Toggle sidebar

Is Kucherov on Jagr's level?

Is Kucherov on Jagr's level

  • Yes

    Votes: 104 36.1%

  • No

    Votes: 184 63.9%
  • Total voters
    288
Regal said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: authentic
Beyonder91 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
  • Like
Reactions: wetcoast and authentic
Beyonder91 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Regal said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
authentic said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
BigBadBruins7708 said:
He's getting his Ross wins against better competition than Jagr ever did
Click to expand...
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JFedol
paracord said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Summer Rose
geebster said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
gimzo23 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
geebster said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
Toby91ca said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JFedol
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.
 
paracord said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but the question is, would he put up those points if Mario wasn’t there?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

Latest posts

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom