Looking at their best seasons it sure is:
1. Peter Forsberg-COL 106
2. Markus Naslund-VAN 104
3. Joe Thornton-BOS 101
4. Milan Hejduk-COL 98
5. Todd Bertuzzi-VAN 97
vs.
1. Wayne Gretzky*-EDM 215
2. Mario Lemieux*-PIT 141
3. Paul Coffey*-EDM 138
4. Jari Kurri*-EDM 131
5. Mike Bossy*-NYI 123
If you don't see a big difference in the quality of the names on those lists.. I don't know what to say.. 2-3 borderline hall of fame caliber players vs. 5 guys who were all locks.
There were 2 Gretzky-Lemieux level players, not 20.
Absolutely, Mats' 1985-86 season was on a comparable level to Markus' best years. But Mats never had another season anywhere near that level, and Markus had 3 of them.
BraveCanadian said:
Yes, adjusted points.
For comparing players from 1970-present, it's *by far* the best measuring stick. Unless you think Patrick Lebeau's peak offensive value is similar to Jarome Iginla's.
It was just blatantly easier to score goals during the 1980s. The goalies were comparatively awful, defensive systems were primitive by comparison.
BraveCanadian said:
Markus almost certainly peaked higher but outside his short peak during the reign of a crop of very poor top level forwards in the NHL, he wasn't particularly outstanding.
Mats was certainly the more consistently effective player.
And in the playoffs, it isn't even close. Mats any day and twice on Sunday. I'm sure he'll enjoy his Cup ring more than a couple post season all-stars.
How was Mats Naslund 'more consistently effective'?
He was good for 7 years, from 1982-89.
Markus was better for 7 seasons, from 1998-2006. While he might not have been at his 2001-2004 levels in the 1998-2001 period, he was easily the best player on a bad team and one of the most dangerous wingers in the NHL.
If Mats Naslund had come into the NHL in 1979 at age 20 and stayed for another 6 seasons after he left, he'd probably be perceived as 'less consistently effective' as well. Again, if you're comparing them, take an 8-season window for both.
Absolutely, Mats has a better playoff record. Although it helps to have Patrick Roy in net with Larry Robinson and Chris Chelios in front of him. Markus was very good in the 2003 and 2004 playoffs, but was let down by nauseating goaltending and endless brain cramps from Ed Jovanovski, Vancouver's #1 defender.
You fail to appreciate the distinction between a playmaking LW and the traditional grinder / corner men LW like Olmstead or Cashman who preceeded Mats Naslund. or those who generated high assist totals via rebound assists.
Between 1943-44 and 1989-90, the introduction of the Red :ine to the end of Mats Naslund's career here are the seasonal assist highs for LW:
http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...al=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=assists
For pure LWs as opposed to two position forwards Mats Naslund has the highest total. The other LWs generated grinder/corner assists or rebound assists.Naslund's were mainly playmaking assists.
Naslund did not have much of a shot nor the physical game of a grinder/corner man but he could carry the puck, relay the puck off the outlet or transition and drive the offense from the LW, especially during the power play. It is an ability that is not a function of era or adjustments. Amongst the LWs that preceeded him or contemporaries only Dickie Moore came close as a playmaker and Moore played some center thru junior.
I just won't give a guy who had one top-10 finish in assists (8th) and one overall top-20 finish in scoring the title of 'one of the greatest playmaking LWs of all time'. His assist numbers and peak are comparable to Straka and Tanguay, and I wouldn't give them that level of praise, either.
And just because guys like Olmstead or Cashman were great corner guys doesn't mean they weren't great playmakers as well. Same with guys like Kariya and Naslund who were also great shooters. Ted Lindsay could do everything. Just because they had other aspects to their games doesn't mean that their playmaking wasn't elite.