Whose peak season was better, Jagr in 1998-99 or Fedorov in 1993-94

[quoipourquoi]

Here are their assist finishes:

Forsberg - 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 10
Jagr - 1, 1, 1, 3, 3, 3, 5, 7, 7, 9

Not sure about the rest of you, but I can't see much of a debate as to who was the better playmaker in the NHL.

Assists-Per-Game Finishes
Forsberg: 1, 1, 1, 2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 5
Jagr: 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 4, 5, 5


Given the fact that we've just been over how many more ES/PP minutes Jagr was getting than every other forward in the era, I'm not sure why a raw assist finish comparison was your go-to evidence for why Jagr was a better playmaker than a player who routinely missed 10 GP each year, but then again, I don't understand we're talking about Forsberg or Crosby in the first place. At any rate, Forsberg recorded 636 Assists in 708 GP (1995-2011) while Jagr recorded 636 Assists in 802 GP (1991-2001), so maybe there's less truth to your claim that Forsberg's assist numbers are created by an early retirement than you believe, eh?

So, yeah, there's some room for debate.

What really matters is that Jagr's single assist-per-game lead came in 1999, the year being compared against Fedorov's 1994. Unfortunately, we have - at best - rough estimates as to how much ES/PP time Fedorov played while accumulating his offensive numbers and differences in opinion as to how much Jagr would score had he been getting the ice-time of a forward instead of a #1 defenseman. The other top-ten ES/PP scorers averaged 1650 minutes to Jagr's 2023. With their average ice-time, it is foreseeable that he could have lost 10-20 points. Pittsburgh's lack of depth kept him out there when other teams' coaches would have recalled him.

And with Fedorov, it isn't so much that his defense is worth "10" to Jagr's "1" as it is that if he had focused entirely on offense like Jagr did, he could have scored more than he did, which was already a lot of points. He gained points by having better finishers as linemates, but he also lost points by playing PK minutes instead of ES/PP minutes. There's no perfect translation, of course, so I'm not going to throw out phrases like "I can't see much of a debate."

 

[Plural]

He did not have too much of a problem doing it in four of his first five seasons, so as long as you agree on that the jaw injury was a fluke and that past the concussion thing, then i would think you should agree with me on this thing. If it in fact really was the concussion and not a neck problem that went undiagnosed for a long time.

Well,

Crosby has missed 1, 3, 29, 5, 1, 41, 60 and 12 (out of 48) in his career.

The odds definitely are that he is not going to be able to stand up the wear and tear of the season.
He might be able, but it is more likely that he is not playing the whole season.

I agree with you on the idea that Crosby is taking home the Art Ross if he plays the whole season healthy. I just wouldn't bet on him playing the whole season.

 

[Hobnobs]

Exactly. Forsberg didn't play much after the age of 30. That'll help your stats on a per game basis significantly because less games = the greater chance of maintaining a high PPG and less games past your prime = no declining factor

Here are their assist finishes:

Forsberg - 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 10
Jagr - 1, 1, 1, 3, 3, 3, 5, 7, 7, 9

Not sure about the rest of you, but I can't see much of a debate as to who was the better playmaker in the NHL. Jagr showed it where it counted the most, on the ice. Also throw in the fact that 4 times Jagr finished 2nd in goals and it is even more impressive.

 

[Plural]

What exactly was so wrong on Phil's post?
I don't think the difference on playmaking between Foppa and Jagr is monumental but there is no denying on which of these two players was better at executing their abilities on long season.

Foppa was injury prone, Jags wasn't. Phil is known for giving credit for players actually playing the games. if you disagree and put a lot of emphasis on projected stats, please feel welcome and give some reasoning.

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

What exactly was so wrong on Phil's post?
I don't think the difference on playmaking between Foppa and Jagr is monumental but there is no denying on which of these two players was better at executing their abilities on long season.

Foppa was injury prone, Jags wasn't. Phil is known for giving credit for players actually playing the games. if you disagree and put a lot of emphasis on projected stats, please feel welcome and give some reasoning.

I'm generally against giving players credit for points they didn't score in games they didn't play.

 

[Hobnobs]

This wasnt about who was the better at staying healthy but who was the better playmaker and with both healthy I take Forsberg everytime of the week.

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

This wasnt about who was the better at staying healthy but who was the better playmaker and with both healthy I take Forsberg everytime of the week.

Staying healthy is part of being a player. You can't help your team in street clothes.

 

[Hobnobs]

Staying healthy is part of being a player. You can't help your team in street clothes.

Irrelevant when talking about who has most skill at a certain area. Staying healthy makes u more valueable but you're not suddenly better than another player.

 

[Plural]

Irrelevant when talking about who has most skill at a certain area. Staying healthy makes u more valueable but you're not suddenly better than another player.

In a sense, yes. The absolute skill level might be close to equal on these two. Someone might even take Forsberg ahead of Jagr. I have no problem with it. For the reason you said in your post.

I pick Jagr 10/10 in every offensive category we compare with Forsberg. For the reasons that he was able to compete head-2-head with Forsberg in every category. Proving to be as good/better on every offensive aspect of the game. Combined with the edge on durability Jagr is the no-brainer here.

Not saying Forsberg, at his absolute best, couldn't hold a candle to Jagr cause playmaking-wise they were close to each other.

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

Irrelevant when talking about who has most skill at a certain area. Staying healthy makes u more valueable but you're not suddenly better than another player.

Irrelevant since "more valuable" is the only thing that matters over a course of a hockey season. Ifs and buts don't win you games.

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

This wasnt about who was the better at staying healthy but who was the better playmaker and with both healthy I take Forsberg everytime of the week.

And actually the thread isn't about Forsberg at all.....

 

[Hobnobs]

Irrelevant since "more valuable" is the only thing that matters over a course of a hockey season. Ifs and buts don't win you games.

Ifs and buts? We arent talking about "over the course of a season" we are talking about (albeit a bit OT) who is the better playmaker between Jagr and Forsberg and Forsberg were better as a playmaker wether he was injured or not. Just like Crosby is better than Giroux wether he is injured or not.

 

[Milliardo]

Exactly. Forsberg didn't play much after the age of 30. That'll help your stats on a per game basis significantly because less games = the greater chance of maintaining a high PPG and less games past your prime = no declining factor

Here are their assist finishes:

Forsberg - 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 10
Jagr - 1, 1, 1, 3, 3, 3, 5, 7, 7, 9

Not sure about the rest of you, but I can't see much of a debate as to who was the better playmaker in the NHL. Jagr showed it where it counted the most, on the ice. Also throw in the fact that 4 times Jagr finished 2nd in goals and it is even more impressive.

Also, Forsberg was only a playmaker, he wasn't really a goalscorer. Jagr could have had 10-20 assists more per season if he passed up more shots instead of scoring himself. He was just the complete package. Strong, fast, great shot, great playmaker, great dangler.

 

[Milliardo]

And next time when it's a busted knee it will be yet another fluke. Then another concussion, another fluke ect ect ect. This is Eric Lindros reloaded with the same excuses made for THAT injury prone player that are being made for the injury prone Crosby today.

How is getting a puck to the face not a fluke?

 

[BudMovin*]

Staying healthy is part of being a player. You can't help your team in street clothes.

Probably the most overlooked skill/ability on these forums.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Assists-Per-Game Finishes
Forsberg: 1, 1, 1, 2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 5
Jagr: 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 4, 5, 5


Given the fact that we've just been over how many more ES/PP minutes Jagr was getting than every other forward in the era,

I didn't know that 98-99 was an era.

His ice time dropped two and a half minutes the next season.

I'm not sure why a raw assist finish comparison was your go-to evidence for why Jagr was a better playmaker than a player who routinely missed 10 GP each year, but then again, I don't understand we're talking about Forsberg or Crosby in the first place. At any rate, Forsberg recorded 636 Assists in 708 GP (1995-2011) while Jagr recorded 636 Assists in 802 GP (1991-2001), so maybe there's less truth to your claim that Forsberg's assist numbers are created by an early retirement than you believe, eh?

Or maybe picking the seasons like that selects a teenaged Jagr competing against a 21 year old Forsberg who hit the NHL running. (to his credit)

So, yeah, there's some room for debate.

I actually agree based on their playmaking ability in a vacuum.

However, Jagr obviously wins being a more complete threat and actually playing games. And it is not close in results.

What really matters is that Jagr's single assist-per-game lead came in 1999, the year being compared against Fedorov's 1994. Unfortunately, we have - at best - rough estimates as to how much ES/PP time Fedorov played while accumulating his offensive numbers and differences in opinion as to how much Jagr would score had he been getting the ice-time of a forward instead of a #1 defenseman. The other top-ten ES/PP scorers averaged 1650 minutes to Jagr's 2023. With their average ice-time, it is foreseeable that he could have lost 10-20 points. Pittsburgh's lack of depth kept him out there when other teams' coaches would have recalled him.

And as a result no doubt Jagr's overall scoring rate (per minute) was also lower than in seasons where he had a better supporting cast and was playing normal minutes.. no?

ie. I would be surprised if in 95-96 and 2000-01 his rates per minute were not a lot better.

And with Fedorov, it isn't so much that his defense is worth "10" to Jagr's "1" as it is that if he had focused entirely on offense like Jagr did, he could have scored more than he did, which was already a lot of points. He gained points by having better finishers as linemates, but he also lost points by playing PK minutes instead of ES/PP minutes. There's no perfect translation, of course, so I'm not going to throw out phrases like "I can't see much of a debate."

Poor Fedorov. He can't get credit for playing defensively oriented and offensively oriented at the same time.

 

[quoipourquoi]

I didn't know that 98-99 was an era.

His ice time dropped two and a half minutes the next season.

His ice-time dropped from an astronomically high level to an extremely high level. Despite missing 19 GP in 1999-2000 (which unfairly hurts him in a raw finish comparison since he was a much better playmaker than Mark Recchi), Jagr still recorded 1445 ES/PP minutes (about 3 minutes shy of 78 GP Owen Nolan). The rest of the top-ten averaged 1591 ES/PP minutes on the season. So despite missing 19 GP, he was closer to his Art Ross competitions' ice-time in 1999-2000 than he was in 1998-99 when an average of 373 minutes separated him from them.

In 2001, he was ahead of everyone but Pavel Bure. In 1998, he was ahead of everyone but linemate Ron Francis (despite playing fewer games). In each of these years, players with a regular PK shift scored more efficiently - and had their PK minutes been converted to ES/PP minutes, probably would have placed closer in the Art Ross race (and possibly won).

So, it's not just 1998-99 - it was his entire four-year run as the scoring leader. And the amazing thing is, all of this information was already in the thread; I guess I assumed you had read the thread.

Or maybe picking the seasons like that selects a teenaged Jagr competing against a 21 year old Forsberg who hit the NHL running. (to his credit)

So counting their whole careers is unfair to Jagr because Forsberg didn't record GP on a post-30 downswing and counting the beginning of their careers is unfair to Jagr because Forsberg "hit the NHL running" and Jagr didn't.

So, what sample am I supposed to use for Jagr? Should I start from 1992-93 when he recorded 60 assists in 80 games even though Forsberg never played in a high-scoring year like that? From that point on, Jagr recorded 636 assists in 762 GP compared to Forsberg's 636 assists in 708 GP.

Again, this is in response to someone saying that there is no debate that Jagr was the better playmaker and that Forsberg's APG numbers were only higher than Jagr's because of his early retirement. The latter isn't true, and as to the former, there certainly is a debate. We're having it.

However, Jagr obviously wins being a more complete threat and actually playing games. And it is not close in results.

And I don't recall saying he wasn't, but if you feel the need to add that at the end so you can sleep better at night, fine by me. I responded to a charge that there was no debate as to who the better playmaker was.

Poor Fedorov.

And if I come across as a **** in any of the above statements, it's because this comment from you rubbed me the wrong way. If you think GP, which is less accurate than TOI, is a better measure of offensive opportunity, fine, but there wasn't a need to get snippy with someone inviting you to explore the possibility that there is more than one adjustment that needs to be made to have compatible offensive numbers from a 1994 and a 1999 player.

In the least surprising news you'll hear, every year from 2002-03 to the 2011-12, there had been a Wins leader with 70+ GP. So it's not out of the question that coach-determined playing time could have an effect in other statistics too. We're looking at a player in Jaromir Jagr who played an average of 373 more ES/PP minutes than his contemporaries in 1999. They're not perfect minutes; they came at the end of long games. But it's an average of 6 hours and 13 minutes more ice-time that these Art Ross contenders could have had to close the gap. Jagr himself recorded 17 points with 5:00 remaining in the third period on these types of extra shifts that the other skaters did not receive, so it's not worthless time. Extra shifts can add up to higher raw offensive numbers (and bigger gaps). And in the case of Fedorov in 1994, he was doing his extra shifts on the PK, so he has all of the fatigue with a lesser offensive benefit.

 

[Sentinel]

Let's try to sum it up.

In Jagr's favor: higher points and assist totals in a lower scoring era, bigger gap over competition, and worse teammates (excluding goaltender).

In Fedorov's favor: second highest production in the league behind the GOAT player, Selke, PK-time, less TOI and ES/PP time, far better team result.

At this point, I believe, it boils down to what you view as more impressive.

 

[BraveCanadian]

His ice-time dropped from an astronomically high level to an extremely high level. Despite missing 19 GP in 1999-2000 (which unfairly hurts him in a raw finish comparison since he was a much better playmaker than Mark Recchi), Jagr still recorded 1445 ES/PP minutes (about 3 minutes shy of 78 GP Owen Nolan). The rest of the top-ten averaged 1591 ES/PP minutes on the season. So despite missing 19 GP, he was closer to his Art Ross competitions' ice-time in 1999-2000 than he was in 1998-99 when an average of 373 minutes separated him from them.

And despite missing 19 games and playing 150 less ES/PP minutes than the rest of the top 10 in 99-00.. who won the scoring title, again?

Jagr.

Who outscored his next teammate by 30 points -- again despite missing 19 games.

So you'll have to excuse me if I don't think that his icetime was the determining factor in his offensive effectiveness.

He won the scoring title playing more ES/PP than the average top 10 scorer and he won the scoring title playing less ES/PP than the average top 10 scorer.

And he did so on some pretty awful teams. Which is really the determining factor in all this debate for me.

In 2001, he was ahead of everyone but Pavel Bure. In 1998, he was ahead of everyone but linemate Ron Francis (despite playing fewer games). In each of these years, players with a regular PK shift scored more efficiently - and had their PK minutes been converted to ES/PP minutes, probably would have placed closer in the Art Ross race (and possibly won).

So, it's not just 1998-99 - it was his entire four-year run as the scoring leader. And the amazing thing is, all of this information was already in the thread; I guess I assumed you had read the thread.

I have read the whole thread but I am tiring of it quite a bit.

Generally, when someone is relied upon to play a lot we see it as a positive around here. However, when Jagr's team sucks and he plays a lot to try and overcome that.. we try to turn it into a negative because his scoring rate (with Kip Miller et al. helping him out) isn't very good while he is winning scoring titles.

So counting their whole careers is unfair to Jagr because Forsberg didn't record GP on a post-30 downswing and counting the beginning of their careers is unfair to Jagr because Forsberg "hit the NHL running" and Jagr didn't.

Right.

We throw out scoring finishes because Forsberg couldn't stay healthy, but we can pick whole careers which disadvantage Jagr on both ends.

That doesn't even get into the fact that Jagr is a winger while Forsberg was a center -- and that traditionally slants the numbers as well since centers have more ice available.

If we are going to talk about ability I think everyone would have to agree Forsberg was a top notch playmaker even if they would pick Jagr.

And if I come across as a **** in any of the above statements, it's because this comment from you rubbed me the wrong way. If you think GP, which is less accurate than TOI, is a better measure of offensive opportunity, fine, but there wasn't a need to get snippy with someone inviting you to explore the possibility that there is more than one adjustment that needs to be made to have compatible offensive numbers from a 1994 and a 1999 player.

In the least surprising news you'll hear, every year from 2002-03 to the 2011-12, there had been a Wins leader with 70+ GP. So it's not out of the question that coach-determined playing time could have an effect in other statistics too.

We're looking at a player in Jaromir Jagr who played an average of 373 more ES/PP minutes than his contemporaries in 1999. They're not perfect minutes; they came at the end of long games. But it's an average of 6 hours and 13 minutes more ice-time that these Art Ross contenders could have had to close the gap. Jagr himself recorded 17 points with 5:00 remaining in the third period on these types of extra shifts that the other skaters did not receive, so it's not worthless time. Extra shifts can add up to higher raw offensive numbers (and bigger gaps). And in the case of Fedorov in 1994, he was doing his extra shifts on the PK, so he has all of the fatigue with a lesser offensive benefit.

I have no idea where the GP rant comes from.

And I fully agree all through this thread that TOI is very obviously linked to offensive opportunity.

However, I don't think that it is the only or even the most important one in all cases.

All I see is people tearing Jagr down while simply ignoring his circumstances in comparison to Fedorov.

Fedorov was way better defensively and played the PK so he gets a bonus for that.. but had to play defensively so he should get a bonus offensively for that too!

(leaving out, as the whole thread has, the fact that the Red Wings were not really much better defensively than the 98-99 Pens..)

These are different players in different circumstances and different roles on their respective teams.

Personally I think they are both seasons for the ages but I give Jagr the nod.

 

[Sentinel]

Fedorov does not get "double credit." He gets credit for being a superb two-way forward. When it's countered with "but look at all these points Jagr scored," it's then rebutted with Fedorov having a different role on the team. That's all.

 

[Plural]

Let's try to sum it up.

In Jagr's favor: higher points and assist totals in a lower scoring era, bigger gap over competition, and worse teammates (excluding goaltender).

In Fedorov's favor: second highest production in the league behind the GOAT player, Selke, PK-time, less TOI and ES/PP time, far better team result.

At this point, I believe, it boils down to what you view as more impressive.

In a nutshell, yes. I see the margins on "more impressive" season so small that the choice can be done by personal preference.

I think Jagr has stronger arguments, but not as strong that arguments for Fedorov are clearly and undisputedly worse.
Kind of like the #1 Finnish player all-time. Selanne is the more popular choice and he seems to have better case as an individual. But there are legitimate reasons to side with Kurri.

I still pick Jagr, but I'll admit that I am a lot closer on this one than I were when you made this thread.


Edti: I just realized that it was jags6868 who made this one. But nonetheless, I opened this poll with a clear cut answer in my mind. But as the thread continued I chanced my view bit.

But for the past few pages, this thread has been going around circles and it is clear that some posters are ready to twist and even make up facts to make their boy look better.

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

Ifs and buts? We arent talking about "over the course of a season" we are talking about (albeit a bit OT) who is the better playmaker between Jagr and Forsberg and Forsberg were better as a playmaker wether he was injured or not. Just like Crosby is better than Giroux wether he is injured or not.

Actually we're talking about "Whose peak season was better, Jagr in 1998-99 or Fedorov in 1993-94?" and someone gratuitously interjected Forsberg.

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

How is getting a puck to the face not a fluke?

When a player gets hurt again and again and again it's not a fluke: That player is injury prone.

 

[quoipourquoi]

And despite missing 19 games and playing 150 less ES/PP minutes than the rest of the top 10 in 99-00.. who won the scoring title, again?

Jagr.

Who outscored his next teammate by 30 points -- again despite missing 19 games.

So you'll have to excuse me if I don't think that his icetime was the determining factor in his offensive effectiveness.

He won the scoring title playing more ES/PP than the average top 10 scorer and he won the scoring title playing less ES/PP than the average top 10 scorer.

Gee, I wonder who made the argument that 2000 - not 1999 - was Jagr's best season and the best season ever by a European player in this thread?

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=70877565&postcount=56

Generally, when someone is relied upon to play a lot we see it as a positive around here. However, when Jagr's team sucks and he plays a lot to try and overcome that.. we try to turn it into a negative because his scoring rate (with Kip Miller et al. helping him out) isn't very good while he is winning scoring titles.

Because no one really talked about his TOI in 1999 before this thread. We're not turning it into a negative (I even said it was a positive argument for the Hart Trophy), but it is a factor that benefited his raw points total just as Kip Miller is a factor that did not benefit his raw points total. We're talking about all of it, but for some reason, some people (including habsfanatics) are claiming that TOI is irrelevant.

Right.

We throw out scoring finishes because Forsberg couldn't stay healthy, but we can pick whole careers which disadvantage Jagr on both ends.

That doesn't even get into the fact that Jagr is a winger while Forsberg was a center -- and that traditionally slants the numbers as well since centers have more ice available.

If we are going to talk about ability I think everyone would have to agree Forsberg was a top notch playmaker even if they would pick Jagr.

And yet you took offense with my challenge to Big Phil claiming that there was "no debate"? I threw out the end of Jagr's career, I threw out the beginning of Jagr's career - there is no section of Jagr's career that meets up with the assist rate of Forsberg from 1995-2011. The claim that he only has a higher APG than Jagr because of a shorter career is false. It is arguable that Forsberg was a better playmaker than Jagr. That was the whole point.

And I fully agree all through this thread that TOI is very obviously linked to offensive opportunity.

However, I don't think that it is the only or even the most important one in all cases.

I look forward to you quoting the post where I said it was the only factor.

Personally I think they are both seasons for the ages but I give Jagr the nod.

So did I in my very first post in this thread that you read in its entirety.

 

[livewell68]

Gee, I wonder who made the argument that 2000 - not 1999 - was Jagr's best season and the best season ever by a European player in this thread?

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=70877565&postcount=56




Because no one really talked about his TOI in 1999 before this thread. We're not turning it into a negative (I even said it was a positive argument for the Hart Trophy), but it is a factor that benefited his raw points total just as Kip Miller is a factor that did not benefit his raw points total. We're talking about all of it, but for some reason, some people (including habsfanatics) are claiming that TOI is irrelevant.




And yet you took offense with my challenge to Big Phil claiming that there was "no debate"? I threw out the end of Jagr's career, I threw out the beginning of Jagr's career - there is no section of Jagr's career that meets up with the assist rate of Forsberg from 1995-2011. The claim that he only has a higher APG than Jagr because of a shorter career is false. It is arguable that Forsberg was a better playmaker than Jagr. That was the whole point.



I look forward to you quoting the post where I said it was the only factor.




So did I in my very first post in this thread that you read in its entirety.

I will at least provide Jagr's prime APG between 1993-94 to 2000-01. He collected 513 assists in 575 games which is a 0.89 APG (or 73 assists over 82 games average).

At their very best, Jagr was Frosberg's equal in playmaking with one being a winger who also averaged 50 goals a season, the other was a center who averaged 20 goals a season.