Toggle sidebar

Best player in the world: 2003

  • Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates

Best player in the world: 2003

  • Forsberg

    Votes: 62 52.1%

  • Naslund

    Votes: 15 12.6%

  • Thornton

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Modano

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Fedorov

    Votes: 3 2.5%

  • Jagr

    Votes: 6 5.0%

  • Lemieux

    Votes: 13 10.9%

  • Lidstrom

    Votes: 12 10.1%

  • MacInnis

    Votes: 2 1.7%

  • Turco

    Votes: 1 0.8%

  • Brodeur

    Votes: 5 4.2%
  • Total voters
    119
  • Poll closed .
Lemieux was the best player for the entire first half of the season. Naslund was the best for the middle half. Forsberg was the best for the entire second half. Take your pick really, based on preference.

Nothing wrong with taking the player who won the awards, but it’s actually kind of hard for me to not pick Naslund since he was awesome the second half of the prior season and only lost the Art Ross on the final day, and put together another really good first half the following season. It’s quite a bit of time to be at or near the top of the league while playing all the games. He still ended up winning the Pearson as well.

Normally, this forum swears by the winner of the Pearson, but I guess it doesn’t fit the narrative this time around.

Ultimately, Lemieux’s first half was again on another level, but also was pretty much contained to 2002. Tough choice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Perfect_Drug, bh53, Howe Elbows 9 and 1 other person
Video Nasty said:
Lemieux was the best player for the entire first half of the season. Naslund was the best for the middle half. Forsberg was the best for the entire second half. Take your pick really, based on preference.

Nothing wrong with taking the player who won the awards, but it’s actually kind of hard for me to not pick Naslund since he was awesome the second half of the prior season and only lost the Art Ross on the final day, and put together another really good first half the following season. It’s quite a bit of time to be at or near the top of the league while playing all the games. He still ended up winning the Pearson as well.

Normally, this forum swears by the winner of the Pearson, but I guess it doesn’t fit the narrative this time around.

Ultimately, Lemieux’s first half was again on another level, but also was pretty much contained to 2002. Tough choice.
Click to expand...
All good points, Naslund and Forsberg are both good picks here, so is Lidstrom who won another Norris with another +40 season and was at his peak as well. Really it was the year of the Swedes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bh53, Howe Elbows 9, cole von cole and 1 other person
I picked Brodeur, because I like him and he needs at least 1 vote per poll
 
Yeah. Forsberg is my pick and frankly, I don't think Lemieux has an argument over him.

He was 1st in points and PPG, was 4th in selke voting.

In comparison, Lemieux was 2nd in PPG while playing less games and at this point, was no longer top 10 in GPG. Adjusting their PPG to a full schedule, Forsberg only has a 2 point lead but was simply the more impactful two way player by a significant margin. Lemieux would have needed to be head and shoulders above Forsberg offensively (like he usually is) for me to pick him, but he wasnt.

As for Naslund. I don't think he should've won the Pearson either for the record.

Naslund may have narrowly lost the Art Ross, but it was pretty clear Forsberg was ahead offensively as reflected by the gap in their points per game.

Forsberg led the league with a 1.41 PPG. Naslund was 4th with a 1.27 PPG. That's a 10 point gap adjusting for 82 games. Naslund was a significantly better goalscorer. Adjusting their GPG's to 82 games, there would be a 17 goal gap.

I'm not someone that thinks goals should be weighed much more than assists, but even so, Forsberg's complete game makes the choice clear to me given their similar offensive output.
 
Lemieux had a high scoring first half, but he was a defensive liability by this point and was playing huge minutes on a poor team to get those totals. Forsberg had a similarly huge second half, but was more efficient overall and a much better all around player. Naslund and Bertuzzi were very good but again, neither brought the complete game of Forsberg and he was decently ahead in per game numbers.

Forsberg had just come off leading the playoffs in points in only three rounds, and would again be the best per game player in the league the following year. I think he was firmly in his peak. No one would seriously have taken Naslund in an important game over him at that point, and I think only those blinded by the name would have taken Lemieux. Sakic was getting older and Jagr was dogging it in Washington. I think the best competition for Forsberg is from Lidstrom, but I don’t think he was a good enough game breaker to take over Forsberg at his best.
 
  • Like
Reactions: silkyjohnson50, Ben White, Howe Elbows 9 and 2 others
Albatros said:
Besides missing half season to injury he was very much the same also the following year and led the league in points per game.
Click to expand...
As well as the first halt of the 2005-2006 season, and the 2002 playoffs. Forsberg was firmly the beat player in the world from his comeback in 2002 until his more or less career ending injury (at least to the player we knew) in 2006.

He was a top 3 player in the world from the 1996-97 season until his back surgery after the 1999 playoffs. He was not at the same level after that surgery until sitting out the entire 2001-2002 reg season. Forsberg doesn’t have the what if benefit of the doubt attached to him because of some mysterious “missed time”, but because of the context of his career. When not completely plagues by injuries he was more or less always in contention for best in the world.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: TheGoldenJet and Deas
Flip a coin I guess between Forsberg and Naslund...maybe Naslund cause of the goals.

Naslund got some tough breaks throughout his career...if a couple things turned out slightly different he probably a hall of famer like all the other star Swedes from that generation
 
Ben White said:
As well as the first halt of the 2005-2006 season, and the 2002 playoffs. Forsberg was firmly the beat player in the world from his comeback in 2002 until his more or less career ending injury (at least to the player we knew) in 2006.

He was a top 3 player in the world from the 1996-97 season until his back surgery after the 1999 playoffs. He was not at the same level after that surgery until sitting out the entire 2001-2002 reg season. Forsberg doesn’t have the what if benefit of the doubt attached to him because of some mysterious “missed time”, but because of the context of his career. When not completely plagues by injuries he was more or less always in contention for best in the world.
Click to expand...

No matter how many times you say this, it doesn’t make it true. He was not among the top 3 forwards in the world during that time period, let alone among all players.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheGoldenJet
Forsberg was 3rd in points from 1995 to 1999, while easily the best of the lot defensively. I think he has a very good case for a top 3 player of that period as well.
 
Albatros said:
Forsberg was 3rd in points from 1995 to 1999, while easily the best of the lot defensively. I think he has a very good case for a top 3 player of that period as well.
Click to expand...

yeah I agree. He often gets way overrated - but that isn't too big of a claim. Assuming of course you change it to "97 to 99". Because peak Lemieux and peak Lindros were definitely better in 95 and 96.

Jagr/Hasek are top 2 from 97 to 99. I think Forsberg has as good a case as anyone for #3 - probably not unanimous as a few other players in that range
 
Any particular year one can argue about this or that other player, but besides Jágr (and Hašek if you include goalies) no one else was as consistently great in the late 1990s. Kariya and Selänne maybe together, but not individually. Lindros not quite already because of constant injuries and Lemieux indeed retired early.
 
I'm going to go based off the 2003 Calander year.
give me Luongo. Stuck behind a bad team but played over 70 games and had a 0.928 SV%.
Forsberg with a 1.57 PPG and Brodeur as runner ups.
 
CokenoPepsi said:
Flip a coin I guess between Forsberg and Naslund...maybe Naslund cause of the goals.

Naslund got some tough breaks throughout his career...if a couple things turned out slightly different he probably a hall of famer like all the other star Swedes from that generation
Click to expand...
Horrible take. Prime Naslund was never at the same level as prime Forsberg regardless of goals.
 
Video Nasty said:
No matter how many times you say this, it doesn’t make it true. He was not among the top 3 forwards in the world during that time period, let alone among all players.
Click to expand...
No matter how many times you make claims you’re not willing to back up with facts doesn’t give those claims any credibility. Forsberg was top 3 in points for the reg season and #1 in points for the playoffs (top 3 in ppg) during that time period while being a two way beast and physical intimidator (compared to the fairly one dimensional Jagr for example) despite being a slightly lesser version of him self after injuries in both 97 and 98 (removing him from Art Ross contention - both seasons he was in fact the leading scorer at the time of those injuries). The facts suggest that he in fact has a strong case for being top 3 OFFENSIVELY during that time period and that he has a case (however a fringe one) for being the #1 over all.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: TheGoldenJet
Toby91ca said:
I think it's hard to suggest Lemieux, he missed a lot of time and didn't even lead in PPG. I guess the only thing you can point to is team support he had vs. Forsberg
Click to expand...
Edit: sorry wrong thread.

Is it who had the best year or who is the best player? Two different things.
 
Mario in the first 35ish games was on a level I don't another player reached until McDavid 2021. 59 points in his first 35 games. In a low scoring era on an awful team.

But he fell off so incredibly hard. 16 points in his last 20 games. -21. Somehow, still the best Penguin.

I wouldn't pick Lemieux. He was simply incapable of playing at a high level for a full season after 1997.
 
Ben White said:
No matter how many times you make claims you’re not willing to back up with facts doesn’t give those claims any credibility. Forsberg was top 3 in points for the reg season and #1 in points for the playoffs (top 3 in ppg) during that time period while being a two way beast and physical intimidator (compared to the fairly one dimensional Jagr for example) despite being a slightly lesser version of him self after injuries in both 97 and 98 (removing him from Art Ross contention - both seasons he was in fact the leading scorer at the time of those injuries). The facts suggest that he in fact has a strong case for being top 3 OFFENSIVELY during that time period and that he has a case (however a fringe one) for being the #1 over all.
Click to expand...
Additional fact for completeness.....overall, regular season + playoffs during that time period he was 6th PPG.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheGoldenJet
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom