Yzerman

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Leaving Yzerman off the 87 team was a surprising decision due to his playoff performance that season but 87 isnt included in the time frame im giving. Yzerman could still be considered only the 5th best Canadian center at the time.

The 91 team was selected after the end of the 91 season which saw a pretty big drop in Yzerman's production after Murray had come in. Yet again i have to ask why being left Team Canada in 91 by Keenan is any sort of big counterargument especially with the evidence presented. It clearly was a controversial move to be covered so extensively in the media. It clearly wasnt a popular move as fans chanted "Stevie" during the 1st game before Yzerman left the team for good in 91. The most you can say is that Keenan did not view Yzerman the same way the consensus seemed to.

Yzerman made the team in 84 under Sather most likely at the expense of Savard. I dont think that proves Yzerman was better than Savard around that time. Yzerman should have picked St Louis and Stamkos for the 10 team (i still think that a Tampa Bay line would have been more effective than the San Jose line). The fact that he didnt shouldnt be taken as some kind of knock against those guys. A better explanations might be that Yzerman seems to have been favoring Western Conference players perhaps because he saw them a lot more.

I would say the "3rd best" talk started in November 87 (88 season) and by December during that 22 game point streak it was probably becoming consensus and it carried through a lot of the 90 season. Most of the "in the league of Gretzky and Lemieux" talk i have personally seen was during the 89 season or the first few months of the 90 season.

I think the "in the league of Gretzky and Lemieux" talk was clearly a case of the media trying to find the next "big one." If he really was close to their league, Canada finds a way for him to play, period.

I won't argue that he wasn't #3 behind them for a brief period of time.

 

[toob]

I think the "in the league of Gretzky and Lemieux" talk was clearly a case of the media trying to find the next "big one." If he really was close to their league, Canada finds a way for him to play, period.

Yet he could have been in their league in between 87 and 91 but not at the time of team selection of the 87 or 91 team... and it isnt Canada who is finding him a way to play because if it was he almost certainly does play in 91 but it was Keenan. Who was the Canadian center putting on dominating shows at the World Championships in 89 and 90? The best explanation for Yzerman's omission in 91 is Keenan.

Again Eagleson told Yzerman that he was guaranteed a spot on the team (according to Yzerman) but Eagleson later publicly said that only Gretzky was guaranteed a spot on the team. Assuming based on the characters of the two men in question that Yzerman was telling the truth and Eagleson was lying i think this is another piece of evidence of Yzerman's stature at the time.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Still outside of hfboards Yzerman is ranked high (as i think he should be). For example just recently he was named the 3rd best center of the modern era by Hockey Night in Canada's Best of the Best.

Same book that has Jari Kurri above Brett Hull above Teemu Selanne above Jaromir Jagr?

 

[toob]

Same book that has Jari Kurri above Brett Hull above Teemu Selanne above Jaromir Jagr?

If your point is to discredit the ranking of Yzerman indirectly through another ranking by the same publication then youre missing the point of that statement.

Also i cant say whether i agree or disagree with Kurri over Jagr definitely because i didnt watch Kurri play in his prime and i havent read much about him at all so i wont even try and rank him. I was just pointing out how Yzerman is viewed now in general. My own personal view on the matter is independent of how Yzerman is perceived by the media or fans (it was quite low during the mid 90s as i pointed out).

 

[pdd]

Same book that has Jari Kurri above Brett Hull above Teemu Selanne above Jaromir Jagr?

Isn't that a fan-based ranking?

Although Kurri absolutely belongs above Hull.

Jagr probably ended up so low because it's a CBC thing and he's a European who played for American teams. Guy Lafleur is listed as the best RW of the modern era... would you put Lafleur over Bossy or Jagr?

Or how about Al MacInnis, Scott Niedermayer, or Scott Stevens ahead of Chris Chelios?

Sidney Crosby and Peter Forsberg over Marcel Dionne or Igor Larionov, but Eric Lindros unavailable even as an option?

Also to note: Glenn Anderson was rated ahead of Bure, Iginla, Neely, Gartner, Alfredsson, Mogilny, and McDonald.

Further proof that fans and writers just LOOOVE that Edmonton dynasty.

Of course we knew that, what with the "Kevin Lowe retired number?" and "Kevin Lowe HHOF?" threads that pop up.

 

[habsjunkie2*]

I think the "in the league of Gretzky and Lemieux" talk was clearly a case of the media trying to find the next "big one." If he really was close to their league, Canada finds a way for him to play, period.

I won't argue that he wasn't #3 behind them for a brief period of time.

I can tell you that Stevie was much more in the conversation than say Mark Messier, that's for damn sure.

 

[nik jr]

"Oh, it's so hard to score 149 points playing on a line with Mario Lemieux AND Ron Francis. I sure wish I could be Steve Yzerman and have linemates like Gerard Gallant and Paul MacLean."

i already proved to you that jagr played with nedved and francis in '96.

If you are talking about a more extended prime of 6+ years then you can say Jagr scored about as much than Yzerman but in his peak in the late 80s Yzerman scored significantly more. Jagr did maintain his offense for longer than Yzerman did (due especially to injuries and coaching) but Yzerman at his best was better offensively than Jagr at his best.

i don't see how 155 is significantly more than 149, or how 137 (in 84 games) is significantly more than 127, especially since scoring was a lot higher during yzerman's peak.

Yes Jagr had to face better goaltending and stronger team D (though id argue that Jagr was built for the dead puck era as his strength made the clogged ice much less of an obstacle than it was for smaller and weaker players (like Kariya or even Selanne) - the dead puck era affected other players negatively much more than Jagr) and these circumstances do even up the gap quite a bit. However due to teams playing more structured defensive systems the shadows that Yzerman had to deal with became less and less of a factor. Also defensive demands on Yzerman were clearly greater than on Jagr.

i agree that jagr was well suited to the dead puck era compared to less powerful players, but that does not erase his superior offense, and jagr obviously did not need those conditions to dominate.

much better D and goaltending more than make up the small differences between their numbers.

Ice time is a very strange argument in Jagr's favor of being more offensively productive. First of all the only time Yzerman got significantly more ice time than Jagr ever did was under Demers when he got around 30 minutes. As soon as Murray came in (and Fedorov and Carson) Yzerman's ice time was cut by drastically. Yzerman also played roles that Jagr didnt play (defensively) especially in penalty killing where a big chunk of the extra ice time went. Yzerman's extra ice time probably burned him out more than confer any advantage offensively. This is all notwithstanding the change from a long shift game to short shift game and the changed nature of play in general.

you are right that a lot of yzerman's extra TOI was SH, but certainly not all, and it still gave him more chances to score.

during his peak/prime, yzerman was one of the top SH scorers. if his TOI were changed to a more normal number, either his SH scoring would decline, or his ESTOI would be reduced. either would reduce his overall scoring.

 

[toob]

i don't see how 155 is significantly more than 149, or how 137 (in 84 games) is significantly more than 127, especially since scoring was a lot higher during yzerman's peak.

Yzerman ppg: 1.94, 1.63, 1.61, 1.59, 1.41, 1.35, 1.30, 1.19, 1.13, 1.11, 1.09, 1.05, 1.01, 0.96, 0.93, 0.92, 0.92, 0.82, 0.81, 0.68, 0.56, 0.50

Jagr ppg: 1.82, 1.57, 1.52, 1.51, 1.50, 1.49, 1.32, 1.24, 1.17, 1.16, 1.14, 1.03, .99, .96, .96, .87, .71

Yzerman has a clear edge until the 5th season where Jagr starts to make it up. That edge is also mostly goals scored and Yzerman also plays 20ish more games.

i agree that jagr was well suited to the dead puck era compared to less powerful players, but that does not erase his superior offense, and jagr obviously did not need those conditions to dominate.

much better D and goaltending more than make up the small differences between their numbers.

Of course but those conditions allowed Jagr to separate himself. If all players had those conditions and the game went to something more wide open like in the 80s removed id be pretty sure that Jagr would be one of those who benefited the least while other players would benefit a lot more and close the gap.

Better goaltending and team D do make it up but they arent the only reasons scoring went down. The reason why there was better team D in the first place was because players in general had more defensive responsibilities and most teams played a defensive system.

Yzerman had more defensive responsibilities than Jagr even in a less defensive time. Also aside from 99 and 00 Jagr's linemates arent even comparable to Yzerman's.

you are right that a lot of yzerman's extra TOI was SH, but certainly not all, and it still gave him more chances to score.

during his peak/prime, yzerman was one of the top SH scorers. if his TOI were changed to a more normal number, either his SH scoring would decline, or his ESTOI would be reduced. either would reduce his overall scoring.

Yeah Yzerman scored a lot of shorthanded goals but i find it extremely hard to believe that even a player sent to kill penalties basically just to score goals would find PK minutes as favorable to scoring efficiency as ES or PP minutes. Furthermore i guess you could pad your goals with shorthanded time but i doubt that is true for assists and points in general.

Not playing quite tiring shorthanded or defensive minutes and playing a short shift game as opposed to a long shift one would give Yzerman a lot more energy to use in each one of his shifts to score more and would increase his overall scoring probably more than any negative from not playing 3-5 minutes extra of mostly shorthanded and defensive minutes.

 

[Rhiessan71]

i already proved to you that jagr played with nedved and francis in '96.

At even strength maybe but how many of those 149 points were from the PP along side Mario? 40%?
And, if what you say is indeed true, it means that the other teams' best checkers were shifted against Mario not Jagr.
Sorry, your argument is actually just making it worse.

 

[pluppe]

Being left off the '87 roster wasn't all that shocking as a few have explained earlier in this thread.
'91 though, there was a lot of shock and head scratching at the time. Many fans and media alike were cautiously and subtlety criticizing Iron Mike over that decision.
If they hadn't of won, Yzerman's snubbing would of been by far the first thing on the menu but they did so it wasn't.

I don't agree that Yzerman was always mentioned in the same breath as Gretz and Mario offensively during this time but he was definitely mentioned.
Again, Stevie's Pearson over 66 and 99 about says it all on this front IMO.
I have always put more stock in the Pearson than the Hart. The players know what they're seeing and facing out there.

Yes, and the Lester/Lindsay of course clearly shows who was the best Bruin of the 70ies.

 

[quoipourquoi]

I can tell you that Stevie was much more in the conversation than say Mark Messier, that's for damn sure.

Considering Messier had two Hart/Pearson trophies before Lemieux did - and 1996 was the two of them competing for their third - not to mention Messier's playoff reputation (1984, 1987, 1990, 1994) and leadership leaving little doubt about his abilities to control the game either physically or offensively depending upon what the situation warranted, I completely disagree with Yzerman being viewed closer to Gretzky and Lemieux than Messier.

Since we're talking media lists in this thread, does everyone remember THN's Top 100 (voted on in 1996-97)?

1. Gretzky
4. Lemieux
11. Lafleur
12. Messier
14. Bourque
20. Bossy
30. Trottier
35. Roy
37. Jagr
38. Dionne
50. Kurri
64. Brett Hull
70. Fuhr
78. Yzerman


That poll of 50 writers/officials is indicative of Yzerman's reputation before his defensive play led to championships. An alternative to Gretzky/Lemieux in his prime he was not - that was Messier more than anyone else.

 

[toob]

Considering Messier had two Hart/Pearson trophies before Lemieux did - and 1996 was the two of them competing for their third - not to mention Messier's playoff reputation (1984, 1987, 1990, 1994) and leadership leaving little doubt about his abilities to control the game either physically or offensively depending upon what the situation warranted, I completely disagree with Yzerman being viewed closer to Gretzky and Lemieux than Messier.

Since we're talking media lists in this thread, does everyone remember THN's Top 100 (voted on in 1996-97)?

1. Gretzky
4. Lemieux
11. Lafleur
12. Messier
14. Bourque
20. Bossy
30. Trottier
35. Roy
37. Jagr
38. Dionne
50. Kurri
64. Brett Hull
70. Fuhr
78. Yzerman


That poll of 50 writers/officials is indicative of Yzerman's reputation before his defensive play led to championships. An alternative to Gretzky/Lemieux in his prime he was not - that was Messier more than anyone else.

Right but it is indicative of Yzerman's reputation in the mid 90s which ive already said many times was really low. Not in the late 80s. Not now.

By the way when that list (top 50) came out im pretty sure the biggest complaint against it was where the hell Yzerman was.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Right but it is indicative of Yzerman's reputation in the mid 90s which ive already said many times was really low. Not in the late 80s. Not now.

By the way when that list (top 50) came out im pretty sure the biggest complaint against it was where the hell Yzerman was.

Oh, absolutely that was the biggest complaint, but if Yzerman was briefly considered the third best player in the league (1988-1989) and became an after-thought up until his Stanley Cup while Bourque won Norrises, Roy won Vezinas, and Messier won Harts, doesn't that make you think that those same people eager to crown him the next Gretzky/Lemieux were jumping the gun?

We saw the same thing with Lindros a few years after that (hence his spot near Kurri on THN's list), when he - like Yzerman - showed potential to be a game-breaker. The talk was about Lindros/Yzerman's potential - not their actual performance - and any hint of outstanding play led to the belief that the time was nigh.

 

[toob]

Oh, absolutely that was the biggest complaint, but if Yzerman was briefly considered the third best player in the league (1988-1989) and became an after-thought up until his Stanley Cup while Bourque won Norrises, Roy won Vezinas, and Messier won Harts, doesn't that make you think that those same people eager to crown him the next Gretzky/Lemieux were jumping the gun?

We saw the same thing with Lindros a few years after that (hence his spot near Kurri on THN's list), when he - like Yzerman - showed potential to be a game-breaker. The talk was about Lindros/Yzerman's potential - not their actual performance - and any hint of outstanding play led to the belief that the time was nigh.

Hindsight has pretty much shown that nobody has been on the level of Gretzky and Lemieux for any significant period of time since they came in the league but at least i believe the one guy who came the closest was Yzerman albeit briefly.

Youre very likely right that potential played a big part in it but it is also based on performance from 88-90 and especially 89. By many accounts he was just playing on another level from the rest of the league and by a few accounts that level was in the same level as Lemieux and Gretzky. He just didnt sustain it past the turn of the decade. By the way i would say the same is true for Lindros and the guy basically did reach his potential in the mid 90s as scouted he just could never did it for long and declined rapidly both due to injuries. Look at the reputation of Lindros now. Extremely underrated.

The other guys Messier and Bourque and Roy did win their acclaim in the early 90s while Yzerman faded into the background for various reasons discussed above but by that time Gretzky had really declined and Lemieux kept missed a lot of games. Now Yzerman has had his late career to boost him back up.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

That poll of 50 writers/officials is indicative of Yzerman's reputation before his defensive play led to championships. An alternative to Gretzky/Lemieux in his prime he was not - that was Messier more than anyone else.

Maybe things were different briefly in the late 80s? I can't comment. By the early 90s, I agree, Messier was seen as the clearcut third best forward in the league after the big 2.

 

[livewell68]

A lot of people forget that Yzerman's knee was absolutely wrecked in a hit BEFORE his 155 point season. Before that he had been one of the league's fastest skaters. How high does he go if his knee isn't taken out? 170? 190? How long does his prime last? Maybe he's winning the Art Ross instead of Jagr in the 90s?

Yzerman is the perfect example of a player who had an amazingly high peak, who also had a great deal of longevity, but who was not able to maintain that peak play over his career due to injuries that would have kept most other players out of games. Over the last four years of his career Yzerman averaged 52 games per season. Ten years prior his knee wasn't in much better shape. He simply played through it. What if you take off those 30 games per season from 94-95 (18 for the lockout year) through 99-00 and assume that's how many "extra" games Yzerman played that other players would have missed. 168 games. If we remove those games, assuming that games where he was hindered by injury resulted in no points, and then project his PPG over the remaining games (1346) over his actual total (1514) it results in 778 goals and 1974 points. He's 118 goals behind Gretzky, and in excellent health in our hypothetical situation. What do you think the chances are that he passes Gretzky? If he's healthy, pretty good. In fact, he likely already would have long ago as his goal scoring dramatically decreased as his knee injuries took more of a toll.

If I'm making an All-Star team with three forward slots, two defense positions, and one goaltender slot to represent the period from 1980 to 2005, do you know who I'd choose?

Wayne Gretzky, Mario Lemieux, Steve Yzerman, Nicklas Lidstrom, Raymond Bourque, and Dominik Hasek

For all of Yzerman's offensive ability, he wasn't better than Jagr. As scoring started to dip, so did Yzerman's numbers rather considerably. As scoring got harder, Jagr got better. Big difference.

Jagr was bigger, stronger, faster and more skilled than Yzerman.

Yzerman is not a top 5 all-time offensive player, Jagr is. Big difference. Aslo as some have pointed out, Yzerman was average defensively when he was scoring in the 100 Pts.

BTW for those who say Yzerman got 155 Pts, only 2 other players scored more that year and they were Lemieux and Gretzky, what about the fact that in total there were 4 players who scored 150 Pts or more including Nichols who got 150 Pts. Find me another season in which 4 players got 150 Pts or more, you can`t. It was a ridiculously his scoring year. The NHL GPG overall (goals per game) was 7.48, there was almost 7.5 goals a game. Comparing Yzerman`s 155 Pts to Jagr`s. when Jagr scored 149 Pts, the NHL average 6.28 GPG, more than a whole goal less a game than when Yzerman scored 155 Pts. Yet Jagr managed to score only 6 points less. It also has been proven that Yzerman was terrible defensively then and being double shifted didn`t mean he was used for defense because then I can use that argument for Jagr. Jagr was almost double shifted in Pittsburgh from 1994-95 on and again in New York yet he was never a "Selke-like" forward.

 

[livewell68]

At even strength maybe but how many of those 149 points were from the PP along side Mario? 40%?
And, if what you say is indeed true, it means that the other teams' best checkers were shifted against Mario not Jagr.
Sorry, your argument is actually just making it worse.

Do the math. Jagr scored 100 evenstrength points that year, that means he scored 48 Pts on the powerplay (he did have 1 shorthanded goal but not sure how many assists he picked up shorthanded) but this is the most points he could have scored on the powerplay (48).

That means he scored 32% of his points on the powerplay. For a guy that scored 149 Pts, that`s very low.

 

[Rhiessan71]

For all of Yzerman's offensive ability, he wasn't better than Jagr. As scoring started to dip, so did Yzerman's numbers rather considerably. As scoring got harder, Jagr got better. Big difference.

C'mon man, Yzerman was slowing down from his injuries and when the Wings no longer needed to rely on him to carry the show, his role changed. He was no longer offensive first and became a more than average 2 way player that still averaged a point per game.

Jagr was bigger, stronger, faster and more skilled than Yzerman.

Bigger and stronger for sure, faster though...not a chance in hell dude! Stevie was lighting on ice before injuries slowed him down in the early 90's. More skilled, no way, there's like a hair's difference between the two and it's hard to place one above the other imo.

Yzerman is not a top 5 all-time offensive player, Jagr is. Big difference. Aslo as some have pointed out, Yzerman was average defensively when he was scoring in the 100 Pts.

No one is arguing that Yzerman is the better overall offensive player.
Jagr had the longer, more productive prime offensively but for about 5 years, Yzerman was on par with and in my books just a little better offensively than Jagr.

BTW for those who say Yzerman got 155 Pts, only 2 other players scored more that year and they were Lemieux and Gretzky, what about the fact that in total there were 4 players who scored 150 Pts or more including Nichols who got 150 Pts. Find me another season in which 4 players got 150 Pts or more, you can`t. It was a ridiculously his scoring year. The NHL GPG overall (goals per game) was 7.48, there was almost 7.5 goals a game. Comparing Yzerman`s 155 Pts to Jagr`s. when Jagr scored 149 Pts, the NHL average 6.28 GPG, more than a whole goal less a game than when Yzerman scored 155 Pts. Yet Jagr managed to score only 6 points less. It also has been proven that Yzerman was terrible defensively then and being double shifted didn`t mean he was used for defense because then I can use that argument for Jagr. Jagr was almost double shifted in Pittsburgh from 1994-95 on and again in New York yet he was never a "Selke-like" forward.

Again, it has not been proven he was terrible defensively, only that he wasn't required to play defense, it wasn't his job! He produced or the Wings lost, end of story.
For someone that was so terrible, he sure as hell learned in a quick hurry to become one of the premier defensive players in the league eh.

And yes, '96 was a little lower scoring year but AGAIN, Jagr playing with Nedved and Francis, along with Sandstrom, Smolinski and/or Naslund and of course that Lemieux guy with Zubov feeding them all the puck from the backend.
Compare that to what Stevie had to work with and it's a massive unadulterated mis-match.

 

[livewell68]

C'mon man, Yzerman was slowing down from his injuries and when the Wings no longer needed to rely on him to carry the show, his role changed. He was no longer offensive first and became a more than average 2 way player that still averaged a point per game.



Bigger and stronger for sure, faster though...not a chance in hell dude! Stevie was lighting on ice before injuries slowed him down in the early 90's. More skilled, no way, there's like a hair's difference between the two and it's hard to place one above the other imo.


No one is arguing that Yzerman is the better overall offensive player.
Jagr had the longer, more productive prime offensively but for about 5 years, Yzerman was on par with and in my books just a little better offensively than Jagr.



Again, it has not been proven he was terrible defensively, only that he wasn't required to play defense, it wasn't his job! He produced or the Wings lost, end of story.
For someone that was so terrible, he sure as hell learned in a quick hurry to become one of the premier defensive players in the league eh.

And yes, '96 was a little lower scoring year but AGAIN, Jagr playing with Nedved and Francis, along with Sandstrom, Smolinski and/or Naslund and of course that Lemieux guy with Zubov feeding them all the puck from the backend.
Compare that to what Stevie had to work with and it's a massive unadulterated mis-match.

I bet if you made a poll and asked who was more skilled between Jagr and Yzerman, Jagr would win the Poll in a landslide.

Sure Yzerman was lightning fast, so was Jsgr before his groin injuries started to catch up to him and before he put on all that muscle.

The 1991-96, 200-220 lbs Jagr was one of the fastest, most perfect skaters of all-time.

Also Jagr is far and a way more skilled that Yzerman. He's a better passer, better stickhandler, has better vision, is considered by many the best one-on-one player ever to suit up. He also had a heck of a wrist, snap shot as is still evident even now.

There is no way Yzerman is more skilled than Jagr.

BTW all those players you named from the Penguins team, you basically just took all the leading scorers from the team and named them. Jagr barely played with anyone except for Francis and Nedved 5-on-5. Francis also split a lot of time with Lemieux.

If you're going to judge Jagr for playing with those guys on the powerplay then you might as well and judge Lemieux as well. Lemieux made his living on the powerplay that year. Jagr didn't. In fact Jagr was the NHL best evenstrength player and it wasn't even close in 1995-96.

The fact that he finished 4th in Hart voting speaks volumes to the kind of season he had.

(Voters were not going to make Jagr a finalist because then Lemieux' Hart would have looked less deserving).

Sure Yzerman was the third best player in 1988-89 but he had a few players close to him such as even Nichols.

Jagr was the second best player in 1995-96 and it wasn't even close.

 

[Rhiessan71]

I bet if you made a poll and asked who was more skilled between Jagr and Yzerman, Jagr would win the Poll in a landslide.

Sure Yzerman was lightning fast, so was Jsgr before his groin injuries started to catch up to him and before he put on all that muscle.

The 1991-96, 200-220 lbs Jagr was one of the fastest, most perfect skaters of all-time.

Also Jagr is far and a way more skilled that Yzerman. He's a better passer, better stickhandler, has better vision, is considered by many the best one-on-one player ever to suit up. He also had a heck of a wrist, snap shot as is still evident even now.

There is no way Yzerman is more skilled than Jagr.

BTW all those players you named from the Penguins team, you basically just took all the leading scorers from the team and named them. Jagr barely played with anyone except for Francis and Nedved 5-on-5. Francis also split a lot of time with Lemieux.

If you're going to judge Jagr for playing with those guys on the powerplay then you might as well and judge Lemieux as well. Lemieux made his living on the powerplay that year. Jagr didn't. In fact Jagr was the NHL best evenstrength player and it wasn't even close in 1995-96.

The fact that he finished 4th in Hart voting speaks volumes to the kind of season he had.

(Voters were not going to make Jagr a finalist because then Lemieux' Hart would have looked less deserving).

Sure Yzerman was the third best player in 1988-89 but he had a few players close to him such as even Nichols.

Jagr was the second best player in 1995-96 and it wasn't even close.

Look man, I witnessed both seasons and both players in great detail and Yzerman's was the more impressive, both on paper and in person.
Jagr has never been as fast or as agile as Yzerman was and what Jagr did with strength, Stevie did with speed.
As far as skill level, you seriously need to watch some more prime Yzerman tape my friend because you quite obviously never really saw it in person.
I'm not even sure how much of Jagr's '96 season you actually saw or were old enough to truly understand what you were seeing.

And again, you keep on citing who Jagr played with like it means something.
Yzerman played with Gallant and MacLean...END OF STORY!
Lemieux took the heat, HE had the other teams top checkers going against him, NOT Jagr. Yzerman had the same heat on him that Lemieux and Gretzky would face.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Youre very likely right that potential played a big part in it but it is also based on performance from 88-90 and especially 89. By many accounts he was just playing on another level from the rest of the league and by a few accounts that level was in the same level as Lemieux and Gretzky. He just didnt sustain it past the turn of the decade.

I guess I just see it as Yzerman getting the same recognition that Mario Lemieux got in 1985-86 (straight down to their matching Lester B. Pearson Trophies). I don't think anyone really, truly believes that Lemieux was as good as Gretzky in 1985-86 (141 points to Gretzky's record 215), but it was the fact that a player other than The Great One was making a lot of noise offensively that got everyone to turn their heads and anoint him the Most Outstanding Player prior to him actually being it.

But it really was just 1988-1989 that he and more importantly his potential were held up with Gretzky and Lemieux, because by the end of 1989-90, his position as the #3 forward in hockey was firmly replaced by Mark Messier, who would hold that distinction until the mid-nineties.

 

[toob]

Yzerman played with Gallant and MacLean...END OF STORY!

Agree with really everything youre saying (dont agree with arguing so much with jags though) but i just wanna say that Gallant was a solid winger for Yzerman from all that ive seen and read. He may have been lacking slightly in talent for a 1st line winger but he was a very hard worker. Yzerman really liked this guy and by all accounts they had great chemistry together. Injuries really did Gallant in and maybe he shouldnt have been playing with Yzerman in 93 but in the late 80s he was a good fit.

The problem has always been with the other winger. Probert in 88 was on a hot streak but there was really nothing he could do that Gallant didnt already do better except be bigger and tougher so he was a poor fit. Maclean in 89 was himself a below average 1st line winger also past his prime and he really trailed off at the end of the season which led to Yzerman's production declining. 90 was probably the worst situation with guys like Barr and Kocur and whoever else playing shotgun with Yzerman.

Yzerman never really got a good goal scoring winger until 93 and 94 with Ciccarelli and Sheppard.

But it really was just 1988-1989 that he and more importantly his potential were held up with Gretzky and Lemieux, because by the end of 1989-90, his position as the #3 forward in hockey was firmly replaced by Mark Messier, who would hold that distinction until the mid-nineties.

I wont argue that Messier became very prominent in the early 90s but id say it seems to have been contested much more and Messier had off years in that period as well. There was Hull during his 70+ goal years. There was Lafontaine after his trade to Buffalo. Toronto pushed for Gilmour hard in 93 and 94. And Yzerman was always there.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

I guess I just see it as Yzerman getting the same recognition that Mario Lemieux got in 1985-86 (straight down to their matching Lester B. Pearson Trophies). I don't think anyone really, truly believes that Lemieux was as good as Gretzky in 1985-86 (141 points to Gretzky's record 215), but it was the fact that a player other than The Great One was making a lot of noise offensively that got everyone to turn their heads and anoint him the Most Outstanding Player prior to him actually being it.

But it really was just 1988-1989 that he and more importantly his potential were held up with Gretzky and Lemieux, because by the end of 1989-90, his position as the #3 forward in hockey was firmly replaced by Mark Messier, who would hold that distinction until the mid-nineties.

Agree largely with what you say right up until Messier running away with the "third best forward" tile in 1990.

Messier won the Hart, which does not necessarily mean best player. Messier was obviously in the spotlight, and led a still strong Edmonton crew, though obviously without Gretzky, to a great season.

Messier had 49 gs and 129 pts.
Yzerman had 62 gs and 127 pts.

The only reason Yzerman was not a Hart contender was simply because his team dud not make the playoffs. But hardly a deciding moment in favor of Messier.

 

[pluppe]

Agree largely with what you say right up until Messier running away with the "third best forward" tile in 1990.

Messier won the Hart, which does not necessarily mean best player. Messier was obviously in the spotlight, and led a still strong Edmonton crew, though obviously without Gretzky, to a great season.

Messier had 49 gs and 129 pts.
Yzerman had 62 gs and 127 pts.

The only reason Yzerman was not a Hart contender was simply because his team dud not make the playoffs. But hardly a deciding moment in favor of Messier.

He also won the Lester and captained the Stanley Cup champion posting 31 points. Maybe not conclusive but clearly points in his favor.

 

[pdd]

Yes, and the Lester/Lindsay of course clearly shows who was the best Bruin of the 70ies.

Considering Messier had two Hart/Pearson trophies before Lemieux did - and 1996 was the two of them competing for their third - not to mention Messier's playoff reputation (1984, 1987, 1990, 1994) and leadership leaving little doubt about his abilities to control the game either physically or offensively depending upon what the situation warranted, I completely disagree with Yzerman being viewed closer to Gretzky and Lemieux than Messier.

Since we're talking media lists in this thread, does everyone remember THN's Top 100 (voted on in 1996-97)?

1. Gretzky
4. Lemieux
11. Lafleur
12. Messier
14. Bourque
20. Bossy
30. Trottier
35. Roy
37. Jagr
38. Dionne
50. Kurri
64. Brett Hull
70. Fuhr
78. Yzerman


That poll of 50 writers/officials is indicative of Yzerman's reputation before his defensive play led to championships. An alternative to Gretzky/Lemieux in his prime he was not - that was Messier more than anyone else.

Messier was never close to Lemieux's level. In 1990 Lemieux was injured and missed 21 games, but scored six fewer points than Messier and 24 fewer than Gretzky. In 1992, Lemieux missed 16 games, but led the league in scoring with 131 points, 8 points ahead of Kevin Stevens, and he was ten points ahead of Gretzky. Fourth place was Brett Hull at 109. How Messier ended up with a Hart or Pearson in his career I don't know.

Comparing Messier and Yzerman... Yzerman was 2 behind Messier in 90 and 4 behind Messier in 92. Those were the only two years from 87-88 through 93-94 where Yzerman didn't have a better (usually FAR better) points per game number. I say points per game because Yzerman posted 82 in 58 games compared to Messier's 84 in 76 in the 93-94 season. The 6-point difference is accounted for simply by the 90-91 season alone; everything else there is a bonus.

People rank Messier above Yzerman because he has six Cup rings and captained two franchises. There are even people out there who rank him as the fourth (or even third) best center of all-time. Some of those people rank him above Gordie Howe on All-Time lists. Seriously. No joke. Messier is so loved because he's the "ideal" Canadian player. He's big and strong, tough and gritty, he can play an offensive game, he's defensively responsible (but over-rated), and he's a fighter. He's also considered some kind of super-leader that takes bottom-level teams and makes them Cup winners, when the only teams he ever played on that came anywhere close to the finals were among the league's top teams.

We saw the same thing with Lindros a few years after that (hence his spot near Kurri on THN's list), when he - like Yzerman - showed potential to be a game-breaker. The talk was about Lindros/Yzerman's potential - not their actual performance - and any hint of outstanding play led to the belief that the time was nigh.

Yzerman had the best raw statistical offensive EVER not had by someone other than Gretzky or Lemieux. That's not "potential", as you put it. He won the Pearson over Lemieux's 199 points, and was the Hart favorite most of the year until the Wings dropped out of the playoffs at the end of the year.

For all of Yzerman's offensive ability, he wasn't better than Jagr. As scoring started to dip, so did Yzerman's numbers rather considerably. As scoring got harder, Jagr got better. Big difference.

Jagr was bigger, stronger, faster and more skilled than Yzerman.

Yzerman is not a top 5 all-time offensive player, Jagr is. Big difference. Aslo as some have pointed out, Yzerman was average defensively when he was scoring in the 100 Pts.

BTW for those who say Yzerman got 155 Pts, only 2 other players scored more that year and they were Lemieux and Gretzky, what about the fact that in total there were 4 players who scored 150 Pts or more including Nichols who got 150 Pts. Find me another season in which 4 players got 150 Pts or more, you can`t. It was a ridiculously his scoring year.

There were only nine 100-point scorers. They played for five teams. One of them was a defenseman (Paul Coffey) and all of the forwards on the same team were linemates. Guess which 100-point forwards didn't have a linemate in that group? Steve Yzerman and Joe Mullen. Mario Lemieux had Rob Brown, Wayne Gretzky had Bernie Nicholls, Jimmy Carson had Jari Kurri. Beyond that, Luc Robitaille scored 98, Mark Messier scored 94, and Dan Quinn scored 94. So both Lemieux and Gretzky had both their linemates outscore both of Yzerman's linemates (Gallant with 93 and MacLean with 71). Beyond that, there's Coffey in Pittsburgh with 115 and Duchesne in LA with 75. The highest scoring Detroit defenseman? Steve Chiasson with 47 points.

Also, with regards to Jagr's 1999 season... have you taken a look at his ice time? He played a RIDICULOUS amount of time that season. Comparing him to a defense-first Yzerman from that season, Jagr scored 82 ES points, 44 PP points, and 1 SH point; Yzerman had 47, 24, and 3. If Yzerman had played Jagr's ice time at his per-minute rates, he'd have posted 62 ES, 27 PP, and 1 SH. A total of 90 points, plus Selke-level defense; he was fourth in voting. If he scored 90 points, he probably wins it.

The NHL GPG overall (goals per game) was 7.48, there was almost 7.5 goals a game. Comparing Yzerman`s 155 Pts to Jagr`s. when Jagr scored 149 Pts, the NHL average 6.28 GPG, more than a whole goal less a game than when Yzerman scored 155 Pts. Yet Jagr managed to score only 6 points less.

But Jagr was playing on the PP with Mario Lemieux, and he was spending a lot of time on a line with Lemieux and Francis that year, or on the second line where he wasn't seeing top defense pairings. Yzerman saw a far more difficult environment than Jagr, Lemieux, Gretzky, Esposito, or Orr in their respective peak offensive stretches.

It also has been proven that Yzerman was terrible defensively

With the argument that Yzerman was left off the '87 Canada Cup team? Or the argument that Keenan wanted Eric Lindros and Mark Messier instead in 1991? Yzerman being left off in 1991 was ridiculous, even if he was the worst defensive forward in the world. He was the most productive Canadian goal-scorer over the previous three seasons, and was second in points. He had no help in doing this; it was all him. His skills were not limited to playing center, and he could play scoring line or checking line (he played checking center very well in '84) so ultimately it's the fact that Yzerman was left off because Keenan didn't like him. And Keenan absolutely plays favorites.

then and being double shifted didn`t mean he was used for defense because then I can use that argument for Jagr. Jagr was almost double shifted in Pittsburgh from 1994-95 on and again in New York yet he was never a "Selke-like" forward.

Jagr was double-shifted on SCORING lines. Yzerman was playing on both scoring and CHECKING lines. If he was double-shifted on scoring lines playing the same amount of time, he'd have been close to 200 points.

C'mon man, Yzerman was slowing down from his injuries and when the Wings no longer needed to rely on him to carry the show, his role changed. He was no longer offensive first and became a more than average 2 way player that still averaged a point per game.

More than average? Yep. Point per game Selke contender in a low-scoring era. I guess that's a more-than-average two-way player.

I bet if you made a poll and asked who was more skilled between Jagr and Yzerman, Jagr would win the Poll in a landslide.

Sure Yzerman was lightning fast, so was Jsgr before his groin injuries started to catch up to him and before he put on all that muscle.

The 1991-96, 200-220 lbs Jagr was one of the fastest, most perfect skaters of all-time.

How long is this list? Jagr was a pretty good skater and had some serious top-end speed at his best... but Fedorov, Bure, the Courtnalls, Coffey, Orr, Perreault, LaFontaine, Mogilny, Gartner, and even some more recent guys like Niedermayer, Cogliano, etc.

Also Jagr is far and a way more skilled that Yzerman. He's a better passer

Wrong.

better stickhandler, has better vision

No. Just plain no.

is considered by many the best one-on-one player ever to suit up. He also had a heck of a wrist, snap shot as is still evident even now.

Goalies were outright afraid of Yzerman's shooting ability when he was on the ice, even though he rarely had anyone to work with and they could focus on him.

There is no way Yzerman is more skilled than Jagr.

Jagr might have more raw skill, but he wasn't a better player.

BTW all those players you named from the Penguins team, you basically just took all the leading scorers from the team and named them. Jagr barely played with anyone except for Francis and Nedved 5-on-5. Francis also split a lot of time with Lemieux.

Again, this is incorrect. Lemieux/Francis/Jagr played a good chunk together at ES.

If you're going to judge Jagr for playing with those guys on the powerplay then you might as well and judge Lemieux as well. Lemieux made his living on the powerplay that year. Jagr didn't. In fact Jagr was the NHL best even strength player and it wasn't even close in 1995-96.

Best player? Or best scorer?

The fact that he finished 4th in Hart voting speaks volumes to the kind of season he had.

(Voters were not going to make Jagr a finalist because then Lemieux' Hart would have looked less deserving).

Yep, it speaks it the fact he had a great offensive season and nearly won what has effectively become the "best forward" award, except when there are truly outstanding (or hyped) goalies or defensemen.

Sure Yzerman was the third best player in 1988-89 but he had a few players close to him such as even Nichols.

Jagr was the second best player in 1995-96 and it wasn't even close.

I personally rank Jagr fourth, behind Lemieux, Konstantinov, and Fedorov.