Best Peak: Sakic vs Messier vs Yzerman

[amnesiac]

all three have arguable peak years, but Ill say:

Messier 90-94 - 2 Cups, 2 Harts, 2 Lindsays
Sakic 98-01 - Cup, Hart, Lindsay
Stevie 95-98 - 2 Cups, Smythe or 87-90 - 1 Lindsay

Click to read more...

 

[ESH]

Hard to call that Yzerman's peak

 

[DatSnipeMatthews]

Hard to call that Yzerman's peak

Indeed, Yzerman was electrifying in the 80s

 

[GlitchMarner]

Yzerman's best season was 1988-1989 and it was one hell of a season.

 

[JackSlater]

Yeah, mid to late 90s was not Yzerman's peak. I think that each of these three has a very obvious peak season:

Yzerman 1989
Messier 1990
Sakic 2001

I voted Yzerman but a case could be made for any of the options.

 

[SillyRabbit]

People who are calling Yzerman’s 155 point season his peak are typical stat watchers.

He was a much better player as he matured and became a Selke caliber forward.

 

[GlitchMarner]

People who are calling Yzerman’s 155 point season his peak are typical stat watchers.

He was a much better player as he matured and became a Selke caliber forward.

Well, it's not like he was a complete floater back then. The guy finished 11th in Selke voting and was +17 on a very mediocre Wings team. He beat out Lemieux and Gretzky for the Pearson.

 

[ESH]

People who are calling Yzerman’s 155 point season his peak are typical stat watchers.

He was a much better player as he matured and became a Selke caliber forward.

Just because he was better defensively later on doesn’t mean it makes up for the massive decline in offense

 

[SillyRabbit]

Just because he was better defensively later on doesn’t mean it makes up for the massive decline in offense

Offense declined as a whole throughout the NHL in the dead puck era, it wasn’t just Yzerman falling off a cliff offensively.

 

[hairylikebear]

Just because he was better defensively later on doesn’t mean it makes up for the massive decline in offense

He wasn't just a little better defensively. He went from being decent to an all time great. He was a significantly better player in the late 90s. He didn't actually drop off offensively much if at all. League scoring also plummeted, and the focus of his game changed from scoring to winning.

 

[dr robbie]

(Peaks)
Yzerman>Messier>Sakic

 

[ESH]

Offense declined as a whole throughout the NHL in the dead puck era, it wasn’t just Yzerman falling off a cliff offensively.

He wasn't just a little better defensively. He went from being decent to an all time great. He was a significantly better player in the late 90s. He didn't actually drop off offensively much if at all. League scoring also plummeted, and the focus of his game changed from scoring to winning.

League scoring in 1988-1989 was 3.74 goals per game. Yzerman won his first and only Selke in 1999-2000, when scoring was at 2.75 goals per game. 155 points in 1988-89 would be 114 in 1999-00. Not a perfect way to do it, but a good way to illustrate that the scoring levels don't account for 75 point decrease.

If you guys think that Yzerman's better defensive play makes up for what is absolutely fair to call a massive decrease in points, then that's fine, you're entitled to your opinions, but I'm thinking you're both in the minority here.

 

[GreatGonzo]

People who are calling Yzerman’s 155 point season his peak are typical stat watchers.

He was a much better player as he matured and became a Selke caliber forward.

That’s just your opinion. He was arguably not even the best player on his own team during those years. His 1989 season was the best offensive season by someone not named Gretzky or Lemieux, it earned him the Lester B and and was a Hart finalists as well. He finihed 3rd in goals, 3rd in assists, and 3rd in points, and I’ll tell ya....that Wings team was no where near the Wings teams he was a part of during his Selke days, they were a barely .500 team.

People who see his Selke years as his “peak” need to stop being so anti points and putting this mystic on his defensive game. Was a better defensively? Yes absolutely, but he wasn’t some two way threat like Fedorov. He was solid, but past his prime....you can’t be at your peak when your in your mid 30s.

 

[GreatGonzo]

Offense declined as a whole throughout the NHL in the dead puck era, it wasn’t just Yzerman falling off a cliff offensively.

Yzerman was 34 years old. He wasn’t just falling off because of overall league scoring, he was falling off because that’s what players do as they get older.

 

[GreatGonzo]

He wasn't just a little better defensively. He went from being decent to an all time great. He was a significantly better player in the late 90s. He didn't actually drop off offensively much if at all. League scoring also plummeted, and the focus of his game changed from scoring to winning.

Yzerman was always good defensively.

What your missing is the fact that during his early days on the wings, he was their offense. He was the go to guy, the guy they looked to to score. He didn’t have that role in the late 90s-early 00s. He didn’t have the burden of carrying a line offensively, much less a team. That doesn’t mean he wasn’t valuable, but he had more than enough help to be a defensive stud.

He was better defensively because he was older and didn’t have the same scoring touch as he once did, as well as being put into that role to be more defensive minded. Within context, 79 points and a Selke isn’t better than a 155 point season with a Lester B and a Hart nomination.

 

[bathdog]

Offense declined as a whole throughout the NHL in the dead puck era, it wasn’t just Yzerman falling off a cliff offensively.

He didn't actually drop off offensively much if at all. League scoring also plummeted, and the focus of his game changed from scoring to winning.

Only Yzerman clearly dropped more than the norm.

Within context, 79 points and a Selke isn’t better than a 155 point season with a Lester B and a Hart nomination.

While I agree with your point putting out the absolute numbers like that is obviously not "within context".

 

[GreatGonzo]

Only Yzerman clearly dropped more than the norm.



While I agree with your point putting out the absolute numbers like that is obviously not "within context".

And I feel that was more due to his age. That was his last great, and even solid season. The next 5 years, injuries would plague him.

Maybe I didn’t use the right wording, my point was that people view his later years as his “peak” years mainly due to the team success, as well as his more defensive game, but it has to do more with his cups.

‘89 I feel is a more peak year for him as an individual, only in a different way. He was way more impactful when considering the team around him. Not just that, but 155 points is absolutely mind boggling. Those are rare numbers to put up. People just tend to see defense as more of a valuable skill set for some reason, but I’m sure it’s the fact that he walked away with 3 cups during his time as one of the best defensive forwards.

 

[bathdog]

And I feel that was more due to his age. That was his last great, and even solid season. The next 5 years, injuries would plague him.

Maybe I didn’t use the right wording, my point was that people view his later years as his “peak” years mainly due to the team success, as well as his more defensive game, but it has to do more with his cups.

‘89 I feel is a more peak year for him as an individual, only in a different way. He was way more impactful when considering the team around him.

Age, injuries, extreme differences in roles and era's, makes Yzerman hard to evaluate to me.

Agree team success tend to wrongly affect the perception of individual performance sometimes.

 

[hairylikebear]

@ESH @GreatGonzo

I appreciate both of your perspectives, and I understand why my opinion is controversial. However, I can also see the statistics and don't need to be reminded that he scored 155 points. I also recognize that 155 points even in that era is an incredible achievement. It was his most impressive offensive season for sure.

You are both actually unintentionally furthering my point by explaining how his role shifted later in his career. There are many reasons why his statistics dropped, and none of them have to do with him becoming a worse overall player. In the late 80s he was the main offensive force on an average to weak team. That means he was frequently playing from behind, and he was the guy the coach sent out to try and tie it up. Sometimes he could turn that 2-3 deficit into a 5-4 win. Sometimes his choices would backfire and he would contribute to his team getting blown out. It wasn't his fault that Detroit was a mediocre team, obviously. He was definitely a phenomenal player back then. I don't agree that he could be considered "good" defensively. Canadian centers have always been favored by Selke voters, and so his getting a couple of votes here and there is not really proof of anything to me.

As he got older, he got a little slower but a LOT smarter. A 34 year old Yzerman was still a top tier center on par with Sakic and better than Modano. He didn't need to take nearly as many risks because his team was stronger and it became more important for him to play a safer and smarter game so that he was not forcing the team to play from behind. To me, this was the height of Yzerman's career, and it was this style of play that allowed him to make the most of his extraordinary hockey sense and the precision of his puck skills. Beating the Red Wings during this part of Yzerman's career was incredibly difficult because he just wouldn't ever make mistakes. You pretty much had to have Patrick Roy on your roster to even have a chance. Credit is obviously due to the rest of that roster because they were dynastic.

Again, I understand that I won't convince anyone with the above, more-so just explaining why I hold the view that I do. Similarly, it would take more than repeating statistics to me in different ways to convince me otherwise. It would take a significant amount of game footage that I haven't already seen for me to consider changing my mind. I grew up watching Yzerman transform into the player he became.

 

[GreatGonzo]

@ESH @GreatGonzo

I appreciate both of your perspectives, and I understand why my opinion is controversial. However, I can also see the statistics and don't need to be reminded that he scored 155 points. I also recognize that 155 points even in that era is an incredible achievement. It was his most impressive offensive season for sure.

You are both actually unintentionally furthering my point by explaining how his role shifted later in his career. There are many reasons why his statistics dropped, and none of them have to do with him becoming a worse overall player. In the late 80s he was the main offensive force on an average to weak team. That means he was frequently playing from behind, and he was the guy the coach sent out to try and tie it up. Sometimes he could turn that 2-3 deficit into a 5-4 win. Sometimes his choices would backfire and he would contribute to his team getting blown out. It wasn't his fault that Detroit was a mediocre team, obviously. He was definitely a phenomenal player back then. I don't agree that he could be considered "good" defensively. Canadian centers have always been favored by Selke voters, and so his getting a couple of votes here and there is not really proof of anything to me.

As he got older, he got a little slower but a LOT smarter. A 34 year old Yzerman was still a top tier center on par with Sakic and better than Modano. He didn't need to take nearly as many risks because his team was stronger and it became more important for him to play a safer and smarter game so that he was not forcing the team to play from behind. To me, this was the height of Yzerman's career, and it was this style of play that allowed him to make the most of his extraordinary hockey sense and the precision of his puck skills. Beating the Red Wings during this part of Yzerman's career was incredibly difficult because he just wouldn't ever make mistakes. You pretty much had to have Patrick Roy on your roster to even have a chance. Credit is obviously due to the rest of that roster because they were dynastic.

Again, I understand that I won't convince anyone with the above, more-so just explaining why I hold the view that I do. Similarly, it would take more than repeating statistics to me in different ways to convince me otherwise. It would take a significant amount of game footage that I haven't already seen for me to consider changing my mind. I grew up watching Yzerman transform into the player he became.

Yzerman didn’t get “smarter” though, Bowman made him change his game. He made him go with his system. If Bowman thought Yzerman needed to be an offensive guy, he wouldn’t have asked him. He was still great offensively, but not nearly as great as he was. From his first top Selke year to his last(96-01), he has 2 top 10 finish. One in assists(6th) and one in points(10th). He lost it, but he was still very good.

It was the height of his career because he started winning cups as their captain, but how does him getting into a more defensive role suddenly mean he was a better player....it’s because he won 3 cups doing it, but that doesn’t imply that he was at his very best as a player. Yzerman wasn’t even the best player on his team. He had 2 other Selke caliber players, a Hart winner, and 2 top Norris caliber Dmen. So why are we weighing in team success when judging an individuals peak?

Sakic would win the Hart and be a Selke Finalists the very next year. I don’t see how Yzerman was on his level. Modano had 2 better years after as well. Yzermans ‘00 year season was solid, but why would that year be considered his peak? He was a Hart Finalists and a Lester B winner, how is a Selke Higher than that?

 

[bathdog]

@ESH @GreatGonzo
Again, I understand that I won't convince anyone with the above, more-so just explaining why I hold the view that I do. Similarly, it would take more than repeating statistics to me in different ways to convince me otherwise. It would take a significant amount of game footage that I haven't already seen for me to consider changing my mind. I grew up watching Yzerman transform into the player he became.

I don't think higher individual peak necessarily is equivalent to preferable "type of" player for playoff success. I think one can prefer later career Yzerman for a strong playoff team while also acknowledging early career Yzerman may have been better in a vacuum?

Ovechkin has a tremendous peak, but he wouldn't be my absolute first choice for a playoff team post-lockout despite how great he was.

 

[Khomutov]

Yzerman

 

[GreatGonzo]

I don't think higher individual peak necessarily is equivalent to preferable "type of" player for playoff success. I think one can prefer later career Yzerman for a strong playoff team while also acknowledging early career Yzerman may have been better in a vacuum?

Ovechkin has a tremendous peak, but he wouldn't be my absolute first choice for a playoff team post-lockout despite how great he was.

Well the difference is that Yzerman was surrounded by a team that was able to give him playoff success and allow him to be a strong playoff performer, Ovechkin doesn’t have that.

I think later Yzerman worked for the system they played in, but prime offensive Yzerman? Why wouldn’t he be successful as well? You could have had a 1-2 punch combo in Yzerman-Fedorov. What makes you think young Yzerman wouldn’t have seen the same success if he was on those wings teams?

Well that’s all I’m saying. Talking about someone’s peak, your talking about when they were at their very best as individuals. I feel what’s getting confusing is when we take into consideration Yzermans team success to accurately evaluate his individual play early in his career. It becomes a defense vs offense debate.

Just Because Yzerman didn’t see any team success in ‘89, or any time during his prime, doesn’t mean he wasn’t at his best as a player. That shouldn’t refect him as an individual.

 

[GreatGonzo]

@bathdog

I feel like your stating that you would “prefer” later Yzerman than early Yzerman, which is fine, but that doesn’t mean that was his “peak” simply because you would prefer him.

 

[KoozNetsOff 92]

That's definitely not Yzerman's peak. If we're using his real peak then I vote for him. Otherwise Sakic.