Peter Forsberg vs. Evgeni Malkin

Who ranks higher in hockey history?


  • Total voters
    206

quoipourquoi

Goaltender
Jan 26, 2009
10,123
4,126
Hockeytown, MI
Malkin put up 36 points with Talbot and Fedotenko on his wings. His performance blows Briere and Forsberg's out of the water.

Actually, Malkin scored 20 even-strength points in 24 games with Talbot and Fedotenko on his wings. Forsberg and Briere also scored exactly 20 even-strength points in 2002 and 2010 respectively.

But in fewer games.

Against better defensive opponents.

If you think playing with Talbot/Fedotenko (14/13 points) is so much worse than Drury/Reinprecht (12/12) or Leino/Hartnell (21/17) that they were weighing his offense down like an anchor, make your mental adjustment for it. But I don't think it amounts to blowing anyone out of the water.
 

Sidney the Kidney

One last time
Jun 29, 2009
55,516
46,232
Actually, Malkin scored 20 even-strength points in 24 games with Talbot and Fedotenko on his wings. Forsberg and Briere also scored exactly 20 even-strength points in 2002 and 2010 respectively.

But in fewer games.

Against better defensive opponents.

If you think playing with Talbot/Fedotenko (14/13 points) is so much worse than Drury/Reinprecht (12/12) or Leino/Hartnell (21/17) that they were weighing his offense down like an anchor, make your mental adjustment for it. But I don't think it amounts to blowing anyone out of the water.

Are you saying you DON'T think Talbot/Fedotenko are worse than those other two pairings?
 

daver

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
25,820
5,710
Visit site
Here's a comparable offensive playoff run to Evgeni Malkin's 2009 from just the year after: Daniel Briere. On the surface, Evgeni Malkin's 36 in 24 is more impressive than Briere's 30 in 23. But the 2010 Flyers faced opponents who averaged 205.4 GA.

If you adjust to the same environment (I used 200 GA), it's pretty close: 29.4 in 23 vs. 30.3 in 23.

Daniel Briere (2010)

GPPTSOpp-GAx AdjAdj PTS
551911.045.24
7102001.0010.00
532230.902.69
6122090.9611.48
233029.41
[TBODY] [/TBODY]
Evgeni Malkin (2009)

GPPTSOpp-GAx AdjAdj PTS
692380.847.56
7102450.828.16
492260.887.96
782440.826.56
243630.25
[TBODY] [/TBODY]
Peter Forsberg (2002)

GPPTSOpp-GAx AdjAdj PTS
671901.057.37
7121991.0112.06
781871.078.56
202727.98
[TBODY] [/TBODY]
Peter Forsberg (1999)

GPPTSOpp-GAx AdjAdj PTS
681911.058.38
692020.998.91
771681.198.33
192425.62
[TBODY] [/TBODY]

So in terms of adjusted points (200 GA environment) per game:

1.40 - Forsberg, 2002
1.35 - Forsberg, 1999
1.28 - Briere, 2010
1.26 - Malkin, 2009

I think Forsberg's 2002 is probably a more impressive offensive run than Malkin's 2009 - but both are certainly very impressive.

I really have an issue with adjusting numbers based on regular season performances. They give no indication of the team's actual defensive performance in the playoffs. At best, your adjusting can serve to differentiate two players with similar numbers.
 

newfy

Registered User
Jul 28, 2010
14,718
8,241
If you used a time-machine and moved the best players from 1970 to face fhe best of today - and give them the exact same equipment.

Do you SERIOUSLY think that team 1970 would stand a chance?

Honestly?

Team 2018 could win 10-0 without breaking a sweat.

Where do you draw the line though? I personally DO think a team transported from the early 90s would, lets say 92 as a year, would beat a team of 2018s best players. And I have some decent arguments to support it. Obviously Gretzky and Lemieux would be the best players in the world right now.

But even a guy like Joe Sakic, who was very young at the time could put up 100 points in 2007 at the age of what, 38? Going against dmen like Keith, Chara, Lidstrom etc. And while he was a standout in the 90s, he wasnt really ever agrued as the best in the league. Guys like Jagr, the dmen like Bourque, younger Chelios....

I think it would be stupid to argue against those guys because they were still dominant in old age against todays "superior" players. The younger versions of themselves would clearly be better. So no, I dont think time necessarily means players get better as it moves along.

The 70s is a different story, and much harder to make the comparison because none of those guys overlapped careers with current players. But thats why its stupid to try to do it the way youre insisting and that dominance against peers is the only way to judge who was better
 

KoozNetsOff 92

Hala Madrid
Apr 6, 2016
8,567
8,229
I disagree. His opponents averaged 239.8 GA in 2009, while Forsberg's averaged 192 GA in 2002. If you're not taking that into consideration, you may as well compare 2005-06 raw offensive numbers with 2003-04 raw offensive numbers - only a 239.8 GA environment vs. 192 GA environment is actually an even bigger gap than 2005-06 vs. 2003-04.

I have to agree with daver, using regular season GA is pointless. In the regular season teams are trying out different combinations, no one is on the same schedule travel wise or playing b2bs which means some games the backups can get lit up, you aren't strictly planning to face the same team for 7 straight games and how to best neutralize them, some teams change coaches throughout the season which could totally change their system, etc. If you want to compare the scoring environment of the playoffs then that's different, but regular season GA doesn't mean much imo.
 

quoipourquoi

Goaltender
Jan 26, 2009
10,123
4,126
Hockeytown, MI
I have to agree with daver, using regular season GA is pointless. In the regular season teams are trying out different combinations, no one is on the same schedule travel wise or playing b2bs which means some games the backups can get lit up, you aren't strictly planning to face the same team for 7 straight games and how to best neutralize them, some teams change coaches throughout the season which could totally change their system, etc. If you want to compare the scoring environment of the playoffs then that's different, but regular season GA doesn't mean much imo.

So you would suggest using a small sample size derived from playing at most four teams to determine the relative strength of a team's defense?

You didn't know that the 1999 Dallas Stars were better defensively than the 2009 Philadelphia Flyers until the playoffs were already underway?

You didn't know if Pekka Rinne holding Chicago to 3 goals last year was him playing above expectation or if Chicago was just a 0.70 goals-per-game team as their playoff numbers suggest?


The regular season isn't a dress rehearsal.
 

Regal

Registered User
Mar 12, 2010
24,539
13,832
Vancouver
So you would suggest using a small sample size derived from playing at most four teams to determine the relative strength of a team's defense?

You didn't know that the 1999 Dallas Stars were better defensively than the 2009 Philadelphia Flyers until the playoffs were already underway?

You didn't know if Pekka Rinne holding Chicago to 3 goals last year was him playing above expectation or if Chicago was just a 0.70 goals-per-game team as their playoff numbers suggest?


The regular season isn't a dress rehearsal.

I think the issue is more the reverse. Not that the regular season is a dress rehearsal, but that over 82 games, things tend to even out far more than they do over a series, particularly a short series. How penalties are called, how healthy the team is in the series compared to on average in the regular season (ie is it missing key players or are key players playing that missed large chunks of the regular season), goalies running hot and cold, etc, can all drastically affect how a team might perform defensively over a small sample size. I think it's important to note competition because it is pretty variable for each team, but I'm not sure we can make any real conclusions out of these types of adjustments
 

PinkFly

Registered User
Oct 30, 2017
764
319
Peter Forsberg is the most overrated player to ever step foot on NHL ice. This is Malkin, peak wise, career wise and in any other type of comparison.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kp61c

Regal

Registered User
Mar 12, 2010
24,539
13,832
Vancouver
Goes to show you how stupid this comparison really is.

No, goes to show how uninformed a number of people are and/or blinded by their sense of him being overrated.

Forsberg had 3 First Team All Stars (same as Malkin), 5 times in the top 10 in scoring (1 more than Malkin), 8 times top 10 in PPG (1 less than Malkin), led the playoff in scoring twice (same as Malkin), was 3rd in PPG through his prime from 94-95 to 03-04, behind Lemieux (the obvious outier) and Jagr, while Malkin in his career so far is 2nd to Crosby (comparable to Jagr), with both having similar leads over their peers. In this same time period, Forsberg was 2nd in playoff points and 3rd in playoff PPG for those over 30 games (same as Malkin). Forsberg was also the better possession and defensive player, finishing as high as 2nd in Selke voting.

Their careers are very similar, with the biggest difference being Malkin has been a little bit healthier in his top couple seasons (leading to a 2nd Art Ross and more Hart votes), and has now played a couple more years in his prime.
 
Last edited:

daver

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
25,820
5,710
Visit site
Their careers are very similar, with the biggest difference being Malkin has been a little bit healthier in his top couple seasons (leading to a 2nd Art Ross and more Hart votes), and has now played a couple more years in his prime.

Nailed it. It really was a tossup between the two from Day 1 of their careers, Malkin has pulled away definitively this year. Forsberg should be recognized for being the better 2-way player and playing more of a #1C/two-way role while Malkin has the higher offensive ceiling.
 

authentic

Registered User
Jan 28, 2015
25,393
10,412
No, goes to show how uninformed a number of people are and/or blinded by their sense of him being overrated.

Forsberg had 3 First Team All Stars (same as Malkin), 5 times in the top 10 in scoring (1 more than Malkin), 8 times top 10 in PPG (1 less than Malkin), led the playoff in scoring twice (same as Malkin), was 3rd in PPG through his prime from 94-95 to 03-04, behind Lemieux (the obvious outier) and Jagr, while Malkin in his career so far is 2nd to Crosby (comparable to Jagr), with both having similar leads over their peers. In this same time period, Forsberg was 2nd in playoff points and 3rd in playoff PPG for those over 30 games (same as Malkin). Forsberg was also the better possession and defensive player, finishing as high as 2nd in Selke voting.

Their careers are very similar, with the biggest difference being Malkin has been a little bit healthier in his top couple seasons (leading to a 2nd Art Ross and more Hart votes), and has now played a couple more years in his prime.

Malkin has now played just one more season not including Forsberg's 2 comeback attempts at the end of his career.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheGoldenJet

authentic

Registered User
Jan 28, 2015
25,393
10,412
Goes to show you how stupid this comparison really is.

No it doesn't because everyone who says this just says it without presenting any argument. All the stats and opinions of informed hockey fans show that it's close. Infact, until now every previous poll between the two was nearly split 50/50 and Forsberg even won many times.
 

Syrinx

Registered User
Jul 7, 2005
9,509
778
Cary, NC
No it doesn't because everyone who says this just says it without presenting any argument. All the stats and opinions of informed hockey fans show that it's close. Infact, until now every previous poll between the two was nearly split 50/50 and Forsberg even won many times.

And now Forsberg is getting doubled by neutral fans.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheGoldenJet

Regal

Registered User
Mar 12, 2010
24,539
13,832
Vancouver
Are you saying you DON'T think Talbot/Fedotenko are worse than those other two pairings?

That's not what he said. He said the difference in linemates can largely be balanced by the fact that the others scored the same (at even strength, where linemates are a factor) in less games, and against better opponents.
 

TheGoldenJet

Registered User
Apr 2, 2008
9,419
4,507
Coquitlam, BC
Oh, for that (best since 1994)? Jean-Sebastien Giguere. He was a national news story in 2003. CNN had a graphic for him ("Getting Giggy With It").

I'd probably take Brian Leetch, Erik Karlsson, Joe Sakic, John Vanbiesbrouck, Jonathan Quick, Peter Forsberg, and Tim Thomas over Evgeni Malkin's 2009. Which isn't to say it's not a fantastic playoff run, but that I think it's less than what the raw number represents. It's like the 155-point Yzerman season of playoff runs - forever notable for its high water mark, but it benefited from a generous environment for offensive production.

List is missing Fedorov’s 95 playoffs, which were more impressive than Forsberg’s 02 run if we’re going back 25 years. Though I disagree with some choices on this list being better than Malkin’s 2009 playoffs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mean Gene

psycat

Registered User
Oct 25, 2016
3,239
1,149
And now Forsberg is getting doubled by neutral fans.

Yes? But that doesnt mean it's an insane comparsion to make. It just means that Malkin is pulling slightly ahead of Forsberg and will end up ranked higher. They are still fairly close as players.
 
  • Like
Reactions: authentic

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->