View Single Post
Old
01-31-2014, 03:14 PM
  #30
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 37,235
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Regal View Post
Jagr's years as a top end scorer isn't any longer than Mario's though, he was just healthier and has more ok years tacked on. I don't think anyone can make a reasonable argument when that's the case. It's not the same as Howe vs. Lemieux, where Howe's peak is comparable, and while he didn't have Lemieux's prime at that level, he was a top scorer for twice as long. Or the Potvin vs. Lidstrom argument, where Lidstrom was a bit below at his best, but kept that up for far longer. The only way I could see it is if Jagr played at 94-01 levels for a 15 plus year period.
Putting their adjusted seasons side-by-side:

JagrLemieux
145165
144156
131141
121129
120127
117116
105110
99103
97102
9191
9082
8679
8640
7735
7633
7621
6610
610
590
510

Lemieux was about 10 points better per year at their respective 5-year peaks. They were about even (separated by 5 points or less) for their next 5 best years. Then there are 10 years where Jagr was producing anywhere from 7 to 61 more points per season.

And keep in mind that Jagr lost a full season to labor strife, plus 3 more to overseas play. The longevity difference between them really is huge when you start taking fragmentary seasons and missed seasons into account (Jagr having 7 more seasons of active play to date, 9 seasons of 81+ GP compared to Mario's 0, 14 seasons of 70+GP compared to Mario's 6, etc...).

I don't think it's Potvin vs Lidstrom, more like Orr vs Lidstrom. Very few people would take Lidstrom in that comparison, but there are a few out there who would and they do have a rational reason to justify that choice.

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote