Tank Nation: Matthews Edition

[Heroic Shrimp]

Wow, really?  I personally wouldn't hesitate taking Forsberg before Sundin and quite possibly Sakic, too.

Over Sakic? They've got remarkably similar ppg but Sakic did it in twice as many games and his single season high in goals is almost twice what Forsberg's is.

I'm confused, then, because I don't know what standard you're applying here, pure dominance or career accomplishments.  If you're discounting Forsberg so severely for injury problems, I don't understand why you don't also for Lindros.  Forsberg's career accomplishments outweigh Lindros' in fewer games and he significantly outscored him in PPG over his career, regular season and playoffs.  And Forsberg's career "significant hardware" of 1 Hart and 3 first team all-star selections is exactly equal to Sakic in, like you said, half as many games.

 

[Kin]

I'm confused, then, because I don't know what standard you're applying here, pure dominance or career accomplishments.  If you're discounting Forsberg so severely for injury problems, I don't understand why you don't also for Lindros.  Forsberg's career accomplishments outweigh Lindros' in fewer games and he significantly outscored him in PPG over his career, regular season and playoffs.  And Forsberg's career "significant hardware" of 1 Hart and 3 first team all-star selections is exactly equal to Sakic in, like you said, half as many games.

I'm using a combination of the two standards. Obviously, Sundin and Sakic had the lengthier careers but at Forsberg's peak he wasn't better than any of them either. Sakic's got the single-season high point total of the four, Lindros' best season is better than Forsberg's(1 fewer point but 17 more goals in 9 fewer games) and this is Sundin's best year vs. Forsberg's:

Sundin: 47 g, 67 A, 114 points in 80 games
Forsberg: 30 g, 86 A, 116 points in 82 games.

So if your argument is "dominance" over career accomplishments, don't you have to be better than the other guys at their best?

And in terms of the short term guys, Lindros' best 4 year stretch was probably 93-97 where he scored 361 points in 236 games. Forsbergs' best 4 year stretch is probably 95-99, where he scored 390 points in 297 games. So Lindros' was .20 PPG higher over his peak. Forsberg's probably hurt a little more by his era, Lindros is probably hurt a little more by his teammates. Forsberg was better defensively, Lindros was an absolute physical monster. The clincher for me is Lindros' 161 goals over his stretch to Forsberg's 113(in 61 fewer games). 

 

[Heroic Shrimp]

I'm confused, then, because I don't know what standard you're applying here, pure dominance or career accomplishments.  If you're discounting Forsberg so severely for injury problems, I don't understand why you don't also for Lindros.  Forsberg's career accomplishments outweigh Lindros' in fewer games and he significantly outscored him in PPG over his career, regular season and playoffs.  And Forsberg's career "significant hardware" of 1 Hart and 3 first team all-star selections is exactly equal to Sakic in, like you said, half as many games.

I'm using a combination of the two standards. Obviously, Sundin and Sakic had the lengthier careers but at Forsberg's peak he wasn't better than any of them either. Sakic's got the single-season high point total of the four, Lindros' best season is better than Forsberg's(1 fewer point but 17 more goals in 9 fewer games) and this is Sundin's best year vs. Forsberg's:

Sundin: 47 g, 67 A, 114 points in 80 games
Forsberg: 30 g, 86 A, 116 points in 82 games.

So if your argument is "dominance" over career accomplishments, don't you have to be better than the other guys at their best?

I'm the last guy in the world to try to knock Sundin down a peg, but I really think that it's self-evident 1 Hart and 3 first team all-stars is better than 0 Hart and 2 second team all-stars.

And in terms of the short term guys, Lindros' best 4 year stretch was probably 93-97 where he scored 361 points in 236 games. Forsbergs' best 4 year stretch is probably 95-99, where he scored 390 points in 297 games. So Lindros' was .20 PPG higher over his peak. Forsberg's probably hurt a little more by his era, Lindros is probably hurt a little more by his teammates. Forsberg was better defensively, Lindros was an absolute physical monster. The clincher for me is Lindros' 161 goals over his stretch to Forsberg's 113(in 61 fewer games).

You don't really need to try to persuade me of this, as I already pretty much indicated I'd take Lindros first of the lot of them, but I did want to observe the unfairness of ultimately punishing Forsberg for his injuries as compared to, say, Sundin's longevity and health.  And when I said Forsberg's career accomplishments outweighing Lindros', generally I was referring to their 1 Hart each being a wash (though Lindros' being in a shortened season) and Forsberg's 3-time first team all-star outweighing Lindros' 1 first team and 1 second team.

 

[Kin]

I'm the last guy in the world to try to knock Sundin down a peg, but I really think that it's self-evident 1 Hart and 3 first team all-stars is better than 0 Hart and 2 second team all-stars.

I don't. Or, at the very least, that's ascribing a heck of a lot of weight to the opinions of the people who think Alex Ovechkin was both of the best wingers in the League a few years back.

Remember when Doug Gilmour had 127 points and won the Selke? Wasn't a 1st or 2nd team All-Star. Steve Yzerman's 155 point season? Ditto. The nature of the end of year All-Star teams being what they are you can be the 3rd best player in the league and nowhere to be found. When you factor in the reality of the competition at that position at the time with Lemieux, Gretzky, Messier, Yzerman...that sort of measurement seems designed to favour the guy who was younger and spent fewer of his prime years in that group.

That's without even getting into things like those awards not taking things like linemates into account. What would Sundin's numbers look like if he were the guy on Colorado and playing the other team's #2 defense pairings every night? How many trophies/accolades might he have won as a result of those numbers? If you're trying to look at these guys in a context neutral setting I don't think awards are super helpful.

I mean, this has problems too but look at their international numbers. On the same teams in the same settings...Sundin was Sweden's guy.

You don't really need to try to persuade me of this, as I already pretty much indicated I'd take Lindros first of the lot of them, but I did want to observe the unfairness of ultimately punishing Forsberg for his injuries as compared to, say, Sundin's longevity and health.

Again, I'm not really. I'm saying that durability is something that has value too. Forsberg isn't really like Lindros in that a catastrophic injury more or less ended his career, he was just a good bet to miss 10-15 games a year. If you think the gap between them at their peak is small/nonexistent(or even favours Sundin) then I don't see how you could not give any credit for a guy being in the lineup every night. I think that factors into how valuable a guy is.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

A loss to Edmonton tomorrow would give the Leafs sole possession of last place!

Also, Montreal's won 3 in a row and are now 11 points up on the Leafs (TOR has 3 games in hand though). But funny how quickly that can change. Go Scrivens!

 

[Zee]

A loss to Edmonton tomorrow would give the Leafs sole possession of last place!

Also, Montreal's won 3 in a row and are now 11 points up on the Leafs (TOR has 3 games in hand though). But funny how quickly that can change. Go Scrivens!

Leafs also have 3 games in hand over the Oilers.  Unless the Leafs go on very long losing streak it'll be difficult to keep pace with the losing Oilers.  Just when you think the Oilers are playing better and starting to win thanks to McDavid they get smoked 8-1 and are now in a 3 game losing skid again.

 

[Heroic Shrimp]

I'm the last guy in the world to try to knock Sundin down a peg, but I really think that it's self-evident 1 Hart and 3 first team all-stars is better than 0 Hart and 2 second team all-stars.

I don't. Or, at the very least, that's ascribing a heck of a lot of weight to the opinions of the people who think Alex Ovechkin was both of the best wingers in the League a few years back.

Yes, we all know that's the standard pat reply to any mention of all-star voting.  It still has value, regardless of that mess-up:

Remember when Doug Gilmour had 127 points and won the Selke? Wasn't a 1st or 2nd team All-Star. Steve Yzerman's 155 point season? Ditto. The nature of the end of year All-Star teams being what they are you can be the 3rd best player in the league and nowhere to be found.

Well, where they were to be found was 3rd in voting.  In Gilmour's case, it was behind fellow centers Lemieux and Lafontaine with 160 and 148 points, both of whom were co-finalists for Hart along with Gilmour.  In Yzerman's case it was also behind fellow centers Lemieux and Gretzky with their 199 and 168 points, and, once again, all three were Hart finalists.  The voting clearly correlates with the judgment of who the three top centres in the NHL were in those seasons.

So, given that, if you want to look at how Sundin and Forsberg fared overall in all-star voting in their careers, here's their descending rank in the various years they got votes:

Sundin:  2, 2, 5, 6, 6, 7
Forsberg:  1, 1, 1, 3, 5, 6, 9, 15

And, likewise, their top Hart voting, in descending order:

Sundin:  8, 12, 16, 18, 18
Forsberg:  1, 7, 8, 11, 13, 17

And since you mentioned the Selke, here's their Selke voting record:

Sundin:  32, 37
Forsberg:  2, 4, 6, 8, 11, 28, 34

I mean, it shouldn't really need to be mentioned that Forsberg was an elite defensive center, but if it does, there you go.

I also failed to mention earlier that Forsberg also won an Art Ross.  I think Sundin's top rank was 4th, which overall I feel was also his most dominant season.  It should also be noted, career-wise, that Forsberg came over to North America when he was 21 and was immediately 2nd in team scoring and was already getting Hart and all-star votes in follow-up 2nd season at the age of 22.  Sundin came over at 19 and didn't register any Hart or all-star voting until he was 25.

When you factor in the reality of the competition at that position at the time with Lemieux, Gretzky, Messier, Yzerman...that sort of measurement seems designed to favour the guy who was younger and spent fewer of his prime years in that group.

Sure, okay.  Regardless, Sundin and Forsberg were relative age peers with Sundin 2 years older, and their records can be compared pretty directly one to the other.

That's without even getting into things like those awards not taking things like linemates into account. What would Sundin's numbers look like if he were the guy on Colorado and playing the other team's #2 defense pairings every night? How many trophies/accolades might he have won as a result of those numbers? If you're trying to look at these guys in a context neutral setting I don't think awards are super helpful.

Well, not only is that a fair argument, but it's also an argument I've made on this site in the past.  But consider this:  you're discrediting Forsberg for having played with Sakic.  Why aren't you discrediting Sakic for having played with Forsberg?  Joe Sakic entered the league at the age of 19.  He registered in Hart voting once and all-star voting twice before the age of 26 (5 years of which he played with Sundin, I might add).  After that, he was pretty much a perennial Hart and all-star vote recipient.  Forsberg joined the team when Sakic was 25 in the shortened 94-95 season.  Sakic's career blossomed after Forsberg joined the team.

I mean, this has problems too but look at their international numbers. On the same teams in the same settings...Sundin was Sweden's guy.

Sure.  I mean, they were only on the same two Olympic teams twice, in 1998 and 2006, and in those games Sundin had 6G/5A/11P and Forsberg had 1G/10A/11P, but credit for more goals scored for Sundin.  Sundin also had a dominant 2002 Olympics that Forsberg missed because of injury (site note:  after sitting out that entire 2001-02 regular season that cut into those 2002 Olympics, Forsberg led the NHL in playoff scoring in 2002).  Of course, Forsberg is on a Swedish Olympic stamp, so it's not like he's a forgotten man here.

You don't really need to try to persuade me of this, as I already pretty much indicated I'd take Lindros first of the lot of them, but I did want to observe the unfairness of ultimately punishing Forsberg for his injuries as compared to, say, Sundin's longevity and health.

Again, I'm not really. I'm saying that durability is something that has value too. Forsberg isn't really like Lindros in that a catastrophic injury more or less ended his career, he was just a good bet to miss 10-15 games a year. If you think the gap between them at their peak is small/nonexistent(or even favours Sundin) then I don't see how you could not give any credit for a guy being in the lineup every night. I think that factors into how valuable a guy is.

No doubt Forsberg's injury history is different than Lindros'.  I'll give full credit to the career that Lindros should have had.  But Forsberg missed the entire regular season at the age of 28 and played only 167 games after that (Sakic won his first and only Hart at the age of 31).  Forsberg was admittedly able to achieve and play in his prime where arguably Lindros either never did or only briefly did.

As to "If you think the gap between them at their peak is small/nonexistent (or even favours Sundin)", I don't even remotely think that.  If you're referring to the two seasons you highlighted, there's surely very few people who think that those were the best two seasons of either player in the context of their careers and when compared to their peers at the time.  I think Sundin's 80 point 2001-02 season was a far more dominant season than his 114 point season.

No doubt, there's great value in durability.  If I had to pick Sundin or Forsberg at age 19 knowing how many games I'm going to get from them in their careers, I'm taking Sundin without question.  If I'm picking either player in their prime going into the playoffs, I'm taking Forsberg without question.  And frankly, I remain comfortable taking Forsberg over Sakic, but whatever, I'll take either happily.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

I think that there were times where Forsberg was the best hockey player on the planet, or at least top-3. Not entirely sure you can say that about Sakic, or especially Sundin.

 

[rdowdall]

I think that there were times where Forsberg was the best hockey player on the planet, or at least top-3. Not entirely sure you can say that about Sakic, or especially Sundin.

I may agree with you with on Sundin.  I don't think you can say that about Sackic.  There was the year where he won like everything.  I'm pretty sure he was considered one of the best players on the planet that year.

 

[Heroic Shrimp]

I think that there were times where Forsberg was the best hockey player on the planet, or at least top-3. Not entirely sure you can say that about Sakic, or especially Sundin.

I may agree with you with on Sundin.  I don't think you can say that about Sackic.  There was the year where he won like everything.  I'm pretty sure he was considered one of the best players on the planet that year.

For sure you can't say it about Sundin, but you're also right about Sakic, I think.  My hunch is that of THN's yearly top 50 NHLers (or just general feeling among hockey fans), Forsberg likely hit the top 3 or top 5 as much or more than Sakic, and maybe even with regards to the #1 spot, too, that they likely both hit at least once.  Sundin might have been considered top 7-10 a few times and top 11-20 pretty routinely, but certainly never top 5.

 

[Kin]

Yes, we all know that's the standard pat reply to any mention of all-star voting.  It still has value, regardless of that mess-up:

It does, but I really only mention it to highlight who's doing the voting on it. Awards by their nature speak to the biases of the electorate and all of us know what those are. These are the "the highest scoring defenseman is the best defenseman" and the "You know what stat really separates a goalie? Wins!" and "Odds are the best defensive forward is also a 30 goal scorer" bunch. Ovechkin is just the hilarious tip of an iceberg we all know is there. 

So, given that, if you want to look at how Sundin and Forsberg fared overall in all-star voting in their careers, here's their descending rank in the various years they got votes:

See, to me, this is just more fruit from the same poison tree. Forsberg scored more points year to year and was on a better team(which is part of the reason why he scored more points) so, yes, he played into the biases of the people who vote on these things and did better in awards voting. I absolutely 100% concede that.

I also failed to mention earlier that Forsberg also won an Art Ross.  I think Sundin's top rank was 4th, which overall I feel was also his most dominant season.  It should also be noted, career-wise, that Forsberg came over to North America when he was 21 and was immediately 2nd in team scoring and was already getting Hart and all-star votes in follow-up 2nd season at the age of 22.  Sundin came over at 19 and didn't register any Hart or all-star voting until he was 25.

Sundin also came over to a team that was incredibly bad. Forsberg didn't turn around the Nordiques/Avalanche. He joined a team that had gone 47-27-10 two years prior before stumbling a bit the next year. Mats joined what might be the worst team in NHL history. A team that had been bottom of the league bad for five years. Guys on teams that bad don't tend to get Hart/All-Star votes. I really don't think this debate should entirely dismiss all-star voting but I'm not going to retroactively punish Sundin for the same dumb biases the writers have always had. Sundin's 94 points season, in context, is more impressive than Forsberg's Art Ross numbers.

Well, not only is that a fair argument, but it's also an argument I've made on this site in the past.  But consider this:  you're discrediting Forsberg for having played with Sakic.  Why aren't you discrediting Sakic for having played with Forsberg?  Joe Sakic entered the league at the age of 19.  He registered in Hart voting once and all-star voting twice before the age of 26 (5 years of which he played with Sundin, I might add).  After that, he was pretty much a perennial Hart and all-star vote recipient.  Forsberg joined the team when Sakic was 25 in the shortened 94-95 season.  Sakic's career blossomed after Forsberg joined the team.

I'm not "discrediting" Forsberg. I'm saying it's an influence in the numbers he put up both in terms of scoring and his award voting. Forsberg is a HOFer and deservedly so but we're talking about guys and how they rank in that pantheon. Any chinks in the armor are relatively minor. If Forsberg and Sakic had both played 700 games, sure, it's a tougher call for me. But Sakic being twice the goal scorer Forsberg was and going on to be top 10 all time in points/goals separates him.

And, again, did Sakic's career "take off" because of Forsberg joining the team? Or is 95-96 when Gretzky largely stopped being Gretzky and Messier about reached the end and Lemieux walked away and Yzerman became a different kind of player and Lafontaine got injured and Hawerchuk left the game and...

Of the many, many biases that inform award voting probably nothing is stronger than the one towards familiarity. 95-96 is when hockey writers had to stop voting for the same guys year after year and look around the league to really see who was the new breed of superstar.

I mean, look at Sakic's 89-90 and 90-91 seasons. He finished 10th and 6th in scoring those years. Seems like the guy who finishes 6th or 10th in scoring might be worthy of some All-Star or Hart votes, right? 

Well, no, because someone at the Toronto Sun has a deadline to fill and he'll say "People say that Joe Sakic is a good player? Well how valuable can he be if his team goes 28-111-21 over that stretch? I like winners, now let me explain why I'm eventually going to vote for Glenn Anderson to make the Hall of Fame.".

Sakic put up those seasons at age 20 and 21 on a team that, charitably, was full of absolute garbage which, in the eyes of lots of people who vote on these things, actually hurt his case. It's not just that Sundin or Sakic didn't get extra credit for putting up solid numbers in spite of their teammates, it works against them. He didn't "blossom" when Forsberg joined the team, the biases that worked against him just started working for him.

Forsberg, on the other hand, never played on a bad team until he left the Avalanche and, as good as he was, that has nothing to do with how good Forsberg was. The team was more or less built by the time he got there. So, resulting, the reason it might look like I look more askance at Forsberg than Sakic is because I saw Sakic without Forsberg and he was really freaking good. We never really got to see Forsberg without Sakic, at least not with two good feet.

Sure.  I mean, they were only on the same two Olympic teams twice, in 1998 and 2006, and in those games Sundin had 6G/5A/11P and Forsberg had 1G/10A/11P, but credit for more goals scored for Sundin.  Sundin also had a dominant 2002 Olympics that Forsberg missed because of injury (site note:  after sitting out that entire 2001-02 regular season that cut into those 2002 Olympics, Forsberg led the NHL in playoff scoring in 2002).  Of course, Forsberg is on a Swedish Olympic stamp, so it's not like he's a forgotten man here.

I don't think you have to limit consideration of their international play just to the Olympics. Sundin has a considerably better international record.

They both played in the 1996 World Cup. Forsberg had a goal and four assists in four games. Mats had 4 goals and 3 assists in the same four games.

They both played together in the 2004 World Cup. Forsberg had 3 points in 4 games. Mats had 6.

They both played together at the 2003 World Championships. Forsberg was great, 4 goals and 9 points in 8 games. Mats was better, 6 goals and 10 points.

They won the '98 World Championship together and here, the numbers finally favour Forsberg. 6 goals and 11 points in 7 games. Mats had a lousy 5 goals and 11 points in 8 games.

Like I said, Sundin was Sweden's guy and not just occasionally. Playing with good players, not having to score goals with people hanging off his back every night...he was a freight train with hands on international ice and his numbers in those competitions don't just separate him from Forsberg, they put him on a short list of the best international players of all time. I don't think it's possible to have watched the 2002 Olympics and not said "Mats Sundin is maybe the best player in the world".

As to "If you think the gap between them at their peak is small/nonexistent (or even favours Sundin)", I don't even remotely think that.  If you're referring to the two seasons you highlighted, there's surely very few people who think that those were the best two seasons of either player in the context of their careers and when compared to their peers at the time.  I think Sundin's 80 point 2001-02 season was a far more dominant season than his 114 point season.

Well, the "you" there is meant more as "one" but either way. If you don't think Mats Sundin was near enough to Forsberg in their primes that the gap could be described as small we just may be at an impasse here. I take Mats in that conversation but to say it's not even close? We were watching four different Swedes, I guess.

 

[Highlander]

Nik do you have a job or are you Damien Cox in disguise?

 

[Heroic Shrimp]

I mean, look at Sakic's 89-90 and 90-91 seasons. He finished 10th and 6th in scoring those years. Seems like the guy who finishes 6th or 10th in scoring might be worthy of some All-Star or Hart votes, right?

Well, no, because someone at the Toronto Sun has a deadline to fill and he'll say "People say that Joe Sakic is a good player? Well how valuable can he be if his team goes 28-111-21 over that stretch? I like winners, now let me explain why I'm eventually going to vote for Glenn Anderson to make the Hall of Fame.".

Well, yeah, because Sakic actually did get all-star and Hart votes in 1990-91.  He finished 3rd in all-star voting (therefore voted the 3rd best center in the league that year) and 7th in Hart voting.  Contrary to what you're suggesting, that's actually pretty good recognition for a guy on a bad team.

Forsberg, on the other hand, never played on a bad team until he left the Avalanche and, as good as he was, that has nothing to do with how good Forsberg was. The team was more or less built by the time he got there. So, resulting, the reason it might look like I look more askance at Forsberg than Sakic is because I saw Sakic without Forsberg and he was really freaking good. We never really got to see Forsberg without Sakic, at least not with two good feet.

Those are fair and reasonable points.  To some moderate extent, we did see Forsberg without Sakic when Sakic was hurt, and he certainly did exceptionally well.  In Forsberg's Hart/Art Ross season, Sakic only played 58 games to Forsberg's 75, and Forsberg outscored Sakic by 48 points for that 17 game difference.  And certainly, again, we never got to see Sakic without either Sundin or Forsberg outside of his first two seasons, regardless of the talent of the rest of the team.

Sure.  I mean, they were only on the same two Olympic teams twice, in 1998 and 2006, and in those games Sundin had 6G/5A/11P and Forsberg had 1G/10A/11P, but credit for more goals scored for Sundin.  Sundin also had a dominant 2002 Olympics that Forsberg missed because of injury (site note:  after sitting out that entire 2001-02 regular season that cut into those 2002 Olympics, Forsberg led the NHL in playoff scoring in 2002).  Of course, Forsberg is on a Swedish Olympic stamp, so it's not like he's a forgotten man here.

I don't think you have to limit consideration of their international play just to the Olympics. Sundin has a considerably better international record.

They both played in the 1996 World Cup. Forsberg had a goal and four assists in four games. Mats had 4 goals and 3 assists in the same four games.

They both played together in the 2004 World Cup. Forsberg had 3 points in 4 games. Mats had 6.

They both played together at the 2003 World Championships. Forsberg was great, 4 goals and 9 points in 8 games. Mats was better, 6 goals and 10 points.

They won the '98 World Championship together and here, the numbers finally favour Forsberg. 6 goals and 11 points in 7 games. Mats had a lousy 5 goals and 11 points in 8 games.

Like I said, Sundin was Sweden's guy and not just occasionally. Playing with good players, not having to score goals with people hanging off his back every night...he was a freight train with hands on international ice and his numbers in those competitions don't just separate him from Forsberg, they put him on a short list of the best international players of all time. I don't think it's possible to have watched the 2002 Olympics and not said "Mats Sundin is maybe the best player in the world".

Well put.  There's no question that Sundin has been among the best international players ever, and arguably even the best in international competition.  Honestly, I'm not here to knock Sundin.

As to "If you think the gap between them at their peak is small/nonexistent (or even favours Sundin)", I don't even remotely think that.  If you're referring to the two seasons you highlighted, there's surely very few people who think that those were the best two seasons of either player in the context of their careers and when compared to their peers at the time.  I think Sundin's 80 point 2001-02 season was a far more dominant season than his 114 point season.

Well, the "you" there is meant more as "one" but either way. If you don't think Mats Sundin was near enough to Forsberg in their primes that the gap could be described as small we just may be at an impasse here. I take Mats in that conversation but to say it's not even close? We were watching four different Swedes, I guess.

Ultimately, there's only so far one can go in trying to sort through subjective and objective information to discriminate between players.  Looking at scoring only counts for so much because of factors like linemates and team performance.  Trying to quantify objective evaluations by looking at voting ultimately is admittedly coloured by the scoring that only counts for so much.  Despite all the numbers and evidence argued about, CtB put it best in the simple consideration of who the best player(s) in the world were once considered to be.  For me (and for many, many others), there is no question that in his prime, Forsberg was right up there in the discussion.  Sundin was in my mind one of the top 5 centres in the league for many years, and one of the top 10-15 players in the league, and so remarkably consistently so.  As we all lamented for so long, he was never really surrounded by players that could make him shine as brightly as he was capable of.  He was saddled with the likes of Jonas Hoglund, who he managed to make a 29 goal scorer.  There's no question that if Sakic or Forsberg had been traded to the Leafs instead of Sundin, he would have rivalled his Colorado teammate in scoring just as Sundin had done with Sakic in Quebec, and he would have won those Cups in Colorado just as they did.  All I can say is that whenever I watched Forsberg, I couldn't believe how good he was, he was just unreal.  The passing, the unbelievable skating, the puck control and possession, the outstanding defence, the imposing physical play, and the relentless competitiveness.  He was easily one of the best and most complete players I've ever seen.

I've defended Sundin on these boards and their prior incarnations for around 15 years.  I've engaged in more discussion and defence of his career than you could imagine, relentlessly against trolls I wouldn't flatter to name.  He suffered through mediocre teams and linemates and scored a ton despite it all.  He's my favourite Leaf of all-time and I have nothing bad to say about him in any regard.  And I wish he'd had a Sakic or a Forsberg with him on his team in Toronto, but you know, so it goes.  But as great as Sundin was (and by God he was), I always thought Forsberg was better.

But that's just me...

 

[Kin]

Well, yeah, because Sakic actually did get all-star and Hart votes in 1990-91.  He finished 3rd in all-star voting (therefore voted the 3rd best center in the league that year) and 7th in Hart voting.  Contrary to what you're suggesting, that's actually pretty good recognition for a guy on a bad team.

Right, I said both years because he finished top ten scoring in the previous one as well and got no support but regardless doesn't that just drive home my point about using this as the basis of judging a player's peak? Is it really more impressive that Forsberg was a 1st team All-Star in 2002-2003 finishing ahead of a 23 year old Joe Thornton and 32 year old Mike Modano than a 21 year old Sakic finishing 3rd behind Wayne Gretzky and Adam Oates in their primes?

And, again, if we're basing so much of how we judge peak performance on things like end of year award voting I think we need to do it with a fair acknowledgment of the biases that exist within that. Sundin did get hurt in votes like that because of his competition/linemates/the quality of his team. When Forsberg won the Hart Trophy the person who got the 2nd highest number of 1st place votes was the goalie who finished 1st in the league in wins, 14th in the league in SV%. Glenn Anderson did get into the Hall of Fame. 

Those are fair and reasonable points.  To some moderate extent, we did see Forsberg without Sakic when Sakic was hurt, and he certainly did exceptionally well.  In Forsberg's Hart/Art Ross season, Sakic only played 58 games to Forsberg's 75, and Forsberg outscored Sakic by 48 points for that 17 game difference.  And certainly, again, we never got to see Sakic without either Sundin or Forsberg outside of his first two seasons, regardless of the talent of the rest of the team.

Well, we got to see Sakic post-Forsberg too, when between the ages of 37-39 he scored 152 points in 141 games. We also got to see Sakic at things like the 2002 Olympics where, in what might be the best international tournament ever played, Sakic was the MVP.

So I guess what I don't get is that this is what the two look like in terms of individual accomplishments:

Forsberg:

Hart
Art Ross
Calder
3 1st Team NHL All-Star selections

Sakic:

Hart
Lester B. Pearson
Conn Smythe
MVP of the 2002 Olympics
3 time first team NHL All-Star
Lady Byng(I know, but still)

(and, while we're here I'm going to take one more shot at the awards argument. Does it really matter in terms of his value that, because the Avalanche didn't win the Cup in 01-02 and Forsberg didn't win the Conn Smythe he clearly would have if they had? Or that Sakic missed out on the Art Ross by three points to Jagr the year before? If Jagr had been hurt that year, would Sakic have been a more valuable hockey player?)

The Pearson, by the way, is an interesting one. Forsberg won the Art Ross, won the Hart...but not the Pearson, which went to Markus Naslund that year which I think is fair when you look at what both guys did. Giving the Hart to Forsberg was probably more about the narrative behind his comeback than a real statement about his value. He shouldn't have crushed Naslund and Thornton in the voting based on their respective numbers.

Sakic had double the number of top 10 Hart trophy finishes that Forsberg did(6 to 3) including one, as mentioned, with Forsberg off the team and at the age of 37. Again, I'm not an awards guy but if the guy who played twice as long also has just as many awards/accolades? By that criteria there's really no justification for saying Forsberg's peak was higher than Sakic's without even talking about goal scoring.

But as great as Sundin was (and by God he was), I always thought Forsberg was better.

No, I'm fine with that. I think the "Forsberg was the better two way player/more physical player vs. Mats being the better goalscorer and (to my mind anyway) better overall offensive player" is a perfectly legitimate schism that has fair points on both sides. If you want to say Forsberg at his peak was better than Mats at his peak then sure, I don't agree but reasonable folk can disagree.

Where you lose me a bit is with the idea that Forsberg was so much better that you couldn't even describe the gap as close. Because, to restate it a little differently, if one thinks the two of them at their peak were at least close, then Mats' durability cinches it for me.

Also, while we're at it, neither guy was anywhere near the best player in the world at any point. Mario was better than either(including in Forsberg's Hart trophy season), even if he wasn't always actually playing hockey.

 

[sneakyray]

so what if toronto wins the first pick and arizona wants matthews more than anything?

would arizona 2016 1st, 2017 first, max domi, and christian dvorak.

for toronto 2016 1st (number 1 overall) and lupul (no salary retained)

 

[sneakyray]

so what if toronto wins the first pick and arizona wants matthews more than anything?

would arizona 2016 1st, 2017 first, max domi, and christian dvorak.

for toronto 2016 1st (number 1 overall) and lupul (no salary retained) get a conversation started?

 

[Bender]

so what if toronto wins the first pick and arizona wants matthews more than anything?

would arizona 2016 1st, 2017 first, max domi, and christian dvorak.

for toronto 2016 1st (number 1 overall) and lupul (no salary retained)

I don't think anyone trades Matthews.

 

[bustaheims]

so what if toronto wins the first pick and arizona wants matthews more than anything?

would arizona 2016 1st, 2017 first, max domi, and christian dvorak.

for toronto 2016 1st (number 1 overall) and lupul (no salary retained)

Unless Arizona's pick is in the top 3, there's no discussion to be had - and, even then, it would probably be a very short one.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

so what if toronto wins the first pick and arizona wants matthews more than anything?

would arizona 2016 1st, 2017 first, max domi, and christian dvorak.

for toronto 2016 1st (number 1 overall) and lupul (no salary retained)

Honestly, probably not. Arizona's picking 7th right now, Domi's good and all but I don't think he ends up being a legitimate 1st line player, same for Dvorak, and the 2017 pick is too much of a question mark.

Matthews has the potential to be a franchise-type player. You don't trade that for a bunch of good players. Especially when your system already has a bunch of good players but is missing that franchise guy.

 

[sneakyray]

so what if toronto wins the first pick and arizona wants matthews more than anything?

would arizona 2016 1st, 2017 first, max domi, and christian dvorak.

for toronto 2016 1st (number 1 overall) and lupul (no salary retained)

Honestly, probably not. Arizona's picking 7th right now, Domi's good and all but I don't think he ends up being a legitimate 1st line player, same for Dvorak, and the 2017 pick is too much of a question mark.

Matthews has the potential to be a franchise-type player. You don't trade that for a bunch of good players. Especially when your system already has a bunch of good players but is missing that franchise guy.

alright so the #1 pick it is...I was just trying to think of a package that would be able to get it done.

I mean, what if the oil win, do they take matthews with mcdavid and draisaitl(sp) already there?  or do they take one of the finnish wingers.