Is Peter Forsberg underrated?

[authentic]

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…?

Well it’s not exactly a hard call to make. All one has to do is watch the player in his prime and he looks far closer to what actual NHL players past and present describe than what half of HF will tell you.

 

[Pablo El Perro]

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…?

Overrated doesn't mean he wasn't a great HOF player.

 

[Hallonbroder]

Overrated doesn't mean he wasn't a great HOF player.

Sure, sure, but what about him is overrated?

His playmaking skills are in the top 10 ever (4th in APG all time, playing in the DPE speaks for itself, including the eye test).

His shot - sure he preferred assists to goals, according to himself, but he’s got a higher GPG in the playoffs than Crosby and other greats.

His physicality- played a hard, sometimes ugly game that hockey fans loved.

Selkie-level defense.

Skated eights around other teams in their d-zone long before the Karlssons, Crosbys and Makar’s did. But he did it when other players used him as a sleigh.

Big-game player, stepped up when it mattered for both club and country.

Amazing playoff stats.

What does people tend to overrate?

 

[Pablo El Perro]

Sure, sure, but what about him is overrated?

His playmaking skills are in the top 10 ever (4th in APG all time, playing in the DPE speaks for itself, including the eye test).

His shot - sure he preferred assists to goals, according to himself, but he’s got a higher GPG in the playoffs than Crosby and other greats.

His physicality- played a hard, sometimes ugly game that hockey fans loved.

Selkie-level defense.

Skated eights around other teams in their d-zone long before the Karlssons, Crosbys and Makar’s did. But he did it when other players used him as a sleigh.

Big-game player, stepped up when it mattered for both club and country.

Amazing playoff stats.

What does people tend to overrate?

Overrated, imo, has more to do with comparisons that claim he was better than certain other great HOF players.

 

[Hallonbroder]

Overrated, imo, has more to do with comparisons that claim he was better than certain other great HOF players.

Ok, but please elaborate. I’ve seen some people comparing him to LaFontaine, which is quite ridiculous. He was also, generally, considered a top 5 player from, what, 1997-2006, when he was playing and healthy? Which is what should be considered in this THN list.

Who do you rank him with and why? I’ve seen the Sakic comparison, but Forsberg’s usually wins the “who was better?”-threads on the Avs forum, right?

 

[Conspiracy Theorist]

No. He wins majority of polls. I think his defensive game was not as great as people seem to think.

 

[daver]

Ok, but please elaborate. I’ve seen some people comparing him to LaFontaine, which is quite ridiculous. He was also, generally, considered a top 5 player from, what, 1997-2006, when he was playing and healthy? Which is what should be considered in this THN list.

Who do you rank him with and why? I’ve seen the Sakic comparison, but Forsberg’s usually wins the “who was better?”-threads on the Avs forum, right?

At what point does durability become relevant? Did he have to play a physical style to be as effective offensively; a style that ultimately wasn't sustainable for a longer career?

Or was he injury-prone?

 

[daver]

Sure, sure, but what about him is overrated?

His playmaking skills are in the top 10 ever (4th in APG all time, playing in the DPE speaks for itself, including the eye test).

His shot - sure he preferred assists to goals, according to himself, but he’s got a higher GPG in the playoffs than Crosby and other greats.

His physicality- played a hard, sometimes ugly game that hockey fans loved.

Selkie-level defense.

Skated eights around other teams in their d-zone long before the Karlssons, Crosbys and Makar’s did. But he did it when other players used him as a sleigh.

Big-game player, stepped up when it mattered for both club and country.

Amazing playoff stats.

What does people tend to overrate?

He gets overrated when people use his career APG to claim he is a Top 10 playmaker all-time when he is 80th all-time in assists.

He gets overrated when his regular season goalscoring is excused by his playoff goalscoring. You can't pump up his regular season assist resume and then expect his regular season goalscoring resume should be ignored.

I personally think his goalscoring overall is not a weakness in comparison to other players with similar point production which is in the Sakic/Yzerman/Trottier tier.

 

[bobholly39]

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.

Is that particularly impressive though? Since I suppose Sakic led in points in many of the series that ended in 4, 5 or 6 games. What's the difference?

I figure it's more a matter of randomness luck - not really significant one way or another.

 

[The Macho King]

At what point does durability become relevant? Did he have to play a physical style to be as effective offensively; a style that ultimately wasn't sustainable for a longer career?

Or was he injury-prone?

This. Dude wasn't getting bit by snakes here.

 

[Pablo El Perro]

Ok, but please elaborate. I’ve seen some people comparing him to LaFontaine, which is quite ridiculous. He was also, generally, considered a top 5 player from, what, 1997-2006, when he was playing and healthy? Which is what should be considered in this THN list.

Who do you rank him with and why? I’ve seen the Sakic comparison, but Forsberg’s usually wins the “who was better?”-threads on the Avs forum, right?

I'm not an Avs fan, but, for career, I'd rank Sakic above Forsberg. I'd also rank Clarke, mentioned in this thread, ahead of him for career. I'm not going to do an all-time ranking here, the history of hockey forum would be a better place to do that.

 

[The Macho King]

I'm not an Avs fan, but, for career, I'd rank Sakic above Forsberg. I'd also rank Clarke, mentioned in this thread, ahead of him for career. I'm not going to do an all-time ranking here, the history of hockey forum would be a better place to do that.

If I recall Forsberg came in around the 50s back then. McDavid and Kucherov have probably passed him among active players - a few others are probably making their cases.

 

[Hallonbroder]

I noticed that a lot of the answers I’m getting are still focused on the career of Forsberg, which is not what THN and the OP was talking about. I agree that Forsberg’s career is less than others because of the lack of games he played. Still, overall, he was a better player than a lot of the ones “ranked ahead of him” in the career-list.
There is a difference.

I also find it interesting that one poster totally disregards his APG and goals in the playoffs. That just sounds weird

 

[daver]

I noticed that a lot of the answers I’m getting are still focused on the career of Forsberg, which is not what THN and the OP was talking about. I agree that Forsberg’s career is less than others because of the lack of games he played. Still, overall, he was a better player than a lot of the ones “ranked ahead of him” in the career-list.
There is a difference.

I also find it interesting that one poster totally disregards his APG and goals in the playoffs. That just sounds weird

Which ones?

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Is that particularly impressive though? Since I suppose Sakic led in points in many of the series that ended in 4, 5 or 6 games. What's the difference?

I figure it's more a matter of randomness luck - not really significant one way or another.

I looked into it, and you're right. Forsberg generally outscored Sakic in seven game series, and the opposite was true for six game series:

• 4 games - Sakic 1 (1 tie)
• 5 games - Forsberg 2, Sakic 1 (2 tie)
• 6 games - Sakic 7, Forsberg 2
• 7 games - Forsberg 7, Sakic 2

Overall the Avalanche played 25 series during from 1995 to 2004. Both players finished ahead of each in scoring in 11 series (and they were tied three times). Forsberg missed two series entirely.

EDIT - I also looked at it by series outcome. Colorado won 17 series. Sakic finished higher in scoring 8 times, Forsberg 6 times (with 3 ties). But Forsberg was ahead 5-3 in the losses. The pro-Sakic way to interpret this is, when he was at his best, Colorado kept winning. The pro-Forsberg was to interpret this is, he was more likely to go down swinging.