Ever Wonder Which Of Sakic and Yzerman is Better?

[Spitfire11]

You are correct, he DID become better under Bowman. My contention is that he went from Sakic-level defense to the shutdown-caliber defense under Bowman. Even in his scoring prime his defense wasn't subpar and was quite underrated.

Yup, didn't Bowman use him as the shutdown line throughout the '97 playoffs with Sandstrom and McCarty? One of the reasons his point total might not have been overly impressive for those playoffs. I remember he'd play with Bob Errey throughout 95-96 in a shutdown role as well.

 

[tommygunn]

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".. ?????

My only reason for doing so was for simplicity, as Gretzky and Lemieux very rarely affected Yzerman and Sakic's places in the league leaderboard in the playoffs. As I said, you need to advance to get on the leaderboard in the playoffs, and if Gretzky and Lemieux finished ahead of Yzerman/Sakic, it's not just because they're better, but also (usually) because their team went further.

My point is.. if "Gretzky and Lemieux are no longer individuals once the playoffs begin", shouldn't the same go for both Sakic and Yzerman? Which would render the playoff comparison somewhat meaningless. I mean, how can you conclude that "All the playoff scoring categories that Sakic scores decisive wins in, for example, are more important than Hart records".. if they are no longer individuals once the playoffs begin? I'm not quite following your reasoning.

 

[seventieslord]

YEAR|PLAYER|TOI|TOI-ES|TOI-PP|TOI-SH|ESGA|ESGF|TOT ES MIN|TOT ES MIN per ESGA|TOT ES MIN per ESGF|DIF
1984|YZERMAN, STEVE|19.66|14.66|4.78|0.22|88|71|1172.80|13.33|16.52|-3.19
1985|YZERMAN, STEVE|19.86|15.40|4.32|0.13|102|85|1232.32|12.08|14.50|-2.42
1986|YZERMAN, STEVE|19.23|14.36|4.05|0.82|65|41|732.21|11.26|17.86|-6.59
1987|YZERMAN, STEVE|21.16|15.24|4.63|1.29|73|72|1219.04|16.70|16.93|-0.23
1988|YZERMAN, STEVE|22.61|15.65|4.70|2.27|60|90|1001.34|16.69|11.13|5.56
1989|YZERMAN, STEVE|25.83|16.52|5.15|4.17|107|124|1321.28|12.35|10.66|1.69
1990|YZERMAN, STEVE|26.11|17.11|5.36|3.65|116|110|1351.45|11.65|12.29|-0.64
1991|YZERMAN, STEVE|24.52|15.35|5.27|3.90|92|90|1228.32|13.35|13.65|-0.30
1992|YZERMAN, STEVE|23.55|14.92|4.87|3.77|66|92|1178.29|17.85|12.81|5.05
1993|YZERMAN, STEVE|23.41|15.91|4.17|3.33|80|113|1336.52|16.71|11.83|4.88
1994|YZERMAN, STEVE|22.28|16.08|3.63|2.56|62|73|932.70|15.04|12.78|2.27
1995|YZERMAN, STEVE|19.32|13.19|3.93|2.20|27|33|620.02|22.96|18.79|4.18
1996|YZERMAN, STEVE|22.04|13.24|4.88|3.92|40|69|1059.44|26.49|15.35|11.13
1997|YZERMAN, STEVE|23.13|15.23|4.84|3.06|52|74|1233.47|23.72|16.67|7.05
1998|YZERMAN, STEVE|20.43|13.95|3.77|2.72|52|55|1046.25|20.12|19.02|1.10
1999|YZERMAN, STEVE|21.59|14.45|4.58|2.56|58|66|1156.00|19.93|17.52|2.42
2000|YZERMAN, STEVE|21.11|14.65|3.95|2.50|49|77|1142.70|23.32|14.84|8.48
2001|YZERMAN, STEVE|22.24|14.03|5.14|3.07|38|42|757.62|19.94|18.04|1.90
2002|YZERMAN, STEVE|20.58|13.46|4.54|2.58|31|42|699.92|22.58|16.66|5.91
2003|YZERMAN, STEVE|15.59|12.59|1.69|1.31|7|13|201.44|28.78|15.50|13.28
2004|YZERMAN, STEVE|17.53|12.64|3.00|1.89|35|45|948.00|27.09|21.07|6.02
2006|YZERMAN, STEVE|12.78|10.08|2.41|0.29|26|33|614.88|23.65|18.63|5.02
|||||||||||
1989|SAKIC, JOE|18.95|12.80|4.97|1.19|73|37|895.79|12.27|24.21|-11.94
1990|SAKIC, JOE|22.47|16.55|5.16|0.76|121|81|1324.24|10.94|16.35|-5.40
1991|SAKIC, JOE|24.79|15.98|5.28|3.53|110|84|1278.64|11.62|15.22|-3.60
1992|SAKIC, JOE|23.59|15.98|5.11|2.50|73|78|1102.34|15.10|14.13|0.97
1993|SAKIC, JOE|22.46|14.27|5.48|2.72|77|74|1112.75|14.45|15.04|-0.59
1994|SAKIC, JOE|22.08|14.63|5.25|2.21|80|72|1228.92|15.36|17.07|-1.71
1995|SAKIC, JOE|21.26|15.53|4.05|1.67|39|46|730.05|18.72|15.87|2.85
1996|SAKIC, JOE|22.16|15.10|5.38|1.68|71|85|1237.95|17.44|14.56|2.87
1997|SAKIC, JOE|21.27|14.41|5.24|1.62|59|49|936.72|15.88|19.12|-3.24
1998|SAKIC, JOE|23.09|17.29|4.53|1.26|45|45|1106.56|24.59|24.59|0.00
1999|SAKIC, JOE|25.58|16.62|5.42|3.55|56|79|1213.26|21.67|15.36|6.31
2000|SAKIC, JOE|23.27|17.84|4.26|1.17|46|76|1070.40|23.27|14.08|9.19
2001|SAKIC, JOE|23.02|16.21|4.79|2.02|48|93|1329.22|27.69|14.29|13.40
2002|SAKIC, JOE|22.01|16.20|4.40|1.41|53|65|1328.40|25.06|20.44|4.63
2003|SAKIC, JOE|21.20|14.81|4.86|1.54|45|49|858.98|19.09|17.53|1.56
2004|SAKIC, JOE|20.26|14.38|4.11|1.77|49|60|1164.78|23.77|19.41|4.36
2006|SAKIC, JOE|19.92|13.37|5.34|1.20|63|73|1096.34|17.40|15.02|2.38
2007|SAKIC, JOE|20.18|14.48|5.08|0.60|68|70|1187.61|17.46|16.97|0.50
2008|SAKIC, JOE|19.98|14.25|5.23|0.48|36|32|627.00|17.42|19.59|-2.18

Aver:

Player|TOI|TOI-ES|TOI-PP|TOI-SH
YZERMAN, STEVE|21.50|14.65|4.39|2.46
SAKIC, JOE|22.02|15.28|4.97|1.77

Total:

Player|ESGA|ESGF|TOT ES MIN|TOT ES MIN per ESGA|TOT ES MIN per ESGF|DIF
YZERMAN, STEVE|1326|1510|22186.01|16.73|14.69|2.04
SAKIC, JOE|1212|1248|20829.95|17.19|16.69|0.50

- How did you come up with the ice time estimations?

- Wouldn't it make more sense, instead of just subtracting the min/ga from min/gf to arrive at a number (since those aren't similar units), to use units that logically make sense? For example, subtract GA from GF, and then divide by minutes (or divide minutes by that number)

For example, in 1984, Yzerman was -17 in 1172 ESM, so he had a differential of -0.0145 per ESM, or, he earned a minus every 68.99 ESM that he played. Makes a lot more sense than just subtracting.

Anyway, thanks. I always love your work.

My point is.. if "Gretzky and Lemieux are no longer individuals once the playoffs begin", shouldn't the same go for both Sakic and Yzerman? Which would render the playoff comparison somewhat meaningless. I mean, how can you conclude that "All the playoff scoring categories that Sakic scores decisive wins in, for example, are more important than Hart records".. if they are no longer individuals once the playoffs begin? I'm not quite following your reasoning.

Of course it doesn't render it somewhat meaningless. There are few higher accomplishments than being a scoring leader in the playoffs. It means your team went far and you had a very significant part in its success. There is really nothing more important in hockey than that, in the end.

Hart records are important to me, and Yzerman scores a close win in that category. But in the end, they are still subjectively voted, and playoff stats are hard indisputable numbers. Sakic's twice led the playoffs in goals and has been 2nd another time. He's 4th in career GWG and 1st in OTG. The guy's a playoff monster. And he has better per-game averages despite not having the benefit of the 80's.

Do you really want to get into the debate on the merits of Selke vote totals as they relate to overall defensive ability? That's a can of worms I'm not sure you want to defend.

The selke voting is not perfect and I don't want to pretend that it is. But it provides a hard starting point for objective discussion and analysis. If I try to quantify defensive abilities any other way then unfortunately we're getting into extremely subjective territory. Selke votes are not the be-all-end-all of defensive ability. But, receiving a number of votes shows that your defensive ability is being recognized by those who watch the most hockey all year. There is and never will be a "true" way to determine the best defensive forwards going forward, or looking back. All we have is numbers and our interpretations of them. (and selected subjective quotes)

The voting is not perfect, but would you agree that:

1) Whoever the "true" top defensive forward in the game is, even if he doesn't win the Selke, he's probably found in the top-5 in voting?

2) Whoever they end up giving the Selke to, even if he isn't "truly" the game's top defensive forward, he's probably one of the five best?

3) A guy who placed 10th in Selke voting may have been as good as 5th or maybe as "bad" as 20th but either way was likely his team's go-to guy as a defensive forward?

4) A guy who never received any votes or maybe only 1-2 5th place votes probably wasn't an elite defensive forward, or even wasn't that good defensively at all?

Please don't mistake this for opening up a can of worms, though... I'd just like to come to an understanding.

 

[tommygunn]

My point is.. if "Gretzky and Lemieux are no longer individuals once the playoffs begin", shouldn't the same go for both Sakic and Yzerman? Which would render the playoff comparison somewhat meaningless. I mean, how can you conclude that "All the playoff scoring categories that Sakic scores decisive wins in, for example, are more important than Hart records".. if they are no longer individuals once the playoffs begin? I'm not quite following your reasoning.

Of course it doesn't render it somewhat meaningless. There are few higher accomplishments than being a scoring leader in the playoffs. It means your team went far and you had a very significant part in its success. There is really nothing more important in hockey than that, in the end.

Hart records are important to me, and Yzerman scores a close win in that category. But in the end, they are still subjectively voted, and playoff stats are hard indisputable numbers. Sakic's twice led the playoffs in goals and has been 2nd another time. He's 4th in career GWG and 1st in OTG. The guy's a playoff monster. And he has better per-game averages despite not having the benefit of the 80's.

I agree with what you're saying there.. but it has nothing to do with my question about "no longer being individuals". Stating that once the playoffs begin, Gretzky and Lemieux are no longer individuals... and then analyzing and giving utmost importance to individual playoff stats of Sakic and Yzerman makes no sense to me. You don't notice the contradiction? *shrugs*

 

[seventieslord]

I agree with what you're saying there.. but it has nothing to do with my question about "no longer being individuals". Stating that once the playoffs begin, Gretzky and Lemieux are no longer individuals... and then analyzing and giving utmost importance to individual playoff stats of Sakic and Yzerman makes no sense to me. You don't notice the contradiction? *shrugs*

No. I'm not making my point and it's my fault.

In the regular season, Lemieux and Gretzky were point machines who played the same schedule as everyone else. They always led the way and it was no shame to finish under them. To better judge Sakic and Yzerman, I removed them from the equation.

In the playoffs Lemieux and Gretzky's point totals depended as much on how far they got, as how good they were. From 1986-2001, the top-5 positions in the playoff scoring leaders were hardly dominated by Gretzky and Lemieux like they were in the regular season. That's the main reason I didn't exclude them. The other reason is an extension of that. As I said, placing high in the playoff leaderboards is due to both winning games and scoring points doing so. So, if you're Sakic or Yzerman and you finished below Gretzky and/or Lemieux... too bad. Shoulda won more games.

 

[tommygunn]

No. I'm not making my point and it's my fault.

In the regular season, Lemieux and Gretzky were point machines who played the same schedule as everyone else. They always led the way and it was no shame to finish under them. To better judge Sakic and Yzerman, I removed them from the equation.

In the playoffs Lemieux and Gretzky's point totals depended as much on how far they got, as how good they were. From 1986-2001, the top-5 positions in the playoff scoring leaders were hardly dominated by Gretzky and Lemieux like they were in the regular season. That's the main reason I didn't exclude them. The other reason is an extension of that. As I said, placing high in the playoff leaderboards is due to both winning games and scoring points doing so. So, if you're Sakic or Yzerman and you finished below Gretzky and/or Lemieux... too bad. Shoulda won more games.

Okay.. I get what you're saying now. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[overg]

This argument constantly pops up around here, and it always seems to end in a "no decision." And I kind of wonder why that is. Because even though Yzerman is probably my favorite player of all time, I think seventieslord, and others before him, have made extremely compelling cases that Sakic has been the better player.

The best I can come up with is that people just seem to like Yzerman a little bit more. Don't get me wrong, both players are extremely well respected. But you just seem to hear more people say that Yzerman was their favorite player than you hear proclaim the same about Sakic. I certainly can't prove that I'm right about this, and it may just be my Yzerman favoritism showing, but I really can't think of another reason that Sakic doesn't outright "win" this debate more than he does.

My own perception is that Yzerman was just a little bit funnier, a little bit flashier, played for a more "prestigious" franchise, and never signed an offer with a second club, and that some combination of these factors cause people to want him to be just a little bit better than Sakic. But as I said, I might just be projecting my own feelings onto everyone else (it was *very* for me to ever conclude that Sakic was a small, but real, bit better than Yzerman, but I eventually had to conclude that Sakic's "big game" portfolio gives him the edge).

 

[poise]

Yzerman over Bourque? Is this Mrs. Yzerman I'm talking to?

Wayne Gretzky, Mario Lemieux, Bobby Orr, Mark Messier, Marcel Dionne, Steve Yzerman, Jaromir Jagr, Valery Kharlamov, Guy Lafleur to be exact. Mike Bossy and Sergei Makarov are two guys who I could also see over Bourque.

I don't see why it would be a crazy opinion at all. Many recent rankings have both Bourque and Yzerman very close. To be perfectly honest, Bourque nearly being a top 10 Player on the History of Hockey list was an eye opener to me (I guess I could see how it works given the high position of other Defensemen on the list, as some people value Defensive play a lot more than me).

Actually, I don't think it's a great stretch. Let's use the example of the 1989-1990 Season. Many posters here seem to believe that Ray Bourque deserved and was actually robbed of the Hart Trophy. I on the other hand, think that Mark Messier was the clear choice among the three candidates. It also blows my mind how the writers simply ignored Wayne Gretzky, Mario Lemieux, and, Steve Yzerman. Obviously, the fact that all three of these Players played for teams which fared poorly has an effect, but are we to really believe that the media consensus best three of the past season who happened to finish 1st, 3rd and 4th in scoring are to be ignored in the discussion of the best Player in the League? The Hart votes that these three recieved (or did not recieve in the case of Lemieux) clearly does not do them justice.

If you don't agree, fine, but it's the truth. You just proved it yourself. The 1992 expansion caused scoring to rise for one season and then it was able to level off as the talent level self-corrected. This was only a 14% expansion over two seasons so it's understandable that it's effect was more minimal. In 1979, for example, the league's size increased by 24%. Everything else that I mentioned had a definite, quantifiable effect on scoring levels.

Well, the scoring levels stayed high throughout the 80's dipping slightly only in the 90's. I really don't think the 10% difference in size can explain why one expansion had an affect for 10 years, and the other for 1.

Why? He was 35 instead of 25, and as you just said, goaltending was better. Therefore, he should have scored at a lower rate, and he did - about 1.8 PPG instead of the 2.0+ he was used to in his prime.

This is what I mean: You said something to the effect that a Goal in 1986 does not even come close to a Goal in 1999 (to make it clear, I agree that it was harder to get goals in 1999 then in 1986, but not to the degree stated by the difference in the Goal average).

Now let's apply the scaling method Hockey Outsider used:

Lemieux scored 76 points in 2000-2001 - the Goal average was 5.51 - the Goal average in 1988-1989 was 7.48. Scaling Lemieux's 2000-2001 Season to scoring levels in 1988-1989 gives us (76 * 7.48) / 5.51 = 103 points in 43 games. A Point per Game average of 2.4. That works out to 182 points had he played 76 games like he did in 1988-1989. Now, I simply cannot believe a 35 year old Lemieux who hadn't played Hockey competitively in three years would have scored at that pace had he been placed in 1988-1989. He looked nowhere near that type of Player. In the same way, I don't believe Joe Sakic would have gotten near 160 points at all had he played his 2000-2001 Season in 1988-1989.

So in other words, the 5 watered-down seasons from 1983-84 through 1988-89 are the sole reason Yzerman's numbers are even higher than Sakic's but you just don't care?

I was simply replying to your statement that Sakic's rate statistics were better even unadjusted than Yzerman's. It's not true if you look at their first 1362/1363 Games (which I think is fair). Yes, we can argue the difference era makes (though again, I don't think it would be as big as the Goal average difference suggests).

In other words, you think there were 10 more top-end forwards to contend with just 5 years later?

Yes. I think this is my biggest disagreement.

Recchi's 3rd place in 2000 isn't near Yzerman's in 1989, but then you're comparing one of the very best years to one of the very worst ones.

Well go one year in advance and compare Patrick Elias's finish. Or one year previous and compare Paul Kariya. Use Denis Savard's 1987-1988 third place finish or Yzerman's 1989-1990 third place finish as comparables. I believe the difference is clearly apparent.

Again though Joe Thornton was more dominant with respect to his peers than Adam Oates and Paul Kariya and Markus Naslund were more dominant with respect to their peers than Pat Lafontaine, Lafontaine and Oates were the better Players.

We all watched the games. I honestly can't say that I'd consider Yzerman a potential MVP. Can you? This was jsut a sentimental, superlative statement from a coach.

I do believe he was one of the best Players for Team Canada (so was Lemieux). The statement doesn't seem to sentimental at all, as he describes his play and how he looked. The statements about the 2002 Red Wings cup run seem much more sentimental than this.

 

[FissionFire]

Hart records are important to me, and Yzerman scores a close win in that category. But in the end, they are still subjectively voted, and playoff stats are hard indisputable numbers. Sakic's twice led the playoffs in goals and has been 2nd another time. He's 4th in career GWG and 1st in OTG. The guy's a playoff monster. And he has better per-game averages despite not having the benefit of the 80's.

Career numbers are nice, but without some perspective it's hard to accept them. For example, did he and Yzerman play in about the same number of OT playoff games? Maybe Sakic's teams had a larger propensity to get into OT compared to Yzerman's teams. Is it possible (although unlikely) that Yzerman's playoff OT goal per OT game rate is higher than Sakic's? Without some further in-depth research into the issue it's hard to simple grab a number and present it as proof that one player excels over another in an area, especially an area that not all players have an equal chance to excel in (ie not all players play the same number of OT games).

GWG's is such a flawed stat that I won't go too in-depth on it. I'd be much more interested in knowing which player scored more GWG's in a tie game in the 3rd period. To me that's far more clutch that the guy who scores a goal early in the 3rd to give his team a 5-2 lead only to win 5-4 or the one who scores the first goal in a 2-0 game. The GWG stat is a pretty number, but it requires a significant amount of analysis to interpret it in any meaningful manner.

The selke voting is not perfect and I don't want to pretend that it is. But it provides a hard starting point for objective discussion and analysis. If I try to quantify defensive abilities any other way then unfortunately we're getting into extremely subjective territory. Selke votes are not the be-all-end-all of defensive ability. But, receiving a number of votes shows that your defensive ability is being recognized by those who watch the most hockey all year. There is and never will be a "true" way to determine the best defensive forwards going forward, or looking back. All we have is numbers and our interpretations of them. (and selected subjective quotes)

The voting is not perfect, but would you agree that:

1) Whoever the "true" top defensive forward in the game is, even if he doesn't win the Selke, he's probably found in the top-5 in voting?

I would strongly disagree with this. Quite often the best defensive forward in the NHL isn't even in the top 5 in voting. How many seasons, for example, did Guy Carbonneau finish in the top 5? What about Rob Zamuner? Kris Draper? Samuel Pahlsson? Quite often the leagues top defensive player is excluded.

2) Whoever they end up giving the Selke to, even if he isn't "truly" the game's top defensive forward, he's probably one of the five best?

That's more often the case than your first claim but again I won't agree. Many times the Selke is given to the best offensive player who is above average on defense, not one of the top 5 defensive players in the league. As much as I love Pavel Datsyuk on defense, he wasn't even the best defensive forward in Detroit last season and certainly not one of the top 5 in the entire league.

3) A guy who placed 10th in Selke voting may have been as good as 5th or maybe as "bad" as 20th but either way was likely his team's go-to guy as a defensive forward?

Answer me this.....the season Sakic finished 2nd in second voting, who did the Avs throw out there to kill a 5-on-3? To me, THAT is a teams go-to guy as a defensive forward. Stephane Yelle was Colorado's go-to guy on defense that season, especially late in games and on the PK. Shjon Podein also averaged nearly a minute more on the PK than Sakic.

4) A guy who never received any votes or maybe only 1-2 5th place votes probably wasn't an elite defensive forward, or even wasn't that good defensively at all?

In 2000-01, Rob Zamuner got 2 4th and 1 5th place vote but he was definitely one of the elite defensive forwards that season. That same season Kris Draper got only 2 3rd place votes. Zigmund Palffy finished ahead of both those players.


My point is Selke votes are a poor way of evaluating a players defensive acumen. Joe Sakic was outstanding in 2000-01, but he sure as heck wasn't the 2nd best defensive forward in the NHL that season. He's be hard-pressed to even break into the top 10 if you had to compile a list.

 

[seventieslord]

This argument constantly pops up around here, and it always seems to end in a "no decision." And I kind of wonder why that is. Because even though Yzerman is probably my favorite player of all time, I think seventieslord, and others before him, have made extremely compelling cases that Sakic has been the better player.

The best I can come up with is that people just seem to like Yzerman a little bit more. Don't get me wrong, both players are extremely well respected. But you just seem to hear more people say that Yzerman was their favorite player than you hear proclaim the same about Sakic. I certainly can't prove that I'm right about this, and it may just be my Yzerman favoritism showing, but I really can't think of another reason that Sakic doesn't outright "win" this debate more than he does.

My own perception is that Yzerman was just a little bit funnier, a little bit flashier, played for a more "prestigious" franchise, and never signed an offer with a second club, and that some combination of these factors cause people to want him to be just a little bit better than Sakic. But as I said, I might just be projecting my own feelings onto everyone else (it was *very* for me to ever conclude that Sakic was a small, but real, bit better than Yzerman, but I eventually had to conclude that Sakic's "big game" portfolio gives him the edge).

I think you're actually hitting it bang on the head. It's sort of a very much less extreme example of people's like or dislike of Hasek and Brodeur getting in their way of seeing who was better. I personally don't like either of them better. I was never a fan of either team, and I actually got sick and tired of them hogging all the cups in my teen years.

When I submitted my HOH top-100 list I had Yzerman ahead. I can't remember by how much, but it may have been by as much as 10 points. It was the compelling arguments I read here that showed me the light. It had just always been widely accepted that, there was Gretzky and Lemieux, and then there was Yzerman and Messier, and then there were all other centers, like Oates, Sakic, Gilmour, and Francis. Over the years as Sakic put together an amazing career quietly as I tried to project where he'd end up I just never saw him as someone who'd exceed Yzerman's legacy. Then in 2001 he won the Hart and the cup and led the playoffs in scoring again. Then in 2002 he was the Olympic MVP. Then in 2004 he excelled in the World Cup. Then post-lockout he becomes the oldest player to reach 100 points and catches, then buries Maurice Richard on the playoff OT goals leaders list. It happened so gradually and so systematically that no one noticed it until recently.

Wayne Gretzky, Mario Lemieux, Bobby Orr, Mark Messier, Marcel Dionne, Steve Yzerman, Jaromir Jagr, Valery Kharlamov, Guy Lafleur to be exact. Mike Bossy and Sergei Makarov are two guys who I could also see over Bourque.

I don't see why it would be a crazy opinion at all. Many recent rankings have both Bourque and Yzerman very close. To be perfectly honest, Bourque nearly being a top 10 Player on the History of Hockey list was an eye opener to me (I guess I could see how it works given the high position of other Defensemen on the list, as some people value Defensive play a lot more than me).

Kharlamov is obviously a tough comparison. Messier, Dionne, Yzerman, Jagr, LaFleur? Were any of those guys one of the two best at their position every year for 20 straight years? (Bourque was in the top-4 for 20 straight years but there are 2 defensemen in an on-ice lineup or an all-star team)

Compare Bourque to each of those guys. Who was thought of more highly throughout their career? Who will be remembered the most fondly in 50 years?

Actually, I don't think it's a great stretch. Let's use the example of the 1989-1990 Season. Many posters here seem to believe that Ray Bourque deserved and was actually robbed of the Hart Trophy. I on the other hand, think that Mark Messier was the clear choice among the three candidates. It also blows my mind how the writers simply ignored Wayne Gretzky, Mario Lemieux, and, Steve Yzerman. Obviously, the fact that all three of these Players played for teams which fared poorly has an effect, but are we to really believe that the media consensus best three of the past season who happened to finish 1st, 3rd and 4th in scoring are to be ignored in the discussion of the best Player in the League? The Hart votes that these three recieved (or did not recieve in the case of Lemieux) clearly does not do them justice.

The Hart is for the MVP. The Pearson is for the best or most outstanding player. Generally speaking, the voters think that if you can't at least get into the playoffs, how can you be an MVP? In all but extreme cases I think that's fair to say.

Regarding Bourque/Messier, I can't say for sure who was better that season, but if it's true that Edmonton voters left him off the ballot entirely, then yes, he got robbed and should have won the award.

Well, the scoring levels stayed high throughout the 80's dipping slightly only in the 90's. I really don't think the 10% difference in size can explain why one expansion had an affect for 10 years, and the other for 1.

If you don't see the connections throughout the last 90 years, I don't know what else to say about this.

This is what I mean: You said something to the effect that a Goal in 1986 does not even come close to a Goal in 1999 (to make it clear, I agree that it was harder to get goals in 1999 then in 1986, but not to the degree stated by the difference in the Goal average).

Now let's apply the scaling method Hockey Outsider used:

Lemieux scored 76 points in 2000-2001 - the Goal average was 5.51 - the Goal average in 1988-1989 was 7.48. Scaling Lemieux's 2000-2001 Season to scoring levels in 1988-1989 gives us (76 * 7.48) / 5.51 = 103 points in 43 games. A Point per Game average of 2.4. That works out to 182 points had he played 76 games like he did in 1988-1989. Now, I simply cannot believe a 35 year old Lemieux who hadn't played Hockey competitively in three years would have scored at that pace had he been placed in 1988-1989. He looked nowhere near that type of Player. In the same way, I don't believe Joe Sakic would have gotten near 160 points at all had he played his 2000-2001 Season in 1988-1989.

It's not that simple. It was easier to score. The goalies weren't as skilled, coaching wasn't as defensive, there were a lot of poor skaters out there to exploit. Goals were being scored 36% more often than in 2000-01. Some players were scoring lots more, some people were scoring a bit more, but on average, a player was scoring 36% more than a player in 2000-01. So yes, I think Lemieux would have scored 2.4 points per game if dropped him in as a 35-year old in 1989.

Besides, you must keep in mind the real Lemieux was just 23 and scored 2.62 PPG. (For a superstar player, scoring 8.4% less at age 35 than you did at age 23 is within the normal range, provided adjustments for era change are taken into effect like this.)

He wouldn't hit his true prime until 4 years later at age 27, when he scored 2.67 PPG in a slightly lower-scoring league (7.26), or even when he had 2.30 at age 30 in an even lower-scoring league (6.29). The best years are usually 25-30.

Yes. I think this is my biggest disagreement.

Are you attributing the higher scoring to the fact that there were more top-end forwards out there? That's not the case. There were more higher point scorers because scoring was easier, making you think based on higher per-season totals and career numbers, that there were a lot of better players.

Well go one year in advance and compare Patrick Elias's finish. Or one year previous and compare Paul Kariya. Use Denis Savard's 1987-1988 third place finish or Yzerman's 1989-1990 third place finish as comparables. I believe the difference is clearly apparent.

Again though Joe Thornton was more dominant with respect to his peers than Adam Oates and Paul Kariya and Markus Naslund were more dominant with respect to their peers than Pat Lafontaine, Lafontaine and Oates were the better Players.

Thornton is just 30 and is still building his legacy. I wouldn't be surprised if history remembers him better than Oates when it's all said and done. He needs to do something in the playoffs, though.

Kariya is a better player than Savard, prime vs. prime. He won't approach Savard's career total and won't score what Savard did in a season, but that was due to when they played. Again, I wouldn't be surprised if in 50 years the HOH section makes a top-200 list and Kariya's name ends up ahead of Savard's.

I don't think the 1995-2005 era will go down in history as one that lacked top-end players. They were there, as much as before or better. I personally value top-10 finishes after 1990 higher than those in the 70's or 80's. By 1970, as the Summit Series proved, European hockey had caught up considerably and there were a lot of forwards who, had they been here, would have taken up a few of those top-10 spots throughout the 70's and 80's, like Kharlamov, Yakushev, Maltsev, Nedomansky, Larionov, Krutov, Makarov, Hlinka, Martinec, and Stastny if he had come over before age 24. Then there were also 1-2 WHA players per season who could have conceivable placed in the top-10 in the NHL too.

Around 1993, it became clear that all the best players in the world were finally in one league. Imagine what all the leaderboards from 1993 to the present would look like if political conditions continued and all these great europeans never made it over here. Those lists would sure look watered down then. That's what the leaderboards were like all throughout the 70's and 80's - I'm not just using this as a convenient argument because Yzerman placed on a number of leaderboards in the 80's - this is just plain true. Using this logic, you could say it is even harder for a player to make the leaderboard from 1993-present than in 1972-1992.

To convince me that the top-end talent has dropped that much, you'd have to convince me that it has dropped despite the huge influx of european talent in the last 19 years.

 

[seventieslord]

Career numbers are nice, but without some perspective it's hard to accept them. For example, did he and Yzerman play in about the same number of OT playoff games? Maybe Sakic's teams had a larger propensity to get into OT compared to Yzerman's teams. Is it possible (although unlikely) that Yzerman's playoff OT goal per OT game rate is higher than Sakic's? Without some further in-depth research into the issue it's hard to simple grab a number and present it as proof that one player excels over another in an area, especially an area that not all players have an equal chance to excel in (ie not all players play the same number of OT games).

That is true. I can find out the answer quite easily.

GWG's is such a flawed stat that I won't go too in-depth on it. I'd be much more interested in knowing which player scored more GWG's in a tie game in the 3rd period. To me that's far more clutch that the guy who scores a goal early in the 3rd to give his team a 5-2 lead only to win 5-4 or the one who scores the first goal in a 2-0 game. The GWG stat is a pretty number, but it requires a significant amount of analysis to interpret it in any meaningful manner.

I agree in principle, but after both players have played that many playoff games, hasn't it washed out enough to draw some conclusions?

I would strongly disagree with this. Quite often the best defensive forward in the NHL isn't even in the top 5 in voting. How many seasons, for example, did Guy Carbonneau finish in the top 5? What about Rob Zamuner? Kris Draper? Samuel Pahlsson? Quite often the leagues top defensive player is excluded.

Carbonneau was top-5 nine times. What's your point?

Zamuner wasn't the best defensive forward in the NHL.

Pahlsson has been recently, and he's finished 2nd and 6th.

Has Draper been the best defensive forward in the NHL? I didn't think so. He was always excellent defensively and had his chance to win the award when he put up attention-grabbing numbers.

That's more often the case than your first claim but again I won't agree. Many times the Selke is given to the best offensive player who is above average on defense, not one of the top 5 defensive players in the league. As much as I love Pavel Datsyuk on defense, he wasn't even the best defensive forward in Detroit last season and certainly not one of the top 5 in the entire league.

From what I saw, Zetterberg was better and I couldn't believe Datsyuk won it. But Zetterberg was the runner-up...

Answer me this.....the season Sakic finished 2nd in second voting, who did the Avs throw out there to kill a 5-on-3? To me, THAT is a teams go-to guy as a defensive forward. Stephane Yelle was Colorado's go-to guy on defense that season, especially late in games and on the PK. Shjon Podein also averaged nearly a minute more on the PK than Sakic.

What team's prime offensive star has been their go-to 5-on-3 penalty killer on a regular basis?

I think it makes more sense to throw out the "slugs" in those cases so that you're not putting your best player out there for too many minutes where he can't do what he best excels at. It doesn't necessarily mean that he wouldn't do as good a job as them, it's just.... better allocation of resources.

In 2000-01, Rob Zamuner got 2 4th and 1 5th place vote but he was definitely one of the elite defensive forwards that season. That same season Kris Draper got only 2 3rd place votes. Zigmund Palffy finished ahead of both those players.

Palffy didn't even make the top-15 and I wouldn't concern myself with anything beyond that. The top-15 that year is an excellent collection of names. Only Petr Sykora raises the brow a bit.

I'm not convinced that those four statemtents aren't generally true. You have been able to show a case study to partially discredit each one but I still think they are isolated. I look at the names in the top-15 every year and for the most part wer're looking at a reasonable snapshot of some/most of the best defensive forwards out there.

My point is Selke votes are a poor way of evaluating a players defensive acumen. Joe Sakic was outstanding in 2000-01, but he sure as heck wasn't the 2nd best defensive forward in the NHL that season. He's be hard-pressed to even break into the top 10 if you had to compile a list.

You could be right. Could be. But, once we start saying things like that, where does it end? It feels better to have a "standardized" thing to go by, otherwise I'd feel like I'm just overspeculating. As I said, the selke voting is not perfect but it is what it is, like the scoring leaders of the past, it will never change and we can interpret what we see there as we see fit. It is a useful guide.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

No. I'm not making my point and it's my fault.

In the regular season, Lemieux and Gretzky were point machines who played the same schedule as everyone else. They always led the way and it was no shame to finish under them. To better judge Sakic and Yzerman, I removed them from the equation.

i see what you're saying and it makes sense, but where do you draw the line? jagr was no gretzky or lemieux, but he did win four straight scoring titles, plus another one in '95 and a second place finish in '96. take away lemieux AND jagr, and sakic has two art rosses.

 

[seventieslord]

i see what you're saying and it makes sense, but where do you draw the line? jagr was no gretzky or lemieux, but he did win four straight scoring titles, plus another one in '95 and a second place finish in '96. take away lemieux AND jagr, and sakic has two art rosses.

Good question. The line has to be drawn somewhere. I think it is widely accepted that, in terms of offensive talent, Gretzky and Lemieux are the best of all-time, if not two of the four best ever. I like Jagr a lot. But Jagr's not at their level. Among all-time forwards there is a big drop off from the 3rd best, Lemieux, to the 4th, Hull, and then from the Hull/Beliveau/Richard class, to Mikita and the rest including Jagr.

Mainly though, people who would claim Yzerman to be better would use Gretzky and Lemieux as excuses as to why Yzerman didn't accomplish more. So I took away the potential excuse from both players. There was no need to do that with Jagr because they were sometimes as good as Jagr (not always at the same time, mind you) - they were never as good as Gretzky or Lemieux.

 

[poise]

I'll try to keep this short and to the point.

I've never denied the connection between expansion and increased scoring. What I am denying is that it is the only explanation for increased scoring and pointing out that different expansions have different results, forcing us to give a more sophisticated answer to the question of why scoring increased.

Again, a 24% league expansion in 1979 raised Goal averages for almost a decade. A 14% League expansion in 1992 raised Goal averages for one year (and the top scorers of the league still scored at a disproportional rate). The year following, the Goal average plummeted. The results were nothing like the 1979 expansion. I propose that the Players coming into the league throughout the early 1980's were of a much higher Offensive caliber than the players coming into the league in the early 1990's. Your Pat Lafontaine's are better than your Paul Kariya's...

On Mario Lemieux: I simply cannot agree because the on ice play of Lemieux was too different. He was a visibly inferior Player coming out of his retirement than in 1988-1989. Also, I'd argue that his 199 Point Season was his best because he did so with no help except for Paul Coffey (Rob Brown was very well suited to playing with Lemieux but he was no Jaromir Jagr or Kevin Stevens).

As for the Player comparisons. Denis Savard was a first ballot Hall of Famer. I highly doubt Paul Kariya will be, and even have my doubts that he will go into the Hall of Fame. I agree that Joe Thornton is still young and has a lot of Hockey left in him, but what I'm pointing out is that already as of now, he has been more dominant than Adam Oates while not being as good as a Player as Oates. My opinion is that this is due to Thornton facing weaker competition.

Your last point about Europeans in the 1970's and 1980's is very interesting. I agree for example, that Sergei Makarov would be a mainstay in the top 10 and Vladimir Krutov and Igor Larionov would make numerous top 20 appearances throughout the 1980's.

But off all the European talent that has entered the league since the late 1980's I can think of only one who has surpassed Jari Kurri and Peter Stastny - Jagr. Five others should be mentioned. Peter Forsberg and Pavel Bure had injury troubles or perhaps they would have a shot. Sergei Fedorov and Alexander Mogilny were too inconsistent. Teemu Selanne had a combination of a excellent seasons and a nice career, but he falls short. It's worth noting that Steve Yzerman did outdo both Selanne and Mogilny in their best years (and Bure in one of his best years if not his best).

I believe we are at an impasse at what is the cause of what. However, it has been a good discussion nonetheless!

 

[norrisnick]

Thornton_19 doesn't have any personal grudge against Detroit. He's one of the most objective and open-minded posters you'll find on this forum.

Don't believe FF? Just ask T_19 and he'll tell you the same.

 

[FissionFire]

You could be right. Could be. But, once we start saying things like that, where does it end? It feels better to have a "standardized" thing to go by, otherwise I'd feel like I'm just overspeculating. As I said, the selke voting is not perfect but it is what it is, like the scoring leaders of the past, it will never change and we can interpret what we see there as we see fit. It is a useful guide.

And that's where the debate boils down to statistics vs. the eyeball test. Can a player really simply be boiled down to a set of numbers and case studies to be compared to one another? Isn't that essentially what pnep's HHOF Monitor Points do? At what point do you have to step outside of that and say that no matter what the numbers say, the eyeball test says something else. Many of us are in a unique position to have watched both players throughout their careers. The numbers can act as a nice reference point, but really all the numbers you posted did was prove that Sakic and Yzerman are very close. That's when I think you have to sit down, throw away the numbers, and ask yourself which player whom you've watched their entire career simply "looked" like a better player when you watched the games. To me, this is why there is no right or wrong or even definitive answer in the debate of which player is better. So much of hockey can't be quantified by numbers.

I think a better topic for this thread would have been "Ever Wonder Which Of Sakic and Yzerman has a Better Career?" because I think you've provided a great case that Sakic's career is the better one. However, to use simply stats and awards to say that Sakic was a better player than Yzerman is a faulty way to do it. The better career can be quantified. The better player is something we can all decide for ourselves simply by watching them.

 

[MyDogSparty]

Does anyone have any numbers on their (Sakic & Yzerman) face-off prowess; overall and head-to-head? I've always considered that a VERY important and underrated skill for centermen, especially when it comes to the playoffs.

 

[Dark Shadows]

I'll try to keep this short and to the point.

I've never denied the connection between expansion and increased scoring. What I am denying is that it is the only explanation for increased scoring and pointing out that different expansions have different results, forcing us to give a more sophisticated answer to the question of why scoring increased.

Again, a 24% league expansion in 1979 raised Goal averages for almost a decade. A 14% League expansion in 1992 raised Goal averages for one year (and the top scorers of the league still scored at a disproportional rate). The year following, the Goal average plummeted. The results were nothing like the 1979 expansion. I propose that the Players coming into the league throughout the early 1980's were of a much higher Offensive caliber than the players coming into the league in the early 1990's. Your Pat Lafontaine's are better than your Paul Kariya's...

On Mario Lemieux: I simply cannot agree because the on ice play of Lemieux was too different. He was a visibly inferior Player coming out of his retirement than in 1988-1989. Also, I'd argue that his 199 Point Season was his best because he did so with no help except for Paul Coffey (Rob Brown was very well suited to playing with Lemieux but he was no Jaromir Jagr or Kevin Stevens).

As for the Player comparisons. Denis Savard was a first ballot Hall of Famer. I highly doubt Paul Kariya will be, and even have my doubts that he will go into the Hall of Fame. I agree that Joe Thornton is still young and has a lot of Hockey left in him, but what I'm pointing out is that already as of now, he has been more dominant than Adam Oates while not being as good as a Player as Oates. My opinion is that this is due to Thornton facing weaker competition.

Your last point about Europeans in the 1970's and 1980's is very interesting. I agree for example, that Sergei Makarov would be a mainstay in the top 10 and Vladimir Krutov and Igor Larionov would make numerous top 20 appearances throughout the 1980's.

But off all the European talent that has entered the league since the late 1980's I can think of only one who has surpassed Jari Kurri and Peter Stastny - Jagr. Five others should be mentioned. Peter Forsberg and Pavel Bure had injury troubles or perhaps they would have a shot. Sergei Fedorov and Alexander Mogilny were too inconsistent. Teemu Selanne had a combination of a excellent seasons and a nice career, but he falls short. It's worth noting that Steve Yzerman did outdo both Selanne and Mogilny in their best years (and Bure in one of his best years if not his best).

I believe we are at an impasse at what is the cause of what. However, it has been a good discussion nonetheless!

Even though I am often on the other end of the debate with you poise, I have to say your posts are always a real pleasure to read. You are very meticulous, yet concise.

 

[tommygunn]

So much of hockey can't be quantified by numbers.

And that says it all really. Especially when we're talking about a team sport. There are so many variables that come into play that can skew stats.

 

[overpass]

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.

It looks like the conversation has moved on, but I'll post what I have on this anyway. In fact, Sakic has better +/- numbers than Yzerman when adjusted for their teams. I have Sakic with +190 adjusted and Yzerman with +126 adjusted.

I'm hesitant to read too much into the numbers here because adjusted +/- is best used to compare players with similar roles (#1 centres, #1 defencemen, etc.) Sakic and Yzerman each played on a team with another elite centre for much of their prime. It can make a big difference in +/- over the years if a player tends to be matched up against the opponents best line or if he takes most of the defensive draws, and I'm not sure which of Yzerman/Fedorov did that, or Sakic/Forsberg. Let's say that the results are within the margin of error, but they lean towards Sakic, as your comparison did.

Quick notes on method - I estimate and remove shorthanded goals from +/-, as their presence biases +/- towards penalty killers and against power play players. I normalize all numbers to a level of 200 even-strength goals per season. I adjust about 2/3 of the way towards the team, as a full adjustment isn't fair to players on good teams.

Here are the full numbers. I'm posting them in groups of seasons, as single-season fluctuation may not be significant, but breaking them down by eras in a players career can show how their career progressed. I've chosen these eras subjectively.

Player |Year |GP |ESF |ESA| ESF/G| ESA/G| R-ON| R-OFF| R-NET| R-NET2 |Rep+/-| Adj+/-1| Adj+/-2
Sakic| 89-91| 230 |193| 271| 0.84 |1.18| 0.71 |0.60| 1.19| 1.03| -79| -78| 1
Sakic| 92-95| 278 |301 |275 |1.08 |0.99 |1.09| 1.07 |1.03| 1.05 |12| 26| 13
Sakic |96-01 |426 |502 |333 |1.18 |0.78 |1.51 |1.16| 1.30| 1.37| 41| 169| 128
Sakic |02-08 |429 |435 |356| 1.01 |0.83 |1.22 |1.12| 1.09 |1.13 |30| 79| 49
Sakic| Career| 1363 |1431| 1235 |1.05| 0.91| 1.16| 1.01| 1.15 |1.15| 5| 195| 190

Player |Year |GP| ESF |ESA |ESF/G| ESA/G |R-ON |R-OFF| R-NET| R-NET2 |Rep+/-| Adj+/- | Adj+/-2
Yzerman |84-87| 291| 238| 267 |0.82 |0.92| 0.89| 0.83| 1.07| 1.01 |-31| -29 | 2
Yzerman| 88-94 |524 |638 |545 |1.22 |1.04 |1.17 |1.10 |1.07 |1.10| 37| 93| 56
Yzerman| 95-00 |441 |448 |327 |1.02| 0.74| 1.37 |1.26 |1.09| 1.18| 59 |121 | 62
Yzerman |01-06 |258 |215 |166 |0.83 |0.65 |1.29 |1.40 |0.92 |1.04 |43 |48| 6
Yzerman |Career| 1514 |1539 |1306| 1.02 |0.86 |1.18 |1.11| 1.06 |1.10 |107 |233 | 126

Glossary
ESF - On-ice even-strength goals for, adjusted for scoring level
ESA - On-ice even-strength goals against, adjusted for scoring level
ESF/G, ESA/G - ESF, ESA per game
R-ON - Ratio of goals for over goals against while player is on ice (ESF/ESA)
R-OFF - Ratio of goals for over goals against while player is off-ce (Off-ice ESF/Off-ice ESA, weighted over multiple seasons by games played)
R-NET - Ratio of on-ice ratio over off-ice ratio, or a 100% adjustment for team (R-ON/R-OFF)
R-NET2 - 2/3*R-NET + 1/3*R-ON, or a 66.7% adjustment which is what is used in the final numbers.
Rep +/- - Replacement +/-, or what an average player should have in the same minutes (with a 66.7% adjustment)
Adj+/-1 - Plus-minus with only even-strength goals and adjusted for scoring level (ESF - ESA)
Adj+/-2 - Plus-minus adjusted for team (Adj+/-1 - Rep+/-)

Analysis:
Sakic finishes ahead of Yzerman in the final adjusted numbers with a +190 over Yzerman's +126. Breaking it down by stages of their career, Yzerman was a solid plus player over his team in his high-scoring 1988-1994 years, as well as his more defensive 1995-2000 years, but neither stretch matched Sakic's 1996-2001 peak. Sakic was also a consistent plus player in the 1992-1995 years and the 2002-2008 years, although not to the extent of his peak. Over their careers, Yzerman does have slightly better numbers when unadjusted for team (although closer to Sakic's than raw +/-), but Yzerman's teams had a ESG ratio of 1.11 when he was off the ice, compared to Sakic's teams who had a 1.01 ESG ratio when Sakic was off the ice.

Also, note that Yzerman had very high goals for and against numbers from 1988-94, and these decreased over the rest of his career, which is what we'd expect to see. Sakic has been more consistent ever since he was on non-terrible teams.

As I said in the beginning, the difference between +190 and +126 over a career is probably within the margin of error for differences in role, so this Sakic over Yzerman result isn't definitive. However, I do think it's likely that roles weren't that different, Sakic was a better plus-minus player than Yzerman over his career, and that adds a little more weight from another angle to the conclusion that seventieslord reached with his thorough comparison.

 

[seventieslord]

FissionFire - As suspected, Sakic has played in more OT games - 43, to be exact. But Yzerman has played in 35. So it's safe to say Sakic has a rare knack for scoring OT goals. yzerman's "one per 35 OT games" rate is probably about average, though, in the grand scheme of things as most players get through a career without scoring one.

As for GWG, without knowing the details surronding each one, it's all speculation. I say a certain percentage of GWG were significant goals and not random markers that turned out to be game winners. With Sakic we know that 8 have been for sure, and then I'd speculate a certain percentage of the other 11. With Yzerman it is one for sure, and then I'd speculate the same certain percentage of the other 11.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Bottom line is, I'd take Sakic's career over Yzerman's any day. His 7th-15th best seasons were a lot better than Yzerman's.

Since just about everything else has already been touched on (great OP, btw), I just wanted to say I agree with the bolded part.

But if you gave me a team and said "you have to make your run THIS year", then promised me one of either Yzerman at his all-time best or Sakic at his all-time best, I would have to choose Yzerman. Tough call though, as Yzerman is one of my original favourite players (from the time I started hockey back in 1983), and my first jersey with a name on the back, but Sakic has probably been my favourite player (not named Gretzky or Roy) since junior high school (many, many years ago).

 

[shortshorts]

heads sakic tails yzerman
it was heads.

 

[octopi]

I like and respect Joe Sakic, but I'm going with my old standby here.... call me when he leads his team to the Cup finals with a pending knee osteotomy.

 

[Padan]

I like and respect Joe Sakic, but I'm going with my old standby here.... call me when he leads his team to the Cup finals with a pending knee osteotomy.

Well, Sakic managed to lead the playoffs in scoring AND his team to the Stanley Cup with a bad shoulder in 2001.

"He's the true leader of this team. He was hurt bad. I don't know if he'll mention it now, but if it was during the regular season, he wouldn't have been on the ice for a while. He probably would have missed a month if it was during the regular season."

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/hockey/cup01/2001-06-12-sakic.htm