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

[quoipourquoi]

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 .

So who did Chicago match Chelios up against in the 1996 playoffs? Entertain me with your facts/emoji, but know that some of us actually have the series in mp4 format because it’s hard to still find working VCRs.

 

[Johnny Engine]

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 .

You've offered no facts so far, just insults.
QPQ posited that teams focussed on both players, but in different ways. Do you have any evidence that this is false?

 

[streitz]

You've offered no facts so far, just insults.
QPQ posited that teams focussed on both players, but in different ways. Do you have any evidence that this is false?

Yeah I watched most of the series the avs played during that era since they were one of the only exciting teams.



I'm not going to watch games from 20 years ago for something I hardly care about, if you want to spend your time doing this be my guest.



If anyone found my posts offensive I apologize I did not mean to insult anyone. That being said Sakic was better then Foresberg on a year to year basis and it really isn't close between them.

 

[streitz]

So who did Chicago match Chelios up against in the 1996 playoffs? Entertain me with your facts/emoji, but know that some of us actually have the series in mp4 format because it’s hard to still find working VCRs.

Well if they focused on stopping Foresberg instead of Sakic that's probably why they lost. Coaches make mistakes

1996 NHL Stanley Cup Western Conference Semi-Finals: CHI vs. COL | Hockey-Reference.com

Sakic had 3x more goals then Foresberg had points in that series.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Well if they focused on stopping Foresberg instead of Sakic that's probably why they lost. Coaches make mistakes

1996 NHL Stanley Cup Western Conference Semi-Finals: CHI vs. COL | Hockey-Reference.com

Sakic had 3x more goals then Foresberg had points in that series.

Yes, Sakic did, and not having Chris Chelios attached at the hip probably helped in that regard. But - and this is the amazing part - not every series played out like that, which is why it’s more impressive that Forsberg for the most part produced at the same offensive rate as Sakic in the playoffs despite famously drawing players like Chelios, Matvichuk, Carbonneau, Fedorov, Hatcher, Konstantinov, etc. whose goal was to prevent him from scoring as opposed to trading goals with him as so many did with Sakic.

 

[Doctor No]

I'm not going to watch games from 20 years ago for something I hardly care about, if you want to spend your time doing this be my guest.

But you'll post like an authority about it.

I'd be more willing to take your word on this if you didn't repeatedly misspell one of the player's names (deliberately?).

 

[streitz]

But you'll post like an authority about it.

I'd be more willing to take your word on this if you didn't repeatedly misspell one of the player's names (deliberately?).

I'd say Floorsberg since he spend so much times on the ice trying to draw penalties but that seems to disrespectful.


I actually really hated the way FORSBERG played the game. I've never seen a stronger skater consistently go down so easily.

 

[86Habs]

Forsberg would (understandably) draw the more physical defensive players on the road, like the guys QPQ mentioned above. A large part of the reason why Dallas was so successful against Colorado in 1999 and 2000, winning the Western conference finals in 7 games both years, is because Hitchcock was able to somewhat limit Forsberg with Hatcher, Matvichuk, and his bottom six (Carbonneau, Keane, etc...the "grumpy old men") while Modano/Lehtinen, with Zubov and Sydor, who were quicker and better puck movers, went head to head against Sakic and generally got the better of that matchup.

That's my recollection of how things went down, but it's been 20 years since those series were played. Colorado was a top heavy team and vulnerable to Dallas and Detroit, who generally had a deeper group of forwards at their disposal. A little more from Sakic in 1999 and 2000 (and 2002, but that's a different story) and we could have been looking at a three-peat or maybe even a four-peat.

 

[wetcoast]

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.

That would be answer as well.

Forsberg can get under rated at times.

 

[wetcoast]

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

I wouldn't say that necessarily. Harder competition is somewhat subjective.

There would be the top defensive shutdown Dman paring on the ice against Forsberg more often as well.

 

[MadLuke]

Who played with the best wingers I imagine could influence that (I do not remember Forsberg being less of a focus of the opposition).

Kamensky-Forsberg-Lemieux was quite the line, who had Tanguay-Hedjuk or which was the best options that specific year is probably an important variable here.

 

[Fredrik_71]

To say that Forsberg was better than Sakic due to a certain statistic is false. I think it is safe to say that Sakic was the better goalscorer and Forsberg was better defensively. And if I remember correctly Forsberg actually got a Selke nomination (1997?).

 

[Troubadour]

To say that Forsberg was better than Sakic due to a certain statistic is false. I think it is safe to say that Sakic was the better goalscorer and Forsberg was better defensively. And if I remember correctly Forsberg actually got a Selke nomination (1997?).

He was the Selke favorite in 1997, but it happened to be the very year the preference shifted from offensive stars with defensive acumen towards defense-first-and-possibly-always grit guys again.

Btw to me it was clear Forberg had more brushes and colors to paint with than Sakic, although Sakic was obviously very effective. The difference was, you knew what Sakic was gonna do, but he did it so well it worked nonetheless. With Forsberg, you didn't know what he was gonna do, and it usually dropped your jaw.

Sakic was "he did it again!" type of guy.

Forsberg was "WTF did he just do?"

All the people who dare suggesting Sakic was clearly better are full of it. Since 1997/1998, Forsberg was just better. Sometimes to a greater, sometimes to a lesser extent. Often only slightly. For very short periods less productive maybe. Better anyway.

 

[Big Phil]

Good reasons so far.................another reason for me is that plus/minus isn't always the most reliable stat that tells the whole story. People will point to Lemieux having a shockingly low +10 in his 1996 season where he cracked 161 points. How is that possible? Despite lots of power play points he still averaged an even strength point per game. Plus the Pens were a 100+ point team that year. Yet in 1997 Mario had 122 points, the Pens were worse and he was a +27. I think most would agree he was better in 1996 right? So why the higher plus/minus? Because it doesn't always tell the whole story.

Pascal Dupuis, Tyler Toffoli and Jason Zucker. Three names of players who led the NHL in plus minus in a season over the last decade. Marek Malik did it in 2004. Alex Karpovtsev in 1999. Paul Ysebart in 1992. Paul Cavallini in 1990. No kidding. Lou Fontinato in 1962.

While we're at it, all the questions about Mario, he led in 1993. I think it is a fine stat, but it always needs context from different angles.

 

[MadLuke]

I think most would agree he was better in 1996 right?

Well he had 79 points at EV strenght in 76 games in 96-97 versus 73 in 70 games in 1996, that almost exactly the same ?

Maybe he played with Jagr and/or Francis at EV in 96-97 ?

 

[Big Phil]

Well he had 79 points at EV strenght in 76 games in 96-97 versus 73 in 70 games in 1996, that almost exactly the same ?

Maybe he played with Jagr and/or Francis at EV in 96-97 ?

He did a lot more, I remember that. Lots of left wing he played in 1997. That could explain it.

 

[filinski77]

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

Not looking too far into it but Forsbergs points/game was almost exactly equal: 1.25 home and 1.25 away, but his +/- per game was not: 0.387 at home and 0.282 on road. It's interesting too look at, although not sure exactly what to make of it

 

[NOTENOUGHJTCGOALS]

Is it possible that Sakic was not as strong defensively or offensively as previously believed?

 

[streitz]

Is it possible that Sakic was not as strong defensively or offensively as previously believed?

Nope

 

[The Panther]

Is it possible that Sakic was not as strong defensively or offensively as previously believed?

Yes.

I've never understood this narrative that Sakic / Yzerman / whoever was this defensive stud. I mean, what is this based on, exactly?

There's this narrative that as long as a high-scoring forward sticks around long enough, the better they are defensively. And if their team wins a Cup when they're a veteran, they're automatically considered a two-way forward stud now! (Never mind they're doing exactly the same thing they were doing twelve years earlier.) You either retire early as a scorer or play long enough to see yourself become a 'defensive forward' (whatever that is).

Yzerman said once that he didn't consider himself any better defensively when he was a veteran than when he was young; there was just a media narrative that grew up around him. (Again, it helps if your team suddenly wins when you're getting a bit old.)

I don't consider Forsberg a defensive whiz either, by the way, but I do think pound-for-pound he was a bit better than Sakic when each was at their peak. And Forsberg was certainly more physical, more likely to drag pucks out of the corner, and also more the type to carry the puck out of his own end to start a rush. Those kinds of things do help with five-on-five numbers.

But basically this 'defensive forward' stuff is a bunch of nonsense.

 

[quoipourquoi]

I don't consider Forsberg a defensive whiz either, by the way, but I do think pound-for-pound he was a bit better than Sakic when each was at their peak. And Forsberg was certainly more physical, more likely to drag pucks out of the corner, and also more the type to carry the puck out of his own end to start a rush. Those kinds of things do help with five-on-five numbers.

I thought he was a better PKer too (Colorado’s numbers kinda dipped after transitioning from Forsberg to Sakic), but obviously the trade-off to having Forsberg focus almost exclusively on offense at the beginning of the 21st century was probably worth it.

 

[Filthy Dangles]

Sakic was on the ice for far 93 more powerplay goals than Forsberg.

Where do you go to get that info? I'm surprised PP GF was tracked back then

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Where do you go to get that info? I'm surprised PP GF was tracked back then

NHL.com - filter the stats section by "plus/minus" and it has the component data (total goals for and against, and PP goals for and against). They've had the data dating back to 1968 for a while, and I think they recently added extra data going back to 1960 (or thereabout).

I don't recall offhand what they have for the playoffs - I think it's more limited but I may be mistaken.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

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).

EDIT: FOLLOWING BASED ON OUTDATED DATA. SAKIC WAS STILL AN ALL-TIME GREAT ON THE POWERPLAY, HOWEVER.

Fun fact that is rarely known for some reason: Joe Sakic = #1 all-time in career power play points


For whatever reason, power play goals is the stat everyone tracks, not power play points.

 

[Filthy Dangles]

NHL.com - filter the stats section by "plus/minus" and it has the component data (total goals for and against, and PP goals for and against). They've had the data dating back to 1968 for a while, and I think they recently added extra data going back to 1960 (or thereabout).

I don't recall offhand what they have for the playoffs - I think it's more limited but I may be mistaken.

Thanks. You aware of any source for historical SH GF/GA? And, could Forsberg's higher +/- also be influenced by being on for more SH GF which you get a plus for?

Fun fact that is rarely known for some reason: Joe Sakic = #1 all-time in career power play points


For whatever reason, power play goals is the stat everyone tracks, not power play points.

It's aggrevating how Hockey-Reference doesn't track PPP and EVP, rather PPG/EVG and PPA/EVA and you have to do more legwork for queries involving total points by strength.