Clear Cut Conn Smythes...
- Thread starter DitchMarner
- Start date
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
I remember that there were people who thought Roy should have won in 1996, despite Sakic's brilliant performance.
Since I started following hockey, these are the ones that I don't think were challenged:.
Lemieux 1991/92
Roy 1993
Stevens 2000
Zetterberg 2008
Quick 2012
Keith 2015
Since I started following hockey, these are the ones that I don't think were challenged:.
Lemieux 1991/92
Roy 1993
Stevens 2000
Zetterberg 2008
Quick 2012
Keith 2015
Last edited:
GreatGonzo
Surrounded by Snowflakes
In 2011 the Bruins don't beat Montreal or Tampa without Thomas.
Ken Dryden in 1971 can not be disputed either.
Ken Dryden in 1971 can not be disputed either.
VanIslander
A 19-year ATDer on HfBoards
Wasn't mark messier right there with him? There's a difference with clear cut vs very strong.
3 very strong winners who are not necessarily clear cut:
Leetch 94 (Messier)
Sakic 96 (Roy)
Malkin 09 (Crosby)
Michael Farkas
Celebrate 68
Obligatory: scratch 2011 Thomas off. That was a default/storyline win. That was as inconsistent of a performance as you're ever gonna see...the shiny numbers are there, but save pct. doesn't win series. He gave up a mountain of bad goals and it took a heroic offensive push to overcome his play. In fact, he played so poorly against montreal, they deserved to be eliminated right then and there. Kostitsyn, as I recall, nearly did the honors on a harmless wrist shot that eluded Thomas and hit the bar late in game 7...
Polar opposite: 2012 Quick. He was peerless throughout and surrendered maybe one bad goal the whole playoffs.
Not to say that Mario didn't deserve in 1992, but it was openly discussed that Barrasso was well into that conversation as well...I'm not sure how much merit there really was behind that but it was buoyed by the fact that noted self-promoter Mario stated that Tommy should have won it in the post-game...probably not worth a hell of a lot...
Polar opposite: 2012 Quick. He was peerless throughout and surrendered maybe one bad goal the whole playoffs.
Not to say that Mario didn't deserve in 1992, but it was openly discussed that Barrasso was well into that conversation as well...I'm not sure how much merit there really was behind that but it was buoyed by the fact that noted self-promoter Mario stated that Tommy should have won it in the post-game...probably not worth a hell of a lot...
reckoning
Registered User
- Jan 4, 2005
- 7,037
- 1,295
For the 80s, the only three slam dunks were:
1983: Billy Smith
1986: Patrick Roy
1988: Wayne Gretzky
For the first three Islander Cups, the eventual Smythe winners were the favorites, but Potvin was in contention. Many felt Gretzky should have won in '84. Gretzky was the clear favorite in '85, but there were a few media members who felt it should have gone to Coffey. Hextall would have been unanimous in '87 had the Flyers won, but they didn't, and some feel it go only go to a player on the Cup winner. In '89 most people were picking MacInnis, but there was a vocal minority who thought Mike Vernon should win.
1983: Billy Smith
1986: Patrick Roy
1988: Wayne Gretzky
For the first three Islander Cups, the eventual Smythe winners were the favorites, but Potvin was in contention. Many felt Gretzky should have won in '84. Gretzky was the clear favorite in '85, but there were a few media members who felt it should have gone to Coffey. Hextall would have been unanimous in '87 had the Flyers won, but they didn't, and some feel it go only go to a player on the Cup winner. In '89 most people were picking MacInnis, but there was a vocal minority who thought Mike Vernon should win.
How about 1979 with Bob Gainey? Should Lafleur been a strong contender as well or John Davidson or Larry Robinson even? Or was Gainey very much the clear cut candidate for that season? This is a very interesting subject
to discuss.
to discuss.
Big Phil
Registered User
- Nov 2, 2003
- 31,703
- 4,148
Beliveau in 1965, no one complains about
Dryden in 1971
Orr in 1972 (I think Esposito while brilliant in both Cup wins was more dominant in 1970 and made it closer)
Lafleur in 1977
Trottier in 1980
Smither in 1983
Gretzky in 1985 and 1988
Roy in 1986 and 1993
Mario in 1991 and 1992
Sakic in 1996 (for me at least, I know the odd person likes Roy)
Stevens in 2000
Malkin in 2009
Thomas in 2011
Quick in 2012
Keith in 2015
I would also say Parent in both years is a good choice although MacLeish racked up the points. MacInnis in my mind is clear cut even though a few Flames had Smythe-worthy runs.
Dryden in 1971
Orr in 1972 (I think Esposito while brilliant in both Cup wins was more dominant in 1970 and made it closer)
Lafleur in 1977
Trottier in 1980
Smither in 1983
Gretzky in 1985 and 1988
Roy in 1986 and 1993
Mario in 1991 and 1992
Sakic in 1996 (for me at least, I know the odd person likes Roy)
Stevens in 2000
Malkin in 2009
Thomas in 2011
Quick in 2012
Keith in 2015
I would also say Parent in both years is a good choice although MacLeish racked up the points. MacInnis in my mind is clear cut even though a few Flames had Smythe-worthy runs.
DitchMarner
It's time.
Some say Crosby should have or easily could have won in 2009, but I think Malkin was the correct choice. He distanced himself from Crosby in the SCF that year (whereas this year, Crosby did the opposite).
Malkin outplayed him in the CAR series as well in 2009.
Crosbyfan
Registered User
- Nov 27, 2003
- 12,672
- 2,497
In 1999 Dominik Hasek!
... er,... wait...
oh yeah, the non-goal in OT of Game 6 of the Finals.
When are they going to finish that game and series, anyway, and stop pretending secret memo rule like they did not f it up?
DitchMarner
It's time.
The chances are that the Stars would have won anyway.
Even if that goal hadn't counted, they could have finished the series in six.
Plus I don't imagine the Sabres would have beat them in a game seven in Dallas.
The Stars were a much stronger team. They had won the President's Trophy in 1999 following a 114 point season.
Even with Hasek, I think the Sabres would have been in tough for game seven if there had been one.
Even if that goal hadn't counted, they could have finished the series in six.
Plus I don't imagine the Sabres would have beat them in a game seven in Dallas.
The Stars were a much stronger team. They had won the President's Trophy in 1999 following a 114 point season.
Even with Hasek, I think the Sabres would have been in tough for game seven if there had been one.
Michael Farkas
Celebrate 68
The only game 7 that Hasek won was Roy's statue of liberty game, right? Or am I missing one against Ottawa (but I think that was Shields)...
Sentinel
Registered User
That was Game 6. Game 7 was the blowout with Hasek probably having a beer on the other end.
GreatGonzo
Surrounded by Snowflakes
But they weren't eliminated and Thomas continued to dominate all the way to a cup win....
"Shiny numbers"..??
-most saves by a goalie in a playoff run
-most saves by a goalie in the SCF.
He led in some bad goals? Ok....yet he backed it up with RECORD breaking saves and stats, so all that saltiness your experiencing right now is for nothing. You can sum up his entire "unworthy" playoff run with some bad plays, but with every bad play, he rebounded with many more ridiculous saves and games. I'm sorry if that doesn't fit your narrative but it's what actually happened so...
Edit: also worth Noting that's a Quick still played under a tight defensive system, played against relatively weaker competition that post season, and faced less shots(538, Thomas faced 839).
Last edited:
Crosbyfan
Registered User
- Nov 27, 2003
- 12,672
- 2,497
They certainly deserved a chance to win it. That was taken from them as well.
Michael Farkas
Celebrate 68
The only series that Thomas kept himself was above water consistently was against a very hapless and feckless Flyers team...he dominated nothing. He had some flashy moments that people may attribute to him and that's fine, it's not like he made zero saves throughout, he played. But save pct, particularly in this case, is a weak argument for those that watched what was happening.
Saves do not win games. Bad goals against lose games. Save is the expected result, why would that be celebrated to such a degree? If he was better, he wouldn't have allowed three series to drag on into 7th games...Chara and Seidenberg deserved a much better fate than he provided them...promoting inefficiency is strikingly odd to me...
I say this with no ill will, as I don't know your background...for anyone that has played or coached at a reasonably competitive level, you know that nothing has more of an effect on a bench than a bad goal against. That is the toughest ordinary course event to overcome. So the dismissal of bad goals, as if they don't have profound impact on games and series is quite disheartening from a game theory perspective...from an averaging stat perspective, it is understandable, but no ome is arguing that his GAA was miscalculated...this needs to be re-evaluated in your mind, as the game is not played on paper and the players are not made of stone...
I have no narrative. "Ridiculous" saves are nice. And he definitely made some saves that other goalies may not have. He also surrendered at least a dozen and as many as 20 goals that most goalies, with any sort of reliable technique, would not have given up...that is nowhere near good enough. Should be considered how many saves that fall under the category of "ridiculous" where he just misplayed or misread an easier situation. Again, celebrating and promoting inefficiency is not something, as a coach, I am prepared to do.
Quick as an 8 seed faced whatever competition he was dealt on the road. While the Kings played defense too, measuring it by the number of shots is shoddy, unkempt analysis at very best, with all due respect. Defensive structure is not measured in shots. Re-watch Bruins games from 2011, note the placement and layering of their structure and what it promoted vs what it protected against...a moderately sharp eye (or better) should get it pretty quickly and it should result in a reconsideration of the use of saves/save pct as an argument. Doesn't have to be dismissed entirely, but it does need to be re-calibrated...
Quick never put his team in any trouble...he didn't give up bad goals, he didn't burp up a ton of random, poor rebounds that he sprayed everywhere for his d-men to mop up...his efficiency is punished, while inefficiency is celebrated on the other side. That's not fit for most elements of society...I think this argument, based heavily on saves and, aptly, "ridiculous[ness]" ought to be re-considered with a stronger fundamental eye for the game, would be happy to evaluate video as necessary...
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
Would have liked to have seen the voting results for that one with all the media talk of Coffey and Kurri. It might have ended up unanimously Gretzky anyway, but the talk made it seem like it could have been closer (and the final results seemed less attached to the scoring leaders then). Or if the Rangers series had any impact on 1992 Lemieux.
Ad
Upcoming events
-
-
-
-
BET ON ONLY ONE HORSE WATCH LIVE - BELMONT (AQUEDUCT) RACE 1 - Queens, NYWagers: 2Staked: $115.00Event closes- Updated:
-
