Jagr vs Crosby, who "was" more talented?

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Ovechkin is one of the best goal scorers in history.

What I think is often overlooked about Jagr, whether talking about goal-scoring or passing/play-making, is that he was world class in both aspects. If he concentrated on one or the other, his numbers would likely have been substantially better in that category (Goals or Assists).

People like to claim that Player X (Thornton, Forsberg, Crosby, etc.) was a better passer or that Player Y (Bure, Selanne, Ovechkin, etc.) was a better goal-scorer, based on the numbers for that category. I think using purely numbers as the basis when comparing to dual threats like Howe, Gretzky, Lemieux, and Jagr is a bit misleading.

I can't disagree with this point... though Crosby isn't quite the pure playmaker of a Thornton or Forsberg

 

[Czech Your Math]

I haven't read through the whole thread, but has anybody calculated ES points per ES minute and PP points per PP minute for Jagr and Crosby (over best X years)?

If Jagr scores more per minute in both situations, that suggests that he'd be ahead of Crosby even if we assume that #87 receives more ice time.

If Crosby score more per minute in either or both situations, then the debate becomes more interesting.

It's true that nowadays forwards receive less ice time, particularly on the powerplay, compared to during Jagr's prime. (As of today, Ovechkin leads all forward with 3:56 in PP TOI per game- that would have ranked him 52nd in the NHL in 1998-98, Jagr's best year). If one were to "re-cast" Crosby's scoring totals (using his actual per-game scoring rates, but using ES and PP ice time figures that other top forwards would have received during Jagr's prime) it would show if he moves ahead of Jagr, pulls close, or is still solidly behind.

Has this analysis been done (we have complete ice time data back to 1997-98) or is the ice time discussion purely a hypothetical debate?

I think there would be complications in this analysis.

First, I don't believe Pts/TOI is linear, at least not for all players. I would guess the principle of diminishing returns would apply to most, if not all players.

Second, I don't know that the TOI is split by situation for Jagr's era. Total TOI isn't even on HR.com until the '98-99 season.

I think it's pretty clear that Jagr was much better at even strength, while Crosby is better on the PP (relative to each other or to their peers).

TOI is continually brought up in regards to Jagr for some reason. It's my understanding that previous greats like Lemieux, Gretzky, Esposito, Hull & Mikita, and Howe all played an incredible number of minutes during their peaks and/or primes at least. Why is this never really considered when comparing these greats to their peers or to each other, but somewhat frequently brought up in regards to Jagr?

 

[livewell68]

So even by adjusted points (which probably favor stars who played prior to the 2005 lockout over more recent stars by a little bit), Sedin's Art Ross season ranks higher than Jagr's 97-98 or 99-00? Thanks for doing the work, but I think you proved the opposite of the point you were trying to make. Sometimes a player just has an outlier amazing season and falls back to Earth. It happens.

Sakic had two seasons that were outliers based on his career PPG at the time (1995-96 and 2000-01) and even then, Jagr still outscored him, once by 29 and the other time by 3.

Bure looked primed to win an Art Ross in 1999-00, but Jagr won it.

During his reign of 4 consecutive Art Ross trophies, it was only on one occasion that Jagr led the league in scoring, wire to wire (1999-00). The point being is that when Jagr was on, no one, and absolutely no one was going to outscore Jagr. It was his Art Ross to lose. There is no evidence, (my post didn't prove the opposite point of what I tried to prove) to suggest that any of the current stars of the NHL could beat a prime Jagr in scoring.

Heck while playing injured, playing on a new team and playing half assed Jagr, was barely less impressive than Iginla on a per game basis, you think Henrik Sedin could outscore a 24-29 year old Jagr?

While the 2009-10 season as a whole was low scoring, it's not lower scoring than 1997-98 or 1998-99.

 

[Killion]

But if your ideal "sniper" is a guy who only shoots when he has a good chance to score, then Ovechkin isn't it.

Ya, sorry, he's "lacking the intellect". Not there. A Sniper's a Sniper. Its not a matter or case of volume, its precision. Jagr to me far more "precise". Singular. Intelligent. He wasnt "mindlessly" shooting hoping it would stick to the wall. Even if you dont understand me, consider a real or even fictional Sniper. One Shot Wonders. Mark Wahlberg in Shooter... HerewhatImsayin TD? Ha?... One shot Baby.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I think there would be complications in this analysis.

First, I don't believe Pts/TOI is linear, at least not for all players. I would guess the principle of diminishing returns would apply to most, if not all players.

Second, I don't know that the TOI is split by situation for Jagr's era. Total TOI isn't even on HR.com until the '98-99 season.

I think it's pretty clear that Jagr was much better at even strength, while Crosby is better on the PP (relative to each other or to their peers).

Agree with bolded, except for the use of the word "much."

TOI is continually brought up in regards to Jagr for some reason. It's my understanding that previous greats like Lemieux, Gretzky, Esposito, Hull & Mikita, and Howe all played an incredible number of minutes during their peaks and/or primes at least. Why is this never really considered when comparing these greats to their peers or to each other, but somewhat frequently brought up in regards to Jagr?

It's definitely brought up with regards to Mikita and Hull. A couple of us argued during the recent HOH Top Centers and HOH Top WIngers projects that the raw numbers likely overrate both those players a bit compared to the stars from deeper Montreal and Toronto teams.

Ice time is sometimes brought up with regards to Phil Esposito, but it is generally overshadowed by the Orr factor. Regardless, if there is one player whose stats aren't taken at face value, it is Phil Esposito.

As for Gretzky, Lemieux, and Howe, they (unlike Mikita, Hull, or Jagr) were far enough ahead of the pack where they were almost surely still be comfortably ahead even if you brought their numbers down to earth a bit for ice time reasons. Though I would be interested in seeing an estimate as to the effect that playing a lot had on their numbers.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Sakic had two seasons that were outliers based on his career PPG at the time (1995-96 and 2000-01) and even then, Jagr still outscored him, once by 29 and the other time by 3.

Bure looked primed to win an Art Ross in 1999-00, but Jagr won it.

During his reign of 4 consecutive Art Ross trophies, it was only on one occasion that Jagr led the league in scoring, wire to wire (1999-00). The point being is that when Jagr was on, no one, and absolutely no one was going to outscore Jagr. It was his Art Ross to lose. There is no evidence, (my post didn't prove the opposite point of what I tried to prove) to suggest that any of the current stars of the NHL could beat a prime Jagr in scoring.

Heck while playing injured, playing on a new team and playing half assed Jagr, was barely less impressive than Iginla on a per game basis, you think Henrik Sedin could outscore a 24-29 year old Jagr?

While the 2009-10 season as a whole was low scoring, it's not lower scoring than 1997-98 or 1998-99.

According to the adjusted stats you posted, he could have done so more than once. And yes, I realize that missed games from Jagr were a factor.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

I think there would be complications in this analysis.

First, I don't believe Pts/TOI is linear, at least not for all players. I would guess the principle of diminishing returns would apply to most, if not all players.

Second, I don't know that the TOI is split by situation for Jagr's era. Total TOI isn't even on HR.com until the '98-99 season.

I think it's pretty clear that Jagr was much better at even strength, while Crosby is better on the PP (relative to each other or to their peers).

TOI is continually brought up in regards to Jagr for some reason. It's my understanding that previous greats like Lemieux, Gretzky, Esposito, Hull & Mikita, and Howe all played an incredible number of minutes during their peaks and/or primes at least. Why is this never really considered when comparing these greats to their peers or to each other, but somewhat frequently brought up in regards to Jagr?

I agree that there are diminishing returns, to some extent. Still, I think that today`s top players receive less ice time than they did 15 years ago primarily due to 1) changes in coaching strategies and 2) leaguewide reductions in powerplay. I`m not convinced that today`s top players would have a meaningful reduction in their per-minute productivity if they played a few more minutes per game.

TOI is split by situation, all the way back to 1997-98, on NHL.com.

Ice time should be a factor - I`ve been critical of Kovalchuk, for example, for playing enormous amounts of powerplay ice time relative to his peers, which inflated his stats.

As I said, I haven`t done this analysis. I`d be amazed if the results indicated that Jagr wasn`t better at ES or Crosby on the PP. Still, it would show if the ice time argument has any merit, or it Jagr is still comfortably ahead.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I agree that there are diminishing returns, to some extent. Still, I think that today`s top players receive less ice time than they did 15 years ago primarily due to 1) changes in coaching strategies and 2) leaguewide reductions in powerplay. I`m not convinced that today`s top players would have a meaningful reduction in their per-minute productivity if they played a few more minutes per game.

TOI is split by situation, all the way back to 1997-98, on NHL.com.

Ice time should be a factor - I`ve been critical of Kovalchuk, for example, for playing enormous amounts of powerplay ice time relative to his peers, which inflated his stats.

As I said, I haven`t done this analysis. I`d be amazed if the results indicated that Jagr wasn`t better at ES or Crosby on the PP. Still, it would show if the ice time argument has any merit, or it Jagr is still comfortably ahead.

Third reason - fewer stoppages after the 2005 rule changes. Most notably, no change icing (which makes it a lot harder for coaches to linematch like they used to), but also the no pucks over the glass rule.

 

[ContrarianGoaltender]

As I said, I haven`t done this analysis. I`d be amazed if the results indicated that Jagr wasn`t better at ES or Crosby on the PP. Still, it would show if the ice time argument has any merit, or it Jagr is still comfortably ahead.

Prepare to be amazed. I have the data, and I can assure you that the ice time argument has merit. Jagr is not comfortably ahead of Crosby in anything, at least not post-1997-98. We don't know what his per-minutes rates were prior to that, but Sidney Crosby is pretty easily a more efficient scorer than post-1997-98 Jagr both at even strength and on the power play. I'll use the points/60 metric since that seems to be the generally preferred one in the stats community at the moment, and here are the overall and peak numbers for both guys since 1997-98 (excluding late career Jagr since that's an unfair comparison):

Jagr Total ('97-98 to '06-07): 2.96 ESP/60, 5.29 PPP/60
Peak Jagr ('97-98 to '00-01): 3.29 ESP/60, 5.21 PPP/60
Crosby Total ('05-06 to '14-15): 3.21 ESP/60, 6.31 PPP/60
Peak Crosby ('09-10 to '12-13): 3.85 ESP/60, 5.58 PPP/60

Crosby had a higher even strength points scoring rate over his entire peak stretch (180 straight games) than Jagr did in his single best season (3.74, 1999-00). It's often overlooked because Crosby played partial seasons and did a lot of his damage on the power play over the rest of his career, but in those 180 games Crosby scored 183 even strength points, which is a remarkable total given his ice time and overall league scoring.

Unsurprisingly, Crosby was lapping the rest of the league in that metric. Here's 5-on-5 points/60 from War-on-Ice (slightly different than the above numbers which are NHL.com's even strength totals including 4-on-4 and 3-on-3) from 2009-10 to 2012-13:

1. Crosby, 3.83
2. H. Sedin, 2.90
3. D. Sedin, 2.87
4. Malkin, 2.61
5. Stamkos, 2.56

I don't have all the figures for everyone in the league in 1997-98 to 2000-01 to compare with Jagr, but I do know that Sundin scored 2.84 ESP/60 and Sakic came in at 2.72, which means that Jagr's lead over the rest of the league was much smaller than Crosby's comparing peak to peak.

Peak Crosby also had a higher power play points per minute rate than any of Jagr's seasons in Pittsburgh, even though Crosby's had the lowest power play scoring rates of his entire career in 2009-10 and 2010-11. Overall, Crosby's power play scoring rates are much better than Jagr's.

As you can also quickly see from the above numbers, Jagr's peak scoring rates for the most part (i.e. other than '99-00) weren't huge outliers compared to what he was putting up in New York and even in the first little while in Washington. When you adjust for scoring level they do stand out a bit more, but the biggest difference seems to be that Jagr had huge ice time when he was winning Art Rosses. To me, the evidence suggests that 2001-02 Jagr was pretty much the same guy as he was in Pittsburgh, just used in a slightly different way by a coach that actually rolled his lines and shared the power play ice time around, and the sulking and disinterest didn't really kick in and start really affecting Jagr's numbers until 2002-03 and especially 2003-04.

As QPQ's numbers showed, in any given season even during Jagr's peak he was often challenged by other skaters in points per minute. Over several seasons combined Jagr would generally have an edge because he was always near the top of the league, but there were often other skaters that were not very far off. For example, from 1997-98 to 2006-07 Peter Forsberg was at 2.88 ESP/60 and 6.39 PPP/60. Given equivalent ice time, that actually beats Jagr over the same period.

There's something to be said for Jagr's ability to play that many minutes, of course, and during his Art Ross years in Pittsburgh he was certainly an all-time great even strength scorer. That said, I'd take peak Crosby over peak Jagr. I'm not even sure that Jagr was really that far ahead of guys like Forsberg or Sakic, it just looks that way when all you care about is regular season point totals without adjusting for usage and role. And if peak Jagr was playing in today's league with shorter shifts and lower TOI for top forwards? I think the closest he came in his prime to that type of system was in Washington, where one of his seasons is eerily similar to Crosby's Art Ross year from last year in terms of ice time per game:

Jaromir Jagr, 2001-02: 17:09 ES, 0:14 SH, 4:18 PP, 21:42 TOT
Sidney Crosby, 2013-14: 17:10 ES, 0:30 SH, 4:17 PP, 21:58 TOT

Plug in Jagr's peak scoring rates to that ice time and you get 108 points per 82 games. Sounds about right to me.

 

[daver]

He was outscored by Ovi in '09, and was tied by Ovi in '10 (Ovi played fewer games).

'06- Ovi
'07- Crosby
'08- (Crosby injured)
'09- Ovi
'10- tied (Ovi better PPG)
then Ovi drops off a cliff scoring-wise

If rookie Crosby = prime/peak Crosby, that's saying something isn't it?

2010 OV would likely beat 1998, 1999 and 2001 Jagr if PPG is considered.

I think a loss in 2009 can be forgiven when you are busy trying to win a Cup.

And similarly, Crosby had become a much better all around player than OV.

And most important, these hypothetical scenarios and name dropping are a far cry from looking at the actual numbers.

 

[daver]

TOI is continually brought up in regards to Jagr for some reason. It's my understanding that previous greats like Lemieux, Gretzky, Esposito, Hull & Mikita, and Howe all played an incredible number of minutes during their peaks and/or primes at least. Why is this never really considered when comparing these greats to their peers or to each other, but somewhat frequently brought up in regards to Jagr?

Likely because TOI stats are not available, at least easily, until 1998.

I have only brought up the issue when posters do not acknowledge relative domination vs. peers comparisons. I have not seen any reason why this should not be the foundation for comparisons and Crosby has put up similar numbers to Jagr.

 

[daver]

Prepare to be amazed. I have the data, and I can assure you that the ice time argument has merit. Jagr is not comfortably ahead of Crosby in anything, at least not post-1997-98. We don't know what his per-minutes rates were prior to that, but Sidney Crosby is pretty easily a more efficient scorer than post-1997-98 Jagr both at even strength and on the power play. I'll use the points/60 metric since that seems to be the generally preferred one in the stats community at the moment, and here are the overall and peak numbers for both guys since 1997-98 (excluding late career Jagr since that's an unfair comparison):

Jagr Total ('97-98 to '06-07): 2.96 ESP/60, 5.29 PPP/60
Peak Jagr ('97-98 to '00-01): 3.29 ESP/60, 5.21 PPP/60
Crosby Total ('05-06 to '14-15): 3.21 ESP/60, 6.31 PPP/60
Peak Crosby ('09-10 to '12-13): 3.85 ESP/60, 5.58 PPP/60

Crosby had a higher even strength points scoring rate over his entire peak stretch (180 straight games) than Jagr did in his single best season (3.74, 1999-00). It's often overlooked because Crosby played partial seasons and did a lot of his damage on the power play over the rest of his career, but in those 180 games Crosby scored 183 even strength points, which is a remarkable total given his ice time and overall league scoring.

Unsurprisingly, Crosby was lapping the rest of the league in that metric. Here's 5-on-5 points/60 from War-on-Ice (slightly different than the above numbers which are NHL.com's even strength totals including 4-on-4 and 3-on-3) from 2009-10 to 2012-13:

1. Crosby, 3.83
2. H. Sedin, 2.90
3. D. Sedin, 2.87
4. Malkin, 2.61
5. Stamkos, 2.56

I don't have all the figures for everyone in the league in 1997-98 to 2000-01 to compare with Jagr, but I do know that Sundin scored 2.84 ESP/60 and Sakic came in at 2.72, which means that Jagr's lead over the rest of the league was much smaller than Crosby's comparing peak to peak.

Peak Crosby also had a higher power play points per minute rate than any of Jagr's seasons in Pittsburgh, even though Crosby's had the lowest power play scoring rates of his entire career in 2009-10 and 2010-11. Overall, Crosby's power play scoring rates are much better than Jagr's.

As you can also quickly see from the above numbers, Jagr's peak scoring rates for the most part (i.e. other than '99-00) weren't huge outliers compared to what he was putting up in New York and even in the first little while in Washington. When you adjust for scoring level they do stand out a bit more, but the biggest difference seems to be that Jagr had huge ice time when he was winning Art Rosses. To me, the evidence suggests that 2001-02 Jagr was pretty much the same guy as he was in Pittsburgh, just used in a slightly different way by a coach that actually rolled his lines and shared the power play ice time around, and the sulking and disinterest didn't really kick in and start really affecting Jagr's numbers until 2002-03 and especially 2003-04.

As QPQ's numbers showed, in any given season even during Jagr's peak he was often challenged by other skaters in points per minute. Over several seasons combined Jagr would generally have an edge because he was always near the top of the league, but there were often other skaters that were not very far off. For example, from 1997-98 to 2006-07 Peter Forsberg was at 2.88 ESP/60 and 6.39 PPP/60. Given equivalent ice time, that actually beats Jagr over the same period.

There's something to be said for Jagr's ability to play that many minutes, of course, and during his Art Ross years in Pittsburgh he was certainly an all-time great even strength scorer. That said, I'd take peak Crosby over peak Jagr. I'm not even sure that Jagr was really that far ahead of guys like Forsberg or Sakic, it just looks that way when all you care about is regular season point totals without adjusting for usage and role. And if peak Jagr was playing in today's league with shorter shifts and lower TOI for top forwards? I think the closest he came in his prime to that type of system was in Washington, where one of his seasons is eerily similar to Crosby's Art Ross year from last year in terms of ice time per game:

Jaromir Jagr, 2001-02: 17:09 ES, 0:14 SH, 4:18 PP, 21:42 TOT
Sidney Crosby, 2013-14: 17:10 ES, 0:30 SH, 4:17 PP, 21:58 TOT

Plug in Jagr's peak scoring rates to that ice time and you get 108 points per 82 games. Sounds about right to me.

Adjusting for minutes played needs a grain of salt but to me this puts to bed the "Jagr is a superior ES scorer" argument which was very marginal anyways.

 

[daver]

Ovechkin is one of the best goal scorers in history.

What I think is often overlooked about Jagr, whether talking about goal-scoring or passing/play-making, is that he was world class in both aspects. If he concentrated on one or the other, his numbers would likely have been substantially better in that category (Goals or Assists).

People like to claim that Player X (Thornton, Forsberg, Crosby, etc.) was a better passer or that Player Y (Bure, Selanne, Ovechkin, etc.) was a better goal-scorer, based on the numbers for that category. I think using purely numbers as the basis when comparing to dual threats like Howe, Gretzky, Lemieux, and Jagr is a bit misleading.

Assists/game over their best ten year periods:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...t=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=assists_per_game

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...t=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=assists_per_game

Goals/game

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...tat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=goals_per_game

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...tat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=goals_per_game

Crosby is the best playmaker and 4th best scorer. Jagr is the 2nd best playmaker and 2nd best goalscorer (excluding Mario).

Both are dual threats. Crosby is the better playmaker, Jagr the better goal scorer.

 

[livewell68]

Assists/game over their best ten year periods:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...t=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=assists_per_game

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...t=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=assists_per_game

Goals/game

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...tat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=goals_per_game

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...tat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=goals_per_game

Crosby is the best playmaker and 4th best scorer. Jagr is the 2nd best playmaker and 2nd best goalscorer (excluding Mario).

Both are dual threats. Crosby is the better playmaker, Jagr the better goal scorer.

How many more games did Jagr play in a 10 year span than Crosby did?

If player A plays 100 games and has 90 assists and 50 goals, while player B plays 300 games, scores 150 goals and 190 assists, of course player A will have the better per game stats.

In a comparison of high scoring players, the PPG will usually favor the player with the least amount of games played.

To this point Crosby got less than 620 games played. Jagr by his 10th full season had 720 + games played.

Why don't you judge them based on their actual peak? Best 2, 3, 5 best seasons?

Btw you can't use any season under 48 games played.

 

[daver]

How many more games did Jagr play in a 10 year span than Crosby did?

If player A plays 100 games and has 90 assists and 50 goals, while player B plays 300 games, scores 150 goals and 190 assists, of course player A will have the better per game stats.

In a comparison of high scoring players, the PPG will usually favor the player with the least amount of games played.

To this point Crosby got less than 620 games played. Jagr by his 10th full season had 720 + games played.

Why don't you judge them based on their actual peak? Best 2, 3, 5 best seasons?

Btw you can't use any season under 48 games played.

So you don't think their best 10 season stretches comprised of 620 games vs. 720 games is a big enough sample size but yet you want to limit the comparison to 2, 3, or 5 seasons? And then arbitrarily pick 48 games as a cutoff?

If I didn't know any better I would say you are trying to skew things in Jagr's favour.

Hypothetically though, if 620 vs. 720 games (or 86%) is not sufficient, why would we include seasons where less than 86% (70 games) of a regular length season was played?

And to be fair, we should not include seasons after Jagr's 10th as Crosby has not had the chance to play those yet.

This leaves Jagr with his 1993, 1994,1996, 1998, 1999 seasons vs. Crosby's 2007, 2009, 2010, 2014, 2015.

Jagr's Art Ross finishes 31,10,2,1,1

Crosby Art Ross finishes 1,3,2,1,1

 

[livewell68]

So you don't think their best 10 season stretches comprised of 620 games vs. 720 games is a big enough sample size but yet you want to limit the comparison to 2, 3, or 5 seasons? And then arbitrarily pick 48 games as a cutoff?

If I didn't know any better I would say you are trying to skew things in Jagr's favour.

Hypothetically though, if 620 vs. 720 games (or 86%) is not sufficient, why would we include seasons where less than 86% (70 games) of a regular length season was played?

And to be fair, we should not include seasons after Jagr's 10th as Crosby has not had the chance to play those yet.

This leaves Jagr with his 1993, 1994,1996, 1998, 1999 seasons vs. Crosby's 2007, 2009, 2010, 2014, 2015.

Jagr's Art Ross finishes 31,10,2,1,1

Crosby Art Ross finishes 1,3,2,1,1

Different players peak at different times and since talent is best judged by peak play, then it is imperative that their peak seasons be judged.

Going by your posts, it's seems obvious that it is you trying to skew the numbers Crosby's way.

Of course 1993 and 1994 would not be good seasons to use for Jagr because he hadn't peaked yet.

Peak seasons for Jagr (top 5) are 1995-96, 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-00 and 2000-01.

I'm not even going to use 2005-06 because apparently Crosby hasn't played beyond his 10th season and this should punish Jagr for having a peak season beyond his prime.

As if Crosby being 19 meant he was in his prime. Again, different players peak at different times. Jagr peaked later but peaked much higher.

Jagr has 3-4 seasons better than Crosby's best.

Btw if you really wanted to use Jagr's 10 best seasons; you would include 1994-95, 1995-96, 1996-97, 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-00, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2005-06 and 2006-07.

Scoring finishes are 1, 2, 6, 1, 1, 1, 1, 5, 2, 8.

The last 2 while playing in the same league as Crosby and being 34-35 and playing with a bum shoulder in 2006-07 on top of that.

 

[daver]

Different players peak at different times and since talent is best judged by peak play, then it is imperative that their peak seasons be judged.

Going by your posts, it's seems obvious that it is you trying to skew the numbers Crosby's way.

Of course 1993 and 1994 would not be good seasons to use for Jagr because he hadn't peaked yet.

Peak seasons for Jagr (top 5) are 1995-96, 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-00 and 2000-01.

I'm not even going to use 2005-06 because apparently because Crosby hasn't played beyond his 10th season and this should punish Jagr for having a peak season beyond his prime.

As if Crosby being 19 meant he was in his prime. Again, different players peak at different times. Jagr peaked later but peaked much higher.

Jagr has 3-4 seasons better than Crosby's best.

Where is this written in stone? Thru ten seasons Crosby has shown he can play at his prime/peak longer than any other current player and Jagr too. Consistency, if not an actual talent, should count as an offensive ability. Peak play is just one piece of the puzzle.

For the record though, their peak Art Ross seasons (1999 and 2014) showed similar % gaps between themselves and the 2nd place finisher and in PPG dominance over the other Top Ten scorers (see post #518).

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Different players peak at different times and since talent is best judged by peak play, then it is imperative that their peak seasons be judged.

Going by your posts, it's seems obvious that it is you trying to skew the numbers Crosby's way.

Of course 1993 and 1994 would not be good seasons to use for Jagr because he hadn't peaked yet.

Peak seasons for Jagr (top 5) are 1995-96, 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-00 and 2000-01.

I'm not even going to use 2005-06 because apparently Crosby hasn't played beyond his 10th season and this should punish Jagr for having a peak season beyond his prime.

As if Crosby being 19 meant he was in his prime. Again, different players peak at different times. Jagr peaked later but peaked much higher.

Jagr has 3-4 seasons better than Crosby's best.

Btw if you really wanted to use Jagr's 10 best seasons; you would include 1994-95, 1995-96, 1996-97, 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-00, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2005-06 and 2006-07.

Scoring finishes are 1, 2, 6, 1, 1, 1, 1, 5, 2, 8.

The last 2 while playing in the same league as Crosby and being 34-35 and playing with a bum shoulder in 2006-07 on top of that.

I can probably say Malkin peaked higher than jagr 08-09 for example. Jagr has never had a dominating playoff run while crosby has two. And 15 points in 10 games is not a deep dominating run or I could include crosbys 19 in 13 in 09-10.

 

[livewell68]

Where is this written in stone? Thru ten seasons Crosby has shown he can play at his prime/peak longer than any other current player and Jagr too. Consistency, if not an actual talent, should count as an offensive ability. Peak play is just one piece of the puzzle.

For the record though, their peak Art Ross seasons (1999 and 2014) showed similar % gaps between themselves and the 2nd place finisher and in PPG dominance over the other Top Ten scorers (see post #518).

Seriously now?

Will you be singing the same tune if Crosby drops off in seasons 11-15?

Are you going to try and convince people that every player peaks at the same time?

Selanne scored 76 goals and had 136 pts as a 23 year old rookie so he must be GOAT....

There are many players who peaked earlier than Jagr; Selanne, Bure, Federov, Sundin, Dale (Howerchuk I think was his name), I don't see anyone claiming they are better players?....

You're hung up on using first 10 seasons but I'm sorry that's an arbitrary time period that is only meant to raise Crosby's status.

What if Crosby has 0 top 10 scoring finishes from season 11 onward.... Will you still be making this claim?

 

[livewell68]

I can probably say Malkin peaked higher than jagr 08-09 for example. Jagr has never had a dominating playoff run while crosby has two. And 15 points in 10 games is not a deep dominating run or I could include crosbys 19 in 13 in 09-10.

PPG is everything right?

Crosby's 2009 playoff run is a 1.29 PPG.

Jagr had 149 pts in 1995-96 followed by 23 pts in 18 games= 1.28.

If you want to call Crosby's run as dominant so should you for Jagr.

Jagr also had 16 pts in 11 playoff games in 1999-00.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Seriously now?

Will you be singing the same tune if Crosby drops off in seasons 11-15?

Are you going to try and convince people that every player peaks at the same time?

Selanne scored 76 goals and had 136 pts as a 23 year old rookie so he must be GOAT....

There are many players who peaked earlier than Jagr; Selanne, Bure, Federov, Sundin, Dale (Howerchuk I think was his name), I don't see anyone claiming they are better players?....

You're hung up on using first 10 seasons but I'm sorry that's an arbitrary time period that is only meant to raise Crosby's status.

What if Crosby has 0 top 10 scoring finishes from season 11 onward.... Will you still be making this claim?

0 top 10 scoring finishes for a 28 and beyond crosby? Impossible

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

PPG is everything right?

Crosby's 2009 playoff run is a 1.29 PPG.

Jagr had 149 pts in 1995-96 followed by 23 pts in 18 games= 1.28.

If you want to call Crosby's run as dominant so should you for Jagr.

Jagr also had 16 pts in 11 playoff games in 1999-00.

Crosby going into the finals had 28 points in 17 games. Also the year before he led the playoffs with 27 points in 20 games and ppg for players that played 20+ games. Crosby has peaked higher in playoff performances. As for the reg season. Crosby is working on his third ross. Already has more harts and rockets than jagr. Has the same amount of Lindsay's and 100 point seasons and is still young at 27. Lets see how this ends

 

[daver]

Seriously now?

Will you be singing the same tune if Crosby drops off in seasons 11-15?

Are you going to try and convince people that every player peaks at the same time?

Selanne scored 76 goals and had 136 pts as a 23 year old rookie so he must be GOAT....

There are many players who peaked earlier than Jagr; Selanne, Bure, Federov, Sundin, Dale (Howerchuk I think was his name), I don't see anyone claiming they are better players?....

You're hung up on using first 10 seasons but I'm sorry that's an arbitrary time period that is only meant to raise Crosby's status.

What if Crosby has 0 top 10 scoring finishes from season 11 onward.... Will you still be making this claim?

I knew I should not have gone down this road even if hypothetically.

You know how we avoid all this cherrypicked BS. Compare their best stretch of performances over a given time.

Jagr's best 10 year stretch vs. Crosby's best 10 years, which so happens to be his first 10 years, is a toss up from a PPG perspective. Crosby is second in points behind OV while Jagr is first.

 

[Acallabeth]

daver vs Jags6868 is like an unstoppable force vs an immovable object.

On topic, I definitely think it's Crosby. A better skater and better hockey IQ IMO (though Jagr's is insane as well), not giving up a lot in other areas. What makes Jagr a better player is his insane physical ability and size.

 

[Saku11]

What if Crosby has 0 top 10 scoring finishes from season 11 onward.... Will you still be making this claim?

Why in the hell that would happen?