7 Game Series 84 Oilers or 02 Wings (All Players in Prime)

[TheDevilMadeMe]

That's about the only thing I agree with in your post. Sakic was NEVER the best two-way player in the world. His 2nd place Selke voting was a joke. Let's just agree to disagree there.

Plus, you are not hearing what I'm saying. If you're looking for a scoring machine, Sakic is your man. If you're looking for a setup man, go with Larionov or Datsyuk.

Top 10 finishes in assists:

Sakic: 3, 3, 4, 4, 5, 5, 6, 8, 9
Datsyuk: 2, 5, 8, 9

 

[Rhiessan71]

Selke is awarded based on the individual defensive accomplishments of the forward, not on how much help he received from his defensemen. Otherwise it would be awarded every time to a player on a team with great defensive corps. Francis on 94-95 Pens, Peca on 01-02 Isles, and Kesler on 10-11 Canucks did not have great defensemen, IIRC.

The point was that he didn't do it alone, he didn't carry the Wings defensively.
Yzerman did pretty much do it alone and DID carry the Wings in '89.

The '94 Wings don't miss the playoffs without Fedorov and that's even in a 12 team conference.
There's a very good chance the '89 Wings are fighting it out with the Laffs as the worst team in the division and don't make the playoffs without Yzerman and that was in a 10 team conference/5 team division where only 2 teams (1 per division) are left out.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

The point was that he didn't do it alone, he didn't carry the Wings defensively.
Yzerman did pretty much do it alone and DID carry the Wings in '89.

The '94 Wings don't miss the playoffs without Fedorov and that's even in a 12 team conference.
There's a very good chance the '89 Wings are fighting it out with the Laffs as the worst team in the division and don't make the playoffs without Yzerman and that was in a 10 team conference/5 team division where only 2 teams (1 per division) are left out.

Considering Yzerman missed much of 1993-94 with injury, I think there's a decent chance that team misses the playoffs without Fedorov

 

[Stephen]

That's about the only thing I agree with in your post. Sakic was NEVER the best two-way player in the world. His 2nd place Selke voting was a joke. Let's just agree to disagree there.

Plus, you are not hearing what I'm saying. If you're looking for a scoring machine, Sakic is your man. If you're looking for a setup man, go with Larionov or Datsyuk.

No, if you're looking for one of the all-time great centermen in the game who could snipe, be a playmaker, contribute defensively and captain two teams to Stanley Cup championships, Sakic is your man. Essentially, you're already splitting hairs between Sakic and Yzerman.

Funny thing about Datsyuk. As a 38 year old at the end of his career in 2006-07, Joe Sakic outscored a prime Pavel Datsyuk by 13 points and had four more assists in the process.

What I'm saying is you can have Yzerman-Fedorov-Larionov-Datsyuk-Draper(lol) as your centers, and that's fine. If you can't fit Sakic in there, that's your loss.

 

[Stephen]

Top 10 finishes in assists:

Sakic: 3, 3, 4, 4, 5, 5, 6, 8, 9
Datsyuk: 2, 5, 8, 9

A non prime Joe Sakic scored 64 assists and 100 points in 2006-07 which was 4 assists and 13 points greater than what a prime Pavel Datsyuk managed that year. And then Pavel Datsyuk followed up with two 97 point seasons and managed 66 assists in that time which were only 2 assists better than a 38 year old Joe Sakic. Actually, any center who manages 118 points in the dead puck era is pretty special in my books.

So Sentinel's notion that Datsyuk is so much better as a playmaker is simply incorrect.

 

[toob]

Sakic didn't win the 2001 Selke, he finished second place. I agree he shouldn't have been that high in a vacuum, but based on the standards of the time (where the award often went to offensive players who backchecked), Sakic wasn't out of line. He led the NHL in +/- while taking the toughest defensive assignments for the Avs, while also being a very good penalty killer

You didnt want to get into the argument so im not going to but this is exactly what i mean. Sakic getting the toughest defensive assignments? Hello Stephane Yelle? Being a very good PKer? Well let me tell you who was a better PKer in their offensive years than in their defensive years... And also hello Stephane Yelle. The Avs under Hartley were more run and gun than before and i dont think it is coincidence WHY Sakic's numbers took the surget they did under him. But with Sakic you can point to a Selke vote unfortunately. Unlike when people try to assert the defensive prowess of Messier who got basically 0 support although i doubt Messier in his prime was worse defensively in any significant manner than Sakic 01. Same with Yzerman.

And now we have ppl saying he developed this two way game in his late 30s too. Let me tell you from what I saw of the post lockout Avs which were completely fallen apart from the earlier machine they were during the rivalry years Sakic wasnt even playing the same game he was when he had two good wingers and a good 2nd line with a comparable superstar center.

Sakic may have been the best two way center in the early 00s but then his "two way" play was a MUCH different beast from the two way play of Yzerman/Fedorov. Or modano take a look at his play style and the role he had in his teams defensive system and compare to the Avs. The Avs didnt give their stars free reign like some of the big scorers of the time Jagr, Selanne, Kariya, Bure but they still got a lot of it, much more than the Wings or Stars gave their superstars.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Hi Stephane Yelle. I'm sure you rememeber that sometime before 2001, the Avs had joined the Wings and Stars in using their two-way centers in strength vs strength matchups against the other team.

Yelle averaged 14:28 in the regular season and 13:52 in the playoffs (despite Forberg's injuries) in 2000-01. He definitely wasn't that heavily relied on at that point

I agree with you that the Avs gave their scorers freer range than the Wings or Stars of the time

 

[toob]

Hi Stephane Yelle. I'm sure you rememeber that sometime before 2001, the Avs had joined the Wings and Stars in using their two-way centers in strength vs strength matchups against the other team.

Yelle averaged 14:28 in the regular season and 13:52 in the playoffs (despite Forberg's injuries) in 2000-01. He definitely wasn't that heavily relied on at that point

I agree with you that the Avs gave their scorers freer range than the Wings or Stars of the time

This doesnt seem like an honest argument. For your first sentence im sure teams matched their best players against other teams' best players even when the league was very offensive. I dont doubt at all that Sakic had to play against top scorers. But so did Forsberg. And Yelle who probably ONLY played against top scorers because he couldnt score himself. Was Sakic actually given a tougher defensive assignment though?

For the second first 14 minutes of ice time is a lot playing behind Sakic and Forsberg. Second that is more than enough to play defensive assignments.

I went ahead and took a look at spilts of that ssn for Sakic/Forsberg/Yelle (on NHL.com because i didnt copy the links).

PK time: Yelle 3:00, Sakic 2:00 Forsberg 1:30. (EV time is also closer between Yelle and Sakic/Forsberg because he didnt play on the PP).

Interestingly enough the splits section also shows spilts based on home/road. Sakic was +40 at home and +5 on the road. His faceoff % was 55% home and 49% road. Forsberg didnt have as dramatic a +/- split i think it was +13 home +10 road but his faceoffs sucked at both home and road like we expect. Didnt check this for Yelle.

It isnt conclusive by any stretch but the gaps between home and road stats are pretty big esp compared to the other superstar center. I would expect that given the context of coaching matchups at home vs road that a response could be given to an assertion that Sakic played the toughest defensive assignments based on the fact that it seems he was very optimized for home play as compared to his road play...

Just checked and Yelle was -8 home +5 road

 

[Trafalgar Sadge Law]

Where did Red Wings fans get the idea that Datsyuk is a better playmaker than Sakic? Let alone a better player.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

This doesnt seem like an honest argument.

You actually said that Steve Yzerman, when he was focusing on offense, was as good defensively as Sakic was at his best, and you're accusing others of dishonesty???????

Edit: as for your actual argument, I assume that Yelle did get his fair share of defensive assignments for the 11 minutes or do of even strength ice time he played. I also remember the Avs deliberately matching Sakic against the top lines of opponents for several years, and I'm not alone in this thinking. I thought it was basically "common knowledge" around here that Sakic was used that way

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Where did Red Wings fans get the idea that Datsyuk is a better playmaker than Sakic? Let alone a better player.

To be fair, I think it was only 1 Wings fan who said that. Though this thread has become littered in Wings homerism of late.

 

[toob]

You actually said that Steve Yzerman, focusing on offense, was as good defensively as Sakic was at his best, and you're accusing others of dishonesty???????

That was a statement not an argument. But since you are taking the discussion in this direction instead of responding to the actual argument it seems i wasnt too far off the mark

Oh and since you keep bringing it up despite you saying your dont want to get into it, the statement was actually that there was "quite a bit of evidence" for... and there is. And i have cited some of it in direct discussions with you. All this stuff from coaches, players, media, scouts that player backchecks and kills penalties blah blah blah. Is there something about Sakic being said in 01 that is any more or different? I dont see it. All there is is the Selke vote. Now if you are going to base your opinion solely on a Selke placement and you yourself has acknowledged the changed standards then so be it.

Can i ask you something though? What do you think of Messier's defensive game in his prime, specifically as compared to Sakic 01?

 

[Sentinel]

To be fair, I think it was only 1 Wings fan who said that. Though this thread has become littered in Wings homerism of late.

Yes, that was me. To me it's clear as day that he was. Not to mention a FAR better defensive forward. Which is what you need against Gretzky. Inserting Sakic into that line is absurd. Everything Sakic can do, Feds can do as well. You need Datsyuk's hands, smarts, hockey sense, and especially defensive prowess to hope to contain the Great One.

I can see a "Sakic and Selanne for Larionov and Robitaille" trade, if you want to go with speed. But if you want to go with more positional setup and garbage goals, you go with L&R. I choose L&R because trying to match Oilers' speed with speed is very dangerous.

 

[Stephen]

Yes, that was me. To me it's clear as day that he was. Not to mention a FAR better defensive forward. Which is what you need against Gretzky. Inserting Sakic into that line is absurd. Everything Sakic can do, Feds can do as well. You need Datsyuk's hands, smarts, hockey sense, and especially defensive prowess to hope to contain the Great One.

I can see a "Sakic and Selanne for Larionov and Robitaille" trade, if you want to go with speed. But if you want to go with more positional setup and garbage goals, you go with L&R. I choose L&R because trying to match Oilers' speed with speed is very dangerous.

I don't want to keep debating this seriously with facts and statistics much more because it seems pointless in light of overwhelming homerism, but your comments do leave me wondering a little bit about what kind of player you actually think Sakic was.

 

[toob]

You take a scenario where you have a roster full of some of the most marquee names of the era and fantasize that they are in their primes which is a huge boost for some players compared to their general career value and then you want to pick them over the 84 Oilers who dont get nearly enough benefit from the in their prime fantasy because they were already mostly in prime and it is Red Wings homerism.

Nevermind all the crazy things said about the Oilers here.

And on Sakic vs Datsyuk obv Sakic is a much better player from a career standpoint and the better player in his prime but from a team fit perspective the Red Wings already have Yzerman and Fedorov to score so it isnt too crazy to want prime Datsyuk which is closer than career. Im wondering why some of you think Sakic was so great defensively now... And yes there are some that dont think that Sakic is interchangable with Yzerman who clearly had a different career arc than Sakic and played a different style in both halves.

I wouldnt take Selanne over Hull but yes i would over any other winger though.

 

[JackSlater]

That's about the only thing I agree with in your post. Sakic was NEVER the best two-way player in the world. His 2nd place Selke voting was a joke. Let's just agree to disagree there.

I'm not going to bother getting into your definition of "two-way" play. Here's the thing: Sakic was the best in the world for a time. That trumps anything else. All around, two-way, overall, whatever you want to say, Sakic was the actual best player in the world for a time. Datsyuk and Larionov never were, and arguably his absolute peak was higher than Yzerman or Fedorov.

Plus, you are not hearing what I'm saying. If you're looking for a scoring machine, Sakic is your man. If you're looking for a setup man, go with Larionov or Datsyuk.

TheDevilMadeMe already sufficiently crushed this point, but something else to consider is that Detroit doesn't need too many set up men. This Detroit team only has Hull, Shanahan and Robitaille as big time scoring wingers, and of those guys only Hull really benefits from a playmaker being devoted to setting him up. Robitaille and Shanahan would be just as well off playing with Sakic as they would with anyone else actually on the 2002 Red Wings.

 

[Stephen]

That was a statement not an argument. But since you are taking the discussion in this direction instead of responding to the actual argument it seems i wasnt too far off the mark

Oh and since you keep bringing it up despite you saying your dont want to get into it, the statement was actually that there was "quite a bit of evidence" for... and there is. And i have cited some of it in direct discussions with you. All this stuff from coaches, players, media, scouts that player backchecks and kills penalties blah blah blah. Is there something about Sakic being said in 01 that is any more or different? I dont see it. All there is is the Selke vote. Now if you are going to base your opinion solely on a Selke placement and you yourself has acknowledged the changed standards then so be it.

Can i ask you something though? What do you think of Messier's defensive game in his prime, specifically as compared to Sakic 01?

I can't understand how anyone can claim that Yzerman was an effective two way center during the height of his offensive production when the Detroit Red Wings were allowing 300 + goals against per season in the 80s compared to an Avalanche team that was allowing fewer than 200 on many occasions during the deadpuck era. The style of play was so different across different eras I don't know what's being compared.

This level of homerism is hilarious. Lightning fan pumping the tires of his GM.

 

[toob]

I'm not going to bother getting into your definition of "two-way" play. Here's the thing: Sakic was the best in the world for a time. That trumps anything else. All around, two-way, overall, whatever you want to say, Sakic was the actual best player in the world for a time. Datsyuk and Larionov never were, and arguably his absolute peak was higher than Yzerman or Fedorov.

Being the best player in the world is relative to the other best players though and you cant just compare different best player contexts (this doesnt apply to Sakic vs Datsyuk though). Mario Lemieux would have swept the trophy case had he made his comeback in October instead. I would take both Yzerman and Fedorov over peak Sakic easily.

 

[toob]

I can't understand how anyone can claim that Yzerman was an effective two way center during the height of his offensive production when the Detroit Red Wings were allowing 300 + goals against per season in the 80s compared to an Avalanche team that was allowing fewer than 200 on many occasions during the deadpuck era. The style of play was so different across different eras I don't know what's being compared.

This level of homerism is hilarious. Lightning fan pumping the tires of his GM.

How do team styles and stats alone determine what individual performance. Were there no good defensive players in the 80s then? This is even more simplistic than saying that Yzerman and Sakic are interchangable.

You can ask those who claim it. Here's a shortlist:
Jacques Demers: Red Wings coach 87-90
Bryan Murray: Red Wings GM 91-94, coach 91-93
Gerard Gallant: consistent winger 87-90 and Red Wing player from 85-93
Bryan Trottier: opponent from 84-93
oh and Yzerman himself

Considering the timelines, and positions relative to the player himself, i think these are the guys who would be in the know.

 

[Wrath]

I hope people aren't really trying to make an argument that late 80s 155 point Yzerman was great (or even above average) defensively. What is the evidence for so? A scout report says he's fine in his own zone, and Yzerman says that he thought of himself as a good defensive forward (which... is pretty crap evidence, Eli Manning can say he considers himself a top 5 QB all he wants but that doesn't mean he is one).


Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that he was capable defensively. Well, he sure as hell didn't play that way. It is also well documented that Yzerman was told to primarily score to get ticket sales back in those days. I'm going to take a leap of faith and say that if he was playing above average defense he wouldn't get 155 points. Otherwise why the hell didn't he?

Basically, even if we take Yzerman's word that he was above average defensively back then, he sure as hell didn't play that way.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

TheDevilMadeMe already sufficiently crushed this point, but something else to consider is that Detroit doesn't need too many set up men. This Detroit team only has Hull, Shanahan and Robitaille as big time scoring wingers, and of those guys only Hull really benefits from a playmaker being devoted to setting him up. Robitaille and Shanahan would be just as well off playing with Sakic as they would with anyone else actually on the 2002 Red Wings.

with robitaille especially, he does better with a shooting center than with a more playmaking one. this is one reason he rarely played on a line with gretzky.

 

[toob]

I hope people aren't really trying to make an argument that late 80s 155 point Yzerman was great (or even above average) defensively. What is the evidence for so? A scout report says he's fine in his own zone, and Yzerman says that he thought of himself as a good defensive forward (which... is pretty crap evidence, Eli Manning can say he considers himself a top 5 QB all he wants but that doesn't mean he is one).


Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that he was capable defensively. Well, he sure as hell didn't play that way. It is also well documented that Yzerman was told to primarily score to get ticket sales back in those days. I'm going to take a leap of faith and say that if he was playing above average defense he wouldn't get 155 points. Otherwise why the hell didn't he?

Basically, even if we take Yzerman's word that he was above average defensively back then, he sure as hell didn't play that way.

The scouting report from the time says he was "exemplary defensively" and not just "fine" as you characterize it. But again, what about the coaches who watched him or the players who played with/against him? Is this crap evidence too? Ok then well why isnt several dozen anonymous votes with no justification or elucidation by people who dont see the player actually play better? Again you are a Sakic fan so you should be able to provide me with some non crap evidence of Sakic in 01. Please make it different from the crap evidence here.

The tickets thing is hilarious and you clearly are unaware that after back to back trips to the Conference finals the Joe Louis arena was beyond sell out capacity before the big 155 year. You are conflating the late 80s with the early mid 80s. Yzerman wasnt a big scorer then.

 

[Stephen]

How do team styles and stats alone determine what individual performance. Were there no good defensive players in the 80s then? This is even more simplistic than saying that Yzerman and Sakic are interchangable.

You can ask those who claim it. Here's a shortlist:
Jacques Demers: Red Wings coach 87-90
Bryan Murray: Red Wings GM 91-94, coach 91-93
Gerard Gallant: consistent winger 87-90 and Red Wing player from 85-93
Bryan Trottier: opponent from 84-93
oh and Yzerman himself

Considering the timelines, and positions relative to the player himself, i think these are the guys who would be in the know.

These guys are not going to say anything negative about an ex-teammate or whatever when the context of the conversation is usually to pump up how great of a player he was.

 

[Stephen]

The scouting report from the time says he was "exemplary defensively" and not just "fine" as you characterize it. But again, what about the coaches who watched him or the players who played with/against him? Is this crap evidence too? Ok then well why isnt several dozen anonymous votes with no justification or elucidation by people who dont see the player actually play better? Again you are a Sakic fan so you should be able to provide me with some non crap evidence of Sakic in 01. Please make it different from the crap evidence here.

The tickets thing is hilarious and you clearly are unaware that after back to back trips to the Conference finals the Joe Louis arena was beyond sell out capacity before the big 155 year. You are conflating the late 80s with the early mid 80s. Yzerman wasnt a big scorer then.

Steve Yzerman was probably playing adequate defense in a terrible division in an era that didn't know its own end.

If it was so exemplary, why did Scotty Bowman just let Yzerman keep on doing what he was doing in the mid 90s in their pursuit of a championship? Logic says a Steve Yzerman scoring 120 points and playing his brand of exemplary defense is better than a Steve Yzerman scoring 80. Why did he have to change?

 

[toob]

These guys are not going to say anything negative about an ex-teammate or whatever when the context of the conversation is usually to pump up how great of a player he was.

This doesnt fly when you consider the contexts when they were said. Demers and Murray said it while they coached Yzerman. They clearly said he wasnt just about scoring goals when he was actually scoring goals. Demers also says more of the same in direct response to people saying that Yzerman had to learn to play D. Also you have others in the Red Wing brass like Devellano going with the major transformation narrative having no problem saying otherwise way after the fact and it is usually in order to pump Yzerman's tires... "man he was so good offensively and yet sacrificed all that to play better D for the team and became a champion"

Oh and as for Yzerman himself sure his personality would have bragging all the time when it wasnt deserved right? He said he thinks his leadership was overrated so why didnt he say that about his D?

Steve Yzerman was probably playing adequate defense in a terrible division in an era that didn't know its own end.

If it was so exemplary, why did Scotty Bowman just let Yzerman keep on doing what he was doing in the mid 90s in their pursuit of a championship? Logic says a Steve Yzerman scoring 120 points and playing his brand of exemplary defense is better than a Steve Yzerman scoring 80. Why did he have to change?

If his D was so bad why did Bowman himself say that it was so easy for Yzerman to make the change? I havent seen Bowman actually comment on Yzerman's D before he got there. Only Devellano has explicitly been negative and Holland somewhat implicitly. The other coaches and GMs have been overwhelmingly positive.
If making a change in style is reflective of bad D before did Fedorov suck defensively when he had to make the same changes (with more trouble too as he was getting in Bowman's doghouse)?

Nobody here is claiming that Yzerman didnt improve defensively in his later career. He wasnt going to win a Selke in the early years even if he got Sakic type treatment with Selke voting wheras in his later years he could legitmatally (althoug surprise he wins the trophy in his best offensive year in some time ).