And his injuries are a result of his style of play, a quality Lidstrom notably lacks. When injuries a part of the package... well, you get the whole package. Sucks if it happens at the wrong time. In any case, the playoffs is almost entirely irrelevant to the 05-06 debate between these two players.
Actually, that injury was the result of a very atypical play for Jagr... the throwing of a punch. However, I'm guessing you are partly right in that it was likely precipitated by previous damage to his shoulder.
True, playoffs are often not considered when evaluating a single season, and certainly any games Jagr played after injuring his shoulder should be considered irrelevant in evaluating his performance for that season. However, IIRC this was a response to your mentioning that their playoff performances were equal and then giving the edge to Lidstrom since he had equal production as a defenseman.
Roughly 11% difference is fairly significant.
I should have read more closely, was basing this on ranges of 1-2.5% for the two players.
The difference is in the competition and composition of their teams. Lidstrom had to outscore Zubov and Niedermayer, while playing on a stacked team. Jagr had to outscore Thornton, Ovechkin, Crosby, Heatley, Alfredsson, etc. while on a team that without he and Lundqvist was a cellar dweller.
As it's clear you're somewhat lacking in regards to the subject matter, perhaps add in Jason Williams, yea, that Williams, who had a respectable 24 points on the powerplay, instead of Franzen (who didn't have a single PP point).
I could have looked at their stats closer, but was just trying to give a general impression of differnce in the depth of offensive talent on each team, and swapping one player does little to change this fact.
But yes, Detroit had a respectable PP that year with 52 goals (9th in the league), and the best percentage in the league, compared to a much more middling NYR team. However, for all the names you put out, Lidstrom's is by far the most notable... he was, far and away, the Red Wings point leader on the powerplay. And to assert that he was leeching off the others was absurd; he was far and away the leader (50 points) on the powerplay over anyone else on the team and was the driving force behind that machine. If anything, an argument of the powerplay supports Lidstrom for how incredibly dominant he was on it.
I didn't mean to imply that Lidstrom was leeching, as I said he was the QB of the power play, but talent reinforces itself and such talent was sorely lacking on the Rangers.
Admittedly lacking in clarity on my behalf. I was comparing Lidstrom's teams to his competitor's (Hawks 09-10, Stars 05-06) teams, and Jagr's to that of his competitors (Pens 06-07, MostlySharks 05-06). The composition is fairly close, as are the standings (with the notable exception of the cup winning Hawks vs the 05-06 Wings).
Thanks for clarifying that. I would still assert that, for instance, Marleau and Cheechoo in 2006 or Malkin and Gonchar in 2007 were substantially better than Nylander and Straka in 2006.
Also, in the last 14 years, 05-06 was the highest scoring year of hockey, which works to the favor of both contestants. In the last 14 years, Lidstrom's 80 in 80 was the highest scoring d-man with the exception of absolutely noone. And again, if you want to argue Jagr's concussion as having an effect, that's a result of his play.
Correct, it was the highest scoring year in recent memory. Again, the depth of offensive talent of the best defensemen in the dead puck era (Bourque, Leetch, Niedermayer, Gonchar, Zubov and few others) is to me not of the same caliber as the depth of offensive talent of the best forwards in the dead puck era (Lemieux, Jagr, Ovechkin, Forsberg, Lindros, Sakic, Selanne, Crosby, Selanne, Thornton, Kariya, Malkin, Bure, Mogilny, Gretzky, Messier, Yzerman).
Jagr's concussion in the Olympics was the result of a questionable hit and the fact that the Olympics were even taking place. Thornton's team was eliminated earlier, resulting in three extra games for Jagr's team on their way to a medal. Jagr played all 82 games with a broken finger (as a result of a slash during lockout season), while Thornton played 81 games. However, Thornton actually missed 3 games, but because San Jose had played two fewer games at the time of the trade, he was able to make up two of those three games. Effectively, Thornton had 84 potential NHL games and Jagr had 82. Since they ended up two points apart, even without factoring in the extra games Jagr played during the Olympics and the concussion he sustained in a non-NHL game, the extra NHL games were an advantage that in and of itself was probably enough to prevent Jagr's 2006 season from being the highest point season of the past 10 years. To penalize Jagr for being outscored seems even more absurd to me, given this fact.
Remove the factors that are a part of Jagr's concussion and you remove part of what made Jagr a great player. If Lidstrom played a more risky style of game he might have more points. We can play the conjecture game all day.
Again, if it happened in an NHL game, I would not consider it relevant to a comparison of the two players during that season.
Actually, the only two concussions Jagr had that I recall were during the past two Olympics, although it's likely he had others. Except for a shoulder injury that I believe he first sustained in the offseason in 2000, the only other NHL injury that has caused Jagr to miss significant time has been hamstring injuries in '97 and 2000, which isn't the result of a physical puck possession style, although it could be at least partially attributed to his power skating. Either way, the only reason I deem it relevant in terms of single season actual value is due to injury in a non-NHL contest.
Again, because you're using +/- as if it is even a remotely reasonable tool in this sort of analysis, whether for defense or other purposes. It's not. If you want to use a defensive statistical tool that is at least somewhat relevant, then I welcome you to bring one in. ESGA/Qcomp might be a place to start, though when it comes to defense, I first and foremost insist on watching the game.
That's your opinion that plus-minus is irrelevant. I agree that raw plus-minus is of very dubious value, but adjusted plus-minus or similar analysis that puts plus-minus in context of the team's even strength ability seems of value to me. Many others find this to be a quite meaningful measure of value, although it does not yet seem to have the wider acceptance of, say, adjusted points. However, until Hockey Reference listed adjusted points, it was not widely accepted either, but only existed as independent conceptions of various individuals who saw it as a fairer way to measure players' offensive stats. Similarly, Overpass created and shared his adjusted plus-minus concept and data, and I believe it too will gain momentum, since the concept has substantial validity.
If you refuse to recognize the value of such data, that is your choice, but it's an individual choice and not a universal truth. To deny there is significant validity in such a concept, but then instead use measures such as "Lidstrom outscored the next best defenseman by 11% and I watched him play great defense" is not exactly overwhelming evidence to me of overall dominant play.
+/- nearly invalidates your point again, but at the same time I do recognize that Jagr was a force. This is undeniable. However, I also postulate that Lidstrom is no less of a force and thus at best, this comes out as a wash. In regards to your latter assertion, you've turned to hyperbole; Nylander or Straka would certainly have been preferable to Lang or Jason Williams or Mikael Samuelsson, and for that matter I'd take Roszival over anyone on the Wings defense except Lidstrom or Schneider. Hell, possibly over Schneider too, and certainly over the illustrious Jason Woolley or Andreas Lilja. Actually, give me Tyutin or Poti over either of those guys, too.
I don't deny that Lidstrom was a force, but don't believe that he was considerably better overall than Jagr.
Perhaps I exaggerated slightly, as the Rangers' best defenseman (Rozsival) probably could have made the second D-pairing (possibly
only because Kronwall wasn't quite ready for a full season).
However, I still find it doubtful that Nylander is the second line center over Lang, although it's possible. Also doubtful that Straka
is a second line wing, with Detroit's depth at the position, especially looking at his peformance before the lockout and the fact that one of his main strengths was his familiarity with Jagr. Straka was a very good player during his career, but ask Ranger fans how many goals he could have had in 2006... Jagr set him up constantly.
Oh, and since we're comparing teams and you insist on +/-, allow me to see Jagr's +/- with Legace or 05-06 Ozzie behind him and Lidstrom's with Lundqvist.
I think Jagr would have had a substantially better plus-minus on those powerful Detroit teams. He frequently had very good plus-minus numbers on Pittsburgh teams with a weak defensive corps and a constant shuffling of goalies. If we're not just talking about 2006, how would Lidstrom have fared without a dedicated competent checking line and goalies such as post-prime Barrasso, Wregget, Lalime, Tugnutt, Aubin, Snow, and Skudra?
That was my mistake, I changed my train of thought halfway through typing that and typed winger in the place of forward. Jagr is certainly arguable as a top 5 winger.
Okay, I can relate to that.
Not really, Lindsay/Pearson is essentially the forward's award. Unless you seriously want to argue that during his period of dominance, Orr was the best player in the league for an entire 1 season. The fact that Hasek has 2 speaks to how bizarrely good he was. Pearson vs Norris is near to a wash for me, and Hart vs Norris isn't much better. When there is a 'best defenseman award, and there is a 'best goalie' award, but there isn't a 'best forward' award, such is bound to happen.
I don't dispute the bias in that or any award based on voting, but still believe a Pearson has more value than a Norris. Also, you were the one to bring up awards, I did not base my evaluation of the players on this, but rather on statistical evidence in the context of the teams they played on, which seems a much fairer way of assessing their respective values. Since you deny the validity of this as well, am I supposed to accept that outscoring Sergei Zubov by 9 points and Lidstrom's calming presence is irrefutable proof that Lidstrom was vastly superior to Jagr during the 2006 season?
I suppose I could say likewise on both accounts, but we both made simple and easily correctable errors in our respective posts (and I for one appreciate being called out on them).
I appreciate admitting errors and that anyone can mix up his facts from time to time. I just find your selection of criteria arbitrary. To deny contextually adjusted plus-minus data and to bring up and the perception of NHL players, but then base Lidstrom's superiority on his outscoring some good but not great D-man peers and your own perception of Lidstrom's defensive ability and ability to control the game (and claim that is better than Jagr outscoring all but one forward, and that under unusual circumstances detailed previously in this post... as well as him being recognized as controlling the play and the puck like few others in hockey history)... well, it's not the most convincing argument.
I'm not saying Lidstrom was absolutely less valuable than Jagr that season, only that I believe that to be the case and base that on the vast disparity in the advantage his team had while he was on the ice, especially given the respective players surrounding them.
Remember also that you disputed the OP's choice for that year, which no one else had, so it would seem the burden of proof would be on you.
In comparing Lidstrom to his peers (defensemen) and comparing Jagr to his peers (forwards), he did. Lidstrom beat out defensemen by 10%, Jagr didn't even win the race.
When it comes to winning offensive races, I wouldn't call out a guy like Jagr to promote the offensive skill of Lidstrom. Just because a Camry outraces a Civic and a Ferrari finishes second due to a blown tire or because another driver cut a corner, doesn't mean the Camry is going to beat the Ferrari. No backwards logic will make this so. Except now we know that:
In 2008, Lidstrom outscored Gonchar by almost 8% (over 10% per game), but Ovechkin outscored Malkin by less than 6%. Since Lidstrom was better defensively than these players, then we know that Lidstrom was better than either of these guys. Also, in 2009 Mike Green oustcored Markov by about 14% (over 28% per game), but Malkin outscored by Ovechkin by less than 3% (AO outscored him by < 1% per game). Green doesn't play the greatest defense, but as a D-man he must play better defense than these two cherry pickers, so we know he's way better than either of them.
Dam we're smooth!
No, he nearly was the offense and the prime stabilizing factor on that Wings team. Both teams (NYR and DET) would've been wretched without Jagr and Lidstrom, respectively. Detroit's goaltending was ugly, they had a new coach, their Captain was more or less finished, Shanahan didn't get along well with the new coach, they were adapting to completely new lines, Jason ****ing Williams... etc. Not saying Detroit wasn't a better team, but both teams were being held together by these two individuals in question.
They both had important roles on their teams, to be sure. Lidstrom helped one of the top teams be the best team in hockey. Jagr helped a mediocre (at best) team be a good team and almost win the division. No decisive advantage by this metric.
In regards to the numbers, Nylander was 44 points removed from Jagr's 123, and Schneider's was 21 removed from Lidstrom's 80. Percentage-wise, both are very notable, advantage Jagr. However, Lidstrom being 7 points behind the leading forward PPG+ forward on the team as a defensemen is also a very notable statistical oddity.
One difference is that I doubt Lidstrom and Schneider were constantly paired together. However, Jagr played almost exclusively with Nylander and Straka as linemates and often with them on the power play and yet he had over 50% more points than each of them.
And now, some rest. What the hell does it matter, anyhow? We're both clearly homers by HFlogic
You're entitled to your opinion. What bothers me is the method you use to come to your conclusion. Sure, we are both biased to some degree. Still, I try to use scientific method if possible. Start with a hypothesis (you could call it a bias), use facts to support it, and if most of the facts contradict the hypothesis (no matter whose facts or hypothesis), be open to a new hypothesis. Rest well.
