Should winning a cup matter in player rankings?

[rogking65]

Absolutely yes...especially when comparing 2 guys with similar stats.

Cups matter.

I can't believe this poll.

so a great player with no cups is responsible for the players around him. Also your logic makes Kucherov better than McDavid

 

[rogking65]

team has 4 lines. The player plays on 1 line but is obviously responsible for how the other 3 lines ( or 75 percent of the forward group0 performs when he is not on ice. As well, as mentioned in another post , none of the top 10 point getters this past season made the semis. What a bunch of bums

 

[Peat]

When talking about stars then yes it matters, although it's always an argument that needs putting into context. If a player always does great in the playoffs but his team's depth fails, it shouldn't be held against them that much... but failing to put in the dominant offensive performances that underpin cup runs? Yup, that matters.

 

[J T Money]

so a great player with no cups is responsible for the players around him. Also your logic makes Kucherov better than McDavid

You’d be correct in using said logic too

 

[Uncle Scrooge]

Yes it should, but only with context.

There's too much that goes into it in a 20-player team sport to use it as an black and white argument.

 

[JoelWarlord]

2 for me because it depends on era. In the original six or early expansion era with 12 teams it's probably a better indicator than the modern era with 26-32 teams. In the modern era I'd basically only use it as a tiebreaker between two star players if you're talking about cups where the player was a key contributor. Eg. I don't think Stamkos winning 2 cups should influence how you rate him vs other star players whatsoever since he was a passenger. For Point/Kucherov/Vasilevskiy/Hedman if you want to use the cups as a tiebreaker vs their peers some day after their careers are all over then sure, I guess that makes some sense. I don't think it matters at all for middle six average players or depth guys.


As for the initial question no, the importance of cups in the NHL is nowhere near what it is in the NBA. One player simply doesn't have anything close to the same influence on the game so it doesn't make sense to value them in the same way. It matters to some degree in some situations when directly comparing two superstars but it's not really as simple as the guy with 3 cups is objectively better than the guy with 0.

 

[HanSolo]

Maybe like a 2. It's easy to point to one guy's performance and think "without them they don't win the cup" but they don't do it alone, ever. If you don't have a goalie playing at a high level you're almost definitely not winning. If your defense is choking, you're almost definitely not winning.

Place any superstar or superstar duo on, say, Anaheim or Buffalo, they aren't winning shit.

Some cup winners may be better than others but you need a strong overall roster to win the cup. If some superstars drafted high on teams that fail to build strong teams around them don't win the cup, I don't really see how that's their fault for misplacing their faith in the GM.

 

[JoVel]

The Cup win itself shouldn't count much, no, but when a guy like O'Reilly has a Conn Smythe run under his belt it's kinda tough not to use that when comparing him with other players of similar production.

 

[daver]

so a great player with no cups is responsible for the players around him. Also your logic makes Kucherov better than McDavid

Do they have similar stats?

 

[8999]

It matters as much as random fan player rankings themselves matter.

 

[geoo9]

team has 4 lines. The player plays on 1 line but is obviously responsible for how the other 3 lines ( or 75 percent of the forward group0 performs when he is not on ice. As well, as mentioned in another post , none of the top 10 point getters this past season made the semis. What a bunch of bums

when your best 2 centers playing at 1 line padding each other stats ?

 

[libertarian]

When assessing how good a player is right now, how many SCs he has won or not is meaningless.

When assessing a players full hockey career then yes how many SCs he has won or not matter.

 

[I Hate Blake Coleman]

It's contextual. It means dick all for a guy like Maroon. It means more for a guy like Kucherov, who was a top line player and MVP candidate.

 

[North Cole]

In the NBA, winning the title to a superstar means A LOT to their career. What about in the NHL? Should we ever use cup wins as an argument for ranking superstars?

"In the NBA"