Best player in the world: 2001

[Regal]

Didn't Jagr outscore Lemieux in the games they played together? Without taking anything away from Mario, It was one of the great comebacks in sports, I'm not convinced he was the best player in the world at that point.

Yea this is my feeling as well. Jagr had 33 goals and 84 points in the 45 games after Mario’s return, while Lemieux had 35 goals and 76 points in 43. Mario was amazing and his return jump started Jagr into actually playing his best again, but I don’t think Mario was a better player than Jagr at that point in their careers, which shouldn’t be a slight considering he was 35 and Jagr was 28. Even if we think Mario might be slightly ahead at his best at that point, I think it was clear his body couldn’t play at that level for a full year anymore. It’s one thing to give guys a pass for missing time with random injuries it’s another when it seems more wear and tear related.

That’s not to say Jagr is necessarily the best at that point I’m just not sure it’s Lemieux. Also, I understand not wanting to be influenced by one year alone, but Sakic’s run leading up to that year gets ignored. He was arguably the second best forward per game the year before, finishing 2nd in points per game to Jagr with a 111 point pace, and that’s after finishing 3rd the year before with a 108 point pace. All this while improving his defensive game and being much better there than the other top scorers.

To me, I think the point of this is to pick who is most likely to have the best season if we were to play the season over again multiple times, or who would take to start a team that year or win a playoff series. That’s where seasons that were unsustainable don’t hold up, and why we tend to not include on-off seasons as often in these talks. But with Sakic, he was coming off really strong play the previous two years, he was proven in the playoffs, he has a great playoff run within the season, he was a leader, he was a very strong defensive player. He was both a great goal scorer and passer. I think he was just that good at this point, and probably deserves the title. Jagr and Lemieux’s talents were undeniable, but the questions around Jagr’s attitude issues and Lemieux’s health hold them back

 

[Voight]

Sakic easily.

Took home the Hart/Pearson 2nd in Selke voting, 2nd in scoring (by 3 points) and 2nd in goals (by 5 goals).

Topped it off by having a Conn Smythe worthy run, 26 points in 21 games while winning the cup.

 

[Voight]

It was a special circumstance. Voters barely noticed Jagr and the Penguins for most of the first half (37 points in 36 games for Jagr and a 15-14-6-1 record). The Penguins scored 103 goals in 36 games; 2.86 GPG.

2-5-3 record in the last 10 games up through December 26, 2000.

Mario returns looking like he hasn’t missed a beat and is still the best player in the world immediately. Penguins go 27-14-3-2 the rest of the way, score 178 goals; 3.87 GPG, and he propels Jagr to score 84 points and win another Art Ross.

It helps that this was a second half return, keeping it an active storyline all the way to the end in voters’ minds.

Mario coming back and playing awesome in either half with no tangible team results would not see him finish second. He did finish second and it was because voters understood what his comeback meant to that team.

We have hard real results in how the team performed before and after, how Jagr played before and after, how the offense absolutely ripped, and these point to something beyond just Mario returning and playing incredible 3.5 years later.

Sure, Jags went from playing with Robert Lang to playing with Lemieux. Its no surprise his production went thru the roof.

 

[norrisnick]

Sakic easily.

Took home the Hart/Pearson/Selke, 2nd in scoring (by 3 points) and 2nd in goals (by 5 goals).

Topped it off by having a Conn Smythe worthy run, 26 points in 21 games while winning the cup.

Fedorov is the only one to ever collect that trio. Sakic was 2nd in Selke voting.

 

[Regal]

I'm surprised by all the pushback to the notion that Lemieux was the best player in 2001. Maybe you had to be there? I can see an argument for Sakic. But nobody who was actively following the NHL in 2001 could have possibly concluded that Jagr was the better player. It's stat watching 20 years down the road that leads to that conclusion.

What evidence do I have, aside from my own recollections?

• Here's a media article from Marc 12th, 2001: "Lemieux has gone from mere boss of the Penguins to undisputed king of the NHL". One quote: "Lemieux was supposed to have passed the torch, not quietly set fire to the reputation of an entire generation with it". Another: "Lemieux is like the math whiz who aces every test and trashes the grading curve". And another: "Everybody in the league is trying to have that star so fans can identify with him, and then you get a guy like Lemieux back and you see what a true star is."
• The Penguins season turned around after Lemieux returned. They allowed essentially the same number of goals against before and after (makes sense since he didn't play defense at this stage in his career). But Pittsburgh scored way more after Lemieux returned (3.87 GPG - highest in the league vs 2.86 before his comeback). And they were 7th in points after Lemieux's return vs 16th before. This supports the notion that Lemieux was the catalyst for their success.
• It's more than just stats. Here's an article that speaks to Lemieux's impact: "no one has benefited more from Lemieux's comeback than linemate Jaromir Jagr".
• Everyone is so focused on regular season scoring totals. Lemieux was clearly better in the playoffs. (Granted, both of them were disappointing, but Lemieux far less so).
• Jagr has done a lot to rehabilitate his image. He was considered a whiner and a complainer around 2001. It was widely speculated (but never proven) that he lost millions of dollars gambling. He was quoted as saying "I'm dying alive". Before Lemieux came back, Jagr had asked for a trade twice. Another article describes Jagr as "brooding". He was considered a malcontent. That detracts from the value he brought to his team.
• Also, consider Hart voting. Lemieux finished head of Jagr for the Hart trophy in terms of first place votes (8 vs 0) and in terms of total voting points (272 vs 210). But supposedly we know better today because we can read a spreadsheet (which the voters, at the time, also had access to)?

This is strange for me because usually I'm arguing against Lemieux (when people compare him to Gretzky or Howe). And, like I said, there's a valid argument for Sakic in 2001. But there was no argument for Jagr at all (in terms of who's the better player). Nobody, at the time, held that opinion. Let's not look at the scoring race 20+ years later and think that we know better than the people who actually followed this season.

I think at the time, Lemieux was looked at through rose coloured glasses because it was unheard of to come back after that time off at his age and put up that performance. It also is one of those things where it’s a lot easier to project high paces onto missed games then to project a player playing better over games he clearly was playing disinterested in. And Jagr was never as popular or as liked as a personality at the time. Time can sometimes obscure reality by missing the details, but sometimes it can also make things more objective.

Also, a lot of the praise is about value. I don’t think anyone is denying that the Pens were going nowhere and Jagr was moping around playing well below his best before Lemieux came, and that likely wouldn’t have changed without Lemieux’s return. So in that sense he was clearly the more valuable player. But while close, I’m not sold he was actually better. I mean, Jagr was already arguably a better ES player in ‘96 and arguably the better overall player in ‘97. I don’t think it’s a stretch to say he was still better in ‘01.

 

[Voight]

Fedorov is the only one to ever collect that trio. Sakic was 2nd in Selke voting.

Yea that was my mistake, forgot John Madden took it home that year.

 

[Video Nasty]

Let’s reiterate a point:

''Everything has changed since he came back,'' Jagr said. ''All of a sudden, there isn't one guy on me all the time. I feel like I'm playing a different game now.''

Hmm, I wonder if Lemieux was possibly drawing the attention of defenders and enabling Jagr to score more…

 

[norrisnick]

Let’s reiterate a point:

''Everything has changed since he came back,'' Jagr said. ''All of a sudden, there isn't one guy on me all the time. I feel like I'm playing a different game now.''

Hmm, I wonder if Lemieux was possibly drawing the attention of defenders and enabling Jagr to score more…

Reporter with mic in your face: What's it like playing with your HOF boss after you were dragging ass earlier in the year?

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Didn’t realize Mario was back. I voted Hasek but Mario is the answer. And actually he was the right answer through the 90s even if he wasn’t playing. Basically a God.

 

[Felidae]

Let’s reiterate a point:

''Everything has changed since he came back,'' Jagr said. ''All of a sudden, there isn't one guy on me all the time. I feel like I'm playing a different game now.''

Hmm, I wonder if Lemieux was possibly drawing the attention of defenders and enabling Jagr to score more…

To be fair you could say the exact same thing for Lemieux.

What if there was no Jagr when Lemieux came back? I imagine it would be even harder for Lemieux. For one, Jagr's puck protection abilities might just be the one thing he has over Lemieux. The other obvious factor is that Jagr was in his physical prime and Lemieux wasn't. Being 35 yesrs old, having dealt with back injuries, and just coming out of a 3 year retirement.

 

[Video Nasty]

To be fair you could say the exact same thing for Lemieux.

What if there was no Jagr when Lemieux came back? I imagine it would be even harder for Lemieux. For one, Jagr's puck protection abilities might just be the one thing he has over Lemieux. The other obvious factor is that Jagr was in his physical prime and Lemieux wasn't. Being 35 yesrs old, having dealt with back injuries, and just coming out of a 3 year retirement.

Not really. Two years later at 37, he didn’t have Jagr (or much of a team) in 2002-2003, piled up 68 points in his first 40 games, and was 15-25 points up on his peers who were nearly all 7-14 years younger, before injuries to himself, his shell of a team, and trades caused the eventual tumble to 91 points in 67 games.

It’s Lemieux man. Gretzky is the only forward ever to have anything over him. Remember, Jaromir is merely an anagram for Mario Jr.

 

[Felidae]

Not really. Two years later at 37, he didn’t have Jagr (or much of a team) in 2002-2003, piled up 68 points in his first 40 games, and was 15-25 points up on his peers who were nearly all 7-14 years younger, before injuries to himself, his shell of a team, and trades caused the eventual tumble to 91 points in 67 games.

It’s Lemieux man.

Ok, fair enough.

No doubt teams were no longer only focusing on Jag that season and I'm sure that made things easier physically.


But imo, it was more so Lemieux's presence in itself being an emotional rejuvenation for Jagr. Admittedly, I don't really have evidence for this other than Jagr's mercurial nature and the start of the 2000-01 season was the time he made his "dying alive" comments.

I just think the implication that Jagr's production went back up because the attention was no longer all on him doesnt sit right. We've seen Jagr dominate without Lemieux. 1998-99 and 1999-0 are arguably his two best seasons when his regular linemates were Kip Miller and Jan Hrdina. I mean, he won 4 of his Art Rosses without Lemieux. Not to mention his comeback in 2005.

 

[Albatros]

I just think the implication that Jagr's production went back up because the attention was no longer all on him doesnt sit right. We've seen Jagr dominate without Lemieux. 1998-99 and 1999-0 are arguably his two best seasons when his regular linemates were Kip Miller and Jan Hrdina.

When Jágr was playing with them it created space for another, more balanced top line with Kovalev, Lang, and Straka. Besides Jágr liked playing with Miller so much that he was later brought to Washington for the same job.

 

[TheStatican]

Yeah, how listless and disinterested do you have to be to not even show up? The mind boggles...

Agreed. I tire of these selfish players quiting all the time.

"This morning Nicklas Lidstrom called it quits"

 

[TheStatican]

Didn't Jagr outscore Lemieux in the games they played together? Without taking anything away from Mario, It was one of the great comebacks in sports, I'm not convinced he was the best player in the world at that point.

Only because of two reasons:
One - Jagr played in two more games and scored 4 points in those two games giving him 80 in 43. Yes still 4 more points more than Lemieux had, but also 4 less goals 31 to 35.

Two - While Jagr mostly played together with Lemieux he also got to play a decent amount of even strength time with one or two of Kovalev/Straka/Lang, who were all pretty damn impressive themselves that season. He combined with them for 6 goals at even strength, AFTER Lemieux came back, 5 in games Mario was playing in. Lemieux? He was involved in just 1 goal with those three at ES.

Lastly if were including playoffs and the games they both played in these were their stat lines that year, it's obviously still quite close between them but I would give the edge to Lemieux.
[TABLE=collapse]
[TR]
[TD]

​

[/TD]

[TD]

Gm​

[/TD]

[TD]

G​

[/TD]

[TD]

A​

[/TD]

[TD]

Pts​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

Lemieux​

[/TD]

[TD]

59​

[/TD]

[TD]

41​

[/TD]

[TD]

51​

[/TD]

[TD]

92​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

Jagr​

[/TD]

[TD]

59​

[/TD]

[TD]

33​

[/TD]

[TD]

59​

[/TD]

[TD]

92​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Besides it's quite clear Jagr didn't "have it" on his own. Without Lemieux here are his numbers from 2000 to 2004

Jagr age 28 to 31 seasons:
[TABLE=collapse]
[TR]
[TD]

Gm​

[/TD]

[TD]

G​

[/TD]

[TD]

A​

[/TD]

[TD]

PT​

[/TD]

[TD]

PPG​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

38​

[/TD]

[TD]

21​

[/TD]

[TD]

20​

[/TD]

[TD]

41​

[/TD]

[TD]

1.08​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

69​

[/TD]

[TD]

31​

[/TD]

[TD]

48​

[/TD]

[TD]

79​

[/TD]

[TD]

1.14​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

75​

[/TD]

[TD]

36​

[/TD]

[TD]

41​

[/TD]

[TD]

77​

[/TD]

[TD]

1.03​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

77​

[/TD]

[TD]

31​

[/TD]

[TD]

43​

[/TD]

[TD]

74​

[/TD]

[TD]

0.96​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

259​

[/TD]

[TD]

119​

[/TD]

[TD]

152​

[/TD]

[TD]

271​

[/TD]

[TD]

1.05​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

They don't exactly scream out 'best in the world' Lemieux meanwhile managed quite a bit better without Jagr, which is kinda shocking considering he was 7 years older and well past his prime

Mario age 36 to 38:
[TABLE=collapse]
[TR]
[TD]

Gm​

[/TD]

[TD]

G​

[/TD]

[TD]

A​

[/TD]

[TD]

PT​

[/TD]

[TD]

PPG​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

101​

[/TD]

[TD]

35​

[/TD]

[TD]

96​

[/TD]

[TD]

131​

[/TD]

[TD]

1.30​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

 

[Albatros]

With Jágr it just never really clicked in Washington, that wasn't first or foremost about Lemieux.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Only because of two reasons:
One - Jagr played in two more games and scored 4 points in those two games giving him 80 in 43. Yes still 4 more points more than Lemieux had, but also 4 less goals 31 to 35.

Two - While Jagr mostly played together with Lemieux he also got to play a decent amount of even strength time with one or two of Kovalev/Straka/Lang, who were all pretty damn impressive themselves that season. He combined with them for 6 goals at even strength, AFTER Lemieux came back, 5 in games Mario was playing in. Lemieux? He was involved in just 1 goal with those three at ES.


[TABLE=collapse]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]

[TD][/TD]

[TD][/TD]

[TD][/TD]

[TD]

​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

So you're arguing that since Jagr got his points at ES and Lemieux got his on the powerplay, Lemieux was somehow disadvantaged?

Only because of two reasons:
One - Jagr played in two more games and scored 4 points in those two games giving him 80 in 43. Yes still 4 more points more than Lemieux had, but also 4 less goals 31 to 35.

Two - While Jagr mostly played together with Lemieux he also got to play a decent amount of even strength time with one or two of Kovalev/Straka/Lang, who were all pretty damn impressive themselves that season. He combined with them for 6 goals at even strength, AFTER Lemieux came back, 5 in games Mario was playing in. Lemieux? He was involved in just 1 goal with those three at ES.

Lastly if were including playoffs and the games they both played in these were their stat lines that year, it's obviously still quite close between them but I would give the edge to Lemieux.
[TABLE=collapse]
[TR]
[TD]

​

[/TD]

[TD]

Gm​

[/TD]

[TD]

G​

[/TD]

[TD]

A​

[/TD]

[TD]

Pts​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

Lemieux​

[/TD]

[TD]

59​

[/TD]

[TD]

41​

[/TD]

[TD]

51​

[/TD]

[TD]

92​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

Jagr​

[/TD]

[TD]

59​

[/TD]

[TD]

33​

[/TD]

[TD]

59​

[/TD]

[TD]

92​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Besides it's quite clear Jagr didn't "have it" on his own. Without Lemieux here are his numbers from 2000 to 2004

Jagr age 28 to 31 seasons:
[TABLE=collapse]
[TR]
[TD]

Gm​

[/TD]

[TD]

G​

[/TD]

[TD]

A​

[/TD]

[TD]

PT​

[/TD]

[TD]

PPG​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

38​

[/TD]

[TD]

21​

[/TD]

[TD]

20​

[/TD]

[TD]

41​

[/TD]

[TD]

1.08​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

69​

[/TD]

[TD]

31​

[/TD]

[TD]

48​

[/TD]

[TD]

79​

[/TD]

[TD]

1.14​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

75​

[/TD]

[TD]

36​

[/TD]

[TD]

41​

[/TD]

[TD]

77​

[/TD]

[TD]

1.03​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

77​

[/TD]

[TD]

31​

[/TD]

[TD]

43​

[/TD]

[TD]

74​

[/TD]

[TD]

0.96​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

259​

[/TD]

[TD]

119​

[/TD]

[TD]

152​

[/TD]

[TD]

271​

[/TD]

[TD]

1.05​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

They don't exactly scream out 'best in the world' Lemieux meanwhile managed quite a bit better without Jagr, which is kinda shocking considering he was 7 years older and well past his prime

Mario age 36 to 38:
[TABLE=collapse]
[TR]
[TD]

Gm​

[/TD]

[TD]

G​

[/TD]

[TD]

A​

[/TD]

[TD]

PT​

[/TD]

[TD]

PPG​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

101​

[/TD]

[TD]

35​

[/TD]

[TD]

96​

[/TD]

[TD]

131​

[/TD]

[TD]

1.30​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

You focus on what Jagr's stats were without Lemieux. What were Lemieux's stats after Jagr went down in the playoffs?

 

[NordiquesForeva]

With all due respect to Lemieux, this is between Jagr and Sakic imo. Jagr was on a completely different planet offensively upon Mario's return, but Sakic was outstanding at both ends of the ice from start to finish and put together a really strong playoff run on the way to the Stanley Cup.

Factoring in consistency and playoff performance I'd say Sakic turned in the best performance of any player in 2000-2001, but Jagr was the de facto best player in the world that season (even if it took him ~half the season before he demonstrated it).

 

[TheStatican]

So you're arguing that since Jagr got his points at ES and Lemieux got his on the powerplay, Lemieux was somehow disadvantaged?

What advantage? Here's their even strength totals together that season
[TABLE=collapse]
[TR]
[TD]

​

[/TD]

[TD]

Gm​

[/TD]

[TD]

G​

[/TD]

[TD]

A​

[/TD]

[TD]

Pts​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

Jagr​

[/TD]

[TD]

59​

[/TD]

[TD]

21​

[/TD]

[TD]

36​

[/TD]

[TD]

57​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]

Lemieux​

[/TD]

[TD]

59​

[/TD]

[TD]

23​

[/TD]

[TD]

29​

[/TD]

[TD]

52​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

The difference is entirely those 5 extra goals Jagr got playing with the L2 players, which was a first caliber line on almost any other team that year.

You focus on what Jagr's stats were without Lemieux. What were Lemieux's stats after Jagr went down in the playoffs?

So we should use a 2 game sample size over the 100 plus game one? O.K.