Can Jagr ever make it a "Big 5"?

[BayStreetBully]

Ok, first the preliminaries. Jagr will not ever be greater than Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr or Howe. The only "argument" is with Howe, but Howe's 20 straight years of top 5 scoring along with 6 Art Rosses takes the cake. But can Jagr expand the Big 4 into a Big 5?

I've long believed Jagr finished writing his legacy after he left the NHL in 2008. With 5 Art Rosses, a dominant peak from 1994-2001, 3-4 more excellent seasons in addition to that, 2 cups, and roughly 650 goals and 1600 points, he was already ranked somewhere between 5-15. Along with the likes of Hull, Beliveau, Richard, Bourque, Lidstrom, Harvey, Shore, Roy, Hasek, etc. you get the point.

But since Jagr re-joined the NHL in 2011, he has had 5 strong seasons (for an old guy) between the ages of 39-43. In all of NHL history, only Howe has defied age past the age of 43 by scoring at least 40 points. If Jagr does it next year at age 44, he would be the second player to join Howe.

Jagr finished at a 50 point pace last year, and will end up with around 50-60 points this year. Assuming he finishes with 55 points, he will have 1857 career points, only 30 points behind Messier for 2nd place all-time. Let's say, hypothetically, that Jagr has 4 more 40 point seasons beyond this year. If he can play until the age of 47 by putting up 15 goal, 40 point seasons for the next 4 years, he will pass 2000 points and 800 goals. He will have defied age 4 years longer than anyone else not named Howe. He will have put up 9 strong seasons as an "old guy".

Is that enough to place him squarely at #5 all-time? He will have kept producing 6-7 years longer than almost all of the others ranked around 5-15. He will have been just as dominant in his prime, but no one else from this group would have his longevity. If four 40 point seasons up to age 47 is not good enough, then what about three 50 point seasons up to age 46? The key to my question is 2000 points.

And if it is enough to place him at #5, are you then willing to extend the Big 4 and make it a Big 5?

So the choices conditional upon sustained excellence to 2000 points:

1) It will be a Big 5 (Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr, Howe, Jagr)
2) It will still be a Big 4, but Jagr will be the clear-cut #5 of the next tier
3) It doesn't change anything. Jagr will still be somewhere between 5-15

Click to read more...

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

There is no legitimate argument with Howe. Howe was better than Jagr at every aspect of hockey, except maybe puck possession, and even that is probably debatable.

To me #3 is the obvious answer. I mean, Jagr was voted behind Bobby Hull (easily) and Maurice Richard (clearly but closer) on this forum just a year ago, and I don't think merely hanging around well after his prime is going to make people suddenly think he's better than them.

 

[MXD]

There is no legitimate argument with Howe. Howe was better than Jagr at every aspect of hockey, except maybe puck possession, and even that is probably debatable.

To me #3 is the obvious answer. I mean, Jagr was voted behind Bobby Hull (easily) and Maurice Richard (clearly but closer) on this forum just a year ago, and I don't think merely hanging around well after his prime is going to make people suddenly think he's better than them.

Not to mention that's only versus wingers.
There are defenders, goalies and centers who also have a solid claim at being better players than Jagr.

 

[BayStreetBully]

There is no legitimate argument with Howe. Howe was better than Jagr at every aspect of hockey, except maybe puck possession, and even that is probably debatable.

To me #3 is the obvious answer. I mean, Jagr was voted behind Bobby Hull (easily) and Maurice Richard (clearly but closer) on this forum just a year ago, and I don't think merely hanging around well after his prime is going to make people suddenly think he's better than them.

I put "argument" in quotation marks for that very purpose. The argument is that unlike Gretzky, Lemieux or Orr, others have beaten Howe in scoring in seasons where he was both in his prime and healthy. It's generally known Howe is part of the Big 4 and Jagr is not, which inherently makes Howe greater. But let's not pretend there aren't similarities between Howe and Jagr at play in terms of career dominance and trajectory, even if Howe comes out on top.

This is also besides the point I was trying to make. I see you've responded. Is there anything Jagr can do? Not even multiple 50 point seasons? Is there a point where Jagr can use a combination of prime dominance and longevity in the mold of Howe to increase his standing in history? If not to the point of #5, at least above Hull and Richard?

 

[BenchBrawl]

I don't see how you could convince me that Jagr is better than Beliveau, so no.Same with Harvey.

 

[Sentinel]

A nice playoff run would be welcome. If he leads Florida to the Cup... I dunno...

 

[authentic]

There will be a good argument for him at the #5 spot, some would argue he's there already. There will however never be a "Big 5" IMO. He's not on their level I don't care if he plays until 50 (which he absolutely will not, in the NHL anyway).

 

[Joedaman55]

Historically, I think his years in Washington will always be a detriment to the argument that he should be the clear cut #5 (assuming goalies aren't counted).

 

[BayStreetBully]

I don't see how you could convince me that Jagr is better than Beliveau, so no.Same with Harvey.

Well, here's my reasoning. Beliveau, Richard, Hull and Jagr are all generally interchangeable. You can make an argument for any one of them to be the best of that group, and I would listen. If you feel Beliveau is better, that's works for me. But it would be close.

Beliveau only has 1 Art Ross and "only" 1200 points, but he also has 10 cups and has the distinction of being known as the Habs' leader.

Richard doesn't have any scoring titles and only 1000 points, but has 8 cups and is one of the greatest goal scorers of all time.

Hull has 3 Art Ross and only 1200 points, but is perhaps the greatest goal scorer of all time and continued to produce at the WHA for another 6 seasons, which don't count towards his NHL totals.

Jagr has 5 Art Ross, which is only rivalled by Hull amongst this group. He has 1800 points, which puts him in a class amongst himself here. On the other hand, he doesn't have a handful of cups like Beliveau and Richard do, and never led his team to a cup.

All in all, I'd say they are all pretty similar. But what happens if Jagr continues to produce to age 47, when all the others retired at age 40? I would think that Jagr should get credit for being the only player among the 4, and the only NHL player outside of Howe to keep defying age at a decent enough pace up until age 47.

If we consider that Messier, Selanne, Recchi, Larionov and others made it up to age 40-43 and kept producing, but that none or them and no one else could produce past the age of 43, there must be a reason for that. To produce up to age 47 would be pretty special in of itself. Are we going to discount those 6-7 extra years of producing in his 40's that Beliveau, Richard and Hull don't have when they were already interchangeable to begin with?

Long story short, my question is a hypothetical that focuses on Jagr doing something for 4 years what no one in history outside of Howe has ever done. I say 4 years because that allows him to reach 2000 points, which is also significant.

Now, if you believe one of the following:

1) Beliveau is so much farther ahead of Jagr that any credit he gains from age 44-47 wouldn't make up the existing difference, or

2) Producing at a good level to defy age for 4 years from ages 44-47 doesn't get Jagr any credit in his standing in hockey history,

then nothing Jagr can do will allow him to surpass Beliveau (or Richard/Hull/anyone else).

 

[93LEAFS]

no, he's far from cementing (or even being) #5, let alone challenging 4 enough to make it the big 5. Guys like Harvey, Richard, Bobby Hull, Beliveau and even guys like Messier, Clarke, Bourque, Potvin, Mikita and Lafleur have legitimate claims at being better or more iconic players.

 

[sandercohan78*]

He's already in the top 12ish maybe? IMO, not sure if i'd ever go as high as #5 though.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Well, here's my reasoning. Beliveau, Richard, Hull and Jagr are all generally interchangeable. You can make an argument for any one of them to be the best of that group, and I would listen. If you feel Beliveau is better, that's works for me. But it would be close.

Beliveau only has 1 Art Ross and "only" 1200 points, but he also has 10 cups and has the distinction of being known as the Habs' leader.

Richard doesn't have any scoring titles and only 1000 points, but has 8 cups and is one of the greatest goal scorers of all time.

Hull has 3 Art Ross and only 1200 points, but is perhaps the greatest goal scorer of all time and continued to produce at the WHA for another 6 seasons, which don't count towards his NHL totals.

Jagr has 5 Art Ross, which is only rivalled by Hull amongst this group. He has 1800 points, which puts him in a class amongst himself here. On the other hand, he doesn't have a handful of cups like Beliveau and Richard do, and never led his team to a cup.

All in all, I'd say they are all pretty similar. But what happens if Jagr continues to produce to age 47, when all the others retired at age 40? I would think that Jagr should get credit for being the only player among the 4, and the only NHL player outside of Howe to keep defying age at a decent enough pace up until age 47.

If we consider that Messier, Selanne, Recchi, Larionov and others made it up to age 40-43 and kept producing, but that none or them and no one else could produce past the age of 43, there must be a reason for that. To produce up to age 47 would be pretty special in of itself. Are we going to discount those 6-7 extra years of producing in his 40's that Beliveau, Richard and Hull don't have when they were already interchangeable to begin with?

Long story short, my question is a hypothetical that focuses on Jagr doing something for 4 years what no one in history outside of Howe has ever done. I say 4 years because that allows him to reach 2000 points, which is also significant.

Now, if you believe one of the following:

1) Beliveau is so much farther ahead of Jagr that any credit he gains from age 44-47 wouldn't make up the existing difference, or

2) Producing at a good level to defy age for 4 years from ages 44-47 doesn't get Jagr any credit in his standing in hockey history,

then nothing Jagr can do will allow him to surpass Beliveau (or Richard/Hull/anyone else).

Why are you comparing career point totals from players who played 70 game seasons to more recent players?

Do you give Chris Chelios this much credit for playing until his late 40s?

 

[BayStreetBully]

Why are you comparing career point totals from players who played 70 game seasons to more recent players?

It's not central to my argument, only to say that there is a massive difference between 1000 and 2000. I don't penalize Richard and Beliveau for having played less games.

 

[BayStreetBully]

Do you give Chris Chelios this much credit for playing until his late 40s?

No, because I am looking at players who produced at a high level, around 40 points at that age. If anyone wants to prop up Chelios' play in his late 40's, be my guest but I didn't follow him enough in his late years to comment.

 

[mrhockey193195]

Jagr will never separate himself from the Richards, Beliveaus, Hulls, Mikitas, etc. The same way Chelios didn't separate himself from Park, Robinson, Coffey, etc. There's no shame in that, all those players are absolute legends of the sport.

 

[quoipourquoi]

I just don't know that 3 of the top-5 should be offensive stars from the same quarter-century. I see him just outside the my top-10 (Gretzky, Howe, Orr, Lemieux, Roy, Morenz, Beliveau, Hull, Richard, Plante). There's enough about his character where I wince taking him over contemporaries Bourque and Messier who had more complete games. The Art Ross trophies are impressive, but I know what kind of role he played and the kind of minutes he got.

11-15. Nowhere near enough to declare a big-5.

 

[BayStreetBully]

Jagr will never separate himself from the Richards, Beliveaus, Hulls, Mikitas, etc. The same way Chelios didn't separate himself from Park, Robinson, Coffey, etc. There's no shame in that, all those players are absolute legends of the sport.

I think we'd have to separate Chelios from this argument because he didn't do enough past age 43 anyway. He was used as a 3rd pairing defenceman who contributed nothing offensively.

I'd also argue that it's harder for a forward to remain effective offensively into his 40's as compared to a defenceman or a goalie to remain effective defensively. Defensive greats like Lidstrom, MacInnis, Chelios and Bourque are winning the Norris' or are runners up into their mid 30's and even into age 40, but Martin St. Louis is the only forward in history past age 33 to win the Art Ross (although Crosby would've won if not for injury). Aside from Gretzky at age 37, I can't think of anyone else who even came close to being a runner-up into his late 30's, let alone 40.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Offensive Savant

Ok, first the preliminaries. Jagr will not ever be greater than Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr or Howe. The only "argument" is with Howe, but Howe's 20 straight years of top 5 scoring along with 6 Art Rosses takes the cake. But can Jagr expand the Big 4 into a Big 5?

I've long believed Jagr finished writing his legacy after he left the NHL in 2008. With 5 Art Rosses, a dominant peak from 1994-2001, 3-4 more excellent seasons in addition to that, 2 cups, and roughly 650 goals and 1600 points, he was already ranked somewhere between 5-15. Along with the likes of Hull, Beliveau, Richard, Bourque, Lidstrom, Harvey, Shore, Roy, Hasek, etc. you get the point.

But since Jagr re-joined the NHL in 2011, he has had 5 strong seasons (for an old guy) between the ages of 39-43. In all of NHL history, only Howe has defied age past the age of 43 by scoring at least 40 points. If Jagr does it next year at age 44, he would be the second player to join Howe.

Jagr finished at a 50 point pace last year, and will end up with around 50-60 points this year. Assuming he finishes with 55 points, he will have 1857 career points, only 30 points behind Messier for 2nd place all-time. Let's say, hypothetically, that Jagr has 4 more 40 point seasons beyond this year. If he can play until the age of 47 by putting up 15 goal, 40 point seasons for the next 4 years, he will pass 2000 points and 800 goals. He will have defied age 4 years longer than anyone else not named Howe. He will have put up 9 strong seasons as an "old guy".

Is that enough to place him squarely at #5 all-time? He will have kept producing 6-7 years longer than almost all of the others ranked around 5-15. He will have been just as dominant in his prime, but no one else from this group would have his longevity. If four 40 point seasons up to age 47 is not good enough, then what about three 50 point seasons up to age 46? The key to my question is 2000 points.

And if it is enough to place him at #5, are you then willing to extend the Big 4 and make it a Big 5?

So the choices conditional upon sustained excellence to 2000 points:

1) It will be a Big 5 (Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr, Howe, Jagr)
2) It will still be a Big 4, but Jagr will be the clear-cut #5 of the next tier
3) It doesn't change anything. Jagr will still be somewhere between 5-15

Jaromir Jagr is an offensive savant, not functional in other situations.

The Big 4 all developed elements of their overall game that generated ice time for them in all situations.

Lifetime Jagr on the PK, has 11G and 4 A. Gretzky had 73G and 76A on the PK.
Equivalent of almost three elderly Jagr seasons.

Looking at various players who enjoyed long careers, inevitably they added various components of a complete game to their skill set. Eventually it is this completeness that diffferentiates the #5 to 15 slots from the #16 to 30 slots.

Depending on the weight given to offensive skills, Jagr slids into the #10-20 slot. If he had developed an overall skill set you might be looking at #5.

 

[jigglysquishy]

I think it's much closer to being a top 3 with Mario on the outside than becoming a big 5.

 

[BayStreetBully]

Jaromir Jagr is an offensive savant, not functional in other situations.

The Big 4 all developed elements of their overall game that generated ice time for them in all situations.

Lifetime Jagr on the PK, has 11G and 4 A. Gretzky had 73G and 76A on the PK.
Equivalent of almost three elderly Jagr seasons.

Looking at various players who enjoyed long careers, inevitably they added various components of a complete game to their skill set. Eventually it is this completeness that diffferentiates the #5 to 15 slots from the #16 to 30 slots.

Depending on the weight given to offensive skills, Jagr slids into the #10-20 slot. If he had developed an overall skill set you might be looking at #5.

I appreciate the response. Leaving aside the Big 4, I'd be curious how Jagr stacks up to the other 5-15 or 16-30 players, since it's becoming common in this thread that there wouldn't be a Big 5.

Jagr doesn't compare to Gretzky in PK goals and assists, but no one does. Jagr doesn't seem all that different to Guy Lafleur or Bobby Hull in terms of PK production. And is offense on the PK important? This is one time during the game you aren't focused on scoring goals.

What skills did the players ranked 5-15 develop later in their careers that Jagr didn't? Perhaps it'll be easier to focus on forwards within that 5-15 group. If I think of Jagr, he's one of the best ever at protecting the puck. That was true in the 90's and true today. It's one of the main reasons he can still be effective today. Does that count? When you're as effective a scorer as Jagr, does it matter that he isn't multi-dimensional?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I think it's much closer to being a top 3 with Mario on the outside than becoming a big 5.

Yeah, I agree with you. A lot of people underrate Gordie Howe, basically

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I appreciate the response. Leaving aside the Big 4, I'd be curious how Jagr stacks up to the other 5-15 or 16-30 players, since it's becoming common in this thread that there wouldn't be a Big 5.

Jagr doesn't compare to Gretzky in PK goals and assists, but no one does. Jagr doesn't seem all that different to Guy Lafleur or Bobby Hull in terms of PK production. And is offense on the PK important? This is one time during the game you aren't focused on scoring goals.

What skills did the players ranked 5-15 develop later in their careers that Jagr didn't? Perhaps it'll be easier to focus on forwards within that 5-15 group. If I think of Jagr, he's one of the best ever at protecting the puck. That was true in the 90's and true today. It's one of the main reasons he can still be effective today. Does that count? When you're as effective a scorer as Jagr, does it matter that he isn't multi-dimensional?

FWIW, Bobby Hull was one of the biggest shorthanded scorers of his era.

 

[sandercohan78*]

Yeah, I agree with you. A lot of people underrate Gordie Howe, basically

Part of that is because as time goes on less and less people will have seen him in his prime, the only time I really saw him was a few games in his final season with the Whalers, aside from a few old game films and video of the 74 wha/ussr series(he was old there too though).

 

[Canadiens1958]

Keeping the Discussion Basic

I appreciate the response. Leaving aside the Big 4, I'd be curious how Jagr stacks up to the other 5-15 or 16-30 players, since it's becoming common in this thread that there wouldn't be a Big 5.

Jagr doesn't compare to Gretzky in PK goals and assists, but no one does. Jagr doesn't seem all that different to Guy Lafleur or Bobby Hull in terms of PK production. And is offense on the PK important? This is one time during the game you aren't focused on scoring goals.

What skills did the players ranked 5-15 develop later in their careers that Jagr didn't? Perhaps it'll be easier to focus on forwards within that 5-15 group. If I think of Jagr, he's one of the best ever at protecting the puck. That was true in the 90's and true today. It's one of the main reasons he can still be effective today. Does that count? When you're as effective a scorer as Jagr, does it matter that he isn't multi-dimensional?

PK production. Howe and Maurice Richard both more than doubled Jagr in terms of PK performance. Both played in an era with smaller rosters so a diversified game was more important.

The bolded raises the key element about Jaromir Jagr.

Yes, Jaromir Jagr is one of the best at protecting the puck ....... in the offensive zone. Why is not able to protect the puck in the same fashion in the neutral or defensive zone? Players like Gretzky, Orr, Lemieux, Howe, Beliveau, Hull, Lidstrom, Lafleur, Maurice Richard, Shore and other non-goalies in the top 30 players protected the puck equally in all zones.A skill that does not change when crossing a blue line. Why the difference in puck protecting ability in Jagr's skill set?

 

[BayStreetBully]

FWIW, Bobby Hull was one of the biggest shorthanded scorers of his era.

Ok, bad example then. I took a quick look at hockey-reference.