Like, Forsberg just purposefully chose not to score?
Not sure I agree with you there. Btw, big fan of Forsberg. Beast of a player at his best. But remember that Forsberg played second fiddle behind Sakic who faced the toughest opponents. Forsberg had easier match-ups. Crosby always faces the opponents shut down players. Still, Forsberg was a great point producer in the playoffs. However, Crosby has him beat in goals, assists, points, finals appearances, Stanley cups and Conn Smythes. Crosby has three seasons as good or better than Forsbergs best -- point wise.
Based on an analysis from overpass:
From 1995-2004
Forsberg was on the ice for more goals for at even strength and fewer goals against. Are there any possible reasons, beyond the obvious conclusion that Forsberg was better?
Sakic played more even strength minutes than Forsberg. In the years that we have data, Sakic always played more minutes, about 5% more per game at even strength from 1998-2004. This means that their defensive results are closer than the initial examination showed, but Forsberg's offensive edge grows.
Another possible reason is the reason that some have given earlier - Sakic played tougher minutes than Forsberg, facing the best players and taking more defensive zone faceoffs. If true, this would certainly affect the numbers. I don't think that the preferences of opposing coaches would play into this too much - it's likely that some would plan to shut Sakic down, and others would plan to shut Forsberg down. I think we have to look to the preferences of the Colorado coach, and I think offensive zone faceoffs vs defensive zone faceoffs is the biggest possible source of bias in the numbers. I wasn't watching for this kind of thing at the time, so I can't offer an opinion, but it's certainly a valid point.
The third option is that Forsberg was better at preventing goals than Sakic - probably more through puck possession in the offensive zone rather than defensive play without the puck. Even if Sakic was the better defensive player, Forsberg's edge in puck possession made his defensive results just as good or better, and his offensive results better at even strength.
Both were excellent on the power play, and overall I don't see an edge for either in the stats in this area. Sakic certainly contributed more as a penalty killer. I don't know if that's enough to make up Forsberg's edge as a better even strength scorer. My guess is no. Killing penalties is valuable, but a lot of players can do it, and I don't know that Sakic was that far above replacement in this area.
Additionally...
"His even-strength numbers are superb. Among post-expansion forwards, only Gretzky, Lemieux, Jagr, Lafleur, and Esposito were better even-strength scorers in their prime. Forsberg was on the ice for many fewer (scoring adjusted) goals against than any of them except for Lafleur, suggesting that he was either a strong defensive player (whether by backchecking or by puck possession) or he was scoring his points in fewer minutes.
He was also an excellent power play scorer. After adjusting for scoring level, his power play scoring is among the best post-expansion, behind Lemieux and Esposito, close behind Gretzky and Crosby, and similar to Lafleur, Dionne, Bossy, Sakic, Thornton, and Ovechkin.
He killed penalties in his earlier years in the league as well, before injuries slowed him.
His 2003 season was excellent - arguably the best season of anyone up for voting. He had 94 even strength goals for and only 38 against, and Colorado was slightly outscored while he was on the bench."
