Yzerman - Sakic - Crosby vs Fedorov - Forsberg - Malkin
- Thread starter Ben White
- Start date
You need to back this up with numbers. Crosby's point and/or PPG dominance is clearly above Forsberg's.
Offensively:
Crosby
Yzerman/Malkin/Forsberg/Sakic
Federov
Edge Canadians
Adding in 2-way play moves Malkin down a notch and Federov up a notch.
Crosby
Yzerman/Malkin/Forsberg/Sakic
Federov
Edge Canadians
Adding in 2-way play moves Malkin down a notch and Federov up a notch.
It also gives a a much more accurate picture of whose PPG's are inflated due to not playing games after their peaks/primes.
The exact same metrics you are using to declare Crosby the clear best in '13 and '14 also would show him to be the clear best from the 2011 to 2017 span.
You can expand that to his whole career including playoffs.
I guess I'd need you to elaborate on this, since strict ppg numbers would mean someone like Kucherov had a higher peak season as an Art Ross trophy winner with 1.56 ppg vs Crosby's 1.30 ppg. Kane for reference had 1.29 ppg in his Art Ross, but also held a larger margin of ppg over his peers in that season. Albeit the difference between his and Crosby's win is quite negligible .20 ppg ahead of 2nd place for Kane vs .17 ppg ahead of 2nd place for Crosby.
Your original comment was along the lines of Crosby being the most dominant Art Ross winner in 29 years. Statistically, at least in any single metric he just doesn't appear to be. Hell, Kane did what he did with 1.5 mins of TOI less per game than Crosby and neither spent much time on the PK to really tilt that metric.
I think if you ask best peak "minus single best regular season + best playoff run" - Crosby leapfrogs everyone to #1 for peak, very very easily so here. And this is where Forsberg shines too. I'd probably still have Malkin ahead of him certainly, but he's probably #3.
And if you remove the top 2 seasons/playoff runs of each player - Crosby still#1, but Forsberg is probably #2 for peak.
Despite this - I still say you have to go through incredible gymnastics to get to Forsberg winning 4 art rosses + harts in a row, even in the most optimal of settings. Simply put it's way too big a stretch.
1. 2002. His 2001 season was nothing special. We know Forsberg was "good" at this point, but year to year he hadn't consistently shown to perform the best. Absolutely no reason to think he would have won the ross and especially hart in 2002. Theodore had a lot going for him for hart win in 2002. I know Forsberg looked fantastic in 2002 playoffs, but it's largely because the break likely did him a lot of good - it doesn't mean he would win the ross/hart in 82 game season. The ross probably *is* possibly, since I don't think Iginla's season was too good, but it's a big maybe, and hart an even bigger one. Still - both possible.
2. 2003. He won both hart + ross. Of course - in this hypothetical we are not also giving Mario Lemieux the luxury of no injury that year, because if so 37 year old Mario Lemieux would have beaten Forsberg for both. Still - Mario is on another level, and Forsberg did win of course. However - if Forsberg had won the hart in 2002 - he does not win in 2003. He won the ross on the last day of the season, with a big comeback. But he wasn't that far beyond Naslund, and Brodeur got a ton of love for hart too. I think voter fatigue from a 2002 hart win makes this unlikely to win a back to back hart.
3. 2004. Good chance he can win the Ross here, but again it's 50/50 at the very best. Forsberg paced for 115 points and St Louis had 94 points, big gap. However - St Louis ended the season with 69 points in his last 50 games, or a pace of 113 points. Considering Forsberg paced for 115 points in only 39 games, it's absolutely no guarantee he scores that high full season. This season is really a guess though - if he does score 115, obviously he'd win hart + ross. If he scores closer to St Louis's 94 points - it's probably not enough to win the Hart (Avs were loaded that year).
4. 2005-2006. I know Forsberg had a great start to the season here - but Thornton + Jagr had absolutely insane seasons. Forsberg has never shown an ability to maintain such a high scoring pace for a full season. To me - there's almost no chance he'd have beaten either of Jagr nor Thornton to scoring race in 82 games. ~10% chance at most. He'd have scored a lot - but come short on Ross, and Hart too.
All that to say - if Forsberg is fully healthy from 2002 to 2006 - I think a reasonable expectation is that he might add a second Ross and maybe Hart. Anything else seems way too optimistic. 2006 especially is a pipe dream
In comparison to Crosby - Crosby was scoring at a clip much superior to his peers than Forsberg was at his peak, and Crosby has full seasons where he maintained his pace and outscored everyone, so it's much easier to give him benefit of the doubt. If you do a similar "what if" exercise with Crosby - the results are much, much greater.
Forsberg has been top 3 in ppg three times, top 5 five times.
Crosby has been top 3 in ppg ten times, top 5 twelve times.
It's simply not close. Crosby also has the better playoff resume - though at least on a per game basis here you can argue Forsberg was as good. Crosby did it in more important settings though (3 cups, 4 finals, best or co-best player in each run - which is all better than Forsberg).
Whatever metric you want to choose, apply it equally to all six players. Crosby lacks nothing on his resume in any metric you want to apply. Best Art Ross win
Comparing PPGs or raw point totals over different seasons makes no sense.
JackSlater
Registered User
- Apr 27, 2010
- 18,100
- 12,753
This question is who was better, not who lacks anything. Crosby has one of the most complete resumes of all-time, and in any comparison for almost any metric he'll always do very good. But it doesn't mean he's best in every metric.
1. Best single playoff run. Both Sakic and Malkin have him beat
2. Best single full regular season peak. This is more subjective - but you can argue that everyone but Forsberg can be slotted above him.
Also - looking at margins of victory in an art ross win over #2 needs a ton of context. 2014 was a great season, but nowhere close to being as good as that margin of victory implies it is.
Forsberg's Peak as per Ben White's criteria (Oct 2002 to Nov. 25th, 2005):
NHL.com Stats
135 games,
3rd in points
1st in PPG (among Top Ten scorers) by 26% over Thornton and Naslund, 38% over the other Top Ten scorers.
Crosby's peak (Nov. 28th, 2009 to Nov. 8, 2015): NHL.com Stats
247 games
3rd in points
1st in PPG (among Top Ten scorers) by 32% over Stamkos, 47% over the other Top Ten scorers
More games, higher % over 2nd place, higher % over the other Top Ten scorers.
Points and/or PPG
2013 - Crosby had the clear best PPG while being 3rd in points and won the Lindsay and missed the Hart by a hair
2014 - Crosby had the clear best point total with a solid PPG gap over Malkin and won the Hart and Lindsay
2011 to 2017 - NHL.com Stats
Crosby is 2nd in points by one, and has the clear best PPG, the clear best Hart voting record and the clear best Lindsay record.
You know as well as I do that we can play the selective "context" game all day long. I am always going to call out those who dismiss Crosby's peak because he didn't play a full season but refuse to acknowledge 2013/14 as being the most dominant Art Ross win since 1992. People want to have their cake and eat it too.
Crosby's level of play is the highest. Played at at the highest offensive level, along with Yzerman in 88/89 and Malkin and 11/12, but for a longer time than any other player. Malkin and Yzerman did not do it over multiple seasons. And you can add a very good 2-way game to this that those two were lacking at their offensive peaks.
Last edited:
Ben White
Registered User
- Dec 28, 2015
- 4,606
- 1,621
I never said he’d win anything in the 2002 reg season. This scenario was from 2002 playoffs. You’re absolutely right he wasn’t that good in 2001 cause he was still affected by the surgery (back I think) that made him miss half of the 99/00 season. And that’s why the long rest in 2002 reg season after his broken spleen, was actually “good” for him, at least it compensated for being rusty after a year off and for Forsberg at that point it was probably more important to rest and heal than to play which says a lot. In 2004, I’m talking about his play before the injury when he was absolutely fantastic, far and away the best player in the league at that point and lead in ppg by a bigger margin than how he ended the season. I’d be ready to bank on a Ross + hart for him that season with no injury. It was a similar scenario in 06 but to a lesser degree, he might very well have won at least the Hart that season, thinking of how dominant he was coming in to Philly for the first half, it might have been a battle for the Ross but Forsberg had the reputation of “best in the world” at that point, also living off of his reputation and pre lockout dominance. I mean, who knows, and with all the injuries Forsberg had you have to dig really deep to evaluate his talent level, his “potential”. With a completely injury free career he might as well have won in both 97 and 98 as well where he led the scoring race at the time of an injury that ruined the party. He would also have had a longer prime post 2006, his reg seasons 00-02 wouldn’t have gotten destroyed/affected etc. Forsberg was basically injured ALL THE TIME and played not being 100% almost more often than not, only for stretches could we see his true “peak level” but we who saw we saw and we who know we know.
CanadienShark
Registered User
- Dec 18, 2012
- 37,541
- 10,815
That's the big thing people often gloss over. I think Crosby is the better, more valuable player, but Ovechkin has had a better peak, full season, in addition to other great years.
JackSlater
Registered User
- Apr 27, 2010
- 18,100
- 12,753
No, those are not the exact metrics despite how authoritative your post seemed to be. I agree that Crosby certainly has the highest points per game over that span and I'll take your word for it that he had the best Hart voting record, though I don't care very much about the Hart anymore.
So what made Crosby the best player in the world in 2013 and 2014 in your opinion?
And aren't those consecutive seasons as the best player better than what any of the other six players accomplished?
If you look at Forsberg's 2004 season then we have to look at Crosby's 201011 and 2011/12 seasons. Or Crosby's body of work from 2007 to 2010.
Crosby's ability to be an Art Ross threat and Conn Smythe threat over a 12 season period should confirm his peak level of play.
JackSlater
Registered User
- Apr 27, 2010
- 18,100
- 12,753
He outplayed everyone else and he did so while playing fairly close to all of the available games. Carried some mediocre support offensively and wasn't eaten alive defensively, though he wasn't adding much defensively either. Consistently carried the play when he was on the ice regardless of who he was against and who he was playing with.
It just depends on the question.
There is absolutely merit in wanting to ask who had the best full season between players. Crosby does very good here in a general sense (any of 2007, 2010, 2014, 2017, 2019 are fantastic full seasons) - but nowhere near as good as he could have had he hit one in his peak. So some lesser overall players (and at least 4 in this thread) can have arguments for better peak single season.
I agree in terms of level of play, and especially sustained level of play, he does very, very well.
2014 is not the most dominant Art Ross win since 1992.....1993 for starters is one of the most dominant art ross wins of all time. 1996 not far behind. Crosby himself has a more dominant art ross in 2007 imo. Kucherov had a more dominant win last year. List goes on., 2014 is a great season and a great art ross win, but why exaggerate, and claim things you don't even actually believe?
Ben White
Registered User
- Dec 28, 2015
- 4,606
- 1,621
Quality post, I never said Forsberg’s peak exceeds Crosby, all I ever said was that they’re very close, much closer than people tend to admit, and this post shows that once again.
You excluded the 2002 playoffs btw.
I agree Forsberg was injured all the time, obviously. But he wasn't going to win the Ross in 1997 over Lemieux, and in 1998 over Jagr. Jagr had a higher ppg, and in more games.
Also - I personally have a lot less trouble with "what if" scenarios for someone like Crosby than I do Forsberg, or even Malkin or Lindros who are similar. Crosby's health history is either he plays a full season, or he has a major injury and misses major time. So he's had many full seasons. Guys like Forsberg/Lindros/Malkin have so few full seasons. I don't think it's fair to assume Forsberg would keep all his paces over full seasons as easily, since he has none, so he gets less benefit of the doubt. To me a "healthy" Forsberg would likely still only play ~70 games a year max.
I certainly agree that with better health he could have continued past 2006, and likely aged very well. He obviously wouldn't have been in contention for best in the world anymore, as he'd be older and rivaling peak Crosby/Ovi/Malkin - but he has the type of skillset that should have aged quite well.
I think the most realistic scenario for Forsberg if he had had no major injuries in career is:
- No major awards in the 90s. He simply wasn't beating Jagr, let alone Hasek to Ross/Harts. More top 2s and 3s maybe
- No Conn Smythes. He wasn't beating Roy nor probably even Sakic in 2001.
- 2 Ross (80% chance), *maybe* 3 (~35-50% chance). This is for 2002 and 2004.
- Possibly 2 harts (~50%) but almost for sure not 3 (~below 20%). Voter fatigue is a factor. Could have ranked high each season though (2002-2004)
- No major awards from 2006 and onwards
To me the above Forsberg is certainly behind Crosby (current Crosby - not no injury Crosby, who goes up a significant tier himself) - but probably #2 among the 6 players listed here. None of Yzerman/Sakic/Fedorov would benefit much more from better health. Malkin is tricky - with better health he too goes up, not sure if he ends up above this version of Forsberg or not though.
