Is Jagr the Greatest Right Wing of All Time?

[Cursed Lemon]

think of it this way... if you wanted to find the best 90 players looking in a pool of 10,000 is not as good as looking in a pool of 1,000,000. the best 90 out of the 1,000,000 is probably going to be better than the 90 out of the 10,000...

You realize that, proportionally, that just means a whole crap-ton of average players for said best players to beat up on, right?

 

[Canadiens1958]

And Litzenberger basically had three good seasons, the rest of it was meh.

Bure and Selänne were much better players. Ed "Three Year Blip" Litzenberger barely register.

Fatal car accident that injured him, killing his wife cut short his career.

 

[bobholly39]

wait, are you suggesting that kovalev is any closer to jagr's offensive genius than shutt and lemaire were to lafleur's?

i do, however, think that having mario, coffey, and trottier there at the beginning really helped him maximize his genius. francis and recchi had all-time vision too.

it's like when you have a smart kid and they put him in gifted class so the other prodigies push him, instead of just leaving him to be the smartest guy in a normal class.

I've never really liked Kovalev much as a player. And if you had to come up with a list of top 100 players of all time, he wouldn't be in it. He probably wouldn't be in a list of top 200 players of all time either.

But in terms of pure raw talent and offensive genius? Kovalev is the type of guy who would actually score very highly on such a list. Maybe you should have used better adjectives if you were trying to talk down on Kovalev's ability =/

 

[Canadiens1958]

Kovalev, a soloist in a team game.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Kovalev, a soloist in a team game.

I miss him anyway.He was great to watch.

The big goals in the 5-0 comeback game vs. NYR.

Continuously making Chara looking like a fool.

Tucker hit.

Chemistry with Markov on PP for diagonal pass.

 

[JackSlater]

Kovalev was a great stickhandler and very skilled with the puck. I don't think that his hockey sense or iq was particularly noteworthy for an offensive forward, both from seeing him and from looking at his results.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Speaking of Kovalev, I never bought that he was lazy.I think he was a sensitive person, and how he was treated by his team affected him more than the average player.Meaning, if his team believed in him, it boosted his confidence, if his team didn't believe in him, it crippled his confidence.If someone believed in him he would try to do all he could not to disappoint him.

Think of the Keenan long shift, where he hilariously thought he was left there cause he was playing great.In the end he scored that goal.Or that Souray was very criticizing of him in 06-07 (IIRC?), then Souray leaves MTL and Kovalev comes back in 07-08 with almost double his production and a career year at age 33.

Those are just speculations, but I just don't buy he was lazy.For me lazy is something else, it's a player who doesn't care.Kovalev cared.

 

[Orange Dragon]

You realize that, proportionally, that just means a whole crap-ton of average players for said best players to beat up on, right?

Um shouldn't there be, proportionally, 100x more best players too?

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

I've never really liked Kovalev much as a player. And if you had to come up with a list of top 100 players of all time, he wouldn't be in it. He probably wouldn't be in a list of top 200 players of all time either.

But in terms of pure raw talent and offensive genius? Kovalev is the type of guy who would actually score very highly on such a list. Maybe you should have used better adjectives if you were trying to talk down on Kovalev's ability =/

i don’t really think of kovalev as a genius. as jackslater also suggests above, he had some high end tools: great hands and a nice wrist shot. but in terms of vision and iq i don’t think he was anything special... at least not special enough to be in the same sentence about genius as lemieux and francis without raising some serious eyebrows.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

i don’t really think of kovalev as a genius. as jackslater also suggests above, he had some high end tools: great hands and a nice wrist shot. but in terms of vision and iq i don’t think he was anything special... at least not special enough to be in the same sentence about genius as lemieux and francis without raising some serious eyebrows.

yeah, Kovalev was always more of a "all the tools, no toolbox" player to me

 

[pappyline]

Fatal car accident that injured him, killing his wife cut short his career.

Beat me to it. He was considered a superstar before that tragic accident. It should also be pointed out that Litzenberger had a pretty good rookie season winning the calder and scoring 23 goals.

 

[BenchBrawl]

No toolbox to describe Kovalev is way too severe.He was smart enough, though unspectacular in that regard.I'd say average for a first liner.He's one of the players with the most myths surrounding him.

Anyway, I never got the Kovalev hatred or disrespect.The way I see it, with the (sad) evolution of the spectacle of hockey since the mid-90s, players like Kovalev are far down the list of problems.

 

[pappyline]

Interestingly Howe dominated in an era with elite RW competition - M. Richard, Geoffrion, Bathgate, Litzenberger.

The late 50's was the golden age of RW's. 6 Rw's were in the top 11. Hebenton & Stasiuk were other RW's putting up good numbers.

 

[jj cale]

i don’t really think of kovalev as a genius. as jackslater also suggests above, he had some high end tools: great hands and a nice wrist shot. but in terms of vision and iq i don’t think he was anything special... at least not special enough to be in the same sentence about genius as lemieux and francis without raising some serious eyebrows.

Indeed, Kovalev was no genius, as you said he had very high end tools, world class high end tools. but i.q wasn't anything to write home about.

 

[ThreeLeftSkates]

Makarov was better and for longer.

Bossy was lucky enough not to be born behind the iron curtain. He had no control over the longer part, but I am unconvinced on the better part.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Bossy was lucky enough not to be born behind the iron curtain. He had no control over the longer part, but I am unconvinced on the better part.

In the alternative entertain the possibility that Makarov and others were fortunate to be born behind the Iron Curtain. Assuming the same development with freedoms is iffy. See Krutov and others.

 

[Cursed Lemon]

Um shouldn't there be, proportionally, 100x more best players too?

Uh, no. That's not how proportions work.

 

[Canadiens1958]

The late 50's was the golden age of RW's. 6 Rw's were in the top 11. Hebenton & Stasiuk were other RW's putting up good numbers.

Plus George Armstrong, 1956-57 lead Leafs in scoring.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Not only is Jagr the greatest right wing of all time, he's the greatest winger of all time. Jagr would have dominated every single era of hockey... hell his career spanned 3 eras and he thrived in each. He thrived in the KHL.
Jagr, in my opinion, is second only to Gretzky in greatness.

That’s not really a statement that exclusively applies to Jagr. That the league went through massive changes twice in just 7 years means that all of the truly great players around Jagr’s age (Sakic, Brodeur, Lidstrom, Forsberg, Selanne) also had great years in all three of the high-scoring 90s, Dead Puck Era, and post-lockout 00s. More than that, when the scoring levels dropped again in the 2010s, Selanne added a top-10 scoring finish, Lidstrom added a Norris Trophy, and Brodeur went to the Finals.

It definitely leaves them with some battle-tested careers where you know they would be excellent in any era, but are we really uncertain that the older group (Lemieux, Roy, Messier, Bourque) who were great in the mid-80s, early-90s, and Dead Puck Era wouldn’t also be great in a post-lockout environment, had they been 5-10 years younger and saw three distinct environments too?

Just because Brett Hull at 41 fell off in 2005-06 doesn’t mean that being great in 2003-04 and 2005-06 is some unimaginable feat. Whether you look at forwards, defensemen, or goaltenders, the best ones were still generally the best ones.

 

[Sentinel]

That’s not really a statement that exclusively applies to Jagr. That the league went through massive changes twice in just 7 years means that all of the truly great players around Jagr’s age (Sakic, Brodeur, Lidstrom, Forsberg, Selanne) also had great years in all three of the high-scoring 90s, Dead Puck Era, and post-lockout 00s. More than that, when the scoring levels dropped again in the 2010s, Selanne added a top-10 scoring finish, Lidstrom added a Norris Trophy, and Brodeur went to the Finals.

It definitely leaves them with some battle-tested careers where you know they would be excellent in any era, but are we really uncertain that the older group (Lemieux, Roy, Messier, Bourque) who were great in the mid-80s, early-90s, and Dead Puck Era wouldn’t also be great in a post-lockout environment, had they been 5-10 years younger and saw three distinct environments too?

Just because Brett Hull at 41 fell off in 2005-06 doesn’t mean that being great in 2003-04 and 2005-06 is some unimaginable feat. Whether you look at forwards, defensemen, or goaltenders, the best ones were still generally the best ones.

I agree with everything except Messier being great in the DPE.

 

[Sentinel]

Bossy was lucky enough not to be born behind the iron curtain. He had no control over the longer part, but I am unconvinced on the better part.

Bossy was a phenomenal goalscorer. Makarov was a great goalscorer, a great passer, and a great two-way player. Bossy was arguably the second most important forward on his dynasty team, with an occasional drop to third (Gilles). Makarov was unarguably the top forward on his dynasty team, with an occasional drop to the second (Krutov or 88' Larionov).

 

[K Fleur]

No NHL winger scored more assists than Mike Bossy from 77-78 to 88-89. That includes two seasons where Bossy was retired.

 

[quoipourquoi]

I agree with everything except Messier being great in the DPE.

1996-97? 7th in points-per-game at 36-years-old - marginally older than Jagr was during his final placements in the top-10. Difference of course being that scoring environments were only really shifting dramatically for the first time during his career while he was 35/36 while Jagr experienced it at 24/25 and 33/34.

I suppose the equivalent would be if scoring levels shifted for the first time in Jagr’s career in 2007-08. We’d have less evidence, but we could probably reach the same conclusion that he’d thrive regardless.

 

[ThreeLeftSkates]

No NHL winger scored more assists than Mike Bossy from 77-78 to 88-89. That includes two seasons where Bossy was retired.

Very underrated as a passer, 20 less assists than goals. 5 less assists than goals total after his first year in the league. We did not even discuss his playoff scoring yet.

 

[ThreeLeftSkates]

Bossy was a phenomenal goalscorer. Makarov was a great goalscorer, a great passer, and a great two-way player. Bossy was arguably the second most important forward on his dynasty team, with an occasional drop to third (Gilles). Makarov was unarguably the top forward on his dynasty team, with an occasional drop to the second (Krutov or 88' Larionov).

See above, Bossy was also a great passer. He played with Trottier, Makorov played with Larionov. How does that impact each players effectiveness one way or the other?