Captain Bowie
Registered User
- Jan 18, 2012
- 27,139
- 4,414
I think you guys are reading a little too much into my comment that I didn't completely ignore these seasons. I didn't say they affected my voting either.
Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time
- Thread starter quoipourquoi
- Start date
- Status
Michael Farkas
Celebrate 68
I get that you passionately hate Jagr...I respect it even. But throwing out how many points he scored when you know I'm already well aware of how many points he scored isn't gonna change my mind...
Let's try a different exercise...let's say Mario is a 10 in the playoffs and let's say Steven Stamkos is like a 3...just for some context away from our bronze God...what's Jagr to you?
Let's try a different exercise...let's say Mario is a 10 in the playoffs and let's say Steven Stamkos is like a 3...just for some context away from our bronze God...what's Jagr to you?
The Macho King
Back* to Back** World Champion
- Jun 22, 2011
- 48,776
- 29,312
Canadiens1958
Registered User
Chiming in on Jaromir Jagr. Three points.
1.) Unlike Lemieux, forwards like Jagr, Lafleur, Ovechkin were never cornerstone franchise players. Great second pieces, ornamental scorers but never THE motor. They may carry a team on occassion but they do not define the team. Crosby and Malkin exemplify the gap.
2.) Impossible to overvalue a Beliveau, Howe, Bobby Hull, Orr, Lemieux, Crosby,McDavid. They set the standard. But a Phil Esposito is easily replaced by a Jean Ratelle, Frank Mahovlich by Steve Shutt, etc
3.) Evaluate such players when the going gets tough. Everyone is a great frontrunner.
1.) Unlike Lemieux, forwards like Jagr, Lafleur, Ovechkin were never cornerstone franchise players. Great second pieces, ornamental scorers but never THE motor. They may carry a team on occassion but they do not define the team. Crosby and Malkin exemplify the gap.
2.) Impossible to overvalue a Beliveau, Howe, Bobby Hull, Orr, Lemieux, Crosby,McDavid. They set the standard. But a Phil Esposito is easily replaced by a Jean Ratelle, Frank Mahovlich by Steve Shutt, etc
3.) Evaluate such players when the going gets tough. Everyone is a great frontrunner.
Last edited:
Captain Bowie
Registered User
- Jan 18, 2012
- 27,139
- 4,414
Michael Farkas
Celebrate 68
I guess there's a case there that when Ovechkin was the best player, the Caps went exactly nowhere. When he was the third best player in the playoffs, like he was in 2018, everyone won...Lafleur had those d-men and that goalie and Lemaire to whatever degree...Jagr had Lemieux and Barrasso was probably right there in 1992, Francis was a big part as IE mentioned...you can make a case...
ImporterExporter
"You're a boring old man"
I don't hate any player. Ok, maybe some goons who offered nothing to the game other than throwing fists, but yes I dislike Jagr quite a bit. That does not mean I am wrong in pointing out what I've pointed out.
As far as postseason goes?
Below average so 3 or 4.
We're talking about a guy who had a tremendous scoring peak during most of the monster runs you speak of yet an offensive only player like him produced far less than he did in the regular season and his teams (without Mario especially) never went anywhere. Blame it on a lack of D, lack of coaching, lack of depth but the fact remains he was outpointed by guys like Straka, more than once, and the Pens never made any real noise with him "leading the way". He was a one way player, a me first pompous ass, who made his mark scoring a lot of points on teams that were giving up a lot of points. As I said though, at least somebody (offensive only player) like Lemieux routinely showed up and raised the bar in crunch time.
I don't expect you to change your mind on him. I don't expect most people to change their minds on anything. I just expect people to not create narratives that didn't exist in the first place. Like Jagr was posting monster playoff runs or others saying the Penguins "were awful" when I've debunked them both, more than once, and quite easily.
Michael Farkas
Celebrate 68
Ok. So he's on the same playoff line as Steven Stamkos? That's an untenable position in my eyes and I can't salvage it. He's an 8 for me, would buy a 7 with some convincing...
You've done nothing but accentuate how bad those post-1993 Penguins teams were...I think it helped push Jagr up even more...not everyone was impressed with German Titov apparently...
You've done nothing but accentuate how bad those post-1993 Penguins teams were...I think it helped push Jagr up even more...not everyone was impressed with German Titov apparently...
ImporterExporter
"You're a boring old man"
I've already shown standings and other data to show the Penguins were nowhere near bad post 1993. It's not hard to see it and apparently quite easy to reinvent history. The Penguins weren't as good as the Devils, or Wings, or Avs, but bad? No. Not. A. Chance.
Jags postseason is almost entirely made up of compiling numbers. The vast majority sans a few flashes of brilliance.
I give him credit for his regular season peak scoring even if I think it's inflated. I give him credit for playing hockey for 800 years. But beyond that he's a guy who was a one zone, so so slash disappearing act when it mattered most, more than he wasn't.
Nobody will touch why his scoring went down in the postseason even during the same seasons he was putting up mega numbers in the regular season. And as i said, correctly. He wasn't bringing anything else to the table as a player. Fact.
Jags postseason is almost entirely made up of compiling numbers. The vast majority sans a few flashes of brilliance.
I give him credit for his regular season peak scoring even if I think it's inflated. I give him credit for playing hockey for 800 years. But beyond that he's a guy who was a one zone, so so slash disappearing act when it mattered most, more than he wasn't.
Nobody will touch why his scoring went down in the postseason even during the same seasons he was putting up mega numbers in the regular season. And as i said, correctly. He wasn't bringing anything else to the table as a player. Fact.
Captain Bowie
Registered User
- Jan 18, 2012
- 27,139
- 4,414
For the record I have no problem with your arguments against Jagr. I only take issue with your mis-characterization of people's arguments in his favour. That they are simply stat-watching and nothing more, and that they can't acknowledge his faults. That's BS.
But I don't really care to discuss Jagr further, so I'll leave you to it.
But I don't really care to discuss Jagr further, so I'll leave you to it.
ImporterExporter
"You're a boring old man"
I'm not mis-characterizing anyone.
A player like Jagr who gives you nothing but points in an all time sense, is precisely nothing but a stat watching player. There is no other argument for him. A player like Lemieux was similar in terms of where he was valuable but the MAJOR difference was Lemieux met or raised the bar when it came to postseason. And Mario was a better offensive player anyway. Same with Gretzky, but to an even higher level.
Jagr was brilliant in one zone (being fair and accurate). So were others. But others were better or as good. Many others, including those with less skill/talent did more during the most important part of the year. Jagr had flair, he had the mullet, he had the swagger. All that is fine and dandy but he wasn't a guy that lifted teams above the mean often. At times, yes, but they were quite brief.
Mike wants to give him an 8 out of 10 for postseason play? The only logical way you get there is by looking at his career point total which is nonsense. He wasn't on the HoH top 40 postseason players of all time for good reason and I wouldn't say all those guys are 10's. Gretzky, Roy and Messier are 10's. Somebody near the bottom of that list are 8's. Jagr was nowhere near the list for good reason. He's a 3-4 in my book. I wouldn't rage about a 5. But anything that paints him as an above average or better player is fantasy.
Plus I'm not the one saying outlandish things or creating asinine narratives about the teams he played on or playoff runs that were "monster" efforts when I look at these guys:
Wayne's 85 and 88
Mario's 91 and 92
Gordie's 1955
Messier's 90 and 94
Orr and Espo's 70 and 72
Beliveau's 56 or 71 at age 39
Lafleur's 77 through 79
Gilmour's 93
Sakic's 96
So on and so forth.
I want people not involved in this project to understand that things like monster playoffs and Jagr is a crock. So is saying he only skated on awful teams. His placement is secure, can't change it but I can ensure people don't just look at it and think it was some sort of consensus based on wholesome information.
Finishing just outside the top 20 at ages 41 (27th) and 43 (21st) sure aren't elite but in a 30 team league they are a lot closer to elite than mere productive one would think.
I can't wait for various 06 players in future rounds finishing 6-10th being described as "productive".
sr edler
gold is not reality
- Mar 20, 2010
- 11,915
- 6,348
I’m not even that much of a longevity guy, or a Jagr guy, but that year he played in Philly (12) didn’t Giroux take a jump and become an elite scorer? I also think he had a positive impact on Barkov. Could be someone else too he played with at an older age I’m forgetting about at the moment. Such things matter I think more than a 22th place in scoring or something.
I saw twilight Sundin playing half a season in VAN have the same effect on Kesler’s offensive game.
Also, Messier also would have gone just nowhere on a Kasparaitis/Straka team. No one would have gone anywhere with such a team. I suspect not even Henri Richard.
I saw twilight Sundin playing half a season in VAN have the same effect on Kesler’s offensive game.
Also, Messier also would have gone just nowhere on a Kasparaitis/Straka team. No one would have gone anywhere with such a team. I suspect not even Henri Richard.
To the bolded in your first point, that's a massive huh? You're going to have a very tough time convincing any 'hockey expert' to agree with that opinion. There are negatives with each, of course, but any of those players can be a 'cornerstone' in an all-time sense. I think the evaluation process becomes a little nonsensical when one tries to assert that one of the 30 greatest hockey players to ever skate on earth is not a 'cornerstone franchise player'. If anyone is doing that, I think it's time to step back from the proverbial ledge.
To the bolded in your second point, there's a glaring omission here. You are forgetting, perhaps, the standard. Does this potentially correlate to an egregious outlier vote during round 1?
Kyle McMahon
Registered User
- May 10, 2006
- 13,301
- 4,354
I disagree here. Jagr was considered the furthest thing from a leader after the Washington fiasco. But I think his time in Florida in particular rehabilitated his image. He was definitely seen as a veteran leader on that team, and they made the playoffs for the first time in years with a young group. Doesn't excuse the Washington years, but better late than never.
People who say that Jagr never elevated his teams or that he was naver a leader obviously never watched him on Czech NT.
Canadiens1958
Registered User
Giving you the benefit of all doubt, explain why he could not do likewise in the NHL.
Did he now? Interesting, let's check if you're factually correct or just throwing more shit against the wall in regards to Jagr and hoping it sticks...
Best playoff/peak stretches of a few players, and their corresponding ppgs:
| Player | Reg season | Playoffs | Reg season ppg | Playoff ppg | Gap | % drop |
| Gretzky | 1983-1989 | 1983-1989 | 2.47 | 2.09 | 0.38 | -18.18% |
| Lemieux | 1989-1996 | 1989-1996 | 2.27 | 1.77 | 0.5 | -28.25% |
| Lafleur | 1975-1980 | 1975-1980 | 1.66 | 1.53 | 0.13 | -8.50% |
| Jagr | 1995-2000 | 1995-2000 | 1.54 | 1.36 | 0.18 | -13.24% |
| Sakic | 1996-2001 | 1996-2001 | 1.3 | 1.16 | 0.14 | -12.07% |
| Forsberg | 1996-2002 | 1996-2002 | 1.29 | 1.18 | 0.11 | -9.32% |
| Crosby | 2007-2018 | 2007-2018 | 1.27 | 1.16 | 0.11 | -9.48% |
Jagr's playoff ppg is much higher than any of Sakic or Forsberg in the same era, or Crosby some years later. He did drop 13% between regular season and playoffs, but then Gretz and Lemieux dropped a lot more (higher reg season ppg --> higher drop in playoffs).
Jagr doesn't look out of place, or bad at all over here. Did he dominate the regular season more than the playoffs? Sure, a bit. Gretzky did a lot moreso, and Lemieux.
Nothing to see here...
Good thing Jagr is already ranked where he belongs.
Probably not. It's not like a player who finishes top 7 in hart voting is usually considered among the top 50 best players in the league...
It's crazy how Jagr seems to bring out the worst bias/exaggerations out of some posters.
This is simply not true.
Between 1992 and 2002:
NHL.com - Stats
3rd in goals, 4th in points, 2nd in PPG (min. 0f 50 games) excluding Wayne and Mario.
You can argue his PPG took a larger % drop than his peers like Sakic and Forsberg but it was still elite. He clearly had less support than Sakic and Forsberg. He was the best playoff ES scorer so his % drop is mainly a lower PP production.
You have not really made an argument that he should essentially lose points to players with clearly inferior regular season resumes but better playoff resumes. Being placed behind his regular season peer group due to a lack of a signature Cup run is reasonable which is what most seem to do.
Michael Farkas
Celebrate 68
So, just to be clear, I'm a stat watcher when it comes to Jagr being an overall 7 or 8 out of 10 playoff performer...yet you have shown data that shows he is not...yet those Pens teams were, I don't know what term to use...is it fair to say the opposite of top-heavy/top-line or bust/top-six or bust is "well built" or "well rounded" or "complete"...you're gonna use regular season standings to show those teams were well built, but I'm apparently using production that "fell off a cliff" to make claims that he was a plus playoff performer...?
Listen, I'm not upset because I got my way already, so I'm livin' easy...but you're trying to hook your small intestine to your mouth here and proclaiming that you solved world hunger...
ImporterExporter
"You're a boring old man"
All of this is:
......and flat out moving the goal posts to make up another BS narrative about Jagr.
-First off, You're not comparing an equal amount of time between players.
-Games played not factored in (less games makes it easier to hold a higher PPG rate) Wanna guess where Jagr is at compared to the others? Why are we looking at only 5 years of Jagr but more and many more for other players? Especially nice that you left out 2001 on Jagr after he really nosedived in the postseason.
-Jagr almost always did his biggest damage in early rounds and after 92 rarely advanced past the 2nd round thus meaning he faced much easier comp than others on the list. But of course it's the rest of the teams fault all those years? They were "awful".
-Gretzky and Lemieux are both elite all time playoff performers. Hence their positioning in the HoH postseason performer project. I'd expect more of a drop off when you're dumping 2 and a half and 2 and a quarter points per on people during the regular season.
-Also, every other player on your "chart" made the HoH top postseason performers list and Jagr wasn't close to being on it. Why? Because of the stuff I just listed. Plus.....
93. Jagr outscored by 5 different Pens. 9 points in 12 games after scoring 91 in the regular season. Massive upset for the Pens. Jagr and Pittsburgh (117 points) ousted by barely over .500 team NYI (87 points). Jagr way down the list in that series.
94. Jagr outscored by Mario in round 1 exit. 6 in 6 -3 after 99 points in 80 regular season games. Pitt was a dominant regular season team (101 points) bounced by the Caps who were barely over .500 (88 points)
95. Jagr outscored by Francis in 2nd round exit. 15 in 12 after 70 in 48. Beat by a NJ team that finished regular season with 9 fewer points.
96. Jagr played very well here through first 2 rounds. 18 of his 23 points, was great against NY. Completely aware and acknowledge this. Sucked against Florida in 3rd round exit. 5 in 7 and a -3 being outdone by Mario and Petr Nedved. Pitt was a 102 point team, first in their division. Florida 92 points and 3rd.
97. 8 points in 5 games. Finally leads the Pens there. But another early round exit. -4 player. Nice points obviously but 1 round does nothing for me in an all time light. Sorry.
98. Jagr was really good here, but again out in round 1. Can't knock him for 9 in 6 and a +5. I've said this is one of the better rounds I've seen him, along with the Rangers series a few years earlier. The Pens finished first in their division with 98 points. 7th on goals for and 4th on goals against, and were swamped by a Montreal team that had 87 points and was 5th in goals for and just 13th out of 26 in goals against.
99. Jagr (missed a few games) had 12 in 9. Kovalev 12 in 10 and Straka 15 in 13. This was a very average Pens team, completely admit that. But certainly not awful relative to other teams in the league absolutely.
MXD
Original #4
- Oct 27, 2005
- 50,812
- 16,549
I don't want to take sides in your pissing contest, but that's a world-class metaphor.
All of this is:
None of it is wrong as i posted data and statistics. It can't possibly be wrong - they're facts.
Yes I am using different amount of times for players. In the post of yours I replied to you were talking about peak performances, so I tried to pick each player's best stretch - that's usually 6-7 years.
- I used 6 years for Jagr, not 5.
- I also used 6 years for Sakic & Lafleur, 7 for Forsberg, Gretz, Lemieux.
Seems fair. Yes I used more years for Crosby because I wanted to include both cup run stretches, and not be accused of cherry picking best years by avoiding the middle ones - but you can remove him if you want, or split in middle, or whatever.
It's true that for games played Jagr at the bottom. 61 games in that stretch - than you have Lafleur at 72 and Lemieux at 84 as the next 2. That's because during Jagr's peak years, his teams didn't have much playoff success. Again - nobody has denied that. Does Jagr share some of that blame? Sure maybe - but it's a team sport, and his individual production in those years seem to be in line with other players.
Did Jagr almost always do his biggest damage in early rounds after 92? I mean - considering he didn't often make it far in the playoffs, that seems plausible. Do you have any data to back that up? And do you have any data to how that compares to the likes of Crosby, Sakic, Forsberg, Lafleur and any other relevant player you want to compare him to? My guess is if we compare first 2 rounds between all those players, Jagr doesn't end up looking too bad.
But of course you're probably not going to supply data and instead we'll have to "take your word" for it.
Gretzky and Lemieux are both elite all time, and playoff performers, yes. And they had more a drop off in their PPG because their regular season ppg was so high.
But - so was Jagr's - in comparison to everyone on this list outside of those 2 and Lafleur. So if it's ok for Lemieux/Gretzky to have their PPG drop in the playoffs, it should be for Jagr too.
The reason Jagr wasn't on the top 40 playoff list is because he isn't a top 40 playoff performer of all time. So what? Not being a top 40 playoff performer of all time doesn't mean that all the exaggerations you're making are true and that his overall playoff resume is complete crap. They're not, and it's not. He's an average to strong playoff performer - with some strong numbers during his peak years - missing a true individual signature run.
I mean you can make any player and any run look bad if you try hard enough.
Joe Sakic 1998 playoffs - 6 games 5 points, 5th in team scoring (6 away from lead) in round 1 exit
Joe Sakic 2000 playoffs - 17 games, 9 points, -5 rating. 6th in team coring,
etc.
Do the same for every player and then let's compare results. If not - it's just showing bias against Jagr.
ImporterExporter
"You're a boring old man"
Now THAT'S an 8-9 out of 10.
But truth be told I'm more of a literal type of guy. Hence why I feel the need to point out where the Pens were in relation to other teams during the 90's. Some of the teams that bounced Pitt had little to no business doing so. Hence why I feel the need to show Jagr's shortcomings from one phase of the season, to the next. Hundreds of people are reading these threads. I'm not going to have people like bholly cherry picking and omitting seasons to fit his narrative, like his outlandish chart above.
I'd say Crosby, for example, is an 8-9 out of 10 playoff performer. Had a few rough seasons there with Bylsma but overall has largely been sensational. Numbers back it up. Hardware and Cups won back it up. So what you're telling me is either Sid should be a 10 or Jagr is on Sid's level as far as playoffs go. Neither are accurate IMO.
That's the thing. I'm not some 14 year old main board person who thinks my favorite player Crosby should be pushing Mario for 4th all time. Hell, i had him lower than more than a few people here who aren't Sid fans. I've proven time and time again I can be objective on anyone, even Jagr who i dislike. I think Jagr should be in the mid 20's. That's not an outlandish position. If I REALLY hated him and wasn't objective I'd keep NR'ing him into oblivion.
Jagr is what he is. A brilliant offensive only player who played on teams that chased points in the regular season because they were often in the bottom half/third of the league defensively. His numbers are inflated. And his shortcomings when games mattered most are quite telling. He finished above Messier who won more Hart trophies and actually played the game across all 3 zones, was a brilliant PK'er and was a TEN in the postseason as well as good to great for Canada. Same with Red Kelly who literally dominated defensively and was a really good F for a dynasty. And why? Because points and Art Ross trophies. Nothing more. Nothing less.
To be frank, I'm happy that somebody hasn't thrown out the xenophobic label on me yet. Then again, we nuked the political forum which would have me strung up by piano wire for not supporting a foreigner.
But I'm an American, so most of these players are all foreigners Anyway, I'm done with his. I've said as much as I can. Nothing is going to change our minds.
- Status
