HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
National Hockey League Talk Discuss NHL players, teams, games, and the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

Sergei Fedorov

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-08-2012, 11:29 PM
  #251
Morgoth Bauglir
Master Of The Fates
 
Morgoth Bauglir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,067
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by trentmccleary View Post
Explain the basic statistics that are giving you these truthful numbers.
The East DID outscore the West slightly.....but not anywhere near a level that would raise an eyebrow: 2.8 goals per game for Eastern teams versus 2.6 goals per game for Western teams.

Morgoth Bauglir is offline  
Old
11-08-2012, 11:34 PM
  #252
MastuhNinks
Registered User
 
MastuhNinks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: The Iron Throne
Posts: 4,417
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
I get the feeling you're probably overrating Datsyuk by a good bit. If you dropped Datsyuk onto, say, the Penguins he'd be no better than the THIRD best center on the team and one could make the argument that Jordan Staal is better than Datsyuk too.
This is a meaningless statement, all that it means is that there are at least 2 centers in the World that are better than Datsyuk. For the record I don't think that, and I agree around these parts he's sometimes unjustly treated as royalty, but your argument is extremely weak. Steven Stamkos is the 3rd best player in the World and he'd be the 3rd best center on the Penguins. Saying that there are two players on one team better than someone is that a very meaningful statement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
The numbers don't lie: There isn't much statistical difference.
What on earth are you talking about? Are we looking at the same numbers here?

Datsyuk's career average offensive numbers are significantly better than any single season of Jordan Staal's. Just looking at Staal's best season, which was a lot better than any other he has had, his points per game was 0.81. 8 of Pavel Datsyuk's 10 NHL seasons are better than that, and one of them is barely behind, at 0.80 points per game. All 8 seasons are his 8 most recent seasons, including 0.96 points per game and 1.05 points per game the past two seasons. There most definitely is a statistical difference, and no argument for Jordan Staal being better.

So yeah, Datsyuk has exceeded what was by far Jordan Staal's best season of his career for 8 straight seasons, and all by fairly significant amounts. So please, show me the argument for Staal. The numbers don't lie after all.

MastuhNinks is offline  
Old
11-08-2012, 11:40 PM
  #253
WingsMike
Registered Man
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 952
vCash: 738
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
I said Jordan Staal could be argued. Bottom line is their yearly numbers aren't all that different.
No, no he couldn't.

WingsMike is offline  
Old
11-08-2012, 11:41 PM
  #254
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 21,630
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
Of course, and that's why when I last checked Staal and the Penguins were sipping champagne over the corpse of Datsyuk and the Red Wings in '09.
lol. Staal vs Datsyuk. You should start a poll. Instant entertainment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
I'm actually surprised a Hasek hugger would argue that the playoffs are more important given his idol's propensity for getting outplayed there.
Actually, I'm a Roy fan above any player in NHL history besides Wayne Gretzky. Not surprisingly, I post mostly on the Habs board, and have only two jerseys in my collection with the names and numbers stitched on: Roy, and Gretzky.

But carry on with the drive-by amusing deflections to meaningless tangents. Respect to Dom for his Harts, Pearsons, Vezinas, and volume of statistical rediculousness.


Last edited by Ohashi_Jouzu: 11-08-2012 at 11:48 PM.
Ohashi_Jouzu is offline  
Old
11-08-2012, 11:50 PM
  #255
trentmccleary
Registered User
 
trentmccleary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alfie-Ville
Posts: 18,796
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
The East DID outscore the West slightly.....but not anywhere near a level that would raise an eyebrow: 2.8 goals per game for Eastern teams versus 2.6 goals per game for Western teams.
I know. But he just implied that there was upwards of a 31 point swing when he took away 16 projected points from Staal and tacked on 15 for Datsyuk.

234 goals scored difference between the two conferences.
16 more goals per team in the East.
40 points with a 2.5 average multiplier = (1 goal, 1 primary assist and 0.5 secondary assists)

So if you guess the breakdown of those 40 points as being slightly weighted towards the high time and high scoring players... say
4 players get 4 extra points
4 players get 3 extra points
4 players get 2 extra points
4 players get 1 extra point
2 players get 0 extra points
There's your 40 points.

Staal wasn't in the first group in ice time or points. So he may have only been a difference of 3 points. Datsyuk might have gained an extra 4 in the East. For an average difference of maybe 3.5 points. Big whoop.

trentmccleary is online now  
Old
11-09-2012, 12:40 AM
  #256
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by trentmccleary View Post
I know. But he just implied that there was upwards of a 31 point swing when he took away 16 projected points from Staal and tacked on 15 for Datsyuk.

234 goals scored difference between the two conferences.
16 more goals per team in the East.
40 points with a 2.5 average multiplier = (1 goal, 1 primary assist and 0.5 secondary assists)

So if you guess the breakdown of those 40 points as being slightly weighted towards the high time and high scoring players... say
4 players get 4 extra points
4 players get 3 extra points
4 players get 2 extra points
4 players get 1 extra point
2 players get 0 extra points
There's your 40 points.

Staal wasn't in the first group in ice time or points. So he may have only been a difference of 3 points. Datsyuk might have gained an extra 4 in the East. For an average difference of maybe 3.5 points. Big whoop.
I weighted the 5-15 range based on the idea that teams have somewhere between 3-8 "core" offensive players depending on depth and team system, basically the "go-to" guys who were out there when a goal was needed. For some teams, such as a Rick Nash Columbus team, the same guy(s) were always out there. It's unlikely that Datsyuk would pick up the full 15 if the West were adjusted to be scoring like the East using a method to account for such things - probably closer to 5 or 10. But Staal would probably lose somewhere between 10-15, as Pittburgh's offense is not as deep; it simply rides a few highly talented players.

At some point I intend to actually do a study of scoring distribution in this regard, which would give a much better picture of how to evaluate players across division and conference lines. One example is that in Team 5/5 GF/GA ratio last season, the top two teams were both Central teams. The Central had three of the top ten and four of the top 14. The Atlantic had 3 of the top 7. In team +/-, the Central was 2/3, 3/8, and 4/11 while the Atlantic was again 3/7.

So we clearly have two top divisions statistically here just from that few moments of analysis. But this thread isn't about all of that, we'll leave it for later. The general point is that the East scores more than the West, and it's most notably pointed out when you compare the top scorers (almost all Eastern forwards), and then compare team totals (most Eastern teams are in the top 15, most Western teams are in the bottom 15). Those simple facts provide the indication that it's not just a few high end talents on top of the leaderboard, but a more widespread phenomenon leading to the Eastern players posting higher totals. It's almost a reverse of the 90s, when the East was highly locked down and the West was more free-flowing offensively.

pdd is offline  
Old
11-09-2012, 01:31 AM
  #257
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,538
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by eva unit zero View Post
What linemates did Fedorov have who were better than Ron Francis? Slava Kozlov was Fedorov's best regular linemate.
I was responding to a post about Fedorov's PPG being higher in international play than Jagr or Forsberg. Everything in my response was related to international play, including the comment about linemates. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear to you.

Czech Your Math is offline  
Old
11-09-2012, 01:36 AM
  #258
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
I was responding to a post about Fedorov's PPG being higher in international play than Jagr or Forsberg. Everything in my response was related to international play, including the comment about linemates. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear to you.
Gotcha.

pdd is offline  
Old
11-09-2012, 01:50 AM
  #259
Mav3rick07
Hall-Hopkins-Yakupov
 
Mav3rick07's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,502
vCash: 500
Sick player, should have stayed in Detroit after 12 years of tearing up the league with the Red Wings. After leaving for Anaheim, and then later Columbus, Fedorov would only have one 20+ goal season and that was 31 goals with the Ducks in 04.

With the Wings, Fedorov scored at least 30 goals in 8 out of his 12 seasons.

Mav3rick07 is offline  
Old
11-09-2012, 09:37 AM
  #260
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mav3rick07 View Post
Sick player, should have stayed in Detroit after 12 years of tearing up the league with the Red Wings. After leaving for Anaheim, and then later Columbus, Fedorov would only have one 20+ goal season and that was 31 goals with the Ducks in 04.

With the Wings, Fedorov scored at least 30 goals in 8 out of his 12 seasons.
He was also 33 when he left. Guy Lafleur retired at 33.

pdd is offline  
Old
11-09-2012, 02:32 PM
  #261
King Forsberg
21 68 88 16 44 28
 
King Forsberg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Country: United States
Posts: 5,190
vCash: 300
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
Hey, either way I'm just glad we're having this kind of exchange about it. I'm certainly not going to begrudge a ~40 spot divide. I'm hardly even prepared to argue at length as to whether 30 or 50 would be a step in the "right direction", for example. There are lots of great players in history, so anywhere in the top 100 is something special as it is. Heck, once goalies are considered, there's not as much room left as one might think. But as much as I give Yzerman kudos for his high-flying offense in the 80s, his longevity/consistency, guts, toughness, and dedication, these guys aren't separated by that much age-wise, and like I said before, there's over a decade of playing hockey together under the same conditions where Yzerman didn't look that much better than Fedorov (and I would argue, in fact, that there are periods in the middle where Fedorov looked better than Yzerman, so it's not even a consistent decade of Yzerman's "second fiddle" or anything).
I think it is fair to compare them when they played together. Fedorov did look better at times but over the entire time they played together I'd still say Yzerman was more important to the Wings and the better player.
Quote:
It's very much a Sakic/Forsberg comparison for me (Sakic with the head start in a higher scoring era, Forsberg shooting past to his peak during their time together, Sakic having the career numbers and intangibles advantage at the end of everything and never being considered on a distinctly lower level at any time along the way), and I don't think anyone has them separated by many spots on their list.
i think would rate them in order of Sakic, Yzerman, Forsberg, then Fedorov. I think Sakic and Yzerman are closer together ad both top 35 players of all time. Forsberg falls to around 50th on my list and Fedorov is a little lower than that. It's a great comparison however.

Quote:
Originally Posted by eva unit zero View Post
That would be accurate. Looking at scoring lists, probably a better comparison based on style, as well as where they ranked in scoring over their career would be Datsyuk v. Kovalchuk; Datsyuk is jut inside the top ten in scoring during his career, Kovalchuk is top five.
Another intriguing comparison. However I still think the gap in offense between Fedorov and Lafluer is larger than that of Kovalchuk and Datsyuk in their primes.
Quote:
Lafleur dominated during a period of time when there were just as many teams as there are now (if you include the WHA) but talent distribution was far more lopsided. He enjoyed the benefits of playing on what is arguably the most stacked team ever, against team full of players that would be in the AHL today. He was a dominant player and a great player, one of the best of his era. But if you were to have the choice between a prime Lafleur or a prime Fedorov - a they actually were, not adjusting their conditioning to the era or assuming their talent level follows the league's continued increase - the answer is clearly Fedorov.

I don't know what more I can say other than that a very good NHL player is almost always better than the best player outside the NHL.
Is that really a fair way to compare players though? Just taking players out of their era and comparing them head to head on an absolute scale is really meaningless in my opinion. Obviously players today would dominate players of the 40s and 50s. Kovalchuk would probably break goal scoring records if playing in the 80s. But you have to look at how players compare against their peers. Yes there was probably more talent in the NHL when Fedorov played but then again Fedorovs talent level according to you is higher. So shouldn't he be able to dominate just a little bit more on offense than he actually did?

King Forsberg is offline  
Old
11-09-2012, 04:07 PM
  #262
trentmccleary
Registered User
 
trentmccleary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alfie-Ville
Posts: 18,796
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eva unit zero View Post
I weighted the 5-15 range based on the idea that teams have somewhere between 3-8 "core" offensive players depending on depth and team system, basically the "go-to" guys who were out there when a goal was needed. For some teams, such as a Rick Nash Columbus team, the same guy(s) were always out there. It's unlikely that Datsyuk would pick up the full 15 if the West were adjusted to be scoring like the East using a method to account for such things - probably closer to 5 or 10. But Staal would probably lose somewhere between 10-15, as Pittburgh's offense is not as deep; it simply rides a few highly talented players.

At some point I intend to actually do a study of scoring distribution in this regard, which would give a much better picture of how to evaluate players across division and conference lines. One example is that in Team 5/5 GF/GA ratio last season, the top two teams were both Central teams. The Central had three of the top ten and four of the top 14. The Atlantic had 3 of the top 7. In team +/-, the Central was 2/3, 3/8, and 4/11 while the Atlantic was again 3/7.

So we clearly have two top divisions statistically here just from that few moments of analysis. But this thread isn't about all of that, we'll leave it for later. The general point is that the East scores more than the West, and it's most notably pointed out when you compare the top scorers (almost all Eastern forwards), and then compare team totals (most Eastern teams are in the top 15, most Western teams are in the bottom 15). Those simple facts provide the indication that it's not just a few high end talents on top of the leaderboard, but a more widespread phenomenon leading to the Eastern players posting higher totals. It's almost a reverse of the 90s, when the East was highly locked down and the West was more free-flowing offensively.
You're still being way too generous with those points.
If Staal is 10-15, than Neal might be 15-20 and Malkin might be 20-25. Even the low end of each of those numbers is 45 points out of the 40-ish you had to allocate... and nobody else on the team benefitted at all?

You're talking about 3-8 players primarily benefitting; IMO, the list that I posted accounts for that much better than what you're posting.

3 players = 12 / 40 points (nearly 1/3)
5 players = 19 / 40 points (nearly 1/2)
8 players = 28 / 40 points (more than 2/3)

Leaving 12 points for the bottom 10 depth players to split.

Exaggerating the differences the way you did for the two players in your specific comparison makes it appear as if you were just trying to invalidate all production numbers in the East to suit whatever you're arguing on a given day. That is, if the way you're doing this became popular or you just liked arguing between Pitt & Det... then I'd expect that after all of the comparisons had been done individually over as many as 20 different threads, that your method would end up closer to tallying up as a 100 goal difference (totalling 250 points) instead of 16 goals (totalling 40 points).

trentmccleary is online now  
Old
11-09-2012, 06:57 PM
  #263
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by trentmccleary View Post
You're still being way too generous with those points.
If Staal is 10-15, than Neal might be 15-20 and Malkin might be 20-25.
It's not a perfectly adjusted system; it was basically what I laid out. I didn't make adjustments that first-liners would be adjusted a greater deal than second liners, etc. If I end up managing to find the time to really put in the work on this idea, that will be incorporated. But right now it's basically the idea that each team has somewhere between 3-8 "core" offensive players that they rely on for output, which translates to an average of somewhere between 5-15 points per player.

Quote:
Even the low end of each of those numbers is 45 points out of the 40-ish you had to allocate... and nobody else on the team benefitted at all?

You're talking about 3-8 players primarily benefitting; IMO, the list that I posted accounts for that much better than what you're posting.

3 players = 12 / 40 points (nearly 1/3)
5 players = 19 / 40 points (nearly 1/2)
8 players = 28 / 40 points (more than 2/3)

Leaving 12 points for the bottom 10 depth players to split.

Exaggerating the differences the way you did for the two players in your specific comparison makes it appear as if you were just trying to invalidate all production numbers in the East to suit whatever you're arguing on a given day. That is, if the way you're doing this became popular or you just liked arguing between Pitt & Det... then I'd expect that after all of the comparisons had been done individually over as many as 20 different threads, that your method would end up closer to tallying up as a 100 goal difference (totalling 250 points) instead of 16 goals (totalling 40 points).
A more comprehensive system could be constructed; it would likely need to be based off of a combination of points and on-ice goals for (perhaps add the two together, and divide by total team points plus TGF x 4.8, or whatever ratio it would be for PP/PK). That could more properly distribute the actual difference. Until then, we just have "The difference is probably somewhere in this range."

pdd is offline  
Old
11-09-2012, 07:29 PM
  #264
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 21,630
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingForsberg View Post
I think it is fair to compare them when they played together. Fedorov did look better at times but over the entire time they played together I'd still say Yzerman was more important to the Wings and the better player.
Sure, overall, most people are going to peg Yzerman as the best player over those total years. Thing is, though, how much further down a rankings list can you put a guy who was not only undisputedly and clearly better than him on the same team over a meaningful chunk of that decade + (whether Yzerman was "better" for the "majority" or not), has almost the same number of accumulated points (and more playoff points - gap somewhat equivalent to the difference in their regular season production), and won more individual awards during their period together?

Quote:
Originally Posted by KingForsberg View Post
i think would rate them in order of Sakic, Yzerman, Forsberg, then Fedorov. I think Sakic and Yzerman are closer together ad both top 35 players of all time. Forsberg falls to around 50th on my list and Fedorov is a little lower than that. It's a great comparison however.
People are going to emphasize what they like when contemplating career or "overall" value, or whatever, but I probably rank them Yzerman/Sakic (I can never decide between these guys "overall"), Fedorov, Forsberg. If it was just a "best player" ranking, I'd probably go Fedorov, Yzerman, Sakic, Forsberg. Forsberg gets too many "what if" points for his partial seasons when discussing his peak/prime, and for his early pseudo-retirement, imo, but he was a beast. Fourth on that list is not a slight by any means, though.

Ohashi_Jouzu is offline  
Old
11-09-2012, 10:09 PM
  #265
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
Sure, overall, most people are going to peg Yzerman as the best player over those total years. Thing is, though, how much further down a rankings list can you put a guy who was not only undisputedly and clearly better than him on the same team over a meaningful chunk of that decade + (whether Yzerman was "better" for the "majority" or not), has almost the same number of accumulated points (and more playoff points - gap somewhat equivalent to the difference in their regular season production), and won more individual awards during their period together?



People are going to emphasize what they like when contemplating career or "overall" value, or whatever, but I probably rank them Yzerman/Sakic (I can never decide between these guys "overall"), Fedorov, Forsberg. If it was just a "best player" ranking, I'd probably go Fedorov, Yzerman, Sakic, Forsberg. Forsberg gets too many "what if" points for his partial seasons when discussing his peak/prime, and for his early pseudo-retirement, imo, but he was a beast. Fourth on that list is not a slight by any means, though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingForsberg View Post
I think it is fair to compare them when they played together. Fedorov did look better at times but over the entire time they played together I'd still say Yzerman was more important to the Wings and the better player. i think would rate them in order of Sakic, Yzerman, Forsberg, then Fedorov. I think Sakic and Yzerman are closer together ad both top 35 players of all time. Forsberg falls to around 50th on my list and Fedorov is a little lower than that. It's a great comparison however.
Yzerman and Sakic are often put on lists as inseparable twins in the manner the Sedins are. The thing is, that's folly.

Over the course of the overlapping portion of their careers, Yzerman and Sakic were virtually identical in terms of offensive output. Yzerman began this period as a solid defenive player and ended it having won a Selke (and contended for it for a decade). Sakic started his career as a pretty one-dimensional player; he wasn't a solid defensive player until the late 90s.

For the overlap period from 88-89 to 05-06, Sakic scored the most points and Yzerman was third.

Per-82 scoring went like this:
Sakic: 38-61-99
Yzerman: 37-58-95

That's in seasons both of them played in. It does not include Yzerman scoring 50-52-102 in 64 games (63-65-128 over a full 80) in 1987-88, or Sakic's 36-64-100 in 82 the year following Yzerman' retirement.

During the 90s rivalry, they were comparable level players. Sakic was putting out a bit more offense, but Yzerman was an elite defensive player at that point as well a being a PPG center.

Fedorov and Forsberg is a similar comparison, but it's closer because Forsberg has a notable lead over Fedorov offensively. Forsberg was never the elite defensive player Fedorov was, but overall they were of comparable level. A matter of taste in that respect. I would rank it Yzerman, Sakic, Fedorov/Forsberg. Fedorov would come first on a list if I had to choose because of superior durability and longevity; his per-game offensive numbers were hurt by the fact that he played through many of the same kind of minor injuries Forsberg would often sit out a game or two for. And having him on the ice, not scoring, still helped the team. A recent example of this is Marian Hossa in the 2009 playoffs. He wrecked his shoulder and basically couldn't shoot, but he played the whole run and did a wonderful job at everything but scoring goals. When the Wings lost (and ever since) Hossa took a lot of flak, but he was one of the team's best players (5th on the team in scoring, 6 points ahead of Datsyuk).

Quote:
Another intriguing comparison. However I still think the gap in offense between Fedorov and Lafluer is larger than that of Kovalchuk and Datsyuk in their primes.
Is that really a fair way to compare players though? Just taking players out of their era and comparing them head to head on an absolute scale is really meaningless in my opinion. Obviously players today would dominate players of the 40s and 50s. Kovalchuk would probably break goal scoring records if playing in the 80s. But you have to look at how players compare against their peers. Yes there was probably more talent in the NHL when Fedorov played but then again Fedorovs talent level according to you is higher. So shouldn't he be able to dominate just a little bit more on offense than he actually did?
If Fedorov had focused on offense-first like Lafleur did, or his former linemate Bure for that matter, he would have dominated the scoring lists.

You say the difference between Lafleur and Fedorov is bigger than that of Datsyuk and Kovalchuk?

Hmm. Let's use HR's adjuted stats to do some testing of your theory.

Adjusted stats:
Datsyuk 732GP, 261-504-765 (29-56-85)
Kovalchuk 779GP, 445-401-846 (47-42-89)

Lafleur 1126GP, 480-681-1161 (35-50-85)
Fedorov 1248GP, 508-718-1226 (33-47-80)

Looks like it's about the same difference. It's a wider gap by a very tiny margin, but Fedorov IMHO was better defensively than Datsyuk.

So your question. Would you take Datsyuk or Kovalchuk? The answer might tell you whether you would take Fedorov or Lafleur.

pdd is offline  
Old
11-10-2012, 02:21 AM
  #266
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,538
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by eva unit zero View Post
If Fedorov had focused on offense-first like Lafleur did, or his former linemate Bure for that matter, he would have dominated the scoring lists.
If by dominate the scoring lists you mean have similar finishes as Bure, Kariya, Selanne, Forsberg, Lindros... even that is questionable:

Fedorov- 2,9
Bure- 2,3,5,7
Kariya- 3,3,4,7
Selanne- 2,2,5,5,7,8
Forsberg- 2,4,5,9
Lindros- 1,6,7
Sakic- 2,2,3,4,5,5,6,6,8,10

At most, I see a less defensive Fedorov getting another top 10 or two in '92 and/or '95 (or maybe his anomaly in '03)... maybe squeaking into the top five in '95 or '96. 4 top 10 and 2 top 5 finishes still puts him toward the bottom of those 7 players (incl. himself)... who are still way behind Lemieux (when healthy) and Jagr. He lost a Ross to Gretzky, but all the others players (except Kariya) lost a Ross to Jagr.

Quote:
Originally Posted by eva unit zero View Post
You say the difference between Lafleur and Fedorov is bigger than that of Datsyuk and Kovalchuk?

Hmm. Let's use HR's adjuted stats to do some testing of your theory.

Adjusted stats:
Datsyuk 732GP, 261-504-765 (29-56-85)
Kovalchuk 779GP, 445-401-846 (47-42-89)

Lafleur 1126GP, 480-681-1161 (35-50-85)
Fedorov 1248GP, 508-718-1226 (33-47-80)

Looks like it's about the same difference. It's a wider gap by a very tiny margin, but Fedorov IMHO was better defensively than Datsyuk.

So your question. Would you take Datsyuk or Kovalchuk? The answer might tell you whether you would take Fedorov or Lafleur.
I don't think too many are going to take Fedorov over Lafleur... just a hunch.

If you use different pairings:

Fedorov
Datsyuk

Lafleur
Kovalchuk

Most will probably take Fedorov, but Datsyuk would be a nice consolation prize... Fedorov with a bit lower peak and possibly not as much longevity.

You're going to have to search high and low for any serious fan that would even think about taking Kovalchuk over Lafleur. Kovalchuk would need to play several more years to have a possible career value advantage, but even then it would be an uphill battle vs. Lafleur.

Czech Your Math is offline  
Old
11-10-2012, 02:26 AM
  #267
ottawa*
go habs go
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,002
vCash: 50
I don't understand how people are saying he's only good enough to make the top 150 lol...try narrowing that list down by at least half. He should easily make the top 75 players of all time, even if its towards the end of that list.

ottawa* is offline  
Old
11-10-2012, 10:03 AM
  #268
Stars23*
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 114
vCash: 500
Quote:
"The facts are simple and true:

Fedorov was considered the Best player in the World in 1993-94 and won the Hart Trophy (Individual Gold) and Lindsay and Selke (No other player in history of the earth has done that in a single season)

(Lemieux would have 63 goals and 138 Points in a 82 game average (Lemieux has NEVER played an 80 game season) when he was healthy enough to play - wouldn't have won the Rocket Award that season, and maybe the Art Ross (50/50 or less).

Fedorov was the Best in 1994. Wayne Gretzky & Steve Yzerman have said they believe Feds "is the most talented player they've ever seen". From the Best of the Best.

Fedorov also played as a defenseman to shut down guys like Forsberg and Gretzky when he was in his prime in the playoffs. Fedorov also led the NHL in plus/minus in the 1990's with 221+, talk about Legendary.

Guys like Steve Yzerman have also said Fedorov is the best skater they've ever seen, and the among the fastest, if not the fastest (especially Big ice).

He won the hardest shot competition and is also considered one of the greatest playoff performers in NHL history.

He also has the single season NHL record of $28 million, payed in a 6 month span where he lead the playoffs in goals in '98 and to the Stanley Cup (second in a row).

Oh yeah can anyone refute the fact Fedorov beat Jagr and Forsberg in Best on Best Olympics points per a game? and Canada Cup/World points per a game and goals per a game, all this while playing as a Soviet style Defensive Center - Looks like when the competition was Best on Best, Fedorov was better

Canada just dislikes Russians to the max (except Wayne Gretzky, who is of part Russian and Belarusian descent ("White Russia") lol".
Quote:
"Great post, although I tend to disagree with the last paragraph. Fedorov is my all time favorite player, Ovechkin was at one time the most popular player in the league, and I guarentee Malkin is near the top of that list currently.

Canadians, generally speaking, dislike the Semin/Filatov type. Primma donna with one dimensional skillsets and fluctuating effort level."
Agreed but here we seem to ignore anything we don't like hearing.


Last edited by Stars23*: 11-10-2012 at 10:17 AM.
Stars23* is offline  
Old
11-10-2012, 10:21 AM
  #269
Stars23*
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 114
vCash: 500
Lots of people are trying to use Feds NHL stats to devalue him, using their own logic, but in Best on Best play International competitions, Feds PPG rate is '''Higher than Forsberg, Jagr and Joe Sakic''', but many people here will disregard it because it can't be refuted.

Stars23* is offline  
Old
11-10-2012, 10:51 AM
  #270
Stansfield*
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 992
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stars23 View Post
Lots of people are trying to use Feds NHL stats to devalue him, using their own logic, but in Best on Best play International competitions, Feds PPG rate is '''Higher than Forsberg, Jagr and Joe Sakic''', but many people here will disregard it because it can't be refuted.
Best on best for Fedorov, Sakic, Jagr and Forsberg

Fedorov
GP-26 G-8 A-16 PTS-24 PPG-0.92308

Sakic
GP-30 G-12 A-11 PTS-23 PPG-0.76667

Jagr
GP-36 G-10 A-14 PTS-24 PPG-0.66667

Forsberg
GP-31 G-5 A-23 PTS-28 PPG-0.90323

Such large sample sizes! Certainly 123 games of best on best is a far better tool to evaluate these four players than 4680 NHL regular season games, and 686 NHL playoff games.

Stansfield* is offline  
Old
11-10-2012, 11:10 AM
  #271
Stars23*
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 114
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stansfield View Post
Best on best for Fedorov, Sakic, Jagr and Forsberg

Fedorov
GP-26 G-8 A-16 PTS-24 PPG-0.92308

Sakic
GP-30 G-12 A-11 PTS-23 PPG-0.76667

Jagr
GP-36 G-10 A-14 PTS-24 PPG-0.66667

Forsberg
GP-31 G-5 A-23 PTS-28 PPG-0.90323

Such large sample sizes! Certainly 123 games of best on best is a far better tool to evaluate these four players than 4680 NHL regular season games, and 686 NHL playoff games.
I guess you could say it's about perspective - Best on Best is a level above NHL. Higher stakes to perform and spread over 20 years Each of Playing at the highest level possible.

Fedorov was the oldest player in the 2010 Olympics and produced at a point per a game pace (like Crosby) and that's at 40 years old with the second lowest ice time on the team.


Last edited by Stars23*: 11-10-2012 at 11:22 AM.
Stars23* is offline  
Old
11-10-2012, 11:15 AM
  #272
Stansfield*
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 992
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stars23 View Post
I guess you could say it's about perspective - Best on Best is a level above NHL. Higher stakes to perform and spread over 20 years of Playing at the highest level possible
I agree it's the best, but it's still only 26 games. And Fedorov is the only one without a Gold Medal in a best on best tournament.

Stansfield* is offline  
Old
11-10-2012, 11:24 AM
  #273
Stars23*
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 114
vCash: 500
And Fedorov won the Individual Gold, the Hart and was called the Most talented player by Wayne Gretzky, thats more prestigious than any TEAM medal lol

You play to be the Best. Period.


Last edited by Stars23*: 11-10-2012 at 01:17 PM.
Stars23* is offline  
Old
11-10-2012, 11:39 AM
  #274
Stansfield*
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 992
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stars23 View Post
Lots of people are trying to use Feds NHL stats to devalue him, using their own logic, but in Best on Best play International competitions, Feds PPG rate is '''Higher than Forsberg, Jagr and Joe Sakic''', but many people here will disregard it because it can't be refuted.
So at first, you claim everyone is trying to "devalue" him based on NHL and a handful of best-on-best games are the trump card.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stars23 View Post
And Fedorov won the Individual Gold, the Hart and was called the Most talented player by Wayne Greyzky, thats more prestigious than any TEAM medal lol
But then wait no, NHL stuff does matter. As does the "Individual Gold", whatever that is, and a reference to a quote from a guy that did nothing but call every guy the best, trumps best-on-best.

Stansfield* is offline  
Old
11-10-2012, 11:46 AM
  #275
Stars23*
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 114
vCash: 500
Nice straw man but you can't take the facts and are Now attacking me like you do everyone in support of Feds on this thread. If you want to talk hockey, talk hockey.

Do you know that individual awards are more Prestigious than teams medals? Trust me you want the girl, you don't want a second cousin you know what I'm saying? Lol you don't even have to play sometimes and can get a team medal like Fleury but to win the Hart, you're a legend. Gretzky never won an Olympic Gold like Fleury from the stands lol guess he sucks now right? The internet is funny like that


Last edited by Stars23*: 11-10-2012 at 11:52 AM.
Stars23* is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:49 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.