HNIC: Pavel Bure < Glenn Anderson; Jagr < Kurri & Selanne

[MXD]

I really don't see any legitimate argument against having Jagr at #1 here. Lafleur's whole legacy is based on a 5 year stretch. Sure he was amazing in those 5 years, but outside those years, he was pretty average. Take Jagr's best 5 seasons, and they stack up incredibly well... actually, they are probably better! Even if you think Lafleur's peak is better you then have to account for the fact that Jagr was an elite player for like 15 years.

- Different eras
- Different environements
- Jagr was never, really, the best player in the league, something Lafleur was for a certain stretch, and denying such basically means you have Bobby Clarke in your Top-15, because that would basically means that Clarke was the best player in the league for way too long to warrant a status below Top-15.

 

[Dreakmur]

- Different eras
- Different environements
- Jagr was never, really, the best player in the league, something Lafleur was for a certain stretch, and denying such basically means you have Bobby Clarke in your Top-15, because that would basically means that Clarke was the best player in the league for way too long to warrant a status below Top-15.

I account for era when I do my scoring comparison.

Those different evironments favour Lafleur. He played for a stacked team, so his accomplishments are a bit inflated.

I think it's pretty tough to argue that a guy who won 4 straight scoring titles wasn't the best player in the league.

 

[BraveCanadian]

- Different eras
- Different environements
- Jagr was never, really, the best player in the league, something Lafleur was for a certain stretch, and denying such basically means you have Bobby Clarke in your Top-15, because that would basically means that Clarke was the best player in the league for way too long to warrant a status below Top-15.

Different eras and different environments.. both of which happened to hamper Jagr in comparison to Lafleur because Jagr didn't peak in an era of disparity on a dynasty team. He peaked in the dead puck era on a poor squad and was still amazing.

Jagr was definitely the best scorer during the late 90s. His 98-99 and 00-01 seasons are especially remarkable for the time. 4 Art Ross. 3 Lindsay and a Hart trophy and he was never really the best player in the league? Just what do you have to do to be considered in your books?

Yes Hasek was at the peak of his powers at that time but if you want to go that route than Dryden could have the same argument against Lafleur. And yes, Mario was sitting out but Bobby Orr was also injured and finally gave up in 78 after sitting out.

Jagr > Lafleur in my books. Guy was outstanding of course too, though.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

The < in your title are backwards. I was like, what's the problem, it should be obvious?

Seriously, how could anyone who watched more than a few minutes of hockey in the last decade pick Selanne over Jagr? Makes... no... sense....

 

[MXD]

I account for era when I do my scoring comparison.

Those different evironments favour Lafleur. He played for a stacked team, so his accomplishments are a bit inflated.

I think it's pretty tough to argue that a guy who won 4 straight scoring titles wasn't the best player in the league.

Wow, what an awful way to interpret my post...

- ERA relates to conditionning (for the later part of Lafleur's career)
- Environnement relates to player for a defensive-minded team (in the 80ies)

 

[MXD]

Different eras and different environments.. both of which happened to hamper Jagr in comparison to Lafleur because Jagr didn't peak in an era of disparity on a dynasty team. He peaked in the dead puck era on a poor squad and was still amazing.

Jagr was definitely the best scorer during the late 90s. His 98-99 and 00-01 seasons are especially remarkable for the time. 4 Art Ross. 3 Lindsay and a Hart trophy and he was never really the best player in the league? Just what do you have to do to be considered in your books?

See post above.

Otherwise, you really think Jagr was a better player than Hasek?!?!?!

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Wow, what an awful way to interpret my post...

- ERA relates to conditionning
- Environnement relates to player for a defensive-minded team (in the 80ies)

This is a good point. We saw how Jagr did playing for a defensive-minded team in Washington. It wasn't pretty.

#1/2 is a tossup between Lafleur and Jagr, based on how much you value longevity and contribution to championships. Outside chance for Bossy to get in, I guess. But Jagr out of the Top 3 is absolutely laughable.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I account for era when I do my scoring comparison.

Those different evironments favour Lafleur. He played for a stacked team, so his accomplishments are a bit inflated.

I think it's pretty tough to argue that a guy who won 4 straight scoring titles wasn't the best player in the league.

Lafleur's team was stacked, but the defense was stacked much more than the offense. Lafleur was, by far, the best offensive player. So I don't think you can say his numbers are inflated one bit by the likes of Jacques Lemaire and Steve Shutt.

But, yes, he did get the opportunity to play more games in the playoffs due to his stacked defense. But he certainly did make the most of the games he played in (1.5 points per game in the playoffs during his prime), and should get credit for that.

 

[BraveCanadian]

This is a good point. We saw how Jagr did playing for a defensive-minded team in Washington. It wasn't pretty.

#1/2 is a tossup between Lafleur and Jagr, based on how much you value longevity and contribution to championships. Outside chance for Bossy to get in, I guess. But Jagr out of the Top 3 is absolutely laughable.

Yeah a good argument could be made for any of those 3 to be #1 and be reasonable.

No matter how you evaluate them though.. they have to be 1 2 3 in some order for the modern era.

 

[seventieslord]

Jagr and Selänne are both at 0.51 GPG with Jagr having played more games. Let me ask, what are you laughing at?

Yes, I would also like to know.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

For one, i don't think the guy(s) who put together that list know that leaguewide scoring went down starting in the mid 90s. Their top 4 RWs (Lafleur, Bossy, Kurri, Hull) all peaked when scoring was a lot higher. And then their #5 Selanne had his big regular season in the freak 92-93.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

And if you look at absolute scoring numbers, rather than relative to the league, Glenn Anderson did hit 100 points three times versus only twice for Bure.

 

[Regal]

Yes, I would also like to know.

The only thing I could think of was Jagr's mullet losing "by a hair"

 

[HemskyToHall*]

And if you look at absolute scoring numbers, rather than relative to the league, Glenn Anderson did hit 100 points three times versus only twice for Bure.

This, Anderson over Bure for me. Not even close imo.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

This, Anderson over Bure for me. Not even close imo.

Well... I was actually criticizing their way of looking at things, but okay.

 

[Tavaresmagicalplay*]

Jagr is number 6. Nuff said.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Lafleur's team was stacked, but the defense was stacked much more than the offense. Lafleur was, by far, the best offensive player. So I don't think you can say his numbers are inflated one bit by the likes of Jacques Lemaire and Steve Shutt.

But, yes, he did get the opportunity to play more games in the playoffs due to his stacked defense. But he certainly did make the most of the games he played in (1.5 points per game in the playoffs during his prime), and should get credit for that.

Maybe not. But I definitely think the strength of that team and league scoring inflated EVERYone's stats (back then, roughly 1/4 of all the teams in the league would finish with over 300 goals... only 1 team did it last year, and the rest didn't even come close). I mean, every one of Lafleur's 100 point seasons gets adjusted down when accounting for "era", and those teams featured no fewer than 12 eventual Hall of Famers.

Playing on that team helped Lafleur, and his legend, tremendously. I find it hard to consider him "by far" the best offensive talent in the league at the time, though. I've always been more impressed by Dionne putting up 120+ points playing on a line with Danny Grant and Nick Libett in '74/75 and outscoring/"pointing" Lafleur in '79/80 while playing on a Kings team that finished over 30 pts behind the Habs in the standings, and still think HE would be considered "by far" the best offensive talent (non-Orr, of course) in the league at the time if their situations (teams) were reversed (especially as Lafleur would have been playing with Butch Goring and someone like Bob Nevin instead of Mahovlich/Shutt/etc); yes, perhaps even in those earlier years.

And if you look at absolute scoring numbers, rather than relative to the league, Glenn Anderson did hit 100 points three times versus only twice for Bure.

Well, I guess that would make Bure and Pete Mahovlich equals. Pete only scored 100+ points twice - on the same dynasty team as Lafleur.

btw, I did notice that you just threw out the raw scoring numbers thing facetiously. I wasn't being serious either.

 

[Seanconn*]

Jagr and Selänne are both at 0.51 GPG with Jagr having played more games. Let me ask, what are you laughing at?

because he bolded "a hair below" and Jagr is famous for his mullet hairstyle.

 

[Big Phil]

Jagr to me is the best RW of the modern era. Ahead of Lafleur, and ahead of Bossy.

Jagr being placed behind Selanne all-time made me shoot water out of my nose. Come on CBC, really?

 

[Big Phil]

- Different eras
- Different environements
- Jagr was never, really, the best player in the league, something Lafleur was for a certain stretch, and denying such basically means you have Bobby Clarke in your Top-15, because that would basically means that Clarke was the best player in the league for way too long to warrant a status below Top-15.

Come again?

I think most of us watched hockey from 1997-'01. Didn't you? Can you name a better player in that span than Jagr? 4 straight Art Ross Trophies, what more did he have to do?

 

[shazariahl]

I really don't see any legitimate argument against having Jagr at #1 here. Lafleur's whole legacy is based on a 5 year stretch. Sure he was amazing in those 5 years, but outside those years, he was pretty average. Take Jagr's best 5 seasons, and they stack up incredibly well... actually, they are probably better! Even if you think Lafleur's peak is better you then have to account for the fact that Jagr was an elite player for like 15 years.

This. I also considered Jagr and Lafleur's peaks to be nearly identical. I may give a slight edge to LaFleur, but he also had a much better team. The difference is that Jagr was a better player outside of their peak years, and by a much greater margin than any slight edge Lafleur may have had in their primes.

 

[Leafs Forever]

Outside of Jagr getting jipped and Anderson, the list isn't too bad (given it's apparently modern day?)..

But then having the best RW of the time period they are evaluating 6th is embarassing.

 

[Jumptheshark]

8 glenn anderson
9 pavel bure

that's not even funny

I think they asked about playoff performances and well things like winning

Bure will be forever known as the guy who reportedly threatened not play unless the canucks agreed to talk about a new contract right before a playoff game.

Anderson was playoff gold

 

[Jumptheshark]

Guy Lafleur
Mike Bossy
Jari Kurri
Brett Hull
Teemu Selanne
Jaromir Jagr
Yvan Cournoyer
Glenn Anderson
Pavel Bure
Jarome Iginla

the actual list

 

[overpass]

Playing on that team helped Lafleur, and his legend, tremendously. I find it hard to consider him "by far" the best offensive talent in the league at the time, though. I've always been more impressed by Dionne putting up 120+ points playing on a line with Danny Grant and Nick Libett in '74/75 and outscoring/"pointing" Lafleur in '79/80 while playing on a Kings team that finished over 30 pts behind the Habs in the standings, and still think HE would be considered "by far" the best offensive talent (non-Orr, of course) in the league at the time if their situations (teams) were reversed (especially as Lafleur would have been playing with Butch Goring and someone like Bob Nevin instead of Mahovlich/Shutt/etc); yes, perhaps even in those earlier years.

I'm not sure that it's necessarily harder to put up points on a weaker team. A star player playing on an average team, as opposed to a great team, will usually get more ice time at even strength and on the power play. This offsets the talent disadvantage, at least to some degree. There are no ice time stats from Lafleur's era, but Jagr at his peak played a ton of ice time. It's very possible that Dionne was also playing more than Lafleur.

Montreal also had fewer power plays than average during Lafleur's peak, probably as a result of playing with the lead so much. Jagr and Dionne faced no such "disadvantage".