Markus Naslund

[Troubadour]

he absolutely was, but it was only for 40 games.

View attachment 188299

there is no string of games in the 2001-2002 season when anyone, whether it was iginla or naslund, came close to that kind of production.

for reference, mario scored 31 points in 24 games that season. his best sustained stretch was 21 points in 12 games to close out the season. iginla's best stretches were 31 points in 15 games at the beginning of the year, and 25 points in 15 games near the end. bertuzzi, who after january 1 outscored naslund every step of the way, ended the season on a 33 points in 17 game run.

Ho ho ho hold it!

It wasn't Iginla or Naslund, but it was not no-one, either.

There was a stretch from early February till the end of March where Kovalev actually outproduced Bert. What made Alex evade your acknowledgement is that he only picked up about five points in the final seven games whereas Bertuzzi got almost three times as many during that stretch.

I mean, yeah, he had a great start to the year, the Todd guy, but it was not otherworldly enough to just claim him the best, period, nonpareil.

EDIT: Here's the stretch during which Kovalev definitely came close to a 1,5 PPG pace for a while:

 

[flipp]

Linden mostly played in a high scoring era. His playoff numbers are good but not overly impressive if you take that into consideration. The play off sample size is also much larger for prime Linden compared to prime Naslund and Bertuzzi. Naslund was no Forsberg when it comes to play-off performance but his lack of achievements in the stanley cup play-offs and for team Sweden was mostly due to bad luck and random fluctuations that would have even out if he had played more games.

 

[sr edler]

Linden mostly played in a high scoring era. His playoff numbers are good but not overly impressive if you take that into consideration. The play off sample size is also much larger for prime Linden compared to prime Naslund and Bertuzzi. Naslund was no Forsberg when it comes to play-off performance but his lack of achievements in the stanley cup play-offs and for team Sweden was mostly due to bad luck and random fluctuations that would have even out if he had played more games.

Not sure if serious. The point is that Linden's PPG over these 8 years upped in the playoffs, which is uncommon. He was PPG+ there, while not in the regular season. 8 years and 79 games is not a small sample size when it comes to the Stanley Cup playoffs.

Claude Lemieux, who entered the NHL before Linden, and thus appeared in the same 'high scoring era', and who's heralded as one of the best playoff guys of his generation (in relation to his regular season presence), didn't have as good numbers as Linden. He was reasonably close though, some years. He had one playoff run where he was above PPG (23 points in 17 games), playing with I assume Forsberg and Kamensky. He kinda did match Linden in the RS though, but without the same consistency.

Näslund. Bad luck? Random fluctuations? You will have to point out those instances were he failed because bad luck and random fluctuations, specifically. Time stamped.

Linden showed up in the 98 Olympics semi finals against the Czechs and tied the game with a minute to go of regulation with a goal on Hasek. Näslund in 02 was a ghost against Belarus. But that's just luck and bad luck I guess. Over and over and over again.

 

[flipp]

Not sure if serious. The point is that Linden's PPG over these 8 years upped in the playoffs, which is uncommon. He was PPG+ there, while not in the regular season. 8 years and 79 games is not a small sample size when it comes to the Stanley Cup playoffs.
.

No, I pointed out that the sample size was much larger for Linden compared to Naslund and Bertuzzi. 79 games is large enough to draw some conclusions. 20-30 games is not large enough. I fully agree that it is impressive that Linden upped his ppg in the playoffs. However, I still think that both Bertuzzi and Naslund would have a playoff resume that would be more similar to their regular season prime if they would have had the opportunity to play more games.

Regarding the game against Belarus. Most players on team Sweden underachieved in that game. The entire team collapsed. I would not judge any individual player based on that game.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Ho ho ho hold it!

It wasn't Iginla or Naslund, but it was not no-one, either.

There was a stretch from early February till the end of March where Kovalev actually outproduced Bert. What made Alex evade your acknowledgement is that he only picked up about five points in the final seven games whereas Bertuzzi got almost three times as many during that stretch.

I mean, yeah, he had a great start to the year, the Todd guy, but it was not otherworldly enough to just claim him the best, period, nonpareil.

EDIT: Here's the stretch during which Kovalev definitely came close to a 1,5 PPG pace for a while:

wow, i'm not going to pretend i remembered kovalev going off like that.

but surely you don't think 2002 kovalev, as an all-round impact player, was as good as bertuzzi do you?

Näslund in 02 was a ghost against Belarus. But that's just luck and bad luck I guess. Over and over and over again.

imo the best way to put it:

1992 world juniors, forsberg + naslund, silver
1992 world championship, forsberg no naslund, gold
1993 world juniors, forsberg + naslund, silver
1993 world championship, forsberg + naslund, silver
1994 olympics, forsberg no naslund, gold
1996 avalanche, forsberg no naslund, stanley cup
1996 world cup, forsberg + naslund, 4th

 

[Nick Hansen]

Kovalev also averaged 25 mins of ice-time each game, as opposed to Bertuzzis 20 mins. Bert did play on a better team but Kovalev wasn't a player who made much use of his team-mates any way.

 

[sr edler]

What's most interesting here is Kovalev's ice time.


Edit: Damn, beaten to it. I held my post a few seconds too long.

 

[sr edler]

Regarding the game against Belarus. Most players on team Sweden underachieved in that game. The entire team collapsed. I would not judge any individual player based on that game.

I don't want to hate on Näslund too much but you can't hide behind other players like that. Michael Nylander also being a ghost doesn't really help Näslund's case. He had blossomed out as a star and a team captain in the NHL and had big expectations on himself to finally prove himself on the national team (being absent from the 94 and 98 Olympics).

By the way, the way some of the media handled that loss was disgraceful, calling the players traitors and stuff. It was even more embarrassing than the actual game.

 

[Troubadour]

wow, i'm not going to pretend i remembered kovalev going off like that.

but surely you don't think 2002 kovalev, as an all-round impact player, was as good as bertuzzi do you?

No. I just pointed out what I did.

Kovalev also averaged 25 mins of ice-time each game, as opposed to Bertuzzis 20 mins. Bert did play on a better team but Kovalev wasn't a player who made much use of his team-mates any way.

What's most interesting here is Kovalev's ice time.

Yeah well, rinse and repeat:

During that stretch Kovalev equaled or outscored the vintage Bert, Todd actually played 22 minutes a game on average, which only shows you... that more ice time does not always equal more points.

25 meters of toothpaste is not necessarily better than 20 meters of sausage.

And I just don't know where has this assertion come from?

Kovalev wasn't a player who made much use of his team-mates any way.

I mean, he was a great stickhandler, but WTF?

Having just watched this situation, while off-topic, it's probably alright to post it here. Watch what Kovalev does there. I mean literally everything he does is done with a perfect awareness of any and every movement from his teammates. He definitely was a guy to develop a chemistry with, and a guy who could and did make a lot of use of his linemates:

 

[Nick Hansen]

Don't get your point. Kovalev still played three more minutes each game and only managed one point more in one more game.

Kovalev lacked elite vision which is why he is not a hall of famer. He played in his own world.

 

[Troubadour]

Don't get your point. Kovalev still played three more minutes each game and only managed one point more in one more game.

The point is obvious.

Bertuzzi outscored Kovalev to a far greater extent when he played five fewer minutes a game on average than when he played three fewer minutes a night.

The wider the gap in minutes played to Kovalev's supposed advantage, the bigger the gap in production to Bertuzzi's benefit.

The correlation seems negative. And so your argument appears hollow.

Kovalev lacked elite vision which is why he is not a hall of famer. He played in his own world.

To prevent running any deeper down this rabbit hole, let's pretend this is correct. But let me point out that many players lack elite vision and still make a great use of their teammates, just like Kovalev would have (had he actually lacked the so-called elite vision).

 

[CokenoPepsi]

I'm not sure if this is a Naslund or Kovalev thread but about Naslund.

Very fun player to watch, seemed liked just a very genuine nice person. But always seemed to just finish second you know?

Never had the talent around him to truly succede had a couple good pieces for two seasons but no goaltending there...

Then the Moore hit ruins his shoulder and he is still a good player but just not one of the best in the world...then after he leaves Vancouver they put it together and get some depth (however they still failed)

I remember when Forsberg was being shopped by the Flyers everyone said for weeks the Canucks were the favorites to land him but they wouldn't pull the trigger on it because of Morrison and Bourdon..shame would have been fun to see.