mouser
Business of Hockey
Is McDavid decimating the league right now?
If McDavid or Jagr decimated the league right now they'd be locked up in a little room while psychiatrists look at them through a small window.
Is McDavid decimating the league right now?
No, he wouldn't. He would struggle alot more in his prime than during these days. The game is alot faster, defenders aren't allowed to play lumberjacks (to his advantage), 4th lines aren't a joke with a goon gliding on the leathers of their skates to try to approach the other goon for the staged fight. They are actually an offensive threat given a chance and know how to play hockey. Goalies are infinitely better, teams actually have a system to defend and defensemen can actually skate, know how to block shots, cut off passing lanes and where to position themselves.
I get that you want to romanicise how things were, but no. Gretzky would never be close to his records against full pro teams, Lemieux would never have his scoring streaks and Jagr would never be able to dominate as he did. Just no.
Players like Gretzky, Orr and Lemieux were ahead of their era, but where they better? Heck no. They would still be stars, they would still be generational, but they would never produce the points they had, not even close. The reason they are seen as truly greats is because they were generational and ahead of their era, but they did play in a hockey game that was kind of a circus compared to today.
NHL players today are too well trained, too fit, skilled and smart enough that the absurd numbers during previous eras will never, ever be established again, because now they are actually professional teams down to the last line at 200 ft of the ice - and in the net. Even below average goalies are infinitely better than most goalies during previous eras. It's impossible.
That's why you can't compare players to different eras. It's a completely different game.
Overall, maybe, maybe not. Offensively he was slightly better.~110 points imo maybe even less. I doubt he was better than crosby/ Mcdavid
What the title says.
Dude is 45 going on 46 and he is still effective in the era wherea prime Gretzky would score about 70 pts.
Overall, maybe, maybe not. Offensively he was slightly better.
He'd get 120-130 points in this era. Especially if they continue calling penalties. He scored 123 points or something as a 35 year old in this league.
Overall, maybe, maybe not. Offensively he was slightly better.
Overall, maybe, maybe not. Offensively he was slightly better.
He'd get 120-130 points in this era. Especially if they continue calling penalties. He scored 123 points or something as a 35 year old in this league.
People seem to gloss over this like it's the most natural thing in the world.
Hockey players, by the time they have reached 35 are either already retired or are sitting in a tub full of ice water trying to keep the joint/knee pain at bay.
This guy was second in scoring behind a prime Thornton.
This gets glossed over because it's not that big of a deal.
He was 33/34 in that season. We have seen St. Loius, Sakic, and Thornton put up impressive seasons at older ages. Obviously the guy has longevity given he is still playing but that doesn't mean we start exaggerating his abilities beyond what they were.
His best season (98/99) translates to about 110 points or so last season.
This gets glossed over because it's not that big of a deal.
He was 33/34 in that season. We have seen St. Loius, Sakic, and Thornton put up impressive seasons at older ages. Obviously the guy has longevity given he is still playing but that doesn't mean we start exaggerating his abilities beyond what they were.
His best season (98/99) translates to about 110 points or so last season.
Goal scoring was about the same, bit lower actually during 99. So how do you end up with 110 points?
He's closer to 50 than he is to 40, and apparently players are done at 30 on here. It's also a sustainable pace for him given what we saw last season, around 50 points for a guy his age? Is there anyone in the league older than 38 right now capable of this?
Based on how far ahead of the pack of the next best 20 to 30 scorers using PPGs. There were significantly more PP called in 98/99 so the top offensive players tallied more PP points than the top offensive players did last year. This is why simply looking at overall league goalscoring is an inaccurate way to compare players from different seasons.
This gets glossed over because it's not that big of a deal.
He was 33/34 in that season. We have seen St. Loius, Sakic, and Thornton put up impressive seasons at older ages. Obviously the guy has longevity given he is still playing but that doesn't mean we start exaggerating his abilities beyond what they were.
His best season (98/99) translates to about 110 points or so last season.
His best season was 95/96 when he had 146 points.
I think what gets overlooked is the fact that Jagr was dominating the league on a Penguin team that was pretty bad post Lemieux it's not like he had great offensive support compared to the other high scorers of that era.
It might get overlooked because it's not a fact.I think what gets overlooked is the fact that Jagr was dominating the league on a Penguin team that was pretty bad post Lemieux it's not like he had great offensive support compared to the other high scorers of that era.
It might get overlooked because it's not a fact.
Lemieux missed most of 1990-91, and the Pens were 2nd in offense.
Lemieux missed 1993-94, and the Pens were 4th in offense.
Lemieux missed the (short) 1995 season, and the Pens were 2nd in offense.
Lemieux was gone for good (so we thought) in 1997-98, and the Pens were 7th in offense.
In 1998-99, the Pens were 4th in offense.
In 1999-00, the Pens were 9th in offense (this is the year Jagr missed nearly 20 games).
In 2000-01, the Pens were 2nd in offense but had 43 games with Lemieux. I don't know how they were prior to Lemieux's comeback. (Looking back at the stats, it appears they had scored 103 goals in 36 games before Mario came back. That would pro-rate to 235 goals/season, which would have been around 12th-best.)
Only in 2001-02 did the Pens fall to weak offensively, when Jagr was gone and Lemieux old and missing most games.
Thornton and Marleau are 38.
I was talking about the post Lemieux era and they had the best player in the league of course they were not going to be at the bottom of the league in terms of offense not sure what your trying to argue here.
Take Jagr off that team and they would be near the bottom of the league, Jagr's best post Lemieux season 98-99 Jagr the only other player to crack 60 points was Straka and that was specifically because he played with Jagr
People are acting like he's from the 80's.
How is it fair to take a player exactly as they are without considering changes to workout regiments, equipment, nutrition, etc? It's no more "dishonest", "unfair" or fictitious than any other comparison between the players. The best way is to compare players from the past against their peers, comparing them against today's stars without considering every other factor is extremely flawed.The ONLY way to do this comparison is to take the players EXACTLY as they were. You seem to want to make one player a lot better than he really was, and THEN compare him to other players EXACTLY as good as they are.
You seriously don't understand how dishonest and unfair that is?
With your logic Beethoven could've been the best hockey player in the world, had he been born in 1992. Makes no sense.
100% would. He put 150+ during the clutch and grab dead puck era and actually had speed. He wouldve destroyed this league now. Lemieux even more.
Put it this way: prime Jagr in this era isnt losing a scoring title unless he plays less than 60 to 65 games. He sure as heck aint losing one to Benn.
I mean the guy is doing what he does in this era at 46. The best of today wont even be able to play past 40, and certainly not well. And Jagr played in a game that was much more physically demanding.
He's a beast. Nobody today could touch him in his prime.