Gurglesons
Registered User
I agree. But Crosby basically had Letang and Malkin and that was it from 2010-2014.
Jagr vs Crosby
- Thread starter EdJovanovski
- Start date
I agree. But Crosby basically had Letang and Malkin and that was it from 2010-2014.
As a teenager, Jagr's 1992 playoff performance is impressive but Crosby's 2008 performance as a 20 year old is more impressive.
After that, Jagr's Pens were the 2010 to 2015 Pens, Cup favourites/contenders but underachieving. Jagr was better than Crosby in that context but then Crosby adds two Cups (and an impressive 2018 performance).
After that, Jagr's Pens were the 2010 to 2015 Pens, Cup favourites/contenders but underachieving. Jagr was better than Crosby in that context but then Crosby adds two Cups (and an impressive 2018 performance).
Nadal On Clay
Djokovic > Nadal > Federer
- Oct 11, 2017
- 3,245
- 3,096
I feel like intangibles are a difference maker here, as surprising as it may sound.
The difference their professionalism and their leadership is one of the main deal-breakers for me, as well as their playoff resume, obviously.
The difference their professionalism and their leadership is one of the main deal-breakers for me, as well as their playoff resume, obviously.
No surprise at all.
There are a few players that intangibles should be included when comparing with Crosby; Jagr is one of them.
WalterLundy
Registered User
Jagr has the better peak season/seasons (even when you take his 99 game 11–13 as a “season”) and then better prime seasons offensively. Crosby has the better career and consistency. Crosby also showed later on he is a very good two way player. You’d probably have to go with Crosby overall but people REALLY sell Jaromir Jagr short around here. Watched his whole pens career up close and maybe it’s just sour penguins fans or people who didn’t like him as a person but he was unbelievable. If it is peak or prime I’d probably go with him from that standpoint. Especially offensively.
Jagr (Jan 9 1999 to Jan 2 2000):
82 GP: 62 G, 84 A, 146 PTS
To do that without Lemieux in the DPE shows a level higher than anything Crosby was capable of. Crosby for career and in general though.
Jagr (Jan 9 1999 to Jan 2 2000):
82 GP: 62 G, 84 A, 146 PTS
To do that without Lemieux in the DPE shows a level higher than anything Crosby was capable of. Crosby for career and in general though.
WingsFan95
Registered User
I get all the argument for Crosby, I really do, but for me it boils down to the following:
1. Jagr largely played on worse teams and against better competition.
2. Jagr played in a much lower scoring era, the lowest.
3. Jagr often didn't care in his prime years so it lowers some of his numbers.
If you're the kind of fan who thinks players evolve and are always getting better and the talent pool is deeper etc, then you have that right of opinion. I just don't. I actually see peak level of hockey development and in countries such as Canada and Russia the youth programs are struggling due to ever increasing costs and let's not beat around the bush how there's more money for the average player to be made elsewhere. Tennis has the same problem.
So yeah, players like Jagr are a rarity and as much as I can appreciate Crosby, I'd take Jagr 10 times out of 10 for prime and crucial moments on the same quality team.
Now we also look at career resume with Crosby somewhat slightly ahead in a few areas but overall it's still Jagr unless you put way too much stock in the 3>2 Cups and 2>0 Smythe.
1. Jagr largely played on worse teams and against better competition.
2. Jagr played in a much lower scoring era, the lowest.
3. Jagr often didn't care in his prime years so it lowers some of his numbers.
If you're the kind of fan who thinks players evolve and are always getting better and the talent pool is deeper etc, then you have that right of opinion. I just don't. I actually see peak level of hockey development and in countries such as Canada and Russia the youth programs are struggling due to ever increasing costs and let's not beat around the bush how there's more money for the average player to be made elsewhere. Tennis has the same problem.
So yeah, players like Jagr are a rarity and as much as I can appreciate Crosby, I'd take Jagr 10 times out of 10 for prime and crucial moments on the same quality team.
Now we also look at career resume with Crosby somewhat slightly ahead in a few areas but overall it's still Jagr unless you put way too much stock in the 3>2 Cups and 2>0 Smythe.
That’s not really true. He started in a high scoring environment and his last big year was also in one. And the 2013-2017 period was a lower scoring era than the DPE for star players (low scoring league but also little PP time, whereas PP time was prevalent in the DPE). It’s probably pretty similar overall
#2: Crosby's prime/peak took place in a lower scoring environment than Jagr's.
#3: Crosby gave 100% in every regular season game up until November 2009, after that his effort fluctuated.
Your 3rd point in that Jagr often didn't care doesn't help his case does it?
Sure Jagr might be considered better offensively but for all around play and elite consistency it's a pretty clear choice.
Luigi Lemieux
Registered User
- Sep 26, 2003
- 22,040
- 10,438
I do think Jagr was slightly better offensively at his peak but Crosby wasn't too far off. Crosby's 82 game peak was 140 points in a slightly higher scoring era (but still below today's scoring levels).
But because of his consistency, leadership and overall game I would put Crosby ahead in terms of career standing. I think every gm in hockey would take Crosby if given the choice between the two at age 18.
WingsFan95
Registered User
#2. Uhmmm, not exactly sure how that is overall. Unless you mean to say Jagr's peak was through 95-96 because of his 149. It's clear his peak was later in the 96-01 years and what numbers for a guy who "didn't care" offensively. Then when he cared beginning with the Rangers he even started getting Selke votes.
His later years when he was more focused showcase his true greatness to me.
Too easy to forget how great his first Rangers season at age 33 was then just obscene when we look at his NHL return and age 41 and 43 (where he finished 7th in Hart voting).
I mean, it's really about the ream roster I'm actually taking Jagr over Crosby every time on a talented team because Jagr will get me over the hill and he's going to give me a longer more prolific career.
I love Jagr and think that he gets under appreciated at times but Crosby passed him a couple of seasons ago as the better all time player.
His regular season and playoff resumes are just better.
Personally I think that at the end of the day he is going to viewed as closer to #4 Mario than whomever one wants to put 6th until McDavid catches up (if he does).
Jagr when he won 4 straight Art Rosses:
Avg 5.39 GPG
| 1997-98 | 5.275797 |
| 1998-99 | 5.265583 |
| 1999-00 | 5.49216 |
| 2000-01 | 5.513008 |
Crosby when he led in points per game 5 straight years:
Avg: 5.35 GPG
| 2010-11 | 5.464228 |
| 2011-12 | 5.319512 |
| 2012-13 | 5.306944 |
| 2013-14 | 5.343 |
| 2014-15 | 5.324 |
WingsFan95
Registered User
Those are some damn close numbers that aren't factoring in scheduling and also Jagr himself slightly raising the averages no? I can call it a wash but also say Jagr put up better numbers at the same league level.
Dude, you said Jagr played in a much lower scoring era. You don't need to come up with weak rationalizations, just admit you were wrong, it's not a big deal.
Last edited:
WingsFan95
Registered User
Can we also look at 02-09? I'll admit I'm wrong on the "much" comment. But looking at the stats they were still lower in top scoring like Top 20.
Here's the league GPG from the start of Jagr's career to 2016, I haven't validated the years after that, but scoring does start rising again at that point:
| 1990-91 | 6.910714 |
| 1991-92 | 6.957955 |
| 1992-93 | 7.252976 |
| 1993-94 | 6.484432 |
| 1994-95 | 5.972756 |
| 1995-96 | 6.285178 |
| 1996-97 | 5.831144 |
| 1997-98 | 5.275797 |
| 1998-99 | 5.265583 |
| 1999-00 | 5.49216 |
| 2000-01 | 5.513008 |
| 2001-02 | 5.236585 |
| 2002-03 | 5.308943 |
| 2003-04 | 5.135772 |
| 2005-06 | 6.050407 |
| 2006-07 | 5.757724 |
| 2007-08 | 5.439837 |
| 2008-09 | 5.695122 |
| 2009-10 | 5.530894 |
| 2010-11 | 5.464228 |
| 2011-12 | 5.319512 |
| 2012-13 | 5.306944 |
| 2013-14 | 5.343 |
| 2014-15 | 5.324 |
| 2015-16 | 5.337 |
Luigi Lemieux
Registered User
- Sep 26, 2003
- 22,040
- 10,438
People don't realize 05-06 and 06-07 were the only high scoring years post lockout. 2010-16 was basically back to dead puck era level scoring.
WalterLundy
Registered User
We are in agreement. If you extend it from the Crosby ‘11-‘13 peak season and change worth of games to his next 3-5 or 5-7 seasons offensively Jagr would have him offensively as well. That’s why I said peak and prime offensively I’d go Jagr but overall and as a complete hockey player Sid gets the nod.
WingsFan95
Registered User
Okay so looking at that I still see an edge to Jagr having more lowering scoring seasons in his prime period.
And I've already agreed Crosby is the better two-way player. But Jagr's peak offensive production coupled with insane longevity and durability (counts) has me without a doubt taking him over Crosby. I get regular season awards vary but the main metric for Sid's favor in the NHL is +1 Cup and 2 Smythes which I can give him 1 of but not both in deserving.
Hart Voting
Jagr: 1, 2(x4), 3, 4, 7
Crosby: 1(x2), 2(x4), 3, 4, 5, 6
That's damn close, but I'll give Sid major credit for Selke finishes at 4 & 7. I just can't ignore Jagr's peak offensive production coupled with insane longevity.
And some have mentioned Olympic Golds, I think it's a wash to be honest with Jagr having 98 and Sid having 10 but let's not kid ourselves about those stacked Canadian squads, still that OT Finals goal is something.
CokenoPepsi
Registered User
- Oct 28, 2016
- 5,359
- 2,729
CokenoPepsi
Registered User
- Oct 28, 2016
- 5,359
- 2,729
A bit, yes...I mean obviously this just one message board but the elites on the history board I believe have all three very close.
