Is there any doubt that a Prime Jagr would have decimated this league?

Rexor

Registered User
Oct 24, 2006
1,455
309
Brno
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.

I hope you're aware that Jágr was actually spending most of his prime in a lower scoring league than the current NHL is. One could say that he was tailor-made for the clutch & grab era; however, part of his success was that he always knew how to adapt. So that Jágr bulked up a lot during the second half of the 90's and I believe he'd be somewhat lighter and quicker had his prime been occuring nowadays as the league has changed. Still, a prime Jágr was a fast skater, even at 230 pounds.

One can also argue that while the GPG is a bit higher today than from 1997 to 2004, scoring is more spread out between the lines and the number of power-plays has decreased. It's a fair objection but Jágr was never overly reliant on PP and I also don't think his ice-time would get much lower had his prime been today compared to the 90's. The ability to log huge minutes was always one of his main assets, and it was in large part the result of his style of play and general approach to the game (he was more like a patient long-distance runner, knowing how to conserve himself, different than the sprinter-like minded superstars such as Forsberg or Lindros, employing a more uptempo style). So that given he was a ~120 point player in a lower scoring league, I feel like saying he would score about 110 points in this season is underselling him a tad.

I also think it's fairly obvious that Riddum was being sarcastic about Gretzky in his OP.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: dar112

ICanMotteBelieveIt

Registered User
Jan 11, 2013
8,443
4,978
~110 points imo maybe even less. I doubt he was better than crosby/ Mcdavid
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.
 

PunkRockLocke

Registered User
Jun 15, 2017
1,248
764
Pender Harbour
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.

No such Era exists. Clearly you have no idea how to judge talent.

Prime Jagr today would score ~100 pts I think.

Prime Gretzky would score ~140 pts
 

Captain Creampuff

Registered User
Sep 10, 2012
10,969
1,816
Really wish he would have signed with the Blues this season. We could really use him on the 3rd line. Watching him on Calgary just reinforced my thought. He just has such a high IQ that his slow speed doesn't make him ineffective like any other player would. He's able to protect the puck so well with how strong he is and just does totally unpredictable stuff that leaves you saying "Wow I thought he was gonna go behind the net not do a spin-o-rama and pass it to the guy wide open in the slot."
 

daver

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
25,818
5,709
Visit site
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.

You do realize that "this league" is more removed from his 123 point season than when Jagr was in his prime.

It makes no sense to use that a measurement.
 

IamNotADancer

Registered User
Feb 16, 2017
2,421
2,707
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.
 

daver

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
25,818
5,709
Visit site
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.
 

IamNotADancer

Registered User
Feb 16, 2017
2,421
2,707
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.


Apologies.... not impressive at all. Let's all wrap it up, Jagr is just run of the mill.
 

skillhockey

Registered User
Feb 26, 2013
1,839
26
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?
 

daver

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
25,818
5,709
Visit site
Goal scoring was about the same, bit lower actually during 99. So how do you end up with 110 points?

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.
 

Morgs

#16 #34 #44 #88 #91
Jul 12, 2015
19,518
15,389
London, ON
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?

Thornton and Marleau are 38.
 

skillhockey

Registered User
Feb 26, 2013
1,839
26
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.

Jagr was 2nd best with 44 points, Backstrom was best last year with 35. It was bit higher yeah but it's not like Jagr got 20 point advantage out of it. And player like Kariya who had probably his best year that time too is i guess just 80 point player so worse than Marchand last year. Also Crosby had 61 pp points in 07, i guess in reality it's more like 95 point season then by your thinking.
 
Last edited:

Psyfer

Registered User
Mar 1, 2008
2,505
476
Toronto
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.
 

daver

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
25,818
5,709
Visit site
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.

That season is about the same production-wise as his 98/99 season using the same metric. That Mario was not on the team makes 98/99 more impressive.
 

The Panther

Registered User
Mar 25, 2014
19,110
15,573
Tokyo, Japan
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: authentic

Psyfer

Registered User
Mar 1, 2008
2,505
476
Toronto
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.

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
 

daver

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
25,818
5,709
Visit site
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

Like the other all-time great offensive players, Jagr was able to produce regardless. That doesn't mean he would be any better in this era than he was back then. That being said, his rivals like Sakic, Forsberg and Lindros also showed they could produce regardless.
 

ManofSteel55

Registered User
Aug 15, 2013
31,862
11,990
Sylvan Lake, Alberta
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.
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.
 

Felidae

Registered User
Sep 30, 2016
9,262
10,772
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.

He had 149 points that season, and to present that year as the "dead puck" era is quite disingenuous considering all the top ten point producers had over 100 points. Dead puck era begun the subsequent year.


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.

I hear this argument quite frequently, but the current superstars or even the ones a few years ago would certainly be able to contend and very possibly beat Jagr for some of his Art Ross trophies. Most notably 1994-95 and 1997-98. Seasons which there's a compelling argument they are weaker than Kane's, McDavid's and Malkin's Art ross wins to name the most recent examples. Kane and Malkin's seasons won the Art Ross by a more significant gap than Jagr did in those years.
 

ziggyjoe212

Registered User
Oct 2, 2017
3,039
2,359
I'm a Pens fan that watched both Jagr, Sid, and Geno in their primes. Jagr dominated in ways Sid and Geno never could. Sure Sid may be the superior 2-way player, but offensively Jagr is in a different league.

Don't forget, Jagr scored 120+ points at the age of 37.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->