HOH Top 40 Stanley Cup Playoff Performers of All Time

daver

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
25,796
5,676
Visit site
I think Crosby is compiling a Belliveau-like playoff resume as his team has the potential to make their mark on the post lockout era, or as far back to the Oilers if they win another Cup.

Here is how I would tier their respective Cup runs (including Crosby's 2008 SCF and excluding Belliveau's 3 game run in 1959) based on point totals relative to the rest of the league and their team, and with greater weight given to the SCF:

Tier 1
Belliveau '56

Tier 2
Belliveau '57
Belliveau '65
Belliveau '69
Crosby '08
Crosby '09
Crosby '17


Tier 3
Belliveau '58
Belliveau '66
Belliveau '68
Belliveau '71
Crosby '16

Tier 4
Belliveau '60


Pound for pound, Crosby measures up very well when reasonable consideration is given to the different eras they played in.


 

K Fleur

Sacrifice
Mar 28, 2014
15,377
25,487
I disagree with the point specifically on the guy who's been discussed the last few pages, and in general. The best player should distinguish himself by playing the best.

My point has maintained that a player cannot distinguish themself as the best in the playoffs without making the finals.

A great performance can be cut short by the bad fortune of a team that lets you down, just as a middling performance can be extended by the good fortune of your team surviving a poor Washington series where your Crazy Ivan blind passes to no one essentially clear the zone for the Capitals. (Actual question for Pens fans who remember 2016: Was that a Kunitz play that Rust and Sheary didn't know about? Why did Crosby keep throwing the puck back like he expected someone to be there?)

It’s something I remember him starting to do when Mike Johnston was the head coach. He used to pull up along the half boards and throw a blind pass to the trailing defender for a shot. I don’t know what’s worse throwing a blind pass to the other team, or trying to set Rob Scuderi up with a scoring chance. Both had about the same success rate.
 

K Fleur

Sacrifice
Mar 28, 2014
15,377
25,487
Crosby stopped "wanting" to be better than two centres on his own team after the first 5 games in 2016. He got a Conn Smythe for it.

Well the Conn Smythe trophy has a rather subjective “most valuable to his team” definition. Plus it’s pretty well established now that Crosby’s ‘16 is one of the weaker Smythe wins historically. I won’t argue that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sentinel

quoipourquoi

Goaltender
Jan 26, 2009
10,123
4,125
Hockeytown, MI
A team can not theoretically win 16 playoff games playing against only 3 teams. If that doesn’t matter in determining the “best” player then why does it matter if they play in 2 rounds instead of 3? Or 1 round instead of 2?

In the current format...

A player who goes 1 round plays 4-7 games.
A player who goes 2 rounds plays 8-14 games.
A player who goes 3 rounds plays 12-21 games.
A player who goes 4 rounds plays 16-28 games.

I do not struggle to evaluate Karlsson over 18 games, Forsberg over 20 games, or Gilmour over 21 games any more than I struggle to evaluate Wayne Gretzky over 19 games (1988), Mario Lemieux over 15 games (1992), or Patrick Roy over 20 games (1993).

...wait, who do you think was the best player in the 1992 playoffs? Lemieux missed 4 Penguins victories. Is that disqualifying or does his cup of coffee in Round 2 before Graves took him out give him some amount of protection that 6 extra games does not afford Doug Gilmour?
 

K Fleur

Sacrifice
Mar 28, 2014
15,377
25,487
In the current format...

A player who goes 1 round plays 4-7 games.
A player who goes 2 rounds plays 8-14 games.
A player who goes 3 rounds plays 12-21 games.
A player who goes 4 rounds plays 16-28 games.

I’m aware of the format.



...wait, who do you think was the best player in the 1992 playoffs? Lemieux missed 4 Penguins victories. Is that disqualifying or does his cup of coffee in Round 2 before Graves took him out give him some amount of protection that 6 extra games does not afford Doug Gilmour?

Mario Lemieux was the best player in the 1992 playoffs(though ‘91 is the better of his two Smythe wins). Played and contributed in all 4 rounds, cup of coffee or not. There is a large difference between an injury keeping a player from playing, and losing keeping a player from playing. I would listen to an argument that Barassonwas more “valuable” that playoff. Lemieux said as much himself.

This attempt to find the “gotcha” moment is really lame. There has to be better examples you could have used.
 

quoipourquoi

Goaltender
Jan 26, 2009
10,123
4,125
Hockeytown, MI
I’m aware of the format.

Mario Lemieux was the best player in the 1992 playoffs(though ‘91 is the better of his two Smythe wins). Played and contributed in all 4 rounds, cup of coffee or not. There is a large difference between an injury keeping a player from playing, and losing keeping a player from playing. I would listen to an argument that Barassonwas more “valuable” that playoff. Lemieux said as much himself.

This attempt to find the “gotcha” moment is really lame. There has to be better examples you could have used.

Which is the "gotcha"? That Gretzky, Lemieux, and Roy played a combined 54 games in these Conn Smythe winning playoffs while Forsberg, Gilmour, and Karlsson played a combined 59 games and that no one struggles with assessing the first three as individuals while you're disqualifying the latter three from possibly being better than someone else or that you can call a Pittsburgh Penguin who appeared in just 12/16 victories the best player in a playoff?

Both were equally gotcha-ish.
 

K Fleur

Sacrifice
Mar 28, 2014
15,377
25,487
Which is the "gotcha"? That Gretzky, Lemieux, and Roy played a combined 54 games in these Conn Smythe winning playoffs while Forsberg, Gilmour, and Karlsson played a combined 59 games and that no one struggles with assessing the first three as individuals while you're disqualifying the latter three from possibly being better than someone else

They’re not disqualified from being better than “someone else”. They are disqualified from being the “best”.

or that you can call a Pittsburgh Penguin who appeared in just 12/16 victories the best player in a playoff?

Both were equally gotcha-ish.

Being able to only appear 12/16 victories due to injury is not the same as appearing in only 11 victories do to losing. In one scenario you’re able to play and contribute to more victories, the other you are not. In one scenario a player played and contributed in the finals in the other a player did not. In this particular injury scenario the injured player still played in 4 more finals games than all 3 players you presented combined.

My reasoning has stayed the same. What team I cheer for has really nothing to do with it.

Like I said earlier I’m sure there are better “gotcha” examples out there for you to use. No pressure though if you’re not done trying to just discredit me as a homer.
 
Last edited:

daver

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
25,796
5,676
Visit site
Which is the "gotcha"? That Gretzky, Lemieux, and Roy played a combined 54 games in these Conn Smythe winning playoffs while Forsberg, Gilmour, and Karlsson played a combined 59 games and that no one struggles with assessing the first three as individuals while you're disqualifying the latter three from possibly being better than someone else or that you can call a Pittsburgh Penguin who appeared in just 12/16 victories the best player in a playoff?

Both were equally gotcha-ish.

Not playing against the best team or 2nd best team in the NHL for the championship is a reasonable condition. It certainly is not indefensible.

I think you have to accept that "arguable" needs to be applied when introducing the 'three rounder' crowd to the best playoff performers discussion. For the record, IMO, dismissing all three rounders on principle alone is less defensible than comparing them straight up to SC champs.

For example, OV was just as good as Crosby and Malkin in 2009 but ultimately loses the battle given he was out before the SCF.
 

quoipourquoi

Goaltender
Jan 26, 2009
10,123
4,125
Hockeytown, MI
Not playing against the best team or 2nd best team in the NHL for the championship is a reasonable condition. It certainly is not indefensible.

So let's say someone like Mario Lemieux missed a series against a President's Trophy winner like the 1992 New York Rangers. He could still be the best player in the playoffs at 15 games, but Peter Forsberg is just poetic waxing because even after 20 games, he didn't play the Carolina Hurricanes and you can't properly assess him until you see how he performs against the Carolina Hurricanes.
 

daver

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
25,796
5,676
Visit site
So let's say someone like Mario Lemieux missed a series against a President's Trophy winner like the 1992 New York Rangers. He could still be the best player in the playoffs at 15 games, but Peter Forsberg is just poetic waxing because even after 20 games, he didn't play the Carolina Hurricanes and you can't properly assess him until you see how he performs against the Carolina Hurricanes.

I am saying that comparing his '02 playoff to Crosby's 2009 playoff and saying Forsberg's was better because of a better PPG and/or that he was the best [playoff performer that year while Crosby was not is not without its flaws, namely the lack of playing the final round.

Let's put it this way, both of these statements should not be taken at face value:

Crosby's two Conn Smythes run are automatically better than any non Smythe winning run of his era or or any of Forsberg's runs.

Forsberg cannot be considered among the best playoff performers of all-time because he lacks a Smythe.


I think Forsberg's ranking all-time is fine. Crosby should be ahead of him.
 

bobholly39

Registered User
Mar 10, 2013
22,024
14,507
So let's say someone like Mario Lemieux missed a series against a President's Trophy winner like the 1992 New York Rangers. He could still be the best player in the playoffs at 15 games, but Peter Forsberg is just poetic waxing because even after 20 games, he didn't play the Carolina Hurricanes and you can't properly assess him until you see how he performs against the Carolina Hurricanes.

I get that "logically" this doesn't make much sense. And i'm a huge stickler for arguing logic around here usually. Which is why I often use your same arguments to try and raise the significance of strong partial seasons when the level of play is high enough and logic suggests it was sustainable (true of some of Mario and Crosby's seasons).

But - as illogical as it sounds - I still feel playoffs should be all about winning, and playing for a winning team in the cup finals (or at least making the finals, if you lose) - does add some significant bonus points.

So in your example - assuming both runs are exactly comparable - Lemieux > Forbserg quite easily because Lemieux played in the finals (and did good and helped his team win) vs Forsberg didn't and couldn't help his team win.

It doesn't mean that as Daver said that all Conn smythe runs (with cup wins/finals) should automatically be better than any run like Forsberg's that falls short of the finals - but making the finals (and even more - winning) should give significant bonus points.

2002 Forsberg vs 2017 Crosby? I'm thinking 2017 Crosby
2002 Forsberg vs 2016 Crosby? Maybe go with Forsberg
 
  • Like
Reactions: quoipourquoi

JackSlater

Registered User
Apr 27, 2010
18,038
12,646
It's fairly obvious that a player can be the best player in the playoffs despite not winning the Stanley Cup, or even necessarily making it to the finals. Of course things must be weighted and contributions in each later round are usually more impressive than those in earlier rounds, but winning is a team achievement while performance is an individual achievement. The 2002 Forsberg example is pretty spot on, where not playing a mediocre Carolina team in the final doesn't change that Forsberg was the best player in the playoffs that year. Of course very obvious bias is again dictating the arguments put forward by some, but that isn't shocking given the way this section is trending.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Epsilon

Black Gold Extractor

Registered User
May 4, 2010
3,049
4,802
Now that the playoffs are over, I have updated the data regarding adjusting playoff production based on opponent GA and percent of offense generated by first liners (method described here).

qdZXv2r.png


This time I've used a "neutral" 29% for the current era rather than just use the moving average value for the latest season, which kind of changes the numbers a bit. Effectively, you can directly compare how your favorite from the past does against current standard-bearer Sidney Crosby in 2016 and 2017! Without further ado, here are values for the players that I have done (and I've finally added Ovechkin). For the top 5 multi-round post seasons for each player:

PlayerGPAdj. PTSAdj. P/G
Wayne Gretzky731271.74
Mario Lemieux781121.44
Gordie Howe57761.33
Jaromir Jagr60791.32
Guy Lafleur69881.28
Joe Sakic901151.28
Peter Forsberg75931.24
Sidney Crosby831011.22
Maurice Richard50601.20
Stan Mikita64751.17
Jean Beliveau69791.14
Mike Bossy82931.13
Bobby Hull64721.13
Bernie Geoffrion51571.12
Evgeni Malkin1071131.06
Bryan Trottier89911.02
Ted Lindsay52531.02
Patrick Kane1031031.00
Doug Gilmour90901.00
Alex Ovechkin73720.99
Dickie Moore50480.96
Ted Kennedy53460.86
[TBODY] [/TBODY]
The data are behind the spoiler tags (opponent GA adjusted to an 82-game schedule):

PlayerSeas.R1 POp. GAR2 POp. GAR3 POp. GAR4 POp. GA% off. 5-yr.R1 Adj.R2 Adj.R3 Adj.R4 Adj.GPAdj. PTSAdj. P/G
Jean Beliveau195620020092381017334.3%0.00.06.49.710161.60
Jean Beliveau196520020062031020630.5%0.00.05.69.213151.15
Jean Beliveau19552002005220815732.9%0.00.04.09.012131.08
Jean Beliveau196920042116238516929.0%0.03.85.05.914151.07
Jean Beliveau1971200821810234419329.1%0.07.38.54.120201.00
Jean Beliveau19542002008212215532.2%0.00.06.82.31090.90
Jean Beliveau196820022399246021228.5%0.01.77.40.01090.90
Jean Beliveau19672002005221624728.9%0.00.04.54.91090.90
Jean Beliveau19582002006242622733.5%0.00.04.34.61090.90
Jean Beliveau19662002005219522729.7%0.00.04.54.31090.90
Jean Beliveau195720020010266220434.7%0.00.06.31.61080.80
Jean Beliveau19602002003211422833.1%0.00.02.53.1860.75
[TBODY] [/TBODY]

PlayerSeas.R1 POp. GAR2 POp. GAR3 POp. GAR4 POp. GA% off. 5-yr.R1 Adj.R2 Adj.R3 Adj.R4 Adj.GPAdj. PTSAdj. P/G
Mike Bossy19802321424062061126026.5%1.43.76.49.316211.31
Mike Bossy198110376113356325827026.9%5.77.14.06.418231.28
Mike Bossy19835290429413234432326.6%3.83.012.12.719221.16
Mike Bossy19857246424720020027.2%6.13.50.00.010101.00
Mike Bossy1982434583147354829326.5%2.55.64.36.019180.95
Mike Bossy1984231262327302332226.7%1.45.65.02.021140.67
[TBODY] [/TBODY]

PlayerSeas.R1 POp. GAR2 POp. GAR3 POp. GAR4 POp. GA% off. 5-yr.R1 Adj.R2 Adj.R3 Adj.R4 Adj.GPAdj. PTSAdj. P/G
Sidney Crosby201813243823920020028.6%10.86.80.00.012181.50
Sidney Crosby2008824761997233618429.4%6.46.05.96.420251.25
Sidney Crosby201014238522320020028.9%11.84.50.00.013161.23
Sidney Crosby2017719571826214722428.9%7.27.75.66.324271.13
Sidney Crosby201392376178018620027.5%8.07.10.00.014151.07
Sidney Crosby20098238132457226324429.6%6.610.46.12.424251.04
Sidney Crosby2016821721935201421028.2%7.62.15.13.924190.79
Sidney Crosby20146216319320020027.3%5.93.30.00.01390.69
[TBODY] [/TBODY]

PlayerSeas.R1 POp. GAR2 POp. GAR3 POp. GAR4 POp. GA% off. 5-yr.R1 Adj.R2 Adj.R3 Adj.R4 Adj.GPAdj. PTSAdj. P/G
Peter Forsberg2002719012199818720029.2%7.312.08.50.020281.40
Peter Forsberg199981919202716820029.3%8.38.88.30.019251.32
Peter Forsberg20048175318320020028.4%9.33.40.00.011131.18
Peter Forsberg20016238822820020028.6%5.17.10.00.011121.09
Peter Forsberg19979210724720020028.2%8.85.80.00.014151.07
Peter Forsberg200042286210518420028.5%3.65.85.50.016150.94
Peter Forsberg19961027822204181523428.1%7.41.94.64.422180.82
[TBODY] [/TBODY]

PlayerSeas.R1 POp. GAR2 POp. GAR3 POp. GAR4 POp. GA% off. 5-yr.R1 Adj.R2 Adj.R3 Adj.R4 Adj.GPAdj. PTSAdj. P/G
Bernie Geoffrion19602002006211622833.1%0.00.05.04.68101.25
Bernie Geoffrion195720020012266620434.7%0.00.07.64.910121.20
Bernie Geoffrion19562002008238617334.3%0.00.05.75.810121.20
Bernie Geoffrion19552002005220815732.9%0.00.04.09.012131.08
Bernie Geoffrion19542002008212315532.2%0.00.06.83.511100.91
Bernie Geoffrion19592002006244723532.5%0.00.04.45.311100.91
Bernie Geoffrion19582002003242822733.5%0.00.02.16.11080.80
Bernie Geoffrion19532002009205120131.7%0.00.08.00.91290.75
[TBODY] [/TBODY]

PlayerSeas.R1 POp. GAR2 POp. GAR3 POp. GAR4 POp. GA% off. 5-yr.R1 Adj.R2 Adj.R3 Adj.R4 Adj.GPAdj. PTSAdj. P/G
Doug Gilmour19948234162594269 20027.5%7.213.13.10.018231.28
Doug Gilmour1988113016276 200 20027.6%7.74.60.00.010121.20
Doug Gilmour1993122731027113332 20027.7%9.27.78.20.021251.19
Doug Gilmour1989325973435343722328.5%2.44.23.06.422160.73
Doug Gilmour1986831383965323 20027.2%5.54.33.30.019130.68
Doug Gilmour198473314353 200 20026.7%4.62.50.00.01170.64
[TBODY] [/TBODY]

PlayerSeas.R1 POp. GAR2 POp. GAR3 POp. GAR4 POp. GA% off. 5-yr.R1 Adj.R2 Adj.R3 Adj.R4 Adj.GPAdj. PTSAdj. P/G
Wayne Gretzky1981112381026720020026.9%10.08.10.00.09182.00
Wayne Gretzky1985533413340183061124727.2%3.28.112.59.518331.83
Wayne Gretzky198383411432512275423226.6%5.19.49.53.816281.75
Wayne Gretzky1988113186313132761325727.6%7.34.09.910.619321.68
Wayne Gretzky198913314923220020028.5%8.47.90.00.011161.45
Wayne Gretzky1993102751327110235727327.7%7.610.08.95.424321.33
Wayne Gretzky199762015182923120028.2%6.15.78.00.015201.33
Wayne Gretzky198453831332210353727626.7%2.88.86.25.519231.21
Wayne Gretzky198663411332320020027.2%3.78.60.00.010121.20
Wayne Gretzky198715350627822811125127.1%9.24.61.59.421251.19
Wayne Gretzky19969252718120020028.1%7.48.00.00.013151.15
[TBODY] [/TBODY]

PlayerSeas.R1 POp. GAR2 POp. GAR3 POp. GAR4 POp. GA% off. 5-yr.R1 Adj.R2 Adj.R3 Adj.R4 Adj.GPAdj. PTSAdj. P/G
Gordie Howe195520020081581218432.9%0.00.08.911.511201.82
Gordie Howe196420020011198820131.0%0.00.010.47.414181.29
Gordie Howe196320020010209621131.6%0.00.08.85.211141.27
Gordie Howe19612002007206821132.4%0.00.06.16.811131.18
Gordie Howe19562002006212615334.3%0.00.04.86.610111.10
Gordie Howe19492002009172222029.6%0.00.010.21.811121.09
Gordie Howe19522002004184319229.7%0.00.04.23.0870.88
Gordie Howe19542002006153316532.2%0.00.07.13.312100.83
[TBODY] [/TBODY]

PlayerSeas.R1 POp. GAR2 POp. GAR3 POp. GAR4 POp. GA% off. 5-yr.R1 Adj.R2 Adj.R3 Adj.R4 Adj.GPAdj. PTSAdj. P/G
Bobby Hull1971 20082378186922729.1%0.06.88.67.918231.28
Bobby Hull1970 20092152233 20028.8%0.08.41.70.08101.25
Bobby Hull1965 200 20013205421730.5%0.00.012.13.514161.14
Bobby Hull1962 200 2006194821131.8%0.00.05.66.912131.08
Bobby Hull1961 200 2007220725232.4%0.00.05.75.012110.92
Bobby Hull1972 20052713202 20029.1%0.03.73.00.0870.88
[TBODY] [/TBODY]

PlayerSeas.R1 POp. GAR2 POp. GAR3 POp. GAR4 POp. GA% off. 5-yr.R1 Adj.R2 Adj.R3 Adj.R4 Adj.GPAdj. PTSAdj. P/G
Jaromir Jagr2000101946179 200 20028.5%10.56.80.00.011171.55
Jaromir Jagr200881977216 200 20029.4%8.06.40.00.010141.40
Jaromir Jagr199951967231 200 20029.3%5.16.00.00.09111.22
Jaromir Jagr1995112054207 200 20028.1%11.14.00.00.012151.25
Jaromir Jagr1996920492375234 20028.1%9.17.84.40.018211.17
Jaromir Jagr200772454242 200 20029.2%5.73.30.00.01090.90
Jaromir Jagr1992726872408268223028.3%5.36.06.11.821190.90
[TBODY] [/TBODY]

PlayerSeas.R1 POp. GAR2 POp. GAR3 POp. GAR4 POp. GA% off. 5-yr.R1 Adj.R2 Adj.R3 Adj.R4 Adj.GPAdj. PTSAdj. P/G
Patrick Kane2010722582225215822528.9%6.27.24.77.122251.14
Patrick Kane20146191420610174 20027.3%6.74.112.20.019231.21
Patrick Kane2015720862017226321127.5%7.16.36.53.023231.00
Patrick Kane2013521741965202518627.5%4.94.35.25.723200.87
Patrick Kane2009424882202244 20029.6%3.27.11.60.016120.75
[TBODY] [/TBODY]

PlayerSeas.R1 POp. GAR2 POp. GAR3 POp. GAR4 POp. GA% off. 5-yr.R1 Adj.R2 Adj.R3 Adj.R4 Adj.GPAdj. PTSAdj. P/G
Ted Kennedy1948 200 20010230420227.9%0.00.09.04.19131.44
Ted Kennedy1947 200 2004264518927.0%0.00.03.35.71190.82
Ted Kennedy1949 200 2005223319829.6%0.00.04.43.0970.78
Ted Kennedy1951 200 2003231621629.1%0.00.02.65.51180.73
Ted Kennedy1945 200 2004198526428.2%0.00.04.13.91380.62
[TBODY] [/TBODY]

PlayerSeas.R1 POp. GAR2 POp. GAR3 POp. GAR4 POp. GA% off. 5-yr.R1 Adj.R2 Adj.R3 Adj.R4 Adj.GPAdj. PTSAdj. P/G
Guy Lafleur1977 200122835198924628.1%0.08.75.27.514211.50
Guy Lafleur1975 200926010246 20028.6%0.07.08.20.011151.36
Guy Lafleur1976 20052685195721428.1%0.03.95.36.713161.23
Guy Lafleur1978 20082738243522327.4%0.06.27.04.715181.20
Guy Lafleur1979 200825812277329927.5%0.06.59.22.116181.13
[TBODY] [/TBODY]

PlayerSeas.R1 POp. GAR2 POp. GAR3 POp. GAR4 POp. GA% off. 5-yr.R1 Adj.R2 Adj.R3 Adj.R4 Adj.GPAdj. PTSAdj. P/G
Mario Lemieux19921726822408268723028.3%13.01.76.16.215271.80
Mario Lemieux199182719264152711227328.0%6.17.111.59.123341.48
Mario Lemieux19961020410237723420028.1%10.18.76.20.018251.39
Mario Lemieux198953151429220020028.5%3.29.80.00.011131.18
Mario Lemieux19939292929020020027.7%6.46.50.00.011131.18
Mario Lemieux200172117184319520028.6%6.77.73.10.018181.00
[TBODY] [/TBODY]

PlayerSeas.R1 POp. GAR2 POp. GAR3 POp. GAR4 POp. GA% off. 5-yr.R1 Adj.R2 Adj.R3 Adj.R4 Adj.GPAdj. PTSAdj. P/G
Ted Lindsay195520020081581118432.9%0.00.08.910.511191.73
Ted Lindsay19522002004184319229.7%0.00.04.23.0870.88
Ted Lindsay19562002004212515334.3%0.00.03.25.51090.90
Ted Lindsay19492002005172322029.6%0.00.05.72.71180.73
Ted Lindsay19542002004153416532.2%0.00.04.74.41290.75
[TBODY] [/TBODY]

PlayerSeas.R1 POp. GAR2 POp. GAR3 POp. GAR4 POp. GA% off. 5-yr.R1 Adj.R2 Adj.R3 Adj.R4 Adj.GPAdj. PTSAdj. P/G
Evgeni Malkin20099238102459226824429.6%7.48.07.86.424301.25
Evgeni Malkin20171119581826214422428.9%11.38.85.63.625291.16
Evgeni Malkin2013112375178018620027.5%9.85.90.00.015161.07
Evgeni Malkin2008724771995233318429.4%5.66.94.23.220201.00
Evgeni Malkin2016721721936201321028.2%6.62.16.12.923180.78
Evgeni Malkin20185243323920020028.6%4.22.50.00.0970.78
Evgeni Malkin20108238322320020028.9%6.72.70.00.01390.69
[TBODY] [/TBODY]

PlayerSeas.R1 POp. GAR2 POp. GAR3 POp. GAR4 POp. GA% off. 5-yr.R1 Adj.R2 Adj.R3 Adj.R4 Adj.GPAdj. PTSAdj. P/G
Stan Mikita196220020013194821131.8%0.00.012.26.912191.58
Stan Mikita197320092643219819329.1%0.06.82.78.215181.20
Stan Mikita19702007215323320028.8%0.06.62.60.0891.13
Stan Mikita19682009203318520028.5%0.09.03.30.011121.09
Stan Mikita197120082375186522729.1%0.06.85.44.418170.94
Stan Mikita19742003243823220028.3%0.02.57.00.011100.91
Stan Mikita19612002004220725232.4%0.00.03.25.01280.67
[TBODY] [/TBODY]

PlayerSeas.R1 POp. GAR2 POp. GAR3 POp. GAR4 POp. GA% off. 5-yr.R1 Adj.R2 Adj.R3 Adj.R4 Adj.GPAdj. PTSAdj. P/G
Dickie Moore195920020012244523532.5%0.00.08.83.811131.18
Dickie Moore195420020010212315532.2%0.00.08.53.511121.09
Dickie Moore19602002005211522833.1%0.00.04.23.8881.00
Dickie Moore19582002005242622733.5%0.00.03.64.61080.80
Dickie Moore19572002006266420434.7%0.00.03.83.31070.70
Dickie Moore19562002006238317334.3%0.00.04.32.91070.70
[TBODY] [/TBODY]

PlayerSeas.R1 POp. GAR2 POp. GAR3 POp. GAR4 POp. GA% off. 5-yr.R1 Adj.R2 Adj.R3 Adj.R4 Adj.GPAdj. PTSAdj. P/G
Alex Ovechkin2009721814239 200 20029.6%6.311.50.00.014181.29
Alex Ovechkin201161984240 200 20028.0%6.33.50.00.09101.11
Alex Ovechkin201652187203 200 20028.2%4.77.10.00.012121.00
Alex Ovechkin2018823072507236522828.6%7.05.76.04.424230.96
Alex Ovechkin201252024187 200 20027.8%5.24.50.00.014100.71
Alex Ovechkin201552304192 200 20027.5%4.64.40.00.01490.64
Alex Ovechkin201732425234 200 20028.9%2.54.30.00.01370.54
Alex Ovechkin201010223 200 200 20028.9%9.00.00.00.0791.29
Alex Ovechkin20089233 200 200 20029.4%7.60.00.00.0781.14
[TBODY] [/TBODY]

PlayerSeas.R1 POp. GAR2 POp. GAR3 POp. GAR4 POp. GA% off. 5-yr.R1 Adj.R2 Adj.R3 Adj.R4 Adj.GPAdj. PTSAdj. P/G
Maurice Richard1951 200 2006163716229.1%0.00.07.38.611161.45
Maurice Richard1944 200 20010285730728.4%0.00.07.24.79121.33
Maurice Richard1956 200 20010238417334.3%0.00.07.13.910111.10
Maurice Richard1958 200 20010242522733.5%0.00.07.13.810111.10
Maurice Richard1947 200 2008239323527.0%0.00.07.22.710101.00
Maurice Richard1946 200 2006292525627.9%0.00.04.34.1980.89
Maurice Richard1957 200 2007266420434.7%0.00.04.43.31080.80
Maurice Richard1952 200 2006206015629.7%0.00.05.70.01160.55
[TBODY] [/TBODY]

PlayerSeas.R1 POp. GAR2 POp. GAR3 POp. GAR4 POp. GA% off. 5-yr.R1 Adj.R2 Adj.R3 Adj.R4 Adj.GPAdj. PTSAdj. P/G
Joe Sakic199611278822010181523428.1%8.27.511.44.422311.41
Joe Sakic19971221072476197 20028.2%11.85.86.30.017241.41
Joe Sakic200461756183 200 20028.4%7.06.70.00.011141.27
Joe Sakic2001723822288195919528.6%6.01.88.39.421251.19
Joe Sakic19991219122025168 20029.3%12.42.05.90.019201.05
[TBODY] [/TBODY]

PlayerSeas.R1 POp. GAR2 POp. GAR3 POp. GAR4 POp. GA% off. 5-yr.R1 Adj.R2 Adj.R3 Adj.R4 Adj.GPAdj. PTSAdj. P/G
Bryan Trottier19804321112406206826026.5%2.710.06.46.721261.24
Bryan Trottier19811037683354325727026.9%5.75.22.75.618191.06
Bryan Trottier19826345103146354729326.5%3.87.03.75.219201.05
Bryan Trottier1983629022948234432326.6%4.51.57.52.717160.94
Bryan Trottier19876285725120020027.1%4.56.00.00.014100.71
[TBODY] [/TBODY]
 
Last edited:

Neutrinos

Registered User
Sep 23, 2016
8,580
3,587
Ted Kennedy had 6o points in 78 playoff games

How does that qualify him to be ahead of Lemieux and Orr?

Lemieux had 172 points in 107 games, Orr had 92 points in 74 games (+60!)
 

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,768
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
Ted Kennedy had 6o points in 78 playoff games

How does that qualify him to be ahead of Lemieux and Orr?

Lemieux had 172 points in 107 games, Orr had 92 points in 74 games (+60!)

Read the appropriate discussion threads linked in the opening post, after the list.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/posts/131440187/

Hint it is not about scoring but about contributions to winning the SC.
 
Last edited:

wetcoast

Registered User
Nov 20, 2018
22,187
10,074
Peter Forsberg finished immediately behind Guy Lafleur, the most recent addition. Now I would have no problem if Forsberg was #15 instead of where he'll probably land (#16-20), but I don't think it takes Don Cherry to put Lafleur over Forsberg.

Probably not but it takes a peak over prime emphasis and ignoring Lafleur outside of his peak years to have him that high.

Overall the list seems to be all over the place at times.
 

wetcoast

Registered User
Nov 20, 2018
22,187
10,074
This is one project that probably needs a serious redo as the results are very 06 focused and seem to focus too much on SC counting without context.

I mean 6 of the top 9 players are all born between 1921 and 1931, that's highly improbable isn't it?

One question that I do have, since the aggregate list seems to have been lost in transition, Who is the highest ranked player on the aggregate list to have never won the SC?
 

MXD

Original #4
Oct 27, 2005
50,654
16,367
This is one project that probably needs a serious redo as the results are very 06 focused and seem to focus too much on SC counting without context.

I mean 6 of the top 9 players are all born between 1921 and 1931, that's highly improbable isn't it?

One question that I do have, since the aggregate list seems to have been lost in transition, Who is the highest ranked player on the aggregate list to have never won the SC?

Three of the four best tennis players are born between 1981 and 1987.
 

wetcoast

Registered User
Nov 20, 2018
22,187
10,074
Three of the four best tennis players are born between 1981 and 1987.

I don't follow tennis enough to comment on that but both seem improbable on the surface don't they?

I think the largest problem with the hockey example is that Richard, Harvey, Beliveau and Plante all played on the same team during the same period more or less.

The second problem is one of consistency as all of Richard, Beliveau and Harvey had some down playoffs in their primes.

Also a 5th Hab player from the same time period is 19th overall all time in the NHL playoffs in Henri Richard.

That's 5 guys from basically the same time period and on the same team in the top 19 of all time.

I mean sure it's possible but perhaps too much SC counting IMO.

Maybe some voters valued peak more than overall career, it's hard to tell as some other great peak players were lower than expected on that metric as well.
 

MXD

Original #4
Oct 27, 2005
50,654
16,367
I don't follow tennis enough to comment on that but both seem improbable on the surface don't they?

It's factual. It could even possibly end up 3 out of 3, and for some people, it's already the case.
 

wetcoast

Registered User
Nov 20, 2018
22,187
10,074
It's factual. It could even possibly end up 3 out of 3, and for some people, it's already the case.

That's great but I don't really think that cross sport comparisons are very useful here, even more so in an individual sport like Tennis to a team sport like hockey for obvious reasons.

So I'll restate that is seems highly improbable that 5 of the top 19 playoff performers of all time can really be from the same team over a single generation (a 15 year time period).
 

LeBlondeDemon10

Registered User
Jul 10, 2010
3,729
374
Canada
That's great but I don't really think that cross sport comparisons are very useful here, even more so in an individual sport like Tennis to a team sport like hockey for obvious reasons.

So I'll restate that is seems highly improbable that 5 of the top 19 playoff performers of all time can really be from the same team over a single generation (a 15 year time period).
Its probable I think based on the simple fact that Montreal dominated the playoffs from 1955 to 1979.
 

wetcoast

Registered User
Nov 20, 2018
22,187
10,074
It's not just some team, though right? It's the most successful "team generation" in the sport's history...maybe all of sports history...

Sure I get all of that but evens till it's over rated at times.

Like I said upthread 3 of those position players in the top 9 had significant stretches of meh playoff hockey in the playoffs in their primes as well.

I think that the project was more like"look at all those SC's" and less at the individual performances.

I mean Phil Esposito (and Serge Savard) higher than Chris Pronger and Sergei Fedorov is also another huge head scratcher too.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->