TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
Open ice hits, yes. Nasty, dirty, physical play, abuse towards star players, no.
- Status
Open ice hits, yes. Nasty, dirty, physical play, abuse towards star players, no.
As someone who devoured hockey in huge portions in the late nineties, and as one of that era Avs supporters, I feel fit to provide some info on how things looked back then.
There are myths circulating about everyone, you and me included. The biggest myth about Forsberg is his unselfishness. Peter bull****ted himself into believing his shot sucked, which in itself was very selfish, and thus he fully devoted himself to the type of game which became his trademark; keeping the puck until he saw the open road to pass to someone who then had to finish things off.
In retrospect, the most offending about it all I find the tripe of how he made his teammates better and how his unselfishness nurtured his linebabies.
He was as dependent, if not more, on his linemates, as his linemates were on him. If you play with this sort of playmaking center, you‘d better be pretty good at playing without a puck which is a sort of skill in itself. Also you have to be blessed with enough of foresight to anticipate what exactly is the insecure yet egomaniacal puck-hug gonna do, and when. It‘s absolutely no coincidence that both Peter and Joe enjoyed their arguably most successful seasons with Hejduk and Tanguay on the wings as those two were fine and clever wingers, something the Avs lacked in the nineties.
No offence to Lemieux, Deadmarsh, Kamensky and that other guy, Jones (was it?), but there was no way, especially for someone like Peter, to look at Art and think, „I may as well win this one this year”--unless he had better guys scoring for him, or unless he decided to shoot more regularly--which he never did. That moves us further.
Another huge myth about Peter is that he was not that good of a goal scorer. He, in fact, was a great scorer blessed with an accurate wrister which was cutting enough to help him score at least forty at his best. What made him truly intimidating-- when resolved to finish it off himself-- was his ability to improvise. He would score from situations most guys would not even think about getting anything out of. That‘s the reason maybe as much as half of his goals were highlight reel worthy. And the true reason behind his unselfishness?
I believe this was his stance and position of comfort -- if I leave the scoring to someone else, I‘m not expected to score, I‘m the assist guy. On the other hand, I can only surprise, which I will, because deep inside I know I can score a plenty. I would just hate to be expected scoring a lot of, that‘s all.
He was a good, good yet ridiculously unproductive scorer.
This explains why he got so good in the play-offs. It was either now or never. He really left his insecurities behind and started to play to his full potential. And boy, was he good, once he started shooting and using his skill to get into positions to shoot. Ask the Red Wings or the Stars fans. He was terrorizing these teams in the play-offs year in year out. The only way to stop him being a dirty play. Or ask the Oilers from 98 who somehow managed to sneak past the Avs although Forsberg was perhaps at his absolute best, scoring five goals and adding six assists in seven games in two out of which, the Avs were shut down. Which takes us to another myth. And another myth I‘ll avoid.
The third myth about Forsberg is that he was good in the play-offs. He, in fact, was great in the play-offs. It was absolutely not his fault the Avs got only two cups in their heyday. If you looked for the only guy responsible for that, you‘d find the need to tackle the man much less deserving of his praise than Peter. And since this place is full of folks who spray their shorts with maple syrup at night, I won‘t really go into that. I‘ll give you a hint though: Vernon, Osgood, Belfour, Hasek, the wrong pills.
Forsberg was not only great in the play-offs though. In the late nineties, he usually had a hot start. So did Joe. In both 95/96 and 96/97 seasons, Sakic and Forsberg were the scoring leaders for a while. In the 96/97 one, they were leading the league in points as late as 25 games in, with 40 each (if memory serves me well). This equity of points between them often puzzled me. As if they‘d had some kind of deal.
Anyway, after a hot start, Peter would slow down. [MOD]
Not that he would be a complete loser amidst the year. He just didn‘t have the lasting effect of Lemieux or Jagr, and sometimes even others, that‘s all. Throughout most years, little annoying injuries started popping up and as Peter slipped down the scoring race, they seemed to be more frequent.
Now to the „best player in the world--by how many and for how long, etc.”
You have to understand the late nineties meant a crazy situation for the league. The NHL was ruled by Euros.
Canada had its pets. Lindros, who had been hyped up so much he was predestined to fail, and Kariya, who was said to have been the most skilled player since Gretzky...
Not one of those two really dominated. In fact, the league situation was as crazy as dominated by two Czechs. Hasek and Jagr.
No offence to either. They, Jagr especially, were popular and great. But... If you‘re running a business like the NHL, you don‘t want its coverboys to be a bunch of schmucks from a ten-million country in the middle of nowhere. We all know how delicate hockey is to Canadiens. And how pesky they can be about it.
While there was no denying Hasek was the best, at his best, at least you could question Jagr. You could‘ve speculated how he would have fared in the West, you could‘ve whined about his defensive play, or you could remember Lemieux who dominated even more (and who retired for the fear he would be the second best on his team, since Jagr was the better if less productive player in 96/97, who invented the „Alex Kovalev the most skilled player I ever played with” myth only to tease the Czech guy and who then came back to help Jaromir when Jags was sloshing through the jam).
The tacit collusion was „OK, the best goalie is Czech, let‘s liberate the best forward title” -- for anyone to invent their pet.
And so by the start of every season, the best forward and the biggest favorite for Art Ross in Canada was Eric Lindros (if healthy), in Sweden, the same was agitated about Forsberg, in Russia, they probably said the same about Bure, in the Czech Republic, they moaned about Jagr, and had Finnish been easier to comprehend and not sounding too much like Japanese freezing their butt, we would have probably understood that „mijahaarvi ekuleino Teemu Selanne” meant something like „the best forward in the world, Teemu Selanne”.
The fact that Jagr always ended up winning it, well, it went ignored.
I remember this Swedish hockey magazine called „Pro Hockey”. For about two years, the editorial kept writing about Foppa the best player in the world as if it was the national consensus. Until one day, some pissed off kid named Mark or whatever wrote a letter that went along the lines of: who are you kidding? Have you heard of Jagr? Peter is so far behind every year it‘s scary. Yeah, he usually plays well for Sweden, but Sundin is still better. Please, stop it!”
The response? Quite a meditation. About how comparing Jagr and Forsberg was like comparing Saab and Volvo--and each of the two had their upsides... They never bothered to explain why they themselves were so taken with Volvo (or whatever Foppa was).
So there.
Yeah, there were people, even among players, who considered Forsberg the best player in the league. I remember myself being one of them (I couldn‘t stand Jagr), Bourque, Koivu, Stevens and maybe Smyth saying something like that, too. On the other hand, the opinions, when it comes to sports, usually stem from immediate impressions and a lot of bias. And when based on remembering and stats, they tend to have even lesser value.
I totally smile about the insecurity of people responding to Stevens saying how Forsberg was the best he ever faced. Like: „he must‘ve forgotten playing against Mario and Gretz!” You know, the Canadian answer.
Why could he not consider Forsberg better than Mario and Wayne? Because of statistical evidence and what you cook of it to have the best ever dilemma solved once for all?
It‘s numbers. And those huge number collectors, especially among athletes, are egomaniacs. Not neccessarily the best ones. And no matter what the numbers say, not to everyone. There will always be someone suggesting that Stastny could have been as good or even better than Gretzky, had he played for Edmonton. You can‘t prevent that.
Have pirouettes become a measured part of the game and see how many guys go from scoring and/or hitting people to just spinning there.
To me, there are no sacred cows. I‘m one of the people who watched a load of hockey then, so I‘ll say, Jagr was better than Mario in 96/97--if you disagree, waving the 122 point card in your hand, I‘ll advise you to travel back in time and watch the Pens games that year. 96/97 for Lemieux was what 93/94 was for Gretzky. The difference being, Gretzky was still depending on himself while Lemieux in 96/97 needed Jagr to produce. That‘s why he quit. He even said he didn‘t want his family see him not as good as he once had been. Read between the lines.
I‘ll also say that Peter is not getting overrated. Just misremembered.
There are myths circulating about everyone, you and me included. The biggest myth about Forsberg is his unselfishness. Peter bull****ted himself into believing his shot sucked, which in itself was very selfish, and thus he fully devoted himself to the type of game which became his trademark; keeping the puck until he saw the open road to pass to someone who then had to finish things off.
In retrospect, the most offending about it all I find the tripe of how he made his teammates better and how his unselfishness nurtured his linebabies.
He was as dependent, if not more, on his linemates, as his linemates were on him. If you play with this sort of playmaking center, you‘d better be pretty good at playing without a puck which is a sort of skill in itself. Also you have to be blessed with enough of foresight to anticipate what exactly is the insecure yet egomaniacal puck-hug gonna do, and when. It‘s absolutely no coincidence that both Peter and Joe enjoyed their arguably most successful seasons with Hejduk and Tanguay on the wings as those two were fine and clever wingers, something the Avs lacked in the nineties.
No offence to Lemieux, Deadmarsh, Kamensky and that other guy, Jones (was it?), but there was no way, especially for someone like Peter, to look at Art and think, „I may as well win this one this year”--unless he had better guys scoring for him, or unless he decided to shoot more regularly--which he never did. That moves us further.
Another huge myth about Peter is that he was not that good of a goal scorer. He, in fact, was a great scorer blessed with an accurate wrister which was cutting enough to help him score at least forty at his best. What made him truly intimidating-- when resolved to finish it off himself-- was his ability to improvise. He would score from situations most guys would not even think about getting anything out of. That‘s the reason maybe as much as half of his goals were highlight reel worthy. And the true reason behind his unselfishness?
I believe this was his stance and position of comfort -- if I leave the scoring to someone else, I‘m not expected to score, I‘m the assist guy. On the other hand, I can only surprise, which I will, because deep inside I know I can score a plenty. I would just hate to be expected scoring a lot of, that‘s all.
He was a good, good yet ridiculously unproductive scorer.
This explains why he got so good in the play-offs. It was either now or never. He really left his insecurities behind and started to play to his full potential. And boy, was he good, once he started shooting and using his skill to get into positions to shoot. Ask the Red Wings or the Stars fans. He was terrorizing these teams in the play-offs year in year out. The only way to stop him being a dirty play. Or ask the Oilers from 98 who somehow managed to sneak past the Avs although Forsberg was perhaps at his absolute best, scoring five goals and adding six assists in seven games in two out of which, the Avs were shut down. Which takes us to another myth. And another myth I‘ll avoid.
The third myth about Forsberg is that he was good in the play-offs. He, in fact, was great in the play-offs. It was absolutely not his fault the Avs got only two cups in their heyday. If you looked for the only guy responsible for that, you‘d find the need to tackle the man much less deserving of his praise than Peter. And since this place is full of folks who spray their shorts with maple syrup at night, I won‘t really go into that. I‘ll give you a hint though: Vernon, Osgood, Belfour, Hasek, the wrong pills.
Forsberg was not only great in the play-offs though. In the late nineties, he usually had a hot start. So did Joe. In both 95/96 and 96/97 seasons, Sakic and Forsberg were the scoring leaders for a while. In the 96/97 one, they were leading the league in points as late as 25 games in, with 40 each (if memory serves me well). This equity of points between them often puzzled me. As if they‘d had some kind of deal.
Anyway, after a hot start, Peter would slow down. [MOD]
Not that he would be a complete loser amidst the year. He just didn‘t have the lasting effect of Lemieux or Jagr, and sometimes even others, that‘s all. Throughout most years, little annoying injuries started popping up and as Peter slipped down the scoring race, they seemed to be more frequent.
Now to the „best player in the world--by how many and for how long, etc.”
You have to understand the late nineties meant a crazy situation for the league. The NHL was ruled by Euros.
Canada had its pets. Lindros, who had been hyped up so much he was predestined to fail, and Kariya, who was said to have been the most skilled player since Gretzky...
Not one of those two really dominated. In fact, the league situation was as crazy as dominated by two Czechs. Hasek and Jagr.
No offence to either. They, Jagr especially, were popular and great. But... If you‘re running a business like the NHL, you don‘t want its coverboys to be a bunch of schmucks from a ten-million country in the middle of nowhere. We all know how delicate hockey is to Canadiens. And how pesky they can be about it.
While there was no denying Hasek was the best, at his best, at least you could question Jagr. You could‘ve speculated how he would have fared in the West, you could‘ve whined about his defensive play, or you could remember Lemieux who dominated even more (and who retired for the fear he would be the second best on his team, since Jagr was the better if less productive player in 96/97, who invented the „Alex Kovalev the most skilled player I ever played with” myth only to tease the Czech guy and who then came back to help Jaromir when Jags was sloshing through the jam).
The tacit collusion was „OK, the best goalie is Czech, let‘s liberate the best forward title” -- for anyone to invent their pet.
And so by the start of every season, the best forward and the biggest favorite for Art Ross in Canada was Eric Lindros (if healthy), in Sweden, the same was agitated about Forsberg, in Russia, they probably said the same about Bure, in the Czech Republic, they moaned about Jagr, and had Finnish been easier to comprehend and not sounding too much like Japanese freezing their butt, we would have probably understood that „mijahaarvi ekuleino Teemu Selanne” meant something like „the best forward in the world, Teemu Selanne”.
The fact that Jagr always ended up winning it, well, it went ignored.
I remember this Swedish hockey magazine called „Pro Hockey”. For about two years, the editorial kept writing about Foppa the best player in the world as if it was the national consensus. Until one day, some pissed off kid named Mark or whatever wrote a letter that went along the lines of: who are you kidding? Have you heard of Jagr? Peter is so far behind every year it‘s scary. Yeah, he usually plays well for Sweden, but Sundin is still better. Please, stop it!”
The response? Quite a meditation. About how comparing Jagr and Forsberg was like comparing Saab and Volvo--and each of the two had their upsides... They never bothered to explain why they themselves were so taken with Volvo (or whatever Foppa was).
So there.
Yeah, there were people, even among players, who considered Forsberg the best player in the league. I remember myself being one of them (I couldn‘t stand Jagr), Bourque, Koivu, Stevens and maybe Smyth saying something like that, too. On the other hand, the opinions, when it comes to sports, usually stem from immediate impressions and a lot of bias. And when based on remembering and stats, they tend to have even lesser value.
I totally smile about the insecurity of people responding to Stevens saying how Forsberg was the best he ever faced. Like: „he must‘ve forgotten playing against Mario and Gretz!” You know, the Canadian answer.
Why could he not consider Forsberg better than Mario and Wayne? Because of statistical evidence and what you cook of it to have the best ever dilemma solved once for all?
It‘s numbers. And those huge number collectors, especially among athletes, are egomaniacs. Not neccessarily the best ones. And no matter what the numbers say, not to everyone. There will always be someone suggesting that Stastny could have been as good or even better than Gretzky, had he played for Edmonton. You can‘t prevent that.
Have pirouettes become a measured part of the game and see how many guys go from scoring and/or hitting people to just spinning there.
To me, there are no sacred cows. I‘m one of the people who watched a load of hockey then, so I‘ll say, Jagr was better than Mario in 96/97--if you disagree, waving the 122 point card in your hand, I‘ll advise you to travel back in time and watch the Pens games that year. 96/97 for Lemieux was what 93/94 was for Gretzky. The difference being, Gretzky was still depending on himself while Lemieux in 96/97 needed Jagr to produce. That‘s why he quit. He even said he didn‘t want his family see him not as good as he once had been. Read between the lines.
I‘ll also say that Peter is not getting overrated. Just misremembered.
Last edited by a moderator:
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
Vitkovice, that post made my morning. A little harsh on Mario Lemieux, but after reading all of that, I think I can skip coffee.
MXD
Original #4
- Oct 27, 2005
- 50,840
- 16,583
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
Does anyone else think this 22-word sentence says nothing at all? It just seems like word soup. Circular.
Anyway....
JetsAlternate, do you think Bure was better?
Next question, what do you think of his ranking on the HOH top centers list? Is that too high for him? That list is based on a ton of research and is the composite of opinions of people who loved, hated and were indifferent to Forsberg.
Sentinel
Registered User
Sentinel
Registered User
On the subject: Forsberg was a great player. Elite in every respect. Yet a clear step behind Jagr offensively and behind four elite 90s centers in two-way play.
MXD
Original #4
- Oct 27, 2005
- 50,840
- 16,583
I think the OP missed the part about the whole "backlash against Forsberg" is mostly passé by now... At least here. I mean, he acknowledged that Forsberg's positions in the HOH all-players list were okay.
The sentence you quoted was indeed a beautiful example of "word stew", though. Forsberg placement on the Centers list would probably rank him in the lo-50, hi-60 range, and the only thing I'll say about the inaccuracy of the Centers list is due to Crosby continuing to play hockey. Romanticization ? I'll look at two contemporaries of Forsberg for that. And yes, that romanticization contaminated one of the HOH positionnal list.
[MOD]
Last edited by a moderator:
MXD
Original #4
- Oct 27, 2005
- 50,840
- 16,583
To expand on what I said earlier...
My rough take on positionnal equivalencies. This is a VERY rough take :
Forsberg finished 20th in the Centers project. As of today, we can assert, quite safely, that 21st would be a more appropriate rank, due to Crosby passing him. The only other players who added to their resume since the project and who were reasonably close (+- 25 spots) are Joe Thornton and Evgeni Malkin, and I don't think anyone would seriously argue that they passed Forsberg along the way. So, that's 21
As for goaltender, it's very, very touchy, so I'll suggest Frank Brimsek, 9th, as a positionnal equivalent (and will thus completely avoid tackling the subject of Tretiak, who finished 8th). So, that's 9.
As for D-Men... I figure Al MacInnis is a good parallel. That's really not scientific, I just took the first player about whom I cannot say at all that I'd rank Forsberg definitely below, and, if I dare say, anyone between Coffey and Horton are a bit of a wash to me (I have preferences but wouldn't considering invalid an opinion that, say, Horton should be ahead of Seibert, even if I firmly think otherwise). Nobody in close range added (that includes then-active Pronger). I don't know what to do with Chara, but let's take for granted that he didn't pass MacInnis. So, that's 18.
As for Wingers, the parallel between Moore and Forsberg is just too easy, but I think, for the sake of our current purpose, that Teemu Selanne could be a decent equivalent, even if they were completely, but completely different players. That's 15.
Now, let's assume Forsberg is worse than all those players (again, let's keep it real dumb), that he's the 21st Center by virtue of being passed by Crosby, and that Zdeno Chara did not pass Al MacInnis since 2011.
That's 21 + 9 + 18 + 15 = 63rd, with the assumption that he's a worst player than MacInnis, Brimsek and Selanne.
Conclusion of this very un-scientific process? I just think the OP's message was posted on the wrong board if he was indeed criticizing how Forsberg is perceived HERE. But this part of HFBoards isn't only the regulars of the HOH lists, and I think he raised a valid fact about Forsberg being extremely overrated in the general public. I also think that many people who are interested in hockey history are (painfully) aware of that overratedness.
My rough take on positionnal equivalencies. This is a VERY rough take :
Forsberg finished 20th in the Centers project. As of today, we can assert, quite safely, that 21st would be a more appropriate rank, due to Crosby passing him. The only other players who added to their resume since the project and who were reasonably close (+- 25 spots) are Joe Thornton and Evgeni Malkin, and I don't think anyone would seriously argue that they passed Forsberg along the way. So, that's 21
As for goaltender, it's very, very touchy, so I'll suggest Frank Brimsek, 9th, as a positionnal equivalent (and will thus completely avoid tackling the subject of Tretiak, who finished 8th). So, that's 9.
As for D-Men... I figure Al MacInnis is a good parallel. That's really not scientific, I just took the first player about whom I cannot say at all that I'd rank Forsberg definitely below, and, if I dare say, anyone between Coffey and Horton are a bit of a wash to me (I have preferences but wouldn't considering invalid an opinion that, say, Horton should be ahead of Seibert, even if I firmly think otherwise). Nobody in close range added (that includes then-active Pronger). I don't know what to do with Chara, but let's take for granted that he didn't pass MacInnis. So, that's 18.
As for Wingers, the parallel between Moore and Forsberg is just too easy, but I think, for the sake of our current purpose, that Teemu Selanne could be a decent equivalent, even if they were completely, but completely different players. That's 15.
Now, let's assume Forsberg is worse than all those players (again, let's keep it real dumb), that he's the 21st Center by virtue of being passed by Crosby, and that Zdeno Chara did not pass Al MacInnis since 2011.
That's 21 + 9 + 18 + 15 = 63rd, with the assumption that he's a worst player than MacInnis, Brimsek and Selanne.
Conclusion of this very un-scientific process? I just think the OP's message was posted on the wrong board if he was indeed criticizing how Forsberg is perceived HERE. But this part of HFBoards isn't only the regulars of the HOH lists, and I think he raised a valid fact about Forsberg being extremely overrated in the general public. I also think that many people who are interested in hockey history are (painfully) aware of that overratedness.
Last edited:
Question needs to be asked-If many of you consider Forsberg that good.Then who was the better player on Colorado-Joe Sakic or Peter Forsberg excluding goalie
PavelBrendl
Registered User
- Jul 9, 2013
- 2,045
- 4,055
Wow, there's a lot of overly-academic garbage in this thread. All you would have needed to do to know how good he was, was just watch him play. He might not have scored as many points as Jagr, Gretzky or Lemieux, but his presence was just as monumental. He was defensively sound - much more than any other top scorer, payed with more grit and threw bigger hits than any other top scorer, and could protect the puck like nobody else. It's more than just numbers. That's why Scott Stevens (who incidentally, was another player whose greatness went far beyon his stats) said he was the toughest player to play against.
MXD
Original #4
- Oct 27, 2005
- 50,840
- 16,583
Speaking of garbage, implying that some people posting here didnt see Forsberg play fits the bill. We aren't talking about Charlie Conacher...
PavelBrendl
Registered User
- Jul 9, 2013
- 2,045
- 4,055
I was just stating that because most of his detractors (especially the OP) were simply citing stats and regurgitating quotes from random things they read. I'm not saying that people didn't watch him, what I'm saying is that there's a lot more to it than numbers, but that's all some people want to discuss.
Johnny Engine
Moderator
- Jul 29, 2009
- 4,983
- 2,365
The Argument, part 1:
Person 1: I saw Forsberg play, and he was the best ever!
Person 2: I saw him play too, and he was great, but not the best ever!
...
(both glare at each other silently)
-----
The stats and contemporary quotations come after that argument, which, as you've noticed, didn't solve anything.
PavelBrendl
Registered User
- Jul 9, 2013
- 2,045
- 4,055
Because having a works cited page only means you're just as full of **** as those who had their opinion published before you
MXD
Original #4
- Oct 27, 2005
- 50,840
- 16,583
Oh.... Makes more sense in its context.
TBH, the exact contrary is more frequent : ranking Forsberg very high because, well, they haven't see prior players in their prime and cannot reconcile with the idea that the game wasn't invented when Bure crossed the pond. Or something to that effect.
Morgoth Bauglir
Master Of The Fates Of Arda
Hmmmmm, this thread is in the History of Hockey section, no? This IS the academic section of the board and rightly so. Nothing wrong with an academic outlook: The world could use more of it, in fact.
PavelBrendl
Registered User
- Jul 9, 2013
- 2,045
- 4,055
Peter had some seasons when he was the beast, the warrior, the carrier, the pacesetter, the conductor, the setupman and the complete package. There's no reason to deny that or downplay that, except if you have an agenda. I have said it before and will repeat 'til people bleed from their ears: Peter was one of few players who made a crowd go "ohhhhh" and "ahhhhh" when controlling the puck or raising from their seats when he started skating with the puck. That's a feat very few players have managed.
Excluding Forsbergs two first seasons, when both played, Forsbergs line was the one that drew the other teams best shut down players. Forsberg was the better player when both played. Altough Sakics health (or Forsbergs lack of it, if u prefer...) obviously has him far ahead in the career department.
Sakics 96 playoff is the best any of the two played, but outside that Forsberg also was the better PO-perfomer. Both are of course among the greatest of their eras. But both Roy and Sakic dissapointed more often in PO:s. Some series Forsberg didn´t lit up the scoreboard, but he was always a threat making the other fautige. The kind of player that changed the dynamics when he stepped on the ice.
Only series as an Avs I saw Forsberg really be taken down was the conference semi-final against the Sharks. Scott Hannan was allowed to constantly abuse Forsberg there more than any I´ve really seen any other player be allowed to abuse another player. It was really sickening to see. And I love the DPE more than most, but that was just ridicilous. Before the 0-1 loss to the Sharks Forsberg had points 13 straight PO games. The last four games against the Sharks he had 1 assist.
Of course cred to Sakic there. But even with Sakic scoring 2 GWG in OT Forsberg was still the Sharks biggest concerne and the one who continued to get there greatest attention. Reminds me of another great 1-2 punch when Crosby still got the greatest attention against Detroit in 09, even if he only scored 3 points while Malkin scored 8 in that series.
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
There was a five-year chunk of time (2001-2005) where between the regular season and the playoffs, Peter Forsberg's per-82 GP statline was 32 G, 82 A, 114 PTS, +42. On the ice, Forsberg was better at his peak, but Sakic was on the ice more often than Forsberg, which is why he had three 1st Team selections during this window to Forsberg's one (with Forsberg having two other selections in 1998 and 1999).
Forsberg played better hockey, but Sakic was there for more hockey, so the answer is Sakic.
I'll take Foppa as the better player during their overlapping time in Colorado, although Sakic was indeed healthier.
http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=points
http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=points
- Status
Ad
Upcoming events
-
-
-
BET ON ONLY ONE HORSE WATCH LIVE - FINGER LAKES RACE 1 - Farmington, NYWagers: 4Staked: $815.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-