Round 2, Vote 7 (Stanley Cup Playoff Performers)

[Hawkey Town 18]

Function of the opposition. Nashville`s strength is on the left side, mainly Seabrook`s responsibility. Chicago was swept yet Keith was - 6 while Seabrook was -3.

I brought up Keith's superior +/- over 12 series resulting in 3 stanley cups and you come back with one series where practically the entire team was a tire fire. Wouldn't you say my sampling holds more weight?

 

[Canadiens1958]

No

I brought up Keith's superior +/- over 12 series resulting in 3 stanley cups and you come back with one series where practically the entire team was a tire fire. Wouldn't you say my sampling holds more weight?

No because a team plays one series at a time not 12.

Do not have to look at series against all teams just the ones against Montreal to determine that the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s Bruins lacked overall team speed. That they could skate against most teams matters not at all.

Likewise seeing how Seabrook and Keith play against a specific type of opposition breaks down respective strengths and weaknesses.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

No because a team plays one series at a time not 12.

Do not have to look at series against all teams just the ones against Montreal to determine that the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s Bruins lacked overall team speed. That they could skate against most teams matters not at all.

Likewise seeing how Seabrook and Keith play against a specific type of opposition breaks down respective strengths and weaknesses.

Unfortunately I don't have time to go through those 12 series right now, your point is taken but I also think more than one 4 game series needs to be looked at before drawing a conclusion. I would also be interested to see how much each of Keith and Seabrook played against Nashville's top line during the series. From memory Keith played some games with Seabrook and some with Hjalmmarson.

 

[quoipourquoi]

I brought up Keith's superior +/- over 12 series resulting in 3 stanley cups and you come back with one series where practically the entire team was a tire fire. Wouldn't you say my sampling holds more weight?

I mentioned it earlier when it was suggested that Keith outlasted Pronger in the 2010 Finals, but two minus series in a Stanley Cup championship was a little surprising for a primarily even-strength scorer like Keith. The 2010 Nashville series is shocking to me in particular, as Keith had the worst number on either team.

No doubt that Keith was better in 2015 than he was in 2010, but I think the way some people describe Keith and Pronger's performances in the 2010 playoffs is more of a reflection of Chicago's 4-2 series win than it is of anything either player did. Pronger wasn't outlasted, he wasn't chased out of hockey, and he didn't even have a bad Game 6. The Flyers didn't even lose the series because Quennville put speed players on Pronger; they lost because they didn't get a competent performance from their top-line - something that didn't even translate to a plus series for Keith.

Team Rank
Pronger, 2006: 1st in Points, 1st in Plus-Minus
Pronger, 2007: 2nd in Points, 1st in Plus-Minus
Pronger, 2010: 5th in Points, 6th in Plus-Minus
Keith, 2010: 4th in Points, 11th in Plus-Minus
Keith, 2013: 6th in Points, 3rd in Plus-Minus
Keith, 2015: 2nd in Points, 1st in Plus-Minus

Keith has three strong playoffs, no doubt, but Pronger has three better ones in completely different environments. I don't know that we have another eligible player with three Finals runs as good as Pronger's - and almost certainly not three across different teams with different partners.

Had St. Louis been an Eastern Conference team that avoided 1996 Detroit (2nd Round), 1997 Detroit (1st Round), 1998 Detroit (2nd Round), 1999 Dallas (2nd Round), and 2002 Detroit (2nd Round), he would've logged enough time to be on this list a month ago. It's him or Stevens at the top.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Pronger vs Keith II

I mentioned it earlier when it was suggested that Keith outlasted Pronger in the 2010 Finals, but two minus series in a Stanley Cup championship was a little surprising for a primarily even-strength scorer like Keith. The 2010 Nashville series is shocking to me in particular, as Keith had the worst number on either team.

No doubt that Keith was better in 2015 than he was in 2010, but I think the way some people describe Keith and Pronger's performances in the 2010 playoffs is more of a reflection of Chicago's 4-2 series win than it is of anything either player did. Pronger wasn't outlasted, he wasn't chased out of hockey, and he didn't even have a bad Game 6. The Flyers didn't even lose the series because Quennville put speed players on Pronger; they lost because they didn't get a competent performance from their top-line - something that didn't even translate to a plus series for Keith.

Team Rank
Pronger, 2006: 1st in Points, 1st in Plus-Minus
Pronger, 2007: 2nd in Points, 1st in Plus-Minus
Pronger, 2010: 5th in Points, 6th in Plus-Minus
Keith, 2010: 4th in Points, 11th in Plus-Minus
Keith, 2013: 6th in Points, 3rd in Plus-Minus
Keith, 2015: 2nd in Points, 1st in Plus-Minus

Keith has three strong playoffs, no doubt, but Pronger has three better ones in completely different environments. I don't know that we have another eligible player with three Finals runs as good as Pronger's - and almost certainly not three across different teams with different partners.

Had St. Louis been an Eastern Conference team that avoided 1996 Detroit (2nd Round), 1997 Detroit (1st Round), 1998 Detroit (2nd Round), 1999 Dallas (2nd Round), and 2002 Detroit (2nd Round), he would've logged enough time to be on this list a month ago. It's him or Stevens at the top.

Okay. Glad to see that you are in complete denial about the nature of professional sport.

First all that you have shown is that the Flyers did not target Keith.

The history of pro sport shows that targeting a player within the rules is a perfectly acceptable strategy. Why do the NHL teams refuse to divulge injury information? Simple they do not wish to have players with injuries skating around with a bullseye on their back.

Most blatant example of how a team or teams targeted and wore down a bully team is what happened to the Fred Shero Flyers after the 1975 SC.

Teams started standing - up and the Flyers wore down. Not only the interchangeable tough guys but the key skill players - look at the number of the skilled Flyers who did not last past the age of 31 with the team. On the other hand look at how long Larry Robinson lasted - few willing to try Robinson.

Boston in the Garden used to target the oppositions smallest or least defenceman with the dump and chase. Petr Svoboda with the Canadiens.

How did the physical players in the NHL treat Eric Lindros? Do you deny that he was targeted? How about Sidney Crosby? Connor McDavid?

Second point. Do you deny that Pronger had a knee scoped after the 2010 Finals. Missed the first few games of the following season. Explain away the surgery.

Pro sports - hockey or football does not forget or forgive. Football, a team with a running game will run the ball to wear out a defensive lineatch Super Bowl XXXII where Denver simply ran Terrell Davis at The Packers vaunted defensive line until the line wore down. No different in hockey.

Pronger was physical, no doubt, as was Stevens. Still the old adage about fighting fire with fire holds. Gunslinger has to win every time since all it takes is one loss. Deny all you want.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Okay. Glad to see that you are in complete denial about the nature of professional sport.

First all that you have shown is that the Flyers did not target Keith.

The history of pro sport shows that targeting a player within the rules is a perfectly acceptable strategy. Why do the NHL teams refuse to divulge injury information? Simple they do not wish to have players with injuries skating around with a bullseye on their back.

Most blatant example of how a team or teams targeted and wore down a bully team is what happened to the Fred Shero Flyers after the 1975 SC.

Teams started standing - up and the Flyers wore down. Not only the interchangeable tough guys but the key skill players - look at the number of the skilled Flyers who did not last past the age of 31 with the team. On the other hand look at how long Larry Robinson lasted - few willing to try Robinson.

Boston in the Garden used to target the oppositions smallest or least defenceman with the dump and chase. Petr Svoboda with the Canadiens.

How did the physical players in the NHL treat Eric Lindros? Do you deny that he was targeted? How about Sidney Crosby? Connor McDavid?

Second point. Do you deny that Pronger had a knee scoped after the 2010 Finals. Missed the first few games of the following season. Explain away the surgery.

Pro sports - hockey or football does not forget or forgive. Football, a team with a running game will run the ball to wear out a defensive lineatch Super Bowl XXXII where Denver simply ran Terrell Davis at The Packers vaunted defensive line until the line wore down. No different in hockey.

Pronger was physical, no doubt, as was Stevens. Still the old adage about fighting fire with fire holds. Gunslinger has to win every time since all it takes is one loss. Deny all you want.

Funny how Larry Robinson was immune to this criticism of physical defensmen.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Larry Robinson

Funny how Larry Robinson was immune to this criticism of physical defensmen.

Larry Robinson was not immune he simply met challenges since he was a much better skater - former center thru junior. Likewise Harvey, former center thru high school hockey. Also true for a few others.

Robinson`s only significant injury was playing polo.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

I mentioned it earlier when it was suggested that Keith outlasted Pronger in the 2010 Finals, but two minus series in a Stanley Cup championship was a little surprising for a primarily even-strength scorer like Keith. The 2010 Nashville series is shocking to me in particular, as Keith had the worst number on either team.

No doubt that Keith was better in 2015 than he was in 2010, but I think the way some people describe Keith and Pronger's performances in the 2010 playoffs is more of a reflection of Chicago's 4-2 series win than it is of anything either player did. Pronger wasn't outlasted, he wasn't chased out of hockey, and he didn't even have a bad Game 6. The Flyers didn't even lose the series because Quennville put speed players on Pronger; they lost because they didn't get a competent performance from their top-line - something that didn't even translate to a plus series for Keith.

Team Rank
Pronger, 2006: 1st in Points, 1st in Plus-Minus
Pronger, 2007: 2nd in Points, 1st in Plus-Minus
Pronger, 2010: 5th in Points, 6th in Plus-Minus
Keith, 2010: 4th in Points, 11th in Plus-Minus
Keith, 2013: 6th in Points, 3rd in Plus-Minus
Keith, 2015: 2nd in Points, 1st in Plus-Minus

Keith has three strong playoffs, no doubt, but Pronger has three better ones in completely different environments. I don't know that we have another eligible player with three Finals runs as good as Pronger's - and almost certainly not three across different teams with different partners.

Had St. Louis been an Eastern Conference team that avoided 1996 Detroit (2nd Round), 1997 Detroit (1st Round), 1998 Detroit (2nd Round), 1999 Dallas (2nd Round), and 2002 Detroit (2nd Round), he would've logged enough time to be on this list a month ago. It's him or Stevens at the top.

I don't see how Pronger has a playoff run better than Keith's unanimous 2015 Smythe-winning run, let alone three.

One thing to remember when looking at +/-, is that players do not receive a minus when their team is scored on while they are in the penalty box. This happened to Pronger in Game 5 against Chicago (game-winning goal as it turned out), and Game 6 (Chicago opened the scoring with him in the box). By contrast, Keith did not take a penalty in the series, and only five minors in 22 games total. Pronger led the playoffs in PIM. Keith's 2015 Cup run saw him with the remarkably low total of 4 PIM.

Stevens' 2000 Smythe (likely unanimous as well, but speculation) would also rank ahead of any run of Pronger's in my eyes. Again, discipline was a huge positive for Stevens. Just three minor penalties the entire playoffs, despite being a physical wrecking ball throughout. Pronger never learned how to play physical without incurring problematic numbers of penalties.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Duncan Keith

I don't see how Pronger has a playoff run better than Keith's unanimous 2015 Smythe-winning run, let alone three.

One thing to remember when looking at +/-, is that players do not receive a minus when their team is scored on while they are in the penalty box. This happened to Pronger in Game 5 against Chicago (game-winning goal as it turned out), and Game 6 (Chicago opened the scoring with him in the box). By contrast, Keith did not take a penalty in the series, and only five minors in 22 games total. Pronger led the playoffs in PIM. Keith's 2015 Cup run saw him with the remarkably low total of 4 PIM.

Stevens' 2000 Smythe (likely unanimous as well, but speculation) would also rank ahead of any run of Pronger's in my eyes. Again, discipline was a huge positive for Stevens. Just three minor penalties the entire playoffs, despite being a physical wrecking ball throughout. Pronger never learned how to play physical without incurring problematic numbers of penalties.

You are contributing to the point that Keith is demonstratably less physical than Lidstrom but perceived differently because of incidents with his stick and suspensions. Repeat offender status at one point, perhaps still.

Keith has been suspended for two games in the playoffs 2013 and 2016:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_Keith

Hawks won the 2013 game but lost the 2016 game 1-0 in OT,going on to lose the series in seven games to St.Louis.

Yet these incidents while impacting the games do not show in the +/-. How should such incidents be weighed?

 

[Kyle McMahon]

You are contributing to the point that Keith is demonstratably less physical than Lidstrom but perceived differently because of incidents with his stick and suspensions. Repeat offender status at one point, perhaps still.

Keith has been suspended for two games in the playoffs 2013 and 2016:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_Keith

Hawks won the 2013 game but lost the 2016 game 1-0 in OT,going on to lose the series in seven games to St.Louis.

Yet these incidents while impacting the games do not show in the +/-. How should such incidents be weighed?

I'm not really sure why Keith being supposedly less physical than Lidstrom would be a relevant talking point right now.

As far as weighing the suspensions, it's tough to gauge. The detrimental effect of a single-game suspension versus taking X number of penalties can be debated. Overall, I don't think it's debatable that Pronger had much more significant discipline issues than Keith though. Aside from 2013, Keith's PIM totals are exceptionally low for a defenseman logging that many minutes. As far as #1 defensemen on contemporary championship teams go, Pronger, Doughty, Chara, and Letang all tended to take more penalties than Keith. Only Lidstrom managed to do his job while taking fewer. I think that level of game-in/game-out discipline outweighs the downside of missing 2 out of 128 available career playoff games due to suspension.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Penalty Minutes

I'm not really sure why Keith being supposedly less physical than Lidstrom would be a relevant talking point right now.

As far as weighing the suspensions, it's tough to gauge. The detrimental effect of a single-game suspension versus taking X number of penalties can be debated. Overall, I don't think it's debatable that Pronger had much more significant discipline issues than Keith though. Aside from 2013, Keith's PIM totals are exceptionally low for a defenseman logging that many minutes. As far as #1 defensemen on contemporary championship teams go, Pronger, Doughty, Chara, and Letang all tended to take more penalties than Keith. Only Lidstrom managed to do his job while taking fewer. I think that level of game-in/game-out discipline outweighs the downside of missing 2 out of 128 available career playoff games due to suspension.

Any style of play comes at a cost. Players are evaluated accordingly to the cost benefit. So Keith being demonstratably less physical yet factually more prone to violence produce an impact on the cost/benefit ratio.

Effectively your point is that missing two games over two playoff seriesout of 128 possible playoff games seems to carry the same weight or team impact as missing
the same two games due to injury.

Far from convinced.

 

[Epsilon]

Any style of play comes at a cost. Players are evaluated accordingly to the cost benefit. So Keith being demonstratably less physical yet factually more prone to violence produce an impact on the cost/benefit ratio.

Effectively your point is that missing two games over two playoff seriesout of 128 possible playoff games seems to carry the same weight or team impact as missing
the same two games due to injury.

Far from convinced.

Well, since this is being done in part as a comparison to Chris Pronger, you'd also have to take Pronger's 2 playoff games lost due to suspension into account, no? So it seems like that factor would basically be a wash, leaving the discrepancy that Kyle McMahon was bringing up about time lost on the ice due to penalty minutes.

 

[quoipourquoi]

I don't see how Pronger has a playoff run better than Keith's unanimous 2015 Smythe-winning run, let alone three.

One thing to remember when looking at +/-, is that players do not receive a minus when their team is scored on while they are in the penalty box. This happened to Pronger in Game 5 against Chicago (game-winning goal as it turned out), and Game 6 (Chicago opened the scoring with him in the box). By contrast, Keith did not take a penalty in the series, and only five minors in 22 games total. Pronger led the playoffs in PIM. Keith's 2015 Cup run saw him with the remarkably low total of 4 PIM.

Stevens' 2000 Smythe (likely unanimous as well, but speculation) would also rank ahead of any run of Pronger's in my eyes. Again, discipline was a huge positive for Stevens. Just three minor penalties the entire playoffs, despite being a physical wrecking ball throughout. Pronger never learned how to play physical without incurring problematic numbers of penalties.

May I ask what Pronger would need to have done in 2006 for you to have seen that playoff on the same level of 2000 Stevens and 2015 Keith? Pronger was his team's leading scorer (neither Keith nor Stevens were), he had double the plus-minus of his next teammate, he was the best player in an upset of a 58-win team, and by the next season, Edmonton was out of the playoffs while Pronger was winning the Stanley Cup with the same team he dominated in the 2006 playoffs: Anaheim. Pronger is the catalyst in three cities of success; Keith is one of the heads on Chicago's Cerberus.

And I wasn't suggesting that Pronger has three runs better than 2015 Keith, but instead that Pronger's three runs as a whole would be better than the best three of any remaining eligible player. And on top of that, he has five more playoff runs at/above 0.75 points-per-game. The only defensemen who have hit that somewhat arbitrary threshold in more playoff runs than Chris Pronger (8) are 1980s players. With respect to Stevens - who I also have very high this round - he wasn't the offensive player in his Finals runs the way Pronger was in his teams', and in terms of defensive performance, they're comparable enough to where Pronger's offensive edge should place him above in terms of their very top runs.

Rounds Team Was Upset
Chris Pronger
2000: 7 GP, 3-4-7, +0, 2 GWGs
2008: 6 GP, 2-3-5, -1, 1 GWG
2011: 1 GP, 0-0-0, -3
Duncan Keith
2012: 6 GP, 0-1-1, +1
2014: 7 GP, 2-1-3, +2, 1 GWG
2017: 4 GP, 0-1-1, -6
Scott Stevens
1985: 5 GP, 0-1-1, -4
1986: 6 GP, 1-4-5, +4
1987: 7 GP, 0-5-5, +4
1988: 7 GP, 1-6-7, +0
1989: 6 GP, 1-4-5, -2
1991: 6 GP, 0-2-2, +1
1997: 5 GP, 0-1-1, -2
1998: 6 GP, 1-0-1, +4
1999: 7 GP, 2-1-3, -2
2002: 6 GP, 0-0-0, +5

Worth noting that while Stevens' teams were upset more often than Pronger's (and Keith's thus far, obviously), like Pronger, Stevens often looked better in defeat than one might expect.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Done

Well, since this is being done in part as a comparison to Chris Pronger, you'd also have to take Pronger's 2 playoff games lost due to suspension into account, no? So it seems like that factor would basically be a wash, leaving the discrepancy that Kyle McMahon was bringing up about time lost on the ice due to penalty minutes.

Two games suspended is a wash for the two players. Does 120+ playoff games of nasty wash with 120+ playoff games of perceived nice?

Well...........

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Any style of play comes at a cost. Players are evaluated accordingly to the cost benefit. So Keith being demonstratably less physical yet factually more prone to violence produce an impact on the cost/benefit ratio.

Effectively your point is that missing two games over two playoff seriesout of 128 possible playoff games seems to carry the same weight or team impact as missing
the same two games due to injury.

Far from convinced.

Wouldn't it? If you miss a game because you're suspended or miss a game because you hurt your ankle blocking a shot, the fallout is the same. Your team must use a (presumably much weaker) replacement player for the next game.

I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill with regards to these suspensions. Keith committed one retaliatory act in one of 120+ playoff games and was accordingly suspended for one game, which his team won anyway. This isn't some Bryan Marchment/Raffi Torres/Matt Cooke type situation where a player is regularly getting dinged for multiple games at a time to the point that they are no longer worth having around.

I would surmise that the perpetual taking of minor penalties game in and game out, inevitably leading to goals against since even a strong PK unit is going to get scored on once every sixth time approximately, will quickly overtake an isolated one-game suspension in terms of detrimental affect on a team. I believe it was you yourself that categorized Keith and/or Pronger's suspensions as a "cost of business" sometime earlier in the discussion.

May I ask what Pronger would need to have done in 2006 for you to have seen that playoff on the same level of 2000 Stevens and 2015 Keith? Pronger was his team's leading scorer (neither Keith nor Stevens were), he had double the plus-minus of his next teammate, he was the best player in an upset of a 58-win team, and by the next season, Edmonton was out of the playoffs while Pronger was winning the Stanley Cup with the same team he dominated in the 2006 playoffs: Anaheim. Pronger is the catalyst in three cities of success; Keith is one of the heads on Chicago's Cerberus.

And I wasn't suggesting that Pronger has three runs better than 2015 Keith, but instead that Pronger's three runs as a whole would be better than the best three of any remaining eligible player. And on top of that, he has five more playoff runs at/above 0.75 points-per-game. The only defensemen who have hit that somewhat arbitrary threshold in more playoff runs than Chris Pronger (8) are 1980s players. With respect to Stevens - who I also have very high this round - he wasn't the offensive player in his Finals runs the way Pronger was in his teams', and in terms of defensive performance, they're comparable enough to where Pronger's offensive edge should place him above in terms of their very top runs.

Rounds Team Was Upset
Chris Pronger
2000: 7 GP, 3-4-7, +0, 2 GWGs
2008: 6 GP, 2-3-5, -1, 1 GWG
2011: 1 GP, 0-0-0, -3
Duncan Keith
2012: 6 GP, 0-1-1, +1
2014: 7 GP, 2-1-3, +2, 1 GWG
2017: 4 GP, 0-1-1, -6
Scott Stevens
1985: 5 GP, 0-1-1, -4
1986: 6 GP, 1-4-5, +4
1987: 7 GP, 0-5-5, +4
1988: 7 GP, 1-6-7, +0
1989: 6 GP, 1-4-5, -2
1991: 6 GP, 0-2-2, +1
1997: 5 GP, 0-1-1, -2
1998: 6 GP, 1-0-1, +4
1999: 7 GP, 2-1-3, -2
2002: 6 GP, 0-0-0, +5

Worth noting that while Stevens' teams were upset more often than Pronger's (and Keith's thus far, obviously), like Pronger, Stevens often looked better in defeat than one might expect.

Quite simple, close the deal and win the Cup/Smythe. When the Cup was all shined up and ready to be presented in 2000, Stevens played 80+ minutes over the course of two long OT games, only getting scored on once and eventually assisting on the Cup-winning OT goal. In 2015 Keith scored the Cup-winning goal on a great individual effort, helping Chicago to a 2-0 shutout win in Game 6. 2006 Game 7, Pronger's performance was nondescript and his team lost the Cup. Three fine performances from three HOF defensemen, but one came up just a tiny bit short.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

The case for three-time Cup champion Howie Morenz, info pulled from The Trail of the Stanley Cup.

1924. Morenz seems to have been the best player as Montreal went 6-0 over three series to win the Cup with relative ease. Had the winning goal in a 1-0 win, 2 goals in 4-2 win over Ottawa in the NHL Final. Had a hat trick in 6-1 win over Calgary in the Stanley Cup Final, Montreal beating the Tigers 2-0 in games without much trouble.

1925. Another great effort in the NHL Final. Two goals in 3-2 win over Toronto with Joliat injured, then scored again in a 2-0 win to advance. The Habs fell behind 2-0 to Victoria in the Stanley Cup series, but Morenz got a hat trick in Game 3 to stave off elimination before Montreal fell in Game 4.

1927. His play is described well in semi final series (2 games/total goals) as he scored and assisted in 2-1 total goals win. Ottawa got ahead of Montreal quickly in the division final (same format) and played kitty bar the door. Morenz and Joliat "tried hard but to no avail".

1928. This is a disappointing performance. Morenz took a lot of penalties as the Habs lost 3-2 total goals semi final.

1929. Montreal finished first and played first place Boston in a best-of-five semi final as the playoff format now dictated. Morenz was described as "always dangerous" with his rushes, despite a 1-0 loss in Game 1. Another 1-0 loss in Game 2, then a 3-2 loss "despite determined efforts of Morenz and Joliat".

1930. Morenz scored two goals including the OT winner to win 3-2 total goals series in the first round. It is mentioned that the Canadiens were tired after the long OT game, but had a very short turnaround before the next series began. As it happened, the opening game of this round went to quadruple OT. Montreal won this series 2-0 and it is interesting that subs scored all the goals. The Habs then upset Boston to win the Stanley Cup 2 games to 0. Morenz had one goal, and was described along with Lepine as the star in the deciding game.

1931. Had three assists in opening game defeat, little mention thereafter in a 3-2 series win over Boston. Morenz was described as "easily the outstanding player" after Game 2 loss in the Cup Final, despite 0 goals in playoffs. He is said to have put up a great performance in Game 3, a triple OT loss. Morenz "did everything but score" in a Game 4 win to send the Final to a decisive game. He finally scored in Game 5 to clinch Cup. It is mentioned that he was playing with an injured shoulder.

1932. Strong effort in opening 4-3 win over the Rangers in the semi-final. Long OT game loss in game 2, then played the very next night in NY, a 1-0 loss where it seems the teams were understandably tired. Joliat and Lepine were both injured in this game, and Montreal was ousted from the playoffs the next game.

1933. Two game/total goals, Montreal lost opener 5-2, and the Morenz line was outplayed by the Cooks and Frank Boucher. Morenz then started Game 2 on defense as coach Newsy Lalonde wanted 4 forwards on the ice to try and close the gap. This seemed to work as Morenz had two assists to pull the round to 6-5 total. Two late Ranger goals sealed the series.

1934. Morenz apparently played great and scored in 3-2 loss in the first game of another two game/total goals. It is said that the Canadiens had numerous injuries, and Morenz himself left injured in Game 2 as Montreal was eliminated.

1935. Now in Chicago. The Black Hawks lost 1-0 total goals in their opening round series. Morenz being stopped on two breakaways was the only specific mention of his play.

Morenz seems to have almost always figured prominently in his teams successes, with few instances where he clearly dropped the ball. His great playoff runs occurred at a time when there simply weren't many games to be played, and he had some prime years in an extremely low scoring environment. I don't think Morenz is a must include at this stage, but at the same time I don't think his resume is lacking compared to just-listed Sidney Crosby or Phil Esposito. They just have much more attractive and easier to quantify statistical profiles. If we're being fair to all eras (and why wouldn't we), we have to remember that modern players might not look so impressive at a glance if they only got to play 6 games during a Conn Smythe-level Cup run.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Far From

Wouldn't it? If you miss a game because you're suspended or miss a game because you hurt your ankle blocking a shot, the fallout is the same. Your team must use a (presumably much weaker) replacement player for the next game.

I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill with regards to these suspensions. Keith committed one retaliatory act in one of 120+ playoff games and was accordingly suspended for one game, which his team won anyway. This isn't some Bryan Marchment/Raffi Torres/Matt Cooke type situation where a player is regularly getting dinged for multiple games at a time to the point that they are no longer worth having around.

I would surmise that the perpetual taking of minor penalties game in and game out, inevitably leading to goals against since even a strong PK unit is going to get scored on once every sixth time approximately, will quickly overtake an isolated one-game suspension in terms of detrimental affect on a team. I believe it was you yourself that categorized Keith and/or Pronger's suspensions as a "cost of business" sometime earlier in the discussion.



Quite simple, close the deal and win the Cup/Smythe. When the Cup was all shined up and ready to be presented in 2000, Stevens played 80+ minutes over the course of two long OT games, only getting scored on once and eventually assisting on the Cup-winning OT goal. In 2015 Keith scored the Cup-winning goal on a great individual effort, helping Chicago to a 2-0 shutout win in Game 6. 2006 Game 7, Pronger's performance was nondescript and his team lost the Cup. Three fine performances from three HOF defensemen, but one came up just a tiny bit short.

Opposition never worries about who may block a shot. Just re-act naturally and move instinctively to the resulting open ice. On the other hand there is self-preservation.

Having shots blocked is part of hockey. Being injured is much less so.

When the cost outweighs the benefit the team moves the player along. Edmonton could have kept Pronger but there is never an advantage to entering the "gunslinger" game. Pass along the hot potato. Let others worry about the possible dead weight contract.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Excellent

The case for three-time Cup champion Howie Morenz, info pulled from The Trail of the Stanley Cup.

1924. Morenz seems to have been the best player as Montreal went 6-0 over three series to win the Cup with relative ease. Had the winning goal in a 1-0 win, 2 goals in 4-2 win over Ottawa in the NHL Final. Had a hat trick in 6-1 win over Calgary in the Stanley Cup Final, Montreal beating the Tigers 2-0 in games without much trouble.

1925. Another great effort in the NHL Final. Two goals in 3-2 win over Toronto with Joliat injured, then scored again in a 2-0 win to advance. The Habs fell behind 2-0 to Victoria in the Stanley Cup series, but Morenz got a hat trick in Game 3 to stave off elimination before Montreal fell in Game 4.

1927. His play is described well in semi final series (2 games/total goals) as he scored and assisted in 2-1 total goals win. Ottawa got ahead of Montreal quickly in the division final (same format) and played kitty bar the door. Morenz and Joliat "tried hard but to no avail".

1928. This is a disappointing performance. Morenz took a lot of penalties as the Habs lost 3-2 total goals semi final.

1929. Montreal finished first and played first place Boston in a best-of-five semi final as the playoff format now dictated. Morenz was described as "always dangerous" with his rushes, despite a 1-0 loss in Game 1. Another 1-0 loss in Game 2, then a 3-2 loss "despite determined efforts of Morenz and Joliat".

1930. Morenz scored two goals including the OT winner to win 3-2 total goals series in the first round. It is mentioned that the Canadiens were tired after the long OT game, but had a very short turnaround before the next series began. As it happened, the opening game of this round went to quadruple OT. Montreal won this series 2-0 and it is interesting that subs scored all the goals. The Habs then upset Boston to win the Stanley Cup 2 games to 0. Morenz had one goal, and was described along with Lepine as the star in the deciding game.

1931. Had three assists in opening game defeat, little mention thereafter in a 3-2 series win over Boston. Morenz was described as "easily the outstanding player" after Game 2 loss in the Cup Final, despite 0 goals in playoffs. He is said to have put up a great performance in Game 3, a triple OT loss. Morenz "did everything but score" in a Game 4 win to send the Final to a decisive game. He finally scored in Game 5 to clinch Cup. It is mentioned that he was playing with an injured shoulder.

1932. Strong effort in opening 4-3 win over the Rangers in the semi-final. Long OT game loss in game 2, then played the very next night in NY, a 1-0 loss where it seems the teams were understandably tired. Joliat and Lepine were both injured in this game, and Montreal was ousted from the playoffs the next game.

1933. Two game/total goals, Montreal lost opener 5-2, and the Morenz line was outplayed by the Cooks and Frank Boucher. Morenz then started Game 2 on defense as coach Newsy Lalonde wanted 4 forwards on the ice to try and close the gap. This seemed to work as Morenz had two assists to pull the round to 6-5 total. Two late Ranger goals sealed the series.

1934. Morenz apparently played great and scored in 3-2 loss in the first game of another two game/total goals. It is said that the Canadiens had numerous injuries, and Morenz himself left injured in Game 2 as Montreal was eliminated.

1935. Now in Chicago. The Black Hawks lost 1-0 total goals in their opening round series. Morenz being stopped on two breakaways was the only specific mention of his play.

Morenz seems to have almost always figured prominently in his teams successes, with few instances where he clearly dropped the ball. His great playoff runs occurred at a time when there simply weren't many games to be played, and he had some prime years in an extremely low scoring environment. I don't think Morenz is a must include at this stage, but at the same time I don't think his resume is lacking compared to just-listed Sidney Crosby or Phil Esposito. They just have much more attractive and easier to quantify statistical profiles. If we're being fair to all eras (and why wouldn't we), we have to remember that modern players might not look so impressive at a glance if they only got to play 6 games during a Conn Smythe-level Cup run.

Excellent compilation and comments. Well presented. We have a prime example about info being suppresed by the press - 1931 shoulder injury. Similar to the 1953 narrative about Plante getting his first playoff start. McNeil did not have the yips, rather a short term ankle injury.

Still we have a presentation framed in a mid sixties perspective. The comparison to Esposito and Crosby has to be viewed accordingly. The recent NHL Salary Cap was not foreseen and the initial 1933 NHL Salary Cap was ignored.

Short version. 1927 Three or four leagues are consolidated into one the NHL. Iffy depending on how Pittsburgh is viewed. 1967 the best of four league are expanded into a 12 team NHL eventually the world into a 30, soon to be 31 team NHL. Coinciding with the Esposito trade to Boston, accident not design.

1933 fall, NHL introduces the first Salary Cap - eventually resulting in many trades including Morenz - three times.2005 the NHL introduces the modern Salary Cap coinciding with the entry of Sidney Crosby, accident not design.

Frank Boucher, already listed, is worthy. More so than Morenz? No.

Of the four, Esposito was by far the weakest skater and least likely to produce positive results from the dead parts of the ice.

Morenz and Crosby. Salary Cap impact. Untill a few years ago the 1933 Salary Cap was a long forgotten part of NHL history. Latest Salary Cap is very young, less than a generation old. Full implications not tabulated or understood.

Still it is evident that Morenz like Crosby had to compete for honours and counting numbers with less valuable but skilled players, be it Marty Barry, somewhat prolific but a weak skater or Alex Ovechkin, excellent skater, prolific but off little value in the dead areas of the hockey rink. Throw in the Charlie Conachers, Phil Kessels, etc. Shake and bake.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Quite simple, close the deal and win the Cup/Smythe. When the Cup was all shined up and ready to be presented in 2000, Stevens played 80+ minutes over the course of two long OT games, only getting scored on once and eventually assisting on the Cup-winning OT goal. In 2015 Keith scored the Cup-winning goal on a great individual effort, helping Chicago to a 2-0 shutout win in Game 6. 2006 Game 7, Pronger's performance was nondescript and his team lost the Cup. Three fine performances from three HOF defensemen, but one came up just a tiny bit short.

One played for a +48 goal differential Devils team that finished 2nd in GF and was #1 seed in the three previous seasons before falling just two points short of doing it for a fourth. Another played for a +40 goal differential Blackhawks team that won the Jennings Trophy and had the April return of a Patrick Kane who was the leading scorer in the NHL until a late-season injury. Chris Pronger had a comparable performance on a +5 goal differential Edmonton Oilers team that lost its starting goaltender in the Finals.

If the difference for you is only between the Devils/Blackhawks winning 16 and Pronger's Oilers winning 15, then I feel better about siding with Pronger's performance as he was his team's leading scorer in addition to the defensive contributions (while playing against tougher competition). In essence, your "quite simple" evaluation of these finalists is no different than saying one player's 82-GP season is better than another player's 82-GP because the former won the President's Trophy - there may very well be times to look at that sort of thing, but knowing the rosters of the 2006 Edmonton Oilers and the 3x Stanley Cup Champion New Jersey Devils and Chicago Blackhawks, these three teams are not the place to start.

The Devils and Blackhawks had success by committee - which is why Keith and Stevens weren't even the first players in their teams' Stanley Cup victories to win the Conn Smythe (Claude Lemieux in 1995, Jonathan Toews in 2010, Patrick Kane in 2013). You can argue they could have won earlier just as you can argue Pronger could have won later (2007 and 2010). But the 2006 Edmonton Oilers? They could re-play everything ten times and Chris Pronger will always be the best player on that team. But just as you can argue that it makes it easier to standout on a bad team, you should also acknowledge that it's harder to take them to the Stanley Cup Finals. And even if you can ride that bad horse to Game 7, you can't make them drink.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Al Davis

One played for a +48 goal differential Devils team that finished 2nd in GF and was #1 seed in the three previous seasons before falling just two points short of doing it for a fourth. Another played for a +40 goal differential Blackhawks team that won the Jennings Trophy and had the April return of a Patrick Kane who was the leading scorer in the NHL until a late-season injury. Chris Pronger had a comparable performance on a +5 goal differential Edmonton Oilers team that lost its starting goaltender in the Finals.

If the difference for you is only between the Devils/Blackhawks winning 16 and Pronger's Oilers winning 15, then I feel better about siding with Pronger's performance as he was his team's leading scorer in addition to the defensive contributions (while playing against tougher competition). In essence, your "quite simple" evaluation of these finalists is no different than saying one player's 82-GP season is better than another player's 82-GP because the former won the President's Trophy - there may very well be times to look at that sort of thing, but knowing the rosters of the 2006 Edmonton Oilers and the 3x Stanley Cup Champion New Jersey Devils and Chicago Blackhawks, these three teams are not the place to start.

The Devils and Blackhawks had success by committee - which is why Keith and Stevens weren't even the first players in their teams' Stanley Cup victories to win the Conn Smythe (Claude Lemieux in 1995, Jonathan Toews in 2010, Patrick Kane in 2013). You can argue they could have won earlier just as you can argue Pronger could have won later (2007 and 2010). But the 2006 Edmonton Oilers? They could re-play everything ten times and Chris Pronger will always be the best player on that team. But just as you can argue that it makes it easier to standout on a bad team, you should also acknowledge that it's harder to take them to the Stanley Cup Finals. And even if you can ride that bad horse to Game 7, you can't make them drink.

"Just win, baby!" ... Al Davis.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaxSe6Iq0L8

Not just have the best point or goal differential or most goals. Easy concept to grasp.

Pronger was a bit short on winning. Consequences ensue. Opposition figured out how to beat him.

Earl Seibert, more disciplined and tougher actually accomplished more than Pronger. Forgotten so far.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/s/seibeea01.html

Scott Stevens, Jacques Lemaire, effectively a student of Bowman, Blake,teammate of John Ferguson realized early the importance of an equalizer and appreciated the dynamics of buffering such a player.

View Stevens accordingly.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Opposition never worries about who may block a shot. Just re-act naturally and move instinctively to the resulting open ice. On the other hand there is self-preservation.

Having shots blocked is part of hockey. Being injured is much less so.

When the cost outweighs the benefit the team moves the player along. Edmonton could have kept Pronger but there is never an advantage to entering the "gunslinger" game. Pass along the hot potato. Let others worry about the possible dead weight contract.

Once a player demands a trade and it becomes public knowledge the horse is out of the barn. Edmonton really didn't have much choice in the matter.

One played for a +48 goal differential Devils team that finished 2nd in GF and was #1 seed in the three previous seasons before falling just two points short of doing it for a fourth. Another played for a +40 goal differential Blackhawks team that won the Jennings Trophy and had the April return of a Patrick Kane who was the leading scorer in the NHL until a late-season injury. Chris Pronger had a comparable performance on a +5 goal differential Edmonton Oilers team that lost its starting goaltender in the Finals.

Regardless of regular season performance, all three players' teams found themselves in a position where one victory would win the Stanley Cup. Two of them played a starring role in that final victory, one of them did not.

If the difference for you is only between the Devils/Blackhawks winning 16 and Pronger's Oilers winning 15, then I feel better about siding with Pronger's performance as he was his team's leading scorer in addition to the defensive contributions (while playing against tougher competition). In essence, your "quite simple" evaluation of these finalists is no different than saying one player's 82-GP season is better than another player's 82-GP because the former won the President's Trophy - there may very well be times to look at that sort of thing, but knowing the rosters of the 2006 Edmonton Oilers and the 3x Stanley Cup Champion New Jersey Devils and Chicago Blackhawks, these three teams are not the place to start.

So under what circumstances could Stevens or Keith be seen to have the superior playoff run? Both won the Cup, and were the unanimous choice for the Conn Smythe (confirmed in the case of Keith, suspected in the case of Stevens). What more could they have done?

The Devils and Blackhawks had success by committee - which is why Keith and Stevens weren't even the first players in their teams' Stanley Cup victories to win the Conn Smythe (Claude Lemieux in 1995, Jonathan Toews in 2010, Patrick Kane in 2013). You can argue they could have won earlier just as you can argue Pronger could have won later (2007 and 2010). But the 2006 Edmonton Oilers? They could re-play everything ten times and Chris Pronger will always be the best player on that team. But just as you can argue that it makes it easier to standout on a bad team, you should also acknowledge that it's harder to take them to the Stanley Cup Finals. And even if you can ride that bad horse to Game 7, you can't make them drink.

Roloson was being talked about as a potential Smythe winner up until his injury, so I don't think this is a foregone conclusion, unless you meant it in a historical sense.

You make it sound as though Pronger carried the Oilers to Game 7 only to be let down by his teammates. This is not close to accurate. As is almost always the case, various players stepped up at various times throughout the playoffs en route to Edmonton winning 15 games. The team as a whole put forth a very disappointing effort in Game 7, Pronger included.

 

[quoipourquoi]

So under what circumstances could Stevens or Keith be seen to have the superior playoff run? Both won the Cup, and were the unanimous choice for the Conn Smythe (confirmed in the case of Keith, suspected in the case of Stevens). What more could they have done?

They could have been their teams' best offensive players. 15 of Keith's points had Kane or Toews on them. And if you tell me it's harder to lead the Devils or Blackhawks in scoring than it is to lead the Edmonton Oilers, then I will direct you to all of the sections of my previous posts where I talked about the advantages Stevens and Keith had to even make it to the Finals as consistently as they did (to which you replied "regardless").

If Pronger only scored 3 points in a 6-game-series, the Oilers are probably dead in the water. But Chicago can win that series against Tampa Bay, because Corey Crawford can pick up the slack. Just like Kane and Toews did against Nashville in 2010 when Keith was a -4 in the series.

You make it sound as though Pronger carried the Oilers to Game 7 only to be let down by his teammates.

No, I just don't care enough about a single individual game to define anyone's entire playoff by it - especially for the sole reason that their team lost 3-1 on an empty net.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Closing the Deal

They could have been their teams' best offensive players. 15 of Keith's points had Kane or Toews on them. And if you tell me it's harder to lead the Devils or Blackhawks in scoring than it is to lead the Edmonton Oilers, then I will direct you to all of the sections of my previous posts where I talked about the advantages Stevens and Keith had to even make it to the Finals as consistently as they did (to which you replied "regardless").

If Pronger only scored 3 points in a 6-game-series, the Oilers are probably dead in the water. But Chicago can win that series against Tampa Bay, because Corey Crawford can pick up the slack. Just like Kane and Toews did against Nashville in 2010 when Keith was a -4 in the series.




No, I just don't care enough about a single individual game to define anyone's entire playoff by it - especially for the sole reason that their team lost 3-1 on an empty net.

Still an individual game or series comes down to the ability to "close the deal". Such opportunities do not come along often.

Earl Seibert in 1938 with a very weak Chicago team, replacement goalie. Allan Stanley and Tim Horton in 1962 - Bower injured replaced by Don Simmons managed to beat the B.Hull, Mikita, Pilote, Glenn Hall Hawks, then 1967 with a team on its last legs, managing Sawchuk and Bower, found a way to win in upsets over Chicago and Montreal.

Inevitably Pronger or Stevens have to be viewed in the context of the final outcome.

2007 Pronger`s only SC yet despite better counting numbers, Scott Niedermayer won the Smythe. Niedermayer had a knack for transporting winning, doing so with Stevens and then Pronger.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Voting is open. Great participation from our voters last time.

 

[BenchBrawl]

voted