Adjusted Even-Strength Plus-minus 1960-2017

[BraveCanadian]

What are these goal posts you are talking about? You didn't even see him play? Which we get from the other thread where you didn't even know that Flyers were the favorites against the Red Wings.



Which clearly indicates that I thought that I didnt think Lindros played enough seasons. He didn't risk his +/-.

Stop putting words in my mouth and find better arguments. Maybe go buy a dvd and actually watch the games he played?

Of course I watched him play. Why do you think I am defending him even though I don't particularly like him?

He was absolutely a dominant player in his prime and anyone who watched him knows it. It was plainly obvious.

Whether or not that was enough to be in the hall of fame is debatable but this revisionist history people are giving him is unfair when the same people try to make Forsberg (who had a very similar career only for better teams) into Lemieux. It's a joke.

However he was injury prone and most people are remembering the Lindros from 1999-2000 on who was not the same player.

You admitted yourself that his +/- could just as easily have gone up even more.

Obviously he was doing something right if his +/- was higher than Jagr despite playing 2 seasons less games. That means he was easily outpacing Jagr in this metric at least.

At the end of the day it doesn't even matter. The fact is that he was one of the better players at even strength. Look at the names on that list and try to deny it some more.

 

[plusandminus]

(Needs to re-edit. Sorry.)

 

[BraveCanadian]

I just discovered this thread, as it was being refered to in another thread. I'm not sure about some of the interpretations being done here, as it seems as if some are reading too much into the stat. ?

Yes.

overpass made note of the caveats that are important when looking at this statistic but they are routinely ignored.

The context is very important. Still, it is interesting.

 

[plusandminus]

Yes.

overpass made note of the caveats that are important when looking at this statistic but they are routinely ignored.

The context is very important. Still, it is interesting.

Yes. And after reading more carefully, I realize that, so to a degree I am rewriting the same things as he does. And the method I suggest (dividing) is similar to the one he uses to get the adjusted stats. So, in hindsight, my post may not contribute much except once again highlighting the thread.

 

[gifted88]

Dmitri Khristich? wow, surprised to see him on there.

 

[seventieslord]

Yes. And after reading more carefully, I realize that, so to a degree I am rewriting the same things as he does. And the method I suggest (dividing) is similar to the one he uses to get the adjusted stats. So, in hindsight, my post may not contribute much except once again highlighting the thread.

I had a lot to say to that post before it was edited! haha...

 

[livewell68]

Good to see my man Jagr place so high on the list. I think this is one of the stats that really shows how underrared Jagr really is.

Some say he's not even top 20 all-time, well many stats including +/- adjusted show he does and that maybe he should be even as high as top 10.

 

[seventieslord]

Jagr was never anything special in his own zone, but his massive effect on team goal differential is undeniable. I've always thought that this was because of his incredible puck control. Can't allow a goal if you have the puck. If you're bad in your own end... just don't let the puck go there!

 

[Canadiens1958]

Without the Puck

Jagr was never anything special in his own zone, but his massive effect on team goal differential is undeniable. I've always thought that this was because of his incredible puck control. Can't allow a goal if you have the puck. If you're bad in your own end... just don't let the puck go there!

What a player does without the puck and where he is positioned without the puck is what matters most.

 

[livewell68]

What a player does without the puck and where he is positioned without the puck is what matters most.

That's not true because then Lemieux and Gretzky wouldn't be considered as great as they were.

If you spend 75% of the time in the opposing team's zone then what you do without the puck should not matter as much.

Jagr always managed to control the puck most of the time and apart from his tenure in Washington, he didn't really commit bad turnovers and usually could hold on to the puck for entire shifts...

but of course you seem to have some kind of mission going on to keep Jagr out of the top 10 list or I might be wrong.

Offensive positioning is just as important if not more important than defensive positioning and especially for offensive players of Jagr, Lemieux and Gretzy's calibers.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Without the Puck

That's not true because then Lemieux and Gretzky wouldn't be considered as great as they were.

If you spend 75% of the time in the opposing team's zone then what you do without the puck should not matter as much.

Jagr always managed to control the puck most of the time and apart from his tenure in Washington, he didn't really commit bad turnovers and usually could hold on to the puck for entire shifts...

but of course you seem to have some kind of mission going on to keep Jagr out of the top 10 list or I might be wrong.

Offensive positioning is just as important if not more important than defensive positioning and especially for offensive players of Jagr, Lemieux and Gretzy's calibers.

Last sentence - you clearly illustrate the importance of playing without the puck since your offensive position is dictated by where you were before you got the puck.Likewise defense.

Gretzky especially and Lemieux to an extent understood neutral ice positioning without the puck and its value both offensively and defensively for a center. Jagr was not a center but a RW. His responsibilities without the puck were fewer but he was not very good at focusing on them.

Let me put this in another context. If Jagr was better or more focused on his play without the puck then his scoring would have been higher and his defensive play would have been better.

 

[Czech Your Math]

Last sentence - you clearly illustrate the importance of playing without the puck since your offensive position is dictated by where you were before you got the puck.Likewise defense.

Gretzky especially and Lemieux to an extent understood neutral ice positioning without the puck and its value both offensively and defensively for a center. Jagr was not a center but a RW. His responsibilities without the puck were fewer but he was not very good at focusing on them.

Let me put this in another context. If Jagr was better or more focused on his play without the puck then his scoring would have been higher and his defensive play would have been better.

No, if Jagr played his prime in the 70's or 80's his scoring would have been a lot higher.

Over his entire career at even strength, when he was on the ice the ratio of GF/GA was 50% higher than when he was off the ice. That's better than Gretzky or Lemieux, even looking at their best consecutive 10 years. The advantage over Lemieux is particularly impressive, given that a good portion of the time he was on the same team as Lemieux and so not only had the same teammates (one less variable to deal with), but also had Lemieux's line composing much of Jagr's off-ice GF/GA ratio.

Since data became available, the only player with a substantially better R-on/R-off ratio during their prime appears to be Orr.

The numbers don't support your claims that Jagr hurt his team by not focusing on defense. His adjusted plus-minus numbers were outstanding and his teams were atrocious without him in the lineup. Data is not as detailed for the playoffs, but after his rookie season he was +36 on teams that were approx. -43 without him in the lineup. Anyone who watched Jagr knows how important he was to his teams and how bad those teams were without him, despite your contention otherwise.

 

[livewell68]

Last sentence - you clearly illustrate the importance of playing without the puck since your offensive position is dictated by where you were before you got the puck.Likewise defense.

Gretzky especially and Lemieux to an extent understood neutral ice positioning without the puck and its value both offensively and defensively for a center. Jagr was not a center but a RW. His responsibilities without the puck were fewer but he was not very good at focusing on them.

Let me put this in another context. If Jagr was better or more focused on his play without the puck then his scoring would have been higher and his defensive play would have been better.

Jagr's scoring was as high as it could get during the "Dead Puck Era. In his first 11 seasons in Pittsburgh he had 1079 Pts in just 806 games. That's a PPG of 1.34 and considering his first 2 seasons in the NHL he was below PPG, then what he accomplished is quite amazing. Jagr didn't really hit his stride until 1993-94 (he was 9th in league scoring that season and Lemieux was injured). Anything 1993-94 and post is considered significantly lower than the 80's and even the 70's. Starting in 1993-94 and going forward Jagr enjoyed a streak of dominance that is matched by very few in the history of the game.

Taking into account eras and scoring, Jagr's prime is top 10 all-time. Only Lemieux, Gretzky, Orr, Howe had better primes than him and then players like Beliveau, Lafleur, Esposito, Richard are in the same range.
He had 126 Pts in 150 games in his first 2 seasons. Remove those 2 seasons from his time in Pittsburgh, this is what you get: 953 Pts in 656 games, that's a PPG of 1.45. Outside of Gretzky and Lemieux, find me a player who had a more impressive 9 year stretch, you would be hard pressed to do so.

I respect your opinion and I do see where you are coming from but I have noticed that whenever someone brings up any good arguments that show Jagr's strengths and strengthen his case for top 10 all-time, you are quick to try and discredit everything he has accomplished.

Lafleur and Richard were no better defensively and position wise (as you yourself claims that Right Wingers have less responsibilities than Centermen) and yet their offense doesn't match Jagr's offensive output adjusted.

Jagr's offense adjusted is most likely just behind Gretzky and Lemieux' in terms of points, PPG.

Now include the fact that Jagr was even better than Gretzky at even strength and far ahead of Lemieux and you can see why so many people feel Jagr is a top 10 all-time player and top 5 forward.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Comparables

No, if Jagr played his prime in the 70's or 80's his scoring would have been a lot higher.

Over his entire career at even strength, when he was on the ice the ratio of GF/GA was 50% higher than when he was off the ice. That's better than Gretzky or Lemieux, even looking at their best consecutive 10 years. The advantage over Lemieux is particularly impressive, given that a good portion of the time he was on the same team as Lemieux and so not only had the same teammates (one less variable to deal with), but also had Lemieux's line composing much of Jagr's off-ice GF/GA ratio.

Since data became available, the only player with a substantially better R-on/R-off ratio during their prime appears to be Orr.

The numbers don't support your claims that Jagr hurt his team by not focusing on defense. His adjusted plus-minus numbers were outstanding and his teams were atrocious without him in the lineup. Data is not as detailed for the playoffs, but after his rookie season he was +36 on teams that were approx. -43 without him in the lineup. Anyone who watched Jagr knows how important he was to his teams and how bad those teams were without him, despite your contention otherwise.

Comparables to centers are out of context since Jagr benefits from playing with a defensively responsible center. Comparables to RWs like Lafleur and Bossy would be the appropriate measure.

 

[seventieslord]

the way I see it, "not being scored on" is the goal defensively. whether you do that by never losing the puck, or by losing it and playing well without it (i.e. defending well), is not really relevant. You can be equally proficient at either and end up with the same goals against figure or net effect.

 

[livewell68]

Comparables to centers are out of context since Jagr benefits from playing with a defensively responsible center. Comparables to RWs like Lafleur and Bossy would be the appropriate measure.

Which defensively responsible center are you talking about? Francis? Jagr had some great years playing with Francis but his best years were arguably without Francis.

1998-99 no Francis.

1999-00 no Francis.

2000-01 no Francis.

2005-06 no Francis.

Every great offensive player has always had at least one good defensively responsible player playing on his line.

Lafleur had one, Bossy had one, Richard had one, heck even Howe had one.

Gretzky had one, Lemieux had one.

Ovechkin recenly has had Backstrom.

 

[canucks4ever]

Orr's domination is mind boggling, he really is the best peak player ever.

 

[overpass]

Orr's domination is mind boggling, he really is the best peak player ever.

Yeah, it's pretty incredible.

This stat probably doesn't mean much for the vast majority of NHL players, but it was worth creating if only to see Orr's numbers.

 

[revolverjgw]

Khristich for the HOF, who's with me?

 

[tombombadil]

i like it a lot. All the names that I consider the best complete players are there. Can you factor in games played to present an adjusted +pergame ratio? or is that in there, there is a ******** of math going on. Orr/Forsberg/Lindros would have high +pergames. Orr must be about +.7/game

 

[overpass]

i like it a lot. All the names that I consider the best complete players are there. Can you factor in games played to present an adjusted +pergame ratio? or is that in there, there is a ******** of math going on. Orr/Forsberg/Lindros would have high +pergames. Orr must be about +.7/game

Look at the column labeled /Season. It's what you're looking for, but per-season's worth of games instead of per-game.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

Dmitri Khristich? wow, surprised to see him on there.

He was really good defensively.

 

[tombombadil]

Look at the column labeled /Season. It's what you're looking for, but per-season's worth of games instead of per-game.

nice, thank you. this is awesome.

 

[JaymzB]

Just wondering if Guy Carboneau's #'s are available?

 

[overpass]

Just wondering if Guy Carboneau's #'s are available?

Yes.

I'll show Carbonneau's numbers for the two parts of his career - when he was a decent even-strength scorer and when he was a pure defensive player.

Player | Year | SFrac | $ESGF/G | $ESGA/G | R-ON | R-OFF | XEV+/- | EV+/- | AEV+/- | /Season
Guy Carbonneau | 83-92 | 9.6 | 0.71 | 0.58 | 1.22 | 1.21 | 63 | 102 | 39 | 4
Guy Carbonneau | 93-00 | 7.0 | 0.51 | 0.48 | 1.06 | 1.26 | 42 | 18 | -24 | -4
Guy Carbonneau | Total | 17 | 0.62 | 0.54 | 1.16 | 1.23 | 105 | 120 | 15 | 1

Not sure if 1992 was the right cutoff year, but he won his last Selke that year so I thought I should include it in the first half. His numbers look even better if you just look at 83-90 (1.30 R-ON and 1.19 R-OFF), but that might be unfair cherry-picking.

To put these numbers in context, consider who Carbonneau's linemates were, what his role was in terms of which opposing lines he would play against, and how good the other forward lines on his team were. I'll defer to you on detailed knowledge of the Canadiens, but from what I know Carbonneau's numbers are very impressive considering his role. Very few checking line players have had a positive adjusted plus-minus.