Why did Forsberg have a vastly better +/- compared to Sakic?

[flipp]

Sakic and Forsberg both played in the Colorado Avalanche from 94/95 to 04-05. During this period their point production was fairly similar. Regular season ppg (Sakic 1.21 , Forsberg 1.28 ,) playoff (Sakic 1.11 , Forsberg 1.16). However, Forsberg had a much better +/- rating during the same period both during the regular season and the playoffs.

Regular season.
Sakic +/-: 136 in 694 games, 0.20 per game
Forsberg +/-: 207 in 508 games, 0.41 per game

Playoff:
Sakic +/-: 9 in 147 games, 0.06 per game
Forsberg +/-: 47 in 133 games, 0.35 per game

What could explain this difference?

Click to read more...

 

[sr edler]

The advanced stats geeks of today, along with the mainstream historians, would probably start the excursion around possession and then move forward along the line of match-ups, only to end up in the inevitable conclusion that Forsberg was slightly better.

 

[The Panther]

The Forsberg-related stat that jumps out is his silly +52 in 2002-03. Sakic was merely +4 the same season, which does seem odd. But I guess if you took that single season out of the equation, they'd be a lot closer.

 

[flipp]

The Forsberg-related stat that jumps out is his silly +52 in 2002-03. Sakic was merely +4 the same season, which does seem odd. But I guess if you took that single season out of the equation, they'd be a lot closer.

It seems a bit unfair to just take out Forsbergs best NHL season. Sakic was +45 during 2000-01, his best season. I we take out both of these seasons, its 132 in 360 games for Forsberg (0.37 per game) and 88 in 554 games for Sakic (0.16 per game).

 

[quoipourquoi]

Deep teams focused on shutting down Peter Forsberg with their best defensive lines without much focus on counter-attack while instead matching Joe Sakic punch-for-punch with their best offensive lines - ideally creating a scenario where they would have an even game vs. Sakic and only have to outscore Colorado enough against their 3rd and 4th lines to mitigate the damage caused by Forsberg.

This creates an environment where Forsberg accumulates higher +/- than Sakic.

 

[The Panther]

It seems a bit unfair to just take out Forsbergs best NHL season. Sakic was +45 during 2000-01, his best season. I we take out both of these seasons, its 132 in 360 games for Forsberg (0.37 per game) and 88 in 554 games for Sakic (0.16 per game).

Right, but I wasn't suggesting my idea was fair. My point was that the 2002-03 season in itself likely shifts the balance highly in Forsberg's favor; i.e., maybe something special happened that season to both players or whatnot.

 

[Troubadour]

Deep teams focused on shutting down Peter Forsberg with their best defensive lines without much focus on counter-attack while instead matching Joe Sakic punch-for-punch with their best offensive lines - ideally creating a scenario where they would have an even game vs. Sakic and only have to outscore Colorado enough against their 3rd and 4th lines to mitigate the damage caused by Forsberg.

This creates an environment where Forsberg accumulates higher +/- than Sakic.

This would mainly explain away games though. How about the rest of them.

 

[flipp]

Right, but I wasn't suggesting my idea was fair. My point was that the 2002-03 season in itself likely shifts the balance highly in Forsberg's favor; i.e., maybe something special happened that season to both players or whatnot.

I agree that the 02-03 is an outlier. However, Sakics 00-01 is season is also an outlier (although to a lesser extent), so it seems a bit unbalanced to only exclude 02-03. Also, Forsberg had a better +/- rating compared to Sakic for 8 out of 10 seasons despite playing fewer games. In addition their is also the massive difference in the playoff. So I still think it is a tangible difference worth explaining even if you take out the 02-03 season.

 

[VanIslander]

Puck possession time. You can't score if you don't have the puck and Forsberg was legendary with his puck protection, prefering to cycle up and down low rather than take a low quality shot.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

This would mainly explain away games though. How about the rest of them.

During home games, they had almost the same plus/minus (Sakic was +116, Forsberg was +103). You see the difference on the road (Forsberg was +87, Sakic was only +13). This supports QPQ's take.

The other main reason is Sakic was more dependent on the powerplay (those goals aren't included in plus/minus). Sakic was on the ice for far 93 more powerplay goals than Forsberg. If those counted towards plus/minus, their plus/minus (in total and per game) would be virtually the same. (I'm not saying powerplay goals should count in plus/minus - but it explains why Forsberg's was much higher despite their offense being similar).

 

[quoipourquoi]

This would mainly explain away games though. How about the rest of them.

Colorado, particularly under Hartley, did not mind the same setup, because while their checking line (usually Yelle) was the preferred line for teams’ best offensive lines, they didn’t seem to show the same urgency to avoid the Sakic vs. best offensive line matchup during changes on the fly because of Sakic’s defensive acumen.

And even at home, when Forsberg was on the ice, the other team changed to match him ASAP (because God help you if you didn’t). Bowman and Hitchcock in particular would after a successful faceoff win against Forsberg (or Drury) dump and change immediately.

 

[Troubadour]

During home games, they had almost the same plus/minus (Sakic was +116, Forsberg was +103). You see the difference on the road (Forsberg was +87, Sakic was only +13). This supports QPQ's take.

Yeah, that's what I asked for and it indeed does support @quoipourquoi's take. Although right below your post, @quoipourquoi himself kinda counters the idea of things being much different in terms of setup (for the Avs at home).

I'm happy with that anyway.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Yeah, that's what I asked for and it indeed does support @quoipourquoi's take. Although right below your post, @quoipourquoi himself kinda counters the idea of things being much different in terms of setup (for the Avs at home).

I'm happy with that anyway.

I wouldn’t necessarily say it counters it, but rather accounts for the relatively equal split home/road for Forsberg while also showing that if Colorado hadn’t passively allowed Sakic to drift into a Trottier/Clarke/Messier role that probably wasn’t for him at the opponents’ discretion, they might have generated better results.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

without looking at any numbers to check this hypothesis, could it also be partially a result of forsberg missing so much time and sakic racking up less plusses/more minuses when forsberg is out of the lineup because now there's not two guys to spread the best opposition between?

 

[Troubadour]

without looking at any numbers to check this hypothesis, could it also be partially a result of forsberg missing so much time and sakic racking up less plusses/more minuses when forsberg is out of the lineup because now there's not two guys to spread the best opposition between?

Could be, but the trend continued into the playoffs, where Forsberg was more often present than not.

I mean, Sakic had been a strange plus minus fella even before Forsberg joined the Nordiques and he continued to be such even after Forsberg had left for the Flyers. I guess the opposing teams always put the offensive wizards on him and saved their relentless defensive forces for someone else.

 

[streitz]

Sakic played against harder competition, Foresberg got the easier matchups.

 

[Sticks and Pucks]

Could Forsberg have simply been the better defensive player? Forsberg had two top 5 Selke finishes, four top 10 finishes. Sakic had one top 5 finish, two top 10 finishes.

 

[streitz]

Could Forsberg have simply been the better defensive player? Forsberg had two top 5 Selke finishes, four top 10 finishes. Sakic had one top 5 finish, two top 10 finishes.

No.


Sakic played against the other teams top defenders.


Foresberg was less of a threat.

 

[Nick Hansen]

Could Forsberg have simply been the better defensive player? Forsberg had two top 5 Selke finishes, four top 10 finishes. Sakic had one top 5 finish, two top 10 finishes.

Forsberg was a possession monster, who spent quite a bit more time in the offensive zone than the defensive one. That coupled with his physicality probably impressed voters at the time. That's not to say he was an Ovechkin, who's gotten Selke votes (smh). Forsberg was responsible for real.

Suckic mostly pranced around.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Could Forsberg have simply been the better defensive player? Forsberg had two top 5 Selke finishes, four top 10 finishes. Sakic had one top 5 finish, two top 10 finishes.

I don’t think that explains it, as they were on the ice for roughly the same number of even strength goals against per game while in Quebec/Colorado. Sakic was a bit worse (10% or so) but I think that’s likely explained by matchups (we’d expect Sakic to be on the ice for more goals against if he’s playing against the opponents top line).

 

[streitz]

Forsberg was a possession monster, who spent quite a bit more time in the offensive zone than the defensive one. That coupled with his physicality probably impressed voters at the time. That's not to say he was an Ovechkin, who's gotten Selke votes (smh). Forsberg was responsible for real.

Suckic mostly pranced around.

Aren't you the guy who said Larmer playing 47 of 48 games during the 94-95 season was him 'lacking durability'?



Not the best source of hockey information here.

 

[Nick Hansen]

Aren't you the guy who said Larmer playing 47 of 48 games during the 94-95 season was him 'lacking durability'?



Not the best source of hockey information here.

I had forgotten that year was a lockout year, and you weren't the first one to reply with that information.

You also claimed Lecavalier was a better player than Pavel Bure.

 

[streitz]

I had forgotten that year was a lockout year, and you weren't the first one to reply with that information.

You also claimed Lecavalier was a better player than Pavel Bure.

He was, Bure was overrated and useless for the majority of his career.

 

[Theokritos]

Sakic played against harder competition, Foresberg got the easier matchups.

Perhaps you should read what has already been posted:

Deep teams focused on shutting down Peter Forsberg with their best defensive lines without much focus on counter-attack while instead matching Joe Sakic punch-for-punch with their best offensive lines - ideally creating a scenario where they would have an even game vs. Sakic and only have to outscore Colorado enough against their 3rd and 4th lines to mitigate the damage caused by Forsberg.

This creates an environment where Forsberg accumulates higher +/- than Sakic.

 

[streitz]

Perhaps you should read what has already been posted:

I read it, the post is false. Teams focused on Sakic, not Foresberg.


I'm well aware both the pro European and the youtube crowds are under the same delusion that Foresberg was better then Sakic. I'm not interested in delusion though, only fact .