Peak Fedorov vs Peak Forsberg

[Yuri35]

Here's some quotes on Peter Forsberg.

"He was the most talented guy I ever played with, for just pure raw talent. -- Joe Sakic

And that's saying something considering this guy played with Gretzky and Lemieux (both past their primes but still) on team Canada

 

[TheGoldenJet]

forsberg and I would mostly base on what players who were facing both were saying : you rarely heard players say that Fedorov was the best player in the world even in his prime while players were almost unanimously picking forsberg as their best player in the world during his prime when they were asked about

By Forsberg I think you mean Jagr.

 

[Yuri35]

By Forsberg I think you mean Jagr.

No i really mean Forsberg.
Jagr was an incredible offensive virtuoso but a bit of a prima donna sometimes and honestly it's not hard to understand why so many players who played against or with them would take Forsberg in a heartbeat as their best overall player and as their teammate.
Foppa fully embodied the ideal NHL hockey player

 

[Conspiracy Theorist]

forsberg and I would mostly base on what players who were facing both were saying : you rarely heard players say that Fedorov was the best player in the world even in his prime while players were almost unanimously picking forsberg as their best player in the world during his prime when they were asked about

He may have been better than Gretzky in 93-94 season.

 

[TheGoldenJet]

No i really mean Forsberg.

Ok then.

 

[Xspyrit]

That answered that. Well said.

Because virtually all players do.

Forsberg wouldn’t have been an exception, so stop pretending like he would have been.

Have you seen this? Hard to be more explicit.

"Forsberg from 21 to 34 y/o : 1.34 PPG (947 pts in 708 GP)
Forsberg from 35 to 38 y/o : ??? PPG (??? GP)

He could have gone 239 games without recording a single point and still end up PPG... Do you realize that?"

Or this?

"AND that 1.34 PPG could have been even better if he wasn't injured as much during his prime (and have more weight in the ratio), which would have offset his eventual decline (35+ y/o) even MORE."

Everything was already very clear in my post #272

And like I said, if someone CAN'T GET OVER the fact that he didn't play after 34 y/o, then only look at other players' production BEFORE they turned 35 y/o? Forsberg will still end up way ahead of pretty much ALL NHL PLAYERS IN HISTORY

 

[Rschmitz]

If you said peak season I would say Fedorov, Forsberg never had things line up as nicely as Fedorov. On the other hand single games on the biggest stage Forsberg stands out to me

 

[LightningStorm]

Have you seen this? Hard to be more explicit.

"Forsberg from 21 to 34 y/o : 1.34 PPG (947 pts in 708 GP)
Forsberg from 35 to 38 y/o : ??? PPG (??? GP)

He could have gone 239 games without recording a single point and still end up PPG... Do you realize that?"

Or this?

"AND that 1.34 PPG could have been even better if he wasn't injured as much during his prime (and have more weight in the ratio), which would have offset his eventual decline (35+ y/o) even MORE."

Everything was already very clear in my post #272

And like I said, if someone CAN'T GET OVER the fact that he didn't play after 34 y/o, then only look at other players' production BEFORE they turned 35 y/o? Forsberg will still end up way ahead of pretty much ALL NHL PLAYERS IN HISTORY

Actually he had 885 pts in those 708 GP, making it 1.25 PPG, not 1.34. Plus his lack of play in his 30's speaks to his injury prone style of play, which wasn't sustainable for a long career. Him missing over 2 seasons worth of games in his 20's also attests to this.

Forsberg's PPG is rather unreliable when comparing it to other players, both due to the DPE dragging his #'s down and the fact playing very little in his 30's didn't drag down his #'s late in his career.

 

[Xspyrit]

Actually he had 885 pts in those 708 GP...

I stopped there.

Maybe try to go back in the conversation? Then quote me again if you want...

 

[LightningStorm]

I stopped there.

Maybe try to go back in the conversation? Then quote me again if you want...

So it's adjusted PPG. What source do you have so I can take a look?

 

[TheGoldenJet]

Have you seen this? Hard to be more explicit.

"Forsberg from 21 to 34 y/o : 1.34 PPG (947 pts in 708 GP)
Forsberg from 35 to 38 y/o : ??? PPG (??? GP)

He could have gone 239 games without recording a single point and still end up PPG... Do you realize that?"

Or this?

"AND that 1.34 PPG could have been even better if he wasn't injured as much during his prime (and have more weight in the ratio), which would have offset his eventual decline (35+ y/o) even MORE."

Everything was already very clear in my post #272

And like I said, if someone CAN'T GET OVER the fact that he didn't play after 34 y/o, then only look at other players' production BEFORE they turned 35 y/o? Forsberg will still end up way ahead of pretty much ALL NHL PLAYERS IN HISTORY

None of this wall of text means that Forsberg wouldn’t have significantly slowed down well into his 30s, as nearly all players have done.

 

[TheGoldenJet]

Forsberg's PPG is rather unreliable when comparing it to other players, both due to the DPE dragging his #'s down and the fact playing very little in his 30's didn't drag down his #'s late in his career.

Bingo.

And while he did play in the DPE he also benefited from playing in two very high-scoring seasons in 1995-96 (his career year) and 2005-06 when league scoring was way up.

 

[LightningStorm]

Bingo.

And while he did play in the DPE he also benefited from playing in two very high-scoring seasons in 1995-96 (his career year) and 2005-06 when league scoring was way up.

All this, plus PPG is inherently unreliable with a player who played less than 1,000 games.

 

[authentic]

Have you seen this? Hard to be more explicit.

"Forsberg from 21 to 34 y/o : 1.34 PPG (947 pts in 708 GP)
Forsberg from 35 to 38 y/o : ??? PPG (??? GP)

He could have gone 239 games without recording a single point and still end up PPG... Do you realize that?"

Or this?

"AND that 1.34 PPG could have been even better if he wasn't injured as much during his prime (and have more weight in the ratio), which would have offset his eventual decline (35+ y/o) even MORE."

Everything was already very clear in my post #272

And like I said, if someone CAN'T GET OVER the fact that he didn't play after 34 y/o, then only look at other players' production BEFORE they turned 35 y/o? Forsberg will still end up way ahead of pretty much ALL NHL PLAYERS IN HISTORY

Do the same thing with playoffs too. He’s still top 5-10 I bet era adjusted and excluding players who have played less than 50 or so games.

He has a higher points per game than Crosby in the playoffs and Crosby just turned 35 before this season.

 

[Ben White]

He was most certainly better than Sakic at several points of their careers. I don’t think a single Avs fan would argue otherwise. He can be overrated by some, but then there’s more who counter it by going too far the other way.

Yeah and when a poll was made on THE AVS’ BOARD “Forsberg vs Sakic” a couple of years ago Forsberg won by a country mile. These hot takes about Sakic being the better player never gets old. He was healthier, more durable but not better.

 

[nbwingsfan]

This was already covered in my post but I'll re-explain it another way as sometimes things need to be repeated to be understood.

There wasn't a "significant decrease" while he was broken down by injuries from 32 to 34 years old, so what makes you think there would have been a "significant decrease" with better health from 35 to 38 y/o for example?

Finally, he doesn't need to end 4th Era-Adjusted Points Per Game to be an all-time great. Even if he drops in that list, point still stands. He's been a lot more productive than Fedorov in his career. And I also liked Fedorov a lot so this is NOT a pissing match for me. Big fan of both players.

Oh and he could have added more points during his prime if he wasn't diminished by so many injuries, so that "potential decline" in his late 30's would have had even less effect.

Hopefully it is clear.

Because a 38 year old is much older than a 32 year old?

It’s very, very rare for player to keep producing at a high level after 35. Just look at the guy he’s being compared to here

 

[Xspyrit]

None of this wall of text means that Forsberg wouldn’t have significantly slowed down well into his 30s, as nearly all players have done.

If 147 words and a roughly 1-1.5 minute read is WALL OF TEXT for you, maybe you should stay out of this? lol

66 words, you didn't get it. 85 words, same result 23 words, nope

But I'll repeat in a SHORT and SIMPLE way just for you :

Compare Forsberg era adjusted PPG (1.34) to ANYBODY (not named Gretzky, Lemieux, Crosby) before the age of 35 years old

Maybe pre-35 Jagr produced more? Anyone else?

So it's adjusted PPG. What source do you have so I can take a look?

The link was provided too. You can find it, pretty easy

Do the same thing with playoffs too. He’s still top 5-10 I bet era adjusted and excluding players who have played less than 50 or so games.

He has a higher points per game than Crosby in the playoffs and Crosby just turned 35 before this season.

A lot of people absolutely despise this thing called reality. They are ready to twist in so many ways if they can somehow find a way to cope with it.

Because a 38 year old is much older than a 32 year old?

It’s very, very rare for player to keep producing at a high level after 35. Just look at the guy he’s being compared to here

Just read the rest... this was addressed.

 

[nbwingsfan]

If 147 words and a roughly 1-1.5 minute read is WALL OF TEXT for you, maybe you should stay out of this? lol

66 words, you didn't get it. 85 words, same result 23 words, nope

But I'll repeat in a SHORT and SIMPLE way just for you :

Compare Forsberg era adjusted PPG (1.34) to ANYBODY (not named Gretzky, Lemieux, Crosby) before the age of 35 years old

Maybe pre-35 Jagr produced more? Anyone else?



The link was provided too. You can find it, pretty easy



A lot of people absolutely despise this thing called reality. They are ready to twist in so many ways if they can somehow find a way to cope with it.



Just read the rest... this was addressed.

It was addressed… just not addressed well

 

[LightningStorm]

The link was provided too. You can find it, pretty easy

The one 8 years out of date? Putting that aside and looking at it on it's own terms, it only proves the point @BraveCanadian made about PPG being unreliable when comparing players of significantly different career lengths. In the top 10, Forsberg was one of 6 players who, at the time of that list, were under both 1.000 (adjusted) points and 1,000 GP. 12 total for the top 20, as it remained at the 60% rate. Who would've guessed PPG would favor players without later seasons in their career to drag it down?

 

[Xspyrit]

It was addressed… just not addressed well

Maybe, maybe not because it was not a very important factor to me, considering how much leeway Forsberg had

Did you see when I said "He could have gone 239 games without recording a single point and still end up PPG"? Yeah that's how productive he was despite playing in the dead puck era.

Anyway, to simplify I have asked this :

"Compare Forsberg era adjusted PPG (1.34) to ANYBODY (not named Gretzky, Lemieux, Crosby) before the age of 35 years old"

Feel free to crunch some numbers

The one 8 years out of date?

Yeah, that's the only one there is or that I have found. Sorry but I don't care that much about the subject, won't take time to re-do all the numbers!

In the top 10, Forsberg was one of 6 players who, at the time of that list, were under both 1.000 (adjusted) points and 1,000 GP. 12 total for the top 20, as it remained at the 60% rate. Who would've guessed PPG would favor players without later seasons in their career to drag it down?

lol are you serious with that? Why even bother quoting somebody if you're not going to read everything? I have explained this a million times already, in basically every post I have made after the first few ones. ANd since it looked damn complicated for some, I have simplified to this :

Try to find players who have a better era-adjusted PPG before they reached 34 years old (heck, 32 y/o if you want)

My guess is there won't be many...

 

[LightningStorm]

Sorry but I don't care that much about the subject, won't take time to re-do all the numbers!

This also sums up how I feel about this:

Try to find players who have a better era-adjusted PPG before they reached 34 years old (heck, 32 y/o if you want)

Updating the 8 years and recalculating it to players before 34 (or 32) would take too long, and frankly I've explained my reasons for why adjusted PPG is flawed for players of vastly different career lengths, and that Forsberg fits the general theme of the top 10 (even top 20) of smaller sample sizes allowing more extreme averages.

I didn't even get into the fact that adjusted points is something where YMMV, as some view it as a lot of guesswork and assumptions. I think it's a good guide, but not something I draw sweeping conclusions from. For me personally, I like to look at a players numbers for how they did relative to their era, rather than trying to guess how they'd do when standardizing scoring rates across all eras, which is a tall task in an of itself.

 

[Ben White]

Ah yes the fantasy player polls for Forsberg. Yet a couple of months later those same players chose Jagr as the best in the league (lindsay winner) while Forsberg wasn't even top 3.

Because Forsberg got injured duh… Why this purposely dishonest post? Forsberg was hands down the best player in the NHL in 05-06 pre his mid season injury, hence the result in that player’s poll. Unfortunate for Forsberg with the 04-05 lockout since he had the far and away best ppg in the league from his 02 playoffs comeback until his mid season injury in 06 why it’s safe to say he was the best player in the league over a period of 4 years (even though he lost a year there).

 

[thadd]

Too close to call.

Forsberg was an invincible tank that could put up tons of points.

Federov wasn't exactly weak physically, but he was compared to Forsberg, but past that there wasn't anything he couldn't do. He looked like a Star playing center, wing or even as a defenseman. I'll never forget the year he got moved to the rear. My mind was blown.

 

[TheGoldenJet]

Compare Forsberg era adjusted PPG (1.34) to ANYBODY (not named Gretzky, Lemieux, Crosby) before the age of 35 years old

Maybe pre-35 Jagr produced more? Anyone else?

Again, Forsberg played a whopping 68 career games after the ripe old age of 32, so “pre-35” is still a comparison that is biased towards Forsberg quite heavily for this reason, and also for the fact that he was a very old rookie when he made his NHL debut (almost 22yo). Most stars have their learning curve in the NHL and their career points/game is dragged down by their 18, 19, and 20 year old seasons, this wasn’t the case for Forsberg who developed in the SHL and got some Olympic experience before coming over.

If you make the comparison ages 21-32, then you will see Forsberg drop back in the pack a bit with the other stars.

Finally, you have still failed to provide evidence that Forsberg would have done exceedingly well from the age of 35 onwards. I maintain he would have tanked his career Points/game average like many other stars before him did had he kept playing, as his career Points/game after the age of 34 of 0.00 (in only 2 GP) attests to.

 

[Wings4Life]

Forsberg was an invincible tank that could put up tons of points.

Good post, but this part is an exaggeration. We are not talking about prime Lindros here.

Forsberg was an average sized player who would on occasion try the rough stuff, and more often than not he would injure himself in the process after a couple such games and spend time on IR. I won't even get into his diving penalties/rep either.