Is Kucherov on Jagr's level?

[Beyonder91]

That’s a pretty absurd way to look at it. You’re complaining because he’s only a couple points ahead of his teammates in a handful of games. Get out of here

Exactly... but you are going to tell me at the same time it shows that he is "all time great" over a handful of games stretch.
See ya later.

 

[Regal]

Exactly... but you are going to tell me at the same time it shows that he is "all time great" over a handful of games stretch.
See ya later.

Yes because when you add it up the production is there. That’s how this works. Being slightly better over small samples consistently means over the larger sample a player will stand out, which he does. Your nitpicking is ridiculous and when applied to pretty much any player sans-Gretzky would suggest no one is an all time great

 

[authentic]

Yes, I looked at the thread. It's deceptive because it is showing the ranking (Jagr 5th) in total adjusted points and Jagr played a lot more games than other players. He is far down the list when you look at adjusted points per game (28th - just ahead of Daniel Briere)

For example in that thread it shows the following for adjusted playoff points per game:

Kucherov: 1.61ppg (9th)
Jagr: 1.32ppg (28th)

Yes, Jagr is dragged down a little because of his 39 later playoff games but the bulk of his playoff games (77%) were age 35 and younger. 72% were age 30 and younger.

Now look at best consecutive 70 games, because obviously taking a bulk of games when he was 18-22 and 39+ will drop his averages. Incase you missed it, his best consecutive 70 games are slightly ahead of Kucherov and Crosby.

 

[Beyonder91]

Yes because when you add it up the production is there. That’s how this works. Being slightly better over small samples consistently means over the larger sample a player will stand out, which he does. Your nitpicking is ridiculous and when applied to pretty much any player sans-Gretzky would suggest no one is an all time great

Fair I am nitpicking but that's because you are referencing years he couldn't advance in the playoffs. We all know it gets tougher and tougher the further you go and we see Jagr's production fall drastically in the furthest playoffs he advance in. He was good. I just don't agree he was "all time" great like I was told. Mackinnon is another that has racked up points in the first round which makes his playoff numbers look so good. The only playoffs he made it out of the 2nd round his numbers were back down to earth.

 

[Beyonder91]

Now look at best consecutive 70 games, because obviously taking a bulk of games when he was 18-22 and 39+ will drop his averages. Incase you missed it, his best consecutive 70 games are slightly ahead of Kucherov and Crosby.

You mean the consecutive games where he went on maybe one deep run (that was also his worst performance ironically)? I don't care about racking up a bunch of points in the early rounds. Everyone knows the deeper you go the tougher it gets.

 

[authentic]

You mean the consecutive games where he went on maybe one deep run? I don't care about racking up a bunch of points in the early rounds. Everyone knows the deeper you go the tougher it gets.

 

[Beyonder91]

GIF doesn't help you.
Kucherov went to 3 Stanley Cup finals in a row over his 70 game stretch.
Jagr didn't go to the finals once during his.

 

[authentic]

GIF doesn't help you.
Kucherov went to 3 Stanley Cup finals in a row over his 70 game stretch.
Jagr didn't go to the finals once during his.

No the GIF actually helped me

 

[gimzo23]

He's getting his Ross wins against better competition than Jagr ever did

He's had McDavid and McKinnon as the only real competitors for the Ross. Jagr had Forsberg, Sakic, Lindros, Bure, Fedorov, Selanne, Kariya, Lemieux, Gretzky. Jagr was more dominant in relation to his peers during his peak than Kucherov.

 

[Beyonder91]

No the GIF actually helped me

Kinda like a blankie?

 

[Foppberg]

Lol f*** no.

 

[geebster]

McDavid is not in Lemieux's tier. Lemieux never played a game from 17 to 40 where he wasn't both the best goal scorer and playmaker on his own team. McDavid has done that for a decade now.

This is simply a semantic disagreement. I dont think McDavid is as good as Lemieux but I have them in the same tier of all time generational superstars. Like the best of their generation. Lemieux was just strictly better, but they both are in that tier. You can define tier however you want though.

If you define tier as the player has to be the same level where any discussion between 2 players of that tier is a 50/50 toss-up then I wouldn't put them in the same tier.

 

[paracord]

This is simply a semantic disagreement. I dont think McDavid is as good as Lemieux but I have them in the same tier of all time generational superstars. Like the best of their generation. Lemieux was just strictly better, but they both are in that tier. You can define tier however you want though.

If you define tier as the player has to be the same level where any discussion between 2 players of that tier is a 50/50 toss-up then I wouldn't put them in the same tier.

Sure, I guess if you are simply using them as "the best players of their generation," then yeah. But I think Lemieux and Gretzky live in a space that is far from any other players.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

He's had McDavid and McKinnon as the only real competitors for the Ross. Jagr had Forsberg, Sakic, Lindros, Bure, Fedorov, Selanne, Kariya, Lemieux, Gretzky. Jagr was more dominant in relation to his peers during his peak than Kucherov.

Lemeiux and Gretzky were well out of the Ross picture by the time Jagr was a consistent Ross contender.

As scorers, McDavid/MacKinnon/Draisaitl are a level above Forsberg, Sakic, Lindros, etc

 

[Toby91ca]

This is simply a semantic disagreement. I dont think McDavid is as good as Lemieux but I have them in the same tier of all time generational superstars. Like the best of their generation. Lemieux was just strictly better, but they both are in that tier. You can define tier however you want though.

If you define tier as the player has to be the same level where any discussion between 2 players of that tier is a 50/50 toss-up then I wouldn't put them in the same tier.

It probably doesn't matter because Jagr didn't exactly compete against Lemieux for scoring titles, if he did, he never really beat him.

Jagr won the scoring title 5 times.....4 of those seasons Mario didn't even play and the 5th he only played 43 games. If you want to look at the other years that Jagr didn't win the title anyway....go through every year of his career up to when Mario retired

1991 - Mario played 26 games
1992 - Mario outscored him
1993 - Mario outscored him
1994 - Mario played 22 games
1995 - Mario DID NOT PLAY
1996 - Mario outscored him
1997 - Mario outscored him
1998 - Mario DID NOT PLAY
1999 - Mario DID NOT PLAY
2000 - Mario DID NOT PLAY
2001 - Mario played 43 games
2002 - Mario played 24 games
2003 - Mario outscored him, even though he only played 67 games
2004 - Mario played 10 games
2006 - Mario played 26 games

And yes, I get showing that Mario outscored him shows that he "was competing against Mario for titles" but that wasn't really the case those years as it wasn't like he was finishing 2nd in scoring in years where Mario was winning....that did happen once in 1996 and that's where some start talking about whether he would have scored that much without Lemieux, etc....you can argue either way there....but the point was that it's a bit of an exaggeration to say Jagr had to compete against Lemieux, so his wins are better.

 

[paracord]

It probably doesn't matter because Jagr didn't exactly compete against Lemieux for scoring titles, if he did, he never really beat him.

Jagr won the scoring title 5 times.....4 of those seasons Mario didn't even play and the 5th he only played 43 games. If you want to look at the other years that Jagr didn't win the title anyway....go through every year of his career up to when Mario retired

1991 - Mario played 26 games
1992 - Mario outscored him
1993 - Mario outscored him
1994 - Mario played 22 games
1995 - Mario DID NOT PLAY
1996 - Mario outscored him
1997 - Mario outscored him
1998 - Mario DID NOT PLAY
1999 - Mario DID NOT PLAY
2000 - Mario DID NOT PLAY
2001 - Mario played 43 games
2002 - Mario played 24 games
2003 - Mario outscored him, even though he only played 67 games
2004 - Mario played 10 games
2006 - Mario played 26 games

And yes, I get showing that Mario outscored him shows that he "was competing against Mario for titles" but that wasn't really the case those years as it wasn't like he was finishing 2nd in scoring in years where Mario was winning....that did happen once in 1996 and that's where some start talking about whether he would have scored that much without Lemieux, etc....you can argue either way there....but the point was that it's a bit of an exaggeration to say Jagr had to compete against Lemieux, so his wins are better.

Right. Lemieux and Jagr were winning scoring titles at the same time, really. Jagr won his first in 95 I believe and then Lemieux came off the shelf the next year after taking a year off and put up 161 points.

Jagr would have won his second straight Ross that year by 29 points over Joe Sakic if it wasn't for Lemieux. Instead he lost it to Lemieux by 12 points.

 

[JFedol]

The thing about Jagr's playoff resume is that you might need to use your eyes and watch the games to see his full impact. Puck Possession monster

 

[authentic]

Sure, I guess if you are simply using them as "the best players of their generation," then yeah. But I think Lemieux and Gretzky live in a space that is far from any other players.

Except the playoffs, McDavid is on their level here.

 

[authentic]

The thing about Jagr's playoff resume is that you might need to use your eyes and watch the games to see his full impact. Puck Possession monster

People who blame him for his team not advancing have no real idea how dominant he was. He didn’t merely produce a ton of points, he always tilted the ice and outscored the opposition heavily even with mediocre linemates. He even had a great performance as a teenager in the Cup finals on a stacked team playing behind a prime Lemieux.

 

[CupsOverCash]

I think he is similar in a way that he can affect the game at a stand still. Remember jagr being like that and probably helped his longevity factor. I see Kuch being similar if he's able to stay healthy. Hopefully with the Lightning all those years.

 

[Toby91ca]

Right. Lemieux and Jagr were winning scoring titles at the same time, really. Jagr won his first in 95 I believe and then Lemieux came off the shelf the next year after taking a year off and put up 161 points.

Jagr would have won his second straight Ross that year by 29 points over Joe Sakic if it wasn't for Lemieux. Instead he lost it to Lemieux by 12 points.

Yeah, but the question is, would he put up those points if Mario wasn’t there?

 

[geebster]

It probably doesn't matter because Jagr didn't exactly compete against Lemieux for scoring titles, if he did, he never really beat him.

Jagr won the scoring title 5 times.....4 of those seasons Mario didn't even play and the 5th he only played 43 games. If you want to look at the other years that Jagr didn't win the title anyway....go through every year of his career up to when Mario retired

1991 - Mario played 26 games
1992 - Mario outscored him
1993 - Mario outscored him
1994 - Mario played 22 games
1995 - Mario DID NOT PLAY
1996 - Mario outscored him
1997 - Mario outscored him
1998 - Mario DID NOT PLAY
1999 - Mario DID NOT PLAY
2000 - Mario DID NOT PLAY
2001 - Mario played 43 games
2002 - Mario played 24 games
2003 - Mario outscored him, even though he only played 67 games
2004 - Mario played 10 games
2006 - Mario played 26 games

And yes, I get showing that Mario outscored him shows that he "was competing against Mario for titles" but that wasn't really the case those years as it wasn't like he was finishing 2nd in scoring in years where Mario was winning....that did happen once in 1996 and that's where some start talking about whether he would have scored that much without Lemieux, etc....you can argue either way there....but the point was that it's a bit of an exaggeration to say Jagr had to compete against Lemieux, so his wins are better.

Not sure if you are responding to me by accident or not. I wasnt talking about Lemieux with respect to Jagr. Someone disagreed with me in saying that I have McDavid in the same tier of generational superstars as Mario and was trying to explain that it just depends how you do tiers. There is no question Mario was better than Jagr (though Jagr is underrated for sure because he was the 2nd best player on his team). No comparison between em. Jagrs 5 scoring titles still count, if Lemieux existed now then McDavid and Kucherov and all could have no individual awards but that doesnt mean the ones they have dont count, in the same way that Jagrs count even if you do the hypothetical that a healthy Lemieux and he doesnt get them. You compete against the people you compete with.

Sure, I guess if you are simply using them as "the best players of their generation," then yeah. But I think Lemieux and Gretzky live in a space that is far from any other players.

I mean sure, though I have Orr alongside them if thats how you do tiers. Probably could argue a couple goalies could be in there, but its hard to compare skaters with goalies. I just dont do tiers that way and thats fine, again, its a semantic disagreement. The way I approach them Kucherov absolutely is in Jagrs tier which is that second tier generational superstar. Not all time the way McDavid or Lemieux are, but after McDavid theres no one thats strictly on a whole different tier than Kucherov and thats how I view Jagr. There isnt a tier to fit between Mario and Jagr so hes in the same tier. Its hard to compare stats apples to apples since Jagr played in a higher scoring league (in the first part of his career) and the nature of the league was so different (star forwards had no defensive responsibility and had way more energy for offense, could play longer shifts because of that, the average player was much worse and slower than today etc).