Peter Forsberg was the most complete hockey player who ever lived.

[bathdog]

The general consensus is that Fedorov was no longer in his prime years after his contract dispute in the 98 season. And during both the 96/97 regular season and playoffs, he spent a good chunk of time playing as a defenceman, which makes it hard to compare his 97 stats to other forwards. He did lead Team Russia in scoring at the World Cup that year, for what it's worth.

But the problem with these comparisons is that you're comparing a prime Forsberg to mostly a past-prime (34yo in that last season) Fedorov.

93-97 would be Fedorovs peak as a forward, though for parts of 95/96 and 96/97 he played on defence. This makes his 95/96 year (Selke, top 10 points, 5th place Hart voting) a very impressive year in my view. Often underrated compared to his 94 year.

That's fair, but on the other hand Fedorov got to start in his prime whereas Forsberg's rookie and early years are included.

If we'd use that span for comparison, it's also a bit inconvinient that those years saw significantly higher scoring than Forsberg's remaining years.

If we look at how they fared during 93/94-95/96 (more than 100GP, and Lemieux removed as an outlier):

Fedorov finished with 1.37 ppg good for 3rd.
Forsberg finished with 1.29 ppg good for 7th.

Unaccounted for their injuries in contribution %...

Fedorov missed 12 games, or played 94.4% of all possible games.
Forsberg missed 1 game, or played 99.2% of all possible games.

Fedorov was in on 36.4% of his teams goals.
Forsberg was in on 32.5% of his teams goals.

This range is extremely beneficial to Fedorov in this comparison. Fedorov does outproduce him, but we're comparing peak Fedorov to rookie Forsberg, while Forsberg did not having the benefit of playing in the highest scoring season at all.

Now if we look at Forsberg peak stretch in a relative manner (no need to include Fedorov's numbers from here), and that's a bit tricky given injuries. If we claim it's 00/01-03/04 (it's also 3 seasons since Forsberg nursed injury 2001/2002 and that season is entirely excluded from the data below).

Forsberg finished with 1.34 ppg good for 1st (more than 100GP, and Lemieux removed as an outlier).

Unaccounted for his injuries in contribution %...

Forsberg missed 59 game, or played 76.0% of all possible games.

Forsberg was in on 33.0% of his teams goals.

-------

Forsberg has nearly as high raw ppg while playing in a significantly lower scoring period, he obliterates his competition pace wise while Fedorov finished 3rd (Lemieux excluded), though admittedly his competition was weaker. He missed 18.4 percentage points more of his teams games, yet Fedorov was only in on 3.4 percentage points more of his teams total goals.

I don't really have a horse in this race, but... you don't need to ignore era context to come to that conclusion. Absolute numbers are one thing, but scoring finishes are another. Here are Trottier's best finishes in regular season goal scoring: 5th, 5th, 9th, 17th, 20th. Here are Forsberg's: 26th, 32th, 39th, 40th, 41th.

Am I missing something?

I've always struggled a bit when people use the 'never scored 30' to dismiss Forsberg's offensive upside. I realize I'm in a minority not giving goals a significantly larger weight than assists, but I've never considered them to be so much more valuable among elite offensive players.

Since the 95-lockout, in Shooting%, Forsberg ranks T-8th (w/ Crosby/Selanne) in the RS (>400GP), and 1st in the PO (>50GP). I'm not saying lets give him credit for things he didn't do, but I'm not sure it's an inability thing.

Forsberg's playoff GPG is 0.43, if we cut off Trottier's career at 30 due to Forsberg's shortened career, his GPG is 0.38.

To attempt to put the playoff GPG difference quickly into context since Trottier played during the highest scoring period in history, I picked 73/74-93/94 for Trottier, and 94/95-present for Forsberg, both 21 seasons. If that's beneficial to anyone it's probably Trottier since he played during most of the highest scoring runs of his period whereas Forsberg payed during most of the lowest scoring runs of his period, but lets call them similar.

73/74-93/94 0.38 GPG is good for T-44th (>50GP).
94/95-15/16 0.43 GPG is good for T-5th (>50GP).

I'm not saying that's proof Trottier isn't a better goal scorer though.

 

[MXD]

Once one realizes that an argument being made out of Peter Forsberg being a great goalscorer due to his SH% would necessarily make David Desharnais an even better goalscorer due to his higher SH%, the same person would necessarily conclude that a shark has seriously been jumped.

 

[bathdog]

Once one realizes that an argument being made out of Peter Forsberg being a great goalscorer due to his SH% would necessarily make David Desharnais an even better goalscorer due to his higher SH%, the same person would necessarily conclude that a shark has seriously been jumped.

Nobody made that argument. Forsberg's SH% is inflated due to not shooting enough, but shooting more would likely result in higher goal totals.

Forsberg was not a particularly great goal scorer in an all time sense, I simply said he was a greater goal scorer than his regular season numbers suggest.

 

[MXD]

Nobody made that argument. Forsberg was not a particularly great goal scorer in an all time sense, I simply said he was a greater goal scorer than his regular season numbers suggest.

In other words, he could've been greater than he actually was.
Reminds me of the old adage regarding my uncle would could've been my aunt if...

 

[bathdog]

In other words, he could've been greater than he actually was.
Reminds me of the old adage regarding my uncle would could've been my aunt if...

No, I thought I suggested otherwise.

I'm not saying lets give him credit for things he didn't do

I'm not saying that's proof Trottier isn't a better goal scorer though.

I just think it's convinient to leave out Forsberg's playoff production when discussing his goal scoring ability, because that seems to be common. It's not far from 2 seasons worth of games, so it's pretty significant.

 

[Regal]

In other words, he could've been greater than he actually was.
Reminds me of the old adage regarding my uncle would could've been my aunt if...

I don't think the argument is that Forsberg could score many more goals in the regular season if he wanted to on top of his assist totals, but he just chose not to. It's not about being better in a numbers sense, it's about ability. Forsberg had the ability to be both a very good goalscorer, which he showed in the playoffs, and an elite playmaker at different times, depending on how a situation/game/series plays out. Higher goals would eat into his assists, just as we've seen from Crosby. But there's value in that versatility, which I'm not sure a lot of other playmakers were capable of.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I don't think the argument is that Forsberg could score many more goals in the regular season if he wanted to on top of his assist totals, but he just chose not to. It's not about being better in a numbers sense, it's about ability. Forsberg had the ability to be both a very good goalscorer, which he showed in the playoffs, and an elite playmaker at different times, depending on how a situation/game/series plays out. Higher goals would eat into his assists, just as we've seen from Crosby. But there's value in that versatility, which I'm not sure a lot of other playmakers were capable of.

My thoughts, as well. I think his point totals (goals + assists) show how good he was as an offensive player. His ratio of goals to assists, however, shows more of a conscious decision of style.

I think Forsberg's greater unpredictably in the playoffs is a big reason he was harder to shut down than (for example) Thornton.

 

[quoipourquoi]

I just think it's convinient to leave out Forsberg's playoff production when discussing his goal scoring ability, because that seems to be common. It's not far from 2 seasons worth of games, so it's pretty significant.

Yeah, outside of probably Joe Sakic, he's the best playoff goal scorer of the Dead Puck Era. I see it the same as Regal and TDMM - more goals and fewer assists was an option, but not one he took. Linemate composition has a lot to do with it.

Pronger said something similar to TDMM's point about unpredictability:

Could Forsberg, whose single-season high for goals is 30 in 1995-96, shoot 50 if he put his mind to it?

"Sure he could," insisted St. Louis defenseman Chris Pronger. "He gets just 29 goals because he doesn't shoot. All he does is pass. But you can't play him for the pass all the time because if you do, you know in the back of your mind he has the capability of shooting and scoring. That's what makes him so dangerous. If he shot all the time you'd play him for the shot and he might not be as effective."

I think we've all seen Forsberg play. Does anyone feel that when he did shoot, he was not a good goal scorer? I don't know that you can score those types of goals without being a good scorer - deflections off the foot while being held, spinaround forehands from a backhand wraparound, dekes through Nicklas Lidstrom. He's on a stamp for a goal.

 

[Theokritos]

I don't think the argument is that Forsberg could score many more goals in the regular season if he wanted to on top of his assist totals, but he just chose not to. It's not about being better in a numbers sense, it's about ability. Forsberg had the ability to be both a very good goalscorer, which he showed in the playoffs, and an elite playmaker at different times, depending on how a situation/game/series plays out. Higher goals would eat into his assists, just as we've seen from Crosby. But there's value in that versatility, which I'm not sure a lot of other playmakers were capable of.

My thoughts, as well. I think his point totals (goals + assists) show how good he was as an offensive player. His ratio of goals to assists, however, shows more of a conscious decision of style.

I think Forsberg's greater unpredictably in the playoffs is a big reason he was harder to shut down than (for example) Thornton.

Yeah, outside of probably Joe Sakic, he's the best playoff goal scorer of the Dead Puck Era. I see it the same as Regal and TDMM - more goals and fewer assists was an option, but not one he took. Linemate composition has a lot to do with it.

Pronger said something similar to TDMM's point about unpredictability:



I think we've all seen Forsberg play. Does anyone feel that when he did shoot, he was not a good goal scorer? I don't know that you can score those types of goals without being a good scorer - deflections off the foot while being held, spinaround forehands from a backhand wraparound, dekes through Nicklas Lidstrom. He's on a stamp for a goal.

Great points being made here.

 

[MXD]

Sorry, but since when the ability to do something while not ACTUALLY doing it is relevant?

I mean, call Forsberg a great goalscorer if you want. It just comes at a credibility cost as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Sens Rule]

Yeah, outside of probably Joe Sakic, he's the best playoff goal scorer of the Dead Puck Era. I see it the same as Regal and TDMM - more goals and fewer assists was an option, but not one he took. Linemate composition has a lot to do with it.

Pronger said something similar to TDMM's point about unpredictability:



I think we've all seen Forsberg play. Does anyone feel that when he did shoot, he was not a good goal scorer? I don't know that you can score those types of goals without being a good scorer - deflections off the foot while being held, spinaround forehands from a backhand wraparound, dekes through Nicklas Lidstrom. He's on a stamp for a goal.

I saw a lot of Spezza and damn he could shoot as well as anyone, like Forsberg could and did in the playoffs.

We should ask ourselves if in the playoffs Forsberg shot more and scored more why not in the regular season?

I think he was too much of a passer and would have been better overall if he shot somewhat more in the regular season. Thornton can shoot well. Not as well as Forsberg or Spezza but quite well.

I think it is fair to ask if some of the best playmakers were so unselfish they were kinda selfish and hurt their teams a bit not shooting when they should have shot.

 

[Sentinel]

I rank Trottier and Fedorov above Forsberg generally speaking, but in terms of "completeness" they blow him out of water. They WERE better goalscorers, they WERE better defensively, and they WERE more durable and less injury-prone. They also won more Cups. On top of that, Fedorov played in a Bowman's defensive system, sometimes on defense. I hope nobody disagrees that this had to affect his numbers.

And on top of that, Fedorov had worse linemates. Post-prime Cicarelli, Kozlov, Brown, and, of course, one-legged Yzerman in 01-02. Not quite the same as Kamensky, Lemieux, and Hejduk... and Bossy. He probably had it best when he played wing for one season with the Russian Five.

 

[BraveCanadian]

I am aware that Bryan Trottier played a two-way game, but he never approached the level of defensive skill that Peter Forsberg had and Trottier actually got better late in his career in that regard. After the Islanders last cup, Trottier's defensive game got better, IMO.

That being said while he was good defensively, certainly wouldn't say he was excellent of the kind of guy that could neutralize being offensive players the way that Forsberg could. Forsberg was incredibly smart and was able to clog up pass lanes, anticipate plays well and play with an edge and a tenacity that made him an elite two way forward. I wouldn't put Trottier in the same class as Forsberg in terms of being an elite two-way guy.

The bolded is funny. Trottier > Forsberg, coming and going.

Goal, Assist, Point finishes, VsX all show he was better during his prime.. I actually didn't remember this but in Selke voting Trottier peaked at 2nd.. the same as Forsberg despite the fact that specialists generally won the Selke in those days.. he hit everything that moved and was great on faceoffs too.

This is similar to Gretzky vs Lemieux. One guy did it. One guy may have been able to.

Forsberg has is PPG couldabeens and questions about durability. Guy can play for my team any time he's able to though.

 

[Regal]

Sorry, but since when the ability to do something while not ACTUALLY doing it is relevant?

I mean, call Forsberg a great goalscorer if you want. It just comes at a credibility cost as far as I'm concerned.

But he did do it in the playoffs. It would have been nice to see it in the regular season, like we've seen from Crosby, but while Crosby is the better goalscorer, Forsberg was similar in his ability to switch from playmaker and score himself if need be. That doesn't mean he's a great goalscorer in a general sense when comparing all time players, just that his regular season totals undersell his "completeness" as it relates to this thread in a way I don't think is the case for other playmakers like Thornton or Oates, who were more reliant on the ability of their teammates to finish. If teams took away the pass, they could be shut down. Forsberg wouldnt. And as the Pronger quote mentions, the threat of him being a goalscorer meant that teams couldn't play the pass all the time.

 

[FerrisRox]

The bolded is funny. Trottier > Forsberg, coming and going.

Goal, Assist, Point finishes, VsX all show he was better during his prime..

I'm not sure how you think any of those things show he was a better defensive player than Peter Forsberg.

In fact, I'm baffled how you could think goals, assists and points would illustrate that. Surely you know his offensive skill set has nothing to do with that, so why are you pointing that out?

 

[BraveCanadian]

I'm not sure how you think any of those things show he was a better defensive player than Peter Forsberg.

In fact, I'm baffled how you could think goals, assists and points would illustrate that. Surely you know his offensive skill set has nothing to do with that, so why are you pointing that out?

Not as baffled as I am when you make a post claiming something about Forsbergs two-way play... then claim you were talking only of defensive play.. then chop out of your quote some of what I said specifically about their defensive reputations.. and then claim you're baffled.

Next thing I know you'll be claiming Felix Potvin had poor reflexes or something..

Trotter > Forsberg. That is all. Carry on.

 

[threetimer*]

I think we've all seen Forsberg play. Does anyone feel that when he did shoot, he was not a good goal scorer? I don't know that you can score those types of goals without being a good scorer - deflections off the foot while being held, spinaround forehands from a backhand wraparound, dekes through Nicklas Lidstrom. He's on a stamp for a goal.

I do. (That is, not a good goal scorer in the way necessary to pot fifty a year.) He had an accurate but weak wrister. And that's it.

All those highlight reel situations you have mentioned are very rare and have more to do with sense / hand soft skill / improvisation than what usually makes great scorers -- great shot. You don't get to fifty goals a year on once-or-twice-a-season flicks alone.

What Pronger forgot to mention is that what made Forsberg a more effective goal scorer in the playoffs was that no one expected him to shoot as much as they expected him to pass, but this works both ways.

The surprise factor reaped the fruits, but only for a while. An accurate but weak wrister can only take you so far. Had he shot more often, he wouldn't have necessarily scored more, because everyone would have expected him to shoot.

A big part of the reason he scored more in the playoffs is he scored so little in the reg season. Forsberg was not a fifty-goals-a-year material by any means. You can only wonder how bad would his game have suffered had he ever been dumb enough to fight his instincts just to prove you right. In other words, the player you guys suggest he could have been would not have been Peter Forsberg.

 

[bathdog]

I largely agree with the points Regal, TDDM, and QPQ are making.

I don't think the argument is that Forsberg could score many more goals in the regular season if he wanted to on top of his assist totals, but he just chose not to. It's not about being better in a numbers sense, it's about ability.

The assists would definitely suffer. I've pondered this a bit with both Ovechkin and Forsberg because both have so abnormal ratio's on different side of this spectrum, and they were obviously great at their thing, but...

Ovechkin isn't a poor playmaker, and, Forsberg wasn't a poor goal scorer.

I'm not saying give them credit for things they didn't do, and this may be a false line of reasoning, but as great as they were at their thing both of them may have made the sub-optimal, lower probability, decision more frequently than others.

Yeah, outside of probably Joe Sakic, he's the best playoff goal scorer of the Dead Puck Era.

I think it's hard to mount an argument over Sakic, he has both RS and PO # while playing right by his side, as well as inarguably winning the eye-test for better shot.

The Pronger quote is interesting because it's not based just on general praise.

Sorry, but since when the ability to do something while not ACTUALLY doing it is relevant?

Since when is 2 seasons worth of PO data spread over a decade of lesser value than a single regular season?

He does score goals at a higher rate (not necessarily better) than several noteworthy players who all posted a 50G season: Fedorov, Yzerman, Crosby, Malkin, Stamkos, Kovalchuk, Selanne.

Does that make him just lucky?

I saw a lot of Spezza and damn he could shoot as well as anyone, like Forsberg could and did in the playoffs.

But he did do it in the playoffs.

-----

Forsberg had the ability to be both a very good goalscorer, which he showed in the playoffs, and an elite playmaker at different times, depending on how a situation/game/series plays out.

We should ask ourselves if in the playoffs Forsberg shot more and scored more why not in the regular season?

People like to lump in the DPE Avs with the DPE Wings from an offensive standpoint, and even if they look good on paper, there is little to back up they were much more dominant than the best offensive teams today.

A theory I have is during the regular season the goal scoring wasn't really needed as the Avs could get through the RS with relative ease, the parity of the league was worse overall.

But the Western Conference playoffs was a huge step up competition wise, and their depth guys were no longer able to provide the required amount of scoring. If you review the best modern history teams I'm sure the avg length of series of the DPE Avs ranks very highly, they had a ton of 6/7-game series. Sakic/Forsberg were relied on very heavily to provide this scoring.

I rank Trottier and Fedorov above Forsberg generally speaking, but in terms of "completeness" they blow him out of water.

I think that's the general opinion, but blow him out of the water is exaggerated (unless you put a large amount of weight on durability, in which Forsberg goes out the window pretty quickly in this company).

they WERE better defensively. They also won more Cups.

I think defense is what one mostly focuses on in Fedorov's case. Not sure how amount of Cups is relevant at all though otherwise one can make a great argument Kane is more well-rounded than Datsyuk.

What Pronger forgot to mention is that what made Forsberg a more effective goal scorer in the playoffs was that no one expected him to shoot as much as they expected him to pass, but this works both ways.

The surprise factor reaped the fruits, but only for a while. An accurate but weak wrister can only take you so far. Had he shot more often, he wouldn't have necessarily scored more, because everyone would have expected him to shoot.

Isn't that pushing it?

Split the span in half:

Forsberg 94/95-98/99 scores at a 37G pace with a SH% of 18.2%.
Forsberg 99/00-03/04 scores at a 33G pace with a SH% of 17.2%.

The early span also had the benefit of a couple of higher scoring years.

Comparatively, in what was suggested as Fedorov's peak years by a poster above.

Fedorov 93/94-95/96 scores at a 19G pace with a SH% of 7.6%.

While these are all small sample sizes, I don't see any indication of the claim you're making, but I'm open to be proven wrong.

A big part of the reason he scored more in the playoffs is he scored so little in the reg season. Forsberg was not a fifty-goals-a-year material by any means. You can only wonder how bad would his game have suffered had he ever been dumb enough to fight his instincts just to prove you right. In other words, the player you guys suggest he could have been would not have been Peter Forsberg.

Is it really though?

What's the explanation for him outproducing Fedorov, Crosby and Malkin, if that's the sole case? These aren't relative or adjusted numbers, he flat out outscores them while playing during a lower scoring period.

 

[threetimer*]

Isn't that pushing it?

Split the span in half:

Forsberg 94/95-98/99 scores at a 37G pace with a SH% of 18.2%.
Forsberg 99/00-03/04 scores at a 33G pace with a SH% of 17.2%.

The early span also had the benefit of a couple of higher scoring years.

Comparatively, in what was suggested as Fedorov's peak years by a poster above.

Fedorov 93/94-95/96 scores at a 19G pace with a SH% of 7.6%.

While these are all small sample sizes, I don't see any indication of the claim you're making, but I'm open to be proven wrong.



Is it really though?

What's the explanation for him outproducing Fedorov, Crosby and Malkin, if that's the sole case? These aren't relative or adjusted numbers, he flat out outscores them while playing during a lower scoring period.

I'm the first to point out he shouldn't be lumped with the likes of Francis or Weight as a goal scorer, but trying to compare him with guys who had slapshots is futile, never mind short-term aberrations.

Fedorov during 95/96 post-season netted a whopping 2 goals. Fewer than Gary Suter. Not very telling of his ability. Same with with the shooting percentage.

Forsberg was not a fifty-goals-a-year scorer. Not in the reg season, not in the playoffs. That's what I'm saying. It's not like I'm gonna debate this for two days you know.

 

[bathdog]

I'm the first to point out he shouldn't be lumped with the likes of Francis or Weight as a goal scorer, but trying to compare him with guys who had slapshots is futile, never mind short-term aberrations.

Fedorov during 95/96 post-season netted a whopping 2 goals. Fewer than Gary Suter. Not very telling of his ability. Same with with the shooting percentage.

Forsberg was not a fifty-goals-a-year scorer. Not in the reg season, not in the playoffs. That's what I'm saying. It's not like I'm gonna debate this for two days you know.

I know what you're saying, purely based on the eye-test.

I saw that (95/96), and that's an anomaly that obviously affect his pace stats negatively. Fedorov's playoff GPG from 94/95 - 02/03 is 0.33, Forsberg's playoff career GPG is 30% higher.

In fact, as you pointed, goal scoring droughts, and scoring anomalies happen.

If you look at every single one of the 10 runs Forsberg had with the Avs, only one time did he finish below 0.33 GPG, in a 6-game first round exit.

It's hard to explain how a one-trick pony is able to do that after early on being exposed as the fraud he was.

The issue in this case though is, whatever range you cherry pick for Fedorov, he statistically probably always comes out behind, compared to Forsberg's career averages, in the playoffs.

 

[MXD]

Since when is 2 seasons worth of PO data spread over a decade of lesser value than a single regular season?

Since goalposts got moved.

 

[bathdog]

Since goalposts got moved.

Mind clarifying?

 

[MXD]

Mind clarifying?

You're moving the goalposts, again.

 

[authentic]

Forsberg weak wrister? Did you guys watch him play? He had a great wrister, backhand, and slapshot which he rarely used, as well as the ability to deke a goalie cleanly...

His playoff numbers are a good indication of his ability. You say his weak shot was the main reason he didn't score so often, but look at all the 30 something seasons Fedorov had and he arguably had the best shot arsenal in the league during many of those seasons.

 

[authentic]

Funny thing is a good portion of the best goals I've ever seen are from Forsberg himself. Not saying he could have been Ovechkin if he wanted, but IMO could have done something similar to Crosby a few times in the regular season if he wanted to, or fairly close anyway.