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

[quoipourquoi]

Jack Darragh is on my list. Not saying he's a better hockey player than Nighbor, but I find his goal-scoring - both in terms of numbers and timing - to be extremely impressive. Am I wrong?

 

[MXD]

Jack Darragh is on my list. Not saying he's a better hockey player than Nighbor, but I find his goal-scoring - both in terms of numbers and timing - to be extremely impressive. Am I wrong?

You aren't wrong.
Then again : considering the counting of assists during that time, Darragh is one kind of player that might look better than he really is. Or was.

 

[DNA]

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?

Gilmour definitely makes my top 60, going back to St. Louis in '86. 3 teams, 3+ runs, one successful, he's there.

 

[Sentinel]

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?

That's the thing. To me, Gilmour stands head and shoulders above Crosby in playoffs, despite the latter's Smythe (which was probably the weakest Smythe ever). This is where eyetest crushes stats. Gilmour was on the level that Crosby never sniffed. Same goes for Fedorov, Claude Lemieux, and many others.

I'd love to participate in this poll, but I remain woefully ignorant about the pre-war era, so I do not feel qualified.

 

[quoipourquoi]

I'd love to participate in this poll, but I remain woefully ignorant about the pre-war era, so I do not feel qualified.

Don't let it scare you off. We'll probably see a wide-range of names in people's Round 1 lists.

 

[seventieslord]

Don't let it scare you off. We'll probably see a wide-range of names in people's Round 1 lists.

Agree... The range of names is gonna be YUGE.

 

[Ishdul]

Points of discussion:

1. Which players that never won the Cup were the best playoff performers?
2. Which players that didn't play for perennial powers (or didn't play there long) were the best playoff performers?
3. Are there any players worth considering who had many good showings but without an obviously defining run?

 

[MXD]

Points of discussion:

1. Which players that never won the Cup were the best playoff performers?
2. Which players that didn't play for perennial powers (or didn't play there long) were the best playoff performers?
3. Are there any players worth considering who had many good showings but without an obviously defining run?

Because that makes for interesting discussions :

1 - On my 126 names shortlist, only Norm Ullman, Pat Stapleton, John Vanbiesbrouck and Daniel Brière never won the Cup. None of them look like strong candidates, with the strongest being... eh, Stapleton because he played D. Some others won cups as spare parts/out of their primes, though, like Cooney Weiland and Fleming MacKell. There might not be enough room for MacKell when all is said and done (I can say he's definitely the best playoff performer amongst 1929-born skaters... key word being skater) but he might just be the player with the biggest discrepancy between RS resume and PO resume.

2 - Aforementionned MacKell. Ray Bourque, sortof. Anyone worth considering that is a non-Bruin and non-Leaf between consolidation and WW2 (that means pretty much everyone worth considering, save Weiland and Barry who were traded one for another) and Conacher. Brian Leetch falls squarely in that group as well.... I think.

3 - Trick question. Serge Savard and Doug Harvey...? Many D-Mens there I think.

Edit : Forgot Brad Park and Brian Propp @ 1.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Because that makes for interesting discussions :

1 - On my 126 names shortlist, only Norm Ullman, Pat Stapleton, John Vanbiesbrouck and Daniel Brière never won the Cup. None of them look like strong candidates, with the strongest being... eh, Stapleton because he played D. Some others won cups as spare parts/out of their primes, though, like Cooney Weiland and Fleming MacKell. There might not be enough room for MacKell when all is said and done (I can say he's definitely the best playoff performer amongst 1929-born skaters... key word being skater) but he might just be the player with the biggest discrepancy between RS resume and PO resume.

Another possibility might be Brad Park. He was the 5th highest playoff scorer of the 1970s, and by far the highest scoring defenseman of that decade. He was one point away from tying for the lead in scoring in 1978. I doubt he makes the top sixty, but I`d imagine he`d be in the top 120 (this is coming from someone who isn`t putting together his own list though).

 

[MXD]

Another possibility might be Brad Park. He was the 5th highest playoff scorer of the 1970s, and by far the highest scoring defenseman of that decade. He was one point away from tying for the lead in scoring in 1978. I doubt he makes the top sixty, but I`d imagine he`d be in the top 120 (this is coming from someone who isn`t putting together his own list though).

Yeah, I just forgot to name Park... Or forgot he never won the Cup. Dont know which is worse.

 

[The Panther]

Especially when it comes to the playoffs, and most especially with players on championship teams or teams that often made deep runs, I would tend to almost dismiss point-totals. Really, who cares?

I mean, of course top scorers are still expected to be top scorers in the playoffs and in most cases they are (cases where they far exceed or disappoint expectations should, of course, be taken into consideration). I'm not really bothered to know how many PPG runs Denis Savard has, for example -- it's not really important. What's important is: How much did the individual player contribute to the team's success each playoff round? There is such a thing as team play, after all. Sometimes a team's strategy is to direct checking attention away from a certain player and onto another; sometimes a team's strategy for 3 games or for 5 games is to shut-down the opposition.

So, Maurice Richard scored 3 goals in 11 games or something one year when Montreal lost in the Final. But the team scored 16 goals in round one (4 games) against Boston and swept. Is there a problem there? How can we penalize a key player/leader when his team swept a one-sided series? (Crosby in last spring's Final comes to mind.) Maybe another line was doing most of the damage, and Richard wasn't needed to strike as much so he did something else...?

Anyway, I'm uncomfortable with the idea of ranking players' playoffs careers when it comes to any players I didn't personally see and follow regularly. It's just hard to know the context of that week or two, in that specific moment in hockey history.

I dunno, it's tough to put much faith in statistics in this context, I think. Still interesting, though...

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Points of discussion:

1. Which players that never won the Cup were the best playoff performers?
2. Which players that didn't play for perennial powers (or didn't play there long) were the best playoff performers?
3. Are there any players worth considering who had many good showings but without an obviously defining run?

Cam Neely and Bryan Propp deserve to have their case examined. But I've already got them on the fringes of the top-20 forwards post-expansion. I'll likely run out of room for them unless I really end up going heavy on forwards.

What a tough list to assemble. I've already spent hours trying to sort out guys who's careers I've watched in their entirety, or close to it. Original Six and beforehand will surely be the more difficult undertaking.

 

[steve141]

Jack Darragh is on my list. Not saying he's a better hockey player than Nighbor, but I find his goal-scoring - both in terms of numbers and timing - to be extremely impressive. Am I wrong?

Darragh needs consideration, especially if you put any value into being "clutch". On the other hand, Nighbor, being a 60 minute two-way center on the NHL's first dynasty certainly was MUCH more important to that team.

For example, Darragh's greatest claim to fame is perhaps scoring all three game-winning goals during the 1920 Stanley Cup Finals. However, many people miss that Nighbor actually outscored him over the series, and in three of the five games in the final.

 

[VanIslander]

A QUARTER CENTURY of Stanley Cup hockey re-dated the NHL... here's hoping a relative percentage of top-60 and top-100 players are represented!

 

[DNA]

Points of discussion:

1. Which players that never won the Cup were the best playoff performers?
2. Which players that didn't play for perennial powers (or didn't play there long) were the best playoff performers?
3. Are there any players worth considering who had many good showings but without an obviously defining run?

I currently have only Norm Ullman, as a non Cup-winner, on my shortlist. Unlikely he'll make my top 60. My thinking, if you haven't won a Cup how do you make this list? Now, many players will make my top-60 based on performances when they didn't win, Gilmour being a prime example. But you have to have won it at some point IMO.

Doug Harvey and Serge Savard have been mentioned as doing nothing spectacular or noteworthy, so how do they get ranked? Well, Savard did win a Conn Smythe, so he'll more than likely make my top 60. Harvey too, simply by quarterbacking the greatest dynasty. Defensemen and Habs are the hardest to justify/quantify here. But Park, as well as Lapointe, are not even considerations for me.

 

[DNA]

Following up on my defenseman statement, I will make note that Denis Potvin was Captain of a Stanley Cup winner, straight, longer than any other human being in history...

 

[Michael Farkas]

But you have to have won it at some point IMO.

I get the logic, but disagree with the conclusion. Championships just aren't won by individuals. I mean, what if someone perennially played for just an absolute garbage team like the 2003 Wild and they just Marian Gaborik'd every time (didn't he lead the playoffs in scoring or close to it despite being tossed out of the West Final without hardly scoring?). I mean, that team had no business being there, he was the only vehicle for offense, played phenomenally, but once they took away his ability to stretch one side of the ice - that was it. But still, a few of those "ok, it looks like it's up to me"...Kobe Bryant 61 points, no assists types of games...that still has value...

 

[golfortennis]

That's the thing. To me, Gilmour stands head and shoulders above Crosby in playoffs, despite the latter's Smythe (which was probably the weakest Smythe ever). This is where eyetest crushes stats. Gilmour was on the level that Crosby never sniffed. Same goes for Fedorov, Claude Lemieux, and many others.

I'd love to participate in this poll, but I remain woefully ignorant about the pre-war era, so I do not feel qualified.

Really? Crosby's 09 was not sniffing Gilmour 93? I could see an argument that Gilmour was better(and might even make it myself), but not sniffing?

Might want to be careful, because eye test is what gets thrown out when stats can't support a point of view. More than a little hyperbole here I think. The only scale as a playoff performer Crosby "fails" at is expectations, which seems to be the only scale he is ever measured against, and he is also the only one who is measured that way.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I'm a big believer in the eye test. I'm not a big believer that Crosby pales in comparison to these other players mentioned to such a great degree. Therefore, I do not believe that person's eyes. Luckily, they disclaimed their own statement (out of context) at the end...

 

[MXD]

Yeah, on Crosby : let's just say that I'd have some serious issues getting an actual NHL'er in my list (other than Duncan Keith) if I was somehow to let Crosby out.

 

[BayStreetBully]

Especially when it comes to the playoffs, and most especially with players on championship teams or teams that often made deep runs, I would tend to almost dismiss point-totals. Really, who cares?

I mean, of course top scorers are still expected to be top scorers in the playoffs and in most cases they are (cases where they far exceed or disappoint expectations should, of course, be taken into consideration). I'm not really bothered to know how many PPG runs Denis Savard has, for example -- it's not really important. What's important is: How much did the individual player contribute to the team's success each playoff round? There is such a thing as team play, after all. Sometimes a team's strategy is to direct checking attention away from a certain player and onto another; sometimes a team's strategy for 3 games or for 5 games is to shut-down the opposition.

I dunno, it's tough to put much faith in statistics in this context, I think. Still interesting, though...

I agree. In the playoffs, there are long stretches of times when you have to sacrifice offense in order to concentrate on defensive play, in order to win games, in order to win the series. Moreso than in the regular season, and especially in previous eras when, for example, 16 of 21 teams made the playoffs and you could take a playoff spot for granted during the regular season.

Yzerman only scored 13 points in 20 games when he won his first cup in 1997, but watching those games, you'd think he was the Wings' best player during those playoffs.

I currently have only Norm Ullman, as a non Cup-winner, on my shortlist. Unlikely he'll make my top 60. My thinking, if you haven't won a Cup how do you make this list? Now, many players will make my top-60 based on performances when they didn't win, Gilmour being a prime example. But you have to have won it at some point IMO.

I feel the same up to a certain time period. I think you should have been expected to win the cup with a lesser number of teams. I'd stretch this even up to about the mid 90's, when there were essentially 21 teams, not including expansion teams. And no salary cap.

It's a different world now with 30 teams and a salary cap, so there just aren't enough championship opportunities to go around. I'd still love a player to have that cup, but I wouldn't nearly-automatically exclude him now if he didn't, whereas maybe I would pre-1995 (with maybe some exceptions, on a case by case basis).

 

[MXD]

I feel the same up to a certain time period. I think you should have been expected to win the cup with a lesser number of teams. I'd stretch this even up to about the mid 90's, when there were essentially 21 teams, not including expansion teams. And no salary cap.

Brian Propp becomes interesting here. He basically retired right before your cutoff date.

Made the SCFinals 5 times, which is more than any non Oiler or Isle during that time. His teams just ran into better teams come the time of the Finals.

 

[BayStreetBully]

Brian Propp becomes interesting here. He basically retired right before your cutoff date.

Made the SCFinals 5 times, which is more than any non Oiler or Isle during that time. His teams just ran into better teams come the time of the Finals.

I don't have any strict cutoff. I loosely used the mid 90's, but I could've used any date around that time or even before. What I wanted to get at was the degree to which I would have expected a top playoff performer or top player to have won a cup in the past would be greatly, greatly higher than it is now.

 

[MXD]

I don't have any strict cutoff. I loosely used the mid 90's, but I could've used any date around that time or even before. What I wanted to get at was the degree to which I would have expected a top playoff performer or top player to have won a cup in the past would be greatly, greatly higher than it is now.

Okay then.
Of course I think you're right. Once you make a short of player that are worthy of consideration, you quickly realize that 95% of them indeed won the Cup. In most cases, the players in question were great players to varying levels (there's a gap betwen Park and Propp...) who never played for the likeliest team to win the cup to begin with, not because they were on bad teams, but because there were better teams (Propp ran in two dynasties and the Lemieux Penguins; Park ran into various Habs and Bruins teams that he wasn't a part of.

 

[Voight]

Time to get to work