Joe Sakic's best season

[IggyFan12]

My question for you is what year was Sakic's best year? Was it 96 or 01?? Below are the stats for each year:

1996 Regular Season:

82 GP 51G 69A 120P +14

96 Playoffs:

22GP-18G 16A 34P +10

Combined:
104GP-69G-85A-154P +24

This is the first year Sakic established him self as a primier player winning the Con Smyth and his First Stanley Cup. This is also Sakic's best playoff run ever scoring the 2nd most goals all time in 1 playoff with 18. Sakic also finished 3rd in scoring in the whole NHL behind Penguins Lemiux and Jagr and just ahead of another Penguin Francis.

2001:

Regular Season:
82GP 54G 64A 118P +45

Playoffs:
21GP 13G 13A 26P +6

Combined:
103GP-67G-77A-144P +51

This is Sakic's first and only Hart and Pearson award of his career. Sakic finished 2nd in scoring in the NHL only behind Jagr, but most likely would of won the Art Ross had Mario not un-retired. Sakic had a very good playoff again especially his game 7 performance against the Devils. Sakic also won the Lady Byng award this year.

For me I would have to say 1996 was his best year. He didn't win the Hart trophy that year but his playoffs was one of the greatest ever. He also shed his label as playoff underachiever.

Thoughts?

Click to read more...

 

[norrisnick]

'01 and quite easily. '96 was inflated stat-wise. Last big hoorah for offense before the deadpuck era.

 

[tony d]

His 2000-2001 season

 

[Padan]

You can't just look at the statistics, since Sakic was a better two-way player (by quite a bit) in 2001 compared to 1996.

 

[seventieslord]

Absolutely 2001. Significantly better regular season, and 90% as good in the playoffs. 2001, easily.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

Oh yeah 2001 no doubt about it.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

in '01 there is a legitimate argument that sakic was, briefly, the best hockey player in the world. not so in '96.

 

[IggyFan12]

in '01 there is a legitimate argument that sakic was, briefly, the best hockey player in the world. not so in '96.

I personally dont think there was much debate and his 2002 Olympic MVP performance (Where he became the only non-goalie to win the award with NHL participation) solidified that.

I agree with alot of the posters here in that 2001 was truly an epic season but here is my only argument for his 1996 season being his best: He finished with 18 goals in the playoffs the 2nd most ALL-TIME! Thats more than any one playoff by the likes of:Gretzky, Messier, Mario, Yzerman, and Howe.

On a side note if the Penguins made the 1996 Stanley Cup finals it would of featured the top 5 point produces in the regular season!! (Just an interesting side note I wanted to share)

 

[Passchendaele]

Hard to say. He was a beast in the 1996 playoffs.

 

[EpochLink]

2000-2001 season.

Sakic was the man that season.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Sakic was great in both seasons, but something about him in 1996 stood out more to me, maybe the fact that he received that monstrous contract offer from the New York Rangers. I think the 1996 Avs were also a weaker squad compared to the 2001 team. The 2001 squad was loaded with talent top to bottom.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Sakic was great in both seasons, but something about him in 1996 stood out more to me, maybe the fact that he received that monstrous contract offer from the New York Rangers. I think the 1996 Avs were also a weaker squad compared to the 2001 team. The 2001 squad was loaded with talent top to bottom.

wasn't the big UFA offer the summer of 1997?

 

[KingGallagherXI]

Counting the playoffs, definitely 1996.

Season only, 2000-2001.

 

[Hardyvan123]

'01 and quite easily. '96 was inflated stat-wise. Last big hoorah for offense before the deadpuck era.

Fully agree and the hart trumps the Conn Smythe slightly IMO.

 

[Big Phil]

Have to go with 2001. It is not a bad poll, but if you witnessed both years you have to go with 2001. For example, he not only wins the Hart in 2001 but finishes 2nd in Selke voting. Then he wins the Cup again and leads the playoffs in points again with 26. I'll agree he had a better playoff in 1996 but he was still very good in 2001. In fact, I've personally said on here before that I think he wouldn't have been a bad choice for the Conn Smythe in 2001 over Roy.

Maybe part of me looks at Sakic in 1996 and just doesn't see him as quite as seasoned as he was in 2001. Plus he was the best player in the world that year.