Patrik Elias Versus Markus Naslund

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

Naslund 278 points in 242 games
Jagr 230 points in 221 games
Iginla 236 points in 239 games
Sakic 224 points in 221 games

Regular season points are not the end all be all. Naslund was in a great situation to produce on a terrific line and PP. Bertuzzi was 3rd in points over the same time period, so I guess as he was also better than Jagr, Iginla, and Sakic? Joe Thornton is another guy I'd take ahead of Naslund, who played the more important position and was much more productive at ES despite playing with inferior offensive support.

When the playoffs came around, Naslund's production fell off pretty significantly, to 25p in 27gp, while the Canucks only won one playoff series over that span. That's a 22% drop from his regular season scoring pace.

Lemieux and Hasek only played 1 full season during that stretch which means they can only have 1 good season. 3 good seasons is better than 1 good season

Stevens was 16th and 20th defenseman all star voting in 2002 and 2003. I think leading scorer is more valuable than 16th to 20th defensemen.

Pronger played 2 full seasons during that stretch. 3 good seasons better than 2 good seasons.

Forsberg only played 1.5 seasons during that stretch but Naslund did lose the Ross and Hart directly to him. So it's hard for me to put Naslund ahead of Forsberg.

You have an argument for Lindstrom but still kind of Harding comparing forward to a winger.

So top 2 forward. Every Player top 2 or top 3. I really dont think you did any research and just threw out random big names out. Some of players hardly even played. When someone is leading scorer combined for those 3 sessions. It's really hard to argue and say he is not a top 2 player.

I'm sorry, are we talking about the best player over that time period? Or a player with most good regular seasons?

Lemieux's PPG over that period was 1.45 vs Naslund's 1.15. He was very easily the better player despite injuries.

And yes Lidstrom was >> Naslund at the time.

So no, Naslund was never a "consensus" top 2 player in the world.

 

[GlitchMarner]

Regular season points are not the end all be all. Naslund was in a great situation to produce on a terrific line and PP. Bertuzzi was 3rd in points over the same time period, so I guess as he was also better than Jagr, Iginla, and Sakic? Joe Thornton is another guy I'd take ahead of Naslund, who played the more important position and was much more productive at ES despite playing with inferior offensive support.

When the playoffs came around, Naslund's production fell off pretty significantly, to 25p in 27gp, while the Canucks only won one playoff series over that span. That's a 22% drop from his regular season scoring pace.



I'm sorry, are we talking about the best player over that time period? Or a player with most good regular seasons?

Lemieux's PPG over that period was 1.45 vs Naslund's 1.15. He was very easily the better player despite injuries.

And yes Lidstrom was >> Naslund at the time.

So no, Naslund was never a "consensus" top 2 player in the world.

Lemieux played 101 games from '02-'04. Naslund played 241. You can't really compare their PPG averages from '02-'04. Everyone knows how great Lemieux was, but you can't say that just because he was in the NHL during a certain stretch of time and was still a very talented and productive player when he played, that he was automatically a top two or three player or forward during that stretch.

I think you have to rank Naslund ahead of him from '02-'04 because of the health factor alone.

Lemieux's team was terrible during those years and he wasn't able to play in the playoffs at all.


As for Jagr: His , '02, '03 and '04 seasons weren't his best by any means. The stretch from '02 to '04 was arguably the worst three season stretch of his career before he left for the KHL in 2008. I'd rank Naslund ahead of him during that period. Jagr only played in the playoffs once from '02-'04 and his team lost the lone series he played in during that period of time in six games. He also finished in the top ten for points once from '02-'04 while Naslund did so three times.

Iggy arguably deserved the Hart in 2002 but then scored 67 points the following season before having a rebound season, tying for the League lead in goals and finished second in Hart voting again. He was a beast in the '04 playoffs. Maybe he was better than Markus from '02-'04.

Thornton didn't finish in the top ten for points in either '02 or '04. He also didn't fare that well himself in the playoffs in '02, '03 or '04. In '02, he had six points in six playoff games, but his team was upset by a number eight seed in round one. In '03, he had three points in a five game loss to the Devils. In the '04 playoffs, he had zero points in seven games (he had hurt ribs, though, IIRC). That's a total of nine points in 18 playoff games from '02-'04; he won zero series during that time.


I'd say Naslund was definitely a top three forward in the NHL from '02-'04, along with Forsberg and Iginla.

 

[Ace of Hades]

That it's close is comical.

Elias was a smarter player, a safer player and was productive for way longer. He was a direct and consistent contributor in important games. And he is the most important forward in Devils history.

Consistency and longevity matter a whole lot more than a very brief peak which resulted in 0 cups and 0 meaningful wins.

How do you define one being the smarter and safer player than the other? I'd say Naslund had the better IQ and vision. Granted Elias is better defensively though.

and Elias played on stacked teams with hall of famer defenceman and top 3-5 goalie of all time compared to what Naslund was stuck in, so I don't put much stock in the cups argument. 2-3 years isn't really "very brief peak". Infact that peak would've lasted longer if it weren't for the Moore hit.

You might want to educate yourself on Patrik Elias.

I know you're responding to someone else but...
Well take your own advice, and educate yourself on Naslund first.

 

[Canucks1096]

Regular season points are not the end all be all. Naslund was in a great situation to produce on a terrific line and PP. Bertuzzi was 3rd in points over the same time period, so I guess as he was also better than Jagr, Iginla, and Sakic? Joe Thornton is another guy I'd take ahead of Naslund, who played the more important position and was much more productive at ES despite playing with inferior offensive support.

When the playoffs came around, Naslund's production fell off pretty significantly, to 25p in 27gp, while the Canucks only won one playoff series over that span. That's a 22% drop from his regular season scoring pace.



I'm sorry, are we talking about the best player over that time period? Or a player with most good regular seasons?

Lemieux's PPG over that period was 1.45 vs Naslund's 1.15. He was very easily the better player despite injuries.

And yes Lidstrom was >> Naslund at the time.

So no, Naslund was never a "consensus" top 2 player in the world.

So you are telling me regular season points is not everything but a lot of the players that you talked about Lemieux Thornton Jagr. Either didn't play in the playoffs or played but didn't really perform. So if those are your examples you are not thinking that highly of playoffs. Thornton 9 points in 18 games. Lemieux 0 to 0 points. Jagr 7 points in 6 games. I think Naslund 25 in 27 games is better those 3 playoffs.


Bertuzzi maybe top 5. Naslund has such hugh lead in points over the others. You can't ignore that.

Most of the hockey is played in the regular season. Have more good regular season is a strong argument on who the better player was.

Lemieux played 24 games 67 games and 10 games. Sorry if Lemieux played so little games. Ppg argument is not valid. Some of the players you picked didn't even play much. Sorry if player didn't even play much you better have a strong argument to put those player ahead of Naslund but you don't.

Thornton from 2002 to 2004 had 170 esp and Naslund had 167 esp. Average 1 esp point more a season doesn't make up the difference in total points nd playoffs.

Both Sakic and Iginla had better playoffs than Naslund. 40 points in 39 games for Sakic and Iginla 22 points in 26 games. Iginla missed the playoffs in 2 of those 3 years and if you are using linemates argument on Nadlund and team I can say Sakic was on a better team. But it doesn't make the 40 plus points Naslund has more than those 3 in those 3 years.

You make it sound Naslund was just secondary player with the Canucks. Yes Naslund did play a good line but Morrison wasnt even legit 1st line center. The pp Naslund was main guy on the half boards taking shots and setting everything up. Also those Canucks from 2002 to 2003 didn't have much scoring depth upfront Cooke was 4th leading scorer among forwards in 2003

Also Naslund had 3 first teams all stars during thst stretch and won the Lindsay. None of player talked about have that accomplishments.

Forwards top 2 with Forsberg. Top 3 if you include defensemen. Okay try again please. I honestly dont think you are even doing much research in your arguments.

 

[WarriorOfGandhi]

Naslund was the better player, Elias was on better teams

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

Lemieux played 101 games from '02-'04. Naslund played 241. You can't really compare their PPG averages from '02-'04. Everyone knows how great Lemieux was, but you can't say that just because he was in the NHL during a certain stretch of time and was still a very talented and productive player when he played, that he was automatically a top two or three player or forward during that stretch.

I think you have to rank Naslund ahead of him from '02-'04 because of the health factor alone.

Lemieux's team was terrible during those years and he wasn't able to play in the playoffs as all.


As for Jagr: His , '02, '03 and '04 seasons weren't his best by any means. The stretch from '02 to '04 was arguably the worst three season stretch of his career before he left for the KHL in 2008. I'd rank Naslund ahead of him during that period. Jagr only played in the playoffs once from '02-'04 and his team lost the lone series he played in during that period of time in six games. He also finished in the top ten for points once from '02-'04 while Naslund did so three times.

Iggy arguably deserved the Hart in 2002 but then scored 67 points the following season before having a rebound season, tying for the League lead in goals and finished second in Hart voting again. He was a beast in the '04 playoffs. Maybe he was better than Markus from '02-'04.

Thornton didn't finish in the top ten for points in either '02 or '04. He also didn't fare that well himself in the playoffs in '02, '03 or '04. In '02, he had six points in six playoff games, but his team was upset by a number eight seed in round one. In '03, he had three points in a five game loss to the Devils. In the '04 playoffs, he had zero points in seven games (he had hurt ribs, though, IIRC). That's a total of nine points in 18 playoff games from '02-'04; he won zero series during that time.


I'd say Naslund was definitely a top three forward in the NHL from '02-'04, along with Forsberg and Iginla.

You're proving my point that he was never a consensus top 2 forward.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Was Elias ever even an all-star, let alone all star team selection? The imaginary "career value" obsession on these boards is insane.

He was a 1st Team All-Star in 2001, finishing 3rd in NHL points, and actually led the entire NHL in points-per-minute as the Devils rolled 4 lines.

He was 3rd in All-Star voting in 2004, but honestly, it was a joke that Kovalchuk finished ahead of Elias in All-Star voting that year.

Edit: I see others already said everything I did... except I do find it interesting that Elias actually scored more points-per-minute than Sakic and Jagr in 2000-01.

 

[KevinRedkey]

Naslund peaked higher for sure, but Elias was better for longer IMO.

Elias by a hair for me.

 

[GlitchMarner]

You're proving my point that he was never a consensus top 2 forward.

That's fair, but he certainty performed better than or played much more than guys like Lemieux, Jagr and Thornton from '02-'04 and has to be ranked ahead of them for the period.

Anyway, I'm not necessarily advocating Naslund here; I'm just stressing how high his peak was. I feel it's generally underrated or under-recognized.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

One of those times where peak> longevity. Naslund finished 2nd, 2nd, 4th in scoring in three consecutive years. Elias doesn't touch that. Longevity be damned

 

[Sensinitis]

One of those times where peak> longevity. Naslund finished 2nd, 2nd, 4th in scoring in three consecutive years. Elias doesn't touch that. Longevity be damned

Elias' playoff performances beat anything Naslund has ever done.

 

[Ben White]

He was a 1st Team All-Star in 2001, finishing 3rd in NHL points, and actually led the entire NHL in points-per-minute as the Devils rolled 4 lines.

He was 3rd in All-Star voting in 2004, but honestly, it was a joke that Kovalchuk finished ahead of Elias in All-Star voting that year.

Edit: I see others already said everything I did... except I do find it interesting that Elias actually scored more points-per-minute than Sakic and Jagr in 2000-01.

Wow, points per minute... most legit stat ever heard of

 

[Regal]

Wow, points per minute... most legit stat ever heard of

I mean, P/60 Is used pretty widely around here

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Elias' numbers were hurt by him getting so little powerplay time compared to other stars. From 2000 to 2004, he ranked 4th in ES scoring and 49th in PP scoring.

During that stretch, he ranked 73rd among forwards in PP ice time. He spent less time on the powerplay than players like Jeff Frisen, Sergei Zholtok and Chris Gratton. We shouldn't give a player credit for something he didn't do, but it's not unreasonable to recognize that Elias' numbers are hurt because he played for the Devils.

 

[Canucks1096]

I mean, P/60 Is used pretty widely around here

True. But do you think that stat is reliable to determine who is a better player? For example in the Crosby vs Mcdavid thread. The Crosby fans uses ppg to determine he was better than Mcdavid this year. However Malkin had a highet points per a 60 mins than Crosby this year. I highly doubt that those Crosby fans think Malkin had a better season than Crosby. Looking at sportingchart.com Vanek 16th best points per a 60 mins. Don't think people will think Vanek is 16th best offensive forward. Benn at 29th. I don't think 28th forwards are better than Benn. The thing with those extra mins if might not even offensive mins. For me I don't like that stat at all. More mins doesn't Gurantee you will score more.

 

[Regal]

True. But do you think that stat is reliable to determine who is a better player? For example in the Crosby vs Mcdavid thread. The Crosby fans uses ppg to determine he was better than Mcdavid this year. However Malkin had a highet points per a 60 mins than Crosby this year. I highly doubt that those Crosby fans think Malkin had a better season than Crosby. Looking at sportingchart.com Vanek 16th best points per a 60 mins. Don't think people will think Vanek is 16th best offensive forward. Benn at 29th. I don't think 28th forwards are better than Benn. The thing with those extra mins if might not even offensive mins. For me I don't like that stat at all. More mins doesn't Gurantee you will score more.

I don't think any stat tells us who the better player is, it's just another piece of the puzzle. I don't think we can assume a player would score at the same rate with more minutes, but I don't believe we can ignore the disparity in opportunity. Especially if there's not a specific reason for limiting the players ice time beyond team depth or team PP time (the Devils were dead last in the NHL in powerplay opportunities in every year from Elias' breakout in 99-00 to 02-03, and 27th in 03-04). Unlike say, Vanek, who is terrible defensively and thus tends to get sheltered offensive minutes, which there's only so many to go around, Elias could play in any situation against all competition. Hockey Outsider's post above is pretty telling, since the disparity is largely from PP time. I think it's hard to argue that a high end offensive player like Elias couldn't handle the extra minutes of more PP time, and thus wouldn't score more points if this time wasn't closer to the scoring leaders. His points per minute might go down, but overall points would almost assuredly go up.

 

[GlitchMarner]

Elias takes it with less than 56% of the votes. Fairly close poll.

 

[Voight]

He was a 1st Team All-Star in 2001, finishing 3rd in NHL points, and actually led the entire NHL in points-per-minute as the Devils rolled 4 lines.

He was 3rd in All-Star voting in 2004, but honestly, it was a joke that Kovalchuk finished ahead of Elias in All-Star voting that year.

Edit: I see others already said everything I did... except I do find it interesting that Elias actually scored more points-per-minute than Sakic and Jagr in 2000-01.

Why? he had more goals (Richard winner) and points. Elias doesn't have a crazy Selke finish to make up for it another.

Also its nice to use P/60 when it helps your argument.

 

[Sensinitis]

Why? he had more goals (Richard winner) and points. Elias doesn't have a crazy Selke finish to make up for it another.

Also its nice to use P/60 when it helps your argument.

It's nice to have an interesting dialogue about the use of P/60 and PP opportunities in comparisons go right over your head.