I actually think think Jagr has marginally better Hart record than Messier. Messier won 2 and was a finalist for once more.
Jagr one once and was a finalist for 6 more times? Including a one point loss, can't remember to who right now. Or at least i think the record is pretty even.
I actually think think Jagr has marginally better Hart record than Messier. Messier won 2 and was a finalist for once more.
Jagr one once and was a finalist for 6 more times? Including a one point loss, can't remember to who right now. Or at least i think the record is pretty even.
Jagr lost by one point to Pronger in 2000. He finished first among forwards in Hart voting 3 times (lost another one to Hasek) and was second twice, third once, and fourth once. I still can't believe that in '96 Jagr was 7 goals and 29 points above third place, led in even strength points by 19, and set the season record for points/assists by a wing... and yet finished 4th in Hart, including behind Messier, who he outscored by 50 points and had a better plus-minus than him as well.
Anderson was only a hall of famer (what...15 years after he was eligible) because of Messier! Just look at how he fell off a cliff without him... hell he didn't even finish his career in the NHL.
Yeah, like the 1981-82 season where Anderson scored over 100 points to finish second on the team, while Messier was in the 80s. Clearly Messier made Anderson.
Quote:
and Messier didn't play with Gretzky that much at all.. a little sure.. but nothing to make it really note worthy.
He was named to the postseaon all-star team at LW while playing with Gretzky. That's noteworthy enough.
Quote:
Really, you want to be throwing those kind of stones around? Jagr got to play with Mario Lemieux, Ron Francis, Mark Recchi, Larry Murphy, etc..
Mark Recchi was traded 58 games into Jagr's rookie season.
Jagr rarely played with Lemieux at ES in their entire careers, and before 1995-96 rarely saw PP action with him. Which also meant he rarely saw time with Murphy, except for the 1994-95 season when Lemieux didn't play. Francis played many seasons with Jagr, but 90s Francis wasn't significantly better than 80s Anderson. Jagr had enough years with guys like Kip Miller to offset any amount of help he had from actual talent. When did Messier ever play without talented teammates? Did it ever actually happen? I don't think so.
Quote:
And Messier's D overrated? please.. he at least had a defensive game unlike guys like Jagr.
So it's gone to "at least he had a defensive game" now? I see you are admitting that his defense wasn't all that some people would like to suggest that it was.
Quote:
Jagr you at least can compare careers.. but I don't even know where to begin with you saying Yzerman and Sakic above Messier who both were a clear cut below Messier.
I see we have significant differences in what we value in a player then. If you think Messier is a clear cut above Sakic and Yzerman, you are using some criteria other than offense or defense. Which turns it likely to physical play, which is where Messier's advantage is. If you think he has enough of an advantage there to put him not only above those two, but a whole tier above them... well, I would be afraid to see your list of "top 50 greatest players" because we might be seeing Scott Stevens but not Nicklas Lidstrom, and Eric Lindros but not Yzerman.
Jagr lost by one point to Pronger in 2000. He finished first among forwards in Hart voting 3 times (lost another one to Hasek) and was second twice, third once, and fourth once. I still can't believe that in '96 Jagr was 7 goals and 29 points above third place, led in even strength points by 19, and set the season record for points/assists by a wing... and yet finished 4th in Hart, including behind Messier, who he outscored by 50 points and had a better plus-minus than him as well.
Jagr was also second on his team in both scoring and Hart voting that season, and played on the second line but first PP.
Messier didn't deserve his Hart ranking that year imho, but the argument for Jagr higher than 4th is silly when you consider Lemieux and what the Hart is for. Jagr 2nd in Pearson, sure. But Hart, no way. No way was he more even more valuable to his team than a 107-point, Selke-winning Fedorov was to his (IMHO) despite the scoring difference. Fedorov (and 95-point Selke finalist Yzerman) weren't terribly far behind Jagr in overall performance that year (if at all) given defensive acumen and linemates. That may sound outlandish, but Jagr was on the second line behind Lemieux, and not facing the opponent's top defenses.
Jagr was also second on his team in both scoring and Hart voting that season, and played on the second line but first PP.
Messier didn't deserve his Hart ranking that year imho, but the argument for Jagr higher than 4th is silly when you consider Lemieux and what the Hart is for. Jagr 2nd in Pearson, sure. But Hart, no way. No way was he more even more valuable to his team than a 107-point, Selke-winning Fedorov was to his (IMHO) despite the scoring difference. Fedorov (and 95-point Selke finalist Yzerman) weren't terribly far behind Jagr in overall performance that year (if at all) given defensive acumen and linemates. That may sound outlandish, but Jagr was on the second line behind Lemieux, and not facing the opponent's top defenses.
Jagr was coming off an Art Ross win the year before, the NHL knew what he was capable of. Teams were not going to just cover Lemieux and let Jagr's line run free.
BTW you speak of how Jagr was not as valuable because he had Lemieux yet you bring up Fedorov and Yzerman in this same discussion. Don't you think you're contradicting yourself here?
Yzerman and Fedorov benefited as much from having to spread out opposing teams' defense as Lemieux and Jagr did.
Lemieux also missed 12 games, in those 12 games Jagr was still facing the other teams' best defense. Lemieux had many games in 1995-96 where he was quiet, got 1 Pt or 0 and then would explode the next game with a 6 or 7 Pts game.
Jagr never did that that season, he was the most consistent player in the NHL and it's not even close. He never went more than 2 games in a row while being held scoreless. Jagr also suffered a slight groin strain in the last month of the season and yet still played all 82 games. If not for that injury, I'm willing to bet Jagr scores closer to Lemieux' 161 Pts.
He was by far the second most dominant player in the NHL and it was really not that close.
You mention Fedorov and Yzerman; Sakic, Forsberg and Lindros were all more dominant than the Red Wings duo were.
Fedorov and Yzerman weren't even in the same Stratosphere as Jagr was in 1995-96.
I'm not trying to diminish Lemieux' accomplishments in 1995-96 (he really was incredible) but he relied on the powerplay heavily to earn his points (a powerplay that featured Jagr, Francis, Nedved among others) while Jagr did most of his damage at evenstrength (96-100 Pts at evenstrength) if I'm not mistaken.
Jagr should have finished no less than 3rd in Hart voting that season. It really was a European bias, something that Jagr was a constant victim of.
Jagr should have 3 Hart trophies by now to put him on the same level as the likes of Orr and Lemieux but unfortunately voters had to get it wrong.
Jagr was coming off an Art Ross win the year before, the NHL knew what he was capable of. Teams were not going to just cover Lemieux and let Jagr's line run free.
BTW you speak of how Jagr was not as valuable because he had Lemieux yet you bring up Fedorov and Yzerman in this same discussion. Don't you think you're contradicting yourself here?
Did I say either belonged above Jagr?
Quote:
He was by far the second most dominant player in the NHL and it was really not that close.
And he was still only the second most valuable player on his team.
Quote:
You mention Fedorov and Yzerman; Sakic, Forsberg and Lindros were all more dominant than the Red Wings duo were.
I can understand the argument for Jagr...
But Sakic and Forsberg only had just above average defensive games at the time, and scored 120 and 116 respectively. You don't think two Selke nominations makes up 34 points?
Lindros' defensive game wasn't any better, he had 115 points, but at least he had the physical aspect.
But you can't claim that Lindros' physical game plus 8 points is worth Fedorov's incredible defensive advantage at Fedorov's peak. And Yzerman played just as well as Fedorov (if not better) that season, he just didn't have the same caliber of linemates (Primeau had a down year and only posted 52 points to Kozlov's 73, McCarty only 29 to Ciccarelli's 43).
Quote:
Fedorov and Yzerman weren't even in the same Stratosphere as Jagr was in 1995-96.
Depends on what aspects you look for in a hockey player I guess.
Quote:
I'm not trying to diminish Lemieux' accomplishments in 1995-96
Yes you are. Pro tip: nobody ever starts a sentence that way unless they're going to do exactly what they just said they weren't going to do.
Quote:
(he really was incredible) but he relied on the powerplay heavily to earn his points (a powerplay that featured Jagr, Francis, Nedved among others) while Jagr did most of his damage at evenstrength (96-100 Pts at evenstrength) if I'm not mistaken.
Jagr's even strength line featured Francis, who finished 4th in scoring and was a Selke finalist. Mario's line had... Mario. Mario also received the primary attention. Jagr better damn well be scoring at ES.
Quote:
Jagr should have finished no less than 3rd in Hart voting that season. It really was a European bias, something that Jagr was a constant victim of.
*ahem*
A PLAYER WHO IS THE SECOND (OR THIRD, OR LOWER) MOST IMPORTANT PLAYER ON HIS TEAM IS, BY DEFINITION, NOT A SIGNIFICANT MVP CANDIDATE.
Thank you, you may return to normal activities.
Quote:
Jagr should have 3 Hart trophies by now to put him on the same level as the likes of Orr and Lemieux but unfortunately voters had to get it wrong.
Should Jagr have 2000? No. That should be Bure's. Because he was the best? No, he was barely a top-ten player. It's because he was the most valuable. If I re-awarded the Hart, Jagr would have only one; 2006. This isn't to say he wasn't the best player in more than one year, nor does it say he was the best player in 2006. The 1999 Hart would have gone to Bourque, as his second.
And he was still only the second most valuable player on his team.
A PLAYER WHO IS THE SECOND (OR THIRD, OR LOWER) MOST IMPORTANT PLAYER ON HIS TEAM IS, BY DEFINITION, NOT A SIGNIFICANT MVP CANDIDATE.
Thank you, you may return to normal activities.
First, it's debatable as to who was the most valuable player on the Pens that year. Second, even if one considers Jagr the second most valuable player on the team, it wouldn't be unprecedented for teammates to finish higher than 1st-4th in Hart voting:
Jagr's even strength line featured Francis, who finished 4th in scoring and was a Selke finalist. Mario's line had... Mario. Mario also received the primary attention. Jagr better damn well be scoring at ES.
In '96, Jagr scored 95 points at even strength... Francis had 63. Francis finished 4th in scoring, because he played with Jagr at ES and with Mario/Jagr on PP.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eva unit zero
Should Jagr have 2000? No. That should be Bure's. Because he was the best? No, he was barely a top-ten player. It's because he was the most valuable. If I re-awarded the Hart, Jagr would have only one; 2006. This isn't to say he wasn't the best player in more than one year, nor does it say he was the best player in 2006. The 1999 Hart would have gone to Bourque, as his second.
Wait... what??? I'm all for unorthodox opinions, but Bourque for Hart in '99??? That was one of his worst seasons IMO, are you sure you're not mixing up players and/or seasons???
Should Jagr have 2000? No. That should be Bure's. Because he was the best? No, he was barely a top-ten player. It's because he was the most valuable. If I re-awarded the Hart, Jagr would have only one; 2006. This isn't to say he wasn't the best player in more than one year, nor does it say he was the best player in 2006. The 1999 Hart would have gone to Bourque, as his second.
You're arguing semantics. The MVP should go to the best player in the league. An inferior player should not win over a better player because of his team. That's turning an individual award into a team award. I mean Bourque in '99, Seriously?
First, it's debatable as to who was the most valuable player on the Pens that year. Second, even if one considers Jagr the second most valuable player on the team, it wouldn't be unprecedented for teammates to finish higher than 1st-4th in Hart voting:
Wait... what??? I'm all for unorthodox opinions, but Bourque for Hart in '99??? That was one of his worst seasons IMO, are you sure you're not mixing up players and/or seasons???
The Hart is for Most Valuable Player. Unfortunately, too many writers and fans alike see it as a "Best Player" (or even "Best Forward") award. Writers shouldn't be putting two or three guys from the same team on a single ballot. For example, at least one and as many as three writers in 1992 voted "Messier-?-Leetch". The second place guy probably being Roy (about half of all 2nds), is it realistic to think that Leetch, even being the Norris winner, is more valuable to his team as the SECOND MOST VALUABLE PLAYER than, say, league scoring leader Lemieux?
Quote:
In '96, Jagr scored 95 points at even strength... Francis had 63. Francis finished 4th in scoring, because he played with Jagr at ES and with Mario/Jagr on PP.
How would the offensive numbers have looked for Yzerman or Fedorov playing in Pittsburgh at ES with Francis and on the PP with Francis and Lemieux? Better than they did in Detroit? Significantly better?
You're arguing semantics. The MVP should go to the best player in the league. An inferior player should not win over a better player because of his team. That's turning an individual award into a team award.
MVP and Best Player are not equivalent terms.
It's like saying Crawford is a "starter" because he's a starter. Not the same...
For example, I argue that in 2011 Zetterberg and Ovechkin should have been finalists behind Rinne. Why? Both were top-8 scorers, both were 20+ points above the next forward on their team with the largest such gaps (Perry was 18 points above Selanne, who tied for 8th in scoring with Zetterberg), and both led their team to a division win. Jarome Iginla was another option there, but the play quality between him and Iginla wasn't significant. Both preided over teams that got wore; Ovechkin merely presided over a playoff team that was perfecting its defensive mechanisms. Zetterberg, however, was leading a team that had improved, hence my choice of him for second behind Rinne.
It's like saying Crawford is a "starter" because he's a starter. Not the same...
For example, I argue that in 2011 Zetterberg and Ovechkin should have been finalists behind Rinne. Why? Both were top-8 scorers, both were 20+ points above the next forward on their team with the largest such gaps (Perry was 18 points above Selanne, who tied for 8th in scoring with Zetterberg), and both led their team to a division win. Jarome Iginla was another option there, but the play quality between him and Iginla wasn't significant. Both preided over teams that got wore; Ovechkin merely presided over a playoff team that was perfecting its defensive mechanisms. Zetterberg, however, was leading a team that had improved, hence my choice of him for second behind Rinne.
It's a mice theory but again it's turning an individual award into a team oriented award.
Player A leads the league in scoring and his team mate, Player B, finishes top five in scoring BECUASE he played with player A.
Player C finishes 5th in scoring but as 5 teammates in the top 30 in scoring.
I think player A is more valuable despite having a teammate finish close in scoring. It really would give an unfair advantage to players on mediocre teams that are not as good of players as others that are on Better teams. My example is extreme but py point remains.
On the one hand those kinds of milestones absolutely matter, Jagr is already the best European player and if he had broken the 2000 point mark he would be considered comparable to Hull and Richard, with a European twist.
But none of that changes "dying alive". Even Mark Messier has a huge black mark on his career in Vancouver.
It's a mice theory but again it's turning an individual award into a team oriented award.
Player A leads the league in scoring and his team mate, Player B, finishes top five in scoring BECUASE he played with player A.
Player C finishes 5th in scoring but as 5 teammates in the top 30 in scoring.
I think player A is more valuable despite having a teammate finish close in scoring. It really would give an unfair advantage to players on mediocre teams that are not as good of players as others that are on Better teams. My example is extreme but py point remains.
Player C does not play for a mediocre team. 30 skaters represents 18 forwards and 12 defensemen. Realistically, you might get as many as four defensemen in the top thirty in a year. The rest are forwards. So let's call it that, player C plays with one top-end offensive defenseman and a bunch of top-end forwards.
Remember, there are 30 teams. So if every player in the top 30 were a forward, you could say the 30th forward was the cutoff for "#1 forward scoring level". Same goes for 30 #1 defensemen, etc.
If player B is player A's only teammate of that top-30 caliber, then his team is significantly worse and he is more valuable. Perhaps not the MVP though; we've eliminated several of the top 30 without naming all of your hypothetical top five. Or stellar goaltenders and defensemen. They deserve consideration also, despite what Hart voters think.
Quote:
Originally Posted by porknbeans1000
On the one hand those kinds of milestones absolutely matter, Jagr is already the best European player
Hasek and Lidstrom? I have them 7 (Hasek), 9 (Jagr), 10 (Lidstrom) in my top ten list.
Quote:
and if he had broken the 2000 point mark he would be considered comparable to Hull and Richard, with a European twist.
But none of that changes "dying alive". Even Mark Messier has a huge black mark on his career in Vancouver.
Jagr was better than Richard. Not Beliveau, though.
Player C does not play for a mediocre team. 30 skaters represents 18 forwards and 12 defensemen. Realistically, you might get as many as four defensemen in the top thirty in a year. The rest are forwards. So let's call it that, player C plays with one top-end offensive defenseman and a bunch of top-end forwards.
Remember, there are 30 teams. So if every player in the top 30 were a forward, you could say the 30th forward was the cutoff for "#1 forward scoring level". Same goes for 30 #1 defensemen, etc.
If player B is player A's only teammate of that top-30 caliber, then his team is significantly worse and he is more valuable. Perhaps not the MVP though; we've eliminated several of the top 30 without naming all of your hypothetical top five. Or stellar goaltenders and defensemen. They deserve consideration also, despite what Hart voters think.
The mediocre team comment wasn't about by example. Both teams could still be horrible or great becuase I didn't bring up defense. However no matter the case Player A is the best of the bunch and deserves the MVP. If you put Player A on Player C's team then that team becomes better. The best player would be most valuable on any team he is placed on.
Should Jagr have 2000? No. That should be Bure's. Because he was the best? No, he was barely a top-ten player. It's because he was the most valuable. If I re-awarded the Hart, Jagr would have only one; 2006. This isn't to say he wasn't the best player in more than one year, nor does it say he was the best player in 2006. The 1999 Hart would have gone to Bourque, as his second.
I think you just lost credibility with this statement alone.
The Pittsburgh Penguins were 2nd in the East in their first 39 games, in those first 39 games, Jagr had 71 Pts (32 goals and 39 assists). Jagr then misses 19 games, comes back and the Penguins have dropped to 9th in East and are in danger of missing the playoffs.
Jagr plays very well down the stretch and manages to push them to a 7th seed finish.
Kovalev that season had 66 Pts in all 82 games (Pittsbrugh's second leading scorer in 1999-00). In comparison, the Florida Panthers had two other 70 Pts players in Ray Whitney and Viktor Kozlov. Bure's 94 Pts were impressive and helped the Panthers a lot but Jagr was far and away more valuable to his team.
As for Bourque, really? He wasn't even among the Norris finalists. How was he more valuable to his team than Jagr was?
I have noticed one thing, you seem to value the Red Wings duo a lot and seem to devalue Jagr's accomplishments and value to an almost criminal extent.
BTW Bure was a not a top 10 player? He was easily top 5 in the league that season but Jagr was that much better.
As for Jagr only deserving 1 Hart in 2006, I think you seem to forget what he did in 1998-99. He only managed to score 127 Pts; meaning he had a stake in a total of 52.5% of his team's goals, a number that Gretzky himself never pulled off.
Between 1995 and 2000 Jagr was either the best or second best player in the NHL and it was not even close. In some seasons Lemieux had him beat and in others it was Hasek but otherwise Jagr was the "World's best player".
He held this title for a longer period of time than pretty much everyone not named Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr, Howe and Beliveau.
