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)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-13-2017, 04:42 PM
  #51
bobholly39
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 3,937
vCash: 500
To me right now, my list for top 7 would be something like:


Gretzky
Roy
Richard/Beliveau
Howe
Lemieux
Messier

With possibility to move Lemieux up a couple ranks, or possibly down 1 rank. And still undecided on Richard/Beliveau order. I think Lemieux is a tricky one because I feel he was "better" but played "less". So have to decide how to weight that when comparing him to every non-Gretzky forward (Gretzky being the obvious one who was both "better" and played "more").

But outside of Roy, it's basically 6/7 forwards for the top 7 spot. No defenseman, and only 1 goalie.

What's the highest anyone else would slot one of the defenseman? And who of Orr/Harvey/Potvin should slot the highest? Does anyone have 1 of those 3 in their top 5 right now or even higher? It's hard to evaluate defenseman I find because there's no Norris, no all-star voting, no hart votes...you either win the conn smythe or don't, and then you have offensive stats. As someone else said earlier - simply "being" Doug Harvey for all the games he played should have tremendous value, but it's hard to quantify just how much value against the very best forwards

bobholly39 is offline  
Old
03-13-2017, 04:49 PM
  #52
blogofmike
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,124
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vadim sharifijanov View Post
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?
Having not participated I'm not sure about mentioning non-Vote 1-eligible types, but in his My Life In Hockey book, Beliveau mentions that in 63 and 64 there was a smalli, fast-skating centre assigned to him who took away all of his space. It's on page 160. HSP has Beliveau scoring only 2 ES points in those 10 games. That was the best explanation I found for 2 of the 3 straight "soft" playoff runs from 62-64.

In spite of that run my initial feeling is:

Gretzky
Beliveau
Roy
Howe
Richard
Messier
Lemieux

That being said, you could still convince me that Mario is #2, or that Joe Sakic, who really only had 1 "soft" playoff run belongs here before Plante or the first defender.

My issue with Richard is that while he has a case for being a great goal scorer, his playmaking leaves something to be desired against the other forwards here who could score points both ways.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MXD View Post
On Bobby Orr : Has there ever been someone who came up with a per-round repartition of Orr's scoring?
Year Team Games Goals Assists Points
1968 MTL 4 0 2 2
1969 TOR 4 0 4 4
1969 MTL 6 1 3 4
1970 NYR 6 7 3 10
1970 CHI 4 1 4 5
1970 STL 4 1 4 5
1971 MTL 7 5 7 12
1972 TOR 5 1 8 9
1972 STL 4 0 7 7
1972 NYR 6 4 4 8
1973 NYR 5 0 2 2
1974 TOR 4 1 3 4
1974 CHI 6 0 7 7
1974 PHI 6 3 4 7
1975 CHI 3 1 5 6

Using HSP for 1969 and BigMouthSports for the 1970s, which where I usually find the missing assists or whatever from HSP. http://bigmouthsports.com/stanley-cup-summaries-1970-89/

blogofmike is offline  
Old
03-13-2017, 05:30 PM
  #53
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Hôlle
Posts: 32,407
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blogofmike View Post
Having not participated I'm not sure about mentioning non-Vote 1-eligible types, but in his My Life In Hockey book, Beliveau mentions that in 63 and 64 there was a smalli, fast-skating centre assigned to him who took away all of his space. It's on page 160. HSP has Beliveau scoring only 2 ES points in those 10 games. That was the best explanation I found for 2 of the 3 straight "soft" playoff runs from 62-64.
Time-constrained, but...
I'm pretty sure there's absolutely no issue in naming the player, as long as it doesn't evolve on a discussion on THAT player.

MXD is online now  
Old
03-13-2017, 05:38 PM
  #54
overpass
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,908
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobholly39 View Post
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.
Don't you have to hold Lemieux to a higher standard than anyone other than Gretzky when it comes to scoring?

Not because he's being compared to himself. Because he played 25-30 minutes a game, entire power plays, and had no particular matchup or defensive responsibilities, unlike Messier. If Lemieux is scoring 1.5-2 points per game, terrific. His team has a great chance to win the Stanley Cup. If he's under a point per game while playing those minutes it's going to be very hard for Pittsburgh to win a round, because there just aren't that many offensive opportunities left for the rest of the team.

You could say the same about Gretzky except that he delivered a lot more often than Lemieux.

overpass is offline  
Old
03-13-2017, 06:25 PM
  #55
bobholly39
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 3,937
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by overpass View Post
Don't you have to hold Lemieux to a higher standard than anyone other than Gretzky when it comes to scoring?

Not because he's being compared to himself. Because he played 25-30 minutes a game, entire power plays, and had no particular matchup or defensive responsibilities, unlike Messier. If Lemieux is scoring 1.5-2 points per game, terrific. His team has a great chance to win the Stanley Cup. If he's under a point per game while playing those minutes it's going to be very hard for Pittsburgh to win a round, because there just aren't that many offensive opportunities left for the rest of the team.

You could say the same about Gretzky except that he delivered a lot more often than Lemieux.
I don't see why we should hold Lemieux to a different standard than others. And he was actually ppg (and usually over - by a lot) in every playoff year except 2001 at 35 years old with 17 pts in 18 games.

Did Lemieux really play 25-30 mins per game in the playoffs? And if so how does that compare to others? And is more minutes for Lemieux a positive or negative and why? I could see it both ways.

bobholly39 is offline  
Old
03-13-2017, 06:43 PM
  #56
Mike Farkas
Grace Personified
 
Mike Farkas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 6,826
vCash: 500
Mario played 25 minutes a game in 2001 as a 36 year old. I'm sure he was probably playing that or more on a similarly top-heavy team with wishy-washy goaltending at the age of 31. Not only that but Ron Francis missed the series, so that's an all-situation center to boot. There's plenty of video from that series, I wouldn't be shocked if Mario was playing 27, 28, 30 minutes per night in the 1996 playoffs...

The question is...how much is Barrasso to blame for the failures in '93 and '96...? How much is the lack of depth in 1996...?

High-level data with no dog in the fight...

9 points in 7 games vs. the Islanders in 1993 :: Pittsburgh 27 vs. New York 24
7 points in 7 games vs. the Panthers in 1996 :: Pittsburgh 15 vs. Florida 20

Two game 7 losses at home, both blowing 3-2 leads in the series to underdog defensive teams...

Plenty of video on these series to judge for ourselves...

__________________
http://twitter.com/MichaelFarkasHF

YouTube Channel: The Two-Line Pass - Hockey news, knowledge, video breakdowns and more: http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKAI...52Q577Q/videos

Latest installment:Ep. 4 - Brady Skjei Evaluation

Last edited by Mike Farkas: 03-13-2017 at 06:52 PM.
Mike Farkas is offline  
Old
03-13-2017, 07:10 PM
  #57
BenchBrawl
joueur de hockey
 
BenchBrawl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 15,119
vCash: 800
Wayne Gretzky's scoring among his teammates in the playoffs

Here's the year-by-year Top 5 playoff scorers on Wayne Gretzky's teams throughout his career (only the years relevant to Gretzky).

78-79 (Skipped/WHA/20 pts in 13 games)

79-80 (Skipped/3 pts in 3 games)

80-81
Player GP G* A* PTS
Wayne Gretzky 9 7 14 21
Glenn Anderson 9 5 7 12
Jari Kurri 9 5 7 12
Brett Callighen 9 4 4 8
Paul Coffey 9 4 3 7

81-82
Player GP G* A* PTS
Wayne Gretzky 5 5 7 12
Glenn Anderson 5 2 5 7
Jari Kurri 5 2 5 7
Risto Siltanen 5 3 2 5
Pat Hughes 5 2 1 3

82-83
Player GP G* A* PTS
Wayne Gretzky 16 12 26 38
Jari Kurri 16 8 15 23
Mark Messier 15 15 6 21
Glenn Anderson 16 10 10 20
Paul Coffey 16 7 7 14

83-84
Player GP G* A* PTS
Wayne Gretzky 19 13 22 35
Jari Kurri 19 14 14 28
Mark Messier 19 8 18 26
Paul Coffey 19 8 14 22
Glenn Anderson 19 6 11 17

84-85 (Conn Smythe)
Player GP G* A* PTS
Wayne Gretzky 18 17 30 47
Paul Coffey 18 12 25 37
Jari Kurri 18 19 12 31
Glenn Anderson 18 10 16 26
Mark Messier 18 12 13 25

85-86
Player GP G* A* PTS
Wayne Gretzky 10 8 11 19
Jari Kurri 10 2 10 12
Glenn Anderson 10 8 3 11
Mark Messier 10 4 6 10
Paul Coffey 10 1 9 10

86-87
Player GP G* A* PTS
Wayne Gretzky 21 5 29 34
Mark Messier 21 12 16 28
Glenn Anderson 21 14 13 27
Jari Kurri 21 15 10 25
Kent Nilsson 21 6 13 19

87-88 (Conn Smythe)
Player GP G* A* PTS
Wayne Gretzky 19 12 31 43
Mark Messier 19 11 23 34
Jari Kurri 19 14 17 31
Esa Tikkanen 19 10 17 27
Glenn Anderson 19 9 16 25

88-89
Player GP G* A* PTS
Wayne Gretzky 11 5 17 22
Bernie Nicholls 11 7 9 16
Chris Kontos 11 9 0 9
Steve Duchesne 11 4 4 8
Luc Robitaille 11 2 6 8

89-90
Player GP G* A* PTS
Todd Elik 10 3 9 12
Steve Duchesne 10 2 9 11
Luc Robitaille 10 5 5 10
Wayne Gretzky 7 3 7 10
Tony Granato 10 5 4 9

90-91
Player GP G* A* PTS
Luc Robitaille 12 12 4 16
Wayne Gretzky 12 4 11 15
Steve Duchesne 12 4 8 12
Steve Kasper 10 4 6 10
Mike Donnelly 12 5 4 9

91-92 (Skipped/7 pts in 6 games)

92-93
Player GP G* A* PTS
Wayne Gretzky 24 15 25 40
Tomas Sandstrom 24 8 17 25
Luc Robitaille 24 9 13 22
Jari Kurri 24 9 8 17
Tony Granato 24 6 11 17

93-94 (Did not play)

94-95 (Did not play)

95-96
Player GP G* A* PTS
Wayne Gretzky 13 2 14 16
Shayne Corson 13 8 6 14
Brett Hull 13 6 5 11
Al MacInnis 13 3 4 7
Igor Kravchuk 10 1 5 6

96-97
Player GP G* A* PTS
Wayne Gretzky 15 10 10 20
Esa Tikkanen 15 9 3 12
Mark Messier 15 3 9 12
Luc Robitaille 15 4 7 11
Brian Leetch 15 2 8 10


Last edited by BenchBrawl: 03-14-2017 at 09:10 PM.
BenchBrawl is offline  
Old
03-13-2017, 07:44 PM
  #58
BenchBrawl
joueur de hockey
 
BenchBrawl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 15,119
vCash: 800
Jean Béliveau's scoring among his teammates in the playoffs

Here's the year-by-year Top 5 playoff scorers on Jean Béliveau's teams throughout his career (only the years relevant to Béliveau).

53-54
Player GP G* A* PTS
Dickie Moore 11 5 8 13
Bernie Geoffrion 11 6 5 11
Jean Beliveau 10 2 8 10
Floyd Curry 11 4 0 4
Paul Masnick 10 0 4 4

54-55
Player GP G* A* PTS
Bernie Geoffrion 12 8 5 13
Jean Beliveau 12 6 7 13
Floyd Curry 12 8 4 12
Calum MacKay 12 3 8 11
Ken Mosdell 12 2 7 9

55-56 (Retro-Conn Smythe)
Player GP G* A* PTS
Jean Beliveau 10 12 7 19
Bernie Geoffrion 10 5 9 14
Maurice Richard 10 5 9 14
Bert Olmstead 10 4 10 14
Dickie Moore 10 3 6 9

56-57
Player GP G* A* PTS
Bernie Geoffrion 10 11 7 18
Jean Beliveau 10 6 6 12
Maurice Richard 10 8 3 11
Dickie Moore 10 3 7 10
Bert Olmstead 10 0 9 9

57-58
Player GP G* A* PTS
Maurice Richard 10 11 4 15
Jean Beliveau 10 4 8 12
Bernie Geoffrion 10 6 5 11
Dickie Moore 10 4 7 11
Doug Harvey 10 2 9 11

58-59 (Skipped/Out of Top 5/Injured/5 pts in 3 games)

59-60
Player GP G* A* PTS
Henri Richard 8 3 9 12
Bernie Geoffrion 8 2 10 12
Dickie Moore 8 6 4 10
Jean Beliveau 8 5 2 7
Marcel Bonin 8 1 4 5

60-61 (Skipped/5 pts in 6 games)

61-62 (Skipped/3 pts in 6 games)

62-63 (Skipped/3 pts in 5 games)

63-64 (Skipped/2 pts in 5 games)

64-65 (Conn Smythe)
Player GP G* A* PTS
Jean Beliveau 13 8 8 16
Bobby Rousseau 13 5 8 13
Henri Richard 13 7 4 11
J.C. Tremblay 13 1 9 10
Dick Duff 13 3 6 9

65-66
Player GP G* A* PTS
J.C. Tremblay 10 2 9 11
Jean Beliveau 10 5 5 10
Gilles Tremblay 10 4 5 9
Bobby Rousseau 10 4 4 8
Ralph Backstrom 10 3 4 7

66-67
Player GP G* A* PTS
Jean Beliveau 10 6 5 11
Henri Richard 10 4 6 10
Bobby Rousseau 10 1 7 8
Ralph Backstrom 10 5 2 7
John Ferguson 10 4 2 6

67-68
Player GP G* A* PTS
Yvan Cournoyer 13 6 8 14
Jacques Lemaire 13 7 6 13
Jean Beliveau 10 7 4 11
Claude Provost 13 2 8 10
J.C. Tremblay 13 3 6 9

68-69
Player GP G* A* PTS
Jean Beliveau 14 5 10 15
Dick Duff 14 6 8 14
Yvan Cournoyer 14 4 7 11
Serge Savard 14 4 6 10
John Ferguson 14 4 3 7

69-70 (Did not play)

70-71
Player GP G* A* PTS
Frank Mahovlich 20 14 13 27
Yvan Cournoyer 20 10 12 22
Jean Beliveau 20 6 16 22
Jacques Lemaire 20 9 10 19
J.C. Tremblay 20 3 14 17


Last edited by BenchBrawl: 03-14-2017 at 09:09 PM.
BenchBrawl is offline  
Old
03-13-2017, 07:46 PM
  #59
BenchBrawl
joueur de hockey
 
BenchBrawl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 15,119
vCash: 800
Maurice Richard's scoring among his teammates in the playoffs

Here's the year-by-year Top 5 playoff scorers on Maurice Richard's teams throughout his career (only the years relevant to Richard).

43-44
Player GP G* A* PTS
Toe Blake 9 7 11 18
Maurice Richard 9 12 5 17
Elmer Lach 9 2 11 13
Ray Getliffe 9 5 4 9
Murph Chamberlain 9 5 3 8

44-45
Player GP G* A* PTS
Maurice Richard 6 6 2 8
Elmer Lach 6 4 4 8
Butch Bouchard 6 3 4 7
Bob Fillion 1 3 0 3
Murph Chamberlain 6 1 1 2

45-46
Player GP G* A* PTS
Elmer Lach 9 5 12 17
Toe Blake 9 7 6 13
Maurice Richard 9 7 4 11
Bob Fillion 9 4 3 7
Murph Chamberlain 9 4 2 6

46-47
Player GP G* A* PTS
Maurice Richard 10 6 5 11
Toe Blake 11 2 7 9
Billy Reay 11 6 1 7
Buddy O'Connor 8 3 4 7
Roger Leger 11 0 6 6

47-48 (Did not play)

48-49 (Skipped/3 pts in 7 games)

49-50 (Skipped/2 pts in 5 games)

50-51 (Retro-Conn Smythe)
Player GP G* A* PTS
Maurice Richard 11 9 4 13
Billy Reay 11 3 3 6
Bert Olmstead 11 2 4 6
Doug Harvey 11 0 5 5
Elmer Lach 11 2 2 4

51-52
Player GP G* A* PTS
Floyd Curry 11 4 3 7
Maurice Richard 11 4 2 6
Bernie Geoffrion 11 3 1 4
Billy Reay 10 2 2 4
Elmer Lach 11 1 2 3

52-53
Player GP G* A* PTS
Bernie Geoffrion 12 6 4 10
Maurice Richard 12 7 1 8
Elmer Lach 12 1 6 7
Dickie Moore 12 3 2 5
Ken Mosdell 7 3 2 5

53-54 (Skipped/Out of Top 5/ 3 pts (goals) in 11 games)

54-55 (Did not play)

55-56
Player GP G* A* PTS
Jean Beliveau 10 12 7 19
Bernie Geoffrion 10 5 9 14
Maurice Richard 10 5 9 14
Bert Olmstead 10 4 10 14
Dickie Moore 10 3 6 9

56-57
Player GP G* A* PTS
Bernie Geoffrion 10 11 7 18
Jean Beliveau 10 6 6 12
Maurice Richard 10 8 3 11
Dickie Moore 10 3 7 10
Bert Olmstead 10 0 9 9

57-58 (Retro-Conn Smythe)
Player GP G* A* PTS
Maurice Richard 10 11 4 15
Jean Beliveau 10 4 8 12
Bernie Geoffrion 10 6 5 11
Dickie Moore 10 4 7 11
Doug Harvey 10 2 9 11

58-59 (Skipped/Injured/0 pts in 4 games)

59-60 (Skipped/Out of Top 5/ 4 pts in 8 games)


Last edited by BenchBrawl: 03-14-2017 at 11:11 PM.
BenchBrawl is offline  
Old
03-13-2017, 08:04 PM
  #60
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Hôlle
Posts: 32,407
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blogofmike View Post



Year Team Games Goals Assists Points
1968 MTL 4 0 2 2
1969 TOR 4 0 4 4
1969 MTL 6 1 3 4
1970 NYR 6 7 3 10
1970 CHI 4 1 4 5
1970 STL 4 1 4 5
1971 MTL 7 5 7 12
1972 TOR 5 1 8 9
1972 STL 4 0 7 7
1972 NYR 6 4 4 8
1973 NYR 5 0 2 2
1974 TOR 4 1 3 4
1974 CHI 6 0 7 7
1974 PHI 6 3 4 7
1975 CHI 3 1 5 6
Thanks. So at least it really cannot be said that Orr feasted on the weaker expansion teams to obtain his lofty totals.

MXD is online now  
Old
03-13-2017, 08:34 PM
  #61
quoipourquoi
Moderator
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 5,949
vCash: 500
I came into this with Maurice Richard #1, but I would love to hear more about the 1954 Stanley Cup playoffs, because it really seems like it was a winnable Finals for the Canadiens. Granted, he scored 3 goals in the Finals over 2 of their victories, but he went scoreless in the previous series. Watching the highlight film makes me believe it was probably puck luck, because it looks like the chances and passion were still there, but the points were not. Was there more to it than that?

One of the larger reasons I took Richard first is because of the goal-scoring factor. It seems like he would have had no fewer than three strong challenges for the goal-scoring record had he played in the four-round era - and he held onto the overtime record until only recently despite the same GP disadvantage. And maybe it's because I can so vividly recall moments with Gretzky and Roy where their reputations became so high that it was almost deflating when they didn't do the improbable.

Was there similar disappointment with Richard for gloving a puck into the net illegally and costing Montreal in Game 7 when Eddie Mazur would have had a rebound chance with the Stanley Cup on the line?

Gretzky's statistics are above, and BenchBrawl is doing Richard, but here are Roy's in his deeper runs:

Patrick Roy - Conference/Stanley Cup Finals Runs
Save Percentage vs. Expectation (Opponent S%) and League Average
YearWin/LossSPCTExp SPCTLg Avg SPCT
1986 15-5 .923 .874 (+.049) .874 (+.049)
1989 13-6 .920 .876 (+.044) .879 (+.041)
1993 16-4 .929 .871 (+.058) .885 (+.044)
1996 16-6 .921 .884 (+.037) .898 (+.023)
1997 10-7 .932 .906 (+.026) .905 (+.027)
1999 11-8 .920 .903 (+.017) .908 (+.012)
2000 11-6 .928 .896 (+.032) .904 (+.024)
2001 16-7 .934 .893 (+.041) .903 (+.031)
2002 11-10 .909 .896 (+.013) .908 (+.001)

I'm curious though: of my top-three, Richard and Roy have overtime reputations. Gretzky has scored in overtime - famously even - but does anyone have his assist numbers in playoff overtime? If not, I'll take a look at it for sure.

The Mario Lemieux and Mark Messier divide could be an interesting one. I came in with Lemieux ahead because of the top-two runs, but I also had a similarly high view of Bobby Orr (taking him ahead of Potvin) for the same. I could see flipping those two.

Beliveau is appropriately #4 for me, but I could be compelled to move him up. Can't see him losing ground unless I'm that wrong about Howe.

Sakic and Harvey are the non-factors for me here - maybe Plante too - and I was a little low on Howe (not really, but in a relative sense) because Detroit's regular season success suggested that they probably should have been a playoff dynasty, but Howe isn't exactly the first or second or third person to point to about that.

quoipourquoi is online now  
Old
03-13-2017, 08:56 PM
  #62
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 14,096
vCash: 500
Present Round

Doug Harvey 10 consecutive Stanley Cup Finals appearances from 1951 to 1960. Not because he was part of a dynasty but because he was the constant, the stick that stirred the drink behind the dynasty. Filled the offensive or defensive leadership role as required each playoff season. 1962 lead the Rangers to six gmes in the Semi finals, 1968 lead the Blues as a late call-up to the SC finals. Biggest asset as a defenceman was the ability to play RD and LD equally well, so he could match-up against the oppositions best winger/center as required. Effectively giving his team two elite quality players on defence.

Jacques Plante 1953 to 1962 dominated playoff goaltending especially 1956 to 1960, 40-9 record.Over .800 winning percentage during this span. Cause of the dynasty not the result.

Maurice Richard spotty at times under Dick Irvin Sr, due to misuse. 1955 comment by Irvin most revealing, lead to his firing by Frank Selke Sr. Basically, the night of the Richard Riot, Irvin said to the effect that "He had often seen Maurice Richard fill the Forum, first time he saw him empty it." Very strong comeback during the playoffs under Toe Blake, especially when on a line with his younger brother Henri. Provided leadership and a strong forecheck throughout his career. Prime example OT goal against Detroit in 1951, takeaway from Kelly.

Gordie Howe Excellent playoffs for close to twenty years. Few issues have to be raised. 1950 Red Wings won SC without him - injured, near fatal skull fracture, game 1 semi-finals caused him to miss the rest of the playoffs. Memorable in 1955. 1961 to 1966 four SC final appearances with a Wings team that was a questionable playoff team.

Patrick Roy Best post WHA playoff goalie. Led two teams to a total of four SC Championships without support from a prime HHOF defenceman. But a number of earlier goalies did just as well or better. Benefits from a modern bias and this has to be examined.

Jean Beliveau How valuable was he to the three distinct Canadiens teams that were dynasties or near dynasties? 1956-1960 was injured missing the Finals. Henri Richard played and the team won. 1968 injured in the first game of the finals. Henri Richard played and the team won. 1962 perhaps the best RS Canadiens team of the 1956 to 1967 stretch, played but Henri Richard was injured befored the playoffs, out for the season, upset by the Hawks, first round. 1971. Key player in game 7 of the first round and finals was Henri Richard. Beliveau never received the key defensive role like Richard and was not considered the teams MVP by Frank Selke SR.

Bobby Orr lead a slow Bruin team to two SCs. Orr and Walton, briefly were the only two that could skate with Montreal. Alone a great achievement. Defensively without Orr and in goal the Bruins were barely NHL adequate.

Mark Messier better in the playoffs(vs RS) than most, especially with a team that was built to suit his style of play, hard and physical. With Gretzky on the Oilers their strengths were two distinct styles at center creating a situation where collectively they played better than the sum of their parts.

Wayne Gretzky see above. Post Oilers his strengths did not match well with his team except for 1993. Came close. Became an entourage player.

Mario Lemieux Tough call. Health precludes a serious evaluation of his playoff performance beyond the age of 27. Even during his two cup winning years the question arises. Also did not face the best defensive centers of his era in the playoffs.

Denis Potvin excellent in the playoffs but rarely challenged - contained by the 1976-79 Canadiens when they met. Stud, great ice time.

Joe Sakic Was it Sakic or Patrick Roy? Not both.Great in OT but you can not escape the fact that overall in the playoffs he was a minus player. Bit early.

Guy Lafleur Seriously? This early? Result not the cause of 5 SC championships. Post Lemaire, 14 points in 30 playoff games.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...laflegu01.html


1974. Started on a line with Steve Shutt and Henri Richard, quickly benched by Bowman after Richard lectured him on the bench for not following the game plan. Replaced by ........ Claude Larose. Check the numbers for Shutt and Larose for the 1974 series against the Rangers.

Canadiens1958 is offline  
Old
03-13-2017, 09:09 PM
  #63
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 14,096
vCash: 500
1954

Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
I came into this with Maurice Richard #1, but I would love to hear more about the 1954 Stanley Cup playoffs, because it really seems like it was a winnable Finals for the Canadiens. Granted, he scored 3 goals in the Finals over 2 of their victories, but he went scoreless in the previous series. Watching the highlight film makes me believe it was probably puck luck, because it looks like the chances and passion were still there, but the points were not. Was there more to it than that?

One of the larger reasons I took Richard first is because of the goal-scoring factor. It seems like he would have had no fewer than three strong challenges for the goal-scoring record had he played in the four-round era - and he held onto the overtime record until only recently despite the same GP disadvantage. And maybe it's because I can so vividly recall moments with Gretzky and Roy where their reputations became so high that it was almost deflating when they didn't do the improbable.

Was there similar disappointment with Richard for gloving a puck into the net illegally and costing Montreal in Game 7 when Eddie Mazur would have had a rebound chance with the Stanley Cup on the line?

Gretzky's statistics are above, and BenchBrawl is doing Richard, but here are Roy's in his deeper runs:

Patrick Roy - Conference/Stanley Cup Finals Runs
Save Percentage vs. Expectation (Opponent S%) and League Average
YearWin/LossSPCTExp SPCTLg Avg SPCT
1986 15-5 .923 .874 (+.049) .874 (+.049)
1989 13-6 .920 .876 (+.044) .879 (+.041)
1993 16-4 .929 .871 (+.058) .885 (+.044)
1996 16-6 .921 .884 (+.037) .898 (+.023)
1997 10-7 .932 .906 (+.026) .905 (+.027)
1999 11-8 .920 .903 (+.017) .908 (+.012)
2000 11-6 .928 .896 (+.032) .904 (+.024)
2001 16-7 .934 .893 (+.041) .903 (+.031)
2002 11-10 .909 .896 (+.013) .908 (+.001)

I'm curious though: of my top-three, Richard and Roy have overtime reputations. Gretzky has scored in overtime - famously even - but does anyone have his assist numbers in playoff overtime? If not, I'll take a look at it for sure.

The Mario Lemieux and Mark Messier divide could be an interesting one. I came in with Lemieux ahead because of the top-two runs, but I also had a similarly high view of Bobby Orr (taking him ahead of Potvin) for the same. I could see flipping those two.

Beliveau is appropriately #4 for me, but I could be compelled to move him up. Can't see him losing ground unless I'm that wrong about Howe.

Sakic and Harvey are the non-factors for me here - maybe Plante too - and I was a little low on Howe (not really, but in a relative sense) because Detroit's regular season success suggested that they probably should have been a playoff dynasty, but Howe isn't exactly the first or second or third person to point to about that.
1954. Outside of Harvey the Canadiens defencemen were slow to average skaters. Besides Beliveau the Canadiens had either aging, on the verge of retirement centers - Lach or one dimensional defensive centers - Mosdell. Harvey had to concentrate on defence as did Mosdell.

Outscored 14 to 12 over a 7 game finals. Did well to take the series to 7, by reducing Red Wing scoring from 2.7 goals per game to 2 per game. Close was the best shot. Not winnable.

Canadiens1958 is offline  
Old
03-13-2017, 09:11 PM
  #64
quoipourquoi
Moderator
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 5,949
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Mario Lemieux Tough call. Health precludes a serious evaluation of his playoff performance beyond the age of 27. Even during his two cup winning years the question arises.
It's hard to take anything away from a playoff where someone scores 16 goals and 18 assists in 15 games, but the team going 4-1 without him is a unique element to the run itself. Don't know if it's a real measure of Lemieux's health however; Adam Graves' stick probably would've broken anybody's wrist there

quoipourquoi is online now  
Old
03-13-2017, 09:12 PM
  #65
BenchBrawl
joueur de hockey
 
BenchBrawl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 15,119
vCash: 800
Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
I came into this with Maurice Richard #1
I used to have Gretzky #1, Beliveau #2 and Richard #3, but I re-considered while doing my Round 1 list.I switched Béliveau and Richard because Richard's skill is probably the hardest to execute while under pressure, and Maurice Richard certainly had a lot of pressure.There's a reason he's the biggest name and his name reasonates deeper into Quebec's psyche, and while I won't pretend like his playoff performances are the only reason, they had to be a major reason in one way or another.Doing what Richard did seems much harder than what Beliveau did, as great as Gros Bill was.

I guess there's something about putting the puck in the net in the playoffs that should be respected above all else.

Quote:
Gretzky's statistics are above, and BenchBrawl is doing Richard, but here are Roy's in his deeper runs:
I'll do it tomorrow.If I have the time I might do something with the top playoffs scorers league-wide, again focussing on Gretzky/Béliveau/Richard.

Quote:
The Mario Lemieux and Mark Messier divide could be an interesting one. I came in with Lemieux ahead because of the top-two runs, but I also had a similarly high view of Bobby Orr (taking him ahead of Potvin) for the same. I could see flipping those two.
It seems I'm very far from you guys on Lemieux and Orr.They probably won't make my Top 10, while Messier is almost certain to make it.Open to being convinced otherwise, but the ''structure'' of their playoff resume just doesn't cut it for me.I have Harvey/Potvin ahead of Orr, and some uneligible defensemen too.

Quote:
Beliveau is appropriately #4 for me, but I could be compelled to move him up. Can't see him losing ground unless I'm that wrong about Howe.
Will be hard to rank Béliveau below #4 for me too.

Quote:
Sakic and Harvey are the non-factors for me here - maybe Plante too - and I was a little low on Howe (not really, but in a relative sense) because Detroit's regular season success suggested that they probably should have been a playoff dynasty, but Howe isn't exactly the first or second or third person to point to about that.
I agree that Sakic is a none-factor, but that's mostly because I have him below Lafleur/Messier, and those most likely won't make my Top 5.By none-factor I meant he's not part of the debate for Top 5-7.

OTOH, I think Harvey is the greatest playoff defenseman in history, mostly because he was the main man on the greatest dynasty of all-time.I'd like to hear a year-by-year analysis of how important Harvey was in each of his cups, but I'm not holding my breathe as this appears hard to pull.In any case, Harvey is ahead of both Lemieux and Orr for me.Among defensemen, I think Potvin is close to Harvey for similar reasons.

About Gordie Howe: He's the weirdest piece of this ranking puzzle.


Last edited by BenchBrawl: 03-13-2017 at 09:19 PM.
BenchBrawl is offline  
Old
03-13-2017, 09:17 PM
  #66
quoipourquoi
Moderator
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 5,949
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
1954. Outside of Harvey the Canadiens defencemen were slow to average skaters. Besides Beliveau the Canadiens had either aging, on the verge of retirement centers - Lach or one dimensional defensive centers - Mosdell. Harvey had to concentrate on defence as did Mosdell.

Outscored 14 to 12 over a 7 game finals. Did well to take the series to 7, by reducing Red Wing scoring from 2.7 goals per game to 2 per game. Close was the best shot. Not winnable.
It probably is asking a bit much. Similar to Gretzky in St. Louis and Roy in 2002 maybe. Winnable series against #1 overall Detroit in that they actually made it to Game 7, but probably enough of a task to have even gotten that far (referring to 1954, 1996, and 2002).

quoipourquoi is online now  
Old
03-13-2017, 09:20 PM
  #67
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 11,924
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MXD View Post
Thanks. So at least it really cannot be said that Orr feasted on the weaker expansion teams to obtain his lofty totals.
Seems as if many voters are forgetting Orr was a defenseman. He had a lot more to do than just produce points. The rest of the Bruins d-core wasn't exactly star caliber.

That said, only Gretzky & Mario average more assists per game and those 2 & Messier had more points per game.

Dennis Bonvie is offline  
Old
03-13-2017, 11:17 PM
  #68
Kyle McMahon
Registered User
 
Kyle McMahon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Evil Empire
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,801
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobholly39 View Post
I wouldn't want to discount Lemieux too quickly. Imo he has no shot at being at the very top of the list, but pitting him against someone like Messier needs consideration.

Lemieux's PPG is 1.607
Messier's PPG is 1.25

Lemieux's GPG .710 (#1 all time)
Messier's GPG .462 (27th all time)

172 points in 107 games is remarkable.

I also don't think Lemieux and Orr should be grouped in the same category. Orr seems to have some years where he didnt do much in first round exits. Lemieux doesn't seem to have any weaknesses in his resume per se, outside of lack of longevity. He seems to have put up strong numbers every time he made the playoffs.
I'm not so sure about that. The loss to the Rangers the year Esposito got hurt at the start of the series seems to be Orr's only whiff from a production standpoint. Evaluating his defensive contributions will require more digging, but it's not like Lemieux was providing much in that category anyway.

Both players unfortunately have the albatross of a colossal upset on their resumes. Regardless of what the stat lines say, 1971 for Orr and 1993 for Lemieux have to be seen as negatives in the grand scheme of things. Lemieux's team squandering 3-2 leads against unheralded Islanders and Panthers teams raises questions about his killer instinct late in a close series. That same criticism can't be directed at Messier, for example. His teams let go of a 3-1 lead five times over the course of his career, but rallied to win Game 7 in four of them.

Kyle McMahon is offline  
Old
03-13-2017, 11:32 PM
  #69
Kyle McMahon
Registered User
 
Kyle McMahon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Evil Empire
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,801
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post

Guy Lafleur Seriously? This early? Result not the cause of 5 SC championships. Post Lemaire, 14 points in 30 playoff games.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...laflegu01.html


1974. Started on a line with Steve Shutt and Henri Richard, quickly benched by Bowman after Richard lectured him on the bench for not following the game plan. Replaced by ........ Claude Larose. Check the numbers for Shutt and Larose for the 1974 series against the Rangers.
Lafleur's playoff resume when removed from Lemaire is downright ugly. Lemaire does not in any way suffer the same issue in non-Lafleur years. I don't think Lafleur is a viable top 5 candidate in this round by any stretch of the imagination.

Kyle McMahon is offline  
Old
03-13-2017, 11:38 PM
  #70
blogofmike
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,124
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by overpass View Post
Don't you have to hold Lemieux to a higher standard than anyone other than Gretzky when it comes to scoring?

Not because he's being compared to himself. Because he played 25-30 minutes a game, entire power plays, and had no particular matchup or defensive responsibilities, unlike Messier. If Lemieux is scoring 1.5-2 points per game, terrific. His team has a great chance to win the Stanley Cup. If he's under a point per game while playing those minutes it's going to be very hard for Pittsburgh to win a round, because there just aren't that many offensive opportunities left for the rest of the team.

You could say the same about Gretzky except that he delivered a lot more often than Lemieux.
That's an if that happened once, largely because of the 2001 ECF against New Jersey. Considering that Jagr vanished, it's a relatively small black mark on his record.

A strong point for Lemieux is that he produced strong scoring totals in a few years even in non-Cup years when his team wasn't all that strong. While Lemieux's Pens did win a few games when Mario was missing in 1992, the less competitive era of the Canadiens players above him on my list (Beliveau/Richard) allowed a team like the 59 Habs to win the Cup with 0 SCF games from an injured Beliveau, 0 SCF points from Rocket Richard, and a league average goaltending performance from Jacques Plante.

If I were to move Lemieux up, it would be because he did things that were more difficult to replicate. The Pens may have won a series without him, but it's not like someone would score 40 points in a year when he was missing. Marcel Bonin grabbed a pair of Rocket Richard's gloves and produced a year that is indistinguishable from peak Richard.

So to Bobholly's point about who had a peak year as good as Mario Lemieux, I'd say very likely yes for Beliveau '56, less certain but pretty sure on Howe '55.

However, I don't believe any of Richard's seasons were as good as Lemieux's best season.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MXD View Post
Thanks. So at least it really cannot be said that Orr feasted on the weaker expansion teams to obtain his lofty totals.
Those teams wouldn't have been around in the playoffs, but the totals, while exceptional, aren't as lofty as Orr's RS totals. In the 3-round era Pat Stapleton had multiple 17-point years, and Potvin hit 19 in 13 games, and both of those guys were on teams with less offensive talent. Park hit 20 on a later Bruins team, and Robinson hit 21. Horton hit 16 in 12 games in the two-round era. Orr's offensive edge was relatively narrow compared to his RS totals.

blogofmike is offline  
Old
03-14-2017, 12:38 AM
  #71
BenchBrawl
joueur de hockey
 
BenchBrawl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 15,119
vCash: 800
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyle McMahon View Post
Lafleur's playoff resume when removed from Lemaire is downright ugly.
Are you saying that Lafleur was somehow a product of Lemaire in the playoffs? Seems like a stretch.

BenchBrawl is offline  
Old
03-14-2017, 07:11 AM
  #72
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Hôlle
Posts: 32,407
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyle McMahon View Post
Lafleur's playoff resume when removed from Lemaire is downright ugly. Lemaire does not in any way suffer the same issue in non-Lafleur years. I don't think Lafleur is a viable top 5 candidate in this round by any stretch of the imagination.

What I poster earlier :

Quote:
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
03-14-2017, 07:15 AM
  #73
bobholly39
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 3,937
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyle McMahon View Post
I'm not so sure about that. The loss to the Rangers the year Esposito got hurt at the start of the series seems to be Orr's only whiff from a production standpoint. Evaluating his defensive contributions will require more digging, but it's not like Lemieux was providing much in that category anyway.

Both players unfortunately have the albatross of a colossal upset on their resumes. Regardless of what the stat lines say, 1971 for Orr and 1993 for Lemieux have to be seen as negatives in the grand scheme of things. Lemieux's team squandering 3-2 leads against unheralded Islanders and Panthers teams raises questions about his killer instinct late in a close series. That same criticism can't be directed at Messier, for example. His teams let go of a 3-1 lead five times over the course of his career, but rallied to win Game 7 in four of them.
I don't know that I feel comfortable holding the 1993 loss to NYI against Lemieux in any way. There are extenuating circumstances to be taken into account:

1. He did just come back from cancer treatment a few months early. Still had 18 points in 11 games, hardly an under-performance. He likely wasn't anywhere close to being 100% strength, but still managed to perform at a very high level.

2. It's a team sport. If we're holding team losses against a player, this opens up a big can of worms. We can go and nitpick at just about everyone's resume from the listed players and find at least 1 year (if not more) where they disappointed and their team lost because of it. If anything, Lemieux is likely to come out looking as the best of the bunch of players listed in terms playoffs where they disappointed/caused their teams to lose.

3. The Penguins *had* just won back to back cups, in 91 and 92. No one since has won 3 back to back, so it was a monumental challenge to begin with, even if they were obviously favorites.

Wayne Gretzky scored 215 points in 1985-1986. He even made it known ahead of time he was shooting for a personal goal (2 assists per game), which might have come at the detriment of team success. And his team didn't win the cup that year. Gretzky was also healthier in 86 than Lemieux was in 93. I don't think anyone here is really holding 86 loss against Gretzky though, and I think a similar argument applies for Lemieux.

I'm sure if I were to go look at other players' listed records, i'd find many worst performances than Lemieux in 93 too.

I don't mind holding certain failures against players - but it has to be sensible. 18 points in 11 games gets a pass for me. 12 points in 7 games for Orr in 71 also looks pretty damn good tbh.

It almost feels like you're saying "Lemieux and Orr in those series they lost weren't playing as the best player ever in the history of hockey - and so it's a negative". If that's the standard we're holding them to, i think it's completely unfair and unrealistic.

bobholly39 is offline  
Old
03-14-2017, 08:39 AM
  #74
Sentinel
Registered User
 
Sentinel's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 5,384
vCash: 500
I think Lemieux fans are really overselling him. His team won an entire playoff round without him in one of his two Cup years. Remove Lafleur or Sakic from their teams, and they are not winning jack. Lemieux's 93 and 96 runs are certainly great in themselves (as far as offensive numbers go), but his Penguins lost to the frigging Islanders and Panthers!

It's not just the longevity for Messier and Believau, but also the end result. The fact of the matter is: Lemieux's teams were loaded and won far less than expected. Which cannot be said about anybody else in this group (except Orr, whose Bruins also underachieved).

I also like to see this group's stats in the "terminal" series, the ones were their teams were knocked out. Can anybody help?

Sentinel is offline  
Old
03-14-2017, 08:54 AM
  #75
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Hôlle
Posts: 32,407
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vadim sharifijanov View Post

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.
I distinctly remember Jean Beliveau saying he was playing with what we'd call now concussion-symptoms for a while during that period.

MXD is online now  
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 09:57 AM.

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.