Best player in the world: 2003

[Kranix]

best player, or guy currently playing the best hockey?

 

[Toby91ca]

Edit: sorry wrong thread.

Is it who had the best year or who is the best player? Two different things.

Yeah, agree, could be different, but again, tough to suggest Mario as either.

 

[Toby91ca]

best player, or guy currently playing the best hockey?

Understand it could be different, it's subjective to begin with, but if you think "x" player in the best player, but not the guy currently playing the best hockey, it becomes that much more subjective and tough to demonstrate why? The why would be pointing to past performance, but if he's no longer performing at that level, then maybe that means he's no longer the best.

 

[Kranix]

Understand it could be different, it's subjective to begin with, but if you think "x" player in the best player, but not the guy currently playing the best hockey, it becomes that much more subjective and tough to demonstrate why? The why would be pointing to past performance, but if he's no longer performing at that level, then maybe that means he's no longer the best.

Yes, subjective. That's why best lists are not very fruitful, except evaluating the last 50 season or whatever. Forsberg is running away with this poll, but he won the art ross in 2003 by two points, and hadn't sniffed it the previous five seasons. He had two big playoff runs in the previous 5 years, but are we really going to count a category that not every player has the opportunity to play 4 rounds of NHL playoffs every year? Some people do. I don't.

 

[bobholly39]

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.

To the bolded....nope. Not even a tiny miniscule fringe case.

If you mean #1 offensively - Jagr > Forsberg is extremely super clear and there's 0 arguments against it.
If you're asking overall - both Hasek/Jagr are again easily better than Forsberg in late 90s.

If anything - Forsberg peaked more in early 2000s in terms of performance than late 90s.

Ignoring Lindros/Lemieux (injuries/retirement) - I think Forsberg has as strong a case as anyone to being called the 3rd best player in the world behind Jagr/Hasek in late 90s. But - #3 doesn't mean he has any case at all for #1.

 

[nowhereman]

I'll take Forsberg here. Even as a Canucks fan, I never felt Naslund was well-rounded enough or performed well enough in the playoffs to be in the conversation. He had a great individual season but Forsberg was the one player I would have taken over everyone else here.

Choosing Naslund is an example of prioritizing the better season over the better player.

 

[Video Nasty]

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.

The bolded points are a mix of bending the truth and lying.

Did you omit that even taking out Lemieux’s 1996-1997, he was 5th in PPG in the regular season to fit your narrative better?

As for being the leading scorer at the time of injuries in the 1996-1997 season and the 1997-1998 season….it sounds really good the way you say it. It sounds really dominant and it sounds like he’s going to win it. Let’s remove some of the mystery.

Through December 14, 1996, Forsberg was in a 3 way tie for first with Jagr and Gretzky at 43 points. Jagr played a game less and Gretzky played 2 games more. The tiebreaker of goals make Jagr the actual leader in the scoring race. Lemieux is just behind with 42 points in 2 less games. Selanne, Sakic and Sundin all have 40-41 points in 30-31 games. Forsberg was 3rd in PPG.

Is he leading the scoring race in this first case. Almost, but you failed to mention it was a tie with two other players. I wonder why.

As for 1997-1998, he was not the leader in the scoring race before he missed 7 games in late March to early April of 1998.

Jagr was the scoring leader at the conclusion of March 21, 1998 with 89 points in 65 games. Forsberg was second with 85 points in 68 games. Jagr had missed 4 games up to that point and Forsberg missed 3. This one is a flat out lie.

 

[TheGuiminator]

Lemieux or Forsberg

Thing with Lemieux is he did most of his damage before January 1st 2003 (since we're voting for the best player of 2003)

From January 1st 2003 to the end of the season, he put up 27 points in 30 games.
I don't think he suddenly forgot how to play hockey in the second half of the season.
It was probably a mix of the wear and tear of his injuries and bad team management that left him as a one man army on his team, while being in his late 30's.

On the other hand, Forsberg put up 71 points in 44 games (from January 1st 2003 to the end of the season) and made Milan Hedjuk a 50 goal scorer that year. Then, Forsberg kept on going with a similar pace the following season, which I think he would've won the Art Ross a second year in a row if not for injuries.

Also, Forsberg was always better than Naslund, even if Naslund was a better goal scorer, that's the only thing he had on Forsberg.

That said, i'd lean toward Forsberg as the best player.

 

[Perfect_Drug]

Yeah. Forsberg is my pick and frankly, I don't think Lemieux has an argument over him.

If the poll was "who had the best season" yes I would say Forsberg had a better season.
But best player in the world was still Mario.

The argument is that Forsberg was surrouded by all kinds of elite talent at every position.

From January 1st 2003 to the end of the season, he put up 27 points in 30 games.
I don't think he suddenly forgot how to play hockey in the second half of the season.

Mario was tracking a lot better until they traded away Kovalev mid-season and then Straka got injured (while he was also dealing with his own injuries).


Mario's production tapered off when he was carrying Dick Tarnstrom, and Jan Hrdina.

 

[Felidae]

If the poll was "who had the best season" yes I would say Forsberg had a better season.
But best player in the world was still Mario.

The argument is that Forsberg was surrouded by all kinds of elite talent at every position.



Mario was tracking a lot better until they traded away Kovalev mid-season and then Straka got injured (while he was also dealing with his own injuries).


Mario's production tapered off when he was carrying Dick Tarnstrom, and Jan Hrdina.

Except sometimes the two are one in the same. The numbers support that in this case.

Despite being 2nd in PPG (again, behind Fodsberg who played more games), Lemieux's per game numbers still dropped significantly in terms of GPG and PPG from previous years and never returned to form. It's not that outrageous to suggest old Lemieux declined to the point of no longer being the best player.



If this was a situation akin to Crosby in 2010-11 where he absolutely lapped the field in per game numbers then I'd see your point.

 

[Albatros]

Mario's production tapered off when he was carrying Dick Tarnstrom, and Jan Hrdina.

Huh? Tärnström was a very good blueliner for the Penguins those couple of years he was there.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Lemieux was still the best player in the world. Just didn't have the stamina anymore

 

[Ben White]

The bolded points are a mix of bending the truth and lying.

Did you omit that even taking out Lemieux’s 1996-1997, he was 5th in PPG in the regular season to fit your narrative better?

As for being the leading scorer at the time of injuries in the 1996-1997 season and the 1997-1998 season….it sounds really good the way you say it. It sounds really dominant and it sounds like he’s going to win it. Let’s remove some of the mystery.

Through December 14, 1996, Forsberg was in a 3 way tie for first with Jagr and Gretzky at 43 points. Jagr played a game less and Gretzky played 2 games more. The tiebreaker of goals make Jagr the actual leader in the scoring race. Lemieux is just behind with 42 points in 2 less games. Selanne, Sakic and Sundin all have 40-41 points in 30-31 games. Forsberg was 3rd in PPG.

Is he leading the scoring race in this first case. Almost, but you failed to mention it was a tie with two other players. I wonder why.

As for 1997-1998, he was not the leader in the scoring race before he missed 7 games in late March to early April of 1998.

Jagr was the scoring leader at the conclusion of March 21, 1998 with 89 points in 65 games. Forsberg was second with 85 points in 68 games. Jagr had missed 4 games up to that point and Forsberg missed 3. This one is a flat out lie.

Check your facts again, Forsberg was the leading scorer in January 1998 when he suffered his first injury that season, that’s the one I was referring to. As for 1997 he was in a race with Sakic for 1st in points early in the season when he received his first injury. I withhold that he lost a step at both those occasions, got back on track as the season went on but definitely those early and mid season injuries hurt his chances of ending up claiming the Ross - I’m not saying Forsberg was the favorite to win the Ross either of these seasons as he went up against the much more offense oriented winger named Jagr (and you can say he was the slightly “better” offensive player as well), all I’m saying is Forsberg was comfortably a top 3 player in that time frame and probably even top 3 strictly offensively. And, yes my facts are accurate.

 

[Ben White]

To the bolded....nope. Not even a tiny miniscule fringe case.

If you mean #1 offensively - Jagr > Forsberg is extremely super clear and there's 0 arguments against it.
If you're asking overall - both Hasek/Jagr are again easily better than Forsberg in late 90s.

If anything - Forsberg peaked more in early 2000s in terms of performance than late 90s.

Ignoring Lindros/Lemieux (injuries/retirement) - I think Forsberg has as strong a case as anyone to being called the 3rd best player in the world behind Jagr/Hasek in late 90s. But - #3 doesn't mean he has any case at all for #1.

Fair enough if you don’t wanna put a lot of weight on Forsberg’s physical dominance, defensive superiority towards Jagr and his monstrous playoff run in 1999 where he was the top scorer without playing in the finals (I think he in fact was the first in history to do that?), then you could say Forsberg was #3 in that time frame, I don’t have a big problem with that (even though I stand by that Forsberg does have that fringe case for #1 over all everything considered), but the original post I responded to was someone claiming Forsberg was “nowhere near” top 3 in the league in the late 90’s.

 

[Video Nasty]

Check your facts again, Forsberg was the leading scorer in January 1998 when he suffered his first injury that season, that’s the one I was referring to. As for 1997 he was in a race with Sakic for 1st in points early in the season when he received his first injury. I withhold that he lost a step at both those occasions, got back on track as the season went on but definitely those early and mid season injuries hurt his chances of ending up claiming the Ross - I’m not saying Forsberg was the favorite to win the Ross either of these seasons as he went up against the much more offense oriented winger named Jagr (and you can say he was the slightly “better” offensive player as well), all I’m saying is Forsberg was comfortably a top 3 player in that time frame and probably even top 3 strictly offensively. And, yes my facts are accurate.

Genuine question. What was the injury in January 1998 that he sustained, yet didn’t miss any games for? It doesn’t ring a bell and I can’t seem to find any information about it.

I will also need specific dates for the 1996-1997 season you’re referencing with being in a race with Sakic. Because two weeks in, I see him 2 points behind Sakic and 1 behind Selanne (mind you, it’s 6 games and not even worth mentioning) and the gap grows.

 

[Ben White]

Genuine question. What was the injury in January 1998 that he sustained, yet didn’t miss any games for? It doesn’t ring a bell and I can’t seem to find any information about it.

I don’t remember. It could’ve been in early February too. He did miss 10 games in total that season so even if you’re correct on the 7 games you’re referring to there was still another injury.

 

[Video Nasty]

I don’t remember. It could’ve been in early February too. He did miss 10 games in total that season so even if you’re correct on the 7 games you’re referring to there was still another injury.

As I stated before, he missed just 3 games out of 71 up through March 21, 1998 before missing 7 down the final 11 game stretch (as mentioned before, he wasn’t the scoring leader when this happened and Jagr also missed an additional game).

I’m only going off what you say until fact checking it and your claims, while passionate, are shaky and at times simply wrong.

 

[SeanMoneyHands]

Peter the great. He was superhuman in his prime and nobody was on his level in 2003.

 

[Ben White]

As I stated before, he missed just 3 games out of 71 up through March 21, 1998 before missing 7 down the final 11 game stretch (as mentioned before, he wasn’t the scoring leader when this happened and Jagr also missed an additional game).

I’m only going off what you say until fact checking it and your claims, while passionate, are shaky and at times simply wrong.

Could be that I’m wrong about 1998, I know he lead the league in scoring at the beginning of 98 and as I remember it Jagr overtaking the lead coincided with a Forsberg injury but could be that I’m slightly off on that part.

Thank you for checking btw I’m just as interested in the truth as you are.

Edit: If it seems like I’m going off my memory in a sort off arrogant way it’s not because I think I have a superhuman memory (even though I have a very good chronological memory) but I stored tons of VHS tapes in the 90’s with hockey on them from games and TV shows and what not, and back in those days there were no steaming or anything so you watched your recorded material over and over again until you recorded some more interesting material to look at. So if I’ve watched a TV show like 20 times where they talked about Forsberg overtaking the league lead in scoring and they talked about the upcoming Winter Olympics in Nagano, Japan, at the same TV show I sort of know that Forsberg lead to the league in scoring at the beginning of ‘98 even tough it was a long time ago and I can’t watch those WHS tapes anymore.

 

[Video Nasty]

Could be that I’m wrong about 1998, I know he lead the league in scoring at the beginning of 98 and as I remember it Jagr overtaking the lead coincided with a Forsberg injury but could be that I’m slightly off on that part.

Thank you for checking btw I’m just as interested in the truth as you are.

Edit: If it seems like I’m going off my memory in a sort off arrogant way it’s not because I think I have a superhuman memory (even though I have a very good chronological memory) but I stored tons of VHS tapes in the 90’s with hockey on them from games and TV shows and what not, and back in those days there were no steaming or anything so you watched your recorded material over and over again until you recorded some more interesting material to look at. So if I’ve watched a TV show like 20 times where they talked about Forsberg overtaking the league lead in scoring and they talked about the upcoming Winter Olympics in Nagano, Japan, at the same TV show I sort of know that Forsberg lead to the league in scoring at the beginning of ‘98 even tough it was a long time ago and I can’t watch those WHS tapes anymore.

Let me preface this by saying I don’t think you’re going about it in an arrogant way and also, I’m not contesting that Forsberg wasn’t ever the leader in scoring races, didn’t have a shot, etc. Merely that you mentioned him going down with an injury while being the leader.

It simply didn’t happen that way in the 1997-1998 season. 7 of his 10 missed games came during the final weeks of the season, which I previously covered.

I dug in a little bit more (using NHL.com and checking the daily stats). We have two things here.

1. I think you could be confusing Forsberg with Jagr’s trajectory pre-Nagano. Forsberg took over the scoring lead from Modano on December 6, 1997. He actually held it until Jagr eclipsed him on January 24, 1998, exactly two weeks before Nagano began. Jagr had 27 points in his first 26 games compared to Forsberg’s 37 in 26 prior to December 6. Jagr made up the 10 point deficit in 48 days by scoring 33 points in 20 games

2. I think the specific point of your memory and these tapes you’re talking about is a few days later on January 28, Forsberg had 4 points to leap frog back into the scoring lead.

A few days later, we have a three way tie for first on February 1 with Jagr, Forsberg, and Selanne all having 63 points (in 50, 52, and 54 games respectively).

Jagr took the lead again for a few days and then Selanne made it a tie again with 66 points on February 4. Forsberg is next with 64. Then we have a three way tie again on February 5 with 66 points before Jagr takes it back the next day.

The most interesting reminder is that through the final set of games on February 7, Selanne is first going into Nagano with 68 points, Jagr 67, and Forsbger 66. Leclair and Lindros nipping behind with 64 and 63.

Then Forsberg and Jagr traded it for awhile post Nagano until Jagr had 4 more points in 3 fewer games before Forsberg missed 7 of the final 11 games to officially end his chances. What was common throughout this season was that Jagr always had played less games than Forsberg until the final few weeks of the season, but had the lead either way when Forsberg missed real time.

 

[daver]

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.

In 1996/97 - He finished 11th in points and 6th in PPG. He was T1 in points and T3 in PPG before getting injured. You can argue he was the 3rd best that season with the cavaet it wasn't over a full season but players like Kariya and Selanne finished with more points and better PPGs and Lindros finished with a clear higher PPG and had a great playoffs unlike Forsberg who was disappointing.

Top 5 player at best.

In 1997/98 - He finished 2nd in points and in PPG. Solid playoffs.

Top 3 player

In 1998/99 - He finished 4th in points and 5th PPG. Very good playoffs (but not as good as "Lead playoffs in scoring in only 3 rounds" would indicate)

Top 3ish player (arguments for and against)


A bit of a stretch to make the claim of being Top 3 after the 96/97 season and a bigger one to say he was in contention for "Best Player in the World" with Jagr doing more on his team offensively with less support. He certainly wore that crown after the 2003/04 season but the injuries issue took that crown away after the 05/06 season.

If healthy, was at a superstar level but doubt he would be as effective if he tried to play "healthier" or if that was even in his DNA.

 

[Ben White]

In 1996/97 - He finished 11th in points and 6th in PPG. He was T1 in points and T3 in PPG before getting injured. You can argue he was the 3rd best that season with the cavaet it wasn't over a full season but players like Kariya and Selanne finished with more points and better PPGs and Lindros finished with a clear higher PPG and had a great playoffs unlike Forsberg who was disappointing.

Top 5 player at best.

In 1997/98 - He finished 2nd in points and in PPG. Solid playoffs.

Top 3 player

In 1998/99 - He finished 4th in points and 5th PPG. Very good playoffs (but not as good as "Lead playoffs in scoring in only 3 rounds" would indicate)

Top 3ish player (arguments for and against)


A bit of a stretch to make the claim of being Top 3 after the 96/97 season and a bigger one to say he was in contention for "Best Player in the World" with Jagr doing more on his team offensively with less support. He certainly wore that crown after the 2003/04 season but the injuries issue took that crown away after the 05/06 season.

If healthy, was at a superstar level but doubt he would be as effective if he tried to play "healthier" or if that was even in his DNA.

I think this is a weird way to look at it. If a player is top 3 statistically in 2 of 3 seasons and was statistically in the 1-3 range before getting injured that 3rd season it should be as clear a benefit of the doubt case as there ever is for in fact have been a top 3 best player in all those 3 seasons looked at.

This is how I’d sum up Forsberg’s career (after following it from his rookie year):
1995: Great rookie season, Calder trophy
1996: Breakout sophomore season, 5th in scoring (in a very strong year behind prime Lemieux etc.), strong playoffs, Stanley Cup
1997 to 1999: Top 3 player in the league. (One season damaged by injuries but gets the benefit of the doubt due to the reasoning above). Two 1st all star team selections as best center in the league. Monster playoffs and won the unofficial playoff scoring title in 1999 (in only 3 rounds).
2000 to 2001: Wasn’t the same player after a pre season surgery before the 1999-00 season.
2002 (playoffs) to 2006 (mid season): Best player in the world. Got back to his old self and better after sitting out (resting) the entire 2002 reg season. Won the unofficial playoff scoring title in 2002 (again in only 3 rounds). Art Ross + Hart in 2003. Points per game leader in 2004. Points and points per game leader in the 2005-06 season before a mid season injury ended his career as we know it.

Injuries, the will to play through injuries rather than to rest (which made his ppg drop in injury riddled seasons) and a bit of bad luck (the 2005 lockout right at his peak) makes his career look worse than it is. Also people’s, often, unwillingness to acknowledge his two way game, physical impact and insane playoff numbers (top 10 all time in playoffs ppg), but rather just compare his reg season numbers to (much more one dimensional no less) players like Jagr. In the late 90’s there was an ongoing discussion whether Jagr or Forsberg was the best player (or at least best non goalie) in the world, due to Forsberg’s other elements he brought to the game than scoring. Then add Forsberg’s actual peak 2002-2006 and factor in his much better playoff resume and I think it’s safe to say that from a “best players of all time” perspective Forsberg belongs in the Jagr category rather than the Sakic category. Off course both Jagr and Sakic has the longevity on Forsberg but if we’re strictly talking “at their best” Forsberg should be up there with Jagr.

 

[daver]

I think this is a weird way to look at it. If a player is top 3 statistically in 2 of 3 seasons and was statistically in the 1-3 range before getting injured that 3rd season it should be as clear a benefit of the doubt case as there ever is for in fact have been top 3 best player in all those 3 season looked at.

This is how I’d sum up Forsberg’s career (after following it from his rookie year):
1995: Great rookie season, Calder trophy
1996: Breakout sophomore season, 5th in scoring (in a very strong year behind prime Lemieux etc.), strong playoffs, Stanley Cup
1997 to 1999: Top 3 player in the league. (One season damaged by injuries but gets the benefit of the doubt due to the reasoning above). Two 1st all star team selections as best center in the league. Monster playoffs and won the unofficial playoff scoring title in 1999 (in only 3 rounds).
2000 to 2001: Wasn’t the same player due to a pre season surgery before the 1999-00 season.
2002 (playoffs) to 2006 (mid season): Best player in the world. Got back to his old self and better after sitting out (resting) the entire 2002 reg season. Won the unofficial playoff scoring title in 2002 (again in only 3 rounds). Art Ross + Hart in 2003. Points per game leader in 2004. Points and points per game leader in the 2005-06 season before a mid season injury ended his career as we know it.

The OP is taking things year-by-year, not in three year time periods. Forsberg entered Top 3 territory on 97/98.

I am sure if you started a thread asking who was the best player in that three year time period, Forsberg would be in the Top 3 but to position him as being in the conversation, more or less, for league's best after the 96/97 season is not reasonable.

 

[Ben White]

Let me preface this by saying I don’t think you’re going about it in an arrogant way and also, I’m not contesting that Forsberg wasn’t ever the leader in scoring races, didn’t have a shot, etc. Merely that you mentioned him going down with an injury while being the leader.

It simply didn’t happen that way in the 1997-1998 season. 7 of his 10 missed games came during the final weeks of the season, which I previously covered.

I dug in a little bit more (using NHL.com and checking the daily stats). We have two things here.

1. I think you could be confusing Forsberg with Jagr’s trajectory pre-Nagano. Forsberg took over the scoring lead from Modano on December 6, 1997. He actually held it until Jagr eclipsed him on January 24, 1998, exactly two weeks before Nagano began. Jagr had 27 points in his first 26 games compared to Forsberg’s 37 in 26 prior to December 6. Jagr made up the 10 point deficit in 48 days by scoring 33 points in 20 games

2. I think the specific point of your memory and these tapes you’re talking about is a few days later on January 28, Forsberg had 4 points to leap frog back into the scoring lead.

A few days later, we have a three way tie for first on February 1 with Jagr, Forsberg, and Selanne all having 63 points (in 50, 52, and 54 games respectively).

Jagr took the lead again for a few days and then Selanne made it a tie again with 66 points on February 4. Forsberg is next with 64. Then we have a three way tie again on February 5 with 66 points before Jagr takes it back the next day.

The most interesting reminder is that through the final set of games on February 7, Selanne is first going into Nagano with 68 points, Jagr 67, and Forsbger 66. Leclair and Lindros nipping behind with 64 and 63.

Then Forsberg and Jagr traded it for awhile post Nagano until Jagr had 4 more points in 3 fewer games before Forsberg missed 7 of the final 11 games to officially end his chances. What was common throughout this season was that Jagr always had played less games than Forsberg until the final few weeks of the season, but had the lead either way when Forsberg missed real time.

Thanks for the digging. Yeah this makes sense, could be that the memory is playing tricks and confuses “Forsberg losing the lead due to injury” with “Forsberg, who previously had the lead and was in the race the entire winter, finally lost his shot at the Ross due to an injury, even though as things panned out Jagr likely would’ve won it anyway.”

 

[Video Nasty]

Thanks for the digging. Yeah this makes sense, could be that the memory is playing tricks and confuses “Forsberg losing the lead due to injury” with “Forsberg, who previously had the lead and was in the race the entire winter, finally lost his shot at the Ross due to an injury, even though as things panned out Jagr likely would’ve won it anyway.”

Certainly fair enough. I appreciate the rare reasonable back and forth around these parts.