Is Peter Forsberg underrated?

[bobholly39]

NHL Stats

The official source for NHL Stats including skaters, goalies, teams stats and more.

www.nhl.com

1. Lemieux GP 290 P/GP 1.69
2. Jagr GP 716 P/GP 1.38
3. Forsberg GP 580 P/GP 1.28
4. Sakic GP 694 P/GP 1.21
5. Lindros GP 552 P/GP 1.17
6. Gretzky GP 362 P/GP 1.10
7. Kariya GP 657 1.07

NHL Stats

The official source for NHL Stats including skaters, goalies, teams stats and more.

www.nhl.com

1. Sakic 147 GP 163P
2. Forsberg 133 GP 154P
3. Fedorov 130 GP 130P
4. Yzerman 132GP 115P
5. Lidstrom 143 GP 107P
6. Hull 130 GP 104P
7. Jagr 80 GP 102P

“The results just weren’t there”

Besides Jagr at #1 If you set the minimum GP to 50 the only player within striking distance of Forsberg’s points per game in the playoffs from 1994-2004 is Lindros at 1.14 with exactly 50 games played. If you don’t select a minimum games played you have Gretzky, Lemieux and Fleury ahead with 28, 41 and 29.

NHL Stats

The official source for NHL Stats including skaters, goalies, teams stats and more.

www.nhl.com

Lindros & Jagr were at their best starting in 94-95, until about 2000-2001. Forsberg started his own prime and best years around 95-96.

So in order to capture some of their best years, let's only look at the 6 year stretch between 95-96 to 2000-2001

NHL Stats

The official source for NHL Stats including skaters, goalies, teams stats and more.

www.nhl.com

PPG:

Lemieux 1.90
Jagr 1.54
Lindros 1.33
Sakic 1.30
Forsberg 1.26
Kariya 1.25
Selanne 1.24

This was a 6 year stretch where Forsberg was aged 22 to 27. And where he was lapped by Jagr by a huge margin, and also bested by Lindros and Sakic. And is about equal with Selanne/Kariya too.

Peter Forsberg is the most consistent player listed here. Good on him for keeping up his level of play longer than some of the others and beyond 2001 season, but it still doesn't mean that he was close to those guys when they were at their best. Lindros fell off a cliff (injuries did him in) after 2001, Jagr had a couple off years in Washington, Sakic was getting a bit older (32 in 2001)....but for that 6 year stretch, Forsberg isn't #1, he isn't #2, and he isn't even #3.

Yes - Peter Forsberg is overrated. He didn't peak as high as Jagr did, and it wasn't even close. Lindros also surpassed him.

 

[Hallonbroder]

Lindros & Jagr were at their best starting in 94-95, until about 2000-2001. Forsberg started his own prime and best years around 95-96.

So in order to capture some of their best years, let's only look at the 6 year stretch between 95-96 to 2000-2001

NHL Stats

The official source for NHL Stats including skaters, goalies, teams stats and more.

www.nhl.com

PPG:

Lemieux 1.90
Jagr 1.54
Lindros 1.33
Sakic 1.30
Forsberg 1.26
Kariya 1.25
Selanne 1.24

This was a 6 year stretch where Forsberg was aged 22 to 27. And where he was lapped by Jagr by a huge margin, and also bested by Lindros and Sakic. And is about equal with Selanne/Kariya too.

Peter Forsberg is the most consistent player listed here. Good on him for keeping up his level of play longer than some of the others and beyond 2001 season, but it still doesn't mean that he was close to those guys when they were at their best. Lindros fell off a cliff (injuries did him in) after 2001, Jagr had a couple off years in Washington, Sakic was getting a bit older (32 in 2001)....but for that 6 year stretch, Forsberg isn't #1, he isn't #2, and he isn't even #3.

Yes - Peter Forsberg is overrated. He didn't peak as high as Jagr did, and it wasn't even close. Lindros also surpassed him.

In your opinion.

 

[bobholly39]

Are we rating his talent and ability, or his performance?

He’s universally regarded as an all time great player.

Not underrated.

I've never really seen anyone underrate Forsberg. He's one of those guys who gets a tremendous amount of respect for his ability and career.

In general, people who say he's underrated are those who overrate him and get upset that others don't agree.

Pretty sure OP has previously stated Forsberg would be a top 5 player of all-time with no injuries, for example. And because nobody agrees, he now believes Forsberg is underrated.

 

[Toby91ca]

I've never really seen anyone underrate Forsberg. He's one of those guys who gets a tremendous amount of respect for his ability and career.

In general, people who say he's underrated are those who overrate him and get upset that others don't agree.

Pretty sure OP has previously stated Forsberg would be a top 5 player of all-time with no injuries, for example. And because nobody agrees, he now believes Forsberg is underrated.

I think this is about right

 

[Ben White]

Lindros & Jagr were at their best starting in 94-95, until about 2000-2001. Forsberg started his own prime and best years around 95-96.

So in order to capture some of their best years, let's only look at the 6 year stretch between 95-96 to 2000-2001

NHL Stats

The official source for NHL Stats including skaters, goalies, teams stats and more.

www.nhl.com

PPG:

Lemieux 1.90
Jagr 1.54
Lindros 1.33
Sakic 1.30
Forsberg 1.26
Kariya 1.25
Selanne 1.24

This was a 6 year stretch where Forsberg was aged 22 to 27. And where he was lapped by Jagr by a huge margin, and also bested by Lindros and Sakic. And is about equal with Selanne/Kariya too.

Peter Forsberg is the most consistent player listed here. Good on him for keeping up his level of play longer than some of the others and beyond 2001 season, but it still doesn't mean that he was close to those guys when they were at their best. Lindros fell off a cliff (injuries did him in) after 2001, Jagr had a couple off years in Washington, Sakic was getting a bit older (32 in 2001)....but for that 6 year stretch, Forsberg isn't #1, he isn't #2, and he isn't even #3.

Yes - Peter Forsberg is overrated. He didn't peak as high as Jagr did, and it wasn't even close. Lindros also surpassed him.

A very dishonest post including Forsberg’s back surgery riddled seasons 99/00 and 00/01 and excluding his actual peak 2002-2005

 

[bobholly39]

A very dishonest post including Forsberg’s back surgery riddled seasons 99/00 and 00/01 and excluding his actual peak 2002-2005

If I exclude 2000 and 2001, both Kariya and Selanne surpass Forsberg in terms of ppg.

from 1995-96 to 1998-1999, it doesn't exactly help him:

Lemieux - 1.94
Jagr - 1.56
Lindros - 1.38
Selanne - 1.34
Kariya - 1.33
Forsberg - 1.31

That's kind of my point. A top 5 or top 10 talent of all time (as you've often claimed) doesn't end up ~5th or 6th in league for offense from ages ~22 to 27.

Forsberg even at ful health was never going to have a career to rival Jagr, and probably not even Lindros if Lindros was also perfectly healthy.

Forsberg didn't start competing for Art Rosses until the ~2002 to 2004 years, years where there was a big lull in top end performers.

As for "a very dishonnest post". No it's not - I could have included 1994-1995 season too, which make both Jagr and Lindros look even better, but I excluded that since Forsberg was still finding his groove that year. But if you want to compare actual prime to prime, I probably should add it.

 

[daver]

If I exclude 2000 and 2001, both Kariya and Selanne surpass Forsberg in terms of ppg.

from 1995-96 to 1998-1999, it doesn't exactly help him:

Lemieux - 1.94
Jagr - 1.56
Lindros - 1.38
Selanne - 1.34
Kariya - 1.33
Forsberg - 1.31

That's kind of my point. A top 5 or top 10 talent of all time (as you've often claimed) doesn't end up ~5th or 6th in league for offense from ages ~22 to 27.

Forsberg even at ful health was never going to have a career to rival Jagr, and probably not even Lindros if Lindros was also perfectly healthy.

Forsberg didn't start competing for Art Rosses until the ~2002 to 2004 years, years where there was a big lull in top end performers.

As for "a very dishonnest post". No it's not - I could have included 1994-1995 season too, which make both Jagr and Lindros look even better, but I excluded that since Forsberg was still finding his groove that year. But if you want to compare actual prime to prime, I probably should add it.

Have you not looked at the calendar recently? It's the 2020's.

It's not that the facts you presented are dishonest; it's your opinion that is dishonest because it's not the same opinion as the OP.

 

[Ben White]

If I exclude 2000 and 2001, both Kariya and Selanne surpass Forsberg in terms of ppg.

from 1995-96 to 1998-1999, it doesn't exactly help him:

Lemieux - 1.94
Jagr - 1.56
Lindros - 1.38
Selanne - 1.34
Kariya - 1.33
Forsberg - 1.31

That's kind of my point. A top 5 or top 10 talent of all time (as you've often claimed) doesn't end up ~5th or 6th in league for offense from ages ~22 to 27.

Forsberg even at ful health was never going to have a career to rival Jagr, and probably not even Lindros if Lindros was also perfectly healthy.

Forsberg didn't start competing for Art Rosses until the ~2002 to 2004 years, years where there was a big lull in top end performers.

As for "a very dishonnest post". No it's not - I could have included 1994-1995 season too, which make both Jagr and Lindros look even better, but I excluded that since Forsberg was still finding his groove that year. But if you want to compare actual prime to prime, I probably should add it.

Why can’t you just include his actual offensive peak then?? 2002-2005. Forsberg focused a lot on his
2 way play to begin his career, and became a much more offensive player after his 2001 “retirement”. Everyone knows this, and if we’re talking ability (which is what this thread is all about) it is indeed dishonest to not include the period where he was at his peak offensively. I guess you excluded his playoff numbers too for a reason… this is cherry picking at it’best. Choosing 4 regular seasons which fit your narrative, lol

Try again:
1996-2005 (calendar year, end of Forsberg as we know him)

Lemieux 1.63
Jagr 1.38
Forsberg 1.32
Sakic 1.19
Crosby 1.12
Lindros 1.12
Gretzky 1.12
Kariya 1.09
Palffy 1.08
Bure 1.06

(And this is despite Forsberg fighting through back surgery and what not and playing half injured much more often than the other players save for Lemieux)

Playoffs 1996-2004 (minimum 40 GP)
Lemieux 1.23
Jagr 1.22
Forsberg 1.17
Sakic 1.12
Lindros 1.11
Kamensky 1.0
Fedorov 0.94
Modano 0.94
Yzerman 0.88
Sundin 0.87


To sum it up. Forsberg’s and Jagr’s primes overlap to like 90%, Forsberg was not quite at Jagr’s level offensively however not far off at all. Jagr was also much more offensively oriented and not much of a 2 way player while Forsberg was one of the best 200 ft players in the game. We can’t know for sure what Forsberg’s numbers would’ve looked like had he focused more solely on offense, but we have to go with what we have and give the nod to Jagr. However Forsberg’s defensive play, physical play and more well rounded all around game while playing the more difficult position more than makes up for that. People saying “Forsberg and Jagr are not even on the same level” are out to lunch.

Ability wise, guys like Forsberg, Jagr, Crosby should be looked at in a tier above guys like Sakic, Yzerman, Selanne and that should be very clear.

 

[Ben White]

I love Forsberg. He's possibly my favourite non-Ranger ever. But it's hard to be the best when you can't stay healthy. To play a broken record, 'the best ability is availability.'

Weirdest argument ever, still played like a broken record. You’re not automatically better at doing something just because you’re doing it more often. That’s a most valuable player discussion, not best player discussion.

 

[Grifter3511]

Weirdest argument ever, still played like a broken record. You’re not automatically better at doing something just because you’re doing it more often. That’s a most valuable player discussion, not best player discussion.

So we're getting into the weeds of valuable vs better, are we?

A guy who puts up 82 pts over 82 games will always be better than a guy who gets 45 in 40. At the end of the day, it's all about results. If you're health allows you to produce more, then it definitely is a factor in determining how good you are/were. Being able to withstand the rigors of an NHL is a very relevant component of how good you are.

 

[authentic]

Why can’t you just include his actual offensive peak then?? 2002-2005. Forsberg focused a lot on his
2 way play to begin his career, and became a much more offensive player after his 2001 “retirement”. Everyone knows this, and if we’re talking ability (which is what this thread is all about) it is indeed dishonest to not include the period where he was at his peak offensively. I guess you excluded his playoff numbers too for a reason… this is cherry picking at it’best. Choosing 4 regular seasons which fit your narrative, lol

Try again:
1996-2005 (calendar year, end of Forsberg as we know him)

Lemieux 1.63
Jagr 1.38
Forsberg 1.32
Sakic 1.19
Crosby 1.12
Lindros 1.12
Gretzky 1.12
Kariya 1.09
Palffy 1.08
Bure 1.06

(And this is despite Forsberg fighting through back surgery and what not and playing half injured much more often than the other players save for Lemieux)

Playoffs 1996-2004 (minimum 40 GP)
Lemieux 1.23
Jagr 1.22
Forsberg 1.17
Sakic 1.12
Lindros 1.11
Kamensky 1.0
Fedorov 0.94
Modano 0.94
Yzerman 0.88
Sundin 0.87


To sum it up. Forsberg’s and Jagr’s primes overlap to like 90%, Forsberg was not quite at Jagr’s level offensively however not far off at all. Jagr was also much more offensively oriented and not much of a 2 way player while Forsberg was one of the best 200 ft players in the game. We can’t know for sure what Forsberg’s numbers would’ve looked like had he focused more solely on offense, but we have to go with what we have and give the nod to Jagr. However Forsberg’s defensive play, physical play and more well rounded all around game while playing the more difficult position more than makes up for that. People saying “Forsberg and Jagr are not even on the same level” are out to lunch.

Ability wise, guys like Forsberg, Jagr, Crosby should be looked at in a tier above guys like Sakic, Yzerman, Selanne and that should be very clear.

The fact that his post got 4 likes tells you all you need to know about this board

 

[authentic]

Why can’t you just include his actual offensive peak then?? 2002-2005. Forsberg focused a lot on his
2 way play to begin his career, and became a much more offensive player after his 2001 “retirement”. Everyone knows this, and if we’re talking ability (which is what this thread is all about) it is indeed dishonest to not include the period where he was at his peak offensively. I guess you excluded his playoff numbers too for a reason… this is cherry picking at it’best. Choosing 4 regular seasons which fit your narrative, lol

Try again:
1996-2005 (calendar year, end of Forsberg as we know him)

Lemieux 1.63
Jagr 1.38
Forsberg 1.32
Sakic 1.19
Crosby 1.12
Lindros 1.12
Gretzky 1.12
Kariya 1.09
Palffy 1.08
Bure 1.06

(And this is despite Forsberg fighting through back surgery and what not and playing half injured much more often than the other players save for Lemieux)

Playoffs 1996-2004 (minimum 40 GP)
Lemieux 1.23
Jagr 1.22
Forsberg 1.17
Sakic 1.12
Lindros 1.11
Kamensky 1.0
Fedorov 0.94
Modano 0.94
Yzerman 0.88
Sundin 0.87


To sum it up. Forsberg’s and Jagr’s primes overlap to like 90%, Forsberg was not quite at Jagr’s level offensively however not far off at all. Jagr was also much more offensively oriented and not much of a 2 way player while Forsberg was one of the best 200 ft players in the game. We can’t know for sure what Forsberg’s numbers would’ve looked like had he focused more solely on offense, but we have to go with what we have and give the nod to Jagr. However Forsberg’s defensive play, physical play and more well rounded all around game while playing the more difficult position more than makes up for that. People saying “Forsberg and Jagr are not even on the same level” are out to lunch.

Ability wise, guys like Forsberg, Jagr, Crosby should be looked at in a tier above guys like Sakic, Yzerman, Selanne and that should be very clear.

Also your post doesn’t even touch on the disparity in ice time between Jagr and Forsberg over this timeframe. Jagr generally played 22-25 minutes while Forsberg rarely went much above 20 and was even just above and below 19 total minutes in 2002-03 and 03-04, two of his peak seasons. Also a larger percentage of that ice time for Forsberg was spent on the PK.

But no let’s go with 1995-98 and call it a day, that’s a much better summary of the real Forsberg here…

Let’s just put it this way, the more I look at the facts surrounding Forsbergs career and circumstances, the injuries he dealt with, the two-way game he brought and the consistency of his production in the regular season and playoffs and his peak the more inclined I am to actually rank him as good as Jagr in overall ability, truth be told I take those two over any two of Crosby, Ovechkin or Malkin at their peaks, but it’s very close.

 

[authentic]

Although Ben, I think you may underrate the peak of Sakic and Yzerman. They were above Selanne for me and right there with these guys.