Better partial season: 10/11 Crosby or 99/00 Jagr

[Varan]

Crosby

• 66 points
• 32 goals
• 34 assists
• 41 games played
• 1.61 PPG (1st)

Jaromir Jagr

• 96 points (1st)
• 42 goals (T-4th)
• 54 assists (3rd)
• 63 games played
• 1.52 PPG (1st)

Click to read more...

 

[82Ninety42011]

Jagr because mullet always wins !!

 

[Plural]

Crosby was better.

 

[Regal]

Hard to compare partial seasons that are still wildly different in games played. Crosby was better per game, Jagr played 1/4 more of the season and was more valuable overall

 

[wetcoast]

Hard to compare partial seasons that are still wildly different in games played. Crosby was better per game, Jagr played 1/4 more of the season and was more valuable overall

Fair points here but Crosby wins by a hair here, does more with less.

NHL Stats

 

[Steven Toast]

Winning the scoring title in just 63 gp is very impressive.

 

[Video Nasty]

This forum is so delusional and hard for Crosby that it’s kind of gross. The vote is nearly 60% in favor of Crosby at the time of this post.

Jagr played more games yet won the Art Ross while missing almost a quarter of the season. He won the Pearson and lost to Pronger by 1 vote for the Hart.

He even beats Crosby if you just compare their first 41 games.

Jagr had 33 goals and 40 assists for 73 points in his first 41 games which bests what Crosby did then, before, and forever after.

Most importantly, Jagr was the better player visually on the ice. I seem to remember many going gaga for Crosby in that solitary half and saying that it’s closest someone has come to...wait for it...peak Jagr (even though we have samples during Mario’s comeback and of course stretches from Ovechkin that are contenders).

But let’s keep pretending that Crosby would have scored 64 goals and 132 points despite never having a single season where he put together two complete halves of 1.60+ ppg. He also had a higher PPG in the first half of his sophomore season than his 2010-2011 season and a high pace through 55-60 games and still didn’t top 120.

Either people have a short memory or they didn’t see both seasons because if you did, it’s pretty obvious Jagr takes this, in terms of actual accomplishments, play level, and even the fantasy BS of comparing 41 game sample sizes and projections.

 

[KoozNetsOff 92]

An argument can be made either way for who was playing at a higher level. But better season is easily Jagr:

1st in pts > not top 10
4th in goals > not top 10
3rd in assists > not top 10
2nd in hart > not top 10
Lindsay > no lindsay

Crosby should have zero votes.

 

[Plural]

This forum is so delusional and hard for Crosby that it’s kind of gross. The vote is nearly 60% in favor of Crosby at the time of this post.

Jagr played more games yet won the Art Ross while missing almost a quarter of the season. He won the Pearson and lost to Pronger by 1 vote for the Hart.

He even beats Crosby if you just compare their first 41 games.

Jagr had 33 goals and 40 assists for 73 points in his first 41 games which bests what Crosby did then, before, and forever after.

Most importantly, Jagr was the better player visually on the ice. I seem to remember many going gaga for Crosby in that solitary half and saying that it’s closest someone has come to...wait for it...peak Jagr (even though we have samples during Mario’s comeback and of course stretches from Ovechkin that are contenders).

But let’s keep pretending that Crosby would have scored 64 goals and 132 points despite never having a single season where he put together two complete halves of 1.60+ ppg. He also had a higher PPG in the first half of his sophomore season than his 2010-2011 season and a high pace through 55-60 games and still didn’t top 120.

Either people have a short memory or they didn’t see both seasons because if you did, it’s pretty obvious Jagr takes this, in terms of actual accomplishments, play level, and even the fantasy BS of comparing 41 game sample sizes and projections.

I'm willing to bet old timers in HoH section would pick Sid as the better player in this comparison. By wide margin.

I mean, that's not a proof of anything. But don't start with this "if you saw both" crap.

 

[bobholly39]

Crosby was the better player/playing better, but by virtue of playing more and actually winning awards, Jagr has the better season. Not very clear in question what you're after.

 

[Guttersniped]

This forum is so delusional and hard for Crosby that it’s kind of gross. The vote is nearly 60% in favor of Crosby at the time of this post.

Jagr played more games yet won the Art Ross while missing almost a quarter of the season. He won the Pearson and lost to Pronger by 1 vote for the Hart.

He even beats Crosby if you just compare their first 41 games.

Jagr had 33 goals and 40 assists for 73 points in his first 41 games which bests what Crosby did then, before, and forever after.

Most importantly, Jagr was the better player visually on the ice. I seem to remember many going gaga for Crosby in that solitary half and saying that it’s closest someone has come to...wait for it...peak Jagr (even though we have samples during Mario’s comeback and of course stretches from Ovechkin that are contenders).

But let’s keep pretending that Crosby would have scored 64 goals and 132 points despite never having a single season where he put together two complete halves of 1.60+ ppg. He also had a higher PPG in the first half of his sophomore season than his 2010-2011 season and a high pace through 55-60 games and still didn’t top 120.

Either people have a short memory or they didn’t see both seasons because if you did, it’s pretty obvious Jagr takes this, in terms of actual accomplishments, play level, and even the fantasy BS of comparing 41 game sample sizes and projections.

“Nearly 60%” is some how “delusional and hard for”? Also Jagr is winning, so...

How many votes were there at the time of your post (there’s 29 now)?

 

[BraveCanadian]

Jagr

 

[ScaredStreit]

Jagr missed 19 games and still won the Art Ross. Easy choice for me here.

Assuming Crosby keeps up his 1.6 PPG pace over 63 games that season he finishes 2nd in scoring which is still crazy...but not as impressive as #1.

 

[ricky0034]

the one that actually won the Art Ross

 

[Video Nasty]

“Nearly 60%” is some how “delusional and hard for”? Also Jagr is winning, so...

How many votes were there at the time of your post (there’s 29 now)?

I know you’re thinking it was like 3-2 for votes, but for added clarity, there were 17 votes after I placed mine (10-7) and my vote for Jagr brought it down from 63% to 59%.

Idk, maybe some skimmed my post and thought better about it because as of this post, a 23-9 score in favor of Jagr is an extreme turnaround.

Either way, at least sensibility and reality won out against Crosby’s 2010-2011 season for once.

 

[bambamcam4ever]

This forum is so delusional and hard for Crosby that it’s kind of gross. The vote is nearly 60% in favor of Crosby at the time of this post.

Jagr played more games yet won the Art Ross while missing almost a quarter of the season. He won the Pearson and lost to Pronger by 1 vote for the Hart.

He even beats Crosby if you just compare their first 41 games.

Jagr had 33 goals and 40 assists for 73 points in his first 41 games which bests what Crosby did then, before, and forever after.

Most importantly, Jagr was the better player visually on the ice. I seem to remember many going gaga for Crosby in that solitary half and saying that it’s closest someone has come to...wait for it...peak Jagr (even though we have samples during Mario’s comeback and of course stretches from Ovechkin that are contenders).

But let’s keep pretending that Crosby would have scored 64 goals and 132 points despite never having a single season where he put together two complete halves of 1.60+ ppg. He also had a higher PPG in the first half of his sophomore season than his 2010-2011 season and a high pace through 55-60 games and still didn’t top 120.

Either people have a short memory or they didn’t see both seasons because if you did, it’s pretty obvious Jagr takes this, in terms of actual accomplishments, play level, and even the fantasy BS of comparing 41 game sample sizes and projections.

Crosby maintained that 10-11 pace over 160 straight games.

 

[Video Nasty]

Crosby maintained that 10-11 pace over 160 straight games.

Except you saying that doesn't make it true.

Let's break it down so you can see why I'm not on board with your claim of "160 straight games" or the reality of what he actually did.

I'm making assumptions on which sample you're using here, so correct me if I'm wrong.

48 points in his first 41 games of 2009-2010 which is 1.17 ppg. Hear me out for a second bringing this up. This is important to note because it helps support my point that Crosby has never put together two complete halves in the same season of elevated PPG play and we had no reason before or since to believe he was ever going to keep up his pace to rattle off 130+ points.

What I'm assuming is the "straight games" of your belief starts in the second half of 2009-2010. Crosby picks up 61 points in the final 40 games of 2009-2010 which is 1.53 ppg.

66 points in his only 41 games of 2010-2011 which is 1.61 ppg.

37 points in 22 games in 2011-2012. 1.68 ppg. He missed 2 separate chunks of this season. He didn't play till everyone else in the league played 20 games (in addition to missing the prior season's entire second half and the playoffs).
He played 8 games in late November/early December picking up 12 points. He then missed another 41 games and returned in mid-March and played the final 14 games picking up his other 25 points.

56 in 36 games in 2012-2013. Misses final 12 games of the season. 1.56 ppg.

58 in first 41 games in 2013-2014 (or to push it a bit further 67 in his first 46 games). 1.42 ppg (or 1.46 ppg). He finishes with 46 points in his final 39 games which is 1.18 PPG (or 37 points in his final 34 games which is 1.09 PPG).

I don't see 160 straight games of 1.61+ PPG anywhere in this.

I see him playing 99 out of a possible 212 games over the course of 3 consecutive seasons and collecting 159 points which is 1.61 PPG.

On one hand, leading into and coming off concussions and mishaps and popping off at that level is awesome. On the other hand, how can one ignore that it's not many games spread out over a significant amount of time where in one particular case, he comes back to feast with fresh legs when everyone else went through the grind of nearly 70 games?

Crosby is who he is. An all time talent and remarkably consistent. So why do we ignore his consistency of having awesome halves of seasons (and sometimes as deep as 55-60 games) and then having it level out in the other half. He dropped 68 points in his first 41 games (even better than 2010-2011 at a flat level) of 2006-2007 and even ticked up to 95 in his first 56 games before dropping back to 25 points over his final 23 games to finish with 120.

There's no shame in admitting that he never maintained that high pace over a tight, sizable, consecutive set of seasons. The shame is pretending that it happened or that he was a lock to put up 60+ goals and 130+ points in the "lost" seasons.

In a bizarre twist, missing those games has aided his legacy because people fantasize so often about pace, projections, and what ifs when in reality, if you dig into the player in question himself, there's no evidence at all to support these wild claims.

He's not Gretzky or Lemieux or even Jagr. I don't know why he gets the benefit of the doubt of continuing to pile up points when he's the owner of 2 seasons out of 15 and counting with a point total of 105 or greater.

 

[bambamcam4ever]

Except you saying that doesn't make it true.

Let's break it down so you can see why I'm not on board with your claim of "160 straight games" or the reality of what he actually did.

I'm making assumptions on which sample you're using here, so correct me if I'm wrong.

48 points in his first 41 games of 2009-2010 which is 1.17 ppg. Hear me out for a second bringing this up. This is important to note because it helps support my point that Crosby has never put together two complete halves in the same season of elevated PPG play and we had no reason before or since to believe he was ever going to keep up his pace to rattle off 130+ points.

What I'm assuming is the "straight games" of your belief starts in the second half of 2009-2010. Crosby picks up 61 points in the final 40 games of 2009-2010 which is 1.53 ppg.

66 points in his only 41 games of 2010-2011 which is 1.61 ppg.

37 points in 22 games in 2011-2012. 1.68 ppg. He missed 2 separate chunks of this season. He didn't play till everyone else in the league played 20 games (in addition to missing the prior season's entire second half and the playoffs).
He played 8 games in late November/early December picking up 12 points. He then missed another 41 games and returned in mid-March and played the final 14 games picking up his other 25 points.

56 in 36 games in 2012-2013. Misses final 12 games of the season. 1.56 ppg.

58 in first 41 games in 2013-2014 (or to push it a bit further 67 in his first 46 games). 1.42 ppg (or 1.46 ppg). He finishes with 46 points in his final 39 games which is 1.18 PPG (or 37 points in his final 34 games which is 1.09 PPG).

I don't see 160 straight games of 1.61+ PPG anywhere in this.

I see him playing 99 out of a possible 212 games over the course of 3 consecutive seasons and collecting 159 points which is 1.61 PPG.

On one hand, leading into and coming off concussions and mishaps and popping off at that level is awesome. On the other hand, how can one ignore that it's not many games spread out over a significant amount of time where in one particular case, he comes back to feast with fresh legs when everyone else went through the grind of nearly 70 games?

Crosby is who he is. An all time talent and remarkably consistent. So why do we ignore his consistency of having awesome halves of seasons (and sometimes as deep as 55-60 games) and then having it level out in the other half. He dropped 68 points in his first 41 games (even better than 2010-2011 at a flat level) of 2006-2007 and even ticked up to 95 in his first 56 games before dropping back to 25 points over his final 23 games to finish with 120.

There's no shame in admitting that he never maintained that high pace over a tight, sizable, consecutive set of seasons. The shame is pretending that it happened or that he was a lock to put up 60+ goals and 130+ points in the "lost" seasons.

In a bizarre twist, missing those games has aided his legacy because people fantasize so often about pace, projections, and what ifs when in reality, if you dig into the player in question himself, there's no evidence at all to support these wild claims.

He's not Gretzky or Lemieux or even Jagr. I don't know why he gets the benefit of the doubt of continuing to pile up points when he's the owner of 2 seasons out of 15 and counting with a point total of 105 or greater.

It's easy not to see something if you are hoping not to find it. It's not my fault you are being intellectually dishonest.

November 2010 to October 2014. I don't remember the exact dates.

 

[Varan]

It's easy not to see something if you are hoping not to find it. It's not my fault you are being intellectually dishonest.

November 2010 to October 2014. I don't remember the exact dates.

The whole point is that it's not 160 straight games. There are huge gaps in between those games.

 

[Video Nasty]

It's easy not to see something if you are hoping not to find it. It's not my fault you are being intellectually dishonest.

November 2010 to October 2014. I don't remember the exact dates.

Lol...what?

 

[GIN ANTONIC]

Jagr and not even really all that close imo. Crosby's half season is damn impressive but there's no way of knowing if he continues at that pace that year (no, you can't piece together 3 seasons and try to pass that off). The fact that Jagr won the Art Ross and all that even missing 25% of the season is incredible.

Also, look at that Pens team Jagr played on vs. the one Crosby played on. One was a .500 team and the other had over 100 points with Crosby, Malkin, and Staal missing huge chunks of the season.

 

[Future GOAT]

Jagr's pretty easily.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

In 2011, Crosby scored 66 points in 41 games. As of January 5th, the next closest players had 56, 51, 50 and 50 points (Stamkos, St. Louis, and the Sedins).

In 2000, Jagr scored 73 points in his first 41 games. The next closest players had 56, 53, 52 and 49 points (Recchi, Turgeon, Nolan, and Bure).

Through 41 games, Jagr had more goals and more assists. Jagr had more points at ES, and on the powerplay. Jagr was farther ahead of his peers around the league. Jagr led his team in scoring by a wider margin. Crosby was +1 higher, which is remarkable given the quality of their respective teams (through 41 games, Crosby's Penguins were the #1 team in the east, while Jagr's Penguins were tied for 14th in the league - and there were only 28 teams then.

The only argument for Crosby, as far as I can tell, is that Crosby missing the entire rest of the season was somehow more impressive (or more beneficial to his team?) than Jagr coming back and playing well (just not as well as he did before he was injured).

 

[bobbyking]

Hard to compare partial seasons that are still wildly different in games played. Crosby was better per game, Jagr played 1/4 more of the season and was more valuable overall

Crosby was better per game ?he was ppg for the first 16 games

 

[Voight]

In 2011, Crosby scored 66 points in 41 games. As of January 5th, the next closest players had 56, 51, 50 and 50 points (Stamkos, St. Louis, and the Sedins).

In 2000, Jagr scored 73 points in his first 41 games. The next closest players had 56, 53, 52 and 49 points (Recchi, Turgeon, Nolan, and Bure).

Through 41 games, Jagr had more goals and more assists. Jagr had more points at ES, and on the powerplay. Jagr was farther ahead of his peers around the league. Jagr led his team in scoring by a wider margin. Crosby was +1 higher, which is remarkable given the quality of their respective teams (through 41 games, Crosby's Penguins were the #1 team in the east, while Jagr's Penguins were tied for 14th in the league - and there were only 28 teams then.

The only argument for Crosby, as far as I can tell, is that Crosby missing the entire rest of the season was somehow more impressive (or more beneficial to his team?) than Jagr coming back and playing well (just not as well as he did before he was injured).

This is all that needs to be said.