The better post-season performer: Kurri vs. Forsberg

[TheDevilMadeMe]

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?

Yes, I would use raw playoff stats over an adjustment that fails to take into account a major variable. At least they are what they are (honest, raw stats), rather than a formula that pretends to be more than it actually is.

 

[BraveCanadian]

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.

As an aside this is one of the flaws I will point out about adjusted stats all the time.

They don't take into account team strength relative to competition at any point.

Just average applies to everyone everywhere.

Obviously it is magnified even more in the playoffs, though.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

As an aside this is one of the flaws I will point out about adjusted stats all the time.

They don't take into account team strength relative to competition at any point.

Just average applies to everyone everywhere.

Obviously it is magnified even more in the playoffs, though.

For the record, I think that you don't necessarily need to take into account team strength relative to competition with adjusted stats, provided you keep in mind that the adjustment is for era only. I mean, there are always stronger and weaker teams (though this is exaggerated in some eras) and people should have the common sense to realize that the 100 point player (adjusted for era or otherwise) who played with Bobby Orr probably did not have a better season than the 90 point player who led his team in scoring by wide margin.

Where I do think adjusted stats might fail is when there is a huge imbalance between conferences, like in the period immediately following the 1968 expansion, when when all the new teams were in their own division.

 

[BraveCanadian]

I mean, there are always stronger and weaker teams (though this is exaggerated in some eras) and people should have the common sense to realize that the 100 point player (adjusted for era or otherwise) who played with Bobby Orr probably did not have a better season than the 90 point player who led his team in scoring by wide margin.

If only common sense was common.

Where I do think adjusted stats might fail is when there is a huge imbalance between conferences, like in the period immediately following the 1968 expansion, when when all the new teams were in their own division.

Yeah I think you're right that it would be especially bad during that time.

Personally I think from 68-79 are pretty much a write off for comparison using adjusted stats because there was so little parity in the league at the time either between top and bottom or as you say between conferences at points.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

For the record, I think that you don't necessarily need to take into account team strength relative to competition with adjusted stats, provided you keep in mind that the adjustment is for era only. I mean, there are always stronger and weaker teams (though this is exaggerated in some eras) and people should have the common sense to realize that the 100 point player (adjusted for era or otherwise) who played with Bobby Orr probably did not have a better season than the 90 point player who led his team in scoring by wide margin.

Where I do think adjusted stats might fail is when there is a huge imbalance between conferences, like in the period immediately following the 1968 expansion, when when all the new teams were in their own division.

So that affects adjusted stats and not the raw ones as well of that era?

 

[Infinite Vision*]

Yes, I would use raw playoff stats over an adjustment that fails to take into account a major variable. At least they are what they are (honest, raw stats), rather than a formula that pretends to be more than it actually is.

Wow. Honestly that's surprising and really wrong IMHO. Yeah the raw stats are honest for the time they happened. But for the use of comparing players across era's which is what this whole freakin section is about, it's absolutely assinine to insist that using raw totals would give you more of an indication of who was better. Honestly, what I'm saying right now, would anyone else other than you two argue otherwise? I hope not too many BECAUSE THAT DOES NOT MAKE ANY LOGICAL SENSE.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

If only common sense was common.



Yeah I think you're right that it would be especially bad during that time.

Personally I think from 68-79 are pretty much a write off for comparison using adjusted stats because there was so little parity in the league at the time either between top and bottom or as you say between conferences at points.

Funny I feel the same way.

So what you're honestly saying right now, is the adjusted stats from that time period are a write off because of so little parity in the league at that time, but the actual stats aren't. If you meant for that to make any sense at all, please explain how.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

So that affects adjusted stats and not the raw ones as well of that era?

It does affect raw stats as well, obviously. But don't see many people around here who are unwilling to look at context when it comes to raw stats.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Wow. Honestly that's surprising and really wrong IMHO. Yeah the raw stats are honest for the time they happened. But for the use of comparing players across era's which is what this whole freakin section is about, it's absolutely assinine to insist that using raw totals would give you more of an indication of who was better. Honestly, what I'm saying right now, would anyone else other than you two argue otherwise? I hope not too many BECAUSE THAT DOES NOT MAKE ANY LOGICAL SENSE.

I didn't say that it is better to compare raw playoff stats across eras.

I said that the typical formulas used to adjust playoff stats leave out a hugely important variable (the competition faced). In a small sample size like the playoffs, where all your games are against a limited number of teams, any adjustment that fails to take into account that variable is pretty useless.

The problem here is that some people apparently need a magical formula to compare players across eras. My point is that a flawed formula is worse than no formula at all. Much better to look at the actual facts and the historical context that they take place in.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Funny I feel the same way.

So what you're honestly saying right now, is the adjusted stats from that time period are a write off because of so little parity in the league at that time, but the actual stats aren't. If you meant for that to make any sense at all, please explain how.

Actually, if you have been reading often, you'd know that I regularly take my lumps for citing the huge lack of parity between the haves and have nots during that time as a factor on player performances.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

Actually, if you have been reading often, you'd know that I regularly take my lumps for citing the huge lack of parity between the haves and have nots during that time as a factor on player performances.

Yeah I have read you discuss this issue a fair bit. It's just you didn't mention the raw stats were a complete write off. Even adjustments for that period work, but with more context, just like the raw stats. I feel like what I'm argueing right now is almost equivalent to when you were trying to tell everyone that who you play with has an effect on anyone's stats. Everyone still has tons of points to argue against that, it doesn't mean that it's not true. I've already stated adjusted stats have their flaws, I'm just edgy when people seem to give raw ones more value. Apologies for my stubborn comments.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

I didn't say that it is better to compare raw playoff stats across eras.

I said that the typical formulas used to adjust playoff stats leave out a hugely important variable (the competition faced). In a small sample size like the playoffs, where all your games are against a limited number of teams, any adjustment that fails to take into account that variable is pretty useless.

The problem here is that some people apparently need a magical formula to compare players across eras. My point is that a flawed formula is worse than no formula at all. Much better to look at the actual facts and the historical context that they take place in.

Sorry, it really seemed as though that's what you were trying to say. In that case then, you agree that while not perfect, the adjusted stats give a better incidication. Just so we're clear I'm talking straight up adjusted stat comparison's between players from different eras vs. straight up raw total comparisons. I'm not saying there isn't cases where you can look at each of their raw totals compared to their peers and see that one faired better than the adjusted stats may indicate. As well, yes I know we don't 'need' a magic formula and of course context is always important, but where I think the adjusted stats really help more, is maybe not so much single seasons, where we can look at point finishes or ppg compared to the rest of the league, but over larger time periods, such as 5 to 10 year periods and even entire careers.

 

[Chased By Trolls]

For me it's impossible to ignore that Kurri led the playoffs in goals in 84, 85, 87 and 88, each time winning the Cup in the process. Very very hard to argue against that.

 

[Big Phil]

He missed being above the PPG with one point.

But it is a good example of how in 1996 when the team actually won he was no better than 3rd on the pecking order for importance. Or in 2001 when he was injured for half the playoffs.

I know Forsberg was a 2nd year player in 1996 but he racked up 116 points in the regular season, you think he'd at least be at a point per game in the postseason.

It's just another example of how I have always thought Sakic was the better playoff performer, when they won the Cup he was the man each time. I will slide Kurri in between the two of them though, but still slightly give Kurri the edge in the postseason.

 

[pluppe]

I didn't say that it is better to compare raw playoff stats across eras.

I said that the typical formulas used to adjust playoff stats leave out a hugely important variable (the competition faced). In a small sample size like the playoffs, where all your games are against a limited number of teams, any adjustment that fails to take into account that variable is pretty useless.

The problem here is that some people apparently need a magical formula to compare players across eras. My point is that a flawed formula is worse than no formula at all. Much better to look at the actual facts and the historical context that they take place in.

well I would think that when we speak about over 150 games the sample size is large enough that you would think competition level should even out. almost 2 full seasons. I you look at the presented numbers they have good face-value, at least in my eyes. much better than the raw numbers. to me that means something. or do you find any other numbers that look useless?

sure you could point out that his teammate is closest to him which could be a hint that they had easier opponents but Sakic is also cnsidered one of the all-time great playoff players so I don´t know if that means anything. and since they played the same opponents and Forsberg outperformed him ppg wise, what does that tell you? is Kurri better than Sakic as well?

the argument that you play bad teams is also halting when you consider that the worst team doesn´t make the playoffs.

 

[jkrx]

But it is a good example of how in 1996 when the team actually won he was no better than 3rd on the pecking order for importance. Or in 2001 when he was injured for half the playoffs.

I know Forsberg was a 2nd year player in 1996 but he racked up 116 points in the regular season, you think he'd at least be at a point per game in the postseason.

It's just another example of how I have always thought Sakic was the better playoff performer, when they won the Cup he was the man each time. I will slide Kurri in between the two of them though, but still slightly give Kurri the edge in the postseason.

No shame in being third in the pecking order. Kurri were often 3rd or even 4th on those Oilers teams.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

No shame in being third in the pecking order. Kurri were often 3rd or even 4th on those Oilers teams.

Isn't Kurri one person?

Good point though.

 

[vulture77]

Difficult to decide but I go with Kurri, mostly because of his being 4 time playoff goal leader which is the most times in NHL history as far as I know.

Also having single season playoff goals record (with Leach), single series hat-trick record, all the while being excellent defensively and 5 cups helps him here.

I do not know how much more it is even humanly possible to do, or close the "clear gap" someone somehow saw, eras withstanding?

Forsberg was an incredible playoff performer and for me his being lower is not entirely his fault. Still his being injured the entirety of the second Colorado's cup winning playoffs and while having very solid playoffs in his first, I would consider it worse, or at best barely equal to any of the Kurri's cup winning runs.

His other runs that did not result to cup make up for it quite a bit though.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

I think people are putting too much stock into Kurri leading the playoffs in goals 4 times. An amazing accomplishment yes, but he was playing on a line with a prime Gretzky, it's almost expected. To me Forsberg has a clear offensive edge, equal defensively, and that's not even considering how much Gretzky inflated his stats. Don't try and tell me he would have scored the same without him either.

 

[vulture77]

It is very difficult for me to see this "clear offensive edge".

 

[Rhiessan71]

I would have to say that Kurri was a little more lethal offensively but the difference to me is what isn't in the stats and that's the defensive side.
Even though Kurri was better defensively than most give him credit for, Forsberg was on a whole other level in that regard to the point where he could be a game changer in either end of the ice.

Forsberg for me.

 

[Hardyvan123]

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.

Good post as per usual but I'd take Foppa since cups are more of a team stat than an individual one and although Kurri was a great player some of his success did come from playing with the best player of all time IMO.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

The other factor giving Kurri the edge, IMO, is simply that he was more healthy and was on the ice more to help his team vs. Forsberg.

 

[vulture77]

Even though Kurri was better defensively than most give him credit for, Forsberg was on a whole other level in that regard to the point where he could be a game changer in either end of the ice.

That is a surprising assessment as Kurri was considered to be one of the best two-way forwards in the game. While not indicative of playoffs, they both have one second place finish in Selke voting and I would think Kurri is ahead in voting overall.

I have heard that if he was not scoring 50-70 goals per season, Kurri would have gotten at least one Selke. Forsberg was more visible and physical, one probable reason for his injury troubles I might add, but it is arguable if he could have played like that in the 80's.

Anyways, I should probably watch some of the 80's Oilers playoffs again to refresh my memory. Last time I watched their first Cup-winning series against Islanders some year ago or so, I was extremely impressed by Kurri's overall play on both ends of the ice and especially his absolutely lethal shot.

I would not put Kurri or Forsberg clearly ahead in either offense or defense. However I think the former has an edge by being the leading goalscorer in 4 SC winning teams and a key part in another SC winning team while provinding (according to contemporaries) Selke caliber defense. I do not know how much more playoff stud one could be.

While no fault of his own, Forsberg was injured in the second SC winning team and had (to his standards) surprisingly underwhelming playoff production in the other SC winning Colorado team. I think circumstances work against Forsberg more than his actual ability, but nevertheless I cannot penalize Kurri for making most of his opportunities.

 

[nik jr]

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.

i don't like this argument, b/c 2 of the main reasons colorado did not win the cup in '02 were sakic and roy.

sakic was not good in WCF, and roy sort of blew the series in games 6 and 7.

of course, colorado would not have even made the playoffs without them, but if they had usual games in WCF, colorado probably would have won.

i think it was similar in '99 WCF. those were probably 2 of sakic's worst series. i don't remember roy blowing any games in '99, though.