.

Besides, it's safe to assume Brodeur didn't become magically better when playing behind Scott Stevens. The results might be better, but Brodeur himself must be presumed to not have been better (over a long period).

 

[K Fleur]

I don't know if it's the time for him yet, but I found this interesting.

Playoff scoring leaders through players age 29 seasons:

1. Wayne Gretzky - 284
2. Jari Kurri - 202
3. Mark Messier - 200
4. Glenn Anderson - 170
5. Sidney Crosby - 157
6. Bryan Trottier - 156
7. Mike Bossy - 155
8. Jaromir Jagr - 147
9. Peter Forsberg - 143 (Goal Tiebreaker)
10. Denis Potvin - 143

 

[BenchBrawl]

I don't know if it's the time for him yet, but I found this interesting.

Playoff scoring leaders through players age 29 seasons:

1. Wayne Gretzky - 284
2. Jari Kurri - 202
3. Mark Messier - 200
4. Glenn Anderson - 170
5. Sidney Crosby - 157
6. Bryan Trottier - 156
7. Mike Bossy - 155
8. Jaromir Jagr - 147
9. Peter Forsberg - 143 (Goal Tiebreaker)
10. Denis Potvin - 143

This is actually quite amazing, even if points totals disqualify a lot of players throughout history.If we twist the "age 29" requirement a bit and just assume number of NHL seasons instead, Malkin would be very high too.This doesn't prove anything, but it's nice to see.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

I don't know if it's the time for him yet, but I found this interesting.

Playoff scoring leaders through players age 29 seasons:

1. Wayne Gretzky - 284
2. Jari Kurri - 202
3. Mark Messier - 200
4. Glenn Anderson - 170
5. Sidney Crosby - 157
6. Bryan Trottier - 156
7. Mike Bossy - 155
8. Jaromir Jagr - 147
9. Peter Forsberg - 143 (Goal Tiebreaker)
10. Denis Potvin - 143

I think Crosby has a solid case to be towards the bottom end of the ballots in this round.

Among the centers, I rate him above Gilmour, Yzerman, and Esposito. Gilmour showed the ability to carry a team in Crosby-like fashion a couple times, but still came up short of even reaching the final in those instances. Yzerman and Crosby are now tied in Finals appearances. Both have some negatives in terms of being upset or not performing up to expectations in years where their team was favoured, but Yzerman has more IMO and had a better supporting cast. Crosby has shown greater adaptability than Esposito, and team results are no worse than even. I could listen to arguments for Crosby over Boucher, McGee, and Fedorov. Honestly, rating him as the top center available isn't an indefensible position by any means.

As far as the wingers go, I think the depth and consistency of Kurri's resume keeps him ahead at the moment. Showed the ability to combine explosive offense while being the key defensive player on his line moreso than Crosby, who clearly has had to throttle back the offense to improve other areas. I have Crosby ahead of Mahovlich though, who by all accounts was less important than multiple teammates on his Cup-winning clubs. Bobby Hull has the stigma of "you should have won more" dogging him. Crosby certainly would erase that with a third Cup, and probably already did in the eyes of most with his second last spring anyway. Still, Hull's ability to score year after year against 60's Original Six teams that were usually deep defensively and featured HOF goaltenders is impressive. Clearly his teammates let him down more often Hull let them down. Close call I think.

What are people's opinions on Keith vs Crosby, the two active players? I had Keith well ahead on my initial list, but that was of course submitted before Crosby helped get Pittsburgh back to the Final and Keith face-planted in a humiliating four game sweep against an underdog.

I would say Keith has had more support from his forward group than Crosby has had from his defense group as a whole. I feel Keith has the best individual run (2015), producing near a point-per-game clip while being leaned on heavily defensively in all situations, and handling those demands throughout. A unanimous Conn Smythe versus a fairly contentious one pushes Keith over the top for me at the moment.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Linemates

I think Crosby has a solid case to be towards the bottom end of the ballots in this round.

Among the centers, I rate him above Gilmour, Yzerman, and Esposito. Gilmour showed the ability to carry a team in Crosby-like fashion a couple times, but still came up short of even reaching the final in those instances. Yzerman and Crosby are now tied in Finals appearances. Both have some negatives in terms of being upset or not performing up to expectations in years where their team was favoured, but Yzerman has more IMO and had a better supporting cast. Crosby has shown greater adaptability than Esposito, and team results are no worse than even. I could listen to arguments for Crosby over Boucher, McGee, and Fedorov. Honestly, rating him as the top center available isn't an indefensible position by any means.

As far as the wingers go, I think the depth and consistency of Kurri's resume keeps him ahead at the moment. Showed the ability to combine explosive offense while being the key defensive player on his line moreso than Crosby, who clearly has had to throttle back the offense to improve other areas. I have Crosby ahead of Mahovlich though, who by all accounts was less important than multiple teammates on his Cup-winning clubs. Bobby Hull has the stigma of "you should have won more" dogging him. Crosby certainly would erase that with a third Cup, and probably already did in the eyes of most with his second last spring anyway. Still, Hull's ability to score year after year against 60's Original Six teams that were usually deep defensively and featured HOF goaltenders is impressive. Clearly his teammates let him down more often Hull let them down. Close call I think.

What are people's opinions on Keith vs Crosby, the two active players? I had Keith well ahead on my initial list, but that was of course submitted before Crosby helped get Pittsburgh back to the Final and Keith face-planted in a humiliating four game sweep against an underdog.

I would say Keith has had more support from his forward group than Crosby has had from his defense group as a whole. I feel Keith has the best individual run (2015), producing near a point-per-game clip while being leaned on heavily defensively in all situations, and handling those demands throughout. A unanimous Conn Smythe versus a fairly contentious one pushes Keith over the top for me at the moment.

Crosby has been extremely impressive playing significant time with basic dept or role players the last two years. Not seen since Beliveau in the sixties breaking in rookies/young players during the playoffs.

Keith is more of a core player.

 

[BraveCanadian]

I think Crosby has a solid case to be towards the bottom end of the ballots in this round.

Among the centers, I rate him above Gilmour, Yzerman, and Esposito. Gilmour showed the ability to carry a team in Crosby-like fashion a couple times, but still came up short of even reaching the final in those instances. Yzerman and Crosby are now tied in Finals appearances. Both have some negatives in terms of being upset or not performing up to expectations in years where their team was favoured, but Yzerman has more IMO and had a better supporting cast. Crosby has shown greater adaptability than Esposito, and team results are no worse than even. I could listen to arguments for Crosby over Boucher, McGee, and Fedorov. Honestly, rating him as the top center available isn't an indefensible position by any means.

As far as the wingers go, I think the depth and consistency of Kurri's resume keeps him ahead at the moment. Showed the ability to combine explosive offense while being the key defensive player on his line moreso than Crosby, who clearly has had to throttle back the offense to improve other areas. I have Crosby ahead of Mahovlich though, who by all accounts was less important than multiple teammates on his Cup-winning clubs. Bobby Hull has the stigma of "you should have won more" dogging him. Crosby certainly would erase that with a third Cup, and probably already did in the eyes of most with his second last spring anyway. Still, Hull's ability to score year after year against 60's Original Six teams that were usually deep defensively and featured HOF goaltenders is impressive. Clearly his teammates let him down more often Hull let them down. Close call I think.

What are people's opinions on Keith vs Crosby, the two active players? I had Keith well ahead on my initial list, but that was of course submitted before Crosby helped get Pittsburgh back to the Final and Keith face-planted in a humiliating four game sweep against an underdog.

I would say Keith has had more support from his forward group than Crosby has had from his defense group as a whole. I feel Keith has the best individual run (2015), producing near a point-per-game clip while being leaned on heavily defensively in all situations, and handling those demands throughout. A unanimous Conn Smythe versus a fairly contentious one pushes Keith over the top for me at the moment.

Crosby has never carried a team in Gilmour-like fashion.

Most players on this list so far haven't.

 

[K Fleur]

Crosby has never carried a team in Gilmour-like fashion.

Most players on this list so far haven't.

Indeed, because Crosby's teams have gone farther more frequently.

Already.

Gilmour from 93-94 was phenomenal, but at the end all his "carrying" amounts to is two conference finals losses. One of which his team blew a 3-2 series lead, and another where his team managed to only steal one game.