Fedorov vs. Selanne

[quoipourquoi]

Quite a few players who were primarily wingers received votes at center that season. Among players who were "primarily centers" Fedorov was ninth in voting. Is being a top-ten center not notable?

Receiving a single vote from one of 104 people on a three-center ballot does not make Fedorov a top-ten center. All it means is that one person had an unrealistically inflated opinion of him, as we have no record of what the other 103 of 104 voters thought of him. He couldn't even out-ballot players listed in the wrong position; that vote is meaningless and not at all reflective of your statement that he "received notable mention in Hart and All-Star voting... even in the first couple seasons after he left Detroit."

 

[pdd]

Receiving a single vote from one of 104 people on a three-center ballot does not make Fedorov a top-ten center. All it means is that one person had an unrealistically inflated opinion of him, as we have no record of what the other 103 of 104 voters thought of him. He couldn't even out-ballot players listed in the wrong position; that vote is meaningless and not at all reflective of your statement that he "received notable mention in Hart and All-Star voting... even in the first couple seasons after he left Detroit."

By that logic, we can't claim that the second-team all-stars are actually the second-best players at their position as we don't know what every single voter thought of them. What if the ~10-20 voters who omitted them would have ranked them 50th, and using a 50-place ballot would have ended up ranking them around 30th? That's a big difference from second.

Or how about this one. In 1993, Quebec Nordique Mike Ricci received a third-place vote at center. Mats Sundin scored 114 points, and Joe Sakic scored 109. But it was Ricci receiving a third place vote, tying him for sixth with the Islanders' Pierre Turgeon. Officially, Ricci and Turgeon were tied as the 6th-best centers in the league that year. We don't know what other voters thought (maybe he goes higher with more expanded voting? ) but what we can't say is that the voters who cast zero votes for any Quebec centers preferred Sakic/Sundin to Ricci. We can disagree with the selection, but there was at least one person in the media who felt Ricci was a top-three center in the league. Just as in 2004, someone felt Fedorov was #2. Having Naslund, Elias, St. Louis in the wrong position isn't the same because those guys had great seasons and maybe they did take some shifts at center (especially Elias). Being picked as the #2 center in the league by someone is a pretty good argument for "in the conversation for best player".

 

[Sentinel]

Eva: I'm as big of a Fedorov's fan as anyone, but I think you have clearly lost this argument. You're trying to inflate his achievements, but if you want him to beat Selanne, you have to stress peak and prime, not career. Although I would also mention that Fedorov's last great achievement came at the age of 39, when he was the top line center at the World's and brought Russia its first gold in 15 years (and played amazing).

The biggest knock on Fedorov is this: there was not a person in the hockey-watching world (other than his crazy dad) who didn't think that he should have done more than what he did. Had he realized his potential to the full, there is no doubt in my mind, he would be in the same conversation with Lemieux as "possibly the best of all time." Mind you, not all of this was his fault (Bowman's system, DPE, etc.) and he still has achieved a lot, far more than Selanne, but still: he. should. have. done. more.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Receiving a single vote from one of 104 people on a three-center ballot does not make Fedorov a top-ten center. All it means is that one person had an unrealistically inflated opinion of him, as we have no record of what the other 103 of 104 voters thought of him. He couldn't even out-ballot players listed in the wrong position; that vote is meaningless and not at all reflective of your statement that he "received notable mention in Hart and All-Star voting... even in the first couple seasons after he left Detroit."

Yeah, I know we disagree on the meaning of small numbers of votes, but I'm 100% with you here. A single vote from a single (likely homer) writer is completely meaningless. I mean, we know how writers often vote - "well, this guy is the best, this guy is second best, I don't really care who is third best so I'll throw a vote at someone who I like or think is underrated." If multiple writers throw votes at the same guy, I think it does mean something (this is where we disagree), but if it's just one writer throwing a player a bone, it means nothing.

I don't even bother listing instances of single votes when I list a player's voting record.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Even I'll say there's no sense trying to make more of his 2003/04+ career award voting than it is. Having said that, no one ever makes much of his Lady Byng votes, and I'm not saying they should, but it's a pretty talented crowd to be associated with, I'd say.

 

[pdd]

Ok, I'll concede the 2003-04 point and limit it to this:

In the five season period from 99-00 through 03-04 Sergei Fedorov scored 18-22-40 more than Selanne in ten fewer games.

From the time Selanne was traded to San Jose (separated from Kariya) until the 2004 lockout, these were the two players' scoring stats:

Fedorov: 253GP, 99-124-223
Selanne: 254GP, 80-83-163

There seems to be support for Modano having been an elite player at that point. Guess who outscored him? Not Selanne. Selanne was busy being outscored by Craig Conroy, Brian Rolston, and Daymond Langkow (among others). Starting at the beginning of the 01-02 season, a rookie Datsyuk outscored Selanne until the lockout.

So that period in time is pretty clearly in Fedorov's favor. As is 1993-94 through 1995-96. 1996-97 and 1997-98 can be argued either way, with Fedorov having less regular season impact offensively but Smythe-worthy postseasons. 1998-99 is the first year since 1992-93 I would put clearly in Selanne's favor, with Fedorov reclaiming the title the next season and holding it the season after, up to and through the trade.

So the pro-Selanne argument essentially boils down to the fact that Fedorov, in his mid-30s, declined as he both a) physically slowed down and b) moved from an offensive role in 2002-03 on a skilled team to a defensive role on a bottom-feeder. He would continue in such a defensive role through the end of his career. Selanne has a clear argument as being the better player in 1992-93 and 1998-99, and was probably better in 96-97 and 97-98 (I literally have him ranked one spot better among forwards each year). Other than that, the Selanne argument is based entirely on longevity; which in and of itself only exists because Selanne wasn't healthy going into the 2004 lockout and has since remained healthy for the most part. Fedorov was plagued by injuries after the lockout, only clearing 67 games once in his final four seasons. If Fedorov remains healthy, he's still a 50+ point scorer (based on PPG, maybe he scores more if he stays healthy) and he gets more Selke votes (even when playing significantly reduced games, he was still getting them). And maybe he sticks around instead of jumping to the KHL to play with Fedor. Or maybe Washington plays a healthy Fedorov on Ovechkin's line. It worked for Russia.

 

[pdd]

Nope, i saw his whole deadpuck era run, 60 point season after another, his name wasnt even in the conversation for best player after 96

I love your double standard Eva, using linemates to discredit selann'e offense. However you will blindly rank Feds above a player like Marcel Dionne, when you damn well know that Feds playoff resume is heavily inflated by the team he played on. He would have no resume at all if he was stuck on marcel's teams. Like seriously, Marcel Dionne blows fedorov out of the water offensively.

Marcel Dionne was in his prime when the NHL was at its highest point ever for scoring. He was sixth among centers in PPG and 11th overall with 1.31 during his career. Among the notable non-HHOFers: Kent Nilsson (17th, 1.25), longtime teammate Bernie Nicholls (aka "the best second-line center ever", 19th, 1.23), short-term teammate Jimmy Carson (aka "the reason LA traded Marcel Dionne", 22nd, 1.19), linemate Dave Taylor (32nd, 1.12), linemate Charlie Simmer (54th, 1.00), Brian Propp (35th, 1.09), Real Cloutier (38th, 1.09).

It's amazing how many of those guys are offense-only players who also played with Dionne. Almost like he might have benefited from playing in an offensive system full of skilled offense-first guys.

You used that argument on Fedorov, who played in a defensive system and in a defensive role. Yet you don't see that it's actually applicable to Dionne? I'm not saying Fedorov would have scored more than Dionne in the same situation (who knows, maybe he scores 140-160, maybe he stays around 100). But what I am saying is that Dionne had an environment much closer to what Fedorov had in 1993-94 than 1998-99. Closer in linemate production, closer in overall league average scoring, closer in league goaltender quality. Dionne still played in a higher scoring era, and had higher scoring linemates; Ciccarelli wasn't as high-scoring as either Simmer or Taylor during the given period, and he was basically washed up by the time Fedorov had him. Kozlov only three times in his career broke 0.90 PPG (only once with Detroit), and never hit PPG (he did come one point away with Atlanta centering Hossa and Kovalchuk on the PP, though).

Dionne vs. Selanne would be an interesting comparison. I would probably lean Dionne, but it would make for an interesting argument.

 

[canucks4ever]

Marcel Dionne was in his prime when the NHL was at its highest point ever for scoring. He was sixth among centers in PPG and 11th overall with 1.31 during his career. Among the notable non-HHOFers: Kent Nilsson (17th, 1.25), longtime teammate Bernie Nicholls (aka "the best second-line center ever", 19th, 1.23), short-term teammate Jimmy Carson (aka "the reason LA traded Marcel Dionne", 22nd, 1.19), linemate Dave Taylor (32nd, 1.12), linemate Charlie Simmer (54th, 1.00), Brian Propp (35th, 1.09), Real Cloutier (38th, 1.09).

It's amazing how many of those guys are offense-only players who also played with Dionne. Almost like he might have benefited from playing in an offensive system full of skilled offense-first guys.

You used that argument on Fedorov, who played in a defensive system and in a defensive role. Yet you don't see that it's actually applicable to Dionne? I'm not saying Fedorov would have scored more than Dionne in the same situation (who knows, maybe he scores 140-160, maybe he stays around 100). But what I am saying is that Dionne had an environment much closer to what Fedorov had in 1993-94 than 1998-99. Closer in linemate production, closer in overall league average scoring, closer in league goaltender quality. Dionne still played in a higher scoring era, and had higher scoring linemates; Ciccarelli wasn't as high-scoring as either Simmer or Taylor during the given period, and he was basically washed up by the time Fedorov had him. Kozlov only three times in his career broke 0.90 PPG (only once with Detroit), and never hit PPG (he did come one point away with Atlanta centering Hossa and Kovalchuk on the PP, though).

Dionne vs. Selanne would be an interesting comparison. I would probably lean Dionne, but it would make for an interesting argument.

Dionne finished 3rd in scoring in 1975 playing with bums, he finished 2nd in 1977 playing with bums. Of course, go ahead and project feds scores 140-160 points a season if hes placed in the same role, i mean you clearly think he has the offensive ability of jagr and crosby. I dont care how good feds defensive game was, the offensive gap between marcel and sergei is way too big to ignore and respectable hockey journalists will continue to rank dionne 30 spots above him on all time lists.

Like really what are feds 3rd and 4th best seasons? Years where he wasnt even in the realm for being mentioned as best player. Your agenda is so obvious.

 

[quoipourquoi]

So you go from appropriately retracting your argument about one of 104 All-Star votes being "notable mention" to defining Selanne's injury years in San Jose and Colorado as simply being years in which he was "separated from Kariya," (the recovery from these injuries resulted in Selanne winning a Masterton Trophy, so stop pretending that you are not aware of their existence) while simultaneously defending Fedorov's post-lockout seasons because he was "plagued by injuries."

One step forward, two steps back.


And how gracious of you to say that Selanne was the better player in 1992-93, 1996-97, 1997-98, and 1998-99 though. Now just add 1999-2000, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13...

 

[Plural]

Ok, I'll concede the 2003-04 point and limit it to this:

In the five season period from 99-00 through 03-04 Sergei Fedorov scored 18-22-40 more than Selanne in ten fewer games.

From the time Selanne was traded to San Jose (separated from Kariya) until the 2004 lockout, these were the two players' scoring stats:

Fedorov: 253GP, 99-124-223
Selanne: 254GP, 80-83-163

There seems to be support for Modano having been an elite player at that point. Guess who outscored him? Not Selanne. Selanne was busy being outscored by Craig Conroy, Brian Rolston, and Daymond Langkow (among others). Starting at the beginning of the 01-02 season, a rookie Datsyuk outscored Selanne until the lockout.
.

Oh come on. You are better than this.

I do agree with quoipourquoi that one all-star vote means basically nothing. It is more likely that the vote came from biased source.

If, however there is multiple votes it usually means something. But 1-3 last place votes can be just what it seems like. Favorism.

 

[pdd]

So you go from appropriately retracting your argument about one of 104 All-Star votes being "notable mention" to defining Selanne's injury years in San Jose and Colorado as simply being years in which he was "separated from Kariya," (the recovery from these injuries resulted in Selanne winning a Masterton Trophy, so stop pretending that you are not aware of their existence) while simultaneously defending Fedorov's post-lockout seasons because he was "plagued by injuries."

One step forward, two steps back.

I stated Fedorov's injury status as a matter of fact, not as an excuse for poor performance. I was mostly getting at the fact that he missed games, and therefore missed the 50-point mark he otherwise would likely have hit at the PPG he was scoring at.

I was not claiming that he would have gone from being a 20 point scorer to a 90 point scorer if only he had been healthy like the pro-Selanne group has been doing, nor was I crediting him for any such hypothetical situation as has been done for Selanne.

And how gracious of you to say that Selanne was the better player in 1992-93, 1996-97, 1997-98, and 1998-99 though. Now just add 1999-2000, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13...

Selanne was not better in 99-00... why would I add it?

 

[Plural]

I stated Fedorov's injury status as a matter of fact, not as an excuse for poor performance. I was mostly getting at the fact that he missed games, and therefore missed the 50-point mark he otherwise would likely have hit at the PPG he was scoring at.

I was not claiming that he would have gone from being a 20 point scorer to a 90 point scorer if only he had been healthy like the pro-Selanne group has been doing, nor was I crediting him for any such hypothetical situation as has been done for Selanne.



Selanne was not better in 99-00... why would I add it?

On what basis was Selanne not better that year? Selanne outscored Fedorov by 23 points. What kind of defensive production is worth more than 14 games and 23 points?


This is getting ridiculous.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

On what basis was Selanne not better that year? Selanne outscored Fedorov by 23 points. What kind of defensive production is worth more than 14 games and 23 points?


This is getting ridiculous.

What kind of points list accurately "ranks" players in order of who's "better". THAT sounds pretty ridiculous to me. I'd say Selanne had the better regular season for sure (played almost a full season, finished with more points). I'd still say Fedorov, when in the lineup, was the better player. The Fedorov that we saw as the Red Wings' best player that (disappointing) post season was also present earlier in the regular season - still managing 17 multi-point games as Yzerman's 1B (Yzerman barely managing a better PPG despite the difference in wingers between lines). I looked up Selanne's track record in that department - only 5 more multi-point games over those 11 more games, playing next to Kariya, and getting more total ice time than perhaps any other season of his career...

Which isn't to claim that Fedorov was necessarily better than Selanne; just that to claim Selanne>Fedorov in '99/00 is essentially a "no-brainer"? Seriously?

 

[canucks4ever]

On what basis was Selanne not better that year? Selanne outscored Fedorov by 23 points. What kind of defensive production is worth more than 14 games and 23 points?


This is getting ridiculous.

He will mention selanne playing with kariya, but ignore that fedorov racked up more than half of his points in 2000 with lidstrom and scored alot of powerplay points with shanahan/yzerman that year. Not to mention that fedorov had no selke votes that year and no all star votes at center, but they want to act like he was the 3rd best forward that year after jagr and bure, pure homer revionism by red wings marks again. They wont show any advanced stats of fedorov's actual defensive impact, but pretend his defensive game was the exact same every year and that he never declined defensively, and that his defense makes up for over 10 points despite not showing any advanced stats of his defensive impact.

 

[Plural]

What kind of points list accurately "ranks" players in order of who's "better". THAT sounds pretty ridiculous to me. I'd say Selanne had the better regular season for sure (played almost a full season, finished with more points). I'd still say Fedorov, when in the lineup, was the better player. The Fedorov that we saw as the Red Wings' best player that (disappointing) post season was also present earlier in the regular season - still managing 17 multi-point games as Yzerman's 1B (Yzerman barely managing a better PPG despite the difference in wingers between lines). I looked up Selanne's track record in that department - only 5 more multi-point games over those 11 more games, playing next to Kariya, and getting more total ice time than perhaps any other season of his career...

Which isn't to claim that Fedorov was necessarily better than Selanne; just that to claim Selanne>Fedorov in '99/00 is essentially a "no-brainer"? Seriously?

I do agree with the idea that looking strictly points is misleading and i myself definitely am guilty of doing it from time to time. But at some point points and games played do matter.

23 point difference and 14 more games is not a small gap. Maybe Fedorov was better when in the lineup, that is debatable, but he definitely was not 14 games worth better.

I don't see why it would be so debatable which had the better year. Selanne's team did not even make it to play-offs and Fedorov played whopping 9 games with 4+4. So no, i don't see any reason to think that Fedorov had better year. Regular season or RS and PO combined.

You can go and claim Fedorov as being the better player and you might even be right, but he definitely did not have better year than Selanne. There is no way.

Edit:

I don't really see what you are going for with the multi-point amount. Well, i do understand the centence, i just can't grasp the idea why having 5 less multi-point games in less games played would have anything to do with which had the better season.

 

[Plural]

He will mention selanne playing with kariya, but ignore that fedorov racked up more than half of his points in 2000 with lidstrom and scored alot of powerplay points with shanahan/yzerman that year. Not to mention that fedorov had no selke votes that year and no all star votes at center, but they want to act like he was the 3rd best forward that year after jagr and bure, pure homer revionism by red wings marks again. They wont show any advanced stats of fedorov's actual defensive impact, but pretend his defensive game was the exact same every year and that he never declined defensively, and that his defense makes up for over 10 points despite not showing any advanced stats of his defensive impact.

I guess i should learn and put this thread on my ignore. My knowledge of hockey seems to be insufficient to this conversation.

I never realized how many factors there is to consider in one year. Player who gets significantly outscored and plays 14 less games can have the better year due to having more multi-point nights.

I mean, if that is not grasping at straws then i don't know what is.

Anyhow, i am out, again.

 

[Yamaguchi*]

What kind of points list accurately "ranks" players in order of who's "better". THAT sounds pretty ridiculous to me. I'd say Selanne had the better regular season for sure (played almost a full season, finished with more points). I'd still say Fedorov, when in the lineup, was the better player. The Fedorov that we saw as the Red Wings' best player that (disappointing) post season was also present earlier in the regular season - still managing 17 multi-point games as Yzerman's 1B (Yzerman barely managing a better PPG despite the difference in wingers between lines). I looked up Selanne's track record in that department - only 5 more multi-point games over those 11 more games, playing next to Kariya, and getting more total ice time than perhaps any other season of his career...

Which isn't to claim that Fedorov was necessarily better than Selanne; just that to claim Selanne>Fedorov in '99/00 is essentially a "no-brainer"? Seriously?

I like that!

 

[pdd]

Not to mention that fedorov had no selke votes that year and no all star votes at center.

That happens when you miss 14 games and don't score ~1.25PPG or more. People decide that you've missed to much time to be voted in for awards. Datsyuk being a Selke finalist despite missing a ton of games a couple years back was a huge shock to a lot of people because of that factor.

But as for scoring; if Fedorov had played the same number of games Selanne did, he'd have scored 31-41-72. That's 13 points difference in 79 games. Fedorov would have been a Selke contender again, also.

That 13-point difference is a small amount given their defensive gap, especially considering that Fedorov centered the second PP unit and did not play with Yzerman/Shanahan (that was usually Verbeek or Lapointe).

 

[Plural]

That happens when you miss 14 games and don't score ~1.25PPG or more. People decide that you've missed to much time to be voted in for awards. Datsyuk being a Selke finalist despite missing a ton of games a couple years back was a huge shock to a lot of people because of that factor.

But as for scoring; if Fedorov had played the same number of games Selanne did, he'd have scored 31-41-72. That's 13 points difference in 79 games. Fedorov would have been a Selke contender again, also.

That 13-point difference is a small amount given their defensive gap, especially considering that Fedorov centered the second PP unit and did not play with Yzerman/Shanahan (that was usually Verbeek or Lapointe).

And you honestly try and make a claim that you are not crediting Fedorov with any hypothetical what if situations?

You are saying that we should judge Fedorov season as a 72 point Selke worthy season when in reality he played 65 games for 62 points and received zero Selke votes. This is really getting ridiculous.

Or, we have to judge Selanne as a 100+ point rocket richard contending forward for his injury years.

 

[King Forsberg]

Did Lindros ever have an elite season without Mikael Renberg? He was important enough that after trading him to Tampa Bay, they traded "future superstar" Chris Gratton to get him back. The same Chris Gratton they had just lured away from Tampa a summer earlier.

I'm not sure where you're going with this. You're giving all the credit to Kariya for making Selanne better. Selanne had a pretty big effect on Kariyas scoring.

The 1992-93 Jets were a 322-goal team. Their scoring leaders were:


Now we'll set aside the fact that 1992-93 was a much higher scoring season. But let's run some numbers; what if Detroit's lines had the same goals and assists, but were balanced like Winnipeg's?

That comes out like this (I've arranged the players to try and fit closely):
Yzerman/Fedorov/Sheppard 133-168-301
Kozlov/Primeau/Ciccarelli 92-105-197

As you can see, that is a far more unbalanced lineup and a deep team like Detroit would be foolish to use it for any significant period of time.

Are you serious? Now you're just trying to re write history. Again Selanne was placed in an offensive situation because he was one of the best in the league. Fedorov outside of 2 or 3 seasons wasn't as good as Selanne offensively. And Bowmans system is only so much of an excuse. Theres been plauers under him who have flourished offensivley. You told me I shouldn't rate Fedorov based on his skillset and potential. Isn't what you're doing here the exact same thing?

No, but Zhamnov was legitimately considered the better player in his career year and the year before. It took Selanne a wild 1995-96 to establish his position as the best player on the Olympic Line, and he was traded during that season.

So one season in his career Zhamnov was maybe Better than Selanne, and he happened to be playing with Selanne.

Steve Yzerman didn't outscore Joe Sakic or Jeremy Roenick in 1993-94, but it's universal truth that Yzerman was the better player that season.

That's not a legitamate comparison. Selanne outscored Fedorov when they both played full seasons. Yzerman only played 58 games had a much higher PPG. Again this was Selanne's fifth best season comapred to Fedorovs second best.

Shanahan played a far less defensive role, and was typically paired up with either Yzerman or Larionov to give him a playmaker. Fedorov was given Kozlov and Brown, which is a good set of wingers in general, but it's **** for a top line if we're going to try and compare Fedorov's offensive performance to Selanne's. I've said this before. Here's an easy way of checking linemate ability:

Offensively:
Kariya>>Kozlov
Rucchin>Brown

Defensively:
Kariya<Kozlov
Rucchin=Brown

Hmm. I wonder who is more set up to succeed in a comparison of offensive numbers.

So why wouldn't they put Shanahan with Fedorov? He certainly must have been offensively than an aging Yzerman or Larionov. And I'm sure you can tell me how great defensively Yzerman was. Believe it or not but Selanne played with other players than Kariya and Fedorov played with other players than Kozlov (who isn't some scrub) and Brown.


I noticed once again you ignored the longevity argument. That's a pretty big part of rating ones career. And Selanne blows Fedorov out of the water.

 

[Sentinel]

Again, in defense of Fedorov's longevity: at 39 he led Team Russia to 2008 World Championship, where he centered Ovechkin and Semin, was absolutely stellar, and, in process, his team handily defeated Team Finland that featured 38 y.o. You Know Who.

 

[pdd]

I'm not sure where you're going with this. You're giving all the credit to Kariya for making Selanne better. Selanne had a pretty big effect on Kariyas scoring.

Who did Fedorov play with on every shift who was anywhere close to Kariya's skill level?

Are you serious? Now you're just trying to re write history. Again Selanne was placed in an offensive situation because he was one of the best in the league. Fedorov outside of 2 or 3 seasons wasn't as good as Selanne offensively. And Bowmans system is only so much of an excuse. Theres been plauers under him who have flourished offensivley. You told me I shouldn't rate Fedorov based on his skillset and potential. Isn't what you're doing here the exact same thing?

How am I rewriting history? The lines I built scored actually pretty similar totals to what is posted.

Except were those the actual lines, Fedorov's numbers would likely have been higher. My point was that Fedorov played on a team that didn't stack their top line the way Winnipeg did, and therefore his offensive numbers weren't what they might have been if he had.

So one season in his career Zhamnov was maybe Better than Selanne, and he happened to be playing with Selanne.

Zhamnov outscored Selanne PPG-wise and overall in 93-94 and 94-95. In 95-96 Selanne was better, until he was traded. And then he was later traded off to San Jose, who didn't have much offensive talent (comparable to what Anaheim had when Fedorov got there) and he didn't score nearly as much. Later in his SJ career, he was injured, and then signed in Colorado and did about nothing despite the massive talent level. He was able to recuperate over the lockout and, with the help of the high talent level in Anaheim (where he had returned) he once again became relevant.

Selanne does not show himself to be any more of a significant scorer on his own outside of one season in his career. One. That's been my point. He's a guy who is a scorer, and just a scorer, and his production drops CONSIDERABLY when he doesn't have high-end help. When Fedorov was given the green light to go score goals, and had significant offensive help on the level of 2005-06 Niedermayer, he scored 120 points and won the Hart trophy. Then the next two seasons he was 100-points (pro-rating the lockout). He also nabbed two Selkes in there.

That's not a legitamate comparison. Selanne outscored Fedorov when they both played full seasons. Yzerman only played 58 games had a much higher PPG. Again this was Selanne's fifth best season comapred to Fedorovs second best.

Fedorov's 1995-96 beats Selanne's 1995-96 on offense alone, never mind the defensive aspect. Which other seasons are you including?

So why wouldn't they put Shanahan with Fedorov? He certainly must have been offensively than an aging Yzerman or Larionov. And I'm sure you can tell me how great defensively Yzerman was. Believe it or not but Selanne played with other players than Kariya and Fedorov played with other players than Kozlov (who isn't some scrub) and Brown.

As I've mentioned, Rucchin is a huge upgrade on Brown. And it's not like Fedorov played 20+ minutes with Lidstrom.

I noticed once again you ignored the longevity argument. That's a pretty big part of rating ones career. And Selanne blows Fedorov out of the water.

Yep; Selanne's longevity is what gets him close to Fedorov in career value, because Fedorov was the better player in as as many or more seasons when they were both in the league.

 

[pdd]

And you honestly try and make a claim that you are not crediting Fedorov with any hypothetical what if situations?

Ok. "Could" have been a Selke contender again, based on the surrounding years.

You are saying that we should judge Fedorov season as a 72 point Selke worthy season when in reality he played 65 games for 62 points and received zero Selke votes. This is really getting ridiculous.

I was pro-rating it to Selanne's GP to give an idea of what the offensive difference between the players actually was; the argument is not "what was the best season ever" but "who was the better player that season". If Malkin scores 35 points next season in 25 games with no Selke votes, and Datsyuk scores 80 in 70 and wins the Selke, who's better next season? Datsyuk has 45 points and a Selke up on Malkin. But your argument places Malkin as the better player.

Or, we have to judge Selanne as a 100+ point rocket richard contending forward for his injury years.

You mean the years in San Jose when he was playing full seasons and scoring 50-60 points, or the year when he scored 32?

I projected Fedorov's ACTUAL PPG to what Selanne played to get a "points number" of what their PPG looks like. I didn't guess at what he might have done had he been healthy and not focusing on defense. I'll admit, I suggested a possibility for that earlier in the thread. But nowhere did I say it was a "we have to assume this blah blah blah" as you just did. Going off of actual PPG is hugely different than assuming a large increase in PPG because the player scored at that level before.

 

[Tmu84]

Again, in defense of Fedorov's longevity: at 39 he led Team Russia to 2008 World Championship, where he centered Ovechkin and Semin, was absolutely stellar, and, in process, his team handily defeated Team Finland that featured 38 y.o. You Know Who.

Hmm I always been a big fan of Fedorov, but I fail to see your logic here. So are you saying because of one successful WHC tournament playing with prime Ovechkin and prime Semin, Fedorov has better longevity than Selänne?

 

[Sentinel]

Hmm I always been a big fan of Fedorov, but I fail to see your logic here. So are you saying because of one successful WHC tournament playing with prime Ovechkin and prime Semin, Fedorov has better longevity than Selänne?

I'm saying he wasn't some scrub at 39 either. When he was in the system that suited him, he played stellar. And he outplayed both Ovechkin and Semin at that tournament.