How to value Championships in terms of legacy?

[WingsFan95]

I know hockey isn't like basketball, with a goaltender, two different skater positions and typically 3 different lines for forwards having top offensive players garner less than a half hour of ice time.

HOWEVER, it's also not baseball where the pitcher has a tremendous amount of influence and fielding is positional (can't blame an outfielder doing his job but the rest of the team sucks).

American football is also a team sport where an offense and defense splits time on the field, and yet Quarterbacks at least are judged by their performance in the playoffs.

So how do rings come into play in hockey legacies? Surely it can't be zero.

Now for some comparison with the NBA, the Montreal Canadien teams up until the 80s had a disproportionate among of titles. Players who were on those stacked teams therefore got more rings than other contemporaries. Rocket Richard captured 8 Cups while Gordie Howe, Mr. Hockey got 4 and Bobby Hull the Golden Jet got only 1. Is it the unbelievable longevity of Howe that clears him far above Richard or the fact he was a better scorer overall (Richard never captured an Art Ross)?

In more recent times, here's what gets me.

Wayne Gretzky went 4-2 in Cup Finals, with 5 of those on a very stacked team. He was arguably the best player every one of those 6 Finals runs and by a big margin in some cases, however also suffered some upsets and ultimately a 4-2 outting in sports isn't too awe-inspiring. Comparatively speaking. Tom Brady in football is now 6-3, a sport with a lot shorter shelf life (typically) and considered more physical. Joe Montana was a perfect 4-0. Obviously these are 1 off games, not series. And I know we don't want to compare basketball too much but the Jordan/Gretzky comparison in sport greats DOES come up because their careers largely overlapped eachothers (Jordan 84-98 before last comeback, Gretzky 79-99). Jordan not only went 6-0 in finals, he was the MVP in all of them as well. Gretzky was a Finals MVP on 2 occasions, given that in the NBA losing players don't get MVP considerations and the Messier was messed up in every single way, we could theoretically assume Gretzky gets all 4 himself under NBA guidelines. It still isn't 6-0 and in Jordan's Universe, players outside the Celtics didn't win so many. Kareem had 6, Magic, Kobe and Duncan got 5.

In hockey you have the following modern, expansion-era ring collectors:

Larry Robinson, 6-0: Robinson played on some stacked teams but that was in part because of himself. He won the Norris twice in a deep era for defensemen and was a Smythe recipient on one occasion. His 6-0 mark even on the Habs is difficult to ignore in the modern era and that 86 squad was less dependent on Roy than 93.

Guy Lafleur, 5-0: Lafleur was a perennial top players for several seasons, winning Rosses and Harts and captured a Smythe in one of the 5 Cup runs but could have won arguably 2 more. His overall career numbers were very solid but played a lot less games than guys ahead of him. His goals was .497 with his 3 comeback seasons in his late 30s bringing his average down as it was .547 before his last injured year with the Habs.

Mark Messier, 6-1: Messier as we know retired 2nd all time in points, although he never lead the league largely because of Gretzky-Lemieux wiping it out for everyone. He was still a 2-time Hart recipient and captured at least 1 Smythe and was at least a Top 3 player on all of those winning teams.

Bryan Trottier, 6-1: Trottier won an Art-Ross and Hart in one season and had a Conn Smythe in one of the fourpeat years for the Islanders. He was of course a shell with the Penguins when he won his last 2 titles but at least was a contributor in the playoffs, moreso in 92. Overall he was a top forward for several seasons.

Nicklas Lidstrom, 4-2: With a deeper league having more european talent, Lidstrom was arguably a Top 3 players if not the best on his 4 championship squads and he has the Norris trophies to back him up. It's not that he should be considered ahead of Orr by any stretch but why exactly not clear ahead of Bourque unless rings are not be accounted for d-men?

Obviously all of the above are revered but I feel sometimes the rings are almost completely disregarded. I can understand with Trottier but how do you overlook Robinson or Lafeur in rankings with guys who had 1 or 2 rings in comparison. Growing up I also viewed Hasek as the better goaltender to Roy but you can't ignore Roy's playoff monstrosity on his resume and I now think it's borderline homerism to have him below Hasek or given Roy's runs and overall performance.

And then there's cases like Kevin Lowe, who I do believe in other sports would have been a Hall of Famer as a contributor (role player if you prefer but he had some good seasons) off his 6 titles.


Moving forward I'm looking at the trio of Blackhawks sitting at 3 rings. In this Cap Era how does a 5-0 in Finals sound when you're the front core?

Click to read more...

 

[The Panther]

Obviously, the issue here is that hockey is really a team-sport (in a way that baseball or basketball isn't), and there's an enormous discrepancy between rating an individual player and rating teams. The latter is quite easy, which is perhaps why it doesn't engender much discussion on this form. (I've noticed that when I start a thread about comparing teams, it dies fast, whereas a thread about 'Sakic vs. Yzerman' or whatever goes on for 457 pages).

Maybe it's a pat answer, but I think this is a case where "the truth lies somewhere in between". Obviously we can't completely disregard championship legacies, but we just as obviously can't pretend that Kevin Lowe had a better career than Sidney Crosby.

The fact is, in hockey (and it's more so today than ever, maybe) one or two great All-Star individuals on your team does not increase your chances of being a champion. That's kind of unique in sports. I mean, the Pens are recent champs, but they may miss the playoffs this year with two of the top-10 forwards in the world. The Oilers are terrible again and also have maybe two of the top-10 or 15 forwards in the world.

Parallels between different sports are therefore dodgy. You mention Gretzky and Jordan (basketball), but I've always felt that Mario Lemieux was more comparable to Jordan: he came in as a super rookie on a sad-sack franchise and that franchise failed to build around him for about 4 or 5 years. Same with Jordan. Then, when the organization finally sorted itself out, that player became top-dog on a championship team. We tend to think of the 80s' Penguins as "Lemieux and some other players", which is true, but it took a lot of good players arriving there from 1990 or so for that team to even make the playoffs (and concurrently win the first Cup). Basketball is different in that the Bulls didn't necessarily have a lot of great players (basically two All Stars), but two great players who play 95% of the minutes is enough to make a competitive team in basketball, which is never the case in hockey.

My own way of looking at it tends to be to see what Player-X achieved -- both individually (stats, production, consistency, etc.) and team-wise -- given his situation. For example, looking at (random names that come to mind) Brian Bellows and Glenn Anderson: Andy is in the Hall, has 6 Cups, and Bellows has 1 Cup and will never make the Hall. Their individual scoring stats are vaguely similar. This situation does not mean that Anderson is automatically ranked higher than Bellows (to me), because we have to look at the mutual situations the players were in. On the other hand, we also have to consider that Anderson was a "big game" player who came up with the goods in the playoffs, in the Finals, in overtime, etc. That is something not expected just because of his favorable situation, and that elevates his status a bit, in my mind.

 

[WingsFan95]

My own way of looking at it tends to be to see what Player-X achieved -- both individually (stats, production, consistency, etc.) and team-wise -- given his situation. For example, looking at (random names that come to mind) Brian Bellows and Glenn Anderson: Andy is in the Hall, has 6 Cups, and Bellows has 1 Cup and will never make the Hall. Their individual scoring stats are vaguely similar. This situation does not mean that Anderson is automatically ranked higher than Bellows (to me), because we have to look at the mutual situations the players were in. On the other hand, we also have to consider that Anderson was a "big game" player who came up with the goods in the playoffs, in the Finals, in overtime, etc. That is something not expected just because of his favorable situation, and that elevates his status a bit, in my mind.

The ultimate rebuttal to Glen Anderson being in the Hall has got to be Claude Lemieux. Given the teams I think Lemieux was the far better playoff performer.

Also just a side-note on the 90s Bulls, they were pretty deep teams. Both threepeat rosters basically had that 3rd solid all-star guy then 2-3 borderline all-star players. The first 7 were very underrated on both.

 

[The Panther]

The ultimate rebuttal to Glen Anderson being in the Hall has got to be Claude Lemieux. Given the teams I think Lemieux was the far better playoff performer.

I don't see how it's a rebuttal. I don't think Lemieux was better than Anderson in the playoffs, but even if we call that a wash, how about the regular season? Every Anderson season from 1981 to 1986 blows away the very best one of Lemieux's.

 

[MadLuke]

I would imagine a lot, legacy/memories are build on the playoff/goal medal game and so on, at least for the contemporaries, for those who have not seen them it became then more stats geeks and larger sample size can get more interesting.

But legacy is set in stone with championships, Guy Lafleur is some kind of hero that will maybe have national funeral at is death like Richard and Beliveau, while Marcel Dionne have about no legacy or at least the delta legacy between the 2 is extremely higher than just how good at hockey the 2 were.

Obviously in such a team sport, winning the cup mean nothing in itself, Denis Savard cup in 1993 do nothing for is legacy, it is about key moment and playoff performance, purely the importance on that cup win that matter.

 

[BenchBrawl]

I would imagine a lot, legacy/memories are build on the playoff/goal medal game and so on, at least for the contemporaries, for those who have not seen them it became then more stats geeks and larger sample size can get more interesting.

But legacy is set in stone with championships, Guy Lafleur is some kind of hero that will maybe have national funeral at is death like Richard and Beliveau, while Marcel Dionne have about no legacy or at least the delta legacy between the 2 is extremely higher than just how good at hockey the 2 were.

Obviously in such a team sport, winning the cup mean nothing in itself, Denis Savard cup in 1993 do nothing for is legacy, it is about key moment and playoff performance, purely the importance on that cup win that matter.

Might be revisionism, but I think Guy Lafleur's legacy and greatness reached hero status in the Montreal-Boston series in 1979.Prior to that, Montreal easily bulldozed their way to 3 Stanley Cup championships.They were never in danger.Maybe they needed Guy Lafleur, maybe not.But in 1979 he stepped up when the team faced serious adversity.I find it funny his Conn Smythe isn't from 1979, because that's the year he was most deserving.

Wonder what others think about this.

 

[Big Phil]

Might be revisionism, but I think Guy Lafleur's legacy and greatness reached hero status in the Montreal-Boston series in 1979.Prior to that, Montreal easily bulldozed their way to 3 Stanley Cup championships.They were never in danger.Maybe they needed Guy Lafleur, maybe not.But in 1979 he stepped up when the team faced serious adversity.I find it funny his Conn Smythe isn't from 1979, because that's the year he was most deserving.

Wonder what others think about this.

Lafleur going into the final was clearly the Conn Smythe favourite. But he had a so-so Cup final vs. the Rangers. A very un-Lafleur 3 points in 5 games. That left him tied for Lemaire for the playoff lead but it went to Gainey anyways. Theoretically Lafleur was right there for all 4 of them and it wouldn't have been surprising had he won all of them. But I can see Leach getting it in 1976 and Robinson in 1978. In 1977 it was Lafleur's and rightly so.

 

[Big Phil]

I think in hockey championships do tend to have merit. No, not like the NBA which is #1 when it comes to importance of winning championships. Not quite as unimportant as baseball where you are more judged on your personal numbers than anything and a whole slew of all-time greats like Ted Williams, Ty Cobb and Barry Bonds never won. It is more of a hybrid of the two.

I think goalies are judged the harshest when it comes to whether they won a Cup because the puck stops there and in a compressed timeframe in the postseason a goalie can have more of an impact than over the full season. Then I think defensemen get judged next harshest and then forwards. Not saying a player's legacy doesn't change if they win a Cup. Look at Ovechkin. He was always a good playoff performer but for the longest time he was always the player that just couldn't elevate his team like Crosby. And then he did it and was a deserving Conn Smythe winner. No one can say he wasn't able to do it. While we can say this about Marcel Dionne because he wasn't even close and never even won a 7 game series over a long career.

Postseason legacies help a player a lot. Gilmour comes to mind as a guy whose legacy is better because of the postseason and if he doesn't win that Cup in Calgary in 1989 there might be a "what if" thing with him. But he won and everyone saw how well he carried the Leafs too. Yzerman is another good example. How does his career play out if he never wins one? Especially with good teams around him. I think it would hurt him a lot.

 

[JackSlater]

My own way of looking at it tends to be to see what Player-X achieved -- both individually (stats, production, consistency, etc.) and team-wise -- given his situation.

I think that this is pretty much it. A lot of context needs to be considered before I assign value to a player for playing on a championship winning team. No NHL player alone has ever won a Stanley Cup.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Lafleur going into the final was clearly the Conn Smythe favourite. But he had a so-so Cup final vs. the Rangers. A very un-Lafleur 3 points in 5 games. That left him tied for Lemaire for the playoff lead but it went to Gainey anyways. Theoretically Lafleur was right there for all 4 of them and it wouldn't have been surprising had he won all of them. But I can see Leach getting it in 1976 and Robinson in 1978. In 1977 it was Lafleur's and rightly so.

I didn't see it live like you guys, but IIRC the NYR won Game 1 in Montreal, then led Game 2 with a score of 2-0, again in Montreal.This was a pretty bad spot for Montreal to be.

Lafleur scored the only goal in Game 1.

Then in Game 2, when it was 2-0 NYR, Lambert (him again!) scored to make it 2-1.

Then Lafleur scored the tying goal (again!) to make it 2-2 and Montreal never looked back and bulldozed their way to the Stanley Cup.

So even if he didn't score a lot of points against the Rangers, he arguably scored the most important goal, making sure Montreal wasn't leaving for New York down 0-2 in the series.

And to go back to the Montreal-Boston series, from what I know this was the only time the 1976-1979 dynasty was in any real danger.

Going into Game 5 the series was tied 2-2.The game was in Montreal.If they lose this one, they're going to Boston facing elimination.So what happened in Game 5? Lafleur scored the first goal to make it 1-0, then scored again to make it 2-0.Montreal easily won the game.

In Game 7, beyond "the goal", when the game was 1-3 Boston, Lafleur had a primary assist to make it 2-3 and a primary assist to make it 3-3.Then Boston scored again to make it 3-4.Then Lafleur scored his most famous goal to make it 4-4.

All of this is supreme clutchness and easily worth the Conn Smythe trophy.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

It's infinitely easier for an MVP-level basketball player to determine the outcome of a game than it is in hockey. Lebron/McDavid is as good an example as you can find. Cleveland goes to four straight Finals with Lebron, they are the worst or near-worst team in the league immediately before and immediately after his return/second departure. Edmonton is nearly the worst in the league with or without McDavid. The bench players of an NBA team are also comparatively unimportant; they only make the difference between two teams that are otherwise evenly matched. An NHL team can still be competitive even if devoid of any true stars based on the strength of their bench. And even a team with a bunch of stars may still rely on contributions from players way down the depth chart. You mention the Blackhawks trio...great players, but without Antoine Vermette (maybe the 10th-12th best player?), they probably don't win their third Stanley Cup. An NBA team's 10th-12th best player may never even see the floor in non-blowout situations.

A QB in football is only on the field half the time, but he is completely crucial on many of the plays that are executed when he is out there. I think the most accurate comparison would be a star hockey player to a star defensive player on a football team. A defense in football has a lot of moving parts, and much like hockey, one guy blowing his assignment can ruin a play even if the other 10/11 did their job. A truly great player can elevate his unit and give them a better chance to win, but has no mechanism available to singularly determine the outcome of a play like a QB can on offense. There's a reason ring-counting in football generally only applies to QBs.

The goaltender/pitcher parallel is relevant when comparing hockey and baseball, but there's little comparison between the other positions. An individual hitter has even less impact on a baseball game than a hockey player. Baseball's postseason format is also comprised of comparatively few games. A team can play .700 baseball for 162 games...then lose 3 out of 5, and it's curtains. There's a lot of luck involved in winning the postseason tournament in baseball compared to the other sports.

 

[c9777666]

I think goalies are judged the harshest when it comes to whether they won a Cup because the puck stops there and in a compressed timeframe in the postseason a goalie can have more of an impact than over the full season.

Although how much does ring count separate goalie rankings on the totem pole?

Fleury and Osgood each have as many Cup rings as Brodeur and ahead of Hasek.

Fuhr and Roy both have 4 Cups as starters (technically Fuhr has 5 but Ranford did the heavy lifting in 1990).

Still, Fuhr is seldom ranked ahead of Roy and Brodeur on all time lists even though he was just as clutch as them and also did something those guys never did: go back to back (Aside from Moog starting the last 3 games in ‘84) and he did it twice to boot. Roy surprisingly never made consecutive Cup Finals and Brodeur came close to a repeat in 2001.

The two greatest Ranger goalies of all each made 1 Cup Final, but would you rank Richter ahead of King Henrik?

And of course, Matt Murray has more Cups than Ed Belfour.

 

[Big Phil]

Although how much does ring count separate goalie rankings on the totem pole?

Fleury and Osgood each have as many Cup rings as Brodeur and ahead of Hasek.

Fuhr and Roy both have 4 Cups as starters (technically Fuhr has 5 but Ranford did the heavy lifting in 1990).

Still, Fuhr is seldom ranked ahead of Roy and Brodeur on all time lists even though he was just as clutch as them and also did something those guys never did: go back to back (Aside from Moog starting the last 3 games in ‘84) and he did it twice to boot. Roy surprisingly never made consecutive Cup Finals and Brodeur came close to a repeat in 2001.

The two greatest Ranger goalies of all each made 1 Cup Final, but would you rank Richter ahead of King Henrik?

And of course, Matt Murray has more Cups than Ed Belfour.

To be fair, Henrik himself made a Cup final and won an Olympic gold. I think he is the best Ranger goalie of all-time, ahead of Richter, ahead of Giacomin. Cups aren't the be all and end all, they are just more emphasized with goaltenders. Tony Esposito technically has a Cup in 1969 as a 3rd stringer. He played 13 games that season but no playoff games. But he doesn't have a Cup on his own. Yet he is rated ahead of Osgood, ahead of Vernon, Barrasso and other goalies that have won 1-2 Cups.

For example, Roy winning 4 Cups compared to Fuhr's 4 (5 with the added one as a back up) isn't equal. We know this because Roy was a Conn Smythe winner 3 times and the 4th time he was 2nd most important in the run. Fuhr despite all of his clutchness wasn't as integral. It is similar to why people rank Joe Montana ahead of Terry Bradshaw 100 times out of 100 despite the fact they both have 4 Super Bowls. One was just simply more important to those Super Bowls and had a better overall career. Both Football Hall of Famers though.

Ward, Niemi, Giguere, Khabibulin, Thomas and Crawford all have at least one Cup. None are making the HHOF. Fleury, Quick and Murray have at least two, out of the three Fleury has the best chance to get into the HHOF while Murray is still young. That being said, none were as good as Tony O.

So Cups matter a lot, and HOW you won the Cups matter too, but it isn't the entire thing.

 

[unknown33]

Before entering this thread I didn't have hockeyplayer finals record etched in my mind like it's the case for other sports (6-0, 4-0, 3-6, 6-3..) and I would love to keep it that way.

In my opinion 'ringcounting' and even worse 'finals record counting' is the single most terrible way to evaluate a QBs or NBA players legacy.

The goaltender/pitcher parallel is relevant when comparing hockey and baseball, but there's little comparison between the other positions. An individual hitter has even less impact on a baseball game than a hockey player. Baseball's postseason format is also comprised of comparatively few games. A team can play .700 baseball for 162 games...then lose 3 out of 5, and it's curtains. There's a lot of luck involved in winning the postseason tournament in baseball compared to the other sports.

There is by far the most luck involved in winning the SB due to how it's just 16 games in the RS and best of 1 in the playoffs.

 

[The Panther]

Small correction to @Big Phil and @ChrisK97 -- Grant Fuhr wasn't a back-up in the Oilers' 1990 Cup win. The back-up was Pokey Reddick. Fuhr never saw the ice in 1990.

 

[JackSlater]

Before entering this thread I didn't have hockeyplayer finals record etched in my mind like it's the case for other sports (6-0, 4-0, 3-6, 6-3..) and I would love to keep it that way.

In my opinion 'ringcounting' and even worse 'finals record counting' is the single most terrible way to evaluate a QBs or NBA players legacy.

Looking at finals records tends to reward players for losing out in earlier rounds. Realistically it has to be better to be 3-6 in the finals for instance than 3-0, all things being equal. Luckily, as noted, this thinking generally isn't found in hockey.

 

[WingsFan95]

To be fair, Henrik himself made a Cup final and won an Olympic gold. I think he is the best Ranger goalie of all-time, ahead of Richter, ahead of Giacomin. Cups aren't the be all and end all, they are just more emphasized with goaltenders. Tony Esposito technically has a Cup in 1969 as a 3rd stringer. He played 13 games that season but no playoff games. But he doesn't have a Cup on his own. Yet he is rated ahead of Osgood, ahead of Vernon, Barrasso and other goalies that have won 1-2 Cups.

For example, Roy winning 4 Cups compared to Fuhr's 4 (5 with the added one as a back up) isn't equal. We know this because Roy was a Conn Smythe winner 3 times and the 4th time he was 2nd most important in the run. Fuhr despite all of his clutchness wasn't as integral. It is similar to why people rank Joe Montana ahead of Terry Bradshaw 100 times out of 100 despite the fact they both have 4 Super Bowls. One was just simply more important to those Super Bowls and had a better overall career. Both Football Hall of Famers though.

Ward, Niemi, Giguere, Khabibulin, Thomas and Crawford all have at least one Cup. None are making the HHOF. Fleury, Quick and Murray have at least two, out of the three Fleury has the best chance to get into the HHOF while Murray is still young. That being said, none were as good as Tony O.

So Cups matter a lot, and HOW you won the Cups matter too, but it isn't the entire thing.

I think Fleury and Quick are shoe-ins.

Barrasso seems to be a massive outlier as a Vezina recipient and 2 time champ. He gets unfairly bogged down because of the star studded Pens lineup.

Lemieux, Jagr, Francis
Murphy, Mullen

And Kevin Stevens putting up numbers too.

Speaking of Mullen though. Anyone think he's a Hall of Famer with 1 ring on the Flames??? Joe Neiwendyk probably not in either if not the 99 Stars alone.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Before entering this thread I didn't have hockeyplayer finals record etched in my mind like it's the case for other sports (6-0, 4-0, 3-6, 6-3..) and I would love to keep it that way.

In my opinion 'ringcounting' and even worse 'finals record counting' is the single most terrible way to evaluate a QBs or NBA players legacy.


There is by far the most luck involved in winning the SB due to how it's just 16 games in the RS and best of 1 in the playoffs.

But a great regular season in football is rewarded with a first round bye, as well as home field advantage in the single-game elimination. And in relation to the length of the regular season schedule, a single football playoff game is still over 6% of the sample size. Baseball is best of five, but five games is actually only 3% of the 162-game regular season. The smaller the sample size, the more chance there is for an upset. Plus in football, all your best players are available (barring injury). A baseball team's ace pitcher might only play in one game of a series.

 

[Big Phil]

Small correction to @Big Phil and @ChrisK97 -- Grant Fuhr wasn't a back-up in the Oilers' 1990 Cup win. The back-up was Pokey Reddick. Fuhr never saw the ice in 1990.

Ranford was the goalie in the playoffs. Fuhr played 21 games during 1990 and went 9-7-3. He played regularly in the first three months and then must have had some injury or something because he didn't play again until March. Ranford took the playoff duties though.

 

[Big Phil]

I think Fleury and Quick are shoe-ins.

Barrasso seems to be a massive outlier as a Vezina recipient and 2 time champ. He gets unfairly bogged down because of the star studded Pens lineup.

Lemieux, Jagr, Francis
Murphy, Mullen

And Kevin Stevens putting up numbers too.

Speaking of Mullen though. Anyone think he's a Hall of Famer with 1 ring on the Flames??? Joe Neiwendyk probably not in either if not the 99 Stars alone.

Fleury ahead of Quick though. We saw what he did in Pittsburgh but I always felt he never got his due there because of the star studded cast that overshadowed him. In Vegas he is the MAN and is the reason this team has had success in its first two years. Almost won a Cup with an expansion team, I don't think we realize how special that would have been.