HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Third-Team All Stars (1965-present)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-31-2013, 09:34 PM
  #76
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,576
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
As much as I hate to feed Eva's Detroit obsession here, I too am of the mind that Yzerman was clearly one of the best forwards in the league behind 99 and 66 for about a 5-7 year stretch.

Here's 89/90 - 93/94

Gretzky GP-493 P-938 PpG-1.90
Lemieux GP-349 P-914 PpG-2.62
Yzerman GP-524 P-814 PpG-1.55
Robitaille GP-561 P-719 PpG-1.28
Oates GP-514 P-702 PpG- 1.37
Hull GP-535 P-699 PpG-1.31
Messier GP-511 P-680 PpG-1.33

Should also be noted that during this stretch only Brett Hull scored more goals than Yzerman, 412-355

Narrow this down to the 5 year stretch between 88/89-91/92 and the gap gets even larger.

Gretzky GP-367 P-743 PpG-2.02
Lemieux GP-302 P-666 PpG-2.21
Yzerman GP-382 P-595 PpG-1.56
Robitaille GP-394 P-508 PpG-1.29
Messier GP-360 P-505 PpG- 1.40

And again, only Hull scored more goals than Yzerman 301-273

It's a tough argument for me. Personally, I choose Yzerman as #3 by a hair over Messier. It's just really close overall and maybe a 3A and 3B situation might be the better way of putting it.
Either way, I wouldn't argue much with anyone that picked Messier instead. I would however argue with anyone that tried to say either of them was CLEARLY #3. There really is nothing clear about it.
Pro-tip: 88-89 through 91-92 is only four years.

Also, let's try another one; let's go from 86-87 (the year before Yzerman's prime began) through 95-96 (the last big offensive year for each).

That gets us:

By PPG:
 PlayerGPG-A-PtsPPG
1Mario Lemieux517472-659-11312.19
2Wayne Gretzky700356-915-12711.89
3Steve Yzerman731434-603-10371.42
4Mark Messier708311-628-9391.33
5Pat LaFontaine638381-436-8171.28
6Brett Hull658485-348-8331.27
7Joe Sakic590285-461-7461.26
8Adam Oates708227-667-8941.26
9Sergei Fedorov432212-317-5291.22
10Jaromir Jagr441219-319-5381.22

By points:
 PlayerGPG-A-PtsPPG
1Wayne Gretzky700356-915-12711.89
2Mario Lemieux517472-659-11312.19
3Steve Yzerman731434-603-10371.42
4Mark Messier708311-628-9391.33
5Luc Robitaille763438-476-9141.20
6Adam Oates708227-667-8941.26
7Doug Gilmour745275-603-8781.17
8Ron Francis742249-609-8581.16
9Dale Hawerchuk738285-559-8441.14
10Brett Hull658485-348-8331.27

Yzerman is 4th in goals, 8th in assists during this time frame and is the only player other than Lemieux to finish top ten in all of goals, assists, points, GPG, APG, and PPG. Yzerman also received Selke votes in four of the ten (with first-place votes in three of those seasons)and one Selke nomination. Yzerman also wins the 1989 Pearson award, scoring 65 goals and 155 points.

Messier wins the 1990 and 1992 Harts and Pearsons, and is named first-team center. He was a Hart nominee in 1996 (despite having been largely outplayed by a large number of players who weren't nominated).

Yzerman wins, Messier is solid competition and a clear fourth place, although I find the Gilmour result interesting with relation to Messier.

It's basically Messier averaging 71GP, with 31-63-94 while Gilmour averages 75GP, 28-60-88. Gilmour was physical, a good leader, good in the playoffs, good on faceoffs, and he was very good defensively (and won a Selke and was nominated for another during the period being examined). Messier being that close to Gilmour (and Gilmour missing what is arguably his best year) should definitely make some people reexamine how they have forwards ranked.


Last edited by pdd: 05-31-2013 at 09:40 PM.
pdd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-01-2013, 03:31 AM
  #77
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,452
vCash: 500
I wrote the wrong headings but the numbers are right.
87/88-93/94 (7 years) and 87/88-91/92 (5 years) headings are corrected now.

Again though, this is a strictly offensive comparison. Messier makes up ground with his intangibles to make it very close between the two.

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-01-2013, 01:39 PM
  #78
blogofmike
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 741
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eva unit zero View Post
It's called "proving the hypothesis".
Except the assertions are backed up by Fyffe's spreadsheet, because there was no effort to create an ice time number, but an effort to measure Yzerman and Messier to each other. Which is why Yzerman has more ES mins than Messier in every season except 1992 in both the table I posted and in Fyffe's spreadsheet. And contrary to your efforts with PPO, Yzerman did get more PP time than Messier based on both my rough table and Fyffe's spreadsheet, from 89-92. The exact ice time never mattered, it was only the ice time relative to Messier, who was also a top-line player.

And not only did you fail to understand the hypothesis, you don't understand how to test what you thought was the hypothesis, as evidenced by using a method that inflates a top-line player's ice-time by 16.6%, because you neglect to use a factor of 1.2. Doesn't seem like a lot, but by doing the math wrong, you will get an answer that says Player X played 30 minutes, when everyone else will do the math and find it was 16.6% less (25 minutes).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Outsider View Post
I know that this will draw some criticism, but Yzerman’s voting record is a bit disappointing. Some people (not necessarily Detroit fans) say that Yzerman was consistently the NHL’s third best centre, but didn’t earn a lot of awards due to being stuck behind Gretzky and Lemieux. However, during Yzerman’s best years (1987-1997), numerous players (Hawerchuk, Savard, Sakic, Gilmour, Francis, Lindros, Oates, etc.) earned first, second and third-team all-star spots. Even if we exclude Gretzky and Lemieux, Yzerman wasn’t consistently the NHL’s best player, though, of course, he was near the top quite often.
Nothing's been posted to disprove this. No one's saying that Yzerman wasn't one of the best centres outside of 99 and 66, but outside of 1989, he wouldn't have won a 1st team AS selection if they had been removed from voting.

While points tables are very impressive, Yzerman's relying on the boost from his 3rd AS seasons to elevate him, when after 1990 he can't really ever make a claim to be one of top 2 non-99/66 centres until 2000. Which is fine, but does nothing to show he was consistently the third best centre in the NHL to disprove HO's point, or anything to establish dominance over Messier, who actually did win 1st AS honours over Gretzky and Lemieux. Twice.

blogofmike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-01-2013, 10:31 PM
  #79
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,576
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blogofmike View Post
And not only did you fail to understand the hypothesis, you don't understand how to test what you thought was the hypothesis, as evidenced by using a method that inflates a top-line player's ice-time by 16.6%, because you neglect to use a factor of 1.2. Doesn't seem like a lot, but by doing the math wrong, you will get an answer that says Player X played 30 minutes, when everyone else will do the math and find it was 16.6% less (25 minutes).
You posted tables saying "Messier played X amount of time at ES/PP/SH and Yzerman played Y amount of time in such situations". Why would I then multiply those percentages by any other number but the total minutes played per game in those situations? Your failure to properly communicate how to interpret the data, or that it's necessary to perform further calculations, that is not my error.

Quote:
While points tables are very impressive, Yzerman's relying on the boost from his 3rd AS seasons to elevate him, when after 1990 he can't really ever make a claim to be one of top 2 non-99/66 centres until 2000. Which is fine, but does nothing to show he was consistently the third best centre in the NHL to disprove HO's point, or anything to establish dominance over Messier, who actually did win 1st AS honours over Gretzky and Lemieux. Twice.
Within the bounds of the thread, we have been discussing Yzerman v. Messier as the third-best center over a specific period of time. The points tables that were posted by myself and Rheissan show that Yzerman was the third-best offensive forward in the league by a wide margin on both sides during their concurrent primes.

Speaking of which, I find it interesting that Rheissan cherry picked 87-88 through 91-92 (which shows Yzerman at 1.56 and Messier at 1.40) rather than 88-89 through 92-93 (1.57 vs. 1.35) or 87-88 through 92-93 (1.57 vs. 1.37), or perhaps 87-88 vs. 93-94 (1.55 vs. 1.33). As far as Selke voting is concerned, Messier had (4-3-0) from 87-88 through 93-94, compared to Yzerman's (2-2-0). Negligible difference over the course of seven seasons; at most a minor advantage to Messier that doesn't come anywhere near making up for Yzerman's offense. And neither does Messier's physical game. As I said; Messier was good, but Yzerman was simply better. Yzerman was a well-rounded player in his own right and was miles ahead of everyone but Gretzky and Lemieux offensively.

pdd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-02-2013, 03:46 AM
  #80
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,452
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eva unit zero View Post
You posted tables saying "Messier played X amount of time at ES/PP/SH and Yzerman played Y amount of time in such situations". Why would I then multiply those percentages by any other number but the total minutes played per game in those situations? Your failure to properly communicate how to interpret the data, or that it's necessary to perform further calculations, that is not my error.



Within the bounds of the thread, we have been discussing Yzerman v. Messier as the third-best center over a specific period of time. The points tables that were posted by myself and Rheissan show that Yzerman was the third-best offensive forward in the league by a wide margin on both sides during their concurrent primes.

Speaking of which, I find it interesting that Rheissan cherry picked 87-88 through 91-92 (which shows Yzerman at 1.56 and Messier at 1.40) rather than 88-89 through 92-93 (1.57 vs. 1.35) or 87-88 through 92-93 (1.57 vs. 1.37), or perhaps 87-88 vs. 93-94 (1.55 vs. 1.33). As far as Selke voting is concerned, Messier had (4-3-0) from 87-88 through 93-94, compared to Yzerman's (2-2-0). Negligible difference over the course of seven seasons; at most a minor advantage to Messier that doesn't come anywhere near making up for Yzerman's offense. And neither does Messier's physical game. As I said; Messier was good, but Yzerman was simply better. Yzerman was a well-rounded player in his own right and was miles ahead of everyone but Gretzky and Lemieux offensively.

The bolded is where you're wrong.

The only center I have seen that could and would punish opposing players, especially opposing centermen, more than Messier was Lindros.
Messier's physical play and especially the intimidation he brought to the table does indeed IMO almost make up the scoring gap.
Messier didn't hit as hard as a Scott Stevens or a Denis Potvin but with his speed, he hit more often, was just as mean and IMO a little, maybe even a lot dirtier.

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-02-2013, 04:09 AM
  #81
GuineaPig
Registered User
 
GuineaPig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Montréal
Posts: 2,140
vCash: 500
Yeah, Messier really abused the laxness of the rules at the time. It kind of feels wrong to give the guy credit for his elbows, but they were game-changers.

GuineaPig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-02-2013, 08:07 PM
  #82
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,576
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
The bolded is where you're wrong.

The only center I have seen that could and would punish opposing players, especially opposing centermen, more than Messier was Lindros.
It's interesting that you bring up Lindros. Because I was just in the "Ultimate Hockey Team" thread on the main board, and someone had mentioned the LOD line. So naturally I had to point out that the use of Yzerman's line and Lidstrom on defense (and yes, Yzerman was matched against Lindros as much as possible) completely shut down the line.

Quote:
Messier's physical play and especially the intimidation he brought to the table does indeed IMO almost make up the scoring gap.
Messier didn't hit as hard as a Scott Stevens or a Denis Potvin but with his speed, he hit more often, was just as mean and IMO a little, maybe even a lot dirtier.
He was much dirtier, there's no quetion of that. But I think his physical game and the impact it had on overall success is overstated. I think that's true in general (when referring to a specific player); be that player Howe, Richard, Messier, Chara, etc. The "he wasn't one of the best scorers or top defensive players, but he was just so physical that he was still the best" just doesn't cut the mustard. It's a great secondary quality, like having a slap shot that's not only accurate, but powerful. Certainly makes you a better and more useful player. But the degree Messier was more physical than Yzerman isn't worth 15+ points in a full season.

pdd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-02-2013, 08:25 PM
  #83
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 24,484
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Messier didn't hit as hard as a Scott Stevens or a Denis Potvin but with his speed, he hit more often, was just as mean and IMO a little, maybe even a lot dirtier.
... beyond dirty, viscous. Game 6, 1994 Vancouver. 3 seconds in you
see Linden get hit by a Defenceman and then as Jim Robson explains...

www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbCgd7TstbQ

Killion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-03-2013, 02:43 PM
  #84
DisgruntledGoat
Registered User
 
DisgruntledGoat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,311
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eva unit zero View Post
Pro-tip: 88-89 through 91-92 is only four years.

Also, let's try another one; let's go from 86-87 (the year before Yzerman's prime began) through 95-96 (the last big offensive year for each).

That gets us:

By PPG:
 PlayerGPG-A-PtsPPG
1Mario Lemieux517472-659-11312.19
2Wayne Gretzky700356-915-12711.89
3Steve Yzerman731434-603-10371.42
4Mark Messier708311-628-9391.33
5Pat LaFontaine638381-436-8171.28
6Brett Hull658485-348-8331.27
7Joe Sakic590285-461-7461.26
8Adam Oates708227-667-8941.26
9Sergei Fedorov432212-317-5291.22
10Jaromir Jagr441219-319-5381.22

By points:
 PlayerGPG-A-PtsPPG
1Wayne Gretzky700356-915-12711.89
2Mario Lemieux517472-659-11312.19
3Steve Yzerman731434-603-10371.42
4Mark Messier708311-628-9391.33
5Luc Robitaille763438-476-9141.20
6Adam Oates708227-667-8941.26
7Doug Gilmour745275-603-8781.17
8Ron Francis742249-609-8581.16
9Dale Hawerchuk738285-559-8441.14
10Brett Hull658485-348-8331.27

Yzerman is 4th in goals, 8th in assists during this time frame and is the only player other than Lemieux to finish top ten in all of goals, assists, points, GPG, APG, and PPG. Yzerman also received Selke votes in four of the ten (with first-place votes in three of those seasons)and one Selke nomination. Yzerman also wins the 1989 Pearson award, scoring 65 goals and 155 points.

Messier wins the 1990 and 1992 Harts and Pearsons, and is named first-team center. He was a Hart nominee in 1996 (despite having been largely outplayed by a large number of players who weren't nominated).

Yzerman wins, Messier is solid competition and a clear fourth place, although I find the Gilmour result interesting with relation to Messier.

It's basically Messier averaging 71GP, with 31-63-94 while Gilmour averages 75GP, 28-60-88. Gilmour was physical, a good leader, good in the playoffs, good on faceoffs, and he was very good defensively (and won a Selke and was nominated for another during the period being examined). Messier being that close to Gilmour (and Gilmour missing what is arguably his best year) should definitely make some people reexamine how they have forwards ranked.
And its Yzerman averaging 73 games with 43-60-103.

I find it fascinating that, in your mind, a gap of 9 points between Messier and Yzerman is, 'Yzerman wins' while a 6-point gap between Gilmour and Messier, 'should definitely make some people reexamine how they have forwards ranked'.

That's either the most important 3 points ever, or your homerism has become pathological.

DisgruntledGoat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-03-2013, 08:22 PM
  #85
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,576
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DisgruntledGoat View Post
And its Yzerman averaging 73 games with 43-60-103.

I find it fascinating that, in your mind, a gap of 9 points between Messier and Yzerman is, 'Yzerman wins' while a 6-point gap between Gilmour and Messier, 'should definitely make some people reexamine how they have forwards ranked'.

That's either the most important 3 points ever, or your homerism has become pathological.
Or maybe you misinterpreted what I said?

I wasn't saying to put Gilmour over Messier if that's what you got. But many have Messier in their top 5 centers and wouldn't consider Gilmour for their top 50. Obviously there are years outside of this sample that aren't included that help Messier's case as an all-time great, but what was arguably Gilmour's best season is also left out.

IMHO, once you get past the top few centers, it really gets very muddled as to "proper order" and you could probably take most of the top 20 and interchange them without really being wrong.

I see it like this.

There's Gretzky. Then there's Lemieux. Then there's Yzerman and Beliveau (I give it to Yzerman by a hair). Then Mikita, Sakic, Esposito, Morenz, Clarke, Trottier, and Messier. After that we get into guys like Fedorov, Forsberg, Lindros, Crosby, Larionov, Abel, Lach, Lalonde, Stewart, Malone, Schmidt, Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Malkin, and Delvecchio.

pdd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-03-2013, 09:13 PM
  #86
DisgruntledGoat
Registered User
 
DisgruntledGoat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,311
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eva unit zero View Post
But I think his physical game and the impact it had on overall success is overstated. I think that's true in general (when referring to a specific player); be that player Howe, Richard, Messier, Chara, etc.
Oh, of course its not that important. You can't trumpet it for Jesus Yzerman or Saint Fedorov, so of course you'll want to immediately discount it.

Quote:
The "he wasn't one of the best scorers or top defensive players, but he was just so physical that he was still the best" just doesn't cut the mustard. It's a great secondary quality, like having a slap shot that's not only accurate, but powerful. Certainly makes you a better and more useful player.
No, but losing ice-time to Jimmy Carson, and getting a couple throw-away Selke votes are key, crucial factors.

Quote:
But the degree Messier was more physical than Yzerman isn't worth 15+ points in a full season.
I'd be curious to hear you define exactly what you think the 'degree' of difference in physicallity is between Messier and Yzerman.

Quote:
Speaking of which, I find it interesting that Rheissan cherry picked 87-88 through 91-92 (which shows Yzerman at 1.56 and Messier at 1.40) rather than 88-89 through 92-93 (1.57 vs. 1.35) or 87-88 through 92-93 (1.57 vs. 1.37), or perhaps 87-88 vs. 93-94 (1.55 vs. 1.33).
Its hardly 'cherry-picking'. Using what you've calculated above, the difference is (at worse for Messier) 0.22 to (at best for Messier) 0.16. That's a difference of 5 points over an 82 game season. If anything, that's a fairly consistent gap.

Quote:
As far as Selke voting is concerned, Messier had (4-3-0) from 87-88 through 93-94, compared to Yzerman's (2-2-0).
Interesting that in a thread about, essentially, all-star voting, you chose to focus on Selke votes and not, say, Hart, Pearson or all-star voting.

Quote:
And neither does Messier's physical game. As I said; Messier was good, but Yzerman was simply better. Yzerman was a well-rounded player in his own right and was miles ahead of everyone but Gretzky and Lemieux offensively.
OK, let's say, for the sake of argument, that his physical game doesn't close the gap. But it does narrow it a little. Then let's consider the 88-89 to 92-93 time period when Yzerman posts his highest PPG and the PPG gap is the largest:

Hart Trophies
Messier- 2
Yzerman- 0

Pearson Trophies
Messier- 2
Yzerman- 1

All-Star Team
Messer- 2 firsts
Yzerman- 2 thirds

Playoff PPG
Messier- 1.24 (led playoffs in assists and points in 1990)
Yzerman- 1.00

Leadership

This is essentially the era where Messier builds his legacy as one of the great captains in NHL history. Yzerman doesn't enter that conversation until 1997. Since we're talking about just these few particular years, Yzerman's later contributions aren't relevant.

Let's also consider the 1991 Canada Cup. Yzerman outplayed Messier in the training camp and yet, Yzerman watches the tournament on TV while Messier wears the 'C' (and is largely credited with keeping that team from unraveling after the Suter crosscheck on Gretzky).

And yes, people point out that not taking Yzerman was a strange and debateable decision. . . but right now, we're talking about who was the third-best center of the era. Mario didn't play in 1991. If Yzerman really was the clear-cut next best guy, there is no way anyone, even Keenan, would leave him off that roster. But Messier was not only better, he was so much better he could get outplayed in training camp and still be made captain and still be relied upon as a key player. . . while Yzerman goes home.

The marginal offensive edge Yzerman enjoys over that time period, is closed and then lapped by Messier's superior physical game, playoff production, leadership, and trophy case.


Last edited by DisgruntledGoat: 06-03-2013 at 09:26 PM.
DisgruntledGoat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-03-2013, 09:31 PM
  #87
DisgruntledGoat
Registered User
 
DisgruntledGoat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,311
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eva unit zero View Post
Or maybe you misinterpreted what I said?
Hard to misinterpret. . .

Quote:
Yzerman was a well-rounded player in his own right and was miles ahead of everyone but Gretzky and Lemieux offensively
Quote:
Messier being that close to Gilmour
Quote:
 PlayerGPG-A-PtsPPG
1Wayne Gretzky700356-915-12711.89
2Mario Lemieux517472-659-11312.19
3Steve Yzerman731434-603-10371.42
4Mark Messier708311-628-9391.33
5Luc Robitaille763438-476-9141.20
6Adam Oates708227-667-8941.26
7Doug Gilmour745275-603-8781.17
8Ron Francis742249-609-8581.16
9Dale Hawerchuk738285-559-8441.14
10Brett Hull658485-348-8331.27

DisgruntledGoat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-03-2013, 10:36 PM
  #88
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,576
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DisgruntledGoat View Post
Oh, of course its not that important. You can't trumpet it for Jesus Yzerman or Saint Fedorov, so of course you'll want to immediately discount it.



No, but losing ice-time to Jimmy Carson, and getting a couple throw-away Selke votes are key, crucial factors.
Look at Yzerman's numbers pre-Carson and immediately post-Carson, and then with Carson. Then look at Messier's numbers with Carson and then post-Carson (Edm).

Carson's presence, or lack thereof, affected both of them. If Carson doesn't walk out, then it's not an outlandish suggestion that perhaps Yzerman is the one walking home with a Hart and/or Pearson. Obviously that' a what if, so it doesn't matter in reality. But it should matter to the point of "the Carson Effect".

Quote:
I'd be curious to hear you define exactly what you think the 'degree' of difference in physicallity is between Messier and Yzerman.
Messier was aggressively physical and hit to hurt, while Yzerman was a good forechecker and played the body well defensively. Mesier's physical game certainly is more intimidating; however it also puts him off of the ice more often. Yzerman played a cleaner game while still doing the dirty work and IMHO took far fewer stupid penalties.

Quote:
Its hardly 'cherry-picking'. Using what you've calculated above, the difference is (at worse for Messier) 0.22 to (at best for Messier) 0.16. That's a difference of 5 points over an 82 game season. If anything, that's a fairly consistent gap.
5 points is significant. The gaps would be 18 points vs 13 points.

Given late80s/early 90s Yzerman and Messier, would you take Yzerman or Messier if Yzerman scores 127 and Messier scores 109? How about Yzerman 128 to Messier 115?

Quote:
Interesting that in a thread about, essentially, all-star voting, you chose to focus on Selke votes and not, say, Hart, Pearson or all-star voting.
Know where I can get Pearson votes?

As for the Hart, we already know that one Hart from the era (won by Messier, no less) was won due to results from certain specific voters that were at best suspicious.

Quote:
OK, let's say, for the sake of argument, that his physical game doesn't close the gap. But it does narrow it a little. Then let's consider the 88-89 to 92-93 time period when Yzerman posts his highest PPG and the PPG gap is the largest:

Hart Trophies
Messier- 2
Lemieux- 1
Gretzky- 1

Yzerman- 0

Pearson Trophies
Messier- 2
Yzerman- 1
Lemieux- 1
Gretzky- 0


All-Star Team
Lemieux- 2 firsts, 1 second
Messer- 2 firsts
Gretzky- 1 first, 2 seconds
Yzerman- 2 thirds

Playoff PPG
Lemieux- 1.92 (led playoffs in assists and points in 1991, goals and points in 1992)
Gretzky- 1.57 (led playoffs in goals/assists/points in 1993)

Messier- 1.24 (led playoffs in assists and points in 1990)
Yzerman- 1.00
I've added Lemieux and Gretzky into the comparison. Messier has better trophies than Gretzky or Lemieux. Was Messier the best center during this five-year period?

Quote:
Leadership

This is essentially the era where Messier builds his legacy as one of the great captains in NHL history. Yzerman doesn't enter that conversation until 1997. Since we're talking about just these few particular years, Yzerman's later contributions aren't relevant.

Let's also consider the 1991 Canada Cup. Yzerman outplayed Messier in the training camp and yet, Yzerman watches the tournament on TV while Messier wears the 'C' (and is largely credited with keeping that team from unraveling after the Suter crosscheck on Gretzky).

And yes, people point out that not taking Yzerman was a strange and debateable decision. . . but right now, we're talking about who was the third-best center of the era. Mario didn't play in 1991. If Yzerman really was the clear-cut next best guy, there is no way anyone, even Keenan, would leave him off that roster. But Messier was not only better, he was so much better he could get outplayed in training camp and still be made captain and still be relied upon as a key player. . . while Yzerman goes home.
No, he had a spot reserved for him because of his reputation and play for Keenan in 1987.

Quote:
The marginal offensive edge Yzerman enjoys over that time period, is closed and then lapped by Messier's superior physical game, playoff production, leadership, and trophy case.
With regards to the Canada Cup:

Top five scoring Canadian forwards (not including Brett Hull, who played for the USA) in three categories from 88-89 through 89-90:
PlayerGPGAPGPPG
Mario Lemieux0.961.422.39
Wayne Gretzky0.621.432.05
Steve Yzerman0.800.971.77
Bernie Nicholls0.690.971.66
Mark Messier0.520.961.48
Denis Savard0.420.951.37
Tim Kerr0.660.591.25

If you pull out Nicholls' time with Gretzky and remove Lemieux (who didn't play), the table looks like this:
PlayerGPGAPGPPG
Wayne Gretzky0.621.432.05
Steve Yzerman0.800.971.77
Mark Messier0.520.961.48
Denis Savard0.420.951.37
Tim Kerr0.660.591.25
Bernie Nicholls (NY only)0.380.781.16

Lemieux didn't play, which already takes away the best offensive player. Yzerman is the obvious and proven replacement. Keenan's choice to leave him home was a HUGE gamble, one that would have likely haunted his career had Canada lost.

pdd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-03-2013, 10:44 PM
  #89
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,576
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DisgruntledGoat View Post
Hard to misinterpret. . .
You need to go read what I said again; the point was that Gilmour often is treated like he wasn't a legit star center.

Meanwhile we have debates about other all-time greats. Gilmour gets pushed off on the "meh" tier by many.

pdd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2013, 12:53 PM
  #90
Epsilon
#TeamHolland
 
Epsilon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Florence, SC
Posts: 37,852
vCash: 500
Yzerman ahead of Beliveau? Good grief.

Epsilon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2013, 08:53 PM
  #91
DisgruntledGoat
Registered User
 
DisgruntledGoat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,311
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eva unit zero View Post
Messier was aggressively physical and hit to hurt, while Yzerman was a good forechecker and played the body well defensively. Mesier's physical game certainly is more intimidating; however it also puts him off of the ice more often. Yzerman played a cleaner game while still doing the dirty work and IMHO took far fewer stupid penalties.
Before I comment on that. . . you still haven't exactly addressed the, 'degree' to which Messier's physical game was better than Yzerman's. Exactly how much better, strictly in the physical aspect of the game, do you think Messier was? (and I realize you don't particularily value physical play, but nonetheless)

Quote:
5 points is significant. The gaps would be 18 points vs 13 points.
Of course it is. Its in Yzerman's favour.

Quote:
Given late80s/early 90s Yzerman and Messier, would you take Yzerman or Messier if Yzerman scores 127 and Messier scores 109? How about Yzerman 128 to Messier 115?
I take Messier in both situations.

IMO, its not about Yzerman being the better scorer. He absolutely is the better scorer (at least in the regular season). But Messier brought so much, in so many areas, that he makes up that gap and then some.

How much more would Yzerman have to score to be more valuable? I don't know, I don't have an exact formula. But its more than six points.

Quote:
Know where I can get Pearson votes?
They don't release 'em. Conn Smythe is the same. It would be great to have both, though.

Quote:
As for the Hart, we already know that one Hart from the era (won by Messier, no less) was won due to results from certain specific voters that were at best suspicious.
Meh. That's a conspiracy theory, and not worth even discussing. Would Bourque have been a worthy winner in 1990? Sure, but Messier had a season for the ages, too.

And two things I find laughable about the idea that Bourque was 'robbed':

1. Messier won the Pearson that year, too. The Bourque conspiracists always want to say that Bourque would've won the Hart if not for that one homer Edmonton writer. . . but if it was that obvious, why didn't the players give him the Pearson? Did the Oiler players somehow get extra ballots or something?

2. An Eastern player loses to a Western player, and that's the time we're supposed to get upset by a bias? Really?

Quote:
I've added Lemieux and Gretzky into the comparison. Messier has better trophies than Gretzky or Lemieux. Was Messier the best center during this five-year period?
I'm not the one who's looking at ONE specific set of criteria, and saying its the be-all and end-all. That's you.

Gretzky and Lemieux are better than Messier because of the totality of their accomplishments during that timeframe. That's the same reason why Messier is also clearly better than Yzerman.

Quote:
No, he had a spot reserved for him because of his reputation and play for Keenan in 1987.
Oh, his reputation; you mean what the players who played with and against him thought? What the coaches who coached with and against him thought? I wonder if the opinions of contemporaries are something we should consider when judging who was the better player in a particular era?

Quote:
Lemieux didn't play, which already takes away the best offensive player. Yzerman is the obvious and proven replacement. Keenan's choice to leave him home was a HUGE gamble, one that would have likely haunted his career had Canada lost
What I'm saying is: if Yzerman was clearly the second-best forward available, would he have been left off the team? Absolutely not. It doesn't make sense, and its never happened in any major tournament, with any nation. There's no precedence.

Or look at this way: can you picture any situation during that era where a healthy Messier gets left off a Team Canada?

DisgruntledGoat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2013, 09:00 PM
  #92
DisgruntledGoat
Registered User
 
DisgruntledGoat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,311
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eva unit zero View Post
You need to go read what I said again; the point was that Gilmour often is treated like he wasn't a legit star center.

Meanwhile we have debates about other all-time greats. Gilmour gets pushed off on the "meh" tier by many.
The posts I quoted pretty much speak for themselves.

I could also comment on the irony of this statement coming from a poster who doesn't consider Gilmour's 1993 season anywhere close to Fedorov's 1994 even though it clearly is. . .

DisgruntledGoat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2013, 11:02 PM
  #93
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,576
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DisgruntledGoat View Post
Before I comment on that. . . you still haven't exactly addressed the, 'degree' to which Messier's physical game was better than Yzerman's. Exactly how much better, strictly in the physical aspect of the game, do you think Messier was? (and I realize you don't particularily value physical play, but nonetheless)
I'll give you a hint. It's not worth 10 points over 82 games.

Quote:
I take Messier in both situations.

IMO, its not about Yzerman being the better scorer. He absolutely is the better scorer (at least in the regular season). But Messier brought so much, in so many areas, that he makes up that gap and then some.

How much more would Yzerman have to score to be more valuable? I don't know, I don't have an exact formula. But its more than six points.
How about 40? Or maybe 60? Would those values work?

Quote:
They don't release 'em. Conn Smythe is the same. It would be great to have both, though.
That was my point.

Quote:
Meh. That's a conspiracy theory, and not worth even discussing. Would Bourque have been a worthy winner in 1990? Sure, but Messier had a season for the ages, too.

And two things I find laughable about the idea that Bourque was 'robbed':

1. Messier won the Pearson that year, too. The Bourque conspiracists always want to say that Bourque would've won the Hart if not for that one homer Edmonton writer. . . but if it was that obvious, why didn't the players give him the Pearson? Did the Oiler players somehow get extra ballots or something?

2. An Eastern player loses to a Western player, and that's the time we're supposed to get upset by a bias? Really?
I think the 1989 and 1992 Harts were "wronger" than the 1990 Hart, and that Messier is perfectly worthy (although I do prefer Bourque for it). I was just mentioning the controversy as it literally decided the winner.

Quote:
I'm not the one who's looking at ONE specific set of criteria, and saying its the be-all and end-all. That's you.

Gretzky and Lemieux are better than Messier because of the totality of their accomplishments during that timeframe. That's the same reason why Messier is also clearly better than Yzerman.
I looked at multiple criteria. I brought up scoring, as well as Selke voting. Their Selke records were comparable indicating that they had similar levels of defensive play, and Yzerman's offensive numbers were much higher.

If you look back at what I posted, Messier actually had better awards/accomplishments than Gretzky. When you take the offensive game, Messier was the worth by a fair bit. He doesn't gain much from his defense because he's not better than Yzerman to any significant degree, and his offense is so far beneath Gretz/Lemieux that it simply doesn't matter.

I suppose it really comes down to how much you think Messier's physical game is worth.

The original Captain Intangibles.

Quote:
Oh, his reputation; you mean what the players who played with and against him thought?
No, the "That guy's a winner." reputation he built from a couple strong, high-profile playoff runs early in his career. He stole the Conn Smythe from Wayne Gretzky (literally, it should have been Gretzky's), and even after he switched to center the media still liked to say "Messier has been a postseason All-Star several times" without noting that he was selected at the wing.

Quote:
What the coaches who coached with and against him thought? I wonder if the opinions of contemporaries are something we should consider when judging who was the better player in a particular era?
Larry Robinson is generally considered a top-ten all-time defenseman. Serge Savard also played for the Canadiens.

Why don't we ask Scotty Bowman who is better? He coached them both at the same time. He should know, right?

Quote:
What I'm saying is: if Yzerman was clearly the second-best forward available, would he have been left off the team? Absolutely not. It doesn't make sense, and its never happened in any major tournament, with any nation. There's no precedence.
As I've said, it was a matter of the coach not liking Yzerman. A comparable situation is the 1996 World Cup goaltending. Chris Osgood was a clear second place in Vezina and All-Star voting the prior season, but Glen Sather chose instead to go with the threesome of Martin Brodeur, Curtis Joseph, and Bill Ranford. Two of those goalies played for Sather's Oilers in the season prior to the World Cup, and the other won six of seven playoff rounds between 1993-94 and 1994-95.

Quote:
Or look at this way: can you picture any situation during that era where a healthy Messier gets left off a Team Canada?
Building a roster, I don't see a reason either should be left off. Both are accomplished two-way forwards who are among the league's top-five offensive players, and are quite capable and experienced in any situation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DisgruntledGoat View Post
The posts I quoted pretty much speak for themselves.

I could also comment on the irony of this statement coming from a poster who doesn't consider Gilmour's 1993 season anywhere close to Fedorov's 1994 even though it clearly is. . .
Even strength scoring:
1994 Fedorov 39-42-81
1993 Gilmour 14-49-63

That's a fairly large difference. In 1992-93 the league averaged 10% more PP Opp, and both teams were about average in their respective seasons.

Power play scoring:
1994 Fedorov 13-15-28
1994 Fedorov (+10%) 14-17-31
1993 Gilmour 15-44-59

Shorthanded scoring
1994 Fedorov 4-7-11
1994 Fedorov (+10%) 4-8-12
1993 Gilmour 3-2-5

It's already apparent even in 1993-94 why Fedorov wasn't putting up bigger numbers; the Wings' PP talent was too spread out. Ray Sheppard led the Wings in PP goals and Steve Yzerman led Wings forwards in PP assists (in only 58 games). The third forward on their unit was their normal linemate, Keith Primeau. Fedorov played with Kozlov and Ciccarelli (as he did at ES) and typically saw Coffey and Lidstrom behind him, while the Yzerman unit generally had Chiasson and Howe/Konstantinov

pdd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2013, 11:22 PM
  #94
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 42,274
vCash: 500
I always find it amusing when Detroit fans pump up Selke voting while trashing the Hart voting for the exact same seasons, when it is the exact same group of writers who vote on both. This isn't even just one poster, it's been that way since I first started paying attention to the history board years ago.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2013, 11:55 PM
  #95
TAnnala
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Oulu
Country: Finland
Posts: 13,748
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I always find it amusing when Detroit fans pump up Selke voting while trashing the Hart voting for the exact same seasons, when it is the exact same group of writers who vote on both. This isn't even just one poster, it's been that way since I first started paying attention to the history board years ago.
I think Selke votes also seem to be effected by reputation a certain player has. At least more so than the Hart. Sometimes offense factors in a lot and sometimes a lot less.

But even if the voting is done by the same guys there is no doubt about the more prestigious award. Just by looking at the list of Selke winners vs Hart winners the difference should be easy enough to see.

If other guy gets few Hart votes and wins the Selke I still consider the guy who gets significant amount of Hart votes and no Selke votes as having the better year. Of course there might be exceptions.

TAnnala is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-05-2013, 12:04 AM
  #96
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,576
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I always find it amusing when Detroit fans pump up Selke voting while trashing the Hart voting for the exact same seasons, when it is the exact same group of writers who vote on both. This isn't even just one poster, it's been that way since I first started paying attention to the history board years ago.
Yzerman was far greater offensively than anyone but Gretzky and Lemieux from 88-89 through 92-93.

Yzerman was comparable defensively to Messier.

Yzerman finished ahead of Messier in postseason voting three times in five seasons.

Yzerman had two of the ten top-scoring seasons in the five-year period (5th and 10th); Messier's best season was 15th. Messier's second-best season was 39th, behind all but Yzerman's lowest-scoring season (47th) which occurred the same year. Messier's #3 is 78th and his #4 is 95th. His 1990-91 season (actual rank )was also on-pace for below 100 points, giving him a rank no better than 68th (97 points). Based on Messier's average games played in the other four seasons (approximately 76), he'd have been closer to 92nd (92 points).

Sometimes on HF people will say Datsyuk is better than Crosby. This is like that, except there's a wider offensive gap and Messier's physical game doesn't have the impact of Datsyuk's defensive game (no pun intended).

pdd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-05-2013, 12:36 AM
  #97
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,576
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TAnnala View Post
I think Selke votes also seem to be effected by reputation a certain player has. At least more so than the Hart. Sometimes offense factors in a lot and sometimes a lot less.
One problem is that history shows that the voters equate offense with overall play, so the votes are not 100% reliable. Sergei Fedorov only has two Selkes for this reason; his offense dropped off as the Wings spread their talent out and more consistently used all four lines evenly, and his Selke votes went away even though he was still probably the best defensive forward in the league for most of the 90s.

Quote:
If other guy gets few Hart votes and wins the Selke I still consider the guy who gets significant amount of Hart votes and no Selke votes as having the better year. Of course there might be exceptions.
And a good example of why it's not always trustworthy are the 1992 and 1996 Hart votes. In 1992, Messier won in a landslide dspite barely leading his team in scoring ahead of Norris winner Brian Leetch, and Art Ross-winning, 130+ point Mario Lemieux was basically not even mentioned. In 1996, Messier (99 points) was a Hart finalist ahead of Fedorov (107 points, won Selke), Sakic (120 points), Forsberg (116 points), Yzerman (95 points+Selke nom), Francis (119 points+Selke nom), Jagr (149 points), Kariya and Selanne (108 points each, mostly while Selanne was a Jet), not to mention the goalies and defensemen such as Chris Chelios, Raymond Bourque, Brian Leetch, Vladimir Konstantinov, Nicklas Lidstrom, Paul Coffey, Jim Carey, Chris Osgood, Daren Puppa, or Martin Brodeur.

I can understand wiping out the Wings players; there were enough of them near the top at all positions that it made Hart contention an unreasonable idea; you can't be the most valuable player when your team is literally loaded with all-stars. But Lafleur won the Hart twice and his team was possibly the most stacked team ever in the most diluted period for the NHL that lasted longer than two years.

John Tavares is nominated this year and didn't even break 1.00 PPG.

Is it a "best player" trophy or is it a "most valuable" trophy? Do the voters even know what they're voting on?

pdd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-05-2013, 01:39 PM
  #98
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,452
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eva unit zero View Post
Yzerman was far greater offensively than anyone but Gretzky and Lemieux from 88-89 through 92-93.

Yzerman was comparable defensively to Messier.

Yzerman finished ahead of Messier in postseason voting three times in five seasons.

Yzerman had two of the ten top-scoring seasons in the five-year period (5th and 10th); Messier's best season was 15th. Messier's second-best season was 39th, behind all but Yzerman's lowest-scoring season (47th) which occurred the same year. Messier's #3 is 78th and his #4 is 95th. His 1990-91 season (actual rank )was also on-pace for below 100 points, giving him a rank no better than 68th (97 points). Based on Messier's average games played in the other four seasons (approximately 76), he'd have been closer to 92nd (92 points).

Sometimes on HF people will say Datsyuk is better than Crosby. This is like that, except there's a wider offensive gap and Messier's physical game doesn't have the impact of Datsyuk's defensive game (no pun intended).
Look man, I'm a huge Yzerman fan too but your bias is looming large in this thread.
As I said earlier I also have Yzerman slightly ahead of Messier during Yzerman's main 5 year peak but that's where it ends.
And even that could change next week, hell it might be changing now as I read through these posts and I'm reminded of other factors AT THAT TIME.
I'm starting to think that I'm doing the same thing a lot of Lidstrom fans do when talking about him in the early 90's...revising.

By the early 90's, Messier had the reputation as one of the best leaders and captains in the League. By the conclusion of the '94 Cup, he was widely regarded as one of the best leaders in all of sports, not just at the time but all-time. It would be many years still before Stevie earned and was accepted as one of the best leaders in the League. He never cracked the all-time list in that regard though.

By '94, Messier had 6 Cup rings, most importantly, 2 without Gretzky. The only recent player at the time, off the top of my head, that could say the same was Big Bird.
And let's not forget that when the Oiler's got over the hump and won their very first Cup, it wasn't Gretzky's name going on the Conn Smythe that year, it was Messier's.

You also must realise at this point that your attempt to downplay Messier's physical play/intimidation factor is not getting much traction. People remember Messier delivering nasty elbows, punishing hits and people remember opposing star players wilt under Messier's stare.

As far as Yzerman being ahead of Beliveau all-time...how about we just sweep that one under the rug and we all just pretend you didn't say it.
Seriously man, that's a huge credibility killer you could do without.

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-05-2013, 01:59 PM
  #99
TAnnala
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Oulu
Country: Finland
Posts: 13,748
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post

As far as Yzerman being ahead of Beliveau all-time...how about we just sweep that one under the rug and we all just pretend you didn't say it.
Seriously man, that's a huge credibility killer you could do without.
I thought it was common knowledge on this board that Eva has Yzerman on 5th place on all-time list.

TAnnala is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-05-2013, 07:55 PM
  #100
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,576
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Look man, I'm a huge Yzerman fan too but your bias is looming large in this thread.
As I said earlier I also have Yzerman slightly ahead of Messier during Yzerman's main 5 year peak but that's where it ends.
And even that could change next week, hell it might be changing now as I read through these posts and I'm reminded of other factors AT THAT TIME.
I'm starting to think that I'm doing the same thing a lot of Lidstrom fans do when talking about him in the early 90's...revising.

By the early 90's, Messier had the reputation as one of the best leaders and captains in the League. By the conclusion of the '94 Cup, he was widely regarded as one of the best leaders in all of sports, not just at the time but all-time. It would be many years still before Stevie earned and was accepted as one of the best leaders in the League. He never cracked the all-time list in that regard though.
Both earned their leadership marks largely through their playoff heroics; Yzerman obviously didn't have much opportunity for playoff heroics until later in his career. The idea that Yzerman was not a good leader and then suddenly turned into "OMG one of the best captains ever!" in a span of 3-5 years is silly. Yzerman hitting his prime won Jacques Demers two Jack Adams awards. To use a video game term, Yzerman's presence caused the Red Wings to respawn as a .500+ team after about 15 years below the mark. People often say the Wings' playoff streak was built on Lidstrom. This is partly true; Lidstrom was a huge part of it. Fedorov was also a massive piece. But it was truly built on Yzerman creating a winning culture in a dressing room that had been losing for decades.

Quote:
By '94, Messier had 6 Cup rings, most importantly, 2 without Gretzky. The only recent player at the time, off the top of my head, that could say the same was Big Bird.
And let's not forget that when the Oiler's got over the hump and won their very first Cup, it wasn't Gretzky's name going on the Conn Smythe that year, it was Messier's.
It's very debatable as to whether Messier truly deserved that Smythe; he largely received it because it was his job to shut down Trottier, and Trottier did not score much in the finals. But (as has been shown previously) Trottier actually INCREASED his scoring against the Oilers, compared to the previous three rounds; he simply had a horrible playoff year.

Quote:
You also must realise at this point that your attempt to downplay Messier's physical play/intimidation factor is not getting much traction. People remember Messier delivering nasty elbows, punishing hits and people remember opposing star players wilt under Messier's stare.
In 1987, Detroit played Edmonton in the playoffs. The Messier/Nilsson combination effectively won that series for Edmonton. This is because Detroit had nobody to put on them, because Yzerman was busy shutting down Gretzky (which he did effectively). If 1987 Detroit had another center as effective defensively as Yzerman, it's entirely possible that it's Wings/Flyers in the finals. It's one huge example of what I say are the three key elements to a Cup winner:

1. Center depth at both ends of the rink.
2. Solid defense corps.
3. Good/great goaltending.

Unless Yzerman hits god-mode, Detroit likely gets destroyed by the Flyers in 1987 even with that extra checking center (a 1990 version of Adam Graves, maybe?) but with Yzerman's performance against Gretzky it was certainly possible to beat Edmonton if they had anyone else in the middle. That's why adding Fedorov was such a huge addition; a highly skilled center who was incredibly good defensively. If you make Fedorov a 1984 draftee who defects in 1985 (in other words, put his career start five years earlier) then I am absolutely certain that it was possible that the Wings make the 1987 finals; 91-92 Fedorov absolutely gives the Wings the defensive presence to reduce Messier's impact compared to his total domination of pre-prime Adam Oates at both ends.

Scoring leaders and notable players from that series:

PlayerTeamG-A-Pts
MessierEDM4-2-6
NilssonEDM3-3-6
YzermanDET2-4-6
AndersonEDM1-5-6
GallantDET3-2-5
CoffeyEDM1-4-5
MacTavishEDM1-3-4
ProbertDET2-1-3
Detroit defenders (all)DET0-3-3
GretzkyEDM0-2-2
OatesDET0-1-1

Quote:
As far as Yzerman being ahead of Beliveau all-time...how about we just sweep that one under the rug and we all just pretend you didn't say it.
Seriously man, that's a huge credibility killer you could do without.
Below is a table detailing Beliveau and Yzerman top finishes compared to #1, in addition to any partial seasons that could have made the list. However, this list is slightly different than a standard list; I have removed Gretzky, Lemieux, and Howe from the equation (and adjusted as necessary for players such as Kevin Stevens, who would not have scored more points than Brett Hull in 1992 if Lemieux were replaced all season with an average first-liner).

Lines marked with an asterisk are years where the player missed significant time, and I have pro-rated the numbers based on the player's PPG to a full season. Now remember; these numbers are with Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr, and Howe excluded; and any significant linemate/teammate effect they may have had (such as Kevin Stevens or Rob Brown) will be accounted for if the player is close enough to drop out of his (new) leading spot. For Yzerman's 1995-96, I didn't want to mess with Jagr's stats but there is the possibility he drops behind Sakic, so I put in the numbers for Yzerman's percentage of both. I've made no estimate regarding Esposito's result in 1971 (he would likely still have led the league), and I have also included Bobby Hull's numbers in 1969 even though it is unlikely that Esposito would have dropped 19+ points.

PlayerSeason%1st
Yzerman88-891.00
Yzerman*93-940.99
Yzerman89-900.98
Yzerman*87-880.97
Yzerman91-920.94
Yzerman92-930.93
Yzerman86-870.86
Yzerman90-910.82
Yzerman99-000.82
Yzerman01-02*0.79
Yzerman87-880.78
Yzerman96-970.78
Yzerman83-840.72
Yzerman95-960.64/0.79
Yzerman93-940.68
Yzerman97-980.68
Yzerman84-850.68
Yzerman00-01*0.67
Yzerman98-990.58
Yzerman94-950.54
Yzerman85-860.54
Beliveau55-561.00
Beliveau56-571.00
Beliveau54-550.97
Beliveau58-590.95
Beliveau60-610.95
Beliveau*67-680.93
Beliveau59-600.91
Beliveau*57-580.89
Beliveau63-640.88
Beliveau62-630.83
Beliveau*53-540.81
Beliveau*61-620.79
Beliveau65-660.79
Beliveau67-680.78
Beliveau68-690.65/0.77
Beliveau57-580.70
Beliveau*64-650.60
Beliveau*69-700.60
Beliveau66-670.52
Beliveau70-710.50

That's not so different now, is it?

Especially considering Beliveau's Montreal teams were absolutely stacked with talent for his entire career (Richard bros., Geoffrion, Moore, Olmstead, Harvey, etc.) while Yzerman played his early career and the majority of his prime basically carrying a team almost completely by himself.

And it's not as if I just said "Yzerman is godly, Beliveau couldn't crack a modern roster." I rank them a very tight 3-4 among centers.


Last edited by pdd: 06-09-2013 at 08:38 PM.
pdd is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:36 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2015 All Rights Reserved.