Round 2, Vote 6 (Stanley Cup Playoff Performers)

[MXD]

Indeed, because Crosby's teams have gone farther more frequently.

Especially when he was not carrying them.
Did Crosby actually carried his team even once?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Carrying a Team

More than one way to carry a team than the traditional scoring interpretation.

 

[MXD]

More than one way to carry a team than the traditional scoring interpretation.

Always easier to carry things while not scoring goals when there's somebody else to actually score the goals.

 

[K Fleur]

Especially when he was not carrying them.
Did Crosby actually carried his team even once?

Meh, I'm of the opinion that one player can not "carry" a team in hockey. Too many variables with to little playing time relative to an overall game.

However if one were to believe in "carrying" then I guess it comes down to how you weigh 4 finals appearances(2 wins) as either your team's best, or second best performer vs. 1 finals appearance(win) as your team's, maybe, 3rd best performer and carrying your team twice to a 3rd round exit.

 

[K Fleur]

Always easier to carry things while not scoring goals when there's somebody else to actually score the goals.

Gilmour did not lead(or carry... whichever term we want to use) his team in goals in either the '93, or '94 playoffs.

This post was in reference to Gilmour right?

 

[MXD]

Gilmour did not lead(or carry... whichever term we want to use) his team in goals in either the '93, or '94 playoffs.

This post was in reference to Gilmour right?

Meh, I'm of the opinion that one player can not "carry" a team in hockey. Too many variables with to little playing time relative to an overall game.

However if one were to believe in "carrying" then I guess it comes down to how you weigh 4 finals appearances(2 wins) as either your team's best, or second best performer vs. 1 finals appearance(win) as your team's, maybe, 3rd best performer and carrying your team twice to a 3rd round exit.

I'm still looking for an actual fact.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Tough Situations

Always easier to carry things while not scoring goals when there's somebody else to actually score the goals.

Question of making your team`s goals more valuable by dominating the tough situations. Pens lost Letang and Murray so defensive zone play by the centers became critical. Who other than Crosby can fill such a role?

Team has the ability to score goals. Getting out of the defensive zone while reducing GA is the key.

 

[MXD]

Question of making your team`s goals more valuable by dominating the tough situations. Pens lost Letang and Murray so defensive zone play by the centers became critical. Who other than Crosby can fill such a role?

Team has the ability to score goals. Getting out of the defensive zone while reducing GA is the key.

The idea is, Crosby doesn't necessarily have to do both, everytime!

 

[Canadiens1958]

Point

The idea is, Crosby doesn't necessarily have to do both, everytime!

Point is that today very few are able to do both. Toews, Getzlaff but not at the same level constantly.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Crosby has been extremely impressive playing significant time with basic dept or role players the last two years. Not seen since Beliveau in the sixties breaking in rookies/young players during the playoffs.

Keith is more of a core player.

Good point about the rookies. Keith has always had fellow veterans Seabrook or Hjalmarsson across the ice from him.

Keith might be more "core player" than "franchise player" all things considered, but 2015 playoffs specifically I'd say he was the latter. Unquestioned Smythe winner on a roster than had two other presumed HOFers playing at a high level.

Crosby has never carried a team in Gilmour-like fashion.

Most players on this list so far haven't.

Gilmour didn't have a Malkin-level teammate to help, so sure I guess it's fair to say Crosby didn't have to "carry" the Penguins, but I'm not seeing a whole lot of separation between Crosby in '08 and '09 and Gilmour in '93 and '94 in terms of their actual game to game performance. At the end of the day, Crosby's team went 30-13 and won a Cup, Gilmour's went 20-19 and were upset in the semi-final twice.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Gilmour didn't have a Malkin-level teammate to help, so sure I guess it's fair to say Crosby didn't have to "carry" the Penguins, but I'm not seeing a whole lot of separation between Crosby in '08 and '09 and Gilmour in '93 and '94 in terms of their actual game to game performance. At the end of the day, Crosby's team went 30-13 and won a Cup, Gilmour's went 20-19 and were upset in the semi-final twice.

Gilmour was better coming and going.

The fact that he was that good while being the focus of every player on the other team only adds to it.

At the end of the day, yes, those teams fell short of the finals, but I assure you his individual performances did not fall short. Unfortunately, Gilmour didn't have a Smythe winning teammate to share the load.

Is this list only considering the best performances that also resulted in a team win?

Cause Gilmour 93-94 is as good as playoff performances get. Even better than when he was arguably the best player on a winning team.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Gilmour was better coming and going.

The fact that he was that good while being the focus of every player on the other team only adds to it.

At the end of the day, yes, those teams fell short of the finals, but I assure you his individual performances did not fall short. Unfortunately, Gilmour didn't have a Smythe winning teammate to share the load.

Is this list only considering the best performances that also resulted in a team win?


Cause Gilmour 93-94 is as good as playoff performances get. Even better than when he was arguably the best player on a winning team.

Well, no, but it's quite important IMO.There's a strong team bias in this particular project, and we knew it from thet get go.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Well, no, but it's quite important IMO.There's a strong team bias in this particular project, and we knew it from thet get go.

That is really unfortunate if that is just accepted to be the case. At the end of the day winning is obviously important but it is, after all, a team sport. No one.. not Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr, Howe.. nobody won without a good team around them.

The team bias is very obviously showing with these recent posts.. Between the slant towards teams with the depth for success and the focus on scoring stats.. it really impacts on the weight of the work for me.

Was Karlsson not amazing this year? I guess not because playing hurt against the defended champs on an underdog he fell short..

 

[The Panther]

Gilmour 93-94 is as good as playoff performances get.

Gilmour was certainly a playoff beast, but "as good as playoff performances get"...? Uh, no. There have been better playoff performances than Gilmour in '93 and certainly in '94.

But boy, when you look at only his point-production in the playoffs, he was amazing. Nine teams his teams went to the 2nd-round or deeper, and in those nine times, six times he was a point-per-game scorer or (much) better. In fact, all six times that he was up to his early-30s he scored a PPG or better. And as late as 2002 with Montreal, when he was almost 39, he scored 10 points in 12 games and tied for the team-lead in scoring.

To break it down: the six times (between 1984 and 1994) that his teams won at least one playoff round, Gilmour scored 134 points in 101 playoff games (+39). What's more, 5 of those 6 times he ranked #1 on his team in playoff scoring, including three times with St.Louis where he wasn't on top in the regular season, but then was in the playoffs. (The one time he wasn't #1 was 1989 when he was 3rd as the Flames won the Cup. But he was tied for #1 in goals in the Finals and had the best plus/minus in that series.)

Of course, this is to overlook the times his teams didn't win at least one round. But he was never really poor, except maybe in the 1991 Calgary/Edmonton series, in which (as I recall) he didn't do much and ended up with a measly 2 points in the seven games. Anyone remember why?

As mentioned, even past his prime, he was still a playoff performer. When the Devils lost to Ottawa in '98, Gilmour, in his mid-30s, had more than twice as many points as any other player on his team. And as mentioned, on Montreal in 2002 he tied for the team lead.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Comparisons

Gilmour was better coming and going.

The fact that he was that good while being the focus of every player on the other team only adds to it.

At the end of the day, yes, those teams fell short of the finals, but I assure you his individual performances did not fall short. Unfortunately, Gilmour didn't have a Smythe winning teammate to share the load.

Is this list only considering the best performances that also resulted in a team win?

Cause Gilmour 93-94 is as good as playoff performances get. Even better than when he was arguably the best player on a winning team.

No, but the valid comparisons have not come-up because equal or more noble than Gilmour their team lost decades earlier - Fleming Mackell, Norm Ullman, Stan Mikita, Darryl Sittler - vs Philadelphia and Clarke. All were the focus of the other team. Likewise where are Keon and George Armstrong? Winners too boot. Well they did not score enough.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/u/ullmano01.html

 

[MXD]

... So in other words, Doug Gilmour is a candidate so far solely on the basis of being a Calgary Flame in 1989?

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Gilmour was better coming and going.

The fact that he was that good while being the focus of every player on the other team only adds to it.

At the end of the day, yes, those teams fell short of the finals, but I assure you his individual performances did not fall short. Unfortunately, Gilmour didn't have a Smythe winning teammate to share the load.

Is this list only considering the best performances that also resulted in a team win?

Cause Gilmour 93-94 is as good as playoff performances get. Even better than when he was arguably the best player on a winning team.

Gilmour is not unique in terms of great performances on teams that fell well short of winning the Stanley Cup. There are only 25 players on the list at this point, and this project is encompassing 125 years of hockey. At the moment, there are six other centermen that peaked between 1980 and 2004 already voted onto the list. Gilmour is not nearly the must-include player that you are making him out to be. There doesn't seem to be much support for Bobby Hull yet, who similarly won one Cup and had some strong losing efforts, but did not benefit from the four-round era and its inflationary effect on scoring totals.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Gilmour was better coming and going.

The fact that he was that good while being the focus of every player on the other team only adds to it.

At the end of the day, yes, those teams fell short of the finals, but I assure you his individual performances did not fall short. Unfortunately, Gilmour didn't have a Smythe winning teammate to share the load.

Is this list only considering the best performances that also resulted in a team win?

Cause Gilmour 93-94 is as good as playoff performances get. Even better than when he was arguably the best player on a winning team.

A fair comparison would therefore be Gilmour and Bobby Hull. Each only won 1 Cup.

Offensively, Hull seems to be ahead of Gilmore significantly. Only Kurri is close to Hull in terms of goal scoring, though in a much higher scoring era. Defense, intangibles certainly go to Gilmour but I can't see him ranking higher than Hull.

 

[MXD]

A fair comparison would therefore be Gilmour and Bobby Hull. Each only won 1 Cup.

Offensively, Hull seems to be ahead of Gilmore significantly. Only Kurri is close to Hull in terms of goal scoring, though in a much higher scoring era. Defense, intangibles certainly go to Gilmour but I can't see him ranking higher than Hull.

One was on teams that tended to underachieve and the other was on teams that tended to overachieve.

But your remark is pretty apt, all things considered (even if Bobby Hull and Doug Gilmour are two players probably no one ever thought were remotely comparable).

 

[Michael Farkas]

Ok, I'm back in the game now...missed last round unfortunately...so this is almost a fresh look for me...

Sorry to "recap" but there isn't a ton of discussion at the moment anyhow...just going down the list:

Parent - not relevant.

Smith - I'm not ready for...is it wrong to think that, again, he should be going onto a list at around the same time as Fuhr...or do we think there's a noteworthy gap this time? (relative to the goalie project)

Hull - A candidate for this round. Despite some iffy team success maybe.

Pronger - Almost time to consider him probably.

Gilmour - I think he's a really strong candidate for this round. He has more than just '93 and '94 to lean on, no? He was a monster from wire to wire in his playoff career, even if you call it a career after 1994...I think it's still good enough to be here...

Keith - I don't think he's going to end up making the cut at all.

Boucher - He ought to be a strong candidate this time around, yes?

Mahovlich - Probably not yet. He emerged from the shadows in a big way at times, and at other times, well, not so much...minus playing for defensive teams, he's kind of like Malkin in that sense...when provoked, he can be the best...when he's not feeling it, he's just out there...getting "quiet" points maybe...

McGee - I would need to be sold.

Kurri - I'm going to agree that Kurri might deserve a little more credit than he was given. He was the primary defensive conscience of the top line and put away plenty for Gretzky. Frankly, I think he should end up on the list this round. But my ears are open.

Brodeur - I think he's certainly a candidate this round.

Coffey - I think Coffey has a fair case this round too...since the WHA merger, no d-man has more playoff points (196 in 194 GP) or goals (59). His '84, '85, and '95 are nice peaks, no? I'd love one more super-impact playoff run to match the gaudy totals...it could have been in '91, but it just didn't work out in that way...

Esposito - I know there's some success issues with Espo's teams...but I'm not totally convinced he's to blame...I think he should be on the list already even...how far below Orr can he really get? Orr got out of the first round, what, 4 times in his NHL career...? Esposito probably led the playoffs in scoring just about as often. I know that's an offense-centric look but...is him not being here yet a product of Orr's inability to stay on the ice? Or are we punishing Espo for not being able to make it work with that lumbering defense sans Orr...? I've only seen it after the fact, I didn't live through it...but no one seems to be coming to his defense really...which is surprising...

Bourque - I'm not sure I'm ready for him yet...I'm listening, but I don't know what the case would be...

Stevens - See: Bourque.

Savard - Savard, I'd think, is going to be a product of voter fatigue for the Habs...plus, we doled out the lion's share of the 1970's Habs success to Lafleur and Robinson and Dryden already and in pretty emphatic fashion. Is a claim going to be staked for Savard, Lemaire and Tremblay as well...? And if so, what's the claim vs the field?

Fedorov - I'm not there yet, personally.

Crosby - See: Fedorov. I don't see a large gap between those two.

Yzerman - Well...is this where Fedorov one-ups him...? I think it will end up shaping up that way...

Sawchuk - I am not high on Sawchuk from the goalie list, and I'm not terribly high on him here. His "octopus" run notwithstanding, I'm not sure I'm going to find room for him for a while...how many times was he really "the piece" that drove things? Twice? Maybe I'm constantly undercutting him...but his playoff peak is even shorter than his career peak to me...


Maybe my sometimes wonky opinions will generate some more discussion...

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Ok, I'm back in the game now...missed last round unfortunately...so this is almost a fresh look for me...

Sorry to "recap" but there isn't a ton of discussion at the moment anyhow...just going down the list:

Parent - not relevant.

Smith - I'm not ready for...is it wrong to think that, again, he should be going onto a list at around the same time as Fuhr...or do we think there's a noteworthy gap this time? (relative to the goalie project)

Hull - A candidate for this round. Despite some iffy team success maybe.

Pronger - Almost time to consider him probably.

Gilmour - I think he's a really strong candidate for this round. He has more than just '93 and '94 to lean on, no? He was a monster from wire to wire in his playoff career, even if you call it a career after 1994...I think it's still good enough to be here...

Keith - I don't think he's going to end up making the cut at all.

Boucher - He ought to be a strong candidate this time around, yes?

Mahovlich - Probably not yet. He emerged from the shadows in a big way at times, and at other times, well, not so much...minus playing for defensive teams, he's kind of like Malkin in that sense...when provoked, he can be the best...when he's not feeling it, he's just out there...getting "quiet" points maybe...

McGee - I would need to be sold.

Kurri - I'm going to agree that Kurri might deserve a little more credit than he was given. He was the primary defensive conscience of the top line and put away plenty for Gretzky. Frankly, I think he should end up on the list this round. But my ears are open.

Brodeur - I think he's certainly a candidate this round.

Coffey - I think Coffey has a fair case this round too...since the WHA merger, no d-man has more playoff points (196 in 194 GP) or goals (59). His '84, '85, and '95 are nice peaks, no? I'd love one more super-impact playoff run to match the gaudy totals...it could have been in '91, but it just didn't work out in that way...

Esposito - I know there's some success issues with Espo's teams...but I'm not totally convinced he's to blame...I think he should be on the list already even...how far below Orr can he really get? Orr got out of the first round, what, 4 times in his NHL career...? Esposito probably led the playoffs in scoring just about as often. I know that's an offense-centric look but...is him not being here yet a product of Orr's inability to stay on the ice? Or are we punishing Espo for not being able to make it work with that lumbering defense sans Orr...? I've only seen it after the fact, I didn't live through it...but no one seems to be coming to his defense really...which is surprising...

Bourque - I'm not sure I'm ready for him yet...I'm listening, but I don't know what the case would be...

Stevens - See: Bourque.

Savard - Savard, I'd think, is going to be a product of voter fatigue for the Habs...plus, we doled out the lion's share of the 1970's Habs success to Lafleur and Robinson and Dryden already and in pretty emphatic fashion. Is a claim going to be staked for Savard, Lemaire and Tremblay as well...? And if so, what's the claim vs the field?

Fedorov - I'm not there yet, personally.

Crosby - See: Fedorov. I don't see a large gap between those two.

Yzerman - Well...is this where Fedorov one-ups him...? I think it will end up shaping up that way...

Sawchuk - I am not high on Sawchuk from the goalie list, and I'm not terribly high on him here. His "octopus" run notwithstanding, I'm not sure I'm going to find room for him for a while...how many times was he really "the piece" that drove things? Twice? Maybe I'm constantly undercutting him...but his playoff peak is even shorter than his career peak to me...


Maybe my sometimes wonky opinions will generate some more discussion...

Not sure how a 2 time Conn Smythe winner (Parent) can be irrelevant.

Billy Smith 88-36 2.73 one Conn Smythe

Grant Fuhr 92-50 2.92

If you could count Espo's Summit Series as a playoff, I'd say he's ready. But those pre-Bruins numbers (29 games and 8 points) do count.

I think Stevens has a shot this round.

 

[MXD]

Parent, Boucher, Sawchuk : Completely agree.

Smith : Essentially agree, though I do see Broda as a better measuring stick than Fuhr (and that probably works in favor of Smith).

Hull : ... A candidate, indeed.

Pronger : Agree with the "Almost".

Gilmour : I think a guy like Gilmour is helped by the fact that, even when he wasn't up there anymore in terms of being a top-center in the league, he was still overachieving. In fact, Gilmour just seems to me to be that kind of perennial overachiever on a personnal basis (minus some Calgary runs) in the playoffs, and that's the kind of players we should probably give more "love" to.
Keith : Too important on the closest thing we've had to a dynasty lately to be brushed aside so quickly.

Savard : See Gilmour to a certain extent. Great in '69. Is he the player who had the biggest "hike" in PPG? His totals look great despite adding nothing but games after 1979. As for voter fatigue, it should've hit earlier on...some other player, because there's quite a few worthy players coming up (and Robinson was definitely voted in too late).

Mahovlich : I don't even know what he's doing there.

Ok, I'm back in the game now...missed last round unfortunately...so this is almost a fresh look for me...

Sorry to "recap" but there isn't a ton of discussion at the moment anyhow...just going down the list:

Parent - not relevant.

Smith - I'm not ready for...is it wrong to think that, again, he should be going onto a list at around the same time as Fuhr...or do we think there's a noteworthy gap this time? (relative to the goalie project)

Hull - A candidate for this round. Despite some iffy team success maybe.

Pronger - Almost time to consider him probably.

Gilmour - I think he's a really strong candidate for this round. He has more than just '93 and '94 to lean on, no? He was a monster from wire to wire in his playoff career, even if you call it a career after 1994...I think it's still good enough to be here...

Keith - I don't think he's going to end up making the cut at all.

Boucher - He ought to be a strong candidate this time around, yes?

Mahovlich - Probably not yet. He emerged from the shadows in a big way at times, and at other times, well, not so much...minus playing for defensive teams, he's kind of like Malkin in that sense...when provoked, he can be the best...when he's not feeling it, he's just out there...getting "quiet" points maybe...

McGee - I would need to be sold.

Kurri - I'm going to agree that Kurri might deserve a little more credit than he was given. He was the primary defensive conscience of the top line and put away plenty for Gretzky. Frankly, I think he should end up on the list this round. But my ears are open.

Brodeur - I think he's certainly a candidate this round.

Coffey - I think Coffey has a fair case this round too...since the WHA merger, no d-man has more playoff points (196 in 194 GP) or goals (59). His '84, '85, and '95 are nice peaks, no? I'd love one more super-impact playoff run to match the gaudy totals...it could have been in '91, but it just didn't work out in that way...

Esposito - I know there's some success issues with Espo's teams...but I'm not totally convinced he's to blame...I think he should be on the list already even...how far below Orr can he really get? Orr got out of the first round, what, 4 times in his NHL career...? Esposito probably led the playoffs in scoring just about as often. I know that's an offense-centric look but...is him not being here yet a product of Orr's inability to stay on the ice? Or are we punishing Espo for not being able to make it work with that lumbering defense sans Orr...? I've only seen it after the fact, I didn't live through it...but no one seems to be coming to his defense really...which is surprising...

Bourque - I'm not sure I'm ready for him yet...I'm listening, but I don't know what the case would be...

Stevens - See: Bourque.

Savard - Savard, I'd think, is going to be a product of voter fatigue for the Habs...plus, we doled out the lion's share of the 1970's Habs success to Lafleur and Robinson and Dryden already and in pretty emphatic fashion. Is a claim going to be staked for Savard, Lemaire and Tremblay as well...? And if so, what's the claim vs the field?

Fedorov - I'm not there yet, personally.

Crosby - See: Fedorov. I don't see a large gap between those two.

Yzerman - Well...is this where Fedorov one-ups him...? I think it will end up shaping up that way...

Sawchuk - I am not high on Sawchuk from the goalie list, and I'm not terribly high on him here. His "octopus" run notwithstanding, I'm not sure I'm going to find room for him for a while...how many times was he really "the piece" that drove things? Twice? Maybe I'm constantly undercutting him...but his playoff peak is even shorter than his career peak to me...


Maybe my sometimes wonky opinions will generate some more discussion...

 

[Michael Farkas]

Re: Parent. I'm just not that interested in him. I wasn't that interested in him in the goalie project either. Super defensive team, two years of anything good...never had to go through Montreal...and in the third year (1976) they made it with his minimal contribution...Bobby Clarke drove the bus, Parent killed off an inordinate amount of penalties, sure...but there are guys with 3, 4 and 5 impact runs...Parent has two, I don't think he makes the list period...

 

[seventieslord]

MOST TIMES LEADING TEAM IN POINTS IN PLAYOFFS

Player | Times
Steve Yzerman* | 9
Doug Gilmour* | 8
Sergei Fedorov* | 8
Phil Esposito* | 5
Bobby Hull* | 5
Sidney Crosby | 4
Ray Bourque* | 4
Chris Pronger* | 3
Frank Mahovlich* | 3
Frank Boucher* | 2
Paul Coffey* | 2
Duncan Keith | 1
Scott Stevens* | 1
Jari Kurri* | 0
Serge Savard* | 0

MOST TIMES PLACING IN TOP FIVE IN PLAYOFFS - POINTS

Player|1st|2nd|3rd|4th|5th|Total
Bobby Hull* | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | | 5
Frank Mahovlich* | 1 | | 2 | | 2 | 5
Phil Esposito* | 3 | | 1 | | | 4
Jari Kurri* | | 1 | 2 | 1 | | 4
Doug Gilmour* | 1 | 1 | | 1 | 1 | 4
Sergei Fedorov* | 1 | 1 | 1 | | | 3
Paul Coffey* | | 1 | | 1 | 1 | 3
Frank Boucher* | 2 | | | | | 2
Steve Yzerman* | 1 | 1 | | | | 2
Sidney Crosby | 1 | 1 | | | | 2
Chris Pronger* | | | 1 | | | 1
Duncan Keith | | | | 1 | | 1
Ray Bourque* | | | | | | 0
Scott Stevens* | | | | | | 0
Serge Savard* | | | | | | 0

PLAYERS WHO SCORED OR ASSISTED ON LARGEST PERCENTAGE OF THEIR TEAMS' GOALS (MIN 50 GAMES)

Player|GP|Points|TMG|Percentage
Bobby Hull* | 119 | 129 | 332 | 38.9%
Sidney Crosby | 124 | 137 | 383 | 35.8%
Doug Gilmour* | 182 | 188 | 542 | 34.7%
Sergei Fedorov* | 183 | 176 | 568 | 31%
Frank Boucher* | 55 | 36 | 118 | 30.5%
Phil Esposito* | 130 | 137 | 457 | 30%
Frank Mahovlich* | 137 | 118 | 417 | 28.3%
Jari Kurri* | 200 | 233 | 844 | 27.6%
Steve Yzerman* | 196 | 185 | 700 | 26.4%
Ray Bourque* | 214 | 180 | 695 | 25.9%
Chris Pronger* | 173 | 121 | 506 | 23.9%
Paul Coffey* | 194 | 196 | 867 | 22.6%
Duncan Keith | 122 | 80 | 377 | 21.2%
Scott Stevens* | 233 | 118 | 686 | 17.2%
Serge Savard* | 130 | 68 | 530 | 12.8%

...only one player shows up in the top-3 (or tied for it) every time. This player was also excellent defensively start to finish and had a well-established reputation as a clutch player throughout his career, even before his heroics with Toronto.

On the other hand, tracking their best 5 offensive playoffs using VsX:

# | Name | VsX5P
6 | Phil Esposito | 549
11 | Frank Boucher | 501
13 | Bobby Hull | 497
18 | Frank Mahovlich | 484
20 | Sergei Fedorov | 481
23 | Doug Gilmour | 471
25 | Jari Kurri | 461
29 | Sidney Crosby | 453 (and rising this season)
30 | Steve Yzerman | 449

I think factoring in all three of the above tables with this one, it looks clear that Gilmour and Hull have the two best offensive resumes among current forward candidates, after their numbers are contextualized in a number of ways. Interestingly, they are the two players with the weakest team results. However, in Gilmour's case, he's from the 21-30 team era and there's no shame in winning "only" one cup. In Hull's case, though, there's a lot of shame considering the length of his career and the number of cups his Hawks were expected to win.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

...only one player shows up in the top-3 (or tied for it) every time. This player was also excellent defensively start to finish and had a well-established reputation as a clutch player throughout his career, even before his heroics with Toronto.

On the other hand, tracking their best 5 offensive playoffs using VsX:

# | Name | VsX5P
6 | Phil Esposito | 549
11 | Frank Boucher | 501
13 | Bobby Hull | 497
18 | Frank Mahovlich | 484
20 | Sergei Fedorov | 481
23 | Doug Gilmour | 471
25 | Jari Kurri | 461
29 | Sidney Crosby | 453 (and rising this season)
30 | Steve Yzerman | 449

I think factoring in all three of the above tables with this one, it looks clear that Gilmour and Hull have the two best offensive resumes among current forward candidates, after their numbers are contextualized in a number of ways. Interestingly, they are the two players with the weakest team results. However, in Gilmour's case, he's from the 21-30 team era and there's no shame in winning "only" one cup. In Hull's case, though, there's a lot of shame considering the length of his career and the number of cups his Hawks were expected to win.

How many were they expected to win? In the 11 original six years Hull played, the Black Hawks came in first in the regular season just once. They even came in 3rd the year they won the Cup.