SillyRabbit
Trix Are For Kids
- Jan 3, 2006
- 8,477
- 8,186
Forsberg was the bigger threat when they both played together, but Sakic had the greater career
Seems like the playmaker is highly underrated by the new generation. When I grew up the playmaker was viewed as the most important role on the team
Yet, you chose to ignore the fact that Forsberg had a higher GPG in the playoffs than a lit of your so called "more valuable" players
I think Ben White has a point about injuries hurting Forsberg's production, but the problem is in how it's being examined. HO has provided the data that shows BW's claim about scoring less in shortened seasons to be wrong, but the problem is that's a flawed way of trying to figure out is this is the case. I think BW knows this but has struggled to articulate it. The claim is that playing through injury and coming back from injury early hurt his numbers. This doesn't necessarily mean shortened seasons, as a player could play half the year get hurt for 10 games and come back injured and play the final 32 injured and it looks like he was healthy, or play 41 games healthy to start the year and then get injured and it looks like he played injured. I'm not sure how to best examine this. No doubt all players play through things throughout the year but Forsberg seemed particularly susceptible and I wouldn't be surprised if his numbers were a bit better if he didn't have as many nagging problems. I feel similarly about Lindros and Malkin. Of course one of the issues is it's hard to separate players with nagging injuries from their play, as it's often their style of play that causes them. Forsberg's degenerative foot problems were another issue entirely though
I think Ben White has a point about injuries hurting Forsberg's production, but the problem is in how it's being examined. HO has provided the data that shows BW's claim about scoring less in shortened seasons to be wrong, but the problem is that's a flawed way of trying to figure out is this is the case. I think BW knows this but has struggled to articulate it. The claim is that playing through injury and coming back from injury early hurt his numbers. This doesn't necessarily mean shortened seasons, as a player could play half the year get hurt for 10 games and come back injured and play the final 32 injured and it looks like he was healthy, or play 41 games healthy to start the year and then get injured and it looks like he played injured. I'm not sure how to best examine this. No doubt all players play through things throughout the year but Forsberg seemed particularly susceptible and I wouldn't be surprised if his numbers were a bit better if he didn't have as many nagging problems. I feel similarly about Lindros and Malkin. Of course one of the issues is it's hard to separate players with nagging injuries from their play, as it's often their style of play that causes them. Forsberg's degenerative foot problems were another issue entirely though
From 1996 to 2004, Sakic had four seasons under 70 games and another under 75. His PPG for those seasons is less than his PPG in his full seasons during that time period. Seems like this is somewhat of an irrelevant point to make only for Forsberg.
Maybe Forsberg, like Lindros, could have played a less physical game and stayed healthier but that may have affected his production.
The main point here Injuries should not open the door to hypothetical conjecture that raise the stature of a player over what they actually did on a per game basis.
IMO, their numbers, both raw points and their respective PPGs over that time period speak for themselves.
So to eliminate the uncertainty of their respective injury shortened seasons and trying to compare PPGs from different seasons, here are the PPGs for both players in seasons where they both played over 70 games:
1995/96 - Sakic - 1.46 (82 games), Forsberg - 1.41 (82 games)
1998/99 - Sakic - 1.31 (73 games), Forsberg - 1.24 (75 games)
2000/01 - Sakic - 1.44 (82 games), Forsberg - 1.22 (73 games)
So to eliminate the uncertainty of their respective injury shortened seasons and trying to compare PPGs from different seasons, here are the PPGs for both players in seasons where they both played over 70 games:
1995/96 - Sakic - 1.46 (82 games), Forsberg - 1.41 (82 games)
1998/99 - Sakic - 1.31 (73 games), Forsberg - 1.24 (75 games)
2000/01 - Sakic - 1.44 (82 games), Forsberg - 1.22 (73 games)
Seems like the playmaker is highly underrated by the new generation. When I grew up the playmaker was viewed as the most important role on the team
I'm really not sure what this comparison is trying to accomplish. First, games played and health are not one in the same. That was my main point. Second, which seasons they both remained healthy is completely arbitrary
Lol, ok, so Sakic happened to produce more in the exact seasons where they BOTH happened to play more than 70 games simultaneosly... was that ever a relevant aspect? I don't think we have much more to discuss if that's the level you're representing.