Top ten players all time, going only on prime

[Canadiens1958]

The Issue

Only on Hfboards will Forsberg ever be considered better than Jagr by some fans.

In reality Jagr had Forsberg beat on prime, peak, longevity, goalscoring, they were equal in playmaking and were both just as good in the playoffs.

The difference is Jagr has the hardware to back up his claim as one of the most dominant players of all time and Forsberg just has fans who talk about a Forsberg fantasy world where he was supposedly the most dominant player and in the same class as Gretzky, Lemieux and Orr when in reality he wasn't even among the top 5 most dominant players of the 90's (even as a forward).

Since many underrate the 90's (excluding Lemieux and Gretzky) here were the 5 most dominant forwards of the 90's.

1. Jagr
2. Lindros
3. Selanne
4. Bure
5. Sakic

I would even rank Karyia, Modano and Yzerman ahead of Forsberg.

The operative phrase is in "in his prime".

A prime that features individual hardware but is void of team success is not as impressive as a prime that features both individaul and team success. Same point holds for a career. The lack of Stanley Cups is a common disappointment amongst players who had long, successful careers without the important team hardware. Numerous players like Gadsby, Park, Ratelle,amongst many have expressed their disappointment about not winning the ultimate team hardware in NHL hockey.

If Jagr career is considered then his contributions to two Pittsburgh Stanley Cups at the start of his career balance the lack of Stanley Cups during his prime. They do not excuse some of the prime shortcomings but they stand on their own as career achievements.

 

[Fredrik_71]

Maybe I should start a bunch of threads with the theme Jagr >>> Gretzky. Whats up with all the crazy Forsberg threads/posts! Only nitwits would claim Forsberg was better than Jagr. Stop responding to trolls!!!

/Cheers

 

[InGusWeTrust]

Yzerman would be on my list for sure. I could also be biased. But in 1988-89 he had 155 points only behind Super Mario(199) and the Great One(168).



Lafleur: 327+439=766

Yzerman: 331+401=732

Over there 6 year prime I'd place them pretty close to each other just looking at there stats. Not even going into who they had working with them on the teams.


Also someone on here said that Forsberg never reached 30 goals. He did it twice in his career. Just saying..

 

[Czech Your Math]

The operative phrase is in "in his prime".

A prime that features individual hardware but is void of team success is not as impressive as a prime that features both individaul and team success. Same point holds for a career. The lack of Stanley Cups is a common disappointment amongst players who had long, successful careers without the important team hardware. Numerous players like Gadsby, Park, Ratelle,amongst many have expressed their disappointment about not winning the ultimate team hardware in NHL hockey.

If Jagr career is considered then his contributions to two Pittsburgh Stanley Cups at the start of his career balance the lack of Stanley Cups during his prime. They do not excuse some of the prime shortcomings but they stand on their own as career achievements.

I'm sure it was disappointing for Jagr to not have won any Cups in his prime, just as it was for the players you mentioned and others. However, as you stated, he won two Cups and was especially key to the second Cup win. He was also an outstanding player in the playoffs throughout his career.

I'm curious what you consider Jagr's playoff "shortcomings" in his prime? Mostly, his teams overachieved in the regular season, then did as well as could be expected in the playoffs.

Here's a look at Penguins in playoffs 1994-2001:

1994/1995: Third in points each year, much better than their GF/GA ratio would suggest (they actually improved from 13th in '94 to 7th in '95). Lost to Caps in first round in '94, beat Caps before losing to Cup-winning N.J. in '95. Lemieux (7) and Jagr (6) lead team in '94, Jagr (10 goals and 15 points) and Francis (19 points) in '95.

1996- With Lemieux back, they were 4th in points. Beat the Caps, then beat the Rangers (5th in points, Cup in '94) in five games. Florida contained Lemieux and Jagr while winning the ECF in 7 games. This loss and the 7 game loss to the Islanders in '93 are easily the most disappointing during of the Lemieux/Jagr years, especially as they prevented matchups with Roy and Canadiens (and possibly Gretzky and Kings) in '93 and with Roy/Sakic/Forsberg and Colorado in '96. Florida was a lot better than they looked (7th in points), played great team defense and Vanbiesbrouck had a terrific series. In glancing at the roster, I had forgotten how weak the Pens' defense was already. Lemieux and Jagr are 2nd and 3rd in NHL in playoff points/PPG, and second in goals, but they surely would have rather made the SC Finals. Disappointing to be sure.

1997/1998- Mediocre team with Lemieux in '97 (84 points, +5 GF/GA) lost to much better Flyers in first round, with Jagr (8) and Lemieux (6) their leading scorers in 5 games. Without Lemieux in '98, they win the division, but lose to Montreal in six games (one in OT). Jagr's 4 goals and 9 points lead the team. They weren't that much better than Montreal (3 more wins, +40 to +27) and it seems a lot to expect a team that was ~.500 in '97 and lost in first round to lose Lemieux and become a contender.

1999/2000- 8th seed in 1999, upset top seed NJ in 7, with injured Jagr scoring late in third to tie and OT to win game 6. Lost to Toronto in 6 (2 in OT) in second round. Jagr's 5 goals and 12 points in 9 games are second on team to Straka's 6 goals and 15 points in 13 games. Kovalev, Morozov, Titov, and Kasparaitis missed games in Toronto series. 7th seed in 2000, upset 2nd seed Caps in 5 before losing to #1 seed Flyers in 6 (3 one goal losses, 2 in OT, including 5OT). Jagr leads team with 8 goals/16 points in 11 games.

2001- As #6 seed and Lemieux back, beat Caps in 6 (5 one goal games) and Buffalo in 7 (1-2 w/o Jagr, won last 2 in OT), before losing in 5 to defending champ and #1 seed N.J. with a one-armed Jagr and a goalie with 9 career NHL games before playoffs.

It seems most star players have primes that coincide with the primes of their teams, but that's not always the case. Besides Jagr, some other examples of star players whose Cups weren't in their prime might be:

- Bourque: won Cup in his last season at 40, although had some long playoff runs in his career.
- Mikita: had a good playoff when he won his only Cup in his first full season (had 27 career points at that time).
- Hasek: Had already carried Buffalo to SC Finals and was still a great player when he won his first Cup, but won it at age 37, playing on a very stacked Detroit team, and only played 57 NHL games in the following four years.
- Yzerman: Was a still fine player when he won his first Cup at 32, and more balanced all-around player, but most wouldn't really consider it his main "prime."
- Brett Hull: played on some solid Blues teams, but didn't have a lot of playoff success until joining Dallas and winning first Cup at almost 35.
- Bobby Hull: Had already led the league in goals as a 1st Team All-Star the year previous to his only Cup, so easy to argue it was in his prime. However, was not a 1st/2nd Team All-Star the year he won that Cup, at 22, with 3 points in 9 career playoff games to that point, and had an extended prime which makes it not so clear cut.
- D. Savard: Had 5 points (all assists) in 14 (out of 20) playoff games at age 32 while winning his only Cup.
- Chelios: He was already a very good player when he won his first Cup at 24, although he missed half the season (his second full season) and it would be three more seasons until he made a 1st/2nd All-Star Team. Still 1st Team All-Star when he won his next Cup at 40, so was he in his prime at 40?
- Selanne: Won his only Cup at almost 37.
- Roy: Was he in his prime for his 4 Cups? He was during the playoffs those years, but in regular season was not a 1st/2nd Team All-Star, nor a top 5 finisher in GAA or Save % in any of the 4 years. I'm just kidding about Roy, but you get the point.

Then there are the players you mentioned, and many others such as Lindros, Stastny, Dionne, Thornton, Kariya, Perreault, Sittler, Oates, Hawerchuk, Sundin, etc. without a Cup in their careers.

I'm sure a lot of players wish they had won the Cup or won more Cups or played better in certain series or played on better teams or any number of things. However, to imply that a player as accomplished as Jagr... who made the playoffs 14/16 seasons, won 14 playoff series, reached 4 conference finals and won 2 Cups, has gold/bronze Olympic medals and a World Championship (which was open to all NHL players)... had shortcomings that were primarily responsible for his teams' limited NHL playoff success during his prime years, is completely ridiculous.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Jagr's Shortcomings

Limiting the point about his shortcomings to his prime.

Bobby Clarke and Dave Keon gave up their personal stats to concentrate on defense resulting in Stanley Cups for their during their prime.Beliveau and Henri Richard could do likewise without a significant drop in their offensive stats. Lesser players - Guy Carbonneau,Ron Francis to name a few did likewise.Others like Yzerman did so post prime.Jaromir Jagr would generate impressive playoff numbers during his prime but he would not adapt his game to post season conditions and requirements. You could not rely on Jagr to go head to head against the other team's key player and shut them down. You could with the other players listed.Sometimes one would beat the other but the reliability was always there. Not so with Jaromir Jagr.

At times you would expect a great player to lead his team to a playoff upset or two. Do not recall Jagr doing so yet lesser players have managed to lead teams to playoff upsets. Saku Koivu as an example.

Workman like performance shift after shift. Remember the 1998 playoffs against the Canadiens which the Penguins lost in six. Jaromir Jagr produced nice numbers as listed but the performance was constant.

 

[livewell68]

Limiting the point about his shortcomings to his prime.

Bobby Clarke and Dave Keon gave up their personal stats to concentrate on defense resulting in Stanley Cups for their during their prime.Beliveau and Henri Richard could do likewise without a significant drop in their offensive stats. Lesser players - Guy Carbonneau,Ron Francis to name a few did likewise.Others like Yzerman did so post prime.Jaromir Jagr would generate impressive playoff numbers during his prime but he would not adapt his game to post season conditions and requirements. You could not rely on Jagr to go head to head against the other team's key player and shut them down. You could with the other players listed.Sometimes one would beat the other but the reliability was always there. Not so with Jaromir Jagr.

At times you would expect a great player to lead his team to a playoff upset or two. Do not recall Jagr doing so yet lesser players have managed to lead teams to playoff upsets. Saku Koivu as an example.

Workman like performance shift after shift. Remember the 1998 playoffs against the Canadiens which the Penguins lost in six. Jaromir Jagr produced nice numbers as listed but the performance was constant.

What's wrong with having constant performance? It's not like Gretzky or Lemieux ever adapted their game, they contiuned to be offensive players.

As for the upset part, check this out.

1998-99 playoffs first round Pittsburgh was 8th and new Jersey was 1st.

With a bad leg and all Jagr singlehandedly beat New Jersey in game 6 despite being down 3-2 in the round. Jagr scored 2 goals late including the overtime goal to beat New Jersey in game 6. Pittsburgh would go on to beat New Jersey in 7 games thus being the upset of the 8th seeded team beating the 1st seed.

1999-00 playoffs Pittsburgh was 7th and Washington was 2nd

Pittsburgh took out washington in 5 games while Jagr would go on to have 16 Pts in just 11 games in those playoffs before his groin really hampered him against Philadelphia eventhough they were up 3-2 at one point.

2006-07 playoffs New York who was the 6th seed team beat Atlanta who was the 3rd seed
Jagr had 7 Pts in a 4 game sweep in that series

2007-08 playoffs New York was the 6th seed and New Jersey was the 3rd seed

Jagr had 9 Pts in 5 games as New York finished the upset against New jersey in game 6.

I would think Jagr has been more than capable of making his team pull off upsets.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Prime or Career

What's wrong with having constant performance? It's not like Gretzky or Lemieux ever adapted their game, they contiuned to be offensive players.

As for the upset part, check this out.

1998-99 playoffs first round Pittsburgh was 8th and new Jersey was 1st.

With a bad leg and all Jagr singlehandedly beat New Jersey in game 6 despite being down 3-2 in the round. Jagr scored 2 goals late including the overtime goal to beat New Jersey in game 6. Pittsburgh would go on to beat New Jersey in 7 games thus being the upset of the 8th seeded team beating the 1st seed.

1999-00 playoffs Pittsburgh was 7th and Washington was 2nd

Pittsburgh took out washington in 5 games while Jagr would go on to have 16 Pts in just 11 games in those playoffs before his groin really hampered him against Philadelphia eventhough they were up 3-2 at one point.

2006-07 playoffs New York who was the 6th seed team beat Atlanta who was the 3rd seed
Jagr had 7 Pts in a 4 game sweep in that series

2007-08 playoffs New York was the 6th seed and New Jersey was the 3rd seed

Jagr had 9 Pts in 5 games as New York finished the upset against New jersey in game 6.

I would think Jagr has been more than capable of making his team pull off upsets.

Clearly stated that my comparisons were limited to PRIME post prime Jagr did contribute to upsets but that is outside the framework of the discussion.The downhill or post prime period especially with the Rangers improves Jagr's career body of work but not his prime.

Seems like you are intent on getting Jagr into a top 10 somewhere, either career or prime and he is coming up a bit short.

 

[livewell68]

Clearly stated that my comparisons were limited to PRIME post prime Jagr did contribute to upsets but that is outside the framework of the discussion.The downhill or post prime period especially with the Rangers improves Jagr's career body of work but not his prime.

Seems like you are intent on getting Jagr into a top 10 somewhere, either career or prime and he is coming up a bit short.

You're the only one selling him short. Most on here have put Jagr in the top 10 and some as high as 6th.

Btw what do you consider prime?

1998, 1999 and 2000 were still in Jagr's prime years. He was under the age of 30.

As I showed you already in the late 90's even with Pittsburgh Jagr was the spearhead of a few upsets he didn't have to wait until he joined New York.

How in the world do you not include Jagr in the top 10. In what was some of the lowest scoring in almost half a century Jagr won 5 Art Ross trophies in a 7 year period.

You want to keep talking about his playoff shortcomings when in reality he didn't have any.

He won his first 2 Cups as a teen.

If you look at his playoffs 1994-95, 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-00 in what you would call his prime (these were all years without Lemieux) Jagr was very dominant in the playoffs.

Outside of the first Cups, 1993-94 and 1995-96 Pittsburgh was never a powerhouse.

The last aforementioned seasons Lemieux was just as much to blame as Jagr for Pittsburgh not winning the Cup.

Here are Jagr's playoffs seasons (during his prime without Lemieux)

Seasons GP G A PTS PPG

1994-95 12 10 5 15 1.25
1997-98 6 4 5 9 1.50
1998-99 9 5 7 12 1.33
1999-00 11 8 8 16 1.45

Totals 38 27 25 52 1.37

If these are shortcomings then I'm just baffled.

Even in years where Jagr's team finished in the top 4 in the East they were still overachievers since they won based on their offense in the regular season and when the playoffs come along it takes solid goaltending and defense to win games. Pittsburgh usually never had that. Jagr was basically their offense.

In what was Jagr's prime years in the playoffs between 1994 and 2001 (I didn't include the years Lemieux played, and in fact Jagr's PPG was better without Lemieux) Jagr averaged 1.37 PPG. No one in that time span outside of Lemieux had a better run in the playoffs, not even Sakic or Forsberg.

You talk about guys like Forsberg (who actually never won a Cup in his prime) or Yzerman, Federov but fail to mention that they all had much better teams surrounding them.

I am 100% sure if Jagr's teams had better goaltending or defense in Pittsburgh in the late 90's, Jagr would have at least 1 Conn Smythe and would have won a Cup without Lemieux.

A 1.37 PPG in the playoffs in what was the "dead puck era" is pretty damn impressive. He was basically playing at a 112 Pts clip in the playoffs when scoring is even tougher.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Why the Sophistry?

You're the only one selling him short. Most on here have put Jagr in the top 10 and some as high as 6th.

Btw what do you consider prime?

1998, 1999 and 2000 were still in Jagr's prime years. He was under the age of 30.

As I showed you already in the late 90's even with Pittsburgh Jagr was the spearhead of a few upsets he didn't have to wait until he joined New York.

How in the world do you not include Jagr in the top 10. In what was some of the lowest scoring in almost half a century Jagr won 5 Art Ross trophies in a 7 year period.

You want to keep talking about his playoff shortcomings when in reality he didn't have any.

He won his first 2 Cups as a teen.

If you look at his playoffs 1994-95, 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-00 in what you would call his prime (these were all years without Lemieux) Jagr was very dominant in the playoffs.

Outside of the first Cups, 1993-94 and 1995-96 Pittsburgh was never a powerhouse.

The last aforementioned seasons Lemieux was just as much to blame as Jagr for Pittsburgh not winning the Cup.

Here are Jagr's playoffs seasons (during his prime without Lemieux)

Seasons GP G A PTS PPG

1994-95 12 10 5 15 1.25
1997-98 6 4 5 9 1.50
1998-99 9 5 7 12 1.33
1999-00 11 8 8 16 1.45

Totals 38 27 25 52 1.37

If these are shortcomings then I'm just baffled.

Even in years where Jagr's team finished in the top 4 in the East they were still overachievers since they won based on their offense in the regular season and when the playoffs come along it takes solid goaltending and defense to win games. Pittsburgh usually never had that. Jagr was basically their offense.

In what was Jagr's prime years in the playoffs between 1994 and 2001 (I didn't include the years Lemieux played, and in fact Jagr's PPG was better without Lemieux) Jagr averaged 1.37 PPG. No one in that time span outside of Lemieux had a better run in the playoffs, not even Sakic or Forsberg.

You talk about guys like Forsberg (who actually never won a Cup in his prime) or Yzerman, Federov but fail to mention that they all had much better teams surrounding them.

I am 100% sure if Jagr's teams had better goaltending or defense in Pittsburgh in the late 90's, Jagr would have at least 1 Conn Smythe and would have won a Cup without Lemieux.

A 1.37 PPG in the playoffs in what was the "dead puck era" is pretty damn impressive. He was basically playing at a 112 Pts clip in the playoffs when scoring is even tougher.

Why the sudden without Lemieux sophistry? Yes Jaromir Jagr could score and win Art Ross Trophies in a fashion comparable to Mario Lemieux but he could not step up and lead.Messsier managed without Gretzky.Remember Jagr's only cups were with Lemieux.

Oh yes, 1996 vs Panthers, 7 games, 1G 2A. <.5PPG.With Lemieux. Did he step-up like Malkin did last year? No.

1998 vs Montreal,Jaromir Jagr 9 points in 6 games BUT first four games 8 points, series tied 2-2, next two games 1 point. Pens lose in 6.

If the issue is better and more productive primes then in no particular order: Howe, Lemieux, Gretzky, Kurri, Beliveau, Clarke,Bossy, Trottier, Shore, Harvey,Potvin, Lidstrom, Plante Sawchuk, Dryden, Durnan.

 

[Reds4Life]

Remember Jagr's only cups were with Lemieux.

Mario's only Cups were with Jagr.
Gretzky's only Cups were with Messier.
Bourque's only Cup was with Sakic.
Yzerman's only Cups were with Lidstrom.
.
.
.

 

[Czech Your Math]

Why the sudden without Lemieux sophistry? Yes Jaromir Jagr could score and win Art Ross Trophies in a fashion comparable to Mario Lemieux but he could not step up and lead.Messsier managed without Gretzky.Remember Jagr's only cups were with Lemieux.

Not trying to knock Lemieux at all, only pointing out that during the period when they were both at or near their best, on the same team, they had similar production and similar playoff results. Why is Lemieux given a pass and still considered perhaps the best of all time, while Jagr isn't deserving of at least top 10? Based on two Cups that Jagr had a hand in too (especially in '92, when Lemieux was injured for part of playoffs). No player wins or loses a game or series or Cup by himself. Those Cup-winning Pens teams had Lemieux, Jagr, Stevens, Francis, Tocchet, Mullen, Trottier, Coffey, Murphy, Samuelssons, Barrasso at his best, etc.

Before Jagr, Francis, etc. arrived, Lemieux "led" his team to the playoffs once in six seasons and won a single playoff series. He didn't make the playoffs in four seasons after Jagr left. Not all of those were his "prime" years, but it does show that no player can just "will" or "sacrifice" his team to success, it takes the depth of talent that those early '90s Pens team had to have a good chance.

Meanwhile, Jagr led the team to the playoffs in '94 (as team's leading scorer, Lemieux < 30 games), '95, '98, '99, '00. After leaving the Pens, he made the playoffs four more times, and won five playoff series without Lemieux, many as a lower seed. Again, not all of those were his "prime" years, but it does show that he was capable of leading marginal playoff teams to the playoffs and some level of success.

Oh yes, 1996 vs Panthers, 7 games, 1G 2A. <.5PPG.With Lemieux. Did he step-up like Malkin did last year? No.

Actually, it was not the best series for either of them, with Jagr having 1 goal and 4 assists (not 2) and Lemieux 1 goal and 6 assists. Florida had already beaten #1 seed Philadelphia in six games, and although they got swept by Colorado, they played them tough in 3/4 games (lost 3-1 in Colorado in opener, and lost both games at home by one goal, including the clincher in OT).

As always, it helps to put things in context. Pittsburgh actually started out the '96 playoffs by losing 2/3 to the Caps and were down 1-0 in game 4. Time for Lemieux and Barrasso to lead them back? Here's what transpired:

- Barrasso left the game with back spasms, replaced by Wregget.
- Caps scored a second power play goal to go up 2-0
- Jagr scored a short-handed goal with 78 seconds left in 2nd period
- Lemieux was penalized and thrown out of game
- Nedved tied the game midway thru the 3rd period
- the teams played almost 4 scoreless OTs, while Wregget had 53 saves on 54 shots including the first overtime penalty shot in NHL playoff history.
- Nedved won it on power play, "Jags worked really hard on the last play and they had to call the penalty and I got the game-winner."

So while Lemieux (0 goals in 4 games) and Barrasso (13 GA in 10 periods) watched from the bench or locker room, the heroics of Jagr, Nedved and Wregget avoided going down 3-1 in the series. In game 5, Jagr had 3 points (Lemieux 1) and Wregget saved 39/40 shots, and they won in six games.

Reminds me of '91, when a rookie Jagr scored the OT goal to avoid going down 0-2 heading back to N.J., and they won in 7. Of course, that team was destined, they had Lemieux, he was the only reason they ever won anything, it couldn't be the numerous talented players who also scored big goals and made big plays or saves.

1998 vs Montreal,Jaromir Jagr 9 points in 6 games BUT first four games 8 points, series tied 2-2, next two games 1 point. Pens lose in 6.

Obviously it was Jagr's fault, because we all know the slightly better team never loses, the breaks always even out, there is no luck in sports (especially hockey), and a hot goalie cannot make the difference in a playoff series. Oh, and no star ever had 1 point in 2 games, especially after scoring 8 in the first 4.

Game 5: "We had numerous chances when it was 3-2," Francis said. "I don't know how we didn't score a goal."

Game 6: "Penguins defenseman Brad Werenka came out of the penalty box early in the second and broke in alone on Moog before he was taken down by Montreal's Dave Manson, who was penalized for tripping. Replays showed referee Bill McCreary could have
awarded a penalty shot.

A wrist shot by Pittsburgh's Jiri Slegr hit the left goalpost
with 4:33 to play in the second period and Moog was able to get
his right skate on Robert Lang's one-timer from the slot just
over a minute into the third.

Moog preserved the shutout with a stop on Ron Francis with 7:11
remaining. Jagr broke down the slot but lost control in front
with 4:49 left and the Penguins' last scoring chance was negated
by a quick whistle before Jagr's shot trickled through Moog's
pads."

If the issue is better and more productive primes then in no particular order: Howe, Lemieux, Gretzky, Kurri, Beliveau, Clarke,Bossy, Trottier, Shore, Harvey,Potvin, Lidstrom, Plante Sawchuk, Dryden, Durnan.

Some great players on that list to be sure.

Luckily, none had shortcomings like Jagr. He could learn a lot about how forwards play defense from a guy who was such a great all-around player that he had to resort to intentionally breaking his opponent's ankle as a means of "shutting him down." He could also get character lessons and learn about not having shortcomings in his prime from a player who at age 27 was "physically weak, playing poorly, and on the verge of a nervous breakdown, announced his retirement... and was labeled a quitter by team executives and several newspapers" then stepped up his leadership by "increasing alcoholism, philandering, and verbal and physical abuse" of his family before dying of injuries from a bar fight with a teammate.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Oh Well...............

Not trying to knock Lemieux at all, only pointing out that during the period when they were both at or near their best, on the same team, they had similar production and similar playoff results. Why is Lemieux given a pass and still considered perhaps the best of all time, while Jagr isn't deserving of at least top 10? Based on two Cups that Jagr had a hand in too (especially in '92, when Lemieux was injured for part of playoffs). No player wins or loses a game or series or Cup by himself. Those Cup-winning Pens teams had Lemieux, Jagr, Stevens, Francis, Tocchet, Mullen, Trottier, Coffey, Murphy, Samuelssons, Barrasso at his best, etc.

Before Jagr, Francis, etc. arrived, Lemieux "led" his team to the playoffs once in six seasons and won a single playoff series. He didn't make the playoffs in four seasons after Jagr left. Not all of those were his "prime" years, but it does show that no player can just "will" or "sacrifice" his team to success, it takes the depth of talent that those early '90s Pens team had to have a good chance.

Meanwhile, Jagr led the team to the playoffs in '94 (as team's leading scorer, Lemieux < 30 games), '95, '98, '99, '00. After leaving the Pens, he made the playoffs four more times, and won five playoff series without Lemieux, many as a lower seed. Again, not all of those were his "prime" years, but it does show that he was capable of leading marginal playoff teams to the playoffs and some level of success.



Actually, it was not the best series for either of them, with Jagr having 1 goal and 4 assists (not 2) and Lemieux 1 goal and 6 assists. Florida had already beaten #1 seed Philadelphia in six games, and although they got swept by Colorado, they played them tough in 3/4 games (lost 3-1 in Colorado in opener, and lost both games at home by one goal, including the clincher in OT).

As always, it helps to put things in context. Pittsburgh actually started out the '96 playoffs by losing 2/3 to the Caps and were down 1-0 in game 4. Time for Lemieux and Barrasso to lead them back? Here's what transpired:

- Barrasso left the game with back spasms, replaced by Wregget.
- Caps scored a second power play goal to go up 2-0
- Jagr scored a short-handed goal with 78 seconds left in 2nd period
- Lemieux was penalized and thrown out of game
- Nedved tied the game midway thru the 3rd period
- the teams played almost 4 scoreless OTs, while Wregget had 53 saves on 54 shots including the first overtime penalty shot in NHL playoff history.
- Nedved won it on power play, "Jags worked really hard on the last play and they had to call the penalty and I got the game-winner."

So while Lemieux (0 goals in 4 games) and Barrasso (13 GA in 10 periods) watched from the bench or locker room, the heroics of Jagr, Nedved and Wregget avoided going down 3-1 in the series. In game 5, Jagr had 3 points (Lemieux 1) and Wregget saved 39/40 shots, and they won in six games.

Reminds me of '91, when a rookie Jagr scored the OT goal to avoid going down 0-2 heading back to N.J., and they won in 7. Of course, that team was destined, they had Lemieux, he was the only reason they ever won anything, it couldn't be the numerous talented players who also scored big goals and made big plays or saves.



Obviously it was Jagr's fault, because we all know the slightly better team never loses, the breaks always even out, there is no luck in sports (especially hockey), and a hot goalie cannot make the difference in a playoff series. Oh, and no star ever had 1 point in 2 games, especially after scoring 8 in the first 4.

Game 5: "We had numerous chances when it was 3-2," Francis said. "I don't know how we didn't score a goal."

Game 6: "Penguins defenseman Brad Werenka came out of the penalty box early in the second and broke in alone on Moog before he was taken down by Montreal's Dave Manson, who was penalized for tripping. Replays showed referee Bill McCreary could have
awarded a penalty shot.

A wrist shot by Pittsburgh's Jiri Slegr hit the left goalpost
with 4:33 to play in the second period and Moog was able to get
his right skate on Robert Lang's one-timer from the slot just
over a minute into the third.

Moog preserved the shutout with a stop on Ron Francis with 7:11
remaining. Jagr broke down the slot but lost control in front
with 4:49 left and the Penguins' last scoring chance was negated
by a quick whistle before Jagr's shot trickled through Moog's
pads."



Some great players on that list to be sure.

Luckily, none had shortcomings like Jagr. He could learn a lot about how forwards play defense from a guy who was such a great all-around player that he had to resort to intentionally breaking his opponent's ankle as a means of "shutting him down." He could also get character lessons and learn about not having shortcomings in his prime from a player who at age 27 was "physically weak, playing poorly, and on the verge of a nervous breakdown, announced his retirement... and was labeled a quitter by team executives and several newspapers" then stepped up his leadership by "increasing alcoholism, philandering, and verbal and physical abuse" of his family before dying of injuries from a bar fight with a teammate.

1995-96 Lemieux beat Jagr for the Art Ross by 12 points despite missing twelve games. Adjusted to Mario Lemieux playing the full season this produces a 35 point differential or a 20% superiority. Hardly similar production.

1995-96 playoffs, based on the HSP my numbers stand:
http://www.flyershistory.com/cgi-bin/hsppogames.cgi

Jaromir Jagr never made players like Rob Brown, Randy Cunnyworth into 30, 40 goal scorers like Mario Lemieux did. Nor did he get hockey production out of players with issues like Bobby Clarke did (Reggie Leach), out of career minor leaguers like Gordie Howe did(Parker MacDonald,Gary Aldcorn), Wayne Gretzky (Blair MacDonald), nor could he be counted on to break in rookies like Jean Beliveau ( Gilles Tremblay, Bobby Rousseau, Yvan Cournoyer).

When your numbers and performance points fall short you turn to character issues. Who forced a trade, then allowed himself to get out of shape with the new team amidst allegations of off ice issues?

 

[livewell68]

1995-96 Lemieux beat Jagr for the Art Ross by 12 points despite missing twelve games. Adjusted to Mario Lemieux playing the full season this produces a 35 point differential or a 20% superiority. Hardly similar production.

1995-96 playoffs, based on the HSP my numbers stand:
http://www.flyershistory.com/cgi-bin/hsppogames.cgi

Jaromir Jagr never made players like Rob Brown, Randy Cunnyworth into 30, 40 goal scorers like Mario Lemieux did. Nor did he get hockey production out of players with issues like Bobby Clarke did (Reggie Leach), out of career minor leaguers like Gordie Howe did(Parker MacDonald,Gary Aldcorn), Wayne Gretzky (Blair MacDonald), nor could he be counted on to break in rookies like Jean Beliveau ( Gilles Tremblay, Bobby Rousseau, Yvan Cournoyer).

When your numbers and performance points fall short you turn to character issues. Who forced a trade, then allowed himself to get out of shape with the new team amidst allegations of off ice issues?

Jagr turned Straka into a 70-90 Pts player, turned Nylander into a 70-80 Pts player.

he made guys like Hrdina, Miller, Beranek 1st line players while without Jagr they weren't even NHL caliber.

Jagr scored 127 Pts in 1998-99 (20 more than Selanne who was the NHL's 2nd leading scorer) in a season that had a GPG of just 5.27.

On Pittsburgh the next closest player was Straka who had 35 goals and 83 Pts. Jagr outscored him by 44 and actually had the same amount of assists that Straka had points.

Here's what the top 10 was in scoring that year

1. Jagr 127 Pts Pittsburgh
2. Selanne 107 Pts Anaheim
3. Kariya 101 Pts Anaheim
4. Forsberg 97 Pts Colorado
5. Sakic 96 Pts Colorado
6. Yashin 94 Pts Ottawa
7. Theo Fleury 93 Pts Colorado
8. Lindros 93 Pts Philadelphia
9. Leclair 90 Pts Philadelphia
10. Demitra 89 Pts St. Louis

In fact Straka was only 11th in scoring.

As you can see Jagr took marginal players (sometimes even debatable if they were NHL cailber) and led the Penguins to the playoffs. In the top 5 in scoring, Jagr was the only one that didn't have a teammate in the top 5 as well as Selanne had Kariya, Forsberg had Sakic.

Philadelphia had Lindros and Leclair. Jagr on the other hand was a scoring machine, a one man team LOL.

Considering the NHL was lower scoring in the late 90's than any other time Lemieux and Gretzky had over 160 Pts, and that the NHL goalies were much bigger, had bigger equipment, hooking, slashing and the trap had become an NHL regular, I'm pretty sure Jagr would have been capable of over 160 Pts in the 80's, early 90's if he was in his prime.

Jagr flat out dominated.

As for the 1999-00 Art Ross win for him, yes he only beat Bure by 2 Pts but let's not forget he missed 19 games (20 if you include the game in which he only played one shift before leaving) Jagr would have had over 120 Pts and would have won another Art Ross by at least 20 Pts.

No matter how you look at it, 4 straight Art Ross trophies is dominating, especially when they were won while the NHL was right in the middle of the "dead puck era".

You know what though, I'm done arguing with you. You will just try and discredit anything Jagr ever did. Had he won 7 Art Ross trophies it wouldn't have been enough for you.

Btw when Jagr scored 149 Pts, yes he lost to Lemieux by 12 Pts (who missed a few games) but the reality is Jagr was the NHL's most consistent player that year. He never once had more than 4 Pts in a game and never had a hattrick. Lemieuxs on the other hand would go scoreless in many games and then get 7 Pts or 8 Pts in games. Jagr never ran up the scoring.

 

[Czech Your Math]

1995-96 Lemieux beat Jagr for the Art Ross by 12 points despite missing twelve games. Adjusted to Mario Lemieux playing the full season this produces a 35 point differential or a 20% superiority. Hardly similar production.

You said Jagr, despite being the dominant scorer in the league (except when Lemieux was playing), had shortcomings in his prime related to his team's playoff success. My point was that from '94-01 Jagr and Lemieux had similar production in the playoffs. Also, I pointed out that that Jagr led them to upsets of the #1 seed ('99) and #2 seed ('00) without Lemieux, led them to a playoff series win in '95 without Lemieux over the team they lost to in the first round in '94 with Lemieux, that they lost in the first round in both '97 (with Mario) and '98 (without Mario), and that they both helped the Pens reach the ECF in '96 and '01 (before each was contained in the ECF, Jagr with one arm in '01). Since they were both great players during that period, playing on the same team, and in the playoffs the Pens were 4-4 in series with Lemieux and 3-4 in series without Lemieux, it seemed strange that Lemieux should be top 3 and Jagr not even in the top 10.

Aside from that, Jagr was more similar to Mario that season than the rest of the league (12 points behind Lemieux, 29 points above third). He scored 20 more even strength points (1.16 ES ppg to 1.07) and was +31 to Lemieux's +10. He had 41 ES goals to Lemieux's 30. Lemieux's edge was on the power play, where he may have been the best ever. In '96, Jagr was less than five points behind Lemieux with ten games to play. In '97, Jagr was less than five points behind Lemieux at the 2/3 mark when he was injured.

1995-96 playoffs, based on the HSP my numbers stand:
http://www.flyershistory.com/cgi-bin/hsppogames.cgi

I got my numbers from letsgopens.com. It appears the discrepancy is this:

Game 5: FH lists no assists on Daigneault's goal, while LGP gives assists to Lemieux and Jagr.

Game 7: FH lists no assists on Nedved's goal, while LGP gives assists to Jagr and Smolinski.

LGP's box scores give a total of 23 points for Jagr during the '96 playoffs, matching his official total, so I believe FH is in error.

Jaromir Jagr never made players like Rob Brown, Randy Cunnyworth into 30, 40 goal scorers like Mario Lemieux did. Nor did he get hockey production out of players with issues like Bobby Clarke did (Reggie Leach), out of career minor leaguers like Gordie Howe did(Parker MacDonald,Gary Aldcorn), Wayne Gretzky (Blair MacDonald), nor could he be counted on to break in rookies like Jean Beliveau ( Gilles Tremblay, Bobby Rousseau, Yvan Cournoyer).

Not claiming Jagr was better than Lemieux in his prime, but to suggest he didn't elevate his linemates and teammates to a great degree is false. Not all were during his main prime, but the pattern still holds with the following players:

- Ron Francis: From '95 to '98 (ages 32-36) as Jagr's center, Francis had his four best adjusted point season and 3/4 best +/- seasons in his 23 year career. He finished 1st, 1st, 3rd and 4th in assists, while his best w/o Jagr was a 4th place finish. He finished 5th, 3rd, 5th and 8th in points, while his best w/o Jagr was 9th. He had 355 points and was +74 in 283 games during that span (1.25 ppg, +.26/game). During his other 19 seasons he had 1.00 ppg and was -.06/game (in seasons that were an average of 15% higher scoring than '95-98). He had 1.45 adjusted ppg compared to .90 in his other years. He had 37 points in 34 playoff games (1.08 ppg) compared to 106 points in 137 games (.77 ppg). So Francis' adjusted ppg was 60% higher and his actual playoff ppg 40% higher from '95-98 than the rest of his career, as well as being +.32/game higher in plus-minus.

- Peter Nedved: Pittsburgh was his fourth team in four seasons. His 45 goals and 99 points in '96 were career bests, while his 33 goals and 71 points in '97 were both his third best seasons. In his two seasons with Jagr, he scored 170 points in 154 games and was a +35 (1.10 ppg, +.23). In the rest of his career he had 547 in 828 games and was -56 (.66 ppg, -.07). He had 1.09 ppg with the Pens compared to .70 ppg his other years. He had 23 points in 23 playoff games in '96-97, 19 points in 48 playoff games (.40 ppg) in other years. So Nedved had a 67% higher ppg, 56% higher adjusted ppg and 150% higher playoff ppg than the rest of his career.

- Stu Barnes: In his only full season with the Pens, he scored 30 goals and 65 points, while being +15 in '98, all career highs (second bests 23 goals, 47 points, +9). He had 74 adjusted points, his next best was 55. He had 1.0 ppg in playoffs, less than .75 ppg in each of his other 11 playoffs. Overall with Pittsburgh, he had 67 goals and 136 points in 204 games (.33 gpg, .67 ppg), and he had 194 goals and 461 points in 932 games (.21 gpg, .49 ppg) in other seasons. So Barnes beat his next best seasons by 30-40% in his one full season with the Pens, and overall had a 58% higher gpg and 35% higher ppg (40% higher adjusted ppg).

- Martin Straka: In his six seasons w/o Jagr as a teammate, his bests were 18 goals, 28 assists, 46 points, and +3. In 9 seasons with Jagr, he surpassed those bests 7 times in goals and +/-, and 6 times in assists and points. He had 562 points in 689 games (.82) as Jagr's teammate, 155 points in 265 games (.58 ppg) on other teams. So his ppg was ~40% higher with Jagr.

- Michael Nylander: At ages 33-34 in '06 & '07, he scored 79 and 83 points, beating his previous best of 64 points. With Jagr, he scored 220 points in 234 games (.94 ppg), without Jagr he had 459 points in 686 games (.67 ppg). He scored 19 points in 20 playoff games with Jagr (.95 ppg), 15 points in 27 (.56 ppg) playoff games without Jagr. So he had a 40% higher ppg and ~70% higher playoff ppg with Jagr than the rest of his career.

When your numbers and performance points fall short you turn to character issues. Who forced a trade, then allowed himself to get out of shape with the new team amidst allegations of off ice issues?

No, you were the one who basically said that Jagr's numbers were not a true reflection of his value and that he had shortcomings in his prime (implying that he his lack of defense, lack of playoff production and lack of leadership were the reason his teams didn't win Cups in his prime). I responded that Jagr's excellent plus-minus (one of the best ever in relation to the talent with which he played), excellent playoff production (and similar to Lemieux's in that span) his team's playoff success considering their relative lack of talent (again, their record was similar whether or not Lemieux was playing during that time), and his team's horrible record and GF/GA ratio when he did not play suggest that he was a tremendously valuable player.

You dismissed a variety of objective data presented by saying that some of it wasn't in Jagr's prime (although it continued his pattern of leading marginal teams to the playoffs and series wins) and then presented a list of other players you considered better than Jagr in their primes.

I don't believe that character should be much of an issue in evaluating players, unless it affects performance. At least two players on your list fit into that category. To break a player's ankle, because he can't be otherwise "shut down" shows defensive shortcomings and a lack of character to boot. A player who, at age 27, is both physically and mentally weak and playing poorly, to the point where he decides to retire and is then immediately traded when he comes back seems to imply some type of shortcoming that significantly affected his performance in his prime. To have such a player on your list and then claim that Jagr wasn't "reliable", because he didn't sacrifice what was often his team's only advantage (the scoring ability of his line) to try to shore up an AHL defense as a forward, is laughable. That's like saying Hasek didn't win a Cup until 37, because he didn't try to score goals.

I actually feel sorry for Terry Sawchuk, he had severe problems which also affected his hockey prime and career. This can't be denied, even though his prime was still great.

You don't have to put Jagr in your top 10 or top 100, neither does anyone else, but there's no need to make up reasons for his omission.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Comparables

You said Jagr, despite being the dominant scorer in the league (except when Lemieux was playing), had shortcomings in his prime related to his team's playoff success. My point was that from '94-01 Jagr and Lemieux had similar production in the playoffs. Also, I pointed out that that Jagr led them to upsets of the #1 seed ('99) and #2 seed ('00) without Lemieux, led them to a playoff series win in '95 without Lemieux over the team they lost to in the first round in '94 with Lemieux, that they lost in the first round in both '97 (with Mario) and '98 (without Mario), and that they both helped the Pens reach the ECF in '96 and '01 (before each was contained in the ECF, Jagr with one arm in '01). Since they were both great players during that period, playing on the same team, and in the playoffs the Pens were 4-4 in series with Lemieux and 3-4 in series without Lemieux, it seemed strange that Lemieux should be top 3 and Jagr not even in the top 10.

Aside from that, Jagr was more similar to Mario that season than the rest of the league (12 points behind Lemieux, 29 points above third). He scored 20 more even strength points (1.16 ES ppg to 1.07) and was +31 to Lemieux's +10. He had 41 ES goals to Lemieux's 30. Lemieux's edge was on the power play, where he may have been the best ever. In '96, Jagr was less than five points behind Lemieux with ten games to play. In '97, Jagr was less than five points behind Lemieux at the 2/3 mark when he was injured.



I got my numbers from letsgopens.com. It appears the discrepancy is this:

Game 5: FH lists no assists on Daigneault's goal, while LGP gives assists to Lemieux and Jagr.

Game 7: FH lists no assists on Nedved's goal, while LGP gives assists to Jagr and Smolinski.

LGP's box scores give a total of 23 points for Jagr during the '96 playoffs, matching his official total, so I believe FH is in error.



Not claiming Jagr was better than Lemieux in his prime, but to suggest he didn't elevate his linemates and teammates to a great degree is false. Not all were during his main prime, but the pattern still holds with the following players:

- Ron Francis: From '95 to '98 (ages 32-36) as Jagr's center, Francis had his four best adjusted point season and 3/4 best +/- seasons in his 23 year career. He finished 1st, 1st, 3rd and 4th in assists, while his best w/o Jagr was a 4th place finish. He finished 5th, 3rd, 5th and 8th in points, while his best w/o Jagr was 9th. He had 355 points and was +74 in 283 games during that span (1.25 ppg, +.26/game). During his other 19 seasons he had 1.00 ppg and was -.06/game (in seasons that were an average of 15% higher scoring than '95-98). He had 1.45 adjusted ppg compared to .90 in his other years. He had 37 points in 34 playoff games (1.08 ppg) compared to 106 points in 137 games (.77 ppg). So Francis' adjusted ppg was 60% higher and his actual playoff ppg 40% higher from '95-98 than the rest of his career, as well as being +.32/game higher in plus-minus.

- Peter Nedved: Pittsburgh was his fourth team in four seasons. His 45 goals and 99 points in '96 were career bests, while his 33 goals and 71 points in '97 were both his third best seasons. In his two seasons with Jagr, he scored 170 points in 154 games and was a +35 (1.10 ppg, +.23). In the rest of his career he had 547 in 828 games and was -56 (.66 ppg, -.07). He had 1.09 ppg with the Pens compared to .70 ppg his other years. He had 23 points in 23 playoff games in '96-97, 19 points in 48 playoff games (.40 ppg) in other years. So Nedved had a 67% higher ppg, 56% higher adjusted ppg and 150% higher playoff ppg than the rest of his career.

- Stu Barnes: In his only full season with the Pens, he scored 30 goals and 65 points, while being +15 in '98, all career highs (second bests 23 goals, 47 points, +9). He had 74 adjusted points, his next best was 55. He had 1.0 ppg in playoffs, less than .75 ppg in each of his other 11 playoffs. Overall with Pittsburgh, he had 67 goals and 136 points in 204 games (.33 gpg, .67 ppg), and he had 194 goals and 461 points in 932 games (.21 gpg, .49 ppg) in other seasons. So Barnes beat his next best seasons by 30-40% in his one full season with the Pens, and overall had a 58% higher gpg and 35% higher ppg (40% higher adjusted ppg).

- Martin Straka: In his six seasons w/o Jagr as a teammate, his bests were 18 goals, 28 assists, 46 points, and +3. In 9 seasons with Jagr, he surpassed those bests 7 times in goals and +/-, and 6 times in assists and points. He had 562 points in 689 games (.82) as Jagr's teammate, 155 points in 265 games (.58 ppg) on other teams. So his ppg was ~40% higher with Jagr.

- Michael Nylander: At ages 33-34 in '06 & '07, he scored 79 and 83 points, beating his previous best of 64 points. With Jagr, he scored 220 points in 234 games (.94 ppg), without Jagr he had 459 points in 686 games (.67 ppg). He scored 19 points in 20 playoff games with Jagr (.95 ppg), 15 points in 27 (.56 ppg) playoff games without Jagr. So he had a 40% higher ppg and ~70% higher playoff ppg with Jagr than the rest of his career.



No, you were the one who basically said that Jagr's numbers were not a true reflection of his value and that he had shortcomings in his prime (implying that he his lack of defense, lack of playoff production and lack of leadership were the reason his teams didn't win Cups in his prime). I responded that Jagr's excellent plus-minus (one of the best ever in relation to the talent with which he played), excellent playoff production (and similar to Lemieux's in that span) his team's playoff success considering their relative lack of talent (again, their record was similar whether or not Lemieux was playing during that time), and his team's horrible record and GF/GA ratio when he did not play suggest that he was a tremendously valuable player.

You dismissed a variety of objective data presented by saying that some of it wasn't in Jagr's prime (although it continued his pattern of leading marginal teams to the playoffs and series wins) and then presented a list of other players you considered better than Jagr in their primes.

I don't believe that character should be much of an issue in evaluating players, unless it affects performance. At least two players on your list fit into that category. To break a player's ankle, because he can't be otherwise "shut down" shows defensive shortcomings and a lack of character to boot. A player who, at age 27, is both physically and mentally weak and playing poorly, to the point where he decides to retire and is then immediately traded when he comes back seems to imply some type of shortcoming that significantly affected his performance in his prime. To have such a player on your list and then claim that Jagr wasn't "reliable", because he didn't sacrifice what was often his team's only advantage (the scoring ability of his line) to try to shore up an AHL defense as a forward, is laughable. That's like saying Hasek didn't win a Cup until 37, because he didn't try to score goals.

I actually feel sorry for Terry Sawchuk, he had severe problems which also affected his hockey prime and career. This can't be denied, even though his prime was still great.

You don't have to put Jagr in your top 10 or top 100, neither does anyone else, but there's no need to make up reasons for his omission.

Your comparables and those of others are rather interesting.

Elevating teammates. To support Jagr you cite the contribution he made to the performance of players like Nylander, Straka, Nedved, Francis,Barnes while others mention Josef Beranek, Jan Hrdina, Kip Miller. All were members of their countries national teams at various times beyond their junior days or stand alone HHOFers. Players that Lemieux elevated - Rob Brown, Randy Cunneyworth were nowhere near this quality beyond their junior days - not national team members. Simply Mario Lemieux did more with less.

Defensive skills. Career wise Mario Lemieux 49 SHG vs 11 for Jaromir Jagr - simply Lemieux had one season where he scored more SHG than Jagr did during his career. So Lemieux was significantly better at mitigating his teams defensive shortcomings with his offensive strengths while Jagr was not.

You really are making an effort to use statistics to twist the debate. The 1995-96 ESG / PPG analogy is pure statistical sophistry on your part. Career wise Mario Lemieux scored on just over 19% of his shots while Jagr scored on just over 14% of his shots. Effectively Mario Lemieux was app 35% more efficient with his opportunities.During the 1995-96 season the Jaromir Jagr took more shots than Mario Lemieux yet was app 1/3 less efficient. To interpret this as Jagr being better at even strength or that Mario Lemieux was a power play specialist is simply nonsense. Reality is that Mario Lemieux buried scoring chances on the power play and at even strength that Jagr did not. At even strength Lemieux would be getting the attention of the other teams best defensive forwards and d-men. Both on the ice saw Lemieux getting the attention.

 

[vippe]

Are you guys really trying to convince Jags6868 something about Jagr ?

Good luck with that

 

[pluppe]

Are you guys really trying to convince Jags6868 something about Jagr ?

Good luck with that

I think in this discussion the convincing-problem is mutual.

 

[livewell68]

Your comparables and those of others are rather interesting.

Elevating teammates. To support Jagr you cite the contribution he made to the performance of players like Nylander, Straka, Nedved, Francis,Barnes while others mention Josef Beranek, Jan Hrdina, Kip Miller. All were members of their countries national teams at various times beyond their junior days or stand alone HHOFers. Players that Lemieux elevated - Rob Brown, Randy Cunneyworth were nowhere near this quality beyond their junior days - not national team members. Simply Mario Lemieux did more with less.

Defensive skills. Career wise Mario Lemieux 49 SHG vs 11 for Jaromir Jagr - simply Lemieux had one season where he scored more SHG than Jagr did during his career. So Lemieux was significantly better at mitigating his teams defensive shortcomings with his offensive strengths while Jagr was not.

You really are making an effort to use statistics to twist the debate. The 1995-96 ESG / PPG analogy is pure statistical sophistry on your part. Career wise Mario Lemieux scored on just over 19% of his shots while Jagr scored on just over 14% of his shots. Effectively Mario Lemieux was app 35% more efficient with his opportunities.During the 1995-96 season the Jaromir Jagr took more shots than Mario Lemieux yet was app 1/3 less efficient. To interpret this as Jagr being better at even strength or that Mario Lemieux was a power play specialist is simply nonsense. Reality is that Mario Lemieux buried scoring chances on the power play and at even strength that Jagr did not. At even strength Lemieux would be getting the attention of the other teams best defensive forwards and d-men. Both on the ice saw Lemieux getting the attention.

No ever said Jagr was better. We are just trying to show you that Jagr was a top 10 dominant prime player, that's all.

Only 2 players can ever have claim of being better than Lemieux and those are Orr and Gretzky.

We are just showing you though that Jagr was the closest (although it's not very close) to Lemieux and Gretzky since they left the NHL.

It's people who claim Forsberg was on par with Gretzky, Orr and Lemieux that is ridiculous.

Making a claim that Jagr was the most dominant forward of the 90's and even parts of the 2000's not named Lemieux and Gretzky is not ridiculous, it's actually reality.

No matter how you spin numbers or stats, the fact is hardware, regular season numbers and playoff numbers support the claim that Jagr was the most dominant and had taken the torch from Gretzky and Lemieux.

Sakic and Yzerman were better than Forsberg, even in their primes and they don't even belong on the top 10 list. Forsberg is nowhere near the top 10.

Jagr is in the thick of it.

Considering that between 1980 and 2001 only 3 players, namely Lemieux (6), Gretzky (9) and Jagr (5) won the Art Ross, I think Jagr deserves the credit.

After 2001 no other player ever won multiple Art Ross trophies.

It's not like Jagr was just a scorer, he was a Hart finalist 6 times (and 4th 2 times) while still winning 1 Hart and 3 Lester B. Pearson awards.

As well 1999-00 should have Jagr's 2nd Hart, so Jagr was very dominant. Forsberg was only a Hart finalist once. Sakic twice, Yzerman I'm not even sure he was more than twice.

Jagr was on a level those guys never reached.

Lemieux' shorthanded goals don't mean he was a better defensive player, it just means he was used on it more often.

Jagr played some much evenstrength that he had less powerplay and shorthanded minutes than Lemieux.

It's like saying Bure was a good defensive player (eventhough everyone calls him one-dimensional and a cherry picker) because he scored so many shorthanded goals. Jagr also had a much better +/- than Lemieux did.

Jagr was near the league leaders in that category on many occasions. Lemieux did score a lot of goals, but his line (including him) also allowed the other to score a lot of goals against them. This is simply explained by the Lemieux' and Jagr's styles of play. Jagr was control, cycle player so when he was on the ice he had the puck more times than not. So therefor the opposing team had less chances to score,

Lemieux on the other hand was more of a capitalize on the other team's mistakes type of guy. You might say he was more efficient than Jagr was but that's because a lot of Jagr's game was also mental, he would double shift and play puck possession to try and tire out the opposing team's defense, which he succeeded most times and that is why he was 3rd period scoring machine and that is why he set up or scored many overtime goals as well.

I would think Jagr's 1998-99 season when he finished 5th overall even among defensemen in icetime per game would be pure proof of that, his endurance and fitness level was legendary in Pittsburgh.

As for people saying Jagr never improved, changed his game: that's false.

He went from being a rather skinny (200-210 lbs) guy and being just a flashy one-on-one, rush player (1990-1994) to becoming a dominant one-one-one, playmaking, scorer, cycle player who had added bulk (215-225 lbs) between 1994-97 to then becoming the NHL's most dominant player that could beat you with his size, strength, skill, passing, shooting, stickhandling, speed, vision and stamina. He was now over 225 lbs and would get to 235 by his last year in Pittsburgh.

Jagr at his absolute best (between 1998 and 2000) was never reached and would never ever be reached by Forsberg, or Sakic or Yzerman even if you bring their defensive game into the discussion.

At the end of the day it's winning and putting goals in the net, and allowing less goals against you that matters right?

Well Jagr (considering he didn't have dominant teams around him) did it as good or better than Forsberg, Yzerman or Sakic ever did.

 

[bottomofthefoodchain]

This thread needs more Lidas.

 

[Epsilon]

Are you guys really trying to convince Jags6868 something about Jagr ?

Good luck with that

In this case jags6868 is on the right side of things.

 

[Big Phil]

No argument here that Jagr's 1999 season is the best season I have seen post-Lemieux and Gretzky from a player (I'll give Hasek the nod over him, but no one as a player)

As much as I love watching Crosby and Ovechkin, the truth is they have arguably not been able to reach the level of Jagr in 1999 quite yet, although I am certain they will. That was just a dominating season. Honestly, Martin Straka? He just came out of the woodwork that year, thanks to Jagr.

Yes it should be humorous to everyone if Forsberg is mentioned at the same level as Jagr. Forsberg did not have a top 10 prime or anywhere near it. Again becoming the most overrated player on HFboards

 

[Canadiens1958]

Gordie Howe

No ever said Jagr was better. We are just trying to show you that Jagr was a top 10 dominant prime player, that's all.

Only 2 players can ever have claim of being better than Lemieux and those are Orr and Gretzky.

We are just showing you though that Jagr was the closest (although it's not very close) to Lemieux and Gretzky since they left the NHL.

It's people who claim Forsberg was on par with Gretzky, Orr and Lemieux that is ridiculous.

Making a claim that Jagr was the most dominant forward of the 90's and even parts of the 2000's not named Lemieux and Gretzky is not ridiculous, it's actually reality.

No matter how you spin numbers or stats, the fact is hardware, regular season numbers and playoff numbers support the claim that Jagr was the most dominant and had taken the torch from Gretzky and Lemieux.

Sakic and Yzerman were better than Forsberg, even in their primes and they don't even belong on the top 10 list. Forsberg is nowhere near the top 10.

Jagr is in the thick of it.

Considering that between 1980 and 2001 only 3 players, namely Lemieux (6), Gretzky (9) and Jagr (5) won the Art Ross, I think Jagr deserves the credit.

After 2001 no other player ever won multiple Art Ross trophies.

It's not like Jagr was just a scorer, he was a Hart finalist 6 times (and 4th 2 times) while still winning 1 Hart and 3 Lester B. Pearson awards.

As well 1999-00 should have Jagr's 2nd Hart, so Jagr was very dominant. Forsberg was only a Hart finalist once. Sakic twice, Yzerman I'm not even sure he was more than twice.

Jagr was on a level those guys never reached.

Lemieux' shorthanded goals don't mean he was a better defensive player, it just means he was used on it more often.

Jagr played some much evenstrength that he had less powerplay and shorthanded minutes than Lemieux.

It's like saying Bure was a good defensive player (eventhough everyone calls him one-dimensional and a cherry picker) because he scored so many shorthanded goals. Jagr also had a much better +/- than Lemieux did.

Jagr was near the league leaders in that category on many occasions. Lemieux did score a lot of goals, but his line (including him) also allowed the other to score a lot of goals against them. This is simply explained by the Lemieux' and Jagr's styles of play. Jagr was control, cycle player so when he was on the ice he had the puck more times than not. So therefor the opposing team had less chances to score,

Lemieux on the other hand was more of a capitalize on the other team's mistakes type of guy.

I would think Jagr's 1998-99 season when he finished 5th overall even among defensemen in icetime per game would be pure proof of that, his endurance and fitness level was legendary in Pittsburgh.

As for people saying Jagr never improved, changed his game: that's false.

He went from being a rather skinny (200-210 lbs) guy and being just a flashy one-on-one, rush player (1990-1994) to becoming a dominant one-one-one, playmaking, scorer, cycle player who had added bulk (215-225 lbs) between 1994-97 to then becoming the NHL's most dominant player that could beat you with his size, strength, skill, passing, shooting, stickhandling, speed, vision and stamina. He was now over 225 lbs and would get to 235 by his last year in Pittsburgh.

Jagr at his absolute best (between 1998 and 2000) was never reached and would never ever be reached by Forsberg, or Sakic or Yzerman even if you bring their defensive game into the discussion.

At the end of the day it's winning and putting goals in the net, and allowing less goals against you that matters right?

Well Jagr (considering he didn't have dominant teams around him) did it as good or better than Forsberg, Yzerman or Sakic ever did.

Only two better than Lemieux - Gretzky and Orr. Trust you never heard of Gordie Howe.

All four of the above had better primes than Jagr. Previously I provided a list of NHL players that had better primes than Jagr. You have not made a dent in that list nor provided any type or argument against that list.

Providing a window that shows that Jagr was better post Gretzky and Lemieux is not relevant.

 

[Big Phil]

Only two better than Lemieux - Gretzky and Orr. Trust you never heard of Gordie Howe.

All four of the above had better primes than Jagr. Previously I provided a list of NHL players that had better primes than Jagr. You have not made a dent in that list nor provided any type or argument against that list.

Providing a window that shows that Jagr was better post Gretzky and Lemieux is not relevant.

Oh yeah for sure, Howe is ahead of him in that regards. Also Jagr would probably lose out to Esposito and Lafleur. Players like Richard, Beliveau, Hull, Mikita etc. never had a distinct prime but rather were great for most if not all of their careers.

But Jagr is no doubt on the top 10 in prime for sure

 

[Canadiens1958]

Distinct Prime

Oh yeah for sure, Howe is ahead of him in that regards. Also Jagr would probably lose out to Esposito and Lafleur. Players like Richard, Beliveau, Hull, Mikita etc. never had a distinct prime but rather were great for most if not all of their careers.

But Jagr is no doubt on the top 10 in prime for sure

Jean Beliveau prime 1955-61. Never the same after 1961 training camp knee injury.

Stan Mikita prime 1961-68 all major awards during this period and all but one AST nominations.

Maurice Richard 1945-57.

Bobby Hull 1960-1969, afterwards he was hurt a bit and not as dominant every shift. Rejean Houle could check him - a few steps down from Claude Provost.

Throw in the goalies - Sawchuk, Plante, Dryden, Durnan. D-Men Shore, Harvey. Potvin? Bourque?

Cyclone Taylor in the PCHL,Morenz in the twenties.

Consider Bossy, Clarke, and you are very hard pressed to include Jagr in the top 15.

 

[livewell68]

Jean Beliveau prime 1955-61. Never the same after 1961 training camp knee injury.

Stan Mikita prime 1961-68 all major awards during this period and all but one AST nominations.

Maurice Richard 1945-57.

Bobby Hull 1960-1969, afterwards he was hurt a bit and not as dominant every shift. Rejean Houle could check him - a few steps down from Claude Provost.

Throw in the goalies - Sawchuk, Plante, Dryden, Durnan. D-Men Shore, Harvey. Potvin? Bourque?

Cyclone Taylor in the PCHL,Morenz in the twenties.

Consider Bossy, Clarke, and you are very hard pressed to include Jagr in the top 15.

Except outside of Orr, Gretzky and Lemieux (who would have dominated any league) the rest of those players did it when hockey didn't feature great athletes like from the 80's on.

Jagr dominated in an era when scoring was much lower.

You know what though, you're just throwing any names into the mix to try and show Jagr is not top 10. The fact is Jagr is top 10 in prime and is a top 20 player on anyone's list. Even THN picked Jagr in its top 20.

Just give it up, you're just mad at the fact that Jagr was a European that dominated when Canadians were still suppose to be the best.