Peter Forsberg: The Reality in Contrast With The Imagined, Romanticized Version.

[Fred Taylor]

Federov was far superior to Forsberg defensively, it's almost night and day. As some posters have mentioned, Forsberg was good defensively but because he played a physical game, it was perceived as being a "great two-way" game.

In regards to PK icetime, the data on NHL.com goes as far back as the 1997-98 season, some would argue that this was the season in which Forsberg was closest to Jagr during their primes. It's interesting that Forsberg (2:23 PK minutes per game) wasn't even among the top 60 players in the NHL in PK icetime per game, in fact it was another Colorado centerman (Stepahne Yelle) who was 13th overall in the league in PK icetime per game and who led all Colorado forwards in PK icetime per game. In fact Forsberg was only 9th on the Avalanche in PK icetime per game and only 4th among forwards on the team, Jari Kurri, Thomas Fitzgerald and Stephane Yelle all killed more penalties than Forsberg did according to the stats.

Now we have 1998-99, a season in which Forsberg and Sakic were pretty even in terms of performance. Joe Sakic led all Avalanche forwards with 3:32 minutes per game of PK while Forsberg was again 4th among Avs forwards (Stephane Yelle and Eric Lacroix and Sakic all getting more icetime on the PK than Forsberg did), Forsberg's PK icetime per game was 2:45. Sakic played a full 3/4 of a minute more per game.

In fact Sakic averaged more PK icetime per game in 1998-99, 1999-00 and 2000-01 and 2002-03.

When Forsberg won his lone Art Ross and Hart trophies, he averaged just 0:12 minutes of icetime per game on the PK. Forsberg was 13th among forwards on the Avs in that category that season. BTW in comparison, Sakic averaged 1:32 minutes per game on the PK that season. So clearly the voters were looking at something else than PK when they voted him 4th in Selke voting in 2002-03.

Forsberg also played 4:33 of icetime per game on the PP that season and his overall icetime was actually less than Hejduk's so it seems like Hejduk was more than capable of being a premier player on his own.

Forsberg was nowhere near the defensive player some are making him out to be. His Selke voting record is based on reputation and nothing more. He wasn't even his team's best two-way forward (that title belonged to Sakic) nor was he even among the top 3 best defensive forwards on the team, all of Yelle, Sakic and Hejduk played more on the penalty kill than Forsberg did.

As CzechyourMath mentioned, let Jagr rest up for a season and come back for the playoffs or regular season and he would have chewed the league up alive.

Any advantage Forsberg had with scoring per minute, was offset by the simple fact that those Avalanche teams were 4 lines deep and had so much more talent than those Lemieux-less Jagr led Penguins teams.

I love how in a thread comparing Forsberg to Crosby that you mentioned once that Forsberg had the defense of Bergeron and the physicality of prime Ovechkin, I actually remember you specifically saying that, but now that he's being compared to Jagr his defense and physicality are massively overrated.

Let's put it this way, even if he was just above average defensively, you combine that with a very physical game, and very good offensive and puck possession game which was second to Jagr's, then you have yourself one hell of an effective player. The problem is though that Forsberg was more than just above average defensively, he was basically elite defensively many seasons, you've even said it yourself when he was being compared to Crosby.

 

[Regal]

Federov was far superior to Forsberg defensively, it's almost night and day. As some posters have mentioned, Forsberg was good defensively but because he played a physical game, it was perceived as being a "great two-way" game.

In regards to PK icetime, the data on NHL.com goes as far back as the 1997-98 season, some would argue that this was the season in which Forsberg was closest to Jagr during their primes. It's interesting that Forsberg (2:23 PK minutes per game) wasn't even among the top 60 players in the NHL in PK icetime per game, in fact it was another Colorado centerman (Stepahne Yelle) who was 13th overall in the league in PK icetime per game and who led all Colorado forwards in PK icetime per game. In fact Forsberg was only 9th on the Avalanche in PK icetime per game and only 4th among forwards on the team, Jari Kurri, Thomas Fitzgerald and Stephane Yelle all killed more penalties than Forsberg did according to the stats.

Now we have 1998-99, a season in which Forsberg and Sakic were pretty even in terms of performance. Joe Sakic led all Avalanche forwards with 3:32 minutes per game of PK while Forsberg was again 4th among Avs forwards (Stephane Yelle and Eric Lacroix and Sakic all getting more icetime on the PK than Forsberg did), Forsberg's PK icetime per game was 2:45. Sakic played a full 3/4 of a minute more per game.

In fact Sakic averaged more PK icetime per game in 1998-99, 1999-00 and 2000-01 and 2002-03.

When Forsberg won his lone Art Ross and Hart trophies, he averaged just 0:12 minutes of icetime per game on the PK. Forsberg was 13th among forwards on the Avs in that category that season. BTW in comparison, Sakic averaged 1:32 minutes per game on the PK that season. So clearly the voters were looking at something else than PK when they voted him 4th in Selke voting in 2002-03.

Forsberg also played 4:33 of icetime per game on the PP that season and his overall icetime was actually less than Hejduk's so it seems like Hejduk was more than capable of being a premier player on his own.

Forsberg was nowhere near the defensive player some are making him out to be. His Selke voting record is based on reputation and nothing more. He wasn't even his team's best two-way forward (that title belonged to Sakic) nor was he even among the top 3 best defensive forwards on the team, all of Yelle, Sakic and Hejduk played more on the penalty kill than Forsberg did.

As CzechyourMath mentioned, let Jagr rest up for a season and come back for the playoffs or regular season and he would have chewed the league up alive.

Any advantage Forsberg had with scoring per minute, was offset by the simple fact that those Avalanche teams were 4 lines deep and had so much more talent than those Lemieux-less Jagr led Penguins teams.

C'mon now, are you seriously going to argue that Hejduk was a better defensive forward than Forsberg, and that the evidence is PK ice time?

 

[plusandminus]

This thread seems partially a bit off-topic by now.

Anyway, some points...

1. Yes, Forsberg is to an extent a bit romanticized. He wasn't as good defensively as some claim him to be. He also wasn't a very dangerous goal scorer, although he did improve his goal scoring during playoffs.

2. It's difficult to judge which one of Sakic and Forsberg was the best. Sakic had his dangerous wrist shot, and he too had a great overall game.

3. Lots of stats in this thread. But please understand that there needs to be significative differences in - for example - point production for it to be significative. It doesn't really matter if a player scores 5-10 points more than another per season, or 0.1 points per game more. This is because:
a) different players have different roles, i.e. are used differently.
b) different players are differently benefited by which teammates they play with
c) scoring points is not everything. There are (usually) 5 skaters on the ice for a team, and while the point definitely creates offense that matters (i.e. goals for), the players who do not score on a goal for may have contributed in other ways.

4. As some say, Forsberg at his peak (around 2003) might have been the best player. But overall during his career there are some equally good forwards. (And Mario Lemieux and Wayne Gretzky obvously being better during their peak than Forsberg during his.)

 

[Uno Bench]

BTW, I think Forsberg's ES minutes were lower, because half the time he was flopping and drawing a penalty, negating the ES shift on which he played.

If some people are claiming there is a "romanticism" going on around Forsberg. What should posts like this by Czech your..,be called then? An anti-Forsberg-ism. Or a bad-mouth-Forsberg-long-after- career-so-maybe-my-fav-player-Jagr-looks-better-to-some-ism

 

[Czech Your Math]

If some people are claiming there is a "romanticism" going on around Forsberg. What should posts like this by Czech your..,be called then? An anti-Forsberg-ism. Or a bad-mouth-Forsberg-long-after- career-so-maybe-my-fav-player-Jagr-looks-better-to-some-ism

Sorry for trying to inject some humor ITT... something it, and you, seem to be sorely lacking.

I'm not saying Forsberg was constantly diving every shift, but most players do it a fair amount, to try and draw a penalty, and I think most of us know that Forsberg was hardly an exception. One distinctive thing about Jagr, was that he never dove, at least not that I can ever recall seeing.

Now if a player as skilled as Jagr is also as big and strong as Jagr, and on top of that never dives, just think of the implications for the defense during the DPE. They could hook, hold, tackle, slash, etc., on top of the already legal double and triple teams that were an omnipresent sight when Jagr was on the ice, with little fear of a penalty being called, and that's exactly what they did. There's a reason Shanahan said in '07, during his first year with the Rangers, that he had never seen a player take so much abuse. Remember, that's Shanahan, a player who has been through and seen some hockey wars... and AFAIK, not prone to hyperbole ala Gretzky's half dozen "next Gretzkys." Also remember, that's a 34-35 y/o Jagr, coming off major shoulder surgery, in the "new" NHL where penalties were being called left and right for well over a season. So that should give some idea of the abuse Jagr took during his peak/prime years, when he still had speed, was at the top of his game, and the refs turned a blind eye to just about everything.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

One distinctive thing about Jagr, was that he never dove, at least not that I can ever recall seeing.

That just means he was better at it than Forsberg.

 

[livewell68]

That just means he was better at it than Forsberg.

No it doesn't mean that. Jagr never ever dove. He took a heck more abuse than Forsberg did and never embellished anything to get a call.

From:http://www.rockawave.com/news/2007-02-02/Sports/046.html

"I don't know what the deal is," he said. "Guys hit [Jagr] late; guys hit him high; guys hook his hands he doesn't complain; he just goes out and plays. The referees just seem to have a different set of rules about the way people get to play against him.

"I've played with other superstars and they get a whole lot more respect than this guy. Mats Sundin goes down first period, first shift - penalty. Jaromir Jagr's gotta carry guys on his back all season long," Shanahan said.

"It didn't happen to Steve Yzerman, didn't happen to Nik Lidstrom, it never happened to Mike Modano. Joe Sakic - I've seen it all. There's a certain amount of respect - guys who have the puck on their stick a lot draw penalties. Jags never draws penalties. There's a different set of rules refs have for him. It's a different set of rules for Jaromir Jagr."

Shanahan said it could be because Jagr is so big, he doesn't get knocked but coach Tom Renney was lost for answers. "You have to wonder," the coach said. "It's just as simple as that. I don't know if there is a biased. I don't know what happens to other teams and their best players. By the nature of how he plays, people should observe that and I am not suggesting the referees should know what's happening. You have to think they do their homework."

Renney, though, was happy with the way Jagr plays. "With the way diving is called these days, it's a good thing he doesn't go down."

"It's time to say something on his behalf. He's not going to complain, so I am going to do it for him."

 

[Czech Your Math]

No it doesn't mean that. Jagr never ever dove. He took a heck more abuse than Forsberg did and never embellished anything to get a call.

From:http://www.rockawave.com/news/2007-02-02/Sports/046.html

How dare you!

Only a Jagr fanboy would suggest that Jaromir Jagr was so frickin' big, strong, and talented, that there actually was a "different set of rules" for him.

I mean, it couldn't be that they didn't want a European putting guys like Lindros and Crosby to shame, right? Oh no, that would never a happen in a North American, revenue-producing, entertainment industry... I mean, sport... highly dependent on marketing N.A. stars. That could only happen in a "garage league" or something.

 

[Beau Knows]

How dare you!

Only a Jagr fanboy would suggest that Jaromir Jagr was so frickin' big, strong, and talented, that there actually was a "different set of rules" for him.

I mean, it couldn't be that they didn't want a European putting guys like Lindros and Crosby to shame, right? Oh no, that would never a happen in a North American, revenue-producing, entertainment industry... I mean, sport... highly dependent on marketing N.A. stars. That could only happen in a "garage league" or something.

Here we go with the ref/league conspiracy again, that went so well last time.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

No it doesn't mean that. Jagr never ever dove. He took a heck more abuse than Forsberg did and never embellished anything to get a call.

From:http://www.rockawave.com/news/2007-02-02/Sports/046.html

Forsberg took a similar amount of abuse to Jagr. Jagr wasn't some lone persecuted man; its how stars who played puck possession styles were treated in that era. If you had the puck, you were a marked man.

Agree that Forsberg was much much more of a diver

 

[quoipourquoi]

Forsberg took a similar amount of abuse to Jagr. Jagr wasn't some lone persecuted man; its how stars who played puck possession styles were treated in that era. If you had the puck, you were a marked man.

Agree that Forsberg was much much more of a diver

 

[Lexus]

No it doesn't mean that. Jagr never ever dove. He took a heck more abuse than Forsberg did and never embellished anything to get a call.

Don't say that, he had his fair share of dives aswell. Many of the greats that played the game dove on several occasions, Mario Lemieux was a notorious diver, so was Wayne.




I strongly believe Forsberg took more abuse than Jagr did, mostly because Forsberg played a chippy game himself and wasn't afraid of get his nose dirty either.
I believe he actually thrived on it. Forsberg was also much, much more physical than Jagr ever was.


Hatcher quote:

"Some of the stuff he does is just ridiculous. Jaromir Jagr is big and strong like Forsberg, but Jagr doesn't fight back if you play him tough like Forsberg does. "I think he's the toughest player in the game to play against. And he gets that same kind of look in his eyes -- that steely glare that so often is associated with Mark Messier -- and you don't want to be anywhere near him, if you are an opponent."

http://www.nhl.com/cupcrazy/2004/seriesh/forsberg041404.shtml

 

[Iain Fyffe]

No it doesn't mean that. Jagr never ever dove. He took a heck more abuse than Forsberg did and never embellished anything to get a call.

You missed the point, I think. The point is that we cannot tell, externally. Some diving is obvious, but suggesting that we can always tell, just by looking, whether a player has embellished or not is untenable.

 

[quoipourquoi]

I strongly believe Forsberg took more abuse than Jagr did, mostly because Forsberg played a chippy game himself and wasn't afraid of get his nose dirty either.

I'm not sure how there would even be an objective measure of this. Paul Kariya wasn't physical at all, and Gary Suter and Scott Stevens tried to decapitate him.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I'm not sure how there would even be an objective measure of this. Paul Kariya wasn't physical at all, and Gary Suter and Scott Stevens tried to decapitate him.

Yes, but Kariya didn't get the shift by shift punishment that guys who held on to the puck forever like Forsberg and Jagr did, though

 

[BraveCanadian]

Jagr took a ton of abuse.

Forsberg took his fair share too.

Forsberg also definitely dove a lot more. There is a reason he is known as Floppa.

 

[Bengan78]

There are some questionable quotations in there, unless the opinions of these people shift on a day-to-day basis. They don't particularly make a lot of sense either.

Mario Lemieux did not retire until the end of the 1995-96 season; he scored 161 points in 1995-96, and 122 points in 1996-97. Eric Lindros, meanwhile, was crowned by some as well. Jaromir Jagr was not far behind. Your quotations have, as early as the start of the 1996-97 season, individuals claiming Forsberg to be the best player in the world.


Did Mike Milbury actually say Peter Forsberg was better than Mario Lemieux in 1996, and do you believe that statement? Lemieux scored 161 points.

The fluidity of the title later on is highlighted by certain oddities as well. There are many publications in existence citing Jaromir Jagr as the best player in the world at the turn of the century. Those who chose Forsberg instead seem to have been in the minority, and many of your quotations actually refer to Sakic instead as the best player in the world. Some of your quotations are manipulated to seem as though they are stating something else; for example, the Detroit News, May 2000 excerpt states "Forsberg is the best player on the ice, whether the game is played at the Pepsi Center or Joe Louis Arena", but the scope due to the specification of the arenas is limited to the Red Wings and Avalanche rosters.

Ken Hitchcock, notably, is one individual cited in your quotations. In March 1999, he states in regards to Jaromir Jagr:

Jagr ran away with the point scoring that year, scoring 127 points.

They aren't attacking the argument as much as they may be discussing the frequency in which Forsberg's abilities as a hockey player are exaggerated. Forsberg was not on a higher level than his peers; that is the conclusion, so I assume you disagree with it.

-Forsberg led the NHL in scoring already in the 96-97 season when he got injured, so probobly som experts named him "the best player" at some points. This scenario happend several times to Peter. In the 97-98 season he led in scoring when a late season injury snubbed him the Art Ross to Jagr. In fact even in the so called "dissapointing" first season with the Flyers 05-06 he led the league in scoring half way through the season (and was named "World's best player" in some hockey magazines I remember) when he got injured as usual. He has off course bin regarded as the World's best at numerous points of his career.

 

[MXD]

While Jagr did not dive as much as Forsberg, could we please abstain from saying he never did ? Every damn player in NA since Bill Barber dove at some point. Its just that some did it more than others, and Jagr isn't part of the "worst offenders" group, while Forsberg was.

Both took lots of abuse. But mind you, that's a whole lot less of abuse than what Maurice Richard had to go through. Which is probably less than what, say, Frank Neighbor had to go through. That's just... Civilization at work.

 

[Brooklanders*]

I prefer Federov as the better player and for maybe 2 years Forsberg was considered the best player in the league. And that's a strong maybe.

He never dominated the rankings because he wasn't superior in anyway over the competition.

Its not like how we see Wayne or Mario or even Sid.

He was never in a class of his own.

Great player hands down and probably top 50 all time.

 

[Hardyvan123]

While Jagr did not dive as much as Forsberg, could we please abstain from saying he never did ? Every damn player in NA since Bill Barber dove at some point. Its just that some did it more than others, and Jagr isn't part of the "worst offenders" group, while Forsberg was.

Both took lots of abuse. But mind you, that's a whole lot less of abuse than what Maurice Richard had to go through. Which is probably less than what, say, Frank Neighbor had to go through. That's just... Civilization at work.

Really, watching any film available the level and frequentcy of contact is alot greater in the mid 90 than at any other time previously.

 

[Theokritos]

Both took lots of abuse. But mind you, that's a whole lot less of abuse than what Maurice Richard had to go through. Which is probably less than what, say, Frank Neighbor had to go through. That's just... Civilization at work.

The O6 & earlier footage I've seen so far suggest that hitting for the sake of hitting was a lot less common the further you go back. Seems like "civilization at work" means regress rather than progress sometimes.

But maybe you meant something else with "abuse"?

 

[MXD]

Really, watching any film available the level and frequentcy of contact is alot greater in the mid 90 than at any other time previously.

The O6 & earlier footage I've seen so far suggest that hitting for the sake of hitting was a lot less common the further you go back. Seems like "civilization at work" means regress rather than progress sometimes.

But maybe you meant something else with "abuse"?

Physical contact became more frequent, but giving hits and receiving (provided its on the protected area) them is less punishing than it once was due to equipment progression (or should I say, regression?)

But I was really referring to something else : you don't see that many egregious stick working (last incidents were ... McSorley ? Perezhoghin ?) cases anymore (last one wasnt in the pro ranks, and if Perezoghin wasn't a Hab, chances are, I would have forgotten). In both cases, the victims wouldn't have been NHL'ers in earlier eras anyway (Stafford never was; that statement have nothing to do with Brashear's blackness and Perezoghin' russo-kazakhitude), and Perezoghin wouldn't have been either.

Also, for all the fuss (rightfully) made about concussions, they are not a late 20th century invention. Players would play through them. I clearly remember Jean Beliveau saying he played with symptoms for well over a year in the first part of the 60ies.

 

[Sens Rule]

Physical contact became more frequent, but giving hits and receiving (provided its on the protected area) them is less punishing than it once was due to equipment progression (or should I say, regression?)

But I was really referring to something else : you don't see that many egregious stick working (last incidents were ... McSorley ? Perezhoghin ?) cases anymore (last one wasnt in the pro ranks, and if Perezoghin wasn't a Hab, chances are, I would have forgotten). In both cases, the victims wouldn't have been NHL'ers in earlier eras anyway (Stafford never was; that statement have nothing to do with Brashear's blackness and Perezoghin' russo-kazakhitude), and Perezoghin wouldn't have been either.

Also, for all the fuss (rightfully) made about concussions, they are not a late 20th century invention. Players would play through them. I clearly remember Jean Beliveau saying he played with symptoms for well over a year in the first part of the 60ies.

I agree. The number of hard hits might be greater now. But it is different. Often players allow themselves to be hit from behind, today... To draw a penalty. In the 50's or 60's... You protected yourself... No matter what. It was a different kind of violence. For example... Forsberg was absolutely dirty. He would spear you or slash you. Make you upset.. Even hurt you. And dive sometimes. He was smart... He played on the edge of the rules of the time to his advantage. I guarantee you.... In the 50's or 60's he would not do that or pay a big price. Because lots of players were like Howe. He might not have had to fight... But retribution would come and it would be awful.
Look at the 70's Flyer's. Look at the literal attacks Rocket fended off. Or how much of a mad dog Howe was to wait and literally carve up a guy sometime soon after any and all real or imagined transgressions against him or his team.
Wayne Maki and Ted Green actually got into a baseball swinging fight with their sticks... At each others head in an exhibition game in 1969 or 1970... Changing Green's career from then on.

Forsberg played in an era where he barely personally had to pay the price for his play, that was right on the edge.

Forsberg wasn't soft. But he played in the perfect era for his play. Now post 05 lockout he would get called for his stuff much more. A decade, 2 or 3 or 4 and he is paying a huge price for his actions personally... Which may or may not have seen him change his play significantly.

Forsberg was great nonetheless... Though I feel like many overrate him. For example I give peak, prime and career to Sakic over Forsberg. At his best... Forsberg was never the force Sakic was in Sakic's two amazing years.. For prime.. Sakic's virtually lasted his while career... Without injuries... And career is obviously Forsberg. What could have been is not that important. By the time Forsberg was mentioned as the best player in the world by some... He was no longer his force of nature self... He was more of a perimeter player. Like on the Flyer's... He was the best playmaker probably... But he now longer killed penalties... Physically he was protected in his roles. He was kind of like Yzerman or Lindros. Transformed into a different player. Lindros wasn't as good as a perimeter player after concussions... But he wasn't Lindros. Yzerman was a very different player after he focused on defence. Anyway... My point is.. Once the talk by some that Forsberg could be the best player...he wasn't really himself anymore. He wasnot as gritty, not as good defensively...he was essentially an offensive weapon.

To me... Forsberg at his best never put together the couple of seasons Fedorov had. The 96 and 01 Sakic years. The 93/94 Gilmour years. He kinda played at that level at times... But never really had the full health to fully deliver a season or seasons of it. But revisionist history acts like that was his career. It really wasn't. Forsberg was awesome though. It is like glorifing Neely and thinking he was at his best getting 50 in 46 (or 49). Then he was a fraction of his old aelf though... Most of Neely's game was gone and he just scored goals. Forsberg in the pre-lockout... When he was the best playmaker in the league was a fraction of his old self everywhere else.

Forsberg is a first ballot HHOFer. Should be. Was awesome. I can't see ranking him over Kurri, Bossy, Sakic, Yzerman, Trottier, Clarke, Pocket Rocket, Gilmour and so many others that many seem to want to rank him above.

 

[Theokritos]

Forsberg was absolutely dirty. He would spear you or slash you. Make you upset.. Even hurt you... I guarantee you.... In the 50's or 60's he would not do that or pay a big price. Because lots of players were like Howe.

Wait, isn't Howe himself the poster boy for a player who was dirty in the same kind of way (minus the diving) in the O6 era without paying the price?

 

[Sens Rule]

Wait, isn't Howe himself the poster boy for a player who was dirty in the same kind of way (minus the diving) in the O6 era without paying the price?

Howe did not pay the price... Because he enforced not to mess with him... Relentlessly. For a couple of decades. Forsberg messed around... And didn't have to defend himself. If he took liberties vs a Mikita or Howe or even Beliveau or Orr. He is paying the price. Or Potvin... Robinson.... On and on.

If Forsberg played as chippy as he did play... In the 80's, 70's, 60's, 50's etc. he is eating lumber. Literally. Could or would he be willing to play as he did in past decades? Maybe, maybe not. But he was in the perfect era to play as he did and not have to pay as much for his actions. He wasn't soft. But he didn't have to really back up his play. He could have had a team of players at his back if he was say Bobby Clarke on the Flyer's? Or he is fighting hard.