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
05-14-2013, 08:25 AM
  #151
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,012
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Okay i can see the argument for Mario over Feds in 96 across the board, but better than Feds in 94?

Not buying that for a second.

With Foppa, the case is harder due to injuries but 03 stands up to Mario's 96 pretty darn well IMO, as did his 96.
I still say you would be a dream opposing GM to trade with..............

Alright, just to point out, neither Fedorov 1994 or Forsberg 2003 got out of the first round. Just saying.

PPG
Fedorov 1994 - 1.46
Lemieux 1996 - 2.3
Forsberg 2003 - 1.41

That's a tremendous gap to overcome and I'd be curious as to how you think it would be filled. Take into account Fedorov's defensive play and he still has 0.84 GPG to make up. In 1994 he was the MVP, no doubt. But he had less than 10 points more than Oates and Gilmour, two fine players in their own right who were strong defensively as well. Not to mention Gretzky outscored him by 10 points even though I'll admit Fedorov had the better year.

With Lemieux in 1996 the only player that wasn't miles behind him was Jagr. That's some serious seperation there.

Forsberg needed the last weekend of the year to outpoint Naslund in 2003 and didn't even win the Pearson award that year. Would a 1996 Lemieux do that poorly in comparison? Heck, a 2003 Lemieux was skating circles around the NHL - including Forsberg - before he got hurt and slowed down and missed some games. Wouldn't a 1996 Lemieux do pretty much the same thing for the ENTIRE season in 2003 that he did in 1996?

Hardy, I think you underestimate the fact that Lemieux is one of those players that goes beyond the normal superstar. He is among an exclusive club that is very, very special. It is almost like trying to compare Lidstrom's best season with, say, Orr's 3rd or 4th best year. It just can't happen. 1996 was probably Lemieux's 4th best season. That's just how special these guys are, their 4th best season can't even be touched by the best season from a legit HHOFer like Forsberg or Fedorov. They aren't your normal players.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MadLuke View Post
And we need to take account of the fact that stars players like Mario could influence the number of powerplay opportunity.

IMO, drawing a penalty could have a value of around 0.2 points when evaluating a player
You have to look and ask yourself if that's a bad thing. I don't know the stats, but watching a Pens game today you see Crosby draw a ton of penalties and he has to draw more penalties than anyone else in the league. It has nothing to do with diving but more with the fact that sometimes that is the only way to stop him. Same with Lemieux, a superstar is going to get a lot more attention, hence he will draw more penalties and lead to more power play goals. Had the opposing player not hooked or tripped Mario on several occasions how many times would that have ended up an even strength goal? Food for thought.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2013, 09:05 AM
  #152
MadLuke
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,197
vCash: 500
How drawing a penalty can be view in anyway as a bad thing for winning hockey game ?

It is obviously a good thing and im serious with 0.2 points by net 2 minutes of power play.

BigPhil you pass directly from ppg and gpg, Lemieux in 1996 do not add 2.3 gpg to the pens not even in the 70 games he played, far from it.

Much more between 0.75 the seasons and near 1 gpg by game during the 70 game that Lemieux added to that pens team.

If lemieux added 160 goal to that team, and Jagr 148, the rest of the team did just 54 goal

I do not thing that you can take the shorcut of sayin ppg = gpg for the team, it would be kind of ridiculous and thinking like that you will finish with more than 700 goal on that pens team

MadLuke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2013, 12:39 PM
  #153
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,880
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadLuke View Post
How drawing a penalty can be view in anyway as a bad thing for winning hockey game ?

It is obviously a good thing and im serious with 0.2 points by net 2 minutes of power play.

BigPhil you pass directly from ppg and gpg, Lemieux in 1996 do not add 2.3 gpg to the pens not even in the 70 games he played, far from it.

Much more between 0.75 the seasons and near 1 gpg by game during the 70 game that Lemieux added to that pens team.

If lemieux added 160 goal to that team, and Jagr 148, the rest of the team did just 54 goal

I do not thing that you can take the shorcut of sayin ppg = gpg for the team, it would be kind of ridiculous and thinking like that you will finish with more than 700 goal on that pens team
Your post is a little hard to understand but if I'm reading it correctly you seem to be under the impression that a player adding almost a full goal per game to a teams total for every game he played is not very impressive.
That's ridiculous!

The average first liner produced about 0.89 PpG (73 points in 82 games) in 95/96. Mario's "replacement value" ALONE was worth about 10% more than that of an average first liner.

Oh and BTW, it was actually more than just a goal per game...
70 games with Mario 334G (4.77GpG)
12 games without Mario 28G (2.33GpG)


Last edited by Rhiessan71: 05-14-2013 at 12:59 PM.
Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2013, 01:20 PM
  #154
MadLuke
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,197
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Your post is a little hard to understand but if I'm reading it correctly you seem to be under the impression that a player adding almost a full goal per game to a teams total for every game he played is not very impressive.
That's ridiculous!

The average first liner produced about 0.89 PpG (73 points in 82 games) in 95/96. Mario's "replacement value" ALONE was worth about 10% more than that of an average first liner.

Oh and BTW, it was actually more than just a goal per game...
70 games with Mario 334G (4.77GpG)
12 games without Mario 28G (2.33GpG)
You mistaken what i meant, almost no player in the history did add 80 goal to a team (that will score between 200-300 goal a year).

I was on the impression that big phil meant that mario added 2.6 goal a game.

Do you really thing that those pens with Jagr, Nedved, Subov, Francis, were a 2.33 gpg teams in 95-96 ? 191 goal a season would be last in the nhl offensively that year.

the pens without mario would probably have been a near 300 goal whitout him and a 362 goal with him.

Your game sample size is not good (only 12 games and road game when they are a second game in 2 nights).

never make a 1:1 transition with ppg and team gbg, if not remove jagr, mario and francis and the pens finish with a negative GF that year

Sorry, for the quality of my messages, english is a second language to me.


Last edited by MadLuke: 05-14-2013 at 01:35 PM.
MadLuke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2013, 07:53 PM
  #155
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,008
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Your post is a little hard to understand but if I'm reading it correctly you seem to be under the impression that a player adding almost a full goal per game to a teams total for every game he played is not very impressive.
That's ridiculous!

The average first liner produced about 0.89 PpG (73 points in 82 games) in 95/96. Mario's "replacement value" ALONE was worth about 10% more than that of an average first liner.

Oh and BTW, it was actually more than just a goal per game...
70 games with Mario 334G (4.77GpG)
12 games without Mario 28G (2.33GpG)[/B]
Made Luke points out, yet once again, that those 12 games were 11 road games and many the 2nd in two nights.

I wouldn't draw too much form that 12 game sample in reference to Mario it would be as use full as saying in the previous year 95 without Mario the Pens actually scored at a better GPG rate.

Does anyone really think that the 95 Pens were better off not having Mario in the lineup at all?

Quote:
Originally Posted by MadLuke View Post
You mistaken what i meant, almost no player in the history did add 80 goal to a team (that will score between 200-300 goal a year).

I was on the impression that big phil meant that mario added 2.6 goal a game.

Do you really thing that those pens with Jagr, Nedved, Subov, Francis, were a 2.33 gpg teams in 95-96 ? 191 goal a season would be last in the nhl offensively that year.

the pens without mario would probably have been a near 300 goal whitout him and a 362 goal with him.

Your game sample size is not good (only 12 games and road game when they are a second game in 2 nights).

never make a 1:1 transition with ppg and team gbg, if not remove jagr, mario and francis and the pens finish with a negative GF that year

Sorry, for the quality of my messages, english is a second language to me.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2013, 07:59 PM
  #156
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,801
vCash: 500
The 1994-95 Penguins lost Larry Murphy, Ulf Samuelsson, and Kjell Samuelsson from their starting blue line, replacing them with Sergei Zubov, who at that point was still awesome offensively and terrible defensively. I would guess that had more to do with their higher goals-against in 1995-96 than adding Mario Lemieux to the lineup. 1995-96 Penguins didn't have a single defenseman play more than 70 games for them.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2013, 08:00 PM
  #157
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
I still say you would be a dream opposing GM to trade with..............

Alright, just to point out, neither Fedorov 1994 or Forsberg 2003 got out of the first round. Just saying.

PPG
Fedorov 1994 - 1.46
Lemieux 1996 - 2.3
Forsberg 2003 - 1.41

That's a tremendous gap to overcome and I'd be curious as to how you think it would be filled. Take into account Fedorov's defensive play and he still has 0.84 GPG to make up. In 1994 he was the MVP, no doubt. But he had less than 10 points more than Oates and Gilmour, two fine players in their own right who were strong defensively as well. Not to mention Gretzky outscored him by 10 points even though I'll admit Fedorov had the better year.

With Lemieux in 1996 the only player that wasn't miles behind him was Jagr. That's some serious seperation there.

Forsberg needed the last weekend of the year to outpoint Naslund in 2003 and didn't even win the Pearson award that year. Would a 1996 Lemieux do that poorly in comparison? Heck, a 2003 Lemieux was skating circles around the NHL - including Forsberg - before he got hurt and slowed down and missed some games. Wouldn't a 1996 Lemieux do pretty much the same thing for the ENTIRE season in 2003 that he did in 1996?

Hardy, I think you underestimate the fact that Lemieux is one of those players that goes beyond the normal superstar. He is among an exclusive club that is very, very special. It is almost like trying to compare Lidstrom's best season with, say, Orr's 3rd or 4th best year. It just can't happen. 1996 was probably Lemieux's 4th best season. That's just how special these guys are, their 4th best season can't even be touched by the best season from a legit HHOFer like Forsberg or Fedorov. They aren't your normal players.



You have to look and ask yourself if that's a bad thing. I don't know the stats, but watching a Pens game today you see Crosby draw a ton of penalties and he has to draw more penalties than anyone else in the league. It has nothing to do with diving but more with the fact that sometimes that is the only way to stop him. Same with Lemieux, a superstar is going to get a lot more attention, hence he will draw more penalties and lead to more power play goals. Had the opposing player not hooked or tripped Mario on several occasions how many times would that have ended up an even strength goal? Food for thought.
Forsberg's points per game were higher on 03 than Lemieux's. As for comparing 03 to 96 by ppg, we all know league averages, cmon.

Why is it that this board says, 'if Lemieux wasn't injured', but then casts Forsberg's season's away with a, 'well, staying healthy is part of the package?

Like, for instance, if Forsberg plays the 8 games he missed that year, he isn't, in fact, barely beating Naslund. But, we shouldn't make that allowance for him, only Lemieux... and Gretzky after the Suter hit.... and, and, any Canadian hero, really.

That's my full out argument against your post, and I still won't say that Forsberg was as good overall than Lemieux as per prime, although i think they are much closer than this board thinks.

tombombadil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2013, 09:36 PM
  #158
blogofmike
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 514
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tombombadil View Post
Forsberg's points per game were higher on 03 than Lemieux's. As for comparing 03 to 96 by ppg, we all know league averages, cmon.
Do whatever you want with league averages, the gap between Lemieux and Forsberg in those years is very wide.

Using adjusted points:
Lemieux 1996: 2.23 PPG (156 in 70)
Forsberg 2003: 1.57 PPG (118 in 75)

Quote:
Originally Posted by tombombadil View Post
Why is it that this board says, 'if Lemieux wasn't injured', but then casts Forsberg's season's away with a, 'well, staying healthy is part of the package?.
I agree that health is part of the package. I think his point was that in the best year of his life, Forsberg was a distant second to a 37 year old Mario Lemieux for the first half of the season, so why are we comparing him to a better version of Mario?

Quote:
Originally Posted by tombombadil View Post
Like, for instance, if Forsberg plays the 8 games he missed that year, he isn't, in fact, barely beating Naslund. But, we shouldn't make that allowance for him, only Lemieux... and Gretzky after the Suter hit.... and, and, any Canadian hero, really..
7 games. And the guy he's being compared to missed 12 games in 1996 and left everyone else far behind anyways, because he's a higher level of performer than Foppa. No need for allowances, he still wins the Art Ross and the adjective 'barely' is inappropriate.

And if you think that's something special, you should Google what happened in 1992-93, because he needed no allowances to win that Art Ross Trophy from Pat Lafontaine, even though he missed 24 games. Or for the 1992 Art Ross where he only played 64 games.

Even post-Suter Gretzky won an Art Ross over Sergei Fedorov's best year ever by an Adjusted Points margin of 10. Sure he was an older player, who suffered a serious back problem that cut his productivity 25% overnight, and played on a very poor team. He needs no allowances since he had a wider margin of victory than Forsberg over a better player than Naslund.

blogofmike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2013, 09:55 PM
  #159
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,880
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Made Luke points out, yet once again, that those 12 games were 11 road games and many the 2nd in two nights.

I wouldn't draw too much form that 12 game sample in reference to Mario it would be as use full as saying in the previous year 95 without Mario the Pens actually scored at a better GPG rate.

Does anyone really think that the 95 Pens were better off not having Mario in the lineup at all?

The ‘95 Pens didn‘t score at a better rate though. They had 181 in 48.
That‘s 309GF over 82.

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2013, 10:26 PM
  #160
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,012
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadLuke View Post
How drawing a penalty can be view in anyway as a bad thing for winning hockey game ?

It is obviously a good thing and im serious with 0.2 points by net 2 minutes of power play.

BigPhil you pass directly from ppg and gpg, Lemieux in 1996 do not add 2.3 gpg to the pens not even in the 70 games he played, far from it.

Much more between 0.75 the seasons and near 1 gpg by game during the 70 game that Lemieux added to that pens team.

If lemieux added 160 goal to that team, and Jagr 148, the rest of the team did just 54 goal

I do not thing that you can take the shorcut of sayin ppg = gpg for the team, it would be kind of ridiculous and thinking like that you will finish with more than 700 goal on that pens team
The Pens in 1995 had 181 goals, good for 2nd in the NHL and pro-rated for 309 goals in a full season, if they maintained it. In 1996 they had 362 goals and 36 more than the 2nd best team. I would like to think the main reason is the addition of Mario Lemieux.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tombombadil View Post
Forsberg's points per game were higher on 03 than Lemieux's. As for comparing 03 to 96 by ppg, we all know league averages, cmon.

Why is it that this board says, 'if Lemieux wasn't injured', but then casts Forsberg's season's away with a, 'well, staying healthy is part of the package?

Like, for instance, if Forsberg plays the 8 games he missed that year, he isn't, in fact, barely beating Naslund. But, we shouldn't make that allowance for him, only Lemieux... and Gretzky after the Suter hit.... and, and, any Canadian hero, really.

That's my full out argument against your post, and I still won't say that Forsberg was as good overall than Lemieux as per prime, although i think they are much closer than this board thinks.
So we can agree on one thing, a prime Forsberg in 2003 was a little bit better than an old beaten down Lemieux in 2003. On a PPG basis, he was barely better by the way. But that's not the point. You claimed you wouldn't pass up a prime Forsberg for a 1996 Lemieux. I was asking you to show me how you would pass him up for a prime Forsberg. I wouldn't do it, not if I am managing a team. As for Forsberg's health, I really don't know what the rant is about. He missed a lot of time, as did Lemieux. He'll still be in the HHOF though. Can you hold it against him? Yes you can. I hold it against every player personally, even Lemieux, even Orr! Or I guess I should say I just don't reward them with lost time. Even with Gretzky, I am not giving him 160 point seasons after the Suter hit out of charity but rather pointing to that being a key ingredient as to why his production dropped. What he did on the ice after 1991 was still very special though. I'm not really a guy who says "what if" and then gives a player brownie points for lost time.

But as for a higher scoring era in 1996, it is barely higher than in the dead puck era. But that being said, take the slightly lower scoring into account and how in the world does a prime Forsberg make up for that? What we literally saw with our own eyes is Lemieux scoring 161 points in 70 games. Even though he was on pace for 188 that year he still had just 161 and that's what I will give him. When did we see Forsberg display anything near that dominance because I saw his whole career from front to finish and I don't think he was ever as good as Sakic 2001 let alone talking about Lemieux's best. Let's try and figure out if he was even the best Avalanche first.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2013, 10:58 PM
  #161
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,008
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
The ‘95 Pens didn‘t score at a better rate though. They had 181 in 48.
That‘s 309GF over 82.
Eeks doing math in my head never works...lol

In 95 they finish 2nd (in GF) right behind Colorado 185-181 and in 96 with Mario they finish 1st over Colorado 362-326.

Overall they finish 3rd in points in 95 and 4th in 96.

There still hasn't been any counterpoint to Mario piling up his points (7 against TB in a 10-0 win, 7 more points in an 8-4 win).

There is zero carry over from game to game for his scoring.

In 16 games that season he truly was domianat scoring 74 points and plus 29 in those games.

then he has 13- 3 point games where he has 39 points but is only a plus 5 over those 13 games. Not quite so dominant.

In games where Mario scores 2 points (14 times) he is a minus 3.

In games where he scores 1 point (20 times)he is a minus 14

In games with zero points, and there were only 7 of them he is minus 7

I think the math is right just did a quick count from the game logs.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2013, 11:18 PM
  #162
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,008
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
The Pens in 1995 had 181 goals, good for 2nd in the NHL and pro-rated for 309 goals in a full season, if they maintained it. In 1996 they had 362 goals and 36 more than the 2nd best team. I would like to think the main reason is the addition of Mario Lemieux.
you are right I screwed up the math and the main difference is Mario as the PP force he was that year.

Not the same force on the PP the following year and a dip down in GF despite Mario playing more games.



Quote:
So we can agree on one thing, a prime Forsberg in 2003 was a little bit better than an old beaten down Lemieux in 2003. On a PPG basis, he was barely better by the way. But that's not the point.
Except that's not even clsoe to being true in total value but like you state below that's not the entire point but you ahve to be corrected here. In fantasy hockey they are clsoe to value but in actual play Forsberg (beaten up as well as Tom points out) beats him by quite a margin.




Quote:
You claimed you wouldn't pass up a prime Forsberg for a 1996 Lemieux. I was asking you to show me how you would pass him up for a prime Forsberg. I wouldn't do it, not if I am managing a team. As for Forsberg's health, I really don't know what the rant is about. He missed a lot of time, as did Lemieux.
You kinda showed why Tom had his rant calling Mario beaten up in 03, like Forsberg didn't have any major injuries to that point, I know you really didn't mean it that way but the omission makes it sure look like it.

Quote:
He'll still be in the HHOF though. Can you hold it against him? Yes you can. I hold it against every player personally, even Lemieux, even Orr!
I really wonder if this is true though, I guess most guys in the top 60 Dman project were peak guys and not career guys.



Quote:
But as for a higher scoring era in 1996, it is barely higher than in the dead puck era. But that being said, take the slightly lower scoring into account and how in the world does a prime Forsberg make up for that? What we literally saw with our own eyes is Lemieux scoring 161 points in 70 games. Even though he was on pace for 188 that year he still had just 161 and that's what I will give him. When did we see Forsberg display anything near that dominance because I saw his whole career from front to finish and I don't think he was ever as good as Sakic 2001 let alone talking about Lemieux's best. Let's try and figure out if he was even the best Avalanche first.
Sakis comes out ahead of Forsberg due to health.

Here are their regular season lines from 95-04 when their careers overlapped in Colorado

Sakic 694-327-511-838 plus 136
Forsberg 580-216-525-741 plus 207

In the playoffs it was like this

Sakic 147-75-88-163 plus 9
Forsberg 133-57-97-154 plus 47

I think there is a very strong argument that Forsberg was Sakic's equal if not better during their shared time together.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2013, 11:23 PM
  #163
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,008
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blogofmike View Post
Do whatever you want with league averages, the gap between Lemieux and Forsberg in those years is very wide.

Using adjusted points:
Lemieux 1996: 2.23 PPG (156 in 70)
Forsberg 2003: 1.57 PPG (118 in 75)



I agree that health is part of the package. I think his point was that in the best year of his life, Forsberg was a distant second to a 37 year old Mario Lemieux for the first half of the season, so why are we comparing him to a better version of Mario?



7 games. And the guy he's being compared to missed 12 games in 1996 and left everyone else far behind anyways, because he's a higher level of performer than Foppa. No need for allowances, he still wins the Art Ross and the adjective 'barely' is inappropriate.

And if you think that's something special, you should Google what happened in 1992-93, because he needed no allowances to win that Art Ross Trophy from Pat Lafontaine, even though he missed 24 games. Or for the 1992 Art Ross where he only played 64 games.

Even post-Suter Gretzky won an Art Ross over Sergei Fedorov's best year ever by an Adjusted Points margin of 10. Sure he was an older player, who suffered a serious back problem that cut his productivity 25% overnight, and played on a very poor team. He needs no allowances since he had a wider margin of victory than Forsberg over a better player than Naslund.
Your entire post revolves only around scoring points, never mind that each point isn't really equal, but where is the discussion on total actual play and impact here?

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-15-2013, 01:04 AM
  #164
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,880
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Eeks doing math in my head never works...lol

In 95 they finish 2nd (in GF) right behind Colorado 185-181 and in 96 with Mario they finish 1st over Colorado 362-326.

Overall they finish 3rd in points in 95 and 4th in 96.

There still hasn't been any counterpoint to Mario piling up his points (7 against TB in a 10-0 win, 7 more points in an 8-4 win).

There is zero carry over from game to game for his scoring.

In 16 games that season he truly was domianat scoring 74 points and plus 29 in those games.

then he has 13- 3 point games where he has 39 points but is only a plus 5 over those 13 games. Not quite so dominant.

In games where Mario scores 2 points (14 times) he is a minus 3.

In games where he scores 1 point (20 times)he is a minus 14

In games with zero points, and there were only 7 of them he is minus 7

I think the math is right just did a quick count from the game logs.
You have to show that your point is worth a counter first.
You do that by showing us how every point produced or goal prevented by Fedorov was more important than the points Mario produced.
I GUARANTEE you that you can't!

Like I said earlier, if Fedorov has 3-4 points and prevents a goal in a 6-0 Detroit win, how is that any different than Mario scoring 5 in a 6-1 Pens win or 7 a 10-3 win.
Both players padded their stats at times during that season.
Trying to say only Mario's stats were being padded is complete horse ****!

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-15-2013, 07:11 AM
  #165
blogofmike
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 514
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Your entire post revolves only around scoring points, never mind that each point isn't really equal, but where is the discussion on total actual play and impact here?
It was in response to a post about Forsberg barely beating Naslund in a points scoring contest.

blogofmike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-15-2013, 09:13 AM
  #166
MadLuke
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,197
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
The Pens in 1995 had 181 goals, good for 2nd in the NHL and pro-rated for 309 goals in a full season, if they maintained it. In 1996 they had 362 goals and 36 more than the 2nd best team. I would like to think the main reason is the addition of Mario Lemieux.
I'm 100% with you and it is the exact number that I said, around 1 gbg when playing, 0.65-0.7 gbg for the pens that season.

I thought you were saying that federov have to make is way to have a value of 2.6 gbg, like if Mario added 2.6 goal a game to is team or something like that.

IMO, points are not counted in team result and have no value what so ever, only goal created does and the only thing that should taking into account, and taking the 1 point = 1 goal created cannot work, the pens have probably over 750-800 points that year. I Know that goal created is not a stats and about impossible to be evaluated correctly and point is a good metric, but a very inflated metric in my view.


Last edited by MadLuke: 05-15-2013 at 09:18 AM.
MadLuke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-15-2013, 07:38 PM
  #167
IRONCITY63
Rookie User
 
IRONCITY63's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: The Burg
Country: United States
Posts: 34
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tombombadil View Post
Forsberg's points per game were higher on 03 than Lemieux's. As for comparing 03 to 96 by ppg, we all know league averages, cmon.

Why is it that this board says, 'if Lemieux wasn't injured', but then casts Forsberg's season's away with a, 'well, staying healthy is part of the package?

Like, for instance, if Forsberg plays the 8 games he missed that year, he isn't, in fact, barely beating Naslund. But, we shouldn't make that allowance for him, only Lemieux... and Gretzky after the Suter hit.... and, and, any Canadian hero, really.

That's my full out argument against your post, and I still won't say that Forsberg was as good overall than Lemieux as per prime, although i think they are much closer than this board thinks.
Their close but you still have to give Lemieux the edge.

IRONCITY63 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-15-2013, 08:14 PM
  #168
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
The Pens in 1995 had 181 goals, good for 2nd in the NHL and pro-rated for 309 goals in a full season, if they maintained it. In 1996 they had 362 goals and 36 more than the 2nd best team. I would like to think the main reason is the addition of Mario Lemieux.



So we can agree on one thing, a prime Forsberg in 2003 was a little bit better than an old beaten down Lemieux in 2003. On a PPG basis, he was barely better by the way. But that's not the point. You claimed you wouldn't pass up a prime Forsberg for a 1996 Lemieux. I was asking you to show me how you would pass him up for a prime Forsberg. I wouldn't do it, not if I am managing a team. As for Forsberg's health, I really don't know what the rant is about. He missed a lot of time, as did Lemieux. He'll still be in the HHOF though. Can you hold it against him? Yes you can. I hold it against every player personally, even Lemieux, even Orr! Or I guess I should say I just don't reward them with lost time. Even with Gretzky, I am not giving him 160 point seasons after the Suter hit out of charity but rather pointing to that being a key ingredient as to why his production dropped. What he did on the ice after 1991 was still very special though. I'm not really a guy who says "what if" and then gives a player brownie points for lost time.

But as for a higher scoring era in 1996, it is barely higher than in the dead puck era. But that being said, take the slightly lower scoring into account and how in the world does a prime Forsberg make up for that? What we literally saw with our own eyes is Lemieux scoring 161 points in 70 games. Even though he was on pace for 188 that year he still had just 161 and that's what I will give him. When did we see Forsberg display anything near that dominance because I saw his whole career from front to finish and I don't think he was ever as good as Sakic 2001 let alone talking about Lemieux's best. Let's try and figure out if he was even the best Avalanche first.
if i DID say that I would take Pete over Mario, I was mistaken. I think that was just Hardy. I meant to say, and i think i did, that even with the physical and defensive advantages, and with the era adjustments, i would still take Mario. I just don't see it as a laughable gap... and, on the crazy circumstance that I were a GM loaded with Bures and Jagr's, and Brett Hull's.... then ya, I might actually consider a Forsberg over a Lemieux.... but only then.

tombombadil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-15-2013, 08:15 PM
  #169
tombombadil
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: West Kelowna, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,030
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IRONCITY63 View Post
Their close but you still have to give Lemieux the edge.
ya, that's what i meant, in many less words.

tombombadil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-16-2013, 08:02 PM
  #170
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,012
vCash: 500
[QUOTE]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Except that's not even clsoe to being true in total value but like you state below that's not the entire point but you ahve to be corrected here. In fantasy hockey they are clsoe to value but in actual play Forsberg (beaten up as well as Tom points out) beats him by quite a margin.
I'll give you Forsberg in 2003 over Mario in 2003. But there is nothing that indicates Forsberg in 2003 was at the same level as Mario in 1996. I hate to rehash a popular claim on these boards that Forsberg is one of the most overrated players in HFhistory, but............


Quote:
Sakis comes out ahead of Forsberg due to health.

Here are their regular season lines from 95-04 when their careers overlapped in Colorado

Sakic 694-327-511-838 plus 136
Forsberg 580-216-525-741 plus 207

In the playoffs it was like this

Sakic 147-75-88-163 plus 9
Forsberg 133-57-97-154 plus 47

I think there is a very strong argument that Forsberg was Sakic's equal if not better during their shared time together.
I wouldn't say better by any means. Forsberg, like Sakic, was a playoff beast. However, he did much of his damage the years the Avs lost. Sakic did much of his damage the years the Avs won the Cup. Sakic was by far the most important Av in 1996. In 2001 Forsberg missed the last two rounds and Sakic had a Smythe worthy run. That is one of the difference makers in my opinion. But even if you call them equal that still falls short of Mario in 1996.

Like I said Hardy, you are talking about one of the top 4 players of all-time and using his possibly 4th best year as just another year that a normal HHOFer can compete with. It's like saying Lidstrom's best year is comparable to Orr's 4th best season (1974 maybe?). Just not happening. These aren't your normal HHOF players we are talking about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadLuke View Post
I'm 100% with you and it is the exact number that I said, around 1 gbg when playing, 0.65-0.7 gbg for the pens that season.

I thought you were saying that federov have to make is way to have a value of 2.6 gbg, like if Mario added 2.6 goal a game to is team or something like that.

IMO, points are not counted in team result and have no value what so ever, only goal created does and the only thing that should taking into account, and taking the 1 point = 1 goal created cannot work, the pens have probably over 750-800 points that year. I Know that goal created is not a stats and about impossible to be evaluated correctly and point is a good metric, but a very inflated metric in my view.
Considering we saw the Leafs blow a 3 goal lead in the third period in Game 7 the other night I think that no lead is really safe unless it is a substantial one. So put me in the group of people that think even if you are up 4-1 you should keep gunning for the 5th goal. If the final score is 5-3 or 5-4 that 5th goal is very important. This is one of many reasons why I always put Gretzky at #1 of all-time. He never quit, and that's how you do it, you keep the pedal to the metal all the time because you never know what can happen (1982 Oilers taught Gretzky a great deal). So if Lemieux had extra points in games that appeared to be in the bag, all I can say is that you can never be sure a game is in the bag. Also, it isn't as if Mario didn't have his fair share of GWG in 1996 either.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-16-2013, 08:06 PM
  #171
MadLuke
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,197
vCash: 500
Big Phil, did you quote the good text, I do not get the link between what I wrote and your comment to it ?

You were probably answering about the claim of Mario stat padding ?

MadLuke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-18-2013, 03:19 PM
  #172
reckoning
Registered User
 
reckoning's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,186
vCash: 500
About the idea of stat padding: one way of accounting for it that I've heard of is to go through each game a team won and give the players points based on how many of the teams goals they contributed in that win. For example: a team wins a game and gets 2 points. If a player figured on all his teams goals, he'd get 2 points. If he figured on half, he'd get one. 30% would be 0.6 points, etc. For ties, cut it in half because the team only gets one point. For OT wins, use one point for regulation, and the other point for the OT goal.

Using this system, all points a player scored in wins and ties would count towards his score, but a goal in a 1-0 or 2-1 game would get more weight than one in a 7-0 game. It's not perfect, but it should reward clutch play and consistency in many wins over running up a similar number of points in a fewer number of wins. More wins should logically equate to more value.

Applying this to the 95-96 season: Jagr and Fedorov do in fact end up slightly more points than Lemieux. But considering that Jagr needed to play 12 more games (and Fedorov 8 more) than Lemieux to do it, I'd still be inclined to put Mario ahead of them for that season.

Top 10 in 95-96 with this system:

Sergei Fedorov44.7
Jaromir Jagr43.8
Eric Lindros43.0
Mario Lemieux42.9
Steve Yzerman39.7
Mark Messier37.8
John Leclair37.7
Peter Forsberg37.5
Joe Sakic36.7
Paul Kariya36.3

reckoning is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-18-2013, 03:47 PM
  #173
habsfanatics
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,361
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by reckoning View Post
About the idea of stat padding: one way of accounting for it that I've heard of is to go through each game a team won and give the players points based on how many of the teams goals they contributed in that win. For example: a team wins a game and gets 2 points. If a player figured on all his teams goals, he'd get 2 points. If he figured on half, he'd get one. 30% would be 0.6 points, etc. For ties, cut it in half because the team only gets one point. For OT wins, use one point for regulation, and the other point for the OT goal.

Using this system, all points a player scored in wins and ties would count towards his score, but a goal in a 1-0 or 2-1 game would get more weight than one in a 7-0 game. It's not perfect, but it should reward clutch play and consistency in many wins over running up a similar number of points in a fewer number of wins. More wins should logically equate to more value.

Applying this to the 95-96 season: Jagr and Fedorov do in fact end up slightly more points than Lemieux. But considering that Jagr needed to play 12 more games (and Fedorov 8 more) than Lemieux to do it, I'd still be inclined to put Mario ahead of them for that season.

Top 10 in 95-96 with this system:

Sergei Fedorov44.7
Jaromir Jagr43.8
Eric Lindros43.0
Mario Lemieux42.9
Steve Yzerman39.7
Mark Messier37.8
John Leclair37.7
Peter Forsberg37.5
Joe Sakic36.7
Paul Kariya36.3
This idea is load of crap imo. It's a nice for discussion, but nothing more. To discredit players points in blowouts is silly. We don't know what the outcome of those games would have been otherwise. If Lemieux doesn't get those points in 7-0 game whose to say the outcome isn't completely different, momentum and all that. I don't buy it, Lemieux had more multi point games because he was that much better than the rest offensively. No other reason.

habsfanatics is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-18-2013, 04:55 PM
  #174
MadLuke
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,197
vCash: 500
Mario being the best talent is a silly discution, for sure it was.

This is for looking at added value for the team / trying to find why that pens team was not that good during the regular season vs the year before or the flyers with a 160 points Lemieux added.

MadLuke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-18-2013, 05:25 PM
  #175
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,008
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habsfanatics View Post
This idea is load of crap imo. It's a nice for discussion, but nothing more. To discredit players points in blowouts is silly. We don't know what the outcome of those games would have been otherwise. If Lemieux doesn't get those points in 7-0 game whose to say the outcome isn't completely different, momentum and all that. I don't buy it, Lemieux had more multi point games because he was that much better than the rest offensively. No other reason.
We all know that Mario was the best offensive player in the league in 96.

What is unknown is what do all his points mean?

Reckoning has attempted to quantify exactly how each and every point was made and what it meant which is much better than simply looking at the total number of points and assuming that each point has the same value, which everyone should know that it doesn't.

Even if Mario plays in thoe 12 missed games, where the Pens already did quite well in, I still think Feds and his defensive game make him more value in 96 than Mario.

Your refusal to look at all of the data tells more of bias than trying to actually determine what actually happened in 96 here IMO.

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 09:38 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.