HOH Top 40 Stanley Cup Playoff Performers of All Time

[bobholly39]

Sidney Crosby has played 151 playoff games through age 30.
The all time leader is Messier with 166 (through age 30).

If Pitt makes it to round 3 or 4 this year, Crosby could end up #1 on this list by age 30.

Which is huge. Playing enough games is the #1 criteria to achieving success in playoffs. Which means that Crosby's resume at the end of this playoff year (let's say he reaches 160-170 games) will be equivalent to almost the full career of some of the highest ranked players on this list (even those playing in same 4 round era as him). Sakic 172 games career.

He's in an excellent position to keep climbing up this list. He's already at the point (4 smythe worthy runs) of having as many top runs as many of the top players on this list. Very few players have more than 4 smythe worthy runs. Sakic as an example certainly doesn't and he slots at 12.

I think at some point very soon (if it hasn't started already) - sheer volume of games played and playoff runs will start propelling someone like Crosby up on this list, if he maintains his strong performance on a per game basis.

Where Crosby goes Malkin does too and I'd argue Malkin should already be on this list as of today (after 2017) and he can also keep climbing.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Sidney Crosby has played 151 playoff games through age 30.
The all time leader is Messier with 166 (through age 30).

If Pitt makes it to round 3 or 4 this year, Crosby could end up #1 on this list by age 30.

Which is huge. Playing enough games is the #1 criteria to achieving success in playoffs. Which means that Crosby's resume at the end of this playoff year (let's say he reaches 160-170 games) will be equivalent to almost the full career of some of the highest ranked players on this list (even those playing in same 4 round era as him). Sakic 172 games career.

He's in an excellent position to keep climbing up this list. He's already at the point (4 smythe worthy runs) of having as many top runs as many of the top players on this list. Very few players have more than 4 smythe worthy runs. Sakic as an example certainly doesn't and he slots at 12.

I think at some point very soon (if it hasn't started already) - sheer volume of games played and playoff runs will start propelling someone like Crosby up on this list, if he maintains his strong performance on a per game basis.

Where Crosby goes Malkin does too and I'd argue Malkin should already be on this list as of today (after 2017) and he can also keep climbing.

Not the total games but the winning percentage is what matters come playoff time.

1956-60 Canadiens winning 40 out of 49 playoff games en route to five consecutive SCs is more impressive than Pittsburgh winning 32 games out of 49 playoff games while winning two consecutive SCs in 2016 & 2017.

Individually Beliveau playing in only 41 of the 49 games scored 54 PTS(27G and 27A) while Crosby playing 48 games scored 46PTS(14G and 32A).

Crosby is being lapped here by Beliveau. No chance that Crosby will catch-up.

 

[daver]

Not the total games but the winning percentage is what matters come playoff time.

1956-60 Canadiens winning 40 out of 49 playoff games en route to five consecutive SCs is more impressive than Pittsburgh winning 32 games out of 49 playoff games while winning two consecutive SCs in 2016 & 2017.

Individually Beliveau playing in only 41 of the 49 games scored 54 PTS(27G and 27A) while Crosby playing 48 games scored 46PTS(14G and 32A).

Crosby is being lapped here by Beliveau. No chance that Crosby will catch-up.

You see no room for context of winning in a six team vs. a 30 team league?

Off the top of my head, Crosby should look pretty good in terms of effectiveness in his team's Cup runs vs. Belliveau, on a pound for pound basis.

 

[Canadiens1958]

You see no room for context of winning in a six team vs. a 30 team league?

Off the top of my head, Crosby should look pretty good in terms of effectiveness in his team's Cup runs vs. Belliveau, on a pound for pound basis.

Plenty of room for context.

Simply the proper context is that the Canadiens had to play the full regular season of 70 games to be a top seed and get home ice advantage. Pittsburgh has to play an 82 game season to reach the same objective.

Neither team HAS to play a 7 game series to advance. Canadiens were simply more efficient defeating the other teams.Winning % superior to 0.800 in the playoffs. No reason that Crosby should be recognized for playing the extra games- all loses by the way.

Beliveau and the team were better playoff performers than Crosby and the Penguins.Supported by the individual and team numbers.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Not the total games but the winning percentage is what matters come playoff time.

1956-60 Canadiens winning 40 out of 49 playoff games en route to five consecutive SCs is more impressive than Pittsburgh winning 32 games out of 49 playoff games while winning two consecutive SCs in 2016 & 2017.

Individually Beliveau playing in only 41 of the 49 games scored 54 PTS(27G and 27A) while Crosby playing 48 games scored 46PTS(14G and 32A).

Crosby is being lapped here by Beliveau. No chance that Crosby will catch-up.

I think we have to make some compromise and agree (at least to some extent) that the grueling nature and length of season today makes it quite impressive to see consecutive Cups won by the same team. 82 game seasons. I'd wager 3 or 4 consecutive titles today would be just as impressive as 5 straight from 56-60 for various reasons.

Take post WWII seasons for example. Teams played 50 games. And then 60 in 46-47. 70 by 49-50. That is a significantly smaller # than 82, especially the first 2 numbers listed. While I agree that the quality of competition varies more today, because there are more teams, I can't agree that players today have an easier overall path to winning year after year.

The 5 consecutive years you mentioned the Habs (or any team) would play 12 games less per year than today. So 12x5 = 60 games. That's nearly a full seasons worth of time off over 5 years betwen the 50's and today. Not a small number.

And furthermore, the Habs, over 5 playoff years/runs played exactly the same number of games the Pens played in just 2. Players today simply have a more grueling road from an edurance standpoint. At least IMO. Not to mention you've had Olympics and World Cups interrupting seasons for years now, which only adds to the workload.

And I think most would agree that keeping together a roster with players such as Beliveau, Harvey, Richard, Geoffrion, Moore, Plante, Olmstead, etc woldn't be possible today with a relative salary cap applied then. Most of those players would be making max or near max deals in today's game and you simply wouldn't be able to legally field a roster with THAT much elite talent on one roster. To me those Habs teams you mentioned is the single greatest collection of talent ever assembled. Even teams like Detroit with Howe, Lindsay, Sawchuk didn't have near the depth that Montrel enjoyed. It was a perfect storm. Mighty impressive regardless, but some context is needed.

 

[daver]

Plenty of room for context.

Simply the proper context is that the Canadiens had to play the full regular season of 70 games to be a top seed and get home ice advantage. Pittsburgh has to play an 82 game season to reach the same objective.

Neither team HAS to play a 7 game series to advance. Canadiens were simply more efficient defeating the other teams.Winning % superior to 0.800 in the playoffs. No reason that Crosby should be recognized for playing the extra games- all loses by the way.

Beliveau and the team were better playoff performers than Crosby and the Penguins.Supported by the individual and team numbers.

Being the best team out six with a disproportionate level of talent vs. some other teams < being the best team out of 30 with a much fairer distribution of talent and with a salary cap to boot.

That is the context I am referring to.

Between 1942 and 1960, only three teams won the Cup. The three other teams who didn't win reached the SCF only six times out nineteen.

Between 1998 and 2018, eleven teams have won the Cup out of thirty while nine others have made the finals which is much more meaningful than making the SCF in the 06 (argubly making the SFs would be the equivalent.

That there is much more parity than the 06 is as obvious as the nose on your face.

Maybe 11 Cups is just to much to overcome and that seems to be what the HOH believes given Wayne is the only Big Four player to be rated above Belliveau but that should be very debatable whether that keeps Crosby behind Belliveau as Crosby's career progresses.

 

[Thenameless]

Interesting reading. First off, I have to agree that it's harder today not so much because of the number of teams and the schedule, but mostly because of the salary cap and free agency. Sometimes, there are key cogs in the wheel that aren't so obvious. For Pittsburgh, I always felt that the loss of Jordan Staal really hurt them, and their subsequent chances to win a Cup. I give a lot of credit to Crosby in a head-to-head with Beliveau with respect to their early team situations (not to mention the late 50's Habs as just being better outright by far).

Where I think Beliveau gains the advantage is in the later years. The numbers have already been laid out above stating that "Beliveau laps Crosby". Beyond that, I like the story that goes with it. You see, even today, I think of Crosby as the 1A/1B best player in the world along with McDavid. And I still easily think of Malkin as a Top 5 - especially come playoff time. After having won the last two Stanley Cups, I picked Pittsburgh as the most likely team to win the Cup again this year (I wouldn't bet them against the field, but if I had to pick one, they would be it). By the late 60's, and especially the early 70's, Montreal was no clear favourite. This was the era of Mikita/Hull, and Esposito/Orr. I find Beliveau's performances in these later Stanley Cups to be "more heroic" as he is no longer considered to be the best.

Crosby is not there yet, but he is gaining ground for sure.

 

[Canadiens1958]

I think we have to make some compromise and agree (at least to some extent) that the grueling nature and length of season today makes it quite impressive to see consecutive Cups won by the same team. 82 game seasons. I'd wager 3 or 4 consecutive titles today would be just as impressive as 5 straight from 56-60 for various reasons.

Take post WWII seasons for example. Teams played 50 games. And then 60 in 46-47. 70 by 49-50. That is a significantly smaller # than 82, especially the first 2 numbers listed. While I agree that the quality of competition varies more today, because there are more teams, I can't agree that players today have an easier overall path to winning year after year.

The 5 consecutive years you mentioned the Habs (or any team) would play 12 games less per year than today. So 12x5 = 60 games. That's nearly a full seasons worth of time off over 5 years betwen the 50's and today. Not a small number.

And furthermore, the Habs, over 5 playoff years/runs played exactly the same number of games the Pens played in just 2. Players today simply have a more grueling road from an edurance standpoint. At least IMO. Not to mention you've had Olympics and World Cups interrupting seasons for years now, which only adds to the workload.

And I think most would agree that keeping together a roster with players such as Beliveau, Harvey, Richard, Geoffrion, Moore, Plante, Olmstead, etc woldn't be possible today with a relative salary cap applied then. Most of those players would be making max or near max deals in today's game and you simply wouldn't be able to legally field a roster with THAT much elite talent on one roster. To me those Habs teams you mentioned is the single greatest collection of talent ever assembled. Even teams like Detroit with Howe, Lindsay, Sawchuk didn't have near the depth that Montrel enjoyed. It was a perfect storm. Mighty impressive regardless, but some context is needed.

Still a question of managing the efficiences of your team while navigating the inefficiences of the league.

Yes the schedule has increased from 50 to 82 but the game day rosters now allow for 23 players including 2 goalies vs app 17-18 in the O6 era.

Rutherford does a much better job of this than the other GMs just like Selke/Pollock did in the O6 era. Reality is that no one told Jack Adams to mismanage the Red Wings.

Sullivan has figured out how to get the maximium from his available players just like Blake did. Really no difference between Sheary,Bonino,Hagelin and Guentzel or André Pronovost, Ab McDonald, MarcelBonin, Don Marshall. Both coaches included the complete roster. Difference is that the Canadiens under Toe Blake were ruthlessly efficient in the playoffs, roughly 15% more efficient than in the regular season

 

[quoipourquoi]

He's already at the point (4 smythe worthy runs) of having as many top runs as many of the top players on this list.

• Wins the Conn Smythe in 2016 because they can't give it to a 30-point player who loses in the Finals in 6 games.
• Doesn't win the Conn Smythe in 2008 because he loses in the Finals in 6 games.

You're going to claim both situations as Conn Smythe worthy, and ignore the obvious conflict?

Try not to play fast and loose with the definition of the Conn Smythe Trophy and tell me how many times Sidney Crosby was the best player in a Stanley Cup Playoff. Not the Most Valuable, not the best on the Stanley Cup Champions, not the best in the most important series - just the best.

Because the answer is probably not once.

 

[bobholly39]

• Wins the Conn Smythe in 2016 because they can't give it to a 30-point player who loses in the Finals in 6 games.
• Doesn't win the Conn Smythe in 2008 because he loses in the Finals in 6 games.

You're going to claim both situations as Conn Smythe worthy, and ignore the obvious conflict?

Try not to play fast and loose with the definition of the Conn Smythe Trophy and tell me how many times Sidney Crosby was the best player in a Stanley Cup Playoff. Not the Most Valuable, not the best on the Stanley Cup Champions, not the best in the most important series - just the best.

Because the answer is probably not once.

Well when I say "conn smythe worthy runs" I'm usually pretty loose with the term tbh.

It takes a cup final run (win/lose) where you have an argument for being the top (or top 2-3 if close) player on your team.

I think by that definition Crosby absolutely has 4. Kessel has 1. Couture has 1. etc.

If you want to talk about the "peak" value of smythe runs - yes Crosby is weaker there. 2 smythes is great, but neither of them was super strong. 2017 is stronger, but certainly not one of the all-time best (like many of the top players in this project have). But the point is he does have 4 such runs. Which is more than most.

If you want to do it differently. Consider the Smythe being like the hart with top 3 in voting. Crosby was top 3 4x, including 2 wins. That's more than a lot of players on this list.
If he adds another 5th such run - I'd argue very, very few players on this project have 5 such runs.

 

[daver]

• Wins the Conn Smythe in 2016 because they can't give it to a 30-point player who loses in the Finals in 6 games.
• Doesn't win the Conn Smythe in 2008 because he loses in the Finals in 6 games.

You're going to claim both situations as Conn Smythe worthy, and ignore the obvious conflict?

Try not to play fast and loose with the definition of the Conn Smythe Trophy and tell me how many times Sidney Crosby was the best player in a Stanley Cup Playoff. Not the Most Valuable, not the best on the Stanley Cup Champions, not the best in the most important series - just the best.

Because the answer is probably not once.

Not saying you are wrong to question "4 Smythe Worthy runs" with no context but would like to see some recognition that Crosby was voted the best player, however marginal over Kessel, and slightly less marginal over LeTang and others, on a team that certainly was one of the better Cup champs since the lockout for reasons other than strictly his offensive production. Highlighting his plus/minus and the point totals of another player seem to indicate you aren't willing to do this.

What I am saying is comparing this run with other playoff runs strictly by offensive production does not recognize the contributions Crosby made defensively while deferring the offensive role to the HBK line, and his very clutch play in key games and moments.

For the record, Kessel was equally deserving of the Smythe in 2016.

 

[K Fleur]

You cannot be the best player of the Stanley Cup playoffs and not even manage to make the Stanley Cup finals.

As much as people like to wax poetics about the playoff runs of Forsberg,(he led in scoring without making the finals!) Gilmour,(‘93, ‘94) and Karlsson(‘17) etc. in the end those are just runs where they won half as many rounds needed to win the Stanley Cup.

 

[blogofmike]

You cannot be the best player of the Stanley Cup playoffs and not even manage to make the Stanley Cup finals.

As much as people like to wax poetics about the playoff runs of Forsberg,(he led in scoring without making the finals!) Gilmour,(‘93, ‘94) and Karlsson(‘17) etc. in the end those are just runs where they won half as many rounds needed to win the Stanley Cup.

The case for the "poetic" runs is based on their stellar individual play.

Your argument can be summed up as “Crosby is the best because he plays on the Penguins”

 

[daver]

You cannot be the best player of the Stanley Cup playoffs and not even manage to make the Stanley Cup finals.

As much as people like to wax poetics about the playoff runs of Forsberg,(he led in scoring without making the finals!) Gilmour,(‘93, ‘94) and Karlsson(‘17) etc. in the end those are just runs where they won half as many rounds needed to win the Stanley Cup.

That Crosby "hurt" his playoff legacy by his team advancing in 2009 to the finals certainly should temper this narrative.

His line of 14 goals, 28 points in 17 games would certainly look good lined up against Forsberg or Gilmour's best 3 rounds. Why shouldn't his team winning two more rounds give him extra value?

 

[daver]

• Wins the Conn Smythe in 2016 because they can't give it to a 30-point player who loses in the Finals in 6 games.
• Doesn't win the Conn Smythe in 2008 because he loses in the Finals in 6 games.

You're going to claim both situations as Conn Smythe worthy, and ignore the obvious conflict?

Try not to play fast and loose with the definition of the Conn Smythe Trophy and tell me how many times Sidney Crosby was the best player in a Stanley Cup Playoff. Not the Most Valuable, not the best on the Stanley Cup Champions, not the best in the most important series - just the best.

Because the answer is probably not once.

I am assuming you would say Karlsson last year right even though it was only three rounds. You don't see the conflict of penalizing Crosby, who was the best after three rounds in 2009, for playing the SCF?

 

[K Fleur]

The case for the "poetic" runs is based on their stellar individual play.

Don’t recall claiming it was not stellar individual play.

Why stop at 3 rounds to name the best player of the playoffs? Surely there have been some fantastic individual performances during 2nd and 1st round exits.

Your argument can be summed up as “Crosby is the best because he plays on the Penguins”

See I remember reading my post before hitting “post reply” and I don’t remember seeing the words “Crosby” or “Penguins” in there even once.

Come to think of it I remember not putting those words in my post because I felt(still do) that my initial point was not just limited to “Crosby” or the “Penguins”.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Well when I say "conn smythe worthy runs" I'm usually pretty loose with the term tbh.

I gathered.

If you want to do it differently. Consider the Smythe being like the hart with top 3 in voting.

I mean, I'd rather you say how many times Sidney Crosby was the best player/skater in a Stanley Cup Playoff. That way we don't end up in some weird discussion about how Logan Couture and Erik Karlsson can't be better because their teams weren't as good.

It's not that hard to answer. Hell, Mark Messier might not have ever been the best player in a playoff, so it doesn't even have to mean a player is capped off from being one of the best ever. I just would like to illustrate my point about this not being an historically great three-year playoff run - just one that could hypothetically be the answer during bar trivia.

For the record, I believe Crosby to have had the 2nd best performance among skaters in 2008 and 2009, been on the edge of the top-5 in 2016, and the #2/3 in 2017. Given the distribution trends of the Conn Smythe, I can understand him having between zero and three. I think having better performances means more than being the most fitting for a particular trophy - probably the most restrictive of all individual awards because of all the moving parts that go into determining whether someone should even be eligible for it.

 

[quoipourquoi]

You cannot be the best player of the Stanley Cup playoffs and not even manage to make the Stanley Cup finals.

As much as people like to wax poetics about the playoff runs of Forsberg,(he led in scoring without making the finals!) Gilmour,(‘93, ‘94) and Karlsson(‘17) etc. in the end those are just runs where they won half as many rounds needed to win the Stanley Cup.

*their teams

If Peter Forsberg wants to be better in 20 games than anyone else on Detroit (23 games) or Carolina (23 games), then good for him. Hiding behind voting trends doesn't change his performance as an individual.

If you would suggest that his 20 games (when the maximum from other players was 23) eliminates him from being the best player, would you similarly disqualify players with 71 GP from being considered the best player in a regular season? Or do you go all the way and suggest that the best player has to be on a #1 seeded team?

A team can theoretically win the Stanley Cup in as few as 16 games in this era. Once a player is in that range, I don't see why it matters if an individual plays against three teams or four. Erik Karlsson should not be precluded from being considered better on an individual level than Sidney Crosby in a given playoff just because his team loses in Game 7 of the ECF.

 

[daver]

*their teams

If Peter Forsberg wants to be better in 20 games than anyone else on Detroit (23 games) or Carolina (23 games), then good for him. Hiding behind voting trends doesn't change his performance as an individual.

If you would suggest that his 20 games (when the maximum from other players was 23) eliminates him from being the best player, would you similarly disqualify players with 71 GP from being considered the best player in a regular season? Or do you go all the way and suggest that the best player has to be on a #1 seeded team?

A team can theoretically win the Stanley Cup in as few as 16 games in this era. Once a player is in that range, I don't see why it matters if an individual plays against three teams or four. Erik Karlsson should not be precluded from being considered better on an individual level than Sidney Crosby in a given playoff just because his team loses in Game 7 of the ECF.

Surely you can see the irony of Crosby's "best three rounds of the era" being negated due to him having to play another round. How is it reasonable to put Forsberg above Crosby based on that?

 

[quoipourquoi]

I am assuming you would say Karlsson last year right even though it was only three rounds. You don't see the conflict of penalizing Crosby, who was the best after three rounds in 2009, for playing the SCF?

Don't see it as a penalty. Mark Messier was better than Wayne Gretzky in 1988 through 3 rounds. Given more games, a player can better clarify his dominant positioning relative to others... or he can lose it. It's not nothing being the best player through 3 rounds, but whether you get to play a 4th depends on more than just one person. I've made enough threads showing team and individual statistics through 3 rounds just in the last year. But if you feel Doug Gilmour (21 games) or Erik Karlsson (18 games) left you wanting - or that you didn't see enough of them to make an assessment relative to players who get to play between 16-28 games, that's your business. Sidney Crosby played all of 99 games in the three seasons from 2010-11 through 2012-13 when others played twice as much; tell me he wasn't the best player in the world.

Surely you can see the irony of Crosby's "best three rounds of the era" being negated due to him having to play another round. How is it reasonable to put Forsberg above Crosby based on that?

How is it reasonable for the both of us to think Sidney Crosby was the best player in the 2012-13 NHL season when he could have theoretically gone scoreless and looked worse relative to Martin St. Louis and Alex Ovechkin if he played the final quarter of the season? We manage.

 

[bobholly39]

I gathered.




I mean, I'd rather you say how many times Sidney Crosby was the best player/skater in a Stanley Cup Playoff. That way we don't end up in some weird discussion about how Logan Couture and Erik Karlsson can't be better because their teams weren't as good.

It's not that hard to answer. Hell, Mark Messier might not have ever been the best player in a playoff, so it doesn't even have to mean a player is capped off from being one of the best ever. I just would like to illustrate my point about this not being an historically great three-year playoff run - just one that could hypothetically be the answer during bar trivia.

For the record, I believe Crosby to have had the 2nd best performance among skaters in 2008 and 2009, been on the edge of the top-5 in 2016, and the #2/3 in 2017. Given the distribution trends of the Conn Smythe, I can understand him having between zero and three. I think having better performances means more than being the most fitting for a particular trophy - probably the most restrictive of all individual awards because of all the moving parts that go into determining whether someone should even be eligible for it.

I almost compared Crosby to Messier in my earlier post actually - so I definitely see similarities there.

How many times was he the absolute best? Definitely not 2009.

2008, 2016 and 2017 are close.
I don't remember 2008 well enough off hand to comment on how he was vs Zetterberg. But probably #2.

2016 - it's hard. I know Couture scored a ton but I still honestly felt Crosby had the better playoffs. And I did feel he was the best Penguin (though Kessel and Murray were also great). I remember being very underwhelmed by all of the Sharks in the finals.

2017 - again I'd have Crosby #1. Players like Karlsson or even Getzlaf had great showings but I struggle to anoint a player the best if they don't go to round 4. Or at least - it would have to be truly extremely dominating, and the guys going to round 4 would have to not stand out. I would pick 2017 Karlsson over 2016 Crosby maybe - but not 2017 Crosby. Karlsson wasn't good enough nor was Crosby bad enough to bridge the gap of 3 rounds vs 4.

Bottom line is - he had 4 conn smythe worthy runs.

 

[K Fleur]

*their teams

If Peter Forsberg wants to be better in 20 games than anyone else on Detroit (23 games) or Carolina (23 games), then good for him. Hiding behind voting trends doesn't change his performance as an individual.

Never said it changed his individual performance. I’ve only maintained that you can’t truly be the “best” if you don’t make the finals.

To be the man you gotta beat the man...Woooo.

Also it seems Forsberg stopped “wanting to be better than anyone on Detroit” after 19 playoff games. Not 20.

Forsberg stopped “wanting to be better” than anyone on Detroit after 19 games not 20.

]If you would suggest that his 20 games (when the maximum from other players was 23) eliminates him from being the best player, would you similarly disqualify players with 71 GP from being considered the best player in a regular season? Or do you go all the way and suggest that the best player has to be on a #1 seeded team?

The regular season and playoffs are not similar enough for this to be an interesting comparison.

A team can theoretically win the Stanley Cup in as few as 16 games in this era. Once a player is in that range, I don't see why it matters if an individual plays against three teams or four[/B]. Erik Karlsson should not be precluded from being considered better on an individual level than Sidney Crosby in a given playoff just because his team loses in Game 7 of the ECF.

A team can not theoretically win 16 playoff games playing against only 3 teams. If that doesn’t matter in determining the “best” player then why does it matter if they play in 2 rounds instead of 3? Or 1 round instead of 2?

 

[daver]

How is it reasonable for the both of us to think Sidney Crosby was the best player in the 2012-13 NHL season when he could have theoretically gone scoreless and looked worse relative to Martin St. Louis and Alex Ovechkin if he played the final quarter of the season? We manage.

There is no irony in that scenario. Just bad luck.

I don't think it's unreasonable to assign some value to your team winning. Let's just say I don't think your position is indefensible. FWIW, I think Crosby has moved past Forsberg on this list after last season anyways so it is a moot point.

 

[blogofmike]

Don’t recall claiming it was not stellar individual play.

Why stop at 3 rounds to name the best player of the playoffs? Surely there have been some fantastic individual performances during 2nd and 1st round exits.

See I remember reading my post before hitting “post reply” and I don’t remember seeing the words “Crosby” or “Penguins” in there even once.

Come to think of it I remember not putting those words in my post because I felt(still do) that my initial point was not just limited to “Crosby” or the “Penguins”.

I disagree with the point specifically on the guy who's been discussed the last few pages, and in general. The best player should distinguish himself by playing the best. A great performance can be cut short by the bad fortune of a team that lets you down, just as a middling performance can be extended by the good fortune of your team surviving a poor Washington series where your Crazy Ivan blind passes to no one essentially clear the zone for the Capitals. (Actual question for Pens fans who remember 2016: Was that a Kunitz play that Rust and Sheary didn't know about? Why did Crosby keep throwing the puck back like he expected someone to be there?)

 

[blogofmike]

Never said it changed his individual performance. I’ve only maintained that you can’t truly be the “best” if you don’t make the finals.

To be the man you gotta beat the man...Woooo.

Also it seems Forsberg stopped “wanting to be better than anyone on Detroit” after 19 playoff games. Not 20.

Forsberg stopped “wanting to be better” than anyone on Detroit after 19 games not 20.



The regular season and playoffs are not similar enough for this to be an interesting comparison.



A team can not theoretically win 16 playoff games playing against only 3 teams. If that doesn’t matter in determining the “best” player then why does it matter if they play in 2 rounds instead of 3? Or 1 round instead of 2?

Crosby stopped "wanting" to be better than two centres on his own team after the first 5 games in 2016. He got a Conn Smythe for it.