Peter Forsberg vs Joe Sakic

[Samuel Culper III]

To me, it's Forsberg. He controlled games to a greater extent and was one of the most complete players of all time. The year he won the Hart and Ross he also finished 4th in Selke voting, and that was back when guys like Wes Walz and John Madden were top nominees, rather than exclusively high scoring centers like today. Forsberg to me was just the pinnacle of a hockey player. Not so different from Sid in some ways. If he had been healthy his legacy would have been awesome.

 

[wabagee]

To me, it's Forsberg. He controlled games to a greater extent and was one of the most complete players of all time. The year he won the Hart and Ross he also finished 4th in Selke voting, and that was back when guys like Wes Walz and John Madden were top nominees, rather than exclusively high scoring centers like today. Forsberg to me was just the pinnacle of a hockey player. Not so different from Sid in some ways. If he had been healthy his legacy would have been awesome.

Hello Walz, What ever happened to him?

 

[Canucks1096]

Sakic vs Forsberg from 1995 to 2004

Reg season

1995 Sakic better
1996 Sakic better
1997 Forsberg better
1998 Forsberg
1999 my opinion the same but Forsberg did get 1st team all star so I will say Forsberg was better
2000 Sakic better
2001 Sakic better
2002 NA Forsberg didn't play
2003 Forsberg better
2004 NA Forsberg only played 39 games.

Reg season Sakic 4 and Forsberg 4

Playoffs

1995 Sakic
1996 Sakic
1997 Sakic
1998 Forsberg
1999 Forsberg
2000 Forsberg
2001 Sakic
2002 Forsberg
2003 Sakic
2004 Sakic

6 Sakic 4 Forsberg

 

[authentic]

To me, it's Forsberg. He controlled games to a greater extent and was one of the most complete players of all time. The year he won the Hart and Ross he also finished 4th in Selke voting, and that was back when guys like Wes Walz and John Madden were top nominees, rather than exclusively high scoring centers like today. Forsberg to me was just the pinnacle of a hockey player. Not so different from Sid in some ways. If he had been healthy his legacy would have been awesome.

I agree, although Sakic did finish 2nd in Selke voting the year he won the Hart in 2001.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

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=

Isn't that thread mainly about who was better defensively between Sakic and Forsberg? I know it made mention of Fedorov being matched up against Forsberg, and drawing a conclusion based on that, but I think the main point of that thread was to discuss who was better defensively, not who the other team tried to match up against.

 

[Felidae]

Some more stats. Bolded are players they finished ahead of in Hart or Point finishes.



Peter Forsberg

Awards
Hart
Art Ross


Hart finishes: 7, 11, 13, 17

Hart competition
2002-03: Naslund, Brodeur, Thornton, Bertuzzi, MacInnis

Selke finishes: 2, 4, 6, 8, 11, 34


Points
1995-96 NHL 116 (5th) Lemieux, Jagr, Sakic, Francis, Lindros
1997-98 NHL 91 (2nd) Jagr, Bure, Gretzky, Palffy, Leclair
1998-99 NHL 97 (4th) Jagr, Selanne, Kariya, Sakic, Yashin
2000-01 NHL 89 (9th)
2002-03 NHL 106 (1st) Naslund, Thornton, Hejduk, Bertuzzi, Demitra

PPG
1995-96 NHL 1.41 (6th)
1996-97 NHL 1.32 (6th)
1997-98 NHL 1.26 (2nd)
1998-99 NHL 1.24 (5th)
2000-01 NHL 1.22 (4th)
2002-03 NHL 1.41 (1st)
2003-04 NHL 1.41 (1st)
2005-06 NHL 1.25 (9th)



Joe Sakic

Awards
Pearson
Smythe
Hart

Hart finishes: 6, 7, 7, 7, 8, 14, 14, 15

Hart competition
1995-96: Lemieux, Messier, Lindros, Jagr, Fedorov
2000-01: Lemieux, Jagr, Cechmanek, Brodeur, Elias

Selke: 2, 9, 15, 15, 24


Points
1989-90 NHL 102 (10th)
1990-91 NHL 109 (6th) Gretzky, Hull, Oates, Recchi, Cullen
1994-95 NHL 62 (4th) Jagr, Lindros, ZHamnov, Francis, Fleury
1995-96 NHL 120 (3rd) Lemieux, Jagr, Francis, Forsberg, Lindros
1998-99 NHL 96 (5th)
1999-00 NHL 81 (8th)
2000-01 NHL 118 (2nd) Jagr, Elias, Straka, Kovalev, Allison
2001-02 NHL 79 (5th) Iginla, Naslund, Bertuzzi, Sundin, Jagr
2003-04 NHL 87 (2nd) St Louis, Kovalchuk, Naslund, Hossa, Elias
2006-07 NHL 100 (6th) Crosby, Thornton, Lecavelier, Heatley, St Louis

PPG
1990-91 NHL 1.36 (6th)
1991-92 NHL 1.36 (6th)
1994-95 NHL 1.32 (5th)
1995-96 NHL 1.46 (5th)
1998-99 NHL 1.32 (3rd)
1999-00 NHL 1.35 (2nd)
2000-01 NHL 1.44 (3rd)
2003-04 NHL 1.07 (7th)
2006-07 NHL 1.22 (8th)

 

[authentic]

Sakic vs Forsberg from 1995 to 2004

Reg season

1995 Sakic better
1996 Sakic better
1997 Forsberg better
1998 Forsberg
1999 my opinion the same but Forsberg did get 1st team all star so I will say Forsberg was better
2000 Sakic better
2001 Sakic better
2002 NA Forsberg didn't play
2003 Forsberg better
2004 NA Forsberg only played 39 games.

Reg season Sakic 4 and Forsberg 4

Playoffs

1995 Sakic
1996 Sakic
1997 Sakic
1998 Forsberg
1999 Forsberg
2000 Forsberg
2001 Sakic
2002 Forsberg
2003 Sakic
2004 Sakic

6 Sakic 4 Forsberg

2003/04 easily goes to Forsberg, he had 55 points in 39 games in a season where 1st place was 94 and 2nd was 87.

 

[Samuel Culper III]

I agree, although Sakic did finish 2nd in Selke voting the year he won the Hart in 2001.

I know. Forsberg also had a second place finish but I can't remember where he was in scoring that year. To me, Forsberg was just more of a game changer. I'll never forgot his SCF hat trick against Florida. He was just a monster.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

I know. Forsberg also had a second place finish but I can't remember where he was in scoring that year. To me, Forsberg was just more of a game changer. I'll never forgot his SCF hat trick against Florida. He was just a monster.

I keep track of seasons where a player is in the top ten in scoring, and top ten in Selke voting - http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=603565.

Both players have three such seasons.

 

[authentic]

Isn't that thread mainly about who was better defensively between Sakic and Forsberg? I know it made mention of Fedorov being matched up against Forsberg, and drawing a conclusion based on that, but I think the main point of that thread was to discuss who was better defensively, not who the other team tried to match up against.

"Sakic̢۪s defenders have said that his lesser plus-minus was a result of playing tougher minutes than Forsberg. Whether by being matched up against the best scorers on the other team, or by taking more than his share of defensive zone draws, Sakic had an uphill battle to match Forsberg in plus-minus, or so the story goes.

I̢۪m going to use all the evidence available to investigate this claim, and see whether Sakic appears to have played tougher minutes than Forsberg while they were teammates over a decade. In the following comparisons, I̢۪ll only look at even strength play. I̢۪ll also exclude the 2001-02 regular season, as Forsberg did not play in this season. My focus is on level of play, so I̢۪m looking at rate, not total regular season value. Fans of total value can mentally deduct points from Forsberg in the 2000-2002 period."

That's a quote from the OP of that thread. If you read the rest of the thread you will see that it's pretty clear neither one had significantly favourable matchups over the other in their time together from 1994-2004.

So knowing that, Forsberg had a much better +/-, in the regular season and playoffs, and also had slightly higher points per game in the regular season and playoffs which is probably negated by Sakic's edge in goal scoring, but overall I do think Forsberg was slightly better.

 

[wabagee]

Why is nobody talking about Uwe Krupp?

 

[Erik Alfredsson]

Sakic. As impressive as Forsberg was, I have a hard time voting "what could've been" over reality.

If Forsberg had a healthy career than this is likely a different answer, but he didn't so it's not.

 

[Ben White]

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?

Forsberg was not #2C. The situation was not comparable to Sid and Geno. They were both 1C and 2C at different times and more often than not Forsberg faced the tougher matchups. As you may read in this thread, people who followed their careers generally think Forsberg was better at playing hockey but they let Sakic win due to longevity and career value.

 

[KoozNetsOff 92]

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?

Actually there are many people who argue that peak Malkin > peak Crosby. Crosby pulls ahead because of his consistency, length of prime, etc. Basically the same as this Sakic vs Forsberg comparison, although peak Forsberg > peak Sakic seems more clear cut than Malkin > Crosby.

 

[glovesave_35]

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?

It's not equivalent to Crosby-Malkin really at all. The situations are too different to compare like that.

I'm a Stars fan and saw plenty of that era Avs. Regarding your last bullet point, Forsberg was always the apparent "marked man" in terms of defensive assignments, matchups, etc.

OP asked "who was the better player" and my answer to that type of question is basically who would I take in one game or one series. You've got to choose the one guy who you think is simply and purely a better hockey player. Career length, accomplishments, etc. don't really factor in for me. As a fan of a rival team the one that scared me the most on the ice was Forsberg.

 

[Regal]

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?

The difference is Crosby's resume is clearly superior to Malkin's over their overlapping careers, whereas Forsberg's and Sakic's were very similar over theirs.

From 94-95 to 03-4:

Regular Season Points (excluding '02 when Forsberg sat out):

Sakic: 612 GP, 301 G, 458 A, 759 PTS, 1.24 PPG
Forsberg: 580 GP, 216 G, 525 A, 741 PTS, 1.28 PPG

Playoff Points:

Sakic: 147 GP, 75 G, 88 A, 163 PTS, 1.11 PPG
Forsberg: 133 GP, 57 G, 97 A, 154 PTS, 1.16 PPG

Awards:

Sakic: 1 Hart, 1 Pearson, 1 Conn Smythe, 3 1st Team All Stars
Forsberg: 1 Hart, 1 Art Ross, 3 1st Team All Stars

Top 10 Points Finishes:

Sakic: 2, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8
Forsberg: 1, 2, 4, 5, 9

Top 10 PPG Finishes:

Sakic: 2, 3, 3, 5, 5, 7
Forsberg: 1, 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 6


From 06-07 to 16-17:

Regular Season Points:

Crosby: 701 GP, 343 G, 582 A, 925 PTS, 1.32 PPG
Malkin: 706 GP, 328 G, 504 A, 832 PTS, 1.18 PPG

Playoff Points:

Crosby: 148 GP, 57 G, 107 A, 164 PTS, 1.11 PPG
Malkin: 149 GP, 58 G, 99 A, 157 PTS, 1.05 PPG

Awards:

Crosby: 2 Harts, 3 Pearsons, 2 Art Rosses, 2 Richards, 2 Smythes, 4 1st Team All Star, 3 2nd Team All Star

Malkin: 1 Hart, 1 Pearson, 2 Art Rosses, 1 Smythe, 2 1st Team All Star

Top 10 Points Finishes:

Crosby: 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3
Malkin: 1, 1, 2

Top 10 PPG Finishes:

Crosby: 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4
Malkin: 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 7, 8


The comparison doesn't really hold

 

[daver]

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".

It's a little strange that you have no concept of the competition that Sakic faced prior to Forsberg joining the league or the quality of the team he was on.

They are very close statistically in the time they played together (1994 to 2004) as the stats have shown. Give Sakic the edge in the playoffs, give Forsberg the edge defensively.

But anything other than very close is not reasonable (i.e. your PPG arguments for example are not reasonable)

 

[PatrikBerglund]

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

Yeah. Both the coaches, players and even Sakic himself have said that Forsberg was the guy all the teams focused on shutting down, which gave more time and space for the likes of Sakic.

When Kariya and Selanne joined the team, both expressed that they hoped that they'd get to play with Peter Forsberg.

I believe that Forsberg is 4th all time in assists per game, and he played most of his career during the dead hockey era where other players were allowed to doing almost anything to stop the stars.

 

[glovesave_35]

Yeah. Both the coaches, players and even Sakic himself have said that Forsberg was the guy all the teams focused on shutting down, which gave more time and space for the likes of Sakic.

When Kariya and Selanne joined the team, both expressed that they hoped that they'd get to play with Peter Forsberg.

I believe that Forsberg is 4th all time in assists per game, and he played most of his career during the dead hockey era where other players were allowed to doing almost anything to stop the stars.

Man, I could be wrong but I definitely remember that being the summer where the Avs went out and "got Sakic some wingers". The plan all along was for them to play with Sakic. That season for both was really strange the way it all turned out.

 

[Canucks1096]

Man, I could be wrong but I definitely remember that being the summer where the Avs went out and "got Sakic some wingers". The plan all along was for them to play with Sakic. That season for both was really strange the way it all turned out.

You are not wrong. The year before Sakic missed a lot of games and Forsberg played with Hedjuk and Tanguay and that line was one of the best lines in hockey. The plan was to keep that line together and have Sakic with Selanne and Kariya.

 

[tony d]

Went with Sakic.

 

[daver]

I believe that Forsberg is 4th all time in assists per game, and he played most of his career during the dead hockey era where other players were allowed to doing almost anything to stop the stars.

He was the best playmaker during his prime but his assists per game certainly would have decreased as he played more games in his career. And I don't think the DPE was any different in terms of players trying to keep stars from scoring.

 

[Cousin Eddie]

I don't think Sakic gets enough credit for his "peak". 2000-2002 Sakic was the best player on the planet. Better than Jagr and Naslund.

So yeah, I always see people say Forsberg was better at his peak but Sakic was better career but I don't see the argument for Forsberg in either. If you want to argue "single game dominance" or something like that it's definitely something Forsberg holds over Sakic. Forsberg also had a playoff performance unlike anything else Sakic could come close to.

Peter Forsberg was the most dominant, take over a game type of player I've ever witnessed, but Sakic was the better player. Unless you want to argue sample sizes less than entire seasons I just don't see an argument for Forsberg over Sakic.

 

[Ben White]

He was the best playmaker during his prime but his assists per game certainly would have decreased as he played more games in his career. And I don't think the DPE was any different in terms of players trying to keep stars from scoring.

This is one of those misconceptions about Forsberg that you hear a lot. Yes, if he played into his 40's like Jagr off course his numbers would drop a bit. But Forsberg didn't have a very short NHL career, he missed games because of injuries, and those injuries more or less always made his numbers drop those seasons where he came back and played them through, much like Mario Lemieux. Looking at his career numbers Forsberg's ppg avarage was generally higher the more games he played in a season. So his per game numbers during his prime would likely see a raise had he played all the games. It's also hard to determaine exactly when his prime was since his per game numbers were so damn consistent from entering the league at 21 till the injuries got the better of him at 32-33 y o.

The only reason for the argument "Peter Forsberg can't possibly be the 4th best playmaker of all time, his numbers must be flawed from missing games" is because his legacy doesn't match that 4th best narrative. So, while it's easy to show how his per game numbers likely would've been even more historical without the injuries, the fact that those injuries cut up his career so badly and prevented him from collecting the kind of hardware necessary for the "historical label" people will overlook him as one of the best playmakers of all time.

 

[ManofSteel55]

At his peak, Peter Forsberg was the better player, but Joe Sakic had the better career as he was much healthier and played at his peak for much, much longer, hence the better stat lines.