Can Jagr ever make it a "Big 5"?

[Sens Rule]

Crosby is ahead still. Ovechkin has never had a deep run which really hurts him when comparing him to crosby who had back to back 27+ point playoff runs

I don't care about either player as a fan. No favorites. But Ovechkin is now easily ahead on results.

Crosby needs to win some Ross trophies to balance out the Rocket's Ovechkin keeps winning.

 

[Czech Your Math]

well actually not and the case for Crosby over Jagr at the same age is really rather strong BTW.

Even if that were true (it's debatable IMO), I don't know how relevant it would be, since their career arcs have been substantially different. I don't really see (nor would I expect to) people comparing past greats in terms of how good they were at age 18 or through age 28. What is discussed is how good they were at their peaks, in their primes, and over their hockey careers.

Let's look at some data.

First, where were these players through 11 seasons (each started their 11th season at age 28 and endured one partial season lockout during that span)? We'll project Crosby's current season, since he only has 23 games remaining and we have no other choice:

Crosby 708-337-594-931 (1.31)
Jagr 806-439-640-1079 (1.34)

Adjusted (using actual GP)
Crosby 708-365-626-991 (1.40)
Jagr 806-441-644-1085 (1.35)

That's pretty close, but I would favor Jagr's 94 more adjusted points in 98 more adjusted games.

What would Crosby have to do starting next season to match Jagr's career totals? We'll project each player's current season:

Jagr 1628-750-1113-1863
Difference: 920-413-519-932 (1.01)

Adjusted Jagr (actual GP) 1628-783-1151-1934
Difference: 920-409-515-943 (1.02)

So will Crosby be able to come close to playing 130% more games than he is projected to play thru age 28 at over an adjusted PPG? Considering he was ~1.21 adj. PPG last season and ~1.09 adj. PPG this season... and that he would have to play over 11 more completely injury-free seasons just to match the number of GP. That doesn't even factor in that Jagr missed an additional 1.5 seasons to lockout (nor address his 3 years in KHL)... and Jagr is still playing. Even assuming Jagr retired after this season, Bill James' Career Assessment formula (for baseball... and I think hockey players age roughly similarly to baseball players) would project Crosby to 1,650 career adjusted points and a 20% chance of matching Jagr's total adjusted at the end of this season.

Now let's look at their (extended?) primes and see how far Crosby is from Jagr's prime:

'95-'07 Jagr
Raw: 960-529-781-1310 (1.36)
Difference: 252-192-187-379 (1.50)

Adjusted: 960-559-819-1378 (1.44)
Difference: 252-194-193-387 (1.54)

Again that doesn't include a full lockout season during Jagr's prime. Will Crosby over the next ~3-4 complete seasons' worth of hockey score at ~10% above his career adjusted PPG? I think we can agree that's extremely unlikely.

Now let's look at their most productive scoring seasons in terms of adjusted points and also against median first line players (top 2N scorers, where N = # of teams):

Adjusted Points
Crosby 121, 116, 115, 106, 106, 99, 93
Jagr 144, 143, 130, 120, 117, 104, 98, 97

Vs. 2N
Crosby 1.54, 1.49, 1.48, 1.37, 1.33, 1.26, 1.25
Jagr 1.79, 1.65, 1.55, 1.51, 1.49, 1.47, 1.36, 1.23, 1.19, 1.15, 1.13, 1.12

 

[daver]

Even if that were true (it's debatable IMO), I don't know how relevant it would be, since their career arcs have been substantially different. I don't really see (nor would I expect to) people comparing past greats in terms of how good they were at age 18 or through age 28. What is discussed is how good they were at their peaks, in their primes, and over their hockey careers.

Let's look at some data.

First, where were these players through 11 seasons (each started their 11th season at age 28 and endured one partial season lockout during that span)? We'll project Crosby's current season, since he only has 23 games remaining and we have no other choice:

Crosby 708-337-594-931 (1.31)
Jagr 806-439-640-1079 (1.34)

Adjusted (using actual GP)
Crosby 708-365-626-991 (1.40)
Jagr 806-441-644-1085 (1.35)

That's pretty close, but I would favor Jagr's 94 more adjusted points in 98 more adjusted games.

What would Crosby have to do starting next season to match Jagr's career totals? We'll project each player's current season:

Jagr 1628-750-1113-1863
Difference: 920-413-519-932 (1.01)

Adjusted Jagr (actual GP) 1628-783-1151-1934
Difference: 920-409-515-943 (1.02)

So will Crosby be able to come close to playing 130% more games than he is projected to play thru age 28 at over an adjusted PPG? Considering he was ~1.21 adj. PPG last season and ~1.09 adj. PPG this season... and that he would have to play over 11 more completely injury-free seasons just to match the number of GP. That doesn't even factor in that Jagr missed an additional 1.5 seasons to lockout (nor address his 3 years in KHL)... and Jagr is still playing. Even assuming Jagr retired after this season, Bill James' Career Assessment formula (for baseball... and I think hockey players age roughly similarly to baseball players) would project Crosby to 1,650 career adjusted points and a 20% chance of matching Jagr's total adjusted at the end of this season.

Now let's look at their (extended?) primes and see how far Crosby is from Jagr's prime:

'95-'07 Jagr
Raw: 960-529-781-1310 (1.36)
Difference: 252-192-187-379 (1.50)

Adjusted: 960-559-819-1378 (1.44)
Difference: 252-194-193-387 (1.54)

Again that doesn't include a full lockout season during Jagr's prime. Will Crosby over the next ~3-4 complete seasons' worth of hockey score at ~10% above his career adjusted PPG? I think we can agree that's extremely unlikely.

Now let's look at their most productive scoring seasons in terms of adjusted points and also against median first line players (top 2N scorers, where N = # of teams):

Adjusted Points
Crosby 121, 116, 115, 106, 106, 99, 93
Jagr 144, 143, 130, 120, 117, 104, 98, 97

Vs. 2N
Crosby 1.54, 1.49, 1.48, 1.37, 1.33, 1.26, 1.25
Jagr 1.79, 1.65, 1.55, 1.51, 1.49, 1.47, 1.36, 1.23, 1.19, 1.15, 1.13, 1.12

Adjusted points are flawed and your 2N does not give any consideration for injuries. Here's how both players sit vs. their peers thru 11 seasons (10 3/4 for Sid):

Jagr

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...c4comp=gt&c4val=&threshhold=5&order_by=points

#1 in points, #4 in PPG (behind Wayne, Mario and Lindros). IMO, once you remove Wayne and Mario as outliers, and considering he played and scored a bunch more than Lindros, he is clearly the best offensive player in those 11 seasons.

How far ahead of his peers was he? His PPG (1.34) is 21% better than the avg. PPG of the next best 15 scorers over that time frame (1.11).

Crosby

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...c4comp=gt&c4val=&threshhold=5&order_by=points

#2 in points, #1 in PPG

How far ahead of his peers was he? His PPG (1.33) is 34% better than the avg. PPG of the other Top 16 scorers over that time frame (0.99).


Conclusion

Raw points goes to Jagr, Crosby clearly been the better player in terms of domination over his peers. Crosby has the better playoff resume and is the better 2-way player. Jagr has one of the best peaks of all-time in terms of length and domination of his peers. Say what you want about Jagr not getting prime minutes in his first 3 - 4 seasons, if not for bad luck with injuries, Crosby would be clearly ahead.

Statistically, it is close after 11 seasons.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Hard to believe we're 17 pages in.

This makes me wish Jagr would just retire as soon as possible.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

If Esposito didn't have the "Orr" cloud hanging over him (though Esposito was beating Orr for his Mvps etc) I think you could make a very good case for him to be at least close. His domination was insane and he held the records before gretzky and lemieux obliterated them

 

[daver]

Using the "raw points-only" metric that some posters like to use, I am starting to question whether Jagr's 7 year peak is overrated.

Here are his Art Ross finishes from 94/95 to 00/01:

T1st
2nd
6th place
1st by 9 points
1st by 20 points
1st by 2 points
1st by 3 points

If you want to write off his 6th place as an anomaly then you should do the same for his only double digit point Art Ross win.

That leaves 4 Art Ross wins by an average of 3.5 points. While this is impressive, does this not simply make him the best offensive player during this 7 year period rather than one who should be rated among the all-time 10 best?

The fact that other than his 98/99 season, he won a total of one major Trophy (the Lindsay in 2000) during these 7 years should also lessen the value of his peak. Even if you remove Hasek from the equation, that arguably only adds one more Trophy, the 1998 Hart, to his resume. Yes he won the Art Ross five times, but in two of those years he wasn't recognized as the best or most valuable player at all. Out of ten opportunities to win a Hart or Lindsay via an Art Ross win, he was recognized four times.

How many other multiple Art Ross winners garnered less recognition?

Mario won 6 of 12 trophies (and his 88/89 garnered zero trophies)

Guy Lafleur won 5 of 6 trophies

Phil Esposito won 6 of 9 Trophies (once Orr is removed from equation)

 

[Hardyvan123]

If Esposito didn't have the "Orr" cloud hanging over him (though Esposito was beating Orr for his Mvps etc) I think you could make a very good case for him to be at least close. His domination was insane and he held the records before gretzky and lemieux obliterated them

Espositio has zero discussion in the top 5 or heck even top 10 player conversation much like Lafleur as out side of their peaks they suffer greatly against the competition.

The Orr cloud is there for a reason.

Just imagine if a guy with Rob Browns hands had played with a healthy Mario for ha 15 year stretch......

 

[sandercohan78*]

Just imagine if a guy with Rob Browns hands had played with a healthy Mario for ha 15 year stretch......

Come on lol, Espo and rob frickin brown aren't from the same planet...

But I do agree with Espo not being a top 10 player of all time, though he does get underrated I think because a lot of people probably can't see him playing in today's game so they dismiss him as a product of his era, at a glance he looks fat and lazy in old highlights, in reality he was pretty much a much superior version of Brett Hull who could pass much better.

He also lead the Summit Series without Orr, his numbers never took much of a dive when Orr was hurt until he went to NYR(during a time when players didn't age as gracefully as in the 90's and 00's).

 

[The Panther]

Just imagine if a guy with Rob Browns hands had played with a healthy Mario for ha 15 year stretch......

Yeah.... Difference being that Rob Brown didn't go to the Canada Cup/World Cup without Mario and totally dominate against the world's best, as Esposito did in 1972.

(Espo was still a fairly elite goal-scorer with NYR, too.)

 

[Hardyvan123]

Yeah.... Difference being that Rob Brown didn't go to the Canada Cup/World Cup without Mario and totally dominate against the world's best, as Esposito did in 1972.

(Espo was still a fairly elite goal-scorer with NYR, too.)

No Brown didn't benefit from being in the right place at the right time as big Phil did with Orr.

Phil also played with Bobby hull with the Black Hawks and didn't exactly light the world on fire, in fact he was trending towards a non HHOF carrer.

As for being an elite goal scorer for the NYR...not really, it was an extremely watered down NHL and that's all Phil brought at the expense of extremely poor 5 on 5 play and the guy he was traded for was 2 years older and actually did better as well.

I'm not saying that Rob Brown was a good as big Phil, not by a longshot, but with the right circumstances, ie 80's style of hockey continuing he had the offensive skillset to have a HHOF type of career with some right circumstances.

People forget how exceptional Brown was at scoring in junior and in the minors.

 

[sandercohan78*]

Phil also played with Bobby hull with the Black Hawks and didn't exactly light the world on fire, in fact he was trending towards a non HHOF carrer.

You mean his last year with the hawks where he finished tied for 7th in scoring?

Steve Yzerman wasn't exactly lighting the world on fire until around 1988, who would of thought it tames some players a couple years to get going, I never would of thought that.

 

[Canadiens1958]

With Bobby Hull

Phil also played with Bobby hull with the Black Hawks and didn't exactly light the world on fire, in fact he was trending towards a non HHOF carrer.

Except the last two seasons of the O6 playing with Phil Esposito, Bobby Hull scored 50+ goals each season.

After Phill Esposito was traded, Bobby Hull in a slightly longer season, perhaps against weaker opposition scored 50 or more goals only two times in five seasons.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/h/hullbo01.html

While Esposito 's scoring increased.

What facts are you referencing about trending towards a non HHOF career?

Somehow your position does not pass the examination of facts.

 

[Hardyvan123]

You mean his last year with the hawks where he finished tied for 7th in scoring?

Steve Yzerman wasn't exactly lighting the world on fire until around 1988, who would of thought it tames some players a couple years to get going, I never would of thought that.

yes that season where he was tied for 7th in scoring playing with Hull.

Mikita BTW led the NHL with 97 points, hull 2nd with 80, team mate Wharram 4th with 65 points, Phil tied for 7th with 61, team mate Mohns 1 point behind with 60 points, Pilote in 12th place with 52 points.

So basically a fortunate Rob Brown type of start to his career then even more fortunate ending up with Orr and the Bruins.

who knows maybe he has a decent career staying in the windy city but the exploits in Boston 100% do not happen if he stays with the Hawks.


Do some research here, Espsotio was a colossal failure in the playoffs with his time in the Windy city, I mean he made Dionne look good.

 

[sandercohan78*]

yes that season where he was tied for 7th in scoring playing with Hull.

Mikita BTW led the NHL with 97 points, hull 2nd with 80, team mate Wharram 4th with 65 points, Phil tied for 7th with 61, team mate Mohns 1 point behind with 60 points, Pilote in 12th place with 52 points.

So basically a fortunate Rob Brown type of start to his career then even more fortunate ending up with Orr and the Bruins.

who knows maybe he has a decent career staying in the windy city but the exploits in Boston 100% do not happen if he stays with the Hawks.


Do some research here, Espsotio was a colossal failure in the playoffs with his time in the Windy city, I mean he made Dionne look good.

I mean playing with Orr definitely helped his numbers, Orr also helped Espo get into a funk where when Orr was out or couldn't play Espo could still produce great offence.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Except the last two seasons of the O6 playing with Phil Esposito, Bobby Hull scored 50+ goals each season.

After Phill Esposito was traded, Bobby Hull in a slightly longer season, perhaps against weaker opposition scored 50 or more goals only two times in five seasons.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/h/hullbo01.html

No idea on what you are talking about here Hull after Espositio has an excellent resume as a player aged 29-33 in the NHL, leading the NHL in goals the next 2 years and having a career high 103 points as well.

While Esposito 's scoring increased.

We can both agree that Bobby Orr had that kind of impact right?

What facts are you referencing about trending towards a non HHOF career?

Somehow your position does not pass the examination of facts.

It's quite simple looking at Esposito after the 66-67 season no one was talking about possible future HHOF Espsotio being traded to the Bruins.

You were around at the time was anyone even inkling towards the thought that big Phil would be a HHOF guy?

Phil had played 5 professional seasons by that point and was coming off back to back playoff no man land performances, despite being in a relatively good spot with bobby hull as a winger.

He is in no way shape of form any competition for Jagr in any terms.

Heck even in another thread you talked about how dominant Orr was in his extremely early junior days.

Orr's track record is flawless for his career, aside from injuries, same can't be said of Big Phil.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Facts

No idea on what you are talking about here Hull after Espositio has an excellent resume as a player aged 29-33 in the NHL, leading the NHL in goals the next 2 years and having a career high 103 points as well.



We can both agree that Bobby Orr had that kind of impact right?



It's quite simple looking at Esposito after the 66-67 season no one was talking about possible future HHOF Espsotio being traded to the Bruins.

You were around at the time was anyone even inkling towards the thought that big Phil would be a HHOF guy?

Phil had played 5 professional seasons by that point and was coming off back to back playoff no man land performances, despite being in a relatively good spot with bobby hull as a winger.

He is in no way shape of form any competition for Jagr in any terms.

Heck even in another thread you talked about how dominant Orr was in his extremely early junior days.

Orr's track record is flawless for his career, aside from injuries, same can't be said of Big Phil.

During the 1967-68 season Hull's scoring, goals and points were down without Esposito despite playing five more games. Esposito's scoring with the Bruins was up
23 points including his first 30 goal season.Orr missing 28 games and coming back late in the season did not keep Esposito from improving his game and assuming a leadership role.

Career honours - HHOF, in the sixties were discussed post career, after the player had retired. Not a few years into a career.

Orr in junior played on an expansion Oshawa team. Best forward was Ron Buchanan who head a brief NHL cup of coffee followed by some solid WHA seasons until a knee injury ended his career.

Orr had impact. So did Phil Esposito as did Ron Buchanan creating open ice for Bobby Orr.

 

[Hardyvan123]

During the 1967-68 season Hull's scoring, goals and points were down without Esposito despite playing five more games. Esposito's scoring with the Bruins was up
23 points including his first 30 goal season.Orr missing 28 games and coming back late in the season did not keep Esposito from improving his game and assuming a leadership role.

hull's points totals fluctuated all throughout his career he still led the NHL in goals the first 2 years after Phil was traded and in the 2nd year he scores career high in goals and points.

Pretty hard to conclude that Hull missed Phil in any way shape or form.

Yes Espositio's points went up but Orr was the driving factor in Boston plain and simple, much more so than Esposito.

67-68 TGF 113, PPGF 37 in 74 games,

for Orr
67-68 TGF 99, PPGF 28 in 46 games

So in extra 28 games Phil was on the ice for a total of 14 more goals and 9 of them were on the PP.

But I'm exaggerating the Orr affect here?

I don't think so.

Career honours - HHOF, in the sixties were discussed post career, after the player had retired. Not a few years into a career.

it's not a hard question was he trending after 5 professional seasons towards a HHOF career?

If you (this isn't personal but rhetorical) had suggested it among friends and hockey people they simply would have laughed at you.

Orr in junior played on an expansion Oshawa team. Best forward was Ron Buchanan who head a brief NHL cup of coffee followed by some solid WHA seasons until a knee injury ended his career.

Orr had impact. So did Phil Esposito as did Ron Buchanan creating open ice for Bobby Orr.[/QUOTE]

You stated in the other thread that you had never seen and still haven't seen a talent like Orr.

I'm suggesting that Orr had more impact on Phil's career than the other way around and it'snot even very close.

 

[Canadiens1958]

1967-68 Phil Esposito What Actually happened

hull's points totals fluctuated all throughout his career he still led the NHL in goals the first 2 years after Phil was traded and in the 2nd year he scores career high in goals and points.

Pretty ahrd to concldue that Hull missed Phil in any way shape or form.

Yes Espositio's points went up but Orr was the driving factor in Boston plain and simple, much more so than Espsosito.

67-68 TGF 113, PPGF 37 in 74 games,

for Orr
67-68 TGF 99, PPGF 28 in 46 games

Sso in extra 28 games Phil was on the ice for a total of 14 more goals and 9 of them were on the PP.

But I'm exaggerating the Orr affect here?

I don't think so.




it's not a hard question was he trending after 5 professional seasons towards a HHOF career?

If you (this isn't personal but rhetorical) had suggested it among friends and hockey people they simply would have laughed at you.

Orr in junior played on an expansion Oshawa team. Best forward was Ron Buchanan who head a brief NHL cup of coffee followed by some solid WHA seasons until a knee injury ended his career.

Orr had impact. So did Phil Esposito as did Ron Buchanan creating open ice for Bobby Orr.

You stated in the other thread that you had never seen and still haven't seen a talent like Orr.

I'm suggesting that Orr had more impact on Phil's career than the other way around and it'snot even very close.[/QUOTE]

!967-68 NHL season the first year after Phil Esposito was trade to Boston, saw the Bruins start strongly. December 9th, during a Saturday night game in Toronto Bobby Orr was injured in a game in Toronto. Initially it was felt that Bobby orr would miss about three weeks with a collar bone injury.

https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=usQtAAAAIBAJ&sjid=1p8FAAAAIBAJ&hl=fr&pg=7200,2476319

Interestingly the driving force behind the Bruins early season, success - first place was not Bobby Orr nor Phil Esposito but the Johnny Bucyk(18G, 17A), Fred Stanfield((9G,24A), John McKenzie(11G, 20A) line, respectively 2nd,3rd,and 4th in league scoring behind Bobby Hull. Neither Orr(7G,11A) nor Esposito(10G,12A) were in the top 11.

December 12th,1967 statistical data after 25 Bruin games:

https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=u8QtAAAAIBAJ&sjid=1p8FAAAAIBAJ&hl=fr&pg=4427,2698073

Bobby Orr cameback for the January 16 ASG in Toronto then missed 5 more games.

January 30,1968 NHL Scoring:
https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=7D0jAAAAIBAJ&sjid=158FAAAAIBAJ&hl=fr&pg=966,5889136

Esposito has risen to (25G, 25A) - 3rd overall while Orr (9G,19A) is well back due to injury. Also the Bruins are no longer in first place. Bobby Orr played 9 of the remaining 26 games due to injuries and late in the season when he returned he was in rehab mode, finishing with 11G, 20A in 46 games. Phil Esposito(35G,49A) finished second in league scoring, three points behind Stan Mikita while leading the league in assists. Bobby Hull was well back with 75 points.

So after Orr was injured December 9, 1967, the Bruins played 49 more games while Bobby Orr played only 21 of these. Phil Esposito was 14 points back of Bobby Hull in scoring, playin mainly without Bobby Orr, Phil Esposito stepped up, overcoming a 14 point deficit to finish the season 9 points ahead of Bobby Hull.

Certainly performing at or above Jagr type levels offensively where he could compensate for the loss of Bobby orr for long stretches of the 1967-68 NHL season.

Bobby Hull after a strong start, scored well Under a point per game pace the rest of the season,app0.80 PPG suggesting he definitely missed Phil Esposito who during the same stretch was scoring at roughly a 1.2PPG pace.

As for your rhetorical question, my friends and hockey people from the ra simply did not view hockey in those terms. Grounded in the reality of what had happened or was happening.

Orr and Esposito had a reciprocal benefits elationship throughout their time as team mates. Collapsing to one left the other with open ice. Injuries and absences forced both to adapt and step up their game with positive results.

As evidenced by the detailed look at the 1967-68 season Phil Esposito does not get the credit he deserves.

 

[Voight]

Crosby is ahead still. Ovechkin has never had a deep run which really hurts him when comparing him to crosby who had back to back 27+ point playoff runs

Only thing he is "ahead" in is assist totals and scoring titles, which he was one more of.

 

[blogofmike]

You stated in the other thread that you had never seen and still haven't seen a talent like Orr.

I'm suggesting that Orr had more impact on Phil's career than the other way around and it'snot even very close.

!967-68 NHL season the first year after Phil Esposito was trade to Boston, saw the Bruins start strongly. December 9th, during a Saturday night game in Toronto Bobby Orr was injured in a game in Toronto. Initially it was felt that Bobby orr would miss about three weeks with a collar bone injury.

https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=usQtAAAAIBAJ&sjid=1p8FAAAAIBAJ&hl=fr&pg=7200,2476319

Interestingly the driving force behind the Bruins early season, success - first place was not Bobby Orr nor Phil Esposito but the Johnny Bucyk(18G, 17A), Fred Stanfield((9G,24A), John McKenzie(11G, 20A) line, respectively 2nd,3rd,and 4th in league scoring behind Bobby Hull. Neither Orr(7G,11A) nor Esposito(10G,12A) were in the top 11.

December 12th,1967 statistical data after 25 Bruin games:

https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=u8QtAAAAIBAJ&sjid=1p8FAAAAIBAJ&hl=fr&pg=4427,2698073

Bobby Orr cameback for the January 16 ASG in Toronto then missed 5 more games.

January 30,1968 NHL Scoring:
https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=7D0jAAAAIBAJ&sjid=158FAAAAIBAJ&hl=fr&pg=966,5889136

Esposito has risen to (25G, 25A) - 3rd overall while Orr (9G,19A) is well back due to injury. Also the Bruins are no longer in first place. Bobby Orr played 9 of the remaining 26 games due to injuries and late in the season when he returned he was in rehab mode, finishing with 11G, 20A in 46 games. Phil Esposito(35G,49A) finished second in league scoring, three points behind Stan Mikita while leading the league in assists. Bobby Hull was well back with 75 points.

So after Orr was injured December 9, 1967, the Bruins played 49 more games while Bobby Orr played only 21 of these. Phil Esposito was 14 points back of Bobby Hull in scoring, playin mainly without Bobby Orr, Phil Esposito stepped up, overcoming a 14 point deficit to finish the season 9 points ahead of Bobby Hull.

Certainly performing at or above Jagr type levels offensively where he could compensate for the loss of Bobby orr for long stretches of the 1967-68 NHL season.

Bobby Hull after a strong start, scored well Under a point per game pace the rest of the season,app0.80 PPG suggesting he definitely missed Phil Esposito who during the same stretch was scoring at roughly a 1.2PPG pace.

As for your rhetorical question, my friends and hockey people from the ra simply did not view hockey in those terms. Grounded in the reality of what had happened or was happening.

Orr and Esposito had a reciprocal benefits elationship throughout their time as team mates. Collapsing to one left the other with open ice. Injuries and absences forced both to adapt and step up their game with positive results.

As evidenced by the detailed look at the 1967-68 season Phil Esposito does not get the credit he deserves.

Good post. Jagr and Esposito both have to deal with people being dismissive of their performance because of a Big 4 teammate, but it seems a little harsher for the hero of the Summit Series.

Orr missed significant time in 1968 and 1973, but Esposito performed at the same level anyways: http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1297021

And it's cool to see that the Bucyk-Stanfield-McKenzie line was around in 67-68, and was (briefly) the best line in the NHL.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Powerplay

Good post. Jagr and Esposito both have to deal with people being dismissive of their performance because of a Big 4 teammate, but it seems a little harsher for the hero of the Summit Series.

Orr missed significant time in 1968 and 1973, but Esposito performed at the same level anyways: http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1297021

And it's cool to see that the Bucyk-Stanfield-McKenzie line was around in 67-68, and was (briefly) the best line in the NHL.

Initially the line formed the Bruins PP with Esposito and Orr. Stanfield would play the left point with Esposito playing center.

The impact of a defenceman playing dominant minutes - Bruins were using two pairings at the time was huge in terms of TOI and positional impact, replacing a #1 d-man for a length of time ripples thru the line-up.

Jagr on the Penguins without Lemieux would have received greater defensive attention but the Penguins defensive game would not have to be adjusted at all.

 

[Killion]

Bobby Hull after a strong start, scored well Under a point per game pace the rest of the season,app0.80 PPG suggesting he definitely missed Phil Esposito who during the same stretch was scoring at roughly a 1.2PPG pace.

Indeed. Esposito's unique talents as a Playmaker were never fully replaced, stunting, hindering what Bobby Hull could have accomplished. He (Hull) knew that at the time of The Trade, extremely upset about it... selfishly depending upon how judgmental one might wish to be in this specific instance.... Big Phil going from sidekick funny man, guy paid to feed the Charismatic Superstar to becoming one himself in Boston. Rather like when Jerry Lewis broke away from Dean Martin... Jerry more than surpassing his partner & Sidekick Status to the sexy well dressed guy with the smooth lines who was scoring all the time.. which was what Phil himself ultimately became and pretty much overnight. It was always there yet in Chicago under Pilous, a great old-school hockey mind sure enough but a One Trick Pony, wasnt ever going to happen. Shame. Rudy had the makings of a really good smoke. That team should have been busting Montreal & Toronto into fragments.

Coulda/Shoulda/Woulda huh?.... oh well.

 

[VMBM]

hull's points totals fluctuated all throughout his career he still led the NHL in goals the first 2 years after Phil was traded and in the 2nd year he scores career high in goals and points.

Pretty ahrd to concldue that Hull missed Phil in any way shape or form.

But the fact is that Hull did miss him. Ever heard of Hull calling Esposito his "right arm"?

https://books.google.fi/books?id=h1zLEKjpl_cC&pg=PA25&lpg=PA25&dq=hull+esposito+%22right+arm%22&source=bl&ots=MhLQMpOKoy&sig=KeL-o1eu4mVHRyL8e_2-4mnD1yU&hl=fi&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwic9rWmkJXLAhXDCJoKHYCxA5AQ6AEIIDAA#v=onepage&q=hull%20esposito%20%22right%20arm%22&f=false

 

[Batis]

How many other multiple Art Ross winners garnered less recognition?

Jagr is 4th all-time when it comes to career Hart trophy voting shares so there is a number of multiple Art Ross winners who garnered less recognition than him over their careers. At least when it comes to Hart voting. http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=104180715&postcount=4

If you are only refering to their Art Ross winning seasons then I can sort of understand what you are getting at though. Still Jagrs Hart shares in his Art Ross seasons seems atleast reasonably strong to me.

1995: 36%
1998: 57%
1999: 97%
2000: 68.1%
2001: 33.9%

Jagr was one point behind Pronger in the 2000 Hart Trophy voting. He lost the 1998 Hart Trophy to Peak Hasek. In 1995 he lost out to Peak Lindros and in 2006 he barely lost both the Art Ross and the Hart to Peak Thornton. In my opinion Jagrs Hart voting record is strong no matter how you turn it, even when compared to most other multiple Art Ross winners.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Jagr is 4th all-time when it comes to career Hart trophy voting shares so there is a number of multiple Art Ross winners who garnered less recognition than him over their careers. At least when it comes to Hart voting. http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=104180715&postcount=4

If you are only refering to their Art Ross winning seasons then I can sort of understand what you are getting at though. Still Jagrs Hart shares in his Art Ross seasons seems atleast reasonably strong to me.

1995: 36%
1998: 57%
1999: 97%
2000: 68.1%
2001: 33.9%

Jagr was one point behind Pronger in the 2000 Hart Trophy voting. He lost the 1998 Hart Trophy to Peak Hasek. In 1995 he lost out to Peak Lindros and in 2006 he barely lost both the Art Ross and the Hart to Peak Thornton. In my opinion Jagrs Hart voting record is strong no matter how you turn it, even when compared to most other multiple Art Ross winners.

Hart shares are pretty biased towards modern times when there has been much more consensus among the voters. I know Hockey Outsider himself is the first to point this out in some other thread. FWIW, Jagr's behind Beliveau and Bobby Hull in terms of top 3 and top 5 finishes.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=104179935&postcount=3