Michael Farkas
Celebrate 68
This makes less than zero sense...He's probably not even top 100 performances since 2005/06
Name 100 better.
This makes less than zero sense...He's probably not even top 100 performances since 2005/06
He shouldn't just be there because he's Lidstrom though. Neither of his 2008 or 2009 runs is a contender for best 3 since 2006, so they shouldn't be listed. It's a high standard covering nearly two decades.Not sure what it mean and an agnostic comments, but Lidstrom did not show up in that list.
Yes he turned 35 during lock-out, but he is a 4 time Norris winners post 2005 with 2 stanley cup finals, in 2007 played over 30 minutes a night during the conference final run leading his team in points.
Could be a loaded team we do not think, could be injury-age by the time it is 2009, but are we underrating him ? When we think about Justin Williams or Alfredsson run before any of his ?
Or does his post 2005 career quite overrated by the voting bodies of the time...
20% of games giving up 4 or more (rescued by the 16th highest offensive output in playoff history to that point, and highest since the '92 Penguins)
or
0% of games giving up 4 or more
Reliable goaltending, only one bad goal in the entire playoff or extremely inconsistent goaltending, and tons of bad goals.
2012 Quick happening within 12 months of the (needlessly long) 2011 playoffs, but getting so much less recognition is a failure of the American education system haha
I think I'd put Couture's 2015-16 playoff run here over a few others already on the list.
30 points in 24 games, 12th most playoff points in a single run among active players, but everyone ahead of him did it during higher scoring years. No one did it in the early 2000s, and he's the only one to do it in the early to mid 2010 years (the second lowest scoring years after the early 2000s).
He was pretty good defensively as well.
Couture should have gotten the Conn Smythe that year.
By being the most valuable player in the playoffs. I don't personally care that the voters have informally invented additional criteria so that a player from the winning team almost always gets it.By what standard? Only two losing forwards have ever won the Smythe.
Karlsson 2017 should be an option.
I've given a lot of thought to Thomas 2011 and Hasek 1999 over the years, mainly how people react to them. Namely that goal support doesn't matter, though for what it's worth I think Hasek was great even though the performance is overrated. I've also considered Thomas allowing 4+ goals, mainly the 4, 5, 5, 5 goal games he allowed in one series to Tampa Bay in 2011. Quick is the only Conn Smythe winning goaltender to not allow even a 4 goal game. Thomas is the only Conn Smythe goaltender to allow 4 or more 4 goal games in a series. Allowing four goals means that the team needs to score 5 to win, very difficult to do (especially when Thomas played in a lower scoring season than all but 3 Conn Smythe winning goaltenders) and allowing 5 goals is almost a death sentence for that game.20% of games giving up 4 or more (rescued by the 16th highest offensive output in playoff history to that point, and highest since the '92 Penguins)
or
0% of games giving up 4 or more
Reliable goaltending, only one bad goal in the entire playoff or extremely inconsistent goaltending, and tons of bad goals.
2012 Quick happening within 12 months of the (needlessly long) 2011 playoffs, but getting so much less recognition is a failure of the American education system haha
This makes less than zero sense...
Name 100 better.
It's your claim, not mine. Do your own dirty work.If you list 100 I'll let you know which ones I agree and disagree with.
It's your claim, not mine. Do your own dirty work.
I'd start with actually watching Karlsson in 2017 and then come back apologize to all of us hahaCan you give me some suggestions to get started?
I'd start with actually watching Karlsson in 2017 and then come back apologize to all of us haha
Well I did see most of his games that year and I don't believe he is among the top playoff runs since the lockout.