Forsberg vs Sakic

[Ivan13]

That comparison doesn't hold up so well considering Forsberg had the higher points per game in the regular season and playoffs during the time they played on the same team whereas Malkin is comfortably behind Crosby.

PPG is such a junk stat. It ignores so much of the stuff that it's just rendered useless. For instance, it ignores the fact that it is far easier to maintain higher ppg averages over smaller sample sizes rather than when playing regularly, it also ignores usage, linemates, etc. And if we are into cherry picking stats to help one's narratives, how about the goals per game averages? During their careers with the Avalanche spaning between the two lockouts, Joe played in 114 more games and scored a whopping 111 more goals than Foppa.

As for the comparison between their healthy primes, I have no idea how anyone can give the edge to Forsberg there. We've seen them both at their healthy best in 95/96. Joe had 51 goals and 120 points to go along with 18 goals (2nd highest goal total in the playoffs of all time) and 34 points in the playoffs and Foppa had 30 and 116 with 10 and 21. Furthermore, that wasn't even Joe's best year as he had 54 and 118, come 2nd in Selke, had playoffs with 13 and 26 in 00/01 and that was with a bum shoulder, and without Foppa to take away some attention in the playoffs.

 

[RoyIsALegend]

Starting a franchise: Joe.

Leader: Joe.

Clutch: Close, but Joe.

Defense: Even, Joe was underrated defensively.

Shooting: Joe.

Passing: Foppa.

Physicality: Foppa.

—

Both completely healthy and in their primes?

Foppa.

So damn tough, and Joe had more to his game, but 2002-03 season Foppa is the most dominant Avalanche player I have ever seen in my life. It felt like he controlled the play every single time he was on the ice.

This is so hard. Knowing what I know, I take Sakic for my franchise and never look back, but the question of prime and healthy makes it Foppa for me.

 

[The Abusement Park]

Starting a franchise: Joe.

Leader: Joe.

Clutch: Close, but Joe.

Defense: Even, Joe was underrated defensively.

Shooting: Joe.

Passing: Foppa.

Physicality: Foppa.

—

Both completely healthy and in their primes?

Foppa.

So damn tough, and Joe had more to his game, but 2002-03 season Foppa is the most dominant Avalanche player I have ever seen in my life. It felt like he controlled the play every single time he was on the ice.

This is so hard. Knowing what I know, I take Sakic for my franchise and never look back, but the question of prime and healthy makes it Foppa for me.

Yup. Assuming everything plays out the same you clearly take Sakic 10 times outta 10.

I think over a full season Sakics peaks were probably higher than Foppa’s, but comparing both players at their best in a game by game sense I think Foppa had a slightly higher level of dominance he could get to.

Regardless they were both ridiculously elite players.

 

[ThatAvsGamer]

Voted Sakic without reading the question. I would have voted Forsberg. But there is a good debate for Sakic. Who knows what the out come of that second cup would be if Sakic went down due to injury.

 

[ThunderBird]

When Sakic was going the Avs won cups. When Forsberg was going we lost in the western conference finals. Forsberg was awesome and the most fun player to watch but Sakic could carry the team with very little flash.

 

[Babel Salamander]

If I had to pick footage of one player to keep me entertained while being stuck on a deserted island, I'd take Forsberg no question. If I were to take one player to help me build a Stanley Cup contender, I'd probably take Joe (not a no brainer by any means). Maybe if I could put a magic spell on him so he'd never be injured, I'd take Forsberg. But if magic is on the table, I'd probably do a Sakic-Forsberg cyborg instead.

 

[Bubba Thudd]

If I had to pick footage of one player to keep me entertained while being stuck on a deserted island, I'd take Forsberg no question. If I were to take one player to help me build a Stanley Cup contender, I'd probably take Joe (not a no brainer by any means). Maybe if I could put a magic spell on him so he'd never be injured, I'd take Forsberg. But if magic is on the table, I'd probably do a Sakic-Forsberg cyborg instead.

If magic is on the table, you should use it to get off the island...

 

[Ivan13]

If magic is on the table, you should use it to get off the island...

Savage.

 

[Ben White]

PPG is such a junk stat. It ignores so much of the stuff that it's just rendered useless. For instance, it ignores the fact that it is far easier to maintain higher ppg averages over smaller sample sizes rather than when playing regularly, it also ignores usage, linemates, etc. And if we are into cherry picking stats to help one's narratives, how about the goals per game averages? During their careers with the Avalanche spaning between the two lockouts, Joe played in 114 more games and scored a whopping 111 more goals than Foppa.

As for the comparison between their healthy primes, I have no idea how anyone can give the edge to Forsberg there. We've seen them both at their healthy best in 95/96. Joe had 51 goals and 120 points to go along with 18 goals (2nd highest goal total in the playoffs of all time) and 34 points in the playoffs and Foppa had 30 and 116 with 10 and 21. Furthermore, that wasn't even Joe's best year as he had 54 and 118, come 2nd in Selke, had playoffs with 13 and 26 in 00/01 and that was with a bum shoulder, and without Foppa to take away some attention in the playoffs.

This is one of the biggest lies spread around here. It all depends on why you miss games and the circumstances around it. Much like Lemieux Forsberg produced a higher ppg avarage in seasons he played more games - more healthy, it’s logical. Forsberg tended to play through injuries, played unhealthy and half injured through seasons where he really should’ve rested to heal his wounds. The season by season stats (which I don’t care to list here yet again) supports that Forsberg likely would’ve scored at an even higher rate (ppg) had he stayed healthy and played more games.

Forsberg, being a playmaker, also scored more goals in the playoffs than Sakic. That speaks volumes about his all around talent, he could step up in all areas when needed.

 

[Babel Salamander]

Savage.

That's savage? What is this, kindergarten?

 

[Troubadour]

Forsberg could take over the games like very few players in the history could. Truth be told, whenever he was the better player of the two, the team choked. It always took Sakic at his best to get the silverware.

 

[Duchene2MacKinnon]

Forsberg will win because he was flashier, Joe was the better player though and it wasn't particulary close all things (goal scoring, shot, defensive play, durability, playmaking etc) considered.

Ps

I absolutely love how everyone always says "if he was healthy" for Foppa. Well he wasn't, and the way he played is a huge reason for that, the only way for him to prolong his career would be to change his game which would make him far less efficient. The "at his best" part is also absurd to give to him, when exactlly was he better than Joe was in 95/96 or in 00/01? An absolutely brilliant player, but he was no Joe Sakic, just like Malkin is no Crosby.

The question is who was the better player not who had the better career. Its close but clearly Foppa. But you gotta standby your countrymen.

 

[authentic]

PPG is such a junk stat. It ignores so much of the stuff that it's just rendered useless. For instance, it ignores the fact that it is far easier to maintain higher ppg averages over smaller sample sizes rather than when playing regularly, it also ignores usage, linemates, etc. And if we are into cherry picking stats to help one's narratives, how about the goals per game averages? During their careers with the Avalanche spaning between the two lockouts, Joe played in 114 more games and scored a whopping 111 more goals than Foppa.

As for the comparison between their healthy primes, I have no idea how anyone can give the edge to Forsberg there. We've seen them both at their healthy best in 95/96. Joe had 51 goals and 120 points to go along with 18 goals (2nd highest goal total in the playoffs of all time) and 34 points in the playoffs and Foppa had 30 and 116 with 10 and 21. Furthermore, that wasn't even Joe's best year as he had 54 and 118, come 2nd in Selke, had playoffs with 13 and 26 in 00/01 and that was with a bum shoulder, and without Foppa to take away some attention in the playoffs.

Well yeah, Sakic was the clearly better goal scorer while Forsberg was the clearly better playmaker and possession player. When the sample is 580 games vs. 694 I don't buy the smaller sample stuff one bit. +207 compared to +136, and they each had their share of time against the opponents checking and scoring lines, killing penalties and not, and with the teams best offensive wingers.

Player Season Finder | Hockey-Reference.com

Player Season Finder | Hockey-Reference.com

Trend continued in the playoffs, and it backs up the eye test for the majority of observers.

 

[Ivan13]

18 goals more >>>>> 0.05ppg. That's literally 4 points over the course of the season. Absurd to hang your hat on that.

I won't even go into the garbage stat that is +/-.

 

[authentic]

This is one of the biggest lies spread around here. It all depends on why you miss games and the circumstances around it. Much like Lemieux Forsberg produced a higher ppg avarage in seasons he played more games - more healthy, it’s logical. Forsberg tended to play through injuries, played unhealthy and half injured through seasons where he really should’ve rested to heal his wounds. The season by season stats (which I don’t care to list here yet again) supports that Forsberg likely would’ve scored at an even higher rate (ppg) had he stayed healthy and played more games.

Forsberg, being a playmaker, also scored more goals in the playoffs than Sakic. That speaks volumes about his all around talent, he could step up in all areas when needed.

I liked your post for the first paragraph, but the bolded is false.

 

[authentic]

18 goals more >>>>> 0.05ppg. That's literally 4 points over the course of the season. Absurd to hang your hat on that.

I won't even go into the garbage stat that is +/-.

Of course you won't because in this case it backs up who the more dominant ES player was. This isn't about hanging a hat on anything it's demonstrating that there's legitimate arguments as to why people feel Forsberg was a bit better.

 

[Iceberg]

Forsberg.

Teams always used their top pairings against his line, regardless of linemates. He was the main focus for other teams in the playoffs, not Sakic. That is all you need to know.

 

[famicommander]

Forsberg had more physical talent and athleticism but Sakic was the whole package. Sakic's hockey IQ, leadership, and clutch play stand up to anybody's in the history of the game.

I'd rather try to defend Sakic than Forsberg straight up but I still feel like Sakic would hurt you more in the aggregate.

 

[Foppa2118]

PPG is such a junk stat. It ignores so much of the stuff that it's just rendered useless. For instance, it ignores the fact that it is far easier to maintain higher ppg averages over smaller sample sizes rather than when playing regularly, it also ignores usage, linemates, etc. And if we are into cherry picking stats to help one's narratives, how about the goals per game averages? During their careers with the Avalanche spaning between the two lockouts, Joe played in 114 more games and scored a whopping 111 more goals than Foppa.

As for the comparison between their healthy primes, I have no idea how anyone can give the edge to Forsberg there. We've seen them both at their healthy best in 95/96. Joe had 51 goals and 120 points to go along with 18 goals (2nd highest goal total in the playoffs of all time) and 34 points in the playoffs and Foppa had 30 and 116 with 10 and 21. Furthermore, that wasn't even Joe's best year as he had 54 and 118, come 2nd in Selke, had playoffs with 13 and 26 in 00/01 and that was with a bum shoulder, and without Foppa to take away some attention in the playoffs.

The problem with this though is that the bolded isn't an accurate statement. Forsberg had a grand total of 47 NHL games under his belt in 95/96. He wasn't in his prime, and this was before the low scoring trap era set in, which is where I think Forsberg really hit his prime.

Forsberg had great moments of brilliance in the pre trap era, but I think he was at his most dominant in the 98/99 to 02/03 years.

This is the period where Forsberg was better IMO. Especially in the playoffs, which is really where his reputation skyrocketed. It was when he twice led the playoffs in scoring (99 and 02) despite not playing in the finals. That's very rare.

It includes the 2002 playoff run where he missed the entire regular season, and played his first game of the year in game 1 of the playoffs. Turned the SJ series around (down 3-2 in the series) by scoring the OT winner in game 6 and the lone 1-0 goal in game 7. Leading all players with 27 points in 20 playoff games despite not playing in the finals. Four more points than the 2nd place guy in Yzerman.

Or his dominant 01 playoffs where they never would have got past LA if not for him, on their way to the Cup.

Sakic Regular Season 99-03
355 games - 432 points - 1.22 pts/gm

Forsberg Regular Season 99-03
275 games - 343 points - 1.25 pts/gm

Sakic Playoffs 99-03
85 games - 82 points - 0.96 pts/gm

Forsberg Playoffs 99-03
73 games - 88 points - 1.21 pts/gm

Points per game isn't a totally accurate way of comparing players, but as far as stats go, it's one of the better ones. The usage and linemate issue don't favor Forsberg or Sakic one way or another. They were both used similarly, on the same PP unit, on the same team, had good linemates, and good numbers.

 

[Frobbo]

Forsberg could get you out of your seat much more than Sakic. He was just plain amazing. How sad that the ankle issues curtailed his career. One would think it would be a blown shoulder or knee given the physical nature of his play. I also can't help but think about the Lindros trade when I think about him too. I am hoping that the Duchene trade ends up being comparable for the franchise.

 

[AvsWraith]

When Sakic was going the Avs won cups. When Forsberg was going we lost in the western conference finals. Forsberg was awesome and the most fun player to watch but Sakic could carry the team with very little flash.

Huh? You realize that we don't beat the Kings in 2001 without Forsberg, right? So, even though Sakic showed up big against the Devils, it never would've happened without #21.

Also, he almost beat the Wings in 2002 by himself. Not to mention, he led the playoffs in scoring twice despite not getting to the finals, which I still find amazing considering some of the names on that Wings team.

 

[LTC Pain]

All around game? Foppa hands down. I doubt the Avalanche ever see a 1/2 combination down the middle like those two again.

 

[Rumplesnipeskin]

Fopppaaa

 

[ciderfylla]

Forsberg easily. Most talented player I've ever seen.

 

[bathdog]

Forsberg will win because he was flashier, Joe was the better player though and it wasn't particulary close all things (goal scoring, shot, defensive play, durability, playmaking etc) considered.

Ps

I absolutely love how everyone always says "if he was healthy" for Foppa. Well he wasn't, and the way he played is a huge reason for that, the only way for him to prolong his career would be to change his game which would make him far less efficient. The "at his best" part is also absurd to give to him, when exactlly was he better than Joe was in 95/96 or in 00/01? An absolutely brilliant player, but he was no Joe Sakic, just like Malkin is no Crosby.

PPG is such a junk stat. It ignores so much of the stuff that it's just rendered useless. For instance, it ignores the fact that it is far easier to maintain higher ppg averages over smaller sample sizes rather than when playing regularly, it also ignores usage, linemates, etc. And if we are into cherry picking stats to help one's narratives, how about the goals per game averages? During their careers with the Avalanche spaning between the two lockouts, Joe played in 114 more games and scored a whopping 111 more goals than Foppa.

As for the comparison between their healthy primes, I have no idea how anyone can give the edge to Forsberg there. We've seen them both at their healthy best in 95/96. Joe had 51 goals and 120 points to go along with 18 goals (2nd highest goal total in the playoffs of all time) and 34 points in the playoffs and Foppa had 30 and 116 with 10 and 21. Furthermore, that wasn't even Joe's best year as he had 54 and 118, come 2nd in Selke, had playoffs with 13 and 26 in 00/01 and that was with a bum shoulder, and without Foppa to take away some attention in the playoffs.

18 goals more >>>>> 0.05ppg. That's literally 4 points over the course of the season. Absurd to hang your hat on that.

I won't even go into the garbage stat that is +/-.

So much trying, so little substance. I see the decease has now spread to a subsection where literally everyone should be in awe of both these players, yet someone always have to discredit Forsberg rather than just arguing for the other player's (Sakic in this case, who happen to have a legitimate case) strengths.