Dipsy Doodle
Rent A Barn
- May 28, 2006
- 76,584
- 21,125
What was Steve Yzerman's prime?
- Thread starter Dipsy Doodle
- Start date
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
Should be pretty easy to find. He was only a truly elite offensive player for six consecutive seasons: 1987-88 through 1992-93. So, 88-92 or 89-93, if you have to pick 5 seasons.
Dipsy Doodle
Rent A Barn
- May 28, 2006
- 76,584
- 21,125
There's the rub though, don't you think?
Is there no balance between offensive wizard Yzerman and fearless leader Yzerman? Do we just go with the 5 best offensive seasons knowing the transformation he had to make to become a champion, even though he was widely considered an also-ran until he did so?
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
Although he made a transformation, I think it's debatable if he was truly a better player overall. For a short time he was the 3rd-best offensive force in the NHL behind two generational talents.
Let's face it, the maturation of Fedorov, Konstantinov, Lidstrom, and the acquisitions of Larionov and Shanahan had huge impacts. Yzerman transforming makes a better story, though.
Let's face it, the maturation of Fedorov, Konstantinov, Lidstrom, and the acquisitions of Larionov and Shanahan had huge impacts. Yzerman transforming makes a better story, though.
Dipsy Doodle
Rent A Barn
- May 28, 2006
- 76,584
- 21,125
Oh very true. I was just thinking that if we're judging Yzerman's prime to be his best offensive years, and during his best offensive years his playoff production wasn't extraordinary, his defense wasn't stellar, and his leadership wasn't in bloom, how much better can we rate his prime than the primes of guys like Stastny or Savard? He had the great Pearson season, but how much does that affect?
It's a complete cop-out, but I really think the answer is that he had two primes. The first was his offensive prime. The second was his leadership prime.
And I do think you have to define that second one by leadership, not defense. Yzerman became a strong defensive player, but he was not so awesome that his defense was what pushed the Wings over the edge. Rather it was his willingness to play defense, block shots, take reduced ice time, defer salary, and generally do "whatever it takes" that inspired pretty much everyone on the Wings to do the same thing that made them so great.
When your captain, the guy who scored more points in a single season than any other mortal (Lemieux and Gretzky don't count under that definition), is throwing himself in front of shots or playing through insane leg pain, you know you'd damn well do whatever it takes to be your best. And this prime, as opposed to his points, is what I think his legacy will really be.
And I do think you have to define that second one by leadership, not defense. Yzerman became a strong defensive player, but he was not so awesome that his defense was what pushed the Wings over the edge. Rather it was his willingness to play defense, block shots, take reduced ice time, defer salary, and generally do "whatever it takes" that inspired pretty much everyone on the Wings to do the same thing that made them so great.
When your captain, the guy who scored more points in a single season than any other mortal (Lemieux and Gretzky don't count under that definition), is throwing himself in front of shots or playing through insane leg pain, you know you'd damn well do whatever it takes to be your best. And this prime, as opposed to his points, is what I think his legacy will really be.
Psycho Papa Joe
Porkchop Hoser
Offensively it's easy. He had a dynamite 6 year peak where only a peak Lemieux and just below peak Gretzky were better offensively.
As a hockey player though, his most complete game was between 95 and 2000. Point a gamer, better leadership and way better defensively.
It's the tale of two different hockey players. One, one of the most dynamic offensive players I've seen and the other, the reinvention of said offensive player into a great complete player.
As a hockey player though, his most complete game was between 95 and 2000. Point a gamer, better leadership and way better defensively.
It's the tale of two different hockey players. One, one of the most dynamic offensive players I've seen and the other, the reinvention of said offensive player into a great complete player.
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
Very similar player to Scott Stevens, in that neither could be excellent offensively, while also excelling on defense.
Looking at him again, I'd say he actually had a 7-year scoring prime. He missed 26 games in 93-94, but scored at a 115 point pace, which would have put him 3rd in the league. And since Fedorov finished second and kind of flourished with the added responsibility of being the go-to guy, he may have finished 2nd. Obviously, if we're giving him extra games, we should give the other guys extra games as well, which would bump him back a bit, but I think it's a pretty safe bet that he would have topped 100 points and been in the 5-10 range at least. It was the next year, during the lockout that his scoring fell off to 38 points in 47 games.
Actually, I was thinking his "defense and leadership" period was longer than it was, and was a greater part of his career, but it was only about 8 years before injuries and age really took him out. So he was essentially a top offensive performer for just as long, and, like seventieslord said, it was probably more the team around him than his own style change that put the Wings over the top, so I'd go with some 5 year stretch of his offensive peak.
Actually, I was thinking his "defense and leadership" period was longer than it was, and was a greater part of his career, but it was only about 8 years before injuries and age really took him out. So he was essentially a top offensive performer for just as long, and, like seventieslord said, it was probably more the team around him than his own style change that put the Wings over the top, so I'd go with some 5 year stretch of his offensive peak.
Big Phil
Registered User
- Nov 2, 2003
- 31,703
- 4,146
I prefer to use 1987-'93 as his ultimate peak. Those numbers at that time were just practically peerless save for a couple of players (you know who). Back to back years of 65 and 62 goals, plus 5 50 goal seasons in those years. After '93 he was injured, then he strengthened his two way game and with the added players Detroit got that helped propel them to the Cup, but yes Yzerman sacrificing offense for the good of the team played a part.
Despite the Yzerman we saw in the late '90s and early 2000s with his supreme two way play, there is still no way he was a better player than the 1989 version. He won the Pearson that year with 155 points. He did learn to win later in his career which we can give him credit for, and he was stronger defensively but let's also not assume that he was woeful defensively prior to the mid '90s. He was okay, that's about it. He wasn't bad like Bure or Kovalchuk
Despite the Yzerman we saw in the late '90s and early 2000s with his supreme two way play, there is still no way he was a better player than the 1989 version. He won the Pearson that year with 155 points. He did learn to win later in his career which we can give him credit for, and he was stronger defensively but let's also not assume that he was woeful defensively prior to the mid '90s. He was okay, that's about it. He wasn't bad like Bure or Kovalchuk
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
Speaking of which, how did Yzerman win the Pearson as the league's most outstanding player? Were the other players sick of voting for Lemieux and Gretzky? Because Yzerman was not more outstanding. Perhaps more valuable to his team, but that's what the Hart is for.
Psycho Papa Joe
Porkchop Hoser
For that matter how did Ratelle win over Orr & Espo in 72, Clarke over Orr & Espo in 73, Dionne over Trots and Potvin in 79, Liut over Gretzky in 81, Lemieux over Gretzky in 86. Incredible that Orr just won one of them, when he probably should have had 3 or 4.
Big Phil
Registered User
- Nov 2, 2003
- 31,703
- 4,146
All I can assume is that players got a little jaded with voting for Gretzky. This is why I think Lemieux won it in 1986. Gretzky had 215 points, the most ever, and he doesn't win the Pearson?
As for Lemieux I'd like to think he still had the "selfish-lazy-moody" tag on him which caused the players not to respect him. I can't think of anything else. How do you score 85 goals and 199 points and dominate your peers and not win the Pearson? I think the writers not picking him for the Hart had a lot to do with his attitude towards the media as well
Blades of Glory
Troll Captain
Mario definitely had that "selfish-lazy-moody" tag, and it might have been slightly justified. He even admitted that the "light turned on" when Keenan put him on Gretzky's line in the 87 Canada Cup Finals. He said that he didn't want to disappoint Wayne, and that's when I think it changed. Still, was that tag still around in 1989?
Big Phil
Registered User
- Nov 2, 2003
- 31,703
- 4,146
I think it still was. As time has gone on we have pointed to 1987 as a turning point that proved Mario could win, but at that time he still didn't make the playoffs in 1988 and was bounced out in the 2nd round in 1989. He still wasn't a winner........yet. I also think the infamous comment he made that has now turned into a legendary comedic one about his summer training regimen being "not ordering the fries with my sandwich" was done around that time too.
I don't think his tag was removed until his two Cup wins and then especially his cancer in 1993. Nowadays no true fan will ever question Mario's heart, but there was a time when almost everyone did
RabbinsDuck
Registered User
Yeah, Yzerman should have won the Hart, if anything, that year... not the Pearson.
I catched some old Wings games from the early 90's on Youtube, and kept an eye on Yzerman's defensive game. He looked somewhat lazy on the defensive side, often circling around the top of the faceoff circles near the blueline. Pretty much like Jason Spezza at his worst.
He looked good on the penalty-kill though.
He looked good on the penalty-kill though.
vadim sharifijanov
Registered User
- Oct 10, 2007
- 28,850
- 16,337
except with stevens, there is no question which version you would rather have on your team. though one could easily make the argument that '93-'94 stevens very successfully combined the offense of his early years with elite defense, and he was a great leader and spearheaded the devils' first long playoff run of the 90s.
with yzerman, it's hard to say which one you would want. it probably depends on who else is on the team. maybe the better answer is that he has two separate primes: a regular season prime ('88-'93) and a playoff prime ('94-'99, with '02 as an outlier post-prime playoff run).
