Is Peter Forsberg underrated?

[Voight]

People just look at Numbers and say he was overrated.

Forsberg like Datsyuk were pretty much always the best player on the ice. A healthy prime Forsberg was a force.

It's going to get worse as we are further removed from the DPE. Kids born post lockout or even in the 2010's will simply look at numbers and not have the context nor explore why numbers were low then. They'll simply go "oh Forsberg wasn't that good, he only hit 100 points twice" not realizing how low scoring that era was.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Kariya would destroy the league today, but I don't think he has any serious argument in his own days.

So your opinion is that there was far more talent...back when the talent pool was smaller?

 

[Albatros]

So your opinion is that there was far more talent...back when the talent pool was smaller?

The talent pool peaked in the 90s.

 

[Midnight Judges]

The talent pool peaked in the 90s.

No it didn't.

Estimating the size of the NHL's talent pool (1950-2023)

There have been hundreds (and probably thousands) of posts on HOH that discuss the size of the NHL's talent pool. The data that's needed to determine the talent pool (youths actively involved in organized hockey) has never been maintained with any rigour or consistency, across countries and...

forums.hfboards.com

 

[Machinehead]

I don't know how you can listen to hockey fans talk about Forsberg and ever think he's underrated.

That's not a knock on him.

 

[Albatros]

No it didn't.

Estimating the size of the NHL's talent pool (1950-2023)

There have been hundreds (and probably thousands) of posts on HOH that discuss the size of the NHL's talent pool. The data that's needed to determine the talent pool (youths actively involved in organized hockey) has never been maintained with any rigour or consistency, across countries and...

forums.hfboards.com

The number of kids playing hockey has been in a state of collapse in the 2000s, and besides raw numbers those still playing are rather the ones that can afford it than the most talented.

 

[Midnight Judges]

The number of kids playing hockey has been in a state of collapse in the 2000s,

Even if that were true in Canada, it's more than made up for by internationalization of the sport.

 

[Regal]

Even if that were true in Canada, it's more than made up for by internationalization of the sport.

The league isn’t really that much more international than it was in the 90s other than down the lineup. It used to be that mostly stars from other countries would make it, but more and more depth players are doing so now, particularly in the US. I haven’t looked at HO’s thread beyond a cursory glance but I’m not sure if we can properly account for the cost of the game pricing people out or suggest that the programs of other countries are stronger or not solely on the percentage of Canadians. Purely looking at national teams, the Czechs are worse. Slovakia is worse. Russia is about the same but has no centres. Sweden is about the same but its top players aren’t as good. USA is deeper than ever and Finland is also stronger than usual. Canada is at a low point after a series of weak drafts.

Of the top 100 scorers between 97-98 and 99-00, 47 were Canadian. Of the top 100 between 21-22 and today, 38 are Canadian, including the lull in talent as mentioned. The difference is pretty minimal in percentages and that’s only part of the equation. The reality is that we’re talking about a percentage of a percentage of the population here, so the margin for variance regardless of pools is quite high. The odds of Gretzky and Lemieux both being only a few years apart or Roy and Hasek being born the same year are exceedingly low, but here we are. Which also speaks to a factor that rarely gets mentioned and that’s that greater competition breeds greater ability. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that there’s lots of strong draft years and poor ones as these players are competing against one another. I do think we’re in a strong time period but I think the league was also quite strong in the 92-98 or so time line.

 

[Cup or Bust]

He was an awesome hockey player that could do almost anything. When fully healthy and at his best he was as good as almost anyone in his era. One of the best all-around hockey players I have ever seen. Tough to play against, physical, great defensively, amazing offensive skill and talent, one of the best playmakers ever in my opinion. He was one of the more dominant on ice players when at his best. He was a bull on skates, almost impossible to knock off the puck.

I understand he did have injury issues so career wise his ranking would not be very high but as a hockey player, what unique player he was. He played in a really tough era offensively and physically as well. He is top 5 in assists per game and top 10 in points per game all time. As a player he is probably underrated by people that never watched him but career wise being able to perform long term at a high level will always impact your all-time ranking so he can only be judged as a great hockey player that we just never got to see enough of, unfortunately.

 

[authentic]

People just look at Numbers and say he was overrated.

Forsberg like Datsyuk were pretty much always the best player on the ice. A healthy prime Forsberg was a force.

This is exactly it right here, probably the simplest way to put it. Also they’re being very selective with the numbers they’re looking at too, raw point totals. Most numbers beyond that prove just how good they were. Like honestly there was atleast a 10 year period for each player (Datsyuk is even more underrated in this regard in retrospect) where like you say most nights they would quite easily be the best player on the ice, whether they’re facing Crosby, Jagr, or playing on a tram with Lidstrom or Sakic or Zetterberg or Roy. I witnessed them enough in their prime to know I take them over anyone but the Crosby’s, Ovechkin’s, McDavid’s and Malkin of the millennium. Even then I wouldn’t lose sleep taking them over any of those players at their best that’s how good they were.

 

[authentic]

He was an awesome hockey player that could do almost anything. When fully healthy and at his best he was as good as almost anyone in his era. One of the best all-around hockey players I have ever seen. Tough to play against, physical, great defensively, amazing offensive skill and talent, one of the best playmakers ever in my opinion. He was one of the more dominant on ice players when at his best. He was a bull on skates, almost impossible to knock off the puck.

I understand he did have injury issues so career wise his ranking would not be very high but as a hockey player, what unique player he was. He played in a really tough era offensively and physically as well. He is top 5 in assists per game and top 10 in points per game all time. As a player he is probably underrated by people that never watched him but career wise being able to perform long term at a high level will always impact your all-time ranking so he can only be judged as a great hockey player that we just never got to see enough of, unfortunately.

For star forwards other than missing a lot of time and having his career end early being an elite player for more than a decade straight is actually pretty rare. He would’ve been like Crosby elite right until the very end.

 

[Ben White]

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.

However it’s very likely as he tended to produce at a higher rate the more games he played in a season. Forsberg is not a case of “hot streaks that he wouldn’t maintain in a full season“ - we already know that his best seasons in terms of ppg were the seasons in which he was closest to a full 82 games campaign.

 

[Ben White]

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.

That’s impressive and all but so was Forsberg. And you know what? Let’s say you need to play at least 70 games in a season to be considered - Forsberg had 4 such seasons while Sakic had 13 such seasons. Forsberg managed to become 1st AST 3/4 chances, Sakic got it 3/13 chances. Which resume is qualitatively better in your opinion?

 

[Ben White]

That’s impressive and all but so was Forsberg. And you know what? Let’s say you need to play at least 70 games in a season to be considered - Forsberg had 4 such seasons while Sakic had 13 such seasons. Forsberg managed to become 1st AST 3/4 chances, Sakic got it 3/13 chances. Which resume is qualitatively better in your opinion?

On the same topic, yeah I know you’ll respond it’s more difficult to maintain that ratio over more seasons due to fluctuations in competition and other factors etc. So let’s look into it. I have zero doubt that Forsberg would’ve been 1 AST in 2004 had he stayed healthy, and very likely follows that up in 2005 if not for the lockout, and likely takes it if fully healthy in 2006 as well. If not for the back surgery in 1999/00 (he came from his best playoff performance ever in 1999), he could’ve got it that year but it’s not certain. In 2001 Sakic might have still won it. 2002 thinking of the miraculous comeback Forsberg did in the playoffs he’s likely the top center in the league had he played in the regular season as well.

So, no, I don’t think the 3/4 first AST ratio would’ve dropped drastically had he stayed healthy during his prime.

 

[daver]

However it’s very likely as he tended to produce at a higher rate the more games he played in a season. Forsberg is not a case of “hot streaks that he wouldn’t maintain in a full season“ - we already know that his best seasons in terms of ppg were the seasons in which he was closest to a full 82 games campaign.

I am saying that you just can't assume that if he never missed any time earlier in his career (let alone whole year), that he still has the seasons later on.

That goes waaaaaayy too far into the hypothetical weeds.

What we do know is that he and Sakic seemed to take turns doing superstar level things over a 6/7 year period when their primes overlapped.