Round 2, Vote 1 (HOH Top Wingers)

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Basically what unknown said. Maurice Richard had two seasons where he made the all-star team outside of the top 10 in scoring. During this instance he isn't saved by a PPG argument but rather the weak field he was facing. When we talk about Richard's strong competition for AST spots and how impressive his AST record is, it's important to note an AST selection that looks weaker.

Bobby Hull made the AST 12 times at left wing - competing against Mahovlich and Bucyk which isn't too bad - yet he only finished outside of the top in scoring one time he made the all-star team. It was in 1970 (and similar to Richard's 1952 2nd AST) as Hull finished 15th in scoring, 4th in goals, and 4th in PPG missing 15 games.

I have no problems noting when an All-Star nod seems to have been largely driven by weak competition. I do have a problem with the "throw think kitchen sink" approach that some of the fans of modern players are using - making wild, unsupported claims like "Richard was just getting reputation votes" against whichever older player they want to bring down.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

When the Top 70 players list was done in 2009, Jagr was the 5th winger on that list. Since then he has played 3 more seasons in the NHL. He can still play But I don't see that adding much to his stock. Certainly shouldn't make him a lock for top 4.

I think there is a tendency to view the historical legacy of active or recent players through a "what have you done lately" lens. In 2009, the memories of "dying alive," followed by Jagr's disaster in Washington still loomed in our minds, overshadowing what he had accomplished in the years beforehand. His comeback season of 2005-06 had happened, but it was still just one season before he started a normal declcine, and even then, we saw how his team catered to his needs. If you'll remember, Jagr was actually ranked quite a bit higher in 2009 than he was in 2008, despite not doing much in between.

In 2014, the memory of Washington has largely faded away (pretty obvious from this thread, eh ), and Jagr has gotten something of an elder statesman vibe to him, following up an amazing season for his age.

On a more positive note, I do think that as the years go by and we see Crosby finally winning his 2nd Art Ross, 5 Art Rosses does seem more special in retrospect.

 

[tony d]

Voted earlier today, looking forward to seeing the results.

 

[Hardyvan123]

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=82010883&postcount=127

Still your inference doesn't match history here.

In the post 06 era, post 1980 really we have

#20 Forsberg from Sweden
#29th Federov
#33 Malstev (never played in the NHL)
#36 Stastny from behind the iron curtain
#40 Malkin from Russia
#43 Datsyuk from Russia
#47 Modano from the United states
#49 Petrov from Russia(never played in the NHL)
#51 Larinov from Russia (based mainly on Russian resume)
#54 Sundin from Sweden
#55 Zetterberg from Sweden
#57 Nedomansky from the Czech Republic

all these players are from talents streams with zero or little impact on the 06 NHL, throw in 2 more Candian players which follow that came from outside the talent stream of the 06 era and the claim that 06 centers are underrepresented doesn't hold up.


#10 Sakic from BC which produced virtually zero talent before expansion
#23 Crosby from NS which once again produced minimal talent for the NHL until post expansion, mostly 80 ish beyond again

 

[Hardyvan123]

I think there is a tendency to view the historical legacy of active or recent players through a "what have you done lately" lens. In 2009, the memories of "dying alive," followed by Jagr's disaster in Washington still loomed in our minds, overshadowing what he had accomplished in the years beforehand. His comeback season of 2005-06 had happened, but it was still just one season before he started a normal declcine, and even then, we saw how his team catered to his needs. If you'll remember, Jagr was actually ranked quite a bit higher in 2009 than he was in 2008, despite not doing much in between.

In 2014, the memory of Washington has largely faded away (pretty obvious from this thread, eh ), and Jagr has gotten something of an elder statesman vibe to him, following up an amazing season for his age.

On a more positive note, I do think that as the years go by and we see Crosby finally winning his 2nd Art Ross, 5 Art Rosses does seem more special in retrospect.

Not really sure I follow here Jagr somehow is downgraded for his Washington years?

Let's recap those 3 years (well 2.5 before he gets traded to the NYR)

01-02

-tied for 5th in points (with Joe Sakic) in the NHL with 79 points in 69 games behind only 2 Canadian players.
- 3rd in PPG
-17th in GPG

02-03

-tied for 19th in points (with only 7 Canadian players ahead of him, 13 of the top 20 point leaders were non Canadians)


03-04

-15th in points with only 6 Canadians ahead of him

All of this in a 30 team league with 90 forwards playing top #1 line MPG with PP opportunities and the possibility of variance being just a wee bit greater than say in a 6 team league and this is supposed to be a negative?

Sure maybe if context isn't considered.

No doubt some people just can't consider putting Jagr 2nd, for whatever reasons, but it's hard not to consider him the front runner for 2nd given his VsX peak of 7 years and 10 years over the other guys not named Howe and his longevity.

Heck even his last season in New Jersey with 50 of his 67 points coming at ES with that cast of players at age 41 is downright impressive, no matter how dismissive some might be here of him.

Is he Howe, nope, no one is but he is the next best thing IMO.

 

[Czech Your Math]

IHis comeback season of 2005-06 had happened, but it was still just one season before he started a normal declcine, and even then, we saw how his team catered to his needs.

So the all-powerful Rangers... who hadn't made the playoffs since '97... despite the presence of Richter, Leetch, Messier, Lindros, Bure, etc... and were considered the doormat and laughingstock of the NHL... "catered to his needs?"

How exactly do you mean? By signing Nylander, Straka, Rozsival and Malk as FAs? So that they could put together a first line of some kind that could actually score and at least one d-man who could complete a pass? The Rangers had a roster devoid of talent, so exactly what opportunities were they bypassing by "catering to his needs?" Did they cater to his needs when, after a Pearson-winning season and another (following major shoulder surgery) in which he was top 10 in scoring (at age 35), they jettisoned his center in favor of Gomez & Drury? Or was it when they didn't offer Jagr a multi-year contract and instead went back to the Rangers' future and signed more typical washed up FAs in Redden and Naslund?

 

[Hardyvan123]

voted

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

So the all-powerful Rangers... who hadn't made the playoffs since '97... despite the presence of Richter, Leetch, Messier, Lindros, Bure, etc... and were considered the doormat and laughingstock of the NHL... "catered to his needs?"

How exactly do you mean? By signing Nylander, Straka, Rozsival and Malk as FAs? So that they could put together a first line of some kind that could actually score and at least one d-man who could complete a pass? The Rangers had a roster devoid of talent, so exactly what opportunities were they bypassing by "catering to his needs?" Did they cater to his needs when, after a Pearson-winning season and another (following major shoulder surgery) in which he was top 10 in scoring (at age 35), they jettisoned his center in favor of Gomez & Drury? Or was it when they didn't offer Jagr a multi-year contract and instead went back to the Rangers' future and signed more typical washed up FAs in Redden and Naslund?

The Rangers basically let Jagr choose his linemates in free agency.

They (under Tom Renney) played a defensive system, except when Jagr was on the ice, then they played a free-flowing European puck possession system. I guess they learned from Washington's mistake by building a unit around Jagr's talents and not trying to make him play the system the other units played.

They had two powerplay units - one that played a European puck possession style built around Jagr, the other a more traditional North American powerplay.

I have never in my 20 years of watching hockey see a team built to cater to one player as much as the 2005-06 Rangers were built to cater to Jagr. And you know what? Credit to them - it worked. They managed to get a Hart-calibre season from a guy who looked like he might have been finished as an elite player.

 

[Andros]

Apologies for going AWOL during the discussion, real life (or university mathematics to be exact... close enough) got in the way of making any meaningful contributions this time around. Will try my hardest not to wallflower it up during the following rounds.

Still read through this topic & managed to vote on time.

 

[Captain Bowie]

Sorry, was away for the weekend. Now voted.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Vote 1 results will be released tomorrow

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Not really sure I follow here Jagr somehow is downgraded for his Washington years?

Let's recap those 3 years (well 2.5 before he gets traded to the NYR)

01-02

-tied for 5th in points (with Joe Sakic) in the NHL with 79 points in 69 games behind only 2 Canadian players.
- 3rd in PPG
-17th in GPG

02-03

-tied for 19th in points (with only 7 Canadian players ahead of him, 13 of the top 20 point leaders were non Canadians)


03-04

-15th in points with only 6 Canadians ahead of him

All of this in a 30 team league with 90 forwards playing top #1 line MPG with PP opportunities and the possibility of variance being just a wee bit greater than say in a 6 team league and this is supposed to be a negative?

Sure maybe if context isn't considered.

No doubt some people just can't consider putting Jagr 2nd, for whatever reasons, but it's hard not to consider him the front runner for 2nd given his VsX peak of 7 years and 10 years over the other guys not named Howe and his longevity.

Heck even his last season in New Jersey with 50 of his 67 points coming at ES with that cast of players at age 41 is downright impressive, no matter how dismissive some might be here of him.

Is he Howe, nope, no one is but he is the next best thing IMO.

Classic case of the numbers not telling the real story. Actually, telling the wrong story. Jagr was a detriment rather than an asset to the Capitals. He was traded straight up for Anson Carter, probably the most they could get at that point for him.

 

[Czech Your Math]

The Rangers basically let Jagr choose his linemates in free agency.

Not sure what's wrong with that, given that:

A) The free agents were extremely affordable
B) Jagr already had success playing with these players
C) FAs weren't exactly kicking in the door to play for a Rangers team that hadn't made the playoffs since '97
D) The roster otherwise resembled an AHL team with some foreign rookies

They (under Tom Renney) played a defensive system, except when Jagr was on the ice, then they played a free-flowing European puck possession system. I guess they learned from Washington's mistake by building a unit around Jagr's talents and not trying to make him play the system the other units played.

I think the bolded is likely meant as a backhanded compliment of sorts... but really, that was the issue with the Caps. They traded for a 10-year veteran superstar forward whose specialty was possession and creating scoring opportunities... after watching him dispatch the Caps from the playoffs year after year... and decided it would be better to try to fit him into their "system."

Approximate ESGF/GA ratios
'06 Jagr 86/45... rest of team 77/78
'07 Jagr 75/45... rest of team 72/95

One other small factor that probably didn't hurt Jagr's ranking vs. a few years ago is that we've seen how incompetent the Caps really are. Remember all the optimism surrounding the Caps? "No more grumpy old man Jagr, now we have exuberant and talented Ovechkin... this is gonna be awesome!" Well, how's that working out for the Caps? I guess 5 coaches in 10 seasons, which gives them 7 coaches in 13 seasons since they traded for Jagr, is the signature of a stable, successful franchise? With Ovechkin, they went all offense, tried a much more defensive style, and whatever else in between. Has this franchise done anything except a fluke '98 SCF run, when the best team they defeated had 91 points?

Did Chicago ever cater to Bobby Hull?
Funny how the "Hull didn't really elevate his linemates"-type of statement you made a while back never appeared in this thread.

They had two powerplay units - one that played a European puck possession style built around Jagr, the other a more traditional North American powerplay.

I have never in my 20 years of watching hockey see a team built to cater to one player as much as the 2005-06 Rangers were built to cater to Jagr. And you know what? Credit to them - it worked. They managed to get a Hart-calibre season from a guy who looked like he might have been finished as an elite player.

Please refresh my memory. Who exactly was on the "North American" power play? A 34 y/o Steve Rucchin and who else? Dominic Moore and Tom Poti?

Where exactly was this team going without Jagr and a handful of castoff FAs?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Please refresh my memory. Who exactly was on the "North American" power play? A 34 y/o Steve Rucchin and who else? Dominic Moore and Tom Poti?

The 2 different styles of PPs was more evident the following year when they brought in Brendan Shanahan.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

I do think that as the years go by and we see Crosby finally winning his 2nd Art Ross, 5 Art Rosses does seem more special in retrospect.

very good point.

the first time i saw a scoring champ that wasn't gretzky i was about to turn 8. obviously the significance of gretzky's eight in a row art ross run was completely lost at me at that age. but then i was on the cusp of 14 before i saw a scoring champ that wasn't a top 4 player all time. and i was about to turn 21 (21) before someone other than gretzky, mario, or jagr won the art ross.

for a lot of us here, we grew up with the same guys winning every year. and this goes back to the '70s, when lafleur won three in a row, espo with four straight and five in six years, even in the late 60s you had mikita winning four in five years. there were only ten different guys who won the art ross between '64 and 2001. at the tail end of that 37 year run, jagr's four straight scoring titles or his five in seven years doesn't seem like as big of an accomplishment as it really was. seemed just like the natural state of affairs that the same guy wins year after year. and obviously on the heels of gretzky and mario, it felt like a giant step down to go back to "just" a lafleur-type of scoring champ.

but when i just stopped to think about it, it's really astounding that between 2001 and 2011, there were ten unique art ross winners in ten years. there had only been ten different art ross winner in the previous 37 years. or maybe it's '64 to '01 that's astounding and what we've seen so far in the 21st century is normal.

the last three scoring champs have been repeat guys, but they've been those guys' first titles in three, eight, and seven years, respectively.

the last five years, we've had five different guys. the last time that happened in the 20th century was '47 to '51, when it went max bentley (his second straight), lach (his second in four years), roy conacher (his one and only), lindsay (his one), and howe (first of four straight and six overall).

which is all to say that i think we're slowly becoming re-sensitized to just how great of a scoring run jagr had.

 

[seventieslord]

Am I missing something? I see 4 1st place votes listed for Richard and 1 for Howe.

my mistake, I was reading it wrong.

 

[Captain Bowie]

very good point.

the first time i saw a scoring champ that wasn't gretzky i was about to turn 8. obviously the significance of gretzky's eight in a row art ross run was completely lost at me at that age. but then i was on the cusp of 14 before i saw a scoring champ that wasn't a top 4 player all time. and i was about to turn 21 (21) before someone other than gretzky, mario, or jagr won the art ross.

for a lot of us here, we grew up with the same guys winning every year. and this goes back to the '70s, when lafleur won three in a row, espo with four straight and five in six years, even in the late 60s you had mikita winning four in five years. there were only ten different guys who won the art ross between '64 and 2001. at the tail end of that 37 year run, jagr's four straight scoring titles or his five in seven years doesn't seem like as big of an accomplishment as it really was. seemed just like the natural state of affairs that the same guy wins year after year. and obviously on the heels of gretzky and mario, it felt like a giant step down to go back to "just" a lafleur-type of scoring champ.

but when i just stopped to think about it, it's really astounding that between 2001 and 2011, there were ten unique art ross winners in ten years. there had only been ten different art ross winner in the previous 37 years. or maybe it's '64 to '01 that's astounding and what we've seen so far in the 21st century is normal.

the last three scoring champs have been repeat guys, but they've been those guys' first titles in three, eight, and seven years, respectively.

the last five years, we've had five different guys. the last time that happened in the 20th century was '47 to '51, when it went max bentley (his second straight), lach (his second in four years), roy conacher (his one and only), lindsay (his one), and howe (first of four straight and six overall).

which is all to say that i think we're slowly becoming re-sensitized to just how great of a scoring run jagr had.

Great post.

As for the bolded, it's one thing to say it's the norm, but it's another to say it's the norm but for players specifically named Mikita, Esposito, Lafleur, Gretzky and Lemiuex. That is elite class if I ever say it. That is elite class that Jagr belongs to. And for the sake of this project, it is an elite group that only 3 eligible wingers are in (including Howe, excluding Hull's 2 in 3 and 3 in 7).

 

[VMBM]

Yes and in the early 80's some of the leading lines in the national team was the Spartak-line Shalimov-Shepelev-Kapustin and also to a lesser degree the Dynamo-line with the Golikov brothers and Maltsev. So to say that CSKA made up the entire national team is far from correct. Actually throughout the 80's most of the soviet squads had 2 CSKA lines and 2 lines from other teams.

Also the Spartak line of Yakushev, Shadrin and Shalimov* was the Soviets' 2nd [best] line for much of the 1970s; they were very important to their success e.g. in the 1972 Summit Series, 1975 WHC and 1976 Olympics.

Despite the constant claims to contrary, I don't think I've ever come across a version of the Soviet national team that had much more than 50 % of its players from CSKA. As late as 1988, Tikhonov says in his book that the 'ideal' is that CSKA produces 2 forward lines for the national team and the other clubs also produce 2 lines (I think he specifically names Dynamo and Spartak).

There's a bit of that "it was always the same Soviet team" thinking in North America; as if it didn't matter which ones of those 'robots' were playing, and people (fans, even players) can't make a difference between CSKA and the national team, for example.

* there were some other RWs (Yevgeny Zimin etc.) too, but that's the best version of the line

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Also the Spartak line of Yakushev, Shadrin and Shalimov* was the Soviets' 2nd [best] line for much of the 1970s; they were very important to their success e.g. in the 1972 Summit Series, 1975 WHC and 1976 Olympics.

I don't think that CSKA poached players from other teams until Tikhonov, right? They definitely weren't as unstoppable domestically in the 70s as they were in the 80s... occasionally losing the championship even!

Despite the constant claims to contrary, I don't think I've ever come across a version of the Soviet national team that had much more than 50 % of its players from CSKA. As late as 1988, Tikhonov says in his book that the 'ideal' is that CSKA produces 2 forward lines for the national team and the other clubs also produce 2 lines (I think he specifically names Dynamo and Spartak).

There's a bit of that "it was always the same Soviet team" thinking in North America; as if it didn't matter which ones of those 'robots' were playing, and people (fans, even players) can't make a difference between CSKA and the national team, for example.

* there were some other RWs (Yevgeny Zimin etc.) too, but that's the best version of the line

But if the major purpose of the Soviet domestic league was to prepare for the National team, it would make sense for the 3rd and 4th lines of the national team to play as 1st lines for "rivals" of CSKA, right?

 

[Pominville Knows]

Despite the constant claims to contrary, I don't think I've ever come across a version of the Soviet national team that had much more than 50 % of its players from CSKA. As late as 1988, Tikhonov says in his book that the 'ideal' is that CSKA produces 2 forward lines for the national team and the other clubs also produce 2 lines (I think he specifically names Dynamo and Spartak).

That seems legit. During the eighties, if a higher percentage of national team players by then was playing for CSKA, what was the reasoning behind letting a very small number of star players play for other clubs?

 

[VMBM]

I don't think that CSKA poached players from other teams until Tikhonov, right? They definitely weren't as unstoppable domestically in the 70s as they were in the 80s... occasionally losing the championship even!

I don't know enough about that to say anything definite.

Are there many examples of unwilling star players being 'poached' by CSKA/Tikhonov? Okay, Balderis (on CSKA 1977-80) was arguably one. Kapustin (ditto)? Larionov maybe, though he wasn't a star yet, when he was recruited.

In the '60s/'70s, then... for example, Mikhailov was not a CSKA player originally; he played for Lokomotiv Moscow (before that for 'Kristall Saratov') 'till he was 22 years old. Does that mean that CSKA/Tarasov poached him? Probably not, since I would think that Mikhailov wanted to play for the best team plus he wasn't an established star yet in 1967.

Starshinov, Boris Mayorov, Davydov, Maltsev, Vasiliev, Yakushev, Shadrin, Shalimov... many of the 1960s/1970s biggest stars were indeed able to play for other clubs than CSKA. For example, it would've had made sense for CSKA to steal Vasiliev from Dynamo, for example, since the Soviets' top unit almost throughout the 1970s had 4 CSKA players plus Vasiliev, but it never happened. So Tikhonov was arguably a little more impudent in his approach...

BTW, the 1973-74 Soviet league season is an interesting one; Krylya Sovetov won the championship, okay, but by an 11 point difference to the runner up CSKA??! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973%E2%80%9374_Soviet_League_season. I don't know what was the problem with the CSKA and their players that season, but that's a poor result; their international schedule in 1973-74 didn't seem particulary tough either, which might've had explained it a little. http://www.chidlovski.net/1954/54_season.asp?gseason=73-74

But if the major purpose of the Soviet domestic league was to prepare for the National team, it would make sense for the 3rd and 4th lines of the national team to play as 1st lines for "rivals" of CSKA, right?

I would guess so. And I wasn't saying it didn't make sense, but rather trying to further argue against the 'CSKA = national team' thinking, which seems to have been the adopted by the fans, opposite players and writers alike, as I think that even in the 1980s, the national team always had more depth than CSKA, i.e. on those 3rd & 4th lines that were usually made of players from other clubs.

 

[kmad]

Sent in my vote. Four players moved from their original spots in my list.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Classic case of the numbers not telling the real story. Actually, telling the wrong story. Jagr was a detriment rather than an asset to the Capitals. He was traded straight up for Anson Carter, probably the most they could get at that point for him.

He was traded partly to dump salary in advance of the Cap because the team had been losing money for years.


Also:

02 Jagr R-On: 1.09 R-Off: 0.89
03 Jagr R-On: 1.10 R-Off: 1.09
04 Jagr R-On: 0.96 R-Off: 0.61 (lol!)

Jagr was outperforming his off ice counterparts every step of the way and by a large amounts in 2/3 years. As a side note, the Capitals were pathetic in 04 when Jagr wasn't on the ice.

 

[MXD]

He was traded partly to dump salary in advance of the Cap because the team had been losing money for years.


Also:

02 Jagr R-On: 1.09 R-Off: 0.89
03 Jagr R-On: 1.10 R-Off: 1.09
04 Jagr R-On: 0.96 R-Off: 0.61 (lol!)

Jagr was outperforming his off ice counterparts every step of the way and by a large amounts in 2/3 years. As a side note, the Capitals were pathetic in 04 when Jagr wasn't on the ice.

One line team with bad depth + arguably the worst D-corps for a non-expansion team since 1990 will tend to give such results, and Jagr wasn't even the best player on his line.

Edit : yeah, Gonchar was good, but wasn't exactly a contributor on defense. Am I completely off to think that D corps was absolutely terrible ?

 

[BraveCanadian]

One line team with bad depth + arguably the worst D-corps for a non-expansion team since 1990 will tend to give such results,

Then why do people feel justified in the criticism that somehow Washington's fairly poor showings those years is all his fault?

and Jagr wasn't even the best player on his line.

Uh huh.