Peter Forsberg vs Joe Sakic

[authentic]

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

Yes, somewhat. He knows numbers very well, but beyond that I seriously question his bias towards Sakic or ability to analyze the actual game if he's convinced he has a bulletproof case that proves Sakic to be the better player, like his one thread was attempting to do. Overpass thread was better and a more accurate representation of who the better player is. It's not really rocket science, they produced relatively equally in their time together in the regular season and in the playoffs, and Forsberg overall was the better defensive player and at driving the play (and that's not debatable either). Soooo, but goals right? Sure...if that's what you want to believe.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

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.

But why do you assume a lot of those voting for Sakic are "newer generation" or younger fans? That's where my disconnect is. What makes you believe a lot of those are younger fans?

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Yes, somewhat. He knows numbers very well, but beyond that I seriously question his bias towards Sakic or ability to analyze the actual game if he's convinced he has a bulletproof case that proves Sakic to be the better player, like his one thread was attempting to do. Overpass thread was better and a more accurate representation of who the better player is. It's not really rocket science, they produced relatively equally in their time together in the regular season and in the playoffs, and Forsberg overall was the better defensive player and at driving the play (and that's not debatable either). Soooo, but goals right? Sure...if that's what you want to believe.

Are you confusing me with someone else? What "bulletproof case" are you talking about? I was one of the very few people in this thread who voted "even".

 

[PKWeber]

Sakic easily, better peak, stats, shot, career plus he was able to wing a cup without Forsberg (missed the last 2 rounds in 01).

 

[Hockey Outsider]

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.

This is the second time you're accussing me of bias. You need to stop. I've presented the data two different ways and they both show the same conclusion - Forsberg's production did not materially change relative to the number of games he played.

I am confident that anybody who objectively reads this thread would come to the same conclusion.

 

[daver]

Yes, somewhat. He knows numbers very well, but beyond that I seriously question his bias towards Sakic or ability to analyze the actual game if he's convinced he has a bulletproof case that proves Sakic to be the better player, like his one thread was attempting to do. Overpass thread was better and a more accurate representation of who the better player is. It's not really rocket science, they produced relatively equally in their time together in the regular season and in the playoffs, and Forsberg overall was the better defensive player and at driving the play (and that's not debatable either). Soooo, but goals right? Sure...if that's what you want to believe.

I thought his numbers were completely reasonable. The other poster wants to exclude a prime season for Forsberg (2004) while including one where he was out of his prime (2007). That is not reasonable at all.

I agree they are statistically close, Sakic had more points, Forsberg had the higher PPG. Sakic has an edge in the playoffs and RS goalscoring, Forsberg has an edge in defensive play. Very close between the two.

That Forsberg somehow pulls ahead offensively based on complete conjecture of his missed time is not reasonable.

 

[daver]

Are you confusing me with someone else? What "bulletproof case" are you talking about? I was one of the very few people in this thread who voted "even".

That's what I voted too.

 

[KoozNetsOff 92]

Ah yes, the typical "you never saw my hero play" and "you're manipulating the numbers" argument.. Never gets old.

I will admit though, I'm surprised Sakic is winning so decisively. The OP asked for better player, thought Forsberg would run away with it.

 

[Ben White]

This is the second time you're accussing me of bias. You need to stop. I've presented the data two different ways and they both show the same conclusion - Forsberg's production did not materially change relative to the number of games he played.

I am confident that anybody who objectively reads this thread would come to the same conclusion.

I'm also sure most people here can see that my analysis was deeper and that there was absolutely no reason for you to completely remove Forsberg's last seasons due to "he wasn't the same player anymore" when that exact argument can be used on every single season for those stretches where Forsberg saw his numbers drop due to mid season injuries because of "not being the same player" coming back from those injuries, and when that is exact what this whole discussion is all about makes your argument even more puzzling. Add to that, you put the 98 season clearly in the wrong category for everyone to see, which was misleading.

Your analysis didn't present any context, didn't look into any season specifically, and was shallow at best, more objectively misleading.

Edit: We also both know that those seasons you removed where "he wasn't the same player" wasn't because he was old but because he was injured, just like all the other times earlier in his career when he saw his numbers drop. You're in fact just signing my argument by removing them for that resason.

 

[authentic]

Are you confusing me with someone else? What "bulletproof case" are you talking about? I was one of the very few people in this thread who voted "even".

I was referring to a past thread of yours that someone posted in this thread, and I didn't see your vote here either, sorry for that.

 

[authentic]

Sakic easily, better peak, stats, shot, career plus he was able to wing a cup without Forsberg (missed the last 2 rounds in 01).

How old are you?

 

[authentic]

Ah yes, the typical "you never saw my hero play" and "you're manipulating the numbers" argument.. Never gets old.

I will admit though, I'm surprised Sakic is winning so decisively. The OP asked for better player, thought Forsberg would run away with it.

That would probably make a bit more sense than the current results.

 

[JAS 39 Gripen]

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)

Yet, you chose to ignore the fact that Forsberg had a higher GPG in the playoffs than a lit of your so called "more valuable" players

 

[PKWeber]

How old are you?

41 turning 42 on November 26

Back on topic, don't you find it sad that at the age of 37 Sakic beat Forsberg's career high in goals? Not to mention he put up 100 points good for 6th in the league at the age of 37.

 

[authentic]

41 turning 42 on November 26

Back on topic, don't you find it sad that at the age of 37 Sakic beat Forsberg's career high in goals? Not to mention he put up 100 points good for 6th in the league at the age of 37.

Sad? No, I had never really thought of it that way. There are countless players who have scored more goals than him in a full regular season, but very few who are actually better hockey players, and I don't think Sakic himself as great as he was is one of them.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

I'm also sure most people here can see that my analysis was deeper and that there was absolutely no reason for you to completely remove Forsberg's last seasons due to "he wasn't the same player anymore" when that exact argument can be used on every single season for those stretches where Forsberg saw his numbers drop due to mid season injuries because of "not being the same player" coming back from those injuries, and when that is exact what this whole discussion is all about makes your argument even more puzzling. Add to that, you put the 98 season clearly in the wrong category for everyone to see, which was misleading.

Your analysis didn't present any context, didn't look into any season specifically, and was shallow at best, more objectively misleading.

Edit: We also both know that those seasons you removed where "he wasn't the same player" wasn't because he was old but because he was injured, just like all the other times earlier in his career when he saw his numbers drop. You're in fact just signing my argument by removing them for that resason.

Your exact quote was "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."

My response was - no, that's factually incorrect. Here are three tables that show that when you examine Forsberg's prime, regardless of games played, he scored a remarkably consistent number of points per game:

Seasons where Forsberg missed a significant amount of time (1995-2004)

Season|Games|Points|Missed GP|PPG
2003-04 | 39 | 55 | 43 | 1.41
1999-00 | 49 | 51 | 33 | 1.04
1996-97 | 65 | 86 | 17 | 1.32
Total | 153 | 192 | | 1.25

Seasons where Forsberg missed a moderate amount of time (1995-2004)

Season|Games|Points|Missed GP|PPG
1997-98 | 72 | 91 | 10 | 1.26
2000-01 | 73 | 89 | 9 | 1.22
2002-03 | 75 | 106 | 7 | 1.41
Total | 220 | 286 | | 1.30

Seasons where Forsberg missed little or no time (1995-2004)

Season|Games|Points|Missed GP|PPG
1998-99 | 78 | 97 | 4 | 1.24
1994-95 | 47 | 50 | 1 | 1.06
1995-96 | 82 | 116 | 0 | 1.41
Total | 207 | 263 | | 1.27

Why did I exclude 2006 and 2007? You specifically said in post 49 that's "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." So, I assumed you excluded his age 32 and 33 seasons (2006 and 2007) from your analysis.

If the statement you made was incorrect, and you didn't exclude those two seasons in your assessment, I can revise the numbers, but don't ascribe an ulterior motive to me. You were the one who set the parameters, and now that the numbers prove your assertion wrong, you're moving the goal posts.

 

[Ben White]

Your exact quote was "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."

My response was - no, that's factually incorrect. Here are three tables that show that when you examine Forsberg's prime, regardless of games played, he scored a remarkably consistent number of points per game:

Seasons where Forsberg missed a significant amount of time (1995-2004)

Season|Games|Points|Missed GP|PPG
2003-04 | 39 | 55 | 43 | 1.41
1999-00 | 49 | 51 | 33 | 1.04
1996-97 | 65 | 86 | 17 | 1.32
Total | 153 | 192 | | 1.25

Seasons where Forsberg missed a moderate amount of time (1995-2004)

Season|Games|Points|Missed GP|PPG
1997-98 | 72 | 91 | 10 | 1.26
2000-01 | 73 | 89 | 9 | 1.22
2002-03 | 75 | 106 | 7 | 1.41
Total | 220 | 286 | | 1.30

Seasons where Forsberg missed little or no time (1995-2004)

Season|Games|Points|Missed GP|PPG
1998-99 | 78 | 97 | 4 | 1.24
1994-95 | 47 | 50 | 1 | 1.06
1995-96 | 82 | 116 | 0 | 1.41
Total | 207 | 263 | | 1.27

Why did I exclude 2006 and 2007? You specifically said in post 49 that's "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." So, I assumed you excluded his age 32 and 33 seasons (2006 and 2007) from your analysis.

If your the statement you made was incorrect, and you didn't exclude those two seasons in your assessment, I can revise the numbers, but don't ascribe an ulteryior motive to me. You were the one who set the parameters, and now that the numbers prove your assertion wrong, you're moving the goal posts.

lol what... this is getting even better. Context man, context... what on earth has this to to with him being higher or lower in ppg and apg when healthy/unhealthy, missing time/not missing time???? Who's moving the goal post?? There was and still is absolutely no reason for you to remove those seasons in this particular discussion and I think anyone who read my last post understands why. Also why it's misleading to include the 2004 season in this very discussion. That season alone is an argument for that he saw a drop in ppg when missing time but not compared to his other seasons since his ppg projection, when still healthy, was so much higher this particular season, and should be looked at as an outlier. But again, if you're not aiming for the truth there's no point for me to provide you with all this context about seasons in the past which you obviously didn't follow very closely and aren't very interested in increasing your knowledge about either.

Edit: Ok, let's make this clear once again. Why shouldn't 2006 be looked at as a "season in his prime" when he played as good as ever the first half of the season pre injury? And in 2007, just because he was injured a lot and that hurt his production when the same thing happened in 2000? Or in 2008 when he scored 14 points in 9 games (maybe the only example that could actually support Daver's initial clame). And if you don't understand why 2004 is a statistical outlier and misleading it's not much more I can say.

Also those categories of yours above are so subjektive that it's laughable. Why would you draw a line between 75 and 78 games for example? And why include his shortened rookie season among the "healthy" seasons and not his Hart + Art season? No, this piece of work of yours is irrelevant. Anyone who actually followed his career already knows what I'm talking about anyway.

 

[Sensinitis]

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.

This is in the Conclusion of the OP of the thread in question:

The narrative that Peter Forsberg consistently played easier minutes than Joe Sakic during their time together in Colorado appears to be false.

 

[Hivemind]

Forsberg had a higher peak
Sakic had a better career


Pretty uncontroversial, IMO

 

[Sensinitis]

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?

This comment looks weird considering the substance of the discussion in this thread.

Especially considering there have been references to TWO older threads where arguments did not favour Sakic the way you suggest.

 

[daver]

lol what... this is getting even better. Context man, context... what on earth has this to to with him being higher or lower in ppg and apg when healthy/unhealthy, missing time/not missing time???? Who's moving the goal post?? There was and still is absolutely no reason for you to remove those seasons in this particular discussion and I think anyone who read my last post understands why. Also why it's misleading to include the 2004 season in this very discussion. That season alone is an argument for that he saw a drop in ppg when missing time but not compared to his other seasons since his ppg projection, when still healthy, was so much higher this particular season, and should be looked at as an outlier. But again, if you're not aiming for the truth there's no point for me to provide you with all this context about seasons in the past which you obviously didn't follow very closely and aren't very interested in increasing your knowledge about either.

Edit: Ok, let's make this clear once again. Why shouldn't 2006 be looked at as a "season in his prime" when he played as good as ever the first half of the season pre injury? And in 2007, just because he was injured a lot and that hurt his production when the same thing happened in 2000? Or in 2008 when he scored 14 points in 9 games (maybe the only example that could actually support Daver's initial clame). And if you don't understand why 2004 is a statistical outlier and misleading it's not much more I can say.

Also those categories of yours above are so subjektive that it's laughable. Why would you draw a line between 75 and 78 games for example? And why include his shortened rookie season among the "healthy" seasons and not his Hart + Art season? No, this piece of work of yours is irrelevant. Anyone who actually followed his career already knows what I'm talking about anyway.

The fact that you are desparately trying prove that a "healthy" Forsberg is better than Sakic never ceases to amuse me.

There is no such thing as a "healthy" Forsberg. We saw the best of what he had to offer.

 

[daver]

BTW, it looks like Sakic also saw his PPG increase in his full seasons. I guess that counters any argument you can make for Forsberg.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

lol what... this is getting even better. Context man, context... what on earth has this to to with him being higher or lower in ppg and apg when healthy/unhealthy, missing time/not missing time???? Who's moving the goal post?? There was and still is absolutely no reason for you to remove those seasons in this particular discussion and I think anyone who read my last post understands why. Also why it's misleading to include the 2004 season in this very discussion. That season alone is an argument for that he saw a drop in ppg when missing time but not compared to his other seasons since his ppg projection, when still healthy, was so much higher this particular season, and should be looked at as an outlier. But again, if you're not aiming for the truth there's no point for me to provide you with all this context about seasons in the past which you obviously didn't follow very closely and aren't very interested in increasing your knowledge about either.

Edit: Ok, let's make this clear once again. Why shouldn't 2006 be looked at as a "season in his prime" when he played as good as ever the first half of the season pre injury? And in 2007, just because he was injured a lot and that hurt his production when the same thing happened in 2000? Or in 2008 when he scored 14 points in 9 games (maybe the only example that could actually support Daver's initial clame). And if you don't understand why 2004 is a statistical outlier and misleading it's not much more I can say.

Also those categories of your above are so subjektive that it's laughable. Why would you draw a line between 75 and 78 games for example? And why include his shortened rookie season among the "healthy" seasons and not his Hart + Art season? No, this piece of work of yours is irrelevant. Anyone who actually followed his career already knows what I'm talking about anyway.

I realize this is getting seriously off topic. I'll make one final statement, as I don't have enough free time to continue squabbling about a 0.02 PPG difference.

1) For the record, I followed Forsberg's career very closely. He was one of my favourite players. You can drop the "I bet you never watched him play" nonsense.

2) My objective is to post facts, which allow myself and anybody else reading this to find the truth. That's why I'm being open and transparent with the data that I'm posting. If I was trying to manipulate things, why would I be posting neatly-organized data for everyone to scrutinize?

3) I feel like the data in posts #92 speaks for itself. I think anybody who reads the thread objectively would come to the same conclusion.

4) Once again, I removed Forsberg's seasons from ages 32-33 because you yourself said to in post #49. That made sense to me in the context of this thread, since most of the discussion has been focused on 1995 to 2004, when both players were at their best and playing together in Colorado. Like I said, if I misunderstood your post, you can clarify your comments and I'll re-run the numbers (but this is contingent on you withdrawing your repeated accusations of bias - my 12 year posting history demonstrates that I'm happy to post data for people upon request, but I'm not going to spend my free time jumping through hoops for someone who's accusing me of dishonesty).

5) "Outlier" doesn't mean "data which contradicts the point I'm trying to make". Forsberg played an injury-shortened season and scored (tied for) the highest per-game rate in his career. There's no valid reason to exclude Forsberg's 2004 season.

6) As to why I divided up the games the way I did. I analyzed the data not once but twice. In post 57 I split his career into two halves. In post 92 I split his career into thirds. Both approaches yielded the same results - the pattern you've suggested in the data doesn't exist. If neither of these approaches are acceptable to you, feel free to present an alternate approach (that doesn't involve arbitrarily omitting data that contradicts your position).

 

[Ben White]

I realize this is getting seriously off topic. I'll make one final statement, as I don't have enough free time to continue squabbling about a 0.02 PPG difference.

1) For the record, I followed Forsberg's career very closely. He was one of my favourite players. You can drop the "I bet you never watched him play" nonsense.

2) My objective is to post facts, which allow myself and anybody else reading this to find the truth. That's why I'm being open and transparent with the data that I'm posting. If I was trying to manipulate things, why would I be posting neatly-organized data for everyone to scrutinize?

3) I feel like the data in posts #92 speaks for itself. I think anybody who reads the thread objectively would come to the same conclusion.

4) Once again, I removed Forsberg's seasons from ages 32-33 because you yourself said to in post #49. That made sense to me in the context of this thread, since most of the discussion has been focused on 1995 to 2004, when both players were at their best and playing together in Colorado. Like I said, if I misunderstood your post, you can clarify your comments and I'll re-run the numbers (but this is contingent on you withdrawing your repeated accusations of bias - my 12 year posting history demonstrates that I'm happy to post data for people upon request, but I'm not going to spend my free time jumping through hoops for someone who's accusing me of dishonesty).

5) "Outlier" doesn't mean "data which contradicts the point I'm trying to make". Forsberg played an injury-shortened season and scored (tied for) the highest per-game rate in his career. There's no valid reason to exclude Forsberg's 2004 season.

6) As to why I divided up the games the way I did. I analyzed the data not once but twice. In post 57 I split his career into two halves. In post 92 I split his career into thirds. Both approaches yielded the same results - the pattern you've suggested in the data doesn't exist. If neither of these approaches are acceptable to you, feel free to present an alternate approach (that doesn't involve arbitrarily omitting data that contradicts your position).

I never suggested such a thing. The term "prime" is very relative, subjective and vague. There's no reason to not include all his NHL season in this discussion, but if we're including the 2004 season the nature of the discussion (to find out whether Forsberg's ppg avarage tended to go up when he was helthier and played more games) makes it necessary to put that specific season into context, otherwise it could seem that he scored at an unsustainable rate and was likely to drop off had he played the full season, which wasn't the case since he scored at an even higher rate pre injury and saw a drop off in ppg cause he played games unhealthy when he returned from that injury.

 

[Canucks1096]

Nobody has talked about linemates. For the most part Forsberg got better wingers than Sakic.

1995 Forsberg got to play with Nolan. Forgot who Sakic played with but Nolan was by far there best winger

1996 Forsberg played with Kamesky and Lemieux. Sakic played with Young, Deadmarsh/Simon. I think most will agree Lemieux and Forsberg were better.

1997. Lemieux was hurt start of the year Deadmarsh took his spot with Forsberg and Kamesky. Sakic played with Jones and Lacroix mainly and Deadmarsh when Lemieux returned

1998 was about the same except Jones didn't play much

1999 and 2000 When the Hedjuk Drury and Tanguay came. Drury played with Forsberg mainly and Sakic got Hejduk and Tanguay. It was like that for a few seasons.

When 2003 and 2004 when Forsberg was in the lineup he mainly played Hejduk and Tanguay.

Of course lines dont stay the same the whole season. Coaches will changes things around sometimes but for the most part those were the wingers for Sakic and Forsberg.