HOH Top 40 Stanley Cup Playoff Performers of All Time

[danincanada]

Box scores. It's a pain (which is why I add as we go as opposed to having a pre-loaded list), but I'm hoping we'll have a pretty good resource at the end of the project.

It's definitely a pain cause it's so time consuming. I went through Lidstrom's career and he had 11 game winners and 26 game winning assists, for 37 game winning points. That's more than Sakic, Forsberg, Lemieux, Bossy, Trottier, and Lafleur according to your list. Pretty surprising actually but then again he was a great playoff performer for a very long time.

 

[quoipourquoi]

It's definitely a pain cause it's so time consuming. I went through Lidstrom's career and he had 11 game winners and 26 game winning assists, for 37 game winning points. That's more than Sakic, Forsberg, Lemieux, Bossy, Trottier, and Lafleur according to your list. Pretty surprising actually but then again he was a great playoff performer for a very long time.

Forsberg has exactly 37 too. Sakic has 35. Good find though.

 

[danincanada]

Forsberg has exactly 37 too. Sakic has 35. Good find though.

Maybe you totaled it up wrong then because it says 35 for Forsberg. Anyways, the defense-first defenseman having that many is kind of awesome.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Maybe you totaled it up wrong then because it says 35 for Forsberg. Anyways, the defense-first defenseman having that many is kind of awesome.

On some of the charts I was counting 2 GWGs but not 2 GWPs (I think from 2006?). But that absolutely is an excellent number from Lidstrom no matter the GP. I'll have to throw together one of those individual round analysis charts for some of our eligible defensemen.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Doug Harvey

It's definitely a pain cause it's so time consuming. I went through Lidstrom's career and he had 11 game winners and 26 game winning assists, for 37 game winning points. That's more than Sakic, Forsberg, Lemieux, Bossy, Trottier, and Lafleur according to your list. Pretty surprising actually but then again he was a great playoff performer for a very long time.

Same as Harvey, 19 GWP in 137 SC playoff games.

 

[Jaromir Blogger]

In big playoff games, I often felt like Sakic wasn't quite an overtly dominating presence, but he usually seemed to figure into a huge goal late in the game. You can't argue with his clutch scoring (8 playoff OT goals is amazing), but I'm not entirely sure he belongs that high. That said, I'm not sure he doesn't, either. He's tricky.

 

[Jaromir Blogger]

It's definitely a pain cause it's so time consuming. I went through Lidstrom's career and he had 11 game winners and 26 game winning assists, for 37 game winning points. That's more than Sakic, Forsberg, Lemieux, Bossy, Trottier, and Lafleur according to your list. Pretty surprising actually but then again he was a great playoff performer for a very long time.

Wow. I did not know that and I honestly wouldn't have guessed it. That's pretty phenomenal. Lidstrom was such a great player, and I feel like it was so easy to miss how great he was (case in point!).

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Can long time partners Robinson and Savard really be ranked that close?

 

[Acoustic]

What a terrible list. Yikes.

 

[MXD]

Can long time partners Robinson and Savard really be ranked that close?

They really shouldn't have been actually. Robinson is WAY too low.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

What a terrible list. Yikes.

I'll bite:

What is terrible about it?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I'll bite:

What is terrible about it?

Hardly "terrible," but I see a few related problems with the list:

1. Certain teams seem really over-represented. 4 of the top 8 and 6 of the top 25 playoff performers of all-time played on the 1950s Montreal Canadiens? Likewise, 3 of the top 18 on the recent Avalanche mini-dynasty.

2. By contrast, other highly successful teams are barely, if at all, represented - not a single player who was at his best on the late 60s Leafs dynasty or the recent Devils mini-dynasty. (Red Kelly did get in as a combo of the Wings and Leafs dynasties).

3. True NHL dynasties are probably over-represented, which has the result that the list is very heavy on players who played when dynasties actually happened (1945-1990 basically).

In sum, 22 of the top 25 players on this list played for either an officially recognized NHL dynasty or the recent Colorado mini-dynasty. Mario Lemieux (11), Bobby Orr (13), and Nicklas Lidstrom (23) are the only exceptions. This result isn't necessarily wrong, per se... but it seems unusual.

___________________

A mostly unrelated issue is that the list too closely tracks the previous top players of all-time lists on this forum. Guys like Yvon Cournoyer and George Armstrong are basically in the HHOF only because of what they did in the playoffs, and I wouldn't be surprised if those two aren't even options here. Well, maybe Cournoyer because of how much certain voters love the Canadiens. Playoffs only, is Phil Esposito really ahead of either of those guys? Further down the line, will Claude Lemieux and Esa Tikkanen even be options?

 

[MXD]

Hardly "terrible," but I see a few related problems with the list:

1. Certain teams seem really over-represented. 4 of the top 8 and 6 of the top 25 playoff performers of all-time played on the 1950s Montreal Canadiens? Likewise, 3 of the top 18 on the recent Avalanche mini-dynasty.

2. By contrast, other highly successful teams are barely, if at all, represented - not a single player who was at his best on the late 60s Leafs dynasty or the recent Devils mini-dynasty. (Red Kelly did get in as a combo of the Wings and Leafs dynasties).

3. True NHL dynasties are probably over-represented, which has the result that the list is very heavy on players who played when dynasties actually happened (1945-1990 basically).

In sum, 22 of the top 25 players on this list played for either an officially recognized NHL dynasty or the recent Colorado mini-dynasty. Mario Lemieux (11), Bobby Orr (13), and Nicklas Lidstrom (23) are the only exceptions. This result isn't necessarily wrong, per se... but it seems unusual.

___________________

A mostly unrelated issue is that the list too closely tracks the previous top players of all-time lists on this forum. Guys like Yvon Cournoyer and George Armstrong are basically in the HHOF only because of what they did in the playoffs, and I wouldn't be surprised if those two aren't even options here. Well, maybe Cournoyer because of how much certain voters love the Canadiens. Playoffs only, is Phil Esposito really ahead of either of those guys? Further down the line, will Claude Lemieux and Esa Tikkanen even be options?

1. Who are you taking out? Besides, you put the thing in a wee bit misleading way, and you probably know it : M. Richard isn't in because of what he did during the dynasty, Beliveau is in partly because of what he did with the other dynasty, Doug Harvey is in because he's been Doug Harvey for a ton of games, and Geoffrion did achieve some interesting playoff results for more than just the dynasty years. Hell, the better player of the dynasty per se has not been voted in yet!

(You'll also notice there are a few players I'm not talking about)

2. For the Devils, other than Stevens, who do you suggest to add?

Unnumbered : ... Some of them feel high in retrospect, too.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Devils

1. Who are you taking out? Besides, you put the thing in a wee bit misleading way, and you probably know it : M. Richard isn't in because of what he did during the dynasty, Beliveau is in partly because of what he did with the other dynasty, Doug Harvey is in because he's been Doug Harvey for a ton of games, and Geoffrion did achieve some interesting playoff results for more than just the dynasty years. Hell, the better player of the dynasty per se has not been voted in yet!

(You'll also notice there are a few players I'm not talking about)

2. For the Devils, other than Stevens, who do you suggest to add?

Unnumbered : ... Some of them feel high in retrospect, too.

Stevens ... what about Martin Brodeur. Playoffs Stevens did not do much whenever he played without Brodeur. Brodeur took the Devils to the SC finals years after Stevens left.

 

[MXD]

Stevens ... what about Martin Brodeur. Playoffs Stevens did not whenever he played without Brodeur. Brodeur took the Devils to the SC finals years after Stevens left.

The biggest issue with Martin Brodeur is that he snatched defeat from the jaws of victory a little too much for my liking. Not to mention that he didn't outplay some contemporaries that aren't yet up for voting.

Yeah, cups and all.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Likewise, 3 of the top 18 on the recent Avalanche mini-dynasty.

Top Scorers, 1996-2004
1. Sakic, 71-87-158 in 141 GP, +13
2. Forsberg, 55-93-148 in 127 GP, +45
3. Fedorov, 33-73-106 in 113 GP, +21
4. Yzerman, 39-64-103 in 117 GP, +13
5. Hull, 45-51-96 in 123 GP, +5

I think they're up there for reasons independent of team success. Joe Sakic is likely the greatest player in overtime history with 8 goals and 5 assists on 25 victories while being a leading playoff scorer twice (and a point away from doing it a third time on a Conference finalist). And Forsberg was better than him. Basically every raving loon that overrates Forsberg's career is doing so because of the playoff version of him that didn't have the same hang ups of his regular season career.

In the 25 years since Mario Lemieux last won the Stanley Cup - which is probably big enough of a period of time to warrant two spots in the top-20, they probably are the two obvious picks for those spots. On the one hand, we're talking about dynasties being over-represented and on the other hand, we're wondering why two non-dynasty players ranked high when there weren't any contemporaries from this quarter-century to replace them.

Stevens, Pronger, Fedorov, and maybe Crosby/Malkin/Keith in another 10 years. Those are the next set of guys since Lemieux with that top-gear that could give Sakic/Forsberg a legitimate debate. Kane too. But all things considered, as of 2017, I don't know that we got it wrong. Leaving 1993-2017 practically out of the top-20 would have been wronger.

 

[MXD]

Stevens, Pronger, Fedorov, and maybe Crosby/Malkin/Keith in another 10 years. Those are the next set of guys since Lemieux with that top-gear that could give Sakic/Forsberg a legitimate debate. Kane too. But all things considered, as of 2017, I don't know that we got it wrong. Leaving 1993-2017 practically out of the top-20 would have been wronger.

Nitpicking : 1994-2017...

 

[quoipourquoi]

Nitpicking : 1994-2017...

That's fair. Looking at #1 and #2, 1993 is pretty well represented.

 

[Sadekuuro]

Top Scorers, 1996-2004
1. Sakic, 71-87-158 in 141 GP, +13
2. Forsberg, 55-93-148 in 127 GP, +45
3. Fedorov, 33-73-106 in 113 GP, +21
4. Yzerman, 39-64-103 in 117 GP, +13
5. Hull, 45-51-96 in 123 GP, +5

I think they're up there for reasons independent of team success. Joe Sakic is likely the greatest player in overtime history with 8 goals and 5 assists on 25 victories while being a leading playoff scorer twice (and a point away from doing it a third time on a Conference finalist). And Forsberg was better than him. Basically every raving loon that overrates Forsberg's career is doing so because of the playoff version of him that didn't have the same hang ups of his regular season career.

In the 25 years since Mario Lemieux last won the Stanley Cup - which is probably big enough of a period of time to warrant two spots in the top-20, they probably are the two obvious picks for those spots. On the one hand, we're talking about dynasties being over-represented and on the other hand, we're wondering why two non-dynasty players ranked high when there weren't any contemporaries from this quarter-century to replace them.

Stevens, Pronger, Fedorov, and maybe Crosby/Malkin/Keith in another 10 years. Those are the next set of guys since Lemieux with that top-gear that could give Sakic/Forsberg a legitimate debate. Kane too. But all things considered, as of 2017, I don't know that we got it wrong. Leaving 1993-2017 practically out of the top-20 would have been wronger.

How much of that is a function of playing a relatively more wide open style, knowing they could rely on getting great goaltending most of the time? And how heavily were they relied on to produce offense compared to their contemporaries?

 

[tarheelhockey]

The biggest issue with Martin Brodeur is that he snatched defeat from the jaws of victory a little too much for my liking.

On the other hand, he's a goalie. And it's hard for a goalie to avoid being the goat if he plays enough games.

 

[nabby12]

Terry Sawchuk not being on the top-40 list is crazy.

 

[ResilientBeast]

Terry Sawchuk not being on the top-40 list is crazy.

....they're not done yet

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Hardly "terrible," but I see a few related problems with the list:

1. Certain teams seem really over-represented. 4 of the top 8 and 6 of the top 25 playoff performers of all-time played on the 1950s Montreal Canadiens? Likewise, 3 of the top 18 on the recent Avalanche mini-dynasty.

2. By contrast, other highly successful teams are barely, if at all, represented - not a single player who was at his best on the late 60s Leafs dynasty or the recent Devils mini-dynasty. (Red Kelly did get in as a combo of the Wings and Leafs dynasties).

3. True NHL dynasties are probably over-represented, which has the result that the list is very heavy on players who played when dynasties actually happened (1945-1990 basically).

In sum, 22 of the top 25 players on this list played for either an officially recognized NHL dynasty or the recent Colorado mini-dynasty. Mario Lemieux (11), Bobby Orr (13), and Nicklas Lidstrom (23) are the only exceptions. This result isn't necessarily wrong, per se... but it seems unusual.

___________________

A mostly unrelated issue is that the list too closely tracks the previous top players of all-time lists on this forum. Guys like Yvon Cournoyer and George Armstrong are basically in the HHOF only because of what they did in the playoffs, and I wouldn't be surprised if those two aren't even options here. Well, maybe Cournoyer because of how much certain voters love the Canadiens. Playoffs only, is Phil Esposito really ahead of either of those guys? Further down the line, will Claude Lemieux and Esa Tikkanen even be options?

This is a good answer overall.

4 of top 8 from same team was mentioned at the time as somewhat ludicrous.

But you meant early 60's Leafs, right? Late 60's belonged to the forgotten Candaiens dynasty.

And yes, where is Esa Tikkanen?

 

[tmg]

Stevens ... what about Martin Brodeur. Playoffs Stevens did not do much whenever he played without Brodeur. Brodeur took the Devils to the SC finals years after Stevens left.

Scott Niedermayer probably bears some consideration. Won the Cup 4 times, won the Conn Smythe with his last one, was tied for playoff scoring lead the preceding time (and was likely the top nongoalie votegetter for the Smythe that year).

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Scott Niedermayer probably bears some consideration. Won the Cup 4 times, won the Conn Smythe with his last one, was tied for playoff scoring lead the preceding time (and was likely the top nongoalie votegetter for the Smythe that year).

He's way behind Scott Stevens and I really don't think one Smythe puts him past Broduer.