Regular season zeroes, playoff heroes

[DJ Kariyaaa]

Max Talbot and Ruslan Fedotenko last year for Pittsburgh.. basically dead weight until playoff time.

 

[OneMoreAstronaut]

Another recent example could be Pisani, though of course the Oilers didn't end up winning the cup if you're counting that as a stipulation. Pisani may also not be as true a "zero" as the OP was looking for.

 

[The Beezer]

Stephan Matteau.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

With regard to the Isles dynasty teams, two players who come to mind immediately are Wayne Merrick and Gordie Lane.

Both pedestrian NHLers, really. Merrick, a respectable, yet ordinary third-line center, Lane a third-pair dman. But both elevated their games come the post-season, particularly Lane. Stats wouldn't suggest so, but those who were there remember.

Another oddity was the ability of Ken Morrow to find the net in the most pivotal moments of the post-season. While a superb defensive defenseman, he barely possessed a slapshot and at that it barely could break a pane of glass. (He averaged scoring as couple of goals a season, typically.)

Yet his shots found their way through on multiple occassions in critical playoff games. Two that come to mind were Game #3 in the first round of the 1980 playoff series v. LA in OT. Isles were trailing late in that game, and if they lost would have been one game away from elimination, on the road. And remember, this was before they won any silver, so the monkey was firmly on their back. A Morrow floater from the point won it. And, of course, there was the famous goal vs. NYR to win that playoff series in '84.

During last years playoffs, CBC showed a game from the 1980 finals. I remember wondering who Lane was, then I realized I was wondering because he was consistently breaking up the Flyers attacks.

Max Talbot and Ruslan Fedotenko last year for Pittsburgh.. basically dead weight until playoff time.

Fedotenko was also money for Tampa in 04.

 

[Blades of Glory]

I still am baffled at the phenomenon that was John Druce.

 

[jiboy]

mike ricci was awful in the season and great in playoffs for colorado's cup run

 

[eastcoaster]

A guy that I remember from way back who came out of nowhere was Milan Marcetta with Minnesota in the 67/68 playoffs. He was a career minor leaguer who got ashot because of expansion. During the regular season he had 17 points in 36 games but in the playoffs he had 14 points in 14 games and finished second in playoff scoring. He only played another 18 NHL games after that.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

mcsorley in the '93 playoffs was miles above anything he had ever shown or would ever show again.

 

[MXD]

Wow, that's certainly a weak definitions of "zero" that some of you have right here.

I'm a bit uneasy to lump Paul DiPietro in, just because I don't really consider him a regular season zero.

And 95% of the guys named in this thread had better NHL (regular seasons careers) than Paul DiPietro.

Not only that, but DiPietro was a VERY IMPORTANT PART of a Cup-Winning Team.
The thing is, other than during the Cup Run... He was nothing else than a spare part. A sub.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

mcsorley in the '93 playoffs was miles above anything he had ever shown or would ever show again.

Watching highlights on NHL network of the Kings in the '93 playoffs, I was blown away by how well McSorley played. I pretty much always remembered him as a great bottom pairing defenseman who was one of the league's best fighters. He looked more like Denis Potvin in some of the games/highlights I've watched.

 

[Ogopogo*]

The three obvious choices are: John Druce, Chris Kontos and Fernando Pisani.

 

[MXD]

The three obvious choices are: John Druce, Chris Kontos and Fernando Pisani.

Believe me, they're as weak as you can get if you compare them to Paul DiPietro.

 

[Mayor Bee]

Is there actually anyone who sustained a high level of play over multiple playoff seasons with poor regular seasons, or is it still a matter of throwing darts at fluke occurrences in one or maybe two playoff runs?

Maybe it's just me, but I tend to look to see if something can be sustained in a non-random pattern....Druce having a great year, Kontos having a great year, Pisani having a great year, to me, is all a random occurrence; dare I say a fluke. Heck, Bill McDougall had the greatest postseason in AHL history (26 goals and 26 assists in 16 games).

To use Claude Lemieux as an example, he had three playoff years that would be worthy of Conn Smythe consideration (1985-86, 1994-95, 1996-97). Yet his overall playoff numbers as far as goals/game and points/game aren't too far from the regular season numbers; when you consider how heavily those three playoff years skew the averages as a result of the small sample size (and remove them from the equation entirely), it bears pointing out that Lemieux had 54 goals and 103 points in 177 playoff games. That's not something we can say about, say, Joe Sakic or Peter Forsberg.

 

[Blades of Glory]

To use Claude Lemieux as an example, he had three playoff years that would be worthy of Conn Smythe consideration (1985-86, 1994-95, 1996-97). Yet his overall playoff numbers as far as goals/game and points/game aren't too far from the regular season numbers; when you consider how heavily those three playoff years skew the averages as a result of the small sample size (and remove them from the equation entirely), it bears pointing out that Lemieux had 54 goals and 103 points in 177 playoff games. That's not something we can say about, say, Joe Sakic or Peter Forsberg.

Lemieux's legacy was built on the fact that he scored goals at the most important times of the game. Game-winning goals won Joe Nieuwendyk a Conn Smythe Trophy that I truly felt Mike Modano or Ed Belfour deserved for their pure importance to the team that year.

It's why Joe Sakic's accomplishments are so stunning. 8 playoff OT goals, 2 more than the next highest (Richard), led the playoffs in scoring twice, three 25+ point playoffs, and most importantly, he put the offense on his back in their two Cup runs. The guy had you ******** bricks in overtime during a playoff series. In 2004, the Forsberg/Kariya/Tanguay/Hedjuk/Selanne Avalanche should have gotten swept by the Sharks in the second round. They simply could not beat Evgeni Nabokov, but Sakic scored all three of their goals, including back-to-back OT winners, in Games 4 and 5 to force a Game 6.

And all this while being the second highest scorer of his era.

 

[kmad]

Lemieux's legacy was built on the fact that he scored goals at the most important times of the game. Game-winning goals won Joe Nieuwendyk a Conn Smythe Trophy that I truly felt Mike Modano or Ed Belfour deserved for their pure importance to the team that year.

I feel the same way about Brad Richards' Conn Smythe in 2004. Khabibulin was far more vital to the team's success than Richards.

 

[begbeee]

Anyway... Claude Lemieux was not regular season zero and he was often the playoff hero.

 

[mrhockey193195]

Stephane Matteau wasn't really a regular season "zero", and outside of 1994 he wasn't much of a "hero" in the playoffs either, but definitely when someone mentions his name, the first thing (and probably only thing) a lot of people think about are his two double-OT goals against the Devils in the ECF.

 

[begbeee]

Stephane Matteau wasn't really a regular season "zero", and outside of 1994 he wasn't much of a "hero" in the playoffs either, but definitely when someone mentions his name, the first thing (and probably only thing) a lot of people think about are his two double-OT goals against the Devils in the ECF.

That was his life highlite moment

 

[Canadiens1958]

Adjustments

Thread is a bit of a misdirect. Any player who has an NHL career that lasts a few seasons is far from a zero. That being said two factors have to be considered.

Injury replacement. Often players have to step-up to a role that is left vacant by an injury to another player. Marcel Bonin in 1959 had a great play-off replacing injured Canadien stars like Jean Beliveau and Maurice Richard.During the regular season Bonin was fifth in scoring, about .75ppg, playoffs he was second app.1.35ppg. He adjusted to his new circumstance while the opposition did not adjust to Marcel Bonin in his new role.Yet over the course of a season the opposition solves the reason(s) for such a player's success in due time.

Nature of the playoffs. Usually a best of seven series. Certain players benefit from the fact that in a seven game series their role is very defined and they do not have to make the game to game adjustments against a different opponent.Esa Tikkanen is a prime example. Very hard to play against in a seven game series. Would wear down the opposition buy sticking to his role and style.Especially true for defensemen - the Terry Harper, Don Awrey, Gord Lane, Ken Morrow, Brian Glynn,Charlie Huddy, Rick Green types who play within themselves and just frustrate the opposition with repitition.Prepped for one opponent at a time they are significantly more effective then they are if having to play three different opponents in four nights.

 

[Mayor Bee]

Thread is a bit of a misdirect. Any player who has an NHL career that lasts a few seasons is far from a zero. That being said two factors have to be considered.

Injury replacement. Often players have to step-up to a role that is left vacant by an injury to another player. Marcel Bonin in 1959 had a great play-off replacing injured Canadien stars like Jean Beliveau and Maurice Richard.During the regular season Bonin was fifth in scoring, about .75ppg, playoffs he was second app.1.35ppg. He adjusted to his new circumstance while the opposition did not adjust to Marcel Bonin in his new role.Yet over the course of a season the opposition solves the reason(s) for such a player's success in due time.

Nature of the playoffs. Usually a best of seven series. Certain players benefit from the fact that in a seven game series their role is very defined and they do not have to make the game to game adjustments against a different opponent.Esa Tikkanen is a prime example. Very hard to play against in a seven game series. Would wear down the opposition buy sticking to his role and style.Especially true for defensemen - the Terry Harper, Don Awrey, Gord Lane, Ken Morrow, Brian Glynn,Charlie Huddy, Rick Green types who play within themselves and just frustrate the opposition with repitition.Prepped for one opponent at a time they are significantly more effective then they are if having to play three different opponents in four nights.

I'll add a third one, and that's the "randomly timed promotion". If a particular player on a line struggles and one on a lower line happens to play well going into the playoffs, there might be a merit-based promotion that puts the lesser player on a better line. This would then serve to continue that player's hot streak by virtue of getting more and better scoring chances. Since I pay almost no attention to line combinations either within a game or over time, no examples come to mind although I'm sure quite a few exist.

To back up to my earlier post, one of the things that I did in the course of my pro football research was attempt to determine how much of a player's value was centered around one particular season or accomplishment. Basically, I'd remove each player's most notable achievement and then compare, then each player's two most notable achievements and compare, then three, and so on. What was inevitably found was that the all-time greats would rise to the top, and those who were overrated (usually because their value was based on one obvious accomplishment) would fall back to earth.

I'd be interested to see how many players who are generally regarded as terrific postseason players would actually be able to stand up using this method; I'd be willing to bet that the ones who do remain are those who are regarded as the greatest anyway (Gretzky, Lemieux, Roy, Orr, etc). There might be a few less notable players who remain, but I'd venture to say that it would be a very small number. By "very small", I'd guess less than 10.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

To back up to my earlier post, one of the things that I did in the course of my pro football research was attempt to determine how much of a player's value was centered around one particular season or accomplishment. Basically, I'd remove each player's most notable achievement and then compare, then each player's two most notable achievements and compare, then three, and so on. What was inevitably found was that the all-time greats would rise to the top, and those who were overrated (usually because their value was based on one obvious accomplishment) would fall back to earth.

I'd be interested to see how many players who are generally regarded as terrific postseason players would actually be able to stand up using this method; I'd be willing to bet that the ones who do remain are those who are regarded as the greatest anyway (Gretzky, Lemieux, Roy, Orr, etc). There might be a few less notable players who remain, but I'd venture to say that it would be a very small number. By "very small", I'd guess less than 10.

this is basically calling out for a mention of keith primeau. a career-long underachiever and playoff non-factor except for one fantastic spring with the flyers, and people remember him as a "warrior," when the entire rest of his career he was the exact opposite.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Interesting Approach

I'll add a third one, and that's the "randomly timed promotion". If a particular player on a line struggles and one on a lower line happens to play well going into the playoffs, there might be a merit-based promotion that puts the lesser player on a better line. This would then serve to continue that player's hot streak by virtue of getting more and better scoring chances. Since I pay almost no attention to line combinations either within a game or over time, no examples come to mind although I'm sure quite a few exist.

To back up to my earlier post, one of the things that I did in the course of my pro football research was attempt to determine how much of a player's value was centered around one particular season or accomplishment. Basically, I'd remove each player's most notable achievement and then compare, then each player's two most notable achievements and compare, then three, and so on. What was inevitably found was that the all-time greats would rise to the top, and those who were overrated (usually because their value was based on one obvious accomplishment) would fall back to earth.

I'd be interested to see how many players who are generally regarded as terrific postseason players would actually be able to stand up using this method; I'd be willing to bet that the ones who do remain are those who are regarded as the greatest anyway (Gretzky, Lemieux, Roy, Orr, etc). There might be a few less notable players who remain, but I'd venture to say that it would be a very small number. By "very small", I'd guess less than 10.

Interesting approach. How would you weigh the one game - sudden death football playoffs against the best of 3-7 nature of MLB, NHL or NBA playoffs?

Understanding where you are trying to go with the "randomly timed promotion" concept and meritocracy but not sold on the random part. Too often there are factors that coaches/teams do not disclose - nagging injuries, match-ups, personal problems, etc. Misdirects are becoming very commonplace.

 

[seventieslord]

I'll add a third one, and that's the "randomly timed promotion". If a particular player on a line struggles and one on a lower line happens to play well going into the playoffs, there might be a merit-based promotion that puts the lesser player on a better line. This would then serve to continue that player's hot streak by virtue of getting more and better scoring chances. Since I pay almost no attention to line combinations either within a game or over time, no examples come to mind although I'm sure quite a few exist.

To back up to my earlier post, one of the things that I did in the course of my pro football research was attempt to determine how much of a player's value was centered around one particular season or accomplishment. Basically, I'd remove each player's most notable achievement and then compare, then each player's two most notable achievements and compare, then three, and so on. What was inevitably found was that the all-time greats would rise to the top, and those who were overrated (usually because their value was based on one obvious accomplishment) would fall back to earth.

I'd be interested to see how many players who are generally regarded as terrific postseason players would actually be able to stand up using this method; I'd be willing to bet that the ones who do remain are those who are regarded as the greatest anyway (Gretzky, Lemieux, Roy, Orr, etc). There might be a few less notable players who remain, but I'd venture to say that it would be a very small number. By "very small", I'd guess less than 10.

I would love to see a comparison of some all-time greats' 5th-best and even 10th-best seasons.

 

[Fredrik_71]

Glenn Anderson! He was good during the regular season but I remember him as THE clutch player.

/Cheers

 

[Mayor Bee]

Interesting approach. How would you weigh the one game - sudden death football playoffs against the best of 3-7 nature of MLB, NHL or NBA playoffs?

Understanding where you are trying to go with the "randomly timed promotion" concept and meritocracy but not sold on the random part. Too often there are factors that coaches/teams do not disclose - nagging injuries, match-ups, personal problems, etc. Misdirects are becoming very commonplace.

Well, I didn't start off necessarily looking at the playoffs. It was actually designed to look at the absurd comparisons between Tom Brady and Joe Montana and build a case for why the comparison was absurd. I figured that once the Super Bowls were removed from both players, Montana was the top passer in the league xx number of times, most efficient xx number of times, etc.

So in the case of Claude Lemieux, I look at the fact that he had three, possibly four, separate playoff years that would warrant consideration for the Conn Smythe. That's certainly not bad at all. But we look at his regular seasons and see that he had ten 20-goal years, including three in the second dead puck era. I don't put Lemieux in the category with the great playoff performers because:
1) He certainly demonstrated a high level of play during the regular season over his career, and
2) He had plenty of very poor playoff performances, which don't help the case.

The general perception of a "clutch player" is someone who plays better at the most important times of games. The fact that Lemieux had three (or maybe four) pretty good playoff runs out of eighteen, I think, negates the idea that he had some type of built-in ability to elevate. If he did, there would be more evidence of it outside of that small number of playoff years.

And although there certainly are times where a player suffers as a result of a nagging injury or something that doesn't help him out, I can't see fourteen or fifteen average-to-below-average playoffs (out of eighteen) all being the result of that.