Forsberg vs Crosby

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

wait? Are you calling post-lockout detroit a powerhouse compared to pre-lockout and especially 96-2002 Detroit?

Wait, are you unaware that the Red Wings won the President's Trophy AND the Stanley Cup in 2008 and were runaway Central division leaders before winning the West in 2009 as an encore??

 

[livewell68]

Wait, are you unaware that the Red Wings won the President's Trophy AND the Stanley Cup in 2008 and were runaway Central division leaders before winning the West in 2009 as an encore??

Context is key.

I don't want to upset fans of the current NHL but I have yet to see a team in the last 6-7 years be as scary (President's trophy and Stanley Cup winners included) as say any of the 90's pre-lockout teams of the likes of Dallas, New Jersey, Detroit, Colorado, St.Louis and Philadelphia.

Heck even the current versions of Chicago and Boston don't look half scary as those earlier teams as I brought up looked.

Detroit didn't have the likes of Fedorov, Yzerman and the rest of the great Selke type players and despite Lidstrom still being great (and coincidentally winning the Norris) he wasn't nearly as great as he was between 1996 and 2002.

If Forsberg somehow morphed back into his prime and was transplanted into the current NHL environment, the sky would have been the limit. The same cannot be said about Crosby morphing back into the pre-lockout NHL. He would have been just another Kariya (which is no disrespect).

 

[Hobnobs]

Wait, are you unaware that the Red Wings won the President's Trophy AND the Stanley Cup in 2008 and were runaway Central division leaders before winning the West in 2009 as an encore??

Yet still not a powerhouse compared to the 96-02 versions of Detroit which were the teams shutting down Forsberg. Crosby got nullified by a lesser team, plain and simple.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Yet still not a powerhouse compared to the 96-02 versions of Detroit which were the teams shutting down Forsberg. Crosby got nullified by a lesser team, plain and simple.

Be sure to let Lidstrom, the '08 Norris Trophy winner and 1st team post-season all-star who was on both squads, know you feel that way.

 

[Mr Serious]

Forsberg in today's NHL would be a beast.

Went with Forsberg over Crosby, but I'm probably a little bias.

 

[livewell68]

Be sure to let Lidstrom, the '08 Norris Trophy winner and 1st team post-season all-star who was on both squads, know you feel that way.

Again context is key. Most will agree that pre-2005 Lidstrom is better than post-2005.

Since we're talking about Lidstrom now, why is it that a 31 year old Lidstrom had to wait for the likes of Bourque, Leetch, Chelios.... to get old and or retire for him to win his first Norris?

 

[Hobnobs]

Be sure to let Lidstrom, the '08 Norris Trophy winner and 1st team post-season all-star who was on both squads, know you feel that way.

Should I also let the '02 smythe winner know? Who was that again? Or the runner-up for the Norris who was the smythe winners defensive partner? Or maybe I should let the coach of the '02 Red Wings know? Give me a break..

 

[Hobnobs]

Again context is key. Most will agree that pre-2005 Lidstrom is better than post-2005.

Since we're talking about Lidstrom now, why is it that a 31 year old Lidstrom had to wait for the likes of Bourque, Leetch, Chelios.... to get old and or retire for him to win his first Norris?

He couldve won earlier tho. In '98 he was in my view more deserving than Blake and the following two years he was beat by two guys who simply had monster years.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Well in '08 the Pens lost to Detroit - THE powerhouse of the league - but at least Crosby contributed 4 points to their two wins, and two points in their final two losses. Had 7 points in 4 wins against Philly in the series leading up, too.

And even in '09 against Detroit (again a top Western seed), at least he contributed 3 points in their 4 wins that series, too. In fact, before facing Detroit he only went 2 games without a point through the first 3 rounds. Forsberg doesn't have a 3 series stretch like that anywhere in his entire playoff resume. Washington was 2nd seed in the East that year, though, so what's not to like about 13 points against them in that series (7 points in 4 wins)? Philly was virtually indistinguishable from the Pens in the regular season standings, for that matter, and he tagged them with 6 points in their 4 wins in that series.

I'm sorry, but how do you go from chiding me for pointing out the difference in defensive strength between the teams Forsberg faced and the teams Crosby faced three days ago to talking about the Washington Capitals as if being the 2nd Seed is more relevant than being the 20th ranked defensive team?

Do you think we're too clueless to know that defensive ranks are more relevant than seeding when it comes to limiting scoring? Ovechkin scoring 14 points in that series isn't going to negatively impact Crosby's ability to put up 13 points - but it's a good indication as to why Washington was the #2 seed.


Again...


2002 - 20 Games
Los Angeles - 190 GA (7 points in 6 games)
San Jose - 199 GA (12 points in 7 games)
Detroit - 187 GA (8 points in 7 games)
20 ESP, 7 PPP, 4 GWG, 3 Overtime Points

2008 - 20 Games
Ottawa - 247 GA (8 points in 4 games)
New York - 199 GA (6 points in 5 games)
Philadelphia - 233 GA (7 points in 5 games)
Detroit - 184 GA (6 points in 6 games)
10 ESP, 14 PPP, 3 Empty Net Points, 1 GWG, 1 Overtime Point

2009 - 24 Games
Philadelphia - 238 GA (8 points in 6 games)
Washington - 245 GA (13 points in 7 games)
Carolina - 226 GA (9 points in 4 games)
Detroit - 244 GA (3 points in 7 games)
19 ESP, 10 PPP, 2 Empty Net Points, 2 GWG, 1 Overtime Point


Crosby was not shooting on defensive juggernauts. All three teams Forsberg shot on surrendered fewer than 200 goals in the season. Crosby only faced two such teams out of the eight (the next best defensive team was at 226 GA), and was held to 12 points in 11 games in those contests. If you want to argue that Detroit in 2009 was better than their GA indicates, fine, but they stopped Crosby even worse than that while Lidstrom and Datsyuk were playing hurt.

You really must have your head in the sand to think that 13 points in 7 games against Washington (245 GA) is more notable than 12 points in 7 games against San Jose (199 GA), where Forsberg scored three GWGs, including the overtime goal in Game 6 and the single goal in a 1-0 Game 7.

Crosby in 2008 wasn't even breaking through 5-on-5 matchups to get the majority of his points. In addition to his 14 PPP, three of his ESP were shot into an empty net (as were 2 more in 2009; all of Forsberg's points went through a goaltender), meaning that he had just 10 actual 5-on-5 points in 20 games to Forsberg's 20 in 20. You can't brag about him beating defensive matchups when he only records 37% of his points in that type of setting.


Forsberg has the same raw points-per-game as Crosby in 2008 and a better raw points-per-game than Crosby in 2009. Forsberg recorded 1.35 points-per-game against goaltenders in 2002; Crosby had 1.20 in 2008 and 1.21 in 2009. The teams Forsberg shot on averaged 192 GA; Crosby's averaged 216 GA in 2008 and 238 GA in 2009. Forsberg was less reliant on 5-on-4 situations to produce his offense. He was a bigger clutch scorer.

Losing as a 19-point underdog to the 2002 Detroit Red Wings in the Western Conference Finals doesn't change the fact that Forsberg had a better playoff run in his 20 games than Crosby did in 2008 (20 games) or 2009 (24 games). If pounding on teams like Ottawa (2008) and Washington (2009) who gave up 3 goals per game on average in the regular season - or peppering empty nets on even-strength wasn't enough to boost Crosby's points-per-game above Forsberg's, then the win for Forsberg here should be clear.

It doesn't necessarily make him the better player overall, but yes, Forsberg has the best playoff run.

 

[Big Phil]

You just confirmed everything I said.

Crosby gets excused because the rest of his team was able to pick up the slack and win.

He doesn't get excused for his performance in the 2009 final as much as rewarded for being able to carry his team out of the semis.

Gretzky's TEAM won the war. Gilmour individually outplayed Gretzky in that series by ANY objective measure as well as by watching.

They both had extraordinary playoff runs.. But Gilmour was, in fact, better individually.

Gretzky outperformed Gilmour when the chips were down. Gilmour as an individual had a better playoff series in 1993 but that's where it ends. Gretzky had the better overall run. He dominated Game 1 of the final, and overall had 7 points in 5 final games. That adds to his already impressive run through three rounds. Both had superb runs, Gretzky's was just better. Gretzky's run was one of the all-time greatest from an individual standpoint because he carried the team on his back with much less support than he's ever had. Save for a poor penalty by McSorley in Game 2 and the Kings likely win the Cup on the heels of Gretzky. Give him the edge here.

And confirmed again that if your team wins you're better individually.

Can't you see how silly this looks?

Not so, or else Kevin Lowe would be considered higher on the all-time lists. What I focus on is not only winning but the contribution the person had to winning. Obviously Crosby was vital in this regard in 2008 or 2009 (save for the lack of numbers, but still good play in the final). As was Gretzky in 1993. We aren't talking about giving a 3rd liner some credit here.

This is just laughable.. Higher scoring era? You do know that the average scoring per game difference between those two seasons are .2 goals per game right?

and in '96 Forsberg had 5pts in 3 games when it mattered the most.

You ought to stop comparing Crosby to Forsberg in 1996. Forsberg did not have a legendary playoff run in 1996. He had 21 points, good for 3rd on his team. This was Sakic and Roy's team that spring. This is a knock for Forsberg when doing these debates. When the Avs won, it was Sakic and Roy who carried the load, not Forsberg. You do realize that you complained about Crosby's lack of "competition" yet praised Forsberg for scoring 5 points in 4 games in the 1996 final against the weakest team - Florida - to reach the final in 20 years.

Forsberg didn't win a series in 1996. Crosby was responsible for winning at least one series in 2009, against the Caps. You didn't see that kind of explosiveness from Forsberg in 1996 the way you did with Crosby in 2009. This was the only time Forsberg ever helped get his team into the final. It is clearly below Crosby's two best.

Well one can say that Crosby was no better than 3rd on the pecking order in 2009 as well, with Malkin being the clear powerhouse and Fleury doing his job.

The only tough team the Penguins faced in their back-to-back Cup visits was the Red Wings and on both occasions Crosby was less than stellar.

I love Forsberg's game but I used to think that he is the most overrated player in NHL history, now I'm convinced that title goes to Crosby in a landslide.

Crosby only has the per game stats to help him out and we all know how those numbers slide considerably as you age and as you play more games outside of your prime. I doubt Crosby's per game stats will even be top 10 by the time he is done his career. In fact his playoff numbers are already shrinking by the year.

The Pens pecking order clealry went: Malkin, Crosby then Fleury in 2009. Then in 2008 it was Crosby, Hossa, Malkin, Fleury. Besides, how was his competition not very good.

2008: Ottawa, NYR, Philly, Detroit
2009: Philly, Washington, Carolina, Detroit

Detroit in both years in the final, Washington in 2009 who had more points than them and the Hart, Pearson and Richard winner. Not to mention a Norris finalist. Philly was a strong team both years and the other three (Ott,NYR,Car) I'd only call Carolina "weak" out of those three. Their competition was just fine.

 

[Hobnobs]

You ought to stop comparing Crosby to Forsberg in 1996. Forsberg did not have a legendary playoff run in 1996. He had 21 points, good for 3rd on his team. This was Sakic and Roy's team that spring. This is a knock for Forsberg when doing these debates. When the Avs won, it was Sakic and Roy who carried the load, not Forsberg. You do realize that you complained about Crosby's lack of "competition" yet praised Forsberg for scoring 5 points in 4 games in the 1996 final against the weakest team - Florida - to reach the final in 20 years.

Forsberg didn't win a series in 1996. Crosby was responsible for winning at least one series in 2009, against the Caps. You didn't see that kind of explosiveness from Forsberg in 1996 the way you did with Crosby in 2009. This was the only time Forsberg ever helped get his team into the final. It is clearly below Crosby's two best.



The Pens pecking order clealry went: Malkin, Crosby then Fleury in 2009. Then in 2008 it was Crosby, Hossa, Malkin, Fleury. Besides, how was his competition not very good.

2008: Ottawa, NYR, Philly, Detroit
2009: Philly, Washington, Carolina, Detroit

Detroit in both years in the final, Washington in 2009 who had more points than them and the Hart, Pearson and Richard winner. Not to mention a Norris finalist. Philly was a strong team both years and the other three (Ott,NYR,Car) I'd only call Carolina "weak" out of those three. Their competition was just fine.

I'm not the one who brought up '96 but Forsberg were as good as Sakic in those finals and while Panthers were a weak team offensively they were a quite strong clutch and grab team, good for 6th in the league in GA and even better in the playoffs I believe. Forsbergs '96 isnt alot worse than Crosbys '09 and thats not even Forsberg best playoff.

and we already covered why Crosbys opposition was weak COMPARED TO the post-lockout POWERHOUSES Forsberg were up against.

 

[Beau Knows]

and we already covered why Crosbys opposition was weak COMPARED TO the post-lockout POWERHOUSES Forsberg were up against.

But it works both ways, Forsberg played on a powerhouse. The Avalanche won their division 8 years in a row, won 16 playoff series' in 7 years and won a Stanley Cup with Forsberg missing the last 2 rounds.

 

[Hobnobs]

But it works both ways, Forsberg played on a powerhouse. The Avalanche won their division 8 years in a row, won 16 playoff series' in 7 years and won a Stanley Cup with Forsberg missing the last 2 rounds.

No, it doesnt. Because we are comparing what ONE player did against the opposition.

 

[Beau Knows]

No, it doesnt. Because we are comparing what ONE player did against the opposition.

So why wouldn't we compare the players on their teams that were helping them out? Obviously playing with great players is going to help. Crosby hasn't played against a powerhouse, but he also hasn't played on one like Forsberg did.

 

[quoipourquoi]

So why wouldn't we compare the players on their teams that were helping them out? Obviously playing with great players is going to help. Crosby hasn't played against a powerhouse, but he also hasn't played on one like Forsberg did.

The 2002 Avalanche were 18th in scoring (212 GF)
The 2008 Penguins were 7th in scoring (247 GF)
The 2009 Penguins were 4th in scoring (264 GF)

 

[Beau Knows]

The 2002 Avalanche were 18th in scoring (212 GF)
The 2008 Penguins were 7th in scoring (247 GF)
The 2009 Penguins were 4th in scoring (264 GF)

1995-1996 Avalanche: 326 goals, 2nd in NHL

 

[Hardyvan123]

The 2002 Avalanche were 18th in scoring (212 GF)
The 2008 Penguins were 7th in scoring (247 GF)
The 2009 Penguins were 4th in scoring (264 GF)

Why the 02 Avs when the season before they scored 270 GF and were 4th in the league?

Maybe because Foppa missed the entire 02 regular season and Bourque had retired?

Either you are trying to be misleading or were a bit sloppy with the example here, a long term team comp would have been better but how use full is it anyways?

Foppa played with more skilled players more of the time than Sid has but is it really that big of a deal?

 

[livewell68]

The 2002 Avalanche were 18th in scoring (212 GF)
The 2008 Penguins were 7th in scoring (247 GF)
The 2009 Penguins were 4th in scoring (264 GF)

Good point but we also need to have the 1996 Avalanche team for context.

 

[Beau Knows]

Here's the number of goals scored by each of their teams:

Forsberg
2727 GF in 11 seasons = 247 per season

Crosby:
1977 GF in 8 seasons = 247 per season

Forsbergs numbers only count his "prime" years (1994-2006). Both include a 48 game lockout shortened season, numbers not prorated on those.

 

[quoipourquoi]

You ought to stop comparing Crosby to Forsberg in 1996. Forsberg did not have a legendary playoff run in 1996. He had 21 points, good for 3rd on his team. This was Sakic and Roy's team that spring. This is a knock for Forsberg when doing these debates. When the Avs won, it was Sakic and Roy who carried the load, not Forsberg. You do realize that you complained about Crosby's lack of "competition" yet praised Forsberg for scoring 5 points in 4 games in the 1996 final against the weakest team - Florida - to reach the final in 20 years.

Listen, I don't think Forsberg in 1996 is anything to write home about either, but you really must knock it off with this misinformation. The Avalanche won in 1996 and 2001 because everyone pulled their weight. Maybe they would have won in 1999 and 2000 too had Sakic and Roy (1999) or Sakic (2000) played better, but you never acknowledge that. Every time this has come up, you always say the same thing, and it's still wrong. Forsberg provided a hell of a lot more support as a sophomore player in 1996 than Sakic did in 1999, 2000, and 2002 when he went a combined 17 points in 32 games against Dallas and Detroit despite drawing weaker defensive matchups (unlike Forsberg in 1996, who drew Chelios).

Only a winners-only mentality could see it as a knock on Forsberg that they didn't win in those years because the depth scoring - and often Sakic - did not come through as needed the way it did in 1996 and 2001. Did you know the leading scorer going into the 2001 Finals was Milan Hejduk? He stepped up big time when Sakic missed the bulk of the LA series with a separated shoulder and Forsberg missed the St. Louis series. That same Milan Hejduk who had 20 points through 16 games of the Western Conference Playoffs in 2001 produced just 6 points in 16 games in 2002. Greg de Vries was their third highest scorer in 2002. That's how bad the depth was. Sakic and Roy may have carried the Avalanche in 1996 and 2001, but they had a lot less weight they needed to lift.

And how is Florida, a team who opened the playoffs on home-ice and had just come off of making Lemieux, Jagr, and Lindros look pedestrian, the weakest team to make it to the Finals in 20 years? I mean, are you just slagging them to take the luster off of Forsberg scoring a hat trick on their Conn Smythe candidate?

Besides, how was his competition not very good.

2008: Ottawa, NYR, Philly, Detroit
2009: Philly, Washington, Carolina, Detroit

Detroit in both years in the final, Washington in 2009 who had more points than them and the Hart, Pearson and Richard winner. Not to mention a Norris finalist. Philly was a strong team both years and the other three (Ott,NYR,Car) I'd only call Carolina "weak" out of those three. Their competition was just fine.

Consider reading the post above yours where it details GA instead of seeding. Washington in 2009 had more points, sure. Washington in 2009 also let in three goals per game. And their Norris finalist was Mike Green. And we're not naive enough to think he was nominated for defense.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Why the 02 Avs when the season before they scored 270 GF and were 4th in the league?

Maybe because Foppa missed the entire 02 regular season and Bourque had retired?

Psst... they scored at a lower rate in the 2002 playoffs than they did in the 2002 regular season.


And why am I talking about the 2002 Avalanche? Because that's who Forsberg played for in the 2002 playoffs: a team who lost its offensive identity and had to play sheltering defensive hockey. They're not the same team as the 2001 Avalanche or the 2003 Avalanche any more than the 2007 Penguins are the same as their 2006 and 2008 versions.

1995-1996 Avalanche: 326 goals, 2nd in NHL

Good point but we also need to have the 1996 Avalanche team for context.

I'm not the one defending Forsberg's 1996 playoff as being as good as Crosby's 2008 and 2009 playoffs.

 

[quoipourquoi]

I was hoping we could maybe get past the smokescreen of talking about the 1996 playoffs as if the 1999 playoffs didn't happen... you know, the other time Forsberg led the playoffs in scoring.

24 points in 19 games (13 ESP, 9 PPP, 1 SHP, 1 Empty Net)

Certainly a more Crosby-esque split of powerplay to even-strength scoring, but Forsberg did this while playing 2:30 of shorthanded ice-time each night. Again, ignoring the pucks shot into an empty net, Forsberg's 1999 points-per-game is ahead of Crosby's 2008 and 2009 numbers - by a negligible amount. But here's the real kicker:

1999
San Jose - 191 GA (8 points in 6 games)
Detroit - 202 GA (9 points in 6 games)
Dallas - 168 GA (7 points in 7 games)

The teams Forsberg shot on in 1999 averaged 187 GA on the season (compared to Crosby's opponents' averages of 216 GA and 238 GA). The difference in goals-allowed-per-game of Crosby's opponents in 2009 and Forsberg's opponents in 1999 (.622) is bigger than the difference of goals-allowed-per-game from 1995-96 to 2003-04 (.580).

The 1999 Avalanche were, of course, a fairly good offensive team, netting 239 GF compared to the 2008 Penguins' 247 GF and the 2009 Penguins' 264 GF (and much higher than the 2002 Avalanche's 212 GF). Sakic and Fleury (the #2 and #3 playoff scorers) broke out for 12 and 11 points, respectively, against San Jose. The final two rounds, however, saw Sakic record 7 points and Fleury record 6 points over the Avalanche's 13 games against Dallas and Detroit, meaning Forsberg outscored the two of them combined in those rounds.

And I look forward to hearing how this will be spun into him not carrying the team because they lost in 7 games to Dallas as a 16-point underdog.

 

[Beau Knows]

Certainly a more Crosby-esque split of powerplay to even-strength scoring, but Forsberg did this while playing 2:30 of shorthanded ice-time each night. Again, ignoring the pucks shot into an empty net, Forsberg's 1999 points-per-game is ahead of Crosby's 2008 and 2009 numbers - by a negligible amount. But here's the real kicker:

I don't see EN points shouldn't count, seems similar to people who try to remove secondary assists.

 

[quoipourquoi]

I don't see EN points shouldn't count, seems similar to people who try to remove secondary assists.

Dumping the puck into an empty 4x6 is not the same thing as beating a goaltender. The fact that 23% of Crosby's even-strength points in the 2008 playoffs were acquired this way is an unnecessary inflation of an already small sample size.

 

[Beau Knows]

Dumping the puck into an empty 4x6 is not the same thing as beating a goaltender. The fact that 23% of Crosby's even-strength points in the 2008 playoffs were acquired this way is an unnecessary inflation of an already small sample size.

Are we going to go back and remove EN points from each players careers or just in this particular instance? Besides, you get an EN goal by being trusted to play the dying minutes of the game, if you get a goal or assists to put the game away you deserve it and it was probably an important play.