Joe Sakic's 2001 Season Versus Peter Forsberg's 2003 Season

[GlitchMarner]

Which season was better?

Click to read more...

 

[JackSlater]

Sakic, very comfortably. Barely second to Jagr in points, would have finished first if not for Lemieux's comeback and way ahead of #3 Elias. Second in Selke voting (not that he was actually the second best defensive forward in hockey but he was very good both ways) and second in goals. Even went on to have a Conn Smythe worthy playoff run. Forsberg was also good both ways (fourth in Selke voting similar situation to Sakic) but he barely beat out Naslund for the scoring title and wasn't so far ahead of Thornton in his breakout year or even his linemate Hejduk. Playoffs were good but not great. Sakic won the Pearson, Forsberg didn't. Both players convincingly won the Hart, though Sakic had a bigger margin of victory.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Forsberg outscored Sakic at even-strength 73 (in 75 GP) to 66 (in 82 GP) with the exact same linemates. Good chance the offensive difference can be attributed to Sakic’s 46 to 33 powerplay point edge.

But with 2001 Forsberg contributing 44 powerplay points and 2003 Sakic contributing just 18 powerplay points, Hart-winning Sakic may have been more productive because Forsberg gave him more support in 2001 than Sakic gave Hart-winning Forsberg in 2003.

So it may very well be the case that Sakic had a better season in 2001 than Forsberg did in 2003 because Forsberg had a better season in 2001 than Sakic did in 2003.

By the eye test, Peter Forsberg. Sakic was killing penalties in 2001, so he had more responsibility than Forsberg did in 2003, but the team ranked 19th in penalty-killing in 2001, so it wasn’t a strong point the way it was in the 1990s when the roles were reversed.

 

[bathdog]

If playoffs is included, Sakic easily.

RS alone, quite similar. Think I prefer Forsberg.

Sakic, very comfortably. Barely second to Jagr in points, would have finished first if not for Lemieux's comeback and way ahead of #3 Elias. Second in Selke voting (not that he was actually the second best defensive forward in hockey but he was very good both ways) and second in goals. Even went on to have a Conn Smythe worthy playoff run. Forsberg was also good both ways (fourth in Selke voting similar situation to Sakic) but he barely beat out Naslund for the scoring title and wasn't so far ahead of Thornton in his breakout year or even his linemate Hejduk. Playoffs were good but not great. Sakic won the Pearson, Forsberg didn't. Both players convincingly won the Hart, though Sakic had a bigger margin of victory.

All about opportunities.

Sakic was 5th in total TOI among forwards. (about half a minute less than Jagr)
Forsberg was 71st in total TOI among forwards. (about 183 mins less than Naslund, 178 mins less than Hejduk, and 287 mins less than Thornton)

Sakic was 3rd in total ES TOI among forwards (about 21 mins less than Jagr), and finished 2nd in ES scoring - 12 ES pts behind leading Jagr.
Forsberg was 57th in total ES TOI among forwards (about 84 mins less than Naslund, 128 mins less than Hejduk, 222 mins less than Thornton), and finished 1st in ES scoring - 8 ES pts ahead of Thornton.

The narrative that people try to put out their with 'barely beat' Naslund is obviously true, but only because his opportunity was very limited. Find me one other player that finished top5 in scoring that was outside top50 in TOI.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Some food for thought (as there seems to be a lot of discussion about primary points these days):

Sakic had 93 primary points (goals and primary assists), which is one of the highest totals I've found from the mid nineties onwards (better than Jagr in 1999 as an example, and just behind Ovechkin in 2008). Forsberg had 70 (still an excellent total). Sakic's 12 point lead overall consists of 25 more goals, 2 fewer primary assists, and 11 fewer secondary assists - so not only did Sakic score more, he had a more favourable breakdown in his total.

 

[JackSlater]

If playoffs is included, Sakic easily.

RS alone, quite similar. Think I prefer Forsberg.



All about opportunities.

Sakic was 5th in total TOI among forwards. (about half a minute less than Jagr)
Forsberg was 71st in total TOI among forwards. (about 183 mins less than Naslund, 178 mins less than Hejduk, and 287 mins less than Thornton)

Sakic was 3rd in total ES TOI among forwards (about 21 mins less than Jagr), and finished 2nd in ES scoring - 12 ES pts behind leading Jagr.
Forsberg was 57th in total ES TOI among forwards (about 84 mins less than Naslund, 128 mins less than Hejduk, 222 mins less than Thornton), and finished 1st in ES scoring - 8 ES pts ahead of Thornton.

The narrative that people try to put out their with 'barely beat' Naslund is obviously true, but only because his opportunity was very limited. Find me one other player that finished top5 in scoring that was outside top50 in TOI.

Their seasons can only be judged based on what they did. That Forsberg has less ice time doesn't make his season better. Likewise, Sakic playing every game while Forsberg missed seven is also to Sakic's benefit. What Forsberg could have done with more time might speak to Forsberg as a player but says very little about his season.

 

[bathdog]

Their seasons can only be judged based on what they did. That Forsberg has less ice time doesn't make his season better. Likewise, Sakic playing every game while Forsberg missed seven is also to Sakic's benefit. What Forsberg could have done with more time might speak to Forsberg as a player but says very little about his season.

Agree to some degree, but by the same sentiment, what Jagr would or wouldn't have done is equally irrelevant.

Barely second to Jagr in points, would have finished first if not for Lemieux's comeback and way ahead of #3 Elias.