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

[quoipourquoi]

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.

Definitely not in the class of the ES ratios Selanne (79.8%), Jagr (69.8%), Bure (76.6%) and Forsberg (68.9%) had in other years, but 30 ESP in 39 GP isn't a bad start. Like you said, probably just a small sample anomaly. What really amazes me of those ES/PP splits in 2004 is that he was 14-16-30 at even-strength and 3-21-24 on the powerplay. He was shooting like crazy at even-strength and setting up as usual on the powerplay.

 

[Tam O Shanter]

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.

From 96-97 to 04-04 (the DPE entirely), Jagr had .05 more points per game, just going on raw numbers. Forsberg was the #2 points/game player in the DPE, unless Lemieux and his limited games is included (which I actually would include, he still proved to be more productive than anyone at the time when he was there, although he was the ultimate PP guy and cherrypicker by that time)

Jagr - 1.32
Forsberg - 1.27
Sakic - 1.16
The Oft-Forgotten Ziggy Palffy - 1.08
Kariya/Lindros/Bure - 1.06

No one else at over a point/game throughout the DPE (except Lemieux)

I don't even need points/minute to look at that and see a case for Forsberg as the best skater of the DPE. I see a case for Jagr as well. Its all down to preference of playing style. This is like Trottier/Gretzky was at one time, or Datsyuk/Crosby/Ovechkin was for 5 years, except the well-rounded player is also nearly as productive, so its a real argument. Jagr's goals, or Forsberg's defensive play?

Reading all these Forsberg vs. Lindros/Crosby/Jagr threads, or hijacked threads, this last month - it occurs to me that many people might not actually realize the kind of points that Forsberg actually produced. This particular list is thankfully raw numbers, rather than adjusted for era like Forsberg v Crosby (which turns out to be pretty similar to Jagr v Forsberg raw during the DPE)

I also think there is a tendency to discredit Forsberg's offense on the basis that it only came when he stopped having to kill as many penalties - but then pooh pooh his big season and a half because he didn't maintain that for a long time (he was killing penalties when his points/game was lower in previous years!). We should do the same for Sakic, in that case. Though, he had the PP/go to center role for the more years, and the defensive 1b role for only a couple. However he seems to get credit for his pints and his defense. To me, they just had their roles reversed, and the fact that Forsberg shakes out as the higher points/game player with the most times significantly noticed in Selke voting and the higher plus/minus while on the same team says much to me.

Anyways, I'm going to ramble incessantly here if I don't stop. I mostly wanted to show the raw numbers during that period, and anyone can go from there. There are many arguments to be made for Sakic, Forsberg, Jagr, Lindros, and Lemieux for who was the best then, I just don't think anyone should have a thread titled -

"the IMAGINED, romanticized....."

The 'imagined' part gets to me every time I open HF up.

Rate him behind Jagr all you want, and I really do see the case (the goals, the better health, the higher-scoring seasons),

but Peter Forsberg WAS one of the BEST producers of his era, whilst taking the most defensive responsibilty amongst his contemporaries, and was the next most physical of them after Lindros - who spent even more time hurt than Forsberg (as did Lemieux and Bure)...

None of that is IMAGINED.

 

[Tam O Shanter]

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.

I've seen this laid out before, probably by you. I remember thinking then (a couple years ago) that it reminded me of Malkin when Crosby was hurt. It seems to me that these great 1b's on these great teams actually produce better when they become the go-to options that the offense is planned around. There's a school of thought that discredits these guys due to attention being taken off of them when the other number 1 is healthy. I don't think it comes out in the wash, though. No matter who's checking you, its better for production to be the guy getting touches on the puck all the time. Everyone said Rick Nash would explode if he played on a real team. Tough not being the only option for teammates to pass to, however. But, I betcha none of these guys mind not being the only option because the teams do a hell of a lot better when there is more depth.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Definitely not in the class of the ES ratios Selanne (79.8%), Jagr (69.8%), Bure (76.6%) and Forsberg (68.9%) had in other years, but 30 ESP in 39 GP isn't a bad start. Like you said, probably just a small sample anomaly. What really amazes me of those ES/PP splits in 2004 is that he was 14-16-30 at even-strength and 3-21-24 on the powerplay. He was shooting like crazy at even-strength and setting up as usual on the powerplay.

As "shooting like crazy" as you can be while amassing "just" 85 shots in 39 games. For anyone wondering, that's roughly half as "crazy" as the leader in the league that year (Kovalchuk, ~4.5 shots/game for 341 total), and 2/3rds the "craziness" of the 12th craziest shooter (Jagr, ~3.3 shots/game for 257 total).

That was the highest percentage shooting Forsberg was able to display over his career, but to his credit, it's even slightly higher than Jagr's best over any length of season (21.2% vs 20.1%). I still never considered him a more "dangerous" shooter than Jagr though, personally - not even during the Washington years.

 

[livewell68]

From 96-97 to 04-04 (the DPE entirely), Jagr had .05 more points per game, just going on raw numbers. Forsberg was the #2 points/game player in the DPE, unless Lemieux and his limited games is included (which I actually would include, he still proved to be more productive than anyone at the time when he was there, although he was the ultimate PP guy and cherrypicker by that time)

Jagr - 1.32
Forsberg - 1.27
Sakic - 1.16
The Oft-Forgotten Ziggy Palffy - 1.08
Kariya/Lindros/Bure - 1.06

No one else at over a point/game throughout the DPE (except Lemieux)

I don't even need points/minute to look at that and see a case for Forsberg as the best skater of the DPE. I see a case for Jagr as well. Its all down to preference of playing style. This is like Trottier/Gretzky was at one time, or Datsyuk/Crosby/Ovechkin was for 5 years, except the well-rounded player is also nearly as productive, so its a real argument. Jagr's goals, or Forsberg's defensive play?

Reading all these Forsberg vs. Lindros/Crosby/Jagr threads, or hijacked threads, this last month - it occurs to me that many people might not actually realize the kind of points that Forsberg actually produced. This particular list is thankfully raw numbers, rather than adjusted for era like Forsberg v Crosby (which turns out to be pretty similar to Jagr v Forsberg raw during the DPE)

I also think there is a tendency to discredit Forsberg's offense on the basis that it only came when he stopped having to kill as many penalties - but then pooh pooh his big season and a half because he didn't maintain that for a long time (he was killing penalties when his points/game was lower in previous years!). We should do the same for Sakic, in that case. Though, he had the PP/go to center role for the more years, and the defensive 1b role for only a couple. However he seems to get credit for his pints and his defense. To me, they just had their roles reversed, and the fact that Forsberg shakes out as the higher points/game player with the most times significantly noticed in Selke voting and the higher plus/minus while on the same team says much to me.

Anyways, I'm going to ramble incessantly here if I don't stop. I mostly wanted to show the raw numbers during that period, and anyone can go from there. There are many arguments to be made for Sakic, Forsberg, Jagr, Lindros, and Lemieux for who was the best then, I just don't think anyone should have a thread titled -

"the IMAGINED, romanticized....."

The 'imagined' part gets to me every time I open HF up.

Rate him behind Jagr all you want, and I really do see the case (the goals, the better health, the higher-scoring seasons),

but Peter Forsberg WAS one of the BEST producers of his era, whilst taking the most defensive responsibilty amongst his contemporaries, and was the next most physical of them after Lindros - who spent even more time hurt than Forsberg (as did Lemieux and Bure)...

None of that is IMAGINED.

This is why we have the title "romanticized". Forsberg as has been discussed before, was no longer taking the most important defensive assignments after 1997, that responsibility fell on Sakic's shoulders for the Avalanche.

"Overall" Forsberg's PPG is not that far behind Jagr's but that is mostly due to the fact that Jagr had his down years in Washington. While both at their best, Jagr was far and away the better player and it's not just the 1998-99 season, it's 1999-00, 2000-01, 1995-96, 1996-97.

When one player at his best has a 1.41 PPG while the other player has 7 seasons in which his PPG is 1.46 or better, that tells me the second player is far and away the better offensive player.

Also by the 2000's, Forsberg was starting to benefit from what I like to call the "Crosby syndrome" which is basically maintaining a high PPG due to how many games one misses. It's easier to have a 1.41 PPG in just 39 games than it is to have a 1.25 PPG in 82 games for instance.

Between 1994-95 and 2000-01 (the period in which Forsberg played), Jagr had 760 Pts (314 goals, 446 assists) in just 495 games which translates to 0.63 GPG (goals per game), 0.90 APG (assists per game) and 1.54 PPG (points per game) and over 82 games that's a projection of 52 goals, 74 assists and 126 Pts. Since this timeframe includes the 48 game lockout shortened season of 1994-95 and Jagr played all 48 games, for per season basis, it equals 82 games. Jagr's games played then are 82, 82, 63, 77, 81, 63 and 81 for a total of 529 games of a possible 574 games. Jagr averaged in that timeframe 76 games a season. Of course if you substract 82 games from the equation and add 48, the amount of games played is 495 games or an average of 71 games a season. Jagr had his own injury problems.

Now we go to Forsberg (1994-95 to 2000-01 being significant because this was befre Forsberg really started to have those serious injury issues which would make him miss large chunks of seasons. In that timeframe Forsberg amassed 580 Pts (169 goals, 411 assists) in 466 games. This translates to 0.36 GPG, 0.88 APG and 1.24 PPG. Projected over 82 games that's 30 goals (yes he averaged 30 goals a season over 82 games so his goals scoring is not as bad as some believe), 72 assists and 102 Pts. His 466 games spread over 7 seasons means he averaged 66 games a season.

So the stats show Jagr averaging just 5 more games a season (crushing the notion that only Forsberg was injury prone) while averaging 22 more goals and 2 more assists for a total of 24 more points a season. That is a massive edge for Jagr offensively no matter how you slice it. Forsberg was not going to make up the 24 points deficit a season just by simply playing 5 more games. Forsberg's better all-around game and defense was not going to make up for this offensive edge. Their playmaking "when at their best" is pretty even I'd say (this also plays in Jagr's favor since he is a winger while Forsberg is a centerman) while Jagr had the "massive", and massive being an understatement, edge in goalscoring. Jagr during the DPE was Stamkos or Ovechkin goal scoring wise while he was Crosby, Thornton and Sedin in terms of playmaking.

It's like Toews vs Crosby now pretty much.

Of course then Forsberg has one his best seasons in 2002-03 but he was still very near his career average of PPG that season while Jagr went from being a 126 Pts player to a 70-80 Pts player in Washington so clearly Jagr was not playing up to his standards which is the reason why their PPG are even close during the DPE to begin with.

Then again in 2005-06, Jagr went back to being a 120 Pts player and Forsberg to a 100 Pts player. The offensive gap is quite significant in Jagr's favor.

 

[livewell68]

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)

Funny how just 2 seasons prior, Hejduk scored 41 goals (just 9 less) playing on Sakic's line so clearly he had the talent to score in bunches if placed with an elite centerman as for the (he never came close again) argument, he clearly did. He never had any problems scoring 35 + goals consistently flanking Sakic's wing now did he?

Forsberg did make Hejduk a bit better but Hejduk was an excellent player in his own right and this wasn't some sort of "Thornton gifting Cheechoo the Rocket Richard trophy" either.

As for Forsberg helping Gagne score 47 goals, Jagr turning a rookie Prucha into a 30 goals scorer is a harder task to accomplish. Gagne BTW scored 41 goals the following season (with far less help from Forsberg since he only played 40 games) and had 33 goals in 2001-02 in what was a much lower scoring season overall. The effect that Forsberg had on Gagne is not nearly as significant as you suggest to the point where it becomes and overrated and over-exaggerated effect to be honest.
The Flyers were 8th in goals for (263 goals) in 2005-06 while the Rangers were 14th with 250 goals. I can tell you that Forsberg missing 22 games means the Flyers still scored enough without him while Jagr had 123 Pts of his team's 250 goals which is just shy of 50% of his team's goals (49.2 % to be exact).

They weren't even in the same atmosphere offensively at their peaks, it was Jagr by a fair and decisive margin. All this talk of ES scoring, scoring per minutes played is just fluff in order to hide what is reality and that reality being that Jagr was a better player than Forsberg was and the offensive margins are enough to suggest that even with Forsberg's added defensive and physical edge (both vastly overrated) that Jagr was still the better player, a sentiment echoed by the vast majority of the NHL world and it took a disinterested Jagr to make a stop in Washington for that sentiment to even change a bit.

Here is another way to look at their careers side by side.

Best players by decade: 1990-00 (Which is a very good indication of who had the better peak since Jagr and Forsberg peaked around the same time and had their primes coincide with one another)

Player
POS
"HHOF Monitor" PTS
Jaromir "Jags" Jagr RW 2642,00
Dominik "The Dominator" Hasek G 2151,00
Mario "Super Mario" Lemieux C 2139,50
Wayne "The Great One" Gretzky C 1637,70
Ray "Bubba" Bourque D 1633,20
Brett "The Golden Brett" Hull RW 1408,45
Teemu "The Finnish Flash" Selanne RW 1365,50
Ed "The Eagle" Belfour G 1243,00
Patrick "St Patrick" Roy G 1214,50
Steve "Stevie Wonder" Yzerman C 1213,00

s for spilts:

1990-95 Lemieux Mario C 1214.00
1990-95 Gretzky Wayne C 1184.00
1990-95 Bourque Ray D 1147.85
1990-95 Hull Brett RW 1044.00
1990-95 Belfour Ed G 899.00
1990-95 Roy Patrick G 867.00
1990-95 Jagr Jaromir RW 780.00
1990-95 Stevens Kevin LW 755.50
1990-95 Fedorov Sergei C 716.00
1990-95 Chelios Chris D 663.90

1995-00 Jagr Jaromir RW 1862.00
1995-00 Hasek Dominik G 1538.50
1995-00 Selanne Teemu RW 994.00
1995-00 Kariya Paul LW 927.00
1995-00 Lemieux Mario C 925.50
1995-00 Lidstrom Nicklas D 890.60
1995-00 Yzerman Steve C 720.00
1995-00 Forsberg Peter C 670.50
1995-00 Leclair John LW 653.50
1995-00 Brodeur Martin G 627.00

2000-04 Sakic Joe C 1135.50
2000-04 Lidstrom Nicklas D 968.00
2000-04 Naslund Markus LW 947.50
2000-04 Iginla Jarome RW 932.50
2000-04 Brodeur Martin G 755.50
2000-04 Forsberg Peter C 655.50
2000-04 St. Louis Martin RW 625.50
2000-04 Roy Patrick G 538.50
2000-04 Jagr Jaromir RW 497.00
2000-04 Sundin Mats C 476.00

Funny how these charts show clearly Forsberg wasn't even the best Avs players, Roy and Sakic were with Forsberg at best being the second best Avs forward. For all of Jagr's bad Washington years, his 2000-2004 timeframe sees him not being that far behind Forsberg.

As some have mentioned before, Forsberg at best enjoyed being the "best player in the world" for about 1.5 seasons, heck even Sakic held that title for as long. Jagr was the best player in the world for about 7-8 years, this isn't even close again.
.

 

[quoipourquoi]

As "shooting like crazy" as you can be while amassing "just" 85 shots in 39 games. For anyone wondering, that's roughly half as "crazy" as the leader in the league that year (Kovalchuk, ~4.5 shots/game for 341 total), and 2/3rds the "craziness" of the 12th craziest shooter (Jagr, ~3.3 shots/game for 257 total).

That was the highest percentage shooting Forsberg was able to display over his career, but to his credit, it's even slightly higher than Jagr's best over any length of season (21.2% vs 20.1%). I still never considered him a more "dangerous" shooter than Jagr though, personally - not even during the Washington years.

OMG, like, we should totally have a semantics debate about the meaning of the word crazy! That would be hella-fun!

The league leader had 30 ES goals. Forsberg, often criticized for his goal-scoring, had 14 ES goals in 39 games with an unusually small ratio of goals:assists on the PP. Seems crazy that it's not the other way around since he'd have more space to shoot on the PP. So I said it was crazy.

Also, I never said he was a more "dangerous" shooter than Jagr, so I'm not sure what compelled you to put that in quotes - or even argue the point at all.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

OMG, like, we should totally have a semantics debate about the meaning of the word crazy! That would be hella-fun!

Naw, being clear about the difference between scoring (which he did at a relatively high clip) and shooting (which he didn't) is sufficient enough.

 

[Killion]

Forsberg "Game On" Commercial

 

[Pominville Knows]

Funny how these charts show clearly Forsberg wasn't even the best Avs players, Roy and Sakic were with Forsberg at best being the second best Avs forward. For all of Jagr's bad Washington years, his 2000-2004 timeframe sees him not being that far behind Forsberg.

As some have mentioned before, Forsberg at best enjoyed being the "best player in the world" for about 1.5 seasons, heck even Sakic held that title for as long. Jagr was the best player in the world for about 7-8 years, this isn't even close again.
.

I'm not claiming Forsberg was as good as Jagr, but why dont you just find peace with presenting the two players accolades since the HHoF Monitor Points is very top heavy regarding that? Forsberg's tendency to most often miss 10 games really sinks his boat here, both with Hart and Art Ross consideration. Most probably being a center as well regarding All-Star Teams.

 

[daver]

Also by the 2000's, Forsberg was starting to benefit from what I like to call the "Crosby syndrome" which is basically maintaining a high PPG due to how many games one misses. It's easier to have a 1.41 PPG in just 39 games than it is to have a 1.25 PPG in 82 games for instance.

Jagr during the DPE was Stamkos or Ovechkin goal scoring wise while he was Crosby, Thornton and Sedin in terms of playmaking.

It's like Toews vs Crosby now pretty much.

Like how you always need to take a shot at Crosby.

There's no denying that Jagr was the better offensive player, with a clear advantage in goal scoring but there is some hyperbole here that needs to be tended to.

Jagr was not the top 2 goal scorer in the DPE. He topped 50 goals twice and it can be easily argued this was because of Mario, the "Mario syndrome" if you like.

Toews vs Crosby!? However you want to spin PPG by excluding the Washington years, and including Mario's years, at no time was there a half point difference in PPG between Jagr and Forsberg and Crosby plays a much more responsible 2-way game than Jagr.

 

[Lexus]

From 96-97 to 04-04 (the DPE entirely), Jagr had .05 more points per game, just going on raw numbers. Forsberg was the #2 points/game player in the DPE, unless Lemieux and his limited games is included (which I actually would include, he still proved to be more productive than anyone at the time when he was there, although he was the ultimate PP guy and cherrypicker by that time)

Jagr - 1.32
Forsberg - 1.27
Sakic - 1.16
The Oft-Forgotten Ziggy Palffy - 1.08
Kariya/Lindros/Bure - 1.06

No one else at over a point/game throughout the DPE (except Lemieux)

I don't even need points/minute to look at that and see a case for Forsberg as the best skater of the DPE. I see a case for Jagr as well. Its all down to preference of playing style. This is like Trottier/Gretzky was at one time, or Datsyuk/Crosby/Ovechkin was for 5 years, except the well-rounded player is also nearly as productive, so its a real argument. Jagr's goals, or Forsberg's defensive play?

Reading all these Forsberg vs. Lindros/Crosby/Jagr threads, or hijacked threads, this last month - it occurs to me that many people might not actually realize the kind of points that Forsberg actually produced. This particular list is thankfully raw numbers, rather than adjusted for era like Forsberg v Crosby (which turns out to be pretty similar to Jagr v Forsberg raw during the DPE)

I also think there is a tendency to discredit Forsberg's offense on the basis that it only came when he stopped having to kill as many penalties - but then pooh pooh his big season and a half because he didn't maintain that for a long time (he was killing penalties when his points/game was lower in previous years!). We should do the same for Sakic, in that case. Though, he had the PP/go to center role for the more years, and the defensive 1b role for only a couple. However he seems to get credit for his pints and his defense. To me, they just had their roles reversed, and the fact that Forsberg shakes out as the higher points/game player with the most times significantly noticed in Selke voting and the higher plus/minus while on the same team says much to me.

Anyways, I'm going to ramble incessantly here if I don't stop. I mostly wanted to show the raw numbers during that period, and anyone can go from there. There are many arguments to be made for Sakic, Forsberg, Jagr, Lindros, and Lemieux for who was the best then, I just don't think anyone should have a thread titled -

"the IMAGINED, romanticized....."

The 'imagined' part gets to me every time I open HF up.

Rate him behind Jagr all you want, and I really do see the case (the goals, the better health, the higher-scoring seasons),

but Peter Forsberg WAS one of the BEST producers of his era, whilst taking the most defensive responsibilty amongst his contemporaries, and was the next most physical of them after Lindros - who spent even more time hurt than Forsberg (as did Lemieux and Bure)...

None of that is IMAGINED.

Well said.

 

[livewell68]

Like how you always need to take a shot at Crosby.

There's no denying that Jagr was the better offensive player, with a clear advantage in goal scoring but there is some hyperbole here that needs to be tended to.

Jagr was not the top 2 goal scorer in the DPE. He topped 50 goals twice and it can be easily argued this was because of Mario, the "Mario syndrome" if you like.

Toews vs Crosby!? However you want to spin PPG by excluding the Washington years, and including Mario's years, at no time was there a half point difference in PPG between Jagr and Forsberg and Crosby plays a much more responsible 2-way game than Jagr.

You are the king of using which ever posts you like to prop up your Crosby but Jagr benefited far less from Lemieux than Crosby has benefited from Malkin. Jagr was absolutely among the 2 best goals scorers of his era, although he never led the league, his best goals scoring finishes starting in 1994-95 are 2, 2, 5 (1st in GPG), 7, 2, 4 (2nd in GPG), 3 and 2. The fact that he was 2nd 4 times means he was among the 2 best goals scorers of his era and not to mention that in those seasons he usually also finished top 3 in assists. No one outside of Lemieux came even close to that type of dominance in goals and assists during the 90's and 2000's.

Lemieux and Jagr were only ever linemates in 1996-97 (63 games) and 2000-01 (43 games). Jagr's stats have him finishing 2nd in goals in 1994-95 (Lemieux sat out the whole year), 2nd in 1998-99 (Lemieux was retired) and was 2nd in GPG (per game stats being your favorite thing to prop up Crosby) in 1999-00 and was 4th overall despite missing 19 games (had a pace of 55 goals) while Lemieux was retired and Jagr's linemates were Hrdina and Beranek. You keep insinuating that Jagr benefited from this so called Lemieux effect but you know as well as I do(although you refuse to acknowledge it and actually discuss it or give him credit for) but Jagr won 4 Art Ross trophies with absolutely no help from Lemieux whatsoever. On the flip side, Lemieux won 4 of his 6 Art Ross trophies with Jagr in the lineup.

Since you also refuse to talk about 2005-06, where was Lemieux to help Jagr score 54 goals? Yes that's right, he was on Crosby's line.

Also in 1995-96, Jagr scored 42 of his 62 goals at evenstrength (where he shared no icetime with Lemieux) which led the NHL in that category by a healthy margin. If you want to diminish Jagr's accomplishments by chalking it up to the Lemieux effect then you should do the same for Crosby and Malkin. While still on the Forsberg topic, Forsberg also had this guy named Sakic taking pressure off of him.

Jagr was for the most part of his career the largest target and most covered player by opposing teams. He didn't have a Malkin or Sakic/Forsberg or an Yzerman/Federov to take pressure off of him. Playing those 2-3 extra ES minutes were not easy minutes since he was playing with scrubs on his line and was facing the absolute toughest defensive assignments.

Malkin and Crosby can play on two different lines and spread out the opposing team's coverage, Sakic and Forsberg benefited from that, so did Yzerman and Federov. So even if they played more PK minutes and less ES minutes than Jagr did, they still had easier minutes by the sheer fact that they weren't hounded on the ice everytime they moved.


As for Crosby's so called two-way game, it's no better than Jagr's superior puck possession game which is a lot more efficient than Crosby's barely above average defensive game. Being a centerman doesn't automatically make you a better two-way player. Jagr BTW was probably the fiercest forechecker in the NHL in the 90's. Even the sternest Penguins fans can't deny that. As for Forsberg, as some have said, his Selke voting record is not necessarily due to his superior defensive game but because by that time voters voted for a player who had great offensive numbers while being better defensively. He was no better than Federov was defensively. As for his physicality, no player took more abuse and thrived than Jagr did, he was every bit as physical and never shied away from it while not throwing any hits. Picture Crosby and Forsberg both around 5'10-6'0 and 200-205 lbs and then had 3-5 inches to their heights and give them an extra 15-25 lbs while still having their speed and you basically had Jagr.

 

[Tam O Shanter]

^^^ I used to believe that rhetoric about Selke voting until I started looking at the voting last week. It doesn't pan out. Forsberg's 4th place in 2003 goes like:

Lehtinen
Madden
Walz
Forsberg
Peca
Modano
Marchant
Fedorov
Cooke
Rolston
Handzus
Maltby
Sakic
Frisen
Axelsson
Draper
Conroy

blah blah blah. 17 names, 4 of them 'offensive' players, none of whom threaten to actually win the trophy. Ya, I don't see it. Check out any year you want to on Hockeysfuture and you'll see Lehtinen, Peca, Draper, Otto, and all the names you'd expect.

You can either look at this list and think that Forsberg, Fedorov and Modano were actually very good defensively or you can stick to thinking that voters looked at top scorers and then narrowwd down to the ones who were ok defensively - while somehow leaving the lion's share of votes to guys with low point totals and completely ignoring all the other top points guys who must have really been bad at defense to be ignored under this imaginary system.

Plus, anyone who watched hockey could tell you that Forsberg and Fedorov were quite visually good at backchecking, forechecking, etc.

As for Sakic taking all of Forsberg's PK time since 97... well, here you've got me because I can't remember that from watching, and I don't have the numbers (but i hope someone does, because I won't believe the rhetoric anymore) I did watch two games from 97 playoffs vs the Wings reently and Forsberg was a tireless penalty killer - out on every shift hassling the point, ragging the puck. Sakic was running the PP. Maybe it was just a strange couple of games and Sakic was injured or something.

 

[livewell68]

^^^ I used to believe that rhetoric about Selke voting until I started looking at the voting last week. It doesn't pan out. Forsberg's 4th place in 2003 goes like:

Lehtinen
Madden
Walz
Forsberg
Peca
Modano
Marchant
Fedorov
Cooke
Rolston
Handzus
Maltby
Sakic
Frisen
Axelsson
Draper
Conroy

blah blah blah. 17 names, 4 of them 'offensive' players, none of whom threaten to actually win the trophy. Ya, I don't see it. Check out any year you want to on Hockeysfuture and you'll see Lehtinen, Peca, Draper, Otto, and all the names you'd expect.

You can either look at this list and think that Forsberg, Fedorov and Modano were actually very good defensively or you can stick to thinking that voters looked at top scorers and then narrowwd down to the ones who were ok defensively - while somehow leaving the lion's share of votes to guys with low point totals and completely ignoring all the other top points guys who must have really been bad at defense to be ignored under this imaginary system.

Plus, anyone who watched hockey could tell you that Forsberg and Fedorov were quite visually good at backchecking, forechecking, etc.

As for Sakic taking all of Forsberg's PK time since 97... well, here you've got me because I can't remember that from watching, and I don't have the numbers (but i hope someone does, because I won't believe the rhetoric anymore) I did watch two games from 97 playoffs vs the Wings reently and Forsberg was a tireless penalty killer - out on every shift hassling the point, ragging the puck. Sakic was running the PP. Maybe it was just a strange couple of games and Sakic was injured or something.

Federov was far superior to Forsberg defensively, it's almost night and day. As some posters have mentioned, Forsberg was good defensively but because he played a physical game, it was perceived as being a "great two-way" game.

In regards to PK icetime, the data on NHL.com goes as far back as the 1997-98 season, some would argue that this was the season in which Forsberg was closest to Jagr during their primes. It's interesting that Forsberg (2:23 PK minutes per game) wasn't even among the top 60 players in the NHL in PK icetime per game, in fact it was another Colorado centerman (Stepahne Yelle) who was 13th overall in the league in PK icetime per game and who led all Colorado forwards in PK icetime per game. In fact Forsberg was only 9th on the Avalanche in PK icetime per game and only 4th among forwards on the team, Jari Kurri, Thomas Fitzgerald and Stephane Yelle all killed more penalties than Forsberg did according to the stats.

Now we have 1998-99, a season in which Forsberg and Sakic were pretty even in terms of performance. Joe Sakic led all Avalanche forwards with 3:32 minutes per game of PK while Forsberg was again 4th among Avs forwards (Stephane Yelle and Eric Lacroix and Sakic all getting more icetime on the PK than Forsberg did), Forsberg's PK icetime per game was 2:45. Sakic played a full 3/4 of a minute more per game.

In fact Sakic averaged more PK icetime per game in 1998-99, 1999-00 and 2000-01 and 2002-03.

When Forsberg won his lone Art Ross and Hart trophies, he averaged just 0:12 minutes of icetime per game on the PK. Forsberg was 13th among forwards on the Avs in that category that season. BTW in comparison, Sakic averaged 1:32 minutes per game on the PK that season. So clearly the voters were looking at something else than PK when they voted him 4th in Selke voting in 2002-03.

Forsberg also played 4:33 of icetime per game on the PP that season and his overall icetime was actually less than Hejduk's so it seems like Hejduk was more than capable of being a premier player on his own.

Forsberg was nowhere near the defensive player some are making him out to be. His Selke voting record is based on reputation and nothing more. He wasn't even his team's best two-way forward (that title belonged to Sakic) nor was he even among the top 3 best defensive forwards on the team, all of Yelle, Sakic and Hejduk played more on the penalty kill than Forsberg did.

As CzechyourMath mentioned, let Jagr rest up for a season and come back for the playoffs or regular season and he would have chewed the league up alive.

Any advantage Forsberg had with scoring per minute, was offset by the simple fact that those Avalanche teams were 4 lines deep and had so much more talent than those Lemieux-less Jagr led Penguins teams.

 

[livewell68]

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).

Yet despite that, Colorado somehow always managed to score around the same amount of goals per season as the Penguins did huh?

As I mentioned before, the data goes back to 1997-98 on NHL.com, according to those stats, the Avalanche were 7th in goals for in 1997-98 while the Penguins were 8th.

In 1998-99 the Penguins scored 242 goals and were 4th overall (the Devils BTW scored more goals as did the Red Wings and Leafs) while the Avalanche were 6th with 239 goals (3 less than the Penguins).

In 1999-00 the Penguins scored 241 goals (again the top 3 were Toronto, New Jersey and Detroit) placing them 9th while the Avalanche were 11th with 233 goals and this was a season in which Sakic, Jagr and Forsberg all missed significant time.

The only time the Penguins were really guilty of playing "pond hockey" as you termed it was in 2000-01 when they were 2nd in goals (behind the Devils again) with 281 goals while the Avalanche were 4th with 270 goals.

So labeling the Penguins as this "all out offense pond hockey team" is not only derogatory but also incorrect. The reason they scored so much was in large part due to no other than Jagr.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

So labeling the Penguins as this "all out offense pond hockey team" is not only derogatory but also incorrect.

It's as correct as it would be for any team in that era. But you're right that Colorado was more offensive-minded than most teams, as well. But Colorado's stars still weren't allowed to 100% devote themselves to offense.

The reason they scored so much was in large part due to no other than Jagr.

No kidding.

 

[Czech Your Math]

It's as correct as it would be for any team in that era. But you're right that Colorado was more offensive-minded than most teams, as well. But Colorado's stars still weren't allowed to 100% devote themselves to offense.

This again neglects to recognize that Jagr's puck possession was not only an effective form of "defense", but probably the most effective possible on those teams. What's more effective, keeping the puck away from the opponent for much of the shift most times and creating an opportunity to score? ... or exerting more effort on defense, where it's often the weakest link that breaks the chain? ... and the Pens' defense had a lot of weak links, aside from Jagr. I'm not pretending Jagr was stellar defensively, but it was mainly that he was exerting his effort to keep the puck away from the opposition and create scoring opportunities. In the playoffs, he played decent defense and gave maximum effort. His style was extremely effective and valuable, especially in the environment in which he played, for a defensively weak team.

BTW, I think Forsberg's ES minutes were lower, because half the time he was flopping and drawing a penalty, negating the ES shift on which he played.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

This again neglects to recognize that Jagr's puck possession was not only an effective form of "defense", but probably the most effective possible on those teams. What's more effective, keeping the puck away from the opponent for much of the shift most times and creating an opportunity to score? ... or exerting more effort on defense, where it's often the weakest link that breaks the chain? ... and the Pens' defense had a lot of weak links, aside from Jagr. I'm not pretending Jagr was stellar defensively, but it was mainly that he was exerting his effort to keep the puck away from the opposition and create scoring opportunities. In the playoffs, he played decent defense and gave maximum effort. His style was extremely effective and valuable, especially in the environment in which he played, for a defensively weak team.

BTW, I think Forsberg's ES minutes were lower, because half the time he was flopping and drawing a penalty, negating the ES shift on which he played.

I think Jagr's puck possession style was very effective - much moreso than more quick-strike players like Selanne and Bure who also didn't backcheck. But by not backchecking, that is energy saved that could be devoted to doing things with the puck on his stick.

 

[Czech Your Math]

I think Jagr's puck possession style was very effective - much moreso than more quick-strike players like Selanne and Bure who also didn't backcheck. But by not backchecking, that is energy saved that could be devoted to doing things with the puck on his stick.

If so, that's true, but the point was that by keeping the puck away from the other defense, he was (in a way, as a by-product) playing the most effective defense possible.

It's like players who score garbage goals, who cares how, as long as it's effective, right? Well, it was quite effective form of "defense" as well as offense, that very few players have been able to come close to duplicating, before or since.

I think that's why when Lemieux sat out games in '96 & '97, the team was significantly affected, but able to cope for the most part... but when Jagr missed time in '97... or in '00... or after he was traded... the team just came apart at the seams and collapsed into not mediocrity, but the AHL-level team they truly were for the most part.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Puck possession is a hugely underrated skill around here.
Guys like Gretzky, like Lemieux , like Harvey, like Bourque, like Jagr can attribute so much of their advantage over their peers to a phenomenal puck possession game.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Puck possession is a hugely underrated skill around here.
Guys like Gretzky, like Lemieux , like Harvey, like Bourque, like Jagr can attribute so much of their advantage over their peers to a phenomenal puck possession game.

And Peter Forsberg. You know... the supposed topic of this thread.

 

[Hobnobs]

And Peter Forsberg. You know... the supposed topic of this thread.

Yea, was about to say... Its not like Forsberg wasn't playing keep-away with the puck as effective as any of them...

 

[Rhiessan71]

And Peter Forsberg. You know... the supposed topic of this thread.

Yes definitely. Like I believe Lindros was a better player than Forsberg but Forsberg closed the gap with a better possession game.
At the end of the day, their overall effectiveness was pretty close.
Much the same with the old Bourque vs Lidstrom comparisons. Lidstrom was better defensively but Bourque's possession game was so superior that he simply didn't have to actually defend as much and his actual defensive numbers end up ahead of Lidstrom's despite playing in a higher scoring era vs a lower scoring era for Lidstrom.

 

[Czech Your Math]

Yet despite that, Colorado somehow always managed to score around the same amount of goals per season as the Penguins did huh?

As I mentioned before, the data goes back to 1997-98 on NHL.com, according to those stats, the Avalanche were 7th in goals for in 1997-98 while the Penguins were 8th.

In 1998-99 the Penguins scored 242 goals and were 4th overall (the Devils BTW scored more goals as did the Red Wings and Leafs) while the Avalanche were 6th with 239 goals (3 less than the Penguins).

In 1999-00 the Penguins scored 241 goals (again the top 3 were Toronto, New Jersey and Detroit) placing them 9th while the Avalanche were 11th with 233 goals and this was a season in which Sakic, Jagr and Forsberg all missed significant time.

The only time the Penguins were really guilty of playing "pond hockey" as you termed it was in 2000-01 when they were 2nd in goals (behind the Devils again) with 281 goals while the Avalanche were 4th with 270 goals.

So labeling the Penguins as this "all out offense pond hockey team" is not only derogatory but also incorrect. The reason they scored so much was in large part due to no other than Jagr.

I agree with your conclusion, but not necessarily your method of reaching it.

I think what demonstrates that Jagr wasn't simply playing "pond hockey" is that his adjusted plus-minus is among the very best since the data is available (post-O6 expansion), in the company of Gretzky and Bourque.

If you want examples of great scorers playing pond hockey, look at '94 Gretzky, '03 Lemieux, or Ovechkin this past season.