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.

 

[MadLuke]

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

It would be unfair to use points totals has he played and had obviously way more points than Jagr during that time... on better teams like you say.

Jagr could be said to be a mixed bag, I am not so sure, he scored the most of his era (per game) and did a lot with what he had. Team success is a mixed bag that true.

 

[Ben White]

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.

But this thread was never about “NHL greatness” was it? Read again.

 

[SkinsFan09]

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

I'll never forget when Ovechkin hit 300 and then some dude was like oH yeAh wEll hE wOn't bEaT bUrE to 400. And then he did because he scored 48 goals in 50 games (across two seasons before someone gets angry)

 

[Sheppy]

Probably my favorite player ever.

 

[frisco]

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.

So, I'm leaning overrated...

My Best-Carey

 

[Crow]

But this thread was never about “NHL greatness” was it? Read again.

I guess not. It’s more about his prime and or peak. Best is a weird word to use. I’d have a hard time determining which players are “best”. Best career? Best at hockey in their prime? What does it mean to you?

 

[daver]

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.

What season does the stench of "expansion teams" go away? It would be nice to know so we can always remove players who played in certain eras from ranking discussions.

 

[daver]

If we are focusing on "playoff" Forsberg, let's get the narrative right.

He has an OK rookie playoff debut in 1995 as the favoured Nords lose to the Rangers.

Sakic's 1996 run is easily the best playoff run in the '96 to '04 time period. 17 goals in 18 games, 10 points in 6 games vs. the powerful Wings in the WCF, and numerous clutch goals and points in OT and series clinching games. It is up there with the best playoff runs of all-time by players not named Wayne or Mario. Forsberg was a solid support player

It was the Sakic show again in 1997 although Forsberg was matching him through Game 3 of Round 2 before, surprise, surprise, getting injured. The Avs were piling on the goals up to that point in the playoffs. Sakic was still good after this but it was the Wings year (finally).

In 1998, Forsberg got off to a monster start for the first four games in Round 1 then he joined the rest of Avs in getting completely shut down as the Oilers took 3 straight. It was an embarrassing loss for the Avs that takes some of the shine off of Forsberg's performance.

In 1999, Sakic was the star in Round 1, Forsberg was solid. Forsberg was the star in Round 2. He was solid in Round 3 but he, like the rest of the Avs, could not close out the Stars in Game 6 or 7. It was a great "3 Round" performance but not to the level of being "historically" great.

In 2000, Forsberg was very good as, again, the Avs lost in the WCF.

In 2001, both Sakic and Forsberg are good through 2 rounds as is Hedyuk. Sakic is the star over the next 2 rounds without Forsberg.

In 2002, Forsberg is the star as the Avs lose another "Real Stanley Cup" to the Wings. It was another great "3 Round" performance but not to the level of being "historically" great. The Avs were an offensive-minded team during that time while other contenders played very defensive games which arguably hampered individual point totals.

In 2003, he and Sakic are good against the Wild, noone else on the Avs made a major contribution.
In 2004, he and Sakic are good but not good enough to get to the 3rd round.

I do think the playoff resumes of Sakic and Forsberg close the gap between them and Jagr in a "Best player" discussion for that era.

It is ironic that the Avs won their two Cups on the back of Sakic, one notably when Forsberg was out.

 

[TheGoldenJet]

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.

This.

And you don’t give out Art Rosses for a thirty game hot streak, like Forsberg’s 2003-04 partial season.

 

[Felidae]

Just ignoring stats for a moment (I mean, most of us here know the stats)

I think there's a legitimate argument to be had with peak forsberg being the best skater in the late 90s to early 00s. Not in the sense of best peak season, but rather, if you had to pick one player at their A game to win you a game 7, he'd be the guy

At the same time, I think calling into question the sustainability of his style of play not just over the course of a full season, but over an entire career, is valid. He's similar to Lindros in that sense, though to a much lesser degree.

 

[Ben White]

I guess not. It’s more about his prime and or peak. Best is a weird word to use. I’d have a hard time determining which players are “best”. Best career? Best at hockey in their prime? What does it mean to you?

Highest ability obviously

This.

And you don’t give out Art Rosses for a thirty game hot streak, like Forsberg’s 2003-04 partial season.

The most atrocious take ever probably of HF. From his comeback in the 2002 playoffs, after sitting out a year, until his mid season injury in 2005/06 he maintained that “hot streak” - calling it a hot streak is therefore completely dishonest or ignorant at best.

 

[daver]

Highest ability obviously


The most atrocious take ever probably of HF. From his comeback in the 2002 playoffs, after sitting out a year, until his mid season injury in 2005/06 he maintained that “hot streak” - calling it a hot streak is therefore completely dishonest or ignorant at best.

He was 9th in scoring and T3rd in PPG at the time of that injury. Do you agree that he wasn't as good as he was in 02/03 and 03/04?

 

[Albatros]

What season does the stench of "expansion teams" go away? It would be nice to know so we can always remove players who played in certain eras from ranking discussions.

Gradually in the 1980s really, after the NHL-WHA merger. Gretzky still called the Devils a Mickey Mouse organization, but even teams like this were becoming far more serious than they had been as the Rockies.

 

[daver]

Gradually in the 1980s really, after the NHL-WHA merger. Gretzky still called the Devils a Mickey Mouse organization, but even teams like this were becoming far more serious than they had been as the Rockies.

So the best players from the late '70s should not have had any success in the '80s if their stats were inflated by the weaker competition in the 70s right?