HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Round 2, Vote 1 (Stanley Cup Playoff Performers)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-20-2017, 12:20 PM
  #351
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Hôlle
Posts: 32,292
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
also age. If Butch Bouchard is better than Tom Johnson overall, that doesn't follow that Bouchard at 35 is better than Johnson at 26. (ages totally made up).
You know you spend too much time on HoH when you know that a totally made up age is actually correct, and can identify during which season it was, indeed, right.

EDIT : Though there's probably a good case to be made that, for the season that it's indeed an issue, neither of these would actually be the #2 D-Men, and that it would be Dollard St-Laurent instead.

MXD is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2017, 12:30 PM
  #352
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 30,131
vCash: 500
Through 1940:

1. Harvey (25)
2. Coffey (17)
3. Lidstrom, Horton, Johnson (15)
6. Potvin, Tremblay, Kelly (14)
9. Niedermayer, Robinson, Lapointe (11)
12. Laperriere (10)
13. Keith, Stevens, Savard, Bouchard, Thomson (9)
18. Chelios, Orr, Mortson (8)

I'll stop here for now since it covers every player we're considering this round. Just see it as a measure of compiling seasons in which a defenseman was highly relied on by a team that went deep.


Last edited by seventieslord: 03-20-2017 at 12:36 PM.
seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2017, 12:34 PM
  #353
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 30,131
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MXD View Post
You know you spend too much time on HoH when you know that a totally made up age is actually correct, and can identify during which season it was, indeed, right.
haha... wow!

Quote:
EDIT : Though there's probably a good case to be made that, for the season that it's indeed an issue, neither of these would actually be the #2 D-Men, and that it would be Dollard St-Laurent instead.
Yeah, tough to say. I went with Johnson there. I really had very little help. No norris or all-star votes known beyond Harvey, and in the 1954 and 1955 all-star games he was the only Hab defenseman to go. In 1956, they went as cup winners. I chose Johnson for overall rep.

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2017, 03:04 PM
  #354
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 14,066
vCash: 500
Not So

Quote:
Originally Posted by bobholly39 View Post
Kind of. But we're judging individual success here, not team success.

If Wayne Gretzky plays 14 games in 2 rounds. Vs 8 games in 2 rounds. He has more chance to "raise his stock" individually over 14 games, than over 8 games.

it's better for the team success that year to win those 8 games in a row obviously. But we're talking about individuals here. The more games you play, the more chance to shine you have.

Players (and especially positional players) can absolutely shine in losses just as easily as they can in wins.

As for the idea of "making the playoffs" being a pre-requisite. Yes, obviously. But i thought we weren't giving that any value at all here.

If player A makes the playoffs 10 times and misses the playoffs 20 times.

And player B makes the playoffs 10 times out of 10 seasons of playing. As far as I understand they are exact equals for this project. all that would be considered is what they did in those 10 runs.
Fail to see the separation that you are claiming.

As for your 14 vs 8 games scenario, it definitely does not apply to goalies. 8 shutouts in 8 games guarantees 8 wins while in 14 it would be surrounded by 6 losses. Trust that an 8-0 record is better than an 8-6 record. Goalie would be less impressive.

"Absolutely shine" in losses. Another abstraction. Well over 10 pages into discussions and I have yet to see an example of this happening. Please provide a concrete example.

The hypothethical 30 year career position.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2017, 03:15 PM
  #355
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 14,066
vCash: 500
Pairings

Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Halward, Behn Wilson, Milbury, Noel Picard and Warren Godfrey have all made appearances as the #2 of a cup finalist now.
Gotcha. Interesting approach but somewhat vulnerable to the way teams paired defencemen in the two pairings era.

Eaxmple. Some teams paired 1 and 2, 3 and 4, 5th rarely played. Others 1 and 4/5, 2 and 3. Canadiens Big 3, rotate thru 1,2,3 odd man out with 4/5. 4/5 would vary according to the opposition - speed or physicality preference.

Canadiens paired 1 with 4/5 during Harvey's tenure. Boston paired Bobby Orr with Dallas Smith plus whoever to compensate for ice time. St.Louis Noel Picard would not be surprised if with Harvey.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2017, 03:19 PM
  #356
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 14,066
vCash: 500
Dollard St. Laurent

Quote:
Originally Posted by MXD View Post
You know you spend too much time on HoH when you know that a totally made up age is actually correct, and can identify during which season it was, indeed, right.

EDIT : Though there's probably a good case to be made that, for the season that it's indeed an issue, neither of these would actually be the #2 D-Men, and that it would be Dollard St-Laurent instead.
Career #4 defenceman with the Canadiens and Hawks. Injury issues.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2017, 03:23 PM
  #357
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 14,066
vCash: 500
Doug Harvey

Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Through 1940:

1. Harvey (25)
2. Coffey (17)
3. Lidstrom, Horton, Johnson (15)
6. Potvin, Tremblay, Kelly (14)
9. Niedermayer, Robinson, Lapointe (11)
12. Laperriere (10)
13. Keith, Stevens, Savard, Bouchard, Thomson (9)
18. Chelios, Orr, Mortson (8)

I'll stop here for now since it covers every player we're considering this round. Just see it as a measure of compiling seasons in which a defenseman was highly relied on by a team that went deep.
Doug Harvey, almost 50% ahead of the competition. Kelly as a defenceman only is really impressive. How did Allan Stanley rank? Did playing for non-playoff teams early in his career hold him back?

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2017, 03:30 PM
  #358
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Hôlle
Posts: 32,292
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Fail to see the separation that you are claiming.

As for your 14 vs 8 games scenario, it definitely does not apply to goalies. 8 shutouts in 8 games guarantees 8 wins while in 14 it would be surrounded by 6 losses. Trust that an 8-0 record is better than an 8-6 record. Goalie would be less impressive.

"Absolutely shine" in losses. Another abstraction. Well over 10 pages into discussions and I have yet to see an example of this happening. Please provide a concrete example.

The hypothethical 30 year career position.
...A goalie getting 8 shutout in 14 games would be a ****ing hero, regardless of where he stands on the 14-0 to 8-6 spectrum, unless he's active in the 26-40 period and proceeds to allow 4 goals in his non-shutout games.

MXD is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2017, 04:19 PM
  #359
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 30,131
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Doug Harvey, almost 50% ahead of the competition. Kelly as a defenceman only is really impressive. How did Allan Stanley rank? Did playing for non-playoff teams early in his career hold him back?
I have Stanley with four points. Once the #1 on a finalist, twice the #2. On the Leafs cup winners I had Horton and Brewer ahead of him. He got credit for three of the four times he went to the finals. He'd certainly have more points if he made the playoffs more than once prior to the age of 31.

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2017, 04:38 PM
  #360
bobholly39
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 3,894
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Fail to see the separation that you are claiming.

As for your 14 vs 8 games scenario, it definitely does not apply to goalies. 8 shutouts in 8 games guarantees 8 wins while in 14 it would be surrounded by 6 losses. Trust that an 8-0 record is better than an 8-6 record. Goalie would be less impressive.

"Absolutely shine" in losses. Another abstraction. Well over 10 pages into discussions and I have yet to see an example of this happening. Please provide a concrete example.

The hypothethical 30 year career position.
well.

I did say "especially positional players". I agree that for a goalie less games played in a round is more important if you win, as one goalie stats is "wins/losses" after all. Not so for positional players. Not sure to what extent that is being tracked in anyway for goalies outside of just counting overall wins/losses, even though I agree with your idea that a goalie who wins 2 rounds in 8 total games is doing a better job than a goalie who wins 2 rounds in 14 games total. 8-0 record is better than 8-6 record.

A forward however who scores 7 goals and 7 assists in 14 games has a better performance than a player who scores 4 goals and 4 assists in 8 games. It contributes more to his overall career playoff standing, wouldn't you agree?

"Absolutely shine in losses". You've not seen and example in here because no examples of specific games have really been discussed, mostly overall series and even moreso playoff runs.

But a forward can score 4 goals in a stanley cup final game in a losing 5-4 game and it's still an absolutely tremendous performance from him, so i'm not sure i get your point?

bobholly39 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2017, 05:56 PM
  #361
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 11,870
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Halward, Behn Wilson, Milbury, Noel Picard and Warren Godfrey have all made appearances as the #2 of a cup finalist now.
Good God, how did that happen?

Must have been the coaching of Don Cherry.

Dennis Bonvie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2017, 06:01 PM
  #362
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Hôlle
Posts: 32,292
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Bonvie View Post
Good God, how did that happen?

Must have been the coaching of Don Cherry.
I guess it was in 1978, and Milbury got there ahead of Rick Smith, Garry Doak, Dennis O'Brien and Al Sims.

MXD is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2017, 06:08 PM
  #363
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 31,400
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Bonvie View Post
Good God, how did that happen?

Must have been the coaching of Don Cherry.
Made Milbury who he was as a player, person Mr. Bonvie.... close call though.... http://www.lighthousehockey.com/2015...f-questionmark

Killion is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2017, 07:36 PM
  #364
Kyle McMahon
Registered User
 
Kyle McMahon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Evil Empire
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,789
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobholly39 View Post
In terms of "down" years, or poor playoff performances, I'd say:

Gretzky has none. Incredibly consistency his whole career. Still #1 for me

Lemieux has none. Performed/produced every playoff year, even in first round exits.

Messier. Again, none. Seemed to have performed/produced every playoff year, though maybe slightly less in some years.

Lafleur. Horrible record outside of his best years. If you're ever going to penalize a player for "weak" years, he's the one you penalize. His "best" was great, the rest was not.

Sakic. 1 noticeable weak playoff year, and it's an important one (2000) where he arguably cost his team chance at the cup. If he produces a bit more, maybe his team makes it to round 4.

Howe. A couple of weak years, mostly really early/late in his career. In 1958 in his prime, 4 games 1g1a only could be called a down year.

Beliveau. 3-4 year stretch of poor production. 1961-1964. All first round exits with poor production.

Richard. At least 4 years in his prime with poor performances/production.


So if we were to rank forwards in reverse orders, based on which ones have the most "poor" years worth penalizing for, you have:

Lafleur - 6-8 bad years
Richard - 4 bad years
Beliveau - 3 bad years
Howe - 1-2 bad years
Sakic - 1 "bad" year but kind of an important one
Messier - 0. A few not "great" years maybe, but all are least decent/good.
Lemieux - 0
Gretzky - 0 (even moreso than Lemieux, all his playoffs are arguably "great")
I think you're being a little too kind to Gretzky and Lemieux.

1991 and 1992 was clearly a dip for Gretzky. Lost to a team below them in the standings both years. Gretzky had 22 points in 18 games and was a minus player. The one series win was over a weak-ish Vancouver team that pads the counting stats somewhat.

1994 and 1997 were not good showings for Lemieux. 13 points in 11 games, minus-8. Pittsburgh can be forgiven for losing the the Flyers in 1997, but Washington was well below them in the standings in 1994 and got thumped in the next round.

When you're Gretzky and Lemieux and you get all the prime offensive minutes and PP time, good linemates, and are given the green light by the coach to gun for offense on every shift, you need to be better than a ho-hum point per game against mediocre first round opponents in a high scoring environment. Being a minus player at even strength indicates they were not able to overcome the goals against created by their offense-first tactics in these particular years like they did in most other playoffs.

Kyle McMahon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2017, 08:10 PM
  #365
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 30,131
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyle McMahon View Post
I think you're being a little too kind to Gretzky and Lemieux.

1991 and 1992 was clearly a dip for Gretzky. Lost to a team below them in the standings both years. Gretzky had 22 points in 18 games and was a minus player. The one series win was over a weak-ish Vancouver team that pads the counting stats somewhat.

1994 and 1997 were not good showings for Lemieux. 13 points in 11 games, minus-8. Pittsburgh can be forgiven for losing the the Flyers in 1997, but Washington was well below them in the standings in 1994 and got thumped in the next round.

When you're Gretzky and Lemieux and you get all the prime offensive minutes and PP time, good linemates, and are given the green light by the coach to gun for offense on every shift, you need to be better than a ho-hum point per game against mediocre first round opponents in a high scoring environment. Being a minus player at even strength indicates they were not able to overcome the goals against created by their offense-first tactics in these particular years like they did in most other playoffs.
You are absolutely right.

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2017, 08:48 PM
  #366
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 14,066
vCash: 500
Allan Stanley

Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
I have Stanley with four points. Once the #1 on a finalist, twice the #2. On the Leafs cup winners I had Horton and Brewer ahead of him. He got credit for three of the four times he went to the finals. He'd certainly have more points if he made the playoffs more than once prior to the age of 31.
His teams went to the finals eight times. Twice with Boston - 1957(injured dnp in playoffs) and 1958. Six times with the Leafs - 1959 and 1960 losing to Montreal, 1962 thru 1964, winning all three times, 1967 winning. Perhaps you meant winning the finals, which his team did four times.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2017, 09:06 PM
  #367
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 14,066
vCash: 500
Examples

Quote:
Originally Posted by bobholly39 View Post
well.

I did say "especially positional players". I agree that for a goalie less games played in a round is more important if you win, as one goalie stats is "wins/losses" after all. Not so for positional players. Not sure to what extent that is being tracked in anyway for goalies outside of just counting overall wins/losses, even though I agree with your idea that a goalie who wins 2 rounds in 8 total games is doing a better job than a goalie who wins 2 rounds in 14 games total. 8-0 record is better than 8-6 record.

A forward however who scores 7 goals and 7 assists in 14 games has a better performance than a player who scores 4 goals and 4 assists in 8 games. It contributes more to his overall career playoff standing, wouldn't you agree?

"Absolutely shine in losses". You've not seen and example in here because no examples of specific games have really been discussed, mostly overall series and even moreso playoff runs.

But a forward can score 4 goals in a stanley cup final game in a losing 5-4 game and it's still an absolutely tremendous performance from him, so i'm not sure i get your point?
Point is that you are void of examples because they did not actual happen.You might get close with Lafleur in 1975 vs Buffalo where he scored 7 points in the three home games and was almost invisible in Buffalo maybe 3 points in three games.

Darryl Sittler with the Leafs in 1977 against the Flyers, 12 points in 6 games other than one game when the Leafs were shut-out had a flatline 2-3 points but offered little defensively.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2017, 09:20 PM
  #368
Kyle McMahon
Registered User
 
Kyle McMahon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Evil Empire
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,789
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Nice Work,

A few points to consider. The Wings throughout Howe's O6 career tended to extra shift him, especially in the playoffs.

1961 - playing against an injury depleted Leaf team, Bower missed two games replaced by a young Cesare Maniago, while Kelly missed three games, others played thru injuries, Armstrong back from a second half injury:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/TOR/1961.html

1961 Wings lacked depth on defence - only Marcel Pronovost was solid. Gadsby and Barkley joined the team later.

Basically the Wings would extra shift Howe and to a degree Delvecchio and Ullman. No fixed lines but Howe tended to play with Delvecchio as his main center even though there were makeshift lines that produced at times - Howe playing with André Pronovost and Alex Faulkner being an example.

Sid Abel tried to always have one of his future HOFers on the ice at a given time thereby putting pressure on the other team to match. 1966 Montreal basically did not match and as the series wore on the Red Wings wore down.

1964 and beyond the Red Wings had injury and stability issues in goal beyond the aging Sawchuk.

Overall, given the circumstances Howe's playoff efforts in the 1960s were very impressive.
There's an argument to be had that Howe's performance in the 60's was more impressive than in the 50's, all things considered. Toronto, Montreal, and Chicago all had strong rosters throughout the 60's, there were no easy pickings come playoff time. The 50's were more of a two-horse race.

Kyle McMahon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2017, 09:20 PM
  #369
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 14,066
vCash: 500
1982

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyle McMahon View Post
I think you're being a little too kind to Gretzky and Lemieux.

1991 and 1992 was clearly a dip for Gretzky. Lost to a team below them in the standings both years. Gretzky had 22 points in 18 games and was a minus player. The one series win was over a weak-ish Vancouver team that pads the counting stats somewhat.

1994 and 1997 were not good showings for Lemieux. 13 points in 11 games, minus-8. Pittsburgh can be forgiven for losing the the Flyers in 1997, but Washington was well below them in the standings in 1994 and got thumped in the next round.

When you're Gretzky and Lemieux and you get all the prime offensive minutes and PP time, good linemates, and are given the green light by the coach to gun for offense on every shift, you need to be better than a ho-hum point per game against mediocre first round opponents in a high scoring environment. Being a minus player at even strength indicates they were not able to overcome the goals against created by their offense-first tactics in these particular years like they did in most other playoffs.
Miracle on Manchester 1982. Oilers upset in five, first round. But Gretzky scores 9 of his 12 points in the three loses - Kings scored 23 goals in their three wins.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2017, 10:56 PM
  #370
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 30,131
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
His teams went to the finals eight times. Twice with Boston - 1957(injured dnp in playoffs) and 1958. Six times with the Leafs - 1959 and 1960 losing to Montreal, 1962 thru 1964, winning all three times, 1967 winning. Perhaps you meant winning the finals, which his team did four times.
I meant three of the four times he went to the finals and lost. Sorry if that was not clear.

The four times he went to the finals and won, he was not a #1 or 2 d-man in my estimation, based on the ages, reputations and all-star voting for the other d-men on his team. My mini study was meant to only track instances of being top-2 on a top-2 team.

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-21-2017, 10:24 AM
  #371
quoipourquoi
Moderator
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 5,929
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobholly39 View Post
Sakic - 1 "bad" year but kind of an important one
I would say 1999 too. I think 1996, 1997, 2001, and any game after the first 60 minutes off-set this, but it was not uncommon for his performances to be highlighted in a negative light in those years when Colorado did not win.

1998
vs. Edmonton: 2 goals, 3 assists in 6 games (scoreless Games 4-7)

1999
vs. San Jose: 3 goals, 9 assists in 6 games
vs. Detroit: 1 goal, 1 assist in 6 games
vs. Dallas: 2 goals, 3 assists in 7 games (scoreless in 3 losses)

2000
vs. Phoenix: 1 goal, 3 assists in 5 games
vs. Detroit: 1 goal, 1 assist in 5 games
vs. Dallas: 0 goals, 3 assists in 7 games (scoreless in 3 losses)

2002
vs. Los Angeles: 3 goals, 1 assist in 7 games (scoreless Games 3-7)
vs. San Jose: 4 goals, 6 assists in 7 games
vs. Detroit: 2 goals, 3 assists in 7 games

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-21-2017, 10:58 AM
  #372
bobholly39
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 3,894
vCash: 500
Does anyone not have Gretzky #1?

Also - does anyone have any weaknesses to show for Gretzky? Any negatives about him?

As far as I'm concerned he's safely #1 as I've yet to really see any argument against him.

bobholly39 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-21-2017, 12:27 PM
  #373
quoipourquoi
Moderator
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 5,929
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobholly39 View Post
Does anyone not have Gretzky #1?
I had him #2 to Richard, but right now, probably #2 to Roy. Given the nature of the position, I think Roy exerted greater influence over his teams' successes and failures, while contributing more of the former.

23-6 in overtime for Montreal with a .963 and 33.67 shots-per-60 is one of those uncanny advantages to swing a series. By the time he retired, he was more comparable to franchises than players in his position.

Playoff Wins 1918-2003
380 - Montreal Canadiens
251 - Detroit Red Wings
239 - Boston Bruins
239 - Toronto Maple Leafs
188 - Chicago Blackhawks
183 - New York Rangers
167 - Philadelphia Flyers
151 - Patrick Roy
139 - Dallas Stars
137 - Edmonton Oilers
137 - St. Louis Blues
132 - New York Islanders
116 - Colorado Avalanche
109 - Pittsburgh Penguins
106 - New Jersey Devils
99 - Buffalo Sabres

Playoff Overtime Wins 1927-2003
70 - Montreal Canadiens
55 - Toronto Maple Leafs
40 - Patrick Roy
38 - Boston Bruins
34 - Detroit Red Wings
31 - Chicago Blackhawks
30 - New York Rangers

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-21-2017, 12:46 PM
  #374
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Hôlle
Posts: 32,292
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
Playoff Overtime Wins 1927-2003
70 - Montreal Canadiens
55 - Toronto Maple Leafs
40 - Patrick Roy
38 - Boston Bruins
34 - Detroit Red Wings
31 - Chicago Blackhawks
30 - New York Rangers
...That's probably the greatest trivia question not yet written, right there.

MXD is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-21-2017, 12:47 PM
  #375
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Hôlle
Posts: 32,292
vCash: 500
I was leaning Gretzky before and I'm still slihgtly leaning Gretzky.
It's just that I now see Roy as the only other candidate "in range".

MXD is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:27 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2017 All Rights Reserved.