Top-40 Stanley Cup Playoff Performers of All-Time - Preliminary Discussion Thread

[billcook]

so I want to participate very much so.

I feel as though if I had to come up with a top 60 list on my own though it would look pretty bad. I don't have as much knowledge historically of older eras as others do.

Is anyone going to some of the names on their lists, or at least a large gathering of names I can take into consideration when creating my own list? Because if I have to come up with it on my own i don't think i'm going to get very far.

Dynasties.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sports_dynasties#National_Hockey_League



Best early players w/o playing on dominant teams. (Lalonde or Taylor for example).



Best modern players w/o playing on dominant teams. (Gilmour or McInnis for example).



Read this thread, you can always vote closer to deadline.




The hardest part is goalies. I recommend to read discussions of HOH top-40 goalies. Stats only won't help here.




Threads of interest:

Retroactive Conn Smythe
Playoff Save Percentage vs. Average Opponent Shooting Percentage
Goalies: Adjusted Playoff Save Percentage
Playoff scoring - misc data
NHL Playoff VsX, 1918-2016

 

[bigbuffalo313]

Threads of interest:

Thanks, this will help a lot and maybe actually make my list good

 

[Canadiens1958]

Top Spot

Am I crazy for considering Patrick Roy a lock for the top slot?

Far from. Excellent case for Henri Richard at #1. Incredible over 19 playoff years no one has as strong a big game or series record, especially defensively shutting down the other teams best. Example four game sevens against Henri Richard. Bobby Hull, Phill Esposito, Frank Mahovlich, Bobby Orr generated 1 asist between the four of them. Henri Richard in the same games scored three goals including an away game tying and winning goal. No one has the same level of constant excellence.

Other very solid candidates.

Ted Kennedy, Red Kelly, Doug Harvey, Jacques Plante,Jean Beliveau, Allan Stanley,
who I would rank ahead of Roy.

Possibles Mark Messier, Terry Sawchuk, Brian Trottier, Billy Smith, Mike Bossy.

 

[MXD]

(...)
Other very solid candidates.

Ted Kennedy, Red Kelly, Doug Harvey, Jacques Plante,Jean Beliveau, Allan Stanley,
who I would rank ahead of Roy.

(...)

A few issues..
First, those players (with Richard) all played one against each other at some point, which means you're looking at an extremely disbalanced list chronologically if you indeed rank all of them ahead of Roy (and Roy, presumably, somewhere quite high)

Second, Allan Stanley? Don't get me wrong there -- clearly a list candidate and all, but I'm quite convinced he's not ending up anywhere in the top-half of my Round 1 list.

 

[steve141]

I find it hard to answer this question when it focuses on a player like Vernon, who wouldn't be near my list either way. Who's a player you could use that would help it to make more sense to me?

I think we are going to learn a lot from this project. For example, Maurice Richard is certainly going to be one of the top candidates, having had some of the greatest playoff performances ever. But how do we explain the fact that the leading goal scorer and 2nd leading point scorer in the league only managed 3 points in 11 games in 1954 (placing 6th on his team)? Lead the league in goals in 1950, but only 2 points in 5 games against the Rangers? 3 points in 7 games in 1949?

There are probably a lot of players who have a reputation for always bringing it that were actually more human than you'd think.

 

[quoipourquoi]

I don't want anyone who wants to participate to be discouraged by the Round 1 screening. We will be extremely lenient in this project, so long as you don't completely omit one era in favor of over-saturating your list with another.


A few more threads of note:

Offensive Playoff Runs - Adjusted for Opponent GA (Four-Round Era)
The Playoffs' Best and Most Valuable Goaltenders: Error Rate Analysis (Official Save Percentage Era)

 

[seventieslord]

I think we are going to learn a lot from this project. For example, Maurice Richard is certainly going to be one of the top candidates, having had some of the greatest playoff performances ever. But how do we explain the fact that the leading goal scorer and 2nd leading point scorer in the league only managed 3 points in 11 games in 1954 (placing 6th on his team)? Lead the league in goals in 1950, but only 2 points in 5 games against the Rangers? 3 points in 7 games in 1949?

There are probably a lot of players who have a reputation for always bringing it that were actually more human than you'd think.

I'm no Richard fanboy, but... couldn't similar examples be trotted out for every offensive star with a top-end playoff record?

 

[seventieslord]

I don't want anyone who wants to participate to be discouraged by the Round 1 screening. We will be extremely lenient in this project, so long as you don't completely omit one era in favor of over-saturating your list with another.


A few more threads of note:

Offensive Playoff Runs - Adjusted for Opponent GA (Four-Round Era)
The Playoffs' Best and Most Valuable Goaltenders: Error Rate Analysis (Official Save Percentage Era)

I would also imagine there's a small number of names that, if they're not on a list we'd want to reach out to the participant to ensure it wasn't a mistake.

 

[steve141]

Who was a good playoff player the most times?

To be able to rank players I think it makes sense to look at their whole playoff career rather than just their peak. Comparing players based on a 20 game peak is going to be endlessly subjective. Having five good playoffs is better to me than one great. I don't expect to see Johan Franzén on anyone's list, even though he was great in 2008.

Using PPG as a proxy for a good playoff performance, here is a list of players ordered by the number of point-per-game playoff years they had:

16
Wayne Gretzky

13
Mark Messier

12
Jean Beliveau
Steve Yzerman

11
Dale Hawerchuk
Jaromir Jagr

10
Gordie Howe
Jari Kurri
Denis Savard

9
Peter Forsberg
Bobby Hull
Joe Sakic

8
Glenn Anderson
Paul Coffey
Bernie Geoffrion
Doug Gilmour
Brett Hull
Maurice Richard
Peter Stastny
Pierre Turgeon

7
Dino Ciccarelli
Steve Larmer
Mario Lemieux
Stan Mikita
Adam Oates

6
Daniel Alfredsson
Brian Bellows
Toe Blake
Mike Bossy
Sidney Crosby
Phil Esposito
Bernie Federko
Sergei Fedorov
Thomas Gradin
Craig Janney
Guy Lafleur
Tom Lysiak
Al MacInnis
Alexander Mogilny
Dickie Moore
Bernie Nicholls
Gilbert Perreault
Denis Potvin
Brian Propp
Luc Robitaille
Jeremy Roenick
Brendan Shanahan
Steve Shutt
Darryl Sittler
Dave Taylor
Henrik Zetterberg

Make your own favorite adjustments for 80s players and so on...

 

[Dom]

I'm always looking forward to reading your discussions even though I cant participate myself.

Question for your consideration, maybe already discussed, two players to compare.

Player A has 4 great playoffs, 3-4 rounds runs conn smythe level.
He also has 2 stinkers. His team was a heavy favorite but he had 0-2 points in 7 games each time and they probably lost in the first round because he couldn't play up to his level.
No other playoff appearances.

Player B has 2 great playoffs, 3-4 rounds runs conn smythe level. He has no others playoff appearances.

Which is the greater playoff performer?
Do the bad series outweigh the great ones and where is the threshold?

 

[bigbuffalo313]

I didn't realize Lemieux only had 7. I figured he would be higher

 

[steve141]

I'm no Richard fanboy, but... couldn't similar examples be trotted out for every offensive star with a top-end playoff record?

I don't know. You can't really with Forsberg nor Sakic. Certainly not Gretzky or Lemieux. Even his team mate Geoffrion was a very reliable producer in his prime.

There are also players who aren't normally hailed for their playoff peaks but who have a surprisingly consistent career. Jagr and Brett Hull for example strike me as players who never really had a bad playoff in their prime, though neither is known for their playoffs. I think there's a value in being a consistent playoff performer just as there is in the regular season.

 

[steve141]

I like this list by Hockey Outsider, as it highlights some players who were better than their lack of team success might suggest. I'd hate for this list to turn into a cup counting exercise.

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

Player|GP|Points|TMG|Percentage
Wayne Gretzky* | 208 | 382 | 856 | 44.6%
Mario Lemieux* | 107 | 172 | 391 | 44%
Alex Ovechkin | 84 | 82 | 204 | 40.2%
Bobby Hull* | 119 | 129 | 332 | 38.9%
Joe Sakic* | 172 | 188 | 503 | 37.4%
Bernie Federko* | 91 | 101 | 280 | 36.1%
Sidney Crosby | 124 | 137 | 383 | 35.8%
Gilbert Perreault* | 90 | 103 | 288 | 35.8%
Gordie Howe* | 157 | 160 | 452 | 35.4%
Darryl Sittler* | 76 | 74 | 210 | 35.2%
Peter Stastny* | 93 | 105 | 299 | 35.1%
Adam Oates* | 163 | 156 | 445 | 35.1%
Doug Gilmour* | 182 | 188 | 542 | 34.7%
Peter Forsberg* | 151 | 171 | 493 | 34.7%
Stan Mikita* | 155 | 150 | 435 | 34.5%
Pavel Bure* | 64 | 70 | 205 | 34.1%
Brian Leetch* | 95 | 97 | 287 | 33.8%
Claude Giroux | 63 | 62 | 184 | 33.7%
Evgeni Malkin | 124 | 129 | 383 | 33.7%
Max Bentley* | 51 | 45 | 134 | 33.6%
Jude Drouin | 72 | 68 | 205 | 33.2%
Jarome Iginla | 81 | 68 | 205 | 33.2%
Daniel Alfredsson | 124 | 100 | 304 | 32.9%
Ryan Getzlaf | 104 | 99 | 303 | 32.7%
Martin St. Louis | 107 | 90 | 277 | 32.5%
Ted Kennedy* | 78 | 60 | 185 | 32.4%
Patrick Kane | 123 | 121 | 377 | 32.1%
Bobby Orr* | 74 | 92 | 287 | 32.1%
Cam Neely* | 93 | 89 | 282 | 31.6%
Jean Beliveau* | 162 | 176 | 558 | 31.5%
Gordie Drillon* | 50 | 41 | 130 | 31.5%
Markus Naslund | 52 | 36 | 115 | 31.3%
Zach Parise | 89 | 68 | 218 | 31.2%
Sergei Fedorov* | 183 | 176 | 568 | 31%
Mats Sundin* | 91 | 82 | 265 | 30.9%
Mark Messier* | 236 | 295 | 954 | 30.9%
Norm Ullman* | 106 | 83 | 269 | 30.9%
Alex Delvecchio* | 121 | 104 | 340 | 30.6%
Toe Blake* | 58 | 62 | 203 | 30.5%
Henrik Zetterberg | 137 | 120 | 393 | 30.5%
Frank Boucher* | 55 | 36 | 118 | 30.5%
Ian Turnbull | 55 | 45 | 148 | 30.4%
Nicklas Backstrom | 83 | 62 | 204 | 30.4%
Henrik Sedin | 105 | 78 | 257 | 30.4%
Derick Brassard | 59 | 44 | 145 | 30.3%
Anze Kopitar | 75 | 64 | 211 | 30.3%
Joe Thornton | 156 | 121 | 399 | 30.3%
Bernie Nicholls | 118 | 114 | 376 | 30.3%
Fleming MacKell | 80 | 63 | 208 | 30.3%
Mike Bossy* | 129 | 160 | 530 | 30.2%

 

[bobholly39]

I didn't realize Lemieux only had 7. I figured he would be higher

He only has 8 playoff runs total. His 8th (and final) playoff appearance, he had 17 points in 18 games.

I expect Lemieux will be one of the toughest players to rank.

On a per game basis, 172 points in 107 games is tough to beat. He also has 0 misfires (people say 92-93 Pens should have won, and I agree, but he had 18 points in 11 games. Maybe by his standards it's not his best level, but it's still an excellent performance overall).

But he only has 8 playoff runs. How does that compare to a Messier, whose not nearly as good on a per game basis but has so much more mileage in the playoffs (236 games - 17 playoff runs).

Will be interesting.

 

[MXD]

I'm always looking forward to reading your discussions even though I cant participate myself.

Question for your consideration, maybe already discussed, two players to compare.

Player A has 4 great playoffs, 3-4 rounds runs conn smythe level.
He also has 2 stinkers. His team was a heavy favorite but he had 0-2 points in 7 games each time and they probably lost in the first round because he couldn't play up to his level.
No other playoff appearances.

Player B has 2 great playoffs, 3-4 rounds runs conn smythe level. He has no others playoff appearances.

Which is the greater playoff performer?
Do the bad series outweigh the great ones and where is the threshold?

I think it's probably up to anyone's assessment in that case.

It's highly doubtful player B would make his way into my list, due to sample size and all, and the extreme likelihood that he has a few contemporaries who achieved more of these runs, UNLESS he's just the exact reason why his team made the playoffs to begin with, and there are not many players for whom we can say such a thing. FTR, I have one of these players my personnal "Interim" Top-10, but they're very few and far between, and I'm not even sure the use of plural is justified.

I wouldn't care much about about the bad years of player A to be honest. 4 Connie Smythe level performances (for full playoffs) is... quite a lot, maybe because I interpret this phrase quite restrictively.

To wrap it up : B out, except if stars aligned; A a strong candidate to make it.

 

[bobholly39]

I'm always looking forward to reading your discussions even though I cant participate myself.

Question for your consideration, maybe already discussed, two players to compare.

Player A has 4 great playoffs, 3-4 rounds runs conn smythe level.
He also has 2 stinkers. His team was a heavy favorite but he had 0-2 points in 7 games each time and they probably lost in the first round because he couldn't play up to his level.
No other playoff appearances.

Player B has 2 great playoffs, 3-4 rounds runs conn smythe level. He has no others playoff appearances.

Which is the greater playoff performer?
Do the bad series outweigh the great ones and where is the threshold?

I personally won't subtract anything from anyone, only add positives.

So if player A "chokes" those 2 years, he doesn't lose anything.
If Hasek somehow refused to play some years - he doesn't lose anything.
If Rocket Richard had some bad years where he under performed, he doesn't lose anything. (referencing previous statements made in this thread)

I just add the positives. Whoever ends up with the most positives, wins/qualifies.

 

[bigbuffalo313]

I'm going to treat poor playoff showings like I did with regular seasons. I will weigh the negative against the positive and see how it lines up to judge them. For example, Ovechkin's 08-10 season vastly outweigh his 11-12 seasons, so they aren't as much of a negative as they would be in a player like, Iginla or St. Louis for example. I plan on treating playoffs the same way

 

[MXD]

The problem with bad playoffs is that there's something a bit wrong when you can say that you could've ranked a player higher if he played on a worse team and thus actually missed the playoffs...

 

[bigbuffalo313]

That's definitely a problem to look at and it's why a bad playoff or two won't make or break a player. But if someone has 5 good playoffs and 4 bad ones then the 4 should definitely be counted

 

[golfortennis]

I'm always looking forward to reading your discussions even though I cant participate myself.

Question for your consideration, maybe already discussed, two players to compare.

Player A has 4 great playoffs, 3-4 rounds runs conn smythe level.
He also has 2 stinkers. His team was a heavy favorite but he had 0-2 points in 7 games each time and they probably lost in the first round because he couldn't play up to his level.
No other playoff appearances.

Player B has 2 great playoffs, 3-4 rounds runs conn smythe level. He has no others playoff appearances.

Which is the greater playoff performer?
Do the bad series outweigh the great ones and where is the threshold?

One question I would have is can you adjust for the fact opponents in the playoffs are more likely to key on Player A to try and shut him down than in the regular season? Example: 2009 Red Wings in the SCF made it their business to stop Crosby at all costs and they would take their chances with the other players.

So does this get written off as "it doesn't matter the player should rise above?" One could argue that it's a lot easier to do when you have several players that can do some real damage if the opponents ignore them. Not saying this is the case, but I'm thinking the Habs for example with Richard, Beliveau, Richard, etc. Did the player really have a stinker of a playoffs if the team won because he took all the attention and freed up the other players?

Just musing, I don't know the answer. I just know when I hear someone get knocked for a "bad playoffs", sometimes it isn't because they played poorly. Unless, again, the standard is "doesn't matter player should rise above."

 

[DNA]

Thought I'd bounce this thread back to the top, since I plan to take part. As a thought, wouldn't waiting a few months till the 125th Stanley Cup season is in the books be a good idea? I don't plan on placing any current players on my list, but it may affect others.

If the February submission still goes ahead, not to preach to any choirs, but here's some pre-1926 candidates worth considering IMO, according to the OP instructions:


DAN BAIN - playing for the Cup 5 times, he won it 3, and was the star of the 1st team of a league outside the Quebec corridor to claim it.

FRANK MCGEE - I'm sure I needn't explain.

JACK MARSHALL - played for the Cup 7 times, winning it 6, with four different teams.

LESTER PATRICK - played for the Cup with Brandon in '04, won it with the Wanderers in '06 & '07', should've won it in '13 against Quebec but a for technicality, coached to win the Cup in '25, then played in the finals in '26, and finally backstopped the legendary game to win with the Rangers in '28. The fact that he was largely instrumental in shaping the playoffs as we know them today needn't be factored in.

JACK DARRAGH - 4 Cups, linking the Silver 7 era Ottawa team with the Dynasty Sens, scoring back-to-back Cup-winning goals, and being awarded 2 Retro-Smythes.

NEWSY LALONDE - a name that won't be overlooked, but let's also not overlook his role in Toronto's near miracle grasp of the Cup in '08.


Just some thoughts as I ready my list of 60...

 

[bobholly39]

Thought I'd bounce this thread back to the top, since I plan to take part. As a thought, wouldn't waiting a few months till the 125th Stanley Cup season is in the books be a good idea? I don't plan on placing any current players on my list, but it may affect others.

Why?

I guess 125 is a nice number and all, but i don't really see the point. Also, what's the difference in adding 1 more year for current players, why not 2 more years, etc?

I haven't started to build my list yet. Not sure who of the current crop might make it or not. The chicago and pittsburgh players, and maybe LA Kings, obviously deserve some consideration, but all are only roughly at halfway point of their careers, so not sure if it's enough off hand or not.

 

[MXD]

Jack Darragh raises an interesting issue, in that he was, at all relevant times and in the best case, what, the 3rd best skater of his team on the ice?

That's not an issue if we're debating about Jonathan Toews or Dickie Moore (because there's a case to be made that both were, at a given point, the best player of their team on the ice even if we disregard injuries), and even possibly the best player on their team at a given point (I don't quite see it for Toews, though he has a claim, but I certainly see it for Moore).

It's a bit similar to the issues I had about Punch Broadbent in the Wingers project; Broadbent had a fringe case to begin with, but it also had to be assessed in view of the fact that he was the "weakest" player of his team for just about every minute he spent on the ice. Darragh isn't quite in that situation, but he's close to it.

 

[VanIslander]

Excellent!

I have at least two history books on the Stanley Cup playoffs! I look forward to re-reading them and taking notes.

Looking forward to it.

 

[MXD]

Why?

I guess 125 is a nice number and all, but i don't really see the point. Also, what's the difference in adding 1 more year for current players, why not 2 more years, etc?

I haven't started to build my list yet. Not sure who of the current crop might make it or not. The chicago and pittsburgh players, and maybe LA Kings, obviously deserve some consideration, but all are only roughly at halfway point of their careers, so not sure if it's enough off hand or not.

Each to his own and all, but...

I'm quite likely to have Doug Gilmour in my Top-60. Going from there, I'm wondering how far Sidney Crosby can be from Doug Gilmour. Gilmour had more Connie Smythe-like runs for 3 rounds+ than Crosby, and definitely has a longevity advantage, but Crosby isn't trailing badly anymore in that regard... And Crosby is definitely a better player than Gilmour.

And now, is Crosby even the best "active" playoff player?