Players that should have Won the Conn Smythe?

[Giotrapani91]

Thanks for that.

No way Hasek should have gotten more votes than Yzerman. What hurt Yzerman is his scoring dropped off big time after the first two rounds. Ironically, though, his health seemed to have improved over the playoffs. He was basically playing on one leg against Vancouver. I'm guessing the quality of opposing goaltending had something to do with that. Cloutier and Johnson in rounds 1/2, compared to Roy and Irbe in later rounds.

Lidstrom was a deserving winner. I'd have Hasek a distant 3rd.

Hasek did break a record in shutouts with 6 and 2 of them came in the finals

 

[KirkAlbuquerque]

Nothing against Vasilevskiy, who was certainly deserving, but Kucherov now has 66 points (+21) in back-to-back playoffs (!) and no award to show for it. I almost wonder if there was some voter hesitation to go for him after the whole "Injured Reserve" / Cap-avoidance thing with him last season....

Kuch padded his stats in the early rounds . The final 2 rounds seem to (and should) way heavier on voting

 

[Yozhik v tumane]

Kuch padded his stats in the early rounds . The final 2 rounds seem to (and should) way heavier on voting

I don’t necessarily agree that Kucherov should have won a Conn Smythe, but that’s through no fault of his own: he had two Smythe worthy playoff runs that are strong in a historical context. Implying that he’s fallen off in later runs is just wrong. If I’m to guess, you’re staring yourself blind at last year’s playoffs where the Avs series was the first late round he featured in but didn’t lead in scoring since 2018. I would argue Palat the Bolts’ MVP over the last two rounds that time.

Here’s how Kucherov fared in the two Cup runs:

2020

v Islanders 6 2-8-10 (led series)

v Stars 6 1-7-8 (co-led series with Point)

12 3-15-18 (1.5 ppg)



2021

v Islanders 7 0-9-9 (led series)

v Canadiens 5 3-2-5 (led series)

12 3-11-14 (1.16 ppg)


Despite the fact the teams Kucherov faced in the ECFs and SCFs were notably stingy defensive ones finishing 6th, 2nd, 2nd, and 18th (no, the Habs probably wouldn’t have made the playoffs under ordinary circumstances, but they were very able to shut the door in the playoffs) in GA during the regular season, Kucherov always led or co-led his team in scoring and in 2020 actually improved his scoring pace over the last two rounds. This might have something to do with the fact that the teams he went up against in the first two rounds were defensively able as well (3rd and 1st in GA), but my point remains that Kucherov was tremendously good throughout both his Cup runs.

 

[Dingo]

Kucherov, Kessel, Kopitar and Kuznetzov…

Is there a conspiracy going on against Ks in the last decade???

 

[rmartin65]

Kucherov, Kessel, Kopitar and Kuznetzov…

Is there a conspiracy going on against Ks in the last decade???

Poor Kaprizov (in the unlikely event Minnesota wins anytime soon).

 

[Staniowski]

Four Habs Conn Smythes.....

In '71, maybe Cournoyer instead of Dryden. I'm not certain about this one because I haven't seen enough of it, but Cournoyer looks like the best player. Lemaire, Beliveau, F. Mahovlich and Dryden are also good.

In '73, probably Lapointe instead of Cournoyer. Lapointe was at his best around this time, very strong both offensively and defensively. Aggressive and smart, and very talented. Cournoyer and Lemaire also excellent.

In '79, definitely Robinson instead of Gainey. I've re-watched some of this recently....Robinson is without a doubt the Habs best player at this time and their most important player in the '79 playoffs. I can understand why Gainey - who was at his very best - was chosen....he was all over the ice, and he put up some points. Gainey, Lafleur, Lemaire were very strong.

In '86, definitely Carbonneau instead of Roy. This is one of those cases where everybody who didn't watch the '86 playoffs says Roy, but it was very different if you watched. The Habs were so strong defensively - they outplayed, outshot and outchanced their opponents. Although Roy played well and the defensemen played well, it was the forwards who were the key. Carbonneau, McPhee and Skrudland were close to being the 3 best defensive forwards in the NHL at the time. Carbonneau was at his best here, he was incredibly smart and very effective against the offensive stars of the other teams. Lemieux, Roy and McPhee were the other best players, and several others were also very good.

 

[Giotrapani91]

Four Habs Conn Smythes.....

In '71, maybe Cournoyer instead of Dryden. I'm not certain about this one because I haven't seen enough of it, but Cournoyer looks like the best player. Lemaire, Beliveau, F. Mahovlich and Dryden are also good.

In '73, probably Lapointe instead of Cournoyer. Lapointe was at his best around this time, very strong both offensively and defensively. Aggressive and smart, and very talented. Cournoyer and Lemaire also excellent.

In '79, definitely Robinson instead of Gainey. I've re-watched some of this recently....Robinson is without a doubt the Habs best player at this time and their most important player in the '79 playoffs. I can understand why Gainey - who was at his very best - was chosen....he was all over the ice, and he put up some points. Gainey, Lafleur, Lemaire were very strong.

In '86, definitely Carbonneau instead of Roy. This is one of those cases where everybody who didn't watch the '86 playoffs says Roy, but it was very different if you watched. The Habs were so strong defensively - they outplayed, outshot and outchanced their opponents. Although Roy played well and the defensemen played well, it was the forwards who were the key. Carbonneau, McPhee and Skrudland were close to being the 3 best defensive forwards in the NHL at the time. Carbonneau was at his best here, he was incredibly smart and very effective against the offensive stars of the other teams. Lemieux, Roy and McPhee were the other best players, and several others were also very good.

Claude Lemieux was good as well and could’ve very well had won it, I think his 86 playoff run was better than his run in 95, 95 should’ve gone to brodeur.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

In '86, definitely Carbonneau instead of Roy. This is one of those cases where everybody who didn't watch the '86 playoffs says Roy, but it was very different if you watched. The Habs were so strong defensively - they outplayed, outshot and outchanced their opponents. Although Roy played well and the defensemen played well, it was the forwards who were the key. Carbonneau, McPhee and Skrudland were close to being the 3 best defensive forwards in the NHL at the time. Carbonneau was at his best here, he was incredibly smart and very effective against the offensive stars of the other teams. Lemieux, Roy and McPhee were the other best players, and several others were also very good.

the 1986 team was before my time

i've never heard of mcphee and skrudland being held in that high regard for that run, but i'd love to hear more. mcphee was in his second year, skrudland and claude lemieux were rookies. that's gotta be one of the greatest two-way kid lines of all time right?

it looks like the lines were

naslund smith someone (dahlin?)
gainey carbonneau nilan(?)
mcphee skrudland lemieux
kordic richer and randos

does that look right?

 

[crobro]

Richard Brodeur 1982

 

[Staniowski]

Claude Lemieux was good as well and could’ve very well had won it, I think his 86 playoff run was better than his run in 95, 95 should’ve gone to brodeur.

Lemieux was great in '86, he provided the thing that the team needed most: goal scoring. He mostly played on a very strong line - with Skrudland and McPhee - and played on the PP with Smith and Naslund. Lemieux was young and hungry and feisty.

He was great in '95 too....a little more refined, a little less feisty.....but, similar to the '86 Habs, he provided goals that the team needed.

I don't agree that Brodeur should've won the CS in '95....the Devils forwards and defensemen pulverized their opponents and gave up very few quality scoring chances, so Brodeur had it relatively easy that playoffs.

 

[Staniowski]

the 1986 team was before my time

i've never heard of mcphee and skrudland being held in that high regard for that run, but i'd love to hear more. mcphee was in his second year, skrudland and claude lemieux were rookies. that's gotta be one of the greatest two-way kid lines of all time right?

it looks like the lines were

naslund smith someone (dahlin?)
gainey carbonneau nilan(?)
mcphee skrudland lemieux
kordic richer and randos

does that look right?

Yeah, Carbonneau and Gainey played mostly with Nilan; Skrudland and McPhee played with Lemieux the large majority of the time: Smith and Naslund played with various guys on the other wing. A 4th line didn't play very much, except maybe when Ryan Walter (a very good all-around player) was playing. It was mostly those 3 lines, with the other players - Richer, Dahlin, Kordic, Deblois, Maley, etc. sprinkled in.

The Skrudland and Carbonneau lines were the top 2 lines.

Skrudland, McPhee and Carbonneau were the 3 players who were the heart of that team. If people are watching that team for the first time, McPhee is probably the player who will surprise you the most. McPhee has a lot of similarities to Gainey (not the Gainey of '86, but the Gainey of the late '70s). Like Gainey, good size, fast, aggressive forchecking, very physical, great positioning, smart....and, yes, like Gainey, not a great scorer.

 

[Staniowski]

I would say the 5 best forwards were the entire Skrudland line - Skrudland, McPhee, Lemieux - and Carbonneau and Naslund, who was definitely 5th-best of the 5.

Patrick Roy played very well in net....but he had it relatively easy with their great defensemen and defensive forwards.

The defensemen were very strong. Chelios and Robinson were two of the best in NHL at the time, though neither were at their absolute best. Chelios was very strong, but still a little bit raw. Green was great....Ludwig strong defensively. Gingras was strong offensively. Lalor was good....Svoboda was young, didn't play that much but was pretty good.

PK forwards:
Carbonneau/Gainey
Skrudland/McPhee

I think the most important thing to remember about this team - besides the fact that they didn't play against any great teams - is that the NHL was just starting to play a little bit of defense by 1986, and the Habs were at the forefront of this.

It was Carbonneau, Skrudland and McPhee who were leading the team, and who epitomized the team.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

I would say the 5 best forwards were the entire Skrudland line - Skrudland, McPhee, Lemieux - and Carbonneau and Naslund, who was definitely 5th-best of the 5.

Patrick Roy played very well in net....but he had it relatively easy with their great defensemen and defensive forwards.

The defensemen were very strong. Chelios and Robinson were two of the best in NHL at the time, though neither were at their absolute best. Chelios was very strong, but still a little bit raw. Green was great....Ludwig strong defensively. Gingras was strong offensively. Lalor was good....Svoboda was young, didn't play that much but was pretty good.

PK forwards:
Carbonneau/Gainey
Skrudland/McPhee

I think the most important thing to remember about this team - besides the fact that they didn't play against any great teams - is that the NHL was just starting to play a little bit of defense by 1986, and the Habs were at the forefront of this.

It was Carbonneau, Skrudland and McPhee who were leading the team, and who epitomized the team.

interesting, thanks for all that

i guess the obvious question that comes to my mind is, was the '87 team just as good if not better than the '86 team, only the 1987 team had to play the flyers and the '86 team didn't?

just looking at the stats, naslund and smith were more productive offensively, even given the fewer games, you have add corson, svoboda is an everyday player by that point, it feels like a deeper team.

although i also find it totally bizarre that roy sweeps the bruins in round one, then gets shelled in game one against quebec and loses the net the rest of the way. i get that roy isn't roy yet, but as the reigning conn smythe winner and having just put up a very successful sophomore year, you'd think he'd earned more rope than that.

but for a couple of scary late third period cam neely goals, roy couldn't have been that bad in round one right?

 

[LightningStorm]

I said this in the thread about Conn Smythe winning tiers since 1980 (when the playoffs became 16 teams). There's instances where I thought the voters were dead wrong, ones where I disagreed but could see where they were coming from, and ones where there were more than one right choice.

Dead wrong

Goring (1981): Hands down the worst CS selection since 1980. Not only was his run itself on the lower end of CS winners in this span, but, as I mentioned in this thread I made, his HOF teammates Bossy and Potvin were clearly better. Usually its one player who gets robbed, but in this case it was 2. And as I said in that thread, I can't even decide who would've been the better winner between those 2. Goring was a distant 3rd for the Isles best player that postseason.

Hextall (1987): A great postseason, but nowhere near what I think is needed for a player on the finals loser to win the CS. I'm of the belief that the CS should be the MVP of the winning team barring extreme circumstances, Giguere in 2003 being one of them. Giguere had it clinched by round 3, and I'm still of the opinion that a player winning it after losing the finals would need to have it clinched by the time the finals began. Hextall does not meet that standard. Much has been made about Gretzky not winning it in 1984, but I thought this was the bigger of the 2 robberies.

Williams (2014): Kopitar led the team in scoring (albeit only by a point) while playing his Selke level defense and being an important penalty killer. The media became a little too obsessed over Williams's game 7 resume. While this was mostly a team win and didn't have any historically great performances, Kopitar was definitely the Kings best player that postseason.

Disagreed, but was reasonable and could see where they were coming from


Messier (1984): Absolutely would've voted for Gretzky, and I agree voter fatigue cost him here. But Messier had a great postseason, both scoring wise and with his grit/physical play. His dominance over Calgary scoring and physically in their 7 game series was what led to the Flames signing Joel Otto. Thought Gretzky was the right choice, but with Messier still scoring at a high level while doing the dirty work, I can at least see where the voters were coming from.

Vernon (1997): Definitely one of the goalies who got it as a result of a committee win. For that reason I can see why Vernon won it. Still, I thought Fedorov was the best player. Played elite at both ends, being a Selke level forward who led the team in scoring that spring. Plus the defense in front of Vernon was great, so its not like he had to bail out the Wings that often. 1997 Wings had one of the greatest team defensive performances ever for a team in a single postseason, and got better as the playoffs went on.

Crosby (2016): Where I went wrong in claiming this was a joke was only factoring in the half that Crosby's performance was among the weakest for CS winners, but not factoring in there weren't many other viable candidates, as the 2016 Pens were among the greatest team efforts for cup winners. The forward depth on this team was insane, yet on the blueline Letang was by easily their best. My opinion at the moment is I would've given it to him, not only for his great postseason but the much larger load he carried for his position than any of the forwards. Still, the reason I can't put this in the category of wrong is because for how much this cup was a team effort, I don't think any player can claim they were robbed of the CS. I still think there's no doubt that name recognition was a big factor in Crosby winning it, and it did come off as a lifetime achievement award.

This is a list of when there were 2 right choices, and picking either of them would've been right, where you couldn't go wrong with either one. Had Bossy or Potvin won in 1981, that pair would've made this list. Here's the list, with the CS winner listed first.

1983 (Smith/Potvin)
1990 (Ranford/Messier)
1999 (Nieuwendyk/Belfour)
2001 (Roy/Sakic)
2007 (Niedermayer/Pronger)
2010 (Toews/Kane)
2013 (Kane/Crawford)
2018 (Ovechkin/Kuznetsov)
2021 (Vasilevskiy/Kucherov)

If there were ever years for co-CS winners, these 9 instances would've been it IMO.

 

[sr edler]

I wasn't overly impressed with Vasilevskiy's overall performance in the last playoffs. He was solid in the elimination games, but I got a very strong impression that that had tons to do with how the team in front of him played in those games. In parts of both the Toronto and Colorado series, when the games were way looser, Vasilevskiy got shell-shocked on multiple occasions and appeared to not be able to catch a beach ball. I want a bit more consistent performance out of a supposed CS goalie. He even got shell-shocked Game 1 against the Rangers.

(Tampa shouldn't even have won the Toronto series, but got a weak 5-on-3 partly because Adam Foote's son pretended he got shot in the face with an old-school bazooka)

He was also solid in the Florida series, but the Panthers were just overall terrible (even in the preceding Washington series).

When Cooper rallied his troops in the crunch games though, and his group collapsed in the D zone like they were trying to emulate a Tortorella scheme, picture looked a bit different.

Apparently Benjamin Bishop III had an amazing crunch game stat-line too, in the playoffs. For you who don't know who that is, it's a big-sized guy who played goals for Tampa around the mid-2010s.

To Vasilevskiy's credit though, he does seem to be able to shake off being shell-shocked, which obviously is a positive. This is where I think people are wrong when they say all great goalies are weird. I don't think they're weird as much as they're narcissists (unless you want to make a case that it's weird to be a narcissist, which probably is true technically speaking). This is why humble guys like Schneider get cramps in big games, and Tim Thomas just skates off the ice and blames it on everyone but himself (not that Thomas was necessarily great though, but he was at least successful).

The most underrated goalie playoff performance of the last decade is probably Jonathan Quick against Vegas in the 1st round of 2018, that's only 4 years ago but it feels like 10 years ago.

 

[CokenoPepsi]

Kucherov, Kessel, Kopitar and Kuznetzov…

Is there a conspiracy going on against Ks in the last decade???

Kane in 2010 if you wanna go further

 

[LightningStorm]

I wasn't overly impressed with Vasilevskiy's overall performance in the last playoffs. He was solid in the elimination games, but I got a very strong impression that that had tons to do with how the team in front of him played in those games. In parts of both the Toronto and Colorado series, when the games were way looser, Vasilevskiy got shell-shocked on multiple occasions and appeared to not be able to catch a beach ball. I want a bit more consistent performance out of a supposed CS goalie. He even got shell-shocked Game 1 against the Rangers.

(Tampa shouldn't even have won the Toronto series, but got a weak 5-on-3 partly because Adam Foote's son pretended he got shot in the face with an old-school bazooka)

He was also solid in the Florida series, but the Panthers were just overall terrible (even in the preceding Washington series).

When Cooper rallied his troops in the crunch games though, and his group collapsed in the D zone like they were trying to emulate a Tortorella scheme, picture looked a bit different.

Apparently Benjamin Bishop III had an amazing crunch game stat-line too, in the playoffs. For you who don't know who that is, it's a big-sized guy who played goals for Tampa around the mid-2010s.

To Vasilevskiy's credit though, he does seem to be able to shake off being shell-shocked, which obviously is a positive. This is where I think people are wrong when they say all great goalies are weird. I don't think they're weird as much as they're narcissists (unless you want to make a case that it's weird to be a narcissist, which probably is true technically speaking). This is why humble guys like Schneider get cramps in big games, and Tim Thomas just skates off the ice and blames it on everyone but himself (not that Thomas was necessarily great though, but he was at least successful).

The most underrated goalie playoff performance of the last decade is probably Jonathan Quick against Vegas in the 1st round of 2018, that's only 4 years ago but it feels like 10 years ago.

Ha I thought you were talking about his 2021 CS winning performance until reading the Leafs and Avs in there. Had the Bolts 3 peated Kuch probably wins it, and if not him Stammer.

 

[BHD]

Was Pahlsson really that good in '07? His line did do a lot of the heavy lifting, but accounting stats don't match most CS recipients IMHO.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Yes, yes he was.

 

[Staniowski]

interesting, thanks for all that

i guess the obvious question that comes to my mind is, was the '87 team just as good if not better than the '86 team, only the 1987 team had to play the flyers and the '86 team didn't?

just looking at the stats, naslund and smith were more productive offensively, even given the fewer games, you have add corson, svoboda is an everyday player by that point, it feels like a deeper team.

although i also find it totally bizarre that roy sweeps the bruins in round one, then gets shelled in game one against quebec and loses the net the rest of the way. i get that roy isn't roy yet, but as the reigning conn smythe winner and having just put up a very successful sophomore year, you'd think he'd earned more rope than that.

but for a couple of scary late third period cam neely goals, roy couldn't have been that bad in round one right?

Well, the Habs did quite well in the '87 playoffs, they could've gone to the finals....I think they were maybe a little better in real terms, but team defense was improving in the NHL, so maybe not quite as good relative to everybody else. If you watch NHL games from '84, '85, '86, '87, '88, etc., you will see the general improvements in defense. As I mentioned, the Habs were at the forefront of playing D, but other terms gained on them.

Yes, the Flyers were better than anybody they faced in '86.

I dont think people, now, have a very good knowledge of Roy's career. As I said, he didn't deserve the Conn Smythe in '86, and the Habs might have been better off if they went with Hayward in '87. Roy was very inconsistent and was notorious for allowing weak goals in the playoffs. (Lots of boos from Habs fans). By the way, it wasn't Hayward the rest of the way....Roy was given another chance but was pulled after 2 periods and a bit.

This was also the series of the famous Habs - Flyers brawl.

 

[buffalowing88]

Was Pahlsson really that good in '07? His line did do a lot of the heavy lifting, but accounting stats don't match most CS recipients IMHO.

I thought he was one of the few two-way forwards on a team that was DEEP with them who could produce offensively as needed. This was a squad giving Travis Moen huge minutes, too.

If Travis Moen was given a puck and 3-4 traffic cones spaced five feet apart, he would be unable to complete the drill. He'd just retire on the spot.

And Rob Niedermayer was getting quite a bit of TOI as well. He was crafty but a non-entity on offense.

Pahlsson and McDonald did a lot for that team offensively in the shadows while being paired around those two at times.

 

[VanIslander]

Hasek was the superstar that postseason.

No one in Buffalo was in the same zip code and both Dallas candidates were sloppy thirds.

Yet somehow Hasek didn't get the award he deserved. Full stop.

 

[LightningStorm]

Hasek was the superstar that postseason.

No one in Buffalo was in the same zip code and both Dallas candidates were sloppy thirds.

Yet somehow Hasek didn't get the award he deserved. Full stop.

It's always interesting to learn what standards people have for a player not on the winning team winning the Smythe. My opinion is that the player who loses in the finals must be such an outlier that they had the trophy wrapped up going into the finals. 2003 Giguere did fit this standard. While 1999 Hasek would've been the easy choice had Buffalo won, he didn't fit this personal standard I have.

 

[VanIslander]

Hasek didn't "lose" the final.
The ref blew the call.
Game 6 Stanley Cup Final OT.
Oh, and Hasek was "such an outlier" as you put it.
The many HHOF skaters versus none, requiring the greatest goaltender ever to be the greatest, and he was, and he was defeated by inconsistent rule enforcement.

(the stain remains)

 

[Professor What]

It's always interesting to learn what standards people have for a player not on the winning team winning the Smythe. My opinion is that the player who loses in the finals must be such an outlier that they had the trophy wrapped up going into the finals. 2003 Giguere did fit this standard. While 1999 Hasek would've been the easy choice had Buffalo won, he didn't fit this personal standard I have.

Was Giguere really so much more of an outlier than Hasek? There are more than a few people who strongly disagree with Giguere being chosen. I'm not one of them, but I do think it shows that he wasn't the only obvious candidate. And honestly, except for the fact that the Sabres didn't push the Finals to seven games, I find what Hasek did, dragging that team along with him more remarkable. I take no issue with Nieuwendyk as the Conn Smythe winner, but I can't dismiss Hasek as a legitimate candidate either. His team wouldn't have been within miles of the Finals without him.