Nieuwendyk's Conn Smythe over Hasek

[I Hate Blake Coleman]

The Stars won the Cup and Nieuwendyk won the Smythe. I wasn't into hockey at this time but why didn't Hasek get the Smythe? I saw Giguere's Conn Smythe, and from what I hear and see from old highlights, Hasek was EASILY at that level and most likely above. So why didn't he win it? Especially since Hextall won it despite losing. Was Nieuwendyk's performance so clutch that it warranted it over an absolutely brilliant performance (like Richards over Kiprusoff)?

Click to read more...

 

[ES]

I think the two last events where player from losing team has got Conn Smythe is also to do with the fact that both finals have got into game 7 and the voting is done during the game. The 1999 situation was that it could be final game if Dallas wins, while with Buffalo winning the series would continue and the voting would be annulled.

 

[ck26]

I watched both runs -- Hasek in '99 wasn't as good as Giguere in '03, and Hasek in '99 wasn't anywhere CLOSE to as surprisingly good as Giguere. The eye-test was convincing. For all of Hasek's brilliance, his flopping and flailing at least kept the opponents optimistic, because it ... always ... looked ... like you're about ... to ... score! In contrast, Giguere was so fundamentally perfect in those playoffs (every first save, never out of position), that he just felt more unbeatable. The job he did against Detroit in round 1 (4-0, I think 6 goals against) was absolutely stunning and it set the tone for the playoffs that even carried through his (few) losses. He looked giant in the nets in those playoffs, and I haven't seen a spring goaltending run before or since that compared.

15-6, 40 goals against
14-7, 49 goals against

I don't know if that stat line does anything to convince that Giguere (the first one) was better than Hasek (the second), but the eye-test was convincing to me.

 

[Reds4Life]

I watched both runs -- Hasek in '99 wasn't as good as Giguere in '03, and Hasek in '99 wasn't anywhere CLOSE to as surprisingly good as Giguere. The eye-test was convincing. For all of Hasek's brilliance, his flopping and flailing at least kept the opponents optimistic, because it ... always ... looked ... like you're about ... to ... score! In contrast, Giguere was so fundamentally perfect in those playoffs (every first save, never out of position), that he just felt more unbeatable. The job he did against Detroit in round 1 (4-0, I think 6 goals against) was absolutely stunning and it set the tone for the playoffs that even carried through his (few) losses. He looked giant in the nets in those playoffs, and I haven't seen a spring goaltending run before or since that compared.

15-6, 40 goals against
14-7, 49 goals against

I don't know if that stat line does anything to convince that Giguere (the first one) was better than Hasek (the second), but the eye-test was convincing to me.

I thought Giguere was average in the finals.
But he had awesome 3 rounds.

 

[Psycho Papa Joe]

IMO a player from the losing side should never win the Conn Smythe. At the end of the day, he wasn't valuable enough to put your team over the top.

The closest I've seen a player from the losing side deserving it was Leach in 75-76. In the 76 playoffs the Habs really didn't have a standout player and had at least 6 or 7 guys who were arguably their best player that playoff. I wouldn't have given it to Hextall in 87 or Giguerre in 03. Those should have gone to G.Anderson and M.Brodeur respectively.

 

[quoipourquoi]

I thought Giguere was average in the finals.
But he had awesome 3 rounds.

SPCT @ Home in the Finals: .953
SPCT @ Road in the Finals: .879

I don't know why he couldn't deliver in New Jersey, but when a team that only scores in regulation in three games of a series still makes it to Game 7 (tied going into the 2nd), you don't really think to question the magician.

For my money, Hasek's 1999 was more comparable to Kolzig's 1998 than Giguere's 2003, only with Nieuwendyk tying Joe Sakic's record for GWGs the same year.

 

[seventieslord]

IMO a player from the losing side should never win the Conn Smythe. At the end of the day, he wasn't valuable enough to put your team over the top.

Winning even though you were just average = You da man
Losing despite a herculean effort = You suck

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I don't know why he couldn't deliver in New Jersey, but when a team that only scores in regulation in three games of a series still makes it to Game 7 (tied going into the 2nd), you don't really think to question the magician.

NJ got traffic in front of Giguere in the games in NJ. And his weakness proved to be picking the puck up through traffic.

The job he did against Detroit in round 1 (4-0, I think 6 goals against) was absolutely stunning and it set the tone for the playoffs that even carried through his (few) losses..

Stunning at the time, but it was a performance Detroit then repeated in 2004 - outshooting the opposition by a lot but losing because so many of those shots were perimeter shots.

At the time, Detroit was the defending champion, so Giguere's performance certainly seemed otherwordly.

 

[Psycho Papa Joe]

Winning even though you were just average = You da man
Losing despite a herculean effort = You suck

If your best player is just average, there is no way you could win the Stanley Cup.

 

[I Hate Blake Coleman]

If your best player is just average, there is no way you could win the Stanley Cup.

Your best player doesn't win the Cup. The team wins.

 

[Psycho Papa Joe]

Your best player doesn't win the Cup. The team wins.

And where did I say that?

Read the post I was responding to, and then get back to me. If your best player (ie Playoff MVP for your team) is just average, it is impossible for you to win the cup since the other players on your team were at best, average. Get it?

 

[quoipourquoi]

Stunning at the time, but it was a performance Detroit then repeated in 2004 - outshooting the opposition by a lot but losing because so many of those shots were perimeter shots.

At the time, Detroit was the defending champion, so Giguere's performance certainly seemed otherwordly.

Giguere (in 4 games) - 165 Saves, 6 Goals Allowed
Kiprusoff (in 6 games) - 176 Saves, 11 Goals Allowed

Giguere (Average) - 1.24 GAA, .965 SPCT, 35.5 Shots/60 Minutes
Kiprusoff (Average) - 1.74 GAA, .941 SPCT, 29.5 Shots/60 Minutes

Anaheim (Average) - 24.9 Shots/60 Minutes (-10.6)
Calgary (Average) - 26.7 Shots/60 Minutes (-2.8)

I don't think we should be retroactively calling Giguere's performance anything but otherworldly. Calgary shot more, allowed fewer shots, and lost two games.

 

[Big Phil]

No, Nieuwendyk deserved it all right. 6 game winners is pretty remarkable in 4 rounds of hockey. Plus he had 21 points good for 3rd in playoff scoring.

I honestly think Hasek was even more spectacular in 1998 despite being bounced out in the semis. Not to say Hasek wasn't great in 1999 but the Sabres really needed to win it in order for him to win that year

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Giguere (in 4 games) - 165 Saves, 6 Goals Allowed
Kiprusoff (in 6 games) - 176 Saves, 11 Goals Allowed

Giguere (Average) - 1.24 GAA, .965 SPCT, 35.5 Shots/60 Minutes
Kiprusoff (Average) - 1.74 GAA, .941 SPCT, 29.5 Shots/60 Minutes

Anaheim (Average) - 24.9 Shots/60 Minutes (-10.6)
Calgary (Average) - 26.7 Shots/60 Minutes (-2.8)

I don't think we should be retroactively calling Giguere's performance anything but otherworldly. Calgary shot more, allowed fewer shots, and lost two games.

Great, Giguere was a bigger factor in beating Detroit than Kiprusoff was. I wouldn't dispute this.

But at the time, Detroit was looked at as a playoff powerhouse, when in reality, they were a team that could be forced into a perimeter game in the playoffs (at least after they lost some key members after the 2003 Cup).