Players that should have Won the Conn Smythe?

[Big Phil]

I remember Mario Lemieux saying in 1992 he actually thought Barrasso should have won the Conn Smythe.

Not saying Barrasso stood out ala other Penguins (i.e. Recchi/Stevens in 1991), but given how he came up big in the games they had to win (down 3-1 and 2-1 to WSH/NYR, respectively)..... would have been an interesting possibility.

I know the Mario quote about Barrasso in 1992 gets a lot of miles. I guess it should. He was clearly #2 on the pecking order that year. But this was Mario's team. 34 points in 15 games is going to get you the Conn Smythe. Imagine if Graves hadn't slashed him causing him to miss those games? I think people forget this, but even as Mario is raising the Cup in 1992 he has a cast (or a tensor bandage) on his wrist. In the first three rounds he missed a game in each of them:

Round 1 - 1
Round 2 - 4
Round 3 - 1

He missed 6 games and while Jagr and Francis deserve a lot of credit as well for helping them get past the Rangers the truth is he dominated in every round (other than Rangers when he was hurt). 15 points in 6 games vs. Washington. A 6 and 5 point performance. 8 points in three games vs. Boston (this is the series where he turned Bourque inside out on a breakaway). Then 7 points in 4 games in the final. He was as unstoppable as we've ever seen him, and he wasn't even healthy. He earned the Smythe.

Personally I agree him and datsyuk were the two biggest snubs than what happened the year after. They gave it to a Russian Malkin

I'm not sure what the issue was. That postseason had Zetterberg written all over it in 2008. Yes, Osgood came into play for Hasek but even watching the final in 2008 there was no pressure from Pittsburgh the first two games. It was frustrating to watch. I think we all could have gotten a shutout as well both games. So Osgood was not robbed at all in 2008. Not sure he was any better than 4th on that team.

2009? Malkin deserved that for sure. There has always been the debate about Osgood winning it in 2009 (or Zetterberg) had the Wings won, but this was a pretty huge year for Malkin, 36 points is 36 points. Played well in the final too when the Wings put all of their eggs in one basket and smothered Crosby.

 

[thedoughboy]

Keith in '13

Crawford should have won it. Hell I would have voted bickell over kane TBH

I thought Dave Bolland should have won it in 09-10....he played an amazing all around game the entire playoffs.

Toews earned that smythe to me. Played as well as Bolland all around and was much more productive on offense.

Keith or Crawford should have won over Kane in 2013, Kane left a strong final impression but was never factor at all for the Hawks until Game 7 WCF.

Add in Bickell as well for me.

2013--Crawford

Agreed.

 

[Giotrapani91]

I know the Mario quote about Barrasso in 1992 gets a lot of miles. I guess it should. He was clearly #2 on the pecking order that year. But this was Mario's team. 34 points in 15 games is going to get you the Conn Smythe. Imagine if Graves hadn't slashed him causing him to miss those games? I think people forget this, but even as Mario is raising the Cup in 1992 he has a cast (or a tensor bandage) on his wrist. In the first three rounds he missed a game in each of them:

Round 1 - 1
Round 2 - 4
Round 3 - 1

He missed 6 games and while Jagr and Francis deserve a lot of credit as well for helping them get past the Rangers the truth is he dominated in every round (other than Rangers when he was hurt). 15 points in 6 games vs. Washington. A 6 and 5 point performance. 8 points in three games vs. Boston (this is the series where he turned Bourque inside out on a breakaway). Then 7 points in 4 games in the final. He was as unstoppable as we've ever seen him, and he wasn't even healthy. He earned the Smythe.





I'm not sure what the issue was. That postseason had Zetterberg written all over it in 2008. Yes, Osgood came into play for Hasek but even watching the final in 2008 there was no pressure from Pittsburgh the first two games. It was frustrating to watch. I think we all could have gotten a shutout as well both games. So Osgood was not robbed at all in 2008. Not sure he was any better than 4th on that team.

2009? Malkin deserved that for sure. There has always been the debate about Osgood winning it in 2009 (or Zetterberg) had the Wings won, but this was a pretty huge year for Malkin, 36 points is 36 points. Played well in the final too when the Wings put all of their eggs in one basket and smothered Crosby.

my dad said cleary could've won it in 09 his numbers were that good.

 

[Johnny Engine]

my dad said cleary could've won it in 09 his numbers were that good.

The media on Newfoundland was certainly pushing that angle, but I can't imagine a case for him being any more than the 3rd choice on the Red Wings after Z and Osgood, with many other guys in the mix after that.

 

[seventieslord]

The media on Newfoundland was certainly pushing that angle, but I can't imagine a case for him being any more than the 3rd choice on the Red Wings after Z and Osgood, with many other guys in the mix after that.

Yes, in a best case scenario. But realistically, he wasn't more impactful than Osgood, the top three defensemen, or Zetterberg/Franzen/Hossa/Filppula. Even Datsyuk in his 16 games with brutal offensive numbers (by his standards) did more to get them to game 7 of the finals.

...AND they were the losing team, so he might not have even been a popular choice if writers could put 15 names on their ballots.

 

[Cursed Lemon]

Why are you judging Mike Vernon based on his regular season? He may have had an .899 in the regular season, but he had a .927 in the playoffs against great offensive teams (in a year in which a goaltender who was anything but a "good Canadian boy" won the Hart Trophy with a .930), winning more games in the playoffs than he did in the regular season. Even if you think he didn't face enough shots most nights to warrant an MVP award, he crushed it in games in which he faced 25+ shots with a .946 over 8 victories and a single loss.

What exactly is Fedorov's slam-dunk MVP argument, other than being more popular than Mike Vernon? He was practically a non-factor against St. Louis, recording just 2 assists and a minus-2 over 6 games.

Vernon faced the least shots per game of any starting goalie in the playoffs. There's no question that the team in front of him took the pressure off of him in a big way.

 

[Johnny Engine]

Yes, in a best case scenario. But realistically, he wasn't more impactful than Osgood, the top three defensemen, or Zetterberg/Franzen/Hossa/Filppula. Even Datsyuk in his 16 games with brutal offensive numbers (by his standards) did more to get them to game 7 of the finals.

...AND they were the losing team, so he might not have even been a popular choice if writers could put 15 names on their ballots.

Yes of course. Really, it was more of a thing where, about halfway through the playoffs, people start noticing that their guy is a couple of points out of the team scoring lead, and with a couple of great games could put himself in position for a surprise win. But once the playoffs were over, I didn't hear a peep about it until Giotrapani brought it up just then.

I don't know how other areas of Canada treat their hockey players, but here, our local daily has an exhaustive list of every Newfoundlander playing in the pros, major junior, Europe, and university hockey, and their up to date stats. They also completely lost their minds when Mindy Kaling pronounced the name of the island correctly on TV. So, a pretty easily impressed media, a lot of the time.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Vernon faced the least shots per game of any starting goalie in the playoffs. There's no question that the team in front of him took the pressure off of him in a big way.

We're talking about a team that probably would have won had they lost any one individual player. But I don't think it's a coincidence that the Conn Smythe winner was the player dropping .950s every other night whether it be 20 shots or 30.

St. Louis, Anaheim, and Colorado each got him good once, which is why his cumulative number is a .927 instead of a .943, but spreading out three bad games across three rounds largely mitigates the damage caused by an off-night for a goaltender. That was a steady, in-control performance for two months - that also happened to be statistically impressive as hell in 1997 (again, the playoff leaders had a .932, while the Hart Trophy winner had a .930).

So the whole Canadian and Russian thing? I don't buy it, and I think it's the sort of tall tale that needs to be called out every time it comes up. Fedorov was good, but it wasn't some exceptional performance that requires us to assume the worst of the voters' intentions. It wasn't the 1995 playoffs; he was out-scored on a raw and per-game level by several other players by big margins in 1997.

If Fedorov had won the Conn Smythe in 1997, people would be talking about him and Claude Lemieux exchanging trophies.

 

[JaegerDice]

Keith in '13

Crawford should have got the Conn Smythe in 2013, not Keith.

Keith has an argument for 2010, though I think Toews was a fine choice.

 

[Big Phil]

Crawford should have got the Conn Smythe in 2013, not Keith.

Keith has an argument for 2010, though I think Toews was a fine choice.

Let's face it, Keith could have won it all three years, 2010, 2013 and the year he did win it in 2015. He's a bit like Potvin was to the Islanders, the glue, and a Conn Smythe threat constantly.

This is how it goes, the Hawks' big three each won a Conn Smythe. Toews in 2010, Kane in 2013 and Keith in 2015. The only one no one has a problem with is Keith in 2015. That's as unanimous as it gets. However there is the argument that Keith could have won 3, Kane could have won two and Toews wins a maximum of one. That's about how it goes. Crawford possibly winning in 2013 is basically the only other name thrown around regularly.

 

[Big Phil]

Gainey and Robinson were good but Lafleur was the key to the cup that year, with his 3 points in game 7 of the semi finals game vs Bruins. (too many men game) where he tied it with about a minute left in the 3rd period. That's a legendary performance and hence deserving of the conn smythe I would say. He didn't produce much in the finals but habs easily beat the rangers anyway. Still, he lead the playoffs in points with 23 in 15 games and had 11 goals.

I think if Lafleur even has a decent final he wins the Conn Smythe. For whatever reason he seemed to drain everything into the Boston series. It sort of reminds me of Messier in 1990. Going into the final you might have just thought Messier wins the Conn Smythe if the Oilers win and you may have been right. Then a normal Cup final coupled with a stellar one by Ranford and they gave the Smythe to the latter. This is what happened with Lafleur in 1979 I think. Gainey was a defensive gem, and he had 16 points that spring.

 

[Cursed Lemon]

We're talking about a team that probably would have won had they lost any one individual player. But I don't think it's a coincidence that the Conn Smythe winner was the player dropping .950s every other night whether it be 20 shots or 30.

St. Louis, Anaheim, and Colorado each got him good once, which is why his cumulative number is a .927 instead of a .943, but spreading out three bad games across three rounds largely mitigates the damage caused by an off-night for a goaltender. That was a steady, in-control performance for two months - that also happened to be statistically impressive as hell in 1997 (again, the playoff leaders had a .932, while the Hart Trophy winner had a .930).

You and I both know that a team with a strong defense is not about necessarily compressing shot attempts, but about compressing quality chances. Look at the finals - Lindros was a complete non-factor. That wasn't because Vernon was stoning him, it was because Lidstrom and Konstantinov were neutralizing him completely.

 

[quoipourquoi]

You and I both know that a team with a strong defense is not about necessarily compressing shot attempts, but about compressing quality chances. Look at the finals - Lindros was a complete non-factor. That wasn't because Vernon was stoning him, it was because Lidstrom and Konstantinov were neutralizing him completely.

Neither of those players are Sergei Fedorov. I'm still not seeing this as anti-Russian. It's one thing to disagree with an award, but another to suspect the worst of the voters.

 

[Cursed Lemon]

I'm not on the anti-Russian conspiracy wagon.

 

[quoipourquoi]

I'm not on the anti-Russian conspiracy wagon.

But my whole counter-argument was against GMR's assertion that nationality was the reason Vernon won - and that because no one on the Red Wings was necessarily essential, we shouldn't assume anti-Russian sentiment.

I mean, I can gather that you don't think Mike Vernon should have the 1997 Conn Smythe, but you haven't exactly offered up a reason why any specific individual player should have.

But since you don't believe in an anti-Russian conspiracy, I don't know that we necessarily disagree.

 

[Ofuzz]

I'm just going to throw a name out there that hasn't mentioned yet (even though I'm on the fence with it)...
I thought in 1994, when Trevor Linden potted the pair in Game #7 versus the Rangers, he may have done enough to get the trophy win or lose. I was fine with the winning choice in the end but Linden was a game changer for the Canucks that playoff season.

 

[The Panther]

I'm just going to throw a name out there that hasn't mentioned yet (even though I'm on the fence with it)...
I thought in 1994, when Trevor Linden potted the pair in Game #7 versus the Rangers, he may have done enough to get the trophy win or lose. I was fine with the winning choice in the end but Linden was a game changer for the Canucks that playoff season.

Over Bure??

 

[Giotrapani91]

Here's just some for me that can irk me sometimes:

Potvin could/should have won in '81 (although Goring did have a remarkable playoff)

Gretzky in '84 (you have to wonder how Messier was picked over him. Maybe the voting was done before the final game when Gretzky scored two key goals? Even though Gretzky was better)

Sakic in '01 - he carried the team when Forsberg went down. Roy was unspectacular in the first two rounds

Yzerman in '02 - Arguably you could say they intentionally gave it to a European I can remember Cherry saying afterwards that they "have to accomodate everyone" just thought Yzerman explemplified everything a leader should be that year

Staal in '06, or BrindAmour

Giguere, Getzlaf, Selanne or Pronger were all better than Niedermayer in '07


BTW could all of the homers quit it with the whining about Giguere in '03? I have never seen a playoff year where a person had the Smythe wrapped up after three rounds regardless of what he did in the finals. I have said before that unless Giguere crapped the bed in the finals he would win it, win or lose. Remember, he helped stretch it to a 7 game series. The '03 Ducks rode his coattails the whole playoffs.

I have to agree with you on Sakic in 2001 you could make a case for drury, hejduk, or Blake.

 

[Doctor No]

I'm just going to throw a name out there that hasn't mentioned yet (even though I'm on the fence with it)...
I thought in 1994, when Trevor Linden potted the pair in Game #7 versus the Rangers, he may have done enough to get the trophy win or lose. I was fine with the winning choice in the end but Linden was a game changer for the Canucks that playoff season.

Over Bure??

I think it would have been McLean or Linden, either over Bure.

 

[quoipourquoi]

I think it would have been McLean or Linden, either over Bure.

At some point, I'll probably run the adjusted numbers to show off playoff runs with a freebie performance for guys like McLean who have a single game weighing down their four-round statistic to an incredible extent.

 

[Cursed Lemon]

But my whole counter-argument was against GMR's assertion that nationality was the reason Vernon won - and that because no one on the Red Wings was necessarily essential, we shouldn't assume anti-Russian sentiment.

I mean, I can gather that you don't think Mike Vernon should have the 1997 Conn Smythe, but you haven't exactly offered up a reason why any specific individual player should have.

But since you don't believe in an anti-Russian conspiracy, I don't know that we necessarily disagree.

1997 was absolutely a "systems win" for the Red Wings, as you say. Nobody necessarily had a stand-out performance that was comparable to any other nearby Smythe run. I think it's clear, though, that Fedorov was Detroit's most potent offensive asset, and as I don't think Vernon had all that much to do (speaking relatively), I just think that Fedorov should've gotten it.

In all reality, had Lindros not had such a bad showing in the finals, he probably would've won it despite the Detroit victory.

 

[Doctor No]

At some point, I'll probably run the adjusted numbers to show off playoff runs with a freebie performance for guys like McLean who have a single game weighing down their four-round statistic to an incredible extent.

I'd like to see that.

One way that I look for that is by looking at percentage of games (shots weighted) that are below average, average, and above average.

Here's McLean 1994, compared with other CS wins nearby:

Hextall 1987: 18%/41%/42%
Ranford 1990: 12%/45%/43%
Roy 1993: 0%/34%/66%
McLean 1994: 10%/38%/51%
Vernon 1997: 12%/37%/51%
Roy 2001: 16%/35%/49%
Giguere 2003: 15%/26%/59%

By this look, McLean stacks up pretty nicely (and by nearly any look, Roy 1993 was a freak of nature).

So does Vernon 1997, speaking to the above.

 

[Eisen]

Lehtinen? No

Modano I wouldn't necessarily say SHOULD have (though it could be argued) but definitely COULD have.

If I were to pick another Stars player who SHOULD have, it'd probably be Eddie Belfour.

How about Zubov? I remember he played great and got a whole lot of ice time. Haven't watched that series in quite some time

 

[No Fun Shogun]

Crawford in '13.

 

[Giotrapani91]

Crawford in '13.

Bryan Bickel was also snubbed.