dirtydanglez
Registered User
- Oct 30, 2022
- 5,529
- 5,571
crosby was better than forsberg but it wasnt a huge gap. id put forsberg halfway between crosby and malkin
Is Peter Forsberg underrated?
- Thread starter Ben White
- Start date
TheGoldenJet
Registered User
The only thing “complete and perfect” about ol’ Floppa was his penchant for diving.
GoldenKnight
Registered User
There is no chance Forsberg is ahead of Malkin at this stage.
The NHL-99 list from a couple of years ago already had Malkin ranked ahead of Forsberg, and since then Malkin has done some notable things like eclipse 500 goals and 1300 points.
Peter Forsberg is one of my favorite players ever but he is so overrated on HF.
dirtydanglez
Registered User
- Oct 30, 2022
- 5,529
- 5,571
i guess it depends on if you are taking about career or skill. malkin had the better career. forsberg was the better player.
Here we go again.
Forsberg’s rating is extremely polarized when distinguishing between career totals and peak/prime capacity and talent.
Some overrate him because of the latter. A Swedish columnist once called him better than Gretzky and a few others also use too heavy descriptions now and then.
As a reaction to the above and his limited career totals my view is that more people however try to downplay him.
He was an elite producer for virtually all his career (10 out of the 11 seasons when he played more than 25% of the games) while being great allround, and about his goal scoring his playoff G/G is better than Selanne, Jagr, Sakic etc.
His career P/G is very high all time but of course helped by him not logging many games at an older age.
I don’t know what can be added. Depends on what you emphasize. We could add a third perspective/category: Accomplishments (awards, trophies, medals, wins).
I would then summarise it as this:
Career totals and ability to stay healthy - Not great
Career accomplishments - Great (despite the above)
Peak capacity and level when playing - Great+, with a case for a relatively high all time ranking in this specific category.
Forsberg’s rating is extremely polarized when distinguishing between career totals and peak/prime capacity and talent.
Some overrate him because of the latter. A Swedish columnist once called him better than Gretzky and a few others also use too heavy descriptions now and then.
As a reaction to the above and his limited career totals my view is that more people however try to downplay him.
He was an elite producer for virtually all his career (10 out of the 11 seasons when he played more than 25% of the games) while being great allround, and about his goal scoring his playoff G/G is better than Selanne, Jagr, Sakic etc.
His career P/G is very high all time but of course helped by him not logging many games at an older age.
I don’t know what can be added. Depends on what you emphasize. We could add a third perspective/category: Accomplishments (awards, trophies, medals, wins).
I would then summarise it as this:
Career totals and ability to stay healthy - Not great
Career accomplishments - Great (despite the above)
Peak capacity and level when playing - Great+, with a case for a relatively high all time ranking in this specific category.
TheGoldenJet
Registered User
GoldenKnight
Registered User
Malkin was the better player, who also had the better career. That's despite also missing time to injuries in his prime years.
Better player is close enough you can go either way but Malkin ultimately carved out a better career. Forsberg had a more consistently elite level of play in his prime in the regular season and playoffs though despite dealing with even more injuries.
GoldenKnight
Registered User
I disagree with that as well.
Malkin was top 10 in ppg ten times, Forsberg only eight times.
Malkin's consistency is underrated by some.
Some of those came later in his career not his prime so my point still stands. His consistency was not better than Forsbergs from season to season or in the playoffs, just go through their stats year by year and see for yourself.
MrOT
Roenick / Modano / Hull
- Jan 5, 2016
- 821
- 307
People don't really understand how good Forsberg was when healthy. And that's probably cause Forsberg was so stubborn he played through games worn and torn and willed through seasons on one foot missing games, fighting back, missing games, fighting back and so on. So people actually out of ignorance hold his health issues AGAINST his top 10 all time points per game resume, which is utterly ridiculous. From the playoffs 2002 until his groin injury problems came back 21 games (39 points) into the 2005-06 season he had an absolutely ridiculous ppg and if you count out his half injury/groin injury affected games, which he struggled through, it was Gretzky/Lemiuex level dominance for his era. A healthy Forsberg from 2002 onwards with no lockout in 2004-05 is probably regarded top 10 all time. Yes, it is hypothetical and all but that was the level of a healthy Forsberg at the time. Would be very interesting if somebody had the time to do an in depth breakdown removing the games Forsberg played injured, extract a ppg number from it and then era adjust it. I think most of you guys would be chocked by the result.
Last edited:
MrOT
Roenick / Modano / Hull
- Jan 5, 2016
- 821
- 307
As @authentic writes Forsberg was more consistent, the stats are there to back it up. Forsberg also played through injuries a lot more which actually makes his ppg career numbers look worse than the level a healthy Forsberg represented. Forsberg was more consistently producing and was better defensively and physically. The only argument for Malkin is health (not that Malkin's health was very good either but still).
TruePowerSlave
Registered User
- Jun 27, 2015
- 7,624
- 9,270
Forsberg walks on water here.
The ability to stay healthy is pretty important and should not be overlooked.
The ability to stay healthy is pretty important and should not be overlooked.
