Yzerman

[Hobnobs]

But Keenan selected Dale Hawerchuk for the very same role that he turned Yzerman down for, and Hawerchuk never played that role in the NHL, right?

Are we now saying that Keenan is good a picking players? I dont think Hawerchuk was picked for a checking role either. I believe that spot went to Sutter.

 

[quoipourquoi]

So tell me, why is he ranked so low? Because he does not have trophy case of individual awards playing behind Wayne and Mario?

That's a big factor, sure. When you look at his prime in the late-eighties and early-nineties, he's almost unanimously slated sixth behind Gretzky, Lemieux, Messier, Roy, and Bourque. Added to that, his career fell close enough to those of Hasek, Jagr, Sakic, and Lidstrom that the majority has him behind them as well, making him somewhere around the 10th best since 1984.

The thing is, there was a lot of hockey before that, and when you add in the top-five/six players of all of those eras as well, Yzerman starts to fall behind. That's not necessarily a bad thing- it's just that the further we get from #4 (Mario Lemieux... or Gordie Howe, if you're feeling frisky), the less there is that separates each player.

Personally, I'm not opposed to a list of the top four in order, and then three lists of #5-15, #16-40, and #41-100 in alphabetical order!

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Trottier's 1979 is better than sakic's 2001 or yzerman's 1989, i have to disagree.

Peak hart voting is one part of the argument, offense, longevity and playoffs eventually have to be factored in and sakic creams them in all 3 caegories. But i forgot, this is hfboards, we only use certain arguments if it favours the player.

I mean after all, arent we ranking howe above lemieux because of his playoffs and longevity, he certainly doesnt have the peak edge.
Jagr and sakic really should be higher on all time lists.

And certainly you have never been guilty of that, eh?

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Hawerchuk played right wing with Lemieux and Gretzky. There was no defense involved. Hawerchuk was an established 40-50 goal, 100+ point player who was only a year or two removed from a 130-point season. Perfectly reasonable pick.

As has been said before; it was a numbers game. Yzerman lost because he was a scoring line player without the high numbers.

There's a statement that can be taken a couple of different ways.

 

[Johnny Engine]

Personally, I'm not opposed to a list of the top four in order, and then three lists of #5-15, #16-40, and #41-100 in alphabetical order!

Don't talk to Yzerman fans about alphabetical order. It underrates him.

Although any measure that has Rob Zamuner as the worst Canadian pro-era Olympian has something to it, I guess.

 

[Syckle78]

That's pretty damning evidence against the position that Yzerman was always good defensively.

How many players int he 80's were good defensively? Mario? Wayne? Look at Yzerman's teams then, asking him to play defense would of been suicide for those teams. They had to offensively superior or lose, and the only way to do that was for Stevie to focus on offense. At least he showed when it came down to defense being the best for the team he was able to transition and become a very good defensive player, while maintaining offensive output after his peak on bad knees and aging.

 

[Big Phil]

Are you trying to say that Yzerman in 1990 was better than forsberg ever was? I would have to disagree with that entirely. I'll take the 2003 forsberg over 1990 yzerman any day of the week. A 116 point scoring pace mixed with selke caliber game in the deadpuck era, easily beats out 127 points of 1 dimensional offense in a run n gun season. I would take forsberg's 2nd and 3rd best season over Yzerman's too. Yzerman's numbers are a product of the era.

Forsberg is also better in the playoffs, Yzerman deserves to rank higher because he was healthier, but its a myth to say his peak was on another level. This is yzerman we are talking about, not jagr and crosby.

1989 for sure there is never a time Forsberg was better. 1990 in my opinion is right up there too. He was on a bad team and racked up 127 points something only Gretzky and a peak Messier surpassed. He racked up 62 goals, only bettered by Hull. He was just as dynamic that season as he ever was.

That's the thing, Forsberg brought a little more to the table at that time with defense and such, but I wouldn't go as far as calling Yzerman one dimensional either.

The thing that seperates me is the eye test with each player. If you were going up against Yzerman or Forsberg who would keep you up at night more? Who would be more of the central focus on the ice? It's close, but give me Stevie Y there. Like Forsberg, he could dominate a shift just with his puckhandling alone. The offensive dynamic of Yzerman puts him over the top for me.

Plus we need to remember one thing, Forsberg was fine in 2003, but he didn't win the scoring title from Markus Naslund until the final weekend.

 

[Rhiessan71]

The thing that seperates me is the eye test with each player. If you were going up against Yzerman or Forsberg who would keep you up at night more? Who would be more of the central focus on the ice? It's close, but give me Stevie Y there. Like Forsberg, he could dominate a shift just with his puckhandling alone. The offensive dynamic of Yzerman puts him over the top for me.

Well put Phil and the thing that always makes me hold back on Forsberg was his lack of goal scoring. That is one department that he is not even on the same planet as Yzerman.
Yzerman could beat 4 guys and then set up a teammate with an open net or he could also beat the 5th guy and put it in the net himself.
Stopping Forsberg's teammates, stopped Forsberg. Stopping Stevie's teammates, stopped absolutely nothing.

 

[pdd]

Are you trying to say that Yzerman in 1990 was better than forsberg ever was? I would have to disagree with that entirely. I'll take the 2003 forsberg over 1990 yzerman any day of the week. A 116 point scoring pace mixed with selke caliber game in the deadpuck era, easily beats out 127 points of 1 dimensional offense in a run n gun season. I would take forsberg's 2nd and 3rd best season over Yzerman's too. Yzerman's numbers are a product of the era.

Forsberg is also better in the playoffs, Yzerman deserves to rank higher because he was healthier, but its a myth to say his peak was on another level. This is yzerman we are talking about, not jagr and crosby.

In Forsberg's 116 point season he did not receive a single Selke vote. Why not compare that to Sergei Fedorov, who scored 107 points and won the Selke that season? Or Fedorov's 120+ Selke season? Forsberg later in his career scored 106 points and was nearly a Selke nominee. He won the Hart and that was likely his best season overall. And it was not comparable to Yzerman's peak; Forsberg's best PPG is equal to Yzerman's fifth-best, and his best is only 62% of Yzerman's best. People on here don't remember how good Yzerman was at his best because he was very good for a long time. It's like people who bash guys like Chris Chelios or Doug Gilmour. Those guys were solid players well after their prime, but they were amazing players at their best.

Forsberg is like Bobby Orr; he was injured during his prime and nobody ever saw a decline because his career basically ended during his prime. Do people really think Orr and Forsberg could have maintained their dominance another ten years if they hadn't retired due to injury? Of course not.

But I really don't think anyone underrates Yzerman here. I don't think his injuries held him back either. Saying he was playing hurt doesn't hold a lot of weight because every player played hurt. You think Trottier didn't play hurt as well? Was he always 100%? No way. So Yzerman had a full career and wasn't the victim of very many partial seasons. He belongs where he belongs

I don't see how you can punish a guy for playing games hurt. Because that's effectively what happens to Yzerman. He played a lot of games other players wouldn't have. He rebuilt his style in 1988 when his knee was wrecked because he had lost some speed. And then he recommitted himself to defense more than ever in 1994 because his coach wanted to take the league's best offensive machine and turn them into a defensive machine. A guy like Forsberg, you didn't even know if he was going to be on the ice on a given night. Might as well list him "questionable" to start the season and just leave him there. Yzerman and Forsberg each missed 15+ games 7 times in their careers. Forsberg's only surgeries were his shoulder surgery, his ruptured spleen, and the tendons in his foot (overlapping absence with spleen), all later in his career. He also had a minor wrist issue late in his career. This is while Yzerman had to deal with several reconstructive knee surgeries throughout and after his prime (you see that 2003-04 season where Yzerman only played 16 games? Those were end-of season after he was cleared to return from offseason knee surgery.), surgery to remove a herniated disc in the middle of the 93-94 season (he still finished that year with a better PPG than any Forsberg ever posted) and took a puck to the eye, requiring eye surgery.

But I suppose there is an even easier way of doing this than trying to convince you with injuries. Ignoring the last two "comeback attempt" seasons with the Avalanche, Forsberg played 12 seasons. He also missed a year completely due to injury. So we'll look at Yzerman's first 12 years, and his first 13 years, and see how that works out.

First 12: 862 GP, 472g-679a-1151pt
First 13: 842 GP, 508g-738a-1246pt

That second line gives him slightly better G and A numbers than Jean Beliveau in about 280 fewer games.

Even more importantly; Yzerman's last season in the second example he was a 95-point Selke finalist. If he retires due to injury at that point, people are much more likely to rank him highly than if he plays Selke-level defense with 500 points in 700 games.

Had Paul Coffey retired after the 1995-96 season, he'd be much more highly thought of. Those last four years brought perception of him way down, even though he was a speed-based player nearing 40, much slower than he had been, and playing in an anti-speed league.

Bobby Orr stays healthy for another ten years and he probably doesn't win more than three more Norrises - if that. Orr's play was declining, Esposito was soon to retire, Bucyk was done, and Potvin was just emerging. Even moreso, though, Coffey's presence would have negated Orr in the 80s; there's no way a 35-36 year-old Orr is beating out Paul Coffey for Norrises. He'd have also been competing with Ray Bourque on his own team if you assume Bourque still ended up a Bruin; if not Bourque would have definitely provided serious challenge every year.

Don't downgrade Yzerman for trying to help his team win.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Bobby Orr stays healthy for another ten years and he probably doesn't win more than three more Norrises - if that. Orr's play was declining

In what world is 135 points by a d-men prior to basically the end of his career in any way, shape or form considered a decline in play?
And Orr made Espo, NOT the other way around.

This was the only point I took issue with out of your post though. Younger fans only seeing the end of a great players career will always set them back in their eyes.

 

[pdd]

Stopping Stevie's teammates, stopped absolutely nothing.

This right here cannot be more true.

Only three players in NHL history scored more than 140 points without having a 100+ teammate. Wayne Gretzky, Mario Lemieux, and Steve Yzerman.

If you extend that down to 130+, you can add the names Peter Stastny, Dennis Maruk, Guy Lafleur, Teemu Selanne, Kent Nilsson, Denis Savard, and Marcel Dionne.

But only two players who scored 130+ hit that number twice on teams that didn't have any other 100-point scorer. Wayne Gretzky and Steve Yzerman. That's pretty exclusive company when talking about offense.

 

[canucks4ever]

1989 for sure there is never a time Forsberg was better. 1990 in my opinion is right up there too. He was on a bad team and racked up 127 points something only Gretzky and a peak Messier surpassed. He racked up 62 goals, only bettered by Hull. He was just as dynamic that season as he ever was.

That's the thing, Forsberg brought a little more to the table at that time with defense and such, but I wouldn't go as far as calling Yzerman one dimensional either.

The thing that seperates me is the eye test with each player. If you were going up against Yzerman or Forsberg who would keep you up at night more? Who would be more of the central focus on the ice? It's close, but give me Stevie Y there. Like Forsberg, he could dominate a shift just with his puckhandling alone. The offensive dynamic of Yzerman puts him over the top for me.

Plus we need to remember one thing, Forsberg was fine in 2003, but he didn't win the scoring title from Markus Naslund until the final weekend.

How great do you think his 1989 seasons is, is it better than all of jagr`s seasons too.

He may have only won the scoring title in the last week, but he also missed 7 games. Yzerman wasnt even a hart finalist in 1990, Forsberg was clearly better that year. I think teams would focus more on forsberg, because in his prime he was a two way threat and brought physicality, yzerman not so much. Forsberg was a little bit better defensively, you must really have a bias against him. Keenan would have never cut forsberg if forsberg was canadian.

 

[canucks4ever]

In Forsberg's 116 point season he did not receive a single Selke vote. Why not compare that to Sergei Fedorov, who scored 107 points and won the Selke that season? Or Fedorov's 120+ Selke season? Forsberg later in his career scored 106 points and was nearly a Selke nominee. He won the Hart and that was likely his best season overall. And it was not comparable to Yzerman's peak; Forsberg's best PPG is equal to Yzerman's fifth-best, and his best is only 62% of Yzerman's best. People on here don't remember how good Yzerman was at his best because he was very good for a long time. It's like people who bash guys like Chris Chelios or Doug Gilmour. Those guys were solid players well after their prime, but they were amazing players at their best.

Forsberg is like Bobby Orr; he was injured during his prime and nobody ever saw a decline because his career basically ended during his prime. Do people really think Orr and Forsberg could have maintained their dominance another ten years if they hadn't retired due to injury? Of course not.
Also lets not pretend they played in the same era, yzerman played when offense exploded. Forsberg has more top 5 scoring finishes between the two.


I don't see how you can punish a guy for playing games hurt. Because that's effectively what happens to Yzerman. He played a lot of games other players wouldn't have. He rebuilt his style in 1988 when his knee was wrecked because he had lost some speed. And then he recommitted himself to defense more than ever in 1994 because his coach wanted to take the league's best offensive machine and turn them into a defensive machine. A guy like Forsberg, you didn't even know if he was going to be on the ice on a given night. Might as well list him "questionable" to start the season and just leave him there. Yzerman and Forsberg each missed 15+ games 7 times in their careers. Forsberg's only surgeries were his shoulder surgery, his ruptured spleen, and the tendons in his foot (overlapping absence with spleen), all later in his career. He also had a minor wrist issue late in his career. This is while Yzerman had to deal with several reconstructive knee surgeries throughout and after his prime (you see that 2003-04 season where Yzerman only played 16 games? Those were end-of season after he was cleared to return from offseason knee surgery.), surgery to remove a herniated disc in the middle of the 93-94 season (he still finished that year with a better PPG than any Forsberg ever posted) and took a puck to the eye, requiring eye surgery.

But I suppose there is an even easier way of doing this than trying to convince you with injuries. Ignoring the last two "comeback attempt" seasons with the Avalanche, Forsberg played 12 seasons. He also missed a year completely due to injury. So we'll look at Yzerman's first 12 years, and his first 13 years, and see how that works out.

First 12: 862 GP, 472g-679a-1151pt
First 13: 842 GP, 508g-738a-1246pt

That second line gives him slightly better G and A numbers than Jean Beliveau in about 280 fewer games.

Even more importantly; Yzerman's last season in the second example he was a 95-point Selke finalist. If he retires due to injury at that point, people are much more likely to rank him highly than if he plays Selke-level defense with 500 points in 700 games.

Had Paul Coffey retired after the 1995-96 season, he'd be much more highly thought of. Those last four years brought perception of him way down, even though he was a speed-based player nearing 40, much slower than he had been, and playing in an anti-speed league.

Bobby Orr stays healthy for another ten years and he probably doesn't win more than three more Norrises - if that. Orr's play was declining, Esposito was soon to retire, Bucyk was done, and Potvin was just emerging. Even moreso, though, Coffey's presence would have negated Orr in the 80s; there's no way a 35-36 year-old Orr is beating out Paul Coffey for Norrises. He'd have also been competing with Ray Bourque on his own team if you assume Bourque still ended up a Bruin; if not Bourque would have definitely provided serious challenge every year.

Don't downgrade Yzerman for trying to help his team win.

In 2003 Forsberg scored at a pace of 116, read my post before you respond.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Plus we need to remember one thing, Forsberg was fine in 2003, but he didn't win the scoring title from Markus Naslund until the final weekend.

Just for clarification, he re-injured his groin twice, hurt his neck, got a concussion, caught the flu, bruised his leg, missed 8 games, and still helped Milan Hejduk score his 50th Goal during a three-point night in Game 82.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Just for clarification, he re-injured his groin twice, hurt his neck, got a concussion, caught the flu, bruised his leg, missed 8 games, and still helped Milan Hejduk score his 50th Goal during a three-point night in Game 82.

...and how about you go ahead and list Yzerman's linemates in '89 when he put up his 155, then lets talk about which season was more impressive, shall we?

Or are you going to tell us all how Gallant and MacLean are better players than Hejduk and Tanguay or having Chaisson and Norwood moving the puck from the back end rivals Blake and Morris

I mean all Stevie did that year was account for 49.5% of Detroit's total offense.
To put that in perspective....in Forsberg's highest season 95/96, he would of needed 161 points to match that % and would of needed 125 points in 02/03.
Defensively, Forsberg was more consistent overall for their careers.
Offensively, they were both great playmakers but Stevie leaves him in the dust and I'm talking an F-5 tornado kinda dust for goal scoring.
Hell, a 35 year old defense first, well past his prime Yzerman scored 5 more goals in 99/00 than Forsberg ever managed in a season period.

So you can play the defense card all you want with these two but it's the goal scoring gap that truly sets them apart.

 

[quoipourquoi]

...and how about you go ahead and list Yzerman's linemates in '89 when he put up his 155, then lets talk about which season was more impressive, shall we?

Or are you going to tell us all how Gallant and MacLean are better players than Hejduk and Tanguay or having Chaisson and Norwood moving the puck from the back end rivals Blake and Morris

I mean all Stevie did that year was account for 49.5% of Detroit's total offense.
To put that in perspective....in Forsberg's highest season 95/96, he would of needed 161 points to match that % and would of needed 125 points in 02/03.
Defensively, Forsberg was more consistent overall for their careers.
Offensively, they were both great playmakers but Stevie leaves him in the dust and I'm talking an F-5 tornado kinda dust for goal scoring.
Hell, a 35 year old defense first, well past his prime Yzerman scored 5 more goals in 99/00 than Forsberg ever managed in a season period.

So you can play the defense card all you want with these two but it's the goal scoring gap that truly sets them apart.

I honestly feel bad that you explained all of that, when I was simply pointing out the mistaken condition Forsberg's health in 2003 and not making any evaluation towards his prime relative to Yzerman's.

I haven't played any card in this thread.

 

[Rhiessan71]

I honestly feel bad that you explained all of that, when I was simply pointing out the mistaken condition Forsberg's health in 2003 and not making any evaluation towards his prime relative to Yzerman's.

I haven't played any card in this thread.

Heh, fair enough but even though it was your post I quoted, it was more directed at the previous poster

 

[quoipourquoi]

Heh, fair enough but even though it was your post I quoted, it was more directed at the previous poster

I figured as much!

I'd be wary of using percentage of team points as an argument in anything but a MVP thread though. Just flipping through the Hockey Compendium, I know it isn't always the best player in the league who has the best presence.

 

[pdd]

I agree here, Yzerman still had better offensive stats when you adjust for season but Peter brought more to his total game than Stevie did back in his high scoring days. and while plus/minus can be misleading at times Forsbergs career playoff plus minus is truly indicative of his greatness in the post season. Yzerman is close but he is behind Peter in this regard IMO.

Forsberg walked into the league on a contender and spent his entire career on one. Yzerman's first seven seasons were on a mediocre to bad team that often missed the playoffs yet he still led them to two conference finals where they fought an even match with Gretzky's Oilers at their peak.

How many times during that playoff format did a single star forward lead a team that had weak goaltending and poor defense to the conference finals? Not many I'd wager. Aside from Yzerman doing it twice, I can't think of ANY other times it happened.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Forsberg walked into the league on a contender and spent his entire career on one. Yzerman's first seven seasons were on a mediocre to bad team that often missed the playoffs yet he still led them to two conference finals where they fought an even match with Gretzky's Oilers at their peak.

How many times during that playoff format did a single star forward lead a team that had weak goaltending and poor defense to the conference finals? Not many I'd wager. Aside from Yzerman doing it twice, I can't think of ANY other times it happened.

Yzerman didn't do it at all in 1988 actually; he was injured and the team went to the Conference Finals before he got back.

I'm honestly not trying to bad mouth him (I promise, I have him in my top 20 ), but navigating the Norris divisional playoffs wasn't exactly the most difficult maze back then.

 

[Syckle78]

Are you trying to say that Yzerman in 1990 was better than forsberg ever was? I would have to disagree with that entirely. I'll take the 2003 forsberg over 1990 yzerman any day of the week. A 116 point scoring pace mixed with selke caliber game in the deadpuck era, easily beats out 127 points of 1 dimensional offense in a run n gun season. I would take forsberg's 2nd and 3rd best season over Yzerman's too. Yzerman's numbers are a product of the era.

Forsberg is also better in the playoffs, Yzerman deserves to rank higher because he was healthier, but its a myth to say his peak was on another level. This is yzerman we are talking about, not jagr and crosby.

If Yermans number were a product of his era, why then was he still a ppg player after injuries, at an advanced age and turning to a defensive style of game? Clearly Yzerman could of matched surpassed, turn backed and waved Forsberg's production if he would of been in his prime at the same time. Calling Forsberg a more skilled offense player than Yzerman is a joke.

 

[Rhiessan71]

I figured as much!

I'd be wary of using percentage of team points as an argument in anything but a MVP thread though. Just flipping through the Hockey Compendium, I know it isn't always the best player in the league who has the best presence.

We were talking about their offense though and my point was that Forsberg's more consistent 2-way play does not make up for Stevie's rather large goal scoring advantage.

 

[pdd]

Just for clarification, he re-injured his groin twice, hurt his neck, got a concussion, caught the flu, bruised his leg, missed 8 games, and still helped Milan Hejduk score his 50th Goal during a three-point night in Game 82.

And Yzerman's 1988-89 season was his first year back after a career-threatening knee injury and reconstruction.

Also, Yzerman played with exactly one 50-goal scorer on the Wings from 1983-84 to 1992-93. John Ogrodnick. Care to guess how many times Johnny O scored 50? Once. It was also the only season he played a significant number of games with Yzerman. In 1993-94 you have Fedorov and Sheppard. Sheppard would never have come close to 50 goals if not for Yzerman. Fedorov OTOH? He could probably have broken 80 if he weren't so committed defensively. After the 93-94 season Yzerman did not play with any 50+ goal scorers. Had the team continued to play the same kind of offensive style they had been playing, they probably would have had a couple. They certainly had the weapons to do so. It also would have likely extended Paul Coffey's legacy and his career.
But the fact remains that in Yzerman's tenure with the team, there were nine 100-point seasons. Six of them belonged to Steve Yzerman.

 

[quoipourquoi]

We were talking about their offense though and my point was that Forsberg's more consistent 2-way play does not make up for Stevie's rather large goal scoring advantage.

Oh, goal-scoring, no question, Yzerman (offense, period, in my opinion). I was talking about the 49.5% of their respective team's offense. It'd be kind of hard for any player to do that with peak Joe Sakic on the team - even if he's only healthy for 58 games.

 

[pdd]

Yzerman didn't do it at all in 1988 actually; he was injured and the team went to the Conference Finals before he got back.

And now you know why I didn't say "carry his team" as he was still most certainly present in the locker room, and he was the captain and respected as such.

I'm honestly not trying to bad mouth him (I promise, I have him in my top 20 ), but navigating the Norris divisional playoffs wasn't exactly the most difficult maze back then.

Being a division comprised of weaker teams does not make the playoffs easier necessarily. If the Smythe division has a top four with 106, 95, 88, and 70 points and the Norris has 79, 78, 72, and 70... which division is going to be harder to win in the playoffs? The 106-point team would have to play well below its normal level to lose the first round. All of the other series are within ten points. And at worst, the 106-point team has to face the 95-point team next, an 11-point gap. The #1 to #4 gap in the Norris is only 9 points. Meaning the smallest possible gap between the 106-point team and the eventual Norris winner would be 27 points. Possibly as many as 36. Obviously a difficulty increase, but more importantly the fact is noted that all four Norris playoff teams are basically at the same level. Making a playoff series long and hard because that's how it always is when two teams are evenly matched.