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

[Canadiens1958]

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

Quite interesting.

What was each player's result when they were teammates, playing in the same game against the same opponent.

 

[wetcoast]

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 peers, Bobby Hull plus. His 5½ year Prime contains, relative to his peers, 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.

I'm not really convinced that this 2 year peak should hold him up to guys like Bobby Hull at his best.

Hart voters at the time certainly didn't think so but Hart voting appears very erratic from year to year during the time frame as well.

Funny that you mention his 5.5 year goal scoring peak being comparable to Phil Esposito in that Phil does do better in Hart voting (although I never really thought he was better than Orr at any time period he was getting Hart votes).

His case for going this round seems really inconclusive given some of the resumes of other candidates.

Over a 6 year period he has 5 extremely good goal scoring season but outside of the years his resume falls off alot like Lafleur's did.

Boom Boom's prime looks alot better as does his playoff resume and I'm not sure that he ranks better than at least 3 of the centers this round.

Ken Dryden has around the same length of prime, I wonder how people think he stacks up to him? I'm not entirely sure myself.

 

[DannyGallivan]

I'm not really convinced that this 2 year peak should hold him up to guys like Bobby Hull at his best.

Hart voters at the time certainly didn't think so but Hart voting appears very erratic from year to year during the time frame as well.

Funny that you mention his 5.5 year goal scoring peak being comparable to Phil Esposito in that Phil does do better in Hart voting (although I never really thought he was better than Orr at any time period he was getting Hart votes).

His case for going this round seems really inconclusive given some of the resumes of other candidates.

Over a 6 year period he has 5 extremely good goal scoring season but outside of the years his resume falls off alot like Lafleur's did.

Boom Boom's prime looks alot better as does his playoff resume and I'm not sure that he ranks better than at least 3 of the centers this round.

Ken Dryden has around the same length of prime, I wonder how people think he stacks up to him? I'm not entirely sure myself.

Geoffrion > Dryden.
My usual argument... Dryden really didn't have to do much between the pipes after '71 (relative to many of his peers). Boom-Boom, no matter how many different ways you look at it, produced big time.

 

[DannyGallivan]

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

Which is one of the reasons why Lindros should also be in the same voting cluster as Forsberg.

 

[wetcoast]

Which is one of the reasons why Lindros should also be in the same voting cluster as Forsberg.

Are you saying one is too early or one is too late?

Forsberg has the better playoff resume, by a ton, and was an impact player for well over a decade.
i really hope that his "lack of games" doesn't get exaggerated this round.

Conacher has more games (taking era into account) but can one really say that those extra meh seasons really make him better than Forsberg?

It doesn't even seem close really.

 

[DannyGallivan]

Are you saying one is too early or one is too late?

Forsberg has the better playoff resume, by a ton, and was an impact player for well over a decade.
i really hope that his "lack of games" doesn't get exaggerated this round.

Conacher has more games (taking era into account) but can one really say that those extra meh seasons really make him better than Forsberg?

It doesn't even seem close really.

Lindros had the more dominant peak than Forsberg. If anybody's lack of games gets exaggerated, it's Lindros'. Forsberg essentially played on an all-star team in Colorado, which helped his numbers (especially in the playoffs). Plus, having Sakic on the other line led to more instances of favourable match-ups for Forsberg, again helping his numbers (especially in the playoffs). Who was the second line center in Philly during the 90's?

For the record, I had them originally back to back, with Lindros ahead of Forsberg. Judging by where I had them in my original Top 120 (44th and 45th), this would be a good round to compare them. But alas, this is all I will speak of this for now since Lindros hasn't come up yet. But suffice it to say, wherever I would put Forsberg, I would put Lindros just ahead... if the parameters of this project allowed me to.

 

[Nick Hansen]

Which is one of the reasons why Lindros should also be in the same voting cluster as Forsberg.

Don't agree. By the time Lindros left Philly he was a ghost of himself. 26 years old.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

I struggle with how to account for Forsberg's injuries. He only had two reasonably complete seasons after age 25, and was unreliable in the sense that there were huge swings in game played from year to year (never had two reasonably healthy seasons in a row after that point).

Colorado kept winning division title after division title - so the argument can be made that, in the end, Forsberg's absences didn't really cost his team very much. On the other hand, is it fair that Forsberg escapes blame because he played on strong teams with Roy/Sakic etc., while a player with similar injury patterns on weaker teams could have decimated their team's playoff hopes?

 

[sr edler]

Quite interesting.

What was each player's result when they were teammates, playing in the same game against the same opponent.

Pretty equal I guess, statistically speaking. Forsberg was more of an all-round play driving force though, as exemplified by this game below against Finland from the 1996 World Cup. Sundin also scored a pretty goal in that same game.

 

[DannyGallivan]

Colorado kept winning division title after division title - so the argument can be made that, in the end, Forsberg's absences didn't really cost his team very much. On the other hand, is it fair that Forsberg escapes blame because he played on strong teams with Roy/Sakic etc., while a player with similar injury patterns on weaker teams could have decimated their team's playoff hopes?

He definitely benefited from playing on the Colorado all-star team. As I mentioned earlier, I think he also was able to avoid the oppositions top checking/defensive specialists at least half the time, with Sakic commanding their attention on the other top line.

 

[wetcoast]

He definitely benefited from playing on the Colorado all-star team. As I mentioned earlier, I think he also was able to avoid the oppositions top checking/defensive specialists at least half the time, with Sakic commanding their attention on the other top line.

Well it wasn't an all star team when he got there and did he ever really have a poor season play wise?

Lots of other guys already on the list came into all star teams as well, didn't seem to hurt them much even if they weren't elite right off the bat that Forsberg was.

 

[sr edler]

As I mentioned earlier, I think he also was able to avoid the oppositions top checking/defensive specialists at least half the time, with Sakic commanding their attention on the other top line.

It was the opposite way, I bet Q can pull out the numbers/info. Against Dallas for instance, in the playoffs, Dallas' defensive pairing with Matvichuk/Hatcher was matched continuously against Forsberg, instead of the Zubov pairing, and I think Detroit matched Chelios against him. He also played against Lidström obviously and owned him a fair amount of times.

I think Q also can pull out some stuff on Forsberg's stats when Sakic was out injured in Colorado. Forsberg's stint in Philadelphia was also telling as Simon Gagne was the second best offensive threat on that team but Forsberg still looked the same and made Gagne look like a Rocket Richard candidate (hadn't Forsberg missed 22 games and Gagne 10 games, Gagne would have given Cheechoo a good run for the money, being only 9 goals behind).

 

[DannyGallivan]

Well it wasn't an all star team when he got there and did he ever really have a poor season play wise?

Lots of other guys already on the list came into all star teams as well, didn't seem to hurt them much even if they weren't elite right off the bat that Forsberg was.

I was just answering the question. Plus, it can be argued that he wasn't even the number one center, it was Sakic (or at the very least, it made the opposition have to decide between the two).

 

[The Macho King]

I was just answering the question. Plus, it can be argued that he wasn't even the number one center, it was Sakic (or at the very least, it made the opposition have to decide between the two).

I'm less high on Lindros than you are, but I'm wondering why Forsberg is up and Malkin isn't. Similar situations (#2 behind a player on the list), but independently awesome. Malkin has largely been more healthy, has more hardware, and a Conn Smythe. He's not as good defensively, but he certainly tilt the ice and takes over games like Forsberg did on a "per game" basis, except there are a lot more "per games".

 

[DannyGallivan]

I'm less high on Lindros than you are, but I'm wondering why Forsberg is up and Malkin isn't. Similar situations (#2 behind a player on the list), but independently awesome. Malkin has largely been more healthy, has more hardware, and a Conn Smythe. He's not as good defensively, but he certainly tilt the ice and takes over games like Forsberg did on a "per game" basis, except there are a lot more "per games".

I had Malkin 41st on my original list of 120, three in front of Lindros, four in front of Forsberg, and one in front of Schmidt.

 

[The Macho King]

I had Malkin 41st on my original list of 120, three in front of Lindros, four in front of Forsberg, and one in front of Schmidt.

I dont remember where I had him, but it was almost assuredly too low now that I think on it.

 

[ted2019]

Lindros had the more dominant peak than Forsberg. If anybody's lack of games gets exaggerated, it's Lindros'. Forsberg essentially played on an all-star team in Colorado, which helped his numbers (especially in the playoffs). Plus, having Sakic on the other line led to more instances of favourable match-ups for Forsberg, again helping his numbers (especially in the playoffs). Who was the second line center in Philly during the 90's?

For the record, I had them originally back to back, with Lindros ahead of Forsberg. Judging by where I had them in my original Top 120 (44th and 45th), this would be a good round to compare them. But alas, this is all I will speak of this for now since Lindros hasn't come up yet. But suffice it to say, wherever I would put Forsberg, I would put Lindros just ahead... if the parameters of this project allowed me to.

I'm a HUGE Lindros guy, but I had him 55 spots lower then Forsberg.

 

[DannyGallivan]

I'm a HUGE Lindros guy, but I had him 55 spots lower then Forsberg.

Not that huge of a Lindros guy, I guess.

After watching both of their careers from start to finish, during their peak/prime (of which I hold much value, since that is what ultimately defines just how good the player was) Lindros was more dominant. It's very unfortunate that Lindros was made of glass, but whatever.

...Big E hasn't come up for votes yet, so it's time to give 'im a rest for now.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Which is one of the reasons why Lindros should also be in the same voting cluster as Forsberg.

This came up in the HOH centers project, and I'll say this:

Forsberg should be ranked much higher than Lindros.

1. The main reason: Durability/longevity. Not a strength for Forsberg compared to most of the players available this round, but a big strength compared to Lindros. Sure the two had similar quality absolute peaks, but Forsberg just had a more complete prime than Lindros did. Because Lindros couldn't even string together healthy seasons in his prime.

Peter Forsberg Stats | Hockey-Reference.com
Eric Lindros Stats | Hockey-Reference.com

The results are clear when you look at any metric that accounts for performance over full seasons

Look at their top 20 scoring finishes season by season:

1994: Lindros 11th
1995: Lindros 1st , Forsberg 14th
1996: Forsberg 5th, Lindros 6th
1997: Forsberg 11th
1998: Forsberg 2nd, Lindros 20th
1999: Forsberg 4th, Lindros 7th
2000:
2001: Forsberg 9th
2002: Lindros 17th
2003: Forsberg 1st

Forsberg: 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 9th, 11th, 14th
Lindros: 1st, 6th, 7th, 11th, 17th, 20th

7 year VsX: Forsberg 90.3, Lindros 85.0
10 year VsX: Forsberg 82.3, Lindros 76.0

As shown by Hockey Outsider in one of the first posts of this thread, only Conacher and Apps have better 7 year scores than Forsberg among players available this round.

And on the full VsX tables - Reference - VsX comprehensive summary (1927 to 2018) - the only unavailable players with better 7 year scores than Forsberg are Bathgate, Cowley, Thornton, Malkin, Selanne, St Louis, Schriner, and Bentley. Except for Schriner (who did even less outside his best 7 years than Forsberg and brought basically nothing but regular season offense), I'd guess that all will at least candidates to make our list. Lindros is under many names who won't be candidates to make our list.

Now, I don't think VsX is everything - it's brutal towards players who missed parts of seasons like Forsberg and Lindros. And doesnt' take into account anything but offense (Forsberg was much better defensively than anyone not yet on the list who ranks above him in 7 year VsX). But the point of bringing it up is this - Forsberg, despite his injuries, actually did string together a number of full or mostly-full productive seasons in a way that Lindros didn't.

2. Playoffs

Quite simply, Forsgberg's 171 points in 151 games is more impressive than Lindros' 57 in 53 games.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Colorado kept winning division title after division title - so the argument can be made that, in the end, Forsberg's absences didn't really cost his team very much. On the other hand, is it fair that Forsberg escapes blame because he played on strong teams with Roy/Sakic etc., while a player with similar injury patterns on weaker teams could have decimated their team's playoff hopes?

They dropped from 270 GF in 2000-01 (4th overall; 1st in West) to 212 GF in 2001-02 (18th overall; 9th in West). They rebounded to 251 GF in 2002-03 (5th overall; 4th in West).

 

[DannyGallivan]

This came up in the HOH centers project, and I'll say this:

Forsberg should be ranked much higher than Lindros.

1. The main reason: Durability/longevity. Not a strength for Forsberg compared to most of the players available this round, but a big strength compared to Lindros. Sure the two had similar quality absolute peaks, but Forsberg just had a more complete prime than Lindros did. Because Lindros couldn't even string together healthy seasons in his prime.

Peter Forsberg Stats | Hockey-Reference.com
Eric Lindros Stats | Hockey-Reference.com

The results are clear when you look at any metric that accounts for performance over full seasons

Look at their top 20 scoring finishes season by season:

1994: Lindros 11th
1995: Lindros 1st , Forsberg 14th
1996: Forsberg 5th, Lindros 6th
1997: Forsberg 11th
1998: Forsberg 2nd, Lindros 20th
1999: Forsberg 4th, Lindros 7th
2000:
2001: Forsberg 9th
2002: Lindros 17th
2003: Forsberg 1st

Forsberg: 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 9th, 11th, 14th
Lindros: 1st, 6th, 7th, 11th, 17th, 20th

7 year VsX: Forsberg 90.3, Lindros 85.0
10 year VsX: Forsberg 82.3, Lindros 76.0

As shown by Hockey Outsider in one of the first posts of this thread, only Conacher and Apps have better 7 year scores than Forsberg among players available this round.

And on the full VsX tables - Reference - VsX comprehensive summary (1927 to 2018) - the only unavailable players with better 7 year scores than Forsberg are Bathgate, Cowley, Thornton, Malkin, Selanne, St Louis, Schriner, and Bentley. Except for Schriner (who did even less outside his best 7 years than Forsberg and brought basically nothing but regular season offense), I'd guess that all will at least candidates to make our list. Lindros is under many names who won't be candidates to make our list.

Now, I don't think VsX is everything - it's brutal towards players who missed parts of seasons like Forsberg and Lindros. And doesnt' take into account anything but offense (Forsberg was much better defensively than anyone not yet on the list who ranks above him in 7 year VsX). But the point of bringing it up is this - Forsberg, despite his injuries, actually did string together a number of full or mostly-full productive seasons in a way that Lindros didn't.

2. Playoffs

Quite simply, Forsgberg's 171 points in 151 games is more impressive than Lindros' 57 in 53 games.

Not the time to compare the two. If we ever do, I'd like to look closer at points per game during prime and put playoff performances into context.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Not the time to compare the two. If we ever do, I'd like to look closer at points per game during prime and put playoff performances into context.

Of course.

The point of my (probably too long) post is that Forsberg's end-of-season stats, whether going by top 10/top 20 finishes, 7 year VsX, 10 year VsX, or what not, don't at all look out of place among available players this round. Lindros' would look out of place. Again, just talking about end-of-season stats; I do agree that there is a certain value at looking at per-game performance, at least if that per-game performance was carried out consistently over a relatively large number of games.

 

[MXD]

I'm less high on Lindros than you are, but I'm wondering why Forsberg is up and Malkin isn't. Similar situations (#2 behind a player on the list), but independently awesome. Malkin has largely been more healthy, has more hardware, and a Conn Smythe. He's not as good defensively, but he certainly tilt the ice and takes over games like Forsberg did on a "per game" basis, except there are a lot more "per games".

Because we had some terrible Round 1 lists.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Because we had some terrible Round 1 lists.

It's not unique to this particular list - recognition for still-active players has always lagged a few years behind on HOH

 

[quoipourquoi]

Forsberg's end-of-season stats, whether going by top 10/top 20 finishes, 7 year VsX, 10 year VsX, or what not, don't at all look out of place among available players this round.

That in conjunction with the high-end playoff resume and the continued perception of him as maybe and sometimes likely the league’s best player has him right under Syl Apps on my ballot.