Is Peter Forsberg the best forward that never scored more than 30 goals?

[authentic]

(mod) 11 Stanley Cups on a Montreal Canadiens dynasty in a 6 team league is the only possible way you could rank him as a better player, and if you're doing it because of that reason than you are putting way too much stock into something that if their roles were reversed would likely be the same in favour of Forsberg, it's just not very smart.

Probably the most misunderstood player ever, mostly by really old and really new hockey fans. Pretty much if you are under 20 or over 45 you likely don't think as highly of Forsberg as you should, obviously there are exceptions but just in general.

The common theme in Forsberg threads is that he never scored more than 30 goals, or that he broke down because of his style of play. Both of these completely ignore that he was on pace for 30+ 5 times, in a low scoring era, and scored at a 35 goal pace per 82 games in the playoffs with a large sample size and once again in a very low scoring era. All while clearly focusing his game almost entirely on setting up teammates, which he was one of the absolute best at ever, period. Also, he didn't break down because of his style of play (though that did lead to many serious injuries). He had to hang it up because of a foot/ankle issue which he was born with, his ankle bone was too big and he couldn't fit his foot in a skate properly and it got worse as he got older, so he couldn't skate properly on one leg. Despite this he still scored 19 points in 16 games at almost 35 years old clearly not skating like he once could and still looked like a dominant player.

Please go on about how Henri Richard, Syl Apps, Joe Sakic, Steve Yzerman etc. were clearly better playerss but I'll just give you a hint right now... they weren't (especially the first two).

 

[BraveCanadian]

Please go on about how Henri Richard, Syl Apps, Joe Sakic, Steve Yzerman etc. were clearly better playerss but I'll just give you a hint right now... they weren't (especially the first two).

In the context of their respective times, Syl Apps was certainly a better hockey player than Forsberg.

 

[Camshaft77]

I think throwing the best around is quite a bit. But he certainly top 10? People that hate on Forsberg never watched him play. Guy was a freaking force.

I watched all of his career and yes he is easily the most overrated player on HF Boards. He was not even the best all around player on his team. That was Joe Sakic.

Forsberg was good but damn people romanticize him to much. He was a really good player but he was not the best of his generation. Id argue he was not even top 5.

Jagr, Sakic, Pronger Lidstrom and Fedorov were all better than him quite easily.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Let's be civil.

 

[Camshaft77]

Probably the most misunderstood player ever, mostly by really old and really new hockey fans. Pretty much if you are under 20 or over 45 you likely don't think as highly of Forsberg as you should, obviously there are exceptions but just in general.

The common theme in Forsberg threads is that he never scored more than 30 goals, or that he broke down because of his style of play. Both of these completely ignore that he was on pace for 30+ 5 times, in a low scoring era, and scored at a 35 goal pace per 82 games in the playoffs with a large sample size and once again in a very low scoring era. All while clearly focusing his game almost entirely on setting up teammates, which he was one of the absolute best at ever, period. Also, he didn't break down because of his style of play (though that did lead to many serious injuries). He had to hang it up because of a foot/ankle issue which he was born with, his ankle bone was too big and he couldn't fit his foot in a skate properly and it got worse as he got older, so he couldn't skate properly on one leg. Despite this he still scored 19 points in 16 games at almost 35 years old clearly not skating like he once could and still looked like a dominant player.

Please go on about how Henri Richard, Syl Apps, Joe Sakic, Steve Yzerman etc. were clearly better playerss but I'll just give you a hint right now... they weren't (especially the first two).

Joe Sakic was much better than Forsberg and was more durable. I watched both of their careers. Yzerman was a much better player as well. Like I said he wasn't even top five of his generation Jagr, Lidstrom, Sakic Pronger and Fedorov all much better players who weren't made of glass.

Forsberg is overrated and it is as simple as that.

 

[sr edler]

He had a great shot but wasn't using it much.

I don't think he had a great shot. He had a good shot, but it wasn't great.

As for the topic, Forsberg's GPG went up in the playoffs. Says something about how he played the game.

You can't score and assist on the same goal.

 

[WesMcCauley]

I don't think he had a great shot. He had a good shot, but it wasn't great.

As for the topic, Forsberg's GPG went up in the playoffs. Says something about how he played the game.

You can't score and assist on the same goal.

He said in an interview a couple years ago that the two things he wasnt good at was shooting the puck and fighting

 

[Theokritos]

Joe Sakic was much better than Forsberg

It's perfectly legit to say either of the two players was better than the other, but "much better"? I don't see it, no matter which one you favour.

 

[Horvath Broncos]

I think the most bizarre things in these Forsberg threads is people saying he was better than Burnaby Joe. They played in the same team for pretty much all of Foppa's career. Both were equally great playoffs performers. Though Sakic has a Conn Smythe. In the regular seasons Sakic has Lindsay and Hart whereas Foppa has Hart and Art Ross. They were also pretty equal performers in regular season also. When they were playing. And this is what separates Sakic from Foppa. It's true that Sakic was also injured quite a bit during his career but Foppa missed way too many games to be as valuable as Sakic to his team.

For heavens sake Sakic played until he was 39 and almost twice as many games as Forsberg and still their PPG are very similar.

Forsberg career has too much "what ifs" and shoulds and whoulds to be considered being superior player to Sakic

 

[Moose Head]

In the 80 game NHL I'd say Forsberg then H.Sedin. After that, Saku Koivu perhaps.

I guess an argument could also be made for elite defense first forwards such as Gainey and Carbo as well.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Two Stanley Cup winning goals - OT(1966) and Game 7(1971), both on the road. Instrumental in the 1971 Game 2 comeback vs Bruins in game 2. Instrumental in reducing the efficiency of Bobby Hull and Bobby Orr in eight series leading to Stanley Cup victories.

Forsberg never came close to such a playoff resumée.

Richard has a very good playoff resume but I'll take Foppas's individual one 8 days a week over Richard.

One only has to look at how he stacks up on those Avs teams along side Joe Sakic.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...c4comp=gt&c4val=&threshhold=5&order_by=points

 

[Hardyvan123]

In the context of their respective times, Syl Apps was certainly a better hockey player than Forsberg.

Is there something to back this up?

 

[Hardyvan123]

I think the most bizarre things in these Forsberg threads is people saying he was better than Burnaby Joe. They played in the same team for pretty much all of Foppa's career. Both were equally great playoffs performers. Though Sakic has a Conn Smythe. In the regular seasons Sakic has Lindsay and Hart whereas Foppa has Hart and Art Ross. They were also pretty equal performers in regular season also. When they were playing. And this is what separates Sakic from Foppa. It's true that Sakic was also injured quite a bit during his career but Foppa missed way too many games to be as valuable as Sakic to his team.

For heavens sake Sakic played until he was 39 and almost twice as many games as Forsberg and still their PPG are very similar.

Forsberg career has too much "what ifs" and shoulds and whoulds to be considered being superior player to Sakic

Sakic played in exactly 14 more playoff games than foppa during their overlapping time in colcorado

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play-index/psl_finder.cgi?
request=1&match=combined&year_min=1995&year_max=2004&season_start=1&season_end=-1&rookie=N&age_min=0&age_max=99&birth_country=&birthyear_min=&birthyear_max=&franch_id=COL&is_active=&is_hof=&pos=S&handed=&is_playoffs=Y&c1stat=points&c1comp=gt&c1val=&c2stat=&c2comp=gt&c2val=&c3stat=&c3comp=gt&c3val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&threshhold=5&order_by=points

And he played in 114 more regaulr season games.

sure he had better health than Foppa did but Foppa has a better Per game impact and 2 way game as well.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...c4comp=gt&c4val=&threshhold=5&order_by=points

One could really make a case for either guy really.

And the early years for Sakic the league was much easier to score in but the career metric is clearly Burnaby Joe's

 

[Horvath Broncos]

Sakic played in exactly 14 more playoff games than foppa during their overlapping time in colcorado

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play-index/psl_finder.cgi?
request=1&match=combined&year_min=1995&year_max=2004&season_start=1&season_end=-1&rookie=N&age_min=0&age_max=99&birth_country=&birthyear_min=&birthyear_max=&franch_id=COL&is_active=&is_hof=&pos=S&handed=&is_playoffs=Y&c1stat=points&c1comp=gt&c1val=&c2stat=&c2comp=gt&c2val=&c3stat=&c3comp=gt&c3val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&threshhold=5&order_by=points

And he played in 114 more regaulr season games.

sure he had better health than Foppa did but Foppa has a better Per game impact and 2 way game as well.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...c4comp=gt&c4val=&threshhold=5&order_by=points

One could really make a case for either guy really.

And the early years for Sakic the league was much easier to score in but the career metric is clearly Burnaby Joe's

What the deuce. Sakic played more than 600 more games than Foppa. That is more than enough to make up the difference in scoring levels early in Sakic's career.

And I wouldn't be so sure Foppa was better two way player than Sakic was. Atleast in the latter part of Sakic's career.

And as for that per game point. I tend to value more the actual points when players PPGs are so similar. Hence why I choose Sakic over Forsberg.

And to not go completely OT yes he is.

 

[authentic]

I watched all of his career and yes he is easily the most overrated player on HF Boards. He was not even the best all around player on his team. That was Joe Sakic.

Forsberg was good but damn people romanticize him to much. He was a really good player but he was not the best of his generation. Id argue he was not even top 5.

Jagr, Sakic, Pronger Lidstrom and Fedorov were all better than him quite easily.

Joe Sakic was much better than Forsberg and was more durable. I watched both of their careers. Yzerman was a much better player as well. Like I said he wasn't even top five of his generation Jagr, Lidstrom, Sakic Pronger and Fedorov all much better players who weren't made of glass.

Forsberg is overrated and it is as simple as that.

For one thing, Joe Sakic was not a better all around player than Forsberg, he did not possess more skills or attributes as a hockey player. You could make the case that at each of their peaks Sakic was equal if not slightly better, but a better all around hockey player he was not. Let's break down how they compare in some various skills and attributes here. Some of these are subjective, but I think a majority of people who saw a lot of each players career would agree on most of these anyway.

Shooting: Sakic
Passing: Forsberg
Physical play: Forsberg
Faceoffs: Sakic
Stickhandling: Forsberg
Puck possession: Forsberg
Board play/cycling: Forsberg
Strength: Forsberg
Hockey sense: Equal
Vision: Slight edge Forsberg
Defense: You could argue for either one at different points in their careers
Determination: Slight edge Forsberg (you could argue equal IMO)
Poise: Slight edge Forsberg (you could argue equal once again)
Speed: Slight edge Sakic
Agility: Slight edge Forsberg
Acceleration: Slight edge Sakic
Durability: Sakic
Even strength: Slight edge Forsberg
Special teams: Slight edge Sakic (you could argue equal IMO)

Depending on how your opinions differ from mine, how much stock you put into each one of those categories (clearly some are more important than others) as well as whatever else you would like to add which you think is important, I guess it's possible you could consider Sakic the better all around player. I just don't see it, and I think the majority would agree with me (note that being the better all around player does not necessarily mean better overall).

How you have come to the conclusion that those players you listed were much better hockey players is beyond me. Sure they had much better careers (though in Prongers case I'm not so sure), but to flat out state they were just much better players is a bit odd to me, and it makes me suspect you have some sort of hate for Forsberg.

 

[Cruor]

What the deuce. Sakic played more than 600 more games than Foppa. That is more than enough to make up the difference in scoring levels early in Sakic's career.

And I wouldn't be so sure Foppa was better two way player than Sakic was. Atleast in the latter part of Sakic's career.

And as for that per game point. I tend to value more the actual points when players PPGs are so similar. Hence why I choose Sakic over Forsberg.

And to not go completely OT yes he is.

Here's a good rundown by overpass:

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=814000

And a slightly different angle/approach by Hockey Outsider:

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=729233

 

[93LEAFS]

And sure Richard would have 11 rings playing with the Avs when both Detroit and Dallas were powers in the west as well......

The pocket rocket was a great little player but his prime simply doesn't stand up to Foppa and despite the 11 rings Foppa is the better individual playoff performer as well.

And Forsbergs longevity doesn't come close to approaching Richard who was a top 6 player on championship teams 20 years apart, and its not like Forsberg didn't have a stacked team. The team won the 2001 cup with him missing the last two rounds. And Richard also played against great teams in the 60's Leafs, the Mikita/Hull Blackhawks, The Orr/Esposito Bruins and his last two year against Broad Street Bullies.

 

[Stephen]

Why does he have to be considered the best power forward? He was a great hybrid finesse power guy, but there were pure power forwards who I'd be more comfortable classifying as GOAT in the power forward department. More consistent production, sometimes more durable, more pure power, intimidation.

 

[authentic]

Why does he have to be considered the best power forward? He was a great hybrid finesse power guy, but there were pure power forwards who I'd be more comfortable classifying as GOAT in the power forward department. More consistent production, sometimes more durable, more pure power, intimidation.

Who said anything about being a power forward? This thread is about whether or not Forsberg is the best forward to never score more than 30 goals in a season.

 

[authentic]

And Forsbergs longevity doesn't come close to approaching Richard who was a top 6 player on championship teams 20 years apart, and its not like Forsberg didn't have a stacked team. The team won the 2001 cup with him missing the last two rounds. And Richard also played against great teams in the 60's Leafs, the Mikita/Hull Blackhawks, The Orr/Esposito Bruins and his last two year against Broad Street Bullies.

Do you really think comparing Stanley Cups between players is any indication of how good they are as individuals, especially when one played in a 6 team league on the biggest dynasty in that league and arguably of all time? I would say not at all. Especially when the one with 9 less Stanley Cups was a better playoff performer himself relative to his era, that should be much more of a factor here.

 

[93LEAFS]

Do you really think comparing Stanley Cups between players is any indication of how good they are as individuals, especially when one played in a 6 team league on the biggest dynasty in that league and arguably of all time? I would say not at all. Especially when the one with 9 less Stanley Cups was a better playoff performer himself relative to his era, that should be much more of a factor here.

He wasn't a better playoff performer, 4 of the cups were won post expansion. Richards longevity was insane, as a top line level player over 20 years. Forsberg had a better peak, but Richards longevity wins it for me. Richard had 1st team all NHL and 3 2nd teams to Forsbergs 1 Hart, and 3 first teams. And when your comparing guys who were top line guys on teams cups matter, Forsbergs team was also stacked proven by the fact they won the final 2 rounds in 2001 with him out.

 

[Hardyvan123]

And Forsbergs longevity doesn't come close to approaching Richard who was a top 6 player on championship teams 20 years apart, and its not like Forsberg didn't have a stacked team. The team won the 2001 cup with him missing the last two rounds. And Richard also played against great teams in the 60's Leafs, the Mikita/Hull Blackhawks, The Orr/Esposito Bruins and his last two year against Broad Street Bullies.

Sorry but the Habs teams of Richard are viewed as much stronger here than the teams that Foppa played on for the most part.

Sure Richard has longevity as a top 6ish forward (He wasn't always a clear top 6 nor is his peak anything like Foppa's) but does that trump a dozen years as a top 1-2 elite type of player on his team like Foppa was?

Not in my books, then again maybe Mike Gartner is close to Jari Kurri then?

If one looks and compares the 2 players closely it's really hard to have Richard ahead, much lower peak and prime and the lesser of the 2 for playoff resumes, 11 SC notwithstanding.

 

[eviohh26*]

Id still take Forsberg over Sakic.

 

[Hardyvan123]

He wasn't a better playoff performer, 4 of the cups were won post expansion. Richards longevity was insane, as a top line level player over 20 years

Except that Richard wasn't a top line level player for over 20 years.

Forsberg had a better peak, but Richards longevity wins it for me. Richard had 1st team all NHL and 3 2nd teams to Forsbergs 1 Hart, and 3 first teams.

And when your comparing guys who were top line guys on teams cups matter, Forsbergs team was also stacked proven by the fact they won the final 2 rounds in 2001 with him out.

You need to look again at how dominant Foppa (and Sakic) were during their time together for those Avs teams.

And then compare multiple HHOF players that Richard played with on those 11 SC teams.

here is Henri with the PPG (so higher 20 game playoffs aren't slanting the results)

7,41,44,54,56,57,58,83,84,87

Here is how Foppa stacks up against his teammates during his time with the Avs again.

1,4,8,9,11,13,19,21,24,26,

well it's not even really close is it?

 

[Xelebes]

I spent 5-10 minutes checking, and the only forwards who never scored more than 30 goals who I would take over Forsberg are Syl Apps, Henri Richard, and possibly Frank Boucher.

Henri Richard peaked when the NHL season was 70 games long. Apps and Boucher played when it was much shorter than 70 games.

So I would say that Forsberg is the best forward to play 80+ game seasons who never scored more than 30 goals. (I was kind of surprised to see that Bobby Clarke broke 30 a few times).

Henri Richard's peak GPG was 0.054 over 0.375. Huh.