HOH Top 40 Stanley Cup Playoff Performers of All Time

[daver]

I think Crosby is compiling a Belliveau-like playoff resume as his team has the potential to make their mark on the post lockout era, or as far back to the Oilers if they win another Cup.

Here is how I would tier their respective Cup runs (including Crosby's 2008 SCF and excluding Belliveau's 3 game run in 1959) based on point totals relative to the rest of the league and their team, and with greater weight given to the SCF:

Tier 1
Belliveau '56

Tier 2
Belliveau '57
Belliveau '65
Belliveau '69
Crosby '08
Crosby '09
Crosby '17


Tier 3
Belliveau '58
Belliveau '66
Belliveau '68
Belliveau '71
Crosby '16

Tier 4
Belliveau '60


Pound for pound, Crosby measures up very well when reasonable consideration is given to the different eras they played in.

 

[K Fleur]

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.

My point has maintained that a player cannot distinguish themself as the best in the playoffs without making the finals.

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?)

It’s something I remember him starting to do when Mike Johnston was the head coach. He used to pull up along the half boards and throw a blind pass to the trailing defender for a shot. I don’t know what’s worse throwing a blind pass to the other team, or trying to set Rob Scuderi up with a scoring chance. Both had about the same success rate.

 

[K Fleur]

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.

Well the Conn Smythe trophy has a rather subjective “most valuable to his team” definition. Plus it’s pretty well established now that Crosby’s ‘16 is one of the weaker Smythe wins historically. I won’t argue that.

 

[quoipourquoi]

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?

In the current format...

A player who goes 1 round plays 4-7 games.
A player who goes 2 rounds plays 8-14 games.
A player who goes 3 rounds plays 12-21 games.
A player who goes 4 rounds plays 16-28 games.

I do not struggle to evaluate Karlsson over 18 games, Forsberg over 20 games, or Gilmour over 21 games any more than I struggle to evaluate Wayne Gretzky over 19 games (1988), Mario Lemieux over 15 games (1992), or Patrick Roy over 20 games (1993).

...wait, who do you think was the best player in the 1992 playoffs? Lemieux missed 4 Penguins victories. Is that disqualifying or does his cup of coffee in Round 2 before Graves took him out give him some amount of protection that 6 extra games does not afford Doug Gilmour?

 

[K Fleur]

In the current format...

A player who goes 1 round plays 4-7 games.
A player who goes 2 rounds plays 8-14 games.
A player who goes 3 rounds plays 12-21 games.
A player who goes 4 rounds plays 16-28 games.

I’m aware of the format.

...wait, who do you think was the best player in the 1992 playoffs? Lemieux missed 4 Penguins victories. Is that disqualifying or does his cup of coffee in Round 2 before Graves took him out give him some amount of protection that 6 extra games does not afford Doug Gilmour?

Mario Lemieux was the best player in the 1992 playoffs(though ‘91 is the better of his two Smythe wins). Played and contributed in all 4 rounds, cup of coffee or not. There is a large difference between an injury keeping a player from playing, and losing keeping a player from playing. I would listen to an argument that Barassonwas more “valuable” that playoff. Lemieux said as much himself.

This attempt to find the “gotcha” moment is really lame. There has to be better examples you could have used.

 

[quoipourquoi]

I’m aware of the format.

Mario Lemieux was the best player in the 1992 playoffs(though ‘91 is the better of his two Smythe wins). Played and contributed in all 4 rounds, cup of coffee or not. There is a large difference between an injury keeping a player from playing, and losing keeping a player from playing. I would listen to an argument that Barassonwas more “valuable” that playoff. Lemieux said as much himself.

This attempt to find the “gotcha” moment is really lame. There has to be better examples you could have used.

Which is the "gotcha"? That Gretzky, Lemieux, and Roy played a combined 54 games in these Conn Smythe winning playoffs while Forsberg, Gilmour, and Karlsson played a combined 59 games and that no one struggles with assessing the first three as individuals while you're disqualifying the latter three from possibly being better than someone else or that you can call a Pittsburgh Penguin who appeared in just 12/16 victories the best player in a playoff?

Both were equally gotcha-ish.

 

[K Fleur]

Which is the "gotcha"? That Gretzky, Lemieux, and Roy played a combined 54 games in these Conn Smythe winning playoffs while Forsberg, Gilmour, and Karlsson played a combined 59 games and that no one struggles with assessing the first three as individuals while you're disqualifying the latter three from possibly being better than someone else

They’re not disqualified from being better than “someone else”. They are disqualified from being the “best”.

or that you can call a Pittsburgh Penguin who appeared in just 12/16 victories the best player in a playoff?

Both were equally gotcha-ish.

Being able to only appear 12/16 victories due to injury is not the same as appearing in only 11 victories do to losing. In one scenario you’re able to play and contribute to more victories, the other you are not. In one scenario a player played and contributed in the finals in the other a player did not. In this particular injury scenario the injured player still played in 4 more finals games than all 3 players you presented combined.

My reasoning has stayed the same. What team I cheer for has really nothing to do with it.

Like I said earlier I’m sure there are better “gotcha” examples out there for you to use. No pressure though if you’re not done trying to just discredit me as a homer.

 

[daver]

Which is the "gotcha"? That Gretzky, Lemieux, and Roy played a combined 54 games in these Conn Smythe winning playoffs while Forsberg, Gilmour, and Karlsson played a combined 59 games and that no one struggles with assessing the first three as individuals while you're disqualifying the latter three from possibly being better than someone else or that you can call a Pittsburgh Penguin who appeared in just 12/16 victories the best player in a playoff?

Both were equally gotcha-ish.

Not playing against the best team or 2nd best team in the NHL for the championship is a reasonable condition. It certainly is not indefensible.

I think you have to accept that "arguable" needs to be applied when introducing the 'three rounder' crowd to the best playoff performers discussion. For the record, IMO, dismissing all three rounders on principle alone is less defensible than comparing them straight up to SC champs.

For example, OV was just as good as Crosby and Malkin in 2009 but ultimately loses the battle given he was out before the SCF.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Not playing against the best team or 2nd best team in the NHL for the championship is a reasonable condition. It certainly is not indefensible.

So let's say someone like Mario Lemieux missed a series against a President's Trophy winner like the 1992 New York Rangers. He could still be the best player in the playoffs at 15 games, but Peter Forsberg is just poetic waxing because even after 20 games, he didn't play the Carolina Hurricanes and you can't properly assess him until you see how he performs against the Carolina Hurricanes.

 

[daver]

So let's say someone like Mario Lemieux missed a series against a President's Trophy winner like the 1992 New York Rangers. He could still be the best player in the playoffs at 15 games, but Peter Forsberg is just poetic waxing because even after 20 games, he didn't play the Carolina Hurricanes and you can't properly assess him until you see how he performs against the Carolina Hurricanes.

I am saying that comparing his '02 playoff to Crosby's 2009 playoff and saying Forsberg's was better because of a better PPG and/or that he was the best [playoff performer that year while Crosby was not is not without its flaws, namely the lack of playing the final round.

Let's put it this way, both of these statements should not be taken at face value:

Crosby's two Conn Smythes run are automatically better than any non Smythe winning run of his era or or any of Forsberg's runs.

Forsberg cannot be considered among the best playoff performers of all-time because he lacks a Smythe.

I think Forsberg's ranking all-time is fine. Crosby should be ahead of him.

 

[bobholly39]

So let's say someone like Mario Lemieux missed a series against a President's Trophy winner like the 1992 New York Rangers. He could still be the best player in the playoffs at 15 games, but Peter Forsberg is just poetic waxing because even after 20 games, he didn't play the Carolina Hurricanes and you can't properly assess him until you see how he performs against the Carolina Hurricanes.

I get that "logically" this doesn't make much sense. And i'm a huge stickler for arguing logic around here usually. Which is why I often use your same arguments to try and raise the significance of strong partial seasons when the level of play is high enough and logic suggests it was sustainable (true of some of Mario and Crosby's seasons).

But - as illogical as it sounds - I still feel playoffs should be all about winning, and playing for a winning team in the cup finals (or at least making the finals, if you lose) - does add some significant bonus points.

So in your example - assuming both runs are exactly comparable - Lemieux > Forbserg quite easily because Lemieux played in the finals (and did good and helped his team win) vs Forsberg didn't and couldn't help his team win.

It doesn't mean that as Daver said that all Conn smythe runs (with cup wins/finals) should automatically be better than any run like Forsberg's that falls short of the finals - but making the finals (and even more - winning) should give significant bonus points.

2002 Forsberg vs 2017 Crosby? I'm thinking 2017 Crosby
2002 Forsberg vs 2016 Crosby? Maybe go with Forsberg

 

[JackSlater]

It's fairly obvious that a player can be the best player in the playoffs despite not winning the Stanley Cup, or even necessarily making it to the finals. Of course things must be weighted and contributions in each later round are usually more impressive than those in earlier rounds, but winning is a team achievement while performance is an individual achievement. The 2002 Forsberg example is pretty spot on, where not playing a mediocre Carolina team in the final doesn't change that Forsberg was the best player in the playoffs that year. Of course very obvious bias is again dictating the arguments put forward by some, but that isn't shocking given the way this section is trending.

 

[Black Gold Extractor]

Now that the playoffs are over, I have updated the data regarding adjusting playoff production based on opponent GA and percent of offense generated by first liners (method described here).

This time I've used a "neutral" 29% for the current era rather than just use the moving average value for the latest season, which kind of changes the numbers a bit. Effectively, you can directly compare how your favorite from the past does against current standard-bearer Sidney Crosby in 2016 and 2017! Without further ado, here are values for the players that I have done (and I've finally added Ovechkin). For the top 5 multi-round post seasons for each player:

Player	GP	Adj. PTS	Adj. P/G
Wayne Gretzky	73	127	1.74
Mario Lemieux	78	112	1.44
Gordie Howe	57	76	1.33
Jaromir Jagr	60	79	1.32
Guy Lafleur	69	88	1.28
Joe Sakic	90	115	1.28
Peter Forsberg	75	93	1.24
Sidney Crosby	83	101	1.22
Maurice Richard	50	60	1.20
Stan Mikita	64	75	1.17
Jean Beliveau	69	79	1.14
Mike Bossy	82	93	1.13
Bobby Hull	64	72	1.13
Bernie Geoffrion	51	57	1.12
Evgeni Malkin	107	113	1.06
Bryan Trottier	89	91	1.02
Ted Lindsay	52	53	1.02
Patrick Kane	103	103	1.00
Doug Gilmour	90	90	1.00
Alex Ovechkin	73	72	0.99
Dickie Moore	50	48	0.96
Ted Kennedy	53	46	0.86

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

The data are behind the spoiler tags (opponent GA adjusted to an 82-game schedule):

Spoiler: Jean Beliveau

Player	Seas.	R1 P	Op. GA	R2 P	Op. GA	R3 P	Op. GA	R4 P	Op. GA	% off. 5-yr.	R1 Adj.	R2 Adj.	R3 Adj.	R4 Adj.	GP	Adj. PTS	Adj. P/G
Jean Beliveau	1956		200		200	9	238	10	173	34.3%	0.0	0.0	6.4	9.7	10	16	1.60
Jean Beliveau	1965		200		200	6	203	10	206	30.5%	0.0	0.0	5.6	9.2	13	15	1.15
Jean Beliveau	1955		200		200	5	220	8	157	32.9%	0.0	0.0	4.0	9.0	12	13	1.08
Jean Beliveau	1969		200	4	211	6	238	5	169	29.0%	0.0	3.8	5.0	5.9	14	15	1.07
Jean Beliveau	1971		200	8	218	10	234	4	193	29.1%	0.0	7.3	8.5	4.1	20	20	1.00
Jean Beliveau	1954		200		200	8	212	2	155	32.2%	0.0	0.0	6.8	2.3	10	9	0.90
Jean Beliveau	1968		200	2	239	9	246	0	212	28.5%	0.0	1.7	7.4	0.0	10	9	0.90
Jean Beliveau	1967		200		200	5	221	6	247	28.9%	0.0	0.0	4.5	4.9	10	9	0.90
Jean Beliveau	1958		200		200	6	242	6	227	33.5%	0.0	0.0	4.3	4.6	10	9	0.90
Jean Beliveau	1966		200		200	5	219	5	227	29.7%	0.0	0.0	4.5	4.3	10	9	0.90
Jean Beliveau	1957		200		200	10	266	2	204	34.7%	0.0	0.0	6.3	1.6	10	8	0.80
Jean Beliveau	1960		200		200	3	211	4	228	33.1%	0.0	0.0	2.5	3.1	8	6	0.75

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Spoiler: Mike Bossy

Player	Seas.	R1 P	Op. GA	R2 P	Op. GA	R3 P	Op. GA	R4 P	Op. GA	% off. 5-yr.	R1 Adj.	R2 Adj.	R3 Adj.	R4 Adj.	GP	Adj. PTS	Adj. P/G
Mike Bossy	1980	2	321	4	240	6	206	11	260	26.5%	1.4	3.7	6.4	9.3	16	21	1.31
Mike Bossy	1981	10	376	11	335	6	325	8	270	26.9%	5.7	7.1	4.0	6.4	18	23	1.28
Mike Bossy	1983	5	290	4	294	13	234	4	323	26.6%	3.8	3.0	12.1	2.7	19	22	1.16
Mike Bossy	1985	7	246	4	247		200		200	27.2%	6.1	3.5	0.0	0.0	10	10	1.00
Mike Bossy	1982	4	345	8	314	7	354	8	293	26.5%	2.5	5.6	4.3	6.0	19	18	0.95
Mike Bossy	1984	2	312	6	232	7	302	3	322	26.7%	1.4	5.6	5.0	2.0	21	14	0.67

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Spoiler: Sidney Crosby

Player	Seas.	R1 P	Op. GA	R2 P	Op. GA	R3 P	Op. GA	R4 P	Op. GA	% off. 5-yr.	R1 Adj.	R2 Adj.	R3 Adj.	R4 Adj.	GP	Adj. PTS	Adj. P/G
Sidney Crosby	2018	13	243	8	239		200		200	28.6%	10.8	6.8	0.0	0.0	12	18	1.50
Sidney Crosby	2008	8	247	6	199	7	233	6	184	29.4%	6.4	6.0	5.9	6.4	20	25	1.25
Sidney Crosby	2010	14	238	5	223		200		200	28.9%	11.8	4.5	0.0	0.0	13	16	1.23
Sidney Crosby	2017	7	195	7	182	6	214	7	224	28.9%	7.2	7.7	5.6	6.3	24	27	1.13
Sidney Crosby	2013	9	237	6	178	0	186		200	27.5%	8.0	7.1	0.0	0.0	14	15	1.07
Sidney Crosby	2009	8	238	13	245	7	226	3	244	29.6%	6.6	10.4	6.1	2.4	24	25	1.04
Sidney Crosby	2016	8	217	2	193	5	201	4	210	28.2%	7.6	2.1	5.1	3.9	24	19	0.79
Sidney Crosby	2014	6	216	3	193		200		200	27.3%	5.9	3.3	0.0	0.0	13	9	0.69

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Spoiler: Peter Forsberg

Player	Seas.	R1 P	Op. GA	R2 P	Op. GA	R3 P	Op. GA	R4 P	Op. GA	% off. 5-yr.	R1 Adj.	R2 Adj.	R3 Adj.	R4 Adj.	GP	Adj. PTS	Adj. P/G
Peter Forsberg	2002	7	190	12	199	8	187		200	29.2%	7.3	12.0	8.5	0.0	20	28	1.40
Peter Forsberg	1999	8	191	9	202	7	168		200	29.3%	8.3	8.8	8.3	0.0	19	25	1.32
Peter Forsberg	2004	8	175	3	183		200		200	28.4%	9.3	3.4	0.0	0.0	11	13	1.18
Peter Forsberg	2001	6	238	8	228		200		200	28.6%	5.1	7.1	0.0	0.0	11	12	1.09
Peter Forsberg	1997	9	210	7	247		200		200	28.2%	8.8	5.8	0.0	0.0	14	15	1.07
Peter Forsberg	2000	4	228	6	210	5	184		200	28.5%	3.6	5.8	5.5	0.0	16	15	0.94
Peter Forsberg	1996	10	278	2	220	4	181	5	234	28.1%	7.4	1.9	4.6	4.4	22	18	0.82

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Spoiler: Bernie Geoffrion

Player	Seas.	R1 P	Op. GA	R2 P	Op. GA	R3 P	Op. GA	R4 P	Op. GA	% off. 5-yr.	R1 Adj.	R2 Adj.	R3 Adj.	R4 Adj.	GP	Adj. PTS	Adj. P/G
Bernie Geoffrion	1960		200		200	6	211	6	228	33.1%	0.0	0.0	5.0	4.6	8	10	1.25
Bernie Geoffrion	1957		200		200	12	266	6	204	34.7%	0.0	0.0	7.6	4.9	10	12	1.20
Bernie Geoffrion	1956		200		200	8	238	6	173	34.3%	0.0	0.0	5.7	5.8	10	12	1.20
Bernie Geoffrion	1955		200		200	5	220	8	157	32.9%	0.0	0.0	4.0	9.0	12	13	1.08
Bernie Geoffrion	1954		200		200	8	212	3	155	32.2%	0.0	0.0	6.8	3.5	11	10	0.91
Bernie Geoffrion	1959		200		200	6	244	7	235	32.5%	0.0	0.0	4.4	5.3	11	10	0.91
Bernie Geoffrion	1958		200		200	3	242	8	227	33.5%	0.0	0.0	2.1	6.1	10	8	0.80
Bernie Geoffrion	1953		200		200	9	205	1	201	31.7%	0.0	0.0	8.0	0.9	12	9	0.75

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Spoiler: Doug Gilmour

Player	Seas.	R1 P	Op. GA	R2 P	Op. GA	R3 P	Op. GA	R4 P	Op. GA	% off. 5-yr.	R1 Adj.	R2 Adj.	R3 Adj.	R4 Adj.	GP	Adj. PTS	Adj. P/G
Doug Gilmour	1994	8	234	16	259	4	269		200	27.5%	7.2	13.1	3.1	0.0	18	23	1.28
Doug Gilmour	1988	11	301	6	276		200		200	27.6%	7.7	4.6	0.0	0.0	10	12	1.20
Doug Gilmour	1993	12	273	10	271	13	332		200	27.7%	9.2	7.7	8.2	0.0	21	25	1.19
Doug Gilmour	1989	3	259	7	343	5	343	7	223	28.5%	2.4	4.2	3.0	6.4	22	16	0.73
Doug Gilmour	1986	8	313	8	396	5	323		200	27.2%	5.5	4.3	3.3	0.0	19	13	0.68
Doug Gilmour	1984	7	331	4	353		200		200	26.7%	4.6	2.5	0.0	0.0	11	7	0.64

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Spoiler: Wayne Gretzky

Player	Seas.	R1 P	Op. GA	R2 P	Op. GA	R3 P	Op. GA	R4 P	Op. GA	% off. 5-yr.	R1 Adj.	R2 Adj.	R3 Adj.	R4 Adj.	GP	Adj. PTS	Adj. P/G
Wayne Gretzky	1981	11	238	10	267		200		200	26.9%	10.0	8.1	0.0	0.0	9	18	2.00
Wayne Gretzky	1985	5	334	13	340	18	306	11	247	27.2%	3.2	8.1	12.5	9.5	18	33	1.83
Wayne Gretzky	1983	8	341	14	325	12	275	4	232	26.6%	5.1	9.4	9.5	3.8	16	28	1.75
Wayne Gretzky	1988	11	318	6	313	13	276	13	257	27.6%	7.3	4.0	9.9	10.6	19	32	1.68
Wayne Gretzky	1989	13	314	9	232		200		200	28.5%	8.4	7.9	0.0	0.0	11	16	1.45
Wayne Gretzky	1993	10	275	13	271	10	235	7	273	27.7%	7.6	10.0	8.9	5.4	24	32	1.33
Wayne Gretzky	1997	6	201	5	182	9	231		200	28.2%	6.1	5.7	8.0	0.0	15	20	1.33
Wayne Gretzky	1984	5	383	13	322	10	353	7	276	26.7%	2.8	8.8	6.2	5.5	19	23	1.21
Wayne Gretzky	1986	6	341	13	323		200		200	27.2%	3.7	8.6	0.0	0.0	10	12	1.20
Wayne Gretzky	1987	15	350	6	278	2	281	11	251	27.1%	9.2	4.6	1.5	9.4	21	25	1.19
Wayne Gretzky	1996	9	252	7	181		200		200	28.1%	7.4	8.0	0.0	0.0	13	15	1.15

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Spoiler: Gordie Howe

Player	Seas.	R1 P	Op. GA	R2 P	Op. GA	R3 P	Op. GA	R4 P	Op. GA	% off. 5-yr.	R1 Adj.	R2 Adj.	R3 Adj.	R4 Adj.	GP	Adj. PTS	Adj. P/G
Gordie Howe	1955		200		200	8	158	12	184	32.9%	0.0	0.0	8.9	11.5	11	20	1.82
Gordie Howe	1964		200		200	11	198	8	201	31.0%	0.0	0.0	10.4	7.4	14	18	1.29
Gordie Howe	1963		200		200	10	209	6	211	31.6%	0.0	0.0	8.8	5.2	11	14	1.27
Gordie Howe	1961		200		200	7	206	8	211	32.4%	0.0	0.0	6.1	6.8	11	13	1.18
Gordie Howe	1956		200		200	6	212	6	153	34.3%	0.0	0.0	4.8	6.6	10	11	1.10
Gordie Howe	1949		200		200	9	172	2	220	29.6%	0.0	0.0	10.2	1.8	11	12	1.09
Gordie Howe	1952		200		200	4	184	3	192	29.7%	0.0	0.0	4.2	3.0	8	7	0.88
Gordie Howe	1954		200		200	6	153	3	165	32.2%	0.0	0.0	7.1	3.3	12	10	0.83

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Spoiler: Bobby Hull

Player	Seas.	R1 P	Op. GA	R2 P	Op. GA	R3 P	Op. GA	R4 P	Op. GA	% off. 5-yr.	R1 Adj.	R2 Adj.	R3 Adj.	R4 Adj.	GP	Adj. PTS	Adj. P/G
Bobby Hull	1971		200	8	237	8	186	9	227	29.1%	0.0	6.8	8.6	7.9	18	23	1.28
Bobby Hull	1970		200	9	215	2	233		200	28.8%	0.0	8.4	1.7	0.0	8	10	1.25
Bobby Hull	1965		200		200	13	205	4	217	30.5%	0.0	0.0	12.1	3.5	14	16	1.14
Bobby Hull	1962		200		200	6	194	8	211	31.8%	0.0	0.0	5.6	6.9	12	13	1.08
Bobby Hull	1961		200		200	7	220	7	252	32.4%	0.0	0.0	5.7	5.0	12	11	0.92
Bobby Hull	1972		200	5	271	3	202		200	29.1%	0.0	3.7	3.0	0.0	8	7	0.88

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Spoiler: Jaromir Jagr

Player	Seas.	R1 P	Op. GA	R2 P	Op. GA	R3 P	Op. GA	R4 P	Op. GA	% off. 5-yr.	R1 Adj.	R2 Adj.	R3 Adj.	R4 Adj.	GP	Adj. PTS	Adj. P/G
Jaromir Jagr	2000	10	194	6	179		200		200	28.5%	10.5	6.8	0.0	0.0	11	17	1.55
Jaromir Jagr	2008	8	197	7	216		200		200	29.4%	8.0	6.4	0.0	0.0	10	14	1.40
Jaromir Jagr	1999	5	196	7	231		200		200	29.3%	5.1	6.0	0.0	0.0	9	11	1.22
Jaromir Jagr	1995	11	205	4	207		200		200	28.1%	11.1	4.0	0.0	0.0	12	15	1.25
Jaromir Jagr	1996	9	204	9	237	5	234		200	28.1%	9.1	7.8	4.4	0.0	18	21	1.17
Jaromir Jagr	2007	7	245	4	242		200		200	29.2%	5.7	3.3	0.0	0.0	10	9	0.90
Jaromir Jagr	1992	7	268	7	240	8	268	2	230	28.3%	5.3	6.0	6.1	1.8	21	19	0.90

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Spoiler: Patrick Kane

Player	Seas.	R1 P	Op. GA	R2 P	Op. GA	R3 P	Op. GA	R4 P	Op. GA	% off. 5-yr.	R1 Adj.	R2 Adj.	R3 Adj.	R4 Adj.	GP	Adj. PTS	Adj. P/G
Patrick Kane	2010	7	225	8	222	5	215	8	225	28.9%	6.2	7.2	4.7	7.1	22	25	1.14
Patrick Kane	2014	6	191	4	206	10	174		200	27.3%	6.7	4.1	12.2	0.0	19	23	1.21
Patrick Kane	2015	7	208	6	201	7	226	3	211	27.5%	7.1	6.3	6.5	3.0	23	23	1.00
Patrick Kane	2013	5	217	4	196	5	202	5	186	27.5%	4.9	4.3	5.2	5.7	23	20	0.87
Patrick Kane	2009	4	248	8	220	2	244		200	29.6%	3.2	7.1	1.6	0.0	16	12	0.75

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Spoiler: Ted Kennedy

Player	Seas.	R1 P	Op. GA	R2 P	Op. GA	R3 P	Op. GA	R4 P	Op. GA	% off. 5-yr.	R1 Adj.	R2 Adj.	R3 Adj.	R4 Adj.	GP	Adj. PTS	Adj. P/G
Ted Kennedy	1948		200		200	10	230	4	202	27.9%	0.0	0.0	9.0	4.1	9	13	1.44
Ted Kennedy	1947		200		200	4	264	5	189	27.0%	0.0	0.0	3.3	5.7	11	9	0.82
Ted Kennedy	1949		200		200	5	223	3	198	29.6%	0.0	0.0	4.4	3.0	9	7	0.78
Ted Kennedy	1951		200		200	3	231	6	216	29.1%	0.0	0.0	2.6	5.5	11	8	0.73
Ted Kennedy	1945		200		200	4	198	5	264	28.2%	0.0	0.0	4.1	3.9	13	8	0.62

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Spoiler: Guy Lafleur

Player	Seas.	R1 P	Op. GA	R2 P	Op. GA	R3 P	Op. GA	R4 P	Op. GA	% off. 5-yr.	R1 Adj.	R2 Adj.	R3 Adj.	R4 Adj.	GP	Adj. PTS	Adj. P/G
Guy Lafleur	1977		200	12	283	5	198	9	246	28.1%	0.0	8.7	5.2	7.5	14	21	1.50
Guy Lafleur	1975		200	9	260	10	246		200	28.6%	0.0	7.0	8.2	0.0	11	15	1.36
Guy Lafleur	1976		200	5	268	5	195	7	214	28.1%	0.0	3.9	5.3	6.7	13	16	1.23
Guy Lafleur	1978		200	8	273	8	243	5	223	27.4%	0.0	6.2	7.0	4.7	15	18	1.20
Guy Lafleur	1979		200	8	258	12	277	3	299	27.5%	0.0	6.5	9.2	2.1	16	18	1.13

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Spoiler: Mario Lemieux

Player	Seas.	R1 P	Op. GA	R2 P	Op. GA	R3 P	Op. GA	R4 P	Op. GA	% off. 5-yr.	R1 Adj.	R2 Adj.	R3 Adj.	R4 Adj.	GP	Adj. PTS	Adj. P/G
Mario Lemieux	1992	17	268	2	240	8	268	7	230	28.3%	13.0	1.7	6.1	6.2	15	27	1.80
Mario Lemieux	1991	8	271	9	264	15	271	12	273	28.0%	6.1	7.1	11.5	9.1	23	34	1.48
Mario Lemieux	1996	10	204	10	237	7	234		200	28.1%	10.1	8.7	6.2	0.0	18	25	1.39
Mario Lemieux	1989	5	315	14	292		200		200	28.5%	3.2	9.8	0.0	0.0	11	13	1.18
Mario Lemieux	1993	9	292	9	290		200		200	27.7%	6.4	6.5	0.0	0.0	11	13	1.18
Mario Lemieux	2001	7	211	7	184	3	195		200	28.6%	6.7	7.7	3.1	0.0	18	18	1.00

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Spoiler: Ted Lindsay

Player	Seas.	R1 P	Op. GA	R2 P	Op. GA	R3 P	Op. GA	R4 P	Op. GA	% off. 5-yr.	R1 Adj.	R2 Adj.	R3 Adj.	R4 Adj.	GP	Adj. PTS	Adj. P/G
Ted Lindsay	1955		200		200	8	158	11	184	32.9%	0.0	0.0	8.9	10.5	11	19	1.73
Ted Lindsay	1952		200		200	4	184	3	192	29.7%	0.0	0.0	4.2	3.0	8	7	0.88
Ted Lindsay	1956		200		200	4	212	5	153	34.3%	0.0	0.0	3.2	5.5	10	9	0.90
Ted Lindsay	1949		200		200	5	172	3	220	29.6%	0.0	0.0	5.7	2.7	11	8	0.73
Ted Lindsay	1954		200		200	4	153	4	165	32.2%	0.0	0.0	4.7	4.4	12	9	0.75

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Spoiler: Evgeni Malkin

Player	Seas.	R1 P	Op. GA	R2 P	Op. GA	R3 P	Op. GA	R4 P	Op. GA	% off. 5-yr.	R1 Adj.	R2 Adj.	R3 Adj.	R4 Adj.	GP	Adj. PTS	Adj. P/G
Evgeni Malkin	2009	9	238	10	245	9	226	8	244	29.6%	7.4	8.0	7.8	6.4	24	30	1.25
Evgeni Malkin	2017	11	195	8	182	6	214	4	224	28.9%	11.3	8.8	5.6	3.6	25	29	1.16
Evgeni Malkin	2013	11	237	5	178	0	186		200	27.5%	9.8	5.9	0.0	0.0	15	16	1.07
Evgeni Malkin	2008	7	247	7	199	5	233	3	184	29.4%	5.6	6.9	4.2	3.2	20	20	1.00
Evgeni Malkin	2016	7	217	2	193	6	201	3	210	28.2%	6.6	2.1	6.1	2.9	23	18	0.78
Evgeni Malkin	2018	5	243	3	239		200		200	28.6%	4.2	2.5	0.0	0.0	9	7	0.78
Evgeni Malkin	2010	8	238	3	223		200		200	28.9%	6.7	2.7	0.0	0.0	13	9	0.69

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Spoiler: Stan Mikita

Player	Seas.	R1 P	Op. GA	R2 P	Op. GA	R3 P	Op. GA	R4 P	Op. GA	% off. 5-yr.	R1 Adj.	R2 Adj.	R3 Adj.	R4 Adj.	GP	Adj. PTS	Adj. P/G
Stan Mikita	1962		200		200	13	194	8	211	31.8%	0.0	0.0	12.2	6.9	12	19	1.58
Stan Mikita	1973		200	9	264	3	219	8	193	29.1%	0.0	6.8	2.7	8.2	15	18	1.20
Stan Mikita	1970		200	7	215	3	233		200	28.8%	0.0	6.6	2.6	0.0	8	9	1.13
Stan Mikita	1968		200	9	203	3	185		200	28.5%	0.0	9.0	3.3	0.0	11	12	1.09
Stan Mikita	1971		200	8	237	5	186	5	227	29.1%	0.0	6.8	5.4	4.4	18	17	0.94
Stan Mikita	1974		200	3	243	8	232		200	28.3%	0.0	2.5	7.0	0.0	11	10	0.91
Stan Mikita	1961		200		200	4	220	7	252	32.4%	0.0	0.0	3.2	5.0	12	8	0.67

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Spoiler: Dickie Moore

Player	Seas.	R1 P	Op. GA	R2 P	Op. GA	R3 P	Op. GA	R4 P	Op. GA	% off. 5-yr.	R1 Adj.	R2 Adj.	R3 Adj.	R4 Adj.	GP	Adj. PTS	Adj. P/G
Dickie Moore	1959		200		200	12	244	5	235	32.5%	0.0	0.0	8.8	3.8	11	13	1.18
Dickie Moore	1954		200		200	10	212	3	155	32.2%	0.0	0.0	8.5	3.5	11	12	1.09
Dickie Moore	1960		200		200	5	211	5	228	33.1%	0.0	0.0	4.2	3.8	8	8	1.00
Dickie Moore	1958		200		200	5	242	6	227	33.5%	0.0	0.0	3.6	4.6	10	8	0.80
Dickie Moore	1957		200		200	6	266	4	204	34.7%	0.0	0.0	3.8	3.3	10	7	0.70
Dickie Moore	1956		200		200	6	238	3	173	34.3%	0.0	0.0	4.3	2.9	10	7	0.70

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Spoiler: Alex Ovechkin

Player	Seas.	R1 P	Op. GA	R2 P	Op. GA	R3 P	Op. GA	R4 P	Op. GA	% off. 5-yr.	R1 Adj.	R2 Adj.	R3 Adj.	R4 Adj.	GP	Adj. PTS	Adj. P/G
Alex Ovechkin	2009	7	218	14	239		200		200	29.6%	6.3	11.5	0.0	0.0	14	18	1.29
Alex Ovechkin	2011	6	198	4	240		200		200	28.0%	6.3	3.5	0.0	0.0	9	10	1.11
Alex Ovechkin	2016	5	218	7	203		200		200	28.2%	4.7	7.1	0.0	0.0	12	12	1.00
Alex Ovechkin	2018	8	230	7	250	7	236	5	228	28.6%	7.0	5.7	6.0	4.4	24	23	0.96
Alex Ovechkin	2012	5	202	4	187		200		200	27.8%	5.2	4.5	0.0	0.0	14	10	0.71
Alex Ovechkin	2015	5	230	4	192		200		200	27.5%	4.6	4.4	0.0	0.0	14	9	0.64
Alex Ovechkin	2017	3	242	5	234		200		200	28.9%	2.5	4.3	0.0	0.0	13	7	0.54
Alex Ovechkin	2010	10	223		200		200		200	28.9%	9.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	7	9	1.29
Alex Ovechkin	2008	9	233		200		200		200	29.4%	7.6	0.0	0.0	0.0	7	8	1.14

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Spoiler: Maurice Richard

Player	Seas.	R1 P	Op. GA	R2 P	Op. GA	R3 P	Op. GA	R4 P	Op. GA	% off. 5-yr.	R1 Adj.	R2 Adj.	R3 Adj.	R4 Adj.	GP	Adj. PTS	Adj. P/G
Maurice Richard	1951		200		200	6	163	7	162	29.1%	0.0	0.0	7.3	8.6	11	16	1.45
Maurice Richard	1944		200		200	10	285	7	307	28.4%	0.0	0.0	7.2	4.7	9	12	1.33
Maurice Richard	1956		200		200	10	238	4	173	34.3%	0.0	0.0	7.1	3.9	10	11	1.10
Maurice Richard	1958		200		200	10	242	5	227	33.5%	0.0	0.0	7.1	3.8	10	11	1.10
Maurice Richard	1947		200		200	8	239	3	235	27.0%	0.0	0.0	7.2	2.7	10	10	1.00
Maurice Richard	1946		200		200	6	292	5	256	27.9%	0.0	0.0	4.3	4.1	9	8	0.89
Maurice Richard	1957		200		200	7	266	4	204	34.7%	0.0	0.0	4.4	3.3	10	8	0.80
Maurice Richard	1952		200		200	6	206	0	156	29.7%	0.0	0.0	5.7	0.0	11	6	0.55

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Spoiler: Joe Sakic

Player	Seas.	R1 P	Op. GA	R2 P	Op. GA	R3 P	Op. GA	R4 P	Op. GA	% off. 5-yr.	R1 Adj.	R2 Adj.	R3 Adj.	R4 Adj.	GP	Adj. PTS	Adj. P/G
Joe Sakic	1996	11	278	8	220	10	181	5	234	28.1%	8.2	7.5	11.4	4.4	22	31	1.41
Joe Sakic	1997	12	210	7	247	6	197		200	28.2%	11.8	5.8	6.3	0.0	17	24	1.41
Joe Sakic	2004	6	175	6	183		200		200	28.4%	7.0	6.7	0.0	0.0	11	14	1.27
Joe Sakic	2001	7	238	2	228	8	195	9	195	28.6%	6.0	1.8	8.3	9.4	21	25	1.19
Joe Sakic	1999	12	191	2	202	5	168		200	29.3%	12.4	2.0	5.9	0.0	19	20	1.05

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Spoiler: Bryan Trottier

Player	Seas.	R1 P	Op. GA	R2 P	Op. GA	R3 P	Op. GA	R4 P	Op. GA	% off. 5-yr.	R1 Adj.	R2 Adj.	R3 Adj.	R4 Adj.	GP	Adj. PTS	Adj. P/G
Bryan Trottier	1980	4	321	11	240	6	206	8	260	26.5%	2.7	10.0	6.4	6.7	21	26	1.24
Bryan Trottier	1981	10	376	8	335	4	325	7	270	26.9%	5.7	5.2	2.7	5.6	18	19	1.06
Bryan Trottier	1982	6	345	10	314	6	354	7	293	26.5%	3.8	7.0	3.7	5.2	19	20	1.05
Bryan Trottier	1983	6	290	2	294	8	234	4	323	26.6%	4.5	1.5	7.5	2.7	17	16	0.94
Bryan Trottier	1987	6	285	7	251		200		200	27.1%	4.5	6.0	0.0	0.0	14	10	0.71

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

 

[Neutrinos]

Ted Kennedy had 6o points in 78 playoff games

How does that qualify him to be ahead of Lemieux and Orr?

Lemieux had 172 points in 107 games, Orr had 92 points in 74 games (+60!)

 

[Canadiens1958]

Ted Kennedy had 6o points in 78 playoff games

How does that qualify him to be ahead of Lemieux and Orr?

Lemieux had 172 points in 107 games, Orr had 92 points in 74 games (+60!)

Read the appropriate discussion threads linked in the opening post, after the list.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/posts/131440187/

Hint it is not about scoring but about contributions to winning the SC.

 

[Neutrinos]

Read the appropriate discussion threads linked in the opening post, after the list.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/posts/131440187/

Hint it is not about scoring but about contributions towinning the SC.

Dude, use the "spoiler" tag!

 

[wetcoast]

Peter Forsberg finished immediately behind Guy Lafleur, the most recent addition. Now I would have no problem if Forsberg was #15 instead of where he'll probably land (#16-20), but I don't think it takes Don Cherry to put Lafleur over Forsberg.

Probably not but it takes a peak over prime emphasis and ignoring Lafleur outside of his peak years to have him that high.

Overall the list seems to be all over the place at times.

 

[wetcoast]

This is one project that probably needs a serious redo as the results are very 06 focused and seem to focus too much on SC counting without context.

I mean 6 of the top 9 players are all born between 1921 and 1931, that's highly improbable isn't it?

One question that I do have, since the aggregate list seems to have been lost in transition, Who is the highest ranked player on the aggregate list to have never won the SC?

 

[MXD]

This is one project that probably needs a serious redo as the results are very 06 focused and seem to focus too much on SC counting without context.

I mean 6 of the top 9 players are all born between 1921 and 1931, that's highly improbable isn't it?

One question that I do have, since the aggregate list seems to have been lost in transition, Who is the highest ranked player on the aggregate list to have never won the SC?

Three of the four best tennis players are born between 1981 and 1987.

 

[wetcoast]

Three of the four best tennis players are born between 1981 and 1987.

I don't follow tennis enough to comment on that but both seem improbable on the surface don't they?

I think the largest problem with the hockey example is that Richard, Harvey, Beliveau and Plante all played on the same team during the same period more or less.

The second problem is one of consistency as all of Richard, Beliveau and Harvey had some down playoffs in their primes.

Also a 5th Hab player from the same time period is 19th overall all time in the NHL playoffs in Henri Richard.

That's 5 guys from basically the same time period and on the same team in the top 19 of all time.

I mean sure it's possible but perhaps too much SC counting IMO.

Maybe some voters valued peak more than overall career, it's hard to tell as some other great peak players were lower than expected on that metric as well.

 

[MXD]

I don't follow tennis enough to comment on that but both seem improbable on the surface don't they?

It's factual. It could even possibly end up 3 out of 3, and for some people, it's already the case.

 

[wetcoast]

It's factual. It could even possibly end up 3 out of 3, and for some people, it's already the case.

That's great but I don't really think that cross sport comparisons are very useful here, even more so in an individual sport like Tennis to a team sport like hockey for obvious reasons.

So I'll restate that is seems highly improbable that 5 of the top 19 playoff performers of all time can really be from the same team over a single generation (a 15 year time period).

 

[LeBlondeDemon10]

That's great but I don't really think that cross sport comparisons are very useful here, even more so in an individual sport like Tennis to a team sport like hockey for obvious reasons.

So I'll restate that is seems highly improbable that 5 of the top 19 playoff performers of all time can really be from the same team over a single generation (a 15 year time period).

Its probable I think based on the simple fact that Montreal dominated the playoffs from 1955 to 1979.

 

[Michael Farkas]

It's not just some team, though right? It's the most successful "team generation" in the sport's history...maybe all of sports history...

 

[wetcoast]

It's not just some team, though right? It's the most successful "team generation" in the sport's history...maybe all of sports history...

Sure I get all of that but evens till it's over rated at times.

Like I said upthread 3 of those position players in the top 9 had significant stretches of meh playoff hockey in the playoffs in their primes as well.

I think that the project was more like"look at all those SC's" and less at the individual performances.

I mean Phil Esposito (and Serge Savard) higher than Chris Pronger and Sergei Fedorov is also another huge head scratcher too.