Round 2, Vote 7 (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 16th at midnight and continue through Sunday, June 18th at 11:59pm. Eastern time zone. Send PMs to quoipourquoi. I will release the results of the vote on Monday, June 19th.

Vote 7 Candidates

• Al MacInnis
• Bernie Parent
• Billy Smith
• Bobby Hull
• Chris Pronger
• Clint Benedict
• Dickie Moore
• Duncan Keith
• Frank Foyston
• Frank Mahovlich
• Frank McGee
• Howie Morenz
• Jacques Lemaire
• Jari Kurri
• JC Tremblay
• Martin Brodeur
• Paul Coffey
• Ray Bourque
• Scott Stevens
• Sergei Fedorov
• Steve Yzerman
• Terry Sawchuk

Click to read more...

 

[MXD]

YESSSSSS OR AT LEAST VERY INTERESTING CASES
•Dickie Moore
•JC Tremblay


OKAY, COOL, EXPECTED
•Frank Foyston
•Jacques Lemaire

YISH
•Al Macinnis

*****
•Howie Morenz
•Clint Benedict

YISH and ***** being candidates with whom I wouldn't exactly have started at their position (and in their era). I guess Macinnis is defensible at the very least, but Morenz and Benedict... Sorry, I don't get it.

 

[Michael Farkas]

YISH = Yes, I sincerely hope...?

I don't hate MacInnis...not saying he's my #1 this round...but I don't hate having him around certainly...what am I missing?

 

[MXD]

YISH = Yes, I sincerely hope...?

I don't hate MacInnis...not saying he's my #1 this round...but I don't hate having him around certainly...what am I missing?

If you told me that there would have been two new D-Men in the fold, I would probably have expected Tremblay, but not Macinnis.

I mean, I prefer Macinnis to a few players in our group at first glance.

 

[quoipourquoi]

I had Benedict as my 5th goalie or so coming in. I like him, Foyston, Pronger, and Stevens here. I wouldn't mind being sold on JC Tremblay and Dickie Moore.

 

[MXD]

I had Benedict as my 5th goalie or so coming in. I like him, Foyston, Pronger, and Stevens here. I wouldn't mind being sold on JC Tremblay and Dickie Moore.

Benedict strikes me as being really too good at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory to be considered.

 

[MXD]

JC Tremblay : At first glance, what makes him a very, very worthy candidate at this point is how good offensively he was in a mostly Pre-Orr context. Sure, it does help that his teams won, but that dynasty started picking up exactly as he started to himself pick up the offensive pace.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Benedict strikes me as being really too good at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory to be considered.

I have a similar issue with Brodeur this early. We might end up being light on goaltenders because of how prominent their lowlights look - especially on good teams like Benedict's and Brodeur's. Then again, I still wanted at least one more teammate above each of them.

 

[MXD]

I have a similar issue with Brodeur this early. We might end up being light on goaltenders because of how prominent their lowlights look - especially on good teams like Benedict's and Brodeur's. Then again, I still wanted at least one more teammate above each of them.

My other big issue with these two netminders in particular is that there they each had contemporary (ies) who were better at not doing so, but who generally played on lesser teams.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Not Really

JC Tremblay : At first glance, what makes him a very, very worthy candidate at this point is how good offensively he was in a mostly Pre-Orr context. Sure, it does help that his teams won, but that dynasty started picking up exactly as he started to himself pick up the offensive pace.

J.C. Tremblay

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/t/trembjc01.html

Pierre Pilote

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/p/pilotpi01.html

Pat Stapleton

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/s/staplpa01.html

Brad Park

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/p/parkbr01.html

All comparable offensively.

All careers surrounding the start of Bobby Orr's career.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Plus....

Benedict strikes me as being really too good at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory to be considered.

Plus how is Benedict a better playoff goaltender than Hap Holmes who won four Stanley cups with four different teams, eastern and western teams?

 

[MXD]

The latter two did their "thing" mostly Post-Orr (more accurately, during Orr, thus after a change of paradigm for evaluating D-Men).

But the parallel with Pilote is interesting however. Tremblay has more "relevant" longevity (in that, we don't care about WHA); however, and correct me if I'm wrong (anyone, not just C58), Pilote was somewhat better well-rounded as a player than Tremblay was. Tremblay numbers are impressive in context, but the context might be not quite what we makes it to be if Pilote managed somewhat similar offensive output.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Dickie Moore

The Dickie Moore Hat Trick.

Important member of his team throughout his playoff career, not only with Montreal - 4th in team playoff scoring in 1953, a leader of the 1956 - 60 dynasty including 1959 when he lead the team/league in playoff scoring when Beliveau and Maurice Richard missed most of the playoff inc. the finals

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/m/mooredi01.html

contributed beyond expectations in his brieff 1965 Toronto playoff stint. Very valuable veteran presence in 1968 with the Blues.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Voters in this project sure have a dim opinion of the 60s Leafs dynasty

 

[MXD]

Voters in this project sure have a dim opinion of the 60s Leafs dynasty

Well... There's Mahovlich, I guess

But I do admit that I expected one of Horton or Bower to be part of the discussion by this point (and that's without getting into the case of Red Kelly, who probably made it a little later than warranted).

 

[Canadiens1958]

Jacques Lemaire

Jacques Lemaire.Very underappreciated playoff warrior and performer.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/l/lemaija01.html

Rookie season replaced an injured Jean Beliveau in the finals, finished second on the team in scoring.

Outstanding in both game 7s in 1971, on the road.

In Boston, 3 assists on 4 goals at ES while contributing to a defensive approach that held Orr and Esposito scoreless.

In Chicago, 1 goal, 1 assist on 3 goals at ES, while contributing to a defensive approach that limited Bobby Hull to 1 PP asist.

1979 at home game 7 against Boston, 1 goal, 1 assist on the PP.

Overall, two Stanley Cup winning goals, outstanding defensively for 12 playoff seasons - not a weak or average one in the lot. Major contribution to the Conn Smythes won by Cournoyer and Lafleur his RWers.

Long overdue.

 

[Canadiens1958]

George Armstrong

Well... There's Mahovlich, I guess

But I do admit that I expected one of Horton or Bower to be part of the discussion by this point (and that's without getting into the case of Red Kelly, who probably made it a little later than warranted).

George Armstrong - in retrospect should have rated him higher and the underrated Allan Stanley.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Jacques Lemaire.Very underappreciated playoff warrior and performer.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/l/lemaija01.html

Rookie season replaced an injured Jean Beliveau in the finals, finished second on the team in scoring.

Outstanding in both game 7s in 1971, on the road.

In Boston, 3 assists on 4 goals at ES while contributing to a defensive approach that held Orr and Esposito scoreless.

In Chicago, 1 goal, 1 assist on 3 goals at ES, while contributing to a defensive approach that limited Bobby Hull to 1 PP asist.

1979 at home game 7 against Boston, 1 goal, 1 assist on the PP.

Overall, two Stanley Cup winning goals, outstanding defensively for 12 playoff seasons - not a weak or average one in the lot. Major contribution to the Conn Smythes won by Cournoyer and Lafleur his RWers.

Long overdue.

Jacques probably does have a case to appear on this list somewhere, but what does he have over Dave Keon or George Armstrong as a playoff performer, other than the color of his jersey?

Edit: I know, I know. I'm that annoying guy who didn't take the time to put together a Round 1 list myself, criticizing those who actually did put in the time. Boo to me

 

[MXD]

Jacques probably does have a case to appear on this list somewhere, but what does he have over Dave Keon or George Armstrong as a playoff performer, other than the color of his jersey?

Lemaire seems to have (at first glance) a distinct longvity/games advantage over Keon. Though it's smaller than the raw numbers would suggest because of the era.

There are many players that probably have a case to appear somewhere on the list, but won't.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Eligible

Jacques probably does have a case to appear on this list somewhere, but what does he have over Dave Keon or George Armstrong as a playoff performer, other than the color of his jersey?

Edit: I know, I know. I'm that annoying guy who didn't take the time to put together a Round 1 list myself, criticizing those who actually did put in the time. Boo to me

Lemaire is eligible while Keon should have been in the discussion earlier while Armstrong seems to have slipped thru the cracks. Let`s not compound omissions.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Keon & Armstrong haven't come up yet?

Was J.C. Tremblay any better than Guy Lapointe?

Can go with my top 3 from last round (Kurri, Smith, Hull).

Should be time for Fedorov & Stevens.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Al MacInnis. Not really a guy I had on my radar. He's got the Smythe, but the rest of his resume seems to be built on a lot of short runs where he was productive but enjoyed pretty limited team success. MacInnis played on pretty good teams for his whole career. Only getting out of the second round once after 1989 is disappointing. I don't see much of a case that he's anything but the last-ranked defenseman among those available.

JC Tremblay. An offensive driving force from the blueline for a dynasty, not dissimilar from Coffey in that sense. What was Tremblay's defensive reputation in the playoffs like? Stevens, Pronger, Keith, Bourque could all match up defensively against the other team's top skaters. Did Tremblay ever have to do that sort of heavy lifting?

Dickie Moore. A bit of a forgotten man to the annals of history. Over-shadowed by several teammates. I don't really have a firm opinion of Moore's value to those 50's Habs teams, so I've got a very open mind regarding his candidacy.

Jacques Lemaire. The top center on the dynasty that many consider the greatest ever took a lot longer to appear than I anticipated. Tough to find any flaws in Lemaire's resume. An all-around player that excelled regardless of the circumstances it would seem. 8 Stanley Cups in just 11 playoff appearances, and he was a key contributor to almost all of them.

Howie Morenz. MXD, why are you so down on Morenz? In my estimation, this is a player where the modest counting stats betray reality. The primary cog on the early Canadiens championship teams, winning 3 Stanley Cups + one NHL championship. This era was a bit of a hodge-podge in terms of player movement, rule changes, and no one team able to assert post-season dominance consistently. Similar to the post-2005 era in a lot of ways. The parallels between Morenz and Crosby (just voted onto the list) are plentiful in number.

Clint Benedict. The reputation of Benedict seems to yo-yo in these parts, so I expect opinions of him to be all over the map. I rated him pretty highly. There are some blemishes on his resume, but I view him in a similar way I view Brodeur. In a career that long playing the position where performances are far more volatile than defense or forward, you're going to have a some dips. Benedict performed fantastically with the Maroons after leaving Ottawa, for those wondering if he was "right place, right time" on those Senators teams.

Frank Foyston. A worthy candidate, the best playoff player that is associated primarily with the PCHA. Won Stanley Cups 12 seasons apart, no small feat of longevity in that era.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Sad, but not surprised that Malkin isn't there.

 

[overpass]

J.C. Tremblay

The recently released playoff plus-minus data makes J.C. Tremblay look very good.

J.C. Tremblay's NHL Playoff Career

Year | GP | G | A | P | +/- | Team +/- | Off-ice +/-
1961 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1
1962 | 6 | 0 | 2 | 2 | -1 | -4 | -3
1963 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -4 | -9 | -5
1964 | 7 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 0 | -5
1965 | 13 | 1 | 9 | 10 | 4 | -5 | -9
1966 | 10 | 2 | 9 | 11 | 1 | 6 | 5
1967 | 10 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 8 | 10 | 2
1968 | 13 | 3 | 6 | 9 | 14 | 19 | 5
1969 | 13 | 1 | 4 | 5 | 8 | 8 | 0
1971 | 20 | 3 | 14 | 17 | 5 | 13 | 8
1972 | 6 | 0 | 2 | 2 | -3 | -3 | 0
Total | 108 | 14 | 51 | 65 | 37 | 36 | -1

Tremblay was +37 on a team that was -1 when he was off the ice in the playoffs. During the 1965-1969 dynasty years, Tremblay was +35 on a team that was +3 when he was off the ice.

Montreal Canadiens leaders - playoff plus-minus 1961-1972
1. J.C. Tremblay: +37
2. Jacques Laperriere: +23
3. Jean Beliveau: +20

http://www.nhl.com/stats/player?agg...11972&filter=gamesPlayed,gte,1&sort=plusMinus

NHL leaders - playoff plus-minus 1961-1972
1. Bobby Orr: +50
2. Dallas Smith: +39 (Bobby Orr's partner)
3. J.C. Tremblay: +37

http://www.nhl.com/stats/player?agg...11972&filter=gamesPlayed,gte,1&sort=plusMinus

Tremblay was an elite scoring defenceman in the 1965-1969 playoffs, finishing third on his team in points. He was among the top scorers at even strength (22 points in 59 games, 5th on the team) and on the power play (17 points in 59 games, 4th on the team).

Leading Montreal Canadiens playoff scorers, 1965-1969

Player | GP | G | A | P | EVP | PPP
Jean Beliveau | 57 | 31 | 32 | 63 | 30 | 33
Dick Duff | 60 | 16 | 26 | 42 | 25 | 17
J.C. Tremblay | 59 | 9 | 32 | 41 | 22 | 17
Henri Richard | 58 | 18 | 22 | 40 | 28 | 12
Bobby Rousseau | 60 | 15 | 25 | 40 | 15 | 24
Yvan Cournoyer | 59 | 17 | 22 | 39 | 16 | 23
Ralph Backstrom | 60 | 17 | 16 | 33 | 29 | 4

 

[MXD]

^ That post raises an issue that hasn't been quite addressed so far in regards to any player -- deployment. Or sheltering.

I wasn't quite there at the time -- how was Tremblay deployed?