Is Jagr the Greatest Right Wing of All Time?

[Midnight Judges]

I am continuously astounded at how people wildly misjudge Gordie Howe.

He is the second greatest player of all time IMO and I think the case is quite firm.

 

[jj cale]

Jagr has no case against Howe, but I do think that his case for #2 is very strong.

Yeah, I think so too, great case for 2# all time.

My only nitpick with him would be not being the "man" leading a team to a Cup but having said that he was certainly a key contributer to 2 Cup winners so it's not like he is totally empty in that regard, just his case would be complete if he had that on his resume.

Still, I think he is most likely 2# all time all things considered, what a fantastic player he was,a legend.

 

[David Bruce Banner]

you're leaving out that in the smaller league, the competition level was that much higher.

For example, 4 out of the 5 goalies Howe routinely faced are in the HOF.

The smaller rosters meant every line and every D pair was loaded. Imagine the rosters if you shrunk the 2018 NHL down to only 6 teams.

Considering the influx of Europeans and larger population bases, I’d say a better analogy would be to shrink the league down to 15-ish teams.

 

[Dingo]

It has to be Howe, and I slant everything towards post 1995-96. It is still Howe - too dominant.
Jagr is number two, though, I feel.

 

[Sensinitis]

Pretty interesting that the top 3 RWs of all time are all left handed.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Pretty interesting that the top 3 RWs of all time are all left handed.

While Howe could play both sides, I think he favored playing right-handed.I could be wrong, but most of his pictures are like that.

Howe: R ?
Richard: L
Jagr: L
Lafleur: R
Makarov: L
Bossy: R
Conacher: R
Cook: R
Selanne: R
Geoffrion: R
Bathgate: R

...

Seems most of the greatest RWers were righthanded.I base most of those on pictures.

 

[bobholly39]

I've been looking again at some of the numbers Jagr posted at his peak. I feel it gets severely underrated, or overlooked at times.

It's a far cry from Lemieux and Gretzky of course (who isn't) - but i'm not all that convinced that for offensive peak he was all that far behind Howe - if at all.

For a few years he lapped (a very STRONG) field by big margins in the scoring race. Howe also lapped his field by big margins, but the field in the 50s was definitely weaker than in the late 90s imo for offensive talent.

I still definitely give Howe the edge overall - but i'm talking specifically offensive peak here.

 

[solidmotion]

Furthermore, why would it necessarily follow that it would automatically be easier to finish top-5 in league scoring every year in a smaller league when young talent is constantly coming into the league and pushing the established players?

i'd be interested in an analysis of this. conceptually i get what you're saying and a lot of people argue the same. but look at the results and you see a very top-heavy league with the same players dominating for a long time. take 1956 to 1964, just after howe's absolute peak. there is not a lot of churn at the top of scoring races: howe, beliveau and bathgate are in the top 5 every year or almost every year. moore, geoffrion, h. richard, mahovlich, mikita and hull are also in there multiple times. 39 of the top 42 seasons in that range belong to those nine players. i have not found anything comparable in the 90s or 00s. what does that speak to?

 

[Laineux]

39 of the top 42 seasons in that range belong to those nine players. i have not found anything comparable in the 90s or 00s. what does that speak to?

More players given premium opportunities to produce offense = more competition for the scoring race. It is simple as that.

The pre-conceived best offensive players will never coincede with the actual best offensive producers in any year.The 20th most talented offensive player in the league is easily capable of finishing 4th or 5th in the scoring race in any given year - a player who might be stuck in the 3rd line without PP time if it was a 6 team league.

In this day and age, we know that puck luck can be a major factor in production as well.

A practical example from last season would be that Nate MacKinnon had been in the same team as Crosby and Malkin - not very unlikely in a 6 team league - there's no way he gets minutes above those guys and this season gets lost for him and ultimately the competition for the scoring race and Hart trophy is weaker. In this kind of environment, it's very easy to picture the established top offensive players dominating the scoring race year after year in their prime.

Edit: just came up with a much better example than above. William Karlsson scored 43 goals precisely because the league switched from 30 teams to 31 teams.

 

[Canadiens1958]

i'd be interested in an analysis of this. conceptually i get what you're saying and a lot of people argue the same. but look at the results and you see a very top-heavy league with the same players dominating for a long time. take 1956 to 1964, just after howe's absolute peak. there is not a lot of churn at the top of scoring races: howe, beliveau and bathgate are in the top 5 every year or almost every year. moore, geoffrion, h. richard, mahovlich, mikita and hull are also in there multiple times. 39 of the top 42 seasons in that range belong to those nine players. i have not found anything comparable in the 90s or 00s. what does that speak to?

Not a lot of injuries to top players or trades of top players either.

1990s players starting with Lemieux and Gretzky, Pavel Bure, Mogilny, Lafontaine, Lindros, Forsberg, Kevin Stevens, had significant health and injury issues.

Then you have the trades - end of career Bathgate vs mid career Gretzky, Sundin, Messier, Lafontaine, Bure, Shanahan, Oates, Brett Hull, etc. 1956-64 had roster stability.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Edit: just came up with a much better example than above. William Karlsson scored 43 goals precisely because the league switched from 30 teams to 31 teams.

obviously when the league expands there will be opportunities for a few players to explode offensively because someone has to get offensive opportunities on the new team. but whether we’re talking about w karlsson or brian bradley or bob kudelski or phil goyette, none of those guys prevented mcdavid or crosby or mario or mikita or orr or whomever from winning an art ross or hart. but yes, expansion certainly makes it harder for 15-25th best guys to finish top 25 every year.

the exception to this, i would say, is goalies, because the number of goalies capable of having a vezina calibre year outnumbered the number of starting jobs (6) in the O6, and probably through the 70s. but there were never 18 different guys capable of winning the art ross, then or in the offensive golden age of the 80s/early 90s, or now.

 

[daver]

I've been looking again at some of the numbers Jagr posted at his peak. I feel it gets severely underrated, or overlooked at times.

It's a far cry from Lemieux and Gretzky of course (who isn't) - but i'm not all that convinced that for offensive peak he was all that far behind Howe - if at all.

For a few years he lapped (a very STRONG) field by big margins in the scoring race. Howe also lapped his field by big margins, but the field in the 50s was definitely weaker than in the late 90s imo for offensive talent.

I still definitely give Howe the edge overall - but i'm talking specifically offensive peak here.

We can never really know for sure but Howe's peak season is so dominant statistically there really is no way to justify putting Jagr on that level without also adding quite a few other players as well. Jagr may have the best case for 5th best offensive player though.

I think Howe's peak gets overrated a bit as it seems to be presumed he was at his 52/53 level for more than one season or for four years in a row. His other Art Ross wins and his playoff performances all point to him being a level up from his era peers but the fact he did not repeat his 52/53 season again, or close to it, is not insignificant, IMO.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Edit: just came up with a much better example than above. William Karlsson scored 43 goals precisely because the league switched from 30 teams to 31 teams.

Only if William Karlsson sustains the level of performance. Your example is badly flawed. If Karlsson stays with Columbus he likely does not score 43 goals even if the league expands to 31 or more teams.

 

[psycat]

obviously when the league expands there will be opportunities for a few players to explode offensively because someone has to get offensive opportunities on the new team. but whether we’re talking about w karlsson or brian bradley or bob kudelski or phil goyette, none of those guys prevented mcdavid or crosby or mario or mikita or orr or whomever from winning an art ross or hart. but yes, expansion certainly makes it harder for 15-25th best guys to finish top 25 every year.

the exception to this, i would say, is goalies, because the number of goalies capable of having a vezina calibre year outnumbered the number of starting jobs (6) in the O6, and probably through the 70s. but there were never 18 different guys capable of winning the art ross, then or in the offensive golden age of the 80s/early 90s, or now.

Idk
Malkin
Ovechkin
Kane
Crosby
McDavid
Benn
Bäckström
Hall
Kopitar
Giroux
Kucherov
Seguin
Stamkos
Tavares
MacKinnon
Kuznetzov
Gaudreau

Think you could make a case that all of them indeed had a chance based on either previous performance or actual performance during last season(s). Obviously some quite unlikely ones and some very much likely ones but they would still all be capable.

 

[Iron Mike Sharpe]

1. Howe

2. Richard
3-7. Makarov, Jagr, Bossy, Lafleur, Kurri
8. Geoffrion

the rest

3-7 spots are close enough to be debatable, with Rocket edging the group.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Idk
Malkin
Ovechkin
Kane
Crosby
McDavid
Benn
Bäckström
Hall
Kopitar
Giroux
Kucherov
Seguin
Stamkos
Tavares
MacKinnon
Kuznetzov
Gaudreau

Think you could make a case that all of them indeed had a chance based on either previous performance or actual performance during last season(s). Obviously some quite unlikely ones and some very much likely ones but they would still all be capable.

it depends on how you define "capable." to me, someone capable of winning an art ross is a guy who has multiple top 3s. the idea being, even if he never wins an art ross, if he has multiple seasons as a #2 or 3 guy, then in a year where everything goes right for him, he can make it over the top.

so obviously mcdavid, crosby, malkin, ovechkin, all are capable art ross winners. ovechkin maybe not so much anymore. kane and benn, who each have a #1 and 2.

claude giroux has a 2nd and two 3rds. so yeah, he's a possible.

kuch, 3rd and 5th. he's just entering his prime though, so i can give you kuch.

tavares, one single 2nd place finish (1 point back), four years ago; but i'll give you tavares because he was so close to winning it

mackinnon, one 5th place finish, 11 points back, so he would have to get better to be in range (but he's young so i wouldn't write him off)

after that,

backstrom, two 4ths, closest finish is 11 points back of the art ross

hall, two 6ths, closest finish is 15 points back

kopitar, has never finished top 5

seguin, has one 4th, in which he was 20 points back of the art ross; closest he's been is 10 points back (finish 7th)

stamkos, two 2nd place finishes, the last one of which was five years ago, hasn't been in the top 10 since; don't think he's capable anymore

kuz, finished 9th once. nope

gaudreau, finished in a three way tie for 6th once and was 28 points back of the art ross. come on


since expansion, how many players have won the art ross without at least one other top three finish? three: lindros (four top 3s in points/game), henrik sedin (finished 4th in his other great year), daniel sedin (finished 2nd and 3rd in points/game). those are your only "out of nowhere" art ross winners, none of them being actual out of nowhere cases, due to lindros' injury-abbreviated art ross-capable seasons and the sedins being a pair of guys who won it back-to-back.

so like i said, a guy can certainly come out of nowhere to finish 4th or 5th one time in his career, but i have yet to see someone come out of nowhere and finish 1st without repeating it or coming damn close.

 

[psycat]

it depends on how you define "capable." to me, someone capable of winning an art ross is a guy who has multiple top 3s. the idea being, even if he never wins an art ross, if he has multiple seasons as a #2 or 3 guy, then in a year where everything goes right for him, he can make it over the top.

so obviously mcdavid, crosby, malkin, ovechkin, all are capable art ross winners. ovechkin maybe not so much anymore. kane and benn, who each have a #1 and 2.

claude giroux has a 2nd and two 3rds. so yeah, he's a possible.

kuch, 3rd and 5th. he's just entering his prime though, so i can give you kuch.

tavares, one single 2nd place finish (1 point back), four years ago; but i'll give you tavares because he was so close to winning it

mackinnon, one 5th place finish, 11 points back, so he would have to get better to be in range (but he's young so i wouldn't write him off)

after that,

backstrom, two 4ths, closest finish is 11 points back of the art ross

hall, two 6ths, closest finish is 15 points back

kopitar, has never finished top 5

seguin, has one 4th, in which he was 20 points back of the art ross; closest he's been is 10 points back (finish 7th)

stamkos, two 2nd place finishes, the last one of which was five years ago, hasn't been in the top 10 since; don't think he's capable anymore

kuz, finished 9th once. nope

gaudreau, finished in a three way tie for 6th once and was 28 points back of the art ross. come on


since expansion, how many players have won the art ross without at least one other top three finish? three: lindros (four top 3s in points/game), henrik sedin (finished 4th in his other great year), daniel sedin (finished 2nd and 3rd in points/game). those are your only "out of nowhere" art ross winners, none of them being actual out of nowhere cases, due to lindros' injury-abbreviated art ross-capable seasons and the sedins being a pair of guys who won it back-to-back.

so like i said, a guy can certainly come out of nowhere to finish 4th or 5th one time in his career, but i have yet to see someone come out of nowhere and finish 1st without repeating it or coming damn close.

Well I realise some might be huge stretches but my point is that I wouldn't bet my life on them not winning it. If everything goes perfect for Stamkos for a season he could still win it, so he is capable it's just very unlikely. Now this might be semantics but I am not so sure people deemed Benn capable before he actually did it and so on, the fact that someone like Seguin "only" finished 10 points behind is proof enough that he is cabale that is only a hot-streak, an extra point every 8th game, injury to like 1 or 2 competitors+a couple of more lucky bounces etc, sure it would be an outlier season but he is still capable.

Not exactly sure if it matters though so my point might be pointless.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Well I realise some might be huge stretches but my point is that I wouldn't bet my life on them not winning it. If everything goes perfect for Stamkos for a season he could still win it, so he is capable it's just very unlikely. Now this might be semantics but I am not so sure people deemed Benn capable before he actually did it and so on, the fact that someone like Seguin "only" finished 10 points behind is proof enough that he is cabale that is only a hot-streak, an extra point every 8th game, injury to like 1 or 2 competitors+a couple of more lucky bounces etc, sure it would be an outlier season but he is still capable.

Not exactly sure if it matters though so my point might be pointless.

obviously, there are guys who you'd never expect to win the art ross who win it. but there is no case where they never compete for it again. benn followed up his surprise win by finishing 2nd the year after. the sedins won back to back rosses. iginla came out of nowhere in '02 but followed it up with a decade as a superstar, and put together a string of high goals and points finishes, winning another rocket soon after and finishing as high as 3rd in points in 2008.

but my larger point is to answer the (imo false) argument that it was somehow easier to win an art ross in a six team league than in a 12 team league, 21 team league, 31 team league. keep in mind, this is a jagr > gordie howe thread. the only possible argument in jagr's favour is to try to show that his lesser accomplishments were achieved in a more competitive environment.

but history shows us that the extra first line/PP opportunities opened up by expansion have never gone to some undiscovered guy who then won an art ross, that no phil goyette or red berenson or william karlsson has ever won an art ross.

the old six team league had 18 first line forward jobs. no one who isn't getting first line minutes and first unit powerplay duties is going to win an art ross. so the argument went, well hey all these guys getting more scoring opportunities they weren't getting before are going to make it harder for stan mikita to win an art ross now that there are 12 teams. there's a larger field for guys to have flukey career years where everything went right. did that happen? no, because there weren't 18 players capable of fluking his way to an art ross if absolutely everything went right, let alone more than that. competition for the art ross didn't get tougher because there were more teams. stan mikita won the art ross in 1967, and he won it again in 1968 when the league doubled in size.

or, to put it a different way, connor mcdavid outscores taylor hall whether it's a 6 team league or a 31 team league. expand the league to 45 teams and he still is the best scorer.

 

[Orange Dragon]

but my larger point is to answer the (imo false) argument that it was somehow easier to win an art ross in a six team league than in a 12 team league, 21 team league, 31 team league. keep in mind, this is a jagr > gordie howe thread. the only possible argument in jagr's favour is to try to show that his lesser accomplishments were achieved in a more competitive environment.

The number of teams is indeed irrelevant. The size of talent pool is what matters. With Canadians only making about a half of NHL players in recent years I'd argue that talent pool a) doubled or b) Canadians got worse/Europeans and Americans got better.

I personally think it's a combination of both. Of course the real situation is much more complicated, but you probably got the idea.

My stance is that it's somehow more difficult to win the Art Ross now than it was in the past. The fact that in the last 13 years there was 10 different Art Ross winners somehow supports this.

 

[Howie Hodge]

We have no idea! Ask this young lady!

 

[Orange Dragon]

We have no idea! Ask this young lady!

That's number two in sign language. Case closed.

 

[daver]

The number of teams is indeed irrelevant. The size of talent pool is what matters. With Canadians only making about a half of NHL players in recent years I'd argue that talent pool a) doubled or b) Canadians got worse/Europeans and Americans got better.

I personally think it's a combination of both. Of course the real situation is much more complicated, but you probably got the idea.

My stance is that it's somehow more difficult to win the Art Ross now than it was in the past. The fact that in the last 13 years there was 10 different Art Ross winners somehow supports this.

Surely injuries to the two players with the highest PPGs over that time period has contributed to this. IMO, this is a statistical anomaly when compared to other 13 season samples.

I don't think you can reasonably argue that an Art Ross from one era is automatically better than one from another era based on league size, inclusion of, or lack thereof, Europeans, or on the prevalence of HOFers and legends. The only reasonable dynamic to consider is whether it makes statistical sense to consider Top 5, Top 10 scoring finishes from a six team league straight up with Top 5, Top 10 scoring finishes from a larger league. This element is completely objective, one that should put era biases aside, which, IMO, are a crutch that some throw out after losing a numbers argument.

 

[Troubadour]

That's number two in sign language. Case closed.

Funny, but not so fast.

Wiki

The meaning of the V sign is partially dependent on the manner in which the hand is positioned:

• If the palm of the hand faces the signer (i.e., the back of the hand faces the observer), the sign can mean:
  • An insulting gesture in Australia, the Republic of Ireland, New Zealand, South Africa and the United Kingdom.[2][3]
  • The number '2' in American Sign Language.
• With the back of the hand facing the signer (palm of the hand facing the observer), it can mean:
  • The number '2'.
  • Victory – in a setting of wartime or competition.

 

[Howie Hodge]

That's number two in sign language. Case closed.

Lol; or it she might be signaling it took her two rounds to knock him out!

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

re: the “insulting gesture” mentioned above, maybe she is just telling us what they were just doing