Top 20 Swedish players of all time

[jkrx]

You also should consider the amount of russian and czech players in the NHL. The more star players from those countries, the harder competition. Today, we for example have guys like Datsyuk, Ovechkin, Malkin and other star russians. When Loob had his NHL years, I can't think of many russians in NHL. (Larionov, Makarov wasn't there yet.)
So I would say the competition (regarding top players) was actually weaker more likely than stronger.

Even if Gretzky and Mario played then, they are just two players, so excluding them would only have meant Loob would place 2 places higher in the scoring. Guys like Savard, Hawerchuck, Goulet weren't exactly superstars, and not even Messier and Kurri was necessarily better than today's stars like Crosby, Datsyuk, Ovechkin, etc.

I think you overrate Loob a little bit. Don't forget Sedins have WON the Art Ross, and one (or soon both?) of them have WON Hart. Zetterberg has WON Conn Smythe. Forsberg has WON Art Ross and Hart, and had another season where he led the league in points per game. Markus Naslund has WON Pearson. Lidstrom has WON several Norris.
Loob wasn't even close to such achievements.

No other Swede but Loob has scored 50 goals, but several have been close and they have done it in a lower scoring era.
Loob has the scoring record for the Swedish Elite League, but that was his peak season. Zucharello Aasen also dominated in the SEL, and even in the Olympics (I know Yzerman was very impressed by him), but hasn't exactly been an NHL top player. Tomi Kallio have dominated in SEL, but had one of the worst statistics in the NHL.

Of the lists, I think I find Seventieslords the "best" and most interesting. However, if I was to change it, placing Loob 2 or 3 places higher would probably be my first move. So I'm not saying Loob wasn't good.

None of the current superstars are in their prime though, which was my point. The Sedins are great but they are also prime players in a league where current superstars are under the age of 24 (Perry, Getzlaf and Ovechkin being the exception).

Loob has the scoring record for the Swedish Elite League, but that was his peak season.

His peak season? He was 22.

You bring up Kallio and Zucharello but they didnt score 50 goals in the NHL they didnt dominate internationally either (Zuch was very good). Kallio isnt dominating the SEL, he has put up respectable numbers but he isnt even close to Loob.

Zucharello just played his first NHL season and put up 23 points in 40 something games. Not bad either.

 

[MS]

I actually worded that wrong. Loob had more quality competition. However we wont get proof of this until 5 or more years after the Sedins are done.

It should also be noted that Loob left the NHL when going into his prime it wasn't like MS says, that he was in the middle of his prime when he entered the league.

Sedins wasn't up against any player in his prime except Ovechkin (he missed 10 games when Sedin got the hart). Loob was up against players like Gretzky, Lemieux (not prime), Savard, Hawerchuk, Messier, Goulet and Kurri.

Loob was in excellent form from roughly 1982-1992. He spent 6 of those 10 years in the NHL, between the ages of 23 and 29. He spent the bulk of his prime years in the NHL.

As for competition, take Gretzky and Lemieux out of the equation and the rest of the guys you list are no better than Crosby/Ovechkin/Malkin/Thornton/St. Louis. If you want to allow for Gretzky and Lemieux, drop the Sedins two spots ... but it really doesn't change anything.

To be honest, Loob top 6 years wasn't in the NHL thats why it's extremely hard to compare. If we compare first 6 seasons (like we should), as Swedes are often eased into the NHL, (Loob wasnt given important minutes either during his transition seasons) we would get a much more fair result. Loob was 32nd in NHL and the Sedins 69th and 70th in raw numbers and in PPG (with players playing more than 200 games) they fall to 162 and 163 (Loob falls to 57th).

Loob got plenty of icetime straight off. In his 2nd year he was 2nd on Calgary in scoring and getting corresponding icetime.

The notion of comparing them by taking their first 6 seasons is ridiculous. Is Jorgen Pettersen better than Markus Naslund then?

And for the record, the Sedins put up first-line production with 2nd line icetime and limited PP minutes in 2005-06.

We saw Loob at his best. It was good. It wasn't great.

You seem to be operating under the notion that he magically got better at age 30 after leaving the NHL.

The year he went back to Sweden, he lost the SEL scoring title to Robert Burakovsky, he of the 23 career NHL games. He put up the same scoring totals as Patrik Carnback. On his own team, Kjell Dahlin was a more dangerous goal-scoring threat.

Sorry if I'm not blown away to the extent that I rate this ahead of winning the Hart Trophy.

After 1989, Hakan Loob didn't play a single game against legitimate quality opposition again. To 'assume' that he somehow got better in that period with absolutely no evidence to support this is ridiculous.

 

[Wayne Gresky]

I made this graph a few years ago to show how goals per game average have changed over the years in the NHL and the SEL.

Markus Näslund goalscoring record during his prime compared to the goal/game average clearly outshines Loobs 50 goals in one season to make Nazzy the best swedish goalscorer through all times.

In the Olympics 1994 Canada had a couple of quality players, and the were a few future stars in some other teams but most teams held very low standard. The swedish gold medal in Turin was a far greater achievement.

 

[jkrx]

Loob was in excellent form from roughly 1982-1992. He spent 6 of those 10 years in the NHL, between the ages of 23 and 29. He spent the bulk of his prime years in the NHL.

As for competition, take Gretzky and Lemieux out of the equation and the rest of the guys you list are no better than Crosby/Ovechkin/Malkin/Thornton/St. Louis. If you want to allow for Gretzky and Lemieux, drop the Sedins two spots ... but it really doesn't change anything.



Loob got plenty of icetime straight off. In his 2nd year he was 2nd on Calgary in scoring and getting corresponding icetime.

The notion of comparing them by taking their first 6 seasons is ridiculous. Is Jorgen Pettersen better than Markus Naslund then?

And for the record, the Sedins put up first-line production with 2nd line icetime and limited PP minutes in 2005-06.

We saw Loob at his best. It was good. It wasn't great.

You seem to be operating under the notion that he magically got better at age 30 after leaving the NHL.

The year he went back to Sweden, he lost the SEL scoring title to Robert Burakovsky, he of the 23 career NHL games. He put up the same scoring totals as Patrik Carnback. On his own team, Kjell Dahlin was a more dangerous goal-scoring threat.

Sorry if I'm not blown away to the extent that I rate this ahead of winning the Hart Trophy.

After 1989, Hakan Loob didn't play a single game against legitimate quality opposition again. To 'assume' that he somehow got better in that period with absolutely no evidence to support this is ridiculous.

The year after he lost the scoring title he was back on top. He was injured when he lost but I guess that is something to ignore when trying to make an arguement.

My recomendation to take their first seasons is because Loob only has those 6 first season while you will complain that he was older I will still state that this was the transition period that most players go through.

Rather ironic notion that I dont have any evidence while you are trying to support your claims by comparing Sendins best seasons within their prime to Loobs first six and only seasons in the NHL.

and to one other statement you made about quality rosters.

1990 Men's World Ice Hockey Championships
Head coach: Dave King
Keith Acton
Greg Adams
Brian Bellows
Shawn Burr
Paul Coffey (C)
Murray Craven
John Cullen
Bob Essensa
Theoren Fleury
Doug Gilmour
Rick Green
Curtis Leschyshyn
Doug Lidster
Al MacInnis
Jamie Macoun
Kirk McLean
Joe Nieuwendyk
Michel Petit
Mark Recchi
Ron Sutter
Rick Tocchet
Ken Wregget
Steve Yzerman (C)

 

[plusandminus]

I made this graph a few years ago to show how goals per game average have changed over the years in the NHL and the SEL.

Markus Näslund goalscoring record during his prime compared to the goal/game average clearly outshines Loobs 50 goals in one season to make Nazzy the best swedish goalscorer through all times.

In the Olympics 1994 Canada had a couple of quality players, and the were a few future stars in some other teams but most teams held very low standard. The swedish gold medal in Turin was a far greater achievement.

And looking at adjusted goals (hockeyreference), Loob's goal scoring actually was on par with Forsberg:
Loob: 23+29+24+15+42+22 = 155 ...average 26
Forsberg's 10 first years: 26+29+29+29+34+15+29+33+21+19 = 264 ...average 26.4
Forsberg had 162 adjusted goals in his 6 first seasons ...average 27.

Loob was more of a goal scorer than assist guy, as opposed to Forsberg. Still Forsberg, who as I recall it never made top-10 (or even top-15) in goal scoring, had more goals than Loob in 3 1/2 seasons out of 6 (23/26, 29/29, 24/29, 15/29, 42/34, 22/15).
This may be indicative of Loob's actual standard in the NHL. His biggest asset, his goal scoring ability, was like 10th-30th best in the league. His playmaking slightly weaker. His physical play, or defensive ability, probably was at best league average.

Looking at adjusted points, we see that for example Sedins have had several far better seasons than Loob's best season. They also have WON the scoring title, can you even comprehend how far away from such accomplishment Loob was? Can you see how far away Loob have been from winning Hart or Pearson/Lindsey?

Loob had his SEL peak just before entering NHL, and then he had like 3 more top seasons in SEL. Between that, 6 NHL years. Don't you think his main peak rather was the 50 goal season, and that he later on started to drop? At least, I/we think that.

 

[jkrx]

And looking at adjusted goals (hockeyreference), Loob's goal scoring actually was on par with Forsberg:
Loob: 23+29+24+15+42+22 = 155 ...average 26
Forsberg's 10 first years: 26+29+29+29+34+15+29+33+21+19 = 264 ...average 26.4
Forsberg had 162 adjusted goals in his 6 first seasons ...average 27.

Loob was more of a goal scorer than assist guy, as opposed to Forsberg. Still Forsberg, who as I recall it never made top-10 (or even top-15) in goal scoring, had more goals than Loob in 3 1/2 seasons out of 6 (23/26, 29/29, 24/29, 15/29, 42/34, 22/15).
This may be indicative of Loob's actual standard in the NHL. His biggest asset, his goal scoring ability, was like 10th-30th best in the league. His playmaking slightly weaker. His physical play, or defensive ability, probably was at best league average.

Looking at adjusted points, we see that for example Sedins have had several far better seasons than Loob's best season. They also have WON the scoring title, can you even comprehend how far away from such accomplishment Loob was? Can you see how far away Loob have been from winning Hart or Pearson/Lindsey?

Loob had his SEL peak just before entering NHL, and then he had like 3 more top seasons in SEL. Between that, 6 NHL years. Don't you think his main peak rather was the 50 goal season, and that he later on started to drop? At least, I/we think that.

Now we are saying that Loob isnt a better goal scorer than Forsberg. I think my point about adjusted stats have been proven now.

Loob far away from a scoring title? 8 places below winning is far away? Remove Gretzky and Lemieux and it's 6 places. Do you honestly believe that Sedin would win the Pearson competing against a prime Gretzky/Savard/Messier? Loob was top 10 in all stats meaning he was an allround player. H. Sedin is not he's weak in every area except playmaking.

Ofcourse I think he hit his prime during the '88 season but do you really think it magically stopped after that?

Loob is simply better in every area except playmaking than Sedin.

 

[Ola]

1. Peter Forsberg
2. Niklas Lidström
3. Mats Sundin
4. Henrik Sedin
5. Henrik Zetterberg
6. Daniel Sedin
7. Börje Salming
8. Sven Tumba
9. HÃ¥kan Loob
10. Daniel Alfredsson
11. Markus Näslund
12. Kent Nilsson
13. Stefan Persson
14. Kenny Jönsson
15-17. Hedberg, Nilsson and Steen
18. Pelle Lindberg
19. Thomas Holmström
20. Jörgen Jönsson

I made this list in a hurry and I am sure it can be stress-tested. But I've made a lot of principal decsions.

There are no set rules or laws in these type of rankings, but let me explain my thinking.

Peter Forsberg is the best Swedish ice hockey player of all time. He should be nr 1. over Lidström... He has i) the best peak, ii) he has won everything and iii) he was always the best when it mattered the most + all the extras in terms of being physical et c.

The highest peak should have a lot of value in these discussions, and its not like Forsberg can't back up his peak.

Mats Sundin should be very high. 3 of the most beuatyful goals I've ever seen no matter what, Mats Sundin has scored in like 3 of the top 10 most important games Sweden has every played. Think Krejci-feetching-the-puck-behind-his-own-net-tomorrow-and-taking-it-the-length-of-the-ice-before-deeking-Luongo-up-into-the-stands-in-OT type of goals, three times. While he has not won a darn thing in the NHL, he was by far the best player on his team for what, 10+ years?, while never once playing with even a top 15-30 winger. I mean, Sundin aint Lemieux. But he still never got a chance to do sheit in the NHL during his peak. That's sad.

I am not a young kid anymore, I've followed Swedes at the highest level for almost 15 years. But I still post a very young-heavy ranking. That's because I think thats warranted. I mean, when making a ranking like this, you are really not able to compare Tumba to Sundin in any way. Its like comparing apples and oranges. Unless you know the history, thats a extreme underexageration. I know that Sweden has put a team in the WCH's with players that not skated once for the season before the puck was dropped in the first game. How do you compare one of those guys to like a NHLer of today? But to get back to the topic -- Swedish hockey was built during the late 70's and 80's, and not up until the early 90's we started to see the results from it for real. I mean, everyone from the Sedins to Zetterberg and co are just "better" then Anders Hedberg and Ulf Nilsson; Håkan Loob, Mats Näslund and co.

As a Swede, I've put some emphazise on the the Swedes being the best and most outstanding players for their era.

 

[plusandminus]

Now we are saying that Loob isnt a better goal scorer than Forsberg. I think my point about adjusted stats have been proven now.

Loob far away from a scoring title? 8 places below winning is far away? Remove Gretzky and Lemieux and it's 6 places. Do you honestly believe that Sedin would win the Pearson competing against a prime Gretzky/Savard/Messier? Loob was top 10 in all stats meaning he was an allround player. H. Sedin is not he's weak in every area except playmaking.

Ofcourse I think he hit his prime during the '88 season but do you really think it magically stopped after that?

Loob is simply better in every area except playmaking than Sedin.

It seems that in this thread, you simply have your opinions clear, and whatever other people here write, you still twist and turn to justify Loob being stronger than Sedins. If you want to continue believing that Loob was for example better than guys who have scoring titles, Hart, etc, then do so.

 

[seventieslord]

My recomendation to take their first seasons is because Loob only has those 6 first season while you will complain that he was older I will still state that this was the transition period that most players go through.

That is fair. But on the other hand, it is unfair when you look at the ages. So either way, it's not really fair. Why not disregard age and experience and just go with best seasons vs. best seasons?

Now we are saying that Loob isnt a better goal scorer than Forsberg. I think my point about adjusted stats have been proven now.

The stats show that they are comparable as goalscorers, aside from Loob's one monster season. I don't really care that Forsberg comes out "one adjusted goal per season" ahead or whatever - the adjustment at least puts them on an even playing field and shows that the gap isn't as wide as a raw 32-22 gap might show.

when scoring is higher, it takes more goals to win games. therefore each goal is worth less towards a win. Fact is that Forsberg scored roughly the same amount of wins worth of goals. I don't know if that makes sense to put it that way for you but I thought I'd try.

Loob is simply better in every area except playmaking than Sedin.

The fact that Henrik is nothing special defensively, physically, or as a goalscorer means that the above statement can be true. However, he is so far ahead in playmaking, like ridiculously far ahead, that he's still better overall.

 

[jkrx]

That is fair. But on the other hand, it is unfair when you look at the ages. So either way, it's not really fair. Why not disregard age and experience and just go with best seasons vs. best seasons?



The stats show that they are comparable as goalscorers, aside from Loob's one monster season. I don't really care that Forsberg comes out "one adjusted goal per season" ahead or whatever - the adjustment at least puts them on an even playing field and shows that the gap isn't as wide as a raw 32-22 gap might show.

when scoring is higher, it takes more goals to win games. therefore each goal is worth less towards a win. Fact is that Forsberg scored roughly the same amount of wins worth of goals. I don't know if that makes sense to put it that way for you but I thought I'd try.



The fact that Henrik is nothing special defensively, physically, or as a goalscorer means that the above statement can be true. However, he is so far ahead in playmaking, like ridiculously far ahead, that he's still better overall.

Because Loob obviously can't compare unless someone puts together a magical formula that translate SEL stats to NHL. First vs. Best is unfair and I agree that first vs. first is unfair because of the age difference. The fact is that this is extremely hard to value because Loob went back to Sweden while Sedin will play out his prime. Same thing goes for a lot of those 70s and 80s swedes like Jonsson, Rundqvist, Lindmark. Thats why I posted a list out of memory and from what I witnessed instead eyeing their hardware and trying isolate their stats down to where they slipped on the rink during practice in their pre-teens.

I'm going to leave the adjusted stats argument because I have no faith in those stats what so ever. They ignore too many variables to be reliable.

The only thing they have in common is that they both have a lackluster stanley cup finals record offensively.

when scoring is higher, it takes more goals to win games. therefore each goal is worth less towards a win. Fact is that Forsberg scored roughly the same amount of wins worth of goals. I don't know if that makes sense to put it that way for you but I thought I'd try.

Not entirely true. When Loob scored 50 goals there were 8 players (including him) scoring 50 or more. When Forsberg scored career high 30 goals there were 8 players with 50 or more goals. When Forsberg scored 30 again there were 28 players who scored 30 or more goals.

I do however understand what you are trying to say but despite Loob "only" scoring 50 goals in the 80's he was still 6th in scoring that season and Forsberg wasnt even top-20. In Forsbergs Hart season he wasn't even top-30 in goal scoring.

 

[seventieslord]

Because Loob obviously can't compare unless someone puts together a magical formula that translate SEL stats to NHL.

It's very possible, even probable, that we saw the best of Loob at 23-29 though. Most players were at their best at that age. He might be an exception, but without a later sample of appropriate size against top competition it's really tough to say that he got better after going back home.

Not entirely true. When Loob scored 50 goals there were 8 players (including him) scoring 50 or more. When Forsberg scored career high 30 goals there were 8 players with 50 or more goals. When Forsberg scored 30 again there were 28 players who scored 30 or more goals.

Hey, I am not arguing that Loob's 50 goal season was only as good as Forsberg's 30. No chance. It was clearly the best goalscoring season either of them had. However, on an aggregate level it appears his goalscoring ability delivered similar value to that of Forsberg in their respective eras.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

I'm going to leave the adjusted stats argument because I have no faith in those stats what so ever. They ignore too many variables to be reliable.

This can also be said of the raw stats themselves, which you seem content in using.

 

[jkrx]

This can also be said of the raw stats themselves, which you seem content in using.

When have I ever used raw stats as an absolute basis for my arguement?

 

[Iain Fyffe]

When have I ever used raw stats as an absolute basis for my arguement?

You haven't, and I didn't say you did. But you have used them.

 

[jkrx]

You haven't, and I didn't say you did. But you have used them.

I have used them as support in where players were ranked amongst their peers.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

I have used them as support in where players were ranked amongst their peers.

Yes you did. In my books, that counts as using them, flaws and all.

 

[MS]

My recomendation to take their first seasons is because Loob only has those 6 first season while you will complain that he was older I will still state that this was the transition period that most players go through.

Rather ironic notion that I dont have any evidence while you are trying to support your claims by comparing Sendins best seasons within their prime to Loobs first six and only seasons in the NHL.

The fairest thing was the first thing I did - take their three best seasons. Sedins destroy Loob by that metric as they do all others - a difference in adjusted points of nearly 50%.

Loob spent the bulk of his prime years in the NHL. Again, the notion that a player who never received a Hart vote, has 1 top-20 season in scoring, and has 1 season where he was in the top 8 players in his position in All-Star voting is somehow better than players who have Hart and Art Ross trophies, multiple assist titles, multiple top-5 finishes in scoring, and so on, is ridiculous.

SEL scoring titles don't trump Hart Trophies.

It's very possible, even probable, that we saw the best of Loob at 23-29 though. Most players were at their best at that age. He might be an exception, but without a later sample of appropriate size against top competition it's really tough to say that he got better after going back home.

Exactly.

Especially in that era. Amongst forwards born between 1955 and 1965 (Loob was born in 1960) the only player I can think of who had career seasons after the age of 30 was Ron Francis. And that was likely only because he started playing with Lemieux and Jagr in his 30s after spending his 20s stuck in Hartford.

Forwards from that period almost always had their best seasons between the ages of roughly 22 and 28. The notion that Loob was the one guy who didn't fit that pattern, and just happened go get *way better* while playing in an easier league after the age of 30 is frankly farsical.

 

[jkrx]

The fairest thing was the first thing I did - take their three best seasons. Sedins destroy Loob by that metric as they do all others - a difference in adjusted points of nearly 50%.

Loob spent the bulk of his prime years in the NHL. Again, the notion that a player who never received a Hart vote, has 1 top-20 season in scoring, and has 1 season where he was in the top 8 players in his position in All-Star voting is somehow better than players who have Hart and Art Ross trophies, multiple assist titles, multiple top-5 finishes in scoring, and so on, is ridiculous.

SEL scoring titles don't trump Hart Trophies.

You just love to manipulate numbers to you advantage, don't you?

Exactly.

Especially in that era. Amongst forwards born between 1955 and 1965 (Loob was born in 1960) the only player I can think of who had career seasons after the age of 30 was Ron Francis. And that was likely only because he started playing with Lemieux and Jagr in his 30s after spending his 20s stuck in Hartford.

Forwards from that period almost always had their best seasons between the ages of roughly 22 and 28. The notion that Loob was the one guy who didn't fit that pattern, and just happened go get *way better* while playing in an easier league after the age of 30 is frankly farsical.

The notion that he would decline into nothing is even more farsical.

Fracis is the only guy you can come up with? How about Ciccarelli? Steen? Larionov? Dale Hunter? and these are only players born in 1960 there is more within the time frame you gave, so no, it's not probable that Loob would suddenly drop to a mediocre level.

 

[Fredrik_71]

So Loob was a better goal scorer then Forsberg? I think its pretty close comparing the eras. And I have no problem thinking Forsberg would have averaged around 10 more goals per season if he focused on it. Good players succeed in almost whatever they put their effort to. Forsberg was more valuable to his team playing his style and thats the answer.

//Cheers

 

[jkrx]

So Loob was a better goal scorer then Forsberg? I think its pretty close comparing the eras. And I have no problem thinking Forsberg would have averaged around 10 more goals per season if he focused on it. Good players succeed in almost whatever they put their effort to. Forsberg was more valuable to his team playing his style and thats the answer.

//Cheers

IF he focused on scoring maybe. Problem is that he rarely did but I ranked Forsberg ahead of Loob too. Forsberg is the superior player.

 

[MS]

You just love to manipulate numbers to you advantage, don't you?

How am I manipulating numbers?

You can use the best 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 best NHL seasons, Sedins blow Loob away.

You can use individual awards. You can use All-Star voting. You can overlap by age. And on and on.

It's not close.

We're comparing a guy with a Hart Trophy and a bunch of other great seasons surrounding it with a guy who has 1 top-20 scoring finish.

The notion that he would decline into nothing is even more farsical.

Fracis is the only guy you can come up with? How about Ciccarelli? Steen? Larionov? Dale Hunter? and these are only players born in 1960 there is more within the time frame you gave, so no, it's not probable that Loob would suddenly drop to a mediocre level.

Where on earth did I say he'd decline into nothing?

He was clearly still a very good player for another few years after leaving the NHL. Nobody is denying this. What you're claiming is that he got better, which is ... weak.

If he'd put up 3 more seasons at the level of the last year he played in the NHL ... the Sedins are still well ahead of him. Unless Loob somehow morphs into a 120-point player who finishes top-5 in league scoring and contends for a Hart, when he left the NHL doesn't matter. He simply wasn't as good. Period.

Second, none of those players you listed were better in their 30s than their 20s. If we looked at how good they were between age 23 and 29 ... we'd have a pretty damned good idea of how good those players were.

Same as we know how good Loob was.

 

[21]

Looking at peak I'm very interested in how Forsberg can't be ranked first.

 

[Canadiens1958]

The Sedins

Interesting thread with a unique sub topic. The Sedins, Daniel and Henrik. Are they to be viewed individually or as a collective?

Throughout their career(s) they have played together. At the NHL, the twins had the advantage of being drafted one after another by the same team, the Vancouver Canucks. The results to date are virtually identical Henrik 666 points in 810 games, Daniel 651 points in 787 games, difference attributable to Daniel losing nearly 20 games to injury during the 2009-10 season.

Playing together has created certain unique situations. The teams style/systems are built around the Sedins as a collective unit opposed to the normal inividual player factors. This has an influence on results - team and individual.

So it is fair to ask if the Sedins are to be viewed as a collective, leading to the question whether the collective talent is greater than the sum of their individual talents. Or are Daniel and Henrik to be viewed as individual talents who would have produced roughly identical results if they had played on distinct teams with distinct circumstances - team styles/systems, coaches, management team mates, schedules etc.

Comments.

 

[plusandminus]

Interesting thread with a unique sub topic. The Sedins, Daniel and Henrik. Are they to be viewed individually or as a collective?

Throughout their career(s) they have played together. At the NHL, the twins had the advantage of being drafted one after another by the same team, the Vancouver Canucks. The results to date are virtually identical Henrik 666 points in 810 games, Daniel 651 points in 787 games, difference attributable to Daniel losing nearly 20 games to injury during the 2009-10 season.

Playing together has created certain unique situations. The teams style/systems are built around the Sedins as a collective unit opposed to the normal inividual player factors. This has an influence on results - team and individual.

So it is fair to ask if the Sedins are to be viewed as a collective, leading to the question whether the collective talent is greater than the sum of their individual talents. Or are Daniel and Henrik to be viewed as individual talents who would have produced roughly identical results if they had played on distinct teams with distinct circumstances - team styles/systems, coaches, management team mates, schedules etc.

Comments.

Yes, very interesting.
From what I've heard and read, the genereral consensus were/are that Henrik's good play and production during Daniel's injury, showed he could do it alone (at least during that limited time). It surely seems to have helped Henrik getting his Hart.

Otherwise, it's hard to know.

I do think it is more likely that they would have scored 50 % more points if playing in different teams, than Hakan Loob would probably have had a bunch of Hart, Lindsey/Pearson, Conn Smythe, Art Ross and probably Selke and Norris too (of course during the same season, thus making him legendary) if he had played some more seasons in the NHL...