The Jagr/Mario overlap

[daver]

I believe the number of seasons they played together provides clear evidence of how a Big 4 player/Top 2 offensive forward of all-time was clearly superior to a 2nd tier/best of the Non Big 4 level player like Jagr (and by reasonable proxy, Crosby and McDavid).

A peak Mario is clearly superior to a teenaged Jagr in their two Cup wins and through 1993. Jagr's rise started in 93/94 when he given the offensive reigns as Mario only played 22 games and finishes 10th in scoring.

In 94/95, Jagr hits his prime with his first Art Ross win at age 22, matching a slightly younger Lindros and somewhat marginally beating the other competition. It was a solid Ross win, made a bit more impressive by his age. By age 22, Mario had won an Art Ross in a dominant fashion that clearly signaled his separation at that age from any other player in NHL history other than Wayne, Howe, and Orr.

In 95/96, an almost peak Mario returns to form and while Jagr separates himself from every other player including a peak Lindros, peak Sakic and prime Forsberg. Statistically, the gap between Jagr and the pack is the same as it would be in 98/99 and 99/00 w/o Mario.

It is not unreasonable to thing that Jagr's significant relative jump in PPG in 95/96 was influenced by the presence of Mario. He went from 15th place in PP points to 3rd. It is less reasonable to presume that Mario's numbers were influenced by Jagr given his history of video game numbers, and carrying linemates.

Even if you do not believe that Jagr's numbers were influenced, you have a close to peak Jagr still being clearly beaten by a close to peak Mario in PPG (2.30 to 1.82).

96/97 sees Jagr get closer to tired, unmotivated Mario who is ready to throw in the towel.

Jagr then has a very solid Ross win in 97/98 then reaches his peak in 98/99 to 99/00 where he separates himself from the pack by a gap that is among the best of the Non-Big 4 but not close to peak Mario. It was close to Mario's 87/88 season.

In 00/01, Jagr is 16th in scoring before an age 35 Mario returns on Dec. 27th. Mario put up a 1.77 PPG for the season, Jagr goes at a 1.87 PPG the rest of the season. Mario outproduces Jagr in the playoffs, even before Jagr gets injured and underperforms in the ECF. It is not unreasonable to conclude that the benefit that a well past prime Mario brought to Jagr was greater than a peak Jagr brought to Mario.

Any doubts about this are erased as a on Jan. 7th, 2003, a 37 year old Mario leads the NHL in scoring by 15 points with a PPG of 1.70 (2nd place was 1.30).

Jagr redeems himself with a "back to prime" season at age 33 in 05/06 but then sees a somewhat expected regression as hits his mid-30s.

The very next year, Crosby hits his prime with "prime Jagr-like" performance at age 19 that would have rivalled Jagr and Thornton the year before. He then matches Jagr's peak per game production from '11 to '13.

Similarly, McDavid hits his prime with "prime Crosby-like" performance at age 19/20 and matches a 30 year Crosby who still in his prime, but not his peak. He then matches Jagr's and Crosby's prime in three of his four last seasons as he hits age 23.

Click to read more...

 

[Overrated]

It is not unreasonable to thing that Jagr's significant relative jump in PPG in 95/96 was influenced by the presence of Mario. He went from 15th place in PP points to 3rd. It is less reasonable to presume that Mario's numbers were influenced by Jagr given his history of video game numbers, and carrying linemates.

This has to be false. They both influenced each other rather equally. Lemieux's 95/96 is ranked as the highest adjusted season ever above Gretzky's 83/84 and above every other Lemieux's season while also taking place in arguably the deepest talent pool ever yet Mario was clearly worse than in 88/89 and even 92/93.

So why did he have the statistically best season ever in 95/96? Jaromir Jagr...


edit: But yes I agree with the premise of the thread. Jagr's overlap with Mario shows how superior Mario and Wayne and by extension also Orr were compared to guys like Crosby or McDavid. Although I would not agree it would necessarily extend to Howe whom I rate as in the same tier with Jagr and McDavid and clearly as inferior to the three GOATs.

 

[JackSlater]

I think nearly everyone already knew that Lemieux was better than Jagr, especially as a scorer. Even Jagr, a pretty blunt/honest speaker, openly states that.

 

[daver]

This has to be false. They both influenced each other rather equally. Lemieux's 95/96 is ranked as the highest adjusted season ever above Gretzky's 83/84 and above every other Lemieux's season while also taking place in arguably the deepest talent pool ever yet Mario was clearly worse than in 88/89 and even 92/93.

How can they influence each other equally if Mario was putting up a PPG that was 25% higher than Jagr's?

Now, Mario was strategically sitting out games to stay fresh so he played only 70 games. You could argue that his PPG was inflated due to this. Or you could argue that he really hadn't lost that much of a step since 92/93 when he dominated the league at close to a historic level (albeit in 60 games). That was only three years prior and that also occurred after Mario missed a ton of time between '89 and '92.

Also, Jagr's PPG was at a 1.97 PPG in the games Mario played in 95/96 and was at a 0.92 PPG in the 12 games Mario didn't play. What should we make of this?

Do you really believe that Jagr hits 1.97 on his own after hitting 1.46 the year before (albeit in a bit lower scoring season) and 1.55 at his peak (albeit in a bit lower scoring season)? No, that is not reasonable.

Do you really believe that Mario hits a somewhat rested 2.30PPG after hitting 2.67 PPG three years ago (albeit in a bit higher scoring season)? Yes, that is extremely reasonable to believe considering what a 30 year old, injured Mario, a 35 year old Mario and a 37 year Mario did.

So why did he have the statistically best season ever in 95/96? Jaromir Jagr...

Like every season, context is needed. Jagr statistically dominated the rest of the league in a similar fashion as he did in 98/99 and 99/00. Of course the latter was without a GOAT talent which, IMO, clearly separates those two seasons from his 95/96 season.

 

[daver]

edit: But yes I agree with the premise of the thread. Jagr's overlap with Mario shows how superior Mario and Wayne and by extension also Orr were compared to guys like Crosby or McDavid. Although I would not agree it would necessarily extend to Howe whom I rate as in the same tier with Jagr and McDavid and clearly as inferior to the three GOATs.

We will never know how the clear best offensive talent in the 06 era (a 25 year timeframe) would do in any other era. Jagr/Crosby/McDavid are on the same offensive tier over the past 25 years so they are not the clear best of their era as Howe was.

I can buy that his offensive peak is inferior than the other Big Four, as many do, but I also would buy that the other Big 4's peaks were a bit inflated due to high scoring/a transitioning league.

If you agree that Mario is a clear tier above Jagr, we can start going back in time with career overlaps. You tell me where you disagree strongly:

Peak Mario = peak/prime Wayne

Wayne > peak Lafleur

Peak Lafleur = peak/prime Esposito

Peak/prime Esposito = peak/prime Hull/Peak Mikita

Peak/prime Hull/Peak Mikita = peak/prime Beliveau

Peak/prime Howe > Peak/prime Beliveau

I can buy that Howe's peak is not unopen for debate given the point totals hit by other players in the late '50s which were beating a post peak Howe's best save for one season, and, perhaps, the "war years" effect carried into the early '50s before a regular influx of talent resumed.

I can also buy that it is not open for debate given that Howe until age 33 was never out of the conversation for the league's best player (mainly with Beliveau) and his Top 5 Art Ross finishes after that. There was also an overall increase in scoring in the 2nd half of the '50s. Also, players like Lindsay and Richard, the other early 50's stars, were still producing well for their age against the influx of talent in the late '50s.

 

[jigglysquishy]

The snow is falling. It is February 16. I wake up. It is a Daver Crosby thread.

It is -40. It is February 28. It is another Daver Crosby thread.

I blink. It is still February 28. Another Daver Crosby thread.

The snow has melted. It is April 5. I see another Daver Crosby thread.

It has snowed again. It is April 13. Crosby is with Daver again.

The snow is gone. It is April 25. Another Daver Crosby thread.

It is April 29. Crosby and Daver grace us again.

May 1. It has snowed again. Daver has returned with Crosby.

It is July 17. My wife is pregnant. Another Crosby Daver thread.

The day has not yet turned. Crosby and Daver again.

It is August 11. I buy a house. Another Crosby Daver thread.

It is August 13. It has not snowed yet. I see another Crosby Daver thread.

It is August 27. It is plus 30. Another Crosby Daver thread.

The sun has risen. It is September 26. Another Crosby Daver thread.


The snow comes and the snow goes. People are born and people die. Players retire and are forgotten.

But there will always be another Crosby Daver thread.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Did you actually buy a house on August 11? (If so, congratulations!)

 

[jigglysquishy]

Did you actually buy a house on August 11? (If so, congratulations!)

August 12, but yes.

Now if only someone will buy my old house.

 

[WarriorofTime]

1995-96 is a lesson of masterclass powerplay in a high powerplay opportunity year in general. Lemieux is Lemieux of course, but the rest of the PP1 (Jagr, Francis, Zubov, Sandstrom perhaps) do deserve their flowers as well, and that no doubt would help Lemieux in addition to all the others.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

1995-96 is a lesson of masterclass powerplay in a high powerplay opportunity year in general. Lemieux is Lemieux of course, but the rest of the PP1 (Jagr, Francis, Zubov, Sandstrom perhaps) do deserve their flowers as well, and that no doubt would help Lemieux in addition to all the others.

Was Nedved in on that? Man, I loved watching that team run the power play.

 

[WarriorofTime]

Was Nedved in on that? Man, I loved watching that team run the power play.

Yeah I would reckon, Lemieux missed 12 games, Jagr missed 5 games, Zubov missed 18 games, and Sandstrom missed 24 games so I dunno how often the five I stated before actually all played together as a 5 man unit.

 

[jigglysquishy]

1995-96 is a lesson of masterclass powerplay in a high powerplay opportunity year in general. Lemieux is Lemieux of course, but the rest of the PP1 (Jagr, Francis, Zubov, Sandstrom perhaps) do deserve their flowers as well, and that no doubt would help Lemieux in addition to all the others.

If people are curious to watch.



Penguins powerplay at 7:37 in the video

Nedved takes the faceoff. Lemieux on LW. Jagr on RW. Zubov and Francis on the blueline.

The whole sequence is great.

You quickly get a 4on4 with Gretzky/Hull/MacInnis vs Lemieux/Francis/Jagr. Gretzky takeaway to slapshot at 9:30

Lemieux scores at 11:19

Penguins PP at 26:30. Some great tic-tac-toe passing from 26:45-27:20

Penguins 5 on 3 at 28:30. Gretzky is out on the 5 on 3.

Great one timer to Lemieux at 30:20. Turns into a goal on a weird bounce at 30:30.

Fantastic Jagr takeaway, pass to Lemieux, pass to Jagr for a shot on net at 36:45

Penguins PP at 40:50 that ends up in a Lemieux goal.

The entire Penguins PP starting at 1:11:25 is great to watch. It turns into a 5 on 3 starting at 1:15:20 after Courtnall charges Wregget.
Lemieux scores at 1:16:45, one second after the 5 on 3 turns to a 5 on 4.

Great takeaway by Lemieux on Hull at 1:23:55 that results in a shorthanded goal.

I only watched the first two periods. Quick impressions

Helmetless Craig MacTavish
Lemieux looks immobile, but still just toys with people. Always in the right spot. Perfect passing. Perfect shot.
Jagr looks like the best player on the ice.
Gretzky looks good, but is alone out there. He shoots a lot and is still willing to go to the net (see 1:07:35), but misses the net. That he's still out there on the PK is pretty crazy.
Hull doesn't look nearly as good as I remember.
Pronger looks strong, but is caught out of place a few times.
The Penguins PP is just perfect pass after perfect pass.
The Blues PK without MacInnis is much weaker than with. Pronger wasn't the player he was a few years later.
Nedved is fast and relied upon to gain the zone on the PP a lot. Really, it's him and Jagr that are doing it.

 

[Overrated]

How can they influence each other equally if Mario was putting up a PPG that was 25% higher than Jagr's?

Well don't people always point out how Jagr had better numbers outside of the PP? The two didn't even play on the same line at ES. So Mario wasn't the best at ES but once paired with Jagr they killed it during the PP which made Mario the best overall. That would make me think Jagr had a very positive influence on Mario.

If you agree that Mario is a clear tier above Jagr, we can start going back in time with career overlaps. You tell me where you disagree strongly:

Peak Mario = peak/prime Wayne

Wayne > peak Lafleur

Peak Lafleur = peak/prime Esposito

Peak/prime Esposito = peak/prime Hull/Peak Mikita

Peak/prime Hull/Peak Mikita = peak/prime Beliveau

Peak/prime Howe > Peak/prime Beliveau

I can buy that Howe's peak is not unopen for debate given the point totals hit by other players in the late '50s which were beating a post peak Howe's best save for one season, and, perhaps, the "war years" effect carried into the early '50s before a regular influx of talent resumed.

I can also buy that it is not open for debate given that Howe until age 33 was never out of the conversation for the league's best player (mainly with Beliveau) and his Top 5 Art Ross finishes after that. There was also an overall increase in scoring in the 2nd half of the '50s. Also, players like Lindsay and Richard, the other early 50's stars, were still producing well for their age against the influx of talent in the late '50s.

I strongly disagree with Wayne > Lafleur. It's more like Wayne >>> Lafleur. They peaked just a few years apart yet 80 points apart. Gretzky was just on a whole another level. I would expect Gordie to score at about Lafleur's level while providing Selke level of defense.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Sandstrom was on the first unit near the net as I recall...Nedved was allowed to just do whatever he wanted with the scraps on the second unit for most of the season...which was basically pass it to Smolinski, back to Dmitri Moron-ov, then they chased the down the turnover with the guy leaving the box.

 

[daver]

Well don't people always point out how Jagr had better numbers outside of the PP? The two didn't even play on the same line at ES. So Mario wasn't the best at ES but once paired with Jagr they killed it during the PP which made Mario the best overall. That would make me think Jagr had a very positive influence on Mario.

Mario was the best PP producer in NHL history before Jagr and also was the best in 92/93 when Jagr wasn't on the 1st PP unit. He also was an even more potent ES producer that season.

Jagr was 31st in PP points in the two seasons prior and T15th in PP points in 94/95 sans Mario. Mario outproduced Jagr 79 PP points to 51 in 95/96. Francis had more PP points than Jagr did in 95/96.

A 37 year Mario still lead the league in PP points/game in 02/03 without Jagr.

 

[JackSlater]

1995-96 is a lesson of masterclass powerplay in a high powerplay opportunity year in general. Lemieux is Lemieux of course, but the rest of the PP1 (Jagr, Francis, Zubov, Sandstrom perhaps) do deserve their flowers as well, and that no doubt would help Lemieux in addition to all the others.

It is, and it is also probably the best example of a player who is physically fairly washed up still absolutely torching the league. 1996 Lemieux was a lot different than 1993 Lemieux, which was quite different than 1989 Lemieux.

 

[daver]

I strongly disagree with Wayne > Lafleur. It's more like Wayne >>> Lafleur. They peaked just a few years apart yet 80 points apart. Gretzky was just on a whole another level. I would expect Gordie to score at about Lafleur's level while providing Selke level of defense.

Lafleur dominated his peers from 75/76 to 79/80: NHL Stats

PPG of 1.64

PPGs among the Top 10:

Dionne - 1.44
Trottier - 1.36
Sittler - 1.31
Perreault - 1.23
Clarke - 1.15

(a young Bossy - 1.36)

Scoring went up after the 79/80 season:

NHL Stats

The official source for NHL Stats including skaters, goalies, teams stats and more.

www.nhl.com

Wayne - 2.50

Bossy - 1.62
Stastny - 1.53
Dionne - 1.50
Kurri - 1.41
Nillson 1.36
Savard - 1.32

Notice all scoring was going up including an aging Dionne. Not reasonable to compare raw point totals from different seasons with significantly different scoring environments.

For three years, from '76 to '78, Lafleur statistically dominated his peers like Jagr, without Mario, was doing from '98 to '00.

 

[Matsun]

You can use Jagr in 96 as a fun thought experiment to compare all time forwards.

Jagr in 96 was probably not quite at his peak like how McDavid in 24 wasn't quite at the same level as 23. Lets say a peak Jagr score 155 points in 96, there are not many players that I think could outscore a peak Jagr and I think only 2 guys can outclass him. I think 53 Howe could beat him but not by much, so lets give him 5 more points than peak Jagr- 160. I make this assumption on the fact that guys like Kucherov have peaked close to McDavid, Beliveau close to Howe, Trottier close to Lafleur and Sakic close to Jagr. Only Mario and Wayne look unbeatable, so I assume that someone as great as Jagr at his peak would come close to a peak Howe if they played in the same season. Based on this thought experiment peak Howe I think would score around the same amount of points as 70 games from a 30 year old Mario after several injuries.

 

[Overrated]

Lafleur dominated his peers from 75/76 to 79/80: NHL Stats

PPG of 1.64

PPGs among the Top 10:

Dionne - 1.44
Trottier - 1.36
Sittler - 1.31
Perreault - 1.23
Clarke - 1.15

(a young Bossy - 1.36)

Scoring went up after the 79/80 season:

NHL Stats

The official source for NHL Stats including skaters, goalies, teams stats and more.

www.nhl.com

Wayne - 2.50

Bossy - 1.62
Stastny - 1.53
Dionne - 1.50
Kurri - 1.41
Nillson 1.36
Savard - 1.32

Notice all scoring was going up including an aging Dionne. Not reasonable to compare raw point totals from different seasons with significantly different scoring environments.

For three years, from '76 to '78, Lafleur statistically dominated his peers like Jagr, without Mario, was doing from '98 to '00.

It went up a little bit you're right. Bossy's best season was in 78/79 though. He just happened to have a weaker season after that. Dionne also benefited from his significantly improved "triple crown" line rather than easier scoring environment.

Nevertheless in the arbitrary timeline you picked Wayne dominates the second best player by 0.90 while Lafleur by only 0.20 PPG. That is an insane difference. Wayne was basically several tiers (like 3?) above Lafleur. Lafleur was a tier below Crosby/Ovechkin/Hull/Lindros in the Patrick Kane tier.

 

[MadLuke]

This has to be false. They both influenced each other rather equally. Lemieux's 95/96 is ranked as the highest adjusted season ever above Gretzky's 83/84 and above every other Lemieux's season while also taking place in arguably the deepest talent pool ever yet Mario was clearly worse than in 88/89 and even 92/93.

So why did he have the statistically best season ever in 95/96? Jaromir Jagr...

Because some people take some adjustment method that do not take into account the context of scoring distribution in a super heavy pp scoring year.

Statistically Mario was not better in 95-96 then in 88-89 or 92-93 (per game) imo, an other way to adjust it would give us:

players	season	Column1
Mario Lemieux	19921993​	2.64​
Mario Lemieux	19881989​	2.61​
Mario Lemieux	19951996​	2.57​
Mario Lemieux	19871988​	2.22​
Mario Lemieux	19911992​	2.22​
Mario Lemieux	19961997​	2.09​
Mario Lemieux	19851986​	1.78​

 

[MadLuke]

We can even do some bad peak Jagr-vs Greztky overlap.

in the 97-98 season combined

Jagr : 197 pts (1.41 ppg, 116 per 82 pace)
Selanne: 195 pts (1.29 ppg)
Gretzky: 187 pts (1.14 ppg, 93/94 per 82 pace)

If one assume that 24 years old Gretzky can score 30% more than 36-37 post back injuries....

 

[daver]

It went up a little bit you're right. Bossy's best season was in 78/79 though. He just happened to have a weaker season after that. Dionne also benefited from his significantly improved "triple crown" line rather than easier scoring environment.

Nevertheless in the arbitrary timeline you picked Wayne dominates the second best player by 0.90 while Lafleur by only 0.20 PPG. That is an insane difference. Wayne was basically several tiers (like 3?) above Lafleur. Lafleur was a tier below Crosby/Ovechkin/Hull/Lindros in the Patrick Kane tier.

Why not put that into a % to make things even things then do the same exercise with Jagr.

How was peak Jagr dominating the competition any more than peak Lafleur was?

Do you agree that they are on the same tier statistically? Show me how they are not at the same level of relative domination over their peers.

 

[Overrated]

Why not put that into a % to make things even things then do the same exercise with Jagr.

How was peak Jagr dominating the competition any more than peak Lafleur was?

Do you agree that they are on the same tier statistically? Show me how they are not at the same level of relative domination over their peers.

Jagr was dominating players like Lindros and Bure both of whom were better than Lafleur.

 

[jigglysquishy]

Lemieux's PPG vs 1-50 in the three seasons, minimum 40 games played. For all three seasons, obviously Lemieux PPG/#1 PPG is 1.00.

There's noise in the 2-5 spots, but the lines get to be fairly straight afterwards.

The pattern is clear. In terms of PPG domination of peers, Lemieux 1989>Lemieux 1993>Lemieux 1996.

We can hum and haw about league depth, PP/EV splits, team strengths. And they're all important. But purely peer domination, the numbers show a clear pattern.

 

[Overrated]

Lemieux's PPG vs 1-50 in the three seasons, minimum 40 games played. For all three seasons, obviously Lemieux PPG/#1 PPG is 1.00.

There's noise in the 2-5 spots, but the lines get to be fairly straight afterwards.

The pattern is clear. In terms of PPG domination of peers, Lemieux 1989>Lemieux 1993>Lemieux 1996.

We can hum and haw about league depth, PP/EV splits, team strengths. And they're all important. But purely peer domination, the numbers show a clear pattern.

If we agree that the league talent pool more or less increased with the size of the league then we should take into consideration that in 88/89 the league had 21 teams, in 92/93 it had 24 teams and in 95/96 it had 26 teams.