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

[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.

Open ice hits, yes. Nasty, dirty, physical play, abuse towards star players, no.

There is little evidence suggesting that earlier hockey was more "abusive" in it's totality than the 90's going forward, simply watching game tapes and understanding physics, speed and mass colliding much more frequently hints to the foppa era beign more "abusive".

We also have the huge number of career ending and altering injuries during that time period as well.

 

[SealsFan]

What's the story behind the two games he played in 2010-11? Was he retired and attempted a comeback?

 

[quoipourquoi]

What's the story behind the two games he played in 2010-11? Was he retired and attempted a comeback?

He was never retired. He played for Modo in 2008-09 and 2009-10 and in the 2010 Olympics while having multiple surgeries in an attempt to be able to continue his career. After two NHL games in 2010-11, he recognized that it would be unsafe to continue to play.

 

[Sens Rule]

There is little evidence suggesting that earlier hockey was more "abusive" in it's totality than the 90's going forward, simply watching game tapes and understanding physics, speed and mass colliding much more frequently hints to the foppa era beign more "abusive".

We also have the huge number of career ending and altering injuries during that time period as well.

Yeah... And Rocket scored 5 goals in a game and didn't remember scoring them... Because he was concussed the whole time.

That is why there are all those infamous pictures of Rocket covered in blood.

Want to see it first hand... Look at the Summit series in 1972. You see the Canadians mostly helmetless playing like pyschotic brutes a lot. Clarke intentionally breaking the ankle of the Soviets best player. Soviets didn't really turtle or anything... But they were playing a different game.

It is like a dividing line. In time. In tactic. In what was acceptable. From the 50's- Broad Street Bullied time on Canada... To a cleaner more skilled 80's, 90's style of game. You rarely see
Something like that epic series. It was a clash of eras.

Different teams used to HATE each other. They would not talk to each other. They were on different train cars so brawls would not happen. Now players hang out together.

It is entirely different in the 90's and 00. Sure it is dangerous now. Equipment both makes you safer and gives bigger 200+ players body armor to do more harm. But come on. Abuse? Players were attacked. The Flyers built a team of basically goons and Leach, Barber, Clarke and MacLeish plus Parent and won 2 Cups.

Even the late 80's and early 90's saw Yzerman centering Gallant and Probert. Stevens on with Mario's line. Secord with Denis Savard. It was a different era. You expected abuse and protected your stars. Today... Everything is called. If suspensions were handed out like they were today... And rules were equal and there was video evidence from a half dozen angles to analyze... A third if the players from before 1980 would miss 20+ games a year to suspensions.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

There is little evidence suggesting that earlier hockey was more "abusive" in it's totality than the 90's going forward, simply watching game tapes and understanding physics, speed and mass colliding much more frequently hints to the foppa era beign more "abusive".

We also have the huge number of career ending and altering injuries during that time period as well.

Yeah right. Guys would be suspended for life if they did some of the stuff that was relatively routine back then.

 

[jkrx]

Yeah right. Guys would be suspended for life if they did some of the stuff that was relatively routine back then.

The violence in '90s onward were more focused on the stars instead of being generally violent.

 

[Tomas W]

This has been discussed so many times. And it's far more common to try to downplay Peter Forsberg's importance in NHL hockey than the opposite is my impression.

But for the sake of the discussion, there is fully possible to have Peter Forsberg as a favourite player without him actually was the best forward of his time, maybe not always even on his own team (with Sakic there). Why? Because he was entertaining. He wasn't an ultra effective scoring machine like Brett Hull, but he was a lot of fun to watch play, with his combination of grit, skill and creativity, something that was needed in the NHL I think during that dead puck era.

His main "flaw" was that his career was destroyed too early by his injury problems. Yea I know that could be said for many others, like Lindros.

And he is involved in both Swedens gold in the Olympics. For that he will be always remembered in Sweden at least, no matter what you in NA think of him.

 

[Ben White]

People forget that Forsberg led the league in scoring several times when he fell victim for one of his many injuries, in 1996-97 and 97-98 for example, and was regarded as "best in the world" right in the middle of the season even though if you afterwards look at the season stats he doesn't seem to have had a "best in the world season" since he wasn't able to come back in the same shape after injury. The same thing happend in 2003-04, and in his first Flyers year 05-06 he led in scoring and was voted "World's best player" in some hockey magzines when he was injured half way through the season.

I found two random videos on youtube where he's called "best player in the world" and none of them is from the 2003 season. One is from 1997-98 and the other from 2005-06:

 

[Rumplesnipeskin]

What's the story behind the two games he played in 2010-11? Was he retired and attempted a comeback?

He retired an Avalanche player, that's a large reason he came back. It was incredible because even without being able to skate you could tell he thought and saw the game (made great passes in those two games) better than anyone on the ice. His best comparable is Jagr, but he was more agile and less reliant on his size to protect the puck. When healthy, if not the best player, he was top 3 in the world. Other players had great seasons, also, so the "best" is certainly debatable

 

[Poignant Discussion*]

Forsberg is incredibly overrated on this board, there is a case in which he was the third best player on his team for god sakes.

He is what he is, a terrific two way playmaker who was often injured. He's not a top 50 player of all time, he might not even be a top 100 player of all time. He is the poster boy of the dead puck era.

He was certainly a good player, might at times been a great player but an all time player....no

 

[BenchBrawl]

Forsberg is incredibly overrated on this board, there is a case in which he was the third best player on his team for god sakes.

He is what he is, a terrific two way playmaker who was often injured. He's not a top 50 player of all time, he might not even be a top 100 player of all time. He is the poster boy of the dead puck era.

He was certainly a good player, might at times been a great player but an all time player....no

Forsberg is clearly one of the top 100 greatest player of all-time.Debatable whether he is top 50, if he is he's close to 50th.

 

[daver]

Forsberg is incredibly overrated on this board, there is a case in which he was the third best player on his team for god sakes.

Such a weak argument, your dramatic comments almost makes it easy to forget that the other two players you are referring to are comprised of an all-time great goalie, perhaps Top 3, and likely the second/third best skater of the DPE (95-02) era.

 

[feffan]

He retired an Avalanche player, that's a large reason he came back. It was incredible because even without being able to skate you could tell he thought and saw the game (made great passes in those two games) better than anyone on the ice.

Funny that if one would just look at those gamesheets it looks like Forsberg had two really bad games. But he actually set his teammates up for some open goals that where missed and he didn´t look out of place at all. Even if nothing like the skating of Forsberg 10 years before of course. But after watching those 2 games I was actually shocked the decision was made so soon. With some bounces he would have 4-5 assists in those games. And I tought he was "heating up". Having some dominating shifts.

 

[Ben White]

Forsberg is incredibly overrated on this board, there is a case in which he was the third best player on his team for god sakes.

He is what he is, a terrific two way playmaker who was often injured. He's not a top 50 player of all time, he might not even be a top 100 player of all time. He is the poster boy of the dead puck era.

He was certainly a good player, might at times been a great player but an all time player....no

It's funny that Sakic is often refered to as an all time top 20 while Forsberg was was most of the time seen as the better of them during their peaks. Take away the longlivity argument and Forsberg was clearly better. Sakic was never really regarded the best player in the league but had some kind of likeability around him. Right there we talk an overrated player.

 

[Nocashstyle]

Such a weak argument, your dramatic comments almost makes it easy to forget that the other two players you are referring to are comprised of an all-time great goalie, perhaps Top 3, and likely the second/third best skater of the DPE (95-02) era.

I think that's the point though.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

It's funny that Sakic is often refered to as an all time top 20 while Forsberg was was most of the time seen as the better of them during their peaks. Take away the longlivity argument and Forsberg was clearly better. Sakic was never really regarded the best player in the league but had some kind of likeability around him. Right there we talk an overrated player.

In the ten years they both played in Colorado together, Sakic finished ahead of Forsberg in year-end all-star voting six times (1995, 1996, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2004). Yes, Forsberg would have done better had he not been injured, but injuries are part of the game. (During that ten year span Sakic played 114 more games than Forsberg, with the majority of that difference pertaining to 2002, when Forsberg missed out the entire season - even if discard 2002 entirely Sakic still fares better despite appearing in just 32 more games). It`s certainly a close call, but saying that Forsberg was ``clearly better`` is demonstrably false.

For a player who was ``never really regarded the best player in the league`` Sakic somehow won four MVP-type trophies the Conn Smythe (1996), Hart (2001), Lester Pearson (2001), and the Olympics MVP (2002). For all the talk about Forsberg having the better peak he only won one such award.

Sakic was a first-, second-, or (unofficial) third-team all-star five times in his career. Only five centers have fared better (Gretzky, Lemieux, Esposito, Crosby and Clarke). Forsberg is close, with four selections. I wouldn`t use this as a decisive argument in favour of Sakic, rather it supports the notion that they were close.

Turning to the Hart, Sakic had a ``significant`` finish four times in his career (1996, 2001, 2002, 2004). Forsberg only had two significant finishes (1999, 2003). Again, this isn`t a decisive argument, but it supports the notion that they were close while at their peaks. (Note: I`m defining a ``significant`` finish as one where a player earns at least a 5% vote share).

 

[VanIslander]

Let me be clear:

• I am a Canadian who has always preferred the Finns (except for Forsberg who is a lot like Tikkanen);
• Forsberg was the number one passer when Gretz retired, and the numbers back him up;
• Forsberg was a force of nature until his innards no longer absorbed his extraordinary stance.

 

[Ben White]

Sakic was a first-, second-, or (unofficial) third-team all-star five times in his career. Only five centers have fared better (Gretzky, Lemieux, Esposito, Crosby and Clarke). Forsberg is close, with four selections. I wouldn`t use this as a decisive argument in favour of Sakic, rather it supports the notion that they were close.

The fact that they are even remotely close spreaks in the favor of Forsberg with out a doubt since he had MUCH fever close to full seasons and therefore much fever chances to get this after season recognition. Forsberg only had in total 5 seasons where he played more than 60 games, and finished top 10 in scoring each of those seasons. Sakic had 15 more than 60 games seasons. Thinking of that he should have accoplished more to be regarded better than Forsberg. Sakic also has 1,19 career points per game (vs Forsberg's 1,25) despite playing through the whole high scoring era of the early 90's and also in the even more so late 80's.

Sakic may have had a slightly "greater" career but to say that he was better than Forsberg while playing is obviously not true.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Forsberg is incredibly overrated on this board, there is a case in which he was the third best player on his team for god sakes.

So? All three of them were Hart/Pearson nominees in back-to-back-to-back years. That's insane for the 30-team era. Being third on that team isn't like being third anywhere else.

 

[daver]

The fact that they are even remotely close spreaks in the favor of Forsberg with out a doubt since he had MUCH fever close to full seasons and therefore much fever chances to get this after season recognition. Forsberg only had in total 5 seasons where he played more than 60 games, and finished top 10 in scoring each of those seasons. Sakic had 15 more than 60 games seasons. Thinking of that he should have accoplished more to be regarded better than Forsberg. Sakic also has 1,19 career points per game (vs Forsberg's 1,25) despite playing through the whole high scoring era of the early 90's and also in the even more so late 80's.

Sakic may have had a slightly "greater" career but to say that he was better than Forsberg while playing is obviously not true.

Of course there were some players named Mario and Wayne that Sakic had to contend with for All-Star positions.

Here are the stats for them when they both were in their primes together from 95-01:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...c4comp=gt&c4val=&threshhold=5&order_by=points

Sakic has more points, a slightly higher PPG and a much higher GPG.

Seems to me an argument for Sakic seems more reasonable.

 

[shadow1]

The opening post is a smear job.

Forsberg may not have broken records, but for anyone who actually watched him play, he passed the eyeball test. He was a force to be reckoned with at both ends of the ice.

 

[Ben White]

Of course there were some players named Mario and Wayne that Sakic had to contend with for All-Star positions.

Here are the stats for them when they both were in their primes together from 95-01:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...c4comp=gt&c4val=&threshhold=5&order_by=points

Sakic has more points, a slightly higher PPG and a much higher GPG.

Seems to me an argument for Sakic seems more reasonable.

Except Forsberg's prime was between 97-2006!
You can always manipulate stats the way you did to make some player look better. Say we count instead Sakic's first 10 years vs Forsberg's first 10 years, era adjusted, and you'll find a huge gap PPG-wise in Forsberg's favor.

 

[Ben White]

Of course there were some players named Mario and Wayne that Sakic had to contend with for All-Star positions.

Here are the stats for them when they both were in their primes together from 95-01:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...c4comp=gt&c4val=&threshhold=5&order_by=points

Sakic has more points, a slightly higher PPG and a much higher GPG.

Seems to me an argument for Sakic seems more reasonable.

Here we go!
Even without the era-adjusting Forsberg wins with 1.28 PPG in his first 10 years vs Sakic 1.24 in his first 10. Even though Sakic played a majority of this time in a much higher scoring era than Forsberg did.

 

[daver]

Except Forsberg's prime was between 97-2006!
You can always manipulate stats the way you did to make some player look better. Say we count instead Sakic's first 10 years vs Forsberg's first 10 years, era adjusted, and you'll find a huge gap PPG-wise in Forsberg's favor.

I wasn't manipulating stats. The six year sample is head to head instead of getting bogged down in "who played in what era" narrative.

Taking Sakic's first ten years vs. Forsberg's first 10 is manipulating as it includes a 19 and 20 year old Sakic.

The best way to compare player is how they fared against their peers. Sakic and Forsberg were always close in terms of having a Top 3 - 5 PPG over a sample of multiple seasons so there is no real advantage, if any, for Forsberg in that regard. Sakic always wins the total points battle in these samples which has to count for something.

Most people have them very close which, IMO, is a bit unfair to Sakic as he was able to stay healthier and put up more elite seasons.

 

[daver]

Here we go!
Even without the era-adjusting Forsberg wins with 1.28 PPG in his first 10 years vs Sakic 1.24 in his first 10. Even though Sakic played a majority of this time in a much higher scoring era than Forsberg did.

Again, why would you only do their first ten years? This is biased towards Forsberg as it includes a teen-aged Sakic while excluding Sakic's career year in 2000/01.