Sakic vs. Yzerman- The Rebuttal

[rallymaster19]

If you think Yzerman would have hit over 130 points in 2003 in his prime, then you are deluding yourself.

He would still likely lead the league in scoring, but he would not score 130+ points.

I can see him topping out at the high 120's. I picked 130 because I just do not see him topping 130. Jagr's 127 point mark in the same era was what I consider equal to Yzerman's 155 point year.

So thinking Yzerman could have scored in “the high 120’s†is reasonable but to think he could have scored 130 is delusional?

Because that makes sense.

As if everyone who doesn’t subscribe to your theory is delusional? You go through my posts history, question why I seem to post on a single player almost exclusively (which is quite frankly none of your business), come to the conclusion that I am “fanatical†and assert that I am delusional because I think Yzerman could have scored 130 points in 2003. Meanwhile you think Yzerman could have scored at least 127 points but not more than 130 and aren’t delusional, are unbiased because you post on an Internet forum about a variety of players and have such intimate knowledge of important hockey figures to judge guys like Burke and Rutherford being inferior to certain others.

Perhaps you should proof-read your own posts before posting and cease the lousy advice to others.

You chose one of the highest GPG years in 80's history. not the highest, but the second highest. You should have been using the average, not cherry picking the highest scoring year to make it look worse. You also failed to adjust for league size. By rights, all arguments on how many 100 point scorers we would have need to be increased 30% based on the league being 30% larger(30 teams instead of 21). The average year in the 80's, we had 12 100+ point scorers. That number averages to 18 when bumped by a third as it should be for league size, and that is just the average. In some years, there were 16+ 100 point scorers(more if you adjust to 82 games, sometimes as high as 18), therefore, adjusting up 30% would make 24-26 100 point scorers.

What don’t you get about 1986 just being a year, any year? The results are posted as probabilities and the base year containing the second highest scoring on record or the second lowest on record is irrelevant. Even running numbers based on the 2009 season of 82 games and 5.83 GPG, with an adjustment in 100-point scorers based on league size (aka number of teams), it is still mathematically only 0.03% possible that only Gretzky could have scored 100 points in 3 different seasons in the 1980s, as the adjusted numbers tell you. Based on the 1986 base season numbers, with the additional adjustment for league size (# of teams), the probability of the number of 100-point scorers being as high as they are based on the adjusted stats from 1990-2009 is on average 0.398% per season, and as low as 0.000001336% for 2001.

Also, by the way, your interpretation is incorrect anyway. Because it is based on a 1986 season you are looking at, the 90s/2000s numbers should be adjusted down to 21 teams not 80s numbers adjusted up to 30 teams. I have accounted for this in my calculations above, and the games/season adjustment was already done.

We estimated 25 100 point scorers when it was done correctly for 2003. the number does not seem outrageous given the much larger league size, parity among teams, etc

No, you estimated 25 100-point scorers based on flawed logic that you intentionally used to support your argument. The correct number is 30.

P.S I think you have me mixed up with someone else. The only time I referenced the Hockey news in the Messier/Yzerman thread was their 1997 list which was a collection of much brighter minds than those who did the 2007 list. if you see a point when I raised the 2007 list, then link it. I need to see the argument in context to the discussion it was being used in.

My apologies then, I made the assumption you were referencing the THN Top 60 Since Expansion at that time and not the earlier list from 1997. As pointed out earlier by seventieslord, it is odd that you chose a ranking from 97 to support that Messier was better than Yzerman considering the two players’ timelines in the NHL.

I glance at everyone's posting history when I get into a long debate to see if they have external influences and bias that sway their opinions and make them unreachable. Your posting History being so small, and almost every post exclusively about Yzerman, sometimes with a borderline fanatical tone, along with your name suggests serious bias. If I remember correctly, you even made an account on this forum specifically because you were annoyed with the Messier vs Yzerman thread.

You have not shown interest in talking about almost anyone but Yzerman. The likelyhood that you are obviously a very fanatical Yzerman fan is almost overwhelming.

You will see no wrong where he is concerned and it affects your objectivity.

Somehow you are a great judge of character and without knowing a thing about me outside of a few posts I make on a public Internet forum, you have come to all these personal conclusions about myself. Really think about that.

You know nothing about me. Quit making these outrageous claims and stop posting garbage about others. You sound utterly foolish in your tone of voice.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

You know nothing about me. Quit making these outrageous claims and stop posting garbage about others. You sound utterly foolish in your tone of voice.

Not that I disagree with all of what you have contributed so far, but this bolded part is too much. This is your first post on this board:

"Unsupported claims have been all too persistent...

Unsupported claims have been all too persistent in this thread, as well as a real lack of quantifiable evidence suggesting Messier was indeed the better player. Thus I have created an account, and... "

That makes his assumption not unreasonable at all. I think you've done a good job supporting your case, and these guys will prove equally guilty of not changing their opinion, no matter what is submitted, when it comes to a few players (especially Sakic), so I don't know why DS elected to call you on that one. But there's really no need to lash out at him like that, as it doesn't make anyone look better.

Now that I've had my goodnight "smoke", and hopefully made some peace, I'll sign off with Forsberg>Yzerman>Sakic.

 

[Czech Your Math]

Let me first say that rallymaster has a great grasp on statistics.

However, I believe there is a faulty assumption underlying your analysis. As has already been partially pointed out, the European talent entering the league was not a typical mix of players. First, I'm sure there were a lot more forwards than goalies and defensemen. Second, a large fraction of the forwards were top end, elite forwards.

This is evidenced by their high placement in goals and points:

1993- Goals: 1,1,5,17
Points: 5,7,11,13

1994- G: 1,3
P: 2,5,9
A: 4,7,11

1995- G: 1,2,3,10,14
P: 1,3,8,14,14,19
A: 7,10,10,17,19

1996- G: 2,3,4,12,14,17,19
P: 2,5,7,9,9,13
A: 3,4,9,9,13

1997- G: 2,5,6,8,11,16
P: 2,6,7,8,11
A: 9,9,12,15,17

1998-
G: 1,1,3,5,9,10,10
P: 1,2,3,5,8,10,11,14,18
A: 1,3,5,9,15,18,18

1999- G: 1,2,2,7,13,13,15,17
P: 1,2,4,6,10,11,11
A: 1,2,4,10,10,12,14,15,20

2000- G: 1,4,9,11,11,11,16,16,18,19,19
P: 1,2,5,14,14,17,17
A: 3,4,4,7,15,18

2001- G: 1,3,4,5,6,7,7,10,10,15,19
P: 1,3,4,4,7,9,9,11,15,18,18,20
A: 1,3,6,9,9,13,13

2002-
G: 2,5,6,9,9,14,15,19,19,19
P: 2,4,5,7,11,12,17,19
A: 4,4,4,9,12,15,15,18

2003- G: 1,2,4,7,8,8,8,12,12,12,12,18,20
P: 1,2,4,6,10,12,14,15,15,17,19,19
A: 1,4,4,8,13,15,16,16,16,19,19

2004- G: 1,4,6,7,7,12,15,15,15,15,19,19
P: 2,4,5,6,7,9,12,12,15
A: 9,9,13,14,15,15,18,19,19

2006- G: 2,3,3,9,10,12,12,15,15,18
P: 2,3,4,8,11,13,13,15,17,20
A: 3,6,8,9,10,10,10,13,14,15,16,20,20

2007- G: 3,4,5,5,8,11,13,16
P: 6,8,11,13,14,15,15,18,19,19
A: 4,5,8,11,12,12,19

2008- G: 1,2,4,5,7,9,13,15,16,18,20,20
P: 1,2,4,6,9,10,11,12,20
A: 2,4,5,6,11,14,17

2009- G: 1,4,5,5,12,14,16,16
P: 1,2,4,6,9,13,13,18,20
A: 1,3,5,8,10,13,14,14,17,17

1993-2009, 16 seasons:

Assists- 5 1st, 13 top 3, 20 top 5, 58 top 10, 90 top 15, 113 top 20

Goals- 11 1st, 30 top 3, 48 top 5, 76 top 10, 107 top 15, 133 top 20

Points- 8 1st, 12 2nd, 24 top 3, 40 top 5, 70 top 10, 106 top 15, 126 top 20

If you start from 1995, about half of the players on each season's goal and point scoring lists are European. This is what is meant by an effective doubling of the elite forward talent pool.

As far as adjusted stats, they have flaws, but are much, much closer to approximating a player's offensive value than relying on actual points when comparing across eras. They might be off a bit in some cases (in either direction), but as posted earlier, if you look at players who were at or close to their prime in both the late 80s/early 90s and mid/late90s, you don't see any real sustained jump in production as one would expect if the numbers were inflated in the dead puck era. The period from 2002-2004 seems to have more abberations, and not exactly sure why that is.

Also, when reviewing the scoring lists of the '80s, there were plenty of 40-50+ goal scorers and 80-100+ point scorers that were flashes in the pan, players with more career than peak value (Gartner, Nieuwendyk, Ciccarelli, etc.), or just not that great.

 

[Dark Shadows]

So thinking Yzerman could have scored in “the high 120’s” is reasonable but to think he could have scored 130 is delusional?

Because that makes sense.

It actually makes perfect sense. Jagr's 127 point season was absolutely phenomenal. I consider it at least equal to or better than Yzerman's 155 point year. Yzerman, at his absolute best, I do not see breaking that mark. Especially given the restrictions he would face in the modern era(Icetime, etc) which I have already addressed.

As if everyone who doesn’t subscribe to your theory is delusional? You go through my posts history, question why I seem to post on a single player almost exclusively (which is quite frankly none of your business), come to the conclusion that I am “fanatical” and assert that I am delusional because I think Yzerman could have scored 130 points in 2003. Meanwhile you think Yzerman could have scored at least 127 points but not more than 130 and aren’t delusional, are unbiased because you post on an Internet forum about a variety of players and have such intimate knowledge of important hockey figures to judge guys like Burke and Rutherford being inferior to certain others.

Its completely my business since I am one who is debating with you and I now know it is unlikely that you are going to listen to anything that is not pro Yzerman.

What don’t you get about 1986 just being a year, any year? The results are posted as probabilities and the base year containing the second highest scoring on record or the second lowest on record is irrelevant. Even running numbers based on the 2009 season of 82 games and 5.83 GPG, with an adjustment in 100-point scorers based on league size (aka number of teams), it is still mathematically only 0.03% possible that only Gretzky could have scored 100 points in 3 different seasons in the 1980s, as the adjusted numbers tell you. Based on the 1986 base season numbers, with the additional adjustment for league size (# of teams), the probability of the number of 100-point scorers being as high as they are based on the adjusted stats from 1990-2009 is on average 0.398% per season, and as low as 0.000001336% for 2001.

The fact that using 86 instead of the 80's average throws off everything by 5-7 points in your favor? And you know this?

Also, by the way, your interpretation is incorrect anyway. Because it is based on a 1986 season you are looking at, the 90s/2000s numbers should be adjusted down to 21 teams not 80s numbers adjusted up to 30 teams. I have accounted for this in my calculations above, and the games/season adjustment was already done.

No, my interpretation is correct. We are deducing whether or not X many people could score 100 points in 2003 had it been a high scoring 80's year, therefore, we use 2003 as the target year and the average goals per game from 1971-80 to 1989-90, 7.6 goals per game(Yes, the 80's average, Not the 2nd high 7.94, which is throwing everything off 5-7 points), and their average games played(80) modern league size and all increasing the final results by 30% + unknown factors like modern parity.

Adjusted statistics are of coure, not perfect, but also not as flawed as you intentionally set out to make them look by skewing the numbers.

By the proper count, Anyone with 72 or more points would score over 100 points in the average 80's year goals per game. That means the top 25 scorers fit. Anyone with 71 or under does not fit.

Where I did mess up(It was late) was my averages which were off by a digit, which I correct now.

The average number of players to score 100 in the 80's was 12. Increase that by 30%, and you have an average 16. The highest scoring year had 16 100+ point scorers(More if you assume 82 games), but 16 increased by a 3rd is 21.

Its unlikely that we would see 25 100 point scorers, but the comparison of 25 vs 21 is much more likely than your original 40 vs 12 that you were trying to erroneously portray.

No, you estimated 25 100-point scorers based on flawed logic that you intentionally used to support your argument. The correct number is 30.

Nope. The method I used is correct.

My apologies then, I made the assumption you were referencing the THN Top 60 Since Expansion at that time and not the earlier list from 1997. As pointed out earlier by seventieslord, it is odd that you chose a ranking from 97 to support that Messier was better than Yzerman considering the two players’ timelines in the NHL.

Somehow you are a great judge of character and without knowing a thing about me outside of a few posts I make on a public Internet forum, you have come to all these personal conclusions about myself. Really think about that.

You know nothing about me. Quit making these outrageous claims and stop posting garbage about others. You sound utterly foolish in your tone of voice.

I know you made an account on this forum specifically because you were annoyed at the people claiming Messier was better than Yzerman.

I know that 76 of your 100 posts have been nothing but very hometown fan Yzerman defending and that little else on this forum has captured your attention if it were not Yzerman related, and that even your name has shades of Yzerman.

The tone of your posts, coupled with your hometown obsession points to lack of objectivity. Therefore, reducing your arguments in my eyes.
You could do a poll in the History section on Sakic vs Yzerman, and it would come up close. Do the same poll in the red wings section, and Its a guaranteed blowout for Yzerman. And that's the point.

 

[seventieslord]

Edit: one of the site admins informed me that posting entire articles was assumed to fall under copyright. I can only post small parts and then summarize the rest. The first set of articles were various teammates and players (Pang in Juniors, Hanlon, Trottier) , coaches (Dick Todd in Juniors, Demers, Murray, MacLaen, Keenan), GM's (Murray, Keenan), and writers praising various aspects of Yzerman's defensive play in general, as well as specifics on faceoffs and shotblocking.

As for the Canada Cup 1991 cuts, it seems like Keenan and Yzerman were saying in 1991 while Yzerman was being part of the taxi cab squad and then later cut, that he had a bad camp, perhaps because he was under the impression that he was personally guaranteed a spot under Alan Eagleson. Yzerman would later say that Eagleson "lied" to him about his situation and that he would have went into camp differently if he had known. Keenan cited a lack of "productivity" during camp, which seems like Yzerman was cut because he underperformed offensively.

Yzerman himself stated that he "always considered" himself a "decent two-way player" but only got noticed when he "stopped scoring" later on when asked about his transformation.




Agreed, and defense is much harder to quantify in any reasonable way than offense either. I'm just putting some support for my belief that Yzerman was fairly good defensively even in his offensive years other than just my word. If you want a game by game look, I posted the series synopsis of the 1992-1993 Western Conference Quarterfinals. Yzerman here played poorly offensively, at least in 4 of the 7 games, Gilmour doing a great job on him, but his defense was praised several times.

This was the thread: http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=593988

I think the playoffs angle might make sense though. Coffey for example played a lot more consistently defensively in the playoffs than in the regular season, especially with Pittsburgh.

Actually, that article stated he was leading in shorthanded goals in 1988 (from January of that year). I think that would be hard to do unless he was a consistent penalty killer that season.

Hmmm, then something weird was happening, because he was not getting scored on very much.

PPGA is usually a very good indicator for SHTOI.

 

[poise]

Hmmm, then something weird was happening, because he was not getting scored on very much.

PPGA is usually a very good indicator for SHTOI.

I took a look on hockey-reference. John Chabot (41) and Sean Burr (25) were the only forwards with more PPGA than Yzerman and both played nearly full seasons. Detroit was also one of the most stingy teams that season, well above average in penalty kill percentage and well below average in goals against in general.

Anyway shorthanded goals don't necessarily tell you anything about defensive play, though they do infer something about penalty kill ice time.

It seems likely that Yzerman who played very well in the 1987 playoffs, and broke out in 1987-1988 got played in every situation a lot more than before. The spike in his shorthanded goals from the year before attests to this. The relatively low PPGA could simply show that Detroit was playing a lot better defensively in 1987-1988 than the two years after, both which seem reasonable when you look back and recall the personnel problems those teams had after 1988.

 

[Fugu]

I know you made an account on this forum specifically because you were annoyed at the people claiming Messier was better than Yzerman.

I know that 76 of your 100 posts have been nothing but very hometown fan Yzerman defending and that little else on this forum has captured your attention if it were not Yzerman related, and that even your name has shades of Yzerman.

The tone of your posts, coupled with your hometown obsession points to lack of objectivity. Therefore, reducing your arguments in my eyes.
You could do a poll in the History section on Sakic vs Yzerman, and it would come up close. Do the same poll in the red wings section, and Its a guaranteed blowout for Yzerman. And that's the point.

Actually, why don't you do a poll in the Wings section? Fairly certain we had this debate a couple of years ago, and you would be surprised at how close the results were. Always a bad idea to generalize, or assume that all fans can only see the world through their own colors.

 

[seventieslord]

I took a look on hockey-reference. John Chabot (41) and Sean Burr (25) were the only forwards with more PPGA than Yzerman and both played nearly full seasons. Detroit was also one of the most stingy teams that season, well above average in penalty kill percentage and well below average in goals against in general.

Anyway shorthanded goals don't necessarily tell you anything about defensive play, though they do infer something about penalty kill ice time.

It seems likely that Yzerman who played very well in the 1987 playoffs, and broke out in 1987-1988 got played in every situation a lot more than before. The spike in his shorthanded goals from the year before attests to this. The relatively low PPGA could simply show that Detroit was playing a lot better defensively in 1987-1988 than the two years after, both which seem reasonable when you look back and recall the personnel problems those teams had after 1988.

True.

 

[habsjunkie2*]

I find it funny that you mentioned the Keenan link again. Especially since Keenan's reasons for leaving Yzerman off the Canada cup teams were his lack of defensive play.

But, I guess we are throwing these links out again.

Yzerman was not good defensively early in his career. He was average.There was a night and day difference between the Yzerman you saw post 95, and the Yzerman you saw putting up 100+ points. A million quotes which were contrast against the few quotes you brought up were brought up. The Keenen quote is particularly funny given how Keenan cut him from the 87 Canada cup team stating "We have enough offensive guys", and chose Sutter over him for the last center spot.




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

Keenan made a boneheaded choice by leaving Stevie Y off of team Canada. It was equal to Wayne Gretzky leaving out Sidney Crosby.

This was a not a knock on Yzerman defensive zone play at all. He was a very very good defensive player.

 

[habsjunkie2*]

A few of the articles are very ambiguous(We needs links as well). Several are from the late 90's and people talking after the fact in the "I always knew this" sort of manner. Even Keenan, who vehemently kept Yzerman off team Canada because "we have enough offensive guys".

This wasn't the only time Keenan left Yzerman off a Canadian team, but in no way was it the right choice either time.