HFBoards

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

Was Jagr better than Lemieux in 1995-96?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-19-2013, 01:55 PM
  #201
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,904
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blogofmike View Post
Even outside those 16 big games, Mario has 54 games at a 1.55 PPG level that's so high Feds never reached it. Why is it bad to produce at a level higher than 3rd place point scorer Joe Sakic, in his worst 54 games?

Take away Fedorov's best 16, and he's an even 1.00, a mark so low that Lemieux didn't reach it until he was 38.

# of X point games in 1995-96 Regular Season
7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
Lemieux 2 4 10 13 14 20 7
Fedorov 2 1 5 22 34 14

I can see taking away 1 or 2 games because they're outliers. But when he does it 16 times, and has a multi-point games far more often than not, maybe that's just the way he plays.
No one is arguing that Mario didn't get alot of points or that he wasn't the best offensive player in the league in 96.

The question is was he dominant or better in 96 over Jagr or in this case Feds.

More on Mario's dominance, or what his scoring meant below.



Quote:
True, it is small. While Jagr was relatively strong without Lemieux, the Pens as a whole seemed to explode less often. They had 16 4-goals or-more games on the road with Mario in 31 games, and 2 in 11 without him.

Date Home/Away Opponent Result GF GA Opp Pts
6 Sat, Oct 21, 1995 Los Angeles Kings L OT 2 3 66
10 Fri, Nov 3, 1995 @ Buffalo Sabres T OT 3 3 73
14 Sat, Nov 11, 1995 @ Los Angeles Kings L 2 3 66
16 Fri, Nov 17, 1995 @ Washington Capitals W OT 3 2 89
37 Mon, Jan 1, 1996 @ Washington Capitals L 2 4 89
40 Sat, Jan 6, 1996 @ St. Louis Blues L 2 3 80
45 Wed, Jan 17, 1996 @ Buffalo Sabres W 1 0 73
53 Wed, Feb 7, 1996 @ New Jersey Devils T OT 1 1 86
56 Fri, Feb 16, 1996 @ Winnipeg Jets W 1 0 78
63 Fri, Mar 1, 1996 @ Edmonton Oilers W 5 4 68
72 Sun, Mar 24, 1996 @ New York Rangers W 8 2 96
76 Sun, Mar 31, 1996 @ Philadelphia Flyers L 1 4 103


Scoring the first 7 points in an 8-4 win seems like a big deal to me. It's not like he knew they's stop at 4 when the Pens made it 6-4, then 7-4.

Also, isn't having a lot of big games a good thing? Pittsburgh was 25-3-1 when Lemieux scored 3 or more points. That seems impactful.
One would think that most teams would score less in 11 of 12 road games and most of them being the 2nd game in a row. Going 5-5-2 is really pretty darn good without your "best" player.

yes going 25-3-1 when Mario scores 3 or more points seems impactfull but we are forgetting other players on the team and the breakdown of that scoring.

In the 16 games Mario scores 76 points there is no doubt he was indeed dominant.

In the 13 games he scores 39 points he is only a plus 4.

Imagine that a player scores 39 points in 13 games and one would assume he was really dominant but it turns out he is only plus 4?

Sorry but that isn't dominance it's racking up points at the expense of defense.

Mario was playing with a pretty decent player in Sandstrom for most of the year as well.

Some of this "all of Feds plus minus is the result of his team" and Mario's being 10th in plus minus on his team " is someone else's fault" really doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Like I suggested earlier either one of two thing was happening in 96 with opposition teams when they played Pittsburgh.

1) the other teams best defensive players were scoring at Mario like rates against Mario at ES or

2) Other teams had no problems going h2h with their best scoring forwards against Mario at ES since he really wasn't that "dominant" at ES.

The numbers bare it out.

Hardyvan123 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-19-2013, 02:30 PM
  #202
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,235
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
No one is arguing that Mario didn't get alot of points or that he wasn't the best offensive player in the league in 96.

The question is was he dominant or better in 96 over Jagr or in this case Feds.

More on Mario's dominance, or what his scoring meant below.





One would think that most teams would score less in 11 of 12 road games and most of them being the 2nd game in a row. Going 5-5-2 is really pretty darn good without your "best" player.

yes going 25-3-1 when Mario scores 3 or more points seems impactfull but we are forgetting other players on the team and the breakdown of that scoring.

In the 16 games Mario scores 76 points there is no doubt he was indeed dominant.

In the 13 games he scores 39 points he is only a plus 4.

Imagine that a player scores 39 points in 13 games and one would assume he was really dominant but it turns out he is only plus 4?

Sorry but that isn't dominance it's racking up points at the expense of defense.

Mario was playing with a pretty decent player in Sandstrom for most of the year as well.

Some of this "all of Feds plus minus is the result of his team" and Mario's being 10th in plus minus on his team " is someone else's fault" really doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Like I suggested earlier either one of two thing was happening in 96 with opposition teams when they played Pittsburgh.

1) the other teams best defensive players were scoring at Mario like rates against Mario at ES or

2) Other teams had no problems going h2h with their best scoring forwards against Mario at ES since he really wasn't that "dominant" at ES.

The numbers bare it out.
Actually, what the +/- numbers show is that in 95/96 Mario was a little behind the curve for his team at even strength while Fedorov is a little ahead of the curve for his.

So by this same criteria that you're going by here, you now agree with the statement that OV was incredibly more dominant than Crosby in 09/10, correct?
I mean +45 to only +15 is telling us something right.
Obviously OV was by FAR the better even strength player right? I mean, blew him out of the water better according to your metric.

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-19-2013, 06:13 PM
  #203
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,904
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Actually, what the +/- numbers show is that in 95/96 Mario was a little behind the curve for his team at even strength while Fedorov is a little ahead of the curve for his.
A little behind and a little ahead what sort of conclusions can one draw from this?

Quote:
So by this same criteria that you're going by here, you now agree with the statement that OV was incredibly more dominant than Crosby in 09/10, correct?
I mean +45 to only +15 is telling us something right.
Obviously OV was by FAR the better even strength player right? I mean, blew him out of the water better according to your metric.
I don't know will look at the data, if all other things are equal one would reasonably draw the conclusion that AO was better at ES than Sid was. I'll go look at the data and get back to you.

Hardyvan123 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-19-2013, 06:33 PM
  #204
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,904
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
So by this same criteria that you're going by here, you now agree with the statement that OV was incredibly more dominant than Crosby in 09/10, correct?
I mean +45 to only +15 is telling us something right.
Obviously OV was by FAR the better even strength player right? I mean, blew him out of the water better according to your metric.
Not so sure about "blowing him out of the water" but it's safe to say that AO was the better ES player in 10 sure.

I went back and had a look at Sid versus AO, and others in the excellent adjusted Even-strength plus minus study done by Overpassand it has through that 10 season

AE 180 and Sid 137 (difference of 43)

Looking further into his study here is how some of the players discussed in this thread have done through 2011

Forsberg 303
Mario 273
Federov 227
AO 208
Sid 154 (difference of 52, the gain by AO explained mostly by health as AO has 5.8 seasons to Sid's 5.0)

I also know that Sid has made up some of that gap in the 12 and 13 seasons even with time missed but don't have the numbers, perhaps Overpass can update at some point.

Also it is very interesting to note that Eric Lindros is 7th all time (post 68 that we have numbers for) which is pretty incredible but he was in fact a "dominant force" when he played.

It is also important to note that the adjusted plus minus that Overpass has done doesn't account for strength of line mates of defensive partners on the ice, it's a pure Raw calculation.

Be that as it may, it's still an extremely use full study IMO.


Last edited by Hardyvan123: 05-19-2013 at 06:48 PM.
Hardyvan123 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-19-2013, 06:35 PM
  #205
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 40,590
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Not so sure about "blowing him out of the water" but it's safe to say that AO was the better ES player in 10 sure.

I went back and had a look at Sid versus AO, and others in overpass excellent adjusted Even-strength plus minus and it has through that 10 seasons

AE 180 and Sid 137

Looking further into his study here is how some of the players discussed in this thread have done through 2011

Forsberg 303
Mario 273
Federov 227
AO 208
Sid 154
In 2009-10, Crosby took on a pretty big defensive role with the Penguins, while Malkin got the prime offensive zone faceoffs. Ovechkin got all the prime offensive opportunities in Washington.

Plus-minus, adjusted or otherwise, doesn't take roles into account.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-19-2013, 06:56 PM
  #206
tombombadil
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: West Kelowna, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,030
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Not so sure about "blowing him out of the water" but it's safe to say that AO was the better ES player in 10 sure.

I went back and had a look at Sid versus AO, and others in the excellent adjusted Even-strength plus minus study done by Overpassand it has through that 10 season

AE 180 and Sid 137 (difference of 43)

Looking further into his study here is how some of the players discussed in this thread have done through 2011

Forsberg 303
Mario 273
Federov 227
AO 208
Sid 154 (difference of 52, the gain by AO explained mostly by health as AO has 5.8 seasons to Sid's 5.0)

I also know that Sid has made up some of that gap in the 12 and 13 seasons even with time missed but don't have the numbers, perhaps Overpass can update at some point.

Also it is very interesting to note that Eric Lindros is 7th all time (post 68 that we have numbers for) which is pretty incredible but he was in fact a "dominant force" when he played.

It is also important to note that the adjusted plus minus that Overpass has done doesn't account for strength of line mates of defensive partners on the ice, it's a pure Raw calculation.

Be that as it may, it's still an extremely use full study IMO.
you know I'm with you on most of this, but you gotta start speeling Fedorov correctly!

tombombadil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-19-2013, 07:03 PM
  #207
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,904
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
In 2009-10, Crosby took on a pretty big defensive role with the Penguins, while Malkin got the prime offensive zone faceoffs. Ovechkin got all the prime offensive opportunities in Washington.

Plus-minus, adjusted or otherwise, doesn't take roles into account.
I understand that and forgot to list it on the notes in my last post.

It's pretty obvious that the roles for Federov and Mario were quite different in 96 despite both being 1st line centers.

Jagr and Mario's roles were more similar.

The difference in offensive zone starts at ES for Sid (56.7) and Malkin (58.1) and AO (55.6) were still pretty close in 10.

From 11 onwards we do see a larger split between the 2 Pittsburg players


In 11 Malkin 54.7 to 47.0 for Sid

In 12 Malkin 65.9 to 57.7 for Sid

In 13 Malkin 63.6 to 47.1 for Sid

Hardyvan123 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-19-2013, 07:05 PM
  #208
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,904
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tombombadil View Post
you know I'm with you on most of this, but you gotta start speeling Fedorov correctly!
Ya I should just call him Feds, speeling is one of my weakest points.

Hardyvan123 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-19-2013, 07:13 PM
  #209
tombombadil
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: West Kelowna, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,030
vCash: 500
haha

tombombadil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-19-2013, 07:19 PM
  #210
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 3,553
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
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.
Off-topic (isn't everything in this thread?), but it always rubs me the wrong way when you say this, Phil. The Avalanche didn't win the Stanley Cup when Forsberg was doing his "damage" from 1999-2002 because Sakic consistently came up short against Dallas and Detroit.

1999-2002
Forsberg vs. Dallas/Detroit: 32 GP, 14 G, 21 A, 35 PTS, +11
Sakic vs. Dallas/Detroit: 32 GP, 6 G, 11 A, 17 PTS, -8

Sakic can hang his hat on 1996, 1997, and 2001, but let's not lose sight of the fact that Sakic's lesser production against the two elite rival teams is the difference between the Avalanche advancing to the Stanley Cup or losing in the Western Conference playoffs in the years when Forsberg was the man.

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-19-2013, 07:21 PM
  #211
Ballzer
Rookie User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 2
vCash: 500
Mario probably played 40 games that season and that is why you're even saying that. Jagr never had a year better than Lemieux when Mario was in his prime.

Ballzer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-19-2013, 07:44 PM
  #212
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,904
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ballzer View Post
Mario probably played 40 games that season and that is why you're even saying that. Jagr never had a year better than Lemieux when Mario was in his prime.
Thanks for popping into the history section, always great when new people can give their views.


If you look at the thread title we are talking Mario in 96 where he played in 70 games.

Hardyvan123 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-19-2013, 07:57 PM
  #213
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 40,590
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
Off-topic (isn't everything in this thread?), but it always rubs me the wrong way when you say this, Phil. The Avalanche didn't win the Stanley Cup when Forsberg was doing his "damage" from 1999-2002 because Sakic consistently came up short against Dallas and Detroit.

1999-2002
Forsberg vs. Dallas/Detroit: 32 GP, 14 G, 21 A, 35 PTS, +11
Sakic vs. Dallas/Detroit: 32 GP, 6 G, 11 A, 17 PTS, -8

Sakic can hang his hat on 1996, 1997, and 2001, but let's not lose sight of the fact that Sakic's lesser production against the two elite rival teams is the difference between the Avalanche advancing to the Stanley Cup or losing in the Western Conference playoffs in the years when Forsberg was the man.
Wasn't Sakic playing injured two of those years?

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-19-2013, 08:20 PM
  #214
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 3,553
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Wasn't Sakic playing injured two of those years?
In 2001, but he didn't play against Detroit or Dallas that year, so it isn't factoring into those numbers against him. You've mentioned 2000 before, I believe, but I still haven't found anything on it. He was pretty far removed from the injury that kept him out for 22 games, and he went into the playoffs with 33 points in his last 18 games. Also played 26 per game against Phoenix. At any rate, I'm not sure he was any more banged up than Peter Forsberg in 2002 who missed time in the first round.

Then again, finding out about a Joe Sakic injury is like pulling teeth (Rob Blake blew the whistle on how bad his shoulder really was in 2001), so if there was something there, it would totally explain it - but it doesn't take away from Forsberg's performance, which Phil seems to think it does because they didn't win when Forsberg was the best scorer in the playoffs (1999, 2002).

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-20-2013, 03:02 AM
  #215
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,304
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadLuke View Post
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 ?
I believe I got them mixed up somewhere

Quote:
Originally Posted by eva unit zero View Post
How did we get on to Fedorov, anyway?

Isn't the discussion supposed to be Jagr vs. Mario?
It is, but it has shifted a bit to other players in 1996. I am not sure why Hardy is clinging to Fedorov in 1996. Feds was likely a top 10 player in the game at this time, but he's being compared to a guy who pretty easily won a Hart trophy and a scoring title this year. It is one of those comparisons where you hate doing it but you have to downgrade a player that was great in his own right just because he is being compared to a guy who is out of his league. It is like trying to compare Toews to Crosby. You don't want to say anything bad about Toews, but you almost have to when evaluating him against Crosby.

Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
Off-topic (isn't everything in this thread?), but it always rubs me the wrong way when you say this, Phil. The Avalanche didn't win the Stanley Cup when Forsberg was doing his "damage" from 1999-2002 because Sakic consistently came up short against Dallas and Detroit.

1999-2002
Forsberg vs. Dallas/Detroit: 32 GP, 14 G, 21 A, 35 PTS, +11
Sakic vs. Dallas/Detroit: 32 GP, 6 G, 11 A, 17 PTS, -8

Sakic can hang his hat on 1996, 1997, and 2001, but let's not lose sight of the fact that Sakic's lesser production against the two elite rival teams is the difference between the Avalanche advancing to the Stanley Cup or losing in the Western Conference playoffs in the years when Forsberg was the man.
To be fair though, there wasn't really a time each player was firing at all cylinders. It was one or the other with these two. When Forsberg was downgraded, or injured like in 2001, Sakic found a way to win Cups. When it was the opposite Forsberg didn't do this. He was wonderful in 2002 but was held pointless in what would have been a clinching game in either Game 6 or 7 against Detroit. Yeah I know Sakic didn't register a point either but Forsberg doesn't have that one playoff where Sakic was injured and unavailable and still ended up winning the Cup. Sakic does.

It doesn't put a huge gap between the two during their time together but to me that is the difference, plus Sakic was more capable of goal scoring than Forsberg.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-20-2013, 05:31 AM
  #216
NewAgeOutlaw
Registered User
 
NewAgeOutlaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: 412/724
Country: United States
Posts: 3,928
vCash: 500
Phil, don't try to tell a Forsberg fan that he wasn't a great goal scorer. I remember a thread where someone described Crosby as Forsberg with better goal scoring ability. The Forsberg fanboys flamed said individual even though all evidence points to Crosby being a superior goal scorer. (hasn't played a full season without scoring 30+ goals compared to Forsberg's career high being 30 goals.)

NewAgeOutlaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-20-2013, 10:30 AM
  #217
tombombadil
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: West Kelowna, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,030
vCash: 500
Interesting. I'm a huge Forsberg fan and that's basically how I describe Crosby.... I'd like to say that Forsberg was more physical/defensive... but ya, not as good of a goalscorer.

tombombadil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-20-2013, 10:49 AM
  #218
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,304
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EngellandHitSomebody View Post
Phil, don't try to tell a Forsberg fan that he wasn't a great goal scorer. I remember a thread where someone described Crosby as Forsberg with better goal scoring ability. The Forsberg fanboys flamed said individual even though all evidence points to Crosby being a superior goal scorer. (hasn't played a full season without scoring 30+ goals compared to Forsberg's career high being 30 goals.)
That was constantly brought up when he was playing let alone looking back on things. I know I heard a few times when the experts said that the only thing holding Forsberg back from being the best in the game is that he "never has eclipsed 30 goals in a season". The Hockey News magazine was one that repeated that a lot and at that time they were more respected. Plus I agree with that assesment. Even in the dead puck era the best goal scorers were getting 50+. Crosby clearly is a better goal scorer than Forsberg ever was.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-20-2013, 11:57 AM
  #219
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 3,553
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
To be fair though, there wasn't really a time each player was firing at all cylinders. It was one or the other with these two. When Forsberg was downgraded, or injured like in 2001, Sakic found a way to win Cups. When it was the opposite Forsberg didn't do this. He was wonderful in 2002 but was held pointless in what would have been a clinching game in either Game 6 or 7 against Detroit. Yeah I know Sakic didn't register a point either but Forsberg doesn't have that one playoff where Sakic was injured and unavailable and still ended up winning the Cup. Sakic does.

It doesn't put a huge gap between the two during their time together but to me that is the difference, plus Sakic was more capable of goal scoring than Forsberg.
Sakic found a way to win Cups? 1996, sure, but if Patrick Roy had played as well against Dallas in 1999 (.905) and Detroit in 2002 (.900) as he did against St. Louis and New Jersey in 2001 (.939, .938), are we really having this conversation? You're giving Sakic credit because a different teammate pulled a rabbit out of a hat when Forsberg was gone. The Stanley Cup shouldn't be a "difference" at all.

Sakic stepped up big when Forsberg was playing concussed in 1997 or out with his spleen surgery in 2001, but so did the supporting cast of Lemieux, Kamensky, Hejduk, Drury, and Roy. But how many people stepped up in 1999 and 2002? Greg de Vries? It was obvious that Sakic and Fleury were AWOL in 1999 after the San Jose series, and we're talking about a team that had three of the top-six scorers in the world but was only being supported by one. Hejduk had 23 points in the 2001 playoffs but only 6 points in the 2002 playoffs.

You mention that Forsberg didn't get it done in Game 6 or Game 7 against Detroit, but maybe you forgot that he scored the GWG in both Game 6 (2-1 OT) and Game 7 (1-0) in the series before that. If we're going to point our fingers at anyone for the Avalanche failing in three WCF Game 7s in four years, Forsberg is the last player to start with.


Quote:
Originally Posted by EngellandHitSomebody View Post
Phil, don't try to tell a Forsberg fan that he wasn't a great goal scorer. I remember a thread where someone described Crosby as Forsberg with better goal scoring ability. The Forsberg fanboys flamed said individual even though all evidence points to Crosby being a superior goal scorer. (hasn't played a full season without scoring 30+ goals compared to Forsberg's career high being 30 goals.)
And yet Forsberg scored at a rate of 36 goals per 82 games in the playoffs during his run in Colorado (55 goals in 127 games). Let's stop pretending that he wasn't a consistently great goal scorer just because he missed 10+ games every regular season and didn't hit some arbitrary totals. Sidney Crosby IS Peter Forsberg with more goals. But it's not exactly a crime to be worse at something than Sidney Crosby, now, is it?

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-20-2013, 12:12 PM
  #220
blogofmike
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 660
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
A little behind and a little ahead what sort of conclusions can one draw from this?
The Nedved-Francis-Jagr line outperformed Mario's line at ES. By a lot. CYM showed that Jagr was Mario's equal as an ES scorer (aside from 1993). This year, Jagr was the best ES scorer in the NHL, so unless Jagr, Nedved, or Francis had serious defensive issues Mario at ES has a big hill to climb, because he's not outscoring the line with the two highest ES scorers in the league.

Mario couldn't outgun Jagr's 96 ES points this year, but Feds may have had an easier time trying to outpace Yzerman's 50 ES points.

As for defensive impact, I see no significant impact for Feds. The Red Wings were good defensively without Fedorov.

While the 4 games from 1996 may be an outlier, there are 61 non-Feds games from 1998. The Red Wings allowed goals at 188 GA pace in 61 games without him (140 in 61), and at a 208 GA pace with him (50 in 21). You wouldn't expect the Red Wings to allow .25 GAPG more than they did before, yet somehow they did.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
One would think that most teams would score less in 11 of 12 road games and most of them being the 2nd game in a row. Going 5-5-2 is really pretty darn good without your "best" player.
Detroit went 44-19-16 without Sergei Fedorov from 1995-1998. That's 79 games and they got 104 points. Without Fedorov they were equal to the 1996 Penguins with Lemieux. That's pretty good without your "best" player.

blogofmike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-20-2013, 03:04 PM
  #221
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,904
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blogofmike View Post
The Nedved-Francis-Jagr line outperformed Mario's line at ES. By a lot. CYM showed that Jagr was Mario's equal as an ES scorer (aside from 1993). This year, Jagr was the best ES scorer in the NHL, so unless Jagr, Nedved, or Francis had serious defensive issues Mario at ES has a big hill to climb, because he's not outscoring the line with the two highest ES scorers in the league.
We know that Francis was a pretty good defensive player and that Jagr played a real puck possession type of game. Nedved wasn't very good defensively at all.

Sandstrom wasn't some scrub or flake on either side of the puck but Mario really never showed that he cared about defense , he was very much in the Oilers of the 80's mold of trying to outscore the other team. In 96 it was pretty clear that his offense at ES wasn't dominant enough to make Mario "the best player" in the league IMO. His PP dominance isn't enough to make up for what Feds was IMO.

Mario couldn't outgun Jagr's 96 ES points this year, but Feds may have had an easier time trying to outpace Yzerman's 50 ES points.

As for defensive impact, I see no significant impact for Feds. The Red Wings were good defensively without Fedorov.

While the 4 games from 1996 may be an outlier, there are 61 non-Feds games from 1998. The Red Wings allowed goals at 188 GA pace in 61 games without him (140 in 61), and at a 208 GA pace with him (50 in 21). You wouldn't expect the Red Wings to allow .25 GAPG more than they did before, yet somehow they did.



Quote:
Detroit went 44-19-16 without Sergei Fedorov from 1995-1998. That's 79 games and they got 104 points. Without Fedorov they were equal to the 1996 Penguins with Lemieux. That's pretty good without your "best" player.
Pittsburgh finished 4th in the league in 95 with no Mario and 4th in the league with Mario in 96.

I'm not going to say that both teams were the same and that it didn't matter not having Mario, these things happen sometimes, look at this years senators team.

Detroit also were the SC champs in 98 so a team like is pretty good with or without their best player.

Hardyvan123 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-20-2013, 03:21 PM
  #222
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,304
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
Sakic found a way to win Cups? 1996, sure, but if Patrick Roy had played as well against Dallas in 1999 (.905) and Detroit in 2002 (.900) as he did against St. Louis and New Jersey in 2001 (.939, .938), are we really having this conversation? You're giving Sakic credit because a different teammate pulled a rabbit out of a hat when Forsberg was gone. The Stanley Cup shouldn't be a "difference" at all.

Sakic stepped up big when Forsberg was playing concussed in 1997 or out with his spleen surgery in 2001, but so did the supporting cast of Lemieux, Kamensky, Hejduk, Drury, and Roy. But how many people stepped up in 1999 and 2002? Greg de Vries? It was obvious that Sakic and Fleury were AWOL in 1999 after the San Jose series, and we're talking about a team that had three of the top-six scorers in the world but was only being supported by one. Hejduk had 23 points in the 2001 playoffs but only 6 points in the 2002 playoffs.

You mention that Forsberg didn't get it done in Game 6 or Game 7 against Detroit, but maybe you forgot that he scored the GWG in both Game 6 (2-1 OT) and Game 7 (1-0) in the series before that. If we're going to point our fingers at anyone for the Avalanche failing in three WCF Game 7s in four years, Forsberg is the last player to start with.
I'm not going to derail this thread, but if the question is posed to me then Sakic has without a doubt the better career and in the years they were together for a decade I find Sakic to be slightly the more valuable player. Plus 1996 was a ridiculous year for Sakic in the postseason. I don't think we can underrate that. This isn't to devalue Forsberg, but if I am picking one for my team, it's Sakic.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-20-2013, 03:50 PM
  #223
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,904
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
I'm not going to derail this thread, but if the question is posed to me then Sakic has without a doubt the better career and in the years they were together for a decade I find Sakic to be slightly the more valuable player. Plus 1996 was a ridiculous year for Sakic in the postseason. I don't think we can underrate that. This isn't to devalue Forsberg, but if I am picking one for my team, it's Sakic.
Look, I can see why one would pick Sakic for the exact same running time in Colorado but the difference really is only health and even with Foppa's health problems he is incredibly close to overall value in the regular season and heck even more valuable in the playoffs IMO.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
I believe I got them mixed up somewhere



It is, but it has shifted a bit to other players in 1996. I am not sure why Hardy is clinging to Fedorov in 1996. Feds was likely a top 10 player in the game at this time, but he's being compared to a guy who pretty easily won a Hart trophy and a scoring title this year. It is one of those comparisons where you hate doing it but you have to downgrade a player that was great in his own right just because he is being compared to a guy who is out of his league. It is like trying to compare Toews to Crosby. You don't want to say anything bad about Toews, but you almost have to when evaluating him against Crosby.
Feds was 9th in overall scoring in 96 and won the Selke trophy, you bet he was a top 10 player.

Maybe you don't value defense in your forwards or complete games but Mario's game was far from complete and there should be more than just counting stats, especially when we actually have more information to work with.

Hardyvan123 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-20-2013, 04:03 PM
  #224
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,576
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by blogofmike View Post
Mario couldn't outgun Jagr's 96 ES points this year, but Feds may have had an easier time trying to outpace Yzerman's 50 ES points.
Mario only scored 8 more ES points than Fedorov; 73 to 65. Mario barely outpaced Lindros on a per-game basis (1.04 to 1.03; Mario's 73 in 70 to Lindros' 75 in 73) and Jagr was way in front (95 in 82, 1.16). Fedorov was 6th in ESPPG (0.83, right behind Forsberg's 0.85) in addition to winning the Selke.

Quote:
As for defensive impact, I see no significant impact for Feds. The Red Wings were good defensively without Fedorov.

While the 4 games from 1996 may be an outlier, there are 61 non-Feds games from 1998. The Red Wings allowed goals at 188 GA pace in 61 games without him (140 in 61), and at a 208 GA pace with him (50 in 21). You wouldn't expect the Red Wings to allow .25 GAPG more than they did before, yet somehow they did.
But there's a significant catch. Vezina runner-up and second-team all-star Chris Osgood was injured during the 21 games Fedorov did play; he started 15 games. Before Fedorov returned, he saw around 50 of the 61 games. So the Wings were stuck with a tandem of Kevin Hodson and Norm Maracle; not exactly wonderful goaltending.

Quote:
Detroit went 44-19-16 without Sergei Fedorov from 1995-1998. That's 79 games and they got 104 points. Without Fedorov they were equal to the 1996 Penguins with Lemieux. That's pretty good without your "best" player.
Yes, and the 87-88 Wings had a better record in the final 16 games without Yzerman than they were in the previous 64 with him. Maybe he should have just stayed in the press box? Did you take a look at what teams the Wings were playing? At which goalies were in net for those teams? If Fedorov is out of the lineup mostly against bottom feeders, I would expect the Wings to have a pretty solid record without him; they were better than a bottom feeder without him. At the same time, if they were constantly matching up against top teams like Colorado and Dallas on days he was out of the lineup, I'd expect their record to be fairly poor.

The same is true of Lemieux, for that matter. Or anyone else. A top player being out of the lineup doesn't hurt as much against a bad team because they aren't as difficult to beat. That's why average to good teams generally rest their starters and play their backups against bad teams. Because they CAN.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Detroit also were the SC champs in 98 so a team like is pretty good with or without their best player.
Fedorov played in that Cup run and was exceptional. Many think he deserved the Smythe. And it's unlikely the Wings win the 97 or 98 Cups without him. 2002 is more likely simply from a forward depth standpoint, but still unlikely.

pdd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-20-2013, 08:48 PM
  #225
blogofmike
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 660
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eva unit zero View Post
Mario only scored 8 more ES points than Fedorov; 73 to 65. Mario barely outpaced Lindros on a per-game basis (1.04 to 1.03; Mario's 73 in 70 to Lindros' 75 in 73) and Jagr was way in front (95 in 82, 1.16). Fedorov was 6th in ESPPG (0.83, right behind Forsberg's 0.85) in addition to winning the Selke.
Mario's 73 ES is barely ahead of Fedorov's 65 ES points. Gotcha. My point is that in a teammate-relative comparison, it helps if the other line isn't outscoring both you and the rest of the NHL by a ton at ES.

Player TmESGF TmESGA
Jagr 115 84
Lemieux 95 85
Fedorov 87 38
Yzerman 69 40

The Pens have similar ESGA totals. The Wings have similar ESGA totals. So their defensive play isn't making the difference, relative to their respective teammates, it's the fact that one guy is being compared to someone 20 GF ahead of him, and one is being compared to a guy 20 GF behind him, give or take.

Quote:
But there's a significant catch. Vezina runner-up and second-team all-star Chris Osgood was injured during the 21 games Fedorov did play; he started 15 games. Before Fedorov returned, he saw around 50 of the 61 games. So the Wings were stuck with a tandem of Kevin Hodson and Norm Maracle; not exactly wonderful goaltending.
49 of 61, and Kevin Hodson played before Feds came back too. Non-Osgood games by your figures went up from an expected 4.13 out of 21 games, to 6 out of 21. The horror!

Detroit's team save percentage dropped by 0.00358 points compared to the rest of the year. In other words, the quality of goaltending was more or less the same. That doesn't account for the extra 0.25 GAPG.

Quote:
Yes, and the 87-88 Wings had a better record in the final 16 games without Yzerman than they were in the previous 64 with him. Maybe he should have just stayed in the press box? Did you take a look at what teams the Wings were playing? At which goalies were in net for those teams? If Fedorov is out of the lineup mostly against bottom feeders, I would expect the Wings to have a pretty solid record without him; they were better than a bottom feeder without him. At the same time, if they were constantly matching up against top teams like Colorado and Dallas on days he was out of the lineup, I'd expect their record to be fairly poor.
Feds' opponents average points total was 80.5 points. There were 2 Avs games and 1 Stars games.

It seldom works out that the NHL schedule would give a team all of their hard games in March and April, just to stick it to a returning star.

Quote:
The same is true of Lemieux, for that matter. Or anyone else. A top player being out of the lineup doesn't hurt as much against a bad team because they aren't as difficult to beat. That's why average to good teams generally rest their starters and play their backups against bad teams. Because they CAN.
I don't see the relevance. Feds wasn't rested against bad teams in 1998. The schedule lined up 11 losing teams, 7 winning teams, and 3 .500 teams (Phoenix 3 times).

Quote:
Fedorov played in that Cup run and was exceptional. Many think he deserved the Smythe. And it's unlikely the Wings win the 97 or 98 Cups without him. 2002 is more likely simply from a forward depth standpoint, but still unlikely.
Oh, no you don't.

I'm sorry, but if you use this standard to judge Lemieux's 1996 RS, you have to use it on Fedorov's 1998 playoffs. If this metric is SO meaningful, then surely you must admit that Feds was eminently replaceable in the 1998 Cup run.

I mean, out of 19 players with 15 or more games, Feds is 18th in plus/minus. His +/- of 0 only beats team goon Joey Kocur's -3.

Hardyvan123, what do you think?


Last edited by blogofmike: 05-21-2013 at 12:16 AM.
blogofmike 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 05:11 PM.

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

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