Best season: Yzerman 88/89 or Jagr 98/99?

[matnor]

Two amazing seasons on two relatively poor teams. Which was the more impressive? Let's only look at the regular season (though I doubt the playoffs would make any difference).

Steve Yzerman | 80 | 65 | 90 | 155 | +17
Jaromir Jagr | 81 | 44 | 83 | 127 | +17

Best teammates (Yzerman):

Gerard Gallant | 76 | 39 | 54 | 93 | +7
Adam Oates | 69 | 16 | 62 | 78 | -1
Paul MacLean | 76 |36 | 35 | 71 | +7

Best teammates (Jagr):

Martin Straka | 80 | 35 | 48 | 83 | +12
German Titov | 72 | 11 | 45 | 56 | +18
Alex Kovalev | 63 | 20 | 26 | 46 | +8

Unfortunately, ice time is not available for Yzerman's season but Jagr played an unbelievable 25:51 per game!

Click to read more...

 

[Derick*]

According to my (I think improved) adjusted points system, they both come out with exactly 145 points. Wow.

Both are amazing. Offensive brilliance with little help. I'm going to go with "too close to call" and I think anyone who didn't actually watch 15+ games of each player for each season can only reasonably do the same.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I'm going to hold off on voting until I see more arguments. Excellent comparison, though.

 

[BraveCanadian]

I'm going to hold off on voting until I see more arguments. Excellent comparison, though.

Seriously.. like that Kurri Forsberg playoff performance poll this one is tough for me to call at first glance.

 

[Big Phil]

You could easily say that Jagr's 1999 season is the best year by a player since Mario/Wayne. I've said it before and I will mention that this was a year where Jagr truly seperated himself from the rest of the NHL. Yzerman didn't do this but the two guys ahead of him that year in scoring were Lemieux and Gretzky.

Jagr did this at a woeful time for NHL scoring too as a whole. Not to nitpick but Yzerman only had 5 more points than Nicholls that year. 1989 was one of those freak years much like 1993 where certain players peaked at a really high caliber. 1999 doesn't have that type of year, except for Jagr.

I know that if you take Lemieux and Gretzky out of there that Yzerman wins the Art Ross and Hart but the truth is Jagr actually did that in 1999. This was the brief time when 100 points was extremely rare.

 

[Rhiessan71]

I go with Yzerman, he was a man possessed that year playing with little support on a team that had about as much depth as a kiddy pool.
If it wasn't for him, that team would dropped an easy 20-30 points in the standings.

 

[JackSlater]

Jagr did this at a woeful time for NHL scoring too as a whole. Not to nitpick but Yzerman only had 5 more points than Nicholls that year. 1989 was one of those freak years much like 1993 where certain players peaked at a really high caliber. 1999 doesn't have that type of year, except for Jagr.

I know that if you take Lemieux and Gretzky out of there that Yzerman wins the Art Ross and Hart but the truth is Jagr actually did that in 1999. This was the brief time when 100 points was extremely rare.

I'm not exactly sure which season was better, although I'm leaning Yzerman, but this line of reasoning is faulty. Jagr definitely doesn't win the Art Ross or Hart in 1989, so what difference does it honestly make? Yzerman won the Pearson over Lemieux pretty close to his peak and Gretzky still in his prime. That's at least as good as the Hart and Art Ross in 1989. Yzerman was 45 points ahead of the next highest scorer not on Los Angeles or Pittsburgh. Also, Yzerman's goalscoring that year impresses me more than Jagr's.

 

[Loto68]

Because some people only look at raw numbers and not context, what would Jagr's numbers look like if adjusted to 88/89 scoring levels?

 

[Derick*]

Because some people only look at raw numbers and not context, what would Jagr's numbers look like if adjusted to 88/89 scoring levels?

True, but to be fair, some people ignore context by only looking at what year it was done and ignoring everything else.

There's no simple answer to that because there's different adjustment systems, not everyone agrees on which is best, and none of them are close to perfect. In the one I think is the best, they both come out with the same number of points

 

[RabbinsDuck]

I've been dying to get TOI statistics for 89 in particular. Yzerman played an insane amount of minutes - ES, PP, PK and was often double-shifted in a checking role on bottom lines to cover the other team's top line. Which explains his votes for the Selke that year.

I agree it is close, but I give the edge to Yzerman for the following reasons -- play without the puck, better goal scoring, and when adjusted stats say it is close - I always side with the player who actually did it.

 

[Derick*]

I've been dying to get TOI statistics for 89 in particular. Yzerman played an insane amount of minutes - ES, PP, PK and was often double-shifted in a checking role on bottom lines to cover the other team's top line. Which explains his votes for the Selke that year.

I agree it is close, but I give the edge to Yzerman for the following reasons -- play without the puck, better goal scoring, and when adjusted stats say it is close - I always side with the player who actually did it.

If you're basing that on my post, consider that my system doesn't inflate DPE players as much as the systems you're used to, so in all likelihood the more well-known systems would put Jagr ahead.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

If you're basing that on my post, consider that my system doesn't inflate DPE players as much as the systems you're used to, so in all likelihood the more well-known systems would put Jagr ahead.

Yes, I should have mentioned that - Jagr comes out ahead by 10-20 points with traditional models, in fact his 96 and 01 seasons also come out ahead of Yzerman's 89 season. But I do like the models shown on this site, as I believe traditional models heavily favor the deadpuck era... and does not correspond well to what most of what our eyes' tell us. Yzerman in 89 was mentioned in the same breath as prime Gretzky and Lemiuex, and even won the Pearson over both of them in great years. I do not believe Jagr ever attained that level.

 

[JackSlater]

If you're basing that on my post, consider that my system doesn't inflate DPE players as much as the systems you're used to, so in all likelihood the more well-known systems would put Jagr ahead.

Adjusted points puts Jagr with 145 and Yzerman with 128.

 

[Derick*]

Adjusted points puts Jagr with 145 and Yzerman with 128.

There's multiple adjusted points systems. Mine is SR/100*P=AP, where "SR" is their scoring rate for that season, made by averaging the total points scored by the players 3rd - 18th in the scoring race. That gives both of them 145.

I don't know if you meant to imply I misremembered or you just wanted to update us on what the traditional system says. If you meant the second, thanks.

The reason I consider mine superior is that variables other than average league scoring affect how easy it is to score lots of points, such as increase/decrease in the number of assists given out per goal on average, increase/decrease in number of powerplays (which increases the proportion of scoring that high scoring players have), etc.

I've calculated and logged the scoring rate for every year since 1968 and have it in an excel spreadsheet, so if I ever want to compare two players in different years all I have to do is enter each number in the appropriate cell.

 

[canucks4ever]

Adjusted points puts Jagr with 145 and Yzerman with 128.

I think jagr's 2000 season was better too based on adjusted ppg.

 

[JackSlater]

There's multiple adjusted points systems. Mine is SR/100*P=AP, where "SR" is their scoring rate for that season, made by averaging the total points scored by the players 3rd - 18th in the scoring race. That gives both of them 145.

I don't know if you meant to imply I misremembered or you just wanted to update us on what the traditional system says. If you meant the second, thanks.

The reason I consider mine superior is that variables other than average league scoring affect how easy it is to score lots of points, such as increase/decrease in the number of assists given out per goal on average, increase/decrease in number of powerplays (which increases the proportion of scoring that high scoring players have), etc.

I've calculated and logged the scoring rate for every year since 1968 and have it in an excel spreadsheet, so if I ever want to compare two players in different years all I have to do is enter each number in the appropriate cell.

Yeah I understood what you were doing, I just put what the more well known adjusted system says for the sake of comparison.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

There's multiple adjusted points systems. Mine is SR/100*P=AP, where "SR" is their scoring rate for that season, made by averaging the total points scored by the players 3rd - 18th in the scoring race. That gives both of them 145.

I don't know if you meant to imply I misremembered or you just wanted to update us on what the traditional system says. If you meant the second, thanks.

The reason I consider mine superior is that variables other than average league scoring affect how easy it is to score lots of points, such as increase/decrease in the number of assists given out per goal on average, increase/decrease in number of powerplays (which increases the proportion of scoring that high scoring players have), etc.

I've calculated and logged the scoring rate for every year since 1968 and have it in an excel spreadsheet, so if I ever want to compare two players in different years all I have to do is enter each number in the appropriate cell.

A few here have also developed similar models which I agree are superior to traditional models.
Ultimately, Yzerman scored over non-aided Gretzky/Lemieux players by a margin of 40.9% while Jagr only had an 18.7% margin. I hope others can see that as significant.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

A few here have also developed similar models which I agree are superior to traditional models.
Ultimately, Yzerman scored over non-aided Gretzky/Lemieux players by a margin of 40.9% while Jagr only had an 18.7% margin. I hope others can see that as significant.

The only thing iffy about that year is there's a pretty noticeable gap between each of the top 6 scorers, not so much in Jagr's year. Jagr was a better offensive player than Yzerman, no way around it as far as im concerned. To argue otherwise would be to use raw stats and not look at point finishes. Even excluding Gretzky and Lemieux Jagr beats him handily, so in that sense I find it hard to believe his most impressive year wasn't at the very least as good as Yzerman's.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

The only thing iffy about that year is there's a pretty noticeable gap between each of the top 6 scorers, not so much in Jagr's year. Jagr was a better offensive player than Yzerman, no way around it as far as im concerned. To argue otherwise would be to use raw stats and not look at point finishes. Even excluding Gretzky and Lemieux Jagr beats him handily, so in that sense I find it hard to believe his most impressive year wasn't at the very least as good as Yzerman's.

In best single year Yzerman was better offensively, IMO, but he simply was not as healthy as Jagr and I would give prime offensive production to Jagr easily.

 

[Rhiessan71]

The only thing iffy about that year is there's a pretty noticeable gap between each of the top 6 scorers, not so much in Jagr's year. Jagr was a better offensive player than Yzerman, no way around it as far as im concerned. To argue otherwise would be to use raw stats and not look at point finishes. Even excluding Gretzky and Lemieux Jagr beats him handily, so in that sense I find it hard to believe his most impressive year wasn't at the very least as good as Yzerman's.

What do you mean by "a pretty noticeable gap between each of the top 6 scorers"? How is it "iffy"?

No offense but I would think that scoring a whopping 45 points more than anyone else not benefiting from #66 or #99 is pretty damned significant.

 

[Derick*]

A few here have also developed similar models which I agree are superior to traditional models.
Ultimately, Yzerman scored over non-aided Gretzky/Lemieux players by a margin of 40.9% while Jagr only had an 18.7% margin. I hope others can see that as significant.

I think adjusted points based on average GPG gives too much weight to the DPE, but I also think "removing Gretzky and Lemieux and all their teammates" gives too much weight to the 80s. In most eras, no, no one is as good as Gretzky and Lemieux, and yes, their teammates wouldn't score as much. But it's possible that without Gretzky and Lemieux that era would be below average in talent. And it's very likely their teammates would still be up there, just not with as many points.

That's another reason I like the 3rd - 18th system. It removes the top two from every era, removing/lowering the influence of transcendental talents without giving the eras without them an advantage.

 

[Derick*]

What do you mean by "a pretty noticeable gap between each of the top 6 scorers"? How is it "iffy"?

No offense but I would think that scoring a whopping 45 points more than anyone else not benefiting from #66 or #99 is pretty damned significant.

I don't think he means between Yzerman and the player next to him, but between that next player and 5th, and 5th and 6th, which is less obviously ridiclous. I don't see how that's relevant, though. If there's a percentage gap and not just an absolute gap, then that suggests that the 80s made scoring rates more volatile for some reason, which might be relevant. It's very unlikely that 5th in scoring that year was way way better than 6th in scoring that year (or in any years), and if percentage lead say he was that says something about percentage lead.

 

[Rhiessan71]

I don't think he means between Yzerman and the player next to him, but between that next player and 5th, and 5th and 6th, which is less obviously ridiclous. I don't see how that's relevant, though. If there's a percentage gap and not just an absolute gap, then that suggests that the 80s made scoring rates more volatile for some reason, which might be relevant. It's very unlikely that 5th in scoring that year was way way better than 6th in scoring that year (or in any years), and if percentage lead say he was that says something about percentage lead.

I'm still a lil confused though simply because the #4, #5, #6 and #10 scorers are quite obviously products of the #1 and #2 scorers.

It doesn't suggest to me that it was more volatile, it simply suggests that Mario, Gretzky and Yzerman were just that much better than anyone else in the league that year.

To be honest, to me it doesn't have to be a suggestion, I was there, I saw it happen and I KNOW that's how it was that year.

Also why I have absolutely no problem taking Yzerman's '89 season over Jagr's '99 season.
It was quite simply the greatest season I have ever witnessed by a player not named Gretzky, Lemieux or Orr.

 

[Regal]

The only thing iffy about that year is there's a pretty noticeable gap between each of the top 6 scorers, not so much in Jagr's year. Jagr was a better offensive player than Yzerman, no way around it as far as im concerned. To argue otherwise would be to use raw stats and not look at point finishes. Even excluding Gretzky and Lemieux Jagr beats him handily, so in that sense I find it hard to believe his most impressive year wasn't at the very least as good as Yzerman's.

I don't think too many people would argue that Yzerman was a better offensive player that Jagr during their primes, which is no slight to Yzerman, because Jagr might be one of the top 10 offensive players of all time. However, I don't think it's a stretch to suggest that when you're looking at two players that good, that the "lesser" one may have still had the best season between the both of them.

As for the OP, I say it's too close to call. Both were dominant on teams without a lot of help, and put up big totals. I think adjusted stats tend to devalue the 80s a bit too much, and sometimes inflate the DPE, but I also think removing Gretzky, Mario and all their teammates can be a bit of an overkill at times as well.

On a sidenote, I think Jagr's 96 season might be one of the most underrated. '99 is frequently referred to as the season where he really established himself as one of the greats, but we're comparing his 127 point season to 155 point Yzerman, when the guy actually scored 149 points in another year. Yes he was second in points, and had Lemieux and Francis on the team, but he won the Art Ross the year before as well, and I think he actually outscored Lemieux over the second half of the year.

 

[Derick*]

1996 was a very high scoring year, higher scoring than a couple of late 80s seasons iirc. Dead puck era didn't start in earnest until 96-97, that's when there was a huge gap. The number of 100+ point scorers went from something like 15 to something like 2.