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

[quoipourquoi]

I'll be honest I don't get the criticism of Jagr playing more somehow being important in evaluating him in relation to Forsberg.

Because someone brought points-per-game into the conversation to show how Forsberg, even at his best, was far behind Jagr offensively in the Dead Puck Era. Which is not true in terms of per-minute scoring where Forsberg was ahead by quite a bit.

So if Jagr was placed in a situation where a coach/doormat would not give him a completely abnormal 23:00-25:00 of ES/PP time - during which the exertion of energy during backchecking was optional - he would score less than his raw numbers. Which happened in Washington.

So that's why it's relevant.

 

[Czech Your Math]

Because someone brought points-per-game into the conversation to show how Forsberg, even at his best, was far behind Jagr offensively in the Dead Puck Era. Which is not true in terms of per-minute scoring where Forsberg was ahead by quite a bit.

So if Jagr was placed in a situation where a coach/doormat would not give him a completely abnormal 23:00-25:00 of ES/PP time - during which the exertion of energy during backchecking was optional - he would score less than his raw numbers. Which happened in Washington.

So that's why it's relevant.

There was more to his unhappiness in DC, than just ice time.

Just out of curiosity, what was his ES ice time in '06 & '07, when he won the Pearson, then finished top 10 in scoring after major shoulder surgery in the offseason?

How about last year, when his total TOI/gm was 19 minutes, and he finished top 30 and led his team in scoring at age 42?

Yeah, he only won 5 Rosses, and was close to a couple others, because he had so much ice time.
And anyone else with that ice time, and all the abuse he took, would have succeeded just as well.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Because someone brought points-per-game into the conversation to show how Forsberg, even at his best, was far behind Jagr offensively in the Dead Puck Era.

Forsberg was a fair bit behind Jagr offensively.

Jagr is one of the top offensive forces the game has ever seen.

Which is not true in terms of per-minute scoring where Forsberg was ahead by quite a bit.

Not true in terms of per-minute scoring where Forsberg was ahead by quite a bit while playing those minutes on a much stronger team, you mean?

So if Jagr was placed in a situation where a coach/doormat would not give him a completely abnormal 23:00-25:00 of ES/PP time - during which the exertion of energy during backchecking was optional - he would score less than his raw numbers. Which happened in Washington.

I think his scoring drop off in Washington was a LOT more complicated than that.

I'm sure you do too.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Forsberg was a fair bit behind Jagr offensively.

Jagr is one of the top offensive forces the game has ever seen.

The second part is true. I never said he wasn't.

As for the first part, that's why I actually used math to show that it was closer than points-per-game indicates, instead of just saying that Forsberg is one of the top offensive forces the game has ever seen.

Because that wouldn't be constructive.

Not true in terms of per-minute scoring where Forsberg was ahead by quite a bit while playing those minutes on a much stronger team, you mean?

Jagr produced more with Kip Miller in 1999 than he did with Ron Francis in 1998. Somehow I don't think you'll convince me that Alex Tanguay was the difference between Forsberg scoring every 13 minutes and Jagr scoring every 15-16 minutes.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Just out of curiosity, what was his ES ice time in '06 & '07, when he won the Pearson, then finished top 10 in scoring after major shoulder surgery in the offseason?

He received over six minutes worth of PP time per game in 2006 (a career high), where he scored over 44% of his points. I guess that's why you asked for his ES time, right?

 

[BraveCanadian]

As for the first part, that's why I actually used math to show that it was closer than points-per-game indicates, instead of just saying that Forsberg is one of the top offensive forces the game has ever seen.

It is the same thing you did with Jagr / Fedorov.

The problem with simply dividing points by minutes of course is that the environment those minutes came in for Jagr is drastically different than the environment they came in for Fedorov / Forsberg.

Jagr produced more with Kip Miller in 1999 than he did with Ron Francis in 1998. Somehow I don't think you'll convince me that Alex Tanguay was the difference between Forsberg scoring every 13 minutes and Jagr scoring every 15-16 minutes.

Just like you won't convince me that if Forsberg was playing a few extra minutes than he did, but in Jagr's place, he'd score more.

 

[Czech Your Math]

He received over six minutes worth of PP time per game in 2006 (a career high), where he scored over 44% of his points. I guess that's why you asked for his ES time, right?

You were the one touting ES minutes as important.

Yes, Jagr scored more on the PP that year. He was a close second in ES points. So a 34 y/o Jagr must have relied on excessive ES minutes, along with his castoff linemates of similar age, to finish 2nd in ES points that year, is that right?

Do you think Jagr had the same PP minutes and opportunities as Lemieux in '96? I mean Lemieux directed a brilliant cast on the PP and stayed out there as long as he felt like it, so he was just fortunate and not really the best, right?

 

[quoipourquoi]

You were the one touting ES minutes as important.

I've been using ES/PP minutes. That's both. The purpose is to remove SH time.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I've been using ES/PP minutes. That's both. The purpose is to remove SH time.

How much of Jagr's extra ice time is explained by Forsberg killing penalties though? He stopped regularly doing it in the second half of his career, right?

 

[quoipourquoi]

How much of Jagr's extra ice time is explained by Forsberg killing penalties though? He stopped regularly doing it in the second half of his career, right?

I didn't run the numbers last year with mid-2000s Forsberg in mind; I removed SH time because it effects a lot of players who can't be expected to score shorthanded. Jagr's extra ice-time (and we're talking about a difference of 589 minutes from 1999 Jagr to 2003 Forsberg) is explained by teams without depth relying on individual players more than teams with depth do. And no team kowtowed to its star player more than Pittsburgh did.

Unless we're of the mindset that so much has changed since the 1980s when top-line players got more minutes than they have in the last 15 years that Jagr and Bure are uniquely special for their endurance, I don't think it's unfair to question the effect that Pittsburgh playing their star for 2023 minutes (Jagr, 1999; 352 more than the #2 scorer) and Colorado playing one of their stars for 1434 minutes (Forsberg, 2003; 186 less than the #2 scorer) can have on their respective scoring races.

The whole point of a points-per-game analysis is to evaluate players for the time they actually spend on the ice. A per-minute analysis is just another extension of that. If you tack on 589 minutes to the end of Forsberg's games in 2003 or more realistically strip 589 minutes from the end of Jagr's games in 1999 because 2023 minutes is ridiculous in this era, their offenses aren't going to look all that different. And that's before we consider which one was a two-way player while doing it.

That's my pitch: I don't think Jagr was any better than Forsberg at their bests. He was better longer, so he's a better player overall, but at their very bests, Forsberg is a defensible answer both in theory and mathematically.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

That's my pitch: I don't think Jagr was any better than Forsberg at their bests. He was better longer, so he's a better player overall, but at their very bests, Forsberg is a defensible answer both in theory and mathematically.

Please. A back-to-back Pearson winner who was top 3 in 4 consecutive Hart votes versus a 0 time Pearson winner who won the Hart the lone time he ended up top 3... contemporaries, no less...

As interesting as the theory and mathematics might be, they're obviously lacking what's necessary to make the distinction between the calibre of player we're talking about here at their respective "very bests" if that's their conclusion. Granted, the "answer" isn't quite as obvious as the lop-sided nature of those "most outstanding/valuable player" award results, either.

 

[Hobnobs]

You were the one touting ES minutes as important.

Yes, Jagr scored more on the PP that year. He was a close second in ES points. So a 34 y/o Jagr must have relied on excessive ES minutes, along with his castoff linemates of similar age, to finish 2nd in ES points that year, is that right?

Do you think Jagr had the same PP minutes and opportunities as Lemieux in '96? I mean Lemieux directed a brilliant cast on the PP and stayed out there as long as he felt like it, so he was just fortunate and not really the best, right?

Jagrs linemates were Nylander, Straka and Shanahan, hardly castoffs by any means.

 

[Czech Your Math]

I don't really see the ice time issue as being very relevant, but just to show that Jagr wasn't the only star playing a lot of minutes (and we know Gretzky and Lemieux played tons of minutes in their heydays):

Year ATOI
1999 Jagr 25:51, Sakic 25:35, Kariya 25:32
2000 Jagr 23:12, Sakic 23:16, Selanne 22:44, Kariya 24:22, Bure 24:23
2001 Jagr 23:19, Sakic 23:01, Lemieux 24:20, Kariya 23:02, Bure 26:52

I just don't see it as being that unusual for stars to play big minutes.

 

[LarsVonTrier*]

Forsberg really made everyone better around him. He made Hejduk score 50 (he never came close again)

He made Gagne score 47(and if forsberg didnt miss 22 games that season, gagne scores 60)

 

[Czech Your Math]

Jagrs linemates were Nylander, Straka and Shanahan, hardly castoffs by any means.

I was talking about '05-06 as the year a 34 y/o Jagr finished 2nd in ES points. Shanahan was not yet a Ranger that season and didn't really play with Jagr, at least at ES, when he did join the Rangers.

I used the term castoff purposefully, not to demean Straka and Nylander, who were talented players, but at that stage of their careers, these players were not exactly in demand.

Straka was traded from the Pens to the Kings during '04 season and became a free agent. He was 33 y/o starting the '06 season.

Nylander was traded during the '03 season and again during the '04 season, then also became a free agent. He also was 33 y/o starting the '06 season.

So you had a pair of talented, but rapidly aging forwards, who had been getting injured and bouncing around from team to team, before becoming free agents and signing with the team considered by many to be the worst in the league. I don't think my castoff label is highly inappropriate.

It's interesting that Nylander joined the Rangers, given that he was a teammate of Jagr's for most of the '03 season in DC. If Jagr was such a supposedly bad locker room presence while with the Caps, you wouldn't expect that. He tried out with the Flyers before the '12 season, when Jagr had joined them after leaving the KHL. In between, the always visionary Caps gave Nylander a long, lucrative contract, based on his success with the Rangers... then tried to shuffle him out ASAP, when they realized that without Jagr he was rather ordinary at that stage. But then, who could criticize the Caps, given the coaching stability and team success they've enjoyed since gaining their newest superstar forward in Ovechkin.

Straka, of course, is a good friend of Jagr's, and may have not returned to the NHL if not for the chance to play with Jagr again. When Jagr left for the KHL after the '08 season, Straka immediately returned to Czech league.

 

[quoipourquoi]

I don't really see the ice time issue as being very relevant, but just to show that Jagr wasn't the only star playing a lot of minutes (and we know Gretzky and Lemieux played tons of minutes in their heydays):

Year ATOI
1999 Jagr 25:51, Sakic 25:35, Kariya 25:32
2000 Jagr 23:12, Sakic 23:16, Selanne 22:44, Kariya 24:22, Bure 24:23
2001 Jagr 23:19, Sakic 23:01, Lemieux 24:20, Kariya 23:02, Bure 26:52

I just don't see it as being that unusual for stars to play big minutes.

With the exception of Selanne in 2000, you've compared him to people who killed penalties. Jagr played 415 more ES/PP minutes than Sakic in 1999, and you're acting like they're 16 seconds apart.

 

[Czech Your Math]

With the exception of Selanne in 2000, you've compared him to people who killed penalties. Jagr played 415 more ES/PP minutes than Sakic in 1999, and you're acting like they're 16 seconds apart.

Not that it's really relevant in the first place... but I have a hunch that Jagr playing 8 more games than Sakic that season was also a factor in him having more total ES/PP ice time.

What's often overlooked, although less so more recently, is Jagr's tremendous puck possession. Yes, he played a lot of minutes and took long shifts. During those shifts, his line was usually in control of the puck for long periods, working for the best scoring chance possible. This served not only an offensive purpose, but (whether intentional or not) a defensive purpose... of keeping the puck in the opponent's end, rather than his team's end... which usually featured an AHL defense and the winner of the "be a Pens goalie for a month" contest. If one told Jagr he would be later judged by his "points per ES/PP minute", then he may have gone about things differently.

Either way, this still avoids the fact that he often had weak linemates in '99, '00 and the first half of '01, and that there is a diminishing returns aspect to more playing time.

Again, for all the talk of "complete game" and "per-minute metrics" and all this distracting magic, what's interesting is that when Forsberg was out of the lineup, the Avs were a worse team, no surprise. When Jagr was out of the lineup, it was like night and day, the team completely collapsed without him. And it did so again as soon as he was traded. They went from ECF to doormats of the league overnight. So whether Jagr's game was as "complete" as some prefer or not, the tremendous value he brought to his team during his prime was evident: not just his scoring, but his adjusted plus-minus & ES GF/GA ratios... and the GF/GA and W/L of his team when he was playing or not playing. I think that's due in large part, not just to his offensive skills, but his unparallelled possession game that served both an offensive and defensive purpose.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Not that it's really relevant in the first place... but I have a hunch that Jagr playing 8 more games than Sakic that season was also a factor in him having more total ES/PP ice time.

What's often overlooked, although less so more recently, is Jagr's tremendous puck possession. Yes, he played a lot of minutes and took long shifts. During those shifts, his line was usually in control of the puck for long periods, working for the best scoring chance possible. This served not only an offensive purpose, but (whether intentional or not) a defensive purpose... of keeping the puck in the opponent's end, rather than his team's end... which usually featured an AHL defense and the winner of the "be a Pens goalie for a month" contest. If one told Jagr he would be later judged by his "points per ES/PP minute", then he may have gone about things differently.

Either way, this still avoids the fact that he often had weak linemates in '99, '00 and the first half of '01, and that there is a diminishing returns aspect to more playing time.

Again, for all the talk of "complete game" and "per-minute metrics" and all this distracting magic, what's interesting is that when Forsberg was out of the lineup, the Avs were a worse team, no surprise. When Jagr was out of the lineup, it was like night and day, the team completely collapsed without him. And it did so again as soon as he was traded. They went from ECF to doormats of the league overnight. So whether Jagr's game was as "complete" as some prefer or not, the tremendous value he brought to his team during his prime was evident: not just his scoring, but his adjusted plus-minus & ES GF/GA ratios... and the GF/GA and W/L of his team when he was playing or not playing. I think that's due in large part, not just to his offensive skills, but his unparallelled possession game that served both an offensive and defensive purpose.

I had always appreciated Jagr's great talent but it really went up a notch when I drafted him in the ATD and spent a bunch of time researching him because there wasn't a thorough ATD bio of him.

Although I had seen his whole career, the research erased the doubts hfboards had been seeding for me about Jagr being a sulk and not getting it done in the playoffs. After going over the details it was obvious that he was an strong positive force on some very poor teams in the late 90s. Things like the adjusted plus minus that overpass did as well as breaking down Jagr's playoffs in detail really impressed me. He practically was his team during that time, and was often playing hurt and still making a strong and consistent impact in the playoffs too.

Forsberg was a dynamite hockey player. I really tend to like the Trottier's, Gilmour's, Francis and Forsberg types that are helping out at both ends of the ice. Forsberg is definitely one of the greatest playoff performers of all time and just an outstanding hockey player all around.

I still don't have any doubt Jagr was clearly better offensively even at their bests. Based on their team situations I also have a hard time giving Forsberg the nod for making more of an impact for Colorado than Jagr was doing for the Pens.

Washington on the other hand started out all smiles and went downhill from there..

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I was talking about '05-06 as the year a 34 y/o Jagr finished 2nd in ES points. Shanahan was not yet a Ranger that season and didn't really play with Jagr, at least at ES, when he did join the Rangers.

I used the term castoff purposefully, not to demean Straka and Nylander, who were talented players, but at that stage of their careers, these players were not exactly in demand.

Straka was traded from the Pens to the Kings during '04 season and became a free agent. He was 33 y/o starting the '06 season.

Nylander was traded during the '03 season and again during the '04 season, then also became a free agent. He also was 33 y/o starting the '06 season.

So you had a pair of talented, but rapidly aging forwards, who had been getting injured and bouncing around from team to team, before becoming free agents and signing with the team considered by many to be the worst in the league. I don't think my castoff label is highly inappropriate.

It's interesting that Nylander joined the Rangers, given that he was a teammate of Jagr's for most of the '03 season in DC. If Jagr was such a supposedly bad locker room presence while with the Caps, you wouldn't expect that. He tried out with the Flyers before the '12 season, when Jagr had joined them after leaving the KHL. In between, the always visionary Caps gave Nylander a long, lucrative contract, based on his success with the Rangers... then tried to shuffle him out ASAP, when they realized that without Jagr he was rather ordinary at that stage. But then, who could criticize the Caps, given the coaching stability and team success they've enjoyed since gaining their newest superstar forward in Ovechkin.

Straka, of course, is a good friend of Jagr's, and may have not returned to the NHL if not for the chance to play with Jagr again. When Jagr left for the KHL after the '08 season, Straka immediately returned to Czech league.

I really don't think you can criticize Jagr's linemates in NY in 2005-06, considering the Rangers decided to learn from Washington's mistake and 100% cater to Jagr's desires including bringing in linemates he specifically requested

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Anyway, the ES/PP ice time thing has some merit, though I don't think it's anything close to a 1:1 ratio in terms of points per minute like some of QPQ's posts make it seem. There's no doubt in mind mind that Jagr was the better offensive player because he was a better goal scorer. But I do think QPQ has a point that it's a lot closer than the raw point totals would make it seem.

It is also relevant that Jagr played on one of the few teams of the era that still played offense-first hockey, so he never had to sacrifice some offense for defense like most of the stars of the era had to. (Bure, Selanne, and Kariya were in a similar boat).

 

[quoipourquoi]

Anyway, the ES/PP ice time thing has some merit, though I don't think it's anything close to a 1:1 ratio in terms of points per minute like some of QPQ's posts make it seem. There's no doubt in mind mind that Jagr was the better offensive player because he was a better goal scorer. But I do think QPQ has a point that it's a lot closer than the raw point totals would make it seem.

It is also relevant that Jagr played on one of the few teams of the era that still played offense-first hockey, so he never had to sacrifice some offense for defense like most of the stars of the era had to. (Bure, Selanne, and Kariya were in a similar boat).

Even I have said 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

I just think that Forsberg was comparable offensively in 2003 and 2004, and arguably had a better peak player because he was more responsible defensively - even though he had the talent to be one of those free-wheeling wingers who take more risks.

So when people start bragging about Jagr's 20-point Art Ross win in 1999 (2023 minutes; #2 scorer had 1671 minutes) because it dwarfs Forsberg's 2-point Art Ross win in 2003 (1434 minutes; #2 scorer had 1620 minutes), maybe it's time to start looking at how the sausage was made, you know?

It's no different than using points-per-game to explain the size of raw leads; it's just more detailed.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Even I have said that!



I just think that Forsberg was comparable offensively in 2003 and 2004, and arguably had a better peak player because he was more responsible defensively - even though he had the talent to be one of those free-wheeling wingers who take more risks.

So when people start bragging about Jagr's 20-point Art Ross win in 1999 (2023 minutes; #2 scorer had 1671 minutes) because it dwarfs Forsberg's 2-point Art Ross win in 2003 (1434 minutes; #2 scorer had 1620 minutes), maybe it's time to start looking at how the sausage was made, you know?

It's no different than using points-per-game to explain the size of raw leads; it's just more detailed.

What's Forsberg's ES/PP breakdown for 2003 and 2004 - or perhaps a better question, how many points did he combine with Sakic on?

 

[quoipourquoi]

What's Forsberg's ES/PP breakdown for 2003 and 2004 - or perhaps a better question, how many points did he combine with Sakic on?

I'm on my phone right now, but 2003 was the year where people have cited his numbers during Sakic's injury, and they were really good. I'll try to dig up the splits.

 

[quoipourquoi]

TDMM:

73 ESP, 33 PPP in 2003 (75 GP)
30 ESP, 24 PPP in 2004 (39 GP)

When Sakic was injured (2003): 24 GP, 10 G, 28 A, 38 PTS, +25

Combined on 12 ESP with Sakic in 2003
Combined on 3 ESP with Sakic in 2004


So it looks like he and Sakic collaborated on 12/73 even-strength points, but judging by the 38 points in 24 games with Sakic injured, I don't know that Sakic was a factor in his production that year.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

TDMM:

73 ESP, 33 PPP in 2003 (75 GP)
30 ESP, 24 PPP in 2004 (39 GP)

When Sakic was injured (2003): 24 GP, 10 G, 28 A, 38 PTS, +25

Combined on 12 ESP with Sakic in 2003
Combined on 3 ESP with Sakic in 2004


So it looks like he and Sakic collaborated on 12/73 even-strength points, but judging by the 38 points in 24 games with Sakic injured, I don't know that Sakic was a factor in his production that year.

Thanks. Seems like Sakic was barely a factor (with regards to Forsberg's production) in 2003. But in 2004, that's an awfully high % of his points on the PP, though 39 games is a small sample.