HOH Top 40 Stanley Cup Playoff Performers of All Time

[Canadiens1958]

Usual ....

I never said they had exclusive rights or that the NHL gave them first crack, but the fact remains Frank Selke (who was a brilliant hockey man) built up a minor league (or feeder system) empire in the hottest hockey hot bed at the time were discussing (Quebec)

http://thehockeywriters.com/lies-their-fathers-told-them/

What I find funny is that article basically tries to debunk the notion that Montreal had a major advantage in recruiting hockey talent (in the 40's, 50's and early 60's before the NHL draft was established) but more or less confirms it anyway:



Plenty of exceptions? He goes on to name one from the 40's and a few others later on that came along in the 60's onward. Hardly "plenty".

Montreal OWNED hockey and hockey development in large part because of money. And we're talking the most influential years that saw them bring in a ridiculous number of Quebec provincial players in the 40's, 50's, and early 60's. There was no dispersal draft to even out the talent. There was no expansion to "water down" the teams. No salary cap.

Harvey - Quebec - top 10 player ever
Richard - Quebec - borderline top 10 player ever (he's 10th in my book)
Beliveau - Quebec - borderline top 10 player ever (i have him in there at 7)
Plante - Quebec - borderline top 15 player ever (i have him just outside)
Geoffrion - Quebec - top 50 player of all time
H Richard - Quebec - top 75 player of all time
Moore - Quebec - top 75 player of all time

Then you can go on and on with other guys like Jacques Laperriere, JC Tremblay, Butch Bouchard, Yvan Cournoyer, etc.

Those are just the top dogs that hailed from Quebec and were brought up anywhere from the early 40's through the end of the 50's.




This very forum rated Shore higher in both the HoH top 100 and top 70 exercises. He gets drafted higher than Morenz ever single year in the ATD by very knowledgeable folks.

Here's an incredible bio done by Dreakmur (very respected HoH and ATD member) over in the ATD bio master thread:
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=66642795&postcount=270

And once again, Shore dominated over more seasons, was MVP more times, was recognized as one of the best players at his position more than Morenz.





Isn't it interesting that Harvey didn't start getting recognized for AS nods and Norris wins until the early and mid 50's when the next wave of superstars were coming into their own? Hmmmm.

In 51, a 34 year old Lach lead the team in points, by A LOT. Geoffrion, in his first full season at age 20, was 2nd. Rocket wasn't yet a grizzled old man at 30. Aging, but hardly in the twilight at that point. You had guys like Floyd Curry and Bert Olmstead in their mid 20's, and very important secondary cogs. Ken Mosdell as well.

By 54-55, Beliveau as a full fledged star, Maurice Richard was still an elite scorer. You had an elite netminder in Plante.

Then by the late 50's guys like Dickie Moore were elite, as were Beliveau, Boom Boom, etc. Henri Richard was coming into his own. You had incredible secondary stars like Tom Johnson, Marcel Bonin, Ralph Backstrom, Claude Provost, Don Marshall, Jean Guy Talbot, etc, etc. Christ, its basically a damn all star team.





OK. Let me put it like this.

In the O6 era (42 to 67) you had 3 peat (or greater) champions with the Leafs from 47 to 49. Montreal 5 times in a row from 56 to 60. And then again the Leafs from 62 to 64. Plus a couple of back to back winners in there as well.

Teams had to win 8 games vs 15 games for a Cup victory by the 1980's. Today that number stands at 16. The seasons are longer, and the playoff gauntlet is more grueling simply because by the end of the year you're looking at champions getting to or exceeding 100 games played.

Since the end of the Oilers dynasty (which never 3 peated btw), you've had no 3 peat, only back to back champions 3 times (Pens twice and Red Wings once) and the salary cap era just crowned its first back to back champion this past June.

If that doesn't tell you it's much harder to win Championships today, and really over the past 30 years in general, i don't what else there is to say.

Very poor article, loaded with nonsense. Ratelle and Gilbert families had moved to Montreal during WWII or soon thereafter. Youngsters played their hockey in Montreal. Same zone as I did,they started about 10 years earlier.

Short version. Selke and Conn Smythe built the Toronto feeder system. Had a blowout and Selke was hired in Montreal, a team that had survived going under at least three times since 1934. Montreal Forum was under used unlike Maple Leaf Gardens. Selke had to fill the Forum and build the feeder system. No money to do both so he ran the initial teams out of the Forum. Early fifties ran into trouble with the C.A.H.A. for importing out of province players for his junior teams - see Ron Attwell case. Search on this forum.

Using Doug Harvey as an example. Harvey played center thru high school, except the end of his senior year. With WWII service his rise from center to AS defenceman is faster than that of Larry Robinson, who also was a center initially. Both took six seasons post military or post junior to reach All-Star status. Robinson in a diluted era with the WHA.

Doug Harvey went to and played for the original West Hill High School in NDG part of the western zone, where Sam Pollock got his start. Yet amongst his 1940s contemporaries - Ken Mosdell, Reg Sinclair, Fleming Mackell, Jim Morrison did not sign with the Canadiens.Harvey's brother Howie signed with the Leafs going to St. Mike's. The "Gunk" ended his career. So other teams signed players. Difference was that in the French schools English was not or poorly taught so only the English players made it if they went out of province.The Catholic Brothers teaching in the Catholic schools throughou Quebec and Canada were the Leafs main pipeline getting players into St. Mike's.

BTW - dispersal draft is held only when a franchise folds. Nothing to do with the topic at hand. Surprised that you did not know this.

Shore and Morenz. You cite opinions in a fantasy draft and by people who never saw them play. This is supposed to trump the CP POLL of sportswriters who saw them played or followed their careers? Lets get one thing straight. The ATD generates a fair amount of research, big plus. But it is fantasy not reality based and the rules of the fantasy favour Shore because he fits an era niche, is a RHS d-man while Morenz is part of many forwards from the thirties. Self-fulfilling prophecy.

Yes the old fallacy about winning 8 games vs 15 or 16. Does not apply for Tom Brady and the Belichick. Point is very important because in the NFL one playoff loss and the season is done.

8 wins, true but you forget that to get the 8 wins a teams could only lose at most 6 times against one of the top four teams. As things stand since the 16 win era. a team will never play the top four teams, yet to get 16 playing mainly teams in the #5 to 16 slots a team can accumulate up to 12 loses, four 4-3 series. playoff sports the key is not to lose. So the NHL is more foregiving of loses in the modern era.

Curry, Mosdell, Reay, Olmstead,Dawes, Lowe from the 1951 playoff team were all rejected by their initial NHL team. Curry like Red Kelly came up thru the Leafs feeder system but was not signed. Rest came in trades.

Salary Cap era. 1930s had a salary cap and the Red Wings also won two in a row, 1936 and 1937, while the Leafs went to the final 7 out of 9 seasons winning only once.

You research and sources are like Swiss Cheese.

 

[ImporterExporter]

I don't get your obsession about Crosby and his current season. Who cares? I agree that if this list was done today Crosby would go quite a bit higher. Conn Smythes count. But all of these all time lists that include active players always have to be taken with a grain of salt in the sense that the active player in question is likely to still add to his accolades and climb the rankings.

Roy vs Gretzky. I disagree. I love Roy and can see an argument maybe but Gretzky in playoffs is ridiculous. You almost make it sound like he's unworthy - and he's not

Messier vs Lemieux (a big 4 you mention in another reply). Lemieux's best 2 playoff runs imo are substantially better than any of Messiers and among the 2 greatest individual runs of all time. Messier does not have that peak.

Sakic has some incredible numbers for overtime and clutch scoring. Go back and read some of the first 2 threads he looks really great in that regards. I myself was quite high on Yzerman at first too but throughout the project in comparison with others I soured a bit more on him.

I'm not obsessed. Just pointing out the flaw in doing rankings where the exercise starts mid/late season thus active players (who are already at a disadvantage) don't get the benefit of the still not completed season. So things like Cups, Conn Smythe's, Hart's, Norris', etc aren't going to come into play, which could all increase an active players standing.

Had round 1 (and subsequent rounds) of voting started directly after the season ended (June 12th), I would certainly think 87 comes up for discussion at the same time as Forsberg and Sakic did at a minimum. Not being omitted on many peoples top 40 initial ballots (public record) as it was. There is no way the best playoff performer of this generation ends up in the low 20's with back to back Smythe's to his name, not to mention multiple other significant years.

I don't know how you get that I'm in any way knocking Gretzky by my initial post. I flat out said his numbers were unreal across the board (just as they are in the regular season). My contention is that Roy dominated just as much in postseason play, across a wider time frame (including incredibly high scoring vs dead puck scoring) and did so on teams that were far less talented than the ones Gretzky won on. Gretzky after Edmonton, never won a Cup. You can go as deep as you want as to why, but the fact remains his dominance was confined to a much smaller time frame.

That's why I bring up Messier and his ability to lead teams that Gretzky wasn't a part of. And he did it twice!

People overrate overtime scoring. And why? It makes up such a small % of the games Sakic (and any player with a full career's worth of postseason games) played. Period.

Joe Sakic above guys like Lafleur, Bossy, Nighbor, Robinson, Lidstrom, and a few others is a joke. I'm sorry. And i friggin' LOVE Joe Sakic. The Avs were my 2nd favorite team in his era, and the team I'd try and see as much as possible especially once the Penguins decided to be a dumpster fire at the ownership and GM level. Sakic deserves a place on the list in the OP but not at 12. He has fewer Cups, Conn Smythes and no more significant runs than Crosby (if we count 16-17) and Sid's resume spans the cap era. Just for reference/comparison sake.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Come On

I'm not obsessed. Just pointing out the flaw in doing rankings where the exercise starts mid/late season thus active players (who are already at a disadvantage) don't get the benefit of the still not completed season. So things like Cups, Conn Smythe's, Hart's, Norris', etc aren't going to come into play, which could all increase an active players standing.

Had round 1 (and subsequent rounds) of voting started directly after the season ended (June 12th), I would certainly think 87 comes up for discussion at the same time as Forsberg and Sakic did at a minimum. Not being omitted on many peoples top 40 initial ballots (public record) as it was. There is no way the best playoff performer of this generation ends up in the low 20's with back to back Smythe's to his name, not to mention multiple other significant years.

I don't know how you get that I'm in any way knocking Gretzky by my initial post. I flat out said his numbers were unreal across the board (just as they are in the regular season). My contention is that Roy dominated just as much in postseason play, across a wider time frame (including incredibly high scoring vs dead puck scoring) and did so on teams that were far less talented than the ones Gretzky won on. Gretzky after Edmonton, never won a Cup. You can go as deep as you want as to why, but the fact remains his dominance was confined to a much smaller time frame.

That's why I bring up Messier and his ability to lead teams that Gretzky wasn't a part of. And he did it twice!

People overrate overtime scoring. And why? It makes up such a small % of the games Sakic (and any player with a full career's worth of postseason games) played. Period.

Joe Sakic above guys like Lafleur, Bossy, Nighbor, Robinson, Lidstrom, and a few others is a joke. I'm sorry. And i friggin' LOVE Joe Sakic. The Avs were my 2nd favorite team in his era, and the team I'd try and see as much as possible especially once the Penguins decided to be a dumpster fire at the ownership and GM level. Sakic deserves a place on the list in the OP but not at 12. He has fewer Cups, Conn Smythes and no more significant runs than Crosby (if we count 16-17) and Sid's resume spans the cap era. Just for reference/comparison sake.

Come on. Getting hard to take your points seriously. So Joe Sakic's overtime scoring is overrated but Patrick Roy's overtime playoff W-L record is not? Classic. Cannot have it both ways.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Come on. Getting hard to take your points seriously. So Joe Sakic's overtime scoring is overrated but Patrick Roy's overtime playoff W-L record is not? Classic. Cannot have it both ways.

What? Where the heck did I bring up Roy's playoff overtime anywhere? Nowhere. You can't find it. Roy's dominance is nearly unparalleled and I don't even need to bring up OT games at all.

Here's a great study proving my point.
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1185967

How many overtime games did Joe Sakic play? Give me the % of games relative to his 172 overall games played. My point is people are overselling overtime games in terms of importance in the discussion about playoff performance. It's a small portion of a much larger pie for crying out loud.

Again, 2 Cups, 1 Smythe. 3 definitively significant runs IMO (96, 97 and 01) and 2 others where he was near that measure (99 and 02).

That ain't 12th best all time. Not even close.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Very poor article, loaded with nonsense. Ratelle and Gilbert families had moved to Montreal during WWII or soon thereafter. Youngsters played their hockey in Montreal. Same zone as I did,they started about 10 years earlier.

Short version. Selke and Conn Smythe built the Toronto feeder system. Had a blowout and Selke was hired in Montreal, a team that had survived going under at least three times since 1934. Montreal Forum was under used unlike Maple Leaf Gardens. Selke had to fill the Forum and build the feeder system. No money to do both so he ran the initial teams out of the Forum. Early fifties ran into trouble with the C.A.H.A. for importing out of province players for his junior teams - see Ron Attwell case. Search on this forum.

Using Doug Harvey as an example. Harvey played center thru high school, except the end of his senior year. With WWII service his rise from center to AS defenceman is faster than that of Larry Robinson, who also was a center initially. Both took six seasons post military or post junior to reach All-Star status. Robinson in a diluted era with the WHA.

Doug Harvey went to and played for the original West Hill High School in NDG part of the western zone, where Sam Pollock got his start. Yet amongst his 1940s contemporaries - Ken Mosdell, Reg Sinclair, Fleming Mackell, Jim Morrison did not sign with the Canadiens.Harvey's brother Howie signed with the Leafs going to St. Mike's. The "Gunk" ended his career. So other teams signed players. Difference was that in the French schools English was not or poorly taught so only the English players made it if they went out of province.The Catholic Brothers teaching in the Catholic schools throughou Quebec and Canada were the Leafs main pipeline getting players into St. Mike's.

BTW - dispersal draft is held only when a franchise folds. Nothing to do with the topic at hand. Surprised that you did not know this.

Shore and Morenz. You cite opinions in a fantasy draft and by people who never saw them play. This is supposed to trump the CP POLL of sportswriters who saw them played or followed their careers? Lets get one thing straight. The ATD generates a fair amount of research, big plus. But it is fantasy not reality based and the rules of the fantasy favour Shore because he fits an era niche, is a RHS d-man while Morenz is part of many forwards from the thirties. Self-fulfilling prophecy.

Yes the old fallacy about winning 8 games vs 15 or 16. Does not apply for Tom Brady and the Belichick. Point is very important because in the NFL one playoff loss and the season is done.

8 wins, true but you forget that to get the 8 wins a teams could only lose at most 6 times against one of the top four teams. As things stand since the 16 win era. a team will never play the top four teams, yet to get 16 playing mainly teams in the #5 to 16 slots a team can accumulate up to 12 loses, four 4-3 series. playoff sports the key is not to lose. So the NHL is more foregiving of loses in the modern era.

Curry, Mosdell, Reay, Olmstead,Dawes, Lowe from the 1951 playoff team were all rejected by their initial NHL team. Curry like Red Kelly came up thru the Leafs feeder system but was not signed. Rest came in trades.

Salary Cap era. 1930s had a salary cap and the Red Wings also won two in a row, 1936 and 1937, while the Leafs went to the final 7 out of 9 seasons winning only once.

You research and sources are like Swiss Cheese.

Why bring up the NFL? Nobody cares and it is completely irrelevant to this discussion. You've managed to try and compare two entirely different sports?! And you think I'm making poor points?

Oh really? You mean like this past year where Pittsburgh had to play the 4th best team in terms of points in the NHL, in the 1st round! (Columbus) and then the Presidents trophy winning team in round 2? (Washington). Next.

Not even remotely the same. Completely different rules, completely different size of the league, not to mention drafting policies, FA rules, age restrictions, etc, etc.

At the end of the day, if it was so difficult to win multiple Cups in a row in the O6 era, why do you not see that kind of dominance anywhere else, post consolidation for such an extended period of time, by multiple teams? Why did it take nearly 20 years to get back to back champions again in today's league?

I'd also like a list of dominant Quebec youngsters who were signed at that age away from Montreal and onto other O6 teams between the early 40's and 1960.

 

[bobholly39]

I'm not obsessed. Just pointing out the flaw in doing rankings where the exercise starts mid/late season thus active players (who are already at a disadvantage) don't get the benefit of the still not completed season. So things like Cups, Conn Smythe's, Hart's, Norris', etc aren't going to come into play, which could all increase an active players standing.

Had round 1 (and subsequent rounds) of voting started directly after the season ended (June 12th), I would certainly think 87 comes up for discussion at the same time as Forsberg and Sakic did at a minimum. Not being omitted on many peoples top 40 initial ballots (public record) as it was. There is no way the best playoff performer of this generation ends up in the low 20's with back to back Smythe's to his name, not to mention multiple other significant years.

I don't know how you get that I'm in any way knocking Gretzky by my initial post. I flat out said his numbers were unreal across the board (just as they are in the regular season). My contention is that Roy dominated just as much in postseason play, across a wider time frame (including incredibly high scoring vs dead puck scoring) and did so on teams that were far less talented than the ones Gretzky won on. Gretzky after Edmonton, never won a Cup. You can go as deep as you want as to why, but the fact remains his dominance was confined to a much smaller time frame.

That's why I bring up Messier and his ability to lead teams that Gretzky wasn't a part of. And he did it twice!

People overrate overtime scoring. And why? It makes up such a small % of the games Sakic (and any player with a full career's worth of postseason games) played. Period.

Joe Sakic above guys like Lafleur, Bossy, Nighbor, Robinson, Lidstrom, and a few others is a joke. I'm sorry. And i friggin' LOVE Joe Sakic. The Avs were my 2nd favorite team in his era, and the team I'd try and see as much as possible especially once the Penguins decided to be a dumpster fire at the ownership and GM level. Sakic deserves a place on the list in the OP but not at 12. He has fewer Cups, Conn Smythes and no more significant runs than Crosby (if we count 16-17) and Sid's resume spans the cap era. Just for reference/comparison sake.

Regarding Crosby you're looking at this wrong.

Making such a list isn't about making it "fair" for current players. When a player retires and their legacy is fully written that's when such rankings are made more "fair". So to me having Crosby or malkin or Kane a few ranks up or down makes no difference. I think you just need to accept that with active players. June 12th would make very little difference too. Give it a good 10 years after a player retires for biases to subside and for more accurate and honest reflection of where a player should rank to be determined.

You have a lot of strong opinions - regarding Gretzky or Messier and others. I wish you had participated more actively during the project as it could have made for fun discussions and possibly offered some different perspectives.

Regarding Gretzky. In a nutshell my response is - everything you say about Roy (and even Messier) is true. But you seem to be under valuing Gretzky quite a bit. Cup counting? Isn't that what you're doing when talking about Gretzky after Edmonton? If Gretzky was a whole different player with a playoff career spanning only after he left Edmonton - he'd still look pretty great. And Gretzky was the main driving force in Edmonton. You can't say "dynasty" without Gretzky. He should get all the credit in the world for oilers success.

And Sakic. It's not just about OT goals. His clutchiness overall in playoff scoring is outstanding. Look at this post here for a breakdown:

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=129483533&postcount=120

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Regarding Crosby you're looking at this wrong.

Making such a list isn't about making it "fair" for current players. When a player retires and their legacy is fully written that's when such rankings are made more "fair". So to me having Crosby or malkin or Kane a few ranks up or down makes no difference. I think you just need to accept that with active players. June 12th would make very little difference too. Give it a good 10 years after a player retires for biases to subside and for more accurate and honest reflection of where a player should rank to be determined.

You have a lot of strong opinions - regarding Gretzky or Messier and others. I wish you had participated more actively during the project as it could have made for fun discussions and possibly offered some different perspectives.

Regarding Gretzky. In a nutshell my response is - everything you say about Roy (and even Messier) is true. But you seem to be under valuing Gretzky quite a bit. Cup counting? Isn't that what you're doing when talking about Gretzky after Edmonton? If Gretzky was a whole different player with a playoff career spanning only after he left Edmonton - he'd still look pretty great. And Gretzky was the main driving force in Edmonton. You can't say "dynasty" without Gretzky. He should get all the credit in the world for oilers success.

And Sakic. It's not just about OT goals. His clutchiness overall in playoff scoring is outstanding. Look at this post here for a breakdown:

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=129483533&postcount=120

The fact that some active players are on the list seems to me a recognition of their greatness exceeding the players that have a full career. There are voters who really have difficulty giving current players their due simply because the picture is not complete. Not to mention we are watching the current players with much greater access to their actual play, not just stats. And even their stats are more scrutinized than ever before.

Agee that it would have been nice to have had ImporterExporter for more of the process. Having had more participants and voters in general would have made for better discussions and rankings.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Default

What? Where the heck did I bring up Roy's playoff overtime anywhere? Nowhere. You can't find it. Roy's dominance is nearly unparalleled and I don't even need to bring up OT games at all.

Here's a great study proving my point.
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1185967

How many overtime games did Joe Sakic play? Give me the % of games relative to his 172 overall games played. My point is people are overselling overtime games in terms of importance in the discussion about playoff performance. It's a small portion of a much larger pie for crying out loud.

Again, 2 Cups, 1 Smythe. 3 definitively significant runs IMO (96, 97 and 01) and 2 others where he was near that measure (99 and 02).

That ain't 12th best all time. Not even close.

Default. Roy without his playoff overtime record is not Roy.

An overtime goal scorer creates a swing of upwards of two games. Not only generating a win but also allowing the advantage of an extra game. Losses after all are to be avoided at all times.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Lets Try Again

Why bring up the NFL? Nobody cares and it is completely irrelevant to this discussion. You've managed to try and compare two entirely different sports?! And you think I'm making poor points?

Oh really? You mean like this past year where Pittsburgh had to play the 4th best team in terms of points in the NHL, in the 1st round! (Columbus) and then the Presidents trophy winning team in round 2? (Washington). Next.

Not even remotely the same. Completely different rules, completely different size of the league, not to mention drafting policies, FA rules, age restrictions, etc, etc.

At the end of the day, if it was so difficult to win multiple Cups in a row in the O6 era, why do you not see that kind of dominance anywhere else, post consolidation for such an extended period of time, by multiple teams? Why did it take nearly 20 years to get back to back champions again in today's league?

I'd also like a list of dominant Quebec youngsters who were signed at that age away from Montreal and onto other O6 teams between the early 40's and 1960.

And Pittsburgh - 3rd, did not have to play the Top 4 teams to win the SC this year, two of the four is not the four. CBL = 4th, Wash = 1st, Ott=12th, Nash = 15th-18th. Effectively Nashville in two other divisions does not make the playoffs. TB a non-playoff team had more wins. Beating Nashville was the equivalent of beating the NYI, same RS record but a non-playoff team. So the last two rounds were easy still, without Letang, Pittsburgh soldiered on and won.

If you actually count properly there is no difference between the post consolidation era and today. Taking the first twenty post consolidation seasons you had two, 2-peat SC Champions - 1930 and 1931 Canadiens and 1936 and 1937 Red Wings, clustered to the front of the era.

Last 20 played seasons, leaving out the no decision season(2005-06) you also have two 2-peat teams, 1997 and 1998 Red Wings and the 2016 and 2017 Penguins but at the two extremes of the era being considered. Same result 2 = 2, different distribution over a twenty season period.

Will ignore the NFL since you cannot handle numbers given that you missed the above basic counting exercise.

As for the Quebec list. Do your own research. Point you in the right direction though. 1950 thru 54, 4 of the 5 Calder winners were from Quebec. Jack Gelineau, Terry Sawchuk, Bernie Geoffrion, Gump Worsley, Camille Henry. Only Geoffrion was signed by the Canadiens. Throw in 1952 2nd AST Hy Buller. 1952 SC Champions had Marcel Pronovost and Larry Zeidel from Quebec.

Good luck.

 

[quoipourquoi]

How many overtime games did Joe Sakic play? Give me the % of games relative to his 172 overall games played. My point is people are overselling overtime games in terms of importance in the discussion about playoff performance. It's a small portion of a much larger pie for crying out loud.

His teams went 25-19 with Sakic scoring 13 points. The next closest player we could find had 7. These are things we covered in the discussion threads.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Some of the initial lists are pretty interesting to say the least

 

[Canadiens1958]

Circumstances

Regarding Crosby you're looking at this wrong.

Making such a list isn't about making it "fair" for current players. When a player retires and their legacy is fully written that's when such rankings are made more "fair". So to me having Crosby or malkin or Kane a few ranks up or down makes no difference. I think you just need to accept that with active players. June 12th would make very little difference too. Give it a good 10 years after a player retires for biases to subside and for more accurate and honest reflection of where a player should rank to be determined.

You have a lot of strong opinions - regarding Gretzky or Messier and others. I wish you had participated more actively during the project as it could have made for fun discussions and possibly offered some different perspectives.

Regarding Gretzky. In a nutshell my response is - everything you say about Roy (and even Messier) is true. But you seem to be under valuing Gretzky quite a bit. Cup counting? Isn't that what you're doing when talking about Gretzky after Edmonton? If Gretzky was a whole different player with a playoff career spanning only after he left Edmonton - he'd still look pretty great. And Gretzky was the main driving force in Edmonton. You can't say "dynasty" without Gretzky. He should get all the credit in the world for oilers success.

And Sakic. It's not just about OT goals. His clutchiness overall in playoff scoring is outstanding. Look at this post here for a breakdown:

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=129483533&postcount=120

Issue is circumstances. The nature of careers is such that some players contribute very young to their team's playoff success - Dave Keon, others do it throughout - Red Kelly, even after changing teams, others like Tim Horton, do it in the second half of their career, while others like Frank Nighbor, do it throughout their career.

Not possible to time such a project perfectly to cover all situations.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Regarding Crosby you're looking at this wrong.

Making such a list isn't about making it "fair" for current players. When a player retires and their legacy is fully written that's when such rankings are made more "fair". So to me having Crosby or malkin or Kane a few ranks up or down makes no difference. I think you just need to accept that with active players. June 12th would make very little difference too. Give it a good 10 years after a player retires for biases to subside and for more accurate and honest reflection of where a player should rank to be determined.

You have a lot of strong opinions - regarding Gretzky or Messier and others. I wish you had participated more actively during the project as it could have made for fun discussions and possibly offered some different perspectives.

Regarding Gretzky. In a nutshell my response is - everything you say about Roy (and even Messier) is true. But you seem to be under valuing Gretzky quite a bit. Cup counting? Isn't that what you're doing when talking about Gretzky after Edmonton? If Gretzky was a whole different player with a playoff career spanning only after he left Edmonton - he'd still look pretty great. And Gretzky was the main driving force in Edmonton. You can't say "dynasty" without Gretzky. He should get all the credit in the world for oilers success.

And Sakic. It's not just about OT goals. His clutchiness overall in playoff scoring is outstanding. Look at this post here for a breakdown:

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=129483533&postcount=120

The fact that some active players are on the list seems to me a recognition of their greatness exceeding the players that have a full career. There are voters who really have difficulty giving current players their due simply because the picture is not complete. Not to mention we are watching the current players with much greater access to their actual play, not just stats. And even their stats are more scrutinized than ever before.

Agee that it would have been nice to have had ImporterExporter for more of the process. Having had more participants and voters in general would have made for better discussions and rankings.

I would have LOVED to have been a part.....(Mod) I can't and won't go into anything more, but missing out on projects like these was tough... (Mod)

 

[ImporterExporter]

Default. Roy without his playoff overtime record is not Roy.

An overtime goal scorer creates a swing of upwards of two games. Not only generating a win but also allowing the advantage of an extra game. Losses after all are to be avoided at all times.

So how many of those goals led directly to series and subsequently Cup wins? OT goals/points are great and certainly should count for something, but it isn't enough to put a guy like Joe Sakic, 12th all time in postseason performers. His other major selling points (leading the postseason in goals, assists, points, Conn Smythe wins, Cup wins, etc aren't THAT strong). But we'll have to agree to disagree I guess.

And Pittsburgh - 3rd, did not have to play the Top 4 teams to win the SC this year, two of the four is not the four. CBL = 4th, Wash = 1st, Ott=12th, Nash = 15th-18th. Effectively Nashville in two other divisions does not make the playoffs. TB a non-playoff team had more wins. Beating Nashville was the equivalent of beating the NYI, same RS record but a non-playoff team. So the last two rounds were easy still, without Letang, Pittsburgh soldiered on and won.

If you actually count properly there is no difference between the post consolidation era and today. Taking the first twenty post consolidation seasons you had two, 2-peat SC Champions - 1930 and 1931 Canadiens and 1936 and 1937 Red Wings, clustered to the front of the era.

Last 20 played seasons, leaving out the no decision season(2005-06) you also have two 2-peat teams, 1997 and 1998 Red Wings and the 2016 and 2017 Penguins but at the two extremes of the era being considered. Same result 2 = 2, different distribution over a twenty season period.

Will ignore the NFL since you cannot handle numbers given that you missed the above basic counting exercise.

As for the Quebec list. Do your own research. Point you in the right direction though. 1950 thru 54, 4 of the 5 Calder winners were from Quebec. Jack Gelineau, Terry Sawchuk, Bernie Geoffrion, Gump Worsley, Camille Henry. Only Geoffrion was signed by the Canadiens. Throw in 1952 2nd AST Hy Buller. 1952 SC Champions had Marcel Pronovost and Larry Zeidel from Quebec.

Good luck.

Of course Pittsburgh, or any team, can't play THE top 4 in today's game. It's nearly mathematically impossible. But stating such, one has to also agree that the O6 era featured only 4 playoff teams so of course it's 1 vs 4, so on and so forth. It's simple semantics, when you only have 4 teams to begin with haha. Just because there are 4 teams, doesn't mean that all 4 teams are equal, and often times there is significant difference in standings between team 1 and team 4 and certainly the 2 teams that didn't qualify. One can readily look at any set of standings from 42 to 67 and see as much.

And how many Cups did NY, Boston, and Chicago take home during the O6 era? I'll save you the trouble. 1. Those 3 teams combined for 1 title over the entire era. You don't think there were countless bottom feeders, just as there are today? The only reason there are less, is because there were far less teams to begin with.

And I will ignore the NFL comparison because it is pointless and has zero merit. It's absolutely ridiculous, IMO, to compare one sport to another on a grand scale (really any scale).

His teams went 25-19 with Sakic scoring 13 points. The next closest player we could find had 7. These are things we covered in the discussion threads.

So he had 44 opportunities and registered a point in just better than 25% of the games. More than I expected, i will admit, but those players with 7 (and less) had how many chances to their own names?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Facts

So how many of those goals led directly to series and subsequently Cup wins? OT goals/points are great and certainly should count for something, but it isn't enough to put a guy like Joe Sakic, 12th all time in postseason performers. His other major selling points (leading the postseason in goals, assists, points, Conn Smythe wins, Cup wins, etc aren't THAT strong). But we'll have to agree to disagree I guess.



Of course Pittsburgh, or any team, can't play THE top 4 in today's game. It's nearly mathematically impossible. But stating such, one has to also agree that the O6 era featured only 4 playoff teams so of course it's 1 vs 4, so on and so forth. It's simple semantics, when you only have 4 teams to begin with haha. Just because there are 4 teams, doesn't mean that all 4 teams are equal, and often times there is significant difference in standings between team 1 and team 4 and certainly the 2 teams that didn't qualify. One can readily look at any set of standings from 42 to 67 and see as much.

And how many Cups did NY, Boston, and Chicago take home during the O6 era? I'll save you the trouble. 1. Those 3 teams combined for 1 title over the entire era. You don't think there were countless bottom feeders, just as there are today? The only reason there are less, is because there were far less teams to begin with.

And I will ignore the NFL comparison because it is pointless and has zero merit. It's absolutely ridiculous, IMO, to compare one sport to another on a grand scale (really any scale).



So he had 44 opportunities and registered a point in just better than 25% of the games. More than I expected, i will admit, but those players with 7 (and less) had how many chances to their own names?

Lets stick to facts and my initial view that you are insufficiently researched. Just proved it in your post. O6 era playoffs were 1 vs 3 and 2 vs 4 not 1 vs 4 and so on and so forth. Cannot get the foundation correct, the rest of your argument is not worth keystrokes.

Inequalities in standings and long stretches without a teams winning are par for the course in any league or sport. Likewise you have teams winning in a disproportionate fashion. Post 1967 expansion Montreal still wins 10 SCs will Edmonton and Pittsburgh win 5 each while 13, quick count, have not won. 1 in 25 your O6 data is better than 0 in 49, 13 winless post expansion teams.

+25% Sakic, and how many players participate in 25% of their teams winning goals? True a much wider brush stroke but one that shows how impressive Sakic's record was. Likewise Roy in playoff OT - how many goalies have a RS winning percentage equal to or better than Roy in playoff OT?

Statistical, probability of winning does not change. Which is the point of cross sport comparisons unless one believes that the odds of flipping a fair coin change with the denomination ($0.01 ......$2.00)

 

[ImporterExporter]

Lets stick to facts and my initial view that you are insufficiently researched. Just proved it in your post. O6 era playoffs were 1 vs 3 and 2 vs 4 not 1 vs 4 and so on and so forth. Cannot get the foundation correct, the rest of your argument is not worth keystrokes.

Inequalities in standings and long stretches without a teams winning are par for the course in any league or sport. Likewise you have teams winning in a disproportionate fashion. Post 1967 expansion Montreal still wins 10 SCs will Edmonton and Pittsburgh win 5 each while 13, quick count, have not won. 1 in 25 your O6 data is better than 0 in 49, 13 winless post expansion teams.

+25% Sakic, and how many players participate in 25% of their teams winning goals? True a much wider brush stroke but one that shows how impressive Sakic's record was. Likewise Roy in playoff OT - how many goalies have a RS winning percentage equal to or better than Roy in playoff OT?

Statistical, probability of winning does not change. Which is the point of cross sport comparisons unless one believes that the odds of flipping a fair coin change with the denomination ($0.01 ......$2.00)

I did mean 1 vs 3, but hit the wrong key as you did with Herb Gardiner's age. I've been around long enough to at least know that fact, i assure you.

How many Cups has Montreal won in the past 30 years though? 2. And they're both 20+ years ago now. They've hardly enjoyed dominance as things became more difficult to win. Hence why you don't have any one team with ridiculously lopsided championship totals, especially following the collapse of the WHA.

Once the league expanded even further following the final collapse of the WHA, and you had things like the NHL entry draft (based solely on reverse order of standings) and the salary cap along with a slew of concrete rules to go with, to more evenly disperse talented prospects based on record, you see a much wider range of teams winning.

You can't be serious in the 1 in 25 vs 0 and 49, with 13 winless teams! You are one of the oldest and most knowledgeable folks here, but this argument terrible and based on Lord knows what logic.

First off, the league expanded multiple times from 67 onward. So not every team existed for 50 years (like the Pens or Flyers).

Are you going to seriously hold San Jose, Ottowa, Florida, Nashville, Columbus, etc to the same standards as original expansion teams, or teams like Buffalo and Washington who came into the fold shortly after 1967? It's absolutely absurd to try and do so.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NHL_franchise_post-season_droughts

The ONLY original expansion member to not have a Cup is St Louis. Isn't it funny though, that an O6 team, the Leafs, last won in 67. AND two others, New York and Montreal are now 20+ years and counting since their last Lord Stanley win!

As to Sakic, I ask again, how many of those OT points led directly to series wins? SC wins? It's great to be "clutch" but it truly only matters a great deal if it ends up propelling you to the promised land. At least IMO.

Besides the OT heroics, Sakic doesn't boast significant accomplishments that outweigh many players ranked below him on this final list.

 

[Canadiens1958]

I See.....

I did mean 1 vs 3, but hit the wrong key as you did with Herb Gardiner's age. I've been around long enough to at least know that fact, i assure you.

How many Cups has Montreal won in the past 30 years though? 2. And they're both 20+ years ago now. They've hardly enjoyed dominance as things became more difficult to win. Hence why you don't have any one team with ridiculously lopsided championship totals, especially following the collapse of the WHA.

Once the league expanded even further following the final collapse of the WHA, and you had things like the NHL entry draft (based solely on reverse order of standings) and the salary cap along with a slew of concrete rules to go with, to more evenly disperse talented prospects based on record, you see a much wider range of teams winning.

You can't be serious in the 1 in 25 vs 0 and 49, with 13 winless teams! You are one of the oldest and most knowledgeable folks here, but this argument terrible and based on Lord knows what logic.

First off, the league expanded multiple times from 67 onward. So not every team existed for 50 years (like the Pens or Flyers).

Are you going to seriously hold San Jose, Ottowa, Florida, Nashville, Columbus, etc to the same standards as original expansion teams, or teams like Buffalo and Washington who came into the fold shortly after 1967? It's absolutely absurd to try and do so.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NHL_franchise_post-season_droughts

The ONLY original expansion member to not have a Cup is St Louis. Isn't it funny though, that an O6 team, the Leafs, last won in 67. AND two others, New York and Montreal are now 20+ years and counting since their last Lord Stanley win!

As to Sakic, I ask again, how many of those OT points led directly to series wins? SC wins? It's great to be "clutch" but it truly only matters a great deal if it ends up propelling you to the promised land. At least IMO.

Besides the OT heroics, Sakic doesn't boast significant accomplishments that outweigh many players ranked below him on this final list.

So suddenly counting matters and is a legit metric.

Flyers and Islanders won multiple consecutive cups within 10 years of joining the league as expansion teams while the Oilers did likewise upon joining from the WHA. Difference between winning and losing is not that great. The age of the team does not factor in.

Missing the point about Sakic and playoff OT. All of his playoff OT goals and assists averted losses while adding a win towards 16. Impossible to unlose a game.

 

[ImporterExporter]

So suddenly counting matters and is a legit metric.

Flyers and Islanders won multiple consecutive cups within 10 years of joining the league as expansion teams while the Oilers did likewise upon joining from the WHA. Difference between winning and losing is not that great. The age of the team does not factor in.

Missing the point about Sakic and playoff OT. All of his playoff OT goals and assists averted losses while adding a win towards 16. Impossible to unlose a game.

You know (and I think other members reading this do as well) where I was/am going.

Yeah the Flyers did win back to back early on. And it's been 43 years since their last win, with a slew of losses in the finals, to be fair.

The age of the team absolutely factors in. If team A has been in the NHL for 50 years and team B, 20, the probability that team A is going to have a better chance of winning a Cup, is certainly greater. You can't hold Nashville to the same standard as Pittsburgh.

I'm aware of your point regarding Sakic, sir. Again, I think it is impressive to say the least. I just don't agree that it is a metric that should be held in some mythic position. Obviously some do. You can score an OT goal in game 1 of round 1, and end up losing that series in x amount of games. How much did it REALLY matter then?

My point is: How many times did Sakic's heroics directly lead his team to the next round and subsequently a title?

His OT goal in 1998 came in a round 1 loss.

He had 2 OT goals in 2004 and guess what? The Avs were out in round 2. Same story in 06 and 08. 2nd round exists despite an OT goal in both years. More of his OT goals came in years that the Avs didn't win the Cup, or actually even make the Conference finals.

All facts.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Not So

You know (and I think other members reading this do as well) where I was/am going.

Yeah the Flyers did win back to back early on. And it's been 43 years since their last win, with a slew of losses in the finals, to be fair.

The age of the team absolutely factors in. If team A has been in the NHL for 50 years and team B, 20, the probability that team A is going to have a better chance of winning a Cup, is certainly greater. You can't hold Nashville to the same standard as Pittsburgh.

I'm aware of your point regarding Sakic, sir. Again, I think it is impressive to say the least. I just don't agree that it is a metric that should be held in some mythic position. Obviously some do. You can score an OT goal in game 1 of round 1, and end up losing that series in x amount of games. How much did it REALLY matter then?

My point is: How many times did Sakic's heroics directly lead his team to the next round and subsequently a title?

His OT goal in 1998 came in a round 1 loss.

He had 2 OT goals in 2004 and guess what? The Avs were out in round 2. Same story in 06 and 08. 2nd round exists despite an OT goal in both years. More of his OT goals came in years that the Avs didn't win the Cup, or actually even make the Conference finals.

All facts.

Not so. Starting fresh has many advantages. Main one being that you do not have a history of "rot" to get rid off. Problem with the Flyers is that they have never completely rid the organization of the Broad Street Bullies mindset. What leads to success eventually also leads to failure.

In all instances Joe Sakic's goals extended the Avs participation in the playoffs which is a key step towards the complete trip. Similar to shutouts, especially in the playoffs. Underrated. No team has ever lost a playof game when their goalie registered a shutout.

 

[Black Gold Extractor]

You know (and I think other members reading this do as well) where I was/am going.

Yeah the Flyers did win back to back early on. And it's been 43 years since their last win, with a slew of losses in the finals, to be fair.

The age of the team absolutely factors in. If team A has been in the NHL for 50 years and team B, 20, the probability that team A is going to have a better chance of winning a Cup, is certainly greater. You can't hold Nashville to the same standard as Pittsburgh.

I'm aware of your point regarding Sakic, sir. Again, I think it is impressive to say the least. I just don't agree that it is a metric that should be held in some mythic position. Obviously some do. You can score an OT goal in game 1 of round 1, and end up losing that series in x amount of games. How much did it REALLY matter then?

My point is: How many times did Sakic's heroics directly lead his team to the next round and subsequently a title?

His OT goal in 1998 came in a round 1 loss.

He had 2 OT goals in 2004 and guess what? The Avs were out in round 2. Same story in 06 and 08. 2nd round exists despite an OT goal in both years. More of his OT goals came in years that the Avs didn't win the Cup, or actually even make the Conference finals.

All facts.

Unfortunately, a lot of playoff heroics (OT or more vanilla variety) go unrewarded. Howe had four playoffs where he led in scoring only to fall short. Hull led in goals three times and points once, leading nowhere in the end. Maruk had 13 points in 5 games and was +5 in 1986 and couldn't drag his team out of the first round. Gretzky and Gilmour in 1993. Bure in 1994. Forsberg in 1999 and 2002. Crosby in 2008. Ovechkin in 2009. Couture in 2016.

Unless the player happens to be named "Jean Beliveau" or "Henri Richard", you're going to find a whole lot more wasted effort than success.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Which is precisely my point. As great as OT heroics are, and matter to a certain degree, if it doesn't lead to the next round, at the very least, and more importantly the Stanely Cup, how much value does it TRULY represent?

Sakic has a bunch of OT goals and obviously a handful of assists to go with them. But at the end of the day, the Avs won 2 Cups on his watch. And those were the only 2 trips he ever made to SCF. Sid Crosby isn't nearly as decorated with OT heroics, but has 4 trips to the finals, and 3 wins (2 Smythe's), before the age of 30. If the ultimate goal is winning Lord Stanley, I'll take the latter.

 

[quoipourquoi]

He had 2 OT goals in 2004 and guess what? The Avs were out in round 2.

I think for many of us, a player who scores all three of his team's goals in back-to-back OT wins to pull them into Game 6 from a 0-3 series deficit is seen in a positive light, even if he isn't winning the Stanley Cup at that particular moment.

 

[Canadiens1958]

At Worst

Which is precisely my point. As great as OT heroics are, and matter to a certain degree, if it doesn't lead to the next round, at the very least, and more importantly the Stanely Cup, how much value does it TRULY represent?

Sakic has a bunch of OT goals and obviously a handful of assists to go with them. But at the end of the day, the Avs won 2 Cups on his watch. And those were the only 2 trips he ever made to SCF. Sid Crosby isn't nearly as decorated with OT heroics, but has 4 trips to the finals, and 3 wins (2 Smythe's), before the age of 30. If the ultimate goal is winning Lord Stanley, I'll take the latter.

At worst an OT goal or assist has 1/16th of the value of winning the SC.

Finally - advancing Crosby. Virtues of being patient.You want extra credit for the game 7, 2 OT goal by Kunitz vs Ottawa in 2017 where Crosby made the key pass. Still not as impressive as Henri Richard's OT and game 7 efforts.

 

[Black Gold Extractor]

Which is precisely my point. As great as OT heroics are, and matter to a certain degree, if it doesn't lead to the next round, at the very least, and more importantly the Stanely Cup, how much value does it TRULY represent?

Sakic has a bunch of OT goals and obviously a handful of assists to go with them. But at the end of the day, the Avs won 2 Cups on his watch. And those were the only 2 trips he ever made to SCF. Sid Crosby isn't nearly as decorated with OT heroics, but has 4 trips to the finals, and 3 wins (2 Smythe's), before the age of 30. If the ultimate goal is winning Lord Stanley, I'll take the latter.

How much does, say, Gretzky's 40 points in 1993 matter? Or Crosby's 27 points in 2008? Or Couture's 30 points in 2016? Why limit wasted heroics to only OT? There's plenty of wasted heroics from periods 1 through 3.

From a point-scoring perspective, Sakic in 1996 had the strongest playoff run that led to a Cup victory since 1992. From a goal-scoring perspective, it was possibly the best since Reggie Leach.

Even from a raw points-per-game comparison, Sakic holds an advantage (1996 and 1997 over Crosby in 2008 and 2009) in peak performance.

In terms of points per game finishes for qualifying post-seasons, with bracketed after age 29:

Gretzky: 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 3, (4, 4, 4, 9)
Lemieux: 1, 1, 2, (2, 6, 8)
Lafleur: 1, 1, 1, 3, 4
Sakic: 1, 1, 7, (2, 2, 9, 9)
Forsberg: 1, 1, 1, 3, 6, 9, (4)
Geoffrion: 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 5, 5
Gilmour: 3, 4, 9, (1, 10)
Crosby: 2, 2, 2, 3, 4
Trottier: 5, 5, 6
Jagr: 1, 1, 3, 6, (1, 3)

It should be noted that the guys Sakic topped in 1996 and 1997 included Mario Lemieux, Wayne Gretzky, Jaromir Jagr, and Eric Lindros.

Given that Crosby's career is only half over, I think that it's reasonable to place Sakic ahead of Crosby even if one wishes to disregard OT performance.

 

[bathdog]

Which is precisely my point. As great as OT heroics are, and matter to a certain degree, if it doesn't lead to the next round, at the very least, and more importantly the Stanely Cup, how much value does it TRULY represent?

Are we evaluating teams or individual players? Hockey is a team sport after all.

Is it safe to assume your opinion is that Crosby has no chance to surpass Beliveau, unless he wins another 5 Cups or so?

Sakic (DPE Avs)...

Reached the Conference finals 6 times. They got bounced 4 times, each time by a top3 West team (DET/DAL):
3 7-game series, 1 6-game series.

The 2 times they advanced to the SCF, they won 2 times, 1 vs a lesser East team (FLA), 1 vs a top3 East team (NJD):
1 7-game series, 1 4-game series.

Crosby (post-lockout Pens)...

Reached the Conference finals 5 times. They got bounced 1 time, each time by a top3 East team (BOS):
1 4-game series.

The 4 times they advanced to the SCF, they won 3 times, 2 vs a lesser West team (SJS/NSH), 1 vs a top3 West team (DET):
1 7-game series, 2 6-game series.

-----

People seemingly can't comprehend that environments have varied for different players through different era's. DPE DET/DAL were better than any team post-lockout, save maybe 08/09 Wings.

Juan Martin del Potro is a terrible tennis player because he's only won one Grand Slam, unfortunately for him, his era includes Nadal, Federer, and Djokovic (45 Grand Slams combined).