Fedorov vs. Selanne
View Single Post
03-28-2013, 02:18 PM
Join Date: Mar 2011
Originally Posted by
Okay, first of all, in a post on this very page - to which you've already responded, no less - I clearly referred to Fedorov as "Yzerman's 1B". We've established that already, and (I thought) we all knew what that means.
Well, why do you keep referring him as 2nd line center and trying to lift his accomplishments based on that, if he in fact was 1b.
Secondly, you've basically admitted to defaulting to 85 point > 62 points, and furthermore suggested that said 85 point player is by default "elite" while the other is not. You shut down at point counting and leaderboard/scoreboard watching. That's not the stance of an experienced fan of the game, sorry.
No need to apologize, I am the first to admit that I am relatively new to hockey (or new in a sense that i have shown more than casual interest in it only a short time)
But i would like to think that my reading comprehension is fine. I have read this thread from start to finish and i feel like there is too much to be explained in Fedorov's case. I do understand that Feds was a player who was more than quick look at stat sheet would show, but i also feel that you are giving too much weight on some things.
Basically what I am getting out of this is this, Fedorov was better player than Selanne but he never utilized his abilities to the max. (Exception in the one year)
Now, for my non-experienced point of view, when ranking players it is more essential to actually look at what happened than what was the potential.
Fedorov never reached the same level of play as he did in his Hart year. Now may it be due to his use or motivation or combination, we can't really know.
Thirdly, 11 less games could be considered "significant". It was enough to affect his consideration for all-star and Selke votes, obviously. But as long as you recognize that he was arguably
Selanne's "equal" - in one of his lowest scoring seasons, that received some of the fewest single season accolades of the entire 90s (including '99/00 into the '90s on somewhat of a technicality, I suppose), and despite being sort of hemmed into a secondary role in a rolling lines Bowman system, then I'll consider that progress.
That year Selanne was not at his best either. So i see no wrong in thinking that they might have been close to each other when performing. Now, explain the eleven games.
Well, including the playoffs, the scoring line comparison becomes:
Selanne: 79 GP, 85 PTS, 1.08 PPG
Fedorov: 77 GP, 70 PTS, 0.91 PPG
And we're comparing Anaheim's 1st line winger to the Red Wings' 2nd (er... 1B) centre here. 0.17 PPG in the difference "overall"...
I don't like the idea that Regular Season and Play-Offs are combined in that way. It gives the other player unfair advantage. (Please don't say that Selanne has advantage in regular season cause he plays with the ducks) I would rather look at them in separate columns but have no problem taking on account both.
Amuse yourself even further by comparing Selanne and Fedorov along these lines for yourself. Selanne went 29 of his 79 games without a point that year vs. Fedorov's 27 in 68. Not a huge difference there, either. Furthermore go around the league and pick out the all the #2 centres (and yes, 1Bs) and see how many times they pulled out multi-point games and ended up one of the game's 3 stars. I've spent quite a bit of time just poking around (not tabulating, by any stretch), and I don't think you'll find too much support for the argument that Fedorov wasn't
an elite #2 centre, and I'd obviously argue that everything considered he deserves to be considered at least Selanne's equal - even if the scope is restricted to a season that seems (at face value) to be one of Fedorov's
during what "should have been his prime".
I will have to get back to you on that, but i would expect Fedorov to be a very good first line center in every his prime years. No different to Selanne being a very good 1st line winger.
Well, if points, PPG, and regular season accumulation (i.e. final position on regular season scoring lists) are where you shut down, obviously that's too simply. Everyone knows that,
even in the same season
, 85 points on one team =/= 85 points in a completely different situation. There's a lot of context involved, and there are plenty of avenues to explore. It's frustrating to be constantly steered down the route of the most amateur hockey enthusiast; limited to raw point total comparisons and arguing opinion with opinion.
I do accept the idea that there is difference in players situations. All those differences have been brought out in this thread and most of them are well argued. I think it is soon time to make a poll about which of these two is going to finish on top. A tough race it will be, no matter what.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by TAnnala