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

[Felidae]

I think it's fair to say these are the 3 best seasons in avalanche history (excluding Quebec) certainly for forwards.

Did Mackinnon do enough this year to surpass Joe Sakic and Peter Forsberg's peak seasons?

Here is how they compare..

Mackinnon
- 2nd in points, 42 more points than 10th best, 52 more points than 20th best

-2nd in PPG

-4th in goals, 7 more goals than 10th, 14 more than 20th place.

-4th in GPG

1st in EV points, 28 more than 10th best, 37 more than 20th

- likely Hart and Pearson finalist

- 7th in +/- leaguewide

-leads team in +/-, 7 more than 2nd on team

-40 points more than 2nd best on team



Joe Sakic

-2nd in points, 29 more than 10th place, 38 more than 20th

-3rd in PPG

-2nd in goals, 14 more than 10th best, 19 more than 20th

-3rd in GPG

-2nd in selke voting, 40.16% of vote, 1st place with 43%

- won hart and Pearson.

-2nd in EV points, 10 more than 10th best, 16 more than 20th

-Led league in +/-, +10 more than 2nd best on team

-29 more points than 2nd best on team

-14 more goals than 2nd best on team


Peter Forsberg. (75 GP)

-1st in points, 21 more than 10th best, 29 more than 20th

-1st in PPG, 24 more than 10th best, 34 more than 20th (projected 82 games)

-1st in EV points, 21 more than 10th, 26 more than 20th

4th in selke voting

- won the hart trophy

-1st in +/- leaguewide (tied with teammate)

Click to read more...

 

[Sky04]

Sakic > Mackinnon > Forsberg

 

[Albatros]

Forsberg and Sakic were clearly better defensively, plus Forsberg led the league in offensive production as well.

 

[Jixer19]

2000/2001 Sakic was something else, nothing against the other 2 players seasons but Sakic is top. Then depending on the day, I could say Forsberg second and/or MacKinnon second

 

[SillyRabbit]

Forsberg and Sakic were clearly better defensively, plus Forsberg led the league in offensive production as well.

This.

Forsberg outscored everyone in the league. He was the most productive offensive player.

MacKinnon is not the most productive offensive player this season.

 

[ijuka]

Forsberg easily the best. Not even close.

 

[bambamcam4ever]

Forsberg, then the next two are close. Probably MacKinnon by a slim margin if we're only considering the regular strain

 

[Regal]

This.

Forsberg outscored everyone in the league. He was the most productive offensive player.

MacKinnon is not the most productive offensive player this season.

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

 

[Felidae]

This.

Forsberg outscored everyone in the league. He was the most productive offensive player.

MacKinnon is not the most productive offensive player this season.

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.

 

[Ben White]

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.

I’ll agree with this. Even though I generally think Forsberg’s offensive talent is underrated. Sakic is clearly third in this regard. I’d say Forsberg at his peak was the most dominant over all of the three.

 

[Plastic Joseph]

MacKinnon:

Pts rank - 2nd (4 pts back of leader)
Goals rank - 4th (18 behind leader)
Assists rank - 3rd (11 behind leader)


Sakic:

Pts rank - 2nd (3 behind leader)
Goals rank - 2nd ( 5 behind leader)
Assists rank - 5 (5 behind leader)


Forsberg:

Pts rank - 1st (2 pts ahead of 2nd place)
Goals rank - 31 (21 behind leader)
Assists rank -1 (12 ahead of 2nd place)






Its actually quite close statistically. Forsberg is the only one to lead the NHL in pts, but he is also the only one who was not top 5 in all 3 categories. MacKinnon is top 4 in all categories, but has a larger gap in the goals department to the leader by quite a bit and was also the furthest from winning the AR. Sakic is probably the most well rounded, top 5 in all three categories and no more than 5 back of the leader for each.

It depends how you view a few things - how important is goal-scoring, and how tough was the competition at the top? MacKinnon was 18 goals back of Matthews for example, but the league did not have a goal-scorer like Matthews in either of the other seasons. Honestly I could see arguments for all 3.

 

[Felidae]

I’ll agree with this. Even though I generally think Forsberg’s offensive talent is underrated. Sakic is clearly third in this regard. I’d say Forsberg at his peak was the most dominant over all of the three.

I disagree Sakic is the clear 3rd. He's the best goalscorer here. Sakic scored 54 goals vs 52 (mackinnon) in a much lower scoring environment.

And arguably the best from a purely defensive standpoint as well.

I think there's a solid argument to rank these 3 in any order.

Edit:
There's also something to be said about a player coming so close to winning every award a forward could win. 2nd in goals, 2nd in selke, 2nd in points, MVP and Pearson.. The only other player to have almost accomplished that is Fedorov, who is regarded as one of the best two way players of all time.

 

[bobholly39]

Option 1:

MacKinnon > Sakic > Forsberg

Caveat being - let's give it a couple of years to see how well MacKinnon's season holds up. The 140 points is incredibly impressive, but if in the coming 2-3 years a bunhc more players start scoring 140+ points, maybe it stands out a bit less. But I doubt it

I’ll agree with this. Even though I generally think Forsberg’s offensive talent is underrated. Sakic is clearly third in this regard. I’d say Forsberg at his peak was the most dominant over all of the three.

I think I agree with the bolded - but it doesn't mean his peak season is that strong. Forsberg is a bit like Crosby (but worst), injuries deprived him of putting forth a true perfect storm peak season.

I think Forsberg's strengths is that he played at this level for many years and playoffs (and many partial years), as opposed to the one season standing out that much.

So if you look at each season alone - to me Forsberg is very clearly #3 here.

 

[TruePowerSlave]

Foppa at his peak was the greatest player in Avs history

 

[jigglysquishy]

Season on season, Forsberg is in a tier of his own as the worst. It was the season he played the games, but it wasn't him at his best. 01 and 03 were very similar scoring environments, but Sakic just plain had a more dominant season.

MacKinnon 24 is close, but I still lean Sakic 01. The combination of offense and defence is impressive

 

[Snippit]

140 is bigger than 118

 

[GlitchMarner]

Forsberg is the only Art Ross winner, but he also had the worst scoring race competition.

Sakic didn't finish far behind Jagr and had a wide gap over the rest of the field.

MacKinnon lost the Art Ross to Kucherov but outscored McDavid (though he scored slightly lower per game) and had very impressive 20 and 30 point gaps over the fourth (Panarin) and fifth (Pastrnak) scorers respectively and these guys played all 82 games.

I think offensively MacKinnon is the best (but not because of OMG 140 POINTS!). Sakic did have better goal scoring, so that makes it closer between those two. Forsberg wasn't a factor at all in the goals race.

Offensively: MacKinnon > Sakic > Forsberg.

Everything outside of offense: Forsberg > Sakic > MacKinnon

 

[Hockey Outsider]

If we compare Sakic and Forsberg's Hart-winning seasons, Sakic was probably better defensively. Forsberg was a two-way force earlier in his career, but by 2003, plagued by injuries, he had to play more conservatively.

At even strength, Sakic had a GAA of 2.17, and Forsberg had a GAA of 2.31. These comparisons can be tricky, but we're comparing two players on the same team, just two seasons apart. Sakic had the advantage of still having Bourque on his team; but Forsberg had the advantage of playing in front of better goaltending (Roy posted 92.0% vs 91.3% in 2003 vs 2001; and backup David Aebischer was also better in 2003).

What tips the scales for me is, by 2003, Forsberg got essentially no penalty killing duties. (He averaged 12 seconds per game). Sakic played 165 minutes on the penalty kill (#2 among forwards on Colorado). This is consistent with the Selke trophy voting results (Sakic in 2001 finished higher than Forsberg did in 2003).

I think Sakic definitely had a better peak regular season than Forsberg. Two years apart, Sakic was pretty clearly better offensively, they were roughly even at ES defense, and Sakic was a big contributor to the penalty kill. (And, if playoffs are taken into account, that makes this comparison more one-sided).

(I haven't voted as I still need time to consider MacKinnon's 2024 campaign more carefully).

 

[WalterLundy]

01 Sakic:
82 GP: 59 G, 67 A, 126 P (1.54)

03 Forsberg:
75 GP: 34 G, 89 A, 123 P (1.64)

24 MacKinnon:
82 GP: 51 G, 89 A, 140 P (1.71)

How their seasons are in 2023-24 levels (2.36 EVG, 0.63 PPG, 0.09 SHG)

More to consider than just this but this helps even out the environment and compare easier.

 

[Voight]

2000/2001 Sakic was something else, nothing against the other 2 players seasons but Sakic is top. Then depending on the day, I could say Forsberg second and/or MacKinnon second

Came within a hair of winning the Selke, not to mention 5 goals short of the Richard and 3 points shy of the Art Ross. Still one of the best overall seasons in the moderne ra IMO.

 

[KirkAlbuquerque]

MacKinnons season is the best

 

[Albatros]

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

He also outscored Mario Lemieux among others, it's not like he only went against Näslund or there were no good players in the league in '03.

 

[Regal]

He also outscored Mario Lemieux among others, it's not like he only went against Näslund or there were no good players in the league in '03.

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.

 

[Felidae]

He also outscored Mario Lemieux among others, it's not like he only went against Näslund or there were no good players in the league in '03.

Lemieux missed even more games than Forsberg.

Also, this a 36 year old Lemieux we're talking about. Very much still an art Ross contender but not the unbeatable monster he was in his prime. I'd still say prime Kucherov and McDavid are stronger competition, even though it's not a landslide (says a lot about lemieux)

 

[Albatros]

Lemieux missed even more games than Forsberg.

Also, this a 36 year old Lemieux we're talking about. Very much still an art Ross contender but not the unbeatable monster he was in his prime. I'd still say prime Kucherov and McDavid are stronger competition, even though it's not a landslide (says a lot about lemieux)

Sure, but Forsberg beat him and everyone else also in points per game. That was the first time since losing to Gretzky in 1988 that Lemieux played more than 26 games and didn't lead the league in ppg.

Players like Alfredsson, Bertuzzi, Datsyuk, Demitra, Eliáš, Heatley, Hejduk, Hossa, Iginla, Jágr, Kariya, Koivu, Kovalev, Lecavalier, Lindros, Marleau, Nolan, Näslund, Pálffy, Richards, Savard, the Sedins, St. Louis, Tkachuk, Thornton, Yashin, Zetterberg etc. were between 22 and 30 at the time.

One can always debate about what is stronger, but I wouldn't say that the NHL as of 2003 was somehow particularly devoid of prime star power.