Jagr vs Crosby

[Empoleon8771]

What weird logic is this lol That's like saying Gretzky won scoring titles by such ridiculous margins that it actually proved that the rest of the league was bad at hockey, meaning that Gretzky wasn't actually that good.

Do you seriously think that guys like Sakic, Fedorov and Bure were on par with McDavid and Ovechkin?

That doesn't mean "he outscored his peers by so many", it means "his peers weren't as good so he had less competition for awards".

 

[Regal]

Also Jagr got off to a much slower start in his career so basically he was a clearly better goal scorer in his prime

Yup. Just like I added on he’s at 57 adjusted goals per 82 in his 7 best years, which is 10 more than Crosby. Granted adjusted stats aren’t perfect and they probably underrate years like 16-17 a bit where scoring among the leaders looked worse compared to league wide scoring trends, but I think in general it’s enough of a gap to be clear, especially when you add in the goal scoring finishes.

As well, the only years Crosby was really close to those adjusted paces was in his 2 Richard years and the year he got injured by Steckel. He might have continued for longer at a high level after 10-11 if he didn’t change his style a bit after being injured, but we’ll never know. Ultimately he was a very good goal scorer with some spikes but he was never consistently an elite goal scorer like prime Jagr. And I think that’s more important in goal scoring debates. Crosby’s career numbers per game look so great because his career is all prime.

 

[Cursed Lemon]

Do you seriously think that guys like Sakic, Fedorov and Bure were on par with McDavid and Ovechkin?

That doesn't mean "he outscored his peers by so many", it means "his peers weren't as good so he had less competition for awards".

Okay why don't we take McDavid down a peg then. Who's his contemporary really?

 

[Midnight Judges]

I understand the intention of what adjusted stats hope to explain, beyond trying to wrap one’s head around the dominance of Gretzky.

But yeah, they’re pretty faulty and not as heady as you’re trying to make them out to be, when they’re used to minimize Gretzky winning multiple scoring races by 70-80 points and pretend that they’re comparable or worse than lesser seasons from lesser players.

I don't know why you think they minimize Gretzky. Even after adjustments, Gretzky utterly dominates everyone.

PPG in a vacuum screws Gretzky just as much or more because it is the only way to pretend Lemieux was on his level when really Gretzky sustained that level of play for many more games.

 

[BraveCanadian]

I think it is close either way and I’m positive that Crosby will be higher on most (if not all) lists, but I think Jagr was actually better.

 

[CokenoPepsi]

Did you see the teams Jagr played for during his peak?

Jagr is supposed to be a top 5-10 player of all time...I find that to be a pretty weak excuse...plus there was talent on those teams.

I'm not trying to slag him too much but his play definitely got worse in the playoffs

 

[powerbomb]

That's not disingenuous at all. Durability is a virtue in all professional sports.

Nobody is saying durability and longevity doesn’t matter; in fact, nobody said anything about it one way or the other. Framing your argument around having “similar points” in the “same amount of seasons” is deliberately trying to muddy the water. Maybe you believe it’s a clever way of obfuscating facts, maybe you have convinced yourself it’s a slick move in a debate, but I’m here to tell you something: it isn’t. It just awkwardly brings extra attention to the reality that Ovechkin has scored less in significantly more games played. You’re only getting that point past people who accept what you’ve said at face value, which clearly nobody should when you make such an intentionally disingenuous statement.

 

[Regal]

Jagr is supposed to be a top 5-10 player of all time...I find that to be a pretty weak excuse...plus there was talent on those teams.

I'm not trying to slag him too much but his play definitely got worse in the playoffs

His playoff numbers were pretty damn good though when he was in his prime on the Pens. From his first Art Ross in 94-95 to his last in 00-01, he had a line of 77GP, 44 G, 95 PTS, +21 in the playoffs. That was 2nd in goals, 4th in points and 1st in points per game over that time frame.

 

[LightningStorm]

I have Jagr as the better player and Crosby as the more valuable player.

 

[Video Nasty]

I'm not trying to slag him too much but his play definitely got worse in the playoffs

Based on what? False memories and groupthink narratives?

 

[Gurglesons]

Did you see the teams Jagr played for during his peak?

I’d argue outside of one or two teams in his prime, Jagr played on better teams most years than Sid did.

 

[Felidae]

Based on what? False memories and groupthink narratives?

He's not wrong though, at least statistically speaking.

It's not to say Jagr was a bad playoff performer by any means, but his offensive domination over his peers lessened by quite a bit.

As regal pointed out, he lead the playoffs in PPG from his first art Ross to his last. However, Sakic and Forsberg weren't too far behind. Jagr had a 1.23 PPG and both of them had a 1.14 PPG.

Compare that to his regular season PPG over them. From 1994 to 2000 he had a 1.54 PPG. Sakic and Forsberg had a 1.30 and 1.24 PPG respectively.

Obviously, it's normal for your numbers to drop in the playoffs. But Jagr's numbers dropped noticeably more then Sakic and Forsberg's.

Lastly.

Jagr vs. Hull: Playoff resumes

Both players are lacking in the Cup wins department; Hull only won one on a Hawks team that was a contender throughout the '60s during an era that saw only three teams as contenders normally in any given year. Jagr won two Cups as a strong supporting player but failed to reach the SCF again...

forums.hfboards.com

In post #10 of the above thread, Forsberg and Sakic actually outproduced Jagr in the rounds he played in. The reason both of their overall postseason PPGs drop is because they went deeper into the playoffs, facing tougher opponents.

 

[GreatGonzo]

Jagr is supposed to be a top 5-10 player of all time...I find that to be a pretty weak excuse...plus there was talent on those teams.

I'm not trying to slag him too much but his play definitely got worse in the playoffs

Those teams were legitimately weak. No where near the power house teams of the early 90s. Jagr also performed well in the playoffs. I have no clue where your getting that from

I’d argue outside of one or two teams in his prime, Jagr played on better teams most years than Sid did.

How so?

 

[Gurglesons]

How so?

He had Francis in 97-98. The other two years he had Lang, Kovalev and Straka.

Most years Sid had Malkin and a bunch of 40 pt wingers.

 

[GreatGonzo]

He had Francis in 97-98. The other two years he had Lang, Kovalev and Straka.

Most years Sid had Malkin and a bunch of 40 pt wingers.

Straka had one career year playing with Jagr, outside of that he was a 40-50 point player. Kovalev hadn’t broke out out yet, and Lang was nothing significant. I don’t see how that beats Malkin alone.

 

[Gurglesons]

Straka had one career year playing with Jagr, outside of that he was a 40-50 point player. Kovalev hadn’t broke out out yet, and Lang was nothing significant. I don’t see how that beats Malkin alone.

Marty Straka had 60+ points 5 times in his career.

Kovalev had 46 points in 63 games and 60+ in his second series.

Not sure where you getting this from.

Also, the two years I’d argue Jagr was on worse teams than Sid and Geno ever had were 98-99 and 99-00.

 

[GreatGonzo]

Marty Straka had 60+ points 5 times in his career.

Kovalev had 46 points in 63 games and 60+ in his second series.

Not sure where you getting this from.

Straka scored 42 and 59 points a couple of those years. And again, not sure how name dropping these guys means that they had “stronger” teams.

 

[CokenoPepsi]

His playoff numbers were pretty damn good though when he was in his prime on the Pens. From his first Art Ross in 94-95 to his last in 00-01, he had a line of 77GP, 44 G, 95 PTS, +21 in the playoffs. That was 2nd in goals, 4th in points and 1st in points per game over that time frame.

Yes, those are good...but for a player some try to tout as a top 5-10 just lacking.

Even with Jagr at his peak and with Mario there something missing... In 2001 he even went pointless in the Conference Finals.

It is definitely a weak spot on his resume the playoffs and his lack of a signature run

 

[GreatGonzo]

Yes, those are good...but for a player some try to tout as a top 5-10 just lacking.

Even with Jagr at his peak and with Mario there something missing... In 2001 he even went pointless in the Conference Finals.

It is definitely a weak spot on his resume the playoffs and his lack of a signature run

So because of one series, his playoffs aren’t that good? I don’t understand.

The guy sits 5th in playoff points, 10th in goals, and 11th in assists, with two cups. Even in his prime(without Mario), from 98-00, he sits 5th in points and goals with the highest PPG in only 26 games

 

[Midnight Judges]

Nobody is saying durability and longevity doesn’t matter;

They absolutely are. You are flat out wrong. -Ignoring durability is the whole purpose of highlighting PPG or GPG as opposed to points and goals.

What you are conveying here is simply your accustomization to PPG/GPG as a substitute for actual accomplishments. You are simply used to it and that alone makes you feel as though it is valid. -That is normal human nature. It's also without logic.

 

[Midnight Judges]

He had Francis in 97-98. The other two years he had Lang, Kovalev and Straka.

Most years Sid had Malkin and a bunch of 40 pt wingers.

Oh hey it's this falsehood again.

Kunitz was a 60 point player before coming to the Pens. How many games did Kunitz and Crosby play together? 500-ish?

Guentzel is a PPG caliber player at this point. How many games has he played with Sid? Going on 400 now?

Dupius scored 48 points before every putting on a Pens jersey. His career high of 58 points was achieved in a season where Crosby played half the games. Of course that never stopped you guys from slandering him as "AHL-caliber."

James Neal was a 57 point / 27 goal guy in both Dallas and Nashville.

Phil Kessel was a 35 goal / 80 point player for 4 straight seasons before coming to the Pens, although he couldn't be successfully paired with Crosby or Malkin at 5v5 because none of the three of them play much defense. They did get a ton of powerplay time together though.

Nevermind that Crosby has had tons of ice time and played his entire career with the third best player of their generation - combining with Malkin on over 50% for his points in 2009 and probably 20%+ across his entire career.

The Pens overall record without Crosby over the years is quite excellent. They went .714 in extended time without Sid a couple years ago and had 108 points in 2012 when Crosby barely even played.

Nevermind that Gonchar and Letang are excellent puck moving defensemen that were often stapled to Sidney Crosby for his entire career.

This idea that Crosby has been somehow disadvantaged by teammates is utter gibberish.

 

[KirkAlbuquerque]

Krosboi

 

[CokenoPepsi]

So because of one series, his playoffs aren’t that good? I don’t understand.

The guy sits 5th in playoff points, 10th in goals, and 11th in assists, with two cups. Even in his prime(without Mario), from 98-00, he sits 5th in points and goals with the highest PPG in only 26 games

His playoffs are good, just you would expect better from someone touted as a top 5-10 player of all time by some people.

He isn't even a PPG in the playoffs.

Crosby, Ovechkin, Malkin, hell even McDavid all have those signature runs as alphas.

But Jaromir?

 

[wetcoast]

Also Jagr got off to a much slower start in his career so basically he was a clearly better goal scorer in his prime

Jagr's 94-95 gets adjusted as well and really are we going to punish guys for the NHL having a shortened season.

There is no problem with people saying that Jagr is the slightly better goal scorer but at the end of the day it's not a significant difference when one takes a deeper and multifaceted approach.

 

[crosby87]

Of course it turns into a Crosby, OV thread.

Only because people somehow still get baited into arguing with midnight judges in 2023