Jaromir Jagr From 1998-2001 Or Alex Ovechkin From 2007-2010?

[KoozNetsOff 92]

Don't bet jelly.

It's not being jelly, 2 rings riding Lemieux's coattails has nothing to do with the 98-01 pens. Jagr led them to the same place OV led the 07-10 caps.

 

[Thenameless]

I'll take Ovechkin for this three year comparison. Jagr did something special in becoming the best scorer after the Gretzky/Lemieux era. When all is said and done, Ovechkin might accomplish something even more significant - consideration as perhaps one of the four greatest goal scorers ever to play in the NHL.

 

[daver]

Did Ovechkin lead the NHL in PPG 3 consecutive years just because he's a great goal scorer?

Not as much as Jagr did though, and not as much over his team either.

 

[daver]

I'll take Ovechkin for this three year comparison. Jagr did something special in becoming the best scorer after the Gretzky/Lemieux era. When all is said and done, Ovechkin might accomplish something even more significant - consideration as perhaps one of the four greatest goal scorers ever to play in the NHL.

What does career accomplishments have to do with the OP?

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Jäger was a cancer to a team. Ovechkin at least actually cares. Give me ovechkin. The fact ovechkin has more harts with way less art Ross tells it all

 

[Thenameless]

What does career accomplishments have to do with the OP?

The three year window is a microcosm of the rest of their careers. Jagr being a superior overall scorer, and Ovechkin becoming a legendary goal scorer.

 

[daver]

The three year window is a microcosm of the rest of their careers. Jagr being a superior overall scorer, and Ovechkin becoming a legendary goal scorer.

But this shouldn't change how these three year windows should be evaluated. Overall, Jagr is ahead of OV all-time and that is unlikely to change unless OV improves his playoff resume.

 

[JackSlater]

Jäger was a cancer to a team. Ovechkin at least actually cares. Give me ovechkin. The fact ovechkin has more harts with way less art Ross tells it all

Tells what? That Ovechkin was more popular with voters and had better timing? Hart trophies are obviously a plus, but Jagr had several non-Hart winning seasons better than at least one (2013) of Ovechkin's Hart winning seasons.

 

[authentic]

Shall we take his rings away?

No, but they aren't relevant in a thread that's comparing his seasons from 1998-2001.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Tells what? That Ovechkin was more popular with voters and had better timing? Hart trophies are obviously a plus, but Jagr had several non-Hart winning seasons better than at least one (2013) of Ovechkin's Hart winning seasons.

So, the top players were simply better back then...when fewer people were playing hockey?

I find those types of arguments difficult to justify. IMO the assumption should be that becoming the top player in any era is basically equally difficult, with a tie breaker or slight edge to the modern players who have more competition (defined in simple math - more people playing hockey in the world, more players eligible for the NHL from Russia for example).

 

[JackSlater]

So, the top players were simply better back then...when fewer people were playing hockey?

I find those types of arguments difficult to justify. IMO the assumption should be that becoming the top player in any era is basically equally difficult, with a tie breaker or slight edge to the modern players who have more competition (defined in simple math - more people playing hockey in the world, more players eligible for the NHL from Russia for example).

You make it sound like this is about Eddie Shore or Howie Morenz, not Jagr. This is also probably the first time that I've seen the talent pool argument used against the 90s. Regardless, I think that the point of my post was pretty clear - Hart trophies are a plus, but a non-Hart season can be better than a Hart season. If the 90s is too far back for you, then take for instance Jagr's non-Hart winning 2006 season, which was a better season than Ovechkin's 2013 Hart winning season.

 

[Midnight Judges]

You make it sound like this is about Eddie Shore or Howie Morenz, not Jagr. This is also probably the first time that I've seen the talent pool argument used against the 90s. Regardless, I think that the point of my post was pretty clear - Hart trophies are a plus, but a non-Hart season can be better than a Hart season. If the 90s is too far back for you, then take for instance Jagr's non-Hart winning 2006 season, which was a better season than Ovechkin's 2013 Hart winning season.

No, I just encounter a lot of nostagia-based arguments where people assert that any combination of Sakic, Forsberg, Yzerman, Lindros, Jagr, Messier, Hasek, Roy, Federov, Lidstrom, Pronger were all greater players than Crosby/Ovechkin and this is in addition to Lemieux and Gretzky. So basically the best players now would somehow be in the 10-15 range in the 90's. Or some variation on that theme. And don't get me started on the 80's lol.

I agree with your point that in some seasons the 2nd Hart finish is better than the first from a different year. I am not sure if that ought to apply to Jagr though. I think people underrate what Ovechkin did in 12/13. The team around him was not very good.

 

[authentic]

So, the top players were simply better back then...when fewer people were playing hockey?

I find those types of arguments difficult to justify. IMO the assumption should be that becoming the top player in any era is basically equally difficult, with a tie breaker or slight edge to the modern players who have more competition (defined in simple math - more people playing hockey in the world, more players eligible for the NHL from Russia for example).

I don't believe there actually are more people playing hockey today than the late 90s and early 2000s. If anything it may have been more then with the rising costs of playing hockey.

 

[authentic]

No, I just encounter a lot of nostagia-based arguments where people assert that any combination of Sakic, Forsberg, Yzerman, Lindros, Jagr, Messier, Hasek, Roy, Federov, Lidstrom, Pronger were all greater players than Crosby/Ovechkin and this is in addition to Lemieux and Gretzky. So basically the best players now would somehow be in the 10-15 range in the 90's. Or some variation on that theme. And don't get me started on the 80's lol.

I agree with your point that in some seasons the 2nd Hart finish is better than the first from a different year. I am not sure if that ought to apply to Jagr though. I think people underrate what Ovechkin did in 12/13. The team around him was not very good.

Ovechkin was great in 12/13 I don't think anyone denies that, it's just obvious he was not better than Crosby.

 

[daver]

I agree with your point that in some seasons the 2nd Hart finish is better than the first from a different year. I am not sure if that ought to apply to Jagr though. I think people underrate what Ovechkin did in 12/13. The team around him was not very good.

Yet you think OV got robbed of the Hart in 2010 when the team around him was a powerhouse.

Jagr had less support than OV in these three year windows. Why isn't that relevant?

 

[Midnight Judges]

Yet you think OV got robbed of the Hart in 2010 when the team around him was a powerhouse.

That is false. Quick, name all the awesome defensemen they had. I'll wait.

 

[Goodman68]

Jagr was clearly a dominant player.

 

[scott clam]

For best three years you can go either way, but Jagr's all around offense dominance lasted way longer than the window provided.

Jagr wins.

 

[JasonRoseEh]

Ovechkin was the more dominant player with a higher peak.

 

[JasonRoseEh]

Nope. It just implies there are lot young fans on here that didn't watch hockey in the 90s.. Jagr was just that good...Ovechkin is great goal scorer, But Jagr did it all without much help...

This is objectively close and should be, anyone saying it's not close either way is the one with little hockey knowledge.

 

[Future GOAT]

Jagr, the best player since Lemieux.

 

[moropanov]

Of course Jagr >Ovechkin after all has never been very good at playing hockey not even at his peak/prime and Jagr is legendary super star calibre. Even player like Kovalchuk was much more skilled/talented than lazy bum Ovechkin. Afterall Kovalchuk has some slick skills he can play some hockey not like Ovechkin who mostly have been just fat big orc taking slap shots from stand still and rushing wing same play over again and again without creativity/puck skills.

 

[Zuluss]

% leads over #10 in points:
OV in 2007-2010: 29-25-27
Jagr in 1998-2001: 43-22-26

% leads over #10 in goals:
OV in 2007-2010: 63-44-43
Jagr in 1998-2001: 13-17-30

Averages:
Jagr led #10 in points by 30%, Ovechkin led #10 in points by 27%
Jagr led #10 in goals by 20%, Ovechkin led #10 in goals by 50%

An extra 20% lead in goals is definitely more important than an extra 3% lead in points, so Ovechkin has a clear edge here.

You can map it into numbers from last season, when #10 in points had 96 points and #10 in goals had 41 goals.
In last season's currency, 1998-2001 Jagr would have had 49g+76a=125p and 2007-2010 Ovechkin would have had 62g+50a=122p
A 50-goal version of last season Kucherov is a hell of a player, especially if you can have that for three years straight. But basically the same thing with 60+ goals and massive hits is something else.

 

[KoozNetsOff 92]

Jagr's #s had a big boost in 00/01 after Lemieux returned. OV's 3 year peak is better either way, but it would make more sense to go Jagr 97/98-99/00 vs OV 07/08-09/10.

 

[Conspiracy Theorist]

I think Ovechkin but it made me think. Ovechkin was more dominant in 2008 tournament than Jagr was in 1998 olympics.