Would Yzerman have been a HOFer after '96?

[Big Phil]

I was reading a post awhile back after Yzerman retired and it most poeple were saying how Yzerman is going straight to the HOF in 2009. One guy said he doesnt think Yzerman is getting in. Of course he was quickly corrected. But it got me thinking what would have happened had he retired back in '96 after his 95 point season. He still had a Pearson Trophy back in '89 on his resume. But he would have retired with no CUps, no COnn Smyhe Trophy and no post season all-star selections. Not to mention no Olympic medal.

I still say yes. No question. But it may not be as clear cut as you think. Remember Yzerman was criticized previous years at that time for not getting the Wings the CUp, or even out of the first round. People forget that he didnt start to become a well rounded player until about '96. And Bowman was thinking of trading him around '94. EIther way I'll still say yes though his legacy wouldnt be as bright.

Click to read more...

 

[VanIslander]

It was a sure thing by the time he won the Selke in '99-'00.

The Olympic gold medal and heroics in the following playoffs, in 2002, were just icing on the cake.

 

[12# Peter Bondra]

Yzerman stats if he retired in 1996:
517 goals + 738 assists = 1255 points in 942 games.

I think he would have been in if he retired in 1996 but his legacy became stronger the longer he played (he got 3 trophies, A Selke in 2000, an Olympic Gold Medal and 2 more Stanley Cups after 96). He only won 1 Cup and 1 Pearson Trophy before 1996.

 

[espo*]

He would still have gotten in.

 

[SGY19]

Yzerman stats if he retired in 1996:
517 goals + 738 assists = 1255 points in 942 games.

I think he would have been in if he retired in 1996 but his legacy became stronger the longer he played (he got 3 trophies, A Selke in 2000, an Olympic Gold Medal and 2 more Stanley Cups after 96). He only won 1 Cup and 1 Pearson Trophy before 1996.

Actually Yzerman didn't win his first stanley cup until 1997.

 

[12# Peter Bondra]

Actually Yzerman didn't win his first stanley cup until 1997.

Well, I miised 1 year. Take away 1 Cup from his win list.

 

[pnep]

Yzerman "HHOF Monitors" PTS by Seasons:

SEASON -- "HHOF Monitors" PTS
=========================
1983-84 -- 74,50
1984-85 -- 39,00
1985-86 -- 16,50
1986-87 -- 69,00
1987-88 -- 76,50
1988-89 -- 113,50
1989-90 -- 154,50
1990-91 -- 154,50
1991-92 -- 93,50
1992-93 -- 102,50
1993-94 -- 57,00
1994-95 -- 85,50
1995-96 -- 81,50

1996-97 -- 129,00
1997-98 -- 233,50
1998-99 -- 73,00
1999-00 -- 203,00
2000-01 -- 44,00
2001-02 -- 120,00
2002-03 -- 20,50
2003-04 -- 51,00
2005-06 -- 35,50

1983-96 = 1118,00 "HHOF Monitors" PTS
1983-06 = 2027,50 "HHOF Monitors" PTS

Yes, Yzerman have been a HOFer after '96

 

[God Bless Canada]

One thing to note: voting for the THN top 50 took place after the 1995-96 season. Yzerman finished in the low 1990s. Denis Savard, who didn't finish in the top 100, got in on the first ballot in 2000. Dale Hawerchuk, also not in the top 100, got in the following year on the second ballot. So Yzerman definitely would have gotten in. I don't know if it would have been first-ballot - the HHOF voters were dead-set on having just Gretzky inducted in 1999.

Also keep in mind that the 1995-96 season was one of Yzerman's best. He didn't reach 100 points, but he played better than he had during many of those 100 point seasons. Finished third in Selke voting. He also likely had the best playoff of his career (to that point), one of a very few Wings who elevated his play in the post-season. That Detroit team that pushed all those regular season records, barely beat a St. Louis team that was without Hart Trophy candidate Grant Fuhr.

Few players who are future HHOFers by the time they're 30, have done more to further their HHOF legacy after 30. Yzerman would have been a lock at 30. He captained three teams to the Cup, was the best player on a Cup champion, won a Selke and was a first-team all-star after his 30th birthday. An incredible post-30 resume.

Phil, just remember, the person who said Yzerman might not get in, is nothing more than the clanging of a gong, and fodder for an ignore list. That reminds me, I have to do something....

 

[reckoning]

Back in the mid-90s there were a lot of people calling Yzerman a playoff choker and blaming him completely for Detroit`s lack of playoff success. It was absurd and stupid, but no different than the Einsteins on the main board these days who are always knocking Joe Thornton.

Yes, Yzerman was a HHOFer by 1996. With 90% of players, the answer is clear by that point in their career. How many forwards weren`t good enough for the Hall at age 31, but made it because of what they did from age 32>>>?

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

I'm gonna say no.

He may have made it, but he would have been a very borderline pick.

 

[SGY19]

I'm gonna say no.

He may have made it, but he would have been a very borderline pick.

Well, Cam Neely played in that exact same span from 83-96 and he got in the HOF, so I think Yzerman would've got in if he had retired in 96. Neely only had 694 points while Yzerman had 1255 points in the same exact span. Yzerman's best years were from 83-96. He played on better teams after 96, but he was a better player before 96. Actually Yzerman would've had a better chance of getting in the HOF if he had retired in 96 then he does of getting in the HOF now.

 

[Trottier]

He would have gotten in.

But he would not have been known as a champion.

As is, his legacy is now closer to the likes of the Messiers and Trottiers than the Marcel Dionnes of the world.

Which is a BIG BIG difference, IMO.

***

To suggest that he had a better chance of getting in, was more qualified in '96 than post- '96 is typical HF mentality, placing individual fantasy stats above leading a team to multiple Stanley Cups. Yzerman's stock increased signficantly by virtue of "completing his resume" in the last decade of his career.

 

[MS]

He would've been in easily. Not a shadow of a doubt.

His resume had he retired in 1996 blows away that of a guy like Lafontaine.

His performance post-1996 elevated him from a Savard/Hawerchuk/Stastny level (dominant offensive players with 1200+ career points but no cups, but who still cakewalked to the HHOF) to that of an absolute legend, probably a top-25 player ever.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

Well, Cam Neely played in that exact same span from 83-96 and he got in the HOF, so I think Yzerman would've got in if he had retired in 96. Neely only had 694 points while Yzerman had 1255 points in the same exact span. Yzerman's best years were from 83-96. He played on better teams after 96, but he was a better player before 96. Actually Yzerman would've had a better chance of getting in the HOF if he had retired in 96 then he does of getting in the HOF now.

Neely is obviously a hottly debated selection, but Yzerman is a very different sort of player.

He would've been in easily. Not a shadow of a doubt.

His resume had he retired in 1996 blows away that of a guy like Lafontaine.

His performance post-1996 elevated him from a Savard/Hawerchuk/Stastny level (dominant offensive players with 1200+ career points but no cups, but who still cakewalked to the HHOF) to that of an absolute legend, probably a top-25 player ever.

Savard is in the Hall? Uggh, then yeah, Yzerman would've too.

 

[MS]

Savard is in the Hall? Uggh, then yeah, Yzerman would've too.

You have a problem with Savard being in the HHOF?

The guy was top-15 in all-time scoring and top-10 in all-time playoff scoring (playing for Chicago!) when he retired. Probably one of the top 5-6 offensive players of the 1980s, top-10 in scoring most years during that decade including a couple times where he finished #3 in scoring. And one of the most exciting players ever.

I don't think his induction has ever been questioned, and to me it isn't even debateable. Has the career numbers, has the dominant prime years, was a playoff performer and has a Cup ring.

 

[discostu]

He would've been in easily. Not a shadow of a doubt.

His resume had he retired in 1996 blows away that of a guy like Lafontaine.

His performance post-1996 elevated him from a Savard/Hawerchuk/Stastny level (dominant offensive players with 1200+ career points but no cups, but who still cakewalked to the HHOF) to that of an absolute legend, probably a top-25 player ever.

This pretty much summarizes the entire arguement.

 

[octopi]

At the end of 1996? I'm guessing no, might have been borderline, but the first Cup clinched it the next year.

 

[SGY19]

At the end of 1996? I'm guessing no, might have been borderline, but the first Cup clinched it the next year.

You are probably right that Yzerman wouldn't have gotten in the HOF if he had retired in 96 because he hadn't won a cup or any awards. I think Yzerman's best chance of getting in the HOF would've been if he had retired right after winning the second cup in 1998. I think 1996 would've been too early and 2006 is too late.

 

[Sens Rule]

You are probably right that Yzerman wouldn't have gotten in the HOF if he had retired in 96 because he hadn't won a cup or any awards. I think Yzerman's best chance of getting in the HOF would've been if he had retired right after winning the second cup in 1998. I think 1996 would've been too early and 2006 is too late.

Yzerman would probably have gotten in if he retired in 1993 or even 1992 if he had a career ending injury and could no longer play.

Get off the Yzerman martyr soapbox. It is so tired and you are the only person perhaps in the entire world that believes it. Saying that 2006 was "too late" is frankly beyond Pejorative Slured.

Yzerman was thought of as a truly elite player from his 102 point season in 87-88. He played at that incredibly high level for the next 5 seasons. Right then he was a HOF player. 6 straight seasons of 100+ points. Five 50 goal seasons. Two 60 goal seasons and 155 points the most ever not by Mario or Gretzky. 2 more seasons of 125 plus points. A Pearson Trophy, And the fact he was considered a top 5 or top 10 player in the NHL for 6 straight seasons made him a Hall of Famer after 9 or 10 seasons. And his first 4 seasons before he jumped to elite status were not shabby either.

 

[Trottier]

Saying that 2006 was "too late" is frankly beyond Pejorative Slured.

Not to further pile on the poster, but it's always been a peeve of mine when fans try to "perfect" player's careers, and suggest that they should have retired earlier.

And, here in the case of Yzerman, as well as with countless others (e.g., Messier, Mario, etc.) devalue the player for hanging on several years longer than the critics would have liked.

Hint: It's his career, his livelihood. And so what if the Steve Yzerman of 2006 (still a very servicable player) was not the Stevie Y of 1996?! There are those geniuses who suggest that Messier's reputation as a great leader was marred because of his last several seasons on a non-playoff Rangers team. Guess what? Those teams stunk! Not to mention that in the yerars prior, Messier accomplished more than most others who ever played the game!

Why not just appreciate the player for what he is? I personally NEVER want to see greats retire, and never understand why fans are eager to send players out to pasture prematurely, so that their own idea of a perfect career is served.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

You have a problem with Savard being in the HHOF?

The guy was top-15 in all-time scoring and top-10 in all-time playoff scoring (playing for Chicago!) when he retired. Probably one of the top 5-6 offensive players of the 1980s, top-10 in scoring most years during that decade including a couple times where he finished #3 in scoring. And one of the most exciting players ever.

I don't think his induction has ever been questioned, and to me it isn't even debateable. Has the career numbers, has the dominant prime years, was a playoff performer and has a Cup ring.

Hmmm, my bad, my memory of his Habs years is too strong I guess...

There are those geniuses who suggest that Messier's reputation as a great leader was marred because of his last several seasons on a non-playoff Rangers team. Guess what? Those teams stunk! Not to mention that in the yerars prior, Messier accomplished more than most others who ever played the game!

I thought Messier's leadership was tainted because he was a cancer in Vancouver.

 

[Sens Rule]

Not to further pile on the poster, but it's always been a peeve of mine when fans try to "perfect" player's careers, and suggest that they should have retired earlier.

And, here in the case of Yzerman, as well as with countless others (e.g., Messier, Mario, etc.) devalue the player for hanging on several years longer than the critics would have liked.

Hint: It's his career, his livelihood. And so what if the Steve Yzerman of 2006 (still a very servicable player) was not the Stevie Y of 1996?! There are those geniuses who suggest that Messier's reputation as a great leader was marred because of his last several seasons on a non-playoff Rangers team. Guess what? Those teams stunk! Not to mention that in the yerars prior, Messier accomplished more than most others who ever played the game!

Why not just appreciate the player for what he is? I personally NEVER want to see greats retire, and never understand why fans are eager to send players out to pasture prematurely, so that their own idea of a perfect career is served.

I agree completely it is up to the player. Some players like Coffey, Rickey Henderson, Pete Rose in baseball hang around past the time they are even average players. However Steve Yzerman didn't do that at all. Yzerman was a very effective player last season and for the last several years. Look at how Yzerman played down the stretch and in the playoffs. He was one of the top couple of players on Detroit the first place overall team.

On this topic. Messier played on a losing team but in his 40's he was still very impressive. He still had much of his skills. I have heard many people and posters here say that Gretzky hung around too long. It is crazy to say that, in his 2nd last season he was one of the best offensive players in the NHL and even in his last year he was very effective. Players like Andreychuk, Francis, Oates cemented their legacies with excellent performances in their later years.

Basically hockey is a business and it is about winning. You don't keep a player around if he is not effective even if his name is Chelios or Hull or Messier. If a player is able to get into the regualr line-up then he deserves to be there. Brett Hull decided to retire at the start of the season and that is his perogative. Messier and Chelios and Gordie Howe for that matter stuck around for a very long time. None of those three were ever ineffective and unuseful to their team. And none of them tarnished their legacy by sticking around well into their 40's.

Of all the players who hung around the one I have the least use for is Pete Rose. He stuck around clearly just to accumulate numbers. He was not that effective anymore he just wanted to break the hits record. I think most players stick around just becuse they love to play their sport and don't know what they could ever do that is as fun and satisfying when they retire. I think Rickey Henderson is still playing baseball in the minors or in semi-pro somewhere. Why? Not for money, or fame but just because he wants to play baseball.

 

[MS]

Not to further pile on the poster, but it's always been a peeve of mine when fans try to "perfect" player's careers, and suggest that they should have retired earlier.

And, here in the case of Yzerman, as well as with countless others (e.g., Messier, Mario, etc.) devalue the player for hanging on several years longer than the critics would have liked.

Hint: It's his career, his livelihood. And so what if the Steve Yzerman of 2006 (still a very servicable player) was not the Stevie Y of 1996?! There are those geniuses who suggest that Messier's reputation as a great leader was marred because of his last several seasons on a non-playoff Rangers team. Guess what? Those teams stunk! Not to mention that in the yerars prior, Messier accomplished more than most others who ever played the game!

Why not just appreciate the player for what he is? I personally NEVER want to see greats retire, and never understand why fans are eager to send players out to pasture prematurely, so that their own idea of a perfect career is served.

Agreed for the most part. I know if I were fortunate enough to have been an NHL player, I'd play until either my body completely gave out or no-one wanted me anymore. Why on earth would you not want to keep playing a sport you love, for which you get paid a pile of money and get to compete for the most prestigious trophy in pro sports, for as long as possible? So you can open a car dealership or get some lame PR position with your old team?

Good for a guy like Chelios for lasting until he's 45. It's enhanced his legacy, if anything. He's not what he used to be, but he's still a fine, contributing player and anyone who says he should retire is out to lunch.

But Messier is a different story. Not for his abilities on the ice - he aged pretty gracefully in that regard - but for how he handled himself off the ice. I've never seen a more selfish, ego-centic, power-hungry player than the Messier who played in Vancouver. Absolutely tore the team and dressing room apart. Intentionally got a coach fired. Participated in deciding which of his teammates were dealt away. Most hated player (by a country mile) in this franchise's long history. His legacy as a 'great leader' absolutely was tarnished by his later years. And by his refusal to accept a smaller role when he went back to NYR, again hurting his team in the process.

__________

Back to Yzerman, he was a lock by the 1992-93 season when he passed the 1000-point mark. At that point he had the HHOF-calibre career numbers to go with his dominant prime years (3rd best offensive player in the game behind only Gretzky and Lemieux in the period from 87-93), and he was a sure bet. Every year since only made him more of a lock.

 

[discostu]

There are those geniuses who suggest that Messier's reputation as a great leader was marred because of his last several seasons on a non-playoff Rangers team. Guess what? Those teams stunk! Not to mention that in the yerars prior, Messier accomplished more than most others who ever played the game!

Count me as one of those geniuses. Not that I don't think that Messier's accomplishments as a leader during the Oilers era and for the Rangers cup win. Those are impressive accomplishments.

But, I think that his later years showed that he's not the perfect leader for all situations. I think once he lost the ability to back up his leadership qualities with dominating on-ice play, he became much less effective as a leader. Because he was so revered as a leader, it also prevented other people in that lockerroom from stepping up and taking the reigns, as no one wanted to be the guy that steps on the toes of "the greatest leader the sport has ever known".

I think Messier deserves his share of the blame for those Ranger failures, but, it doesn't take away from his accomplishments during his peak years. It does mean, however, that when we talk about Messier's leadership ablities, that his role in the Oiler dynasty and the Rangers cup win will also be accompanied by his role in the Rangers failures. It showed that he wasn't perfect as a leader, and as obvious as a statement as that sounds, I'd imagine that people would have been calling him that had he retired after 1994.

BTW, I am in an agreement that a player should play as long as they want as long as they're having fun doing it. I was a big supporter of Coffey willing to play even when he was in the minors because he still wanted to play hockey. Not wanting to play anymore, even though you still enjoy it, because you're worried how it may impact your legacy is silly. No one, whether you're a hockey player or a desk jockey working in a cubicle, should go through their career trying to avoid accomplishment out of a fear of failure. That's not how great careers are built.

 

[Trottier]

But, I think that his later years showed that he's not the perfect leader for all situations.

Agreed, he's not (wasn't). But who's "perfect"? I will defer to others closer to the scene for his indescretions in Vancouver, what I know about his last years in NYC was that he was not the "perfect leader"...for a lousy squad of overpaid, overrated, heartless underachievers. Point being, Bowman, Imlach, Lombardi and Christ himself couldn't have "led" that dysfunctional group anywhere.

I think once he lost the ability to back up his leadership qualities with dominating on-ice play, he became much less effective as a leader.

On that we agree 100%. Leadership is producing on the ice, especially when it matter most. That is what peers appreciate/respect most. Deliver and then you are in a position to set/demand high expectations for your teammates.

***

Bringing it back to the topic of Stevie Y: He retired when he wanted to. Good for him. Our loss. I get a kick out of those who seemingly want mandatory retirement ages for players. Funny thing is, Chelios at 43 last year was better than many (most?) NHL dmen 20 years younger. That minor point escapes the INSUFFERABLE "Date Of Birth" crowd.