I was the one defending Vernon, so I don’t know if this “post-truth” thing was directed at me...
I think everyone agrees that Dominik Hasek had a better playoff in 1999 than Mike Vernon had in 1997, but Mike Vernon winning 16 games and Dominik Hasek winning just 13 games likely plays a major factor, as does their competition.
Consider that Joe Nieuwendyk equaled a then-record 6 GWGs, while Ed Belfour had a .941 Stanley Cup Finals series, and Mike Modano produced 23 points in a tough draw (Hasek, Roy, Pronger). Those are three really solid options for the Stanley Cup champions that voters can turn to before the 13-win goaltender on the defeated team, even if in terms of individual performance we would say Hasek had the best of the four.
In 1997, who do the voters turn to? For one, Mike Vernon was on the winning team. If we want to look at Lindros, far and away the Conn Smythe favorite going into the Finals, he did not have a great Finals series.
Ultimately, there’s not a set level of performance where a player universally deserves a Conn Smythe. Logan Couture can score 30 points, but if his team is out in 6 games like Dominik Hasek’s was, the voters might take a 19-point forward with a minus-2.
It’s been 43 years since we’ve seen a losing player take the Conn Smythe in less than a 7 game Final and he still owns the record for goals in a playoff. The trend has kind of set-in where it’s that high of a bar, and players like Hasek and Couture end up with playoffs that are better than some Conn Smythe winners have had. Coupled with the fact that there were three really strong playoffs from members of the 1999 Dallas Stars, and it’s not all that surprising that Mike Vernon has a Conn Smythe and Dominik Hasek does not.
...unless we’re talking 1997 Vernon vs. 2002 Hasek, where both had a comparable level of Conn Smythe competition (no standout teammates; Arturs Irbe, like Lindros, is great but a hard sell), but statistically, I’d give the edge to 1997 Vernon (71.0 EvE versus 81.4).
Great post, and I agree with everything you said. I'll bet that if Buffalo had won game six in 1999, and then if they had even
lost to Dallas in game seven, that Hasek would have won the Conn Smythe. Just getting to gave seven would have won it for him. But when you lose in six, voters tend not to go to anyone on the losing side.
Giguere in 2003... Hextall in 1987... And it's usually a goaltender, because it suits the "heroic-goaltender-drags-team-to-seventh-game-contention" narrative. But in Hasek's case, I would say that that team doesn't even get out of their division without him, and quite probably doesn't even qualify for the playoffs without him (they only made it in by about 2 points).
But, in general, the Smythe
should go to a player on the winning team. Voters should certainly consider the winning side with priority. I understand that the playoffs are about all 4 rounds, but I personally think that the semi-Finals and especially the Finals (just as it was back in 1965 when the Conn Smythe started) should be priority-consideration for players' performances. Rounds one and two should have slightly lesser priority. At the very least, the player winning the Smythe should have performed very well in the Finals.
And that's why I personally disagree with Toews in 2010 and Crosby in 2016. Their Finals' results, statistically:
-- 2010 Toews: 0G + 3A = 3PTS (-5)
-- 2016 Crosby: 0G + 4A = 4PTS (0)
Toews in particular looks bad here. And neither guy was really lights-out in the third round either (though Toews at least led his team in scoring).
Maybe if the 2010 Final had gone one more game (i.e., to game seven), we'd have seen Danny Briere win that Smythe for the losing team. He came up trumps in the Finals for Philly. Briere in the Finals had less ice-time than Toews, outscored him 12 points to 3 (!), and went +5 to Toews' -5... and Toews won the Conn Smythe.
Here's Toews as the Smythe-winner was announced:
Just kidding, I really like Toews, but c'mon -- you gotta impress me more in the Finals if you deserve a Smythe!
