Is Peter Forsberg underrated?

[authentic]

Lmao, outside of being arguably a better playoff performer than Crosby and having the best points per game in the regular season and playoffs behind Jagr for the 1st 10 seasons of his career he has a barebones resume.

In other words, in both per game numbers (despite playing in a lower scoring era more) and per game finishes (despite playing injured more often) Forsberg comes out on top. Add to that he was a better defensive and physical player, Selke runner up, superior +\- (if you consider that stat) and so on and better playoff stats, there shouldn’t be any question who the “better” player was. To answer my own OP - yes Forsberg is underrated on that “best” players ever list, especially in comparison to Sakic. Sakic might have had the slightly “greater” career due to health, but Forsberg was the better player.

Personally I think Sakic is underrated to in a way, but not quite as good as Forsberg. For instance I would take him over Messier at his best who ranks higher on an all-time list.

 

[Dingo]

somewhere between 10-20th best skater I have seen since 1989 (when the game became international, and roughly when it became properly professional)

Career Cashmeer. Health shmelth. We dont hold it against Orr. I saw what i saw.

 

[authentic]

somewhere between 10-20th best skater I have seen since 1989 (when the game became international, and roughly when it became properly professional)

Career Cashmeer. Health shmelth. We dont hold it against Orr. I saw what i saw.

Sounds reasonable, though I’m interested in all those you consider better.

 

[Jack Spider]

Maybe slightly? It kind of make senses. He had a reputation of scoring a lot of points and being injured.

 

[SeanMoneyHands]

Yes he was underrated. There were times in his career where he was the better player over Sakic.

 

[Dingo]

Sounds reasonable, though I’m interested in all those you consider better.

Gretzky, Lemieux, Jagr, Lidstrom, Bourque, Ovechkin, Crosby, McDavid.

I consider these to be better at their best. Some are perhaps arguable - Lidstrom, Bourque, Crosby, Ovechkin, but I have them ahead.

Forsberg, Lindros, Sakic, Yzerman, Malkin, Kucherov, MacKinnon, Matthews, Makar (projecting)

I may be forgetting someone in here, but that is Forsberg, who i consider first in this group and guys who could be argued to have peaked above him, imo.

Then there are incredible single seasons, or guys with really good runs who maybe just didnt impress me as much, or i think are clearly behind, even if its quite close -

Hull, Fedorov, Selanne, Chelios, Pronger, Thornton, Karlsson, Bure, Kane... probably some more. Fedorov's big season is better than.... anything anyone ever did? haha. or close to that, at least, but unsustained even on a per game basis. Pronger isnt way different than that. Karlsson had a sick run, so did Hull, but i think they each lacked too much total game. Bure, Selanne Kane and Thornton were awesome players, but i never really considered them Forsberg's level, although I wouldnt begrudge anyone who did.

So, I guess I have Forsberg 9th, but could see him at 16th (Makar is too early, yet) and really, any lower than 20th would be wrong.

 

[daver]

In other words, in both per game numbers (despite playing in a lower scoring era more) and per game finishes (despite playing injured more often) Forsberg comes out on top. Add to that he was a better defensive and physical player, Selke runner up, superior +\- (if you consider that stat) and so on and better playoff stats, there shouldn’t be any question who the “better” player was. To answer my own OP - yes Forsberg is underrated on that “best” players ever list, especially in comparison to Sakic. Sakic might have had the slightly “greater” career due to health, but Forsberg was the better player.

Forsberg's 2nd best PPG finish in 03/04 that is clearly better than Sakic's 2nd best PPG finish (over 60 games). That's it. Sakic faced prime Mario and Wayne in many seasons.

And the numbers represent Forsberg's PPG before he missed time so you cannot play the "he played injured card", which is ridiculous to begin with.

And Forsberg was fundamentally injury-prone so rating him based on PPG is unfair. It is not "when healthy, he was better" with Forsberg, it is "if healthy, he was arguably better".

Their peak seasons are close, Sakic has at least one better playoff run and has one of the oldest primes in NHL history.

You want to play the "he play injured" card to boost his rating, you can easily play the "he benefitted from playing less due to injuries" like the 2002 playoffs for example.

 

[frisco]

Personally I think Sakic is underrated to in a way, but not quite as good as Forsberg. For instance I would take him over Messier at his best who ranks higher on an all-time list.

Are you saying Forsberg over both Joe Sakic and Mark Messier or just Sakic over Messier?

My Best-Carey

 

[TheGoldenJet]

Lmao, outside of being arguably a better playoff performer than Crosby

Nope.

and having the best points per game in the regular season and playoffs behind Jagr for the 1st 10 seasons of his career he has a barebones resume.

Any star player will artificially boost their points per game average by starting in the NHL as a very old rookie, and then pseudo-retiring at age 33, the way Forsberg did.

 

[Dingo]

Are you saying Forsberg over both Joe Sakic and Mark Messier or just Sakic over Messier?

My Best-Carey

i think both.

Forsberg
Sakic
Messier

 

[frisco]

i think both.

Forsberg
Sakic
Messier

I'm definitely leaning toward Forsberg as "overrated" in the original poll is all I'm going to say.

My Best-Carey

 

[Ben White]

Forsberg's 2nd best PPG finish in 03/04 that is clearly better than Sakic's 2nd best PPG finish (over 60 games). That's it. Sakic faced prime Mario and Wayne in many seasons.

And the numbers represent Forsberg's PPG before he missed time so you cannot play the "he played injured card", which is ridiculous to begin with.

And Forsberg was fundamentally injury-prone so rating him based on PPG is unfair. It is not "when healthy, he was better" with Forsberg, it is "if healthy, he was arguably better".

Their peak seasons are close, Sakic has at least one better playoff run and has one of the oldest primes in NHL history.

You want to play the "he play injured" card to boost his rating, you can easily play the "he benefitted from playing less due to injuries" like the 2002 playoffs for example.

I can’t find one single even remotely valid argument in this post. I’ve presented the facts and you’re just moving the goalpost back and forth at this point. I think we’re done

 

[Dingo]

I think Sakic and Forsberg are quite close, its even arguable who was better, when both healthy. I pick Forsberg, but it sure isnt by a clear, obvious margin.

Funny how the human mind works when its in love, though - I bet I can dig and find a thread where Crosby's three broken seasons are being extrapolated to 82 games by the very same poster who is pooh-pooh ing Forsberg's per game value.

And, for the love of all that is holy in hockey, could we PLEASE FINALLY do a "Best players at prime" project on HOH??? I will actually even participate.

(Sakic blows Forsberg's doors off for career value, btw, and obviously, too.)