daver
Registered User
without having thought about this too much, or really deep-diving into the seasons involved, my initial observation is malkin: 1.45 points/game, sakic 1.44 points/game, giroux 1.21 points/game, forsberg 1.22 points/game. so yes, there were a lot more players in the 1-1.2 points/game range, but neither sakic nor malkin were in that range. and i don't necessarily see the evidence that whatever advantages the "pack" had in 2001 were shared by the outlier (sakic) over 2012's outlier (malkin). unless you want to argue that giroux in 2012 was better than forsberg in 2001?
In terms of how their PPGs compared the PPGs of the other Top 10 -20 scorers, it was better. How else are we supposed to differentiate seasons from others if we don't compare points and PPGs to their respective peers?
I may be misreading your comment but you seem to be insinuating that it would be unreasonable to think that Giroux had a better season than Forsberg that year. I find this line of thinking troublesome as it basically presumes that great players from other eras played at their peak level throughout their primes which statistically is not the case.
Last edited: