Another question that was interesting two years ago.
I knew this was going to be way closer than it should. Forsberg could walk on water, right? Most overrated player on this forum.
I knew this was going to be way closer than it should. Forsberg could walk on water, right? Most overrated player on this forum.
Here's an excerpt of a post I wrote in June:
At this point, I think Malkin and Forsberg are quite comparable... Statistically they're very close. They're virtually even in games played (Forsberg ahead 708-706), and Forsberg has outscored Malkin by 53 points (6%). Their eras were, overall, roughly even in terms of levels of offense. Malkin finished 1-1-2 in scoring (never again in the top ten) while Forsberg was 1-2-4-5-9. I generally don't like per-game arguments, but both players were injured often, and have similar placings in PPG (1-1-2-4-5-6-6-9 for Forsberg, 1-2-2-3-3-4-7-8 for Malkin). It's remarkably close.
Both players spent most of their careers (or all, in the case of Malkin) sharing ice time with an even better center. I believe Forsberg generally got tougher matchups than Malkin.
Awards? Both were first-team all-stars three times (Malkin never really came close to making the year-end all-star team again, Forsberg had a year when he 3rd behind Lemieux and Gretzky). Both won a Hart, but Malkin was a runner-up twice (Forsberg never even again in the top five).
Playoffs? Pretty close. Yes, Malkin has an extra Cup and a Smythe. But both led the playoffs in scoring twice (and both have one more top five finish - 5th place for both of them). In two more games Forsberg has 14 extra points. Forsberg led his team in playoff scoring more often (6-4). Forsberg contributed a larger percentage of his team's offense but it's close (35% vs 34%).
Defensive play? Forsberg is clearly better.
As of today, I think Malkin and Forsberg should be nearly even in an all-time ranking. Malkin was probably a bit better at his very best (three years as a Hart finalist compared to one for Forsberg, and one truly historic playoff run). But he was also less consistent and lacked Forsberg's strong (though sometimes overrated) two-way play.
At best, Sakic accomplishments are comparable to Pete's and, as I said, if we're looking at any kind of per game stats, Forsberg blows Sakic out of the water.
I disagree with the other poster who said that Sakic was the better centre but like Mallkin vs. Forsberg, Sakic has the better full season and the better playoff run between the two.
During their prime time together, Sakic scored more RS and playoff points and goals, Forsberg had the slightly better PPG but to describe the PPG gap as "blowing Sakic out of the water" is ridiculous.
They are very close at their peaks and primes.
How did he have the better reg season without winning the Art Ross?
Because it was more offensively dominant than Forsberg's was. Not every Art Ross winning season is the same.
Any facts to back that up?
The next best scorers after Sakic's 118 points and 1.44 PPG:
96 (1.17PPG)
95 (1.16 PPG)
95 (1.16 PPG)
95 (1.20 PPG)
The next best scorers after Forsberg's 106 points and 1.41 PPG:
104 (1.27 PPG)
101 (1.31 PPG)
98 (1.20 PPG)
97 (1.18 PPG)
The numbers speak for themselves. Sakic's is clearly more dominant.
What is this? Cmon. They're basically even in ppg despite the fact that Forsberg actually won the Art Ross despite missing 7 games. That small sample size of a few players with slightly higher ppg means nothing especially since those two seasons were only 2 years apart and the league scoring was about the same. As I can recall I Also think Peter was involved in a higher % of Avs' goals in 2003 than Sakic was in 2001. No, Sakic was not "clearly more dominant".
Too many people on this board didnt even watch Forsberg play
Just feel like dumping these here
I believe the question is "Who's the better player". Did Malkin peak during the last two years? Did he do anything else to prove that he's better at playing hockey than we already knew he was?
I believe the question is "Who's the better player". Did Malkin peak during the last two years? Did he do anything else to prove that he's better at playing hockey than we already knew he was?
Malkin has always been the better player. Two years ago this question was mildly interesting because of Forsberg's slight edge in team accomplishments. Now that is not the case.
Malkin has always been the better player. Two years ago this question was mildly interesting because of Forsberg's slight edge in team accomplishments. Now that is not the case.
Here's an excerpt of a post I wrote in June:
At this point, I think Malkin and Forsberg are quite comparable... Statistically they're very close. They're virtually even in games played (Forsberg ahead 708-706), and Forsberg has outscored Malkin by 53 points (6%). Their eras were, overall, roughly even in terms of levels of offense. Malkin finished 1-1-2 in scoring (never again in the top ten) while Forsberg was 1-2-4-5-9. I generally don't like per-game arguments, but both players were injured often, and have similar placings in PPG (1-1-2-4-5-6-6-9 for Forsberg, 1-2-2-3-3-4-7-8 for Malkin). It's remarkably close.
Both players spent most of their careers (or all, in the case of Malkin) sharing ice time with an even better center. I believe Forsberg generally got tougher matchups than Malkin.
Awards? Both were first-team all-stars three times (Malkin never really came close to making the year-end all-star team again, Forsberg had a year when he 3rd behind Lemieux and Gretzky). Both won a Hart, but Malkin was a runner-up twice (Forsberg never even again in the top five).
Playoffs? Pretty close. Yes, Malkin has an extra Cup and a Smythe. But both led the playoffs in scoring twice (and both have one more top five finish - 5th place for both of them). In two more games Forsberg has 14 extra points. Forsberg led his team in playoff scoring more often (6-4). Forsberg contributed a larger percentage of his team's offense but it's close (35% vs 34%).
Defensive play? Forsberg is clearly better.
As of today, I think Malkin and Forsberg should be nearly even in an all-time ranking. Malkin was probably a bit better at his very best (three years as a Hart finalist compared to one for Forsberg, and one truly historic playoff run). But he was also less consistent and lacked Forsberg's strong (though sometimes overrated) two-way play.
I knew this was going to be way closer than it should. Forsberg could walk on water, right? Most overrated player on this forum.
Just feel like dumping these here
Literally no one uses team accomplishments when talking about Forsberg.
Maybe you should read what I quoted him on? How does the Art Ross contribute to helping you win more? Joe Thornton has won the Art Ross and hasn't won ****. Jagr won the trophy 5 times and couldn't get the Pens to the finals. Ovechkin could win all the Hart's but if he doesn't win the cup it doesn't mean much in terms of winning.
Helps a team win more. Forsberg has 2 cups compared to Malkin's one, Forsberg's got olympic golds/series wins , they each have 2 WC golds, Forsberg has a WJC gold to Malkin's silver . Sure you could attribute Roy being the X factor but they pretty much score at the same rate in the playoffs.
Everything isn't about stats and trophys in a TEAMS game.
Also, different era's. (The 90's and early 00's had more real superstars)
Let's see 87/71 win another title before we compare them to the other four.
fair enough. Still, their losses look a lot better than the Pens losses. Plus, they won two Cups compared to the Pens' 1.
Let's rephrase. Since we are only talking prime: which duo is most likely to give you the Cup, come playoffs? To me, Crosby and Malkin ain't got a prayer on the both Wings and both Avs.
Except get his name on a Cup for a second time.
Okay this should spark an interesting debate. Both Lindros and Forsberg have been (so far) injury prone and had a very abbreviated career. But based on that so far which one is the most likely, if any, to get into the Hall of Fame?
Lindros - First all star team in '95, second in '98. Hart Trophy in '95. Tied for points in '95, led the playoffs in '97 with 26 points. No Cups. His highest point totals are 115, 97, 93, 79. His highest goals total is 47, 44, 41, 40. He was easily the best player for 2 or three seasons of his career. He was a physical presence combined with a scoring prowess. Is he Hall worthy or at least more than Forsberg?
Forsberg - Has had a very similar career to Lindros. Calder trophy in '95. First all-star in '98, '99 and '03. Has won two Cups with the Avs, and led the playoffs in points twice, both times despite never reaching the final. Never scored more than 30 goals in a season but his points totals go like this: 116, 106, 97, 91, 89, 86. Won the Hart and Art Ross Trophies in '03. Like Lindros has been considered the best player in the game at one time in his career. Was a little more offensive than Eric but didnt have quite the physical edge. Is he more worthy than Eric?