Toggle sidebar

HOH Top 40 Stanley Cup Playoff Performers of All Time

  • Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates
TheDevilMadeMe said:
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?
Click to expand...

Just a question, but who would you put on the teams from the leafs dynasty or the devils? Those teams were more win by committee than the star players.

Also I think Roy is on more for his canadiens runs than his avs runs for what thats worth. Both were teams that really rode on him, less so with the avs but him winning his third smythe with them is still pretty impressive.
 
Dennis Bonvie said:
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?
Click to expand...

Yes, I meant early 60s Leafs. Sorry, I'm a bit rusty at this.
 
thedoughboy said:
Just a question, but who would you put on the teams from the leafs dynasty or the devils? Those teams were more win by committee than the star players.

Also I think Roy is on more for his canadiens runs than his avs runs for what thats worth. Both were teams that really rode on him, less so with the avs but him winning his third smythe with them is still pretty impressive.
Click to expand...

Personally, I think Scott Stevens has a case for the best playoff performer of the 1995-04 period, full stop.

As for the Leafs, Tim Horton would be my pick. But Keon, Armstrong, and Bower are also candidates

Almost seems like only skaters who played for the Canadiens are getting credit for two-way play.
 
Sadekuuro said:
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?
Click to expand...

One could argue that Sakic and Forsberg were no better in the playoffs than Stevens or Fedorov, but put up lots of points due to team style.
 
TheDevilMadeMe said:
Personally, I think Scott Stevens has a case for the best playoff performer of the 1995-04 period, full stop.

As for the Leafs, Tim Horton would be my pick. But Keon, Armstrong, and Bower are also candidates

Almost seems like only skaters who played for the Canadiens are getting credit for two-way play.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

You should be a diplomat.
 
I think the idea of dynasty representation is part of what generates a conflict. On the one hand, if you play on a dynasty, you'll record a lot of GP and look better relative to your contemporaries. On the other hand, the best players having the best individual performances are not always on the teams that win. I think that the vote hasn't necessarily leaned one way or the other shows that there's more of a balance between the two mindsets among the voters than might have otherwise been anticipated. A dynasty player like Serge Savard can swoop in onto the list, but he does so next to Doug Gilmour.

It would be great if at least one player from every dynasty made the list, but that might not necessarily be honest, because some teams are greater teams than collections of individuals.
 
Scott Stevens

TheDevilMadeMe said:
Personally, I think Scott Stevens has a case for the best playoff performer of the 1995-04 period, full stop.

As for the Leafs, Tim Horton would be my pick. But Keon, Armstrong, and Bower are also candidates

Almost seems like only skaters who played for the Canadiens are getting credit for two-way play.
Click to expand...

If Scott Stevens played his NJ playoff hockey in front of Craig B, Peter S and Chris T instead of Martin Brodeur he is long forgotten.Team started with Martin Brodeur than key pieces were added. Preceeding Martin Brodeur does not translate into more important than.

Leafs.

Tim Horton nice narrative, nice player. Underperformed until partnered with Allan Stanley.

Lynchpins were Keon, Kelly, Armstrong, Bower. 1961 team was the best regular season team of the sixties. With Keon and Kelly they could match the Canadiens at center.Entered the playoffs with Armstrong coming back from injury, Bower injured, Kelly injured. Upset by Detroit followed.

Actually Montreal players are the ones getting credit for one way play.
Namely Lafleur and Geoffrion ahead of Lemaire and Moore.

Like to see what would happen if they played one on five hockey. Same for Gretzky, Lemieux and some others
 
Canadiens1958 said:
If Scott Stevens played his NJ playoff hockey in front of Craig B, Peter S and Chris T instead of Martin Brodeur he is long forgotten.Team started with Martin Brodeur than key pieces were added. Preceeding Martin Brodeur does not translate into more important than.

Leafs.

Tim Horton nice narrative, nice player. Underperformed until partnered with Allan Stanley.

Lynchpins were Keon, Kelly, Armstrong, Bower. 1961 team was the best regular season team of the sixties. With Keon and Kelly they could match the Canadiens at center.Entered the playoffs with Armstrong coming back from injury, Bower injured, Kelly injured. Upset by Detroit followed.

Actually Montreal players are the ones getting credit for one way play.
Namely Lafleur and Geoffrion ahead of Lemaire and Moore.

Like to see what would happen if they played one on five hockey. Same for Gretzky, Lemieux and some others
Click to expand...

What could possibly be illustrative about this? Anyone playing one-on-five hockey would get absolutely destroyed.
 
Exactly

Epsilon said:
What could possibly be illustrative about this? Anyone playing one-on-five hockey would get absolutely destroyed.
Click to expand...

Exactly. You miss the obvious in front of you. It is never about the talent but it is about integrating the talent into the best possible team result. Individual results do not matter.
 
I have no problem with players from dynasties being well represented here. I mean - they should be?

the more games you play, the more you have a chance at having strong performances, and the more it will impact your stature as a playoff player. Even if we analyze all playoff performances by completely removing stanley cup rings from the equation, those guys still have so many more games played at a high level than their peers, which helps their ranking.

I'm normally one to argue peak > longevity, but only up to a certain extent. The longevity at a high level of many of players on dynasties (Kurri, Lemaire, Savard) should count and help them place well.

Random easy example. I'm sure Jagr is a better playoff player than Kurri, in the sense that he's simply such a better "player" than Kurri after all in terms of talent level. But the fact that Kurri played on a dynasty and performed so well will (and should) easily contribute to ranking Kurri higher.
 
  • Like
Reactions: buffalowing88
Kurri

bobholly39 said:
I have no problem with players from dynasties being well represented here. I mean - they should be?

the more games you play, the more you have a chance at having strong performances, and the more it will impact your stature as a playoff player. Even if we analyze all playoff performances by completely removing stanley cup rings from the equation, those guys still have so many more games played at a high level than their peers, which helps their ranking.

I'm normally one to argue peak > longevity, but only up to a certain extent. The longevity at a high level of many of players on dynasties (Kurri, Lemaire, Savard) should count and help them place well.

Random easy example. I'm sure Jagr is a better playoff player than Kurri, in the sense that he's simply such a better "player" than Kurri after all in terms of talent level. But the fact that Kurri played on a dynasty and performed so well will (and should) easily contribute to ranking Kurri higher.
Click to expand...

Kurri mattered,made a differnce. Jagr just a bump in the road. Helpful at times but rarely. Or if a team could not win with Jagr's offensive help then they did not matter.
 
I don't know if I'm more concerned to see people voting Brodeur on the list or that Bernie Parent isn't even on the list let alone near the top.

Was this exercise sponsored by Jagermeister? I remember being at Woodstock 94, I was 8, and the only sober person there.
 
seventieslord said:
given the wide range of opinions on Brodeur, I can't tell if your point is that he should have been much higher than Stevens, or much lower.
Click to expand...

Lower for me.

Definitely much much lower.

This is a playoff performer thread, not a regular season stat pile on top of a stacked defense thread. Stevens on the other hand, I'd move up a few notches.

One would be there without the other. Brodeur would not be there without Stevens.

Just before he went to live at the nursing home, John Vanbiesbrouck proved exactly how beneficial that Stevens-led Devils team was to a goalie.
 
Last edited:
CHGoalie27 said:
I don't know if I'm more concerned to see people voting Brodeur on the list or that Bernie Parent isn't even on the list let alone near the top.

Was this exercise sponsored by Jagermeister? I remember being at Woodstock 94, I was 8, and the only sober person there.
Click to expand...

Parent is available for voting in Round 8. Feel free to go into the discussion thread and make your case for him.
 
CHGoalie27 said:
Lower for me.

Definitely much much lower.

This is a playoff performer thread, not a regular season stat pile on top of a stacked defense thread. Stevens on the other hand, I'd move up a few notches.

One would be there without the other. Brodeur would not be there without Stevens.

Just before he went to live at the nursing home, John Vanbiesbrouck proved exactly how beneficial that Stevens-led Devils team was to a goalie.
Click to expand...

Not to be off topic, but you can't seriously say this here and support Tim Thomas going to the HOF in another thread... [Mod]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
When was the last time Forsberg was "underrated" by anyone...? 1996? That's the absolute dead last thing he is on this domain... :laugh:
 
I think every key player from those Detroit and Colorado teams, minus Roy and Bourque, are overrated on hfboards (irrelevent to this project).Yes, that includes Sakic and Yzerman, whom many people would rank higher than they deserve if you asked the main board.
 
What I'm confused about is why Crosby is #27 and why Malkin isn't even up for discussion or voting for the last round, when they have had very similar playoff careers. I think Crosby's been slightly better but not by much.
 
Sonic Disturbance said:
What I'm confused about is why Crosby is #27 and why Malkin isn't even up for discussion or voting for the last round, when they have had very similar playoff careers. I think Crosby's been slightly better but not by much.
Click to expand...

Me neither.

The best playoff performers since the lockout are Malkin, Crosby, Kane and Zetterberg. Not that I'm involved in this project so my opinion doesn't really matter but I have them all 4 pretty close but in the 45-60 range. Heck, I might leave them all out or all in.
 
Sonic Disturbance said:
What I'm confused about is why Crosby is #27 and why Malkin isn't even up for discussion or voting for the last round, when they have had very similar playoff careers. I think Crosby's been slightly better but not by much.
Click to expand...

Iceman said:
Me neither.

The best playoff performers since the lockout are Malkin, Crosby, Kane and Zetterberg. Not that I'm involved in this project so my opinion doesn't really matter but I have them all 4 pretty close but in the 45-60 range. Heck, I might leave them all out or all in.
Click to expand...

Me too. These are my 4 forwards of choice too, since the lockout, with Crosby currently in pole position.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom