What if Forsberg played in the 80s

[matnor]

Apologies to all of you who are fed up with Forsberg threads but I think his career is interesting (plus I'm Swedish ) since it's notoriously hard to place him in an all-time perspective. Some claim he is up with the very best while others don't even think he belongs in the HHOF. I tried to think of good players to compare him with and I settled on Mike Bossy. While they were completely different type of players (one playmaker, the other sniper) they both had significantly shortened careers and both are considered great playoff performers. A big difference is that while they played about the same number of games, Bossy played 881 games (752 regular and 129 playoff games) and Forsberg played 857 games (706+151), Bossy did it during fewer years which means he was more reliable during the years he actually played.

Anyway, it got me thinking about what numbers Forsberg would have put up if he had started his career at the same time as Bossy so I adjusted his numbers for each season to get some sense of what he would do.

Season|Games|Goals|Assists|Points
77/78|47|17|41|58
78/79|82|34|97|131
79/80|65|34|70|104
80/81|72|36|96|133
81/82|78|46|102|148
82/83|49|20|52|72
83/84|73|39|89|127
84/85|-|-|-|-
85/86|75|43|115|158
86/87|39|26|53|79
87/88|-|-|-|-
88/89|60|23|69|92
89/90|57|17|55|71
90/91|9|1|18|19
Total|706|336|855|1192

Now, obviously adjusted numbers have considerable flaws so my question to you is, are these numbers reasonable? If not, what do you think Forsberg would have done? Would his injury problems be less/worse playing in this era and how would his style of play translate? And would his legacy be different? He would in all likelihood not have won any significant trophies during this time but maybe earn a couple of 2nd All-star team births.

Click to read more...

 

[Reasoned Opinion]

Apologies to all of you who are fed up with Forsberg threads but I think his career is interesting since it's notoriously hard to place him in an all-time perspective. Some claim he is up with the very best while others don't even think he belongs in the HHOF. I tried to think of good players to compare him with and I settled on Mike Bossy. While they were completely different type of players (one playmaker, the other sniper) they both had significantly shortened careers and both are considered great playoff performers. A big difference is that while they played about the same number of games, Bossy played 881 games (752 regular and 129 playoff games) and Forsberg played 857 games (706+151), Bossy did it during fewer years which means he was more reliable during the years he actually played.

Anyway, it got me thinking about what numbers Forsberg would have put up if he had started his career at the same time as Bossy so I adjusted his numbers for each season to get some sense of what he would do.

Season|Games|Goals|Assists|Points
77/78|47|17|41|58
78/79|82|34|97|131
79/80|65|34|70|104
80/81|72|36|96|133
81/82|78|46|102|148
82/83|49|20|52|72
83/84|73|39|89|127
84/85|-|-|-|-
85/86|75|43|115|158
86/87|39|26|53|79
87/88|60|23|69|92
88/89|57|17|55|71
89/90|9|1|18|19
Total|706|336|855|1192

Now, obviously adjusted numbers have considerable flaws so my question to you is, are these numbers reasonable? If not, what do you think Forsberg would have done. Would his injury problems be less/worse playing in this era and how would his style of play translate? And would his legacy be different? He would in all likelihood not have won any significant trophies during this time but maybe earn a couple of 2nd All-star team births.

He would have had a less impressive career as he would have had to have dealt with even poorer skate technology to address foot issues he had from a teen. So, if in the 80's, likely plays less than 70% of what he eventual was able to.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

He would have had to play a different style of game, IMO. I think it was sturminator who said that Forsberg's game was tailor-made for the clutch-and-grab-but-don't-fight dead puck era, and I agree. In the 80s, there is no way that Forsberg would have gotten away with his gritty/dirty game without fighting or at least having a designated enforcer on his line full-time.

 

[VelvetJones]

Then he would be in worse shape, less trained, probably smaller, drank more booze.

What would happen if Lawrence Taylor played in the 1960's?

 

[matnor]

He would have had to play a different style of game, IMO. I think it was sturminator who said that Forsberg's game was tailor-made for the clutch-and-grab-but-don't-fight dead puck era, and I agree. In the 80s, there is no way that Forsberg would have gotten away with his gritty/dirty game without fighting or at least having a designated enforcer on his line full-time.

That makes a lot of sense. Also, one of his greatest assets was his strength while others were trying to hook and hold him (much like, say, Jagr at the same time), he might not have been able to use that to his advantage to the same extent in the 80s.

 

[Ziostilon]

That makes a lot of sense. Also, one of his greatest assets was his strength while others were trying to hook and hold him (much like, say, Jagr at the same time), he might not have been able to use that to his advantage to the same extent in the 80s.

because there was less protection of skilled players?

 

[matnor]

because there was less protection of skilled players?

What I meant was that the relative advantage of being strong on the skates while people are clutching and grabbing you were significantly lower in the 80s or today than in the late 90s/early 00s. Makes you wonder what a guy like Crosby would have done 10 years ago considering he is also extremely strong on his skates.

 

[matnor]

Then he would be in worse shape, less trained, probably smaller, drank more booze.

That would be true for everyone today so it doesn't really change the way the adjusted numbers work.

 

[shazariahl]

That would be true for everyone today so it doesn't really change the way the adjusted numbers work.

Exactly. Adjusted numbers aren't foolproof, but they're better than most other methods of comparing between eras.

 

[Reds4Life]

IMHO He would just obliterate those ridiculously bad goalies and defenses. He would get around 130 or 140 points every year in his prime, even with injuries.

 

[Rhiessan71]

He would have had to play a different style of game, IMO. I think it was sturminator who said that Forsberg's game was tailor-made for the clutch-and-grab-but-don't-fight dead puck era, and I agree. In the 80s, there is no way that Forsberg would have gotten away with his gritty/dirty game without fighting or at least having a designated enforcer on his line full-time.

I agree with this. I think he would of gotten killed trying to play his style back then.

because there was less protection of skilled players?

Not at all, everyone had a goon/enforcer to lay down the law. Thing is they protected the skill players that didn't fight, were more skill than physical and didn't usually initiate the contact.
There is no way an enforcer would of been able to do a lot for Forsberg if he's out there initiating it the way he did in the late 90's.
Guys who played that style like Clark, Neely or Tocchet had to answer the bell on their own most of the time because after all they were the ones that usually rang it in the first place.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Do guys forget the Rat Ken Linsemen who played similar but never answered the bell.

Forsberg was a special talent and one of the all time playoff greats who had a great career and would have dominated in any era he played in.

In the 80's I would see Adam Oates types of numbers and maybe even slightly better in his peak.

 

[revolverjgw]

He'd get 160 points in a healthy year. It's true he might have to tone down his aggression, unless he wanted to get his face caved in, but he'd adjust, and he'd still be one of the most talented and brilliant players ever. He had the skillset to dominate any era, playing any style. He'd have so much more space and time to utilize his skill and dissect defenses.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

He'd get 160 points in a healthy year. It's true he might have to tone down his aggression, unless he wanted to get his face caved in, but he'd adjust, and he'd still be one of the most talented and brilliant players ever. He had the skillset to dominate any era, playing any style. He'd have so much more space and time to utilize his skill and dissect defenses.

I don't thik he'd hit 160 often even if he was healthy, and I think if you put Lindros, Jagr and Forsberg all back in the 1980's, Jagr and Lindros would put up even more points, and yet, still not at the Gretzky/Lemieux level.

 

[Hardyvan123]

maybe not 160 points due to the fact that he never really was a goal scorer but his best NHL seasons where at a 1.41 PPG pace which he did 2 times and its easy to think that he could have scored at a 2.0 rate in the high flying 80's.

I'm pretty sure that if you adjusted a couple of his season with overall league scoring to the 80's then it would be close to 2.0

The bottom line though is that he was much more than his stats, he was a warrior and one of the all time playoff greats as well.

Some old timers won't like hearing this but he was better than Bobby Clarke period.

 

[revolverjgw]

I don't thik he'd hit 160 often even if he was healthy, and I think if you put Lindros, Jagr and Forsberg all back in the 1980's, Jagr and Lindros would put up even more points, and yet, still not at the Gretzky/Lemieux level.

Lindros and Forsberg would be about the same I think, I always thought they were pretty much the same caliber, just different styles. No doubt Jagr could put up even more.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

Lindros and Forsberg would be about the same I think, I always thought they were pretty much the same caliber, just different styles. No doubt Jagr could put up even more.

I thinkLindros was a little better offensively when they were both healthy. I also think that Lindros' size would have been an even bigger edge during the 1980's ... not to mention the fact that he was a better goal scorer, and his goal totals would have risen even more than Forsberg's.

 

[matnor]

maybe not 160 points due to the fact that he never really was a goal scorer but his best NHL seasons where at a 1.41 PPG pace which he did 2 times and its easy to think that he could have scored at a 2.0 rate in the high flying 80's.

I'm pretty sure that if you adjusted a couple of his season with overall league scoring to the 80's then it would be close to 2.0

The bottom line though is that he was much more than his stats, he was a warrior and one of the all time playoff greats as well.

Some old timers won't like hearing this but he was better than Bobby Clarke period.

I put the adjusted numbers in the first post. As can be seen, his Hart winning season would translate into 43 goals and 115 assists for a total of 158 points in 75 games, well over 2 ppg. Of course, he wouldn't be close to the record-setting campaign of Gretzky with 215 points.

 

[Hardyvan123]

I went to a reference site that adjusts for different eras, not a perfect science as there are other factors involved but Forsberg held up pretty good with 5 seasons of over 100 points in adjusted seasons and two more at 96 and 97 points in a 12 yr career in the NHL and finished 75th all time with 1055 adjusted points.

An interesting comparison is Bobby Clarke who had in his best 7 seasons had 110,109,102,88,87,86 and 85 points to finish at 64th best at 1137 points in 15 seasons.

Sid the Kid has had seasons of 129,125,113,106 and 83 points and will top out in the top 10 all time joining Mark Recchi who sits at 9th and is one underrated guy IMO.

here is the link http://www.hockey-reference.com/leaders/points_adjusted_career.html

 

[MXD]

I think that offensively, I'd be in Bobby Clarke category. If that makes sense.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

He'd get 160 points in a healthy year. It's true he might have to tone down his aggression, unless he wanted to get his face caved in, but he'd adjust, and he'd still be one of the most talented and brilliant players ever. He had the skillset to dominate any era, playing any style. He'd have so much more space and time to utilize his skill and dissect defenses.

See, I don't think so. I think Forsberg and Jagr were "power skaters" who thrived in the dead puck era of clutch and grab. They would obviously put up better numbers in the 80s, but it's the speedier guys like Sakic who would have really owned if they peaked in the 80s IMO.

Basically, there was less room for stars during the dead puck era, but "power skaters" like Forsberg and Jagr needed less room than skilled players who played a more speed game.

Just my opinion.

 

[Big Phil]

He'd get 160 points in a healthy year. It's true he might have to tone down his aggression, unless he wanted to get his face caved in, but he'd adjust, and he'd still be one of the most talented and brilliant players ever. He had the skillset to dominate any era, playing any style. He'd have so much more space and time to utilize his skill and dissect defenses.

How so? He got 116 points at his peak. Plus there are two players in NHL history (you know their names) who have hit 160 points or more. We're to assume much more offensive players like Dionne, Stastny and Yzerman never hit those heights but Pete would? I can't see it by watching his game. He certainly wasn't anymore dynamic than either of those, at least not offensively

 

[John Flyers Fan]

Some old timers won't like hearing this but he was better than Bobby Clarke period.

No, he wasn't and it isn't all that close.

With the puck on his stick you could make an argument for Forsberg over Clarke (I wouldn't agree with you, but it's at least close).

When the puck wasn't on his stick they are miles apart.

Clarke is one of the elite defensive forwards, penalty killers and face-off men of all-time. Forsberg was at best above average defensively, an adequate penalty killer and below average in the face-off circle.

 

[revolverjgw]

How so? He got 116 points at his peak. Plus there are two players in NHL history (you know their names) who have hit 160 points or more. We're to assume much more offensive players like Dionne, Stastny and Yzerman never hit those heights but Pete would? I can't see it by watching his game. He certainly wasn't anymore dynamic than either of those, at least not offensively

96-96 wasn't his peak, he was only 22 and got much better. His prime came in the deadpuck era, which I consider to be 97-98 to 03-04, yet he still has the. And yes I think he's better offensively than all those guys you listed, especially Stastny, more thoughts on why below.

See, I don't think so. I think Forsberg and Jagr were "power skaters" who thrived in the dead puck era of clutch and grab. They would obviously put up better numbers in the 80s, but it's the speedier guys like Sakic who would have really owned if they peaked in the 80s IMO.

Basically, there was less room for stars during the dead puck era, but "power skaters" like Forsberg and Jagr needed less room than skilled players who played a more speed game.

Just my opinion.

Fair points, I agree with you that those two were practically custom-built for the deadpuck era, and that different types of players would need different types of adjustments. But I don't agree that Forsberg and Jagr's skillsets in particular would be less effective than those of speedier players.

These guys played with big, fast checkers draped all over them, against stifling defensive systems, and played like tanks rather than jets because that was the most viable tactic for them at the time, they could thrive in this style where the less sturdy speedsters couldn't. But this was limiting and I don't think we saw the full extent of their virtuosity.

I think I'll cut down my Forsberg projection to 150 in a healthy year after thinking about it more, especially considering his shot... he'd be able to put up something similar to Yzerman's peak, while being better all-around. If Stastny could put up 139, I see Forsberg beating that. His production is flat-out more impressive for his era. He had superior physical skills and was just as smart, though lack of time and space meant he couldn't really play as creative a game as a guy with his intellect and patience would be capable of.

As far as Jagr goes, the sky's the limit, I don't see anybody in the 80s near his level, aside from the obvious guys. He'd be a kid in a candy store against those diluted defenses, smaller checkers and less developed coaching theory. He always had very deceptive speed, like a lot of guys his size, but not a lot of incentive to rely on it considering the strategies teams employed against him... give him time and space and watch him exploit those teams in ways he couldn't during his prime. He'd be able to use his extra gear more, and I also think it would easier on his groin because of the less intense pace and less weight leaning on him all the time. The 80s never saw anyone that combined skill and strength like this guy, aside from a young Mario.

 

[poise]

Apologies to all of you who are fed up with Forsberg threads but I think his career is interesting (plus I'm Swedish ) since it's notoriously hard to place him in an all-time perspective. Some claim he is up with the very best while others don't even think he belongs in the HHOF. I tried to think of good players to compare him with and I settled on Mike Bossy. While they were completely different type of players (one playmaker, the other sniper) they both had significantly shortened careers and both are considered great playoff performers. A big difference is that while they played about the same number of games, Bossy played 881 games (752 regular and 129 playoff games) and Forsberg played 857 games (706+151), Bossy did it during fewer years which means he was more reliable during the years he actually played.

I think it's interesting you chose Bossy as the comparison, because Bossy has come out and flat out said that it is a "load of crock" that he and others wouldn't be able to score in today's league - meaning the late 1990's, the dead puck era.

I'd tend to agree with Bossy and therefore think the adjusted numbers are simply much too overinflated. I think a guy like Forsberg would max out at a per game rate less than that of Stastny's, and above Savard and Hawerchuk, though the latter two would still prove a lot more durable. So he'd score around a 115-130 point pace in his prime playing on comparably strong teams like the Avalanche of the later 1990's early 2000's, though like his actual career, I would hazard a guess that he wouldn't play many full seasons.

Forsberg would actually compare nicely to slightly lesser Trottier who also was less durable. In style that is, I don't think Forsberg would compare too well defensively, especially later in his career.

And Jagr has a good comparable in Stastny. Jagr and Stastny were quite similar stylewise, you can tell Jagr learned from watching Stastny play, and Jagr turned out to be bigger and stronger on the puck as well as more talented. I'd see Jagr scoring 130-160 in the 1980's, slightly outscoring Bossy himself.