Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 10

[Canadiens1958]

The point being that Peter Forsberg wasn’t not a hockey player until January 1995 at 21-years-old; he just wasn’t an NHL hockey player.

So Luke Schenn, a player who started at 18-years-old for the Toronto Maple Leafs at a time when NHL players were eligible for the upcoming 2010 Olympics, didn’t have the same type of decision that Peter Forsberg had... which I suppose was to either record 160+ additional NHL games to keep a bigger gap over Schenn and Karlsson and whoever else or win back-to-back MVP trophies and an Olympic Gold Medal over in Europe.

Given that Forsberg rattled of 1.5 points-per-game in the 2nd half of his rookie NHL season, I doubt he would have embarrassed himself if he started at the same age as Luke Schenn who was on Regular Season Game #231 at the same age Forsberg was in his NHL debut.

It’s something of an easily accountable head start that has nothing to do with injuries or not playing hockey. Again, Peter Forsberg was playing hockey in that same age range Luke Schenn was playing 231 games of NHL hockey. MVP hockey, in fact. Super famous you can’t possibly not have heard about it Team Sweden hockey.

Apples and Oranges. Forsberg's 1994 situation included a very attractive contract to stay in Sweden. Schenn did not have the possibility of such a contract to play for Team Canada in 2010, assuming he came close to making the team.

 

[Theokritos]

Coining oxymorons is not appropriate.

Simple factual statements cannot be inaccurate in any fashion.

Fair point. Usually I get along pretty well with English, but sometimes I stumble. I thought of "factual statement" as meaning "statement referring to the level of facts". Whether a poster made a certain statement (e.g. one that seems to contradict a new statement of his) or not is a question on the factual level, it can be answered by simply looking at the facts (what he posted before). As opposed to statement that amounts to a mere personal attack, like for example: "It's kind of ironic for a guy who ... always lies himself."

My bad.

 

[sr edler]

I fail to see how 708 regular season NHL games and 151 Stanley Cup playoff games right through your prime years would qualify as an insufficient sample size to draw reasonable conclusions about a player from. Especially since the player in question also showcased himself quite successfully as a hockey player in many best-on-best international tournaments (Olympic Games, World Cups).

 

[sr edler]

Players first responsibility is to himself and his family, their well being and financial security. Especially the depression /WWII era. Giving-up a salary AND a paid hockey contract with job security - Seth Martin.

We can only judge players on what they do, not why they didn't do something, so the reasons behind your absence from something (a particular league) are pretty irrelevant, unless perhaps if someone is scared to play in a particular league because he's intimidated by the skill level of the present players (but such a thing we would probably never know about anyway). The only interesting questions in that context is could this player have played in this league, and with what kind of success. One probably shouldn't speculate too much about such things though (what ifs), but Forsberg obviously could have been an NHL player both in 92–93 and 93–94.

Would Seth Martin's capabilities as a hockey player have changed if he chose not to play in the NHL because he was a compulsive mama's boy and didn't want to travel outside of her home town? Or if he suffered from paranoid schizophrenia or any other mental disorder that made it impossible to play the game professionally?

 

[DannyGallivan]

All other measuring sticks pale in comparison to time spent in the NHL. Soviet leagues, international play, other European leagues. Accomplishments in those arenas are added bullet points to the list of why a player should make this list (for the most part). At least Forsberg had a tenure in the NHL. He's still here too early... perhaps if he began his NHL career at 18 or 19 he would be higher on the list. It's all conjecture when it doesn't include NHL games. Good arguments and important points, but just a bunch of "what ifs".

 

[sr edler]

It's all conjecture when it doesn't include NHL games.

We're not discussing a player whose resume doesn't include quite many NHL games.

Why is Kharlamov on the list already? He played 0 NHL games.

 

[DannyGallivan]

We're not discussing a player whose resume doesn't include quite many NHL games.

Why is Kharlamov on the list? He played 0 NHL games.

Hence he is where he is instead of, perhaps, in the top 20. Or on the other hand, a poorer showing in the NHL may have pushed him further down on the list.

 

[MXD]

I'll defend anyone who expresses himself within the site rules and a reasonably arguably scope of the discussion.

For example, if someone is wrongfully accused of a "personal attack", I would do a poor job as a moderator if I didn't defend that someone - participant or not.

Oh... That's your choice. Or your prerogative, whatever. I'm actually respecting it.
It just comes with an underlying message that couldn't be more clear.

 

[Batis]

This is Peter Forsbergs numbers at the knockout stage of best-on-best international tournaments. None of the other new available players got the chance to play at such tournaments.

Forsberg
World Cup 1996: 1 gp, 0 g, 0 a, 0 pts
Olympics 1998: 1 gp, 1 g, 0 a, 1 pts
World Cup 2004: 1 gp, 0 g, 1 a, 1 pts
Olympics 2006: 3 gp, 0 g, 4 a, 4 pts
Olympics 2010: 1 gp, 0 g, 1 a, 1 pts
Total at best-on-best tournaments knockout stage: 7 gp, 1 g, 6 a, 7 pts
Total at best-on-best tournaments overall: 22 gp, 3 g, 18 a, 21 pts

Forsberg has strong numbers at best-on-best tournaments both overall and at the knockout stage. I would say that the only minor weakness on Forsbergs best-on-best resume is that he never recivied any individual accolade at any of the tournaments. Still Forsbergs best-on-best resume measures up rather well to that of most of the other available players in my opinion.

This is roughly how I would rank their best-on-best resumes.
Coffey
Tretiak
Park/Forsberg
Dryden

Coffey
Canada Cup 1984: 3 gp, 1 g, 3 a, 4 pts
Canada Cup 1987: 4 gp, 1 g, 1 a, 2 pts
Canada Cup 1991: 3 gp, 0 g, 2 a, 2 pts
World Cup 1996: 5 gp, 0 g, 2 a, 2 pts
Total at best-on-best tournaments knockout stage: 15 gp, 2 g, 8 a, 10 pts
Total at best-on-best tournaments overall: 33 gp, 6 g, 25 a, 31 pts

Tretiak
Summit Series 1972: 8 gp, 236 saves on 267 shots, 0.883
Canada Cup 1981: 2 gp, 52 saves on 54 shots, 0.963
Total at best-on-best tournaments knockout stage: 10 gp, 288 saves on 321 shots, 0.897
Total at best-on-best tournaments overall: 19 gp, 524 saves on 577 shots, 0.908

Park
Summit Series 1972: 8 gp, 1 g, 4 a, 5 pts
Total at best-on-best tournaments knockout stage: 8 gp, 1 g, 4 a, 5 pts
Total at best-on-best tournaments overall: 8 gp, 1 g, 4 a, 5 pts

Dryden
Summit Series 1972: 4 gp, 98 saves on 117 shots, 0.838
Total at best-on-best tournaments knockout stage: 4 gp, 98 saves on 117 shots, 0.838
Total at best-on-best tournaments overall: 4 gp, 98 saves on 117 shots, 0.838

 

[Canadiens1958]

In response to a few posters upthread.

Four basic points.

1.) Credit is not given for games played but for performance. Forsberg is simply credited for games played. No one has raised his actual performance in Sweden leading up to the 1994 Olympics. Major issue.

2.) Lost WWII seasons. Consideration is acceptable BUT this is never done equitably. Prime example Milt Schmidt / Edgar Laprade. Both played Senior hockey in Canada during WWII. Schmidt gets consideration. Laprade does not. Still if Forsberg gets credit so should Milt Schmidt.

3.) Middle class salary. Going down the slippery slope. Regardless. What made a pro, later NHL contract attractive was that players always earned more than a middle class contract plus had time for a second job with post career opportunities.

4.) Umbrella point. Outside NHL performance should be viewed in a standard fashion, not favouring anyone.

 

[Captain Bowie]

In response to a few posters upthread.

Four basic points.

1.) Credit is not given for games played but for performance. Forsberg is simply credited for games played. No one has raised his actual performance in Sweden leading up to the 1994 Olympics. Major issue.

2.) Lost WWII seasons. Consideration is acceptable BUT this is never done equitably. Prime example Milt Schmidt / Edgar Laprade. Both played Senior hockey in Canada during WWII. Schmidt gets consideration. Laprade does not. Still if Forsberg gets credit so should Milt Schmidt.

3.) Middle class salary. Going down the slippery slope. Regardless. What made a pro, later NHL contract attractive was that players always earned more than a middle class contract plus had time for a second job with post career opportunities.

4.) Umbrella point. Outside NHL performance should be viewed in a standard fashion, not favouring anyone.

Why do you keep bring up this Edgar Laprade fellow? He is not going to factor into this project at any point.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Edgar Laprade, extended his right to full consideration for his complete hockey performance is worthy of consideration.

Do not like Laprade, or my posts feel free to avail yourself of the ignore function.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Hart trophy shares

Player	1st	2nd	3rd	4th	5th	6th	7th+	Total
Milt Schmidt	1	1		2	1		1	6
Syl Apps		3	2					5
Henri Richard				2		1	1	4
Ken Dryden		1		2				3
Peter Forsberg	1						1	2
Bernie Geoffrion	1						1	2
Charlie Conacher		1		1				2
Paul Coffey				2				2
Brad Park					2			2

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Nine of the candidates are listed here. The two who aren't are Tretiak (never played in the NHL) and Pilote (as far as I can tell, never got a single Hart vote). Apps' record looks excellent but, as I wrote last week, there's no way he would have been a finalist five times based on modern standards (he missed too much time during three of those seasons).

VsX - adjusted scoring

Player	1st	2nd	3rd	4th	5th	6th	7th	8th	9th	10th	7YR	10YR
Charlie Conacher	121.3	120.9	100.0	96.0	95.0	75.0	65.1	52.3	52.3	46.8	96.2	82.5
Peter Forsberg	101.9	100.0	96.7	92.7	90.7	78.9	71.4	70.8	63.2	54.3	90.3	82.1
Bernie Geoffrion	105.6	101.4	88.8	88.5	87.3	79.5	78.3	70.4	70.2	63.9	89.9	83.4
Paul Coffey	104.1	97.9	89.6	82.9	81.3	80.9	79.8	77.4	64.2	62.0	88.1	82.0
Milt Schmidt	120.9	98.4	92.4	86.4	72.7	72.5	64.8	61.4	59.4	59.3	86.9	78.8
Henri Richard	112.7	91.3	90.1	78.6	78.2	75.6	70.1	67.9	62.7	61.4	85.2	78.9
Syl Apps	93.4	83.2	81.7	65.3	58.1	54.1	47.7	31.9	31.1	17.6	69.1	56.4
Brad Park	90.1	72.5	67.0	63.8	51.0	49.6	48.9	48.9	47.9	47.1	63.3	58.7
Pierre Pilote	74.3	71.1	67.9	56.3	50.0	46.2	44.6	44.0	42.3	38.9	58.6	53.5

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Not to repeat myself from last time, but there's a massive drop-off in Conacher's production after his 5th best season. Richard's production is based almost entirely on ES scoring; he received very little powerplay time for a player of his calibre. Pilote's score is unimpressive but, if we look at how he stacks up compared to just the defensemen in his era, his offense was on par with Red Kelly (mind you, that was against weaker competition).

HO, I just looked at this post again, and the numbers for Apps are wrong by a lot. At minimum, he should have two 100.0 scores for his two seasons as runner-up in NHL scoring. In fact, your other table has him at 92.4 for 7 year and 83.9 for 10 year: Reference - VsX comprehensive summary (1927 to 2018)

Did you accidentally copy the data for Syl Apps Jr, rather than Syl Apps Sr?

 

[wetcoast]

Sum total, the Senior totals for Edgar Laprade, Bill Durnan. The AHL totals for Johnny Bower should be considered as well.

Sure we can include that stuff as it's part of their resumes, but it's hardly going to move the needle on any of them if they come up right?

This "nobility" of chasing a Gold Medal, came with sufficient compensation that an NHL contract was not a factor.

So how does that relate to his resume?

 

[Hockey Outsider]

HO, I just looked at this post again, and the numbers for Apps are wrong by a lot. At minimum, he should have two 100.0 scores for his two seasons as runner-up in NHL scoring. In fact, your other table has him at 92.4 for 7 year and 83.9 for 10 year: Reference - VsX comprehensive summary (1927 to 2018)

Did you accidentally copy the data for Syl Apps Jr, rather than Syl Apps Sr?

Good catch - yes, I posted the numbers for Syl Apps Jr accidentally. I updated the table.

 

[wetcoast]

I feel like this is being taken out of context.

First - I'm on the record saying for players like Schmidt and Apps, I don't "penalize" them for not playing during the War years. Similar for players in eras where you got paid basically a middle class salary. But at the same time, I can only rank hockey players by what they did as hockey players.

This is in reference to Forsberg, who @quoipourquoi wants to credit for his time outside of the NHL when he was eligible to play in the NHL. His "what ifs" and "might have beens" already stretch to absurdity in my estimation due to his extensive injury history. I can't stomach doing the same because he decided to not play in the NHL for the first two/three seasons of his eligibility.

Was Forsberg not a professional hockey player before he came to the NHL?

I mean it seems really simple in that we have ranked guys like Makarov and Fetisov already here right?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Good catch - yes, I posted the numbers for Syl Apps Jr accidentally. I updated the table.

Thanks. Interesting that despite a short career, Apps still comes out #1 among players this round in 10 year VsX* - shows how consistent a scorer he was when he was on the ice.

*Although, Geoffrion looks to more or less be within the margin of error of Apps in 10 year (not 7 year) score.

VsX - adjusted scoring

Player	1st	2nd	3rd	4th	5th	6th	7th	8th	9th	10th	7YR	10YR
Charlie Conacher	121.3	120.9	100.0	96.0	95.0	75.0	65.1	52.3	52.3	46.8	96.2	82.5
Syl Apps Sr	113.6	100.0	100.0	90.9	88.3	77.8	75.9	69.8	66.7	55.6	92.4	83.9
Peter Forsberg	101.9	100.0	96.7	92.7	90.7	78.9	71.4	70.8	63.2	54.3	90.3	82.1
Bernie Geoffrion	105.6	101.4	88.8	88.5	87.3	79.5	78.3	70.4	70.2	63.9	89.9	83.4
Paul Coffey	104.1	97.9	89.6	82.9	81.3	80.9	79.8	77.4	64.2	62.0	88.1	82.0
Milt Schmidt	120.9	98.4	92.4	86.4	72.7	72.5	64.8	61.4	59.4	59.3	86.9	78.8
Henri Richard	112.7	91.3	90.1	78.6	78.2	75.6	70.1	67.9	62.7	61.4	85.2	78.9
Brad Park	90.1	72.5	67.0	63.8	51.0	49.6	48.9	48.9	47.9	47.1	63.3	58.7
Pierre Pilote	74.3	71.1	67.9	56.3	50.0	46.2	44.6	44.0	42.3	38.9	58.6	53.5

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Not to repeat myself from last time, but there's a massive drop-off in Conacher's production after his 5th best season. Richard's production is based almost entirely on ES scoring; he received very little powerplay time for a player of his calibre. Pilote's score is unimpressive but, if we look at how he stacks up compared to just the defensemen in his era, his offense was on par with Red Kelly (mind you, that was against weaker competition).

 

[Nick Hansen]

On a game-per-game basis Peter Forsberg might be the best one on here.

With regards to his international resume, I'd like to interject that Mats Sundin was the superior performer with the NT and always seen as the leader of Team Sweden. PF was very good with the NT, though, but he really wasn't 'the man', even despite he was the more highly regarded player in the NHL. When Sundin was confirmed for the NT with the WHC, Olympics and so on was when we became relaxed. We knew it'd be a good tourney.

Worthy adding though is that the 2002 fiasco happened without Forsberg on the team as he was injured. Shithead Näslund was on the team and we lost to Belarusia.

 

[quoipourquoi]

This is in reference to Forsberg, who @quoipourquoi wants to credit for his time outside of the NHL when he was eligible to play in the NHL. His "what ifs" and "might have beens" already stretch to absurdity in my estimation due to his extensive injury history. I can't stomach doing the same because he decided to not play in the NHL for the first two/three seasons of his eligibility.

Forsberg’s congenital foot issues didn’t start substantially limiting his playing time until the 21st century. From 1995-1999, Forsberg was among the healthier Centers in the NHL, missing 1, 0, 17, 10, and 4 games until the Matvichuk shoulder separation. I think Francis, Gretzky, Sundin, and Yzerman were the only star Centers who played more than Forsberg in those 5 years, so unless there’s a pattern of pre-NHL injury, I don’t see a reason to believe he couldn’t merely record NHL GP because the time bomb that was his feet hadn’t yet gone off.

After all, he doesn’t really need to build his resume as a top player in the world in 1992-93 or 1993-94 (was it 593 games we were looking at where he was a ~top-5 player?) but instead merely establish some longevity beyond the 708 number that somewhat undersells his 1990-2010 range. If a player puts in 200+ non-NHL professional games, then the whole Luke Schenn thing doesn’t really fit.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Forsberg’s congenital foot issues didn’t start substantially limiting his playing time until the 21st century. From 1995-1999, Forsberg was among the healthier Centers in the NHL, missing 1, 0, 17, 10, and 4 games until the Matvichuk shoulder separation. I think Francis, Gretzky, Sundin, and Yzerman were the only star Centers who played more than Forsberg in those 5 years, so unless there’s a pattern of pre-NHL injury, I don’t see a reason to believe he couldn’t merely record NHL GP because the time bomb that was his feet hadn’t yet gone off.

After all, he doesn’t really need to build his resume as a top player in the world in 1992-93 or 1993-94 (was it 593 games we were looking at where he was a ~top-5 player?) but instead merely establish some longevity beyond the 708 number that somewhat undersells his 1990-2010 range. If a player puts in 200+ non-NHL professional games, then the whole Luke Schenn thing doesn’t really fit.

This overlooks the Swedish domestic league scheduling, particularly density - the frequency of back-to-back games or three games in four days.

 

[sr edler]

This overlooks the Swedish domestic league scheduling, particularly density - the frequency of back-to-back games or three games in four days.

Look at Selänne when he joined the league as a 22 year old. Just like Forsberg he had a number of full successful seasons as a well conditioned professional in a top level European league. Some (a lot of?) people expected Selänne to fall off as his first season (92–93) went along but he was among the best conditioned players on his team and just chugged along at the same pace. Forsberg ramped up the pace at the end of his first NHL sesson. So did Bure (22 goals in 23 games). Conditioning wasn’t a problem.

 

[Canadiens1958]

The schedule density issue was described in Peter Stastny's book relating how he hit a wall midway in his initial NHL season.

Czech League has an ideal schedule density format. No games on consecutive dates, no three games in four days.

Athlete's internal play / rest habits grow accordingly.

First no one should mistake Teemu Selanne for Peter Forsberg. Forsberg's foot problem was managed well playing for Modo in 2009-10 under seemingly favourable schedule density conditions.

Next season in the NHL and unfavourable density scheduling, things quickly came apart.

Recommended initial reading:

It's time to end back to back games

 

[Canadiens1958]

Forsberg’s congenital foot issues didn’t start substantially limiting his playing time until the 21st century. From 1995-1999, Forsberg was among the healthier Centers in the NHL, missing 1, 0, 17, 10, and 4 games until the Matvichuk shoulder separation. I think Francis, Gretzky, Sundin, and Yzerman were the only star Centers who played more than Forsberg in those 5 years, so unless there’s a pattern of pre-NHL injury, I don’t see a reason to believe he couldn’t merely record NHL GP because the time bomb that was his feet hadn’t yet gone off.

After all, he doesn’t really need to build his resume as a top player in the world in 1992-93 or 1993-94 (was it 593 games we were looking at where he was a ~top-5 player?) but instead merely establish some longevity beyond the 708 number that somewhat undersells his 1990-2010 range. If a player puts in 200+ non-NHL professional games, then the whole Luke Schenn thing doesn’t really fit.

Forsberg was in a unique situation. 1992 and 1994 were Winter Olympic years. Only two year window between Winter Games.

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

1) what you say above [i.e.: about Charlie Conacher's Peak] is true but the seasons before and after are pretty weak so it makes it less impressive somewhat
2)Assists weren't handed out in an even manner in the period compared to some of the players mentioned above, especially the more goal oriented players.
3) The time period isn't the best or the most competitive time frame for elite forwards in the 30's

Conacher's time frame "isn't the best or most competitive?" Tough to dispute that. I certainly wouldn't consider claiming that it was. I think it's no less valid to say it 'isn't the worst or least competitive,' either. We can all make our own individual judgements about the strength of players at that time- just look at some leaderboards in that era. We'll see names like Morenz, Cook, and Boucher, whom we have advanced, Dit Clapper and Aurele Joliat, whom we will advance at some point, and Nels Stewart and Busher Jackson, whom I suspect we'll discuss. I don''t think we do Hockey History justice if we imply that we should be dismissive of the entire era.

Charlie Conacher's two-year Peak is preceded by an injury-compromised season, and followed by seasons that add nothing of consequence to his total player value- I don't think anyone concludes otherwise. If Conancher's two-year Peak was instead a three-year Peak, he'd have a case over Kharlamov. If his Prime was supplemented by 2-2½ years of additional production, he'd be there with Bossy.

The point to keep in mind is this- Conacher's 2-year Peak offensive output is, relative to his contemporaries, Bobby Hull plus. His 5½ year Prime contains, relative to his contemporaries, a goal-scoring tear that compares favorably to Phil Esposito. If there had been additional duration to those prodigious rates, he's be on The List already, and we'd be through discussing him. There wasn't additional duration, though, so we're talking about him still.

BUT- this should be the last Round for this particular discussion.

 

[Batis]

On a game-per-game basis Peter Forsberg might be the best one on here.

With regards to his international resume, I'd like to interject that Mats Sundin was the superior performer with the NT and always seen as the leader of Team Sweden. PF was very good with the NT, though, but he really wasn't 'the man', even despite he was the more highly regarded player in the NHL. When Sundin was confirmed for the NT with the WHC, Olympics and so on was when we became relaxed. We knew it'd be a good tourney.

Worthy adding though is that the 2002 fiasco happened without Forsberg on the team as he was injured. ****head Näslund was on the team and we lost to Belarusia.

I definitely agree that Sundin was the superior performer for Tre Kronor over their careers. It is however perhaps worth noting that when it comes to best-on-best tournaments Sundins statistical advantage comes from his incredible performances in the group stage and at the knockout stage Forsberg did just as well as him.

This is their group stage numbers.

Sundin 22 gp, 15 g, 16 a, 31 pts
Forsberg 15 gp, 2 g, 12 a, 14 pts

And this is their knockout stage numbers.

Sundin 8 gp, 3 g, 4 a, 7 pts
Forsberg 7 gp, 1 g, 6 a, 7 pts