Yzerman vs Sakic

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,980
Brooklyn
Sakic was better both ways at his peak. Yzerman might have been a bit better offensively and defensively in his career, but not at the same time. By the time Yzerman learned how to play D, he peaked at 10th in NHL scoring.
 
Last edited:

The Panther

Registered User
Mar 25, 2014
19,114
15,573
Tokyo, Japan
I thought the same, Yzerman by a considerable majority.
That was my initial thought as well, when I first clicked on this (bumped) thread some months ago. But when I thought about it more, and crunched the numbers a bit, it became clear that the two players are very, very close.
I consider Yzerman better offensively and better defensively at his peaks in both regard.
That might be true, but is "peak" the determining factor? For example, Brett Hull's 1989 to 1992 peak might be better than Ovechkin's peak, but is Hull a better player overall? (No.)

I think a player's "prime" (to draw a small distinction with 'peak') is more important to look at because it lasts much longer. Consistent excellence is much harder to achieve than a short, sharp peak (not saying Yzerman had a short peak, obviously). But this is where Sakic really impresses, because his level of play (and production) starting in 1989 is exactly the same as his level of play (and production) in 2006-07. He has probably the longest sustained level of consistent 'prime' performance of any forward I can think of (except maybe Howe, and he was helped by late-60s expansion).

(As far as peak goes, Sakic twice finished 2nd in NHL scoring, which is higher than Yzerman ever did.)


They're too close to call, for me. The sustained consistency might give Sakic a small edge, but I concur that Yzerman's peak was a bit higher.
 

Admiral Awesome

Registered User
Jun 8, 2015
384
162
I consider Yzerman better offensively and better defensively at his peaks in both regard.

It depends on what you define as "peak". Yzerman was better defensively in the late 90's/early 2000's than Sakic was over any span. Offensively, it might go to Sakic. Yzerman's best years offensively were '88-'94, when he finished in the top 10 in scoring in 5 of those six seasons. Sakic had the exact same results from '98-'04, when he also finished in the top 10 in 5 of those 6 seasons. (Both probably would've gone 6-6 if not for injury.) What puts Sakic over Yzerman in this department are his '95 and '96 seasons, when he finished in the top 5 in points.

If you're comparing best single seasons, ('89 for Yzerman, '01 for Sakic) the edge here also goes to Sakic. After adjusting for era, they finished with the exact same amount of points (128), but Sakic was far superior defensively, finishing 2nd in Selke voting, actually garnering more 1st place votes than the winner, John Madden.
 
Last edited:

BNHL

Registered User
Dec 22, 2006
20,017
1,458
Boston
If Yzerman hadn't adjusted his game for the good of the team,I think he would have had 13 100 point seasons.
 

Rhiessan71

Just a Fool
Feb 17, 2003
11,618
24
Guelph, Ont
Visit site
If Yzerman hadn't adjusted his game for the good of the team,I think he would have had 13 100 point seasons.

That was some of it but IMO had more to do with his knee and back issues.
When he came back from a herniated disk in '94, you could see that he had lost a step.
Stevie played a harder game than Sakic did. Went into the corners more frequently and sacrificed his body to make a play more often.

All anyone ever sees with Sakic in his early years are his high points totals, many of which were meaningless points he got against teams up multiple goals who had taken their foot off the petal.
Sakic was the epitome of a one dimensional player for his first 4-5 seasons and still couldn't hold a candle to Yzerman offensively.

Yzerman will always be ahead of Sakic in my book. He peaked higher in all aspects of the game and I always thought Sakic's defensive game was overrated much in the same way that Crosby's defensive game is overrated today.
Yzerman was a true superstar, a guy that put butts in the seats and then made it hard for those butts to stay in their seats when he was on the ice.
Stevie, in the 80's, made hockey fans out of people that weren't and converted Detroit fans out of people that followed other teams long before the Wings were winning Cups.
He was a hockey players hockey player and you just couldn't help yourself.

That's my opinion after watching both from start to finish anyway.
 

tjcurrie

Registered User
Aug 4, 2010
3,930
143
Gibbons, Alberta
If you're comparing best single seasons, ('89 for Yzerman, '01 for Sakic) the edge here also goes to Sakic. After adjusting for era, they finished with the exact same amount of points (128), but Sakic was far superior defensively, finishing 2nd in Selke voting, actually garnering more 1st place votes than the winner, John Madden.

Far from an exact science
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,980
Brooklyn
If Yzerman hadn't adjusted his game for the good of the team,I think he would have had 13 100 point seasons.

Perhaps. But when Sakic adjusted his game to become a strong two-way player (not as strong as Yzerman, but still very strong), he didn't lose any offense.
 

BNHL

Registered User
Dec 22, 2006
20,017
1,458
Boston
Perhaps. But when Sakic adjusted his game to become a strong two-way player (not as strong as Yzerman, but still very strong), he didn't lose any offense.

I have no idea how you make a larger commitment to defense and not lose any offense.
 

BNHL

Registered User
Dec 22, 2006
20,017
1,458
Boston
That was some of it but IMO had more to do with his knee and back issues.
When he came back from a herniated disk in '94, you could see that he had lost a step.
Stevie played a harder game than Sakic did. Went into the corners more frequently and sacrificed his body to make a play more often.

All anyone ever sees with Sakic in his early years are his high points totals, many of which were meaningless points he got against teams up multiple goals who had taken their foot off the petal.
Sakic was the epitome of a one dimensional player for his first 4-5 seasons and still couldn't hold a candle to Yzerman offensively.

Yzerman will always be ahead of Sakic in my book. He peaked higher in all aspects of the game and I always thought Sakic's defensive game was overrated much in the same way that Crosby's defensive game is overrated today.
Yzerman was a true superstar, a guy that put butts in the seats and then made it hard for those butts to stay in their seats when he was on the ice.
Stevie, in the 80's, made hockey fans out of people that weren't and converted Detroit fans out of people that followed other teams long before the Wings were winning Cups.
He was a hockey players hockey player and you just couldn't help yourself.

That's my opinion after watching both from start to finish anyway.

I was at Boston Garden for the first game Yzerman ever played there and I thought he was the fastest skater I had ever seen,and I had seen a lot of Orr.
 

whcanuck

Registered User
May 11, 2017
158
61
Oh man there is not much to choose between them. I give a tiny, and I mean microscopic edge to Yzerman just because of the extra Stanley Cup and a couple of his monster offensive years in the late 80s/early 90s slightly bested Sakic...but Sakic did certain things better than Yzerman and vice versa. Sakic's longevity was probably more impressive as he scored a 100 pt season in his late 30s, so Sakic probably had the best career, but Yzerman has one extra Stanley Cup along with his defensive abilities. But man this is always common to debate these two and the difference betwen them is really, really small.
 

FerrisRox

"Wanna go, Prettyboy?"
Sep 17, 2003
20,266
12,895
Toronto, Ontario
(As far as peak goes, Sakic twice finished 2nd in NHL scoring, which is higher than Yzerman ever did.)

Sakic didn't have to play against two All-Timers in Gretzky and Mario at the peak of their powers, so I really don't think it's fair to criticize Yzerman for not finishing second in league scoring. Yzerman posted three seasons that were better than Sakic's best output.
 

FerrisRox

"Wanna go, Prettyboy?"
Sep 17, 2003
20,266
12,895
Toronto, Ontario
Yzerman will always be ahead of Sakic in my book. He peaked higher in all aspects of the game and I always thought Sakic's defensive game was overrated much in the same way that Crosby's defensive game is overrated today.

Exactly my thoughts as well, right down to the comparison.

Not to say Sakic wasn't a good two-way forward, but I don't think he was even close to as good as Steve Yzerman in that regard.
 

BraveCanadian

Registered User
Jun 30, 2010
14,521
3,360
I always thought Sakic's defensive game was overrated much in the same way that Crosby's defensive game is overrated today.

Agreed on this one.. Modano is another modern center who keeps getting better defensively the longer it is since he played for some reason.

They both started off really bad and got much better.. maybe that's why..
 

FerrisRox

"Wanna go, Prettyboy?"
Sep 17, 2003
20,266
12,895
Toronto, Ontario
Agreed on this one.. Modano is another modern center who keeps getting better defensively the longer it is since he played for some reason.

They both started off really bad and got much better.. maybe that's why..

There are two things that I often see rear their heads here when people talk about players that makes me chuckle.

One, if a player goes from poor defensively to no longer being a liability, they are suddenly a "two way player." And if they go from not being a liability to at least committed with and without the puck, they are now "good defensively."

The second even more puzzling one is how often a defensemen that plays physically is described as being "good defensively" as if somehow hitting players equals playing defense.
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,980
Brooklyn
Sakic didn't have to play against two All-Timers in Gretzky and Mario at the peak of their powers, so I really don't think it's fair to criticize Yzerman for not finishing second in league scoring. Yzerman posted three seasons that were better than Sakic's best output.

Yzerman finished in 3rd behind Gretzky and Lemieux exactly once.

Is that really more impressive than Sakic, who finished 2nd behind only Jagr in 2001?
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,980
Brooklyn
There are two things that I often see rear their heads here when people talk about players that makes me chuckle.

One, if a player goes from poor defensively to no longer being a liability, they are suddenly a "two way player." And if they go from not being a liability to at least committed with and without the puck, they are now "good defensively."

The second even more puzzling one is how often a defensemen that plays physically is described as being "good defensively" as if somehow hitting players equals playing defense.

Joe Sakic was runner up for the Selke in 2001, was a top 10 finisher for the Selke in 3 straight years (2000-2002) and received a handful of votes in a few other seasons. At the time, he was Colorado's top matchup center and a regular feature on the penalty killer.

It's true that Sakic benefited from playing at a time when two-way players tended to get more Selke votes than purely defensive players, but so did Yzerman.

Like I said, I absolutely think late career Yzerman was better defensively than Sakic at any point in his career. But if your definitely of "two way center" doesn't include Sakic at that point in his career, then you must consider few centers in the league to be worthy of that label.
 

Jaromir Blogger

Registered User
Oct 15, 2014
227
6
Yzerman will always be ahead of Sakic in my book. He peaked higher in all aspects of the game and I always thought Sakic's defensive game was overrated much in the same way that Crosby's defensive game is overrated today.

There are a lot of great posts on here by different posters that I'd like to respond to later when I'm not just waking up, but this really struck a chord because I've had the exact same thought. Crosby reminds me a great deal of later-career Sakic and while they're both nice two-way players, they're also both overrated in this regard. It's great to see offensive forces make the commitment to evolve as players, but I do think their defensive prowess has been overrated a bit at times.

And I do not agree that Sakic at his offensive peak was as good as Yzerman at his. Stevie Y was a more dominant force at his offensive best and could control the ice and the game better than Sakic ever could at any point in his career. As Rhiessan71 points out, he had more of a true superstar quality than Sakic ever did.
 

Melrose Munch

Registered User
Mar 18, 2007
23,546
2,006
The answer is Sakic. More consistency. Yzerman could not do both at the same time, he wasn't better on defense then someone like Doug Gilmour. I get why people are saying Yzerman, given that Sakic was only the best play on his team for a short while. That being after Stastny left and before Forsberg came. And 2001. But Sakic has consistency continuity of both these players.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->