Peter Forsberg was the most complete hockey player who ever lived.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Regal

Registered User
Mar 12, 2010
24,539
13,832
Vancouver
I just want to point out that in the regular season from Forsberg's rookie year in 94-95 to 03-04, which was essentially the end of their primes (other than Forsberg's first half of '06), Fedorov had a GPG of 0.41, for a pace of 33.6 per 82 games, while Forsberg's was 0.37 for a pace of 30.3 per 82 games. Fedorov had the huge year in '94, but outside of that, was roughly a 35 goal scorer, while Forsberg was a 30 goal scorer. There really isn't a big difference between them.
 

Big Phil

Registered User
Nov 2, 2003
31,703
4,144
I don't really have a horse in this race, but... you don't need to ignore era context to come to that conclusion. Absolute numbers are one thing, but scoring finishes are another. Here are Trottier's best finishes in regular season goal scoring: 5th, 5th, 9th, 17th, 20th. Here are Forsberg's: 26th, 32th, 39th, 40th, 41th.

Am I missing something?

Nope.
 

85highlander

Registered User
Apr 2, 2007
297
4
Opinions aside, only one player has captured the crowns that PROVE both offensive and defensive dominance at the top of the sport - Bobby Orr.

When another hockey player can secure multiple Art Ross trophies, producing the games highest offensive output in a season, while also securing eight consecutive Norris trophies, indicating that he is the games best defenseman (and even the games best defensive defenseman as noted by the NHL coaches of the time), then perhaps others can be inserted honestly into the discussion.

Throw in the fact that he was probably the best and faster skater, and had a physical presence that is often underappreciated (most cumulative PIMs for the Big, Bad Bruins during '66-'76), and everyone else is in line for second place.
 

Big Phil

Registered User
Nov 2, 2003
31,703
4,144
More like "Forsberg would have to run for his life."

Sort of what I thought. I don't think Forsberg stands very tall when you put him next to Howe. It would be interesting to hear of even one thing that he did better than Howe. You can at least find one thing he did better than Trottier, but Howe? I'd like to hear someone debate this.

Opinions aside, only one player has captured the crowns that PROVE both offensive and defensive dominance at the top of the sport - Bobby Orr.

When another hockey player can secure multiple Art Ross trophies, producing the games highest offensive output in a season, while also securing eight consecutive Norris trophies, indicating that he is the games best defenseman (and even the games best defensive defenseman as noted by the NHL coaches of the time), then perhaps others can be inserted honestly into the discussion.

Throw in the fact that he was probably the best and faster skater, and had a physical presence that is often underappreciated (most cumulative PIMs for the Big, Bad Bruins during '66-'76), and everyone else is in line for second place.

Orr is definitely the type of player where it is hard to argue against him that way. Heck, hands up if you think even Orr was the better goal scorer over Forsberg? I do.
 

Deas

Registered User
Feb 3, 2017
454
313
Amazing player no doubt.
However, neither did he have elite scoring ability, nor amazing PPG. Of course he's 7th overall in PPG. He was a very consistent scorer. In order to call him an amazing PPG player he would have had to crack 1,5PPg at least one, imo. He was a very consistent scorer but he never really stood out that much.
As for goal scoring, he simply cannot be called elite.
Topped out at 30 goals twice. His best GPG is 0.46, average 0.35 Sorry that's not good enough to call him an elite goal scorer.
Don't get me wrong waht an amazing player he was. But imo he gets a little overrated in terms of offensive production.

Interesting timing to see this right after I made a post about a study I've done with a new approach for ranking who are the best point producers of all time.

Your argument about Forsberg's scoring ability is in part based on cumulative numbers, as in him topping 30 goals only twice.

The original poster praised his ability, however. Forsberg was an extreme case of a player with pass first mentality. He didn't choose to primarily go for goal scoring. Unless he was pissed off or played in clutch/big games situations. It's hard to find a completely objective definition of clutch situation and compare players' G/G in those situations of course, but the playoffs are certainly something approaching that.

Forsberg's career playoff G/G is 0.424. 43rd all time. Compare to his generation and that career playoff G/G is higher than for example Jagr's and Selanne's. Comparing him to the all time field we should note he played during some high scoring years, but definitely during some low scoring years as well.

As for him "never scoring 1.5 PG" that has more to do with the era he played under. He did score 1.41 P/G in 02/03, which resulted in a win margin of 20.41% over the 2nd highest P/G that season.

That's the 23rd highest P/G win margin all time. Among the win margins topping Forsberg's best one 11 are by Gretzky or Lemieux, so looking past them he's definitely up there with heavy weight names.

Forsberg was number one in P/G two times (three times if you count a season he only played 9 games but I think we agree that shouldn't be counted).

He was top 10 in 8 out of the 11 seasons in which he played 30% or more of the regular season games. That top 10 percentage, 73, is 8th all time (that particular view point punishes those who played into their late 30's and early 40's, however. It's not among the main aspects I've looked at in my study).

In short: His P/G is certainly amazing. He's really up there (around 20th place) all time at out producing his own competition.

His scoring ability was awesome too, altough his acumulate goal totals in the regular seasons more reflect those of a pass first, two way center.

If you're curious about this study I've made I just posted about it.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=2216843
 

Deas

Registered User
Feb 3, 2017
454
313
With regard to Lidstrom, I have a hard time seeing what being physical would have improved in terms of results yielded.

Great point.

I guess the thread (I'm at page two) is doing two different things. Debating who's most complete and if if being most complete really is the most important thing.

Personally I completely agree it's not the most important thing. See Gretzky's impact without much defense or physicality, or, as mentioned above, Lidstrom's impact without physicality.

One can of course still argue who was most complete, just for fun. :)

I agree with the orignal poster Forsberg's up there.
 

Deas

Registered User
Feb 3, 2017
454
313
No, it shouldn't be a Canadian centric requirement. First off, Forsberg was not bad physically at all. He could compete.

This, combined with your comments about him diving, seem to me indications of you really not liking Forsberg. "He could compete" about his physicality is just silly.

It's like saying "yeah Bure wasn't a bad goal scorer, he could compete."
 

Deas

Registered User
Feb 3, 2017
454
313
I'd be hard pressed to put Forsberg at the top in good part because his injuries limited his effectiveness over much of his career. His goal totals also hurt him in that regard.

Neither of which has anything to do with Forsberg's ability. Which is what I think the original poster is refering to.

Where's Lindros' career total in points compared to Francis? Not even half the number (from the of my head)? Offensively he was still alot more dominant and productive than Francis. And so on.

This is what I'm getting at in several posts now. The importance of distinguishing between career totals and achivements, and the ability of a player in his prime, or production compared to his own competition.
 

Deas

Registered User
Feb 3, 2017
454
313
Forsberg put up more points than Howe when looking at ppg, and forsberg did this in a time where hockey was way better. If Forsberg played in Howe*s time he would probaly have 2.0 in ppg. I dont see how Sakic is better than Forsberg. Forsberg did all Sakic did but with higher ppg and more grit.

Alright. I'm a Swede, I love Forsberg and I've replied to a few posts in this thread where I think people have overlooked some aspects about Forsberg.

This is just ridiculous, and ignorant, however. Howe played in a much more low scoring era. Howe was number one on P/G 6 times, Forsberg 2, and so on.
 

Deas

Registered User
Feb 3, 2017
454
313
Forsberg never scored more than 30 goals. Howe scored over 30 goals 14 times in a lower scoring era. Forsberg only played 13 seasons,

Forsberg led the playoffs in scoring 2 times. Howe did it 5 times.

Forsberg led the NHL in assists once. Howe did it three times.

Forsberg has one Art Ross. Howe has 6 of them.

Forsberg was tough and physical and dirty and relentless. Gordie Howe was Gordie Howe.

I love Forsberg. But anyone putting him on some tier far above his peers like Sakic, Yzerman, Lindros, Jagr is nuts. I even get thinking he was slightly better than these peers of his at his peak. I disagree. But so many of those that worship Forsberg have him at some mythical level far, far, far above his actual results on the ice.

Peter Forsberg can not remotely touch Gordie Howe. Howe is at worst the 4th best player ever. Forsberg needs a really good argument to be 40th. Likely is barely top 100 all time given his huge injury issues and lack of games played compared to other superstars.

Agree on how far Forsberg is from Howe, but I claim the case can be made for Forsberg to be around the 20th best forward all time concerning point production only. Then add his physicality and two way game. Your "good argument for 40th more likely barely 100th all time" is very easily countered. Unless one clings more to career totals than prime ability, of course.
 

Deas

Registered User
Feb 3, 2017
454
313
Eariler in the thread there are a few claims of Federov and Trottier being better point producers than Forsberg.

I'll give you the overview of their position in P/G over their careers (that's the number after the years indicating what season it was).

TFG = too few games (below 30% of the regular season games)
DNP = did not play

Bryan Trottier

Entered the league at age 19.

75/76 15
76/77 31
77/78 2
78/79 1 8.50% more productive than Marcel Dionne
79/80 7
80/81 9
81/82 5
82/83 25
83/84 4
84/85 72
85/86 19
86/87 23
87/88 31
88/89 174
89/90 249
90/91 170
91/92 215
92/93 DNP
93/94 319

Retired at age 38

18 seasons included in survey.
Number of seasons as 1st: 1
Number of seasons in top 5: 3
Number of seasons in top 10: 6
Years in/outside top 10 ratio: 6/12, 33%

Noticeable: Seven year peak in the elite but his longevity up there is interestingly poor for a player with a first place finish. In an all time perspective he's not up there with the big boys.

Sergei Federov

Entered league at age 21

90/91 31
91/92 26
92/93 29
93/94 5
94/95 10
95/96 7
96/97 41
97/98 TFG (40)
98/99 39
99/00 28
00/01 48
01/02 41
02/03 14
03/04 38
04/05 DNP (lockout)
05/06 144
06/07 167
07/08 139
08/09 132
Retired at age 40

19 seasons included in survey.

Number of seasons as 1st: -
Number of seasons in top 5: 1
Number of seasons in top 10: 3
Years in/outside top 10 ratio: 3/16, 15.78%

Noticeable:

Three years as a top 10 producer, one as top 5. That’s it.

He was tremendous however, no doubt. More of an all round center. He’s the type of player that contributed significantly more than on the scoresheet. With that said, I think his numbers here would surprise alot of people. Had he not played in the era he did and piled those career totals he would not have the status he has. Similar players from the 60s for example are no names in a historical perspective, maybe because they were active before the hockey card (?) and video game era? Or, of course, we in current day debates about this are just too young to remember, and we don't care about them as their career totals doesn't put them very high in cumulative lists. Either way, Fedorov doesn't come close to the elite players in point production.


Peter Forsberg

Entered league at age 21

94/95: 18
95/96: 6
96/97: 6
97/98: 2
98/99: 5
99/00: 13
00/01: 5
01/02: DNP (injuried)
02/03: 1 4.05% more productive than Mario Lemieux
03/04: 1 20.41% more productive than Zigmund Palffy
04/05: DNP (lockout)
05/06: 9
06/07: 36
07/08: TFG (*1st with 1.55 P/G if counted)
10/11: TFG

Retired (concerning games included in this survey) at age 35.

11 seasons included in survey.
Number of seasons as 1st: 2
Number of seasons in top 5: 5
Number of seasons in top 10: 8
Years in/outside top 10 ratio: 8/3, 72.72%

Noticeable:

Peter Forsberg was an elite producer 9 out of his 11 seasons. And a particulary good case for this study I think. Some people hate that others hype him, and love to point out his career totals and claim he’s not even in the discussion for some rank in a best ever argument.

Others point out him being 8th all time in P/G and 4th in A/G in combination with his physical and two way play as well as playoff G/G and claim he’s number three all time or something crazy in that area. The facts just listed are interesting of course, but he's still not near Gretzky, Lemieux and Howe, along with a few others in the tier just below them.

Considering this I really like the outcome with Forsberg in this study. It’s a sober middle ground as compared to the above. His peak capacity sure was higher than his career totals. His consistency at an elite level as well, as long as he was on the ice. He’s got two first places, and one of those with a spectacular 20.41% win margin (healthy he very likely would’ve won a second straight Art Ross), and his in/outside top 10 ratio is among the very best. He kept that up for over 10 years too. Whenever he could play he was among the very best.

The 03/04 competition wasn’t the best, granted. The wheels were starting to come off the Lemiux comeback train, Jagr had started his pouting years, Ovechkin and Crosby hadn’t entered the league yet, and so on. A win is a win though, nonetheless.
 
Last edited:

threetimer*

Registered User
Aug 1, 2016
433
10
This, combined with your comments about him diving, seem to me indications of you really not liking Forsberg. "He could compete" about his physicality is just silly.

It's like saying "yeah Bure wasn't a bad goal scorer, he could compete."

Flawed analogy there, bud. Physicality was not to Forsberg's game what goalscoring was to Bure's.

Forsberg could decide not to throw a single hit after 95 and he would been a great player anyway. If Bure hadn't scored goals, he would have been useless. In other words, physicality is probably the most overrated part of Forsberg's game. And for a guy as overrated (or overadored) as Peter is, that does tell you something.

I can't speak for Phil, but I had a Forsberg poster right above my bed. Yet I just can't stand some of his fans. I feel embarassed to be one of them. So when they pop up, I avenge by teasing. It's fun. And easy. All you have to do is remind them of reality.
 

Deas

Registered User
Feb 3, 2017
454
313
Flawed analogy there, bud. Physicality was not to Forsberg's game what goalscoring was to Bure's.

Forsberg could decide not to throw a single hit after 95 and he would been a great player anyway. If Bure hadn't scored goals, he would have been useless. In other words, physicality is probably the most overrated part of Forsberg's game. And for a guy as overrated (or overadored) as Peter is, that does tell you something.

I can't speak for Phil, but I had a Forsberg poster right above my bed. Yet I just can't stand some of his fans. I feel embarassed to be one of them. So when they pop up, I avenge by teasing. It's fun. And easy. All you have to do is remind them of reality.

This is what I've seen now and then. Some Forsberg fans are silly, I agree, and say he's the best all time or top five all time or whatever. That's of course no true.

In countering that, however, some go too far and say he's maybe a top 100 forward all time or barely top 50. That's incorrect too, in the other direction.

The way you handle Forsberg's pysicality and Bure's goal scoring is irrelevant. Of course physicality wasn't as major part of his game as goal scoring was of Bure's game. That doesn't make the analogy flawed, however. His physicality (strength, balance, hitting, "nastiness") was still elite, even if it wasn't as important for him as Bure's scoring was for him. If a track and field athlethe is best in the world at 100 m, but 8th in the world in 200 m, said person is still elite at 200 m. So saying "he could compete" about Forsberg's physicality is just wrong.

The usage of that "could compete" phrasing was in line with your rhetoric in using "bud" in a patronizing way. So the indications of your profile being of a certain type continue. But fair enough, you're open about enjoying to tease about this. Are you Robert Pettersson from hockeysverige.se? If not you have an ally in him :)
 

Sentinel

Registered User
May 26, 2009
12,758
4,588
New Jersey
www.vvinenglish.com
Had he not played in the era he did and piled those career totals he would not have the status he has.
Had Fedorov not played in the era he did and in the Bowman's system he did, he would most likely be used differently. To put it simply, he did what the coach asked of him, and it benefitted the team. Yzerman's numbers tanked under Bowman as well, but the team benefitted.

I know it's speculation, but there is no doubt in my mind that in a more offensive system, with more conventional first-line minutes and first-line partners, Fedorov would flash far sexier numbers.
 

jj cale

Registered User
Jan 5, 2016
14,767
8,324
Nova Scotia
Had Fedorov not played in the era he did and in the Bowman's system he did, he would most likely be used differently. To put it simply, he did what the coach asked of him, and it benefitted the team. Yzerman's numbers tanked under Bowman as well, but the team benefitted.

I know it's speculation, but there is no doubt in my mind that in a more offensive system, with more conventional first-line minutes and first-line partners, Fedorov would flash far sexier numbers.

I don't doubt that, Fedorov was probably one of the most talented players I have ever seen, and I go back quite a ways.

Not much he couldn't do.
 

bathdog

Registered User
Oct 27, 2016
920
157
I know it's speculation, but there is no doubt in my mind that in a more offensive system, with more conventional first-line minutes and first-line partners, Fedorov would flash far sexier numbers.

Agree (at least if he gave 100%, and I don't think it's even that speculative), the majority of his RS prime numbers are a bit deflated.
 

Big Phil

Registered User
Nov 2, 2003
31,703
4,144
This, combined with your comments about him diving, seem to me indications of you really not liking Forsberg. "He could compete" about his physicality is just silly.

It's like saying "yeah Bure wasn't a bad goal scorer, he could compete."

He was good physically. I won't take that away from him, he was good. However, a lot of that was based on him being hard to knock off the puck or stuff like that. He was good in the corners and such. Was he known as a punishing checker? I don't know if I put him there. Trottier was known as that. Ovechkin is known better as one than Forsberg as well. I think sometimes his physicality is overblown.
 

Killion

Registered User
Feb 19, 2010
36,763
3,211
I don't doubt that, Fedorov was probably one of the most talented players I have ever seen, and I go back quite a ways.

Not much he couldn't do.

Yeah absolutely. He was a Good Soldier, Team Player first & foremost, willing to sacrifice personal points glory if asked to play more of a 2 way game, just as Yzerman complied under Bowman.
Considerable number of checking, defensive forwards, shutdown specialists who were in Junior or elsewhere absolute scoring machines. Pond Hockey Artists. Derek Sanderson for example.
 

jj cale

Registered User
Jan 5, 2016
14,767
8,324
Nova Scotia
Yeah absolutely. He was a Good Soldier, Team Player first & foremost, willing to sacrifice personal points glory if asked to play more of a 2 way game, just as Yzerman complied under Bowman.
Considerable number of checking, defensive forwards, shutdown specialists who were in Junior or elsewhere absolute scoring machines. Pond Hockey Artists. Derek Sanderson for example.

Totally agree and Derek is a great example.

As for Fedorov, he could really do most anything at a very high level.Very,very talented guy,a technically fantastic hockey player.

Bowman must have loved the guy.
 

Sentinel

Registered User
May 26, 2009
12,758
4,588
New Jersey
www.vvinenglish.com
Totally agree and Derek is a great example.

As for Fedorov, he could really do most anything at a very high level.Very,very talented guy,a technically fantastic hockey player.

Bowman must have loved the guy.
He loved him so much he put him on defense and limited his IT. Feds kept quiet and didn't reveal his frustrations until after the end of his his career.
 

quoipourquoi

Goaltender
Jan 26, 2009
10,123
4,126
Hockeytown, MI
He loved him so much he put him on defense and limited his IT. Feds kept quiet and didn't reveal his frustrations until after the end of his his career.

What's your take on Fedorov in Anaheim? Obviously Fedorov never played for Babcock in Detroit, but he did play for Babcock in Anaheim, and I'm not sure Babcock liked him that much.

NHL In Depth said:
''It's no secret that Mike has called a number of people in Detroit, including myself, and asked what makes this guy tick,'' Bowman says. ''Personally, what I've noticed is that he seems to be trying to set up everyone and not skating with the puck and trying to make things happen. When he gets that straightened out -- and he will -- you'll see the same old Sergei that we enjoyed watching for so long in Detroit.''

Babcock says, ''We lost two of our best players (Paul Kariya and Adam Oates to free agency) and are looking for players to help lead us. The reality is: When you want to be the guy -- and show that you can be the guy, then the ice time will be there.''
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->