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.

Suppose Brodeur, Jagr, Selanne and Pronger all retire in the same year...

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-08-2012, 09:22 PM
  #51
toob
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 718
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
Similarly, Jagr arrived on a team which had made the playoffs once in 8 seasons and proceeded to make the playoffs for 11 straight seasons and 16/18 in his career. Detroit was in a division with Montreal and the Kings thru '81, so it was a bit tougher to make the playoffs than it was once the divisions were shuffled. Yzerman arrived on a bad team, which remained bad, eventually improved to mediocre and finally became a strong team towards the end of his prime. I didn't say Jagr played on weaker teams, but he didn't play on a team which was more than mediocre without him since at least '96 (except probably last year's Flyers). That included going to a Rangers team that hadn't made the playoffs since '97, despite players like Gretzky, Messier, Leetch, Richter, Lindros, Fleury, etc., and leading them to the playoffs in each of his 3 full seasons there. The Rangers were picked at/near bottom of NHL by most coming out of the lockout, so I don't see how they could have been much better than those 80s Detroit teams.
This is better than before but you are still comparing different situations and leaving out important facts.

When Yzerman came in to training camp as an 18 year old in his first 5 seconds he was said to be the best player as the story goes. He led his team in scoring as a rookie, was 2nd the next year, injured the 3rd, and didnt look back from 4th to 8th outscoring his nearest teammate by 30 to 60 points.

When Jagr joined the Penguins i have a very hard time believing he was even the 2nd best player on the team after Lemieux.

In terms of "staying bad" when Yzerman joined sure, not even Gretzky/Lemieux would have made those teams "good" but the degree of bad they were before consistently finishing at the bottom of their division to not. From not being dead last 2/8 times to being dead last 2/8 times.

76: 4/5
77: 5/5
78: 2/5
79: 5/5
80: 5/5
81: 5/5
82: 6/6
83: 5/5

84: 3/5
85: 3/5
86: 5/5
87: 2/5
88: 1/5
89: 1/5
90: 5/5
91: 3/5

Quote:
If it's a feather in his cap to lose to the Oilers in 5 games, then it's much needed, since in his first 11 seasons Detroit won
It is a feather in his cap to have a great playoff performance yes. More importantly it is an example of "impact" that was being chided. TBH id say it means more than scoring a game tying goal in a spectacular fashion too.

Quote:
In a comparison with a player of Jagr's accomplishments, you say "not all 7th place finishes are created equally"... really? Talk about bringing knives to a gun fight!
Huh? In a comparison where scoring finishes are brought up should i not use examples to bring up my point? Should i just be more direct and say that Jagr's scoring finishes cannot be compared to Yzerman's scoring finishes directly because he had weaker competition for his scoring finishes. The reasons he had weaker competition for his scoring finishes are...
1) top end talent was weaker
2) many top scorers had their numbers held back as they were playing more defensively and not going all out offensively as much as those in Yzerman's era
3) top scorers seemed to have been injured a lot more during key seasons of Jagr's scoring finishes (fair admission that this is my impression (Lindros/Bure/Kariya/Forsberg) and i havent bothered to check if it is correct)

So yeah maybe i shouldve said Yzerman being 7th in scoring and 6 points behind #4 where 1/2/3 are Lemieux/Lemieux linemate/Gretzky in a season where he himself said he didn't play on an offensive line compares very favorably to say Jagr being tied 1st in scoring with Lindros who played 2 less games than him while presumably playing with Francis who was better than anyone Yzerman ever had and importantly played the defensive side of the game to allow Jagr to go all out offense.

The fact that Yzerman in the early 90s under Murray was more held back than Jagr in in an era that held most of his competition back to some degree and yet still managed these much derided 7ths definitely makes me hazard a guess that placed in Jagr's situation with a lot less checks on his play he would have been able to score as much.

Quote:
So Yzerman and Francis each managed a top 10 finish in the early '00s and that supposedly proves that there wasn't strong competition during Jagr's prime? There were anomalies during Yzerman's prime as well (Rob Brown, Carson, Nicholls, Larmer, etc., d-men Coffey, MacInnis, Leetch finishing in top 10, etc.). Obviously Gretzky's and Lemieux's primes coincided more with Yzerman's prime than Jagr's, but even excluding those players doesn't come close to closing the gap in scoring finishes, and outside of those two there was better top competition in Jagr's prime than Yzerman's IMO.
Well it is illustrative isnt it? Given that Francis couldnt even finish top 10 in the 80s 10/15 years younger. Bringing up Coffey, MacInnis, Leetch would be just another example of how the competition for scoring finishes was harder given that you had offensive defensemen then of a caliber you dont see now and that they too were playing more offensively back in that era. Lastly 2 of the anomalies you pointed out were teammates of Gretzky/Lemieux, and the other a teammate of another top offensive player Savard so...

Quote:
I don't think a prime Yzerman could have led all of those '97-'01 Pens teams and '06-'08 Rangers teams to the playoffs, and he certainly couldn't have led them farther IMO. Again, in his first 11 seasons, Yzerman did not win a playoff series against a team which managed more than 72 points in a weak division. What was he going to do in a difficult division when only 16 of 26-30 teams make the playoffs? He wasn't the offensive force that Jagr was, he generally didn't create nearly as large of ES advantages for his team or in comparison to his teammates, so there's nothing to suggest he could have matched, let alone improved on what Jagr did for those teams. After Yzerman retired, Detroit contended for more Cups. After Jagr left, the Pens became the league's laughingstock.
Another uneven comparison. When Yzerman left Detroit he had already been replaced as the top center by Datsyuk/Zetterberg. Yzerman himself had not been an impact player on Detroit since 02 and they had already developed his replacements. Contrast with Jagr leaving Pittsburgh as easily the 2nd best player on the team. In that itself it is a much more abrupt transition. But not only that when he left the best player on the team played 22 games the next ssn. Straka who had 95 points the year before played 13 games. Kovalev also missed 15 games, Lang missed 20. Those were all of Pittsburgh's top players aside from Jagr that also did not serve the team for quite some time.No doubt losing Jagr hurt, but losing Mario hurt more. And losing Straka hurt a lot too. It doesnt help that Kovalev and Lang missed time too. This Jan Hrdina i hear held Jagr back so much actually scored more without him though.

But anyway while Pittsburgh became a laughing stock after Jagr (though it clearly seems it was not only due to no Jagr) Washington didnt seem to fare better despite with Jagr so.. should i make a little comment about impact?

Oh and Yzerman would absolutely love to play with a goaltender of the caliber of Lundqvist that Jagr got to play with. I dont think he ever played with a goalie that good. Hasek was not in his prime when he played for the Wings. Im also not sure why you bought up all of 06-08 as i really question the importance of Jagr as compared to Lundqvist in getting in the playoffs 07 (Nylander was just 13 points behind him and esp 08 when Jagr was 1 point ahead of Gomez). Aside from 06 it seems like Lundqvist was more important to the Rags success in 07 and 08 than Jagr. They made the playoffs again in 09 too.

toob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2012, 10:50 PM
  #52
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,538
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by toob View Post
In terms of "staying bad" when Yzerman joined sure, not even Gretzky/Lemieux would have made those teams "good" but the degree of bad they were before consistently finishing at the bottom of their division to not.
I'm not trying to blame Yzerman for Detroit staying bad for most of his first 8 seasons, but again for a player whose case relies on intangibles, it doesn't exactly help his case. The Wings' 40 points in 80 games in '86 was the worst win% in their history. They may have generally been slightly less bad, but he didn't exactly turn the team around, despite his production.

Quote:
Originally Posted by toob View Post
It is a feather in his cap to have a great playoff performance yes. More importantly it is an example of "impact" that was being chided. TBH id say it means more than scoring a game tying goal in a spectacular fashion too.
I'm not sure just how great it was, but at least there's no shame in losing to the '87 Oilers. Still, not winning a series against a team with more than 72 points in his first 11 seasons is pretty remarkable (thru '94 0/7 vs. teams w/ more than 72 points). Yzerman was a PPG+ player even his rookie season and should be commended for that. Based on his regular season PPG, Yzerman would have been expected to have a playoff PPG of 1.36 from '84-'94. Instead he had a PPG of 1.10 (19% less than expected) and was -20. It's hard for me to reconcile his team's lack of success in the regular season during his first 8 seaons, lack of success in the playoffs in his first 11 seasons, and his sharp decline in personal playoff performance vs. expected, with him being an "impact" player which "dominated the league" (outside of Wayne & Mario) and "led" his team through "intangibles" like "leadership."

Quote:
Originally Posted by toob View Post
No doubt losing Jagr hurt, but losing Mario hurt more. And losing Straka hurt a lot too. It doesnt help that Kovalev and Lang missed time too. This Jan Hrdina i hear held Jagr back so much actually scored more without him though.

But anyway while Pittsburgh became a laughing stock after Jagr (though it clearly seems it was not only due to no Jagr) Washington didnt seem to fare better despite with Jagr so.. should i make a little comment about impact?

Oh and Yzerman would absolutely love to play with a goaltender of the caliber of Lundqvist that Jagr got to play with. I dont think he ever played with a goalie that good. Hasek was not in his prime when he played for the Wings. Im also not sure why you bought up all of 06-08 as i really question the importance of Jagr as compared to Lundqvist in getting in the playoffs 07 (Nylander was just 13 points behind him and esp 08 when Jagr was 1 point ahead of Gomez). Aside from 06 it seems like Lundqvist was more important to the Rags success in 07 and 08 than Jagr. They made the playoffs again in 09 too.
Losing Mario did not affect the Pens the same as losing Jagr. Pittsburgh's record each season:

'94 .601 (Lemieux 20 GP)
'95 .635 (no Mario)
'96 .622 (with Mario)
'97 .512 (with Mario)
'98 .598 (no Mario)
'99 .549 (no Mario)
'00 .537 (no Mario)
'01 .585 (Lemieux 43 GP)
'02 .421 (Lemieux 24 GP)
'03 .396 (Lemieux 67 GP)
'04 .354 (Lemieux 10 GP)
'06 .354 (Lemieux 26 GP)

So with Jagr, when Mario was mostly absent in '91 (.540), '94 or fully absent in '95, '98, '99 and '00, they were still over .500 and a playoff team. Without Jagr, Mario made the playoffs 1/10 seasons. Similarly, the Pens had a much larger drop when Jagr was injured compared to when Mario was injured. I don't see how any of this suggests that losing Mario hurt the Pens more than losing Jagr. Interesting how the whole team falls apart once Jagr left. One might consider how much coverage he received and how much open ice that left his teammates. Once he left, they were the ones who had to carry the puck and absorb the hits... and they all became injured and less productive... big surprise.

Nothing against Lundqvist, but coming out of the lockout, the Rangers were picked for the cellar in the NHL (even with Jagr and Lundqvist) and were basically a collection of misfits and older players. We've seen plenty of teams with very good, even elite goalies, miss the playoffs (see Luongo, Miller, Price, Kipper and many others). Without Jagr, those teams are completely dominated and Lundqvist would have been fortunate to keep in most of the games he played. In Jagr's 3 seasons, the Rangers made the playoffs each season and won two series. The 3 seasons after he left, they made the playoffs twice and failed to win a series. Remember, they didn't make the playoffs from '98 to '04, so we see the same pattern: bad team before he arrives, good team while he's there, worse team after he leaves. The Caps years were a bit of a "Wash" (haha) in those terms, as they were an aging team which hadn't won a series in the previous 3 seasons, they were mostly mediocre in Jagr's brief stay there, and collapsed during his last season and took a few years to rebuild.


Last edited by Czech Your Math: 12-08-2012 at 10:56 PM.
Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-09-2012, 12:27 AM
  #53
toob
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 718
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
I'm not trying to blame Yzerman for Detroit staying bad for most of his first 8 seasons, but again for a player whose case relies on intangibles, it doesn't exactly help his case. The Wings' 40 points in 80 games in '86 was the worst win% in their history. They may have generally been slightly less bad, but he didn't exactly turn the team around, despite his production.
Before we start speaking for myself i havent been making a case for Yzerman based on his intangibles. I dont think that Jagr has bad intangibles when it comes to on-ice performance as i have heard many things about his professionalism when it comes to training and practice (i read this speaking glowingly about his religious faith, work ethic, mentoring Giroux, etc).

I disagree with the interpretation that Yzerman didnt turn the team around. Their finishes in the division clearly show improvement - as does the fact that they could finally make the playoffs regularly.

Yes 86 was a new low for the Red Wings (Yzerman was hurt for over a 3rd of that year too but they sucked almost as much with him as well) but there were more highs. 88 for example saw the Wings have their best record since Gordie Howe was still on the team.

Quote:
I'm not sure just how great it was, but at least there's no shame in losing to the '87 Oilers. Still, not winning a series against a team with more than 72 points in his first 11 seasons is pretty remarkable (thru '94 0/7 vs. teams w/ more than 72 points). Yzerman was a PPG+ player even his rookie season and should be commended for that. Based on his regular season PPG, Yzerman would have been expected to have a playoff PPG of 1.36 from '84-'94. Instead he had a PPG of 1.10 (19% less than expected) and was -20. It's hard for me to reconcile his team's lack of success in the regular season during his first 8 seaons, lack of success in the playoffs in his first 11 seasons, and his sharp decline in personal playoff performance vs. expected, with him being an "impact" player which "dominated the league" (outside of Wayne & Mario) and "led" his team through "intangibles" like "leadership."
For intangibles see above.

For the 87 playoffs statistically you are right it isnt super impressive but the Red Wings in 87 were a very conservative team for the era and it wasnt all about scoring. Below is some stuff i dug up in another thread.

Yzerman was the best Red Wing in the Oilers series in 87
Yzerman was also easily the best Red Wing in the Leafs series in 87
Yzerman was the 1st star in a game in the Hawks series in 87
Yzerman was mainly matched up against Gretzky in game 1
Yzerman was the man credited with doing most of the work of keeping Gretzky away from the net in game 1
The Red Wings team D frustrated the Oilers
The Red Wings in 87 played a tight defensive style of which Yzerman played a key role and which also limits his scoring opportunities

For the ppg in playoffs yeah you are right that the numbers took a hit but Yzerman was injured for a lot of those playoffs and it seems the team became lost without him.

88: Came back from a season ending/career threatining knee injury to play the last 3 games vs the Oilers but only scored 1 goal 3 assists. Wings lose in 5
91: All of 3 goals and 3 assists in the first 3 games before suffering a knee injury. Still played in the next 4 games but was scoreless. Wings lose in 7
92: Had a rib injury throughout the playoffs but did not miss a game only 3 goals 5 assists. Swept by Chicago
93: 3 goals and 2 assists in the first 2 games before missing practice before game 3 due to a wrist injury. Still played the series but scored only 1 goal and 1 assist. Wings lose in 7
94: came back early from injury to play the last 3 games vs the Sharks but only scored 1 goal 3 assists. Wings lose in 7

Yeah you can argue players produce through injury (he did too) but rarely as much as if healthy. Had he sat out the last 4 games of 91, the last 5 games of 93, the entire 92 playoffs, and not come back early in 88 and 94 that ppg looks pretty good 6 goals 5 assists in 5 games.

Quote:
Losing Mario did not affect the Pens the same as losing Jagr. Pittsburgh's record each season:

'94 .601 (Lemieux 20 GP)
'95 .635 (no Mario)
'96 .622 (with Mario)
'97 .512 (with Mario)
'98 .598 (no Mario)
'99 .549 (no Mario)
'00 .537 (no Mario)
'01 .585 (Lemieux 43 GP)
'02 .421 (Lemieux 24 GP)
'03 .396 (Lemieux 67 GP)
'04 .354 (Lemieux 10 GP)
'06 .354 (Lemieux 26 GP)

So with Jagr, when Mario was mostly absent in '91 (.540), '94 or fully absent in '95, '98, '99 and '00, they were still over .500 and a playoff team. Without Jagr, Mario made the playoffs 1/10 seasons. Similarly, the Pens had a much larger drop when Jagr was injured compared to when Mario was injured. I don't see how any of this suggests that losing Mario hurt the Pens more than losing Jagr. Interesting how the whole team falls apart once Jagr left. One might consider how much coverage he received and how much open ice that left his teammates. Once he left, they were the ones who had to carry the puck and absorb the hits... and they all became injured and less productive... big surprise.
I was speaking about post 2001 (you cant compare the earlier teams because they were pretty stacked without both Mario and Jagr). In 02 they not only lost Jagr but Lemieux and Straka for most of the year, and Lang and Kovalev missed a ton of time. And after that just gets worse with Lang leaving Kovale and Straka still missing time. When a D leads your team in scoring with 50 points, unless it is Paul Coffey in a shortened season you are seriously screwed up. I admit that is an interesting point about Jagr shielding his teammates from abuse and injury tho.

toob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-09-2012, 01:33 AM
  #54
TAnnala
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Oulu
Posts: 9,676
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by norrisnick View Post
Um... If the four players mentioned in the OP never play again... wouldn't they fall into the same class as Lidstrom who also played last during the '11-'12 season? One of the four wouldn't be a first ballot...
I guess. That would make it even stronger induction. Easily the best class ever.

BTW, would Selanne or Pronger drop out?

TAnnala is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-09-2012, 05:44 AM
  #55
lamini
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 162
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by norrisnick View Post
Um... If the four players mentioned in the OP never play again... wouldn't they fall into the same class as Lidstrom who also played last during the '11-'12 season? One of the four wouldn't be a first ballot...
And what about Hasek, he ended his career this summer too (but he didnt play in 11-12, so I'm not sure)

lamini is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-09-2012, 06:07 AM
  #56
revolverjgw
Registered User
 
revolverjgw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Nova Scotia
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,073
vCash: 500
Jagr was/is like Henrik Sedin (a guy that gets TONS of secondary assists that were every bit as hard earned as a primary) in that his secondary assists can be the result of herculean effort in controlling the play, waiting for the play to develop, drawing in defenders, holding the puck, and dishing it to other guys that are in position specifically because he made it possible with his vision and physical dominance. Selanne couldn't even dream of being capable of some of the things Jagr was doing getting double and triple teamed and carrying defenders around on his back en route to creating time, space and opportunity for his two linemates.

Jagr would draw in everybody whilst controlling the zone singlehandedly, dish it to his open center, winger would bang in the rebound, things like that. Secondary assist Jagr but he was always the architect. That season maybe he had more secondarys than usual, but it was hardly some hugely anomalous total and it surely wasn't the result of getting easy points, it was normal statistical fluctuation.


Last edited by revolverjgw: 12-09-2012 at 06:14 AM.
revolverjgw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-09-2012, 08:52 AM
  #57
RorschachWJK
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Kuusamo
Country: Finland
Posts: 3,379
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by revolverjgw View Post
Jagr was/is like Henrik Sedin (a guy that gets TONS of secondary assists that were every bit as hard earned as a primary) in that his secondary assists can be the result of herculean effort in controlling the play, waiting for the play to develop, drawing in defenders, holding the puck, and dishing it to other guys that are in position specifically because he made it possible with his vision and physical dominance. Selanne couldn't even dream of being capable of some of the things Jagr was doing getting double and triple teamed and carrying defenders around on his back en route to creating time, space and opportunity for his two linemates.

Jagr would draw in everybody whilst controlling the zone singlehandedly, dish it to his open center, winger would bang in the rebound, things like that. Secondary assist Jagr but he was always the architect. That season maybe he had more secondarys than usual, but it was hardly some hugely anomalous total and it surely wasn't the result of getting easy points, it was normal statistical fluctuation.
Blowing past defenders using your phenomenal speed and getting the puck to the net (and getting the secondary assist after someone bangs the puck in net) is in no way less impressive than what you describe for Jagr there. It is just a different way of being the architect. And guess what, that was something Jagr couldn't even dream of being capable ;-)

RorschachWJK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-09-2012, 09:33 AM
  #58
livewell68
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,754
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RorschachWJK View Post
Blowing past defenders using your phenomenal speed and getting the puck to the net (and getting the secondary assist after someone bangs the puck in net) is in no way less impressive than what you describe for Jagr there. It is just a different way of being the architect. And guess what, that was something Jagr couldn't even dream of being capable ;-)
A young Jagr, the one that is being described here (Pittsburgh days) was just as much about speed as he was about puck control.

The difference between Jagr and any other player of his era was that Jagr could beat you in many more ways than one offensively. He had no true weaknesses on offense, he was fast, strong, big, skilled and as much a great playmaker as he was a goalscorer.

Jagr pretty much averaged in the high 60's in assists in his prime while Selanne topped off at 60 assists (that season being coincidentally the 1998-99 season).

Jagr was just as capable of scoring 50-60 goals as he was leading the league in assists (3x times he led the league), now that is something that Selanne could only dream of being capable.

As for this speed you speak of in regards, were you talking about Selanne? If you were, the 1998-99 version of Selanne wasn't really any much faster than Jagr was.

The reason why people don't talk about Jagr's speed is because that wasn't what he solely relied on, it was just one of many tools he possessed. Guys like Bure and Selanne will all about speed, that doesn't mean though that Jagr wasn't fast. He did have blow by speed back then.



Last edited by livewell68: 12-09-2012 at 09:42 AM.
livewell68 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-09-2012, 12:49 PM
  #59
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,538
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by revolverjgw View Post
Jagr was/is like Henrik Sedin (a guy that gets TONS of secondary assists that were every bit as hard earned as a primary) in that his secondary assists can be the result of herculean effort in controlling the play, waiting for the play to develop, drawing in defenders, holding the puck, and dishing it to other guys that are in position specifically because he made it possible with his vision and physical dominance. Selanne couldn't even dream of being capable of some of the things Jagr was doing getting double and triple teamed and carrying defenders around on his back en route to creating time, space and opportunity for his two linemates.

Jagr would draw in everybody whilst controlling the zone singlehandedly, dish it to his open center, winger would bang in the rebound, things like that. Secondary assist Jagr but he was always the architect. That season maybe he had more secondarys than usual, but it was hardly some hugely anomalous total and it surely wasn't the result of getting easy points, it was normal statistical fluctuation.
That's what I was trying to say, but you explained it better!


Quote:
Originally Posted by TAnnala View Post
I guess. That would make it even stronger induction. Easily the best class ever.

BTW, would Selanne or Pronger drop out?
I don't see how those 4 could be in the same class. Pronger is basically retired... Brodeur and Selanne are in limbo AFAIK (although Selanne is considering playing in Finland?)... and Jagr is playing this season. If this season is canceled, it's possible that Lidstrom, Pronger, Selanne and Brodeur could be in the same class.

What are the guidelines? Does a single game in any foreign league constitute a "season"? What if Selanne, for example, only plays in the WCs and then retires?

Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-09-2012, 10:47 PM
  #60
RorschachWJK
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Kuusamo
Country: Finland
Posts: 3,379
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by livewell68 View Post
A young Jagr, the one that is being described here (Pittsburgh days) was just as much about speed as he was about puck control.

The difference between Jagr and any other player of his era was that Jagr could beat you in many more ways than one offensively. He had no true weaknesses on offense, he was fast, strong, big, skilled and as much a great playmaker as he was a goalscorer.

Jagr pretty much averaged in the high 60's in assists in his prime while Selanne topped off at 60 assists (that season being coincidentally the 1998-99 season).

Jagr was just as capable of scoring 50-60 goals as he was leading the league in assists (3x times he led the league), now that is something that Selanne could only dream of being capable.

As for this speed you speak of in regards, were you talking about Selanne? If you were, the 1998-99 version of Selanne wasn't really any much faster than Jagr was.

The reason why people don't talk about Jagr's speed is because that wasn't what he solely relied on, it was just one of many tools he possessed. Guys like Bure and Selanne will all about speed, that doesn't mean though that Jagr wasn't fast. He did have blow by speed back then.

The reason why people don't talk about Jagr's speed is because he wasn't anything special speedwise. Look, I am as big a Jagr fan as the next guy and think that he was a better player than Selšnne but let's get real here. You make him sound like some demi-god who only had qualities superior to everybody else, including those qualities that were special talents of some other legendary players (e.g. Selšnne's speed, blowing by defenders, scoring at speed etc.). I can sense the smell of Forsberg-type overhyping.

RorschachWJK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-09-2012, 11:49 PM
  #61
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
 
Hockey Outsider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,353
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by toob View Post
Losing Mario did not affect the Pens the same as losing Jagr. Pittsburgh's record each season:

'94 .601 (Lemieux 20 GP)
'95 .635 (no Mario)
'96 .622 (with Mario)
'97 .512 (with Mario)
'98 .598 (no Mario)
'99 .549 (no Mario)
'00 .537 (no Mario)
'01 .585 (Lemieux 43 GP)
'02 .421 (Lemieux 24 GP)
'03 .396 (Lemieux 67 GP)
'04 .354 (Lemieux 10 GP)
'06 .354 (Lemieux 26 GP)
I'm not sure if that's the best way of looking at Lemieux's impact. Yes, it's literally true that the Penguins only improved from .537 in 2000 to .585 in 2001 (equivalent to 8 points over 82 games), but Lemieux had a huge impact in the games he played.

- Pittsburgh's record in games with Lemieux: 26-14-3 (.640, 105 point pace)
- Pittsburgh's record in games without Lemieux: 16-17-6 (.487, 80 point pace)

The Penguins' defense was no worse with Lemieux (they allowed 3.12 goals per game when Lemieux played and 3.13 per game when he didn't) but he had an enormous impact on the offense (jumped from scoring 2.90 goals per game to 3.91 GPG).

I'll admit I haven't done the analysis for any of the other seasons (I picked 2001 because it's as close to a 50/50 split that we have for games with and without Lemieux) but I'm skeptical that any non-goalie aside from Gretzky, Orr and Howe could have as big an impact on a team as Lemieux.

Hockey Outsider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-10-2012, 01:22 AM
  #62
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,538
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Outsider View Post
I'm not sure if that's the best way of looking at Lemieux's impact. Yes, it's literally true that the Penguins only improved from .537 in 2000 to .585 in 2001 (equivalent to 8 points over 82 games), but Lemieux had a huge impact in the games he played.

- Pittsburgh's record in games with Lemieux: 26-14-3 (.640, 105 point pace)
- Pittsburgh's record in games without Lemieux: 16-17-6 (.487, 80 point pace)

The Penguins' defense was no worse with Lemieux (they allowed 3.12 goals per game when Lemieux played and 3.13 per game when he didn't) but he had an enormous impact on the offense (jumped from scoring 2.90 goals per game to 3.91 GPG).

I'll admit I haven't done the analysis for any of the other seasons (I picked 2001 because it's as close to a 50/50 split that we have for games with and without Lemieux) but I'm skeptical that any non-goalie aside from Gretzky, Orr and Howe could have as big an impact on a team as Lemieux.
It's hard to properly analyze those seasons where Lemieux played, because he often missed the majority of the season. This makes it especially difficult to combine the data from his various seasons.

It looks to me like the Pens declined a lot more without Lemieux before Jagr's prime (i.e., thru '93). After that, they were generally much more able to withstand his absence:

'87-'93
with Mario: 425 GP, .572 win%, 4.24/4.01 GF/GA ratio
w/o Mario: 139 GP, .432, 3.62/3.99
Expected w/o Mario: .598 (weighted by missed GP), 4.26/3.93

'94
with Mario: 22 GP, .591, 3.36/3.36 GF/GA
w/o Mario: 62 GP, .605, 3.63/3.40

'95 w/o Mario: .635, 3.77/3.29

'96
with Mario: 70 GP, .643, 4.73/3.67
w/o Mario: 12 GP, .500, 2.58/2.25

'97
with Mario: 76 GP, .520, .526, 3.49/3.37
w/o Mario: 6 GP, .417, .333, 3.33/4.00 (note: 3 GP, .500 & 3.33/3.33 w/o Lemieux but w/ Jagr)

'98 w/o Mario: .598, 2.78/2.29
'99 w/o Mario: .549, 2.95/2.74
'00 w/o Mario: .537, 2.94/2.88

'01
with Mario: 43 GP, .640, 3.91/3.12
w/o Mario: 39 GP, .487, 2.90/3.13

==============

'94, '96, '97 & '01
with Mario: 211 GP, .592, 3.97/3.42
w/o Mario: 119 GP, .546, 3.27/3.23
Expected w/o Mario: .608, 3.69/3.31

'95 & '98-'00 w/o Mario
Totals: .569, 3.01/2.73
Avg. season: .580, 3.11/2.80

===============

'94-'01
Totals with Jagr: 575 GP, .571, 3.45/3.03
Avg. Season w/ Jagr: .585, 3.47/3.05 (average of season averages)
w/o Jagr: 49 GP, .408, 2.76/3.43
Expected w/o Jagr: .534, 3.33/2.94

During '87-93, the Pens dropped from ~93-98 point team with Lemieux to ~71 point team without him, while their GF/GA ratio declined from ~1.06-1.08 to ~.91 or by ~14-16%.

During '94-'01, the Pens dropped from ~97-99 point team with Lemieux to ~90-95 point team without him, while their GF/GA ratio declined from ~1.11-1.16 to ~1.01-1.11 or by ~0-13%.

During '94-91, the Pens dropped from a ~88-96 point team with Jagr to a ~67 point team without him, while their GF/GA ratio declined from ~1.13-1.14 to ~.80 or by ~29%.


Last edited by Czech Your Math: 12-10-2012 at 03:17 AM.
Czech Your Math 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 01:27 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.