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.

Where does Jaromir Jagr rank purely offensively?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-03-2014, 11:38 PM
  #76
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,712
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
And it took Jagr almost 60% more games (550 more) to match Mario's points totals!
Adjusted or not, that's the Grand Canyon right there.

So you're right, I can't spin Gartner to be on Jagr's level, just like you can't spin Jagr to be on Mario's.
tarheel made it clear he doesn't actually think that Jagr was as good as Mario offensively; his point seems to be that it is conceivable that there is an evaluation method that would take Jagr based on some notion of career value.

Anyway, I agree with you (and most others it seems), that while one could come up with an evaluation method that would take Jagr offensively, any such method would be a poor one.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-04-2014, 12:35 AM
  #77
Hawkman
Moderator
 
Hawkman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 4,182
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred Taylor View Post
Jagr IMO, is the 5th best offensive player of all-time behind the big 4.

1. Gretzky
2. Lemieux
3. Orr
4. Howe
5. Jagr
Meh. You have the right to your opinion. It's certainly debatable:

Maurice Richard, RW
Bobby Hull, LW
Jean Beliveau, C
Stan Mikita, C
Howie Morenz, C

__________________
Hawkman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-04-2014, 10:01 AM
  #78
Fred Taylor
The Cyclone
 
Fred Taylor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,829
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkman View Post
Meh. You have the right to your opinion. It's certainly debatable:

Maurice Richard, RW
Bobby Hull, LW
Jean Beliveau, C
Stan Mikita, C
Howie Morenz, C
Just judging them purely offensively, I don't see how any of those players have an edge on Jagr, career or prime.

Fred Taylor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-04-2014, 10:24 AM
  #79
Hawkman
Moderator
 
Hawkman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 4,182
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred Taylor View Post
Just judging them purely offensively, I don't see how any of those players have an edge on Jagr, career or prime.
Quote:
1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.

2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/opinion?s=t

Of course not, because that's your opinion. That's the definition of the word opinion.

Hawkman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-04-2014, 10:28 AM
  #80
Fred Taylor
The Cyclone
 
Fred Taylor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,829
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkman View Post
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/opinion?s=t

Of course not, because that's your opinion. That's the definition of the word opinion.
And you disagreeing with me is just "your opinion" as well. Obviously it's just my opinion, but I would like to see the case made for those players being ranked ahead of Jagr offensively.

Fred Taylor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-04-2014, 10:34 AM
  #81
TAnnala
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Oulu
Posts: 9,665
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred Taylor View Post
Just judging them purely offensively, I don't see how any of those players have an edge on Jagr, career or prime.
Beliveau might have a good case. Bobby Hull also, but he suffers a bit from being one dimensional (compared to Jagr and Beliveau he is). Was it Hockeyoutsider who made the post about how Beliveau compares to Jagr. It was pretty compelling to have him above Jagr all things considered.

TAnnala is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-04-2014, 10:39 AM
  #82
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 32,131
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
And it took Jagr almost 60% more games (550 more) to match Mario's points totals!
Adjusted or not, that's the Grand Canyon right there.

So you're right, I can't spin Gartner to be on Jagr's level, just like you can't spin Jagr to be on Mario's.
You keep saying "adjusted or not" as if we're supposed to just take 1980s scoring and 2000s scoring at face value. I know you know better than that.


Raw Mario: 1723 points in 915 games
Raw Jagr: 1736 points in 1448 games
That's the Grand Canyon in terms of per-game productivity, no doubt about it.

Adjusted Mario: 1540 points in 914 games
Adjusted Jagr: 1897 points in 1448 games
Still a big per-game gap, but it's significantly smaller if you don't treat scoring in the mid-80s the same as scoring in the early 2000s.


Where I can see an argument for Jagr is that he was actually available for his team for 533 games -- or nearly 7 full seasons -- while Mario was in the press box. Add 3 KHL seasons and 2 lost to labor stoppages, and Jagr is on the ice for twelve more seasons than Mario (and adjust his scoring totals accordingly). That's not some trivial number of games tacked onto the end of his career... that's the length of an entire second career played in Mario's absence. Even if Jagr's scoring rate was much lower than Mario's, there's a certain tortoise-and-hare effect to playing 12 more years than the other guy and still playing elite hockey.


Compare to:

Raw Jagr: 1736 points in 1448 games
Raw Gartner: 1335 points in 1432 games
This favors Jagr.

Adjusted Jagr: 1897 points in 1448 games
Adjusted Gartner: 1142 points in 1432 games
This favors Jagr to Grand Canyon proportions.

Both scoring rates favor Jagr and there is no difference in longevity. Hence, not a good analogy.

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-04-2014, 11:34 AM
  #83
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,983
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
You keep saying "adjusted or not" as if we're supposed to just take 1980s scoring and 2000s scoring at face value. I know you know better than that.


Raw Mario: 1723 points in 915 games
Raw Jagr: 1736 points in 1448 games
That's the Grand Canyon in terms of per-game productivity, no doubt about it.

Adjusted Mario: 1540 points in 914 games
Adjusted Jagr: 1897 points in 1448 games
Still a big per-game gap, but it's significantly smaller if you don't treat scoring in the mid-80s the same as scoring in the early 2000s.


Where I can see an argument for Jagr is that he was actually available for his team for 533 games -- or nearly 7 full seasons -- while Mario was in the press box. Add 3 KHL seasons and 2 lost to labor stoppages, and Jagr is on the ice for twelve more seasons than Mario (and adjust his scoring totals accordingly). That's not some trivial number of games tacked onto the end of his career... that's the length of an entire second career played in Mario's absence. Even if Jagr's scoring rate was much lower than Mario's, there's a certain tortoise-and-hare effect to playing 12 more years than the other guy and still playing elite hockey.


Compare to:

Raw Jagr: 1736 points in 1448 games
Raw Gartner: 1335 points in 1432 games
This favors Jagr.

Adjusted Jagr: 1897 points in 1448 games
Adjusted Gartner: 1142 points in 1432 games
This favors Jagr to Grand Canyon proportions.

Both scoring rates favor Jagr and there is no difference in longevity. Hence, not a good analogy.
The biggest problem I have with using Adjusted Stats here is that DPE AS's are inflated (there are so many DPE values that are just whacked) while 80's AS's are undervalued (top tier scoring did not drop by the same level as overall scoring did). Basically, Jagr is getting a double advantage in this case.

Either way, what you're talking about here is for Jagr to make up ground on Mario on a career level. It's the same reason I can rank Lidstrom over Potvin overall but if you asked me who was better on a (as this thread title says) purely offensive level, it's Potvin 7 days a week and twice on Sunday.
It's the same with Jagr and Lemieux. Jagr makes up some ground careerwise on Mario with his longevity but on a purely offensive level (again, what the OP is asking), it's Mario and it's not close.

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-04-2014, 11:45 AM
  #84
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 32,131
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Either way, what you're talking about here is for Jagr to make up ground on Mario on a career level. It's the same reason I can rank Lidstrom over Potvin overall but if you asked me who was better on a (as this thread title says) purely offensive level, it's Potvin 7 days a week and twice on Sunday.
It's the same with Jagr and Lemieux. Jagr makes up some ground careerwise on Mario with his longevity but on a purely offensive level (again, what the OP is asking), it's Mario and it's not close.
That's exactly the same thing that I'm saying! Except I'm not sure many people would even rank Jagr's career over Mario's the way they would with Lidstrom/Potvin... it would take a pretty hard-core longevity fantatic to really buy into that. I just wanted to put it out there as something that could be argued, depending on values.

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-04-2014, 11:57 AM
  #85
TAnnala
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Oulu
Posts: 9,665
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
That's exactly the same thing that I'm saying! Except I'm not sure many people would even rank Jagr's career over Mario's the way they would with Lidstrom/Potvin... it would take a pretty hard-core longevity fantatic to really buy into that. I just wanted to put it out there as something that could be argued, depending on values.
Judging purely on career value, Jagr might have a case over Lemieux. His peak was clearly behind Mario, but it was as close as any mortal has ever gotten.

Would you rather have Lemieux for 900+ games or Jagr for 1500 games? There are few guys in the history of this game who can match Lemieux in career value, but I believe Jagr might be one of them.

TAnnala is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-04-2014, 12:25 PM
  #86
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,983
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TAnnala View Post

Would you rather have Lemieux for 900+ games or Jagr for 1500 games?
Mario for 900+ without blinking.

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-04-2014, 12:38 PM
  #87
TAnnala
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Oulu
Posts: 9,665
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Mario for 900+ without blinking.
It's the same for me. Actually without hesitation. But I often tend to put emphasis on big numbers and Mario is the 2nd biggest number wise. I could see someone, like Hardyvan, who puts a lot of value on long career choose Jagr.

Considering the fact that with Jagr you get as good offense as possible for the compensation of losing Mario. I don't know, I could see someone making a compelling case. But then again, I would take Mario before Messier without a doubt and Jagr is not that much better than Mess, if at all.

TAnnala is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-04-2014, 04:56 PM
  #88
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,538
vCash: 50
I calculated Adjusted Goals Created Above Replacement Value.
This data:

A) used adjusted points at 6.00 GPG
B) was calculated as of the end of last season
C) used RV of .20 adjusted GCPG (e.g, this could be 16.4 adjusted goals and ~ 28.7 adjusted assists per season... so a player whose goal/assist ratio matched that of the league would have roughly 45 adjusted points/82 games)
D) used what I consider the "standard" GC formula of: GC = .5 [ G + (A * GPA) ] where GPA is league goals per assist for that season

Adjusted GC Above Replacement Value (RV of .20)
===================================
1 Gretzky 589
2 Howe 505
3 Jagr 402
4 Lemieux 398
5 Esposito 358
6 Sakic 347
7 Beliveau 318
8 Selanne 317
9 Dionne 313
10 RichardM 311
11 Yzerman 309
12 HullBo 306
13 HullBr 300
14 Mikita 294
15 Messier 286

The effects of this season may help illustrate how this is not simply a "compiling" stat. Selanne's current season shouldn't affect his total much. At this point, he might have actually lost ~1 GCARV. Meanwhile, Jagr has likely gained ~8-9 GCARV to this point. Only because Jagr is still playing at a very high level is he substantially increasing his GCARV, not simply by playing more games.


Last edited by Czech Your Math: 02-07-2014 at 12:42 PM. Reason: deleted career totals which included estimates, until estimates can be verified more thoroughly
Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-04-2014, 06:07 PM
  #89
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,266
vCash: 500
in terms of pure offense he is in the mix with Mr Hockey and Bobby Hull as the best of all time.

Production matters.

Hardyvan123 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-04-2014, 06:15 PM
  #90
Morgoth Bauglir
Master Of The Fates
 
Morgoth Bauglir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,067
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Production matters.
Unless the subject is Mario Lemieux then all of a sudden production doesn't matter anymore and back-checking is everything

Morgoth Bauglir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-04-2014, 06:23 PM
  #91
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 21,625
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
I calculated Adjusted Goals Created Above Replacement Value.
...
Just some food for thought.
Definitely interesting. Pretty substantial support for a top 5 offensive player all time (especially if one just lazily took the approach of 3rd in GCARV + 7th in "actual" points /2 = 5th, lol), if not higher.

Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-04-2014, 06:30 PM
  #92
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,983
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
I calculated Adjusted Goals Created Above Replacement Value.
This data:

A) used adjusted points at 6.00 GPG
B) was calculated as of the end of last season
C) used RV of .20 adjusted GCPG (e.g, this could be 16.4 adjusted goals and ~ 28.7 adjusted assists per season... so a player whose goal/assist ratio matched that of the league would have roughly 45 adjusted points/82 games)
D) used what I consider the "standard" GC formula of: GC = .5 [ G + (A * GPA) ] where GPA is league goals per assist for that season

Adjusted GC Above Replacement Value (RV of .20)
===================================
1 Gretzky 589
2 Howe 505
3 Jagr 402
4 Lemieux 398
5 Esposito 358
6 Sakic 347
7 Beliveau 318
8 Selanne 317
9 Dionne 313
10 RichardM 311
11 Yzerman 309
12 HullBo 306
13 HullBr 300
14 Mikita 294
15 Messier 286

The effects of this season may help illustrate how this is not simply a "compiling" stat. Selanne's current season shouldn't affect his total much. At this point, he might have actually lost ~1 GCARV. Meanwhile, Jagr has likely gained ~8-9 GCARV to this point. Only because Jagr is still playing at a very high level is he substantially increasing his GCARV, not simply by playing more games.

Also, I tried to use fair assumptions (such as averaging NHL seasons before and after) to estimate players' WHA/KHL seasons, and calculated these GCARV totals as of the end of last season:

1 Gretzky 611
2 Howe 571
3 Jagr 491
4 HullBo 405
5 Lemieux 398

Just some food for thought.


It's still punishing the 80's guys who were playing against much higher scoring 2nd, 3rd and 4th tier players.
This happens every single time you try to base any equation off the League average devoid of any other criteria or adjustments.
It's a proven fact that top tier scoring has not dropped off or contributed to the drop off of the League average close to what the other tiers have, especially the 3rd and 4th tiers.


Also, wouldn't this stat be more effective or quite simply provide a better window as to just how far above replacement value they were per season if it was then divided by the number of seasons played or into a per 80 game average?

So your original top 4 based just on NHL games would look like this...
Lemieux 34.8/80GP
Gretzky 31.7/80GP
Howe 22.9/80GP
Jagr 22.2/80GP


And lets face facts, production counts sure but there's a reason Mike Gartner doesn't make it very high on any lists despite "out scoring" all but 5 players and "out producing" all but 28 in history.

Like I and a few others mention earlier, if we were talking career then there's some merit to be discussed.
We're not though, we're talking about pure offensive ability and how being a 55-60 point player now somehow makes up offensive ground on a Mario Lemieux is beyond me.

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-04-2014, 06:33 PM
  #93
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,266
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Mario for 900+ without blinking.

Then Mr T from the 80's would know what to say then.

Mario was a better talent but take Jagr in his best 900 GP and then add his "extra 600 GP and it's worth more than Mario and his 900 hands down IMO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TAnnala View Post
It's the same for me. Actually without hesitation. But I often tend to put emphasis on big numbers and Mario is the 2nd biggest number wise. I could see someone, like Hardyvan, who puts a lot of value on long career choose Jagr.

Considering the fact that with Jagr you get as good offense as possible for the compensation of losing Mario. I don't know, I could see someone making a compelling case. But then again, I would take Mario before Messier without a doubt and Jagr is not that much better than Mess, if at all.


yes one would need to take Jagr and 1500 over Mario and his 900.

Quite simply one would get another 400ish GP at a PPG level or above and another 200 GP at maybe an average level.

Hardyvan123 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-04-2014, 06:42 PM
  #94
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,983
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Then Mr T from the 80's would know what to say then.

Mario was a better talent but take Jagr in his best 900 GP and then add his "extra" 600 GP and it's worth more than Mario and his 900 hands down IMO.
So lets say we have player A with 525 games/750 points vs player B with 650 games/800 points.

By your criteria player B should be worth more right?
I mean hell, we could take player B in his best 525 games and then add his "extra" 125 games played and it's worth more than player A's just 525 right?
Still getting a player with at or around a PpG in those extra 125 games right?


And of course, forget the FACT that it took ALL of those extra 600 games for Jagr to even match Lemieux heh

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-04-2014, 06:43 PM
  #95
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,266
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintPatrick33 View Post
Unless the subject is Mario Lemieux then all of a sudden production doesn't matter anymore and back-checking is everything
The thread is about Jagr in pure offensive terms right?

Production, ie elite consistency other time matters more than a guy who missed a lot of time, it's a strictly numbers game here and the gap in GP is rather huge here and even more so when we factor in GP lost due to NHL lockouts.

And even with your attempt at sarcasm it's lost on me as I have often stated that Mario is the most skilled guy I have ever seen and probably in history.

nice try though.

Hardyvan123 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-04-2014, 06:50 PM
  #96
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,266
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
So lets say we have player A with 525 games/750 points vs player B with 650 games/800 points.

By your criteria player B should be worth more right?
I mean hell, we could take player B in his best 525 games and then add his "extra" 125 games played and it's worth more than player A's just 525 right?
Still getting a player with at or around a PpG in those extra 125 games right?
Why the distraction?

We aren't talking about 125 extra games here we are talking about close to 600 and the criteria is pure offense regular season right?

Mario also wasn't a god the entire 900 GP either, his peak is higher than Jagr's sure but Jagr has a huge advantage on the prime, which is basically his entire career outside of his first 2 years.

As to your last point, even you have to admit that scoring points came harder in Jagr's era than Mario's right?

Or are you going to cling onto some crazy notion that scoring goals was just as easy in 86 as it was in 98 (for example?

Hardyvan123 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-04-2014, 06:53 PM
  #97
Morgoth Bauglir
Master Of The Fates
 
Morgoth Bauglir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,067
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
And even with your attempt at sarcasm it's lost on me as I have often stated that Mario is the most skilled guy I have ever seen and probably in history
If by "often" you mean you've said that in one post and trashed him in about a hundred others I suppose you can claim you've said that "often"

Morgoth Bauglir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-04-2014, 07:01 PM
  #98
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,983
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Why the distraction?
What distraction? If your logic is sound, it should hold up for any example.
Your point is that one player is producing in games the other isn't. Whether it's 600 more games or 125 more games, your point should stay the same.

Quote:
We aren't talking about 125 extra games here we are talking about close to 600 and the criteria is pure offense regular season right?
Yeah, we're talking about player A that NEEDED 600 more games just to match the production of player B. At what point does this not sink in exactly?
Again, I fail to see how being a 55-60 point player at this point makes up ground on a purely offensive level with Mario Lemieux?

Quote:
Mario also wasn't a god the entire 900 GP either, his peak is higher than Jagr's sure but Jagr has a huge advantage on the prime, which is basically his entire career outside of his first 2 years.
Heh no he was only a "God" for about 800 of them
Jagr doesn't even have 800 games as the top superstar, let alone as a God.

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-04-2014, 07:12 PM
  #99
TAnnala
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Oulu
Posts: 9,665
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Why the distraction?

We aren't talking about 125 extra games here we are talking about close to 600 and the criteria is pure offense regular season right?

Mario also wasn't a god the entire 900 GP either, his peak is higher than Jagr's sure but Jagr has a huge advantage on the prime, which is basically his entire career outside of his first 2 years.

As to your last point, even you have to admit that scoring points came harder in Jagr's era than Mario's right?

Or are you going to cling onto some crazy notion that scoring goals was just as easy in 86 as it was in 98 (for example?
Agreed here.

Pure offense/career value, Jagr beats Lemieux. That is only cause Mario was hurt, a lot. It took the arguably 5th best offensive player ever, 600 more games to match Lemieux. I think that is a testament on Lemiux, not Jagr.

I still would take Lemieux for career, but I can see someone making a case for Jagr. I mean, 1500 games of Jagr is not too shabby.

TAnnala is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-04-2014, 08:04 PM
  #100
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,266
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
What distraction? If your logic is sound, it should hold up for any example.
Your point is that one player is producing in games the other isn't. Whether it's 600 more games or 125 more games, your point should stay the same.
Does Jagr even have 600 total GP in which he didn't get a single point?

your logic here leads me to see why you would take Mario's 900 over Jagr's 1500 if you think 125 and 600 GP at the same level means anything similar to each other.



Quote:
Yeah, we're talking about player A that NEEDED 600 more games just to match the production of player B. At what point does this not sink in exactly?
Again, I fail to see how being a 55-60 point player at this point makes up ground on a purely offensive level with Mario Lemieux?
Once again the only seasons where Jagr has 55-60 points were

91-57 points
92-67 points
12- 54 points
13- 35 points in 45 GP and a 48 game season
14-48 points in 57 GP

First 3 seasons aren't great by any stretch sure but last 2 seasons his 83 points in 13/14 are good for 30th overall in the NHL over that time, which even you would have to admit is better than average right?

As for the extra 600 GP needed, some of that is due to the differences in how scare goals are or are you going to ignore that reality?




Quote:
Heh no he was only a "God" for about 800 of them
Jagr doesn't even have 800 games as the top superstar, let alone as a God.
Yes Mario was a superstar from his first season one were guys named Ogrodnick, Tonelli, McLean and Brent Sutter all had as many or more pints than Mario.

Hardyvan123 is online now   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 08:35 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.