1993 Montreal Canadiens- who was their 2nd best player in the postseason?

[c9777666]

When you think of the 1993 Montreal Canadiens and their Stanley Cup run, the most indeliable image most think of is Patrick Roy.

10 straight OT wins, a 2.13 GAA (which in 1992-93 was really something) one of the greatest playoff runs by any goalie ever, his career apex, and of course this:

With that said, if Roy was the #1 guy that drove Les Habs to Cup #24, who was second?

In other words, who was the best skater (i.e. forward/defenseman) on that '93 Cup winning team, the best player on that team not wearing #33? The best player on that team who was not stopping shots?

Damphousse was the team's leading scorer that spring (11-12-23).

Kirk Muller was second in that department (10-7-17) and had 2 of the team's 10 OT goals (1 of them was an enormous one in game 5 of the first round at Quebec City that ended up taking all the air out of the young Nordiques for game 6).

Brian Bellows was timely (6-9-15), showing why they had traded for him from Minnesota.

Desjardins, in addition to the Cup Finals hat trick (4-10-14), also anchored the defense that did a more-than-adequate job of silencing some big guns in the playoffs (Sakic, Sundin, Nolan, LaFontaine, Hawerchuk, Robitaille, Gretzky).

Guy Carbonneau did a tremendous job also against those offensive weapons, not to mention his blanket job on Gretzky after game 1. Like Muller, he had 2 OT goals- a crucial game 2 winner against Buffalo in one of the most competitive series sweeps ever and game 3 at Long Island which effectively ended the Wales Finals.

Like Recchi/Stevens in 1991 with the Penguins, there had to be someone who did a tremendous job as the next best player on a Cup winning team behind a no-doubt Conn Smythe Trophy winner.

Who was Montreal's 1993 equivalent in your mind?

 

[The Panther]

I go with Damphousse. I just think he was the best overall skater they had. He's fairly well remembered in general, but I still think Damphousse is not appreciated quite enough!

 

[tony d]

Went with Damphousse.

 

[bobholly39]

Damphousse. My favorite player growing up.

 

[Staniowski]

Roy's performance in the '93 playoffs was very good, but it's also a bit overrated. If the Habs and Kings switched goalies in the finals, Habs would still win. It's not as if the Kings vastly outplayed the Habs in the finals and Roy singlehandedly saved their bacon. This is not what happened. The Habs outshot the Kings by a considerable margin in the finals. Montreal's forwards and defensemen outplayed their counterparts on the Kings - they outscored them, outshot them, outchanced them, outworked them, and outsmarted them.

One thing to note is that most of the Canadiens were in their prime, or close to it. The Kings were older, with several of their best players past their primes (and a few before their primes). And the Habs had a lot of really smart, tenacious players.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

if you asked most ppl at the time, muller would have been the overwhelming answer. his rep was through the roof and he was regarded as gilmour-lite (and remember, this is 1993, so capital-p Peak gilmour).

but imo it’s carbonneau. he was the glue and he set the tone. the tie to the pat burns teams; the link to the gainey, lemaire, robinson tradition. i'm curious if anyone has access to icetime estimates from that playoff run. i wouldn't be surprised if carbonneau played defenseman-level minutes; i remember him doing so much heavy lifting.

we probably didn't hear enough about damphousse at the time, maybe not desjardins either though game 2 will be remembered for all time. but while i do agree with the general sentiment of the time that muller was more important than damphousse (and irc both had C/LW versatility but it was muller who played center and damphousse who played LW that spring), i also think that muller cast too large of a shadow over damphousse. it does seem strange to me that damphousse, a french-canadian player who led the habs in regular season and playoff scoring in 1993, got so little fanfare for it; also very strange that he was passed up for the captaincy after keane was traded. feels like a no-brainer to me; in '96, turgeon only outscored damphousse, who obviously was the better player in every non-scoring aspect of the game, by two measly points.

 

[Staniowski]

if you asked most ppl at the time, muller would have been the overwhelming answer. his rep was through the roof and he was regarded as gilmour-lite (and remember, this is 1993, so capital-p Peak gilmour).

but imo it’s carbonneau. he was the glue and he set the tone. the tie to the pat burns teams; the link to the gainey, lemaire, robinson tradition. i'm curious if anyone has access to icetime estimates from that playoff run. i wouldn't be surprised if carbonneau played defenseman-level minutes; i remember him doing so much heavy lifting.

we probably didn't hear enough about damphousse at the time, maybe not desjardins either though game 2 will be remembered for all time. but while i do agree with the general sentiment of the time that muller was more important than damphousse (and irc both had C/LW versatility but it was muller who played center and damphousse who played LW that spring), i also think that muller cast too large of a shadow over damphousse. it does seem strange to me that damphousse, a french-canadian player who led the habs in regular season and playoff scoring in 1993, got so little fanfare for it; also very strange that he was passed up for the captaincy after keane was traded. feels like a no-brainer to me; in '96, turgeon only outscored damphousse, who obviously was the better player in every non-scoring aspect of the game, by two measly points.

Yeah, at the time, I though Muller and Carbonneau were the two key forwards for the Habs. These are the 2 I most had in mind when I said "smart, tenacious players", they didn't come any smarter than Carbonneau. In the finals, he wanted to play against Gretzky. Of course Wayne still got his points, but for the most part Carbonneau did a great job, making a major contribution to their win. Muller probably never played better.

 

[Sentinel]

I'll go with Vinny

 

[decma]

it does seem strange to me that damphousse, a french-canadian player who led the habs in regular season and playoff scoring in 1993, got so little fanfare for it; also very strange that he was passed up for the captaincy after keane was traded. feels like a no-brainer to me; in '96, turgeon only outscored damphousse, who obviously was the better player in every non-scoring aspect of the game, by two measly points.

That season Damphousse was on the ice for 71 non-PP goals against.
Turgeon, in the same number of games, was on the ice for 42 non-PP goals against.

 

[Moose Head]

I thought it was Muller until the final. He didn't have a great series against the kings. Carbo was the non-Roy MVP of the finals.

Overall, beginning to end, you give it to Vinny.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

That season Damphousse was on the ice for 71 non-PP goals against.
Turgeon, in the same number of games, was on the ice for 42 non-PP goals against.

i can't pretend that i followed the post-roy habs closely. but i think it's safe to assume that the discrepancy in non-PP goals against and +/- between damphousse and turgeon that year say much more about their deployment and matchup assignments than it does about their respective defensive performances. after all, damphousse finished 4th in selke voting that year.

that said, damphousse also had 158 PIM that year, 60 more than his previous highest. anyone remember why?

 

[double5son10]

That season Damphousse was on the ice for 71 non-PP goals against.
Turgeon, in the same number of games, was on the ice for 42 non-PP goals against.

Damphousse was asked to check the oppositions top lines in 95-96, allowing Turgeon far more favorable matchups. Damphousse finished 4th in Selke voting that year, and for good reason too. Turgeon being captain stinks of Ronald Corey's marketing BS.


As to the OP, Desjardins. He logged Herculean minutes, always matched against the oppositions top players. Played both RD & LD at ES too, depending on who he was on the ice against. Also didn't really have a set partner, logging minutes w/ Daigneault, Brisebois, Odelein @ ES, depending on situation. Go back and watch the games from that spring. He's on the ice continually for Demers.

 

[decma]

i can't pretend that i followed the post-roy habs closely. but i think it's safe to assume that the discrepancy in non-PP goals against and +/- between damphousse and turgeon that year say much more about their deployment and matchup assignments than it does about their respective defensive performances. after all, damphousse finished 4th in selke voting that year.

Damphousse was asked to check the oppositions top lines in 95-96, allowing Turgeon far more favorable matchups. Damphousse finished 4th in Selke voting that year, and for good reason too.

It is certainly possible that Damphousse was such a shut-down guy that Tremblay wanted to deploy him against the opposition's top scoring line, and that Turgeon was so weak defensively that Tremblay wanted him off the ice in such situations. But if that is the case, than the other teams' coaches had similar incentives to play their top scoring lines against Turgeon and to avoid playing them against Damphousse.

Maybe Damphousse had a disproportionately high share of defensive zone starts and Turgeon had a disproportionately low share of defensive zone starts. But for neutral zone faces and changes on the fly, I suspect the incentives outlined above largely offset.

I don't think that matchups could explain such a large difference in goals allowed.

 

[Ralph Spoilsport]

Wasn't Carbonneau the guy who shut down Gretzky--who was having a Gretzky-like postseason--after Muller couldn't contain him in game one? Four points in game one, three points spread across the last four games. Habs don't win with Gretzky on a roll.

 

[Ralph Spoilsport]

Roy's performance is possibly the most overrated in Stanley Cup history. Admittedly I was following the Leafs more closely that spring, but if I recall the Habs run was reported more as a "team of destiny" story than a "star goalie carrying a lunchbucket team to the top" story. (If anything, '86 was more the latter.)

I'll never understand how winning in OT is more clutch than winning in regulation. Like, protect a lead mon ami. Spare your teammates the unnecessary wear and tear. How deep into the O6 era do we have to go to find a team that won a Cup with just six regulation time wins?

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

That season Damphousse was on the ice for 71 non-PP goals against.
Turgeon, in the same number of games, was on the ice for 42 non-PP goals against.

It is certainly possible that Damphousse was such a shut-down guy that Tremblay wanted to deploy him against the opposition's top scoring line, and that Turgeon was so weak defensively that Tremblay wanted him off the ice in such situations. But if that is the case, than the other teams' coaches had similar incentives to play their top scoring lines against Turgeon and to avoid playing them against Damphousse.

Maybe Damphousse had a disproportionately high share of defensive zone starts and Turgeon had a disproportionately low share of defensive zone starts. But for neutral zone faces and changes on the fly, I suspect the incentives outlined above largely offset.

I don't think that matchups could explain such a large difference in goals allowed.

having not been a close observer of the team that year, i can't explain the statistics anymore. can you explain damphousse's fourth place selke placement?

i can interject a couple of things just from looking at the numbers: it's 52 GA for turgeon, not 42. so the difference is 19 goals, not the 29 that you suggested earlier. still a sizable discrepancy, but 1/3 smaller.

another statistical anomaly: damphousse was on the ice for by far the most points on the habs that year, and by far the most non-PP points. in back-to-back-to-back years they lost carbonneau and muller, then early in '96 they also lost keane. (and the year before, they also lost skrudland.) so that's a crap-tonne of defensive load-lifting gone. replacing them were a rookie saku koivu for carbonneau, turgeon for muller, and rucinsky for keane. 97 total GA for damphousse, followed by three defensemen (87, 83, 80), then koivu (76). look up and down that roster, do you see any forwards other than benoit brunet (who only played 26 games) and a young turner stevenson in his first full season that you'd even consider giving tough defensive minutes to?

marty rucinsky was passable, and he was on damphousse's line, with the much less than fine valeri bure on the other wing. turgeon played with recchi (not sure who the LW was, but based on the +/- numbers i'm guessing kovalenko and not brian savage?) a hypothesis: maybe the total dearth of good defensive forwards did two things: it forced damphousse to play way more than his normal share of hard minutes and it gave him less than ideal linemates to help, hence huge ESGA numbers. the GA numbers also suggest that given his C/LW versatility, he perhaps double shifted on turgeon's and koivu's lines when needed, and more minutes played = more GA.

it would also explain why they were throwing him so many selke votes.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Wasn't Carbonneau the guy who shut down Gretzky--who was having a Gretzky-like postseason--after Muller couldn't contain him in game one? Four points in game one, three points spread across the last four games. Habs don't win with Gretzky on a roll.

i can't remember exactly, and i don't have time to verify right now, but i think someone went through the game tape and found carbonneau on the ice for a couple of the gretzky points in game one.

but it doesn't really matter whether he replaced muller or not. what counts is carbo held gretzky to just three points (and two at ES) in the next four games, all habs wins of course.

 

[Talks to Goalposts]

Roy's performance in the '93 playoffs was very good, but it's also a bit overrated. If the Habs and Kings switched goalies in the finals, Habs would still win. It's not as if the Kings vastly outplayed the Habs in the finals and Roy singlehandedly saved their bacon. This is not what happened. The Habs outshot the Kings by a considerable margin in the finals. Montreal's forwards and defensemen outplayed their counterparts on the Kings - they outscored them, outshot them, outchanced them, outworked them, and outsmarted them.

One thing to note is that most of the Canadiens were in their prime, or close to it. The Kings were older, with several of their best players past their primes (and a few before their primes). And the Habs had a lot of really smart, tenacious players.

This was the case generally for the Habs that playoffs, not just the finals. The Habs skaters generally outplayed their opposition. Roy's superheroics wasn't carrying a weak team to the finals, it was giving a good team a huge margin of error against their opponents such that they ended up running the table, going 16-5 and hardly ever being close to being beaten. The OT factor got hugely inflated into people thinking the Habs were just squeeking by closely matched teams, when in fact they were just taking longer to beat teams they were generally better than.

 

[decma]

having not been a close observer of the team that year, i can't explain the statistics anymore. can you explain damphousse's fourth place selke placement?

i can interject a couple of things just from looking at the numbers: it's 52 GA for turgeon, not 42. so the difference is 19 goals, not the 29 that you suggested earlier. still a sizable discrepancy, but 1/3 smaller.

another statistical anomaly: damphousse was on the ice for by far the most points on the habs that year, and by far the most non-PP points. in back-to-back-to-back years they lost carbonneau and muller, then early in '96 they also lost keane. (and the year before, they also lost skrudland.) so that's a crap-tonne of defensive load-lifting gone. replacing them were a rookie saku koivu for carbonneau, turgeon for muller, and rucinsky for keane. 97 total GA for damphousse, followed by three defensemen (87, 83, 80), then koivu (76). look up and down that roster, do you see any forwards other than benoit brunet (who only played 26 games) and a young turner stevenson in his first full season that you'd even consider giving tough defensive minutes to?

marty rucinsky was passable, and he was on damphousse's line, with the much less than fine valeri bure on the other wing. turgeon played with recchi (not sure who the LW was, but based on the +/- numbers i'm guessing kovalenko and not brian savage?) a hypothesis: maybe the total dearth of good defensive forwards did two things: it forced damphousse to play way more than his normal share of hard minutes and it gave him less than ideal linemates to help, hence huge ESGA numbers. the GA numbers also suggest that given his C/LW versatility, he perhaps double shifted on turgeon's and koivu's lines when needed, and more minutes played = more GA.

it would also explain why they were throwing him so many selke votes.

Yes, sloppy subtraction on my part. So 71 vs. 52. Still a 36.5% difference.

I have never fully bought into the matchup argument for the reasons I described above. If a complete lack of other defensively-minded forwards meant that Tremblay had to use Damphousse in every defensive situation, wouldn't it also mean that it would be easier for other teams to avoid such matchups when at home? Just hold back their top line until Damphousse leaves the ice. With the other Habs forwards all being defensive laggards, no lack of opportunity for the other coach to get his top line plenty of ice time even avoiding every Damphousse shift. Again, I would expect these factors to offset (with a big home/road split) and see no evidence that they generally don't.

Now that data are available for ice time and matchups, has anyone quantified how much this matters? E.g., how much of the difference in goals allowed by two top six forwards on the same team can be explained by usage and matchups? What is the biggest difference in zone starts that has been observed since these data were tracked? What percentage of shifts even constitute off zone or def zone starts (as opposed to being on the fly or in the neutral zone)?

Similarly, what is the biggest differnce in quality of opposition forwards that has been observed between two top 6 forwards on the same team?

I suspect the differences are not that large and cannot explain a 36% difference in GA, but I have not seen data either way.

I can't explain the Selke votes for Damphousse any more than I can explain the many curious votes that have been observed over the years (including but certainly not limited to the first place Selke vote Turgeon got a few seasons later).

 

[Thenameless]

For me, it's pretty easily Kirk Muller. A lot of guys played well in front of Roy that year, and I particularly remember being impressed with Desjardins, but it's still Muller. He was our number one center, a good two player, and the team leader.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Versatility was the key. Both Damphousse and Muller in 1992-93 wereC/LW types so they could be paired, switched or split depending on specific needs. Also other forwards like Bellows, Leclair had some positional flexibility.

Effectively giving Demers extra options.

 

[BenchBrawl]

I would give a special mention to Jacques Demers, a great man and great motivator.

As for the players, damn, it's an impossible task to choose.Roy was so dominant, arguably the greatest playoff run by any player ever.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

This was the case generally for the Habs that playoffs, not just the finals. The Habs skaters generally outplayed their opposition. Roy's superheroics wasn't carrying a weak team to the finals, it was giving a good team a huge margin of error against their opponents such that they ended up running the table, going 16-5 and hardly ever being close to being beaten. The OT factor got hugely inflated into people thinking the Habs were just squeeking by closely matched teams, when in fact they were just taking longer to beat teams they were generally better than.

it's actually 16-4. they lost the first two games, then only lost two more the entire rest of the way. and it's not like they were especially bad losses either. both were 4-1 games where the team let in an empty netter late. so simply games where a little goal support could have changed how the game played out.

Yes, sloppy subtraction on my part. So 71 vs. 52. Still a 36.5% difference.

I have never fully bought into the matchup argument for the reasons I described above. If a complete lack of other defensively-minded forwards meant that Tremblay had to use Damphousse in every defensive situation, wouldn't it also mean that it would be easier for other teams to avoid such matchups when at home? Just hold back their top line until Damphousse leaves the ice. With the other Habs forwards all being defensive laggards, no lack of opportunity for the other coach to get his top line plenty of ice time even avoiding every Damphousse shift. Again, I would expect these factors to offset (with a big home/road split) and see no evidence that they generally don't.

Now that data are available for ice time and matchups, has anyone quantified how much this matters? E.g., how much of the difference in goals allowed by two top six forwards on the same team can be explained by usage and matchups? What is the biggest difference in zone starts that has been observed since these data were tracked? What percentage of shifts even constitute off zone or def zone starts (as opposed to being on the fly or in the neutral zone)?

Similarly, what is the biggest differnce in quality of opposition forwards that has been observed between two top 6 forwards on the same team?

I suspect the differences are not that large and cannot explain a 36% difference in GA, but I have not seen data either way.

I can't explain the Selke votes for Damphousse any more than I can explain the many curious votes that have been observed over the years (including but certainly not limited to the first place Selke vote Turgeon got a few seasons later).

damphousse's home/away +/- is pretty the same: +4 at home, +1 on the road.

but look at the turgeon line's: +17 vs. +2 for turgeon, +14 vs. +6 or recchi. that might suggest those guys were shielded from strength on strength matchups at home, doesn't it?

but i think the big question mark here is why was damphousse on the ice for far and away the most ES goals against on the team? more than any defenseman, and way more than any forward? i find it completely implausible that a guy who was considered a good-to-very good defensive forward his entire career just flat out sucked to that degree. the only plausible explanation is that he was given an inordinate amount of icetime, and probably in situations where the other team was more likely to score.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Roy's performance is possibly the most overrated in Stanley Cup history. Admittedly I was following the Leafs more closely that spring, but if I recall the Habs run was reported more as a "team of destiny" story than a "star goalie carrying a lunchbucket team to the top" story. (If anything, '86 was more the latter.)

I'll never understand how winning in OT is more clutch than winning in regulation. Like, protect a lead mon ami. Spare your teammates the unnecessary wear and tear. How deep into the O6 era do we have to go to find a team that won a Cup with just six regulation time wins?

And how deep into the Dead Puck Era do we have to go to find a team that won a Stanley Cup with less goal support? Montreal scored 3.02 goals-per-game in the playoffs while giving up 30-shots-per-game in a year in which the league average team scored 3.63 goals-per-game and the league-average goaltender stopped just .885. That wasn't exactly a formula for success.

"Spare your teammates the unnecessary wear and tear?"

Like... come on. They wrapped it up in 20 games.

 

[Hobnobs]

And how deep into the Dead Puck Era do we have to go to find a team that won a Stanley Cup with less goal support? Montreal scored 3.02 goals-per-game in the playoffs while giving up 30-shots-per-game in a year in which the league average team scored 3.63 goals-per-game and the league-average goaltender stopped just .885. That wasn't exactly a formula for success.

"Spare your teammates the unnecessary wear and tear?"

Like... come on. They wrapped it up in 20 games.

Didnt the habs score 3.3 gpg in the playoffs? Which would be far behind the devils 3.35 gpg in 95 or Detroits 2.9 in 97.

Roys 93 is tad overplayed and mostly because he never was on losing side of the OT with that said, he was still the MVP by a wide margin of the habs and the playoffs. Followed by Desjardins imo.