Isn't longevity one of the reasons Howe is regarded so highly?
I don't get it, how come longevity is part of the case for some players, but not for others.
Are you telling me that at this point it doesn't matter at all if Jagr strings together 3 more seasons of 50 plus points, this helps him 0 percent in his case against someone like Richard or Hull, who played 900 something and 1000 something games respectively?
in 2007, at the age of 34, jagr had his last relevant season if we're talking about the five greatest wingers to ever play hockey. that year, he finished 5th in assists, 8th in points. that made him a top ten scorer in seasons 14 years apart, which is impressive longevity.
but since then, his two best years have been in the 20s. 27, 33, 49, 73, 100, and as of today 54. gordie howe broke through as an all-star calibre player at the same age as jagr. in howe's 35+ seasons, he finished 3, 3, 3, 4, 5, 5, and finally 9th at age 41. i'm not the first one to point this out, but maybe seeing the radically different placements shows you how they are two completely different kinds of longevity?
If that is your standard for adding to any players resume, then alot of HHOF type of players and indeed many on the top wingers, centers Dman lists had alot of "irrelevant" seasons then.
Sorry but when a player is leading a playoff team in scoring at age 43 it has to add to his resume.
Or leads his NHL team in scoring by 14 points at age 41 and was 27th overall in points.
I absolutely consider the past few years to have added to his case. Leading a team in scoring -- by 14 points! -- at age 41 is a significant achievement. Leading a team in scoring at age 43 is unprecedented. I don't see that as "longevity for longevity's sake".
of course jagr is adding to his resume in an absolute sense. anytime a guy steps onto the ice in an NHL arena, he adds to his legacy.
but when we are talking about jagr's place among the very best guys to ever play wing, it demeans him to talk about the years he was 27th in points after his long prime was over, and long after his magnificent peak. and it certainly demeans him to talk about the year he was in philly or new jersey.
27th in points... that's something we can say adds to selanne's legacy when we are debating selanne vs. jari kurri. we're not trying to compare jagr to kurri.
or another way of saying it: mark recchi's last years helped him. but they helped differentiate separate him from michel goulet. those last recchi years don't get him any closer to howe or hull or rocket... or jagr.
jagr won 5 scoring titles and finished 2nd two other times. jagr finished 5th in 2002 and that season diminishes his legacy, rather than bolstering it. jagr's standard is so high and he is so far and away beyond guys like selanne and kurri and recchi and goulet that finishing 27th means basically nothing to his legacy, relative to howe, hull, and rocket.
the only way these later years matter for jagr is to separate him from lafleur, who has a comparable peak but barely played and did nothing of note after 32. "relevant" re: lafleur, who i think most of us agree jagr is ahead of already anyway; "irrelevant" re: the number 9s.
actually, one more thing about this current jagr season specifically: it also shows intangibles that he rarely showed previously. it doesn't mean a lot relative to the best of the best, but if both he and the panthers keep this up, it means a little that jagr is both the most consistent producer on a 1st place team, but only because -- and this is the important part -- he is making the young guys better. he is getting the best out of barkov, he is making huberdeau better, i would guess that he is rubbing off on ekblad. that part matters, even if the pedestrian point total at an exceptional age doesn't.
and if someday barkov turns into kopitar crossed with getzlaf, like he looks at times like he might, then i think jagr will deserve credit for helping him exceed expectations on his offensive ceiling.
