Peter Forsberg vs Joe Sakic

[Ben White]

Who was the better player?


Stats and legacy:

Peter Forsberg

Regular season.
708 GP, 249 G, 636 A, 885 P 1,25 ppg (Ranks: 8th all time, 4th adjusted)

Awards:
Hart
Art Ross
Calder
Plus minus Award
3 First all star team selections

Playoffs.
151 GP, 64 G, 107 A, 171 P 1,132 ppg (Ranks: 9th all time, 4th adjusted)

Awards:
(Unofficial) 2 Stanley cup scoring titles (only one to win it without reaching the finals).

Records:
-Forsberg set an all time tournament record at the 1993 World Junior Championships with 31 points in only seven games. Also, he ranks first in career points among tournament scorers with 42 points (10 goals and 32 assists).
-With his second Olympic Gold in 2006, he became the third player in history to have enough titles to be a member of the Triple Gold Club twice (the others being Viacheslav Fetisov and Igor Larionov).
As of 2016-10-01, Forsberg stands eighth in NHL all-time points-per-game, with 1.25 points-per-game in his career.
-He is ranked fourth all-time in NHL career assists-per-game with 0.898, behind only Wayne Gretzky, Mario Lemieux and Bobby Orr.
-He ranks 12th all time in playoff game winners


Joe Sakic

Regular season.
1378 GP, 625 G, 1016 A, 1641 P 1,191 ppg (Ranks: 12th all time, 10th adjusted)

Awards:
Hart
Lester B.
Lady Byng
Plus minus Award
3 First all star team selections

Playoffs.
172 GP, 84 G, 104 A, 188 P 1,093 ppg (Ranks: 14th all time)

Awards:
Conn Smythe
(Unofficial) 2 Stanley cup scoring titles

Records:
In his 20-year career with the Nordiques and Avalanche, Sakic has obtained nearly all of the franchise scoring records, including most all-time goals (625), assists (1,016) and points (1,641). He also holds the franchise record for most games played (1,363) and is on several notable NHL records which are most All-Star game assists (16) and most playoff overtime goals (8).
Sakic is also the only player ever to score 100 points in a season for a team that finishes dead last in the NHL regular season standings, accomplishing this feat in 1989-90 with Quebec Nordiques.

Click to read more...

 

[bobholly39]

Sakic.

I'm sure you could try to argue that Forsberg peaked higher but - even then - Sakic's peak is pretty incredible. His 96 playoffs has an argument for one of the greatest all time, and his 2001 season was pretty spectacular too. So it's not exactly like he's lacking in that regards.

Sakic was also a model of consistency and longevity.

 

[Ben White]

Sakic.

I'm sure you could try to argue that Forsberg peaked higher but - even then - Sakic's peak is pretty incredible. His 96 playoffs has an argument for one of the greatest all time, and his 2001 season was pretty spectacular too. So it's not exactly like he's lacking in that regards.

Sakic was also a model of consistency and longevity.

To me it's just a little strange that a player who had 16 seasons playing 60+ games couldn't manage to collect more hardware (and not a single Art Ross) nor more all star team selections his entire career than a guy who played 6 seasons with more than 60 games, and still be the better player. That bothers me a bit...

I mean, I think we all realize what kind of legacy Forsberg would've built with that many chances. Why fool ourselves? Again, this is not the "what if game", it's basically "what was". It's a fact that Forsberg accomplished more or less the same as Sakic with only 1/3 of the chances Sakic had. The question is "Who was the better player" not "Who was helthier or more durable".

 

[Regal]

When they played together from 94-95 to 03-04, Forsberg was the slightly better player. Not every year but on the whole. Sakic was close enough though that given his longevity and health over his career he's seen as the better player in an all time sense

 

[KoozNetsOff 92]

Forsberg was better at peak but Sakic has a way bigger advantage in length of prime and longevity. Obviously Forsberg's hurt in those areas because of injuries, but that's too bad.

 

[Ben White]

When they played together from 94-95 to 03-04, Forsberg was the slightly better player. Not every year but on the whole. Sakic was close enough though that given his longevity and health over his career he's seen as the better player in an all time sense

It's exactly this. How is this possible? I really recommend two separate definitions for "better" and "greater" because this really doesn't make any sense.

This kind of arguments just screams Orwell's "1984" to me. People are buying into a logic which is anything but logical.

I mean you can say that Sakic was a "more valuable" player from a career perspective since he played longer and was helthier. But you can't say that Forsberg was better at playing hockey and then say he wasn't better at playing hockey because Sakic played more hockey. There are occasions when a player only has one (or even two) peak seasons but there's a reason to believe it wasn't representative for his level as a hockey player, or the sample size is too small to base your opinion on. That is, as you wrote yourself, however not the case when it comes to Peter Forsberg.

 

[authentic]

When they played together from 94-95 to 03-04, Forsberg was the slightly better player. Not every year but on the whole. Sakic was close enough though that given his longevity and health over his career he's seen as the better player in an all time sense

Which really says something considering Forsberg missed an entire season. I think Sakic tends to be underrated himself a lot on here but he was not better than Forsberg, he was extremely close though.

 

[Ben White]

Why do I get the feeling that right after their careers almost nobody believed that Sakic was the better player. I remember that I reacted when I read an article around that time: "Joe Sakic, who some say was better than Forsberg", and I thought: "What? Never heard this before. What an odd opinion to have.".

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Who was the better player?


Stats and legacy:

Peter Forsberg

Regular season.
708 GP, 249 G, 636 A, 885 P 1,25 ppg (Ranks: 8th all time, 4th adjusted)

Awards:
Hart
Art Ross
Calder
Plus minus Award
3 First all star team selections

Playoffs.
151 GP, 64 G, 107 A, 171 P 1,132 ppg (Ranks: 9th all time, 4th adjusted)

Awards:
(Unofficial) 2 Stanley cup scoring titles (only one to win it without reaching the finals).

Records:
-Forsberg set an all time tournament record at the 1993 World Junior Championships with 31 points in only seven games. Also, he ranks first in career points among tournament scorers with 42 points (10 goals and 32 assists).
-With his second Olympic Gold in 2006, he became the third player in history to have enough titles to be a member of the Triple Gold Club twice (the others being Viacheslav Fetisov and Igor Larionov).
As of 2016-10-01, Forsberg stands eighth in NHL all-time points-per-game, with 1.25 points-per-game in his career.
-He is ranked fourth all-time in NHL career assists-per-game with 0.898, behind only Wayne Gretzky, Mario Lemieux and Bobby Orr.
-He ranks 12th all time in playoff game winners


Joe Sakic

Regular season.
1378 GP, 625 G, 1016 A, 1641 P 1,191 ppg (Ranks: 12th all time, 10th adjusted)

Awards:
Hart
Lester B.
Lady Byng
Plus minus Award
3 First all star team selections

Playoffs.
172 GP, 84 G, 104 A, 188 P 1,093 ppg (Ranks: 14th all time)

Awards:
Conn Smythe
(Unofficial) 2 Stanley cup scoring titles

Records:
In his 20-year career with the Nordiques and Avalanche, Sakic has obtained nearly all of the franchise scoring records, including most all-time goals (625), assists (1,016) and points (1,641). He also holds the franchise record for most games played (1,363) and is on several notable NHL records which are most All-Star game assists (16) and most playoff overtime goals (8).
Sakic is also the only player ever to score 100 points in a season for a team that finishes dead last in the NHL regular season standings, accomplishing this feat in 1989-90 with Quebec Nordiques.

Forsberg was the better player.
Sakic had the better career.

That's how I see it.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

To me it's just a little strange that a player who had 16 seasons playing 60+ games couldn't manage to collect more hardware (and not a single Art Ross) nor more all star team selections his entire career than a guy who played 6 seasons with more than 60 games, and still be the better player. That bothers me a bit...

Regarding the Art Ross - during Sakic's best offensive season (2001), Jagr was in his prime, and played half the year with Lemieux. During Forsberg's best offensive season (2003), Jagr was off sulking in Washington and playing far below expectations.

That's not to discredit Forsberg. The Art Ross is a statistical award and, by definition, the winner deserves it. But Jagr's fluctuating level of play is why Forsberg has an Art Ross, and Sakic doesn't, despite Sakic having the (slightly) better peak offensive season.

 

[Tkachuk Norris]

Sakic.

 

[Ben White]

Regarding the Art Ross - during Sakic's best offensive season (2001), Jagr was in his prime, and played half the year with Lemieux. During Forsberg's best offensive season (2003), Jagr was off sulking in Washington and playing far below expectations.

That's not to discredit Forsberg. The Art Ross is a statistical award and, by definition, the winner deserves it. But Jagr's fluctuating level of play is why Forsberg has an Art Ross, and Sakic doesn't, despite Sakic having the (slightly) better peak offensive season.

Then those kind of arguments would never stop. What about Jagr in 98? Forsberg led the scoring race for a good part of that season but missed 10 games and Jagr got hot at the end.

 

[Sensinitis]

Honest question:

I've always understood the Sakic-Forsberg relationship as equivalent to Crosby-Malkin.

No one would argue Malkin is better than Crosby. How come many here are saying Forsberg was sligtly better?

Didn't he face slightly easier matchups than Sakic, logically speaking, as he was the 2C?

 

[treple13]

Peak is probably Forsberg, but it's definitely Sakic when you include everything. I'd add Sakic to my team 10/10 over Forsberg, because I'd rather have a star who plays rather than one who doesn't. Actual points win games, not points per game statistics.

 

[threetimer*]

Regarding the Art Ross - during Sakic's best offensive season (2001), Jagr was in his prime, and played half the year with Lemieux. During Forsberg's best offensive season (2003), Jagr was off sulking in Washington and playing far below expectations.

That's not to discredit Forsberg. The Art Ross is a statistical award and, by definition, the winner deserves it. But Jagr's fluctuating level of play is why Forsberg has an Art Ross, and Sakic doesn't, despite Sakic having the (slightly) better peak offensive season.

So all it took to win the Art from 2000 to 2003 was just Jagr and his early thirties slump?

Forsberg didn't have it easy and barely edged out Naslund in the final game of the regular season, having played about 7 fewer games in total. Far from lucky "that Jagr sucked".

 

[Sensinitis]

So all it took to win the Art from 2000 to 2003 was just Jagr and his early thirties slump?

Forsberg didn't have it easy and barely edged out Naslund in the final game of the regular season, having played about 7 fewer games in total. Far from lucky "that Jagr sucked".

Who said he had it easy? That changes nothing to that other poster's premise. Whether Forsberg coasted to the Ross or scratched away from Naslund at the last second, that poster claimed Jagr would beat him clean on any year other than that odd passage in Washington.

Which is not my claim however..

 

[Hockey Outsider]

So all it took to win the Art from 2000 to 2003 was just Jagr and his early thirties slump?

Forsberg didn't have it easy and barely edged out Naslund in the final game of the regular season, having played about 7 fewer games in total. Far from lucky "that Jagr sucked".

Don't misrepresent my position. I never said Forsberg had it easy. But there's an obvious explanation for why 118 points wasn't good enough to win the Art Ross in 2001, and 106 points was good enough two years later.

Then those kind of arguments would never stop. What about Jagr in 98? Forsberg led the scoring race for a good part of that season but missed 10 games and Jagr got hot at the end.

Forsberg didn't miss any significant time until late March (he missed ten games that season, seven of which were from March 26th to April 26th). At the end of March 21st (the last game Forsberg played before that stretch) he was already trailing Jagr in the scoring race.

But, if your position is Forsberg would have led the NHL in scoring if not for prime Jagr in 1998, then I agree.

 

[Canucks1096]

To me it's just a little strange that a player who had 16 seasons playing 60+ games couldn't manage to collect more hardware (and not a single Art Ross) nor more all star team selections his entire career than a guy who played 6 seasons with more than 60 games, and still be the better player. That bothers me a bit...

I mean, I think we all realize what kind of legacy Forsberg would've built with that many chances. Why fool ourselves? Again, this is not the "what if game", it's basically "what was". It's a fact that Forsberg accomplished more or less the same as Sakic with only 1/3 of the chances Sakic had. The question is "Who was the better player" not "Who was helthier or more durable".

Sakic in his prime he was in the league the same time as 99 66 or 68. Without those 3 he would of won 2 Ross in 1996 and 2001. With the Ross in 1996 there is a good chance he could of got the Hart as well. From a 21 year stretch from 1980 to 2001 only 3 players won the Ross.


Even if Crosby was the same age as Sakic his trophy he wouldn't have a lot of trophy as well

 

[threetimer*]

Who said he had it easy? That changes nothing to that other poster's premise. Whether Forsberg coasted to the Ross or scratched away from Naslund at the last second, that poster claimed Jagr would beat him clean on any year other than that odd passage in Washington.

Which is not my claim however..

I never said he did, did I?

 

[authentic]

Honest question:

I've always understood the Sakic-Forsberg relationship as equivalent to Crosby-Malkin.

No one would argue Malkin is better than Crosby. How come many here are saying Forsberg was sligtly better?

Didn't he face slightly easier matchups than Sakic, logically speaking, as he was the 2C?

Nope. Teams mainly tried to shut him down over Sakic.

 

[threetimer*]

Don't misrepresent my position. I never said Forsberg had it easy. But there's an obvious explanation for why 118 points wasn't good enough to win the Art Ross in 2001, and 106 points was good enough two years later.

I did not misinterpret anything.

The obvious explanation is that Jagr played and then didn't play well enough to collect 121 points...



The fact is, Sakic's 118 in 2001 were what Naslund's 104 were in 2003. There is absolutely no guarantee a happy Jagr would have scored anywhere close to 121 in 2003.

 

[Sensinitis]

I never said he did, did I?

What?

 

[Sensinitis]

Nope. Teams mainly tried to shut him down over Sakic.

Doesnt seem as clear cut as you put it according to this old thread

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=729233&page=5

 

[wabagee]

Joe Sakic is one of the best captains of all time! He was one of the greatest leaders on the ice, which as an observer you could tell. I'm a Jets fan 1.0 and 2.0 but I only have one Jersey and it has Sakic on the back!

 

[authentic]

Doesnt seem as clear cut as you put it according to this old thread

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=729233&page=5

Either way Sakic was not nearly always the main guy the other team focused on. Here's an even better thread on the subject IMO.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=814000&highlight=