The misconception that Datsyuk and Zetterberg are equal

[Electrophile 3,554]

This is why this discussion can never happen.

Incorrect. It can happen, maybe you need to learn going about it in a different way.

[dat's sick 1,002]

This season there has been no question, Datsyuk has been better than Z at almost everything. Easily. Datsyuk also happens to have been one one of the best players in the league this season, while Z has simply been very solid.

But looking at their careers before this year, they're very close. Both have their strenghts. Z is having an off year by his standards, while Pavel has bloomed into the superstar we all thought he could become.

Also, I think Z has shown in the past that he can produce on lines without Pavel, but obviously they're BOTH better together. Yeah, Pavel could score 80 points on a line with me and my grandma, while Z might need a little more help, but he has by no means had a free-ride on Pavel's back in the past.

Pavel is 2 years older. I wouldn't be surprised if Z first of all has a great playoffs, but also if he bounces back next season and has a 100-point year.

Bottom line is we're lucky to have them both. I don't see the point of this thread. At all.

[hankzet40 233]

As previously mentioned, the 2006 Edmonton series is what made Hank my favorite player. I haven't appreciated Pavel nearly as much as I should but I am thankful that I cheer for a team whose fans can even have a debate like this.

[eva unit zero 271]

It's interesting that so many posters whose screen names include 'dats' or Datsyuk' or some variation are so easily swayed to one side of this discussion. Not suggesting any bias in some peoples' opinions or anything.

[datsyukismyfriend 4]

Bottom line is we're lucky to have them both. I don't see the point of this thread. At all.

you don't see the point yet you contributed four paragraphs worth of your opinions. interesting...

there's nothing wrong with this thread. it's an interesting debate. maybe a question that can't be answered (who is better), but it's an interesting discussion nonetheless.

[datsyukismyfriend 4]

It's interesting that so many posters whose screen names include 'dats' or Datsyuk' or some variation are so easily swayed to one side of this discussion. Not suggesting any bias in some peoples' opinions or anything.

i never claimed not to be biased.

[RusDRW 155]

Up to this point in their careers, it can't be disputed that come playoff time, Z>D.

that is questionable to say the least. Zetterberg's fans bringing this over and over again make this thread really pointless.

[T.Low 1,011]

It's interesting that so many posters whose screen names include 'dats' or Datsyuk' or some variation are so easily swayed to one side of this discussion. Not suggesting any bias in some peoples' opinions or anything.

Interesting you should make that observation; I've been thinking that both Z and D are 2nd to T.Low.

But I didn't want to hijack the thread.

[eva unit zero 271]

+/- is only relevant when its two comparable players.

And it's STILL not a defensive statistic.

Plus-minus has as much relevance to a player's defensive ability as power-play goals and penalty minutes do. Absolutely no relevance at all.

[Doggy 130]

It's interesting that so many posters whose screen names include 'dats' or Datsyuk' or some variation are so easily swayed to one side of this discussion. Not suggesting any bias in some peoples' opinions or anything.

You're the last person in the world that should criticise anyone for personal bias.

[TonyDanza 0]

And it's STILL not a defensive statistic.

Plus-minus has as much relevance to a player's defensive ability as power-play goals and penalty minutes do. Absolutely no relevance at all.

So +/- is purely an offensive statistic? You're throwing out +/- because it doesn't favor your argument, when in fact, +/- applies perfectly in this situation. In most cases, +/- is pointless because you can't compare players from different teams but in this case we're comparing the 1a center and the 1b center of the same team, who both have comparable linemates, similar minutes and play the same ice time in all situations. In fact, this is by far the easiest comparison of two players ever to make.

So, while +/- may not be the only indicator of defensive ability it does infact apply to this discussion. If you don't want to use it purely because it favors Datsyuk than its your perogative. Its not nearly as irrational as Zetterberg fans bringing up THE 5 on 3 from a year ago to cement Zetterberg's status above Datsyuk.

When a statistic doesn't favor your boy, you bring up intangibles, leadership and other things that cannot be measured or seen.

[dat's sick 1,002]

It's interesting that so many posters whose screen names include 'dats' or Datsyuk' or some variation are so easily swayed to one side of this discussion. Not suggesting any bias in some peoples' opinions or anything.

My favorite player on the Wings team actually is Hank, despite my username. But this season, Pavel has been the better of the two.

you don't see the point yet you contributed four paragraphs worth of your opinions. interesting...

there's nothing wrong with this thread. it's an interesting debate. maybe a question that can't be answered (who is better), but it's an interesting discussion nonetheless.

Eh, there's so much on the internet that there's no point to, doesn't mean I don't contribute with even more pointlessness myself.

I just don't see the reason for this thread because they're both here for the long-term, they're both awesome and who cares who is more awesome than the other?

But no, there's nothing "wrong" with discussing it.. just like there's nothing wrong with discussing whether apples really are equal to oranges.

[soonboomer 31]

that is questionable to say the least. Zetterberg's fans bringing this over and over again make this thread really pointless.

I'm not a fan of one more than the other...but I have watched every playoff game both have ever played......and Z's playoff edge to this point in their careers goes beyond the numbers......Datsyuk was quite weak on the puck early in his playoff career, and had was actually questioned by many as a possible playoff flop until the past two seasons.......Hank, on the other hand, has always been a playoff beast. This may all change in future playoff series, but lets not forget that Z is the one who has a Conn Smythe. CASE CLOSED!!!

[soonboomer 31]

that is questionable to say the least. Zetterberg's fans bringing this over and over again make this thread really pointless.

I'm not a fan of one more than the other...but I have watched every playoff game both have ever played......and Z's playoff edge to this point in their careers goes beyond the numbers......Datsyuk was quite weak on the puck early in his playoff career, and he was actually questioned by many as a possible playoff flop until the past two seasons.......Hank, on the other hand, has always been a playoff beast. This may all change in future playoff series, but lets not forget that Z is the one who has a Conn Smythe. CASE CLOSED!!!

[Doc Holiday 0]

I can't believe we are having an argument about which of the two best two way forwards in the game is better than the other.

These guys are both great, and they both have strengths the other doesn't have. In the end, they are the best ******* duo in the NHL, and we have them on our team.

f***. Yes.

[datsyukismyfriend 4]

just like there's nothing wrong with discussing whether apples really are equal to oranges.

hmm...now there's an interesting discussion.

allow me...

oranges are clearly the better defensive fruit as the rind is all but inedible. it is time consuming and sloppy peeling clear that blasted rind, juice running down your arm and squirting your eyeball, leaving you blind and sticky. not to mention the effort involved separating the seeds from the fruit in your mouth without swallowing both and choking half to death.

the apple, on the other hand, has the clear offensive advantage. it can be thrown further and more accurately and leaves quite a lump after a hard bounce off the noggin. it also grows naturally on trees in northern climates, making it more readily available.

apples give you a bit more bang for your buck, too, as they're a smidge less spendy.

however, more injury prone is the apple. it's not uncommon to spend minutes leafing through the bin in search of a heralded un-bruised and wholly crisp specimen. apples also lack the longevity of the orange as they become mushy and unsavory within a few weeks.

in the end, however, the apple reigns supreme as the best all-around fruit and that's because an apple a day keeps the doctor away. when's the last time the orange could make so grand a claim?!

Edited March 26, 2009 by datsyukismyfriend

[weGotTheCup89 41]

hmm...now there's an interesting discussion.

allow me...

oranges are clearly the better defensive fruit as the rind is all but inedible. it is time consuming and sloppy peeling clear that blasted rind, juice running down your arm and squirting your eyeball, leaving you blind and sticky. not to mention the effort involved separating the seeds from the fruit in your mouth without swallowing both and choking half to death.

the apple, on the other hand, has the clear offensive advantage. it can be thrown further and more accurately and leaves quite a lump after a hard bounce off the noggin. it also grows naturally on trees in northern climates, making it more readily available.

apples give you a bit more bang for your buck, too, as they're a smidge less spendy.

however, more injury prone is the apple. it's not uncommon to spend minutes leafing through the bin in search of a heralded un-bruised and wholly crisp specimen. apples also lack the longevity of the orange as they become mushy and unsavory within a few weeks.

in the end, however, the apple reigns supreme as the best all-around fruit and that's because an apple a day keeps the doctor away. when's the last time the orange could make that grand a claim?!

YES!!

[55fan 5,133]

hmm...now there's an interesting discussion.

allow me...

oranges are clearly the better defensive fruit as the rind is all but inedible. it is time consuming and sloppy peeling clear that blasted rind, juice running down your arm and squirting your eyeball, leaving you blind and sticky. not to mention the effort involved separating the seeds from the fruit in your mouth without swallowing both and choking half to death.

the apple, on the other hand, has the clear offensive advantage. it can be thrown further and more accurately and leaves quite a lump after a hard bounce off the noggin. it also grows naturally on trees in northern climates, making it more readily available.

apples give you a bit more bang for your buck, too, as they're a smidge less spendy.

however, more injury prone is the apple. it's not uncommon to spend minutes leafing through the bin in search of a heralded un-bruised and wholly crisp specimen. apples also lack the longevity of the orange as they become mushy and unsavory within a few weeks.

in the end, however, the apple reigns supreme as the best all-around fruit and that's because an apple a day keeps the doctor away. when's the last time the orange could make so grand a claim?!

BRAVO!!!!

Now someone will come along and argue that the apple and the orange are better as a pear.

Edited March 26, 2009 by 55fan

[CanadaBoy 151]

hmm...now there's an interesting discussion.

allow me...

oranges are clearly the better defensive fruit as the rind is all but inedible. it is time consuming and sloppy peeling clear that blasted rind, juice running down your arm and squirting your eyeball, leaving you blind and sticky. not to mention the effort involved separating the seeds from the fruit in your mouth without swallowing both and choking half to death.

the apple, on the other hand, has the clear offensive advantage. it can be thrown further and more accurately and leaves quite a lump after a hard bounce off the noggin. it also grows naturally on trees in northern climates, making it more readily available.

apples give you a bit more bang for your buck, too, as they're a smidge less spendy.

however, more injury prone is the apple. it's not uncommon to spend minutes leafing through the bin in search of a heralded un-bruised and wholly crisp specimen. apples also lack the longevity of the orange as they become mushy and unsavory within a few weeks.

in the end, however, the apple reigns supreme as the best all-around fruit and that's because an apple a day keeps the doctor away. when's the last time the orange could make so grand a claim?!

I trust mine eye to Doctor Rahmani. You should too

[Namingway 146]

hmm...now there's an interesting discussion.

allow me...

oranges are clearly the better defensive fruit as the rind is all but inedible. it is time consuming and sloppy peeling clear that blasted rind, juice running down your arm and squirting your eyeball, leaving you blind and sticky. not to mention the effort involved separating the seeds from the fruit in your mouth without swallowing both and choking half to death.

the apple, on the other hand, has the clear offensive advantage. it can be thrown further and more accurately and leaves quite a lump after a hard bounce off the noggin. it also grows naturally on trees in northern climates, making it more readily available.

apples give you a bit more bang for your buck, too, as they're a smidge less spendy.

however, more injury prone is the apple. it's not uncommon to spend minutes leafing through the bin in search of a heralded un-bruised and wholly crisp specimen. apples also lack the longevity of the orange as they become mushy and unsavory within a few weeks.

in the end, however, the apple reigns supreme as the best all-around fruit and that's because an apple a day keeps the doctor away. when's the last time the orange could make so grand a claim?!

BRAVO!!!!

Now someone will come along and argue that the apple and the orange are better as a pear.

Oh you guys

Edited March 26, 2009 by Namingway

[Jocke 53]

Datsyuk's playoff production is severely skewed from playing a very small role in the 2002 cup run. Playing fourth line minutes and riding the bench for 21 games and producing 6 points.

In 2003, Zetterberg was effectively playing on the second line with Datsyuk and Hull. Datsyuk wasn't afforded that luxury his rookie season.

Remove 2002, Datsyuk and Zetterberg have nearly identical stats in the post season.

Haha, you are funny, keep going!

[SouthernWingsFan 854]

This thread and the original poster (with two alises in all likelihood) are making me...

[Jersey Wing 1,521]

JeffBridges you are bordering on manical over this. You seem absolutely intent on proving your point at any cost.

If I may, you asked what if ANY proof people had that Zetterberg was remotley close to Datsyuk in skill or numbers or whatever.

The NHL has this thing they give out at the end of the playoffs called a Conn Smythe Trophy, given to that season's playoff MVP, not just given for 5 on 3 pentaly kills, not just for faceoffs, not just for points scored but front to back, beginning to end playoff MVP. Last year, that trophy was won by Henrik Zetterberg.

[Datsyerberger 279]

BRAVO!!!!

Now someone will come along and argue that the apple and the orange are better as a pear.

That, my good lady, was incredibly terrible.

[Barrie 900]

Who cares who's better than who, just enjoy both players. They bring something different to the game that the other one doesn't. Let's not make this Yzerman vs. Fedorov part 2. Both guy are on our side.