HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Suppose Brodeur, Jagr, Selanne and Pronger all retire in the same year...

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-08-2012, 02:33 AM
  #26
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,551
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
Doesn't matter if it's one guy, two guys, or one of seventeen different guys; someone was scoring the goals after accepting a pass from someone who wasn't Jagr. I don't care who the finisher was, and I certainly didn't allude to it being Brett Hull, so you can save that "pretend" comment for someone else. What matters is that there was a finisher on 39 occasions to Selanne's 20, and that was the ultimate difference in a scoring race that was made more distant by a GP disparity.

It's offense, but Jagr was further attenuated from it. For a one year argument, I'd stick with 2000, when he had a bigger gap on Bure and Sakic. I think Jagr is a better player than Yzerman, sure, but I don't think it's that big of a gap that they don't match each other in this HOF for HOF comparison.
What you must have conveniently forgotten is that Jagr was constantly double, even triple teamed, even years before '99, and much more than any other player during the mid-late 90s. One play I always remember was against the Caps during the '95 season. The puck made it's way to Jagr, who was next to and facing the boards somewhere around his own blue line. He was quickly surrounded by 3 Caps' players, so he just flipped the puck up ice to an awaiting teammate, who was all alone just outside the Caps' blue line. I think that teammate scored the goal himself, but it might have been another player that received a pass from that open player or scored on a rebound. Either way, Jagr created so much open ice for his teammates, because the only way to really stop him was to double and triple team him. Even with the lack of rules enforcement which allowed clutch & grab and hook & hold, the top priority was to immediately stop Jagr from getting the puck and having any room to skate when he did have it, which often left his teammates wide open. So I certainly dispute the notion that he was "less attenuated" to the offense. He basically was the frickin' offense, and as someone who it seems watched a lot of hockey in the mid-late 90s, you must know this. Often times all notion of man to man coverage evaporated and it was a mad rush towards Jagr when he had the puck, as I'm sure many coaches drilled it into their players' brains to (at all costs) not let Jagr be anything close to one on one with anything resembling open ice.

The real difference between Jagr and Selanne in '99 was that Jagr had 82 even strength points to Selanne's 53, despite mostly playing with Miller, Hrdina and Straka at ES, while Selanne was paired with Kariya and Rucchin. Selanne closed the gap on the power play, so it wasn't due to some near-"phantom" secondary assists where Jagr merely touched the puck on the PP and got credit for assists. He was creating the offense at even strength, as a direct result of the open ice his teammates received due to the disproportionate amount of coverage he received from the defense.


Last edited by Czech Your Math: 12-08-2012 at 02:52 AM.
Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2012, 02:47 AM
  #27
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 3,157
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TAnnala View Post
Good points. Kind of weird how it turned out like that on the secondary assists. Is Jagr known for getting 2nd assists a lot? Cause if it was year in year out kind of thing then it might be reasonable to give him some credit for it.
It was a definite anomaly. Typically, Jagr gets 3.99 secondary assists for every 6.01 primary assists while Selanne gets 3.35 secondary assists for every 6.65 primary assists.

In an average distribution, Jagr gets around 29 and Selanne gets around 20 in 1999. And if that's the case, Selanne is 11 points back with having missed 6 more games. Actual quality of play is closer than the oft-cited 20-point number. But people really like to talk about Stu Barns and Martin Straka.

http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...14&postcount=1

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2012, 03:06 AM
  #28
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,551
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
It was a definite anomaly. Typically, Jagr gets 3.99 secondary assists for every 6.01 primary assists while Selanne gets 3.35 secondary assists for every 6.65 primary assists.

In an average distribution, Jagr gets around 29 and Selanne gets around 20 in 1999. And if that's the case, Selanne is 11 points back with having missed 6 more games. Actual quality of play is closer than the oft-cited 20-point number. But people really like to talk about Stu Barns and Martin Straka.

http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...14&postcount=1
Most importantly, Jagr's continual dominance wasn't based on any single season: not merely on winning the Ross in '99 by 20 points... or winning it in 2000 when he missed 19 games... or finishing second in '96 (behind Lemieux) with 29 more points than the third place finisher. It was based on his point production, ES point production, ES GF/GA ratio, On/Off ratio, etc. over several seasons.

Even using Selanne's best 5 year period of '96-'00, Jagr still had more goals and 74 more points during that period and a higher PPG in all 5 seasons. Teemu was no slouch... neither were Sakic, Forsberg, Lindros, Bure, Kariya, etc. Then you add on '94 (top 10 in points, 2nd in ES points), '95 (Ross), '01 (Ross) and '02 (5th points, 3rd in PPG) and that's 9 consecutive elite seasons.

I'm not trying to disparage Selanne, as he and Jagr are both underrated IMO, but Jagr being an ultra-dominant player and better than Selanne do not rest on some secondary assists from one season. When a player sets the NHL season record for points/assists by a wing and leads the NHL in ES points by 19... and that season isn't even one of his 6 Hart nominations... well, that tells you something about both his dominance and the lack of credit he received from many "experts" (i.e. hungover sportswriters).


Last edited by Czech Your Math: 12-08-2012 at 03:11 AM.
Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2012, 03:12 AM
  #29
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 3,157
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
What you must have conveniently forgotten
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
it wasn't due to some near-"phantom" secondary assists
Listen:

I like talking hockey with you, Czech Your Math, but I don't like doing so when you're being flippant. Between the above and the Brett Hull "pretend" comment in the last post, I don't feel as though you're being particularly respectful. I didn't say Jagr had great finishers. I didn't say Jagr was getting "phantom" anything. They're both great hockey players and both created a lot of scoring chances. What I'm saying is that an unusually high amount of scoring chances went in for the Pittsburgh Penguins that resulted in more secondary assists than would normally be expected. And I said this as a counter to the argument that Jagr wasn't getting much help from his teammates. The entire existence of a secondary assist is predicated upon help from teammates who are more responsible for the goal itself.

The powerplay argument has merit (and I've argued the same in 1997-98 when the tables were turned and Selanne was the ESP leader while Jagr was the one with the elite linemate). Also relevant: the Paul Kariya effect on Teemu Selanne's 40 primary assists. But Jagr was getting help in 1998-99 and every other season, even if - as Litework said - no individual Penguin was within 44 points of him.

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2012, 03:15 AM
  #30
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 3,157
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
but Jagr being an ultra-dominant player and better than Selanne do not rest on some secondary assists from one season
I didn't say he wasn't... we're comparing him to Steve Yzerman (Class of 2009).

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2012, 03:25 AM
  #31
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,551
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
Listen:

I like talking hockey with you, Czech Your Math, but I don't like doing so when you're being flippant. Between the above and the Brett Hull "pretend" comment in the last post, I don't feel as though you're being particularly respectful. I didn't say Jagr had great finishers. I didn't say Jagr was getting "phantom" anything. They're both great hockey players and both created a lot of scoring chances. What I'm saying is that an unusually high amount of scoring chances went in for the Pittsburgh Penguins that resulted in more secondary assists than would normally be expected. And I said this as a counter to the argument that Jagr wasn't getting much help from his teammates. The entire existence of a secondary assist is predicated upon help from teammates who are more responsible for the goal itself.

The powerplay argument has merit (and I've argued the same in 1997-98 when the tables were turned and Selanne was the ESP leader while Jagr was the one with the elite linemate). Also relevant: the Paul Kariya effect on Teemu Selanne's 40 primary assists. But Jagr was getting help in 1998-99 and every other season, even if - as Litework said - no individual Penguin was within 44 points of him.
I don't mean to be flippant, but when you imply that Jagr was "getting help" because Stu Barnes hit a near-empty net a few times (which was often created by 2-3 defenders flocking to Jagr), then that seems misleading to me. Of course these players have help, these are all NHL players after all. Straka was a good player, much better than players like Barnes, Miller and Rucchin. There's just a difference between a "fluke" season like Bernie Nicholls, where everything goes his way and he's on the PP with the best point producer in hockey history, and one in a long series of dominant seasons. Maybe it was a bit of an anomaly that he got so many secondary assists in '99... just as it may have been an anomaly that he got so few in '00. However, I don't think it was mainly a product of him just "touching the puck" and having great finishers doing most of the hard work, but rather it was often a direct result of the threat he was on the ice, which necessitated extremely unusual coverage by the defense.

Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2012, 03:35 AM
  #32
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,551
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
I didn't say he wasn't... we're comparing him to Steve Yzerman (Class of 2009).
A healthy prime Jagr isn't going to have fewer points in a season than players like Messier, Recchi, Cullen, or Robitaille. He's not going to tie with Roenick, one point ahead of Leetch. He would have obliterated that kind of competition, regardless of linemates, while still maintaining an ultra-effective possession game which resulted in strong ES ratios. Jagr was clearly better than Yzerman IMO, on a multi-season peak, prime and career basis.

Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2012, 03:42 AM
  #33
toob
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 718
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TAnnala View Post
I don't know. If comparing players by raw/adjusted scoring finishes/totals is useless it pretty much leaves opinions on the table.

I agree that adjusted data should be taken with context and adj. stats penalize the 80's players a bit too much. But if looking at raw stats/adj. stats combined with scoring finishes and longevity of elite offensive play there is no way Yzerman comes out as good as Jagr.

I think it is fair to argue that Yzerman peaked as high offensively as Jagr. I would still put Jagr ahead of Steve but at least it is a fair debate. Now looking at primes and careers it is fairly easy to see which one of these two players maintained the elite offensive play for longer.

Now there is always argument for Yzerman since he became a great two-way player. For me, one Selke does not trump 3-4 Art Ross trophies what Jagr had.
By looking at this list it comes pretty clear that Jagr has had superior offensive career. Yzerman comes out on top only once if we remove Lemieux/Gretzky from the competition. Do the same for Jagr and the difference becomes pretty clear.

Points Per Game finishes for Yzerman
1987-88 NHL 1.59 (4)
1988-89 NHL 1.94 (3)
1989-90 NHL 1.61 (4)
1990-91 NHL 1.35 (7)
1991-92 NHL 1.30 (9)
1992-93 NHL 1.63 (5)
1993-94 NHL 1.41 (6)

Point Per Game finishes for Jagr
1994-95 NHL 1.46 (2)
1995-96 NHL 1.82 (2)
1996-97 NHL 1.51 (3)
1997-98 NHL 1.32 (1)
1998-99 NHL 1.57 (1)
1999-00 NHL 1.52 (1)
2000-01 NHL 1.49 (2)
2001-02 NHL 1.14 (3)
2005-06 NHL 1.50 (2)

When talking about the best players on planet, I cant remember anyone saying Yzerman was the better player in late 90's compared to Jagr. If his overall value would have been so high then the debate should not exist.
As for any kind of stats, stats are just numbers, they mean really nothing by themselves, we assign meaning to them by our interpretations and how we contextualize them. As for the ppg finishes see my same point earlier.

I dunno why we compare post prime Yzerman in his mid 30s to prime Jagr in his mid 20s (though you are understating just how many people were unimpressed with Jagr's game/numbers as compared to other stars in that era and im sure some would underrate Jagr to say that old Yzerman was better). Yeah i fully agree that in the late 90s Jagr was better than Yzerman at that point. I obv do think that prime Yzerman was better than prime Jagr im not worried about Jagr's longevity as a great offensive player though because Yzerman's career arc went a different way and id take later career Yzerman over Washington Jagr or pre 95 Pittsburgh Jagr.

BTW re Selanne/Jagr i freely admitted that Jagr in 99 could be considered "by far" the most dominant player even over Selanne but even then looking at the numbers isnt telling us everything. Jagr had a lot of secondary assists but Selanne had a superstar linemate so yeah Jagr was still more impressive

toob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2012, 03:49 AM
  #34
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,116
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
A healthy prime Jagr isn't going to have fewer points in a season than players like Messier, Recchi, Cullen, or Robitaille. He's not going to tie with Roenick, one point ahead of Leetch. He would have obliterated that kind of competition, regardless of linemates, while still maintaining an ultra-effective possession game which resulted in strong ES ratios. Jagr was clearly better than Yzerman IMO, on a multi-season peak, prime and career basis.
I definitely agree with this. Yzerman's 1988-89 was definitely on prime Jagr level, but Jagr maintained that level for a string of several seasons.

Honestly, the very idea that Yzerman was as good offensively as Jagr is hard to take seriously. If someone really valued two-way play or contribution to winning Cups, then I could see taking Yzerman even if I didn't agree with it. But the argument that Yzerman was on Jagr's level offensively really seems to come from a lack of perspective IMO.

I also seriously question whether we should diminish the value of secondary assists for players who were clearly the best player on their lines. I get the whole "he racked up secondary assists playing with better linemates" thing for guys like Ron Francis when he played with Jagr and Lemieux, but for guys who play like Jagr (and Evgeni Malkin), I think secondary assists are best understood as a measure of the offense created by a player's puck possession abilities.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2012, 04:07 AM
  #35
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,551
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by toob View Post
Oh and im wondering exactly how long some of you think Jagr was considered to be dominating the rest of the league by far?
99? ok (though that 20 point margin of victory looks less impressive when you consider that Selanne played 6 less games as it projects to 10 points behind if he played the same as Jagr and that Jagr scored a ton of secondary assists)
Maybe 2000 if he played a full year? When else?
Cause Yzerman himself has much of the 88-90 period himself so...
Outside of '89 and to some degree '88 when healthy, I don't see Yzerman really dominating the league (excluding Gretzky & Lemieux) nevermind "by far." Jagr dominated long stretches of seasons. For instance, he has the most points in each 10 season period from '91-'00 to '99-'09. Note that the first period includes his first two seasons when he scored a combined 126 points, and the second period includes his 71 point season in '08 and 0 NHL points in '09 (was in the KHL). He's also near the very top of all players since expansion in adjusted plus-minus (no data before expansion). He is one playoff point away from having as many playoff points as any non-Oiler.

Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2012, 04:11 AM
  #36
toob
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 718
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I definitely agree with this. Yzerman's 1988-89 was definitely on prime Jagr level, but Jagr maintained that level for a string of several seasons.

Honestly, the very idea that Yzerman was as good offensively as Jagr is hard to take seriously. If someone really valued two-way play or contribution to winning Cups, then I could see taking Yzerman even if I didn't agree with it. But the argument that Yzerman was on Jagr's level offensively really seems to come from a lack of perspective IMO.

I also seriously question whether we should diminish the value of secondary assists for players who were clearly the best player on their lines. I get the whole "he racked up secondary assists playing with better linemates" thing for guys like Ron Francis when he played with Jagr and Lemieux, but for guys who play like Jagr (and Evgeni Malkin), I think secondary assists are best understood as a measure of the offense created by a player's puck possession abilities.
Bernie Nicholls was much closer to Lemieux statswise than he was to Yzerman for about half of 89. But the entire refrain of that year was Gretzky/Lemieux/Yzerman. Is his season also on this level? If you are saying no then you are clearly admitting implicitly that you are going beyond just a look at the numbers or placements.

Denis Savard in 88 scored at a 2+ ppg pace for over half of the year. Yet nobody was talking about Gretzky/Lemieux/Savard.

There wasnt much separating 89 and 90 except for a bad November (90 saw a much worse team/line situation and Yzerman still managed close to the same number of goals). There wasnt much separating 89 from 88 either except that Yzerman broke out sometime into the season and then got injured. He would likely play that last March month with a pace closer to December than October thus boosting his ppg stats.

A players stats are dependent on much more than their play in a vacuum. Yzerman certainly had a tougher time racking up stats than Jagr through most of his prime. Or is it just happenstance that after only outscoring Leetch in his best year by 1 point in 92 when he said he wasnt really playing on an offensive line, he maintained that same kind of pace throughout the first 50 games of 93 until he got back a big chunk of his lost ice time and offensive role when Carson was traded for Coffey and his scoring exploded?

Or in a similar example im well aware of, is it coincidence that Fedorov in 94 just happened to have his most productive stretch when Yzerman was injured and he was told to go play more offensively than ever with better linemates and much more ice time? To only see that pace slow down when Yzerman came back.

Jagr's high secondary assists may well have been due to his puck possession. That doesnt at all conflict with inferences that maybe his teammates werent as incompetent as some would like to portray (for this talk of Straka he seems like a significantly enough more talented linemate than Yzerman had until 93 or Selanne had in 98 minus those handful of games with Kariya). And if the secondary assists are a result of puck possession than actually being more directly involved in scoring a goal then more the reason we should be careful of comparing Selanne and Jagr's numbers. Selanne most likely did get a higher % of his 107 pts on plays he was more directly involved in than Jagr with his 127%.


Last edited by toob: 12-08-2012 at 04:17 AM.
toob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2012, 04:17 AM
  #37
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,116
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by toob View Post
Bernie Nicholls was much closer to Lemieux statswise than he was to Yzerman for about half of 89. But the entire refrain of that year was Gretzky/Lemieux/Yzerman. Is his season also on this level? If you are saying no then you are clearly admitting implicitly that you are going beyond just a look at the numbers or placements.
.
Strawman argument. Nicholls (whose 1989 is underrated) racked up a ton of points playing with Gretzky on the powerplay. Completely irrelevant to Jagr vs Yzerman.

Quote:
Denis Savard in 88 scored at a 2+ ppg pace for over half of the year. Yet nobody was talking about Gretzky/Lemieux/Savard.
Savard with 5th in Hart voting in 1988; Yzerman was 4th. How big do you think the difference actually was?

Edit: I agree with you that looking at stats in a vacuum is wrong; I just have trouble finding circumstances that advantaged Jagr statistically or disadvantaged Yzerman.


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 12-08-2012 at 04:31 AM.
TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2012, 04:21 AM
  #38
vladdy16
Registered User
 
vladdy16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,377
vCash: 500
Sorry but Jagr over Yzerman is laughable. You can get cute and make a case if you want, but it's not based in the reality of each players career.

Talent and production wise, sure Jagr is way up there. But in the context of reality and history, where there are franchises to be built long term, and stanley cups to be built towards, the value of Yzerman of Jagr is immense.

vladdy16 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2012, 04:37 AM
  #39
toob
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 718
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Strawman argument. Nicholls (whose 1989 is underrated) racked up a ton of points playing with Gretzky on the powerplay. Completely irrelevant to Jagr vs Yzerman.



Savard with 5th in Hart voting in 1988; Yzerman was 4th. How big do you think the difference actually was?
I figured that would be the Nicholls response though (why i added the Savard one) it is not completely irrelevant when used as an example of playing . Nicholls was outscoring Gretzky for most of the first half of 89 for that leach argument.

Youre looking at Hart voting (what is the difference between the 4th and 5th btw). There is a lot more to suggest that there was a Gretzky/Lemieux/Yzerman narrative by December 1987. You know i have a list of links in one of my old posts. Didnt see one for Savard. There was a pretty massive gap statistically for a huge stretch of the year. Plus Yzerman gets injured, his team actually goes on an insane run without him which flew in the face of his MVP candidacy, and he still finishes 4th above him anyway. Think about it.

What about 93? What about Fedorov 94? What about Jagr in Washington who had to go to a defensive system? Did he just find his game again in a new NHL?

There is a clear difference between offensive ability and production. I think it is pretty clear that Yzerman playing in the Red Wings situation in the early 90s with 3 1st line center and a coach who was experimenting with a defensive system until 93 provides a good counter example to a notion that Yzerman just overachieved under Demers or that he fell off a cliff.

Demers never gave Oates icetime because he had Yzerman. As soon as he leaves he starts scoring a **** ton of points. Yes you can say Hull but then he leaves the Blues and still scores a **** ton of points.

As for circumstances, aside from 99 maybe 00/06 Jagr's linemates are significantly better than Yzerman's from 88-93. Yzerman's are likely worse than even 99/00/06 from 88-92. Under Demers in 88 and Murray in 91/92 the Red Wings actually played a defensive style. Under Murray in 91/92 and the first 50 games of 93, Yzerman was sharing his ice time with Jimmy Carson who only played offense. Yzerman killed a ton of penalties in his prime, Jagr did not. The circumstances are quite different.


Last edited by toob: 12-08-2012 at 04:50 AM.
toob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2012, 05:19 AM
  #40
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,551
vCash: 50
During Yzerman's first 8 seasons, he led his team to an above .500 record once, despite playing in what was an historically weak division the first 6 years and a mediocre one in years 7 and 8. Here's the Norris division's average points per team and win % outside the division in those first 8 years:

'84 66.0 (.354)
'85 66.2 (.356)
'86 64.6 (.340)
'87 73.8 (.435)
'88 68.4 (.379)
'89 69.6 (.392)
'90 80.2 (.502)
'91 80.2 (.502)

So much for being an impact player, even in what was mostly a really, really crappy division. It wasn't until Detroit brought in a lot of overseas talent and began building a mini-dynasty through solid management, coaching, free agents, trades, and drafting, that Detroit had success.

Meanwhile, Jagr played on a stacked team in the early 90s, but let's not forget that the Pens had made the playoffs only once in Mario's first 6 seasons. This was not a team with any track record of success, when they found themselves in '91 in OT down 1-0 in their first round series vs. the Devils, and about to go back to Jersey for 3 games. It was Jagr's OT goal that won game 2 in a series they eventually won in 7 games (they lost 2/3 in Jersey). Jagr had many big goals in the '92 playoffs, including some big games against the Rangers after Mario was injured for the rest of the series, and skating thru just about the entire Chicago team to tie game 1 of the SCF with 5 minutes left in the game (that Chicago team had won 11 in a row entering the SCF). That meets my definition of "impact player."

Unfortunately, just as the Wings were ascending in the mid-90s, the Pens were descending thanks to ownership on the brink of bankruptcy, having to still pay the retired Lemieux's contract, and poor manangement which made a series of bad trades and bad drafts. It was mainly Jagr's presence which led a team with many AHL-quality defensemen and a revolving door of goalies to the playoffs, instead of to the cellar. He led the Pens to upsets of #1 seed New Jersey and #2 seed Washington in consecutive years, until they suffered tough second round losses (6 game series with two OT losses in each).

Jagr didn't have much success with the Caps, who stubbornly tried to fit a square peg in a round hole, but he did lead a Rangers team which hadn't made the playoffs in several seasons to the playoffs in each of his 3 seasons there, despite them picked as perhaps the worst team in the NHL before his first full season in NY.

The data all favors Jagr IMO:

- much better adjusted scoring seasons
- much better scoring finishes, even excluding Gretzky & Lemieux
- much better share of Hart/Pearson voting
- much better even strength data (peak, prime and career)
- much more of an impact on team (leading weaker teams to playoffs and series victories, team record when injured and after he left).
- stronger, more consistent playoff production and plus-minus data

The joke is claiming that Yzerman has a clear advantage, when there is really no real advantage that I can see for him. One may give Yzerman the edge for leadership, given that Jagr had a season or so with the Caps where he was feuding with the coach, but that's the sort of thing that helps break a tie when everything else is equal, not negates a large advantage over a wide range of data. Same thing with linemates, we can argue about quality of linemates, as well as the quality of the leagues (and divisions) in which they played, but both players "drove the bus" for their lines and (during their primes) their teams.

I'm not going to sling more mud at Yzerman, but the advantage for Jagr is clear and substantial IMO.

Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2012, 06:14 AM
  #41
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,551
vCash: 50
It's probably partly the era, with such increased competition, but Brodeur, Jagr, Selanne and Pronger are 4 of the more underrated superstars IMO, although that may have lessened somewhat since the lockout (when each have excelled to some degree in the "new" NHL, despite being in their 30s). I would contrast that group with, say, Hasek, Messier, Sakic, and Lidstrom, who don't seem underrated at all. Let's call them Group A (Brodeur, etc.) and Group B (Hasek, etc.).

Each has two Europeans, a goalie, two forwards and a d-man.

Awards:
Group A- 2 Harts (2nd x4, 3rd x 5, 4th x 3, 5th x 4, 6th), 3 Pearsons, 4 Vezinas, 1 Norris, 13 first team AS, 10 second team AS
Group B- 5 Harts (2nd x2, 3rd x2, 4th, 6th x2), 5 Pearsons, 6 Vezinas, 7 Norrises, 23 first team AS, 3 second team AS

Team Success (note: goalies must have at least one Win in series, while skaters must play at least 2 games in series):
Group A- made playoffs 59/75 seasons (79%), won 70 PO series
Group B- made playoffs 63/80 seasons (79%), won 97 seven game PO series (102 total)

Cups:
Group A- 7
Group B- 14

It looks like a clear advantage for Group B, as most would expect. Interestingly though, Group A has the edge in top 3 Hart finishes (11-9) and top 5 Hart finishes (18-10). It seems to me that "finishing first", whether for awards or championships, has a disproportionate influence on player rankings, compared to being among the very best players overall or at one's position for an extended period. Including Lidstrom & Pronger tilts the tables a bit, as without that pair Group A would have more total 1st/2nd team AS selections and would close much of the gap in playoff series won.

Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2012, 09:16 AM
  #42
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 7,827
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vladdy16 View Post
Sorry but Jagr over Yzerman is laughable. You can get cute and make a case if you want, but it's not based in the reality of each players career.

Talent and production wise, sure Jagr is way up there. But in the context of reality and history, where there are franchises to be built long term, and stanley cups to be built towards, the value of Yzerman of Jagr is immense.
I'm sure your post did generate some laughter.

Dennis Bonvie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2012, 09:20 AM
  #43
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,486
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
It was a definite anomaly. Typically, Jagr gets 3.99 secondary assists for every 6.01 primary assists while Selanne gets 3.35 secondary assists for every 6.65 primary assists.

In an average distribution, Jagr gets around 29 and Selanne gets around 20 in 1999. And if that's the case, Selanne is 11 points back with having missed 6 more games. Actual quality of play is closer than the oft-cited 20-point number. But people really like to talk about Stu Barns and Martin Straka.

http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...14&postcount=1
This is just me, but I have never really bought into the whole "secondary assists" thing. Generally the star players create the offense which more often than not will give them the primary assist. But if a guy has three assists in a game and they are all "secondary assists" did he still not have a good game? I have seen a lot of hockey games where the first pass was the best play. And I've seen it the other way around where a player dumps it in, another one grabs it and passes to the goal scorer. But that being said, you are still doing something right if you are getting an assist, regardless.

(And come on, Jagr had no elite talent on that 1998-'99 team, let's face facts. It was a brilliant season and a year where I finally stopped saying "well maybe Lindros or Kariya are as good")

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2012, 12:59 PM
  #44
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 3,157
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
This is just me, but I have never really bought into the whole "secondary assists" thing. Generally the star players create the offense which more often than not will give them the primary assist. But if a guy has three assists in a game and they are all "secondary assists" did he still not have a good game? I have seen a lot of hockey games where the first pass was the best play. And I've seen it the other way around where a player dumps it in, another one grabs it and passes to the goal scorer. But that being said, you are still doing something right if you are getting an assist, regardless.

(And come on, Jagr had no elite talent on that 1998-'99 team, let's face facts. It was a brilliant season and a year where I finally stopped saying "well maybe Lindros or Kariya are as good")
I would love it if people would read my posts and respond to what I am actually saying as opposed to browsing for key words and reacting.

I'm not saying that secondary assists are irrelevant. I'm saying that there were more than expected (a result of Martin Straka's abnormally high shooting percentage?) and that they prove Jagr was not alone. Even if there wasn't a marquee name out there with him, there were at least two competent offensive players touching the puck after Jagr on 39 occasions. That's 10 more secondary assists from what was typically expected from Jagr's career assist distribution. It isn't a federal indictment to say that on 10 occasions in an 82-game season, the bounces went the right way. That's one better than expected bounce every 8 games. One pass from Kip Miller to Martin Straka that Miller would typically flub. One shot from Straka that would typically go wide.

I feel like I'm Kevin Costner in Bull Durham, explaining this.



Jagr: 44 Primary, 39 Secondary; Expected Secondary: 29
Selanne: 40 Primary, 20 Secondary (6 fewer games); Expected Secondary: 20
Forsberg: 40 Primary, 27 Secondary (3 fewer games); Expected Secondary: 23

Until someone can explain to me the difference between a secondary assist and a good first pass that results in a scoring opportunity on which one of the other two players does not capitalize, I'm not going to believe that they're entirely free from scrutiny when they're unusually high.

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2012, 01:20 PM
  #45
Fish on The Sand
Untouchable
 
Fish on The Sand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Nanaimo
Country: Canada
Posts: 49,227
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
I would love it if people would read my posts and respond to what I am actually saying as opposed to browsing for key words and reacting.

I'm not saying that secondary assists are irrelevant. I'm saying that there were more than expected (a result of Martin Straka's abnormally high shooting percentage?) and that they prove Jagr was not alone. Even if there wasn't a marquee name out there with him, there were at least two competent offensive players touching the puck after Jagr on 39 occasions. That's 10 more secondary assists from what was typically expected from Jagr's career assist distribution. It isn't a federal indictment to say that on 10 occasions in an 82-game season, the bounces went the right way. That's one better than expected bounce every 8 games. One pass from Kip Miller to Martin Straka that Miller would typically flub. One shot from Straka that would typically go wide.

I feel like I'm Kevin Costner in Bull Durham, explaining this.



Jagr: 44 Primary, 39 Secondary; Expected Secondary: 29
Selanne: 40 Primary, 20 Secondary (6 fewer games); Expected Secondary: 20
Forsberg: 40 Primary, 27 Secondary (3 fewer games); Expected Secondary: 23

Until someone can explain to me the difference between a secondary assist and a good first pass that results in a scoring opportunity on which one of the other two players does not capitalize, I'm not going to believe that they're entirely free from scrutiny when they're unusually high.
I don't think taking a career average for secondary assists per primary assist is exactly a sound way to determine "expected secondary assists". All that does is show that he was outperforming his career averages as a result of what could literally be hundreds of different factors.

Fish on The Sand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2012, 01:30 PM
  #46
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 3,157
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish on The Sand View Post
I don't think taking a career average for secondary assists per primary assist is exactly a sound way to determine "expected secondary assists". All that does is show that he was outperforming his career averages as a result of what could literally be hundreds of different factors.
Including the two most important factors: the goal scorer and the primary passer.

I only mention the expected secondary assist numbers because Jagr typically gets more secondary assists per primary assist than Selanne or Forsberg, so it would be unfair to Jagr to ignore that factor and only look at Goals/Primary.

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2012, 04:06 PM
  #47
norrisnick
Registered User
 
norrisnick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 16,243
vCash: 500
Um... If the four players mentioned in the OP never play again... wouldn't they fall into the same class as Lidstrom who also played last during the '11-'12 season? One of the four wouldn't be a first ballot...

norrisnick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2012, 04:48 PM
  #48
toob
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 718
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
During Yzerman's first 8 seasons, he led his team to an above .500 record once, despite playing in what was an historically weak division the first 6 years and a mediocre one in years 7 and 8. Here's the Norris division's average points per team and win % outside the division in those first 8 years:

'84 66.0 (.354)
'85 66.2 (.356)
'86 64.6 (.340)
'87 73.8 (.435)
'88 68.4 (.379)
'89 69.6 (.392)
'90 80.2 (.502)
'91 80.2 (.502)

So much for being an impact player, even in what was mostly a really, really crappy division. It wasn't until Detroit brought in a lot of overseas talent and began building a mini-dynasty through solid management, coaching, free agents, trades, and drafting, that Detroit had success.

Meanwhile, Jagr played on a stacked team in the early 90s, but let's not forget that the Pens had made the playoffs only once in Mario's first 6 seasons. This was not a team with any track record of success, when they found themselves in '91 in OT down 1-0 in their first round series vs. the Devils, and about to go back to Jersey for 3 games. It was Jagr's OT goal that won game 2 in a series they eventually won in 7 games (they lost 2/3 in Jersey). Jagr had many big goals in the '92 playoffs, including some big games against the Rangers after Mario was injured for the rest of the series, and skating thru just about the entire Chicago team to tie game 1 of the SCF with 5 minutes left in the game (that Chicago team had won 11 in a row entering the SCF). That meets my definition of "impact player."

Unfortunately, just as the Wings were ascending in the mid-90s, the Pens were descending thanks to ownership on the brink of bankruptcy, having to still pay the retired Lemieux's contract, and poor manangement which made a series of bad trades and bad drafts. It was mainly Jagr's presence which led a team with many AHL-quality defensemen and a revolving door of goalies to the playoffs, instead of to the cellar. He led the Pens to upsets of #1 seed New Jersey and #2 seed Washington in consecutive years, until they suffered tough second round losses (6 game series with two OT losses in each).

Jagr didn't have much success with the Caps, who stubbornly tried to fit a square peg in a round hole, but he did lead a Rangers team which hadn't made the playoffs in several seasons to the playoffs in each of his 3 seasons there, despite them picked as perhaps the worst team in the NHL before his first full season in NY.
This is a bad comparison. You arent comparing the same things. Basically you are looking at wide areas of team success for Detroit and microcosms for Jagr.

For the team successes you did not mention that Detroit missed the playoffs 15/17 times before Yzerman joined the team, 7 of the past 8 years. They made the playoffs 15/17 times since he joined the team, 6/8 in the timeframe you gave. Is there no impact? This should clearly show that Jagr never had a team situation that was as bad as the Red Wings in the 80s.

As an example of another microcosm forget 1 game tying goal that was pretty, Yzerman has a great playoff run in 87 where he not only was his teams top scorer but was given a ton of credit for matching up against Gretzky and limiting him to 2 points in the entire series. So much for an impact player indeed

You point out all the management/personnel/whatever problems for the Penguins but not for the Red Wings? There is all the same thing of bad management, bad drafting, bad trades (did the Penguins do an Oates for Federko?). But then we are also talking substance abuse, legal troubles of the key players including a regular linemate of Yzerman's, coach losing control of the team, and half the team being replaced once in the timeframe you give.

Quote:
The data all favors Jagr IMO:

- much better adjusted scoring seasons
- much better scoring finishes, even excluding Gretzky & Lemieux
- much better share of Hart/Pearson voting
- much better even strength data (peak, prime and career)
- much more of an impact on team (leading weaker teams to playoffs and series victories, team record when injured and after he left).
- stronger, more consistent playoff production and plus-minus data

The joke is claiming that Yzerman has a clear advantage, when there is really no real advantage that I can see for him. One may give Yzerman the edge for leadership, given that Jagr had a season or so with the Caps where he was feuding with the coach, but that's the sort of thing that helps break a tie when everything else is equal, not negates a large advantage over a wide range of data. Same thing with linemates, we can argue about quality of linemates, as well as the quality of the leagues (and divisions) in which they played, but both players "drove the bus" for their lines and (during their primes) their teams.

I'm not going to sling more mud at Yzerman, but the advantage for Jagr is clear and substantial IMO.
For adjusted scoring see my very first post in this thread. BTW this is probably why so many people dont understand adj stats and then argue against them incessantly. Because they are either explicitly or implicitly used to make statements/arguments about who was more productive/better offensively.

For award shares they are clearly not directly comparable. At a fundamental level the ballot format simply changed over the years. At another fundamental level they depend on the context of players for those years. Yzerman played in a league where Gretzky, Lemieux got a ton of Hart voting shares, plus there was Messier (another player who i would easily take over Jagr). There were all sorts of top end players that compare rather favorably to Jagr's era.

Similar thing for scoring finishes. And theres so much they leave out. When Yzerman was 7th in 91 he was 7 points away from 3rd, when he was 7th in 92 he was 6 points away from 4th. Meanwhile in 89 7th place was 45 points behind Yzerman in 3rd place 40 behind Nicholls in 4th. Not all 7th place scoring finishes are created equally. In 90 and 91 Yzerman was 2nd behind Hull in goals. But in 90 he was 8 goals behind and in 91 he was 35 goals behind and tied with other players. Meanwhile in Jagr's era, Yzerman hit the top 10 in 2000 playing a defensive style in his mid 30s after his knee and back injuries had finished him as an elite offensive player. He couldnt make top 10 in 88 despite his insane streak due to the injury. Ron Francis could never hit a top 10 scoring finish in the 80s but he made it in 02.

EV stats? Im assuming given your posting history that you meant adj EV stats for which see above. Because I know that EV stats (or EV + SH as it is sometimes simplified to) show Yzerman clearly ahead peak/prime. But ofc we cant compare actual stats in different eras directly to see who is better but the adj stats dont make any headway into that either. But for sure if you want to claim that Jagr's adjusted stats show that his points were more "valuable" in a sense relative to how many goals per game were scored in the season go for it. I dont know what that really tells us though.

Team impact/playoff victories see above. Which teams that Jagr was on were weaker than the mid/late 80s Red Wings btw?

Definitely think Yzerman has a clear advantage myself. Put Yzerman on those late 90s Penguins with that coaching and team style and let him loose. He doesnt have to kill penalties or take faceoffs either just focus on offense. Or go back a bit earlier and have Francis take care of some of his defensive duties. And for times, depending on the year have Mario play on his line or at least on the PP. Plus there was all the stuff Yzerman did in his career that Jagr didnt do.

toob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2012, 04:56 PM
  #49
toob
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 718
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by norrisnick View Post
Um... If the four players mentioned in the OP never play again... wouldn't they fall into the same class as Lidstrom who also played last during the '11-'12 season? One of the four wouldn't be a first ballot...
If Lidstrom was also in this class i would omit Pronger but they would likely omit Selanne.

toob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2012, 06:34 PM
  #50
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,551
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by toob View Post
This is a bad comparison. You arent comparing the same things. Basically you are looking at wide areas of team success for Detroit and microcosms for Jagr.

For the team successes you did not mention that Detroit missed the playoffs 15/17 times before Yzerman joined the team, 7 of the past 8 years. They made the playoffs 15/17 times since he joined the team, 6/8 in the timeframe you gave. Is there no impact? This should clearly show that Jagr never had a team situation that was as bad as the Red Wings in the 80s.
Similarly, Jagr arrived on a team which had made the playoffs once in 8 seasons and proceeded to make the playoffs for 11 straight seasons and 16/18 in his career. Detroit was in a division with Montreal and the Kings thru '81, so it was a bit tougher to make the playoffs than it was once the divisions were shuffled. Yzerman arrived on a bad team, which remained bad, eventually improved to mediocre and finally became a strong team towards the end of his prime. I didn't say Jagr played on weaker teams, but he didn't play on a team which was more than mediocre without him since at least '96 (except probably last year's Flyers). That included going to a Rangers team that hadn't made the playoffs since '97, despite players like Gretzky, Messier, Leetch, Richter, Lindros, Fleury, etc., and leading them to the playoffs in each of his 3 full seasons there. The Rangers were picked at/near bottom of NHL by most coming out of the lockout, so I don't see how they could have been much better than those 80s Detroit teams.

Quote:
Originally Posted by toob View Post
As an example of another microcosm forget 1 game tying goal that was pretty, Yzerman has a great playoff run in 87 where he not only was his teams top scorer but was given a ton of credit for matching up against Gretzky and limiting him to 2 points in the entire series. So much for an impact player indeed
If it's a feather in his cap to lose to the Oilers in 5 games, then it's much needed, since in his first 11 seasons Detroit won

You point out all the management/personnel/whatever problems for the Penguins but not for the Red Wings? There is all the same thing of bad management, bad drafting, bad trades (did the Penguins do an Oates for Federko?). But then we are also talking substance abuse, legal troubles of the key players including a regular linemate of Yzerman's, coach losing control of the team, and half the team being replaced once in the timeframe you give.

Quote:
Originally Posted by toob View Post
Similar thing for scoring finishes. And theres so much they leave out. When Yzerman was 7th in 91 he was 7 points away from 3rd, when he was 7th in 92 he was 6 points away from 4th. Meanwhile in 89 7th place was 45 points behind Yzerman in 3rd place 40 behind Nicholls in 4th. Not all 7th place scoring finishes are created equally. In 90 and 91 Yzerman was 2nd behind Hull in goals. But in 90 he was 8 goals behind and in 91 he was 35 goals behind and tied with other players. Meanwhile in Jagr's era, Yzerman hit the top 10 in 2000 playing a defensive style in his mid 30s after his knee and back injuries had finished him as an elite offensive player. He couldnt make top 10 in 88 despite his insane streak due to the injury. Ron Francis could never hit a top 10 scoring finish in the 80s but he made it in 02.
In a comparison with a player of Jagr's accomplishments, you say "not all 7th place finishes are created equally"... really? Talk about bringing knives to a gun fight!

So Yzerman and Francis each managed a top 10 finish in the early '00s and that supposedly proves that there wasn't strong competition during Jagr's prime? There were anomalies during Yzerman's prime as well (Rob Brown, Carson, Nicholls, Larmer, etc., d-men Coffey, MacInnis, Leetch finishing in top 10, etc.). Obviously Gretzky's and Lemieux's primes coincided more with Yzerman's prime than Jagr's, but even excluding those players doesn't come close to closing the gap in scoring finishes, and outside of those two there was better top competition in Jagr's prime than Yzerman's IMO.

Quote:
Originally Posted by toob View Post
EV stats? Im assuming given your posting history that you meant adj EV stats for which see above. Because I know that EV stats (or EV + SH as it is sometimes simplified to) show Yzerman clearly ahead peak/prime. But ofc we cant compare actual stats in different eras directly to see who is better but the adj stats dont make any headway into that either. But for sure if you want to claim that Jagr's adjusted stats show that his points were more "valuable" in a sense relative to how many goals per game were scored in the season go for it. I dont know what that really tells us though.
I was talking about ES GF/GA ratio while they were on the ice and their ratio to that of the team without them on the ice (On/Off). Yzerman often didn't create significant advantages (ratios significantly above 1.0) in either or both metrics, even during his prime, while Jagr did for almost his entire career, and had strong ratios throughout his prime.

Quote:
Originally Posted by toob View Post
Definitely think Yzerman has a clear advantage myself. Put Yzerman on those late 90s Penguins with that coaching and team style and let him loose. He doesnt have to kill penalties or take faceoffs either just focus on offense. Or go back a bit earlier and have Francis take care of some of his defensive duties. And for times, depending on the year have Mario play on his line or at least on the PP. Plus there was all the stuff Yzerman did in his career that Jagr didnt do.
I don't think a prime Yzerman could have led all of those '97-'01 Pens teams and '06-'08 Rangers teams to the playoffs, and he certainly couldn't have led them farther IMO. Again, in his first 11 seasons, Yzerman did not win a playoff series against a team which managed more than 72 points in a weak division. What was he going to do in a difficult division when only 16 of 26-30 teams make the playoffs? He wasn't the offensive force that Jagr was, he generally didn't create nearly as large of ES advantages for his team or in comparison to his teammates, so there's nothing to suggest he could have matched, let alone improved on what Jagr did for those teams. After Yzerman retired, Detroit contended for more Cups. After Jagr left, the Pens became the league's laughingstock.

Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:04 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.