Top 50 Playoff Players of All-Time

[IggyFan12]

I would put the following on the list:Modano, Brett Hull, MacCinnis, Vernon, Fuhr, Pronger, Gigure, Bobby Clarke, Trottier, and Claude Lemieux

 

[Kyle McMahon]

I would put the following on the list:Modano, Brett Hull, MacCinnis, Vernon, Fuhr, Pronger, Gigure, Bobby Clarke, Trottier, and Claude Lemieux

I think Vernon is in tough to make a top 50 list. His dreadful early-90's playoff stretch is difficult to ignore. There's just no way that a team with as much talent as the Flames should have failed to win a single playoff round after the 1989 Cup, and Vernon was one of the culprits. The guy did have some great runs as well, but I think they only serve to balance out the crater in the middle of his career.

I guess this comes back to the point about goalie's being tough to evaluate. They can have more influence, good or bad, than any other player. How many blemishes can one great playoff run cover up? Is it a one to one trade-off?

 

[Big Phil]

Top 50 is a lot. I'll shorten it a bit. I split the goalies into a seperate group. If I were to combine the goalies with the players, Roy would be my #3. In all honesty, there are three guys who are my top 3 and I have a hard time seeing anyone unseat them.

Gretzky
Richard
Bossy
Messier
Beliveau
Sakic
Anderson
Howe
Lafleur
Geoffrion
Lemieux
Coffey

Goalies:
Roy
Broda
Sawchuk
Smith
Fuhr
Plante
Parent
Brodeur

 

[quoipourquoi]

Sakic was getting the more difficult defensive assignments.

No, he wasn't. Forsberg took the checkers. Sakic took the top line.

By the eyeball test, Forsberg was better. By the numbers, Forsberg was better. But Sakic in overtime is as good as it gets.

 

[ContrarianGoaltender]

I guess this comes back to the point about goalie's being tough to evaluate. They can have more influence, good or bad, than any other player. How many blemishes can one great playoff run cover up? Is it a one to one trade-off?

It has to be a one-to-one trade-off. Any decent goalie who plays a long time on good teams is going to have a couple great playoff runs (Exhibit A: Chris Osgood). If you don't take into account the rest of their careers when they failed to carry their teams and often lost to weaker opponents, then they look like a much better performer than they actually were.

Vernon is the classic case of the guy who had two good runs and that's it. Take out his two Cup runs where he played well on great teams and he has a pretty awful .888 playoff save percentage. He also lost in the first round over half the time, often to weaker opponents. He may have a Conn Smythe, but I think he's a pretty average playoff performer overall and way out of place on a list like this.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

It has to be a one-to-one trade-off. Any decent goalie who plays a long time on good teams is going to have a couple great playoff runs (Exhibit A: Chris Osgood). If you don't take into account the rest of their careers when they failed to carry their teams and often lost to weaker opponents, then they look like a much better performer than they actually were.

Vernon is the classic case of the guy who had two good runs and that's it. Take out his two Cup runs where he played well on great teams and he has a pretty awful .888 playoff save percentage. He also lost in the first round over half the time, often to weaker opponents. He may have a Conn Smythe, but I think he's a pretty average playoff performer overall and way out of place on a list like this.

If we're going under the one to one tradeoff idea, I think Roy is getting way too much credit in here. He was beaten repeatedly by a two-man Boston team in the early 90's. Not saying it's his fault that his team lost of course, but being beat straight up by Andy Moog routinely needs to be scrutinized. The blown 3-1 series to the Oilers in '98 and Wild in '03 need to be thrown into discussion, and of course the Detroit meltdown in '02. Roy did lose more Game 7's than he won, so it's not like he was unbeatable when the chips were down as the legend would have it. Are '86 and '93 getting too much weight?

Under this line of thinking, five great runs and five poor ones would be considered equal to 10 decent ones, and worse than say, three great runs and no poor ones. I'm not sure I agree with this. I'd definitely take five good chances as the Cup over 10 "medium" chances. But would I take five good chances over three good chances plus seven "medium" chances? I think there's more room for debate there.


I'm a little surprised Roy is being considered right up there with Gretzky by many. It seemed to me before that the question was often "Roy or Messier?" when it came to who you'd want in the playoffs. I think all would agree that Gretzky>Messier in post-season play.

I think to consider Roy in Gretzky's class, you have to pretty much overlook every blemish on Roy's resume mentioned above. In fairness, it's very difficult for a player of Gretzky's caliber to blow a playoff series, but even a great goalie could have a couple of off nights and do so. I'm sure the likes of Sawchuk, Plante, etc. have some less-than-stellar performances on their resumes. The Gretzky's, Howe's, Beliveau's, Lemieux's don't seem to really have similar identifiable instances, and this is surely at least partly due to the nature of the position.

 

[JaymzB]

I think Beliveau could make an argument for #2 (Gretzky has to be #1):

-Still #10 in all time playoff goals
-The only player in the top 20 playoff points to have not played a game in the 80's or 90's.
-#1 Centre on 10 Stanley Cup Champions
-Only Captain to lead his team to 5 Cups
-Won 1 official (first) Conn Smythe, and 1 "Retro" Smythe
-During his career, he out scored the #2 playoff scorer (Howe) by 55 points.
-Leading scorer in Stanley Cup final history
-Held the #1 spot for career playoff scoring for 16 years.

 

[Big Phil]

No, he wasn't. Forsberg took the checkers. Sakic took the top line.

By the eyeball test, Forsberg was better. By the numbers, Forsberg was better. But Sakic in overtime is as good as it gets.

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.

 

[Big Phil]

It has to be a one-to-one trade-off. Any decent goalie who plays a long time on good teams is going to have a couple great playoff runs (Exhibit A: Chris Osgood). If you don't take into account the rest of their careers when they failed to carry their teams and often lost to weaker opponents, then they look like a much better performer than they actually were.

Vernon is the classic case of the guy who had two good runs and that's it. Take out his two Cup runs where he played well on great teams and he has a pretty awful .888 playoff save percentage. He also lost in the first round over half the time, often to weaker opponents. He may have a Conn Smythe, but I think he's a pretty average playoff performer overall and way out of place on a list like this.

I'd say he had 4 really good runs. 1986, 1989, 1995 and 1997. He made the final 4 times and won in 1989 and 1997. His play in the early 1990s pretty near evens that out though, but let's not ignore the fact that Vernon had some great moments in the sun.

As for Kyle McMahon who mentioned that Roy has lost more Game 7s than he has won, this is true. He is 6-7 all-time in Game 7s. I believe Ed Belfour was 5-1. Not a huge deal considering no one on here thinks Belfour was a more clutch goalie. But yes Roy did have some gaffes. The only thing is he made up for them and this is not his calling card for his career.

 

[PaganKnight]

Not a Top 100 but Martin Gélinas was pretty great when it was the time to have the goal needed in playoff

 

[Scott1980]

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.

Sakic is the only person who, after regulation time tie, I once turned off the tv, turned to my brother and said, "Sakic scores the winner".

Next day, my brother looks to me and says, "How'd you know?"

 

[quoipourquoi]

Sakic is the only person who, after regulation time tie, I once turned off the tv, turned to my brother and said, "Sakic scores the winner".

Next day, my brother looks to me and says, "How'd you know?"

Ha! I had a similar premonition in the 2004 San Jose series! And he did it twice in a row!

As for Kyle McMahon who mentioned that Roy has lost more Game 7s than he has won, this is true. He is 6-7 all-time in Game 7s. I believe Ed Belfour was 5-1. Not a huge deal considering no one on here thinks Belfour was a more clutch goalie. But yes Roy did have some gaffes. The only thing is he made up for them and this is not his calling card for his career.

Here's the thing about Roy's seven Game 7 losses... the flip side of the coin, if you will...

He was his team's definitive starter in 15 playoffs. He won 4 Cups. That leaves 11 series in which he lost as an NHL goalie. Are we really going to take points away from him for putting up a fight in 7 of the 11 series in which his team lost?

1989, Calgary.
1990, Boston.
1992, Boston.
1997, Detroit.

Dock him some points for those series, because they went 6 or less.

 

[canucks4ever]

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.

It's easier to win the cup when you are playing the florida panthers. If it wasn't for Forsberg, colorado would have lost to LA in 2001. They got eliminated in 1999 and 2002 because Dallas and Detriot had alot of depth and they both went on to win the cup. Leading the playoffs in scoring without making the finals is just incredible.

A healthy forsberg would have smashed Sakic's playoff legacy. Before Forsberg arrived, Sakic was on pace to become Marcel Dionne.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

It's easier to win the cup when you are playing the florida panthers. If it wasn't for Forsberg, colorado would have lost to LA in 2001. They got eliminated in 1999 and 2002 because Dallas and Detriot had alot of depth and they both went on to win the cup. Leading the playoffs in scoring without making the finals is just incredible.

A healthy forsberg would have smashed Sakic's playoff legacy. Before Forsberg arrived, Sakic was on pace to become Marcel Dionne.

Yup, that 6 points in 6 playoff games before Forsberg arrived was just atrocious and definitely pointed to a career of playoff choking.

 

[reckoning]

It's easier to win the cup when you are playing the florida panthers.

How many goals did Jagr score against Florida in the series before that?

 

[Regal]

It's easier to win the cup when you are playing the florida panthers.

A Panthers team that still managed to take out a Pens team with a prime Lemieux and Jagr (holding Mario to 7 points in 7 games after he scored 20 in his previous 11, and Jagr to 5 in 7 games) Plus the Avs beat the team with the most regular season wins in history in order to get to the finals.

If it wasn't for Forsberg, colorado would have lost to LA in 2001. They got eliminated in 1999 and 2002 because Dallas and Detriot had alot of depth and they both went on to win the cup. Leading the playoffs in scoring without making the finals is just incredible.

No doubt it was incredible. But so was Sakic in '96 and '01. And he had 29 points through the first three rounds in '96 and if the Wings had moved on instead, likely would still have led the playoffs himself without making the finals.

A healthy forsberg would have smashed Sakic's playoff legacy. Before Forsberg arrived, Sakic was on pace to become Marcel Dionne.

Possibly, but he didn't, and the injuries were a part of what you got from Forsberg. And Sakic was only 24 and stuck on crappy teams before Forsberg arrived. There's no telling how his career would have turned out. Obviously Forsberg helped get Sakic the opportunity to be great by helping the team get out of the gutter, but it's not like he's responsible for Sakic's success.

Personally I think Forsberg and Sakic played at fairly similar levels in the playoffs, with each being better than the other in certain seasons, but I think Sakic does need to get credit for what he actually accomplished,and that was two cups as the number one centre and playoff scoring leader, including one where Forsberg was injured, and a Conn Smythe. I think that, his great OT record and a few other solid performaces after the lockout put him ahead of Forsberg.

 

[Regal]

Top 50 is a lot. I'll shorten it a bit. I split the goalies into a seperate group. If I were to combine the goalies with the players, Roy would be my #3. In all honesty, there are three guys who are my top 3 and I have a hard time seeing anyone unseat them.

Gretzky
Richard
Bossy
Messier
Beliveau
Sakic
Anderson
Howe
Lafleur
Geoffrion
Lemieux
Coffey

Goalies:
Roy
Broda
Sawchuk
Smith
Fuhr
Plante
Parent
Brodeur

No Dryden? I treid making a list with goalies, defense and players separate, and those goalies with Dryden were the top 9. I wasn't sure who the 10th would be, and thought probably Bower.


The top list makes me question one thing with these types of lists though, and that's how much credit we give to players who played above their level, compared to players who were simply better. For instance, Glenn Anderson was always a very good player, who stepped it up and played like a star in the playoffs, and had some clutch goals. However, Mario Lemieux, while not having a large body of work outside of the two cup wins, and not necessarily playing better than what he always did in the regular season, was still so far beyond what Anderson ever was as a player that I could just never put Anderson above him.

 

[Gylf]

Anyone who feels like putting up Henrik Zetterberg on a list?

I think he´s been the playoff-player in Detroit every year after the lockout. That´s like five years now, right?

 

[redbull]

Anyone who feels like putting up Henrik Zetterberg on a list?

I think he´s been the playoff-player in Detroit every year after the lockout. That´s like five years now, right?

interesting point. too often we forget current, active, players.

since we're talking active players - what about a package of kaberle, caputi and a 2nd rounder for zetterberg? shall i lay out the cap space efficiencies of this deal that would greatly help the wings?

 

[IggyFan12]

Not a Top 100 but Martin Gélinas was pretty great when it was the time to have the goal needed in playoff

AGREED!! Especially in 04 when he ended each series with the Series winner( except the Finals).

And anyone who doesn't think Sakic was one of the greatest playoff players ever he is 2nd in all time playoff points for players who didnt play for the Oilers dynasty. He also completely dominated at times one of the best teams in the 2001 Devils in the finals. The goal he scores in game 7 he makes 2 Hall of Famers(Stevens & Brodeur) look like novice players. He also dominated game 1. And it 1996 he scored in one playoffs 18 goals!! Thats more than Gretzky, Mario, Bossy, Messier, Yzerman or Hull ever could in one playoffs. Only Kurri and Reginald Leach scored more goals in one playoff and only by 1 with 19.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

According to my rough calculations, the Avalanche were +47 as a team in the playoffs from 1995 to 2004. Peter Forsberg was +47 over that time, meaning that they were even without him. Joe Sakic was +9 over that time, so if you assume that Sakic and Forsberg never played together, the team was -9 without Forsberg or Sakic.

Forsberg is tied with Mark Howe in playoff plus-minus. Which made me wonder: Are there any players who haven't won a Stanley Cup who would have a shot at this top 50 list? Mark Howe and his teammate Brian Propp were excellent playoff performers who never won a Cup, and there have been others.

interesting question. leads me to another question: how many guys whose cups came before or after their prime make the list? eligibles include hasek, brett hull, jagr. bourque, yes (arguably chelios would count too), but i'd be hard pressed to find a place for the other three. top 100, almost certainly. top 50, it'd be tough.

 

[Big Phil]

It's easier to win the cup when you are playing the florida panthers. If it wasn't for Forsberg, colorado would have lost to LA in 2001. They got eliminated in 1999 and 2002 because Dallas and Detriot had alot of depth and they both went on to win the cup. Leading the playoffs in scoring without making the finals is just incredible.

A healthy forsberg would have smashed Sakic's playoff legacy. Before Forsberg arrived, Sakic was on pace to become Marcel Dionne.

But Forsberg played the Florida Panthers as well. Sakic had 34 points that spring. Forsberg 22. No dissing Pete, he had a fine playoff but Sakic broke the backs of two teams that year. First Vancouver, a Game #5 overtime winner. Second, the Hawks who were up 2-1 in the series in Game #4 only to lose in triple overtime to Sakic. Thank Burnaby Joe for that Cup in 1996. Also Sakic still came to play in 1999 and 2002. It was not his fault either that Colorado lost. But the truth is when the Avs won the Cup it was Sakic who was front and center to the teams' success. Not Forsberg. Call it injuries in 2001 if you will but you can't reward Forsberg for time he didn't play. Sakic in Game #7 of the 2001 final was clutch as well.

 

[Big Phil]

No Dryden? I treid making a list with goalies, defense and players separate, and those goalies with Dryden were the top 9. I wasn't sure who the 10th would be, and thought probably Bower.

If I did a spot or two more, I'd have picked Dryden I just had to cut the list off somewhere. Then again who's spot does Dryden take off my personal list?

The top list makes me question one thing with these types of lists though, and that's how much credit we give to players who played above their level, compared to players who were simply better. For instance, Glenn Anderson was always a very good player, who stepped it up and played like a star in the playoffs, and had some clutch goals. However, Mario Lemieux, while not having a large body of work outside of the two cup wins, and not necessarily playing better than what he always did in the regular season, was still so far beyond what Anderson ever was as a player that I could just never put Anderson above him.

Well there's that to think of, but the main reason was the amount of times Lemieux was in the postseason. He didn't get in until his 5th season. Missed it his 6th season, then had his two mammoth Cup years in his 7th and 8th season. His 9th season was 1993 and they were bounced out second round. 1994 was first round. 1996 was third round and 1997 was first round. Then he retired and then had one more trip to the playoffs in 2001 when he returned going to the third round. Lemieux always had a great PPG even in 1996 or 1993 when they were upset. That was never the problem with Mario, you knew he was never the cause of the loss, but it was the volume of playoff games he competed in compared to his peers of the same era. He lags behind in that department but makes up for it for peak value that Anderson or almost no one else can touch in NHL history.

I just take Anderson because he is: 4th in points, was year in and year out a force in the postseason, has 5 overtime goals, always seemed be more dangerous the higher the stakes whether that was in an Oiler uniform with Gretzky or after Gretzky or in a Leaf uniform, it never failed.

 

[seventieslord]

Definitely roy, gretzky, orr, howe, lemieux, messier, anderson, kennedy, parent, sakic, richard, beliveau, and harvey.. after that you could name a number of players.

I echo the criticisms of starchild's list and also would like to know how he forgot ted kennedy.

 

[canucks4ever]

But Forsberg played the Florida Panthers as well. Sakic had 34 points that spring. Forsberg 22. No dissing Pete, he had a fine playoff but Sakic broke the backs of two teams that year. First Vancouver, a Game #5 overtime winner. Second, the Hawks who were up 2-1 in the series in Game #4 only to lose in triple overtime to Sakic. Thank Burnaby Joe for that Cup in 1996. Also Sakic still came to play in 1999 and 2002. It was not his fault either that Colorado lost. But the truth is when the Avs won the Cup it was Sakic who was front and center to the teams' success. Not Forsberg. Call it injuries in 2001 if you will but you can't reward Forsberg for time he didn't play. Sakic in Game #7 of the 2001 final was clutch as well.

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.