Retroactive Conn Smythe winners

[kmad]

I remember reading about a list of retroactive Conn Smythe trophy winners. I can't find a comprehensive list anywhere on the internet.

Does anyone have a list or a bookmark for an online list handy? I'm looking to whip up a Wikipedia article.

Thanks!

Click to read more...

 

[sr edler]

http://www.legendsofhockey.net/LegendsOfHockey/jsp/SilverwareTrophyWinners.jsp?tro=CST

 

[kmad]

Thank you, but I'm looking for the list of "retroactive" winners, as in, those who were likely to have won it, before the Conn Smythe was officially introduced.

 

[sr edler]

that would probably be a subjective list i think

 

[kmad]

that would probably be a subjective list i think

There was a list published and it has been routinely accepted around these parts as accurate. It was on the Hockey Hall of Fame website but the page on that site doesn't work anymore.

I think there's also a list in Ultimate Hockey but it's different.

 

[sr edler]

who would choose butch goring in front of mike bossy in 1981 retrospectively? those lists should be a little different and it probably depends on who you ask

a lot of the newer winners are also so and so, mike vernon or sergei fedorov?, joe nieuwendyk or mike modano?, jonathan toews or patrick kane?

 

[JaymzB]

http://www.hhof.com/html/newsconn.shtml

 

[kmad]

http://www.hhof.com/html/newsconn.shtml

Thanks!

Weird, I had that exact link before but it didn't work. I guess the site was down.

 

[Big Phil]

I've never had a problem with those Conn Smythe retro lists for the most part. 1962 would have been Tim Horton though rather than Mikita. And I would think Mel "Sudden Death" Hill would have won in 1939

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I've never had a problem with those Conn Smythe retro lists for the most part. 1962 would have been Tim Horton though rather than Mikita. And I would think Mel "Sudden Death" Hill would have won in 1939

1962 really should have been Tim Horton. He led the Stanley Cup winner in scoring as a defenseman who also played elite defense. The people doing the awards just couldn't get past the fact that Mikita scored a record 21 points for the losing team. But Horton had 15 points himself, and how often does a forward from a losing team win the award?

Also, at least one of Jack Darraugh's retro awards should have gone to Frank Nighbor IMO. Darraugh scored GWGs, but if you looked at newspaper articles, they talked about how Nighbor absolutely dominated the play at both ends of the rink.

 

[Big Phil]

1962 really should have been Tim Horton. He led the Stanley Cup winner in scoring as a defenseman who also played elite defense. The people doing the awards just couldn't get past the fact that Mikita scored a record 21 points for the losing team. But Horton had 15 points himself, and how often does a forward from a losing team win the award?

Also, at least one of Jack Darraugh's retro awards should have gone to Frank Nighbor IMO. Darraugh scored GWGs, but if you looked at newspaper articles, they talked about how Nighbor absolutely dominated the play at both ends of the rink.

Even better, 16 points!

And yes we all know Horton was elite in his own end

 

[Canadiens1958]

1962 Playoffs

1962 really should have been Tim Horton. He led the Stanley Cup winner in scoring as a defenseman who also played elite defense. The people doing the awards just couldn't get past the fact that Mikita scored a record 21 points for the losing team. But Horton had 15 points himself, and how often does a forward from a losing team win the award?

The 1962 playoffs saw Stan Mikita emerge as an elite NHL player. 21 points in 12 games was an incredible achievement. Projected over a regular 70 games schedule it was the equivalent of 120+ points an unthinkable level during the O6 era. Along with the elite offense Stan Mikita contributed elite defense. In the semi-finals against Montreal he helped neutralize Jean Beliveau - 3 points over six games.

Tim Horton had a great playoff as well. His point total for a defenseman was equally impressive, projecting to the mid 90's range over a 70 game regular season, well beyond any numbers that O6 defensemen registered traditionally.

The Maple Leaf defense lagged a little bit during the 1962 playoffs. Johnny Bower was injured and they had to use Don Simmons in three games. While their GAA was marginally better than during the regular season the gap between the Bower and Simmons games approached almost .9 goals a game.

The New York Rangers had extended the Maple Leafs to six games in the semi finals. While the Leafs did limit the Rangers top players, the younger players - Dave Balon and Rod Gilbert had excellent series.

Against Chicago in the finals, the uncertainty in goal - Bower or Simmons created uneven moments for the Leaf defense. Simmons was one of the rare goalies who caught with his right and this forced adjustments that at times lacked the smoothness that was exhibited by the Leaf defense when playing with Bower.

All in all their were two outstanding candidates for a retro Smythe in 1962. The choice is understandable.

 

[Dark Shadows]

The 1962 playoffs saw Stan Mikita emerge as an elite NHL player. 21 points in 12 games was an incredible achievement. Projected over a regular 70 games schedule it was the equivalent of 120+ points an unthinkable level during the O6 era. Along with the elite offense Stan Mikita contributed elite defense. In the semi-finals against Montreal he helped neutralize Jean Beliveau - 3 points over six games.

Tim Horton had a great playoff as well. His point total for a defenseman was equally impressive, projecting to the mid 90's range over a 70 game regular season, well beyond any numbers that O6 defensemen registered traditionally.

The Maple Leaf defense lagged a little bit during the 1962 playoffs. Johnny Bower was injured and they had to use Don Simmons in three games. While their GAA was marginally better than during the regular season the gap between the Bower and Simmons games approached almost .9 goals a game.

The New York Rangers had extended the Maple Leafs to six games in the semi finals. While the Leafs did limit the Rangers top players, the younger players - Dave Balon and Rod Gilbert had excellent series.

Against Chicago in the finals, the uncertainty in goal - Bower or Simmons created uneven moments for the Leaf defense. Simmons was one of the rare goalies who caught with his right and this forced adjustments that at times lacked the smoothness that was exhibited by the Leaf defense when playing with Bower.

All in all their were two outstanding candidates for a retro Smythe in 1962. The choice is understandable.

This comment confuses me.

Not that I disagree. Far from it. But when I praised Mikita for his great two way play awhile back, you disagreed.

Do you mean just for this playoff run?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Career

This comment confuses me.

Not that I disagree. Far from it. But when I praised Mikita for his great two way play awhile back, you disagreed.

Do you mean just for this playoff run?

Career vs specific season's playoff distinction. Sustaining offense and defense at a certain level during 12 games vs two teams as opposed to a career with more varied demands.

 

[Big Phil]

If I were to pick I'd have gone with Lumley in 1950 as well. Rayner did carry a mediocre team to the final within a goal of winning it all but Lumley stymied the three time Cup champs (Toronto), had three shutouts and won two game #7s in overtime.

Another thing about the Mikita/Horton thing in 1962. Keep in mind how rare it has been for a non-Cup winning player to capture the Smythe. 5 times it has happened, that's it. Only once has it been a non-goalie doing it and that was Reggie Leach who had a playoff where he registered a still record of 19 goals while collecting a 5 goal game and 12 straight games of at least a goal. It was coupled by the fact that no Canadien in 1976 dominated clearly, not even Lafleur.

So here's the question. Does Mikita's accomplishment overshadow how he still didn't win? Does 21 points a then record in the playoffs affect the voting? Or would the explosion of offense from a usually steady all around d-man on the Cup winning team be all the talk?

 

[nik jr]

If I were to pick I'd have gone with Lumley in 1950 as well. Rayner did carry a mediocre team to the final within a goal of winning it all but Lumley stymied the three time Cup champs (Toronto), had three shutouts and won two game #7s in overtime.

Another thing about the Mikita/Horton thing in 1962. Keep in mind how rare it has been for a non-Cup winning player to capture the Smythe. 5 times it has happened, that's it. Only once has it been a non-goalie doing it and that was Reggie Leach who had a playoff where he registered a still record of 19 goals while collecting a 5 goal game and 12 straight games of at least a goal. It was coupled by the fact that no Canadien in 1976 dominated clearly, not even Lafleur.

So here's the question. Does Mikita's accomplishment overshadow how he still didn't win? Does 21 points a then record in the playoffs affect the voting? Or would the explosion of offense from a usually steady all around d-man on the Cup winning team be all the talk?

seventieslord found that don raleigh was unanimously chosen by 7 NY sportswriters as MVP in the '50 playoffs. i don't know if it was for team MVP or MVP of the entire playoffs, though.

at a SIHR meeting, seventieslord was able to ask raleigh if he was aware of the award, and raleigh said he was, and that the writers gave him a small silver bowl as a trophy.

 

[seventieslord]

seventieslord found that don raleigh was unanimously chosen by 7 NY sportswriters as MVP in the '50 playoffs. i don't know if it was for team MVP or MVP of the entire playoffs, though.

at a SIHR meeting, seventieslord was able to ask raleigh if he was aware of the award, and raleigh said he was, and that the writers gave him a small silver bowl as a trophy.

It was for team MVP, not the whole playoff MVP. However, that alone is a strong case for playoff MVP considering he lost in the finals in game 7 OT.

What I am pretty sure of is that it makes him a better candidate than Chuck Rayner for that year's Retro Smythe, and SIHR/HHOF already chose Rayner over any Red Wing, so using that logic you could say Raleigh was a worthy retro Smythe winner.

 

[Canadiens1958]

1950 Stanley Cup Finals

It was for team MVP, not the whole playoff MVP. However, that alone is a strong case for playoff MVP considering he lost in the finals in game 7 OT.

What I am pretty sure of is that it makes him a better candidate than Chuck Rayner for that year's Retro Smythe, and SIHR/HHOF already chose Rayner over any Red Wing, so using that logic you could say Raleigh was a worthy retro Smythe winner.

Link to a brief history about the 1950 Stanley Cup finals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1950_Stanley_Cup_Finals

Note the distribution and location of the Rangers home games during the finals. Zero in New York. A goalie who plays 10 out of 12 playoff games away from home yet reduces his GAA by app.4GAA deserves consideration.

 

[seventieslord]

Link to a brief history about the 1950 Stanley Cup finals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1950_Stanley_Cup_Finals

Note the distribution and location of the Rangers home games during the finals. Zero in New York. A goalie who plays 10 out of 12 playoff games away from home yet reduces his GAA by app.4GAA deserves consideration.

Absolutely - consideration. But not necessarily the award itself. The NY writers were there and saw all the games. To me, that's huge.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Writer Voter Reliability

Absolutely - consideration. But not necessarily the award itself. The NY writers were there and saw all the games. To me, that's huge.

Rather interesting response. So the same writers must have seen all the regular season games and all or some of them must have voted for the Hart Trophy.

Charlie Rayner won the 1950 Hart Trophy. The link below, provides the vote share per player:

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=580463&highlight=1950+hart+trophy+voting

Notice that Edgar Laprade also received Hart Trophy consideration but Don Raleigh does not appear to have received any.

The lack of logical coherence in the writer voting is par for the course since their reliability and hockey acumen is often suspect and open to bias and influence - Stan F/Bobby Orr being a prime example. Conversely your interpretation is hilarious.

BTW - thanks to Hockey Outsider for the Hart voting data.

 

[BM67]

Strangely enough Laprade won the Rangers' regular season MVP award over Rayner that year as well as Raleigh taking the playoff MVP award. Rayner did win/share it 3 times, so maybe they were just tired of voting for him year after year.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Writer Voting

Strangely enough Laprade won the Rangers' regular season MVP award over Rayner that year as well as Raleigh taking the playoff MVP award. Rayner did win/share it 3 times, so maybe they were just tired of voting for him year after year.

Writer or media team voting often protects self-interest. You have a host of team awards ranging from MVP to Unsung Hero to Leadership. Usually these are split so that the media gets to deal with friendly dressing room.

Somewhat like Novice hockey where every player gets an award.

 

[Axxellien]

Don Bones Raleigh:

Don Raleigh was a Star in New York. He was a very good forward & slick playmaker. Quite prominent in the late 1940s & early 1950s..He was the 1rst Winner of the Boucher Trophy, a Finalist for the Lady Byng Trophy, and Rangers Captain. A class act..

 

[nik jr]

Also, at least one of Jack Darraugh's retro awards should have gone to Frank Nighbor IMO. Darraugh scored GWGs, but if you looked at newspaper articles, they talked about how Nighbor absolutely dominated the play at both ends of the rink.

based on reading again old newspapers, the ice allowed no on to dominate in '20.

ice was terrible in ottawa due to unusually warm weather and after debate about postponing game 2, the series was moved to toronto after 3 games. ice was soft, slushy and wet, play was very difficult, and offense was mostly solo rushes. toronto world reported that ottawa struggled with the western rules in game 4, even though they won fairly easily (3-0) in game 2 (georges boucher at rover was the star of game 2). toronto world said that game 2 was relatively easy for ottawa b/c seattle used exactly the same plays and tactics as they used in game 1.

toronto world had a low opinion of the western rules. it described the neutral zone as "for tennis on skates." western neutral zone was 70 feet, eastern was 40.

montreal gazette thought that forward passing encouraged cherry picking, and mentioned frank foyston as a cherry picker. if foyston was unable to poke check the puck, he often waited in the neutral zone for a pass. same article later mentions that foyston's poke checking was very effective, though.

PCHA rules were closer to modern rules. forward passing, no substitutions were allowed on penalties, and goalies were allowed to move the puck. PCHA also relied more on combinatorial plays instead of solo rushes. apparently penalty shots were also a western invention.


hard to say who was best for ottawa. ottawa citizen seems to have longer and more detailed reports on games than montreal gazette and especially toronto world, but only 1 or 2 editions of the ottawa citizen are available for the games in '20.

darragh was never mentioned as clearly the best player in any game of the '20 finals, but was named as a stand out in games 1 and 5. nighbor was named as a stand out in games 1, 3 and 4.

if i had to award MVP for '20, i would probably pick hap holmes, who was excellent. for ottawa i would probably pick nighbor, but i could not be sure.



ottawa citizen is available for only 1 of the '21 games (game 5, in which darragh was the star with 2g), and the reports in the montreal gazette and toronto world are shorter than usual, probably b/c the series was played in vancouver.

from the reports of the '21 finals, team D seems to have been the main reason ottawa won (vancouver was also missing skinner for a game and mackay for a game). ottawa often lined up 5 men across the defensive zone. nighbor seems to have played very defensively. no one really stood out for ottawa. ottawa citizen and montreal gazette both said all ottawa players played well.

long, high, slow shots from outside (often called lifts) the D were common. sort of a primitive wrist shot through traffic.


if i had to pick an MVP for the '21 finals, i would probably pick lehman. i could not say who was best for ottawa, but it makes sense that darragh was picked, since he was the key player in the decisive game 5.

more was said about nighbor in '15 (tied for the lead in scoring in the finals, played very well both ways and effectively checked broadbent, ottawa's top scorer), and '23 (played great D and was much more physical than usual) than in '21.

 

[seventieslord]

Rather interesting response. So the same writers must have seen all the regular season games and all or some of them must have voted for the Hart Trophy.

Charlie Rayner won the 1950 Hart Trophy. The link below, provides the vote share per player:

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=580463&highlight=1950+hart+trophy+voting

Notice that Edgar Laprade also received Hart Trophy consideration but Don Raleigh does not appear to have received any.

The lack of logical coherence in the writer voting is par for the course since their reliability and hockey acumen is often suspect and open to bias and influence - Stan F/Bobby Orr being a prime example. Conversely your interpretation is hilarious.

BTW - thanks to Hockey Outsider for the Hart voting data.

- What does the regular season have to do with anything?

- I realize the voters had their limitations, but they were no more limited than those who put the retro smythe awards together 50 years after the fact. I trust them, and I should. Start showing some respect around here, by the way.