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
Notices

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
01-17-2011, 09:27 AM
  #51
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,224
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psycho Papa Joe View Post
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.
Pond hockey that resulted in 145 less goals scored by the Pens in his best year than Lafleur's Habs did in his best year?

You're grasping.

BraveCanadian is offline  
Old
01-17-2011, 09:29 AM
  #52
Psycho Papa Joe
Porkchop Hoser
 
Psycho Papa Joe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Cesspool, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,349
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.
Fact is, the Habs of the late 70's did not play pond hockey. They were more dominate defensively than offensively. Many of those players could have put up better offensive numbers if they were allowed to play a more free wheeling style, but chances are, they don't win as many cups if they just played all-out offense. Even Lafleur's numbers could have been better if the team as a whole didn't focus so much on defense in order to win.

That said, no player on a dynasty team, other than Gretzky, ever dominated his teammates offensively in the manner that Lafleur did. Truth is, guys like Shutt and Lemaire, aren't in the HOF if they aren't Lafleur's linemate.

Psycho Papa Joe is offline  
Old
01-17-2011, 09:30 AM
  #53
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,224
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.
This is the double standard I am talking about a lot lately. I'm assuming you also would say Bourque was better than Lidstrom, largely due to his greater offensive upside?

By you saying this you'd have to concede that Bourque's increased offensive totals vs. Lidstrom are due to era as well as the fact that Lidstrom was in a more "win focused environment"?

Or is this another thing that applies only to certain players?

BraveCanadian is offline  
Old
01-17-2011, 09:33 AM
  #54
Psycho Papa Joe
Porkchop Hoser
 
Psycho Papa Joe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Cesspool, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,349
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
Pond hockey that resulted in 145 less goals scored by the Pens in his best year than Lafleur's Habs did in his best year?

You're grasping.
That's because the Habs had 4 lines that could score, but the thing is, they, and Lafleur more specifically, didn't have to sacrifice defense, in order to score. Jagr put up his numbers because the Pens sacrificed defense unlike any team I've seen in my life. I'd love to see Lafleur's numbers if the Habs had sacrificed defense to the same degree.

Psycho Papa Joe is offline  
Old
01-17-2011, 09:38 AM
  #55
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,224
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psycho Papa Joe View Post
That's because the Habs had 4 lines that could score, but the thing is, they, and Lafleur more specifically, didn't have to sacrifice defense, in order to score. Jagr put up his numbers because the Pens sacrificed defense unlike any team I've seen in my life. I'd love to see Lafleur's numbers if the Habs had sacrificed defense to the same degree.
Yes thats all well and good but even "sacrificing" offense they were 1st in the league by a large margin, and in comparing their best seasons, Lafleur had 145 more goals to work with.

I really don't see how you can possibly spin "the dynasty Habs who were best in the league in offense held Lafleur back" very effectively.

He probably would have scored more if the reins were loosened but how much more would Jagr have picked up with an extra 145 goals...?

BraveCanadian is offline  
Old
01-17-2011, 09:39 AM
  #56
Psycho Papa Joe
Porkchop Hoser
 
Psycho Papa Joe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Cesspool, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,349
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
This is the double standard I am talking about a lot lately. I'm assuming you also would say Bourque was better than Lidstrom, largely due to his greater offensive upside?

By you saying this you'd have to concede that Bourque's increased offensive totals vs. Lidstrom are due to era as well as the fact that Lidstrom was in a more "win focused environment"?

Or is this another thing that applies only to certain players?
I think Bourque is better than Lidstrom because of being a more physical presense, but offensively and defensively there isn't much to choose between the two career wise. Lidstrom's raw numbers are lower, but they could have certainly been better in a more all-out offensive system.

I think Bourque and Lidstrom were both in win focused environments personally, the Wings just had more talent and never had to face teams the quality of the Oilers when they did end up making it to the finals.

That said, I think I'm one of the more critical posters around here regarding Bourque's legacy, but having seen both he and Lidstrom their entire careers, I still give Bourque the edge. Just can't look past the fact he was a top 4 d-man most of his career. I think only Howe had that type of success for as long or longer time.

Psycho Papa Joe is offline  
Old
01-17-2011, 09:43 AM
  #57
livewell68
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,514
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JackSlater View Post
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.
It wasn't, Jagr's +/- was much higher than Lafleur's on a much weaker defensive team nonetheless.

livewell68 is offline  
Old
01-17-2011, 09:46 AM
  #58
Psycho Papa Joe
Porkchop Hoser
 
Psycho Papa Joe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Cesspool, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,349
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
Yes thats all well and good but even "sacrificing" offense they were 1st in the league by a large margin, and in comparing their best seasons, Lafleur had 145 more goals to work with.

I really don't see how you can possibly spin "the dynasty Habs who were best in the league in offense held Lafleur back" very effectively.

He probably would have scored more if the reins were loosened but how much more would Jagr have picked up with an extra 145 goals...?
They scored more because of offensive depth, not because they were teeming with top flight offensive talent. Lafleur was their only truly elite offensive talent. The beauty of that team is that they were still able to score as much as they did without giving away any defense at all. They were certainly capable of scoring more if they played a more all-out offensive style like the Bruin's of the early 70's or 80's Oilers.

Psycho Papa Joe is offline  
Old
01-17-2011, 09:50 AM
  #59
livewell68
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,514
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psycho Papa Joe View Post
They scored more because of offensive depth, not because they were teeming with top flight offensive talent. Lafleur was their only truly elite offensive talent. The beauty of that team is that they were still able to score as much as they did without giving away any defense at all. They were certainly capable of scoring more if they played a more all-out offensive style like the Bruin's of the early 70's or 80's Oilers.
Jagr was Pittsburgh's only true offensive force too.

When he had 127 Pts in 1998-99 he had part on 57% of his team's goals. When did Lafleur ever do that?

livewell68 is offline  
Old
01-17-2011, 09:53 AM
  #60
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,224
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psycho Papa Joe View Post
They scored more because of offensive depth, not because they were teeming with top flight offensive talent. Lafleur was their only truly elite offensive talent.
At forward, I agree with that, you're right. Lemaire was sort of Lafleur's Francis (two-way more than offensive) and the cast of wingers really rode on their coattails to a fair degree.

Quote:
The beauty of that team is that they were still able to score as much as they did without giving away any defense at all. They were certainly capable of scoring more if they played a more all-out offensive style like the Bruin's of the early 70's or 80's Oilers.
If they didn't have a lot of front line offensive depth how much would opening up more affect them compared to having the big 3 and Dryden behind a late 90s Jagr?

I don't think you can overstate how much effect the big 3 had on that Habs team as well as this comparison.

Transition is huge in offense.

BraveCanadian is offline  
Old
01-17-2011, 09:57 AM
  #61
Psycho Papa Joe
Porkchop Hoser
 
Psycho Papa Joe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Cesspool, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,349
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jags6868 View Post
Jagr was Pittsburgh's only true offensive force too.

When he had 127 Pts in 1998-99 he had part on 57% of his team's goals. When did Lafleur ever do that?
Lafleur won his team scoring title by 52 points on a Stanley Cup winner in 78-79. That's 67% higher than Shutt who finished 2nd in team scoring. When did Jagr ever do anything like that?

That said, I still think Jagr's most impressive accomplishment as an NHL player is that last huge year with the Rangers. I've never been more impressed with him as an NHL player. At that stage of his career, I didn't think he had it in him.


Last edited by Psycho Papa Joe: 01-17-2011 at 10:04 AM.
Psycho Papa Joe is offline  
Old
01-17-2011, 10:00 AM
  #62
FiveForDrawingBlood
Registered User
 
FiveForDrawingBlood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,477
vCash: 500
If I had to pick between the two....in their prime....I would chose Lafleur for my team. Lafleur was close to legendary there a few years in the playoffs. Jagr never took his game to that level. Although, he played quality hockey more years.

FiveForDrawingBlood is offline  
Old
01-17-2011, 10:11 AM
  #63
Rob Zepp
Registered User
 
Rob Zepp's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Germany
Country: Germany
Posts: 3,991
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by steve141 View Post
The 2009 HOH Top 100 list has Lafleur at 19th and Jagr at 23rd. I just don't see why we pick Lafleur over Jagr.

I can understand why some would pick Messier's or Clarke's "intangibles" and "leadership" over Jagr's, but Lafleur's?

They both came into the league on power house teams, and struggled with motivation as their teams got worse. They had comparable peaks, but Jagr had the better start and the better end to his career.

Both played 17 seasons. Here are their best point finishes:
Lafleur: 1,1,1,3,3,4.
Jagr: 1,1,1,1,1,2,2,5,6,8,9.

That is one huge difference!

In his highest scoring season Jagr outscored his closest team mate by 53%, and the second highest scorer in the league by 19%. In his highest scoring season Lafleur outscored his closest team mate by 28% and the second highest scorer in the league by 11%. I don't really see an argument for better regular season peak either.

Since Jagr had better regular season numbers during his peak, prime and career, the only thing left is to argue that Lafleur was better in the playoffs. The thing is that Jagr actually has a higher career PPG in the playoffs aswell, despite Lafleur playing in the highest scoring eras in hockey.

Please inform me why Lafleur is better?
Intangibles. Lafleur had 935 intangibles and Jagr got by with less than 300.

Rob Zepp is offline  
Old
01-17-2011, 10:16 AM
  #64
livewell68
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,514
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psycho Papa Joe View Post
Lafleur won his team scoring title by 52 points on a Stanley Cup winner in 78-79. That's 67% higher than Shutt who finished 2nd in team scoring. When did Jagr ever do anything like that?

That said, I still think Jagr's most impressive accomplishment as an NHL player is that last huge year with the Rangers. I've never been more impressed with him as an NHL player. At that stage of his career, I didn't think he had it in him.

Jagr had 127 Pts in 1998-99, 44 more than Straka who was 2nd in team scoring.

Did Jagr play for a Stanley Cup contender in the late 90's?

Or wait Lafleur played in net instead of Dryden, and played defense instead of Savard and Robinson.

Lafleur played all 3 positions on every line!!!

Take away Lafleur and Montreal would still be a dynasty in the 70's.

Take away Jagr from Pittsburgh in the late 90's and the Penguins would be playing in a different city right now.

livewell68 is offline  
Old
01-17-2011, 10:18 AM
  #65
livewell68
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,514
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FiveForDrawingBlood View Post
If I had to pick between the two....in their prime....I would chose Lafleur for my team. Lafleur was close to legendary there a few years in the playoffs. Jagr never took his game to that level. Although, he played quality hockey more years.
Was Jagr placed in a stituation where his team was good enough in net and on defense to send his team to the Stanley Cup finals?

In 1999-00 in the playoffs Jagr had 16 Pts in 11 games (with a bad groin) through 2 rounds, if that's not taking to another level, then I don't know what is.

Was Jagr suppose to play in net?

Dryden was pretty close to the equivalent of Hasek or Roy in the 70's.

We can never be certain but had Jagr had a Hasek or Dryden in net in the late 90's Jagr would certainly have won 2 more Cups especially in the 1998-99 and 1999-00 seasons when he was playing on another level.

livewell68 is offline  
Old
01-17-2011, 10:25 AM
  #66
jkrx
Registered User
 
jkrx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,337
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jags6868 View Post
Was Jagr placed in a stituation where his team was good enough in net and on defense to send his team to the Stanley Cup finals?

In 1999-00 in the playoffs Jagr had 16 Pts in 11 games (with a bad groin) through 2 rounds, if that's not taking to another level, then I don't know what is.
The Pens had a very good Tugnutt that playoff and Pens werent exactly slouches on defense. No, they were not the dynasty Habs either but you are overselling Jagr here.

jkrx is offline  
Old
01-17-2011, 10:29 AM
  #67
livewell68
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,514
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkrx View Post
The Pens had a very good Tugnutt that playoff and Pens werent exactly slouches on defense. No, they were not the dynasty Habs either but you are overselling Jagr here.

The Penguins finished 7th primarly on Jagr's scoring that season.

Jagr missed 19 games and it took him scoring in bunches to send them to the playoffs.

Tugnutt played well but so did most goalies during this era.

A save percentage under %900 was almost unheard of for any goalie back then.

The difference is Tugnutt was just like any other average goaltender. He wasn't even an All-Star.

Who from the Penguins defensemen made any All-Star teams that season? 1st, 2nd ever 3rd?

livewell68 is offline  
Old
01-17-2011, 10:31 AM
  #68
JaymzB
Registered User
 
JaymzB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,714
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jags6868 View Post
It wasn't, Jagr's +/- was much higher than Lafleur's on a much weaker defensive team nonetheless.
Huh? How on earth is Jagr's +/- better than Lafleur's?

JaymzB is offline  
Old
01-17-2011, 10:35 AM
  #69
Infinite Vision*
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,861
vCash: 500
There is no case.

Unless you purposely and completely over value playoff permorfance which gives way too obvious of an advantage to Lafleur over Jagr who not only played on a far greater team for longer, but in a time of very little parity compared to Jagr's playoff years.

Really looking at the two completely objectively, and by the standards most judge players by in this section one could only come to the conclusion that Jagr was the better player, and had the better career.

Infinite Vision* is offline  
Old
01-17-2011, 10:42 AM
  #70
unknown33
Registered User
 
unknown33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Europe
Country: Marshall Islands
Posts: 3,625
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Zepp View Post
Intangibles. Lafleur had 935 intangibles and Jagr got by with less than 300.
Spot on here.
The only important factor to determine the quality of a hockey player are scoring finishes...

... at least on this board.

unknown33 is offline  
Old
01-17-2011, 11:00 AM
  #71
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 30,118
vCash: 500
The only argument for Lafleur over Jagr at this point is team-based, IMO.

If you look at their regular season offensive dominance (because neither player did much else on the ice), they are fairly even when looking at their best six seasons. Jagr obviously pulls away after that, and pretty quickly, I might add.

It comes down to whether you think Lafleur's contributions to those cups is more important than Jagr just being better for longer.

FWIW, I think that even though Lafleur was their best player, those Habs teams would have won at least 3 of those 4 cups with him completely removed and a replacement-level player in his place.

seventieslord is offline  
Old
01-17-2011, 11:00 AM
  #72
jkrx
Registered User
 
jkrx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,337
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jags6868 View Post
The Penguins finished 7th primarly on Jagr's scoring that season.

Jagr missed 19 games and it took him scoring in bunches to send them to the playoffs.

Tugnutt played well but so did most goalies during this era.

A save percentage under %900 was almost unheard of for any goalie back then.

The difference is Tugnutt was just like any other average goaltender. He wasn't even an All-Star.

Who from the Penguins defensemen made any All-Star teams that season? 1st, 2nd ever 3rd?
Defensemen arent and werent the only terms of defense.

Tugnutt was far from average in Penguins playoff games in '00. What does all-stars have to do with it? A hot goalie in the playoffs is more valueable than a goalie who made one of the ASTs. Ask the Blues team who had Turek and Pronger how they faired in the playoffs. Come playoff time your teams ASTs means nothing.

By the way, who from the Devils made the ASTs that season?

jkrx is offline  
Old
01-17-2011, 11:12 AM
  #73
Psycho Papa Joe
Porkchop Hoser
 
Psycho Papa Joe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Cesspool, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,349
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
The only argument for Lafleur over Jagr at this point is team-based, IMO.

If you look at their regular season offensive dominance (because neither player did much else on the ice), they are fairly even when looking at their best six seasons. Jagr obviously pulls away after that, and pretty quickly, I might add.

It comes down to whether you think Lafleur's contributions to those cups is more important than Jagr just being better for longer.

FWIW, I think that even though Lafleur was their best player, those Habs teams would have won at least 3 of those 4 cups with him completely removed and a replacement-level player in his place.
You really think a team will win 3 cups in 4 years if you remove a player who is winning his team scoring titles by an average of 35 pts a year for that 4 year run?

If you look at all the great dynasty teams, other than Gretzky, has an offensive player ever dominated his team scoring titles to a greater degree?

Psycho Papa Joe is offline  
Old
01-17-2011, 11:26 AM
  #74
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Hôlle
Posts: 32,260
vCash: 500
No matter how strong Lafleur's team was, one has to remember that there are a few players that can really thank Lafleur for being HHOF'ers. It might be somewhat harsh, but there's no way Shutt and Lemaire make it otherwise.

MXD is offline  
Old
01-17-2011, 12:05 PM
  #75
livewell68
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,514
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MXD View Post
No matter how strong Lafleur's team was, one has to remember that there are a few players that can really thank Lafleur for being HHOF'ers. It might be somewhat harsh, but there's no way Shutt and Lemaire make it otherwise.
Difference is they made the Hall of Fame. They had to be good on their own to do so.

The fact of the matter is that Jagr after Lemieux and Francis never played with Hall of Fame players unless you count Oates (near the end of his career) and Shanahan (the same thing as Oates).

Lafleur might have been the most gifted offensive player on the Montreal dynasty but he is nowhere as dominating as you perceive him to be.

He still had a good 4 or 5 other Hall of Famers on that team.

Also Jagr was the main focus of opposing team's defense.

Opposing teams to the Montreal Canadians did not have the novelty of just focusing on Lafleur because of their depth.

Remove Jagr from these so-called "offensive" Penguins and they would be near the bottom of the NHL in goals scored.

Do you want to know why they were perceived as high flying? It'd mainly because of Jagr.

Lafleur scored less of his teams overall points than Jagr did of his teams.


Last edited by Bear of Bad News: 01-17-2011 at 12:20 PM. Reason: Watch the personal attacks. There won't be another warning.
livewell68 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 10:13 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2017 All Rights Reserved.