HOH Top 40 Stanley Cup Playoff Performers of All Time

[ImporterExporter]

I think for many of us, a player who scores all three of his team's goals in back-to-back OT wins to pull them into Game 6 from a 0-3 series deficit is seen in a positive light, even if he isn't winning the Stanley Cup at that particular moment.

I see it as a positive. Never said otherwise. What I HAVE been saying is that it doesn't hold as much weight for me in the grand scale of evaluating the individual.

Yes, scoring/assisting in an OT is key because it obviously means your team wins and swings momentum to a certain degree. BUT, there ARE differences in value. Scoring an OT goal in round 1 or 2 of a series that the player in question loses doesn't hold the same value as a player who does so in a clinching game for instance. Also the later the OT heroics come in the tournament, the more value I see. And plenty of times Sakic's OT heroics came in the earlier rounds, in series that the Avs ended up losing.

At worst an OT goal or assist has 1/16th of the value of winning the SC.

Finally - advancing Crosby. Virtues of being patient.You want extra credit for the game 7, 2 OT goal by Kunitz vs Ottawa in 2017 where Crosby made the key pass. Still not as impressive as Henri Richard's OT and game 7 efforts.

But that OT primary assists is more important and valuable than many of Sakic's OT points that I brought up earlier. And why? Because it was the Conference Finals, game 7, double OT and the Pens obviously advanced and subsequently won the Cup. Doesn't seem like a hard concept to grasp.

Same thing last year when Crosby ended game 2 of the Conference Finals in OT vs Tampa. Pittsburgh was down 0-1 in the series. They lose that 2nd game and I don't think they would have recovered from losing both games at home and obviously don't beat SJ in the finals as a result. Again, that goal holds more value than many of the instances I brought up multiple times before.

 

[quoipourquoi]

I see it as a positive. Never said otherwise. What I HAVE been saying is that it doesn't hold as much weight for me in the grand scale of evaluating the individual.

Yes, scoring/assisting in an OT is key because it obviously means your team wins and swings momentum to a certain degree. BUT, there ARE differences in value. Scoring an OT goal in round 1 or 2 of a series that the player in question loses doesn't hold the same value as a player who does so in a clinching game for instance. Also the later the OT heroics come in the tournament, the more value I see. And plenty of times Sakic's OT heroics came in the earlier rounds, in series that the Avs ended up losing.

But Joe Sakic scored in OT in Stanley Cup winning causes too. I mean, he does not lack in this department whatsoever, having scored an OT hat trick in Game 5 to take a 3-2 series lead over Vancouver in 1996, a 3OT winner in a three-point night to tie Chicago 2-2 in 1996, and a series winner to knockout St. Louis to advance to the Finals in 2001. And it wasn't even limited to overtime; in 1996, he had set a record by scoring 6 game-winning goals in a single playoff.

There is not really a parallel between Joe Sakic's overtime performance and that of another scorer from the four-round era. That he was also the leading scorer on two Stanley Cup champions (and came a point away from doing it a third time in spite of not making the Finals) may not be the feather in his cap the way overtime is, but it's also a solid base for why he was held up to players like Mario Lemieux in this project and had people like me criticizing him for only scoring 19 points through three-rounds in 1999 and 2002.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Are we evaluating teams or individual players? Hockey is a team sport after all.

Is it safe to assume your opinion is that Crosby has no chance to surpass Beliveau, unless he wins another 5 Cups or so?

Sakic (DPE Avs)...

Reached the Conference finals 6 times. They got bounced 4 times, each time by a top3 West team (DET/DAL):
3 7-game series, 1 6-game series.

The 2 times they advanced to the SCF, they won 2 times, 1 vs a lesser East team (FLA), 1 vs a top3 East team (NJD):
1 7-game series, 1 4-game series.

Crosby (post-lockout Pens)...

Reached the Conference finals 5 times. They got bounced 1 time, each time by a top3 East team (BOS):
1 4-game series.

The 4 times they advanced to the SCF, they won 3 times, 2 vs a lesser West team (SJS/NSH), 1 vs a top3 West team (DET):
1 7-game series, 2 6-game series.

-----

People seemingly can't comprehend that environments have varied for different players through different era's. DPE DET/DAL were better than any team post-lockout, save maybe 08/09 Wings.

Juan Martin del Potro is a terrible tennis player because he's only won one Grand Slam, unfortunately for him, his era includes Nadal, Federer, and Djokovic (45 Grand Slams combined).

If you want to Cup count and use it as THE metric to base value on, then the top 100 hockey players of all time is going to be filled with mostly O6 players. It's ridiculous to think Crosby can't catch Beliveau because of Cup disparity. Nobody is ever going to come THAT close to matching JB's incredible resume in terms of winning. BUT the league is structured, based on size, entry draft, FA period and rules, etc, etc, so that there is a thing called PARITY. You don't see 4 and 5 time consecutive champions, especially post 1980's. And it's not hard to figure out why.



Ah, yes, the old DPE era is vastly superior to the current one, which is the salary cap era.

This past year Pittsburgh had to play a 108 point team (Columbus). IN THE FIRST ROUND!

In 96 the Avalance had to play a team with a LOSING RECORD (Vancouver) in round 1!

Then Pittsburgh got the 118 point President's winning trophy Caps in round 2. No Letang, no Matt Murray, Sid Crosby basically lost for 2 games in the middle of the series.

In 96 the Avs played the 94 point Blackhawks.

Obviously the Avs hold a major advantage beating the mighty Red Wings in the Conference finals, but neither team played a particular strong opponent in the Finals (Pens vs Preds and Avs vs Panthers).



Guess what? In 97 the Avs got to play yet ANOTHER team with a LOSING RECORD in round 1 (Blackhawks). Oh wait, they also got another 81 point team with a LOSING RECORD in round 2 (Oilers)



In 98 the Avs got bounced in round 1 by a yet another team with a LOSING RECORD (Edmonton)!

 

[Canadiens1958]

Thank You

But Joe Sakic scored in OT in Stanley Cup winning causes too. I mean, he does not lack in this department whatsoever, having scored an OT hat trick in Game 5 to take a 3-2 series lead over Vancouver in 1996, a 3OT winner in a three-point night to tie Chicago 2-2 in 1996, and a series winner to knockout St. Louis to advance to the Finals in 2001. And it wasn't even limited to overtime; in 1996, he had set a record by scoring 6 game-winning goals in a single playoff.

There is not really a parallel between Joe Sakic's overtime performance and that of another scorer from the four-round era. That he was also the leading scorer on two Stanley Cup champions (and came a point away from doing it a third time in spite of not making the Finals) may not be the feather in his cap the way overtime is, but it's also a solid base for why he was held up to players like Mario Lemieux in this project and had people like me criticizing him for only scoring 19 points through three-rounds in 1999 and 2002.

Thank you for saving me the work finding and posting the data.

Setting aside what has drifted *EDIT*, the umbrella issue is defining and interpreting participation in key goals, key games in a series - obviously game 7, but what about game 5 in a seven game series, even key game moments.

Game 5 matters because one team either goes home or the losing team is faced with winning two in a row or the winner has a better chance after being down 1-3 in games.

You also have the value of a road victory and the value of contributions in such a victory. Prime examples would be Henri Richard scoring SC winning goals on the road in 1966 and game 7 in 1971. Also Maurice Richard scoring OT goals in games 1 & 2, 1951 semis at Detroit.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Darn it Q, you barely beat me to the punch And not I would not have taken it as such.

People have opinions. I just appreciate the good conversation. If everyone agreed most or all of the time, this forum wouldn't exist.

Some value this OT metric higher than I do. That's fine. I find it of smaller value given the actual % of events it makes up relative to the overall games played.

With that being said, I do give Joe great marks for his clutch scoring. And he is a great all time playoff performer. I simply don't believe he is 12th best. Simply too high for me.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Then Pittsburgh got the 118 point President's winning trophy Caps in round 2. No Letang, no Matt Murray, Sid Crosby basically lost for 2 games in the middle of the series.

In 96 the Avs played the 94 point Blackhawks.

Obviously the Avs hold a major advantage beating the mighty Red Wings in the Conference finals, but neither team played a particular strong opponent in the Finals (Pens vs Preds and Avs vs Panthers).

Interesting. You make no mention that points are inflated post-2000 due to OT losses counting for 1 point and the opportunity for ties to become 2-point games. Also Nashville was the lowest seeded team in the playoffs and yet you are comfortable comparing them to a Florida team who placed 7th overall and opened with home-ice. More than that, "mighty" might be an understatement for a pre-shootout 62-win regular season team.

 

[quoipourquoi]

With that being said, I do give Joe great marks for his clutch scoring. And he is a great all time playoff performer. I simply don't believe he is 12th best. Simply too high for me.

I don't think anyone did, but based on the voting record, people couldn't agree who should be above him.

EDIT: Two people did. The 11-15 Round saw him take 0-2-2-2-2 and one unranked ballot. So practically everyone was in the range, but only two people had him at #12.


Also, you better be in our next HOH project, ImporterExporter.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Well sir, before my hiatus I was pretty vocal about wanting us to re-evaluate the defensemen rankings as they are in need of a rework now. A slew of new faces should be in the top 60 and I think there is room to re-valuate and move some people already on the list around a smidgen.

Also a new top 70/100 list is in order I think, given its been 8 years since the last project.

 

[bathdog]

If you want to Cup count and use it as THE metric to base value on, then the top 100 hockey players of all time is going to be filled with mostly O6 players. It's ridiculous to think Crosby can't catch Beliveau because of Cup disparity. Nobody is ever going to come THAT close to matching JB's incredible resume in terms of winning. BUT the league is structured, based on size, entry draft, FA period and rules, etc, etc, so that there is a thing called PARITY. You don't see 4 and 5 time consecutive champions, especially post 1980's. And it's not hard to figure out why.

Oh, I'm the one Cup counting?

So how many of those goals led directly to series and subsequently Cup wins? OT goals/points are great and certainly should count for something, but it isn't enough to put a guy like Joe Sakic, 12th all time in postseason performers. His other major selling points (leading the postseason in goals, assists, points, Conn Smythe wins, Cup wins, etc aren't THAT strong). But we'll have to agree to disagree I guess.

I'm aware of your point regarding Sakic, sir. Again, I think it is impressive to say the least. I just don't agree that it is a metric that should be held in some mythic position. Obviously some do. You can score an OT goal in game 1 of round 1, and end up losing that series in x amount of games. How much did it REALLY matter then?

My point is: How many times did Sakic's heroics directly lead his team to the next round and subsequently a title?

His OT goal in 1998 came in a round 1 loss.

He had 2 OT goals in 2004 and guess what? The Avs were out in round 2. Same story in 06 and 08. 2nd round exists despite an OT goal in both years. More of his OT goals came in years that the Avs didn't win the Cup, or actually even make the Conference finals.

All facts.

Which is precisely my point. As great as OT heroics are, and matter to a certain degree, if it doesn't lead to the next round, at the very least, and more importantly the Stanely Cup, how much value does it TRULY represent?

Sakic has a bunch of OT goals and obviously a handful of assists to go with them. But at the end of the day, the Avs won 2 Cups on his watch. And those were the only 2 trips he ever made to SCF. Sid Crosby isn't nearly as decorated with OT heroics, but has 4 trips to the finals, and 3 wins (2 Smythe's), before the age of 30. If the ultimate goal is winning Lord Stanley, I'll take the latter.

-----

Ah, yes, the old DPE era is vastly superior to the current one, which is the salary cap era.

When did I say that? The Western Conference was rediculously stacked with high end teams during DPE. Someone had to go through DET/DAL/COL in the CF nearly every year, most years two of them were facing each other. It appears to have been significantly harder to come out of the West then.

1. Both times he led the playoffs in scoring, his team was out in the Conference finals. I give him big marks for scoring a great deal through 3 rounds, but at least some luster comes off as the Avs didn't even make the finals either time. Crosby leading the playoffs in points in 2008 means more as they at least made the Cup finals and drove the mighty Red Wings 6 games.

"Drove the mighty..." - hehe (and I consider 2008 Wings the best post-lockout team). You realize that 2002 Wings is arguably the most stacked team in modern history?

Meanwhile, Pens had to face off against the almighty Flyers, who had 1 RS ppg scorer, 0 PO ppg scorers, and the 9th worst GF/GA RS ratio in the league.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Oh, I'm the one Cup counting?

I'm not Cup counting directly. If you want to label it as indirect, fine.

What I am doing is pointing out the fact that NOT EVERY OT goal/assist is valued the same. I don't think that is hard to understand or based in anything but reality. We use context in most other debates. Let's do the same here please.

Some of Burnaby Joe's OT points were more significant than others. What round the play came in matters. How deep into the series the goal/assist came. Whether or not that goal/assist was a catalyst in whatever team advancing further through the gauntlet, etc.

 

[bathdog]

What I am doing is pointing out the fact that NOT EVERY OT goal/assist is valued the same. I don't think that is hard to understand or based in anything but reality. We use context in most other debates. Let's do the same here please.

Some of Burnaby Joe's OT points were more significant than others. What round the play came in matters. How deep into the series the goal/assist came. Whether or not that goal/assist was a catalyst in whatever team advancing further through the gauntlet, etc.

Can't entirely disagree with that, but it's hard to do that objectively.

I hope you're open to applying the same process to every player, consistently, not just Sakic, and every point, not just OT points.

 

[daver]

Which is precisely my point. As great as OT heroics are, and matter to a certain degree, if it doesn't lead to the next round, at the very least, and more importantly the Stanely Cup, how much value does it TRULY represent?

Sakic has a bunch of OT goals and obviously a handful of assists to go with them. But at the end of the day, the Avs won 2 Cups on his watch. And those were the only 2 trips he ever made to SCF. Sid Crosby isn't nearly as decorated with OT heroics, but has 4 trips to the finals, and 3 wins (2 Smythe's), before the age of 30. If the ultimate goal is winning Lord Stanley, I'll take the latter.

I agree to an extent on this. A winning goal scored in the 2nd period should hold no less value than the OT winner. Or points scored in losses vs. wins. But rising a number of time is also a way to perhaps separate players with similar stats. Sakic's two Cup runs, especially 1996, are his strength for sure.

I think the reasons to separate Sakic and Forsberg apply to Crosby and would think he should be somewhere between them at this point.

 

[bathdog]

I agree to an extent on this. A winning goal scored in the 2nd period should hold no less value than the OT winner. Or points scored in losses vs. wins. But rising a number of time is also a way to perhaps separate players with similar stats. Sakic's two Cup runs, especially 1996, are his strength for sure.

I think the reasons to separate Sakic and Forsberg apply to Crosby and would think he should be somewhere between them at this point.

Quantity over quality?

 

[daver]

Quantity over quality?

Conn Smythe worthy runs. Cup winning performances. The best playoff run between the two, arguably the best run in the past 25 years.

 

[bathdog]

I was actually pulling your leg a bit...

Conn Smythe worthy runs.

Here we go again...

Cup winning performances.

As in scoring 1 more SCF goal the Peter 'never scored 30' Forsberg, in 21 (!) more SCF games.

The best playoff run between the two,

Disagree.

arguably the best run in the past 25 years.

While simultanously getting outperformed by his teammate?

 

[quoipourquoi]

I agree to an extent on this. A winning goal scored in the 2nd period should hold no less value than the OT winner.

A winning goal in the 2nd period might not even be a go-ahead goal; an overtime goal ends a game, instantaneously ensuring 25% of the series. Also, Joe Sakic scored more GWGs in the playoffs than all but two players.

 

[ImporterExporter]

I agree to an extent on this. A winning goal scored in the 2nd period should hold no less value than the OT winner. Or points scored in losses vs. wins. But rising a number of time is also a way to perhaps separate players with similar stats. Sakic's two Cup runs, especially 1996, are his strength for sure.

I think the reasons to separate Sakic and Forsberg apply to Crosby and would think he should be somewhere between them at this point.

Sakic does have 2 VERY GOOD Cup runs. Amazing clutch instances, to go with stellar raw numbers. His 96 performance was an all time great one. No two ways about it.

BUT,

I think Crosby has them both beat (Forsberg by a much wider margin) Sakic by a hair.

- 3 Cups in 4 tries with 5 trips to the Conference finals between 2008 and 2017.

- Back to Back Conn Smythe's - 2016 and 2017 (and he scored 31 points in 2009 and led the playoffs in assists and points the year they lost in 08). So at worst, he has produced 4 significant runs in past 9 years that all came in Cup finals appearances. Sakic can't say the same.

- Crosby's career PPG is just a hair better than Sakic with nearly as many games played. There isn't a massive sample size difference.

-Crosby's Pens won the title in 09 despite very shaky goal tending by Fleury (iconic save at the end of game 7 vs Lidstrom be damned). Sakic never had to worry about his guy, who was some dude named Patrick Roy, in either Championship season.

- This past year Crosby led a team without its #1 D (Letang) for the entire playoffs #1 G (Murray) for the 1st 2+ rounds and numerous other key depth players out for various lengths of time. In fact, the Pens didn't even have a Dman who would rate as a top pairing player by anyone.

- Crosby has participated in I believe 28 OT games (The Pens have played 30 but Sid missed 2 due to injury, one in 2011 and game 3 of this past years run when he got knocked out in the opening minute).

http://pittsburghhockey.net/penguins/pittsburgh-penguins-overtime-playoff-games

The Pens are 14-14 in that stretch with Crosby collecting 7 points (1 goal, 6 assists). That's a 25% scoring rate in OT games Sid has played in.

Sakic's teams went 25-19 with him scoring 13 points. That's a 29.5% rate. So obviously Sakic has a slight advantage in terms of clutch scoring and his teams fared slightly better in overall record.

Sakic has a greater advantage in raw points, but that is partly due to more opportunity. Which is not surprising given Sakic is retired and Crosby is 29 and still playing. Perhaps the gap closes (or widens). We shall see.

The other factor to look into is when did Sakic start to really transition into a good 200 foot player relative to Crosby and their deployment as such. I always remember Sakic being good/great in this regard during his Colorado days, but was to young to really remember his time in Quebec.

I know having watched Crosby's entire career extremely closely he was never bad/terrible (like Nels Stewart or Bill Cowley) in his own end and the effort was generally speaking, there the majority of the time, however his very noticeable transition to a cognizant and then good defensive C started in 2013-14 (26 years of age and ahead of the Steve Yzerman timeline who REALLY turned a corner under Bowman).

His defensive prowess against the Thornton-Pavelski line last year in the finals was Selke level good. They combined for 1 goal, which was an empty netter.

He was out on the ice at the end of game 6 with Jones pulled, blocked a point shot, scooped up the puck and then sprung Hornqvist for the dagger EN goal with a minute left.

Who did Pitt play in the Finals?

08 - 52 win Detroit team - lost 4-2
09 - 51 win Detroit team - won 4-3
16 - 42 Regulation win San Jose team - won 4-2
17 - 39 Regulation win Nashville team - won 4-2

Who did Colorado play in the Finals?

96 - 41 win Florida team - won 4-0
01 - 48 win NJ team - won 4-3

Both teams won a Cup vs high end competition (Pitt in 09 and Avs in 01) and both won a pair against lower end finals oppenents (Pitt in 17 and Avs in 96)

With this past Cup run, I now have Sid barely ahead of Sakic and quite a bit ahead of Forsberg.

 

[bathdog]

- 3 Cups in 4 tries with 5 trips to the Conference finals between 2008 and 2017.

Weaker competition.

- Back to Back Conn Smythe's - 2016 and 2017 (and he scored 31 points in 2009 and led the playoffs in assists and points the year they lost in 08). So at worst, he has produced 4 significant runs in past 9 years that all came in Cup finals appearances. Sakic can't say the same.

Trophy counting. Ovechkin RS > Crosby RS?

Back-to-back Hart's along with Back-to-back-to-back Pearson. Crosby doesn't touch that.

- Crosby's career PPG is just a hair better than Sakic with nearly as many games played. There isn't a massive sample size difference.

Since when isn't 2 seasons worth of games a decent sample size?

-Crosby's Pens won the title in 09 despite very shaky goal tending by Fleury (iconic save at the end of game 7 vs Lidstrom be damned). Sakic never had to worry about his guy, who was some dude named Patrick Roy, in either Championship season.

- This past year Crosby led a team without its #1 D (Letang) for the entire playoffs #1 G (Murray) for the 1st 2+ rounds and numerous other key depth players out for various lengths of time. In fact, the Pens didn't even have a Dman who would rate as a top pairing player by anyone.

Trivia is fun.

Letang > Forsberg?

Sakic has a greater advantage in raw points, but that is partly due to more opportunity. Which is not surprising given Sakic is retired and Crosby is 29 and still playing. Perhaps the gap closes (or widens). We shall see.

You've clearly showed you're open to (de)valueing Sakic OT points that were scored in early rounds. What's your stance on Crosby being a sub-ppg player in every round but round 1?

The other factor to look into is when did Sakic start to really transition into a good 200 foot player relative to Crosby and their deployment as such. I always remember Sakic being good/great in this regard during his Colorado days, but was to young to really remember his time in Quebec.

I know having watched Crosby's entire career extremely closely he was never bad/terrible (like Nels Stewart or Bill Cowley) in his own end and the effort was generally speaking, there the majority of the time, however his very noticeable transition to a cognizant and then good defensive C started in 2013-14 (26 years of age and ahead of the Steve Yzerman timeline who REALLY turned a corner under Bowman).

Do you incorporate this when comparing to Forsberg as well considering Crosby was never on par with him defensively?

 

[MXD]

Do you incorporate this when comparing to Forsberg as well considering Crosby was never on par with him defensively?

...Seriously... Is he? That's probably a very legit question by now.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Weaker competition.




Trophy counting. Ovechkin RS > Crosby RS?

Back-to-back Hart's along with Back-to-back-to-back Pearson. Crosby doesn't touch that.



Since when isn't 2 seasons worth of games a decent sample size?



Trivia is fun.

Letang > Forsberg?



You've clearly showed you're open to (de)valueing Sakic OT points that were scored in early rounds. What's your stance on Crosby being a sub-ppg player in every round but round 1?



Do you incorporate this when comparing to Forsberg as well considering Crosby was never on par with him defensively?

Weaker Competition? OK. This has been debunked so many times. Same garbage anyone who can't stand active players uses to devalue their worth. You can't quantify it.

Quick, how many times did the Penguins get to face a team in the postseason with a losing record en route to a Cup win or in any playoff year? I'll save you the trouble. Never. Now do the same thing with the Avs in the 90's.

Why are you bringing up Ovechkin? This is a discussion about playoffs. Clearly Ovie has no business here as he's done absolutely nothing to note in the postseason since the day he came into the league. Next.

Sakic played 172 games in the postseason. Crosby 148. That is hardly a big gap. That's a single playoff run.

Was Forsberg out the ENTIRE PLAYOFF RUN in 01? Noooope. And also Pat Roy for 4 rounds. Next.

Was Crosby sub PPG in rounds 2, 3 and 4 this year? You act like Crosby is the ONLY player in hockey history to see his points per game totals dip the deeper he (or any other player) goes.

I never said Crosby was on Forsberg's level defensively. Don't invent narratives I'm not spinning.

But Forsberg was the 3rd leading scorer on the 1 Cup winning team he actually played all the games on (96). Only played 11 games in 2001. Never saw another Cup final outside that.

 

[daver]

Weaker competition.

Not in relative terms. They both faced on average around the # 4.6 seed in 25 plus series over their respective playoff primes.

Colorado was the better team in terms of seeding over that same time period.

 

[MXD]

Weaker Competition? OK. This has been debunked so many times. Same garbage anyone who can't stand active players uses to devalue their worth. You can't quantify it.
(...)

I think his point was mostly that the Pens didn't have anything close to the Wings on the way to the Stanley Cup Finals.

The problem is, with the Caps... errhhh... having been the Caps, they can't really count as top-notch competition.

 

[daver]

Sakic does have 2 VERY GOOD Cup runs. Amazing clutch instances, to go with stellar raw numbers. His 96 performance was an all time great one. No two ways about it.

BUT,

I think Crosby has them both beat (Forsberg by a much wider margin) Sakic by a hair..

Sakic has 3 of the Top 7 playoff runs of his era among some very strong company (Mario, Lindros, Forsberg) vs. Crosby having 3 of the Top 10 in his era.

I don't think counting SCF appearances makes as much sense as you think here as the Avs were literally a goal or two away from being in more than two SCFs.

I don't think it will take much to pass Sakic at this point, though. This past Cup is probably too fresh in people's minds but it should grow in legend given Crosby was maybe out of the playoffs and out of hockey during them but came and played great.

 

[daver]

I think his point was mostly that the Pens didn't have anything close to the Wings on the way to the Stanley Cup Finals.

The problem is, with the Caps... errhhh... having been the Caps, they can't really count as top-notch competition.

But how much better can we say the AVs were than the Pens based on their respective regular season finishes to maybe diminish Sakic's and Forsberg's legacies.

I think their numbers should be taken at face value.

 

[MXD]

But how much better can we say the AVs were than the Pens based on their respective regular season finishes to maybe diminish Sakic's and Forsberg's legacies.

I think their numbers should be taken at face value.

With regards, I think you're overcomplicating things.