Yeah but he also played hurt a lot and in a low scoring era. Forsberg at his best was nearly as good as Malkin offensively anyway but even better all around. I think many truly forget just how good he really was or are just too young to even have much of a clue.
Peter Forsberg vs. Evgeni Malkin
- Thread starter James Gryphon
- Start date
Yeah but he also played hurt a lot and in a low scoring era. Forsberg at his best was nearly as good as Malkin offensively anyway but even better all around. I think many truly forget just how good he really was or are just too young to even have much of a clue.
That is not really that crazy though, infact I actually agree with their top 5. It's heavily biased towards modern players but Malkin is also a modern player, and this isn't TSN ranking him here.
I see nothing wrong with their rankings. They know what they're talking about if you ask me.
I heard Kypreos talk about Malkin's play lately and said if he had played like this his whole career he would've made the top 100 list, it baffled me even more than him not making that list in the first place.
Jtown
Registered User
It truly makes no sense to me. At his best he is very possibly the best hockey player ever if we looked at everyone in history exactly as they were.
Jtown
Registered User
TheGoldenJet
Registered User
I meant if you take everyone exactly as they were he could be, or atleast very close. I do not believe Gretzky for instance would literally be better than the best players today as he actually was, infact I think it's rather obvious he wouldn't be.
Sidney the Kidney
One last time
- Jun 29, 2009
- 55,679
- 46,551
That's fine, if that's what you think. All I know is 99% of Crosby's "haters" on here scoffed at those NHLPA rankings that have him 3rd best forward. Yet, suddenly because it's Peter the Great (who is a HF GOD), NHL player rankings are the holy Bible.
Jtown
Registered User
You can't do that. You can only compare players to their era. That is why guys like gretzky and Wilt chamberlain are imo the best indivividuals of their sport because they dominated their era's
Well yeah if you want a real all time ranking, I was just making the point that the perhaps most skilled hockey player isn't in the top 100 though.
PatrikBerglund
Registered User
- May 29, 2017
- 4,628
- 2,654
Does the same logic apply to Bobby Orr then?
And #21 played a significant part of his career with injuries, so that cancels it out.
Malkin is probably my favorite non-Leaf since he entered the league. An absolutely incredible player. So was Forsberg, but Malkin's had the better career, despite being somewhat injury prone, he looks like an iron-man compared to Forsberg. I also think the gap in physicality and playmaking, which are in Forsberg's favor, is lesser than the advantage Malkin has over Forsberg in goal scoring.
Bobby Orr was so far ahead of his peers that it doesn't really matter. Forsberg wasn't noticeably ahead of a broken down Mario, Sakic, Yzerman or Fedorov (before he fell off a cliff). In Orr's case you are talking about a guy who was top 3 every year in Hart voting before his injuries (winning 3 in a row at one point) and won the Norris 8 straight times.
PatrikBerglund
Registered User
- May 29, 2017
- 4,628
- 2,654
Competing against guys of which 90% wouldn't even have made an NHL roster when Forsberg had his peak.
Then that makes whoever is the best player currently in the NHL the best player of all-time. You have to measure guys relative to era. We have no idea how 70's players would have developed if they grew up in the modern NHL era, so therefore you can only measure them relative to peers.
PatrikBerglund
Registered User
- May 29, 2017
- 4,628
- 2,654
Yes, that is correct.
It doesn't matter, they didn't.
With that logic, any man in the history om mankind could've been the best hockey player ever - given the right training and circumstances.
It's a flawed and dishonest logic.
The only way to conclude who is the best ever, is to compare players to one another, regardless of other factors, eras being one of them.
The best 100 m runner from the 1970s dominated his peers more than Bolt does today.
Which of them is the best/fastest runner?
You do realize people hold Jesse Owens and Carl Lewis in the same regard as Bolt right or atleast until Bolt managed to dominate his peers, unlike any other sprinter.
But, whatever, that would make Malkin the clearly better player than Forsberg considering how much faster the game has gotten since Peter retried and Malkin is still a dominant player. That is not how you approach historical discussions. You can't ignore era when making historical comparisons.
KoozNetsOff 92
Hala Madrid
- Apr 6, 2016
- 8,567
- 8,229
Then go start your own thread that lays out these conditions when comparing players. I am sure it will be a fascinating discussion.
It should be common sense that when comparing players from different eras, you are measuring their performances vs. their peers.
PatrikBerglund
Registered User
- May 29, 2017
- 4,628
- 2,654
How can you compare players from different eras/situations and then come up with a fair conclusion as to who the best was?
When I was a kid, I dominated the other kids on my street in soccer more than Messi does today.
With your logic, I waz better than Messi?
PatrikBerglund
Registered User
- May 29, 2017
- 4,628
- 2,654
Owens ran 100 m in 10.2, which would not even be good enough to be top- 100 in the world today - yet he is as fast as Usain Bolt?
You make zero sense.
Again, he is viewed as one of the greatest of all time due to his dominence over his peers and winning the 100 and 200 (like Bolt currently has done) plus 4x100m relay and the long jump. Not that he would beat a current sprinter in a race.
Did I ever say he was as fast as Usain Bolt? No. If I make zero sense, it is because you lack basic reading comprehension skills or are reading things that aren't there.
