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

[Canadiens1958]

Without a Center

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...

Dick Irvin Sr. Put all his eggs in one basket - Moore-Beliveau-Geoffrion line;

Maurice Richard played without a viable center once Lach bowed out, but teams had to defend him, likewise Bert Olmstead:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/MTL/1954.html

 

[blogofmike]

Looking at Richard's 2-goal game from 1954 : http://www.flyershistory.com/cgi-bin/poboxscore.cgi?O19540011

Montreal scored twice on a 5-on-3 and a third time on the ensuing 5-on-4. Those 50s Habs liked their continuous PP time.

In fact Mosdell's Game 5 OT winner appears to have been Montreal's 2nd ES goal of the series.

 

[sr edler]

1. Which players that never won the Cup were the best playoff performers?

Trevor Linden, for instance, is one. In his first 8 year stint in Vancouver he had 80 points in 79 playoff games to go along with a very solid overall game, great leadership and a continued game 7 heroism.

Personally I would rank Linden in front of a guy like Claude Lemieux, to be honest. Claude Lemieux was a great playoff presence in his own right, but he was also more often than not a complementary player who played on some great teams. Lemieux had two playoffs where he was PPG or better, Linden had five.

When Claude Lemieux won his Conn Smythe in 1995 he was outscored by three fellow NJD forwards in Stephane Richer, Neal Broten & John MacLean. Also on that team were Brodeur, Stevens & Niedermayer.

Then in 1996 he played on an Avalanche team where he was outscored in the playoffs by Joe Sakic, Valeri Kamensky, Peter Forsberg, Sandis Ozolinsh, Adam Deadmarsh, Mike Ricci, Uwe Krupp [!] and Scott Young. That is 8 players. Also on that team? Yeah, Patrick Roy and Adam Foote.

 

[Sentinel]

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.

09 Crosby lost the Conn Smythe to his own teammate. Can you imagine 93 Gilmore losing the Smythe to anyone on his team? If TML wins the Cup, that trophy is his and his alone.

For a list of great PO performers that never won, I don't think you can leave Bure out.

 

[MXD]

09 Crosby lost the Conn Smythe to his own teammate. Can you imagine 93 Gilmore losing the Smythe to anyone on his team? If TML wins the Cup, that trophy is his and his alone.

For a list of great PO performers that never won, I don't think you can leave Bure out.

I'm not taking sides here, but Gilmour didn't have anyone close to the level of Malkin either... There are cases where it's a little harder to "win" against a teammate, and Sidney Crosby was in such a situation.

 

[MXD]

Oh and I ran out of room for Linden and Bure VERY, VERY quickly. I might have had enough room for them if I wanted to come up with a 250 names shortlist as opposed to a 126 names one.

 

[sr edler]

Oh and I ran out of room for Linden and Bure VERY, VERY quickly. I might have had enough room for them if I wanted to come up with a 250 names shortlist as opposed to a 126 names one.

But Claude Lemieux?

 

[sr edler]

If I make a list Bure probably wont be on it, and I'm his biggest fan. So don't worry. He played too few games and only has one monster run in 94 plus a monster series against the Blues in 95.

Funny though in 94 Bure had a 16 game playoff point streak. Gilmour had 16 points in 7 games against the Sharks in the second round, recording at least a point in every game. Then in the CFs against the Canucks he had 4 points in 5 games going scoreless in 3 out of 5 games.

 

[bobholly39]

09 Crosby lost the Conn Smythe to his own teammate. Can you imagine 93 Gilmore losing the Smythe to anyone on his team? If TML wins the Cup, that trophy is his and his alone.

For a list of great PO performers that never won, I don't think you can leave Bure out.

I know you don't like Crosby and tend to argue against him. I actually think Gilmour was fantastic in the playoffs too, so i don't mind if you think he was better than Crosby. You can certainly make a case.

But I think the logic of Gilmour being so much better than #2 on the Leafs that year vs Crosby not being better than #2 (in fact being #2 himself behind Malkin) should hold 0 weight in this comparison.

If Lemieux and Gretzky played on the Oilers in the 80s and Gretzky scored 60 points one playoffs and Lemieux 55 - would you also say Gilmour was better than Lemieux because no one was close to him? I just think that argument is completely meaningless here.

 

[Sentinel]

I know you don't like Crosby and tend to argue against him. I actually think Gilmour was fantastic in the playoffs too, so i don't mind if you think he was better than Crosby. You can certainly make a case.

But I think the logic of Gilmour being so much better than #2 on the Leafs that year vs Crosby not being better than #2 (in fact being #2 himself behind Malkin) should hold 0 weight in this comparison.

If Lemieux and Gretzky played on the Oilers in the 80s and Gretzky scored 60 points one playoffs and Lemieux 55 - would you also say Gilmour was better than Lemieux because no one was close to him? I just think that argument is completely meaningless here.

But they weren't on the same team. Part of Gilmore's (and 93 Gretzky's, and 94 Bure's, and 99 Hasek's) playoff accomplishment is that they took the team to places where it had no business being. I don't think you can say that about a player who played second fiddle to his teammate.

I don't hate Crosby. I just think that he is playing in a relatively weak top-end talent era, which exaggerates his talents and accomplishments.

 

[Retire91]

I hope Fedorov gets some props. During the 90's especially, nearly a ppg in the playoffs and once scored 20 points in 4 consecutive playoff years. Contributed nearly 20 points in each of the years he went to the finals. Oldest player to score a game 7 OT clincher.

 

[K Fleur]

But they weren't on the same team. Part of Gilmore's (and 93 Gretzky's, and 94 Bure's, and 99 Hasek's) playoff accomplishment is that they took the team to places where it had no business being. I don't think you can say that about a player who played second fiddle to his teammate.

I don't hate Crosby. I just think that he is playing in a relatively weak top-end talent era, which exaggerates his talents and accomplishments.

That Penguins teams would not have had any business even making the playoffs without Crosby, and Malkin much less winning a Stanley Cup.

I wonder(read; doubt) if you will hold the same standard for Fedorov? After all he could never beat out any of his own teammates for the Conne Smythe.

 

[Sentinel]

That Penguins teams would not have had any business even making the playoffs without Crosby, and Malkin much less winning a Stanley Cup.

Without Crosby AND Malkin? Say what?

I wonder(read; doubt) if you will hold the same standard for Fedorov? After all he could never beat out any of his own teammates for the Conne Smythe.

Fedorov indeed does not have "that one" superhuman run like those I mentioned. But his runs in 95 and 97 were not shabby by any stretch, and nobody would bat an eyelash had he won the CS (assuming the Wings somehow beat the Devils). Four straight 20+ playoffs is nothing to sneeze at (and Crosby never came close to that either). In fact, I can argue that EACH ONE of Fedorov's five mega playoffs is better than Crosby's 16 Conn Smythe playoffs.

 

[K Fleur]

Without Crosby AND Malkin? Say what?

Those two players took that team to places it had no business going. The same narrative yourself(and others) are pushing for Gilmour, and apparently Bure.

Fedorov indeed does not have "that one" superhuman run like those I mentioned. But his runs in 95 and 97 were not shabby by any stretch, and nobody would bat an eyelash had he won the CS (assuming the Wings somehow beat the Devils). Four straight 20+ playoffs is nothing to sneeze at (and Crosby never came close to that either). In fact, I can argue that EACH ONE of Fedorov's five mega playoffs is better than Crosby's 16 Conn Smythe playoffs.

I can rather easily argue that the run in '09 from Crosby (that you are trying to downplay) is better than EACH ONE of Fedorov's 20+ point runs. That's it from me on Crosby though, I don't want to derail this discussion into a Crosby vs. Fedorov debate.


I'm really interested to see how goalies will be ranked by everybody. Do any of the people participating have an idea of how many goalies might end up on their final lists?

 

[MXD]

I'm really interested to see how goalies will be ranked by everybody. Do any of the people participating have an idea of how many goalies might end up on their final lists?

There's 4 goaltenders in what I'd call my "Interim Top-12", and I really can't see myself moving them a lot. Worst case scenario, those 4 end up being in my Top-15 instead of my Top-12, and that would require seriously learning something about someone.

 

[MXD]

I hope Fedorov gets some props. During the 90's especially, nearly a ppg in the playoffs and once scored 20 points in 4 consecutive playoff years. Contributed nearly 20 points in each of the years he went to the finals. Oldest player to score a game 7 OT clincher.

I don't see Fedorov as a guy who is not getting the props. Usually... it's the other way around.

Of course Fedorov will get some measure support from ... mostly everyone I suspect. The only thing that could prevent me from doing so is going very strictly with era allotments, then with positionnal allotments.

 

[golfortennis]

Those two players took that team to places it had no business going. The same narrative yourself(and others) are pushing for Gilmour, and apparently Bure.



I can rather easily argue that the run in '09 from Crosby (that you are trying to downplay) is better than EACH ONE of Fedorov's 20+ point runs. That's it from me on Crosby though, I don't want to derail this discussion into a Crosby vs. Fedorov debate.


I'm really interested to see how goalies will be ranked by everybody. Do any of the people participating have an idea of how many goalies might end up on their final lists?

While I think Crosby will make any list on his own merits, the bigger thing I wanted to illustrate was how easily the expectations can color the view of a player's playoff success or lack thereof. Crosby is simply the recent example I could point to.

I suspect there are a few guys with similar situations that the fact they didn't light the world on fire to 70 million kelvin means in some eyes they were crap.

 

[shazariahl]

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...

I was thinking this too. It's easy to say someone should have done more in the playoffs, but it's still a positive just to be there. Say someone has a bunch of really good runs, but has a couple years where the team isn't so great and barely makes the playoffs. He isn't really up to his usual standard either, and puts up like 3 pts in 6 games (or whatever). That's still a plus IMO. Not a large one, but it's better than not making the playoffs at all.

You can't really argue that his playoff career would have been better by not being in the playoffs in the first place.

 

[DNA]

Just curious, is Claude Provost going to be on anyone's list (or everyone's for that matter)?

 

[MXD]

Just curious, is Claude Provost going to be on anyone's list (or everyone's for that matter)?

Not on my shortlist, and the fact there's 14 of his former teammates on it kind of explains why.

 

[decma]

I was thinking this too. It's easy to say someone should have done more in the playoffs, but it's still a positive just to be there. Say someone has a bunch of really good runs, but has a couple years where the team isn't so great and barely makes the playoffs. He isn't really up to his usual standard either, and puts up like 3 pts in 6 games (or whatever). That's still a plus IMO. Not a large one, but it's better than not making the playoffs at all.

You can't really argue that his playoff career would have been better by not being in the playoffs in the first place.

I think you can. To take an extreme example, putting up 0 points in 6 games is a negative. Especially for someone who is on the first line, playing with decent linemates, getting PP minutes, etc. Those are opporunities that were not capitalized on.

Take two players. Each has five playoff runs of 20 points in 18 games. Player A also has a run of 0 pts in 6 games, while Player B has no other playoff appearances. I think Player B has the better playoff resume.

 

[MadLuke]

I think you can. To take an extreme example, putting up 0 points in 6 games is a negative. Especially for someone who is on the first line, playing with decent linemates, getting PP minutes, etc. Those are opporunities that were not capitalized on.

Take two players. Each has five playoff runs of 20 points in 18 games. Player A also has a run of 0 pts in 6 games, while Player B has no other playoff appearances. I think Player B has the better playoff resume.

I certainly agree, eating power play minute and first line minute while not producing can be seen as an opportunity cost and something that hurt your team.

You usually compare how good player were by how much they performed versus there peer (versus the elite of the time, the median of the time and the replacement level player), you can certainly loose "points" with mediocre run, at least as a tie breaker like in your example.

 

[MXD]

I think you can. To take an extreme example, putting up 0 points in 6 games is a negative. Especially for someone who is on the first line, playing with decent linemates, getting PP minutes, etc. Those are opporunities that were not capitalized on.

Take two players. Each has five playoff runs of 20 points in 18 games. Player A also has a run of 0 pts in 6 games, while Player B has no other playoff appearances. I think Player B has the better playoff resume.

Possibly, but then, Team B might have made the playoffs if Player hadn't underperformed during the season...

(Just a scenario where it's a wee bit unfair to rag on players for actually making the playoffs).

We also don't know everything. Playing with injuries and such.

 

[MadLuke]

Possibly, but then, Team B might have made the playoffs if Player hadn't underperformed during the season...

While ranking player that would be a good point, not while ranking playoff performer.

We also don't know everything. Playing with injuries and such.

That would be true.

But imagine having a bad shooting percentage in basketball or hitting worst than replacement in baseball, it would be evident for everyone that you actually did hurt the team offense during that period. Hockey is more messy, not as clear and usually deal with smaller sample size than those 2, but it must be possible for a player to be a negative for a team and hurt is legacy.

 

[decma]

Possibly, but then, Team B might have made the playoffs if Player hadn't underperformed during the season...

(Just a scenario where it's a wee bit unfair to rag on players for actually making the playoffs).

We also don't know everything. Playing with injuries and such.

But I thought this was a discussion of playoff performances. So doing something that helps or hurts your team's chances of making the playoffs isn't relevant, is it?

Season 1
Player A has 200 points in regular season and his team makes playoffs by a point.
Player B has 10 points in regular season and his team misses playoffs by a point.
In playoffs player A has 0 points in 6 games.

Seasons 2 through 7
Players A and B have identical regular season and playoff performances (e.g., 120 playoff games with 140 playoff points).

For all 7 seasons A and B are first line Cs.

I think B has the better playoff resume. The 0/6 for A in season 1 is a negative in my mind.

So, yes, in judging playoff performance, I think a bad performance is worse than no performance.