HOH Top 40 Stanley Cup Playoff Performers of All Time

[ImporterExporter]

That is... not a great way to compare anything. No consideration for yearly scoring trends OR opposition strength. Just raw points divided by raw GP and the blind assumption that everything must be equal. And even with that, there's what, a 0.03 difference? You want to assign meaning to that?

If you want to use 1996, 1997, 1999, 2000, and 2002 instead (even though I'm using the best point-per-game playoffs for all of the other players), here it is:

Top-5 Playoffs (Minimum Two Rounds)
EXCEPT for Peter Forsberg, Because Whatever

Player | GP | G | A | PTS | +/- | GWG | GWA | GWP | Opp-GA | Adj PTS | Adj P/GP | Years Included
Mario Lemieux | 78 | 63 | 79 | 142 | 24 | 8 | 13 | 21 | 266.2 | 107.08 | 1.37 | 1989, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1996
Joe Sakic | 90 | 52 | 64 | 116 | 19 | 12 | 13 | 25 | 207 | 112.68 | 1.25 | 1996, 1997, 1999, 2001, 2004
Guy Lafleur | 69 | 48 | 58 | 106 | 0 | 13 | 9 | 22 | 248.2 | 85.11 | 1.23 | 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979
Peter Forsberg | 91 | 39 | 65 | 104 | 28 | 9 | 14 | 23 | 204.4 | 101.2 | 1.11 | 1996, 1997, 1999, 2000, 2002
Sidney Crosby|105|41|82|123|24|7|19|26|217.3|112.2|1.07|2008, 2009, 2010, 2016, 2017
Mike Bossy | 82 | 66 | 56 | 122 | 0 | 12 | 6 | 18 | 288.6 | 85.93 | 1.05 | 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1985
Bryan Trottier | 87 | 39 | 78 | 115 | 0 | 6 | 10 | 16 | 282.4 | 83.96 | 0.97 | 1977, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983

And do you understand why even after swapping out two of Forsberg's best statistical playoffs because they only went two rounds while still including a two-round playoff from Crosby, because I guess that's more preferable than including that 3rd Round Boston series still puts Forsberg over Crosby? Because even when he wasn't playing his best, he was still Peter Forsberg.

Playing 11 games and trying to pass that off as any sort of, we'll say ethical method, is flat out wrong. But doing it for 40% (2 out of 5) of Forsberg's supposed historically significant "runs" is just icing on the cake.

This is the same crap that Crosby fanboys try and pull with the 2010-11 half season where he was on pace for 60+ goals and 132 points. And I'm a Penguins/Crosby diehard haha. We shouldn't give credit where it isn't due. Using an 11 game, 11 point instance as a top 5 performance for a great like Forsberg is ridiculous. I'd say the same thing about any player, in any era, from any team.

Forsberg contributed greatly to 1 Cup run. 1. And the other time the Avs didn't even need him to get the job done. If that and multiple 2nd round exits and points per game usage from those exits, define greatness, and performance in the eyes of some, so be it.

Edit: Go ahead and swap out Crosby's 19 in 13 then for the 2013 run. 4 Cup finals and an ECF final run sounds better and is fair given what I'm preaching.

Crosby's totals (1 3rd round exist and 4 SCF runs, including 3 wins) would then be:

119 points in 106 games = 1.12

 

[quoipourquoi]

Playing 11 games and trying to pass that off as any sort of, we'll say ethical method, is flat out wrong. But doing it for 40% (2 out of 5) of Forsberg's supposed historically significant "runs" is just icing on the cake.

Ethical? I used at least a two-round playoff for all of the players in that sample except Trottier, and even then, I used a two-game preliminary round in a 12-GP playoff. Highlighted in bold:

Top-5 Playoffs (Minimum Two Rounds)
EXCEPT for Peter Forsberg, Because Whatever

Player | GP | G | A | PTS | +/- | GWG | GWA | GWP | Opp-GA | Adj PTS | Adj P/GP | Years Included
Mario Lemieux | 78 | 63 | 79 | 142 | 24 | 8 | 13 | 21 | 266.2 | 107.08 | 1.37 | 1989 , 1991, 1992, 1993 , 1996
Joe Sakic | 90 | 52 | 64 | 116 | 19 | 12 | 13 | 25 | 207 | 112.68 | 1.25 | 1996, 1997, 1999, 2001, 2004
Guy Lafleur | 69 | 48 | 58 | 106 | 0 | 13 | 9 | 22 | 248.2 | 85.11 | 1.23 | 1975 , 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979
Peter Forsberg | 91 | 39 | 65 | 104 | 28 | 9 | 14 | 23 | 204.4 | 101.2 | 1.11 | 1996, 1997, 1999, 2000, 2002
Sidney Crosby|105|41|82|123|24|7|19|26|217.3|112.2|1.07|2008, 2009, 2010 , 2016, 2017
Mike Bossy | 82 | 66 | 56 | 122 | 0 | 12 | 6 | 18 | 288.6 | 85.93 | 1.05 | 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1985
Bryan Trottier | 87 | 39 | 78 | 115 | 0 | 6 | 10 | 16 | 282.4 | 83.96 | 0.97 | 1977 , 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983
Rest of #21 on COL|36|16|28|44|17|3|8|11|203.8|43.3|1.20|1998, 2001, 2003, 2004

Apparently you don't have a problem with me extending the same courtesy to everyone else - and you even blatantly asked me to do it for Crosby's 2010! Do you think I was hiding some apocalyptically bad playoff like in 2000 when he scored 3 GWGs against Detroit and setup the other in OT?

I could have done a 9-playoff comparison to drag down everyone's numbers except Forsberg's and Lemieux's, because Peter Forsberg did not have bad playoffs. Now that would have been unethical.

I don't mind running numbers for you (because I don't think raw points divided by raw GP gets us anywhere), but be cool about it. You've called it comical, you've said no one with half-a-brain would accept an 11-game playoff (even though I used two 11s for Lemieux, an 11 for Lafleur, an 11 for Sakic, a 10 for Bossy, and a 12 for Trottier because the alternative would be to completely sour their samples because none of them hold up as well as Forsberg does if I went with the 6th or 7th best options), and now you questioned my ethics. We're just talking hockey.

 

[ImporterExporter]

I wasn't directing ethical at you personally. More so the method/numbers themselves. Maybe I could have found a better word but I'm well enough spent now

Look, at the end of the day, I disagree with allowing 2nd round exits into any discussion because quite frankly 10-11-12 games isn't enough of a sample size. That's why I said throw out Sid's 19 in 13 and replace it with 2013.

And of course I understand that scoring points in 1983 is different than 1998, or 2017. There are methods to adjusting the raw totals, which I'm totally fine with. I'd like to see how you're adjusting points, but I certainly give you the benefit of the doubt there. I've been around long enough to know you do quality work. We just disagree on the sample size needed it seems.

That's why nobody is going to convince me that an 11 game playoff, where a guy scores 11 points and busts out in round 2 is worthy of being called a top 5 playoff run (for that player). Ever. I don't care if it's Crosby, Forberg, Gretzky, or some flash in the pan. Make it 50% of the way through the playoffs, while being a PPG player, and it makes the cut as some sort of barometer for greatness?

I personally would want a minimum of 3 rounds for a study like this. At least making it the conference finals gives you a 75% completion rate (a passing grade), which is a much larger number than 50 (failing grade). Again sample size should matter.

Other than that, I realize people's minds are made up about a great deal and in most cases, those opinions are steadfast. We plead our cases and the world keeps spinning. I'm spent for today. Turning in. Again, I appreciate the good conversation Q.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Issue

I wasn't directing ethical at you personally. More so the method/numbers themselves. Maybe I could have found a better word but I'm well enough spent now

Look, at the end of the day, I disagree with allowing 2nd round exits into any discussion because quite frankly 10-11-12 games isn't enough of a sample size. That's why I said throw out Sid's 19 in 13 and replace it with 2013.

And of course I understand that scoring points in 1983 is different than 1998, or 2017. There are methods to adjusting the raw totals, which I'm totally fine with. I'd like to see how you're adjusting points, but I certainly give you the benefit of the doubt there. I've been around long enough to know you do quality work. We just disagree on the sample size needed it seems.

That's why nobody is going to convince me that an 11 game playoff, where a guy scores 11 points and busts out in round 2 is worthy of being called a top 5 playoff run (for that player). Ever. I don't care if it's Crosby, Forberg, Gretzky, or some flash in the pan. Make it 50% of the way through the playoffs, while being a PPG player, and it makes the cut as some sort of barometer for greatness?

I personally would want a minimum of 3 rounds for a study like this. At least making it the conference finals gives you a 75% completion rate (a passing grade), which is a much larger number than 50 (failing grade). Again sample size should matter.

Other than that, I realize people's minds are made up about a great deal and in most cases, those opinions are steadfast. We plead our cases and the world keeps spinning. I'm spent for today. Turning in. Again, I appreciate the good conversation Q.

The issue is muddied by the nature of the playoffs. The core idea is for a player and team to be as efficient as possible.

To this end a three round series that takes 12 games is more efficient than a two round series that takes 14 games. Ideally a player or a team will dispatch the opposition in four straight games. Bad for revenues and scoring totals but that is the nature of the beast. Sample sizes have to reflect this.

So why should a player or a team be penalized or advantaged by this this games vs series paradox.

Resolve this and you will make headway.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Look, at the end of the day, I disagree with allowing 2nd round exits into any discussion because quite frankly 10-11-12 games isn't enough of a sample size. That's why I said throw out Sid's 19 in 13 and replace it with 2013.

But do you understand why I didn't look exclusively at 3-round playoffs? Because I'd have to disqualify Mario Lemieux who only made the 3rd Round four times. I'd have to use 1973 or 1984 Guy Lafleur. I'm down to 1984 Bryan Trottier when we know he's been better in the 1970s.

Peter Forsberg and Joe Sakic can take that hit by using 1996/2000 or 2002 which were still good enough statistically to mitigate the effect. The others can't.

Besides, most of Stanley Cup history was decided in 2-round playoffs, and the weight of the adjusted points stays with the GP, so if you terrorize an opponent in a 4-game sweep in a 2-round playoff, you're not getting any more credit than if you do the same thing in a sweep in a 4-round playoff.

Again, I appreciate the good conversation Q.

Like I said before, you better join the next project!

 

[ImporterExporter]

The issue is muddied by the nature of the playoffs. The core idea is for a player and team to be as efficient as possible.

To this end a three round series that takes 12 games is more efficient than a two round series that takes 14 games. Ideally a player or a team will dispatch the opposition in four straight games. Bad for revenues and scoring totals but that is the nature of the beast. Sample sizes have to reflect this.

So why should a player or a team be penalized or advantaged by this this games vs series paradox.

Resolve this and you will make headway.

How many 3 round series in the history of hockey only took 12 games though?

Even the dominant mid-late 70's Habs (when there were only 3 total rounds to begin with) needed these totals to finish 3 rounds.

76 - 13 games
77 - 14 games
78 - 15 games
79 - 16 games

And that was with only 3 round playoff hockey.

Edmonton needed 14 games to get through 3 rounds in 84 when the first round was only best of 5.

In the current format (best of 7 x4) has anyone ever finished 3 round in 12 games? I'm almost positive the answer is no.

Say player A takes 16 games to finish 3 rounds and player B takes 18 games. You're talking roughly an 11% difference. And while the raw totals might fluctuate you still have points per game to fall back on (adjusting for era/opposition etc of course).

Using 2 rounds doesn't change the efficiency because there are constant variances in terms of games played with 2nd round exits.

But do you understand why I didn't look exclusively at 3-round playoffs? Because I'd have to disqualify Mario Lemieux who only made the 3rd Round four times. I'd have to use 1973 or 1984 Guy Lafleur. I'm down to 1984 Bryan Trottier when we know he's been better in the 1970s.

Peter Forsberg and Joe Sakic can take that hit by using 1996/2000 or 2002 which were still good enough statistically to mitigate the effect. The others can't.

Besides, most of Stanley Cup history was decided in 2-round playoffs, and the weight of the adjusted points stays with the GP, so if you terrorize an opponent in a 4-game sweep in a 2-round playoff, you're not getting any more credit than if you do the same thing in a sweep in a 4-round playoff.

Like I said before, you better join the next project!

I agree, there are drawbacks. Namely the O6 era when there were only 2 rounds to begin with. Perhaps using a 2 round minimum for players during that era while 3 for players in the 4 round era is something to look at? Why make it a constant when the league has never been such in terms of playoff format/length?

Equating an O6 era, 8 games (minimum # possible) vs post expansion 4 round versions doesn't seem right. In the O6 time period, the 2nd round WAS the SCF. Today? Yeah, the end of round 2 only marks the halfway point. That creates completely different dynamics. Using Jean Beliveau's incredible 1956 (2 rounds) is completely different in almost every way in terms of importance of games played, level of competition than Peter Forsberg's 2001 (2 rounds). Mr. Beliveau put up one of the all time great performances, not just because he won the SC, but also because he was essentially a 2 PPG player over 10 games.

 

[Canadiens1958]

1968 & 1969 Canadiens

How many 3 round series in the history of hockey only took 12 games though?

1968 & 1969 Canadiens dispatched the three opposing teams in 13 and 14 games respectively in winning the SC. So it has been done within the limits of a two series framework or 14 games. Likewise, 1976 & 1977 by the Canadiens.

This is the core of the issue.

 

[ImporterExporter]

1968 & 1969 Canadiens dispatched the three opposing teams in 13 and 14 games respectively in winning the SC. So it has been done within the limits of a two series framework or 14 games. Likewise, 1976 & 1977 by the Canadiens.

This is the core of the issue.

And yet the 68 and 69 Canadiens 2nd round was the "conference final". Trying to equate that to a 2nd round series today is....wrong?

And if you jump ahead to 71 it took them 20 games to finish 3 rounds. 13 to finish the first 2.

As I said there is no constant in # of games played or playoff systems throughout history. 60 years ago, there were two best of 7 series. Then 3 best of 7. Then 1 best of 5 and 3 best of 7. Then the style we see today.

Just going with a minimum of 2 rounds played doesn't factor in difference of importance of the 2 rounds. The 2 rounds in 1965 are completely different in almost every dynamic than rounds 1 and 2 today (other than they are best of 7).

Once again, Jean Beliveau is going to see his epic 1956, 19 points in 10 games used as a top 5 performance for him (as it should be). And yet Peter Forsberg's 11 points in 11 games (2004) somehow holds up to THAT standard?

I'm sorry, but no.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Point

And yet the 68 and 69 Canadiens 2nd round was the "conference final". Trying to equate that to a 2nd round series today is....wrong?

And if you jump ahead to 71 it took them 20 games to finish 3 rounds. 13 to finish the first 2.

As I said there is no constant in # of games played or playoff systems throughout history. 60 years ago, there were two best of 7 series. Then 3 best of 7. Then 1 best of 5 and 3 best of 7. Then the style we see today.

Just going with a minimum of 2 rounds played doesn't factor in difference of importance of the 2 rounds. The 2 rounds in 1965 are completely different in almost every dynamic than rounds 1 and 2 today (other than they are best of 7).

Once again, Jean Beliveau is going to see his epic 1956, 19 points in 10 games used as a top 5 performance for him (as it should be). And yet Peter Forsberg's 11 points in 11 games (2004) somehow holds up to THAT standard?

I'm sorry, but no.

Point is in the presentation.

Beliveau had 11 playoff seasons of at 10 games, including 1968 and 1971 where had at least 1.00PPG. Forsberg had only 5 such playoff seasons - you listed the weakest above.

Now if the discussion looks at the top five playoffs only, then ice is slanted in favour of Forsberg. Which is why peak is a very flawed view if looking down into the valley is ignored.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Perhaps using a 2 round minimum for players during that era while 3 for players in the 4 round era is something to look at? Why make it a constant when the league has never been such in terms of playoff format/length?

Because, as I said, it would be unfair to Bossy, Trottier, and Lafleur - and entirely disqualifying to Mario Lemieux. Many players don't have 5 trips to the Conference Finals, and if they do, they probably don't have enough to pick-and-choose their best ones to avoid being dragged down by ones that came outside of their prime.

Doug Gilmour, for instance, has just four, but imagine if he had picked up a 5th with a not very impressive playoff when Buffalo went to Game 7 OT in the 2nd Round of 2001. Would it be fair to drag down his numbers from two God-like runs with Toronto, a league-leading playoff with St. Louis, and his Calgary Stanley Cup with that playoff when it's far less of a representation of who he was as a player? I would say no, especially when there's a perfectly good 2-round playoff with the 1988 St. Louis Blues.

If everyone consistently went to the Conference Finals, I'd understand using three-round minimums.

 

[Cursed Lemon]

You don't say!

Where did I say Conn Smythe wins was the end all be all? I'll save you the trouble. I didn't.

Sample size matters. Greatly.

Using points per game, to include 2nd round losses (at a minimum), while trying to pass off Peter Forsberg's (and others) 2001 and 2004 runs as one of his 5 greatest is a farce of epic proportions.

Nobody with a straight face is going to convince anyone with half a brain that an 11 game, 14 point "run" is among a players best performances. Or that 11 points in 11 games (2014) is either. And yet I see those TWO instances where Forsberg's numbers are inflated because we're apparently willing to signal that playing 2 whole rounds (1st and 2nd to boot) is enough to justify "top 5" status.

Color me greatly unimpressed with that method.

But why? To that end, PPG is a huge defining factor of a player's performance, regular season or not. I get your Crosby argument, but nobody is trying to give Forsberg credit for the games he didn't play, they're simply evaluating the ones that he did. PPG over number of games played is a context people either choose to recognize or don't. It's not your fault, my fault, or anyone's fault but their own if they choose to misrepresent the numbers. Look at this thread I made a while back - even though Crosby has the sixth-highest adjusted PPG, he also has the 2nd least adjusted points of everyone on the list. That means something, even if people choose to disregard it.

But even then, Crosby's peak seasons are a giant what-if; we already know for a fact that Forsberg can carry his production beyond two rounds.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Point is in the presentation.

Beliveau had 11 playoff seasons of at 10 games, including 1968 and 1971 where had at least 1.00PPG. Forsberg had only 5 such playoff seasons - you listed the weakest above.

Now if the discussion looks at the top five playoffs only, then ice is slanted in favour of Forsberg. Which is why peak is a very flawed view if looking down into the valley is ignored.

No, the point is trying to pass off a Forsberg 11 game, 11 point, 2 round run (that saw the team end up winning the Cup despite his absence) as anything remotely close to 1956 Jean Beliveau. Or Crosby's 19 in 13 in 2010, since that's essentially a half point more per game, 2 round performance, if we want to look at somebody who went out in round 2 and didn't make the finals.

I'm not saying I have the perfect solution to a method to replace what was used. I'm not an elite mathematician. I'm not going to come up with some incredible algorithm.

There has to be a way to incorporate a players actual "best" performances while also looking "into the valley" at their worst runs. And when I look at the seasons used for a guy like Forsberg, I throw my hands up in the air. 2001 and 2004 didn't look or read like one of his top 5 efforts.

Not including 1996 in that study is ridiculous to me. He scored 21 points, had a career high in goals and career high in +/-. And it was the one time he actually made an impact all the way through, as a pretty darn young player (22) to boot.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Not including 1996 in that study is ridiculous to me. He scored 21 points, had a career high in goals and career high in +/-. And it was the one time he actually made an impact all the way through, as a pretty darn young player (22) to boot.

Because based on the objective numbers, it isn't one of his five-best. And I had no problem running the numbers for your hand-picked playoffs of his... and it didn't really change anything. He still finished ahead of all of the players he finished ahead of in the project: Crosby, Bossy, Trottier (while still including their 2-Round samples).

I just don't understand why you're hung up on Forsberg when including 2nd Round finishes benefits every other player in the comparison to a greater extent. I could compare his 3-Round samples to theirs, but if you're set in the opinion that it's "comical" to have him in their company, I don't know that it will do what you seem to want it to do.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Because based on the objective numbers, it isn't one of his five-best. And I had no problem running the numbers for your hand-picked playoffs of his... and it didn't really change anything. He still finished ahead of all of the players he finished ahead of in the project: Crosby, Bossy, Trottier (while still including their 2-Round samples).

I just don't understand why you're hung up on Forsberg when including 2nd Round finishes benefits every other player in the comparison to a greater extent. I could compare his 3-Round samples to theirs, but if you're set in the opinion that it's "comical" to have him in their company, I don't know that it will do what you seem to want it to do.

I disagree. And we'll have to just agree to disagree it seems.

There is no way somebody is going to convince me that simply using PPG as the defining metric, and thus saying that a player putting up 11 points in 11 games, in a 2nd round loss, is somehow a "top 5 playoff performance".

We're getting really weak if that qualifies as a great run. We should be identifying great runs (for peak purposes) and poor runs (for the valleys). Not middling efforts. It weakens the overall project IMHO.

 

[ResilientBeast]

I disagree. And we'll have to just agree to disagree it seems.

There is no way somebody is going to convince me that simply using PPG as the defining metric, and thus saying that a player putting up 11 points in 11 games, in a 2nd round loss, is somehow a "top 5 playoff performance".

We're getting really weak if that qualifies as a great run. We should be identifying great runs (for peak purposes) and poor runs (for the valleys). Not middling efforts. It weakens the overall project IMHO.

Well middling efforts are better than weak ones are they not?

1 Great Run
2 Poor Runs

1 Great Run
1 Middling Run
1 Poor Run

With all things being equal which set of playoff runs is better?

We're looking at such small sample sizes we it's necessary to have as much information and data as possible

 

[ImporterExporter]

Well middling efforts are better than weak ones are they not?

1 Great Run
2 Poor Runs

1 Great Run
1 Middling Run
1 Poor Run

With all things being equal which set of playoff runs is better?

We're looking at such small sample sizes we it's necessary to have as much information and data as possible

Let me rephrase.

We should not be counting middling runs as top 5 performances. If you were to ask the masses, to identify Peter Forsberg's 5 best playoff runs, very few folks I reckon would put 2001 or 2004 in that group.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Let me rephrase.

We should not be counting middling runs as top 5 performances. If you were to ask the masses, to identify Peter Forsberg's 5 best playoff runs, very few folks I reckon would put 2001 or 2004 in that group.

The numbers are what they are. And again, I've given you the numbers for the playoff runs that you handpicked for Forsberg, and they were still better than the players he placed ahead of in the project.

So what are you complaining about still? We did the math your way.

Individual Playoffs

Player | Year | Opponent | GP | G | A | PTS | +/- | GWG | GWA | GWP | GA-82 | Adj PTS | Adj P/GP | Rounds
Peter Forsberg|1998|Total|7|6|5|11|3|0|2|2|224.0|9.82|1.40|1-Round
Peter Forsberg|2002|Total|20|9|18|27|8|4|4|8|192.1|27.99|1.40|3-Round
Peter Forsberg|1999|Total|19|8|16|24|7|0|3|3|186.0|25.62|1.35|3-Round
Peter Forsberg|2003|Total|7|2|6|8|3|0|2|2|178.0|8.99|1.28|1-Round
Peter Forsberg|2004|Total|11|4|7|11|6|1|1|2|179.4|12.42|1.13|2-Round
Peter Forsberg|2006|Total|6|4|4|8|2|2|0|2|239.0|6.69|1.12|1-Round
Peter Forsberg|2001|Total|11|4|10|14|5|2|3|5|231.6|12.06|1.10|2-Round
Peter Forsberg|1997|Total|14|5|12|17|-6|0|4|4|213.3|15.26|1.09|3-Round
Peter Forsberg|2000|Total|16|7|8|15|9|4|2|6|203.1|14.65|0.92|3-Round
Peter Forsberg|1995|Total|6|2|4|6|2|0|0|0|228.9|5.24|0.87|1-Round
Peter Forsberg|1996|Total|22|10|11|21|10|1|1|2|227.7|17.70|0.80|4-Round
Peter Forsberg|2007|Total|5|2|2|4|2|0|0|0|199.0|4.02|0.80|1-Round
Peter Forsberg|2008|Total|7|1|4|5|3|0|1|1|213.1|4.59|0.66|2-Round

 

[ImporterExporter]

The numbers are what they are. And again, I've given you the numbers for the playoff runs that you handpicked for Forsberg, and they were still better than the players he placed ahead of in the project.

So what are you complaining about still? We did the math your way.

Individual Playoffs

Player | Year | Opponent | GP | G | A | PTS | +/- | GWG | GWA | GWP | GA-82 | Adj PTS | Adj P/GP | Rounds
Peter Forsberg|1998|Total|7|6|5|11|3|0|2|2|224.0|9.82|1.40|1-Round
Peter Forsberg|2002|Total|20|9|18|27|8|4|4|8|192.1|27.99|1.40|3-Round
Peter Forsberg|1999|Total|19|8|16|24|7|0|3|3|186.0|25.62|1.35|3-Round
Peter Forsberg|2003|Total|7|2|6|8|3|0|2|2|178.0|8.99|1.28|1-Round
Peter Forsberg|2004|Total|11|4|7|11|6|1|1|2|179.4|12.42|1.13|2-Round
Peter Forsberg|2006|Total|6|4|4|8|2|2|0|2|239.0|6.69|1.12|1-Round
Peter Forsberg|2001|Total|11|4|10|14|5|2|3|5|231.6|12.06|1.10|2-Round
Peter Forsberg|1997|Total|14|5|12|17|-6|0|4|4|213.3|15.26|1.09|3-Round
Peter Forsberg|2000|Total|16|7|8|15|9|4|2|6|203.1|14.65|0.92|3-Round
Peter Forsberg|1995|Total|6|2|4|6|2|0|0|0|228.9|5.24|0.87|1-Round
Peter Forsberg|1996|Total|22|10|11|21|10|1|1|2|227.7|17.70|0.80|4-Round
Peter Forsberg|2007|Total|5|2|2|4|2|0|0|0|199.0|4.02|0.80|1-Round
Peter Forsberg|2008|Total|7|1|4|5|3|0|1|1|213.1|4.59|0.66|2-Round

He's still in front very marginally by the math. Using either method. It's not like Forsberg is well out in front of others.

So what I take away from this is that the bulk of the judgement for some is based off numbers. Math.

This is where we segue into other factors that SHOULD matter to varying degrees.

Take Larry Robinson. He places below Forsberg. Why?

He was a heavy lifter on 5 SC championship squads. He managed to do something not many Dmen have done, which is lead the postseason in scoring (Off the top of my head I can think of Orr, MacInnis and Leetch post O6 era). He has a Smythe. He produced considerable amounts on multiple long runs well into his 30's (namely 86 and 87) which Forsberg never did.

We know he was a pillar defensively. He logged heavy workloads at both ends and generally was stellar doing so.

How does Forsberg rank above him?

Same thing with Nick Lidstrom.

Another guy with a Smythe. Contributed mightily to 4 Cup winners. Played huge minutes (he was over 30 minutes a game 6 times, and they didn't start tracking that until 99). We know by the speicial teams roles study that he played a ******** of special teams minutes, both on the PP and PK.

You want offensive numbers? Look at 95, 99, 07, 09, 02, 96 and see significant contributions from the back end relative to other elite #1 D.

You're talking about a top 10-15 player all time, who had a slew of GREAT, deep runs in Detroit.

What does Forberg have on his resume that outshines Lidstrom enough to rank ahead of him?

 

[quoipourquoi]

He's still in front very marginally by the math. Using either method. It's not like Forsberg is well out in front of others.

By career numbers, yes, he is. Bossy, Lafleur, and Trottier all fade significantly after their top-5 playoffs. So I don't think it should be "comical" that he places between Sakic/Lafleur and Bossy/Trottier/Crosby.

Remainder of Career After Top-5 Playoffs

Player | GP | G | A | PTS | +/- | GWG | GWA | GWP | Adj PTS | Adj P/GP
Mario Lemieux|29|13|17|30|-4|3|2|5|28.32|0.98
Peter Forsberg|76|34|44|78|34|7|8|15|71.77|0.94
Joe Sakic|82|32|40|72|-21|7|3|10|69.62|0.85
Mike Bossy|47|19|19|38|-|5|2|7|27.77|0.59
Bryan Trottier|134|32|35|67|-|6|6|12|50.44|0.38
Guy Lafleur|59|10|18|28|-|1|3|4|21.59|0.37

So what I take away from this is that the bulk of the judgement for some is based off numbers. Math.

This is where we segue into other factors that SHOULD matter to varying degrees.

Yuck, math.

Nah, I'll pass. I've jumped through enough intrapositional hoops when there's 16 weeks of reading material, and all you're offering me on your segue into Forsberg vs. defensemen is "championship squads", "guy with a Smythe", and "GREAT, deep runs". No softening of your first impressions... for which assertive may be an understatement.

And if you think Lidstrom had a better playoff in 2002 because a 20 GP Conference Finalist has only a "75% completion rate" or because you're "not one to give them similar credit to players who did it through 4" rounds, then you're not going to think Forsberg had the better playoff career. So I'll leave you with this from Vote 3:

On a four-on-three power play, Forsberg burst in alone on Nicklas Lidstrom, a perennial Norris Trophy finalist. Lidstrom dutifully pokechecked the puck, but it struck Forsberg's shin pad and caromed back onto his stick. Forsberg danced past Lidstrom, then pulled the puck inside to avoid the sliding Chris Chelios, a three-time Norris winner, before beaming one into the top corner. It was a dazzling play made at freeway speeds. "We're on the bench, and we could hardly believe it," says Colorado checking winger Dave Reid. "He made two great players look as silly as rookies."

Although that goal has been rerun more often than a Seinfeld episode, it was only Forsberg's second most audacious play of the series. In the Avalanche's 3-1 loss in Game 3, Forsberg was being hounded by Lidstrom behind the Detroit net. With severely limited options but seemingly limitless creativity, he passed the puck through Lidstrom's feet and off the back of the net to himself before circling for a scoring chance with the flummoxed Lidstrom in pursuit. "Maybe he got that one from Wayne Gretzky," says Red Wings scout Mark Howe, a former All-Star defenseman. "Some guys have that play. I saw [Edmonton Oilers wing] Ryan Smyth do it twice in one game. What I haven't seen is anybody do that to Nick."

Two nights later, in the pivotal match of the series, Forsberg helped Colorado steal a 3-2 overtime victory in Detroit by chipping the most delicate of passes over Chelios's stick on a two-on-one, a feed Chris Drury neatly converted. "Peter was the best player in this series," Lidstrom says. "By far."

Can Peter Forsberg still win it?

 

[ImporterExporter]

By career numbers, yes, he is. Bossy, Lafleur, and Trottier all fade significantly after their top-5 playoffs. So I don't think it should be "comical" that he places between Sakic/Lafleur and Bossy/Trottier/Crosby.

Remainder of Career After Top-5 Playoffs

Player | GP | G | A | PTS | +/- | GWG | GWA | GWP | Adj PTS | Adj P/GP
Mario Lemieux|29|13|17|30|-4|3|2|5|28.32|0.98
Peter Forsberg|76|34|44|78|34|7|8|15|71.77|0.94
Joe Sakic|82|32|40|72|-21|7|3|10|69.62|0.85
Mike Bossy|47|19|19|38|-|5|2|7|27.77|0.59
Bryan Trottier|134|32|35|67|-|6|6|12|50.44|0.38
Guy Lafleur|59|10|18|28|-|1|3|4|21.59|0.37

Yuck, math.

Nah, I'll pass. I've jumped through enough intrapositional hoops when there's 16 weeks of reading material, and all you're offering me on your segue into Forsberg vs. defensemen is "championship squads", "guy with a Smythe", and "GREAT, deep runs". No softening of your first impressions... for which assertive may be an understatement.

And if you think Lidstrom had a better playoff in 2002 because a 20 GP Conference Finalist has only a "75% completion rate" or because you're "not one to give them similar credit to players who did it through 4" rounds, then you're not going to think Forsberg had the better playoff career. So I'll leave you with this from Vote 3:

Yet fancy tables and math equations is what you are basing the vast majority of your opinion on it seems. The rolling eyes style quotations in the bold only reinforces that point.

The notion that you can compare an elite 2 round run by any O6 player where the 2nd round is so much more important, a SCF (I used Beliveau in 56 before) and put that in the same light as Peter Forberg in 2001, where he averaged a single point per game and didn't make it out of round 2, of a 4 round tournament is all I need to know.

Cool, Forsberg was the best player in the CF in 2002. One series out of an entire career! He made Lidstrom look silly once or twice. I wonder how many other instances that happened in their respective era. Or how many times Lidstrom stood Peter up and made him look like a scrub.

Nick Lidstrom was an elite 2 way defensemen, who has longevity on Forsberg by quite a bit as in he was a dominant hockey player until he was damn near 40, regular or postseason. He contributed greatly to 3 of the 4 title runs in my estimation. He has a Conn Smythe (which apparently doesn't/didn't matter in the slightest for this project) which Forsberg does not.

During the 4 Cup runs Lidstrom posted these totals.

87 games
16 goals
40 assists
56 points
+38

During his next 5 best runs in my book (1995, 1996, 2007 at age 36, 2009 at 38, 2010 at 39) he did the following:

88 games
21 goals
53 assists
74 points
+24

Those runs include another 2 SCF's, 2 conference finals, and a 2nd round exit. And he was still playing at an elite level at an age where Forsberg had long since retired.

Great offensive contributions across basically a decades worth of playoff runs, stellar D, multiple Cups, an MVP, etc, etc.

When I group it all together, there is not a chance in h-e double hockey sticks that I'm ranking Forsberg as the greater playoff performer.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Official NHL Dynasties

1919-27 Senators - Frank Nighbor (#16), technically Frank Boucher (#30)

1941-51 Maple Leafs - Kennedy (#9), Broda (#17)

1949-55 Red Wings - Howe (#5), Kelly (#14)

1952-60 Canadiens - M. Richard (#3), Beliveau (#4), Harvey (#6), Plante (#8), H. Richard (#19) Geoffrion (#25)

1962-67 Maple Leafs - Kelly (#14), Horton (#?)

1964-69 Canadiens - Beliveau (#4), H. Richard (#19), Savard (#27), Lemaire (#37)

1970-79 Canadiens - Beliveau (#4), Lafleur (#15), H. Richard (#19), Robinson (#21), Dryden (#22), Savard (#27), Lemaire (#37)

1980-83 Islanders - Potvin (#10), Bossy (#20), Trottier (#24), Smith (#39)

1983-90 Oilers - Gretzky (#1), Messier (#7), Kurri (#33)

Average # of players per Canadiens dynasty: 5.67
Average # of players per non-Canadiens dynasty: 2.17

Removing the second and instance of repeated names

Average # of players per Canadiens dynasty: 3.67
Average # of players per non-Canadiens dynasty: 2.00

I'll let the numbers speak for themselves.

My .02 (probably only worth a penny)

This is probably the "worst" HoH top 40 project done to date judging by the final rankigns. I've got my issues to one degree or another with the previous installments of the HoH but this list has some serious question marks IMHO.

It's easily the worst of the HOH top 40 projects, and the reason should be incredibly obvious: A much smaller pool of voters than the positional projects. If you have 17 voters in round 2 and one of them votes in the "wrong" or a biased way, it tends to average out with other voters. If you have only 7 voters, the power of each voter is too much, even "good" voters.

Compounding the issue, apparently almost half the voters in this project were fans of the same team, so you have a lower amount of diversity even among the smaller pool of voters.

No offense to QPQ, the posters who did research for this project, or the voters who stuck with it and voted honestly. You guys deserve kudos. But these things really shouldn't be done with fewer than 20 or so listmakers.

 

[ImporterExporter]

All valid and obvious points.

It's a shame that more people didn't get involved. I agree that the few number of people really hurt the overall outcome. I obviously would have loved to have been a part, but was not around for the 1st 6 months of 2017.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

All valid and obvious points.

It's a shame that more people didn't get involved. I agree that the few number of people really hurt the overall outcome. I obviously would have loved to have been a part, but was not around for the 1st 6 months of 2017.

As someone who took almost a year off of hfboards, I realize that I'm part of the problem, myself.

 

[quoipourquoi]

It's easily the worst of the HOH top 40 projects

Depends on how we measure it. Do I think we failed in that we don't have a complete record of overtime scoring? Yes. We tried, but we're not there yet. But we certainly have better 1968-2017 goaltending statistics due to the NHL's release of additional information, better tracking of game-winning assists, and better measurement of scoring environments tailored to opposition instead of yearly scoring trends.

It's the first time we've done a project that requires separating a player from himself. I think people are getting hung up on player positioning on a list that none of the participants have attempted to make before.

The worst projects are the ones where nothing is gained. When there's already a consensus and we just have bickering over fine-tuning. Can't say that about this one. overpass in particular brought the goods on some defensemen.

 

[MXD]

One thing that I'd say : if we were to do it against next year, the final result would be significantly more streamlined.