Most Overrated Player by The Hockey Media?

[buffalowing88]

Toews AINEC. Followed by Crosby.

Yikes. I didn't even want to touch him. Certain guys just sort of get the pass. I do think Toews is an all-time player who sacrificed his own stats at times to pick up for others in the other parts of the ice.

But yeah...he's overrated. By no means was he the best player on his team, or even the second best, for their run. I would say that Kane tends to get forgotten sometimes and Keith is properly rated but Toews is a bit overrated.

Still an incredible performer. Still an incredible leader. Still a guy who I would be comfortable with as my 1C in a SCF. But he's not the legend that he's been built up to be. Had some real issues producing offensively at what should have been his prime.

 

[buffalowing88]

Yes, those (yawn) 100-point seasons he casually racked up (not including a 1994-95 strike-shortened year which adjusts to 102 points via hockey reference). Big deal. I mean Francis and his 119 points in 1995-96 has already been surpassed by five players in the mere 25 years since then by the likes sub standard muckers like Mario, Jagr, Kucherov, Thornton, and Crosby. Hardly worth mentioning.

My Best-Carey

That's a fair case but I watched a lot of Francis and he was much more of a tertiary player, than someone who was getting his hands on and actually making the goals happen. I feel like his contributions do get underrated at times around here, but I also don't think he's nearly as impactful as guys who could create for themselves but maybe didn't have his 100 point seasons.

IDK though, it's all a matter of taste. Francis holds up to scrutiny for his consistency if nothing else. I can't take that from him.

 

[frisco]

Just to clarify, I like Francis. I'm merely pointing out that to rank him higher than a guy who was briefly the best player in the world is over-rating him.

Putting their careers side-by-side, year-by-year, I'd say Francis was the better player for about 9 or so seasons plus the extra seasons where he was playing and Forsberg wasn't. I'd give Forsberg about four or five seasons. If that means Forsberg should be rated higher, I would say no.

My Best-Carey

 

[The Panther]

Putting their careers side-by-side, year-by-year, I'd say Francis was the better player for about 9 or so seasons plus the extra seasons where he was playing and Forsberg wasn't. I'd give Forsberg about four or five seasons. If that means Forsberg should be rated higher, I would say no.

My Best-Carey

I don't know how you could possibly come up with that conclusion.

First of all, there's no point in putting their careers "side by side" since Forsberg is more than 10 years younger (if I'm understanding what you meant). It would make more sense to look at their best 5 or 7, and 10 or 12, seasons in a row. The point is to look at their respective prime & peak periods and see how they were doing compared to their peers. The longer "prime" comparison should favor Francis somewhat more than peak, since he had the better longevity.

So, let's say Francis's prime (hard to state because of his exceptional longevity) is 1986-87 through 1997-98. Agreed? And let's say Forsberg's is 1995-96 to 2005-06. (Feel free to do your own comparison if anyone disagrees with these periods):

Francis 1986-87 to 1997-98

Regular season
Total points
6th
Total assists
3rd
Points per game (min. 250 GP)
15th
Assists per game
6th
Even-Strength points-per-game (min. 250 GP)
25th (I think)
Plus/Minus
52nd

Playoffs
Points per game (min. 40 GP)
22nd
Plus/Minus
7th

Forsberg 1995-96 to 2005-06

Regular season
Total points
5th
Total assists
2nd
Points per game (min. 200 GP)
3rd
Even-Strength points-per-game (min. 200 GP)
2nd (I think)
Assists per game
2nd (but 1st if we set this to min. 350 games [Mario])
Plus/Minus
1st

Playoffs
Points per game (min. 30 GP)
3rd (0.05 behind 1st)
Plus/Minus
1st

So, in terms of prime-years scoring, there's absolutely no doubt that Forsberg beats prime Francis -- it's really not even close (even more so in the playoffs, where Forsberg is only negligibly behind [old] Mario Lemieux).

It should also be noted that Forsberg was an even-strength monster, in a period when few forwards were anymore. Over a ten-season period, he was 1st in plus/minus despite missing 1.5 seasons!! That's unbelievable. And he was 1st in the playoffs. Hence, the scoring distinction -- already easily in Forsberg's favor -- gets even bigger when even-strength scoring is factored in. Forsberg is 2nd (to peak Jagr), Francis 25th.

So, even in prime years' consideration, Forsberg easily beats Francis in scoring.


Then, what about peak years' scoring? Well, this can easily be shown as...
Francis PPG
4, 4, 7, 10
Forsberg PPG
1, 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 6, 9

Individual hardware / All Stars?
Francis
1 x Selke
Forsberg
1 x Hart, 1 x Art Ross, 1 x Calder, 3 x 1st-team All Star


Ron Francis's one (supposed) peak/prime edge over Forsberg -- the last gasp of comparison, if you will -- is his Selke trophy record. I personally place very little (about none, to be precise) value in the Selke, as I consider it an undefined media-narrative award. However, to give Francis his due, his voting record for the Selke was:
1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8
But, then again, Forsberg's was:
2, 4, 6, 8

To me, that voting difference is simply unimportant. Besides, as noted, Forsberg destroys Francis's prime in even-strength plus/minus to a fantastic degree.

As to physicality, I think we all agree Forsberg wins that in a landslide.


Absolutely the only justification for ranking Francis over Forsberg is longevity and accumulated scoring points. We will all have different feelings about how important those things are.

 

[silkyjohnson50]

If you’re in any way arguing that Francis was better than Forsberg than the issue isn’t that Forsberg is overrated, but that you’re underrating him.

In fact, the whole “Forsberg is overrated on Hfboards” talking point has long become overrated. The guy was an unreal player - both from a visibly dominating the puck standpoint and from a statistical sense. Yeah, we know he missed games. But when he didn’t he was consistently one of the best players in the world and the sample size was long enough and in big enough games for us to know that that’s exactly who he was - one of the great players to ever lace them up.

 

[Czech Your Math]

I like Francis too, not trying to disparage him, but outside of his peak with peak Jagr at ES and prime Lemieux on PP (which are among very best ever at each), he was a Toews or Bergeron level of offense without quite the same level of defense, and not as good in the playoffs as Toews.

When I see Francis at #120 and then Modano at 141, Bergeron at 142, Kopitar at 161, Elias at 194, etc., I don't think he's at all underrated. His ranking is significantly enhanced by his peak, which occurred at an unusually late age with unusually great players. Absent that peak, his adjusted plus-minus is probably about even, meaning he didn't really create a substantial ES advantage compared to his team, and for more than half of his career (outside of his peak) that was a mediocre/bad Hartford team.

 

[frisco]

Absolutely the only justification for ranking Francis over Forsberg is longevity and accumulated scoring points. We will all have different feelings about how important those things are.

The best ability is availability. I think there's a lot of value in Francis consistently churning out Bergeron-like 75 point seasons as a first-line, two-way C, at a time when Forsberg was not in the lineup (late start, injuries, early retirement). Peak tells some of the story. What about the rest?

When I was thinking of lining up their seasons I was thinking of something like this: Points/GP--Francis first. Using adjusted points.

Age 18
Francis 49/59
Forsberg DNP

Age 19
Francis 73/79
Forsberg DNP

Age 20
Francis 66/72
Forsberg DNP

Age 21
Francis 64/80
Forsberg 87/80 (shortened season)

Age 22
Francis 61/53
Forsberg 112/82

Age 23
Francis 79/75
Forsberg 89/65

Age 24
Francis 63/80
Forsberg 105/72

Age 25
Francis 64/69
Forsberg 110/78

Age 26
Francis 85/80
Forsberg 55/49

Age 27
Francis 78/81
Forsberg 95/73

Age 28
Francis 48/70
Forsberg DNP

Age 29
Francis 80/84
Forsberg 118/75

Age 30
Francis 81/82
Forsberg 63/39

Age 31
Francis 102/80 (shortened year)
Forsberg DNP-Strike

Age 32
Francis 115/77
Forsberg 73/60

Age 33
Francis 94/81
Forsberg 55/57

Age 34
Francis 100/81
Forsberg 15/9

Age 35
Francis 59/82
Forsberg DNP

Age 36
Francis 79/78
Forsberg DNP

Age 37
Francis 69/82
Forsberg 0/2

Age 38
Francis 88/80
Forsberg DNP

Age 39
Francis 64/82
Forsberg DNP

Age 40
Francis 47/80
Forsberg DNP

Granted, it is a different way of looking at things than you usually see around here but it shows Francis in a more positive light. Longevity and consistent excellence aren't negative attributes.

If you look at it this way (again, not a traditional rundown) it's an interesting question whose career you'd rather have, I think. Forsberg had most of the dynamite big years but wouldn't it be nice to know if you choose Francis that you're getting an additional 8-9 years of excellent production at both the front and especially at the end of their careers where Forsberg is not around?

My Best-Carey

 

[daver]

If you look at it this way (again, not a traditional rundown) it's an interesting question whose career you'd rather have, I think. Forsberg had most of the dynamite big years but wouldn't it be nice to know if you choose Francis that you're getting an additional 8-9 years of excellent production at both the front and especially at the end of their careers where Forsberg is not around?

My Best-Carey

Noone is overrating Forberg's career, not sure why you are arguing this.

The question for you is, which player, at their best, do you take? Forsberg easily has the superior peak regular season and peak playoff run, both of which were not supported (or onflated) by having a linemate/teammate outscoring him.

Your insistence on not recognizing scoring placements straight up suggests a lack of objectivity on the subject.

That being said, Forsberg can get overrated above the Top 30ish tier his peak/prime should reasonably place him.

 

[frisco]

The question for you is, which player, at their best, do you take? .

Why is that the question? Why does a short, high peak career beat out a FAR longer career with maybe a lesser peak but with eight or so more very productive seasons in total?

My Best-Carey

 

[daver]

Why is that the question? Why does a short, high peak career beat out a FAR longer career with maybe a lesser peak but with eight or so more very productive seasons in total?

My Best-Carey

Because being the clearly superior hockey talent is a big factor in rating players all-time. If you prefer longevity, that's your personal preference but it doesn't mean Forsberg is overrated.

If anything is being overrated, it is the value you are putting Francis' best seasons.

 

[The Panther]

Why is that the question? Why does a short, high peak career beat out a FAR longer career with maybe a lesser peak but with eight or so more very productive seasons in total?

My Best-Carey

You're making Forberg's career sound like Rob Brown's. A "short, high peak"? Forsberg was arguably the NHL's #1 performer over a 10-year period.

 

[Baksfamous112]

From last year? Varlamov, Grubauer, Girard, Barrie, Pacioretty & Toffoli

 

[jigglysquishy]

You're making Forberg's career sound like Rob Brown's. A "short, high peak"? Forsberg was arguably the NHL's #1 performer over a 10-year period.

When are you considering this time period?

I would certainly agree that in the post- peak Jagr/pre-Crosby Ovi time period of the 2001-2002/2002-2003/2003-2004 he was the best player in the world.

It's hard for me to give Forsberg anything before that. Jagr was dominant from 1995-2001. His last season of Penguins greatness, 2000-2001, Forsberg's teammate won the Hart.

Forsberg didn't even play in 2001-02 RS. Anything before 2002 it would hard to argue he was the best player in the world. He had flashes of brilliance post-lockout, but he never put together a full season after 2003. And was just plain outplayed after the lockout.

 

[frisco]

Ron Francis averaged 85.1 adjusted points/season (you have to extrapolate his 94-95 strike year) in his 30's (10 years). Don't really have a salient point here other than that seems quite incredible to me. That's more productive than even Gordie Howe.

My Best-Carey

 

[sr edler]

Late 90s Forsberg was great, and is probably a bit underappreciated in general. 1998–99 season Forsberg was great, and a 1st team all-star, for a second consecutive year. I remember being in Florida around the Christmas season at the time, and caught a glimpse of a game on TV with the Avalanche against some team, at a local restaurant. Forsberg was just dominating possession like crazy, carrying the puck around like no one's business, as if he was playing Japan again in the WJC. This was before it became cool among the kids to talk about possession. He also had a bit longer hair that season, and really stood out as one of the league's premier stars, more so than Joe Sakic.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Can it be someone that was super overrated for a short period of time rather than their whole career, like Bill Ranford for the first half of the 90's?

He wins a Cup and a Conn Smythe as a 23YO. Some less than stellar years with the Oilers that followed were supplemented by good looking international appearances for team Canada, which led the hockey media to become convinced that he was a top goalie being held back by a bad Oilers team.

In his last couple of years in Edmonton, anytime it's reported or speculated a team might need a starting goalie, Ranford is always rumored to be the #1 target with a value that should net some kings ransom for the Oilers (IIRC Shanahan AND Joseph from the Blues, a huge package from the Wings that would contain both Primeau AND Osgood, a package with Redden and Muller from the Islanders, a package around Owen Nolan and Thibault from Colorado, something huge from the Flyers, etc. etc.)

I was reading some old articles from around then and stumbled upon some of the Ranford hype:

-An article about how Mike Vernon is the Wings Achilles heel going into the 1995 Finals. The article mentioned something about how Vernon isn't anywhere near the level of the top goalies in the league which it lists as Hasek, Roy, Belfour, Ranford, Felix Potvin, and now Brodeur.

-Another one touched on Ranford's arbitration award given in the '95 offseason, where a 1 year $3M deal made him the 2nd highest paid goalie behind Roy. The article actually makes mention that statistically he was the 40th or 41st best goalie in the NHL the previous season, but then makes sure to point out that it was 100% the rest of the Oilers fault.

I also looked up some articles about his trade to Tampa and was surprised to find the hype train was still alive at that point. He was acquired for a 2nd and 3rd and pitched as a legit #1 goalie to finally replace the perpetually injured Daren Puppa. His tenure as a back up with the Caps the previous year was explained away as simply a couple of Ranford injuries allowing Kolzig to go on a hot streak that lasted the whole season.

Another candidate for overrated for a short period might be Jim Carey.

good call on ranford. his money goalie reputation coasted on exactly one playoff run, one canada cup tournament, and one world championships.

to a lesser degree, i'd add mike richter.

 

[MadArcand]

Why is that the question? Why does a short, high peak career beat out a FAR longer career with maybe a lesser peak but with eight or so more very productive seasons in total?

My Best-Carey

Because this forum is infested with Venerators of the Holy Peak.

 

[Nick Hansen]

When are you considering this time period?

I would certainly agree that in the post- peak Jagr/pre-Crosby Ovi time period of the 2001-2002/2002-2003/2003-2004 he was the best player in the world.

It's hard for me to give Forsberg anything before that. Jagr was dominant from 1995-2001. His last season of Penguins greatness, 2000-2001, Forsberg's teammate won the Hart.

Forsberg didn't even play in 2001-02 RS. Anything before 2002 it would hard to argue he was the best player in the world. He had flashes of brilliance post-lockout, but he never put together a full season after 2003. And was just plain outplayed after the lockout.

Between 1995/1996 and 2005/2006 Peter Forsberg was 3rd in PPG (300 games played) behind Lemieux and Jagr, raw points 5th. In the playoffs he was 2nd behind Jagr in PPG (50 games played) and 2nd in raw points behind his own teammate Sakic. In +/- he was the outstanding leader in the playoffs with +47 ahead of Stevens with a mere +31. Same goes for the regular season: +211 ahead of Lidstrom with +197.

Forsberg missed his games, but he was a monster every time he played during that time period. I genuinely don't get the bizarre comparison with Francis. They're not on the same level at all. It's like arguing, I don't know, Modano or Sundin being better or having a better career than Forsberg. They're just not operating on the same plane. On a game-per-game basis there are very few players I'd select ahead of Forsberg.

 

[Czech Your Math]

Ron Francis averaged 85.1 adjusted points/season (you have to extrapolate his 94-95 strike year) in his 30's (10 years). Don't really have a salient point here other than that seems quite incredible to me. That's more productive than even Gordie Howe.

My Best-Carey

You can make the case, strictly on a career value basis, that Francis was as great or greater than Forsberg, but it's a slippery slope... because you could do the same against someone like Orr on the same basis. Francis aged incredibly well and was a consistently good player throughout entire career, but he was very fortunate to play more than half of his career in the highest scoring era in history, then to team up with a couple of ATGs. Scoring forwards simply don't get significantly better in their mid-30s as Francis appeared to do.

 

[frisco]

You can make the case, strictly on a career value basis, that Francis was as great or greater than Forsberg, but it's a slippery slope... because you could do the same against someone like Orr on the same basis.

You could but Orr put more value into his short career and was so dominant even his short career was better than Ray Bourque's 20-year one I'd say. Forsberg was no Orr. He was great but one top-5 Hart finish and no 35-goal seasons. He was terrific but not transcendent like Orr was.

Hockey needs a WAR-like valuation. Or better yet a JAWS thing where peak AND career value are measured.

My Best-Carey

 

[frisco]

Forsberg missed his games, but he was a monster every time he played during that time period.

On a game-per-game basis there are very few players I'd select ahead of Forsberg.

Right, but what's better a 9.5/10 player for 800 games or a 8.5/10 player for 1600 games? I guess it is a matter of taste but I don't think it is crazy to go with the latter.

My Best-Carey

 

[K Fleur]

Forsberg is/was not overrated by the media.

It's just everybody else.

 

[The Panther]

@frisco keeps saying "Peak this" and "Peak that", but there is generally a colossal difference between a short peak and a substantial prime.

I would understand "peak" to normally be two or three seasons in a row, when a player was at the very, very best of his best, but by that very definition it's therefore a short period.

Whereas, what I refer to as a "consistent prime" is around six to twelve (could be more) seasons in a row when the player was at his best, and somewhere within that time frame is his peak.

So, again, Forsberg's prime would be 1995-96 through 2005-06 (you could arguably throw on 2006-07). That's nine seasons (or ten), with one of his seasons missed to injury and one season the Lock-Out. Francis's prime was slightly longer, as tends to be the case with healthier players with exceptional longevity.

As I already said, we're all going to have slightly different ways of "ranking" players. I personally focus about 95% of my evaluation on the consistent prime of the given player. The rest, I don't care much about in terms of ranking players. And I don't rank someone higher because his prime was 12 years (say, Francis) versus someone whose prime was 9 or 10 years (Forsberg). Of course, if the 12 vs. 9 example was two players with exactly equal impact on the ice, then you surely go with the 12-year prime guy because it's clearly more impressive. But if the 9-year prime guy was clearly a better player (which Forsberg was), I go with the 9-year prime guy over the 12-year prime guy every time.

The problem with ranking players according to "career value" is that we then have to rank Bourque and Lidstrom and Messier above Bobby Orr, Ray Whitney above Eric Lindros, Mike Modano above Guy Lafleur, etc. It just gets silly.

 

[frisco]

A lot of the time rankings are of star players who had 17-20 year careers or whatever. Just looking at 40% or so of those careers and ignoring the rest does not make sense to me personally but too each his own.

I tend to rate players on the basis of knowing their careers now with perfect 20/20 hindsight. Which career would I rather have if I was a GM and could control the player's rights in perpetuity.

Like for Forsberg vs. Francis. I'd probably take Francis. I'd get value for a couple of years as Francis started earlier. Forsberg during his prime phase would obviously be better than Francis but not by an obscene amount. Then when Forsberg was pretty much finished, I'd still get a #1 two-way C for about 7-8 more seasons.

My Best-Carey

 

[Czech Your Math]

You could but Orr put more value into his short career and was so dominant even his short career was better than Ray Bourque's 20-year one I'd say. Forsberg was no Orr. He was great but one top-5 Hart finish and no 35-goal seasons. He was terrific but not transcendent like Orr was.

Yes, but Francis was not Bourque either, right? It's the same concept though. Forsberg created a ton of value when he did play. It's like whether you'd prefer Lafleur over Delvecchio or Bucyk. It's not that these players with long careers weren't good or valuable, but much of their production is eaten up by replacement value (and RV is not just some fourth liner or w/e... it's the 1st/2nd line minutes, PP time, etc. that other players closer to the level of the player replaced would get). Most people agree that Orr was transcendent and his numbers are great, but we should remember that they were achieved in an unusual time (highly unbalanced league, inflated scoring, etc.). So when we look at Orr's point totals each season and his incredible plus-minus data, we should keep that in mind. Meanwhile, Forsberg achieved very good scoring and plus-minus numbers in a low scoring, highly competitive (much more parity, Euros in talent pool) era. So the gap between Orr and Forsberg may be much less than it appears.

Hockey needs a WAR-like valuation. Or better yet a JAWS thing where peak AND career value are measured.

My Best-Carey

I agree. For career value, I have tinkered with Points Above Replacement: Points Above Replacement

I'd also recommend looking at adjusted plus-minus: Adjusted Even-Strength Plus-minus 1960-2017

Thing is, even without discounting Francis' peak for playing with Jagr & Lemieux, the only category where Francis comes out ahead is career scoring. Forsberg was a better peak/prime scorer (much better once you discount Francis' highly unsual peak), a much more effective player at ES (much greater advantage, even in a much shorter career... and esp. if you discount Francis' brief peak), and a much better playoff player. Forsberg was a lot like Lindros in that respect, except he actually had several full or near full seasons and was much better in playoffs.

Forsberg's relatively weak Hart voting is probably a combination of things, including a low-scoring and highly competitive (Hasek, lot of very good forwards) era and lack of appreciation for the possession aspect of his game (this wouldn't come to fruition until he, Jagr & Lindros were past their peaks/primes). I think his low goal-scoring would be more concerning if he didn't have the ability to turn that up a notch or two in the playoffs. He wasn't Joe Thornton with relatively low playoff production that was almost afraid to shoot. He scored plenty of goals in playoffs, and I think he could have scored more goals in the regular season, but it's better to maximize points and plus-minus, rather than just goals (sorry Ovechkin fans, but that's my take).