Peter Forsberg vs Joe Sakic

[SillyRabbit]

Forsberg was the bigger threat when they both played together, but Sakic had the greater career

 

[Regal]

I think Ben White has a point about injuries hurting Forsberg's production, but the problem is in how it's being examined. HO has provided the data that shows BW's claim about scoring less in shortened seasons to be wrong, but the problem is that's a flawed way of trying to figure out is this is the case. I think BW knows this but has struggled to articulate it. The claim is that playing through injury and coming back from injury early hurt his numbers. This doesn't necessarily mean shortened seasons, as a player could play half the year get hurt for 10 games and come back injured and play the final 32 injured and it looks like he was healthy, or play 41 games healthy to start the year and then get injured and it looks like he played injured. I'm not sure how to best examine this. No doubt all players play through things throughout the year but Forsberg seemed particularly susceptible and I wouldn't be surprised if his numbers were a bit better if he didn't have as many nagging problems. I feel similarly about Lindros and Malkin. Of course one of the issues is it's hard to separate players with nagging injuries from their play, as it's often their style of play that causes them. Forsberg's degenerative foot problems were another issue entirely though

 

[KevinRedkey]

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

I grew up a fan of Lindros. Am I really the "younger generation"?

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

WTF are you even talking about? I never mentioned any other players outside Sakic and Forsberg.

A slightly higher GPG in the playoffs doesn't make up the difference in the regular season. My point stands.

 

[authentic]

I think Ben White has a point about injuries hurting Forsberg's production, but the problem is in how it's being examined. HO has provided the data that shows BW's claim about scoring less in shortened seasons to be wrong, but the problem is that's a flawed way of trying to figure out is this is the case. I think BW knows this but has struggled to articulate it. The claim is that playing through injury and coming back from injury early hurt his numbers. This doesn't necessarily mean shortened seasons, as a player could play half the year get hurt for 10 games and come back injured and play the final 32 injured and it looks like he was healthy, or play 41 games healthy to start the year and then get injured and it looks like he played injured. I'm not sure how to best examine this. No doubt all players play through things throughout the year but Forsberg seemed particularly susceptible and I wouldn't be surprised if his numbers were a bit better if he didn't have as many nagging problems. I feel similarly about Lindros and Malkin. Of course one of the issues is it's hard to separate players with nagging injuries from their play, as it's often their style of play that causes them. Forsberg's degenerative foot problems were another issue entirely though

That was what caused him to end his career, and that started to become a problem in 2002 actually. He had a whole whack of other injuries throughout his career though, and a lot were likely caused by his style of play but a lot were just from how rough the league was on star players and what they were able to get away with, and some bad luck. It's a lot of factors but I have no doubts that players like Orr, Lemieux, Lindros, Forsberg and even Malkin recently would have produced better with more games because of course a lot of those injury troubles would be gone.

Here's a quote from his wikipedia page;

"The first season in which he missed a significant part was 1996–97. Due to a bruised thigh, Forsberg was out on 14 regular season games and three playoff games. In the off season before the 1999–2000 season, Forsberg underwent shoulder surgery and missed the first 23 games of the season. He missed an extra 10 games due to shoulder injuries, a concussion and a hip pointer. After missing eight games due to a rib injury in the 2000–01 regular season, Forsberg suffered a severe injury in the playoffs. After the last game of the conference semifinal against the Los Angeles Kings on 9 May 2001, he underwent surgery to remove a ruptured spleen and it was announced that he would not play until the following season. In the beginning of the 2001–02 season, he took a leave of absence to heal his injuries. In January 2002, the Colorado Avalanche held a press conference but instead of announcing the expected return of Forsberg, announced that he had been submitted to reconstructive surgery on the peroneal tendons of his left foot (Forsberg would return for the playoffs that season, but foot problems would plague Forsberg for the rest of his career and eventually end it). In 2003–04 season, he missed 43 games: 19 with a groin and abdominal injury.

During the lockout, while playing for Modo Hockey, Forsberg had surgery after dislocating his left wrist and breaking a bone in his hand, and because of a bursa sac removal."

I fully support the idea that his points per game from 1995-2008 would he higher with better health, looking at all he went through it shouldn't be too hard to believe. I don't think it would be by much though, and I also think if he played later into his 30s like other players he would have obviously declined, but not enough that his career points per game would have dropped significantly seeing as how good he still was at 34 after all the injuries he had sustained and wear and tear from playing the way he did.

 

[authentic]

How he was able to play the way he did in the beginning of 2005-06 is actually very crazy if you consider all of the above, and I'm certain those are not even all the injuries he had in his career because I know he had several concussions, but I think people don't truly realize all the fairly serious injuries he had that can really affect your play.

 

[psycat]

Since the poll asked who was the better player the answer is Forsberg. However Sakic had a better career and wasnt far off on a per-game basis. Combined this makes him a greater player.

Voted Forsberg though since that is the correct answer to the poll.

 

[daver]

I think Ben White has a point about injuries hurting Forsberg's production, but the problem is in how it's being examined. HO has provided the data that shows BW's claim about scoring less in shortened seasons to be wrong, but the problem is that's a flawed way of trying to figure out is this is the case. I think BW knows this but has struggled to articulate it. The claim is that playing through injury and coming back from injury early hurt his numbers. This doesn't necessarily mean shortened seasons, as a player could play half the year get hurt for 10 games and come back injured and play the final 32 injured and it looks like he was healthy, or play 41 games healthy to start the year and then get injured and it looks like he played injured. I'm not sure how to best examine this. No doubt all players play through things throughout the year but Forsberg seemed particularly susceptible and I wouldn't be surprised if his numbers were a bit better if he didn't have as many nagging problems. I feel similarly about Lindros and Malkin. Of course one of the issues is it's hard to separate players with nagging injuries from their play, as it's often their style of play that causes them. Forsberg's degenerative foot problems were another issue entirely though

From 1996 to 2004, Sakic had four seasons under 70 games and another under 75. His PPG for those seasons is less than his PPG in his full seasons during that time period. Seems like this is somewhat of an irrelevant point to make only for Forsberg.

Maybe Forsberg, like Lindros, could have played a less physical game and stayed healthier but that may have affected his production.

The main point here Injuries should not open the door to hypothetical conjecture that raise the stature of a player over what they actually did on a per game basis.

IMO, their numbers, both raw points and their respective PPGs over that time period speak for themselves.

 

[Regal]

From 1996 to 2004, Sakic had four seasons under 70 games and another under 75. His PPG for those seasons is less than his PPG in his full seasons during that time period. Seems like this is somewhat of an irrelevant point to make only for Forsberg.

Maybe Forsberg, like Lindros, could have played a less physical game and stayed healthier but that may have affected his production.

The main point here Injuries should not open the door to hypothetical conjecture that raise the stature of a player over what they actually did on a per game basis.

IMO, their numbers, both raw points and their respective PPGs over that time period speak for themselves.

Again, the issue isn't the games played per season, that was a flawed point by Ben White. The issue is playing through/coming back from injury. Not all injuries and missed time are the same for all players.

And while not opening the door to more subjective arguments of this nature might be the most practical approach, particularly in long lists of player rankings, ultimately creating these limitations seems flawed to me. We should always be careful of our biases, but I see no benefit to reshaping our opinions of players to fit into a neat box of unquestioned objectivity. We don't always have to agree

 

[daver]

So to eliminate the uncertainty of their respective injury shortened seasons and trying to compare PPGs from different seasons, here are the PPGs for both players in seasons where they both played over 70 games:

1995/96 - Sakic - 1.46 (82 games), Forsberg - 1.41 (82 games)


1998/99 - Sakic - 1.31 (73 games), Forsberg - 1.24 (75 games)


2000/01 - Sakic - 1.44 (82 games), Forsberg - 1.22 (73 games)

 

[Regal]

So to eliminate the uncertainty of their respective injury shortened seasons and trying to compare PPGs from different seasons, here are the PPGs for both players in seasons where they both played over 70 games:

1995/96 - Sakic - 1.46 (82 games), Forsberg - 1.41 (82 games)


1998/99 - Sakic - 1.31 (73 games), Forsberg - 1.24 (75 games)


2000/01 - Sakic - 1.44 (82 games), Forsberg - 1.22 (73 games)

I'm really not sure what this comparison is trying to accomplish. First, games played and health are not one in the same. That was my main point. Second, which seasons they both remained healthy is completely arbitrary

 

[Ben White]

So to eliminate the uncertainty of their respective injury shortened seasons and trying to compare PPGs from different seasons, here are the PPGs for both players in seasons where they both played over 70 games:

1995/96 - Sakic - 1.46 (82 games), Forsberg - 1.41 (82 games)


1998/99 - Sakic - 1.31 (73 games), Forsberg - 1.24 (75 games)


2000/01 - Sakic - 1.44 (82 games), Forsberg - 1.22 (73 games)

Lol, ok, so Sakic happened to produce more in the exact seasons where they BOTH happened to play more than 70 games simultaneosly... was that ever a relevant aspect? I don't think we have much more to discuss if that's the level you're representing.

 

[Cousin Eddie]

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

The funny thing is that Sakic was a playmaker. He was always one of the better passers in the league. It just so happened that he was gifted with one of the greatest shots the league has ever seen which lead to him having high goal totals as well. Sakic was well known for posting up on the half wall or down low. The entire other team would spread out knowing a pass was likely coming since Sakic was a pass first guy. Sakic would still often find an open man which he had no business finding but if that opportunity never presented itself he would shoot from an angle he had no business shooting from and often find the back of the net.

 

[gifted88]

Seems the argument is if Forsberg passed Sakic in his limited time. If Forsberg managed to stay healthy he may have turned out to be the better player.

I don't like what if's, so this is Sakic.

 

[blundluntman]

Sakic for sure. His 01 and 96 seasons outdo Forsberg's peak imo. Add his ridiculous consistency and it's not too hard.

 

[daver]

I'm really not sure what this comparison is trying to accomplish. First, games played and health are not one in the same. That was my main point. Second, which seasons they both remained healthy is completely arbitrary

That "full season/healthy" Forsberg is not as superior a player as the other poster is making him out to be.

I really don't get why Forsberg's injuries and what if scenarios are so important in this comparison when Sakic had many injury-shortened seasons himself during the 95 to 04 time period that also saw his PPG lowered.

As I have said, their PPG and raw numbers speak for themselves.

 

[daver]

Lol, ok, so Sakic happened to produce more in the exact seasons where they BOTH happened to play more than 70 games simultaneosly... was that ever a relevant aspect? I don't think we have much more to discuss if that's the level you're representing.

You haven't acknowledged that Sakic also had a lower PPG in his injury-shortened seasons which makes your argument about Forsberg, which was thoroughly debunked anyways, a moot point.

Any other unreasonable conjecture you want to throw out about Forsberg?

 

[Trap Jesus]

Easily Sakic. When they're that close for career numbers/accomplishments, you can't just ignore Sakic playing twice as many games.

 

[daver]

It can be argued Forsberg's PPG from 95 to 04 is artificially high given he missed the whole 01/02 season, one where scoring took a tumble and Sakic played a full season.

In 01/02, no players hit 1.20 PPG and only 8 players in the Top 20 reached a PPG. In 02/03, Forsberg's Art season, 5 players hit 1.20 and 16 players reach a PPG.

Sakic had the better PPG from 95 - 01 (1.30), then it took a drop (to 1.24), like everyone else's did in 01/02, to be behind Forsberg who didn't play a game in one of the lowest scoring seasons in that era.

I guess this is actually a time where Forsberg's injuries were a positive for him.

 

[86Habs]

Sakic. Better peak, better career. Underrated, vis-a-vis Forsberg, due to his more subtle style of play (IMO).

 

[Garthinater]

Good poll, I may be biased as one of my favorite memories is of sakic scoring 2 goals vs the USA in the 2002 Olympics but for me it's him. I'll never forget that wirst shot goal he scored from just inside the blue line.

 

[amoboko]

So happy to stumble on this topic. As I was 11-12 years old at the time the team got relocated to Denver I have to say that Foppa had the slight advantage. He had the x factor, where big Joe was the workhorse creating opportunities.

 

[SuperScript29]

Career wise there's no question that Sakic was better. But at their peak I would say Forsberg.

Foppa was one of those players that would take over games and dominate, when he was on, there was no question that he was the best Avalanche forward on that roster.

 

[cgf]

For a game at the height of their powers; Foppa.
For an entire career; Joe.
For their peak season; this is where it gets interesting, but I'm taking Foppa.

...there's a reason my dog is named Peter; admittedly that may be entirely aesthetic

 

[amoboko]

I called my son after Adam Deadmarsh

 

[bobholly39]

Very similar to Crosby/Malkin in Pitt.

Crosby is clearly the better player overall/better career. But it's not out of line to say Malkin had the better peak (of course - the reverse can also be said).

Same idea here. Sakic is clearly the better overall player/career. But at their best Forsberg has a case (again, 50/50, as it can be argued both ways).