Better All-Time: Peter Forsberg Or Evgeni Malkin?

[Johnny Rifle]

I think Malkin is slightly underrated defensively, but he is just unpredictable and streaky, where as prime Forsberg you got just a bit more consistency in his game both ways.

I’d still take Malkin given a choice just because he’s dangerous, but it’s very close.

 

[Video Nasty]

Both had fairly short absolute bests. Forsberg at his absolute best never reminded me of Lemieux. Malkin did and made me question if he was actually the best player over Crosby and Ovechkin. It was for a very brief time, but an easy answer for me.

 

[Czechboy]

I thought it's be Forsberg by a landslide
. After reading through this I'm clearly not giving Malkin enough love. There is another argument on HF about Fedorov vs Malkin and I thought federov easy. Same thing.. lots of good arguments for Malkin. I am clearly not giving Malkin enough credit and maybe too much credit to players from a different era.

 

[MrOT]

Funny that in these polls Forsberg seems to always be like an inch ahead of Malkin. Almost like there's a universal agreement that Forsberg is better with the tiniest of margins.

 

[Felidae]

MVP voting takes that into account, and Forsberg is behind in that category as well.

That's true.

I will say it's worth pointing out that the 2 out of 3 times Malkin was a hart finalist, he played full seasons, and the 3rd time he played 75 games.

Both of them were regularly playing 60-70 games in their prime (in fact, Malkin arguably even moreso) and it affected both their stats and award placements. But Forsberg only ever played 82 games once.



Second, 2 out of the 3 times Crosby also played half seasons when Malkin played a full season and a 75 game season.

Obviously playing behind a similar calibre player affected both of them. But Forsberg didn't have as many chances to play with Sakic missing significantly more games (they more often than not played a similar amount of games) and unfortunately that has an effect on hart voting due to having to share votes. The one time Sakic was out of the picture was the one time he won his awards.

I'm not saying this necessarily means Forsberg would have even got another Hart finalist nod, hard to say. But I'm pretty confident in saying his hart record would look better than it is now.

Anyways, just thought I'd add some context.

 

[TheGuiminator]

The Avs were my favorite team growing up (because of Joe Sakic), so i've seen Forsberg play quite a lot. Forsberg was great, one of the best player in the league when healthy, but he's getting really overrated.

Some folks are too nostalgic, they would watch Forsberg highlights on youtube and asssume he was playing like this night in and night out, he was not.

Simply put, what Forsberg did in the NHL, Malkin did it better and longer.

 

[sr edler]

Forsberg is hilariously overrated on this site.

He was trice voted the best C in the league by the PHWA, this is as many times as Malkin. And a 4th time (in 96–97) he only finished behind Lemieux and Gretzky (not sure about you, but I heard these guys were okay-ish, despite playing in an era without electricity and sliced bread). PHWA is the same guys who votes on your beloved awards. So unless you think this site is some type of retirement home or leisure place for former/current PHWA members, then yeah, there's also people beyond this board who thought/thinks Forsberg was cream of the crop. He was also extremely highly regarded by people within the sport itself (coaches, managers, other players), there's tons of quotes on this.

I cheered for Colorado's main divisional rival at the time of his peak, and any time the team took a penalty your heart sunk, because you knew Forsberg would go out there and kill your team. It was more or less a foregone conclusion. Opponent players looked legit frightened in their boots when he had the puck on his stick, and would back up so they almost ended up in Dan Cloutier's poor lap.

Marcus Naslund was the frontrunner for 95% of the year but Forsberg pulled ahead of him in the scoring race the final games of the season.

This only happened because Näslund played 7 more games, and finished 2 points behind. Had they played the same amount of games the difference would have been 10+ points, and this is with Forsberg being a way more well-rounded player and a physical possession monster. No offense, but these two guys were different tier players.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Even though the talent pool is larger than ever before, apparently Malkin's generation is significantly less talented than every past generation.

So Malkin, the clear cut 3rd best player of the 1980s generation, is somehow worse than the 5th best player from the 1970s generation. (Forsberg is regarded as the 5th greatest player born from 1969 to 1975 according to the history forum top 100 project - Behind Jagr, Sakic, Brodeur, and Lidstrom). Malkin is comfortably the consensus 3rd best player born in the 1980s.

So whereas athletes in virtually every other sport are measurably improving, hockey players are getting weaker, slower, dumber, less advanced, less competitive, and inferior to past generations.

 

[Midnight Judges]

He was trice voted the best C in the league by the PHWA, this is as many times as Malkin. And a 4th time (in 96–97) he only finished behind Lemieux and Gretzky (not sure about you, but I heard these guys were okay-ish, despite playing in an era without electricity and sliced bread). PHWA is the same guys who votes on your beloved awards. So unless you think this site is some type of retirement home or leisure place for former/current PHWA members, then yeah, there's also people beyond this board who thought/thinks Forsberg was cream of the crop. He was also extremely highly regarded by people within the sport itself (coaches, managers, other players), there's tons of quotes on this.

So Forsberg's peak matched Malkin's? That's great. I'm pretty sure virtually all of the Malkin supporters agree with that.

But then Malkin has a longer prime and he has already contributed a whopping 50% more games to his team. This is far more value than a tie breaker IMO.

I think one of the biggest logical fallacies on hfboards goes something like this:

Player A played at an extremely high level for 1100 games.

Player B achieved roughly that same level of play for 700 games.

Player A and Player B are on the same level of greatness.

 

[Mrb1p]

The Malk

 

[PensandCaps]

Close... I'll take Prime Forsberg, but 07-11 Malkin was a monster, a few elite seasons later on aswell. (Malkin's 19/20 season is very underrated)

 

[frisco]

The mythology of Forsberg on these boards is drastically different than the career I watched.

Yeah, he was strong on his skates, but he was nothing compared to Jagr.

But, but, but...what about that "reverse hit" he threw seven times total in his career, all spliced together on YouTube?

My Best-Carey

 

[ahmon]

I think on all-time list, Malkin having more awards and longevity should be a factor. Malkin for all-time list.

But if I had to pick one to go in a game 7, I'm going with Forsberg. He just seems to bring it more consistently in big games.

Malkin is 6'3, has good hands and better shot, Forsberg played a tougher possession game and the better playmaker.

 

[sr edler]

So Forsberg's peak matched Malkin's? That's great. I'm pretty sure virtually all of the Malkin supporters agree with that.

No, it doesn't seem like they're all doing that, from reading around here. But alas, I don't really care about these people's opinions anyways. If you want me to care about something you write (not you necessarily, but people in general), then you'll have to type something a little bit more thoughtful than just "lols Forsberg reverse hits", it's really that simple.

But then Malkin has a longer prime and he has already contributed a whopping 50% more games to his team. This is far more value than a tie breaker IMO.

I think one of the biggest logical fallacies on hfboards goes something like this:

Player A played at an extremely high level for 1100 games.

Player B achieved roughly that same level of play for 700 games.

Player A and Player B are on the same level of greatness.

Forsberg played in the last era of hockey when the sport was legit brutal, when Malkin came around the sport/league had changed. Despite this he (Malkin) he still had some pretty extensive injury issues. Of course longevity is valuable to a team, but I don't need more than 700–800 games to judge a player.

 

[norrisnick]

No, it doesn't seem like they're all doing that, from reading around here. But alas, I don't really care about these people's opinions anyways. If you want me to care about something you write (not you necessarily, but people in general), then you'll have to type something a little bit more thoughtful than just "lols Forsberg reverse hits", it's really that simple.



Forsberg played in the last era of hockey when the sport was legit brutal, when Malkin came around the sport/league had changed. Despite this he (Malkin) he still had some pretty extensive injury issues. Of course longevity is valuable to a team, but I don't need more than 700–800 games to judge a player.

Forberg's issues with his feet had nothing to do with the brutality of the league.

Be like blaming Mario's games played on the brutality of the league. No, MFer just didn't take conditioning seriously, got cancer, then quit cause it wasn't "fun."

 

[sr edler]

Forberg's issues with his feet had nothing to do with the brutality of the league.

Some of his other serious injuries had, including his carved out spleen. You had guys like Hatcher/Matvichuk, or Chris Therien/Mike Rathje, constantly water-skiing behind guys, mugging guys in the corners, et cetera.

Unless you can prove direct correlation between a specific flaw in Forsberg's playing style or training regiment, and his late-career chronic foot issues, I don't think you have a very potent point here.

Be like blaming Mario's games played on the brutality of the league. No, MFer just didn't take conditioning seriously, got cancer, then quit cause it wasn't "fun."

Not sure what this has to do with anything here?

 

[Midnight Judges]

No, it doesn't seem like they're all doing that, from reading around here. But alas, I don't really care about these people's opinions anyways. If you want me to care about something you write (not you necessarily, but people in general), then you'll have to type something a little bit more thoughtful than just "lols Forsberg reverse hits", it's really that simple.



Forsberg played in the last era of hockey when the sport was legit brutal, when Malkin came around the sport/league had changed. Despite this he (Malkin) he still had some pretty extensive injury issues. Of course longevity is valuable to a team, but I don't need more than 700–800 games to judge a player.

Sure, agree, you can certainly judge a player's skill in 700 games. It's a huge sample.

But if you think that's all that matters then your criteria is apparently prime only, with longevity as a total non-factor.

It seems to me both ought to be part of the equation.

 

[norrisnick]

Some of his other serious injuries had, including his carved out spleen. You had guys like Hatcher/Matvichuk, or Chris Therien/Mike Rathje, constantly water-skiing behind guys, mugging guys in the corners, et cetera.

Unless you can prove direct correlation between a specific flaw in Forsberg's playing style or training regiment, and his late-career chronic foot issues, I don't think you have a very potent point here.



Not sure what this has to do with anything here?

Having a bad foot is just having a bad foot. That's like Mario's cancer. Sucks but it is what it is. Seems silly to blame Hatcher or anyone else for that.

The spleen was two playoff series. It was his foot because his ankle bones were f***ed from birth that cost him the '01-'02 regular season and basically spiralled down from there.

 

[sr edler]

Having a bad foot is just having a bad foot. That's like Mario's cancer. Sucks but it is what it is. Seems silly to blame Hatcher or anyone else for that.

I didn't blame Hatcher for his foot, I spoke about other injuries. Seems like you're going the bad faith debating route here, so not going to bother anymore.

 

[Regal]

I didn't blame Hatcher for his foot, I spoke about other injuries. Seems like you're going the bad faith debating route here, so not going to bother anymore.

I think the point is that Forsberg would likely have a short career due to his foot regardless of the era, and that Malkin’s advantage here is in being able to still be playing well into his 30s, even if he misses his share of time each year. It’s not relevant if you’re just judging on their abilities in their prime like what you are though

 

[WTFMAN99]

I chose Malkin, both are outstanding players.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

Folks like to bring up Forsberg being better defensively, but why is Malkin being superior as a goal scorer ignored? Their playmaking is somewhat close, even if you give Forsberg the edge, but Malkin's got a massive edge in goal scoring.

 

[WetcoastOrca]

Close but Forsberg. His two way play tips it to him imo. It’s a shame he had to cut short his career because of injury.

 

[norrisnick]

I didn't blame Hatcher for his foot, I spoke about other injuries. Seems like you're going the bad faith debating route here, so not going to bother anymore.

From 2001 on his major injury issues stemmed primarily from his foot being shit. If you take the foot issue away he has less injury issues than Malkin. Trying to paint this picture of valiant Forsberg having his career shortened by the brutal baddies of the league is what I would consider bad faith debating.

 

[Felidae]

Folks like to bring up Forsberg being better defensively, but why is Malkin being superior as a goal scorer ignored? Their playmaking is somewhat close, even if you give Forsberg the edge, but Malkin's got a massive edge in goal scoring.

It is a pretty big edge, but in overall offensive output, there's not a huge gap since Forsberg makes up some ground being the better playmaker. (Also clear, but not a huge gap like with Malkins goalscoring)

But ultimately that also depends on how much you value their strengths.