- Jan 8, 2015
- 7,337
- 29,094
Considering McDavid’s historic playoff run, should a player who didn’t win the Stanley Cup still be eligible for the Conn Smythe Trophy?
Should the Conn Smythe Trophy Recognize Players from Teams That Don’t Win the Stanley Cup?
- Thread starter CandyCanes
- Start date
- Jan 23, 2017
- 19,394
- 29,549
Hammettf2b
oldmanyellsatcloud.jpg
Ummmm, it already does. Iirc 5 players have won the Smythe that didn't win the Cup?
Golden_Jet
Registered User
- Sep 21, 2005
- 23,629
- 16,813
- Jul 30, 2016
- 2,642
- 3,895
Absolutely. The trophy is about the most valuable player, you don't have to be on the winning team to be more valuable.
If the most expensive thing a millionaire owns is 200k, and the most expensive thing someone with 800k owns is 500k, you're not gonna say the 200k item is more valuable just bc it belongs to someone with more money.
If the most expensive thing a millionaire owns is 200k, and the most expensive thing someone with 800k owns is 500k, you're not gonna say the 200k item is more valuable just bc it belongs to someone with more money.
ricky0034
Registered User
- Jun 8, 2010
- 14,892
- 8,181
not only that but someone that doesn't even make it to the finals should be able to win it with an exceptional enough performance to make up for playing less games
every MVP trophy should be looked at from a similar perspective as the concept of something like WAR in Baseball, if you provided the most "value" it shouldn't matter at all what team you were on
otherwise it's barely even an award and you're basically just voting on the "best story"
every MVP trophy should be looked at from a similar perspective as the concept of something like WAR in Baseball, if you provided the most "value" it shouldn't matter at all what team you were on
otherwise it's barely even an award and you're basically just voting on the "best story"
Hockeyholic
Registered User
I think OP is asking if it SHOULD be this way. Not if it CAN be this way. Right now losing player can win it.
I said no unless said player dominates in the SCF.
I said no unless said player dominates in the SCF.
This would be going too far imo.
ricky0034
Registered User
- Jun 8, 2010
- 14,892
- 8,181
eh the award is already heavily skewed towards players who make the finals because they get to play more games
I see no reason to put a thumb on the scale even further if someone does manage to have a clearly better postseason in 3 rounds than anyone else had in 4 just because the rest of their team wasn't good enough
it's already barely an individual award as it is with such a small percentage of the league actually contending for it between needing the rest of your team to be good enough and lucky enough with injuries etc to both make the Playoffs and make it far in them
- Jan 23, 2017
- 19,394
- 29,549
This is also already possible right? You just have to convince the voters to change their approach.
ricky0034
Registered User
- Jun 8, 2010
- 14,892
- 8,181
yeah there's nothing stopping it theoretically, I remember Karlsson got a 3rd place vote losing in the 3rd round one year
i'm just approaching this thread from a standpoint of whether I think things should ideally be allowed rather than whether there's actually a rule against it in reality which I feel like was probably the point of the OP
Voight
#winning
I think a losing player should only get it if
A) They have a historic playoff run and literally carry their team (2003 Giggy)
B) there's literally no worthy or good candidates on the winning side, rare but one could argue this happened in 2003 (tho Niedermayer would've been. decent choice)
C) They set some notable all time record - i.e. McDavid this year has already outproduced everyone not named Gretzky & Lemieux, if he beats Gretzky's points record he should deifnetly win the CS.
A) They have a historic playoff run and literally carry their team (2003 Giggy)
B) there's literally no worthy or good candidates on the winning side, rare but one could argue this happened in 2003 (tho Niedermayer would've been. decent choice)
C) They set some notable all time record - i.e. McDavid this year has already outproduced everyone not named Gretzky & Lemieux, if he beats Gretzky's points record he should deifnetly win the CS.
No
I'd be ok with them officially changing the trophy to "mvp of the Stanley cup winning team".
But - since that isn't the case, i 100% believe McDavid will and should win it this year even if Florida won the cup
I'd be ok with them officially changing the trophy to "mvp of the Stanley cup winning team".
But - since that isn't the case, i 100% believe McDavid will and should win it this year even if Florida won the cup
SillyRabbit
Trix Are For Kids
- Jan 3, 2006
- 7,497
- 11,164
There's a reason why it hardly ever goes to a player on the losing team.
Because the Stanley Cup Winner typically has a number of stand out performances that deserve to be rewarded.
Even if the losing team has standout performances as well, you get a higher level of consideration if you actually win.
In this case, McDavid is far and away the standout player of the playoffs and the finals.
None of Florida's top players have stood out in a way that's remotely close to him.
Bobrovsky was on track to win the Smythe just 10 days ago. McDavid was having a better playoffs but it was close enough that winning would put Bob on top.
Not anymore. The trophy belongs to McDavid.
So to answer the question: You have to have a historic stand out performance in order to win the Smythe in a losing effort, so no rule changes need to be applied. At that point, the player deserves it.
Because the Stanley Cup Winner typically has a number of stand out performances that deserve to be rewarded.
Even if the losing team has standout performances as well, you get a higher level of consideration if you actually win.
In this case, McDavid is far and away the standout player of the playoffs and the finals.
None of Florida's top players have stood out in a way that's remotely close to him.
Bobrovsky was on track to win the Smythe just 10 days ago. McDavid was having a better playoffs but it was close enough that winning would put Bob on top.
Not anymore. The trophy belongs to McDavid.
So to answer the question: You have to have a historic stand out performance in order to win the Smythe in a losing effort, so no rule changes need to be applied. At that point, the player deserves it.
- Oct 9, 2012
- 27,351
- 36,952
JackSlater
Registered User
- Apr 27, 2010
- 18,637
- 16,548
Since players on the losing team are eligible so I will answer a different question. The Conn Smythe should absolutely go to a player on the losing team more often than it does. The voters should just follow the actual criteria of the trophy, which makes no mention of the winning team. Just give it to the actual most valuable player in the playoffs, not influenced by made up criteria.
Voted yes but only players from the SC final should really be in consideration.
biturbo19
Registered User
- Jul 13, 2010
- 25,192
- 13,082
I don't think McDavid should be allowed to win it, whether the Oilers pull this off or not. Because it will be so irritating to have to listen to the entirety of sports media talk about how he is suddenly the greatest of all time as a result.
Felidae
Registered User
- Sep 30, 2016
- 10,165
- 19,554
Yes, there's quite a few performances from the losers of the SCF that should have won the Smythe.
One example that comes to mind is Couture. Outproduced Crosby in the SCF (6 points vs 4)
Had a point in all but one win during the run, including 7 multi point games. Finished with 30 points, setting a franchise record and leading the postseason. 6 more points than 2nd best, and 8 more than the highest non teammate. Was the only player in the early to mid 2010s (basically DPE 2.0) to hit the 30 point mark, in the playoffs
And by this time, he was already a really good defensive player. He should have won.
I'm sure there are others but this is the most recent I can think of
One example that comes to mind is Couture. Outproduced Crosby in the SCF (6 points vs 4)
Had a point in all but one win during the run, including 7 multi point games. Finished with 30 points, setting a franchise record and leading the postseason. 6 more points than 2nd best, and 8 more than the highest non teammate. Was the only player in the early to mid 2010s (basically DPE 2.0) to hit the 30 point mark, in the playoffs
And by this time, he was already a really good defensive player. He should have won.
I'm sure there are others but this is the most recent I can think of
Last edited:
BLNY
Registered User
norrisnick
The best...
- Apr 14, 2005
- 28,810
- 17,961
As opposed to the legions of fans and pundits (likely clad in black and gold) that screech into the void that McDavid is bad and not worthy of ranking without playoff accolades like those held by "winners"?
BraveCanadian
Registered User
- Jun 30, 2010
- 14,818
- 6,137
JackSlater
Registered User
- Apr 27, 2010
- 18,637
- 16,548
Absolutely, I've said the same numerous times. Crosby was a very weak Conn Smythe choice... but Kessel would have been as well, despite how many people claim he should have won it. The voters had such an easy out to avoid making a bad choice in Couture, but they couldn't bring themselves to do it because Couture's team didn't play well enough. Pronger should have won in 2006 as well off the top of my head.
