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

[LarsVonTrier*]

Forsberg was my idol by growing up. Sweden will never produce a player like him again. He was determined, gritty, hardworking along with a brilliant hockey iq.

sadly, he had so many freak injuries (spleen removal, broken ankles, torn acl, groin injuries, concussions blah blah) that his career could have been much better than it was.

He is one guy that deserved to win a conn smythe.

 

[Czech Your Math]

I think what may be most romanticized about players like Forsberg (and notably, Lindros), is the notion that they could consistently maintain their peak PPG production over the course of multiple full or near-full seasons. I don't think it's any accident that their best seasons came following a full regular season off or during/after a strike-shortened season. There's also plenty of example of superstars having their best PPG during half-seasons or less that were injury-shortened (Neely, Bure, Kariya, Crosby, etc.).

Part of what made them so effective was their physical play, and that's also part of what led to them missing so many games. You can't have your cake and eat it too. To think that players like Jagr and Selanne weren't playing through injuries on their way to generally playing more games. They absorbed punishment, rather than dished it out, and may have been able to pace themselves better. If they held back a bit during the regular season, in order to more likely play a full seasons, this would be reflected in their PPGs and they shouldn't be punished for it while players like Forsberg and Lindros are elevated as "unlucky" due to injuries.

 

[Hobnobs]

I think what may be most romanticized about players like Forsberg (and notably, Lindros), is the notion that they could consistently maintain their peak PPG production over the course of multiple full or near-full seasons. I don't think it's any accident that their best seasons came following a full regular season off or during/after a strike-shortened season. There's also plenty of example of superstars having their best PPG during half-seasons or less that were injury-shortened (Neely, Bure, Kariya, Crosby, etc.).

Part of what made them so effective was their physical play, and that's also part of what led to them missing so many games. You can't have your cake and eat it too. To think that players like Jagr and Selanne weren't playing through injuries on their way to generally playing more games. They absorbed punishment, rather than dished it out, and may have been able to pace themselves better. If they held back a bit during the regular season, in order to more likely play a full seasons, this would be reflected in their PPGs and they shouldn't be punished for it while players like Forsberg and Lindros are elevated as "unlucky" due to injuries.

Forsbergs best PPG was during a full season (tied with a half season and an almost full season.)

 

[livewell68]

Forsbergs best PPG was during a full season (tied with a half season and an almost full season.)

Here is the question then, was the 1.41 PPG as a career high enough to make some believe he was a better player than Jagr? After all, Jagr's 7th best PPG (1.46) is better than Forsberg's best.

 

[Wrath]

Here is the question then, was the 1.41 PPG as a career high enough to make some believe he was a better player than Jagr? After all, Jagr's 7th best PPG (1.46) is better than Forsberg's best.

Wait, who believes that Forsberg, even at his best, was better than Jagr?

I struggle to name any forward with a better peak than Jagr since the 80s outside of Mario and Gretzky.

 

[Fred Taylor]

For the record, there were lots of claims that Forsberg was the best player in the world before 2003, I've read many quotes and also a book from the hockey news I believe it was that ranked Forsberg ahead of Lindros and Jagr as soon as Lemieux's first retirement. When it comes down to it, IMO, there is nothing that separates the following players at their best, Trottier, Lafleur, Jagr, Yzerman, Sakic, Forsberg, Malkin, Lindros, Crosby, Ovechkin, Lidstrom, Bourque, Potvin, and I may be in the minority about this one, but even Datsyuk. All of those players are the absolute best I've seen since I've been watching hockey in the 70's, other than Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr, and are even slightly better IMO than players like Fedorov, Messier, Clarke, Bossy and Selanne. While still amazing, those might be the five most overrated players on this forum. I think a guy like Zetterberg in his prime was even on their level.

Jusr found the book I was referring to. It's not by the hockey news as I had thought, it's the "Hockey Stars 300" ranking the top 300 players in the NHL.

On the cover it says Peter Forsberg, two-way brilliance.

It came out during the 97-98 season, and I'll display a bit of what it says on the inside cover.

The "Hockey Stars 300" is the theme of this issue, and it's our third go-round with the most comprehensive review of the NHL's top players available anywhere. The "Hockey Stars 300" was compiled by the entire Hockey Stars staff. Capsule profiles of the top 150 players were written by Jeff Gordon of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Among the resources used were the various teams' media guides, the NHL Official Guide and Record Book for 1997-98, and the indispensable Hockey Scouting Report, written by Sherry Ross (Greystone Books).

Peter Forsberg was ranked the number 1 player in the NHL, and it says last years rating was 2nd, so that means as early as 1996-97 he was considered the best player in the game other than Lemieux. The runners up are as follows, in order, Eric Lindros, Jaromir Jagr, and Paul Kariya.

I'll show the description they have for Forsberg:

He pounds opponents with body checks. He can hound the other teams top center. He skates like the wind and protects the puck like a Brinks truck. He's not as flashy as Paul Kariya, as menacing as Eric Lindros, or as shifty as Jaromir Jagr, but he offers the best all-around skill package in the game. Forsberg is a tough-minded winner and a coach's dream.

This seems to support the fact that Forsberg was considered by many to be the best player in the game early on in his career, and that he was infact, very good defensively.

Hope to get some responses regarding this.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Wait, who believes that Forsberg, even at his best, was better than Jagr?

I struggle to name any forward with a better peak than Jagr since the 80s outside of Mario and Gretzky.

Right or wrong, there were a sizable number of people in the late 90s who preferred Forsberg due to two-way game and playoffs. Perhaps largely because Jagr was unfairly compared to Gretzky and Lemieux

 

[Fred Taylor]

Wait, who believes that Forsberg, even at his best, was better than Jagr?

I struggle to name any forward with a better peak than Jagr since the 80s outside of Mario and Gretzky.

Right or wrong, there were a sizable number of people in the late 90s who preferred Forsberg due to two-way game and playoffs. Perhaps largely because Jagr was unfairly compared to Gretzky and Lemieux

See my post in between yours and Devils.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Jusr found the book I was referring to. It's not by the hockey news as I had thought, it's the "Hockey Stars 300" ranking the top 300 players in the NHL.

On the cover it says Peter Forsberg, two-way brilliance.

It came out during the 97-98 season, and I'll display a bit of what it says on the inside cover.

The "Hockey Stars 300" is the theme of this issue, and it's our third go-round with the most comprehensive review of the NHL's top players available anywhere. The "Hockey Stars 300" was compiled by the entire Hockey Stars staff. Capsule profiles of the top 150 players were written by Jeff Gordon of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Among the resources used were the various teams' media guides, the NHL Official Guide and Record Book for 1997-98, and the indispensable Hockey Scouting Report, written by Sherry Ross (Greystone Books).

Peter Forsberg was ranked the number 1 player in the NHL, and it says last years rating was 2nd, so that means as early as 1996-97 he was considered the best player in the game other than Lemieux. The runners up are as follows, in order, Eric Lindros, Jaromir Jagr, and Paul Kariya.

I'll show the description they have for Forsberg:

He pounds opponents with body checks. He can hound the other teams top center. He skates like the wind and protects the puck like a Brinks truck. He's not as flashy as Paul Kariya, as menacing as Eric Lindros, or as shifty as Jaromir Jagr, but he offers the best all-around skill package in the game. Forsberg is a tough-minded winner and a coach's dream.

This seems to support the fact that Forsberg was considered by many to be the best player in the game early on in his career, and that he was infact, very good defensively.

Hope to get some responses regarding this.

"Coming out during the 97-98 season" means "written in the 1997 offseason." Lemieux had just retired again, Lindros was already having trouble playing full seasons and had just been embarassed in the 1997 finals, Jagr had yet to win an Art Ross outright (winning the 1995 one on a tiebreak), and Kariya just wasn't as good as Forsberg. Sakic hadn't fully developed his two-way game yet and was actually in the midst of the injury-prone part of his career. The defending Hart winner was Hasek, but how often is a freaking goalie given credit as best player in the world?

So this all makes sense given the time it was written.

 

[Trottier]

Jusr found the book I was referring to. It's not by the hockey news as I had thought, it's the "Hockey Stars 300" ranking the top 300 players in the NHL.

On the cover it says Peter Forsberg, two-way brilliance....

I'll show the description they have for Forsberg:

He pounds opponents with body checks. He can hound the other teams top center. He skates like the wind and protects the puck like a Brinks truck. He's not as flashy as Paul Kariya, as menacing as Eric Lindros, or as shifty as Jaromir Jagr, but he offers the best all-around skill package in the game. Forsberg is a tough-minded winner and a coach's dream.

Unsurprisingly, I think this explains the difference in opinion about Forsberg. It comes down to what aspects of a player's game one emphasizes (prizes), or in some cases, even bothers to consider. Get away from the endless stats, and the silly descriptions about "romanticizing," etc., and basically, some hockey observers rank an elite goal scorer, for example, over a more complete player like Forsberg.

Not here to say which is correct, because they are both opinions to be respected.

That said, it really should not surprise anyone that some hold Forsberg in such high regard. It's the same reason why NHL GMs and coaches in a poll rated Bryan Trottier the best player in the NHL in 1981...while #99 was in the midst of demolishing scoring records. On the surface, an absurd notion. But not really, if you understand priorities....

Differing priorities. We (fans) look for different things in players. Which is perfectly fine. Many will let G/A/TP and other offensive stats be their master, the sole arbiter of who's "best". That's cool. Others of us tend to look a bit more broadly at the way(s) in which a given player can or can't impact a game.

Sidenote: I miss the Sherry Ross's Hockey Scouting Report. That was a great and highly insightful read about various players.

 

[Czech Your Math]

Forsbergs best PPG was during a full season (tied with a half season and an almost full season.)

Yes, but as I said, it came after he had a full regular season off. It's not even certain he would have had such a season without that luxury. I know it's not like he chose to spend the year at the beach, as it was a legitimately serious injury, but that doesn't mean it may not have assisted (pardon the pun) in him reaching that level for 1.5 seasons.

I highly doubt he would have put up 3+ seasons like that (which is what I call peak), even if he had less injuries. I definitely don't think he would have put up 3+ consecutive seasons like that.

 

[Czech Your Math]

Unsurprisingly, I think this explains the difference in opinion about Forsberg. It comes down to what aspects of a player's game one emphasizes (prizes), or in some cases, even bothers to consider. Get away from the endless stats, and the silly descriptions about "romanticizing," etc., and basically, some hockey observers rank an elite goal scorer, for example, over a more complete player like Forsberg.

Not here to say which is correct, because they are both opinions to be respected.

That said, it really should not surprise anyone that some hold Forsberg in such high regard. It's the same reason why NHL GMs and coaches in a poll rated Bryan Trottier the best player in the NHL in 1981...while #99 was in the midst of demolishing scoring records. On the surface, an absurd notion. But not really, if you understand priorities....

Differing priorities. We (fans) look for different things in players. Which is perfectly fine. Many will let G/A/TP and other offensive stats be their master, the sole arbiter of who's "best". That's cool. Others of us tend to look a bit more broadly at the way(s) in which a given player can or can't impact a game.

Sidenote: I miss the Sherry Ross's Hockey Scouting Report. That was a great and highly insightful read about various players.

I think there's room for each opinion.

One thing I don't like is people acting as if top scorers are all automatically Turgeon-like (no offense, actually taken his side here on more than one occasion).

You mention Jagr, and it should be noted that Jagr has been both an elite goal-scorer and playmaker (offensive balance), as well as incredible at driving puck possession (hence near the top of adjusted plus-minus). He's also been, despite what some try to portray, a clutch player (GWG, third period goals, playoff OT goals and other important playoff goals/assists).

So while I understand those giving credit to the complete games of players like Forsberg and Fedorov, I also think it's important to realize the difference between an incredible all-around offensive talent like Jagr (goals, playmaking, possession, playoffs, clutch) and players like Thornton, Kovalchuk, etc. Players who simply trade chances or consistently fade when the going gets tough are not the same as complete offensive dynamos such as Jagr, the likes of which you do not see very often. I don't see completeness as necessarily more effective and more valuable, simply because a player may be able to do more things well.

Not to derail the thread OT further, but one of my beefs with proponents of Crosby, is that they portray him as an almost Forsberg or Trottier-like complete player. However, I think he is more of a scorer. His playoff clutchness has rightly come into question more recently, he can be a good possession player, but not on a Jagr/Lindros/Forsberg level there IMO, he is not poor defensively, but not all that great either, and his leadership (both in recent play and behavior) leaves a lot to be desired as well.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Right or wrong, there were a sizable number of people in the late 90s who preferred Forsberg due to two-way game and playoffs. Perhaps largely because Jagr was unfairly compared to Gretzky and Lemieux

It's not just that. Jagr is always going to win the points-per-game argument - not only because he was the best offensive player, but because Pittsburgh gave him more ES/PP minutes than other superstars could get on teams with depth (which was covered extensively in the Fedorov/Jagr thread).

269 more ES/PP minutes than Forsberg in 1998.
407 more ES/PP minutes than Forsberg in 1999.

I'm not saying that anyone would necessarily steal some of Jagr's Art Ross Trophies (even though Jagr only led points-per-ES/PPTOI once in his Art Ross run), but if his TOI was shaved down to normal levels, those giant gaps disappear and then the two-way players and penalty-killers look comparable. If I recall, 19 of Jagr's points in 1999 were scored after the 55:00 minute mark of the game. Even those dead-tired minutes can add up to big points. So if Jagr wasn't getting them or if someone else was as well, it probably wouldn't look as silly to say that others at their very best were possibly just as good as him those 15 years ago.

I mean, look at their two best seasons:

1999 Jagr: 1.57 points-per-game
2000 Jagr: 1.52 points-per-game
2003 Forsberg: 1.41 points-per-game
2004 Forsberg: 1.41 points-per-game

1999 Jagr: 126 ES/PP points in 2023 ES/PP minutes (point every 16:04)
2000 Jagr: 96 ES/PP points in 1445 ES/PP minutes (point every 15:04)
2003 Forsberg: 106 ES/PP points in 1434 ES/PP minutes (point every 13:32)
2004 Forsberg: 54 ES/PP points in 714 ES/PP minutes (point every 13:14)

Points-per-game makes it look like it's not close, but the point-per-minute numbers are in the favor of the two-way Center.

 

[Beau Knows]

and his leadership (both in recent play and behavior) leaves a lot to be desired as well.

If you are going to compare someone to Jagr, this isn't the best thing to bring up. I don't recall Crosby "dying alive" or pouting in Washington for a couple seasons or anything like that.

 

[Trottier]

I think there's room for each opinion.

Then we agree.

One thing I don't like is people acting as if top scorers are all automatically Turgeon-like (no offense, actually taken his side here on more than one occasion).

Very fair point. We tend to stereotype, which is lazy. I shake my head every time Mike Bossy is mischaracterized as a one-trick pony. Al Arbour insisted that Bossy learn to play without the puck and defend...and he did. Became a solid PKer, actually.

You mention Jagr, and it should be noted that Jagr has been both an elite goal-scorer and playmaker (offensive balance), as well as incredible at driving puck possession (hence near the top of adjusted plus-minus). He's also been, despite what some try to portray, a clutch player (GWG, third period goals, playoff OT goals and other important playoff goals/assists).

You will NEVER read a negative word from me about Jagr's game. Strongest player on the puck - by far - that I've ever seen. An undeniable alltime great...and one saw it the first time he stepped on NHL ice at age 18. I remember it well, circa 1991....and the guy is still outperforming a majority of NHL forwards in 2014!

This is the downside of these types of threads...one's admiration for one player (in this case, Forsberg) can be misinterpreted as slighting another (Jagr). Not the case, at all, at least for me.

I don't see completeness as necessarily more effective and more valuable, simply because a player may be able to do more things well.

Which brings us full circle, no? Not speaking in absolutes here, but I tend to be bias toward those few players who can help beat you in multiple ways...even if they are not scoring. But again, I respect your opinion, fully.

Not to derail the thread OT further, but one of my beefs with proponents of Crosby, is that they portray him as an almost Forsberg or Trottier-like complete player....

Skills wise, what stands out for me about Crosby is his skating, which I consider as good as it gets, especially laterally. A few years ago, I saw Trottier being interviewed and was asked about the comparison to Crosby. He quickly shook his head and said: "I could never skate like him".

Other than that, I agree with your assessment.

 

[Czech Your Math]

If you are going to compare someone to Jagr, this isn't the best thing to bring up. I don't recall Crosby "dying alive" or pouting in Washington for a couple seasons or anything like that.

But I wasn't using leadership as an example of one of Jagr's strengths.

However, that is often cited in Crosby's case, simply because he wore a C on his chest (on the bench) while Talbot scored the SCF game 7 goals.

Besides, while Jagr may have said (and remember English isn't his first language) that he was "dying alive" off the ice, he also claims to be a big reason the franchise is still in Pittsburgh (you have take everything he says with a grain of salt, btw)... and based on recent playoffs, Crosby is "dying alive" on the ice.

 

[The Kingslayer]

Wait, who believes that Forsberg, even at his best, was better than Jagr?

I struggle to name any forward with a better peak than Jagr since the 80s outside of Mario and Gretzky.

Forsberg>Jagr. Prime, High school, infants, sperm etc. Forsberg

 

[Beau Knows]

Besides, while Jagr may have said (and remember English isn't his first language) that he was "dying alive" off the ice, he also claims to be a big reason the franchise is still in Pittsburgh (you have take everything he says with a grain of salt, btw)... and based on recent playoffs, Crosby is "dying alive" on the ice.

I don't really see how Jagr being on the team when it was having financial problems makes him a good leader. He didn't actively do anything to keep the team in Pittsburgh other than playing there and helping to sell some tickets. It's not like he bought the team. Crosby has probably also helped keep the team there by being drafted there, but that doesn't really say much about his leadership does it? It's pretty clear Jagr wasn't a great leader in his time in Pittsburgh and certainly not in Washington.

 

[Czech Your Math]

It's not just that. Jagr is always going to win the points-per-game argument - not only because he was the best offensive player, but because Pittsburgh gave him more ES/PP minutes than other superstars could get on teams with depth (which was covered extensively in the Fedorov/Jagr thread).

269 more ES/PP minutes than Forsberg in 1998.
407 more ES/PP minutes than Forsberg in 1999.

I'm not saying that anyone would necessarily steal some of Jagr's Art Ross Trophies (even though Jagr only led points-per-ES/PPTOI once in his Art Ross run), but if his TOI was shaved down to normal levels, those giant gaps disappear and then the two-way players and penalty-killers look comparable. If I recall, 19 of Jagr's points in 1999 were scored after the 55:00 minute mark of the game. Even those dead-tired minutes can add up to big points. So if Jagr wasn't getting them or if someone else was as well, it probably wouldn't look as silly to say that others at their very best were possibly just as good as him those 15 years ago.

I mean, look at their two best seasons:

1999 Jagr: 1.57 points-per-game
2000 Jagr: 1.52 points-per-game
2003 Forsberg: 1.41 points-per-game
2004 Forsberg: 1.41 points-per-game

1999 Jagr: 126 ES/PP points in 2023 ES/PP minutes (point every 16:04)
2000 Jagr: 96 ES/PP points in 1445 ES/PP minutes (point every 15:04)
2003 Forsberg: 106 ES/PP points in 1434 ES/PP minutes (point every 13:32)
2004 Forsberg: 54 ES/PP points in 714 ES/PP minutes (point every 13:14)

Points-per-game makes it look like it's not close, but the point-per-minute numbers are in the favor of the two-way Center.

First, there's a diminishing return aspect to playing more ice time.
Also, why should a player be penalized for playing through injuries? I guess no one told Jagr that his pay, legacy and the team's success were based on per-game and per-minute metrics, not on what he brought to table all season long and over the course of his career.

Second, shall we exchange linemates for the two during those seasons? Would like to see Forsberg win a Ross by 27 with Miller & Hrdina.

Third, Jagr tends to get a lot of third period goals/points. He gets relatively stronger as the game goes on, while his opponents tire from trying to follow, grab, slash, and hit him all game long. Why would one want to discount, nevermind eliminate, points in the late stages of a game?

Fourth, and perhaps most important, Forsberg reached that level for not even 1.5 seasons... and only did so after a full regular season off. Give Jagr or other superstars a full season off, and see how they do the following year. I don't think Jagr's played less than 70 pro hockey games in over 25 years.

The fans of Forsberg, Crosby, Lindros, etc., always resort to their silly "pace" arguments... PPG, Pts/Minute... oh look at what they did for a half season or even almost a whole season and half!... when even that was usually under special circumstances that afforded them more rest than usual... and somehow that translates into them being the better, more valuable player.

Let's face it, Jagr was better offensively than those players. You couldn't and basically still can't get the puck from him. The only difference is then he could blow by you or around you, and now he generally can't. So he played more than just about anyone due to his superior conditioning and also because he was so needed by his team, he kept the puck (and kept it away from the other team) more than just about anyone, and when he had the puck he effectively used it better than just about anyone. No, he wasn't a particularly awesome or committed defender on whole, although he played solid defense in the playoffs.

Forsberg, and those others were sprinters. Jagr is a marathon runner. And hockey is a long, grueling marathon. If it was a sprint, it would be different, and Jagr would probably adapt and prepare/train differently, but it isn't, so he didn't and doesn't.

All this talk about complete game misses the fact that it doesn't necessarily mean more overall effectiveness. If you look at the how Jagr's teams performed with and without him (both in terms of GF/GA and W/L), it's like night and day, as much or more than with/without Lemieux, and certainly more than Forsberg. The Pens didn't have Roy, Sakic, and Bourque and/or Blake. They had Jagr and mostly practically AHL-level castoffs and were just trying to figure out how to pay Jagr and Lemieux (who wasn't even playing most of the time) without going into bankruptcy. So, of course Jagr was playing tons of games and minutes, even through many injuries, because that's how you win Rosses, make the playoffs with weak teams, and keep franchises from moving to Kansas City or going bankrupt.

 

[Czech Your Math]

I don't really see how Jagr being on the team when it was having financial problems makes him a good leader. He didn't actively do anything to keep the team in Pittsburgh other than playing there and helping to sell some tickets. It's not like he bought the team. Crosby has probably also helped keep the team there by being drafted there, but that doesn't really say much about his leadership does it? It's pretty clear Jagr wasn't a great leader in his time in Pittsburgh and certainly not in Washington.

I think "leadership" is generally overrated in sports. The aspect that most matters is leading on the ice, and that's what great like Jagr do and did. Crosby was a good leader when he performed well in the playoffs, not because he had a "C" on his chest.

And yes, Jagr sold tickets. He also led weak teams to the playoffs, ensuring even more revenue, even getting some to the second round that barely belonged in the playoffs. For a team admittedly teetering on the verge of bankruptcy, I'd say that's rather important.

 

[Beau Knows]

I think "leadership" is generally overrated in sports. The aspect that most matters is leading on the ice, and that's what great like Jagr do and did. Crosby was a good leader when he performed well in the playoffs, not because he had a "C" on his chest.

And yes, Jagr sold tickets. He also led weak teams to the playoffs, ensuring even more revenue, even getting some to the second round that barely belonged in the playoffs. For a team admittedly teetering on the verge of bankruptcy, I'd say that's rather important.

You said Crosby's leadership "leaves a lot to be desired", so clearly you don't think leadership is completely overrated. And since Jagr has had issues with his own teams (not giving 100% in Washington or dying alive in Pittsburgh) I assume you would say the same about Jagr, correct?

 

[Czech Your Math]

You said Crosby's leadership "leaves a lot to be desired", so clearly you don't think leadership is completely overrated. And since Jagr has had issues with his own teams (not giving 100% in Washington or dying alive in Pittsburgh) I assume you would say the same about Jagr, correct?

I never felt like Jagr's on-ice performance or behavior in big games left much, if anything, to be desired... nevermind, a lot.

He didn't want to go the Caps, he had been felting them from the playoffs for years on end and knew they were not contenders... a case of meet the new boss, same as the old boss. So he was 5th in points, despite missing 13 games his first year... I think his second year there was when most of the problems were... then the team conducted a firesale in his third year and he went to the Rangers. I just don't see a season or so of conflict with the coach and his own personal problems as significantly tarnishing a 25+ year pro career of that magnitude.

I don't think he such a great leader in the "fiery speech in the locker room" way... but a great leader in that he played well and was such a fearsome offensive force to contend with. I could overlook Crosby's behavior to a large extent, if it didn't seem to trickle down into his own play and that of his team. Perhaps he and his team will get back to playing good hockey, but haven't seen much of that from them in long while.

 

[Beau Knows]

I never felt like Jagr's on-ice performance or behavior in big games left much, if anything, to be desired... nevermind, a lot.

He didn't want to go the Caps, he had been felting them from the playoffs for years on end and knew they were not contenders... a case of meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

I don't think he such a great leader in the "fiery speech in the locker room" way... but a great leader in that he played well and was such a fearsome offensive force to contend with. I could overlook Crosby's behavior to a large extent, if it didn't seem to trickle down into his own play and that of his team. Perhaps he and his team will get back to playing good hockey, but haven't seen much of that from them in long while.

Seems a little strange to just excuse away Jagrs years where he didn't give it all in Washington, it's not like they didn't pay him. Sure he didn't want to go there, but it's not like he didn't contribute to his own trade from Pittsburgh.

 

[Fred Taylor]

"Coming out during the 97-98 season" means "written in the 1997 offseason." Lemieux had just retired again, Lindros was already having trouble playing full seasons and had just been embarassed in the 1997 finals, Jagr had yet to win an Art Ross outright (winning the 1995 one on a tiebreak), and Kariya just wasn't as good as Forsberg. Sakic hadn't fully developed his two-way game yet and was actually in the midst of the injury-prone part of his career. The defending Hart winner was Hasek, but how often is a freaking goalie given credit as best player in the world?

So this all makes sense given the time it was written.

I agree, goalies get no love it seems. They have Hasek ranked 9th in this book, and Patrick Roy the #1 goalie at 6th. If you ask me Hasek should have been #1.

Really though at that time you wouldn't be wrong in saying either one of Hasek, Forsberg, Lindros or Jagr were the best player. Sakic seems underrated at 11th.

 

[Czech Your Math]

Listen, I'm a big fan of Forsberg. I take his side in a lot of borderline cases, because he was such a great player and deserves it.

Let me use analogous players in some ways, but in a different sport:

I was a huge fan of Fred Lynn, the center fielder for the Red Sox.

He could...

... hit for average, with a very good eye and as pure a swing as there was (won a batting title and second to Carew as a rookie)...

... hit for power (39 HRS one year, 20+ several years in a row and 300+ career when those meant something... and hit a ton of doubles)

... run (didn't steal many bases, but good, smart baserunner and very quick in the field... he had a football scholarship to USC as a WR/DB, practiced with Lynn Swann)

... throw (no Dave Parker, but very good arm, was drafted 3rd round out of HS by Yankees as pitcher, even though it was known he was going to college)

... play great defense, with uncanny defensive instincts, winning 4(?) Gold Gloves in CF, despite numerous injuries, and a seemingly weekly fixture on TWIB highlights due to his dazzling diving or over-the-fence catches

... he was clutch, with good numbers in playoffs and WS, including MVP of ALCS even though his team lost (because he hit over .600), and 4 AS game HRs

... and he was unique, with a pure swing, incredible array of catches, first ROY & MVP in same season, first AS game grand-slam

... but he was so often injured, due to his style of play (diving catches, slamming into fences so hard he bent the posts on multiple occasions, breaking up DPs, etc.) and he felt that if he wasn't near 100%, that he couldn't play his game, and so it was better that someone else play instead.

I remember Bill James' first Historical Abstract (the last book I have by him) had a list of the best players by position. Under the listing each player was some sort of info or anecdote. For Lynn, it said James was sitting at Fenway Park one day and struck up a conversation with an octogenarian (dude in his 80s) who had been watching the Sox since the time of Babe Ruth. He asked him who he thought was the best player he ever saw. He answered "Fred Lynn." Bill said "not Ruth, not Ted Williams, etc.??". The guy replied, "don't think much of him now, but for a few years there, he was the best."

And so, I have an affinity, an admiration, a respect for Forsberg, and other players like him, of which there have been very few. He did a lot of things very well, he played hard, he played with class and respect.

However, Forsberg was sort of the Fred Lynn of hockey. And saying Forsberg was better than Jagr is like saying Fred Lynn was better than Mike Schmidt. Sure, I could argue that at his best, when healthy, Fred Lynn was every bit the player Mike Schmidt was, perhaps even argue that he was better. About the only thing Schmidt had on Lynn was power and durability/longevity, although they both had a great eye and were great fielders. But could I really say that he was truly better... as in greater, more valuable over the course of his prime or career, than Mike Schmidt? No, I honestly couldn't, because Mike Schmidt did a few important things extremely well, and he did those things greatly, consistently, game after game, year after year for most of his career, which brought much more value to his team than the more varied and spectacular skills of Lynn, due to the latter's frequent and numerous injuries, which were a result of his slighter physique combined with his style of play. So while I empathize with those who elevate Forsberg to unrealistically lofty levels, I objectively have to evaluate him on the basis of multiple prime seasons and his career, which was still great in and of itself, but no match for a player of Jagr's stature IMO. He had a couple of great years, and was very good in the parts of the other seasons in which he did play, and was usually an outstanding playoff player, but that doesn't make him better than Jagr.