Is Peter Forsberg underrated?

[HockeyWooot]

He’s an all time player. He is revered.

He is absolutely NOT underrated.

 

[HockeyWooot]

Assuming he is not injured in any season, here are Forsberg's projected point finishes from 95/96 to 03/04 (with Mario removed). The next two seasons are a write off. He wins a very solid Art Ross in 02/03 and is likely heading for another in 03/04:

1, 1, 3, 4, 4, 5, 5

Do you don’t get merits and accolades on talent alone. By that measure the modern Maple Leafs are a great dynasty.

At the highest level of sports it comes down to performance. Durability is an underrated aspect of performance.

 

[Ben White]

Assuming he is not injured in any season, here are Forsberg's projected point finishes from 95/96 to 03/04 (with Mario removed). The next two seasons are a write off. He wins a very solid Art Ross in 02/03 and is likely heading for another in 03/04:

1, 1, 3, 4, 4, 5, 5

Very poor projection with no in depth analysis what so ever.

Take away his back surgery to start the 1999/2000 season, right after his arguably best playoff performance ever in 1999, and he’s most likely top 5 in both 99/00 and 00/01. There’s a reason he needed to heal up by sitting out the entire 2002 regular season - hence he could dominate that playoff series with hardly any practice. What looked like a miracle - sitting out for a year and having one practice and suddenly be the best in the world - was actually quite logical, as the only thing that held him back from being #1 one was his torn body. He then dominated the 02/03 and 03/04 seasons, followed by an unlucky lockout in 04/05 right at his peak, and then he was right back at it being the best player in the world in 05/06 before a mid season injury finally took the better of the Peter the Great that we knew.

I have zero doubt that after he established himself as the top C in the league in 1998 that he would ever look back from that if it wasn’t for injuries. Look at his per game numbers, look at his playoff numbers, look at his era adjusted numbers. He also scored more per game in seasons when he played more games so the worn out argument about “more difficult to keep the pace up during a full season” is just out of context. All the facts are there to give him the benefit of the doubt for his missed time. He was almost as good offensively as Jagr and likely a better all around player.

 

[SirKillalot]

If you ask me of a player you didn't want to face or absolutely like to have on your team in a prime state of their career in the playoffs, Forsberg is the guy.

 

[MadLuke]

A healthy Forsberg, as mythical a creature as a healthy Lindros, was not on the level of a McDavid/Crosby/Jagr offensively.

Maybe he was not, but he scored at the same pace in the playoff never the less during that time.

poor goal scoring,

Which can be exaggerated, scored at a 35 goals by 82 in the playoff with a superbe shooting percentage, no one was much higher than that during that time.

And not sure how relevant, how much you help the teams score goals and avoid being scored is absolutely the only thing that matter.

 

[daver]

Very poor projection with no in depth analysis what so ever.

It is literally projecting his partial seasons out to full ones based on what he had accomplished before injury.

From age 22 to 25, he was keeping pace with Kariya (age 21 to 24) and Selanne (age 25 to 28) while clearly behind Jagr and Lindros. He had one great playoff run in '99 but Sakic had outshone him in the playoffs. He had played a decent amount of games at that point.

He was a Top 5 offensive player at that point.

After that, if you want to keep him in the Top 5 over the next three seasons, sure.

 

[Crow]

I wonder what the consensus is here.

If people are saying he is a top 50 player all time? Rated properly.

Top 25? Overrated. He’s no Bobby Clarke for example.

Top 10? Go check yourself in a mental hospital.

 

[daver]

Maybe he was not, but he scored at the same pace in the playoff never the less during that time.

Jagr's playoff resume is a mixed bag. Overachieved as a teenager, underachieved in seasons with Mario after that but was dominant in seasons without Mario.

From '95 to '00, in the four seasons without Mario he was at a 1.37 PPG with 27 goals in 38 games.

Not sure I would use the PPG argument to boost Forsberg who was inarguably on better teams in most seasons.

 

[Albatros]

Top 25? Overrated. He’s no Bobby Clarke for example.

Forsberg was a better hockey player than Bobby Clarke. That's not even seriously debatable. About NHL greatness one can argue.

 

[Crow]

Forsberg was a better hockey player than Bobby Clarke. That's not even seriously debatable. About NHL greatness one can argue.

I don’t really care to argue about their peaks as it was not my point. It’s close though.

I don’t think the NHL greatness is debatable.

 

[Albatros]

Clarke was piling them up against extremely weak expansion teams in the 1970s and then hiding behind backs when the going got tough. Forsberg reverse checked his way through the dead-puck era like no one else. That's pretty much it in a nutshell.