Guy Lafleur's six year peak

[Michael Farkas]

How does one determine that one scored a lot of points only because they were on a great team?

That's fairly straightforward...proper talent evaluation is the answer.

 

[MadLuke]

Jagr is a sub-ppg player in the playoffs. And the wild thing? He's not really pulled down by his late career as much as you'd think. He doesn't have a ton of GP (at least as not as much as you'd expect given career length), but he's at best a "meh, he's fine" playoff performer.

Well that seem an unfair way to put it, has he his certainly under that ppg because of his old age + 24 games as a rookie.

Before going in the KHL after turning 35, Jagr had 181 pts in 169 gp, virtually the same as playoff legend Joe Sakic 188 points in 172 games.

Saying offensively Jagr >= anyone outside Lemieux/Gretzky is not really an offensive statement, during his 22-28 years old prime, Jagr separated himself from the league in playoff ppg, not by much, but cleanly

95-01, ppg 50 games or more:
Jagr....: 1.23
Lindros.: 1.14
Sakic...: 1.14
Forsberg: 1.14
Fedorov.: 1.05

Outside Lindros the others will have a statue one day for what they did in the playoff during that era and prime Lindros was prime Lindros.

 

[WarriorofTime]

That's fairly straightforward...proper talent evaluation is the answer.

Straightforward in clairvoyance yet ambiguous in human application, as people may disagree on proper talent evaluation

 

[MadLuke]

due to the fact that he played for great teams, and therefore scored a lot in the playoffs, and won four Cups.

I get the then played a lot in the playoff and won a lot, but I am not sure how obvious scored a lot follow.

Forward not on Lafleur line did not score that much in the playoff during those 4 cups wins.

Lemaire-Shutt are good first line linemate, but anything special all-time level ? With the players (offensively) the Howe-Esposito-Bossy-Messier-Beliveau and other being compared to Lafleur ? Not sure Backstrom or Ron Francis are some downgrade here.

With the big 3 they are bound to be a good offensive team, but are they a great offensive team without Lafleur ?

In 80-81 when Lafleur played only 51 games, they scored 4.314 goal a game with him (top 3 in the league rate), down to 3.86 goal per game without him, just below the league average.

The 77 without Lafleur would have been better than the 1981 obviously, Savard-Lapointe were post prime, but still not sure how great of an offensive team Lafleur less habs would have been.

 

[daver]

That's fairly straightforward...proper talent evaluation is the answer.

Is it unreasonable to question this when one player was the dominant offensive player for 7 straight seasons?

Where is the indication that Guy would not have put up the same numbers if he was on another team other than speculative opinion.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Is it unreasonable to question this when one player was the dominant offensive player for 7 straight seasons?

Where is the indication that Guy would not have put up the same numbers if he was on another team other than speculative opinion.

There's virtually nothing on paper that is "unreasonable to question" with regard to this game. The paper is trying to dumb down what happened in the game into bite sized pieces...but it rarely gets it quite right. Whether that's the case here or not, I'm not saying...but the idea that evaluating a player isn't on the table because of some number from 1976 is ludicrous.

I mean, maybe it's a correct representation of the player. Not saying it isn't...but if the work isn't being done, the answer won't present itself.

 

[VanIslander]

There are short peakers who could've been much better (among the greats) if not for injury: Orr, Bossy, Kerr, Neely, Palffy.

There are short peakers just 'cuz: Sawchuk, Lafleur.

And there are short peakers walk awayers: McGee, Dryden, ... Kenny Jonsson!

 

[daver]

There's virtually nothing on paper that is "unreasonable to question" with regard to this game. The paper is trying to dumb down what happened in the game into bite sized pieces...but it rarely gets it quite right. Whether that's the case here or not, I'm not saying...but the idea that evaluating a player isn't on the table because of some number from 1976 is ludicrous.

I mean, maybe it's a correct representation of the player. Not saying it isn't...but if the work isn't being done, the answer won't present itself.

Fair enough, the poster I was questioning seemed to imply that, in general, players on great teams see their numbers increase.

History shows that GOAT level players seem to get their numbers regardless of the quality of their linemates/team. It is really only team success that is relied on being on a "great team".

If one wants to argue that Guy wasn't as good as his numbers, that's fine but one cannot argue his statistical dominance in both the RS and POs and his team success. That is what the OP is considering.