Hockey Outsider
Registered User
- Jan 16, 2005
- 9,196
- 14,625
Introduction
Over the past few months I've noticed several people state that (despite his reputation as an elite two-way player), Joe Sakic actually wasn't very important to the Colorado Avalanche. Some have even stated that the Avalanche had an equally good record in games where Sakic played, compared to games where he didn't.
If that claim is true, that should cause us to seriously consider if Sakic was actually an excellent two-way forward. I've never seen anybody use specific, detailed data to back up this claim. Intuitively, this claim seems so wrong that I had to investigate it myself.
Time Period
Between 1993-94 and 2006-07, Sakic missed at most one game in eight of those thirteen seasons. Thankfully (in the sense that we have a consistent set of data to analyze), four of Sakic's injury-plagued seasons occured consecutively. This gives us a decent sample size, as Sakic missed close to season's worth of games (66) between the 1996-97 and 1999-00 seasons. The Avalanche roster remained fairly consistent during that period.
Data - Sakic's prime
The table below shows Colorado's record when Sakic played during each of those four seasons. Since we know the team's overall record, we can then calculate the team's record without Sakic. The links to the data sources are below, so anybody can verify or re-calculate my data.
| WITH | SAKIC | | | | TEAM | RECORD | | | | WITHOUT | SAKIC | | |
Season | Games | Win | Loss | Tie | Percentage | Games | Win | Loss | Tie | Percentage | Games | Win | Loss | Tie | Percentage
1996-97 | 65 | 38 | 20 | 7 | 63.8% | 82 | 49 | 24 | 9 | 65.2% | 17 | 11 | 4 | 2 | 70.6%
1997-98 | 64 | 31 | 16 | 17 | 61.7% | 82 | 39 | 26 | 17 | 57.9% | 18 | 8 | 10 | 0 | 44.4%
1998-99 | 73 | 41 | 23 | 9 | 62.3% | 82 | 44 | 28 | 10 | 59.8% | 9 | 3 | 5 | 1 | 38.9%
1999-00 | 60 | 33 | 19 | 8 | 61.7% | 82 | 42 | 28 | 12 | 58.5% | 22 | 9 | 9 | 4 | 50%
TOTAL | 262 | 143 | 78 | 41 | 62.4% | 328 | 174 | 106 | 48 | 60.4% | 66 | 31 | 28 | 7 | 52.3%
Based on the above data, between 1996-97 and 1999-00, Sakic had a significant, positive impact on Colorado's ability to win games. The Avalanche won 62.4% of the games where Sakic played, compared to 52.3% of the games where he didn't.
To translate this into something more concrete, the Avalance played at a 102-point pace when Sakic played, and an 86-point pace when he didn't. During those four years, an 102 point team would have finished 2nd, 3rd, 3rd and T-3rd in the Western Conference. An 86 point team would have finished 4th, 6th, 6th and 9th. That's the difference between a perrenial division champion (which the Avalanche were) and a weak playoff team.
Some have actually used the fact that Sakic played on a good team as an argument against him. The data shows that, when Sakic didn't play, the Avalanche were above-average, but not great. (I think that makes sense - they had Roy, but he was inconsistent during the regular season during the late 1990s. Foote was their best defenseman and while he was excellent defensively, he contributed very little offensively. Forsberg was great when he played but was often injured).
I'm not saying that the 10% increase in win percentage is solely due to Sakic. I'm sure there are a number of factors that could influence this number (i.e. contributions of other players on the team, home vs road games, strength of opponents, etc). Still, this evidence, IMO, completely refutes the claim that the Avalanche were just as good without Sakic.
Data - Sakic's other years
The following tables show the other years where Sakic missed significant time due to injury.
| WITH | SAKIC | | | | TEAM | RECORD | | | | WITHOUT | SAKIC | | |
Season | Games | Win | Loss | Tie | Percentage | Games | Win | Loss | Tie | Percentage | Games | Win | Loss | Tie | Percentage
1991-92 | 69 | 19 | 40 | 10 | 34.8% | 80 | 20 | 48 | 12 | 32.5% | 11 | 1 | 8 | 2 | 18.2%
The 1991-92 Nordiques were a bad team with Sakic (on pace for 57 points) but were one the very worst teams in history without him (on pace for 30 points). Sakic was a difference-maker even very early in his career.
| WITH | SAKIC | | | | TEAM | RECORD | | | | WITHOUT | SAKIC | | |
Season | Games | Win | Loss | Tie | Percentage | Games | Win | Loss | Tie | Percentage | Games | Win | Loss | Tie | Percentage
2002-03 | 58 | 24 | 23 | 11 | 50.9% | 82 | 42 | 27 | 13 | 59.1% | 24 | 18 | 4 | 2 | 79.2%
The 2002-03 Avalanche were actually much better without Sakic (83 point pace with vs. 130 point pace without). Sakic had a bad season (by his standards) in 2002-03 but I don't think anbody would argue that he was a liability on the ice (he certainly wasn't bad enough to cost his team 50 points in the standings). Is this simply a fluky product of small sample sizes?
Another potential explanation is that 2002-03 was, without question, Forsberg's best season. Presumably losing Sakic allowed Forsberg, at his absolute best, to play more. This isn't an argument against Sakic - all I'm saying is that Forsberg, during clearly his best season, is better than Sakic during his 15th (?) best season. It's not a meaningful comparison.
| WITH | SAKIC | | | | TEAM | RECORD | | | | WITHOUT | SAKIC | | |
Season | Games | Win | Loss | Tie | Percentage | Games | Win | Loss | Tie | Percentage | Games | Win | Loss | Tie | Percentage
2007-08 | 44 | 26 | 18 | 0 | 59.1% | 82 | 44 | 31 | 7 | 57.9% | 38 | 18 | 13 | 7 | 56.6%
The 2007-08 Avalanche were only a bit worst without Sakic (97 point pace with vs. 93 point pace without). This isn't a stunning performance, but it's certainly not bad for a 38-year-old.
Conclusion
During his prime, Sakic was very clearly a difference-maker to the Avalanche. He significantly increased their ability to win hockey games.
Links to Data
Colorado's team records: hockey-reference.com
Sakic's game log, 1997 season: Link
Sakic's game log, 1998 season: Link
Sakic's game log, 1999 season: Link
Sakic's game log, 2000 season: Link
Over the past few months I've noticed several people state that (despite his reputation as an elite two-way player), Joe Sakic actually wasn't very important to the Colorado Avalanche. Some have even stated that the Avalanche had an equally good record in games where Sakic played, compared to games where he didn't.
If that claim is true, that should cause us to seriously consider if Sakic was actually an excellent two-way forward. I've never seen anybody use specific, detailed data to back up this claim. Intuitively, this claim seems so wrong that I had to investigate it myself.
Time Period
Between 1993-94 and 2006-07, Sakic missed at most one game in eight of those thirteen seasons. Thankfully (in the sense that we have a consistent set of data to analyze), four of Sakic's injury-plagued seasons occured consecutively. This gives us a decent sample size, as Sakic missed close to season's worth of games (66) between the 1996-97 and 1999-00 seasons. The Avalanche roster remained fairly consistent during that period.
Data - Sakic's prime
The table below shows Colorado's record when Sakic played during each of those four seasons. Since we know the team's overall record, we can then calculate the team's record without Sakic. The links to the data sources are below, so anybody can verify or re-calculate my data.
Season | Games | Win | Loss | Tie | Percentage | Games | Win | Loss | Tie | Percentage | Games | Win | Loss | Tie | Percentage
1996-97 | 65 | 38 | 20 | 7 | 63.8% | 82 | 49 | 24 | 9 | 65.2% | 17 | 11 | 4 | 2 | 70.6%
1997-98 | 64 | 31 | 16 | 17 | 61.7% | 82 | 39 | 26 | 17 | 57.9% | 18 | 8 | 10 | 0 | 44.4%
1998-99 | 73 | 41 | 23 | 9 | 62.3% | 82 | 44 | 28 | 10 | 59.8% | 9 | 3 | 5 | 1 | 38.9%
1999-00 | 60 | 33 | 19 | 8 | 61.7% | 82 | 42 | 28 | 12 | 58.5% | 22 | 9 | 9 | 4 | 50%
TOTAL | 262 | 143 | 78 | 41 | 62.4% | 328 | 174 | 106 | 48 | 60.4% | 66 | 31 | 28 | 7 | 52.3%
Based on the above data, between 1996-97 and 1999-00, Sakic had a significant, positive impact on Colorado's ability to win games. The Avalanche won 62.4% of the games where Sakic played, compared to 52.3% of the games where he didn't.
To translate this into something more concrete, the Avalance played at a 102-point pace when Sakic played, and an 86-point pace when he didn't. During those four years, an 102 point team would have finished 2nd, 3rd, 3rd and T-3rd in the Western Conference. An 86 point team would have finished 4th, 6th, 6th and 9th. That's the difference between a perrenial division champion (which the Avalanche were) and a weak playoff team.
Some have actually used the fact that Sakic played on a good team as an argument against him. The data shows that, when Sakic didn't play, the Avalanche were above-average, but not great. (I think that makes sense - they had Roy, but he was inconsistent during the regular season during the late 1990s. Foote was their best defenseman and while he was excellent defensively, he contributed very little offensively. Forsberg was great when he played but was often injured).
I'm not saying that the 10% increase in win percentage is solely due to Sakic. I'm sure there are a number of factors that could influence this number (i.e. contributions of other players on the team, home vs road games, strength of opponents, etc). Still, this evidence, IMO, completely refutes the claim that the Avalanche were just as good without Sakic.
Data - Sakic's other years
The following tables show the other years where Sakic missed significant time due to injury.
Season | Games | Win | Loss | Tie | Percentage | Games | Win | Loss | Tie | Percentage | Games | Win | Loss | Tie | Percentage
1991-92 | 69 | 19 | 40 | 10 | 34.8% | 80 | 20 | 48 | 12 | 32.5% | 11 | 1 | 8 | 2 | 18.2%
The 1991-92 Nordiques were a bad team with Sakic (on pace for 57 points) but were one the very worst teams in history without him (on pace for 30 points). Sakic was a difference-maker even very early in his career.
Season | Games | Win | Loss | Tie | Percentage | Games | Win | Loss | Tie | Percentage | Games | Win | Loss | Tie | Percentage
2002-03 | 58 | 24 | 23 | 11 | 50.9% | 82 | 42 | 27 | 13 | 59.1% | 24 | 18 | 4 | 2 | 79.2%
The 2002-03 Avalanche were actually much better without Sakic (83 point pace with vs. 130 point pace without). Sakic had a bad season (by his standards) in 2002-03 but I don't think anbody would argue that he was a liability on the ice (he certainly wasn't bad enough to cost his team 50 points in the standings). Is this simply a fluky product of small sample sizes?
Another potential explanation is that 2002-03 was, without question, Forsberg's best season. Presumably losing Sakic allowed Forsberg, at his absolute best, to play more. This isn't an argument against Sakic - all I'm saying is that Forsberg, during clearly his best season, is better than Sakic during his 15th (?) best season. It's not a meaningful comparison.
Season | Games | Win | Loss | Tie | Percentage | Games | Win | Loss | Tie | Percentage | Games | Win | Loss | Tie | Percentage
2007-08 | 44 | 26 | 18 | 0 | 59.1% | 82 | 44 | 31 | 7 | 57.9% | 38 | 18 | 13 | 7 | 56.6%
The 2007-08 Avalanche were only a bit worst without Sakic (97 point pace with vs. 93 point pace without). This isn't a stunning performance, but it's certainly not bad for a 38-year-old.
Conclusion
During his prime, Sakic was very clearly a difference-maker to the Avalanche. He significantly increased their ability to win hockey games.
Links to Data
Colorado's team records: hockey-reference.com
Sakic's game log, 1997 season: Link
Sakic's game log, 1998 season: Link
Sakic's game log, 1999 season: Link
Sakic's game log, 2000 season: Link
Last edited: