PHIL KESSEL WINS STANLEY CUP

[disco]

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/gotta-see-phil-kessel-thrilled-lift-stanley-cup/

https://twitter.com/TSN_Sports/status/742198039234908160

https://twitter.com/dcecere08/status/742200384689741824

https://twitter.com/BarDown/status/742210220471025664

https://twitter.com/ArashMadani/status/742203163801849856

https://twitter.com/ArashMadani/status/742198635417329664

[Zee]

He really should have gotten the Conn Smythe too.

[CarltonTheBear]

PHIL!

[CarltonTheBear]

He really should have gotten the Conn Smythe too.

Yeah, I don't want to say that Crosby didn't deserve it but I feel like he won it for reasons that generally aren't given much consideration when it comes to the Conn Smythe. Because if they were then there's no way Justin Williams would have won it over Anze Kopitar last time LA won. So it just seems awful convenient that the voters changed their criteria when Phil was up for the award.

[Nik]

Yeah, I don't want to say that Crosby didn't deserve it but I feel like he won it for reasons that generally aren't given much consideration generally when it comes to the Conn Smythe. Because if they were then there's no way Justin Williams would have won it over Anze Kopitar last time LA won. So it just seems awful convenient that the voters changed their criteria when Phil was up for the award.

Admittedly I don't know if the composition in voters is similar from year to year but even if it were I think the Williams decision was generally pretty terrible so I'd hate to think it would be used as a binding future precedent.

[bustaheims]

Yeah, I don't want to say that Crosby didn't deserve it but I feel like he won it for reasons that generally aren't given much consideration generally when it comes to the Conn Smythe. Because if they were then there's no way Justin Williams would have won it over Anze Kopitar last time LA won. So it just seems awful convenient that the voters changed their criteria when Phil was up for the award.

I read somewhere that it was the first time in more than 30 years that a forward who didn't lead his team in playoff points won the award (though, clearly, whoever wrote that forgot about Williams beating Kopitar). Crosby definitely did more of the little things to help his team win, but, like you said, it does feel awfully convenient that the criteria changed this year.

[CarltonTheBear]

Apparently there isn't any footage of Phil and Reimer in the handshake line. What the hell TV producers?

[Nik]

I read somewhere that it was the first time in more than 30 years that a forward who didn't lead his team in playoff points won the award (though, clearly, whoever wrote that forgot about Williams beating Kopitar).

Just off the top of my head it's also not true of Nieuwendyk's win in '99 or Lemieux in '95.

[Crucialness Key]

He really should have gotten the Conn Smythe too.

Yeah, I don't want to say that Crosby didn't deserve it but I feel like he won it for reasons that generally aren't given much consideration when it comes to the Conn Smythe. Because if they were then there's no way Justin Williams would have won it over Anze Kopitar last time LA won. So it just seems awful convenient that the voters changed their criteria when Phil was up for the award.

To me it feels more like the criteria changed to benefit Crosby, not so much to hurt Phil.  If Crosby already had a Conn Smythe, I think Phil would have got it this year.

[jdh1]

Hooray for Phil Kessel....he must of read my posts because he did do a great job in the playoffs.I was very critical of him when he left the Leafs,but hats off to him right now.

[herman]

[tweet]742191191735705600[/tweet]

[bustaheims]

Just off the top of my head it's also not true of Nieuwendyk's win in '99 or Lemieux in '95.

Yeah. Whoever posted that clearly didn't do their research.

[Bullfrog]

Happy for him; such a talented player.

[Nik]

I think it's a really tough question all things considered. On the one hand, Kessel's higher goal/point totals in significantly less playing time is a pretty strong argument based on precedent.

On the other hand, I find it really hard to accept that if you took the names off of each player's stat line and presented it to someone who hadn't watched the games that 3 more points over 24 games told enough of a story to make a definitive statement. Almost all of the peripheral concepts(possession, defensive play, face-offs, positional importance and, ugh, leadership) favour Crosby and he did it while undeniably playing against tougher opposition. Do three points outweigh all that?

And then on the third hand, Kris Letang played almost 29 minutes a night on a defense that was lousy aside from him and put up points/did an incredible job keeping the other team in check. The Sharks averaged 23 shots a night in the finals.

I don't think any of the three are an easy or obvious choice. Ultimately I think what hurt Phil's case more than any sort of shifting criteria was just the fact that the final series was so low scoring. If the Penguins had won on the basis of their fire power it would be easier to argue for the highest scorer. But Kessel being held to one goal and four points in the finals and the general dominance of Pittsburgh really made a case for them winning on possession/defense and that wasn't his strongest suit.

[CarltonTheBear]

To me the true MVP of the Penguins playoffs was the entire HBK line. They finished 1-2-3 in 5-on-5 scoring, and in all situations they finished 1-3-5. Their 5-on-5 GF% was a combined 65% (Phil's personal one was 66.7%). And while yes Crosby was facing the top defensive pairing every night, they were still usually going up against the 2nd best pairings on playoff teams. So it's not like they were facing chump change every night. Those results, especially the GF%, are still incredibly impressive regardless of the situation. Crosby was actually outscored during 5-on-5 play 15 to 18.