Is Nathan MacKinnon Better Than Prime Yzerman?

[BraveCanadian]

Yeah personally I’d take 155 point Yzerman over “grizzled veteran sacrificing offence for defence” Yzerman any day.

I think he was a much better player before his knee problems and to his credit he adapted when he could no longer play so dynamically, but he was definitely not a better player later on.

It just makes a nice narrative to weave into the actual story of his team upgrading by leaps and bounds and him finally getting a cup.

 

[MadLuke]

It just makes a nice narrative to weave into the actual story of his team upgrading by leaps and bounds and him finally getting a cup.

And if you were in 87 and 1991 in the camps of better off leaving Yzerman off team Canada because he is a looser, easier instead of saying you were ridiculously wrong all along to say: He is better now in 2002 with a complete game than he was in 1991, I was not wrong about him.

 

[BraveCanadian]

And if you were in 87 and 1991 in the camps of better off leaving Yzerman off team Canada because he is a looser, easier instead of saying you were ridiculously wrong all along to say: He is better now in 2002 with a complete game than he was in 1991, I was not wrong about him.

In no world was Yzerman a better player in 2002 than 1991. He was inspiring because he was playing on one leg (and after his 1990s back surgeries too), and he was effective, but he was not a better player.

There was a dramatic falloff of competition for spots on Team Canada, between 1987 and 2002 though. I think that explains it much better than the intangibles narrative people like so much. Not to say that Yzerman didn’t have them - like I said, he was inspiring and obviously a great captain.

 

[tabness]

It's one thing to take a player in his mid 20s over his mid 30s after a lot of miles and injuries. Especially in 2002 where the guy is entering his late 30s and literally hobbled on one leg.

It's another thing to basically limit Yzerman's "prime" to only years he was scoring 100 points (or on pace for it). It's weird how much of a given it is taken here that Yzerman's "prime" is 1987-1988 to 1993-1994 (especially that last injury filled year lol).

So let's make it a bit more interesting. Instead of cherrypicking 2002 vs 1989 or 1991 or whatever, you going to take Yzerman in 1993-1994 with that nice points per game rate (in a lower scoring era too!) over 1986-1987 or over his late nineties years (ignore the full season say it's 58 games of these other seasons)? You going to cut out those years from Yzerman's prime because they don't meet some scoring benchmark, ignoring well, playstyle and team factors that certainly had an impact on those numbers being lower the other years?

I can understand why there's a backlash to the "Yzerman moment" sort of stuff that gets thrown around. It diminishes players who are on the wrong side of the binary win/lose dichotomy and attributes winning and losing totally a matter of player agency (what can we do? our modern world is based a very humanistic view of human agency and its efficacy). But this backlash has seemed to go way too far in its own right (same sort of civilizational view of agency now in a particularily data centric zeitgest).

Yzerman's prime was all the way from the being named captain and working on his physical strength to until his injuries just kept piling up at the start of the 2000s. The numbers may vary significantly due to role and team considerations and linemates and of course age and injuries, era as well. You let Yzerman more loose in the late nineties, he's scoring 100+ again (same with Fedorov), especially with the talent on the Wings at the time. You bring the late nineties Wings game to the 1988-1989 Red Wings, Yzerman isn't scoring as much as he did, neither would Gretzky or Lemieux for that matter.

 

[MadLuke]

There was a dramatic falloff of competition for spots on Team Canada, between 1987 and 2002 though.

Yes helped Sakic-Modano aging so well also, going from one among the group of Fedorov-Lindros-Gilmour-Lafontaine-Roenick-Turgeon-Oates- from 91 to 93, etc... below the Messier-Lemieux-Gretzky-Yzerman tier, to the best center in the nhl 10 years later.

You let Yzerman more loose in the late nineties, he's scoring 100+ again

98-99-00, 3 players achieved to hit that mark, Jagr and Selanne-Kariya playing together, if you believe 98 and 99 Yzerman would score 100 instead of 74 and 69 points on a less deep teams where he get to play more minutes and relied on offensively (and win the Art Ross maybe in 1998) than sure he would still be in his prime (and arguably better than he was back in the days outside his peak of 88-90)

Player like Sakic-Lidstrom-Bourque-Yzerman-Ovechkin-Crosby-Gretzky are strange to talk about prime-peak, etc... because they are so good every season they played outside the very last moment (not even ever that bad relative to their primes for Sakic-Bourque-Lidstrom), that they are better than many good player peak at their lower points.

Fair enough to consider back to back Yzerman cup winner to still be in what someone call prime of his career, same for Crosby 16-17 and in some ways 2017 Crosby was better in the playoff than the younger one that completely lost its composure, and his whole team with him, against the Flyers).

 

[tabness]

Yes helped Sakic-Modano aging so well also, going from one among the group of Fedorov-Lindros-Gilmour-Lafontaine-Roenick-Turgeon-Oates- from 91 to 93, etc... below the Messier-Lemieux-Gretzky-Yzerman tier, to the best center in the nhl 10 years later.


98-99-00, 3 players achieved to hit that mark, Jagr and Selanne-Kariya playing together, if you believe 98 and 99 Yzerman would score 100 instead of 74 and 69 points on a less deep teams where he get to play more minutes and relied on offensively (and win the Art Ross maybe in 1998) than sure he would still be in his prime (and arguably better than he was back in the days outside his peak of 88-90)

Player like Sakic-Lidstrom-Bourque-Yzerman-Ovechkin-Crosby-Gretzky are strange to talk about prime-peak, etc... because they are so good every season they played outside the very last moment (not even ever that bad relative to their primes for Sakic-Bourque-Lidstrom), that they are better than many good player peak at their lower points.

Fair enough to consider back to back Yzerman cup winner to still be in what someone call prime of his career, same for Crosby 16-17 and in some ways 2017 Crosby was better in the playoff than the younger one that completely lost its composure, and his whole team with him, against the Flyers).

1996 and 1997 is also in that time frame, don't get too hung up on the numbers by the way, replace with 90+ or whatever benchmark you think legit for a comparison between dead puck and late eighties/early nineties. Although I will point out Yzerman stretches at the start of 1996-1997 having been given his first line center role again by Bowman, playing with Shanahan, saw him at the 100 point rate for like the first quarter/third of the year before being put back with McCarty and asked to shoulder the bulk of the defensive load again. Similar thing in the period after Nagano Olympics into the start of 1998-1999.

Or to use examples of the others players you mentioned, Jagr's 1997-1998 season seeing him buy in somewhat to Constantine's system, number drop (Penguins great team defense numbers though). A bit into 1998-1999 and then year after, where Jagr throws that off, his "peakiest" scoring since a couple years before playing with Lemieux.

Or Sakic under Hartley, big offensive role to start with big pace in 1999-2000, big year in 2000-2001, huge drop in 2001-2002, team went into defensive mode with Forsberg being out all season, no more big stats, best team defense in the league though.

 

[MadLuke]

1996 and 1997 is also in that time frame,

Ah yes yay more possible (I had more of a 90-93/94 early 90s, 94/95-97 mids 90s, 98-99-00 late 90s) in mind, because of how the lock-out and the DPE starting to be fully installed in 98 naturally divide them.

replace with 90+ or whatever benchmark you think legit for a comparison between dead puck and late eighties/early nineties.

What people thought has prime Yzerman was the 125-130 pts by 82 guy 88-94 version. In say 97 to 00 would be being below Jagr but above everyone else, scoring at a 110-115 pts by 82 type of pace.

I am sure we can find pocket stretch of time of him doing that type of stuff, one big difference between the young and old version of those players is being able to sustain it for a full regular season and 4 round of playoff, Lemieux started 96 or even 01 or 03 season at ridiculous pace, old Mario was not able to sustain it to the end of season and playoff like the young Mario could. Gretzky post 1991 still had stretch of greatness (first 3 round of the 1993 playoff when he did not had to play the full season for example), never had a full season + playoff of really being the best player in the world in a continuous way anymore.

 

[Lou Sassole]

I posted this on March 9th of this year...

It should be acknowledged that MacKinnon has put up prime Crosby-esque numbers for 7 straight seasons...

Regular Season

MacKinnon (2018 - '24)
249 goals, 664 points, +142 in 474 games

Crosby (2007 - '14)
235 goals, 667 points, +125 in 469 games


Playoffs

MacKinnon (career)
44 goals, 100 points, +34 in 77 games

Crosby (2008 - '13)
37 goals, 100 points, +16 in 77 games


I think when it's all said and done, Crosby vs MacKinnon may be this generation's Yzerman vs Sakic

It's easier to score now. Tired of people making me defend penguins. McDavid isn't better than Lemieux, and Mackinnon isn't better than Crosby. Jesus, I need a shower.

 

[tabness]

What people thought has prime Yzerman was the 125-130 pts by 82 guy 88-94 version.

That's sort of my entire point here, I certainly don't think that's (just) Yzerman's prime, neither does Yzerman, or tons of people in the Wings organization. By all means include those years in Yzerman's prime, they are absolutely wonderful, Gretzky/Lemieux/Yzerman, blah blah blah. You simply can't omit the later nineties Yzerman from his prime, nor for that matter 1986-1987. And it honestly doesn't make too much sense to break it apart into two primes or whatever (you can't do that with 1986-1987 anyway)

If it's something to be contrived to make a comparison to MacKinnon's recent years, then just call it by "88-94" Yzerman or "100 point (pace)" Yzerman or whatever, and even then, sort of different ages and all that (not that I seriously consider this comparison in the first place lol)

 

[Neutrinos]

It's easier to score now. Tired of people making me defend penguins. McDavid isn't better than Lemieux, and Mackinnon isn't better than Crosby. Jesus, I need a shower.

Save the drama for your mama...

 

[VanIslander]

McDavid, Lemieux, Crosby, Jesus ... in one breath? .... yeah, that is drama for yo mamma...
'Bless your soul!'

 

[Hippasus]

Yzerman is the better shooter and passer in his prime. Mackinnon is the better skater. Stickhandling is a draw. Dominance against one's peers favors Mackinnon. Intangibles (like leadership, etc.) and defense are in Yzerman's favor if we are allowed to protract the period of Yzerman's prime to his 30s. Of course, then we would have to see how Mackinnon keeps his prime going in the next several years in order to definitively decide on this factor. That is 3-2 for Yzerman, if I'm permitted to assume that Mackinnon doesn't change his game like Steve Yzerman did his towards the end of his prime.

 

[Reddawg]

As always, you can’t accurately compare different generations against each other. Against the competition, it’s Yzerman. Straight up against each other, it’s MacKinnon.

 

[Hippasus]

As always, you can’t accurately compare different generations against each other. Against the competition, it’s Yzerman. Straight up against each other, it’s MacKinnon.

What do you mean "Straight up against each other"?

 

[VanIslander]

Dominance against one's peers favors Mackinnon.

Um.... Sakic? Forsberg? Modano? Nieuwendyk? ... to mention just two of the teams in Y's own conference they went through.

This is absurd.

Intangibles (like leadership, etc.) and defense are in Yzerman's favor if we are allowed to protract the period of Yzerman's prime to his 30s...

Have you been to an NHL game? Some players own the ice and you see it - the cameras not so much, as sometimes they do and sometimes they are BLIND to what people in the stands see.

For example, Brisebois was a media darling in the media but i went to three games at the forum where fans were AGGRESSIVELY MOCKING him! "Breeze-by.... Breeze-by" they hollered. Later on the 11pm news... nothing (this was pre-'net). The disconnect between my attendance and the coverage was stunning.

Like Cliff Ronning endlessly booed for circling center ice but the TV cameras showed his goal.

My childhood fandom with Coffey ended the first game i actually attended, and saw him away from the puck relative to others... it was embarrassing. Coaches eat their tongues when careless talents score.

 

[Reddawg]

What do you mean "Straight up against each other"?

I mean if prime Yzerman was to play against prime MacKinnon as a result of time travel or other witchcraft trickery not possible in our realm of existence.

 

[Hippasus]

Um.... Sakic? Forsberg? Modano? Nieuwendyk? ... to mention just two of the teams in Y's own conference.


Have you been to an NHL game? Some players own the ice and you see it - the cameras not so much, as sometimes they do and sometimes they are BLIND to what people in the stands see.

For example, Brisebois was a media darling in the media but i went to three games at the forum where fans were AGGRESSIVELY MOCKING him! "Breeze-by.... Breeze-by" they hollered. Later on the 11pm news... nothing (this was pre-'net). The disconnect between my attendance and the coverage was stunning.

Like Cliff Ronning endlessly booed for circling center ice but the TV cameras showed his goal.

My childhood fandom with Coffey ended the first gsme i actually attended, and saw him away from the puck relative to others... it was embarrassing. Coaches eat their tongues when talents score.

Regarding your first point: Look at how well Mackinnon is faring in the scoring races. He's been near the top a lot. I bet a dominance vs. peers analysis would bear out that Mackinnon comes out ahead. I know Gretzky, Lemieux, etc. are the perennial superstars and superior to McDavid, Kucherov, etc. Dominance against peers is like 'How does this guy match up against the 75th percentile point scorer in his given season', for example.

I'm not really sure what your second point is. Are you saying that Mackinnon is better defensively than late-prime Yzerman? If so, then I wholeheartedly disagree.

I mean if prime Yzerman was to play against prime MacKinnon as a result of time travel or other witchcraft trickery not possible in our realm of existence.

Oh, I see.

 

[VanIslander]

What race?

... it is not a statistical measurement: whose is longer?

It is a winning games, and helping do so when it matters most; contributing the most to winning games when they matter most.

 

[MadLuke]

Regarding your first point: Look at how well Mackinnon is faring in the scoring races. He's been near the top a lot. I bet a dominance vs. peers analysis would bear out that Mackinnon comes out ahead. I know Gretzky, Lemieux, etc. are the perennial superstars and superior to McDavid, Kucherov, etc. Dominance against peers is like 'How does this guy match up against the 75th percentile point scorer in his given season', for example.

Mack come ahead in Hart finish (team making the playoff or not being a big factor going in his favor here) but not scoring relative to peers much, it is about a tie I think.

Is Nathan MacKinnon Better Than Prime Yzerman?

f*** the nostoliga its Mackinnon No way Yzerman was 3rd in mid 80s to mid 90s period Ray Bourque was a better player at that time as well, as was Messier He was 5th at best I'm too blinded by nostalgia to even seriously consider this question with Nate MacKinnon lol but yeah I'm not sure...

forums.hfboards.com

Steve Yzerman 1.55 ppg for that era was 19% higher than the 4-10 players, Mack 1.41 was 16%

Should not be blinded by how much higher the scoring rate of Gretzky-Lemieux were to him, they were Gretzky-Lemieux, now there is always the talk about quality of elite competition, but late 80s-earlys 90s why quite top talent heavy of players right in their prime, players like Oates, Recchi that will have no problems scoring a lot 10 years later (Lafontaine when he played has well).

The list of players that outscored their peers more than prime Yzerman will be quite short (espo-jagr-howe-mario-wayne-McDavid-Crosby maybe), because of Mario-Wayne, timing of missed games, Messier and others peak years it does not show that much at a quick glance.

It is a winning games, and helping do so when it matters most; contributing the most to winning games when they matter most.

It is not like Mack was not really good in the playoff and did not win it all.

 

[VanIslander]

His playoff performances (goals, assists, hits, blocks, saves and timely penalties) will take over half an hour to see:

To be clear: it takes over 30 minutes to see Yzerman PLAYOFF highlights... and several are missing! (Assists and takeaways and faceoffs and first passes are underrepresented online)

 

[Hippasus]

His playoff performances (goals, assists, hits, blocks, saves and timely penalties) will take over half an hour to see:

What race?

... it is not a statistical measurement: whose is longer?

It is a winning games, and helping do so when it matters most; contributing the most to winning games when they matter most.

Yeah, Yzerman is better in the intangibles and defense factor. So we agree.

Mack come ahead in Hart finish (team making the playoff or not being a big factor going in his favor here) but not scoring relative to peers much, it is about a tie I think.

Is Nathan MacKinnon Better Than Prime Yzerman?

f*** the nostoliga its Mackinnon No way Yzerman was 3rd in mid 80s to mid 90s period Ray Bourque was a better player at that time as well, as was Messier He was 5th at best I'm too blinded by nostalgia to even seriously consider this question with Nate MacKinnon lol but yeah I'm not sure...

forums.hfboards.com

Steve Yzerman 1.55 ppg for that era was 19% higher than the 4-10 players, Mack 1.41 was 16%

Should not be blinded by how much higher the scoring rate of Gretzky-Lemieux were to him, they were Gretzky-Lemieux, now there is always the talk about quality of elite competition, but late 80s-earlys 90s why quite top talent heavy of players right in their prime, players like Oates, Recchi that will have no problems scoring a lot 10 years later (Lafontaine when he played has well).

The list of players that outscored their peers more than prime Yzerman will be quite short (espo-jagr-howe-mario-wayne-McDavid-Crosby maybe), because of Mario-Wayne, timing of missed games, Messier and others peak years it does not show that much at a quick glance.




It is not like Mack was not really good in the playoff and did not win it all.

So Yzerman probably is better in dominance vs. peers. That makes the case for Yzerman even stronger, even though it is close in this regard. If it was up to me, I wouldn't consider Gretzky, Lemieux, or McDavid outliers. They should just be part of the data.

 

[VanIslander]

I get what you are sayin'.

Welcome to the HISTORY board Hippasus!

 

[VanIslander]

You guys need to see Challengers: