Are two Czechs better than any Soviet player ever?

[VanIslander]

Around here Jagr and Hasek are seen as the best non-Canadians ever in ice hockey.

Having memories of part of the 1970's, I question whether Hasek was better than Tretiak.
And the 10-year peaks of Makarov and Fetisov seem equivalent of that of Jagr.

What do you guys think?

Click to read more...

 

[JackSlater]

Yes, both Czechs are better. It seems unlikely given that USSR/Russia was so much stronger as a hockey nation but these things can happen. Just looking at Stanley Cups a person would assume that it would be unlikely that Chicago would have two players better than any that Toronto has had, but that's the case.

 

[Passchendaele]

Aside from the fact that I believe former U.S.S.R. players tend to be vastly overrated, it's reasonable to say so, considering Jagr and Hasek are generational talents.

There's no coulda woulda shoulda with Jagr and Hasek, they dominated the best league in the world for a long period.

 

[blood gin]

Makarov at his peak was equal to Jagr I believe.

It's tough to compare though. Total points compiled son't tell the whole story. It's an 80's peak guy playing behind the iron curtain vs. a guy who peaked in dead puck era. But talent wise at their best against the top competition of their time I'd say they're equal. You just have to look at the video tape and decide for yourself. I saw games where Jagr shook off Scott Stevens like a gnat. And Makarov blew past Larry Robinson and then Denis Potvin like they were mites on ice.

What about defensive responsibility? How does that factor in? Jagr didn't care much, but somebody like Fedorov was a GREAT defensive forward who also had amazing offensive skills and is one of the greatest skaters to ever play the game. As a total complete package Fedorov could do anything and everything.

You also have someone like Kovalev. Pure talent wise he was Jagr's equal. We just didn't see the very best from Kovalev enough and that's his own fault.

Jagr has the numbers and the passion to keep training and keep going. And he's compiled quite a bit over the last several years and had an impressive run dominating the league for a period of time. But that doesn't automatically make him better than any Russian in terms of on ice ability.

Hasek is probably better than any Soviet goaltender

 

[canucks4ever]

I would have to agree, both Czechs are better than any Russian to ever play the game.

 

[Passchendaele]

Makarov at his peak was equal to Jagr I believe.

Disagree.

He's probably on par with the Bossy/Stastny/Savard tier in a best-case scenario.
Sure, he wasn't in his prime when he came over, ended up with 86 points, but let's not act like if he were some 37-year old man in the twilight of his career.

Unless you believe Makarov could score 150-160 points per season in the 80s (which I believe is what Jagr would do), there's no way they compare.

Seeing how Krutov flopped hard, the red flag's present.. wasn't he supposedly the 2nd best sniper in the whole world not in the NHL then? Barely 29.. 11 goals in 61 games.. yeah.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Disagree.

He's probably on par with the Bossy/Stastny/Savard tier in a best-case scenario.
Sure, he wasn't in his prime when he came over, ended up with 86 points, but let's not act like if he were some 37-year old man in the twilight of his career.

Unless you believe Makarov could score 150-160 points per season in the 80s (which I believe is what Jagr would do), there's no way they compare.

Seeing how Krutov flopped hard, the red flag's present.. wasn't he supposedly the 2nd best sniper in the whole world not in the NHL then? Barely 29.. 11 goals in 61 games.. yeah.

Bossy is not on the Savard/Stastny tier but higher.

Review the following numbers, not vetted but interesting and revealing:

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/threa...inst-na-professionals.2424025/#post-139112727

 

[blood gin]

Disagree.

He's probably on par with the Bossy/Stastny/Savard tier in a best-case scenario.
Sure, he wasn't in his prime when he came over, ended up with 86 points, but let's not act like if he were some 37-year old man in the twilight of his career.

Unless you believe Makarov could score 150-160 points per season in the 80s (which I believe is what Jagr would do), there's no way they compare.

Seeing how Krutov flopped hard, the red flag's present.. wasn't he supposedly the 2nd best sniper in the whole world not in the NHL then? Barely 29.. 11 goals in 61 games.. yeah.

Makarov was 31 when he entered the NHL, that was a much much older number for a hockey player back in 1989 than it is in 2017. It was rare to see a guy hit it at 31. Training, nutrition, medical advances weren't what they are now and generally back then when you hit 29-30 that would be the beginning of the end

Krutov was just a fat mess who had trouble adapting and fell off a cliff. Rarely do you see something like that

 

[Hobnobs]

Disagree.

He's probably on par with the Bossy/Stastny/Savard tier in a best-case scenario.
Sure, he wasn't in his prime when he came over, ended up with 86 points, but let's not act like if he were some 37-year old man in the twilight of his career.

Unless you believe Makarov could score 150-160 points per season in the 80s (which I believe is what Jagr would do), there's no way they compare.

Seeing how Krutov flopped hard, the red flag's present.. wasn't he supposedly the 2nd best sniper in the whole world not in the NHL then? Barely 29.. 11 goals in 61 games.. yeah.

You have a very skewed view on Soviets I see. Please tell me of some other players that debuted at 31 who scored more points while before that being one of the best RWs in best on best tournaments. Voted into the all-star team in CC over Bossy for example and wouldve been the best in 87 except they voted for Mario instead of him. Jagr of course has the NHL accolades which matters more in north america.

Also if 86 points is bad for a rookie 31 year old, how do you value Jagrs first two seasons? Surely a supreme player like a young Jagr wouldve adapted fast right?

 

[Canadiens1958]

You have a very skewed view on Soviets I see. Please tell me of some other players that debuted at 31 who scored more points while before that being one of the best RWs in best on best tournaments. Voted into the all-star team in CC over Bossy for example and wouldve been the best in 87 except they voted for Mario instead of him. Jagr of course has the NHL accolades which matters more in north america.

Also if 86 points is bad for a rookie 31 year old, how do you value Jagrs first two seasons? Surely a supreme player like a young Jagr wouldve adapted fast right?

Yet in 1984 John Tonelli was the Canada Cup MVP over Gretzky and Makarov. Short tournament.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/threads/soviet-players-stats-against-na-professionals.2424025/

Factor out 1987 and Makorov was basically a 1.00 PPG against NHL level competioion in his prime. Whether we leave in 1987 or take it out we have a PPG number that was easily replicated over much larger sample spaces by many players within the NHL. 1989-90, Makarov with 86 points in 80 games fits right in the 1.00-1.13 PPG range produced above by Namba 17. Why is anyone surprised or looking for excuses or reasons. Basically Makarov met his performance level.

Sergei Makarov Stats | Hockey-Reference.com

 

[Hobnobs]

Yet in 1984 John Tonelli was the Canada Cup MVP over Gretzky and Makarov. Short tournament.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/threads/soviet-players-stats-against-na-professionals.2424025/

Factor out 1987 and Makorov was basically a 1.00 PPG against NHL level competioion in his prime. Whether we leave in 1987 or take it out we have a PPG number that was easily replicated over much larger sample spaces by many players within the NHL. 1989-90, Makarov with 86 points in 80 games fits right in the 1.00-1.13 PPG range produced above by Namba 17. Why is anyone surprised or looking for excuses or reasons. Basically Makarov met his performance level.

Sergei Makarov Stats | Hockey-Reference.com

Are you now saying that if Makarov had joined the NHL within the normal 18-21 range he wouldve been a slightly above PPG player? Bossy only had 1.3 PPG in CC, he had met his performance level. He never scored higher than that in the NHL. Sorry Trottier, your PPG in CC is only 1.23, youve met your performance level...

 

[Iapyi]

Aside from the fact that I believe former U.S.S.R. players tend to be vastly overrated, it's reasonable to say so, considering Jagr and Hasek are generational talents.

There's no coulda woulda shoulda with Jagr and Hasek, they dominated the best league in the world for a long period.

here here, some people carry on like just about every one of their players would have dominated the nhl when in fact a infinitesimally small % of them would have had a sniff of success in the league.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Are you now saying that if Makarov had joined the NHL within the normal 18-21 range he wouldve been a slightly above PPG player? Bossy only had 1.3 PPG in CC, he had met his performance level. He never scored higher than that in the NHL. Sorry Trottier, your PPG in CC is only 1.23, youve met your performance level...

No. Paraphrasing retired NFL coach Bill Parcells, you are what your record says you are. Makarov definitely was what his record indicated he would be his first two seasons in the NHL then age kicked in.

That others had greater expectations, so be it.

Igor Larionov at 0.82 points per game had a much longer NHL career, almost a 1,000 games and as age kicked in performance declined so he finished north of 0.65 PPG overall in his NHL career.

Igor Larionov Stats | Hockey-Reference.com

The numbers reflected what their NHL careers would look like fairly well.

 

[blood gin]

No. To paraphrase Bill Parcells, well known NFL coach. You are what you record says you are. And in the NHL Makarov showed this to be fairly accurate.

That expectations were different is another issue.

So at 35-101-3, Archie Manning must've been a horrific QB correct?

 

[Namba 17]

No. Paraphrasing retired NFL coach Bill Parcells, you are what your record says you are.

So, why didn't you apply the same logic to Hasek records in the neighbor thread about 25 best players?

 

[Namba 17]

Makarov PPG finishes:
89-90 (age 31) 37 - first year in the NHL
90-91 (age 32) 38
91-92 (age 33) 32
92-93 (age 34) 113

Jagr PPG finishes
2004-05 (age 31) N/A
2005-2006 (age 32) 2
2006-2007 (age 33) 13
2007-2008 (age 34) 50
2008-2009 - went to the KHL

Makarov had more PPG being 33 than Jagr being 34. That's only one year difference - players aged differently. We don't have more relevant stats, though. It seems, that after 34 Jagr met with the same problem, that Makarov - he aged too.
So, two years to adaptation to new league and new country and look what do we have here. Off course, it's small sample size, but even this is pretty telling.

 

[Batis]

Factor out 1987 and Makorov was basically a 1.00 PPG against NHL level competioion in his prime. Whether we leave in 1987 or take it out we have a PPG number that was easily replicated over much larger sample spaces by many players within the NHL. 1989-90, Makarov with 86 points in 80 games fits right in the 1.00-1.13 PPG range produced above by Namba 17. Why is anyone surprised or looking for excuses or reasons. Basically Makarov met his performance level.

It should be pointed out that the quality of the opponents that Makarov faced during those 31 games far, far exceeded the average NHL-quality. 13 of those games were played against most of the absolute best players that the NHL had to offer. 8 against best on best Team Canada in Canada Cup 81, 84 and 87 and 5 against the NHL All Stars teams in Challenge Cup 1979 and Rendezvous 1987. And in the remaining 18 games taken from Super Series competition the opponents were on average also far stronger than the average NHL-quality. Just look at the majority of the teams that CSKA faced in 79/80 and 85/86. In 88/89 they faced weaker opponents on average but as a whole I would say that quality of opposition in those 18 games were far stronger than the average NHL-quality. And when the 13 games against the very best the NHL had to offer are factored in it is obvious that the average level of the opponents in those 31 games was far, far higher than the average NHL-quality. So scoring at a 1.13 PPG rate against that level of opponents is actually pretty damn impressive in my opinion.

Edit: As a comparison Marcel Dionne and Guy Lafleur scored 5 points in 13 games (Dionne) and 7 points in 8 games (Lafleur) against the Soviet National Team throughout their careers (in major international tournaments and the 1979 Challenge Cup). Do you think it is fair to suggest that Dionne and Lafleur would have been 0.38 and 0.88 PPG players in the Soviet League during their primes based on that? Yes this is an even more exagerrated example but it still serves a purpose to point out the problem with your original conclusion.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Jagr, Ovechkin, Makarov and Hasek are all in the same tier of players for me, with Jagr possibly a tier above.Throw in Fetisov for good measure.I would say any answer to that question can be compelling.

 

[Batis]

I would rank Jagr and Hasek ahead of any Soviet player but I don't think that the gap to Makarov/Fetisov is very big at all. My top 6 Europeans list would look something like this.

1. Jagr/Hasek
3. Lidström
4. Makarov/Fetisov
6. Ovechkin

 

[Theokritos]

some people carry on like just about every one of their players would have dominated the nhl when in fact a infinitesimally small % of them would have had a sniff of success in the league.

Literally no-one around here claims that.

No. Paraphrasing retired NFL coach Bill Parcells, you are what your record says you are.

To paraphrase the late Johan Cruyff, one of the best players and one of the most influential coaches in the history of soccer: Often a result is confused with the situation. The numbers don't always tell the whole story.

 

[VanIslander]

Surprised at the lack of Tretiak discussion.

 

[bobholly39]

Ovechkin is very very likely going to be there when he retires.
He has a very strong likelihood of being #1 overall.

 

[Iapyi]

Literally no-one around here claims that.



To paraphrase the late Johan Cruyff, one of the best players and one of the most influential coaches in the history of soccer: Often a result is confused with the situation. The numbers don't always tell the whole story.

that's why i said they "carry on like".

 

[Hobnobs]

Surprised at the lack of Tretiak discussion.

Thats because Tretiak is not better than Hasek and there is even a discussion if he was better than Holecek and so on.

 

[Albatros]

Too close to call, the different eras obscure things too much. But at least Jágr and Hašek are up there.