Round 2, Vote 6 (Stanley Cup Playoff Performers)

[seventieslord]

How many were they expected to win? In the 11 original six years Hull played, the Black Hawks came in first in the regular season just once. They even came in 3rd the year they won the Cup.

I went off the top of my head. I was under the impression that they had 3-4 regular season titles. If that's not the case, then... well, how embarrassing.

But even if a team is 2nd for half a dozen years, one or two of those times you should come out with a cup.

 

[MXD]

How many were they expected to win? In the 11 original six years Hull played, the Black Hawks came in first in the regular season just once. They even came in 3rd the year they won the Cup.

I went off the top of my head. I was under the impression that they had 3-4 regular season titles. If that's not the case, then... well, how embarrassing.

But even if a team is 2nd for half a dozen years, one or two of those times you should come out with a cup.

I think they had three (without looking), but Dennis was only counting O6 seasons.

But yeah, I understand what you suggest. I mean, at some point, upsets are probably expected, and 1st places are probably expected to be upset (in a 6-team league).

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

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.

To add context, Stevens' +41 is even more impressive than it originally appears, as he was hard matched against the top lines of opponents and saw a ton of defensive zone faceoffs.

For example, in the 2003 Cup win, Pat Burns had the team intentionally ice the puck literally every time the top line of the opponent was on the ice without Stevens out there, if an on the fly change was difficult. If the big scorers of the opponents were on the ice, Burns would rather have a defensive zone faceoff with Stevens, than play a neutral zone game without him on the ice. I think that the Devils' usage of Scott Stevens is a big reason for the rule change that teams could no longer change players on an icing.

Another example:

When rewatching the 2000 finals there was a graphic saying that Stevens had been out for IIRC 144 of 156 Modano shifts.

The Stevens vs Modano figure sounds about right, but how on Earth did you remember it?

I was rewatchng it a few monrhs ago. I have a good memory for numbers and that stat was worth remembering. I might be wrong but it was 90% or more.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=32823669&postcount=18

 

[Canadiens1958]

Funny....

To add context, Stevens' +41 is even more impressive than it originally appears, as he was hard matched against the top lines of opponents and saw a ton of defensive zone faceoffs.

For example, in the 2003 Cup win, Pat Burns had the team intentionally ice the puck literally every time the top line of the opponent was on the ice without Stevens out there. If the big scorers of the opponents were on the ice, Burns would rather have a defensive zone faceoff with Stevens, than play a neutral zone game without him on the ice. I think that the Devils' usage of Scott Stevens is a big reason for the rule change that teams could no longer change players on an icing.

Funny........ Stevens turned 39 that April 1.

You have described an old tactic used to hide an old player`s lack of speed/mobility, changing on the fly would not work very well. Get him properly positioned on the faceoff so he would not have to face the speed on the rush.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Funny........ Stevens turned 39 that April 1.

You have described an old tactic used to hide an old player`s lack of speed/mobility, changing on the fly would not work very well. Get him properly positioned on the faceoff so he would not have to face the speed on the rush.

The Devils changed on the fly too... I didn't feel it necessary to post the obvious.

Changed my previous statement to say, "For example, in the 2003 Cup win, Pat Burns had the team intentionally ice the puck literally every time the top line of the opponent was on the ice without Stevens out there, if an on the fly change was difficult.."

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I think they had three (without looking), but Dennis was only counting O6 seasons.

But yeah, I understand what you suggest. I mean, at some point, upsets are probably expected, and 1st places are probably expected to be upset (in a 6-team league).

1970 Chicago tied for 1st overall with Boston. That was the only time they were first post 06 with Hull.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Re: Parent. I'm just not that interested in him. I wasn't that interested in him in the goalie project either. Super defensive team, two years of anything good...never had to go through Montreal...and in the third year (1976) they made it with his minimal contribution...Bobby Clarke drove the bus, Parent killed off an inordinate amount of penalties, sure...but there are guys with 3, 4 and 5 impact runs...Parent has two, I don't think he makes the list period...

Not saying you're wrong, but Parent did win the Smythe both years.

But do we over-value winning the trophy, perhaps? I mean that in the sense that Clarke or somebody else may have been one vote away from winning in both instances for all we know. And Parent's big claim to fame is the back to back Smythe's. It's hard to escape the fact that we probably think less of his candidacy if he performed the exact same but the trophy voting went differently.

 

[Michael Farkas]

It's like anything else with trophy counting (which is not said in an accusatory or derisive manner), some nuance is lost. The Conn Smythe is not a guarantee that player was actually the best player in the playoffs. Being that it is harder to pluck out two-way or defensive play from goal scoring (Justin Williams) or goalie stats (Thomas, Ward) we end up short on Conn Smythes for, say, Anze Kopitar, Chara/Seidenberg/Krejci, or Brind'Amour...or, perhaps in this case, Clarke, who was able to win twice without a #1 dman which I'm not sure has been done in the expansion (any?) era...then went back a third time with part-time Parent...Parent was good, I don't deny that, but he has such a narrow scope of relevance compared to his teams that I find it tough to assign him too much praise...

 

[Canadiens1958]

Bernie Parent

It's like anything else with trophy counting (which is not said in an accusatory or derisive manner), some nuance is lost. The Conn Smythe is not a guarantee that player was actually the best player in the playoffs. Being that it is harder to pluck out two-way or defensive play from goal scoring (Justin Williams) or goalie stats (Thomas, Ward) we end up short on Conn Smythes for, say, Anze Kopitar, Chara/Seidenberg/Krejci, or Brind'Amour...or, perhaps in this case, Clarke, who was able to win twice without a #1 dman which I'm not sure has been done in the expansion (any?) era...then went back a third time with part-time Pafsofrent...Parent was good, I don't deny that, but he has such a narrow scope of relevance compared to his teams that I find it tough to assign him too much praise...

1974 and 1975 playoffs came down to whether Bernie Parent could outplay the opposing goalies in a significant fashion. Team defensive play lead by Clarke reduced each series to a goaltending dual, especially the finals. Parent prevailed, earning the Smythes.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Define "goaltending duel"...are we talking Nabokov/Turco from 2008 goalie duel or Giguere/Fernandez 2003...

The distinction being, Nabokov/Turco put on (oddly, those guys...) a clinic in a more open game...Giguere/Fernandez were facing shots chipped out of the rough for a week...

Outside of copious power play opportunities against (I presume), was Parent really insulated well enough where he didn't have to be the difference maker...I'm not sure how many complete games exist from the 1974 thru 1976 playoffs, but I think that would be a worthwhile venture to pursue...

That said, I don't mean it to sound like Parent deserves no credit...I'm just wondering aloud if he belongs on a list like this when he only has two relevant seasons...I wondered the same thing on the goalie list in terms of how high he should actually be ranked...

To be clear, because this is the internet, I'm not trying to make a claim...I'm genuinely curious if this nut should be cracked open further given some circumstances and what I know about the team's style of play...

 

[Canadiens1958]

Definitions

Define "goaltending duel"...are we talking Nabokov/Turco from 2008 goalie duel or Giguere/Fernandez 2003...

The distinction being, Nabokov/Turco put on (oddly, those guys...) a clinic in a more open game...Giguere/Fernandez were facing shots chipped out of the rough for a week...

Outside of copious power play opportunities against (I presume), was Parent really insulated well enough where he didn't have to be the difference maker...I'm not sure how many complete games exist from the 1974 thru 1976 playoffs, but I think that would be a worthwhile venture to pursue...

That said, I don't mean it to sound like Parent deserves no credit...I'm just wondering aloud if he belongs on a list like this when he only has two relevant seasons...I wondered the same thing on the goalie list in terms of how high he should actually be ranked...

To be clear, because this is the internet, I'm not trying to make a claim...I'm genuinely curious if this nut should be cracked open further given some circumstances and what I know about the team's style of play...

Issue is avoiding the definition of 1970s performance in 2000 - 2010 terms.

Same would apply to the one goalie system era.

Parent did register shutouts in the two cup clinching games - Flyers were marginally outshot.

Overlooked question - the advantage to the Flyers in 1974 and 1975 facing finalists who were small rink teams - Boston and Buffalo. Not so in 1976 and 1980.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Given the caliber of their defensemen, that's a good point. Their forwards and general tactics seemed to insulate their defense and, in turn, insulated their goaltender...

The rest of the points are fair and well taken...

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Given the caliber of their defensemen, that's a good point. Their forwards and general tactics seemed to insulate their defense and, in turn, insulated their goaltender...

The rest of the points are fair and well taken...

Philly's tactics went both ways. Yes, they were a very defensive team, but they also took a ton of penalties, which they could afford to do as their penalty killing (led by Parent?) was excellent.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Right, I include that caveat a couple of times in my musings...that said, no matter how you slice it, the large majority of games and series and seasons is spent not shorthanded...

I don't know...he's not that relevant to me anyway right now...we have guys with 3, 4, and 5 impact playoff runs...he's on 2...I doubt twos applies to the list at all...

 

[MXD]

My biggest gripe with Parent is not necessarily the fact he only had two impact playoff runs, but also that those runs happened on teams playing .718 and .706 hockey, respectively.

(Not saying he didn't have a word to say on his teams achieving those records, of course).

 

[Canadiens1958]

Pre Oilers

Philly's tactics went both ways. Yes, they were a very defensive team, but they also took a ton of penalties, which they could afford to do as their penalty killing (led by Parent?) was excellent.

Taking a ton of penalties and playing shorthanded is not the same.

The coincidental minor rule was put in place after the Oilers exploited it to create open ice to advantage for their stars/speed in 4 on 4 and 3 on 3 situations.

Previously the Flyers, from the era in question, exploited coincidental majors at 5 on 5 in a similar fashion. Fighting majors, resulting misconducts or ejections forced teams to play with scrambled lines. Shero was more adept at juggling his players and the Flyers had much more game experience in such situations that they had a net advantage.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

It's like anything else with trophy counting (which is not said in an accusatory or derisive manner), some nuance is lost. The Conn Smythe is not a guarantee that player was actually the best player in the playoffs. Being that it is harder to pluck out two-way or defensive play from goal scoring (Justin Williams) or goalie stats (Thomas, Ward) we end up short on Conn Smythes for, say, Anze Kopitar, Chara/Seidenberg/Krejci, or Brind'Amour...or, perhaps in this case, Clarke, who was able to win twice without a #1 dman which I'm not sure has been done in the expansion (any?) era...then went back a third time with part-time Parent...Parent was good, I don't deny that, but he has such a narrow scope of relevance compared to his teams that I find it tough to assign him too much praise...

I don't follow this as argument against Parent. Can't we also say:

"Parent, who was able to win twice without a #1 dman which I'm not sure has been done in the expansion (any?) era.."

 

[Michael Farkas]

We can...until 1976 when Clarke did it with a fringe NHLer and then again in 1980 with Peeters...that kind of pimps Clarke in some regard...

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Taking a ton of penalties and playing shorthanded is not the same.

The coincidental minor rule was put in place after the Oilers exploited it to create open ice to advantage for their stars/speed in 4 on 4 and 3 on 3 situations.

Previously the Flyers, from the era in question, exploited coincidental majors at 5 on 5 in a similar fashion. Fighting majors, resulting misconducts or ejections forced teams to play with scrambled lines. Shero was more adept at juggling his players and the Flyers had much more game experience in such situations that they had a net advantage.

Flyers also played shorthanded a lot more than most teams.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Issue is avoiding the definition of 1970s performance in 2000 - 2010 terms.

Same would apply to the one goalie system era.

Parent did register shutouts in the two cup clinching games - Flyers were marginally outshot.

Overlooked question - the advantage to the Flyers in 1974 and 1975 facing finalists who were small rink teams - Boston and Buffalo. Not so in 1976 and 1980.

Good point.

It appears that for goalies that played in the 70's, Parents career Goals Against of 2.42 is 2nd only to Dryden's 2.40.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Voting is open. Big thumbs up to all the open ballots that came in last round.

 

[quoipourquoi]

We currently have 8 ballots from Round 1 participants and 2 open ballots. Pretty solid stuff. Problem is that the ballots are so diverse, we practically have an 8-way tie from 2nd-9th place.

I would encourage another Round 1 participant to come in and break the ties. Or make more ties.

 

[BenchBrawl]

I'll vote, somehow missed your post that voting was open.I'm not sure how this happened as I have been present lately and was waiting for it

 

[MXD]

I'll vote right now, srry for missing int he first place.

 

[quoipourquoi]

I'll vote right now, srry for missing int he first place.

You just tied everything up again.

seventieslord, I don't suppose you could help us out.