Tank Nation: Matthews Edition
- Thread starter LuncheonMeat
- Start date
LuncheonMeat
New member
Even with a win tonight, the Leafs have sole possession of last place. And with a date with the Chicago coming up next, they likely eat up one of their games in hand.
Heroic Shrimp
Active member
Nik the Trik said:
Well, you were kind of the one who started all of this saying the Forsberg was "clearly 4th out of 4". I guess that was such an assertive statement contrary to what I think most hockey fans would have felt during Forsberg's career and afterward that I felt compelled to speak up.
If I want to boil it right down, I guess, all the various accolades aside, Forsberg has the 8th highest PPG, 4th highest APG and 10th highest playoff PPF in NHL history (while starting his career at the beginning of the "dead puck era", no less), all of which are better than Sakic (and substantially better than Sundin, of course). All the while he was an absolutely elite defensive forward and extremely physical player. Sundin may well have been able to achieve that kind of production if he'd played his career with more offensive support, but he didn't. I just don't know how that kind of career has Forsberg come "clearly 4th out of 4" unless it is purely because of injuries.
Kin
New member
Heroic Shrimp said:
To be fair I prefaced that with "to me" and I'd think that at this stage in our relationship me having an opinion that bucked conventional wisdom wouldn't be that unusual but, heck, I'm having a blast with this conversation.
Heroic Shrimp said:
The problem with that is that any sort of per game reading of numbers does two things that tilt the scale unfairly in Forsberg's. Firstly, it completely forgeets the issue of durability. On a per 82 game basis Forsberg's career numbers work out to 29 goals, 72 assists per year. Sakic's work out to 37 goals, 61 assists per year.
The problem, though, is that if we're trying to accurately peg these guys and their value, do the five extra points per 82 that Forsberg's .06 ppg advantage represent mean anything if Forsberg was almost a sure thing not to play 82 games in a year? He only played 75 games in a year 3 times. Going into a season it's a pretty safe bet that Sakic, because he was able to stay healthy, would score more points than Forsberg. To me, that's more important than ppg.
The other problem with ppg is that it clearly misrepresents players that missed playing their declining years. if you look at the top 25 players all time in ppg it breaks down like this:
- 3 active players who have yet to hit their decline phase(Crosby, Ovechkin, Malkin)
- 10 Players who played most of their careers in the 70's and 80's(Hawerchuk, Kurri, Federko, etc)
- 4 Players who missed the decline phase of their careers because of injury (Forsberg, Bure, Lafontaine, Lindros)
- 2 Players who missed their decline phase and played in the 70's/80's(Kent Nilsson, Mike Bossy)
- 3 Guys who are clearly on the short list for greatest players of all-time(Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr)
There are only three players that don't really fit into any of those categories. Steve Yzerman, Jaromir Jagr and Joe Sakic. Where does Sakic rate among those three in terms of PPG? #1. Sure, you'll say that Sakic's is a little boosted because he played in the high scoring late 80's/early 90's and Forsberg didn't but that's when I'd go back to who he was playing with in those years vs. Forsberg never playing on a bad team.
Joe Sakic, in appropriate context, might have the third or fourth most impressive PPG of all time.
Heroic Shrimp said:
Absolutely, yes, let's talk about peripherals.
Was Forsberg a great defensive player? Sure. Finished in the top 10 in Selke voting 4 times, finishing as high as second, received Selke votes in three other years.
Was Sakic a great defensive player? I don't remember him being discussed as such but, well, finished in the top 10 in Selke voting three times, finishing as high as second, received Selke votes in four other years. So purely on a reputation basis they seem to be pretty closely matched.
(which briefly, I think, warrants a mention of considering what it means that Forsberg was "more physical". He had 76 more penalty minutes than Sakic in 700 fewer games. If they're roughly equivalent defensively, maybe the Lady Byng is valuable after all?)
There's really no question that for most of their careers Sakic was the #1 C in Colorado, Forsberg the #2. Some people might say that they were 1A and 1B but unlike, say, Crosby and Malkin (where their ice time tends to be pretty comparable) for the years that NHL.com has data on ice time, Sakic got significantly more ice time than Forsberg in just about every year(one year Forsberg got 23:07 per game to Sakic's 23:05). And not a few seconds, usually a few minutes. Even in Forsberg's MVP year, where again Sakic was hurt a good part of the year, Forsberg's at 19:20 a game, Sakic at 21:12. Seems weird, right?
Ah, but you might say, but Forsberg was the defensive whiz of the pair. So was Forsberg was eating those PK minutes and Sakic getting that cushy PP time?
Nope. Their PP times are actually remarkably similar from year to year and it's Sakic, not Forsberg, who tended to get more time on the PK. In fact, at a certain point they took Forsberg off the kill altogether. In Forsberg's MVP year Forsberg had 15 total PK minutes, Sakic still skated a regular PK shift, getting 1:32 per night.
I know playing the PK isn't the be all and end all of defensive hockey but I do think that starts the beginning of a different story. Forsberg finished 4th in Selke voting that year but clearly they were relying on him less defensively and just overall. Forsberg had been a regular on the PK and he had played 20+ minutes a night at one point...suppose maybe he got some votes there based on reputation?
Anyways, that got me thinking a little bit as I looked into another peripheral worth bringing up: Faceoffs. NHL.com has faceoff data going back to 97-98 and again, we see clear evidence of Sakic as #1 and Forsberg as #2. Not only is Sakic better percentage-wise year to year and Forsberg generally quite a bit below 50%(excluding 98-99 for some reason) but Sakic takes significantly more than Forsberg.
Then in 1999-2000, Hartley's second year as coach, something else happened. Forsberg stopped taking face-offs on the PP. I'm going to assume he got bumped up to the #1 PP unit with Sakic.
Now, not coincidentally, this is about when his serious injury problems emerge. He only played 49 games in 99-00, then 73 in 00-01 and missed all of 01-02. Then he came back and won the MVP but they were clearly using him differently. Sub 20 minutes a night, no PK time, barely taking face-offs(in 02-03 he took the fourth most face-offs on the team).
So that's a lot of words and maybe you want me to get to a point besides Sakic was maybe better defensively than Forsberg and definitely better in the circle, ok, well here goes.
I think Forsberg's career has two distinct phases. I think there's the first four years where he's clearly a world beating guy. Playing first line minutes, killing penalties, manning a what had to be the best #2 PP unit in the league...the wrecking ball who could pass a puck like nobody's business that we both remember.
But then injuries hit and he was a different player. He was sheltered a bit. The emergence of Chris Drury and others let the Avs protect him and use him a bit more as a specialist.
So when you talk about the perception of him, that "best in the world" stuff...I really think that is the result of the way reputations die hard(see my sig!). Of how in the late 90's/early 2000's when the Gretzky's and Lemieux's were gone and Yzerman was slowing down and people were looking around for a new "who's the best?" guy they landed on Forsberg because of the player he'd been but already wasn't. I think people thought that because the offensive numbers were still there he was that same guy and I just don't see how the numbers tell that story. He was 49th among forwards in TOI/G in his Hart Trophy year(Sakic was 15th that year, 8th when he won the Hart).
I mean, if you're the Best Player in the World, don't you at least have to be the guy your coach puts out there the most? If Hartley was tapping Sakic's shoulder instead of Forsberg's to kill a key penalty or take a tough face-off even when Forsberg was the "MVP", doesn't that say a lot?
That, I think, is the gap in how we look at Forsberg's health. You look at Forsberg's injury problems just as his shortened career and think about what career numbers he might have had without them. I'm saying Forsberg's injuries affected how he played even when he was on the ice. They negatively affected his value to the Avalanche both because he missed games at his peak and because it eventually changed the kind of player he was. If we're evaluating his career, I don't think it can just be about his few healthy years.
Heroic Shrimp said:
I feel like I've made my case already for Sundin vs. Forsberg but this strikes me as being just as unfair as someone saying Sundin is better simply because his raw point totals are higher.
Heroic Shrimp said:
Well, ok, to recap my arguments in a nutshell:
Forsberg vs. Lindros: Careers of similar length and accomplishments, Lindros produced significantly more during their respective peaks despite lesser teammates. Better goal scorer.
Forsberg vs. Sundin: In context neutral settings, Sundin outperformed Forsberg consistently. Similar peaks, Sundin the far more durable player. Better goal scorer.
Forsberg vs. Sakic: I really think Sakic may have been better in every way.
Bullfrog said:
True. It's kinda like downhill skiing in the Olympics. You know the Austrian, the Norwegian, and the Italian with the Austrian name are going to take the top 3 spots. The question is, would you rather finish one off the podium or behind the other Norwegian guy because you knew you never really had a chance in the first place?
Heroic Shrimp
Active member
Bender said:
I certainly wouldn't argue that he's right up there. He won the Viking Award as Sweden's top player in North America 4 times to Forsberg's 3, though in almost twice as many games played.
Curiously enough, Nik Lidstrom only won it twice, which is pretty surprising to me.
GhostofPotvin29
New member
Leafs still have 3 games in hand on them. :-\
Zee said:
It's such a bummer. Like even if they don't get 1st overall they'll almost certainly be drafting top-4, meaning they'll still be able to address big needs on their roster (wingers and defence). I have no problem with systematic tanking and teams being rewarded for playing the system, but teams like the Oilers being rewarded for sheer incompetence bugs me. This wasn't their plan at all.
GhostofPotvin29
New member
It was a joke for awhile but since it has a legitimate chance of happening, I will actually be pissed off if Edmonton gets the 1st overall pick. Like legitimately angry.
Potvin29 said:
Their centre depth would be:
1st overall pick
1st overall pick
3rd overall pick
1st overall pick
And still somehow find a way to lose.
GhostofPotvin29
New member
CarltonTheBear said:
Plus 1st overall pick and 1st overall pick taking up 2 of the 8 winger spots.
bustaheims
Active member
To be fair, the one 1st overall on the wing looks like a real bust, and one of the 1st overalls down the middle is a below average 1st overall pick. But, yeah, it's still obscene.
