The Jagr/Mario overlap

[jigglysquishy]

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.

Why would we agree on that?

The talent pool and league size are not related in any way.

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

I know you passionately hate Lafleur, but I don't follow why Lindros and Bure would be better than Lafleur.

Bure peaked at third in PPG, his only year top three. Lafleur lead twice and finished top three five times.

 

[MadLuke]

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

I wonder how clear that would be, Lafleur was a 130goals-209 pts in the junior all-time prospect that delivered and could have been the best Canadian scorer born (some would say Bossy and some other but he would be in the talk) after Orr and before Gretzky, that was during Canada baby boom and hyper popularity of the sport.

not much issue for Jagr > Lafleur, but Lindros&Bure ?

players	season	adjusted PPG
Jaromir Jagr	19981999​	2.35​
Jaromir Jagr	19992000​	2.23​
Jaromir Jagr	19951996​	2.03​
Jaromir Jagr	20002001​	1.98​
Jaromir Jagr	19971998​	1.98​
Eric Lindros	19981999​	1.96​
Guy Lafleur	19771978​	1.90​
Eric Lindros	19941995​	1.88​
Guy Lafleur	19761977​	1.88​
Pavel Bure	19992000​	1.86​
Jaromir Jagr	20052006​	1.81​
Jaromir Jagr	19941995​	1.80​
Guy Lafleur	19791980​	1.73​
Guy Lafleur	19781979​	1.69​
Pavel Bure	19971998​	1.64​
Guy Lafleur	19751976​	1.57​

Too close to call at best.

 

[daver]

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

Lindros and Bure aren't statistics.

So you agree that Jagr and Lafleur were similarly dominant statistically. Great, thank you for making my argument.

 

[daver]

Why would we agree on that?

The talent pool and league size are not related in any way.

It's not unreasonable to assume that the comparable for #20 scorer from a 21 team league is closer to #15 in a 30 team league.

Of course when you get closer to the Top 3/5 in any season, the margins get a lot closer.

 

[WarriorofTime]

Where does NHL in '96 being the peak of talent pool idea come from? I can't imagine there ever being a real way to verify such a claim other than "feel". From a demographic perspective, league was still 61.5 % Canadian. The U.S. had a best on best worth of great players but not as deep, 18.4 %. The Soviet trained Russians at 7.5 %, a smaller portion of Swedes and Finns at 4.3 % and 1.8 %. Czechoslovakian trained Czechs and Slovaks at 4.2 % and 1.2 %, and other miscellaneous non-"Big 7" at 1.1 %.

Does the Canadian % dropping 20 % from 96 -> 24 represent a decline in hockey in Canada? While a heavily discussed subject, I think based on participation numbers that is less so the case (maybe in the 20 years from now future, but I don't think in anything that would be reflected in current NHL demographics) and more so further competition from USA, Sweden/Finland, and "miscellaneous".

 

[Overrated]

Lindros and Bure aren't statistics.

So you agree that Jagr and Lafleur were similarly dominant statistically. Great, thank you for making my argument.

What kind of an argument is that? That is like saying Lemieux also wasn't statistically dominant because of Gretzky. And if we were to be completely honest Lafleur was only dominant due to your arbitrarily chosen years which include the dips of his two closest competitors. If we instead picked the best three consecutive seasons of his peers (Dionne and Bossy) he ain't all that dominant anymore.

 

[Overrated]

Why would we agree on that?

The talent pool and league size are not related in any way.

It's definitely correlated though. As the game grew in popularity and became worldwide the league became bigger and started expanding.

 

[jigglysquishy]

It's definitely correlated though. As the game grew in popularity and became worldwide the league became bigger and started expanding.

League size isn't related to worldwide popularity though.

League size is a direct function of American TV money. Popularity of the sport in Canada, Sweden, Russia, etc. doesn't factor into league size.

 

[Overrated]

I wonder how clear that would be, Lafleur was a 130goals-209 pts in the junior all-time prospect that delivered and could have been the best Canadian scorer born (some would say Bossy and some other but he would be in the talk) after Orr and before Gretzky, that was during Canada baby boom and hyper popularity of the sport.

not much issue for Jagr > Lafleur, but Lindros&Bure ?

players	season	adjusted PPG
Jaromir Jagr	19981999​	2.35​
Jaromir Jagr	19992000​	2.23​
Jaromir Jagr	19951996​	2.03​
Jaromir Jagr	20002001​	1.98​
Jaromir Jagr	19971998​	1.98​
Eric Lindros	19981999​	1.96​
Guy Lafleur	19771978​	1.90​
Eric Lindros	19941995​	1.88​
Guy Lafleur	19761977​	1.88​
Pavel Bure	19992000​	1.86​
Jaromir Jagr	20052006​	1.81​
Jaromir Jagr	19941995​	1.80​
Guy Lafleur	19791980​	1.73​
Guy Lafleur	19781979​	1.69​
Pavel Bure	19971998​	1.64​
Guy Lafleur	19751976​	1.57​

Too close to call at best.

He still scored less than Esposito, was only marginally better than Dionne, equal to Bossy and outright scored 80 points less than Gretzky who peaked just a few years after him. Peak Lemieux in 88/89 scored just 44 points more than Yzerman.

 

[Overrated]

League size isn't related to worldwide popularity though.

League size is a direct function of American TV money. Popularity of the sport in Canada, Sweden, Russia, etc. doesn't factor into league size.

I don't disagree with this. The league quality in 95/96 was higher nevertheless.

 

[jigglysquishy]

I think Lemieux 1989 vs Lemieux 1996 is a great litmus test for how well someone understands hockey.

The video is freely available. It's so painfully obvious that Lemieux in 1989 was just a straight up better hockey player than he was in 1996. Like, it's right in front of us. How can people not see it?

Statistics are just statistics. They're a tool to understand reality. If your methodology promotes an obvious falsehood like Lemieux 1996>Lemieux 1989 then it just flys in the face of reality.

 

[Overrated]

I think Lemieux 1989 vs Lemieux 1996 is a great litmus test for how well someone understands hockey.

The video is freely available. It's so painfully obvious that Lemieux in 1989 was just a straight up better hockey player than he was in 1996. Like, it's right in front of us. How can people not see it?

Statistics are just statistics. They're a tool to understand reality. If your methodology promotes an obvious falsehood like Lemieux 1996>Lemieux 1989 then it just flys in the face of reality.

I am not claiming what you're alluding to. You're misunderstanding me completely:

The Jagr/Mario overlap

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...

forums.hfboards.com

 

[MadLuke]

He still scored less than Esposito, was only marginally better than Dionne, equal to Bossy and outright scored 80 points less than Gretzky who peaked just a few years after him. Peak Lemieux in 88/89 scored just 44 points more than Yzerman.

Esposito was born pre Orr, in 1942 (and I am not sure if he was clearly more talented at scoring than Lafleur, enough to remove him of the conversation), the statement was from march 21 1948 to january 25, 1961 is there a single canadian born clearly more talented and better at scoring than Lafleur was ?

What he did in the juniors, in the pro, in the playoff, he is up there, why the possibly best in a full hockey generation (12 years), middle of Canada baby boom, absolute prime popularity of the sport would not compete well against the Bure-Lindros of the world and be in a too close to call situation.

As for your example I mean it is not like peak Gretzky-Lemieux would not have outscored Bure-Lindros, lesser version did it fine, do we think Bure-Lindros would not have scored just marginnaly more than Dionne, about like Bossy and completely outscored by peak Gretzky playing in a higher scoring league than them ?

 

[Overrated]

Esposito was born pre Orr, in 1942 (and I am not sure if he was clearly more talented at scoring than Lafleur, enough to remove him of the conversation), the statement was from march 21 1948 to january 25, 1961 is there a single canadian born clearly more talented and better at scoring than Lafleur was ?

Sure but he peaked 5 years before Lafleur and Gretzky 5 years after him. That is why I mention them. They are relevant for the conversation. Sometimes great prospects don't turn out as well as anticipated. Some flop all together like Alyn McCauley, some become quite underwhelming like Reichel. In soccer there was this Barcelona player Bojan who apparently broke some of Messi's junior records yet never materialized into a star player. Lafleur eventually became the best forward in the world so he didn't turn out too poorly after all. I'm still picking both Potvin and Bossy over him.

As for your example I mean it is not like peak Gretzky-Lemieux would not have outscored Bure-Lindros, lesser version did it fine, do we think Bure-Lindros would not have scored just marginnaly more than Dionne, about like Bossy and completely outscored by peak Gretzky playing in a higher scoring league than them ?

I think Lindros would outscore Lafleur by 10-20 points while contributing defensively. Lafleur from what I've seen played pretty much 0 defense. Lafleur also enjoyed playing on a super team while Bure played pretty much alone still getting 60 goals in the depth of the dead puck era. Bure suffered one of the worst from the r3tarded draft system that is why statistics can be misleading when players get assigned to teams the way they do. He passes all the eye tests Just watch him at Nagano - pure insanity. All of this talent flushed down the toilet due to the stupidity of the NHL. Guy was of course a great player and overall greater than both Bure and Lindros but I think the two peaked higher and just had underwhelming careers.

 

[MadLuke]

Lafleur played on a superteam and Lemaire can get underrated, but a lot of their superteamness was defense and debt, not necessarily a special level of super offensive talent at the top other big teams did not had

Peak bruins-oilers-Isles-Nordiques-Sabres scoring was not that different (i.e. which include a lot of people Lafleur is being compared too):

NHL Stats

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

www.nhl.com

I get picking Potvin over Lafleur, but was he a better scorer (same would go for say Trottier or Clarke).

Bure was a better goal scorer, but did he create more plays and goal than Lafleur ? feel like Lindros, too close to call, but I do feel a bit similar among all the non Wayne-Mario forward before McDavid turned an other level, Crosby-Ovechkin-Jagr-Howe-Lafleur-Espo-Lindros-Yzerman-Sakic-McDavid until his big playoff runs, peaks hard to clearly rank one over the others, just at the top of mortals.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I'm only glancing at the thread, but I see a lot of "Lafleur vs." talk...I'm not convinced that Gilbert Perreault wasn't better than Lafleur.