HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
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
05-11-2013, 12:41 AM
  #101
Trottier
Very Random
 
Trottier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 27,526
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by markz* View Post
How come Lemieux never really dominated in ES scoring also?
He did dominate at even strength. "Really" dominated, in fact.

That is not over-nostalgic sentiment. Anyone who ever followed (watched) the player's career will tell you as much. You are not considered unquestionably one of the top 3-5 players of all-time without dominating at even strength. He dominated at even strength arguably better than any forward in the history of game outside of a guy named Wayne.


Last edited by Trottier: 05-11-2013 at 01:21 AM.
Trottier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2013, 11:25 AM
  #102
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,132
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
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.
Forsberg was a mere sophomore. It was his second season and he hadn't developed into the Forsberg we eventually knew in the postseason. He may have been on par with Kamensky that spring, let alone trying to compare him to Lemieux. Fedorov was a fine two-way player, no doubt, but if this is 1996 then he hasn't really turned into the playoff player we remember him to be at this point either (4 straight 20+ playoff point years, 3 Cups). Despite what both of them brought to the table in terms of all around play (which Forsberg was very early in his career with) there is no way anyone would pick one of them individually over Lemieux in 1996 to carry their team to victory. In 1996 we knew very well what Lemieux was capable of doing for a team in the postseason. He needed no introduction, and his regular season gave us no reason to think he wasn't capable of carrying a team anymore.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2013, 11:59 AM
  #103
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,899
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
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.
Ummm...the Pens had an ES ratio of 235/194 NOT 253/206. SH goals are NOT ES goals whether you get a +/- for them or not.
And Detroit's ratio was 211/128 NOT 228/137

Second, for those ES ratio's of Fedorov's and Lemieux's to be correct, it means that Mario would have had to have been on the ice for an equal number of SH against as he was part of producing, same with Fedorov.
I find it extremely unlikely that BOTH player just happened to be on for the exact number of SH goals against as they were on for SH goals for that season.

Next, Fedorov's +/- on THAT team is not as impressive as it seems. That defensive Stalwart Slava Kozlov is a mere +16 behind Fedorov at +33.
And is it just a coincidence that Konsy, Larionov, Fedorov, Kozlov and Fetisov were the 5 highest +'s on the team?
The "Russian Five" ring a bell? A line, sorry, a Unit that played an extreme puck possession game.
No, sorry, Fedorov was a great two-way player but his value is being exaggerated by the team he played on. A perfect Storm if you will. (Oh you have no freakin idea how good that felt to use that term against you)


Quote:
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.
Hmmm...well lets see...Mario produced as many ES points than the average first line player even had total points and produced almost triple the PP points as the average first liner. In just 70 games no less.
Yeeeaaahhhh I would say 2.5 times the value of an average first line player is about right.

And again, Mario's special teams production is a monstrous 88 to Fedorov's 42, more than double and also AGAIN, that's in just 70 games!

Fedorov was a strong ES player but he was NOT worth double the value of Mario at ES.
Mario WAS worth double and more than that of Fedorov on special teams.

'96 Mario>>'96 Fedorov

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2013, 01:47 PM
  #104
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,077
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
Forsberg was a mere sophomore. It was his second season and he hadn't developed into the Forsberg we eventually knew in the postseason. He may have been on par with Kamensky that spring, let alone trying to compare him to Lemieux. Fedorov was a fine two-way player, no doubt, but if this is 1996 then he hasn't really turned into the playoff player we remember him to be at this point either (4 straight 20+ playoff point years, 3 Cups). Despite what both of them brought to the table in terms of all around play (which Forsberg was very early in his career with) there is no way anyone would pick one of them individually over Lemieux in 1996 to carry their team to victory. In 1996 we knew very well what Lemieux was capable of doing for a team in the postseason. He needed no introduction, and his regular season gave us no reason to think he wasn't capable of carrying a team anymore.
In 95 feds led the NHL in playoff scoring with 24 points and was tied with Yzerman in 96 to lead Detroit with 20. In 97 the Red wings would win their 1st of 3 Cups with Feds but it was pretty clear in 96 what Feds could and did bring to the table.

Pretty much the same with Foppa, sure he was only a 2nd year player but he was already a stud pure and simple in 96.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2013, 01:50 PM
  #105
tombombadil
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: West Kelowna, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,030
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
Forsberg was a mere sophomore. It was his second season and he hadn't developed into the Forsberg we eventually knew in the postseason. He may have been on par with Kamensky that spring, let alone trying to compare him to Lemieux. Fedorov was a fine two-way player, no doubt, but if this is 1996 then he hasn't really turned into the playoff player we remember him to be at this point either (4 straight 20+ playoff point years, 3 Cups). Despite what both of them brought to the table in terms of all around play (which Forsberg was very early in his career with) there is no way anyone would pick one of them individually over Lemieux in 1996 to carry their team to victory. In 1996 we knew very well what Lemieux was capable of doing for a team in the postseason. He needed no introduction, and his regular season gave us no reason to think he wasn't capable of carrying a team anymore.
this is a perfect, unbiased post.

tombombadil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2013, 02:11 PM
  #106
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,132
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
In 95 feds led the NHL in playoff scoring with 24 points and was tied with Yzerman in 96 to lead Detroit with 20. In 97 the Red wings would win their 1st of 3 Cups with Feds but it was pretty clear in 96 what Feds could and did bring to the table.

Pretty much the same with Foppa, sure he was only a 2nd year player but he was already a stud pure and simple in 96.
A stud? No argument there. Forsberg was a stud who looked to have a brilliant NHL career ahead of him. You take the stud and I'll take the three time Hart winner. I'll make that trade 8 days a week.

As for Fedorov I could very well have put him as a top 10 player in the NHL at that point. However he is still behind Lemieux, Jagr, Lindros, Sakic at that time amongst forwards at the very least. Certainly the likes of Selanne, Kariya, Francis, Yzerman, etc. are more or less the pile of players he belongs with. Fedorov by 1996 hadn't led his team to a Cup, nor did he ever carry a team the way Mario Lemieux did in 1991 and 1992. That's almost like saying you'd prefer David Krejci as the forward to build a Cup win around rather than Sidney Crosby.

Now, you're right there were times when Mario had some playoff disapointments, for that I will agree with you, but this whole idea about him being an inferior playoff performer compared to players who have never been compared to him as long as I have been on these boards is going over the top.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2013, 02:13 PM
  #107
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,077
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Ummm...the Pens had an ES ratio of 235/194 NOT 253/206. SH goals are NOT ES goals whether you get a +/- for them or not.
And Detroit's ratio was 211/128 NOT 228/137
You're right I forgot the SH stuff but the point pretty much remains the same.

People are referring to Mario as being DOMINANT at ES when it isn't actually true, not in real raw stats (ESGF/ESGA) or even adjusted for the weaker team mates of Mario.

Quote:
Second, for those ES ratio's of Fedorov's and Lemieux's to be correct, it means that Mario would have had to have been on the ice for an equal number of SH against as he was part of producing, same with Fedorov.
I find it extremely unlikely that BOTH player just happened to be on for the exact number of SH goals against as they were on for SH goals for that season.
For both Mario and feds ESGF/ESGA I removed both their PP and SH GF and GA so it's a moot point.

Quote:
Next, Fedorov's +/- on THAT team is not as impressive as it seems. That defensive Stalwart Slava Kozlov is a mere +16 behind Fedorov at +33.
And is it just a coincidence that Konsy, Larionov, Fedorov, Kozlov and Fetisov were the 5 highest +'s on the team?
The "Russian Five" ring a bell? A line, sorry, a Unit that played an extreme puck possession game.
Not as impressive as it seems?

Give me a break, he is playing at a Selke pace against the other teams top players and he is obviously the strongest part of that Russian 5 group you are referring too.

We can go back to Feds rookie season and beyond where Feds was always one of the leaders for forwards in plus minus on his Detroit teams. It further supports that Feds wasn't riding anyone coattails in his plus/minus stats on those Wings teams.

For reference Overpass here has a study on adjusted plus minus statistics were Mario is 22 and Feds is 32 since 1967.
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...d.php?t=591548


Quote:
No, sorry, Fedorov was a great two-way player but his value is being exaggerated by the team he played on. A perfect Storm if you will. (Oh you have no freakin idea how good that felt to use that term against you)
exactly how is Feds value being over eggarated by playing on Detroit?

No doubt you are feeling pretty good about the perfect storm comment but it really doesn't apply here does it?

Where teams splitting up their top lines, thus making Feds defensive responsibilities easier (and made to look better than they really where?)

Was Detroit playing Feds late in games on stacked lines to pump up his offensive stats?

Where exactly is this perfect storm that you are referring to?




Quote:
Hmmm...well lets see...Mario produced as many ES points than the average first line player even had total points and produced almost triple the PP points as the average first liner. In just 70 games no less.
Yeeeaaahhhh I would say 2.5 times the value of an average first line player is about right.

And again, Mario's special teams production is a monstrous 88 to Fedorov's 42, more than double and also AGAIN, that's in just 70 games!

Fedorov was a strong ES player but he was NOT worth double the value of Mario at ES.
Mario WAS worth double and more than that of Fedorov on special teams.

'96 Mario>>'96 Fedorov
Once again you are only looking at actual ES scoring and not everything that happened while Mario was on the ice.

Look guys are more responsible for scoring points than they are for stopping the opposition in scoring but to what degree it's uncertain.

What we do know is that Mario was on the ice for exactly 10 more ESGF than ESGA which isn't dominant period even if he on the ice for 300 goals he would be on the ice for 290 goals against.

Feds doesn't need to score 77 ES strength points to have the same value as Mario, he is after all the focal point of the defense from the center position and playing at a Selke winning rate at that point.

Heck if winning hockey was only about scoring points Mario, Jagr and Francis and company would ahve more than 2 SC right?

But it's not just about scoring goals, it's also about preventing them and other things as well.

In your world Denis Maruk is a way better player than Rick Middleton was in 81 and 82 combined right?

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2013, 02:26 PM
  #108
blogofmike
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 520
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
I guess your definition of superhuman differs from mine.

In that year alone, Jaromir Jagr beats Lemieux's production, and Eric Lindros (75 ESP in 73 games) basically matches it. I would look at other years, but that's more than enough in one year to say that it's not.

Unless your meaning of superhuman is extended to cover a lot more people, than Lemieux wasn't out of reach for Jagr at ES.

I have no issue with Gretzky's 140 ES point seasons being classified as superhuman because he's in first place by a wide margin, leaving plenty of prime HHOFers and/or All Stars far, far, far behind. (i.e. beating Mike Bossy 147 to 101 in Bossy's best year is akin to leaping a tall building in a single bound.)

I have an issue with Lemieux having that label, particularly in 1996, given that he wasn't even in first place, and there was a negligible difference between Lemieux and Lindros. His production was very, very good, but not at a level where other very, very good players couldn't match him.

blogofmike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2013, 03:19 PM
  #109
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,899
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
You're right I forgot the SH stuff but the point pretty much remains the same.

People are referring to Mario as being DOMINANT at ES when it isn't actually true, not in real raw stats (ESGF/ESGA) or even adjusted for the weaker team mates of Mario.



For both Mario and feds ESGF/ESGA I removed both their PP and SH GF and GA so it's a moot point.



Not as impressive as it seems?

Give me a break, he is playing at a Selke pace against the other teams top players and he is obviously the strongest part of that Russian 5 group you are referring too.

We can go back to Feds rookie season and beyond where Feds was always one of the leaders for forwards in plus minus on his Detroit teams. It further supports that Feds wasn't riding anyone coattails in his plus/minus stats on those Wings teams.

For reference Overpass here has a study on adjusted plus minus statistics were Mario is 22 and Feds is 32 since 1967.
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...d.php?t=591548




exactly how is Feds value being over eggarated by playing on Detroit?

No doubt you are feeling pretty good about the perfect storm comment but it really doesn't apply here does it?

Where teams splitting up their top lines, thus making Feds defensive responsibilities easier (and made to look better than they really where?)

Was Detroit playing Feds late in games on stacked lines to pump up his offensive stats?

Where exactly is this perfect storm that you are referring to?






Once again you are only looking at actual ES scoring and not everything that happened while Mario was on the ice.

Look guys are more responsible for scoring points than they are for stopping the opposition in scoring but to what degree it's uncertain.

What we do know is that Mario was on the ice for exactly 10 more ESGF than ESGA which isn't dominant period even if he on the ice for 300 goals he would be on the ice for 290 goals against.

Feds doesn't need to score 77 ES strength points to have the same value as Mario, he is after all the focal point of the defense from the center position and playing at a Selke winning rate at that point.

Heck if winning hockey was only about scoring points Mario, Jagr and Francis and company would ahve more than 2 SC right?

But it's not just about scoring goals, it's also about preventing them and other things as well.

In your world Denis Maruk is a way better player than Rick Middleton was in 81 and 82 combined right?
And if Fedorov's defensive dominance and importance was as great as you imply for those Wing teams, the Wing's would have more than just 3 Cups and the season Fedorov sat out for 3/4's of would have yielded a great variance or at least some variance from the seasons pre and post. THERE WAS NO VARIANCE AT ALL!!!

As far as Middleton vs Maruk, that is not even remotely relevant to this argument. It's a completely asinine one to be honest.
Middleton's production is a hell of a lot closer to Maruk's than Fedorov's is to Mario's.

Middleton's 1.23 PpG over those two seasons while providing a strong defensive presence to Maruk's 1.46 PpG is a long ass stretch from Mario's whopping 2.68 PpG to Fedorov's 1.37 PpG. ALMOST DOUBLE!!!
Like I said, ASININE!

Just show me where Fedorov's defensive play is equal to 1.31 PpG. The very ESGF/ESGA ratio's you yourself provided show, beyond a shadow of doubt, it's not even close to that!


Last edited by Rhiessan71: 05-11-2013 at 03:36 PM.
Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2013, 04:35 PM
  #110
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,077
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
A stud? No argument there. Forsberg was a stud who looked to have a brilliant NHL career ahead of him. You take the stud and I'll take the three time Hart winner. I'll make that trade 8 days a week.

As for Fedorov I could very well have put him as a top 10 player in the NHL at that point. However he is still behind Lemieux, Jagr, Lindros, Sakic at that time amongst forwards at the very least. Certainly the likes of Selanne, Kariya, Francis, Yzerman, etc. are more or less the pile of players he belongs with. Fedorov by 1996 hadn't led his team to a Cup, nor did he ever carry a team the way Mario Lemieux did in 1991 and 1992. That's almost like saying you'd prefer David Krejci as the forward to build a Cup win around rather than Sidney Crosby.

Now, you're right there were times when Mario had some playoff disapointments, for that I will agree with you, but this whole idea about him being an inferior playoff performer compared to players who have never been compared to him as long as I have been on these boards is going over the top.
do you want to go over the huge list of players that the Pens brought in so that Mario could "lead those 2 Pens teams to the cup?"

I'm also talking about which player one would want either A heading into the 96 season or after it.

Even with the 96 season, Mario sat out the 95 one and played in 22, 60, 64, 26, 59 and 76 games in the previous 7 seasons an average of 44 games per season in the previous 7 seasons before 96. he also missed 12 games in 96 so it's hardly likely that any GM is really taking him and that risk for my hypothetical one next season over guys like Jagr, Feds, Forsberg, Lindros, Sakic ect....

as for your last comment on Mario being an inferior playoff performer, I'm not sure what you are talking about there as he was, but he also wasn't Wayne like in the playoffs and his consitencey was also a bit lacking, like in his regual season play.

I was surprised to see that he was an even 0 (in 69 GP) in plus minus outside of his combined plus 20 on those 2 SC winning teams and only 1 of his other 6 post seasons where on what one would call not a strong team (89).

Let's not confuse total scoring or racking up of points as dominance, Mario wasn't Wayne in the playoffs either.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2013, 04:58 PM
  #111
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,077
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
And if Fedorov's defensive dominance and importance was as great as you imply for those Wing teams, the Wing's would have more than just 3 Cups and the season Fedorov sat out for 3/4's of would have yielded a great variance or at least some variance from the seasons pre and post. THERE WAS NO VARIANCE AT ALL!!!
Detroit went from
96 131
97 94
98 104 points (Feds plays in 21 Games )
99 93 points
00 108 points

There is alot going on here, Lidstrom is maturing and becoming even better than he once was and you of all people would say the gap was larger, than what I would say. Nothing really proved by your statement here.

The Red Wings were a great team but also were in the same conference as that great Avs team and the Stars of the late 90's as well.

Quote:
As far as Middleton vs Maruk, that is not even remotely relevant to this argument. It's a completely asinine one to be honest.
Middleton's production is a hell of a lot closer to Maruk's than Fedorov's is to Mario's.

Middleton's 1.23 PpG over those two seasons while providing a strong defensive presence to Maruk's 1.46 PpG is a long ass stretch from Mario's whopping 2.68 PpG to Fedorov's 1.37 PpG. ALMOST DOUBLE!!!
Like I said, ASININE!
Really Maruk had very little support (and like Mario would ahve been the focus of the other teams top checkers) and Rick played on a really good team but you didn't see the irony of Maruk's "offensive dominance." Middleton was a good 2 way player but he wasn't winning any Selke's either.

Maybe Bob Gainey might have been the better example but he is an over rated guy IMO.

Quote:
Just show me where Fedorov's defensive play is equal to 1.31 PpG. The very ESGF/ESGA ratio's you yourself provided show, beyond a shadow of doubt, it's not even close to that!
Well the ratio actually does make up for the imaginary 1.31 PPG average Mario has over feds in 96. That's because for every 1.31 PPG Mario is scoring he is also on the ice for probably more than 1.31 PPG.

The thing is that we can't measure exactly how much to attribute to Mario and Feds in their ESGA.

we also know that Mario scoring 7 points in 2 blowout games doesn't help the pens in any other games, so the 1.31 PPG number really doesn't mean anything does it.

We do know that Mario was a beast on the PP and that Feds was the better overall player at ES, the judgment call on who was the better player overall is subjective and I have explained and laid out why I think Feds, and by extension Jagr as well, was better in 96.

Please for the love of god , don't trot out Mario's ES scoring as some sort of victory or being better than Feds because it's simply only looking at half of the ES equation and in reality is meaningless if used without proper context..

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2013, 09:01 PM
  #112
blogofmike
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 520
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Detroit went from
96 131
97 94
98 104 points (Feds plays in 21 Games )
99 93 points
00 108 points

There is alot going on here, Lidstrom is maturing and becoming even better than he once was and you of all people would say the gap was larger, than what I would say. Nothing really proved by your statement here.
Context counts for both.

It's no accident that Fedorov had a high plus/minus on a team with a great plus/minus. Fedorov can't really show that he has that great an impact when the team can so easily replace him without missing a beat.


Quote:
The Red Wings were a great team but also were in the same conference as that great Avs team and the Stars of the late 90's as well.
In 1996 they went 8-1-1 against those teams, and had 72 other games against other teams.


Quote:
Well the ratio actually does make up for the imaginary 1.31 PPG average Mario has over feds in 96. That's because for every 1.31 PPG Mario is scoring he is also on the ice for probably more than 1.31 PPG.

The thing is that we can't measure exactly how much to attribute to Mario and Feds in their ESGA.
That bold part is huge. Unless Mario decides to try scoring on his own team, he shouldn't get 100% of the "credit" for an ESGA.

Quote:
we also know that Mario scoring 7 points in 2 blowout games doesn't help the pens in any other games, so the 1.31 PPG number really doesn't mean anything does it.
I don't know where this was going...Mario had 43 2-point games to Fedorov's 30, even in fewer games played. So in fewer games played, he had more games with notable offensive contribution to his team.

In 1996 Mario's 0.91 PPG ahead of Fedorov. Take away Mario's 7 point games and Fedorov 5 point games, that drops to 0.85 PPG, which is still very significant for Fedorov to overcome since he had no significant measurable impact on Team GA, judging from Detroit's 1997-98 performance.

Penguins Goals Against in a 6.00 GPG Environment
GA/82 AdjGA/82
1995 Pens 269.92 271.27
1996 Pens 284 270.91

He may have been on ice for a lot of goals, but looking at those numbers, Mario wasn't responsible for Pittsburgh's lacklustre defensive performance. He wasn't helping them at all defensively, but he'd need to be significantly hurting them for Fedorov to make up the offensive gap.

So his defensive impact over the Pens 1995 replacement was about the same as Fedorov's value over his 1998 replacement.

Quote:
Please for the love of god , don't trot out Mario's ES scoring as some sort of victory or being better than Feds because it's simply only looking at half of the ES equation and in reality is meaningless if used without proper context..
In the thread that somehow became Gretzky vs. Datsyuk, I think I showed you how implausible it would be for the stellar 2008 Red Wings defense to become average if Gretzky played for them, or for the 1991 Kings to become the best defensive team by a wide margin, were Datsyuk to replace Gretzky.

The proper context is that ESGA is not an exact measure of defensive play at even strength. Replace Osgood with Tom Barrasso, and all of a sudden Fedorov's GA goes up, even if everything else is exactly the same. That doesn't mean Fedorov gets worse defensively, does it?

blogofmike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2013, 11:07 PM
  #113
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,132
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
do you want to go over the huge list of players that the Pens brought in so that Mario could "lead those 2 Pens teams to the cup?"
First of all, any Cup winning team has more than one great player, that includes the two guys you are comparing him to, Fedorov and Forsberg. Secondly, the Pens don't win either Cup without Mario. End of story.

Quote:
Even with the 96 season, Mario sat out the 95 one and played in 22, 60, 64, 26, 59 and 76 games in the previous 7 seasons an average of 44 games per season in the previous 7 seasons before 96. he also missed 12 games in 96 so it's hardly likely that any GM is really taking him and that risk for my hypothetical one next season over guys like Jagr, Feds, Forsberg, Lindros, Sakic ect....
That would really be the only way Mario wouldn't be picked over someone else in the NHL at that time, but this isn't what we are talking about. I am not talking about the risks here, I am talking about who is the best individual player in the NHL at this time. Mario was that guy.

Quote:
as for your last comment on Mario being an inferior playoff performer, I'm not sure what you are talking about there as he was, but he also wasn't Wayne like in the playoffs and his consitencey was also a bit lacking, like in his regual season play.

I was surprised to see that he was an even 0 (in 69 GP) in plus minus outside of his combined plus 20 on those 2 SC winning teams and only 1 of his other 6 post seasons where on what one would call not a strong team (89).

Let's not confuse total scoring or racking up of points as dominance, Mario wasn't Wayne in the playoffs either
First of all, nobody was Gretzky in the postseason. The closest would be Richard. Lemieux, just like pretty much every other all-time great has less Cups than we would like to see. Howe played in 5 finals after his last Cup. Never won a Cup after 27, never won a Cup without Lindsay. Orr should have won more than just two somewhere along the line. Mario had some magnificent moments in the postseason but in all honesty somewhere along the line should have won more. If you are comparing him to Gretzky in the postseason it is no contest, Gretzky wins by a significant margin here, but you're comparing him to Fedorov and Forsberg. Neither player was ever the player a 1996 Mario was even at their best.

You say not to look solely at offense but explain to me where in the world these two can make up this gap:

PPG - Lemieux 2.30
Forsberg 1.41
Fedorov 1.37

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-12-2013, 12:56 AM
  #114
tombombadil
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: West Kelowna, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,030
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blogofmike View Post
I guess your definition of superhuman differs from mine.

In that year alone, Jaromir Jagr beats Lemieux's production, and Eric Lindros (75 ESP in 73 games) basically matches it. I would look at other years, but that's more than enough in one year to say that it's not.

Unless your meaning of superhuman is extended to cover a lot more people, than Lemieux wasn't out of reach for Jagr at ES.

I have no issue with Gretzky's 140 ES point seasons being classified as superhuman because he's in first place by a wide margin, leaving plenty of prime HHOFers and/or All Stars far, far, far behind. (i.e. beating Mike Bossy 147 to 101 in Bossy's best year is akin to leaping a tall building in a single bound.)

I have an issue with Lemieux having that label, particularly in 1996, given that he wasn't even in first place, and there was a negligible difference between Lemieux and Lindros. His production was very, very good, but not at a level where other very, very good players couldn't match him.
Forsberg had 74 in 72 (i think, it was yesterday i looked) in '02, where scoring was lower. I say that that is better even strength production. I agree with you - Gretzky stands alone, Lemieux is in the mix with the other top guys.

tombombadil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-12-2013, 12:10 PM
  #115
MadLuke
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,197
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
You say not to look solely at offense but explain to me where in the world these two can make up this gap:

PPG - Lemieux 2.30
Forsberg 1.41
Fedorov 1.37
Probably he was talking them being as good/better at even strength and not in general ?

MadLuke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-12-2013, 06:48 PM
  #116
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,899
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Detroit went from
96 131
97 94
98 104 points (Feds plays in 21 Games )
99 93 points
00 108 points

There is alot going on here, Lidstrom is maturing and becoming even better than he once was and you of all people would say the gap was larger, than what I would say. Nothing really proved by your statement here.

The Red Wings were a great team but also were in the same conference as that great Avs team and the Stars of the late 90's as well.



Really Maruk had very little support (and like Mario would ahve been the focus of the other teams top checkers) and Rick played on a really good team but you didn't see the irony of Maruk's "offensive dominance." Middleton was a good 2 way player but he wasn't winning any Selke's either.

Maybe Bob Gainey might have been the better example but he is an over rated guy IMO.



Well the ratio actually does make up for the imaginary 1.31 PPG average Mario has over feds in 96. That's because for every 1.31 PPG Mario is scoring he is also on the ice for probably more than 1.31 PPG.

The thing is that we can't measure exactly how much to attribute to Mario and Feds in their ESGA.

we also know that Mario scoring 7 points in 2 blowout games doesn't help the pens in any other games, so the 1.31 PPG number really doesn't mean anything does it.

We do know that Mario was a beast on the PP and that Feds was the better overall player at ES, the judgment call on who was the better player overall is subjective and I have explained and laid out why I think Feds, and by extension Jagr as well, was better in 96.

Please for the love of god , don't trot out Mario's ES scoring as some sort of victory or being better than Feds because it's simply only looking at half of the ES equation and in reality is meaningless if used without proper context..
Dude, this is not rocket science...seriously!

ES ratio's were:
Fedorov 82-33 in 78 games
Mario 86-76 in 70 games

Fedorov ESGF/G:1.05 ESGA/G:0.42
Mario ESGF/G:1.23 ESGA/G:1.09

Difference: ESGF/G: +0.18 Mario, ESGA/G: +0.67 Fedorov
TOTAL DIFFERENCE: 0.49/G for Fedorov

Overall
Mario: 2.3 PpG
Fedorov: 1.37PpG (Adding his +0.49/G still only yields a final result of 1.86/G)

THAT'S STILL LEAVES MARIO WITH A MONSTROUS OVERALL GAP OF +0.44/G OVER FEDOROV!!!
What part of this do you not understand exactly???

Fedorov's defensive play does NOT make up Mario's overall impact.
I can't make it any simpler or clearer here.

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-12-2013, 07:06 PM
  #117
SaintPatrick33
Conn Smythe Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,043
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Dude, this is not rocket science...seriously!

ES ratio's were:
Fedorov 82-33 in 78 games
Mario 86-76 in 70 games

Fedorov ESGF/G:1.05 ESGA/G:0.42
Mario ESGF/G:1.23 ESGA/G:1.09

Difference: ESGF/G: +0.18 Mario, ESGA/G: +0.67 Fedorov
TOTAL DIFFERENCE: 0.49/G for Fedorov

Overall
Mario: 2.3 PpG
Fedorov: 1.37PpG (Adding his +0.49/G still only yields a final result of 1.86/G)

THAT'S STILL LEAVES MARIO WITH A MONSTROUS OVERALL GAP OF +0.44/G OVER FEDOROV!!!
What part of this do you not understand exactly???

Fedorov's defensive play does NOT make up Mario's overall impact.
I can't make it any simpler or clearer here.
Boggles the mind doesn't it?

SaintPatrick33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-12-2013, 07:31 PM
  #118
Dark Shadows
Registered User
 
Dark Shadows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Canada
Country: Japan
Posts: 7,902
vCash: 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Once again you are only looking at actual ES scoring and not everything that happened while Mario was on the ice.

Look guys are more responsible for scoring points than they are for stopping the opposition in scoring but to what degree it's uncertain.

What we do know is that Mario was on the ice for exactly 10 more ESGF than ESGA which isn't dominant period even if he on the ice for 300 goals he would be on the ice for 290 goals against.

Feds doesn't need to score 77 ES strength points to have the same value as Mario, he is after all the focal point of the defense from the center position and playing at a Selke winning rate at that point.

Heck if winning hockey was only about scoring points Mario, Jagr and Francis and company would ahve more than 2 SC right?

But it's not just about scoring goals, it's also about preventing them and other things as well.

In your world Denis Maruk is a way better player than Rick Middleton was in 81 and 82 combined right?
Certainly Feds deserves a lot of credit for his stellar defensive play. I would never take that away from him. However a goodly amount of credit also has to go to his teammates when looking at ES numbers. Detroit was a team playing a great two way system with a lot of great players. The Left wing lock today, is considered a more offensive system compared to some, but in the early/mid 90's was considered very very defense first compared to most.

In any case, there was a reason 3 defensemen on that team were neck in neck for 4th on the Norris voting, and why Yzerman came 3rd for the Selke, as well as Osgood coming in 2nd for the vezina. It was defensive number heaven playing with that team.

You can harp on Lemieux's even strength numbers since he was only a bit over in that regard, but the fact of the matter is, the guys on the ice with you matter when it comes to your defensive numbers. Lemieux was on the ice with the lesser forwards and offensive defensemen, which opened up a heck of a lot of room for Francis/Jagr, but also meant Mario had to do more himself(Which he did) while facing double teams and the best defensive coverage the other team could ice against him.

Nothing he was not used to. It was amazing given that his back was killing him the last 2 years he played.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trottier View Post
I consider Orr the greatest player I'll ever see, but that comment is somewhat short-sighted, IMO.

Mario, like Gretzky, was not simply another "1 way player".

When either of those two were on the ice, the entire shift for both teams to a large extent revolved around their presence, period. Regardless of whether or not they did anything on the shift. In that regard, they controlled the game. and their dominance over their opponents transcended any comparison. That is, "two-way" and other attributes typically (and correctly) associated with "normal" hockey players didn't matter.

And frankly, among all of the players I've seen since the 70s, they are the only two for whom such consideration didn't apply, for they were so above the rest.

Dark Shadows is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-12-2013, 07:39 PM
  #119
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,077
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
First of all, any Cup winning team has more than one great player, that includes the two guys you are comparing him to, Fedorov and Forsberg. Secondly, the Pens don't win either Cup without Mario. End of story.



That would really be the only way Mario wouldn't be picked over someone else in the NHL at that time, but this isn't what we are talking about. I am not talking about the risks here, I am talking about who is the best individual player in the NHL at this time. Mario was that guy.



First of all, nobody was Gretzky in the postseason. The closest would be Richard. Lemieux, just like pretty much every other all-time great has less Cups than we would like to see. Howe played in 5 finals after his last Cup. Never won a Cup after 27, never won a Cup without Lindsay. Orr should have won more than just two somewhere along the line. Mario had some magnificent moments in the postseason but in all honesty somewhere along the line should have won more. If you are comparing him to Gretzky in the postseason it is no contest, Gretzky wins by a significant margin here, but you're comparing him to Fedorov and Forsberg. Neither player was ever the player a 1996 Mario was even at their best.

You say not to look solely at offense but explain to me where in the world these two can make up this gap:

PPG - Lemieux 2.30
Forsberg 1.41
Fedorov 1.37
Phil exactly how is scoring 7 points in 2 separate blowouts and 5 points in 4 other games and 4 points in 10 other games help Mario and the Pens win any games outside of those games played?

That's 74 points in 16 GP

At some point some, if not most, of those points are piling on points and none of those points have any direct impact on any other games.

Thus the difference that Forsberg and Feds, two way players, that they have to make up is not as great as some are making it out to be here.

Feds clearly does for me and Foppa might, although I haven't looked at his case as clearly.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-12-2013, 08:03 PM
  #120
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,899
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Phil exactly how is scoring 7 points in 2 separate blowouts and 5 points in 4 other games and 4 points in 10 other games help Mario and the Pens win any games outside of those games played?

That's 74 points in 16 GP

At some point some, if not most, of those points are piling on points and none of those points have any direct impact on any other games.

Thus the difference that Forsberg and Feds, two way players, that they have to make up is not as great as some are making it out to be here.

Feds clearly does for me and Foppa might, although I haven't looked at his case as clearly.
How is that different from any Elite player?
Your golden boy Crosby in his oft used 10/11 season, scored 32% (21 points) of his 66 points in just 7 games (17%) against 3 teams and garnered +11 of his final +20 in those 7 games.
How much did Crosby's 21 points factor in those 7 games where his team outscored them 29-15 in that span?
Are you actually trying to say that Fedorov didn't garner any "extra" points in some blowouts himself?

Reachin for straws my friend.

Eliminating those 21 points and 7 games for Crosby drops him to normal top player pace of 109 points in 82 games.

Take away those 74 points in 16 games for Mario and he's still looking at 132 point pace in 82 games.

Reachin for straws!


Last edited by Rhiessan71: 05-12-2013 at 08:15 PM.
Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-12-2013, 10:24 PM
  #121
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,077
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
How is that different from any Elite player?
Your golden boy Crosby in his oft used 10/11 season, scored 32% (21 points) of his 66 points in just 7 games (17%) against 3 teams and garnered +11 of his final +20 in those 7 games.
How much did Crosby's 21 points factor in those 7 games where his team outscored them 29-15 in that span?
Are you actually trying to say that Fedorov didn't garner any "extra" points in some blowouts himself?

Reachin for straws my friend.

Eliminating those 21 points and 7 games for Crosby drops him to normal top player pace of 109 points in 82 games.

Take away those 74 points in 16 games for Mario and he's still looking at 132 point pace in 82 games.

Reachin for straws!
Feds wasn't putting up 7 point games either, his top games were 5 points once and 4 points in 2 games.

Never mind the Sid diversion tell us exactly how scoring 76 points in 16 games helps Mario and the Pens in any of the other 54 games he played in, they don't so his points "advantage" over Feds and Forsberg in 96 isn't as great as the actual raw points either.

Mario's ability to light it up in games out of ahnd deosnt make him a dominant guy in all of those other games.

granted he is consistent and does score points in 63 of his 70 GP, compared to Feds at 64 of 77 so Mario's offensive consistency is better but the actual level of dominance is being overblown and by rather a lazy metric as well.

It's funny how Detroit's players get really criticized by playing on great teams and when it's brought up for guys that played for the Habs it's kinda shrugged off.

Feds wasn't a passenger on those Red Wings teams he was a catalyst and one of the 3 most import pieces on that team for well over a decade.

If guys want to take Mario as the ebst player in the NHL for that season fine but let's not exaggerate his ES play and forget that most of his value comes from being far and away the best PP player in the league that year.

Let's not also pretend that scoring 7 points in 2 separate blowout games, and some of those other points in the total of 16 games don't spill over to affect anything outside of those games either.

As for Sid's 10/11 season we can break that down in the top centers project and it won't hurt him as much as Mario in 96 for 2 main reasons. 1, in a lower scoring league points and goals matter more.( Sid has 2- 4 point games and only 7 3 point games and points in 35 of 41 GP overall).

The second reason is team mate support and how he stacks up as a two way player but like I said that's for the top centers project.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-12-2013, 10:50 PM
  #122
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,899
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Feds wasn't putting up 7 point games either, his top games were 5 points once and 4 points in 2 games.

Never mind the Sid diversion tell us exactly how scoring 76 points in 16 games helps Mario and the Pens in any of the other 54 games he played in, they don't so his points "advantage" over Feds and Forsberg in 96 isn't as great as the actual raw points either.

Mario's ability to light it up in games out of ahnd deosnt make him a dominant guy in all of those other games.

granted he is consistent and does score points in 63 of his 70 GP, compared to Feds at 64 of 77 so Mario's offensive consistency is better but the actual level of dominance is being overblown and by rather a lazy metric as well.

It's funny how Detroit's players get really criticized by playing on great teams and when it's brought up for guys that played for the Habs it's kinda shrugged off.

Feds wasn't a passenger on those Red Wings teams he was a catalyst and one of the 3 most import pieces on that team for well over a decade.

If guys want to take Mario as the ebst player in the NHL for that season fine but let's not exaggerate his ES play and forget that most of his value comes from being far and away the best PP player in the league that year.

Let's not also pretend that scoring 7 points in 2 separate blowout games, and some of those other points in the total of 16 games don't spill over to affect anything outside of those games either.

As for Sid's 10/11 season we can break that down in the top centers project and it won't hurt him as much as Mario in 96 for 2 main reasons. 1, in a lower scoring league points and goals matter more.( Sid has 2- 4 point games and only 7 3 point games and points in 35 of 41 GP overall).

The second reason is team mate support and how he stacks up as a two way player but like I said that's for the top centers project.

Yeah...I'm about done here.
Your goal posts are already too many zip codes away from where they started. If I continue to press, they'll soon be in a different country.

One thing I will mention before I go though...goal scoring in 95/96 was about the same as it was in Crosby's rookie season in 05/06 so lets keep it real eh

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-12-2013, 11:16 PM
  #123
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,077
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Yeah...I'm about done here.
Your goal posts are already too many zip codes away from where they started. If I continue to press, they'll soon be in a different country.

One thing I will mention before I go though...goal scoring in 95/96 was about the same as it was in Crosby's rookie season in 05/06 so lets keep it real eh
So the reality here is that you have no response to Mario's huge advantage and that alot of that advantage is piling up points in those 16 games and that the huge points advantage has no bearing outside of those 16 games?

Sorry but I gave some context to your assertion, either I've got a point or not, your lack of response indicates that there is little or no counterpoint.

Like I said I can see where guys take Mario over feds but it's a lot like taking Bobby Clarke over Espostio in the early 7o0's and I like my hockey players as complete as possible and your more likely to win games with complete players rather than more 1 dimensional ones, even if Mario's huge dimension in 96 was that PP prowess.

You brought up Sid in 11, why the 06 reference now? that's neither here or there as he's not part part of the thread but come on really?

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-12-2013, 11:19 PM
  #124
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,132
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Phil exactly how is scoring 7 points in 2 separate blowouts and 5 points in 4 other games and 4 points in 10 other games help Mario and the Pens win any games outside of those games played?

That's 74 points in 16 GP

At some point some, if not most, of those points are piling on points and none of those points have any direct impact on any other games.

Thus the difference that Forsberg and Feds, two way players, that they have to make up is not as great as some are making it out to be here.

Feds clearly does for me and Foppa might, although I haven't looked at his case as clearly.
I'm sorry, I am really lost here, where exactly did you get those numbers in the first paragraph? 74 points in 16 games? Where is that coming from? Mario scored at least a point in the first 28 games he played in the 1995-'96 season (it wasn't a points streak because he missed a couple of games here and there). Actually, Mario had a mere 7 games where he didn't register a point in the 1995-'96 season. If that isn't dominance I'd hate to see "real" dominance.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-12-2013, 11:27 PM
  #125
SaintPatrick33
Conn Smythe Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,043
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
So the reality here is that you have no response to Mario's huge advantage and that alot of that advantage is piling up points in those 16 games and that the huge points advantage has no bearing outside of those 16 games?

Sorry but I gave some context to your assertion, either I've got a point or not, your lack of response indicates that there is little or no counterpoint.

Like I said I can see where guys take Mario over feds but it's a lot like taking Bobby Clarke over Espostio in the early 7o0's and I like my hockey players as complete as possible and your more likely to win games with complete players rather than more 1 dimensional ones, even if Mario's huge dimension in 96 was that PP prowess.

You brought up Sid in 11, why the 06 reference now? that's neither here or there as he's not part part of the thread but come on really?
I'm sorry, but no matter how hard you try and manipulate the numbers; no matter how many basically meaningless metrics you conjure up (like +/-), no matter how much spin you try to put to the matter, you'll NEVER be able to make your DPE heroes into players on the level of the Gretzkys, Orrs, Lemieuxs, or Howes. It just isn't going to happen and no propaganda is going to change that.

SaintPatrick33 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 09:43 AM.

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.