Do cups define the player?

[nmbr_24]

Does winning a cup define a player? Nope but being a playoff hero does.

Just look at Halak. Had a great run a couple of years back with the Habs and he is still defined by that run. You see it's not even necessary to win the Cup, your performance in the playoffs is enough.

Others just play better during the playoffs, guys like Claude Lemieux and now Quick do find an extra gear at that time of the year.

Now that's why people judge Thornton so harshly. Sure he's a future HOF'er but has he ever accomplished anything like Halak during a playoff run?

With Thornton it isn't just that he hasn't ever done something like Halak, it is that he just is not as effective in the playoffs, never mind elevating his game in the playoffs, he can't sustain his level of play from regular season to playoffs. If he did I think everyone would be saying he is a sure fire first ballot hall of famer.

 

[nbwingsfan]

Only if the player truly carried his team to winning to the cup, or at least played a massive part in it.

If someone tried to argue that Chris Osgood was a better goalie than Luongo because of cup wins, they would be wrong.

I consider actual playoff performances to matter more than actually winning the cup. Both Iginla and Sundin have absolutely carried their teams to the long playoff runs but couldn't win. Does that make them worse than Kris Draper?

 

[VanIslander]

The player with the most Stanley Cups (11): Henri Richard (Most hockey fans couldn't even name the position, yet alone any year he won any of them.)
The best player with no cups: Marcel Dionne.

Is there a human being on this planet who thinks Henri Richard is a better player than Marcel Dionne? If so, beam me up Scotty! Or, a generation later: And let's get out of here warp drive! "Engage!" (A generation after that: never mind.)

 

[MrWilson*]

You know what wins hockey games? Scoring goals and preventing other teams from scoring.

This pretty much sums it up. The rest of this 'analysis' on here is rubbish.