Make me appreciate Mike Modano

[Davis21wylie]

We're basing our player evaluations purely on the voting of sportswriters? Yikes.

Sakic played for a strong team and had +/- ratings of +23, +30, and +45 in '99, 2000, and '01 respectively. You think maybe the voters might have looked at those numbers and said, "Wow, Sakic is great defensively!" Because he wasn't in the class of Forsberg/Fedorov/Modano back then. Not a knock on Sakic, but those 3 were almost universally regarded by scouts as better defensive forwards circa 1998-2000.

Which, of course, was the time period in question (I only mentioned 2003 because Modano didn't really decline until the year after that). For me, "turn of the century" means putting yourself in 2000 and looking forward, taking into account the 2000, 1999, and 1998 seasons (maybe '97, too). And at that time, you'd take Forsberg/Fedorov/Modano over Yzerman/Sakic/Lindros/etc. if you were building a team.

 

[Dark Shadows]

We're basing our player evaluations purely on the voting of sportswriters? Yikes.

Sakic played for a strong team and had +/- ratings of +23, +30, and +45 in '99, 2000, and '01 respectively. You think maybe the voters might have looked at those numbers and said, "Wow, Sakic is great defensively!" Because he wasn't in the class of Forsberg/Fedorov/Modano back then. Not a knock on Sakic, but those 3 were almost universally regarded by scouts as better defensive forwards circa 1998-2000.

Which, of course, was the time period in question (I only mentioned 2003 because Modano didn't really decline until the year after that). For me, "turn of the century" means putting yourself in 2000 and looking forward, taking into account the 2000, 1999, and 1998 seasons (maybe '97, too). And at that time, you'd take Forsberg/Fedorov/Modano over Yzerman/Sakic/Lindros/etc. if you were building a team.

Oh please. When all else fails, attack the general validity of the intelligence of the voting right? Its not just "Sportswriters". The sportswriters in question are analysts from the "Professional Hockey Writers Association" who live, breath and sleep hockey for a living. I have seen evidence of Bias from the voters(Edm journalists leaving Bourque's name off the ballot to deny him 3rd place votes in 1990), but for the most part, they are very knowledgeable in their votings.

I watched him play. The biggest compliment Sakic receives during the "Yzerman vs Sakic" discussions is that unlike Yzerman, he was capable of keeping his top offensive play while being a great defensive player. And this is coming from the Historians of this forum who watched both play ALL THE TIME.

If all writers did was look at +/-, then Madden would never have beaten Sakic in 2001 for the Selke. Madden had 38 points and a +26 on the best Defensive minded team in the league. hell, 6 People on Madden's own team had a higher +/- than he did.

oh wait. Modano was 2nd in the league in +/- in 96/97, yet 3 people with much lower +/- placed higher than him, how is that? I thought they only looked at +/-?

Nice try though. Sakic was an excellent two way player

 

[Davis21wylie]

The voters are swayed by reputations (deserved or not), +/-, offensive performance (oddly enough, for a defensive award), and any number of other factors. But all I can tell you is the scouting viewpoint at the time -- Sakic, good defensive F, smart backchecker, etc. But not the kind of dominant 2-way player that Forsberg/Fedorov/Modano were. It doesn't diminish Sakic in any way to say that, but claiming that Sakic was as complete a player talent-wise from 1998-2000 as those three was not the view held by the majority of the scouting community at the time.

 

[Dark Shadows]

The voters are swayed by reputations (deserved or not), +/-, offensive performance (oddly enough, for a defensive award), and any number of other factors. But all I can tell you is the scouting viewpoint at the time -- Sakic, good defensive F, smart backchecker, etc. But not the kind of dominant 2-way player that Forsberg/Fedorov/Modano were. It doesn't diminish Sakic in any way to say that, but claiming that Sakic was as complete a player talent-wise from 1998-2000 as those three was not the view held by the majority of the scouting community at the time.

That's funny. I seem to recall the NHL analysts and scouts calling Sakic a very good two way player, equal to Yzerman(The two were compared mercilessly all the time even to this day). Seems the awards voters who watched them play for a living agreed with them too.

And for the record, Modano was not a "Dominant" 2 way player. He is a step below the Yzerman's and Fedorov's, forsberg's, and yes, the Sakic's.

What you just said about Sakic being "good, but not dominant" applies far more to Modano than it ever could for Sakic.

The word "Dominant" can not ever be used in the same sentence as Modano. He is the epitome of great career, but with no real peaks to speak of. He had one year that was slightly above his average, but that is it.

 

[Blades of Glory]

Watch highlights of the 1999 and 2000 playoffs. Then you can appreciate him. You don't need anything else.f

 

[JCD]

The voters are swayed by reputations (deserved or not), +/-, offensive performance (oddly enough, for a defensive award), and any number of other factors. But all I can tell you is the scouting viewpoint at the time -- Sakic, good defensive F, smart backchecker, etc. But not the kind of dominant 2-way player that Forsberg/Fedorov/Modano were. It doesn't diminish Sakic in any way to say that, but claiming that Sakic was as complete a player talent-wise from 1998-2000 as those three was not the view held by the majority of the scouting community at the time.

You keep making claims that you know the opinions of the scouting community.

Please source this information.

Otherwise, you are just assuming that your opinion was universally held.

Considering Sakic was winning team MVPs over Forsberg (or are his teammates opinions not worth anything?), Lindros was winning Hart trophies and carrying a team to the Stanley Cup Finals in as late as 1997, Yzerman had matured into the defintitve two-way player (actually getting his name on a Selke... something Modano never did)... the facts seem to contradict your claim.

So, please give us the itemized opinion of scouts proving that the vast majority (you did claim ALL of them) all considered Modano, Forsberg and Fedorov to be better than Sakic, Yzerman and Lindros during the 90's.

 

[cupcrazyman]

i would pick him before Sergei Federov ,Pavel Bure,Eric Lindros & Rod Brindamour.

 

[Shareefruck]

I am not saying he was Avery but there was a reason Bowman almost traded him and that's because he was not buying into what Bowman wanted.

The Avery comment wasn't exactly directed toward you, just to be clear. But for the most part people completely exaggerate the problems he had back then.

I would hardly call 'not buying into what Bowman wanted' anywhere near 'attitude problems'. Bowman was asking him to change his game. That's a difficult thing to do for anyone. Yzerman was a classy hard-working guy from day one. His on-ice play style was the only problem back then.