Yzerman - Sakic - Crosby vs Fedorov - Forsberg - Malkin

[Ben White]

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.

This is what makes it even trickier with Forsberg cause you can’t just go by ppg either you have to put that in context as well. The interesting thing is that Forsberg (and very much so) much like Lemieux tended to have a higher ppg the more games he played in a season, simply cause he was the kind of player who played through injuries and took the hit in production during the healing period instead of taking time off to heal. This goes completely against the often used argument “he wouldn’t have maintained his pace” cause its actually the exact opposite. That’s why he could very well have sniffed the Ross in both 97 and 98 for that reason as he lead the scoring race when getting injured. You mentioned 2001 above, that history has to be completely rewritten in a “healthy Forsberg” alternative universe since his play was still highly affected by his 99/00 surgery.

 

[Conspiracy Theorist]

Since it's peak went with the Europeans. Malkin peaks higher than Crosby. Fedorov at his best was better than Yzerman. Sakic had high peak but Forsberg was seen better than him when they played.

 

[Ben White]

In terms of pure still and raw talent Sakic is clearly an inch below the rest. Just look at his “top 10 plays” that someone bothered putting together. There’s hardly any highly skilled plays there, just a bunch of really good wrist shots, and he did have one of the best wristers ever. One of the most skilled plays on the list ironically is a no look pass by Forsberg at no 3... Some will argue “skilled and flashy isn’t the same thing” but really skilled players always manage to collect a decent list of highlight reel plays over a full career, even Mario and Gretz did that despite never trying to be flashy.

Crosby >~ Malkin
Sakic < Forsberg
Yzerman ~< Fedorov

The Avs’ duo is the tiebreaker for me

 

[HarryLime]

In terms of pure still and raw talent Sakic is clearly an inch below the rest. Just look at his “top 10 plays” that someone bothered putting together. There’s hardly any highly skilled plays there, just a bunch of really good wrist shots, and he did have one of the best wristers ever. One of the most skilled plays on the list ironically is a no look pass by Forsberg at no 3... Some will argue “skilled and flashy isn’t the same thing” but really skilled players always manage to collect a decent list of highlight reel plays over a full career, even Mario and Gretz did that despite never trying to be flashy.

Crosby >~ Malkin
Sakic < Forsberg
Yzerman ~< Fedorov

The Avs’ duo is the tiebreaker for me

Sakic peaked higher than Fosberg though

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

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?

It’s factual by percentage

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Sakic peaked higher than Fosberg though

Don't worry, a four minute YouTube video trumps actual accomplishments.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

In terms of pure still and raw talent Sakic is clearly an inch below the rest. Just look at his “top 10 plays” that someone bothered putting together. There’s hardly any highly skilled plays there, just a bunch of really good wrist shots, and he did have one of the best wristers ever. One of the most skilled plays on the list ironically is a no look pass by Forsberg at no 3... Some will argue “skilled and flashy isn’t the same thing” but really skilled players always manage to collect a decent list of highlight reel plays over a full career, even Mario and Gretz did that despite never trying to be flashy.

Crosby >~ Malkin
Sakic < Forsberg
Yzerman ~< Fedorov

The Avs’ duo is the tiebreaker for me

Having one of the best wristers ever, and being able to utilize it consistently even though defenses know you have it, isn't a skill? You make it sound like because Sakic wasn't flashy or Bure-esque in how he scored, that he's less skilled than the others.

I think you're confusing flashy with skilled. Maxim Afinigenov probably had more "highlight reel" plays than Sakic, but he wasn't more skilled.

 

[KIRK]

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.

No, that confirms his longevity at or near peak, not the measure of his peak.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

No, that confirms his longevity at or near peak, not the measure of his peak.

Side tangent, but I'm not really a fan of these "peak" discussions because it seems to intentionally level the playing field between players when one clearly had a better "prime" or bulk of a career than who they're being compared to.

It's like asking who had the better peak goal scoring season between Cheechoo and Tarasenko. The answer is Cheechoo because of his one single, solitary season. But overall, it's pretty clear who the better goal scorer over the course of their careers is. It's leveling the playing field between two players where there's an obvious "better" overall.

 

[KIRK]

Side tangent, but I'm not really a fan of these "peak" discussions because it seems to intentionally level the playing field between players when one clearly had a better "prime" or bulk of a career than who they're being compared to.

It's like asking who had the better peak goal scoring season between Cheechoo and Tarasenko. The answer is Cheechoo because of his one single, solitary season. But overall, it's pretty clear who the better goal scorer over the course of their careers is. It's leveling the playing field between two players where there's an obvious "better" overall.

Preaching to the choir. My preference is to judge only based on what is, not what might have been or what might have been at one moment.

Of course, this thread is asking for the latter.

 

[bobholly39]

It’s factual by percentage

Right.

So Howe >> Lemieux for offensive peak based on art ross factual percentages right?

 

[KoozNetsOff 92]

Right.

So Howe >> Lemieux for offensive peak based on art ross factual percentages right?

No then we have to use context obviously.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Right.

So Howe >> Lemieux for offensive peak based on art ross factual percentages right?

That seems to be the narrative around here know?

 

[Voight]

Crosby > Yzerman > Malkin > Forsberg > Sakic > Federov

Very close, I'd probably give the slight edge to the first trio, but you can't go wrong with either

Sakic is too low on that list.

 

[Iapyi]

One of the few poll results that is accurate. Intriguing as to the % of undecided/even steven.

 

[Voight]

Malkin 08-09 is the best full season here though

Yzermans 155 points in 1989 begs to differ... yes he wasn't the only one to hit that mark but he was also 60 points ahead of his next team mate.... Sakic in 2001 has a great case as well. Sure he didn't come away with the scoring title or Rocket but he also came 2nd in bth of those races and lost the Selke by a hair.

Fedorov in 1994 was such a complete player, he was able to win the Selke (while Sakic lost) and theres a good chance he takes home the Art Ross if he doesn't miss games to injury. He was neck and neck with Gretzky most of the year until his injury IIRC. Also no shame in coming in 2nd to The Great One.

Having one of the best wristers ever, and being able to utilize it consistently even though defenses know you have it, isn't a skill? You make it sound like because Sakic wasn't flashy or Bure-esque in how he scored, that he's less skilled than the others.

I think you're confusing flashy with skilled. Maxim Afinigenov probably had more "highlight reel" plays than Sakic, but he wasn't more skilled.

Its like teams didn't have 20 years or well over 1000 games of film / play that they could use to figure out a way to neutralize it.

 

[wetcoast]

Hull/Kane/Modano don't belong here.

Modano is way below anyone else here for peak.
Kane had a fantastic peak season - but despite that, he would still be dead last in this grouping. Everyone else has simply done better.
Hull's peak is great - he would certainly belong.

As a group though - they would easily be beaten by the other two groups.

Probably true but the separation of these elite players, at their peak, compared to the 2 groups given isn't really all that large.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

I’d say Kane peaked higher than Forsberg

 

[ahmon]

too close, even steven.

 

[daver]

Sakic peaked higher than Fosberg though

Not really. Their level of play in their peak seasons was very close based on PPG dominance vs. their peers.

It is very close between the two, IMO, and close to the peaks of Crosby, Malkin and Yzerman but a bit behind.

 

[bobholly39]

Probably true but the separation of these elite players, at their peak, compared to the 2 groups given isn't really all that large.

Modano? Clear, clear weak link here. He simply doesn't have a peak season anywhere near the level of these guys. And considering Kane - who does belong - is at or near bottom of list himself imo, the trio just doesn't compare to other 2, who don't have a single weak link. Hull/Kane are fine - would have to find a different #3 though.

I’d say Kane peaked higher than Forsberg

For single season, absolutely. Single playoff run too maybe, especially if we consider 4 rounds vs 3. More than one season/playoff, he loses ground big time

Not really. Their level of play in their peak seasons was very close based on PPG dominance vs. their peers.

It is very close between the two, IMO, and close to the peaks of Crosby, Malkin and Yzerman but a bit behind.

It just depends what we're looking at specifically. Level of play, maybe.

Single season + single playoff run Sakic has Forsberg beaten very handily though.

 

[bobholly39]

This is what makes it even trickier with Forsberg cause you can’t just go by ppg either you have to put that in context as well. The interesting thing is that Forsberg (and very much so) much like Lemieux tended to have a higher ppg the more games he played in a season, simply cause he was the kind of player who played through injuries and took the hit in production during the healing period instead of taking time off to heal. This goes completely against the often used argument “he wouldn’t have maintained his pace” cause its actually the exact opposite. That’s why he could very well have sniffed the Ross in both 97 and 98 for that reason as he lead the scoring race when getting injured. You mentioned 2001 above, that history has to be completely rewritten in a “healthy Forsberg” alternative universe since his play was still highly affected by his 99/00 surgery.

Forsberg is not at all like Lemieux. And not just in not being as good as him, which I know is not what you meant (I hope at least - but with you I almost am not sure)

Lemieux didn't get full seasons from 89 to 96. Non-stop injuries. Like Forsberg in his prime. But when he did have full seasons? 1989, 199 points. 1993 - 60 games, 160 points. 1996 - 70 goals, 160 points.

What did Forsberg do when he had full seasons?
98, beaten by Jagr, points and ppg
99 not top 4 in ppg,
2001, beaten by...a lot of players. 9th in points, 29 behind Sakic
2003 - he won ross/hart - but "barely". He won the Ross last day of the year. It is a strong win, and he did so in 75 games and many others played closer to 82 games - but in terms of "single peak best season" - I'd say it's the weakest of 6 players in this thread. So strong season, but to a point
2006 - 60 games, way off leader's pace

So no. Forsberg had a lot of full seasons (full ~70+ games) and in all of them he got beaten handily by others. He was a great player - but nowhere near as good as you seem to believe.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Modano? Clear, clear weak link here. He simply doesn't have a peak season anywhere near the level of these guys. And considering Kane - who does belong - is at or near bottom of list himself imo, the trio just doesn't compare to other 2, who don't have a single weak link. Hull/Kane are fine - would have to find a different #3 though.



For single season, absolutely. Single playoff run too maybe, especially if we consider 4 rounds vs 3. More than one season/playoff, he loses ground big time



It just depends what we're looking at specifically. Level of play, maybe.

Single season + single playoff run Sakic has Forsberg beaten very handily though.

How does he lose ground? He had the dominant art Ross/hart season in 15-16. Then finished second in scoring in 16-17 and then finished third in scoring in 18-19 with 110 points.?????

 

[Ben White]

Forsberg is not at all like Lemieux. And not just in not being as good as him, which I know is not what you meant (I hope at least - but with you I almost am not sure)

Lemieux didn't get full seasons from 89 to 96. Non-stop injuries. Like Forsberg in his prime. But when he did have full seasons? 1989, 199 points. 1993 - 60 games, 160 points. 1996 - 70 goals, 160 points.

What did Forsberg do when he had full seasons?
98, beaten by Jagr, points and ppg
99 not top 4 in ppg,
2001, beaten by...a lot of players. 9th in points, 29 behind Sakic
2003 - he won ross/hart - but "barely". He won the Ross last day of the year. It is a strong win, and he did so in 75 games and many others played closer to 82 games - but in terms of "single peak best season" - I'd say it's the weakest of 6 players in this thread. So strong season, but to a point
2006 - 60 games, way off leader's pace

So no. Forsberg had a lot of full seasons (full ~70+ games) and in all of them he got beaten handily by others. He was a great player - but nowhere near as good as you seem to believe.

I have no problem with thinking less of him or any player if I get relevant arguments, so that’s where I’m trying to get here. But you seems to ignore a lot of the things that I’ve been pointing out. 98 wasn’t a full healthy season as his production took a hit after a mid season injury, the same thing in 06, in 01, as I’ve been writing over and over, he was still highly affected by the back surgery that made him miss half of the 00 season, and he needed that 2002 time off to heal, and we all know what result that had. All we really have to go by in sort of full healthy seasons in his prime is 99 and 03, and I agree that he wasn’t a contender for the Ross in 99 (which can have many explanations, it’s not easy with such a minimal sample size, I mean, 2 seasons...) but at the other hand he had an outstanding playoff run being the leading scorer without even making the finals.
Off course Lemieux is a different story and he’s on a different level, yes even compared to healthy “what if” Forsberg.

But man was a healthy Forsberg something to behold:


And the there was that 2-way play...

 

[MrOT]

Weird results. NA biased.