Yzerman vs Sakic

[ot92s]

Even then, how can you do it? I mean seriously how do you balance out the linemates?

What do you mean by "balance out the teamates"? I don't follow...

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

What do you mean by "balance out the teamates"? I don't follow...

Messier's on a team with Gretz, Kurri, Coffey, Anderson etc...
Yzerman's got Gallant, Klima, Probert...

The numbers only tell half the story when you look at players.

 

[ot92s]

Messier's on a team with Gretz, Kurri, Coffey, Anderson etc...
Yzerman's got Gallant, Klima, Probert...

The numbers only tell half the story when you look at players.

Oh, I agree with you 100%...the eyeball test is number one in my book.

Stats can report to you that an event happened. its takes watching the game to apply context. hearing a player break the game down the takes the context a step further...

 

[FakeKidPoker*]

Damnit Sakic, why couldn't you just wear number 27 or something then this question wouldn't be asked every other week.

and my answer... I take Mark Messier over either of them any day of the week without thinking twice

 

[JaysCyYoung]

Really?

I personally would rather have both of them over Mess to be honest. His tenure in Vancouver has always left a sour taste in my mouth with respect to his leadership abilities, which have always been somewhat overstated to me.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

Really?

I personally would rather have both of them over Mess to be honest. His tenure in Vancouver has always left a sour taste in my mouth with respect to his leadership abilities, which have always been somewhat overstated to me.

I'm a Canucks fan, and I wouldn't go that far.

 

[Rhiessan71]

I like Sakic well enough but it has always been and always will be Yzerman for me.

Sakic gets a lot of credit for actually being a better player in the last half of his career than he was in the first half.
He still never reached the level Stevie did, offensively or defensively.

 

[FakeKidPoker*]

There really is no argument for having Sakic or Yzerman over Messier.

Yzerman was probably the worst captain in the league before Bowman got a hold of him..and he was not liked at all at the start by Bowman.

There is a classic tale where Bowman suggested to Red Wings owner Mike Illitch that the Red Wings trade Yzerman and use the money saved to get the Detroit Tigers a good starting pitcher.

Sakic a great player of course I have him slightly ahead of Yzerman but there is no question they are both a tier below Messier.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

There really is no argument for having Sakic or Yzerman over Messier.

Yzerman was probably the worst captain in the league before Bowman got a hold of him..and he was not liked at all at the start by Bowman.

There is a classic tale where Bowman suggested to Red Wings owner Mike Illitch that the Red Wings trade Yzerman and use the money saved to get the Detroit Tigers a good starting pitcher.

Sakic a great player of course I have him slightly ahead of Yzerman but there is no question they are both a tier below Messier.

I think that's a bunch of bull. In '96 he was a choker then in '97 he became one of the best leaders of all time... lol.

The media likes to make stories and that's the way it goes. When you win you get the leader label and when you dont... well, you're labeled a choker. Now suddenly Yzerman was a great leader... Whatever man.

Totally different styles. Messier was loud in the dressing room and Yzerman led by example. Leaders come in all different forms.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

i side with sakic, and always have, by a slight but definite margin.

but re: sakic's quiet leadership, i get that he was respected and that his intensity and focus and clutchness were a huge deal to his teammates. but in terms of being a leader in the more obvious messier-like sense, i wonder whether the avs would have been less successful if patrick roy had been the exact same goalie but without being the leader that he was. always felt to me like the addition of roy (and claude lemieux, and mike keane) really changed the culture of that team.

 

[tombombadil]

close poll. took Sakic based on having been, at his peak, elite both offensively and defensively. Tired old words here, but - Yzerman had two separate peaks.

I agree with the above poster on the subject of media/fan perception revolving way to heavily around team success. I think this happens way too often for goalies, as well as captains.

I don't believe people, as leaders, can transform from complete ****, to the best. I think by your late 20's your personality is what it is for the most part. Bowman may have made Yzerman much better, but Yzerman would have had to have leadership qualities already in order for this to happen. The fact that he stayed in Detroit for all of those bad years already suggests something to me.

Anyways, always a close comparison.

 

[Hardyvan123]

I think you could flip a coin and however it landed you would be correct.

this^

I took Stevie Y, in large part for what he did in the early part of his career with much less than what Sakic had.

Joe's career really took off when the Nords/Avs got Forsberg.

It's probably a small point but a point to consider none the less.

 

[Dark Shadows]

Interesting. Never thought to compare these two!

........
This is one of those vs matches that has kind of been done to Death around here. A simple search will field you literally thousands of posts to read on the matter over the years

 

[Gritty]

Uggghhhhh. I can't vote. It's so freaking hard to compare two of the greatest players/leaders to ever play the game. I have the utmost respect for both of them.

 

[Puckgenius*]

Yzerman = better all round
Sakic = better offensively

Ive watched both players a lot as they were my 2 fav players growing up.

I wasnt old enough to see Yzerman when he was coming into the league and Bowman was teaching him defense but I did see him a lot in the 90s.

Joe Sakic was probably the most consistent player in the 1990s. He was so consistent, like Bob Hartley said, guys like him you dont have to teach cause theyre teachers themselves.

 

[Puckgenius*]

I think you're overstating the impact that Forsberg had on Sakic.

Out of Sakic's ten seasons as a top ten scorer, four of them occured without Forsberg (Forsberg wasn't in the NHL in 1990 or 1991, he was injured the entire regular season in 2002, and was on another team in 2007). Forsberg also missed more than half of the 2004 season (he was easily better than Sakic on a per-game basis that year, but only played 39 games).

In three of the other seasons, Sakic was clearly superior to Forsberg. He outscored Forsberg by 24% in 1995 (playing the same number of games), 59% in in 2000 (30% on a per-game basis) and 33% in 2001 (18% on a per game basis). I'm not saying that having Forsberg didn't help, but when Sakic was better offensively by such a wide margin, it's difficult to attribute his success to another player.

Forsberg was close to Sakic in only two of #19's seasons as a top ten scorer (1996, when Sakic finished slightly ahead playing the same number of games, and 1999 when Forsberg outscored Sakic by 1 point).

Also Sakic and Forsberg rarely played on the same line unless they were down late in a game then Hartley would load up the top line.

But looking back at some of the wingers that Sakic played with, its pretty remarkable the impact hes had on them. Tanguay, Hejduk, Brunette, Fleury, Kariya.

Where Yzerman had a prime Shanny on his wing every year (except for the last couple).

 

[pdd]

I thought this would be a landslide for Stevie Y.

Not on HF, where top offensive players are automatically the best, but recent performances are weighed far more heavily. Kind of like the "Ovechkin is washed up" mindset. In 2010-11 he scored 85 points and finished 7th in scoring, beaten at LW by only Ross winner Daniel Sedin, and was 12 points ahead of any other LWer. People were saying it was a joke that he was the second-teamer.

Yzerman being older is what costs him this comparison.

If you remove Gretzky and Lemieux (and make reasonable assumptions about their linemates), here's how Sakic and Yzerman would have finished in the scoring race:

Their "adjusted" finishes are:

Sakic - 1, 2, 2, 4, 4, 5, 5, 6, 6, 8
Yzerman - 1, 2, 3, 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 10

It's closer than the unadjusted numbers show, but Sakic is still ahead.

To make it clear - the purpose of this post is to compare their ranking in the scoring race, "adjusted" for the presence of Gretzky, Lemieux and their linemates. It is not intended to take other factors (defense, playoffs, awards, etc) into account.

If you disagree with my assumptions let me know - trying to be as transparent as possible.

Now let's add in another factor:

Removing Gretzky and Lemieux:

Fedorov - 1, 8
Coffey - 6
Shanahan - 8

Forsberg - 1, 2, 4, 4, 9
Hejduk - 4
Tanguay - 9
Sundin - 10

I'd say Sakic had a tad more offensive help.

Sakic by an absolute hair. The fact that he had tremendous longevity and durability is the deciding factor for me, including arguably the most impressive season by a near forty year-old in league history (100 points in 2006-07).

They were both accomplished defensive players and Yzerman has the Selke from 2000, in addition to the best individual season between the two (1989) so I can see why some people would choose him. You'd be hard-pressed to find two more comparable players however.

Yzerman was a better defensive player coming into the league than Sakic was, and he was a better defensive player at their relative defensive peaks. Sakic was always primarily focused on offense, and in his early career was fairly one-dimensional. With Yzerman, he was focused on offense-first in his early career, but was still good defensively (Demers double-shifted him on the checking line) and he was capable of peforming shut-down duties (he was used to check Gretzky in the 1987 Campbell Conference Finals).

I remember in the late 80's in some games yzerman would be centering two different lines. Stat analysis can tell you who to look at but you really need to eyeball test these comparisons, until we get ice time numbers with any kind of reliability.

As I was saying, Yzerman was used on scoring and checking lines. When Demers was coach he'd generally be the 1C and 3C.

Damnit Sakic, why couldn't you just wear number 27 or something then this question wouldn't be asked every other week.

and my answer... I take Mark Messier over either of them any day of the week without thinking twice

There really is no argument for having Sakic or Yzerman over Messier.

Because Messier was so much better at both ends, with all of his Selke nominations and impressive offensive performances?

Or, Messier could have been a very good player who wasn't quite on Yzerman's level (Sakic, it's arguable).

Yzerman was probably the worst captain in the league before Bowman got a hold of him..and he was not liked at all at the start by Bowman.

There is a classic tale where Bowman suggested to Red Wings owner Mike Illitch that the Red Wings trade Yzerman and use the money saved to get the Detroit Tigers a good starting pitcher.

Never heard the starting pitcher one, that's new. But the Yzerman trade isn't a "suggestion" thing. The Wings had a co-GM thing going on at the time, and an actual trade was submitted to the league office by Bowman in February 1996. The trade?

Ottawa receives Steve Yzerman and Chris Osgood

Detroit receives Alexei Yashin, Damian Rhodes (LOL), and Ottawa's 1996 and 1997 first round draft picks (Ottawa picked Phillips and Hossa).

Thankfully, Jimmy Devellano vetoed the trade. Amusingly, it was Bowman's third attempt to replace Osgood as Wings starter since he ripped it away from Tim Cheveldae early in his rookie year, and Osgood was a Vezina nominee that season also. Yzerman also had an impressive season (95 points and a Selke nom).

Sakic a great player of course I have him slightly ahead of Yzerman but there is no question they are both a tier below Messier.

No question? And statemens like this are why the "Is Messier overrated?" thread exists.

close poll. took Sakic based on having been, at his peak, elite both offensively and defensively. Tired old words here, but - Yzerman had two separate peaks.

Let's look at this. We can all agree that both became much better defensive players towards the end of their careers than they were at the beginnings.

Now let's compare their overlapping seasons (88-89 through 05-06).

By points, the top three scorers:
1. Sakic 1237GP, 574-915-1489
2. Jagr 1109GP, 591-841-1432
3. Yzerman 1159GP, 528-817-1345

Average per-82:
Jagr: 44-62-106
Sakic: 38-61-99
Yzerman: 37-58-95

So, pretty close right?

Let's consider their defensive games. Sakic started getting Selke consideration and even a nomination towards the end of their "overlap period". Yzerman had a first-place vote in the very first year, was nominated multiple times with several top-five finishes and a Selke win.

Is that worth four points? A goal and three assists?

So now we're left with comparing what they did outside of their overlap.

Sakic had a 100-point season, than two partial seasons. Yzerman also had a 100-point season, but did it in only 64 games. He also had a pair of 80-point seasons and a 90-point season.

Yzerman outperformed Sakic overall while both were in the league, and while only one was in the league. Sakic had an excellent career, but he comes away in second place.

But looking back at some of the wingers that Sakic played with, its pretty remarkable the impact hes had on them. Tanguay, Hejduk, Brunette, Fleury, Kariya.

Yeah, Sakic really had a huge impact on Fleury, who was older and was a star in the league before Sakic was. Or Kariya, who was an elite player with Anaheim before he played with Colorado.

Where Yzerman had a prime Shanny on his wing every year (except for the last couple).

See my note about scoring finishes earlier. Shanahan finished 8th (no Gretz/Lemieux) once, and that was his first year in Detroit. It wasn't even his peak; he peaked in St. Louis.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Now let's add in another factor:

Removing Gretzky and Lemieux:

Fedorov - 1, 8
Coffey - 6
Shanahan - 8

Forsberg - 1, 2, 4, 4, 9
Hejduk - 4
Tanguay - 9
Sundin - 10

I'd say Sakic had a tad more offensive help.

During their overlapping seasons (1989-2006), the Wings were clearly superior offensively to the Nordiques/Avalanche. The Wings outscored Colorado 13 out of those 17 seasons and 9% overall (an average of 281 goals per season vs 257 goals). Your analysis tells me that Colorado had more top-end talent, but the Wings had vastly superior depth and were a higher-scoring team overall.

 

[revolverjgw]

It's as close as can be but I usually use the playoffs as my tie-breaker here. Sakic is way over a PPG over huge sample size and basically none of it came in a really high scoring era. It's a very impressive feat.

 

[bert2z]

games played:
Stevey Y:1514 Captain Clutch: 1378
Goals:
Y:692 Joe:625
Assist:
Y:1063 S:1016
Points:
Y:1755 S:1641

Yzermans the clear winner if you look at stats. Also he has the highest single season point total out of anyone who didn't wear 66 or 99. During his peak offense years he played with bob probert. Imagine if his peak came while playing with shanahan or federov?

As far as intangibles go he is the longest serving caption of all time and probably top 3 leaders of all time. Be changed his game to be more devensive for the better of his team and won a selkie.

I don't understand the argument it seems pretty strait forward.

 

[pdd]

During their overlapping seasons (1989-2006), the Wings were clearly superior offensively to the Nordiques/Avalanche. The Wings outscored Colorado 13 out of those 17 seasons and 9% overall (an average of 281 goals per season vs 257 goals). Your analysis tells me that Colorado had more top-end talent, but the Wings had vastly superior depth and were a higher-scoring team overall.

Guess what:

The Wings having more depth, and getting more offense from that depth, is an indication of the following:

The Wings' forward corps had more mid-range offensive talent (pretty obvious when you look at a roster) and because they had a lot of depth, they had to spread it out. Which means what, exactly, in this comparison? Yzerman and Sakic were both playing on 1A/1B lines, with Fedorov and Forsberg respectively. But Detroit's third line brought much more offense. Bowman rolled all of his lines much more evenly than other coaches did. Part of it is that he was able to due to the ridiculous depth on the team. But because of that action, the higher end players in Detroit saw fewer minutes, and as such scored less than they might have given the exact same quality opposition with more minutes.

What if Gretzky didn't play close to 30 minutes a game in Edmonton? Would he still be the "default" greatest player ever?

 

[Hockey Outsider]

My interpretation is that Detroit's superior offense is explained by the fact that the Red Wings consistently had better offensive defensemen. Having fast, skilled defensemen who can pass and shoot is beneficial to elite scorers like Sakic and Yzerman. There are a few ways of looking at the data, but it all tells the same story:

- From 1989 to 2006, Detroit defensemen scored 3,187 points, compared to 2,673 points for Colorado. If you use the "goals created" stat on hockey-reference.com, Detroit's defensemen outscored Colorado's 1,056-910; this 146 goal differential explains 36% of Detroit's 412 goal advantage over this period.

- Over those 17 years, Colorado featured just two defensemen who averaged at least 0.5 ppg over 200 games: Sandis Ozolinsh (0.76 ppg over 333 games) and Rob Blake (0.65 ppg over 322 games). Over the same period, the Wings featured Lidstrom (0.74 ppg over 1,096 games), Chaisson (0.63 ppg over 397 games), Coffey (1.03 ppg over 231 games), Murphy (0.55 ppg over 312 games) and Racine (0.54 ppg over 231 games).

- Only 9 times did an Avalanche defenseman score a relatively pedestrian 50 points in a season (Ozolinsh x4; Blake x2; Bourque, Brown, Duchesne x1). This happened 18 times for Detroit (Lidstrom x11; Coffey x3; Murphy x2; Chiasson, Schneider x1). If you use a more rigorous standard (60 points in a season) Detroit has a 9-3 lead (and that excludes Coffey's 1995 season where he scored 58 points in a 48 game season). This is also reflected in the fact that, if you list all the seasons from Colorado and Detroit defensemen during this era, Detroit has 16 of the top 21 highest scoring seasons.

- It was obvious to anybody following hockey during the 1990s and early 2000s that, in the great western conference rivalry, Detroit clearly had superior defensemen, both offensively and overall.

Your position that Sakic had more offensive help than Yzerman cannot be reconciled with the facts that Detroit was consistently the higher scoring team and had a decisive edge in offense from defensemen.

====

EDIT: Now that I've dug into the numbers a bit deeper, I no longer accept the claim that Colorado had more top-end talent (as I said in post #43). If you compare the top thirty seasons from Detroit/Colorado forwards (excluding Yzerman/Sakic) from 1989 to 2006, it's even - in both cases the top thirty forwards other than the two #19s scored exactly 2,426 points (81 points per season). This is probably a better metric than counting top ten finishes because your metric arbitrarily counts seasons where a player just barely made the (Gretzky & Lemieux adjusted) top ten (such as Forsberg in 1997) and ignores seasons where a player just barely misses the (adjusted) top ten (such as Shanahan in 2000). If someone has time they can analyze the data in other ways but, overall, this tells me the two teams had comparable top-end talent upfront.

 

[Syckle78]

There really is no argument for having Sakic or Yzerman over Messier.

Yzerman was probably the worst captain in the league before Bowman got a hold of him..and he was not liked at all at the start by Bowman.

There is a classic tale where Bowman suggested to Red Wings owner Mike Illitch that the Red Wings trade Yzerman and use the money saved to get the Detroit Tigers a good starting pitcher.

Sakic a great player of course I have him slightly ahead of Yzerman but there is no question they are both a tier below Messier.

What a load of absolute ********. Calling Yzerman one of the worst captsins prior tl Bowman is revisonest amd baseleds. Here let me play the game too; Sakic was a terrible captain prior to Forsberg and Roy coming along.

 

[newfy]

If you disagree with my assumptions let me know - trying to be as transparent as possible.

Nothing really wrong with your assumptions but when Yzerman was killing it offensively he wasnt playing with the talent Sakic did it with. Yzerman put the team on his back, Sakic had guys with him his whole career. If the wings would have had the guys they had later in Yzermans career before Yzermans injury problems it would be ridiculous

Also Sakic and Forsberg rarely played on the same line unless they were down late in a game then Hartley would load up the top line.

But looking back at some of the wingers that Sakic played with, its pretty remarkable the impact hes had on them. Tanguay, Hejduk, Brunette, Fleury, Kariya.

Where Yzerman had a prime Shanny on his wing every year (except for the last couple).

Sakic Forsberg on different lines helped take some of the defensive pressure off of sakic and spread the other teams resources thinner. When Yzerman did it Probert was a top 6 player and he had no one to really play with. Teams would literally focus all their attention on Yzerman. Shanny wasnt with Yzerman until well past his offensive prime.

Yzermans offensive and defensive peak were both better than Sakics, I have no problem with someone liking Sakic more because I think theyre extremely close but I think what Yzerman peaked better offensively, defensively and had a comparable career as well.

 

[David Bruce Banner]

Sakic... although Yzerman's knee slowed him down.

Although although, it added to his mystique.

They're very close, though, and I'd be overjoyed to have either on my team.