fortunately enough, one great period does not a playoff MVP make.
Though in theory you could have multiple players who are of equal candidates going into the 3rd period, then one of them absolutely dominates and is the deciding factor in winning the Stanley Cup.
It was 2-0 Devils by the end of the second, I'm pretty sure they would have been operating under the assumption that the Ducks would lose.
The quote above says that they cast their votes during the 2nd period, not after it. Assuming that the 2nd goal came in the 2nd period, it could've well been 1-0 when most cast their votes. At that point, it would've been a poor assumption that the Ducks would lose, especially that Ducks team.
The quote above says that they cast their votes during the 2nd period, not after it. Assuming that the 2nd goal came in the 2nd period, it could've well been 1-0 when most cast their votes. At that point, it'd be a poor assumption that the Ducks would lose.
Really man? You think the 20 voters would refuse to wait 5, 10, or 15 minutes to cast their votes? It's not like someone is holding a gun to their heads making them vote during the second period and not one second after!
Just because some quote online says something doesnt mean that it will stand against all logic when presented in real life
But even if it is some hard core, weird rule that voting can absolutely not be done after the second period, you dont think the voters would have taken into account that the Ducks very well could lose?
Even if the voters cast their votes after the 3rd, I guarantee you Giguere would have still won.
It doesn't seem right to me that the most important period of the playoffs is discarded when deciding who the best player of the playoffs is.
Honestly it really should be more or less decided by then. How many years did the third period of the elimination game change how the writers thought? The only time I could see it having any impact would be 2010. Toews wins the Smythe. Some thought Keith was in the running and others liked Kane. Nothing wrong with those three choices but it may have changed a few people's minds after they saw Kane score the Cup winning goal. Toews had 29 points while Kane had 28. Coupled with a mediocre showing in the Cup final, I can see how the votes may have changed after Kane scored the overtime Cup winner.
But in all honesty, that is the only season where I can see it making a difference, and even then Toews wasn't a bad choice regardless
Honestly it really should be more or less decided by then. How many years did the third period of the elimination game change how the writers thought? The only time I could see it having any impact would be 2010. Toews wins the Smythe. Some thought Keith was in the running and others liked Kane. Nothing wrong with those three choices but it may have changed a few people's minds after they saw Kane score the Cup winning goal. Toews had 29 points while Kane had 28. Coupled with a mediocre showing in the Cup final, I can see how the votes may have changed after Kane scored the overtime Cup winner.
But in all honesty, that is the only season where I can see it making a difference, and even then Toews wasn't a bad choice regardless
A lot of years when the goaltender wins it's consider to be because there was no "clear" winner among skaters. For example, in 1997 Yzerman, Fedorov, or Lidstrom could have taken it. Vernon played well enough. So it was his. Osgood's 2008 run was better than Vernon's 1997 run, but Zetterberg was clearly the best skater. The next year was the same with Malkin; if the Wings had won the 2009 Cup, Osgood almost definitely wins the Smythe.
But in 2010, Niemi and Leighton were clearly just along for the ride, and supporting players at best.
Honestly it really should be more or less decided by then. How many years did the third period of the elimination game change how the writers thought? The only time I could see it having any impact would be 2010. Toews wins the Smythe. Some thought Keith was in the running and others liked Kane. Nothing wrong with those three choices but it may have changed a few people's minds after they saw Kane score the Cup winning goal. Toews had 29 points while Kane had 28. Coupled with a mediocre showing in the Cup final, I can see how the votes may have changed after Kane scored the overtime Cup winner.
But in all honesty, that is the only season where I can see it making a difference, and even then Toews wasn't a bad choice regardless
First Final that came to mind as well. Not that Toews was a bad choice, but if the Conn Smythe was decided at the end of the game instead of during the game, Kane might have garnered a few more votes.
Honestly it really should be more or less decided by then. How many years did the third period of the elimination game change how the writers thought? The only time I could see it having any impact would be 2010. Toews wins the Smythe. Some thought Keith was in the running and others liked Kane. Nothing wrong with those three choices but it may have changed a few people's minds after they saw Kane score the Cup winning goal. Toews had 29 points while Kane had 28. Coupled with a mediocre showing in the Cup final, I can see how the votes may have changed after Kane scored the overtime Cup winner.
But in all honesty, that is the only season where I can see it making a difference, and even then Toews wasn't a bad choice regardless
My exact thought also, Kane had 8 points in 6 games in the final, including 3 points in the final game and of course the GwG, he may have snubbed quite a few votes had the voting been done after the game, but likewise Toews, Kane or Keith all would've been good choices.
My exact thought also, Kane had 8 points in 6 games in the final, including 3 points in the final game and of course the GwG, he may have snubbed quite a few votes had the voting been done after the game, but likewise Toews, Kane or Keith all would've been good choices.
You hate to say it, but Kane didn't exactly endear a lot of people with that whole episode with the cabbie and not paying his tab a year earlier. While Toews was more or less a clean player at the time with no blackmarks. I don't know if that had any bearing. Again, both players had fantastic springs.
I have also heard that the voters only vote for the one person who they think should be the winner, unlike most other awards where each voter ranks their top x number of players and each place gets a certain amount of points (i.e. for the Norris each voter ranks his top 5). Can anyone confirm this?
So, that means that Giguere was awarded the Conn Smythe in '03 when the voters had no idea that he would be a member of the losing team (it was a Game 7, remember). That's interesting. I've always wondered if the voters gave him the award in spite of him being on the losing team, but, apparently, that wasn't the case at all.
I'm thinking in a Game 7 that they either do two votes or wait to see who the winning team is, otherwise they could end up looking very foolish. 2006 is probably the best example...you can't give Cam Ward the Smythe unless you know for sure he won the Cup...could you imagine if EDM won the Cup and Ward still got Smythe? Same could be said of Richards in 2004. In both of those years it would have caused a huge uproar had EDM or CAL won and one of their players not been awarded the Smythe. They might do the 2nd period voting most of the time, but there has to be some exceptions.
fortunately enough, one great period does not a playoff MVP make.
It could make a difference if it's really close between two players and one really takes over the game in the third period. Particularly if they're on opposing teams.
And if it really made a difference, I'm sure they would have had nominees from both teams depending on the outcome
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkey Town 18
I'm thinking in a Game 7 that they either do two votes or wait to see who the winning team is, otherwise they could end up looking very foolish.
Quote:
Originally Posted by One Trick Pony
Yeah in this case I would understand because both team have a chance and the Conn Smythe seems to always go to the winning team. In these cases they probably give a name from each team?
The outcome of the final game is irrelevant to the Smythe. It's not an award given to the best player on the winning team. There is no need for multiple votes or conditional outcomes.
Five times already the Smythe has been given to a member of the losing team. If it happened again, it would just be time #6. No big deal, no uproar.
The outcome of the final game is irrelevant to the Smythe. It's not an award given to the best player on the winning team. There is no need for multiple votes or conditional outcomes.
Five times already the Smythe has been given to a member of the losing team. If it happened again, it would just be time #6. No big deal, no uproar.
But 90% of the time the Smythe goes to a player who won the Stanley Cup. Team success is clearly a major factor - do you really think that 90% of the time, the best player of the playoffs was on the winning team?
Though in theory you could have multiple players who are of equal candidates going into the 3rd period, then one of them absolutely dominates and is the deciding factor in winning the Stanley Cup.
Very rare of course.
Or candidates on opposite teams. Suppose Pronger goes out and gets the tying, winning, and empty net goals a la Messier in the third period of Game 7, for a 4-2 Oilers win. Does anyone seriously think Ward still wins the Conn Smythe?
Yeah I know, very improbable, but in theory it could happen.
But 90% of the time the Smythe goes to a player who won the Stanley Cup. Team success is clearly a major factor - do you really think that 90% of the time, the best player of the playoffs was on the winning team?
Going back to Hextall's win in '87, there have been 25 Finals series. Six of them have been sweeps, four have been decided in a fifth game (may as well have been the sweep) and seven were decided in the sixth game (winning team led the series going into the elimination game). So right there you have 17 out of 25 years where the Smythe winner came from the team that would predictably win the playoffs, without needing to wait for a result in the elimination game.
There were 8 series that went the distance, where the vote was theoretically taken with the outcome still up in the air (ignoring the scoreboard after 2 periods).
- In four series ('87, '94, '03 and '11) the Smythe winner was so obvious that the outcome of the final game didn't matter. These were split evenly between winning and losing teams.
- In two years, there were goalies with a good story (Roy and Ward) who had been extremely strong and in both cases had put their teams in a position to win. In both cases they were better candidates than any skater on either team.
- In the other two, there were two extremely strong forward candidates (Richards and Malkin) who were selected before the outcome of a close game. Would they have been controversial if they had lost? Probably. Would anyone really care in the wake of a Cup win? Not really.
When you break it down to the years where the timing of the vote really mattered, we're talking about two minor controversies in 25 years, neither of which would really have been a "wrong" decision. Not a big deal.
Really man? You think the 20 voters would refuse to wait 5, 10, or 15 minutes to cast their votes? It's not like someone is holding a gun to their heads making them vote during the second period and not one second after!
Just because some quote online says something doesnt mean that it will stand against all logic when presented in real life
So, in "real life," people never vote early? You did follow the American election this Fall, right? Yes, quite a few of the writers probably voted before the end of the 2nd period. They had had to vote for a Conn Smythe winner during Game 6 48 hours earlier, realize, and many probably stayed with their original votes and submitted early, since their minds were already made up. Anyways, don't be so confrontational. If you can't take being corrected back, don't correct people in the first place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyfreak7
But even if it is some hard core, weird rule that voting can absolutely not be done after the second period, you dont think the voters would have taken into account that the Ducks very well could lose?
I suggested nothing of the sort. I said that the voters weren't sure which team was going to win the Cup when they voted, which is a factual statement. I don't know why you took an issue with that in the first place, unless you just wanted to have an argument.
