Top 50 Playoff Players of All-Time

[Wiesel]

If Claude makes the cut, then Tikkanen has to also.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Normie Smith

Fails to get much recognition here but was responsible for the Red Wings winning two consecutive Stanley Cups in the 1930's:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/s/smithno01.html

http://www.legendsofhockey.net/LegendsOfHockey/jsp/SearchPlayer.jsp?player=18702

 

[LeBlondeDemon10]

If it hasn`t already been mentioned playoff plus-minus stats were not kept until 1984.

 

[cupcrazyman]

only one person has mentioned Cam Neely ? i thought he was at the top for points per game in the playoffs ?

isn't that the stat pro Neely fans mention when arguing that he belongs in the Hall ?

 

[Infinite Vision*]

only one person has mentioned Cam Neely ? i thought he was at the top for points per game in the playoffs ?

isn't that the stat pro Neely fans mention when arguing that he belongs in the Hall ?

He was actually under a point per game in the playoffs. 89 in 93 games, despite the fact this came between the time period of 84-95, a very high scoring era.

 

[Big Phil]

Well the 2001 playoffs lasted 4 rounds, it was Peter Forsberg who was thier main guy in the first 2 rounds, not joe sakic. If you go by adjusted stats, Forsberg's 27 points in 2002 has to be up there with one of the best. In 2002, most players couldn't even average a point per game.

Forsberg was good in 2001. But rewarding him for games he didn't play is a little like saying "if ifs and buts were candy and nuts" type of thinking. Does he play at that same level in the following two rounds when the competition is tougher and the teams were better? St. Louis and Jersey were a heck of a lot better than Vancouver and LA. The thing is Sakic DID do this and carried the team a long ways while with Forsberg we can only speculate. In 2002 he was great as well. Unfortunately he didn't catapult the team to the final. The two pivotal final games the Avs were shutouts by the Wings. We can knock Roy for those last two games, and we should, but Sakic AND Forsberg didn't help either. If Forsberg scores a goal at the right time maybe the series ends differently and he has his Conn Smythe trophy.

As far as 2002, it is right up there with Middleton (1983) and Gilmour (1993) as years a player dominated while not making the final. The problem is that even in those great runs there is that "what if" attached to it

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

He was actually under a point per game in the playoffs. 89 in 93 games, despite the fact this came between the time period of 84-95, a very high scoring era.

But its the .613 goals per game in the playoffs (6th all-time, just ahead of Gretzky) that is of note.

 

[Merya]

Tikkanen, Claude Lemieux, and Pronger should be in top 50.

 

[quoipourquoi]

If it wasn't for Forsberg, colorado would have lost to LA in 2001.

Totally not the case. The series only looks close in retrospect because the Potvin had back-to-back 1-0 shutouts in Games 6 and 7. Colorado rocked their house in every other game in the series. After everyone crucified Roy in the papers after Game 1, this was his statline for the rest of the series:

4-2, 0.94 GAA, .960 SPCT, 2 SOs

Sakic was injured in the middle of the series (Blake said that if he would've hurt his shoulder like that in the regular season, he would've been out for at least a month), so I'll throw this one on Forsberg's shoulders: If he would've scored in Game 5 or Game 6, Los Angeles would've been a non-issue. In the end, the credit for beating them should mostly go to Roy and Bourque- not Forsberg and Sakic.

 

[The Kingslayer]

How so?

This is a guy who never scored more than 30 goals in a season.

Try to find another supposed all-time great center that played in the modern era who didn't top 30 goals.. even the "playmakers"

The reason why Forsberg gets brought back down to Earth on the history boards is because he gets way too much credit for what he *might* have done. He played his whole career in his prime and people extrapolate that too much. (although he did battle injuries)


Based on what he did, yes he was a great player.. but some of the comparisons that get thrown around are crazy.

Sakic was better in the playoffs than Forsberg.

He won the Conn Smythe when the Avs won it all and Forsberg was playing. He also won it all when Forsberg wasn't playing.

Roy won it n 2001 and could have easily won it in 1996. Sakic was better in the years the AVs won the cup but he was also No show Joe for atleast 3 playoffs where as Forsberg was always on top of his game in the post-season.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Outside of the awfully impressive overtime play of Sakic there is one other thing that stands out when you compare him to Forsberg. When the Avs won the Cup in 1996 and 2001 Sakic put on a clinic, winning the Conn Smythe and coming awfully close the second time. Forsberg was under a point per game in 1996 and missed the last two rounds in 2001. The point I am making is that when the Avs won the Cup it was Sakic who led them. In 1999 and 2002 Forsberg led the playoffs in scoring but they never made the final. Hey that's nice, and I give Forsberg props because he is a great playoff performer but few are in Sakic's neighbourhood.

While plus/minus is not the best stat in the world the difference in Joe and Peter does account for something.

here are their overall statlines

Sakic 172-84-104-188 minus 2 19 GWG
forsberg 151-64-107-171 plus 51 14 GWG

You add the 2 way play of Forsberg then you should really include both and not put one in a ton higher than the other one.

Peter is one of the top 20 best all time playoff performers period IMO and so is Sakic.

The thread topic is about the best 50 all time playoff performers not the best in the clutch or best finals series only ect.. you have to take the totality of a guys career in consideration IMO.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

While plus/minus is not the best stat in the world the difference in Joe and Peter does account for something.

here are their overall statlines

Sakic 172-84-104-188 minus 2 19 GWG
forsberg 151-64-107-171 plus 51 14 GWG

You add the 2 way play of Forsberg then you should really include both and not put one in a ton higher than the other one.

Peter is one of the top 20 best all time playoff performers period IMO and so is Sakic.

The thread topic is about the best 50 all time playoff performers not the best in the clutch or best finals series only ect.. you have to take the totality of a guys career in consideration IMO.

In my opinion, Sakic was a better two-way player than Forsberg. His coaches seemed to agree, as after 1998 or so, he got the tougher defensive assignments and spent much more time on the PK.

I haven't done a list, but I'm sure Sakic would be a Top 20 playoff performer if I were to make one. Forsberg would definitely be Top 40, maybe higher.

 

[Hardyvan123]

In my opinion, Sakic was a better two-way player than Forsberg. His coaches seemed to agree, as after 1998 or so, he got the tougher defensive assignments and spent much more time on the PK.

I haven't done a list, but I'm sure Sakic would be a Top 20 playoff performer if I were to make one. Forsberg would definitely be Top 40, maybe higher.

it would be interesting to see that list but it's hard to do as per what is exactly the criteria?

Some guys will give extra credit to guys for cup final performances, which was way easier to do on certain teams in the 06 era than in current times.

it also might be easier to separate the goalies and position players but maybe the mixing of them will make for more discussion as well.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Roy won it n 2001 and could have easily won it in 1996. Sakic was better in the years the AVs won the cup but he was also No show Joe for atleast 3 playoffs where as Forsberg was always on top of his game in the post-season.

Which 3 playoffs were those that Forsberg was excelling in while Joe Sakic was a no show?

 

[Ilya Kovalchoke*]

Some obvious ones:

Lemieux
Roy
Sakic
Yzerman
Gretzky
Howe

Coming soon:

Crosby
Ovechkin
Malkin

Long Shots:

Eberle (most clutch junior player ever?)

 

[quoipourquoi]

Which 3 playoffs were those that Forsberg was excelling in while Joe Sakic was a no show?

1998, 1999, and 2000. 1999 looks better on paper than it really was because he lit up San Jose for 12 points in 6 games, and then fell off the face of the Earth against Detroit and Dallas.