HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   The History of Hockey (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=126)
-   -   Forsberg's 02/03 season was more impressive than his 95/96 season (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1515149)

siegeofshanghai* 10-12-2013 09:12 AM

Forsberg's 02/03 season was more impressive than his 95/96 season
 
I often get to hear that Forsberg had his best season when he scored 116p in 1996, however considering that the scoring was all-time low in 02/03 his 106p in 75 games is definitely more impressive.

Not only did he miss 7 games, but he was also +52 and made Milan Hejduk score 50 goals the one and only time in his career.

also, since Forsberg only played 82 games once in his career (1996) you gotta wonder more many more times he would break 100p if not being injured all the time.

Sticks and Pucks 10-12-2013 11:54 AM

The 02-03 season was definitely more impressive. Forsberg didn't even lead his team in scoring in 95-96 (Sakic) and Sakic was out for parts of the 02-03 season. Forsberg won the Art Ross and the Hart that year. There is no doubt in my mind that Forsberg's best season was in 02-03.

Hawkey Town 18 10-12-2013 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by siegeofshanghai (Post 72458673)
I often get to hear that Forsberg had his best season when he scored 116p in 1996, however considering that the scoring was all-time low in 02/03 his 106p in 75 games is definitely more impressive.

Not only did he miss 7 games, but he was also +52 and made Milan Hejduk score 50 goals the one and only time in his career.

also, since Forsberg only played 82 games once in his career (1996) you gotta wonder more many more times he would break 100p if not being injured all the time.

You are definitely correct. You might get some opposition on the main board, but I'm betting that around here almost everyone will share your opinion. Yet another example of how inaccurate ranking players by raw point totals is.

billybudd 10-12-2013 01:23 PM

Frankly, that his 02-03 season was better should go without saying.

the edler 10-12-2013 01:35 PM

Forsberg's 95–96 season is still a very impressive season. It was his first full NHL season playing 82 games, and would also be his only 80+ games season, and he finished 5th in the league in points, only 4 points behind teammate Sakic who finished 3rd. Lindros though at 6th place with 115 points had a much better PPG.

One could also argue, if we're only talking about the point race, that Lemieux, Jagr, Sakic, Francis, Lindros, Kariya, Selänne, Mogilny and Fedorov in 95–96 is a bit tougher competition than Näslund, Thornton in Boston, Hejduk, Bertuzzi, Demitra and Glen Murray in 2002–03

ForsbergForever 10-12-2013 01:52 PM

I think his 2005-06 season would have been even better had he not been derailed by injury.

Big Phil 10-12-2013 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the edler (Post 72467385)
One could also argue, if we're only talking about the point race, that Lemieux, Jagr, Sakic, Francis, Lindros, Kariya, Selänne, Mogilny and Fedorov in 95–96 is a bit tougher competition than Näslund, Thornton in Boston, Hejduk, Bertuzzi, Demitra and Glen Murray in 2002–03

I can understand that. A 2003 Forsberg doesn't outscore Lemieux or Jagr that year either. Not even close I don't think. Heck a 2003 Forsberg barely outscored a 2003 Mario.

But yeah, despite his run to the Cup in 1996 which he did well (although more on a Kamensky level on his team that spring) he definitely was more polished by 2003 and that was a very low scoring year. He was the best player in the NHL that year and I think that beats being a top 10ish player in 1996 despite it being a very competitive year.

Sticks and Pucks 10-12-2013 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big Phil (Post 72469439)
I can understand that. A 2003 Forsberg doesn't outscore Lemieux or Jagr that year either. Not even close I don't think. Heck a 2003 Forsberg barely outscored a 2003 Mario.

On that note, would you say that 02-03 Forsberg = 95-96 Sakic/Lindros?

Big Phil 10-15-2013 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FirstOverallLine (Post 72469805)
On that note, would you say that 02-03 Forsberg = 95-96 Sakic/Lindros?

Hmm, tough one. You have to throw in Joe's 1996 postseason as well. If that's the case, then not even close. But to just isolate their regular seasons, yeah Sakic in 1996 is pretty much Forsberg in 2003.

I think Lindros had a better regular season in 1996 than Sakic did, and better than Forsberg in 2003. Not by a lot, but still better.

Cyborg LeClair 10-15-2013 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ForsbergForever (Post 72468265)
I think his 2005-06 season would have been even better had he not been derailed by injury.

I agree. It felt like every game he was connecting with Simon Gagne for one or two goals. It was so exciting and he was really creative playing with the Flyers. It would've been an amazing season if he stayed healthy throughout. But that's just the story of Peter Forsberg :(

OmniCube 10-15-2013 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by siegeofshanghai (Post 72458673)
I often get to hear that Forsberg had his best season when he scored 116p in 1996, however considering that the scoring was all-time low in 02/03 his 106p in 75 games is definitely more impressive.

Not only did he miss 7 games, but he was also +52 and made Milan Hejduk score 50 goals the one and only time in his career.

also, since Forsberg only played 82 games once in his career (1996) you gotta wonder more many more times he would break 100p if not being injured all the time.

Forsberg was much better than any other forward in the league during 2002-03, and anyone arguing otherwise didn't watch him that year.

Hardyvan123 10-15-2013 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OmniCube (Post 72679637)
Forsberg was much better than any other forward in the league during 2002-03, and anyone arguing otherwise didn't watch him that year.

I would agree and to Phil's earlier point he was easily in the top 10 in the NHL for 96, probably in the top 5 for forwards.

People forget that in the low scoring era he played in and despite the injuries Peter top 100 points (adjusted) 4 times with 118,112,119,105 and also had seasons of
95
90
87
73 points

that's 8 seasons of elite to excellent production, even with the injuries.

Sticks and Pucks 10-16-2013 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OmniCube (Post 72679637)
Forsberg was much better than any other forward in the league during 2002-03, and anyone arguing otherwise didn't watch him that year.

He was better. He wasn't MUCH better. Naslund finished two points behind him in the scoring race. Granted, Naslund played more games but you can't deny that he still managed to score 48 goals and win the Pearson. Mario Lemieux also scored at a sick pace, had he played a full season I think he would have been right up there. He didn't have much help on that terrible Pens team either. Palffy had 85 points in 76 games on an LA Kings team where the second leading scorer was defenceman Mathieu Schneider who scored 42 points and was traded at the trade deadline. Give him another weapon and he would be right up there too. So my point is, Forsberg may have been the best forward that year, but I don't think he was MUCH better than everyone else.

Ishdul 10-16-2013 02:11 PM

I don't think many people who have put any thought into such things actually consider his 95/96 season to be better.

quoipourquoi 10-16-2013 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FirstOverallLine (Post 72714815)
He was better. He wasn't MUCH better. Naslund finished two points behind him in the scoring race. Granted, Naslund played more games but you can't deny that he still managed to score 48 goals and win the Pearson. Mario Lemieux also scored at a sick pace, had he played a full season I think he would have been right up there. He didn't have much help on that terrible Pens team either. Palffy had 85 points in 76 games on an LA Kings team where the second leading scorer was defenceman Mathieu Schneider who scored 42 points and was traded at the trade deadline. Give him another weapon and he would be right up there too. So my point is, Forsberg may have been the best forward that year, but I don't think he was MUCH better than everyone else.

Forsberg lost the Pearson because he missed his games in December and didn't catch up in the scoring race until the players were already voting. Naslund and Lemieux were significantly more dependent upon 5-on-4 advantages for their offense than Forsberg - and while strength in advantageous offensive situations is commendable, their teams weren't faring nearly as well defensively in even-strength situations. Forsberg was a +52 on a team that was +/-0 with him off the ice (hence the gap between his numbers and teammate Joe Sakic's +4), whereas Naslund's +6 ranked just 12th on his squad and Lemieux's -25 was third-worst on his team and among the worst in the league.

To say that Forsberg wasn't much better is to ignore that not only did he score at a higher rate, but that opposition teams were also not scoring against his line specifically. Forsberg and his linemates were +52, +52, and +34. The next highest Avalanche forward was +8. He may have been far removed from his PK days, but his offense was legitimately one of the best even-strength defenses in the league.

Removing PK GA/minutes
Forsberg: 42 GA in 1434 minutes
Madden: 36 GA in 1239 minutes

Sticks and Pucks 10-16-2013 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by quoipourquoi (Post 72719267)
Forsberg lost the Pearson because he missed his games in December and didn't catch up in the scoring race until the players were already voting. Naslund and Lemieux were significantly more dependent upon 5-on-4 advantages for their offense than Forsberg - and while strength in advantageous offensive situations is commendable, their teams weren't faring nearly as well defensively in even-strength situations. Forsberg was a +52 on a team that was +/-0 with him off the ice (hence the gap between his numbers and teammate Joe Sakic's +4), whereas Naslund's +6 ranked just 12th on his squad and Lemieux's -25 was third-worst on his team and among the worst in the league.

To say that Forsberg wasn't much better is to ignore that not only did he score at a higher rate, but that opposition teams were also not scoring against his line specifically. Forsberg and his linemates were +52, +52, and +34. The next highest Avalanche forward was +8. He may have been far removed from his PK days, but his offense was legitimately one of the best even-strength defenses in the league.

Removing PK GA/minutes
Forsberg: 42 GA in 1434 minutes
Madden: 36 GA in 1239 minutes

Who was Forsberg's line playing against? Is it possible that his coach was sheltering him against other top players/starting more shifts in the offensive zone?

TheDevilMadeMe 10-16-2013 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FirstOverallLine (Post 72719465)
Who was Forsberg's line playing against? Is it possible that his coach was sheltering him against other top players/starting more shifts in the offensive zone?

The word is that by the 2000s, Sakic had a greater defensive role than Forsberg

quoipourquoi 10-16-2013 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe (Post 72719601)
The word is that by the 2000s, Sakic had a greater defensive role than Forsberg

Sakic took on Forsberg's PK responsibilities in 2000, but by 2003, he was putting in 4th/5th forward PK minutes. His even-strength defensive responsibilities consisted of matching up against most other teams' top offensive lines (even when Yelle was still there, for the most part) because Forsberg drew the oppositions' defensive matchups. It's a system that theoretically should have boosted Sakic's offensive numbers since he was going punch-for-punch and boosted Forsberg's plus-minus numbers because there would be a less threatening counter-attack despite stronger defense.

While the plus-minus reflects this, Forsberg's offensive numbers remained fairly healthy relative to Sakic's, with Sakic blowing people's doors down in 2000 and 2001. 2002 saw a noticeable dip for Sakic, as Forsberg wasn't there to draw a defensive matchup away, thus changing the types of matchups teams could apply against the Sakic line. Enter 2003, when Sakic goes down with an injury: Forsberg steals his linemates and scores 38 points in 20 games during Sakic's two lengthy hiatuses.

Forsberg certainly wasn't a sheltered player, outside of taking fewer faceoffs than he did in the late-90s. As much as Hartley and Granato would have loved to have Forsberg play against weaker matchups, it's not really feasible when the other team consistently pulls their weaker defensive players off the ice to ensure that such a thing does not happen.

1997-98 is probably right up there with 2002-03 in terms of his seasons that blow 1995-96 out of the water. That's the season that he was within striking distance of Jagr's Art Ross, something he possibly could have won had Marc Crawford given him less PK time in favor of ES/PP minutes. I don't think Crawford was wrong for wanting to burn his best player's candle at both ends, as Colorado was a rather poor defensive team and the PK was one of the few bright spots, but it is the sort of thing that often goes unnoticed when people talk about 1997-98, both at the time and in retrospect.

Big Phil 10-16-2013 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OmniCube (Post 72679637)
Forsberg was much better than any other forward in the league during 2002-03, and anyone arguing otherwise didn't watch him that year.

I'm not sure I'd say "much" better either. He needed the last game of the year to win the scoring title. Mario was lapping the NHL in the first half of the season. Thornton had 101 points although no question Forsberg was better, and Bertuzzi had the best season of his career and was a physical beast. He was the best forward, but not by a country mile.

Fred Taylor 10-21-2013 07:45 PM

I think I would say Forsberg was much better than any other player in 02-03 and 03-04 even though he only played half the season. It was similar to Crosby's 10-11. No one during that time period had close to his overall game.

King Forsberg 10-21-2013 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fred Taylor (Post 73010061)
I think I would say Forsberg was much better than any other player in 02-03 and 03-04 even though he only played half the season. It was similar to Crosby's 10-11. No one during that time period had close to his overall game.

I'd say that dominance really started when he came back for the 2002 playoffs.

monster_bertuzzi 10-21-2013 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big Phil (Post 72725761)
I'm not sure I'd say "much" better either. He needed the last game of the year to win the scoring title. Mario was lapping the NHL in the first half of the season. Thornton had 101 points although no question Forsberg was better, and Bertuzzi had the best season of his career and was a physical beast. He was the best forward, but not by a country mile.

Naslund played out of his mind in 02-03 and was better than Bertuzzi.

Big Phil 10-22-2013 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by monster_bertuzzi (Post 73016207)
Naslund played out of his mind in 02-03 and was better than Bertuzzi.

Naslund was the one Forsberg ended up winning the scoring title against on the last day of the season. No doubt Naslund was elite at this time. Not terribly far from Forsberg in my mind either. At least we know a lot of people thought he had a better year since he won the Lindsay award.

MarkusNaslund19 10-24-2013 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FirstOverallLine (Post 72469805)
On that note, would you say that 02-03 Forsberg = 95-96 Sakic/Lindros?

Not to derail this thread. But to me Sakic's 00-01 season was better than his 95-96 (certainly if we exclude the playoffs).


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:05 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.