Is Peter Forsberg the best forward that never scored more than 30 goals?

[authentic]

Except that Richard wasn't a top line level player for over 20 years.





You need to look again at how dominant Foppa (and Sakic) were during their time together for those Avs teams.

And then compare multiple HHOF players that Richard played with on those 11 SC teams.

here is Henri with the PPG (so higher 20 game playoffs aren't slanting the results)

7,41,44,54,56,57,58,83,84,87

Here is how Foppa stacks up against his teammates during his time with the Avs again.

1,4,8,9,11,13,19,21,24,26,

well it's not even really close is it?

What is this? Can't be points per game, Forsberg most certainly finished higher than that amongst his teammates.

 

[93LEAFS]

Sorry but the Habs teams of Richard are viewed as much stronger here than the teams that Foppa played on for the most part.

Sure Richard has longevity as a top 6ish forward (He wasn't always a clear top 6 nor is his peak anything like Foppa's) but does that trump a dozen years as a top 1-2 elite type of player on his team like Foppa was?

Not in my books, then again maybe Mike Gartner is close to Jari Kurri then?

If one looks and compares the 2 players closely it's really hard to have Richard ahead, much lower peak and prime and the lesser of the 2 for playoff resumes, 11 SC notwithstanding.

Except that is a pretty important factor, Forsberg only played a full playoffs with a championship team once. Richard has a lower prime and peak but his longevity is significantly better. Forsberg had 4 seasons above 70 games, the guys style wasn't transferable to a long career. He simply couldn't be relied on to stay healthy, which is the main reason from his era I'd take Sakic, Yzerman and Fedorov above him. He was amazing at his best but he couldn't stay on the ice.

 

[Big Phil]

So basically this is coming down to Henri Richard vs. Forsberg. Hmmm. You got to go with Forsberg peak wise of course but the thing with Henri is that he was durable right up until the end. He played forever. You have to like his intangibles as well.

That being said you are taking Forsberg if you are starting a franchise. You just pray he is healthy.

I remember the often brought up thing with Forsberg was that he "could be the best player in the NHL if he could surpass 30 goals." That just obsessed the media for some reason. In a way it was true. 30 goals at his peak was just too few for a guy people wanted to crown the best player in the game. Especially when Jagr, Selanne and even others like Sakic and Kariya were doing it without breaking a sweat and were healthier.

 

[Hardyvan123]

What is this? Can't be points per game, Forsberg most certainly finished higher than that amongst his teammates.

Tthe numbers for Richard and Foppa listed earlier are how their best post seasons rank against their team mates and I used PPG as playoffs have vastly different GP from year to year.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Except that is a pretty important factor, Forsberg only played a full playoffs with a championship team once. Richard has a lower prime and peak but his longevity is significantly better. Forsberg had 4 seasons above 70 games, the guys style wasn't transferable to a long career. He simply couldn't be relied on to stay healthy, which is the main reason from his era I'd take Sakic, Yzerman and Fedorov above him. He was amazing at his best but he couldn't stay on the ice.

I'm not so sure that it was Foppa's style that made him unhealthy so much in his career though.

A look at the 90's and it's littered with elite players getting injured left right and center.

That being said Richard has the career metric but it's extremely disingenuous to say that he was a top line player for over 20 seasons.

He clearly wasn't in the playoffs on those Habs teams.

See the 11 SC cuts both ways for him, he isn't Jean Beliveau.

 

[Hardyvan123]

It's also a bit ironic that Foppa is the answer to this thread as almost every other guy in consideration, heck every single one, didn't have their goal scoring increase in the playoffs when traditionally scoring gets a bit harder.

Foppa has 64 goals in 151 playoff games and line like this over an 82 game comp

82-35-58-93

That's just a sick all time elite type of performance.

 

[authentic]

Tthe numbers for Richard and Foppa listed earlier are how their best post seasons rank against their team mates and I used PPG as playoffs have vastly different GP from year to year.

Those numbers still aren't making sense to me. You said how they compare to their teammates, Richard didn't have 80 teammates, so there must be something I'm not getting here.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Those numbers still aren't making sense to me. You said how they compare to their teammates, Richard didn't have 80 teammates, so there must be something I'm not getting here.

It's all the players in every post season for Richard, the search will list 100 player seasons per page.

So it's Richards best seasons and how he places among his Habs team mates in the playoffs.

I took Foppa and his 10 post seasons that overlap with Sakic on the AVs

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...c4comp=gt&c4val=&threshhold=5&order_by=points



http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...c4comp=gt&c4val=&threshhold=5&order_by=points

 

[steve141]

To give credit to Foppa, his career goal scoring pace goes up from 29 goals/82 games to 35 goals/82 games in the playoffs.

 

[sr edler]

I think the most bizarre things in these Forsberg threads is people saying he was better than Burnaby Joe. They played in the same team for pretty much all of Foppa's career. Both were equally great playoffs performers. Though Sakic has a Conn Smythe. In the regular seasons Sakic has Lindsay and Hart whereas Foppa has Hart and Art Ross. They were also pretty equal performers in regular season also. When they were playing. And this is what separates Sakic from Foppa. It's true that Sakic was also injured quite a bit during his career but Foppa missed way too many games to be as valuable as Sakic to his team.

You mix things up here. What does being better necessarily have to do with being more valuable? That's two different things.

A player being injury prone doesn't necessarily affect said players skills or ability, unless it does directly to his body or mindset.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Better player forsberg
Better career Sakic

 

[Horvath Broncos]

You mix things up here. What does being better necessarily have to do with being more valuable? That's two different things.

A player being injury prone doesn't necessarily affect said players skills or ability, unless it does directly to his body or mindset.

I disagree. The player actually playing is always better than the one not playing when we have two players that are skill wise very close to each other. Player not playing brings hardly anything to a team. Maybe in a fantasy world where Foppa is always healthy he would be better than Sakic but being o fragile makes him much worse as a player. Being healthy is to me ability just like passing or faceoffs or whatever. And I for one don't think Forsberg was much if at all better player than Sakic even when he was healthy. And when you count in the games missed I take Sakic 10/10 before Forsberg.

This is reason why I think Gretzky and Howe were better than Mario and Orr and why Ovechkin is better than Crosby.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

I disagree. The player actually playing is always better than the one not playing when we have two players that are skill wise very close to each other. Player not playing brings hardly anything to a team. Maybe in a fantasy world where Foppa is always healthy he would be better than Sakic but being o fragile makes him much worse as a player. Being healthy is to me ability just like passing or faceoffs or whatever. And I for one don't think Forsberg was much if at all better player than Sakic even when he was healthy. And when you count in the games missed I take Sakic 10/10 before Forsberg.

This is reason why I think Gretzky and Howe were better than Mario and Orr and why Ovechkin is better than Crosby.

More healthy doesn't mean better.

 

[mcauliffe]

More healthy doesn't mean better.

It always comes back to that debate.

If you have one game to play, Mario and Forsberg.

If you're building a franchise, Gordie and Sakic.

 

[Horvath Broncos]

It always comes back to that debate.

If you have one game to play, Mario and Forsberg.

If you're building a franchise, Gordie and Sakic.

But in real world you don't just play one game but about 100 per season. And that is why durability makes player better.

 

[mcauliffe]

But in real world you don't just play one game but about 100 per season. And that is why durability makes player better.

Oh, I agree, but I understand the other side of the debate. If, for one game, you think you are better off with Forsberg instead of Sakic, by definition, doesn't it mean he is the better player?

 

[sr edler]

And that is why durability makes player better.

No, it what makes a player more valuable.

 

[Hardyvan123]

The one game argument doesn't hold alot of water.

Sittler had 10 points, Tom Bladon 7, and the difference between the best single player game of all time and the 100th best wouldn't even be noticeable IMO.

Plus any elite player could have one of their bad games in that one game.

The bigger and more the sample is the better picture we have.

That being said very large samples of elite play do count and for alot.

 

[Voight]

I don't think he is.

He pretty easily is.

 

[Sens Rule]

Oh, I agree, but I understand the other side of the debate. If, for one game, you think you are better off with Forsberg instead of Sakic, by definition, doesn't it mean he is the better player?

Except he is only marginally better then Sakic. If you believe he is even better in the first place.

Mario and Orr were way better then everyone. Forsberg was basically equal to Sakic on a one game off scenario. Maybe 5% better? Some should argue. Not that he was way better.

82 games of Forsberg is better then 82 games of Sakic.

77 games of Forsberg is not better then 82 games of Sakic.

60 games of Forsberg is not near as good as 82 games of Sakic.

50 games of Mario is better then 82 games of Forsberg or Sakic.

 

[Voight]

He wasn't a better playoff performer, 4 of the cups were won post expansion. Richards longevity was insane, as a top line level player over 20 years. Forsberg had a better peak, but Richards longevity wins it for me. Richard had 1st team all NHL and 3 2nd teams to Forsbergs 1 Hart, and 3 first teams. And when your comparing guys who were top line guys on teams cups matter, Forsbergs team was also stacked proven by the fact they won the final 2 rounds in 2001 with him out.

& two of those were against the expansion St. Louis Blues, who were in their 2nd & 3rd season. Big accomplishment running over a brand new franchise.

 

[mcauliffe]

The one game argument doesn't hold alot of water.

Sittler had 10 points, Tom Bladon 7, and the difference between the best single player game of all time and the 100th best wouldn't even be noticeable IMO.

Plus any elite player could have one of their bad games in that one game.

The bigger and more the sample is the better picture we have.

That being said very large samples of elite play do count and for alot.

I don't agree much with the first half of your post. The goal here is not to pick the single best game in the history of hockey. That would be impossible to predict. What we are trying to do is to pick between two players, for one single game, based on their entire body of work. In that respect, talent and skill are valued much more than durability. Under that lense, Mario over Gordie, definitely, and Forsberg over Sakic, arguably.

Of course, GMs pick players for 15 years, not one game. That's why the logical choices, in the long run, would be Gordie and Sakic.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

It always comes back to that debate.

If you have one game to play, Mario and Forsberg.

If you're building a franchise, Gordie and Sakic.

Which equals "greater" player. There is a difference between the better player and the greater player.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Except he is only marginally better then Sakic. If you believe he is even better in the first place.

Mario and Orr were way better then everyone. Forsberg was basically equal to Sakic on a one game off scenario. Maybe 5% better? Some should argue. Not that he was way better.

82 games of Forsberg is better then 82 games of Sakic.

77 games of Forsberg is not better then 82 games of Sakic.

60 games of Forsberg is not near as good as 82 games of Sakic.

50 games of Mario is better then 82 games of Forsberg or Sakic.

Only if one is comparing absolute peak Mario to past primes of Sakic or Foppa.

if it is an apples to apples comp, and why wouldn't it be then Foppa and Ssakic at their absolute best 82 games simply is quite a bit better than Mario at 50 games.

77 games of Foppa in the playoffs is probably better than 82 games of Sakic.

Regular season it's probably a wash at their absolute peaks.

 

[Hardyvan123]

& two of those were against the expansion St. Louis Blues, who were in their 2nd & 3rd season. Big accomplishment running over a brand new franchise.

Where he was tied for 6th in points, along with 4 other guys...hardly the first line player mentioned upthread.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...c4comp=gt&c4val=&threshhold=5&order_by=points