HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   The History of Hockey (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=126)
-   -   Was Jagr better than Lemieux in 1995-96? (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1419709)

markz* 05-03-2013 04:42 PM

Was Jagr better than Lemieux in 1995-96?
 
Jagr destroyed Lemieux in ES Goals and Points that season, Lemeiuix only dominated on the PP (50%+ of Goals and Points) - How come Lemieux never really dominated in ES scoring also?

quoipourquoi 05-03-2013 04:54 PM

Jagr got to play against other teams' secondary defensive coverage, because stopping Lemieux was the priority. Most defending Art Ross winners don't have such luxuries, so he was an extremely talented offensive skater without the shackles of having to defend against other teams' top offensive lines (like second-line Messier, Fedorov, or Sakic often did) or having to break-through other teams' top defensive lines. Perfect storm for even-strength numbers, but Lemieux was certainly the better player.

Bear of Bad News 05-03-2013 05:02 PM

Adding to that, Jagr usually played with Ron Francis and Petr Nedved, while Mario usually played with Tomas Sandstrom and Kevin Miller (after the trade at least; I don't recall who was his right wing pre-Miller trade?). I know who I'd rather have on my line.

#66 05-03-2013 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taco MacArthur (Post 65205167)
Adding to that, Jagr usually played with Ron Francis and Petr Nedved, while Mario usually played with Tomas Sandstrom and Kevin Miller (after the trade at least; I don't recall who was his right wing pre-Miller trade?). I know who I'd rather have on my line.

I want to say that it was Naslund. I actually really like Sandstrom. He was able to do the defensive work for Lemieux and also had skill enough on the offensive side.

I think the Pens thinking was that building up that Francis line would take away some of the defensive players from Lemieux. It didn't...

blogofmike 05-03-2013 08:57 PM

Jagr Without Lemieux, 1995-96
G Date Opp G A PTS +/- PIM EV PP S S%
6 21/10/1995 LAK L 1 0 1 -1 0 1 0 7 14.3
10 03/11/1995 @ BUF T 1 0 1 -2 0 0 1 4 25
14 11/11/1995 @ LAK L 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 9 0
16 17/11/1995 @ WSH W 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 7 14.3
37 01/01/1996 @ WSH L 1 0 1 -3 0 1 0 5 20
40 06/01/1996 @ STL L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0
45 17/01/1996 @ BUF W 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 6 16.7
53 07/02/1996 @ NJD T 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 50
56 16/02/1996 @ WIN W 1 0 1 1 2 1 0 5 20
63 01/03/1996 @ EDM W 1 2 3 2 2 1 0 2 50
72 24/03/1996 @ NYR W 2 1 3 4 0 1 1 3 66.7
76 31/03/1996 @ PHI L 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 3 0
10 4 14 5 8 8 2 57 0.175

12 ES points (all 4 assists were at ES) in 12 games. Small sample, but given that these are mostly road games when the Pens are playing back-to-backs, I feel comfortable saying that Jagr was still very effective without Lemieux.

Perhaps the ES results were because Lemieux opened things up for Jagr, but probably it was more that Lemieux and Sandstrom were playing with a lesser winger.

Furthermore, Lemieux was not a superhuman ES scorer. Aside from 1989 and 1993, Jagr was probably Mario's equal in that regard.

DisgruntledGoat* 05-03-2013 09:17 PM

I feel like the fetishism of even-strength points is getting to be a little much.

Yes, Lemieux scored a ton on the PP but its not like Jagr didn't get oodles of powerplay time as well. Mario still outscored him, and its not like Jagr brought much other than offense to even out the equation.

By 1997, though, there were stretches when Jagr was better than Lemieux. I remember the Pens going through an early season slump that year, and it was Jagr that carried them back into the mix.

Killion 05-03-2013 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DisgruntledGoat (Post 65230993)
Mario still outscored him, and its not like Jagr brought much other than offense to even out the equation.

He was still growing, developing as a person back then. Ithink it did him well to do so with Lemieux on the first line but I wouldnt under-rate nor under-cut his potential ability at that time to shock, surprise and surpass expectation.

DisgruntledGoat* 05-03-2013 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Killion (Post 65236069)
He was still growing, developing as a person back then. Ithink it did him well to do so with Lemieux on the first line but I wouldnt under-rate nor under-cut his potential ability at that time to shock, surprise and surpass expectation.

True, but the question was, 'was he better than Lemieux in 1996?'

Its not underrating him to say he wasn't, when Mario was still the superior offensive player at that point, and Jagr wasn't (and never would be) an all-around player.

Big Phil 05-03-2013 10:51 PM

No, Mario was better in 1995-'96. He was the cream of the NHL crop that year. The Hart voting shows what people thought at the time too. I'd have put Jagr as the 2nd best player in the NHL that year. Lindros rounding out the top 3. By 1996-'97 the gap was closing though. I still believe Mario was the best player in the NHL when he retired in 1997 but there was Kariya, Lindros and Jagr who were all a year older while an apparently getting-worn-out Mario was aging and getting frustrated. In that year, the gap narrowed a lot, but even in 1996-'97 if you asked me what player I wanted on my team regardless of age or potential retirement and just flat out for the sake of winning, I would have still picked Mario.

Killion 05-03-2013 11:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DisgruntledGoat (Post 65237385)
True, but the question was, 'was he better than Lemieux in 1996?'

Why put him at such a disadvantage is what my point in asking is. Why dont you compare Lafleur to Richard? Imagine Frank Mahovlich with Chicago playing on the first line with Hull under idiot Coach Billy Reay or Ted Lindsay instead of Bobby Clarke with the Flyers? The Bench, Man. Thats where it stems from. And I for one resent any comparison between Jagr & Lemieux. To suggest he what, "wasnt capable"? Are you serious? That guy could play. Not the same Fiddle as Mario. Different but you know what? As WELL, and Im sure he still would have won. So in 96, he was what he was, a kid. Under different circumstances, a Man, a Hero born. Interchangeable with 66.

pdd 05-04-2013 12:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DisgruntledGoat (Post 65237385)
True, but the question was, 'was he better than Lemieux in 1996?'

Its not underrating him to say he wasn't, when Mario was still the superior offensive player at that point, and Jagr wasn't (and never would be) an all-around player.

You're asking a question of "which purely offensive player was better?" about two teammates. One of them was the primary target of defenses AND outscored the other, while playing with worse ES linemates. He played out of position on the PP while playing with the other on the PP.

It's like asking who was better at even strength in 1996-97, Igor Larionov or Joe Sakic?

Both scored 35 ESP. Larionov played 64 games, Sakic 65. Larionov received significant Selke votes in 96 and 98, although his game missing in 97 likely cost him votes. Sakic received Selke votes in none of the three years.

Czech Your Math 05-04-2013 01:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blogofmike (Post 65229035)
Jagr Without Lemieux, 1995-96
G Date Opp G A PTS +/- PIM EV PP S S%
6 21/10/1995 LAK L 1 0 1 -1 0 1 0 7 14.3
10 03/11/1995 @ BUF T 1 0 1 -2 0 0 1 4 25
14 11/11/1995 @ LAK L 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 9 0
16 17/11/1995 @ WSH W 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 7 14.3
37 01/01/1996 @ WSH L 1 0 1 -3 0 1 0 5 20
40 06/01/1996 @ STL L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0
45 17/01/1996 @ BUF W 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 6 16.7
53 07/02/1996 @ NJD T 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 50
56 16/02/1996 @ WIN W 1 0 1 1 2 1 0 5 20
63 01/03/1996 @ EDM W 1 2 3 2 2 1 0 2 50
72 24/03/1996 @ NYR W 2 1 3 4 0 1 1 3 66.7
76 31/03/1996 @ PHI L 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 3 0
10 4 14 5 8 8 2 57 0.175

12 ES points (all 4 assists were at ES) in 12 games. Small sample, but given that these are mostly road games when the Pens are playing back-to-backs, I feel comfortable saying that Jagr was still very effective without Lemieux.

Perhaps the ES results were because Lemieux opened things up for Jagr, but probably it was more that Lemieux and Sandstrom were playing with a lesser winger.

Furthermore, Lemieux was not a superhuman ES scorer. Aside from 1989 and 1993, Jagr was probably Mario's equal in that regard.

Interesting data.

To add a little to that:

Pens in '96 & '97 with Jagr, w/o Lemieux
-----------------------------------------
15 gms, 31 ESGF, 31 ESGA

Pens in '96 & '97 with Lemieux, w/o Jagr
-----------------------------------------
17 gms, 31 ESGF, 54 ESGA

While it's very possible that defenses concentrated more on Mario's line at ES, I don't see much evidence that Jagr relied on Mario's presence for his own ES production or effectiveness.

Really, only Mario's '93 season was better on a per-game basis than Jagr's best ES seasons. It wasn't as if '96 was some huge aberration for Jagr at ES:

Jagr's Best Adjusted ES Points per 82 games
--------------------------------------------
'96 136
'99 135
'00 131
'01 126
'97 123
'06 114
'98 113
'95 110
'02 102
'94 96

After '93, Lemieux was not nearly as effective at ES, except when he played with Jagr ('97 & '01). Otherwise, he was often still productive at ES, but his overall effectiveness at ES was drastically reduced. The difference was in Jagr's much better possession, which translated into being much more effectiveness at ES (essentially, "the better defense is good possession") in comparison. However, Lemieux was peerless on the PP. This really didn't help Jagr's PP numbers all that much, as the increased effectiveness of the PP and Jagr's decreased role in the PP offset each other to a large degree.

markz* 05-04-2013 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blogofmike (Post 65229035)
Jagr Without Lemieux, 1995-96
G Date Opp G A PTS +/- PIM EV PP S S%
6 21/10/1995 LAK L 1 0 1 -1 0 1 0 7 14.3
10 03/11/1995 @ BUF T 1 0 1 -2 0 0 1 4 25
14 11/11/1995 @ LAK L 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 9 0
16 17/11/1995 @ WSH W 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 7 14.3
37 01/01/1996 @ WSH L 1 0 1 -3 0 1 0 5 20
40 06/01/1996 @ STL L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0
45 17/01/1996 @ BUF W 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 6 16.7
53 07/02/1996 @ NJD T 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 50
56 16/02/1996 @ WIN W 1 0 1 1 2 1 0 5 20
63 01/03/1996 @ EDM W 1 2 3 2 2 1 0 2 50
72 24/03/1996 @ NYR W 2 1 3 4 0 1 1 3 66.7
76 31/03/1996 @ PHI L 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 3 0
10 4 14 5 8 8 2 57 0.175

12 ES points (all 4 assists were at ES) in 12 games. Small sample, but given that these are mostly road games when the Pens are playing back-to-backs, I feel comfortable saying that Jagr was still very effective without Lemieux.

Perhaps the ES results were because Lemieux opened things up for Jagr, but probably it was more that Lemieux and Sandstrom were playing with a lesser winger.

Furthermore, Lemieux was not a superhuman ES scorer. Aside from 1989 and 1993, Jagr was probably Mario's equal in that regard.




Quote:

Originally Posted by Czech Your Math (Post 65251881)
Interesting data.

To add a little to that:

Pens in '96 & '97 with Jagr, w/o Lemieux
-----------------------------------------
15 gms, 31 ESGF, 31 ESGA

Pens in '96 & '97 with Lemieux, w/o Jagr
-----------------------------------------
17 gms, 31 ESGF, 54 ESGA

While it's very possible that defenses concentrated more on Mario's line at ES, I don't see much evidence that Jagr relied on Mario's presence for his own ES production or effectiveness.

Really, only Mario's '93 season was better on a per-game basis than Jagr's best ES seasons. It wasn't as if '96 was some huge aberration for Jagr at ES:

Jagr's Best Adjusted ES Points per 82 games
--------------------------------------------
'96 136
'99 135
'00 131
'01 126
'97 123
'06 114
'98 113
'95 110
'02 102
'94 96

After '93, Lemieux was not nearly as effective at ES, except when he played with Jagr ('97 & '01). Otherwise, he was often still productive at ES, but his overall effectiveness at ES was drastically reduced. The difference was in Jagr's much better possession, which translated into being much more effectiveness at ES (essentially, "the better defense is good possession") in comparison. However, Lemieux was peerless on the PP. This really didn't help Jagr's PP numbers all that much, as the increased effectiveness of the PP and Jagr's decreased role in the PP offset each other to a large degree.

Very good points :)

I just want to say I don't understand also how people think it's easier to score Even-Strength than on the Power-Play with Stacked lines vs shorthanded teams. Lemeiux also averaged close to 7 mins on the PP/per game as an old man in 2001.

Does anyone have Lemieux's history in the League in Power-Play minutes Per a season?

TheDevilMadeMe 05-04-2013 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DisgruntledGoat (Post 65230993)
I feel like the fetishism of even-strength points is getting to be a little much.

Yeah, things morphed from statisticians starting to separate scoring into PP/ES/SH numbers (a worthwhile means of examining a player's skills) to some strange assumption that even strength points are "better" than power play points.

Quote:

Yes, Lemieux scored a ton on the PP but its not like Jagr didn't get oodles of powerplay time as well. Mario still outscored him, and its not like Jagr brought much other than offense to even out the equation.

By 1997, though, there were stretches when Jagr was better than Lemieux. I remember the Pens going through an early season slump that year, and it was Jagr that carried them back into the mix.
I agree with this. The goal of hockey is to win games and you do that by outscoring your opponent over the course of the game, not just at even strength. And Mario Lemieux in 1995-96 was quite a bit better at scoring than Jaromir Jagr, while neither one really did anything on the defensive end.

Quote:

Originally Posted by markz (Post 65281139)
Very good points :)

I just want to say I don't understand also how people think it's easier to score Even-Strength than on the Power-Play with Stacked lines vs shorthanded teams. Lemeiux also averaged close to 7 mins on the PP/per game as an old man in 2001.

Does anyone have Lemieux's history in the League in Power-Play minutes Per a season?

I don't think I have ever seen anyone say that it's easier to score on even strength than on the power play. That would be a pretty strange thing to think, no?

Hardyvan123 05-04-2013 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DisgruntledGoat (Post 65230993)
I feel like the fetishism of even-strength points is getting to be a little much.

Yes, Lemieux scored a ton on the PP but its not like Jagr didn't get oodles of powerplay time as well. Mario still outscored him, and its not like Jagr brought much other than offense to even out the equation.

By 1997, though, there were stretches when Jagr was better than Lemieux. I remember the Pens going through an early season slump that year, and it was Jagr that carried them back into the mix.

Maybe you feel it's a fetishism but ES play is at least of what 70 plus % of most hockey games?

One would think that everything that happens in ES play would matter not just scoring points.

Mario was the better overall player in 96, than Jagr, probably but his ES wasn't his strength and a large part of it quite frankly was his lack of defensive play period.

DisgruntledGoat* 05-04-2013 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 (Post 65285183)
Maybe you feel it's a fetishism but ES play is at least of what 70 plus % of most hockey games?

But having more goals than your opponent is 100% the point.

Hardyvan123 05-04-2013 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DisgruntledGoat (Post 65287329)
But having more goals than your opponent is 100% the point.

Sure thing it is but being 10th on your team doesn't make Mario world class in that department either.

The bottom line is that Mario was 95/85 for ESGF/GA which is a pretty poor ratio for a guy of his stature and legend given his team and league situation in 96.

There is really no way around it.

KickHimPedro 05-04-2013 07:37 PM

Didn't Hardyvan say that Mario wasn't an elite player this season? LOL

Mario was better

Hardyvan123 05-04-2013 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KickHimPedro (Post 65292293)
Didn't Hardyvan say that Mario wasn't an elite player this season? LOL

Mario was better

Yes he was an elite player due mainly to his super elite PP execution he was on the ice for 102 of their 109 PP goals despite missing 12 games and had a 31-43-74 points PP line.

Mario could still be an elite overall player despite being just slightly better than expected (or even lower than expected) at ES.

The more I think about it and look at it though the argument for Jagr being better overall that year has a strong case, although part of that is Francis who is often under rated IMO.

MadLuke 05-04-2013 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe (Post 65282793)
Yeah, things morphed from statisticians starting to separate scoring into PP/ES/SH numbers (a worthwhile means of examining a player's skills) to some strange assumption that even strength points are "better" than power play points.

They are imo.

First when you score in the power play you remove power play time to your team ;), ridiculous but for some of power play goal scored they would have a power play goal scored anyway a little bit latter.

Also what is important is not how much goal you do at all, it is how much goal you created more than your replacement, that is the net offensive output that you give to your team.

Pens in 95-96 scored 362 in 82, pens in 94-95 scored 181 in 48 or 309 goals.

Why a 69 goals scorer does not had 69 goal to a team offense (for 160 points, 69 goal scorer none the less), maybe because a lot of them on the powerplay would have been scored anyway ?

It's take a bigger power play production to beat your replacement imo.

shadow1 05-04-2013 10:49 PM

He was more dynamic, but I don't know if he was better. Mario's mobility wasn't what it once was in his final two pre-1997 retirement seasons due to chronic back issues.

Which is scary when you think about it.

Big Phil 05-06-2013 04:43 PM

In the spirit of arguing over whether or not power play points are something to be held against a player I think we are glossing over a very important issue here. He had 73 ES points and 79 PP points. Somewhere along the way that's become a bad thing but he also had 9 SH points with 8 of them being SH goals which led the NHL.

So, the bottom line here is that in any situation Mario was still a very dangerous player. Just like in 1989 where he had his points spread out in every situation. I don't know why this is a bad thing all of the sudden. Who went into the Pens games in 1996 comfortable being down a man? It was lethal having Mario on there. In many ways he was tailor made for the power play due to his style. Much more so than Gretzky even. But it isn't as if you could shut him down at even strength either or didn't have to worry about him killing penalties either.

Lastly, I agree very well that one of Mario's deficiencies was his defensive prowess. But in 1996 he was +10 while he was +27 on an inferior team in 1997. There are so many factors in deciding why someone has a high or low +/- that it isn't always a reliable stat to focus on.

TheDevilMadeMe 05-06-2013 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 (Post 65289593)
Sure thing it is but being 10th on your team doesn't make Mario world class in that department either.

The bottom line is that Mario was 95/85 for ESGF/GA which is a pretty poor ratio for a guy of his stature and legend given his team and league situation in 96.

There is really no way around it.

Mario's team situation in 1995-96 involved poor goaltending and a group of defensemen that was awful defensively. There's only so much blame you can give a forward for goals against when his blueline and goalie are sub par.

blogofmike 05-06-2013 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe (Post 65282793)
Yeah, things morphed from statisticians starting to separate scoring into PP/ES/SH numbers (a worthwhile means of examining a player's skills) to some strange assumption that even strength points are "better" than power play points.

If two guys have about 100 points and one has a 70/30 split and the second has a 50/50 split, the first guy is better, (obviously depends on number of PPO). Subtracting PP time probably isn't going to hurt the strong ES scorer (adding PP time certainly won't), while the PP scorer's success depends on his team getting enough powerplays to allow him to be effective.

That being said 160 points, even if all of it came on the PP is an excellent result. PP/PK success is very important in deciding games.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MadLuke (Post 65298817)
It's take a bigger power play production to beat your replacement imo.

Possible. Maybe we should be measuring his impact on team GF/PPGF. 1996 was the only time the Penguins ever led the NHL in PP% with Mario and it gave them 35-36 more PPGF than an average PP. They also finished 2nd in PP% to the Gretzky/Messier Rangers in 1997 (the Pens' only top 2 finishes with Lemieux, and another #1 PP with Gretzky that's dead last in PPO.)

He had stellar teammates and can't get all the credit (even after Lemieux, Zubov, Sandstrom, Nedved, and Naslund left, the Pens still had an above average PP with Jagr and Francis playing with Stu Barnes, Kevin Hatcher and Rob Brown (yes, that Rob Brown)), but Mario was easily the biggest factor.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 (Post 65285183)
Mario was the better overall player in 96, than Jagr, probably but his ES wasn't his strength and a large part of it quite frankly was his lack of defensive play period.

That sums it up nicely, except that ES Mario wasn't strong relative to Jagr, who was a superb ES scorer, as shown by CYM. Jagr may have been more productive than Lemieux at Even Strength, but that doesn't mean Lemieux was unproductive at ES.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big Phil (Post 65442941)
... but he also had 9 SH points with 8 of them being SH goals which led the NHL.

Quiet Phil! I wonder what Hardy will think when he figures out that it's 86/85 ESGF/ESGA...

Hardyvan123 05-06-2013 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe (Post 65444281)
Mario's team situation in 1995-96 involved poor goaltending and a group of defensemen that was awful defensively. There's only so much blame you can give a forward for goals against when his blueline and goalie are sub par.

There probably is some variance involved but Mario was 10th in ESGF/ESGA, one surely would expect more from an elite player all things being equal right?

Jagr benefits from playing with Francis sure but they also had that lughead Nedved on the line too. My point is that its very possible that Jagr was the better "overall" player in 96 which is of course subjective and looks at more than just scoring points.

There has been alot of evidence presented that it may have been the case.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:04 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.