Jagr vs. Hull: Playoff resumes

[daver]

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, and only reached the CF with Mario; he never got past the 2nd round without Mario despite being on a number of highly seeded teams.

IMO, both players do not lose any points in an all-time sense vs. players with similar regular season resumes; their playoff performances were befitting their regular season level of performance. Both were leaders in playoff points during their career timeframe.

Would anyone place one clearly above the other?

Click to read more...

 

[Michael Farkas]

Well, this board...which has Hull as the 31st best playoff performer of all time, where as the #5 all time point getter in playoff history (and the only one not to play at some point in the 80's in the top 10 until Crosby came along) was not listed...nor did he ever come up for vote even, if I recall...

 

[BraveCanadian]

Jagr’s playoffs are pretty underrated on this board.

 

[VanIslander]

Both disappointed when it mattered most.
Neither dug deep to play well away from the puck.

 

[Crosby2010]

A very underrated thing about Hull is that when did he ever have a lousy postseason? I'll give him 1959 and 1960. I know he won the Art Ross in 1960 but he did not do well his first two postseasons so I'll cut him some slack for being young. But starting in 1961 when he won the Cup all of the way to 1972 which was his last in the NHL (1980 but you know what I mean) he never had a poor postseason. Always statistically good. 1966 leaves a lot to be desired stat wise. 4 points in 6 games, -3, 24 shots in the series. Not his best work. But other than that he has a nice body of work. Too bad he only had the one Cup. But when the Hawks went deep he was a major force behind it. He wins the Conn Smythe in both 1965 and 1971 in a walk if his team wins Game 7 both years. And if we want to count it he wins two championships in the WHA and his playoff numbers are excellent there.

Jagr is an enigma when it comes to the playoffs. Because he certainly steps up and performs well in the two Cup wins. He's a teenager and yet he has 13 and then 24 points in back to back years. 4 game winning goals in 1992. I am going to say there are years that Jagr disappoints more than Hull. You feel he maybe closed up shop too quickly. Maybe there is too high of a standard for what he was expected to do. Because look at 1999 and 2000. He took those teams further than they deserved to go. He carried them on his back. And then you look at years like 1993, 1994, 2001, 2006 and even the later round in 1996 where you wonder why he didn't just carry the team on his back. Unlike Hull he doesn't have a Conn Smythe-caliber year. There are times where I feel the Pens win the Cup if Jagr steps it up more. 1993, 1996 come to mind. Why couldn't they beat Washington in 1994 for instance?

So I have to give the edge to Hull here because Jagr has a ton of points and not one defining playoff year where you say "That's the one". And with 201 points you figure there should be a lot to choose from

 

[Michael Farkas]

I think because everyone is so blinded by Mario's greatness - and rightly so - that Jagr's early work got a little overshadowed.

The teenager came in dealt this hand, in the 91 and 92 playoffs...
Even Strength Points:
1. Lemieux 37
2. Stevens 34
3. Jagr 30
4. Francis 28
5. Oates 26
6. Recchi 22
7. Messier 21
8. Chelios 20
9. Tikkanen 20
10. Roenick 19

He had just 7 power play points in the same time frame. The same as Brian Glynn, Brian Noonan, and Whalers-only John Cullen.

 

[daver]

A very underrated thing about Hull is that when did he ever have a lousy postseason? I'll give him 1959 and 1960. I know he won the Art Ross in 1960 but he did not do well his first two postseasons so I'll cut him some slack for being young. But starting in 1961 when he won the Cup all of the way to 1972 which was his last in the NHL (1980 but you know what I mean) he never had a poor postseason. Always statistically good. 1966 leaves a lot to be desired stat wise. 4 points in 6 games, -3, 24 shots in the series. Not his best work. But other than that he has a nice body of work. Too bad he only had the one Cup. But when the Hawks went deep he was a major force behind it. He wins the Conn Smythe in both 1965 and 1971 in a walk if his team wins Game 7 both years. And if we want to count it he wins two championships in the WHA and his playoff numbers are excellent there.

Jagr is an enigma when it comes to the playoffs. Because he certainly steps up and performs well in the two Cup wins. He's a teenager and yet he has 13 and then 24 points in back to back years. 4 game winning goals in 1992. I am going to say there are years that Jagr disappoints more than Hull. You feel he maybe closed up shop too quickly. Maybe there is too high of a standard for what he was expected to do. Because look at 1999 and 2000. He took those teams further than they deserved to go. He carried them on his back. And then you look at years like 1993, 1994, 2001, 2006 and even the later round in 1996 where you wonder why he didn't just carry the team on his back. Unlike Hull he doesn't have a Conn Smythe-caliber year. There are times where I feel the Pens win the Cup if Jagr steps it up more. 1993, 1996 come to mind. Why couldn't they beat Washington in 1994 for instance?

So I have to give the edge to Hull here because Jagr has a ton of points and not one defining playoff year where you say "That's the one". And with 201 points you figure there should be a lot to choose from

It seems like you are left wanting more from the 60s Hawks than from Hull while you are left expecting more from Mario/Jagr after 1992 and somewhat from Jagr in the Mario-less seasons.

 

[bobholly39]

Both disappointed when it mattered most.
Neither dug deep to play well away from the puck.

How did Jagr disappoint?

Maybe it's disappointing that he never led his team to a cup (or finals) in his prime, but I don't think he had great teams. He generally performed really well in every playoffs.

From 96 to 2003 - the exact stretch of years of Avalanche's great cup runs and Wings - Jagr has the highest playoff ppg above all of Forsberg, Sakic, Fedorov, etc.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

How did Jagr disappoint?

Maybe it's disappointing that he never led his team to a cup (or finals) in his prime, but I don't think he had great teams. He generally performed really well in every playoffs.

From 96 to 2003 - the exact stretch of years of Avalanche's great cup runs and Wings - Jagr has the highest playoff ppg above all of Forsberg, Sakic, Fedorov, etc.

For me he disappoints in the playoffs because he never had a playoff run that matches the caliber of his regular seasons. Yes he never had a bad playoff, but he never had a great one either. It's consistently just good, he never elevated.

 

[jigglysquishy]

1996 to 2003 playoffs, including rounds Jagr played in

Year	Jagr	Lemieux	Sakic	Forsberg	Fedorov	Yzerman
1996	18 GP 11 G 12 A 23 P	18 GP 11 G 16 A 27 P	18 GP 17 G 12 A 29 P	18 GP 7 G 9 A 16 P	19 GP 2 G 18 A 20 P	18 GP 8 G 12 A 20 P
1997	5 GP 4 G 4 A 8 P	5 GP 3 G 3 A 6 P	6 GP 3 G 9 A 12 P	6 GP 2 G 7 A 9 P	6 GP 0 G 2 A 2 P	6 GP 2 G 1 A 3 P
1998	6 GP 4 G 5 A 9 P	-	6 GP 2 G 3 A 5 P	7 GP 6 G 5 A 11 P	6 GP 6 G 3 A 9 P	6 GP 1 G 6 A 7 P
1999	9 GP 5 G 7 A 12 P	-	12 GP 4 G 10 A 14 P	12 GP 6 G 11 A 17 P	10 GP 1 G 8 A 9 P	10 GP 9 G 4 A 13 P
2000	11 GP 8 G 8 A 16 P	-	10 GP 2 G 4 A 6 P	9 GP 5 G 5 A 10 P	9 GP 4 G 4 A 8 P	8 GP 0 G 4 A 4 P
2001	16 GP 2 G 10 A 12 P	18 GP 6 G 11 A 17 P	14 GP 9 G 8 A 17 P	11 GP 4 G 10 A 14 P	6 GP 2 G 5 A 7 P	1 GP 0 G 0 A 0 P
2002	-	-	-	-	-	-
2003	6 GP 2 G 5 A 7 P	-	7 GP 6 G 3 A 9 P	7 GP 2 G 6 A 8 P	4 GP 1 G 2 A 3 P	4 GP 0 G 1 A 1 P
Total	71 GP 36 G 51 A 87 P (1.23 PPG)	41 GP 20 G 30 A 50 P (1.22 PPG)	73 GP 43 G 49 A 92 P (1.26 PPG)	70 GP 32 G 53 A 85 P (1.21 PPG)	60 GP 16 G 42 A 58 P (0.97 PPG)	53 GP 20 G 28 A 48 P (0.91 PPG)
Total (1996-2001 Jagr prime)	65 GP 34 G 46 A 80 P (1.23 PPG)	41 GP 20 G 30 A 50 P (1.22 PPG)	67 GP 37 G 46 A 83 P (1.24 PPG)	63 GP 30 G 47 A 77 P (1.22 PPG)	56 GP 15 G 40 A 55 P (0.95 PPG)	49 GP 20 G 27 A 47 P (0.96 PPG)

Now if you compare that to their stats in whole 1996-2003

	Jagr	Lemieux	Sakic	Forsberg	Fedorov	Yzerman
Total	71 GP 36 G 51 A 87 P (1.23 PPG)	41 GP 20 G 30 A 50 P (1.22 PPG)	130 GP 64 G 82 A 146 PPG (1.12 PPG)	116 GP 51 G 64 A 137 P (1.18 PPG)	113 GP 33 G 73 A 106 P (0.94 PPG)	106 GP 36 G 62 A 98 P (0.92 PPG)
Total (1996-2001 Jagr prime)	65 GP 34 G 46 A 80 P (1.23 PPG)	41 GP 20 G 30 A 50 P (1.22 PPG)	102 GP 49 G 69 A 118 P (1.16 PPG)	89 PG 40 G 62 A 102 P (1.15 PPG)	86 GP 27 G 57 A 84 P (0.98 PPG)	79 GP 30 G 44 A 74 P (0.94 PPG)

In those latter rounds, when Jagr wasn't playing, we saw Avalanche stars see noticeable drops in PPG production. Sakic drops from 1.24 PPG to 1.16 PPG. Forsberg drops from 1.22 PPG to 1.15 PPG.

So at first glance, Jagr looks to be the most productive offensive player in the 1996-2001 playoffs. But if we only look at rounds he played in, Sakic jumps ahead of him and Forsberg is right with him. Both Avalanche stars saw their offense drop in the tighter conference finals/cup finals rounds.

Now, Jagr still looks really good. But not as dominant as the stats first look. Especially since he was extremely dominant in the regular season. And when the games got tight, his offense dropped to a greater degree than Sakic or Forsberg, both who played much stronger defensive roles. Yes, Pittsburgh was a weaker team. But when they went deep (1996 and 2001) he was outplayed by Sakic.

 

[MadLuke]

Low rounds but many of those seasons the Penguins faced say the first position Devils or second almost first Flyers with both some of the best defense in the league teams in the first round.

The being more fresh effect is there but the facing easier team not that frequent for Lemieux less Jagr Pens, even in 97 they faced the Flyers right out the gate. And to note he is still outscoring Lemieux-Sakic-Forsberg here, just by a tiny margin but we are talking about 3 of the most legendary playoff scorer ever.

 

[bobholly39]

It took me a minute to find this old thread, but here goes:

Top 100 Players Since 1979/80 for 3rd Period/OT Game-Tying or Go-Ahead Goals in Playoffs

Source was Hockey References' game finder, I went through and added up totals for players that either tied the game up in the 3rd period, or scored go-ahead goals in either the 3rd period or Overtime. Active players are in bold/capitalized. RankPlayerGoals 1Brett Hull20 2Joe Sakic19 3Jaromir...

forums.hfboards.com

Since 1980 - Jaromir Jagr has the most points in playoffs for a goal that either tied the game up in the 3rd period, or was the go-ahead goals in either the 3rd period or Overtime.

39 points Jagr. Brett Hull second at 38, than Messier with 37 and Gretzky with 36.

I think this shows that despite not playing on great teams in his prime, Jagr was very clutch in the playoffs, and a very consistent producer. He lacks a signature long playoff run, and so that's a knock on his resume, but not on his level of play.

 

[jigglysquishy]

I've always been impressed with Hull's 1971 playoff run. Past him prime, with Mikita a shadow of his earlier self, he drags the Blackhawks to game 7 of the Cup Final against a comedically stacked Habs. Overall, he leads the playoffs in PPG and finishes second in points.

In the Finals, he puts up 9 points on 18 Blackhawks goals. Mikita only gets 5 points in 7 games, with Pappin stepping up.

Hull lead all players in points that series. He even lead in +- despite losing the series.

 

[MadLuke]

That the kind of stat that being too good (or playing on too good of a team) and in a high scoring era can hurt instead of helping too, it need to be a 1 goal or less game in the third, which in the dpe would have been particularly common, less so for the 80s Gretzky Oilers.

Also with how valuable it is historically to score the first goal in the nhl, it could be a bit of a strange way to look at it, it is not the nba where for some reason it seem to often be all about the last 2 minutes.

Still really nice to see and probably a good amount of work to build.

The Claude PP Lemieux stat

 

[bobholly39]

That the kind of stat that being too good (or playing on too good of a team) and in a high scoring era can hurt instead of helping too, it need to be a 1 goal or less game in the third, which in the dpe would have been particularly common.

Also with how valuable it is historically to score the first goal in the nhl, it could be a bit of a strange way to look at it, it is not the nba where for some reason it seem to often be all about the last 2 minutes.

Still really nice to see and probably a good amount of work to build.

The Claude PP Lemieux stat

Yeah all of that is true. That list is also 1980+ only, so doesn't touch Bobby Hull who is being discussed here in this thread. Also - I believe it was manually computed, so could potentially be some errors.

I still thought it was quite impressive. Jagr has often been looked at a ~so-so playoff performer, but I don't think that's true. I think he did quite well, and was always very clutch in the third periods in close games to tie/help win games, which is quite impactful.

You still need those signature playoff runs to boost your overall playoff resume, and he lacks it. So I definitely have Crosby, Sakic, Forsberg to name a few above Jagr for playoffs performers overall. But there's a difference between his playoff resume being disappointing, and Jagr himself disappointing.

Poster above said "Jagr disappointed when it mattered the most". I don't think that's accurate at all when talking about Jagr's performances.

 

[MadLuke]

We can wonder if 1992 run happen later in Jagr career if he is viewed differently (even if everything else the same, still Mario leading the way but missing time and so on).

Humans overvalue how things ended to judge a subjective experience, future History board fans that were not alive in the 90s will maybe have a different view, guy lead the league in playoff PPG above legends, 2 cups including a really impressive performance full of youtube highlight from 1992, why was he low ?

 

[frisco]

Another thing about Hull and Jagr is they almost always got their teams into the playoffs which, obviously, is job #1 as the superstar anchor of a franchise.

My Best-Carey

 

[Crosby2010]

It seems like you are left wanting more from the 60s Hawks than from Hull while you are left expecting more from Mario/Jagr after 1992 and somewhat from Jagr in the Mario-less seasons.

Agreed. I don't think you can blame Hull/Mikita or even Pierre Pilote for their playoff collapses. It was a weird situation in Chicago where the stars still did well in the postseason but maybe it was a lack of depth or secondary support(?) that had teams like the Leafs and Habs beat them normally. I think the Pens should have been in another Cup final after 1992 with that core. How much of that you shoulder onto Jagr is anyone's guess but it would be a percentage of it I would think spread around. I don't know how much you blame Hull. If Lemaire doesn't score a goal from outside of the blueline in the 2nd period of Game 7 in 1971 then Hull easily has a Conn Smythe.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Agreed. I don't think you can blame Hull/Mikita or even Pierre Pilote for their playoff collapses. It was a weird situation in Chicago where the stars still did well in the postseason but maybe it was a lack of depth or secondary support(?) that had teams like the Leafs and Habs beat them normally. I think the Pens should have been in another Cup final after 1992 with that core. How much of that you shoulder onto Jagr is anyone's guess but it would be a percentage of it I would think spread around. I don't know how much you blame Hull. If Lemaire doesn't score a goal from outside of the blueline in the 2nd period of Game 7 in 1971 then Hull easily has a Conn Smythe.

From what I've heard and read, the Blackhawks were not the cohesive, tight-knit, well coached team that Montreal and Toronto were in the 1960's. Seems the players ran the show and there may have been some factions there.

 

[Kranix]

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, and only reached the CF with Mario; he never got past the 2nd round without Mario despite being on a number of highly seeded teams.

IMO, both players do not lose any points in an all-time sense vs. players with similar regular season resumes; their playoff performances were befitting their regular season level of performance. Both were leaders in playoff points during their career timeframe.

Would anyone place one clearly above the other?

Jagr went to the finals with Boston

 

[authentic]

We can wonder if 1992 run happen later in Jagr career if he is viewed differently (even if everything else the same, still Mario leading the way but missing time and so on).

Humans overvalue how things ended to judge a subjective experience, future History board fans that were not alive in the 90s will maybe have a different view, guy lead the league in playoff PPG above legends, 2 cups including a really impressive performance full of youtube highlight, why was he low ?

Honestly I think it’s a bit of a drag that his playoff career gets nitpicked to this extent. He had some clutch moments in the playoffs in his first two seasons in the league and won the Stanley Cup both seasons, then goes on to perform extremely well on teams that just couldn’t go deep in the playoffs due to factors outside his control and he’s basically seen as a lesser playoff performer because he wasn’t the go to player in any of his Cup runs. Considering how Gretzky’s Oilers won the Cup without him and he never won a Cup after leaving Edmonton and also how Lemieux’s team never even made the playoffs in his first 4 seasons it’s pretty clear there’s nothing more he could’ve done other than be lucky enough to play for better teams. Think also of how the game plan of the other team could focus solely on Jagr and not Forsberg and Sakic for instance and it’s hard for me to believe he’s truly a worse playoff performer.

 

[Crosby2010]

Honestly I think it’s a bit of a drag that his playoff career gets nitpicked to this extent. He had some clutch moments in the playoffs in his first two seasons in the league and won the Stanley Cup both seasons, then goes on to perform extremely well on teams that just couldn’t go deep in the playoffs due to factors outside his control and he’s basically seen as a lesser playoff performer because he wasn’t the go to player in any of his Cup runs. Considering how Gretzky’s Oilers won the Cup without him and he never won a Cup after leaving Edmonton and also how Lemieux’s team never even made the playoffs in his first 4 seasons it’s pretty clear there’s nothing more he could’ve done other than be lucky enough to play for better teams. Think also of how the game plan of the other team could focus solely on Jagr and not Forsberg and Sakic for instance and it’s hard for me to believe he’s truly a worse playoff performer.

If we really want to nitpick Jagr, and I think this is generally what we have to do with his playoffs because when a player is as great as he is you have to go through it with a fine tooth comb, you can say that when he was "the man" his team never went past the 2nd round. I know that with Boston in 2013, and Pittsburgh in 1991, 1992, 1996 and 2001 he was not considered "the man". It is a bit of a Karen thing to complain about with him but we do it all of the time with Ovechkin who has only been outside of the 2nd round once - when he won the Cup. So I guess if it is fair with Ovechkin it is fair with Jagr. It is one of those nagging things too because Ovie as well is a good playoff performer and just by percentages alone his teams should have gone deeper more often. Ditto with Jagr. For whatever reason it didn't happen, because often he did more than enough to help. You can't blame Jagr in 2008 for instance, 15 points in 10 games, you definitely can't blame that guy for not getting out of the 2nd round. 1999 and 2000 as well. Hard to pin it on him. Even in 2013 he had 10 assists. No goals, that sort of bugs you, but he still put up points and can you really rag on a guy if he's 40 years old?

So like I said, if we are going deep here then you can see there are some moments with Jagr where you can say you wish he took the bull by the horns more. 1991 and 1992 no issues. 1993 he is blanked in Game 7 vs the Isles and only has 5 points in 7 games in that series. Really comes up flat in 1996 vs. the Panthers with 5 points in 7 games. That bugs you because he had 149 points that year. 2001 he's hurt if I remember correctly but that's zero points in 5 games vs. Jersey. That hurts. I've said this before but what a big change it would be if Jagr had that one standout Cup run on his own. But I can also say that he did have some good moments overall too. I see it both ways.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

This is semi off topic, but not sure if this warrants a separate thread.

We all know that Jagr had an incredible 7 year prime (plus 2006). In 1995, 1996 and 1997, he scored at a pace of 54, 62 and 61 goals (per 82 games). Then in 1999, 2000 and 2001, he scored at a pace of 45, 55, and 52 goals (against the headwind of a leaguewide drop in scoring).

In the middle of that 7 year period (1998), he was only on pace for 37 goals. Does anyone recall why?

He shot a bit less, and his shooting percentage was also down - was that purely luck, or is there an on-ice reason for that? It's not like he was surrounded by a lot of talent (his main linemates were pass-first Ron Francis, and Stu Barnes, who was reliable and a hard worker, but wasn't a great goal-scorer).

 

[Michael Farkas]

Drill sergeant Kevin Constantine had the Penguins playing defense for the first time since Bowman. I think that's the year Barrasso practiced really, really hard got Vezina votes for the first time in half a decade...no coincidence...

 

[frisco]

Drill sergeant Kevin Constantine had the Penguins playing defense for the first time since Bowman. I think that's the year Barrasso practiced really, really hard got Vezina votes for the first time in half a decade...no coincidence...

Yes. Let's throw out Barrasso's great year in 97-98 because the Penguins actually tried to play a little defense for the first time since the 70's. Of course, we'd have to do the same with about 19 seasons out of Martin Brodeur's career on the defense-first Devils trap machine teams.

My Best-Carey