Is Peter Forsberg underrated?
- Thread starter Ben White
- Start date
It's got nothing to do with the DPE, nor does the DPE have anything to do with relative dominance.
We have zero idea how Forsberg would do in today's league. Maybe he, like Lindros and Jagr, excelled in the more physical but slower DPE due to their size and physicality while it was the less physical players who did not do as well.
Maybe he does not do as well against the more mobile d-men in today's league.
Last edited:
In 1996 before the DPE hit in full and scoring was at roughly the same level as now Forsberg scored 116 points at 22. Since then only Crosby and McDavid have matched the achievement (Crosby 120 at 19 and McDavid exactly the same 116 at 22), even all time it's only a dozen players to score 116 points or more age 22 or younger. Most when scoring was substantially higher. That he would have excelled also in a high-scoring environment is therefore not in question.
Forsberg, if stayed healthy was Jagr-like level. When he was healthy it was him an Selanne I compared Jagr with… no other players than these two (and when Lemieux was out and Lindros injured) were close to Jagr in 90s.
So due to injuries Forsberg is a bit underrated. He would be top 20 at least… absolute monster and fun to watch… but this is “what if”…
So due to injuries Forsberg is a bit underrated. He would be top 20 at least… absolute monster and fun to watch… but this is “what if”…
Foppberg
Registered User
Ben White
Registered User
- Dec 28, 2015
- 4,634
- 1,642
I think it’s a misinterpretation that the DPE was mainly about physicality. I mean the game is still physical, but the DPE was also called “the clutch and grab era”. The skilled players were punished by letting defenders hook and slash, always a stick around your waist or targeting your gloves. To say a highly skilled player, one of the best playmakers of all time, wouldn’t thrive when he got rid of all that is very strange. Did you watch him in the world juniors in ‘93? Forsberg was a player gifted with all the playmaking skills and stick skills in the world, who learned how to deal with the rough environment of the DPE, it wasn’t the other way around.
Also, about your examples, Jagr and Lindros were players of big size. Forsberg was actually of average size but played very big.
That is not even close ridiculous… you might watch nhl last 10-20 years… but us who remember, we remember Forsberg as an. absolute super elite, difference making player… and yes Sakic had better career, but Forsberg was often injured… in a peak form he was easily at the same level with Jagr. Top5 player of 90s (including Lemieux and Lindros). So prime Forsberg was better than prime Sakic, with all respect to Sakic who was hell of a player.
Nope… if you were lucky enough to see them play… both were injured very often (Bure maybe even more), but when both of them were on - they were unstoppable.
They cannot be overrated - they could have better (forsberg) or much better (bure) careers if not injured… but their peak performance are definitely very very very high in the nhl history
You are joking, right? Lafontaine is nowhere near to Forsberg… and no, forsberg is not overrateťd. If someone says he was absolute superelite, that is not overrating but the fact… overrating would be, he was the best whole decade… nope, but there were certain periods in 90s when it could be said, he was the best in the world.
Jagr in his younger days was pretty fast… he changed his style to the former NHL. He would be elite at current nhl too
In 95/96, it is really close between Sakic and a 22 year old Forsberg, #5 and #6 in PPG.
In 96/97, Forsberg was at a 1.39 PPG when he got injured after 31 games. He would have finished 6th in PPG that season. Sakic was at 1.38 before he got injured that year after 40 games. It is really close again.
In 97/98, Forsberg gets injured after Game 68 and is barely ahead of Selanne for 3rd best PPG that season behind Jagr and Kariya. Sakic is outside the Top 15 in PPG. Forsberg was better.
In 98/99, both players miss some games, Sakic is 3rd in PPG, Forsberg is 5th. Sakic was a bit better.
In 99/00, both players miss a significant amount of time. Sakic ends up 2nd in PPG. Sakic was better as we have no idea what Forsberg does as injuries really affected that season.
In 00/01, Forsberg's season again is affected by injury. He was at a 1.06 PPG before getting injured. Sakic has his peak season. Clear win for Sakic
In 02/03, Forsberg has his peak season, Sakic is 33 years old and finished outside of the Top 15 in PPG. Forsberg was better against a Sakic whose is outside his prime.
I don't see overwhelming evidence that a "full season" Forsberg is that much better than Sakic.
Here are his PPG finishes in his full/relatively full seasons:
95/96 (age 22) - 6th
97/98 (age 24) - 3rd
98/99 (age 25) - 5th
02/03 (age 29) - 1st
He has only one season where you can reasonably project another 1st place in PPG in 03/04 against a very mediocre field. In 05/06, he was tied with Spezza and Alfredsson in PPG when he started missing time after Game 21.
Not saying he would not do as well but am saying that he, like any other player from the DPE, do not automatically become any more dominant than they were when they played.
In Forsberg's case, the argument is partially that he is not as injured as much in the current NHL (who really knows?) but that can also be said about other DPE players like Lindros, Kariya who was arguably better than Forsberg at age 21/22, and Selanne.
ItWasJustified
Registered User
- Jan 1, 2015
- 4,690
- 5,920
More like injury in singular, and more particular his feet.
"One time we cut the whole heel bone and moved it; didn't work. Cut it off again and moved it back. They just sawed it off. It hurt."
The problems with Forsberg's right foot started to become chronic in the summer of 2001, after the Avs had won their second Stanley Cup. He had missed the final two rounds of the playoffs because of a ruptured spleen. He was born with ankle bones larger than the usual person — basically they were too wide to fit comfortably into a skate — and he developed inflamed fluid-filled bursa sacs over time from the grinding of the bones against the skate.
He underwent surgery in the offseason to drain fluid in order to be ready for training camp in his native Sweden that fall, but after trying to skate during the first day of camp, he was in more pain than ever. He decided to take a leave of absence to have his foot treated. He returned to the Avs in January, but after being examined, team doctors found a problem with his left foot. He had surgery for that, and it appeared his season was over.
But in one of the most remarkable comebacks in hockey history, Forsberg returned for the 2002 playoffs and led all NHL players in scoring (27 points in 20 games), despite having virtually no practice time.
"I had one contact drill before I started to play. One 2-on-1 drill, and then I went right into the playoffs," Forsberg said. "But those first few months after I took the leave, I didn't do much of anything. I was depressed. I didn't play a game for 11 months."
"There were a lot of games where, if we were up a couple goals or more, I would just untie my skates on the bench to relieve the pain, and I was done for the night. If they got a couple of quick ones, then I would tie them back up and go in," Forsberg said. "I used a new pair of skates almost every game by the end, because the foot felt better if they were hard and kept everything in. If the skates got loose and broken in, I couldn't skate at all."
Ben White
Registered User
- Dec 28, 2015
- 4,634
- 1,642
Why are you excluding the pre injury Forsberg in both 2003/04 and 2005/06 - that was Forsberg at his best, just as good or better as his Hart season. You’re excluding his 2 historical playoffs point leader - without playing in the finals - campaigns as well, 1999 and 2002.
And again, and this is the main point, why shoehorning in season vs season comparisons when there hardly are any full enough seasons to use? As someone said, Forsberg was more consistently playing at a higher level than Sakic. And the per game stats are there to prove it. Even if we remove the all the post 33 yo games from other players Forsberg is still top 5 in adjusted ppg all time and top 10 for playoffs. Those numbers don’t lie. It’s the shoehorning of Forsbergs career into season vs season comparisons that gives a misleading picture. It’s so obvious I don’t understand that people are still trying to do that to lesser Forsbergs level of play and ability.
Last edited:
What does this even mean?
I did include those. I gave him credit for his 03/04 season but did not think it was fair to compare him to a 34 year old Sakic that year.
Forsberg could have won the PPG title in 05/06 but it was far from a certainty. He was 32 years old.
And, seriously, how many hypothetical "full" seasons are we supposed to give him? 5, 6, 7?
We have zero clue that he keeps on the same pace if he had fuller seasons earlier in his career.
Bouboumaster
Registered User
- Jul 4, 2014
- 10,833
- 9,336
So winning one of those means one is "destroying the league"?
I don't disagree that a healthy Kariya could win one if he played in another era.
Voight
#winning
Sakic as well.
He was the 1st AST three times, his MVP year in 2001 is incredible and one of the better ones of the era.
