Evgeni Malkin vs Peter Forsberg

[K Fleur]

Another question that was interesting two years ago.

 

[Ben White]

Another question that was interesting two years ago.

I believe the question is "Who's the better player". Did Malkin peak during the last two years? Did he do anything else to prove that he's better at playing hockey than we already knew he was?

 

[KoozNetsOff 92]

I knew this was going to be way closer than it should. Forsberg could walk on water, right? Most overrated player on this forum.

Fedorov and Bure would give him a good run for that title.

 

[Regal]

I knew this was going to be way closer than it should. Forsberg could walk on water, right? Most overrated player on this forum.

Being better than Malkin means he can walk on water? There's a lot of Forsberg overrating (though not as much in recent years), but preferring him to Malkin is certainly not part of that. There's zero reason this shouldn't be close.

 

[daver]

Here's an excerpt of a post I wrote in June:

At this point, I think Malkin and Forsberg are quite comparable... Statistically they're very close. They're virtually even in games played (Forsberg ahead 708-706), and Forsberg has outscored Malkin by 53 points (6%). Their eras were, overall, roughly even in terms of levels of offense. Malkin finished 1-1-2 in scoring (never again in the top ten) while Forsberg was 1-2-4-5-9. I generally don't like per-game arguments, but both players were injured often, and have similar placings in PPG (1-1-2-4-5-6-6-9 for Forsberg, 1-2-2-3-3-4-7-8 for Malkin). It's remarkably close.

Both players spent most of their careers (or all, in the case of Malkin) sharing ice time with an even better center. I believe Forsberg generally got tougher matchups than Malkin.

Awards? Both were first-team all-stars three times (Malkin never really came close to making the year-end all-star team again, Forsberg had a year when he 3rd behind Lemieux and Gretzky). Both won a Hart, but Malkin was a runner-up twice (Forsberg never even again in the top five).

Playoffs? Pretty close. Yes, Malkin has an extra Cup and a Smythe. But both led the playoffs in scoring twice (and both have one more top five finish - 5th place for both of them). In two more games Forsberg has 14 extra points. Forsberg led his team in playoff scoring more often (6-4). Forsberg contributed a larger percentage of his team's offense but it's close (35% vs 34%).

Defensive play? Forsberg is clearly better.

As of today, I think Malkin and Forsberg should be nearly even in an all-time ranking. Malkin was probably a bit better at his very best (three years as a Hart finalist compared to one for Forsberg, and one truly historic playoff run). But he was also less consistent and lacked Forsberg's strong (though sometimes overrated) two-way play.

Spot on.

 

[daver]

At best, Sakic accomplishments are comparable to Pete's and, as I said, if we're looking at any kind of per game stats, Forsberg blows Sakic out of the water.

I disagree with the other poster who said that Sakic was the better centre but like Mallkin vs. Forsberg, Sakic has the better full season and the better playoff run between the two.

During their prime time together, Sakic scored more RS and playoff points and goals, Forsberg had the slightly better PPG but to describe the PPG gap as "blowing Sakic out of the water" is ridiculous.

They are very close at their peaks and primes.

 

[Ben White]

I disagree with the other poster who said that Sakic was the better centre but like Mallkin vs. Forsberg, Sakic has the better full season and the better playoff run between the two.

During their prime time together, Sakic scored more RS and playoff points and goals, Forsberg had the slightly better PPG but to describe the PPG gap as "blowing Sakic out of the water" is ridiculous.

They are very close at their peaks and primes.

How did he have the better reg season without winning the Art Ross? Even cup run is debatable. Off course winning the cup is the ultimate goal but Forsberg is the only player besides Gretzky to be a part of 50% of his team's goals during a cup run. Also his 2003 season is severely underrated. Someone posted a diagram a year ago which showed just how underrated it is. For example his involvement % of the Avs' goals was unusually high even for an Art Ross winner.

 

[Laineux]

Forsberg with the thinnest margin. Simply like his game more.

 

[daver]

How did he have the better reg season without winning the Art Ross?

Because it was more offensively dominant than Forsberg's was. Not every Art Ross winning season is the same.

 

[Ben White]

Because it was more offensively dominant than Forsberg's was. Not every Art Ross winning season is the same.

Any facts to back that up?

 

[daver]

Any facts to back that up?

The next best scorers after Sakic's 118 points and 1.44 PPG:

96 (1.17PPG)
95 (1.16 PPG)
95 (1.16 PPG)
95 (1.20 PPG)


The next best scorers after Forsberg's 106 points and 1.41 PPG:

104 (1.27 PPG)
101 (1.31 PPG)
98 (1.20 PPG)
97 (1.18 PPG)

The numbers speak for themselves. Sakic's is clearly more dominant.

 

[Ben White]

The next best scorers after Sakic's 118 points and 1.44 PPG:

96 (1.17PPG)
95 (1.16 PPG)
95 (1.16 PPG)
95 (1.20 PPG)


The next best scorers after Forsberg's 106 points and 1.41 PPG:

104 (1.27 PPG)
101 (1.31 PPG)
98 (1.20 PPG)
97 (1.18 PPG)

The numbers speak for themselves. Sakic's is clearly more dominant.

What is this? Cmon. They're basically even in ppg despite the fact that Forsberg actually won the Art Ross despite missing 7 games. That small sample size of a few players with slightly higher ppg means nothing especially since those two seasons were only 2 years apart and the league scoring was about the same. As I can recall I Also think Peter was involved in a higher % of Avs' goals in 2003 than Sakic was in 2001. No, Sakic was not "clearly more dominant".

 

[daver]

What is this? Cmon. They're basically even in ppg despite the fact that Forsberg actually won the Art Ross despite missing 7 games. That small sample size of a few players with slightly higher ppg means nothing especially since those two seasons were only 2 years apart and the league scoring was about the same. As I can recall I Also think Peter was involved in a higher % of Avs' goals in 2003 than Sakic was in 2001. No, Sakic was not "clearly more dominant".

At what point does a gap in PPG change from "basically even" to "blowing away"?

And at what point does a gap in points become meaningful?

 

[Voight]

Too many people on this board didnt even watch Forsberg play

Highly underappreciated on here

 

[Ben White]

Just feel like dumping these here

 

[tony d]

I went with Option 2.

 

[Hokinaittii]

Just feel like dumping these here

Gotta love Fobba playing it rough but what the hell was that at 1:10?

 

[K Fleur]

I believe the question is "Who's the better player". Did Malkin peak during the last two years? Did he do anything else to prove that he's better at playing hockey than we already knew he was?

Malkin has always been the better player. Two years ago this question was mildly interesting because of Forsberg's slight edge in team accomplishments. Now that is not the case.

 

[authentic]

I believe the question is "Who's the better player". Did Malkin peak during the last two years? Did he do anything else to prove that he's better at playing hockey than we already knew he was?

It doesn't even matter since so far his career value is basically identical anyway, I don't really see how that poster thinks it's not a question anymore, now it's probably a better question than ever. I think they are equal and Malkin will surpass him likely in an all time comparison, but I still think Forsberg peak and prime is a tad bit better.

 

[authentic]

Malkin has always been the better player. Two years ago this question was mildly interesting because of Forsberg's slight edge in team accomplishments. Now that is not the case.

Not really true, but I respect your opinion.

 

[Cursed Lemon]

Malkin has always been the better player. Two years ago this question was mildly interesting because of Forsberg's slight edge in team accomplishments. Now that is not the case.

Literally no one uses team accomplishments when talking about Forsberg.

 

[authentic]

Here's an excerpt of a post I wrote in June:

At this point, I think Malkin and Forsberg are quite comparable... Statistically they're very close. They're virtually even in games played (Forsberg ahead 708-706), and Forsberg has outscored Malkin by 53 points (6%). Their eras were, overall, roughly even in terms of levels of offense. Malkin finished 1-1-2 in scoring (never again in the top ten) while Forsberg was 1-2-4-5-9. I generally don't like per-game arguments, but both players were injured often, and have similar placings in PPG (1-1-2-4-5-6-6-9 for Forsberg, 1-2-2-3-3-4-7-8 for Malkin). It's remarkably close.

Both players spent most of their careers (or all, in the case of Malkin) sharing ice time with an even better center. I believe Forsberg generally got tougher matchups than Malkin.

Awards? Both were first-team all-stars three times (Malkin never really came close to making the year-end all-star team again, Forsberg had a year when he 3rd behind Lemieux and Gretzky). Both won a Hart, but Malkin was a runner-up twice (Forsberg never even again in the top five).

Playoffs? Pretty close. Yes, Malkin has an extra Cup and a Smythe. But both led the playoffs in scoring twice (and both have one more top five finish - 5th place for both of them). In two more games Forsberg has 14 extra points. Forsberg led his team in playoff scoring more often (6-4). Forsberg contributed a larger percentage of his team's offense but it's close (35% vs 34%).

Defensive play? Forsberg is clearly better.

As of today, I think Malkin and Forsberg should be nearly even in an all-time ranking. Malkin was probably a bit better at his very best (three years as a Hart finalist compared to one for Forsberg, and one truly historic playoff run). But he was also less consistent and lacked Forsberg's strong (though sometimes overrated) two-way play.

I don't get this overrated two way play stuff. If offense not one of the two ways? Forsberg finished 2nd a 4th in Selke voting while being a top notch offensive player. I hate how you somehow have to be a multiple Selke winner to be a good two-way player.

I think the above basically puts to rest any notion of Malkin being a superior offensive player, they were even at best, and defense is the tie breaker here. I expect Malkin to put up several more elite seasons so I admit he will likely win this comparison in the end as an all time player.

 

[authentic]

I knew this was going to be way closer than it should. Forsberg could walk on water, right? Most overrated player on this forum.

Funny enough the only people who say this are people who blatantly underrate him. Based on every bit of statistical evidence as well as the eye test in what universe are they not close? I'd love to here your explanation here.

 

[authentic]

Just feel like dumping these here

People are crazy man, and jealous because he dominated a lot of their favourite teams and hurt a lot of their favourite players. He was so insanely good in nearly every aspect of the game except like faceoffs and one timers.

 

[K Fleur]

Literally no one uses team accomplishments when talking about Forsberg.

How many topics do you literally speak for everyone on?

Maybe you should read what I quoted him on? How does the Art Ross contribute to helping you win more? Joe Thornton has won the Art Ross and hasn't won ****. Jagr won the trophy 5 times and couldn't get the Pens to the finals. Ovechkin could win all the Hart's but if he doesn't win the cup it doesn't mean much in terms of winning.

Helps a team win more. Forsberg has 2 cups compared to Malkin's one, Forsberg's got olympic golds/series wins , they each have 2 WC golds, Forsberg has a WJC gold to Malkin's silver . Sure you could attribute Roy being the X factor but they pretty much score at the same rate in the playoffs.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=90772739&postcount=13

Everything isn't about stats and trophys in a TEAMS game.

Also, different era's. (The 90's and early 00's had more real superstars)

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=133410471&postcount=977

Let's see 87/71 win another title before we compare them to the other four.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=106288179&postcount=26

fair enough. Still, their losses look a lot better than the Pens losses. Plus, they won two Cups compared to the Pens' 1.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=88464773&postcount=34

Let's rephrase. Since we are only talking prime: which duo is most likely to give you the Cup, come playoffs? To me, Crosby and Malkin ain't got a prayer on the both Wings and both Avs.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=88477791&postcount=52

Except get his name on a Cup for a second time.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=112238445&postcount=223

Okay this should spark an interesting debate. Both Lindros and Forsberg have been (so far) injury prone and had a very abbreviated career. But based on that so far which one is the most likely, if any, to get into the Hall of Fame?

Lindros - First all star team in '95, second in '98. Hart Trophy in '95. Tied for points in '95, led the playoffs in '97 with 26 points. No Cups. His highest point totals are 115, 97, 93, 79. His highest goals total is 47, 44, 41, 40. He was easily the best player for 2 or three seasons of his career. He was a physical presence combined with a scoring prowess. Is he Hall worthy or at least more than Forsberg?

Forsberg - Has had a very similar career to Lindros. Calder trophy in '95. First all-star in '98, '99 and '03. Has won two Cups with the Avs, and led the playoffs in points twice, both times despite never reaching the final. Never scored more than 30 goals in a season but his points totals go like this: 116, 106, 97, 91, 89, 86. Won the Hart and Art Ross Trophies in '03. Like Lindros has been considered the best player in the game at one time in his career. Was a little more offensive than Eric but didnt have quite the physical edge. Is he more worthy than Eric?

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=2874640&postcount=1