Nathan Mackinnon 2023-24 vs Joe Sakic 2000-01 vs Peter Forsberg 2002-03

[Albatros]

That might be an argument if MacKinnon finished well back but he lost by 4 points. Lemieux was 37 and dominated the field until he fell off and missed time. Yea there were good players, but the Naslund, Thornton, Bertuzzi’s of the world at the time weren’t going to outscore Kucherov this year either. Or MacKinnon. Or McDavid. This was a special year for top end competition and 2003 was largely the opposite. The reality is that MacKinnon’s current season would win the Art Ross in numerous years, including 2003, and that’s evident whether we adjust numbers to league average of compare to any competition outside of the top 3.

I’m a big Forsberg fan, but his Art Ross wasn’t particularly strong in terms of overall scoring. If he had played all 82 games it would look better, and if he played bigger minutes it probably would have looked even better, but just because he won the Art Ross and MacKinnon didn’t doesn’t make it a better offensive season.

The game has changed considerably since 2003, the likes of Paul Kariya would do much better in the current environment. Of course it's not the power forwards that would dominate even in 2003 if they played the game as it is played now. Conversely some current players would have no hope of great success in 2003 for the same reason. Which style is better is merely a matter of preference.

 

[dirtydanglez]

mack>foppa>sakic

 

[blundluntman]

For me, it's: Sakic>Mackinnon>Forsberg.

Sakic for me is the best out of these 3 because he finished with 118 points (22 points ahead of 3rd place) and simultaneously finished 2nd in selke voting during a lower scoring era than Mack. Imo this season is up there with Fedorov's Hart in 94; the competition in 01 isn't quite as high when you compare the top 10 leading scorers from both seasons, but the margin of separation is still pretty ridiculous between Sakic and the rest of the top 10 and he's pretty much scoring just as much as Fedorov that season in a lower scoring era. This is the greatest regular season campaign in franchise history as far as I'm concerned.

While Mackinnon isn't a stellar two way player, I think this season is probably the highest offensive peak out of the 3, albeit, probably not that much better than Sakic's. I could probably switch between him and Forsberg but if I had to pick today, I'd go with Mackinnon in 2nd.

Forsberg in 03 is phenomenal also, but like @Hockey Outsider stated earlier, his all around game wasn't as potent at this point in his career as it was earlier so I can't put it above Sakic's and I don't think it's decisively better than Mackinnon's. Naslund isn't quite the competition that Kucherov is (He did go up against Thornton who was coming into his own though, but Thornton in his prime isn't on Kucherov's level at their peaks IMO).

 

[Regal]

The game has changed considerably since 2003, the likes of Paul Kariya would do much better in the current environment. Of course it's not the power forwards that would dominate even in 2003 if they played the game as it is played now. Conversely some current players would have no hope of great success in 2003 for the same reason. Which style is better is merely a matter of preference.

Ok. I don’t see how that’s relevant to the point. The idea is that Art Rosses aren’t all created equal and finishing second one year can be better than finishing first in another. Relative to the league, MacKinnon’s production was better. The conclusion to this is that Kucherov was stronger competition. It has nothing to do with putting players in different environments

 

[amnesiac]

GPG AVG

23-24: 6.22
02-03: 5.30
00-01: 5.52

Adjusted G and P

MacKinnon
51G 140P in 82GP

Sakic
54G 118P (00-01) = 61G 133P (23-24) in 82GP

Forsberg
29G 106P (02-03) = 34G 124P (23-24) in 75GP

 

[wetcoast]

‘03 Naslund isn’t the same level of competition as ‘24 Kucherov though.

Sure but Foppa really dominated 5 on 5 that year and Sakic was out for 24 games.

Even with missing 7 games Foppa led the elague in ESP by 8 points.

NHL Stats

The official source for NHL Stats including skaters, goalies, teams stats and more.

www.nhl.com

 

[authentic]

but Mackinnon's competition for the Art Ross is much tougher even accounting for scoring environment. Kucherov dominance over the competition is roughly equivalent to 1995-96 Jagr, and even 1998-99. Neither Sakic or Forsberg's seasons are at that level offensively.

Mackinnon is clearly the most offensively talented player here. It's just a matter of whether it's enough to compensate for Sakic's defensive game and Forsberg's physicality/defense.

Is he really though? Forsberg was the 2nd best offensive producer behind Jagr in the regular season and playoffs from 1995-2005, and he was a fair bit better than MacKinnon defensively

Sure but Foppa really dominated 5 on 5 that year and Sakic was out for 24 games.

Even with missing 7 games Foppa led the elague in ESP by 8 points.

NHL Stats

The official source for NHL Stats including skaters, goalies, teams stats and more.

www.nhl.com

Also did it with less time on ice than most other top players

 

[Regal]

Sure but Foppa really dominated 5 on 5 that year and Sakic was out for 24 games.

Even with missing 7 games Foppa led the elague in ESP by 8 points.

NHL Stats

The official source for NHL Stats including skaters, goalies, teams stats and more.

www.nhl.com

There’s definitely other factors to consider, including Forsberg’s low ice time. Just saying, focusing on finishing 1st vs 2nd in league scoring isn’t a very strong metric given competition differences.

 

[Regal]

Is he really though? Forsberg was the 2nd best offensive producer behind Jagr in the regular season and playoffs from 1995-2005, and he was a fair bit better than MacKinnon defensively



Also did it with less time on ice than most other top players

Overall, maybe not, though MacKinnon’s PPG relative to the league since 17-18 is very similar to Forsberg’s over that time period. I think in the individual seasons though, in terms of total production relative to the league, it was the best of these three by a small margin. Though Forsberg’s minutes played is an interesting factor, as is Sakic’s goalscoring.

 

[Video Nasty]

Minor correction, MacKinnon was 3rd in PPG this season.

 

[wetcoast]

There’s definitely other factors to consider, including Forsberg’s low ice time. Just saying, focusing on finishing 1st vs 2nd in league scoring isn’t a very strong metric given competition differences.

No you are right but Foppa really tilted the ice At ES that year and we know he was a 200 foot monster but deciding which season to take probably comes more down to personal preference than anything else.

 

[Zandar]

Foppa at his peak was the greatest player in Avs history

Sometimes an assist is more beautiful than a goal…

 

[John Mandalorian]

The previous record (if you include the Nordiques) of 139 was set in an environment where Bossy had over 150 points and Dennis Maruk had 136 points.

MacKinnon’s 140 is following a season where he had 111 in 71 games. You could legitimately throw that season into the mix as well. Weird how there was once a time where people would carry on about the 100 pts.

Avs fans are lucky to have these three guys on their Mt Rushmore.

 

[Albatros]

The previous record (if you include the Nordiques) of 139 was set in an environment where Bossy had over 150 points

Bossy never scored 150.

 

[John Mandalorian]

Bossy never scored 150.

147. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[norrisnick]

Is he really though? Forsberg was the 2nd best offensive producer behind Jagr in the regular season and playoffs from 1995-2005, and he was a fair bit better than MacKinnon defensively

Amusingly enough the 2nd best offensive producer behind Jagr for that time period was Sakic, not Forsberg.

 

[authentic]

Amusingly enough the 2nd best offensive producer behind Jagr for that time period was Sakic, not Forsberg.

On a per game basis it was Forsberg

 

[norrisnick]

On a per game basis it was Forsberg

There is producing and there is not producing. History cares little of potential production that never happened.

 

[authentic]

There is producing and there is not producing. History cares little of potential production that never happened.