Moog's performance in game two, 1990, is certainly the worst such by any goalie I've seen in the Finals. When you get pulled in the second period with a .250 on the night, it's bad.Besides every other reason already mentioned, it should be noted that Andy Moog was very bad in net. There's an argument to be made that Moog is responsible for multiple Oilers' series wins both as an Oiler and as an opponent.
Didn't he leave Edmonton because he wanted to be a starter and was unhappy as a backup? Pretty ironic considering he'd then lose to those same Oilers in the Finals twice!Besides every other reason already mentioned, it should be noted that Andy Moog was very bad in net. There's an argument to be made that Moog is responsible for multiple Oilers' series wins both as an Oiler and as an opponent.
As I recall, Esa Tikkanen was at his best in that playoff run.
Could have won a Butch Goring-like Smythe if not for Ranford.
Okay, but back to Edmonton in 1990. Yeah, a good team. Heck, they had the Hart winner in his best season ever. They were missing the firepower of Gretzky and Coffey so I think they had a more reserved team than before.
Even without Ranford, there's no way that Tikk would have been ahead of Messier and Simpson. Craig Simpson was an absolute monster in the playoffs.
Simpson was incredible in 1990, and certainly had a Conn Smythe argument.Even without Ranford, there's no way that Tikk would have been ahead of Messier and Simpson. Craig Simpson was an absolute monster in the playoffs.
And again in 1997 with the Stars.Didn't he leave Edmonton because he wanted to be a starter and was unhappy as a backup? Pretty ironic considering he'd then lose to those same Oilers in the Finals twice!
When Goring won the Smythe there was a much bigger discrepancy between his numbers and Bossy's than there was between Tikkanen and Simpson. 13 goals on the second line as well as being the agitator and shutdown forward. I'd have voted for him.
Simpson was incredible in 1990, and certainly had a Conn Smythe argument.
I've never seen a player make more of their shots on goal than Simpson. Here's a stat to chew on: In the 1990 playoffs, Simpson had a 100 shooting-percentage in five of the last nine games of the playoffs.
(Simpson was also really good in the '88 Cup run -- esp. against Winnipeg and Detroit -- but that tends to get overlooked.)
Well, most of his shot attempts were within 3 feet of the net, but yes he made the most of them. He is the best player one-on-one with the goaltender I have ever seen (incl. Mario).In my opinion, Craig Simpson is one of the most underrated players of his era.
His career shooting percentage in both the regular season and the playoffs is ridiculous. The guy was lethal.
I'd have voted for Mark Messier. In fact, even with Ranford, I'd have voted for Mark Messier.
The 1991-92 Edmonton team was a bizarre one-off, with basically no precedent and never to be repeated.The 1992 team was very underrated. Sans Messier and after losing Simpson in game one of the playoffs they still knocked off Gretzky and the Kings in the opening round and Vancouver in the second.
My Best-Carey
Right, well it's harder in basketball -- the best player is on the court for maybe 90% or more of each match (could be 95 or 100% in a big game), but in hockey the best player is on for only 33-40% of the match. Just as you suggest, depth players can make the difference.They definitely won it a different way. They basically did what the 93/94 Bulls couldn't do, win without the leagues best player.
I remember Ray Bourque saying that he basically knew the Bruins were toast during the player-introductions in game one in 1988 (Ranford... Fuhr... Lowe... Smith... MacTavish... Courtnall... Simpson... Tikkanen... Anderson... Kurri... Messier... Gretzky). However, in 1990 he really thought the Bruins would win. It just goes to show that championship confidence and attitude are factors.The Oilers were also in the Bruins heads, the mind of champions.
Simpson was incredible in 1990, and certainly had a Conn Smythe argument.
I've never seen a player make more of their shots on goal than Simpson. Here's a stat to chew on: In the 1990 playoffs, Simpson had a 100 shooting-percentage in five of the last nine games of the playoffs.
(Simpson was also really good in the '88 Cup run -- esp. against Winnipeg and Detroit -- but that tends to get overlooked.)
Tikkanen's best playoff hockey in Edmonton was probably 1991.
Because he is Messier?
His +5 was 11th on the team.
Not really.His numbers were better in 1990.
Not really.
The Oilers had far less firepower in 1991 than in 1990. Tikk was much more team-dominant in 1991. I mean, he single-handedly beat Calgary in game 7.
And again in 1997 with the Stars.
yeah, I think Hitchcock thought, in 1997, that 'Moog vs. his ex-team' would be a motivating factor. I mean, Moog was the #1 guy that season in Dallas, I guess, but I think playing Moog against Edmonton was a mistake (see Moog's .250 vs. Edmonton in game two of the 1990 Finals). I think Dallas made a mistake in not upgrading goalies in spring 1997. Moog was kinda old, and Irbe was coming off rough seasons in San Jose and wasn't really a legit #1, I think (he did have one great season later for Carolina).That turned out to be the end of Moog in Dallas as well.
Edmonton did a real number on him throughout his career, I guess.