Even though Teemu started a couple years after Modano began his NHL career. These two players who were drafted #1 and #10 respectively, Selänne is fairly close in career adjusted points.
We could potentially see both coming back for another season at the age of 40.
Modano should have the edge in postseason success, however Teemu's regular season with Steve Rucchin as his center has to increase his all-time value.
But the question is, Who will be the better player of all-time?
Michael Thomas Modano, Jr. or Teemu Ilmari Selänne
Selanne. He has a much better Hart trophy voting track record to start. He had more elite seasons than Modano, that's for sure. Modano annoyed you a bit. Yeah it's great he became more well rounded and that might be the reason Dallas won their Cup but I just always was thirsting for more with him. He got 80 points all the time pretty much every year. That's fine and very Sundin-like type of consistency but when he got 80 point you always thought he should have gotten 100. Selanne did this often. He led the NHL in goals three times. He eventually won his Cup and sort of redeemed himself after the lockout with a couple of decent playoff runs which was always his shortfall.
Bottom line is this: No one argues Selanne will be in the HHOF. A few would definitely think Modano shouldn't be
Agree with Selanne being the better of the two. Teemu had his dark ages with the injuries, but his best hockey was more impressive than Modano's.
But Modano does get underrated around these parts, IMO. During the 90's he was a very exciting player to watch, and much better defensively than Selanne. And Modano does slaughter Selanne in the playoffs, but that's not exactly something difficult to add to your resume.
Agree with Selanne being the better of the two. Teemu had his dark ages with the injuries, but his best hockey was more impressive than Modano's.
But Modano does get underrated around these parts, IMO. During the 90's he was a very exciting player to watch, and much better defensively than Selanne. And Modano does slaughter Selanne in the playoffs, but that's not exactly something difficult to add to your resume.
This is pretty much the same thing I post everytime in these threads:
Other one had the chance to play in the playoffs in his prime and the other one didn't.
I'm familiar with this argument, and still feel that it's accurate to say that Modano's playoff record is more impressive, both statistically and by the eyeball test.
I'm familiar with this argument, and still feel that it's accurate to say that Modano's playoff record is more impressive, both statistically and by the eyeball test.
Of course it is. I'm just saying that Selanne never got the chance to prove himself.
Modano annoyed you a bit. Yeah it's great he became more well rounded and that might be the reason Dallas won their Cup but I just always was thirsting for more with him. He got 80 points all the time pretty much every year. That's fine and very Sundin-like type of consistency but when he got 80 point you always thought he should have gotten 100
you can say this about sergei fedorov too, he only scored 100 two times, the next best season was 87 ... modano and fedorov were coached play so much defence in dallas and detroit that the offense suffered ... modano was a ppg player in the playoffs on a cup winning team while playing a lot of defense, and was conn smythe worthy
I can't believe it's so lopsided, I thought this would be close. Selanne was one of his generations best goal-scorers. Modano at his peak was a much more complete player I'd say. 80 points a season in that Dallas system playing the way he played is nothing to sneeze at.
Big Phil, I'm puzzled by you declaring Selanne had more elite seasons. I'd say both players had around 10.
I think Selanne's late career success and Modano's somewhat lengthy decline have perhaps influenced some people's recollections. I know if I was starting a team up, I'd be drafting Modano ahead of Selanne, and that's who I voted for. I think both players should end up as worthy HOF inductees.
It actually is rather shocking how one sided this vote is.. Modano is no slouch and he is a guy who did have 50 goal talent in addition to being really solid two ways.
I can't believe it's so lopsided, I thought this would be close. Selanne was one of his generations best goal-scorers. Modano at his peak was a much more complete player I'd say. 80 points a season in that Dallas system playing the way he played is nothing to sneeze at.
Big Phil, I'm puzzled by you declaring Selanne had more elite seasons. I'd say both players had around 10.
I think Selanne's late career success and Modano's somewhat lengthy decline have perhaps influenced some people's recollections. I know if I was starting a team up, I'd be drafting Modano ahead of Selanne, and that's who I voted for. I think both players should end up as worthy HOF inductees.
And Modano was definitely better in the playoffs. I consider them to be pretty close in terms of career value.
IBig Phil, I'm puzzled by you declaring Selanne had more elite seasons. I'd say both players had around 10.
I don't think Modano had 10 though. When I say elite I'm thinking more along the lines of a consensus top 10 player in the game that year. Modano probably had to wait until no sooner than 1997 to be considered a potential top 10 player. Then there would be no more than 4-5 years where he was ARGUABLY a top 10 player.
Selanne was elite right from the get go. He would be classified as a top 10 player in 1993, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000. Then he had a few years of indifferent play couple with injuries. Post lockout he made up a lot of ground with some fine seasons and good postseason play. The guy also led the NHL in goals three times and his placement in the scoring race is peerless compared to Modano. The question is, does Modano's all around game make up for the bigger spikes in offense from Selanne? My answer is no. You get the idea that we saw the best we possibly could have from Selanne. Not so from Modano, you still feel as if we could have seen a better version of him.
For those that say Modano would only put up 80 points because dallas had a tight defensive system. Just remember that modano was completely one dimensional from 1990-96 and he wasn't setting the world on fire.
I don't think Modano had 10 though. When I say elite I'm thinking more along the lines of a consensus top 10 player in the game that year. Modano probably had to wait until no sooner than 1997 to be considered a potential top 10 player. Then there would be no more than 4-5 years where he was ARGUABLY a top 10 player.
Selanne was elite right from the get go. He would be classified as a top 10 player in 1993, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000. Then he had a few years of indifferent play couple with injuries. Post lockout he made up a lot of ground with some fine seasons and good postseason play. The guy also led the NHL in goals three times and his placement in the scoring race is peerless compared to Modano. The question is, does Modano's all around game make up for the bigger spikes in offense from Selanne? My answer is no. You get the idea that we saw the best we possibly could have from Selanne. Not so from Modano, you still feel as if we could have seen a better version of him.
Selanne for me, prime and career value
I'd say Selanne was only really a top 10 player in 92-93, then 95-96 to 99-00, which is 6 seasons in total. Modano's prime was basically 96-97 to 02-03, which is 7 seasons, and it's debatable where he slots in with the top players in each of those. Still, I don't think their primes are really too different.
To me, this is an interesting comparison because the stats and Hart voting basically say this is Selanne in a walk, and in the all-time sense I suppose he would be considered the better player. However, if I could choose one in their prime, I think I would rather build my team around Modano and his excellent all-around game. To me it's a little like comparing Ilya Kovalchuk to a healthier Henrik Zetterberg. Despite his lack of top 10 finishes, Zetterberg frequently makes people's top 10 player lists due to his two way abilities and playoff numbers, whereas Kovalchuk is repeatedly criticized for being only a scorer and having no playoff success. While Kovalchuk with most likely go down as the better player all-time, a lot of people would take Zetterberg over him.
I'd say Selanne was only really a top 10 player in 92-93, then 95-96 to 99-00, which is 6 seasons in total. Modano's prime was basically 96-97 to 02-03, which is 7 seasons, and it's debatable where he slots in with the top players in each of those. Still, I don't think their primes are really too different.
To me, this is an interesting comparison because the stats and Hart voting basically say this is Selanne in a walk, and in the all-time sense I suppose he would be considered the better player. However, if I could choose one in their prime, I think I would rather build my team around Modano and his excellent all-around game. To me it's a little like comparing Ilya Kovalchuk to a healthier Henrik Zetterberg. Despite his lack of top 10 finishes, Zetterberg frequently makes people's top 10 player lists due to his two way abilities and playoff numbers, whereas Kovalchuk is repeatedly criticized for being only a scorer and having no playoff success. While Kovalchuk with most likely go down as the better player all-time, a lot of people would take Zetterberg over him.
Well, it depends who's on your team right. If you already have a flashy winger like bure, palffy or brett hull, then you would take modano on your team. But if your team already has excellent defensive forwards like peca, lehitnen or guy carbonneau, then I would take selanne because he would put up 20 more points than Modano.
1994 was Modano's first superstar season, but in 94 he was one dimensional and he still couldn't crack the top 10 scoring list. Selanne just had superior offensive ability.
Well, it depends who's on your team right. If you already have a flashy winger like bure, palffy or brett hull, then you would take modano on your team. But if your team already has excellent defensive forwards like peca, lehitnen or guy carbonneau, then I would take selanne because he would put up 20 more points than Modano.
1994 was Modano's first superstar season, but in 94 he was one dimensional and he still couldn't crack the top 10 scoring list. Selanne just had superior offensive ability.
That's true too, and I was thinking about that as well. They're both sort of in the range of players who were stars, but weren't so good that team needs don't become a factor in the decision.
I do think Modano's offensive ability was always slightly overrated. He was just so smooth that it seemed like he could do a lot more. However, even though the one-dimensional Modano wasn't a dominant offensive player, he was young and didn't have much to play with, so it doesn't mean he might not have been better later on if he didn't play in Hitchcock's system. He and Selanne are actually the same age, and most of Selanne's best seasons came at the age that Modano had already changed his game. At most though Modano might have put up another 10 or so points a season. I don't think anyone can really make an argument that Selanne wasn't a better offensive player by a decent margin
