Peter Forsberg vs Joe Sakic

[ManofSteel55]

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.

People say it because 96-99 Forsberg was better than 00-02 Sakic. Sakic was the better goal scorer, but Forsberg was the better playmaker, better defensively (he was one of the best on the planet in that regard), better puckhandler, and was better in terms of puck posession. Nobody cycled like Forsberg did. The two were always close though, I have no issue with someone saying Sakic was better, but it isn't what I witnessed.

 

[daver]

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.

Any numbers to back up this claim.

 

[Ben White]

Any numbers to back up this claim.

All the numbers are out there, it's really easy to see. If I get some time later I will present them. Basically the only season that sticks out from this theory is the 2003-04 season but that makes sense since his numbers were so insanely good when he got injured that season. His outstanding 55 points in 39 games was still worse than what he had before missing time.

 

[daver]

All the numbers are out there, it's really easy to see. If I get some time later I will present them. Basically the only season that sticks out from this theory is the 2003-04 season but that makes sense since his numbers were so insanely good when he got injured that season. His outstanding 55 points in 39 games was still worse than what he had before missing time.

There is nothing in the numbers that back up your thoery. There is NO reason to believe his PPG would be even higher if he played more games.

It's bad enough you try to promote his injuries as a positive but then to try to pull this off is ridiculous.

His numbers speak for themselves.

 

[Ben White]

There is nothing in the numbers that back up your thoery. There is NO reason to believe his PPG would be even higher if he played more games.

It's bad enough you try to promote his injuries as a positive but then to try to pull this off is ridiculous.

His numbers speak for themselves.

So you didn't check this up properly I assume... Just like Mario it's damn obvious how his injuries hurt his ppg those seasons and how his ppg was better the healthier he was aka the more games he played. A Forsberg with a long healthy career might have played longer past his prime though so he likely would've ended up with about the same ppg anyway with the difference that people like you wouldn't try to take it away from him.

When I have time I will post a diagram which clearly shows how his injuries hurt his ppg

 

[MrOT]

Hello! Not even Joe Sakic himself would agree with this result. This is NA bias at its worst. There is not a single European who believes Sakic was a better player than Forsberg. Out of Crosby, Malkin, Forsberg and Sakic I think most European´s view is this:

Crosby
Forsberg
Malkin

Sakic

 

[Hockey Outsider]

So you didn't check this up properly I assume... Just like Mario it's damn obvious how his injuries hurt his ppg those seasons and how his ppg was better the healthier he was aka the more games he played. A Forsberg with a long healthy career might have played longer past his prime though so he likely would've ended up with about the same ppg anyway with the difference that people like you wouldn't try to take it away from him.

When I have time I will post a diagram which clearly shows how his injuries hurt his ppg

In Colorado, Forsberg had five seasons where he missed less than ten games (1995, 1996, 1999, 2001, 2003). He averaged 1.28 points per game during those years.

He had four seaspons where he missed more than ten games (1997, 1998, 2000 and 2004). He averaged 1.26 points per game during those years.

Forsberg averaged approximately 0.02 more points per game in years where he was healthy - which works out to one extra point every 55 games. It's a very small difference.

 

[Ben White]

In Colorado, Forsberg had five seasons where he missed less than ten games (1995, 1996, 1999, 2001, 2003). He averaged 1.28 points per game during those years.

He had four seaspons where he missed more than ten games (1997, 1998, 2000 and 2004). He averaged 1.26 points per game during those years.

Forsberg averaged approximately 0.02 more points per game in years where he was healthy - which works out to one extra point every 55 games. It's a very small difference.

Lol. This is so manipulated. First of all. Why didn't you count his 2006 and 2007 seasons?? 2nd, why did you set the limit to exactly 10 games and counted 1998 (where he missed exactly 10 games) in the unhealthy category? I mean, if you would've counted all his seasons 1998 would look like one of the more healthy ones. 3rd, the 2004 season is an obvious outlier, as I mentioned previously, since he was so unusually dominant ppg wise before his injury that season that even though his injury in the fall 2003 hurt his ppg badly his season ppg still looks fantastic. It's a little bit the same thing that happened in 2005-06 however that time his ppg dropped off even more significantly after the injury.

 

[Ben White]

Let's do this right:

We remove the obvious outlier in 2004 and his rookie season (a rookie season is more or less an outlier per se and this one was also a shortened season), and it looks like this:

5 seasons with 70+ GP: 1,31 ppg
5 seasons with less than 70 GP: 1,16 ppg

A significant 0,15 ppg gap. Or 12,3 points per 82 games.

You can put as much weight as you want into this but don't say that his high career ppg avarage is because of all the games that he missed.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Lol. This is so manipulated. First of all. Why didn't you count his 2006 and 2007 seasons?? 2nd, why did you set the limit to exactly 10 games and counted 1998 (where he missed exactly 10 games) in the unhealthy category? I mean, if you would've counted all his seasons 1998 would look like one of the more healthy ones. 3rd, the 2004 season is an obvious outlier, as I mentioned previously, since he was so unusually dominant ppg wise before his injury that season that even though his injury in the fall 2003 hurt his ppg badly his season ppg still looks fantastic. It's a little bit the same thing that happened in 2005-06 however that time his ppg dropped off even more significantly after the injury.

First, don't accuse me of manipulating the data. I've been completely transparent about my approach, and have included Forsberg's entire career in Colorado. The numbers are what I've presented. I'm sorry that they don't support your theory.

You can use a different cut-off point (other than ten games) and the conclusion doesn't change much. We can say Forsberg had "unhealthy seasons" (missing 15+ games), "okay seasons" (missing 7-10 games) and "healthy seasons (everything else). His PPG those years are 1.25, 1.30 and 1.27. He has three seasons in each of those categories. You're making a big deal about, again, a 0.02 PPG difference.

Now let's turn to your analysis.

Why did you remove 2004? How is it an "outlier"? That was the season Forsberg tied his career high in points per game, while missing 43 games. The only reason I can see for excluding it is because it contradicts your position (injured season with high PPG).

Why did you remove 1995? It's not like Forsberg started of as, say, Joe Thornton - rushed to the NHL at age 18 while getting barely any ice time. As I'm sure you know, Forsberg was rookie of the year and tied Brett Hull, Joe Nieuwendyk and Sergei Fedorov in scoring that year. The only reason I can see for excluding it is because it contradicts your position (healthy season with low PPG).

Why did I exclude Forberg's time in Philadelphia? Well, in 2006 he scored exactly his career average (1.25 PPG) so regardless of how you choose to categorize that season, it wouldn't materially change the conclusion. By 2007 it was obvious that Forsberg was no longer the same player he used to be.

No matter how you slice the data, any objective review shows that Forsberg's production did not materially change regardless of the number of games he played. The only way to "show" that was the case is to selective exclude seasons that contradict your premise.

 

[authentic]

Hello! Not even Joe Sakic himself would agree with this result. This is NA bias at its worst. There is not a single European who believes Sakic was a better player than Forsberg. Out of Crosby, Malkin, Forsberg and Sakic I think most European´s view is this:

Crosby
Forsberg
Malkin

Sakic

I'm not sure this has as much to do with nationality as you think, but I would say it atleast plays a part for sure though. I'm Canadian and I agree with that order, though there's really no need for the gap there between Malkin and Sakic.

 

[Syrinx]

If you look at the history of hockey polls, Sakic is always way ahead of Forsberg on the all-time lists.

Why do we keep having polls for questions that have already been answered by the best-equipped board here to answer them?

 

[authentic]

If you look at the history of hockey polls, Sakic is always way ahead of Forsberg on the all-time lists.

Why do we keep having polls for questions that have already been answered by the best-equipped board here to answer them?

Those lists are heavily based on career value...I believe this is strictly asking who the better player was. These polls are funny because I see Malkin beat Sakic, and yet Forsberg comes closer in votes to Malkin than he does to Sakic. If you look at all time lists they will have you believe Forsberg wasn't that close to as good as Sakic, which is stupid. He is now not only underrated by historians but also now by this new generation who never witnessed him, and the common argument for why he's not on the same level as a lot of these players is "but he never scored more than 30 goals in a season". I don't expect things to get any better with time either, but atleast he has his un-reel highlights.

 

[Ben White]

First, don't accuse me of manipulating the data. I've been completely transparent about my approach, and have included Forsberg's entire career in Colorado. The numbers are what I've presented. I'm sorry that they don't support your theory.

You can use a different cut-off point (other than ten games) and the conclusion doesn't change much. We can say Forsberg had "unhealthy seasons" (missing 15+ games), "okay seasons" (missing 7-10 games) and "healthy seasons (everything else). His PPG those years are 1.25, 1.30 and 1.27. He has three seasons in each of those categories. You're making a big deal about, again, a 0.02 PPG difference.

Now let's turn to your analysis.

Why did you remove 2004? How is it an "outlier"? That was the season Forsberg tied his career high in points per game, while missing 43 games. The only reason I can see for excluding it is because it contradicts your position (injured season with high PPG).

Why did you remove 1995? It's not like Forsberg started of as, say, Joe Thornton - rushed to the NHL at age 18 while getting barely any ice time. As I'm sure you know, Forsberg was rookie of the year and tied Brett Hull, Joe Nieuwendyk and Sergei Fedorov in scoring that year. The only reason I can see for excluding it is because it contradicts your position (healthy season with low PPG).

Why did I exclude Forberg's time in Philadelphia? Well, in 2006 he scored exactly his career average (1.25 PPG) so regardless of how you choose to categorize that season, it wouldn't materially change the conclusion. By 2007 it was obvious that Forsberg was no longer the same player he used to be.

No matter how you slice the data, any objective review shows that Forsberg's production did not materially change regardless of the number of games he played. The only way to "show" that was the case is to selective exclude seasons that contradict your premise.

Or simply try to dig deeper into his career and what each season stod for. As I said, in 2004 he would likely have an even better ppg had he not get injured, it was simply the very best we've seen from Forsberg, so while it was an "unhealthy season with high ppg" it's not representative since a healthy 2004 very likely would've resulted in an even greater ppg. 2006 is another example where we, who followed him, know that his 1,25 ppg wasn't anywhere close to his stunning mid season projection. You say he wasn't the same player in 2007, that's right but I'd say he wasn't the same player either coming back from injury after missing the first half of the season in 99-00, and as a result an unusually low ppg for being Peter. I think it's really safe to say, looking closer to his career and the seasons specifically, that he tended to score at a higher rate when he was healthier, which absolutely makes sense, and that his career ppg is not flawed by any means by the fact that he missed time, rather the other way around.

 

[KevinRedkey]

Forsberg fans seem to forget how important goals are. Forsberg never scored more than 30. Sakic's career average is 31.25 and that includes his rookie season, and 7 seasons where he played 65 games of less.

54 goals and 118 points in 2001 > 29 goals and 106 points in 2003

Peak season = Sakic
Career = Sakic (easily)

 

[Ben White]

Forsberg fans seem to forget how important goals are. Forsberg never scored more than 30. Sakic's career average is 31.25 and that includes his rookie season, and 7 seasons where he played 65 games of less.

54 goals and 118 points in 2001 > 29 goals and 106 points in 2003

Peak season = Sakic
Career = Sakic (easily)

Seems like the playmaker is highly underrated by the new generation. When I grew up the playmaker was viewed as the most important role on the team

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

Those lists are heavily based on career value...I believe this is strictly asking who the better player was. These polls are funny because I see Malkin beat Sakic, and yet Forsberg comes closer in votes to Malkin than he does to Sakic. If you look at all time lists they will have you believe Forsberg wasn't that close to as good as Sakic, which is stupid. He is now not only underrated by historians but also now by this new generation who never witnessed him, and the common argument for why he's not on the same level as a lot of these players is "but he never scored more than 30 goals in a season". I don't expect things to get any better with time either, but atleast he has his un-reel highlights.

Why do you assume that anyone who has a different opinion than yours never watched the player?

 

[daver]

Or simply try to dig deeper into his career and what each season stod for. As I said, in 2004 he would likely have an even better ppg had he not get injured, it was simply the very best we've seen from Forsberg, so while it was an "unhealthy season with high ppg" it's not representative since a healthy 2004 very likely would've resulted in an even greater ppg. 2006 is another example where we, who followed him, know that his 1,25 ppg wasn't anywhere close to his stunning mid season projection. You say he wasn't the same player in 2007, that's right but I'd say he wasn't the same player either coming back from injury after missing the first half of the season in 99-00, and as a result an unusually low ppg for being Peter. I think it's really safe to say, looking closer to his career and the seasons specifically, that he tended to score at a higher rate when he was healthier, which absolutely makes sense, and that his career ppg is not flawed by any means by the fact that he missed time, rather the other way around.

That's an ironclad case you have laid out Ben, I'm sold.

 

[authentic]

Why do you assume that anyone who has a different opinion than yours never watched the player?

I don't. That's an assumption on your part since I never even stated such a thing.

 

[authentic]

Or simply try to dig deeper into his career and what each season stod for. As I said, in 2004 he would likely have an even better ppg had he not get injured, it was simply the very best we've seen from Forsberg, so while it was an "unhealthy season with high ppg" it's not representative since a healthy 2004 very likely would've resulted in an even greater ppg. 2006 is another example where we, who followed him, know that his 1,25 ppg wasn't anywhere close to his stunning mid season projection. You say he wasn't the same player in 2007, that's right but I'd say he wasn't the same player either coming back from injury after missing the first half of the season in 99-00, and as a result an unusually low ppg for being Peter. I think it's really safe to say, looking closer to his career and the seasons specifically, that he tended to score at a higher rate when he was healthier, which absolutely makes sense, and that his career ppg is not flawed by any means by the fact that he missed time, rather the other way around.

You're right actually, don't bother trying to convince him that though. He's probably not even aware of the injuries Forsberg sustained and in which seasons he sustained them and how it clearly affected his play, and even if he is won't bring it up if it doesn't support Sakic being better than Forsberg.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

I don't. That's an assumption on your part since I never even stated such a thing.

What? I bolded your quote where you said that the new generation underrates him because they've never witnessed him play, inferring that those who favor Sakic are doing so because they're not familiar enough with Forsberg.

What did you mean by "never witnessed him", if not my interpretation?

 

[daver]

that his career ppg is not flawed by any means by the fact that he missed time, rather the other way around.

His career PPG and APG is a bit misleading because he did not play much into his 30's as his peers did, notably Sakic.

 

[daver]

You're right actually, don't bother trying to convince him that though. He's probably not even aware of the injuries Forsberg sustained and in which seasons he sustained them and how it clearly affected his play, and even if he is won't bring it up if it doesn't support Sakic being better than Forsberg.

Are you seriously saying Hockey Outsider is the biased one? He simply put up numbers that completely debunked the other poster's claim.

 

[authentic]

What? I bolded your quote where you said that the new generation underrates him because they've never witnessed him play, inferring that those who favor Sakic are doing so because they're not familiar enough with Forsberg.

What did you mean by "never witnessed him", if not my interpretation?

That's different than "anyone who has a different opinion than yours never watched the player". I am saying in general based on the polls and opinions of a lot of younger fans it's easy to tell who watched him much and who didn't. People can think Sakic is better, it's close enough that it's not a crazy opinion to have, but those who think it's so clearcut and that he was easily better than Forsberg are mistaken, and the same goes for Malkin.

 

[Ben White]

Are you seriously saying Hockey Outsider is the biased one? He simply put up numbers that completely debunked the other poster's claim.

No, lol, he angled the numbers, put them in the wrong context (for example calling the 98 season one of Forsberg's more "injured" seasons etc.) and removed seasons which didn't support his agenda, obviously he supported yours though so understand that you prefer his version.

By the way, your initial claim was that Forsberg's per game numbers got an unfair boost due to him missing time, so even in that other poster's ever so twisted version of a seasons comparison your claim was proven to be wrong.