The Jagr/Mario overlap

[VanIslander]

Gretzky & Lemieux were gods and Jagr the demi-god.

This was the word in sports bars in the mid-1990s (my grad school uni days).

Then Hasek wtf'd up us all.

Everyone else was chopped liver: worthy of a meal, but doesn't last long in the open air.

 

[WarriorofTime]

It wasn’t so easy, lots of hooking, clutching and grabbing, defense first systems, big emphasis on size over skill, high percentage of goals scored off powerplay. Generational superstar types will come and go but only influence the overall league so much no matter the extent they dominate the zeitgeist. You can generally expect the overall talent levels in the league to steadily rise over time outside of rapid expansion. Yet it may not always be the type of “talent” that is viewed as personally appealing to audiences.

 

[MadLuke]

Also, very few young players were competing for top scoring finishes during 96-97 to 02-03 compared to the previous years or the following years. This shows the weakness of the talent entering the league in those years.

From 92-93 through 95-96, top 10 scorers - 17 of the 40 spots (43%) went to players under 25. (Turgeon, Selanne, Mogilny, Recchi, Fedorov, Roenick, Bure, Shanahan, Jagr, Lindros, Zhamnov, Renberg, Forsberg, Kariya).

I think it is a mix, soviet collapse and so on causing some drop, but also the aging generation being possibly the best generation of players.

In 2000 the 35-40 years old were particularly strong but:

Oates-Francis-Yzerman-Reechi-Messier-Bourque-Roy-Hasek-Lemieux-Hull and co, were particularly good.

What is the argument that it got "worse" in the late '90s to the early '00s?

It would be a lot around how well old Sakic-Sundin-etc.... look versus their young version.

Mark Reechi, finished third in the scoring race in 2000:

1.	Jaromír Jágr • PIT	96
2.	Pavel Bure* • FLA	94
3.	Mark Recchi* • PHI	91
4.	Paul Kariya* • MDA	86
5.	Teemu Selänne* • MDA	85

Was he better having a better season than in 92-93 ?

.	Mario Lemieux* • PIT	160
2.	Pat LaFontaine* • BUF	148
3.	Adam Oates* • BOS	142
4.	Steve Yzerman* • DET	137
5.	Teemu Selänne* • WIN	132
	Pierre Turgeon* • NYI	132
7.	Doug Gilmour* • TOR	127
	Alexander Mogilny • BUF	127
9.	Luc Robitaille* • LAK	125
10.	Mark Recchi* • PHI	123

when he finished 10 ? Maybe Leclair-55 Lindros game, but maybe everyone above him in 93 finished above him in 2000.

It was a lot of top player missing game or slowed down by injury, not just less talent (if it was), Forsberg-Sakic-Lindros-Kariya-Selanne could have been ahead, obviously Mario if he play).

Was 1993 Sundin playing with the high octane nordiques offense significantly less a scorer than late 90s-00s Sundin or just playing against an higher field ? What peak Roenick look like if he does it from 01-04 instead of 91-94 when he was just one of many (91-94, Gretzky-Oates-Recchi-Hull-Yzerman had more points, Hull-Robitaille had more goals, who would have in 01-04 ?) .

 

[daver]

It would be a lot around how well old Sakic-Sundin-etc.... look versus their young version.

Mark Reechi, finished third in the scoring race in 2000:

1.	Jaromír Jágr • PIT	96
2.	Pavel Bure* • FLA	94
3.	Mark Recchi* • PHI	91
4.	Paul Kariya* • MDA	86
5.	Teemu Selänne* • MDA	85

Was he better having a better season than in 92-93 ?

.	Mario Lemieux* • PIT	160
2.	Pat LaFontaine* • BUF	148
3.	Adam Oates* • BOS	142
4.	Steve Yzerman* • DET	137
5.	Teemu Selänne* • WIN	132
	Pierre Turgeon* • NYI	132
7.	Doug Gilmour* • TOR	127
	Alexander Mogilny • BUF	127
9.	Luc Robitaille* • LAK	125
10.	Mark Recchi* • PHI	123

when he finished 10 ? Maybe Leclair-55 Lindros game, but maybe everyone above him in 93 finished above him in 2000.

It was a lot of top player missing game or slowed down by injury, not just less talent (if it was), Forsberg-Sakic-Lindros-Kariya-Selanne could have been ahead, obviously Mario if he play).

Was 1993 Sundin playing with the high octane nordiques offense significantly less a scorer than late 90s-00s Sundin or just playing against an higher field ? What peak Roenick look like if he does it from 01-04 instead of 91-94 when he was just one of many (91-94, Gretzky-Oates-Recchi-Hull-Yzerman had more points, Hull-Robitaille had more goals, who would have in 01-04 ?) .

You, and the other poster, are throwing out, one or two names/stats, to draw a conclusion. I threw out 130 pieces of stats e.g. the Top Ten scorers each season over a 13 year period that debunks narrative that older stars were dominating younger stars during the DPE.

As for Recchi, he was 31 years old and had the 6th best PPG in 00/01. He could have easily been out of the Top Ten that year because there a lot of parity. To paint him as the 3rd best scorer that year is pretty misleading.

A 30 year Claude Giroux was 2nd in 17/18 against prime MacKinnon, Kucherov/Draisaitl.

Lower tier players jumping up in any year, even after what you guess is their prime, is not a huge indicator of anything.

 

[daver]

Yes, Jagr's dominance in scoring was in part because his competition was cut down by injuries. Credit to him for being durable, but his scoring dominance would have been very different if Mario, Forsberg, Sakic, Kariya, Lindros, Palffy, Selanne, and Bure were playing full seasons and unaffected by major injuries.

There very well may have been an usually high amount of injuries during the DPE to the elite scorers. It certainly seems like players from the O6 played more full seasons and perhaps this was the case even well into the '80s. A star player having a relatively injury-free career (Crosby/Malkin/Kane/Matthews/MacKinnon/Kucherov) seems less likely in the past 30/40 years.

But that is another issue besides a fundamental shift in the league where the era's best scorer should be downgraded due to playing in a "weaker" era.

In determining the strength of an individual scoring season, I suggest giving weight to PPG almost as much as raw point totals. E.g. noone views Mario's 92/93 as being "only" 12 points ahead of Lafontaine. This should level things out when discussing the league's best players over a season or multiple seasons.

Did we not see enough from all those players listed to conclude that Jagr's best was better than everyone else's? I am sure some want to argue that we did not see the "best" from Lindros or Forsberg but that goes way to far down the "what if" rabbit hole.

IMO, Jagr was even with Lindros offensively through the 96/97 season then took it up a notch in 98/99 and 99/00. And that is saying nothing about Lindros' fundamental flaws.

From 94/95 to 00/01, Jagr played 20/30 more games than Sakic/Forsberg and had a 20% difference in PPG. He was a little bit less dominant per game in the playoffs.

At the end of the day, Jagr's massive points lead during his peak is backed up with clear PPG dominance.

 

[daver]

Also, very few young players were competing for top scoring finishes during 96-97 to 02-03 compared to the previous years or the following years. This shows the weakness of the talent entering the league in those years.

From 92-93 through 95-96, top 10 scorers - 17 of the 40 spots (43%) went to players under 25. (Turgeon, Selanne, Mogilny, Recchi, Fedorov, Roenick, Bure, Shanahan, Jagr, Lindros, Zhamnov, Renberg, Forsberg, Kariya).

From 96-97 through 02-03, top 10 scorers - 11 of the 70 spots (16%) went to players under 25. (Jagr, Kariya, Palffy, Forsberg, Allison, Demitra, Elias, Iginla, Thornton, Heatley).

99-00 through 02-03 was particularly lacking in young scorers, with only 4 of 40 top 10 spots (10%) claimed by players under 25. (Elias, Iginla, Thornton, Heatley).

And then from 03-04 to 09-10, 24 of 60 top 10 scoring spots (40%) went to players under 25. (Kovalchuk, Hossa, Tanguay, Ovechkin, Heatley, Crosby, Staal, Malkin, Spezza, Parise, Getzlaf, Backstrom, Stamkos, Kane).

It's pretty clear that the weak draft classes of the mid to late 90s caused the late 90s/early 00s to have weaker competition for top scorers. Especially the early 00s.

OK, but the drop in U25 players did not significantly affect the avg. age of the Top Ten during the DPE.

92/93 saw a huge increase in foreign born players, notably Russians. This needs to be considered.

Here are the # of Non-North American players (NNA), the #of U25s, and the # of U25s from outside NA (N25), in the Top Ten starting in 88/89:

88/89 - 1 NNAs, 5 U25s, 0 NU25

89/90 - 0 NNAs, 5 U25s, 0 NU25

90/91 - 0 NNAs, 3 U25s, 0 NU25

91/92 - 0 NNAs, 2 U25s, 0 NU25

Clearly the league is dominated by Canadians and some US players. Prior '88/89, there were, on average, 4 U25s per season and the avg. age among the Top 25 was younger.


92/93 - 2 NNAs, 4 U25s, 2 NU25

93/94 - 3 NNAs, 4 U25s, 3 NU25

94/95 - 3 NNAs, 4 U25s, 3 NU25

A clear influx of young talent from outside NA has arrived. It is the best prospects but arriving a couple of years after their draft and stepping into the Top 10 early in their career


95/96 - 4 NNAs, 4 U25s, 2 NU25

96/97 - 5 NNAs, 4 U25s, 3 NU25

97/98 - 6 NNAs, 2 U25s, 1 NU25

98/99 - 6 NNAs, 2 U25s, 1 NU25

This young talent is now over 25 and among the elite scorers.

90/00 - 3 NNAs, 3 U25s, 0 NU25

00/01 - 7 NNAs, 1 U25s, 1 NU25

01/02 - 5 NNAs, 1 U25s, 0 NU25

02/03 - 5 NNAs, 2 U25s, 0 NU25

03/04 - 5 NNAs, 3 U25s, 1 NU25

Still a healthy pattern of NNAs among the Top 10 but a clear drop in U25 talent. The U25 talent from NA was steady.

05/06 - 5 NNAs, 4 U25s, 2 NU25

06/07 - 2 NNAs, 1 U25s, 0 NU25

07/08 - 6 NNAs, 4 U25s, 3 NU25

08/09 - 5 NNAs, 4 U25s, 3 NU25

09/10 - 4 NNAs, 5 U25s, 2 NU25

Still a healthy pattern of NNAs among the Top 10. An increase in NU25 talent can be attributed to Ovechkin/Malkin. The U25 talent from NA was steady.

COMMENT:

It would appear that the intense influx of young NHL-ready, Non-NA talent affected the league from 92/93 to 03/04 in terms of young NA talent being among the Top Ten and then, during the DPE, for all young talent being among the Top Ten as that elite Non-NA talent was in their prime.

This is why the avg. age of the Top Ten doesn't take a significant jump during the DPE as it is not older NA stars still competing but rather the wave of Non-NA talent in their primes (age 25 to age 30) competing for the Art Ross.

So while there wasn't a superstar talent entering the league during the DPE, there was a lot of talent at the tier below i.e. consistent Top 3/5/10 Art Ross/Rocket finishers. I.e. the talent level of the "pack" did not diminish. It is more reasonable to argue that it got better as the elite Non-NA talent were hitting the Top Ten more.

 

[WarriorofTime]

1980-81 through 1987-88 the weighted adjusted average age based on NHL games played was between 25.534 through 25.870. After weighted adjusted average age peaked in the late 60s (both sides of expansion) it steadily fell all the way through the 80s. After 1987-88, the average age steadily rose up until 2005-06 at 28.458. Since then it's been between 27.124 through 28.129 (last season) the last fifteen years or so.

NHL Season Stats

NHL Season Stats

www.quanthockey.com

 

[Overrated]

I think it is a mix, soviet collapse and so on causing some drop, but also the aging generation being possibly the best generation of players.

Exactly.

Gretzky and Lemieux = best Canadian forwards ever by FAR
Jagr and Hasek = best Czech players ever by FAR
Forsberg and Lidstrom = best Swedish players ever
Selanne = best Finnish player ever

Russians had a very strong generation as well, the US too. Slovaks had their best ever generation. Coupled that with a few weaker draft years, the massive decline of hockey in the former Eastern Bloc in the 90s it all makes sense. The league was still super strong it just lacked a young superstar.

 

[authentic]

Gretzky & Lemieux were gods and Jagr the demi-god.

This was the word in sports bars in the mid-1990s (my grad school uni days).

Then Hasek wtf'd up us all.

Everyone else was chopped liver: worthy of a meal, but doesn't last long in the open air.

It’s genuinely amusing to me that with all the physical gifts and smarts and work ethic Jagr had just how far behind he was to Lemieux still as an offensive player. It’s like Lemieux was born with that one in 10 million hockey sense that can’t be taught that probably only he Gretzky and Orr really had.

There very well may have been an usually high amount of injuries during the DPE to the elite scorers. It certainly seems like players from the O6 played more full seasons and perhaps this was the case even well into the '80s. A star player having a relatively injury-free career (Crosby/Malkin/Kane/Matthews/MacKinnon/Kucherov) seems less likely in the past 30/40 years.

But that is another issue besides a fundamental shift in the league where the era's best scorer should be downgraded due to playing in a "weaker" era.

In determining the strength of an individual scoring season, I suggest giving weight to PPG almost as much as raw point totals. E.g. noone views Mario's 92/93 as being "only" 12 points ahead of Lafontaine. This should level things out when discussing the league's best players over a season or multiple seasons.

Did we not see enough from all those players listed to conclude that Jagr's best was better than everyone else's? I am sure some want to argue that we did not see the "best" from Lindros or Forsberg but that goes way to far down the "what if" rabbit hole.

IMO, Jagr was even with Lindros offensively through the 96/97 season then took it up a notch in 98/99 and 99/00. And that is saying nothing about Lindros' fundamental flaws.

From 94/95 to 00/01, Jagr played 20/30 more games than Sakic/Forsberg and had a 20% difference in PPG. He was a little bit less dominant per game in the playoffs.

At the end of the day, Jagr's massive points lead during his peak is backed up with clear PPG dominance.

I wonder what is the perceived gap between McDavid now and Crosby and Jagr at their best. It’s been a while since I’ve done a statistical breakdown of their best seasons/stretches. I think safely we can say now that McDavid is the best offensive player of the three, but just by how much is the question?

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

It’s genuinely amusing to me that with all the physical gifts and smarts and work ethic Jagr had just how far behind he was to Lemieux still as an offensive player. It’s like Lemieux was born with that one in 10 million hockey sense that can’t be taught that probably only he Gretzky and Orr really had.



I wonder what is the perceived gap between McDavid now and Crosby and Jagr at their best. It’s been a while since I’ve done a statistical breakdown of their best seasons/stretches. I think safely we can say now that McDavid is the best offensive player of the three, but just by how much is the question?

It is crazy how much better Lemieux was than Jagr given his work ethic in comparison. It's the reason why lemieux could miss almost 4 years of game action. Come back and finish 2nd in mvp voting lol. I believe Jagr himself has even said something along the lines of. No matter what I do or how good I get, ill never be better than Mario. Which was true.

As for Crosby, his 10-11 stretch was very very dominant. Specifically 12-13 and 13-14. Those two b2b seasons he was bar none the best player on earth with no discussion to be had. I dont think Jagr ever truly held that distinction.Unfortunatley he missed out on a hart and art ross due to injury. But ive always been happy he was able to at least take home a Ross, Hart, 2× lindsay 2x first center during his peak level. It seemed for awhile Crosby would never win an award again when he was going through his injury woes. It was great relief when he swept it all in 13-14.

 

[daver]

I think it is a mix, soviet collapse and so on causing some drop, but also the aging generation being possibly the best generation of players.

What the stats show is that from '75 to '92, a time dominated by Canadians, a few Americans and a few Euros, the avg. age of the Top 10 was 25.2 years old and that there were, on average 4.3 U25s in the Top Ten per year.

From '93 to '04, there was influx of elite Euro talent, primarily Russian, that first squeezed out the young NA talent then squeezed out prime NA talent (age 25 to age 30) resulting in an increase in the avg. age of the Top Ten. The avg. age of the Top 10 was 27.5 years old and that there were, on average 2.6 U25s in the Top Ten per year.

During the DPE '97 to '04, there was a shift to older players and less young ones. Hard to say that this was due to older stars staying in the mix due to more talent among the aging stars or something to do with league dynamics (i.e. obstruction, more defensive, lower scoring) that allowed older players to stay more competitive with younger ones.

Also at the same time, there has been a clear shift in the overall league dynamics that sees older players stay in the Top Ten longer. Not a surprise given the superior conditioning from the '70s to today.

From '05 to '17, the avg. age of the Top 10 was 26.7 years old and that there were, on average 3.4 U25s in the Top Ten per year.

Since scoring has gone up starting in '18, the avg. age of the Top 10 was 26.6 years old and there were, on average 3.2 U25s in the Top Ten per year.


COMMENT: I don't think we can unequivocally say that the league during the DPE was any "weaker" or "stronger" where Jagr's relative dominance is questioned or heightened.

I am not a fan of making blanket claims like that anyways because we have zero clue how a player would do if they played in another era. That gets waaaaay to far into the "What if" weeds.

I don't mind giving peak Jagr an edge over peak Lafleur as I think the league was a bit more settled during his time (e.g post WHA, slower expansion) but I would not move peak Lafleur down a tier with players who were clearly statistically inferior.

Back to the broader point, the smell test sees objective analysis place players who overlap on reasonable statistical tiers.

McDavid's best is arguably the best of the post Wayne/Mario era but we saw enough overlap with Crosby to draw the reasonable conclusion that Crosby's peak is competitive (as it was with Jagr's for the same reason) but certainly is not head and shoulders above his immediate peers as Wayne/Mario and Orr were.

Howe's offensive best was the best of the O6 era, moreso than McDavid but was not on the same tier as Wayne/Mario and Orr.

Was Howe the Wayne/Mario of his era?

Was Howe the McDavid/Crosby/Jagr of his era?

I think the smell test places it in between those two.

 

[authentic]

What the stats show is that from '75 to '92, a time dominated by Canadians, a few Americans and a few Euros, the avg. age of the Top 10 was 25.2 years old and that there were, on average 4.3 U25s in the Top Ten per year.

From '93 to '04, there was influx of elite Euro talent, primarily Russian, that first squeezed out the young NA talent then squeezed out prime NA talent (age 25 to age 30) resulting in an increase in the avg. age of the Top Ten. The avg. age of the Top 10 was 27.5 years old and that there were, on average 2.6 U25s in the Top Ten per year.

During the DPE '97 to '04, there was a shift to older players and less young ones. Hard to say that this was due to older stars staying in the mix due to more talent among the aging stars or something to do with league dynamics (i.e. obstruction, more defensive, lower scoring) that allowed older players to stay more competitive with younger ones.

Also at the same time, there has been a clear shift in the overall league dynamics that sees older players stay in the Top Ten longer. Not a surprise given the superior conditioning from the '70s to today.

From '05 to '17, the avg. age of the Top 10 was 26.7 years old and that there were, on average 3.4 U25s in the Top Ten per year.

Since scoring has gone up starting in '18, the avg. age of the Top 10 was 26.6 years old and there were, on average 3.2 U25s in the Top Ten per year.


COMMENT: I don't think we can unequivocally say that the league during the DPE was any "weaker" or "stronger" where Jagr's relative dominance is questioned or heightened.

I am not a fan of making blanket claims like that anyways because we have zero clue how a player would do if they played in another era. That gets waaaaay to far into the "What if" weeds.

I don't mind giving peak Jagr an edge over peak Lafleur as I think the league was a bit more settled during his time (e.g post WHA, slower expansion) but I would not move peak Lafleur down a tier with players who were clearly statistically inferior.

Back to the broader point, the smell test sees objective analysis place players who overlap on reasonable statistical tiers.

McDavid's best is arguably the best of the post Wayne/Mario era but we saw enough overlap with Crosby to draw the reasonable conclusion that Crosby's peak is competitive (as it was with Jagr's for the same reason) but certainly is not head and shoulders above his immediate peers as Wayne/Mario and Orr were.

Howe's offensive best was the best of the O6 era, moreso than McDavid but was not on the same tier as Wayne/Mario and Orr.

Was Howe the Wayne/Mario of his era?

Was Howe the McDavid/Crosby/Jagr of his era?

I think the smell test places it in between those two.

Was Howe really better offensively than McDavid at his best when taking into account the talent pool they separated themselves from? Even if close I guess Howe gets the edge for his two-way play which was considered quite strong back then along with the obvious physical play and intimidation factor he brought with it.

 

[Staniowski]

Was Howe really better offensively than McDavid at his best when taking into account the talent pool they separated themselves from? Even if close I guess Howe gets the edge for his two-way play which was considered quite strong back then along with the obvious physical play and intimidation factor he brought with it.

McDavid is a much better scorer than Howe. So is Kucherov. So were Jagr, Makarov, Esposito. So was Beliveau.

It's not that Howe wasn't a great scorer, but his competition for his four consecutive scoring titles was extremely weak. And there were no great scorers before Howe.

When Beliveau joined the NHL, Howe was no longer the best scorer. There was better offensive talent in the NHL by the late '50s.

 

[frisco]

I wonder what is the perceived gap between McDavid now and Crosby and Jagr at their best. It’s been a while since I’ve done a statistical breakdown of their best seasons/stretches. I think safely we can say now that McDavid is the best offensive player of the three, but just by how much is the question?

Jagr's six best adjusted seasons: 145-144-131-121-120-117
McDavid six best adjusted seasons: 158-146-130-118-116-113

I don't think we can safely say McDavid is clearly better than Jagr offensively.

My Best-Carey

 

[jigglysquishy]

Howe vs Beliveau 1956 onwards

Season	Howe PPG	Beliveau PPG
1955-56	1.13	1.26
1956-57	1.27	1.22
1957-58	1.20	1.07
1958-59	1.11	1.42
1959-60	1.04	1.23
1960-61	1.13	1.30
1961-62	1.10	0.95
1962-63	1.23	0.97
1963-64	1.06	1.15
1964-65	1.09	0.74
1965-66	1.07	1.15
1966-67	0.94	0.72
1967-68	1.11	1.15
1968-69	1.36	1.19
1969-70	0.93	0.78

Even starting post peak Howe (age 27) you still get 8 seasons to 7 for Howe. Beliveau battled injuries, but we see how well Howe kept up his elite scoring into his late 30s on a middling team.

Over this whole time period (again starting at age 27 with Beliveau age 24), Howe leads the league in both points and PPG.

NHL Stats

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

www.nhl.com

Howe leads Believeau slightly in PPG (1.12 to 1.10). He leads in points (1,176 to 1,029). He leads strongly in EVP (750 to 651).

That's not to disparage Beliveau, who was a tremendous offensive player. But let's not minimize Howe for dominating the early 50s, being the 1B in the late 50s, and being a top scorer throughout the 60s.

40 year old Howe kept up with 30 year old Hull and 29 year old Mikita. Scored 103 points on a team with 3 players over 52 points. In on 43% of Red Wings goals.

 

[MadLuke]

I don't think we can safely say McDavid is clearly better than Jagr offensively.

McDavid last 4 years and Jagr 98 to 2001 could be said to be incredibly similar

McDavid....: 513 pts
Drai.......: 428 (83%)
Mack.......: 404 (79%)
5th panarin: 366 (71%)
10th Crosby: 333 (65%)

Average 2 to 10: 367 pts

PPG (has Jagr era comp was often injured), 200 games minimum played

McDavid....: 1.74
Kucherov...: 1.55 (89%)
Mack.......: 1.52 (87%)
5th Panarin: 1.30 (75%)
10th Kapriz: 1.19 (68%)

Average 2 to 10: 1.34 ppg


Jagr
Jagr:.....: 446
Sakic.....: 358 (80%)
Selanne...: 350 (78%)
5th Fleury: 309 (69%)
10th Bure.: 292 (65%)
Average 2 to 10: 315

Jagr.........: 1.48
Sakic........: 1.28 (86%)
Forsberg.....: 1.21 (82%)
5th: Kariya..: 1.17 (79%)
10th: Leclair: 1.04 (70%)
Average 2 to 10: 1.14

Jagr....outscored the average 2 to 10 by 42% and in ppg by 30%
McDavid outscored the average 2 to 10 by 40% and in ppg by 30%

Jagr 4 art ross in that stretch to 3, but he do not beat Kucherov-Mack season if they happen in 2000 or Sakic without Lemieux, a bit of a tie there.

Virtual tie versus their peers (and all the greatest non Wayne-Lemieux, seem to peak around that level, Jagr-Crosby (per game)-McDavid), so the conversation could be who had the best or worst peers, best support (Mario is only there half of 2001, Francis only in 1998).

But you give the edge to McDavid during the playoff....

Forsberg: 1.21
Jagr: 1.17
Yzerman: 1.00

McDavid: 1.74
Drai: 1.51
Rantanen: 1.29

While playing a large 57 games....

 

[authentic]

McDavid is a much better scorer than Howe. So is Kucherov. So were Jagr, Makarov, Esposito. So was Beliveau.

It's not that Howe wasn't a great scorer, but his competition for his four consecutive scoring titles was extremely weak. And there were no great scorers before Howe.

When Beliveau joined the NHL, Howe was no longer the best scorer. There was better offensive talent in the NHL by the late '50s.

Yeah I’ve always sort of figured this as well, but would you consider these players better than Howe overall?

 

[authentic]

McDavid last 4 years and Jagr 98 to 2001 could be said to be incredibly similar

McDavid....: 513 pts
Drai.......: 428
Mack.......: 404
5th panarin: 366
10th Crosby: 333

Average 2 to 10: 367 pts

PPG (has Jagr era comp was often injured), 200 games minimum played

McDavid....: 1.74
Kucherov...: 1.55
Mack.......: 1.52
5th Panarin: 1.30
10th Kapriz: 1.19

Average 2 to 10: 1.34 ppg


Jagr
Jagr: 446
Sakic: 358
Selanne: 350
5th Fleury: 309
10th Bure: 292
Average 2 to 10: 315

Jagr: 1.48
Sakic: 1.28
Forsberg: 1.21
5th: Kariya: 1.17
10th: Leclair: 1.04
Average 2 to 10: 1.14

Jagr....outscored the average 2 to 10 by 42% and in ppg by 30%
McDavid outscored the average 2 to 10 by 40% and in ppg by 30%

Jagr 4 art ross in that stretch to 3, but he do not beat Kucherov-Mack season if they happen in 2000 or Sakic without Lemieux, a bit of a tie there.

Virtual tie versus their peers (and all the greatest non Wayne-Lemieux, seem to peak around that level, Jagr-Crosby (per game)-McDavid), so the conversation could be who had the best or worst peers, best support (Mario is only there half of 2001, Francis only in 1998).

But you give the edge to McDavid during the playoff....

Forsberg: 1.21
Jagr: 1.17
Yzerman: 1.00

McDavid: 1.74
Drai: 1.51
Rantanen: 1.29

While playing a large 57 games....

Yeah I believe the playoffs are where McDavid has really shown his peak level of play to be something greater than any other non big 4 of all-time.

 

[daver]

But you give the edge to McDavid during the playoff....

Forsberg: 1.21
Jagr: 1.17
Yzerman: 1.00

McDavid: 1.74
Drai: 1.51
Rantanen: 1.29

While playing a large 57 games....

Playoffs are always a bit tricky. I don't think Jagr loses any ground to players whose regular season resumes/level of play place them clearly on a lower tier as his playoff numbers are befitting his regular season stature.

He generated a lot of great vibes at age 18 and 19 during the Pens Cup runs then disappointments as the seemingly well positioned Pens could not make a dynastic stretch of Cup wins with a prime Jagr and a still effective Mario in '93, '94, '96 and '01.

Without Mario, the Pens had a good but flawed team shown in '95 when they outgunned the Caps but were shutdown by the Devils.

From '98 to '00, Jagr was playing his most impressive role as a lonely superstar dragging a mediocre Pens as far as he could.

He disappoints as a Cap, and has one last solid moment with the Rangers.

All that being said, your numbers are a bit misleading as I believe Jagr was injured sometime during the playoffs that lead to his zero points against the Devils in '01. Up until that time, he was tied with Mario in PPG as the Pens got to the 3rd round playing unusually good defensive hockey; not all out offense.

And the scoring environment was indisputably different during their respective peaks.


Looking at PPGs from '98 to'00:

Jagr 1.42
Forsberg 1.19
Straka 0.97
Modano 0.95

Lafleur, like McDavid, had an equally impressive PPG during his peak but, unlike McDavid, he is on a super team.

Hull, like Jagr, has a playoff resume befitting his regular stature.

Crosby, like Beliveau, has impressive numbers and team success.

 

[Thenameless]

Lafleur, like McDavid, had an equally impressive PPG during his peak but, unlike McDavid, he is on a super team.

Lafleur's my favourite player not because of the numbers but when/how those numbers came. A guy like McDavid can easily out-count him over an 80 game regular season or even over 4 rounds of playoff play. The difference is Lafleur produces when it counts most and when it's hardest, when the lights are brightest.

1. In the 79 Challenge Cup when the Soviets embarrassed us, he got things started with a goal in the first minute and another assist in the first period, in the only game we won.

2. Obviously the famous playoff goal against Boston to tie things late in the third.

3. Finally, a personal story. Long retired in his late 40's or early 50's he happened to play in an NHL Legends vs Vancouver Police game in my hometown of Vancouver. The police got off to a good start, 2-0, and the Legends were having a really tough time getting things going offensively. Then, Lafleur broke things open with an end-to-end rush scoring a beautiful goal. After that, the Legends got their game together and started getting crisp tape-to-tape passes and the crowd went wild. Legends won because Lafleur was able to turn the tide. Even in retirement, he never lost that clutch gene.

 

[daver]

Lafleur's my favourite player not because of the numbers but when/how those numbers came. A guy like McDavid can easily out-count him over an 80 game regular season or even over 4 rounds of playoff play. The difference is Lafleur produces when it counts most and when it's hardest, when the lights are brightest.

I am not sure you can say this with any certainty. Lafleur's peak season, his best three seasons, his best six season stretch, and his best playoff run are on a similar statistical tier as McDavid in terms of relative dominance.

You can argue that McDavid had two seasons where he was arguably "ungettable" to Lafleur's one season.

I would argue against giving consideration to the quality of one's team in comparing individual numbers as much as I would argue against comparing team accomplishments. I also do not read much into Guy's modest rise pre-peak nor his steep fall fall post-peak.