They way you reason about stats and things, I get the impression you are in need to educate yourself further on the subject. I think I can see your points, but it seems you cannot see beyond your own points. My stats showed exactly what I said, so there is nothing wrong there, and not twisted tricks. Having for example the best TOTAL +/- in BOTH regular season AND playoffs, plus also having highest +/- per game, should at least tell even you something. One definitely can draw conclusions from it. During the ten year period from 1995-2004, he arguably had the best stats of any player.
Of course, taking other time periods would bring other results. If Crosby would retire today, his stats during the time he was active would be very good compared to other players. (How good, I haven't looked up yet.)
I really dislike it when people trying to degrade players by looking to much on longevity. It's a free choice to think otherwise.
It is also true that per game player stats usually goes down if they continue to play. Gretzky is an obvious example, as he would have had a far higher points per game if he had retired earlier. Most people knows about things like these. Had Forsberg played until he was 50, his per game stats likely would have decreased.
You perhaps forget that while his points per game MIGHT have dicreased if he had full seasons instead of missing 5-20 games per season, his total stats would on the other hand have increased.
I think your attitude in this matter boils down to you just not liking Forsberg very much (as a player, I presume). It affects your way of looking at what's presented in front of you.
