Peak Fedorov vs Peak Forsberg

[LightningStorm]

I don’t think he played much more than a handful of games there though.

Point is Forsberg scored goals at an elite rate in the playoffs with a very large sample. Clearly he had better goal scoring ability than he showed in the regular season.

As the writer of this article, one thing I concluded breaking down Forsberg's playoff numbers was his increased goal scoring rate was more due to a few hot streaks he had (mostly the 2nd round series in 1999, 2000 and 2002), rather than something he was consistently better at than in the regular season. Here's what I wrote:

Taking a look at Forsberg in the playoffs has showed me that despite people viewing playoff performance as ultra sacred, the small sample size can lead to unsustainable things occurring. Forsberg's goal rate increasing and assist rate decreasing in the playoffs were examples of unsustainable small sample size variance.

Which player describes Forsberg more at an 82 game rate, 29 goals/74 assists or 35 goals/58 assists? Everyone deep down knows it's the former, and the much greater RS sample size just confirms what we knew all along.

 

[authentic]

As the writer of this article, one thing I concluded breaking down Forsberg's playoff numbers was his increased goal scoring rate was more due to a few hot streaks he had (mostly the 2nd round series in 1999, 2000 and 2002), rather than something he was consistently better at than in the regular season. Here's what I wrote:



Which player describes Forsberg more at an 82 game rate, 29 goals/74 assists or 35 goals/58 assists? Everyone deep down knows it's the former, and the much greater RS sample size just confirms what we knew all along.

He could quite clearly score at the 2nd rate though, he had seasons where he would’ve scored around 35 or more if he played the full season. He probably could’ve scored over 40 I believe if he wasn’t so unselfish in his play.

Also taking out hot streaks in the playoffs doesn’t seem to make much sense. You could do that for every other player. The fact is he scored goals in the playoffs at a higher rate than dozens of 50+ goal scorers with a relatively large sample size for playoff hockey and in a lower scoring era than most.

 

[LightningStorm]

He could quite clearly score at the 2nd rate though, he had seasons where he would’ve scored around 35 or more if he played the full season. He probably could’ve scored over 40 I believe if he wasn’t so unselfish in his play.

Also taking out hot streaks in the playoffs doesn’t seem to make much sense. You could do that for every other player. The fact is he scored goals in the playoffs at a higher rate than dozens of 50+ goal scorers with a relatively large sample size for playoff hockey and in a lower scoring era than most.

I could probably find hot streaks of his in the RS if I did a deep dive there too. The difference is a smaller sample size allows hot streaks to skew things more.

It's not just the numbers though. I never had a high opinion of Forsberg's shot when I saw him play. His skating, puck control, deadly accurate passing, vision, and physicality were what you feared. I view his goal scoring ability similar to Lebron's jump shot. Not a weakness, but not what makes you fear him either. Like Lebron with his jumper, Forsberg could also get streaky with his goal scoring, but not consistent game in game out like the main strengths to his game. And Lebron has hit several clutch jump shots in the playoffs. Even scored most of his 37 in game 7 of the 2013 finals off his jumper when the Spurs took the drive away. When doing the deep dive about Forsberg's playoffs numbers, I did find his goal scoring more streaky than consistent.

 

[Deas]

The “legendary” factor Forsberg enjoys on HF is so stupid. His peak was basically a lesser version of Crosby who was a little more physical to his own detriment. He was never as good as HF would have you believe.

Fedorov objectively had both a higher offensive and defensive peak. Case closed. Anyone trying to argue otherwise is either misguided/misremembering or a complete homer.

Dealing in dead certain, absolute terms while the claim is highly debatable. Very open minded

I could phrase a similar post about how Forsberg's prime was more dominant and significantly longer (Fedorov was top 10 in P/G 10 out of his 19 seasons), with a very strong case.

 

[Garbageyuk]

Dealing in dead certain, absolute terms while the claim is highly debatable. Very open minded

I could phrase a similar post about how Forsberg's prime was more dominant and significantly longer (Fedorov was top 10 in P/G 10 out of his 19 seasons), with a very strong case.

That’s not what the thread is about. It’s about peak, and it’s pretty easy to judge that Fedorov’s was higher. Once you start relying on tactics like you used in this post, you should take a step back and realize you aren’t arguing in good faith and ask yourself why.

 

[Garbageyuk]

Feds had higher peak seasons (Selke/Lindsay/Hart).

But I think Forsberg had the higher peak performance? (2001 playoffs)


I put too close to call.

14 points in 11 games? Not all that impressive. Even if you meant the season after, that’s still only a performance that someone like Jonathan Toews was able to match. Forsberg’s actual level of play simply doesn’t hold up to the legendary status he has on HF.

 

[authentic]

14 points in 11 games? Not all that impressive. Even if you meant the season after, that’s still only a performance that someone like Jonathan Toews was able to match. Forsberg’s actual level of play simply doesn’t hold up to the legendary status he has on HF.

What in the… He’s 10th all time in playoff points per game among players who have played 50 or more games. He’s 6th among players who have played atleast 100 (he played 151) and the only players ahead of him are Gretzky, Lemieux, Bossy, Messier and Kurri, so basically the best players from the 1980s and he played a majority of his career in the dead puck era.

 

[Deas]

That’s not what the thread is about. It’s about peak, and it’s pretty easy to judge that Fedorov’s was higher. Once you start relying on tactics like you used in this post, you should take a step back and realize you aren’t arguing in good faith and ask yourself why.

I think the discussion steered towards Forsberg vs Fedorov in general. I think ”peak” should be clearly defined if one doesn’t want the discussion to evolve into Fedorov vs Forsberg in general. Alot of posters have chimed in with different takes, it can’t be claimed the thread has been moderated with shared definitions of ”peak,” ”prime” etc. Or how long said period has to be.

If it’s one single season then that’s Fedorov. Despite only being 5th in P/G his outlier season was one hell of a season. If defining peak as a single season is the scope that is however an eye catching cherry picking when comparing the two players in question, as Fedorov’s best season (or best 3 seasons to some extent) is such an outlier for his career, and even those three very best in his career are pedestrian P/G rankings for Forsberg throughout his career. Not playing in older age is part of that of course, but that doesn’t make it less impressive to be an elit producer combined with awesome overall play for more or less his entire 11 season career.

 

[Lexus]

2002 probably isn’t a great argument - even knowing that you’re specifically talking about elimination games - considering that Forsberg was one of the only reasons that series even went 7 games. Detroit was the better team from top to bottom and outshot Colorado every game that series, sometimes significantly.


Forsberg had 8 pts to Fedorov’s 5 that series, but to really put it into perspective, Forsberg was in on 62% of Colorado’s goals that series compared to Fedorov being in on 23% of Detroit’s goals. Forsberg was Colorado’s offense, period. Even further, in Colorado’s 3 wins that series Forsberg was in on 70% of their goals including scoring the OT winner in game 5.

I also read that Forsberg played with a broken finger in game 6 and 7 in that series.

 

[bleedgreen]

There’s no arguing the level of warrior Forsberg was. I live in CO and was in Denver during his peak and got to watch him play live quite a bit during these years. He was amazing.

I have to choose Fedorov. I’d love to homer vote it but Feds was on another level to me. The skating and versatility are the difference, and I think he absolutely had another gear for the playoffs. He was clutch.

The question is prime vs prime. Feds had the better prime imo.

 

[Fantomas]

Forsberg because he was great for longer than one season.

 

[karhukissa]

Peak Forsberg is in Jagr tier, Fedorov tier below.

 

[Xspyrit]

I don't know if people realize/remember that Forsberg played pretty much his whole career during the "dead puck era"? Fedorov too but he had a lot more games outside of that period. He was a fantastic 2-way Center but Fosberg was a total beast

This is the Era-Adjusted Points Per Game (this is from 2014 so it doesn't include McDavid, MacKinnon, Draisaitl, Kucherov, Matthews, etc)

Player		Years​	G​	P​	Adj P/G​
Mario Lemieux		1984-06​	915​	1518​	1.66​
Wayne Gretzky		1979-99​	1487​	2393​	1.61​
Sidney Crosby	*	2005-14​	550​	824​	1.50​
Peter Forsberg		1994-11​	708​	947​	1.34​
Bobby Orr		1966-79​	657​	877​	1.33​

NHL Career Leaders: Era-Adjusted Points Per Game

Adjust the entirety of NHL history for era affects and some remarkable things appear.

www.coppernblue.com

Damn injuries. Forsberg really was an exceptional.

 

[overpass]

As the writer of this article, one thing I concluded breaking down Forsberg's playoff numbers was his increased goal scoring rate was more due to a few hot streaks he had (mostly the 2nd round series in 1999, 2000 and 2002), rather than something he was consistently better at than in the regular season. Here's what I wrote:



Which player describes Forsberg more at an 82 game rate, 29 goals/74 assists or 35 goals/58 assists? Everyone deep down knows it's the former, and the much greater RS sample size just confirms what we knew all along.

The words “unsustainable” and “small sample size” have lost all meaning when they are being applied to a full playoff career of 151 GP.

These 151 GP include literally every NHL playoff game Forsberg ever played, so it’s the entire population, not a sample. Forsberg’s 151 playoff GP is top 100 all time, so it’s not a small population. It’s almost two regular season’s worth of games, far more than every NHL award is based on.

 

[LightningStorm]

The words “unsustainable” and “small sample size” have lost all meaning when they are being applied to a full playoff career of 151 GP.

These 151 GP include literally every NHL playoff game Forsberg ever played, so it’s the entire population, not a sample. Forsberg’s 151 playoff GP is top 100 all time, so it’s not a small population. It’s almost two regular season’s worth of games, far more than every NHL award is based on.

I meant 151 as a small sample size compared to his 708 RS GP, in which case 151 is only 21%. And if one elevates him as a goal scorer based on his playoff numbers, you'd have to also devalue him as a playmaker for that same reason. Which of course would be dumb, because we all know he was a way better playmaker than 58 assists/82 indicates.

His increased goal rate in the playoffs was also more due to him being streaky than consistently better at it compared to the RS. Which is why I brought up the comparison to Lebron's jump shot, as in both cases they're neither strengths nor weaknesses but each player had the ability to be streaky with them. And of course both players could still consistently beat you without them.

 

[tabness]

Are you just barely browsing threads chiming in now and again? There were almost pages spent laboring the point that Fedorov picked up meaningless playoff points in games early in series but choked in critical situations. As opposed to must win game 7 Peter. The stats didn't bear it out to support the narrative.

Also, I never stated Fedorov's peak level was "better" than any player in history. I stated that in a head to head matchup I would pick peak Fedorov over anyone. That's not something I expect everyone to agree with. I'm certain other people have players with weirdly shaped heads they would pick instead and that's fine.

Pete didn't score in game 6 either... Gotta score in an elimination game at some point. But I think I'm done with the ever changing hypotheticals in here. GGs

Yes, in large part I hop in and out of threads without reading through multiple pages and on several occasions over the past couple weeks now I keep coming across your overrating of Fedorov which continually compels me to reply, considering that I got to watch most of his career extensively.

And picking Fedorov in a head to head matchup over anyone in the history of the game is exactly that - overrating him. He was a special talent who had a single monster season, but never played at that level with any consistency despite being a really good player regardless. And as good as that monster season was, it was nowhere near an all time individual season.

And no. One of the differences between us seems to be that I can have a favorite player and still keep a sense of reality. Look no further than Forsberg, for example, who was a version of a player with a weirdly shaped head on steroids. And as great as Forsberg was there’s still several players who I would take over him head to head in a matchup historically.

Am I missing something with the weirdly shaped heads here lol? Like I don't think Forsberg was even the guy with most weirdly shaped head on his team:

Anyway, while I wish Fedorov always bought it like Forsberg did, at the very least, I can say that when Fedorov played against the Avs, he generally did bring it, and when he was on, I always felt happy with him on the Wings over even an amazing superstar like Forsberg.

 

[TheGoldenJet]

I don't know if people realize/remember that Forsberg played pretty much his whole career during the "dead puck era"? Fedorov too but he had a lot more games outside of that period. He was a fantastic 2-way Center but Fosberg was a total beast

This is the Era-Adjusted Points Per Game (this is from 2014 so it doesn't include McDavid, MacKinnon, Draisaitl, Kucherov, Matthews, etc)

Player		Years​	G​	P​	Adj P/G​
Mario Lemieux		1984-06​	915​	1518​	1.66​
Wayne Gretzky		1979-99​	1487​	2393​	1.61​
Sidney Crosby	*	2005-14​	550​	824​	1.50​
Peter Forsberg		1994-11​	708​	947​	1.34​
Bobby Orr		1966-79​	657​	877​	1.33​

NHL Career Leaders: Era-Adjusted Points Per Game

Adjust the entirety of NHL history for era affects and some remarkable things appear.

www.coppernblue.com

Damn injuries. Forsberg really was an exceptional.

Nope, all this means is that Forsberg retired early. He only played 68 games past the age of 32. Most all-time greats will play closer to 400+ games past that age, which will drag their P/G down significantly. Forsberg avoided this by simply not playing.

 

[Xspyrit]

Nope, all this means is that Forsberg retired early. He only played 68 games past the age of 32. Most all-time greats will play closer to 400+ games past that age, which will drag their P/G down significantly. Forsberg avoided this by simply not playing.

Most all-time greats tend to continue producing really well into their 30's

Of course, if he would have played into his 40's like Jagr or Thornton, I could see this being a factor but we can't assume he would have.

Despite being broken down by injuries, Forsberg produced at a 1.14 PPG (144 pts in 126 games) from 32 to 34 y/o... so if you want to tell you that to make you feel better about it, no worries. Forsberg was still an exceptional.

You can laugh about it all you want

 

[BraveCanadian]

Most all-time greats tend to continue producing really well into their 30's

Of course, if he would have played into his 40's like Jagr or Thornton, I could see this being a factor but we can't assume he would have.

Despite being broken down by injuries, Forsberg produced at a 1.14 PPG (144 pts in 126 games) from 32 to 34 y/o... so if you want to tell you that to make you feel better about it, no worries. Forsberg was still an exceptional.

You can laugh about it all you want

The point is, that is a significant decrease from his career number, and it would have only accelerated if he continued to play.

 

[Xspyrit]

The point is, that is a significant decrease from his career number, and it would have only accelerated if he continued to play.

This was already covered in my post but I'll re-explain it another way as sometimes things need to be repeated to be understood.

There wasn't a "significant decrease" while he was broken down by injuries from 32 to 34 years old, so what makes you think there would have been a "significant decrease" with better health from 35 to 38 y/o for example?

Finally, he doesn't need to end 4th Era-Adjusted Points Per Game to be an all-time great. Even if he drops in that list, point still stands. He's been a lot more productive than Fedorov in his career. And I also liked Fedorov a lot so this is NOT a pissing match for me. Big fan of both players.

Oh and he could have added more points during his prime if he wasn't diminished by so many injuries, so that "potential decline" in his late 30's would have had even less effect.

Hopefully it is clear.

 

[BraveCanadian]

This was already covered in my post but I'll re-explain it another way as sometimes things need to be repeated to be understood.

There wasn't a "significant decrease" while he was broken down by injuries from 32 to 34 years old, so what makes you think there would have been a "significant decrease" with better health from 35 to 38 y/o for example?

Finally, he doesn't need to end 4th Era-Adjusted Points Per Game to be an all-time great. Even if he drops in that list, point still stands. He's been a lot more productive than Fedorov in his career. And I also liked Fedorov a lot so this is NOT a pissing match for me. Big fan of both players.

Oh and he could have added more points during his prime if he wasn't diminished by so many injuries, so that "potential decline" in his late 30's would have had even less effect.

Hopefully it is clear.

What is clear is that you don't understand why career PPG is a bad metric to compare players of vastly different career lengths. Full stop.

I do agree that Forsberg was a more consistently a top end offensive player. Fedorov appeared to only pour it on when Yzerman was out, for example. However, Forsberg also benefited from team situation and league strength during his best years vs. Fedorov.

 

[Xspyrit]

What is clear is that you don't understand why career PPG is a bad metric to compare players of vastly different career lengths. Full stop.

I already explained twice. Your very basic argument has already been addressed.

Or maybe you're just really bad at maths? I'll lay it down in a very simplistic manner

Forsberg from 21 to 34 y/o : 1.34 PPG (947 pts in 708 GP)
Forsberg from 35 to 38 y/o : ??? PPG (??? GP)

He could have gone 239 games without recording a single point and still end up PPG... Do you realize that?

AND that 1.34 PPG could have been even better if he wasn't injured as much during his prime (and have more weight in the ratio), which would have offset his eventual decline (35+ y/o) even MORE.

Now do you get it or you want a 4th explanation?

What is clear is that you don't understand why career PPG is a bad metric to compare players of vastly different career lengths. Full stop.

And now, why don't you compare it with Fedorov 21 to 34 y/o era adjusted PPG? He actually played for Detroit the whole time and ended up with 954 pts in 908 games... which included several high scoring years. Something something tells me it's not even close.

 

[TheGoldenJet]

Most all-time greats tend to continue producing really well into their 30's

The point is, that is a significant decrease from his career number, and it would have only accelerated if he continued to play.

That answered that. Well said.

so what makes you think there would have been a "significant decrease" with better health from 35 to 38 y/o for example?

Because virtually all players do.

Forsberg wouldn’t have been an exception, so stop pretending like he would have been.

 

[Yuri35]

forsberg and I would mostly base on what players who were facing both were saying : you rarely heard players say that Fedorov was the best player in the world even in his prime while players were almost unanimously picking forsberg as their best player in the world during his prime when they were asked about

 

[Yuri35]

He was never even better than Sakic. Forsberg is the most overrated player on HF.

Well at least you can't be overrated as you won't be rated at all with posts like this.