Comparing the playoff resumes of Howe, Beliveau and Crosby

[daver]

To make a fair comparison, I separated their playoff runs into 1st round (Crosby - 1st and 2nd round) and 2nd round (SCF for Howe and Beliveau, 3rd Round and SCF for Crosby). I then counted the # of times they were 1st or 2nd in team scoring for each round.

Beliveau had 33 career playoff rounds (18 1st Rounds, 15 2nd Rounds)

He finished 1st in 1st Round Scoring 4 times - 22%
He finished 2nd in 1st Round Scoring 4 times - 22%
He finished 1st in 2nd Round Scoring 4 times - 27%
He finished 2nd in 2nd Round Scoring 5 times - 33%

Total % finishing 1st - 24%
Total % finishing 1st or 2nd in SCF - 60%

During his playoff career ('54 to '71), Beliveau was the dominant points leader and #3 in PPG (Hull, Howe): NHL Stats


Howe had 29 career playoff rounds (19 1st Rounds, 10 2nd Rounds)

He finished 1st in 1st Round Scoring 6 times - 32%
He finished 2nd in 1st Round Scoring 9 times - 47%
He finished 1st in 2nd Round Scoring 5 times - 50%
He finished 2nd in 2nd Round Scoring 1 time - 10%

Total % finishing 1st - 38%
Total % finishing 1st or 2nd in SCF - 60%

During his playoff career ('54 to '71), Howe was the points leader and #3 in PPG (Hull, Beliveau): NHL Stats


Crosby has 28 career playoff rounds (19 1st Rounds, 9 2nd Rounds)

He finished 1st in 1st Round Scoring 11 times - 59%
He finished 2nd in 1st Round Scoring 4 times - 16%
He finished 1st in 2nd Round Scoring 2 times - 22%
He finished 2nd in 2nd Round Scoring 5 times - 56%

Total % finishing 1st - 46%
Total % finishing 1st or 2nd in SCF - 78%


During his playoff career ('07 to '22), Crosby is the clear points leader and #2 in PPG with min. 50 games (Kucherov):

Thoughts?

Click to read more...

 

[Professor What]

I think it's flawed to ignore Conference Finals and Stanley Cup Finals series with Crosby. Howe and Beliveau put in a situation here where they're in the round of four and round of two, whereas Crosby is in a round of sixteen and round of eight setting. That's only complicated further when we consider the fact that a six-team league for Howe's and Beliveau's best days meant that the talent was far more concentrated than in the 30-31 team leagues that Crosby has played in. Crosby comes out of that with an overwhelming advantage in this set up.

The concentration of talent also means that there were more potential "threats" for the scoring crown in any given round for Howe and Beliveau. Crosby played with Malkin who could be considered a "threat" on his own team, and you might have one or two guys on the other team that would be an expected threat. Now, that doesn't account for a breakout series for someone else, but it gives some level of expectations. Howe and Beliveau, on the other hand, might have had two or three guys on their own teams that would be potential competition, and that's before even getting to the other team's best players. There's no way that they're going to look as good as Crosby in this particular setup. There has to be a better way to do it.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

as i just said in the other thread, gordie howe scored 12 points in a seven game series and set the all-time playoff scoring record against an absolute superteam, the 1955 habs.

top two centers in the league (by all-star voting), and that doesn't include henri richard

RW led the league in goals and points

three hall of famers on d including doug harvey in his all the norrises peak — all three guys were voted the best dman in the league at least once

minor hall of fame wingers in peak bert olmstead (led the league in assists back to back years) and young dickie moore

backstopped by a guy some people consider the greatest goalie of all time

howe had his own great teammates too, but it's worth pointing out that in the 55 (and for beliveau 56) finals, we're talking about the most stacked teams of all time playing each other.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

This is a really good way of glossing over the fact that Crosby's scoring in the 3rd and 4th rounds is much lower than in the 1st round.

(I have nothing against Crosby - he's pretty clearly the best player of his generation, and could end up #5 all-time. But it's a legitimate strike against him that his production in the last two rounds of the playoffs is disappointing. As is the fact that he's only led his team in scoring once in five trips to the conference finals and beyond).

 

[MadLuke]

The team leading metrics can be a bit odds, finishing first in scoring if you have Richard on your team is different than if he is not on it and so on.

If we look how often Matt Sundin did the leaf in playoff scoring:
94-95 Sundin
95-96 Not Sundin
98-99 Sundin
99-00 Not Sundin
00-01 Sundin
01-02 Not Sundin
02-03 Not Sundin
03-04 Sundin

Versus Forsberg leading the Avalanche in the playoff scoring during that time frame:
95: Forsberg
96: Sakic
97: Sakic
98: Forsberg
99: Forsberg
00: Forsberg
01: Sakic
02: Forsberg
03: Sakic
04: Sakic

Jagr:
95: Francis
96: Lemieux
97: Jagr
98: Jagr
99: Straka
00: Jagr
01: Lemieux
02: ---
03: Jagr

Yzerman:
95: Fedorov
96: Yzerman-Fedorov tie
97: Fedorov
98: Yzerman
99: Yzerman
00: Fedorov
01: Lidstrom
02: Yzerman
03: Fedorov
04: Lang


Sundin, Sakic, Forsberg, Jagr all lead their team 50% of the time in the playoff during that time frame, when Yzerman did it only 40% like Miroslav Satan did for Buffalo, what should we conclude ?

Jagr had 102 points in 83 games (1.23)
Forsberg had 154 points in 133 games (1.16)
Sakic had 163 points in 147 games (1.11)
Sundin had 70 points in 77 games (0.91)
Yzerman had 115 points in 132 games (0.87)

Getting second in scoring on your team to Lemieux, Sakic, Fedorov or Forsberg is not the same than being the Leafs co-players, same goes for Crosby behind Malkin or Malkin behind Crosby.

Not sure what a good metric could be too, how well they did versus the average first liner point in those rounds during when they played ?

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

So the OP is just gonna ignore that Crosby's "1st and 2nd rounds" were against far worse teams than Beliveau's and Howe's?

A more fair comparison is comparing Crosby's Conference Finals and Stanley Cup Finals to Beliveau and Howe considering those are essentially the only rounds they ever played in.

 

[MXD]

There are probably meaningful ways to compare their scoring, and this isn't of them.

I am aware though that you can't quite "aggregate" Crosby's 1st and 2nd rounds into a single round, then Crosby's 3rd and 4th rounds into another single round, due to the fact it was (and, well, it is) statistically harder to get to those 3rd and 4th rounds.

 

[MadLuke]

So the OP is just gonna ignore that Crosby's "1st and 2nd rounds" were against far worse teams than Beliveau's and Howe's?

Not sure how much it is true but how much it would have relevance in leading your team in scoring or not ?, Malkin, Kessel, Hossa, Letang and co. are playing against those worst team and Beliveau-Howe teammate against the stronger team has well.

I am aware though that you can't quite "aggregate" Crosby's 1st and 2nd rounds into a single round, then Crosby's 3rd and 4th rounds into another single round, due to the fact it was (and, well, it is) statistically harder to get to those 3rd and 4th rounds.

Not so sure here either, why would it matter how hard it was to reach those round in the 30 teams 4 round league versus in the 06 when the comparison seem to be focused about a percentage of time something occur in them and not how many them they achieved to reach it ?

 

[Big Phil]

This is a really good way of glossing over the fact that Crosby's scoring in the 3rd and 4th rounds is much lower than in the 1st round.

(I have nothing against Crosby - he's pretty clearly the best player of his generation, and could end up #5 all-time. But it's a legitimate strike against him that his production in the last two rounds of the playoffs is disappointing. As is the fact that he's only led his team in scoring once in five trips to the conference finals and beyond).

Let's see:

2008 finals - 6 points in 6 games
2009 finals - 3 points in 7 games
2016 finals - 4 points in 6 games
2017 finals - 7 points in 6 games

Total for the Cup finals - 20 points in 25 games. Yeah, could be better I guess you could say. I thought he did the best in 2017. In 2016 I can still remember him directing Letang where to stand in Game 2 prior to a faceoff in overtime and he wins the faceoff cleanly and assists on the winning goal. That was just textbook, I thought. So I think there is more than just points with him too as he brings other things to the table. 2017 I can remember him in Game 5 on his first shift splitting the defense (he's done this almost as good as anyone else in NHL history) and breaking in alone and ringing it off the post, but drawing a hooking call. Well, he got three assists that game in a romp against Nashville that broke the 2-2 series tie. Just things like that are what I remember.

How about his conference finals?

2008 semis - 7 points in 5 games
2009 semis - 7 points in 4 games
2013 semis - 0 points in 4 games
2016 semis - 5 points in 7 games
2017 semis - 6 points in 7 games

Those totals are 25 points in 27 games. I mean, we're not talking too bad either. That 2013 series ought to be wiped out of memory, because that was awful for the whole team and the funny thing is Crosby was on fire prior to that. In 2017 it was him who made the quick pass to Kunitz for the Double overtime Game 7 winner. He definitely has had his playoff moments.

Isn't it normal to score less as the playoffs go on though? Wouldn't we see this with most star players over the years? There were other series that can't be overlooked as well. Against the Caps in 2009, that was pretty epic with 13 points in 7 games, including 3 in Game 7. The walloping of the Flyers in 2018 comes to mind as well. Did about as much as possible to help the Pens get a three peat as well in 2018 with 21 points in two rounds.

If you are flirting with 200 career playoff points and three Cups you are bound to have some great playoff moments.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Let's see:

2008 finals - 6 points in 6 games
2009 finals - 3 points in 7 games
2016 finals - 4 points in 6 games
2017 finals - 7 points in 6 games

Total for the Cup finals - 20 points in 25 games. Yeah, could be better I guess you could say. I thought he did the best in 2017. In 2016 I can still remember him directing Letang where to stand in Game 2 prior to a faceoff in overtime and he wins the faceoff cleanly and assists on the winning goal. That was just textbook, I thought. So I think there is more than just points with him too as he brings other things to the table. 2017 I can remember him in Game 5 on his first shift splitting the defense (he's done this almost as good as anyone else in NHL history) and breaking in alone and ringing it off the post, but drawing a hooking call. Well, he got three assists that game in a romp against Nashville that broke the 2-2 series tie. Just things like that are what I remember.

How about his conference finals?

2008 semis - 7 points in 5 games
2009 semis - 7 points in 4 games
2013 semis - 0 points in 4 games
2016 semis - 5 points in 7 games
2017 semis - 6 points in 7 games

Those totals are 25 points in 27 games. I mean, we're not talking too bad either. That 2013 series ought to be wiped out of memory, because that was awful for the whole team and the funny thing is Crosby was on fire prior to that. In 2017 it was him who made the quick pass to Kunitz for the Double overtime Game 7 winner. He definitely has had his playoff moments.

Isn't it normal to score less as the playoffs go on though? Wouldn't we see this with most star players over the years? There were other series that can't be overlooked as well. Against the Caps in 2009, that was pretty epic with 13 points in 7 games, including 3 in Game 7. The walloping of the Flyers in 2018 comes to mind as well. Did about as much as possible to help the Pens get a three peat as well in 2018 with 21 points in two rounds.

If you are flirting with 200 career playoff points and three Cups you are bound to have some great playoff moments.

Came here to post the 20 points in 25 games in the finals. Not the greatest but not bad. Now the 4 goals in 25 games is bad

 

[daver]

So the OP is just gonna ignore that Crosby's "1st and 2nd rounds" were against far worse teams than Beliveau's and Howe's?

A more fair comparison is comparing Crosby's Conference Finals and Stanley Cup Finals to Beliveau and Howe considering those are essentially the only rounds they ever played in.

Based on league seedings, Beliveau and Howe faced teams that were in the bottom half of the league (e.g. 4th in a six team league) that may not have even made the playoffs in the current league.

 

[daver]

This is a really good way of glossing over the fact that Crosby's scoring in the 3rd and 4th rounds is much lower than in the 1st round.

(I have nothing against Crosby - he's pretty clearly the best player of his generation, and could end up #5 all-time. But it's a legitimate strike against him that his production in the last two rounds of the playoffs is disappointing. As is the fact that he's only led his team in scoring once in five trips to the conference finals and beyond).

To be fair, given the current playoff format, you can point to some 2nd round series, notably against the Caps, that were tougher tests than some of the CF and SCF opponents. These unusual matchups did not happen in the O6.

I have no issue with giving later rounds more importance and agree Crosby is lacking in that regard but strength of opponent in earlier rounds needs to be considered too.

Also to be fair, Crosby won the Conn Smythe on the strength of his performance in the CF and SCF that wasn't completely reflected in point totals as his 2-way play and the timing of his scoring were significant.

My takeaway from these numbers is that Beliveau benefitted the most from being on better teams throughout his career than Howe and Crosby which explains the difference in Cups. IMO, Howe's playoff resume is befitting his regular season resume in terms of dominance vs. his peers and doesn't significant ground, if any, to Beliveau overall in this regard which I am sure is the general consensus of the HOH.

I would say the same for Crosby, his playoff resume is befitting his regular season resume in terms of dominance vs. his peers but is poised to be the "Beliveau" of his era with another elite Cup run.

 

[daver]

I think it's flawed to ignore Conference Finals and Stanley Cup Finals series with Crosby. Howe and Beliveau put in a situation here where they're in the round of four and round of two, whereas Crosby is in a round of sixteen and round of eight setting. That's only complicated further when we consider the fact that a six-team league for Howe's and Beliveau's best days meant that the talent was far more concentrated than in the 30-31 team leagues that Crosby has played in. Crosby comes out of that with an overwhelming advantage in this set up.

Less teams =/= more concentration of talent. The base of talent has obviously grown in the last 60 to 70 years.

This is a completely subjective take with no reasonable argument to be made that teams today are not at a similar relative strength as teams from the O6. There seems to be general agreement that there were times in between that the talent level of league could be questioned but that should be long past us now.

 

[daver]

as i just said in the other thread, gordie howe scored 12 points in a seven game series and set the all-time playoff scoring record against an absolute superteam, the 1955 habs.

top two centers in the league (by all-star voting), and that doesn't include henri richard

RW led the league in goals and points

three hall of famers on d including doug harvey in his all the norrises peak — all three guys were voted the best dman in the league at least once

minor hall of fame wingers in peak bert olmstead (led the league in assists back to back years) and young dickie moore

backstopped by a guy some people consider the greatest goalie of all time

howe had his own great teammates too, but it's worth pointing out that in the 55 (and for beliveau 56) finals, we're talking about the most stacked teams of all time playing each other.

It is comments like these that bring on unreasonable bias against the O6.

Full credit to Howe in the '55 final but his team was the defending Cup champions, a team that had won 3 of the past 5 Cups in an era where dynasties were the norm not the exception, which lasted until 1990, and an era where, for all intents and purposes, the Cup was only being competed for by three teams.

I have no issue with rating their individual runs/series and giving some significance to later rounds but would give similar significance to Crosby's 2nd rounds against high seeds like the Caps, as I would for any rounds where Howe and Beliveau played high seeds before the SCF (most notably after 1967).

 

[Mickey Marner]

Perhaps it would be better to qualify competition by regular season points than by round they happened to meet in. Since both fifteen and three are divisible by three you could group opposing teams into three tiers of competition based on where they finished in the regular season. Or goals against, or goal differential, or whatever.

 

[plusandminus]

The team leading metrics can be a bit odds, finishing first in scoring if you have Richard on your team is different than if he is not on it and so on.
Sundin, Sakic, Forsberg, Jagr all lead their team 50% of the time in the playoff during that time frame, when Yzerman did it only 40% like Miroslav Satan did for Buffalo, what should we conclude ?

Jagr had 102 points in 83 games (1.23)
Forsberg had 154 points in 133 games (1.16)
Sakic had 163 points in 147 games (1.11)
Sundin had 70 points in 77 games (0.91)
Yzerman had 115 points in 132 games (0.87)

Getting second in scoring on your team to Lemieux, Sakic, Fedorov or Forsberg is not the same than being the Leafs co-players, same goes for Crosby behind Malkin or Malkin behind Crosby.

Not sure what a good metric could be too, how well they did versus the average first liner point in those rounds during when they played ?

I would say these kind of analysis needs a lot of context, and is quite tricky to do (especially during the playoffs). It's easy to end up comparing apples to oranges. I wrote about this yesterday in the thread below.
How much should the playoffs matter when comparing 2 players?

Your comparison has the advantage of comparing players with a similar share of home games. See below.

Jagr had 102 points in 83 games (1.23) -- 41 home games = 49 %. 1.34 PpG. Away 1.12
Forsberg had 154 points in 133 games (1.16) -- 69 home games = 52 %. 1.25 PpG. Away 1.06
Sakic had 163 points in 147 games (1.11) -- 77 home games = 52 %. 1.18 PpG. Away 1.03
Sundin had 70 points in 77 games (0.91) --39 home games = 51 %. 1.03 PpG. Away 0.79
Yzerman had 115 points in 132 games (0.87) -- 68 home games = 51.5+ %. 1.01 PpG. Away 0.72
(Notice how each player had on average a 0.22 higher PpG at home compared to away.
In earlier eras, like the 1970s, there was a huge difference between home and away stats, and the home team usually won.)

Regarding winning:

Jagr had 102 points in 83 games (1.23) -- 39 won games = 47 %. 1.67 PpG. Losing 0.84 PpG
Forsberg had 154 points in 133 games (1.16) -- 77 won games = 58 %. 1.43 PpG. Losing 0.79 PpG
Sakic had 163 points in 147 games (1.11) -- 88 won games = 60 %. 1.43 PpG. Losing 0.84 PpG
Sundin had 70 points in 77 games (0.91) -- 37 won games = 48 %. 1.19 PpG. Losing 0.65 PpG
Yzerman had 115 points in 132 games (0.87) -- 84 won games = 64 % 1.10 PpG. Losing 0.48 PpG
(Notice how each player has much lower PpG when his team is losing. Difference ismore than 0.5 PpG.)

Teammates... Sundin didn't have a Lidstrom, Fedorov, Sakic, Forsberg , Roy, Mario, Francis helping his team win games. Opponent could target him. (I'd say he's on Forsberg's and Sakic's level if given the same support.)
Example... Let's say player X helps his team score 2 goals per game. But the opponent scores 3. Here's why teammates helping out to score that 3rd or even 4th goal is so valuable. And then, player X may end up playing against an empty net, sometimes getting an extra point.

Overall play... I think you made great choices in players to compare. I would say all four centers were two-way centers. I would even say Jagr was a good two-way winger (I've watched him play).

Age... Yzerman was the oldest player, and no longer in his scoring prime. So it's natural his scoring numbers are lower.

Regarding best or 2nd best scorer on team, it needs a lot of context. Especially during playoffs.

 

[Big Phil]

Came here to post the 20 points in 25 games in the finals. Not the greatest but not bad. Now the 4 goals in 25 games is bad

Jonathan Toews always seemed to get a bit of flack for that in the finals.

2010 - 3 points in 6 games
2013 - 5 points in 6 games
2015 - 3 points in 6 games

Overall 11 points in 18 games. 4 goals in 18 games. Obviously like Crosby I think he brought more to the table as well.

 

[Professor What]

Less teams =/= more concentration of talent. The base of talent has obviously grown in the last 60 to 70 years.

This is a completely subjective take with no reasonable argument to be made that teams today are not at a similar relative strength as teams from the O6. There seems to be general agreement that there were times in between that the talent level of league could be questioned but that should be long past us now.

Has the talent pool grown? Obviously. But there are also over five times as many teams as well as slightly larger rosters. Also, a larger talent pool doesn't have nearly so much bearing on the creme of the crop, and when we're talking about players that would be expected to have potential to lead a series in scoring, that's what we're talking about. Guys like that were absolutely more concentrated on the six teams that existed.

Also, I find it kind of funny that you chose the word subjective there. I was more diplomatic in my first post, but the fact is, what you did in the OP was subjective at best. Even if there were certain series for Crosby in the first two rounds, especially after the current divisional format was introduced, that were more competitive, the fact of the matter is, you still chose his round of 16 and round of 8 series to go against round of four and round of 2 for Howe and Beliveau. That's far from fair. It felt a lot more like cherry picking to be honest. I don't think there's any argument that what you posted originally wasn't stacked in Crosby's favor. Honestly, it's a little hard to see how it could have been more stacked in his favor.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Jonathan Toews always seemed to get a bit of flack for that in the finals.

2010 - 3 points in 6 games
2013 - 5 points in 6 games
2015 - 3 points in 6 games

Overall 11 points in 18 games. 4 goals in 18 games. Obviously like Crosby I think he brought more to the table as well.

For toews that's actually fairly good production imo

 

[daver]

Has the talent pool grown? Obviously. But there are also over five times as many teams as well as slightly larger rosters. Also, a larger talent pool doesn't have nearly so much bearing on the creme of the crop, and when we're talking about players that would be expected to have potential to lead a series in scoring, that's what we're talking about. Guys like that were absolutely more concentrated on the six teams that existed.

Also, I find it kind of funny that you chose the word subjective there. I was more diplomatic in my first post, but the fact is, what you did in the OP was subjective at best. Even if there were certain series for Crosby in the first two rounds, especially after the current divisional format was introduced, that were more competitive, the fact of the matter is, you still chose his round of 16 and round of 8 series to go against round of four and round of 2 for Howe and Beliveau. That's far from fair. It felt a lot more like cherry picking to be honest. I don't think there's any argument that what you posted originally wasn't stacked in Crosby's favor. Honestly, it's a little hard to see how it could have been more stacked in his favor.

You come across as someone who has already made up their mind rather than willing to look at the numbers or give an honest thought to the fairest way to compare playoff performances from a six team league with thirty team league.

Playoffs on the O6 included 66% of the teams. Playoffs in the Crosby's era include 50% of the teams. It is statistically disingenuous to think it is fair to treat Round of 16 and Round of 8 as different than the Round of 4 of the O6. You can make more of an argument that non-playoff caliber teams were more apt to be in the O6 playoffs than in the current ones.

Only subjective arguments can be made to call this "unfair".

 

[MXD]

You come across as someone who has already made up their mind.

... Maybe he did. Or not.
Or you're talking to your mirrors.
I can't tell.

 

[Professor What]

You come across as someone who has already made up their mind rather than willing to look at the numbers or give an honest thought to the fairest way to compare playoff performances from a six team league with thirty team league.

Playoffs on the O6 included 66% of the teams. Playoffs in the Crosby's era include 50% of the teams. It is statistically disingenuous to think it is fair to treat Round of 16 and Round of 8 as different than the Round of 4 of the O6. You can make more of an argument that non-playoff caliber teams were more apt to be in the O6 playoffs than in the current ones.

Only subjective arguments can be made to call this "unfair".

Make a logically fair comparison and there's a change I can be pursuaded. You didn't do that. A lot of people have made similar disagreements with your methodologoy and you've done nothing but dismiss it. If you want to talk statistically disingenous, it's statistically disingenuous to come within light years of suggesting that the a thrity team league allows for anywhere near the same concentration of the best players in the world to be in a single series as what we had in the original six days. Again, I acknowledged that the talent pool has greatly expanded. But that doesn't change the fact that the top notch players aren't really going to be drastically different. That's why you can make a realistic comparison between the greatness of Howie Morenz, who played in the 1920s and 1930s to that of Crosby.

Quite frankly, and I'm not going to pull any punches here, and I'm not going to engage you any further on this because of what I'm about to say, but the original post absolutely reeks of an effort to "prove" something that you'd already decided. You seem to be doing exactly what you're accusing me of doing, and the dismissive attitude you've shown to any disagreement seems to support that idea. I've been swayed plenty of times about plenty of things since I joined this board. But it was always by a far more logical setup than what you constructed here. There was already discussion of Beliveau and Howe in other threads where a large majority disagreed with you, and it seemed like you just wanted to try to beat your point home. The fact of the matter is, only subjective arguments can be made to claim that the setup you gave is fair.

 

[Big Phil]

For toews that's actually fairly good production imo

I know, I never got what the fuss was about with him.

 

[daver]

Make a logically fair comparison and there's a change I can be pursuaded. You didn't do that. A lot of people have made similar disagreements with your methodologoy and you've done nothing but dismiss it. If you want to talk statistically disingenous, it's statistically disingenuous to come within light years of suggesting that the a thrity team league allows for anywhere near the same concentration of the best players in the world to be in a single series as what we had in the original six days. Again, I acknowledged that the talent pool has greatly expanded. But that doesn't change the fact that the top notch players aren't really going to be drastically different. That's why you can make a realistic comparison between the greatness of Howie Morenz, who played in the 1920s and 1930s to that of Crosby.

Your argument is that a 30 team league in 2010 does not represent the top hockey talent in the world as much as a six team league did in 1955.

I personally think it makes no sense to try prove this one way the other. I have read the pages and pages of arguments on the topic and do not come away with an overwhelming sense one way or the other; most times the most opinionated posters on this subject are trying to argue their favourite player deserves more credit than what the numbers indicate.

For the record, I don't mind Beliveau being rated as a Top 5 playoff performer all-time, even ahead of Howe. I wouldn't take him ahead of Howe for the playoffs though and I don't think he gets that many extra arguing points over Crosby due to his playoff resume to make up for the gap Crosby is starting to create in their regular season resumes.

 

[daver]

Here is a rating of their best playoff series, where they were #1 or 2 in points, based on total points with consideration for:

• the round that it took place (bonus point for SCF for Beliveau and Howe/CF and SCF for Crosby), there is some discretion here*
• seeding of opponent (2 bonus points for #1 seed for Beliveau and Howe and the league-wide #5 seed or better for Crosby; 1 bonus point for #2/3 seed for Beliveau and Howe and league-wide #6 to # 10 seed for Crosby), there is some discretion here*
• whether it was in a winning or losing cause (bonus point for win)
• whether they lead their team in scoring (bonus point for being 1st), there is some discretion here*
• goals scored (two bonus points for a GPG or better, 1 bonus point for being over 0.60 GPG or better) there is some discretion here*
• against teams with elite GAs (bonus point for #1 rated GA team for Beliveau and Howe and #3 GA or better rated GA team for Crosby)
• PPG (two bonus points for 2.00 or better, one bonus point for 1.50 or better)

Based on a comparison of the best playoff PPGs during their respective eras, there is no reason to think that any players are penalized for playing in a lower scoring era except maybe Howe before 1955, there is some discretion here.


BASED ON TOTAL POINTS (bonus points in parenthesis)

B – 32 playoff series total, 12 rated series
H – 28 playoff series total, 14 rated series
C – 28 playoff series total, 17* rated series (added TBL '16)

H (55) v. Habs - 2nd place (+2)* : 7 gms, 5 goals (+1), 12 pts (+1), F (+1), win (+1), PPG 1.8 (+1) = 19 Total
B (56) v. Wings - 2nd place (+2)*: 5 gms, 7 goals (+2), 10 pts (+1), F (+1), win (+1), PPG 2.00 (+2) = 19 Total
C (09) v. Caps – 4th place (+2): 7 gms, 8 goals (+2), 13 pts (+1), CSF, win (+1), PPG 1.8 (+1) = 19 Total
C (10) v. Sens – 13th place: 6 gms, 5 goals (+1), 14 pts (+1), CQF, win (+1), PPG 2.2 (+2) = 19 Total

C (18) v. Flyers – 13th place: 6 gms, 6 goals (+1)*, 13 pts (+1), CQF, win (+1), PPG 2.2 (+2) = 18 Total

H (64) v. Hawks - 2nd place (+1): 7 gms, 5 goals (+1), 11 pts, SF, win (+1), PPG 1.6 (+1) = 15 Total
B (57) v. Rangers - 4th place: 5 gms, 5 goals (+2), 10 pts, SF, win (+1), PPG 2.00 (+2) = 15 Total
B (65) v. Hawks - 3rd place (+1): 7 gms, 7 goals (+2), 10 pts, F (+1), win (+1) = 15 Total
B (68) v. Hawks - 4th place: 5 gms, 5 goals (+2), 9 pts (+1), SF (+1)*, win (+1), PPG 1.80 (+1) = 15 Total

H (49) v. Habs - 3rd place (+1): 7 gms, 8 goals (+2), 9 pts (+1), SF, win (+1), #1 GA (+1) = 14 Total
H (63) v. Hawks - 2nd place (+1): 6 gms, 4 goals (+1), 10 pts, SF, win (+1), PPG 1.6 (+1), #1 GA (+1) = 14 Total
B (56) v. Rangers - 3rd place (+1): 5 gms, 5 goals (+2), 9 pts, SF, win (+1), PPG 1.80 (+1) = 14 Total

B (55) v. Wings - 1st place (+2): 7 gms, 3 goals, 8 pts (+1), F (+1), loss, #1 GA (+1) = 13 Total

H (55) v. Leafs - 3rd place*: 4 gms, 4 goals (+2), 8 pts (+1), SF, win (+1), PPG 2.0 (+2), #2 GA (+1)* = 12 Total
H (61) v. Hawks - 3rd place (+1): 6 gms, 1 goal, 8 pts (+1), F (+1), loss, #1 GA (+1) = 12 Total
H (64) v. Leafs - 3rd place (+1): 7 gms, 4 goals (+1), 8 pts (+1), F (+1), loss = 12 Total
C (08) v. Sens – 13th place: 4 gms, 2 goals, 8 pts (+1), CQF, win (+1), PPG 2.0 (+2) = 12 Total
C (13) v. Isles – 16th place: 5 gms, 3 goals (+1), 9 pts, CQF, win (+1), PPG 1.8 (+1) = 12 Total
C (18) v. Caps – 6th place (+2)*: 6 gms, 3 goals, 8 pts (+1), CSF, win (+1), loss = 12 Total
C (16) v. Rangers – 8th place (+1): 5 gms, 3 goals (+1), 8 pts, CQF, win (+1), PPG 1.8 (+1) = 12 Total

H (54) v. Leafs - 3rd place (+1): 5 gms, 3 goals (+1), 6 pts (+1), SF, win (+1), #1 GA (+1) = 11 Total
H (56) v. Habs - 1st place (+2): 5 gms, 1 goal, 6 pts (+1), F (+1), loss, #1 GA (+1) = 11 Total
H (61) v. Leafs - 2nd place (+1): 5 gms, 3 goals (+1), 7 pts (+1), SF, win (+1), #1 GA (+1) = 11 Total
H (63) v. Leafs - Ist place (+2): 5 gms, 3 goals (+1), 6 pts (+1), F (+1), loss = 11 Total
C (17) v. Caps – 1st place (+2): 6 gms, 2 goals, 7 pts, CSF, win (+1), #1 GA (+1) = 11 Total
C (17) v. Preds – 16th place: 6 gms, 1 goal, 7 pts (+1), SCF (+1), win (+1) = 11 Total
C (09) v. Flyers – 8th place (+1): 6 gms, 4 goals (+1), 8 pts, CQF, win (+1) = 11 Total
C (09) v. Caines – 8th place (+1): 4 gms, 2 goals, 7 pts, CF (+1), win (+1), PPG 1.8 (+1) = 11 Total

H (66) v. Hawks - 3rd place (+1): 6 gms, 3 goals, 8 pts, SF, win = 10 Total
B (69) v. Bruins - 2nd place (+2)*: 6 gms, 3 goals, 6 pts, SF (+1)*, win (+1) = 10 Total
B (69) v. Blues - 1st place (+2): 4 gms, 0 goals, 5 pts, F (+1), win (+1), #1 GA (+1) = 10 Total
C (08) v. Flyers – 10th place (+1): 5 gms, 2 goals, 7 pts, CF (+1), win (+1) = 10 Total
C (08) v. Wings – 1st place (+2): 6 gms, 2 goals, 6 pts, SCF (+1), #1 GA (+1) = 10 Total

H (57) v. Bruins - 3rd place (+1): 5 gms, 2 goals, 7 pts (+1), SF, loss = 9 Total
B (67) v. Leafs - 3rd place (+1): 6 gms, 4 goals (+1), 6 pts, F (+1), loss = 9 Total
B (66) v. Leafs - 3rd place (+1): 4 gms, 2 goals (+2), 5 pts, SF, win (+1) = 9 Total
C (17) v. Sens – 12th place: 7 gms, 3 goals, 6 pts (+1), CF (+1), win (+1) = 9 Total
C (12) v. Flyers – 6th place (+1): 6 gms, 3 goals, 8 pts, CQF, loss = 9 Total

H (56) v. Leafs - 4th place: 5 gms, 2 goals, 6 pts (+1), SF, win (+1) = 8 Total
C (08) v. Rangers- 9th place (+1): 5 gms, 0 goals, 6 pts, CSF, win (+1) = 8 Total

B (66) v. Wings - 4th place: 6 gms, 3 goals, 5 pts, F (+1), win (+1) = 7 Total
B (67) v. Rangers - 4th place: 4 gms, 2 goals, 5 pts (+1), SF, win (+1) = 7 Total
C (15) v. Rangers – 1st place (+2): 5 gms, 2 goals, 4 pts, CQF, loss, #1 GA (+1) = 7 Total
C (16) v. TBL – 12th place: 7 gms, 3 goals, 5 pts*, CF, win (+1), win (+1) = 7 Total

Crosby has the most high end series, followed by Howe and Beliveau with numerous very good series, then Howe shows his consistency. Crosby's highest total number of rated series can be attributed to him playing more series at his peak/prime.