HOH Top 40 Stanley Cup Playoff Performers of All Time

[Sentinel]

Crosby over Trottier? Yes. BT's accomplishments are confined to a 3 1/2 year period. Outside of that, I'd argue he did next to nothing of note in a career that spanned 18 years.

Denis Potvin, for sure, and possibly Mike Bossy were more impactful on those Islander dynasties.

And this, my friends, is why stats-watching and numbers-crunching is so inherently lame. Only a person who didn't watch / doesn't know anything about Bryan Trottier will make this claim.

 

[daver]

Can you really score "a slew of huge goals" when you score the least goals of any CS winning forward in history?

The poster said goals and assists, and is correct in that assessment. The same can be said for this year's performance too. Crosby noticeably stepped up in the big games and moments.

 

[ImporterExporter]

And this, my friend's, is why stats-watching and numbers-crunching is so inherently lame. Only a person who didn't watch / doesn't know anything about Bryan Trottier will make this claim.

Nope, I never did massive amount of research on him for the ATD or followed other discussion closely.

I can't say that I watched him during his prime (far to young). The only Trottier I remember was his few years in Pittsburgh at the twilight of his career. Full disclaimer as I actually believe in transparency.

I know what Trottier was as a hockey player. He was an "old school player" (with a damn good amount of skill to boot) who excelled at both ends of the rink. Very physical, good in the dot.

He had an amazing 3 year run during the Islanders 1st 3 Cups. Nobody is going to say otherwise.

Missed a handful of games in 83, which dampens him a bit and one of my favorite all time depth players, Bob Bourne, stole the show. That year was about Bourne, Bossy, Potvin, and the Sutter's.

And then in 84 had a pretty poor playoff run, where his scoring was way down, and he spent 49 minutes in the penalty box while his line bled goals against the Oilers in the final. And if I recall correctly, he wasn't exactly dominant against Montreal in the round before that.

Obviously he won 2 Cups late in his career with Pitt, but was a depth C, a vet glue guy. He probably did his most work as a leader of a pretty young Penguins team, along with Joe Mullen of course.

Besides that there really isn't much else of note in his playoff portfolio. I don't think that's a harsh statement.

Personally i think Potvin was the rock of those great Islander teams. But that's just my opinion based on a lot of hockey research. Obviously I wasn't able to witness it.

Edit: And i forgot to say, you also have to take into the scoring averages in the early 80's. They were ridiculously high compared to the past 10 years in the NHL. So you can't simply look at Trottier's raw #'s and compare them to say somebody that has played in the past decade.

 

[bathdog]

The poster said goals and assists, and is correct in that assessment. The same can be said for this year's performance too. Crosby noticeably stepped up in the big games and moments.

Absolutely true, but the point was, why spend the better part of the thread diminishing one of the best OT records in history because those points weren't valuable anymore, while also boosting one of the weaker Smythe wins in history because those points are suddenly more valuable.

Seems like much double standard to me.

 

[feffan]

Nope, I never did massive amount of research on him for the ATD or followed other discussion closely.

I can't say that I watched him during his prime (far to young). The only Trottier I remember was his few years in Pittsburgh at the twilight of his career. Full disclaimer as I actually believe in transparency.

I know what Trottier was as a hockey player. He was an "old school player" (with a damn good amount of skill to boot) who excelled at both ends of the rink. Very physical, good in the dot.

He had an amazing 3 year run during the Islanders 1st 3 Cups. Nobody is going to say otherwise.

Missed a handful of games in 83, which dampens him a bit and one of my favorite all time depth players, Bob Bourne, stole the show. That year was about Bourne, Bossy, Potvin, and the Sutter's.

And then in 84 had a pretty poor playoff run, where his scoring was way down, and he spent 49 minutes in the penalty box while his line bled goals against the Oilers in the final. And if I recall correctly, he wasn't exactly dominant against Montreal in the round before that.

Obviously he won 2 Cups late in his career with Pitt, but was a depth C, a vet glue guy. He probably did his most work as a leader of a pretty young Penguins team, along with Joe Mullen of course.

Besides that there really isn't much else of note in his playoff portfolio. I don't think that's a harsh statement.

Personally i think Potvin was the rock of those great Islander teams. But that's just my opinion based on a lot of hockey research. Obviously I wasn't able to witness it.

Edit: And i forgot to say, you also have to take into the scoring averages in the early 80's. They were ridiculously high compared to the past 10 years in the NHL. So you can't simply look at Trottier's raw #'s and compare them to say somebody that has played in the past decade.

So basically what you´re saying, outside being a top 3 player on one of the most highly ranked dynastys, leading 2 SC winners (and the Playoffs...) in scoring, playing amazing defense (byt todays standard he would have won a couple of Selkes...), scaring the **** out of the opposing team, being a dominante face off man, way past his hey days coming in and being the last glu to turn a young offensive team in to a two time SC winner, winning 6 SC:s "there really isn't much else of note in his playoff portfolio..."




And for the record, I agree that Potvin was the rock of those Islanders teams. But to me Trottier was the obvious second most important, with Bossy the obvious third. To me Trottier and Bossy should have traded places on this list. And for that - it would be more poetic having him almost neck to neck with Forsberg. The 90´s/00´s version of him. Heck. I could see him switching places with Sakic for that mather.

The Islanders will probably find a way to win a couple of Cups without Bossy, but I don´t think they win even one without Trottier (or Potvin). I´m not sure the Penguins win their without him either. He was the glu holding that team together. And he sure gave the "youngsters" confidence and the knowledge of what grind it takes to win.

The easiest way to describe Trottier by todays players is that I think he was what many are trying to make Toews.

 

[daver]

Absolutely true, but the point was, why spend the better part of the thread diminishing one of the best OT records in history because those points weren't valuable anymore, while also boosting one of the weaker Smythe wins in history because those points are suddenly more valuable.

Seems like much double standard to me.

I was just pointing out that Crosby won the Smythe in '16 partially based on his clutchness rather than strong offensive production, and was also a big reason why he took the Smythe this year too, even though Malkin outscored him.

I think we agree that the Importer's more Cups argument shouldn't hold water in a Crosby vs. Sakic/Forsberg but you also have argued that better competition not only explains the AVs less Cup finals but should also inflate Forsberg/Sakic's #'s. That's why I respond to your posts specifically.

On a sidenote, I would consider you constantly positioning Crosby's 2016 Smythe as "one of the weaker Smythe wins in history" as trying to diminish Crosby's legacy in the same way Importer is for Sakic: unreasonably . It is akin to the "only won two Art Rosses" narrative that gets thrown out.

 

[ImporterExporter]

So basically what you´re saying, outside being a top 3 player on one of the most highly ranked dynastys, leading 2 SC winners (and the Playoffs...) in scoring, playing amazing defense (byt todays standard he would have won a couple of Selkes...), scaring the **** out of the opposing team, being a dominante face off man, way past his hey days coming in and being the last glu to turn a young offensive team in to a two time SC winner, winning 6 SC:s "there really isn't much else of note in his playoff portfolio..."




And for the record, I agree that Potvin was the rock of those Islanders teams. But to me Trottier was the obvious second most important, with Bossy the obvious third. To me Trottier and Bossy should have traded places on this list. And for that - it would be more poetic having him almost neck to neck with Forsberg. The 90´s/00´s version of him. Heck. I could see him switching places with Sakic for that mather.

The Islanders will probably find a way to win a couple of Cups without Bossy, but I don´t think they win even one without Trottier (or Potvin). I´m not sure the Penguins win their without him either. He was the glu holding that team together. And he sure gave the "youngsters" confidence and the knowledge of what grind it takes to win.

The easiest way to describe Trottier by todays players is that I think he was what many are trying to make Toews.

I see you understand the definition of hyperbole. I never said that Trottier wasn't any of those things. My point was that a few of the Cup years (83 and 84 loss) didn't exactly see Trots dominate. Not to mention, look at the surrounding cast.

Trottier played with an elite HOF Dman in Potvin. He had an elite HOF winger in Bossy. He had a HOF W (fairly weak one to be fair) in Gilles and a solid HOF G in Billy Smith. These things matter.

Being a vet glue guy doesn't get you special points here. Using my Pens as an example. In 2009 the Pens brought in Bill Guerin. 2 years ago they brought in Matt Cullen. You can point to many Cup winners who brought in a veteran presence at the deadline or the year prior to winning the Cup. It doesn't mean they were an integral part of the team winning on the ice. There were many players on the Pens in 91 and 92 who did the heavy lifting on the ice.

Lastly, it's pointless to speculate whether the Islander would have won without Trots. I never liked doing that with ANY player (to diminish or prop somebody up). Although there are instances where we can see teams winning despite a key player missing (see Avs in 01 without Forsberg) or (Pens in 17 without Letang). Those situations should matter.

I also think its ridiculous to think that the winning the Cup in pre salary cap era, especially in dynastic fashion, is as hard as it is today. With a salary cap, the Habs, or Islanders, or Oilers would have never existed. There would have been no way to fit a Gretzy, Messier, Kurri, Anderson, Coffey, Fuhr, and the veteran secondary players under a capped league structure. It's precisely why you don't see teams today winning 4 in a row, or 4 in 5 years. Maybe (chances are still very slim) the Pens make me eat those words.

Other things of note.

*Forsberg is one of the most overrated players on the final 40.

The guy was a distant 2nd (one could argue he was 3rd behind Roy) behind Sakic in 96 in terms of importance to that Avs run. And then, somehow, the Avs managed to win the SC without Forsberg for the Conference Finals AND SCF in 2001.

I find it absolutely comical that Forsberg ranked ahead of H. Richard, Robinson, Bossy, Dryden, Lidstrom, Trottier, Crosby, Geoffrion etc. Having him only a handful of spots behind Sakic is a joke IMO.

*I agree Trottier is as good if not better than Sakic in the postseason.

*Jon Toews could only dream of having anywhere near the offensive ability as Trottier. And i think Trots was better defensively anyway. Toews is one of the most overrated hockey players of this generation.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

I also think its ridiculous to think that the winning the Cup in pre salary cap era, especially in dynastic fashion, is as hard as it is today. With a salary cap, the Habs, or Islanders, or Oilers would have never existed. There would have been no way to fit a Gretzy, Messier, Kurri, Anderson, Coffey, Fuhr, and the veteran secondary players under a capped league structure. It's precisely why you don't see teams today winning 4 in a row, or 4 in 5 years. Maybe (chances are still very slim) the Pens make me eat those words.

In other words, teams today don't have to worry about running into an Islanders, Oilers, or Habs level super team, so this is a two way street.

The salary cap era is suggested to have "spread the wealth" when it comes to wining, yet Chicago and Pittsburgh have won 6 of the last 9 Cups, and each had another close call too. Post cap era is not nearly the free for all that it is portrayed as in terms of who's actually left holding the trophy at the end.

 

[Canadiens1958]

1932-33 Salary Cap

In other words, teams today don't have to worry about running into an Islanders, Oilers, or Habs level super team, so this is a two way street.

The salary cap era is suggested to have "spread the wealth" when it comes to wining, yet Chicago and Pittsburgh have won 6 of the last 9 Cups, and each had another close call too. Post cap era is not nearly the free for all that it is portrayed as in terms of who's actually left holding the trophy at the end.

1930s NHL had a Salary Cap, starting with the 1932-33 season. You had repeat winners and frequent SC finalists through the pre 06 era.

In the 06 era, Jim Norris Sr, Red Wings owner controlled the other US teams via financial interests and the IBC(boxing) which he controlled as well. Somewhat detailed here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_E._Norris

Though a Montrealer by birth, Norris never got into the Canadiens or the Leafs. Owned, backed by deeper pocket.

Effectively the other three USA teams - Boston, Chicago, NY Rangers were fodder and feeder teams for the Wings.

 

[quoipourquoi]

I find it absolutely comical that Forsberg ranked ahead of H. Richard, Robinson, Bossy, Dryden, Lidstrom, Trottier, Crosby, Geoffrion etc. Having him only a handful of spots behind Sakic is a joke IMO.

Forsberg finished behind all but Crosby on the aggregate list. It's almost as if we had those discussion threads for a reason.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Forsberg finished behind all but Crosby on the aggregate list. It's almost as if we had those discussion threads for a reason.

I understand that, but at the end of the day, Forsberg somehow managed to finish 18th, above all the folks I mentioned.

Forsberg was 2nd/3rd most important to the 96 run IMO, and the 01 run is incomplete because he missed the final 2 rounds. Yet the Avs still won despite this. So the end result is Forsberg was never THE guys/most dominant player on a Cup winning team. For playoff performance that matters a lot to me. Maybe others care a lot less. Seems that may be the case.

His 2 most dominant playoff runs came in years the Avs didn't even make the SCF. I get it, The Avs played the Stars and Wings in those premature exists. Great teams.

Erik Karlsson was absolutely amazing through 3 rounds this past season taking a very average Sens squad as far as they went. He and Rinne were easily the leading CS candidates at that point IMO. But as it stands, Karlsson came up a game short of the finals (much like Forsberg) and Rinne **** the bed in the finals.

Were they not as amazing, looking at the numbers, or passing the eye test through 3 rounds?

Karlsson was playing on one leg, had 18 points in 19 games, was a +13, playing huge minutes and very good D to boot. Rinne had elite all time playoff numbers through 3 rounds. But the fact is people are going to remember him having one of the worst SCF in history for a G, while getting pulled on 2 separate occasions.

There have been plenty of folks who looked amazing through 3 rounds. I'm not one to give them similar credit to players who did it through 4. I'm not dismissing Forsberg having a couple of very stellar 3 round runs. It just doesn't hold the same value that Joe Sakic having an elite all time run in 96 would.

 

[ImporterExporter]

1930s NHL had a Salary Cap, starting with the 1932-33 season. You had repeat winners and frequent SC finalists through the pre 06 era.

In the 06 era, Jim Norris Sr, Red Wings owner controlled the other US teams via financial interests and the IBC(boxing) which he controlled as well. Somewhat detailed here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_E._Norris

Though a Montrealer by birth, Norris never got into the Canadiens or the Leafs. Owned, backed by deeper pocket.

Effectively the other three USA teams - Boston, Chicago, NY Rangers were fodder and feeder teams for the Wings.

And I've brought this up before.

So HALF the league for the majority of O6 era were far less talented than the 3 teams at the top? I'd say so given the fact that the Habs and Leafs, with the Wings (ironically) a distant 3rd, ruled over the league for nearly 3 decades.

In 12 years of the current salary cap era, you've already seen 7 different teams win the Cup. With another 9 different teams playing in the Cup finals. So more than half the league (30 teams vs 6) has already played for a Cup in only 12 years. I wonder what that number will grow to in the next 12?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Objectives

And I've brought this up before.

So HALF the league for the majority of O6 era were far less talented than the 3 teams at the top? I'd say so given the fact that the Habs and Leafs, with the Wings (ironically) a distant 3rd, ruled over the league for nearly 3 decades.

In 12 years of the current salary cap era, you've already seen 7 different teams win the Cup. With another 9 different teams playing in the Cup finals. So more than half the league (30 teams vs 6) has already played for a Cup in only 12 years. I wonder what that number will grow to in the next 12?

Regardles of the team sport league, era, the top half of the teams are always more talented than the bottom half.

Objective of the Norris controlled USA teams was optimizing revenues. So you would see the circus oust the Rangers at playoff time - see the 1950 SC Finals against Detroit, the second half of the fifties playoffs against Montreal and Boston. Montreal and Toronto had the prime Saturday night home game. Still within a twelve season window - 1950 to 1961 all six teams went to the finals with four winning. Even the non-playoff teams had quality players, unlike today. Also the Canadiens, Leafs and Red Wings failed to make the playoffs at least once between 1948 and 1959. Unlike today where this is not happening.

Edmonton, making the playoffs in 2017 finished a ten season run of non-playoff ineptitude, surpassing the 1960 to 67 Bruins.Carolina is next with a long streak that is not likely to end soon. No much hope for Arizona.

Competition between high levels of excellence in a small group is not the same as competition amongst mediocraties.

 

[quoipourquoi]

There have been plenty of folks who looked amazing through 3 rounds. I'm not one to give them similar credit to players who did it through 4.

Is Peter Forsberg somehow going to not be the leading playoff scorer in 1999 and 2002 if he plays a fourth round? From 1893-1979, players didn't even get to go four rounds (except the 1979 Rangers), so I'm not sure why we would suddenly have an issue with the sample size when evaluating individual performance.

And I'll go as far as to say that if you treat Erik Karlsson as anything less than the best player in the 2017 playoffs, you're probably hung up too much on what it means to go four rounds. Similarly, there isn't much of a criticism that can be made against Forsberg in 2002, Gilmour in 1993, or Middleton in 1983.

The Rinne situation is a common issue with goaltending statistics being focused on averaging statistics. Thankfully, someone posted the numbers for every post-1968 goaltending run to go 3 rounds, 4 rounds, and both the 1-3 and 2-4 rounds of the 4-round goaltenders. It was me.

But if you think anything less than four is disqualifying, you do you.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Is Peter Forsberg somehow going to not be the leading playoff scorer in 1999 and 2002 if he plays a fourth round? From 1893-1979, players didn't even get to go four rounds (except the 1979 Rangers), so I'm not sure why we would suddenly have an issue with the sample size when evaluating individual performance.

And I'll go as far as to say that if you treat Erik Karlsson as anything less than the best player in the 2017 playoffs, you're probably hung up too much on what it means to go four rounds. Similarly, there isn't much of a criticism that can be made against Forsberg in 2002, Gilmour in 1993, or Middleton in 1983.

The Rinne situation is a common issue with goaltending statistics being focused on averaging statistics. Thankfully, someone posted the numbers for every post-1968 goaltending run to go 3 rounds, 4 rounds, and both the 1-3 and 2-4 rounds of the 4-round goaltenders. It was me.

But if you think anything less than four is disqualifying, you do you.

Well considering I'm a huge Karlsson fan (he'd be inside the top 60 Dmen all time right now and I personally believe he'll push top 10 status by the end of his career), it wasn't even remotely close to who was the best player through 3 rounds was this past year. You don't need to remind me of what I saw with my own eyes.

People keep on trying to invent narratives I didn't say.

I give Forsberg plenty of credit for his partial runs. Same with Karlsson. But there IS a reason WHY those 2 don't sniff the MVP for the postseason. We shouldn't greatly reward players for partial completion of the gauntlet. Just like we don't give a guy like Crosby more value for his incredible half season in 2010-11. He could have tapered off, same as Forsberg could have had poor finals (regardless of how unlikely that is).

01 is defining for me, given the Avs won without Forsberg. Yet, even when he had a couple of great 3 rounds, they still got bounced. More or less same nucleus throughout that time period.

And Forsberg played fewer regular season games than Bossy and Lindros. His last near full season was at age 29! People marvel at his per game numbers often without bringing up the fact he didn't have much of a 2nd half/twilight portion of his career to bring those per games numbers back to the mean. He played all of 36 playoff games after the age of 28.

I loved watching Forsberg play. One of my favorite players of the 90's. But he is also one of the great "what if" players IMHO.

 

[MXD]

Well considering I'm a huge Karlsson fan (he'd be inside the top 60 Dmen all time right now and I personally believe he'll push top 10 status by the end of his career), it wasn't even remotely close to who was the best player through 3 rounds was this past year. You don't need to remind me of what I saw with my own eyes.

.

I don't want to get more offtopic than we actually are, but at this point, it's probably not necessary to come up with the bolded to justify the underlined.

 

[quoipourquoi]

But there IS a reason WHY those 2 don't sniff the MVP for the postseason.

Because of an unwritten rule that Conn Smythe winners must be Finalists? Karlsson played 19 games. Forsberg played 20 games. Gilmour played 21 games. These are not small sample-size players. Players have won the Conn Smythe with less games.

01 is defining for me, given the Avs won without Forsberg.

Whereas I would define a player by the 88% of his team's playoff games that he did appear in, especially when he's really, really, really good in them. He's not some habitually unreliable player; we know that from him dressing for the 1997 Conference Finals when he couldn't walk without assistance.

People marvel at his per game numbers often without bringing up the fact he didn't have much of a 2nd half/twilight portion of his career to bring those per games numbers back to the mean. He played all of 36 playoff games after the age of 28.

And yet when he came up for vote, he and Trottier had the highest percentage of their playoff careers outside of their top-five runs. Only Forsberg's held up.

Career

[table="head;title=vote"]Player|GP|G|A|PTS|+/-|GWG|GWA|GWP|Opp-GA|Adj PTS|Adj P/GP
Mario Lemieux | 107 | 76 | 96 | 172 | 20 | 11 | 15 | 26 | 251.6 | 135.4 | 1.27
Peter Forsberg | 151 | 64 | 107 | 171 | 54 | 14 | 23 | 37 | 208.1 | 165.1 | 1.09
Joe Sakic | 172 | 84 | 104 | 188 | -2 | 19 | 16 | 35 | 207.8 | 182.3 | 1.06
Mike Bossy | 129 | 85 | 75 | 160 | | 17 | 8 | 25 | 285.6 | 113.7 | 0.88
Guy Lafleur | 128 | 58 | 76 | 134 | | 14 | 12 | 26 | 256.9 | 106.7 | 0.83
Bryan Trottier | 221 | 71 | 113 | 181 | | 12 | 16 | 28 | 273.9 | 134.4 | 0.61
[/table]

Top-5 Playoffs (Minimum Two Rounds)

[table="head;title=vote"]Player|GP|G|A|PTS|+/-|GWG|GWA|GWP|Opp-GA|Adj PTS|Adj P/GP|Years Included
Mario Lemieux | 78 | 63 | 79 | 142 | 24 | 8 | 13 | 21 | 266.2 | 107.08 | 1.37 | 1989, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1996
Joe Sakic | 90 | 52 | 64 | 116 | 19 | 12 | 13 | 25 | 207 | 112.68 | 1.25 | 1996, 1997, 1999, 2001, 2004
Peter Forsberg | 75 | 30 | 63 | 93 | 20 | 7 | 15 | 22 | 198.4 | 93.33 | 1.24 | 1997, 1999, 2001, 2002, 2004
Guy Lafleur | 69 | 48 | 58 | 106 | 0 | 13 | 9 | 22 | 248.2 | 85.11 | 1.23 | 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979
Mike Bossy | 82 | 66 | 56 | 122 | 0 | 12 | 6 | 18 | 288.6 | 85.93 | 1.05 | 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1985
Bryan Trottier | 87 | 39 | 78 | 115 | 0 | 6 | 10 | 16 | 282.4 | 83.96 | 0.97 | 1977, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983
[/table]

• Mike Bossy appears to have a noticeable offensive edge over Bryan Trottier
• Joe Sakic and Peter Forsberg are incredibly close, with a slight edge to Sakic's very best performances and a slight edge to the entirety of Peter Forsberg's playoff career
• Bossy (0.59), Trottier (0.38), and Lafleur (0.37) do not contribute much on a per game level outside their top-five playoffs
• Lemieux (0.98), Forsberg (0.94), and Sakic (0.85) hold up outside their top-five playoffs - with Forsberg (50.3%) and Trottier (60.6%) being the only two skaters to have more than half of their playoff games outside their top-five playoffs

You're not treading new ground here, and that's why Forsberg did better after the discussion round than he did in Round 1 Voting.

 

[bobholly39]

Because of an unwritten rule that Conn Smythe winners must be Finalists? Karlsson played 19 games. Forsberg played 20 games. Gilmour played 21 games. These are not small sample-size players. Players have won the Conn Smythe with less games.

There are 2 dynamics at play here.

Conn Smythe. And having a great playoff run (and what a great playoff run can do to your legacy).

Karlsson this year. Gilmour in 93. Forsberg. Some truly great playoff runs, that are going to hold tremendous value to those player's legacy when it comes to considering it (as it did for Forsberg, and Gilmour, in this very project). Are those runs worth "more" to their legacy than Crosby's "weak" 2016 smythe? How about his stronger 2017 smythe? I dunno. In some cases maybe - though i personally think a Smythe counts for more (even a weaker smythe like 2016).

But regarding the Conn Smythe. I absolutely 100% believe it should only ever go to a player in the finals. Even if Karlsson had somehow been significantly better than he was this year and if this was 2016 Crosby (instead of 2017 Crosby) - i'd still only want a player in the final to get the conn smythe.

Maybe if the Conn Smythe was voted on and awarded at the award ceremony (like hart, norris, vezina, etc are) - you could one day see a player not in the final earn it. But I think it should absolutely only be awarded to players in the final in its current shape.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Because of an unwritten rule that Conn Smythe winners must be Finalists? Karlsson played 19 games. Forsberg played 20 games. Gilmour played 21 games. These are not small sample-size players. Players have won the Conn Smythe with less games.

Whereas I would define a player by the 88% of his team's playoff games that he did appear in, especially when he's really, really, really good in them. He's not some habitually unreliable player; we know that from him dressing for the 1997 Conference Finals when he couldn't walk without assistance.

Has a player ever won a Conn Smythe not playing in the final? No. And for good reason. Find me other reputable posters here who think someone should/could be rewarded for being the MVP of the postseason without even making it to the SCF (not saying you are or aren't and don't want you to think that's what I'm implying).

I mean I suppose it's possible if somebody was absolutely incredible and did something earth shattering, but Forsberg certainly didn't do any such thing, even though he was great more than once in 3 round exits. He's not exclusive to that scenario.

And lastly, I know Forsberg was tough as nails. One of the hardest players in the league (which was a big part of why he was always banged up). But again, this isn't something exclusive to him. Many famous guys played through terrible ailments in the postseason.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Has a player ever won a Conn Smythe not playing in the final? No. And for good reason. Find me other reputable posters here who think someone should/could be rewarded for being the MVP of the postseason without even making it to the SCF (not saying you are or aren't and don't want you to think that's what I'm implying).

You are missing the point. The hockey is what matters. Not the trophies, not blue ribbons, not VHS tapes - but the performance itself. Nicklas Lidstrom's 2002 playoff doesn't get better because they call his name, and Erik Karlsson's 2017 playoff doesn't get worse because they didn't. It is what happens on the ice.

20 games in 2002 was enough to know who had the best playoff performance. And relative to opposition strength, the best statistical one since Lemieux.

And lastly, I know Forsberg was tough as nails. One of the hardest players in the league (which was a big part of why he was always banged up). But again, this isn't something exclusive to him. Many famous guys played through terrible ailments in the postseason.

My point had nothing to do with that. His career points-per-game isn't comprised primarily by his top-five runs the way we see with other players. It's more spread out among multiple runs than being largely comprised of just 2, 3, 4, or 5 deep runs as a top player.

Look at the six players I listed.

Percentage of Playoff Career Comprised by Top-5 Statistical Runs
Mario Lemieux - 72.9%
Mike Bossy - 63.6%
Guy Lafleur - 53.9%
Joe Sakic - 52.3%
Peter Forsberg - 49.7%
Bryan Trottier - 39.4%

His career points-per-game isn't feasting off of a handful of times when he was at his best. Yet he comes out second to Lemieux in this group on his per-game average.

 

[ImporterExporter]

You are missing the point. The hockey is what matters. Not the trophies, not blue ribbons, not VHS tapes - but the performance itself. Nicklas Lidstrom's 2002 playoff doesn't get better because they call his name, and Erik Karlsson's 2017 playoff doesn't get worse because they didn't. It is what happens on the ice.

20 games in 2002 was enough to know who had the best playoff performance. And relative to opposition strength, the best statistical one since Lemieux.

My point had nothing to do with that. His career points-per-game isn't comprised primarily by his top-five runs the way we see with other players. It's more spread out among multiple runs than being largely comprised of just 2, 3, 4, or 5 deep runs as a top player.

Look at the six players I listed.

Percentage of Playoff Career Comprised by Top-5 Statistical Runs
Mario Lemieux - 72.9%
Mike Bossy - 63.6%
Guy Lafleur - 53.9%
Joe Sakic - 52.3%
Peter Forsberg - 49.7%
Bryan Trottier - 39.4%

His career points-per-game isn't feasting off of a handful of times when he was at his best. Yet he comes out second to Lemieux in this group on his per-game average.

What happens on the ice determines things like a Conn Smythe. Like them or not, the voters get it right most of the time. Yeah, some winners are more impressive than others, but dismissing a trophy (especially something like the Smythe) outright is ridiculous.

Why was Forsberg the best player in 2002? Is that the majority opinion of hockey experts? Is it because he had the most assists and points? Or is it subjective like many other metrics?

Was Nick Lidstrom not fantastic as well, producing good offense, great defense while playing a ridiculous 31+ minutes a night ? And going the actual distance?

What are you basing your Top 5 playoffs on above? PPG? If so, really??? Forsberg's 01 run is considered one of his 5 best? He only played 11 games! 14 points. 2004? Are you seriously going to convince anyone that another 11 game run is worthy?? Not a damn chance those qualify as one of his best performances and should render the study useless.

How about we look at his 5 highest point totals, considering that generally includes the deepest playoff runs (this includes number of games played and depth of run) and go from there?

27 points in 2002
24 points in 1999
21 points in 1996
17 points in 1997
15 points in 2000

104 points in 91 games = 1.14 PPG



How about Sidney Crosby's 5 highest scoring totals

31 points in 2009
27 points in 2008
27 points in 2017
19 points in 2016
19 points in 2010

123 points in 105 games = 1.17 PPG

So not only does Crosby have a larger sample size of games played, he maintains a slight lead in PPG. And his lowest GP total from any of the 5 runs is 13 games. The other 4 are 20, and 24 on three separate occasions. Forsberg exceeds 20 games once.

This restricts a player from piling up so called best playoff runs that include multiple 2 round exit versions like your study apparently does.

What about the remaining playoff years?

Forsberg has 67 points in 60 games = 1.12
Crosby has 41 points in 43 games = 0.95

Forsberg has an advantage here. But again, these comprise of ALL 1st and 2nd round exits. Crosby is in the same boat minus the loss to Boston in the Conference finals in 2013.

 

[Cursed Lemon]

The project was for best SC playoff performers, not total Conn Smythe wins, biggest sample size, or best team.

 

[Black Gold Extractor]

What happens on the ice determines things like a Conn Smythe. Like them or not, the voters get it right most of the time. Yeah, some winners are more impressive than others, but dismissing a trophy (especially something like the Smythe) outright is ridiculous.

I think trophies, awards, and honors tend to matter more for extreme historical players where data is sparse. In the case of the Conn Smythe, the fact that it existed since only 1965 makes it somewhat less useful for a historical ranking. Hard numbers are the most reliable starting point if available. Ultimately, voters are comprised of people, and people succumb to narratives and make mistakes regardless of stature.

Mike Bossy in 1981 is the only player to have led the post-season in goals, assists, and points simultaneously (17 goals, 18 assists, and 35 points) during the existence of the Conn Smythe. Butch Goring won it. I know that offense isn't everything, but that's honestly a huge gap for Goring to close defensively.

Or to use another award, Gretzky won the Hart in 1989, and the voting wasn't even close despite the fact that he had a second-line center who put up 150 points, who apparently gets absolutely no credit for helping pull the Kings up from the basement to the top. Of course, voters at the time also credited Nicholls' career year to Gretzky, despite the fact that had they paid attention, they would have noticed that Gretzky and Nicholls centered separate lines at even strength. It's not like there were 80 games spread over 6 months for voters to notice.

There's also a parallel universe out there where the 2012-13 First All-Star Team had Crosby centering two Ovechkins. It was hilariously/sadly close to happening in this universe.

Two-time Smythe-winner Bernie Parent didn't make the top 40 list over non-winners like Denis Potvin or Sergei Fedorov or Jari Kurri. If the Smythe matters that much, that's potentially more outrageous than Sidney Crosby possibly being ranked a few places lower because he had yet to play one of the best series of his career when voting took place. Before getting a second Conn Smythe, he was ranked 27th all-time with half a career to go. In my opinion, that's freaking amazing.

 

[ImporterExporter]

The project was for best SC playoff performers, not total Conn Smythe wins, biggest sample size, or best team.

You don't say!

Where did I say Conn Smythe wins was the end all be all? I'll save you the trouble. I didn't.

Sample size matters. Greatly.

Using points per game, to include 2nd round losses (at a minimum), while trying to pass off Peter Forsberg's (and others) 2001 and 2004 runs as one of his 5 greatest is a farce of epic proportions.

Nobody with a straight face is going to convince anyone with half a brain that an 11 game, 14 point "run" is among a players best performances. Or that 11 points in 11 games (2014) is either. And yet I see those TWO instances where Forsberg's numbers are inflated because we're apparently willing to signal that playing 2 whole rounds (1st and 2nd to boot) is enough to justify "top 5" status.

Color me greatly unimpressed with that method.

 

[quoipourquoi]

That is... not a great way to compare anything. No consideration for yearly scoring trends OR opposition strength. Just raw points divided by raw GP and the blind assumption that everything must be equal. And even with that, there's what, a 0.03 difference? You want to assign meaning to that?

If you want to use 1996, 1997, 1999, 2000, and 2002 instead (even though I'm using the best point-per-game playoffs for all of the other players), here it is:

Top-5 Playoffs (Minimum Two Rounds)
EXCEPT for Peter Forsberg, Because Whatever

[table="head;title=vote"]Player|GP|G|A|PTS|+/-|GWG|GWA|GWP|Opp-GA|Adj PTS|Adj P/GP|Years Included
Mario Lemieux | 78 | 63 | 79 | 142 | 24 | 8 | 13 | 21 | 266.2 | 107.08 | 1.37 | 1989, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1996
Joe Sakic | 90 | 52 | 64 | 116 | 19 | 12 | 13 | 25 | 207 | 112.68 | 1.25 | 1996, 1997, 1999, 2001, 2004
Guy Lafleur | 69 | 48 | 58 | 106 | 0 | 13 | 9 | 22 | 248.2 | 85.11 | 1.23 | 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979
Peter Forsberg | 91 | 39 | 65 | 104 | 28 | 9 | 14 | 23 | 204.4 | 101.2 | 1.11 | 1996, 1997, 1999, 2000, 2002
Sidney Crosby|105|41|82|123|24|7|19|26|217.3|112.2|1.07|2008, 2009, 2010, 2016, 2017
Mike Bossy | 82 | 66 | 56 | 122 | 0 | 12 | 6 | 18 | 288.6 | 85.93 | 1.05 | 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1985
Bryan Trottier | 87 | 39 | 78 | 115 | 0 | 6 | 10 | 16 | 282.4 | 83.96 | 0.97 | 1977, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983
[/table]


And do you understand why even after swapping out two of Forsberg's best statistical playoffs because they only went two rounds while still including a two-round playoff from Crosby, because I guess that's more preferable than including that 3rd Round Boston series still puts Forsberg over Crosby? Because even when he wasn't playing his best, he was still Peter Forsberg.