OK now go check the GPG and PPOs in 95/96. Also I don't really care if Lemieux got 161pts, like I said you can remove him. Forsberg finished 5th in pts that season so clearly Lemieux wasn't the reason he didn't win. He wasn't good enough, end of story.
They had the same # of pts sure. But Forsberg only had 8pts more than his closest team mate and a fluke 2pt ross win over Naslund. Kane had 30pts more than his closest team mate and a dominant 17pt ross win over prime Crosby. See the difference there?
How can you call his Art Ross winning season a “fluke” but still expected to have a valid opinion? It wasn’t a fluke, that was a healthy Forsberg. If he had remained healthy, he most likely walks away with the same kind of season in ‘04.
Forsberg was arguably the best offensive player and more dangerous player on the Avs. Sakic said himself, that teams would focus more on Forsberg, enabling him to have more room to play and do his thing. He also didn’t benefit from being deployed purely for offensive purposes like Kane has most of his career. He had Kane’s offensive talent while being better defensively.
Forsberg only played 70 or more games 5 times through out his career, and within those 5 times he has 5 top 10 finishes(4 in the top 5), a Hart, Art Ross, and 3x First team AS honors at center.
For Playoffs, of course Kane has the edge, but again Forsberg was no slouch either. He lead all playoffs in scoring twice without reaching the finals.
peak season I would give to Kane, playoffs Kane has the edge too, but everything in between is Forsberg. He didn’t have “fluke” seasons, he just was rarely healthy enough to put together better high end ones.