Jágr vs Lafleur

[canucks4ever]

There's a huge difference between scoring 129 points in 1979 than 1999, jagr wins on adjusted stats clearly.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

There's a huge difference between scoring 129 points in 1979 than 1999, jagr wins on adjusted stats clearly.

People still use adjusted stats after it was proven they inflate the scoring of stars from the dead puck era?

 

[BraveCanadian]

They had excellent secondary scorers. By "high-end talent," I meant top 100-150 players of all time.

Seriously, read about the 1970s Canadiens. They are one of the few dynasties in history that rolled with 2 PP units. These are their top regular season scorers in the 4 years they won the Cup:

Canadiens scoring in 1975-76:
1. Guy Lafleur 125
2. Pete Mahovlich 105
3. Steve Shutt 79
4. Yvon Cournoyer 68
5. Guy Lapointe 68

Canadiens scoring in 1976-77:
1. Guy Lafleur 136
2. Steve Shutt 105
3. Larry Robinson 85
4. Guy Lapointe 76
5. Jacques Lemaire 75


Canadiens scoring in 1977-78:
1. Guy Lafleur 132
2. Jacques Lemaire 97
3. Steve Shutt 86
4. Larry Robinson 65
5. Rejean Houle 58

Canadiens scoring in 1978-79:
1. Guy Lafleur 129
2. Steve Shutt 77
3. Pierre Mondou 72
4. Yvon Lambert 66
5. Larry Robinson 61

Yeah, now compare the hall of famers on those lists and their points to the guys Jagr was playing with during his peak years without Lemieux.

 

[BraveCanadian]

People still use adjusted stats after it was proven they inflate the scoring of stars from the dead puck era?

Even if they are 10-15 points high.. Jagr still peaks higher than Lafleur.

And that is ignoring the fact that the Canadiens were a dynasty team altogether.

 

[GretzkytoKurri9917]

It is very close.Jagr's peak though I would say was very slightly better then Guy's

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Yeah, now compare the hall of famers on those lists and their points to the guys Jagr was playing with during his peak years without Lemieux.

Lafleur was outscoring those Hall of Famers by similar margins as Jagr outscored those scrubs. I could just as easily spin it as "what's more impressive? Outscoring HOFers or scrubs?" Considering, I actually don't think lesser players have much effect on the numbers of true superstars like Lafleur and Jagr, I think it's irrelevant.

Jagr, by the way, is a perfect example of how star linemates don't inflate the totals of true superstars. He played on the same line as Ron Francis until 97-98, then had the best season of his career in 98-99!

 

[overpass]

If anything, playing on the stacked team may have hurt Lafleur's regular season stats. The Habs had 2 strong PP units, so Lafleur got less PP time than most stars of his calibre.

It doesn't look like this was the case from the stats. Lafleur was on the ice for about 75-80% of Montreal's PP goals in his prime. Similarly, Jagr was on the ice for about 75-80% of Pittsburgh's PP goals in his prime. While Montreal may have had two power play units, Lafleur played on both of them often enough.

I don't think playing on a stacked team hurt Lafleur's stats as much as it has other players, because the team wasn't stacked with top-end offensive talent. Lafleur's line was the clear choice for power play ice time and any other favourable offensive situations.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

It doesn't look like this was the case from the stats. Lafleur was on the ice for about 75-80% of Montreal's PP goals in his prime. Similarly, Jagr was on the ice for about 75-80% of Pittsburgh's PP goals in his prime. While Montreal may have had two power play units, Lafleur played on both of them often enough.

Okay, that makes sense that they would use Lafleur like that. And it would inflate his totals. Do you know what the two units were?

I assume the first one was:

Shutt-Lemaire-Lafleur
Robinson-Lapointe

Edit: Just going on PP goals, Pierre Mondou and Yvon Lambert spent a significant amount of time on the 2nd PP unit in multiple seasons. Mario Tremblay a little less. Yvon Cournoyer and Pete Mahovlich for the first couple of years. I know Serge Savard also spent some time as a forward on the PP in Montreal.

 

[overpass]

Okay, that makes sense that they would use Lafleur like that. And it would inflate his totals. Do you know what the two units were?

I assume the first one was:

Shutt-Lemaire-Lafleur
Robinson-Lapointe

No, I don't know. Canadiens1958 said in a previous conversation on this that Bowman would use different players on the PP as the situation dictated. By the numbers, Lafleur and Lapointe were used the most, and others in the mix included Shutt, Lemaire, Robinson, Lambert, Mondou, Houle, Savard, Cournoyer, Mahovlich...

 

[Psycho Papa Joe]

No, I don't know. Canadiens1958 said in a previous conversation on this that Bowman would use different players on the PP as the situation dictated. By the numbers, Lafleur and Lapointe were used the most, and others in the mix included Shutt, Lemaire, Robinson, Lambert, Mondou, Houle, Savard, Cournoyer, Mahovlich...

Bowman mixed up his lines quite a bit, even outside the PP. You'd even see Lafleur out with Jarvis and Gainey for shifts at a time on occasion.

 

[TheGoldenJet]

Lafleur for me.

Also I have to laugh at whoever it was that called Jagr 'solid defensively'.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

No it boils down to Jagr was at least as good if not better, but with far inferior help.

I chuckle every time I find myself back on the Pens' 98/99 roster page and am reminded that adding the #2 (Straka) and #3 (Titov) scorers on that team together only beats Jagr by 12 or 13 points. Even in Gretzky's 215 season, #2 (Coffey) and #3 (Kurri) together beat Gretzky by over 50 points. In Lemieux's 199 season, #2 (Brown) and #3 (Coffey) together beat Lemieux by almost 30. Etc.

But yeah, I'll always consider Jagr to be a higher calibre player (even if just talking with respect to peers) than Lafleur, but you can't really say that he accomplished more (either individually or as a team).

 

[poise]

Well in the 1980-1981 season Gretzky (164) outscored Kurri and Messier (138 together) by 26 points, and again in the 1981-1982 season Gretzky (212) outscored Anderson and Coffey (194 together) by 18 points. I'm sure similar margins exist for Lemieux as well though I haven't checked.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Well in the 1980-1981 season Gretzky (164) outscored Kurri and Messier (138 together) by 26 points, and again in the 1981-1982 season Gretzky (212) outscored Anderson and Coffey (194 together) by 18 points. I'm sure similar margins exist for Lemieux as well though I haven't checked.

I'm sure they might, but I was really trying to slide in a double point about the single-handedness of the offense AND the "strength" of supporting cast. Martin Straka and German freakin' Titov man...

 

[revolverjgw]

Jagr. Similar peak and relative dominance, did it with less support (Lafleur's Habs were an offensive engine that gave him insane freedom and ideally suited linemates... Jagr had it tough compared to that, he was the hunted rather than the hunter), did it against more competition in the form of more Euros, he had more scoring titles, longer run of elite seasons, peaked AGAIN with an amazing season after it looked like he had been passed by... etc.

 

[Czech Your Math]

People still use adjusted stats after it was proven they inflate the scoring of stars from the dead puck era?

Nothing of the sort was proven.

What was demonstrated was that the top group of point scorers in the 80's fare worse in adjusted terms than those of the dead puck era. However, the players in the 80's fare worse against those of the 70's also. The top 80's players appear a bit deflated and some possible reasons were suggested for this, including:

- fewer power plays than in later years
- more "lucky" or random goals (due to weak goaltending), which may tend to be more evenly distributed among various skill levels

If there was a period of major stat inflation (after simple adjustment), it was the post-expansion period thru '74 or '75 due to the imbalance between most of the O6 teams and the expansion teams.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Nothing of the sort was proven.

What was demonstrated was that the top group of point scorers in the 80's fare worse in adjusted terms than those of the dead puck era. However, the players in the 80's fare worse against those of the 70's also. The top 80's players appear a bit deflated and some possible reasons were suggested for this, including:

- fewer power plays than in later years
- more "lucky" or random goals (due to weak goaltending), which may tend to be more evenly distributed among various skill levels

If there was a period of major stat inflation (after simple adjustment), it was the post-expansion period thru '74 or '75 due to the imbalance between most of the O6 teams and the expansion teams.

Regardless of the details, adjusted stats have been proven to not be accurate across all eras, and shouldn't be used as proof of anything without more support.

 

[Scott1980]

Wow! Good question!

My heart says Lafleur by a hair.

My mind says Jagr by adjusted points, by a hair.

 

[HespelerGreenFlash]

Lafleur clearly dominated on maybe the best team EVER.

Case closed.

These dudes that are choosing Jagr clearly were born well after Lafleur was at his peak.

Happens all the time. Youngsters cant believe someone that played before they were born could posssibly be good.

sigh~

 

[Oowatanite]

So close but I'd take Jagr, he did more in his prime with less talent around him and did it in the clutch and grab dead puck era.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

As hard as it is to go against one of the "generational talents" who played on my favourite team, I have to go Jagr.

Looking back on paper (scoring titles, etc), the "dominance" of their peers is pretty close, and if you're going to go by value, it's hard to argue against Lafleur's Hart trophies. If this thread is just meant to compare HHoF monitor points, we should probably just give this to Lafleur and be on our way. But if we're allowed to stretch this into a 'who was the "better" player compared at their peak compared to their peers' discussion, I think Jagr more than makes up the gap.

Lafleur, to me, was at the top rung of "rudimentary good". Pretty simple stuff: make one move around the guy and head to the net, or simply turn on the speed, no move required, and go to the net. And if you weren't paying attention, Lafleur could sniff out an opening lane before it was there, streak to it, and his teammates were excellent at hitting him at the right time to basically spin defenders into the ice like an auger. Defenders seemed to be relatively helpless against it, and that's essentially how he "dominated" scoring races and earned his Hart trophies. Simple, repeatable, and deadly effective.

Jagr also relied heavily on simple "rudimentary" skills. His size allowed him to protect/shield the puck in tight areas and somehow still get himself in a position to either shoot or find an open man. The difference is, he didn't just rely on his size like Lafleur relied on his speed. Jagr had some of the sickest puck skills ever seen, and not just among "big men". He didn't have to go around you, or just win an extended one-on-one battle with his size. He could use his body to hold off back-checkers hanging off him, go with one hand on the stick, somehow slip the puck through the oncoming defender, and somehow leave both guys behind him, get the puck on the other side and create a chance. His puck/stick skills, on top of being as big and fast as anyone in his day, were noticeably better than just about everyone.

Basically, you just couldn't play Jagr simply as a big man, because he'd zip around/through you as you step up (and you might lose the physical battle anyway). You couldn't play him as a skilled guy, because if you gave him any room he could do anything with the puck, and you'd never get it from him - he'd have time to dictate the play. I think you could go back in the day with simple tactical changes and limit Lafleur, even at his peak. I don't think there's any tactic that wasn't tried against Jagr that could have been, and even if you thought of something he'd still be able to do exactly what we saw regardless during his peak. That's the difference for me.

 

[Loto68]

Essentially there was one way to stop Jagr and that was to have 3 guys hanging on him, just imagine what his linemates could have done with all that open space if they were legitimate all stars.

 

[Loto68]

Lafleur clearly dominated on maybe the best team EVER.

Case closed.

These dudes that are choosing Jagr clearly were born well after Lafleur was at his peak.

Happens all the time. Youngsters cant believe someone that played before they were born could posssibly be good.

sigh~

Weakest arguement that could ever be used on the History of Hockey board. Besides there are probably more than a few "older" guys who will pick Lafleur simply because what we remember from our childhood is always far better than what we see in the present, hero worship being what it is.

 

[Maupin Fan]

For anyone interested, this is a link of a Jagr top 10 goals

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDX0pxdidB4

Pretty good video, lots of amazing goals, good variety as well. Some he shows his puck control warding off d-men, a few shows off his sick hands and others show his ability to change speeds to beat d-men one on one.

 

[canucks4ever]

Jagr was more impressive, too many elite euros were not in the NHL when Lafluer was playing. Imagine Crosby's hardware if Ovechkin, Malkin and Sedin were not in the nhl.