Best player in the NHL 97-2004

[Canadiens1958]

Review the Pythagorean Expectation

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.

1997-98 Penguins with Jagr and Francis finished first in their division with 228 GF and 188 GA. Jagr was was 33 + 67 = 102.

1998-99 Penguins with Jagr ,no Francis, finished third in their division with 242 GF and 225 GA. Jagr was was 44 + 83 = 127.

Effectively the additional offense that Jagr generated without Francis did not compensate for the diminished defense so your point as it pertains to Jagr's "the best defense is a good offense." is demonstrably false.

Furthermore do a very basic Pythagorean Expectation and the benefits to a team is greater if they reduce the number of GA as opposed to an equal increase in GF. In other words given the choice between scoring x more goals a season and allowing x fewer goals a season the team taking the defensive option has a greater expectation of winning.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

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.

It does make sense to compare strengths, however - which pits Lidstrom's defense against Jagr's offense. Both are up with the best ever in that regard, but Lidstrom brings a lot more to the table besides defense - like his offense and superior post-season play. That should not just be ignored because it's not fair to Jagr.

The +\- data definitely indicates Lidstrom's teams were much better than Jagr's

 

[Czech Your Math]

1997-98 Penguins with Jagr and Francis finished first in their division with 228 GF and 188 GA. Jagr was was 33 + 67 = 102.

1998-99 Penguins with Jagr ,no Francis, finished third in their division with 242 GF and 225 GA. Jagr was was 44 + 83 = 127.

Effectively the additional offense that Jagr generated without Francis did not compensate for the diminished defense so your point as it pertains to Jagr's "the best defense is a good offense." is demonstrably false.

We disagree, as usual. I don't see how Jagr being the best player in the league and again leading a below average team to the playoffs demonstrates "the best defense is a good offense" to be a faulty strategy for his line.

Actually, the data you present helps to demonstrate that:

- Jagr wins the Ross in '98 with Francis (35 that spring) and Stu Barnes as linemates.
- Jagr wins the Ross in '99 with Hrdina, Miller and Straka as his main linemates.
- Francis goes from 82 points and +12 with Jagr to 52 points and -2 with Carolina (who is about +18 when Francis isn't on ice).
- Jagr is +17 each season, but without him on the ice his team goes from about -2 to about -12. Losing Francis didn't help, neither did Barrasso playing fewer games (nor Barrasso/Skudra having lower save % than in '98).

Furthermore do a very basic Pythagorean Expectation and the benefits to a team is greater if they reduce the number of GA as opposed to an equal increase in GF. In other words given the choice between scoring x more goals a season and allowing x fewer goals a season the team taking the defensive option has a greater expectation of winning.

This is only true if GF > GA. When GF < GA (which was usually the case for Jagr's teams when he wasn't on the ice), each additional goal scored increases the GF/GA ratio more than would a goal prevented. The equilibrium point is actually when GF is one less than GA, when either a goal scored or a goal prevented would put the ratio at exactly 1.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Based on the fact that everyone is now discussing Jagr, Lidstrom, Hasek etc.. is it safe to say the Forsberg as "generational talent who dominated the league" has been decisively put down?

It is looking like there is widespread agreement that he was top 5 during his time in the league and had a very brief moment in the sun as the level of competition dipped right before the lockout.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Absolutely False

We disagree, as usual. I don't see how Jagr being the best player in the league and again leading a below average team to the playoffs demonstrates "the best defense is a good offense" to be a faulty strategy for his line.

Actually, the data you present helps to demonstrate that:

- Jagr wins the Ross in '98 with Francis (35 that spring) and Stu Barnes as linemates.
- Jagr wins the Ross in '99 with Hrdina, Miller and Straka as his main linemates.
- Francis goes from 82 points and +12 with Jagr to 52 points and -2 with Carolina (who is about +18 when Francis isn't on ice).
- Jagr is +17 each season, but without him on the ice his team goes from about -2 to about -12. Losing Francis didn't help, neither did Barrasso playing fewer games (nor Barrasso/Skudra having lower save % than in '98).



This is only true if GF > GA. When GF < GA (which was usually the case for Jagr's teams when he wasn't on the ice), each additional goal scored increases the GF/GA ratio more than would a goal prevented. The equilibrium point is actually when GF is one less than GA, when either a goal scored or a goal prevented would put the ratio at exactly 1.

Absolutely false. Simple counter example regardless who is on the ice wrecks your position.

Team with 100GF, 110GA has a Pythagorean expectation of .4525.

If their numbers improve offensively to 120GF, 110GA the Pythagorean Expectation becomes .5434. If their numbers improve defensively to 100GF, 90GA the Pythagorean Expectation becomes .5525, producing a better expectation of winning.

Your equilibrium point still produces losing conditions. Taken to an extreme you are actually trying to argue that a one goal loss in regulation is actually a tie. Not buying.

As for including Jagr in the Pythagorean expectation, historically teams with great scorers only won anything of importance when their goals against went down. Oilers between 1984 and 1988 won when they reduced their GA and GF. In 1986 when their GF and GA went up they did not win.

That Jaromir Jagr could not / would not play defense is rather evident when you look at the list of 100+ point seasons by players in order of +/-. Jaromir Jagr fairs rather poorly all time, making his first appearance on the list at 83rd after his so-called prime:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...l=&order_by=plus_minus&order_by_asc=&offset=0

So your plus/minus analogy despite the spin is far from impressive when compared to the results generated by other players from comparable numbers. Some of the players ahead of Jagr and the teams they played on should drive the point home very clearly.

 

[Czech Your Math]

It does make sense to compare strengths, however - which pits Lidstrom's defense against Jagr's offense. Both are up with the best ever in that regard, but Lidstrom brings a lot more to the table besides defense - like his offense and superior post-season play. That should not just be ignored because it's not fair to Jagr.

The +\- data definitely indicates Lidstrom's teams were much better than Jagr's

The question is which player has more value, whether via offense or defense. I don't ignore Lidstrom's offense, in fact I know it's a large part of his value. I don't agree that Lidstrom was superior in post-season play. Both are great players, whether in the regular season or playoffs. They play different positions and generally for teams of different quality, which makes the comparison all the more difficult.

As far as post-season:

Lidstrom
-----------
'97-04: +28 for teams which were +15 w/o him on ice
Career: +53 for teams which were +68 w/o him on ice
(after rookie season: +58 for teams which were +63)
Prime (for this stat, '94-04): +38 for teams which were +24 w/o him

Jagr
------
'97-04: +13 for teams which were -22 w/o him on ice
Career: +38 for teams which were -20 w/o him on ice
(after rookie season: +36 for teams which were -43 w/o him)
Prime (for this stat, '95-08): +32 on teams which were -48 w/o him

 

[Czech Your Math]

Absolutely false. Simple counter example regardless who is on the ice wrecks your position.

Team with 100GF, 110GA has a Pythagorean expectation of .4525.

If their numbers improve offensively to 120GF, 110GA the Pythagorean Expectation becomes .5434. If their numbers improve defensively to 100GF, 90GA the Pythagorean Expectation becomes .5525, producing a better expectation of winning.

I was speaking of incremental (single) goals. In your example, adding 20 goals changed it from a <1 (100/110) ratio to a >1 (120/110 or 100/90) ratio.

Using your example of 100 GF and 110 GA and adding 5 GF or subtracting 5 GA:

add 5 GF- 105/110 = .9545 GF/GA
subtract 5 GA- 100/105 = .9524 GF/GA

The higher GF/GA ratio will produce the higher pythagorean expected win%, the actual number depending on the exponent used.

Your equilibrium point still produces losing conditions. Taken to an extreme you are actually trying to argue that a one goal loss in regulation is actually a tie. Not buying.

Not quite sure what you are saying here, but in your "extreme" example a one goal deficit becomes a tie whether you add a goal for or subtract a goal against, so I don't see how this invalidates what I said.

As for including Jagr in the Pythagorean expectation, historically teams with great scorers only won anything of importance when their goals against went down. Oilers between 1984 and 1988 won when they reduced their GA and GF. In 1986 when their GF and GA went up they did not win.

I don't know whether this is true, but it would be an interesting study. Are you suggesting the Oilers accomplished this due to the sudden defensive prowess of Wayne Gretzky?

That Jaromir Jagr could not / would not play defense is rather evident when you look at the list of 100+ point seasons by players in order of +/-. Jaromir Jagr fairs rather poorly all time, making his first appearance on the list at 83rd after his so-called prime.

So your plus/minus analogy despite the spin is far from impressive when compared to the results generated by other players from comparable numbers. Some of the players ahead of Jagr and the teams they played on should drive the point home very clearly.

That's a rather arbitrary way to try to prove a point. Jagr also had several seasons near 100 points (or which adjust to over 100 points) with very good +/- during a low scoring era.

The players with the most seaons of at least 90 points and +15 since '93 (when Jagr first accomplished this) to present are:

Jagr 11*
Selanne 4
Lindros 4*
LeClair 4*
Forsberg 3
Thornton 3
17 players with 2
(* if '95 projected to 82 games)

In each of Jagr's 90 point seasons he was +15 or better. Lemieux scored 90 points or more 11 times also, but was +15 or better only 5 times and actually a minus in 4 of those seasons. Crosby was +15 last season, the first season in which he met the criteria.

Considering the adjusted plus-minus data presented by Overpass, the large disparity in team winning % with or without Jagr, etc., I don't find your list very convincing, especially as most of the players during their primes played on much stronger teams in eras with much less parity and much higher scoring.

 

[ContrarianGoaltender]

As for including Jagr in the Pythagorean expectation, historically teams with great scorers only won anything of importance when their goals against went down. Oilers between 1984 and 1988 won when they reduced their GA and GF. In 1986 when their GF and GA went up they did not win.

I'd agree that the Oilers improved defensively in the playoffs, but I don't think you can say that for all teams. The New York Islanders dynasty, for example, only started winning Cups when the offence came around in the playoffs. They had solid defensive play and goaltending in the late '70s despite repeated playoff disappointment.

 

[quoipourquoi]

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.

But didn't Sean Avery offer a similar effect to the New York Rangers in 2007 and 2008? I just don't think that's the best way to go about judging players, even as a tie-breaker. There are just way too many outside factors involved.

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.

It wasn't that bad. His .920 SPCT was sixth in the league and better than the Vezina winner's mark of .914 (14th)... but then again, I refuse to acknowledge that the 2003 Vezina went to anyone but Marty Turco.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Islanders

I'd agree that the Oilers improved defensively in the playoffs, but I don't think you can say that for all teams. The New York Islanders dynasty, for example, only started winning Cups when the offence came around in the playoffs. They had solid defensive play and goaltending in the late '70s despite repeated playoff disappointment.

A team plays in the playoffs like it does during the regular season. During their 1980/1981/1983 SC wins the Islanders scored fewer regular season goals than they did in 1979.Regular season vs playoffs 1980-1983, every year the playoff GAA was lower than the regular season. Their GPG split.

 

[norrisnick]

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.

Jagr went head to head against guys like John Madden.

Lidstrom went head to head against guys like Jaromir Jagr.

Who's going to have the prettier +/- when all is said and done?

 

[Puck Scorer]

lidstrom was a big part of the detroit domination in those years

 

[Canadiens1958]

Realistic Analysis

I was speaking of incremental (single) goals. In your example, adding 20 goals changed it from a <1 (100/110) ratio to a >1 (120/110 or 100/90) ratio.

Using your example of 100 GF and 110 GA and adding 5 GF or subtracting 5 GA:

add 5 GF- 105/110 = .9545 GF/GA
subtract 5 GA- 100/105 = .9524 GF/GA

The higher GF/GA ratio will produce the higher pythagorean expected win%, the actual number depending on the exponent used.



Not quite sure what you are saying here, but in your "extreme" example a one goal deficit becomes a tie whether you add a goal for or subtract a goal against, so I don't see how this invalidates what I said.



I don't know whether this is true, but it would be an interesting study. Are you suggesting the Oilers accomplished this due to the sudden defensive prowess of Wayne Gretzky?



That's a rather arbitrary way to try to prove a point. Jagr also had several seasons near 100 points (or which adjust to over 100 points) with very good +/- during a low scoring era.

The players with the most seaons of at least 90 points and +15 since '93 (when Jagr first accomplished this) to present are:

Jagr 11*
Selanne 4
Lindros 4*
LeClair 4*
Forsberg 3
Thornton 3
17 players with 2
(* if '95 projected to 82 games)

In each of Jagr's 90 point seasons he was +15 or better. Lemieux scored 90 points or more 11 times also, but was +15 or better only 5 times and actually a minus in 4 of those seasons. Crosby was +15 last season, the first season in which he met the criteria.

Considering the adjusted plus-minus data presented by Overpass, the large disparity in team winning % with or without Jagr, etc., I don't find your list very convincing, especially as most of the players during their primes played on much stronger teams in eras with much less parity and much higher scoring.

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

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

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/g/gretzwa01.html

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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

 

[canucks4ever]

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

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

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/g/gretzwa01.html

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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

So, what you are trying to say is that Jagr brought no value to his team?

I love it how you try to hold Jagr's washington years against him, when other past superstars had several off-years. It seems like you just hate any non-canadian player.

Jagr was carrying his team to the playoffs every year and he was the best forward during that era, nothing you say will change that.

How did the quebec nordiques do before Roy and Forsberg came along, yeah that's right Joe Sakic couldn't even take them to the playoffs. It takes more than 1 player for a team to go far, something you always fail to realize.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Comparables

So, what you are trying to say is that Jagr brought no value to his team?

I love it how you try to hold Jagr's washington years against him, when other past superstars had several off-years. It seems like you just hate any non-canadian player.

Basic point is that for the numbers that Jagr generated he did not bring proportionate value and contribution to his team.Hardly the sign of "the Best" player of an era.

Peter Forsberg, Sergei Fedorov, Nicklas Lidstrom generated numbers that were not as attractive as Jagr's but they all brought more value and made a greater contribution to their teams.

 

[canucks4ever]

Basic point is that for the numbers that Jagr generated he did not bring proportionate value and contribution to his team.Hardly the sign of "the Best" player of an era.

Peter Forsberg, Sergei Fedorov, Nicklas Lidstrom generated numbers that were not as attractive as Jagr's but they all brought more value and made a greater contribution to their teams.

So tell me, where did Fedorov take the ducks once he was off the powerhouse red wings. Or better yet, where did Forsberg take the flyers or predators, oh yeah they didn't take those teams anywhere.

Remember the Joe Sakic era of the Quebec Nordiques, they couldn't even make the playoffs for gods sakes.

The 1999 and 2000 penguins were pathetic teams and jagr was still taking them into the playoffs and averaging well over a point per game. Far more impressive than Fedorov's stint with the ducks, or Forsberg's great runs with the flyers and predators.

For the next hoh top 100, you should make arguments that Fedorov and Forsberg are better than Jagr, i'm sure you will gain tons of support, lol.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Nordiques

So, what you are trying to say is that Jagr brought no value to his team?

I love it how you try to hold Jagr's washington years against him, when other past superstars had several off-years. It seems like you just hate any non-canadian player.

Jagr was carrying his team to the playoffs every year and he was the best forward during that era, nothing you say will change that.

How did the quebec nordiques do before Roy and Forsberg came along, yeah that's right Joe Sakic couldn't even take them to the playoffs. It takes more than 1 player for a team to go far, something you always fail to realize.

Without Roy and Forsberg the Nordiques made the playoffs in 1993 finishing the regular season ahead of Patrick Roy and the Canadiens. Blew a 2-0 game lead in the playoffs, Pierre Page had a meltdown and lost the team during the 1993-94 season.

 

[Czech Your Math]

But didn't Sean Avery offer a similar effect to the New York Rangers in 2007 and 2008? I just don't think that's the best way to go about judging players, even as a tie-breaker. There are just way too many outside factors involved.

Definitely wouldn't put too much into a single season or a small sample of games and wouldn't use it as one of the primary ways to judge a player's value. However, 70-133 games missed over several seasons is enough to show some significant effects.

I only brought up '97 in particular (after already posting data for '97-04), because the Pens still had Lemieux and Francis in Jagr's absence. The other poster mentioned the Avs had both Sakic and Forsberg, so that one could pick up the slack when the other was out.

As far as Avery, in '07 he was traded to the Rangers for the last 29 games of the season, which isn't exactly the same as missing games with injury. There was a similar, but much greater effect when Elias returned to Devils in '06 (19-25 before, 27-11 after). It's different when a team is playing as a unit all year, then gets a boost from the acquisition or return of a good player.

Avery's absence seemed to hurt the Rangers in '07 and '08, but help them in '09 and '10. He missed 53 games in '07 (before trade) and 41 games in '09, and that tends to distort things more, which is why it's tougher to decide which years to look at for Lemieux.

Still, here's Avery with Rangers from '07-'10 (130 games):

expected .526
actual .515

 

[canucks4ever]

Without Roy and Forsberg the Nordiques made the playoffs in 1993 finishing the regular season ahead of Patrick Roy and the Canadiens. Blew a 2-0 game lead in the playoffs, Pierre Page had a meltdown and lost the team during the 1993-94 season.

Bravo, he took them to the playoffs once in 6 years, lets give him a standing ovation. The eric lidnros trade and the players that came along with it is what brought quebec to the playoffs, sakic didnt even lead his team in scoring that year.

The ducks sure thought fedorov contributed so much and that's why he turned thier franchise around so much

The deadpuck era belonged to jagr, hasek and lidstrom. Europeans took over the good ole canadian game.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

expected .526
actual .515

Could you explain how you calculate this? Thanks!

 

[Czech Your Math]

A team plays in the playoffs like it does during the regular season. During their 1980/1981/1983 SC wins the Islanders scored fewer regular season goals than they did in 1979.Regular season vs playoffs 1980-1983, every year the playoff GAA was lower than the regular season. Their GPG split.

Interesting defensive strategy in 1980, considering that it led to not just fewer goals for, but also:

- power play effectiveness going from over 31% in '79 to under 24%
- the team going from roughly +118 (588/5) to +41 (201/5)
- 2nd in GA in '79 to 4th, allowing .41 more GPG in '80
- 1st in points and GF/GA ratio to 5th and 6th, respectively in '80

I would say it had much more to do with Potvin only playing 31 games, since when he was back to his old self in '81:

- the power play went back to over 29%
- team plus-minus went up to +74 (370/5)
- they remained 4th in GA, although GAA went up by .16
- they were 1st in points and 2nd in GF/GA ratio
- their GF improved by .93 gpg, only 3 GF less than in '79

They actually improved their GF in '82 to .33 better than in '79, while lowering their GA by .12 back to around '80 level.

If there was a defensive shift, it looks like it happened in '83, when their GF dropped by 1.03 gpg from 1st to 15th, while their GA dropped by .30 (2nd to 1st).

In '84 their GF improved by .68 (3rd) while their GA was .53 higher (4th).

Yes, teams usually play in the playoffs like they do in the regular season, except scoring levels tend to be lower in the post-season.
From '75 or '77, each year the Isles scored fewer gpg and allowed more gpg than in the regular season. In '78 and '79, they scored way fewer gpg in playoffs than regular season, while they allowed far fewer gpg in '78 and about same in '79.

In '80/81/83, the seasons you mentioned, they scored significantly more gpg in playoffs than regular season, while in '82 they scored fewer. They allowed fewer goals in post-season than regular season from '81-83, slightly more in '80.

 

[Czech Your Math]

Jagr went head to head against guys like John Madden.

Lidstrom went head to head against guys like Jaromir Jagr.

Who's going to have the prettier +/- when all is said and done?

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.

 

[Czech Your Math]

Could you explain how you calculate this? Thanks!

In Avery's case, forgot to make it clear that expected and actual are without Avery (so lower actual means did slightly worse than expected without Avery).

Since this isn't a primary basis of player comparison, am trying to keep it as simple as possible. Therefore, all losses are counted as zero points (to keep each season at .500 total win%) and strength of schedule (between games with and without player) is not considered.

To calculate for a player over multiple seasons, I did the following:

- used game logs for player on hockeyreference.com to calculate team record with player (sorting by W/L makes it easy) for each season

- used team record for each season, calculated the record without player by simple formula (team record minus record with player)

- calculated expected wins without player by formula (multiplied games without player by win% with player)

- calculated total expected wins without player by summing individual seasons' expected wins without player, did same for games without player, then calculated expected win% (total expected wins divided by total games without player)

- summed individual seasons' record without player to get total record without player and calculate total actual win% without player

 

[Canadiens1958]

Still

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.

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.

 

[Hardyvan123]

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

Some good points here and a case could made fro all 5 guys but I wonder how much it hurts Frosberg/Sakic to both be on the same team. IMO to some people it might.

For position players only Lidstrom is the 2 way player that Forsberg is and sadly injuries do diminish Forsbergs greatness somewhat as being able to play counts fro something here.