Did Jagr benefit of bad competition at forward during his peak to stack up Art Ross trophies?

[Nadal On Clay]

His main competition was a mix of Lindros/Sakic/Forsberg/Injured Lemieux/Washed Gretzky/Kariya/Bure/Selanne. A bunch of them have had injury riddled seasons and down seasons.

You look at today, we have McDavid/Kucherov/Draisaitl/MacKinnon who are all competing every year for the award.

How much of it was Jagr simply being way and ahead of his peers or him being lucky with the lack of competition for the Art-Ross?

Do you weigh his wins a bit differently because of it? After all, he lost a lot of Hart/Lindsey to players at other positions.

 

[MadLuke]

When he won it by 2 pts while playing less than 70 games yes for sure, lucky others missed game and/or not what they could have been (kariya-Lindros-Bure-Forsberg).

In 00, those forward had high enough PPG to win the Art Ross would they have played 77 games (1.26 ppg):

Sakic (1.35ppg), Bure (1.27), Turgeon (1.27).

Winning it because healthy motivated Lemieux was not there, that would be true for every non Gretzky winner maybe.

The other years
95, Peak lindros playing on the legion of Doom line was good competition
98, won it by 11, lead in ppg.
99, win by 20, big lead in ppg.
01 win by 3



In 01, "lucky" Lemieux made a come back. but 2001 Sakic was strong competition to beat.

It is a bit counterbalanced by loosing an Art Ross scoring 149 points to Lemieux and when he scored 123 pts (17 more than third place and 30 more than #10 place)

 

[Staniowski]

Jagr was great, easily one of the greatest scorers ever.

He played in a very talent-rich era. Likely the most talent-rich era. All the guys around his age, plus the previous generations - Lemieux, Gretzky, Yzerman, etc. who were still there.

But, of course he benefitted (in Art Ross wins) by injuries to others. For example, as good as Jagr was, he likely never wins a scoring title if Lemieux is healthy and playing.

And Lindros, who, when healthy, almost always outscored Jagr.

And Kariya, Forsberg, even Gretzky, though there's 11 years age difference.

So, you consider all these things.

But, still, hardly anybody in the history of hockey could score like Jagr, and that's the bottom line.

 

[WarriorofTime]

He won a bunch in a globalized nhl. Honestly Gretkzy’s competition in the early to mid 80s might be the easiest sustained Art Ross competition notwithstanding high point totals (of course his margins were so absurdly runaway that it’s not like better competition would have lead to fewer Rosses). Low scoring doesn’t necessarily mean low talent but there was some bad luck with injuries to a lot of potential competitors and violent play likely created a league that made injuries more regular.

 

[daver]

His main competition was a mix of Lindros/Sakic/Forsberg/Injured Lemieux/Washed Gretzky/Kariya/Bure/Selanne. A bunch of them have had injury riddled seasons and down seasons.

You look at today, we have McDavid/Kucherov/Draisaitl/MacKinnon who are all competing every year for the award.

How much of it was Jagr simply being way and ahead of his peers or him being lucky with the lack of competition for the Art-Ross?

Do you weigh his wins a bit differently because of it? After all, he lost a lot of Hart/Lindsey to players at other positions

If you place his five Rosses against McDavid's five Rosses, it isn't clear that he loses more than one or two to McDavid if they played head to head.

 

[JackSlater]

Depends what you mean. There were a lot of elite forwards in the NHL during Jagr's peak, certainly not a weak era in that way. You could say that Jagr benefitted from that very strong competition being injured regularly, and there is truth to that, but by the same token Jagr played in the same conditions they did. Jag managed to lead the NHL in scoring in 2000 despite significant time missed, and even when guys like Sakic, Selanne, Kariya, Forsberg etc. were healthy in his prime they still couldn't outscore him.

I think that Jagr benefitted from Pittsburgh pretty much letting him play how he wanted in an era where not all the stars were allowed to do so (some like Selanne and Kariya still were, Jagr in Washington was not) but even then, Jagr was the best scorer in the NHL.

 

[Regal]

Jagr was great, easily one of the greatest scorers ever.

He played in a very talent-rich era. Likely the most talent-rich era. All the guys around his age, plus the previous generations - Lemieux, Gretzky, Yzerman, etc. who were still there.

But, of course he benefitted (in Art Ross wins) by injuries to others. For example, as good as Jagr was, he likely never wins a scoring title if Lemieux is healthy and playing.

And Lindros, who, when healthy, almost always outscored Jagr.

And Kariya, Forsberg, even Gretzky, though there's 11 years age difference.

So, you consider all these things.

But, still, hardly anybody in the history of hockey could score like Jagr, and that's the bottom line.

94-95 was his only Art Ross win where Lindros had a better PPG

 

[Regal]

If you place his five Rosses against McDavid's five Rosses, it isn't clear that he loses more than one or two to McDavid if they played head to head.

In terms of pure production I’d probably rank them

McDavid ‘21
McDavid ‘23
Jagr ‘99
Jagr ‘01/McDavid ‘22/Jagr ‘95
McDavid ‘18/McDavid ‘17/Jagr ‘98
Jagr ‘00

 

[Regal]

I feel like Jagr won a fairly appropriate number for his talent level. Sure he was lucky that Lemieux retired, but that would have affected everyone. He was also lucky that others didn’t have big seasons in ‘98 and ‘00, and that he won the first tiebreaker in ‘95. But he was unlucky to lose to Lemieux in ‘96 when he had a season that wins 90% of the time, and unlucky to barely miss in ‘06, especially when Thornton missed 3 games with Boston but had the opportunity to make up two of those with the Sharks. And as much as it was his fault, he probably could have done more in Washington. In a perfect career, maybe he wins 8, but he also could have only won 2 like Crosby.

 

[GoldenSeal]

Luck and Jagr don't go together. Jagr got there by staying healthy and operating at a high level of talent. His list of accomplishments and hardware are not kept in a trophy case insomuch as a damn airplane hangar. And at the age of 53, he still hasn't professionally retired.

Legend.

 

[daver]

In terms of pure production I’d probably rank them

McDavid ‘21
McDavid ‘23
Jagr ‘99
Jagr ‘01/McDavid ‘22/Jagr ‘95
McDavid ‘18/McDavid ‘17/Jagr ‘98
Jagr ‘00

In terms of level of play:

Tier 1

Jagr '99
Jagr '00
McDavid '21
McDavid '23

Tier 2

Jagr '95
Jagr '97
McDavid '17
McDavid '22

Tier 3

Jagr '01
McDavid '18

The only certainty is Jagr losing an Art Ross to McDavid due to him playing 60 games.

 

[daver]

I feel like Jagr won a fairly appropriate number for his talent level. Sure he was lucky that Lemieux retired, but that would have affected everyone. He was also lucky that others didn’t have big seasons in ‘98 and ‘00, and that he won the first tiebreaker in ‘95. But he was unlucky to lose to Lemieux in ‘96 when he had a season that wins 90% of the time, and unlucky to barely miss in ‘06, especially when Thornton missed 3 games with Boston but had the opportunity to make up two of those with the Sharks. And as much as it was his fault, he probably could have done more in Washington. In a perfect career, maybe he wins 8, but he also could have only won 2 like Crosby.

Good summary. I am not sure there is an obvious sense that Jagr benefitted from playing during a certain timeframe anymore than other players on his tier like McDavid or Crosby.

If the comparision is specifically to McDavid, is there an argument that McDavid benefitted from being Canadian and prepared for the NHL than Jagr, along with immediately being relied upon for offense vs. playing on a Cup contender with a GOAT player.

 

[The Panther]

He won a bunch in a globalized nhl. Honestly Gretkzy’s competition in the early to mid 80s might be the easiest sustained Art Ross competition notwithstanding high point totals

Gretzky had the highest scoring season of any player in the 1990s.

 

[The Panther]

I think Jagr would have outscored Mario Lemieux head-to-head from 1997-98 through 1999-00. By 1995, Jagr was already a better even strength scorer than Lemieux, and Mario wasn't getting any younger.

Anyway, as others have said, Jagr was maybe a little fortunate, but more so in terms of injuries to other stars, not strength of competition.

On the other hand, he was unfortunate with Hart trophies.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Awards themselves are more luck. But since they're trying to approximate actual on-ice play, it's fair to say that Jagr deserved the Rosses he got. He's an all timer from a skill perspective. He adapted to a number of different eras. A very balanced attacker, so he could beat you many different ways.

If anything, he was unlucky with the Harts to go with some of these...

 

[GlitchMarner]

His main competition was a mix of Lindros/Sakic/Forsberg/Injured Lemieux/Washed Gretzky/Kariya/Bure/Selanne. A bunch of them have had injury riddled seasons and down seasons.

I don't see how that's bad competition. "Washed Gretzky" was a top five scorer in '97 and '98.

That's not any worse than the scoring race competition during the second Dead Puck Era (2011-2017).

 

[psycat]

I don't think so. Doubt a Jamie Benn for example wins a scoring title during Jagrs prime years, make of that what you wan't.

Are todays top 4 players stronger than the ones when Jagr was in his heyday? If you exclude Lemieux there is an argument to be made I suppose. If we replace McDavid with Jagr I am not entirely confident he puts up 5 Art Ross but I am not convinced either way and likely never will be.

 

[MadLuke]

I don't see how that's bad competition. "Washed Gretzky" was a top five scorer in '97 and '98.

That can become circular fast, 36 assists Bure missing 8 games in 00 and 31 years old Recchi were strong competition they were 2 and 3 in scoring...

Washed Gretzky still able to make the top 3 can be a sign of weak competition (because of stars injuries in that era)

 

[GlitchMarner]

That can become circular fast, 36 assists Bure missing 8 games in 00 and 31 years old Recchi were support strong competition they were 2 and 3 in scoring...

Washed Gretzky still able to make the top 3 can be a sign of weak competition (because of stars injuries in that era)

There have been stronger periods of competition (like the late 80s to 1996 or 1997), but I don't think it's any worse than post-peak early 2010s Ovechkin, injury-riddled Malkin, Art Ross non-factor Crosby (injured), Getzlaf, peak Jamie Benn and Tavares, Stamkos, MSL, Giroux, Sedin bros, Kane etc. Jagr would have dominated that period as well.

As mentioned, the very early 80s period wasn't that great outside of Gretzky, either.

 

[MadLuke]

There have been stronger periods

yes agree, but we cannot use in this context call Benn strong competition just because he was finishing first in the scoring race nor old Gretzky because he was finishing in the top 5(has people are debating how strong that top 5 competition looked like).

At least one Jagr win was weak competition in 00 against Florida Bure, that Bure was not producing necessarily much higher than 107pts 1994 Bure when he finished 5 and had a second place because Sakic-Forsberg-Lindros-Kariya were not necesarily were they were supposed to be.

Recchi best finish of his career (past 30), Yzerman first time an all-star and winning the selke at 34, the competition was lower than late 80s earlys 00s, (Injured Malkin-Crosby-Stamkos is maybe a good comparable).

80 games Jagr in 00 playing with Mario could have won the Ross by 45% over any non Penguins.

 

[Overrated]

Bad competition? Like peak Lindros, peak Bure, peak Fedorov, peak Kariya, peak Selanne, peak Sakic and peak Forsberg?

 

[TheGuiminator]

Jagr had great competition. If anything, I don't think he gets enough credit for his Art Ross wins during his 95-01 run.

I think his dominance kind of flies under the radar because it happened right after the Gretzky & Lemieux era, and those two were in a class of their own.

 

[authentic]

Jagr was great, easily one of the greatest scorers ever.

He played in a very talent-rich era. Likely the most talent-rich era. All the guys around his age, plus the previous generations - Lemieux, Gretzky, Yzerman, etc. who were still there.

But, of course he benefitted (in Art Ross wins) by injuries to others. For example, as good as Jagr was, he likely never wins a scoring title if Lemieux is healthy and playing.

And Lindros, who, when healthy, almost always outscored Jagr.

And Kariya, Forsberg, even Gretzky, though there's 11 years age difference.

So, you consider all these things.

But, still, hardly anybody in the history of hockey could score like Jagr, and that's the bottom line.

Besides 1994-95 when Jagr’s prime began when else was this the case?

 

[Stephen]

Jagr's NHL career spanned 28 calendar years start to finish, but yeah he just got lucky at the right time to score 1921 points. Timing was perfect.

 

[daver]

There have been stronger periods of competition (like the late 80s to 1996 or 1997), but I don't think it's any worse than post-peak early 2010s Ovechkin, injury-riddled Malkin, Art Ross non-factor Crosby (injured), Getzlaf, peak Jamie Benn and Tavares, Stamkos, MSL, Giroux, Sedin bros, Kane etc. Jagr would have dominated that period as well.

Presumably you are referring to the 2011 to 2015 period (five seasons), so lets take Jagr's four Rosses (removing 00/01 as he would not have Mario playing with him) and sees if wins every one of those.

The 94/95 version of Jagr, the 97/98 version and the 99/00 version loses the Art Ross to Malkin in 11/12 and to Crosby in 13/14. Only the 98/99 version wins the Art Ross in every one of those seasons but his level of play is matched by Crosby in 10/11 and 12/13 and by Malkin in 11/12; the same can be said about Jagr's 99/00 season.

He wins 2 to 3 Rosses out of 5 in that time period but his PPG dominance is matched by Crosby.