Who is the worst playoff performer ever?

[sr edler]

See Corey Perry these playoffs, he's 40 years old but got 5 goals already for the Oilers and is an annoying big body net-presence greaseball. If the Oilers play 11 more games these next two series, Perry will move from 8th to 3rd overall in games played in the post-season, passing Messier. Then you have someone like Jeff Skinner firmly planted on the bench.

 

[McGarnagle]

Thornton is obvious. Linus Ullmark too.

 

[daver]

What about the O6?

Was there as big of a difference between the intensity in the RS vs. the POs? Seems like most of the names are post expansion.

 

[solidmotion]

What about the O6?

Was there as big of a difference between the intensity in the RS vs. the POs? Seems like most of the names are post expansion.

esposito was famously terrible in the playoffs for the blackhawks. or scapegoated anyway. actually outside of a few big years with the bruins his stats are underwhelming for a player of his calibre through the 70s. (look at 74, he scored 145 pts in the RS and then only 14 in 16 games in the POs, 5th on the bruins.)

 

[solidmotion]

doesn't belong on a worst-ever list but bert olmstead looks a little underwhelming too from the o6

 

[The Panther]

esposito was famously terrible in the playoffs for the blackhawks. or scapegoated anyway. actually outside of a few big years with the bruins his stats are underwhelming for a player of his calibre through the 70s. (look at 74, he scored 145 pts in the RS and then only 14 in 16 games in the POs, 5th on the bruins.)

It would be interesting to do a breakdown of Big Phil's point scoring vs. the various clubs. My suspicion is that he did quite well vs. everyone in his physical prime (c. 1967-68 to 1971-72) but that he maybe piled on a disproportionate number of points vs. weaker teams thereafter... which would explain his playoff results in 1974, maybe.

Hm, just looking at that one season, 1973-74, he did this:

Phil vs. five established clubs:
44 points in 28 games = 123 points / 78 GP
Phil vs. ten "new" clubs:
101 points in 50 games =158 points / 78 GP

However, that split seems (to me) just normal for any player (and some of the established clubs, like Detroit, now sucked or weren't great). So, what if we looked at playoff teams vs. non-playoff teams?:

Phil vs. eight non-playoff clubs:
87 points in 41 games = 166 points / 78 GP
Phil vs. seven playoff clubs:
58 points in 37 games =122 points / 78 GP

Meh, I dunno, this still strikes me as a "normal" split.

Maybe Phil was just gassed in the '74 playoffs, or a bit injured, or....?

 

[overpass]

What about the O6?

Was there as big of a difference between the intensity in the RS vs. the POs? Seems like most of the names are post expansion.

I think the baseline for RS intensity was pretty high in the O6, especially compared to the 70s and 80s. There were no multi-year contracts, no players association, players had little power compared to coaches and owners, and there was lots of talent in the minors. Players from that era have said they had to play hard every game or they would lose their job.

That era was more matchup dependent than anything. Some players could do well in a certain matchup and struggle in others. Take Andy Bathgate. He was a superstar regular season scorer with the Rangers. And he was a good playoff scorer against other American teams. But the majority of his playoff games were against dynasty Montreal and Toronto teams, and he scored less than half a point per game in those games. He just wasn't good enough to be a superstar at that level of competition.

Bathgate's playoff scoring
Vs 50s Habs: 10 GP, 5 P
Vs 60s Leafs: 6 GP, 3 P
Vs 60s Habs: 19 GP, 9 P
Total vs dynasties: 35 GP, 8 G, 17 P

Vs BOS/CHI/DET: 19 GP, 13 G, 18 P

 

[JackSlater]

I think the baseline for RS intensity was pretty high in the O6, especially compared to the 70s and 80s. There were no multi-year contracts, no players association, players had little power compared to coaches and owners, and there was lots of talent in the minors. Players from that era have said they had to play hard every game or they would lose their job.

That era was more matchup dependent than anything. Some players could do well in a certain matchup and struggle in others. Take Andy Bathgate. He was a superstar regular season scorer with the Rangers. And he was a good playoff scorer against other American teams. But the majority of his playoff games were against dynasty Montreal and Toronto teams, and he scored less than half a point per game in those games. He just wasn't good enough to be a superstar at that level of competition.

Bathgate's playoff scoring
Vs 50s Habs: 10 GP, 5 P
Vs 60s Leafs: 6 GP, 3 P
Vs 60s Habs: 19 GP, 9 P
Total vs dynasties: 35 GP, 8 G, 17 P

Vs BOS/CHI/DET: 19 GP, 13 G, 18 P

The biggest problem with Bathgate, for me anyway, is what happened when he went to Toronto. Players on shallow teams tend to suffer more in the playoffs than do players on deep teams, as matchups and game management are so much easier for the opposition. I get why Bathgate struggled in the playoffs with new York relative to in the regular season, especially against the deep teams. But when Bathgate goes to Toronto, in the playoffs he's tied for fifth in scoring and was maybe the ninth or tenth most important skater on the team.

I get that he was 31 and was new to the team, but Bathgate was still a star that year and his points per game in his regular season games with Toronto (1.2 over 15 games, next best points per game on Toronto that season was Keon at .86) was the best on the team comfortably. No one on Toronto saw their scoring drop off as much as Bathgate did. It doesn't kill Bathgate off for me, but you'd hope that once he got to play for a strong, deep team he would prove to be a top contributor.

 

[FinLurker]

A lot of the suggested bad playoff performers were on weak teams, which were lucky to get into playoffs and faced the highest seeded team.

For example Teemu Selänne and Paul Kariya. Those Anaheim teams managed to squeeze into playoffs few times and faced mainly juggernaut teams who could use one line to play 0-0 and demolish Anaheims other lines.

It's easier to be good playoff performer in a higher seeded team.

 

[jigglysquishy]

A lot of the suggested bad playoff performers were on weak teams, which were lucky to get into playoffs and faced the highest seeded team.

For example Teemu Selänne and Paul Kariya. Those Anaheim teams managed to squeeze into playoffs few times and faced mainly juggernaut teams who could use one line to play 0-0 and demolish Anaheims other lines.

It's easier to be good playoff performer in a higher seeded team.

In particular, the Red Wings (who swept the Ducks in 1997 and 1999). The only other playoff series they played before their Giguere-run in 2003 was beating the Coyotes in 1997. So we're judging that prime pairing on three playoff series.

In 1997, Lidstrom is used against the Kariya-Selanne pairing.

In 1999, Lidstrom-Chelios played together and absolutely smothered Kariya-Selanne.

Against a more "normal" team in Phoenix, Kariya puts up 9 points in 7 games, Selanne 8. But then Selanne gets 2 in 4 against Lidstrom and Kariya 4 in 4.

It's another case of good players getting Lidstrom'd

 

[Matsun]

esposito was famously terrible in the playoffs for the blackhawks. or scapegoated anyway. actually outside of a few big years with the bruins his stats are underwhelming for a player of his calibre through the 70s. (look at 74, he scored 145 pts in the RS and then only 14 in 16 games in the POs, 5th on the bruins.)

Esposito playoffs after trade to Boston:

Season	Team	GP	G	A	P
1967-68	BOS	4	0	3	3
1968-69	BOS	10	8	10	18
1969-70	BOS	14	13	14	27
1970-71	BOS	7	3	7	10
1971-72	BOS	15	9	15	24
1972-73	BOS	2	0	1	1
1973-74	BOS	16	9	5	14
1974-75	BOS	3	4	1	5
1977-78	NYR	3	0	1	1
1978-79	NYR	18	8	12	20
1979-80	NYR	9	3	3	6

In 69 when Esposito lead the playoffs in goals and assists Orr only had 8 points.

From 69-72 in the playoffs he was scoring at a 59-82-141 pace/82 GP.
In the regular seasons from 69-75 he was scoring at a 64-75-139 pace/82 GP.

Esposito tore ligaments in his right knee in game 2 of the 73 playoffs which is why he played so few games that year. Maybe he lost a step after that which affected his playoff performances? Regardless I still think his playoff peak is way too high for this thread, especially when you consider what he did without peak Orr in 1969.

 

[K Fleur]

Primeau gets soo much mileage out of that Esposito quote on his 04 playoffs.

Dude was one of those classic “his game is built for the playoffs” players that actually turns into a drag on his team when the playoffs start

 

[Johnny Engine]

See Corey Perry these playoffs, he's 40 years old but got 5 goals already for the Oilers and is an annoying big body net-presence greaseball. If the Oilers play 11 more games these next two series, Perry will move from 8th to 3rd overall in games played in the post-season, passing Messier. Then you have someone like Jeff Skinner firmly planted on the bench.

I think your original point is a piece of the puzzle, but in this case I think you've got two players who superficially look similar (about 15-20 goals a year in a depth role), but one of them is way more useful than the other one, and upping the level of play puts an exclamation point on that.
There's a lot you can do with a 6'3" jerk who can make plays in the tightest of spaces, while Skinner seems to me the living embodiment of "(yeah he sucks but) scoring goals in the hardest thing to do (and no I won't verify that before giving him a contract)".

 

[MadLuke]

Skinner played 11 minutes of playoff hockey is whole 1000+ games, 100 millions in earning and getting closer to 400 goals career....

It is a strange career and one of the quietest Calder winner-$100+ millions made-400goals-with a 40 goal season ever..

 

[GlitchMarner]

If Jeff Skinner can manage another 27 RS goals, he may become the only player in NHL history to have 400 regular season goals and zero playoff goals beyond round one (now that Matthews has a round two goal). In fact, he may be become the only 400 goal scorer without a playoff goal, period.

 

[Staniowski]

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.

It doesn't discounts either the mental aspect or the overall human aspect. These things are already included in the general, overall talent level of every player.

The talent of any hockey player is the sum total and unique combination of every factor: puck skills; skating ability; hockey IQ; physical size; drive and intensity; etc.

All of the factors combine to produce the final product, which determines how good a player is at every level of competition, however good the opposition is. So, against weaker opposition, things like intensity, skating ability, or hockey IQ might not matter as much. But they always matter, and it becomes more apparent against better opposition.

This is actually one of my favourite macro hockey subjects.

If Saku Koivu has some attributes that are better than those of Ovechkin - and I agree that he does, then this should be a factor in evaluating their respective abilities, as evidenced through various qualities of opposition.

 

[MadLuke]

All of the factors combine to produce the final product, which determines how good a player is at every level of competition, however good the opposition is. So, against weaker opposition, things like intensity, skating ability, or hockey IQ might not matter as much. But they always matter, and it becomes more apparent against better opposition.

For a while too, say the 16 out of 21 teams making the playoff, if there was a difference, would it be quality of opposition ? And high seed if anything could maybe face below their regular season average...

That said, maybe the opposition put more effort into it.

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

It is hard to say that it does not discounts either the mental aspect or the overall human aspect. Maybe it does not, because maybe it is true, there is no more pressure or at least it does affect player differently, maybe they do play the same. But this is saying that playoff pressure, different schedule, facing the same players has no effect in how they play. It is something we assign to them if they have different result that is simply because it was an higher level of play (like when we see different relative result from AHL-NHL-KHL from some players, it is not mentally feel good/bad, it is different ice, level of play, coach usage and league playstyle)

 

[authentic]

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 ?

Well besides being noticeably injured in atleast 3 or 4 of his playoff runs, I wonder if facing a Vezina wining goalie in every series of his career has something to do with it as well.

 

[sr edler]

It doesn't discounts either the mental aspect or the overall human aspect. These things are already included in the general, overall talent level of every player.

The talent of any hockey player is the sum total and unique combination of every factor: puck skills; skating ability; hockey IQ; physical size; drive and intensity; etc.

All of the factors combine to produce the final product, which determines how good a player is at every level of competition, however good the opposition is. So, against weaker opposition, things like intensity, skating ability, or hockey IQ might not matter as much. But they always matter, and it becomes more apparent against better opposition.

This is actually one of my favourite macro hockey subjects.

If Saku Koivu has some attributes that are better than those of Ovechkin - and I agree that he does, then this should be a factor in evaluating their respective abilities, as evidenced through various qualities of opposition.

But not everyone puts equal value on the exact same things.

Desire for instance is not a talent, it's more of a preference. But sure, I guess technically you can (perhaps) bake everything into the same cookie, but IMO that still doesn't account for the human heart.

This "everyone dreams about the same thing" thing seems like such a sporty outlook on life. But I've seen Sundin's eyes playing Finland internationally and I've seen Yashin in a turtleneck after being swept in a playoff series.

Btw, I agree to a large degree on your point, just not that it accounts for or explains everything.

 

[sr edler]

I think your original point is a piece of the puzzle, but in this case I think you've got two players who superficially look similar (about 15-20 goals a year in a depth role), but one of them is way more useful than the other one, and upping the level of play puts an exclamation point on that.
There's a lot you can do with a 6'3" jerk who can make plays in the tightest of spaces, while Skinner seems to me the living embodiment of "(yeah he sucks but) scoring goals in the hardest thing to do (and no I won't verify that before giving him a contract)".

Sure, perhaps it wasn't the most comprehensive example, but Perry's still modified or changed his playing style to quite a large degree to extend his career. I know there are Buffalo fans who claims Skinner's actually trying hard to play good defence but just isn't capable, perhaps there's some amount of truth to that, IDK.

 

[FinLurker]

If Jeff Skinner can manage another 27 RS goals, he may become the only player in NHL history to have 400 regular season goals and zero playoff goals beyond round one (now that Matthews has a round two goal). In fact, he may be become the only 400 goal scorer without a playoff goal, period.

On the other hand. Jeff Skinner is a 1.00 PPG player in playoffs, which is better than his regular season PPG of 0.65. If the sample size would be a bit higher, we would be talking him being a clutch player.