Markus Naslund's Pearson Award in 2003? Worth?

[plusandminus]

- Forsberg was primarily an even-strength scorer, whereas Naslund was primarily a powerplay scorer. There's nothing inherently better about being an even-strength scorer, however plus/minus overstates Forsberg's performance because it ignores Naslund's significant advantage on the powerplay. In total, Forsberg was on the ice for just 7 more goals than Naslund (138 vs 131). Plus/minus gives Forsberg credit for his superior even-strentgh offense (+30 relative to Naslund) but completely ignores Naslund's superiority on the powerplay (+23).

I have now spent more than an hour managing to restore parts of my 2003 work. Much of the work is missing, and I have had to make some puzzling and manual counting. Figures may be slightly wrong, but hopefully decently correct.
I may edit after posting in order to fix formatting, etc.

You or anyone is welcome to post the mentioned players' individual goal difference in the ES and PP play.

Scoring (goals, 1st ass, 2nd ass, pts)

Name | Tot | ES | PP | SH
Hejduk | 50+27+21= 98 | 32+17+14=63 | 18+10+ 7=35 | 0+0+0
Forsberg | 29+41+36=106 | 21+26+26=83 | 08+15+10=33 | 0+0+0
Naslund | 48+34+22=104 | 24+20+ 6=50 | 24+14+16=54 | 0+0+0
Bertuzzi | 46+30+20= 96 | 21+22+11=54 | 25+ 8+ 9=42 | 0+0+0

I think it's an interesting table. We see that Forsberg was dominating (like we said) during ES, and he even scored an equal amount of goals as Naslund and Bertuzzi despite having far more assists.
Forsberg had surprisingly (at least to me) many 2nd assists.

On the PP, Naslund dominated (like you said). A major difference - shown below - between the teams, is that Vancouver seemed to have two great PP goal scorers while Colorado for some reason mainly had Hejduk.
Vancouver obviously found a better way of using their players at PP. Perhaps Bertuzzi, despite scoring fewer points than Naslund, was some sort of key factor in being some sort of strong presence in front of the opponents net. Maybe Colorado was partly lacking that kind of role player in PP??


--COL-PP:
M.HEJDUK 18+10+ 7 = 35
P.FORSBERG 8+15+10 = 33
D.MORRIS 9+10+ 9 = 28
R.BLAKE 8+ 9+ 5 = 22
J.SAKIC 8+ 3+ 7 = 18
S.REINPRECHT 2+ 9+ 4 = 15
A.TANGUAY 2+ 4+ 8 = 14
R.VRBATA 3+ 3+ 5 = 11
M.SKOULA 3+ 0+ 5 = 8
A.FOOTE 3+ 3+ 1 = 7
D.MCAMMOND 0+ 0+ 4 = 4
D.MCAMMOND 2+ 0+ 0 = 2
B.BATTAGLIA 1+ 0+ 1 = 2
V.NEDOROST 1+ 0+ 0 = 1
D.HINOTE 0+ 1+ 0 = 1

--Van-PP:
M.NASLUND 24+14+16 = 54
T.BERTUZZI 25+ 8+ 9 = 42
B.MORRISON 6+12+10 = 28
E.JOVANOVSKI 2+ 8+14 = 24
B.SOPEL 6+ 8+ 8 = 22
M.OHLUND 0+ 9+11 = 20
H.SEDIN 4+10+ 5 = 19
T.LINDEN 4+ 7+ 2 = 13
S.SALO 4+ 3+ 2 = 9
D.SEDIN 4+ 1+ 2 = 7
T.KLATT 3+ 1+ 2 = 6
T.LETOWSKI 1+ 2+ 0 = 3
M.MALIK 1+ 0+ 2 = 3
M.COOKE 1+ 1+ 0 = 2
N.BAUMGARTNER 1+ 1+ 0 = 2
D.CLOUTIER 0+ 0+ 2 = 2
T.WARRINER 0+ 0+ 2 = 2
A.CHUBAROV 1+ 0+ 0 = 1
B.ALLEN 0+ 1+ 0 = 1

Seems like a big difference overall in scoring, with Vancouver players generelly scoring more points than the Colorado players.
Notice Naslund 24 goals, Bertuzzi 25. Hejduk 18, 2nd best Avs player 9.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

Seeing that table does put things in perspective a bit more on just how dominating Forsberg's 2003 season was. When you consider that he missed 7 games, and his one ankle was already injured, that's just amazing. It's unfortunate because I feel like between 2001-2006 Forsberg was in his absolute prime, and was robbed of many games due to injury/lockout.

 

[Fish on The Sand]

Naslund also finished the season with 12 game winning goals, a feat that has only been matched once since (only Naslund and Jeff Carter have reached 12 GWG in the past decade). At the time there was a lot of talk about that. That season seeing Naslund set up on the half boards was the same as seeing a puck go in your net. It's no surprise the players saw him as the most dangerous offensive player in the game that year.

Its not likely they saw him as more dangerous, but most casted their votes in mid-february probably. The Pearson has had some odd voting over the years. Burke finishing 3rd in 02 while Theodore wasn't even a finalist after Gretzky campaigned for Burke as mvp that year really eliminated any significance the award has.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

If anything, it makes his season look less dominate to me. His "enormous advatange" over Naslund at ES is almost entirely driven by secondary assists.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

Naslund played 7 more games, had only 3 more goals than Forsberg at even strength, and 26 less assists. I'm sorry, that's pure domination. I didn't need to look at these stats to know Forsberg was easily/by far the best player that year. The next one as well, however he missed half the season.

Also this table just shows all the more that Forsberg wasn't trying to score as many goals as possible, as he was quite obviously a pure set up man on the powerplay.

 

[kaiser matias]

That year ended on a horribly disappointing note for the Canucks. Like already said, they went into the final day of the regular season needing a single point to clinch their first division title in 10 years, and end Colorado's strech of consecutive division titles that went back to their Quebec days. The Canucks played the Kings in Vancouver, so it should have been an easy feat. Also add in that Naslund was trying to become the second Swede to record 50 goals in the NHL (after Hakan Loob, who Naslund said he idolized). There was also talk about both Naslund and Bertuzzi finishing 1-2 in the scoring race, and that if Naslund held onto the Art Ross and Richard, he probably would win the Hart. It was a big deal in Vancouver and the rest of BC.

Of course none of that happened. The Kings shut out the Canucks, who never showed up for the game, while Hejduk and Forsberg pass Naslund for the Richard and Art Ross Trophies; the Avalanche win the division title.

As was the tradition at the time, the Canucks had their jersey off their back event after the final home game of the year. During this Naslund gave a brief speech to GM Place, and said some words that would be used against him until he left Vancouver: "We choked."

I don't think it is that hard to belief that this line cost Naslund some votes for the Hart Trophy. After all the captain of the team, a team that lost themselves the division title, the Richard and the Art Ross, admits that they choked. Maybe he doesn't deserve to be recognised as the most valuable player to his team. Canucks fans and media certainly felt that way; Naslund was never able to live that down. At the risk of making this a conspiracy theory, I can see his speech having some effect.

 

[plusandminus]

I've managed to get some more data out of my database (and as I said, in 2003 it was lots of work to get the "raw data" there in the first place)...

+/- during ES:
1. Forsberg +55 (87-32) (87 was most in league)
2. Hejduk +49 (82-33)
3. Tanguay +38 (70-32)
4. Lidstrom +36 (84-48)
5. Lehtinen +33 (56-33)
...
Morrison +20 (61-41)
...Naslund +15 (63-48)
...Bertuzzi +11 (54-43)

+/- during PP:
1. Bertuzzi +63 (68-5)
2. Naslund +62 (67-5)
3. MacInnis +60 (63-3)
4. Lidstrom +58 (62-4)
5. Morrison +54 (58-4)
...
Blake +47 (49-2)
...Hejduk +45 (46-1)
...Forsberg +41 (43-2)
...Morris +39 (43-4)
...Tanguay +30 (32-2)
...Sakic +25 (29-4)

SH
Neither was on the ice for any goals while playing SH.
(Nolan Baumgartner seem to have led the league with +2 (2-0). Daniel Sedin and others had +1 (1-0))

ES and PP
1. Forsberg +96 (130-34)
2. Hejduk +94 (128-34)
2. Lidstrom +94 (146-52)
4. MacInnis +79 (132-53)
5. Naslund +77 (130-53)
6. Morrison +74 (119-45)
6. Bertuzzi +74 (132-58)
8. Modano +70 (101-31)
9. Zubov +68 (116-47)
9. Tanguay +68 (102-34)

I think this last one is telling. Forsberg was on the ice on as many goals forward as Naslund (130), but allowed far fewer (34 compared to 53).
Notice also how great Lidstrom was/is, being basically as good. Lidstrom also played a lot of SH (which is excluded here). MacInnis also great.


Finally, some stats regarding empty net play
Hejduk +5 (10-5) 3+1+3
Forsberg 0 (8-8) 1+3+1
Bertuzzi -4 (2-6) 1+0+0
Naslund -4 (1-5) 1+0+0

Hejduk did well in that type of play, while Naslund and Bertuzzi didn't, which might be explained by circumstances I won't get into here.
Since the team without goalie so often surrenders goals, I'd almost prefer to discount these goals from the totals. If doing that, Forsberg will increase his gap to Hejduk. Bertuzzi and Naslund on the other hand would gain +4 on Forsberg, but since they are already quite far behind, that won't affect much.

 

[plusandminus]

In case someone would wonder:

Opponents without goalie:
Forsberg +3 (4-1) 1+0+1
Hejduk +2 (4-2) 2+1+0
Bertuzzi +1 (1-0) 1+0+0
Naslund 0 (0-0 0+0+0

Own team without goalie:
Hejduk +3 (6-3) 1+0+3
Forsberg -3 (4-7) 0+3+0
Naslund -4 (1-5) 1+0+0
Bertuzzi -5 (1-6) 0+0+0

Surprisingly good stats on Hejduk.
Forsberg surrendered about as many goals with own goalie pulled, than Naslund and Bertuzzi, but at least had 3 points and was on the ice for 4 goals forward. Naslund and Bertuzzy didn't have many points (1 each) when either team had pulled their goalie. Compare with Forsberg having 5 and Hejduk 7. I won't make a conclusion until I've looked at more stats, but those saying Naslund didn't show up when it mattered most may have a point.
I'm not getting into empty net icetimes now. This stat depends a bit on how much time each team played with own or opponents goalie pulled.

 

[plusandminus]

How would results in games be affected if we excluded goals where a certain player scored (either goal or assists)?

Naslund scoring has led to:
Win instead of loss: 7 = +14 points gained
Win instead if draw: 15 = +15 points gained
Draw instead of loss: 9 = +9 points gained
Total: +38 points gained for Vancouver

Forsberg scoring has led to:
Win instead of loss: 14 = +28 points gained
Win instead if draw: 9 = +9 points gained
Draw instead of loss: 9 = +9 points gained
Total: +46 points gained for Coloraro

Example: There were 14 cases of games where Colorado would have lost, instead of winning, if one would eliminate goals where Forsberg scored a point.
More specific examples: Forsberg scored 6 pts in a 7-3 win. 3 pts in a 3-2 win. 3 pts in a 4-3 win. And so on...

Bertuzzi scoring has led to:
Win instead of loss: 11 = +12 points gained
Win instead if draw: 10 = +10 points gained
Draw instead of loss: 10 = +10 points gained
Total: +32 points gained for Vancouver

Hejduk scoring for Colorado:
Win instead of loss: 6 = +12 points gained
Win instead if draw: 6 = +6 points gained
Draw instead of loss: 5 = +5 points gained
Total: +23 points gained for Colorado

Summarizing:
Forsberg: +46 points for Col
Naslund: +38 points for Van
Bertuzzi: +32 points for Van
Hejduk: +23 points gained for Colorado

Forsberg's points were more important than the other guys.


The above is a quick view, so some figure may be slightly wrong.

This is "new" thing to me, so I've made a rather spontanious analysis, without pondering much about it. Today is first time I've done it.
I think one should look at things from "both sides" (thus my nickname here). To be true to that, one might also think
about e.g.:
* games where player was scoreless and teams lost by one goal
etc...
I need to think more about that.


...Number of times their teams lost despite the player scoring: For14 Nas14 Ber13 Hej18

 

[Infinite Vision*]

Interesting stats and analysis.

 

[jkrx]

If anything, it makes his season look less dominate to me. His "enormous advatange" over Naslund at ES is almost entirely driven by secondary assists.

What's wrong with secondary assists?

 

[Infinite Vision*]

Getting a lot of secondary assists is obviously not easy, or else more people would get a lot more of them. You can set up a play, that you know is going to put that player in a direct position to set up another obvious play. Works well with two good linemates, but you still have to be an amazing playmaker to get a lot of them, kind of like Henrik Sedin. Then again he is in a more favourable situation to get secondary assists as well.

 

[WingsFan95]

Bottom line, is Naslund a Hall of Famer?

If he is, does him winning the Lindsay put him over the edge?


I say no to both.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

What's wrong with secondary assists?

They are valuable, but usually not as valuable as primary assists or goals in creating a scoring play

 

[jkrx]

They are valuable, but usually not as valuable as primary assists or goals in creating a scoring play

Everything that leads to a goal is valueable.

 

[seventieslord]

Everything that leads to a goal is valueable.

so what about the third assist? why the arbitrary cutoff?

 

[jkrx]

so what about the third assist? why the arbitrary cutoff?

Why are you asking me?

 

[seventieslord]

Why are you asking me?

the point others were trying to make is that the 1st assist is more valuable than the 2nd. I think that makes sense logically. From what I can tell, you are arguing against that. I'm playing Devil's advocate. If a 2nd assist os so valuable, what about the 3rd assist?

 

[matnor]

That year was certainly a bit of an anomaly for Forsberg in terms of primary/secondary assist ratio and I think it's reasonable to assume he was a bit lucky. On the other hand, I think that's quite common for players having their career year. For example, when Gretzky had his record 163 assist season, his share of primary assists was much lower than his other Oiler seasons.

Here is Forsberg's assist breakdown:

Season | Primary assists | Secondary assists | Share primary
1994/95 | 23 | 10 | 69.7 %
1995/96 | 58 | 23 | 71.6 %
1996/97 | 28 | 25 | 52.8 %
1997/98 | 41 | 17 | 70.7 %
1998/99 | 40 | 27 | 59.7 %
1999/00 | 26 | 11 | 70.3 %
2000/01 | 47 | 15 | 75.8 %
2002/03 | 39 | 37 | 51.3 %
2003/04 | 22 | 15 | 59.5 %
2005/06 | 34 | 22 | 60.7 %
2006/07 | 25 | 17 | 59.5 %
2007/08 | 8 | 5 | 61.5 %

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

That year was certainly a bit of an anomaly for Forsberg in terms of primary/secondary assist ratio and I think it's reasonable to assume he was a bit lucky. On the other hand, I think that's quite common for players having their career year. For example, when Gretzky had his record 163 assist season, his share of primary assists was much lower than his other Oiler seasons.

Here is Forsberg's assist breakdown:

Season | Primary assists | Secondary assists | Share primary
1994/95 | 23 | 10 | 69.7 %
1995/96 | 58 | 23 | 71.6 %
1996/97 | 28 | 25 | 52.8 %
1997/98 | 41 | 17 | 70.7 %
1998/99 | 40 | 27 | 59.7 %
1999/00 | 26 | 11 | 70.3 %
2000/01 | 47 | 15 | 75.8 %
2002/03 | 39 | 37 | 51.3 %
2003/04 | 22 | 15 | 59.5 %
2005/06 | 34 | 22 | 60.7 %
2006/07 | 25 | 17 | 59.5 %
2007/08 | 8 | 5 | 61.5 %

i'm curious what orr's assist ratio was during his 100 assist year. for a guy who led the league in assists, you'd think he'd have to be a defenseman to be near 50/50.

 

[matnor]

i'm curious what orr's assist ratio was during his 100 assist year. for a guy who led the league in assists, you'd think he'd have to be a defenseman to be near 50/50.

This is Orr's:

Season | Primary Assists | Secondary assists | Primary Share
1966/67 | 13 | 15 | 46.4 %
1967/68 | 10 | 10 | 50.0 %
1968/69 | 19 | 24 | 44.2 %
1969/70 | 46 | 40 | 53.5 %
1970/71 | 47 | 55 | 46.1 %
1971/72 | 40 | 40 | 50.0 %
1972/73 | 41 | 31 | 56.9 %
1973/74 | 48 | 40 | 54.5 %
1974/75 | 49 | 37 | 57.0 %
1975/76 | 6 | 7 | 46.2 %
1976/77 | 12 | 7 | 63.2 %

 

[plusandminus]

That year was certainly a bit of an anomaly for Forsberg in terms of primary/secondary assist ratio and I think it's reasonable to assume he was a bit lucky. On the other hand, I think that's quite common for players having their career year. For example, when Gretzky had his record 163 assist season, his share of primary assists was much lower than his other Oiler seasons.

Here is Forsberg's assist breakdown:

Season | Primary assists | Secondary assists | Share primary
1994/95 | 23 | 10 | 69.7 %
1995/96 | 58 | 23 | 71.6 %
1996/97 | 28 | 25 | 52.8 %
1997/98 | 41 | 17 | 70.7 %
1998/99 | 40 | 27 | 59.7 %
1999/00 | 26 | 11 | 70.3 %
2000/01 | 47 | 15 | 75.8 %
2002/03 | 39 | 37 | 51.3 %
2003/04 | 22 | 15 | 59.5 %
2005/06 | 34 | 22 | 60.7 %
2006/07 | 25 | 17 | 59.5 %
2007/08 | 8 | 5 | 61.5 %

Nice stat. Where did you find it?

As I said, I was a bit surprised of him having so many 2nd assists, since my impressions are that great assist forwards usually have a wider gap between 1st assists and 2nd assists. So it would be nice to see for myself, withouth having to do a lot of work myself.

I tend to think that defencemen often gets 1st assists on rebounds of shots they've made. For example, Datsyuk/Zetterberg to Lidstrom and then Holmstrom redirects it or take the rebound. That is something I can look up for the 2002/03 season (except than in PP a forward may play at blueline).

Anyway, I hope those who didn't already knew it notice that for example Forsberg had lots of more 1st assists than 2nd assists. (With 1st and 2nd assists, I mean primary and secondary assists, but I'm sure that is understood.)

 

[Charlie McAdaddy]

no way in hell IMO. That should have been Forsberg's trophy

 

[jkrx]

the point others were trying to make is that the 1st assist is more valuable than the 2nd. I think that makes sense logically. From what I can tell, you are arguing against that. I'm playing Devil's advocate. If a 2nd assist os so valuable, what about the 3rd assist?

3rd assist could be valueable to but they all should be in context of what really happened. My point was that (besides down playing secondary assists) Forsberg was an excellent playmaker and those secondary assists were most likely all very important part of the play. However I dont remember them all or even one from a specific season.

 

[matnor]

Nice stat. Where did you find it?

As I said, I was a bit surprised of him having so many 2nd assists, since my impressions are that great assist forwards usually have a wider gap between 1st assists and 2nd assists. So it would be nice to see for myself, withouth having to do a lot of work myself.

I tend to think that defencemen often gets 1st assists on rebounds of shots they've made. For example, Datsyuk/Zetterberg to Lidstrom and then Holmstrom redirects it or take the rebound. That is something I can look up for the 2002/03 season (except than in PP a forward may play at blueline).

Anyway, I hope those who didn't already knew it notice that for example Forsberg had lots of more 1st assists than 2nd assists. (With 1st and 2nd assists, I mean primary and secondary assists, but I'm sure that is understood.)

I compiled it myself using data from the Hockey Summary Project. See this thread:

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=821020