Lidstrom vs. Bourque vs. Potvin

[BraveCanadian]

More likely Jagr = underrated.

There really aren't many players with the resume Jagr has.. we can question his moodiness etc. all we want but the fact is he was amazing in spite of that stuff.

We can say that the separation between players at the higher levels is very small but still.. Hull is 5 and Jagr is 23 on the 2009 list...

Still, it's so hard to compare players from pre-expansion to more recent times in any meaningful fashion.

If you do points or adjusted points those are pretty poor methods of comparing because of games played and equipment and rule changes.. if you do finishes its a joke because in a 6 team league the players that have a legitimate opportunity at some of the trophies is a tiny pool of players.

 

[JackSlater]

There really aren't many players with the resume Jagr has.. we can question his moodiness etc. all we want but the fact is he was amazing in spite of that stuff.

I agree. As time goes on and our memories of Jagr's moodiness fade away I expect that perception of him and his career will improve. I will be very surprised if Jagr isn't considered a lock for top 15 players all time a decade from now. I don't know if this factor will impact how we view Lidstrom years after he retires, since he was such a quiet player relative to his stature within hockey. It doesn't seem to have impacted Bourque very much as he wasn't overly colourful as a player, but I think it may have improved the way Potvin is perceived historically by some, as he and his style of play were much more explosive and his personality traits are very often perceived as positives.

 

[Rhiessan71]

I agree. As time goes on and our memories of Jagr's moodiness fade away I expect that perception of him and his career will improve. I will be very surprised if Jagr isn't considered a lock for top 15 players all time a decade from now. I don't know if this factor will impact how we view Lidstrom years after he retires, since he was such a quiet player relative to his stature within hockey. It doesn't seem to have impacted Bourque very much as he wasn't overly colourful as a player, but I think it may have improved the way Potvin is perceived historically by some, as he and his style of play were much more explosive and his personality traits are very often perceived as positives.

Yep, good points for sure and it's prolly something similar going on with the youngsters in regards to Gretzky compared to Lemieux.
Gretzky wouldn't look like he was doing anything and BAM, the puck was in the net all of a sudden.
Lemieux was much easier to follow, as it were, most of the time.

 

[Hardyvan123]

And that's a bad thing why exactly?

True greatness is earned, not bestowed. True greatness is not to be confused with specious PowerPolls of who's the Flavor of the Week, the ramblings of the easily impressed.

It should be very, very hard to achieve.

Personally, I think it would be great if a player cracks the top 100 players, top 10, top 5, whatever....tomorrow. Likewise, it matters not if the top 5 remains etched in stone in perpituity.

When #4, #99 and #66 showed up on the scene, there was quickly little doubt as to their stature, their uniqueness. No cases had to be made with regard to adjusted stats, their playing against harder competition compared to previous eras and similar "rationale".

People simply watched and understood.

When the next player of that exceedingly rare level arrives, it'll be the same.

I agree with you on all points here but hockey was still evolving in a great number of ways and I'll get back to my previous and most pressing point.

It is easier to dominate from ones piers in a less competitive league as the league gets more competitive it becomes harder to separate oneself statistically from other players.

4,99 and 66 all arrived in the league when it was expanding (both in terms of number of teams and were players where coming from for the latter 2 players with differing affects). this in part, along with their sheer greatness, can explain why they did when they did it.

Did Mario really peak at the age of 22, 23 then regress slightly?

How about Wayne , did he suddenly dip a bit at the age of 25?

I think the answer is no but rather that the conditions in the league changed, even if ever so slightly and thus the lower scoring totals.

I'll say it once again that Sid has been eclipsed in his 1st 5 seasons with what he has done by less than 5 players all time period, to me that is greatness that we are watching and the level is on par and pretty close with the other 4 guys.

 

[Hardyvan123]

A couple things.... First of all, a pier is walkway over water, a peer is a person equal to another in social class. I don't know why that is bothering me so much in your posts but it is.

Secondly, for the bolded part, a couple of questions.... you say that Gretzky and Lemieux dominated their peers because of differences in the game, such as goalie equipment. My question is this... wasn't the goalie equipment and goaltenders the same for all players, or were Lemieux and Gretzky shooting on different goalies than everyone else???

If they were shooting on the same goalies as their peers, how would goalie equipment explain their dominance yet not allow for others to be scoring at the outrageous rate they were? How were Lemieux and Gretzky lapping the field playing under the same conditions as their peers?

Also, you note that another reason they dominated their peers is the gap in talent under them. Which of these scenarios seems more plausible... that the other 600 players in the league at that time sucked that bad and were that far developmentally behind the curve of 2 people or that maybe those 2 were just that exceptional and had transcendent talents that far outshone anyone else they played with? The latter seems more consistent with what I saw as well as what common sense would tell you.

Several examples in reality back up that claim as well, noted by other posters already, including Lemieux's 76 in 43 at age 35 or even 91 in 67 in 03, almost 20 years after he broke into the league. I'm sure the league had changed a lot between 84 and 03, yet a 37 year old from a "different era" as you might say with a horrible back was still putting up 1.4 points a game over a season. Also note Gretzky leading the league in assists at ages 36 and 37, finishing 4th and 3rd in total points those seasons as well, also 20 years from the time he entered the league.

Point is that even as old, broken down men, those guys were still producing 20 years from when they entered the league because they possessed talents that far outstretched any of their peers. They dominated during their primes to an extent only seen by less than a handful of players in history, but that is just one part of the equation. As the game changed and goalie pads got much larger, and clutching and grabbing became more a part of the game, as the size of players grew greatly, they proved that even as old men, they could still be at the head of the class. They weren't just one trick ponies, beating up on 80's goaltending and then fading away as the game changed. As talented as Crosby and Ovechkin are, they don't dominate to nearly the extent that Lemieux or Gretzky did, and I can't believe that anyone would argue otherwise.

Point taken on peer, spell check is a horrible crutch and spelling certainly is not my forte.

The reason I bring up goalkeeping is that it has become harder to score in today's game 9and i know it's the sane for everyone involved) but some people claim that the big 3 from the past could light it up with the same totals which is a stretch IMO and quite a big one.

As for the developmental curve the gap between best and worst has lessened to a great degree from the time of Orr-Gretzky-Crosby.

Not all of the 600 players sucked when Wayne and Mario played but enough of them sucked enough for the difference to account, at least in part, for the scoring dominance of these 2 guys.

Also on a final note Crosby (and most current players) are asked to play more defense and a team game than either Mario or Wayne were asked to play in their entire careers.

Sure Mario could still score at a great clip in 03 but the game has changed since 03 as well.

At the end of the day Orr, Mario and Wayne all occupy 3 of the top 5 spots of all time and Sid still has to play another 8-10 seasons to get in their company all time but why can't guys simply acknowledge greatness when they see it or can that only happen after a player has retired?

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Sure Mario could still score at a great clip in 03 but the game has changed since 03 as well.

In the sense that the post-lockout NHL is higher scoring (which would suggest Mario scores more, not less) and features more powerplays (which would favour Mario, almost certainly the greatest powerplay performer of all-time)?

Not all of the 600 players sucked when Wayne and Mario played but enough of them sucked enough for the difference to account, at least in part, for the scoring dominance of these 2 guys.

Who do you think Gretzky and Lemieux played against most often - the players who "sucked", or the toughest defensive matchups that their opponents could offer? I don't deny that generic depth players are better in 2010 compared to, say, 1985, but how often did Gretzky and Lemieux play against generic depth players?

 

[Hardyvan123]

Thought I was done but there are still some important points to be made.

First off, the main reason the league is as far as it is, is because of Orr, Gretzky and Lemieux.
Without them, the advanced coaching and system implementations would still be 15-20 years behind what they are now.
Each one of those guys advanced the league countless years each, even rocking the very foundations of how the game was played at the time.
You also continually fail to comprehend that if they played today, they would have access to the exact same advanced coaching, training, systems and most importantly for Orr, the advanced medical knowledge.
As scary as this sounds, to man, all 3 would be even better than they were.

Second and prolly most importantly, you seem to be stuck on the premise that because Crosby is one of the best the league has to offer atm, that he is automatically the upper level.
People thought the exact same of Howe till Orr came along and held to that till Gretzky and then to Lemieux.

Here's the problem with that thinking.
Stamkos, who hasn't even turned 21 yet is on pace for 130-140 points currently. Last year he won/shared the Richard Trophy and he was only 19 for the majority of the season.
Now, I'm not guaranteeing that Steve maintains this 130-140 but what if he does?
Where will that then put Crosby at if Stamkos does end up there?
What will that mean if this kid at a mere 20 years old blows away any season by anyone since Mario and Jagr in 95/96.
By your logic, in that Crosby should already get his place among Gretzky and Lemieux, you then would have to say that Stankos is even better than them, which is also just ridiculous.

No, I'm sorry, it's not that I am giving the past greats too much credit, you are simply giving them too little.
I more than willing to discuss some middle ground here but as long as you choose to place Crosby in the same league as #99 and #66, there is no middle ground and I will simply continue to laugh at, imo, your ignorance.

Thanks for building the straw men and then knocking them down. Stamkos is a great young player but until he has 5 seasons and a SC and plays both ways like Sid does he will be a notch down even if he outscores him this year.

look I'm beginning to understand that perhaps instead of asking questions and seeking knwoledge that you'd rather act like an ivory tower professer defending a thesis but I'd rather explore the histry of hockey and alwasys ask questions and try to invesitgate on why players are great and if they are really as great as everyoen makes them out to be.

Just because I think Crosby has had a great start to his career (one of the best 1st 5 seasons ever, top 5 maybe top 3) doesn't mean that i don't respect the greatness of Orr, Gretzky or Lemiuex.

I tend to group the greatest players of all time in tiers and Sid is in the 1st tier of 5 as far as player's 1st 5 seasons go when you look at everything , if you can name 5 guys who had better overalls tarts and impacts in their 1st 5 years then feel free but lets keep context in the discussion instead of throwing out stats from seasons 20 years apart like they mean the same thing.

Also the league is as far as it is because of everything that has happened in the past not just 3 great players.

Gretzky, Orr and Lemieux all to some degree played in a perfect storm situation for their success.

This happens to most great players were luck and opportunity intersect and they take advantage of it.

 

[Hardyvan123]

In the sense that the post-lockout NHL is higher scoring (which would suggest Mario scores more, not less) and features more powerplays (which would favour Mario, almost certainly the greatest powerplay performer of all-time)?



Who do you think Gretzky and Lemieux played against most often - the players who "sucked", or the toughest defensive matchups that their opponents could offer? I don't deny that generic depth players are better in 2010 compared to, say, 1985, but how often did Gretzky and Lemieux play against generic depth players?

There were still quite a few pylons on D when Wayne and Mario played.

All this discussion has gotten away from the main point which is that it is harder to dominant today than it was in the past and I don't think that we will ever see the dominance of players like Lemieux, Wayne and Orr given to were the game has risen and the rules and conditions of the game today.

Even Wayne, Bobby and Mario has fluctuations in their totals which can't be totally explained by aging (not after 23 or 25 for Mario and Wayne) or just injuries. maybe some of this difference is just random or maybe the league changes from year to year. I think the latter point has more to do with it than the earlier ones, although they all might be happening at the same time as well.

Maybe like another posted stated in a different thread, that if the current trends, ie. lack of dominance of a player continues for 10, 20, 30 years ect. then at some point people will realize that yes maybe the difference in the gap of talent has an affect on the top player(s) stat wise.

My guess is that some people will simply look at season stats and come to simple conclusions instead of doing some investigative work on these issues.

 

[KingGallagherXI]

I tell you the years Mario was putting up 168 and 199 points as a 22 and 23 year old, the only way to slow him down (and/or stop him) is now a penalty.

And sometimes he scored anyway.



I mean, how freaking dominant can a player be?

 

[Maupin Fan]

Point taken on peer, spell check is a horrible crutch and spelling certainly is not my forte.

The reason I bring up goalkeeping is that it has become harder to score in today's game 9and i know it's the sane for everyone involved) but some people claim that the big 3 from the past could light it up with the same totals which is a stretch IMO and quite a big one.

As for the developmental curve the gap between best and worst has lessened to a great degree from the time of Orr-Gretzky-Crosby.

Not all of the 600 players sucked when Wayne and Mario played but enough of them sucked enough for the difference to account, at least in part, for the scoring dominance of these 2 guys.

Also on a final note Crosby (and most current players) are asked to play more defense and a team game than either Mario or Wayne were asked to play in their entire careers.

Sure Mario could still score at a great clip in 03 but the game has changed since 03 as well.

At the end of the day Orr, Mario and Wayne all occupy 3 of the top 5 spots of all time and Sid still has to play another 8-10 seasons to get in their company all time but why can't guys simply acknowledge greatness when they see it or can that only happen after a player has retired?

I don't think many people, if any, are suggesting that Gretzky or Lemieux would routinely be putting up 200 points in today's game, just that they would be a clear step ahead of the Crosby's, Ovechkin's and Stamkos's and certainly far ahead of Sedin or anyone in that tier. I'm not going to speculate how many points they would have, but my eyes tell me that as great as I think Ovechkin, Crosby and Stamkos are at scoring goals and putting up points, Lemieux and Gretzky would be better. I think most of the other posters see the same thing.

As far as the bolded parts, those are pure speculation on your part to make your argument, especially the part about enough of the 600 sucking to make the difference. Please. I will give you that the developmental gap between best and worst probably has lessened for several reasons, but not enough to turn Gretzky or Lemieux-like dominance to the level of separation, or lack thereof, between the top players today.

Another poster touched on it, but the game has only opened up since 03 in ways that would further benefit Lemieux, not hinder him.


I don't think anyone in here doesn't give Crosby his due; we all realize that he is an incredibly talented player with a wide arsenal of skills that are ever-growing, like his goal-scoring and faceoff abilities. People see the greatness in him when they compare him to a Yzerman or Sakic or others of the like. The only thing that is being said is that he isn't at the level of Gretzky, Lemieux or Orr in terms of dominance, and that seems pretty clear. Believe me, there is nothing wrong with being compared to Yzerman or Sakic, complete players that also had a lot of skills that were winners as well.

 

[Maupin Fan]

There were still quite a few pylons on D when Wayne and Mario played.

All this discussion has gotten away from the main point which is that it is harder to dominant today than it was in the past and I don't think that we will ever see the dominance of players like Lemieux, Wayne and Orr given to were the game has risen and the rules and conditions of the game today.

Even Wayne, Bobby and Mario has fluctuations in their totals which can't be totally explained by aging (not after 23 or 25 for Mario and Wayne) or just injuries. maybe some of this difference is just random or maybe the league changes from year to year. I think the latter point has more to do with it than the earlier ones, although they all might be happening at the same time as well.

Maybe like another posted stated in a different thread, that if the current trends, ie. lack of dominance of a player continues for 10, 20, 30 years ect. then at some point people will realize that yes maybe the difference in the gap of talent has an affect on the top player(s) stat wise.

My guess is that some people will simply look at season stats and come to simple conclusions instead of doing some investigative work on these issues.

Again, the bolded is just speculation on your part to strengthen your argument.

A lot of your posts center around "G/L/Orr played in a weak era, perfect storm, bad goaltenders, no competition, pylons, etc etc" and that's why they were dominant and G/L/Orr were "lucky" to have opportunity intersect with them. With all of these, you are missing everyone's point.

No one is saying that Gretzky is better than Crosby because Gretzky scored 215 points where Crosby only scores 110 or Lemieux scored 170 points where Crosby scores 110. Raw totals have nothing to do with the argument. The point is that Gretzky was scoring 210 points when the next highest guy had 125, or 185 points when the next highest guy had 105. Same story for Lemieux. We all know about Orr as well. It's the SEPARATION from everyone else, who were all playing under the same conditions at that time, that makes them greater than everyone else. If Crosby were hitting his 110 where the next closest guy was at 70 or 75 or skating around everyone like its open hockey like Orr, you might have a point. Fact is, that isn't happening, just like Yzerman and Sakic weren't doing that either, but we still all knew how skilled they were at the time.

Also, there have been gaps in peer dominance in the past as well. It's not a new phenomenon limited to hockey in the past 5 years. Gordie Howe was dominant to a Gretzky-like extent for roughly 5 years in the early 50's, far outdistancing the field. After Orr and before Gretzky, there was an upper-eschelon of players like Lafleur, Dionne, Trottier and Bossy, with Lafleur usually at the head of the class, but not really that far apart from the rest. There is nothing to say that this isn't a period right now where the Lafleur's, Dionne's and Trottier's are now Crosby, Ovechkin, maybe Stamkos or Malkin, and anyone else stepping into that role, where the next G/L might be on the horizon. History has shown that there have been lulls of 5 or 25 years between guy lapping the field. Point is, nobody knows that it won't happen again, and to say that we should consider Crosby in the class of Gretzky and Lemieux just because no one will ever be able to dominate like that again (which we don't know at all) is erroneous.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Thanks for building the straw men and then knocking them down. Stamkos is a great young player but until he has 5 seasons and a SC and plays both ways like Sid does he will be a notch down even if he outscores him this year.

...and yet you do the exact same thing in regards to Crosby over Yzerman. Do you not see how hypocritical that is?
You point to defensive play and years played when comparing Stamkos to Crosby and then throw that reasoning right out the window when discussing Yzerman and Crosby.
I figured your views were biased enough to take the bait, I just didn't expect you to go all hook, line and sinker

look I'm beginning to understand that perhaps instead of asking questions and seeking knwoledge that you'd rather act like an ivory tower professer defending a thesis but I'd rather explore the histry of hockey and alwasys ask questions and try to invesitgate on why players are great and if they are really as great as everyoen makes them out to be.

If you were truly trying to ask questions and seek knowledge, then you would be investigating Gretzky's career with a lot more vigor.
The sheer genius of his play should leave you with enough questions to last a very long time

Just because I think Crosby has had a great start to his career (one of the best 1st 5 seasons ever, top 5 maybe top 3) doesn't mean that i don't respect the greatness of Orr, Gretzky or Lemiuex.

I tend to group the greatest players of all time in tiers and Sid is in the 1st tier of 5 as far as player's 1st 5 seasons go when you look at everything , if you can name 5 guys who had better overalls starts and impacts in their 1st 5 years then feel free but lets keep context in the discussion instead of throwing out stats from seasons 20 years apart like they mean the same thing.

Aside from Gretzky and Lemieux you mean?
Ok, well Lindros, Yzerman, Sakic, Forsberg, Hawerchuk, Ovechkin, Kariya, Fedorov just to name some that had close to as good, as good or even better starts than Crosby.
Lindros and Forsberg for example, dominated games far more than Crosby does today.

Also the league is as far as it is because of everything that has happened in the past not just 3 great players.

Of course the league has grown and evolved when those 3 players weren't playing but it did so at a much, much greater rate when they did, that's a fact.

Gretzky, Orr and Lemieux all to some degree played in a perfect storm situation for their success.

This happens to most great players were luck and opportunity intersect and they take advantage of it.

Crosby is any different how?
Coming into the league at a time when there is a huge void from all the past superstars that have just retired or were about to.
Coming into a league that has been all but tailored since the Lockout, to suit a player such as Crosby.
What has Crosby done in this time of opportunity....one Art Ross, losing others to the likes of Thornton and Sedin.
Don't give me any crap about his Cup win either. Malkin and Fleury had as much or more to do with that win than Crosby.
At least Gretzky and Lemieux were able to leave no doubt what so ever during their "perfect storms".

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Aside from Gretzky and Lemieux you mean?
Ok, well Lindros, Yzerman, Sakic, Forsberg, Hawerchuk, Ovechkin, Kariya, Fedorov just to name some that had close to as good, as good or even better starts than Crosby.

I am not going to comment on the discussion you two are having, but the comment about a player's first 5 years was so bad I have to say something. Most of the first 5 years of the guys you listed were not even close to Crosby's...

To begin, here is a very brief summary of what Crosby has accomplished in his first 5 years...
Points Top 10: 1, 2, 3, 6 (it should be noted that in the one year that he was not Top 10 Crosby was injured and was 2nd in points per game)
Hart Voting Top 5: 1, 3
All-Star Teams: 1x 1st Team, 1x 2nd (also finished 3rd twice)
Playoffs: 1 Cup, 1 Runner-up, 1st in scoring and 2nd in scoring

Yzerman, Sakic, Hawerchuk, Kariya, and Fedorov don't even come close

Lindros is close if you ignore his injuries, but still clearly behind

Forsberg is close, but also a clear step behind

Ovechkin is the only real comparable that you listed

 

[Rhiessan71]

I am not going to comment on the discussion you two are having, but the comment about a player's first 5 years was so bad I have to say something. Most of the first 5 years of the guys you listed were not even close to Crosby's...

To begin, here is a very brief summary of what Crosby has accomplished in his first 5 years...
Points Top 10: 1, 2, 3, 6 (it should be noted that in the one year that he was not Top 10 Crosby was injured and was 2nd in points per game)
Hart Voting Top 5: 1, 3
All-Star Teams: 1x 1st Team, 1x 2nd (also finished 3rd twice)
Playoffs: 1 Cup, 1 Runner-up, 1st in scoring and 2nd in scoring

Yzerman, Sakic, Hawerchuk, Kariya, and Fedorov don't even come close

Lindros is close if you ignore his injuries, but still clearly behind

Forsberg is close, but also a clear step behind

Ovechkin is the only real comparable that you listed

To a degree you're right but if you remove Gretzky, Lemieux and their beneficial teammates from those finishes, they jump up in quite a hurry and quite comparable to what Sidney has done.

Also hence why I do not have Crosby anywhere near the same level as #99 and #66.

Say what you want but another deciding factor in my eyes is that not only did Gretzky and Lemieux finish well ahead of anyone else, they also dragged 2, 3, 4, sometimes 5 of thier teammates along into top 10 and higher finishes.

Where are the Brown's, the Stevens, the Kurri's and the Nichols in Sid's resume?
Where are the ridiculous production increases by many of his teammates like Mario and Wayne caused?

Everyone will offer excuses that Crosby doesn't have enough quality wingers around him.
Steve Yzerman scored 155 points with the likes of Gallant, Maclean and Barr.
Oh and before anyone starts defending Maclean's numbers, it would be best to remember that he played on an even better pure playmaker's wing with the Jets before hooking up with Stevie.


As I have said previously, I have no problem giving Sid his due and it's very possible he could end up fighting for a place in the top 25 or possibly even cracking the top 10 all-time when all is said and done.
However, Sid has a HELL of a lot more hockey to play before that day arrives and to say after only 5 years that he is already above the likes of Yzerman, Sakic and Jagr, let alone the absolutely ridiculous notion that he's anywhere near Greztky or Lemieux...it's seriously laughable.

 

[Hardyvan123]

...and yet you do the exact same thing in regards to Crosby over Yzerman. Do you not see how hypocritical that is?
You point to defensive play and years played when comparing Stamkos to Crosby and then throw that reasoning right out the window when discussing Yzerman and Crosby.
I figured your views were biased enough to take the bait, I just didn't expect you to go all hook, line and sinker



If you were truly trying to ask questions and seek knowledge, then you would be investigating Gretzky's career with a lot more vigor.
The sheer genius of his play should leave you with enough questions to last a very long time



Aside from Gretzky and Lemieux you mean?
Ok, well Lindros, Yzerman, Sakic, Forsberg, Hawerchuk, Ovechkin, Kariya, Fedorov just to name some that had close to as good, as good or even better starts than Crosby.
Lindros and Forsberg for example, dominated games far more than Crosby does today.



Of course the league has grown and evolved when those 3 players weren't playing but it did so at a much, much greater rate when they did, that's a fact.



Crosby is any different how?
Coming into the league at a time when there is a huge void from all the past superstars that have just retired or were about to.
Coming into a league that has been all but tailored since the Lockout, to suit a player such as Crosby.
What has Crosby done in this time of opportunity....one Art Ross, losing others to the likes of Thornton and Sedin.
Don't give me any crap about his Cup win either. Malkin and Fleury had as much or more to do with that win than Crosby.
At least Gretzky and Lemieux were able to leave no doubt what so ever during their "perfect storms".

Yzerman didn't become a defensive player until alter in his career, certainly he wasn't anywhere near Crosby's level in the 1st 5 years that we can compare the 2.

Also you make it sound like Crosby was a bystander on that Cup, don't forget Sid was only 21 and the captain of that Cup team and while Malkin won the Smythe, Crosby wasn't that far behind him in terms of overall value to the team.

Funny about the Art Ross, do you honestly think that Cosby's line mates were as good as Wayne's in his 1st 5 years? It looks very much that Crosby is in the mix for another one while at this point as he has 41 points and the next best player on his team has 23 and his line mate Kunitz has 13. sure Stamkos might beat him out but I'm pretty sure that if Sid played with a creative guy like St. Louis maybe he would run away with it, or maybe not, let's see how it unfolds.

 

[Stray Wasp]

Again, the bolded is just speculation on your part to strengthen your argument.

A lot of your posts center around "G/L/Orr played in a weak era, perfect storm, bad goaltenders, no competition, pylons, etc etc" and that's why they were dominant and G/L/Orr were "lucky" to have opportunity intersect with them. With all of these, you are missing everyone's point.

No one is saying that Gretzky is better than Crosby because Gretzky scored 215 points where Crosby only scores 110 or Lemieux scored 170 points where Crosby scores 110. Raw totals have nothing to do with the argument. The point is that Gretzky was scoring 210 points when the next highest guy had 125, or 185 points when the next highest guy had 105. Same story for Lemieux. We all know about Orr as well. It's the SEPARATION from everyone else, who were all playing under the same conditions at that time, that makes them greater than everyone else. If Crosby were hitting his 110 where the next closest guy was at 70 or 75 or skating around everyone like its open hockey like Orr, you might have a point. Fact is, that isn't happening, just like Yzerman and Sakic weren't doing that either, but we still all knew how skilled they were at the time.

Also, there have been gaps in peer dominance in the past as well. It's not a new phenomenon limited to hockey in the past 5 years. Gordie Howe was dominant to a Gretzky-like extent for roughly 5 years in the early 50's, far outdistancing the field. After Orr and before Gretzky, there was an upper-eschelon of players like Lafleur, Dionne, Trottier and Bossy, with Lafleur usually at the head of the class, but not really that far apart from the rest. There is nothing to say that this isn't a period right now where the Lafleur's, Dionne's and Trottier's are now Crosby, Ovechkin, maybe Stamkos or Malkin, and anyone else stepping into that role, where the next G/L might be on the horizon. History has shown that there have been lulls of 5 or 25 years between guy lapping the field. Point is, nobody knows that it won't happen again, and to say that we should consider Crosby in the class of Gretzky and Lemieux just because no one will ever be able to dominate like that again (which we don't know at all) is erroneous.

Excellent post. I'd like to draw particular attention to your last couple of sentences. For me, it emphasises the ironic crux of the matter-that some of Crosby and Ovechkin's loudest advocates are prone to talking down those two players' potential to lap the field.

We're only five and a quarter seasons into the post-lockout NHL. Not much time to put stats into their proper context. A good reason, surely, to just enjoy the players we've got rather than getting overly exercised about where their short careers put them in the all-time pecking order. Time will tell.

I'd argue Ovie's 65 goal year is the only instance of lapping the field on AO or Crosby's regular season CVs to date. However, we can't say for sure that either player has peaked yet. It's possible they could yet produce seasons that far outstrip everyone else. Or maybe, as Rhiessan 71 suggests, Stamkos will trump both.

Since the lockout, no one has exceeded 125 points. On the other hand, we've had a handful of 55 goal seasons and 80 assist seasons. Can someone produce one or even a string of, say 55+85 seasons, breaking the 140 point barrier whilst no one else passes 105-110? Easier said than done but I'm not ruling it out, especially not from Crosby. (If it does happen, I'll enjoy it, rather than tear my hair out that a modern player is forcing me to rewrite my list of greats.)

As to the debate, I go Bourque-barely discernable gap-Lidstrom-tiny gap-Potvin over an entire career.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Yzerman didn't become a defensive player until alter in his career, certainly he wasn't anywhere near Crosby's level in the 1st 5 years that we can compare the 2.

First off, nice job avoiding the bolded point

Second...the notion that Yzerman wasn't good defensively in the 80's is pure fiction and propaganda.
Was he as defensively responsible as he became later on, of course not, the game changed.
However out of all the big superstars in the 80's, Stevie was by far the most defensively aware of the bunch and his defensive play against Gretzky in the Conf finals in '87 at the ripe ole age of 22 is something you may want to get your hands on.

You think players like him and Trottier can become that dominant defensively later in their career's without doing it to a fair degree before hand...c'mon

 

[BraveCanadian]

Since the lockout, no one has exceeded 125 points.

This is the best argument to make against Crosby and Ovechkin (and soon Stamkos) being "generational players".

Jagr was one of those to have 120 points post lockout and that was on the downside of his career.

How can they be generational talents when a past his prime guy who generally isn't considered quite at that level isn't?

Oh, logic.

I mean they might end up being a generational type talent but the odds are they won't. And certainly we won't know for another 5 years.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

To a degree you're right but if you remove Gretzky, Lemieux and their beneficial teammates from those finishes, they jump up in quite a hurry and quite comparable to what Sidney has done.

This is just plain not true. Feel free to show me how they become comparable. Yzerman didn't even have a single Top 10 finish in his first 5 years, taking out Gretzky and Lemieux isn't going to make up that much.

Also hence why I do not have Crosby anywhere near the same level as #99 and #66.

Say what you want but another deciding factor in my eyes is that not only did Gretzky and Lemieux finish well ahead of anyone else, they also dragged 2, 3, 4, sometimes 5 of thier teammates along into top 10 and higher finishes.

Where are the Brown's, the Stevens, the Kurri's and the Nichols in Sid's resume?
Where are the ridiculous production increases by many of his teammates like Mario and Wayne caused?

Has anyone been saying Crosby is on the same level as Gretzky or Lemieux in their first 5 years? I don't remember reading it, but could have missed it. I know for sure I have said nothing of the sort, because he definitely is not at that level.

Everyone will offer excuses that Crosby doesn't have enough quality wingers around him.
Steve Yzerman scored 155 points with the likes of Gallant, Maclean and Barr.
Oh and before anyone starts defending Maclean's numbers, it would be best to remember that he played on an even better pure playmaker's wing with the Jets before hooking up with Stevie.

Yzerman did not score 155 points in any of his first 5 years. That is all we are talking about. Yzerman's highest point total in his first 5 was 102 points, and it was in a much higher scoring era.

As I have said previously, I have no problem giving Sid his due and it's very possible he could end up fighting for a place in the top 25 or possibly even cracking the top 10 all-time when all is said and done.

However, Sid has a HELL of a lot more hockey to play before that day arrives and to say after only 5 years that he is already above the likes of Yzerman, Sakic and Jagr, let alone the absolutely ridiculous notion that he's anywhere near Greztky or Lemieux...it's seriously laughable.

Perhaps you are misunderstanding. No one is saying Crosby is better than Yzerman, Sakic, Jagr, etc. in terms of all time ranking, just that his first 5 years are better than their first 5 years.

 

[Dark Shadows]

First off, nice job avoiding the bolded point

Second...the notion that Yzerman wasn't good defensively in the 80's is pure fiction and propaganda.
Was he as defensively responsible as he became later on, of course not, the game changed.
However out of all the big superstars in the 80's, Stevie was by far the most defensively aware of the bunch and his defensive play against Gretzky in the Conf finals in '87 at the ripe ole age of 22 is something you may want to get your hands on.

You think players like him and Trottier can become that dominant defensively later in their career's without doing it to a fair degree before hand...c'mon

This argument has been beaten to death around here, and many disagree with you. As well as the Wings GM at the time, having seen him play.

For what it's worth you're beliefs about Yzerman's game are not shared by Jim Devellano who was the general manager of the Red Wings at the time. Not to offend your credentials but there is no bigger supporter of Yzerman than Devellano who did watch every game Yzerman ever played with Detroit, in addition to a large number of his junior games in Peterborough.

At our SIHR meeting, Devellano admitted that Yzerman was not what you would call a 200 foot player. He admitted openly that Yzerman was lacking in defensive skills and effort. In part, this was due to the nature of the team and the situation. As I pointed out before the Red Wings were not the successful franchise of today. Yzerman, was encouraged to focus exclusively on his offense as scoring and not tight checking sells tickets.

When asked by the assembled crowd why Mike Keenan cut Yzerman from both the 1987 and 1991 Canada Cup team's Devellano openly said it was because he was not a 200 foot player. For Keenan to cut him from those rosters says a lot about how porous Yzerman's defensive game was at the time and not to the above-average defensive game you speak of.

Furthermore, Devellano spoke quite openly about the relationship between Yzerman and Scotty Bowman was in the beginning. Bowman was openly dismissive about Yzerman's defensive game and especially his committment to it. Such was the acrimony that the Red Wings did have trade talks with the Ottawa Senators about Yzerman's services, Devellano confirmed to the group. The only reason the deal didn't go through, according to Devellano was that the Senators never made an acceptable offer.

In this particular battle of wills Bowman eventually won out and Yzerman soon evolved into the better all-around player for it and Detroit became the better team.

For what it's worth.

I attended a SIHR meeting with Jimmy Devellano as the guest speaker last night.

He told the assembled members that he doesn't put much stock in Yzerman's big point year's. He used the term inflated. He stated that the main goal of the team then was selling tickets and that Yzerman was encouraged to put up big numbers to garner attention and to not worry about backchecking.

In time that changed, but according to Devellano, Yzerman did not become a complete player until Bowman arrived, and that even then it was a tough, and somewhat acrimonius process.

I for one agree with his honest recounting.

 

[Unaffiliated]

This is the best argument to make against Crosby and Ovechkin (and soon Stamkos) being "generational players".

Jagr was one of those to have 120 points post lockout and that was on the downside of his career.

How can they be generational talents when a past his prime guy who generally isn't considered quite at that level isn't?

Oh, logic.

I mean they might end up being a generational type talent but the odds are they won't. And certainly we won't know for another 5 years.

This.

It's funny to see posters on the main board try to justify the point difference.

 

[jkrx]

This argument has been beaten to death around here, and many disagree with you. As well as the Wings GM at the time, having seen him play.

I for one agree with his honest recounting.

What I see is that he was lacking in defense because Red Wings only used him offensively. Not that he actually was bad defensively. Plus Rhiessan brought up the point about his play in the conf. finals which was excellent. What he was used for and what he actually could do is completely diferent things.

To quote Bowman about any offensive players defense is ridiculous. He would probably complain about guys like Gaineys and Carbonneaus defensive game. He was incredibly critical about defense.

Who cares about what Keenan thought?

 

[Dark Shadows]

What I see is that he was lacking in defense because Red Wings only used him offensively. Not that he actually was bad defensively. Plus Rhiessan brought up the point about his play in the conf. finals which was excellent. What he was used for and what he actually could do is completely diferent things.

To quote Bowman about any offensive players defense is ridiculous. He would probably complain about guys like Gaineys and Carbonneaus defensive game. He was incredibly critical about defense.

Who cares about what Keenan thought?

The wings did not only use him offensively. He doubled over on the checking line often enough, like Gretzky and Lemieux did. Double and triple shifting.

The vast difference in Yzerman's game later was his willingness to avoid making those dangerous passes that got intercepted sometimes, avoiding dipsy doodling through traffic to instead make the safe play and his willingness to block shots much much more.

http://www.allsports.com/players/steve-yzerman/

After initially butting heads with new coach Scottie Bowman over the coach's criticism of his defensive skills, Yzerman determinedly worked on his two-way game and eventually won the Selke Trophy as the league's best defensive forward

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=M1ARTM0012123

He was initially a scoring sensation - he had 65 goals and 90 assists in 1988-1989. But in the mid-1990s, after general manager Jim Devellano and later Ken Holland began to improve Detroit's supporting cast, and when Scotty Bowman joined as coach, Yzerman, the team's captain since he was 21, transformed himself into a player known as much for defence as for scoring. The combination worked: the Wings won back-to-back Stanley Cups in 1997 and 1998, and they appear ready to contend again this year

http://www.tru.ca/ae/php/phil/mclaughl/students/phil224/cm/home.htm

In the early 90's, Steve and the Red Wings experienced many disapointing playoff performances, and the ultimate goal lay far beyond his reach. So Yzerman took steps to become a more rounded player. He gained weight in the off-season and worked hard to become more defensively aware. No more fancy passes and dipsy-doodles in the offensive zone meant less points, but more marks in the win column. Steve has come to be regarded by many to be the best two-way player to ever play the game

http://www.skate2stick.com/?p=2058

Red Wings general manager Ken Holland wasn’t surprised. “He’s one of the two greatest Red Wings ever,” said Holland, who was there to watch Yzerman get inducted, of Yzerman and Gordie Howe. “Steve’s legacy is twofold: his offensive prowess and his commitment to winning. He went from a great offensive player to a great two-way player. He was about team and sacrifice.”

http://www.nhl.com/cupcrazy/2004/seriese/yzerman041604.shtml

Steve was the first (player) to totally change his game and went from being the offensive guy to being the best two-way centerman in the NHL. Once your leader changes his game for the good of the team, then everybody else follows suit."

This was from a simple combination of "Yzerman two way" in google search.


http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story/?ID=170385&hubname=nhl

After scoring 62 goals in 1990, Yzerman gradually and unselfishly traded in gaudy statistics amassed with an all-out offensive style for a two-way role to help the team get ahead. The transformation would eventually lead to his selection as the NHL's best defensive forward in 2000.<

http://redwingslegends.blogspot.com/2006/07/steve-yzerman.html

This one man show of offensive fireworks would continue until the 1993-94 season when something happened in Yzerman's career. He sacrificed his own scoring exploits to become one of the best two way players in the history of the game.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1208/is_n11_v219/ai_16664801/

The Red Wings are the team to beat in the Western Conference, just as they were last season. The difference is, this season everyone else is starting to believe it.

The Red Wings roared to the top of the conference last season with a high-flying offense filled with highlight-reel goals. But they lacked reliable defense and consistent goaltending - and suffered a surprising first-round playoff loss to the Sharks.

The loss to San Jose was embarrassing. But Coach Scotty Bowman had warned his players that they gave up too many shots, too many odd-man breaks, too many goals.

This time, the Red Wings began listening to Bowman in training camp, when he emphasized group coverage in their zone, working the transition game up the ice in five-man units and keeping at least one forward back in the offensive zone. In other words, no wide-open gambling offense.

"Scotty came to Steve Yzerman and myself and told us how important it was that we played the system, that the guys will look to us to see if we're doing it," veteran defense-man Paul Coffey says.

Coffey and Yzerman hadn't always seen eye-to-eye with Bowman, but they agreed to conform because changes had to be made. There simply was too much talent on this team to waste another chance to win a Stanley Cup.

At 29, Yzerman has scored more than 1,100 points in barely 800 games. He has had 50 or more goals five times, scored more than 100 points six times. But at this stage of his career he wants more.

"I think the system has taken a little bit away from our offense," Yzerman says. "I know I'm playing more conservatively and not really trying to beat people too often, forcing plays if they're not there. But I'd much rather be in this situation than playing on a last-place team and playing 30 minutes a game and getting a lot of points. Winning is the important thing."

Edit. The honest truth is, every time this topic comes up, people find newspaper clippings and stories that support both sides of the story. It gets rather tiresome to always argue over the same thing. In the end, no amount of arguing is going to convince me that all the many games I saw with my own eyes and their conclusions are all wrong.

 

[jkrx]

The wings did not only use him offensively. He doubled over on the checking line often enough, like Gretzky and Lemieux did. Double and triple shifting.

The vast difference in Yzerman's game later was his willingness to avoid making those dangerous passes that got intercepted sometimes, avoiding dipsy doodling through traffic to instead make the safe play and his willingness to block shots much much more.

http://www.allsports.com/players/steve-yzerman/

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=M1ARTM0012123



http://www.tru.ca/ae/php/phil/mclaughl/students/phil224/cm/home.htm



http://www.skate2stick.com/?p=2058



http://www.nhl.com/cupcrazy/2004/seriese/yzerman041604.shtml




This was from a simple combination of "Yzerman two way" in google search.


http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story/?ID=170385&hubname=nhl



http://redwingslegends.blogspot.com/2006/07/steve-yzerman.html




http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1208/is_n11_v219/ai_16664801/


Edit. The honest truth is, every time this topic comes up, people find newspaper clippings and stories that support both sides of the story. It gets rather tiresome to always argue over the same thing. In the end, no amount of arguing is going to convince me that all the many games I saw with my own eyes and their conclusions are all wrong.

Im not saying they, you or anyone are really wrong about this. We all know and agree on that Yzerman clearly wasnt a defensive juggernaut. I also agree that he made risky plays but I cound them to his offesive game as he had to be creative or nothing would happen. Im just saying that its like some people on here think, that he were terrible defensively because he wasnt.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

Yzerman also played on the checking line in the 1985 World Championships, most notably against the KLM line when Canada won 3-1. Early coaches from Polano to Demers double-shifted him in this role as well.

He got better defensively later, and he focused on it more, but he was always very good in a defensive role.