View Single Post
09-02-2013, 12:24 PM
Big Phil
Registered User
Big Phil's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,441
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Sorry Phil but this is a silly statement.
Crosby did not play up to par and was shut down by the Wings in 09. If not for Malkin playing well above just stepping up, the Pens win no Cup that year.

This statement makes it sound like Malkin can cover Crosby when he is not playing up to par but Crosby can not cover Malkin and I do not think that is the perception you were looking to give.
No, it wasn't, the perception I was giving was that we can go around in circles forever with this theory that "if so and so had better support........" I mean Gretzky in 1993 didn't have a lot of support and look how far he went. But for everytime we complain about Crosby/Forsberg not having support there is another case where we can say "Well if they had scored more point here............"

Malkin played well, and 8 points in 7 final games is good, but not legendary either. He just merely played good in the final.

Originally Posted by feffan View Post
And if Roy and Sakic hadnīt taken som playoffs off, Forsberg could have had a couple more...
Which is why I never bring stuff like this up in a debate because it is useless and can be used on each side of the argument.

Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
Teams beat teams, Big Phil. I feel like this is something we shouldn't have to explain to you, particularly in instances like this where Ovechkin recorded the most points in the series (14 points on Washington's 22 goals) - not Crosby (13 points on Pittsburgh's 27 goals).

You said before that you wanted to "focus on how the player did against his peers at that time." Well, Ovechkin is a peer of Crosby's, and he played every bit as good. But sometimes the best player on either side doesn't advance, because teams beat teams. That was the case when Ovechkin's 2009 playoff ended in the second round, and it was the case when Forsberg's 1999 and 2002 playoffs ended in the third.
Was it though? Or is there more to it? Crosby had two goals and one assist in Game 7 against Washington. Ovechkin had one goal when the cat was out of the barn and the game was more or less out of reach. By that measure, do you not think Crosby had a DIRECT impact on the outcome of that game? Yes teams beat teams, but when the superstars play that big of a role in the outcome of the game don't you think they should be rewarded? That's the difference with what Crosby did and the disappearing act that Forsberg did in important times in 1999 and 2002. Colorado couldn't have used an important goal from Mr. Forsberg in Game 6 of the 2002 semis? Yeah, Patrick Roy did the Statue of Liberty goal but this was a 2-0 game, so it was close.

That's the key when you are judging a sample as small as playoff runs. We are dealing with 20-25 important games here. If the stats are similar 31 points to 27, then we have to look at when the goals were scored and how it translated to helping their team win. Crosby went through three rounds in 2009 and was pointless twice. Then had some zeros in the final. But even so, the first two games he had 7 shots. He had 5 shots alone in Game 2 of the 2009 final. He didn't play bad at all, that's the thing. He just wasn't producing. I can remember Guerin hitting posts from Crosby feeds. Then in Game 4 he was the star of the game. So even in the final he had his moments.

But the thing was, Forsberg wasn't even good enough to get to that point in the first place. Crosby has him beat right there for starters and he is a DIRECT result of his team advancing (7 points in 4 games in the semis). We aren't giving Jordan Staal credit over Forsberg here, we are giving a superstar who stepped up when the chips were down his due. So when you are judging playoff runs the most important thing to judge are the numbers, whether or not his scoring translated into the team winning, and WHEN he scored the goals, whether he came through in the clutch.

By that logic, no one should assume Forsberg had a better run than Crosby at his best. I suppose Crosby may or may not have had some empty net points (I can think of an empty net goal he got against Philly in 2009) but so what? In some cases an empty net goal is the most important goal of the game, sort of a stamp of approval and an exclamation point on the game, the point of no return.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote