Fedorov vs. Selanne

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

I do agree with the idea that looking strictly points is misleading and i myself definitely am guilty of doing it from time to time. But at some point points and games played do matter.

23 point difference and 14 more games is not a small gap. Maybe Fedorov was better when in the lineup, that is debatable, but he definitely was not 14 games worth better.

Considering one guy was a 1st line winger beside Kariya, and the other was a second line centre, well, without Kariya, that's not a huge gap. Especially since, in any given year, it's up to Selanne to produce enough offense to make us forget about Fedorov's all-round game in any given year, correct?

I don't see why it would be so debatable which had the better year. Selanne's team did not even make it to play-offs and Fedorov played whopping 9 games with 4+4. So no, i don't see any reason to think that Fedorov had better year. Regular season or RS and PO combined.

You can go and claim Fedorov as being the better player and you might even be right, but he definitely did not have better year than Selanne. There is no way.

That's kind of the main purpose, and I even elaborated on this specific aspect in my last post.

Edit:

I don't really see what you are going for with the multi-point amount. Well, i do understand the centence, i just can't grasp the idea why having 5 less multi-point games in less games played would have anything to do with which had the better season.

Well the "anti-Fedorov" contingent LOVES to paint Fedorov's 60 point campaigns as some kind of fail, and more specifically demonstrative of a level of offense that is insufficient to be considered a "great" player at the time - unable to compare to Selanne "overall" at the time, even. Well, a second line centre who managed 17 multi-point games out of 68 played, and was one of the game's 3 stars in at least 20 of those 68 games (I may have under-counted, and two game sheets weren't working on NHL.com), and was furthermore the best player on his team through two rounds of the playoffs, compares quite favourably to a one-way winger who barely managed more multi-point games (barely managed a better PPG, too, for that matter) or 3 star nominations next to an offensive dynamo on his team's first line, while playing 11 more games, who also missed the playoffs. IMO, of course.

 

[Plural]

Considering one guy was a 1st line winger beside Kariya, and the other was a second line centre, well, without Kariya, that's not a huge gap. Especially since, in any given year, it's up to Selanne to produce enough offense to make us forget about Fedorov's all-round game in any given year, correct?



That's kind of the main purpose, and I even elaborated on this specific aspect in my last post.



Well the "anti-Fedorov" contingent LOVES to paint Fedorov's 60 point campaigns as some kind of fail, and more specifically demonstrative of a level of offense that is insufficient to be considered a "great" player at the time - unable to compare to Selanne "overall" at the time, even. Well, a second line centre who managed 17 multi-point games out of 68 played, and was one of the game's 3 stars in at least 20 of those 68 games (I may have under-counted, and two game sheets weren't working on NHL.com), and was furthermore the best player on his team through two rounds of the playoffs, compares quite favourably to a one-way winger who barely managed more multi-point games (barely managed a better PPG, too, for that matter) or 3 star nominations next to an offensive dynamo on his team's first line, while playing 11 more games, who also missed the playoffs. IMO, of course.

I don't really have anything against you post except for the bolded part.

Basically Fedorov was not a 2nd line center. He was 1b center. The PPG difference is not small, it is almost 0.2 which is pretty significant in the DPE. Selanne was 5th in points which is elite offense, in my mind. Fedorov might have been the better player when he was on ice, which i would disagree with, but the thing is that he was on ice significantly less games.

Even in the eyes of the most biased Red Wing fan Selanne had to be close to Fedorov that year when they were both performing on the ice. Now factor in the difference in games played and I see no problem when claiming Selanne as the better player that year.

That multi point game fact is, at best, amusing. I really can't see how it proves Fedorov better in any way. If you play the idea other way around Fedorov must have been held pointless in many games since he was not even PPG player that year.

Edit:
I am getting the feeling that I am either thinking this too simply, or you are thinking this too complex. I am starting to think that the truth is somewhere on the middle.
Which is probably why this thread has managed to go for 25 pages.

 

[Plural]

Hmm I always been a big fan of Fedorov, but I fail to see your logic here. So are you saying because of one successful WHC tournament playing with prime Ovechkin and prime Semin, Fedorov has better longevity than Selänne?

I think the point was that Fedorov was good player in his late years just as Selanne was. Well, not as good but still far from useless.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

I don't really have anything against you post except for the bolded part.

Basically Fedorov was not a 2nd line center. He was 1b center. The PPG difference is not small, it is almost 0.2 which is pretty significant in the DPE. Selanne was 5th in points which is elite offense, in my mind. Fedorov might have been the better player when he was on ice, which i would disagree with, but the thing is that he was on ice significantly less games.

Okay, first of all, in a post on this very page - to which you've already responded, no less - I clearly referred to Fedorov as "Yzerman's 1B". We've established that already, and (I thought) we all knew what that means.

Secondly, you've basically admitted to defaulting to 85 point > 62 points, and furthermore suggested that said 85 point player is by default "elite" while the other is not. You shut down at point counting and leaderboard/scoreboard watching. That's not the stance of an experienced fan of the game, sorry.

Thirdly, 11 less games could be considered "significant". It was enough to affect his consideration for all-star and Selke votes, obviously. But as long as you recognize that he was arguably at least Selanne's "equal" - in one of his lowest scoring seasons, that received some of the fewest single season accolades of the entire 90s (including '99/00 into the '90s on somewhat of a technicality, I suppose), and despite being sort of hemmed into a secondary role in a rolling lines Bowman system, then I'll consider that progress.

Even in the eyes of the most biased Red Wing fan Selanne had to be close to Fedorov that year when they were both performing on the ice. Now factor in the difference in games played and I see no problem when claiming Selanne as the better player that year.

Well, including the playoffs, the scoring line comparison becomes:

Selanne: 79 GP, 85 PTS, 1.08 PPG
Fedorov: 77 GP, 70 PTS, 0.91 PPG

And we're comparing Anaheim's 1st line winger to the Red Wings' 2nd (er... 1B) centre here. 0.17 PPG in the difference "overall"...

That multi point game fact is, at best, amusing. I really can't see how it proves Fedorov better in any way. If you play the idea other way around Fedorov must have been held pointless in many games since he was not even PPG player that year.

Amuse yourself even further by comparing Selanne and Fedorov along these lines for yourself. Selanne went 29 of his 79 games without a point that year vs. Fedorov's 27 in 68. Not a huge difference there, either. Furthermore go around the league and pick out the all the #2 centres (and yes, 1Bs) and see how many times they pulled out multi-point games and ended up one of the game's 3 stars. I've spent quite a bit of time just poking around (not tabulating, by any stretch), and I don't think you'll find too much support for the argument that Fedorov wasn't at least an elite #2 centre, and I'd obviously argue that everything considered he deserves to be considered at least Selanne's equal - even if the scope is restricted to a season that seems (at face value) to be one of Fedorov's worst during what "should have been his prime".

Edit:
I am getting the feeling that I am either thinking this too simply, or you are thinking this too complex. I am starting to think that the truth is somewhere on the middle.
Which is probably why this thread has managed to go for 25 pages.

Well, if points, PPG, and regular season accumulation (i.e. final position on regular season scoring lists) are where you shut down, obviously that's too simply. Everyone knows that, even in the same season, 85 points on one team =/= 85 points in a completely different situation. There's a lot of context involved, and there are plenty of avenues to explore. It's frustrating to be constantly steered down the route of the most amateur hockey enthusiast; limited to raw point total comparisons and arguing opinion with opinion.

 

[canucks4ever]

That happens when you miss 14 games and don't score ~1.25PPG or more. People decide that you've missed to much time to be voted in for awards. Datsyuk being a Selke finalist despite missing a ton of games a couple years back was a huge shock to a lot of people because of that factor.

But as for scoring; if Fedorov had played the same number of games Selanne did, he'd have scored 31-41-72. That's 13 points difference in 79 games. Fedorov would have been a Selke contender again, also.

That 13-point difference is a small amount given their defensive gap, especially considering that Fedorov centered the second PP unit and did not play with Yzerman/Shanahan (that was usually Verbeek or Lapointe).

Sakic missed more games and got significantly more selke votes, again why are you afraid to show his actual defensive impact. Based on defensive gvt is defense that year was nothing special, I doubt detriot goals against suffered dramtically in the games feds missed. If we are saying who had the better season, then why the hell are you brining up his pace? This is one of Fedorov's worst seasons and here you are claiming he was as good as pavel bure that year and a top 3-5 forward in the whole league. He had loads of help that year, a massive chunk of his points came with lidstrom and powerplay time with yzerman/shanahan. In 2002 he spent the whole season with shanahan and got outscored. You love overrating his credentials.

Detriot's goals against in 1997: 197
Goals against in 1998 without fedorov: 196, still one of the best defensive teams in the league. LOL yeah he made such a big defensive impact individually, hes a rod langway caliber of a defensive impact player for sure.

In 2000 the red wings were a middle of the pack team in terms of goals against with a mediocre 210, compared to st. louis who only allowed 165 goals. His defense that year doesnt make up for 20 invisible points.

Detriot's goals against in 2003 with fedorov: 203
In 2004 when feds leaves: 189

They got better when Fedorov left. Elite defenseman like pronger, stevens, bourque, lidstrom had years where they peaked defensively and other years where they werent as good. Here you are claiming fedorov's defensive impact was the exact same year in, year out. Show some advanced defensive stats for once! Show me how much detriot suffered defensively in 2000 when fedorov wasnt on the ice compared to when he was, or show their defensive stats when he missed 14 games. I dont think he made much of an impact that year when the team had an extremely average goals against.

In 2000 pavol demitra only played 3 more games and finished 6th in selke voting, Oates finished 4th with four first place votes and many 2nd place votes. Owen Nolan and Mark Recci racked up a ton of hart votes. Owen Nolan was 5th in hart voting. Jagr, Bure and Healthy Sakic were the best forwards that year. Then after them were recci, nolan, kariya, selanne, modano, yzerman. Oates and demitra would have remained well ahead of feds in selke voting. Go on keep overrating the guy.

 

[Plural]

Okay, first of all, in a post on this very page - to which you've already responded, no less - I clearly referred to Fedorov as "Yzerman's 1B". We've established that already, and (I thought) we all knew what that means.

Well, why do you keep referring him as 2nd line center and trying to lift his accomplishments based on that, if he in fact was 1b.

Secondly, you've basically admitted to defaulting to 85 point > 62 points, and furthermore suggested that said 85 point player is by default "elite" while the other is not. You shut down at point counting and leaderboard/scoreboard watching. That's not the stance of an experienced fan of the game, sorry.

No need to apologize, I am the first to admit that I am relatively new to hockey (or new in a sense that i have shown more than casual interest in it only a short time)

But i would like to think that my reading comprehension is fine. I have read this thread from start to finish and i feel like there is too much to be explained in Fedorov's case. I do understand that Feds was a player who was more than quick look at stat sheet would show, but i also feel that you are giving too much weight on some things.
Basically what I am getting out of this is this, Fedorov was better player than Selanne but he never utilized his abilities to the max. (Exception in the one year)
Now, for my non-experienced point of view, when ranking players it is more essential to actually look at what happened than what was the potential.

Fedorov never reached the same level of play as he did in his Hart year. Now may it be due to his use or motivation or combination, we can't really know.

Thirdly, 11 less games could be considered "significant". It was enough to affect his consideration for all-star and Selke votes, obviously. But as long as you recognize that he was arguably at least Selanne's "equal" - in one of his lowest scoring seasons, that received some of the fewest single season accolades of the entire 90s (including '99/00 into the '90s on somewhat of a technicality, I suppose), and despite being sort of hemmed into a secondary role in a rolling lines Bowman system, then I'll consider that progress.

That year Selanne was not at his best either. So i see no wrong in thinking that they might have been close to each other when performing. Now, explain the eleven games.

Well, including the playoffs, the scoring line comparison becomes:

Selanne: 79 GP, 85 PTS, 1.08 PPG
Fedorov: 77 GP, 70 PTS, 0.91 PPG

And we're comparing Anaheim's 1st line winger to the Red Wings' 2nd (er... 1B) centre here. 0.17 PPG in the difference "overall"...

I don't like the idea that Regular Season and Play-Offs are combined in that way. It gives the other player unfair advantage. (Please don't say that Selanne has advantage in regular season cause he plays with the ducks) I would rather look at them in separate columns but have no problem taking on account both.

Amuse yourself even further by comparing Selanne and Fedorov along these lines for yourself. Selanne went 29 of his 79 games without a point that year vs. Fedorov's 27 in 68. Not a huge difference there, either. Furthermore go around the league and pick out the all the #2 centres (and yes, 1Bs) and see how many times they pulled out multi-point games and ended up one of the game's 3 stars. I've spent quite a bit of time just poking around (not tabulating, by any stretch), and I don't think you'll find too much support for the argument that Fedorov wasn't at least an elite #2 centre, and I'd obviously argue that everything considered he deserves to be considered at least Selanne's equal - even if the scope is restricted to a season that seems (at face value) to be one of Fedorov's worst during what "should have been his prime".

I will have to get back to you on that, but i would expect Fedorov to be a very good first line center in every his prime years. No different to Selanne being a very good 1st line winger.

Well, if points, PPG, and regular season accumulation (i.e. final position on regular season scoring lists) are where you shut down, obviously that's too simply. Everyone knows that, even in the same season, 85 points on one team =/= 85 points in a completely different situation. There's a lot of context involved, and there are plenty of avenues to explore. It's frustrating to be constantly steered down the route of the most amateur hockey enthusiast; limited to raw point total comparisons and arguing opinion with opinion.

I do accept the idea that there is difference in players situations. All those differences have been brought out in this thread and most of them are well argued. I think it is soon time to make a poll about which of these two is going to finish on top. A tough race it will be, no matter what.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Okay, here's what I don't understand about the last 12 hours of this thread:

I'd say Selanne had the better regular season for sure (played almost a full season, finished with more points).

Why is the 1999-2000 season a point of contention between the two of you? Because one poster said Selanne "for sure" had the better season and the other poster said Selanne "definitely" had the better season?

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Basically what I am getting out of this is this, Fedorov was better player than Selanne but he never utilized his abilities to the max. (Exception in the one year)

Well that's just plain wrong, so if that's your understanding, then it's tainted from the beginning. I'll get into the sliding goal posts issue in the following part.

Now, for my non-experienced point of view, when ranking players it is more essential to actually look at what happened than what was the potential.

Fedorov never reached the same level of play as he did in his Hart year. Now may it be due to his use or motivation or combination, we can't really know.

So what if he didn't reach the "same level of play"? Measuring Fedorov against the best of Fedorov is fine, but how are you then judging anyone else (ex: Selanne)? Prolific offense? I've shown that Selanne actually spent more games off the scoresheet than Fedorov that year. But Selanne played more games, you say? Exactly, that's how he got so many more points, too. I've also shown that Selanne didn't "light up the scoresheet" (read: have multi-point games - big deal in the dead puck era, btw... I was ridiculed earlier for referring to them, lol) at any significantly better rate than a guy (Fedorov) with definitively fewer scoring opportunities.

So with that 23 point gap narrowed quite significantly in terms of "how good" they were offensively given the context, there's still a whole lot that goes into "overall" or who was "better", and the majority of the remaining categories (defense, for example, team success, for another, perhaps even "skill set", for yet another).

So instead of comparing Fedorov to '93/94 Fedorov, just compare him to the rest of his contemporaries at the time. It's funny, because he was viewed as one of the very best players on one of the most successful teams throughout the entire 90s, and having seen it all for myself, you'll notice that it's not exactly a long hard process to go back years after the fact and find the statistical context that shows how flawed the 85 > 62 mentality is - particularly in this case. Compare '99/00 Fedorov to '93/94 Fedorov, and there's a big difference. Compare just about anyone in '99/00 to '93/94 Fedorov, and there's going to be a big difference. Comparing '99/00 Fedorov to the rest of '99/00 forwards, though (and I mean "really" comparing - or at least attempting to get further down the road to "Completesville"), the difference disappears...

That year Selanne was not at his best either. So i see no wrong in thinking that they might have been close to each other when performing. Now, explain the eleven games.

It's not necessarily just about whether or not they were close (although we've seen the opinion expressed that it's "blasphemous" that Fedorov be consider even close to the same level in that year specifically, even...). It's about realizing that it was Fedorov's lowest scoring season of his career as of the '04/05 lockout, and the poster child season for the "Fedorov is overrated - look how low his points were for a while there" crowd.

Now, you say it wasn't Selanne's best season, but I'm sure you've seen earlier in this thread where his top 5 scoring 85 points = "elite" status (and furthermore that Fedorov's lack of equivalent statistical factoids diminishes his case)... So, a year that is supposedly contributing to Selanne's case as being "elite" compares to arguably Fedorov's worst season of his career pre-'04/05 lockout (and his mid/late-30s)... Everyone is free to make as little or as much out of that as they will, but that should make everyone think for just a second there.

I don't like the idea that Regular Season and Play-Offs are combined in that way. It gives the other player unfair advantage. (Please don't say that Selanne has advantage in regular season cause he plays with the ducks) I would rather look at them in separate columns but have no problem taking on account both.

IMO, you can only use the "had an advantage getting into the playoffs on good teams" when you're NOT talking about one of the most key players for that team being good, and making the playoffs. I'm consistent, though. It also means something to me that Selanne and Kariya, for all the offensive talent between them, also came up short with enough offense to get their team into the playoffs.

I fully understand what you're saying, though, and I even weigh them on slightly different scales depending on which way my memory and context research take me.

And it's not like I'm just saying "Fedorov played 9 games in the playoffs, so his resume for '99/00 is better". I'm saying that, over those 9 games, he was his team's top scorer and likely best player... and he wasn't a bum in the regular season, no matter what anyone else tries to sell you. There are two definitions getting blended: "who was better in '99/00", and "who had the better '99/00", and I would submit that you can't subtract those 8 points in 9 games and give Fedorov a fair "trial" in the case of the latter.

I do accept the idea that there is difference in players situations. All those differences have been brought out in this thread and most of them are well argued. I think it is soon time to make a poll about which of these two is going to finish on top. A tough race it will be, no matter what.

Well that's good, because it's imperative that you do. The familiar exaggerated examples like Rob Brown playing with Mario Lemieux and getting 115 points are our history lessons to look deeper than the raw numbers before we leap into opinion. Bowman/Babcock as coaches is also fundamental to understanding, btw; beyond simply the minutes and roles of the players.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Okay, here's what I don't understand about the last 12 hours of this thread:



Why is the 1999-2000 season a point of contention between the two of you? Because one poster said Selanne "for sure" had the better season and the other poster said Selanne "definitely" had the better season?

What don't you get about it? As if you've never steered a discussion down a long tunnel of tangent before.

Or, is it hard to get how "for sure" and "but it's close" can apply to the same situation?

 

[Plural]

Well that's just plain wrong, so if that's your understanding, then it's tainted from the beginning. I'll get into the sliding goal posts issue in the following part.

Well, he never did get the same kind of consideration as he did from that season. Actually he's second best season he finished 1st in Selke voting and had 68 Hart votes. Not being in the top-4 in voting. So it seems to me that he never managed to pull of the same caliber season but once. Which is arguably the only season he has better than any of Selanne's seasons.

So what if he didn't reach the "same level of play"? Measuring Fedorov against the best of Fedorov is fine, but how are you then judging anyone else (ex: Selanne)? Prolific offense? I've shown that Selanne actually spent more games off the scoresheet than Fedorov that year. But Selanne played more games, you say? Exactly, that's how he got so many more points, too. I've also shown that Selanne didn't "light up the scoresheet" (read: have multi-point games - big deal in the dead puck era, btw... I was ridiculed earlier for referring to them, lol) at any significantly better rate than a guy (Fedorov) with definitively fewer scoring opportunities.

Selanne Got more points cause he had better PPG and he played in more games. Which both are pretty significant deals when judging any forwards worth in one season.

So with that 23 point gap narrowed quite significantly in terms of "how good" they were offensively given the context, there's still a whole lot that goes into "overall" or who was "better", and the majority of the remaining categories (defense, for example, team success, for another, perhaps even "skill set", for yet another).

I don't agree that we should bring "skill set" and team success to much in this conversation. Cause it most definitely does not give fair ground to Selanne. Most of posters in this thread have been giving Fedorov recognition about his use in Red Wings and why it might have effected his offensive numbers. Let's not give him more credit for just playing in certain team.
The gap has not closed at all. It is still the same 23 points. But I am willing to admit that you have opened my eyes a bit. Maybe I was too fast on judging the effect Fedorov had outside offensive contribution. But as being an "amateur" fan i can't remember or probably even understand the game deep enough that I would see the worth of Fedorov. That is why i would much appreciate if you could show me some defensive stat's that support the claim. If not, fine, but you have to understand that in this debate it is either to believe you and Eva's word or not.

So instead of comparing Fedorov to '93/94 Fedorov, just compare him to the rest of his contemporaries at the time. It's funny, because he was viewed as one of the very best players on one of the most successful teams throughout the entire 90s, and having seen it all for myself, you'll notice that it's not exactly a long hard process to go back years after the fact and find the statistical context that shows how flawed the 85 > 62 mentality is - particularly in this case. Compare '99/00 Fedorov to '93/94 Fedorov, and there's a big difference. Compare just about anyone in '99/00 to '93/94 Fedorov, and there's going to be a big difference. Comparing '99/00 Fedorov to the rest of '99/00 forwards, though (and I mean "really" comparing - or at least attempting to get further down the road to "Completesville"), the difference disappears...

I never compared Fedorov 99 to 93. I just derailed in my post a bit. This is about that one single year.

It's not necessarily just about whether or not they were close (although we've seen the opinion expressed that it's "blasphemous" that Fedorov be consider even close to the same level in that year specifically, even...). It's about realizing that it was Fedorov's lowest scoring season of his career as of the '04/05 lockout, and the poster child season for the "Fedorov is overrated - look how low his points were for a while there" crowd.

Yeah, i am now at least trying to look at this more deeply. But i get how it can be annoying since Selanne has his injuries and very often when someone want's to bring him down those years are looked without any context.

Now, you say it wasn't Selanne's best season, but I'm sure you've seen earlier in this thread where his top 5 scoring 85 points = "elite" status (and furthermore that Fedorov's lack of equivalent statistical factoids diminishes his case)... So, a year that is supposedly contributing to Selanne's case as being "elite" compares to arguably Fedorov's worst season of his career pre-'04/05 lockout (and his mid/late-30s)... Everyone is free to make as little or as much out of that as they will, but that should make everyone think for just a second there.

I would always say that top-5 offense in NHL is elite. Context or not it is among the best of the league.
This one singular debate is not at all that meaningful in my mind when i am deciding which of these two is going to rank higher. (I don't know yet) The only reason why i even am in this debate is that i was probably too fast to judge Fedorov's season as clearly worse than Selanne's. Which i now would admit is closer than i first thought. Still, i am of the opinion that it was Selanne who had the better year.

IMO, you can only use the "had an advantage getting into the playoffs on good teams" when you're NOT talking about one of the most key players for that team being good, and making the playoffs. I'm consistent, though. It also means something to me that Selanne and Kariya, for all the offensive talent between them, also came up short with enough offense to get their team into the playoffs.

I fully understand what you're saying, though, and I even weigh them on slightly different scales depending on which way my memory and context research take me.

And it's not like I'm just saying "Fedorov played 9 games in the playoffs, so his resume for '99/00 is better". I'm saying that, over those 9 games, he was his team's top scorer and likely best player... and he wasn't a bum in the regular season, no matter what anyone else tries to sell you. There are two definitions getting blended: "who was better in '99/00", and "who had the better '99/00", and I would submit that you can't subtract those 8 points in 9 games and give Fedorov a fair "trial" in the case of the latter.

I am not going to touch this since there is little to nothing with i disagree with.

Well that's good, because it's imperative that you do. The familiar exaggerated examples like Rob Brown playing with Mario Lemieux and getting 115 points are our history lessons to look deeper than the raw numbers before we leap into opinion. Bowman/Babcock as coaches is also fundamental to understanding, btw; beyond simply the minutes and roles of the players.

Fair enough.

I think it would be interesting to see how many other posters do understand the game/coaching situation as good as you. I think i might post a poll in some time of the Easter holidays.

 

[King Forsberg]

Who did Fedorov play with on every shift who was anywhere close to Kariya's skill level?

Selanne had plenty of success without Kariya. Again my argument is that you're giving Selanne no credit for making Kariya a better player. When did Selanne ever have good enough teamates to make deep postseason runs and put up point totals like Fedorov in the playoffs?

How am I rewriting history? The lines I built scored actually pretty similar totals to what is posted.

Except were those the actual lines, Fedorov's numbers would likely have been higher. My point was that Fedorov played on a team that didn't stack their top line the way Winnipeg did, and therefore his offensive numbers weren't what they might have been if he had.

How bout when you tried to convince us Fedorovs 2000 season should be viewed a lot better than it actually was. You've tried giving Fedorov more points in imaginary situations. You told me not to rank Fedorov on his skillset and what he should have done. Rank Fedorov on what actually happened not what you think would have happened.

Zhamnov outscored Selanne PPG-wise and overall in 93-94 and 94-95. In 95-96 Selanne was better, until he was traded. And then he was later traded off to San Jose, who didn't have much offensive talent (comparable to what Anaheim had when Fedorov got there) and he didn't score nearly as much. Later in his SJ career, he was injured, and then signed in Colorado and did about nothing despite the massive talent level. He was able to recuperate over the lockout and, with the help of the high talent level in Anaheim (where he had returned) he once again became relevant.

Zhamnov outscored Fedorov by a lot in 95. He was on Fedorovs level in terms of points in 98, 99,2000, and 2002. Guess Zhamnov is closer to Fedorov offensively than you remember.

Not mention Selanne was hurt a majority of the time in San Jose and especially Colarado. Fedorov played with a massive amount of talant in 2002 and only scored 68 points. When Selanne returned to the Ducks he didnt have the massive talent you think. He had Niedermayer in 2006. Andy McDonald was his center. Not exactly a superstar. Even when they got Pronger it's not like Selanne only played with Niedermayer and Pronger. The latter two hardly played on the same pair. Corey Perry and Getzlaf weren't the plauers they are today at that point. They were 20-21 yr olds.

Selanne does not show himself to be any more of a significant scorer on his own outside of one season in his career. One. That's been my point. He's a guy who is a scorer, and just a scorer, and his production drops CONSIDERABLY when he doesn't have high-end help. When Fedorov was given the green light to go score goals, and had significant offensive help on the level of 2005-06 Niedermayer, he scored 120 points and won the Hart trophy. Then the next two seasons he was 100-points (pro-rating the lockout). He also nabbed two Selkes in there.

Selanne produced better offensive seasons than Fedorov did. You can argue he played with better players but at least he showed he could produce that much offense. You keep relying on the fictitious motion that if Fedorov played with more talent he would score more. But outside of a three year stretch he didnt. Even in Fedorovs second best season, 1996, he still couldn't outscore Selanne.

Fedorov's 1995-96 beats Selanne's 1995-96 on offense alone, never mind the defensive aspect. Which other seasons are you including?

How does Fedorov beat Selanne on offense in 96? Selanne had more points and more goals. Their PPG are the same as well. Again this was Selanne's fifth best season compare to Fedorovs 2nd best.

As I've mentioned, Rucchin is a huge upgrade on Brown. And it's not like Fedorov played 20+ minutes with Lidstrom.

Again it's not like Brown was the only player Fedorov played with. And why wasn't Fedorov getting the offensive line mates if he was so good offensively? Certainly Fedorov was better than an aging Yzerman.

Yep; Selanne's longevity is what gets him close to Fedorov in career value, because Fedorov was the better player in as as many or more seasons when they were both in the league.

Selanne has more elite seasons than Fedorov. Amd the Longevity is a big thing. Fedorovs longevity is not too impressive while Selanne's is amongst the best all time.

 

[Yamaguchi*]

Selanne had plenty of success without Kariya. Again my argument is that you're giving Selanne no credit for making Kariya a better player. When did Selanne ever have good enough teamates to make deep postseason runs and put up point totals like Fedorov in the playoffs?



How bout when you tried to convince us Fedorovs 2000 season should be viewed a lot better than it actually was. You've tried giving Fedorov more points in imaginary situations. You told me not to rank Fedorov on his skillset and what he should have done. Rank Fedorov on what actually happened not what you think would have happened.



Zhamnov outscored Fedorov by a lot in 95. He was on Fedorovs level in terms of points in 98, 99,2000, and 2002. Guess Zhamnov is closer to Fedorov offensively than you remember.

Not mention Selanne was hurt a majority of the time in San Jose and especially Colarado. Fedorov played with a massive amount of talant in 2002 and only scored 68 points. When Selanne returned to the Ducks he didnt have the massive talent you think. He had Niedermayer in 2006. Andy McDonald was his center. Not exactly a superstar. Even when they got Pronger it's not like Selanne only played with Niedermayer and Pronger. The latter two hardly played on the same pair. Corey Perry and Getzlaf weren't the plauers they are today at that point. They were 20-21 yr olds.

Selanne produced better offensive seasons than Fedorov did. You can argue he played with better players but at least he showed he could produce that much offense. You keep relying on the fictitious motion that if Fedorov played with more talent he would score more. But outside of a three year stretch he didnt. Even in Fedorovs second best season, 1996, he still couldn't outscore Selanne.



How does Fedorov beat Selanne on offense in 96? Selanne had more points and more goals. Their PPG are the same as well. Again this was Selanne's fifth best season compare to Fedorovs 2nd best.


Again it's not like Brown was the only player Fedorov played with. And why wasn't Fedorov getting the offensive line mates if he was so good offensively? Certainly Fedorov was better than an aging Yzerman.



Selanne has more elite seasons than Fedorov. Amd the Longevity is a big thing. Fedorovs longevity is not too impressive while Selanne's is amongst the best all time.

An interesting fact about Fedorov's longevity:

Gold medal at Hockey Worlds in 1989

Gold medal at Hockey Worlds in 2008


Not impressive?

 

[King Forsberg]

An interesting fact about Fedorov's longevity:

Gold medal at Hockey Worlds in 1989

Gold medal at Hockey Worlds in 2008


Not impressive?

Team awards and not nearly impressive as Selanne's longevity.

 

[Yamaguchi*]

Team awards and not nearly impressive as Selanne's longevity.

1. Hockey is a team sport. Plus, Fedorov was one of the key players on both teams that won gold in 1989 and 2008

2. 19 years span is not impressive?

3. If team awards are of no value, then Fedorov's Hart trophy wins it in the individual awards category.

 

[King Forsberg]

1. Hockey is a team sport. Plus, Fedorov was one of the key players on both teams that won gold in 1989 and 2008

2. 19 years span is not impressive?

It is is impressive but not as much as you're making it seem. I prefer Selanne's goalscoring title and fifth place point finish in 93 to his 8th place scoring finish in 2011.

3. If team awards are of no value, then Fedorov's Hart trophy wins it in the individual awards category.

Except the Hart trophy isn't the only individual measure of a player. Much better scoring finishes in his career and better all star team finishes.

 

[Yamaguchi*]

It is is impressive but not as much as you're making it seem. I prefer Selanne's goalscoring title and fifth place point finish in 93 to his 8th place scoring finish in 2011.

Except the Hart trophy isn't the only individual measure of a player. Much better scoring finishes in his career and better all star team finishes.

Well, the Pearson is another measure.

Talking scoring -- Selanne hasn't got four consecutive 20-point finishes in the playoff.

 

[King Forsberg]

Well, the Pearson is another measure.

Talking scoring -- Selanne hasn't got four consecutive 20-point finishes in the playoff.

Selanne also never got to play with the Red Wings

Talking scoring
Selanne's best scoring finishes - 2nd, 2nd, 5th, 5th, 7th, 8th, 8th
Fedorov's best scoring finishes - 2nd, 9th, 11th

 

[shadow1]

Around the mid-90's when both players were at their absolute peaks, Sergei Fedorov was no doubt considered the better player. He was pretty much considered among the best two-way players ever and one of the absolute best in the game during that era, despite a few average statistical seasons.

That said, Teemu Selanne has passed him overall. No doubt. At age 42, the man is bewilderingly still a star player in the NHL. He's better now than Fedorov was 6-7 years ago, and both guys are the same age.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Well, he never did get the same kind of consideration as he did from that season. Actually he's second best season he finished 1st in Selke voting and had 68 Hart votes. Not being in the top-4 in voting. So it seems to me that he never managed to pull of the same caliber season but once. Which is arguably the only season he has better than any of Selanne's seasons.

No need to get into the rest, as I think we understand each other, and it gets tangential/subjective anyhoo. This part, however, I can't emphasize enough. I'm hoping you revisit which seasons you consider to be Selanne's best. Continuing to use '99/00 because it involves some of the more dramaticly misleading comparisons between the two, imo. I introduced the facts that Selanne spent 29 games off the scoresheet vs Fedorov's 27 (in 11 fewer games, obviously), and mentioned that Fedorov was one of the game's 3 stars at least 20 times, but I forgot to fill in the rest of that information. I forgot to mention that I only found Selanne in his games' 3 star selections 15 times... despite playing 11 more games, and despite being a 1st liner beside Kariya (who was one of the 3 stars what seems to be at least half of the Ducks' games that season).

So anyone who watched all the games of both players that year would have seen Fedorov play like one of the top 3 players on the ice (both teams included, win or loss, obviously) 20+ times, and the Wings building towards 100 point seasons (like they usually did in those days). By comparison, they would have seen Selanne get more points and play more games, but stand out as one of the top 3 players 5 fewer times, and the Ducks "building" toward 60-80 point seasons. Who was really having the better season, and how did either guy "prove" to be "better" than the other anywhere along the way?

Seriously, anyone who thought Selanne was clearly a better player than Fedorov - even at the same time, while Selanne was a top 5 scorer and Fedorov producing "only" 62 points in an injury-limited 68 games - was a point-pusher then, and if they hold rigid in that belief after looking back at everything, they're repeating the same mistake, imo. It certainly gets nebulous after the '04/05 lockout, given the amount of career value Selanne is racking up, but I submit that more than just a couple of Fedorov's seemingly less impressive (oft injury-limited) seasons still stack up enough to disprove the belief that points are 100% reflective of performance - let alone "calibre".

 

[Yamaguchi*]

1. You do not expect lots of high-scoring seasons from a defensive forward, do you?


2. Fedorov won the Hart, the Pearson and 3 Cups. What about Selanne?

 

[King Forsberg]

1. You do not expect lots of high-scoring seasons from a defensive forward, do you?


2. Fedorov won the Hart, the Pearson and 3 Cups. What about Selanne?

I'd expect a few more elite offensive seasons from someone who was supposedly elite offensively.

Fedorov has the best season between the two but that's it in terms of regular seaosn. Besides 94 Fedorov is not really close to Selanne's offensively.

Again why do you keep referencing cups like its the only thing to compare players?

 

[Yamaguchi*]

I'd expect a few more elite offensive seasons from someone who was supposedly elite offensively.

Fedorov has the best season between the two but that's it in terms of regular seaosn. Besides 94 Fedorov is not really close to Selanne's offensively.

Again why do you keep referencing cups like its the only thing to compare players?

I'd expect some serious trophies from Selanne. At least one Hart trophy. However,....

 

[King Forsberg]

I'd expect some serious trophies from Selanne. At least one Hart trophy. However,....

How many do you expect? No one, including me, is claiming Selanne to be one of the greatest of all time. I'd say Selanne is a top 75ish player of all time right above Fedorov. Your arguments are seriously childish.

 

[pdd]

How bout when you tried to convince us Fedorovs 2000 season should be viewed a lot better than it actually was. You've tried giving Fedorov more points in imaginary situations. You told me not to rank Fedorov on his skillset and what he should have done. Rank Fedorov on what actually happened not what you think would have happened.

I said rank Fedorov on his performance. That means "he scored at X level, and had X defensive capability, etc.", and it doesn't mean "He had the skillset to score 100 points, so count him at that."

Do you understand the difference?

Zhamnov outscored Fedorov by a lot in 95. He was on Fedorovs level in terms of points in 98, 99,2000, and 2002. Guess Zhamnov is closer to Fedorov offensively than you remember.

Zhamnov was also better in the NHL than anyone Fedorov played on a line with in his entire career.

Not mention Selanne was hurt a majority of the time in San Jose and especially Colarado.

I addressed that under "performance vs. skillset" didn't I? A player who scores 48 points in 80 games every season for three seasons, then the next season scores 35 points in 70 games, are they a 48-point player or a 35-point player? Pretty large gap. If you account for the difference in GP, it's a drop from 48 to 40 (at 80 GP). That's not assuming the player improves or reduces pace; it's simply a mathematical expression of their PPG. Which, given a reasonable sample size (~60% of intended total, or 50GP for an NHL season), can be extended in such manners.

Fedorov played with a massive amount of talant in 2002 and only scored 68 points. When Selanne returned to the Ducks he didnt have the massive talent you think. He had Niedermayer in 2006. Andy McDonald was his center. Not exactly a superstar.

No, Selanne had many better linemates than McDonald. But Fedorov had none who were better than McDonald (at least at that point in their careers).

Even when they got Pronger it's not like Selanne only played with Niedermayer and Pronger. The latter two hardly played on the same pair. Corey Perry and Getzlaf weren't the plauers they are today at that point. They were 20-21 yr olds.

Because having one of the top-three defensemen in the league on each of your first two pairings isn't helpful at all.

Selanne produced better offensive seasons than Fedorov did. You can argue he played with better players but at least he showed he could produce that much offense.

Fedorov scored 120 points playing with Slava Kozlov and Dino Ciccarelli. He had four consecutive seasons where he was on pace for and/or scored 100 points, AND was top-four in Selke voting.

You keep relying on the fictitious motion that if Fedorov played with more talent he would score more. But outside of a three year stretch he didnt. Even in Fedorovs second best season, 1996, he still couldn't outscore Selanne.

How does Fedorov beat Selanne on offense in 96? Selanne had more points and more goals. Their PPG are the same as well. Again this was Selanne's fifth best season compare to Fedorovs 2nd best.

1995-96:
Selanne: 79GP, 40-68-108
Fedorov: 78GP, 39-68-107

Fedorov's GPG/APG/PPG: 0.50-0.87-1.37

So if we assume that Fedorov plays the one missing game, and scores at the same rate, he gets a goal AND an assist and ends up with a line of:

Fedorov: 79GP, 40-69-109

Which beats Selanne's. Using simple PPG will get Fedorov to 108. Reversing it and taking Selanne to Fedorov's GP gets either 39-67-106 or 107 depending on GPG+APG or just PPG.

Regardless, Fedorov clearly was the more frequent scorer no matter how you put it.

Again it's not like Brown was the only player Fedorov played with. And why wasn't Fedorov getting the offensive line mates if he was so good offensively? Certainly Fedorov was better than an aging Yzerman.

Go to Chicago and ask Scotty Bowman.

Selanne has more elite seasons than Fedorov.

Disagree considerably.

 

[Sentinel]

Selanne also never got to play with the Red Wings

Fedorov pretty much MADE the Red Wings (not to underestimate the contributions from Y, Shanny, Lids, etc.).

All Star selection is even more of a popularity contest than Hart and Pearson. The fact is: Feds has more individual and team trophies than Selanne. Since the point of hockey is to win, Feds trumps Teemu hands down.

Plus there's this little thing called "face to face contest" (which is an additional way to measure players against each other when it's close). Hasek beats Roy (OG98 and 02), Makarov beats Messier (outplayed him in 87, even though his team lost), Fedorov beats Selanne (97 and OG98).