Should Stanley Cups Won Factor Into Player Comparisons/Rankings?

[GlitchMarner]

Don't get me wrong: Winning the Stanley Cup is a big deal and the ultimate goal for teams (well, other than making money, but I digress).

However, when it comes to comparing and ranking individual players, I don't understand why so much emphasis is put on Championships in the first place and why the number of Cup wins by certain players seems to be a bigger deal than the number of Cups won by others.

For instance, Gretzky is usually considered the GOAT of hockey, and that's perfectly defensible. He won four Cups. Jean Beliveau won ten Stanley Cups (more than Gretzky and Howe combined) and I never hear the argument that he's better than Gretzky, Howe or Lemieux .

If you want to say Cup wins only matter when comparing players of a similar calibre, I'm not sure that standard is consistently applied. Jagr won two Cups but seems to get more criticism for "not being a winner" than Bourque (who never won one until leaving the Bruins and joining a stacked team). Messier won six Cups; shouldn't that put him above guys like Lidstrom and Bobby Hull if Cup wins are so important for individual players?

People seem to use Cup wins and a lack of Cups (rather than things like individual performance and objective measures like statistics) to justify notions that players are "winners" or "not clutch" when they can but to ignore Cup wins/a lack of Cup wins for certain players or when Cup wins don't support their argument.

Why not stop trying to use team awards to judge individual players and start assessing players based on their play?

 

[Dr Jan Itor]

As distant tie-breakers, and in context, sure, it's fine to include.

 

[atlanticobserver]

Usually just as a tiebreaker. Once you have one it’s really not a big deal how many it seems. It’s more just a black eye on certain players who would be all time greats that have never won one (i.e., McDavid, Ovechkin pre-2018, etc.)

I’ll expand by saying that it’s more of a bad look on guys who regularly make the playoffs and still do not have a ring.

 

[The Macho King]

Playoff performance matters. Cups - not really.

Like can anyone knock McDavid for the playoffs after winning a Smythe.

 

[GlitchMarner]

Playoff performance matters. Cups - not really.

Like can anyone knock McDavid for the playoffs after winning a Smythe.

Yes, exactly.

I don't know why, but some have a hard time going beyond the shallow analysis of, "Cup win = good playoff performance; no Cup = bad/disappointing playoff performance."

There can be numerous reasons why a particular player did or didn't win that have little to nothing to do with his play or intangibles.

 

[gtrower]

Playoff performance matters. Cups - not really.

Like can anyone knock McDavid for the playoffs after winning a Smythe.

This is where I’m at. Individual players (outside of goaltenders) have among the smallest impact on hockey games of just about any pro sport. There are 360 players minutes available in a regulation hockey game and even star players usually get ~20/25 minutes of that. That’s about 5-7%.

Like you said, McDavid had one of the best playoff runs of all time last year and didn’t win the Cup. Are we supposed to pretend that’s a knock on his career? Are we supposed to pretend all Cups are equivalent (league size)?

I’d say a Smythe belongs in individual player rankings discussion for sure. But Cups is way down the list. The margins are just too razor thin in playoff hockey with a few bounces being the difference between advancing and getting sent home.

 

[Acallabeth]

Cups are team awards heavily dependent on circumstances beyond the players' influence, so comparing players strictly by the number of Cups won is indeed silly.

Then again, hockey is a team sport, so to lead one's team towards championship is a big deal, and to do it multiple times is a huge deal. Players who win the Cups in leading roles deserve to be considered better than the ones that don't.

I think regular season championships should have more credit than they do now. Teams play the regular season on a much more equal field, and a 80-game sample size is much more reliable than a 20-25-game one. On December 1st, the leading scorers in the NHL (with around 25 GP) were Kaprizov, Necas and Eichel - 3 names that are rarely brought up when discussing best and most valuable players.

I’d say a Smythe belongs in individual player rankings discussion for sure. But Cups is way down the list. The margins are just too razor thin in playoff hockey with a few bounces being the difference between advancing and getting sent home.

Debatable. Journalists can't vote some other player over you for a Stanley Cup championship because they like you more.

 

[gtrower]

Cups are team awards heavily dependent on circumstances beyond the players' influence, so comparing players strictly by the number of Cups won is indeed silly.

Then again, hockey is a team sport, so to lead one's team towards championship is a big deal, and to do it multiple times is a huge deal. Players who win the Cups in leading roles deserve to be considered better than the ones that don't.

I think regular season championships should have more credit than they do now. Teams play the regular season on a much more equal field, and a 80-game sample size is much more reliable than a 20-25-game one. On December 1st, the leading scorers in the NHL (with around 25 GP) were Kaprizov, Necas and Eichel - 3 names that are rarely brought up when discussing best and most valuable players.


Debatable. Journalists can't vote some other player over you for a Stanley Cup championship because they like you more.

Your point about RS titles is also an interesting one. The US is in the minority worldwide in using playoff systems to determine champions. It’s money-driven and often gives a worse assessment of who the “better” team is.

We’ve already played what, 1300ish games to separate teams? Why is a 120 point team being forced to prove themselves against a 90 point team? Have we not already established that they’re better? Playoffs should be used to determine a champion when the teams don’t play each other during the season. It makes for entertaining tv when a “favorite” gets upset in a series with a limited sample size. But it just renders the RS kind of meaningless. Like why did we play all those games? Ticket sales and media deals?

 

[banks]

Of course it matters. Just not a whole lot, and only in context.

I'd say, for me personally, it only really matters if a player won the Cup at least once in his career or not. Ovie won it once, and that mostly ends any choker talk. Jumbo Joe Thornton never won it at all, and the choker talk continues.

Even that has to have some context, obviously. Marchand won a Cup in Boston, but has had some big playoff disappointment moments after that. Where as Danny Briere was a great playoff performer, even though he never won the Cup.

So you need context. But the idea is there. One Cup win puts you in that group so that knock against you is mostly moot.

 

[Stewie Griffin]

So you mean Patrick Maroon isn't better than Ovechkin?

 

[hangman005]

I think Stanley Cups affect the Prestige of a player but not so much their ranking. At least it does for me.

 

[NyQuil]

It's getting less important with every team the NHL adds to the league.

 

[SenzZen]

I agree that cup wins can unfairly contribute to the argument that Player X is better than Player Y.

Coincidentally, "Played for Toronto" doesn't factor heavily enough in these comparisons.

 

[VinikToWinIt]

I totally agree that Cups shouldn't really really factor into a player legacy, as long as that player shows up come playoff time.

For the all-time greats though, it inevitably gets brought up as whether you were a "winner" or not.



*I will say, there are certain situations where a player winning a Cup is a significant boost to legacy. If the Caps didn't win it all in 2018, there would always be some discussion around how Ovechkin was the greatest goal scorer of all time, BUTTTTT his team never passed the second round.

Winning nips that in the bud before the (somewhat silly) discussion begins.

 

[VivaLasVegas]

Because it is a team sport. In every team sport, players get credit for putting the team on their shoulders and carrying them where they might not otherwise get.

With 32 teams, winning the divisional and conference titles should also be credited to the player.

IMHO, it is the individual statistics that are overweighted. Some players generate gaudy statistics during the often sedentary play of the regular season but then ghost the playoffs when things really get rough and competitive and the sine qua non of the team's entire season -- to win the Cup -- is at stake. These players did not put their teams on their shoulders but did the exact opposite: They let their team down.

My personal view anyway. Viva la difference!

 

[GirardSpinorama]

Don't get me wrong: Winning the Stanley Cup is a big deal and the ultimate goal for teams (well, other than making money, but I digress).

However, when it comes to comparing and ranking individual players, I don't understand why so much emphasis is put on Championships in the first place and why the number of Cup wins by certain players seems to be a bigger deal than the number of Cups won by others.

For instance, Gretzky is usually considered the GOAT of hockey, and that's perfectly defensible. He won four Cups. Jean Beliveau won ten Stanley Cups (more than Gretzky and Howe combined) and I never hear the argument that he's better than Gretzky, Howe or Lemieux .

If you want to say Cup wins only matter when comparing players of a similar calibre, I'm not sure that standard is consistently applied. Jagr won two Cups but seems to get more criticism for "not being a winner" than Bourque (who never won one until leaving the Bruins and joining a stacked team). Messier won six Cups; shouldn't that put him above guys like Lidstrom and Bobby Hull if Cup wins are so important for individual players?

People seem to use Cup wins and a lack of Cups (rather than things like individual performance and objective measures like statistics) to justify notions that players are "winners" or "not clutch" when they can but to ignore Cup wins/a lack of Cup wins for certain players or when Cup wins don't support their argument.

Why not stop trying to use team awards to judge individual players and start assessing players based on their play?

Ranking is narrative based, the player career with the best story wins. Cups is too important to ignore if you want to build the narrative of a great career. Theres no magic formula anyways and imo
Doing player comparisons/rankings is kind of pointless.

 

[solidmotion]

it's definitely relevant, with context.

take beliveau and hull, two of the usual contenders for #5 all time. (not counting mcdavid.) hull was probably the superior offensive player at his peak. and he put up some solid playoffs too. but he only won one cup, even though his hawks had the makings of a dynasty in the early 60s (best centre, winger, defenseman and goalie...), and beliveau won a million or so, so he gets the edge.

more often than not a player's lack of stanley cups is worth bringing up just to question their overall playoff performance. so for someone like bourque or jagr who maybe won fewer than you'd have hoped, it's worth mentioning if only to point out that, on the whole, they played well enough for that not to count against them too much. (then again the penguins losses in 93 and 96 probably do count against jagr a bit.)

 

[JackSlater]

Judge players by how they play only. Stanley Cups are the goal, but teams win them. Someone could be the best hockey player ever and still end up never winning the Stanley Cup if they team around them was not good enough.

 

[WarriorofTime]

In the hard cap era, especially once they banned the real long contracts that just tack on a bunch of years to lower the AAV, Stanley Cups are more of a math problem than anything. The bean counters are the true heroes.

 

[Rebels57]

Cups won should not, but individual playoff performance should..with even more emphasis on Finals performance.

 

[GlitchMarner]

Ranking is narrative based, the player career with the best story wins. Cups is too important to ignore if you want to build the narrative of a great career. Theres no magic formula anyways and imo
Doing player comparisons/rankings is kind of pointless.

I disagree that rankings are pointless. I think it's good to have a sense of how the very best players from different eras stack up. But I agree there's no magic formula, and I do think people make too big a fuss over specific placements and such. It's all subjective and based on individual preferences at the end of the day.

 

[Rec T]

It matters, but not 'that' much. As others have said, context matters. An elite player who only earned one Cup in their career ... one that came in their rookie season (where they were more or less along for the ride), should be looked at differently than an similar elite player who's Cup came as a seasoned vet, taking the hard minutes night after night during his run.

Is it something every player want, of course. However, The Cup is a team award rather than something that should be considered when ranking individuals (unless it's a minor tie breaker between similar players)

 

[Tryblot]

Stanley cups won matter only if youre good enough for it to matter. Thats not the case for a large majority of players.

 

[Oilslick941611]

Don't get me wrong: Winning the Stanley Cup is a big deal and the ultimate goal for teams (well, other than making money, but I digress).

However, when it comes to comparing and ranking individual players, I don't understand why so much emphasis is put on Championships in the first place and why the number of Cup wins by certain players seems to be a bigger deal than the number of Cups won by others.

For instance, Gretzky is usually considered the GOAT of hockey, and that's perfectly defensible. He won four Cups. Jean Beliveau won ten Stanley Cups (more than Gretzky and Howe combined) and I never hear the argument that he's better than Gretzky, Howe or Lemieux .

If you want to say Cup wins only matter when comparing players of a similar calibre, I'm not sure that standard is consistently applied. Jagr won two Cups but seems to get more criticism for "not being a winner" than Bourque (who never won one until leaving the Bruins and joining a stacked team). Messier won six Cups; shouldn't that put him above guys like Lidstrom and Bobby Hull if Cup wins are so important for individual players?

People seem to use Cup wins and a lack of Cups (rather than things like individual performance and objective measures like statistics) to justify notions that players are "winners" or "not clutch" when they can but to ignore Cup wins/a lack of Cup wins for certain players or when Cup wins don't support their argument.

Why not stop trying to use team awards to judge individual players and start assessing players based on their play?

It’s not an individual award and no one player wins alone. So no I don’t think it means anything when comparing players, not seriously anyway.

It’s the prize they all fight for though but doesn’t lend anything to x is better than y.

 

[eojsmada]

If you're comparing an average player to another, then no. But if you're trying to separate the top 5-10% of players and determine who is the better player, then playoff performance and winning in the playoffs is a large determining factor.