Jagr vs S. Stevens in their primes

[livewell68]

When I was 10 I thought Bobby Holik was the best forward in the NHL because I scored 300 goals with him in one season in NHL Faceoff 99. Narrated by Doc Emrick.

Despite all this nonsense, Jagr was the best player in the world for a stretch of 5-10 years while Stevens was barely in the discussion for the best defenseman in the league.

Trying to argue with Devils' fans is very hard when it comes to their players, but to be honest, the only Devils player that even belongs in the same discussion as Jagr is Brodeur and most would still pick Jagr.

Jagr is better than Stevens in prime, peak, regular season, playoffs and career. It really isn't as close as some are trying to argue. I mean Jagr has won Polls in the History section against Messier, Sakic, Yzerman, Hull, Esposito, Bossy, Lafleur and Richard.

To try and argue that Stevens was more valuable than Jagr is just absurd.

Stevens played on a defensive powerhouse for Pete's sake, he had Brodeur in net.... if he didn't win 3 Stanley Cups then I would say something was wrong.

 

[Scott04]

When I was 10 I thought Bobby Holik was the best forward in the NHL because I scored 300 goals with him in one season in NHL Faceoff 99. Narrated by Doc Emrick.

I loved Stephane Richer back around the days of NHL 95. Mostly because he was like a 94 overall or something and you could make any trade as long as the total overall rating you got back was within 5 of what you were giving. Start up a season mode, flip him for Jaromir Jagr/Mario Lemieux/Pavel Bure/etc, ????, profit

 

[ThePSEGPowerPoster]

you're wrong

http://www.quanthockey.com/TS/TS_GoalsPerGame.php

Doesn't that graph demonstrate just that?

Looking at the scoring average for each decade since the N.H.L. was founded, we can see that it’s been more than half a century since league games have been so low-scoring.

1917-18 to ’26-27: 6.88
1927-28 to ’36-37: 4.81
1937-38 to ’46-47: 6.15
1947-48 to ’56-57: 5.24
1957-58 to ’66-67: 5.86
1967-68 to ’76-77: 6.30
1977-78 to ’86-87: 7.46
1987-88 to ’96-97: 6.71
1997-98 to ’07-08: 5.32

Of course, the rules of play have changed drastically since the league began, especially up until the full set of modern offside rules was finally installed in 1943. And even since then, the league has tinkered endlessly with the rules on an almost yearly basis, so that today’s game bears less and less resemblance to the hockey played just 30 years ago. It would be incorrect to blame the low scores in the present-day N.H.L. for the loss of fan interest and dwindling TV ratings the league has experienced since the mid-1990s.

http://slapshot.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/09/nhl-scoring-way-way-down/

 

[livewell68]

Doesn't that graph demonstrate just that?



http://slapshot.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/09/nhl-scoring-way-way-down/

Except what's not being shown is the actually GPG by season.

http://www.dropyourgloves.com/Stat/LeagueGoals.aspx

In 1999-00 the GPG was 5.49 (the season when Jagr had 96 Pts in 63 games) while the GPG in 2005-06 (the season you mentioned from Thornton) was 6.17. That's more than half a goal per game more in the aforementioned Thornton season. How is Thornton's 92 Pts in 58 games (which is not even a full season, it was his San Jose stretch) season playing with better linemates and in a higher scoring season more impressive than Jagr's 96 Pts in 63 games in 1999-00?

BTW that same 1999-00 season, Jagr started off with 71 Pts (32 goals and 39 assists) in 39 games (pace of 150 Pts over 82 games), before injuries stopped his ascension to Lemieux and Gretzky like domination. If we were to extrapolate that to 58 games (Thornton's stretch in 2005-06), Jagr would have had 105 Pts not to mention 48 goals.

All these stats point to Jagr being on a whole other level. Stevens never came close to that type of domination.

 

[JimEIV]

Except what's not being shown is the actually GPG by season.

http://www.dropyourgloves.com/Stat/LeagueGoals.aspx

In 1999-00 the GPG was 5.49 (the season when Jagr had 96 Pts in 63 games) while the GPG in 2005-06 (the season you mentioned from Thornton) was 6.17. That's more than half a goal per game more in the aforementioned Thornton season. How is Thornton's 92 Pts in 58 games (which is not even a full season, it was his San Jose stretch) season playing with better linemates and in a higher scoring season more impressive than Jagr's 96 Pts in 63 games in 1999-00?

BTW that same 1999-00 season, Jagr started off with 71 Pts (32 goals and 39 assists) in 39 games (pace of 150 Pts over 82 games), before injuries stopped his ascension to Lemieux and Gretzky like domination. If we were to extrapolate that to 58 games (Thornton's stretch in 2005-06), Jagr would have had 105 Pts not to mention 48 goals.

All these stats point to Jagr being on a whole other level. Stevens never came close to that type of domination.

Lol. That is analogous to counting Bill Gates' dollars and making a case why he's a better person than Mother Teresa.

 

[livewell68]

Lol. That is analogous to counting Bill Gates' dollars and making a case why he's a better person than Mother Teresa.

?

I was simply responding to the argument that Thornton's 92 Pts in 58 games in 2005-06 was better than Jagr's 96 Pts in 63 games in 1999-00 which is complete BS.

No matter what arguments or stats are given to prove Jagr's obvious supremacy over Stevens, you cannot convince bias Devils fans.

These arguments will go nowhere.

 

[JimEIV]

?

I was simply responding to the argument that Thornton's 92 Pts in 58 games in 2005-06 was better than Jagr's 96 Pts in 63 games in 1999-00 which is complete BS.

No matter what arguments or stats are given to prove Jagr's obvious supremacy over Stevens, you cannot convince bias Devils fans.

These arguments will go nowhere.

How many games have you seen of Scott Stevens from 1994 to 2001? Roughly?

 

[livewell68]

How many games have you seen of Scott Stevens from 1994 to 2001? Roughly?

More than the casual hockey fan, less than the die hard Devils fans. I'm a fan of the late 80's, 90's hockey.

I grew up liking the Jagrs, the Sakics, the Messiers, the Lemieux', the Yzermans, the Shanahans, the Haseks, the Gilmours, the Bourques of the NHL. I watched enough of Stevens to know how good he really was. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I have him in my top 10 all-time for defensemen peaks and he is a top 20 all-time defenseman, he is however no way in hell better than Jagr or even more valuable than Jagr.

 

[JimEIV]

More than the casual hockey fan, less than the die hard Devils fans. I'm a fan of the late 80's, 90's hockey.

I grew up liking the Jagrs, the Sakics, the Messiers, the Lemieux', the Yzermans, the Shanahans, the Haseks, the Gilmours, the Bourques of the NH:. I watched enough of Stevens to know how good he really was. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I have him in my top 10 all-time for defensemen peaks and he is a top 20 all-time defenseman, he is however no way in hell better than Jagr or even more valuable than Jagr.

So if you were s fan during that time period, you saw Stevens shutdown the Wings almost single handedly and you're telling me that has less value than Yzerman's meaningless 1980's points or Jagr's meaningless late 1990's/early 2000's points?

You can't be serious with that.. domination in regular season scoring in any given year is greater than Stanley Cup final domination to win a championship? Is that what you are saying? An Art Ross is more valuable than a Conn Smythe? A goal is more important than a hit or an assist? A faceoff win in a critical situation is not as important as the 3rd goal in a 3 to 1 win? Does nothing else matter except for point production and trophy cases?

Does performing at big moments not count for anything? Does having the ability to turn your team around with a play, a word or a stare with piercing eyes have no value in your equation?

When does your matrix of excellence count these things? Or are they irrelevant?

 

[onefatsurfer]

So if you were s fan during that time period, you saw Stevens shutdown the Wings almost single handedly and you're telling me that has less value than Yzerman's meaningless 1980's points or Jagr's meaningless late 1990's/early 2000's points?

You can't be serious with that.. domination in regular season scoring in any given year is greater than Stanley Cup final domination to win a championship? Is that what you are saying? An Art Ross is more valuable than a Conn Smythe? A goal is more important than a hit or an assist? A faceoff win in a critical situation is not as important as the 3rd goal in a 3 to 1 win? Does nothing else matter except for point production and trophy cases?

Does performing at big moments not count for anything? Does having the ability to turn your team around with a play, a word or a stare with piercing eyes have no value in your equation?

When does your matrix of excellence count these things? Or are they irrelevant?

Everything except goals and assists are irrelevant. You should know this.

 

[apice3*]

the only Devils player that even belongs in the same discussion as Jagr is Brodeur and most would still pick Jagr

To try and argue that Stevens was more valuable than Jagr is just absurd.

I haven't really weighed in on this topic because honestly I think it's one of the dumbest arguments I've ever seen on this board.

People are debating between two consensus first ballot hall of famers, both top 10 of all time at their respective positions, both with multiple Stanley Cups, both with leadership qualities, both with much respect around the league. For anyone to say words like "not picking this guy is absurd" or "this player was better AINEC BRO" is flat out ignorant. You're picking between two of the greatest players to ever play the game. Unless one of the options is Gretzky or Lemieux, you can make a case for really any player of this elite of the elite caliber.

Secondly, picking forwards vs. defense adds to the stupidity of the debate. How can you argue two positions that are complete polar opposites?

 

[Reaganomics]

Wow. Stevens was great but this should not even be up to debate. Truly amazing.

 

[Burner Account]

I haven't really weighed in on this topic because honestly I think it's one of the dumbest arguments I've ever seen on this board.

People are debating between two consensus first ballot hall of famers, both top 10 of all time at their respective positions, both with multiple Stanley Cups, both with leadership qualities, both with much respect around the league. For anyone to say words like "not picking this guy is absurd" or "this player was better AINEC BRO" is flat out ignorant. You're picking between two of the greatest players to ever play the game. Unless one of the options is Gretzky or Lemieux, you can make a case for really any player of this elite of the elite caliber.

Secondly, picking forwards vs. defense adds to the stupidity of the debate. How can you argue two positions that are complete polar opposites?

Funny, without reading this I started typing a post with a similar first sentence

Because they play(ed) different positions there is no consensus answer. This debate could continue forever.

 

[apice3*]

I just find it funny that in other threads, someone mentions ridiculous ideas like Loktionov being better than Zajac and people get upset when you call their opinion ridiculous/absurd/dumb.

In this thread, someone picks one of the best players ever over one of the best players ever and calls other person's opinion ridiculous/absurd/dumb and no one gets upset about it.

Don't understand that one at all.

 

[JimEIV]

My only issue is how do you measure a player like Stevens from 1995 to 2001. The problem matriculating players like this is you have to leave so much out of the equation. Would anyone deny Stevens was dominate in the playoffs? Matter fact, if you look at his hit highlight reel the vast majority of those hits are in the playoffs and in tight games....it almost always had a direct outcome on the game...he really didn't hit like that in the regular season.

Regardless of where he fits in on some arbitrary list, I'm not sure most of what Stevens brought to NJ can be measured on a spreadsheet.

All I know is I've been watching NJ since their inception and the day #4 put on that red and green jersey it was different team, a better team and a legitimate team. At that time there was no Brodeur, no Niedermayer not even a Lemaire or Robinson and still there was a new ora around New Jersey. I don't think you can measure a transformation of an entire organization in points. Now you can argue it wasn't only him but there is no question Stevens was a major factor in taking a 25 year franchise from its days in Kansas City, Colorado and into new Jersey that was a complete and utter failure and turning into an organization that others tried to emulate for more than a decade.

That is legendary stuff....that. in my opinion rises above the pedestrian 3rd goal or secondary assist that is so important on the bean counters ledger.

 

[The Devil In I]

My only issue is how do you measure a player like Stevens from 1995 to 2001. The problem matriculating players like this is you have to leave so much out of the equation. Would anyone deny Stevens was dominate in the playoffs? Matter fact, if you look at his hit highlight reel the vast majority of those hits are in the playoffs and in tight games....it almost always had a direct outcome on the game...he really didn't hit like that in the regular season.

Regardless of where he fits in on some arbitrary list, I'm not sure most of what Stevens brought to NJ can be measured on a spreadsheet.

All I know is I've been watching NJ since their inception and the day #4 put on that red and green jersey it was different team, a better team and a legitimate team. At that time there was no Brodeur, no Niedermayer not even a Lemaire or Robinson and still there was a new ora around New Jersey. I don't think you can measure a transformation of an entire organization in points. Now you can argue it wasn't only him but there is no question Stevens was a major factor in taking a 25 year franchise from its days in Kansas City, Colorado and into new Jersey that was a complete and utter failure and turning into an organization that others tried to emulate for more than a decade.

That is legendary stuff....that. in my opinion rises above the pedestrian 3rd goal or secondary assist that is so important on the bean counters ledger.

Yes, what Stevens did was legendary. On the other hand, finishing top 5 all time in points is quite pedestrian.

 

[JimEIV]

And another thing...If Scott Stevens went to Toronto in 1991and had the same career he had in New Jersey, people would be talking about him as if he were a god...cause let's face it, Scott Stevens did more for New Jersey than Wayne Gretzky did for LA at roughly the same time period...and don't tell me Stevens had a better team...there were 3 to 5 Hall of Fame players on that team pretty much every year Gretzky was there.

 

[JimEIV]

Yes, what Stevens did was legendary. On the other hand, finishing top 5 all time in points is quite pedestrian.

Precisely! Winning a scoring title without team success is pedestrian...Now you finally understand!!!

 

[ThePSEGPowerPoster]

I wonder who Jagr would pick.

 

[Feed Me A Stray Cat]

I'm going to repeat: the late 2000s Devils had the goals against numbers as the early 2000s Devils.

A stud defensive defenseman will never be as valuable as a perennial top scorer.

 

[ThePSEGPowerPoster]

I'm going to repeat: the late 2000s Devils had the goals against numbers as the early 2000s Devils.

A stud defensive defenseman will never be as valuable as a perennial top scorer.

Was Stevens past his prime in 1995?

Edit: Until you answer and explain your position on that I'm going to have to assume you never actually watched Stevens play, which kind of hinders your credibility on this subject.

Like Semak says, we might have to see some ID.

 

[Burner Account]

Precisely! Winning a scoring title without team success is pedestrian...Now you finally understand!!!

For the record I haven't taken a side in this thread.

But Jagr's scoring title can only be deemed worthless in hindsight. In the present, winning a scoring title means you are producing more points than any other player. And producing more offense than any other player is making a significant contribution to your team. Someone who produces offense like that gives you a greater chance to win, as does an elite shutdown defenseman.

 

[JimEIV]

I'm going to repeat: the late 2000s Devils had the goals against numbers as the early 2000s Devils.

A stud defensive defenseman will never be as valuable as a perennial top scorer.

I am going to Repeat this: The 1981-92 Pittsburgh Penguins, one of the worst teams in the NHL had the same ' goals for' as the 1991 Stanley Cup Champion Penguins (310/75 = 4.1 goals per game 342/80 = 4.2 goals per game) Goal Scoring is meaningless without goal stopping.

 

[livewell68]

I am going to Repeat this: The 1981-92 Pittsburgh Penguins, one of the worst teams in the NHL had the same ' goals for' as the 1991 Stanley Cup Champion Penguins (310/75 = 4.1 goals per game 342/80 = 4.2 goals per game) Goal Scoring is meaningless without goal stopping.

Have you ever thought about the fact that the 1980's was the highest scoring decade in NHL history?

I'm willing to bet that the 1981-82 Penguins were near the bottom of the NHL in goals for while the 1991 Penguins were near the top in goals for in their respective seasons.

However the scoring of the early 2000's mirrors the scoring of the late 2000's, so the comparison is valid in this case.

 

[Feed Me A Stray Cat]

I am going to Repeat this: The 1981-92 Pittsburgh Penguins, one of the worst teams in the NHL had the same ' goals for' as the 1991 Stanley Cup Champion Penguins (310/75 = 4.1 goals per game 342/80 = 4.2 goals per game) Goal Scoring is meaningless without goal stopping.

You're completely ignoring the context.

The 1990-91 Penguins scored 342 goals. The league average was 276.

The 1981-82 Penguins scored 310 goals. The league average was 321.