HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Forsberg vs Crosby

View Poll Results: Forsberg vs Crosby. Who was better?
Forsberg 78 40.21%
Crosby 116 59.79%
Voters: 194. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-02-2013, 06:35 PM
  #376
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 3,322
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
There is literally no difference there with PPG. What exactly is supposed to be the case for Forsberg based on these stats? Goal differential from their teams?
Did you happen to notice the difference in the quality of defensive teams Forsberg and Crosby were shooting on? I've said it before, the difference between the goals against average of the teams Forsberg was shooting on in 1999 and 2002 compared to the teams Crosby was shooting on in 2009 is essentially the same as the gap in league average GAA from 1995-96 to 2003-04 (1999 being a bigger gap, 2002 being a marginally smaller gap). So yes, Forsberg's points-per-game is only slightly higher than Crosby's (not literally the same), but he achieved it while playing against significantly stronger teams. And in the case of 1999, while playing 2:30 on the penalty kill.

I threw the goal differential in there because you insisted Colorado had greater depth. They sure didn't in those playoffs.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
He helped close out a series much better in his two best years. Forsberg didn't as much. 1 assist in the 4 losses against Detroit in 2002. 2 assists in the 4 losses against Dallas in 1999. These were both 7 game series when Colorado had the series lead going home to Game 6. Forsberg played a part in Colorado not advancing.
You know who played a bigger part of Colorado not advancing? Ed Belfour and Dominik Hasek and the 16-point and 19-point favorites for whom they played. Colorado made it to Game 7 against teams that were heavily favored based upon their regular season record, so there's a silver lining to this cloud. And Forsberg still reached at or above a point-per-game in those series, which is the major reason they made it to Game 7 in the first place. Now, how about Crosby's series against Osgood and Detroit in 2009 again?

I'm not sure Martin Biron and Cam Ward were the same level of threat to Crosby and the Penguins in advancing to the Finals. Colorado went down to the combination President Trophy/Stanley Cup winners.

But hey, all Forsberg did in 2002 to help close out games was score 4 GWGs (2 in overtime; one in a 1-0 game) and set up the winner in another overtime game.

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2013, 06:59 PM
  #377
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,990
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
Did you happen to notice the difference in the quality of defensive teams Forsberg and Crosby were shooting on? I've said it before, the difference between the goals against average of the teams Forsberg was shooting on in 1999 and 2002 compared to the teams Crosby was shooting on in 2009 is essentially the same as the gap in league average GAA from 1995-96 to 2003-04 (1999 being a bigger gap, 2002 being a marginally smaller gap). So yes, Forsberg's points-per-game is only slightly higher than Crosby's (not literally the same), but he achieved it while playing against significantly stronger teams. And in the case of 1999, while playing 2:30 on the penalty kill.

I threw the goal differential in there because you insisted Colorado had greater depth. They sure didn't in those playoffs.
They had poor depth? Forsberg with Sakic, Fleury, C. Lemieux, Kamensky, Deadmarsh, Ozolinch, a young Hejduk and Drury and arguably the greatest goaltender of all-time in Roy is worse depth than the Pens? Come on.

They had thinned out a bit in 2002, but still had Forsberg, Sakic, Roy, Blake, Tanguay and Hejduk. Foote was still there of course too. They had depth and they had guys to rely on.

I would say there was a little bit more pressure for the Crosby/Malkin Pens to carry their teams though. If they weren't scoring the Pens wouldn't win.



Quote:
You know who played a bigger part of Colorado not advancing? Ed Belfour and Dominik Hasek and the 16-point and 19-point favorites for whom they played. Colorado made it to Game 7 against teams that were heavily favored based upon their regular season record, so there's a silver lining to this cloud. And Forsberg still reached at or above a point-per-game in those series, which is the major reason they made it to Game 7 in the first place. Now, how about Crosby's series against Osgood and Detroit in 2009 again?

I'm not sure Martin Biron and Cam Ward were the same level of threat to Crosby and the Penguins in advancing to the Finals. Colorado went down to the combination President Trophy/Stanley Cup winners.

But hey, all Forsberg did in 2002 to help close out games was score 4 GWGs (2 in overtime; one in a 1-0 game) and set up the winner in another overtime game.
Both times they played the Wings they were 13 point underdogs. The Capitals were 9 point favourites. You act as if the Pens never played a team in those years with a better regular season. Philly and them had 99 points each in 2009.

Forsberg was a great playoff performer, and overall he has a better resume than Crosby right now, mainly because he had played longer. That won't last. However, Crosby at his best in the playoffs was better than Forsberg. I've clearly shown you that when it mattered most Forsberg didn't show up and this would have helped his team advance to the Cup final, something Crosby managed to do both years and the Pens did this because of his play. Both of Forsberg's years are great but have a "however" attached to it. Not so with Crosby's years. And even if he didn't have the best production that we are used to in the 2009 final the truth is he was peeling through the previous three rounds. Beating Philly, outgunning the Caps who had the Hart trophy winner, embarassing a Conn Smythe winner. He at least got them into the final both years. Forsberg didn't and played poorly in the critical games they lost. You really still want to debate about the "what ifs"? Or do you want to look at the bare bones facts of what really happened?

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2013, 07:14 PM
  #378
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 3,322
vCash: 500
How about you respond to the difference in their opponents' GA just one ******* time, Big Phil?



Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
They had poor depth? Forsberg with Sakic, Fleury, C. Lemieux, Kamensky, Deadmarsh, Ozolinch, a young Hejduk and Drury and arguably the greatest goaltender of all-time in Roy is worse depth than the Pens? Come on.
The percentages of their contribution to their teams' offense was provided to you, as was their goal differential.

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2013, 07:27 PM
  #379
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 3,322
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
You really still want to debate about the "what ifs"? Or do you want to look at the bare bones facts of what really happened?
I mean, honestly, can someone point out a single "what if" I used?

Does 1999 Dallas being a better defensive team than 2009 Washington constitute a what if?

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2013, 07:30 PM
  #380
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,990
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
How about you respond to the difference in their opponents' GA just one ******* time, Big Phil?
That still doesn't change the fact that Forsberg disappeared at the most critical times of those series.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2013, 07:52 PM
  #381
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 3,322
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
That still doesn't change the fact that Forsberg disappeared at the most critical times of those series.
So instead of responding to it, you're just going to deflect to an argument about how Forsberg disappeared in Games 6 and 7 against Detroit just like Crosby? Probably the biggest difference in critical times is that Crosby went scoreless in Games 1 and 2 against Detroit in both years too. Do those games not count in your mind because they're at the beginning of the series?

I mean, what's next? Are you going to advocate for Martin Gelinas for the 2004 Conn Smythe?


Here's a what if for you, Big Phil: What if Peter Forsberg's playoff points in 2002 were adjusted to reflect the defensive strength of the teams Sidney Crosby faced when he recorded his playoff points in 2009? Just how one-sided would it look? Would it be enough to get you to acknowledge that rating Crosby's multiple series closing empty net goals might not be of the same value as a GWG in a 1-0 game?

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2013, 09:35 PM
  #382
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,990
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
So instead of responding to it, you're just going to deflect to an argument about how Forsberg disappeared in Games 6 and 7 against Detroit just like Crosby? Probably the biggest difference in critical times is that Crosby went scoreless in Games 1 and 2 against Detroit in both years too. Do those games not count in your mind because they're at the beginning of the series?

I mean, what's next? Are you going to advocate for Martin Gelinas for the 2004 Conn Smythe?


Here's a what if for you, Big Phil: What if Peter Forsberg's playoff points in 2002 were adjusted to reflect the defensive strength of the teams Sidney Crosby faced when he recorded his playoff points in 2009? Just how one-sided would it look? Would it be enough to get you to acknowledge that rating Crosby's multiple series closing empty net goals might not be of the same value as a GWG in a 1-0 game?
Well Forsberg did this in the semis both years in question (aside from a single assist vs. Dallas). The stakes are higher the further along the series goes. It doesn't mean a player doesn't get credit for points earlier in the series, but the pressure mounts as the series progresses. Crosby's stats in the closing game of a series trumps Forsberg's which ties into perhaps part of the reason Colorado didn't get further. That matters to me, because how you close out a series is more important than how you open one.

Ask Steve Yzerman in 1993. Or Theo Fleury in 1995. They both lost in the first round. Excellent numbers for sure, but look at how they did in the games they lost. Not good at all. Give me a 1990 Messier against Chicago anyday of the week. Look at how he did in the final three games and it matters little that he didn't do a whole lot in the first three games of the series. He redeemed himself. If Messier had 8 points in the first three games of the Chicago series would that matter if he did little in the last three games in a losing cause? It would leave a sour taste. That's sort of the same with Forsberg, those nice playoff runs leave a sour taste because he came up short when it counted.

And by the way, Iginla was the force for Calgary in 2004, but Martin Gelinas was called the "Eliminator" for a reason. He ended the series at some pretty important times. Not saying he played better than Iginla, but it also shows you can't overrate clutch play in the playoffs. However with Crosby he was doing both lots of scoring and clutch play, so I don't understand your complaint.

You're still complaining about the two empty net points Crosby had though eh? Why is that? Since when is that a bad thing that 2 out of your 31 points were into an empty net? That Philly game in Game 6 was a wild game where the Pens overcame a 3-0 deficit. Crosby scored to tie the game, Gonchar got one after that and then Crosby scored into the empty net with 30 seconds to go to seal the game. By the way, 30 seconds is plenty of time to tie the game with the extra attacker. So what am I missing here? Was Crosby's empty net goal not important? I watched that game, that goal literally ended all hope for Philly permanently. Are you getting to the point where you penalize a guy for an empty net goal?

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2013, 10:34 PM
  #383
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 22,018
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
Probably the biggest difference in critical times is that Crosby went scoreless in Games 1 and 2 against Detroit in both years too. Do those games not count in your mind because they're at the beginning of the series?
Yeah, but you're the one equating those games of Crosby's to "disappearing". Certainly wasn't the case for those watching. For examples, double-checking the recaps for game 1 against Detroit in '09, we find:

"Pittsburgh's Sidney Crosby, not known for his physical play, delivered one of the biggest hits of the night midway through the first period, delivering a clean shoulder hit to Henrik Zetterberg at center ice. He had three hits in the first two periods and went down and stacked his pads to block a shot late in the second period."

and:

"I didn't think we were too good in the neutral zone, we had too many turnovers," Babcock said. "Tonight we got some breaks. I thought Crosby looked very determined. When you've been here before, you know what to expect. They were very competitive."

And then in game 2, he had 5 shots (including the one that had to be reviewed that could have made it 3-2 half way through the 3rd), was 67% in the faceoff circle, and wasn't on the ice for a single goal against. Notice that neither Franzen nor Zetterberg were able to do anything that game, either, and realize that the top two lines were cancelling each other out all night with hard, physical play (both teams averaging something like 30-40 hits over the first two games). Not a lot of shame in that, given that it was the second game of back-to-backs.

If you put a lot of stock in "context", I don't think you can hold much of anything from 2009 against Crosby for the purposes of this comparison.

Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2013, 10:54 AM
  #384
PhillyBluesFan
Registered User
 
PhillyBluesFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,676
vCash: 500
WTF Forsberg is better than Crosby in just about every possible way

PhillyBluesFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2013, 12:44 PM
  #385
Beau Knows
Captain Canada
 
Beau Knows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,910
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhillyBluesFan View Post
WTF Forsberg is better than Crosby in just about every possible way
You can make a case for Forsberg, but to say he is better in nearly every way is false. Forsberg is clearly worse in the following areas:
Goal scoring
Point scoring
Winning hardware
Best single seasons
Per game stats

Beau Knows is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:21 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.