Is Peter Forsberg underrated?

[Felidae]

The issue with these "overlap" comparisons is that their peaks never overlapped.

At their very best, Jagr 98/99 to 99/00 (144 games) and Forsberg 02/03 to 03/04 (114 games), Jagr is still a clear tier above IMO based on how much of a gap they created between them and the field. I consider a tier to be a PPG or points that is 10% better.

Jagr's best full season (98/99) is more clearly a tier above Forsberg's best full (02/03).

Forsberg was not on Crosby/Jagr tier offensively and he had plenty of opportunities to show that he was before 02/03. For sure the gap with Jagr closes when 2-way play is considered. But it can arguably widen when quality of team and linemates are considered.

And it is very arguable that a "healthy" Forsberg simply does not exist. Like Lindros, he seemed destined to have an injury-filled career based on his playing style.

Sure, Forsberg had plenty of opportunity before those seasons. But it's pretty clear that 2002 and 2003 is the best version of Forsberg from an offensive standpoint. (Led the league in PPG, and the seperation against his competition was larger than in previous seasons


omitting 2002 for Forsberg is like omitting Joe Thornton and Henrik Sedins art ross seasons. It Paints a very incomplete picture, sometimes player peaks later.

I'm also not arguing that Forsberg is on Jagrs level offensively. Only that the timeframe that Ben White used is more accurate than the one from Bobholly.

 

[Ben White]

You say this like he wasn’t pretty close over a decade timeframe from the start of his career in the regular season and playoffs (also beginning in Jagr’s first actual prime season production wise). Heck, his career playoff totals are better than Crosby’s after the same amount of games, without considering any of their all around play. His goals per game were better than Crosby’s and dozens of other elite goal scorers as well. How this continually gets glossed over is beyond me.

Also taking absolute peaks, shortened seasons peaks, etc. Forsberg holds his own as well considering offense only, and while spending less time on ice than Crosby and Ovechkin.

The following I have posted in another thread. Ovechkin’s best shortened season stretch was actually slightly more dominant than Crosby’s, then there’s Forsberg over a sample of 70 games.

I’m not surprised nobody dares to answer this very accurate post. It’s amazing how people stubbornly continues to ignore Forsberg’s playoff resume as well as his actual peak production rate. Claiming Crosby was on another level and what not. Even putting Ovie in another stratosphere apparently. Ovie was good for longer, but Forsberg was better when at his best. Ovechkin is a better goal scorer and that’s it.

 

[authentic]

I’m not surprised nobody dares to answer this very accurate post. It’s amazing how people stubbornly continues to ignore Forsberg’s playoff resume as well as his actual peak production rate. Claiming Crosby was on another level and what not. Even putting Ovie in another stratosphere apparently. Ovie was good for longer, but Forsberg was better when at his best. Ovechkin is a better goal scorer and that’s it.

Honestly I largely agree and to be clear for peak I have Ovechkin, Crosby, Malkin and Forsberg on the same level. For a 5-10 year period Forsberg was undeniably a better player than Ovechkin though, better than Malkin as well in terms of consistency and Crosby has them all beat for being an elite player over 15+ years. I just truthfully believe that if you go back and watch Forsberg in his prime/peak (so basically anytime in his career before 2006 really) the eye test tells a pretty accurate story which is backed by all the stats we’ve listed. There are people today who believe Kucherov is a better player than Forsberg, heck even MacKinnon isn’t quite as good and that’s the flat out truth.

 

[bobholly39]

Honestly I largely agree and to be clear for peak I have Ovechkin, Crosby, Malkin and Forsberg on the same level. For a 5-10 year period Forsberg was undeniably a better player than Ovechkin though, better than Malkin as well in terms of consistency and Crosby has them all beat for being an elite player over 15+ years. I just truthfully believe that if you go back and watch Forsberg in his prime/peak (so basically anytime in his career before 2006 really) the eye test tells a pretty accurate story which is backed by all the stats we’ve listed. There are people today who believe Kucherov is a better player than Forsberg, heck even MacKinnon isn’t quite as good and that’s the flat out truth.

Did you wake up this morning and think to yourself - "hrmm, I wonder how many ridiculous claims I can fit in a 7 line post?". If so, congrats, it's quite a few.

1. Forsberg's peak (2003 season), isn't as good as any of Ovechkin's, Crosby nor Malkin's peak
2. Forsberg wasn't better than Ovechkin over a 5-10 year period.
3. Eye test tells you what you want you to tell it. With the eye test, you can claim Forsberg is best, or Malkin, or Crosby or Ovechkin - or even that Kovalev is better than all of them. It doesn't hold much weight
4. Kucherov is a better player than Forsberg. He certainly is having a much better prime/career so far, as well as had a better peak. Also better playoffs. So - pretty much better everything?
5. Considering Kucherov is also better than MacKinnon, your "heck even MacKinnion isn't quite as good" comment makes no sense.

In summary - Peter Forsberg gets vastly overrated by some HF members.

 

[Hallonbroder]

Crosby is on a tier above Forsberg. That's indisputable. Nothing Forsberg did in any of injury shortened seasons was on the same level.

It's debatable if Forsberg was the better two-way player, and any edge there is erased when comparing quality of linemates.

Haha, what

 

[Hallonbroder]

Considering the amount of stupid arguments being thrown around here by some poster to somehow downgrade Forsberg’s abilities, I’d say he’s still vastly underrated, especially by Canadians (but that’s expected)

 

[bobholly39]

Yeah why are we using this specific timeframe?

The timeframe of 1995 to 1998 is way more advantageous to Jagr as it includes his peak seasons and cuts off half of Forsberg's best seasons on a per game basis.

1994 to 2005 presents a more accurate picture as it includes most of Jagr and Forsberg's prime, almost all of their top 10 PPG and point finishes. Admittedly leaving out 2 of Jagr's (1993-94 and 2006-07), but thats better than leaving out half of Forsberg's best years. As Ben White showed in his response to you, the offensive gap closes a bit.

I was replying to a dishonnest post trying to make it more honest, that's why I used that timeframe.

Because saying player A is better than player B by including a bunch of post decline years of player B is inherintly dishonest, which is what the initial post I refered to was. It would be akin to saying "hey, look at how much better Lemieux's ppg is vs Gretzky from 89 to 93, that must mean Lemieux >>> Gretzky". No - it just means Gretzky had started to decline.

To clarify, in case you don't follow. Looking at ppg from 94-95 to 05-06 doesn't do anything for peak, nor even prime comparisons, which I thought is what we were trying to do. Lindros declined after major injuries beyond 2000, Jagr had off years, etc. Forsberg is the most consistent of the bunch - but it doesn't make him the highest performer.

Forsberg got lapped by Jagr from ages ~22-27. Lindros was also significantly better. Forsberg from ages ~22-27 was among the pack offensively, a top ~5-6th forward in the league (along the likes of Sakic, Kariya, Selanne, etc), and top ~10ish player overall, give or take (Roy, Hasek, Brodeur, some defensemen, etc).

A player who from ages ~22-27 barely is a top 5 forward/top 10 player in the league, can not be a top 5-10 player of all-time, as OP likes to claim.

If you think looking at the years 95-96 to 00-01 when comparing top forwards isn't advantageos to Forsberg because he peaked after that - fine. Let's compare Forsberg's best years to Jagr or Lindros's best years.

Jagr 94-95 to 2000-2001 >> Forsberg's ~2002-2004 stretch. Lindros would also come out ahead in a similar comparison.
Sakic's best season is better than Forsberg's best season. Sakic's best 2 playoffs are better than Forsberg's best 2 playoffs. Sakic also has an argument to be ahead.

Forsberg is a fantastic player, who was extremely consistent - but he still gets overrated vastly.

 

[daver]

Considering the amount of stupid arguments being thrown around here by some poster to somehow downgrade Forsberg’s abilities, I’d say he’s still vastly underrated, especially by Canadians (but that’s expected)

I agree, using stats to dispute a narrative that Forsberg is a Top Ten player all-time is the epitome of dumb and biased.

 

[Hallonbroder]

I agree, using stats to dispute a narrative that Forsberg is a Top Ten player all-time is the epitome of dumb and biased.

He’s not, but he’s still better than your boy Sakic. And no, the “facts” in this threads are just some dudes changing goal posts to fit their narrative. I’ve seen too many threads in which 1-2 posters in here hating on Forsberg, and too many Forsberg-related threads in which you have made your case for Sakic, however un-related it might’ve been.

 

[Felidae]

I was replying to a dishonnest post trying to make it more honest, that's why I used that timeframe.

Because saying player A is better than player B by including a bunch of post decline years of player B is inherintly dishonest, which is what the initial post I refered to was. It would be akin to saying "hey, look at how much better Lemieux's ppg is vs Gretzky from 89 to 93, that must mean Lemieux >>> Gretzky". No - it just means Gretzky had started to decline.

Fair enough.

To clarify, in case you don't follow. Looking at ppg from 94-95 to 05-06 doesn't do anything for peak, nor even prime comparisons, which I thought is what we were trying to do. Lindros declined after major injuries beyond 2000, Jagr had off years, etc. Forsberg is the most consistent of the bunch - but it doesn't make him the highest performer.

Highly disagree. 1994 to 2005 includes all of Forsberg's top 10 points and PPG finishes, and almost all of Jagr's, that seems like the very definition of prime to me..

Forsberg got lapped by Jagr from ages ~22-27. Lindros was also significantly better. Forsberg from ages ~22-27 was among the pack offensively, a top ~5-6th forward in the league (along the likes of Sakic, Kariya, Selanne, etc), and top ~10ish player overall, give or take (Roy, Hasek, Brodeur, some defensemen, etc).

I don't necessarily disagree. But again, none of those years were Forsberg at his best from an offensive standpoint.

A player who from ages ~22-27 barely is a top 5 forward/top 10 player in the league, can not be a top 5-10 player of all-time, as OP likes to claim.

Agreed

If you think looking at the years 95-96 to 00-01 when comparing top forwards isn't advantageos to Forsberg because he peaked after that - fine. Let's compare Forsberg's best years to Jagr or Lindros's best years.

Jagr 94-95 to 2000-2001 >> Forsberg's ~2002-2004 stretch. Lindros would also come out ahead in a similar comparison.
Sakic's best season is better than Forsberg's best season. Sakic's best 2 playoffs are better than Forsberg's best 2 playoffs. Sakic also has an argument to be ahead.

Agree here as well, Forsberg seems to be thought of as the better player despite Sakic being ranked higher in an all time sense.. I think a lot of that has to do with Forsberg's style of play. Sakic was far more quiet in comparison, but he still achieved very similar results.

And yeah, i would probably rank Sakic's MVP season higher. But honestly, that season is on par with Jagr's best imo.. if anything, it further cements Forsberg not being too far behind Jagr in my mind, since there isn't a huge gap between Sakic and Forsberg's best season anyways

Forsberg is a fantastic player, who was extremely consistent - but he still gets overrated vastly.

 

[bobholly39]

Highly disagree. 1994 to 2005 includes all of Forsberg's top 10 points and PPG finishes, and almost all of Jagr's, that seems like the very definition of prime to me..

Since we seem to agree on a lot of other points, I'll respond to this part here.

What are we actually looking to evaluate though? Consistency? Forsberg is extremely consistent, no question. So if you want to look at a stretch of 12 years and ask who was more consistent, he might be #1 above even Jagr. But I thought the discussion was more about each player's best, and who was better.

I think looking at 11 or 12 seasons is way overkill. Look at each player's best ~2-4 seasons for peak, and ~5-7 seasons for prime. (sometimes can be a bit more/less depending on the player)

Jagr's peak includes - 95, 96, 98, 99, 00, 01.
Forsberg's peak includes - 2003? Anythig else you'd include?

Well peak for peak - Jagr has multiple seasons better than Forsberg 2003. And all 6 of those seasons are better than Forsberg's 2nd best, 3rd best and so on seasons.

So - that means Jagr is ahead for both peak and prime, by a lot.