Forsberg vs Crosby

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

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.

Which is all great. But when I see that Adam Foote averaged almost 29 mins/night, and Sakic 25, I know what they were doing to make sure all the points Forsberg got during his 21 minutes counted. And it was key goals from guys like Drury making it interesting later on (who had all 4 of his GWG against Detroit and Dallas), and I don't think a single one was assisted by Sakic OR Forsberg.

And from my recollection, it really wasn't Forsberg OR Sakic that even started the comeback against Detroit. Double-checking, after Detroit got up on them 2-0, it was Roy stopping 44 shots while facing 6 penalty-kills (Colorado just marching to the penalty box all game), and Yzerman hitting the crossbar at a key moment in game 3 when another Detroit goal would have made a huge difference, that changed the tide.

Even the next game, which looks like Avalanche offense on display, was much about Roy keeping the Red Wings off the board for the first 54 minutes of the game, allowing Deadmarsh and Drury to start off the fireworks (again, no assists by Forsberg or Sakic), building a 2-0 lead by halfway through the 2nd period. Bob Hartley quote after tying the series:

"For the second game in a row, we had a great team effort from everyone," said Avalanche coach Bob Hartley.

As for the rest of the series, we have Roy shutting the door on the Red Wings, and Colorado shooters abusing a wonky-kneed Osgood, who was called on to close the series instead of Ranford.

But yeah, it was Forsberg dragging everyone along with him in '99...

 

[quoipourquoi]

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.

You know what is a better sign of being trusted? Playing 2:30 on the penalty kill every night. It's just not lumped into an offensive category under the guise of being the same thing as scoring a 5-on-5 goal.


And Ohashi_Jouzu, if at some point I gave you the impression that Peter Forsberg both played in net and on his own wings in addition to playing center, I apologize. But yes, he did in fact set up the goal that tied Game 3 after Lidstrom bloodied Fleury with a high stick. Forsberg recorded 2 points in each of the four games of their 0-2 comeback.

I don't recall saying that Chris Drury wasn't a clutch scorer either. He scored some pretty timely goals in 1999 despite only recording eight points in 19 games. He also scored some pretty timely goals in 2001 that you didn't bring up when Big Phil was talking about Sakic carrying the Avalanche.

I'm sure if we look hard enough, we'll find someone else on the Penguins who scored a point or two against Washington and Ottawa and Detroit as well. Maybe even someone who scored as much as Chris Drury!

 

[Big Phil]

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).

Like I said below on this post, we can cut it both ways. Forsberg did come through at certain times when maybe Sakic could have been better, but the truth is Forsberg doesn't have a Cup ring without Sakic or Roy either. That idea cancels each other out.

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.

Sakic only missed two games in the 2001 playoffs.

But are we really going to play the Olympics with which team had more depth Colorado or Pittsburgh? In 2009 Crosby and Malkin were nicknamed the "two headed monster" for a reason. This is how the Pens playoff scoring looked:

Malkin - 36
Crosby - 31
Guerin - 15

That big of a gap. There were brilliant but sometimes inconsistent moments that Fleury had in net, Gonchar wasn't 100% and missed some pivotal games in that high scoring Washington series. For better or worse, this was Malkin and Crosby's team they had to carry on their backs.

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?

Well I said 20 years, so let's look at it. Who are the weakest teams to reach the final in the last 20 years? Florida 1996, Carolina 2002, Calgary 2004, Edmonton 2006. That is usually the teams that get brought up when a thread like that opens. Before that, I guess Minnesota 1991. Yeah, Florida was a weak team.

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.

But that was the 3rd highest scoring team in the league that season. Definitely a Cup contender. That series was a back and forth high tempo style of play and Crosby shone above everyone else, including Ovechkin. I wouldn't exactly say that was an easy series to win.

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.

It goes both ways. If you want to say that Crosby never played against a powerhouse type of team postlockout that Forsberg did pre-lockout then can we use the same method for the teams Forsberg actually played on. He had Sakic, he had a couple HHOF defensemen at one point, he had Kamensky and then a 50 goal guy in Hejduk. Let's also not forget he had Patrick Roy the greatest goaltender of all-time. This matters a lot, because it goes both ways. Yes, Sakic could have done better in certain years, however, if not for Sakic and Roy Forsberg doesn't have a Stanley Cup either. I prefer to not bring up that type of thing in the first place since it can be cut both ways. I'd rather focus on how the player did against his peers at that time. In this case, Crosby did better against his competition than Forsberg did against his, or at least his best trumps Forsberg's best. I don't know how you fail to see that. And to be fair, if we bring up the whole "Well, Sakic's production could have been better certain years" then we have to do that for EVERY scenario. Starting with 2008, maybe the Pens win two Cups in a row if their other superstar (Malkin) doesn't wait until Game 5 of the final to register a point. Just saying. But since I have no interest in "what ifs".............

Also, to be fair Colorado played Vancouver in 1996, they played Vancouver and L.A. in 2001 and they played L.A. and then San Jose in 2002. It isn't as if there weren't some teams that they played who weren't Cup contenders as well.

 

[quoipourquoi]

As an unrelated aside, you also claimed earlier that Forsberg was top 5 in GPG once, and I was just wondering if you could tell us exactly when that was, because for me he loses the 5 way tie for 4th by virtue of playing far less games than Elias, Havlat or St. Louis in '03/04 (I think most people would have done a sort of players who had at least played half the season, but slick work using GP>=25 instead of 41).

So... he loses a tie for 4th place because you say so? Crosby and Forsberg each have the one season where they are top-ten in both goals-per-game and assists-per-game (both were top-five though). Forsberg in 2004 with 39 games, Crosby in 2011 with 41 games - so it's not like someone has too unfair of an advantage in saying that they didn't play enough.

As for why I used the GP cap I did, 25 GP seemed like high enough of a number to keep out guys like 2008's Peter Forsberg (14 points in 9 games) without going out of my way to differentiate between 39 GP and 41 GP like you apparently want to.


I mean, it's not like this is a major crux of any argument. Someone said Crosby's 51 goals in 2010 were proof that he was better because he was an equal playmaker and a better scorer. I demonstrated that the 51 goals came at the cost of falling from 1st and 2nd place in assists-per-game from 2007-2009 to outside of the top-ten entirely, while Forsberg maintained a top-five position from 1996-2006. I then showed that they each had one single 39/41 GP season where they were top-five at goals-per-game and assists-per-game. I even said that Crosby's 2011 was the best stretch of hockey I had seen since Lemieux. Nothing nefarious; nothing "slick."

 

[ottawa]

Peoples' date of birth should be displayed under their username, it would really help put their comments into perspective. I don't understand where all these AINEC comments are coming from and I question if some people have actually watched Forsberg play (highlights don't count). That being said, having watched Crosby way more, i'll have to go with him but its close.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Like I said below on this post, we can cut it both ways. Forsberg did come through at certain times when maybe Sakic could have been better, but the truth is Forsberg doesn't have a Cup ring without Sakic or Roy either. That idea cancels each other out.

Since when does a player have to prove that he can win the Stanley Cup without good teammates to enter into a conversation with Sidney Crosby who won the Stanley Cup with good teammates?

Sakic only missed two games in the 2001 playoffs.

Missed about 55 minutes of the game where he separated his shoulder too. Great performance though, but I think sometimes you look at Sakic in 1996 and 2001 and stretch it out as if he was playing at that same level in 1999, 2000, and 2002 when he wasn't. In every way that he was consistent in the regular season, he was inconsistent in the playoffs.

But are we really going to play the Olympics with which team had more depth Colorado or Pittsburgh? In 2009 Crosby and Malkin were nicknamed the "two headed monster" for a reason. This is how the Pens playoff scoring looked:

Malkin - 36
Crosby - 31
Guerin - 15

So what you're saying is that Malkin in 2009 had four more points than the #2 and #3 scorers on 2002 Colorado combined?

Peter Forsberg had 27 points on Colorado's 54 goals.
Sidney Crosby had 31 points on Pittsburgh's 79 goals.

Well I said 20 years, so let's look at it. Who are the weakest teams to reach the final in the last 20 years? Florida 1996, Carolina 2002, Calgary 2004, Edmonton 2006. That is usually the teams that get brought up when a thread like that opens. Before that, I guess Minnesota 1991. Yeah, Florida was a weak team.

They were a high seed! And not even from winning the yet-to-exist SE Division! Hell, they were a high seed the next year too!

1994, 1995, 1999, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2010, and 2012 all had Finalists who opened up on the road. So, no, Florida was not a weak team. Weak teams don't beat the 1996 Pittsburgh Penguins.

But that was the 3rd highest scoring team in the league that season. Definitely a Cup contender. That series was a back and forth high tempo style of play and Crosby shone above everyone else, including Ovechkin. I wouldn't exactly say that was an easy series to win.

Again, you're using the word WIN. And again, in what way is "the 3rd highest scoring team" a measure of defense? Crosby doesn't score goals against the #3 offense; he scores goals against the #20 defense.

I'd rather focus on how the player did against his peers at that time. In this case, Crosby did better against his competition than Forsberg did against his, or at least his best trumps Forsberg's best. I don't know how you fail to see that.

Big Phil, if you "fail to see that," could you just read and respond to one of the numerous posts detailing the following:

1. Forsberg in 2002 has the same or better points-per-game as Crosby in 2008 and 2009
2. Forsberg in 2002 shot against much better defensive teams
3. Forsberg was less reliant on empty nets and powerplays for his points

Also, to be fair Colorado played Vancouver in 1996, they played Vancouver and L.A. in 2001 and they played L.A. and then San Jose in 2002. It isn't as if there weren't some teams that they played who weren't Cup contenders as well.

San Jose in 2002 had the same amount of points as Colorado.

Look at GA. GA tells you who is hard to score on.

Washington (2009): 245 GA
San Jose (2002): 199 GA

See? So can we go a little bit easier on his 13 points against Washington (so much better than Ovechkin's 14 points against Pittsburgh in that same series)?

 

[Big Phil]

Missed about 55 minutes of the game where he separated his shoulder too. Great performance though, but I think sometimes you look at Sakic in 1996 and 2001 and stretch it out as if he was playing at that same level in 1999, 2000, and 2002 when he wasn't. In every way that he was consistent in the regular season, he was inconsistent in the playoffs.

No, he wasn't. He has his flaws in those years too. The issue I have is that neither Forsberg or Sakic were ever both dominant in the postseason for whatever reason. But when the Avs won the Cup, it was Sakic who was the dominant one while Forsberg played a much lesser role. The Avs never won when Forsberg was dominant and Sakic wasn't. Just a little side fact.

So what you're saying is that Malkin in 2009 had four more points than the #2 and #3 scorers on 2002 Colorado combined?

No, no. What I am saying is that if there is a team that was lacking support it was Pittsburgh in those years. They had less depth than Colorado.

They were a high seed! And not even from winning the yet-to-exist SE Division! Hell, they were a high seed the next year too!

1994, 1995, 1999, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2010, and 2012 all had Finalists who opened up on the road. So, no, Florida was not a weak team. Weak teams don't beat the 1996 Pittsburgh Penguins.

The 1993 Islanders beat the Penguins. I still don't think they were a great team. Florida had a team that relied on everything that was wrong with hockey at that time. Trap, wait, clutch, grab, dump, chase, pray to God your goalie stands on his head and wait...........wait........wait, hope. Play not to lose, rather than play to win. Yeah, sorry, Florida was a weak team that reached the final. Not one that gets brought up much.

San Jose in 2002 had the same amount of points as Colorado.

Look at GA. GA tells you who is hard to score on.

Washington (2009): 245 GA
San Jose (2002): 199 GA

See? So can we go a little bit easier on his 13 points against Washington (so much better than Ovechkin's 14 points against Pittsburgh in that same series)?

Do you really think San Jose was a Cup contender that year? Everyone and their mother would have picked Colorado over them. 99 points each doesn't tell the whole story. Was Vancouver better than their "one game above .500" record indicated in 1994? I think so.

I don't care if Washington trapped themselves silly or played pond hockey. The point is Crosby beat an elite team seemingly on the cusp of something special. He played their game and beat them in their own home barn in Game 7. Had a fantastic game too. When we are dissecting these playoff runs this closely, it is of utmost importance not only how many points a player got but WHEN he got those points. Crosby produced when it counted and when it didn't count (if that exists in playoff hockey?) But certainly when it did count. Yes his 2009 final wasn't spectacular, but he already did something that a 2002 Forsberg couldn't at that time, and that was elevate his team TO the Cup final.

2008 is another example. He didn't really have a lull in that playoff year. He was producing consistently throughout. In the semis against Philly, in the final against Detroit. This helped his team and he was directly responsible for that. It is just hard for me to see how you don't integrate winning into whether or not someone had a great playoff run. That's half the battle right there, especially if you are directly involved.

 

[penguins2946*]

I like how Crosby is trashed for getting 3 points in 7 games in the final in 2009. Lindros got shut down in the 97 playoffs against the Wings (1 point in 5 games), 99 playoffs against the Stars (6 points in 7 games), 00 playoffs against the Stars (5 points in 7 games) and 04 against the Sharks (3 points in 6 games). In fact, Forsberg had a tendency to disappear for multiple games in playoff rounds, such as the 98 playoffs (0 points in his last 3 games) and 01 against the Kings (2 points in last 4 games).

Actually, comparing elimination series (so the series when either his team lost in the playoffs or they won the cup), Forsberg has 55 in 57 games. Crosby has 27 in 35 games. While Forsberg is better, it's not this difference that people are making it out to be. Forsberg isn't this playoff Jesus that people are making him out to be.

Forsberg had 2 100 points in his entire career. Crosby has had 4. Forsberg's PPG is 1.25 in the regular season, Crosby's is 1.41. Forsberg's playoff PPG is 1.13. Crosby's is 1.28. Crosby's GPG and APG are both higher than Forsberg's (Crosby has .51 GPG and .91 APG, Forsberg has .35 GPG and .90 APG). Crosby's lowest PPG (as an 18 year old) was higher than all but 3 of Forsberg's 11 seasons. His Art Ross season was better than any of Forsberg's as a 19 year old. It's definitely Crosby.

 

[Hobnobs]

Like I said below on this post, we can cut it both ways. Forsberg did come through at certain times when maybe Sakic could have been better, but the truth is Forsberg doesn't have a Cup ring without Sakic or Roy either. That idea cancels each other out.

and Crosby doesnt have one without Malkin and Fleury Seriously....

 

[Big Phil]

and Crosby doesnt have one without Malkin and Fleury Seriously....

Like I said, we can go in circles until the cows come home. Crosby could have had two if Malkin had played up to par in the 2008 final. I'd rather focus on what the player actually accomplished.

 

[Dutchy09*]

Forsberg, Crosby's an amazing player but Forsberg dominated in a much harder and tougher league.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Like I said, we can go in circles until the cows come home. Crosby could have had two if Malkin had played up to par in the 2008 final. I'd rather focus on what the player actually accomplished.

Then why do you keep dodging the fact that Peter Forsberg in 2002 had a higher points-per-game against better defensive teams with less reliance on empty net points? Or that Peter Forsberg in 1999 had a near equal points-per-game against significantly better defensive teams with less reliance on empty net points while playing a defensive role on the penalty kill?

Because to me, it seems like you would rather focus on anything but Forsberg's performance in 1999 and 2002. 1996 and 2001? Oh, you'll talk about that all day. But when it comes to 1999 and 2002, you'll say that you don't know how someone fails to see that Crosby's run trumps Forsberg's - because Forsberg didn't score in Games 6 and 7 against Detroit even though Crosby didn't either - and continue ignoring every point raised against your stance that "Crosby's two best playoff runs trump Forsberg's two best."

We're not going in circles, Big Phil. You're standing still and saying nothing to address the evidence provided for you.

Once more with feeling:


1999
Average Opponent GA: 187
1.26 points-per-game (1.21 without ENG)
13 ESP, 9 PPP, 1 SHP, 1 ENP; 2:30 penalty kill ice-time
Percentage of Teams' Offense: (24 points on 56 goals) 43%
Team Goal Differential: +2

2002
Average Opponent GA: 192
1.35 points-per-game (1.35 without ENG)
20 ESP, 7 PPP
Percentage of Teams' Offense: (27 points on 54 goals) 50%
Team Goal Differential: -2

2008
Average Opponent GA: 216
1.35 points-per-game (1.20 without ENG)
10 ESP, 14 PPP, 3 ENP
Percentage of Teams' Offense: (27 points on 61 goals) 44%
Team Goal Differential: +18

2009
Average Opponent GA: 238
1.29 points-per-game (1.21 without ENG)
19 ESP, 10 PPP, 2 ENP
Percentage of Teams' Offense: (31 points on 79 goals) 39%
Team Goal Differential: +15


Come on, Big Phil, tell us what it is you think we're failing to see, because there is nothing about any of Crosby's runs that is superior to Forsberg in 2002 other than the fact that he played for a team with a positive goal differential in the playoffs.

 

[quoipourquoi]

I don't care if Washington trapped themselves silly or played pond hockey. The point is Crosby beat an elite team seemingly on the cusp of something special. He played their game and beat them in their own home barn in Game 7.

Teams beat teams, Big Phil. I feel like this is something we shouldn't have to explain to you, particularly in instances like this where Ovechkin recorded the most points in the series (14 points on Washington's 22 goals) - not Crosby (13 points on Pittsburgh's 27 goals).

You said before that you wanted to "focus on how the player did against his peers at that time." Well, Ovechkin is a peer of Crosby's, and he played every bit as good. But sometimes the best player on either side doesn't advance, because teams beat teams. That was the case when Ovechkin's 2009 playoff ended in the second round, and it was the case when Forsberg's 1999 and 2002 playoffs ended in the third.

 

[feffan]

Like I said, we can go in circles until the cows come home. Crosby could have had two if Malkin had played up to par in the 2008 final. I'd rather focus on what the player actually accomplished.

And if Roy and Sakic hadn´t taken som playoffs off, Forsberg could have had a couple more...

 

[Rhiessan71]

Like I said, we can go in circles until the cows come home. Crosby could have had two if Malkin had played up to par in the 2008 final. I'd rather focus on what the player actually accomplished.

Sorry Phil but this is a silly statement.
Crosby did not play up to par and was shut down by the Wings in 09. If not for Malkin playing well above just stepping up, the Pens win no Cup that year.

This statement makes it sound like Malkin can cover Crosby when he is not playing up to par but Crosby can not cover Malkin and I do not think that is the perception you were looking to give.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

This statement makes it sound like Malkin can cover Crosby when he is not playing up to par but Crosby can not cover Malkin and I do not think that is the perception you were looking to give.

For one round though? I don't think that's out of the realm of possibility for either player, at any time. I think the track record of Sakic and Forsberg will show similar examples in the past. Doesn't change the fact that, in this case, it was Sid carrying the play for 3 rounds before Malkin got/took the opportunity to pick up the slack for one at the end (an important one, no doubt, and I thought Malkin may have had one "clearly better" game in the Carolina series, when his hat trick included the 3rd period winning and insurance goals, and he was getting shots like crazy).

Teams beat teams, Big Phil.

I don't really see how this strengthens the case that a player who wasn't part of a winning team had a "better" post season than the engine (or one of the two, if you prefer) of a team that did. Given that "teams beat teams", you're still arguing the greatness of Forsberg's '99/'02 playoffs, specifically, versus Crosby's '08/'09, specifically.

 

[Big Phil]

Sorry Phil but this is a silly statement.
Crosby did not play up to par and was shut down by the Wings in 09. If not for Malkin playing well above just stepping up, the Pens win no Cup that year.

This statement makes it sound like Malkin can cover Crosby when he is not playing up to par but Crosby can not cover Malkin and I do not think that is the perception you were looking to give.

No, it wasn't, the perception I was giving was that we can go around in circles forever with this theory that "if so and so had better support........" I mean Gretzky in 1993 didn't have a lot of support and look how far he went. But for everytime we complain about Crosby/Forsberg not having support there is another case where we can say "Well if they had scored more point here............"

Malkin played well, and 8 points in 7 final games is good, but not legendary either. He just merely played good in the final.

And if Roy and Sakic hadn´t taken som playoffs off, Forsberg could have had a couple more...

Which is why I never bring stuff like this up in a debate because it is useless and can be used on each side of the argument.

Teams beat teams, Big Phil. I feel like this is something we shouldn't have to explain to you, particularly in instances like this where Ovechkin recorded the most points in the series (14 points on Washington's 22 goals) - not Crosby (13 points on Pittsburgh's 27 goals).

You said before that you wanted to "focus on how the player did against his peers at that time." Well, Ovechkin is a peer of Crosby's, and he played every bit as good. But sometimes the best player on either side doesn't advance, because teams beat teams. That was the case when Ovechkin's 2009 playoff ended in the second round, and it was the case when Forsberg's 1999 and 2002 playoffs ended in the third.

Was it though? Or is there more to it? Crosby had two goals and one assist in Game 7 against Washington. Ovechkin had one goal when the cat was out of the barn and the game was more or less out of reach. By that measure, do you not think Crosby had a DIRECT impact on the outcome of that game? Yes teams beat teams, but when the superstars play that big of a role in the outcome of the game don't you think they should be rewarded? That's the difference with what Crosby did and the disappearing act that Forsberg did in important times in 1999 and 2002. Colorado couldn't have used an important goal from Mr. Forsberg in Game 6 of the 2002 semis? Yeah, Patrick Roy did the Statue of Liberty goal but this was a 2-0 game, so it was close.

That's the key when you are judging a sample as small as playoff runs. We are dealing with 20-25 important games here. If the stats are similar 31 points to 27, then we have to look at when the goals were scored and how it translated to helping their team win. Crosby went through three rounds in 2009 and was pointless twice. Then had some zeros in the final. But even so, the first two games he had 7 shots. He had 5 shots alone in Game 2 of the 2009 final. He didn't play bad at all, that's the thing. He just wasn't producing. I can remember Guerin hitting posts from Crosby feeds. Then in Game 4 he was the star of the game. So even in the final he had his moments.

But the thing was, Forsberg wasn't even good enough to get to that point in the first place. Crosby has him beat right there for starters and he is a DIRECT result of his team advancing (7 points in 4 games in the semis). We aren't giving Jordan Staal credit over Forsberg here, we are giving a superstar who stepped up when the chips were down his due. So when you are judging playoff runs the most important thing to judge are the numbers, whether or not his scoring translated into the team winning, and WHEN he scored the goals, whether he came through in the clutch.

By that logic, no one should assume Forsberg had a better run than Crosby at his best. I suppose Crosby may or may not have had some empty net points (I can think of an empty net goal he got against Philly in 2009) but so what? In some cases an empty net goal is the most important goal of the game, sort of a stamp of approval and an exclamation point on the game, the point of no return.

 

[quoipourquoi]

I suppose Crosby may or may not have had some empty net points

How gracious of you to allow for the possibility that something recorded on the official scoresheet "may or may not" have happened.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

How gracious of you to allow for the possibility that something recorded on the official scoresheet "may or may not" have happened.

Pretty sure you're aware that "may or may not" is often just a shorter way of expressing "whether it happened or not is beside the point", or similar.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Pretty sure you're aware that "may or may not" is often just a shorter way of expressing "whether it happened or not is beside the point".

An even shorter way to express it would be to say "he did."

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

An even shorter way to express it would be to say "he did."

Ha, true.

 

[Killion]

Play nice.

 

[Big Phil]

How gracious of you to allow for the possibility that something recorded on the official scoresheet "may or may not" have happened.

So what would be the difference? Alright I looked it up. Crosby had a goal and an assist into an empty net in the 2009 postseason. Apparently these are unimportant stats in your mind, but even if they are (and they aren't) the guy still had 29 points where the goalie was in the net. You're grasping at straws here. I mean, this is a desperate attempt and you didn't go anywhere with it. The guy just simply was better than Forsberg at his best in the playoffs.

 

[quoipourquoi]

So what would be the difference? Alright I looked it up. Crosby had a goal and an assist into an empty net in the 2009 postseason. Apparently these are unimportant stats in your mind, but even if they are (and they aren't) the guy still had 29 points where the goalie was in the net. You're grasping at straws here. I mean, this is a desperate attempt and you didn't go anywhere with it. The guy just simply was better than Forsberg at his best in the playoffs.

I didn't go anywhere with it? Are you going to make me post this FOUR TIMES before you respond to it?


1999
Average Opponent GA: 187
1.26 points-per-game (1.21 without ENG)
13 ESP, 9 PPP, 1 SHP, 1 ENP; 2:30 penalty kill ice-time
Percentage of Teams' Offense: (24 points on 56 goals) 43%
Team Goal Differential: +2

2002
Average Opponent GA: 192
1.35 points-per-game (1.35 without ENG)
20 ESP, 7 PPP
Percentage of Teams' Offense: (27 points on 54 goals) 50%
Team Goal Differential: -2

2008
Average Opponent GA: 216
1.35 points-per-game (1.20 without ENG)
10 ESP, 14 PPP, 3 ENP
Percentage of Teams' Offense: (27 points on 61 goals) 44%
Team Goal Differential: +18

2009
Average Opponent GA: 238
1.29 points-per-game (1.21 without ENG)
19 ESP, 10 PPP, 2 ENP
Percentage of Teams' Offense: (31 points on 79 goals) 39%
Team Goal Differential: +15

 

[Big Phil]

I didn't go anywhere with it? Are you going to make me post this FOUR TIMES before you respond to it?


1999
Average Opponent GA: 187
1.26 points-per-game (1.21 without ENG)
13 ESP, 9 PPP, 1 SHP, 1 ENP; 2:30 penalty kill ice-time
Percentage of Teams' Offense: (24 points on 56 goals) 43%
Team Goal Differential: +2

2002
Average Opponent GA: 192
1.35 points-per-game (1.35 without ENG)
20 ESP, 7 PPP
Percentage of Teams' Offense: (27 points on 54 goals) 50%
Team Goal Differential: -2

2008
Average Opponent GA: 216
1.35 points-per-game (1.20 without ENG)
10 ESP, 14 PPP, 3 ENP
Percentage of Teams' Offense: (27 points on 61 goals) 44%
Team Goal Differential: +18

2009
Average Opponent GA: 238
1.29 points-per-game (1.21 without ENG)
19 ESP, 10 PPP, 2 ENP
Percentage of Teams' Offense: (31 points on 79 goals) 39%
Team Goal Differential: +15

There is literally no difference there with PPG. What exactly is supposed to be the case for Forsberg based on these stats? Goal differential from their teams? If that's what you are basing it on then it doesn't outweigh the fact that Forsberg was unable to carry the team when the chips were down. This is how their stats compare when the final game of the series was played (win or lose):

Crosby: 4g-10a in 8 games
Forsberg: 3g-2a in 5 games

You don't see a significant difference there? The only time Crosby didn't have a point in the final game of the series (the most pivotal) was Game 7 vs. Detroit in 2009 and its because he sat out the 3rd period. This is where it becomes important to dissect how the points were spread out. Forsberg's stats are okay at this particular time but Crosby's are clearly better. He helped close out a series much better in his two best years. Forsberg didn't as much. 1 assist in the 4 losses against Detroit in 2002. 2 assists in the 4 losses against Dallas in 1999. These were both 7 game series when Colorado had the series lead going home to Game 6. Forsberg played a part in Colorado not advancing.