Lindros/Forsberg/Crosby/Malkin - and their impact

[bathdog]

Four highly impactful players of recent times, in relatively similar scenarios. The thing they all had in common - injuries and missed opportunity around their peaks (Malkin not as much as the others).

Lets take a look at how their team's fared with them in or out of the lineup.

The below in italics was written before these numbers were compiled about how I would've thought about this, and what I would've expected. What I mean with would've, is how I (hope!) would've looked at it in an entirely objective and logical manner, but a seed of suspicion has been planted in my mind over time.

----

Lindros

Played on a good but not great team.
Had good linemates (as good, if not better, than Forsberg), which should probably make them handle the situation of losing their star center better than an average player should have.
His team lacked depth and the lack of a "duo mate" to pick the slack makes this seemingly a very favorable situation as he should have an easier way to stand out.
​

Forsberg COL

Played on a great team, arguably the best in this comparison.
Had good linemates, which should probably make them handle the situation of losing their star center better than an average player should have.
His team had significant depth and he had a great "duo mate", filling up his void could be hard, but realistically, considering the argument of how great those teams are, he should have the hardest time to stand out.
​

Forsberg PHI

Played on a mediocre team, almost certainly the worst in this comparison.
Had good linemates, which should probably make them handle the situation of losing their star center better than an average player should have.
His team lacked depth and he had no "duo mate" to pick up the slack, that in itself should make it easy to stand out, but he was also severely injury bitten, so him being post-peak for the majority of his time there should work in the reverse.
​

Crosby

Played on a great team.
Had average linemates.
His team had some depth, and he had a great "duo mate", but filling the void after him should still be pretty hard.
​

Malkin

Played on a great team.
Had average linemates.
His team had some depth, and he had a great "duo mate", but filling the void after him should still be pretty hard.
Has an invisible favorable situation in the fact that Crosby was injured so much during this span so a lot of the time a bit less could be required to stand out.​

For Malkin I could have chosen some of the 08-10 range, but I felt 11/12 was his actual peak so opted to go with a range that included that season (as well as the fact 08-10 would've made him ineligible due to not enough missed time to use as meaningful sample).

For Forsberg I opted to include stints with PHI since he was still impactful, but wildly different situations.

For Lindros, I didn't see a point in including his NYR time.

----

I've been attempting to look at peak stretches (RS only) of these players and what impact they actually had using two different measuring sticks.

1. Relative to their own team.
   
2. Relative to a/main linemate.

For the linemate comparison I've opted to stick with just one of "significance" for simplicity. I personally believe how their respective teams fared with/without each player in the lineup would be more reliable in trying to asses the individual impact as linemates would be affected by several more unrelated factors (such as the linemate's individual ability, ability to adapt, new potential role, new linemates etc).

The stretches for each player is as follows:

Lindros	93/94-96/97
Forsberg COL	02/03-03/04
Forsberg PHI	05/06-06/07*
Crosby	10/11-12/13
Malkin	10/11-12/13

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

The linemate used for each player is as follows:

Lindros	LeClair**
Forsberg COL	Hejduk
Forsberg PHI	Gagne*
Crosby	Kunitz
Malkin	Neal***

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Team statistics including Lindros/Forsberg/Crosby/Malkin:

Team	GP	GF/GP	GA/GP
PHI 93/94-96/97	236	3.449	2.928
COL	114	3.158	2.351
PHI 05/06-06/07*	100	3.220	3.280
PIT Crosby	99	3.505	2.485
PIT Malkin	149	3.362	2.658

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Team statistics excluding Lindros/Forsberg/Crosby/Malkin:

Team	GP	GF/GP	GA/GP
PHI 93/94-96/97	60	3.10	3.0
COL	50	2.540	2.480
PHI 05/06-06/07*	38	2.342	3.658
PIT Crosby	113	2.991	2.593
PIT Malkin	63	2.921	2.270

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Team statistical differences expressed with the difference going from each respective player being in the lineup to not being in the lineup:

Team	Abs GF/GP diff	Rel GF/GP diff	Abs GA/GP diff	Rel GA/GP diff
PHI 93/94-96/97	-0.349	-10.1%	+0.072	+2.5%
COL	-0.618	-19.6%	+0.129	+5.5%
PHI 05/06-06/07*	-0.878	-27.3%	+0.378	+11.5%
PIT Crosby	-0.514	-14.7%	+0.108	+4.3%
PIT Malkin	-0.441	-13.1%	-0.388	-14.6%

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

That'll wrap up the team comparison part, proceeding with linemates...

Linemate's statistics with Lindros/Forsberg/Crosby/Malkin in the lineup:

Linemate	GP	PTS	PPG
LeClair**	163	204	1.252
Hejduk	114	127	1.114
Gagne*	91	102	1.121
Kunitz	97	91	0.938
Neal***	100	103	1.030

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Linemate's statistics without Lindros/Forsberg/Crosby/Malkin in the lineup:

Linemate	GP	PTS	PPG
LeClair**	38	39	1.026
Hejduk	50	46	0.920
Gagne*	37	22	0.595
Kunitz	99	70	0.707
Neal***	20	14	0.70

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Linemate's statistical differences expressed with the difference going from each respective player being in the lineup to not being in the lineup:

Linemate	Abs PPG diff	Rel PPG diff
LeClair**	-0.226	-18.1%
Hejduk	-0.194	-17.4%
Gagne*	-0.526	-46.9%
Kunitz	-0.231	-24.6%
Neal***	-0.33	-32%

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

After reading a couple of comments below I opted to update this with team records with and without Lindros/Forsberg/Crosby/Malkin.

This was something that I initially considered but chose not to include because I felt the differences in point system and how it's approached would lead to more confusion rather than clarity (they would especially magnify Lindros edge) without being adjusted in some manner, and as such a far worse indicator than goal differentials. Anyway, here they go.

Team statistics including Lindros/Forsberg/Crosby/Malkin:

Team	GP	Win	Loss	Tie	OT-Loss
PHI 93/94-96/97	236	126 / 53.4%	77 / 32.6%	33 /14%	-
COL	114	63 / 55.3%	23 / 20.2%	15 / 13.2%	13 /11.4%
PHI 05/06-06/07*	100	50 / 50.0%	36 / 36.0%	14 / 14.0%
PIT Crosby	99	68 / 68.7%	26 / 26.3%	-	5 / 5.1%
PIT Malkin	149	93 / 62.4%	47 / 31.5%	-	9 / 6.0%

[TBODY] -
[/TBODY]

The bolded PHI 05/06-06/07* Tie numbers above are supposed to be in OTL column, as further displayed by the two empty columns in the table below I'm not friends with the table formatting here (and I'm too lazy to rewrite the entire table manually)!


Team statistics excluding Lindros/Forsberg/Crosby/Malkin:

Team	GP	Win	Loss	Tie	OT-Loss
PHI 93/94-96/97	60	27 / 45.0%	26 / 43.3%	7 / 11.7%	-
COL	50	19 / 38.0%	18 / 36.0%	11 / 22.0%	2 / 4.0%
PHI 05/06-06/07*	38	10 / 26.3%	23 / 60.5%	-	5 / 13.2%
PIT Crosby	113	68 / 60.2%	36 / 31.9%	-	9 / 8.0%
PIT Malkin	63	43 / 68.3%	15 / 23.8%	-	5 / 7.9%

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Team statistical differences expressed with the difference going from each respective player being in the lineup to not being in the lineup (absolute # normalized to 82-game season):

Team	Win Abs/Rel	Loss Abs/Rel	Tie Abs/Rel			OT-Loss Abs/Rel
PHI 93/94-96/97	-6.89W / -15.7%	+8.77L / +32.8%	-1.89T / -16.4%			-
COL	-14.19W / -31.3%	+12.96L / +78.2%	+7.22T / +66.7%			-6.07OL / -64.9%
PHI 05/06-06/07*	-19.43W / -47.4%	+20.09L / +68.3%	-			-0.66OL / -0.94%
PIT Crosby	-6.97W / -12.4%	+4.59L / +21.3%	-			+2.38OL / +56.9%
PIT Malkin	+4.84W / +9.5%	-6.31L / -24.4%	-			+1.56OL / +31.7%

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

I wouldn't too much attention to the Tie's/OTL # in the above table since they involve so few games they're all over the place. Percentages are mainly included as reference as they're much more volatile given the relatively small sample sizes compared to the GF/GA earlier.

----

I'm not going to spend much time concluding the results but leave them for each and everyone to interpret as they please (if anyone pleases to do so ). I have to say, I'm a little bit surprised by Malkin's being in the lineup causing the team GA to spike, I had to go back and double check the numbers (and I'm still afraid I've messed up!).

Some sample sizes are a bit smaller than desirable so precision may suffer a little, Neal's numbers sticks out a little extra.

Another thing worth pointing out is Malkin's material surrounding his peak season maybe doesn't quite live up to his peak level, so maybe it doesn't quite do him justice in this thread (then again just above half consists of his actual peak season...).

----

* Forsberg's, Gagne's, and PHI team games stretches up until and including Forsberg's last game in PHI (Feb. 12 2007)
** LeClair's games stretches from when he joined PHI in 94/95.
*** Neal's games stretches from 11/12-12/13 as he and Malkin didn't play together the season before.


As always, typographical and numerical errors tend to sometimes sneak in, so please do point out any you come across.

Click to read more...

 

[brachyrynchos]

Interesting stuff! Not sure of the response you're looking for, but Lindros had a huge impact in how the game was played, much more than Crosby and Malkin. The kind of players most teams drafted ~'94 and years after pretty much were 6'2 225lbs, alot of teams didn't want small/soft players, they wanted another Lindros or someone that could neutralize him. A player his size, with his skill and physicality was rare, he was the total package. It kind of put power forwards back on the map.

 

[authentic]

Why am I not surprised to see Forsberg do so well here? Every time I see someone do an in depth analysis involving Forsberg it only reinforces my opinion of him.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Thanks for presenting this, always good to see this type of research.

I was surprised to see the results for LeClair. I thought that his scoring rate was almost the same when Lindros was out of the line-up - someone presented research about this a few years back. The difference was surprisingly small - maybe around a 5% drop off in production. I'll see if I can dig that up.

 

[bathdog]

Interesting stuff! Not sure of the response you're looking for, but Lindros had a huge impact in how the game was played, much more than Crosby and Malkin. The kind of players most teams drafted ~'94 and years after pretty much were 6'2 225lbs, alot of teams didn't want small/soft players, they wanted another Lindros or someone that could neutralize him. A player his size, with his skill and physicality was rare, he was the total package. It kind of put power forwards back on the map.

I agree that he was unique in the way he played and what he brought to the table, Lindros absolutely belongs in this conversation.

As Lindros # were the first I put together I didn't realize his sample size would be significantly larger than the others, I don't think cutting a year off would have made a huge difference either way. Crosby's and Forsberg's ranges were obvious, for Malkin the only other option is more recent times and I think that'd have done him a disservice.

I'd have liked to include most notably Jagr, Sakic, Ovechkin, Datsyuk, and Kane, for comparisons sake, but they really don't have suitable ranges (possibly Sakic, but not quite I don't think...).

It's just one way of approaching the issue, far from any definitive truth. I still think Lindros numbers are complimentary.

Why am I not surprised to see Forsberg do so well here? Every time I see someone do an in depth analysis involving Forsberg it only reinforces my opinion of him.

I think the PHI numbers needs to be taken with a little bit of caution, especially that 06/07 version of the team was really poor.

Thanks for presenting this, always good to see this type of research.

I was surprised to see the results for LeClair. I thought that his scoring rate was almost the same when Lindros was out of the line-up - someone presented research about this a few years back. The difference was surprisingly small - maybe around a 5% drop off in production. I'll see if I can dig that up.

I think LeClair is probably the best linemate here.

Hoping there isn't a numerical error for either one of us, maybe he used a longer range that includes time where Lindros abilities diminished (or shorter time with more variation for that matter)?

Would love to see it either way.

 

[bathdog]

Interesting stuff! Not sure of the response you're looking for, but Lindros had a huge impact in how the game was played, much more than Crosby and Malkin. The kind of players most teams drafted ~'94 and years after pretty much were 6'2 225lbs, alot of teams didn't want small/soft players, they wanted another Lindros or someone that could neutralize him. A player his size, with his skill and physicality was rare, he was the total package. It kind of put power forwards back on the map.

I still think Lindros numbers are complimentary.

I actually hope they're interpreted as such (and also leave room for the fact that there probably are factors that I've failed to account for that could affect any player in this thread in any direction).

To expand on this. If they were presented in light of several other good to great players included such as Modano, Sundin, Selanne, Stamkos, Toews, Kopitar, Giroux, Gaborik etc (Sundin is probably a bad example given his team, but the rest played on what could be described as Cup contending teams), if similar analysis was possible I think we'd see how substantial it is for a single player to move a team's numbers to that degree.

 

[bobholly39]

Some comments/opinions on the overall subject matter.

1. Lindros's absence affected team results the most. His teams were built around him - without Lindros, the team is different. (thinking overall results/ability to win here, more than just simply offense/goals scored).

2. Forbserg's absence didn't affect team results that much (thinking more Col here than Philly). Colorado was an all star caliber team, with arguably the best center (Sakic) and goalie (Roy) and possibly overall roster, or close, in the league. If Forsberg missed stretches, they could find a way to win (2001 cup is an example).

3. Crosby's health affected team results the least, by far. His team never missed the playoffs despite his time missed in regular season, even without Crosby. He himself never missed the playoffs, outside of 2011. So despite many injuries, he was almost always ready for playoffs.

4. Malkin. Similar to Crosby - he didn't miss the playoffs outside of 2011, but slight bigger impact as he's missed more overall regular season games.

Crosby's individual legacy/peak is most impacted by far by injuries. As a prospect he was on another level from everyone else (offensively at least - above even Lindros I think) - and he seemed primed to hit another stride between 2011-2013. And all 3 years were majorly affected. We'll never know if he would have maintained a torrid pace all year, increased his scoring rate, or if it would have averaged out over time. But this was Crosby at his best and he missed each year major time.

Lindros's individual legacy is affected the most (career), but not peak. I feel as though we had seen Lindros reach his best, injuries/health simply shortened his career, so he didn't get to add longevity to his prime/career. I don't think he had another level to reach - maybe he'd manage to win a cup or 2, but i don't think we were missing much for peak, and prime we're just adding additional seasons.

Malkin. Surprisingly - I don't feel as though Malkin's health concerns hurt his legacy all that much. I'm looking at his resume - and he has so many seasons where he played between 55 and-70 games. Never major injuries, typically a 15-20 games missed in a year. The problem is, in almost every single one of those partial seasons, he wasn't his best. In contrast - in the years Crosby missed major time he always seemed like the best player by far and he leaves you thinking "wow - what if he could have seen that season through to the end". Malkin's partial seasons are more like "meh - his full season from 2 years ago he was much better on a per game basis". It's possible that at least in some years he played some games not 100% and it affected his per game performance, but i also think that's a convenient excuse, as a lot of players play when not 100% (including all 4 of these guys compared here who probably returned early from some injuries, i'm sure). Bottom line is - Malkin's peak is truly outstanding - and although his overall prime/career longevity may be affected by missed games - it doesn't look like it hurt his peak in anyway. So health hasn't affected him too much - lack of consistency year over year has, and that's more on him.

Forsberg. Forsberg is a mix between Crosby and Malkin imo. On an individual level, he definitely missed time during his best years (similar to Crosby). But I do feel as though he was less consistent year over year (like Malkin). I don't know that he had another level to reach, without injuries. I think his 2003 season was pretty fantastic - and then he seemed on the verge of almost repeating that in 2004, but not surpassing it. He did have monster 2002 playoffs, but he did sit out all year which probably helped him a bit unfairly in being fresh, so not sure we can really say that if he had played all year 2002 he would have had his best season ever, more like comparable to 2003 or so, if that. 2001 was a good year, but not spectacular. I feel we saw Forsberg at his best, maybe not often enough. Some of that is due to health (and lockout), and some of that is due to him simply not being consistent enough year over year, or not being at that level of player for many years in a row.


So which team results have been impacted the least by a player's absence:

1. Crosby
2. Malkin
3. Forsberg
4. Lindros

On an individual level, who was impacted the most by injuries:

1. Crosby
2. Lindros
3. Forsberg
4. Malkin

You could flip to Lindros #1 and Crosby #2 if we're talking career - obviously Lindros' career was impacted the most big time. But I place a huge importance on peak myself, which is why I have Crosby #1.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Forbserg's absence didn't affect team results that much (thinking more Col here than Philly). Colorado was an all star caliber team, with arguably the best center (Sakic) and goalie (Roy) and possibly overall roster, or close, in the league. If Forsberg missed stretches, they could find a way to win (2001 cup is an example).

In 2001-02, the Avalanche finished 18th in scoring, bookended by seasons in the top-5. They made the playoffs by squeezing 7 points out of their 23 games with 1 goal or less, including getting shutout 10 times. A noteworthy stretch in November saw them win 3-consecutive games on just 4 goals.

That they could go 8-4 against St. Louis and New Jersey in the 2001 playoffs while riding .939 goaltending against Turek and Brodeur's combined .871 doesn't suggest a viable long-term strategy - as evidenced by the 19-point drop in the standings in 2001-02.

He did have monster 2002 playoffs, but he did sit out all year which probably helped him a bit unfairly in being fresh, so not sure we can really say that if he had played all year 2002 he would have had his best season ever, more like comparable to 2003 or so, if that. 2001 was a good year, but not spectacular.

I wouldn't consider 2001-02 to be sitting out. He had two off-season surgeries on his ankle/foot and missed his targeted return of the 2002 Olympics with a third surgery. If he was "helped a bit unfairly in being fresh", he wouldn't have missed Game 6 against Los Angeles (a 3-1 loss) or been questionable going into Game 7 (a 4-0 win).

 

[bobholly39]

In 2001-02, the Avalanche finished 18th in scoring, bookended by seasons in the top-5. They made the playoffs by squeezing 7 points out of their 23 games with 1 goal or less, including getting shutout 10 times. A noteworthy stretch in November saw them win 3-consecutive games on just 4 goals.

That they could go 8-4 against St. Louis and New Jersey in the 2001 playoffs while riding .939 goaltending against Turek and Brodeur's combined .871 doesn't suggest a viable long-term strategy - as evidenced by the 19-point drop in the standings in 2001-02.

I'm not necessarily saying Forsberg has no impact on a team's success. He's obviously a very impactful player. What i'm saying is his injuries didn't impact his team's success. ie - they had the same amount of success they would have had despite his injuries.

2001 he's out - they win the cup still. No harm done
2002 he misses the season - but they still make the playoffs. No harm done.
2002 playoffs - they went into the playoffs as a "lesser" team (as per your words - their season was worst than the year before) - but Forsberg certainly didn't hurt his team as he came back for playoffs and had a fantastic playoff run.

So I don't think Forsberg's health/injuries ever really hurt his team. And also - in 2002 Colorado finished 2nd in conference, 1st in division, so I don't think Forsberg's absence even hurt the team in the regular season, since they still managed to make the playoffs as a top team. Scoring more or less goals is inconsequential to team success if you still win the games, make the playoffs and finish high in standings.

If they had missed the playoffs one year because he was out....or if they had been eliminated early because he was out when he might have made a difference...maybe. Doesn't look like that really happened.

Lindros. 1999 - missed playoffs. His team is out in round 1. Him not being there hurt his team.
2000. Lindros only plays 2 games. His team is out in round 3. Maybe with him - they beat NJ in round 3 and make the finals.

I wouldn't consider 2001-02 to be sitting out. He had two off-season surgeries on his ankle/foot and missed his targeted return of the 2002 Olympics with a third surgery. If he was "helped a bit unfairly in being fresh", he wouldn't have missed Game 6 against Los Angeles (a 3-1 loss) or been questionable going into Game 7 (a 4-0 win).

I wasn't trying to imply he "sat out" the year to rest. Maybe the choice of word is wrong. But he didn't play all year, so when the playoffs started he was very fresh, which helped him.

And the underlying point i was trying to make is that i don't think health robbed us of Forsberg's "best/peak". He's never shown the ability of surpassing his best seasons when he had injuries. And if someone was going to try to say "yeah but 2002 playoffs he was on another level - just imagine what he could have done if he played all year" - what i'm responding to that is, that because he missed all year he was probably a bit more fresh in 2002 playoffs. So I don't think his 2002 season would have been anything better than 2003, if that.

 

[quoipourquoi]

I'm not necessarily saying Forsberg has no impact on a team's success. He's obviously a very impactful player. What i'm saying is his injuries didn't impact his team's success. ie - they had the same amount of success they would have had despite his injuries.

Two concussions and not being able to walk without assistance at different points during the 1997 playoffs could be seen as detrimental to Colorado's chances that year, but I think we're abandoning an evaluation of an effect a player has in favor of binary measurements of success.

 

[VanIslander]

Forsberg & Malkin
*sigh*
What could have been...
(They will never get the respect their talent deserved.)
Would you buy a book entitled "In the Shadow of Canadians".
I as a Canuck would. I can't be the only one to sing the praise of
the media-underhyped European.

If you think the non-Canadians above were 'duh' 2nd fiddlers then this is a nonstarter.

 

[Jim MacDonald]

One thought on the Big E.....I get that he was able to run roughshod through juniors because of his size......how much blame should his coaches get in the sense of "Eric....I know you're big enough to plow through these guys with your head down, but if you don't correct this and keep your head up when you get to The Show you are going to have problems!"? When he went to the Rangers I heard coaches wanted him to skate with his head up, but he 'bristled.' Should coaches have gotten in his ear at 14, 15, 16 years old to nip that in the bud?

 

[VanIslander]

Little Kasparitis knocked Mario Lemieux around because Mario had his head down a lot and Darius would, well, knock it down.

Mario like Eric were giants in juniors who really didn't adapt their game IDEALLY to the NHL level and suffered injuries as a result of it. Here Darius concusses Eric:


Keep your head up guys or a Kasparaitis will take it down!



A little guy like Gretz was playing Spiderman in juniors, dodging guys with his spidey sense, and that served him well at the highest level. Here Gretz dodges Darius (barely):

 

[Jim MacDonald]

Little Kasparitis knocked Mario Lemieux around because Mario had his head down a lot and Darius would, well, knock it down.

lol! head on a swivel guys! ha ha ha!

 

[DrDangles]

One thought on the Big E.....I get that he was able to run roughshod through juniors because of his size......how much blame should his coaches get in the sense of "Eric....I know you're big enough to plow through these guys with your head down, but if you don't correct this and keep your head up when you get to The Show you are going to have problems!"? When he went to the Rangers I heard coaches wanted him to skate with his head up, but he 'bristled.' Should coaches have gotten in his ear at 14, 15, 16 years old to nip that in the bud?

I guarantee you every coach he'd ever had pushed it on him. But with everything I've ever heard about Lindros I'm not surprised he wasn't very open to constructive criticism.

 

[VanIslander]

I guarantee you every coach he'd ever had pushed it on him. But with everything I've ever heard about Lindros I'm not surprised he wasn't very open to constructive criticism.

His father was the epic "angry hockey dad". No talking reason with him. I was not at all surprised he wouldn't go to Quebec.

 

[JackSlater]

Forsberg & Malkin
*sigh*
What could have been...
(They will never get the respect their talent deserved.)
Would you buy a book entitled "In the Shadow of Canadians".
I as a Canuck would. I can't be the only one to sing the praise of
the media-underhyped European.

If you think the non-Canadians above were 'duh' 2nd fiddlers then this is a nonstarter.

Malkin sure, but Forsberg was often hyped more by the media than Sakic was.

 

[GordieHowsUrBreath]

Forsberg & Malkin
*sigh*
What could have been...
(They will never get the respect their talent deserved.)
Would you buy a book entitled "In the Shadow of Canadians".
I as a Canuck would. I can't be the only one to sing the praise of
the media-underhyped European.

If you think the non-Canadians above were 'duh' 2nd fiddlers then this is a nonstarter.

forsberg underhyped? is that a joke?

 

[Jim MacDonald]

His father was the epic "angry hockey dad". No talking reason with him. I was not at all surprised he wouldn't go to Quebec.

I kinda learned this story later on that Carl and Bonnie were like .....ugh....I don't even know the words....like you here "momager" with Kris Jenner....I think I heard the Lindros' were very much about the money and NOT Eric's best interests....I don't know a lot about the behind the scenes stuff...

 

[Troubadour]

Forsberg was never overshadowed by Sakic the way that Malkin was by Sid because Sakic never had even a quarter of the hype Crosby does.

 

[bobholly39]

Forsberg was never overshadowed by Sakic the way that Malkin was by Sid because Sakic never had even a quarter of the hype Crosby does.

Agreed. It's not the same dynamics

That being said. I think there's a case to be made that Malkin being overshadowed by Crosby has actually been a great thing for his career.

 

[bathdog]

1. Lindros's absence affected team results the most. His teams were built around him - without Lindros, the team is different. (thinking overall results/ability to win here, more than just simply offense/goals scored).

I could get onboard with goal differentials not being an exact mirror image of team abilities/results, but I think there is a quite strong correlation. If you contest this, I'd love to see some argument backed up by numbers.

I went on to further compile how these player's teams fared when they were actually in the lineup during these stretches and edited the OP with the details As you alluded to, Lindros catapults (as I commented in OP, I think it's an unfair edge for Lindros as teams didn't play for the losing point) above Crosby/Malkin in impact on team record, but he doesn't really make up any ground on Forsberg (in Colorado nor in Philly).

He did have monster 2002 playoffs, but he did sit out all year which probably helped him a bit unfairly in being fresh, so not sure we can really say that if he had played all year 2002 he would have had his best season ever, more like comparable to 2003 or so, if that. 2001 was a good year, but not spectacular.

I wasn't trying to imply he "sat out" the year to rest. Maybe the choice of word is wrong. But he didn't play all year, so when the playoffs started he was very fresh, which helped him.

If he was "helped a bit unfairly in being fresh", he wouldn't have missed Game 6 against Los Angeles (a 3-1 loss) or been questionable going into Game 7 (a 4-0 win).

I respect this opinion whatever side one is on, it's obviously very hard to investigate.

But I feel like one has to be consistent regardless of player involved...

And all 3 years were majorly affected. We'll never know if he would have maintained a torrid pace all year, increased his scoring rate, or if it would have averaged out over time. But this was Crosby at his best and he missed each year major time.

To me, there isn't room to argue Forsberg benefitted from rest, but Crosby could potentially have increased (!) his scoring rate, when Crosby shared the same "benefit" as well as several more troubling aspects, the first coming to mind are:

Forsberg didn't have proper off-season preparations - Crosby did (anyone who's played sports competitively knows it takes a little bit to get the timing right).
Forsberg didn't deviate far from anything he'd done previously (1999) under "normal circumstances" - Crosby's numbers aren't remotely close.

If there is one Forsberg "partial" that is troubling, it's 05/06, I too don't think he'd have finished with close to 155 points. Luckily it's never used as such argument as he came back at lesser ability and played the season out.

I'm not necessarily saying Forsberg has no impact on a team's success. He's obviously a very impactful player. What i'm saying is his injuries didn't impact his team's success. ie - they had the same amount of success they would have had despite his injuries.

2001 he's out - they win the cup still. No harm done
2002 he misses the season - but they still make the playoffs. No harm done.
2002 playoffs - they went into the playoffs as a "lesser" team (as per your words - their season was worst than the year before) - but Forsberg certainly didn't hurt his team as he came back for playoffs and had a fantastic playoff run.

So I don't think Forsberg's health/injuries ever really hurt his team. And also - in 2002 Colorado finished 2nd in conference, 1st in division, so I don't think Forsberg's absence even hurt the team in the regular season, since they still managed to make the playoffs as a top team. Scoring more or less goals is inconsequential to team success if you still win the games, make the playoffs and finish high in standings.

If they had missed the playoffs one year because he was out....or if they had been eliminated early because he was out when he might have made a difference...maybe. Doesn't look like that really happened.

Lindros. 1999 - missed playoffs. His team is out in round 1. Him not being there hurt his team.
2000. Lindros only plays 2 games. His team is out in round 3. Maybe with him - they beat NJ in round 3 and make the finals.

I'm not trying to rewrite history.

I was simply looking at individual impact from an alternative perspective. I was already working on this but felt a need to speed up the process because of the horde coming out of the woodwork.

I find the above reasoning when evaluating individual players roughly equivalent to only accounting for game winning points when comparing scoring finishes.

If Forsberg missed stretches, they could find a way to win (2001 cup is an example).

This happening is obviously true - and those Avs teams were obviously great, but when used as a major argument, in recent times, among notable forwards, we have Sakic (maybe Zetterberg?) and nobody else.

 

[Boxscore]

Four amazing talents. Here's my take...

The best overall career of the group: Crosby

The most dominant, when all performing at their very best: Lindros

The most important to the game: Crosby

The most potential: Lindros

The most gifted: Forsberg, closely followed by Malkin

The most consistent: Crosby, closely followed by Forsberg

The biggest "what if?": Lindros

The player I would build my team around (knowing what we know today): Crosby

The player I would draft 1st overall, if the script was unwritten: Lindros

The player I would want in a Game 7 if my life depended on it: Forsberg

The most exciting to watch: Lindros

 

[Thenameless]

Boxscore, that's a very nice summary, and I agree with a lot of your picks.