solidmotion
Registered User
- Jun 5, 2012
- 614
- 297
i think you're right but haven't followed the logic far enough.I agree that Crosby deserved the 2017 Conn Smythe.
But here's my problem with Crosby's 2016 Conn Smythe (which, as we know, he won by the narrowest of margins)...
There are certain years where one player, on the winning team, clearly stands out (e.g., 1986, 1991, etc). There are other years -- much more rare -- where one guy on the losing team stands out (e.g., 2003). Neither of those applied to 2016.
So, in any year (like 2016) when the voting is going to be split between three or four or five players, the priority taken should be like this:
-- Was there one player only on the losing team who stood way out? If yes, he should probably win the Conn Smythe (e.g., Hextall in 1987 probably deserved it more than Gretzky, Messier, Anderson, Kurri, or Fuhr)
However, that also didn't apply in 2016, so then you go to the next priority:
-- Of the three or whatever players on the winning team that must split votes, who performed the best in the Finals?
And then there's your Conn Smythe winner.
So, of the Pens' two or three top players in the 2016 Finals, did Crosby perform the best? I am gonna say 'no'.
But it's an imperfect science.
if the pens had had a truly standout player in the finals, someone who obviously dominated, then i think that player would have won the smythe—but that player didn't exist. maybe there was a first-among-equals situation, and maybe that player was crosby, maybe it was murray, etc. but that isn't what decided it.
i think it's at that point that the tiebreaker goes to narrative. much like niedermayer in 2007. if there is that little daylight between all the top players, and nobody on the losing team deserves it, give it to the captain.
probably there would have been fewer complaints if it had gone to murray but crosby's a decent choice given that logic.