Thread: Sergei Fedorov
View Single Post
11-13-2012, 02:29 AM
Registered User
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 24,859
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by KingForsberg View Post
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.
Well, yeah. That's kind of how adjusted stats work. But hold on a second, I already said that Yzerman's big season still holds up after adjustment. Let's also take a balanced view here. Yzerman certainly deserves credit for being the highest scoring playing once behind only Gretzky and Lemieux, but are we seriously not giving credit to Fedorov for basically doing the same thing (finishing second to Gretzky in scoring) - keeping in mind that he outscored a decent list of players in doing so? Prime Oates, prime Gilmour, prime Roenick, prime Bure... all finished behind Gretzky and Fedorov. Are those names not at least comparable to the guys Yzerman outscored that year (Bernie Nicholls, Rob Brown, Paul Coffey, Joe Mullen, Kurri, etc)?

Originally Posted by KingForsberg View Post
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.
Listen, I've never made much of a big deal about his first knee injury, because he came back and had his career season after that. Now, as redwings19405 points out, that was the source of the scar tissue, so it's certainly something that should be considered.

Regarding the Selke specifically, though, it's basically a wash if we're comparing who the "better player" was. If we're talking about career value, then yeah, that's where the years add up in Yzerman's favour. It does bear reminding, though, that Fedorov (like Forsberg, to his credit) played that kind of defense pretty much from the time he entered the league, whereas Yzerman is given credit for transitioning to that kind of accountable play and maintaining productivity.

Originally Posted by KingForsberg View Post
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.
The point is, if someone says "Yzerman was the leader of the Red Wings all those years" as if a) Fedorov was in no way a leader and b) it was his "fault" for never usurping Yzerman's captaincy at any time after joining the Red Wings, well... hence my comparison to the flip side.

Originally Posted by KingForsberg View Post
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.
Just to remind you, I had Yzerman and Sakic higher than these other two guys in terms of career value/"all-time" ranking. That you don't find it close, especially considering Fedorov's trump card of having furthermore transitioned into an effective and productive defenseman by the end of his career... I dunno. Pretty special talent, really.

Originally Posted by KingForsberg View Post
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.
Oh definitely, fair enough. If points are what one prioritizes, the strongest argument supports Forsberg as the better offensive player. If one prioritizes goal scoring as a measure of offensive ability, though, are you saying they're wrong for pointing to Fedorov's history of consistently out-scoring Forsberg? We don't have to weigh them the same, as long as we agree that it's completely subjective.

Originally Posted by KingForsberg View Post
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?
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.
Woah, Fedorov wasn't "elite for a long time"? Do I necessarily have to subscribe to your definition of "elite" and "long time"? I really don't see how Fedorov doesn't have plenty of impressive seasons to stack up against Forsberg's aggregate measure.

Ohashi_Jouzu is offline