HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

lindros, forsberg

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-29-2012, 04:15 PM
  #101
toob
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 731
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
When Jaromir Jagr was by far the best offensive player in the world in 1998-99 and 1999-00, who was his center? Kip Miller? Martin Straka?

In 1996 and 1997, Jagr did get to play with Lemieux on the powerplay, which does inflate those totals.

Lindros got LeClair and Renberg and later Recchi.
I dunno too much about Leclair but his stats suck before Lindros and he doesnt seem to be great after Lindros. How is Renberg much different (offensively at least) from a guy like Straka?

Also now i know that almost half of Jagr's assists in 99 were secondary due to a previous thread so i definitely look at that ssn with a bit more suspicion of just looking at the points.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
The 1996 Panthers copied the 1995 Devils. By 1996-97, every small market team was copying the 1996 Panthers. By 1997-98, the entire league was defensive.

1995-96 saw a spike in scoring because of one of the league's many obstruction crackdowns that they later backed off of (look how many more powerplays were in 1996 than surrounded seasons).

I think this is a much more reasonable explanation than "the quality of forward talent dropped dramatically in a few years."
Wings implemented their system in 95. Sabres played like the Canadiens in 94 after Lafontaine went down. Stars changed immediately after Hitchcock arrived during a terrible 96. This stuff was happening way before 98.

Not just forward talent going down (there was a lot more talent in the late 90s as compared the early 00s) but they were also injured a lot then (before it is brought up a star player going down has much more of an impact on team offense than just his own production - see Sabres 94). Case in point Lindros.

toob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-29-2012, 04:27 PM
  #102
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,404
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by toob View Post
I dunno too much about Leclair but his stats suck before Lindros and he doesnt seem to be great after Lindros. How is Renberg much different (offensively at least) from a guy like Straka?

Also now i know that almost half of Jagr's assists in 99 were secondary due to a previous thread so i definitely look at that ssn with a bit more suspicion of just looking at the points.
Do you have a link to that thread? I did a search and found this one: http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...s+francis+jagr

Which shows Jagr had 505 primary and 335 secondary assists over his career as of 2010, a fairly high percentage of primary assists. I don't see any individual seasons though.

Renberg is not any worse than Straka, no. Neither is close to as good as Leclair or Francis.


Quote:
Wings implemented their system in 95. Sabres played like the Canadiens in 94 after Lafontaine went down. Stars changed immediately after Hitchcock arrived during a terrible 96. This stuff was happening way before 98.

Not just forward talent going down (there was a lot more talent in the late 90s as compared the early 00s) but they were also injured a lot then (before it is brought up a star player going down has much more of an impact on team offense than just his own production - see Sabres 94). Case in point Lindros.
All this may be true - but it doesn't change the timing of when leaguewide scoring plummeted.

Even prime Wayne Gretzky getting injured wouldn't drop leaguewide scoring by an entire goal per game.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-29-2012, 04:51 PM
  #103
ushvinder
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,689
vCash: 500
Forsberg had great playoff runs in years where sakic's playoff dropped. If people want to make the argument that 1994-1997 lindros was a slightly better offensive player, forsberg's playoff runs and his 2002-2004 run needs to be considered. They are equals.

ushvinder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-29-2012, 05:03 PM
  #104
toob
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 731
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Do you have a link to that thread? I did a search and found this one: http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...s+francis+jagr

Which shows Jagr had 505 primary and 335 secondary assists over his career as of 2010, a fairly high percentage of primary assists. I don't see any individual seasons though.
This post. 44 primary 39 secondary. Compared to his career numbers that is very high.

toob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-29-2012, 05:36 PM
  #105
MadLuke
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,425
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Lindros definitely wasn't as good offensively as prime Jagr, and was he even that close?

hockey-reference's adjusted points aren't perfect, but they're a decent rough estimate.

In Jagr's 4 straight Art Ross seasons, he scored 1.52, 1.79, 1.67, 1.62 adjusted points per game. In 1996, he scored 1.76 adjusted points per game but was beaten by Mario for the Art Ross.

In Lindros' 1994-97 stretch, he scored 1.35, 1.54, 1.51, 1.58 adjusted points per game - remarkable consistent elite play but a fairly big step off of Jagr's peak.

And Jagr was maintaining his PPG averages over more games, which makes them more impressive.
Not as good as peak jagr (4 art ross jagr) offensively your right.

Im talking Lindros vs jagr in the 1993 to 1997 year's. Lindros was about egals or not far for a lot of time to this Jagr offensively. We can see now how much good this is.

MadLuke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-29-2012, 05:41 PM
  #106
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,404
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by toob View Post
This post. 44 primary 39 secondary. Compared to his career numbers that is very high.
Interesting. I guess it makes sense as Jagr controlled the puck when he was on the ice.

We'd have to know the corresponding numbers for Forsberg and Lindros to do a proper comparison.

Careerwise, 60.1% of Jagr's assists were primary, 63.6% of Forsberg's were. Both are high numbers.

Lindros barely missed the threshold of 500 career assists to be included in matnor's study.

Is this where it's time for me to go with the "eye test" and say that I saw Jagr do things offensively Lindros just couldn't do?

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-29-2012, 05:42 PM
  #107
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,404
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadLuke View Post
Not as good as peak jagr (4 art ross jagr) offensively your right.

Im talking Lindros vs jagr in the 1993 to 1997 year's. Lindros was about egals or not far for a lot of time to this Jagr offensively. We can see now how much good this is.
Oh, I agree that Jagr didn't distinguish himself from Lindros offensively over the time frame. But on topic to this thread, Forsberg had some of his best years when Jagr was in his prime.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-29-2012, 05:47 PM
  #108
MadLuke
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,425
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
But on topic to this thread, Forsberg had some of his best years when Jagr was in his prime.
Yeah that explain why Forsberg was not near like Lindros of Jagr offensively (in regular season).

MadLuke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-29-2012, 06:16 PM
  #109
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,404
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadLuke View Post
Yeah that explain why Forsberg was not near like Lindros of Jagr offensively (in regular season).
How was Forsberg not close to Lindros offensively in the regular season again?

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-29-2012, 06:35 PM
  #110
MadLuke
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,425
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
How was Forsberg not close to Lindros offensively in the regular season again?
I said close to Jagr (because forsberg played agains peak jagr, peak lindros played again prime(pre-peak) Jagr).

MadLuke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-29-2012, 06:46 PM
  #111
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,404
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadLuke View Post
I said close to Jagr (because forsberg played agains peak jagr, peak lindros played again prime(pre-peak) Jagr).
Oh okay, I misunderstood you. Sounds like we are in agreement after all.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-29-2012, 06:56 PM
  #112
toob
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 731
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Is this where it's time for me to go with the "eye test" and say that I saw Jagr do things offensively Lindros just couldn't do?
I can agree with this when it comes to puck control (heck even for Forsberg here). However Lindros could and did create space for himself like no other.

toob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-29-2012, 06:58 PM
  #113
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,404
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by toob View Post
I can agree with this when it comes to puck control (heck even for Forsberg here). However Lindros could and did create space for himself like no other.
This is definitely true. My argument was that Lindros never reached the same level of offense Jagr did. If you want to talk overall game, then there's definitely a good argument there.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-29-2012, 07:06 PM
  #114
toob
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 731
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
This is definitely true. My argument was that Lindros never reached the same level of offense Jagr did. If you want to talk overall game, then there's definitely a good argument there.
I meant that that was a trait of Lindros' game that helped him offensively speaking. If Lindros was 5'10" and 180 pounds he would just be another skilled elite forward like Kariya. Again i dont think Jagr suddenly got much better offensively in the late 90s; more that Lindros lost a lot of his game to concussions during and after 98. I will grant that there may be something to your argument of Jagr's superiority just offensively more than i was claiming though i dont think i will accept it to the point youre stating.

toob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-29-2012, 07:19 PM
  #115
RECsGuy*
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,481
vCash: 500
So funny to see so many of you fawning over Lindros, a player who was unable to stickhandle without looking directly at the puck.

Forsberg's regular season PPG of 1.25 and playoff PPG of 1.13 are the second and third in NHL history in their respective categories among players whose careers included the DPE (Lock-to-lockout; '94/'95-'03/'04) in its entirety...

Regular Season (min. 1.00 PPG)

1. Mario Lemeux - 1.88
2. Peter Forsberg - 1.25
3. Jaromir Jagr - 1.24
4. Joe Sakic - 1.19
5. Steve Yzerman - 1.16
6. Eric Lindros - 1.14
7. Brett Hull - 1.10
8. Mark Messier - 1.08
9. Adam Oates - 1.06
10. Teemu Selanne - 1.06
11. Alexaner Mogilny - 1.04
12. Zigmund Palffy - 1.04
13. Ron Francis - 1.04
14. Pierre Turgeon - 1.03

Playoffs (min. 1.00 PPG)

1. Mario Lemieux - 1.61
2. Mark Messier - 1.25
3. Peter Forsberg - 1.13
4. Joe Sakic - 1.09
5. Eric Lindros - 1.08
6. Jaromir Jagr - 1.07
7. Brian Leetch - 1.02

Forsberg has the distinction of being the only player on both lists to have never benefitted from a single minute of play in the high-flying '80s or early '90s.

RECsGuy* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-29-2012, 07:32 PM
  #116
toob
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 731
vCash: 500
factor in the difference between goals and assists into your stats and then we can have a conversation

toob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-29-2012, 07:39 PM
  #117
MadLuke
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,425
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RECsGuy View Post
Forsberg has the distinction of being the only player on both lists to have never benefitted from a single minute of play in the high-flying '80s or early '90s.
Does 1995 and 1996 are so appart of that ?

But You have to remember that Forsberg was drafted in 1991 like Lindros, so hard to give him much credit to not have benefitted like Lindros of the 1992-1993 and 1993-1994 season.

MadLuke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-01-2012, 10:26 AM
  #118
feffan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Malmö
Country: Sweden
Posts: 1,590
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nik jr View Post
those are examples of colorado's losses, not forsberg's being stopped.

forsberg was great in '98 and '02. he led the playoffs in scoring in '02, and scored 6g and 11p in 7 games in '98. he had a concussion in '97, i think on this play: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbEugOgLog4

possible examples of being stopped would be '04 vs SJ, '96 WCF, '96 2nd round, '00 WCF, but i don't know much detail about all of those.
That´s the first and only one that really pops to my mind when "stopping Forsberg" comes up. At least during a whole series, not just one game. Scott Hannans real coming out party. Would guess that series is why Colorado later got him. That would probably be my reason for maybe changing to Forsberg. He was so hard to shut down come spring.
I was one of few who actually enjoyed DPE, smart defensive plays that you either had to be smarter to solve. Or warrior your way threw. But that Col-SJ-series and the treatment Forsberg had to endure made even me hoping for a change...

feffan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-01-2012, 10:45 AM
  #119
feffan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Malmö
Country: Sweden
Posts: 1,590
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Renberg is not any worse than Straka, no. Neither is close to as good as Leclair or Francis.
I would argue that Straka is placed number four quite easily during peaks. Renberg was a better player than LeClair before and in the beginning of The Legion Of Doom and even during the summer of 95 I would have choosen Renberg before LeClair. LeClair Renberg was a more complete player. After that obviosly LeClairs career rockets away compared and he has to be placed number two. Ron Francis being the runaway numero uno in my book Jagr go number 1 and 4, while Lindros got 2 and 3.

Francis

LeClair
Renberg

Straka

Quote:
Originally Posted by dimi19 View Post
what about the city aspect of it, i think playing in philly carries a bit more pressure than playing in denver, i mean, both great cities, but i think the philly fans are probably a bit more tough on their guys than in denver, just speculation,
I actually think Lindros would be the one most benefitting from if that trade never happened. Think all his off ice troubles wouldn´t have been so public then. And Eric had much more pressure coming in than Forsberg, even if by most considered the best player outside the NHL around 93-94 he never was "the next one".

Even if Peter, shy I the beginning, sure benefited from being sheltered by the likes of Sakic I think his humbelness of the ice and warrior style on the ice would have been absolutely loved in Philly. As a fact, an older version of him was absolutely loved for a short time by that crowd.

feffan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-01-2012, 12:21 PM
  #120
Hasbro
Can He Skate?!
 
Hasbro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: South Rectangle
Country: Sami
Posts: 36,885
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dimi19 View Post
subtracting the off ice lindros distractions from the equation tho
That's not what you get and while I don't doubt Bobby Clarke or the injuries played their role Lindros' problems weren't merely situational. The pro-Lindros side of the argument always has to throw out about 1000 "ifs and buts".

His parents caused problems with every team he played for until he was a worn out shell.

His short peak, injury history and mercurial attitude is fairly typical of a power forward.

Hasbro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-01-2012, 12:35 PM
  #121
toob
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 731
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hasbro View Post
That's not what you get and while I don't doubt Bobby Clarke or the injuries played their role Lindros' problems weren't merely situational. The pro-Lindros side of the argument always has to throw out about 1000 "ifs and buts".

His parents caused problems with every team he played for until he was a worn out shell.

His short peak, injury history and mercurial attitude is fairly typical of a power forward.
You are correct but i would say Lindros did enough even in his short peak to be taken over someone like Forsberg who also missed a lot of time although he remained elite much longer because of the differing nature of his injuries and if we consider only peak i would say Lindros has been as good as anyone except Mario since the mid 90s.

toob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-01-2012, 12:37 PM
  #122
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,404
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by toob View Post
You are correct but i would say Lindros did enough even in his short peak to be taken over someone like Forsberg who also missed a lot of time although he remained elite much longer because of the differing nature of his injuries and if we consider only peak i would say Lindros has been as good as anyone except Mario since the mid 90s.
Forsberg also played several full seasons in his prime, which Lindros never really did.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-01-2012, 02:16 PM
  #123
steveott
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 200
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post

Even prime Wayne Gretzky getting injured wouldn't drop leaguewide scoring by an entire goal per game.
its about 1200 goals.
its like saying even prime gretzky cannot eat 10000 pucks in 60 seconds.

steveott is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-01-2012, 02:19 PM
  #124
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,404
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RECsGuy View Post
So funny to see so many of you fawning over Lindros, a player who was unable to stickhandle without looking directly at the puck.

Forsberg's regular season PPG of 1.25 and playoff PPG of 1.13 are the second and third in NHL history in their respective categories among players whose careers included the DPE (Lock-to-lockout; '94/'95-'03/'04) in its entirety...

Regular Season (min. 1.00 PPG)

1. Mario Lemeux - 1.88
2. Peter Forsberg - 1.25
3. Jaromir Jagr - 1.24
4. Joe Sakic - 1.19
5. Steve Yzerman - 1.16
6. Eric Lindros - 1.14
7. Brett Hull - 1.10
8. Mark Messier - 1.08
9. Adam Oates - 1.06
10. Teemu Selanne - 1.06
11. Alexaner Mogilny - 1.04
12. Zigmund Palffy - 1.04
13. Ron Francis - 1.04
14. Pierre Turgeon - 1.03

Playoffs (min. 1.00 PPG)

1. Mario Lemieux - 1.61
2. Mark Messier - 1.25
3. Peter Forsberg - 1.13
4. Joe Sakic - 1.09
5. Eric Lindros - 1.08
6. Jaromir Jagr - 1.07
7. Brian Leetch - 1.02

Forsberg has the distinction of being the only player on both lists to have never benefitted from a single minute of play in the high-flying '80s or early '90s.
This isn't really a fair comparison, since Forsberg is basically the only player on that list whose basically entire career was in his prime. Palffy in the regular season maybe. Leetch and basically Lindros in the playoffs too (both men regularly missed the playoffs after their primes).

Of course, the fact that Forsberg's prime was longer than Lindros' might be something to take into account.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-01-2012, 07:12 PM
  #125
Zauper
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 376
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cursednumber6 View Post
See my earlier posting about Lindros, you werent the only one to note the importance of this. That said, when you a player scores a point and a half a game in a defensive era, you have to take note. (I use his peak 1.41 over his seasonal 1.19 as a way to give Lindros his due). Kinda of hard to stop a hulk like Lindros from getting off the cycle and into the slot. Once in the slot he had the best snapshot I have ever seen. However, I still take Forsberg all day as I thought Lindros game was much much too mechanical. It was endless cycling and getting to the slot. While he could do more than cycle, he was not a good puck handler and only an average reader of plays, so and once you got him into an open ice game you could beat him pretty easily. Even though Joe Thornton had about half Lindros' toughness and was a much better puck handler he fell into the over cycling trap in Boston as well and his playoff stats were even worse...something to ponder.
Lindros' peak scoring (and peak scoring rate) all occured prior to the drop in GPG that signaled the dead puck era. He's at 1.51 in 96-97, where the league is at 5.83 goals per game. Most of the dead puck era sits at around 5.2 goals per game, or over half a goal per game less than when Lindros is at his peak (52 game) scoring rate. The peak most folks in this thread have been referencing (~93-94 to 96-97), NHL goals per game are between 6.48 and 5.83.

Zauper is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 09:10 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2017 All Rights Reserved.