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

[Standardly]

people have zero clue it seems. Guys like crosby and mcdavid rely on speed to be effective. Some here seem to assume that gretz and lemieux would have to rely on speed as well to be effective...but they didn't. I like to think of Lemieux as prime Joe Thornton with much better passing, and vision plus with a Patrick Laine shot and scoring knack (better scoring knack than Laine)

 

[Eisen]

If he had Fleury's body he wouldn't be Jaromir Jagr.

This is not directed at the quoted poster, but this thread in general; it's one thing to discount, say Gordie Howe, and say that his level of physical dominance wouldn't hold up in this era because of the difference in how penalties are called. Even the other way to discount someone like Eddie Shore who was a physical specimen for his day but wouldn't be now because of the general size increase. But Jagr's physicality not only holds up right now (as in, he literally plays at age 46), but his style of play also translates incredibly well to how the game is played now. Jagr was never one to rack up goals by unleashing clappers from the blueline on flailing standup goalies. He dominates/d through unbelievable possession plays along the boards and by having the IQ to match that immense physical advantage. That holds up in any era, and apparently for him, at any age.

Don't underestimate the strength of Shore. He was really athletic. But you are, of course, right. In a timemachine scenario they won't be as intimidating as they were.

I don't have to post pics of Gordie, everyone knows he was strong.

 

[TheAngryHank]

JJ wasn't the only player from the 90s that would feast on the modern era.. its less skilled chip and chase .Do not think for a moment that todays players are more condition than the Russian / former Soviet Red Army players.They were forced from a young age to lift weights ,skate for hours.Keep in mind they defected,knowing their familys would be killed.

 

[daver]

Where was Crosby in the playoffs from 2010 to 2015?

I'll tell you where he wasn't - outperforming Jagr from 1995 to 2001.

Let's dial back the hyperbole on both sides. Crosby definitely has the superior playoff resume and longer prime, Jagr definitely has the best single season and much longer peak due to better luck with injuries.

 

[daver]

Who said anything about assuming that players would be injured in the current NHL? I said that I believe that Jagr at his absolute peak could have totally dominated the current NHL based on his domination over his peers during the 1999 calendar year. I never said that Jagr would dominate more now than he did back then. And it is not as if Jagrs dominance during that calendar year becomes that much less impressive if we look at PPG instead of points. If I did not miss any player with a significant amount of games played this is the top 4 in PPG during that year.

Jagr: 152 points in 84 games: 1.810 PPG
Bure: 53 points in 39 games: 1.359 PPG
Sakic: 87 points in 65 games: 1.338 PPG
Selänne: 109 points in 83 games: 1.313 PPG

I would probably still say that Selännes numbers are the second most impressive since he had a pretty similar PPG as Bure and Sakic over a larger sample of games. So I dont really think that looking at PPG makes Jagrs dominance that calendar year much less impressive.

Crosby showed a similiar level of dominance but obviously missed too many games to make it a reasonable comparison.

Malkin showed a similar level of dominance in 2011/12 to Jagr's 98/99 season if you at their PPGs vs. the PPGs of the other Top 20 scorers.

 

[daver]

Fun facts:

Jagr's PPG from 95/96 to 00/01 was 1.48. The average PPG of the other Top 20 scorers in that time period is 1.04. Jagr's PPG was 42% better.

Crsoby's PPG from 09/10 to 13/14 was 1.43. The average PPG of the other Top 20 scorers in that time period is 0.99. Crosby's PPG was 44% better.

The edge obviously goes to Jagr given he was 1st in points by a wide margin during that period whereas Crosby was 5th in points but it shows the similarity in their domination over their peers on a per game basis.

The same thing applies when looking at Jagr's 98/99 season to Malkin's 11/12 season.

Yes, Jagr has a case for 5th best offensive player of all-time but his peak level was not above many other players, he just happened to peak longer.

 

[MisterNoItAll]

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.

Full of fail OP.

 

[Riddum]

Full of fail OP.

As much as I hate Gretzky, 70pts was obviously sarcasm.

Gretzky is the most dominant player in history. His skillset mixed with elite training techniques and state of the art equipment, he would still be the most dominant player in the world, if he was in his prime and playing today.

 

[NewUser293223]

Fun facts:

Jagr's PPG from 95/96 to 00/01 was 1.48. The average PPG of the other Top 20 scorers in that time period is 1.04. Jagr's PPG was 42% better.

Crsoby's PPG from 09/10 to 13/14 was 1.43. The average PPG of the other Top 20 scorers in that time period is 0.99. Crosby's PPG was 44% better.

The edge obviously goes to Jagr given he was 1st in points by a wide margin during that period whereas Crosby was 5th in points but it shows the similarity in their domination over their peers on a per game basis.

The same thing applies when looking at Jagr's 98/99 season to Malkin's 11/12 season.

Yes, Jagr has a case for 5th best offensive player of all-time but his peak level was not above many other players, he just happened to peak longer.

More fun facts:

You've picked 5 seasons of Sid's and 6 seasons of Jagr's. If we add Sid's 08/09 (something tells me you would never wanna add 14/15) to make it six, Sid's PPG suddenly goes down to 1.40.

Still, Jagr's sample spans 447 games, whereas Sid's only 337. If we only include the games that you did (to make it funnier), it's mere 260 games on Sid's side!

Since you're definitely intelligent enough to know that the comparison is ridiculous (which is why you never bothered including GP), the more I read your pro-Sid tank patronizing, the more I think we're dealing with a person who borders on mentally ill here. I don't mean this as an insult. Maybe I'm alone, but I suffer from almost physical reaction to your posts. You're so Sid-obsessed it's scary.

 

[daver]

More fun facts:

You've picked 5 seasons of Sid's and 6 seasons of Jagr's. If we add Sid's 08/09 (something tells me you would never wanna add 14/15) to make it six, Sid's PPG suddenly goes down to 1.40.

Still, Jagr's sample spans 447 games, whereas Sid's only 337. If we only include the games that you did (to make it funnier), it's mere 260 games on Sid's side!

Since you're definitely intelligent enough to know that the comparison is ridiculous (which is why you never bothered including GP), the more I read your pro-Sid tank patronizing, the more I think we're dealing with a person who borders on mentally ill here. I don't mean this as an insult. Maybe I'm alone, but I suffer from almost physical reaction to your posts. You're so Sid-obsessed it's scary.

I clearly acknowledged the difference in points scored so you can get down from your ivory tower. Meant to do five of Jagr's seasons.

Are you able to make comments on the numbers or are you happy to be an internet warrior?

The point was to show that Jagr at his peak was close to Crosby and Malkin's peak performances, and not close to the Big Four as some as mentioned.

 

[daver]

Malkin's 109 pts is 12-13% over the next highest scorer (Stamkos' 97 pts).

Jagr's 127 pts is 19-20% over the next highest scorer (Selanne's 107 pts).

Jagr's season is much more dominant.

Crosby's lead in 13/14 is a higher % than Jagr's 127 point season therefore it is more dominant.

Or you can take some time to look at the PPGs for context.

 

[HasbeenHallzy]

Gretzky was twice the player Crosby ever was.

I meant prime Jagr would be like prime Sid. Gretzky is far superior, I agree

 

[NewUser293223]

I clearly acknowledged the difference in points scored so you can get down from your ivory tower. Meant to do five of Jagr's seasons.

Are you able to make comments on the numbers or are you happy to be an internet warrior?

The point was to show that Jagr at his peak was close to Crosby and Malkin's peak performances, and not close to the Big Four as some as mentioned.

You didn't acknowledge (or mention) the difference in games played during the chosen samples, hence it was and still is misleading. Jagr at his peak was probably somewhere in between, although closer to Sid and Geno. Any way we twist it, Jagr '99 was at the level neither Sid nor Geno ever reached. Should that Jagr arrive tomorrow and stay for three years, Connor & Company can pretty much forget about the Art for some time.

 

[daver]

Any way we twist it, Jagr '99 was at the level neither Sid nor Geno ever reached. Should that Jagr arrive tomorrow and stay for three years, Connor & Company can pretty much forget about the Art for some time.

I agree that Jagr from 98/99 would win every Art Ross from 2005 to now because he didn't miss any games like Malkin and Crosby did at their peaks. He would put up 110-115 points in last year's NHL.

 

[Riddum]

From 1981 to 2001, only 3 different men won the Art Ross. Gretzky, Lemieux, Jagr... 10 guys have won it in the last 12 seasons.

Jagr might be 2 notches below Gretzky and Lemieux but he's a notch and a half above guys like Ovi, Sid, Geno and Connor.

Gretzky/Lemieux


Jagr

Ovi/Sid/Geno
Connor

 

[daver]

You didn't acknowledge (or mention) the difference in games played during the chosen samples, hence it was and still is misleading.

"The edge obviously goes to Jagr given he was 1st in points by a wide margin during that period whereas Crosby was 5th in points but it shows the similarity in their domination over their peers on a per game basis."

Not misleading at all if you read the post. I assumed that people would get that Crosby obviously missed games if he wasn't the leading scorer over that time despite a dominant PPG.

 

[Tofveve]

Watching him play in Calgary has really given me a better appreciation for him. He's slow as balls now but he's a beast.

I can't think of how people would consistently stop him with more speed.

He's not as slow as I thought he was. He looked good last night overall, considering the score.

 

[Zalos]

Any player from the past would be less succesful nowadays. Unless, of course, they had been trained and had grown up during this era. This is such a dumb question that always comes up on this board. You cannot accurately compare players from different generations.

 

[NewUser293223]

"The edge obviously goes to Jagr given he was 1st in points by a wide margin during that period whereas Crosby was 5th in points but it shows the similarity in their domination over their peers on a per game basis."

Not misleading at all if you read the post. I assumed that people would get that Crosby obviously missed games if he wasn't the leading scorer over that time despite a dominant PPG.

Okay then, to make it more non-misleading, let's focus on the difference now

One dude is there and dominates all the time, the other is not, so he doesn't.

Voila!

Sid Crosby and his PPG / GP ratios for his lovely fan Daver:

GP PPG

77 ... 1,33

81 ... 1,34

41 ... 1,609

22 ... 1,68

35 ... 1,55

80 ... 1,3

---

The trend is all too clear Daver. Once Sid got back to playing 80 games a year, his PPG got back to 1.3something and I suppose his seeming domination on a "per game basis" did decrease as well. Meanwhile those select PPGs really do overblow the average total for being all of 98 games scattered across three years, don't you think?

His far best PPG comes just as he plays least games. So much dominant on a per game basis!
Not very much like what Jagr did during his prime, not very much like that at all.

Jagr and his GP / PPG ratios

GP PPG

82 ... 1,81
63 ... 1,5
77 ... 1,32
81 ... 1,56
63 ... 1,52 (the Art season)
81 ... 1,49

---

Having played around 80 games, Sid barely matched Jagr's worst prime PPG three times.

In this context, your post of:

"...edge obviously goes to Jagr given he was 1st in points by a wide margin during that period whereas Crosby was 5th in points but it shows the similarity in their domination over their peers on a per game basis..."

...is very misleading, as the EDGE doesn't sound like an acknowledgement of Jagr's superiority and the importance of game totals at all, and while it may show the "similarity of their dominance on a per game basis", it fails to fully expound on the difference, which is way (over a hundred games of dominance) too big to ignore.

 

[NewUser293223]

From 1981 to 2001, only 3 different men won the Art Ross. Gretzky, Lemieux, Jagr... 10 guys have won it in the last 12 seasons.

Jagr might be 2 notches below Gretzky and Lemieux but he's a notch and a half above guys like Ovi, Sid, Geno and Connor.

Gretzky/Lemieux


Jagr

Ovi/Sid/Geno
Connor

This is the way I see it and numbers do agree.

 

[Riddum]

Any player from the past would be less succesful nowadays. Unless, of course, they had been trained and had grown up during this era. This is such a dumb question that always comes up on this board. You cannot accurately compare players from different generations.

Do you not realize that he is a player from the present? The difference is that he is 45 years old and washed up.

To me, Current Jagr is kind of like the washed up George Foreman that was still able to compete at the highest levels of boxing, even when he was old and finished at the age of 45.

 

[daver]

Okay then, to make it more non-misleading, let's focus on the difference now

One dude is there and dominates all the time, the other is not, so he doesn't.

Voila!

Sid Crosby and his PPG / GP ratios for his lovely fan Daver:

GP PPG

77 ... 1,33

81 ... 1,34

41 ... 1,609

22 ... 1,68

35 ... 1,55

80 ... 1,3

---

The trend is all too clear Daver. Once Sid got back to playing 80 games a year, his PPG got back to 1.3something and I suppose his seeming domination on a "per game basis" did decrease as well. Meanwhile those select PPGs really do overblow the average total for being all of 98 games scattered across three years, don't you think?

His far best PPG comes just as he plays least games. So much dominant on a per game basis!
Not very much like what Jagr did during his prime, not very much like that at all.

Jagr and his GP / PPG ratios

GP PPG

82 ... 1,81
63 ... 1,5
77 ... 1,32
81 ... 1,56
63 ... 1,52 (the Art season)
81 ... 1,49

---

Having played around 80 games, Sid barely matched Jagr's worst prime PPG three times.

In this context, your post of:

"...edge obviously goes to Jagr given he was 1st in points by a wide margin during that period whereas Crosby was 5th in points but it shows the similarity in their domination over their peers on a per game basis..."

...is very misleading, as the EDGE doesn't sound like an acknowledgement of Jagr's superiority and the importance of game totals at all, and while it may show the "similarity of their dominance on a per game basis", it fails to fully expound on the difference, which is way (over a hundred games) too big to ignore.

Comparing PPGs straight up from difference seasons is the epitome of misleading. A look at the gap between their PPGs and their peers eliminates this and the incorrect concluding that Crosby would have finished with a 1.30 something PPG if he played full seasons. Crosby played 70% to 75% of the amount of games his peers did over that time period. If you know anything about statistics, you would know that is more than enough of a sample size to draw a reasonable conclusion.

Because you opened up it up for discussion, a reasonable pace out of those 3 partial seasons would see him finish at about a 1.5 PPG based on how he finished his 06/07 season after being at 1.6 after 41 games. That would give him a PPG of 1.42.

 

[daver]

This is the way I see it and numbers do agree.

So what would Jagr have put up for a point total last year?

 

[deckercky]

Any player from the past would be less succesful nowadays. Unless, of course, they had been trained and had grown up during this era. This is such a dumb question that always comes up on this board. You cannot accurately compare players from different generations.

The best players from the 90's were just as athletic as the best players in the league now. Ignoring Lemieux, Gretzky and Jagr, stars like Lindros, Sakic, Bure, and Yzerman would have no issue being dropped into the modern game and succeeding.

 

[NewUser293223]

Comparing PPGs straight up from difference seasons is the epitome of misleading. A look at the gap between their PPGs and their peers eliminates this and the incorrect concluding that Crosby would have finished with a 1.30 something PPG if he played full seasons. Crosby played 70% to 75% of the amount of games his peers did over that time period. If you know anything about statistics, you would know that is more than enough of a sample size to draw a reasonable conclusion.

Because you opened up it up for discussion, a reasonable pace out of those 3 partial seasons would see him finish at about a 1.5 PPG based on how he finished his 06/07 season after being at 1.6 after 41 games. That would give him a PPG of 1.42.

You're hilarious!

It's very unreasonable to draw any conclusions from his 06/07 season, as that was the only time he finished a year with a PPG over 1.5 and it was also a higher scoring season.

If anything, Sid's 06/07 is the exception that confirms the rule.

So what would Jagr have put up for a point total last year?

I don't give a damn.