Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 7
- Thread starter quoipourquoi
- Start date
vadim sharifijanov
Registered User
- Oct 10, 2007
- 28,779
- 16,224
those demers-coached peak yzerman wings team went to back to back campbells finals, one of those times without him even. they weren’t terrible at all.
BenchBrawl
Registered User
- Jul 26, 2010
- 30,880
- 13,671
I feel Trottier has a better playoff resume and a better peak than Yzerman, so Stevie Y over Trottier is a tough sell.
Kyle McMahon
Registered User
- May 10, 2006
- 13,301
- 4,353
Bill Cook
A run-down of all playoff games in which Bill Cook played, as taken from The Trail of the Stanley Cup.
1925
Saskatoon lost two game/total goals series to Victoria, 6-4. Cook was held scoreless. Frank Fredrickson and Jack Walker are credited as the stars of the series.
1926
It was Saskatoon and Victoria again in the WCHL semi-final. This time Cook scored two goals, but Victoria won the second game in OT to win the round 4-3 in total goals.
1927
Cook's first season with the Rangers. They lost the two game/total goals semi-final to Boston, 3-1. Cook scored New York's only goal of the series.
1928
New York defeated Pittsburgh 6-4 in goals in the first round. Cook had an assist; the Bread Line was said to have been all over the Pirates in the first game, a 4-0 blowout.
The score was 5-2 Rangers in the two-game semi final against Boston. Cook had an assist on the lone NY goal in the first game, and scored the go-ahead goal in the second game. Frank Boucher was credited as the driving force for the Rangers.
The entire final against the Maroons was played in Montreal due to the circus taking over Madison Square Garden. It was said that "the Cook brothers and Boucher were dazzling" in Game 1, but Montreal won 2-0. Game 2 gave rise to perhaps the most incredible moment in NHL history when NY coach Lester Patrick had to replace injured Lorne Chabot in goal for the final two periods plus OT. Cook scored in regulation for NY, who won 2-1 in OT.
The only mention of Cook in Game 3, a 2-0 Maroons win, is that he picked up a severe charley horse. It was questionable whether he would be able to play in Game 4, but indeed he did, setting up the only goal of the game to win 1-0. New York hung on for a 2-1 win in the decisive Game 5 to win the Cup. Frank Boucher had both goals. It seems Cook perhaps picked up a misconduct in this game (12 PIM according to the NHL website's box scores), but it is not mentioned in this book.
1929
No points for Cook in the first round against the Americans, which produced 0-0 and 1-0 score lines. The semi-final against Toronto was little different, the Rangers defeating Toronto 1-0 and 2-1. No points again for Cook, although his two linemates scored the two NY goals in the second game. The Stanley Cup Final was reduced to a best-of-three this year; NY lost 2-0 and 2-1 to the Bruins. Overall this seems to be a forgettable playoff for Cook, with little mention of his actual play, good or bad. This year was the nadir of offense in the NHL playoffs. Three players tied for the league lead with three total points.
1930
Cook had an assist in New York's 6-3 total goals win over Ottawa. Notable that Frank Boucher was out injured for the first game (1-1), but returned for the second game (5-2 win). The Rangers were shut down in the semi-final against the Canadiens, scoring just one goal in a 2-0 series loss. Substitute players had all the goals for both teams in this series.
1931
Cook finally got back onto the scoresheet, scoring three goals as the Rangers easily defeated the Maroons 8-1 total goals in the opening round. Chicago's Charlie Gardiner then shut the Rangers out in both games of the semi-final. It is mentioned that the Bread Line saw a large amount of ice time, but Chicago coach Dick Irvin rolled his lines continuosly to wear them out.
1932
First place NY played a best-of-five against the Canadiens for a spot in the Final. The Bread Line traded goals with Montreal's Morenz line in the playoff opener, a 4-3 Habs win, Cook scoring twice. Bun Cook evened the series with an OT winner in Game 2. Bill had an assist in this game, and it was more likely than not that it was on this goal. It is supposed that the starting players were tired after the hour long OT in the previous game, and none were notable in NY's 1-0 win in Game 3. Cook scored again in Game 4 as NY won the series.
The Rangers got swamped by Toronto in the Final, allowing 6 goals against in all three games. John Ross Roach's play in net was considered poor. The Bread Line produced 7 of the 10 Ranger goals, though Cook is only credited with two assists.
1933
The Bread Line had a decided advantage over the Morenz/Joliat line in the two-game first round, producing three goals in an opening game win that put NY in control of the series, which they eventually won 8-5 on goals.
In the semi-final against Detroit, Cook went pointless. Ching Johnson and the secondary players are given most of the praise in this series.
Cook assisted on one goal as the Rangers were all over a tired Leafs team in Game 1 of the Final. The Rangers took Game 2 by a 3-1 score, and it is stated that Bill Cook was the best all-around player. After Toronto fought off elimination in Game 3, Cook scored the OT winner on a two-man advantge in Game 4 to give NY the Stanley Cup.
1934
The Rangers fell in the opeing round, 2-1 on goals against the Maroons. It is said that the Cook's and Boucher played well, but were foiled repeatedly by Dave Kerr's brilliant goaltending in the Montreal net.
1935
NY played the Canadiens in the opeing round. Bill Cook was knocked out of the game after being cracked over the head with a stick, precipitating a bench-clearing brawl. After being stitched back together, he returned to the ice to score the winning goal. The Rangers again got a big effort from their second line, and held on to win the series with a 4-4 tie in the second game.
Cook set up his brother Bun for the only Rangers goal in a 2-1 loss to the Maroons to open the semi-final (which was now a two game/total goals series as well). Cook had another assist on another goal from Bun Cook, but NY could only draw 3-3 and lost the series by a goal.
This concludes Bill Cook's playoff career. I'll post my thoughts below to keep this from being too huge of a post.
A run-down of all playoff games in which Bill Cook played, as taken from The Trail of the Stanley Cup.
1925
Saskatoon lost two game/total goals series to Victoria, 6-4. Cook was held scoreless. Frank Fredrickson and Jack Walker are credited as the stars of the series.
1926
It was Saskatoon and Victoria again in the WCHL semi-final. This time Cook scored two goals, but Victoria won the second game in OT to win the round 4-3 in total goals.
1927
Cook's first season with the Rangers. They lost the two game/total goals semi-final to Boston, 3-1. Cook scored New York's only goal of the series.
1928
New York defeated Pittsburgh 6-4 in goals in the first round. Cook had an assist; the Bread Line was said to have been all over the Pirates in the first game, a 4-0 blowout.
The score was 5-2 Rangers in the two-game semi final against Boston. Cook had an assist on the lone NY goal in the first game, and scored the go-ahead goal in the second game. Frank Boucher was credited as the driving force for the Rangers.
The entire final against the Maroons was played in Montreal due to the circus taking over Madison Square Garden. It was said that "the Cook brothers and Boucher were dazzling" in Game 1, but Montreal won 2-0. Game 2 gave rise to perhaps the most incredible moment in NHL history when NY coach Lester Patrick had to replace injured Lorne Chabot in goal for the final two periods plus OT. Cook scored in regulation for NY, who won 2-1 in OT.
The only mention of Cook in Game 3, a 2-0 Maroons win, is that he picked up a severe charley horse. It was questionable whether he would be able to play in Game 4, but indeed he did, setting up the only goal of the game to win 1-0. New York hung on for a 2-1 win in the decisive Game 5 to win the Cup. Frank Boucher had both goals. It seems Cook perhaps picked up a misconduct in this game (12 PIM according to the NHL website's box scores), but it is not mentioned in this book.
1929
No points for Cook in the first round against the Americans, which produced 0-0 and 1-0 score lines. The semi-final against Toronto was little different, the Rangers defeating Toronto 1-0 and 2-1. No points again for Cook, although his two linemates scored the two NY goals in the second game. The Stanley Cup Final was reduced to a best-of-three this year; NY lost 2-0 and 2-1 to the Bruins. Overall this seems to be a forgettable playoff for Cook, with little mention of his actual play, good or bad. This year was the nadir of offense in the NHL playoffs. Three players tied for the league lead with three total points.
1930
Cook had an assist in New York's 6-3 total goals win over Ottawa. Notable that Frank Boucher was out injured for the first game (1-1), but returned for the second game (5-2 win). The Rangers were shut down in the semi-final against the Canadiens, scoring just one goal in a 2-0 series loss. Substitute players had all the goals for both teams in this series.
1931
Cook finally got back onto the scoresheet, scoring three goals as the Rangers easily defeated the Maroons 8-1 total goals in the opening round. Chicago's Charlie Gardiner then shut the Rangers out in both games of the semi-final. It is mentioned that the Bread Line saw a large amount of ice time, but Chicago coach Dick Irvin rolled his lines continuosly to wear them out.
1932
First place NY played a best-of-five against the Canadiens for a spot in the Final. The Bread Line traded goals with Montreal's Morenz line in the playoff opener, a 4-3 Habs win, Cook scoring twice. Bun Cook evened the series with an OT winner in Game 2. Bill had an assist in this game, and it was more likely than not that it was on this goal. It is supposed that the starting players were tired after the hour long OT in the previous game, and none were notable in NY's 1-0 win in Game 3. Cook scored again in Game 4 as NY won the series.
The Rangers got swamped by Toronto in the Final, allowing 6 goals against in all three games. John Ross Roach's play in net was considered poor. The Bread Line produced 7 of the 10 Ranger goals, though Cook is only credited with two assists.
1933
The Bread Line had a decided advantage over the Morenz/Joliat line in the two-game first round, producing three goals in an opening game win that put NY in control of the series, which they eventually won 8-5 on goals.
In the semi-final against Detroit, Cook went pointless. Ching Johnson and the secondary players are given most of the praise in this series.
Cook assisted on one goal as the Rangers were all over a tired Leafs team in Game 1 of the Final. The Rangers took Game 2 by a 3-1 score, and it is stated that Bill Cook was the best all-around player. After Toronto fought off elimination in Game 3, Cook scored the OT winner on a two-man advantge in Game 4 to give NY the Stanley Cup.
1934
The Rangers fell in the opeing round, 2-1 on goals against the Maroons. It is said that the Cook's and Boucher played well, but were foiled repeatedly by Dave Kerr's brilliant goaltending in the Montreal net.
1935
NY played the Canadiens in the opeing round. Bill Cook was knocked out of the game after being cracked over the head with a stick, precipitating a bench-clearing brawl. After being stitched back together, he returned to the ice to score the winning goal. The Rangers again got a big effort from their second line, and held on to win the series with a 4-4 tie in the second game.
Cook set up his brother Bun for the only Rangers goal in a 2-1 loss to the Maroons to open the semi-final (which was now a two game/total goals series as well). Cook had another assist on another goal from Bun Cook, but NY could only draw 3-3 and lost the series by a goal.
This concludes Bill Cook's playoff career. I'll post my thoughts below to keep this from being too huge of a post.
Kyle McMahon
Registered User
- May 10, 2006
- 13,301
- 4,353
Bill Cook Part 2
Conclusions:
Any reputation Cook has for being suspect in the playoffs is almost assuredly derived from the 1929 and 1930 playoffs, where he had just one point in 10 games. As we discussed when Morenz was being examined a few rounds ago, the NHL playoffs were simply a strange animal in this era. Weird formats, frequent long OT sessions on deteriorating ice, and final scores that resembled soccer games. Cook wasn't the only star player with an ugly looking stat line from the late 20's/early 30's. I'm not advocating a "free pass" for these years, but I am inclined to give some leeway.
Outside of those two seasons, his play seems to range from good to great. Timely goal scoring, and two instances of battling through injury to help lift his team to victory. There is no mention of outright poor play, and despite being a physical presence, Cook's penalty totals were usually low. In the years where they were high, it is nowhere stated that he hurt his team, so these high-PIM playoffs are perhaps mainly the result of fights/coincidental penalty situations.
The one knock on Cook is that his center Frank Boucher is almost invariably portrayed as the straw that stirred the drink. While I still like Cook as a potential inductee to the list this round, it does seem a little inconsistent with history that he would make the list before Boucher is available for discussion.
I'll make no bones about it; I think Boucher is historically underrated. I have him comfortably ahead of Steve Yzerman, and feel he is no worse than an equal of Joe Sakic. And I do have him ahead of Bill Cook as well. But in spite of this, I'm not going to hold Cook back just because Boucher is unavailable. Boucher>Cook is afterall just one man's (mine) opinion among many. I think Cook is a viable top-half candidate in this round, and close examination of his playoffs does not hurt his case in my estimation.
Cook in comparison to other candidates:
Cyclone Taylor: I have Taylor ahead, and I'd need to hear a very compelling case to overturn that opinion. Cook was simply not described as a perpetual MVP-level player the way Taylor was in the PCHA.
Newsy Lalonde: An all-encompassing post on Lalonde similar to the one for Taylor from last round is forthcoming. I'll draw conclusions after the research is presented.
Martin Brodeur: Like Cook, he was a key part of a strong team that won multiple Cups. While I do think Marty perhaps takes a slight back seat to Stevens in the Devils' glory years, I likewise feel Cook does to Boucher. And Brodeur has a lot of meat on the bone outside the Stevens years. Marty is ahead.
Terry Sawchuk: No strong opinion here right now. Sawchuk's inconsistency is an issue, but I believe he was no less important to Detroit in the 50's than Cook was to the Rangers.
Mike Bossy: Cook's physical/all-around qualities give him an advantage in one regard. But Bossy was by no means soft or poor defensively; or at least I've never seen it suggested. Playoffs is in Bossy's favour, but I don't think it's an overwhelming gap either. Undecided.
Bryan Trottier: By all accounts, these two had a similar playing style. Trottier played a lot longer, but I don't think he was an elite player for longer than Cook. If Cook is going to get docked some points for some questionable playoffs, it's fair to do the same to Trottier outside of the dynasty years. I believe Trottier edges out Cook for peak value. Leaning Trottier.
Ted Lindsay: If we're wondering about the Gordie Howe effect on Terrible Ted, it's fair to wonder about the Boucher effect on Cook. A closer look at Lindsay is warranted before drawing conclusions, but one thing I'll say now is that his playoff goal scoring outside of years as peak Howe's winger looks very weak.
Joe Sakic: Sakic's longevity as a top-end player starts to carry weight at this stage. Like Trottier, I believe he brings slightly higher peak value to the table than Cook. Two superb Cup-winning runs where he was easily his team's best forward gives him a playoff edge over Cook. Bill was a much better goal scorer than Joe. Leaning Sakic.
Steve Yzerman: A lot of the same things apply to Yzerman as they do to Sakic. One difference is that I do think Cook's goal-driven Art Ross winning season gives him a bit of an edge on Yzerman in peak play. And unlike Sakic, Yzerman doesn't quite have a playoff like 2001 where he really had to carry the mail (though 1998 was certainly great). I'd say Cook and Yzerman are fairly level in a playoff comparison. Leaning Cook.
Larry Robinson: I'll let other make the case for Robinson, as it seems many are already touting him as a good candidate for election in this round. Undecided.
Conclusions:
Any reputation Cook has for being suspect in the playoffs is almost assuredly derived from the 1929 and 1930 playoffs, where he had just one point in 10 games. As we discussed when Morenz was being examined a few rounds ago, the NHL playoffs were simply a strange animal in this era. Weird formats, frequent long OT sessions on deteriorating ice, and final scores that resembled soccer games. Cook wasn't the only star player with an ugly looking stat line from the late 20's/early 30's. I'm not advocating a "free pass" for these years, but I am inclined to give some leeway.
Outside of those two seasons, his play seems to range from good to great. Timely goal scoring, and two instances of battling through injury to help lift his team to victory. There is no mention of outright poor play, and despite being a physical presence, Cook's penalty totals were usually low. In the years where they were high, it is nowhere stated that he hurt his team, so these high-PIM playoffs are perhaps mainly the result of fights/coincidental penalty situations.
The one knock on Cook is that his center Frank Boucher is almost invariably portrayed as the straw that stirred the drink. While I still like Cook as a potential inductee to the list this round, it does seem a little inconsistent with history that he would make the list before Boucher is available for discussion.
I'll make no bones about it; I think Boucher is historically underrated. I have him comfortably ahead of Steve Yzerman, and feel he is no worse than an equal of Joe Sakic. And I do have him ahead of Bill Cook as well. But in spite of this, I'm not going to hold Cook back just because Boucher is unavailable. Boucher>Cook is afterall just one man's (mine) opinion among many. I think Cook is a viable top-half candidate in this round, and close examination of his playoffs does not hurt his case in my estimation.
Cook in comparison to other candidates:
Cyclone Taylor: I have Taylor ahead, and I'd need to hear a very compelling case to overturn that opinion. Cook was simply not described as a perpetual MVP-level player the way Taylor was in the PCHA.
Newsy Lalonde: An all-encompassing post on Lalonde similar to the one for Taylor from last round is forthcoming. I'll draw conclusions after the research is presented.
Martin Brodeur: Like Cook, he was a key part of a strong team that won multiple Cups. While I do think Marty perhaps takes a slight back seat to Stevens in the Devils' glory years, I likewise feel Cook does to Boucher. And Brodeur has a lot of meat on the bone outside the Stevens years. Marty is ahead.
Terry Sawchuk: No strong opinion here right now. Sawchuk's inconsistency is an issue, but I believe he was no less important to Detroit in the 50's than Cook was to the Rangers.
Mike Bossy: Cook's physical/all-around qualities give him an advantage in one regard. But Bossy was by no means soft or poor defensively; or at least I've never seen it suggested. Playoffs is in Bossy's favour, but I don't think it's an overwhelming gap either. Undecided.
Bryan Trottier: By all accounts, these two had a similar playing style. Trottier played a lot longer, but I don't think he was an elite player for longer than Cook. If Cook is going to get docked some points for some questionable playoffs, it's fair to do the same to Trottier outside of the dynasty years. I believe Trottier edges out Cook for peak value. Leaning Trottier.
Ted Lindsay: If we're wondering about the Gordie Howe effect on Terrible Ted, it's fair to wonder about the Boucher effect on Cook. A closer look at Lindsay is warranted before drawing conclusions, but one thing I'll say now is that his playoff goal scoring outside of years as peak Howe's winger looks very weak.
Joe Sakic: Sakic's longevity as a top-end player starts to carry weight at this stage. Like Trottier, I believe he brings slightly higher peak value to the table than Cook. Two superb Cup-winning runs where he was easily his team's best forward gives him a playoff edge over Cook. Bill was a much better goal scorer than Joe. Leaning Sakic.
Steve Yzerman: A lot of the same things apply to Yzerman as they do to Sakic. One difference is that I do think Cook's goal-driven Art Ross winning season gives him a bit of an edge on Yzerman in peak play. And unlike Sakic, Yzerman doesn't quite have a playoff like 2001 where he really had to carry the mail (though 1998 was certainly great). I'd say Cook and Yzerman are fairly level in a playoff comparison. Leaning Cook.
Larry Robinson: I'll let other make the case for Robinson, as it seems many are already touting him as a good candidate for election in this round. Undecided.
That's a really impressive group of centers who all peaked pretty well.
If anything it's a plus for Yzerman.
Kyle McMahon
Registered User
- May 10, 2006
- 13,301
- 4,353
I'd imagine much Cook's playoff career coinciding time-wise with the opening of the season for Babe Ruth's Yankees is going to hurt coverage. That said, the Rangers seem to have been extremely popular, selling out MSG for playoff games at times. So perhaps there will be some good nuggets to be discovered.
in the period 88-94, yzerman is 3rd in points and points/game to gretzky and lemieux (ahead of 4th place robitaille by almost 100), 2nd in goals to hull. in 89 he's 3rd in scoring behind those 2, in 90 he's 3rd behind gretzky and peak, hart-winning messier. pretty impressive to me....... btw and fwiw he was +109 over that span, maybe that doesn't mean he was great defensively at that point but clearly an effective even-strength player.
BenchBrawl
Registered User
- Jul 26, 2010
- 30,880
- 13,671
First, good posts.
I've been saying this since last round; I wish Frank Boucher was there at the same time as Bill Cook.Frank Boucher was seen as an elite talent and one of the greatest center of all-time, and appears to have easily outdone Cook in the playoffs.I agree he is historically underrated.
I also agree statistics from this era should be taken with a grain of salt.It's entirely possible Bill Cook played out of his mind if we read the game descriptions despite his lack of points.We need good newspapers coverage to get to the bottom of this.
Last edited:
MXD
Original #4
- Oct 27, 2005
- 50,797
- 16,540
That's the kind of argument I'd make if I wanted to make Yzerman look good, but I'm in the business of assessing players instead of selling them.
Captain Bowie
Registered User
- Jan 18, 2012
- 27,139
- 4,414
I don't see how. Not saying is a HUGE negative but even without 2 of the big 4 he still finished behind a variety of players, from top 30 all-time (Messier) to won't be considered for the list (LaFontaine, Roenick, Savard).
Trottier had similar competition during his offensive peak; Dionne, Gretzky, Nilsson, Federko, Stastny and came out with 2 x AS1 and an AS2
Sakic competed against Lemieux, Forsberg, Modano, Yzerman, Fedorov, Sundin, Thornton and came out with 3 AS1's.
MXD
Original #4
- Oct 27, 2005
- 50,797
- 16,540
And count me in on the "Boucher is underrated" train. I think Cook is legit the better player (Boucher feels like a rich-man Joe Primeau, and that's kind of a backhanded compliment to a certain extent), but I must admit that I didn't like at all the gap I ended up putting between him and Steve Yzerman or even Frank Nighbor (it's not the same kind of gap)
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
- Jan 16, 2005
- 9,144
- 14,451
If we pretend Gretzky and Lemieux didn't exist (and keep everything else the same), Yzerman's all-star finishes would be:
1988 - 2nd to Savard's 131 point season
1989 - 1st
1990 - 2nd to Messier's Hart season
1991 - 3rd to Oates and Sakic
1992 - 4th to Messier (his second Hart season), Roenick, and LaFontaine
1993 - 4th to LaFontaine, Gilmour and Oates
1999 - 6th to Forsberg, Yashin, Lindros, Sakic and Modano
2000 - 1st
If we do the same exercise for Sakic:
1991 - 2nd to Oates
1995 - 4th to Lindros, Zhamnov and Francis
1996 - 3rd to Lindros and Messier
1999 - 4th to Forsberg, Yashin and Lindros
2000 - 3rd to Yzerman and Modano
2001 - 1st
2002 - 1st
2004 - 1st
2006 - 6th to Thornton, Staal, Crosby, Datsyuk and Richards
2007 - 4th to Crosby, Lecavalier and Thornton
And for Trottier:
1978 - 1st
1979 - 1st
1980 - 3rd to Dionne and Perreault
1981 - 2nd to Dionne
1982 - 1st
1984 - 1st
Yzerman (with Gretzky removed) certainly looks better, but not as good as I thought. He has two firsts and two seconds against some stiff competition. But he has a big lull from 1994 onwards (until his late-career surge).
Sakic looks great. It's true that he only got 1st team nods during a period of weaker top-end talent (the the two other finalists those years were Sundin twice, half a season of Lemieux, Ron Francis, Doug Weight, and Joe Thornton during that weird year of regression between 2003 and 2006). On the other hand, I think he may have been underrated in the voting - it's hard to imagine him finishing behind Zhamnov and Francis in 1995, and he arguably should have been named the top centre in the league (aside from Lemieux) in 1996. Still, great consistency - he finished in the top four, nine times in a span of sixteen seasons.
Trottier (with Gretzky removed) looks fantastic, with four first-team selections and a runner-up in the span of seven years. But, as we all know, lack of longevity (as a star player) hurts. He got a smattering of votes in 1986, but really everything was achieved at his peak from 1978 to 1984.
vadim sharifijanov
Registered User
- Oct 10, 2007
- 28,779
- 16,224
an yzerman post from two yrs ago by me—
this is where talking about young yzerman is interesting to me. i started watching hockey in the late 80s, but i was 7-9 years old so who the hell knows what i thought i was watching. but what i do know/remember with some degree of certainty is "the temperature of the room," so to speak. in '88 or '89 if you asked me or anyone else who the third best player in the world was, the answer would be yzerman, almost unquestionably. and the answer would remain yzerman in '90 and '91, but with successively less certainty.
a contemporary analogy: looking at the era between the lockouts, let's pretend crosby is gretzky and ovechkin is mario, and that both guys are healthy and beyond generational and killing not just their peers but their historical competition year in, year out. that's your clear top two of the era between lockouts. so yzerman would be malkin, the guy that basically everyone acknowledges is the third best player. messier is in the conversation as your "toews-tangibles" option, obviously louder starting in 1990, and then hull starting in '90 as your stats-y/"omg goals" stamkos corollary.
but then i go back and look at his hart voting and his stats and it's not as impressive as i would have guessed, going by his rep at the time. that suggests to me that either his rep was inflated, relative to hawerchuk, savard, stastny, and the other elite scoring centers (savard vs. yzerman in '88 seems like a legit question to ask), or that the rep is right and for whatever reason(s) the stats and award voting is deceiving. which one is true, i don't know.
but anyway, going by what i remember being the "temperature of the room," his hart record of 4, 3, 7, x, 7, 8 and scoring finishes of 12 (4th in PPG), 3, 3, 7, 7, 4 surprises me. by reputation, late 80s/early 90s yzerman should have been winning multiple harts and art rosses in a gretzky/mario-less league. as it stands, just the one year.
EDIT: getting to my real point here, what i suspect might be happening in this thread, though, is an overcorrect on yzerman. as time goes by, i don't think we all necessarily remember the esteem peak yzerman was held in. he'd left dionne, perreault, stastny, savard, and hawerchuk and those guys behind. but i don't think he was quite as good as how some are making him out to be in this thread.
this is where talking about young yzerman is interesting to me. i started watching hockey in the late 80s, but i was 7-9 years old so who the hell knows what i thought i was watching. but what i do know/remember with some degree of certainty is "the temperature of the room," so to speak. in '88 or '89 if you asked me or anyone else who the third best player in the world was, the answer would be yzerman, almost unquestionably. and the answer would remain yzerman in '90 and '91, but with successively less certainty.
a contemporary analogy: looking at the era between the lockouts, let's pretend crosby is gretzky and ovechkin is mario, and that both guys are healthy and beyond generational and killing not just their peers but their historical competition year in, year out. that's your clear top two of the era between lockouts. so yzerman would be malkin, the guy that basically everyone acknowledges is the third best player. messier is in the conversation as your "toews-tangibles" option, obviously louder starting in 1990, and then hull starting in '90 as your stats-y/"omg goals" stamkos corollary.
but then i go back and look at his hart voting and his stats and it's not as impressive as i would have guessed, going by his rep at the time. that suggests to me that either his rep was inflated, relative to hawerchuk, savard, stastny, and the other elite scoring centers (savard vs. yzerman in '88 seems like a legit question to ask), or that the rep is right and for whatever reason(s) the stats and award voting is deceiving. which one is true, i don't know.
but anyway, going by what i remember being the "temperature of the room," his hart record of 4, 3, 7, x, 7, 8 and scoring finishes of 12 (4th in PPG), 3, 3, 7, 7, 4 surprises me. by reputation, late 80s/early 90s yzerman should have been winning multiple harts and art rosses in a gretzky/mario-less league. as it stands, just the one year.
EDIT: getting to my real point here, what i suspect might be happening in this thread, though, is an overcorrect on yzerman. as time goes by, i don't think we all necessarily remember the esteem peak yzerman was held in. he'd left dionne, perreault, stastny, savard, and hawerchuk and those guys behind. but i don't think he was quite as good as how some are making him out to be in this thread.
Looking strictly at Sakic vs Yzerman - this is precisely why i don't like All star selections as a criteria to compare players. I try very hard not to show bias in my thinking - but i'm going to be slightly nostalgic here and say how strong i feel the centers were in Yzerman's era (towards his peak). Not all all star selections are created equal.
1993 is a good example - Yzerman finishes 4th (5th with Lemieux). Lafontaine, Gilmour and Oates all had all-time great offensive seasons. I think Yzerman's 4th (or 5th) place finish here is an extremely strong one.
2002 - Sakic finishes 1st. He had 79 points in 80 games (down from 118 the year before). 2nd place finish was Sundin (80 points in 82 games).
2004 - Sakic finishes 1st again. 87 points in 81 games. Sundin again finishes 2nd - 75 points in 81 games.
Yzerman 1993 >> Sakic in 2002, or 2004. But the AS selections say otherwise.
MXD
Original #4
- Oct 27, 2005
- 50,797
- 16,540
... This part is... 100% true.
The missing info, and I'm not blaming you here by the way since it was in no way in the purview of your post, is that there has ALSO been a serious correction on all of these players.
The Macho King
Back* to Back** World Champion
- Jun 22, 2011
- 48,756
- 29,246
I feel like there's some fetishization of Yzerman for a few different reasons. One - he has a good narrative for being a leader/team guy (turned into a two-way forward, led his team to a quasi-dynasty with two-way play, etc.). And that narrative sounds good when we're talking about him in the 90s/00s conversation, but look at his competition here. We're comparing him to one of the leaders of an impressive dynasty that set the record for consecutive playoff series wins, a contemporary who was close but clearly ahead of him, the top defenseman of arguably the greatest dynasty of all-time, etc. He probably isn't out of place in this round (even if I think it may be a vote early for him), but he also doesn't really stand out in it.
Nick Hansen
Registered User
- Sep 28, 2017
- 3,122
- 2,652
What does the fact that the president couldn't pronounce his name correctly do for his star power?
DannyGallivan
Your world frightens and confuses me
I've always admired Yzerman's very real skill. Man, he could handle the puck, and he had great offensive instincts. He racked up his 100-point seasons without a lot of assistance, really. kinda like Hawerchuk in Winnipeg. However, after he blew his knee out against the goal post, Yzerman developed similar defensive instincts while still maintaining his offensive side (although to a lesser degree). His two-way play and leadership help put him over the top. Does he make my top five this round... close, but likely no cigar. Yet, I think he deserves all the accolades given to him.
I see Yzerman as just missing out on the final spot during this round of voting.
The Macho King
Back* to Back** World Champion
- Jun 22, 2011
- 48,756
- 29,246
I'll put it like this - I think - depending on how you rank players of various positions - Yzerman could be top 5 in this round if you go very C heavy. I don't see an argument for him over Sakic as their careers overlapped a ton, and I think the only argument Yzerman has on Trottier is longevity, but if you put him behind them and discount Taylor - eh, I could see him sliding in fifth.
VanIslander
A 19-year ATDer on HfBoards
Go C heavy?
I try to ignore positions when making assessments.
Who knows how the final list will shake out. Every roubd of inductions have been a bit surprising. That should only intensify as we look at lesser greats.
Just list the best comparatively and let things fall as they may.
I try to ignore positions when making assessments.
Who knows how the final list will shake out. Every roubd of inductions have been a bit surprising. That should only intensify as we look at lesser greats.
Just list the best comparatively and let things fall as they may.
I'm just going to do a mind-dump of various Yzerman related opinions I have that I think often get glossed over (in general, not necessarily on HoH). These are more "on the margins" things that I think might have some impact on his legacy. Basically, I want to try and flesh out the "Yzerman sacrificed offense for defense" narrative.
1. First, a con. Yzerman's health and age played a significant role in his diminished offense. The short narrative of Yzerman's career says that he sacrificed offense for defense. There's some truth to that, but that gives Yzerman a little too much credit for the switch. The reality is, starting around '95, Yzerman's body just couldn't do the same things it could during his offensive prime. Even when he had offensive opportunities, he wasn't converting them at the rate he converted in his youth. He just wasn't as fast, he wasn't as strong, and he wasn't as shifty. This is perfectly natural, but I think it often gets whitewashed a bit by the "switch to defense" narrative, which makes it sound like all of Yzerman's decreased offense was by choice.
2. On the flip side, I don't think the "leadership" aspect of his defensive focus gets enough credit. There's no doubt Yzerman became a much better defensive player on an individual level. But Selke-level Yzerman doesn't win the Wings three Cups. Instead, it was the fact that the rest of the team followed Yzerman's lead. When his teammates saw Yzerman start doing things like this, you better believe they followed suit.
That's an Al Freakin' MacInnis slapshot he's throwing his body in front of. Yzerman started doing that regularly in '96, and a good 8 or 9 Wings forwards (including stars like Shanahan) followed suit. Similarly, when Yzerman made it clear he was going to follow Bowman's defensive system, his teammates lined up behind him. This was very much a run and gun team in the early 90's, and if Yzerman hadn't bought in, there's no way Bowman sells that team on the left wing lock (see, e.g., the early 90's Penguins for a leader and team which didn't want Bowman's preferred play-style).
3. Leadership, Pt 2. It wasn't just defensive responsibilities Yzerman bought into, he also led the way in accepting Bowman's line juggling and ice time. Bowman never met a line he couldn't tinker with (Yzerman-Shanahan-Fedorov regularly dominated, but were used infrequently, the Russian 5 tore things up, but didn't last a full season as a regular unit). And not just linemates, but ice time would randomly change from game to game. It wasn't all that rare to see Kris Draper having the almost as much, if not more, ice time than Yzerman or Fedorov. Bowman was all about rolling four lines as much as possible, and all about trying to get every player ready to play with every other player on a moment's notice. Bowman was playing the long game, and was willing to sacrifice his players' egos and his teams' short term success in order to build a playoff-ready beast. And once again, Yzerman proclaimed Bowman's way was the way it was going to be.
The ice time buy-in was particularly huge, because the reality was, the Avalanche (most notably, but not exclusively) had higher end talent that could beat the Wings if they tried to play them straight up strength versus strength. The Wings succeeded based on their depth and system. Yzerman might not beat Sakic head to head, and Fedorov might not beat Forsberg, but Yzerman-Fedorov-Larionov-Draper rolling out in a steady, even, succession could eventually overwhelm them.
4. Leadership, Pt. 3. Yzerman was also a quiet force in ensuring the Wings European players were considered a valued part of the team. He spoke reverently of Fetisov and Larionov, and they were the first players Yzerman handed the Cup off to when the Wings broke their Cup drought in '97. In a time when there were still a lot of doubts that Europeans cared about the Cups, Yzerman always heavily emphasized and recognized their value.
5. Leadership, Pt. 4. Finally, Yzerman put his money where his mouth was. Most notably, in '01-02 when the Wings brought in Hasek, Robataille, and Hull, Yzerman was the first approached, and the first (but not last) to volunteer to defer salary so that the Wings could afford all of these players. As rich as Ilitch was, and as good as he was about opening his wallet, even he had a limit. Yzerman (followed by a handful of other Wings) stepped up to the plate to make sure the Wings could get every weapon possible while staying within that limit.
"Leadership" is one of those terms that often gets thrown around, but it's extremely hard for fans to judge because we're not in the locker rooms. So it's often mentioned as a toss-off in discussions like this. I bring up these particular points because they were tangible, visible evidence of Yzerman's leadership that go beyond the "he was a great leader" talk that pretty much every player says about their Captain. That sort of talk is easy to disregard, but in Yzerman's case we have some tangible results we could see on the ice and the Wings' payroll.
I don't know that any of these points move Yzerman anywhere with respect to his voting competition this round. Just wanted to put some finer points on the "Yzerman sacrificed offense for defense" narrative. I think it's more complicated than that, for both the good and the bad.
1. First, a con. Yzerman's health and age played a significant role in his diminished offense. The short narrative of Yzerman's career says that he sacrificed offense for defense. There's some truth to that, but that gives Yzerman a little too much credit for the switch. The reality is, starting around '95, Yzerman's body just couldn't do the same things it could during his offensive prime. Even when he had offensive opportunities, he wasn't converting them at the rate he converted in his youth. He just wasn't as fast, he wasn't as strong, and he wasn't as shifty. This is perfectly natural, but I think it often gets whitewashed a bit by the "switch to defense" narrative, which makes it sound like all of Yzerman's decreased offense was by choice.
2. On the flip side, I don't think the "leadership" aspect of his defensive focus gets enough credit. There's no doubt Yzerman became a much better defensive player on an individual level. But Selke-level Yzerman doesn't win the Wings three Cups. Instead, it was the fact that the rest of the team followed Yzerman's lead. When his teammates saw Yzerman start doing things like this, you better believe they followed suit.
That's an Al Freakin' MacInnis slapshot he's throwing his body in front of. Yzerman started doing that regularly in '96, and a good 8 or 9 Wings forwards (including stars like Shanahan) followed suit. Similarly, when Yzerman made it clear he was going to follow Bowman's defensive system, his teammates lined up behind him. This was very much a run and gun team in the early 90's, and if Yzerman hadn't bought in, there's no way Bowman sells that team on the left wing lock (see, e.g., the early 90's Penguins for a leader and team which didn't want Bowman's preferred play-style).
3. Leadership, Pt 2. It wasn't just defensive responsibilities Yzerman bought into, he also led the way in accepting Bowman's line juggling and ice time. Bowman never met a line he couldn't tinker with (Yzerman-Shanahan-Fedorov regularly dominated, but were used infrequently, the Russian 5 tore things up, but didn't last a full season as a regular unit). And not just linemates, but ice time would randomly change from game to game. It wasn't all that rare to see Kris Draper having the almost as much, if not more, ice time than Yzerman or Fedorov. Bowman was all about rolling four lines as much as possible, and all about trying to get every player ready to play with every other player on a moment's notice. Bowman was playing the long game, and was willing to sacrifice his players' egos and his teams' short term success in order to build a playoff-ready beast. And once again, Yzerman proclaimed Bowman's way was the way it was going to be.
The ice time buy-in was particularly huge, because the reality was, the Avalanche (most notably, but not exclusively) had higher end talent that could beat the Wings if they tried to play them straight up strength versus strength. The Wings succeeded based on their depth and system. Yzerman might not beat Sakic head to head, and Fedorov might not beat Forsberg, but Yzerman-Fedorov-Larionov-Draper rolling out in a steady, even, succession could eventually overwhelm them.
4. Leadership, Pt. 3. Yzerman was also a quiet force in ensuring the Wings European players were considered a valued part of the team. He spoke reverently of Fetisov and Larionov, and they were the first players Yzerman handed the Cup off to when the Wings broke their Cup drought in '97. In a time when there were still a lot of doubts that Europeans cared about the Cups, Yzerman always heavily emphasized and recognized their value.
5. Leadership, Pt. 4. Finally, Yzerman put his money where his mouth was. Most notably, in '01-02 when the Wings brought in Hasek, Robataille, and Hull, Yzerman was the first approached, and the first (but not last) to volunteer to defer salary so that the Wings could afford all of these players. As rich as Ilitch was, and as good as he was about opening his wallet, even he had a limit. Yzerman (followed by a handful of other Wings) stepped up to the plate to make sure the Wings could get every weapon possible while staying within that limit.
"Leadership" is one of those terms that often gets thrown around, but it's extremely hard for fans to judge because we're not in the locker rooms. So it's often mentioned as a toss-off in discussions like this. I bring up these particular points because they were tangible, visible evidence of Yzerman's leadership that go beyond the "he was a great leader" talk that pretty much every player says about their Captain. That sort of talk is easy to disregard, but in Yzerman's case we have some tangible results we could see on the ice and the Wings' payroll.
I don't know that any of these points move Yzerman anywhere with respect to his voting competition this round. Just wanted to put some finer points on the "Yzerman sacrificed offense for defense" narrative. I think it's more complicated than that, for both the good and the bad.
Last edited:
vadim sharifijanov
Registered User
- Oct 10, 2007
- 28,779
- 16,224
i guess i'm a little skeptical of this one. long before there was bowman-yzerman, detroit had players who were elite defensive players. fedorov, konstantinov, and lidstrom come obviously to mind. i don't think they needed yzerman to get them to apply themselves on their own side of the puck. but shawn burr had been there almost as long as yzerman and he was a very defensive-oriented player. another player in a leadership position, brad mccrimmon, was a legendarily defensive player.
all to say, i think the culture was already pretty established for bowman.
Ad
Upcoming events
-
-
-
-
-
Game 3 Florida Panthers @ Tampa Bay Lightning - Florida Panthers leads series 2-0Wagers: 1Staked: $100.00Event closes- Updated: