Ever Wonder Which Of Sakic and Yzerman is Better?

[overpass]

All these stats....don't people still remember them? I wouldn't fault anyone for thinking Sakic was better but I certainly wouldn't agree.

How about PK time? Blocked shots? Hits? % of Points scored on the PP? Any of these stats out there?

I've got % of points scored on the PP. I'll break it down by stage of career in the same way I did for adjusted plus-minus.

First, the raw data. All numbers through the end of the 2008 season.

Player |Year |GP |ESG |ESA | ESP | PPG |PPA| PPP | SHP| G| A| P
Sakic |89-91| 230 |76| 91| 167 | 30| 70| 100 | 6| 110 |163| 273
Sakic |92-95| 278| 77| 128 | 205 |39| 94| 133 |15| 124 |229| 353
Sakic |96-01| 426| 130| 181 | 311 |75 |141 | 216 |25| 223| 329| 552
Sakic| 02-08 |429 |103 |169 | 272 |61| 115| 176 | 3| 166| 285 |451
Sakic| Career |1363 |386| 569| 955 |205 |420 | 625 |49 |623| 1006| 1629

Player|Year| GP| ESG |ESA | ESP |PPG |PPA | PPP |SHP |G| A| P
Yzerman |84-87| 291 |79 |114 | 193 | 34| 79| 113 |2 |114 |194 |308
Yzerman| 88-94 |524 |231 |283| 514 |84 |158| 242 | 58| 355| 459| 814
Yzerman |95-00| 441 |88 |170 | 258 |62| 101| 163 | 19 |158 |282 |440
Yzerman |01-06 |258| 42| 73 | 115 |22 |52| 74 | 4 |65 |128 |193
Yzerman |Career| 1514| 440 |640 | 1080 |202 |390| 592 |83 |692 |1063| 1755

Over their careers, Sakic clearly scored a higher % of points on the power play. 625 PPP and 38.3% of points on the PP, compared with Yzerman's 592 PPP and 33.7% of points on the PP.

There is a bit of an era bias here, as Yzerman played a few years in the mid-80s when power-play scoring was a lower % of goals than in the 90s and 00s. I also think it's worth looking at how much each of them played on the PP, so let's look at some more numbers.

Any category with a $ in front of in is adjusted for era scoring level. $PPP means power play points adjusted for era power play scoring level.

PP% = % of team's power play goals that the player was on the ice for, adjusted to a per-game level. It's basically an estimate for PP icetime. Similarly, SH% is % of team's power play goals against that a player was on the ice for, adjusted to a per-game level.

$Pt PP% is % of points scored on the PP, after ESP and PPP are normalized for league scoring levels. $Pt ES% is the same thing but for even-strength scoring.

Player| Year| GP| ESP |$ESP| $ESP/G| PPP| $PPP |$PPP/G| PP%| SH%| $Pt PP%| $Pt ES%
Sakic |89-91| 230| 167 |162 |0.71| 100| 102 |0.44 |84% |29% |38%| 60%
Sakic |92-95| 278| 205 |219 |0.79 |133 |139 |0.50 |79% |31% |37%| 59%
Sakic |96-01| 426| 311 |388 |0.91 |216 |285 |0.67 |85% |26% |41%| 56%
Sakic |02-08| 429| 272 |351 |0.82 |176 |221 |0.52 |69% |19%| 38%| 61%
Sakic |Career| 1363| 955 |1120 |0.82 |625 |747 |0.55 |79% |26% |39%| 58%

Player| Year |GP| ESP| $ESP| $ESP/G| PPP| $PPP| $PPP/G| PP% |SH%| $Pt PP%| $Pt ES%
Yzerman |84-87 |291 |193 |169 |0.58| 113| 120| 0.41 |73%| 9%| 41% |58%
Yzerman |88-94 |524 |514 |513 |0.98 |242 |238 |0.45|72% |48% |29% |63%
Yzerman |95-00 |441 |258 |316 |0.72 |163 |218 |0.49 |68% |42% |39% |57%
Yzerman |01-06 |258 |115 |151 |0.59 |74 |98 |0.38 |48% |29% |39% |60%
Yzerman |Career |1514 |1080 |1150 |0.76 |592 |674 |0.45 |67% |35% |35% |60%

Analysis
Even when we adjust for era to remove any era biases, Sakic is still more of a power play scorer than Yzerman, with 39% of era-adjusted points on the power play to Yzerman's 35%.

We can also look at the adjusted ESP and PPP per game levels of these two over their careers. During Yzerman's peak, he was an excellent even-strength scorer, scoring at a level that Sakic never matched. His even-strength scoring dropped considerably during the 1995-2000 period. Surprisingly, Yzerman's powerplay scoring was equally effective in the late 90s as during his peak. When we consider that Yzerman had very high goals-against numbers during his scoring peak and then they dropped considerably after 1994, this all fits with the theory that Yzerman was an offensive player before 1994, trading off defence for offence. His decline in even-strength scoring after 1994 wasn't due to a drop in skill alone - he was still scoring on the power play just as well - but because he traded some of his offence for better defence.

Sakic was a more consistent even-strength scorer. He had high numbers on average from 1992-2008, with his peak coming from 1996-2001. However, his even-strength scoring peak didn't match Yzerman's. Sakic was, however, a better power play scorer. His $PPP/G over his career was 0.55, compared to 0.45 for Yzerman. Sakic was particularly good on the PP during his peak, with 0.67 $PPP/G. From 1996-2001, he was, along with Jagr, the most productive power-play player in the league.

Sakic and Yzerman also differed in their special teams roles. Compare their PP% and SH%. Sakic played a higher % of his team's power play than Yzerman, averaging 79% over his career to Yzerman's 67%. Even looking at their primes only, Sakic played 80-85% of his team's power play while Yzerman played 70-75%. This difference probably accounts for at least some of Sakic's edge in PP scoring. While Sakic played more on the PP, Yzerman played more while shorthanded. As documented by FissionFire, he was his team's number one penalty killing forward for much of his career, and during his prime years played between 40-50% of his team's penalty kill. Sakic only played 25-30% of the time on the penalty kill.

Conclusion
I'd give Sakic an edge on the powerplay (although some of that is because of usage). However, Yzerman appears to have a clear edge on the penalty kill. Yzerman was the better even-strength scorer at his best, but was either cheating on defence, playing huge minutes, or a combination of the two to accomplish that.

I'd still put Sakic ahead. While Yzerman was probably the better scorer at times and the better defensive player at times, I think Sakic put it all together at the same time in a way that Yzerman didn't.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

I like and respect Joe Sakic, but I'm going with my old standby here.... call me when he leads his team to the Cup finals with a pending knee osteotomy.

By this logic, Yzerman is the greatest player in the history of hockey.

 

[seventieslord]

By this logic, Yzerman is the greatest player in the history of hockey.

...except maybe Bobby Baun.

 

[reckoning]

Saku Koivu must be better than either of them. Get back to me whenever Sakic or Yzerman come back from cancer.

 

[FissionFire]

FissionFire - As suspected, Sakic has played in more OT games - 43, to be exact. But Yzerman has played in 35. So it's safe to say Sakic has a rare knack for scoring OT goals. yzerman's "one per 35 OT games" rate is probably about average, though, in the grand scheme of things as most players get through a career without scoring one.

As for GWG, without knowing the details surronding each one, it's all speculation. I say a certain percentage of GWG were significant goals and not random markers that turned out to be game winners. With Sakic we know that 8 have been for sure, and then I'd speculate a certain percentage of the other 11. With Yzerman it is one for sure, and then I'd speculate the same certain percentage of the other 11.

My point wasn't just in a direct comparison of Yzerman and Sakic, but rather the blanket statement that Sakic was the best OT guy in the playoffs. Sure, his 8 goals in 43 games looks great, meaning he scored the winner roughly every 5th OT game he played in. Is that more impressive, for example, than Johan Franzen who has 2 OT winners in 8 games, or a winner in every 4th OT game he plays? Where would Sakic rank on a list of OT goals per OT game? What is a sufficient sample size? Is 8 games enough? 12? 20? At what point does that start excluding player who because of team or random chance simply didn't have as many chances to play OT playoff games? My entire point is that saying Sakic is the "best" at OT in the playoffs is just taking a career total and giving it no context. Statistically Johan Franzen has been more clutch in playoff OTs in his career so far. There' no way to know if Sakic would even rank in the top 10 without alot of further research.

 

[JSF1921]

My point wasn't just in a direct comparison of Yzerman and Sakic, but rather the blanket statement that Sakic was the best OT guy in the playoffs. Sure, his 8 goals in 43 games looks great, meaning he scored the winner roughly every 5th OT game he played in. Is that more impressive, for example, than Johan Franzen who has 2 OT winners in 8 games, or a winner in every 4th OT game he plays? Where would Sakic rank on a list of OT goals per OT game? What is a sufficient sample size? Is 8 games enough? 12? 20? At what point does that start excluding player who because of team or random chance simply didn't have as many chances to play OT playoff games? My entire point is that saying Sakic is the "best" at OT in the playoffs is just taking a career total and giving it no context. Statistically Johan Franzen has been more clutch in playoff OTs in his career so far. There' no way to know if Sakic would even rank in the top 10 without alot of further research.

Every single statistic in all of sport can be rendered useless when subject to this level of scrutiny. The only thing you're proving right now is that statistics aren't perfect. Everybody knows this already.

Lets stay on topic here. Instead of nitpicking at statistics that can not in any imaginable way favor Yzerman over Sakic no matter how you present them or how hard you try to discredit them, why don't you present a compelling case for Yzerman, as the OP and several others, myself included, have done for Sakic in the past?

Good work seventies, you and a few others have pretty much covered all the bases as thoroughly as humanly possible. The only detail worth adding that I haven't seen mentioned so far is that Sakic also missed more of his prime years to the lockouts. I know Yzerman was still active during the second lockout, but he was hardly adding anything to his legacy anymore, whereas Sakic missed a shot at another 90-100 points year.

Nobody ever said that Sakic and Yzerman weren't comparable players, quite the contrary. However, as demonstrated by seventies and several others before, Sakic was evidently just a little bit better. He is undoubtedly 1a to Yzerman's 1b.

 

[FissionFire]

All the OP did was present a nice case study in Sakic's career vs. Yzerman's career based on statistical analysis. Why do you get defensive when I then critique that analysis? Like I've stated previously, there is so much of hockey that can't be quantified. That's why in cases where players are very close, you have to let your eyes tell you who is better. In the case of Sakic vs. Yzerman, who had the better career I think that Sakic has cleary set himself ahead. In the case of Sakic vs. Yzerman, who is the better player I think there is no wrong answer.

 

[Roman Tanner]

All the OP did was present a nice case study in Sakic's career vs. Yzerman's career based on statistical analysis. Why do you get defensive when I then critique that analysis? Like I've stated previously, there is so much of hockey that can't be quantified. That's why in cases where players are very close, you have to let your eyes tell you who is better. In the case of Sakic vs. Yzerman, who had the better career I think that Sakic has cleary set himself ahead. In the case of Sakic vs. Yzerman, who is the better player I think there is no wrong answer.

Methinks more often then not - it's not your eyes telling you but your heart.

Wings fans will go one way, Nords fans another - and perhaps everyone else will reflect on moments, keepsakes, old jerseys, the people around you, where they grew up - or any other environmental indicators that would have them leaning one way or another.

All in all this has been a thoroughly enjoyable read. While these threads tend to pop up once every few months - this has been statistically, one of the most impressive.

Kudos.

 

[JSF1921]

I'm not being defensive, I'm simply challenging you to defend your point of view, since I've never seen a solid argument in Yzerman's favor despite the countless debates I've seen about these two. There's also the issue that the majority of the debates on this forum rely almost solely on statistics since people enjoy comparing players across eras, and that since you happen to be a big contributor to these debates and this section of the forum in general, I don't see why you would have a problem with a purely statistical debate, but I digress.

As far as the eyeball test is concerned, it tells me that from 88-95, they were pretty close, and that from 96-06, I would not have traded one Joe Sakic for two Steve Yzermans. Joe was simply in a different class.

 

[Perfect_Drug]

Gawwdddd. Two of my favorite players of all time.

I always thought of them as twins. Complete equals. Ying and Yang.

I liked the statistical analysis of the two, but I don't think that tells even HALF the story of these two.


I saw Steve Yzerman beat the Vancouver Canucks on ONE FREAKING LEG. That must've provided an insane amount of inspiration to his team mates.

But then again Joe is likely the most clutch players in history.


Gawwwd picking one of these two is like asking me which of my children do I love more.

 

[seventieslord]

Every single statistic in all of sport can be rendered useless when subject to this level of scrutiny. The only thing you're proving right now is that statistics aren't perfect. Everybody knows this already.

Lets stay on topic here. Instead of nitpicking at statistics that can not in any imaginable way favor Yzerman over Sakic no matter how you present them or how hard you try to discredit them, why don't you present a compelling case for Yzerman, as the OP and several others, myself included, have done for Sakic in the past?

Good work seventies, you and a few others have pretty much covered all the bases as thoroughly as humanly possible. The only detail worth adding that I haven't seen mentioned so far is that Sakic also missed more of his prime years to the lockouts. I know Yzerman was still active during the second lockout, but he was hardly adding anything to his legacy anymore, whereas Sakic missed a shot at another 90-100 points year.

Nobody ever said that Sakic and Yzerman weren't comparable players, quite the contrary. However, as demonstrated by seventies and several others before, Sakic was evidently just a little bit better. He is undoubtedly 1a to Yzerman's 1b.

FissionFire is definitely one of the most balanced posters here. Even though he's a wings fan and this is about Yzerman, I think we can count on him to be at least 90% bias-free.

I definitely can see what you're saying about the ntpicking though... when one has 8 OTG and the other has 1, there's really no way to spin that. He played Devil's advocate well, and good for him.

You make a good point about the lockout, and I am surprised I never thought about it. 1994-95 doesn't concern me because Sakic ended up 4th in league scoring and we have no choice but to accept that if it was an 84-game season things would have gone pretty much the same, aside from maybe Gretzky doing better and Zhamnov dropping off. sakic's career totals are affected but so are Yzerman's to nearly the same degree, and I don't care much for career totals.

2004-05 is pretty legit, though. Yzerman was probably not good for 50 points that year, while Sakic was healthy and scored 87 points both before and after the lockout. The way things were going, that's another top-5 in points for him and with an intact Avs squad, probably a 2-3 round playoff run. It's all speculation, but that is the most likely outcome of 04-05.

Overpass: thanks for the awesome numbers - they looked better than I even thought they would.

 

[seventieslord]

One thing I'd really like to see, is Detroit and Colorado's records without Yzerman and Sakic. Since both players have missed close to 200 games, that is a pretty good sample size to see how their teams do without them.

If anyone goes ahead and does this, could you go by the three standards I used in the original post: Total regular season career, regular season in prime years (age 21-32 seasons as per hockey-reference.com) and total playoff career.

I don't have this type of info but I have a feeling that someone does.

 

[arrbez]

Saku Koivu must be better than either of them. Get back to me whenever Sakic or Yzerman come back from cancer.

Mike Ribeiro says hi. Call me when Koivu suffers a life-threatening labia injury in the playoffs, and returns the very next shift!

 

[FissionFire]

Mario Lemieux is facepalming right now.

 

[RTN]

My point wasn't just in a direct comparison of Yzerman and Sakic, but rather the blanket statement that Sakic was the best OT guy in the playoffs. Sure, his 8 goals in 43 games looks great, meaning he scored the winner roughly every 5th OT game he played in. Is that more impressive, for example, than Johan Franzen who has 2 OT winners in 8 games, or a winner in every 4th OT game he plays? Where would Sakic rank on a list of OT goals per OT game? What is a sufficient sample size? Is 8 games enough? 12? 20? At what point does that start excluding player who because of team or random chance simply didn't have as many chances to play OT playoff games? My entire point is that saying Sakic is the "best" at OT in the playoffs is just taking a career total and giving it no context. Statistically Johan Franzen has been more clutch in playoff OTs in his career so far. There' no way to know if Sakic would even rank in the top 10 without alot of further research.

Please do not compare Franzen's one great playoff series to Joe Sakic. In 5 years, you won't even know who Johan Franzen is. I don't know how many playoff games I saw Sakic carry the Avs. I have never seen more of a clutch player.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

Please do not compare Franzen's one great playoff series to Joe Sakic. In 5 years, you won't even know who Johan Franzen is. I don't know how many playoff games I saw Sakic carry the Avs. I have never seen more of a clutch player.

Okay...

 

[FissionFire]

Please do not compare Franzen's one great playoff series to Joe Sakic. In 5 years, you won't even know who Johan Franzen is. I don't know how many playoff games I saw Sakic carry the Avs. I have never seen more of a clutch player.

Slight overreaction maybe? I simply used Franzen as an example of the dangers of grabbing one stat (OT goals in the playoffs) and saying a player is the best ever at it because he has the most goals. I don't recall ever claiming that Johan Franzen was a better player than Joe Sakic. Have another strong eggnog and chill.

 

[Dark Shadows]

Mike Ribeiro says hi. Call me when Koivu suffers a life-threatening labia injury in the playoffs, and returns the very next shift!

Ill assume you meant this one

 

[Dark Shadows]

Slight overreaction maybe? I simply used Franzen as an example of the dangers of grabbing one stat (OT goals in the playoffs) and saying a player is the best ever at it because he has the most goals. I don't recall ever claiming that Johan Franzen was a better player than Joe Sakic. Have another strong eggnog and chill.

I agree with you 100% that GWG's are a very tricky and unreliable stat. No idea why some people are getting so defensive about it.

 

[Super Fadio Bro]

Saku Koivu must be better than either of them. Get back to me whenever Sakic or Yzerman come back from cancer.

Call me when Koivu will pass Sakic and Yzerman in goals, assists and points

 

[Dark Shadows]

Call me when Koivu will pass Sakic and Yzerman in goals, assists and points

Over a month to read the thread since the last post and the sarcasm was still missed

 

[Cyborg Yzerberg]

One thing I'd really like to see, is Detroit and Colorado's records without Yzerman and Sakic. Since both players have missed close to 200 games, that is a pretty good sample size to see how their teams do without them.

If anyone goes ahead and does this, could you go by the three standards I used in the original post: Total regular season career, regular season in prime years (age 21-32 seasons as per hockey-reference.com) and total playoff career.

I don't have this type of info but I have a feeling that someone does.

Wasn't there a thread a month ago with Lemieux and Forsberg, demonstrating how much they meant to their respective teams, based off their games missed?