Yzerman vs Sakic

[Rhiessan71]

first half regular season yzerman vs. second half regular season sakic = extremely close, but i can see the argument for yzerman based on peak performance. 155 > 118, even though second half sakic actually has a longer run of dominant regular seasons and on average higher finishes than yzerman.

but add playoffs and the 2002 olympics and i think that decisively tips the scales to sakic.

assuming we are talking about rookie yzerman to bowman, and '96 sakic to the snowblower, we're looking at top ten finishes of:

sakic: 2, 2, 3, 5, 5, 6, 8
yzerman: 3, 3, 4, 7, 7

and sustained runs of:

sakic '99 to the lockout: 5, 8, 2, injured, 5, 2
yzerman '89 to '93: 3, 3, 7, 7, 4

but sakic also has a #3 finish in '96 and a #6 finish in '06, while pre-peak yzerman was good but never in the top ten.

if we account for gretzky/mario, those finishes become:

sakic: 1*, 2, 2, 5, 5, 6, 8
yzerman: 1, 2, 3, 5, 6

* = assuming jagr doesn't get rejuvenated and catch sakic if mario doesn't come back

then add the '96 conn smythe, the '01 cup, and the '02 olympic MVP performance to yzerman's playoff record and i don't see how you don't take sakic.

that said, yes, 155 yzerman was the best these guys ever were. but still, 155 and a strong offensive showing in a first round upset by the #4 seed hawks (with a #1 seed team that had just gone to back to back campbell's finals) vs. 118, the hart/pearson, a dubious but not meaningless selke runner up, and then the '02 olympics?


but i certainly agree that post-bowman two-way yzerman > bad team scorer sakic.

Well last I checked half means half so Joe's first half is the 10 years from 88/89-97/98 and Yzerman's first half is the 11 years from 83/84-93/94.

Regardless, as I showed earlier in this thread, Yzerman's peak and sustained 7 year peak from 87/88-93/94 (years 5-11) is untouchable by anyone not named Gretzky or Lemieux at the time and only by Jagr since
Certainly not by what Sakic did from 98/99-08/09.
Sorry

Sakic was a year later to the NHL and didn't really his stride until year 7.
Yzerman came a year earlier AND hit his stride by year 5.

Summing up, Yzerman peaked 3 years sooner and played 2 years more period.
Now, to be fair, Sakic's longevity offensively is sure to make up some, if not all of this advantage but you're still left with Yzerman's ultimate peak height and 7 year sustained peak that Sakic has no way to even attempt to overcome without double dipping on what was just used to counter the aforementioned 5 year advantage.

Like I said. I'd take Yzerman's first 11 years over either of Joe's 10 and I would take Yzerman's second 11 over Joe's first 10.

You bring up the Conn Smythe but the problem is that Joe's Conn was in his first half, Yzerman's was in his second half.
Joe won the Hart and Pearson in his second half but Yzerman's Pearson was A HELL of a lot harder to garner, literally 3 times harder.
Beating out a 37 year old Lemieux that only played 43 games is no where close to beating out a 199 point Lemieux and a 168 point Gretzky at the same time.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Sorry

it's ok man

 

[The Panther]

Sakic was a year later to the NHL and didn't really his stride until year 7.

This statement starts to reek of too much agenda-selling.

So, Sakic "didn't really hit his stride until year 7". Hmmm..... Is that in any way a reasonable statement?

In the five seasons before year 7:
- 3 x 100+ point seasons
- 5 x 100+ point pace (two seasons reduced due to injury)
- 2 x 48-goal seasons
- 4 x 60+ assist seasons (including the 2nd-highest of his career in 1992)
- two worst teams in history to produce a 100+ point scorer (both Sakic)

Sakic was 8th in NHL scoring from 1989 to 1994, during which Yzerman outscores him by only 55 points on a team (Detroit) that scored nearly 250 more goals than Quebec over the same time period.

Sakic is also 8th in NHL scoring for his entire 7 years in Quebec!


He had hit his stride. He just hadn't played for a great team or done much in the playoffs yet.

 

[Rhiessan71]

This statement starts to reek of too much agenda-selling.

So, Sakic "didn't really hit his stride until year 7". Hmmm..... Is that in any way a reasonable statement?

Yep.

In the five seasons before year 7:
- 3 x 100+ point seasons
- 5 x 100+ point pace (two seasons reduced due to injury)
- 2 x 48-goal seasons
- 4 x 60+ assist seasons (including the 2nd-highest of his career in 1992)
- two worst teams in history to produce a 100+ point scorer (both Sakic)

Sakic was 8th in NHL scoring from 1989 to 1994, during which Yzerman outscores him by only 55 points on a team (Detroit) that scored nearly 250 more goals than Quebec over the same time period.

Sakic is also 8th in NHL scoring for his entire 7 years in Quebec!


He had hit his stride. He just hadn't played for a great team or done much in the playoffs yet.

I say around 7 years because he rarely saw the inside of his own blueline for the first 5-6 and wasn't consistently among the Elite until the '95 season and beyond.

And yeah "only 55 points" in 11 less games, almost all goals btw (48 more including Yzerman's league leading 31 SH goals to Sakic's 10 and only finishing behind Hull for the most ES goals) with a PpG of 1.28 to Yzerman's 1.47.
Sakic also had the distinction of being tied with John Cullen for having by far the worst +/- of the top 100 scorers at -72 over those 5 seasons.

As a Habs fan I saw plenty of Joe in those seasons, he was an offensive only opportunist that couldn't check a hat. He saw a hell of a lot of backup goalies and a lot of relaxed play by teams up 3-4 goals.

Don't try and tell me that I'm under-valuing Joe's first 5-6 seasons. I most certainly am not!

 

[The Panther]

...a PpG of 1.28 to Yzerman's 1.47.

Well, if we discount Sakic's rookie season and focus on 1989 to 1995 -- i.e., if we discount Sakic's outlier low season and Yzerman's outlier high season -- the difference is 1.39 to 1.29, which is barely even significant. Then, when you add in the fact that Detroit scored 250 more goals over that period, it becomes completely negligible. Detroit wasn't a powerhouse in this period (yet), and Quebec became quite good from 1993, but this still includes 4 seasons on a last-place team for Sakic.

Bear in mind that this period -- 1989 to 1995 -- is closer to Yzerman's prime than to Sakic's (according to your theory), and Yzerman beats Joe in scoring by only 0.10 points-per-game.

Sakic also had the distinction of being tied with John Cullen for having by far the worst +/- of the top 100 scorers at -72 over those 5 seasons.

Yeah... that might have something to do with Cullen's playing for a Cup winner while Sakic played on the worst team (in 1989-1991, one of the worst teams in history, at that).

By the way, from 1983 to 1986, Yzerman had the 10th-worst plus/minus of any forward in the NHL. Of the 10, he had the third most points (he's in the company of Mike Bullard and Ron Duguay here).

Don't try and tell me that I'm under-valuing Joe's first 5-6 seasons. I most certainly am not!

Hm.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Well, if we discount Sakic's rookie season and focus on 1989 to 1995 -- i.e., if we discount Sakic's outlier low season and Yzerman's outlier high season -- the difference is 1.39 to 1.29, which is barely even significant. Then, when you add in the fact that Detroit scored 250 more goals over that period, it becomes completely negligible. Detroit wasn't a powerhouse in this period (yet), and Quebec became quite good from 1993, but this still includes 4 seasons on a last-place team for Sakic.

Bear in mind that this period -- 1989 to 1995 -- is closer to Yzerman's prime than to Sakic's (according to your theory), and Yzerman beats Joe in scoring by only 0.10 points-per-game.

Yeah... that might have something to do with Cullen's playing for a Cup winner while Sakic played on the worst team (in 1989-1991, one of the worst teams in history, at that).

By the way, from 1983 to 1986, Yzerman had the 10th-worst plus/minus of any forward in the NHL. Of the 10, he had the third most points (he's in the company of Mike Bullard and Ron Duguay here).

Hm.

You edited out a pretty important couple of lines there

As a Habs fan I saw plenty of Joe in those seasons, he was an offensive only opportunist that couldn't check a hat. He saw a hell of a lot of backup goalies and a lot of relaxed play by teams up 3-4 goals.

 

[Theokritos]

Mod Note: Keep it civil, folks. Or, for you Canadians: argue like Yzerman and Sakic would play.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Mod Note: Keep it civil, folks. Or, for you Canadians: argue like Yzerman and Sakic would play.

for mods' sake, please don't argue like steve "yappy" yzerman would play.

i kid, i kid. a little levity guys.

 

[seventieslord]

Well, if we discount Sakic's rookie season and focus on 1989 to 1995 -- i.e., if we discount Sakic's outlier low season and Yzerman's outlier high season -- the difference is 1.39 to 1.29, which is barely even significant. Then, when you add in the fact that Detroit scored 250 more goals over that period, it becomes completely negligible. Detroit wasn't a powerhouse in this period (yet), and Quebec became quite good from 1993, but this still includes 4 seasons on a last-place team for Sakic.

I'm a Sakic guy myself, but really? discount Sakic's outlier low and Yzerman's outlier high?

More importantly though, Detroit being a better overall or better offensive team doesn't necessarily mean that it was easier to score points. The opposite can also be true. If they're a better team they have better players, and it takes pressure off a guy like Yzerman. There are only so many offensive zone starts to go around, so many power plays, so many decent linemates. On a crappy team like the Nordiques were at first, Sakic would have been the focus and everything would go through him. Also, rhiessan is likely right to some degree about the nords seeing backups and playing in a lot of blowouts (it's a generalization but makes sense intuitively, and can be proven/disproven by anyone with the inclination, using the HSP). So there's no reason to conclusively say that the same player would score more on a better team or less on a worse team.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Well, if we discount Sakic's rookie season and focus on 1989 to 1995 -- i.e., if we discount Sakic's outlier low season and Yzerman's outlier high season -- the difference is 1.39 to 1.29, which is barely even significant. Then, when you add in the fact that Detroit scored 250 more goals over that period, it becomes completely negligible. Detroit wasn't a powerhouse in this period (yet), and Quebec became quite good from 1993, but this still includes 4 seasons on a last-place team for Sakic.

And yet, to no one's surprise at the time, and despite the existence of the "generationals", Yzerman appears in Hart talk yearly over the stretch, which can't be said for Sakic. Neither team became good until they got better goaltending. How long did Detroit hang their hat on some combination of Hanlon/Cheveldae/Stefan? Good lord.

Bear in mind that this period -- 1989 to 1995 -- is closer to Yzerman's prime than to Sakic's (according to your theory), and Yzerman beats Joe in scoring by only 0.10 points-per-game.

But it's sort of unfair to stretch it to '95, since the injury which essentially reduced Yzerman to no longer being a 100+ point player happened in '94. For the entire 5 year period of 1.57 PPG scoring that preceded that, he was less than 100 points from Gretzky/Lemieux in 3rd place for overall scoring, and almost exactly 100 points ahead of Robitaille in 4th. Think about THAT. And then look at how 330-some goals stacks up against the competition on top of that.

It's why I kind of scoff when people tunnel vision on whatever Yzerman's 155 "outlier" season "means". If he "only" scored 120 points that year he STILL would have been 3rd in scoring behind Gretzky/Lemieux for those 5 straight years, and STILL 70 points ahead of Robitaille in 4th; for a consecutive 5 year stretch, not just one "outlier" season.

By the way, from 1983 to 1986, Yzerman had the 10th-worst plus/minus of any forward in the NHL. Of the 10, he had the third most points (he's in the company of Mike Bullard and Ron Duguay here).

Don't know if you want to talk too much about +/- in these guys' first 3 seasons if trying to support Sakic. Sakic was also 3rd overall in points over his first 3 years, but his -102 (c.f. Yzerman's -58) was far and away the worst in the league - at any position.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Is there any other two players that had careers so similar in value and form? By form I mean same position, similar amount of personal and team success, playing at more or less the same time, playing a similar style of play?

The first that comes to mind is Gretzky and Lemieux, but Gretzky's career is too good compared to Lemieux so Sakic/Yzerman is still "winning".

The same is true of Howe/Richard.I thought of Roy/Hasek but their career isn't that similar in form.

Maybe the MacInnis, Chara, Stevens and Pronger quatuor of defensemen.

 

[The Panther]

I'm a Sakic guy myself, but really? discount Sakic's outlier low and Yzerman's outlier high?

I'm not a Sakic guy. The context of my saying that was "Sakic's first 7 years", which another poster was dismissing rather unfairly. Regardless of how he compared straight-up to Yzerman, Sakic's first 7 years were tremendous. But in comparing them, it seemed reasonable to take out Sakic's rookie year. But whatever, the context was that another poster claimed Sakic had not "hit his stride" up to 1995, which I believe is entirely false.

More importantly though, Detroit being a better overall or better offensive team doesn't necessarily mean that it was easier to score points. The opposite can also be true... ...So there's no reason to conclusively say that the same player would score more on a better team or less on a worse team.

Yes, I agree. There are many possibilities here.

And yet, to no one's surprise at the time, and despite the existence of the "generationals", Yzerman appears in Hart talk yearly over the stretch, which can't be said for Sakic.

Sure, Yzerman was better overall circa 1988 to 1995, that's for sure. I never said otherwise. I merely said that Sakic was really great during this period.

Neither team became good until they got better goaltending.

Depends on how you define "great", I guess. The Nords had 100+ point seasons and a 1st place overall finish before they got Roy.

But it's sort of unfair to stretch it to '95, since the injury which essentially reduced Yzerman to no longer being a 100+ point player happened in '94. For the entire 5 year period of 1.57 PPG scoring that preceded that, he was less than 100 points from Gretzky/Lemieux in 3rd place for overall scoring, and almost exactly 100 points ahead of Robitaille in 4th.

Be it resolved, Yzerman was great in that period, probably the 3rd-best forward in the NHL. I've said nothing to dispute that. Again, the context of my comments was "Sakic's first 7 years". The topic was not Yzerman.

It's why I kind of scoff when people tunnel vision on whatever Yzerman's 155 "outlier" season "means". If he "only" scored 120 points that year he STILL would have been 3rd in scoring behind Gretzky/Lemieux for those 5 straight years, and STILL 70 points ahead of Robitaille in 4th; for a consecutive 5 year stretch, not just one "outlier" season.

See above.

Don't know if you want to talk too much about +/- in these guys' first 3 seasons if trying to support Sakic.

I brought it up because another poster was using that stat to hang Sakic's "first 7 seasons".


If one wants to see my own comments about Yzerman vs. Sakic (which my previous two posts are not about), please go back a couple of pages on this thread (specifically, post #236).

 

[quoipourquoi]

Is there any other two players that had careers so similar in value and form? By form I mean same position, similar amount of personal and team success, playing at more or less the same time, playing a similar style of play?

I honestly don't think they'd get compared to each other that often if they didn't have the same number.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

It's why I kind of scoff when people tunnel vision on whatever Yzerman's 155 "outlier" season "means". If he "only" scored 120 points that year he STILL would have been 3rd in scoring behind Gretzky/Lemieux for those 5 straight years, and STILL 70 points ahead of Robitaille in 4th; for a consecutive 5 year stretch, not just one "outlier" season.

sakic's peak six season stretch, '99-'04, he finishes second to jagr. we agree that peak jagr > peak scoring yzerman right?

next guy is markus naslund, 35 points behind sakic, but he and sundin (#4 during that stretch) each play 39 more games. so if you prorate sakic to account for his one single injury season in a six year stretch, that puts him 81 points ahead of naslund in 3rd. note the lower scoring era.

 

[Voight]

I honestly don't think they'd get compared to each other that often if they didn't have the same number.

Or if their teams were rivals/theyre both Canadian.

 

[quoipourquoi]

sakic's peak six season stretch, '99-'04, he finishes second to jagr. we agree that peak jagr > peak scoring yzerman right?

next guy is markus naslund, 35 points behind sakic, but he and sundin (#4 during that stretch) each play 39 more games. so if you prorate sakic to account for his one single injury season in a six year stretch, that puts him 81 points ahead of naslund in 3rd. note the lower scoring era.

The fact that Markus Naslund and Luc Robitaille are the very next in line in these periods suggests to me that raw points over a stretch of years is not going to produce an accurate list of the best forwards of the era. Especially in Sakic's case. I mean, 1999-2004... there's a 900-pound elephant in the room drawing tougher defensive matchups.

 

[Rhiessan71]

I'm not a Sakic guy. The context of my saying that was "Sakic's first 7 years", which another poster was dismissing rather unfairly. Regardless of how he compared straight-up to Yzerman, Sakic's first 7 years were tremendous. But in comparing them, it seemed reasonable to take out Sakic's rookie year. But whatever, the context was that another poster claimed Sakic had not "hit his stride" up to 1995, which I believe is entirely false.

Except I didn't say his "first 7 years", I SAID he didn't really hit his stride until around his 7th season.
I even specifically narrowed down my evaluation of his non-exisent defensive play to his first 5-6 seasons.

And what's this now, your second attempt to completely edit out any mention of back-up goalies and lax play by teams with large leads?
Seventies mentioned it again and you completely cut it out again.
Kinda tough to continue a debate like this when such a huge point is not just left un-countered but actually ignored.

Regardless, there is a huge difference between the player Yzerman was by the end of his 4th season and the player Joe was by the end of his 4th or 5th or even 6th season. Add on top of this that Yzerman made the NHL a year sooner to boot.
Like it's a coincidence that Joe finally started to evolve into a true Elite player and not just a one dimensional, half-ice pilon the year Crawford, Quenneville and Martin came in.

I mean if you really truly want to see the difference, go back and watch Joe in the '93 playoffs and then watch him in the '95 playoffs.
If he wasn't wearing #19, you wouldn't even know they were the same player.

I'm not making this stuff up man. I was there and not as some young kid either. I was in my early-mid 20's and I definitely understood the game and what I was watching.

 

[Sprague Cleghorn]

Is there any other two players that had careers so similar in value and form? By form I mean same position, similar amount of personal and team success, playing at more or less the same time, playing a similar style of play?

The first that comes to mind is Gretzky and Lemieux, but Gretzky's career is too good compared to Lemieux so Sakic/Yzerman is still "winning".

The same is true of Howe/Richard.I thought of Roy/Hasek but their career isn't that similar in form.

Maybe the MacInnis, Chara, Stevens and Pronger quatuor of defensemen.

Kennedy and Schmidt? Cowley and Apps?

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

sakic's peak six season stretch, '99-'04, he finishes second to jagr. we agree that peak jagr > peak scoring yzerman right?

How much does it matter in the end if Gretzky/Lemieux > Jagr?

 

[The Panther]

Except I didn't say his "first 7 years", I SAID he didn't really hit his stride until around his 7th season.
I even specifically narrowed down my evaluation of his non-exisent defensive play to his first 5-6 seasons.

Okay, sorry. But makes no difference to any of my points.

And what's this now, your second attempt to completely edit out any mention of back-up goalies and lax play by teams with large leads?
Seventies mentioned it again and you completely cut it out again.
Kinda tough to continue a debate like this when such a huge point is not just left un-countered but actually ignored.

No, I actually specifically addressed that point after the first time you badgered me on it, but a moderator (quite reasonably) deleted my comment.

Regardless, there is a huge difference between the player Yzerman was by the end of his 4th season and the player Joe was by the end of his 4th or 5th or even 6th season.

Yzerman's level of play in the comparable period doesn't really have anything to do with what I was saying. I was merely countering your argument that Sakic hadn't hit his stride until year 7 or whatever. I was talking about Sakic, and Sakic only.

Disagree with your point, though. By the end of his 4th season, Yzerman's career-high was 90 points and he'd never played for a winning team. By the end of his 3rd season, Sakic had had two 100+ point seasons (though his team was even worse than Yzerman's).

Add on top of this that Yzerman made the NHL a year sooner to boot.

I don't think he "made the NHL" sooner. My memory of it is that Sakic made a personal choice/preference to stay in the Western Hockey League one more year.

Like it's a coincidence that Joe finally started to evolve into a true Elite player and not just a one dimensional, half-ice pilon the year Crawford, Quenneville and Martin came in.

I don't understand your point.

And anyway, Yzerman became a superstar from his 5th season, one year after Jacques Demers arrived. It's hardly strange that stronger coaches have great impacts on young forwards.

I mean if you really truly want to see the difference, go back and watch Joe in the '93 playoffs and then watch him in the '95 playoffs.
If he wasn't wearing #19, you wouldn't even know they were the same player.

I find this a strange argument to make. Since his team was eliminated in the first round both years, and his stats are virtually identical both years, can there really be this enormous difference your're suggesting? And is 6 games really a valid length of comparison to draw this line of distinction you're proposing? The more so when Sakic was already a multiple 100+ point scorer by 1993...?

I'm not making this stuff up man. I was there and not as some young kid either. I was in my early-mid 20's and I definitely understood the game and what I was watching.

Well there you go, I guess you win. I was 17 in 1993 and 19 in 1995, so I guess you were older and you knew better.

 

[seventieslord]

I'm not a Sakic guy. The context of my saying that was "Sakic's first 7 years", which another poster was dismissing rather unfairly. Regardless of how he compared straight-up to Yzerman, Sakic's first 7 years were tremendous. But in comparing them, it seemed reasonable to take out Sakic's rookie year. But whatever, the context was that another poster claimed Sakic had not "hit his stride" up to 1995, which I believe is entirely false.

Yes, I agree. There are many possibilities here.

Sure, Yzerman was better overall circa 1988 to 1995, that's for sure. I never said otherwise. I merely said that Sakic was really great during this period.

Depends on how you define "great", I guess. The Nords had 100+ point seasons and a 1st place overall finish before they got Roy.

Be it resolved, Yzerman was great in that period, probably the 3rd-best forward in the NHL. I've said nothing to dispute that. Again, the context of my comments was "Sakic's first 7 years". The topic was not Yzerman.

See above.

I brought it up because another poster was using that stat to hang Sakic's "first 7 seasons".


If one wants to see my own comments about Yzerman vs. Sakic (which my previous two posts are not about), please go back a couple of pages on this thread (specifically, post #236).

I didn't say most of these things you're quoting

 

[Rhiessan71]

Okay, sorry. But makes no difference to any of my points.

It does for the points I was making though.

No, I actually specifically addressed that point after the first time you badgered me on it, but a moderator (quite reasonably) deleted my comment.

Well that pretty much speaks for itself.

Yzerman's level of play in the comparable period doesn't really have anything to do with what I was saying. I was merely countering your argument that Sakic hadn't hit his stride until year 7 or whatever. I was talking about Sakic, and Sakic only.

Around year 7 and that IS about right.

Disagree with your point, though. By the end of his 4th season, Yzerman's career-high was 90 points and he'd never played for a winning team. By the end of his 3rd season, Sakic had had two 100+ point seasons (though his team was even worse than Yzerman's).

It was part way through that 4th season that Yzerman took on those extra roles (penalty killing and doubling as the checking center) which continued into the playoffs where despite him and his Wings losing to an obviously superior Oiler team, he was one of the only positives going head to head with Gretzky and actually outscoring him.

I don't think he "made the NHL" sooner. My memory of it is that Sakic made a personal choice/preference to stay in the Western Hockey League one more year.

Tomato/tomAto

I don't understand your point.

Yeah ya do, you just don't want to admit it.

And anyway, Yzerman became a superstar from his 5th season, one year after Jacques Demers arrived. It's hardly strange that stronger coaches have great impacts on young forwards.

No, as I showed above, it was DURING Demers' first season.

I find this a strange argument to make. Since his team was eliminated in the first round both years, and his stats are virtually identical both years, can there really be this enormous difference your're suggesting? And is 6 games really a valid length of comparison to draw this line of distinction you're proposing? The more so when Sakic was already a multiple 100+ point scorer by 1993...?

Well you could actually watch a game from each year and see the difference in the way Joe played yourself, it is quite a blatant difference, or you could continue to make excuses.
Pure stats rarely tell the full tale.

The Nords were out-worked and had an insulted Roy to deal with in '93.
In '95 they were simply outclassed by the defending Cup Champs.

Well there you go, I guess you win. I was 17 in 1993 and 19 in 1995, so I guess you were older and you knew better.

Obviously

 

[The Panther]

I didn't say most of these things you're quoting

Sorry, dude. I'm gonna try to fix that now... (I'm suddenly having problems with the 'quote' function recently...)

 

[The Panther]

...which continued into the playoffs where despite him and his Wings losing to an obviously superior Oiler team, he was one of the only positives going head to head with Gretzky and actually outscoring him.

I think we've all gotten enough mileage out of the "Yzerman checked Gretzky in 1987" headline. Are we going to ascribe defensive greatness to 22/23-year-old Yzerman because of 5-games in 1987 (4 of which his team lost)?

Last time I checked, the Wings lost that series in 5 games, so what did anything that Yzerman do really matter?

No, as I showed above, it was DURING Demers' first season.

You haven't "showed" anything. You've simply repeated -- ad infinitum -- that Yzerman became a superstar suddenly in 1986-87. What I'm wondering is: where's your evidence? I mean, I like Yzerman as much as anyone, but my memory of it is that he wasn't at "superstar" level until 1987-88. Demers gave him more responsibilities (as captain, obviously) and he might have killed some penalties, etc., but that hardly necessitates his being superior to a 100+ point player on a terrible team (Sakic).

What we're down to here is your impression (memory) vs. stats. Both are possibly legit, but you certainly haven't convinced me that Yzerman was this behemoth of power in 1986-87, when he was 12th in NHL scoring and -1.

I'm not interesting in arguing, but I'd seriously like to know why you think Yzerman in year 4 (1986-87) was so vastly superior to Sakic in year 3 or 4?


(Just to reiterate, lest I get attacked by the Yzerman-brigade -- I do not have a dog in this fight. I do not prefer Yzerman or Sakic, or rate one higher than the other.)

 

[SpookyTsuki]

Yzerman was a better leader in the end of his carrer, and he was a better goalscorer at the start of his carrer way better actually.