Comparing the playoff resumes of Howe, Beliveau and Crosby

[daver]

BASED ON TOTAL POINTS (no bonus points)

B – 32 playoff series total
H – 28 playoff series total
C – 28 playoff series 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 (09) v. Caps – 4th place (+2): 7 gms, 8 goals (+2), 13 pts (+1), CSF, win (+1), PPG 1.8 (+1) = 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 (55) v. Habs - 2nd place (+2)* : 7 gms, 5 goals (+1), 12 pts (+1), F (+1), win (+1), PPG 1.8 (+1) = 19 Total

H (64) v. Hawks - 2nd place (+1): 7 gms, 5 goals (+1), 11 pts, SF, win (+1), PPG 1.6 (+1) = 15 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. Wings - 2nd place (+2)*: 5 gms, 7 goals (+2), 10 pts (+1), F (+1), win (+1), PPG 2.00 (+2) = 19 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

H (49) v. Habs - 3rd place (+1): 7 gms, 8 goals (+2), 9 pts (+1), SF, win (+1), #1 GA (+1) = 14 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
B (56) v. Rangers - 3rd place (+1): 5 gms, 5 goals (+2), 9 pts, SF, win (+1), PPG 1.80 (+1) = 14 Total
C (13) v. Isles – 16th place: 5 gms, 3 goals (+1), 9 pts, CQF, win (+1), PPG 1.8 (+1) = 12 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
H (66) v. Hawks - 3rd place (+1): 6 gms, 3 goals, 8 pts, SF, win = 10 Total
B (55) v. Wings - 1st place (+2): 7 gms, 3 goals, 8 pts (+1), F (+1), loss, #1 GA (+1) = 13 Total
C (08) v. Sens – 13th place: 4 gms, 2 goals, 8 pts (+1), CQF, win (+1), PPG 2.0 (+2) = 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
C (09) v. Flyers – 8th place (+1): 6 gms, 4 goals (+1), 8 pts, CQF, win (+1) = 11 Total
C (12) v. Flyers – 6th place (+1): 6 gms, 3 goals, 8 pts, CQF, loss = 9 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 (57) v. Bruins - 3rd place (+1): 5 gms, 2 goals, 7 pts (+1), SF, loss = 9 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. Caines – 8th place (+1): 4 gms, 2 goals, 7 pts, CF (+1), win (+1), PPG 1.8 (+1) = 11 Total
C (08) v. Flyers – 10th place (+1): 5 gms, 2 goals, 7 pts, CF (+1), win (+1) = 10 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 (63) v. Leafs - Ist place (+2): 5 gms, 3 goals (+1), 6 pts (+1), F (+1), loss = 11 Total
H (56) v. Leafs - 4th place: 5 gms, 2 goals, 6 pts (+1), SF, win (+1) = 8 Total
B (69) v. Bruins - 2nd place (+2)*: 6 gms, 3 goals, 6 pts, SF (+1)*, win (+1) = 10 Total
B (67) v. Leafs - 3rd place (+1): 6 gms, 4 goals (+1), 6 pts, F (+1), loss = 9 Total
C (08) v. Wings – 1st place (+2): 6 gms, 2 goals, 6 pts, SCF (+1), #1 GA (+1) = 10 Total
C (17) v. Sens – 12th place: 7 gms, 3 goals, 6 pts (+1), CF (+1), win (+1) = 9 Total
C (08) v. Rangers- 9th place (+1): 5 gms, 0 goals, 6 pts, CSF, win (+1) = 8 Total

B (69) v. Blues - 1st place (+2): 4 gms, 0 goals, 5 pts, F (+1), win (+1), #1 GA (+1) = 10 Total
B (66) v. Leafs - 3rd place (+1): 4 gms, 2 goals (+2), 5 pts, SF, win (+1) = 9 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 (16) v. TBL – 12th place: 7 gms, 3 goals, 5 pts*, CF, win (+1), win (+1) = 7 Total

C (15) v. Rangers – 1st place (+2): 5 gms, 2 goals, 4 pts, CQF, loss, #1 GA (+1) = 7 Total

Crosby looks even better at the top, as does Howe.

 

[daver]

BASED ON ROUNDS - SCF>SF/CF>CSF>CQF (Points plus bonus points)

Stanley Cup Final

B – 14 playoff series total* (added Bruins ’69)
H – 10 playoff series total
C – 4 playoff series total

H (55) v. Habs - 2nd place (+2)* : 7 gms, 5 goals (+1), 12 pts (+1), SCF (+1), win (+1), PPG 1.8 (+1) = 19 Total
B (56) v. Wings - 2nd place (+2)*: 5 gms, 7 goals (+2), 10 pts (+1), SCF (+1), win (+1), PPG 2.00 (+2) = 19 Total

B (65) v. Hawks - 3rd place (+1): 7 gms, 7 goals (+2), 10 pts, SCF (+1), win (+1) = 15 Total

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

H (61) v. Hawks - 3rd place (+1): 6 gms, 1 goal, 8 pts (+1), SCF (+1), loss, #1 GA (+1) = 12 Total
H (64) v. Leafs - 3rd place (+1): 7 gms, 4 goals (+1), 8 pts (+1), SCF (+1), loss = 12 Total

H (56) v. Habs - 1st place (+2): 5 gms, 1 goal, 6 pts (+1), SCF (+1), loss, #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. Preds – 16th place: 6 gms, 1 goal, 7 pts (+1), SCF (+1), win (+1) = 11 Total

B (69) v. Blues - 1st place (+2): 4 gms, 0 goals, 5 pts, SCF (+1), win (+1), #1 GA (+1) = 10 Total
B (69) v. Bruins - 2nd place (+2)*: 6 gms, 3 goals, 6 pts, SF (+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

B (67) v. Leafs - 3rd place (+1): 6 gms, 4 goals (+1), 6 pts, F (+1), loss = 9 Total
B (66) v. Wings - 4th place: 6 gms, 3 goals, 5 pts, F (+1), win (+1) = 7 Total


Semi-Final/Conference Final

B – 16 playoff series total* removed Bruins ‘69
H – 16 playoff series total
C – 9 playoff series total* (added four Caps CSFs)

C (09) v. Caps – 4th place (+2): 7 gms, 8 goals (+2), 13 pts (+1), CSF, win (+1), PPG 1.8 (+1) = 19 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 (68) v. Hawks - 4th place: 5 gms, 5 goals (+2), 9 pts (+1), SF (+1)*, win (+1), PPG 1.80 (+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

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
H (49) v. Habs - 3rd place (+1): 7 gms, 8 goals (+2), 9 pts (+1), SF, win (+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

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
C (18) v. Caps – 6th place (+2)*: 6 gms, 3 goals, 8 pts (+1), CSF, win (+1), loss = 12 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 (54) v. Leafs - 3rd place (+1): 5 gms, 3 goals (+1), 6 pts (+1), SF, win (+1), #1 GA (+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
C (17) v. Caps – 1st place (+2): 6 gms, 2 goals, 7 pts, CSF, win (+1), #1 GA (+1) = 11 Total

H (66) v. Hawks - 3rd place (+1): 6 gms, 3 goals, 8 pts, SF, win = 10 Total
C (08) v. Flyers – 10th place (+1): 5 gms, 2 goals, 7 pts, CF (+1), win (+1) = 10 Total

H (57) v. Bruins - 3rd place (+1): 5 gms, 2 goals, 7 pts (+1), SF, 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

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

B (67) v. Rangers - 4th place: 4 gms, 2 goals, 5 pts (+1), SF, win (+1) = 7 Total
C (16) v. TBL – 12th place: 7 gms, 3 goals, 5 pts*, CF, win (+1), win (+1) = 7 Total


Conference Semi-Final

B – 3 playoff series total
H – 1 playoff series total
C – 4 playoff series total* (removed four Caps CSFs)

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


Conference Quarter-Final

C – 13 playoff series 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

C (08) v. Sens – 13th place: 4 gms, 2 goals, 8 pts (+1), CQF, win (+1), PPG 2.0 (+2) = 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
C (13) v. Isles – 16th place: 5 gms, 3 goals (+1), 9 pts, CQF, win (+1), PPG 1.8 (+1) = 12 Total

C (09) v. Flyers – 8th place (+1): 6 gms, 4 goals (+1), 8 pts, CQF, win (+1) = 11 Total

C (12) v. Flyers – 6th place (+1): 6 gms, 3 goals, 8 pts, CQF, loss = 9 Total

C (15) v. Rangers – 1st place (+2): 5 gms, 2 goals, 4 pts, CQF, loss, #1 GA (+1) = 7 Total

In the SCF, Beliveau has the best top end series, Howe shows the most consistency, and all three had rated series 50% of the time.

In the SF/CF, Crosby has the highest % of rated series, and the Beliveau the least, likely due to his team's depth and almost guarantee of playing in the SCF most seasons.

 

[daver]

IMO, the numbers back up the common narrative surrounding Beliveau and Howe. Both have signature Cup winning series against legendary competition. Beliveau was great in the SCF, as was Howe, and both are deserving of their Top 5 standing in the HOH all-time great playoff performers.

Crosby's signature playoff run came against the Caps in '09 on a slightly lesser stage and against lesser competition but in a highly touted matchup against OV.

While Crosby is lacking in a dominant SCF, his showing in the CFs and in the big series against the Caps should temper talk of him boosting his numbers on weak competition. Not sure where he would land in an updated HOH playoff performers but, IMO, he doesn't lose much to either player in playoff resumes.

 

[ResilientBeast]

IMO, the numbers back up the common narrative surrounding Beliveau and Howe. Both have signature Cup winning series against legendary competition. Beliveau was great in the SCF, as was Howe, and both are deserving of their Top 5 standing in the HOH all-time great playoff performers.

Crosby's signature playoff run came against the Caps in '09 on a slightly lesser stage and against lesser competition but in a highly touted matchup against OV.

While Crosby is lacking in a dominant SCF, his showing in the CFs and in the big series against the Caps should temper talk of him boosting his numbers on weak competition. Not sure where he would land in an updated HOH playoff performers but, IMO, he doesn't lose much to either player in playoff resumes.

Well the list was made in 2017.....so doubtful that much higher

 

[daver]

Well the list was made in 2017.....so doubtful that much higher

It was done before Crosby' 3rd Cup and 2nd Conn Smythe, and his PO run in 2018, one of the best 2-round runs of his era.

 

[bobholly39]

It was done before Crosby' 3rd Cup and 2nd Conn Smythe, and his PO run in 2018, one of the best 2-round runs of his era.

Lemieux was 11th. He's behind him.

Sakic was 12th. Forsberg 18th.

For me hes either right behind Forsberg - right above Sakic - or somewhere in between. So in the ~12-18 range without looking at it too deeply

 

[VanIslander]

A diamond among jewels vs. a nugget of gold among dirt.

Yeah, the gold may shine more RELATIVE TO the dirt, but it doesn't make the gold worth the diamond.

 

[Czech Your Math]

IMO, the numbers back up the common narrative surrounding Beliveau and Howe. Both have signature Cup winning series against legendary competition. Beliveau was great in the SCF, as was Howe, and both are deserving of their Top 5 standing in the HOH all-time great playoff performers.

Crosby's signature playoff run came against the Caps in '09 on a slightly lesser stage and against lesser competition but in a highly touted matchup against OV.

While Crosby is lacking in a dominant SCF, his showing in the CFs and in the big series against the Caps should temper talk of him boosting his numbers on weak competition. Not sure where he would land in an updated HOH playoff performers but, IMO, he doesn't lose much to either player in playoff resumes.

I get that he was great in the series against Caps in '09 (both he & Ovechkin were), but the Caps weren't a good defensive team (2oth in NHL in GA and 14th among playoff teams, tied for last among EC playoff teams). It was an exciting series matching two superstars in their peak years. Good times.

I think Crosby was stronger thru '09 ECF than since. I'm not sure why that is. Maybe after his neck injury he was hesitant to go into the tough areas to score, maybe opponents learned how to shut him down, or maybe he lost some speed and his "ultra-skilled grinder" style isn't as unique or as effective in the playoffs when everyone is playing 110% and grinding constantly.

What I have noticed is the disparity for Crosby (and Malkin to a lesser extent) against the upper half of playoff teams in defense, compared to the lower half. He/they are probably historically great at exploiting the lesser defensive teams, but against the tougher teams, there's a huge drop off (there's going to be a drop off for just about any player, but it's dramatic for them).

Here is how he did against teams that were in the upper half of playoff or among eastern conference playoff teams. I'm also inlcuding any ECF or SCF automatically, on the basis of it being crunch time at that point, and that any team that won two playoff rounds that year has some cred (regular season stats be damned at that point). PO is the opponent's rank in GAA among playoff teams, EPO their rank in GAA among eastern playoff teams:

YEAR	OPP	GP	G	A	PTS	+/-	PO	EPO
2007	OTT	5	3	2	5	0	10	3
2008	NYR	5	0	6	6	0	4	1
2008	DET	6	2	4	6	1	1
2008	PHI	5	2	5	7	4	12.5	6.5
2009	CAR	4	2	5	7	6	7	4
2009	DET	7	1	2	3	-3	14
2010	MTL	7	1	4	5	-1	10	4
2013	OTT	5	4	2	6	0	2	1
2013	BOS	4	0	0	0	-2	3	2
2014	NYR	7	1	2	3	-2	4	2
2015	NYR	5	2	2	4	1	3	2
2016	WSH	6	0	2	2	-3	2	1
2016	TBL	7	3	2	5	-1	5	2
2016	SJS	6	0	4	4	0	10.5
2017	CBJ	5	2	5	7	-2	2	2
2017	WSH	6	2	5	7	4	1	1
2017	OTT	7	3	3	6	-3	9	5
2017	NAS	6	1	6	7	5	14
2019	NYI	4	0	1	1	-4	1	1
2021	NYI	6	1	1	2	-2	2	1
19 series		113	30	63	93	-2	0.82

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

He was 0.82 PG & -2 in those 20 series. By comparison, Malkin is 0.88 & +12, Ovechkin 0.94 & +6, Kane 0.99 & +10, and Kucheov 1.18 & +15 in similar series (those using the same criteria for quality of opponent).

In those 20 series, he was < 1.0 PPG in 11 of them and a minus +/- in 10 of them. By comparison, Malkin < PPG in 11 & minus in 8, Ovechkin < PPG in 5 & minus in 7 (14 series), Kane < PPG in 6 and minus in 6 (15 series), and Kucherov < PPG in 4 & minus in 3 (12 series) in similar series.
[Note: I didn't count Kucherov's 3 misc. 2020 playoff games, because they had no importance to his team and while I counted his current series in stats, I didn't count in # of series < PPG or minus, since it's not over.]

If you want to ensure you get by the weak sisters in the playoffs, then Crosby has been among the very best at helping you do that in his 12 series against lower half defensive playoff teams. It's the equivalent of beating up on the hapless Rangers in the O6. If you want to beat the better defensive teams when the series are hotly contested, and not just wait to hear "stop they're already dead" against weaker defensive opponents, then you're probably better off with at least some of his contemporaries.

 

[daver]

I get that he was great in the series against Caps in '09 (both he & Ovechkin were), but the Caps weren't a good defensive team (2oth in NHL in GA and 14th among playoff teams, tied for last among EC playoff teams). It was an exciting series matching two superstars in their peak years. Good times.

I think Crosby was stronger thru '09 ECF than since. I'm not sure why that is. Maybe after his neck injury he was hesitant to go into the tough areas to score, maybe opponents learned how to shut him down, or maybe he lost some speed and his "ultra-skilled grinder" style isn't as unique or as effective in the playoffs when everyone is playing 110% and grinding constantly.

What I have noticed is the disparity for Crosby (and Malkin to a lesser extent) against the upper half of playoff teams in defense, compared to the lower half. He/they are probably historically great at exploiting the lesser defensive teams, but against the tougher teams, there's a huge drop off (there's going to be a drop off for just about any player, but it's dramatic for them).

Here is how he did against teams that were in the upper half of playoff or among eastern conference playoff teams. I'm also inlcuding any ECF or SCF automatically, on the basis of it being crunch time at that point, and that any team that won two playoff rounds that year has some cred (regular season stats be damned at that point). PO is the opponent's rank in GAA among playoff teams, EPO their rank in GAA among eastern playoff teams:

YEAR	OPP	GP	G	A	+/-	PM	PO	EPO
2007	OTT	5	3	2	5	0	10	3
2008	NYR	5	0	6	6	0	4	1
2008	DET	6	2	4	6	1	1
2009	CAR	4	2	5	7	6	7	4
2009	DET	7	1	2	3	-3	14
2010	MTL	7	1	4	5	-1	10	4
2013	OTT	5	4	2	6	0	2	1
2013	BOS	4	0	0	0	-2	3	2
2014	NYR	7	1	2	3	-2	4	2
2015	NYR	5	2	2	4	1	3	2
2016	WSH	6	0	2	2	-3	2	1
2016	TBL	7	3	2	5	-1	5	2
2016	SJS	6	0	4	4	0	10.5
2017	CBJ	5	2	5	7	-2	2	2
2017	WSH	6	2	5	7	4	1	1
2017	OTT	7	3	3	6	-3	9	5
2017	NAS	6	1	6	7	5	14
2019	NYI	4	0	1	1	-4	1	1
2021	NYI	6	1	1	2	-2	2	1
19 series		108	28	58	86	-6	0.80

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

He was 0.80 PG & -6 in those 19 series. By comparison, Malkin is 0.87 & +10, Ovechkin 0.94 & +6, Kane 0.99 & +10, and Kucheov 1.17 & +13 in similar series (those using the same criteria for quality of opponent).

Another thing is that in those 19 series, he was < 1.0 PPG in 11 of them and a minus +/- in 10 of them. By comparison, Malkin < PPG in 10 & minus in 8, Ovechkin < PPG in 5 & minus in 7 (14 series), Kane < PPG in 6 and minus in 6 (15 series), and Kucherov < PPG in 3 & minus in 2 (11 series) in similar series.
[Note: I didn't count Kucherov's 3 misc. 2020 playoff games, because they had no importance to his team and while I counted his current series in stats, I didn't count in # of series < PPG or minus, since it's not over.]

Of those 19 series, he only exceeded GP by more than one point twice: 2009 ECF vs. CAR (7 in 4, +6) and 2017 vs. CBJ (7 in 5, -2). In those series, Malkin had 9 points & +5 and 11 points & +7. So even in possibly Crosby's two best performance in those 19 series, Malkin was even more spectacular. That naturally raises a couple questions in my mind: 1) Who was really carrying the load? 2) Were those teams really as good defensively as indicated by their regular season GAA?

Finally, the narrative is about how Crosby is the most elite scorer and is good defensively. Well, if that's the case, we'd expect that (along with his admittedly good possession game) would show up in his even strength (plus-minus) data. Since none of these players really played before their prime, nor seem to be past their prime, this is career data for each (in all playoff series to get a larger sample): Crosby +0.07/game on teams that were +0.03/game with him off the ice, Malkin -0.03 on & +0.10 off, Ovechkin +0.15 on & -0.19 off, Kane -0.03 on & +0.11 off, and Kucherov +0.34 on & -0.12 off. So Crosby appears middling at best in this area, closer to the two below him than the two above him.
[Note- This is estimated as follows: Off PM = (Team PM - Player PM * 5)/5 ... we are multiplying Player PM by 5, since there are typically 5 players on ice at ES... and then dividing difference by 5 to again account for this fact.]

If you want to ensure you get by the weak sisters in the playoffs, then Crosby has been among the very best at helping you do that in his 12 series against lower half defensive playoff teams. It's the equivalent of beating up on the hapless Rangers in the O6. If you want to beat the better defensive teams when the series are hotly contested, and not just wait to hear "stop they're already dead" against weaker defensive opponents, then you're probably better off with at least some of his contemporaries.

I don't see anything here that changes the narrative around Crosby, unless you want to put Howe and Beliveau under the same microscope (which is a questionable microscope given it is using a regular season lens). Nor does it change the chart that I put together.

In the four times the Pens made the SCF, Crosby was the clear best player in one of them (2017), arguably the best in 2008 (leading scorer), and 2016 (toss-up with Kessel), and the 4th time is arguably his best run (era-best 15 goals) despite Malkin being better (specifically in the SCF against notably lesser matchups).

He has the best resume of playoff runs of his era in terms of total points and/or PPG. He was better than Malkin in three of their four SCF runs, and in three of the four actual SCFs. His leadership resume (three Cups, Olympic Gold, World Cup gold, WHC gold) is among the best of all-time.

Using RS GA can be used to give a player an edge over another but so can the overall seeding of a team, deployment, quality of linemates, support by teammates, playoff round, etc... This is captured in my chart.

At the end of the day, winning a playoff series is winning a playoff series. You cannot win the Cup without winning four of them. Crosby has given his team the most opportunities to win the Cup with his production and all around play in the 2nd half of his career, than any other player in his era.

 

[Czech Your Math]

In the four times the Pens made the SCF, Crosby was the clear best player in one of them (2017), arguably the best in 2008 (leading scorer), and 2016 (toss-up with Kessel), and the 4th time is arguably his best run (era-best 15 goals) despite Malkin being better (specifically in the SCF against notably lesser matchups).

He has the best resume of playoff runs of his era in terms of total points and/or PPG. He was better than Malkin in three of their four SCF runs, and in three of the four actual SCFs. His leadership resume (three Cups, Olympic Gold, World Cup gold, WHC gold) is among the best of all-time.

Using RS GA can be used to give a player an edge over another but so can the overall seeding of a team, deployment, quality of linemates, support by teammates, playoff round, etc... This is captured in my chart.

At the end of the day, winning a playoff series is winning a playoff series. You cannot win the Cup without winning four of them. Crosby has given his team the most opportunities to win the Cup with his production and all around play in the 2nd half of his career, than any other player in his era.

SCFs
2008- Malkin 6-1-2-3 (-2), Crosby 6-2-4-6 +1... edge Crosby

2009- Malkin 7-2-6-8 (even), Crosby 7-1-2-3 (-3)... clear edge Malkin. You spoke of tougher matchups, but one factor that really worked in PIT's favor was NHL moving up the series a week, which was unprecedented AFAIK, with Datsyuk & Lidstrom nursing major injuries. I agree that normally Datsyuk, Zetterberg & Lidstrom, etc. would be a tough matchup, but much less so during that series, if they indeed were solely matched up against Crosby.

2016- Malkin 6-2-1-3 (-3), Crosby 6-0-4-4 (even)... slight edge Crosby? Nothing to write home about for any forwards, although Letang was 6-1-4-5 +2 as a d-man.

2017- Malkin 6-3-1-4 +1 , Crosby 6-1-6-7 +5... edge Crosby

TOTALS: Malkin 25-8-10-18 (-4), Crosby 25-4-16-20 +3... slight edge Crosby. In ECF, Malkin was 27-12-14-26 +6 and Crosby was 27-10-15-25 +4. So combined ECF/SCF, Malkin was 52-20-24-44 +2, while Crosby was 52-14-31-45 +7. It's very close between the two in each case, we're splitting hairs really.

SCF Runs
2008- Malkin 20-10-12-22 +3, Crosby 20-6-21-7 +7... edge Crosby

2009- Malkin 24-14-22-36 +3, Crosby 24-15-16-31 +9... edge Malkin, who was also better in ECF & SCF (17 points & +5 vs. 10 points & +3)

2016- Malkin 23-6-12-18 +1, Crosby 24-6-13-19 (-2)... even. Each player had 3 goals & 9 points in 13 games in ECF/SCF, while Kessel led with 5 goals & 10 points in those series. Kessel also led overall with 10 goals & 22 points (he was +5, but not the leader there).

2017- Malkin 25-10-18-28 +9, Crosby 24-8-19-27 +4... even... Slight edge Malkin overall (two more goals, one more point, +5 better), but Crosby was better in ECF/SCF, so we'll call it a draw.

TOTALS: Malkin 92-40-64-104 +16, Crosby 92-35-69-104 +18. Even. Does it get any closer than that?

I don't see anything here that changes the narrative around Crosby, unless you want to put Howe and Beliveau under the same microscope (which is a questionable microscope given it is using a regular season lens). Nor does it change the chart that I put together.

I looked at Beliveau, Howe & Hull (not sure why he was excluded... probably because he was a "loser"). The O6 is trickier with 4/6 playoff teams and only two playoff rounds, so I compiled the numbers in two separate ways: First way is best 2 in GAA only. Second way does the same, but automatically includes SCF (and after expansion, includes opponent that already beat O6 team in playoffs that year). The results shouldn't be that different, but might as well check and see. Here are the results:

Top 2 Only	Top	2	in	GA			Not	in	Top	2	in	GA
PLAYER	GP	G	A	PTS	PPG	+/-	GP	G	A	PTS	PPG	+/-
Beliveau	69	25	43	68	0.99	18	92	54	54	108	1.17	9
Bo. Hull	51	27	32	59	1.16	10	62	34	35	69	1.11	12
Howe	81	40	53	93	1.15	9	70	28	39	67	0.96	-4

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

[Note: I excluded 7-game series when player didn't play at least 4/7 games in the series, to avoid injuries distorting our results too much. This was 1 game for Beliveau in 1959, 1 game for Howe in 1950, and 3 games for Hull in 1960. I also excluded 5 games for Howe in 1947 and 3 games for Hull in 1980 as outside their prime.]

The next table is the one that includes any SCF in the top 2 GA. I should also mention that plus-minus data is incomplete for each of these players to varying degrees, since it isn't available (at least not easily that I know of) prior to 1960.

Incl. SCF	Top	2	in	GA			Not	in	Top	2	in	GA
PLAYER	GP	G	A	PTS	PPG	+/-	GP	G	A	PTS	PPG	+/-
Beliveau	114	52	64	116	1.02	27	47	27	33	60	1.28	0
Bo. Hull	75	34	47	81	1.08	15	38	27	20	47	1.24	7
Howe	110	52	69	121	1.10	5	41	16	23	39	0.95	0

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Beliveau's PPG dropped in the tougher defensive series (in the range of what one would typically expect), but his +/- actually improved, especially when including all SCF. This perhaps indicates his willingness to sacrifice a bit of scoring for better all-around play and seems to agree with his reputation.

Hull's PPG slightly increased in one case and decreased by a typical amount in the other. His +/- did the opposite in each case. Nothing to be ashamed of there.

Howe's PPG actually increased by a decent amount in tougher series, as did his +/-, so he certainly didn't wilt under pressure.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Has anyone done a deep dive to see where Beliveau would rank in importance to the Habs during each of their ten Cup wins while he was there? A superficial look suggests:

Years where Beliveau was definitely the most valuable Hab

• 1956: Beliveau decisively led the team in scoring. He tied the all-time record for goals in a postseason, and was one point away from tying the record for points. He scored 7 goals in the SC finals which, almost 70 years later, has never been beaten (Gretzky tied it). He almost certainly would have won the Conn Smythe if it existed (for what it's worth, he was awarded the retroactive trophy by SIHR).
• 1965: Beliveau led the team in goals and points and tied for the best plus/minus of any forward who appeared in 10+ games. He scored 6 points in the last three games of the SC finals. Beliveau won the inaugural Conn Smythe trophy. (The only player who had an argument over him was JC Tremblay, who had by far the best plus/minus on the team and produced lots of offense).

Years where Beliveau was in the top three

• 1966: Beliveau was 2nd on the team in scoring, with a good plus/minus relative to the team. He was consistent from game to game. Players who were possibly better were JC Tremblay (who outscored Beliveau by one point) and Worsley (93.1% save percentage). Crozier won the Smythe in a losing cause.
• 1969: Beliveau led the team in scoring (by one point over his linemate Duff). Average plus/minus (actually, much worse than Duff's). He scored the series-winning goal in double OT against the Bruins. The Habs got excellent goaltending, but with split duties, so neither Vachon or Worsley was likely more valuable. Savard won the Smythe.

Years where Beliveau was lower (4th to 6th range)

• 1957: Beliveau was second on the team in scoring, but five of his twelve points came in a single blowout win, and he only had two points in five SC finals games. Presumably at a minimum, Geoffrion, who decisively led the Habs in scoring, and Plante, who posted a 93.6% save percentage, were more valuable). Geoffrion was awarded SIHR's retro Smythe.
• 1958: Beliveau was second on the team in scoring but was much more consistent game to game compared to 1957. Richard led the team in scoring and Plante again posted a 93.6% save percentage. Not much separates Beliveau, Geoffrion, Moore and Harvey statistically (which probably means Harvey was more valuable than any of them), and Geoffrion was huge in the SC finals (including five points in the last two games). Richard was awarded SIHR's retro Smythe.
• 1960: Beliveau was 4th on the team in scoring, 3-5 points back from the leaders. Plante once again had a ridiculous save percentage (95.0%). This is the first year we have playoff plus/minus and, despite not producing much offense, Harvey was tied for the team lead. Beliveau scored the game winner in three of the four games in the SC finals (but none of them appear to have been particularly "clutch" goals - also scored within the first 12 minutes of the first period). Beliveau was probably behind Harvey, Plante and H. Richard (better numbers and more defensive responsibilities) at a minimum.
  
• 1971: Beliveau was approaching 40 this spring. Still, he was tied for 2nd in scoring, and tied for 2nd in plus/minus. He was consistent from game to game. Dryden won the Smythe. Mahovlich produced more offense, but was on the ice for far more goals against. Cournoyer had a strong run, as did Laperriere.

Years where Beliveau was injured

• 1959: Beliveau was injured and only played in three games. Bonin was awarded SIHR's retro Smythe (he filled in for M. Richard, who was also limited to three games).
• 1968: Beliveau missed three of the four games in the SC Finals. He still managed to be 3rd on the team in scoring (with team average plus/minus). He scored 9 of his 11 points in three consecutive games against Chicago (which means he contributed just two points in his other seven games). Hall won the Smythe in a losing cause.

First, I'll emphasize this is a superficial review, based on about an hour of looking at the stats and reading a few of the game logs. If anyone has done a deeper dive, that would be great to see. (Also - in general, I don't think there's much value in plus/minus, but I'm not presenting this as serious research, just skimming the data that's easily available).

These results feel underwhelming to me. In four of the eight years where Beliveau won a Cup, but wasn't injured, he didn't seem to be one of the top three players on the Habs. Have I been too tough on him? Maybe; in three of those middling years, he was 2nd on the team in scoring, but there's more to playoff hockey than offensive stats. I wasn't expecting him to be the best Hab every year, but I thought there would be a few more years where he had a good argument for 2nd or 3rd.

 

[DRW895]

For toews that's actually fairly good production imo

The only his real fail for final series was 2010

 

[daver]

Has anyone done a deep dive to see where Beliveau would rank in importance to the Habs during each of their ten Cup wins while he was there? A superficial look suggests:

Years where Beliveau was definitely the most valuable Hab

• 1956: Beliveau decisively led the team in scoring. He tied the all-time record for goals in a postseason, and was one point away from tying the record for points. He scored 7 goals in the SC finals which, almost 70 years later, has never been beaten (Gretzky tied it). He almost certainly would have won the Conn Smythe if it existed (for what it's worth, he was awarded the retroactive trophy by SIHR).
• 1965: Beliveau led the team in goals and points and tied for the best plus/minus of any forward who appeared in 10+ games. He scored 6 points in the last three games of the SC finals. Beliveau won the inaugural Conn Smythe trophy. (The only player who had an argument over him was JC Tremblay, who had by far the best plus/minus on the team and produced lots of offense).

Years where Beliveau was in the top three

• 1966: Beliveau was 2nd on the team in scoring, with a good plus/minus relative to the team. He was consistent from game to game. Players who were possibly better were JC Tremblay (who outscored Beliveau by one point) and Worsley (93.1% save percentage). Crozier won the Smythe in a losing cause.
• 1969: Beliveau led the team in scoring (by one point over his linemate Duff). Average plus/minus (actually, much worse than Duff's). He scored the series-winning goal in double OT against the Bruins. The Habs got excellent goaltending, but with split duties, so neither Vachon or Worsley was likely more valuable. Savard won the Smythe.

Years where Beliveau was lower (4th to 6th range)

• 1957: Beliveau was second on the team in scoring, but five of his twelve points came in a single blowout win, and he only had two points in five SC finals games. Presumably at a minimum, Geoffrion, who decisively led the Habs in scoring, and Plante, who posted a 93.6% save percentage, were more valuable). Geoffrion was awarded SIHR's retro Smythe.
• 1958: Beliveau was second on the team in scoring but was much more consistent game to game compared to 1957. Richard led the team in scoring and Plante again posted a 93.6% save percentage. Not much separates Beliveau, Geoffrion, Moore and Harvey statistically (which probably means Harvey was more valuable than any of them), and Geoffrion was huge in the SC finals (including five points in the last two games). Richard was awarded SIHR's retro Smythe.
• 1960: Beliveau was 4th on the team in scoring, 3-5 points back from the leaders. Plante once again had a ridiculous save percentage (95.0%). This is the first year we have playoff plus/minus and, despite not producing much offense, Harvey was tied for the team lead. Beliveau scored the game winner in three of the four games in the SC finals (but none of them appear to have been particularly "clutch" goals - also scored within the first 12 minutes of the first period). Beliveau was probably behind Harvey, Plante and H. Richard (better numbers and more defensive responsibilities) at a minimum.
  
• 1971: Beliveau was approaching 40 this spring. Still, he was tied for 2nd in scoring, and tied for 2nd in plus/minus. He was consistent from game to game. Dryden won the Smythe. Mahovlich produced more offense, but was on the ice for far more goals against. Cournoyer had a strong run, as did Laperriere.

Years where Beliveau was injured

• 1959: Beliveau was injured and only played in three games. Bonin was awarded SIHR's retro Smythe (he filled in for M. Richard, who was also limited to three games).
• 1968: Beliveau missed three of the four games in the SC Finals. He still managed to be 3rd on the team in scoring (with team average plus/minus). He scored 9 of his 11 points in three consecutive games against Chicago (which means he contributed just two points in his other seven games). Hall won the Smythe in a losing cause.

First, I'll emphasize this is a superficial review, based on about an hour of looking at the stats and reading a few of the game logs. If anyone has done a deeper dive, that would be great to see. (Also - in general, I don't think there's much value in plus/minus, but I'm not presenting this as serious research, just skimming the data that's easily available).

These results feel underwhelming to me. In four of the eight years where Beliveau won a Cup, but wasn't injured, he didn't seem to be one of the top three players on the Habs. Have I been too tough on him? Maybe; in three of those middling years, he was 2nd on the team in scoring, but there's more to playoff hockey than offensive stats. I wasn't expecting him to be the best Hab every year, but I thought there would be a few more years where he had a good argument for 2nd or 3rd.

Thanks for the analysis.

I don't think there is anything too surprising here other than to question the narrative by some around his playoff resume i.e. he was a notable playoff warrior and was the obvious key player in bringing home 10 Cups for the Habs. I don't think you can say he elevated his game significantly like a Messier or Roy, rather he played at a level that was befitting his regular season level of play. I would say the same thing for the Big Four, Crosby, Hull, Jagr, and Ovechkin.

His signature Cup run in 1956 is good enough to propel him ahead of someone like Jagr who lacks one of those but not necessarily for Hull, who was consistently great in the playoffs (and also has the superior regular season resume).

His 10 Cups cannot be ignored (maybe one can) given his overall contribution but the era he played in also cannot be either given the lack of competition and that "dynasties" were the norm, not the exception, if they realistically can happen at all. It is clear the Pens needed Crosby to win moreso than the Habs needed Beliveau to win.

IMO, Crosby loses nothing to Beliveau for the playoffs in so far as it keeps Crosby with or behind Beliveau all-time if he ends up with a clearly superior regular season resume (I think he is getting close to this being the case.). If Crosby won another Cup, he becomes the Beliveau of his era. If he wins another Conn Smythe, IMO, he arguably surpasses Beliveau as a playoff performer.

 

[wetcoast]

Has anyone done a deep dive to see where Beliveau would rank in importance to the Habs during each of their ten Cup wins while he was there? A superficial look suggests:

Years where Beliveau was definitely the most valuable Hab

• 1956: Beliveau decisively led the team in scoring. He tied the all-time record for goals in a postseason, and was one point away from tying the record for points. He scored 7 goals in the SC finals which, almost 70 years later, has never been beaten (Gretzky tied it). He almost certainly would have won the Conn Smythe if it existed (for what it's worth, he was awarded the retroactive trophy by SIHR).
• 1965: Beliveau led the team in goals and points and tied for the best plus/minus of any forward who appeared in 10+ games. He scored 6 points in the last three games of the SC finals. Beliveau won the inaugural Conn Smythe trophy. (The only player who had an argument over him was JC Tremblay, who had by far the best plus/minus on the team and produced lots of offense).

Years where Beliveau was in the top three

• 1966: Beliveau was 2nd on the team in scoring, with a good plus/minus relative to the team. He was consistent from game to game. Players who were possibly better were JC Tremblay (who outscored Beliveau by one point) and Worsley (93.1% save percentage). Crozier won the Smythe in a losing cause.
• 1969: Beliveau led the team in scoring (by one point over his linemate Duff). Average plus/minus (actually, much worse than Duff's). He scored the series-winning goal in double OT against the Bruins. The Habs got excellent goaltending, but with split duties, so neither Vachon or Worsley was likely more valuable. Savard won the Smythe.

Years where Beliveau was lower (4th to 6th range)

• 1957: Beliveau was second on the team in scoring, but five of his twelve points came in a single blowout win, and he only had two points in five SC finals games. Presumably at a minimum, Geoffrion, who decisively led the Habs in scoring, and Plante, who posted a 93.6% save percentage, were more valuable). Geoffrion was awarded SIHR's retro Smythe.
• 1958: Beliveau was second on the team in scoring but was much more consistent game to game compared to 1957. Richard led the team in scoring and Plante again posted a 93.6% save percentage. Not much separates Beliveau, Geoffrion, Moore and Harvey statistically (which probably means Harvey was more valuable than any of them), and Geoffrion was huge in the SC finals (including five points in the last two games). Richard was awarded SIHR's retro Smythe.
• 1960: Beliveau was 4th on the team in scoring, 3-5 points back from the leaders. Plante once again had a ridiculous save percentage (95.0%). This is the first year we have playoff plus/minus and, despite not producing much offense, Harvey was tied for the team lead. Beliveau scored the game winner in three of the four games in the SC finals (but none of them appear to have been particularly "clutch" goals - also scored within the first 12 minutes of the first period). Beliveau was probably behind Harvey, Plante and H. Richard (better numbers and more defensive responsibilities) at a minimum.
  
• 1971: Beliveau was approaching 40 this spring. Still, he was tied for 2nd in scoring, and tied for 2nd in plus/minus. He was consistent from game to game. Dryden won the Smythe. Mahovlich produced more offense, but was on the ice for far more goals against. Cournoyer had a strong run, as did Laperriere.

Years where Beliveau was injured

• 1959: Beliveau was injured and only played in three games. Bonin was awarded SIHR's retro Smythe (he filled in for M. Richard, who was also limited to three games).
• 1968: Beliveau missed three of the four games in the SC Finals. He still managed to be 3rd on the team in scoring (with team average plus/minus). He scored 9 of his 11 points in three consecutive games against Chicago (which means he contributed just two points in his other seven games). Hall won the Smythe in a losing cause.

First, I'll emphasize this is a superficial review, based on about an hour of looking at the stats and reading a few of the game logs. If anyone has done a deeper dive, that would be great to see. (Also - in general, I don't think there's much value in plus/minus, but I'm not presenting this as serious research, just skimming the data that's easily available).

These results feel underwhelming to me. In four of the eight years where Beliveau won a Cup, but wasn't injured, he didn't seem to be one of the top three players on the Habs. Have I been too tough on him? Maybe; in three of those middling years, he was 2nd on the team in scoring, but there's more to playoff hockey than offensive stats. I wasn't expecting him to be the best Hab every year, but I thought there would be a few more years where he had a good argument for 2nd or 3rd.

This is one of the "problems" with being on a dynasty team, everyone gets credit for the dynasty when almost always this isn't the case.

Glenn Anderson being in the HHOF is exhibit A for me in that regard.

Kevin Lowe is exhibit B.

Jean was an awesome player but he has his weak spots on his resume but sometimes the SC counting gets in the way of how he should be viewed IMO.

Comparing players down to this micro level of anyaslsis also gets away from the fact that each series and year is unique and the 06 era isn't like the post lockout era either.

what's more important is that both guys were arguably the best playoffs performers during their respective times in the NHL, after that it's really hard to "prove" anything definitively.

 

[daver]

Comparing players down to this micro level of anyaslsis also gets away from the fact that each series and year is unique and the 06 era isn't like the post lockout era either.

That what I was hoping the analysis (the ones starting in Post #25 would do). It recognizes the strength of the opponent regardless of round played, and, from a statistical perspective, recognizes that Round 1 from the O6 is not like Round 1 in the current league but also recognizes Round 1 in the O6 is not like Round 3 in the current era.

It also recognizes that expected point totals by elite scorers from different eras needs to be recognized too (although I don't think there is much difference between the O6 and the current era).

Perhaps you could expand on what you mean by the bolded.

 

[wetcoast]

That what I was hoping the analysis (the ones starting in Post #25 would do). It recognizes the strength of the opponent regardless of round played, and, from a statistical perspective, recognizes that Round 1 from the O6 is not like Round 1 in the current league but also recognizes Round 1 in the O6 is not like Round 3 in the current era.

It also recognizes that expected point totals by elite scorers from different eras needs to be recognized too (although I don't think there is much difference between the O6 and the current era).

Man I couldn't even read post #25 in this thread it looked like a really bad acid trip.

Perhaps you could expand on what you mean by the bolded.

I mean exactly what I said the 06 era, with limited player movement and a rather mature static talent pool and style of play and more predictable results is really quite different than post lockout salary cap NHL with a draft and goalie equipment, defensive systems ect...

It's early here but I also can't recall anyone ever saying if the 06 NHL had 2 different seasons for officiating, the regular season and then the playoffs where we lets the players decide.

I know for my lifetime (mid 50's here) it seems that the post season officiating has been different than in the regular season and when combined with the defensive systems, goalie equipment ect it lessens skill coming through which I think was more possible in the 06 era.

But that's just a speculated guess as I'm not old enough to have watched any amount of 06 games and many of the "old timers" who have done so that I have talked to seem to be affected by nostalgia to some extent so it's hard to get a real grasp on things definitively.

I have Crosby comfortably ahead of Jean all time right now and in the playoffs as well but if one prefers Jean in the playoffs it doesn't make up for the gap between them in regular seasons.

I also give some credit to jean being able to be a very good NHL player before the Habs bought out the league he was playing in as well.