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

[MXD]

I think even if we're only going to have 40 names on our final list, the longer the lists we submit in round one, the better. Like, even 100.

That would be hell for screeners, no?

 

[MXD]

Oh, on Toews, Kane. Totally not ranking Kane. Might be ranking Toews at the tail end of the Top-60.

 

[seventieslord]

That would be hell for screeners, no?

I'm game for it. I'll join the screeners if I have to. But from the looks of it, there are so many players who can legitimately be named, that we need as large a sample size as possible to wade through to ensure that the names that come up in round 2 are as consensus as possible.

Oh, on Toews, Kane. Totally not ranking Kane. Might be ranking Toews at the tail end of the Top-60.

Isn't Kane legitimately a top-3 offensive player of his generation in the playoffs? In addition, he is tied with 5 others as the winningest player of his generation, has a Smythe, has a cup winning goal and has been a dangerous, exciting and ultimately lethal player in big moments of crucial games when the puck is on his stick. I'm surprised you're dismissing him so quickly.

 

[MXD]

I'm game for it. I'll join the screeners if I have to. But from the looks of it, there are so many players who can legitimately be named, that we need as large a sample size as possible to wade through to ensure that the names that come up in round 2 are as consensus as possible.



Isn't Kane legitimately a top-3 offensive player of his generation in the playoffs? In addition, he is tied with 5 others as the winningest player of his generation, has a Smythe, has a cup winning goal and has been a dangerous, exciting and ultimately lethal player in big moments of crucial games when the puck is on his stick. I'm surprised you're dismissing him so quickly.

First paragraph : 100 names instead of 60 names is... I'm trying to think of the level of players at which you screeners will start asking questions.


Second paragraph : For all the flak Crosby has gotten for his Smythe, Kane's was arguably weaker. I also don't really see what absolutely requires to have three Blackhawks amongst 60 players, since that would probably mean having five younger-than-30 active players.

But I admit my earlier take was... a bit of a hot take. I'd have Toews ahead of Kane (... I think). It's just that I can't see myself ranking no less than five below-31, active players should I rank Kane. Which might be the right thing to do, mind you.

 

[DNA]

Hmm, a top 40 list, for the last 125yrs. Toews might make it, Crosby maybe. If people have 10 current players on this list, there's something wrong!

 

[Kyle McMahon]

It seems pretty tough to justify not a single active player on a Top 60 list if the goal is to be inclusive of all eras.

If you have roughly 10 different eras of Stanley Cup hockey (and I consider the post-2004 salary cap league to be one of those 10 specific eras), it seems reasonable that you might list around six players who made significant playoff contributions in that era. Some of those six might be retired now, but surely there's at least a couple active guys that ought to crack the Top 60.

 

[DNA]

Okay, the era prior to 2005-to date, say another dozen years, 1992-2004, will have as candidates Messier, Roy, both Lemieux's, Sakic, Yzerman, Forsberg, Gilmour, Nieuwendyk, Bourque, Chelios, Stevens, Brodeur, and unless they're bumped to the most current era, Lidstrom, and Niedermayer. Some of these may be slipped into the 1979-1991 era but that just bumps out some more big names.

Pronger is a candidate for the current era IMO. And Lidstrom and Niedermayer too because of the above, so what 3 (or 4) current players are justified candidates? As I said, Toews, Crosby, maybe Kane, maybe Keith, but space is severely limited.

If we must include those still carving out their playing careers, fine, but Dan Bain, Frank McGee, Lester Patrick, Jack Darragh, Newsy Lalonde, Percy LeSeuer, Jack Marshall, and Clint Benedict are on my list regardless.

 

[CokenoPepsi]

Okay, the era prior to 2005-to date, say another dozen years, 1992-2004, will have as candidates Messier, Roy, both Lemieux's, Sakic, Yzerman, Forsberg, Gilmour, Nieuwendyk, Bourque, Chelios, Stevens, Brodeur, and unless they're bumped to the most current era, Lidstrom, and Niedermayer. Some of these may be slipped into the 1979-1991 era but that just bumps out some more big names.

Pronger is a candidate for the current era IMO. And Lidstrom and Niedermayer too because of the above, so what 3 (or 4) current players are justified candidates? As I said, Toews, Crosby, maybe Kane, maybe Keith, but space is severely limited.

If we must include those still carving out their playing careers, fine, but Dan Bain, Frank McGee, Lester Patrick, Jack Darragh, Newsy Lalonde, Percy LeSeuer, Jack Marshall, and Clint Benedict are on my list regardless.

I don't really see an argument for Toews over any one of Kane, Crosby or Keith in the playoffs.

They are all heads and shoulders above Jonathan.

 

[DNA]

I don't really see an argument for Toews over any one of Kane, Crosby or Keith in the playoffs.

They are all heads and shoulders above Jonathan.

With all due respect, and I mean this sincerely, it shows you don't know much about this game. Crunch whatever numbers you want. I've seen this guy play hockey for over 10 years. He's captained 3 Stanley Cups, has a Conn Smythe, has 2 gold medals, leading one in scoring, and winning a World Juniors himself, and has a drive in his eyes that I don't know I've seen in another hockey player ever! There's a very short list of people that I can say the same about! **** on him all you want, but that tells me loads about you, not him! And there's a lot of this **** going on about him from people watching this game for only the last 2 years...

Good day!

 

[Cursed Lemon]

Is the spirit of this project just a pure production standpoint, or more geared toward players who accomplished the most relative to their regular season expectations/reputations? Or, ladies' choice?

 

[Iceman]

Is the spirit of this project just a pure production standpoint, or more geared toward players who accomplished the most relative to their regular season expectations/reputations? Or, ladies' choice?

Curious about this as well because Orr might get a pretty shameful rank in contrast to his whole career.

 

[Iceman]

How much importance do you guys place on goals in the playoffs? Goals are generally considered more important than an assist but a goal in the regular season might be a drop in the pacific ocean while in the playoffs they decide series. Even some natural playmakers score more in the playoffs than they do in the regular season so should that diminish passers and defensive forwards value in a project like this? Or actually, let's do the complete opposite, a regular season scoring machine has a significant decrease in playoff scoring but are still producing point wise, should they be considered chokers even if your 5th best forward scores more than you?

 

[bobholly39]

Is the spirit of this project just a pure production standpoint, or more geared toward players who accomplished the most relative to their regular season expectations/reputations? Or, ladies' choice?

Curious about this as well because Orr might get a pretty shameful rank in contrast to his whole career.

This was discussed previously and I think most agreed on pure production - you ignore expectations.

For Orr - you compare him apples to apples to whoever he's up against ignoring the fact that he *is* Orr and that maybe you feel he somehow could have done better still because of expectations associated to someone like him

 

[MXD]

Is the spirit of this project just a pure production standpoint, or more geared toward players who accomplished the most relative to their regular season expectations/reputations? Or, ladies' choice?

I'd say pure level of play... production might be something of a misnomer here. It's really up to everyone.

 

[CokenoPepsi]

With all due respect, and I mean this sincerely, it shows you don't know much about this game. Crunch whatever numbers you want. I've seen this guy play hockey for over 10 years. He's captained 3 Stanley Cups, has a Conn Smythe, has 2 gold medals, leading one in scoring, and winning a World Juniors himself, and has a drive in his eyes that I don't know I've seen in another hockey player ever! There's a very short list of people that I can say the same about! **** on him all you want, but that tells me loads about you, not him! And there's a lot of this **** going on about him from people watching this game for only the last 2 years...

Good day!

I've watched them all since before their NHL careers had begun and I can tell you Pat Kane is just on another level, when the going gets tough, when the pressure builds there is simply no one better in the game than him.

I'm not saying Toews is bad by any stretch (though he has his rough patches) but he is simply below the likes of Kane and Crosby in the playoffs.

 

[MXD]

I've watched them all since before their NHL careers had begun and I can tell you Pat Kane is just on another level, when the going gets tough, when the pressure builds there is simply no one better in the game than him.

I'm not saying Toews is bad by any stretch (though he has his rough patches) but he is simply below the likes of Kane and Crosby in the playoffs.

I highly doubt you're the only one here who saw Toews, Kane and Crosby play NHL hockey...

 

[K Fleur]

I highly doubt you're the only one here who saw Toews, Kane and Crosby play NHL hockey...

The poster DNA implied this poster has only watched hockey for 2 years. In a paragraph long post that could have been summarized as just "you have a different opinion than me so you do not know anything about this sport".

[MOD]

 

[ESH]

I've watched them all since before their NHL careers had begun and I can tell you Pat Kane is just on another level, when the going gets tough, when the pressure builds there is simply no one better in the game than him.

I'm not saying Toews is bad by any stretch (though he has his rough patches) but he is simply below the likes of Kane and Crosby in the playoffs.

I would have Kane as the clear last out of the 3 of the Blackhawks. The only deep run in which I thought Kane was a more impactful player than Toews was in 2013, and I wouldn't have even given Kane the Conn Smythe if I got to choose. I also think Keith had a similar impact to both Toews and Kane in 2010, but an even bigger impact in 2013 and 2015, so he's my clear first.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Okay, the era prior to 2005-to date, say another dozen years, 1992-2004, will have as candidates Messier, Roy, both Lemieux's, Sakic, Yzerman, Forsberg, Gilmour, Nieuwendyk, Bourque, Chelios, Stevens, Brodeur, and unless they're bumped to the most current era, Lidstrom, and Niedermayer. Some of these may be slipped into the 1979-1991 era but that just bumps out some more big names.

Pronger is a candidate for the current era IMO. And Lidstrom and Niedermayer too because of the above, so what 3 (or 4) current players are justified candidates? As I said, Toews, Crosby, maybe Kane, maybe Keith, but space is severely limited.

If we must include those still carving out their playing careers, fine, but Dan Bain, Frank McGee, Lester Patrick, Jack Darragh, Newsy Lalonde, Percy LeSeuer, Jack Marshall, and Clint Benedict are on my list regardless.

Out of currently playing guys, I can say with virtual certainty that Keith will be on my list. Not sure about anyone else until I get things sorted further. I think Kane and Toews will sneak in there and I won't rule out Crosby, but as you say space is very limited.

There's plenty of players you think of as big time playoff performers that get ruled out quickly. Claude Lemieux and Nieuwendyk definitely fall short. Glenn Anderson and Doug Gilmour seem like automatics, and then you start listing off names and all of a sudden you've got a handful of contemporary forwards above them and realize you'll probably run out of room because how many 80's/early 90's forwards can you justify?

 

[Sens Rule]

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

Gretzky, Rocket and Roy are my big 3. I think I will have to Gretzky first though.

 

[Sens Rule]

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.

But you need context. Take Chelios at the end of his career on the Wings.

I forget the season but it was his last or second last in Detroit. He was the 7th D and getting scratched in the regular season and the playoffs. Like 45 years old. Injuries push him into the lineup and he plays on the bottom pair.

I flip to an afternoon hockey game midway through. Chicago is up in what would be a series clinching game to go to I guess the 3rd round? Chicago is up by 2 goals in the third and the Wings are coming on like nobodies business to tie it up. Just awesome hockey and Wings are fighting like ******** and taking it to the Hawks late in the game. I would notice Chelios and he is playing fine and all. Then Chelios grabs a Hawks players stick, puts it in his armpit and falls down. Wings get a PP that Chelios literally steals at the biggest possible moment.

In the end the Wings lose the game and series and that was the time Chelios would not do the hand shake line.

Anyway my point is that Chelios as a bit fill in player with no points still was great in the playoffs just for that single play that post season.

Looking at stats and seeing he played 6 games and got 0 points or something like that playoff run should not be a negative. He has 2 decades of playoffs and even at the end with little left to give he is still helping his team win.

That play he made sticks with me hugely. It is the kind of play that made him great. And I watched him play since the 1986 playoffs. Guy just did anything to win. Even as a bit player made what could have been the key play for his team in the series just by guts, will and being a dirty competive baller.

So it might be a negative if Marcel Dionne got 2 points in a one series playoff at 25 years old. It isn't for 45 year old Chris Chelios. Context.

 

[MXD]

Out of currently playing guys, I can say with virtual certainty that Keith will be on my list. Not sure about anyone else until I get things sorted further. I think Kane and Toews will sneak in there and I won't rule out Crosby, but as you say space is very limited.

There's plenty of players you think of as big time playoff performers that get ruled out quickly. Claude Lemieux and Nieuwendyk definitely fall short. Glenn Anderson and Doug Gilmour seem like automatics, and then you start listing off names and all of a sudden you've got a handful of contemporary forwards above them and realize you'll probably run out of room because how many 80's/early 90's forwards can you justify?

...But then again, you have the issue of "How above Gilmour can Crosby be" and you end up putting Gilmour right back in.

 

[shazariahl]

But you need context. Take Chelios at the end of his career on the Wings.

I forget the season but it was his last or second last in Detroit. He was the 7th D and getting scratched in the regular season and the playoffs. Like 45 years old. Injuries push him into the lineup and he plays on the bottom pair.

I flip to an afternoon hockey game midway through. Chicago is up in what would be a series clinching game to go to I guess the 3rd round? Chicago is up by 2 goals in the third and the Wings are coming on like nobodies business to tie it up. Just awesome hockey and Wings are fighting like ******** and taking it to the Hawks late in the game. I would notice Chelios and he is playing fine and all. Then Chelios grabs a Hawks players stick, puts it in his armpit and falls down. Wings get a PP that Chelios literally steals at the biggest possible moment.

In the end the Wings lose the game and series and that was the time Chelios would not do the hand shake line.

Anyway my point is that Chelios as a bit fill in player with no points still was great in the playoffs just for that single play that post season.

Looking at stats and seeing he played 6 games and got 0 points or something like that playoff run should not be a negative. He has 2 decades of playoffs and even at the end with little left to give he is still helping his team win.

That play he made sticks with me hugely. It is the kind of play that made him great. And I watched him play since the 1986 playoffs. Guy just did anything to win. Even as a bit player made what could have been the key play for his team in the series just by guts, will and being a dirty competive baller.

So it might be a negative if Marcel Dionne got 2 points in a one series playoff at 25 years old. It isn't for 45 year old Chris Chelios. Context.

Excellent post, and a prime example of what I was talking about. I agree that if you're a 25 yr old forward and have a terrible series that's not great. But if you're on the list of the best 40 playoff performers of all time, clearly you have a body of work in the post season that justifies you being there. In which case one bad run (or even 2 or 3) shouldn't really hurt your case. We aren't talking about people with a couple decent runs and a bunch of bad ones. We're talking about the top 40 playoff performers of all time here. If they don't have multiple great runs in their career, they won't be on the list. If they do, a couple bad runs shouldn't change that.

 

[MXD]

Excellent post, and a prime example of what I was talking about. I agree that if you're a 25 yr old forward and have a terrible series that's not great. But if you're on the list of the best 40 playoff performers of all time, clearly you have a body of work in the post season that justifies you being there. In which case one bad run (or even 2 or 3) shouldn't really hurt your case. We aren't talking about people with a couple decent runs and a bunch of bad ones. We're talking about the top 40 playoff performers of all time here. If they don't have multiple great runs in their career, they won't be on the list. If they do, a couple bad runs shouldn't change that.

To this I'd add...
Take Martin St-Louis. His 39 years old run, which was great for a 39 years old guy but not great in the grand scheme of things, matters quite a bit more than it probably should for a player in his situation, because it's not like he had many runs before that.

I don't have great comparables for actual players, because I think most of the actual players that are in play so to speak aren't that old. The best current example would be Zetterberg actually (and it's more of a Jim Mora's GIF than anything for this season, and Zetterberg probably needed good runs in 14-15/15-16 to have a shot of making the Round 1 lists. Mine, at least)

 

[seventieslord]

I feel like every post in this thread just makes the whole concept of putting together a preliminary list even more confusing. Names start popping into my head that I begin to question whether I'll even have room - Billy Smith? Doug Gilmour? Claude Lemieux? Sidney Crosby? Duncan Keith? and so on.