Yzerman vs Sakic

[Thenameless]

Because it’s possible that two close players can have additional players in-between.

I might have 6 or 7 centers in that #26-35 range. All are what I would consider very close. Esposito, Sakic, Lalonde, Clarke, Trottier, Taylor, Yzerman.

I don't have enough of a knowledge base on pre-war players like Lalonde and Taylor. For the rest of your list above, I have Clarke and Esposito ahead of the rest. Trottier can be slotted slightly ahead or slightly behind Sakic and Yzerman (whom I'd have pretty close together).

 

[daver]

I don't have enough of a knowledge base on pre-war players like Lalonde and Taylor. For the rest of your list above, I have Clarke and Esposito ahead of the rest. Trottier can be slotted slightly ahead or slightly behind Sakic and Yzerman (whom I'd have pretty close together).

I think you have Sakic and Yzerman so close because they played at the same time (along with being really close anyways). I think if they played head to head vs. Trottier, you would have a similar sense. They each have a unique career path but overall brought very similar value with varying degrees of elite offense, elite defense, and elite playoff resumes.

 

[Sentinel]

Sakic had the higher 2-way peak than Yzerman.

How do you figure?
Not to mention Yzerman's two-way play lasted much longer. He was tasked with holding Gretzky off the scoresheet in the 80s and got his Selke in 2000.

 

[daver]

How do you figure?
Not to mention Yzerman's two-way play lasted much longer. He was tasked with holding Gretzky off the scoresheet in the 80s and got his Selke in 2000.

Sakic's 00/01 season is the best combo of offense and defense out of the two. Yzerman was not a recognized 2-way player in the '80s.

 

[Sentinel]

Sakic's 00/01 season is the best combo of offense and defense out of the two. Yzerman was not a recognized 2-way player in the '80s.

Because the institute of two-way offensive stars was not yet established in the 80s. Jari Kurri was the closest, but look who was winning Selkes: Jarvis, Ramsey, Poilot, Carbonneau, Meagher, Graham, Murray! Not exactly household names (except Carbs). The first offensive / defensive star is recognized in Gilmour, and then Fedorov took it to a new level.

Yzerman was, in fact, recognized as a great defensive forward. The problem was: like Sakic, in his early years his team had no other source of offence.

 

[daver]

Because the institute of two-way offensive stars was not yet established in the 80s. Jari Kurri was the closest, but look who was winning Selkes: Jarvis, Ramsey, Poilot, Carbonneau, Meagher, Graham, Murray! Not exactly household names (except Carbs). The first offensive / defensive star is recognized in Gilmour, and then Fedorov took it to a new level.

Yzerman was, in fact, recognized as a great defensive forward. The problem was: like Sakic, in his early years his team had no other source of offence.

So you believe that Yzerman was just as effective defensively as Sakic was in 00/01?

 

[Big Phil]

Most of us agree that Sakic and Yzerman are very close. So how does Trottier, who seems like a very different player who is also from a slightly earlier era, slot in between the two on our all time lists?

Trottier is another name right up there with them. Again, how can you go wrong with him either? The only issue with him is that while I wouldn't call him someone who aged poorly, he did age worse than the other two. After 1988 his offense went off a cliff. Partially because I assume Potvin's retirement didn't help. Plus the Islanders were awful after this. Maybe just wear and tear finally caught up with him. 5 Cup final visits in a row wears you down. Look at Pittsburgh this year vs. Washington and they just won two. It wears on players.

So if you are doing a comparison did Sakic's offense drop like a stone after Season 13? No, not at all. Yzerman's? Sort of, but he was still scoring pretty decently and had much better overall seasons than Trottier at this point in his career.

All were excellent in the postseason. Trottier's PPG looks less sexy because of those long Cup runs in Pittsburgh where he wasn't scoring much, but don't be fooled, he was dominant in the Cup runs in Long Island.

You can't go wrong with either three.

 

[Big Phil]

I'll also say this, I am not sure anyone combined their overall game better than Trottier. There was a pretty well known saying that Trottier was the best all-around player that has ever been and I remember people saying that in the 1980s and 1990s. Maybe you can say Gordie Howe fits that mold and Messier in many ways is every bit as good but the point is the scarce amount of all-time players that could do just about everything at an elite level is rare. But Trottier is one of them and I think he trumps Sakic and Yzerman when it comes to that side of the discussion.

 

[Sentinel]

So you believe that Yzerman was just as effective defensively as Sakic was in 00/01?

Two-way play is hard to evaluate. Mind you, aging Yzerman won the Selke over prime Sakic, and Sakic, while coming second in voting, still came second... to John Madden. In fact Yzerman was the last star two-way player to win Selke; after that it was a string of purely defensive forwards: Madden, Pecca, Lehtinen, and Draper.

 

[Czech Your Math]

My point was that Trottier is generally regarded as a solid defensive player, likely to a level exceeding Yzerman or Sakic at any point. And yet, he in fact is the only one of the three to have an Art Ross and Hart-season at once. In other words, his offensive peak was pretty darn high, too.

It's no insult to be compared to Bryan Trottier. I can't disagree that he was the best defensively of the three, and brought a physical dimension that the other two lacked.

Yzerman wins the eye test for offensive brilliance.

Sakic's playoff scoring, particularly his performance vs. the tougher defensive teams, was incredible.

 

[The Panther]

It's no insult to be compared to Bryan Trottier. I can't disagree that he was the best defensively of the three, and brought a physical dimension that the other two lacked.

Yzerman wins the eye test for offensive brilliance.

Sakic's playoff scoring, particularly his performance vs. the tougher defensive teams, was incredible.

Agree on all points.

Sakic is the #1 guy I want on the ice in playoff overtime. Other than Rocket Richard and maybe Patrick Roy, has anybody EVER been more clutch? Glenn Anderson was like that, too, but Sakic even more so.

I have no dog in this fight, but I'll just say that I personally pay little or no attention to who wins Selke trophies. I mean, if you're a finalist every year or if you win a whole bunch of them (Gainey or Carbonneau type), sure, it impresses me. But I don't care at all who won one Selke trophy once while scoring 'X' number of points, etc. That's all media-narrative towards an ill-defined award.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Two-way play is hard to evaluate. Mind you, aging Yzerman won the Selke over prime Sakic, and Sakic, while coming second in voting, still came second... to John Madden. In fact Yzerman was the last star two-way player to win Selke; after that it was a string of purely defensive forwards: Madden, Pecca, Lehtinen, and Draper.

While scoring 39 fewer points than Sakic recorded the following year - offense being one of those “two-ways”. In fact, despite playing just 60 games, Sakic outscored Yzerman in 2000 and even had a higher plus-minus (a team-high +30, which was more than double the next Colorado forward). Yzerman won a Selke in 2000 because Lehtinen missed 65 games, Peca dropped 15 points from the previous year, John Madden wasn’t an established name, and it was a good story. I wouldn’t read anything into it. Or the 1st Team selection for that matter, because he was very much not the best Center in hockey in 2000.

You’re right that two-way play is hard to evaluate, especially 18 years after the fact with little but “nuh-uh” arguments and GA-based statistics, but some of Sakic’s best offensive numbers came in the period (post-Crawford) when he was given increased defensive responsibilities. That’s essentially the opposite of what happened with Yzerman, whose offense fell off when Bowman demanded greater responsibility (the thing that kept him off Canada Cup rosters when he shouldn’t have been). Personally, I think Yzerman was better defensively when tasked to be (I don’t think Sakic was a particularly great penalty killer), and overblown 2000 narrative aside, Yzerman belonged more in a Selke conversation than Sakic did, but he didn’t really establish himself as a great scorer and good defensive player at the same time. Sakic in 1999-2004 is what Yzerman would be if those 1988-1993 numbers were joined by 1996-2000 defense. But also just a ridiculous talent in pressure situations, even if he’s nowhere nearly as iconic.

 

[daver]

Two-way play is hard to evaluate. Mind you, aging Yzerman won the Selke over prime Sakic, and Sakic, while coming second in voting, still came second... to John Madden. In fact Yzerman was the last star two-way player to win Selke; after that it was a string of purely defensive forwards: Madden, Pecca, Lehtinen, and Draper.

Yet you feel comfortable in proclaiming Yzerman as having the higher offensive and defensive peak.

 

[daver]

While scoring 39 fewer points than Sakic recorded the following year - offense being one of those “two-ways”. In fact, despite playing just 60 games, Sakic outscored Yzerman in 2000 and even had a higher plus-minus (a team-high +30, which was more than double the next Colorado forward). Yzerman won a Selke in 2000 because Lehtinen missed 65 games, Peca dropped 15 points from the previous year, John Madden wasn’t an established name, and it was a good story. I wouldn’t read anything into it. Or the 1st Team selection for that matter, because he was very much not the best Center in hockey in 2000.

You’re right that two-way play is hard to evaluate, especially 18 years after the fact with little but “nuh-uh” arguments and GA-based statistics, but some of Sakic’s best offensive numbers came in the period (post-Crawford) when he was given increased defensive responsibilities. That’s essentially the opposite of what happened with Yzerman, whose offense fell off when Bowman demanded greater responsibility (the thing that kept him off Canada Cup rosters when he shouldn’t have been). Personally, I think Yzerman was better defensively when tasked to be (I don’t think Sakic was a particularly great penalty killer), and overblown 2000 narrative aside, Yzerman belonged more in a Selke conversation than Sakic did, but he didn’t really establish himself as a great scorer and good defensive player at the same time. Sakic in 1999-2004 is what Yzerman would be if those 1988-1993 numbers were joined by 1996-2000 defense. But also just a ridiculous talent in pressure situations, even if he’s nowhere nearly as iconic.

That is likely going too far the other way. Yzerman has the better offensive season in that timeframe, while being much more relied on for offensive production, and the better defensive season between the two. Sakic was close but you are essentially removing any argument that Yzerman has over Sakic given the advantage in longevity and playoff resume that Sakic has.

Yzerman is arguably the 3rd best player from the 80s/early '90s era; Sakic is argubly the 2nd best player from the mid 90's to the lockout.

 

[Sentinel]

While scoring 39 fewer points than Sakic recorded the following year - offense being one of those “two-ways”. In fact, despite playing just 60 games, Sakic outscored Yzerman in 2000 and even had a higher plus-minus (a team-high +30, which was more than double the next Colorado forward). Yzerman won a Selke in 2000 because Lehtinen missed 65 games, Peca dropped 15 points from the previous year, John Madden wasn’t an established name, and it was a good story. I wouldn’t read anything into it. Or the 1st Team selection for that matter, because he was very much not the best Center in hockey in 2000.

You’re right that two-way play is hard to evaluate, especially 18 years after the fact with little but “nuh-uh” arguments and GA-based statistics, but some of Sakic’s best offensive numbers came in the period (post-Crawford) when he was given increased defensive responsibilities. That’s essentially the opposite of what happened with Yzerman, whose offense fell off when Bowman demanded greater responsibility (the thing that kept him off Canada Cup rosters when he shouldn’t have been). Personally, I think Yzerman was better defensively when tasked to be (I don’t think Sakic was a particularly great penalty killer), and overblown 2000 narrative aside, Yzerman belonged more in a Selke conversation than Sakic did, but he didn’t really establish himself as a great scorer and good defensive player at the same time. Sakic in 1999-2004 is what Yzerman would be if those 1988-1993 numbers were joined by 1996-2000 defense. But also just a ridiculous talent in pressure situations, even if he’s nowhere nearly as iconic.

So basically your MO is: ignore all narratives and write your own.

Yzerman won Selke over Sakic, 39 points or not. Yzerman got 155 points, which Sakic never sniffed. 1st AST is a 1st AST. These are, as they call them, facts.

Your interpretation is a fun mental exercise. So is this one. If you add Y's late 80s offense to his late 90s defense, the sum will trump (pardon the curseword) Sakic's prime and peak. It will be close but tangible.

 

[blogofmike]

How do you figure?
Not to mention Yzerman's two-way play lasted much longer. He was tasked with holding Gretzky off the scoresheet in the 80s and got his Selke in 2000.

Do you mean in the 1987 conference finals? I think we covered this in a thread a few years back when there were Youtube videos available, but A) Gretzky got a concussion in the final game of the previous round and was ineffective with Oates out there too, and B) any value of shutting down a woozy Great One is offset by Yzerman being an on-ice spectator to the Messier/Anderson line overcompensating.

And in the 88 rematch, a healthy Gretzky scored 2 points in each game in Detroit and 3 points in each game in Edmonton.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Yzerman is arguably the 3rd best player from the 80s/early '90s era; Sakic is argubly the 2nd best player from the mid 90's to the lockout.

i don’t think there’s much of an argument for yzerman ahead of peak messier, tbh.

and if we’re counting all positions, you’d almost certainly have sakic behind both jagr and hasek.

but peak y had much tougher competition at the top, obviously.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

And in the 88 rematch, a healthy Gretzky scored 2 points in each game in Detroit and 3 points in each game in Edmonton.

tbf that was against a still injured yzerman, and only in 3/5 games, no?

 

[blogofmike]

tbf that was against a still injured yzerman, and only in 3/5 games, no?

Pre-Suter Gretzky had 3+ points in 15 of 21 regular season games against Detroit from 84-85 thru 90-91. He had 2 2-point-games and 4 1-point games. Gretzky had zero 0-point games.

Yzerman missed a few of those too, but the general point is a healthy Gretzky was getting on the scoresheet and Yzerman's presence didn't do much to prevent it.

EDIT: Or 3+ points in 18 of 24 games if you count Yzerman's rookie year

 

[daver]

i don’t think there’s much of an argument for yzerman ahead of peak messier, tbh.

and if we’re counting all positions, you’d almost certainly have sakic behind both jagr and hasek.

but peak y had much tougher competition at the top, obviously.

The point was Yzerman at his offensive peak was slightly higher than Sakic's be it one season or their best X to Y stretch of seasons. That Sakic had developed a two way game during his peak is noteworthy.

 

[Sentinel]

The point was Yzerman at his offensive peak was slightly higher than Sakic's be it one season or their best X to Y stretch of seasons. That Sakic had developed a two way game during his peak is noteworthy.

Again: during Yzerman's prime star forwards were not usually expected to play defense. Let alone lonely star forwards on dismal teams. In Sakic's prime it was much more widely expected. 80s vs. 90s, you know. All-out-offense vs. mandatory two-way, the left wing lock, etc.

 

[quoipourquoi]

So basically your MO is: ignore all narratives and write your own.

Yzerman won Selke over Sakic, 39 points or not.

A Selke Trophy is not the lone arbiter of two-way performance. I’ll take 118 points, the league-leading plus-minus, and a 2nd-place Selke finish to a legitimate defensive forward like John Madden as a peak two-way season over 79 points, twenty plus-minus beneath a teammate, and a Selke win over Michal Handzus in a year when people were arbitrarily putting Blues on ballots because so many marquee players missed time.

Honestly, if Sakic - already having more points and a better plus-minus than Yzerman despite playing just 60 games - plays even just 5-10 more games scattered throughout the 2000 season without even adding to his already superior numbers, maybe the media builds up a narrative around him instead. Given that they nearly handed him a Selke the following season despite Colorado’s PK getting worse, I don’t think it’s a stretch.

Yzerman got 155 points, which Sakic never sniffed.

Is 155 points in 1989 necessarily better than 118 points in 2001? I mean, if Yzerman has 155 points in 2000 - or 155 points while winning a Selke - it would probably mean more than this fact that lacks context.

Fact: I can leapfrog Shaq. I just haven’t given you the context that he’s standing in a 3-foot hole I dug and covered with sticks. That’s basically what 1998-2004 was: a Heffalump trap for offense.

1st AST is a 1st AST. These are, as they call them, facts.

Sakic has three of them, but I wouldn’t say that a 3:1 ratio necessarily means anything, even if it is, as they call them, a fact. Because it’s still a fact derived from the collection of opinions.

It is a fact that those specific voters selected Yzerman as the best Center in 2000 but it is an opinion to say he was that.

It is a fact that Sakic outscored Yzerman and had a higher plus-minus despite playing just 60 games in 2000, and it is my opinion that he was a better Center and better two-way player that season while understanding why a voter would be inclined to select Yzerman for both as he was healthy and had never won either to that point.

He’s Al Pacino winning an Oscar for “Scent of a Woman” in 1992 instead of when he was killing it from 1972-1975; you want Yzerman to win because it seems like it should have already happened.

And despite your insistence that a 1st Team is a 1st Team, it is my opinion that the 2000 1st Team All-Star selection (or Sakic’s 2002 for that matter) is worth a lot less than the 2001 1st Team All-Star selection Sakic received or the 1989 1st Team All-Star selection Yzerman didn’t receive... or the 1989 2nd Team selection Yzerman didn’t receive... or the 1989 3rd Team selection Yzerman would have received if that was a thing. The idea that a 1st Team is a 1st Team is so preposterous that I have to let out a hearty laugh.

Ha.

...it, uh, didn’t translate well in text, but was hearty indeed!

 

[Sentinel]

Your opinion, while bordering on TL;DR, is duly noted. Thumbs up.

 

[daver]

Again: during Yzerman's prime star forwards were not usually expected to play defense. Let alone lonely star forwards on dismal teams. In Sakic's prime it was much more widely expected. 80s vs. 90s, you know. All-out-offense vs. mandatory two-way, the left wing lock, etc.

Sakic was contributing to the defensive side of things and that needs to be noted. It increased the value he brought to his team. That Yzerman could have done the same or not is irrelevant.

 

[GordieHowsUrBreath]

I was always much more impressed by sakic in their playoff battles