View Single Post
Old
05-22-2011, 06:18 PM
  #29
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,088
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Err.... yeah, Jagr is not "definitely" the stronger player in the regular season. He has a better 5 year peak, but Richard was an elite player for 14 straight years in a way that Jagr was not.

5 1st place finishes in scoring is better than 5 second place finishes, sure. Richard's finishes were largely driven by goals over assists, so they are a bit more statistically valuable, though.

But yes, Jagr did have a stretch from 1997-2001 in the regular season better than any short regular season stretch Richard had.. Jagr had 3 particularly impressive Art Rosses - 1998, 1999, 2000. His 1995 tie for the Art Ross and the 2001 Ross that Mario gifted to him weren't particularly out of this world.

Richard was a 1st or 2nd Team All-Star for 14 straight seasons. 8 First Team All Stars, 5 Second Teams to Gordie Howe, and a second team as a rookie. Jagr had nothing of that sort of consistency as an elite player.
Elite offensive players lead their teams in scoring, and Richard only did that a few times. Jagr, on the other hand, did that pretty much every season.

Quote:
Richard no better in the playoffs than the regular season? Have you read a single book or article on the history of hockey in the Original 6 period? Seriously.
I have.

Quote:
As for the 50s, have you ever wondered why the playoffs were higher scoring than the regular season or are you too busy going over statistics to wonder about the "why?" The best two teams in the league were Montreal and Detroit - the two teams much more offensive minded than the rest of the league. When the two most offensive teams are the ones always advancing to the finals of a two-round playoffs, you are going to get higher than average scoring in the playoffs.
Are you suggesting that it is not actually harder to score in the play-offs?

If the 50s were only high scoring because the teams were high scoring, then that must mean that all the other times were low scoring because of the teams too, right?

Quote:
At least you're consistent. I mean, I doubt many people agree with you here. But I don't blame you for constantly downgrading the importance of playoff performances, when you're relying so heavily on Andy Bathgate on your own team. Heh.
I'm not downgrading the importnce of anything. I'm adding context.

Playing on a high scoring dynasty in a high scoring era makes it easier to score. Playing on a lower scoring garbage team makes it harder to score.

Dreakmur is online now   Reply With Quote