Sergei Fedorov (1993-94) vs Alexander Ovechkin (2007-08) vs Jaromir Jagr (1998-99)

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Goals are not arbitrary, any definition for assists will be arbitrary to an extent. That said, I always thought that "goals + primary assists + (secondary assists/2) " would be a better approximation of offensive value than the current format, which treats secondary assists as worth the same as goals and primary assists.

What makes Jagr's 1998-99 secondary assist totals so unique, is that he didn't rack up secondaries in the surrounding seasons like he did in that one.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Even if secondary assists are arbitrary, proclaiming that "primary points" are not is arbitrary.

There is a boat load of data that shows secondary assists are far more random than primary assists or goals.

To make a distinction on that basis is the opposite of arbitrary.

 

[Midnight Judges]

What makes Jagr's 1998-99 secondary assist totals so unique, is that he didn't rack up secondaries in the surrounding seasons like he did in that one.

Right, so one of two things happened:

1) Jagr became way the hell better at passing that one season, and then forgot how to replicate it the very next season which resulted in fewer than half as many secondary assists

-or-

2) Secondary assist totals were volatile for Jagr - just as they are for Crosby and virtually everyone else even when said players are relatively consistent when it comes to goals and primary assists, and those wild fluctuations in secondary assists are NOT indicative of the player.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Right, so one of two things happened:

1) Jagr became way the hell better at passing that one season, and then forgot how to replicate it the very next season which resulted in fewer than half as many secondary assists

-or-

2) Secondary assist totals were volatile for Jagr - just as they are for Crosby and virtually everyone else even when said players are relatively consistent when it comes to goals and primary assists, and those wild fluctuations in secondary assists are NOT indicative of the player.

or 3)

With Ron Francis leaving in the off season, Jagr carried the puck even more in 98-99 than he did in previous seasons. To the extent that secondary assists are useful, they are something of a proxy for possession that leads to scoring. Of course, that wouldn't explain why his secondaries went down the following season.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

What makes Jagr's 1998-99 secondary assist totals so unique, is that he didn't rack up secondaries in the surrounding seasons like he did in that one.

I don't have the data on this computer, but I'm pretty sure that Jagr earned secondary assists at the same rate in 1998 and 1999 (he had more secondary assists in 1999 because he had more points in total - but proportionately they were the same). Then his secondary assists (both in total and on a percentage basis) plummeted in 2000.

I didn't look at other years so I don't know if 1998/99 was an aberration, or if 2000 was.

 

[daver]

There is a boat load of data that shows secondary assists are far more random than primary assists or goals.

To make a distinction on that basis is the opposite of arbitrary.

Here is all the data you need to know which clearly shows a strong correlation between forwards who have the most 1As and 2As since 2013. 2nd assists are a clear indicator of elite playmaking.

NHL.com - Stats

 

[Midnight Judges]

Here is all the data you need to know

Nope.

 

[Midnight Judges]

2nd assists are a clear indicator of elite playmaking.

Jagr had 39 secondary assists in 98-99 (.48 A2PG)

Jagr had 16 secondary assists in 99-00 (.25 A2PG)

You think this is a clear indicator of Jagr's playmaking ability. You think Jagr's playmaking was more than twice as good in '99 than the following season.

Crosby had 34 A2's in 13-14.

Crosby had 17 A2's in 16-17.

You think Crosby was twice as good at playmaking in 14 as he was in 17. Oh man what a massive decline in skills. And to your credit, I totally recall you lamenting Crosby's massive decline in playmaking ability. Cause that totally happened.

 

[TheGoldenJet]

Jagr played less than zero defence. His season was not more impressive than the only season in history where a forward won the Selke and Hart trophies together.

 

[The Panther]

Jagr played less than zero defence. His season was not more impressive than the only season in history where a forward won the Selke and Hart trophies together.

Your whole point here is not logical. (I assume you are referring to Sergei Fedorov, above.)

First of all (as the "strange voting" thread proves), the Selke is a wonky award at best. No one in hockey knows what the Selke even is. It's essentially a media-narrative award with no value.

Second, by what measure did Jagr "play less than zero defence"? I think some people don't understand that when high-skilled forwards have the puck and are creating scoring chances, they are more effective defensively than stay-at-home defensive defencemen. That's because if you have the puck, the opponent doesn't. And if you score more than the opponent, you win.

In 1998-99, Jagr was on the ice for 159 goals by the Pens and 94 goals against. In the 1993-94 season you allude to, Fedorov was on the ice for 170 goals by Detroit and 99 against. That means in a higher scoring season, on an offensively stacked team that put in 356 goals, Fedorov was an overall (including special teams and even strength) +71. Five years later, Jagr was an overall +65 in a much lower-scoring season, on a team where the two next-best scorers were Martin Straka and German Titov, and on a Pens' squad that scored 120 fewer goals than the '94 Wings.

Then, let's not forget that on these offensively imbalanced teams (Fedorov's being far more skilled and explosive than Jagr's), Fedorov lost the scoring title by 10 points (and was fourth in PPG), while Jagr won the scoring title by 20 points and was #1 in PPG.

In conclusion, Jagr's greatest season was more impressive than Fedorov's.

 

[Troubadour]

Although I like Fedorov's giant year, I also believe there is a lot of reason behind Panther's words.

Versatility aside, Jagr was the guy you wanted to play zero traditional defense if everything was working well inside your skull because Jagr's defense was his offense. If you wanted him to jump the opposite team's star player in the corner of your own zone, you probably missed the fact that Jagr was the star player jumped by a couple of lesser players in the corner of anyone's zone. Defensively better Jagr would not have been a better player. In fact, he would have been a worse player.

Of course, there were situations when Jagr lost the puck after all and you wanted him to go back and defend and he wouldn't, and it pissed you off if you got scored against, but that's how it goes in hockey. A 230-pound man is not gonna be the first to skate back over the entire rink after a 20-second shift. What you wanted him to do if everything was working well inside your skull was not to learn to defend, but rather to get even better at not losing the puck.

A better version of Jagr would have been a better offensive Jagr. A better version of Jagr was Lemieux, not Fedorov.

 

[The Panther]

I mean, people are joking about Gretzky or whoever getting Selke votes, and yes, from a certain perspective it's ridiculous. But from another perspective, it isn't.

If an offensive forward is +98 and a two-way forward is +25, is the latter guy actually better for the team's defense than the former guy? I mean, I get the standard way of thinking on it, but there are nuances here.

The essential problem with the Selke (and most of the player awards) is awarding individuals when "individuals" don't actually exist in hockey.

 

[Thenameless]

All three of these seasons were really nice. And I happen to like all of these guys.

1. Sergei Fedorov

I went with him in first place, because defensive play matters. He could have become Detroit's offensive linchpin given his age when compared with Yzerman, but Scotty Bowman asked him to play center in the tradition of Russian centers - score and defend, not just score. I respect that he did Scotty's bidding to sacrifice his own personal glory. His play is a big reason that Detroit finally started winning Cups later on. If I could have a player with nine-tenths of the offensive ability of the best scorers, who is at the same time not just a Selke candidate but an actual winner, I'll take him.

2. Alexander Ovechkin

It's getting harder and harder to score goals in the NHL. 65 goals is essentially lapping the field. I'll never agree that it beats Gretzky's 92 like some say, but it is nevertheless an awesome feat in today's game.

3. Jaromir Jagr

It's a shame to have to put the Hart winning season of the game's dominant scorer during the DPE in third place, but I just like the other two seasons better. Plus, Jagr has a 62 goal, 149 point "second best" season that the others can't match.

 

[daver]

Jagr played less than zero defence. His season was not more impressive than the only season in history where a forward won the Selke and Hart trophies together.

I would presume that his defense contributed

Jagr had 39 secondary assists in 98-99 (.48 A2PG)

Jagr had 16 secondary assists in 99-00 (.25 A2PG)

You think this is a clear indicator of Jagr's playmaking ability. You think Jagr's playmaking was more than twice as good in '99 than the following season.

Crosby had 34 A2's in 13-14.

Crosby had 17 A2's in 16-17.

You think Crosby was twice as good at playmaking in 14 as he was in 17. Oh man what a massive decline in skills. And to your credit, I totally recall you lamenting Crosby's massive decline in playmaking ability. Cause that totally happened.

If you think that 2nd assist playmaking is a skill unto its own your post might be taken with some semblance of relevance.

Here is what we know:

- All players have the same opportunity to accumulate assists.

- The best playmaking forwards generally accumulate the most 1As and 2As when looking at a large sample of games. This should be no surprise to anyone. Talk of randomness has no basis.

- Jagr was clearly an overall offensive force with many elite offensive seasons so, IMO, pointing out that he had a high # of 2As, in that particular year should be not viewed as anything significant or used to try to explain an statistical anomaly or somehow lowers the value of his season.

 

[daver]

Jagr played less than zero defence. His season was not more impressive than the only season in history where a forward won the Selke and Hart trophies together.

I would presume his defense contributed a lot to him winning the Hart that year. FWIW, Jagr's Hart win was considerably more stronger than Federov's.

 

[Thenameless]

Then, let's not forget that on these offensively imbalanced teams (Fedorov's being far more skilled and explosive than Jagr's), Fedorov lost the scoring title by 10 points (and was fourth in PPG), while Jagr won the scoring title by 20 points and was #1 in PPG.

Come on Panther. It was your avatar that beat Fedorov for that scoring title - a last hurrah before Father Time would claim him. Fourth in PPG is understandable when you're taking defensive zone face-offs, killing penalties, and basically dominating at both ends of the ice.

 

[Thenameless]

I would presume his defense contributed a lot to him winning the Hart that year. FWIW, Jagr's Hart win was considerably more stronger than Federov's.

The league "owed" him one or two by then, lol.

 

[TheGoldenJet]

Your whole point here is not logical. (I assume you are referring to Sergei Fedorov, above.)

First of all (as the "strange voting" thread proves), the Selke is a wonky award at best. No one in hockey knows what the Selke even is. It's essentially a media-narrative award with no value.

Second, by what measure did Jagr "play less than zero defence"? I think some people don't understand that when high-skilled forwards have the puck and are creating scoring chances, they are more effective defensively than stay-at-home defensive defencemen. That's because if you have the puck, the opponent doesn't. And if you score more than the opponent, you win.

In 1998-99, Jagr was on the ice for 159 goals by the Pens and 94 goals against. In the 1993-94 season you allude to, Fedorov was on the ice for 170 goals by Detroit and 99 against. That means in a higher scoring season, on an offensively stacked team that put in 356 goals, Fedorov was an overall (including special teams and even strength) +71. Five years later, Jagr was an overall +65 in a much lower-scoring season, on a team where the two next-best scorers were Martin Straka and German Titov, and on a Pens' squad that scored 120 fewer goals than the '94 Wings.

Then, let's not forget that on these offensively imbalanced teams (Fedorov's being far more skilled and explosive than Jagr's), Fedorov lost the scoring title by 10 points (and was fourth in PPG), while Jagr won the scoring title by 20 points and was #1 in PPG.

In conclusion, Jagr's greatest season was more impressive than Fedorov's.

The point is quite logical and relatively simple to grasp.

Jaromir Jagr was a known cherry picker and a slacker defensively through the entire 1990s. Anyone that watched a lot of 90s hockey, or that knew somebody who watched most every Penguins game (as I did) knew this. The eye test confirmed that Jagr was bad in his own zone due to a lack of effort and an unwillingness to ever sacrifice the body or pay the price to stop the opposition’s attack.

Your attempts to hand wave the Selke away are laughable. It was widely recognized around that time that Fedorov was the best defensive player in the world. He won two Selkes and also had the most first place votes in a third year where he was the runner up. He deserves a lot of credit for that when comparing him to a forward who only played in one zone, like Jagr. Jagr received less than zero Selke consideration because everyone knew he was nothing to speak of defensively.

You cannot ignore half the game, that is laughably bad analysis. As for the other half of the game, it should be noted that Fedorov came second to a guy that was far better than any of the competition Jagr faced in 1999.

On ice goals against are not proper statistical measures to evaluate defensive play. Shame on you for equating the two, which is plain lazy. Jagr was very good offensively but that does not excuse his poor showings in his own zone throughout the entire decade, and that should have a bearing when comparing him to an all-time two-way season like the one Fedorov had.

 

[Midnight Judges]

If you think that 2nd assist playmaking is a skill unto its own your post might be taken with some semblance of relevance.

You said it was. Now you are backtracking.

Here is what we know:

- All players have the same opportunity to accumulate assists.

That is absolutely false - and it is the foundation your opinions rely on.

1) Centers take faceoffs. Each faceoff is an opportunity for a secondary assist. That's ~ 1800 extra opportunities for Crosby every healthy year. Even when he sucks at faceoffs, that's 800 possessions and touches for his team where he might get a point for doing practically nothing. Centers have more opportunities to accumulate assists.

2) Assists are not awarded equally from stadium to stadium. In Pittsburgh they award far more than in Washington:

Some NHL Stars Get More Assists At Home Than They Deserve

Players in Pittsburgh have more opportunities to accumulate secondary assists.

3) Goal scorers are denied secondary assists on plays even if they dished the pass that set up the primary assist. Players who score fewer goals have more opportunities to score secondary assists.

- The best playmaking forwards generally accumulate the most 1As and 2As when looking at a large sample of games. This should be no surprise to anyone. Talk of randomness has no basis.

No, the best playmakers accumulate the most A1's.

A1's are a legitimate statistic. A2's are noise, garbage, crapola. Sure, if you add crapola to a legitimate reliable statistic, the crapola seems less arbitrary. And that's all you've demonstrated here.

Substitute A2's with how many haircuts they got last year. A1's + haircuts would still be a pretty good list of players.

- Jagr was clearly an overall offensive force with many elite offensive seasons so, IMO, pointing out that he had a high # of 2As, in that particular year should be not viewed as anything significant or used to try to explain an statistical anomaly or somehow lowers the value of his season.

Your backwards opinions have dictated that you must now argue that a 100% variance is not statistically significant.

 

[Troubadour]

Jaromir Jagr was a known cherry picker

Fair enough; if by a cherry you mean a defender. He would often carry a basket of them right on his back, and then, voila, a cherry pie!

One of my favorite cherries comes at 2:04 here. It was a good and relentless cherry Jagr carried on his back. But what else can a hungry boy do than bake a pie. No other reason to pick a cherry like this:



Another favorite cherry comes at 4:56 here. Jaromir was an experienced baker by then. He let the cherry suck up to him from one side, wisely letting it think nothing can happen anymore, but he would serve a nice fat cherry pie to his mate:



If you want me to, I can serve you many more cherries Jagr picked, but you've seen them all anyway.

 

[Midnight Judges]

You cannot ignore half the game, that is laughably bad analysis. As for the other half of the game, it should be noted that Fedorov came second to a guy that was far better than any of the competition Jagr faced in 1999.

On ice goals against are not proper statistical measures to evaluate defensive play. Shame on you for equating the two, which is plain lazy. Jagr was very good offensively but that does not excuse his poor showings in his own zone throughout the entire decade, and that should have a bearing when comparing him to an all-time two-way season like the one Fedorov had.

I think you make some great points so I am only going to quibble in a minor way: Defense is not half the game when peak Jagr is on the ice. It's more like 35% of the game.

Being a great possession player is far more valuable than being a great defender. A great possession player can hold the puck and single-handedly prevent the other team from scoring for that amount of time. No single player can accomplish that without the puck in their own zone.

So while Jagr sucked at defense and he had a rockstar attitude, these things count for something but it's not that big of a deal.

 

[daver]

1) Centers take faceoffs. Each faceoff is an opportunity for a secondary assist. That's ~ 1800 extra opportunities for Crosby every healthy year. Even when he sucks at faceoffs, that's 800 possessions and touches for his team where he might get a point for doing practically nothing. Centers have more opportunities to accumulate assists.

Too bad OV is lacking the skillset to play the more important position.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Too bad OV is lacking the skillset to play the more important position.

You think Ovechkin and Gordie Howe and Bobby Hull lacked skills. lol

Ovechkin has one of the greatest shots of all time. You don't want a guy like that taking faceoffs. You want him ready for the one-timer.

What you are suggesting is tantamount to saying being the greatest goal scorer of all time is a weakness.

 

[Nick Hansen]

Too bad OV is lacking the skillset to play the more important position.

Different culture. Center has always been abnormally highly held in Canada. Not the case in most other countries, though that might've changed a bit in later years. There's a reason for all the exciting wingers Russia (Makarov, Krutov, Ovechkin, Bure, Mogilny, Kovalchuk, and on and on it goes...) have created while Larionov (unspectacular but extremely intelligent and very responsible) instead was a center. Different view on the position.

 

[The Panther]

Jaromir Jagr was a known cherry picker and a slacker defensively through the entire 1990s.

And there goes your credibility...