Is Peter Forsberg underrated?

[Ben White]

On the recent THN top 75 best players of all time list Peter Forsberg was ranked at place 48. Sakic was on place 33. Yet I now for a fact, through various experiments on here for example, that Avs’ fans almost unanimously think Forsberg was the better player. And the key is how this list was headlined - it says “best players” not “greatest players”. I’m pretty sure all hardcore hockey fans make a distinction between those two terms. Forsberg is top 5 in assists per game all time, he’s top 10 in ppg as well as playoffs points per game all time, this while playing in the dead puck era. That’s pretty insane. Has Forsberg become underrated?

Click to read more...

 

[Ben White]

Some interesting previous threads on the topic:

Forsberg vs Sakic

Still in Sakic's glass-walled corner. He is still the best Av of all time as far as I'm concerned.

forums.hfboards.com

Detailed look at Sakic and Forsberg at Even Strength

The topic of Joe Sakic and Peter Forsberg gets brought up a lot around here. This thread is a good example, and it included some good points on both sides. One thing that’s frequently mentioned is Forsberg’s huge lead in plus-minus. From 1995 through 2003-04, Forsberg was +207 in the regular...

forums.hfboards.com

 

[bobholly39]

He's overrated a LOT by some people. I've seen some ridiculous takes claiming he's a top 10 player or so. But I'm sure he gets underrated by some too.

Also OP - in regards to "best" vs "greatest", half the people don't even understand the distinction.

If you want to focus on Sakic vs Forsberg specifically:

Sakic - he is "greater". Greater career, hands down. So if you were to rank the top 100 players of all-time, Sakic is ahead, by a gap.

In terms of "best" - Sakic actually has both the best single regular season peak (2001) and single playoff run (1996) between the 2. So - it's not like you can't also easily have Sakic ahead here. I do think that for "best" it's closer though, and Forsberg has an argument. He played at his best more consistently than Sakic did, even though it's not exactly full seasons.

 

[Albatros]

Almost anything DPE is to some extent polarizing especially now that it's in the blind spot between nostalgia and recency bias, and Forsberg is the epitome of that. Often the detractors are very high on old-timers that objectively excelled in a much easier environment.

 

[Hisch13r]

Forsberg and Bure are 2 of the most overrated players on the site.

 

[Ben White]

He's overrated a LOT by some people. I've seen some ridiculous takes claiming he's a top 10 player or so. But I'm sure he gets underrated by some too.

Also OP - in regards to "best" vs "greatest", half the people don't even understand the distinction.

If you want to focus on Sakic vs Forsberg specifically:

Sakic - he is "greater". Greater career, hands down. So if you were to rank the top 100 players of all-time, Sakic is ahead, by a gap.

In terms of "best" - Sakic actually has both the best single regular season peak (2001) and single playoff run (1996) between the 2. So - it's not like you can't also easily have Sakic ahead here. I do think that for "best" it's closer though, and Forsberg has an argument. He played at his best more consistently than Sakic did, even though it's not exactly full seasons.

The full season argument shouldn’t be a factor when determining “best”. It’s ridiculous that Forsberg had the few mvp quality seasons and playoffs he had thinking of that he had like 25% of the chances Sakic had - heck Forsberg had like two seasons in total where he played 75+ games. The fact that Avs fans almost always pick Forsberg ahead of Sakic speaks volumes.

It’s very much a quality vs quantity discussion.

“Greatest” = quality + quantity
“Best” = quality

 

[bobholly39]

Forsberg and Bure are 2 of the most overrated players on the site.

Don't forget Fedorov and Datsyuk.

 

[Ben White]

Forsberg and Bure are 2 of the most overrated players on the site.

Why? Cause both players got their careers partly ruined by injuries? That’s usually the players who get underrated in retrospect…

 

[bobholly39]

The full season argument shouldn’t be a factor when determining “best”. It’s ridiculous that Forsberg had the few mvp quality seasons and playoffs he had thinking of that he had like 25% of the chances Sakic had - heck Forsberg had like two seasons in total where he played 75+ games. The fact that Avs fans almost always pick Forsberg ahead of Sakic speaks volumes.

It’s very much a quality vs quantity discussion.

“Greatest” = quality + quantity
“Best” = quality

I'm fine with looking outside of just full seasons for "best".

My point was - if you consider Sakic's 2001 regular season performance, was Forsberg ever better than that in the regular season, or even as good? And if you consider Sakic's 1996 playoffs - was Forsberg ever as good or better? I'm not sure the answer is yes to either question.

I think Sakic's 2nd best regular season, and certainly his 3rd best, is far behind his best. Whereas Forsberg, he was more consistently at or near his best for more years. Which is better? I don't know. But it can probably be argued either way.

 

[TruePowerSlave]

Forsberg was slightly better than Sakic as an Avalanche imo. He couldn't stay healthy though and that is a big minus.

Overall he tends to get overrated a bit.

 

[Ben White]

I'm fine with looking outside of just full seasons for "best".

My point was - if you consider Sakic's 2001 regular season performance, was Forsberg ever better than that in the regular season, or even as good? And if you consider Sakic's 1996 playoffs - was Forsberg ever as good or better? I'm not sure the answer is yes to either question.

I think Sakic's 2nd best regular season, and certainly his 3rd best, is far behind his best. Whereas Forsberg, he was more consistently at or near his best for more years. Which is better? I don't know. But it can probably be argued either way.

Maybe it can be argued either way, as it’s more difficult to maintain a full season, however I think Forsberg should get the benefit of the doubt as his ppg average was actually higher when he played more games - aka was more healthy. So even if we don’t have enough data of full seasons from Forsberg to fairly judge what that actually would look like his “peak play” was even better than Sakic in 1996 and 2001. In 2004 pre injury Forsberg reached a level Sakic never has. I’d argue the same can be said about his play pre injury in 2005 with the Flyers as well as his Hart season in 2003 (even though that’s far from clear cut). As far as playoffs goes Forsberg’s performances in 1999 and 2002 didn’t land any cups but his level of dominance was just as good or better than anything I’ve seen from Sakic in the playoffs.

 

[daver]

On the recent THN top 75 best players of all time list Peter Forsberg was ranked at place 48. Sakic was on place 33. Yet I now for a fact, through various experiments on here for example, that Avs’ fans almost unanimously think Forsberg was the better player. And the key is how this list was headlined - it says “best players” not “greatest players”. I’m pretty sure all hardcore hockey fans make a distinction between those two terms. Forsberg is top 5 in assists per game all time, he’s top 10 in ppg as well as playoffs points per game all time, this while playing in the dead puck era. That’s pretty insane. Has Forsberg become underrated?

Any thread that has Overrated or Underrated in the title should be shut down unless the OP actually rates the player.

Where do you rate Forsberg in a list of "Best Players" all-time?

I am sure it is higher than mine because I think Forsberg, like Lindros and Malkin, was fundamentally fated to shorter seasons and career due to their playing styles.

 

[NyQuil]

There was a time where it was between him and Jagr as the NHL's best skater.

 

[Greatzsky 99]

I dont think hes underrated, he seems to be in high regard by many, but the thing for
me talking against forsberg beeing top 1 tier is his goal averge, ranked 187 all time.
Thats not high enogh to be A+ for me.

 

[banks]

I'd say slightly underrated. If his foot wasn't made of paper-mache he's be top 10 all-time.

Anyone claiming he is overrated is just looking at the numbers. Watching highlights and reading about his foot issues off-the-ice will give you a clearer picture.

48th all time is probably about right, and having him behind Sakic is fine. But the general opinion of him (especially on HF) is too low. He was unbelievable in his prime, and could do more with one good foot than almost anyone in history did with two.