Playoff All-Star Teams

[VanIslander]

One of the best 4th line center postseasons I've seen this decade:

SUNDQVIST. Nine points (all even strength), 74 hits (more than any Bruin), hustle up the wazoo.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Sundqvist was very good. There is no award for it, but he might be one of the most improved players in the league. I watched his development in Pittsburgh, I had some time for him, but I'm surprised at how well he did in St. Louis...

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

O'Reilly and Pietrangelo seem like musts

Binnington was phenomenal in game 7, but I'd give the goalie spot to Rask

Was Couture good enough to make it despite missing the Final?

Other forwards to consider: Marchand, Bergeron, Schwartz

I'd say the last D spot is between Krug and Parayko


I watched a lot less than usual this year, curious to hear everyone's opinions.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

surprised this thread came and went.

i didn’t pay as much attention as usual but i’d go

schwartz ror + i guess tarasenko by default at rw
pietrangelo parayko
rask

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Better late than never...

Easy Choices: Hedman, Point, Kucherov

My gut instinct on the remaining spots are:

F: Pavelski
D: Heiskanen
G: Vasilevsky.


This seems easier than usual, am I missing anyone?

 

[quoipourquoi]

Better late than never...

Easy Choices: Hedman, Point, Kucherov

My gut instinct on the remaining spots are:

F: Pavelski
D: Heiskanen
G: Vasilevsky.


This seems easier than usual, am I missing anyone?

Nathan MacKinnon.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Nathan MacKinnon.

Usually I require a player to at least make the Conf. Finals to be included, winning only 1 series is pretty weak, but MacKinnon sure did have a great 2 series, tough call.

Jamie Benn is a candidate as well, upon looking he was Dallas' leading scorer in both the Colorado and Vegas series, but also only had 1 point in the Final.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

i might even go palat in pavelski's place, but everyone is pretty cut and dry. hedman, heiskanen, point, kuch, vasi.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Usually I require a player to at least make the Conf. Finals to be included, winning only 1 series is pretty weak, but MacKinnon sure did have a great 2 series, tough call.

He technically played 3 rounds, even if only two were elimination rounds.

For context, when adjusted to the same scoring environment (200 GA opponents), Nathan MacKinnon’s 23.21 adjusted points is somewhere between 1992 Mario Lemieux (25.11) and 1972 Phil Esposito (21.55) for 15 GP players.

I think actively looking for someone other than MacKinnon would be like taking someone who accomplished noticeably less (in a raw sense) but took more time to do so.

 

[edinson]

I'd go Vasilevsky, Hedman, Heiskanen, Point, Kucherov, MacKinnon. First five are locks.
Don't think any forward on Stars or the other Conference finalists stood out enough to overtake MacKinnon. Excluding the round robin games his stats read 8G,14A in 12 games. Actually, it's the highest playoffs PPG (1,83) since Lemieux in 92 for players playing a minimum of two rounds. I know this favours players who lost in the second round but still... a lot of players have lost in the second round since 92.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

He technically played 3 rounds, even if only two were elimination rounds.

For context, when adjusted to the same scoring environment (200 GA opponents), Nathan MacKinnon’s 23.21 adjusted points is somewhere between 1992 Mario Lemieux (25.11) and 1972 Phil Esposito (21.55) for 15 GP players.

I think actively looking for someone other than MacKinnon would be like taking someone who accomplished noticeably less (in a raw sense) but took more time to do so.

Those round robin games are difficult to judge. I mean, they were playing for something, but those weren't even close to actual playoff games. At times it felt like they were just being used as warm-up/exhibition games. My gut says to not consider them at all.

That being said, MacKinnon had 3 pts in 3 games in the round robin, which is certainly respectable, but he performed better in the playoff rounds, so it's not like that would change anything, i.e. those games didn't pad his stats, if anything they made them worse!

 

[quoipourquoi]

Those round robin games are difficult to judge. I mean, they were playing for something, but those weren't even close to actual playoff games. At times it felt like they were just being used as warm-up/exhibition games. My gut says to not consider them at all.

That being said, MacKinnon had 3 pts in 3 games in the round robin, which is certainly respectable, but he performed better in the playoff rounds, so it's not like that would change anything, i.e. those games didn't pad his stats, if anything they made them worse!

Same with Kucherov (who had 2 points in 3 round robin games) and Point (3 in 3).

Point’s 30 points in 20 games in the elimination rounds adjust to 27.91 points in a 200-GA environment, which is pretty comparable to 2002 Forsberg (27.98 in 20 games), while Kucherov’s 29.46 points across 22 games in a 200-GA environment is comparable to 1996 Joe Sakic (30.51 in 22).

Maybe it was because of the unusual situation and some players were just better mentally prepared than others, but I think we were treated to 3 of the 5-best playoffs from a forward since the 2005 lockout.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Ugh, I forgot to contribute to this thread at the time...I looked for it briefly and then got distracted...

F: Point
F: Kucherov
F: MacKinnon
D: Hedman
D: Heiskanen
G: Vasilevskiy

HM: Palat, Theodore, Pavelski

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Really, the only question for 2020 is whether the 3rd forward is Pavelski, Benn, or MacKinnon. I'd lean towards Pavelski because I think he was the most important forward on the runner-up in the final 2 rounds.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Really, the only question for 2020 is whether the 3rd forward is Pavelski, Benn, or MacKinnon. I'd lean towards Pavelski because I think he was the most important forward on the runner-up in the final 2 rounds.

i'd say benn was a really distant third out of those three

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

i'd say benn was a really distant third out of those three

He did fade in the finals.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

He did fade in the finals.

i also feel like he wasn't really that impressive in any series other than against vegas but his scoring stats are flattered by the colorado series being an offensive gong show played against three backup goalies.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Good points above, I'll take Benn off the OP

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

This is a year where I wish we could take away one of the F or D positions to have 2 goalies. Vasilevskiy and Price were arguably the 2 best players this post season. I think you have to give it to Vasilevskiy though.

Initial thoughts on the rest...

Forwards
Locks: Kucherov, Point
Contenders: Suzuki, Toffoli, Barzal, Karlsson

Defensemen
Locks: Hedman
Contenders: Pietrangelo, McDonagh


Interested to hear what everyone thinks

 

[The Macho King]

Love what McDonagh brought, but Pietrangelo was Vegas' best player by a freaking mile. Depends on how you weigh a disappointing CF team versus a Cup winning team to balance it out, but I don't think I'd have a problem with Pietrangelo there.

Take Toffoli of the contenders list. 0 points, -8 or something in the Final? No way, no matter how good he was leading up to it. Suzuki was the Habs best forward, and I feel like they deserve representation by virtue of being a finalist.

 

[Michael Farkas]

First-Team:

F: Point, Kucherov, Killorn
D: McDonagh, Pietrangelo
G: Vasilevskiy

Second-Team:
F: Suzuki, MacKinnon, Caufield
D: Theodore, Hedman
G: Price

HM: Pastrnak, Coleman, McAvoy, Fleury

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Suzuki was the Habs best forward, and I feel like they deserve representation by virtue of being a finalist.

I agree with this reasoning.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

First-Team:

F: Point, Kucherov, Killorn
D: McDonagh, Pietrangelo
G: Vasilevskiy

Second-Team:
F: Suzuki, MacKinnon, Caufield
D: Theodore, Hedman
G: Price

HM: Pastrnak, Coleman, McAvoy, Fleury

Would be interested to hear the reasoning for McDonagh over Hedman, I'm open to it. He outscored Hedman at ES, BUT Tampa's PP was a big reason for their success, for which Hedman was a key piece. McDonagh had a much better +/- than Hedman. Who was getting the tougher matchups?

I disagree with MacKinnon being a 2nd teamer. He basically had one great series. After scoring 3 points in the opener against Vegas, he only scored 3 more in the next 5 games, none of which were goals. Give that spot to Karlsson.

I agree with the others, switch Suzuki and Killorn

 

[The Macho King]

Would be interested to hear the reasoning for McDonagh over Hedman, I'm open to it. He outscored Hedman at ES, BUT Tampa's PP was a big reason for their success, for which Hedman was a key piece. McDonagh had a much better +/- than Hedman. Who was getting the tougher matchups?

I disagree with MacKinnon being a 2nd teamer. He basically had one great series. After scoring 3 points in the opener against Vegas, he only scored 3 more in the next 5 games, none of which were goals. Give that spot to Karlsson.

I agree with the others, switch Suzuki and Killorn

Yeah I don't agree with it either. Hedman was tied for what, fourth in scoring? McDonagh was fantastic defensively at times, but he had a few stinkers in there too. But despite the spotlight, Hedman was a rock out there most of the time too, despite playing with limited mobility. McD definitely got the tougher matchups though.

Could go either way, but some of the narrative about Hedman this postseason feels more like fatigue than anything based on his actual on ice play.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Not sure what the stats say...but Hedman wasn't that dominant to me, he was good, not great. He out-performed most of the relevant d-men here, thus the second-team nod. But McDonagh really stepped up. For a guy that basically quit playing offense in his 30's, he stepped up in a big way offensively (he was positively robbed of an all-time great goal vs the Isles too, which is too bad). I liked his transition game and his regroup game better than Hedman's at times actually. Obviously, he was much better defensively than Hedman - by, in my opinion, a huge margin...

But even with the puck, McDonagh's simple game was really useful in transition for a transition offense team. Not that Hedman didn't make a thousand good plays himself, but I thought Hedman sort of took the game for granted at times, holding on to the puck and trying to make a complex play in a simple situation...I felt he turned it over more often, especially near each blueline...I don't know, there's probably an element of expectation in this and, frankly, that's a little bit what the playoffs are all about...who is beating expectation and who is shrinking. So there's an element here that I'll admit...

I just thought all the details of McDonagh's game were more consistently better than Hedman's, his defensive game, his whole NZ game (by a lot), even puck retrievals - which should be a huge advantage for Hedman - really may well have been better handled by McDonagh overall...I was surprised...but I thought he was brilliant.

Now, Hedman looked hurt and that's fair enough...but I'm all about McD this playoff.

Re: Karlsson. Meh, ok I guess...I thought MacKinnon was let down by his supporting cast more than himself...like, how many millions of dollars did Landeskog shave off of his contract with this playoff...? But, I can see it, plus there's another round on top, so it's tough to defend myself on that point, so fair enough...