That's based on the flawed logic of the final being the toughest round with the toughest opponent, which is the issue I take with the NBA postseason MVP award being only for the finals. How tough it is relative to other rounds changes year to year. In fact, the finals IMO should hold less weight when factoring in the performances of Sakic, Yzerman and Vasilevskiy in 1996, 1998, and 2021, respectively.I can’t imagine not winning the Cup and being average in the final can ever make you a tier 1 Conn Smythe winner. No matter how good you were in the previous rounds.
Bumping this thread as I'm curious where people think Makar and Marchessault would rank.
5. They gave it to the wrong guy
I do think there’s a difference between the time they gave it to Williams over Kopitar/Doughty etc, and the time they gave it to Ovechkin over Kuznetsov. Ovechkin was still awesome his run.
.
Are there any examples where a player might be two tiers apart?
This is an important point, and why I think Crosby's 2016 CS has had arguably the most contentious debate. On the one hand, his performance in a vacuum was among the weakest since 1980, which adds to the theory of him winning it due to name recognition. On the other hand, the 2016 Pens were such a team effort that no single player really stood out, therefore no player was legitimately robbed. I wouldn't even say Letang, who was my choice that year, was robbed of the CS for how by committee that team was. The reason I think Goring ranks at the very bottom is because he ranks towards the bottom in performance, and at the very bottom when it comes to other candidates because he had TWO (Potvin and Bossy) who were better than him, while usually an underserved winner is at least 2nd best.If I can criticize my own article for a minute, I struggled with defining what's "deserving". I think there's two ways to approach it. First, how objectively good was the performance (comparing that player to other Conn Smythe winners)? Second, how good was the player relative to the other candidates that year? Arguably, players should be evaluated on both dimensions.
Here's an example of what I was talking about before (looking at the Smythe using two different parameters):
View attachment 727752
I filled in the names in about 10 minutes. Not looking to get into debates about who belongs where - just trying to show how this framework might be used, based on the (approximate) HOH consensus.
Here's an example of what I was talking about before (looking at the Smythe using two different parameters):
View attachment 727752
I filled in the names in about 10 minutes. Not looking to get into debates about who belongs where - just trying to show how this framework might be used, based on the (approximate) HOH consensus.
Good chart that does capture the essence well of the 2 parts of the argument. For good argument, do you mean the favorite, just not the clear cut favorite like the category to the left of it?Here's an example of what I was talking about before (looking at the Smythe using two different parameters):
View attachment 727752
I filled in the names in about 10 minutes. Not looking to get into debates about who belongs where - just trying to show how this framework might be used, based on the (approximate) HOH consensus.
Which other CS winner do you believe also had a below average Smythe run while also robbing a teammate (let alone 2 in Goring's case) of the Smythe? Though I guess you could argue there were some unworthy winners that also had weak performances but who's teammate who should've won wasn't robbed as much as Potvin and Bossy in 1981.goring wouldn’t be alone in the bottom right but this is a good way of visualizing the two overlapping conversations that are being had here
Which other CS winner do you believe also had a below average Smythe run while also robbing a teammate (let alone 2 in Goring's case) of the Smythe? Though I guess you could argue there were some unworthy winners that also had weak performances but who's teammate who should've won wasn't robbed as much as Potvin and Bossy in 1981.
Yes, exactly. In the first column, in my opinion, nobody else has a reasonable argument over Gretzky in 1985, or Lemieux in 1991, or (even though it's a lower level of performance) Makar in 2002 (he won the Conn Smythe unanimously). Maybe Duncan Keith in 2015 belong in this category too.Good chart that does capture the essence well of the 2 parts of the argument. For good argument, do you mean the favorite, just not the clear cut favorite like the category to the left of it?
2014 is a good selection and does fit what I said in my previous reply, in that Williams was a below average performance and Kopitar was robbed, though not to the same degree as Potvin and Bossy in 1981. The 2014 Kings were a team effort, but Kopitar was my clear pick, as he played Selke level defense while leading the team in scoring. What I think ultimately happened was Williams' "Mr. Game 7" meme got taken too seriously. On a list I made on my opinion of how right the voters got the CS winners, 1981, 1987, and 2014 were years where I thought they were dead wrong. I might add 1997 (Vernon) to that list too.justin williams, easy
in lowest rung of smythe performances
meanwhile, doughty and kopitar were completely robbed and i argue gaborik was probably more important, and carter was close to him
i wasn’t around to watch the 1981 playoffs but from what i’ve read there’s no reason to suggest that goring’s run was worse than most of the ones in the “average” tier. but i think most of them should be marked below average, if we take the word average literally.
2014 is a good selection and does fit what I said in my previous reply, in that Williams was a below average performance and Kopitar was robbed, though not to the same degree as Potvin and Bossy in 1981. The 2014 Kings were a team effort, but Kopitar was my clear pick, as he played Selke level defense while leading the team in scoring. What I think ultimately happened was Williams' "Mr. Game 7" meme got taken too seriously. On a list I made on my opinion of how right the voters got the CS winners, 1981, 1987, and 2014 were years where I thought they were dead wrong. I might add 1997 (Vernon) to that list too.
Sakic and Roy in 1996 and 2001 reminds me of how I grouped the CS winners in terms of how right or wrong I thought the voters got it. The 4 groups I had were:Yes, exactly. In the first column, in my opinion, nobody else has a reasonable argument over Gretzky in 1985, or Lemieux in 1991, or (even though it's a lower level of performance) Makar in 2002 (he won the Conn Smythe unanimously). Maybe Duncan Keith in 2015 belong in this category too.
In the 2nd column, the Smythe probably went to the most deserving player, but it's not entirely clear. For example, Sakic was probably the most deserving in 1996, but Roy had a reasonable case. (Then the reverse was true in 2001). Leetch was probably the most deserving in 1994, but Messier had a decent case. Thomas was probably the best pick in 2011, but Chara had a good case. (Lemieux in 1992 is probably the most questionable player in this category, but he missed almost 30% of the games, so maybe Barrasso or someone else could have snuck in).
Putting Roy '86 and Roy '93 in the same category as Gretzky and Lemieux is crazy.
Roy '86 is without a doubt the most over-rated Conn Smythe win of all-time. First of all, Carbonneau deserved to win it. Roy played well and was probably the Habs' 3rd or 4th or 5th most important player in the '86 playoffs. Lemieux, McPhee, Chelios were also excellent (and several others - Skrudland, Naslund, Robinson, Green - were very good). And if you compare Roy '86 to other Smythe winners in the '80s, Trottier '80, Bossy '82, Messier '84, Gretzky '85, Gretzky '88, MacInnis '89 were all better....i.e. Roy '86 was one of the weaker Smythes of the 1980s.
MacInnis '89 was better than Roy '89, and Roy '89 was better than Roy '86.
I don't have a problem with Roy '93 winning the award, but it's still nowhere near Gretzky and Lemieux level.
Putting Roy '86 and Roy '93 in the same category as Gretzky and Lemieux is crazy.
Roy '86 is without a doubt the most over-rated Conn Smythe win of all-time. First of all, Carbonneau deserved to win it. Roy played well and was probably the Habs' 3rd or 4th or 5th most important player in the '86 playoffs. Lemieux, McPhee, Chelios were also excellent (and several others - Skrudland, Naslund, Robinson, Green - were very good). And if you compare Roy '86 to other Smythe winners in the '80s, Trottier '80, Bossy '82, Messier '84, Gretzky '85, Gretzky '88, MacInnis '89 were all better....i.e. Roy '86 was one of the weaker Smythes of the 1980s.
MacInnis '89 was better than Roy '89, and Roy '89 was better than Roy '86.
I don't have a problem with Roy '93 winning the award, but it's still nowhere near Gretzky and Lemieux level.