I've read this thread so many times and I still can't decide. I lean towards Sakic by the slightest of margins, but would be very happy with Yzerman if the other GM picked Sakic ahead of him.
You see, I'm usually a peak guy. So I look at Yzerman's big season and it's hard for me to go the other way. Alternatively, I see Sakic as a guy who meant more to his team's success. A tough one between these two for sure.
I've seen you and others mention Yzerman's 1988-89 season as his "peak", which is (probably) higher than Sakic's offensive ceiling.
While I agree that a 155-point season is beyond Sakic's ability in any scenario, I'm not so sure that 1988-89 is actually Yzerman's 'peak' season. I know it sounds crazy, but hear me out:
- He scored 5 more points than Bernie Nicholls (whom I love, btw). While Nicholls was indeed a gifted player, Yzerman's peak should be better than 5 points over Nicholls.
- The Red Wings fell 13 points in the standings from the year before to play only .500 hockey. Since the Norris division was so weak, the Wings still finished in 1st, but it was a very disappointing season in Motown (they also crapped out in the first round in the playoffs, after two straight Conference Finals' appearances).
- Defensively, the Wings fell from 6th-best in 1988 to 13th in 1989, allowing 47 more goals against. At even-strength, Yzerman's plus/minus fell from +30 (in just 64 games) in 1988 to +17 in 1989. The goals-against he was on the ice for jumped from 75 the year before (in 64 games, albeit) to 152 in 1989 (4th 'worst' in the League, and he would 'fall' to 2nd worst the next two seasons). Now, obviously his increased role, vis-a-vis penalty-killing especially, would account for a large proportion of those increased goals-against, but then again not all of them. He was on the ice for about 1 goal per game against his team
more in 1989 than in 1988.
Anyway, there's no doubt that 1988-89 was Yzerman's peak offensive season, but overall I think I'd be inclined to pick 1987-88 or 1992-93. Those were more successful team seasons, all things considered.
I guess what I'm saying is, by scoring the 155 points, Yzerman likely was slightly losing some other parts of his game, and it's debatable whether he was helping his team by adding that extra emphasis on offense.
My own guess is that after the very successful 1987-88 season and playoffs, Demers told Yzerman something like this: "I've now taught the team how to play defense and we have a stronger core, so you're now free to play more all-out offense and take shorthanded chances," etc. But I think in the end this approach arguably didn't work out for them.