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

[Sentinel]

If Crosby makes the list, but Bure doesn't... *sigh*

 

[Michael Farkas]

...of relief...?

 

[seventieslord]

...of relief...?

seriously though, aside from their peak playoff runs, the stat lines of which are almost identical (though Crosby did it in a league that was 4%-12% lower scoring, depending on if you want to go by playoff average or season average), what does Bure's playoff resume have on Crosby's?

A reality check for people trying to get their pet player on the list - this is only going to be 40 names long. If you put 6-7 goalies and 10-12 defensemen on, there's room for, at most, 21 forwards, probably fewer. Is your guy really among the best 21 forwards of all-time in the playoffs? If they're nowhere near the top-21 of all-time based on their whole career, then their playoffs have to be otherworldly.

 

[MXD]

seriously though, aside from their peak playoff runs, the stat lines of which are almost identical (though Crosby did it in a league that was 4%-12% lower scoring, depending on if you want to go by playoff average or season average), what does Bure's playoff resume have on Crosby's?

A reality check for people trying to get their pet player on the list - this is only going to be 40 names long. If you put 6-7 goalies and 10-12 defensemen on, there's room for, at most, 34 forwards, probably fewer. Is your guy really among the best 36 forwards of all-time in the playoffs? If they're nowhere near the top-26 of all-time based on their whole career, then their playoffs have to be otherworldly.

You're... really pessimistic when it comes to goaltenders, but I essentially agree otherwise.

But there are Top-20 players (not position.. players of all-time) that will miss the Top-60 (or whichever number will be considered in Round 2, maybe 50?) entirely. Some already very obvious (I suspect our respective Top-20 overall isn't that different), some who will become painfully obvious as the process go on, and maybe one or two that are defeinitely on the fringe.

 

[blogofmike]

seriously though, aside from their peak playoff runs, the stat lines of which are almost identical (though Crosby did it in a league that was 4%-12% lower scoring, depending on if you want to go by playoff average or season average), what does Bure's playoff resume have on Crosby's?

An equal number of goals in 7 Finals games vs. 19 for Crosby?

Seriously though, I'd put Crosby ahead of Bure, even if Crosby would get downgraded on my list for weaker performances in later rounds. He's partway through his career so he will quite possibly rise up. But that hasn't happened yet, so Fedorov fans can post something like:

Stanley Cup Finals Records

Player| Weighted Opp GA| GP | G | A | PTS | +/-
Fedorov | 211.1 | 17 | 9 | 10 | 19 | 2
Crosby | 214.3 | 19 | 3 | 10 | 13 | -1

So if anyone wonders if a Crosby has to "rise above" the challenge, to get on this list, he probably does. Because others have. The Red Wings could barely enter the Devils zone in 1995, and when they did, Martin Brodeur was having one of his best playoff runs. Fedorov somehow went 3-2-5, +1.

And in keeping with the spirit of the OP I will not argue this point further until after lists.

A reality check for people trying to get their pet player on the list - this is only going to be 40 names long. If you put 6-7 goalies and 10-12 defensemen on, there's room for, at most, 21 forwards, probably fewer. Is your guy really among the best 21 forwards of all-time in the playoffs? If they're nowhere near the top-21 of all-time based on their whole career, then their playoffs have to be otherworldly.

Playoffs are playoffs, and different from previous rankings. Wouldn't Turk Broda be a more viable candidate for this list than Durnan or Brimsek? Brimsek finished clearly above Broda in the Top goalies project and Durnan vs. Broda went head to head for 13/14. Playoffs only? Feels like Turk Broda in a walk, and he stands the best chance of the three for making the cut even if he was 13th rather than a Top 6 goalie.

Or more to the point, One-Eyed Frank McGee, who wasn't an HOH Top 70 player or Top 60 centre. But he's gonna be well ahead of Marcel Dionne, who made both lists.

 

[MXD]

Playoffs are playoffs, and different from previous rankings. Wouldn't Turk Broda be a more viable candidate for this list than Durnan or Brimsek? Brimsek finished clearly above Broda in the Top goalies project and Durnan vs. Broda went head to head for 13/14. Playoffs only? Feels like Turk Broda in a walk, and he stands the best chance of the three for making the cut even if he was 13th rather than a Top 6 goalie.

Or more to the point, One-Eyed Frank McGee, who wasn't an HOH Top 70 player or Top 60 centre. But he's gonna be well ahead of Marcel Dionne, who made both lists.

Each to his own, but...

Turk Broda is... Actually, suppose we would only rank netminders and not players. I'd have a much easier time arguing Broda is in the Top-5 than arguing he's out of said Top-5.

I mean... he's widely seen as a Top-15 netminder of alltime (here at least), and a Top-100 player of all-time. I have yet to find something in his regular season record that supports the idea that he's Top-40 Netminder/Top-200 player.

(Please someone tell me I'm not going hyperbolic on Broda...)

 

[Kyle McMahon]

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 agree.

Due to disparity in opportunities to succeed between candidates, I think it's only fair to punish guys for bad performances.

Player X spends his whole career on a dynasty and ends up with four great performances, but also several where he under-delivered and his team was upset early, or advanced despite his weak play. Player Y was on lesser teams but usually performed well in a losing cause, and had two great runs the only two times he was on a contending team. I'm probably taking Player Y, even though he had fewer great runs than Player X.

I think batting average has to matter here to some extent. If you just add up home runs, then you may as well just be ranking dynasty players. Of course, the list will still be heavy on dynasty guys (there's a reason they were dynasties), but I think docking some points for bad performances is necessary to even the playing field a little.

 

[MXD]

I agree.

Due to disparity in opportunities to succeed between candidates, I think it's only fair to punish guys for bad performances.

Player X spends his whole career on a dynasty and ends up with four great performances, but also several where he under-delivered and his team was upset early, or advanced despite his weak play. Player Y was on lesser teams but usually performed well in a losing cause, and had two great runs the only two times he was on a contending team. I'm probably taking Player Y, even though he had fewer great runs than Player X.

I think batting average has to matter here to some extent. If you just add up home runs, then you may as well just be ranking dynasty players. Of course, the list will still be heavy on dynasty guys (there's a reason they were dynasties), but I think docking some points for bad performances is necessary to even the playing field a little.

My theory is : If you only have two or three playoffs showings, you better have to be the only reason why there was a showing to begin with... 60 names isn't a lot.

Not to mention that dynasty players might end up with lesser roles at some point, which makes their numbers look weaker... exactly because they're on dynasties.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

My theory is : If you only have two or three playoffs showings, you better have to be the only reason why there was a showing to begin with... 60 names isn't a lot.

Not to mention that dynasty players might end up with lesser roles at some point, which makes their numbers look weaker... exactly because they're on dynasties.

All things to be considered on a case by case basis, naturally. For example, I don't think anybody is going to punish Bryan Trottier for pedestrian numbers on the Penguins. However, some spotty showings (at least at a glance) on the pre- and post-dynasty Isles teams need to be considered for what they are.

 

[VanIslander]

... I don't think anybody is going to punish Bryan Trottier for pedestrian numbers on the Penguins...

Uh, the guy had a, what, a ****'* 28-playoff game scoring streak over three consecutive Stanley Cup championship postseasons??!

I think whatever he did before or after that won't dampen his standing too much.

 

[sr edler]

David Krejci is an interesting case as he led the playoffs in scoring twice, once with a 7 point margin, and won a Cup. He doesn't have much of a resume outside of those two runs though except that his team collapsed and lost a 3–0 series lead against the Flyers in 2010 when he got injured by Mike Richards.

 

[DNA]

David Krejci is an interesting case as he led the playoffs in scoring twice, once with a 7 point margin, and won a Cup. He doesn't have much of a resume outside of those two runs...

The two-run resume brings up an interesting point. I'm considering no one-offs, no Kontos' or Druce's, no one-year wonders at all.

But Orr, Parent, and Mario must largely be judged on their 2 Smythe trophy winning years, and in each case their only 2 Cup winning years, otherwise their resume would be somewhat lacking.

Is 2 that much better than 1? Or do 2 earth-shattering playoffs, as in these 3 cases, make the difference?

 

[MXD]

The two-run resume brings up an interesting point. I'm considering no one-offs, no Kontos' or Druce's, no one-year wonders at all.

But Orr, Parent, and Mario must largely be judged on their 2 Smythe trophy winning years, and in each case their only 2 Cup winning years, otherwise their resume would be somewhat lacking.

Is 2 that much better than 1? Or do 2 earth-shattering playoffs, as in these 3 cases, make the difference?

Mario and Orr were also significantly better players than Krejci.

The better comparable for Krejci would be Rick MacLeish. In fact, Krejci is MacLeish with a skinnier resume (and I don't expect much change on that front in the next years).

 

[seventieslord]

Mario and Orr were also significantly better players than Krejci.

The better comparable for Krejci would be Rick MacLeish. In fact, Krejci is MacLeish with a skinnier resume (and I don't expect much change on that front in the next years).

Yes, I'm sure this has been mentioned before on this board. Krejci, who led his Finals team in scoring twice, despite not being their best forward, is a perfect comparable to MacLeish.

Why are we even talking about guys like this? 21 forwards. That's all we're gonna have room for.

 

[DNA]

Mario and Orr were also significantly better players than Krejci.

The better comparable for Krejci would be Rick MacLeish. In fact, Krejci is MacLeish with a skinnier resume (and I don't expect much change on that front in the next years).

Certainly. Krejci and MacLeish made my 120 shortlist. Unlikely to each make my top 60. My focus is more on Orr, Parent, & Lemieux. Yes they are significantly better players. But how does that rank them with the playoff objectives needed here? They all have 2 shining white lights, but what else?

Potvin, Trottier, and Bossy have twice as many Cups as any of them. Potvin has the superlative of captaining a Cup champion, straight, longer than anyone; Trottier has the game-scoring streak, mentioned by VanIslander above, lasting 3-straight Cup-winning seasons far and above anyone else, and Bossy simply scored 17 goals in 3 straight playoff seasons, when nobody else has scored that many more than once!

I'm just asking for some quantifying opinions

 

[sr edler]

Why are we even talking about guys like this?

Because it's interesting and this is a preliminary discussion thread?

If we're only allowed to talk about dynasty members on stacked power houses this could potentially be a pretty lame project.

If you can compare players era to era why not also team to team in a context of playoff success?

 

[DNA]

Let me ask it more bluntly. If I was to keep Orr, Lemieux & Parent out of my top 20 or 30, in favour of more wide-sweeping playoff candidates that I would consider to have superlatives and intangibles surpassing these 3, would I be wrong?

 

[seventieslord]

Because it's interesting and this is a preliminary discussion thread?

If we're only allowed to talk about dynasty members on stacked power houses this could potentially be a pretty lame project.

If you can compare players era to era why not also team to team in a context of playoff success?

Fair enough, what I really mean to ask is why we're talking about them like they might be on the final list. I really don't see how it can happen.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to focus solely on dynasty members from stacked powerhouses... Park, Gilmour and Crosby should all get serious consideration, as should many others.

but if we recognize Boston's two years of dominance and the Broad Street Bullies (on a list of 40 where, on average, one player per three cups will be represented), are those even the two guys we're going to recognize?

 

[MXD]

Yes, I'm sure this has been mentioned before on this board. Krejci, who led his Finals team in scoring twice, despite not being their best forward, is a perfect comparable to MacLeish.

Why are we even talking about guys like this? 21 forwards. That's all we're gonna have room for.

To be honest... MacLeish made my 125-names short list, quite easily. I'm not quite ready to write him off my round 1 list.

Of course, if you were talking about Krejci, THEN... yeah, Krejci is exactly the kind f player you have in mind until you realize you have no room left and you're not quite close to him either.

Certainly. Krejci and MacLeish made my 120 shortlist. Unlikely to each make my top 60. My focus is more on Orr, Parent, & Lemieux. Yes they are significantly better players. But how does that rank them with the playoff objectives needed here? They all have 2 shining white lights, but what else?

Potvin, Trottier, and Bossy have twice as many Cups as any of them. Potvin has the superlative of captaining a Cup champion, straight, longer than anyone; Trottier has the game-scoring streak, mentioned by VanIslander above, lasting 3-straight Cup-winning seasons far and above anyone else, and Bossy simply scored 17 goals in 3 straight playoff seasons, when nobody else has scored that many more than once!

I'm just asking for some quantifying opinions

Orr : He's Bobby Orr.
Lemieux : He's Mario Lemieux.
Parent : Interesting. His legacy comes from two seasons, where he was crazy good by all accounts. Goaltended a semi-dynasty, but he was more of a reason why it was a semi-dynasty than, say... other goalies in that kind of situation.

I don't think a Top-40 list of top playoffs performers is complete without Parent (my Top-60 list wouldn't be complete without him, too)

Because it's interesting and this is a preliminary discussion thread?

If we're only allowed to talk about dynasty members on stacked power houses this could potentially be a pretty lame project.

If you can compare players era to era why not also team to team in a context of playoff success?

Well... Krejci is way closer to the mark of relevance for this thing than Pavel Bure, I'll give you that.

Let me ask it more bluntly. If I was to keep Orr, Lemieux & Parent out of my top 20 or 30, in favour of more wide-sweeping playoff candidates that I would consider to have superlatives and intangibles surpassing these 3, would I be wrong?

Hummm.... I don't think Parent is even the better of those 2-runs-and-done type of players. I know I'll have a hard time finding room for him in my Top-20.

 

[DNA]

You know what the biggest wildcard is for me? Where do you rank Orr? That's the gold standard IMO in this whole project. Is he #1, #4, #10, #20, #30...

The answer to this will let the other chips fall, and I'm all ears...

 

[MXD]

You know what the biggest wildcard is for me? Where do you rank Orr? That's the gold standard IMO in this whole project. Is he #1, #4, #10, #20, #30...

The answer to this will let the other chips fall, and I'm all ears...

I didn't give a rank to Orr yet, but I can safely say that he'll be « Below #4 ».

 

[blogofmike]

Hummm.... I don't think Parent is even the better of those 2-runs-and-done type of players. I know I'll have a hard time finding room for him in my Top-20.

I've been having a hard time with some goaltenders. It is hard to look at 2 strong Smythe runs and not rank Parent highly, but a lack of longevity makes it hard to contextualize his performance against pre O6 goalies who also have 2-3 strong runs.

You know what the biggest wildcard is for me? Where do you rank Orr? That's the gold standard IMO in this whole project. Is he #1, #4, #10, #20, #30...

The answer to this will let the other chips fall, and I'm all ears...

This is a tough one. On one hand he's got 2 Conn Smythes and was a high level player when he did play.

On the other hand his playoff scoring, unlike the regular season, was not above what every other defender has done:
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=127394025&postcount=3

When longevity is taken into account, there are going to be lists where Bobby Orr isn't the #1 d-man. Because defenders with similar offensive production (Potvin, Lidstrom) have strong defensive performances too, holding Gretzky to 4 points in 1983 and Lindros to 3 points in 1997. Coffey probably won't get regarded that highly despite his statistically strong peak.

 

[double5son10]

Certainly. Krejci and MacLeish made my 120 shortlist. Unlikely to each make my top 60. My focus is more on Orr, Parent, & Lemieux. Yes they are significantly better players. But how does that rank them with the playoff objectives needed here? They all have 2 shining white lights, but what else?

Orr led the playoffs in assists in '74 and is better than a PPG while going to the Finals. The upset loss to Montreal in '71 may not have been his finest moment but 5 goals, 12 pts. in seven games isn't anything to sneeze at. He was certainly not Boston's biggest reason for failing to advance.
Lemieux's first playoffs in '89: 12 goals in 11 games. Even without the two Cup winning playoffs you're looking at 44 goals and 94 pts in 69 games. Pretty outstanding.
Parent's a lot more problematic. Put up the best GAA as a rookie that first expansion playoff, but that's against a low-scoring St. Louis team. Probably not worth much. He was also yanked by Shero and replaced and outplayed by the less than legendary Wayne Stephenson in both the '76 and '77 playoffs.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Interesting Orr Observation

Orr led the playoffs in assists in '74 and is better than a PPG while going to the Finals. The upset loss to Montreal in '71 may not have been his finest moment but 5 goals, 12 pts. in seven games isn't anything to sneeze at. He was certainly not Boston's biggest reason for failing to advance.
Lemieux's first playoffs in '89: 12 goals in 11 games. Even without the two Cup winning playoffs you're looking at 44 goals and 94 pts in 69 games. Pretty outstanding.
Parent's a lot more problematic. Put up the best GAA as a rookie that first expansion playoff, but that's against a low-scoring St. Louis team. Probably not worth much. He was also yanked by Shero and replaced and outplayed by the less than legendary Wayne Stephenson in both the '76 and '77 playoffs.

1971 Orr numbers are comparable to his regular season 12 pts in 7 games puts him in the 134 points over 78 games range, Close approximation to 139 that he actually scored including games against non-playoff teams. But 5 goals adjusts to 55 maybe 56 over 78 games.

This is the key aspect. Orr as a scorer vs Orr as a playmaker. As a playmaker the Bruins scored 399 goals in 78 games, better tan 5 goals a game. Orr as a scorer the Bruins scored 26 goals in seven games, a swing of 1.4 goals a game favouring the opposition.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Uh, the guy had a, what, a ****'* 28-playoff game scoring streak over three consecutive Stanley Cup championship postseasons??!

I think whatever he did before or after that won't dampen his standing too much.

Maybe not, and I'm not picking on Trottier specifically. But this is sort of the point I was trying to make: If dynasty players get a free pass for everything that happened outside the Cup-winning years, then the entire list will be dynasty players. The fact is, Trottier had some poor playoff performances before and after the 1980-1983 span. I don't think you can totally ignore that.