MVP Profile: Peter the Great

The legend of the prospect once traded for the 8th time concussed Eric Lindros continues to surge. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the MVP of the 2003-2004 NHL Season: Peter Forsberg.

The Avalanche’s record with Forsberg in the lineup this year is 18-5-1-2 (18-7-1 in my book). That’s a 69% winning percentage when Forsberg has played thus far as opposed to 11-6-8-1 without him (or a 42% winning percentage).
Since returning from his groin injury on the 27th of December, the Avalanche have lost only 3 games. In addition, the man himself has had only 2 games where he was a minus in that same period.

Peter is currently scoring at a 1.654 pts/game pace.

The next closest players are Savard with 1.235 pts/game and Naslund with 1.212 pts/game. At that pace, Forsberg will have over 90 points this year in 56 games played (provided he plays all remaining games). The last year that someone scored over 135 points in a season (his pts/game x 82 games) was the 1995 -1996 season (Lemieux totaled 161 pts in 70 games that season for 2.3 pts/game – no your eyes are not lying… and they try to tell you that there is nothing wrong in the NHL).

Forsberg is currently tied for 21st in the league in scoring with only 26 games played!. Should his pace and everyone else’s hold he would finish fourth overall. Naslund is on pace for 99pts this season. Lang is now going to tank due to not having Jagr to feed the puck to. Then we come to Tanguay… who only benefits from Forsberg’s presence. Alex’s points with and without Forsberg:


23 in Oct in 9 games

4 in Nov in 2 games

0 Dec in 3 games

23 Jan in 12 games

for 50 points in 26 games (which beats Peter… guess Tangs is lucky that Peter is such an unselfish player)


18 Nov in 13 games

5 Dec in 7 games

for 23 in 20…

The number speak for themselves. With such a blatent reliance on Forsberg, Tanguay is not the MVP canidate on the Avalanche even if he were to outscore Peter.

Forsberg is epitome of the modern hockey player in the NHL. Peter the Great makes every player he plays with better the instant his skate blade hits the ice. Every coach in the league when asked the question “If you could have any player in the league, who would it be?” would answer “Forsberg”.

While injured for the majority of the season, Peter Forsberg has shown this year why he won the Hart and Art Ross trophies last season as well as why he will win them both again this season. He is the Avalanche and he is the NHL at its best.

43 Responses to MVP Profile: Peter the Great

  1. markjohnston says:

    wait, is this supposed to be surprising or something?



  2. Bretzky says:

    nice stupid article.

    oh and yes lindros has 8 concussions…. forsberg is injury-prone as well and misses a great deal of time every friggin season for less severe injuries.

    boring, badly-written, pointless. thanks. come again.

  3. Bretzky says:

    oh and i forgot to mention… “obvious.”

  4. Donovan says:

    ah….Forsberg sucks

  5. flyersfan10897 says:

    i say if atlanta makes a top 7 seed, kovalchuk will get it. it doesnt matter how many points he scores. if he only plays half the season, forsberg wont win it.

  6. comrie44 says:

    And to think he was almost a Canuck!

    Damn you Alek Stojanov!

    However, the Flyers picking him was probably for the best, since the we got the leading scorer of the millenium (check the stats, I dare you!) in Markus Naslund for him.

    Forsberg is playing great hockey, but having missed so many games, I’d be shocked if he could win the Art Ross or keep up the pace he’s at.

    My case for numero 19:

    -Naslund has a better +/-

    -nearly 2x as many goals (some 2nd assists are pretty weak)

    -is the leader and captain of his team

    -played every game

    -No longer unnoticed by Eastern media

    -FAR, and I mean FAR more valuable to the Canucks than Forsberg is to the Avs. Dear god, I’d hate to think where we’d be with out this guy. He is the heart and soul of the Canucks, when he broke his leg 3 years ago, we went something like 2-16, where the Avs have won without Forsberg.

  7. jerzjayme says:

    agreed, naslund or someone like rick nash deserve it.

  8. drury23 says:

    “He is the heart and soul of the Canucks, when he broke his leg 3 years ago, we went something like 2-16, where the Avs have won without Forsberg.”

    Just goes to show that we’re a better team :p

  9. JStatic87 says:

    He won’t win. He’s missed about 20 games. He is valuable, but he’d be even more valuable if he would stay healthy. Right now he’s more of an added bonus.

  10. Aetherial says:

    If he could play a complete season, he is the best all round player in the league.

  11. LondonK says:

    He won’t win for the same reason that Lemieux didn’t win in 2000-2001 for scoring 76 points in 43 games.

  12. NYRules says:

    Holy Shit!!! Forsberg is good? No way.

    Ok now that ur done stating the obvious, whoever said that Tanguay is the MVP of the league? let alone the avalanche? I dont think they have ever even been compared.

    It is and has been and always will be quite obvious that Forsberg and Sakic, more Forsberg now than Sakic, are their mvps. Even if colorado gets modano or naslund, no one will be mvp over those 2.

  13. mojo19 says:

    how is it 42% without him?

    11-6-8-1, (or 11-7-8) is better than 50%. 11-11 would be fifty. they’re at like 55ish.

  14. Wills says:

    How could a player be this good and not play for the Leafs?

  15. CrazyAssLeafer says:

    Cause he wouldn’t want to play for the Leafs.

  16. ManillaKilla says:

    Fourty-two percent is probably right. It’s 11 wins out of 25 games played. The winning percentage gets construed because of all the ties. He should of used a better stat.

  17. defenestrate says:

    You want “boring and pointless”?

    How about “should Lindros retire?”

    “Those grapes were probably sour anyway”.

  18. defenestrate says:

    Are you trying to get me to disown you, junior?

  19. defenestrate says:

    1.) I love numbers….

    2.) Yes, someone besides me took up the cudgel for Peter (very well done, as well).

    3.) No, he will not get the MVP – because he has missed too many games. It doesn’t matter how dominant you are, if you’re a “part-time” player, it’s not gonna happen.

    4.) And, as far as the Avalanche MVP this season – right now it’s David Aebischer.

    5.) Or maybe Jim Cummins….hahahaha….

  20. dumpsterdiver says:

    With Forsberg in the lineup:

    39 of a possible 52 points is 75%


    31/52 is 60%

    Ignoring the point for an overtime loss makes it 71% and 58% respectively.

    Ever heard of a calculator?

  21. dumpsterdiver says:

    By the way its “skewed”, not construed. Where did you people go to school?

  22. cgolding says:

    Can we NEVER speak of that trade again on this website. I’m just beginning to not have flashbacks to what might have been…

    nevermind the bullox,


  23. Petr89 says:

    Sorry buddy, but you are the one who’s wrong. And arrogant to boot. The guy that wrote the article clearly said he was calculating a “winning percentage,” which would be # games won/#games played x 100 = 42. You’re calculating percentage of possible points, a valid statistic, but not what is being discussed here.

    In the future, try not to make an ass of yourself while proving your superior intellect.

  24. defenestrate says:

    Game, set, and match to Mr. Petr.

  25. Donovan says:

    No. I was just thinking of the Family Guy episode with the Kiss Forum and how everybody call in to say Kiss rocks and the one guy calls in a says Kiss Sucks. That was the funniest thing I ever saw this week so I wanted to share it.

  26. defenestrate says:

    KISS did rock in the mid-70’s, but they do indeed suck now.

    Oddly, in the movie “Detroit Rock City”, KISS was played by a cover band.

  27. viger100 says:

    Cause he’s not also a thug.

  28. wheresthesoda says:


  29. nocuphere says:

    OK now your just being a dick. I hope Sundin wins it this year so I can fly to your house and stick that big hart right in your fat face. You and your old dusty wings are so gonzo in the west!!

  30. TheDuk says:

    I know he’s not gonna win, but it’s just fun to stir the pot a little….

  31. Nyteshades says:

    While I’ll agree that Forsberg is great and that the Av’s/Nordic’s came out on top of that trade, he isn’t going to win the Art Ross. He has a better chance of winning the Conn Symthe, although I think I would be upset if the Av’s go all the way and Abie doesn’t get the Conn. I believe he would deserve it.

    As far as this year goes, I would suggest that you enjoy it while it lasts. Same goes for you Vancouver fans, because if the lockout happens Naslund is gone, they are both going to finish their careers for MoDo.

    Lets also not forget that there are 5 other guys on the ice at same time, so you can’t attribute all of the Av’s success to Forsberg. But it sure helps to have him healthy.

    GO AVS!!!!

  32. defenestrate says:

    Believe me, I know…..

  33. dumpsterdiver says:

    “Let’s start with a basic understanding of what a “winning percentage” is (and why it matters). To calculate the winning percentage for a team, simply take the number of points they have earned and divide by the number of possible points they could have earned. (And you thought algebra would never come in handy.)”

  34. dumpsterdiver says:

    winning percentage:

    the percentage of its games a team has won during a period of time, given by the following formula:

    Winning Percentage = (#wins + #ties/2)/(#games played)

    even though it refers to football it is conceptually the same so…

    End of argument.

    I can afford to be arrogant because I know I’m right Jackass.

  35. defenestrate says:

    Except when it comes to sentence structure and capitalization rules, of course.

  36. dumpsterdiver says:

    That’s the best you can do for a rebuttal? That’s too petty to even dignify a response. However, when a person takes it on themselves to present an article for public perusal they are leaving the door wide open for criticism. Particularly when they can’t even get their facts straight. If and when I write an article you will be more than welcome to pick it apart.

  37. defenestrate says:

    That wasn’t a rebuttal – that was an observation. If and when I issue you a “rebuttal”, you will definitely know it.

    My mission is not to “pick apart” – it is to inform, enlighten, and entertain.

    woo hoo…..

  38. Petr89 says:

    Ok. First of all, I’d like to point out to anyone still following this ridiculous thread that the person I am arguing with is actually citing a source entitled, “The Canuck Library.”

    Second: The internet is a vast and wonderful place, in which I can reference a practically infinite amount of information, and still be completely wrong. I’m really not interested in arguing statistics with Bob and Doug Mckenzie.

    Third: The excerpt you posted practically says exactly what I did. Please notice “the number of possible points” in the denominator.

    Fourth: Your excerpt also acknowledges that the phrase winning percentage is ambiguous, perhaps even a misnomer, by earmarking the words with parantheses. Perhaps, people (I’m not naming names) commonly misuse this phrase when they mean something else. Perhpas this situation is much like “irregardless,” just because many people use a phrase doesn’t mean that it is correct. Perhaps our original author was actually writing clearly and concisely. Or perhaps not.

    Fifth: A question: If I were to give you a percentage of something, say the percentage of “event X” happening in “Y” attempts, and then proceeded to tell you the value of “Y,” should you not be able to tell me how many times event X occurred. If abstractions are not your forte, let me help out. A team’s winning percentage (using your definition) is .500, and they’ve played 10 games. You tell me how many times they’ve won?

    Finally: In the best case scenario for your argument, the phrase “winning percentage” is ambiguous (as opposed to simply being commonly misused). If this is indeed the case, I’m afraid you’re still the ass since you’re the initial aggressor in a sitation that really warranted no aggression.

    P.S. The answer is 5, or is it 4, could be 3, no, 2, crap, it could be 1, or even 0. Gee. It is kind of odd that a winning percentage gives me absolutely no idea how many times a team has actually won.

  39. dumpsterdiver says:

    For arguments sake let’s change the scenario around to “losing percentage”, as in how many nights sleep are you going to lose trying to prove your point, LOL. It’s a well known fact that “winning percentage” is a function of possible points, period! Get over it.

  40. dumpsterdiver says:

    I agree. It’s just a peeve of mine that for all the effort one puts in to submit something they don’t have the sense to proofread their submission. Frankly I’m appalled how many people don’t know the difference between they’re, there and their.

    If you want a laugh check out

  41. defenestrate says:

    I just did – it’s appalling…….

Leave a Reply