Peter Forsberg: The Reality in Contrast With The Imagined, Romanticized Version.

[daver]

It's just because of ignorant comments like this that I took time and wrote this post.
You can NOT look at any stats AFTER the season not PPG not anything and tell what would have happend had he stayed healthy! You have too look at the situation in context and where he was as a player BEFORE the injury accured. People making threads like this obviously didn't follow his career nor people making posts like this.

He played 28 games from Nov 28 to Feb 1 before he got injured again. He had 34 points for a PPG of 1.21. That would have placed him 5th in PPG for that year.

 

[Ben White]

First of all, you have changed the years around so are you now set with 96-03 for Forsberg or will you change the parameters again after I take you to school?

Why are you doing this to yourself? No matter how you turn it Forsberg will get the higher PPG ratio and you already realized that.
As for the period: You chose the best 8 years span for Sakic so I did the same for Forsberg. Seems fair?
I didn't say we should compare it to Sakic' for the same period (his 1,22 vs Forsbergs 1,29) as you did in the original post about the 95-01 for both players. Still if we did that the favor of Sakic would be much smaller than Forsberg 1,29 vs Sakic 1,22. The only way to unfairly give Sakic the edge is by pointing out specific periods were Sakic happend to be slightly better and say: "these are the once we're using", as you did originaly.

 

[daver]

Ok, so you had to remove Mario etc. etc. and still didn't mention his points per game ratio even though he played a couple of those season pre-dead puck but ok... I'll tell you:

He had 1.27 PPG in this his best 8 year span in his career thats actually 0,1 worse than Forsberg in his 10 first years uncluding his rookie season.

In Forsbergs best 8 year span 1996-03 he had: 1,29 (Sakic: 1,22)

Sakic best 8 year span: 1,27
Forsbergs best 8 year span: 1,29

And era adjusted you can bet the difference had been higher.

You basically admitted that I was right.

Forsberg 96-03

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

2nd in PPG (sans Mario) at 1.29, 4th in points at 636



Sakic one year earlier 95-02

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

3rd in PPG (sans Mario) at 1.25, 2nd in points at 693.

Not a hell of a lot to choose from is there especially when you give Sakic credit for playing more games.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

It's completely useless to talk about "total amount of missed games" over several years. It's a typical argument to make a less injured player look better. What matters in that regard is how many close to full seasons, and therefore a chance to after season recognition and trophies, a player has. Forsberg had in total 5 seasons with more than 60 games played, while Sakic had 15 of those seasons. One would expect Sakic to have gathered a lot more hardware in all those chances to be regarded as good as Forsberg. It's also not sure if Forsbergs 60+ games seasons necessarily coincided with Forsbergs peaks. Noone will remember his 55 points in 37 games in the 2003-04 season even though he played the best hockey of his career IMO, and noone will know what he could have done in the 99-00 season, (right after his sensational 99 playoffs), when he missed first half a season due to injury. Nobody will talk about his 05-06 Flyers season when he led the league in points half way through and was widely regarded as the best player in the game when a mid season injury occured.

So you see, the disadvantage of his injuries is much bigger than you point out. Still he tops Sakic in career points per game 1.25 to 1.19 even without the era-adjusting of Sakic' first 6-7 years in a much higher scoring era.

Forsberg had seven seasons where he played in 60+ games (and he appeared in 47 out of 48 games during the first lockout year). Regardless, the fact that Sakic was a more durable player is an argument in his favour, not an argument against him.

I'm not impressed by the points-per-game argument. I agree Sakic benefitted by playing more games in a higher-scoring era. On the other hand, Forsberg played a grand total of 11 games after age 33 (2%). Sakic played 304 games (22%). One would have to compare them over a similar age range, and adjust for the different levels in league scoring over time.

I'd be interested in seeing the results if anyone has the time to do such an analysis. I think it would show that they're very close offensively.

 

[quoipourquoi]

First of all, you have changed the years around so are you now set with 96-03 for Forsberg or will you change the parameters again after I take you to school?

I believe he narrowed the amount of years for Peter Forsberg, because you provided an 8 season number for Joe Sakic. Obviously, Peter Forsberg's 1.29 over 10 seasons (1995-96 through 2005-06) isn't any smaller than his 1.29 over 8 seasons (1995-96 through 2002-03).

 

[daver]

Why are you doing this to yourself? No matter how you turn it Forsberg will get the higher PPG ratio and you already realized that.
As for the period: You chose the best 8 years span for Sakic so I did the same for Forsberg. Seems fair?
I didn't say we should compare it to Sakic' for the same period (his 1,22 vs Forsbergs 1,29) as you did in the original post about the 95-01 for both players. Still if we did that the favor of Sakic would be much smaller than Forsberg 1,29 vs Sakic 1,22. The only way to unfairly give Sakic the edge is by pointing out specific periods were Sakic happend to be slightly better and say: "these are the once we're using", as you did originaly.

You don't seem to understand the concept of eliminating factors like different scoring levels which appears to be a major foundation of your argument.

If Forsberg is clearly better than Sakic, how did a 26-31 year old Sakic outplay a 22-27 year old Forsberg?

 

[daver]

I believe he narrowed the amount of years for Peter Forsberg, because you provided an 8 season number for Joe Sakic. Obviously, Peter Forsberg's 1.29 over 10 seasons (1995-96 through 2005-06) isn't any smaller than his 1.29 over 8 seasons (1995-96 through 2002-03).

The poster choose 97-04 originally as Forsberg's peak. It was then changed to 96-03.

 

[quoipourquoi]

The poster choose 97-04 originally as Forsberg's peak. It was then changed to 96-03.

Some people refer to 2003-04 as 2003. Others refer to it as 2004. At any rate, did you expect a conversation about Peter Forsberg's peak to not include 2003-04, no matter what it is called?

 

[daver]

Some people refer to 2003-04 as 2003. Others refer to it as 2004. At any rate, did you expect a conversation about Peter Forsberg's peak to not include 2003-04, no matter what it is called?

I had zero expectations except to have reasonable context added regarding a career PPG comparison where one player played almost twice as many games as the other.

The poster did not like that a head to head, prime vs. prime sample came out in Sakic's favour and is trying to create parameters to bolster their argument that Forsberg is "obviously" better than Sakic.

 

[quoipourquoi]

I had zero expectations except to have reasonable context added regarding a career PPG comparison where one player played almost twice as many games as the other.

The poster did not like that a head to head, prime vs. prime sample came out in Sakic's favour and is trying to create parameters to bolser their argument that Forsberg is "obviously" better than Sakic.

Did it?

 

[daver]

Fun Fact:

Forsberg played 708 games in the NHL

Sakic had his career year in 2000/01 after playing 852 games in the NHL.

 

[Ben White]

I believe he narrowed the amount of years for Peter Forsberg, because you provided an 8 season number for Joe Sakic. Obviously, Peter Forsberg's 1.29 over 10 seasons (1995-96 through 2005-06) isn't any smaller than his 1.29 over 8 seasons (1995-96 through 2002-03).

No I did not... 96-03 is exactly 8 seasons...

 

[daver]

Of course there were some players named Mario and Wayne that Sakic had to contend with for All-Star positions.

Here are the stats for them when they both were in their primes together from 95-01:

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

Sakic has more points, a slightly higher PPG and a much higher GPG.

Seems to me an argument for Sakic seems more reasonable.

Did it?

Yep.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Fun Fact:

Forsberg played 708 games in the NHL

Sakic had his career year in 2000/01 after playing 852 games in the NHL.

No, I'm serious. Is the prime vs. prime comparison you're referring to exclude two seasons in which Sakic was a 1st Team All-Star and Peter Forsberg's Art Ross Trophy?

 

[Ben White]

Did it?

Hehehehe... Why don't you just give up? So you mean 96-03 is less prime vs prime than 95-01 which includes Forsberg's rookie season (aka not prime for him only for Sakic). No, I did not like that you took Sakic best 7 year spam for Sakic and compared it to a rookie-early prime Forsberg, is that hard to understand?
The only way to make it fair is to compaire Sakic' best vs Forsberg's best or their first 10 seasons ir their rookie season or anything comairable. I think anyone would accept that.

 

[daver]

No, I'm serious. Is the prime vs. prime comparison you're referring to exclude two seasons in which Sakic was a 1st Team All-Star and Peter Forsberg's Art Ross Trophy?

It only considers the seasons where I think they both were in their primes at the same time. Forsberg was a rookie in 94/95 and Joe dropped down to a PPG before rebounding in 03/04.

It's certainly a fair point to include an All-Star season but the other poster is only focused on PPG so including 03/04 hurts Joe in this comparison.

 

[Ben White]

Did it?

No defenetly not. He thinks we're stupid or something. Just read the posts.

 

[daver]

Hehehehe... Why don't you just give up? So you mean 96-03 is less prime vs prime than 95-01 which includes Forsberg's rookie season (aka not prime for him only for Sakic). No, I did not like that you took Sakic best 7 year spam for Sakic and compared it to a rookie-early prime Forsberg, is that hard to understand?
The only way to make it fair is to compaire Sakic' best vs Forsberg's best or their first 10 seasons ir their rookie season or anything comairable. I think anyone would accept that.

The six year sample is 95/96 to 00/01. The same starting year as your 8 year sample.

So you can either change your sample to remove "an early prime" Forsberg or accept the findings as they are.

 

[daver]

No defenetly not. He thinks we're stupid or something. Just read the posts.

So who was better in 2003/04, first team all-star Joe Sakic with 87 points or a 55 point Peter Forsberg?

 

[Ben White]

It only considers the seasons where I think they both were in their primes at the same time. Forsberg was a rookie in 94/95 and Joe dropped down to a PPG before rebounding in 03/04.

It's certainly a fair point to include an All-Star season but the other poster is only focused on PPG so including 03/04 hurts Joe in this comparison.

96-03 does not include the 2003-04 season... But that doesn't matter! Just pick any large enough time sample that you consider Sakic' best and compaire it to a simular size of Firsbergs best and we wont have this discussion any more

 

[quoipourquoi]

It only considers the seasons where I think they both were in their primes at the same time. Forsberg was a rookie in 94/95 and Joe dropped down to a PPG before rebounding in 03/04.

It's certainly a fair point to include an All-Star season but the other poster is only focused on PPG so including 03/04 hurts Joe in this comparison.

So what you're saying is that rather than make an actual prime vs. prime comparison, you want to exclude seasons because including them wouldn't support your narrative?

 

[daver]

Forsberg 96-03

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

2nd in PPG (sans Mario) at 1.29, 4th in points at 636



Sakic one year earlier 95-02

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

3rd in PPG (sans Mario) at 1.25, 2nd in points at 693.

Not a hell of a lot to choose from is there especially when you give Sakic credit for playing more games.

Just pick any large enough time sample that you consider Sakic' best and compaire it to a simular size of Firsbergs best and we wont have this discussion any more

I already did.

 

[Ben White]

So what you're saying is that rather than make an actual prime vs. prime comparison, you want to exclude seasons because including them wouldn't support your narrative?

Thats basically what he's saying

 

[Ben White]

I already did.

No you did not! You chose Sakic best and compaired it to a Forsberg sample far from best

 

[Ben White]

So who was better in 2003/04, first team all-star Joe Sakic with 87 points or a 55 point Peter Forsberg?

Are we compairing one less than half a season from forsberg to something all of sudden? I'm out of here