Is Peter Forsberg underrated?

[Crow]

There's nothing special about picking 7 years. If you have another timeframe that you want to see, let me know - it's trivial to change the parameters for that report.

I would be really curious to see something as short as 2 years whenever you get a chance if for no other reason than to compare it to the 7.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

I would be really curious to see something as short as 2 years whenever you get a chance if for no other reason than to compare it to the 7.

No worries, it's all automated so it's trivial to run these reports:

Top 25, expansion onwards, best two seasons

Wayne Gretzky	2.16
Phil Esposito	2.00
Mario Lemieux	1.88
Bobby Orr	1.81
Connor McDavid	1.75
Sidney Crosby	1.66
Jaromir Jagr	1.58
Guy Lafleur	1.55
Joe Sakic	1.47
Peter Forsberg	1.47
Bryan Trottier	1.46
Leon Draisaitl	1.45
Evgeni Malkin	1.45
Nikita Kucherov	1.41
Marcel Dionne	1.41
Nathan MacKinnon	1.40
Adam Oates	1.40
Jari Kurri	1.38
Paul Kariya	1.37
Mike Bossy	1.37
Joe Thornton	1.36
Patrick Kane	1.35
Eric Lindros	1.35
Brett Hull	1.34
Alex Ovechkin	1.34

Under this time period, Forsberg is tied for 9th (fittingly, he's tied with Sakic).

I mentioned this before but keep in mind these are intended as approximations. Nobody should be arguing (for example) that Oates is definitely better than Kurri because 1.40 > 1.38 (nor does it take defensive play, or playoff performances into account - two areas where Kurri would clearly be better)

 

[authentic]

No worries, it's all automated so it's trivial to run these reports:

Top 25, expansion onwards, best two seasons

Wayne Gretzky	2.16
Phil Esposito	2.00
Mario Lemieux	1.88
Bobby Orr	1.81
Connor McDavid	1.75
Sidney Crosby	1.66
Jaromir Jagr	1.58
Guy Lafleur	1.55
Joe Sakic	1.47
Peter Forsberg	1.47
Bryan Trottier	1.46
Leon Draisaitl	1.45
Evgeni Malkin	1.45
Nikita Kucherov	1.41
Marcel Dionne	1.41
Nathan MacKinnon	1.40
Adam Oates	1.40
Jari Kurri	1.38
Paul Kariya	1.37
Mike Bossy	1.37
Joe Thornton	1.36
Patrick Kane	1.35
Eric Lindros	1.35
Brett Hull	1.34
Alex Ovechkin	1.34

Under this time period, Forsberg is tied for 9th (fittingly, he's tied with Sakic).

I mentioned this before but keep in mind these are intended as approximations. Nobody should be arguing (for example) that Oates is definitely better than Kurri because 1.40 > 1.38 (nor does it take defensive play, or playoff performances into account - two areas where Kurri would clearly be better)

Where would Bobby Hull and Howe be here?

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Where would Bobby Hull and Howe be here?

Top two seasons only? Howe is 1.76, and Hull is 1.56.

 

[authentic]

Top two seasons only? Howe is 1.76, and Hull is 1.56.

What about 7?

 

[Hockey Outsider]

What about 7?

Howe is at 1.55 (which puts him above McDavid, Jagr and Crosby - though McDavid could conceivably pass him). Hull is at 1.35 (which isn't bad, but it's not quite as good as I expected - if you take the position that goals are significantly more valuable than assists, then he looks better - the same would be true of Ovechkin, for example).

 

[Faceboner]

This sounds highly scientific. What instrument are you using to measure this?

Basically the understanding of others perception and estimating the overall arguments that will be made when discussing his overall impact on the ice when healthy and whether or not he should be given the benefit of doubt for his injuries and by how much versus if it should even be a factor or held against him because durability is considered an important trait and by how much. Foppa is a hockey legend to super fans but will be overlooked due to the record books to me him an Datsyuk are in the mystical territory for players hard to rank because the high skill was evident but didn't always show on the scoresheet leading to them being overrated and simultaneously underrated resulting in an obscure all time player ranking

 

[authentic]

Basically the understanding of others perception and estimating the overall arguments that will be made when discussing his overall impact on the ice when healthy and whether or not he should be given the benefit of doubt for his injuries and by how much versus if it should even be a factor or held against him because durability is considered an important trait and by how much. Foppa is a hockey legend to super fans but will be overlooked due to the record books to me him an Datsyuk are in the mystical territory for players hard to rank because the high skill was evident but didn't always show on the scoresheet leading to them being overrated and simultaneously underrated resulting in an obscure all time player ranking

I mean over the duration of Forsberg’s career the only player who showed up more on the scoresheet on a per game basis was Jaromir Jagr, in the regular season and playoffs. So that goes back to your point about durability and how much that should be held against a player, but a certain player named Orr didn’t even play 700 games and McDavid is already better than Crosby in a lot of peoples eyes and he hasn’t played 700 yet. Point is I think he played enough and showed up on the scoresheet enough to get a proper idea of how good he really was (even he could’ve been better, though you could say the same for so many others from that era), but too many can’t look past his injury plagued career and rank others who were clearly worse players ahead of him.

 

[Video Nasty]

I mean over the duration of Forsberg’s career the only player who showed up more on the scoresheet on a per game basis was Jaromir Jagr, in the regular season and playoffs. So that goes back to your point about durability and how much that should be held against a player, but a certain player named Orr didn’t even play 700 games and McDavid is already better than Crosby in a lot of peoples eyes and he hasn’t played 700 yet. Point is I think he played enough and showed up on the scoresheet enough to get a proper idea of how good he really was (even he could’ve been better, though you could say the same for so many others from that era), but too many can’t look past his injury plagued career and rank others who were clearly worse players ahead of him.

Orr and McDavid in progress are given the credit they have because they racked up individual hardware and displayed a sustained level of dominance over their peers that few players ever have. Forsberg does not have this, even if we went full on what if nonsense and projected out to our heart’s content.

As for the bolded, sure, if you ignore all the times he finished behind Selanne, Kariya, Sakic, and so on in PPG. I’ll be kind and concede that everyone would finish behind Lemieux in the first three years of their career and that should not be factored in.

Thank goodness he had an excellent half season of extreme chemistry with Tanguay and Hejduk, because he’d only have a Calder to his name otherwise.

 

[authentic]

Orr and McDavid in progress are given the credit they have because they racked up individual hardware and displayed a sustained level of dominance over their peers that few players ever have. Forsberg does not have this, even if we went full on what if nonsense and projected out to our heart’s content.

As for the bolded, sure, if you ignore all the times he finished behind Selanne, Kariya, Sakic, and so on in PPG. I’ll be kind and concede that everyone would finish behind Lemieux in the first three years of their career and that should not be factored in.

Thank goodness he had an excellent half season of extreme chemistry with Tanguay and Hejduk, because he’d only have a Calder to his name otherwise.

He finished ahead of all those players in points per game in the regular season and playoffs (while being vastly better all around than Selanne and Kariya and even a better goal scorer in the playoffs) over the course of his career, over a large enough sample of games that what ifs aren’t necessary, we saw how good he was.

I think you miss the point here, not saying he should be ranked along with Orr and McDavid, but he should be recognized for being better than the players he was better than, and during the only relevant part of his career which spanned just over an entire decade from the moment he stepped on the ice he was better than everyone except Jagr and Lemieux for a short period of time.

1994-2006 is a long time period where he showed consistent two-way dominance, elite offense and physical play and all-time great playmaking, somehow raising his overall game and consistency even more come playoff time as well as showing he could be an elite goal scorer.

BTW, after that half season you’re alluding to he had 94 points in his next 60 games, 39 of those coming in 2003-04 where the league averaged just 5.14 goals per game. Not like it matters a whole lot when looking at the bigger picture where he was second only to Jagr in points per game in the regular season and playoffs over the span of his career.

 

[Video Nasty]

He finished ahead of all those players in points per game in the regular season and playoffs (while being vastly better all around than Selanne and Kariya and even a better goal scorer in the playoffs) over the course of his career, over a large enough sample of games that what ifs aren’t necessary, we saw how good he was.

I think you miss the point here, not saying he should be ranked along with Orr and McDavid, but he should be recognized for being better than the players he was better than, and during the only relevant part of his career which spanned just over an entire decade from the moment he stepped on the ice he was better than everyone except Jagr and Lemieux for a short period of time.

Yet he finished behind said players in multiple seasons, healthy or not.

Edit: I see you added a bit more. 1994-2006 sounds like a long time, until you break down like this:

1. He wasn’t the player you’re describing until 1995.

2. He missed the entire 2001-2002 season.

3. There was no 2004-2005 season.

4. He didn’t even play a total of 3 season’s worth of games during the back half of that stretch.

 

[authentic]

Yet he finished behind said players in multiple seasons, healthy or not.

Mostly not, only really healthy his first 2 seasons, first of which was only 48 games long. Either way, he displayed thoroughly he was better than those players you mention except Sakic at his best was on a similar level.

 

[Video Nasty]

Mostly not, only really healthy his first 2 seasons, first of which was only 48 games long. Either way, he displayed thoroughly he was better than those players you mention except Sakic at his best was on a similar level.

If we’re looking at it like that, if we give others the same benefit of the doubt that you give Forsberg, no, he wasn’t better than Kariya.

 

[Felidae]

If we’re looking at it like that, if we give others the same benefit of the doubt that you give Forsberg, no, he wasn’t better than Kariya.

Forsberg not better than Kariya?

Forsberg

Points: 1, 2, 4, 5, 9
PPG: 1, 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 6, 9
Hart: 1, 7, 8, 11, 13, 17
Selke: 2, 4, 6, 8

Kariya

Goals: 4, 7, 9, 10
Points: 3, 3, 4, 7
PPG: 4, 5, 7
Hart: 2, 8, 9, 16, 26


Both had their careers derailed by injuries, if Kariya was as prolific and consistent as a point producer, he'd still have multiple seasons finishing top 10 in PPG like other players that have missed considerable time (Malkin, Forsberg, etc). But Forsberg blows him out of the water in that metric, and still beats him in actual point finishes, hart record, etc.. the only thing Kariya has over Forsberg is goalscoring.

 

[Video Nasty]

Forsberg not better than Kariya?

Forsberg

Points: 1, 2, 4, 5, 9
PPG: 1, 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 6, 9
Hart: 1, 7, 8, 11, 13, 17
Selke: 2, 4, 6, 8

Kariya

Goals: 4, 7, 9, 10
Points: 3, 3, 4, 7
PPG: 4, 5, 7
Hart: 2, 8, 9, 16, 26


Both had their careers derailed by injuries, if Kariya was as prolific and consistent as a point producer, he'd still have multiple seasons finishing top 10 in PPG like other players that have missed considerable time (Malkin, Forsberg, etc). But Forsberg blows him out of the water in that metric, and still beats him in actual point finishes, hart record, etc.. the only thing Kariya has over Forsberg is goalscoring.

My point was, if Kariya was given the benefit of the doubt to the effect that Forsberg always is, like say not being gifted six known concussions, he would be widely known as a better player than Forsberg.

And Lindros was better than both for that matter.

Forsberg didn’t rank only behind Jagr in his era, as authentic is claiming.

 

[Regal]

My point was, if Kariya was given the benefit of the doubt to the effect that Forsberg always is, like say not being gifted six known concussions, he would be widely known as a better player than Forsberg.

And Lindros was better than both for that matter.

Forsberg didn’t rank only behind Jagr in his era, as authentic is claiming.

Based on what? He didn’t show he was better offensively and sure as hell didn’t have a better all around game. Kariya was more hyped initially, but no one from that time would have taken Kariya at his best over Forsberg regardless of concussions. Sure some years were ahead, but their production over Kariya’s 5 year stretch of elite play (95-96 to 99-00) was nearly identical (Kariya was ahead by 0.02 PPG) and that was with Kariya playing a more offensive role next to Selanne, and doesn’t include Forsberg’s best offensive seasons. I’m a big fan of Kariya and I think he’d be the second best winger in the league today, but we saw enough to know what he was and it wasn’t better than Forsberg. It’d be like saying Pastrnak is better than Matthews.

 

[tabness]

Why is it automatically being assumed as a gimmie that Jagr was ahead of Forsberg during the dead puck era now? (This is obviously a rhetorical question as I know why, it's because of them points of course lol)

Just to be clear, contemporaneously it was hardly certain that Jagr was the best player in the late nineties (I assume that even now way after the fact most people won't claim this for the early 2000s lol because the stats aren't there either) simply because he scored the most. Sure, Jagr did get a lot of attention as such especially going into the 1999-2000 season because of how he finished the previous year (mind you by basically starting to tune out the defensive system of Constantine), but it was short lived, and Jagr's reputation suffered massively just a year after which continued until post lockout.

HF got rid of their old posts years back but this place itself wasn't high on Jagr 20 years ago. And we all know how much old school HF loved Forsberg (as did the whole hockey world really)

 

[norrisnick]

Based on what? He didn’t show he was better offensively and sure as hell didn’t have a better all around game. Kariya was more hyped initially, but no one from that time would have taken Kariya at his best over Forsberg regardless of concussions. Sure some years were ahead, but their production over Kariya’s 5 year stretch of elite play (95-96 to 99-00) was nearly identical (Kariya was ahead by 0.02 PPG) and that was with Kariya playing a more offensive role next to Selanne, and doesn’t include Forsberg’s best offensive seasons. I’m a big fan of Kariya and I think he’d be the second best winger in the league today, but we saw enough to know what he was and it wasn’t better than Forsberg. It’d be like saying Pastrnak is better than Matthews.

Exactly. Which he is.

 

[authentic]

My point was, if Kariya was given the benefit of the doubt to the effect that Forsberg always is, like say not being gifted six known concussions, he would be widely known as a better player than Forsberg.

And Lindros was better than both for that matter.

Forsberg didn’t rank only behind Jagr in his era, as authentic is claiming.

Uh, no he wouldn’t be

Did you ever see the list of injuries Forsberg played through btw?

And yes, when looking back on the stats he actually does rank only behind Jagr for that time frame when looking at it objectively. Even as early as 1996 Forsberg was ranked the best player in the world after Lemieux retired by a panel of players, former players and coaches, and Jagr, Lindros and Kariya rounded out the top 4.

Seriously, who in their right mind is taking Kariya on their team for a playoff run over Forsberg? Him and Selanne couldn’t even do what they do best in the playoffs as well as Forsberg, scoring goals.

 

[authentic]

Exactly. Which he is.

I was about to say it would be like ranking Patrick Kane over Crosby, still though Matthews is obviously better than Pastrnak.

 

[Video Nasty]

Uh, no he wouldn’t be

Did you ever see the list of injuries Forsberg played through btw?

And yes, when looking back on the stats he actually does rank only behind Jagr for that time frame when looking at it objectively. Even as early as 1996 Forsberg was ranked the best player in the world after Lemieux retired by a panel of players, former players and coaches, and Jagr, Lindros and Kariya rounded out the top 4.

Seriously, who in their right mind is taking Kariya on their team for a playoff run over Forsberg? Him and Selanne couldn’t even do what they do best in the playoffs as well as Forsberg, scoring goals.

Going to have provide that one.

Yeah, Forsberg spent his career on a team full of depth. You know, the kind of team that could withstand him missing the entire 2001-2002 season and still finish 2nd in the West in both wins and points, while finishing 1st in GA, or quite frankly remaining a 100 point team any year he missed significant time. Pretty cool to miss an entire regular season and not have it impact your team, so you can go on a nice playoff run.

Also pretty cool to miss the back half of a Cup winning run and not be impacted legacy wise.

 

[Felidae]

Why is it automatically being assumed as a gimmie that Jagr was ahead of Forsberg during the dead puck era now? (This is obviously a rhetorical question as I know why, it's because of them points of course lol)

Just to be clear, contemporaneously it was hardly certain that Jagr was the best player in the late nineties (I assume that even now way after the fact most people won't claim this for the early 2000s lol because the stats aren't there either) simply because he scored the most. Sure, Jagr did get a lot of attention as such especially going into the 1999-2000 season because of how he finished the previous year (mind you by basically starting to tune out the defensive system of Constantine), but it was short lived, and Jagr's reputation suffered massively just a year after which continued until post lockout.

HF got rid of their old posts years back but this place itself wasn't high on Jagr 20 years ago. And we all know how much old school HF loved Forsberg (as did the whole hockey world really)

Found this 2005 thread on Jagr vs Forsberg with over 20 pages. Apparently it was a poll of "who would you build your team around" according to some posts and Forsberg was winning slightly.

But this was also before his 2005 season was complete and he was coming off of his Washington years

Jagr vs Forsberg

Tale of the tape is: 68. Jaromir Jagr drafted: 5th overall-'90 (33 yrs/6'2/235lbs): 1059-560-799-1359 +216 21. Peter Forsberg drafted: 6th overall-'91 (32 yrs/6'0/205lbs): 602-225-557-782 +221 Two dominant players of the last decade, 5 Arts Rosses to 1 for Jagr, 2 Stanley Cups each, both...

forums.hfboards.com

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Here's where Forsberg and Jagr ranked in The Hockey News' annual yearbook:

• 1995: Jagr 3rd, Forsberg not in the top 40
• 1996: Jagr 2nd, Forsberg 5th
• 1997: there wasn't a ranked list, but both were named one of six "franchise players"
• 1998: Forsberg 3rd, Jagr 4th
• 1999: Jagr 1st, Forsberg 2nd
• 2000: Jagr 1st, Forsberg 2nd
• 2001: Jagr 1st, Forsberg 4th
• 2002: Forsberg 2nd, Jagr 4th
• 2003: Forsberg 1st, Jagr 14th
• 2004: Forsberg 1st, Jagr 20th
• 2005: Forsberg 2nd, Jagr 12th

They were ranked almost evenly from 1996 to 2002 (with Forsberg pulling ahead after that).

THN's rankings are a big picture ranking of how players are perceived at a certain point in time. It doesn't necessarily translate into who had the best season (in terms of who accomplished more on the ice, it was obviously Jagr). The THN rankings were apparently based on the assumption that Forsberg was healthy (which, in practice, was maybe half the time).

I think people are answering two different questions here. Did Forsberg accomplish as much as Jagr during the Dead Puck Era? No, and it wasn't close. Was he perceived to be (roughly) Jagr's equal, based on his reputation, when healthy? Probably yes.

 

[SuperScript29]

I'd say he's slightly overrated, but having seen him in his prime/peak, he's definitely worthy to be in the discussion among some of the greats, given that at one point, he was considered the best player in the NHL.

 

[Hallonbroder]

Here's where Forsberg and Jagr ranked in The Hockey News' annual yearbook:

• 1995: Jagr 3rd, Forsberg not in the top 40
• 1996: Jagr 2nd, Forsberg 5th
• 1997: there wasn't a ranked list, but both were named one of six "franchise players"
• 1998: Forsberg 3rd, Jagr 4th
• 1999: Jagr 1st, Forsberg 2nd
• 2000: Jagr 1st, Forsberg 2nd
• 2001: Jagr 1st, Forsberg 4th
• 2002: Forsberg 2nd, Jagr 4th
• 2003: Forsberg 1st, Jagr 14th
• 2004: Forsberg 1st, Jagr 20th
• 2005: Forsberg 2nd, Jagr 12th

They were ranked almost evenly from 1996 to 2002 (with Forsberg pulling ahead after that).

THN's rankings are a big picture ranking of how players are perceived at a certain point in time. It doesn't necessarily translate into who had the best season (in terms of who accomplished more on the ice, it was obviously Jagr). The THN rankings were apparently based on the assumption that Forsberg was healthy (which, in practice, was maybe half the time).

I think people are answering two different questions here. Did Forsberg accomplish as much as Jagr during the Dead Puck Era? No, and it wasn't close. Was he perceived to be (roughly) Jagr's equal, based on his reputation, when healthy? Probably yes.

It’s nice reading great posts from time to time. This guy provides facts, not biased opinions