View Single Post
11-12-2012, 11:59 PM
21 68 88 16 44 28
Join Date: Jul 2010
Originally Posted by
Oh, no mistake, props to Yzerman for that 155 point season, and there's no ignoring that which I watched for myself. Only thing is, I have trouble putting too much emphasis on numbers accumulated during a time when the top performing goalies in the league included John Casey, Kari Takko, Mike Vernon, and Steve Weekes, who were posting save percentages of 0.900, 0.899, 0.897, and 0.893 respectively at the top of the stats tables. Even Roy, the league leader, only managed 0.908.
So I guess all Hugh scoring players in that era should be penalized? It was a High scoring season no doubt but Yzerman was insanely good that year. He finished third in scoring only to Lemiuex and Gretzky. Despite Lemiuex scoring 199 points, Yzerman still won the Pearson. He wasn't just some average scorer who benefited from the high scoring he dominated on a level just slightly below a prime Mario Lemieux and Gretzky.
Adjusted for league scoring, that season still holds up against Fedorov's big season of 120 points, but I watched both seasons, and know there was a difference in goaltending by '93/94, when guys like Hasek, Beezer, Roy, Brodeur, and Joseph all posted save percentages between 0.930 and 0.911. Yzerman noticed, too, and never topped 100 points again after the league scoring craziness of '92/93, despite not facing his serious knee problems for nearly another decade.
as has been shown this is false. He had injuries prior to the time your referencing. I think Yzermans decline in scoring had more to due with injures, focusing more on defense and the fact that he was just getting older. He still managed a top ten scoring finish and Selke win in 2000 despite being in his mid 30s. Very similar to Fedorovs 1996 season which is regarded by Fedorovs fans (maybe not you in particular) as an elite season.
Ever wonder if Steve Yzerman joined a team captained by Fedorov in Russia, would he ever have established the same reputation as a leader that he enjoys in the NHL? I doubt it, and I certainly don't hold that against Fedorov considering how well his production (regular, and particularly post season) holds up against Yzerman's. Similarly, no one really blames rare offensive talents for coming up short in accumulation races against guys like Gretzky, Lemieux, etc.
Im not sure what your point is. Many European players have come over and excelled despite having an established leader already there. Bure, Mogilny, Lidstrom, etc. I'm not really sure what your point is. Fedorov only once really lost an award to Lemiuex or Gretzky. Having only one other top ten scoring finish in his career certainly can't be blamed on playing in the same era as two greats.
Yzerman was always my favourite of the two because he was "the leader" (of course), and because of how he always seemed to bounce back from injury (broken collarbone a few seasons before his "big one", his back problems that left Fedorov carrying the team for stretches in the early/mid-90s, the knee injury, etc), but I have never seen any great divide in their "calibre" or skills, and I watched '88/89 passionately - and then disappointedly - as a Habs fan and hockey player back in junior high.
Maybe we'll just have to agree to disagree then because I just don't see an argument for Fedorov to be relatively near Yzerman on an all time list.
Literally the only thing that Forsberg was better at "offensively" than Fedorov was using his linemates. Fedorov was the better skater, the better shooter, and just as comfortable with the puck on his stick. Maybe a bit more imagination/creativity when it came to things like penalty shots, I suppose. Forsberg played a more physical style of initiating lots of contact which was no doubt entertaining to watch, but realize that even in Forsberg's best seasons (be it his 116 points in '95/96, or his 106 in '02/03), Fedorov was scoring ~10 more goals than him, and playing that style was part of Forsberg's "downfall" in the end, kind of like Lindros. Even playing that style, Forsberg was unable to get himself into nearly as many good scoring opportunities as Fedorov.
Sounds like your punishing Forsberg for being such a great passer. So what if Fedorov scored more goals? Does being a slightly better goal scorer really balance out the larger advantage in playmaking? I don't think so personally. Forsberg was the one finishing higher in scoring races and having better point totals in the same era. I've already said Fedorov had the best season of the two in 94. But Forsberg had several other elite seasons offensively where Fedorov really didn't. Also how do you explain Forsberg having better goals per game averages in the playoffs where Fedorov played his best hockey?
As such, there's only so much credit you can really give Forsberg for "what could have been" when it's realized that his career value doesn't quite stack up to Fedorov's, and efforts must be made to boost the profile of his prime. Double the goals on slightly over double the number of shots over these guys' careers, and Fedorov ends up with the extra Cup ring as well. That's just part of what I'd consider a strong case for Fedorov vs. Forsberg.
Forsbergs injuries due hurt his career value no doubt. Bu lets not act like Fedorov was playing elite hockey for a long time. As has been stated, Fedorov had a short prime where Forsbergs was much longer and better despite the injuries. I'm note sure what you mean with the double the goals, shots comment so I don't want to comment on that.
View Public Profile
King Forsberg's albums
Find More Posts by King Forsberg