Where can I find voting records for the Conn Smythe Trophy?

[Michael Farkas]

That's correct. But with Bobrovsky already not pitching a shutout - having given up a goal on the first (?) decent chance of the game two shifts after his team scored - I don't know what Bob was gonna be able to do to get back in the conversation in the 3rd.

Maybe a Barkov non-EN goal condition? Or game-winning goal condition? I don't think that's enough to overtake McDavid. And I don't think Matheson was gonna vote for a Panther even if Barkov scored 10 goals in the 3rd.

 

[JackSlater]

The media I read/heard was all over McDavid getting the trophy after the fifth game. There were a lot of caveats after the fourth game, but it seemed very consistent after game five. Which is obviously the right decision given that he was by far the best and most valuable player in the playoffs regardless of the final game or two. When a player is basically doubling his competition in scoring, neigher team has a dominant number one defenceman, and the other goaltender isn't having an all time playoffs it shouldn't be that hard.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

So...it does NOT go to show us that goalies are punished for "one or two bad games"...?

Like, famously, with Giguere in '03 when he doubled his GA in the Final and won it anyway. Or like Thomas (who falls into the "win by default" category) who gave up 4+ several times and was diving out of the net for no reason in the SCF to lose OT games, etc. - but won anyway.

Goalie failures are more graphic at times, sure. But I'm not sure about the thesis...

but here’s the thing: if the exact same series happened only in reverse order (so game 7 first and game 1 last, coming back from a 3-1 deficit), does bob win the conn smythe then?

i think he probably does

 

[Michael Farkas]

but here’s the thing: if the exact same series happened only in reverse order (so game 7 first and game 1 last, coming back from a 3-1 deficit), does bob win the conn smythe then?

i think he probably does

It's a hell of a lot closer, if nothing else. Often, the play in the Final is worth more...unless there's a better story/narrative, of course.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

self-quoting an old post here. one of these days i want to make this into one of those flow-charts, like the are-you-getting-suspended flow chart, but i probably don’t have the skills to do that

i'd like to know that too.

i think you're right that it's probably easier for a doughty or keith to be in the CS conversation (vs hart consideration anyway). but when push comes to shove, we still see j williams over doughty, c lemieux over scott stevens (and goring over potvin, though admittedly i didn't watch that one). at that point it's not even omg points, it's omg memorable goals. and i think it's fair to say that the CS hierarchy goes 1. franchise forward or bobby orr, 2. goalie, 3. buttload of goals, 4. captain or inspirational leader who isn't the clear best guy (messier, toews, niedermayer, crosby #1, ovechkin), 5. complementary player who scored a lot of big goals, 6. franchise d

here's my accounting, with snubs or guys whom we assume would/should be close calls in parentheses and the guy who won it over them:

1. beliveau, orrx2, lafleur, trottier, gretzkyx2, m lemieuxx2, sakic, yzerman, malkin, crosby #2 (gretzky/messier, modano/nieuwendyk, sakic/roy #3, kopitar/williams)

2. crozier, hall, parent x2, dryden, parentx2, smith, roy #s1-2, hextall, ranford, vernon, giguere, ward, thomas, quick (belfour/nieuwendyk, roy/sakic, brodeur/giguere, giguere/niedermayer, holtby/ovechkin)

3. cournoyer, leach, bossy (bossy/smith, kurri/gretzky #1, mullen/macinnis, simpson/ranford, k stevens/m lemieux #2, the only case i can think of where buttload of goals was trumped by anything but franchise scorer or goalie is maybe gaborik/williams)

4. keon, messier, roy #3, toews, crosby #1, ovechkin (clarke/parentx2, messier/leetch, brind'amour/ward, chara/thomas)

5. goring, c lemieux, nieuwendyk, williams (honestly can't think of a time when a clutch secondary guy was robbed, maybe marchand/thomas but i don't think they were reasonably close at all)

6. robinson, macinnis, leetch, stevens, keith (potvin/4 guys, s stevens/c lemieux, lidstrom/yzerman, niedermayer/giguere, pronger/ward, pronger/niedermayer, lidstrom/zetterberg, keith/toews, doughty/quick, keith/kane, doughty/williams, maybe letang/crosby #1, not because letang was so great but because that CS was so weak)

7. (run of the mill top scorers) richards, zetterberg, kane (macleish/parentx2, bossy/goring, fedorov/vernon, kane/keith, kessel/crosby #1, malkin/crosby #2, kuznetsov/ovechkin)

8. (specialist) gainey (pahlsson/niedermayer, bergeron/thomas)

9. (no idea how to place) savard

caveat: the big special case here is if a player has already won one. then the voters are very careful to give you a second one.

i think what we learn from this is that your franchise scorer having a great playoff run is almost never going to lose the CS unless he's a grey area franchise scorer and maybe could go in run of the mill leading scorer (modano and kopitar) or everyone goes insane (gretzky). there also aren't a lot of years where you could say a goalie deserved it but didn't win it; there are way more years, anyway, where a goalie was a debatable choice. captain/leader and clutch secondary scorer are also overrepresented, with few snubs.

past a certain threshold, buttload of goals is always going to beat any category below him. the only exception is mullen/macinnis. but i think maybe i also should have made a special category between goalie and buttload of goals for defensemen who lead the league in scoring, which is a very short list: orr (doesn't count anyway), robinson, macinnis, leetch, niedermayer. and niedermayer was only beaten by one of the most phenomenal goalie playoff runs of all time.

which is all to say that if you look at all the snubs and close calls, defensemen (esp defensemen who don't heroically lead the league in scoring) get the short end of the stick more than any other category of smythe contender. to a point, i do think i also value a franchise d more than the average observer.