Is Peter Forsberg underrated?

[Albatros]

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?

It gradually became more difficult over the 1980s, the 1970s and the 1990s are two different worlds in the NHL. When Clarke won back-to-back Harts, the league had three Swedes as its international contingent while some prominent Canadians like Bobby Hull were in the WHA.

 

[GeeoffBrown]

I think in general, every numbered list is made with the intention of generating discussion, more than ranking things. That being said, 48th best player of all time is one hell of a player

At his peak, Peter was arguably the best overall player in the NHL but his peak did not last as long as others, due to injury

 

[Rorschach]

Look at the 1OA picks the last 15+ years. I'd take Forsberg over all of them except McDavid and excluding McD, I'd take Forsberg almost 90+% of them quite easily.

 

[Crow]

Highest ability obviously

I’d rather just look at peak than best. Best ability is far too subjective to have any importance to me. Theoretically they should have shown their best ability at their peak.

 

[gritdash60]

I guess it depends who you ask, in here people might understand the greatness, some average (especially north-american) fan probably wont.

Like Kimmo Timonen said "I cant pick one out of Sakic and Forsberg, Sakic was so skilled and scores all the time, but Forsberg was so strong and you couldn't get the puck from him and was also mean."

 

[tabness]

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?

Many notable players who came up in the seventies and enjoyed great success up throughout the early eighties saw their careers nosedive into the late eighties and early nineties though and did not enjoy great longevity (as compared to many original six players who enjoyed great longevity into expansion).

Meanwhile many notable players who came up in the eighties enjoyed great longevity into the dead puck era.

There's tons of contemporaneous attestation of the league's skill strengthening massively throughout the eighties, just as there is the same of the quality of skill suffering in the dead puck era.

 

[I Hate Blake Coleman]

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.

The guy who had the nickname Captain Clutch would probably be a good choice too.

 

[authentic]

He get a mix of 3, under-over-properly rated I feel like.

Sometime you can hear some never scored over 30 goals type of spin, he was around 25th in goal per game from 96 to 04 in the regular season shooting 14.8%, 8th in the playoff shooting 17.9%, he had a great shot, could score and did when it was the good play.

(among 350+ regular season game for regular season, 25+ for the playoff)

Is on-ice, off-ice numbers are extraordinary considering how many game had sakic as an off-ice comparable.

At the same time it can go overboard because how spectacular and fun to watch he was, how vocals people that grew up with him as a favorite player on a big winning team.

All that said, healthy Forsberg, how many player we could list we are really confident they are a better idea to go with for a playoff round than him, the guy was +45 between 96 and 04 in the playoff while scoring at pretty much Jagr pace for 127 games.

Sums it up nicely. What is meant in brackets there 350+ regular season games and 25+ for the playoffs?

Also he has better goals per game in the playoffs than Crosby, Jagr, Malkin, Selanne, Kovalchuk, Stamkos, Fedorov, Kariya, etc. with bigger or close to the same sample size as all of them.

 

[MadLuke]

Sums it up nicely. What is meant in brackets there 350+ regular season games and 25+ for the playoffs?

I meant he was 25th in goal per games among the players that played 350 games or more in the era and 8th in playoff gpg among players with at least 25 playoff games.

 

[Troubadour]

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

Not to nitpick, but... Game 4. He was actually known to wilt down as the series got close and tough. There were entire threads dedicated to this. He was sub-ppg in Games 5-7 which was in stark contrast with his other playoff stats.

Foppa was my favorite player in the mid to late nineties. He is underrated by people who claim he was worse than Sakic. Sakic was a better shooter -- no doubt about that. But he was also more direct, predictable, and schematic. Forsberg was better at everything else and he was more skilled, creative; artful.

On the other hand, he is also overrated by the "couldn't be stopped/was always clutch/could have been/would have been" crowd. Peter had streaks when he was the best player in the world, but also streaks where he was disappointing. He wasn't perfect.

 

[Love]

underrated. completely captivating to watch.

And yet, “captivating to watch” isn’t a results based metric. This is probably part of why he became so overrated in this site.

 

[authentic]

I meant he was 25th in goal per games among the players that played 350 games or more in the era and 8th in playoff gpg among players with at least 25 playoff games.

Oh right. That playoff stat is especially impressive considering how few games the cutoff is. Raise to players with larger samples and it’s probably top 5 I would think.

And yet, “captivating to watch” isn’t a results based metric. This is probably part of why he became so overrated in this site.

Well the result was when he played hockey he constantly outscored the opposition in the regular season and playoffs, good health was his only real downfall.

 

[dirtydanglez]

And yet, “captivating to watch” isn’t a results based metric. This is probably part of why he became so overrated in this site.

more likely its people that talk about metrics and stats that underrate his skill. i get it, hes less impressive on paper than he was on the ice.

 

[Fatass]

And yet, “captivating to watch” isn’t a results based metric. This is probably part of why he became so overrated in this site.

Ask the guys who had to play against Forseberg what they thought about him. That’s the truest metric.

 

[authentic]

more likely its people that talk about metrics and stats that underrate his skill. i get it, hes less impressive on paper than he was on the ice.

Depends what papers you’re looking at really. If it’s regular season goals or career point totals then he doesn’t seem special but you don’t have to dig much deeper to see how he’s the best of the best of the 90s to mid 2000s and of all-time.

 

[I Hate Blake Coleman]

I meant he was 25th in goal per games among the players that played 350 games or more in the era and 8th in playoff gpg among players with at least 25 playoff games.

Why is this an argument? Top 25?????? Ok so he's not at all close to the best or even being among the best. Like what am I missing.

 

[MadLuke]

Why is this an argument? Top 25?????? Ok so he's not at all close to the best or even being among the best. Like what am I missing.

No one ever said he was one of the best, but more than good enough to be best goal scorer on a team during the regular season and top 10 during the playoff is not some big weakness. he always had incredible shot percentage, i.e., in general he was not bad at scoring.

And why would it matter at all, all that matter is how much you help a need score and not get scored on not how you do it.

 

[Albatros]

Not to nitpick, but... Game 4. He was actually known to wilt down as the series got close and tough. There were entire threads dedicated to this. He was sub-ppg in Games 5-7 which was in stark contrast with his other playoff stats.

Forsberg played in eight seven-game series with Colorado and was the top scorer seven times. On occasion with a ruptured spleen. That one time he was a point behind Sakic. In total Forsberg had 66 points in 55 games, Sakic 43 points in 53 games. In games 5-7 of these series Forsberg had 18 points in 23 games and Sakic 12 points in 23 games. Yeah, they lost quite a few times when the series went the full distance, but Forsberg was the least of their problems when that happened.

 

[daver]

Many notable players who came up in the seventies and enjoyed great success up throughout the early eighties saw their careers nosedive into the late eighties and early nineties though and did not enjoy great longevity (as compared to many original six players who enjoyed great longevity into expansion).

Meanwhile many notable players who came up in the eighties enjoyed great longevity into the dead puck era.

There's tons of contemporaneous attestation of the league's skill strengthening massively throughout the eighties, just as there is the same of the quality of skill suffering in the dead puck era.

The other poster said the change started in 79/80. So which is it?

The general comment was that all the "best players" from the '70s are not as good as the "best players" from Forsberg's era. This would include Orr.

It seems strange that there was a drop of star level players during the '70s. That makes no sense.

I would say that the expansion from 6 teams to 21 teams over a 13 year period created instability and the weak teams and higher offense which allowed for players like Orr and Wayne to leverage their GOAT talent into video game numbers but that is separate from a claim that the superstars from the '70s would not be superstars in other eras.

 

[daver]

Forsberg played in eight seven-game series with Colorado and was the top scorer seven times. On occasion with a ruptured spleen. That one time he was a point behind Sakic. In total Forsberg had 66 points in 55 games, Sakic 43 points in 53 games. In games 5-7 of these series Forsberg had 18 points in 23 games and Sakic 12 points in 23 games. Yeah, they lost quite a few times when the series went the full distance, but Forsberg was the least of their problems when that happened.

Sakic gets the playoff edge, albeit not a very big one, for simply having two Cup winning runs on his resume; and a "3 round performance" that rivals Forsberg's.

 

[Finnen]

P. Forsberg was underrated.

P. Forsberg played less.

Like:

1. P. Forsberg
2. Sundin
3. Lidström
4. Salming
5. Lundqvist
6. D. Sedin
7. H. Sedin

 

[authentic]

Forsberg played in eight seven-game series with Colorado and was the top scorer seven times. On occasion with a ruptured spleen. That one time he was a point behind Sakic. In total Forsberg had 66 points in 55 games, Sakic 43 points in 53 games. In games 5-7 of these series Forsberg had 18 points in 23 games and Sakic 12 points in 23 games. Yeah, they lost quite a few times when the series went the full distance, but Forsberg was the least of their problems when that happened.

It’s peculiar how people obsess over this stat with Forsberg but don’t realize clutch playoff performers like Sakic, Kucherov, MacKinnon and many others were even worse. Also I had no idea about the fact that he led his team in scoring in 7 out of 8 seven games series… That’s actually insane considering you figure Sakic would’ve at least led a few times himself.

 

[frisco]

Forsberg reverse checked his way through the dead-puck era like no one else. That's pretty much it in a nutshell.

Lost my over/under prop bet when the Forsberg "reverse hit" would get mentioned in this thread. I took the under at post #42.

My Best-Carey

 

[Cruor]

This topic has been rehashed so many times but here's one from 2014 with actual good discussion:

Peter Forsberg: The Reality in Contrast With The Imagined, Romanticized Version.

As good of a player as Peter Forsberg was, it appears this forum has created its own idealized, hyperbolic version of him, overrating his dominance over his peers and sharing their misconceptions of his skill level. This idea of him as "the most complete hockey player who ever lived" is absurd...

forums.hfboards.com

 

[Hallonbroder]

Hello, new here and this thread caught my eye!

I’ve seen a lot of credible, ex-players, call Forsberg “the best there was”, “most talented ever” etc.

I’ve also heard stars of today have him as one of their idols (Crosby for example).

But here I see a bunch of posters calling him “overrated”? I see people are mentioning injuries and stuff, but that’s another discussion…? Are people here just very very young, or is there a lot of bias against Forsberg here? Maybe fans of teams he played or…?