Best player in the NHL 97-2004

[Hardyvan123]

I don't get the "Lidstrom's offense was better than Jagr's defense" argument. Anyone's defense was better than Hasek's offense, but that doesn't necessarily make them better than one of the best goalies in hockey history. Jagr's line possessed the puck for the majority of their time on the ice, a strategy of "the best defense is a good offense."

I know plus-minus data has its flaws, but it doesn't seem to indicate that Lidstrom was clearly better from '97 to '04. Lidstrom was +147 for teams that were still about +108 when he wasn't on the ice. Jagr was +100 for teams that were about -95 without him on the ice. For their careers, Lidstrom is +431 on teams that were about +325 without him on the ice, while Jagr was +275 for teams that were about -47 without him on the ice. These are rough calculations (assuming 5 players on the ice for each GF or GA), but they illustrate the difference.

I understand your points here but Lidstrom actually plays very well both ways and Jagr doesn't contribute that much in actual defensive play except for pushing forward on offense and holding onto the puck which to me isn't quite the same as defensive play.

 

[Czech Your Math]

Lets do realistic analysis as opposed to the slight of hand one goal at a time.

I simply explained to you that the relative value of each additional goal scored or goal prevented depended on whether the GF/GA ratio was greater or less than 1.00. You refuted my explanation with an example in which originally a team scored 10 less than goals than they scored, but 20 GF were added or 20 GA subtracted, causing the ending ratio of GF/GA to be greater than 1.00.

There is no "slight of hand" in using one goal at a time, it was your claim that I was trying to narrow it down to a single game that was "extreme"-ly misleading and untrue. In fact, I provided a counter-example with an increment of 5 goals as further explanation. The increment doesn't matter, until you approach the equilibrium point at GA = GF + 1. Understand that I didn't decide on this magical point, it just happens to be where the effect reverses itself.

First re Gretzky and the Oilers. Effectively better defense was played when they won the cup.

1984/1985/1986 highest point total was 1986 but it corresponded to his lowest +/- during the three seasons. Something was obviously not working as well defensively. No SC in 1986.

1987. 32 point drop in points but only a drop from 71 to 70 plus/minus. So the defense improved somewhere along the line.

1988. further 34 point drop but the +/- only dropped 31. Much weaker offense but constant defense = another SC.

Maybe someone else can shed light on this, but the most obvious things to me are:

- Tikkanen's first full season was in '87
- league scoring dropped by over 7% from '86 to '87
- Gretzky missed 16 games in '88, but PPG was not lower than '87
- his adjusted PPG each season from '82-88 was in a range of less than 10% from top to bottom, which is incredibly consistent

I don't think Wayne was suddenly concentrating on defense, after all he later won a Ross with a -25 (w/o him on Kings were -10).

They lost a 7 game series to Calgary in '86. The three games they won were by scores of 6-5, 7-4 and 5-2. The four games they lost were by scores of 4-1, 3-2, 4-1 and 3-2. I doubt the Oilers are held to two goals or less in 4/7 games much during their dynasty.

Jagr 1993-94, 99 points/80 games with a plus 15. 1998-99, dead puck era with an emphasis on defense, 127 points/81 games plus 17. Basically the extra 28 points produced a net two +/-. Effectively in a defensive era Jagr was better offensively yet his defense did not keep pace, given that the opposing players were generating less offense the obviously it regressed.

Yes, he was better offensively in '99, but the team around him was worse. Jagr was second in even strength points to Fedorov in '94, so he was already a very elite player then.

So for the era in question(1997-2004) the following is a fairly accurate assessement. With Pittsburgh sacrificed defense for nice offensive numbers but his defense lagged drastically while the league was improving its defense. Looked good going against the flow but with little team contribution or value.

Pittsburgh had little defense to sacrifice from '97-01. Their top six D-men in games played were Kasparaitis, Slegr, Moran, Kevin Hatcher, Werenka and Tamer. In those five seasons, they had six goalies with totals of at least 35 games and 14 wins: Barrasso, Aubin, Skudra, Wreggett, Lalime and Snow. Not on that list are their last two playoff goalies, Tugnutt and Hedberg, who played more games in the playoffs than they had for the Pens during the season. The team was below average without Jagr in the ice in each season except 2001, when they ran into an extremely powerful Devils team in the ECF, with an aged and tired Lemieux, Jagr playing with one arm and a goalie they called up from the AHL in the last month of the season.

BTW, as you must know, the "flow" Jagr and other were going against while the league was "improving its defense" consisted of (at least in Jagr's case) literally two or three players holding, hooking and slashing... let's face it, at times practically gang tackling... while the refs swallowed their whistles, because "that big strong foreign dude should be able to fight through it" and Jagr would not dive. Seriously, can anyone who has watched Jagr in his prime think of a player who took more physical punishment from the oppositon in what Mario termed "a garage league"?

With Washington and the Rangers the offense more or less dropped to league norms with a +/- aggregate of -5 over four seasons.As a bonus Jagr joined a first place club in Washington without costing them any NHL roster players and left them a 5th place club in disarray.

Hardly what you would consider value, contribution or performance from the supposedly best player. Again the Art Ross trophies are nice but nobody holds a parade to celebrate them.

I'm sure you just made a simple error, as Jagr was even over the three seasons teams which were -36

The Caps were ripe for a fall, with their top 3 forwards in points averaging age 35 and 5/7 of their top d-men over 30 (their top 7 averaged over 30). They asked a 30 y/o Jagr to focus on defense and expected great things from a team that had somehow made a run to the SCF four years earlier. Guys like Bondra, Oates and Johansson were the core of that SCF team... and about ready for retirement, not more glory.

If Jagr hadn't been injured for 13 games in '02, they very likely make the playoffs (3-8-2 without him, finished 2 points out of playoff spot) and he challenges Iginla for the Ross (.03 ppg behind).
They made the playoffs in '03, then the wheels fell off in '04 and they began the rebuild a couple years later than they should have.

It wasn't exactly an ideal situation for Jagr, but then he left a less than ideal one in Pittsburgh. Despite having the same core of players, besides Jagr, as in 2001, they went from the ECF to missing the playoffs and each season from '02 to '06 was worse than any season they had since Mario's rookie season in '85. Ouch!
Talk about disarray, they were closer to bankruptcy than making the playoffs again. Why do think Mario came back? He had nothing to prove, but the team owed him a lot of dough! You can dismiss Jagr leading those weak Pens teams to the playoffs, but it kept Mario's paychecks coming and kept the lights on in the Igloo a bit longer.

As for the Pythagorean Expectation, no coach is going to install offensive or defensive systems for a one goal net benefit at the end of the exercise. That the PE reflects the weaknesses and adjustments that may have salvaged Jagr's game is another issue.

Here we go again. You want big increments, fine:

originally, team has 240 GF and 300 GA = .80 ratio

add 30 GF = 270/300 = .900

subtract 30 GA instead = 240/270 = .889

The higher ratio means a higher expected win% via Pythagorean.

Any questions or are you going to say I'm some sort of sorcerer?

 

[Czech Your Math]

Still does not answer the fundamental question why between 1997 and 2004 Jaromir Jagr did not play better defense. Previously playing for coaches Johnson and Bowman he clearly showed the ability to play good defense. Also for the Rangers in 2006 under coach Renney his defense was noticeably better - he was in better game shape physically as well.

You'd have to ask him, but my best guess would be that he believed it would benefit the team more for him to concentrate on offense. That makes sense to me, because:

- he was one of the most highly skilled forwards in hockey history
- he was playing for mediocre or sub-par teams
- his line scored a high proportion of the team's goals
- he was on the ice more than the average forward
- he was often double or triple teamed
- defenders could hook, hold and basically tackle him
- there was a goalie, two (gulp) d-men and a center who by nature of their positions would have more defensive responsibility
- his line often maintained possession of the puck, decreasing the necessity of playing a lot of defense

He was taking a ton of punishment from the opposition, and that was the only way to contain Jagr in his prime, double team him, hook and hold him, and hit him continuously to try to wear him out. He just didn't waste a lot of energy on defense, especially during the regular season. In important (mostly late season) games, the playoffs and in international competiton, he was usually a quite capable defender due to his size/strength, reach, etc.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Simple Facts

I simply explained to you that the relative value of each additional goal scored or goal prevented depended on whether the GF/GA ratio was greater or less than 1.00. You refuted my explanation with an example in which originally a team scored 10 less than goals than they scored, but 20 GF were added or 20 GA subtracted, causing the ending ratio of GF/GA to be greater than 1.00.

There is no "slight of hand" in using one goal at a time, it was your claim that I was trying to narrow it down to a single game that was "extreme"-ly misleading and untrue. In fact, I provided a counter-example with an increment of 5 goals as further explanation. The increment doesn't matter, until you approach the equilibrium point at GA = GF + 1. Understand that I didn't decide on this magical point, it just happens to be where the effect reverses itself.



Maybe someone else can shed light on this, but the most obvious things to me are:

- Tikkanen's first full season was in '87
- league scoring dropped by over 7% from '86 to '87
- Gretzky missed 16 games in '88, but PPG was not lower than '87
- his adjusted PPG each season from '82-88 was in a range of less than 10% from top to bottom, which is incredibly consistent

I don't think Wayne was suddenly concentrating on defense, after all he later won a Ross with a -25 (w/o him on Kings were -10).

They lost a 7 game series to Calgary in '86. The three games they won were by scores of 6-5, 7-4 and 5-2. The four games they lost were by scores of 4-1, 3-2, 4-1 and 3-2. I doubt the Oilers are held to two goals or less in 4/7 games much during their dynasty.



Yes, he was better offensively in '99, but the team around him was worse. Jagr was second in even strength points to Fedorov in '94, so he was already a very elite player then.



Pittsburgh had little defense to sacrifice from '97-01. Their top six D-men in games played were Kasparaitis, Slegr, Moran, Kevin Hatcher, Werenka and Tamer. In those five seasons, they had six goalies with totals of at least 35 games and 14 wins: Barrasso, Aubin, Skudra, Wreggett, Lalime and Snow. Not on that list are their last two playoff goalies, Tugnutt and Hedberg, who played more games in the playoffs than they had for the Pens during the season. The team was below average without Jagr in the ice in each season except 2001, when they ran into an extremely powerful Devils team in the ECF, with an aged and tired Lemieux, Jagr playing with one arm and a goalie they called up from the AHL in the last month of the season.

BTW, as you must know, the "flow" Jagr and other were going against while the league was "improving its defense" consisted of (at least in Jagr's case) literally two or three players holding, hooking and slashing... let's face it, at times practically gang tackling... while the refs swallowed their whistles, because "that big strong foreign dude should be able to fight through it" and Jagr would not dive. Seriously, can anyone who has watched Jagr in his prime think of a player who took more physical punishment from the oppositon in what Mario termed "a garage league"?



I'm sure you just made a simple error, as Jagr was even over the three seasons teams which were -36

The Caps were ripe for a fall, with their top 3 forwards in points averaging age 35 and 5/7 of their top d-men over 30 (their top 7 averaged over 30). They asked a 30 y/o Jagr to focus on defense and expected great things from a team that had somehow made a run to the SCF four years earlier. Guys like Bondra, Oates and Johansson were the core of that SCF team... and about ready for retirement, not more glory.

If Jagr hadn't been injured for 13 games in '02, they very likely make the playoffs (3-8-2 without him, finished 2 points out of playoff spot) and he challenges Iginla for the Ross (.03 ppg behind).
They made the playoffs in '03, then the wheels fell off in '04 and they began the rebuild a couple years later than they should have.

It wasn't exactly an ideal situation for Jagr, but then he left a less than ideal one in Pittsburgh. Despite having the same core of players, besides Jagr, as in 2001, they went from the ECF to missing the playoffs and each season from '02 to '06 was worse than any season they had since Mario's rookie season in '85. Ouch!
Talk about disarray, they were closer to bankruptcy than making the playoffs again. Why do think Mario came back? He had nothing to prove, but the team owed him a lot of dough! You can dismiss Jagr leading those weak Pens teams to the playoffs, but it kept Mario's paychecks coming and kept the lights on in the Igloo a bit longer.



Here we go again. You want big increments, fine:

originally, team has 240 GF and 300 GA = .80 ratio

add 30 GF = 270/300 = .900

subtract 30 GA instead = 240/270 = .889

The higher ratio means a higher expected win% via Pythagorean.

Any questions or are you going to say I'm some sort of sorcerer?

A lot of keystrokes to avoid the simple facts.

1997-98 Penguins finished in 1st place in the Northeast Division ahead of Boston,Buffalo, Montreal, Ottawa, Carolina. Pittsburgh had 228GF and 188GA only Buffalo with 187GA was better. Pittsburgh had only 30, 20 goal scorers, Boston had 5, Montreal and Carolina had 4 each, Buffalo and Ottawa had 2 each. Pittsburgh was quickly eliminated in the first round by Montreal in 6 games. The Northeast was a very physical division Pittsburgh at 1215PIM was fourth behind Buffalo 1752PIM, Montreal 1531PIM, Carolina 1443PIM.

1998-99 Penguins moved to the Atlantic Division, New Jersey with a history of defense and Philadelphia coached by Roger Neilson.
No Ron Francis but Pittsburgh still had offense contrary to your assertion - only team with 5 players who scored 20 or more.Also the Atlantic was less physical, Pittsburgh saw their PIM drop to 965PIM behind the other teams whose totals ranged from 1063PIM Flyers to 1341PIM Devils.So your colourful images of Jagr being abused do not hold in the. They finished 3rd, won the first round of the playoffs against a poorly prepared Robbie Ftorek, something they could not repeat against the a well coached Larry Robinson Devil team in 2001.

Effectively the Penguins in the Atlantic division finished third for three straight seasons because their committment to team defense was not strong enough to challenge the Flyers and the Devils.As long as the Rangers and Islanders stayed defensively inept the Penguins would be third.

Committment to team defense starts helps overcome the loss of players to injury - Flyers with Lindros and Leclair dimished by injury still finished ahead of the Penguins who were relatively healthy.

Yzerman and others realized this, Jaromir Jagr did not.

 

[Czech Your Math]

I understand your points here but Lidstrom actually plays very well both ways and Jagr doesn't contribute that much in actual defensive play except for pushing forward on offense and holding onto the puck which to me isn't quite the same as defensive play.

Jagr was no Selke candidate, but he didn't need to be. He was a very competent defender when needed. Remember, he was a wing... not a center, not a defenseman, not a goalie. If there's one player who is generally free to roam and concentrate on offense it's a right wing. Especially a right wing on the top line. Especially the guy who holds the all-time season record for points and assists by a right wing and is generally regarded as one of the most skilled forwards ever and one of the best forwards ever at maintaining possession of the puck. There's six players on the ice, the only time you really need the #6 player in terms of defensive responsibility to think "defense first" is when there's an odd man rush for which he is in position to defend or where it's clear the opposition will likely maintain possession and gain the zone. Otherwise, you're asking your star player to skate full speed for most of the length of the ice while already in poor position to be of any immediate help, when it's likely the puck is just going to be turned over before any scoring chance is generated.

I don't claim adjusted plus-minus data to be perfect, but it's no accident that in the dead puck era Jagr, Lindros and Forsberg had some of the best numbers. They were big, strong, skilled forwards who maintained possession for long stretches and thereby created a lot of scoring chances.

I don't see people claiming that Trottier and Fedorov were better than Gretzky or Lemieux, because they were more complete players. I'm not disparaging anyone for supporting Lidstrom over the relevant seasons, but I do dispute reasons such as "his offense was better than Jagr's defense" or "superior post-season player", etc. Whether Jagr was playing classical defense or not, by maintaining possession of the puck he was effectively playing defense by preventing scoring chances.

One thing about defense is that a defense is generally only as good as its weakest link. Put Lidstrom on the teams Jagr played for from '97 on and there are more weak links than strong ones.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Gordie Howe

Jagr was no Selke candidate, but he didn't need to be. He was a very competent defender when needed. Remember, he was a wing... not a center, not a defenseman, not a goalie. If there's one player who is generally free to roam and concentrate on offense it's a right wing. Especially a right wing on the top line. Especially the guy who holds the all-time season record for points and assists by a right wing and is generally regarded as one of the most skilled forwards ever and one of the best forwards ever at maintaining possession of the puck. There's six players on the ice, the only time you really need the #6 player in terms of defensive responsibility to think "defense first" is when there's an odd man rush for which he is in position to defend or where it's clear the opposition will likely maintain possession and gain the zone. Otherwise, you're asking your star player to skate full speed for most of the length of the ice while already in poor position to be of any immediate help, when it's likely the puck is just going to be turned over before any scoring chance is generated.

I don't claim adjusted plus-minus data to be perfect, but it's no accident that in the dead puck era Jagr, Lindros and Forsberg had some of the best numbers. They were big, strong, skilled forwards who maintained possession for long stretches and thereby created a lot of scoring chances.

I don't see people claiming that Trottier and Fedorov were better than Gretzky or Lemieux, because they were more complete players. I'm not disparaging anyone for supporting Lidstrom over the relevant seasons, but I do dispute reasons such as "his offense was better than Jagr's defense" or "superior post-season player", etc. Whether Jagr was playing classical defense or not, by maintaining possession of the puck he was effectively playing defense by preventing scoring chances.

One thing about defense is that a defense is generally only as good as its weakest link. Put Lidstrom on the teams Jagr played for from '97 on and there are more weak links than strong ones.

Gordie Howe - RW, never heard your theory and he was very efficient defensively.Think Gordie Howe's approach carries the day.

Defensive efficiency requires less exertion and generates more offense than pointless skating ever did.An elite offensive player RW should be able to play elite defense with minimal effort. Simple recognition of the offensive threat and preventing the player from being a threat.On offense you want freedom for your stick side, on defense take away the players stick side. On offense you want favourable inside body position, on defense you deny the other player favourable body position. This has many offensive advantages.When you take away a player's stick side your stick side should be free, easier for you to generate offense. When you establish inside position on defense and the play turns the other way you have inside position on offense. In other words if the RW keeps the LW between himself and the boards on defense the when the play goes back the RW has inside position on the LW.

Any good hockey player by the time they reach Pee Wee understands these basics. The willingness to apply the basics is another matter.

 

[Czech Your Math]

1997-98 Penguins finished in 1st place in the Northeast Division ahead of Boston,Buffalo, Montreal, Ottawa, Carolina. Pittsburgh had 228GF and 188GA only Buffalo with 187GA was better. Pittsburgh had only 30, 20 goal scorers, Boston had 5, Montreal and Carolina had 4 each, Buffalo and Ottawa had 2 each. Pittsburgh was quickly eliminated in the first round by Montreal in 6 games. The Northeast was a very physical division Pittsburgh at 1215PIM was fourth behind Buffalo 1752PIM, Montreal 1531PIM, Carolina 1443PIM.

1998-99 Penguins moved to the Atlantic Division, New Jersey with a history of defense and Philadelphia coached by Roger Neilson.
No Ron Francis but Pittsburgh still had offense contrary to your assertion - only team with 5 players who scored 20 or more.Also the Atlantic was less physical, Pittsburgh saw their PIM drop to 965PIM behind the other teams whose totals ranged from 1063PIM Flyers to 1341PIM Devils.So your colourful images of Jagr being abused do not hold in the. They finished 3rd, won the first round of the playoffs against a poorly prepared Robbie Ftorek, something they could not repeat against the a well coached Larry Robinson Devil team in 2001.

PIM has to be one of the most useless hockey stats ever. I guess the teams in the Northeast must have had some goons who liked to fight, but from my recollection NJ and Philly were much more effectively physical teams. The point was that in the dead puck era, teams routinely abused opponents' stars with penalties rarely being called. PIM stats due not refute this.

Five 20 goal scorers doesn't exactly give one flashbacks of the '80s.

So are you suggesting the reason the Pens pulled off a big upset in the '99 playoffs wasn't Jagr's heroics, but rather the brilliant coaching of Kevin Constantine?

The 2001 Devils were one of the best teams of the era, it was no surprise that they beat the Pens in the ECF. They were a better team in every respect, including coaching. Old man Lemieux, one-armed Jagr and a goalie whose first career NHL game was in mid-March weren't exactly a match for that powerhouse squad.

Effectively the Penguins in the Atlantic division finished third for three straight seasons because their committment to team defense was not strong enough to challenge the Flyers and the Devils.As long as the Rangers and Islanders stayed defensively inept the Penguins would be third.

I agree that the Penguins could have used more commitment to defense. Having at least one defenseman who had a prayer of ever making 2nd team all-star would have been a good start. Using a revolving door goalie system that resembled Baskin Robbins goalie of the month may not have helped either.

Committment to team defense starts helps overcome the loss of players to injury - Flyers with Lindros and Leclair dimished by injury still finished ahead of the Penguins who were relatively healthy.

You must be referring to 2001. I agree with you that the Flyers had the much better defensive team, including Cechmanek compared to a platoon of Aubin/Snow that was ditched in mid-March for a goalie who started his first NHL game and then the remainder of the season and playoffs.

Yzerman and others realized this, Jaromir Jagr did not.

Yzerman and others played on quality teams with the depth of talent on offense and defense to have a realistic chance to win a Cup during their primes. Jaromir Jagr did not.

 

[Czech Your Math]

Gordie Howe - RW, never heard your theory and he was very efficient defensively.Think Gordie Howe's approach carries the day.

Defensive efficiency requires less exertion and generates more offense than pointless skating ever did.An elite offensive player RW should be able to play elite defense with minimal effort. Simple recognition of the offensive threat and preventing the player from being a threat.On offense you want freedom for your stick side, on defense take away the players stick side. On offense you want favourable inside body position, on defense you deny the other player favourable body position. This has many offensive advantages.When you take away a player's stick side your stick side should be free, easier for you to generate offense. When you establish inside position on defense and the play turns the other way you have inside position on offense. In other words if the RW keeps the LW between himself and the boards on defense the when the play goes back the RW has inside position on the LW.

Any good hockey player by the time they reach Pee Wee understands these basics. The willingness to apply the basics is another matter.

You make it sound like a half court basketball game where you just man up and stay between your man and the basket. Hockey isn't always so straightforward at the NHL level.

Were the systems of the same complexity and did their exist the parity in player conditioning in Howe's time as there is today? I'm guessing Jagr would skip Gordie's "how to play defense" lecture and go to the "how to play 30-40 minutes per game as a forward" seminar, seeing that his team would then be at an advantage for 1/2-2/3 of the game and able to utilize Jagr's best talents to full advantage for a much longer proportion of each game.

I definitely don't think the downfall of Jagr's teams was that he didn't sacrifice offensive creativity for the sake of always playing perfect defense against the LW who was matched up against him.

 

[norrisnick]

Yeah, Jagr mostly went head to head with guys like John Madden, who were backed up by D-men like Stevens and Niedermayer (or guys like Draper/McCarty guys like Lidstrom) and goalies like Brodeur. They were allowed to hold, hook and slash almost at will, since it was the dead puck era and Jagr was a big/strong player who didn't dive. Heaven forbid Jagr's line lost possession of the puck, because the defense was mostly AHL level, closer to John Madden the football coach on skates, and the goalies often changed yearly, if not monthly. Except for a season and a half with Lemieux, his best linemate was Francis, who was a career -10 (-84 career outside of his four seasons with Jagr and never better than +10). Typically he played with solid players like Straka, Nylander, Nedved, Lang and Barnes, and often it was with the likes of Hrdina, Miller, Titov, or a rookie Dubinsky (decent players, but not exactly first line material).

Lidstrom mostly went to head to head with guys like Forsberg and Sakic. They had some other decent D-men over the years to help shoulder the load (defensively and/or offensively): Chelios, Konstantinov, Coffey, Murphy, Fetisov, Kronwall, Schneider, Rafalski... even Mark Howe or Fedorov for a little while. The Wings have had controversy in goal at times, but usually it was in the capable (glove) hands of goalies like Osgood, Hasek, Vernon, CuJo or Legace. He played with forwards like Yzerman, Fedorov, Shanahan, Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Kozlov, Larionov, Brett Hull, Ciccarelli, Sheppard, Holmstrom, Franzen, etc. with a checking line to rival that of the Devils.

The fact that Jagr is even in the same ballpark as Lidstrom in plus-minus, given the vast difference in team quality and in ice time for a defenseman compared to a forward, makes it very difficult to accept claims that Lidstrom's defense was better than Jagr's offense or that Lidstrom was clearly the more valuable player.

The point is that it's fairly hard to be a minus player if you're facing off against players that won't score.

 

[Master_Of_Districts]

A lot of keystrokes to avoid the simple facts.

1997-98 Penguins finished in 1st place in the Northeast Division ahead of Boston,Buffalo, Montreal, Ottawa, Carolina. Pittsburgh had 228GF and 188GA only Buffalo with 187GA was better. Pittsburgh had only 30, 20 goal scorers, Boston had 5, Montreal and Carolina had 4 each, Buffalo and Ottawa had 2 each. Pittsburgh was quickly eliminated in the first round by Montreal in 6 games. The Northeast was a very physical division Pittsburgh at 1215PIM was fourth behind Buffalo 1752PIM, Montreal 1531PIM, Carolina 1443PIM.

1998-99 Penguins moved to the Atlantic Division, New Jersey with a history of defense and Philadelphia coached by Roger Neilson.
No Ron Francis but Pittsburgh still had offense contrary to your assertion - only team with 5 players who scored 20 or more.Also the Atlantic was less physical, Pittsburgh saw their PIM drop to 965PIM behind the other teams whose totals ranged from 1063PIM Flyers to 1341PIM Devils.So your colourful images of Jagr being abused do not hold in the. They finished 3rd, won the first round of the playoffs against a poorly prepared Robbie Ftorek, something they could not repeat against the a well coached Larry Robinson Devil team in 2001.

Unless I'm misreading here, the argument that your presenting appears to be:

Premise:

The Pittsburgh Penguins moved from the Northeast division in 1997-98 to the Atlantic division in 1998-99.

The teams in the Atlantic division collectively had fewer penalty minutes in 1998-99 than the teams in the Northeast division had in 1997-98.

Conclusion:

Therefore, Jaromir Jagr was not abused.

 

[Czech Your Math]

The point is that it's fairly hard to be a minus player if you're facing off against players that won't score.

That's true, but even checking line players are happy to take advantage of an AHL defense and a new goalie when given the chance. I would think Jagr had a lot more to do with the goals his line scored than the goals that were scored against his team while he's on the ice.

It's also not easy to pot goals when a team is always throwing its top checking line and top defensive pairing at you while often not trying to score but just get a stalemate. That's in an era when holding, hooking and slashing penalties were going extinct.

You'd think it near impossible for a star forward to have a significant minus rating, and yet:

Lemieux- 100 points (-35), 141 (-6), 123 (-18), 91 (-25)
Gretzky- 121 points (-12), 130 (-25), 102 (-13), 90 (-11)
Dionne - 78 points (-31), 121 (-15), 117 (-10), 94 (-22), 84 (-16)

 

[Canadiens1958]

Perimeter Player

You make it sound like a half court basketball game where you just man up and stay between your man and the basket. Hockey isn't always so straightforward at the NHL level.

Were the systems of the same complexity and did their exist the parity in player conditioning in Howe's time as there is today? I'm guessing Jagr would skip Gordie's "how to play defense" lecture and go to the "how to play 30-40 minutes per game as a forward" seminar, seeing that his team would then be at an advantage for 1/2-2/3 of the game and able to utilize Jagr's best talents to full advantage for a much longer proportion of each game.

I definitely don't think the downfall of Jagr's teams was that he didn't sacrifice offensive creativity for the sake of always playing perfect defense against the LW who was matched up against him.

Gordie Howe would also give the "How to play 30-40 minutes per game as a forward" lecture. Key elements being that you never waste energy protecting yourself from the boards or on unnecessary skating.

One of Jaromir Jagr offensive strengths was playing on the perimeter, setting up at the RW faceoff circle. One of your major complaints is that Jagr was constantly being abused by the opposition, the referees were not calling penalties etc.

Problem with perimeter players - Thornton, Kovalev, Jagr, Spezza is that when the play turns around it is very easy to catch them in a negative defensive position between a player and the boards. Also it is much easier to physically play against a player who allows himself to be caught close to the boards in all zones. Take the required stride or two inside and comeback. You create a better defensive angle, save steps and energy on the turnaround and make it more difficult for the opposition to play physical against you while enhancing your opportunities to play physical against them. But Jagr did not always do these little things that would facilitate defense while providing greater opportunity for offense and reducing the physical play on him.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Logical Coherence

Unless I'm misreading here, the argument that your presenting appears to be:

Premise:

The Pittsburgh Penguins moved from the Northeast division in 1997-98 to the Atlantic division in 1998-99.

The teams in the Atlantic division collectively had fewer penalty minutes in 1998-99 than the teams in the Northeast division had in 1997-98.

Conclusion:

Therefore, Jaromir Jagr was not abused.

Let's try some elementary logic

Fact #1
The Pittsburgh Penguins moved from the Northeast division in 1997-98 to the Atlantic division in 1998-99.

Fact#2
The teams in the Atlantic division collectively had fewer penalty minutes in 1998-99 than the teams in the Northeast division had in 1997-98.Because the top two teams played sound defense reducing the need for other tactics.The bottom two teams simply could not keep pace defensively.Pittsburgh was in the middle.

Fact#3
The Penguins and Jaromir Jagr did well in the Northeast as a team but not so well as a team in the Atlantic.Regardless Jaromir Jagr continued to do well individually.

Fact#4.
As a result of Fact #3 both the team and the player had a choice bewteen the status quo and adapting.

Conclusion #1
Jagr's individual stats did not suffer regardless of the style of play in a specific divison.

Conclusion #2
Given the flat line 3rd place performance of the team in the Atlantic Division neither the team or the player adapted in a fashion that produced an upgrade in team performance.

 

[Maupin Fan]

Let's try some elementary logic

Fact #1
The Pittsburgh Penguins moved from the Northeast division in 1997-98 to the Atlantic division in 1998-99.

Fact#2
The teams in the Atlantic division collectively had fewer penalty minutes in 1998-99 than the teams in the Northeast division had in 1997-98.Because the top two teams played sound defense reducing the need for other tactics.The bottom two teams simply could not keep pace defensively.Pittsburgh was in the middle.

Fact#3
The Penguins and Jaromir Jagr did well in the Northeast as a team but not so well as a team in the Atlantic.Regardless Jaromir Jagr continued to do well individually.

Fact#4.
As a result of Fact #3 both the team and the player had a choice bewteen the status quo and adapting.

Conclusion #1
Jagr's individual stats did not suffer regardless of the style of play in a specific divison.

Conclusion #2
Given the flat line 3rd place performance of the team in the Atlantic Division neither the team or the player adapted in a fashion that produced an upgrade in team performance.

Or maybe the Devils and Flyers were just better than the Penguins?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Okay.......

Or maybe the Devils and Flyers were just better than the Penguins?

If so then why?

 

[Maupin Fan]

If so then why?

Coaching and goaltending, specifically in 00 and 01. Constantine vs. Ftorek/Robinson and Neilson and Aubin/Skudra 00 vs. Brodeur and Vanbiesbrouck/Boucher and Aubin/Snow 01 vs. Brodeur and Cechmanek.

I would offer that the Devils were a better team than Pittsburgh without a doubt in 00 and 01, 99 is arguable. 00 Flyers definitively a better team than Pittsburgh, 99 and 01 post Lemieux return arguable.

I'm not saying that I fully disagree with your assessment of team defense, I just think that you are somewhat reaching when you say that Jagr wouldn't adapt and the team flatlined. It is possible that the Devils and Flyers may have just flat out been better or matched up well against the Penguins and that is why they outperformed them, instead of some shortcoming of Jagr.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Somewhat

Coaching and goaltending, specifically in 00 and 01. Constantine vs. Ftorek/Robinson and Neilson and Aubin/Skudra 00 vs. Brodeur and Vanbiesbrouck/Boucher and Aubin/Snow 01 vs. Brodeur and Cechmanek.

I would offer that the Devils were a better team than Pittsburgh without a doubt in 00 and 01, 99 is arguable. 00 Flyers definitively a better team than Pittsburgh, 99 and 01 post Lemieux return arguable.

I'm not saying that I fully disagree with your assessment of team defense, I just think that you are somewhat reaching when you say that Jagr wouldn't adapt and the team flatlined. It is possible that the Devils and Flyers may have just flat out been better or matched up well against the Penguins and that is why they outperformed them, instead of some shortcoming of Jagr.

Coaching, definitely once Ftorek is removed from consideration. Also consider Hlinka who basically did not adapt to the NHL too well.

Goaltending. Now we are getting somewhere.Brodeur is introduced into the debate. The value of a 70+ game a season goaltender that is HHOF caliber as opposed to a player who for a given time frame is the leading scorer but has shortcomings defensively.

The Flyers managed to overcome injuries to Lindros and Leclair during that stretch - 2000-01.Coaching played a significant part but coaching only makes a difference of players accept changing roles, styles, systems, etc. The acceptance by the players has to be complete, not partial.

Match-ups,a function of coaching and again the question of complete acceptance by the players. In any match-up players have to adapt. One thing to adapt to suit your offensive gave but you also have to make corresponding defensive adaptions.

It has been shown that Jaromir Jagr adapted his offensive game when the Penguins changed divisions. Did he make the corresponding defensive adaptions? Going beyond the school of thought that Jagr was beyond having to play defense, the indications are that he did not adapt. Really no different than Guy Lafleur,aging and post knee injury in a different era, did not adapt, especially defensively, leading to a premature retirement.Then look at the Washington period where Jagr basically played on reputation and you have a rather clear picture of a player who refused to mature offensively and defensively.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Just using my memory during this period there was not doubt in my mind Jagr was the number 1 in the NHL , maybe not every year but in general.

 

[Master_Of_Districts]

Let's try some elementary logic

Fact #1
The Pittsburgh Penguins moved from the Northeast division in 1997-98 to the Atlantic division in 1998-99.

Fact#2
The teams in the Atlantic division collectively had fewer penalty minutes in 1998-99 than the teams in the Northeast division had in 1997-98.Because the top two teams played sound defense reducing the need for other tactics.The bottom two teams simply could not keep pace defensively.Pittsburgh was in the middle.

Fact#3
The Penguins and Jaromir Jagr did well in the Northeast as a team but not so well as a team in the Atlantic.Regardless Jaromir Jagr continued to do well individually.

Fact#4.
As a result of Fact #3 both the team and the player had a choice bewteen the status quo and adapting.

Conclusion #1
Jagr's individual stats did not suffer regardless of the style of play in a specific divison.

Conclusion #2
Given the flat line 3rd place performance of the team in the Atlantic Division neither the team or the player adapted in a fashion that produced an upgrade in team performance.

The main problem with your argument is that the Penguins played 16 teams against Atlantic Division teams* in 1997-98 and 20 in 1998-99. In terms of games against Northeast Division teams**, they had 24 in 1997-98 and 20 in 1998-99.

Considering the balanced nature of their schedule in each season, it's difficult to argue that the division change had much of an effect.

*N.J, PHI, NYR, NYI; I'm not including FLA, T.B and WSH as these teams moved to the newly created SE in 1998-99

**BOS, MTL, TOR, BUF, OTT; I'm not including CAR as it moved to the SE in 1998-99

 

[Canadiens1958]

Divisions

The main problem with your argument is that the Penguins played 16 teams against Atlantic Division teams* in 1997-98 and 20 in 1998-99. In terms of games against Northeast Division teams**, they had 24 in 1997-98 and 20 in 1998-99.

Considering the balanced nature of their schedule in each season, it's difficult to argue that the division change had much of an effect.

*N.J, PHI, NYR, NYI; I'm not including FLA, T.B and WSH as these teams moved to the newly created SE in 1998-99

**BOS, MTL, TOR, BUF, OTT; I'm not including CAR as it moved to the SE in 1998-99

The NHL went from two first place divisional teams plus six assured playoff participation to three first place divisional teams plus five per conference assured playoff participation. Games within the division were still viewed as four point games while games outside the division were not viewed as four point games.

This impacts on strategies - games that the #2 goalie starts, rosters, player selection.

The basic point is that if you view the regular season schedule simply as an exercise to build individual statistics then there is little difference when it comes to the division. If the objective if to build a complete championship quality team then it matters significantly.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Just using my memory during this period there was not doubt in my mind Jagr was the number 1 in the NHL , maybe not every year but in general.

Pretty much. Him, Hasek, and Selanne until 2001ish, and then him, Lidstrom, and one of the big three in Denver.

Don't see the Lidstrom love with that Hart record though.

Jagr, 13-2-1-2-3-x-x-x
Hasek, 1-1-3-18-8-x-x-x
Selanne, 5-3-5-x-x-x-x-x
Lidstrom, x-14-x-9-10-x-8-x
Sakic, 14-x-15-14-1-7-x-7
Forsberg, 11-8-7-x-x-x-1-x
Roy, 8-x-x-x-x-3-12-x

Top Fives
Jagr (1-2-1-0-0)
Hasek (2-0-1-0-0)
Selanne (0-0-1-0-2)
Lidstrom (0-0-0-0-0)
Sakic (1-0-0-0-0)
Forsberg (1-0-0-0-0)
Roy (0-0-1-0-0)


Brodeur actually has the most Top Fives of the era (0-0-2-2-1).