Better Conn Smythe performance: 2017 Sidney Crosby or 2018 Alex Ovechkin?

[Midnight Judges]

So physicality matters when comparing Crosby and Kessel too in 2016?

You mean Logan Couture. You know, the guy who had 58% more points and 25% more hits than Sid.

 

[Gurglesons]

You mean Crosby and 30-point Logan Couture. You know, the guy who had 58% more points than Sid.

So you think Logan Couture should've won the Smythe in 2016?

 

[Midnight Judges]

So you think Logan Couture should've won the Smythe in 2016?

Yes, I do. He was the most valuable individual player - clearly more valuable than Crosby.

 

[Gurglesons]

Yes, I do. He was the most valuable individual player - clearly more valuable than Crosby.

Your bias runs so deep it is impressive.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Your bias runs so deep it is impressive.

Couture produced at a 103 point / 34 goal pace as a plus player while out-hitting Crosby and also contributing a bit on the PK.

Crosby produced at a 65 point / 21 goal pace as a minus player while being unphysical and not contributing on the PK.

Couture also took more defensive zone starts, still had fewer EV goals against, and also had a GF% of 57% to Crosby's paltry 47% (which is by far the lowest on record for a Conn Smythe winner).

On what planet Crosby was better than Couture?!? Yes, I realize it is rare for the Conn Smythe winner to be from the losing team, but this ought to be such a case. The true nature of hockey is that it's overwhelmingly a team sport, and one individual (who plays 1/3 of the game) cannot possibly carry a team. To pretend the most valuable individual cannot come from the unsuccessful team is to betray a lack of understanding for the game.

 

[Gurglesons]

Couture produced at a 103 point / 34 goal pace as a plus player while out-hitting Crosby and also contributing a bit on the PK.

Crosby produced at a 65 point / 21 goal pace as a minus player while being unphysical and not contributing on the PK.

Couture also took more defensive zone starts, still had fewer EV goals against, and also had a GF% of 57% to Crosby's paltry 47%.

On what planet Crosby was better than Couture?!? Yes, I realize it is rare for the Conn Smythe winner to be from the losing team, but this ought to be such a case. The true nature of hockey is that it's overwhelmingly a team sport, and one individual (who plays 1/3 of the game) cannot possibly carry a team. To pretend the most valuable individual cannot come from the unsuccessful team is to betray a lack of understanding for the game.

If only people understood the game like you to create every argument possible against Sidney Crosby.

BTW Couts got 3 third place votes for the Smythe. So, I guess a lot of people disagreed with your expert analysis.

 

[Midnight Judges]

If only people understood the game like you to create every argument possible against Sidney Crosby.

BTW Couts got 3 third place votes for the Smythe. So, I guess a lot of people disagreed with your expert analysis.

I'm fine with comparing my hockey knowledge to a bunch of journalists.

They want clicks and a good story. Giving Sidney Crosby a lifetime achievement award is a far better narrative than Logan Couture.

 

[Gurglesons]

I'm fine with comparing my hockey knowledge to a bunch of journalists.

They want clicks and a good story. Giving Sidney Crosby a lifetime achievement award is a far better narrative than Logan Couture.

So why did NHL players just name Crosby one of the most “complete player in the league”?

 

[filinski77]

If only people understood the game like you to create every argument possible against Sidney Crosby.

BTW Couts got 3 third place votes for the Smythe. So, I guess a lot of people disagreed with your expert analysis.

I think he's right in that Couture was the best player in the playoffs that year, and also more valuable to the Sharks than Crosby was to the Pens.

What I don't agree with, is that he should have won the Smythe over Crosby. The Smythe is essentially a team award for a player on the team that wins the cup (unless someone else has a once-in-a-generation post-season).

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

I think he's right in that Couture was the best player in the playoffs that year, and also more valuable to the Sharks than Crosby was to the Pens.

If that's his criteria, then he should also be advocating for Fleury winning the 2018 CS over Ovechkin since going by the bolded above, Fleury's play was more instrumental for the Knights getting to the finals than Ovechkin's was for the Caps as the Caps also had Kuznetsov producing while Fleury was putting up all-time numbers through the first three rounds.

The problem, though, is he won't because that means Ovechkin's CS gets questioned and it's only stuff that puts Crosby's awards into question that he applies these arguments for.

 

[bobholly39]

I think he's right in that Couture was the best player in the playoffs that year, and also more valuable to the Sharks than Crosby was to the Pens.

What I don't agree with, is that he should have won the Smythe over Crosby. The Smythe is essentially a team award for a player on the team that wins the cup (unless someone else has a once-in-a-generation post-season).

Was he? I doubt it. Sharks were a pretty deep team. If you remove Crosby from the Pens and Couture from the Sharks - to me Pens 100% don't win the cup nor make the finals. Sharks might make the finals, depending on matchup could win too. You can say his performance was better maybe (more points), but I wouldn't use the word valuable.

I agree with your second point. Conn Smythe is for the winning team - unless it's a truly spectacular/once in a lifetime type of performance (ie Giguere 2003).

 

[Gurglesons]

I think he's right in that Couture was the best player in the playoffs that year, and also more valuable to the Sharks than Crosby was to the Pens.

What I don't agree with, is that he should have won the Smythe over Crosby. The Smythe is essentially a team award for a player on the team that wins the cup (unless someone else has a once-in-a-generation post-season).

Crosby was involved in the GWG in like 6 of the Pens final 8 games that year that led to a cup win. That’s why just reading stats doesn’t make sense when evaluating the Smythe.

Crosby was good in R1. Meh in R2. And then easily the best forward for PIT in R3 and R4. The only argument for anybody above Crosby for Smythe was Letang for those that watched the playoffs that year.

Couture had 6 points and 2 goals in the SCF in a series where the Sharks basically got steam rolled.

I’m not surprised two Caps fans are making this argument in the slightest. And I think making the Kessel argument is fine, but you can not make the Kessel argument and then turn around and say Ovi deserved the Smythe over Kuznetsov.

 

[JasonRoseEh]

If that's his criteria, then he should also be advocating for Fleury winning the 2018 CS over Ovechkin since going by the bolded above, Fleury's play was more instrumental for the Knights getting to the finals than Ovechkin's was for the Caps as the Caps also had Kuznetsov producing while Fleury was putting up all-time numbers through the first three rounds.

The problem, though, is he won't because that means Ovechkin's CS gets questioned and it's only stuff that puts Crosby's awards into question that he applies these arguments for.

Vegas walked through the entire conference and it wasn't because Fleury was channeling 2015 Lundqvist, the team was awesome. Fleury was too but his play wasn't some massive disparity to make this remotely a conversation.

 

[Gurglesons]

Vegas walked through the entire conference and it wasn't because Fleury was channeling 2015 Lundqvist, the team was awesome. Fleury was too but his play wasn't some massive disparity to make this remotely a conversation.

No goalie has done what Fleury did in 2018 in regards to GA and SV% through the first three rounds. So yes. It was.

Fleury was better than Giguere. Then he turned into the real Fleury.

 

[Midnight Judges]

I think he's right in that Couture was the best player in the playoffs that year, and also more valuable to the Sharks than Crosby was to the Pens.

What I don't agree with, is that he should have won the Smythe over Crosby. The Smythe is essentially a team award for a player on the team that wins the cup (unless someone else has a once-in-a-generation post-season).

Well yeah, I mean, I go by the actual definition of the Conn Smythe - which isn't what you just typed.

But sure, these journalists are free to change their criteria. And they do.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Crosby was involved in the GWG in like 6 of the Pens final 8 games that year that led to a cup win. That’s why just reading stats doesn’t make sense when evaluating the Smythe.

Crosby was good in R1. Meh in R2.

He wasn't "meh" in round 2. He was a complete passenger.

 

[Gurglesons]

He wasn't "meh" in round 2. He was a complete passenger.

complete passenger that toasted your team ;(

 

[Midnight Judges]

If that's his criteria, then he should also be advocating for Fleury winning the 2018 CS over Ovechkin since going by the bolded above, Fleury's play was more instrumental for the Knights getting to the finals than Ovechkin's was for the Caps as the Caps also had Kuznetsov producing while Fleury was putting up all-time numbers through the first three rounds.

It's a 3 round trophy now, eh?

Fleury had nice numbers in the playoffs - the ENTIRE playoffs. .927 is very nice. But it isn't all-time great.

There is no rational basis for excluding the SCF from the equation for evaluating a Conn Smythe candidate. You did it, not because it's rational, but because you knew you NEEDED to in order to get your desired result - which is to say I am somehow inconsistent. Which I am not.

 

[Midnight Judges]

complete passenger that toasted your team ;(

LOL "toasted" = no goals, 0 primary points, and 2 secondary assist (1 ES point) in 6 games as a minus 4 player. You honestly are asserting that?!?

And you call me biased. Holy cow man.

 

[Gurglesons]

LOL "toasted" = 2 points in 6 games as a minus player. You honestly are asserting that?!?

And you call me biased. Holy cow man.

It's a 3 round trophy now, eh?

 

[Midnight Judges]

It's a 3 round trophy now, eh?

I already cited four rounds of data directly to you as a basis for my rationale.

 

[Tyttoystava]

Crosby was the best player in his line. Ovechkin, not so much.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

Vegas walked through the entire conference and it wasn't because Fleury was channeling 2015 Lundqvist, the team was awesome. Fleury was too but his play wasn't some massive disparity to make this remotely a conversation.

I think you're misremembering Fleury's run through the first 3 rounds.

Through 3 rounds:
GAA - 1.71 (27 goals against in 945 minutes played)
Save Pct. - .947 (478 saves on 505 shots)

He was literally the reason Vegas got to the finals.

Sure, he kind of imploded in the finals, but prior to that you're re-writing history if you say he wasn't "channeling 2015 Lundqvist" to get them there.

 

[Painful Quandary]

Crosby was involved in the GWG in like 6 of the Pens final 8 games that year that led to a cup win. That’s why just reading stats doesn’t make sense when evaluating the Smythe.

Crosby was good in R1. Meh in R2. And then easily the best forward for PIT in R3 and R4. The only argument for anybody above Crosby for Smythe was Letang for those that watched the playoffs that year.

Couture had 6 points and 2 goals in the SCF in a series where the Sharks basically got steam rolled.

I’m not surprised two Caps fans are making this argument in the slightest. And I think making the Kessel argument is fine, but you can not make the Kessel argument and then turn around and say Ovi deserved the Smythe over Kuznetsov.

Even though I am in the camp that thinks Couture had a better playoffs than Crosby that year, I do think Letang should have won the Conn Smythe that year. Letang was amazing in the SCF that year, and one of the three reasons the Penguins were absolutely dominate, the other two were the third-line mismatch made worse due to Hertl's injury and DeBoer's insistence on running Roman Polak over Dylan DeMelo. The only reason the series went six games was Martin Jones.

 

[filinski77]

Crosby was involved in the GWG in like 6 of the Pens final 8 games that year that led to a cup win. That’s why just reading stats doesn’t make sense when evaluating the Smythe.

Crosby was good in R1. Meh in R2. And then easily the best forward for PIT in R3 and R4. The only argument for anybody above Crosby for Smythe was Letang for those that watched the playoffs that year.

Couture had 6 points and 2 goals in the SCF in a series where the Sharks basically got steam rolled.

I’m not surprised two Caps fans are making this argument in the slightest. And I think making the Kessel argument is fine, but you can not make the Kessel argument and then turn around and say Ovi deserved the Smythe over Kuznetsov.

I just checked the game logs, Crosby was only involved in the GWG in 3/8 of the Pens final 8 games (and 3/10, and 5/13).

I also don't know why you are lumping me in with the Kessel argument (that I never brought up or mentioned on here). I straight up said that I don't agree with the statement that Couture deserved the Smythe. But you can't deny that he wasn't better than Crosby in that post-season. He lead the SCF in points and goals (Crosby was in a 5-way tie for 3rd, and 22nd in goals), and also had a much better post-season as a whole.