overpass
Registered User
- Jun 7, 2007
- 5,274
- 2,819
The topic of Joe Sakic and Peter Forsberg gets brought up a lot around here. This thread is a good example, and it included some good points on both sides.
One thing that’s frequently mentioned is Forsberg’s huge lead in plus-minus. From 1995 through 2003-04, Forsberg was +207 in the regular season and +47 in the playoffs. Sakic was +136 in the regular season and +9 in the playoffs. Since the name of the game is outscoring the other team, this looks like a big edge for Forsberg.
Sakic’s defenders have said that his lesser plus-minus was a result of playing tougher minutes than Forsberg. Whether by being matched up against the best scorers on the other team, or by taking more than his share of defensive zone draws, Sakic had an uphill battle to match Forsberg in plus-minus, or so the story goes.
I’m going to use all the evidence available to investigate this claim, and see whether Sakic appears to have played tougher minutes than Forsberg while they were teammates over a decade. In the following comparisons, I’ll only look at even strength play. I’ll also exclude the 2001-02 regular season, as Forsberg did not play in this season. My focus is on level of play, so I’m looking at rate, not total regular season value. Fans of total value can mentally deduct points from Forsberg in the 2000-2002 period.
Quebec/Colorado had three head coaches over the decade that Sakic and Forsberg were teammates: Marc Crawford, Bob Hartley, and Tony Granato. I have chosen to break up the decade by head coach to analyze the roles that Sakic and Forsberg played. For the purposes of this project, I have included the 2002-03 season entirely under Granato, although Hartley coached a third of the season.
Huge thanks to the Hockey Summary Project for this. Their detailed data compiled for these seasons were invaluable and made this project possible.
A note on the tables below: If anyone doesn't know, Joe Sakic wore 19 and Peter Forsberg wore 21. "Both" refers to even strength goals for which both 19 and 21 were on the ice. "Neither" refers to even strength goals for which neither 19 or 21 were on the ice. "R" refers to GF/GA ratio. The key columns to look at are "19R", "21R", and "NeitherR", for a look at their on-ice results compared to each other and the rest of the team.
Marc Crawford Era – 1995 to 1997-98
On-Ice Results
Year | TmGF | TmGA | 21GF | 21GA | 19GF | 19GA | NeitherGF | NeitherGA | BothGF | BothGA | TmR | 21R | 19R | NeitherR | BothR
1995 | 131 | 93 | 39 | 24 | 43 | 36 | 53 | 34 | 4 | 2 | 1.41 | 1.62 | 1.17 | 1.54 | 2.00
1996 | 219 | 147 | 83 | 52 | 77 | 52 | 65 | 45 | 6 | 2 | 1.49 | 1.60 | 1.48 | 1.44 | 3.00
1997 | 180 | 141 | 69 | 39 | 45 | 50 | 68 | 53 | 2 | 1 | 1.28 | 1.77 | 0.91 | 1.27 | 2.00
1998 | 149 | 140 | 66 | 55 | 51 | 44 | 36 | 44 | 4 | 2 | 1.06 | 1.21 | 1.16 | 0.83 | 2.00
Crawford | 679 | 521 | 258 | 170 | 216 | 182 | 222 | 176 | 16 | 7 | 1.30 | 1.52 | 1.19 | 1.26 | 2.29Numbers are estimated using TGF, TGA, PGF, and PGA from hockey-reference.com. Numbers together are estimated by looking at the number of points they collaborated on from the HSP, doubling that to get the GF, and picking a GA number that gives a reasonable ratio.
Forsberg gets the edge here. He was +88 to Sakic’s +34 at even strength in the regular season, and had a GF/GA ratio of 1.52 to Sakic's 1.19. In fact, the team performed similarly with Sakic on the ice as it did with neither Sakic nor Forsberg on the ice. Forsberg has clearly better on-ice results than Sakic during this time.
Context – Linemates
In 1995, Sakic played mostly with Wendel Clark and Andrei Kovalenko, and Forsberg played mostly with Owen Nolan and Bob Bassen. You might think that 30-goal scorer Nolan gave Forsberg an edge, but remember that Clark was coming off 46 goals in 64 games. Call that season even. From 1996 to 1998, Forsberg played primarily with Valeri Kamensky and Claude Lemieux, and also a bit of Martin Rucinsky and Adam Deadmarsh. Sakic played primarily with Scott Young, and his most common other linemates were Chris Simon, Eric Lacroix, and Adam Deadmarsh. Forsberg had stronger linemates over this time period.
Context – Matchups
I don’t have detailed matchup numbers here. But consider that Crawford used Forsberg more often on the penalty kill. Forsberg was on the ice for 64 PPGA to Sakic’s 40 PPGA over this time period. Also, consider that Scotty Bowman always matched Sergei Fedorov, his best defensive and overall forward, against Forsberg. Although there is not enough information to be sure, my guess is that Forsberg played tougher minutes.
Bob Hartley Era – 1998-99 to 2000-01
On-Ice Results
Year | TmGF | TmGA | 21GF | 21GA | 19GF | 19GA | NeitherGF | NeitherGA | BothGF | BothGA | TmR | 21R | 19R | NeitherR | BothR
1999 | 161 | 130 | 67 | 41 | 73 | 50 | 61 | 57 | 40 | 18 | 1.24 | 1.63 | 1.46 | 1.07 | 2.22
2000 | 167 | 140 | 40 | 28 | 74 | 43 | 74 | 76 | 21 | 7 | 1.19 | 1.43 | 1.72 | 0.97 | 3.00
2001 | 171 | 118 | 50 | 29 | 81 | 38 | 49 | 54 | 9 | 3 | 1.45 | 1.72 | 2.13 | 0.91 | 3.00
Hartley | 499 | 388 | 157 | 98 | 228 | 131 | 184 | 187 | 70 | 28 | 1.29 | 1.60 | 1.74 | 0.98 | 2.50From 1998-99 on, I used the actual count of even strength goals taken directly from the HSP, and also the actual count of GF and GA while Sakic and Forsberg played together.
Sakic had slightly better on-ice numbers in the regular season, with a GF/GA ratio of 1.74 to Forsberg’s 1.60. Forsberg made that up in the playoffs, with a +21 to Sakic’s -1. Sakic played two rounds against tough opposition in 2001 that Forsberg missed…but then Forsberg was +8 to Sakic’s -2 in the 2002 playoffs. Call it even on a per-game basis for this time period. (Notice how much the numbers while Sakic and Forsberg are off the ice have dropped off in this time period, compared to Crawford's tenure.)
Context – Linemates
In 1999, Forsberg and Sakic played together quite a bit. When apart, Forsberg and Sakic each played with a mix of linemates, including Kamensky, Lemieux, Milan Hejduk, and Deadmarsh. Theo Fleury joined the team late in the year and played with Sakic, giving Sakic the slightly better linemates. In 2000, Sakic and Forsberg also spent some time together. While separated, Sakic’s primary linemates were Hejduk and Alex Tanguay, and Forsberg’s were a mix, most frequently Deadmarsh. In 2001, Sakic and Forsberg rarely played together. Sakic mostly played with Hejduk and Tanguay, and Forsberg was with Chris Drury and Ville Nieminen. On the whole, Sakic had stronger linemates under Hartley.
Context – Matchups
Detailed plus-minus information is available from the Hockey Summary Project for these seasons. I selected 22 checkers, 22 scorers, and 22 shutdown defencemen for each season. I counted the number of times Sakic and Forsberg were on the ice for a goal against each of those groups, to get an idea the opposition each player faced. I'll post the lists I used for each season in a later post.
Year | 19Shutdown | 19Scorers | 19Checkers | 21Shutdown | 21Scorers | 21Checkers
1999 | 42% | 32% | 25% | 50% | 36% | 27%
2000 | 38% | 28% | 20% | 37% | 26% | 16%
2001 | 34% | 24% | 21% | 24% | 22% | 18%
Hartley | 38% | 28% | 22% | 38% | 29% | 21%
It appears that Forsberg started off by playing tougher minutes, but by 2001 he was playing easier minutes than Sakic. Both appear to have played tougher minutes in 1999 and then gotten easier through 2001 – this may have been a result Stephane Yelle gaining a more prominent role. On the whole, I estimate their average strength of opposition under Hartley as essentially identical.
Tony Granato Era – 2002-03 and 2003-04
On-Ice Results
Year | TmGF | TmGA | 21GF | 21GA | 19GF | 19GA | NeitherGF | NeitherGA | BothGF | BothGA | TmR | 21R | 19R | NeitherR | BothR
2003 | 174 | 118 | 90 | 33 | 46 | 37 | 56 | 57 | 18 | 9 | 1.47 | 2.73 | 1.24 | 0.98 | 2
2004 | 148 | 120 | 33 | 17 | 57 | 34 | 61 | 69 | 3 | 0 | 1.23 | 1.94 | 1.68 | 0.88 | 0
Granato | 322 | 238 | 123 | 50 | 103 | 71 | 117 | 126 | 21 | 9 | 1.35 | 2.46 | 1.45 | 0.93 | 2.33
Forsberg had incredible on-ice results in this time period. He was on the ice for 2.5 times as many GF and GA. It’s not surprising that the Hockey News ranked him as the best player in the world after each of these seasons. Sakic’s on ice numbers were good, but not comparable. Big edge to Forsberg.
Context – Linemates
Forsberg played primarily with Hejduk and Tanguay over this time. Sakic had a number of linemates. In 2003, he played with a combination of Steve Reinprecht, Forsberg, Hedjuk, and Drury. In 2004, he played with Paul Kariya, Teemu Selanne, Steve Konowalchuk, Hejduk, and Tanguay. Forsberg had better linemates, primarily because of continuity.
Context – Matchups
Year | 19Shutdown | 19Scorers | 19Checkers | 21Shutdown | 21Scorers | 21Checkers
2003 | 35% | 30% | 17% | 37% | 24% | 23%
2004 | 32% | 16% | 35% | 36% | 16% | 24%
Granato | 33% | 23% | 26% | 36% | 22% | 23%
Granato handled Sakic and Forsberg very differently in 2003 as compared to 2004. In 2003, Stephane Yelle and Chris Drury had just left, and the Avalanche were lacking strong defensive options in the bottom 6. By the numbers, this is the one season in which the narrative of Sakic vs scorers and Forsberg vs checkers really holds up. Sakic played the tougher matchups in this season, allowing Forsberg to go postal on the league. In 2004, the Avs added Andrei Nikolishin and Steve Konowalchuk, giving them options to play against the other team’s best and in defensive situations. Both Sakic and Forsberg played easier minutes this year, especially Sakic – probably in part because he was playing with Kariya and Selanne. But, if you look at the two seasons together, I think they faced roughly equal strength of opposition, maybe a slight edge to Sakic’s.
Summary of Eras
Marc Crawford era: Forsberg had better linemates, probably played tougher matchups, and got better results.
Bob Hartley era: Sakic had better linemates, they played similar matchups, and they had similar regular season results (on a per-game basis – Sakic played more games and provided more value).
Tony Granato era: Forsberg had better linemates, on average their strength of opposition was similar, and Forsberg had far better regular season results than Sakic.
Note: One thing that I didn't cover was faceoffs. There is no data available on whether Sakic and Forsberg were more likely to take offensive zone draws or defensive zone draws during the time period I have examined. But if you look at behindthenet.ca's numbers for 2007-08, Sakic had the most favourable faceoff ratio of any Colorado centre, taking 1.26 offensive zone faceoffs for every defensive zone faceoff he took. Make of that what you will. But looking back on earlier seasons for which no data is available, I can't believe that a coach would choose use Joe Sakic as his first defensive option with Stephane Yelle (a fellow LHS) available, if for nothing else than to give Sakic better offensive opportunities.
Conclusion
The narrative that Peter Forsberg consistently played easier minutes than Joe Sakic during their time together in Colorado appears to be false. At the most, Forsberg's incredible peak numbers from 2002-03 are a bit less impressive because they came against easier competition, but otherwise the narrative doesn't hold up. As a result, their plus-minus numbers can be fairly compared as a measure of even strength effectiveness. While both were great hockey players, Peter Forsberg was the better even strength player.
One thing that’s frequently mentioned is Forsberg’s huge lead in plus-minus. From 1995 through 2003-04, Forsberg was +207 in the regular season and +47 in the playoffs. Sakic was +136 in the regular season and +9 in the playoffs. Since the name of the game is outscoring the other team, this looks like a big edge for Forsberg.
Sakic’s defenders have said that his lesser plus-minus was a result of playing tougher minutes than Forsberg. Whether by being matched up against the best scorers on the other team, or by taking more than his share of defensive zone draws, Sakic had an uphill battle to match Forsberg in plus-minus, or so the story goes.
I’m going to use all the evidence available to investigate this claim, and see whether Sakic appears to have played tougher minutes than Forsberg while they were teammates over a decade. In the following comparisons, I’ll only look at even strength play. I’ll also exclude the 2001-02 regular season, as Forsberg did not play in this season. My focus is on level of play, so I’m looking at rate, not total regular season value. Fans of total value can mentally deduct points from Forsberg in the 2000-2002 period.
Quebec/Colorado had three head coaches over the decade that Sakic and Forsberg were teammates: Marc Crawford, Bob Hartley, and Tony Granato. I have chosen to break up the decade by head coach to analyze the roles that Sakic and Forsberg played. For the purposes of this project, I have included the 2002-03 season entirely under Granato, although Hartley coached a third of the season.
Huge thanks to the Hockey Summary Project for this. Their detailed data compiled for these seasons were invaluable and made this project possible.
A note on the tables below: If anyone doesn't know, Joe Sakic wore 19 and Peter Forsberg wore 21. "Both" refers to even strength goals for which both 19 and 21 were on the ice. "Neither" refers to even strength goals for which neither 19 or 21 were on the ice. "R" refers to GF/GA ratio. The key columns to look at are "19R", "21R", and "NeitherR", for a look at their on-ice results compared to each other and the rest of the team.
Marc Crawford Era – 1995 to 1997-98
On-Ice Results
1995 | 131 | 93 | 39 | 24 | 43 | 36 | 53 | 34 | 4 | 2 | 1.41 | 1.62 | 1.17 | 1.54 | 2.00
1996 | 219 | 147 | 83 | 52 | 77 | 52 | 65 | 45 | 6 | 2 | 1.49 | 1.60 | 1.48 | 1.44 | 3.00
1997 | 180 | 141 | 69 | 39 | 45 | 50 | 68 | 53 | 2 | 1 | 1.28 | 1.77 | 0.91 | 1.27 | 2.00
1998 | 149 | 140 | 66 | 55 | 51 | 44 | 36 | 44 | 4 | 2 | 1.06 | 1.21 | 1.16 | 0.83 | 2.00
Crawford | 679 | 521 | 258 | 170 | 216 | 182 | 222 | 176 | 16 | 7 | 1.30 | 1.52 | 1.19 | 1.26 | 2.29
Forsberg gets the edge here. He was +88 to Sakic’s +34 at even strength in the regular season, and had a GF/GA ratio of 1.52 to Sakic's 1.19. In fact, the team performed similarly with Sakic on the ice as it did with neither Sakic nor Forsberg on the ice. Forsberg has clearly better on-ice results than Sakic during this time.
Context – Linemates
In 1995, Sakic played mostly with Wendel Clark and Andrei Kovalenko, and Forsberg played mostly with Owen Nolan and Bob Bassen. You might think that 30-goal scorer Nolan gave Forsberg an edge, but remember that Clark was coming off 46 goals in 64 games. Call that season even. From 1996 to 1998, Forsberg played primarily with Valeri Kamensky and Claude Lemieux, and also a bit of Martin Rucinsky and Adam Deadmarsh. Sakic played primarily with Scott Young, and his most common other linemates were Chris Simon, Eric Lacroix, and Adam Deadmarsh. Forsberg had stronger linemates over this time period.
Context – Matchups
I don’t have detailed matchup numbers here. But consider that Crawford used Forsberg more often on the penalty kill. Forsberg was on the ice for 64 PPGA to Sakic’s 40 PPGA over this time period. Also, consider that Scotty Bowman always matched Sergei Fedorov, his best defensive and overall forward, against Forsberg. Although there is not enough information to be sure, my guess is that Forsberg played tougher minutes.
Bob Hartley Era – 1998-99 to 2000-01
On-Ice Results
1999 | 161 | 130 | 67 | 41 | 73 | 50 | 61 | 57 | 40 | 18 | 1.24 | 1.63 | 1.46 | 1.07 | 2.22
2000 | 167 | 140 | 40 | 28 | 74 | 43 | 74 | 76 | 21 | 7 | 1.19 | 1.43 | 1.72 | 0.97 | 3.00
2001 | 171 | 118 | 50 | 29 | 81 | 38 | 49 | 54 | 9 | 3 | 1.45 | 1.72 | 2.13 | 0.91 | 3.00
Hartley | 499 | 388 | 157 | 98 | 228 | 131 | 184 | 187 | 70 | 28 | 1.29 | 1.60 | 1.74 | 0.98 | 2.50
Sakic had slightly better on-ice numbers in the regular season, with a GF/GA ratio of 1.74 to Forsberg’s 1.60. Forsberg made that up in the playoffs, with a +21 to Sakic’s -1. Sakic played two rounds against tough opposition in 2001 that Forsberg missed…but then Forsberg was +8 to Sakic’s -2 in the 2002 playoffs. Call it even on a per-game basis for this time period. (Notice how much the numbers while Sakic and Forsberg are off the ice have dropped off in this time period, compared to Crawford's tenure.)
Context – Linemates
In 1999, Forsberg and Sakic played together quite a bit. When apart, Forsberg and Sakic each played with a mix of linemates, including Kamensky, Lemieux, Milan Hejduk, and Deadmarsh. Theo Fleury joined the team late in the year and played with Sakic, giving Sakic the slightly better linemates. In 2000, Sakic and Forsberg also spent some time together. While separated, Sakic’s primary linemates were Hejduk and Alex Tanguay, and Forsberg’s were a mix, most frequently Deadmarsh. In 2001, Sakic and Forsberg rarely played together. Sakic mostly played with Hejduk and Tanguay, and Forsberg was with Chris Drury and Ville Nieminen. On the whole, Sakic had stronger linemates under Hartley.
Context – Matchups
Detailed plus-minus information is available from the Hockey Summary Project for these seasons. I selected 22 checkers, 22 scorers, and 22 shutdown defencemen for each season. I counted the number of times Sakic and Forsberg were on the ice for a goal against each of those groups, to get an idea the opposition each player faced. I'll post the lists I used for each season in a later post.
1999 | 42% | 32% | 25% | 50% | 36% | 27%
2000 | 38% | 28% | 20% | 37% | 26% | 16%
2001 | 34% | 24% | 21% | 24% | 22% | 18%
Hartley | 38% | 28% | 22% | 38% | 29% | 21%
It appears that Forsberg started off by playing tougher minutes, but by 2001 he was playing easier minutes than Sakic. Both appear to have played tougher minutes in 1999 and then gotten easier through 2001 – this may have been a result Stephane Yelle gaining a more prominent role. On the whole, I estimate their average strength of opposition under Hartley as essentially identical.
Tony Granato Era – 2002-03 and 2003-04
On-Ice Results
2003 | 174 | 118 | 90 | 33 | 46 | 37 | 56 | 57 | 18 | 9 | 1.47 | 2.73 | 1.24 | 0.98 | 2
2004 | 148 | 120 | 33 | 17 | 57 | 34 | 61 | 69 | 3 | 0 | 1.23 | 1.94 | 1.68 | 0.88 | 0
Granato | 322 | 238 | 123 | 50 | 103 | 71 | 117 | 126 | 21 | 9 | 1.35 | 2.46 | 1.45 | 0.93 | 2.33
Forsberg had incredible on-ice results in this time period. He was on the ice for 2.5 times as many GF and GA. It’s not surprising that the Hockey News ranked him as the best player in the world after each of these seasons. Sakic’s on ice numbers were good, but not comparable. Big edge to Forsberg.
Context – Linemates
Forsberg played primarily with Hejduk and Tanguay over this time. Sakic had a number of linemates. In 2003, he played with a combination of Steve Reinprecht, Forsberg, Hedjuk, and Drury. In 2004, he played with Paul Kariya, Teemu Selanne, Steve Konowalchuk, Hejduk, and Tanguay. Forsberg had better linemates, primarily because of continuity.
Context – Matchups
2003 | 35% | 30% | 17% | 37% | 24% | 23%
2004 | 32% | 16% | 35% | 36% | 16% | 24%
Granato | 33% | 23% | 26% | 36% | 22% | 23%
Granato handled Sakic and Forsberg very differently in 2003 as compared to 2004. In 2003, Stephane Yelle and Chris Drury had just left, and the Avalanche were lacking strong defensive options in the bottom 6. By the numbers, this is the one season in which the narrative of Sakic vs scorers and Forsberg vs checkers really holds up. Sakic played the tougher matchups in this season, allowing Forsberg to go postal on the league. In 2004, the Avs added Andrei Nikolishin and Steve Konowalchuk, giving them options to play against the other team’s best and in defensive situations. Both Sakic and Forsberg played easier minutes this year, especially Sakic – probably in part because he was playing with Kariya and Selanne. But, if you look at the two seasons together, I think they faced roughly equal strength of opposition, maybe a slight edge to Sakic’s.
Summary of Eras
Marc Crawford era: Forsberg had better linemates, probably played tougher matchups, and got better results.
Bob Hartley era: Sakic had better linemates, they played similar matchups, and they had similar regular season results (on a per-game basis – Sakic played more games and provided more value).
Tony Granato era: Forsberg had better linemates, on average their strength of opposition was similar, and Forsberg had far better regular season results than Sakic.
Note: One thing that I didn't cover was faceoffs. There is no data available on whether Sakic and Forsberg were more likely to take offensive zone draws or defensive zone draws during the time period I have examined. But if you look at behindthenet.ca's numbers for 2007-08, Sakic had the most favourable faceoff ratio of any Colorado centre, taking 1.26 offensive zone faceoffs for every defensive zone faceoff he took. Make of that what you will. But looking back on earlier seasons for which no data is available, I can't believe that a coach would choose use Joe Sakic as his first defensive option with Stephane Yelle (a fellow LHS) available, if for nothing else than to give Sakic better offensive opportunities.
Conclusion
The narrative that Peter Forsberg consistently played easier minutes than Joe Sakic during their time together in Colorado appears to be false. At the most, Forsberg's incredible peak numbers from 2002-03 are a bit less impressive because they came against easier competition, but otherwise the narrative doesn't hold up. As a result, their plus-minus numbers can be fairly compared as a measure of even strength effectiveness. While both were great hockey players, Peter Forsberg was the better even strength player.
Last edited: