What do you think the reason is that certain players built for the postseason choked in the playoffs?

WarriorofTime

Registered User
Jul 3, 2010
29,367
17,650
I've done no such thing. I stated from the start that Ovechkin has a somewhat underwhelming playoff resume given how he ranks all time. And its not really a cherry picked amount. I looked at an uninterrupted stretch of 7 years (during his mid to late prime) where he did not perform up to expectations.

Continue to insult me/attack me if you want to. I would expect someone who is "looking at the facts", and "promoting discussion" to have a more mature method of disagreeing with another person online.
I refuted you respectfully at the first post and you’ve done nothing but grow hostile in response talking about Patrick Marleau, “excuses”, playing coy about questions regarding his teammates, moving goalposts…
 

klefbombs shoulder

Registered User
Jul 21, 2023
535
971
I refuted you respectfully at the first post and you’ve done nothing but grow hostile in response talking about Patrick Marleau, “excuses”, playing coy about questions regarding his teammates, moving goalposts…
You claimed I have an agenda, and am cherry picking data. So the first shots fired are from you. Unless you consider my "excuses" comment hostile? If so apologies, I don't consider that a hostile comment.

And again also claiming im moving goal posts. Again I havent. I stated from the start that given his stature as a borderline top 10 player all time his playoffs are underwhelming (outside of two runs). I added some context that he also had a good team around him much of his career.

This isn't moving goal posts.

So again if you are going to claim you are promoting discussion, you should not insult the people you are having a discussion with.
 

WarriorofTime

Registered User
Jul 3, 2010
29,367
17,650
You claimed I have an agenda, and am cherry picking data.
You genuinely think Ovechkin is a good response to this thread and ignoring certain postseasons is the reason? Wow.

Postseasons already suffer from ridiculously small sample sizes to make them difficult. As others have pointed out, it’s incredibly dangerous and irresponsible to dismiss certain years and draw conclusions accordingly.

With all the evidence I presented, agenda is pretty obvious. I’m less interested in spin doctors.
 

klefbombs shoulder

Registered User
Jul 21, 2023
535
971
You genuinely think Ovechkin is a good response to this thread and ignoring certain postseasons is the reason? Wow.
I think he has underperformed relative to the stature of player he is. Not the ultimate example of a underperformer in the playoffs. But an underperformer nontheless.

Looking at his entire playoff career he has also underperformed. Hes 25th all time in GPG and 55th in PPG in the playoffs. This with a 30 GP filter. Hes 8th in GPG and 35th in PPG in the regular season.

Underperforming somewhat.

Postseasons already suffer from ridiculously small sample sizes to make them difficult. As others have pointed out, it’s incredibly dangerous and irresponsible to dismiss certain years and draw conclusions accordingly.
This isn't a high stakes event. There is nothing dangerous about talking/disagreeing about/on hockey history online. Lets leave the hyperbole at the door.

I agree looking at small samples can skew results. But I looked at an uninterrupted stretch of 7 years with a sample of 76 games played. If you consider that cherry picking fine. I don't.

Ovi has played in the playoffs 14 seasons. In my view in those 14 playoffs he has had 2 great runs, 2 good runs, 2 ok runs, and 8 underperforming runs.

This is overall an underperforming resume for a borderline top 10 player.

With all the evidence I presented, agenda is pretty obvious. I’m less interested in spin doctors.
Again with the attacks.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Primary Assist

EpochLink

Canucks and Jets fan
Aug 1, 2006
60,705
16,374
Vancouver, BC
Not to rag on the man as he had a great career, but Jarome Iginla’s playoff resume outside of 2004 is pretty poor. Now, then again he was a one man band pretty much in his Calgary tenure as he was the only person doing their weight around. He was nearly a point per game each time.

Multiple first round exits after the lockout followed by missing the playoffs, plus his years in Pittsburgh and Boston playoff runs. Just so much more there that we never saw.
 

The Panther

Registered User
Mar 25, 2014
19,272
15,874
Tokyo, Japan
Why are we discussing Ovechkin in this thread? He clearly should never have been mentioned in the first place.

Ovechkin isn't an amazing playoff legend or anything, but he's always done well enough, with a few spike playoffs, a few slightly disappointing (but not disastrous) brief showings, and an impressive Cup run when he... oh yeah... won the Conn Smythe.

Over 140+ playoff games, he has scored 1 goal every 2 games, with 2/3 of those games in dead-puck era level scoring. We don't need to discuss him here.

Not to rag on the man as he had a great career, but Jarome Iginla’s playoff resume outside of 2004 is pretty poor. Now, then again he was a one man band pretty much in his Calgary tenure as he was the only person doing their weight around. He was nearly a point per game each time.

Multiple first round exits after the lockout followed by missing the playoffs, plus his years in Pittsburgh and Boston playoff runs. Just so much more there that we never saw.
No, it wasn't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Midnight Judges

Vilica

Registered User
Jun 1, 2014
442
500
Ovechkin has a somewhat underwhelming post season career (minus 2009 and 2018).

Hes a huge, physical player. One of the best scorers of all time. But his numbers fell off pretty dramatically in the playoffs. His playoff totals sandwiched between his two great runs are 31-29-60 in 76 GP. This was in his aged 24-31 seasons.
Noted renowned playoff producer Maurice Richard age 24-32: 76 games, 39 goals, 18 assists, 57 points. The Habs scored 21 more goals in those 76 games than the Caps did, 200 to 179, while the Capitals gave up 176 goals compared to Montreal's 164. Though Montreal played 14 series compared to the Caps 12, the Capitals game record was 37-39, while the Habs was 42-35 (Richard was suspended for 1 game). Richard was much more feast or famine in those series too, as he had 3 points or less in 7 of the 14, including 2 goose eggs (the 0 point series were both 4 game sweeps with 1 Habs win and 1 loss, there were 2 5 game series, and 3 7 game series, all losses). By comparison, Ovechkin only had 3 points or less in 2 of 12.

[By the way, if you remove their age 24 seasons from the sample (Richard's 45-46, Ovechkin's 09-10) - Habs lose an 8-1 game record, 45 GF, 20 GA, Richard subtracts 9 games, 7 goals, 4 assists 11 points; new Habs numbers: 34-34, 155 GF, 144 GA, Richard 67 games, 32 goals, 14 assists, 46 points. Caps lose a 3-4 game record, 22 GF, 20 GA, Ovechkin subtracts 7 games, 5 goals, 5 assists, 10 points, new Caps numbers 34-35, 157 GF, 146 GA, Ovechkin 69 games, 26 goals, 24 assists, 50 points. Montreal was 6-6 in series, Washington was 5-7. Remarkably identical numbers for both players and teams.]

Cherrypicking is fun and all, but we're comparing apples to apples here, and Ovechkin comes out looking quite equal to the one of the best playoff performers of all time, over the same age period, and including 76 of Richard's 121 relevant playoff games (ignoring his final two seasons), all while not including Ovechkin's 2 best playoff runs. And now here's the best part:

Ovechkin outside your sample years through 19-20 (07-08, 08-09, 17-18, 18-19, 19-20) - 57 games, 175 GF, 38 goals, 33 assists, 71 points
Richard outside your sample years (43-44, 44-45, 55-56, 56-57, 57-58) - 45 games, 174 GF, 42 goals, 23 assists, 65 points

Montreal was 34-11 in those games, over 9 series, allowing 85 goals, as both the vagaries of WW2 plus the emergence of players that relegated Richard to 2nd line duties contributed to the blowout scores. In contrast, Washington allowed 160 goals, playing the same number of series but 12 more games within that set (their overall record was 30-27). Montreal was 8-1 in series, while Washington was 5-4.

Richard doesn't have any other substantial playoff performances, just the two injury-shortened last seasons of his career, where he missed most of the playoffs. I've shown that in both the original sample as well as the unused sample, on teams that scored just about the same number of goals in around the same number of games, with Montreal being higher-scoring, Ovechkin and Richard put up virtually identical numbers. The only difference really is that Maurice Richard had anywhere from 5-9 teammates every year who are in the Hall of Fame, whereas Ovechkin did not. Another difference is that Ovechkin led his team in scoring 5 of 7 times in that age 24-32 sample, whereas Maurice Richard only did it 2 times in 8, while also having less points, in different years, than non-Hall of Fame teammates such as Gerry Plamondon, Billy Reay, Norm Dussault, Floyd Curry, and Paul Masnick.
 

MadLuke

Registered User
Jan 18, 2011
9,614
5,230
Noted renowned playoff producer Maurice Richard age 24-32: 76 games, 39 goals, 18 assists, 57 points.
Both being the most in the NHL, 39 goals by a giant amount (+62.5%), scoring goals during the 06 playoff was not easy.

Even per game despite playing a lot during that window:
Goals per game:
Richard : 0.51
Kennedy: 0.36
Howe: .36
 
Last edited:

buffalowing88

Registered User
Aug 11, 2008
4,330
1,776
Charlotte, NC
Lindros only impressed me once during his entire playoff tenure in Philly -- vs. the Rangers. Outside of that, he would tend to "play down" to inferior teams like Tampa and Florida. And, of course, the Devils and Sabres made him look silly at times. His play in the Cup Finals vs. Detroit was non-existent.

Matthews, so far, has reminded me of Lindros in that way -- frightening and often dominant in the regular season but when the playoffs arrive there's no extra gear... or the ability to carry the team for any duration (outside of an isolated great series here or there).

In juniors, Lindros was a freak. So I don't put too much stock into that. Often times there are players who dominate in junior but cannot match it at the NHL level.

He did okay against the Sabres the first two times they played him. I'd love to say that we had a particular game plan against him but it was primarily focused on guys like Barnaby trying to agitate him and defensive-minded forwards like Dixon Ward pestering them.

And Hasek, of course.

But Lindros did do okay against us in general. I think we owned him much more in the regular season than in the playoffs.

In 95, I think our first playoff against him, we had Bodger out there a lot on him and Bodger was a tough SOB, but he was also an aging point man on the PP and more focused on offense by that time.

Barnaby said on a podcast a few years ago that Bodger was the strongest player on the team when he was a newbie. Lindros blew right by him.

When he struggled against Buffalo, it was because of Hasek and just a plethora of physical, stay-at-home defenders like Warrener and Wilson and McKee.
 

klefbombs shoulder

Registered User
Jul 21, 2023
535
971
Noted renowned playoff producer Maurice Richard age 24-32: 76 games, 39 goals, 18 assists, 57 points.
Not a great comparison.

57 points led the NHL over that span. 39 goals dominated that span with the next closest being 24.

Ovi's 60 points from 2010-17 were 19th in that span. His 30 goals was 9th in that span.

Look, it seems I am the minority opinion on Ovi's post season record. Again I think he has underperformed relative to his all time ranking. But it seems most disagree. I think Ovi discussion has been drawn out enough on this thread so I will no longer be responding.
 

Gorskyontario

Registered User
Feb 18, 2024
220
144
Noted renowned playoff producer Maurice Richard age 24-32: 76 games, 39 goals, 18 assists, 57 points.

This somehow makes less then zero sense, which I didn't think was possible. Maurice Richard lead the nhl in goals that span. Please do some proper research next time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Doctor Coffin

Vilica

Registered User
Jun 1, 2014
442
500
Both being the most in the NHL, 39 goals by a giant amount (+62.5%).

Even per game despite playing a lot during that window:
Goals per game:
Richard : 0.51
Kennedy: 0.36
Howe: .36

Not a great comparison.

57 points led the NHL over that span. 39 goals dominated that span with the next closest being 24.

Ovi's 60 points from 2010-17 were 19th in that span. His 30 goals was 9th in that span.

Look, it seems I am the minority opinion on Ovi's post season record. Again I think he has underperformed relative to his all time ranking. But it seems most disagree. I think Ovi discussion has been drawn out enough on this thread so I will no longer be responding.

This somehow makes less then zero sense, which I didn't think was possible. Maurice Richard lead the nhl in goals that span. Please do some proper research next time.

It's not hard to have an outlier when you have a tiny sample. In that span, 54 forwards played 20 playoff games, 41 played 30, 27 played 40, 15 played 50, 6 played 60, and just 2, Richard and Lindsay, played 70 games. Looking at players close to Richard's regular season G/GP in that time period, Roy Conacher and Wally Hergesheimer are 2 players above 0.40 in significant samples, and Conacher played 8 playoff games, while Hergesheimer had zero playoff games played. If you look at every forward who played a game, there are 13 players between Richard at 0.51 and Kennedy/Howe at 0.36, but their playoff games played totals are (in descending order) 35, 20, 20, 19, 15, 11, 9, 8, 7, 7, 5, 5, 4 (the player who played 8 is in fact Roy Conacher, who had 4 goals).

Of course Maurice Richard led in goals and points in the sample. He played the most games. Four rounds compared to two, and 16 teams compared to four, allows for so many more player-seasons to accumulate, and inevitably they will fill in the curve. In that sample from 45-46 through 53-54, 164 forwards played 1 game or more, whereas from 09-10 through 16-17, 155 forwards played at least 40 games. As a thought experiment, take Ovechkin's 17-18 playoffs - 24 games, 15 goals 12 assists 27 points, and insert that one season into the Richard sample. He's tied for 44th in games played, tied for 9th in goals, tied for 15th in assists, and tied for 10th in points. Not a single Blackhawk or Ranger (only 2 Hawks even broke double digits), and just 5 Bruins had more than 24 games played in the 9 season sample.

The point I was making, with the painstaking breakdown of goals, points, and goals for, is to show that Maurice Richard and Alex Ovechkin had a virtually identical playoff performance in an offensive sense. Richard's status as an outlier leader has nothing to do with his performance, and everything to do with the tiny number of his peers. This is probably the one thing I harp on most about, because it affects nearly every discussion, and most of our historians blithely ignore it. I take nothing away from any accomplishments of older players, their seasons are just being swamped by a 32 team league. Think back to the depths of history that is the 2017-18 season until now... the number of significant player-seasons in that 7 year period is equal to the number of player-seasons from the 1917-18 season through the 1966-67 season, all 50 years of it.
 

daver

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
25,998
5,855
Visit site
Not a great comparison.

57 points led the NHL over that span. 39 goals dominated that span with the next closest being 24.

Ovi's 60 points from 2010-17 were 19th in that span. His 30 goals was 9th in that span.

Look, it seems I am the minority opinion on Ovi's post season record. Again I think he has underperformed relative to his all time ranking. But it seems most disagree. I think Ovi discussion has been drawn out enough on this thread so I will no longer be responding.

Ovechkin loses ground to most, if not all, of his regular season peers (Hull, Richard, Lafleur, maybe Jagr) when playoffs are factored in.

Unlike Dionne or Thornton, he accomplished enough where a player who is clearly not on his level surpasses him in an all-time ranking but I could see someone taking Messier over him.
 

Gorskyontario

Registered User
Feb 18, 2024
220
144
The point I was making, with the painstaking breakdown of goals, points, and goals for, is to show that Maurice Richard

The point you were making, literally makes less then zero sense. I'm somewhat impressed at this.
 

MadLuke

Registered User
Jan 18, 2011
9,614
5,230
Of course Maurice Richard led in goals and points in the sample. He played the most games.
If he did not lead in goal per games as well, that would be more powerful but in that context (having played those games in finals and large sample size to go down) it makes his gpg lead even greater.

Richard's status as an outlier leader has nothing to do with his performance, and everything to do with the tiny number of his peers.
Also how low scoring the playoff of the 06 could be, 715 goals in 292 team-game played, just under 2.45 goal per games, with on a team like Montreal only 1.26 assists per goals (no replay to go look who touched the puck last or not I imagine, going more for direct obvious recent pass), Ovechkin era was more around 1.65-1.7.

2010 to 2017 was really low (the modern "dpe") but we were still at 2.66 and in modern days the first 2 rounds (Ovechkin hockey) was significantly higher scoring than the later one. The last 2 round of the playoff of that era were quite comparable to the Richard one scoring wise.

You end up with 30% more points per game in one era versus the other (and a bit more than that in the first 2 rounds) with those 2 factor. But then roster are build different, deployment, D vs F offensive contribution, that why comparing to peers make sense, with the obvious issue in the 06 of low sample size getting even bigger in the playoff, but here we are comparing him to some high end HOF RedWings players like Lindsay that played the exact same amount of playoff game and a giant gap between the 2.
 

Vilica

Registered User
Jun 1, 2014
442
500
The point you were making, literally makes less then zero sense. I'm somewhat impressed at this.
Look at this ridiculous dominance of Ovechkin over every other playoff participant in this sample:

RankNameTeamGamesGoalsAssistsPoints+/-
1Alex OvechkinWAS583130619
2Eric StaalCAR43192443-3
2Nicklas BackstromWAS5715284313
4Alex SeminWAS51151934-1
5Martin St LouisTBL29171532-4
6Vincent LecavalierTBL2912183010
6Brooks LaichWAS51921301
8Cory StillmanCAR259172612
8Ray WhitneyCAR42121426-10
10Matt CullenCAR43717242
11Rod Brind'AmourCAR43139224
12Justin WilliamsCAR257111812
13Sean BergenheimTOT23125170
13Teddy PurcellTBL18611174
13Jason ChimeraWAS3789175
16Doug WeightCAR2331316-3
16Mark RecchiCAR257916-5
16Brad RichardsTBL1161016-9
19Steve DownieTBL17212147
20Steven StamkosTBL186713-5
20Sergei FedorovWAS21211130

He's 63% ahead of the nearest goal scorer, 43% ahead of the nearest point total, and only 3 non-teammates come within half his totals.



Of course I built this table to be that absurd. It's the Southeast Division in the playoffs between 05-06 through 12-13 so it is a 5 team sample over 8 years. Really though, it's just a 3 team sample, because no Panther or Thrasher player made it into the top 20, other than Sean Bergenheim's combined total. [Also, I had the idea but didn't know the results until I worked through them for this post. I can say I'd have made the post if the results weren't this stark, but I don't know if that's completely true, or if I'd choose a different tack.]

Now here's the Richard years: NHL Stats

Looks kinda similar, doesn't it? You restrict the sample to a tiny portion, you get outlier results that disappear in the full sample. Ovechkin is 9th in goals, 14th in points, and tied 77th in games played if you include all teams in that span.
 

MadLuke

Registered User
Jan 18, 2011
9,614
5,230
You seem to talk as if there was a random distribution of players among teams that make the playoff and go far in the playoff (the talk about the amount of relevant forward games talk as if adding team would linearly perfectly scale teh amount of relevant forward season that compete with being top 10 in the nhl in points).
 

Vilica

Registered User
Jun 1, 2014
442
500
You seem to talk as if there was a random distribution of players among teams that make the playoff and go far in the playoff (the talk about the amount of relevant forward games talk as if adding team would linearly perfectly scale teh amount of relevant forward season that compete with being top 10 in the nhl in points).
That statement is basically true (it does scale). In a 7 game playoff series, a team scores between 10-30 goals, and the top-line forwards expect to garner points on 30-40% of those goals. Accrue enough playoff series, and the points will follow. You can accumulate series a lot quicker when there are 15 per year instead of just 3. Take this table of the leading scorers of the Stanley Cup finalists of the past 10 years:

YearTeamNameGamesGoalsAssistsPointsTeam GFG%P%
22-23VGKJack Eichel2262026880.0680.295
22-23FLAMatthew Tkachuk20111324620.1770.387
21-22COLCale Makar2082129850.0940.341
21-22TBLNikita Kucherov2381927670.1190.403
20-21TBLNikita Kucherov2382432750.1070.427
20-21MTLNick Suzuki227916510.1370.314
19-20TBLNikita Kucherov2572734770.0910.442
19-20DALMiro Heiskanen2762026770.0780.338
18-19STLRyan O'Reilly2681523750.1070.307
18-19BOSBrad Marchand2491423790.1140.291
17-18WASEvgeny Kuznetsov24122032860.1400.372
17-18VGKReilly Smith2051722570.0880.386
16-17PITEvgeni Malkin25101828770.1300.364
16-17NSHFilip Forsberg229716600.1500.267
15-16PITPhil Kessel24101222730.1370.301
15-16SJSLogan Couture24102030750.1330.400
14-15CHIPatrick Kane23111223690.1590.333
14-15TBLTyler Johnson26131023650.2000.354
13-14LAKAnze Kopitar2652126880.0570.295
13-14NYRRyan McDonagh2541317640.0630.266

Every year, between 30-40%, more or less, on goal totals that range from 51 to 88. Players from Art Ross winners to guys who never appeared in a top 10 of regular season point totals, forwards and defense, as well as some names that might be expected to be on the list missing. 20 game samples are still mostly random as to specific players, but P% normalizes much faster.

In tiny sample sizes, most all performances are just as attributable to luck as skill. Take Gerry Plamondon, who I mentioned earlier as a teammate that outscored Maurice Richard in a series - that being the 48-49 1st round series against Detroit. Plamondon had 5 goals and an assist in 7 games, scoring 36% of Montreal's goals and garnering a point on 43% of the 14 goals they scored. Nothing in his career suggests that to be possible, but in a 7 game sample, it happened.

If you want to be even more absurdist, think about Maurice Richard's OT goals in the 4th overtime and 3rd overtime against Detroit in the 1951 playoffs. In one reading, it's back to back clutch overtime game winners from Montreal's best player. In a purely statistical reading, Maurice Richard, who averaged for his career 1 goal every 2 games, scored 2 goals in 4 games (given the overtimes added about 100 extra minutes of gametime). He performed exactly as you'd expect him to given his career results. That's obviously an overly-literal reading of the results, but it is as accurate as the first one.

I literally have no idea what you are trying to say, aside from you posting some absolute nonsense about Maurice Richard not being the best playoff performer of his generation.
Let's say I completely agree with you that Maurice Richard is one of the best playoff performers of his generation. What does that mean in practice? He's on top of a list of about 20 relevant forwards in that time period, 25% of whom are his teammates. That was the point of the SE division leaderboard. If you massage the sample, Ovechkin puts up the same outlier numbers that Richard did, on a list of about 20 relevant forwards, 25% of whom are his teammates. There just weren't 24 other teams in Richard's era to fill out the sample.

My argument is somewhat incoherent because I'm trying to argue two things at once without actually having that big of a point. On one side, I'm pointing out that Maurice Richard's playoff stats are not as great as they seem due to the tiny sample size of his league, while on the other side, I'm arguing that Alex Ovechkin's playoff stats are not 'disappointing at best', given the sample size they're taken from. I'm not actually trying to prove Ovechkin's one of the best playoff performers of his time, or that Richard is not one of the best playoff performers of his time. I'm just showing that they both generated nearly identical stats in nearly identical circumstances, and any external rating of their playoff performances depends entirely on the sample that is examined.

Whether Ovechkin being the king of the SE division between 05-06 and 12-13 is equal to Richard being the king of the O6 between 45-46 and 53-54 can be argued about, and I can see your point if you disagree with that assertion, but they are functionally equal sample sizes.



Also Mike I somehow knew you'd enjoy that Stamkos stat. That's partially why I cut the table at tied for 20th.
 

overpass

Registered User
Jun 7, 2007
5,271
2,808
Now here's the Richard years: NHL Stats

Looks kinda similar, doesn't it? You restrict the sample to a tiny portion, you get outlier results that disappear in the full sample. Ovechkin is 9th in goals, 14th in points, and tied 77th in games played if you include all teams in that span.

But that link isn't a restricted sample, right? It's the leading scorers of every NHL playoff game over a nine year period. Including great players like Gordie Howe, Ted Lindsay, Ted Kennedy, Milt Schmidt, and Max Bentley.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jigglysquishy

Gorskyontario

Registered User
Feb 18, 2024
220
144
Let's say I completely agree with you that Maurice Richard is one of the best playoff performers of his generation. What does that mean in practice?

I'm going to be completely honest and transparent with you. I only read this part of your post.

I'm also going to point out, the entire premise of your post makes less then zero sense somehow. You point out the best playoff performer of his generation. Lead in points, goals per game ect. Yet somehow this is a bad playoff performer? I literally do not understand the logic.

So please, clear and concise. In 1 paragraph or less please explain to me how Maurice Richard is a poor playoff performer. I work in sales and finance so I can't be sold on anything except fact, don't use emotion.
 

MadLuke

Registered User
Jan 18, 2011
9,614
5,230
I am not sure Vilica is saying that Richard is a bad playoff performer, he using him an example of a good playoff performer to show that Ovechkin was one as well, arguing that Ovechkin (also a good playoff performer) scored pretty much the same as him, something that get obfuscated by stronger competition of his peers.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad