Ever Wonder Which Of Sakic and Yzerman is Better?

[seventieslord]

Seventieslord's Definitive Objective Comparison and Analysis of the careers of Joe Sakic and Steve Yzerman

Sakic vs. Yzerman is bound to be a popular debate in the upcoming years. I thought of a multitude of categories to compare Yzerman and Sakic in, and naturally some are more important than others, but I wanted to be as complete as possible. Where applicable, I have accounted for the unfair interference of the generational talents Wayne Gretzky and Mario Lemieux. This did affect Yzerman's place in hockey's pecking order, but, make no mistake - it affected Sakic too.


Offense, Regular Season:

Goal-scoring: The only way to fairly judge a player's goal-scoring prowess across history, is to look at where he ranked in the league season to season. Generally I speak the language of top-10 finishes, but since I wanted to be complete, I have extended the study to include all finishes in the top-15. So, here are each players' top-15 finishes in goals:

Yzerman: 2, 2, 3, 6, 6, 6, 11.
Sakic: 2, 5, 6, 6, 10, 15.

I like to eliminate the identical finishes to break down who did better. So, remove a 2 and two 6's from each side and you're left with:

Yzerman: 2, 3, 6, 11.
Sakic: 5, 10, 15.

Safe to say that Yzerman has been a better goal-scorer over time.

If you remove Gretzky and Lemieux from the equation and pretend they never existed, here's where they would have placed:

Yzerman: 2, 2, 2, 5, 5, 6, 11.
Sakic: 2, 4, 6, 6, 10, 14.

Playmaking: Same thing. Top-15 finishes:

Yzerman: 3, 3, 7, 7, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15.
Sakic: 3, 3, 4, 4, 5, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 11, 12.

Eliminating equal finishes (3, 3, 11), we're left with:

Yzerman: 7, 7, 10, 13, 14, 15.
Sakic: 4, 4, 5, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12.

Sakic is definitely the superior playmaker.

For fun, let's eliminate the freaks of nature again.

Yzerman: 1, 1, 6, 6, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14.
Sakic: 3, 3, 4, 4, 5, 5, 6, 7, 10, 10, 10, 15.

Yzerman could have led the NHL in assists twice if Gretz and Mario ceased to exist. But even with that, Sakic has him beaten 6-2 in top-5's and 11-6 in top-10's.

Point production:

Yzerman: 3, 3, 4, 7, 7, 10, 13.
Sakic: 2, 2, 3, 4, 5, 5, 6, 6, 8, 10, 14.

Eliminating the identicals (3, 4, 10), we're left with:

Yzerman: 3, 7, 7, 13.
Sakic: 2, 2, 5, 5, 6, 6, 8, 14.

Easy edge to Sakic.

Eliminating Gretz and Lemieux:

Yzerman: 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 10, 11.
Sakic: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 8, 8, 12.

I haven't done the eliminations at this stage in goals and assists, but let's eliminate the identical 1, 2, 3, and 5.

Yzerman: 6, 10, 11.
Sakic: 4, 5, 5, 5, 8, 8, 12.

You could say Yzerman's 6, 10, 11 could cancel out Sakic's 8, 8, 12, basically meaning Sakic has done everything Yzerman has done, PLUS 4th, 5th, 5th, and 5th place points finishes, even after accounting for Gretzky and Lemieux.

*If you're really perceptive, you might have noticed Sakic was credited with a scoring title with Gretzky and Lemieux eliminated, though he never finished as runner-up to either of them. The reason is Mario Lemieux's 2000-01 comeback. Everyone knows that Mario propelled Jagr to first in the scoring race. Jagr was languishing in mediocrity before Mario came back, and it's widely accepted that Lemieux earned an assist on that Art Ross. No Lemieux = Art Ross for Sakic.


Longevity of regular season offense:

Simple calculation - number of seasons between each player's first and last top-10 finish in goals, assists and points, as well as top-5 finishes.

Yzerman: Top-10 in goals over a span of 6 seasons
Sakic: Top-10 in goals over a span of 14 seasons

Yzerman: Top-10 in assists over a span of 11 seasons
Sakic: Top-10 in assists over a span of 15 seasons

Yzerman: Top-10 in points over a span of 12 seasons
Sakic: Top-10 in points over a span of 17 seasons

Yzerman: Top-5 in goals over a span of 3 seasons
Sakic: Top-5 in goals over a span of 6 seasons

Yzerman: Top-5 in assists over a span of 9 seasons
Sakic: Top-5 in assists over a span of 10 seasons

Yzerman: Top-5 in points over a span of 5 seasons
Sakic: Top-5 in points over a span of 10 seasons

Sakic's span is greater than Yzerman's in all six comparisons.


Offense, Playoffs

There will be no elimination of Gretzky and Lemieux for two reasons: 1) their effect on these two players' playoff rankings are fairly minimal, and 2) You have to advance to place high in the playoff rankings, and Gretzky and Lemieux are no longer individuals once the playoffs begin - it's still up to their teams to advance far enough for them to make the leaderboard.

Goal-scoring:

As usual, top-15 finishes:

Yzerman: 4, 8, 12, 12, 12.
Sakic: 1, 1, 2, 8, 10, 10, 12.

For lack of a better term, Sakic PWNS yzerman in this category. After eliminating 4, 8, and 12 from each side, we're left with:

Yzerman: 12, 12.
Sakic: 1, 1, 2, 10, 10.

Sakic is a FAR more accomplished playoff goal-scorer, completely turning the tables on the regular season gap, and then some.

Playmaking:

Yzerman: 1, 2, 7, 8, 15.
Sakic: 1, 2, 3, 4, 8.

Again, another clear victory for Sakic, because as you can see, after eliminating 1, 2, and 8:

Yzerman: 7, 15.
Sakic: 3, 4.

Point Production:

Yzerman: 1, 2, 6, 12, 12, 13.
Sakic: 1, 1, 2, 3, 4, 14.

Another clear victory for Sakic. After eliminating 1 and 2:

Yzerman: 6, 12, 12, 13.
Sakic: 1, 3, 4, 14.

Leading team in playoff goals or points:

You can't advance every single season. To be as fair as possible, I counted the number of times each player led (or tied for the lead) in playoff goals or points on their team.

Yzerman led his team in playoff goals 7 times, and points 9 times.
Sakic led his team in playoff goals 7 times, and points 8 times.

In other words, Yzerman did it one more time, but his total is inflated by two seasons (1984 and 1985) in which he led the Wings in both goals and points in 3 and 4-game preliminary round losses. Given that, I'm calling this even.

Conclusion: Sakic's playoff offense has beaten that of Yzerman at every turn.


Career Per-Game Averages, Regular Season and Playoffs:

Normally I don't bother with stuff like this, but these two players are similar in style and played careers that overlapped by 17 seasons.

Regular season GPG, APG, PPG:

Yzerman: .46 .70 1.16
Sakic: .45 .74 1.19

Sakic has Yzerman beaten in points and assists, and is right with him in goals. However, there is more to it than that. The years in which their careers did not overlap show an even greater difference. Yzerman played 5 seasons in the wide-open 1980's before Sakic arrived. NHL goal scoring was at 3.79 GPG during these 5 years. In the three seasons (including this year) that Sakic has played in an Yzerman-less NHL, goal scoring has been at 2.79 GPG. Sakic is clearly at a disadvantage because of eras, but still comes out on top.

Playoff GPG, APG, PPG:

Yzerman: .36 .58 .94
Sakic: .49 .60 1.09

Sakic has Yzerman beaten in all three categories in the playoffs. This is an extremely decisive edge too, when you consider that Sakic played his first playoff game in 1993 when the wide-open era was coming to an end. By this time Yzerman had played in 50 playoff games, scoring 55 points from 1984-1992. He scored 130 in his final 146 playoff games (0.89), while Sakic scored 178 in 162 games during that same time (1.10).

Easy edge to Sakic, before you consider disrepancies due to era.


Clutch play:

For obvious reasons, only individual playoff achievements should count here. For simplicity, all I can really do is look at GWG and OTG.

- Yzerman has 12 career playoff GWG in 196 GP. (.06/GP)
- Sakic has 19 career playoff GWG in 172 GP. (.11/GP)

In other words, Sakic has been nearly twice as likely to score the game winner in his playoff games. Sakic is 4th all-time in playoff GWG.

- Yzerman has 1 career playoff OT goal.
- Sakic has 8 career playoff OT goals, which is two more than anyone else has in NHL history.

Easy edge to Sakic.


Clean Play:

Both these guys play a clean, hard game. The fewer penalties you take, the more often you can be on the ice helping your team and the less often your team has to kill a penalty.

Yzerman: .61 PIM/GP.
Sakic: .45 PIM/GP.

That works out to 50 and 37 PIM per 82 games. It's not a huge difference, but this means that in an average season, Detroit had to kill 6-7 more Yzerman penalties than Quebec/Colorado had to to for Sakic.

Edge to Sakic, though I admit it is small.


Durability:

I calculated durability in three ways: Percentage of games missed, percentage of games missed in 12 prime years, and percentage of playoff games missed.

% of games missed in career:

Yzerman: 13.8%
Sakic: 10.8%

% of games missed in 12 prime years (age 21 through 32)

Yzerman: 6%
Sakic: 9%

% of playoff games missed in career:

Yzerman: 13.7% (31 games)
Sakic 1.7% (3 games)

Sakic takes two of three categories, including the most important one.


Awards:

Looking simply at who won what and who didn't, is too simplistic. Since we have access to all old voting records for awards, we can take a look at how these guys did over the years. I'll go over the three awards most pertinent to these two players: The Hart Trophy as league MVP, The Selke Trophy as the top defensive forward, and the postseason All-Star Team position at Centre.

Both players have a well-deserved Conn Smythe Trophy as playoff MVP, and a Lester Pearson award as the players' MVP. They all cancel eachother out. Since voting records are not available for these awards, we will never know who was a runner-up or finalist for these awards and how many times. So the discussion about these awards ends here.

Hart:

Here are each players' Hart Trophy voting record:

Yzerman: 3, 4, 7, 7, 7, 8, 8, 13.
Sakic: 1, 7, 7, 7, 7, 8, 14, 14, 15.

Quite close. Sakic is the only one to have won the award. Eliminating identical finishes 7, 7, 7, 8, you're left with:

Yzerman: 3, 4, 8, 13.
Sakic: 1, 7, 14, 14, 15.

Amazingly close. But Yzerman's prime was blocked by the primes of the freaks. Eliminate Gretzky and Lemieux and you've got:

Yzerman: 1, 2, 5, 6, 6, 7, 8, 13.
Sakic: 1, 6, 6, 7, 7, 8, 13, 14, 15.

Eliminate identical finishes 1, 6, 6, 7, 8, 13, and you're left with:

Yzerman: 2, 5.
Sakic: 7, 14, 15.

Two high finishes versus three moderate finishes. A very tight race, to be sure. I'd give a slight edge to Yzerman, though.

Selke:

Yzerman: 1, 3, 4, 5, 9, 11.
Sakic: 2, 9, 10, 13, 15, 15.

I'm not going to eliminate identicals here becauase then we'd be just eliminating a 9. Both guys have six top-15 finishes, but Yzerman has five top-10s to Sakic's three, and four top-5's to Sakic's 1. Plus he won the Selke and Sakic didn't. Definite edge in Selke voting goes to Yzerman.

All-Star team: A 1 or a 2 means he was actually voted to the 1st or 2nd all-star team, a 3-10 means he earned votes but was not top-2.

Yzerman: 1, 3, 3, 4, 4, 5, 6, 6, 10.
Sakic: 1, 1, 1, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 6, 7.

Eliminate the 1, 3, 3, 4, 4, and 6, and you're left with:

Yzerman: 5, 6, 10.
Sakic: 1, 1, 4, 4, 7.

Looks to be an easy edge for Yzerman. Two more top-15s, Three more top-10s, and three more top-5s, plus three berths on the first team. But, remember there were healthy freaks back then and we must consider that. Eliminating The Great one and Le Magnifique:

Yzerman: 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9.
Sakic: 1, 1, 1, 2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 5, 6.

After eliminating identicals again, (1, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6), we have:

Yzerman: 2, 9.
Sakic: 1, 3, 4, 4.

Sakic has a clear edge on Yzerman in All-Star team voting even after completely eliminating the Gretzky/Lemieux effect.


Team Success:

We can't hold them entirely responsible for their team's failures or completely anoint them their team's sole reason for victory. But, it's clear that these two greats had a lot to do with their teams' successes over the years. Early in their careers, they were not the captain of their team and I think it's only fair that we limit this to seasons after they became captains. A captain should be able to provide the leadership to prevent them from losing a series they should win, and of course getting them through a series that they had no business winning would be nice too. A "better" team is one that had 10+ points more than Sakic/Yzerman's team, a "worse" team is one that had 10+ points less. All other teams are "even" teams.

Yzerman's playoff series W/L record

vs. Better Teams: 1-3 (.250)
vs. Even Teams: 6-3 (.667)
vs. Worse Teams: 18-9 (.667) - Failures in 89, 94, 95, 96, 00, 01, 03, 04, 06.
Total: 26-15 (.634)

Sakic's playoff series W/L record

vs. Better Teams: 3-3 (.500)
vs. Even Teams: 7-4 (.636)
vs. Worse Teams: 9-4 (.692) - Failures in 95, 97, 98, 03.
Total: 19-11 (.633)

Very, very similar. What I see a difference in, is that Sakic has been able to lift his team to victory three times over teams Colorado shouldn't have beaten, while Yzerman could only do this once. Yzerman's wings also choked against an inferior team 9 times while Sakic's Nords/Avs choked just 4 times.

Head To Head:

What about head to head matchups between these players? Detroit and Colorado met five times in the playoffs - 1996, 1997, 1998, 2000, and 2002. Colorado won 3 of these 5 matchups, and 17 of the 30 games. In addition, Detroit's regular season point differential versus Colorado in these five seasons was +27, -13, -8, +12, and +17, for an average of +8. Detroit was favoured to win more often, but won less often. For winning more often when being expected to win less often, Sakic gets the edge.

Cups/Finals appearances:

Let's not forget two other simple things, though - Yzerman has been to the finals two more times than Sakic, and won the cup one more time than Sakic.

Playing on Poor Teams:

Both players played on good teams for the majority of their careers. However, for short portions of ther careers, mostly at the beginning, Sakic and Yzerman had the misfortune of playing on some bad squads. Each played four seasons where their team had 70 points or less. For Sakic, it was his first four seasons. For Yzerman, it was his first three seasons and 1990. Sakic's Nordiques' point totals were 61, 31, 46, and 52. Yzerman's wings had 69, 66, 40, and 70.

During these periods of futility, both players were their team's main bright spot. Who shone more while languishing on a bad team?

Yzerman:
1984: Did not place top-15 in anything.
1985: 13th in assists.
1986: Did not place top-15 in anything. (was injured for 29 games but his per-game averages wouldn't have put him near the leaderboard either way)
1990: 2nd in goals, 10th in assists, 3rd in points.

Sakic:
1989: Did not place top-15 in anything.
1990: 12th in assists, 10th in points.
1991: 6th in goals, 11th in assists, 6th in points.
1992: 9th in assists, 14th in points despite missing 11 games.

Conclusion: Sakic had 7 top-15 finishes in the three categories during his team's four worst years. Yzerman had 4. Sakic's Nordiques averaged 49 points in these seasons - Yzerman's wings averaged 61. Sakic clearly did better while on worse teams.


International Play:

Don't forget international play. Half the games are elimination games, and every player on the ice is highly skilled. Let's look at their individual and team successes.

Non-Best on Best:

Individual:

Yzerman: 44 Pts in 35 games in 4 tournaments. Top Forward and 1st All-Star Team of 1990 World Championships.
Sakic: 22 Pts in 25 games in 3 tournaments. No individual accolades.

Team:

Yzerman: WJC Bronze (1983), World Championship Bronze, Bronze, Gold (1985, 1989, 1990)
Sakic: World Championship Bronze, Gold (1991, 1994)

Best-On-Best:

Individual:

Yzerman: 11 Pts in 22 games in 4 tournaments. No individual accolades.
Sakic: 23 points in 30 games in 5 tournaments. Top forward and 1st All-Star Team of 2002 Olympics.

Team:

Yzerman: 1997 World Cup Silver, 2002 Olympic Gold.
Sakic: 1997 World Cup Silver, 2002 Olympic Gold, 2004 World Cup Gold.

Summary: Yzerman appears better in the small tournaments - He played in one more tournament, had more games, more points, more points per game, an individual accolade, and four medals to Sakic's two. Sakic, likewise, has the edge in best-on-best games. More tournaments, more games, more points, more points per game, was the Olympic MVP, and has one more team title than Yzerman. Given that the best-on-best tournaments are, oh, I'd say, about 10 times as important as the other tournaments, I have to give Sakic the edge here.


Intangibles:

Basically, don't give me this nonsense. Intangibles aren't nonsense; they're real. But show me a quote about Joe Sakic's intestinal fortitude, winning attitude, desire, heart, will to win, team-first philosophy, and I can find a quote about Yzerman that says the same thing. Like the Smythe and Pearson, they cancel eachother out. Trying to claim one is better than the other in this area is about as effective as peeing up a rope.


Summary:

Regular season Goal-scoring: Advantage: Yzerman.
Regular season Playmaking: Advantage: Sakic.
Regular season Point Production: Advantage: Sakic.
Longevity of regular season offense: Advantage: Sakic.
Playoff goal-scoring: Advantage: Sakic.
Playoff playmaking: Advantage: Sakic.
Playoff point production: Advantage: Sakic.
Leading team in playoff goals/points: Even.
Career regular season per-game averages: Advantage: Sakic.
Career playoff per-game averages: Advantage: Sakic.
Clutch play: Advantage: Sakic.
Clean Play: Advantage: Sakic.
Durability: Advantage: Sakic.
Hart Record: Advantage: Yzerman.
Selke Record: Advantage: Yzerman.
All-Star Team Record: Advantage: Sakic.
Total Playoff series W/L record: Even.
Pulling off playoff upsets: Advantage: Sakic.
Not being upset by inferior teams: Advantage: Sakic
Head to head matchups: Advantage: Sakic
Cups and Finals appearances: Advantage: Yzerman
International Play: Advantage: Sakic.
Intangibles: Even.

Sakic's decisive wins:
Clutch play
Regular season point production
Regular season playmaking
Longevity of regular season offense
Playoff goal-scoring
Playoff playmaking
Playoff point production
Career playoff per-game averages
All-Star Team Record
Head to head matchups
Playing on poor teams

Sakic's narrow wins:
Clean Play
Durability
International Play
Career regular season per-game averages
Pulling off playoff upsets
Not being upset by inferior teams

Draws:
Leading team in playoff goals/points
Intangibles
Total Playoff series W/L record

Yzerman's narrow wins:
Regular season Goal-scoring
Hart Record
Cups and finals appearances

Yzerman's decisive win:
Selke record


Conclusion:

Joe Sakic has had a career that is slightly yet decidedly and clearly better than that of Steve Yzerman. He scored wins in 17 of the 24 categories analyzed (11 decisively), while Yzerman won four categories, one decisively. Three categories were declared draws. keep in mind that some categories are much more important than others; however, Sakic wins most of the most important ones.

Click to read more...

 

[Birko19]

Good detailed analysis but I still disagree, I think in their prime Yzerman was better, but Sakic has had a better consistent career numbers wise mainly because Yzerman changed his game and became one of the premier two way players in the game, and also was hit by injury troubles late in his career, I think Sakic's numbers will go down too if he continues to play with injuries like Yzerman.

The other thing is the numbers don't tell everything, if that was the case why would people say Mark Messier was better than both of Yzerman and Sakic yet their numbers are clearly better than his? It's simple, his play on the ice was better, but offensively they were better.

 

[seventieslord]

Good detailed analysis but I still disagree, I think in their prime Yzerman was better, but Sakic has had a better consistent career numbers wise mainly because Yzerman changed his game and became one of the premier two way players in the game, and also was hit by injury troubles late in his career, I think Sakic's numbers will go down too if he continues to play with injuries like Yzerman.

The other thing is the numbers don't tell everything, if that was the case why would people say Mark Messier was better than both of Yzerman and Sakic yet their numbers are clearly better than his? It's simple, his play on the ice was better, but offensively they were better.

Yzerman probably did have a better prime, but Sakic's 7th-15th best seasons are so much better than Yzerman's that it easily makes up the difference. And you're talking about Yzerman's two-way play as though Sakic never had a two-way game - he did. And he has been able to do both at the same time. When Yzerman learned how to play defense, his days in the scoring leaders came to an end.

It's too late for Sakic's numbers to go down due to injury trouble. This will be his last season.

How do you figure that their numbers are better than Messier? Messier has them beaten in the regular season and the playoffs, was a great two-way player, every bit the leader they were, physically intimidating, and he won two Hart trophies - one in a year in which the game's top scorer was Lemieux, the other in a year in which the game's top scorer was Gretzky. And what do you mean by "It's simple, his play on the ice was better, but offensively they were better." I don't think that's simple at all.

 

[MXD]

70ies, have you adjusted to PIMs to the average OR the median of every season? there were more PIMs in the 80ies, so I suppose it would be only normal that Stevie had a higher number of PIMs...

 

[Dark Shadows]

Yzerman probably did have a better prime, but Sakic's 7th-15th best seasons are so much better than Yzerman's that it easily makes up the difference. And you're talking about Yzerman's two-way play as though Sakic never had a two-way game - he did. And he has been able to do both at the same time. When Yzerman learned how to play defense, his days in the scoring leaders came to an end.

It's too late for Sakic's numbers to go down due to injury trouble. This will be his last season.

How do you figure that their numbers are better than Messier? Messier has them beaten in the regular season and the playoffs, was a great two-way player, every bit the leader they were, physically intimidating, and he won two Hart trophies - one in a year in which the game's top scorer was Lemieux, the other in a year in which the game's top scorer was Gretzky. And what do you mean by "It's simple, his play on the ice was better, but offensively they were better." I don't think that's simple at all.

That is where I usually make my argument. Sakic was always a great two way player, and never needed to change his game. Great post BTW

 

[Big Phil]

I would flip a coin on either one of them to be honest, how can you go wrong. To me it's similar to Messier and Trottier

 

[Jungosi]

Great , great effort here seventies!

Being a Sakic fan I'm of course a huge fan of this analysis. What really gives Joe the edge in my mind is that he did not need to change his game in order to be a great two-way player. And his performance in 95-96 is one of the very best in recent memory in my eyes.

 

[poise]

I thank you for this detailed and thorough analysis. It certainly does show that Joe Sakic was a more dominant Player respective to his peers throughout his career than Steve Yzerman, though I can't say it changes my opinion of who was the better Player.

For me, Steve Yzerman is among four Players battling for spot #4 on the best Players Post-Expansion (use this cutoff because 70's and 80's games are much easier to find than Original Six and watching the Player is one of the most important factors for me). Mark Messier, Marcel Dionne, and Jaromir Jagr are the others. Joe Sakic would be in the range of #10-#15 or so.

One thing you do is use scoring placement as the major indicator of Offense and comparison. I personally think that is more problematic than using raw totals. The reason for this being that, aside from Wayne Gretzky and Mario Lemieux who you already accounted for, the caliber of Offensive Players from 1986-1994 (roughly Yzerman's prime) is significantly better and significantly deeper than the caliber of Offensive Players from 1996-2004 (roughly Sakic's prime). That variable is stronger than the variable of the decreasing goal totals (in fact, a strong argument could be made that the decrease in scoring seen through the 1990's is due in large part to the decreasing quality of Offensive Players and thus the increasing use of Defensive systems by the weaker and expansion teams to keep up).

So when I go on Hockey-Reference's Power Play tab and check the best seasons from the different time periods, the 1986-1994 list is much more impressive than the 1996-2004 list, even with the elimination of Gretzky and Lemieux (let us remember that Lemieux was at his prime for the first time period as well and not so much for the second while Gretzky had slowed down by the time of the first time period but was basically done by the second). You see the best seasons (non Gretzky/Lemieux) of the first period trump the best seasons of the second period and that the depth of the first is much greater than that of the second.

That to me is a decisive factor as in your analysis, there are many occasions where Yzerman's and Sakic's best years cancel out, leaving Sakic's trailing years more present in quantity and quality. I'd argue that this fact has more to do with the lack of Offensive depth in the league (Yzerman finished 10th in the league in the 2000 season which I'd argue is less impressive (Offensively only) than say Cam Neely's 20th place finish ten years earlier). Obviously a part of this has to do with Sakic's elite play lasting longer than Yzerman's, but I think that is overstated as compared to the league depth which is understated.

In the Playoffs, I'd agree that Sakic is better. His 1996 performance is still the finest I have witnessed and should rank among the best all time. Yzerman's 1998 performance is quite stunning as well, but despite the fact he was probably a better playmaker (he always looked to be in control and involved with the play and as a result 15 of his 18 Assists were primary) and significantly better Defensively, Sakic did the most important thing in Hockey a lot more; he scored. Granted, Yzerman had quite a few obstacles in the Playoffs during his prime (injuries in 1988, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994; leading a team in disarray in 1989; not qualifying in 1990) and you can make the case by his World Championship performances in 1989 and 1990 that he would have done well had he gotten the chance to get far. Still, I'm not going to give credit to Yzerman for doing something he didn't.

I'd like to point out that in the 2002 Olympics, Sakic may have ended up winning the accolades due to his huge game against the USA, but Assistant Coach Jacques Martin had stated that Yzerman was the best Canadian in the tournament. I'd say it would be close between several guys as to who was the best, including Lemieux.

Aside from all the stats and scoring placements, the thing that really seperates the two for me is watching them play. Obviously, this is extremely subjective, but it is a major factor for me.

Yzerman was simply a dominant Player, especially in his prime, he really controlled the pace of a game. I liken him to Jaromir Jagr in this sense. Sakic was much more quieter and it is not just a matter of "flashy" either. He looked to be considerably less involved in plays compared to Yzerman. One thing that sticks out with me on Sakic is that he would routinely rack up Assists on goals that I really didn't think he had much to do with. I suppose this is one of the reasons that Sakic seems to have quite a high proportion of secondary Assists compared to Forwards generally. Obviously, I am not claiming Sakic to be a purely perimeter Player, because he clearly is not, but I feel his Offensive contribution was less than Players with similar or even slightly less numbers.

On Defensive play, this is one area where I don't think it is close. Yzerman to me was far and away the superior Defensive Player, especially in his own zone.

In fact, one area where I think Yzerman is not given enough credit is his Defensive play in his Offensive prime. Early in the 1993 Playoffs against Toronto, Yzerman was criticized by Bryan Murray and Doug Maclean for playing too Defensively and not playing his strengths: "He got so preoccupied with playing defence and worrying about what Doug Gilmour was doing that he was handling the puck like it was a grenade," said MacLean. "I was just trying to build a little confidence in him and told him to stop worrying about checking and being the main man" (Hamilton Spectator - February 7, 1994). Later on in the series, he was told by Murray to check Gilmour in Game 6 who would be matched up against him and he did so stunningly. I know several players in the 1994 draft, including Jeff Friesen mentioned Yzerman as their favorite player "because of his two-way play". I don't think Sakic played any better Defensively during his Selke runner-up season than Yzerman did in his Offensive prime.

I do feel 'intangibles' matter very much (I think most people who have played Hockey at any level would agree), but frankly, with these two, it is basically even, and if there was an edge, I don't think it would matter significantly. Only Uwe Krupp could tell us for sure.

 

[Felonious Python]

Good work and very interesting, thanks for doing it.

My critiques would be (and I understand why it's that way) is that awards are based solely on votes. Which are subjective. I think in the past few years, both had been held in a bit higher regard than they really were, relative to the rest of the league.

Second, a players point production, as well as playoff performance, is based highly on who else is on the ice with them. Gretzky would probably still have been the highest scoring player ever, but if he had never played with Kurri, who knows what would have happened.

You can't go wrong either way. I prefer Yzerman, but that's me, and I won't knock anyone who chooses Sakic.

 

[bruinsfan46]

Nicely done. You really can't go wrong with either one, both great players who did incredible things for their franchises. I've always been a bit more of a Sakic guy.

 

[Qubax]

Yah IMO you can defend any point of view through stats. I'll always believe that Yzerman was the better player.

 

[Canadiens Fan]

Unbelievable work 70's ... fantastic stuff. This is a really good compariosn in that I don't think that there is a wrong answer to choosing either player. Count me as one who may lead a little in Sakic's direction and not by much.

 

[VanIslander]

they are equals

 

[overpass]

How do you figure that their numbers are better than Messier? Messier has them beaten in the regular season and the playoffs, was a great two-way player, every bit the leader they were, physically intimidating, and he won two Hart trophies - one in a year in which the game's top scorer was Lemieux, the other in a year in which the game's top scorer was Gretzky. And what do you mean by "It's simple, his play on the ice was better, but offensively they were better." I don't think that's simple at all.

How do you figure that Messier has them beaten in the regular season? I haven't run the same numbers that you have, but a quick glance at his hockey-reference.com page for a comparison shows 4 top-10 in goals, with none higher than 8th, and 6 top-10s in assists and points, never finishing first in either. That's worse than either Yzerman or Sakic. While he was 4 times a 1st-team all-star, 2 were at left wing, a far less competitive position than centre. His only edge in the regular season is his two Hart Trophies, and his 1990 Hart probably should have gone to Ray Bourque. In 1992, I'm not sure Messier was the best player on his team - Brian Leetch won the Norris and scored 102 points, only 5 points behind Messier.

I think Messier, Sakic, and Yzerman are an interesting and natural comparison. There are a number of similarities, all being long-career centres who played at a high level for almost 20 years, excelled both ways, and played large roles on multiple Cup-winning teams, yet never led the league in anything and were arguably the second best centre on their teams for much of their career. I don't see Messier on another level from these two as many do.

Anyway, thanks for the in-depth, interesting, and objective (but not necessarily definitive) comparison. I went through the same comparison during the HOH Top-100, using different methods, but I came to the same conclusion you did. Sakic is comparable to but better than Yzerman.

 

[TheDanceOfMaternity]

If I was forced to pick one, you're post makes me comfortable going with Sakic

However, Yzerman did have that big like, what was it, 155 point season right? That is something Sakic could not do.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Great analysis, 70s! I made a Sakic versus Yzerman post a few months ago and reached the same conclusion, but you did an amazing job in terms of the depth of the analysis.

However, Yzerman did have that big like, what was it, 155 point season right? That is something Sakic could not do.

I'd argue that Sakic's 2001 season is superior to Yzerman's 1989 season. There were 7.48 goals per game in 1989 versus 5.51 goals per game in 2001. If we adjust their scoring to the 1989 scoring environment, Sakic actually comes out ahead with 160 points (118 * 7.48 / 5.51). I'm not saying that would have scored exactly 160 points had he played in 1989, but it does mean that Sakic was at a big disadvantage because he had his best season in the Third Dead Puck Era and that their scoring, relative to their era, was basically equal.

Another point in Sakic's favour is that he was an excellent defensive forward while he scored 118 points -- although I think he placed slightly too high (2nd) in Selke voting, he was likely the most complete forward in the league that year. Yzerman was a decent defensive player during his offensive prime but was less complete than Sakic.

However, to be fair to Yzerman, the 1989 Red Wings were a poor team. Yzerman nearly singlehandedly turned LW Gerard Gallant into a 2nd team all-star (scoring 93 pts, breaking his previous career high by 20) and played most of the year with an past-his-prime RW Paul MacLean. His best defenseman was Steve Chiasson, 20th in defenseman scoring. In contrast, Sakic had Forsberg as his #2 centre (who absorbed some of the pressure from opponents' top defenders), he had Ray Bourque (1st team all-star, 3rd in defenseman scoring) anchoring the blueline, and he had a solid winger in Tanguay.

Overall I think that Sakic and Yzerman's best seasons are almost equal. Their offensive numbers are nearly identical taking into account era-- Yzerman did more with less but Sakic was better defensively.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

Great analysis.

I've always prefered Sakic to Yzerman, Yzerman's offensive peak was probably better and Yzerman's defensive peak was better. But, for 15+ years, Sakic was Sakic. One of the best defensive 1st liners in the league and one of the best offensive centers in the league.

And both are class act leaders.

 

[Nicko999]

I think Yzerman was better! But Sakic's career is not over yet!

 

[Birko19]

Yzerman probably did have a better prime, but Sakic's 7th-15th best seasons are so much better than Yzerman's that it easily makes up the difference. And you're talking about Yzerman's two-way play as though Sakic never had a two-way game - he did. And he has been able to do both at the same time. When Yzerman learned how to play defense, his days in the scoring leaders came to an end.

It's too late for Sakic's numbers to go down due to injury trouble. This will be his last season.

How do you figure that their numbers are better than Messier? Messier has them beaten in the regular season and the playoffs, was a great two-way player, every bit the leader they were, physically intimidating, and he won two Hart trophies - one in a year in which the game's top scorer was Lemieux, the other in a year in which the game's top scorer was Gretzky. And what do you mean by "It's simple, his play on the ice was better, but offensively they were better." I don't think that's simple at all.

Both of Sakic and Yzerman's regular season numbers are better than Messier, that's what I'm hinting at.

Anyways, they're close as ever, but this whole thing only gives Sakic the edge based on offense, and even with that, based on his pace he would be no more than 50 career points more than Yzerman at the same amount of games and assuming he would keep up the same pace (Which is doubtful at an end of someone's career).

The reality is Yzerman had the better peak, and not just that, I think he was more instrumental in leading the Red Wings than Sakic leading the Avs, the biggest proof is when they both played on crappy teams, Yzerman led the Wings in the 1987 playoffs to the SCF, only to lose to a dynasty, can the same be said for Sakic? No, Sakic got past the 1st round for the first time when he had one of the greatest goalies (If not the greatest) gate keep his net.

The other thing is Yzerman was the superior two-way player, sure stats are nice, but this is like comparing a late 90's Fedorov (When he was scoring between 60-70 points) to a Mike Modano (Who was a good two-way player but scored more than Fedorov), for me it's an easy one, Yzerman was the better defensive player in his later years, and in his early years he was just as good as Sakic defensively, but his offense shadowed his defense, not to mention that Sakic would have probably had to change his game too if he played under Bowman, this is just the way Bowman was, he demanded all his centers to commit defensively first then offense comes second, Sakic did not have to deal with that in Colorado because their system was more about offense.

As far as playoffs go, once again, Sakic get's major credit for that 1996 run, but for me nothing beats Yzerman's performance in 2002, I know they gave the Conn Smythe to Lidstrom but to me it was Yzerman that carried the Wings that year, more than once he came up big and saved them from being fallen behind and he did it on one leg, in my eyes he was the MVP, any other player could have just called it quit and decided to take the time off to heal.

I personally think Yzerman would have had more personal success had guys like Gret/Lemieux did not exist, while Sakic did not have to deal with them that much, even his Hart trophy year would have not happened had Mario played a full season, the reality is both of them are pretty much very similar, and having that extra Hart and the more consistent offensive numbers does not prove that Sakic was the better player.

 

[seventieslord]

First of all, thanks, everyone for your kind words regarding the analysis. This is not the most exhaustive work I've ever done, but it is the most exhaustive comparison of only two players I've ever done.

70ies, have you adjusted to PIMs to the average OR the median of every season? there were more PIMs in the 80ies, so I suppose it would be only normal that Stevie had a higher number of PIMs...

Good question. I have not. I know it was higher in the 80's... but was it really that much higher? Yzerman's two biggest PIM seasons were 89-90 and 96-97 and sakic's two biggest were 97-98 and 05-06. so I don't know how much this would apply, at least to these players in particular.

During the seasons they spent in the NHL together, Yzerman was at .63 PIM/GP, and Sakic was at 0.44, so although you raise an interesting point, it appears that Yzerman's PIM/GP never really changed that much, even though the times did.

(A career adjusted PIM stat would be really fun to see, though.)

I thank you for this detailed and thorough analysis. It certainly does show that Joe Sakic was a more dominant Player respective to his peers throughout his career than Steve Yzerman, though I can't say it changes my opinion of who was the better Player.

For me, Steve Yzerman is among four Players battling for spot #4 on the best Players Post-Expansion (use this cutoff because 70's and 80's games are much easier to find than Original Six and watching the Player is one of the most important factors for me). Mark Messier, Marcel Dionne, and Jaromir Jagr are the others. Joe Sakic would be in the range of #10-#15 or so.

I hope you mean best post-expansion forwards. Because four defensemen were clearly better than both Sakic and Yzerman, as were at least two and possibly two more goalies. Along with Messier, Dionne, and Jagr, throw in Bossy, Trottier and Clarke at the very least.

One thing you do is use scoring placement as the major indicator of Offense and comparison. I personally think that is more problematic than using raw totals. The reason for this being that, aside from Wayne Gretzky and Mario Lemieux who you already accounted for, the caliber of Offensive Players from 1986-1994 (roughly Yzerman's prime) is significantly better and significantly deeper than the caliber of Offensive Players from 1996-2004 (roughly Sakic's prime). That variable is stronger than the variable of the decreasing goal totals (in fact, a strong argument could be made that the decrease in scoring seen through the 1990's is due in large part to the decreasing quality of Offensive Players and thus the increasing use of Defensive systems by the weaker and expansion teams to keep up).

Why are you saying Sakic's prime was just 8 years long from age 27-34, and Yzerman's was the same length from 21-28?

Using placements is far less problematic than using raw totals. With placements we get a clear picture of where the player ranked in hockey's grand pecking order. Using point totals skews the picture considerably. A goal in 1986 doesn't mean the same thing as a goal in 1999. Not even close. You seem to be attributing the higher scoring in the 1980's to the plethora of talented players, but it is the opposite. Every time in hockey history that there has been a spike in scoring, it has been due to events causing a lower overall talent level (WW1, WW2, '70's expansion, WHA, '79 expansion) and every time the talent pool catches up to the size of the NHL, scoring dips and finally levels off (Original 6, 1990's)

The reason all the best players were scoring so many points is because there were so many bad players. A comparison that accounts for the era is absolutely necessary. Besides, Sakic has him beaten in all the per-game categories anyway, right?

So when I go on Hockey-Reference's Power Play tab and check the best seasons from the different time periods, the 1986-1994 list is much more impressive than the 1996-2004 list, even with the elimination of Gretzky and Lemieux (let us remember that Lemieux was at his prime for the first time period as well and not so much for the second while Gretzky had slowed down by the time of the first time period but was basically done by the second). You see the best seasons (non Gretzky/Lemieux) of the first period trump the best seasons of the second period and that the depth of the first is much greater than that of the second.

Sure, if you are just considering point totals. the problem with doing that, can be found in my last statement.

That to me is a decisive factor as in your analysis, there are many occasions where Yzerman's and Sakic's best years cancel out, leaving Sakic's trailing years more present in quantity and quality. I'd argue that this fact has more to do with the lack of Offensive depth in the league (Yzerman finished 10th in the league in the 2000 season which I'd argue is less impressive (Offensively only) than say Cam Neely's 20th place finish ten years earlier). Obviously a part of this has to do with Sakic's elite play lasting longer than Yzerman's, but I think that is overstated as compared to the league depth which is understated.

I can't think of a time where being 10th in any season is less impressive than being 20th another season, unless you're talking about 10th in WW2 vs. 20th in 2006.

Sakic's elite play lasting longer is not being overstated. He managed to do it, Yzerman didn't. The dropping of scoring levels is an indication of the league talent level getting better overall, not worse - you can see it by watching old film too. Today's 4th liners can all skate and shoot (except maybe Boogaard).

I'd like to point out that in the 2002 Olympics, Sakic may have ended up winning the accolades due to his huge game against the USA, but Assistant Coach Jacques Martin had stated that Yzerman was the best Canadian in the tournament. I'd say it would be close between several guys as to who was the best, including Lemieux.

I don't know man. Yzerman played on one leg and he looked it too. He gave a yeoman's effort and his heart and leadership really showed. But he was not one of Canada's best players. Also, regarding Lemieux - I was still on a high at that time from the fact that he was even back in the NHL - I missed having him in Nagano, and I wanted him to light this tournament up. He was disappointing. Looked slow, and couldn't score goals. His highlight to me was the goal against the Czechs.

I suppose this is one of the reasons that Sakic seems to have quite a high proportion of secondary Assists compared to Forwards generally.

Do you have numbers showing this? I haven't seen anything like this before and I would like to.

I don't think Sakic played any better Defensively during his Selke runner-up season than Yzerman did in his Offensive prime.

Well, we can't exactly go back and watch game after game to come to a conclusion on this one. But I think that's an unfair statement. Yzerman's offensive prime was the highest scoring era ever, and he was not considered one of the top-15 defensive forwards in the game save for one year. In other words, in a time when defensive forwards were rarer, he couldn't stand out. When defensive forwards were in vogue, Sakic still stood out, while placing high on the leaderboard to boot. As a career total, I still give a decisive edge to Yzerman, as I said.

 

[seventieslord]

Good work and very interesting, thanks for doing it.

My critiques would be (and I understand why it's that way) is that awards are based solely on votes. Which are subjective. I think in the past few years, both had been held in a bit higher regard than they really were, relative to the rest of the league.

Second, a players point production, as well as playoff performance, is based highly on who else is on the ice with them. Gretzky would probably still have been the highest scoring player ever, but if he had never played with Kurri, who knows what would have happened.

You can't go wrong either way. I prefer Yzerman, but that's me, and I won't knock anyone who chooses Sakic.

Awards are subjectively voted but most of us can agree that 95% of the time, they give it to the right guy. So it is a pretty reliable measure. Award voting is really just 3 of 24 exercises done here.

As for who you play with mattering, sure it does, but in this case both players had the same situations (terrible teams with no help, quick rise to contenders, then long-term powerhouse with lots of HHOF-caliber help) - so I don't see teammates skewing matters at all.

Yah IMO you can defend any point of view through stats. I'll always believe that Yzerman was the better player.

OK, then defend that point of view through stats.

they are equals

That's an amazingly simplistic answer coming from someone like you.

How do you figure that Messier has them beaten in the regular season? I haven't run the same numbers that you have, but a quick glance at his hockey-reference.com page for a comparison shows 4 top-10 in goals, with none higher than 8th, and 6 top-10s in assists and points, never finishing first in either. That's worse than either Yzerman or Sakic. While he was 4 times a 1st-team all-star, 2 were at left wing, a far less competitive position than centre. His only edge in the regular season is his two Hart Trophies, and his 1990 Hart probably should have gone to Ray Bourque. In 1992, I'm not sure Messier was the best player on his team - Brian Leetch won the Norris and scored 102 points, only 5 points behind Messier.

I think Messier, Sakic, and Yzerman are an interesting and natural comparison. There are a number of similarities, all being long-career centres who played at a high level for almost 20 years, excelled both ways, and played large roles on multiple Cup-winning teams, yet never led the league in anything and were arguably the second best centre on their teams for much of their career. I don't see Messier on another level from these two as many do.

Anyway, thanks for the in-depth, interesting, and objective (but not necessarily definitive) comparison. I went through the same comparison during the HOH Top-100, using different methods, but I came to the same conclusion you did. Sakic is comparable to but better than Yzerman.

You make some very good points, and maybe I am carried away when I say that. If you want to include Messier in this and compare him to these guys in the same way, be my guest. I'm always open to having my opinions changed. To me, the two Harts really do it, as well as the playoff numbers.

If I was forced to pick one, you're post makes me comfortable going with Sakic

However, Yzerman did have that big like, what was it, 155 point season right? That is something Sakic could not do.

I think HO did a great job answering this. In a nutshell, a goal in 1989 does not have the same value as a goal in 2001.

I think Yzerman was better! But Sakic's career is not over yet!

Well, Sakic was and is better. But if you're not yet convinced I suggest you read the first post in detail. If you're still not convinced, you never will be, because Sakic's career is as good as over and he won't be improving his legacy in any of the last few games he plays this season.

 

[seventieslord]

Both of Sakic and Yzerman's regular season numbers are better than Messier, that's what I'm hinting at.

They might be. I addressed this a bit higher up on the page.

Anyways, they're close as ever, but this whole thing only gives Sakic the edge based on offense, and even with that, based on his pace he would be no more than 50 career points more than Yzerman at the same amount of games and assuming he would keep up the same pace (Which is doubtful at an end of someone's career).

Total career points is a BS way of looking at things. Plus if you think it isn't, doesn't that make Messier better's numbers better than both of them, contrary to what you just said?

It's not just his offense, it's how consistent he was with his offense, how long he maintained that offense, and how he produced in the playoffs.

The reality is Yzerman had the better peak, and not just that, I think he was more instrumental in leading the Red Wings than Sakic leading the Avs, the biggest proof is when they both played on crappy teams, Yzerman led the Wings in the 1987 playoffs to the SCF, only to lose to a dynasty, can the same be said for Sakic? No, Sakic got past the 1st round for the first time when he had one of the greatest goalies (If not the greatest) gate keep his net.

Yzerman's peak may have been better - it was much, much shorter, though.

1987? That rings a bell. Isn't that the year that the Wings beat two sub-.500 teams in the first two rounds? Not really convinced by that, sorry.

Roy had an effect on Sakic's team success, but so did Forsberg, Lidstrom, Foote, Fedorov, Blake, Vernon, Bourque, Hull, Lemieux, and Konstantinov for both players.

The other thing is Yzerman was the superior two-way player, sure stats are nice, but this is like comparing a late 90's Fedorov (When he was scoring between 60-70 points) to a Mike Modano (Who was a good two-way player but scored more than Fedorov), for me it's an easy one, Yzerman was the better defensive player in his later years, and in his early years he was just as good as Sakic defensively, but his offense shadowed his defense, not to mention that Sakic would have probably had to change his game too if he played under Bowman, this is just the way Bowman was, he demanded all his centers to commit defensively first then offense comes second, Sakic did not have to deal with that in Colorado because their system was more about offense.

He was a superior defensive player. Not two-way. Sakic's two-way game was superior. Check this out:

Sakic was top-15 in Selke voting 6 times between 2000 and 2007. During this time he was top-10 in goals twice, top-10 in assists 5 times, top-10 in points 5 times, and won a Hart trophy.

Yzerman was also top-15 in Selke voting six times. Once was when he was 11th in 1989 and 3rd in league scoring. Aside from that, it was 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001. In that period of six years (including 1997), Yzerman was never top-10 in goals, top-10 in assists once, and top-10 in points once.

Generally speaking, Yzerman could only be elite offensively or defensively, never both simultaneously.

As far as playoffs go, once again, Sakic get's major credit for that 1996 run, but for me nothing beats Yzerman's performance in 2002, I know they gave the Conn Smythe to Lidstrom but to me it was Yzerman that carried the Wings that year, more than once he came up big and saved them from being fallen behind and he did it on one leg, in my eyes he was the MVP, any other player could have just called it quit and decided to take the time off to heal.

WARNING: major subjectivity entering the discussion from a user with a wings avatar.

Yeah, I know he was on one leg. Do you think he'd have been more or less valuable with the other one working properly? This is emotional, sentimental stuff that I have no time for. Everything you say may be true, but that doesn't mean that he becomes their MVP because he did more per working leg than the other players on the team. He was great, but he was not their best player, and it was definitely not to Sakic's 1996 Standard.

I personally think Yzerman would have had more personal success had guys like Gret/Lemieux did not exist, while Sakic did not have to deal with them that much, even his Hart trophy year would have not happened had Mario played a full season, the reality is both of them are pretty much very similar, and having that extra Hart and the more consistent offensive numbers does not prove that Sakic was the better player.

You're looking at it backwards - Lemieux was retired. It was Lemieux coming back that cost Sakic the extra accolade, that being the scoring title. Not the fact that he only played half a year that gave Sakic the Hart. Besides, this is accounted for by conceding that Yzerman would have won the 1989 Hart in a Gretzky-less, Lemieux-less world. That's one Hart apiece.

Sakic's first elite season was 1989-90, when Gretzky was 30 and Lemieux was 25, so he definitely did have to deal with them.

Lemieux and Gretzky have been fairly elminated from this comparison already, but you're still claiming that Yzerman would have had even more success without them there? You'll have to back that up with something.

 

[seventieslord]

overpass: What can you tell us about Sakic and Yzerman's adjusted +/- figures throughout their careers? Yzerman is up by +172 at this point but I'm thinking it is practically even when adjusted by teams.

 

[poise]

I hope you mean best post-expansion forwards. Because four defensemen were clearly better than both Sakic and Yzerman, as were at least two and possibly two more goalies. Along with Messier, Dionne, and Jagr, throw in Bossy, Trottier and Clarke at the very least.

By the four Defensemen I'll assume you mean Ray Bourque, Denis Potvin, Nicklas Lidstrom, and Brad Park (maybe Larry Robinson)? If so, then yes, I would place Sakic above the latter three and Yzerman over all four. I tend to rate Forwards highly more and think them more deserving of higher ranks. They control the puck and the play more. Personally after Bourque I'd put Vyacheslav Fetisov and Paul Coffey before getting to Park, Potvin and Lidstrom.

As for your forwards, Mike Bossy would definitely rank higher, and but for his shortened career, would be among the four I mentioned. I consider Bryan Trottier a shade behind Bossy at their best but he tailed off considerably in his late years; I still have both in the Sakic range. As for Bobby Clarke, he was better Defensively than every Forward I just mentioned, but his lack of Goal scoring really hurts him in my eyes.

Perhaps these are some unconventional opinions as compared to most on this board, but hey, it's not fun when everyone agrees...

Why are you saying Sakic's prime was just 8 years long from age 27-34, and Yzerman's was the same length from 21-28?

Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word 'prime' as it is nebulous, but I think those are fair frames for including most of both Players best years. Would you disagree?

Using placements is far less problematic than using raw totals. With placements we get a clear picture of where the player ranked in hockey's grand pecking order. Using point totals skews the picture considerably. A goal in 1986 doesn't mean the same thing as a goal in 1999. Not even close. You seem to be attributing the higher scoring in the 1980's to the plethora of talented players, but it is the opposite. Every time in hockey history that there has been a spike in scoring, it has been due to events causing a lower overall talent level (WW1, WW2, '70's expansion, WHA, '79 expansion) and every time the talent pool catches up to the size of the NHL, scoring dips and finally levels off (Original 6, 1990's)

The reason all the best players were scoring so many points is because there were so many bad players. A comparison that accounts for the era is absolutely necessary. Besides, Sakic has him beaten in all the per-game categories anyway, right?

I just can't find myself agreeing about the reasons for the higher scoring. Obviously, expansion did play a role, especially in the case of the post Original Six era, in the increased scoring levels, but then again, it seems to have taken quite some time for the Goals average to increase. The levels of scoring throughout the 1980's stayed high, far removed from the fold of the WHA. The expansion in 1992 on the other hand, saw an instant rise in scoring followed by a sharp drop. I think there's a lot more at work then a simple causal relationship.

In the 1992-1993 Season for example, the numbers just don't work out when comparing the top 10 or top 20 or top 30 to the rest of the league and the increase in the Goal average from the previous year.

Obviously, other factors were at work, Goaltending in the mid-1980's was worse then that of the Dead Puck Era, but I certainly don't believe the Offensive Players of both periods were equal by any stretch. If we operate by that assumption and scale accordingly, then Mario Lemieux would be scoring at a better clip in his return in 2000-2001 then he did in most of his peak years!

As for the rate statistics, when Yzerman had played up to the 2001-2002 Season he played 1362 games with 658 goals and 1004 assists for 1662 points as compared to Sakic's current 1378 Games 625 Goals 1016 Assists 1641 Points (1363 - 623 - 1006 - 1629 if ignoring this season).

Sure, if you are just considering point totals. the problem with doing that, can be found in my last statement.

Point totals were a part of it, but another part were the actual Players themselves. The list of names is just much more impressive for the period 1986-1994 compared to the period of 1996-2004.

Take as one example Adam Oates and Joe Thornton (I know he is somewhat later than the frame for Sakic but bear with me). The latter has more impressive finishes relative to his peers already than the former (7 [Oates] to 4 [Thornton] top 10 Point finishes and 3 [Oates] to 4 [Thornton] top 5 Point finishes) not to mention the awards and honors of Thornton over Oates. At least to me, Oates is quite superior to Thornton, even regular season only. His best years are significantly better than Thornton's despite the Hart and so on.

Same with Pat Lafontaine and Paul Kariya or Markus Naslund, etc, etc.

I can't think of a time where being 10th in any season is less impressive than being 20th another season, unless you're talking about 10th in WW2 vs. 20th in 2006.

Compare Yzerman's 10th place finish in 1999-2000 with his 19th place finish in 1995-1996. I'd definitely call the latter a better season for Yzerman (both Offensively, and due to the fact that while Sergei Fedorov won the Selke, Red Wings Players said that their best Defensive Forwards were Bob Errey and Yzerman). I do think there's a sharp discrepancy in top end talent between the late 1980's and the Dead Puck Era. I don't think Mark Recchi's third place finish in 2000 is anywhere near Yzerman's in 1989.

Sakic's elite play lasting longer is not being overstated. He managed to do it, Yzerman didn't. The dropping of scoring levels is an indication of the league talent level getting better overall, not worse - you can see it by watching old film too. Today's 4th liners can all skate and shoot (except maybe Boogaard).

I'd say that the fourth liners of today are better, but the first liners are worse. Again, this is based on my viewing. I can agree that maybe the worse fourth liners of yesterday make the first liners look better by a bit, but it can't make up the whole discrepancy.

I don't know man. Yzerman played on one leg and he looked it too. He gave a yeoman's effort and his heart and leadership really showed. But he was not one of Canada's best players. Also, regarding Lemieux - I was still on a high at that time from the fact that he was even back in the NHL - I missed having him in Nagano, and I wanted him to light this tournament up. He was disappointing. Looked slow, and couldn't score goals. His highlight to me was the goal against the Czechs.

Here is the link where Jacques Martin makes the statement about Yzerman being the MVP: "He came in here hurt and then played like there was no tomorrow. You wouldn't have known he was hurt if you looked at him on the ice. The guy was outstanding. He really was. I think if there's an MVP of the tournament, he's been the guy for us." (http://slam.canoe.ca/2002GamesHockeyFeb02/25_cda2-sun.html)

Do you have numbers showing this? I haven't seen anything like this before and I would like to.

Alan Ryder of the Globe and Mail does some nice work here on the topic: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061017.wsptryder17/BNStory/GlobeSportsHockey/

It's a good read but to summarize his findings: Generally Defensemen have lower percentages of 'first' assists (intuitive as they are farther removed from the Offensive Play). Sakic's 'First' Assist rate is on the low end for Forwards, and close to the rate of Defensemen.

Just a fun tangent a while back I examined Wayne Gretzky's 1985-1986 season on the Hockey Summary Project. 50 of his 163 Assists were Secondary.

 

[tommygunn]

It's an interesting argument, and kudos to you for doing such a lengthy comparison!

Just a few points..

You say you want to be complete as possible..

Well, then where's the +/- stats?

Regular Season - Career
Yzerman + 185
Sakic +30

Playoffs - Career
Yzerman -11
Sakic -2

Edge -> Yzerman


International Play
Yzerman - 1984 Canada Cup winning team
Sakic - 1988 WJC Gold


Regarding playoffs.. you say: "Gretzky and Lemieux are no longer individuals once the playoffs begin".. but, then you go on to compare Sakic and Yzerman in terms of "Pulling off playoff upsets, Not being upset by inferior teams, and Head to head matchups".. ?????

One last point.. you seem to weigh the 24 categories equally.. but IMO some categories are far more important than others. e.g. Hart Record >>>> Clean Play.

All in all.. a good analysis and quite thought provoking.