Career Value: Jagr - Lafleur

[markrander87]

The title says it all, who has more career Value? Peak and longevity both taken into consideration.

Click to read more...

 

[canucks4ever]

Jagr, only homers would pick lafluer. Jagr's 7th-15th best seasons are so much better than guy's 7th-15th best seasons.

 

[seventieslord]

You'd have to weigh team accomplishments significantly more than individual achievements to say Lafleur is better.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Jagr by quite a bit and I agree with the 2 previous posts, it would be one strange formula of Montreal's winning those Cups with all of those HHOF and giving Lafluer extra credit to have him ranked higher than Jagr.

Jagr has 2 Cups and has a very good playof record as well.

 

[Loto68]

Forgetting Peak, just look at longevity, its ridiculous. In Jagr's 3rd to last season he lost the art ross by 2 points and had his best year in half a decade, what was LaFleur doing by that point in his career?

 

[begbeee]

Jagr and as said above only homers or much more value to team achievments can put Lafleur over Jagr.

 

[unknown33]

I'm shocked how one sided this poll is.

Lafleur is ahead of Jagr on the HoH Top 100 List but still loses this poll only receiving one vote?

Not that I disagree with it, but it's still a strange result that I didn't expect.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Lafleur is ahead of Jagr on the HoH Top 100 List but still loses this poll only receiving one vote?

Jagr should be higher than Lafleur on the list and quite possibly Trottier should be higher than Lafleur too.

Jagr > Lafleur .. peak and career. Even taking into account Jagr was a pouter doesn't drop him enough. The short peak is all Lafleur has as an upper level player.

I'm really torn on Lafleur. He was amazing but he was also a right place right time sort of guy. I feel he's generally a bit overrated due to the hardware he received with very little top notch competition in a similar situation, and while playing on what may be the best team ever. Of course he was a big part of making it that but still..

 

[MXD]

Sorry, but we just look bipolar here.

 

[markrander87]

Sorry, but we just look bipolar here.

In the last three ATD's I've seen Lafleur has been picked roughly 12-14 picks ahead of Jagr. This is huge 12-14 picks within the top 30 is massive value. They're both RW so I was wondering why this happens. I 100% agree that Jagr has the higher career value.

Euro Biased?

 

[BraveCanadian]

In the last three ATD's I've seen Lafleur has been picked roughly 12-14 picks ahead of Jagr. This is huge 12-14 picks within the top 30 is massive value. They're both RW so I was wondering why this happens. I 100% agree that Jagr has the higher career value.

Euro Biased?

Now I'm interested to go look through the discussion on the list to see why Lafleur was a dozen spots higher.

I can't think of any reason..

EDIT - had a peek and basically no good reason except the oft recited Lafleur was the best player in the NHL for 5 years. That is debatable but here is another interesting post which I agree with:

My list, I hate this part, the top 20 should be all generational talents, but, sadly, isn't yet. Go Ovechkin, Crosby and Malkin!

11. Jaromir Jagr: This is where Hart shares begin to influence my research and voting. He's 4th, ahead of Hull, Beliveau and Richard. Now, it isn't a perfect measure, but, it says a lot. As does 5 scoring titles. 5 players have done that, 3 are top 4 all-time, there's only so much you can punish a player for being a moody ***** when he backs it up like that.


15. Guy Lafleur: How is Jagr punished for his mood swings and Lafleur not punished for his party lifestyle? In three years: 232gp 162g 224a 386pts. Gets drunk, speeds, crashes his car. The next three years: 185gp 81g 149a 230pts. That is how personality hurts a team. His goal scoring was literally halved by the choices he as an individual made. If we are to punish players for how they acted as a human being and how those actions hurt their teams ability to succeed. We start by punishing Guy Lafleur. He should be below Bill Cook.

Jagr does get beat up for being moody but people seem to forget that Lafleur was as well.. and was also a quitter when he started to pass his peak and was expected to contribute in other ways.

So I dunno..

 

[Psycho Papa Joe]

Jagr obviously had more years as an impact player. If not for Lafleur's injuries in the early 80's, perhaps this would make for a more compelling argument.

 

[Psycho Papa Joe]

Jagr does get beat up for being moody but people seem to forget that Lafleur was as well.. and was also a quitter when he started to pass his peak and was expected to contribute in other ways.

So I dunno..

Lafleur wasn't a quitter IMO. His style of play just didn't mesh with the style of play Lemaire was trying to incorporate in 1984. Lafleur was actually having a pretty good year in 83-84 until Lemaire became coach and his PPG numbers were solid the 3 previous years. IMO, even a guy like Jagr would likely not have jived with Lemaire and his brand of hockey. IMO Jagr wouldn't have been allowed to play pond hockey like we was in Pittsburgh.

It's really unfortunate that Serge Savard didn't trade Lafleur to a team that could better utilize what he could still do at that point in his career. I recall Winnipeg and Edmonton inquiring, but they wouldn't meet Savard's asking price.

 

[Peter9]

Sorry, but we just look bipolar here.

No matter what the vote of some members of this board have to say on "career value," I'd much rather have had Guy Lafleur's career than Jaromir Jagr's. In other words, I'd rather be Guy Lafleur than Jaromir Jagr.

 

[markrander87]

Lafleur wasn't a quitter IMO. His style of play just didn't mesh with the style of play Lemaire was trying to incorporate in 1984. Lafleur was actually having a pretty good year in 83-84 until Lemaire became coach and his PPG numbers were solid the 3 previous years. Truth is, even a guy like Jagr would likely not have jived with Lemaire and his brand of hockey. Jagr wouldn't have been allowed to play pond hockey like we was in Pittsburgh.
.

This is all speculation though. No true facts in which we base our judgements on.

 

[Psycho Papa Joe]

This is all speculation though. No true facts in which we base our judgements on.

You are correct. I changed my post, but I think it is based on informed opinion. I really don't see Jagr jiving with a guy like Lemaire. That said, his production more than likely doesn't take the same type of hit that Lafleur's took under Lemaire.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I'm shocked how one sided this poll is.

Lafleur is ahead of Jagr on the HoH Top 100 List but still loses this poll only receiving one vote?

Not that I disagree with it, but it's still a strange result that I didn't expect.

I think it's because when people see "career value," they place a huge emphasis on longevity. Whereas longevity was a smaller aspect of what makes someone a "better player," which is what the Top 100 list was measuring.

My jumbled thoughts - Jagr over Lafleur seems pretty easy for career value at first glance.

But...I watched most of Messier and Jagr's careers, and I honestly would have a hard time picking Jagr over Messier in the playoffs. Either way, I think both men should be ranked really close.

And then I can't help but think that Lafleur over Messier seems like a no-brainer.

So I didn't vote.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

In the last three ATD's I've seen Lafleur has been picked roughly 12-14 picks ahead of Jagr. This is huge 12-14 picks within the top 30 is massive value. They're both RW so I was wondering why this happens. I 100% agree that Jagr has the higher career value.

Euro Biased?

I don't think there is an anti-euro bias so much as an anti-modern player bias.

But there are other factors too:

1) The ATD, whether we admit it or not, places high emphasis on peak value. In picturing how historical players would play together, we naturally think of them at their best.

2) Lafleur is a playoff monster and the ATD is largely playoff based. Jagr wasn't bad in the playoffs, but Lafleur is one of the best ever.

3) Jagr has a reputation for pouting if not put in the perfect condition, and nobody wants their #1 pick to have a question mark surrounding him.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

You are correct. I changed my post, but I think it is based on informed opinion. I really don't see Jagr jiving with a guy like Lemaire. That said, his production more than likely doesn't take the same type of hit that Lafleur's took under Lemaire.

Lafleur's game was based on speed, whereas Jagr's was based on power-skating, so I don't see why it's surprising that Lafleur declined earlier. This was also the age where every star player declined around the age of 30, so we have to take that into account.

And no, I think there's absolutely no way Jagr would have meshed with Lemaire. I mean we see what happened in Washington, when Jagr was asked to play defensive hockey.

 

[arrbez]

No matter what the vote of some members of this board have to say on "career value," I'd much rather have had Guy Lafleur's career than Jaromir Jagr's. In other words, I'd rather be Guy Lafleur than Jaromir Jagr.

Not commenting on either of these two players specifically, but I don't get that line of argument. Sure, any player out there would rather be the guy with the most Stanley Cups. That doesn't necessarily mean the guy with more was better though.

Someone has used this example before, and I think it's a great one:

I'm sure Brad Park would have loved to have Scott Niedermayer's career. That doesn't mean Scott Niedermayer was a better player though.

 

[Peter9]

Not commenting on either of these two players specifically, but I don't get that line of argument. Sure, any player out there would rather be the guy with the most Stanley Cups. That doesn't necessarily mean the guy with more was better though.

Someone has used this example before, and I think it's a great one:

I'm sure Brad Park would have loved to have Scott Niedermayer's career. That doesn't mean Scott Niedermayer was a better player though.

I'm talking not only about what Lafleur meant to his team and his team's success but about the adulation of the fans, the fame, the glamor, the style associated with Lafleur. Jagr simply cannot match any of that. Did fans adore Jagr the way they did Lafleur? Did they flock to arenas from coast to coast in two countries to watch Jagr the way they did Lafleur? Did Jagr do for hockey what Lafleur did for more than a decade? The answer to all these questions is no, and it's not even close. That's why I'd rather have had Lafleur's career. That's why I think numbers alone are not determinative.

I haven't voted yet, but now I will--for Lafleur. Besides the fixation on numbers, perhaps another reason the vote is so lop-sided is that it's more difficult to vote one way when, at the beginning of the poll, a commenter ridicules those who cast a vote that way. That happened here when at the outset one commenter said anyone voting for Lafleur would be displaying homerism. Perhaps people just don't want to put up with that kind of crap.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Now I'm interested to go look through the discussion on the list to see why Lafleur was a dozen spots higher.

I can't think of any reason..

EDIT - had a peek and basically no good reason except the oft recited Lafleur was the best player in the NHL for 5 years. That is debatable but here is another interesting post which I agree with:



Jagr does get beat up for being moody but people seem to forget that Lafleur was as well.. and was also a quitter when he started to pass his peak and was expected to contribute in other ways.

So I dunno..

Wow. Good post you quoted. Really though, that nicely summed up my exact thoughts on the subject. (Hard NOT to vote Lafleur as a Habs fan, but...)

 

[6 8 5 13]

You'd have to weigh team accomplishments significantly more than individual achievements to say Lafleur is better.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[Big Phil]

Okay, there might be a case for Lafleur if Jagr doesn't play after the lockout. If his career spans from 1990-2004 that is. The reason being is that Jagr had a couple years where he declined and had he retired then we would view him a little differently because it looked like he was never going to hit that elite level again.

Then a whole new situation arises post lockout. Jagr almost wins the Hart and Art Ross. He has another elite season (not quite as good) next year and then is still good in 2008 with a great playoff too.

With all this added, there is no way Lafleur beats him in career value. All Lafleur has going for him is possibly the peak (which would be a close match anyway) and the Cups and being the most important part of the Cups. Jagr of course was no slouch in the playoffs either though.

But even with the 1990-2004 comparison you still might lean towards Jagr, maybe

 

[BenchBrawl]

Those 2 are probably the 2 best flashy/electrifying player of all-time but I think Lafleur brings more to a franchise than Jagr.Very close though.