HFBoards

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

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-13-2017, 09:48 AM
  #26
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Hôlle
Posts: 34,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Farkas View Post
I was less focused on the "penalty" and more focus on individualized great playoffs. The more "great" playoffs you had, the more I think you should be rewarded.

Ultimately, the goal is to win the Stanley Cup, of course. A Cup can, in theory, be won in large part on the back of a heroic effort. To put it in "dumb" terms, I'd more interested in a player that had five 30-point playoffs out of 15 than I am in a player that had fifteen 18 to 22-point playoffs out of sixteen in the same era.

Those players with the multitude of high-impact playoffs are the ones that I believe should be on the list first/highest. In other words, Peak playoffs > Prime playoffs > Career playoffs to speak in the terms of the positional or all-time lists. And, to be clear, that's not a reference to the player's career "peak", I mean, their very best playoffs (and how many) vs. the field is what I'd like to see (or at least introduce to the group)...

If that makes any sense in text form...
See... regarding the underlined...

That 2nd player might have meant more Series Wins/Cups for his team than the first. Or less, depending on individual cases.

I'd also add that this gets significantly tougher when you factor in D-Men. I mean, take Doug Harvey : his numbers are actually very good in that group FOR A D-MEN, especially considering the era he played in. But in the end, I feel like most support Harvey can get in this round (and Potvin as well, to a lesser extent) will result from the fact that :

- He was Doug Harvey;
- For 137 games;
- During which his teams generally did as well as they should have done (if you disregard the early part of his career, during which Doug Harvey wasn't yet Doug Harvey);
- And there's obviously lots of value in being Doug Harvey for 137 games leading his team to playoffs results that are as good as they could possibly be, Bill Durnan notwithstanding.

MXD is online now  
Old
03-13-2017, 10:00 AM
  #27
Mike Farkas
Grace Personified
 
Mike Farkas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 7,194
vCash: 500
Right. There's no hard and fast rules for this type of thing ever. I was just stating a general principle that I plan to uphold is that I'm going to value "peak" playoffs/ "hero" playoffs over having a very good, but not great, playoff career in most cases...

Mike Farkas is offline  
Old
03-13-2017, 10:01 AM
  #28
sharkhawk
Registered User
 
sharkhawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Aurora, IL
Country: United States
Posts: 1,180
vCash: 500
Just a thought to throw out there when talking about short playoff runs. Does scoring go down as the playoffs advance? So is a good PPG in one and done playoff run as impressive as a weaker PPG in a long playoff run?

sharkhawk is offline  
Old
03-13-2017, 10:08 AM
  #29
vadim sharifijanov
ugh
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 14,883
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobholly39 View Post
I was responding to Kyle McMahon who claimed Orr had very little substance outside of his 2 huge years. All I was saying is to not group Lemieux into that generalization, because for Lemieux that is not the case. I feel as though Lemieux absolutely does have substance outside of his 2 big years. I wasn't trying to downplay Orr per se, though at a preliminary glance his stats do look weak in those 4 years.

If you feel that is unjustified for Orr too, you can make the case
i honestly have no idea. but hoping someone can shed some light.

insofar as just looking at scoring stats isn't always an accurate representation of how well or poorly a forward performed in a playoff series, that should go at least double for a defenseman if this project is going to mean anything.

vadim sharifijanov is offline  
Old
03-13-2017, 10:09 AM
  #30
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Hôlle
Posts: 34,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Farkas View Post
Right. There's no hard and fast rules for this type of thing ever. I was just stating a general principle that I plan to uphold is that I'm going to value "peak" playoffs/ "hero" playoffs over having a very good, but not great, playoff career in most cases...
...And actually, that would be the right thing, I think : the 18-22 pts player you referred to above probably had very few "hero" type of playoffs, provided he's a forward. At this level (we're looking at #1 to #5...), you probably aren't getting a whole lot of support if you're that kind of player anyways (... unless you scored really lots of OT Goals).

I'd just try to keep in mind that it's kinda tough to fit the D-Men in such a patterns.

There's obviously Bobby Orr, but there's also lots to dislike (relatively speaking) about Orr's resume at this point (and a quick perusal of thread tells me everyone agrees to this, to a certain extent).

MXD is online now  
Old
03-13-2017, 10:12 AM
  #31
Mike Farkas
Grace Personified
 
Mike Farkas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 7,194
vCash: 500
Oh yeah, beyond the fact that my numbers were completely arbitrary, yes...d-men are their own animal as well...

Plus, I wouldn't expect most goalies to have a 30-point playoffs...

Mike Farkas is offline  
Old
03-13-2017, 10:27 AM
  #32
bobholly39
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,321
vCash: 500
Since we're talking about "peak" playoffs, and since Lemieux was brought up.

How good are his 91 and 92 runs?

Does anyone on this list in round 1 (outside of Gretzky) have a case for having:

- 2 runs better than both of Lemieux's?
- A single run better than both of Lemieux's?
- A single run better than either of Lemieux's?

If so, who, and what runs? Who at least has a playoff run worthy of being in the conversation as being as good as both of Lemieux's?

I think that might be a good starting point in trying to evaluate how to rank someone like Lemieux. Especially vs other forwards.

bobholly39 is offline  
Old
03-13-2017, 10:30 AM
  #33
bobholly39
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,321
vCash: 500
Here's another question worth considering.

Take Rocket Richard, or Beliveau's absolute best playoff run.
Then take someone from the 4 round best of 7 era absolute best playoff run.

Assuming we think both runs are "equal" in performance level - does the player from the 4 round best of 7 era get more credit because they played more games?

ie - do we penalize earlier eras for less games played?

The most playoff games Maurice Richard played a single year was 12.
The most beliveau played (up until his final season) was 14.

bobholly39 is offline  
Old
03-13-2017, 10:42 AM
  #34
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Hôlle
Posts: 34,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobholly39 View Post
Since we're talking about "peak" playoffs, and since Lemieux was brought up.

How good are his 91 and 92 runs?

Does anyone on this list in round 1 (outside of Gretzky) have a case for having:

- 2 runs better than both of Lemieux's?
- A single run better than both of Lemieux's?
- A single run better than either of Lemieux's?

If so, who, and what runs? Who at least has a playoff run worthy of being in the conversation as being as good as both of Lemieux's?

I think that might be a good starting point in trying to evaluate how to rank someone like Lemieux. Especially vs other forwards.

Gordie Howe has a case at having two runs better than both of Lemieux (54-55 and 48-49, though this one is possibly far-fetched); Jean Beliveau has a case at having one run better than Lemieux (55-56).

MXD is online now  
Old
03-13-2017, 10:49 AM
  #35
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Hôlle
Posts: 34,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sharkhawk View Post
Just a thought to throw out there when talking about short playoff runs. Does scoring go down as the playoffs advance? So is a good PPG in one and done playoff run as impressive as a weaker PPG in a long playoff run?
It will probabably matter at some point, but there's probably too much winning available at this rounds (and difference-makers between losses and wins, too!) to really bother about PPG at this point. I think.

MXD is online now  
Old
03-13-2017, 11:34 AM
  #36
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 14,919
vCash: 500
Saddened

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Outsider View Post
All data has been compiled in good faith. Let me know if you see any errors.

Here's some raw data to (hopefully) start the discussion:

CONN SMYTHE TROPHIES (asterisks denotes winner of the "retro" Conn Smythe per SIHR research project)

PlayerTimes
Maurice Richard* 3***
Jean Beliveau* 2*
Gordie Howe* 2**
Wayne Gretzky* 2
Mario Lemieux* 2
Bobby Orr* 2
Guy Lafleur* 1
Mark Messier* 1
Joe Sakic* 1
Doug Harvey* 0
Denis Potvin* 0

MOST TIMES LEADING TEAM IN GOALS IN PLAYOFFS

PlayerTimes
Maurice Richard* 8
Jean Beliveau* 7
Joe Sakic* 7
Gordie Howe* 7
Wayne Gretzky* 6
Mario Lemieux* 6
Guy Lafleur* 4
Mark Messier* 2
Bobby Orr* 1
Doug Harvey* 0
Denis Potvin* 0

MOST TIMES LEADING TEAM IN ASSISTS IN PLAYOFFS

PlayerTimes
Wayne Gretzky* 14
Gordie Howe* 7
Mark Messier* 5
Guy Lafleur* 5
Doug Harvey* 5
Jean Beliveau* 5
Bobby Orr* 4
Mario Lemieux* 3
Joe Sakic* 3
Denis Potvin 2
Maurice Richard* 0

MOST TIMES LEADING TEAM IN POINTS IN PLAYOFFS

PlayerTimes
Wayne Gretzky* 14
Gordie Howe* 10
Joe Sakic* 8
Guy Lafleur* 7
Mario Lemieux* 7
Jean Beliveau* 6
Maurice Richard* 4
Mark Messier* 4
Bobby Orr* 3
Denis Potvin* 2
Doug Harvey* 0

MOST TIMES PLACING IN TOP FIVE IN PLAYOFFS - GOALS

Player 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Total
Maurice Richard* 5 4 1 10
Gordie Howe* 3 1 2 1 7
Jean Beliveau* 1 3 3 7
Wayne Gretzky* 1 2 1 2 6
Guy Lafleur* 2 1 2 5
Mark Messier* 2 2 1 5
Mario Lemieux* 1 2 1 4
Joe Sakic* 2 1 3
Bobby Orr* 1 1
Doug Harvey* 1 1
Denis Potvin* 0

MOST TIMES PLACING IN TOP FIVE IN PLAYOFFS - ASSISTS

Player 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Total
Gordie Howe* 1 5 3 1 10
Jean Beliveau* 3 1 2 3 9
Wayne Gretzky* 6 1 1 8
Doug Harvey* 3 2 2 7
Mark Messier* 1 2 1 1 5
Denis Potvin* 1 1 2 1 5
Maurice Richard* 1 1 2 1 5
Guy Lafleur* 2 1 1 4
Bobby Orr* 2 2 4
Joe Sakic* 1 1 1 1 4
Mario Lemieux* 1 2 3

MOST TIMES PLACING IN TOP FIVE IN PLAYOFFS - POINTS

Player 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Total
Jean Beliveau* 1 3 3 2 1 10
Gordie Howe* 6 2 1 9
Maurice Richard* 2 2 4 1 9
Wayne Gretzky* 6 1 1 8
Guy Lafleur* 3 1 1 5
Joe Sakic* 2 1 1 1 5
Mark Messier* 1 2 2 5
Mario Lemieux* 2 1 3
Bobby Orr* 1 1 1 3
Denis Potvin* 1 1 1 3
Doug Harvey* 1 1

PLAYERS WHO SCORED LARGEST PERCENTAGE OF THEIR TEAMS' GOALS (MIN 50 GAMES)

PlayerGPGoalsTMGPercentage
Mario Lemieux* 107 76 391 19.4%
Maurice Richard* 133 82 442 18.6%
Joe Sakic* 172 84 503 16.7%
Gordie Howe* 157 68 452 15%
Wayne Gretzky* 208 122 856 14.3%
Jean Beliveau* 162 79 558 14.2%
Guy Lafleur* 128 58 488 11.9%
Mark Messier* 236 109 954 11.4%
Bobby Orr* 74 26 287 9.1%
Denis Potvin* 185 56 674 8.3%
Doug Harvey* 137 8 416 1.9%

PLAYERS WHO ASSISTED ON LARGEST PERCENTAGE OF THEIR TEAMS' GOALS (MIN 50 GAMES)

PlayerGPAssistsTMGPercentage
Wayne Gretzky* 208 260 856 30.4%
Mario Lemieux* 107 96 391 24.6%
Bobby Orr* 74 66 287 23%
Joe Sakic* 172 104 503 20.7%
Gordie Howe* 157 92 452 20.4%
Mark Messier* 236 186 954 19.5%
Jean Beliveau* 162 97 558 17.4%
Denis Potvin* 185 108 674 16%
Guy Lafleur* 128 76 488 15.6%
Doug Harvey* 137 64 416 15.4%
Maurice Richard* 133 44 442 10%

PLAYERS WHO SCORED OR ASSISTED ON LARGEST PERCENTAGE OF THEIR TEAMS' GOALS (MIN 50 GAMES)

PlayerGPPointsTMGPercentage
Wayne Gretzky* 208 382 856 44.6%
Mario Lemieux* 107 172 391 44%
Joe Sakic* 172 188 503 37.4%
Gordie Howe* 157 160 452 35.4%
Bobby Orr* 74 92 287 32.1%
Jean Beliveau* 162 176 558 31.5%
Mark Messier* 236 295 954 30.9%
Maurice Richard* 133 126 442 28.5%
Guy Lafleur* 128 134 488 27.5%
Denis Potvin* 185 164 674 24.3%
Doug Harvey* 137 72 416 17.3%
Saddened by the lack of defensive data. Hopefully this shortcoming will be overcome in the discussions.

Canadiens1958 is online now  
Old
03-13-2017, 11:45 AM
  #37
drmagg
Don't
 
drmagg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Country: Guam
Posts: 1,788
vCash: 500
My initial top-10:

Wayne Gretzky
Mario Lemieux
Patrick Roy
Gordie Howe
Maurice Richard
Jean Beliveau
Doug Harvey
Bobby Orr
Jacques Plante
Joe Sakic


For me it's puzzling why is there no Trottier/Kelly (latter especially).

drmagg is offline  
Old
03-13-2017, 11:48 AM
  #38
bobholly39
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,321
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by drmagg View Post
My initial top-10:

Wayne Gretzky
Mario Lemieux
Patrick Roy
Gordie Howe
Maurice Richard
Jean Beliveau
Doug Harvey
Bobby Orr
Jacques Plante
Joe Sakic


For me it's puzzling why is there no Trottier/Kelly (latter especially).
Is your top 10 in order? If so would like to hear your reasoning for Lemieux at #2.

bobholly39 is offline  
Old
03-13-2017, 12:02 PM
  #39
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Hôlle
Posts: 34,457
vCash: 500
On Bobby Orr : Has there ever been someone who came up with a per-round repartition of Orr's scoring?

MXD is online now  
Old
03-13-2017, 12:20 PM
  #40
drmagg
Don't
 
drmagg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Country: Guam
Posts: 1,788
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobholly39 View Post
Is your top 10 in order? If so would like to hear your reasoning for Lemieux at #2.
He was better playoff player than anybody not named Wayne Gretzky?

It's not always about 'prime/peak/longevity' for me.

I'm open minded. If anyone makes a good case for any other player other than Lemieux at 2# I would listen.

drmagg is offline  
Old
03-13-2017, 12:29 PM
  #41
Sentinel
Registered User
 
Sentinel's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 5,823
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenchBrawl View Post
At first glance

- Gretzky is #1.
- Probably Richard vs Béliveau vs Roy for #2-4.Looking forward to compare them.
- Harvey vs Potvin for best defenseman.Orr last of the group.
- Roy > Plante
- Orr and Lemieux not looking good.
- I have tier #1 (Gretzky, ?), tier #2 (Richard, Béliveau, Roy), tier #3 (Harvey, Lafleur, Messier, Potvin, Howe), tier #4 (Sakic, Plante, Lemieux, Orr)
This is how I would rank them.

Sentinel is offline  
Old
03-13-2017, 01:40 PM
  #42
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Hôlle
Posts: 34,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by drmagg View Post
He was better playoff player than anybody not named Wayne Gretzky?

It's not always about 'prime/peak/longevity' for me.

I'm open minded. If anyone makes a good case for any other player other than Lemieux at 2# I would listen.
The argument would be that there's significantly more value in 162 games of Jean Beliveau than there is in 107 games of Mario Lemieux, especially since those 162 individual games have to receive "bigger" weight, due to the fact that Jean Beliveau mostly played in the 2-round era (as opposed to Lemieux, who played in the 4-round era). Especially if one RIGHTLY comes to the conclusion that Beliveau's 1956 playoffs are, all things considered, quite on par with Lemieux's best playoffs.


Beliveau is only an example of a forward gains lots of value for longevity; the same could apply to Richard and Howe.

MXD is online now  
Old
03-13-2017, 01:58 PM
  #43
bobholly39
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,321
vCash: 500
^^

Yeah in terms of Forwards, I think I have Gretzky securely at #1 right now. I'd be willing to listen to anyone who wants to make a case for Richard or Beliveau over Gretzky, but i'd be shocked if that goes through.

I can see a case for Richard/Beliveau/Howe over Lemieux. In very large part due to longevity. Those guys got to play in the playoffs practically every year, and therefore amassed many memorable runs. Lemieux seemed to have missed the playoffs in almost half the seasons he was active in contrast.

I don't think i'd have any other forward above Lemieux though. Messier has insane longevity/prime/career numbers at playoffs, so i'd be interested in digging deeper into a comparison between those 2. Though at first glance i'd have Lemieux > Messier.

And speaking specifically to Howe/Richard/Beliveau - a few of them seem to have underwhelming performances in the playoffs mixed into their primes. Neither of Gretzky, Lemieux nor even Messier suffer from that. Those 3 seem to have been consistent year in/year out, but each of Richard/Howe/Beliveau have at least some years in their primes with low numbers.

Beliveau: 61, 62, 63 and 64
Richard: 49, 50 and 54
Howe: 58? 65 maybe?

Howe seems to suffer less from "down years" in playoffs than Richard and Beliveau, surprisingly. Not sure if that's enough for Lemieux to leapfrog some of them or not.

bobholly39 is offline  
Old
03-13-2017, 02:15 PM
  #44
vadim sharifijanov
ugh
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 14,883
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MXD View Post
The argument would be that there's significantly more value in 162 games of Jean Beliveau than there is in 107 games of Mario Lemieux, especially since those 162 individual games have to receive "bigger" weight, due to the fact that Jean Beliveau mostly played in the 2-round era (as opposed to Lemieux, who played in the 4-round era). Especially if one RIGHTLY comes to the conclusion that Beliveau's 1956 playoffs are, all things considered, quite on par with Lemieux's best playoffs.


Beliveau is only an example of a forward gains lots of value for longevity; the same could apply to Richard and Howe.
just thinking out loud here, but for dynasty guys or guys on mini-dynasties, one thing to weigh is performance outside of the dynasty years.

gretzky? obviously had some stupendous playoffs before and after the oilers' run, including one all-time great run to the finals in '93.

messier and howe? some unquestionably great post-dynasty runs.

potvin? was phenomenal before trottier/bossy got there.

the tricky one is beliveau: you could make an argument that he had the greatest playoff career of all time and i wouldn't argue (though i might have two guys ahead of him). his career, as a/the main guy on two dynasties, was basically 2/3 dynasty years, which is unmatched for a franchise-level player.

on the other hand, just glancing at the stats sheet '61-'64 don't look great for him. does that matter when the entire rest of his career was basically bill russell? or should we look into what happened those years?

i don't think we'd ask that question of any other player, nitpicking four bad years among all that excellence, but when we are comparing beliveau directly against rocket (who retired a year before the habs' dry spell) and plante (who despite winning the hart in '62 had started to decline in that span), and i think harvey (who left in year 2 of the dry spell) probably belongs in this discussion too, maybe it makes sense to ask because it also tells us who was most instrumental to that historic five-in-a-row dynasty. and incidentally, the habs had the hart winner in '61, '62, and '64 and finished in 1st place in those three years too, so you can't say they were a weak team between their dynasties.

vadim sharifijanov is offline  
Old
03-13-2017, 02:21 PM
  #45
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 31,053
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobholly39 View Post
Is your top 10 in order? If so would like to hear your reasoning for Lemieux at #2.
me too.

he is far from a sure thing here.

Guy Lafleur, Joe Sakic and Mark Messier all have a couple more great playoffs than him. Are his two best really that much better than their two best???

seventieslord is offline  
Old
03-13-2017, 02:23 PM
  #46
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 31,053
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MXD View Post
The argument would be that there's significantly more value in 162 games of Jean Beliveau than there is in 107 games of Mario Lemieux, especially since those 162 individual games have to receive "bigger" weight, due to the fact that Jean Beliveau mostly played in the 2-round era (as opposed to Lemieux, who played in the 4-round era). Especially if one RIGHTLY comes to the conclusion that Beliveau's 1956 playoffs are, all things considered, quite on par with Lemieux's best playoffs.


Beliveau is only an example of a forward gains lots of value for longevity; the same could apply to Richard and Howe.
I completely agree. In my last post I only brought up Lafleur, Messier and Sakic who are directly above Lemieux on the "top-5 in points" list, and 5 is nearly twice as many as 3 as it is, but with Beliveau, Richard and Howe it should go without saying, really.

seventieslord is offline  
Old
03-13-2017, 02:43 PM
  #47
bobholly39
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,321
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
me too.

he is far from a sure thing here.

Guy Lafleur, Joe Sakic and Mark Messier all have a couple more great playoffs than him. Are his two best really that much better than their two best???
Yes, by a lot.

Lemieux has no weaknesses in his resume. No bad runs. Sakic does, Lafleur even moreso. Very much so Lafleur actually. Messier, not really, he's mostly consistent.

Lemieux's 5th and 6th best playoff runs (in whatever order) are:

93 - 11 games, 8 goals, 10 assists 18 points.
2001 - 18 games, 6 goals, 11 assists, 17 points

Lemieux's 6th best playoff run is definitely better than Lafleur's 6th best.
Lemieux's 5th best playoff run is possibly better than Lafleur's 5th best
his top 4 might each be better than Lafleur's top 4.

So for each of their best 6 runs head to head, Lemieux > Lafleur. *maybe* you give 1 or 2 runs a small edge to Lafleur, though i don't see it. Overall, it's Lemieux.

Sakic. He has 8 runs with double digit games played.
5 strong runs, 1 particularly weak one (2000). And 2 at the tail end of his career which were decent.
Put Lemieux's best playoff against Sakic's best, Lemieux is ahead. second vs second, again Lemieux. I think you can once again go all the way to 5th or 6th best run and give Lemieux the edge in all of them. Certainly most of them.

So what exactly makes Sakic or Lafleur superior to Lemieux? Is it the multitude of other runs they had that Lemieux didn't where for the most part they were ok/poor in round 1 exits? I don't think Longevity alone should differentiate if one player was clearly better than the other in each of their top 5-6 runs.

Messier vs Lemieux deserves more look into. Messier has a LOT of good runs, moreso than Lafleur/Sakic. His longevity may be enough to overtake Lemieux, i think it's worth looking into deeper.

bobholly39 is offline  
Old
03-13-2017, 03:57 PM
  #48
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Hôlle
Posts: 34,457
vCash: 500
Quickly, to get this out of the way :

I'm not sure this is completely relevant here, as it is the very beginning of the process and we're looking at the absolute cream of the crop. Also, for full disclosure purposes, to me, Guy Lafleur doesn't seem to be a very strong candidate (at this point) in that group.

But we should really differentiate his bad/underwhelming years (1980 and beyond; possibly 1974) and the years during which his numbers are not that eye-popping (basically, everything that came before 1974) but are in no way indicative of weak playoffs.

Because Lafleur was, in that group and as far as I know, the only forward who didn't play a key or 1st line role on his team for a decent playoff run. Maybe because he couldn't quite do it yet, but most likely because he actually joined a very good team who already had an hall-of-fame in his prime in his presumptive spot.

MXD is online now  
Old
03-13-2017, 04:04 PM
  #49
DisgruntledGoat*
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 4,301
vCash: 500
I don't know... is '93 a good run for Lemieux? Is '97?

His numbers on paper are fine but the lasting impressions were of the wheels coming off in losing series against inferior teams (Islanders, Panthers).

DisgruntledGoat* is offline  
Old
03-13-2017, 04:32 PM
  #50
bobholly39
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,321
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DisgruntledGoat View Post
I don't know... is '93 a good run for Lemieux? Is '97?

His numbers on paper are fine but the lasting impressions were of the wheels coming off in losing series against inferior teams (Islanders, Panthers).
You mean 1996 when he played 18 games and scored 27 points and lost in conference finals to Florida? I assume you mean that, and not 97.

In what way were 93 and 96 bad for him? As you said his numbers are great.

I think we start holding "team success" against players (93?) that's a slippery slope, if that's what you're alluding to.

If you're arguing that in 93 and 96 playoffs Lemieux's performance isn't as good as his absolute best level of play - maybe. But does it have to be to look better than the players he's being compared to?

bobholly39 is offline  
Closed Thread

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 08:13 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.