Conn Smythe Trophy - Players that did a lot to win but never did

[jigglysquishy]

Chelios was of course great, but I do not recall him being "the favorite" in 1989 before game 6. His name may have been up there with one or two other Canadiens, but they never won a game after game three, so it seems unlikely that he was favored over MacInnis, Gilmour, etc.

The other thing about Chelios is, while mostly awesome when on the ice, he took way too many penalties. The 1st-overall Blackhawks choked in round one vs. Minny in 1991, for example, because Chelios and co. kept taking penalty after penalty after penalty.... and kept paying for it... but never stopped. (Chelios = 46 penalty minutes in six games.)

Ya his penalties repeatedly got them in trouble.

The Tuscaloosa News · ‎May 17, 1989

Chris Chelios is a great player. “I think Chelly won it for the team”, Montreal coach Pat Burns said.

Record-Journal · ‎May 26, 1989

Chelios played one of his worst games of the season Thursday night.

Calgary’s Dana Murzyn shot the puck into Montreal’s end. Chelios tried to glove the high shot, but he dropped the puck onto the stick of Colin Patterson, who beat Patrick Roy for 1-0.

With the Canadiens at the end of a power play, Chelios lost the puck in Calgary’s end to Hakan Loob and the Flames were off on a 4-on-2 break. Loob fed Joe Nieuwendyk in Montreal’s zone. Chelios decided to pick up Loob, so Nieuwendyk passed to a wide-open Lanny McDonald.

In the third, Doug Gilmour got around Chelios to put a backhander on Roy.

After the series’ third game, Montreal led 2-1 and Chelios was being mentioned as a prime candidate for the Conn Smythe Trophy.


It was after game 3 he was mentioned as the prime candidate for the Smythe.

 

[WarriorofTime]

I agree, the Devil's trap was fresh, opponents had no idea how to deal with that.

The Czechoslovakians had been trapping at the world championships for about 20 years by then.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Ya his penalties repeatedly got them in trouble.

The Tuscaloosa News · ‎May 17, 1989

Chris Chelios is a great player. “I think Chelly won it for the team”, Montreal coach Pat Burns said.

Record-Journal · ‎May 26, 1989

Chelios played one of his worst games of the season Thursday night.

Calgary’s Dana Murzyn shot the puck into Montreal’s end. Chelios tried to glove the high shot, but he dropped the puck onto the stick of Colin Patterson, who beat Patrick Roy for 1-0.

With the Canadiens at the end of a power play, Chelios lost the puck in Calgary’s end to Hakan Loob and the Flames were off on a 4-on-2 break. Loob fed Joe Nieuwendyk in Montreal’s zone. Chelios decided to pick up Loob, so Nieuwendyk passed to a wide-open Lanny McDonald.

In the third, Doug Gilmour got around Chelios to put a backhander on Roy.

After the series’ third game, Montreal led 2-1 and Chelios was being mentioned as a prime candidate for the Conn Smythe Trophy.


It was after game 3 he was mentioned as the prime candidate for the Smythe.

this sounds like 2014 drew doughty

creme de la creme controling the whole ice conn smythe run up to the final game, where he was uncharacteristically shaky and made some ugly turnovers

lucky for him they won that game anyway, but honestly i remember thinking at the time if they lost that one and he’d had a chance to redeem himself he could have gotten his smythe back. not that i wouldn’t have voted for him anyway

 

[Staniowski]

The Czechoslovakians had been trapping at the world championships for about 20 years by then.

The Czechs never played defense like the '95 Devils did. Nobody ever had before in hockey history. Playing defense wasn't new, but the intensity, the all-out, all-the-time, all-over-the-ice defense was new, and it was shocking to their opponents.

Gretzky didn't invent passing - hockey players had been doing it for 100 years before he came along. But nobody had ever done it as well as him, not even close.

Same with the '95 playoff Devils and team defense.

 

[Crosby2010]

Yes, definitely in this group. And probably among people who are too young to have seen the 1980s.

But, for people who saw the dynasty years, support would be more spread out among Potvin, Bossy, and Trottier.

As already mentioned, Bossy and Trottier definitely received a lot more Conn Smythe support than Potvin did.

That could very well be. But would Potvin not classify as more of the "straw that stirs the drink"? Not that you can't make a case for Bossy or Trottier, because you probably can, but if I pick from the three I think its Potvin.

 

[LightningStorm]

That could very well be. But would Potvin not classify as more of the "straw that stirs the drink"? Not that you can't make a case for Bossy or Trottier, because you probably can, but if I pick from the three I think its Potvin.

I agree. Trottier and Bossy are both top 10 centers and wingers of all time IMO. But at his peak, I think Potvin was the best dman ever this side of Orr.

 

[Staniowski]

I agree. Trottier and Bossy are both top 10 centers and wingers of all time IMO. But at his peak, I think Potvin was the best dman ever this side of Orr.

Right, but Potvin was at his peak in the 1970s, before the dynasty years, and had some slow decline during the early '80s, which wasn't the case with Bossy, especially, and with Trottier for the most part.

 

[jigglysquishy]

Certainly in terms of regular season offense, Potvin was at his absolute best in the 70s. But he transitions to a more responsible role in the dynasty and Arbour deliberately changes the team after the 1978-79 failure. So 1978 Potvin scores more than 1982 Potvin, but 1982 Potvin contributes more to actual wins. Gaining Ken Morrow and Gorde Lane in 1980 is huge for the Islanders.


Daily News · ‎Apr 29, 1977
Potvin made mistakes which led to two Montreal goals in the first period but scored two gaols and an assist to lead the Islanders past the Canadiens.
The Phoenix · ‎Apr 29, 1977
Potvin’s first giveaway led directly to Lapointe’s first goal. But Denis quickly came back to score on a power play. Potvin’s second mistake was a bad clearing pass that Roberts grabbed in the slot for a goal. Potvin again made up for the miscue, this time speeding up the right side and grabbing Jude Drouin’s cross-ice pass.


St. Petersburg Times · ‎May 11, 1979
Once again, Potvin turned into just another defenseman in the semifinals and Rangers Ron Greschner and Mike McEwan played like Norris winners.



The Montreal Gazette · ‎May 5, 1980
Leadership by Potvin Big Reason for Success
The acquisition of Butch Goring made the Islanders a better hockey team, but Potvin is the principal choreographer of everything that is good and what, infrequently, has been bad about them.
If they get beyond the Sabres, which now seems to be a certainly, it will mark the firs time the Islanders have reached the finals. That, in itself, is a surprise when the quality of this team is considered. On reflection, most of it involved Potvin’s conduct as leader.
Put it another way: the biggest reason why the Islanders haven’t been in the finals is linked inexorably with Potvin’s failure to be the leader he should be – and was expected to be. If he had played as impeccably during the playoffs as he did during several regular seasons, the likelihood is that the Islanders would have a Stanley Cup by now, or at the very least, would have been in the finals on at least a couple of occasions.
He has now reached that point in his development as a genuine superstar. He didn’t play well in the first game of the Islanders-Sabres series, but played exceptionally well in the last two games. He’s put his act together.
The talent has always been there. It’s contained in three Norris trophies. But leadership goes beyond individual achievements. Larry Robinson is one of the truly great defencemen in the NHL… his greatest strength always has been his ability to carry others on his coattails.
He is infinitely more of a team player. It is probably the biggest reason – along with the excellence of goaltender Billy Smith – for the Islanders’ grand position in terms of winning the Stanley cup this season.

Ottawa Citizen · ‎May 20, 1980
Potvin Anchors Islanders
Denis Potvin has been the architect of victory on the ice, raising the NHL Stanley Cup hopes of the New York Islanders.

 

[Sergei Bure]

Sorry, just to clarify, does "until the Finals" mean before and not including the Finals, or does it just mean the whole playoffs in general?

I agree that Vernon was a poor choice in 1997, but this comment is very uncalled-for.

Fedorov had already won the Hart trophy (the most prestigious individual award) the year prior, and as I recall, was the hype of the hockey world around 1994 (along with Toronto-centric Doug Gilmour).

Lidstrom (a Swede) had won the Conn Smythe a half-decade before 1997.

Hell, a Finn had almost won the Norris in 1977!

This is to say that 1997 was not Nazi-Germany. If voters got it wrong, it wasn't because they wanted a North American name over a European one.

It wasn't said in that way, but there are certain players that get preferential treatment in those awards, Crosby is one of them, just that.

To complete what i said, Fedorov deserved the Playoff MVP in 1997 way more than Crosby in 2016 or Ovechkin in 2018, the 2 darlings of the NHL in the last 20 years...

 

[jigglysquishy]

I wouldn't even have Vernon top 3 for 1997. Fedorov 1, yes. But I would have Yzerman and Lidstrom ahead.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I wouldn't even have Vernon top 3 for 1997. Fedorov 1, yes. But I would have Yzerman and Lidstrom ahead.

I don't think a lot of people understood Lidstrom until way down the line. Even beyond the whole Swedish thing (when Lidstrom was drafted, only 48 Swedes had ever played 100 games in the NHL; just 16 were d-men), but his positional game and how he used his stick to defend first and foremost. He didn't have "highlight" offense or defense really...he didn't chase guys all over for hits, he didn't have a bomb of a shot, he didn't get into cross check wars in front, he wasn't sliding all over the ice...a lot of stuff that people lean on to determine things (positive things, no less), he didn't consistently offer.

I think his whole game was misunderstood or underestimated. I almost wonder if he helped usher in appreciation for that style of play...who else before him really got Norris love without: flashy multi-line puck carrying, huge hits, or a huge shot? And I don't want that to make it sound like Lidstrom was untalented and timid...not at all...but his #1 attribute was his hockey sense, that doesn't always get folks excited...

 

[The Panther]

I don't think a lot of people understood Lidstrom until way down the line. Even beyond the whole Swedish thing (when Lidstrom was drafted, only 48 Swedes had ever played 100 games in the NHL; just 16 were d-men), but his positional game and how he used his stick to defend first and foremost. He didn't have "highlight" offense or defense really...he didn't chase guys all over for hits, he didn't have a bomb of a shot, he didn't get into cross check wars in front, he wasn't sliding all over the ice...a lot of stuff that people lean on to determine things (positive things, no less), he didn't consistently offer.

I think his whole game was misunderstood or underestimated. I almost wonder if he helped usher in appreciation for that style of play...who else before him really got Norris love without: flashy multi-line puck carrying, huge hits, or a huge shot? And I don't want that to make it sound like Lidstrom was untalented and timid...not at all...but his #1 attribute was his hockey sense, that doesn't always get folks excited...

I think Doug Harvey would have been a bit like this, but in a quite different era. I don't get the impression that Harvey was 'flashy' in any particular way, but he was in the right position and could control the game (in a way that probably wasn't possible anymore in Lidstrom's day).

But I know what you mean about Lidstrom's game being easy, at the time, to under-appreciate. Lidstrom broke in just a year or two after Rob Blake, and it was definitely the latter's style that was more in vogue back then.

However, Lidstrom won 7-or-whatever Norris trophies, so I think he was appreciated enough, in the end...

 

[sr edler]

I don't think a lot of people understood Lidstrom until way down the line. Even beyond the whole Swedish thing (when Lidstrom was drafted, only 48 Swedes had ever played 100 games in the NHL; just 16 were d-men), but his positional game and how he used his stick to defend first and foremost. He didn't have "highlight" offense or defense really...he didn't chase guys all over for hits, he didn't have a bomb of a shot, he didn't get into cross check wars in front, he wasn't sliding all over the ice...a lot of stuff that people lean on to determine things (positive things, no less), he didn't consistently offer.

I think his whole game was misunderstood or underestimated. I almost wonder if he helped usher in appreciation for that style of play...who else before him really got Norris love without: flashy multi-line puck carrying, huge hits, or a huge shot? And I don't want that to make it sound like Lidstrom was untalented and timid...not at all...but his #1 attribute was his hockey sense, that doesn't always get folks excited...

Lidström had a pretty good shot. Not a conventional bomb, but it wasn't a Henrik Sedin muffin either. But key thing, it was always (or most always) on point net. He very rarely slid in like say a Phaneuf and just happenstance blasted the puck on chance to see where it ended up.

That GWG he scored in the 06 Olympic final on Finland is quite symptomatic of his shot I think.

 

[JackSlater]

I don't think a lot of people understood Lidstrom until way down the line. Even beyond the whole Swedish thing (when Lidstrom was drafted, only 48 Swedes had ever played 100 games in the NHL; just 16 were d-men), but his positional game and how he used his stick to defend first and foremost. He didn't have "highlight" offense or defense really...he didn't chase guys all over for hits, he didn't have a bomb of a shot, he didn't get into cross check wars in front, he wasn't sliding all over the ice...a lot of stuff that people lean on to determine things (positive things, no less), he didn't consistently offer.

I think his whole game was misunderstood or underestimated. I almost wonder if he helped usher in appreciation for that style of play...who else before him really got Norris love without: flashy multi-line puck carrying, huge hits, or a huge shot? And I don't want that to make it sound like Lidstrom was untalented and timid...not at all...but his #1 attribute was his hockey sense, that doesn't always get folks excited...

This gets floated out a lot, as if the hopeless rubes of the mid 90s couldn't appreciate Lidstrom's excellent offence and defensive position, but usually it is to explain him not getting Norris consideration right away (when Bourque did). I don't buy it, mainly because he was not excellent defensively right away (despite after the fact claims to the contrary) and he played on a loaded team. As far the the 1997 Conn Smythe, I don't think it's a case of people not understanding Lidstrom's game, at least not in any meaningful way. He finished sixth in Norris voting in 1996 and 1997, then second in 1998. He would have been a "third team all star" if such a thing existed in 1996 and 1997, and that's with sharing credit on his own team with Konstantinov. I think it's more that Lidstrom was just beginning his prime at the time.

I agree with the Harvey example above as well. People were familiar with non-flashy defencemen in the history of the NHL, even among historically prominent defencemen.

 

[WarriorofTime]

Norris probably the most reputation based award [Selke?] until more widespread generally available analytics became mainstream

 

[Michael Farkas]

that's with sharing credit on his own team with Konstantinov

I think that underlines the point...the fact that a player like Konstantinov could finish ahead of Lidstrom twice is ridiculous to me. VK had "highlight" defense, he had to out work his deficiencies and, of course, he clobbered people...that was what was en vogue, so he got more attention. I never found VK to be in the same tier as Lidstrom...at least not in "relevant" Detroit times, I can't speak as confidently about Lidstrom's first two seasons...

 

[jigglysquishy]

I'm actually doing Lidstrom now for the dmen project so I'll throw some stuff in.

Lidstrom gets more love in the 1997 playoffs by the media than he does the previous 5 years of hockey combined. Prior, he is described as a smooth skating offensive defenseman but there are rarely quotes about his actual defensive game.

A few select defensive gaffes from 1995 and 1996.

Devils win 2-1
Wings 0 Devils 1
The Day · ‎Jun 18, 1995
John MacLean set up Saturday’s winning goal by stealing the puck from defenseman Nicklas Lidstrom in the left faceoff circle.

Devils win 5-2 to win Cup
Ludington Daily News · ‎Jun 27, 1995

The finals showed what the Red Wings need to compete against the Devils, is some size. If that size comes with an attitude, so much the better. The quest for big feisty defensemen could make Nicklas Lidstrom, Mike Ramsey, Mike Krusheinyski, Bob Errey and Greg Johnson vulnerable. Detroit also has to worry that defensemen Mark Howe, Viachcslav Fetisov and Paul Coffey have some years on them.

Bangor Daily News · ‎Jun 26, 1995

Stephane Richer skated up the left wing, going wide on defenseman Nicklas Lidstrom. He dished the puck out of the corner to Broen on the edge of the crease [for opening goal]


In 1995 there are two major goals in the finals that Lidstrom is either blamed for or is beat for. The media openly talks about trading him.


Avs win 4-2
Wings 1 Avs 3
Toledo Blade · ‎May 26, 1996
Nicklas Lidstrom gave the puck away with nobody pressuring him and it led to a goal. He was on for three goals against.

In 1996 he is mentioned causally for a few points, but the only real coverage is his bad game 4 in the Conference Finals.

Even the first round in 1997
Wings win 3-2
Wings 2 Blues 1
The Southeast Missourian · ‎Apr 21, 1997
Hull stole a clearing pass by Lidstrom and scored his first of the playoffs.

But he steps up big against the Ducks in round 2. He's used in a shutdown role against Selanne/Kariya. And in game 2, plays 53 minutes in a triple OT

Wings win 4-2
Wings 1 Avs 1
Today's News-Herald · ‎May 18, 1997
The Wings might not have won but for a great save by defenceman Nicklas Lidstrom after they had taken that 3-2 lead.
Lidstrom made a stick save to rob Colorado’s Eric Lacroix on a shot at an unguarded net. Moments later, McCarty scored on a breakaway.

Wings 2 Avs 1
USA Today · ‎May 22, 1997
While opponents spend their time fretting and cursing about what Konstantinov is doing to them physically in the playoffs, Lidstrom quietly has gone about his business of playing nearly flawless hockey.
Konstantinov's aggressive style has irritated many during these playoffs, but Lidstrom is the Detroit defenseman getting the most playing time

The Globe and Mail · ‎May 22, 1997
Murphy has been paired with the reliable and underrated Niklas Lidstrom, while Fetisov has worked in tandem with Vladimir Konstantinov, who is as effective as he is menacing. Thus those perceived as too slow to play at this level have been offered something of a safety net.
It's easy to point to the system, but the Wings haven't had to pay for Murphy's and Fetisov's lack of range because of the excellence of Lidstrom and Konstantinov.

The Province · ‎May 26, 1997

If Forsberg can't go and Sakic again plays with Kamensky and Claude Lemieux tonight, you can look for Smith and Bowman to switch their defensive pairings given they have the matchup advantage at home. Against a dominant line, the traditional pattern at home has been to pair Vladimir Konstantinov with Nicklas Lidstrom, putting their two best out together, a strategy already being contemplated for the Legion of Doom line should the Wings proceed to the final.


Then the finals

Wings beat Flyers 4-2

Wings 1 Flyers 0

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette · ‎Jun 3, 1997
Murphy and Lidstrom were matched against Lindros' line in most even-strength situations, although Vladimir Konstantinov and Slava Fetisov played opposite them occasionally. Of the four, only Konstantinov can even try to match Lindros hit-for-hit.

Wings win 4-2

Wings 2 Flyers 0

The Record · ‎Jun 4, 1997
Then again, Eric Lindros, the Flyers' 24-year-old superstar carefully groomed for his Stanley Cup moment for years, was almost as unhelpful to the Flyers' cause as Snow. Hounded all game by Wings defensemen Nicklas Lidstrom and Larry Murphy, Lindros was held to no points and one shot.

Wings win 6-1

Wings 3 Flyers 0

The Star-Phoenix · ‎Jun 6, 1997
Flyers fans know Lidstrom and Murphy as the unlikely pair who, so far in this series, have held Eric Lindros, the Philly Grizzly, in check.

Toronto Star · ‎Jun 7, 1997
Who will win the Conn Smythe Trophy as playoff MVP?
Steve Yzerman will be the sentimental choice. Mike Vernon and Nicklas Lidstrom will get votes.
Who's been the best player in the series.
Lidstrom.

Wings win 2-1 to win Cup

Chicago Tribune · ‎Jun 9, 1997
It truly was a tremendous team effort by the Red Wings as they ripped through four rounds of the playoffs by winning 16 of 20 games. Goaltender Mike Vernon, whose playoff goals-against average was an outstanding 1.76, won the Conn Smythe Trophy as the most valuable player in the playoffs. But the award easily could have gone to Sergei Fedorov, Steve Yzerman, Brendan Shanahan, Larry Murphy, Slava Kozlov, Nicklas Lidstrom, Martin Lapointe or Larionov. And the defense, led by Konstantinov, Lidstrom and Fetisov, was magnificent.


He is mentioned by the Toronto Star as the best player in the finals. Every game in the finals he's singled out for his role against Lindros.

Then starting in 1998 the media stars to fall in love with him. He gets the Norris votes and he certainly gets the media praise. And I think getting the #1 job in Detroit helped him mature too.

The media attention to Lidstrom pre and post-Lindros is pretty stark and maybe the biggest "switch" I've come across. Were they blind before? Maybe. But they noticed his offense. And they noticed his defensive gaffes. Maybe he just matured after several years of playoff failures.

 

[JackSlater]

I think that underlines the point...the fact that a player like Konstantinov could finish ahead of Lidstrom twice is ridiculous to me. VK had "highlight" defense, he had to out work his deficiencies and, of course, he clobbered people...that was what was en vogue, so he got more attention. I never found VK to be in the same tier as Lidstrom...at least not in "relevant" Detroit times, I can't speak as confidently about Lidstrom's first two seasons...

Sure, I can buy that Lidstrom was generally better than Konstantinov. The success of the Russian Five unit, and especially Konstantinov leading the league comfortably in plus/minus in 1996 as a result, helped a lot in terms of how Konstantinov was viewed. Everyone already knew that Lidstrom was better offensively than Konstantinov, Konstantinov was definitely a flashier defensive player than Lidstrom, but my issue is more that Lidstrom wasn't the defensive player that people remember and project backwards from the 2000s.

Overall I just don't buy that Lidstrom was a massively underappreciated defenceman in the mid 90s, hiding on... an extremely prominent team, with a prominent role, and doing the thing (scoring) that attracts the most attention. I don't think that a guy who dominates transition defence and is strong in his own zone is too difficult for even the media members to grasp defensively. My recollection is that he was basically a top ten defenceman by 1996 but not a legitimate contender for the very best in the world, which is basically how he was treated.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

The media attention to Lidstrom pre and post-Lindros is pretty stark and maybe the biggest "switch" I've come across. Were they blind before? Maybe. But they noticed his offense. And they noticed his defensive gaffes. Maybe he just matured after several years of playoff failures.

maybe it’s also partially that he was untethered from coffey and that brought a new dimension to his game?