Who is the worst playoff performer ever?

[Dubi Doo]

Reading the Matthews thread on the main board makes me think a bunch of posters are giving opinions full of hyperbole, but it did make me wonder who is the worst playoff performer of all time? I figured a more genuine and knowledgeable discussion can be had here.

Relative to the caliber of player and how well he normally performed during the regular season, who had the steepest decline when the playoffs started?

 

[Staniowski]

Players don't really decline in the playoffs. That's not the proper way it should be understood. Rather, in the playoffs, players generally face better opposition. The same thing happens in best-on-best tournaments - better opposition; or even against the better teams in the regular season.

Playing against better opposition brings out the best. It separates the men from the boys, so to speak.

So, it's not a matter of players playing differently in the playoffs than they do in the regular season. They play the same.

If players don't play well against quality opposition, that means they aren't great players. Playing against good players and good teams is the ultimate test.

 

[daver]

Players don't really decline in the playoffs. That's not the proper way it should be understood. Rather, in the playoffs, players generally face better opposition. The same thing happens in best-on-best tournaments - better opposition; or even against the better teams in the regular season.

Playing against better opposition brings out the best. It separates the men from the boys, so to speak.

So, it's not a matter of players playing differently in the playoffs than they do in the regular season. They play the same.

If players don't play well against quality opposition, that means they aren't great players. Playing against good players and good teams is the ultimate test.

I think this discounts the mental aspect. It separates the mentally strong and hyper competive.

 

[TrKB PAM]

Players don't really decline in the playoffs. That's not the proper way it should be understood. Rather, in the playoffs, players generally face better opposition. The same thing happens in best-on-best tournaments - better opposition; or even against the better teams in the regular season.

Playing against better opposition brings out the best. It separates the men from the boys, so to speak.

So, it's not a matter of players playing differently in the playoffs than they do in the regular season. They play the same.

If players don't play well against quality opposition, that means they aren't great players. Playing against good players and good teams is the ultimate test.

Good teams or not, hockey is played at a whole another level of intensity in the playoffs. Playing good teams in RS =/= playoff hockey.

 

[connellc]

I always like to go by statistics based on regular season performance. Just because you're a star, doesn't mean mid tier players aren't horrible playoff performers. Here are some examples, during high scoring eras.

Note: I'm not going to touch players who are still playing in their primes. Datsyuk started terribly, but finished strong so here are some concrete take to the bank examples of your worst performers.

Christian Ruutu (42GP-4-9-13)
Paul Ysebaert (30GP 4-3-7)
Toni Tanti (30GP 3-12-15)
Brian Savage (39GP-3-8 -11)
Stephane Fiset ( 1-7- 3.95GAA .879%)
Trevor Kidd ( 3-5- 3.93 .845%(!)

Enough sample size for the top 3 (30 games is a lot) to really see that those guys weren't stepping up at all. Those are in the history books

Here are a couple guys about to join them:



Gus Nyquist numbers are horrific, and there is little to no time left to fix this. Here are his stats.

83 (GP)- 6 (!)- 24 - 30 points

Thomas Tatar is also pretty brutal 56GP 7-6-13


Tyler Seguin is also close to closing his chapter as a choker too.

Panarin, Matthews, Marner are off to terrible starts, but let's wait until they hang up the boots.

 

[WarriorofTime]

One tricky aspect is the worse someone plays, the more likely their sample is just really small. And also the more correlated they were just a very overmatched team where the opposition was able to key in on them to shut them down whereas they likely do better if they were more supported.

In terms of a guy who often felt like his teams were a dominant performance from him away from winning it all and they just didn’t happen, Joe Thornton is the big name for me. That doesn’t make him the hyperbolic “worst”, just someone I thought left a lot on the table.

 

[WarriorofTime]

Then you have the other side of it. Players that do have a substantial sample size of games, which does mean that they were likely enjoying a good bit of team success, but whose stats are left wanting a bit. But if team is winning, there's a good argument they were doing whatever they needed to do to help the team even if not translating to the stat sheet. You have to kind of analyze this on a case-by-case basis and look at the overall context of their own individual level of play, the performance of the rest of the team and the tone and cadence of the series they were participating in.

So you're really looking for rare instances here of players that were basically on winning teams in spite of them, where despite their best efforts to cause the team an early exit in their premiere role, the team managed to win a good bit anyways. One player that may be accused of fitting this bill would be Steven Stamkos. Him being a non-participant in 15/16 playoff wins when that Tampa core did finally break through in the 2020 Playoff Bubble is some evidence. The 2022 run to Tampa's third straight final I think was a bit of a redemption for him though.

 

[jigglysquishy]

One tricky aspect is the worse someone plays, the more likely their sample is just really small. And also the more correlated they were just a very overmatched team where the opposition was able to key in on them to shut them down whereas they likely do better if they were more supported.

A great example of this is Rick Nash in the 2009 playoffs.

The 2009 Blue Jackets are not good and are functionally a one line team. So Detroit runs Lidstrom-Zetterberg at it and holds Nash to 3 points in 4 games. It's not a good series, but going against the best C-D defensive combo in the era for every shift will break any normal star player. Then he missed the next three playoffs.

 

[MadLuke]

Matthews is a bit of a strange one, he is a rare all-time sniper goalscorer that do a lot of others things without being a Gretzky-Mario either.

He is still + in the playoff, despite having lost more game than won, which is usually great has it is not easy, but he played a bit with Marner so you expect great line result.

Won 55% of his faceoff and so on, scoring at a 72 pts per 82 games, his assists rate do not move by a single bit, nor does his shot taken per minutes it seems.

His shooting percentage goes from a flat out great ~16% in the regular season taking 4 shots a night, to a bad 9.1% taking 4.2 shots a night (shot are probably about the same amount per minutes).

That not what happened to a Thornton or Dionne, first reflex would be around smaller sample size but getting close to 300 shots now, does he take worst one ?

 

[Matsun]

Was going to mention Stamkos but his numbers are actually better in the later rounds:

Round​	GP​	G​	A​	P​	PPG​
Round 1​	51​	18​	23​	41​	0,80​
Round 2​	24​	11​	11​	22​	0,91​
Round 3​	35​	17​	14​	31​	0,88​
Finals​	18​	4​	3​	7​	0,38​

Stamkos have been really disappointing in the playoffs though, even in 2011 before his injuries:

Tampa 2011 playoff scorers​	GP​	G​	A​	P​	PPG​
St.Louis​	18​	10​	10​	20​	1,11​
Lecavalier​	18​	6​	13​	19​	1,06​
Purcell​	18​	6​	11​	17​	0,94​
Downie​	17​	2​	12​	14​	0,82​
Stamkos​	18​	6​	7​	13​	0,72​
Gagne​	15​	5​	7​	12​	0,80​
Moore​	18​	3​	8​	11​	0,61​
Bergenheimer​	16​	9​	2​	11​	0,69​

It certainly FELT like Stamkos had a huge dropoff because I never once felt like he looked like one of the best players in the world during the playoffs. His team had too much success with him and his numbers doesn't seem to drop in later rounds so he probably can't make a worst performers ever list.

 

[MadLuke]

If you go from 43 goals-89 pts per 82 (2011-2024 regular season stamkos) down to 29 goals-66pts in the first round of the playoff, I am not sure about the importance of not dropping as round goes, you did it right away.

That said, is it that egregious that 25% drop in scoring rate or typical ?, but it must on the lower bound.

Scoring and numbers is something, the coach not using you in key game moments during your prime is more something that can get unacceptable for a would be great player.

It is not giant sample size, puck can go in or not (ok if you want to challenge Gretzky you need tangible result, I am talking to be talked among the worst performer ever type), Morenz playoff decline seem vast, maybe the biggest among all-time great, but he was not talked that way.

 

[kaiser matias]

One tricky aspect is the worse someone plays, the more likely their sample is just really small. And also the more correlated they were just a very overmatched team where the opposition was able to key in on them to shut them down whereas they likely do better if they were more supported.

In terms of a guy who often felt like his teams were a dominant performance from him away from winning it all and they just didn’t happen, Joe Thornton is the big name for me. That doesn’t make him the hyperbolic “worst”, just someone I thought left a lot on the table.

Keith Primeau is another name that comes to mind like this. Especially if you take out his 2004 performance.

Edit: fixed the year; thanks @Michael Farkas.

 

[Michael Farkas]

2004*

 

[Gorskyontario]

Joe Thornton and Marleau

 

[MadLuke]

I remember in MTL a lot of talk about Malakhov and the playoff and how much better he would get without the pressure of being the best player on a team if he ever got traded....

He did get traded, not only stopped to be a number 1 but had the "chance" to be a number 4 behind legends with the Devils or a number 2 behind Leetch in New York, for the least pressure we can think of while still playing relevant hockey, in a sea of bigger names...

Did nothing of note.... outplayed by Tom Poti.

Maybe we were just really talent starved and easy to impress.

 

[carjackmalone]

Dan Cloutier
Marcel Dionne
Pierre Larouche

 

[GlitchMarner]

Matthews is a bit of a strange one, he is a rare all-time sniper goalscorer that do a lot of others things without being a Gretzky-Mario either. He is still + in the playoff, despite having lost more game than won, won 55% of his faceoff and so on, scoring at a 72 pts per 82 games, his assists rate do not move by a single bit, nor does his shot taken per minutes it seems.

His shooting percentage goes from a flat out great ~16% in the regular season taking 4 shots a night, to a bad 9.1% taking 4.2 shots a night (shot are probably about the same amount per minutes).

That not what happened to a Thornton or Dionne, first reflex would be around smaller sample size but getting close to 300 shots now, does he take worst one ?

This year he can't shoot normally, but I don't know what his issue has been in the past as far as goal scoring is concerned. I'm sure he simply has been unlucky at times, but it seems all the playoff failures and his dubious track record have really gotten to him and now his confidence is fragile and his mental game is weak as well.

In the OTT series, he hit the post and/or failed to score on chances around the net when he didn't need to make a great shot to score. You expect the best goal scorer in the League to score quite easily on some of the chances he hasn't buried. He seems broken mentally and physically at this point.

 

[quietbruinfan]

C. Ruttuu is a good one. Often looked like a star in regular season against my Bruins did very little in playoffs. Tanti too, though some of his work was with the Canucks.

Someone I would like to add: Charlie Coyle. The gulf between his regular season and playoff numbers isn't huge at first glance but he was a checking center in name only and is a truly terrible cumulative-33 in the playoffs....-33 on strong teams.

 

[MadLuke]

It would be a bizarre one, because he did not start from a very high ground to get down in the playoff, but Brian Savage back in the day was a bit of an extreme case....

Before his 31 years old season, the guy could score goal in the nhl at a decent rate, 161 goals in 491 games, 27 goals per 82 would not sound much but that kind of pace from 98 to 02 was quite decent.

All that to say, and it is a bit sad, from his rookie year in 94 to his departure in 02, he was the Habs with the most goals.

During that time frame he will score a single goal in the playoff, in 28 games, shooting 2%.

I am not sure if it was the playoff or just body-mind breaking down as the season went, maybe a 25 games season and a 2 round playoff format he would have a great career, he was called mister October for a reason.

In 1996, 20 goals the first 38 games, just 5 the last 38 games.
In 1997, 14 goals the first 41 games, just 9 the last 41 games.

In 2000 start with 10 goals in 12 October games, scored 7 in 26 for the whole rest of the year

 

[Sergei Bure]

Jim Carey the "Net detective" was awful in both playoffs that he played.

1994/95 - 7 Games GAA 4.19 SV% 83,4%
1995/96 - 3 Games GAA 6.19 SV% 74,4%

Take in consideration that he was the Vezinha Trophy winner in 1995-96, so after a great regular season, just horrible in the playoffs.

 

[Michael Farkas]

He wasn't a good goalie, so no one should have expected anything...he was lucky to play in the league at all...

 

[GlitchMarner]

Jim Carey the "Net detective" was awful in both playoffs that he played.

1994/95 - 7 Games GAA 4.19 SV% 83,4%
1995/96 - 3 Games GAA 6.19 SV% 74,4%

Take in consideration that he was the Vezinha Trophy winner in 1995-96, so after a great regular season, just horrible in the playoffs.

Maybe he should have had a Mask-themed nickname instead.

 

[The Panther]

He was mentioned upthread and the sample-size is too small to get excited about it, but man Trevor 'Are-you-kidding-me?' Kidd was terrible.

He appeared only 10 games, but he posted a .845 and, if projected to 82 GP, 106 goals-scored-(against)-above-average.

In the 1995 Calgary - San Jose series, it seemed like every time a Shark entered the zone, there was a 50-50 chance any random shot would end up in the net.

 

[sr edler]

I think this discounts the mental aspect. It separates the mentally strong and hyper competive.

I think it discounts the overall human aspect, pretty much. Of course it's harder overall to score in the playoffs because the competition is tougher, but that doesn't explain everything, it doesn't explain why Trevor Linden (in his prime) was a better player in the playoffs than Auston Matthews and Steven Stamkos. Or why Saku Koivu was better in international hockey than Ovechkin. That's more to do with playing styles and/or care level.

But hockey is a living for these people and not everyone is as enthusiastic about their job as the next guy. Some people might be less enthusiastic about working extra hours (playoffs) and some people fit better for specific tasks, not everyone is equally well-rounded and can do everything.

 

[daver]

I think it discounts the overall human aspect, pretty much. Of course it's harder overall to score in the playoffs because the competition is tougher, but that doesn't explain everything, it doesn't explain why Trevor Linden (in his prime) was a better player in the playoffs than Auston Matthews and Steven Stamkos. Or why Saku Koivu was better in international hockey than Ovechkin. That's more to do with playing styles and/or care level.

But hockey is a living for these people and not everyone is as enthusiastic about their job as the next guy. Some people might be less enthusiastic about working extra hours (playoffs) and some people fit better for specific tasks, not everyone is equally well-rounded and can do everything.

Interesting point. I've always said for every NHL player there is likely 10 other guys who have the talent to play in the NHL but do not have the drive, discipline, competitiveness etc.. to do what it takes to make it to the NHL, let alone play as a professtional

The playoffs is a whole other level than the regular season so many a great regular season player don't have that "it" factor. If I had to rank it by personality traits:

1. Competitiveness - an almost freakish, probably unhealthy, level of hating to lose

2. Mental strength - to be able to laser focus on the job

3. Confidence - in their ability and to lead a team