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.

Was Jagr better than Lemieux in 1995-96?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-08-2013, 11:04 PM
  #76
MadLuke
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,197
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
I'm one of the first people to give ES production more weight than special teams production but when the margin is as large as it was with Mario, it can't be downplayed.
For me ES production or goal vs assist are just for player near in term of production too.

Two player with 100 points, one with much more ES give me that one, but I will not take a 90 points better at ES production than a 103 points guy.

Same thing with goal an assist, give me the 65 goal 30 assist over the 30 goal 70 assist, about at max the difference that i think should be worth it.

I will take de 18 goals 90 assists over both of them whitout thinking about to much about it.

MadLuke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2013, 12:24 AM
  #77
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,009
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eva unit zero View Post
Sakic's two best ES scoring seasons:
1999-2000; 58 in 60 (0.97)
1990-1991: 71 in 80 (0.89)
I stand corrected, he came close once in 20 seasons, in a 3/4 games played season at that.

The point stands however, that a player even producing at a point per game at ES is extremely rare, let alone one that has topped 100 in a season.


Last edited by Rhiessan71: 05-09-2013 at 12:35 AM.
Rhiessan71 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2013, 12:33 AM
  #78
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
I stand corrected, he came close once in 20 seasons, in a 3/4 games played season at that.
Glad to help.

pdd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2013, 07:48 PM
  #79
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,282
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Pretty sure I'm not but anyway...



Yeah arguments that are based almost solely on +/- while ignoring superhuman special teams production.
Once again, Mario produced 79 PP points in just 70 games. That's more than 17 of 25 teams produced total with the man advantage in 82 games.

I'm one of the first people to give ES production more weight than special teams production but when the margin is as large as it was with Mario, it can't be downplayed.
Mario had what was probably the greatest PP presence that we will ever see on for 102 of the 109 PP goals that Pens teams scored that year.

The pens without Mario only scored 7 PP goals in those 12 games compared to the 102 in 70 Games that Mario played.

Depending on how guys value PP versus ES production and other factors in their games, the PP beast for 96 that Mario was could be the deciding factor that puts him above Jagr.

3 times in his career Mario is on the ice for over 90% of his teams entire PP total, which is something I doubted we will ever see again.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2013, 10:14 PM
  #80
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,417
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Once again, a player isn't truly dominating at ES even if he scores 200 points and is on the ice for 190 against.

The focus is too narrow here at times.

Frankly by 96 I'd rather build my team around a Forsberg, or a motivated Federov, than a guy like Lemieux.
Only if you take Forsberg's age into account. He was 22-23 at that time and right at the beginning of his career. Other than that, no one would have ever considered Forsberg to be more valuable than Mario. And you hit the nail on the head with a "motviated" Fedorov. Heavens knows it was anybody's guess whether Jeykll or Hyde were going to show up with him. You'd be a dream GM to make trades with my friend.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
To put in bluntly, +/- is the most meaningless stat in the universe when dealing with an individual player. It's a TEAM stat. It's no different than GAA when it comes to goaltenders: It speaks to what the TEAM is doing not the goalie alone.
Well, a perfect example of living and dying with the +/- stat is what we are seeing in the 2013 playoffs. The player with the worst plus/minus on the Pens going into the game tonight was..................Sidney Crosby at -3. I'll bet most of us didn't know that. So what are the circumstances? Crosby has played pretty good hasn't he? Not bad, we have yet to see him really rack it up and dominate but you could still say he's been the best Pen. So why is his +/- so low? Well for starters when your goalie is letting in some soft goals and you are on the ice more than any other forward it is only natural that you are going to be on the ice for some goals against. Plus he has been producing a lot of those points on the power play which is irrelevant to +/-. Plus he is facing the best opposing players and is also coming back from a broken jaw.

You see, on the history of hockey board I expect us to look beyond those +/- numbers and take them with barely more than a grain of salt. Situations change and that stat is less of a reflection of you. Case in point, the 1993 Pens. Mario led the entire NHL in plus/minus with +55. It is true he had a better PPG - especially at even strength - than in 1996 but the key was a stronger year by Barrasso in net, the best team in the NHL, and better linemates for support. So we need to figure things out right now on HFboards, either the plus/minus stat is just background noise or it is a critical stat. Because if it is of utmost importance than we should ask ourselves why a strong defensive player like Stan Mikita was -3 as an Art Ross winner on a strong team.

I just think it is a window dressing stat personally.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2013, 10:17 PM
  #81
Morgoth Bauglir
Master Of The Fates
 
Morgoth Bauglir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,068
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
Only if you take Forsberg's age into account. He was 22-23 at that time and right at the beginning of his career. Other than that, no one would have ever considered Forsberg to be more valuable than Mario. And you hit the nail on the head with a "motviated" Fedorov. Heavens knows it was anybody's guess whether Jeykll or Hyde were going to show up with him. You'd be a dream GM to make trades with my friend.



Well, a perfect example of living and dying with the +/- stat is what we are seeing in the 2013 playoffs. The player with the worst plus/minus on the Pens going into the game tonight was..................Sidney Crosby at -3. I'll bet most of us didn't know that. So what are the circumstances? Crosby has played pretty good hasn't he? Not bad, we have yet to see him really rack it up and dominate but you could still say he's been the best Pen. So why is his +/- so low? Well for starters when your goalie is letting in some soft goals and you are on the ice more than any other forward it is only natural that you are going to be on the ice for some goals against. Plus he has been producing a lot of those points on the power play which is irrelevant to +/-. Plus he is facing the best opposing players and is also coming back from a broken jaw.

You see, on the history of hockey board I expect us to look beyond those +/- numbers and take them with barely more than a grain of salt. Situations change and that stat is less of a reflection of you. Case in point, the 1993 Pens. Mario led the entire NHL in plus/minus with +55. It is true he had a better PPG - especially at even strength - than in 1996 but the key was a stronger year by Barrasso in net, the best team in the NHL, and better linemates for support. So we need to figure things out right now on HFboards, either the plus/minus stat is just background noise or it is a critical stat. Because if it is of utmost importance than we should ask ourselves why a strong defensive player like Stan Mikita was -3 as an Art Ross winner on a strong team.

I just think it is a window dressing stat personally.
Exactly. I couldn't have said it better!

Morgoth Bauglir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2013, 11:38 PM
  #82
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,282
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
Only if you take Forsberg's age into account. He was 22-23 at that time and right at the beginning of his career. Other than that, no one would have ever considered Forsberg to be more valuable than Mario. And you hit the nail on the head with a "motviated" Fedorov. Heavens knows it was anybody's guess whether Jeykll or Hyde were going to show up with him. You'd be a dream GM to make trades with my friend.

I actually meant only for a one season run, even with his young age Foppa was already a 200 foot force in the league.

As for Feds he showed his ability in 94,95 and in 96 he was still 26 and the top dog on that Detroit team.

building a team from scratch one could very well make an argument for these 2 guys over Mario.

Back to the thread the PP beast that Mario was in 96 had diminished by 97 and Mario's health was always an issue by that point as well so it's not as cute and dried as some hindsight might provide either.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2013, 04:03 AM
  #83
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,009
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
I actually meant only for a one season run, even with his young age Foppa was already a 200 foot force in the league.

As for Feds he showed his ability in 94,95 and in 96 he was still 26 and the top dog on that Detroit team.

building a team from scratch one could very well make an argument for these 2 guys over Mario.

Back to the thread the PP beast that Mario was in 96 had diminished by 97 and Mario's health was always an issue by that point as well so it's not as cute and dried as some hindsight might provide either.
Fedorov had a single season that one could consider on par with with some of Mario's secondary seasons and you can't possibly bring up the health factor and Forsberg in the same sentence.

Building a team from scratch, there's not a single GM in history that would take Fedorov or Forsberg over Mario, single season or not!

A player's defensive play and ability to prevent goals is only good while said player is on the ice. Mario giving his team a 2-3 goal cushion almost every game extends past whether he is on the ice or not.
That's why there is ALWAYS more value in a player that can score at a extreme rate like Mario or Gretzky.
We're not talking about someone like Orr that would play 40-50 mins a game. we're talking about forwards that play around 20 to 25 mins a game at most.

Colorado won 2 Cups when Forsberg wasn't their best player, Detroit won 3 without Fedorov being their best player. Pittsburgh doesn't win a single Cup unless Mario is their best player.
THAT about says it all!

1991 Cup Final
Without Mario: Pens are 0-2, outscored 8-5
With Mario: Pens are 4-0, outscoring the Stars 23-8 (Mario with 11 points)


Last edited by Rhiessan71: 05-10-2013 at 04:38 AM.
Rhiessan71 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2013, 07:01 AM
  #84
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,282
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Fedorov had a single season that one could consider on par with with some of Mario's secondary seasons and you can't possibly bring up the health factor and Forsberg in the same sentence.

Building a team from scratch, there's not a single GM in history that would take Fedorov or Forsberg over Mario, single season or not!

A player's defensive play and ability to prevent goals is only good while said player is on the ice. Mario giving his team a 2-3 goal cushion almost every game extends past whether he is on the ice or not.
That's why there is ALWAYS more value in a player that can score at a extreme rate like Mario or Gretzky.
We're not talking about someone like Orr that would play 40-50 mins a game. we're talking about forwards that play around 20 to 25 mins a game at most.

Colorado won 2 Cups when Forsberg wasn't their best player, Detroit won 3 without Fedorov being their best player. Pittsburgh doesn't win a single Cup unless Mario is their best player.
THAT about says it all!

1991 Cup Final
Without Mario: Pens are 0-2, outscored 8-5
With Mario: Pens are 4-0, outscoring the Stars 23-8 (Mario with 11 points)
I was talking specifically to 96 which is what the thread is about, Foppa has yet to have any injury problems at that point and Mario had missed the previous season.

Feds had an excellent seasons leading the Wings in scoring and plus minus despite getting the heavy lifting in the defensive role and Foppa had 116 points that year and was an established stud.

Mario's health record would ahve made him a risky one season pick before 96 or even 97 for that matter but his scoring prowess might overcome that for some GM in the hypothetical situation I presented but I doubt it would be a 1st pick risk taker.

In addition Jagr, Sakic and probably Francis all go ahead of Mario in the hypothetical situation I presented.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2013, 09:14 AM
  #85
MadLuke
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,197
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
A player's defensive play and ability to prevent goals is only good while said player is on the ice. Mario giving his team a 2-3 goal cushion almost every game extends past whether he is on the ice or not.
Even Mario Lemieux won't give you 2-3 net goal for by game to a team.

Look at 94-95 pens goal by game vs 95-96, 95-96 is well above something like 0.6 goal by game and Mario just played 70 games, but a player will not add 160-240 goal to a team goal total.

94-95: 181 goal in 48 games. (3.77 goal by games)
95-96: 362 goal in 82 games. (4.41 goal by games)

0.64 goal by game is really big if it is just for the adding of a player, almost no player can have that big of an impact in just 70 games, maybe they add more power play that year too ? Zubov/Nedved were better offensively that what left, Glenn Murray, Naslund were older, etc....

But the fact that the pens were in the good team by far the worst team in goal against and finished the season with a worst record than the avs and flyers and about the same goal differential, the question remains for me.

No matter how many goal you score, the only only thing that count at the end and should be reflected on a big enough sample size, is how much you score more than you let goal in (by definition of what hockey is).

I know that with an offensive production of Mario (or peak playoff mario, but he will play stronger everywhere and be better than 95-96 mario) we must suppose that we win by a lot, but are we right ?

The pens in 94-95, played with a 104 points in 82 games seasons, you had 160 mario and they have a 102 point season, maybe this should be validated that he had an overall impact much greater than Jagr, Lindros or Sakic.

P.S. If you prevent a goal it follow you all the game, exactly like if you score one, not sure to follow your logic here.

MadLuke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2013, 02:01 PM
  #86
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,009
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadLuke View Post
Even Mario Lemieux won't give you 2-3 net goal for by game to a team.

Look at 94-95 pens goal by game vs 95-96, 95-96 is well above something like 0.6 goal by game and Mario just played 70 games, but a player will not add 160-240 goal to a team goal total.

94-95: 181 goal in 48 games. (3.77 goal by games)
95-96: 362 goal in 82 games. (4.41 goal by games)

0.64 goal by game is really big if it is just for the adding of a player, almost no player can have that big of an impact in just 70 games, maybe they add more power play that year too ? Zubov/Nedved were better offensively that what left, Glenn Murray, Naslund were older, etc....

But the fact that the pens were in the good team by far the worst team in goal against and finished the season with a worst record than the avs and flyers and about the same goal differential, the question remains for me.

No matter how many goal you score, the only only thing that count at the end and should be reflected on a big enough sample size, is how much you score more than you let goal in (by definition of what hockey is).

I know that with an offensive production of Mario (or peak playoff mario, but he will play stronger everywhere and be better than 95-96 mario) we must suppose that we win by a lot, but are we right ?

The pens in 94-95, played with a 104 points in 82 games seasons, you had 160 mario and they have a 102 point season, maybe this should be validated that he had an overall impact much greater than Jagr, Lindros or Sakic.

P.S. If you prevent a goal it follow you all the game, exactly like if you score one, not sure to follow your logic here.
What Mario does and did was add the production of at least a second average top line player to his one spot. Basically, when Mario played, he was counted as two, closer to two and a half players offensively.
The average first line player (not including Pens players) produced around 73 points a season in '96. Mario more than doubled that production by himself.
He was closer to tripling it than he was to doubling it.
In fact, by himself, he out-produced the entire first lines of 8 of the remaining 25 teams in the league that year!!!

Avg 1rst line player = 0.89 PpG
2X Avg 1rst line player = 1.78 Ppg
Mario = 2.29 PpG (2.57 times that of an average 1rst line player)
3X Avg 1rst line player = 2.67 PpG

Forsberg in '96 produced just slightly more than 1.5 times that of an average 1rst line player.
Fedorov in '96 produced just slightly less than 1.5 times of a 1rst line player

Unless you can come up with a reasonable argument that Forsberg and Fedorov were defensively worth more than DOUBLE what an average 1rst line player was worth, then we're done here.
And there is no reasonable argument to be had so...

Bob Gainey himself, at his peak, wasn't worth defensively that of 2 average top line players!
And it's not like Mario was a complete zero defensively in the first place. He was no slouch on the forecheck and was an elite puck possession player. He didn't just lollygag at the redline while the opposition were in his zone.
Mario's only truly glaring defensive deficiency was on the backcheck.
You couldn't even prove that Forsberg and Fedorov were defensively worth twice what Mario was worth defensively, let alone twice that of an average 1rst line player!


Last edited by Rhiessan71: 05-10-2013 at 02:19 PM.
Rhiessan71 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2013, 02:33 PM
  #87
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,417
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
I actually meant only for a one season run, even with his young age Foppa was already a 200 foot force in the league.

As for Feds he showed his ability in 94,95 and in 96 he was still 26 and the top dog on that Detroit team.

building a team from scratch one could very well make an argument for these 2 guys over Mario.

Back to the thread the PP beast that Mario was in 96 had diminished by 97 and Mario's health was always an issue by that point as well so it's not as cute and dried as some hindsight might provide either.
Yeah, sorry but give me a 1996 Mario over a 1996 "motivated" Fedorov or Forsberg. The bottom line is this, Mario outscored both of them in the 1996 playoffs and Forsberg went to the final that year. Forsberg was under a point per game in the 1996 playoffs and was noticeably inferior to Sakic. Yzerman was probably the Wings best player in the 1996 postseason. So really we're talking about two players that you brought up who are either arguably or clearly not their own team's best player at that point let alone Mario. Take the 1996 World Cup for instance. No one other than Mario at that time could leave a hole that big for his own country. I'm putting my money on Mario for the 1996 season.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2013, 03:57 PM
  #88
MadLuke
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,197
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
What Mario does and did was add the production of at least a second average top line player to his one spot.
good way to look at it, about what I said, Mario added around 0.6 goal by games to that pens team I would say, to player can have that kind of impact.

Now did Mario added to the goal againts the pens that year ?

They were a 158 GA in 48 games the year before, or = 3.29 ga/g
95-96 = 3.463 ga/g

even if you give all the new goal againt to Mario (like we did for the goal for) we still way ahead here with just 0.17, let say mario add 0.6 goal for a team and add 0.17 goal againt to a team, we have one of the biggest impact player here with a +0.43 goal diffential.

Does Eric Lindros or Joe sakic do better that year, an argument could be made for Joe in the playoff for sure.

During the season I would suspect that Lindros, Jagr and Sakic could have been pretty close, like adding 0.3, 0.4 goal by game and reducing GA by 0.1 or something like that.

PPG does not tell us about NET goal created by the fact the player is added to the roster instead of his replacement, the pens are a good exemple, they scored only 0.6/0.7 goal by games more in 95-96 than in 94-95, adding 160 points lemieux, Subov and 100 points Nedved. You cannot add points as if they were goal scored.

MadLuke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2013, 06:56 PM
  #89
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,282
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
Yeah, sorry but give me a 1996 Mario over a 1996 "motivated" Fedorov or Forsberg. The bottom line is this, Mario outscored both of them in the 1996 playoffs and Forsberg went to the final that year. Forsberg was under a point per game in the 1996 playoffs and was noticeably inferior to Sakic. Yzerman was probably the Wings best player in the 1996 postseason. So really we're talking about two players that you brought up who are either arguably or clearly not their own team's best player at that point let alone Mario. Take the 1996 World Cup for instance. No one other than Mario at that time could leave a hole that big for his own country. I'm putting my money on Mario for the 1996 season.
I guess we can skip the motivated tag for feds as that came later, but once again you are only looking at small parts of the picture and only scoring production at that.

Feds led the Detroit team with 107 points to 95 over Stevie Y and was 2nd to Stevie Y in the playoffs with 20 points each (Feds had only 2 goals) but Feds was a plus 8 to Steve's -1, despite heavy defensive minutes.

If one only looks at offensive production and not other parts of the game sure Mario is the guy to take but come on Phil, both Foppa and Feds had more than just their offensive value to their games.

Sakic also had a great year but I really can't remember how far along his defensive game was at that point.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2013, 07:07 PM
  #90
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,009
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post

Feds led the Detroit team with 107 points to 95 over Stevie Y and was 2nd to Stevie Y in the playoffs with 20 points each (Feds had only 2 goals) but Feds was a plus 8 to Steve's -1, despite heavy defensive minutes.

Prove it!!!
Prove that Fedorov played higher and harder defensive minutes than Stevie.
Because as far back as NHL .com goes back for ToI(97/98), Stevie plays more shorthanded minutes than Fedorov in every single season and playoffs. Sometimes as much as a minute or more per game.
Stevie was the one taking the important defensive zone draws vs the other teams top players much more often than Fedorov was.

Sorry, I call ******** on this one.

In 97/98 when Fedorov sat out for 3/4's of the season, Detroit's GF went down by all of 3 and their GA actually got better by 1 from the previous season.
Hardly looks like they missed him to me.

By all means, show us where the absence of Mario wasn't blatantly obvious in the Pens play, record and stats.

By the same token, the Av's did a pretty good job of winning a Cup with Forsberg playing less than half their games in '01.


Last edited by Rhiessan71: 05-10-2013 at 07:16 PM.
Rhiessan71 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2013, 07:33 PM
  #91
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,282
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Prove it!!!
Prove that Fedorov played higher and harder defensive minutes than Stevie.
Because as far back as NHL .com goes back for ToI(97/98), Stevie plays more shorthanded minutes than Fedorov in every single season and playoffs. Sometimes as much as a minute or more per game.
Stevie was the one taking the important defensive zone draws vs the other teams top players much more often than Fedorov was.

Sorry, I call ******** on this one.

In 97/98 when Fedorov sat out for 3/4's of the season, Detroit's GF went down by all of 3 and their GA actually got better by 1 from the previous season.
Hardly looks like they missed him to me.

By all means, show us where the absence of Mario wasn't blatantly obvious in the Pens play, record and stats.

By the same token, the Av's did a pretty good job of winning a Cup with Forsberg playing less than half their games in '01.
Maybe Eva Unit has more exact info on the Detroit situation in 96 but I was talking about the defensive assignments against other teams top lines at ES, not just SH time.

Feds also won the Selke in 94, finished 4th in 94 and won it again in 96 (Steve was a distant 3rd). It's not like Steve wasn't a well liked or respected guy either.

Pretty sure he was the defensive center of that team between him and Steve but maybe Selke voters had it wrong 3 years in a row?

Once again I'm taking specifically at one of two points here in the hypothetical situation either before of after the 96 season, not the 91 or 01 seasons.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2013, 07:39 PM
  #92
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,282
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blogofmike View Post
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 Rhiessan71 View Post
By all means, show us where the absence of Mario wasn't blatantly obvious in the Pens play, record and stats.
Well the Pens went 5-5-2 in 12 games (11 of them road games and most were the 2nd game in 2 nights as indicated).

Looks like Jagr and the Pens did okay in those games, although it must be noted, and already has that they only scored 7 PP goals in these 12 games which was quite a bit loser than when Mario was in the lineup.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2013, 07:46 PM
  #93
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,009
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Maybe Eva Unit has more exact info on the Detroit situation in 96 but I was talking about the defensive assignments against other teams top lines at ES, not just SH time.

Feds also won the Selke in 94, finished 4th in 94 and won it again in 96 (Steve was a distant 3rd). It's not like Steve wasn't a well liked or respected guy either.

Pretty sure he was the defensive center of that team between him and Steve but maybe Selke voters had it wrong 3 years in a row?

Once again I'm taking specifically at one of two points here in the hypothetical situation either before of after the 96 season, not the 91 or 01 seasons.
Yeah, a hypothetical situation where you can't show how Fedorov had anywhere close to the value of 2.5 top line players.
Mario out produced Feds by a whopping 0.92 PpG in the regular season and 0.45 in the playoffs.
Fedorov's defensive play doesn't even make the 0.45 difference in the playoffs let alone the 0.92 in the regular season.

Mario was +3 in 18 games, Fedorov was +8 in 19 games. That's a difference of +5 over 18.5 games or 0.27 per game.
Not even close!!!
And that's just at even strength, the totals being 7G 7A +3 to 2G 8A +8
Mario further out scored Fedorov on special teams 3-9-1-0 to 0-9-0-1


Last edited by Rhiessan71: 05-10-2013 at 07:55 PM.
Rhiessan71 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2013, 08:01 PM
  #94
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,009
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Well the Pens went 5-5-2 in 12 games (11 of them road games and most were the 2nd game in 2 nights as indicated).

Looks like Jagr and the Pens did okay in those games, although it must be noted, and already has that they only scored 7 PP goals in these 12 games which was quite a bit loser than when Mario was in the lineup.
Hahaha I absolutely love how your quote says Mario was not a superhuman scorer at even strength.
Compared to whom exactly???
Mario was on pace for 87 ES points that year, either you or BlogofMike name me a single non-superhuman player that came close to that kind of ES production EVER?

Not a superhuman even strength scorer...don't make me laugh


And where exactly is the context on that 5-5-2 record without Lemieux.
Here, I'll provide it for you...
Pens were 44-24-2 WITH Mario
0.643 with Mario
0.500 without Mario


Last edited by Rhiessan71: 05-10-2013 at 08:06 PM.
Rhiessan71 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2013, 08:06 PM
  #95
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,282
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Yeah, a hypothetical situation where you can't show how Fedorov had anywhere close to the value of 2.5 top line players.
Mario out produced Feds by a whopping 0.92 PpG in the regular season and 0.45 in the playoffs.
Fedorov's defensive play doesn't even make the 0.45 difference in the playoffs let alone the 0.92 in the regular season.

Mario was +3 in 18 games, Fedorov was +8 in 19 games. That's a difference of +5 over 18.5 games or 0.27 per game.
Not even close!!!
And that's just at even strength.
Mario further out scored Fedorov on special teams 3-9-1-0 to 0-9-0-1
where exactly does Mario have the value of 2.5 of a top line player?

An average top line player, the worst top line player in the league?

And once again you are looking only at scoring and not the lack of defensive play here for Mario versus the imaginary 2.5 top line players.

I haven't taken an exact close look at where Mario scored all of his points in 96 but exactly how much real value is there in scoring 7 points in victories over TB and St. Louis in 96? Or 5 point games against 4 other teams in that season.

Federov has exactly two 5 point games and 1 for 4 points.

At some point Mario's extra scoring can be described as "value" (if we disregard the goals he is on for against) or piling up points in games where the outcome is not in question.

we will agree to disagree on this point, I've made my assertions quite clear, I would take Feds over Mario in 96 period for that one year period.


Last edited by Hardyvan123: 05-10-2013 at 08:22 PM.
Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2013, 08:14 PM
  #96
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,009
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
where exactly does Mario have the value of 2.5 of a top line player?

An average top line player, the worst top line player in the league?
Go back a couple of posts, you'll see how Mario had the production of more than 2.5 top line players.
The average first line player in '96 produced about 73 points. That's the top 3 forwards from the remaining 25 teams averaged out.
Also as I said earlier, Lemieux out scored the entire first lines of 8 teams.
Fedorov's defensive play does NOT come close to equally the almost a point per game that Mario has on him.
I'm sorry, it really doesn't!
I don't care how much value you want to give Fedorov's defensive play, it's not worth a point per game of offense period!

Pens
92/93 GF-367 Mario plays 60 games
93/94 GF-299 Mario only plays 22 games
'95 GF-181 (309 over 82) Mario doesn't play
95/96 GF-362 Mario plays 60 games

You can visibly see the difference, Mario clearly represents a goal per game played more.

When Fedorov sits out 3/4's of the 97/98 season, Detroit's GF and GA stay almost exactly the same as the previous season and both actually get worse in the following season when he plays every game.

Sorry, Fedorov was not even close to being the difference maker that Lemieux was, better defensive play or not!


Last edited by Rhiessan71: 05-10-2013 at 08:30 PM.
Rhiessan71 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2013, 08:37 PM
  #97
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,282
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Go back a couple of posts, you'll see how Mario had the production of more than 2.5 top line players.
The average first line player in '96 produced about 73 points. That's the top 3 forwards from the remaining 25 teams averaged out.
Also as I said earlier, Lemieux out scored the entire first lines of 8 teams.
Fedorov's defensive play does NOT come close to equally the almost a point per game that Mario has on him.
I'm sorry, it really doesn't!
I don't care how much value you want to give Fedorov's defensive play, it's not worth a point per game of offense period!
How can you actually value Mario's every point as a full point in terms of value?

Why only focus on one part of mario's game, scoring, and ignore his defense, or rather the lack of it?

Feds had a ESGF/ESGA of 87-38 while winning the Selke trophy as the leagues top defensive player. Sure it was with Detroit but he led all Detroit forwards and played those heavy minutes, remember.


But with Mario you just want to disregard his ESGF/ESGA like it doesn't mean anything.

Like I said we will agree to disagree on this one.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2013, 09:02 PM
  #98
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,009
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
How can you actually value Mario's every point as a full point in terms of value?

Why only focus on one part of mario's game, scoring, and ignore his defense, or rather the lack of it?

Feds had a ESGF/ESGA of 87-38 while winning the Selke trophy as the leagues top defensive player. Sure it was with Detroit but he led all Detroit forwards and played those heavy minutes, remember.


But with Mario you just want to disregard his ESGF/ESGA like it doesn't mean anything.

Like I said we will agree to disagree on this one.
First off, Mario didn't have near the lack of defense you are suggesting. He just wasn't a very avid back checker.
Something that didn't even matter that much most of the time because most of the time Mario would keep the opposition pinned in their own end so long that their only thoughts upon clearing the zone involved getting the hell off the ice for a breather.

Second, I will continue to ignore your even strength ratio's (ratio's that were in no small part due to a couple of players named Konstantinov and Lidstrom) as long as you continue to ignore the absolutely MONSTROUS special teams advantage Mario had.

Rhiessan71 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2013, 09:35 PM
  #99
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,282
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Hahaha I absolutely love how your quote says Mario was not a superhuman scorer at even strength.
Compared to whom exactly???
Mario was on pace for 87 ES points that year, either you or BlogofMike name me a single non-superhuman player that came close to that kind of ES production EVER?

Not a superhuman even strength scorer...don't make me laugh


[B]And where exactly is the context on that 5-5-2 record without Lemieux.
Here, I'll provide it for you...
Pens were 44-24-2 WITH Mario
0.643 with Mario
0.500 without Mario[B]
Context?

Man the .500 mark with 11 of the 12 games being on the road is really good actually as well as most of those games being the 2nd game in 2 nights as well.

Sure Mario made that Pens team better but they weren't all that bad in that 12 game sample and given it's context the .500 is better than one might expect right?

Also on pace for 87 ES points is great but it matters less if he was going to be on the ice for 77 ESGA.

Remember that context thing?

Everything matters not just cherry picking certain stats and ignoring the counterpoints and actual other stats that don't quite support you argument.


Last edited by Hardyvan123: 05-10-2013 at 09:41 PM.
Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2013, 09:55 PM
  #100
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,282
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
First off, Mario didn't have near the lack of defense you are suggesting. He just wasn't a very avid back checker.
Something that didn't even matter that much most of the time because most of the time Mario would keep the opposition pinned in their own end so long that their only thoughts upon clearing the zone involved getting the hell off the ice for a breather.
But it did matter as his ESGF/ESGA ratio was 95/85, so instead of Mario's opposition trying to catch their breath they actually scored a lot of goals and minimized Marios ES points for impact quite a bit.

Pittsburgh as a team had a 253/206 ratio at ES so it's fair to say that ES, even with his point totals, his actual ES value is perhaps a little above average. Certainly not equivalent to 2.5 times a top line player even if you add in his enormous PP production.

Quote:
Second, I will continue to ignore your even strength ratio's (ratio's that were in no small part due to a couple of players named Konstantinov and Lidstrom) as long as you continue to ignore the absolutely MONSTROUS special teams advantage Mario had.

Did you miss my post where I stated that Mario had 3 of the best, and will probably never be equaled, PP seasons ever?

Or that he was still an elite player due to his super elite PP production?

Also Feds is in context he is the best forward on his team with a plus 49 rating, Mario is 10th on his team.

Feds is also winning a Selke so it's not like he is playing sheltered minutes out there either.

Hardyvan123 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 07:22 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.