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.

What is the case for Lafleur over Jagr?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-16-2011, 08:44 PM
  #26
crobro
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 987
vCash: 500
lafleur played in an era when the nhl was devoid of at least 30 taalented nhl players due to the impact of the WHA.

jagr played during the clutch and grab and nuetral zone trap low scoring nhl.


long and short

jagr was better.

crobro is online now  
Old
01-16-2011, 09:15 PM
  #27
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 43,526
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by crobro View Post
lafleur played in an era when the nhl was devoid of at least 30 taalented nhl players due to the impact of the WHA.
Agreed that the NHL was more watered down when Lafleur played. But it affected all elite player in the NHL equally, and Lafleur still dominated them as much as he did.
Quote:
jagr played during the clutch and grab and nuetral zone trap low scoring nhl.
Irrelevant, when you are comparing players against their peers.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now  
Old
01-16-2011, 09:21 PM
  #28
unknown33
Registered User
 
unknown33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Europe
Country: Marshall Islands
Posts: 3,566
vCash: 500
Comments from people who saw Lafleur play at his peak on that matter would be interesting.

unknown33 is offline  
Old
01-16-2011, 09:23 PM
  #29
crobro
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 987
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Agreed that the NHL was more watered down when Lafleur played. But it affected all elite player in the NHL equally, and Lafleur still dominated them as much as he did.


Irrelevant, when you are comparing players against their peers.

was their anyone better than jagr during the 90`s outside of the dominator

crobro is online now  
Old
01-16-2011, 09:26 PM
  #30
Derick*
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,624
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to Derick*
Lemieux...

Derick* is offline  
Old
01-16-2011, 09:44 PM
  #31
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 43,526
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by crobro View Post
was their anyone better than jagr during the 90`s outside of the dominator
Early 90s? Definitely Mario Lemieux. Probably Ray Bourque too. Mid 90s? It might not be popular around here, but I would take Mark Messier over Jagr in a playoff series. Late 90s? Regular season goes to Jagr no question. If you include playoffs there are arguments for Peter Forsberg (as there were at the time). Depending on how much you value playoffs, you might take Scott Stevens over Jagr.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now  
Old
01-16-2011, 09:56 PM
  #32
JackSlater
Registered User
 
JackSlater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,724
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
See, I don't think this is fair to Lafleur, at all. Why should he be punished for playing on a better team? Lafleur was outscoring his closest teammates by huge margins in the playoffs, and I'm pretty sure it was by a much greater margin than Jagr was outscoring his teammates. (Once hockey reference works again, I can post stats). Were Lafleur's Canadiens really that much better offensively than Jagr's Penguins? Were they better at all? Jagr's Penguins were one of the few teams in the league playing an offensive-first style in the mid-late 90s. The big difference is that the Canadiens had Ken Dryden, Larry Robinson, Serge Savard, and Guy Lapointe, while the Penguins had a garbage defense and inconsistent goaltending. But Guy Lafleur WAS the offensive engine of that team.
I wasn't attempting to punish Lafleur for playing on a strong team. Lafleur was clearly a great player in the playoffs, very likely better than Jagr, as so few players dominated a regular season to the level that Lafleur did and then continued that domination to basically the same degree in the playoffs. I agree that the Canadiens of the 70s were not an overpowering offensive team as well. I have no problem with analysis that involves looking at a player compared to his teammates. My main issue is people heavily weighing the playoffs in the discussion, and by heavily I mean weighing playoff success (generally team playoff success) over their individual play in the regular season and on a per game basis in the playoffs.

JackSlater is offline  
Old
01-16-2011, 10:13 PM
  #33
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,528
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
See, I don't think this is fair to Lafleur, at all. Why should he be punished for playing on a better team? Lafleur was outscoring his closest teammates by huge margins in the playoffs, and I'm pretty sure it was by a much greater margin than Jagr was outscoring his teammates. (Once hockey reference works again, I can post stats). Were Lafleur's Canadiens really that much better offensively than Jagr's Penguins? Were they better at all? Jagr's Penguins were one of the few teams in the league playing an offensive-first style in the mid-late 90s. The big difference is that the Canadiens had Ken Dryden, Larry Robinson, Serge Savard, and Guy Lapointe, while the Penguins had a garbage defense and inconsistent goaltending. But Guy Lafleur WAS the offensive engine of that team.
Lafleur's 2 best seasons:
76-77 Habs GF: 387 (1st of 18), GA: 171 (1st of 18) Lafleur 136pts.
77-78 Habs GF: 359 (1st of 18), GA: 183 (1st of 18) Lafleur 132pts.

Jagr's 2 best seasons (late 90s-early 00s without Lemieux):

98-99 GF: 242 (4th of 27), GA: 225 (17th of 27) Jagr 127 pts
00-01 GF: 281 (2nd of 30), GAt: 256 (26th of 30) Jagr 121 pts

I think I'd say that Lafleur's teams were just plain better, period. By a lot. Offensively and defensively. In their best prime seasons Jagr scored 9 points less on a team that scored 145 less goals. That 98-99 season and to a somewhat lesser degree his 00-01 season are just phenomenal.

The fact that the Habs were putting up that kind of offense while having the airtight defense they had at the same time makes this argument a non-starter for me at least.

BraveCanadian is offline  
Old
01-17-2011, 12:42 AM
  #34
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,569
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
First off, Guy had a 6 year peak. His injuries really hit him hard after 1979-1980. He was limited to 3 playoff games in the playoffs in 1980, but still scored 3 goals and 1 assist after his final 100+ point regular season, so I included that in his peak.

Second off, Guy wasn't specifically horrid in the playoffs outside those 6 years - he just wasn't an elite player, period.

The OP asked for the case for Guy over Jagr - and it's entirely based on peak. Even if their regular season peaks are basically equal (which is what I think), Guy has the higher playoff peak and it's really not debatable.
Okay outside of his peak guy has a 56-7-17-24 line where Jagr is probably close to a PPG outside of his peak (not sure which 6 years to pick).

Basically he was pretty consistent year in year out except for that one dreadful year in 06 for the Rangers.

I'm with Jack Slater on this one Jagr is better overall and the peak difference, even if there is one , is pretty even as Jagr had the better peak in the regular season.

Hardyvan123 is offline  
Old
01-17-2011, 08:13 AM
  #35
Psycho Papa Joe
Porkchop Hoser
 
Psycho Papa Joe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Cesspool, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,351
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
Lafleur's 2 best seasons:
76-77 Habs GF: 387 (1st of 18), GA: 171 (1st of 18) Lafleur 136pts.
77-78 Habs GF: 359 (1st of 18), GA: 183 (1st of 18) Lafleur 132pts.
Personally, I think Lafluer's greatest individual season is 78-79. He clearly dominated his own teammates in a matter that he never did before. The raw numbers are lower, but winning a team scoring title by 52 pts on a cup winner, is IMO his greatest individual accomplishment. He just didn't have the same type of supporting cast performance he had in his Hart/Pearson years.

Psycho Papa Joe is offline  
Old
01-17-2011, 08:21 AM
  #36
Psycho Papa Joe
Porkchop Hoser
 
Psycho Papa Joe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Cesspool, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,351
vCash: 500
Being by far the best offensive forward on the best team I've ever seen trumps anything Jagr accomplished in his career.

Interesting that people who saw both their entire careers, tend to pick Lafleur, whereas people who use stats as their bible, tend to pick Jagr. It's close, but to be honest, I never thought of Jagr as the 'Man' during his career, whereas I did think of Lafleur in that manner for 5 years. Most of the top players during Jagr's era main focus was winning games and cups, whereas Jagr always seemed more than happy to pad his stats, without regard to what it took to win and lose hockey games. Much like Dionne in that regard. Believe it or not, Lafleur actually had a leash on him by Scotty Bowman, who thought it more important to win games, rather than see his star get points. Eddie Johnston certainly didn't put that type of leash on Jagr.

Psycho Papa Joe is offline  
Old
01-17-2011, 08:27 AM
  #37
Reds4Life
Registered User
 
Reds4Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The Czech Republic
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,545
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psycho Papa Joe View Post
Being by far the best offensive forward on the best team I've ever seen trumps anything Jagr accomplished in his career.

Interesting that people who saw both their entire careers, tend to pick Lafleur, whereas people who use stats as their bible, tend to pick Jagr. It's close, but to be honest, I never thought of Jagr as the 'Man' during his career, whereas I did think of Lafleur in that manner for 5 years. Most of the top players during Jagr's era main focus was winning games and cups, whereas Jagr always seemed more than happy to pad his stats, without regard to what it took to win and lose hockey games. Much like Dionne in that regard. Believe it or not, Lafleur actually had a leash on him by Scotty Bowman, who thought it more important to win games, rather than see his star get points. Eddie Johnston certainly didn't put that type of leash on Jagr.
And proof for this is?

Jagr is slightly better even strength scorer than Mario Lemieux.
http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=2...&postcount=159

Jagr was never "the man"? Seriously? When Mario was out, he was the man. No one (ok maybe Orr) would be the man over Mario.

Lafleur did nothing outside his 6 year prime. Nothing. Even if you give him the edge in peak, which is arguable at best, Jagr's longetivity is just much, much better.
Lafleur's and Jagr's main goal is to score. And Jagr was just better at that.

It's just ridiculously wrong to say that Jagr padded his stats and did not care about the team. That's first grade bullsh1t right here. That's like saying Ray Bourque just compiled goals and points in Boston, and then won the Cup on a stacked team while not being the man. But for some reason, this just never happens with Ray.

Reds4Life is offline  
Old
01-17-2011, 08:33 AM
  #38
Psycho Papa Joe
Porkchop Hoser
 
Psycho Papa Joe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Cesspool, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,351
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reds4Life View Post
And proof for this is?

Jagr is slightly better even strength scorer than Mario Lemieux.
http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=2...&postcount=159

Jagr was never "the man"? Seriously? When Mario was out, he was the man. No one (ok maybe Orr) would be the man over Mario.

Lafleur did nothing outside his 6 year prime. Nothing.
Most lists have Lafleur ahead and they are compiled by people who've seen both play.

That said, if not for injuries, Lafleur would have had 2 or 3 more 100+ pt seasons based on his PPG those years, so he actually was more than nothing outside his peak.

You can call Jagr the 'Man' all you want, but to be honest, I personally never feared a team led by Jagr. He was allowed to play pond hockey by the Pens, but unfortunately, unless you have an all-timer like Gretzky or Lemieux on your side, pond hockey does not win championships. But watching players play and reading up on stats are two completely different things.

Quote:
It's just ridiculously wrong to say that Jagr padded his stats and did not care about the team. That's first grade bullsh1t right here. That's like saying Ray Bourque just compiled goals and points in Boston, and then won the Cup on a stacked team while not being the man. But for some reason, this just never happens with Ray.
Bourque got two mediocre teams to the finals and lost against dynasty teams. Jagr never carried a team in the playoffs in that matter. What a truly foolish analogy.

Jagr's main focus his entire career was padding stats, and for that he was great. Winning was secondary.

Psycho Papa Joe is offline  
Old
01-17-2011, 08:35 AM
  #39
livewell68
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,900
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Agreed that the NHL was more watered down when Lafleur played. But it affected all elite player in the NHL equally, and Lafleur still dominated them as much as he did.


Irrelevant, when you are comparing players against their peers.
It is relevant because this era featured leass scoring all together and a player's creativity and space on the ice was completed limited due to the clutch and grab.

The fact is Jagr still won 4 straight Art Ross tophies during "the clutch and grab" era so he clearly dominated his peers.

livewell68 is offline  
Old
01-17-2011, 08:38 AM
  #40
Psycho Papa Joe
Porkchop Hoser
 
Psycho Papa Joe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Cesspool, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,351
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jags6868 View Post
It is relevant because this era featured leass scoring all together and a player's creativity and space on the ice was completed limited due to the clutch and grab.

The fact is Jagr still won 4 straight Art Ross tophies during "the clutch and grab" era so he clearly dominated his peers.
He was allowed to play pond hockey by his coaches. This peers were not. Forsberg or Sakic, for example, being allowed to play pond hockey during the same era would have put up better raw numbers, but they would certainly have won far less games.

Psycho Papa Joe is offline  
Old
01-17-2011, 08:38 AM
  #41
Reds4Life
Registered User
 
Reds4Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The Czech Republic
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,545
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psycho Papa Joe View Post
Most lists have Lafleur ahead and they are compiled by people who've seen both play.

That said, if not for injuries, Lafleur would have had 2 or 3 more 100+ pt seasons based on his PPG those years, so he actually was more than nothing outside his peak.

You can call Jagr the 'Man' all you want, but to be honest, I personally never feared a team led by Jagr. He was allowed to play pond hockey by the Pens, but unfortunately, unless you have an all-timer like Gretzky or Lemieux on your side, pond hockey does not win championships. But watching players play and reading up on stats are two completely different things.
If not for injuries? What kind of argument that is?
If my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle?

Yeah, and these lists are flawless and unbiased. As evidenced by you calling Jagr stat compiler. This is just ridiculous.

Reds4Life is offline  
Old
01-17-2011, 08:39 AM
  #42
livewell68
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,900
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psycho Papa Joe View Post
Most lists have Lafleur ahead and they are compiled by people who've seen both play.

That said, if not for injuries, Lafleur would have had 2 or 3 more 100+ pt seasons based on his PPG those years, so he actually was more than nothing outside his peak.

You can call Jagr the 'Man' all you want, but to be honest, I personally never feared a team led by Jagr. He was allowed to play pond hockey by the Pens, but unfortunately, unless you have an all-timer like Gretzky or Lemieux on your side, pond hockey does not win championships. But watching players play and reading up on stats are two completely different things.



Bourque got two mediocre teams to the finals and lost against dynasty teams. Jagr never carried a team in the playoffs in that matter. What a truly foolish analogy.

Jagr's main focus his entire career was padding stats, and for that he was great. Winning was secondary.
Tell me did Greztky and Lemieux ever lead a team to the Cup without any Hall of Famers on their team?

What's this pond hockey talk? I don't recall Jagr playing pond hockey because if I recall he was playing against players like Bourque, Chelios, Stevens, Pronger, Niedermayer, Lidstrom, Leetch, MacInnis, those are some pretty darn good defensemen that Jagr made look foolish on numerous occasions.

How about the goalies he played against, Hasek, Roy, Brodeur, Belfour, Cujo... all legitimate Hall of Fame goaltenders playing in their prime and still very dominant in an era that favoured goalies and defensemen in general.

livewell68 is offline  
Old
01-17-2011, 08:41 AM
  #43
livewell68
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,900
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psycho Papa Joe View Post
He was allowed to play pond hockey by his coaches. This peers were not. Forsberg or Sakic, for example, being allowed to play pond hockey during the same era would have put up better raw numbers, but they would certainly have won far less games.
Do you know why Jagr was allowed this so-called pond hockey? Because he was far and away more talented than most players in the NHL.

His talent alone is probably only 3rd to none to Orr and Lemieux.

Didn't Lemieux play pond hockey? Or was he winning Selke awards?

The point of the matter is that Jagr took usually average teams to the playoffs every year.

Jagr never had the chance to play on dominant teams like New Jersey, Dallas, Detroit, Colorado, Philadelphia in the late 90's, in fact if I remember he played against them.

Forsberg and Sakic had Roy, Foote, Blake, Bourque (later on), Drury (still on the up and was pretty darn good then), Hejduk...

Do I even need to mention who Yzerman played with?

livewell68 is offline  
Old
01-17-2011, 08:41 AM
  #44
Psycho Papa Joe
Porkchop Hoser
 
Psycho Papa Joe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Cesspool, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,351
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reds4Life View Post
If not for injuries? What kind of argument that is?
If my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle?

Yeah, and these lists are flawless and unbiased. As evidenced by you calling Jagr stat compiler. This is just ridiculous.
Again, watching a player play his entire career >>>>>>> staring at stats.

Psycho Papa Joe is offline  
Old
01-17-2011, 08:42 AM
  #45
Reds4Life
Registered User
 
Reds4Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The Czech Republic
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,545
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psycho Papa Joe View Post
Again, watching a player play his entire career >>>>>>> staring at stats.
Agreed.

I still think Jagr is the better player.

Reds4Life is offline  
Old
01-17-2011, 08:43 AM
  #46
Psycho Papa Joe
Porkchop Hoser
 
Psycho Papa Joe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Cesspool, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,351
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jags6868 View Post
Tell me did Greztky and Lemieux ever lead a team to the Cup without any Hall of Famers on their team?

What's this pond hockey talk? I don't recall Jagr playing pond hockey because if I recall he was playing against players like Bourque, Chelios, Stevens, Pronger, Niedermayer, Lidstrom, Leetch, MacInnis, those are some pretty darn good defensemen that Jagr made look foolish on numerous occasions.

How about the goalies he played against, Hasek, Roy, Brodeur, Belfour, Cujo... all legitimate Hall of Fame goaltenders playing in their prime and still very dominant in an era that favoured goalies and defensemen in general.
Jagr and the Pens were allowed to play pond hockey. He got some pretty numbers out of it, but unfortunately, not wins and cups on teams he led.

Psycho Papa Joe is offline  
Old
01-17-2011, 08:45 AM
  #47
Psycho Papa Joe
Porkchop Hoser
 
Psycho Papa Joe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Cesspool, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,351
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reds4Life View Post
Agreed.

I still think Jagr is the better player.
That's fine. A good case can certainly be made for Jagr, but I disagree. I think in a more win focused environment, his numbers would be lower.

Psycho Papa Joe is offline  
Old
01-17-2011, 08:49 AM
  #48
Reds4Life
Registered User
 
Reds4Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The Czech Republic
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,545
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psycho Papa Joe View Post
That's fine. A good case can certainly be made for Jagr, but I disagree. I think in a more win focused environment, his numbers would be lower.
Yes, if Jagr played in higher scoring era, like Lafleur, his scoring would be lower, because Habs did not play pond hockey. They played the W.I.N.* system. Lafleur had no freedom for his creativity, he had to stick to the plan and always put aside his own style.

Reds4Life is offline  
Old
01-17-2011, 09:01 AM
  #49
livewell68
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,900
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reds4Life View Post
Yes, if Jagr played in higher scoring era, like Lafleur, his scoring would be lower, because Habs did not play pond hockey. They played the W.I.N.* system. Lafleur had no freedom for his creativity, he had to stick to the plan and always put aside his own style.
Exactly, I didn't know that Lafleur was a perinnial Selke winner-nominee.

I didn't know that Montreal was only good because of Lafleur's will to drop his offensive ability for overall team success.

Pittsburgh was sub-par 500 team in the late 90's, they never made the playoffs and Jagr's offense took away from his team's ability to win a Stanley Cup because Kovalev, Straka, Lang, Hedberg, Kaspiritis, Slegr, Roszival were all Hall of Famer players!!

Here I thought the Montreal Canadiens of the 1970's were the greatest hockey dynasty of all-time, boy was I wrong!!

I guess that Lafleur was one darn good hockey player to lead his team every year to the Cup.

Gainey, Robinson, Dryden all played for the Montreal farm team.

Jacques Lemaire, Bod Gainey, Cournoyer didn't play a two-way game to allow Lafleur more offensive freedom!!!


Last edited by livewell68: 01-17-2011 at 09:15 AM.
livewell68 is offline  
Old
01-17-2011, 09:19 AM
  #50
JackSlater
Registered User
 
JackSlater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,724
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psycho Papa Joe View Post
He was allowed to play pond hockey by his coaches. This peers were not. Forsberg or Sakic, for example, being allowed to play pond hockey during the same era would have put up better raw numbers, but they would certainly have won far less games.
The Penguins in Jagr's time were definitely more offensively minded than the average team. That being said, I don't really think this is a valid criticism of Jagr. If he was just playing all out offensive pond hockey he would obviously put up higher point totals, but his team would also be scored on quite a bit when he was on the ice, and I do not believe that was the case during Jagr's prime years.

JackSlater is offline  
Closed Thread

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 01:08 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.