Playoff All-Star Teams

[geofff]

Getzlaf and Perry should at least be considered. They carried that team that dominated the first two rounds then lost in 7 to the eventual cup winners, who needed 2 OT wins in the series.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

I just updated the OP on what seems to be the consensus opinions for the last few years. Here's some unresolved ones..

2014
Who of Carter/Gaborik/Williams joins Kopitar as the 2nd/3rd forwards?
Who of McDonagh/Keith joins Doughty as the 2nd D?

2013
Who of Toews/Bickel/Sharp/Hossa/Bergeron/Lucic join Kane and Krejci as the 3rd forward?

 

[Voight]

I just updated the OP on what seems to be the consensus opinions for the last few years. Here's some unresolved ones..

2014
Who of Carter/Gaborik/Williams joins Kopitar as the 2nd/3rd forwards?
Who of McDonagh/Keith joins Doughty as the 2nd D?

2013
Who of Toews/Bickel/Sharp/Hossa/Bergeron/Lucic join Kane and Krejci as the 3rd forward?

2014 - Gaborik & Carter, Keith

2013 - Sharp or Lucic

 

[quoipourquoi]

I'm on board with giving it to Lundqvist, but as far as Holtby is concerned I find it really difficult to select a player from a team that only won 1 round. It may not be entirely fair sometimes, but I think the 4 Conference Finalists are all I'm really willing to consider for these.


EDIT: We also have Halak on the 2010 team

Then why have the rule at all? I mean, if it's "not entirely fair sometimes," there's nothing preventing you from making exceptions, especially in a year where every goaltender who made the Conference Finals took some criticism in these playoffs.

Holtby's 389 saves on 412 shots is a bigger workload than what Mike Vernon had in all four rounds of Detroit's games in 1995 (329/370). When a goalie has a .944 against two teams that tied for 3rd in league scoring, it's an occasion that deserves acknowledgment. And regardless of how few games he played, he's still going to have the noticeably better raw goals prevented numbers than anyone else in these playoffs - not just the better per-game ones.

I can understand leaning towards Lundqvist, who also had a hot start (but against the 6th and 18th best offensive teams), but by the time he had faced the same number of shots Holtby faced through just 13 GP, he was running into those 6-goal games against Tampa Bay.

Holtby is this year's version of 1993's Curtis Joseph; two rounds was enough to make an assessment.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

2014 - Gaborik & Carter, Keith

2013 - Sharp or Lucic

I don't see the argument for Sharp over Bickell if you're going that route. They scored about the same amount...Bickell got to play with Toews/Kane a lot, but Sharp had way more PP time. Factor in Bickell's monster physical game and I give him the edge.

Toews/Hossa are different beasts as they bring tremendous defensive games.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Top 10 Scorers in the 2015 Playoffs - Adjusted to a 200 GA Environment

[table="head;title=list"]Year|Player|PPG|Avg GA|GA-82|Adj PPG
2015 | Ryan Getzlaf | 1.250 | 202.7 | 202.7 | 1.233
2015 | Corey Perry | 1.125 | 202.7 | 202.7 | 1.110
2015 | Jakob Silfverberg | 1.125 | 202.7 | 202.7 | 1.110
2015 | Patrick Kane | 1.000 | 213.0 | 213.0 | 0.939
2015 | Tyler Johnson | 0.885 | 198.4 | 198.4 | 0.892
2015 | Jonathan Toews | 0.913 | 213.0 | 213.0 | 0.857
2015 | Duncan Keith | 0.913 | 213.0 | 213.0 | 0.857
2015 | Nikita Kucherov | 0.846 | 198.4 | 198.4 | 0.853
2015 | Alex Killorn | 0.692 | 198.4 | 198.4 | 0.698
2015 | Steven Stamkos | 0.692 | 198.4 | 198.4 | 0.698
[/table]


Close Comparisons

[table="head;title=list"]Year|Player|PPG|Avg GA|GA-82|Adj PPG
1988 | Mark Messier | 1.789 | 284.4 | 291.5 | 1.227
2004 | Martin St. Louis | 1.044 | 189.2 | 189.2 | 1.103
2001 | Milan Hejduk | 1.000 | 212.5 | 212.5 | 0.941
2004 | Jarome Iginla | 0.846 | 189.8 | 189.8 | 0.892
2006 | Cory Stillman | 1.040 | 242.3 | 242.3 | 0.859
2011 | Henrik Sedin | 0.880 | 206.8 | 206.8 | 0.851
1982 | Denis Potvin | 1.105 | 318.2 | 326.1 | 0.678
[/table]

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I just updated the OP on what seems to be the consensus opinions for the last few years. Here's some unresolved ones..

2014
Who of Carter/Gaborik/Williams joins Kopitar as the 2nd/3rd forwards?
Who of McDonagh/Keith joins Doughty as the 2nd D?

2013
Who of Toews/Bickel/Sharp/Hossa/Bergeron/Lucic join Kane and Krejci as the 3rd forward?

2014 - you have to include the Conn Smythe winner. You just have to. And McDonagh was easily the 2nd most important player on the finalist.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I personally don't include Williams in 2014...he got the story book, but he was not nearly as net impactful as some of the others mentioned. Who play better defensively and, most pointedly, managed the puck better. Williams turned the puck over quite a bit more than those other guys throughout that playoffs. I respect that he scored clutch goals and all, and he wasn't garbage or anything certainly, far from it...but we're talking about the three best forwards in those Stanley Cup Playoffs, Williams just doesn't quite make that cut...despite the story/stat-driven media's take...

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Getzlaf and Perry should at least be considered. They carried that team that dominated the first two rounds then lost in 7 to the eventual cup winners, who needed 2 OT wins in the series.

And the reason they lost to the eventual Cup winners instead of being the Cup winners themselves is because Toews and Kane were just a little bit better and got the job done. I don't think you can take either of the Ducks over the two Hawks for this reason.

 

[quoipourquoi]

And the reason they lost to the eventual Cup winners instead of being the Cup winners themselves is because Toews and Kane were just a little bit better and got the job done. I don't think you can take either of the Ducks over the two Hawks for this reason.

That seems like an oversimplification. I think Andersen letting in 4+ goals in each of the final four games of the series played a major factor in how the series turned out (98/116; .845). Chicago didn't win because Toews and Kane got the job done - whatever that even means. There were 20 players on each side. And none of them outscored Ryan Getzlaf in the series, who had points in 6 of the 7 games.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

That seems like an oversimplification. I think Andersen letting in 4+ goals in each of the final four games of the series played a major factor in how the series turned out (98/116; .845). Chicago didn't win because Toews and Kane got the job done - whatever that even means. There were 20 players on each side. And none of them outscored Ryan Getzlaf in the series, who had points in 6 of the 7 games.

You can't tell me Getzlaf and Perry were anything besides awful in Game 7 of that series. Props to them for leading Anaheim to a 3-2 series lead. Unfortunately for them it wasn't a best-of-5. They couldn't close the deal, Kane and Toews did. Therefore the Blackhawk duo gets the spots on this hypothetical all-star team.

 

[quoipourquoi]

You can't tell me Getzlaf and Perry were anything besides awful in Game 7 of that series. Props to them for leading Anaheim to a 3-2 series lead. Unfortunately for them it wasn't a best-of-5. They couldn't close the deal, Kane and Toews did. Therefore the Blackhawk duo gets the spots on this hypothetical all-star team.

So the playoff All-Star Team should be, what, six players on the Stanley Cup champion because no one else closed the deal? Why even name an All-Star Team if you're automatically excluding anyone who came up short against the champions?

Ray Bourque couldn't close the deal in 1991 (2-0 on Pittsburgh).
Doug Gilmour couldn't close the deal in 1993 (3-2 on Los Angeles).
Peter Forsberg couldn't close the deal in 1999 and 2002 (3-2 on Dallas/Detroit).

We're talking about a player in Ryan Getzlaf with 20 points in 16 games against 202.7 GA average opponents, and he still led the series his team lost in scoring. You're acting like he and Corey Perry played seven games of 2-on-2 hockey.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

That seems like an oversimplification. I think Andersen letting in 4+ goals in each of the final four games of the series played a major factor in how the series turned out (98/116; .845). Chicago didn't win because Toews and Kane got the job done - whatever that even means. There were 20 players on each side. And none of them outscored Ryan Getzlaf in the series, who had points in 6 of the 7 games.

Kane and Toews both had 7 pts as well, and those two playing together later in the series was a major reason the tide turned and the Hawks won the series. As far as rounds 1 and 2 go, I think it's fair to say that the Hawks had clearly more difficult competition than the Ducks. Not sure if it is true, but Getzlaf's leadership has also been questioned by many in terms of the Ducks losing the series. I think if you're going to be an all star as a conference finalist you have to be clearly ahead of the field, and I really don't think Getzlaf did that.

You're mentioning of Doug Gilmour in 1993 is a good example of someone that would qualify, and you'll find him listed in the OP.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

2014 - you have to include the Conn Smythe winner. You just have to. And McDonagh was easily the 2nd most important player on the finalist.

What about Carter vs. Gaborik? From my memory they were both great but I wold go with Carter.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

So the playoff All-Star Team should be, what, six players on the Stanley Cup champion because no one else closed the deal? Why even name an All-Star Team if you're automatically excluding anyone who came up short against the champions?

Ray Bourque couldn't close the deal in 1991 (2-0 on Pittsburgh).
Doug Gilmour couldn't close the deal in 1993 (3-2 on Los Angeles).
Peter Forsberg couldn't close the deal in 1999 and 2002 (3-2 on Dallas/Detroit).

We're talking about a player in Ryan Getzlaf with 20 points in 16 games against 202.7 GA average opponents, and he still led the series his team lost in scoring. You're acting like he and Corey Perry played seven games of 2-on-2 hockey.

Surely when two players had a similar impact on their teams' success, the player who actually made the final and won the Cup gets the tiebreaker over the losing conference finalist.

What's the argument for Perry and Getzlaf over Toews and Kane? Both Blackhawks had more goals and points, won the series when they went head to head, and went on to win the Stanley Cup. The only advantage the two Ducks have is a slight points-per-game advantage (a
fairly unimportant stat, or else let's put Doug Weight on the 2003 team) and they played more physical. In the case of Perry I'd argue the physical advantage is washed away by his penchant for dumb penalties.

 

[b1e9a8r5s]

That seems like an oversimplification. I think Andersen letting in 4+ goals in each of the final four games of the series played a major factor in how the series turned out (98/116; .845). Chicago didn't win because Toews and Kane got the job done - whatever that even means. There were 20 players on each side. And none of them outscored Ryan Getzlaf in the series, who had points in 6 of the 7 games.

Obviously, it's always more than just one or two players that deserve credit. But that series shifted when Q put Toews and Kane back together and made a point of getting them up against Getz/Perry. And they dominated that matchup, from the end of game 5 to game 7. I don't think that can be argued.

 

[seventieslord]

I personally don't include Williams in 2014...he got the story book, but he was not nearly as net impactful as some of the others mentioned. Who play better defensively and, most pointedly, managed the puck better. Williams turned the puck over quite a bit more than those other guys throughout that playoffs. I respect that he scored clutch goals and all, and he wasn't garbage or anything certainly, far from it...but we're talking about the three best forwards in those Stanley Cup Playoffs, Williams just doesn't quite make that cut...despite the story/stat-driven media's take...

I'm with you 100%.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Surely when two players had a similar impact on their teams' success, the player who actually made the final and won the Cup gets the tiebreaker over the losing conference finalist.

But they didn't have similar impact on their teams' success. When did we arrive at that conclusion? Did Ryan Getzlaf and Corey Perry have anyone slightly resembling a Duncan Keith on their team in the playoffs? They didn't even have a Corey Crawford.

What's the argument for Perry and Getzlaf over Toews and Kane? Both Blackhawks had more goals and points

So 21 points in 23 games is now more impressive than 20 points in 16 games?

won the series when they went head to head, and went on to win the Stanley Cup.

Those are accomplishments the Chicago Blackhaws have over the Anaheim Ducks. They do not belong to two players, especially when their teammate was their unanimous MVP.

The only advantage the two Ducks have is a slight points-per-game advantage (a fairly unimportant stat, or else let's put Doug Weight on the 2003 team)

Doug Weight played one round. Ryan Getzlaf played three rounds and finished one point behind Toews. If you're not finding value in points-per-game when comparing the offensive contributions of a 21-point player and a 20-point player because this one time 12 years ago a player had a super-high points-per-game number but he only played one round against Dan Cloutier and that's not fair so why even look at it amirite, then that's on you.

Obviously, it's always more than just one or two players that deserve credit. But that series shifted when Q put Toews and Kane back together and made a point of getting them up against Getz/Perry. And they dominated that matchup, from the end of game 5 to game 7. I don't think that can be argued.

Playoff All-Star Team. Not the isolation of two games from a seven game series All-Star Team.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

But they didn't have similar impact on their teams' success. When did we arrive at that conclusion? Did Ryan Getzlaf and Corey Perry have anyone slightly resembling a Duncan Keith on their team in the playoffs? They didn't even have a Corey Crawford.

My god, we're going to use a "weak team" argument to bolster Getzlaf and Perry's accomplishments? Anaheim was the 2nd best team in the NHL, so I guess every single non-Blackhawk in the NHL gets similar credit.

So 21 points in 23 games is now more impressive than 20 points in 16 games?

When the 21-point player smashed the 20 point player in a head-to-head Game 7 matchup and went on to win the Cup, yes. Without a shadow of a doubt. We could also expand to point out that Toews had 10 goals to Getzlaf's 2. Without the benefit of Calgary and Winnipeg to beat on in the early rounds.

Those are accomplishments the Chicago Blackhaws have over the Anaheim Ducks. They do not belong to two players, especially when their teammate was their unanimous MVP.

I think we all know there is a game within the game. Toews and Kane got the better of Getzlaf and Perry. It could have gone either way, but in the end the team that had their two stars show up in Game 6 and 7 won the series/Cup.

Doug Weight played one round. Ryan Getzlaf played three rounds and finished one point behind Toews. If you're not finding value in points-per-game when comparing the offensive contributions of a 21-point player and a 20-point player because this one time 12 years ago a player had a super-high points-per-game number but he only played one round against Dan Cloutier and that's not fair so why even look at it amirite, then that's on you.

I guess your all-star team will be littered with losing conference finalist then. You can find superior points-per-game players on those teams as compared to the Cup winners all the time. To most, actually winning 4 rounds of hockey versus 2 rounds holds considerable sway. You apparently do not differentiate between those accomplishments to nearly the degree that myself and others do.

 

[quoipourquoi]

My god, we're going to use a "weak team" argument to bolster Getzlaf and Perry's accomplishments? Anaheim was the 2nd best team in the NHL, so I guess every single non-Blackhawk in the NHL gets similar credit.

I didn't call them a weak team. You said that Toews/Kane had a similar impact on their team's success. But neither of them were anywhere near being Chicago's MVP. So I don't think they had a similar impact.

When the 21-point player smashed the 20 point player in a head-to-head Game 7 matchup and went on to win the Cup, yes. Without a shadow of a doubt. We could also expand to point out that Toews had 10 goals to Getzlaf's 2. Without the benefit of Calgary and Winnipeg to beat on in the early rounds.

Anaheim's playoff opponents had an average GA of 202.7.
Chicago's playoff opponents had an average GA of 213.0.

So I don't see it being the advantageous situation you suggest it to be. And believe it or not, Ryan Getzlaf is a playmaker. I'm not sure how that fact escaped you, but apparently it has. Now you know.

I think we all know there is a game within the game. Toews and Kane got the better of Getzlaf and Perry. It could have gone either way, but in the end the team that had their two stars show up in Game 6 and 7 won the series/Cup.

So nothing else matters? This is the isolation of two games from a seven game series All-Star Team? So let's ignore the other 19 points Getzlaf had in the other 14 games he played?

Hooray?

I guess your all-star team will be littered with losing conference finalist then. You can find superior points-per-game players on those teams as compared to the Cup winners all the time. To most, actually winning 4 rounds of hockey versus 2 rounds holds considerable sway. You apparently do not differentiate between those accomplishments to nearly the degree that myself and others do.

On an individual level? No. Because a TEAM wins rounds, not a player. A Playoff All-Star Team should be the best players of the playoffs, not the best players on the Stanley Cup champions.

 

[Sonic Disturbance]

Disregarding offensive/team accomplishments, Getzlaf was just flat-out terrible defensively at times in the ANA-CHI series, while Toews was nothing but great. I keep hearing these "Getzlaf is not all that below defensively from Toews" comments on these boards, but he was brutal on several plays.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

I didn't call them a weak team. You said that Toews/Kane had a similar impact on their team's success. But neither of them were anywhere near being Chicago's MVP. So I don't think they had a similar impact.

If we're going to go with 'impact' in a Hart Trophy-like sense, the AST will generally be filled with great players who went out early on mediocre teams.

Anaheim's playoff opponents had an average GA of 202.7.
Chicago's playoff opponents had an average GA of 213.0.

So I don't see it being the advantageous situation you suggest it to be. And believe it or not, Ryan Getzlaf is a playmaker. I'm not sure how that fact escaped you, but apparently it has. Now you know.

Bit of a difference going up against an elite defense corps in Nashville, Suter in Minnesota, and two Vezina finalist goaltenders to the rather average defense and goaltending personnel the Jets and Flames sent out.

So nothing else matters? This is the isolation of two games from a seven game series All-Star Team? So let's ignore the other 19 points Getzlaf had in the other 14 games he played?

Hooray?

Who said we're ignoring everything else. I'm operating under the assumption that the first two rounds are seen as a wash. The Hawks and Ducks both made the third round without serious trouble with the four players in question all putting up a bunch of points. No difference there.

The teams found themselves in a Game 7 after both sets of players had moments of greatness and moments of less stellar play. Looks like we're still even. So it sort of comes down to that 7th game doesn't it? And if course Toews and Kane were better in the final than the two non-participants.

On an individual level? No. Because a TEAM wins rounds, not a player. A Playoff All-Star Team should be the best players of the playoffs, not the best players on the Stanley Cup champions.

So where do you draw the line then? Should Vladimir Tarasenko be on the team? Fact is players on the SC Champion won twice as many rounds as losing conference finalists. We don't see players who only played 60 games win awards in the regular season either unless they were head and shoulders better than the competition.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Can someone please explain the rationale for picking Carter and/or Gaborik over Williams in 2014?

Their stats were similar, none of them played a big defensive role, and Williams scored more timely goals.

Kopitar 5-21-26
Carter 10-15-25
Williams 9-16-25
Gaborik 14-8-22
(Kane 8-12-20 in fewer games)
Doughty 5-13-18

Seems like being annoyed Williams won over Doughty (or Kopitar who did play a defensie role), which is understandable, and just going out of your way to further discredit him.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Carter was better offensively and defensively than Williams in the entire playoffs for me. Williams, as well as he played, was more of a beneficiary of others playing well around him. Carter was a better organic creator of offense and was better defensively...

 

[Kyle McMahon]

I remember Gaborik as being superior to Williams offensively. Williams seemed to score a lot of flukey, garbage-y goals while Gaborik was more of an offensive catalyst.