Fedorov vs. Selanne

[vadim sharifijanov]

Career: Selanne
Peak: Selanne
Season: Federov
Talent: Federov
Completeness: Federov

I would take Selanne every day because of his superior heart and his excellent mind and feel for the game.

i'd take fedorov all day, every day, but for the same reasons you say you'd take selanne. he was selective about when it came out, but when things were on the line, he was all heart. and in terms of feel for the game, i don't think i've seen another forward in my life who could affect the game in as many ways as fedorov.


career: fedorov-- 3 cups, 2 selkes, 1 hart/pearson


peak (3-5 years): fedorov-- the '94 season, plus:

1994-95 25 DET NHL 17 7 17 24
1995-96 26 DET NHL 19 2 18 20
1996-97 27 DET NHL SC 20 8 12 20
1997-98 28 DET NHL SC 22 10 10 20


season: fedorov-- '94 obviously


talent: fedorov


completeness: fedorov

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Oh, i just saw this post. I guess it is a popular opinion that Fedorov was faster.

I believe it to be true.

And while they aren't exactly hustling their buns off in this Doug Wilson mediated "race", here's Fedorov beating Mogilny as well:

 

[overg]

Fedorov moving to defense was a Bowman thing first. He moved back because he could. Bowman and others in the organization said that had he stayed there, he probably would have won at least a Norris or two. He's probably the most versatile player of the modern era. He can go from being a dominant offensive winger to being a shutdown defenseman to being a first line center in the space of less than three shifts. His size, strength, hockey IQ, tool set, and work ethic made him the near-perfect hockey player.

Sigh. Can we put the "he could have won the Norris" quote to rest. It is just completely, utterly, absolutely false. Plus, I'm pretty sure it was Holland or Devallano who said that, not Bowman.

Fedorov was moved to defense because he was playing terrible on offense and complaining about ice time. It was both a "F.U." and a "let's see how this works" from Bowman. He did okay back there, but he wasn't in the same time zone as the real Norris threats. Does anyone really believe he was ever going to be better than even Konstantinov or Lidstrom?

A second "myth" about Fedorov is that he was one of the best playoff performers of all times. This is usually stated in conjunction with his streak of 20+ pts in the playoffs. Fedorov was a very good playoff performer. He played like a star, was arguably the best Wing during that time-frame, and was absolutely a big factor in the Wings' wins. But he did *not* dominate. He was essentially the Mike Gartner of the playoffs. He steadily put up very good numbers, but very rarely was he actually taking over games (*note this wasn't all on Fedorov. Bowman rolled his lines such that no Wing had the opportunity to take over games).

Ironically, Fedorov's most dominate playoff performance may have been the '95 finals. He was the only Wing who even came close to breaking the Devils' trap, and put on a one man show to even keep the games close.

Sergei's biggest negative was that he did not give close to his all the majority of the time. His biggest positive was the bigger the game or match-up (e.g., Forsberg), the harder he pushed himself and the better he played.

 

[quoipourquoi]

What about Fedorov's regular season effort?
It's not like his skills magically dropped but fall from 1994-1996 (basically three 100+ points seasons) is huge - he dropped down to 60-70 points range. Sure it has something to do with DPE, but then why his production rise in tougher part of the season?

Many players likely see their offense drop in the playoffs because they're on a team that is simply out-matched (like, say, if you're on the Mighty Ducks, and both of your 1990s playoff runs see you matched up against the team with Nicklas Lidstrom and a nine-series winning streak). Players on high-seeds don't have this same issue, hence Fedorov recording 16 points in 1995 in the first and second rounds (sub-.500 teams) and 8 points in the third and fourth rounds. I don't mean to take away from his talent, because you don't produce that well without it (and he had some big series against quality teams), but being on the best team of the era means that you get more favorable matchups for offensive numbers when compared to players on lesser teams. Fedorov never had to play against the Detroit Red Wings; Teemu Selanne did four times.

On the other hand, Selanne had to work really hard during regular seasons to bring Ducks to playoffs. It sounds like Selanne was terrible in playoffs what is exagerrated. His production (his main goal) was rather very good outside 2-3 playoff runs. Uncomparable to Fedorov, but I don't agree it's some kind of black mark on his resume.

When he was an elite scorer, he had excellent playoffs - especially as a goal scorer. Sure, he didn't break 20 points in the Ducks' cup run, but the Ducks played three top-five defensive teams and a fourth top-ten defensive team; it wasn't a run built for gaudy offensive numbers.

Team GA

Ducks' Opponents
2006: 1, 13, 15 (out of 30)
2007: 1, 4, 5, 10 (out of 30)

Red Wings' Opponents
1995: 1, 5, 11, 21 (out of 26)
1996: 8, 11, 21 (out of 26)
1997: 5, 8, 11, 13 (out of 26)
1998: 2, 10, 11, 19 (out of 26)
2002: 1, 5, 17, 19 (out of 30)

Given a fourth round in 2006 or some easier matchups in 2007, and Selanne was capable of hitting 20-point playoff runs like Fedorov. 19 goals in 27 playoff games in the seven seasons in which he was a top-10 league scorer suggest that Selanne could play in the Spring, but didn't get the chance that often. Like you said, it shouldn't be a strike against him.


Fedorov has the best season, but you can say that about most comparisons to Fedorov. For whatever reason, he didn't play like that again... ever. Fedorov was top-10 in goals once (Selanne: six). Fedorov was top-10 in assists once (Selanne: five). Fedorov was top-10 in points twice (Selanne: seven).

Even with his defensive edge, he just wasn't the offensive player that Teemu Selanne was - despite being in the most advantageous environment: a team with two legit #1 centers to split the attention and one of either Nicklas Lidstrom or Paul Coffey. And it's not like it's impossible to record high offensive numbers with high-level defensive play; we saw him do it in 1994 and on some nights through the rest of his career. Teemu Selanne has been top-three in goals as many times as Fedorov has been top-five in Selke voting, so ask which of those feats has the bigger net contribution.

Think about it this way: Fedorov broke 70 points once since the dead puck era began in 1996-97. Selanne hit that mark every time for the first five years of the DPE, and it was when he fell to 72 points that everyone knew something had gone horribly wrong with his health.

 

[pdd]

Many players likely see their offense drop in the playoffs because they're on a team that is simply out-matched (like, say, if you're on the Mighty Ducks, and both of your 1990s playoff runs see you matched up against the team with Nicklas Lidstrom and a nine-series winning streak). Players on high-seeds don't have this same issue, hence Fedorov recording 16 points in 1995 in the first and second rounds (sub-.500 teams) and 8 points in the third and fourth rounds. I don't mean to take away from his talent, because you don't produce that well without it (and he had some big series against quality teams), but being on the best team of the era means that you get more favorable matchups for offensive numbers when compared to players on lesser teams. Fedorov never had to play against the Detroit Red Wings; Teemu Selanne did four times.




When he was an elite scorer, he had excellent playoffs - especially as a goal scorer. Sure, he didn't break 20 points in the Ducks' cup run, but the Ducks played three top-five defensive teams and a fourth top-ten defensive team; it wasn't a run built for gaudy offensive numbers.

Team GA

Ducks' Opponents
2006: 1, 13, 15 (out of 30)
2007: 1, 4, 5, 10 (out of 30)

Red Wings' Opponents
1995: 1, 5, 11, 21 (out of 26)
1996: 8, 11, 21 (out of 26)
1997: 5, 8, 11, 13 (out of 26)
1998: 2, 10, 11, 19 (out of 26)
2002: 1, 5, 17, 19 (out of 30)

Given a fourth round in 2006 or some easier matchups in 2007, and Selanne was capable of hitting 20-point playoff runs like Fedorov. 19 goals in 27 playoff games in the seven seasons in which he was a top-10 league scorer suggest that Selanne could play in the Spring, but didn't get the chance that often. Like you said, it shouldn't be a strike against him.

Got it, let's just stop comparing playoff performances of players and only use the regular season.

Fedorov has the best season, but you can say that about most comparisons to Fedorov. For whatever reason, he didn't play like that again... ever. Fedorov was top-10 in goals once (Selanne: six). Fedorov was top-10 in assists once (Selanne: five). Fedorov was top-10 in points twice (Selanne: seven).

Even with his defensive edge, he just wasn't the offensive player that Teemu Selanne was - despite being in the most advantageous environment: a team with two legit #1 centers to split the attention and one of either Nicklas Lidstrom or Paul Coffey.

Lidstrom and Coffey played together.

And it's not like it's impossible to record high offensive numbers with high-level defensive play; we saw him do it in 1994 and on some nights through the rest of his career. Teemu Selanne has been top-three in goals as many times as Fedorov has been top-five in Selke voting, so ask which of those feats has the bigger net contribution.

Think about it this way: Fedorov broke 70 points once since the dead puck era began in 1996-97. Selanne hit that mark every time for the first five years of the DPE, and it was when he fell to 72 points that everyone knew something had gone horribly wrong with his health.

You're basically saying "Selanne's better because he didn't have elite teammates."

But you forgot Paul Kariya. Who had some pretty damn good offensive numbers. And played with Selanne constantly. Who was on Fedorov's line? Slava Kozlov and Dino Ciccarelli/Doug Brown?

Yeeeaaaaahhhh.

 

[Big Phil]

How can you not go with Selanne here? I will give Fedorov credit in the postseason. he was unbelievable when the chips were down. I think we all knew that about him. But he coasted like crazy in the regular season. There was no reason why he couldn't have had 100 point seasons while being a Selke threat year after year. Instead he runs arond with 60-70 point seasons most of his career.

He really only has two seasons where he was among the elite. 1994 and 1996. Other than that he took a nosedive statistically. I realize in Detroit's system once they got interested in winning that offense wasn't the be all and end all but you might also remember that even during that time people wondered why he wouldn't score more, so it isn't just revisionist history.

I'll go with Selanne here. He aged much better and even though there was that gap in the middle of his career I will still take him over Fedorov. He was basically alone with scrubs in 1997-'98 and led the NHL in goals. There is no evidence to show Fedorov could have done that individually. Anyway, too many points, too many goals and enough hardware to convince me that Selanne had the better career.

 

[pdd]

How can you not go with Selanne here? I will give Fedorov credit in the postseason. he was unbelievable when the chips were down. I think we all knew that about him. But he coasted like crazy in the regular season. There was no reason why he couldn't have had 100 point seasons while being a Selke threat year after year. Instead he runs arond with 60-70 point seasons most of his career.

He really only has two seasons where he was among the elite. 1994 and 1996. Other than that he took a nosedive statistically. I realize in Detroit's system once they got interested in winning that offense wasn't the be all and end all but you might also remember that even during that time people wondered why he wouldn't score more, so it isn't just revisionist history.

I'll go with Selanne here. He aged much better and even though there was that gap in the middle of his career I will still take him over Fedorov. He was basically alone with scrubs in 1997-'98 and led the NHL in goals. There is no evidence to show Fedorov could have done that individually. Anyway, too many points, too many goals and enough hardware to convince me that Selanne had the better career.

Fedorov's career PPG is about 0.1 below Selanne's. That's 8 points in a season.

Do you think Selanne's 8-point gap is worth the elite defense Fedorov offered from the moment he stepped on NHL ice (he received a third-place Selke vote in his rookie year, then was second in voting with the highest number of first-place votes in his second season).

 

[DisgruntledGoat*]

Selanne.

Fedorov is wildly overrated on these boards. No other player has his weaknesses white-washed and his strengths inflated like Sergei on HFBoards.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Got it, let's just stop comparing playoff performances of players and only use the regular season.

Are you upset that I used context to explain how it is harder to record points against elite defensive teams than mediocre/bad defensive teams? Does it mean nothing that 16 of Fedorov's 24 points in the 1995 playoffs came against bottom-ten teams in the league? Or that 9 of his 20 points in the 1998 playoffs came against the eighth-worst defensive team in the league, and that he was completely invisible against the elite Dallas Stars?

And stop using strawman arguments on HOH. It's pathetic.

Lidstrom and Coffey played together.

My point is that Fedorov always had an elite defenseman throughout his entire career. Yes, sometimes he had two. I'm not sure how that would hurt his output, so you'll have to explain your point.

You're basically saying "Selanne's better because he didn't have elite teammates."

That isn't anywhere near a proper summation of my argument. Selanne is a better player because he was a better scorer over a lengthy two-part prime, twice outscoring Fedorov in their healthy late-twenties seasons by roughly 45 points. As good as he was defensively (and he's not Jere Lehtinen, Guy Carbonneau, or Michael Peca), Fedorov was only a top offensive player two seasons - both of which he had Paul Coffey. Two seasons, despite having an a All-Star team ensuring that no opponent could focus on just Fedorov's line. Two seasons.

Somehow a nine-point series against the Coyotes and just 11 points in his next three series is supposed to make me forget that he couldn't record better numbers with all of his tools and advantageous circumstances?

 

[quoipourquoi]

Fedorov's career PPG is about 0.1 below Selanne's. That's 8 points in a season.

Do you think Selanne's 8-point gap is worth the elite defense Fedorov offered from the moment he stepped on NHL ice (he received a third-place Selke vote in his rookie year, then was second in voting with the highest number of first-place votes in his second season).

Ugh, that is such a bogus way to compare players. The per-82 GP offensive gap between Jagr and Sakic is only 2 points, but there isn't a damn person that doesn't know the difference.

 

[pdd]

Are you upset that I used context to explain how it is harder to record points against elite defensive teams than mediocre/bad defensive teams? Does it mean nothing that 16 of Fedorov's 24 points in the 1995 playoffs came against bottom-ten teams in the league? Or that 9 of his 20 points in the 1998 playoffs came against the eighth-worst defensive team in the league, and that he was completely invisible against the elite Dallas Stars?

How many of Gretzky's 200+ came against the Winnipeg Jets? When Mario scored 160 in 60, how many were against first-year Ottawa?

My point is that Fedorov always had an elite defenseman throughout his entire career. Yes, sometimes he had two. I'm not sure how that would hurt his output, so you'll have to explain your point.

Selanne had Kariya. Sakic and Forsberg had each other. Gretzky in 1989 scored 168 points and won the Hart even though his second line center (Bernie Nicholls) scored 150 points.

That isn't anywhere near a proper summation of my argument. Selanne is a better player because he was a better scorer over a lengthy two-part prime, twice outscoring Fedorov in their healthy late-twenties seasons by roughly 45 points. As good as he was defensively (and he's not Jere Lehtinen, Guy Carbonneau, or Michael Peca),

You significantly underrate Fedorov's defense. I'll refer again to his 1991-92 season; Carbonneau won the Selke, but Fedorov had more first-place votes in a second-place finish.

Fedorov was only a top offensive player two seasons - both of which he had Paul Coffey. Two seasons, despite having an a All-Star team ensuring that no opponent could focus on just Fedorov's line. Two seasons.

Yzerman missed a third of 1993-94, and that Wings team was hardly an all-star team. 1995-96, I'll give you the All-Star team label. But Fedorov scored 100+ pace in 92-93 and 94-95 also, seasons which you left out.

And Selanne had Kariya, who most considered the better player at the time. So it's not like he was Pavel Bure off in Florida with nobody to play with.

Somehow a nine-point series against the Coyotes and just 11 points in his next three series is supposed to make me forget that he couldn't record better numbers with all of his tools and advantageous circumstances?

Tell ya what. You name me three other players who have scored 20+ in four consecutive playoffs, and I'll let up on that point.

 

[Evincar]

How can you not go with Selanne here? I will give Fedorov credit in the postseason. he was unbelievable when the chips were down. I think we all knew that about him. But he coasted like crazy in the regular season. There was no reason why he couldn't have had 100 point seasons while being a Selke threat year after year. Instead he runs arond with 60-70 point seasons most of his career.

He really only has two seasons where he was among the elite. 1994 and 1996. Other than that he took a nosedive statistically. I realize in Detroit's system once they got interested in winning that offense wasn't the be all and end all but you might also remember that even during that time people wondered why he wouldn't score more, so it isn't just revisionist history.

I'll go with Selanne here. He aged much better and even though there was that gap in the middle of his career I will still take him over Fedorov. He was basically alone with scrubs in 1997-'98 and led the NHL in goals. There is no evidence to show Fedorov could have done that individually. Anyway, too many points, too many goals and enough hardware to convince me that Selanne had the better career.

To his credit Fedorov also has 94-95 and 02-03 but everything else I agree with. Fedorov was very disappointing post 1996 in the regular season. Plus there's his holdout in 98.

Only injuries slowed Selanne down. You knew what kind of effort you would get from him on a nightly basis.

 

[quoipourquoi]

To his credit Fedorov also has 94-95 and 02-03. But everything else I agree with. Fedorov was very disappointing post 1996 in the regular season. Plus there's his holdout in 98.

2002-03 was the only other year he led the Red Wings in scoring; 1995 was a case of picking up just enough points from Coffey's lead to crack the top-20. Hell, Fedorov in 1995 had just two more points than Selanne in what was a season that Selanne would probably like to forget ever happened. And that's Fedorov's fourth-best.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

As good as he was defensively (and he's not Jere Lehtinen, Guy Carbonneau, or Michael Peca),

to my eyes, fedorov was the first offensive star since bobby clarke to legitimately be on that lehtinen, carbonneau, peca, madden (and gainey, ramsay, etc.) level. and datsyuk is the only one since.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

To his credit Fedorov also has 94-95 and 02-03 but everything else I agree with. Fedorov was very disappointing post 1996 in the regular season. Plus there's his holdout in 98.

Only injuries slowed Selanne down. You knew what kind of effort you would get from here on a nightly basis.

Yup. Prime, healthy Selanne always gave you a great offensive effort and little to no effort at backchecking. Fedorov was pretty unique in that even when he slacked offensively, he still played well defensively - probably something to do with the center being a defense-first position in the 80s Soviet system.

I honestly don't know which of the two I would pick. There are strong points in both of their favors. Fedorov, at his best, was the better player, but he was really only at his best in the 1993-94 regular season, parts of the 1995-96 regular season and select points in the playoffs. Fedorov was also the much better defensive player.

Still, regular seasons vs regular seasons, you have to take Selanne, because when healthy, he was a consistently elite offensive player. While Selanne was actually a pretty good playoff performer in his prime in limited opportunities, Fedorov still has a substantial advantage there, over Teemu and over most players. In fact, Fedorov, is one of those few players who was so consistently good over so many playoff games, that you are pretty much certain that's how good he actually was, and that it wasn't just due to random variation.

 

[DisgruntledGoat*]

You significantly underrate Fedorov's defense. I'll refer again to his 1991-92 season; Carbonneau won the Selke, but Fedorov had more first-place votes in a second-place finish.

The Selke trophy is voted on by the Professional Hockey Writer's Association.

The Hart trophy is voted on by the Professional Hockey Writer's Association.

Interesting, then, that you have brought up Fedorov's Selke finishes in 1992 more than once in trying to demonstrate his defensive prowess; and yet, Mark Messier's Hart win, that same year voted on by the same voters, you continually bash and deride as undeserved.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

To his credit Fedorov also has 94-95 and 02-03 but everything else I agree with. Fedorov was very disappointing post 1996 in the regular season. Plus there's his holdout in 98.

In fairness, he gave double the amount he held out for (was supposedly offered $5 million x 4 years, wanted $6 million x 4 years - source) to start a foundation for Detroit area children. He even said himself that it "wasn't about the money, it was about what he believed in.

You know what? Kinda worked out in the end for both parties, as Fedorov went on to lead the playoffs in goals on the way to consecutive Cups for the Red Wings. With a $12 million bonus written in for simply getting to the Conference Final, you could even say the results exceeded management's expectations for return on their investment.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Sigh. Can we put the "he could have won the Norris" quote to rest. It is just completely, utterly, absolutely false. Plus, I'm pretty sure it was Holland or Devallano who said that, not Bowman.

Fedorov was moved to defense because he was playing terrible on offense and complaining about ice time. It was both a "F.U." and a "let's see how this works" from Bowman. He did okay back there, but he wasn't in the same time zone as the real Norris threats. Does anyone really believe he was ever going to be better than even Konstantinov or Lidstrom?

Okay you have a point here but still it must be said that Fedorov did okay on the back end, something very few forwards could do period.

But then you go on to say this,

A second "myth" about Fedorov is that he was one of the best playoff performers of all times. This is usually stated in conjunction with his streak of 20+ pts in the playoffs. Fedorov was a very good playoff performer. He played like a star, was arguably the best Wing during that time-frame, and was absolutely a big factor in the Wings' wins. But he did *not* dominate. He was essentially the Mike Gartner of the playoffs. He steadily put up very good numbers, but very rarely was he actually taking over games (*note this wasn't all on Fedorov. Bowman rolled his lines such that no Wing had the opportunity to take over games).

Mike freaking Gartner like? He not only racked up points but played the most consistent 2 way hockey for any forward on the detroit team, Stevie Y included.

Here is how he ranks from 91-03 in the playoffs during his time with Detroit.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=points

What did Mike Gartner do that was even close to that?

Ironically, Fedorov's most dominate playoff performance may have been the '95 finals. He was the only Wing who even came close to breaking the Devils' trap, and put on a one man show to even keep the games close.

Sergei's biggest negative was that he did not give close to his all the majority of the time. His biggest positive was the bigger the game or match-up (e.g., Forsberg), the harder he pushed himself and the better he played.

Very well put

 

[DisgruntledGoat*]

Okay you have a point here but still it must be said that Fedorov did okay on the back end, something very few forwards could do period.

And yet, Bowman moved Mathieu Dandenault back there far more often than Fedorov. This never gets mentioned when this idea gets brought up. A fourth-liner spent more time on D than the mighty Fedorov. Same team, same coach.

The first poster was right. This, 'OMG!!1 Fedorov played defense!!' is one of the silliest myths out there.

 

[Hardyvan123]

And yet, Bowman moved Mathieu Dandenault back there far more often than Fedorov. This never gets mentioned when this idea gets brought up. A fourth-liner spent more time on D than the mighty Fedorov. Same team, same coach.

The first poster was right. This, 'OMG!!1 Fedorov played defense!!' is one of the silliest myths out there.

Okay I will pull a R71 here and rephrase it.


Federov did very well for a top 6 player back on defense. I'm not sure but Mathieu might have played some D in the Q but he was a checker plain and simple in the NHL.

But yes the "he played defense" thing can get overplayed and he certainly was never going to win a Norris, unless the switch had occurred much earlier and was constant.

 

[Plural]

Both of these guys were left out from the HOH Top-70 list. If the list would be assembled today do any of you guys see either one leaving out?

For reference's sake:
65 21 Peter Forsberg C 6'0" 205
66 4 Aurele Joliat LW 5'7" 136
67 5/16 Cy Denneny LW 5'7" 168
68 13 Boris Mikhailov RW 5'9" 170
69 17 Jari Kurri RW 6'0" 194
70 9 Ted Kennedy C 5'11" 175

The last 6 spots.

I reckon they both would crack the top-100 now.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

In fairness, he gave double the amount he held out for (was supposedly offered $5 million x 4 years, wanted $6 million x 4 years - source) to start a foundation for Detroit area children. He even said himself that it "wasn't about the money, it was about what he believed in.

You know what? Kinda worked out in the end for both parties, as Fedorov went on to lead the playoffs in goals on the way to consecutive Cups for the Red Wings. With a $12 million bonus written in for simply getting to the Conference Final, you could even say the results exceeded management's expectations for return on their investment.

i don't remember this super clearly, but that was the "poison pill" carolina put into the contract when they made the offer sheet right? i.e., even with fedorov, the canes were unlikely to make the conference finals. whereas the red wings would be underachieving if they didn't. the idea being that the contract was almost certainly going to be more costly for the wings to match than for the canes to offer. and if the canes did make the conference finals, then fedorov would have been worth every cent of that extra $12 million.

also, i think the holdout happened after the first cup.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Both of these guys were left out from the HOH Top-70 list. If the list would be assembled today do any of you guys see either one leaving out?

For reference's sake:
65 21 Peter Forsberg C 6'0" 205
66 4 Aurele Joliat LW 5'7" 136
67 5/16 Cy Denneny LW 5'7" 168
68 13 Boris Mikhailov RW 5'9" 170
69 17 Jari Kurri RW 6'0" 194
70 9 Ted Kennedy C 5'11" 175

The last 6 spots.

I reckon they both would crack the top-100 now.

Fedorov finished 80th on the 2008 list, but was not eligible for the top 80 on the revised 2009 list. Selanne didn't place in the top 100 of the 2008 list.

 

[Plural]

Fedorov finished 80th on the 2008 list, but was not eligible for the top 80 on the revised 2009 list. Selanne didn't place in the top 100 of the 2008 list.

All right.

Hard to see Selanne climbing up enough spots to catch Fedorov. Although i guess Selanne should be around same spot than Kurri at this moment.

But overall, these two guys can go either way.

Personally i find the lack of offensive production with Fedorov to be a big knock against him. Obviously the guy had talent to put up 100+ points in regular season but for some odd reason he was more like a 60-70 point forward.

 

[toob]

Feds longevity gets underrated here. It isnt just about coasting and all that, many years he had a different role on the team. Not saying that he would be as consistently high as Selanne offensively if he played in a different context but he certainly had the talent to be pretty close.

He had a good rookie year and then followed it up with great years in 92 and 93. And he wasnt really playing with amazing offensive players in those years. There was Yzerman but Yzerman and Fedorov had only 10 shared points in 93 out of Fedorov's 87. Prolly more in 92 and 91 since the PP in 93 was amazing, only good in 92, and bad in 91 where Fedorov and Yzerman would have to play more together.

Then there was his D and forget the Selke which Fedorov did best in in his best offensive years, Fedorov was actually playing a defensive role on a generally defensive team in 92. In 94 when he won the Selke he was playing by far the most offensive hockey of his career with the top offensive wingers and D on the team. He was told to play more selfishly and carry the team offensively. Then in 95 the team clamps down defensively.

It is either a post-greatness slump, or the ultimate team sacrifice.

Sergei says the latter.

"I hope people saw me last year and know what I can do," he said after the Wings' game Sunday afternoon. "But they must also know the hockey we played last year is not the hockey we play this year.

"I am not playing with the same players, and I am not asked to do the same things. Sometimes I think about last year, to be honest, because I would like to defend those awards. But I have to say to myself, 'Just do the things you are told.' "

What he has been told is to concentrate on the complete game, emphasis on defensive hockey, stay within the system, and concern yourself only with victory. It was a gamble by coach Scotty Bowman -- after all, when you have a rocket in your arsenal, it's hard to make it fly with all the other planes.

And his drop in scoring after 96. A completely different role might have something to do with it going from top offensive line with the Russian 5 to playing behind Yzerman. As Fedorov says "People ask me why I don't have more 50-goal scoring seasons like I did once," Fedorov says of his 1994 MVP trophy season. "But this is not the role that everybody wants me to play. This team has strategies -- especially with Scotty Bowman. I used to think it was bad to slow down, because it's more fun to score points. But now I believe that it was worth it."

It isnt surprising at all that when Yzerman missed a lot of time and Fedorov was called to shoulder the offensive load, he did so, easily.

The post by overg is pretty much right in many cases although i think Feds playoff performance in general is being understated a bit. But yeah IMO the 4 straight 20 point playoffs arent his best. 02 is with "only" 19 points.