Jagr's playoff legacy

[BenchBrawl]

Not trying to rank him or anything , just wondering what people thought about Jagr's play in the playoffs over his career and how clutch he was.

Click to read more...

 

[MXD]

Not trying to rank him or anything , just wondering what people thought about Jagr's play in the playoffs over his career and how clutch he was.

Pretty good -- ranking not affected positively or negatively by playoffs, though I think most of the guys "ahead" of him brought the same (or more). Certainly not "elevated" his play that much, but he set the bar pretty high to begin with. Was a top-5 skater in the league through his whole career and played such. Hard to blame for his team's failures, because of them were bound to fail anyways. Their best shot might have been 94-95, but that result (losing 4-1 against the Devils) was predictable, considering it was a Wregget/Brodeur matchup, and it's not like the Devils lost many playoffs games that season (3 or 4? can't remember).

 

[Padan]

What happened to him in the 2001 playoffs? Just two goals in 16 games.

 

[MXD]

What happened to him in the 2001 playoffs? Just two goals in 16 games.

Well, that's certainly not abnormal for a player to have a weaker playoff year when you play for so long.

And 12 points in 16 games, its not like he was dreadful either.

Besides, that's not really his legacy.

 

[EventHorizon]

I don't really have anything meaningful to add to the discussion, but is there anyone who doesn't immediately recall the goal against Chicago whenever the words 'Jagr' and 'playoffs' are used in the same sentence?

 

[ContrarianGoaltender]

What happened to him in the 2001 playoffs? Just two goals in 16 games.

The opposing goalies for the Penguins that year were Kolzig, Hasek, and Brodeur. That might explain why Jagr's shooting percentage was less than half of his career average.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

What happened to him in the 2001 playoffs? Just two goals in 16 games.

I believe that's when Jagr's depression started acting up and there were rumblings of discontentment. After several seasons of being "the best player in the world," suddenly he took a backseat to Mario Lemieux on his own team.

Not really a surprise that Pittburgh traded him that offseason (though money was largely a reason).

Also, in the Eastern Conference finals, the Devils really shut down the Lemieux-Jagr line.

 

[Big Phil]

I think he has a very good playoff career. Legendary? No, but that is a short list to being with. If I were to compare it to another great I'd say Phil Esposito. Both won a pair of Cups, both did their part, neither won a Cup without their superstar teammate (Orr, Lemieux) and there are a couple of times when each player took their team further than they should have gone (Esposito 1979, Jagr 1999, 2000) when they were virtually alone.

 

[Czech Your Math]

What happened to him in the 2001 playoffs? Just two goals in 16 games.

Jagr was injured during the playoffs, that's the real answer. New Jersey was awesome that year and probably would have easily won that series either way, but Jagr almost sat out that series. Instead, he took injections in his shoulder to play.

According to Jagr, it actually started in the 2000 off-season. Quote from 4th game of regular season, after scoring 4 goals in the game:

"During the summer, my shoulder was hurt. I just don't feel
comfortable yet."

His injuries surfaced the second round against Buffalo. Here are blurbs from articles during that series (source: Letsgopens.com):

Game 1
----------
'Pittsburgh's other superstar -- right wing Jaromir Jagr -- made a brilliant pass on the game's first goal but missed the third period due to a mysterious injury.

"I really don't know," coach Ivan Hlinka said. "He got some charley horse or something."

... Jagr drew a pair of defenders in the neutral zone at the left boards and backhanded a pass into Buffalo's end, hitting Lemieux in stride.

Lemieux, who had just jumped off the bench on a line change, skated in alone on Hasek and beat him with a short-side slap shot from just above the right hashmark.

"It was a great play by Jagr," said Lemieux... "He had the puck at center ice. Four guys followed him, he dropped it back and I walked in all alone, hit the post and it went in." '

Games 2 & 3
----------------
"They played without Jagr... who sat out with a charley horse and
injuries to his groin and shoulder."

Game 4
----------
"Jagr sat out the previous two games with a variety of ailments,
including a shoulder injury. He had an assist and one shot in
just under 20 1/2 minutes on Wednesday."

Game 5
-----------
"Jagr, who missed two games with a shoulder injury..."

Game 7
----------
"Jaromir Jagr was held without a shot but set up all three goals
for Pittsburgh"
=============

Also telling is that Jagr averaged over 3.9 shots/game in the regular season. In the first round of the playoffs, he had 22 shots in 6 games (~3.7/game). Against Buffalo and New Jersey, he had 16 shots in 10 games, with a high of 3 shots (the only time he had more than 2 shots in any of those 10 games).

 

[Czech Your Math]

I believe that's when Jagr's depression started acting up and there were rumblings of discontentment. After several seasons of being "the best player in the world," suddenly he took a backseat to Mario Lemieux on his own team.

Not really a surprise that Pittburgh traded him that offseason (though money was largely a reason).

Also, in the Eastern Conference finals, the Devils really shut down the Lemieux-Jagr line.

I believe you are wrong. Do you really believe that he was not giving it his all during the playoffs. Mario gets a pass for his health problems, has 3 1/2 seasons off... and still gets shut down against New Jersey. But you can't criticize Mario, he's "Super Mario" after all.

Lemieux during 2001 playoffs:

First round- 7 points (Jagr had 6)

Second round- 7 points in 7 games (Jagr 6 points in 5 games)
In the two games Jagr missed in the series, Lemieux had a total of ONE point. The Pens went down 3-2 in series, but won the last two. Lemieux had a total of ONE point in the last two games, while Jagr had three.

New Jersey shut them both down, but Jagr was playing with one arm by that point. What was Lemieux's excuse? I know he was 35, but Jagr was leading the NHL in playoff points after two rounds at age 35... on a line with a rookie (Dubinsky) and a 35 y/o Straka whose hands were not near what they were in his prime.

What was truly classless was Mario publicly criticizing Jagr for his performance in the ECF. A guy whose idea of training is holding the fries and watching Dan Quinn, criticized Jagr's work ethic and motivation, after he had been leading a very mediocre Pens team, nearing bankruptcy, to the playoffs every year. Perhaps Mario's motivation for coming back was more about all the money the Pens owed him, rather than his love of the game. Somehow it's Jagr who was "unmotivated" and "ungrateful", while Lemieux can do no wrong.

Give Jagr 3 1/2 seasons to rest and heal, instead of try to carry an AHL squad with "four guys following him" around the ice (and without enforcement of many rules), and maybe he would be a bit perkier by the 2nd/3rd round of the playoffs that year.

 

[SidGenoMario]

My friend, you should write a novel about Jagr's life, if you haven't already.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

I believe you are wrong. Do you really believe that he was not giving it his all during the playoffs. Mario gets a pass for his health problems, has 3 1/2 seasons off... and still gets shut down against New Jersey. But you can't criticize Mario, he's "Super Mario" after all.

Lemieux during 2001 playoffs:

First round- 7 points (Jagr had 6)

Second round- 7 points in 7 games (Jagr 6 points in 5 games)
In the two games Jagr missed in the series, Lemieux had a total of ONE point. The Pens went down 3-2 in series, but won the last two. Lemieux had a total of ONE point in the last two games, while Jagr had three.

New Jersey shut them both down, but Jagr was playing with one arm by that point. What was Lemieux's excuse? I know he was 35, but Jagr was leading the NHL in playoff points after two rounds at age 35... on a line with a rookie (Dubinsky) and a 35 y/o Straka whose hands were not near what they were in his prime.

What was truly classless was Mario publicly criticizing Jagr for his performance in the ECF. A guy whose idea of training is holding the fries and watching Dan Quinn, criticized Jagr's work ethic and motivation, after he had been leading a very mediocre Pens team, nearing bankruptcy, to the playoffs every year. Perhaps Mario's motivation for coming back was more about all the money the Pens owed him, rather than his love of the game. Somehow it's Jagr who was "unmotivated" and "ungrateful", while Lemieux can do no wrong.

Give Jagr 3 1/2 seasons to rest and heal, instead of try to carry an AHL squad with "four guys following him" around the ice (and without enforcement of many rules), and maybe he would be a bit perkier by the 2nd/3rd round of the playoffs that year.

Excellent Post. Coming from the biggest Lemieux fan I know.

 

[dannythekid]

Jagr's play against the Devils in the first rd of 98-99 playoffs where NJ was the No.1 and we were No. 8 will remain in my mind his best performance.

If I remember correctly, he scored the game winner in Game 6 in OT and the eventual Game winner in Game 7, but I'll be damned if I can remember 12 years ago.

 

[Czech Your Math]

My friend, you should write a novel about Jagr's life, if you haven't already.

Yes, in defending the many unsubstantiated slanders against him, it seems like I have already. It's unfortunate that over 20 years of professional hockey will not define his legacy to some, but rather a brief time of turmoil in his personal and professional life that is continually overstated by his critics.

Of course he has flaws, and was perhaps a bit reckless in his youth and a bit frustrated in his (hockey-wise) middle age, but it's surprising how many question his work ethic and motivation.

However, I do see his career much more fairly evaluated by most than it was around the time of the most recent lockout.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

I believe you are wrong. Do you really believe that he was not giving it his all during the playoffs. Mario gets a pass for his health problems, has 3 1/2 seasons off... and still gets shut down against New Jersey. But you can't criticize Mario, he's "Super Mario" after all.

Lemieux during 2001 playoffs:

First round- 7 points (Jagr had 6)

Second round- 7 points in 7 games (Jagr 6 points in 5 games)
In the two games Jagr missed in the series, Lemieux had a total of ONE point. The Pens went down 3-2 in series, but won the last two. Lemieux had a total of ONE point in the last two games, while Jagr had three.

New Jersey shut them both down, but Jagr was playing with one arm by that point. What was Lemieux's excuse? I know he was 35, but Jagr was leading the NHL in playoff points after two rounds at age 35... on a line with a rookie (Dubinsky) and a 35 y/o Straka whose hands were not near what they were in his prime.

What was truly classless was Mario publicly criticizing Jagr for his performance in the ECF. A guy whose idea of training is holding the fries and watching Dan Quinn, criticized Jagr's work ethic and motivation, after he had been leading a very mediocre Pens team, nearing bankruptcy, to the playoffs every year. Perhaps Mario's motivation for coming back was more about all the money the Pens owed him, rather than his love of the game. Somehow it's Jagr who was "unmotivated" and "ungrateful", while Lemieux can do no wrong.

Give Jagr 3 1/2 seasons to rest and heal, instead of try to carry an AHL squad with "four guys following him" around the ice (and without enforcement of many rules), and maybe he would be a bit perkier by the 2nd/3rd round of the playoffs that year.

i like this post a lot. this is the version of lemieux i remember from the 90s.

it seems insensitive to say, but i feel like mario got an even bigger boost from the cancer scare than he did from the two unbelievable cup runs. all of a sudden, there was no question lemieux was a heart and soul player, a courageous leader, etc., when to a lot of us, he won those two cups on talent. his unbelievable talent led (but then who wouldn't be inspired to play balls out by that talent)-- he didn't have a fraction of messier or stevens in him.

but he comes back from cancer-- an incredible comeback, don't get me wrong-- and all of the character issues disappear. what does "courageous" or "being a fighter" really mean anyway? is roger nielsen less courageous or less of a fighter than lemieux or koivu because he died? as i recall, his comeback at 35 seemed like a very transparent attempt to recoup his forced investment (his salary was deferred during his playing days and he had to take a share of the team instead of the money he was owed). i don't fault him for that, those are millions upon millions of dollars, but the mario/jagr double standard that year was galling (cancer survivor vs. "enigmatic" european).


here's an old article on lemieux from the late 90s that i really liked at the time. it goes too far the other direction, but it makes some good points nonetheless:

A seriously suspect New York Islanders team, without its ''star'' Pierre Turgeon, made of a mockery of that ''sweep-to-the-Cup'' claim by defeating the Penguins in the quarter-finals in seven games. It still remains as the most stunning upset of the decade. When Lemieux went over to shake hands with Al Arbour after David Volek's overtime winner, Lemieux closed the door on his career. The only problem is that he didn't stop playing.

At the best of times, Mario was a reluctant superstar. While Gretzky was shoved in front of every camera and reporter the world over, Mario had no interest in promoting the game that brought him fame and fortune. Worse, this later period would be marked by his disgraceful maligning of the game that had placed him in such high regard.

The fact of the matter is that hockey ceased to be fun for Lemieux after that early playoff exit in 1993. When his team was failing in those later years, his condemnation of the league as a ''garage-league'' and his constant whining about how the game wouldn't change its rules to suit the game's best players (him, of course) are the antithesis of a player who deserves to be given an early entrance into the Hall Of Fame. This is where Lemieux absolutely failed the game. Markets that were opening up all over the world needed the next Gretzky to emphasis the positives, NOT to hear about how poor the play would be for new fans to come and watch. Funnily enough, the game was just fine when Lemieux was winning or not slumping, but when he wasn't, it was a nightmare.
1993-94 proved to be the '90s nadir of his career to that point, only reinforcing the notion that he should have ended it all the season before. His 22 games played that year a sign that his back was deteriorating quickly, but it was his playoff effort that year which showed how poor his attitude to hard work and discipline had become.

The Penguins were trounced in six games by a hopelessly coached, goaltending rollercoasting team called the Washington Capitals. As the cameras scanned the bench, TSN announcer Jim Hughson said it best when he commented on a Penguins team as one who, only a year ago, was thought young and dominant but now looked old and tired. The seven points in six games barely told the story of how little Lemieux had to give to the game which had given him so much.

Lemieux took the 1994-95 season off but had to come back for the following two years to collect an $11 million paycheque in 1996-7, LONG after he knew he had no interest in playing. His deplorable record at award shows continued during 1996 show. He publicly berated the management of his own team, blackmailing them with the thought that he would retire if they didn't get better players to play with him. He actually couldn't look beyond his own needs to see that he had just disabled his own G.M. from making any worthwhile trades. Every team in the league now knew G.M. Craig Patrick had no choice but to deal. His position was sadly weakened. But one of the members of the Hall Of Fame selection committee called his early selection a ''slam dunk''. Certainly he was ignoring Lemieux's international record, which took an ugly twist in that same summer of 1996.

http://web.archive.org/web/19990209182449/www.interlog.com/~ditko37/citn/hfb2lemi.html

 

[Czech Your Math]

Excellent Post. Coming from the biggest Lemieux fan I know.

Thank you, if that is sincere (and I believe it is). I assume you are the biggest Lemieux fan you know? I know it's not me, although I am a Lemieux fan, and he was Jagr's idol.

When Lemieux came out and criticized Jagr publicly that was low, and ironic, because while Lemieux took 3 1/2 seasons off from the "garage league" to heal up, Jagr was expected to play through injury and lead a garage band to #1.

Mario comes back (again) and is greeted as a superhero. How would Jagr be viewed (even with similar health issues), if he:

- called the NHL a "garage league" (he probably felt the same way)
- took 3 1/2 seasons off, but comes back because team owes him $
- joins the team mid-season and plays on Mario's line, but Mario outscores him during those games and wins the Ross
- underperforms in playoffs when Mario is out or team is down 3-2 against Buffalo
- is held without a goal during ECF (as they both were), while obviously ailing Mario guts it out to play at all
- criticizes Mario, basically calling him a slacker
- after Mario left, led the team to their worst records since the 80's

Does anyone think he would have been called the league's savior, finished ahead of Mario in the Hart voting and been offered a chance to own the Penguins, etc.?

More likely, the reaction would be along the line of "he really overcame some tough health issues, and he sure is talented... but he sure is a jerk and probably just came back for the money they owed him... didn't do much when Mario was out or when team was down 3-2... didn't step it up when Mario was playing hurt... and as soon as Mario left, the team collapsed."

That's not how I view Mario's comeback, but honestly that's how I think it would have been viewed if their roles were reversed and Jagr was in a similar situation. It's all perception, folks.

 

[seventieslord]

Thank you, if that is sincere (and I believe it is). I assume you are the biggest Lemieux fan you know? I know it's not me, although I am a Lemieux fan, and he was Jagr's idol.

When Lemieux came out and criticized Jagr publicly that was low, and ironic, because while Lemieux took 3 1/2 seasons off from the "garage league" to heal up, Jagr was expected to play through injury and lead a garage band to #1.

Mario comes back (again) and is greeted as a superhero. How would Jagr be viewed (even with similar health issues), if he:

- called the NHL a "garage league" (he probably felt the same way)
- took 3 1/2 seasons off, but comes back because team owes him $
- joins the team mid-season and plays on Mario's line, but Mario outscores him during those games and wins the Ross
- underperforms in playoffs when Mario is out or team is down 3-2 against Buffalo
- is held without a goal during ECF (as they both were), while obviously ailing Mario guts it out to play at all
- criticizes Mario, basically calling him a slacker
- after Mario left, led the team to their worst records since the 80's

Does anyone think he would have been called the league's savior, finished ahead of Mario in the Hart voting and been offered a chance to own the Penguins, etc.?

More likely, the reaction would be along the line of "he really overcame some tough health issues, and he sure is talented... but he sure is a jerk and probably just came back for the money they owed him... didn't do much when Mario was out or when team was down 3-2... didn't step it up when Mario was playing hurt... and as soon as Mario left, the team collapsed."

That's not how I view Mario's comeback, but honestly that's how I think it would have been viewed if their roles were reversed and Jagr was in a similar situation. It's all perception, folks.

Good points!

 

[Czech Your Math]

i like this post a lot. this is the version of lemieux i remember from the 90s.

it seems insensitive to say, but i feel like mario got an even bigger boost from the cancer scare than he did from the two unbelievable cup runs. all of a sudden, there was no question lemieux was a heart and soul player, a courageous leader, etc., when to a lot of us, he won those two cups on talent. his unbelievable talent led (but then who wouldn't be inspired to play balls out by that talent)-- he didn't have a fraction of messier or stevens in him.

but he comes back from cancer-- an incredible comeback, don't get me wrong-- and all of the character issues disappear. what does "courageous" or "being a fighter" really mean anyway? is roger nielsen less courageous or less of a fighter than lemieux or koivu because he died? as i recall, his comeback at 35 seemed like a very transparent attempt to recoup his forced investment (his salary was deferred during his playing days and he had to take a share of the team instead of the money he was owed). i don't fault him for that, those are millions upon millions of dollars, but the mario/jagr double standard that year was galling (cancer survivor vs. "enigmatic" european).

here's an old article on lemieux from the late 90s that i really liked at the time. it goes too far the other direction, but it makes some good points nonetheless:

http://web.archive.org/web/19990209182449/www.interlog.com/~ditko37/citn/hfb2lemi.html

Thanks, I think we have similar views. Lemieux and Jagr are both supremely talented hockey players and human beings with flaws. They are perhaps more similar than different. What's starkly different is the general perception of the two, one a superhero cancer survivor and franchise savior, the other a moody, mysterious, unmotivated European. One difference is in their training, as while neither was known for excessive practice, Jagr trained intensively, while Lemieux... well, he was Lemieux.

That was an insightful article, however one thing I disagree with is the criticism of Lemieux for calling the NHL a "garage league." I understand he should be expected to promote the league and may have not done his best to do so. However, the NHL also has a responsibility to its players. Lemieux (and many others) didn't want the league to put special rules in place for him and other stars, he just wanted the league to enforce the rules in place, and the league utterly failed to do so on a consistent basis.

The NBA tirelessly promoted all its star players and bent over backwards to protect them. I mean, Magic was awesome, but if you brushed against him (or sometimes legitimately stole the ball) while he drove the lane, he flailed his arms and it was automatically a foul. The NFL at least goes out of its way to protect its Quarterbacks (which are a good portion of its stars).

The NHL, which had previously given Gretzky the "Magic" treatment, decided not to enforce its own rules much of the time after the lockout. Stars were not protected or given special treatment, they were mostly penalized for being stars. That's one reason why scoring declined, despite the disproportionate addition of elite forward talent in the '90s. Also, I don't believe the NHL equally promoted its stars. It promoted Gretzky, Lemieux, Messier and Lindros (the next one, until Crosby)... but did it similarly promote Jagr, Forsberg, Fedorov, Bure, Selanne, Sundin, etc.? Of course, if most of the stars are injured while trying to fend off multiple holding/hacking defenders, it doesn't help much either.

 

[Czech Your Math]

Not trying to rank him or anything , just wondering what people thought about Jagr's play in the playoffs over his career and how clutch he was.

As someone already pointed out, he set the bar high with superlative regular seasons. He essentially matched his regular season production in the playoffs, despite the obvious increase in quality of competition during the post-season.

I examined his playoff production, except for 7 games (5 games in ECF in 2001 and 2/3 games in 2006) when he was essentially playing with one arm. I compared his adjusted playoff production to his expected production:

Goals- 99.6% of expected
Points- 98.3% of expected

Total expected production (EP) was calculated by summing his EP for each playoff season. Each season's EP is the number of playoff games multiplied by his adjusted GPG or PPG during regular season.

I won't bore you with the details of how adjusted playoff production is calculated (unless requested), but essentially it compares actual team playoff scoring to expected team playoff scoring using regular season averages weighted by actual playoff games. The results are very similar to Pnep's numbers, although it was compiled independently.

Did the same thing for Lemieux:

Goals- 87.1% of expected
Points- 84.0% of expected

What about Messier, who most regard as "clutch"?

Goals- 104.8% of expected
Points- 102.3% of expected

When you consider that Messier was starting at a much lower production level, and was frequently playing on superior teams, this isn't too surprising, although still impressive.

Esposito was mentioned (excepted his first playoff, guessing he didn't get much ice time):

Goals- 83.1% of expected
Points- 84.4% of expected

Orr is also low at 84.8% of expected points. It may be that post-season competition was a lot greater than the regular season (relative to other eras). IOW, their regular season adjusted stats are more inflated, so they drop off more severely in post-season.

Gretzky:

Goals- 96.5% of expected
Points- 94.9% of expected

And Mr. Hockey (excepting his first playoff and one game in 1950 when injured):

Goals- 104.3% of expected
Points- 98.8% of expected

He holds his own against other greats, whether or not you call that "clutch" is for you to decide.

 

[mrhockey193195]

Thank you, if that is sincere (and I believe it is). I assume you are the biggest Lemieux fan you know? I know it's not me, although I am a Lemieux fan, and he was Jagr's idol.

When Lemieux came out and criticized Jagr publicly that was low, and ironic, because while Lemieux took 3 1/2 seasons off from the "garage league" to heal up, Jagr was expected to play through injury and lead a garage band to #1.

Mario comes back (again) and is greeted as a superhero. How would Jagr be viewed (even with similar health issues), if he:

- called the NHL a "garage league" (he probably felt the same way)
- took 3 1/2 seasons off, but comes back because team owes him $
- joins the team mid-season and plays on Mario's line, but Mario outscores him during those games and wins the Ross
- underperforms in playoffs when Mario is out or team is down 3-2 against Buffalo
- is held without a goal during ECF (as they both were), while obviously ailing Mario guts it out to play at all
- criticizes Mario, basically calling him a slacker
- after Mario left, led the team to their worst records since the 80's

Does anyone think he would have been called the league's savior, finished ahead of Mario in the Hart voting and been offered a chance to own the Penguins, etc.?

More likely, the reaction would be along the line of "he really overcame some tough health issues, and he sure is talented... but he sure is a jerk and probably just came back for the money they owed him... didn't do much when Mario was out or when team was down 3-2... didn't step it up when Mario was playing hurt... and as soon as Mario left, the team collapsed."

That's not how I view Mario's comeback, but honestly that's how I think it would have been viewed if their roles were reversed and Jagr was in a similar situation. It's all perception, folks.

Fantastic points! I agree with you on all points, Jagr gets a pretty unfair rep. IMO, he was one of the best playoff performers of this past generation. Maybe not to the level of a Sakic or a Forsberg, but right up there. Sure, he had his off years (who doesn't?).

But the things I'll never forget about him were his performance in game 6 and 7 against NJ in 1999 coming back from injury, and how he played for the rangers in 07 and 08.

 

[Czech Your Math]

Fantastic points! I agree with you on all points, Jagr gets a pretty unfair rep. IMO, he was one of the best playoff performers of this past generation. Maybe not to the level of a Sakic or a Forsberg, but right up there. Sure, he had his off years (who doesn't?).

But the things I'll never forget about him were his performance in game 6 and 7 against NJ in 1999 coming back from injury, and how he played for the rangers in 07 and 08.

Thanks. He played through a lot of injuries and may have taken shifts (or games) off during the regular season, but in important games, playoffs, and international play he was at his best.

Since you brought them up:

Sakic (excepted 5 scoreless games from 2000, obviously hurt):
Goals- 115.7% of expected
Points- 101.5% of expected

Actually exceeded his regular season point production, Messier the only other one to do so of the stars for which I've calculated this number.

Forsberg:
(excepting 2002, because he didn't play in regular season)
Goals- 129.1% of expected
Points- 97.7% of expected

(using 2003 as basis for expected 2002 playoff production)
Goals- 152.5% of expected
Points- 99.4% of expected

This gives credence to the statement that Forsberg was a much better goal scorer than his regular season numbers indicate. However, his playoff point production was very much in line with his regular season production (which is still quite impressive).

Just maintaining adjusted point production in the playoffs is "clutch" for superstars, and the higher the production level, the more difficult it is.

 

[rocsfeather]

I've always thought of Jagr as a great talent and one of the best since I started watching hockey (early-mid 90s). At any point of his career, he is a player I would always want on my team. I was disappointed to see him leave the NHL but I did enjoy seeing him during the Olympics.

 

[Fish on The Sand]

What happened to him in the 2001 playoffs? Just two goals in 16 games.

I believe his shoulder was really messed up, I know he also played through a serious groin injury too, but it was mostly his shoulder, and injury that basically lingered for the rest of his NHL career.

 

[Unaffiliated]

Forsberg:
(excepting 2002, because he didn't play in regular season)
Goals- 129.1% of expected
Points- 97.7% of expected

(using 2003 as basis for expected 2002 playoff production)
Goals- 152.5% of expected
Points- 99.4% of expected

edit: nvm i'm an idiot, should have understood that much faster.

 

[Psycho Papa Joe]

I think the 1992 playoffs really established him as a star in the NHL. It was his real coming out party. Other than that he had some good and very good performances, but was never really his regular season dominate self.