Adjusted Points

[TheDevilMadeMe]

See, why is it one of the best seasons in history. I'll see if you can guess, I think you can.

1. Mario Lemieux*-PIT 199
2. Wayne Gretzky*-LAK 168
3. Steve Yzerman*-DET 155
4. Bernie Nicholls-LAK 150
5. Rob Brown-PIT 115
6. Paul Coffey*-PIT 113
7. Joe Mullen*-CGY 110
8. Jari Kurri*-EDM 102

It's one of the best seasons in history, because look at how much Yzerman, with very little help, blew away the competition other than superfreaks Gretzky, Lemieux, and their teammates.

Markus Naslund was almost as good offensively as Forsberg? For his three peak seasons when he played on the best line in hockey I guess he almost was. I guess that makes Joe Sakic barely better offensively than Alexie Yashin.

2002-03:

1. Peter Forsberg-COL 106
2. Markus Naslund-VAN 104
3. Joe Thornton-BOS 101
4. Milan Hejduk-COL 98
5. Todd Bertuzzi-VAN 97

If Forsberg beats Yzerman's 1989, then I guess so do Naslund and Thornton. Hejduk and Bertuzzi are right up there, too.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Whether adjusted stats are flawed or not, and they are a bit without a doubt, THEY ARE UNARGUABLY closer to the truth than raw stats. So you, and everyone else quit posting raw stats as 'gospel'.

Raw stats actually happened.

Adjusted stats are simply a rough around the edges attempt to compare players across different league scoring levels. Nothing more, and certainly not closer to the truth than what actually happened.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

Raw stats actually happened.

Adjusted stats are simply a rough around the edges attempt to compare players across different league scoring levels. Nothing more, and certainly not closer to the truth than what actually happened.

Umm, for comparing players from different era's yes they are closer to the truth than raw stats, how the heck wouldn't they be?

Infact, I'd be flattered to see anyone argue what I just said.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

1. Mario Lemieux*-PIT 199
2. Wayne Gretzky*-LAK 168
3. Steve Yzerman*-DET 155
4. Bernie Nicholls-LAK 150
5. Rob Brown-PIT 115
6. Paul Coffey*-PIT 113
7. Joe Mullen*-CGY 110
8. Jari Kurri*-EDM 102

It's one of the best seasons in history, because look at how much Yzerman, with very little help, blew away the competition other than superfreaks Gretzky, Lemieux, and their teammates.



2002-03:

1. Peter Forsberg-COL 106
2. Markus Naslund-VAN 104
3. Joe Thornton-BOS 101
4. Milan Hejduk-COL 98
5. Todd Bertuzzi-VAN 97

If Forsberg beats Yzerman's 1989, then I guess so do Naslund and Thornton. Hejduk and Bertuzzi are right up there, too.

Forsberg missed 7 games that year. I said In a FULL peak season. He went on to continue that pace the next year despite scoring going down again.

You answered my question incorrectly, but I know you're thinking it. It's because of... wait for it... wait for it... the raw point total which is the highest ever besides Gretzky and Lemieux's, that Yzerman's 88-89 season is seen more as one of the greatest ever. Powerplays went up that year, and Yzerman was the only go to guy for Detroit on the powerplay. On top of that he had an exceptional year, and was the best offensive player that year other than Gretzky and Lemieux without a doubt. I love Yzerman but he get's slightly overrated due to this season IMO.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Umm, for comparing players from different era's yes they are closer to the truth than adjusted stats, how the heck wouldn't they be?

They may or may not more accurately reflect the offensive value of a player. This is depending on how much the other million variables that are ignored totally by adjusted stats were actually in play.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Forsberg missed 7 games that year. I said In a FULL peak season. He went on to continue that pace the next year despite scoring going down again.

You answered my question incorrectly, but I know you're thinking it. It's because of... wait for it... wait for it... the raw point total which is the highest ever besides Gretzky and Lemieux's, that Yzmerman's 88-89 season is seen more as one of the greatest ever. Powerplays went up that year, and Yzerman was the only go to guy for Detroit on the powerplay. On top of that he had an exceptional year, and was the best offensive player that year other than Gretzky and Lemieux without a doubt. For a while he was actually.

I think you're just trolling now but I'll bite. TDMM just indicated again to you why you're way off base with your Forsberg homerism.

I'll try another way.

Anyone that saw that season by Yzerman. Or the seasons by Gretzky and Lemieux that were 150+ points.. and saw Forsbergs career can objectively tell you:

No matter what point system you're using, Forsberg was never as good offensively as those players were during those years.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

I think you're just trolling now but I'll bite. TDMM just indicated again to you why you're way off base with your Forsberg homerism.I'll try another way.

Anyone that saw that season by Yzerman. Or the seasons by Gretzky and Lemieux that were 150+ points.. and saw Forsbergs career can objectively tell you:

No matter what point system you're using, Forsberg was never as good offensively as those players were during those years.

Really that's funny you think that I'm trolling. Then I just indicated why I wasn't way off base with my Forsberg homerism. I also think it's funny how everyone from the higher scoring eras are the better offensive players and nothing can be done to change your minds. I don't often get into debates, because people are too daft and refuse to investigate, but would rather live in their simulated dream world's where everything now, is worse than it was.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

Czech your math knows his stuff. I'm just going to throw that out there.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Really that's funny you think that I'm trolling. Then I just indicated why I wasn't way off base with my Forsberg homerism. I also think it's funny how everyone from the higher scoring eras are the better offensive players and nothing can be done to change your minds. I don't often get into debates, because people are too daft and refuse to investigate, but would rather live in their simulated dream world's where everything now, is worse than it was.

Who the hell says that? There's a reason that most people here use "top 10, top 20 finishes" rather than raw point totals when comparing players across eras.

(Though there is a little something to be said for the fact that 80s players were coached to play pure offense, rather than focus more on two-way play).

 

[Infinite Vision*]

Who the hell says that? There's a reason that most people here use "top 10, top 20 finishes" rather than raw point totals when comparing players across eras.

(Though there is a little something to be said for the fact that 80s players were coached to play pure offense, rather than focus more on two-way play).

It just comes across that way. Yes I know what you guys use to compare I read the history boards a lot, but still, there is definite bias towards older players.

Then again, this is all about the 'History' of hockey and legends do grow overtime, so it's to be expected I guess.

There is also slight European bias as well, but that might go hand in hand with the fact that they haven't been in the NHL nearly as long as it's been around which would place them in the category of 'new' era players.

Both of these factors, Nordic, and tons of people on the main boards pimping Forsberg as the greatest player of all-time I would guess leads to the underrating of Forsberg.

That's just my opinion though!

 

[BraveCanadian]

Then again, this is all about the 'History' of hockey and legends do grow overtime, so it's to be expected I guess.

Yeah, Peter Forsberg is a perfect example of this..

Seriously, its like a monthly debate around here.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

Yeah, Peter Forsberg is a perfect example of this..

Seriously, its like a monthly debate around here.

No he's not a perfect example of this or he would be rated higher than 60 something all time. I'm sorry, but short career or not, there has not, and almost will not be 60 players better than him. The reason I post so much about him is not even so much that I'm a 'Forsberg homer' per say (he's my favourite player of all-time other than Mario), but rather the fact that I genuinely consider him to be severely underrated. I mean, his offensive stats, adjusted stats, what have you are one thing. This guy was also a physical, defensive, playoff beast. You guys just don't want to believe things that interfere with your initial impressions overtime. Like when overpass thankfully proved to all of you the 'Sakic got the tougher competition' arguement as to why Forsberg had way better +/- in the regular season, and playoffs, was really just wrong. You guys can't argue with that one though luckily cause it happened during the same time period on the same team. If it weren't for that, you guys would still be making up excuses to prove what you can't accept.

Am I really the only one in this section that think's he really should be higher on this list?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

No he's not a perfect example of this or he would be rated higher than 60 something all time. I'm sorry, but short career or not, there has not, and almost will not be 60 players better than him. The reason I post so much about him is not even so much that I'm a 'Forsberg homer' per say (he's my favourite player of all-time other than Mario), but rather the fact that I genuinely consider him to be severely underrated. I mean, his offensive stats, adjusted stats, what have you are one thing. This guy was also a physical, defensive, playoff beast. You guys just don't want to believe things that interfere with your initial impressions overtime. Like when overpass thankfully proved to all of you the 'Sakic got the tougher competition' arguement as to why Forsberg had way better +/- in the regular season, and playoffs, was really just wrong. You guys can't argue with that one though luckily cause it happened during the same time period on the same team. If it weren't for that, you guys would still be making up excuses to prove what you can't accept.

Am I really the only one in this section that think's he really should be higher on this list?

Overpass partially proved the "Sakic faced better competition" thing wrong. Those of us who said Sakic faced better competition remembered their later years with the Avs (basically around the time of the 2001 Cup), when this was, in fact true. Overpass showed that it was not true, however, earlier in their careers (such as around the time of the 1996 Cup).

If you think Forsberg should be higher than he is on the Top 100 list, then start naming players above him that he is better than.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

Overpass partially proved the "Sakic faced better competition" thing wrong. Those of us who said Sakic faced better competition remembered their later years with the Avs (basically around the time of the 2001 Cup), when this was, in fact true. Overpass showed that it was not true, however, earlier in their careers (such as around the time of the 1996 Cup).

If you think Forsberg should be higher than he is on the Top 100 list, then start naming players above him that he is better than.

No he didn't partially prove it wrong. He completely and utterly proved most of this boards entire theory wrong I'm sorry there's no way around it. I'll come back with a list later if you really want me to.

 

[Rhiessan71]

No he's not a perfect example of this or he would be rated higher than 60 something all time. I'm sorry, but short career or not, there has not, and almost will not be 60 players better than him. The reason I post so much about him is not even so much that I'm a 'Forsberg homer' per say (he's my favourite player of all-time other than Mario), but rather the fact that I genuinely consider him to be severely underrated. I mean, his offensive stats, adjusted stats, what have you are one thing. This guy was also a physical, defensive, playoff beast. You guys just don't want to believe things that interfere with your initial impressions overtime. Like when overpass thankfully proved to all of you the 'Sakic got the tougher competition' arguement as to why Forsberg had way better +/- in the regular season, and playoffs, was really just wrong. You guys can't argue with that one though luckily cause it happened during the same time period on the same team. If it weren't for that, you guys would still be making up excuses to prove what you can't accept.

Am I really the only one in this section that think's he really should be higher on this list?

Dude...no one underrates Forsberg and if his career was longer he would prolly make further it up the all time list quite easily.

The things you really, truly need to comprehend about why a lot of us do not believe he would of cracked 150+ points is two fold.

First, goals....Forsberg quite simply was not as prolific a goal scorer as would be needed to achieve such numbers. Yzerman for example scored more goals (35) at the age of 35 well past his prime on bad knee's than Forsberg could manage (30) in any year of his career.

Second, assists...this is summed up pretty quickly in saying Adam Oates couldn't even break the 100 assist mark in a much higher scoring era and you're not going to find many people who would rank Forsberg above Oates in passing and playmaking skills.

Like I have said before, at some point common sense has to take over.

 

[Derick*]

I just ran the numbers through my 3rd-18th system for the 1989 and 2003 seasons, and Yzerman still comes out on top

 

[Infinite Vision*]

Dude...no one underrates Forsberg and if his career was longer he would prolly make further it up the all time list quite easily.

The things you really, truly need to comprehend about why a lot of us do not believe he would of cracked 150+ points is two fold.

First, goals....Forsberg quite simply was not as prolific a goal scorer as would be needed to achieve such numbers. Yzerman for example scored more goals (35) at the age of 35 well past his prime on bad knee's than Forsberg could manage (30) in any year of his career.

Second, assists...this is summed up pretty quickly in saying Adam Oates couldn't even break the 100 assist mark in a much higher scoring era and you're not going to find many people who would rank Forsberg above Oates in passing and playmaking skills.

Like I have said before, at some point common sense has to take over.

First of all don't talk to me about common sense. You're almost on my ignore list.

I'd hate to break it to you, but putting things in the proper context one should realize that Peter Forsberg was an overall better offensive player than Adam Oates, in his prime, and throughout his career as well. I'd love for people to argue otherwise but I have a feeling not many will.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

I just ran the numbers through my 3rd-18th system for the 1989 and 2003 seasons, and Yzerman still comes out on top

Well if Yzerman's on top now you must have found the right formula!

 

[Rhiessan71]

First of all don't talk to me about common sense. You're almost on my ignore list.

I'd hate to break it to you, but putting things in the proper context one should realize that Peter Forsberg was an overall better offensive player than Adam Oates, in his prime, and throughout his career as well. I'd love for people to argue otherwise but I have a feeling not many will.

Overall player maybe but purely on the offensive side of the game you'll find plenty of people to argue it, trust me.
Besides, all I was mentioning was playmaking/passing skills for Oates and the goalscoring abilities of Yzerman.
You still haven't explained how Forsberg was as good as both in those area's to achieve the 150 points you speak of.

Prolly the biggest question I have is this....are you honestly trying to say Forsberg was as good or better than Yzerman? Seriously???

 

[Rhiessan71]

Tell ya what, I'll even remove Oates from the discussion just to avoid arguments.

Lets go with Mario instead, obviously one of the two best offensive players period.
Even he only broke 100 assists once.

Sorry dude but any way you cut it, Forsberg ends up in the 130 point range, 35-40 goals and 90ish assists.

Forsberg's greatest asset was his strength and power that allowed him to break through checks and create open space for himself.
Taking him back into the 80's where he wouldn't of had to fight as hard for that same space doesn't mean he would racked up that many more points.
I have no doubt it would of extended his career but that many more points....naw.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Tell ya what, I'll even remove Oates from the discussion just to avoid arguments.

Lets go with Mario instead, obviously one of the two best offensive players period.
Even he only broke 100 assists once.

Say Forsberg tops off at 100 assists. He'd have to score 55-65 goals to hit 155-165 points. I just don't see it.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Say Forsberg tops off at 100 assists. He'd have to score 55-65 goals to hit 155-165 points. I just don't see it.

That pretty much sums it up, and that is what I was trying to convey earlier.

The "Forsberg as 160 point guy in the 80s" due to adjusted stats is another one of those cases where adjusted stats don't pass the reality test.

 

[Sens Rule]

Wow it is the day of Peter Forsberg Revisionist history with adjusted points. Cool.

No way is Forsberg going to get 150 or 160 points in any season. What made Forsberg great was beyond stats. He could control the game to a greater degree on both sides of the ice than other superstars with similar point totals but he was not some offensive dynamo. Jagr is a far superior offensive player for example, Yzerman too. To think Forsberg is going to score to that degree in the 80's is asinine. To argue adjusted points are more "real" than actual points is beyond asinine.

The debate reeks of those under 20 year old posters on the main board that think Goalies used to be so terrible and that Ovechkin or Crosby would score 100+ goals and 250 points if they played in the 1980's. Not really fodder for the History of Hockey boards.

Looking on Hockey-Reference Rod Brind'Amour has more adjusted goals than Mike Bossy. Interesting!

 

[Derick*]

Well if Yzerman's on top now you must have found the right formula!

I understand what you're saying, and that would be circular logic, yes. I wasn't trying to prove either side, though. I mentioned it because in past threads where these pro-80s guys were railing on adjusted points I recommend my alternative system, so I thought they would be pleased to hear that

 

[Derick*]

Wow it is the day of Peter Forsberg Revisionist history with adjusted points. Cool.

No way is Forsberg going to get 150 or 160 points in any season. What made Forsberg great was beyond stats. He could control the game to a greater degree on both sides of the ice than other superstars with similar point totals but he was not some offensive dynamo. Jagr is a far superior offensive player for example, Yzerman too. To think Forsberg is going to score to that degree in the 80's is asinine. To argue adjusted points are more "real" than actual points is beyond asinine.

The debate reeks of those under 20 year old posters on the main board that think Goalies used to be so terrible and that Ovechkin or Crosby would score 100+ goals and 250 points if they played in the 1980's. Not really fodder for the History of Hockey boards.

Looking on Hockey-Reference Rod Brind'Amour has more adjusted goals than Mike Bossy. Interesting!

Looking at unadjusted points, Ron Francis has more points than Mario Lemieux. Interesting!

Or does that not have anything to do with either points system and everything to do with one of them being in the league for twice as long?