Trottier vs Yzerman vs Sakic

[LightningStorm]

For these 3 all time great #19 centers, how do you rank them all time? I think all of them are in the same tier as each other, in fact, I have then all back to back to back in my all time centers ranking. I also think a reasonable case could be made for any ranking among these great 2 way centers who all at least contended for scoring titles. Overall I'd go:

1. Trottier
2. Yzerman
3, Sakic

I rank Trottier first because I thought he was a better all around player in his prime than Yzerman (even if Yzerman's defense in his high scoring years was underrated), and both players had a more consistent prime than Sakic. I also think Trottier's lack of longevity needs an asterisk next to it for how much extra hockey he played in his 20's as a superstar on the Isles dynasty. Similar to a lot of their players, all that extra wear and tear as well as short offseasons cost them their longevity. Sakic definitely had the best longevity, but Yzerman was good in that category too.

Counting regular season and postseason, I do think Sakic's 1996 and 2001 seasons were the 2 best for any of these 3 players, with both seasons being his 2 best for regular season AND postseason. But I don't think he had a string of consecutive great seasons like late 70's/early 80's Trottier and late 80's/early 90's Yzerman. Though a large part of this is because in the 4 seasons between 1996 and 2001, he only played 60-73 games in each of them. And to be fair, Sakic was also the best sniper of the 3.

Overall I do rank Trottier the highest because at his best he was the better shutdown center than the other 2, and was also competing for scoring titles at the same time. What's your opinion on how these 3 #19 HOF centers compare career wise? As I said, a reasonable case can be made for any ranking.

Click to read more...

 

[Voight]

It doesn't look "as good" statistically as the other two because it was the DPE but from 2000-2004 Sakic made 3/4 first AST's, had his hue 2001 season, was 3rd in total points, point finishes of 2,5,2, assist finishes of 5,3,4 and goal finishes of 2, 10.

In 2003 he missed just over 1/4 of the season otherwise he'd likely be 1st in points over that span, would've added more top 10 finishes and possibly another AST.

 

[LightningStorm]

It doesn't look "as good" statistically as the other two because it was the DPE but from 2000-2004 Sakic made 3/4 first AST's, had his hue 2001 season, was 3rd in total points, point finishes of 2,5,2, assist finishes of 5,3,4 and goal finishes of 2, 10.

In 2003 he missed just over 1/4 of the season otherwise he'd likely be 1st in points over that span, would've added more top 10 finishes and possibly another AST.

I do find this period from Sakic a little underrated. I think a large part is people associate him as being a goal scorer, when he was about equal parts a sniper and playmaker. Though part of those high finishes were due to the early 2000's being among the weakest eras for high end scorers.

 

[norrisnick]

In the order of the title.

 

[Dingo]

Sakic, Yzerman, Trottier
all close.

 

[markymarc1215]

For these 3 all time great #19 centers, how do you rank them all time? I think all of them are in the same tier as each other, in fact, I have then all back to back to back in my all time centers ranking. I also think a reasonable case could be made for any ranking among these great 2 way centers who all at least contended for scoring titles. Overall I'd go:

1. Trottier
2. Yzerman
3, Sakic

I rank Trottier first because I thought he was a better all around player in his prime than Yzerman (even if Yzerman's defense in his high scoring years was underrated), and both players had a more consistent prime than Sakic. I also think Trottier's lack of longevity needs an asterisk next to it for how much extra hockey he played in his 20's as a superstar on the Isles dynasty. Similar to a lot of their players, all that extra wear and tear as well as short offseasons cost them their longevity. Sakic definitely had the best longevity, but Yzerman was good in that category too.

Counting regular season and postseason, I do think Sakic's 1996 and 2001 seasons were the 2 best for any of these 3 players, with both seasons being his 2 best for regular season AND postseason. But I don't think he had a string of consecutive great seasons like late 70's/early 80's Trottier and late 80's/early 90's Yzerman. Though a large part of this is because in the 4 seasons between 1996 and 2001, he only played 60-73 games in each of them. And to be fair, Sakic was also the best sniper of the 3.

Overall I do rank Trottier the highest because at his best he was the better shutdown center than the other 2, and was also competing for scoring titles at the same time. What's your opinion on how these 3 #19 HOF centers compare career wise? As I said, a reasonable case can be made for any ranking.

Apples to apples. They were nearly identical for their career accomplishments. Sakic and Yzerman obviously were/are successful GMs, where Trottier was an awful head coach.

 

[GMR]

Apples to apples. They were nearly identical for their career accomplishments. Sakic and Yzerman obviously were/are successful GMs, where Trottier was an awful head coach.

I still don't get how Trottier of all people became a Rangers coach.

 

[Mike C]

For these 3 all time great #19 centers, how do you rank them all time? I think all of them are in the same tier as each other, in fact, I have then all back to back to back in my all time centers ranking. I also think a reasonable case could be made for any ranking among these great 2 way centers who all at least contended for scoring titles. Overall I'd go:

1. Trottier
2. Yzerman
3, Sakic

I rank Trottier first because I thought he was a better all around player in his prime than Yzerman (even if Yzerman's defense in his high scoring years was underrated), and both players had a more consistent prime than Sakic. I also think Trottier's lack of longevity needs an asterisk next to it for how much extra hockey he played in his 20's as a superstar on the Isles dynasty. Similar to a lot of their players, all that extra wear and tear as well as short offseasons cost them their longevity. Sakic definitely had the best longevity, but Yzerman was good in that category too.

Counting regular season and postseason, I do think Sakic's 1996 and 2001 seasons were the 2 best for any of these 3 players, with both seasons being his 2 best for regular season AND postseason. But I don't think he had a string of consecutive great seasons like late 70's/early 80's Trottier and late 80's/early 90's Yzerman. Though a large part of this is because in the 4 seasons between 1996 and 2001, he only played 60-73 games in each of them. And to be fair, Sakic was also the best sniper of the 3.

Overall I do rank Trottier the highest because at his best he was the better shutdown center than the other 2, and was also competing for scoring titles at the same time. What's your opinion on how these 3 #19 HOF centers compare career wise? As I said, a reasonable case can be made for any ranking.

I'm in agreement about Trottier. He is one of the most complete players in NHL history. Until Gretzky hit his stride, it can be argued Trottier was the best player in the league. 7 total cups (one as ass't coach)

He excelled in every area including PP, PK and took every clutch faceoff

Aside from "playoff Billy Smith", I've always contended that he was the one who made that team go and the only player they could not afford to lose

 

[Hockey Outsider]

It doesn't look "as good" statistically as the other two because it was the DPE but from 2000-2004 Sakic made 3/4 first AST's, had his hue 2001 season, was 3rd in total points, point finishes of 2,5,2, assist finishes of 5,3,4 and goal finishes of 2, 10.

In 2003 he missed just over 1/4 of the season otherwise he'd likely be 1st in points over that span, would've added more top 10 finishes and possibly another AST.

Semi off-topic, but Joe Sakic's 2000 campaign has to be one of the most underrated "partial" seasons from the past ~30 years.

A lot of people act like his 2001 campaign came out of nowhere, but he was playing very close to that level the year before (just that he missed 22 games). Had Sakic played even 15 of those games, he very likely would have led the league in scoring, and he probably would have taken the Hart from Pronger (since a lot of the case for Pronger was no forward was good enough to reach 100 points). He was 4th in plus/minus (a dubious stat, but the voters look at it) and 10th in Selke voting despite missing a quarter of the year.

If we assume nothing else changes, Sakic could have been first-team all-star four times in five years (2000, 2001, 2002 and 2004), won the Olympic MVP and tournament scoring lead (2002), won an Art Ross (2000) with two runner-ups (2001 and 2004), won a Hart or two (2000 and 2001), had a Smythe-worthy playoff run (2001), and been a Selke finalist twice (2000 and 2001).

Of course, we can't given Sakic credit for what might have happened. And if he already got the Hart and Art Ross in 2000, he might not have pushed himself so hard in 2001. And if we play the same game, we could give Jagr credit for the Hart/Art Ross in 2000. But the point is - 15 or 20 games would have changed the narrative from "Sakic had an amazing season out of nowhere in 2001" to "Sakic had an all-time great five-year peak".

 

[daver]

Semi off-topic, but Joe Sakic's 2000 campaign has to be one of the most underrated "partial" seasons from the past ~30 years.

A lot of people act like his 2001 campaign came out of nowhere, but he was playing very close to that level the year before (just that he missed 22 games). Had Sakic played even 15 of those games, he very likely would have led the league in scoring, and he probably would have taken the Hart from Pronger (since a lot of the case for Pronger was no forward was good enough to reach 100 points). He was 4th in plus/minus (a dubious stat, but the voters look at it) and 10th in Selke voting despite missing a quarter of the year.

Sakic was 5th in scoring and 7th in PPG when he got injured after 15 games in that season. When he returned for good on Dec, 27th, he was 1st in scoring and PPG for the rest of the season. For the season, he was 2nd in PPG, .07 ahead of Selanne and Turgeon. Of course, Jagr still wins the Art Ross if he didn't miss any games either and wins the Hart convincingly. It is also a decent bet that Forsberg would have beaten him if he didn't miss time himself. I don't think he was doing anything spectacular on the offensive side of things that season that he hadn't done before.

Sakic probably doesn't get appropriately dinged for a mediocre 97/98 season due to injury. He was 10th in points and 15th in PPG after 58 games.

He was a solid Top 3 scorer in the league; a position he held for 3 to 4 seasons. Yzerman had the higher offensive peak, while Trottier's peak season is close to Sakic's, but Sakic has the better high end scoring finishes.

I don't think he loses much, if anything, from his partial 99/00 season.

 

[NordiquesForeva]

They're in the same tier for me, and I think it would be fair for any all-time ranking to include all three players within a range of 5-6 spots.

I have Trottier > Yzerman > Sakic, but its very close.

I think Yzerman had the highest offensive peak of any of the three players (~1987-88 to 1992-93), and was a stellar defensive player later in his career when he was asked to focus on that part of the game within Detroit's deep forward group. The even-strength production during his peak while doing it with lesser talent on his wings than Sakic (or Trottier) and being seen as a top-5 or 6 player in a league that was incredibly strong at the top for a good stretch of time are the big positives for me.

Trottier's offensive peak was second to Yzerman's, imo, and he was perhaps better defensively and obviously much more physical than the other two. 6 Cups as a player, including 4 as the man as the top centre on a dynasty team counts for a lot in my view. Trottier loses a bit of ground in my view for not having the sustained prime and falling off pretty quickly in the late-80s. He had lots of miles on him by that point though.

Sakic makes up a lot of ground with his consistency and very long career of elite/near-elite offensive production. Things might shake out a little differently from my perspective if he had completed those full seasons in 1998-99 and 1999-00, or if we was better in the playoffs those years, but it is what it is. From the eye test, Sakic was usually less noticeable than the other two and had more subtle offensive skills.

 

[GMR]

You could throw Messier, Clarke, or even Mikita into this discussion.

 

[LightningStorm]

Semi off-topic, but Joe Sakic's 2000 campaign has to be one of the most underrated "partial" seasons from the past ~30 years.

A lot of people act like his 2001 campaign came out of nowhere, but he was playing very close to that level the year before (just that he missed 22 games). Had Sakic played even 15 of those games, he very likely would have led the league in scoring, and he probably would have taken the Hart from Pronger (since a lot of the case for Pronger was no forward was good enough to reach 100 points). He was 4th in plus/minus (a dubious stat, but the voters look at it) and 10th in Selke voting despite missing a quarter of the year.

If we assume nothing else changes, Sakic could have been first-team all-star four times in five years (2000, 2001, 2002 and 2004), won the Olympic MVP and tournament scoring lead (2002), won an Art Ross (2000) with two runner-ups (2001 and 2004), won a Hart or two (2000 and 2001), had a Smythe-worthy playoff run (2001), and been a Selke finalist twice (2000 and 2001).

Of course, we can't given Sakic credit for what might have happened. And if he already got the Hart and Art Ross in 2000, he might not have pushed himself so hard in 2001. And if we play the same game, we could give Jagr credit for the Hart/Art Ross in 2000. But the point is - 15 or 20 games would have changed the narrative from "Sakic had an amazing season out of nowhere in 2001" to "Sakic had an all-time great five-year peak".

Sakic was 5th in scoring and 7th in PPG when he got injured after 15 games in that season. When he returned for good on Dec, 27th, he was 1st in scoring and PPG for the rest of the season. For the season, he was 2nd in PPG, .07 ahead of Selanne and Turgeon. Of course, Jagr still wins the Art Ross if he didn't miss any games either and wins the Hart convincingly. It is also a decent bet that Forsberg would have beaten him if he didn't miss time himself. I don't think he was doing anything spectacular on the offensive side of things that season that he hadn't done before.

Sakic probably doesn't get appropriately dinged for a mediocre 97/98 season due to injury. He was 10th in points and 15th in PPG after 58 games.

He was a solid Top 3 scorer in the league; a position he held for 3 to 4 seasons. Yzerman had the higher offensive peak, while Trottier's peak season is close to Sakic's, but Sakic has the better high end scoring finishes.

I don't think he loses much, if anything, from his partial 99/00 season.

With regards to Sakic's 2000 season, I could see it being considered about the same as his 1999 season, which in real life is his best season besides his 2 great 1996 and 2001 season IMO (definitely his best in his seasons in between those 2). In this case, I could see those 2 seasons viewed as him trending back up towards his great 1996 season, which I think 2001 surpassed.

I think the idea of his 2001 season coming out of nowhere was mostly about his goal scoring. In his 4 seasons in between his 50+ goal seasons, his 41 goal 1999 was the only time he even reached 30, plus he didn't reach 30 in neither of the following 2 seasons (though he only played 58 games in 2003). Plus in the 1999 and 2000 playoffs against the other powerhouses in Detroit and Dallas, Sakic struggled while Forsberg did the heavy lifting. Having his 2 best playoff performances in 1996 and 2001 after those were his 2 best regular seasons only compounded how much those 2 seasons are above the rest in his career.

But even if Sakic was healthy in those seasons, I still don't know if he'd equal the great string of seasons Trottier and Yzerman had in their peaks.

 

[LightningStorm]

They're in the same tier for me, and I think it would be fair for any all-time ranking to include all three players within a range of 5-6 spots.

I have Trottier > Yzerman > Sakic, but its very close.

I think Yzerman had the highest offensive peak of any of the three players (~1987-88 to 1992-93), and was a stellar defensive player later in his career when he was asked to focus on that part of the game within Detroit's deep forward group. The even-strength production during his peak while doing it with lesser talent on his wings than Sakic (or Trottier) and being seen as a top-5 or 6 player in a league that was incredibly strong at the top for a good stretch of time are the big positives for me.

Trottier's offensive peak was second to Yzerman's, imo, and he was perhaps better defensively and obviously much more physical than the other two. 6 Cups as a player, including 4 as the man as the top centre on a dynasty team counts for a lot in my view. Trottier loses a bit of ground in my view for not having the sustained prime and falling off pretty quickly in the late-80s. He had lots of miles on him by that point though.

Sakic makes up a lot of ground with his consistency and very long career of elite/near-elite offensive production. Things might shake out a little differently from my perspective if he had completed those full seasons in 1998-99 and 1999-00, or if we was better in the playoffs those years, but it is what it is. From the eye test, Sakic was usually less noticeable than the other two and had more subtle offensive skills.

Thanks for your reasoned analysis, especially since Sakic is your favorite player. Being within 5-6 spots in the rankings is consistent with them all being ranked next to each other in my all time centers ranking (they take up the final 3 spots in my top 10 centers).

Have to agree with Yzerman being the best scorer at his peak. He was a gamebreaking talent who flew down the ice. And while Trottier and Sakic hit their peaks while on their stacked teams, Yzerman's peak came before that point in his career, and really was all the subpar Wings had for some of those seasons. I do think Trottier and Sakic had near even offensive peaks, but Trottier's defense and physical play gives him the edge here and even moves him past Yzerman for their peaks overall.

As you said though, Sakic does make up ground with his longevity. He was a dynamic, #1 C through his age 37 season. Now that I think about it, his 30's were easily the best of the 3. I think his game naturally aged better, as it wasn't dependent on speed like Yzerman nor physicality like Trotter. More subtle, as you said. Yzerman in his 30's was a dynamic 2 way star, but not the gamebreaking offensive star he was before, while Trottier fell off hard in his 30's for all the wear and tear from the dynasty.

 

[The Panther]

I dunno, these guys are all pretty close. Just looking at their top individual seasons is interesting:

Trottier's 1978-79 season is really one for the ages, and we don't talk about it much. Had he not missed four games, he possibly reaches 140 points and goes +80. Also, he was on the ice for only 47 ES/SH goals against the Islanders. His total goals-differential that season is 189 for, 55 against, which is crazy good.

A lot of people point to 1988-89 as Yzerman's peak season -- which it is, offensively. But while Yzerman was on the ice for 189 Red Wings' goals for (exactly the same, in four more games, than Trottier), he was also on for 152 goals against (and still well over 100 when PP goals against are discounted). This is partly the result of Jacques Demers overusing him in every situation due to a limited roster strength, BUT if Trottier was pacing for 15 points fewer and was on the ice for 100 fewer goals against, that's a lot of argument in Trottier's favor, even accounting for Yzerman having to do most of the heavy lifting by himself.

But of course Joe Sakic's career shows us how any given good player can look statistically awful defensively or statistically great defensively based on his team's strength and style, and also across two eras. If we take 2000-01 as his best regular season, he was on ice for 158 Avalanche goals for (that's a lot in the DPE), and only 69 against, with only 48 against after you take away PP goals. So, fabulous results, very Trotter-like on the League's best team. But then back in 1990-91 with Quebec Sakic was on for 164 goals against, the most in the League.

Anyway, this is how Hockey Ref. "adjusts" each's top three scoring seasons:
Sakic: 128, 115, 109
Yzerman: 128, 111, 106
Trottier: 113, 111, 94

 

[LightningStorm]

Trottier's 1978-79 season is really one for the ages, and we don't talk about it much. Had he not missed four games, he possibly reaches 140 points and goes +80. Also, he was on the ice for only 47 ES/SH goals against the Islanders. His total goals-differential that season is 189 for, 55 against, which is crazy good.

For the combined great RS and playoffs Sakic had in both 1996 and 2001, I think Trottier barely missed having this combo with his great '78 and '79 RS's and 80' playoffs. He led the league in assists both those RS while winning the Art Ross in '79, bringing an end to Lafleur's streak of 3 (he finished 2nd to Guy the season before). When Potvin only played 1/3 of the '80 RS, Trottier and Bossy's numbers both suffered, but then he returned and they won the cup. 1982 was probably his best RS/PS combo, being 5th in the RS in points and having his only 50 goal season, then leading the Isles in playoff scoring. But Bossy was their best forward that whole season. 2nd in goals and points behind Gretzky as well as becoming the first winger with 80 assists. Then he leads the playoffs comfortably with 17 goals. I think this season for Bossy would've been remembered more without Gretzky shattering the goals and points record that same season.

As for Yzerman, because the team around him wasn't good at his peak, he never had the opportunity to have a great RS/PS combo like the other 2.

 

[Neutrinos]

Unlike Yzerman during his peak, Sakic may not have been the player on his team that opponents prioritized with their best defensive pairing

 

[Air Budd Dwyer]

Unlike Yzerman during his peak, Sakic may not have been the player on his team that opponents prioritized with their best defensive pairing

During Yzerman's peak, his linemates were typically Probert and Gallant. He had Oates for a few years but he was still young and hadn't blossomed yet.

 

[The Merchant]

During Yzerman's peak, his linemates were typically Probert and Gallant. He had Oates for a few years but he was still young and hadn't blossomed yet.

Jesus christ what a name

 

[Air Budd Dwyer]

Jesus christ what a name

You're the first person here to finally acknowledge it lol.

 

[The Merchant]

You're the first person here to finally acknowledge it lol.

It brought back some unfavorable memories

 

[Stephen]

Sometimes wonder how different Bryan Trottier's legacy would have been if he and the Islanders had accomplished what they did in an Original Six market. Let's say the dynasty teams happened in Detroit. How would that impact his legacy relative to Steve Yzerman.

 

[Stephen]

Unlike Yzerman during his peak, Sakic may not have been the player on his team that opponents prioritized with their best defensive pairing

Sakic's offensive career also had no discernible drop off and narrative change compared to Yzerman though. He didn't have to find his Selke form, won at a reasonably young age and just kept producing at a high rate for all of his career.

 

[Neutrinos]

Sakic's offensive career also had no discernible drop off and narrative change compared to Yzerman though. He didn't have to find his Selke form, won at a reasonably young age and just kept producing at a high rate for all of his career.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I've always assumed Yzerman's drop in production was due to a knee injury he suffered around the midway point of his career

It's certainly reasonable for one to give Yzerman the edge in peak play, and rank him ahead of Sakic accordingly

Just as it's reasonable to think Sakic's extended prime makes up for whatever advantage, if any, Yzerman had at their respective best

 

[The Panther]

During Yzerman's peak, his linemates were typically Probert and Gallant. He had Oates for a few years but he was still young and hadn't blossomed yet.

You mean... Adam wasn't feeling his oats yet?