Best Peak: Sakic vs Messier vs Yzerman

best peak

  • Sakic

  • Messier

  • Yzerman


Results are only viewable after voting.

hairylikebear

///////////////
Apr 30, 2009
4,169
1,800
Houston
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?

The way that Yzerman played on that successful team is meaningful.

I don't think you're understanding me here. I'm not saying you're wrong to think what you think. You need to understand that there are other perspectives in play when evaluating a player's peak, and that it's not all about numbers and awards. How is the height of his career not also his peak? He wasn't a veteran role player at that stage of his career, he was a key component of that roster and without him it is doubtful they would have won the cup at all. He deserves credit for his team's success, just like Fedorov, Lidstrom, Bowmen, etc. He won a Conn Smyth ffs, and deserves every bit of it.

In order to get through the Stars and Avalanche every year, Yzerman had to get the better of Sakic and Modano. As the pivots, that matchup defined which top line controlled the game and often that was the difference in their series'. You may argue that Yzerman had Lidstrom and Fedorov, but Modano had Zubov and Hatcher, Sakic had Blake and Forsberg, and the margin for error in those games was always razor thin. That's why Yzerman's evolution was so significant. Maybe he didn't get "smarter" and maybe he was perfectly capable of playing like that in the 80s, the point is he didn't. If he took the same risks he used to, he might have proven to be the weakness in the Wings' roster that allowed their rivals to win more of those match-ups.

If you want to discount Yzerman's team success in favor of 155 points and some award nominations, more power to you. I don't think we'll reach a middle ground. I would also like to point out that this response is the first where I have actually tried to justify Yzerman's peak seasons using his team's success. That's actually a tertiary part of my argument but for some reason it's the part you decided to focus on so that's going to be what I respond to. My main point is that Yzerman's skillset is better suited for the style that Bowmen had him play. It didn't get him the same level of individual recognition, but I doubt that really bothers him.

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.

To me, a player's ability is their contribution to winning, and the height of that contribution is a player's peak. You don't have to be winning necessarily to still be making a high contribution, but there is a strong correlation between key player performance and team success.
 

bathdog

Registered User
Oct 27, 2016
920
157
@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.

I wouldn't really prefer later Y over early Y, but I would prefer that type of player. I don't think it was his peak.

Ovechkin has had a solid supporting case at times, which their President Trophies would suggest. He's done fine individually for the most part too as far as I'm concerned.

I would for instance give peak Dats/Z a serious look over Crosby/Malkin, for a single playoff run. Hard to make an argument they peaked higher individually.

To me, a player's ability is their contribution to winning, and the height of that contribution is a player's peak. You don't have to be winning necessarily to still be making a high contribution, but there is a strong correlation between key player performance and team success.

That makes it really hard, a player doesn't have control over what team he ends up with, what that team needs may be (there is obviously a value in being able to adapt), and it's also hard to evaluate a single player's actual contributions to his teams success at least unless he really stand out (which Yzerman didn't). It all just becomes a lot more subjective, and it also seem to automatically favor players on strong teams.
 

JackSlater

Registered User
Apr 27, 2010
18,042
12,663
There is no case to be made that Yzerman in the late 90s was better than Yzerman in 1989. It's akin to saying that prime Toews (2000 Yzerman) was better than prime Crosby (1989 Yzerman). The older, more defensively focused Yzerman wouldn't have been able to beat out prime Gretzky and prime Lemieux for the Pearson.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hockey Outsider

MessierII

Registered User
Aug 10, 2011
27,644
16,188
Messier was the best. Dominant offensively. Dominant physically. Threw the team on his back after Gretzky left. Playoff monster.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ponokanocker

Eye of Ra

Grandmaster General of the International boards
Nov 15, 2008
17,963
4,454
Malmö, Sweden
They are equal when it comes to speed, leadership, defensive game and offensive skills.

But Messier have something that Yzerman and Sakic is missing and that is a strong physical game + dirty style. So Messier gets my vote.
 

bambamcam4ever

107 and counting
Feb 16, 2012
14,301
6,344
Messier was the best. Dominant offensively. Dominant physically. Threw the team on his back after Gretzky left. Playoff monster.
Playoff monster who was routinely outscored by at least one of his teammates in the POs, even when excluding Gretzky? More like a guy who was fortunate enough to play on great teams throughout his career.
 

cgf

FireBednarsSuccessor
Oct 15, 2010
59,988
19,059
w/ Renly's Peach
Yzerman had the higher offensive peak, but his offense had declined by the time his defensive game caught up; whereas Sakic just got better and better at both ends of the ice damn near up until the point when he retired. So I always vote Sakic over Yzerman for peak since his offensive & defensive peaks lined up and Yzerman's were separated by half a decade.

And I pick either over Messier. So:
Sakic > Yzerman > Messier
 
Last edited:

GreatGonzo

Surrounded by Snowflakes
May 26, 2011
8,860
2,902
South Of the Tank
The way that Yzerman played on that successful team is meaningful.

I don't think you're understanding me here. I'm not saying you're wrong to think what you think. You need to understand that there are other perspectives in play when evaluating a player's peak, and that it's not all about numbers and awards. How is the height of his career not also his peak? He wasn't a veteran role player at that stage of his career, he was a key component of that roster and without him it is doubtful they would have won the cup at all. He deserves credit for his team's success, just like Fedorov, Lidstrom, Bowmen, etc. He won a Conn Smyth ffs, and deserves every bit of it.

In order to get through the Stars and Avalanche every year, Yzerman had to get the better of Sakic and Modano. As the pivots, that matchup defined which top line controlled the game and often that was the difference in their series'. You may argue that Yzerman had Lidstrom and Fedorov, but Modano had Zubov and Hatcher, Sakic had Blake and Forsberg, and the margin for error in those games was always razor thin. That's why Yzerman's evolution was so significant. Maybe he didn't get "smarter" and maybe he was perfectly capable of playing like that in the 80s, the point is he didn't. If he took the same risks he used to, he might have proven to be the weakness in the Wings' roster that allowed their rivals to win more of those match-ups.

If you want to discount Yzerman's team success in favor of 155 points and some award nominations, more power to you. I don't think we'll reach a middle ground. I would also like to point out that this response is the first where I have actually tried to justify Yzerman's peak seasons using his team's success. That's actually a tertiary part of my argument but for some reason it's the part you decided to focus on so that's going to be what I respond to. My main point is that Yzerman's skillset is better suited for the style that Bowmen had him play. It didn't get him the same level of individual recognition, but I doubt that really bothers him.



To me, a player's ability is their contribution to winning, and the height of that contribution is a player's peak. You don't have to be winning necessarily to still be making a high contribution, but there is a strong correlation between key player performance and team success.
Why is it more meaningful? He played his best hockey on mediocre teams, so why are you giving him more credit because he played great on even better teams?

I don’t think you quite understand the term. I believe your calling his later years his “career peak”, but as an individual, that was not his peak. There is a difference. Whether or not you think Yzerman was better is entirely subjective, but you can’t say he was a better player in his later years simply because he finally saw post season success. The difference was that he finally had a team around him. No one is taking credit for anyone, he was still a great player, he just wasn’t as great as he was in his early days. Players don’t “peak” at 34 years old. But that doesn’t mean they still can’t be great players.

Sakic won those match ups a majority of the time though....
Sakic: 30-12-13-25
Yzerman: 30-6-10-16
Sakic came out on top most of the time. The more interesting stats came from Forsberg and Fedorov
Forsberg: 30-12-16-28
Fedorov: 30-10-20-30

Yzerman was a great match up center, but his style was greatly complimented with Fedorov, who in my opinion was clearly the better player both ways.

As for Modano vs Yzerman, they met once in the playoffs, where I wouldn’t exactly say Yzerman clearly won that match up.

Who knows though, Yzerman wasn’t some liability when he was scoring 100+ points a season, but he couldn’t play the defense that he did in Detroit because the team wasn’t made for that.

I agree Yzerman contributed greatly to his team success, but like I said, as an individual....he wasn’t a better player
 

hairylikebear

///////////////
Apr 30, 2009
4,169
1,800
Houston
Why is it more meaningful? He played his best hockey on mediocre teams, so why are you giving him more credit because he played great on even better teams?

I don’t think you quite understand the term. I believe your calling his later years his “career peak”, but as an individual, that was not his peak. There is a difference. Whether or not you think Yzerman was better is entirely subjective, but you can’t say he was a better player in his later years simply because he finally saw post season success. The difference was that he finally had a team around him. No one is taking credit for anyone, he was still a great player, he just wasn’t as great as he was in his early days. Players don’t “peak” at 34 years old. But that doesn’t mean they still can’t be great players.

Sakic won those match ups a majority of the time though....
Sakic: 30-12-13-25
Yzerman: 30-6-10-16
Sakic came out on top most of the time. The more interesting stats came from Forsberg and Fedorov
Forsberg: 30-12-16-28
Fedorov: 30-10-20-30

Yzerman was a great match up center, but his style was greatly complimented with Fedorov, who in my opinion was clearly the better player both ways.

As for Modano vs Yzerman, they met once in the playoffs, where I wouldn’t exactly say Yzerman clearly won that match up.

Who knows though, Yzerman wasn’t some liability when he was scoring 100+ points a season, but he couldn’t play the defense that he did in Detroit because the team wasn’t made for that.

I agree Yzerman contributed greatly to his team success, but like I said, as an individual....he wasn’t a better player

His statistical peak isn't subjective. That's clearly defined as his highest point producing season. His career peak is subjective and I'm allowed to use whatever criteria I want for defining it. Just like the OP is when he's making his own thread. Remember that this discussion originally came about because so many people disagreed with the OP regarding what he decided was Yzerman's peak. I'm trying to explain that there are reasons for people to feel that way. I'm defining his career peak to be the extended period during which I think he was playing the best hockey of his career.

Those stats are interesting because they are completely in conflict with what I remember from watching those series,' although I have to assume what stats those mean because you didn't actually present any context for them.

Again, like I said in my last post, you're not going to make any progress by continuing to move the goalposts on me. I never said that Yzerman was better later in his career simply because he started seeing postseason success. I also don't get why you keep saying he was 34. He was 32 during what I consider to be his peak season. Go ahead and look at his statline that year, you'll think I'm crazy. I would hope this isn't the first debate you've ever had with someone who tries to look past the statistics.
 

Regal

Registered User
Mar 12, 2010
24,539
13,832
Vancouver
Playoff monster who was routinely outscored by at least one of his teammates in the POs, even when excluding Gretzky? More like a guy who was fortunate enough to play on great teams throughout his career.

Somehow I doubt you'd entertain the same type of argument made against Crosby who hasn't led any of his cup teams in points. Messier was quite clearly an awesome playoff performer.
 

MessierII

Registered User
Aug 10, 2011
27,644
16,188
Playoff monster who was routinely outscored by at least one of his teammates in the POs, even when excluding Gretzky? More like a guy who was fortunate enough to play on great teams throughout his career.
Classic stat watching. I’ve seen one other player who was able to a throw a team on his back the way Messier could in a playoff run. The other was Chris Pronger.
 

ponokanocker

Registered User
Nov 17, 2009
3,835
6
As others have pointed out, Messier brought a different element to the game that isn't allowed anymore, but was back then. He was a beast that brought fear into his opposition, and teammates to play better, to go along with skill that wasn't quite at the level of Sakic and Yzerman, but close.
 

Voight

#winning
Feb 8, 2012
40,368
16,645
Mulberry Street
in 2001 Sakic was 3 points from the scoring title, 5 goals from the Richard and came in a close 2nd in Selke voting. He almost had one of the best individual seasons in NHL history.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cgf

GreatGonzo

Surrounded by Snowflakes
May 26, 2011
8,860
2,902
South Of the Tank
His statistical peak isn't subjective. That's clearly defined as his highest point producing season. His career peak is subjective and I'm allowed to use whatever criteria I want for defining it. Just like the OP is when he's making his own thread. Remember that this discussion originally came about because so many people disagreed with the OP regarding what he decided was Yzerman's peak. I'm trying to explain that there are reasons for people to feel that way. I'm defining his career peak to be the extended period during which I think he was playing the best hockey of his career.

Those stats are interesting because they are completely in conflict with what I remember from watching those series,' although I have to assume what stats those mean because you didn't actually present any context for them.

Again, like I said in my last post, you're not going to make any progress by continuing to move the goalposts on me. I never said that Yzerman was better later in his career simply because he started seeing postseason success. I also don't get why you keep saying he was 34. He was 32 during what I consider to be his peak season. Go ahead and look at his statline that year, you'll think I'm crazy. I would hope this isn't the first debate you've ever had with someone who tries to look past the statistics.
You are allowed, but I’m trying to tell you that your criteria for what you define as a “peak” is very wrong, that’s all.

Yzerman simply wasn’t the best player he ever was at that time, he was during his early days. That’s why it was his “peak.”

Well that’s nice, but the numbers don’t lie. Yzerman was a great in the post season, but Sakic and Forsberg got the better of him most of the time. What context are you trying to dig up? His team won a lot of the time regardless, but that’s because he wasn’t depended on so much like he was in his younger days. When you have guys like Fedorov and Shanahan playing with you, a monster shut down line, Norris Caliber Dmen, and later on a roster full of HOFers, it’s easier to win, wouldn’t you say?

I’m not moving any goal posts, I’m simply trying to explain to you that the way your using “peak” isn’t correct, at least from an individual stand point, which is what this thread is about. Yzerman wasn’t a “better player” because he saw more wan success, he was just clearly on a better team. The logic behind that is confusing, and it doesn’t make any sense. How can you say a player is better because he won a cup?

So your telling me 32 was his peak? He scored 69 points in 74 games, with 24 points in 22 games to a Smythe, and that was his peak for you? I take it your weighing heavily on his post season why that year, so your saying ones peak is defined by how well they do in the post season? That’s strange.

Yes, I do think it’s crazy to think a 32 year old Yzerman with 69 points with a great post season, is a peak season compared to 23 year old Yzerman with 155 points with a solid post season. The difference was the team around him.

Your using cups to define a players peak, that’s whats wrong with everything your trying to prove.
 

hairylikebear

///////////////
Apr 30, 2009
4,169
1,800
Houston
You are allowed, but I’m trying to tell you that your criteria for what you define as a “peak” is very wrong, that’s all.

Yzerman simply wasn’t the best player he ever was at that time, he was during his early days. That’s why it was his “peak.”

Well that’s nice, but the numbers don’t lie. Yzerman was a great in the post season, but Sakic and Forsberg got the better of him most of the time. What context are you trying to dig up? His team won a lot of the time regardless, but that’s because he wasn’t depended on so much like he was in his younger days. When you have guys like Fedorov and Shanahan playing with you, a monster shut down line, Norris Caliber Dmen, and later on a roster full of HOFers, it’s easier to win, wouldn’t you say?

I’m not moving any goal posts, I’m simply trying to explain to you that the way your using “peak” isn’t correct, at least from an individual stand point, which is what this thread is about. Yzerman wasn’t a “better player” because he saw more wan success, he was just clearly on a better team. The logic behind that is confusing, and it doesn’t make any sense. How can you say a player is better because he won a cup?

So your telling me 32 was his peak? He scored 69 points in 74 games, with 24 points in 22 games to a Smythe, and that was his peak for you? I take it your weighing heavily on his post season why that year, so your saying ones peak is defined by how well they do in the post season? That’s strange.

Yes, I do think it’s crazy to think a 32 year old Yzerman with 69 points with a great post season, is a peak season compared to 23 year old Yzerman with 155 points with a solid post season. The difference was the team around him.

Your using cups to define a players peak, that’s whats wrong with everything your trying to prove.

Well, you're completely entitled to think I'm wrong. It doesn't bother me any considering you haven't demonstrated any understanding of my point of view, and because of that, I see no reason to continue this off topic discussion.
 

blundluntman

Registered User
Jul 30, 2016
2,545
2,705
Saying Yzerman wasn't at his peak in 89 comes across very pretentious to me. There is just no denying a season that impressive, especially when he beat Gretzky AND Lemieux for the pearson that season. Two way play is absolutely important but if you give me a choice between a 155 point Pearson winner (that was no slouch defensively for that matter) and a barely ppg selke winner, I'm taking the former every time.
 

GreatGonzo

Surrounded by Snowflakes
May 26, 2011
8,860
2,902
South Of the Tank
Well, you're completely entitled to think I'm wrong. It doesn't bother me any considering you haven't demonstrated any understanding of my point of view, and because of that, I see no reason to continue this off topic discussion.
I totally understand your view Point.

You feel Yzermans “peak” was during that time frame because he started winning stanley cups, took on a more defensivel role, and played very well on an even better team in the post season. All fantastic features.

Like I’ve pointed out though, all that still doesn’t mean Yzerman was at his total peak as a player. If you pick later Yzerman over early Yzerman, that’s fine...I understand why..but I also feel it’s extremely flawed.

People who tend to lean more towards Yzerman from 96-00 don’t fully understand just how great the team was around him. They don’t fully understand that Yzerman was past his prime, but still great. They don’t understand the talent he was surrounded with and how that talent helped shape his legacy as a leader and player. ThTs not saying Yzerman was some passenger, or that he wasn’t one of the valuable pieces, but to think a young and prime Yzerman wouldn’t be amazing on those teams is a bit odd. The dynamics of the team would change, no doubt....but why wouldn’t a player capable of putting up 150+ points on a mediocre team, not be able to succeed on an even better team?

Yzerman went from offensive dynamo and one of the best players during his prime, to a Selke caliber two way forward. One Yzerman saw more success than the other, and that’s more because of the difference of talent around him.
 

hairylikebear

///////////////
Apr 30, 2009
4,169
1,800
Houston
I totally understand your view Point.

You feel Yzermans “peak” was during that time frame because he started winning stanley cups, took on a more defensivel role, and played very well on an even better team in the post season. All fantastic features.

No. Not even close. My main point is that Yzerman's skillset better suits the playstyle he adopted later in his career. He was an extremely skilled offensive player early in his career that had the talent to see plays develop and find players out of his line of sight, but he was always under such pressure to score that he would try to force plays that weren't there. His talent level made those plays higher percentage than normal, but it lead to giveaways and wasted possessions. That's why even though he scored 101 EV points that year, he was only a +17. I understand that +/- is a team stat, but as the top line center your contribution to team defense is substantial. Early in his career he had a burst in his acceleration and an added level of precision to his passes that he lost as he entered his 30s. As he matured, his mental game developed to the point where he didn't need either of those attributes to generate scoring opportunities. His team was way better at this point, but he is one of the top cerebral players in history and understood exactly how he fit into that juggernaut in every zone. He was the top line center on one of the best teams in history, and that defines the peak of his career. Do you seriously expect me to just ignore the team success as though he didn't contribute? Okay, by your logic, let's discount his 155 point season too because his teammates have to pass him the puck and finish his plays. Before you cling to this point again, let me reiterate for the last time that his team success is a tertiary part of my reasoning.

Let me give you an example:


This is a really simple play that a young Yzerman would have handled differently. He knows Kozlov is breaking to the net and wants to get him the puck. A young Yzerman knows he can beat his man to the outside and slide a pass through the middle for the redirect on the short side or the tap in on the far side. The problem is this play is easy to read and only scores when a defender fails to recognize it. Instead, he draws two defenders to himself and slides the puck over to a teammate that he knows is going to have a clean passing lane to Kozlov. In this case, a smarter Yzerman who trusts his teammates created a safe, very high percentage play, whereas a younger Yzerman would have tried to do it himself and was so skilled he very well might have succeeded. The problem is, you're not going to find highlights on youtube of the countless times he failed to do that and gave the puck away.

Part of Bowmen's philosphy for that Detroit team in transitional offense was to find who was covering you, and draw them away from an area of the ice, so that a teammate can fill that area. You don't need to be fast or precise to execute that, you just need to be smart and understand the game-plan. That's why I'm not so sure a young 155 point Yzerman would have fitted into this team nearly as well as the older Yzerman did -- he probably would have been in the doghouse most of the time for trying to brute force his way through the defense with raw skill.

Here's another example from the same series against the Stars:


A young Yzerman I think would probably have done the same thing here, to be honest. He was always really good at turning a defender one direction and beating them to the other side. However, you could be 40 and still pull off this play if you understand your own offense and what the defense is trying to do to stop you. He was trying to do stuff like this constantly, and it didn't always work. The difference here is when it didn't work he didn't force the play. He would pass it off to a teammate or dump it into a safe place so he and his linemates could try it again another shift. The more you stress the defense the more likely they are to accidentally give you a lane. If you don't have a lane, you don't need to take the chance. That's how that roster was able to find so much success against Dallas and Colorado who had rosters that matched up with Detroit top to bottom. If you think a young Yzerman could have had the same success ... you could not be more wrong. He would have likely scored as many points, probably more, but if you're giving the puck away and letting Forsberg and Sakic take shots on Osgood over and over, you are going to lose the series.

Like I’ve pointed out though, all that still doesn’t mean Yzerman was at his total peak as a player. If you pick later Yzerman over early Yzerman, that’s fine...I understand why..but I also feel it’s extremely flawed.

People who tend to lean more towards Yzerman from 96-00 don’t fully understand just how great the team was around him. They don’t fully understand that Yzerman was past his prime, but still great. They don’t understand the talent he was surrounded with and how that talent helped shape his legacy as a leader and player. ThTs not saying Yzerman was some passenger, or that he wasn’t one of the valuable pieces, but to think a young and prime Yzerman wouldn’t be amazing on those teams is a bit odd. The dynamics of the team would change, no doubt....but why wouldn’t a player capable of putting up 150+ points on a mediocre team, not be able to succeed on an even better team?

Yzerman went from offensive dynamo and one of the best players during his prime, to a Selke caliber two way forward. One Yzerman saw more success than the other, and that’s more because of the difference of talent around him.

The rest of this translates roughly to "he had 155 points therefore he was better." If you didn't watch him in the 80s, just say so. If you did, give me something I don't already know that justifies your point of view. I feel it necessary to reiterate that the only thing you have done so far in this thread is attack my position, and the only justification you have provided for yours is point totals and awards. It's ridiculous and a waste of both of our time.
 

GreatGonzo

Surrounded by Snowflakes
May 26, 2011
8,860
2,902
South Of the Tank
No. Not even close. My main point is that Yzerman's skillset better suits the playstyle he adopted later in his career. He was an extremely skilled offensive player early in his career that had the talent to see plays develop and find players out of his line of sight, but he was always under such pressure to score that he would try to force plays that weren't there. His talent level made those plays higher percentage than normal, but it lead to giveaways and wasted possessions. That's why even though he scored 101 EV points that year, he was only a +17. I understand that +/- is a team stat, but as the top line center your contribution to team defense is substantial. Early in his career he had a burst in his acceleration and an added level of precision to his passes that he lost as he entered his 30s. As he matured, his mental game developed to the point where he didn't need either of those attributes to generate scoring opportunities. His team was way better at this point, but he is one of the top cerebral players in history and understood exactly how he fit into that juggernaut in every zone. He was the top line center on one of the best teams in history, and that defines the peak of his career. Do you seriously expect me to just ignore the team success as though he didn't contribute? Okay, by your logic, let's discount his 155 point season too because his teammates have to pass him the puck and finish his plays. Before you cling to this point again, let me reiterate for the last time that his team success is a tertiary part of my reasoning.

Let me give you an example:


This is a really simple play that a young Yzerman would have handled differently. He knows Kozlov is breaking to the net and wants to get him the puck. A young Yzerman knows he can beat his man to the outside and slide a pass through the middle for the redirect on the short side or the tap in on the far side. The problem is this play is easy to read and only scores when a defender fails to recognize it. Instead, he draws two defenders to himself and slides the puck over to a teammate that he knows is going to have a clean passing lane to Kozlov. In this case, a smarter Yzerman who trusts his teammates created a safe, very high percentage play, whereas a younger Yzerman would have tried to do it himself and was so skilled he very well might have succeeded. The problem is, you're not going to find highlights on youtube of the countless times he failed to do that and gave the puck away.

Part of Bowmen's philosphy for that Detroit team in transitional offense was to find who was covering you, and draw them away from an area of the ice, so that a teammate can fill that area. You don't need to be fast or precise to execute that, you just need to be smart and understand the game-plan. That's why I'm not so sure a young 155 point Yzerman would have fitted into this team nearly as well as the older Yzerman did -- he probably would have been in the doghouse most of the time for trying to brute force his way through the defense with raw skill.

Here's another example from the same series against the Stars:


A young Yzerman I think would probably have done the same thing here, to be honest. He was always really good at turning a defender one direction and beating them to the other side. However, you could be 40 and still pull off this play if you understand your own offense and what the defense is trying to do to stop you. He was trying to do stuff like this constantly, and it didn't always work. The difference here is when it didn't work he didn't force the play. He would pass it off to a teammate or dump it into a safe place so he and his linemates could try it again another shift. The more you stress the defense the more likely they are to accidentally give you a lane. If you don't have a lane, you don't need to take the chance. That's how that roster was able to find so much success against Dallas and Colorado who had rosters that matched up with Detroit top to bottom. If you think a young Yzerman could have had the same success ... you could not be more wrong. He would have likely scored as many points, probably more, but if you're giving the puck away and letting Forsberg and Sakic take shots on Osgood over and over, you are going to lose the series.



The rest of this translates roughly to "he had 155 points therefore he was better." If you didn't watch him in the 80s, just say so. If you did, give me something I don't already know that justifies your point of view. I feel it necessary to reiterate that the only thing you have done so far in this thread is attack my position, and the only justification you have provided for yours is point totals and awards. It's ridiculous and a waste of both of our time.

His style in his early days was just fine, he was the team. He was the scorer, the guy that lead the way. His style change better suited the team because that’s how the teams system was, very defensive oriented. Not to mention he finally had talented players around him, and by talented...I mean some of the best of all time. Yzerman was always there by that point of his career, he was just getting flack for being a chocker and not a great leader. You say how bad his plus/minus was, how his play resorted to give aways, and All this....yet you forget how young a player he was, how much he had the puck, and how he was still developing, but it’s kinda hard to develop a solid defensive game when the system doesn’t call for that, and you have to score more for your team to have a better chance of winning....I wonder....

Yzerman wasn’t bad defensively in his early days. He just didn’t have the opportunity to fully focus on it, like his later days. He HAD to score, and he had to compete every night for a win. Again, your giving Yzerman this odd credit, as if the team around him and the system he played in had absolutely NOTHING to do with his success during that time frame. He had top notch linemates, he had less responsibilities, he did have to carry anything anymore, a player (who is already amazing especially) would thrive in that environment, if they were willing to learn. Yzerman was, and by that point, in his early to late 30s, he was just exiting his prime.

The Yzerman with the better defensive game was not more impressive, nor better than 155, or ‘88-‘93 Yzerman. Teaching a player to play a more defensive role doesn’t take more talent than scoring as many, especially for a guy like Yzerman who wasn’t bad defensively like his stats somehow show in your opinion. It’s pretty straight forward, score more to get wins for your team, drive your line, and he did this ALOT....so how is defense going to help?

Overall, what your saying is all speculation, but your also proving my point in the end. Yzerman was in the right place in the right time, at the right point of his career, with the right system and team. His offense wasn’t as strong as it once was, as well as his overall physical self. But that’s how he is an all time great, he was still a great player, but the role shifted. Yzerman was given a very different role when he was younger, and a much harder one at that.....help a struggling franchise, lead the team, be their best player. And he did that for a majority of his career....by the mid 90s, they didn’t need him to be that role anymore, they finally got the help that he deserved. Yzerman was exiting his offensive prime during this time and was giving a different role, play a more defensive game, and he was of course able to do that, and he among the best.

But that Yzerman wasn’t even close to one of the best players in the league, like he was when he was younger. That alone tells you everything. He wasn’t close to be a Lester B. Award winner, and he certainly got farther and farther away from being one of the most dynamic offensive players in the league. But he saw success and continued to being a great playoff warrior, but he was always good in the playoffs. From ‘84-‘93, he had 62 points in 57 games, and with one deep run. From ‘94-02, he had 113 points in 120 games. He was great, but you talk as if he suddenly developed this playoff mode when he decided to start playing defense. The different was that those wings teams were deep, and the new driving force of the offense was Fedorov, with a gifted playmaker and PP QB in Lidstrom, and goal scoring down the middle.
 

hairylikebear

///////////////
Apr 30, 2009
4,169
1,800
Houston
Odd credit? What are you trying to say here, that he doesn't deserve credit? I'm not giving him any more credit than I am to any other key member of that team. Those key members include Fedorov, Lidstrom, and Yzerman.

Saying he "wasn't bad defensively" is actually pretty damning when he became someone who is considered to be of the best two way centers to play the game.

How can his peak season happen while he is still developing? Did he develop into a worse player? He *was* developing knee problems and that caused him to lose the burst in his skating stride. How have you not brought that up?

You are making no sense and your posts are beginning to read like you are just regurgitating what you read from the HoH board.

Finally, the most amusing part of your post, and the rhetorical question that I intend to answer:

"how is defense going to help?"

Because you win games by scoring more goals than your opponent, not just by scoring goals.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->