Fishy McScales
Registered User
My argument was that using points over a single season to determine one player was better than the other was an odd thing to do, especially since that other player even won the Art Ross at one point.I didn't budge to your riveting counter argument of "What more could he done than finish first?"
Not sure that's a signal of my lack of openness to hearing other opinions.
Unless I have miscalculated things, statistically, they both dominated their peers similarly on a per game basis but Sakic played more games. If you think that Jagr and Mario are in the same "peer" class as Naslund then I am not sure what to tell you.
The argument is that this is not clear cut even if you elect to use it as a data point in evaluating the two players. Not that it proves Forsberg was better, just that it was an odd argument to use in the first place. Yet you seem hell bent on educating me on the pitifulness of the competition during that 2002-03 season. Thanks I guess?
I'm not sure you're using "riveting" correctly btw.