Nikita Kucherov 2023-24 vs Jaromir Jagr 1995-96

[BraveCanadian]

Jagr because of goalscoring and because he was an absolute monster at ES in general (led the league in ES goals that year too).

Then you have to consider this isn't even Jagr's best year by most accounts.

 

[authentic]

You've been on this weird anti-Kucherov crusade all year for some reason...maybe you just dont like him.

Your response here is pretty much "eye test says Jagr looked better". Cool....maybe? To me it's more about results than the eye test.

Adjusted for scoring era - and even moreso for the benefit of having Lemieux on your team (both directly for points, and indirectly for matchups) - Kucherov had the better season. Even if the eye test might say different.

I have no doubt Francis's point totals benefitted more from Jagr than vice versa. But the comparison is Francis vs....Point this year. And on a 2nd line, vs 1st line matchups. That's clear edge Jagr.

But even without any of these linemate/matchups advantages- Kucherov is simply higher scoring if you adjust for era.

24 Kucherov:
81 GP: 44 G, 100 A, 144 P (1.78)

96 Jagr:
82 GP: 61 G, 84 A, 145 P (1.77)

Those are their adjusted totals. One has the record for empty net points and is a worse player at even strength.

Jagr at ES

NHL Stats

The official source for NHL Stats including skaters, goalies, teams stats and more.

www.nhl.com

Kucherov at ES

NHL Stats

The official source for NHL Stats including skaters, goalies, teams stats and more.

www.nhl.com

The eye test is one thing but you're literally ignoring every other point I'm making here as if Jagr doesn't have an actual argument...

 

[jigglysquishy]

Jagr 99>Kucherov 24>Jagr 96>Kucherov 19

 

[Regal]

In your opinion. I watched both play, Jagr was a force and every bit as good as his point totals indicated. He had firmly entered his prime at that point and that's the type of production you could expect of him given the scoring enviroment. Even if Lemieux boosted his totals a bit that season he was a better overall player than Kucherov, he drove the play and controlled the puck like very few other players, even better than Lemieux at that point at even strength and certainly better than Kucherov. I would also say Ron Francis benefitted from the situation he was in much more than Jagr did. Any boost Jagr saw that season would be negated by Kucherov's 14 empty net points which are still easier than scoring on a goalie no matter how you slice it.

This is basically how I see it. Jagr at that point was arguably as good or better than Lemieux at ES, and certainly was by the following year. He had better linemates than Kucherov, but I think the Lemieux effect is overstated. For players at this caliber any edge in facing second line competition is usually negated by fewer offensive opportunities.

One thing in particular is that Lemieux dominated the PP and while he no doubt made things easier for Jagr and the rest I’m not sure if it would have led to any more points than Jagr being the catalyst like he was later in his career and Kucherov is now. Lemieux ran Zubov off the team because he was doing too much on the PP which speaks to the amount everything had to run through him.

The Pens scored 109 PP goals but Jagr only had a point on 47% of them. In contrast, in his 98-99 season, the PP was less potent overall sans Lemieux, but he had a point on 68% of the PP goals. If the 95-96 Pens had the same PP percentage as the 98-99 Pens, they would have scored 75 goals. Coincidentally, if Jagr had a point on 68% of those goals, he would have had the exact same 51 PP points.

So overall I think Jagr’s only real advantage in terms of production was playing with better linemates. But I think this can largely be negated by empty net points as you said. I’d consider these seasons essentially a wash in terms of production. And thus Jagr’s better possession game wins out for me.

I think some people are underrating this year from Jagr because it wasn’t his signature season and was overshadowed by Lemieux and Kucherov’s season feels like we’ve praised it more in season than we did Jagr’s at the time. But in hindsight, Jagr’s season was just as dominant offensively as his 98-99, and as good as Kucherov is, there’s still arguments for 3 players over him for the Hart and Lindsay this year, just as Jagr finished 4th in Hart voting in his year (despite his teammate finishing 1st).

 

[Video Nasty]

Adjusted to 2023-24 levels:
2.36 EVG, 0.63 PPG, 0.09 SHG

96 Jagr:
82 GP: 61 G, 84 A, 145 P (1.77)
(107 EVP, 36 PPP, 2 SHP)
(46 even strength goals)

24 Kucherov:
81 GP: 44 G, 100 A, 144 P (1.78)
(91 EVP, 53 PPP, 0 SHP)

99 Jagr:
81 GP: 52 G, 94 A, 146 P (1.80)
(105 EVP, 40 PPP, 1 SHP)
(42 even strength goals)

Jagr in 1995-96 had the most even strength points and goals. Also had the highest even strength point per game average above Lindros and Lemieux. His linemates that year were Petr Nedved and Ron Francis. Yes he got to play on the powerplay with Mario but that’s where Mario racked up 79 of his own 161. Jagr got 51 of his 149 on the powerplay that season and was clearly the most dominant player at even strength that year. Jagr didn’t get his points on the man advantage.

If people want to pick Kucherov because the points per game is virtually identical and because he led his team by a remarkable margin I fully get it. I’d go 95-96 Jagr by a hair due to even strength dominance and far superior goal scoring.

98-99 Jagr I’d take over both even though points per game is still close. What he did at even strength that year and overall with that cast is truly incredible. I don’t say this to diminish Kucherov. Statistically his year is there with Jagr’s best but I’d still go Jagr for those reasons.

I was prepared to vote Kucherov here, but I still have to think about it some more after your post. Overall, I agree that Jagr’s 1998-1999 should be the one used for comparison, but I understand the intent behind OP since the base scoring level was almost identical.

 

[bobholly39]

Way too much talk of even strength scoring in this thread.

Who cares? When you're providing offense - all that matters is that a point/goal is scored. Has the exact same value on the PP as ES.

 

[Felidae]

Way too much talk of even strength scoring in this thread.

Who cares? When you're providing offense - all that matters is that a point/goal is scored. Has the exact same value on the PP as ES.

Yeah and it's not like Kucherov's EV scoring is so far behind. He still leads the league in EV points.

Main difference is that Jagr didn't have an equal at EV that season, while Kucherov does in Mackinnon. But their lead over the competition is virtually the same.

 

[wetcoast]

Imagine Kucherov next to Lemieux.

Jagr didn't play with Mario very much at ES that year but this assertion was my first thought when the OP picked this year for Jagr.

I took Jagr but can see a case for both guys here.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Way too much talk of even strength scoring in this thread.

Who cares? When you're providing offense - all that matters is that a point/goal is scored. Has the exact same value on the PP as ES.

You say this every time but I'll try again.

Being better at ES means you control your own destiny more often. It's simple.

 

[bobholly39]

You say this every time but I'll try again.

Being better at ES means you control your own destiny more often. It's simple.

How? They each scored a comparable amount of total points (adjusted). Were points on ES somehow more valuable than points on PP? I see absolutely no logical reason for that.

To take your sentence in bolded...it's only accurate if you add to it something like "...should power-play opportunities ever go down". That might make your statement true. Problem is, that's future tense, and should have no bearing on a season that's over.

A point is a point.

If you really want to differentiate between which points are more important than others - ES vs PP is the wrong place to start. Instead - you shuold start looking at points in close games, to tie games/take lead vs blowouts, etc. That would be more relevant.

 

[BraveCanadian]

How? They each scored a comparable amount of total points (adjusted). Were points on ES somehow more valuable than points on PP? I see absolutely no logical reason for that.

To take your sentence in bolded...it's only accurate if you add to it something like "...should power-play opportunities ever go down". That might make your statement true. Problem is, that's future tense, and should have no bearing on a season that's over.

A point is a point.

If you really want to differentiate between which points are more important than others - ES vs PP is the wrong place to start. Instead - you shuold start looking at points in close games, to tie games/take lead vs blowouts, etc. That would be more relevant.

Stop please. Most of the game is played at ES and you are not at the mercy of the referees to get ES time. It's so simple.

So yes, a point is a point but all things being equal I'll take the guy who is better at ES if I want to win games. All your scenarios fall into the same trap where people who are able to produce them more reliably at ES are more valuable than on the PP for the same reason.

 

[bobholly39]

Stop please. Most of the game is played at ES and you are not at the mercy of the referees to get ES time. It's so simple.

So yes, a point is a point but all things being equal I'll take the guy who is better at ES if I want to win games. All your scenarios fall into the same trap where people who are able to produce them more reliably at ES are more valuable than on the PP for the same reason.

....in the future

Your whole argument seems to be "in the future, if PP opportunities go down, it makes more sense to take the better ES scorer". How does that affect a season that's already happened? You're not relying on anything else - points/wins/goals have already been scored for both completed seasons.

Also - in 23-24, Kucherov scored 63.2% of his points at even strength. 91 points
In 95-96 - Jagr scored 63.8% of his points at even strength. 95 points

You realize we're arguing about a 1 point difference. Give Jagr 1 less point, it's edge Kucherov. Give Kucherov 1 more point - it's edge Kucherov.

Both were dominating ES scoring seasons (as if that matters) - and this should in no way be a differentiating factor here.

Jagr had the advantage of playing with Lemieux (huge boost on PP), and playing behind Lemieux (faced opposing teams 2nd line matchups, vs 1st). That's a bigger deal than a 1 point more or less at ES. Jagr also had better linemates at ES than Kucherov.

 

[authentic]

Yeah and it's not like Kucherov's EV scoring is so far behind. He still leads the league in EV points.

Main difference is that Jagr didn't have an equal at EV that season, while Kucherov does in Mackinnon. But their lead over the competition is virtually the same.

His 14 empty net points are the only reason he's even close to Jagr at ES though, and even still Jagr was clearly more dominant not even factoring his stronger possession game

Jagr

95
76
75
73
71
70
65
63
62
61

Kucherov

91
91
87 (McDavid leads in ES points per game)
77
75
75
71
66
65
63

 

[BraveCanadian]

....in the future

Your whole argument seems to be "in the future, if PP opportunities go down, it makes more sense to take the better ES scorer". How does that affect a season that's already happened? You're not relying on anything else - points/wins/goals have already been scored for both completed seasons.

Also - in 23-24, Kucherov scored 63.2% of his points at even strength. 91 points
In 95-96 - Jagr scored 63.8% of his points at even strength. 95 points

You realize we're arguing about a 1 point difference. Give Jagr 1 less point, it's edge Kucherov. Give Kucherov 1 more point - it's edge Kucherov.

Both were dominating ES scoring seasons (as if that matters) - and this should in no way be a differentiating factor here.

Jagr had the advantage of playing with Lemieux (huge boost on PP), and playing behind Lemieux (faced opposing teams 2nd line matchups, vs 1st). That's a bigger deal than a 1 point more or less at ES. Jagr also had better linemates at ES than Kucherov.

No. An individual PP goal and ES goal may seem to have the same value, but better ES play is more correlated with winning than PP production partly because there is a lot more of it. Not to mention that great ES players tend to also be good on the PP anyways.

 

[WalterLundy]

Best seasons (ranked by ppg) of the last 30 years when adjusted to the 2023-24 environment of 2.36 EVG, 0.63 PPG, 0.09 SHG

96 Lemieux:
70 GP: 61 G, 83 A, 144 P (2.06)

21 McDavid:
56 GP: 35 G, 77 A, 112 P (2.00)

23 McDavid:
82 GP: 63 G, 88 A, 151 P (1.84)

99 Jagr:
81 GP: 52 G, 94 A, 146 P (1.80)

24 Kucherov:
81 GP: 44 G, 100 A, 144 P (1.78)

96 Jagr:
82 GP: 61 G, 84 A, 145 P (1.77)

*24 McDavid:
76 GP: 32 G, 100 A, 132 P (1.74)

*24 MacKinnon:
81 GP: 51 G, 87 A, 138 P (1.70)

00 Jagr:
63 GP: 48 G, 59 A, 107 P (1.70)

12 Malkin:
75 GP: 58 G, 68 A, 126 P (1.68)

97 Lemieux:
76 GP: 52 G, 75 A, 127 P (1.67)

10 Ovechkin:
72 GP: 56 G, 63 A, 119 P (1.65)

01 Jagr:
81 GP: 59 G, 74 A, 133 P (1.64)

03 Forsberg:
75 GP: 34 G, 89 A, 123 P (1.64)

19 Kucherov:
82 GP: 43 G, 91 A, 134 P (1.63)

Wanted to put a list together of the best years for points per game of the last 30 years if all were transferred to this years levels. From here you can look at what you value most (goals, assists, even strength, help, etc.) and decide which is best but I thought this would help everyone to decide which season ranks where.

May not be entirely relevant but I can also add 1980-1993 best seasons to include Gretzky’s best and a few extra Lemieux seasons. Let’s see if this is helpful first.

Not necessarily pertinent information but still shows where the Kucherov season could rank since Gretzky’s debut. These are the notable Gretzky and Lemieux seasons from the live puck era (1980-1993) adjusted to 2023-24 levels. Had to split the posts up as one would have been way too long.

93 Lemieux:
60 GP: 59 G, 73 A, 132 P (2.20)

92 Lemieux:
64 GP: 38 G, 73 A, 111 P (1.73)

91 Gretzky:
78 GP: 38 G, 105 A, 143 P (1.83)

90 Lemieux:
59 GP: 36 G, 62 A, 98 P (1.66)

90 Gretzky:
73 GP: 34 G, 85 A, 119 P (1.63)

89 Lemieux:
76 GP: 64 G, 89 A, 153 P (2.01)

89 Gretzky:
78 GP: 46 G, 89 A, 135 P (1.73)

88 Lemieux:
77 GP: 55 G, 70 A, 125 P (1.62)

88 Gretzky:
64 GP: 33 G, 88 A, 121 P (1.89)

87 Gretzky:
79 GP: 52 G, 100 A, 152 P (1.92)

86 Gretzky:
80 GP: 41 G, 125 A, 166 P (2.08)

85 Gretzky:
80 GP: 58 G, 107 A, 165 P (2.06)

84 Gretzky:
74 GP: 67 G, 92 A, 159 P (2.15)
*57 GP: 57 G, 75 A, 132 P (2.32)
(3 ppg stretch before injury derailment)

83 Gretzky
80 GP: 57 G, 99 A, 156 P (1.95)

82 Gretzky:
80 GP: 71 G, 92 A, 163 P (2.04)

81 Gretzky:
80 GP: 44 G, 85 A, 129 P (1.61)

 

[bobholly39]

No. An individual PP goal and ES goal may seem to have the same value, but better ES play is more correlated with winning than PP production partly because there is a lot more of it. Not to mention that great ES players tend to also be good on the PP anyways.

And vise versa.

So what's even the point? A point is a point, and a goal is a goal.

 

[BraveCanadian]

And vise versa.

So what's even the point? A point is a point, and a goal is a goal.

if you ignore everything I said I can see how you get there!

 

[bobholly39]

His 14 empty net points are the only reason he's even close to Jagr at ES though, and even still Jagr was clearly more dominant not even factoring his stronger possession game

Jagr

95
76
75
73
71
70
65
63
62
61

Kucherov

91
91
87 (McDavid leads in ES points per game)
77
75
75
71
66
65
63

You act like empty net points are not important. They pretty much guarantee a victory - I don't get the logic behind devaluing them.

But if you want to completely discount Kucherov's 11 extra empty net points...Jagr played with Lemieux on the power play. 37 power play points with Lemieux. You don't think without Lemieux, he loses out on at least 11 of those?

Jagr got to play mostly against teams second best defensive pairings, because they prioritized covering Lemieux. You don't think if he faced each team's top defensing matchups instead, he'd lose out on some points as well?

You're ignoring the huge impact Lemieux had on Jagr's numbers.

if you ignore everything I said I can see how you get there!

I say a power play point is more correlated to winning than an ES point!
And furthermore - I say a point is more correlated to winning if your last name starts with K than J!

See? I too can make baseless claims without any data to back them up.

 

[Regal]

Way too much talk of even strength scoring in this thread.

Who cares? When you're providing offense - all that matters is that a point/goal is scored. Has the exact same value on the PP as ES.

The focus on ES points is two-fold. First, Jagr was the better possession player which leads to a greater goal differential, which impacts winning. If Jagr was the worse ES scorer this advantage could be negated but he was slightly better. Second, it’s an important distinction due to how Jagr’s points break down in relation to Lemieux’s impact. Because he didn’t impact Jagr much at all at ES and because the PP likely didn’t actually lead to an advantage (see below).

You act like empty net points are not important. They pretty much guarantee a victory - I don't get the logic behind devaluing them.

But if you want to completely discount Kucherov's 11 extra empty net points...Jagr played with Lemieux on the power play. 37 power play points with Lemieux. You don't think without Lemieux, he loses out on at least 11 of those?

Jagr got to play mostly against teams second best defensive pairings, because they prioritized covering Lemieux. You don't think if he faced each team's top defensing matchups instead, he'd lose out on some points as well?

You're ignoring the huge impact Lemieux had on Jagr's numbers.



I say a power play point is more correlated to winning than an ES point!
And furthermore - I say a point is more correlated to winning if your last name starts with K than J!

See? I too can make baseless claims without any data to back them up.

Nope. As said previously, Jagr’s percentage of points on Pens goals was low because the PP didn’t run through him. Run the PP through him and the PP rate falls but his points likely remain similar because he’s scoring on a higher percentage of them.

And also, as mentioned previously, the idea that facing second pairing competition helps a player of Jagr’s caliber never really holds up to scrutiny because they’re so good against anyone that any advantage in efficiency is negated by fewer opportunities. If Jagr’s line was the main offensive line he’d be out there every time they want to maximize their scoring opportunities. That wasn’t the case in 95-96

 

[Regal]

And vise versa.

So what's even the point? A point is a point, and a goal is a goal.

Evidently not if you’re going to argue that Lemieux impacted those points. Why do teammates affect the impressiveness of someone’s production but game state has no effect?

 

[BraveCanadian]

I say a power play point is more correlated to winning than an ES point!
And furthermore - I say a point is more correlated to winning if your last name starts with K than J!

See? I too can make baseless claims without any data to back them up.

https://www.ida.liu.se/research/sportsanalytics/LINHAC/LINHAC23/papers/paper-research-LiU-special.pdf

Byeeeee