Yzerman Finally Won Because He Changed His Game

[Stephen]

NHL legend says that Steve Yzerman was a high scoring center who had to conform to a team game, learn defense and make hard sacrifices to finally win a cup. While this is often praised as a sign of greatness, and is undoubtedly a great example of Yzerman's character and will to succeed, was it actually a good thing in hockey terms that he had to change what he was good at in order to finally succeed? You often hear about the importance to play your own brand of hockey, and dictate the play against the opposition. What if his one dimensional offense had been successful in winning the Stanley Cup without the prolonged struggles to the top the way a young team like Chicago did with guys like Patrick Kane? Is it a failing of sorts that Yzerman couldn't power the Red Wings to victory playing a run and gun style of hockey? Would that have ultimately takem away from his legend?

Click to read more...

 

[5lidyzer19]

Is it a failing of sorts that Yzerman couldn't power the Red Wings to victory playing a run and gun style of hockey?

No, when Yzerman was playing that style, the team around him was no where near as good as it was when they started to win cups.

It wasn't JUST Yzerman who changed. A great deal of the roster changed and the style did as wellwith Bowman. As he got better players around him, he didn't have to be THE guy ALL the time, and switching to a more complete game was more beneficial to the team. Whereas before, his value was maximized by simply scoring. A lot.

Edit: This whole "couldn't win with Yzerman" thing is also a tad absurd. The Red Wings were never some huge favorite for the first 1/3+ of his career. It's not like losing was his fault. He was the team. There were simply teams with significantly more talent.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Early in Yzerman's career the Red Wings were no where near good enough to win the Stanley Cup. Especially considering how strong teams like Montreal / Philly / Edmonton etc. were during those years.

I'm very confident that the Red Wings could have been fashioned around the offensive Steve Yzerman and still challenged for the cup, but with Scotty Bowman as coach, that wasn't going to happen.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

No, when Yzerman was playing that style, the team around him was no where near as good as it was when they started to win cups.

It wasn't JUST Yzerman who changed. A great deal of the roster changed and the style did as wellwith Bowman. As he got better players around him, he didn't have to be THE guy ALL the time, and switching to a more complete game was more beneficial to the team. Whereas before, his value was maximized by simply scoring. A lot.

Edit: This whole "couldn't win with Yzerman" thing is also a tad absurd. The Red Wings were never some huge favorite for the first 1/3+ of his career. It's not like losing was his fault. He was the team. There were simply teams with significantly more talent.

Well said.

 

[Sensfanman]

I really hate the whole Yzerman story as it relates to what it takes to win at hockey. Yzerman was 31 before the Wings finally won a cup. Yzerman had already been in the playoffs all but 2 seasons up to that point and went to the Conference Finals three times and the Stanley Cup Finals once. Yes, his scoring went down when the Wings started to win but
1) the high scoring era had just ended, seeing over 20% less scoring league wide compared to his heyday
2) he was past his scoring prime at that point
3) his team was a juggernaut, moreso than in any of his big years


Basically, Yzerman's career was spectacular and he's truly one of the best of all time. However, his career is also vastly romanticized. I feel the reason being that people have a bias towards defensive play in terms of liking a player (coaches are also guilty of this).

 

[Stray Wasp]

Other replies have all made excellent points. In addition don't forget that, despite playing in the rotten Norris division, Yzerman's 155 point season helped the Red Wings reach .500 and nothing more.

That was only one of two seasons between 1973 and 1991 that the Wings played .500 hockey, which goes to show the endemic badness of the club back then. (A fact I can't resist citing-the Red Wings got more points in the strike shortened 94-95 season than in any of their 80-game campaigns between 1978 and 1986).

Even by the standards of the time, they leaked goals horribly and I doubt they could have won the Cup if you'd have given them the Oilers' top six. From 91 through to 94 the team was much stronger, but still a work in progress, especially given its problems finding a playoff goalie.

 

[Stephen]

Basically, Yzerman's career was spectacular and he's truly one of the best of all time. However, his career is also vastly romanticized. I feel the reason being that people have a bias towards defensive play in terms of liking a player (coaches are also guilty of this).

I agree, the whole transformation does seem to have been romanticized as a sort of offensive prodigy who had to learn the value of hard work and team work to succeed, as if a guy like Ovechkin can't just go about scoring goals to win it all until he gets his hands dirty with two way play.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

The biggest reason Detroit won was the team simply got better - a lot better.

A bit of a mythology has sprung up around Yzerman's 'sacrifice' and while true to a degree, Yzerman was a pretty good defensive player in his early days and his offensive output declining had as much to do with injuries and age as it had to do with focusing more on defense.

 

[Canadiens1958]

The Peterborough Connection

From the start of the Peterborough Petes franchise in the OHA later OHL, the team has had a reputation as one of the best defensive teams in junior hockey. First two Peterbourough coaches were Ted Kennedy and Scotty Bowman, followed later by Roger Neilson, Gary Green, Dick Todd, who coached Steve Yzerman. During this time the Petes overall defensive game did not change much, especially the center responsibilities.

Coming out of junior Steve Yzerman had a solid defensive foundation but the Red Wings circa 1983-84 were not in a position - players and coaches to fully exploit all his talents so they focused on the offensive aspects.

When Scotty Bowman was hired he patiently brought the team's defensive game to the level required for success.

 

[seventieslord]

The biggest reason Detroit won was the team simply got better - a lot better.

A bit of a mythology has sprung up around Yzerman's 'sacrifice' and while true to a degree,

I was going to say this.

To me, 1984-1994 Yzerman was more valuable, no question. You just can't teach/train that kind of offensive wizardry. Of course, some will say he was better and more valuable than ever before once he got better defensively. That's a major stretch.

Put the 1995-2004 Yzerman on those 80s wings and they still suck. Put the high-flying 1984-1994 Yzerman on the cup-winning Wings and they still breeze to three cups.

Teams win cups. Players contribute. Throughout Yzerman's career he was always capable of being a player who contributed to a winner, just in different ways at different times. Of course, it was only when Detroit got better, that they won.

 

[tarheelhockey]

It wasn't JUST Yzerman who changed. A great deal of the roster changed and the style did as wellwith Bowman.

This is a key point that gets overlooked quite often. Look no further than Sergei Fedorov, who also went from being a Hart-level star to being a cog in the machine. Look at swapping Paul Coffey with Larry Murphy. Yzerman's progression mirrors what the team was going through at the time, he just serves as a symbol for the whole.

 

[JT Dutch*]

NHL legend says that Steve Yzerman was a high scoring center who had to conform to a team game, learn defense and make hard sacrifices to finally win a cup. While this is often praised as a sign of greatness, and is undoubtedly a great example of Yzerman's character and will to succeed, was it actually a good thing in hockey terms that he had to change what he was good at in order to finally succeed?

... I think the story of Bowman "teaching Yzerman and the Wings how to play defense" is a nice-sounding legend, but ultimately just another myth in a history with a lot of myths. I think that a lot of people just subscribe to it without checking the facts.

In the Wings' last season under coach Bryan Murray (92-93), Detroit was 1st in scoring and 7th in goals against in the NHL.

In 93-94, Bowman's first season as coach, Detroit maintained the top spot in offense, but fell drastically in goals against - to 16th in the NHL.

One of the main issues in 93-94 was Detroit's goaltending. Tim Cheveldae wasn't getting the job done, and the torch passed to 21-year-old rookie Chris Osgood, who played like a rookie. The Wings lost to a very average San Jose team in the first round of the '94 playoffs.

In '95, the Wings' defense improved for a few reasons. Osgood had a much better sophomore season, for starters. The Wings brought in Doug Brown and Bob Errey, a couple of good checking forwards. They brought in Slava Fetisov and Bob Rouse to tighten up their blue line.

Despite the fact that veteran backup Mike Vernon had a poor season in '95, Bowman inexplicably chose to make him the number one goalie in the playoffs. The Wings beat up on two bad teams in the first two rounds, San Jose and Dallas, then beat a very average Chicago team in the conference final - only to run into the battle-tested Devils, who had missed making the Cup Final by a hair's breadth the year before. The Wings (and Vernon), not really tested at all before the Final, got hammered.

In 95-96, the Wings kept adding. Igor Larionov, perhaps their most important acquisition in the 90s, was brought into the fold and keyed the brilliant Red Wing Army line - which excelled on offense and defense. Greg Johnson and Kris Draper emerged as checking forwards, who along with Brown, Errey, and Darren McCarty, gave Detroit an embarrassment of riches in this category. Yzerman and Fedorov recovered from offensively down half-seasons in '95. Both Osgood and Vernon played well, the first time Detroit had received at least adequate goaltending from both spots in years.

It took a wonderful Colorado team to beat the Wings in the '96 playoffs, and Detroit went all the way the next year, with Vernon having the hottest run of his career.

It sounds good to say that the Wings won because Yzerman learned how to play D at the feet of Bowman, but in reality they won because they drafted good younger players, patiently allowed them to develop, and helped the process by bringing in key veterans to complement them, all the while getting improved goaltending - the same way almost all teams build a consistent winner.

 

[redbull]

The biggest reason Detroit won was the team simply got better - a lot better.

A bit of a mythology has sprung up around Yzerman's 'sacrifice' and while true to a degree, Yzerman was a pretty good defensive player in his early days and his offensive output declining had as much to do with injuries and age as it had to do with focusing more on defense.

agree with the bolded part, for sure. But Yzerman himself has commented many times about Bowman's influence on the team, on how they needed to focus on defense, to take the next step.

I don't think it's "sacrifice" at all, simply doing more, doing things differently, focusing on areas where they were weak, etc. These growing pains are part of almost all franchise championships. The '83 Oilers being a perfect example that almost all their core players talk about all the time.

Basically, Yzerman's career was spectacular and he's truly one of the best of all time. However, his career is also vastly romanticized. I feel the reason being that people have a bias towards defensive play in terms of liking a player (coaches are also guilty of this).

any legend of sports has some level of romanticizing, especially as time goes by. There's a definite bias towards defensive play and that sometimes bothers me. Sometimes it's absurd. So Gretzky can't win any battles, or win a key faceoff or doesn't know how to position himself defensively. But he has more assists by Christmas than the total points other centres in the league will have the whole year.

Creating offense is hard. It's the biggest factor in determining wins vs losses because you ALWAYS need a goal to win. Of course, your ability to defend a lead and the critical place defense has in winning is important. But, generally, I believe defensive play is MORE a matter of commitment, coaching, buy-in, dedication and work ethic. Something that CAN BE TAUGHT.
Generally speaking, the ability to create offense is NOT teachable.

What Tavares does has nothing to do with skating ability, strength, coaching...it's all instinct. Of course with each level of competition all the other things become important, because they become relative weak spots that are far-more-easily exploited at the elite/NHL level.

All players "change" their game as they grow as players and in teams. Those who adapt to change well, who can improve individually and collectively, become champions, some of those (the leaders) become legends.

In most cases it has merit, the legend status is fully earned, romanticizing notwithstanding.

 

[tarheelhockey]

any legend of sports has some level of romanticizing, especially as time goes by. There's a definite bias towards defensive play and that sometimes bothers me. Sometimes it's absurd. ... But, generally, I believe defensive play is MORE a matter of commitment, coaching, buy-in, dedication and work ethic.

And that's why it's romanticized. People tend to admire commitment and work ethic more than pure talent.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Yzerman "finally won" because he no longer HAD TO do it all himself.
End of story.

 

[Trottier]

One supposes that HOF executive Jim Devellano - a guy who was in Detroit at the time - spews "myths" and fictional legend:

Originally Posted by Canadiens Fan
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.

What is indisputable: Yzerman's game evolved over time. Concurrently, the Wings won more. "Coincidence" perhaps in the minds of some. Personally, I'll trust my own eyes (what I and any basic observer of the game at the time saw)....and side with the opinion of Devellano, Bowman and other HOF hockey people.

When your best players commit to working equally across the entire rink and adapting to every style of play, the rest of your roster follows. And if that roster is talented, winning follows, as well.

 

[jkrx]

One supposes that HOF executive Jim Devellano - a guy who was in Detroit at the time - spews "myths" and fictional legend:

Originally Posted by Canadiens Fan
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.

What is indisputable: Yzerman's game evolved over time. Concurrently, the Wings won more. "Coincidence" perhaps in the minds of some. Personally, I'll trust my own eyes (what I and any basic observer of the game at the time saw)....and side with the opinion of Devellano, Bowman and other HOF hockey people. Not the revisionists.

Yes or rather he is greatly exaggerating. I don't know if what you quoted is taken out of context or if it's Devellanos actual words but I think the bolded part is the actual explanation. Now Yzerman did become much better defensively after Bowman but he definitly wasn't as bad as people make him out to be before either.

 

[Trottier]

Yes or rather he is greatly exaggerating. I don't know if what you quoted is taken out of context or if it's Devellanos actual words but I think the bolded part is the actual explanation. Now Yzerman did become much better defensively after Bowman but he definitly wasn't as bad as people make him out to be before either.

Never suggested a young Yzerman was "bad" defensively. It's not black and white. It's a matter of commitment. Players and coaches can decipher that...and often even a subtle change has a large impact. Again, when your top minute guys commit, others follow. Happens on every level of hockey, including the NHL.

One recalls John Tortarella dogging Vinny Lecavalier to apply himself more. Torts got ripped by some for it. He persisted. Lecavalier's game matured. By no means should that be misinterpreted to suggest he became a Selke winner or Cam Neely II, but the change was obvious. And eventually, his team won. Again, "coincidence", "luck", etc. according to some. Not this observer.

I respect your opinion that the guy in the organization is "exaggerating". Forgive me if I place jusssssst a bit more weight on his word compared to that of others speculating on a message board. It's equally fine if you don't.

 

[Stephen]

Regardless of fact vs myth, it does seem like the Yzerman legend benefited from the perceived struggle to become a better defensive player. Had he simply won easy breezy with a run and gun Red Wings team at a young age at the top of his offensive game with nary a mind to defensive details, I just feel like his greatness would have been lessened. Another poster put it well by saying that swapping an offensive Yzerman from the 80s into the Wings 1997-2002 rosters and a defensive Yzerman into the 80s probably wouldn't have changed the Wings fortunes. But the evolution of his game sure helped raise the Yzerman mythology.

 

[tjcurrie]

Yzerman "finally won" because he no longer HAD TO do it all himself.
End of story.

Bingo.

Seems like everyone has basically the same sentiment as I do here.

Let's say Yzerman changed his game in the 80s and early 90s, would Detroit have won Cups ? No. They just werent good enough and Yzerman, nor anybody for that matter, wasn't gonna win Cups alone.

Credit Bowman, credit Yzerman, and most of all credit that roster.

 

[redbull]

Never suggested a young Yzerman was "bad" defensively. It's not black and white. It's a matter of commitment. Players and coaches can decipher that...and often even a subtle change has a large impact. Again, when your top minute guys commit, others follow. Happens on every level of hockey, including the NHL.

One recalls John Tortarella dogging Vinny Lecavalier to apply himself more. Torts got ripped by some for it. He persisted. Lecavalier's game matured. By no means should that be misinterpreted to suggest he became a Selke winner or Cam Neely II, but the change was obvious. And eventually, his team won. Again, "coincidence", "luck", etc. according to some. Not this observer.

Two examples of players who led teams to cups who were pushed to change the way they played. too often these achievements are diminished or credit given only to the efforts of the great team while those who fail to achieve the championships are excused for not being surrounded by good enough players.

We can only guess on whether it's ovechkin's inability to alter parts of his game (or semin, green, backstrom) in order to put washington over the top, or is it the supporting cast?

To not reward actual results, and to ignore the key steps in the path to victory omits the biggest part of what makes the game, and the players, great. Regardless of the regular season scoring stats relative to peers.

It's in hindsight that we bestow greatness on some and make excuses for others.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

The same was said of Mike Modano when Ken Hitchcock took over the coaching helm with Dallas. Although Modano maintained an 80-plus point pace during Hitchcock's tenure as the Stars' coach, his plus/minus rating improved dramatically and its been said that Modano became a considerably better all-around player. They went on to win the Cup in 1999 and lose in the Finals against New Jersey in 2000.

Sergei Fedorov is another player that some say evolved into a more well-rounded player. He was a prolific point producer prior to Detroit's successful Stanley Cup runs. When Detroit started winning Cups, Fedorov went from being a 100-plus point player to a 60-plus point player.

After New Jersey's successful Cup win in 1995, teams adapted their game to focus on the defensive side of the puck. Detroit adjusted its game with the left-wing lock and the Stars also employed a trapping system. It worked for all of those clubs.

 

[tjcurrie]

The same was said of Mike Modano when Ken Hitchcock took over the coaching helm with Dallas. Although Modano maintained an 80-plus point pace during Hitchcock's tenure as the Stars' coach, his plus/minus rating improved dramatically and its been said that Modano became a considerably better all-around player. They went on to win the Cup in 1999 and lose in the Finals against New Jersey in 2000.

Sergei Fedorov is another player that some say evolved into a more well-rounded player. He was a prolific point producer prior to Detroit's successful Stanley Cup runs. When Detroit started winning Cups, Fedorov went from being a 100-plus point player to a 60-plus point player.

After New Jersey's successful Cup win in 1995, teams adapted their game to focus on the defensive side of the puck. Detroit adjusted its game with the left-wing lock and the Stars also employed a trapping system. It worked for all of those clubs.

Modano for my money, and pay no attention to my avatar, was one of the top few players in the league under Hitch. From about 1996 to 2003 I would have put him up one on one vs even Joe Sakic. I know many wont agree with that but I'm talking mono et mono vs each other. Quite comfortable matching him up against any of Sakic, Forsberg, Yzerman, Fedorov, etc in those years.

 

[Stephen]

Sergei Fedorov is another player that some say evolved into a more well-rounded player. He was a prolific point producer prior to Detroit's successful Stanley Cup runs. When Detroit started winning Cups, Fedorov went from being a 100-plus point player to a 60-plus point player.

Disagree. Fedorov was always a well rounded two way presence, evidenced by the fact that he won the Selke the year he won the Hart in 1994 when he was a 56 goal scoring, 120 point producing megastar, and again in 1996 when he topped 100 points.

The production drop was more of an issue of Fedorov apparently mailing it in in the regular season.

 

[Heat McManus]

Disagree. Fedorov was always a well rounded two way presence, evidenced by the fact that he won the Selke the year he won the Hart in 1994 when he was a 56 goal scoring, 120 point producing megastar, and again in 1996 when he topped 100 points.

The production drop was more of an issue of Fedorov apparently mailing it in in the regular season.

Agreed. Fedorov was so good during the Wings Cup runs in the 90s that he was put on D for a handful of games.