Best player in the NHL 97-2004

[unknown33]

Winning % without players from '97-04 (all losses counted as 0 points; expected is weighted by games missed based on win% with player):

Sakic (91 games)
-------
expected .592
actual .593

Forsberg (123 games)
-----------
expected .634
actual .533

Jagr (70 games)
------
expected .564
actual .371

Thanks
Very interesting

What are you sources for boxscores?

 

[Czech Your Math]

Man, was Jagr great or what... A question, have you incorporated the quality of the opposition in the expected win percentage?

No, quality of opposition was not incorporated into those stats. It would take a lot more time to figure out which games were missed.

Actually, have better data for '04 season (previously estimated from season records of Wash/NYR) which changes Jagr's numbers slightly:

expected .559
actual .379

Hasek from '97-02 (133 games, he missed all of '03 and most of '04)
------------------------------
expected .600
actual .455
(games w/o decision for Hasek are considered w/o Hasek)

Lindros from '97-02 (97 games)
-----------------------
expected .604
actual .572
(Lindros' best 8 season stretch is '93-00, when he missed 140 games; expected .592, actual .518)

 

[Czech Your Math]

Thanks
Very interesting

What are you sources for boxscores?

Game logs from Hockeyreference.com, although may have used LetsGoPens.com and Yahoo game logs for Jagr's numbers (that's why I just recalculated '04 season when he played for two teams).

 

[matnor]

No, quality of opposition was not incorporated into those stats. It would take a lot more time to figure out which games were missed.

Actually, have better data for '04 season (previously estimated from season records of Wash/NYR) which changes Jagr's numbers slightly:

expected .559
actual .379

Hasek from '97-02 (133 games, he missed all of '03 and most of '04)
------------------------------
expected .600
actual .455
(games w/o decision for Hasek are considered w/o Hasek)

Lindros from '97-02 (97 games)
-----------------------
expected .604
actual .572
(Lindros' best 8 season stretch is '93-00, when he missed 140 games; expected .592, actual .518)

Actually, using the HSP-data it should be fairly straightforward, I might get cracking on it...

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Forsberg played with one of the most talented wingers in the league (Kamensky) and a well known clutch player (C. Lemieux) 1995-1999.

Yeah, the Kamensky-Forsberg-Lemieux line was known as one of the best lines in the league for quite a number of years. Sakic basically got the leftover linemates during this team, usually worse players, but it did give him the chance to play with Fleury after the deadline that one year.

You might want to re-evaluate how much stock you put into his 2002 playoffs then, because he wasn't returning to hockey from the spleen injury; he had foot issues and an ankle surgery.

http://www.angelfire.com/on2/peter21/2002.html

Right, but he still took the year off to fix everything little that was wrong, a luxury most players don't get a chance to take. He certainly seemed to come back better than ever.

 

[matnor]

Yeah, the Kamensky-Forsberg-Lemieux line was known as one of the best lines in the league for quite a number of years. Sakic basically got the leftover linemates during this team, usually worse players, but it did give him the chance to play with Fleury after the deadline that one year.



Right, but he still took the year off to fix everything little that was wrong, a luxury most players don't get a chance to take. He certainly seemed to come back better than ever.

Again, he was supposed to come back in January but had to have another go of surgery. That wasn't voluntary.

 

[charliolemieux]

97-2001 it was Jagr easily for a skater and Hasek as a goalie.
The last few seasons are debatable.

Forsberg, Sakic, Thorton, Pronger, Lidstrom, Brodeur are all in the mix.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

Forsberg played with one of the most talented wingers in the league (Kamensky) and a well known clutch player (C. Lemieux) 1995-1999.

They're not any better than Kovalev, Straka, or Lang. A fair bit worse they are actually.

 

[MXD]

Hasek for me.
Then Jagr.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Winning % without players from '97-04 (all losses counted as 0 points; expected is weighted by games missed based on win% with player):

Sakic (91 games)
-------
expected .592
actual .593

Forsberg (123 games)
-----------
expected .634
actual .533

Jagr (70 games)
------
expected .564
actual .371

Not to nitpick, but given the fact that both Sakic and Forsberg are being passed around as two of the three best forwards of the era and played for the same team- one with Patrick Roy- doesn't it go without saying that Jagr's health was more important to his teams than Sakic's or Forsberg's to theirs?

 

[Czech Your Math]

Not to nitpick, but given the fact that both Sakic and Forsberg are being passed around as two of the three best forwards of the era and played for the same team- one with Patrick Roy- doesn't it go without saying that Jagr's health was more important to his teams than Sakic's or Forsberg's to theirs?

It shouldn't be a total surprise, although it was perhaps most evident in '97 when the Pens still had Lemieux and Francis and were a .587 team with Jagr and 4-13-2 without him. Also, the almost identical winning % with and without Sakic was a surprise to me.

 

[norrisnick]

I think there is a case for Lidström but only if you value consistancy.

He leads all defencemen in points both regular season (476 to 424) and the playoffs (77 to 56).

3 Norris trophies (+3 runner ups).
6 straight first team all star.
3 Stanley cups.
1 Conn Smythe trophy.

the case against him is peak. I would say Hasek, Forsberg, Jagr and Sakic all had higher peaks during this period.

Jagr leads in points quite largely. has 4 Art Rosses a Hart and 2 Lindsey. but he has his Washington years.

Forsberg leads all players points for playoffs and is top 2 for +/- in both regular and playoff (I know it´s a hard stat to judge but I think this double lead says something. but he has his constant injuries and the fact that he wasn´t that much part of their Stanley.

Sakic of course was and also has a Hart but he also missed a few games in this time with only one real superstar season (but that season was something).

My pick would probably be Hasek. He did not play that many games but I think his peak (97-99) is one of the greatest ever and on another level than the others. 2 straight Hart trophies for a goalie in this or any era is outrageous. plus him carrying Buffalo to the finals and his cup in Detroit. on top of this the Nagano performance and 4 vezinas.

My ranking would be.

1. Hasek
2. Jagr
3. Lidström
4/5. Forsberg/Sakic

Lidstrom's peak is grossly underrated. His play is quiet and boring, but defensively, particularly during that stretch, he was pretty much unbeatable.

Just to pick on Jagr for a minute. IMO, Lidstrom was better defensively than Jagr was offensively. And he most certainly was better offensively than Jagr was defensively.

One made highlight reels and the other prevented them.

 

[canucks4ever]

Lidstrom's peak is grossly underrated. His play is quiet and boring, but defensively, particularly during that stretch, he was pretty much unbeatable.

Just to pick on Jagr for a minute. IMO, Lidstrom was better defensively than Jagr was offensively. And he most certainly was better offensively than Jagr was defensively.

One made highlight reels and the other prevented them.

That's your opinion, Jagr is usually considered the 4th or 5th best offensive player of all times. Doug Harvey, Rod Langway and Serge Savard are all usually considered superior to Lidstrom defensively, and there might be others. The only players who have better top 10 point finishes are Howe, Gretzky and Mario, Lidstrom isnt in that class.

I love Lidstrom but Jagr was more valuable to his team. I don't think the penguins would have traded jagr for lidstrom straight up.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Jaromir Jagr's Trade Value

That's your opinion, Jagr is usually considered the 4th or 5th best offensive player of all times. Doug Harvey, Rod Langway and Serge Savard are all usually considered superior to Lidstrom defensively, and there might be others. The only players who have better top 10 point finishes are Howe, Gretzky and Mario, Lidstrom isnt in that class.

I love Lidstrom but Jagr was more valuable to his team. I don't think the penguins would have traded jagr for lidstrom straight up.

Are you serious? No one was offering a Nicklas Lidstrom or a similar caliber player for a prime Jagr - aged 28 when the Penguins wanted to move him:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/j/jagrja01.html

Look at the three suspects the Penguins received for Jaromir Jagr - Beech, Sivek, Lupaschuk, guys that couldn't star in the AHL let alone play in the NHL. Even giving up next to nothing did not help Washington as they went from 1st in their division the season before Jagr to 5th by the time he wore out his welcome and was trade to the Rangers at age 31 for Anson Carter. The Rangers promptly tanked the rest of the season with Jagr playing slightly better than .250 hockey.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

Are you serious? No one was offering a Nicklas Lidstrom or a similar caliber player for a prime Jagr - aged 28 when the Penguins wanted to move him:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/j/jagrja01.html

Look at the three suspects the Penguins received for Jaromir Jagr - Beech, Sivek, Lupaschuk, guys that couldn't star in the AHL let alone play in the NHL. Even giving up next to nothing did not help Washington as they went from 1st in their division the season before Jagr to 5th by the time he wore out his welcome and was trade to the Rangers at age 31 for Anson Carter. The Rangers promptly tanked the rest of the season with Jagr playing slightly better than .250 hockey.

Obviously Jagr's price tag had something to do with it, but it is certainly a fair point. Lidstrom has been underrated in this time frame.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

That's your opinion, Jagr is usually considered the 4th or 5th best offensive player of all times. Doug Harvey, Rod Langway and Serge Savard are all usually considered superior to Lidstrom defensively, and there might be others. The only players who have better top 10 point finishes are Howe, Gretzky and Mario, Lidstrom isnt in that class.

I love Lidstrom but Jagr was more valuable to his team. I don't think the penguins would have traded jagr for lidstrom straight up.

But that would make Lidstrom also 4th or 5th defensively. Offense from defensemen is weighed too heavily in this forum (IMO), but Lidstrom was still pretty darn good offensively as well.

 

[Big Phil]

Kind of an awkward timeframe because in the earlier part of 1997-2004 this was Jagr's NHL plain and simple. After 2001 it wasn't his anymore but it isn't as if he faded off the face of the earth. He was 5th in scoring in 2002 at a time when people assumed Jagr was on a downslide. He had two non-Jagr like seasons after that but Can anyone else make a claim that they can beat a Hart, 4 Art Ross trophies, 4 First team all-stars? So my pick is Jagr.

After that Lidstrom is as good of a choice as any. 1997-'98 is where he started to rack up his First team all-stars. He won three Norrises in this time frame also and other than 2004 was great the whole time. Two Cups and a Conn Smythe also

Hasek is another case. Won a Hart, three Vezinas, a Cup, another Cup final appearance with absurd teams.

Sakic is ahead of Forsberg IMO. Here's why. While I give Forsberg the credit of leading the postseason in points two years that the team didn't make the final I have been very vocal in my support for Sakic in 2001 when he Avs won the Cup. Roy was a fine choice for the Conn Smythe, but the world wouldn't have ended had Sakic won it instead. Plus Forsberg was injured a lot then. He missed all of 2001-'02 and most of 2003-'04. Sakic had three first team all-stars, a Hart, captaining a Cup, MVP of the Olympics and a World Cup victory. Unlike Forsberg he was healthy all of those years too, gotta give him points for that.

Brodeur would be my next choice. Nothing against Roy, but this was nearing the end of his career and he didn't play in 2004 and his final season in 2003 was not very good. Brodeur won two Vezinas, two Cups, an Olympic Gold, a World Cup and also was the most important player on the 2003 Cup winning team despite his opponent Giguere winning the Smythe (which I was fine with). That's a better resume than Roy in that timeframe.

 

[unknown33]

Are you serious? No one was offering a Nicklas Lidstrom or a similar caliber player for a prime Jagr - aged 28 when the Penguins wanted to move him:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/j/jagrja01.html

They couldn't affort a Nicklas Lidstrom (8,500,000 $) or a similar caliber player.


If a player has to be moved like Jagr back in 2001 you won't get much return for him (Roy '95)

 

[Big Phil]

They couldn't affort a Nicklas Lidstrom (8,500,000 $) or a similar caliber player.


If a player has to be moved like Jagr back in 2001 you won't get much return for him (Roy '95)

A GM would have been sent to a mental hospital if he suggested trading Jagr for the rights to Lidstrom in, oh, let's say 1999 or so. Originally it was hard to accept that after Mario retired and Gretzky got old that a Czech was the best player in the world for a decent amount of time but as time has gone on there just isn't a reason to think otherwise

 

[RabbinsDuck]

Kind of an awkward timeframe because in the earlier part of 1997-2004 this was Jagr's NHL plain and simple. After 2001 it wasn't his anymore but it isn't as if he faded off the face of the earth. He was 5th in scoring in 2002 at a time when people assumed Jagr was on a downslide. He had two non-Jagr like seasons after that but Can anyone else make a claim that they can beat a Hart, 4 Art Ross trophies, 4 First team all-stars? So my pick is Jagr.

After that Lidstrom is as good of a choice as any. 1997-'98 is where he started to rack up his First team all-stars. He won three Norrises in this time frame also and other than 2004 was great the whole time. Two Cups and a Conn Smythe also

Hasek is another case. Won a Hart, three Vezinas, a Cup, another Cup final appearance with absurd teams.

Sakic is ahead of Forsberg IMO. Here's why. While I give Forsberg the credit of leading the postseason in points two years that the team didn't make the final I have been very vocal in my support for Sakic in 2001 when he Avs won the Cup. Roy was a fine choice for the Conn Smythe, but the world wouldn't have ended had Sakic won it instead. Plus Forsberg was injured a lot then. He missed all of 2001-'02 and most of 2003-'04. Sakic had three first team all-stars, a Hart, captaining a Cup, MVP of the Olympics and a World Cup victory. Unlike Forsberg he was healthy all of those years too, gotta give him points for that.

Brodeur would be my next choice. Nothing against Roy, but this was nearing the end of his career and he didn't play in 2004 and his final season in 2003 was not very good. Brodeur won two Vezinas, two Cups, an Olympic Gold, a World Cup and also was the most important player on the 2003 Cup winning team despite his opponent Giguere winning the Smythe (which I was fine with). That's a better resume than Roy in that timeframe.

Agree on Sakic, Brodeur and also that Jagr undeservedly gets the short end of the stick a lot around here.... but I would like to compare the bolded with Lidstrom.

Jagr has:
1 Hart
4 Art Rosses
4 1st Team All-Star Selections
1 2nd Team All-Star Selection

Lidstrom has:
1 Conn Smythe
3 Norris Trophies
6 1st Team All-Star Selections
3 Stanley Cups (of which he was an integral part of)

During that time frame Jagr finished in points amongst forwards:
1, 1, 1, 1, 5, 6

Lidstrom finished amongst defensemen in points:
1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3

During this time Lidstrom was also either amongst the best in the league or amongst the best of all-time defensively. Obviously Jagr is not a blip on the radar here... and I really should be comparing Lidstrom's defense with Jagr's offense, and his offense against Jagr's defense, but that makes it a complete landslide in favor of Lidstrom.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Trades

They couldn't affort a Nicklas Lidstrom (8,500,000 $) or a similar caliber player.


If a player has to be moved like Jagr back in 2001 you won't get much return for him (Roy '95)

Regardless of the contract situation you have to look at value defined by NHL performance or games.

When the Penguins traded Jagr to Washington in 2001 the direct and indirect benefits to the Penguins produced a grand total 136 NHL games and 13G 20A.

On the other hand when other stars were traded:

Roy to Colorado, produced a minimum of direct and indirect benefits to the Canadiens in the form of > 1150 NHL games.

Oates from St.Louis to Boston produced a direct and indirect benefit to the Blues of > 1200 NHL games.

Oates from Boston to Washington produced a direct and indirect benefit of > 1200 games.

Point is that regardless of the fan perceived talent or honours if the player raises Red Flag questions he can be obtained for very little. Example Alex Kovalev to the Canadiens for Jozej Balej.

Regardless of the fact that Balej played all of 13 games for the Rangers while Kovalev played over 300 for the Canadiens, the net result was that neither team made significant progress. The Canadiens just looked better.

 

[Master_Of_Districts]

Brodeur would be my next choice. Nothing against Roy, but this was nearing the end of his career and he didn't play in 2004 and his final season in 2003 was not very good. Brodeur won two Vezinas, two Cups, an Olympic Gold, a World Cup and also was the most important player on the 2003 Cup winning team despite his opponent Giguere winning the Smythe (which I was fine with). That's a better resume than Roy in that timeframe.

Roy had a regular season save percentage of 0.920 in 2002-03, which placed him 6th in the league according to hockey reference. That's pretty good.

In case you're irrational and dislike using save percentage as a measure of a goalie's performance, I'll also point out that Roy was among the league leaders in wins and shutouts that season.

 

[Maupin Fan]

Roy had a regular season save percentage of 0.920 in 2002-03, which placed him 6th in the league according to hockey reference. That's pretty good.

In case you're irrational and dislike using save percentage as a measure of a goalie's performance, I'll also point out that Roy was among the league leaders in wins and shutouts that season.

My guess is that he was referring more to the playoffs against Minnesota rather than the regular season when talking of Roy in 03.

 

[pluppe]

Kind of an awkward timeframe because in the earlier part of 1997-2004 this was Jagr's NHL plain and simple. After 2001 it wasn't his anymore but it isn't as if he faded off the face of the earth. He was 5th in scoring in 2002 at a time when people assumed Jagr was on a downslide. He had two non-Jagr like seasons after that but Can anyone else make a claim that they can beat a Hart, 4 Art Ross trophies, 4 First team all-stars? So my pick is Jagr.

After that Lidstrom is as good of a choice as any. 1997-'98 is where he started to rack up his First team all-stars. He won three Norrises in this time frame also and other than 2004 was great the whole time. Two Cups and a Conn Smythe also

Hasek is another case. Won a Hart, three Vezinas, a Cup, another Cup final appearance with absurd teams.

Sakic is ahead of Forsberg IMO. Here's why. While I give Forsberg the credit of leading the postseason in points two years that the team didn't make the final I have been very vocal in my support for Sakic in 2001 when he Avs won the Cup. Roy was a fine choice for the Conn Smythe, but the world wouldn't have ended had Sakic won it instead. Plus Forsberg was injured a lot then. He missed all of 2001-'02 and most of 2003-'04. Sakic had three first team all-stars, a Hart, captaining a Cup, MVP of the Olympics and a World Cup victory. Unlike Forsberg he was healthy all of those years too, gotta give him points for that.

Brodeur would be my next choice. Nothing against Roy, but this was nearing the end of his career and he didn't play in 2004 and his final season in 2003 was not very good. Brodeur won two Vezinas, two Cups, an Olympic Gold, a World Cup and also was the most important player on the 2003 Cup winning team despite his opponent Giguere winning the Smythe (which I was fine with). That's a better resume than Roy in that timeframe.

sorry to nitpick but he has two Harts as the only goalie ever. I think that makes his case much much stronger.

 

[Czech Your Math]

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.