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.)

 

[Fataldogg]

I think he is overrated. One of the best players I've ever seen, but people go too far with his praise, some put him up over the likes of Jagr, and when I see that, I view him as overrated.

 

[daver]

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

I will acknowledge that you have presented the facts, if you acknowledge that the facts are hypothetical scenarios based on the unicornish idea of a "healthy" Forsberg.

 

[Ben White]

I will acknowledge that you have presented the facts, if you acknowledge that the facts are hypothetical scenarios based on the unicornish idea of a "healthy" Forsberg.

Ok if you view per game stats as hypotheticals then we definitely have nothing further to discuss

 

[Golden_Jet]

Ok if you view per game stats as hypotheticals then we definitely have nothing further to discuss

They are hypotheticals, if he plays 82 games instead of 50, he would have had X points. That’s a hypothetical.

Do I want a 85 point guy who plays 82 games, or a 55 point guy who plays 39 games.

 

[Ben White]

They are hypotheticals, if he plays 82 games instead of 50, he would have had X points. That’s a hypothetical.

Do I want a 85 point guy who plays 82 games, or a 55 point guy who plays 39 games.

Again, this is about “best” players of all time, not most durable, healthy, valuable or “great”. This is sooo tiresome

 

[Fataldogg]

I will acknowledge that you have presented the facts, if you acknowledge that the facts are hypothetical scenarios based on the unicornish idea of a "healthy" Forsberg.

Aren't you a major Crosby fan, and would defend how Crosby would have scored 130+ points in his prime had he been healthy? If you can do the hypothetical scenarios with a "healthy" Crosby, I'd think it would be fair to extend to this Forsberg situation.

And I think Crosby is vastly superior to Forsberg. Just pointing out the hypocritical viewpoint.

 

[Crow]

Aren't you a major Crosby fan, and would defend how Crosby would have scored 130+ points in his prime had he been healthy? If you can do the hypothetical scenarios with a "healthy" Crosby, I'd think it would be fair to extend to this Forsberg situation.

And I think Crosby is vastly superior to Forsberg. Just pointing out the hypocritical viewpoint.

Is his peak really that different?

In crosby’s two best seasons he was:

1- below average defensively, 120 point guy in a high scoring environment

2- solid defensively 104 point guy in a low scoring environment

Personally I go with #2. Most people think Crosby’s peak was earlier but I think he was the better overall player in his second hart campaign.

Forsberg’s best two seasons he was:

116 point decent defensive player in a high scoring environment.

106 point (in 75 games) two way beast in a low scoring environment.

I’m going with #2 and I think everyone will agree there.

 

[daver]

Aren't you a major Crosby fan, and would defend how Crosby would have scored 130+ points in his prime had he been healthy? If you can do the hypothetical scenarios with a "healthy" Crosby, I'd think it would be fair to extend to this Forsberg situation.

And I think Crosby is vastly superior to Forsberg. Just pointing out the hypocritical viewpoint.

I don't use the fact that Crosby played only 40% of his games during his peak as a positive like the OP does.

If Forsberg had missed less seasons for less reasons, then the injury-prone moniker would not apply. Most player miss time; some have incredible durability (Howe, OV), others are fated to a shorter career/less full seasons (Lindros, Forsberg, Malkin).

Crosby had more bad luck and bad timing with his injuries. If he played 40 to 50 more career games at key times he has 2 to 3 more Art Rosses.

 

[Regal]

Is his peak really that different?

In crosby’s two best seasons he was:

1- below average defensively, 120 point guy in a high scoring environment

2- solid defensively 104 point guy in a low scoring environment

Personally I go with #2. Most people think Crosby’s peak was earlier but I think he was the better overall player in his second hart campaign.

Forsberg’s best two seasons he was:

116 point decent defensive player in a high scoring environment.

106 point (in 75 games) two way beast in a low scoring environment.

I’m going with #2 and I think everyone will agree there.

I actually think Crosby’s best full season is 09-10. Better all around player than he was at 19 and a better goalscorer and ES scorer than either of the others. A lack of PP secondary assists kept it from being seen as better than the others.

Though I don’t think 95-96 was Forsberg’s second best either. He was 1st team center in ‘98 and ‘99 while finishing higher in scoring and being better defensively.

I agree though that their best regular seasons aren’t too far apart. The thing that puts Crosby ahead is both a greater what if at his best and then way more full seasons near his best

 

[Plural]

He's not underrated. But his career trajectory is such that it seems worse than he was as a player. To evaluate Foppa, you need context. He's not quite as good as Crosby and his injuries were more severe. But they have some parallels in a sense that they can't be valued purely by looking at hockey-reference.

 

[authentic]

Is his peak really that different?

In crosby’s two best seasons he was:

1- below average defensively, 120 point guy in a high scoring environment

2- solid defensively 104 point guy in a low scoring environment

Personally I go with #2. Most people think Crosby’s peak was earlier but I think he was the better overall player in his second hart campaign.

Forsberg’s best two seasons he was:

116 point decent defensive player in a high scoring environment.

106 point (in 75 games) two way beast in a low scoring environment.

I’m going with #2 and I think everyone will agree there.

A vastly superior career is very obvious but he was not a vastly superior player.

 

[Crow]

A vastly superior career is very obvious but he was not a vastly superior player.

Crosby definitely had the vastly superior career but I’m not sure he was the superior player at all. I’m leaning towards Forsbergs overall game. If I had to chose between the two in their prime with guaranteed health (I know this is fantasy land), I would want Forsberg on my team.