The better post-season performer: Kurri vs. Forsberg

[Herzeleid]

Jari Kurri: 200 playoff games, 106 goals + 127 assists = 233 points.

Peter Forsberg: 151 playoff games, 64 goals + 107 assists = 171 points.

Which one of these two were more lethal in the playoffs?

I haven`t decided yet. Until I see some arguments here, then I'll vote.

I'm not quite sure if this is a good comparison, but I'll give it a try.

Click to read more...

 

[seventieslord]

if you rank every player of all-time in points per game, (and ignore Ovechkin due to current career length), Kurri is the first player you'll see on that list whose career Playoff PPG is higher than his regular season PPG.

That's dspite having 31 points in 54 playoff games from 1992-98! That's 0.57 PPG, and for that regular season period, he averaged 0.71 PPG.

 

[Fredrik_71]

Their playoff PPG ratio is quite similar with a slight edge to Kurri. But they were two different players with different responsibilities on the ice. I have them pretty even. Kurri really impresses with all those points being a Selke candidate kind of guy having Gretzky's back. But having seen a lot of Forsberg in the playoffs he took control of the games as few others and played with bad intentions.

Coinflip?

/Cheers

 

[BraveCanadian]

Coinflip?

/Cheers

For me it is..

 

[Big Phil]

It is relatively close but I take Kurri.

Forsberg did step up a lot in the postseason. He did something he rarely did in the regular season. He scored goals, timely goals too. You wish he did that more often because it almost seemed like he had a no-shoot clause in his contract. Despite that I couldn't put him higher than Kurri. For starters, Kurri won 5 Cups to Pete's 2. That's not the whole story of course, but my problem is when the Avs won the Cup Forsberg wasn't at his best. He was actually below a point per game in 1996. Sakic and Roy carried that team in the playoffs. In 2001 through no fault of his own he misses the last two playoff rounds. Sakic and Roy step up again and win the Cup.

Forsberg does have that impressive stat of leading the postseason in points twice without making the final. But that bothers me a bit, they didn't make the final. Forsberg is a lot like Gilmour that way. Extremely valuable, turned it up a notch in the postseason but you still wish they had more Cups to their name.

Kurri on the other hand was a big part of all 5 Cups for the Oilers. He never choked when the chips were down. He still shares the record for 19 goals in a postseason. He played in 7 finals in his career and also scored some overtime winners.

And we can't ignore his defensive prowess. Kurri for me.

 

[lextune]

Even if all other factors evened out, Kurri's defensive skills, Forsberg all around play, etc. etc.. It is impossible to ignore gaudy goal totals like 14, 14, 15 and 19. I give the edge to Kurri.

 

[Steve]

I'll say Kurri, only because he wasn't the #1 player on that team. Depth wins championships, Kurri was an amazing player but Gretzky and Messier were the players that were the "go-to" types just like Forsberg and Sakic.

That being said, I'd take Forsberg over Kurri on my team.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

Very close - Forsberg was scary every time be touched the puck in the playoffs, and the fact he actually shot the puck made it even more frightening... But I have to give the edge to Kurri who just seemed to get the job done on all ends of the ice and rarely received any fanfare from it. Truly one of the greatest playoff performers of all-time, IMO.

 

[tony d]

Close but Forsberg

 

[greatgazoo]

Even after Gretzky left E-Town, Kurri was a go-to-guy for the Oilers. For example in the 1990 playoffs he was in-on 26.8% of the Oilers goals. That's a better % than Forsberg's 26.25% during the 1996 Avs 1st Cup win when "Foppa" was healthy.

In 1985, Kurri was in on 31.6% of the Oilers goals that spring. Simply staggering!

 

[jkrx]

I choose to not only judge by NHL play but international too. It's still a coinflip but I give a slight edge to Forsberg.

He was actually below a point per game in 1996. Sakic and Roy carried that team in the playoffs. In 2001 through no fault of his own he misses the last two playoff rounds. Sakic and Roy step up again and win the Cup.

He missed being above the PPG with one point.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I refrained from voting until I saw people make arguments. Nothing I have seen has swayed me towards either player, so I finally voted "too close to call."

 

[pluppe]

I say Forsberg.

He was just a beast in the playoffs. it´s interesting that he played so many playoff games as compared to how many regular season games he missed.

I think this graph makes a good case.

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?p=19936424#post19936424

I know people tend to be sceptical to adjusted stats but I think these are interesting. 3rd best ever. only behind Gretzky and Lemieux. then a small gap to Sakic and then a larger Jagr and players like Beliveau, Messier and Howe. with grit and above average defensive play. Kurri was better defensively but I think the domination gap is to large to overlook.

just my 2 cents.

(sure number of cups are nice but to hold winning against Forsberg is weird, he´s won everything, twice)

 

[revolverjgw]

Forsberg. Of course Kurri was amazing, and I'm not attributing his success to Gretzky, he had a very good Cup run without Wayne, but... that's an extremely significant variable. Forsberg was comparably excellent during the deadpuck era without riding shotgun to an offensive god.

 

[optimus2861]

^ Yet if you look at the 1990 season and playoffs, Kurri's numbers don't significantly drop despite Gretzky's absence. I think that's the testament to just how good Kurri really was (and by extension, just how good that Oilers squad was, that you could remove the game's greatest player from them and they still powered to another Cup).

Coin flip for me.

 

[pluppe]

^ Yet if you look at the 1990 season and playoffs, Kurri's numbers don't significantly drop despite Gretzky's absence. I think that's the testament to just how good Kurri really was (and by extension, just how good that Oilers squad was, that you could remove the game's greatest player from them and they still powered to another Cup).

Coin flip for me.

playoffstats in Edmonton with Gretzky: 169p in 118 games = 1,432

playoffstats in Edmonton without Gretzk 33p in 29 games = 1,137

still really good and most importantly they still won but still a drop off.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

I say Forsberg.

He was just a beast in the playoffs. it´s interesting that he played so many playoff games as compared to how many regular season games he missed.

I think this graph makes a good case.

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?p=19936424#post19936424

I know people tend to be sceptical to adjusted stats but I think these are interesting. 3rd best ever. only behind Gretzky and Lemieux. then a small gap to Sakic and then a larger Jagr and players like Beliveau, Messier and Howe. with grit and above average defensive play. Kurri was better defensively but I think the domination gap is to large to overlook.

just my 2 cents.

(sure number of cups are nice but to hold winning against Forsberg is weird, he´s won everything, twice)

Interesting. Somehow not surprising to me, but tons will disagree with it. I remember looking at the playoff goals per game a while back seeing how the goals per game average in a lot of Forsberg's playoff years were between 4 and 5 and thinking wow scoring went down even more from the 80's to the late 90's/2000's in the playoffs than in the regular season. In a lot of Kurri's years the average scoring actually went up a lot in the playoffs compared to the regular season. In the dead puck era playoff hockey was extremely hard to put up large numbers. I'm not going to lie, all things being equal for each of them it's Forsberg and it's not all that close.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

Wow if Kurri wins this that's unreal in a bad way.

 

[mattihp]

Can't decide. Both players were guys who picked it up big time in the playoffs in ALL areas of the game, not just single aspects.

They each one one playoff bout that is in the top 5 of all playoff bouts ever.

 

[mattihp]

Wow if Kurri wins this that's unreal in a bad way.

How so? It is extremely close. The sample rate is not all that different either. Very comparable players.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

How so? It is extremely close. The sample rate is not all that different either. Very comparable players.

It may be close to some, not close enough IMO to not notice there's a CLEAR edge to Forsberg.

 

[kingpest19]

It may be close to some, not close enough IMO to not notice there's a CLEAR edge to Forsberg.

Neither player has a clear edge.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

Can't decide. Both players were guys who picked it up big time in the playoffs in ALL areas of the game, not just single aspects.

They each one one playoff bout that is in the top 5 of all playoff bouts ever.

Check out the graph pluppe provided. Don't try and tell me raw stats tell more of the story than that, or ill have headaches for weeks.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I say Forsberg.

He was just a beast in the playoffs. it´s interesting that he played so many playoff games as compared to how many regular season games he missed.

I think this graph makes a good case.

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?p=19936424#post19936424

I know people tend to be sceptical to adjusted stats but I think these are interesting. 3rd best ever. only behind Gretzky and Lemieux. then a small gap to Sakic and then a larger Jagr and players like Beliveau, Messier and Howe. with grit and above average defensive play. Kurri was better defensively but I think the domination gap is to large to overlook.

just my 2 cents.

(sure number of cups are nice but to hold winning against Forsberg is weird, he´s won everything, twice)

Adjusted playoff stats are worthless IMO, because playoff stats depend on the teams you are matched up against, but the "adjustment" is based on goals per game by all teams.

The best example of this is 1993, when Doug Gilmour and Wayne Gretzky racked up ridiculous numbers playing against the Western Conference, while the Patrick Roy/Guy Carbonneau Canadiens shut down the opposition in the East.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

Adjusted playoff stats are worthless IMO, because playoff stats depend on the teams you are matched up against, but the "adjustment" is based on goals per game by all teams.

The best example of this is 1993, when Doug Gilmour and Wayne Gretzky racked up ridiculous numbers playing against the Western Conference, while the Patrick Roy/Guy Carbonneau Canadiens shut down the opposition in the East.

That doesn't matter because there is still a clear pattern throughout the eras. If the averages kept going up and down drastically year after year, you'd have a point.

Also, by this your indicating the raw playoff stats are better for comparing with?