MadLuke
Registered User
- Jan 18, 2011
- 10,725
- 6,226
The Jagr/Mario overlap
- Thread starter daver
- Start date
Did people think he was as good as the best forward of the 60s Hull? When he couldn't even outscore Esposito who peaked a few years before him? I very much doubt it. It wasn't a terrible era. The NHL had some of the most exceptional defensemen ever. Orr, Potvin, Robinson, Park, Salming. The top Canadian forwards just weren't as good as the ones before or after, sh1t happens. The same happened in the early 00s after Gretzky retired and before Crosby appeared. Sakic and Yzerman were already in their 30s, Kariya and Lindros had their fair share of injuries and the best Canadian forward was Iginla.
jigglysquishy
Registered User
Lafleur didn't outscore Esposito, but I do think he was the better overall player.
The Orr factor and all.
The Orr factor and all.
buffalowing88
Registered User
Perreault was the prototype of Malkin. Not as physical, of course, but I watch them both skate and see the same player at times. He'll be forgotten to time but he is fun to watch in the old highlights.
Hmmmmm....what kind of math did you learn where a 22% increase in league scoring over a five year period ('77 to '82) is a "little bit".
I challenge to try to find another five year period in league history where scoring took such dramatic rise over a five year period.
I am not a fan of straight up multiply scoring by league GPG but the numbers cannot be denied.
20 PPG scorers in '76/77, two players above 1.40.
63 PPG scorers in '81/82, nine players above 1.40
I would reduce the 63 to 54 to account for the 3 more teams in the league but then a league in transition always results in an increase in the elite scorers benefitting disproportionally. Regardless, it is clear there was a significant shift in the scoring levels of the league's elite scorers.
You can come up with any number that fits your narrative if you "try to apply some sort of adjusting".
Using your method, Selanne was playing at a 152 point pace player in 98/99.
Does that sound reasonable? This is almost becoming a rhetorical question at this point.
You dishonestly picked the lowest scoring year from the mid-late 70s and matched it with the highest scoring year of the early-mid 80s. The eras averaged roughly 14% difference in scoring. Not an extremely small difference but not as substantial as you're trying to assess.
In 81/82 only 13 30+ year olds were 0.80 PPG or higher while In 76/77 12 guys were. The league just got better. A huge influx of new players and the first strong generation of Swedes and Americans. Hockey was still booming back then but the league didn't accommodate for this boom as in the previous era where the number of teams from 69/70 to 79/80 grew from 12 to 21.
Gretzky was already no1 in PPG at 18 competing against prime Dionne and Lafleur. Lemieux was 9th, Jagr was 101th, Crosby was 6th, McDavid was 3rd, Hull was 23rd, Gordie was 60th in a league of 150 people.
And yes I get it everybody matures differently, everyone has a different role on a team when freshly new etc. etc. but Gretzky wasn't that early of a bloomer as a teen unlike let's say Crosby or McDavid. 2 years later Gretzky's PPG went from 1.7 to 2.65.
So yep the league quality just got better.
No he wasn't. Got anything better?
Show me the work on Jagr's "168" point season and I'll show you the work on Selanne's "152 point pace" season.
And also the work on how a 147 point Mike Bossy finishes 6th in scoring in 98/99.
I simply took Mario's best two seasons 88/89 & 92/93 and compared them to the best two Jagr's seasons 98/99 & 99/00 and then looked at GPG leaguewide for the given years and then recalculated Jagr's numbers for the higher scoring environment. Just simple stuff. Selanne's best year happened in 92/93 so no need to adjust right? If you wanna adjust that season to 98/99 he'd be down by quite a bit since scoring was much lower.
Regarding Bossy what's wrong with the idea of him scoring at around the level of peak Kariya Forsberg Sakic Lindros in 98/99? Am I supposed to think he would do significantly better?
Last edited:
Yes, no need to adjust if you want to be dishonest.
Selanne was 6th in PPG and points that year, he was 2nd in points and in PPG 98/99. That was his best year.
overpass
Registered User
Yes, people at the time said the league was weaker. There's a reason that Original Six nostalgia really hit its stride in the early 80s. Many hockey people remembered that era and knew that something had really been lost.
Arthur Therrien, junior coach who had seen the NHL since the very beginning, said in 1974:
...the scientific game has disappeared. Especially since the first expansion.
Clubs of today, I dare mention Oakland, Los Angeles, Vancouver, and New York Islanders, are fundamentally mediocre. I would also dare say that in the National Hockey League, hundreds of players should be playing in the minor leagues, they are completely lost when they meet a team of the quality of Canadiens, Boston Bruins, the Rangers or the Chicago Black Hawks.
These young players chase after the puck, they don't carry it, they get rid of it as soon as they receive it. They don't know any better because they haven't received the training required to shine in the National Hockey League.
Jim Coleman, a columnist who had watched the NHL since the 1930s, spoke for himself and referenced the general opinion when he wrote in a 1981 column:
It has become fashionable among oldtimers to deplore the overall quality of the players in the NHL today. Unquestionably, the 13-year expansion from six teams to 21 teams has permitted many defencemen of only borderline ability to find employment in the NHL.
Coleman went on to defend goaltenders of 1981, and said the poor defence was making them look bad.
The horrible truth is that, today, there simply aren’t enough good defencemen to stock a 21-team league. There aren’t even as many good ones as there were in 1966.
I don't have any more links handy, but I can say that in the late 70s and early 80s, it was common for columnists to comment about the low quality of the watered down NHL and say it wasn't as strong as before expansion. Tim Burke of the Montreal Gazette was one, as he didn't rank the late 70s Montreal dynasty over the late 50s dynasty due in part to the low quality of opposition faced by the 70s team.
Some, including Coleman, were of the opinion that international play against the Soviets were the place where real quality was tested, because NHL competition of that era was too poor to measure the greats. For example, Coleman wrote in 1983 that Gretzky's scoring feats were impressive, but were compiled against a weak and watered down league, so let's put any discussion of him as the greatest ever on hold until we can see him in the 1984 Canada Cup.
The losses to the Soviets in the 1979 Challenge Cup and the 1981 Canada Cup really reinforced the idea that NHL quality had declined.
Apr 2, 1975 – Tim Burke wrote about Guy Lafleur and Maurice Richard
The Rocket last night was non-committal when asked how many goals he thought he would score in this period of talent dilution and league expansion.
“All I will say is that I would score as many goals as Esposito,” said Richard.
I’ll say it then. At least a hundred, Rocket.
Last edited:
overpass
Registered User
I would compare the Original Six nostalgia in the weak NHL of the 70s and 80s to the late DPE era of the early 2000s and the origin of the All Time Draft on HFboards. The start of the ATD was before my time on this site, but I think it was part of a wave of hockey history interest that coincided with the decline of quality in the NHL.
Active players got very little respect for years after the beginning of the ATD, and I think it's because everyone had literally seen the NHL get worse in the late 90s and early 00s. There were no optimistic assumptions that the quality of hockey had been a straight line of improvement from the beginning, because anyone with two eyes who could remember the last ten years knew better. Some of the worst draft classes in history, no generational prospects since Lindros in 1991, maybe no prospects to match Pronger or Kariya since 1993.
Active players got very little respect for years after the beginning of the ATD, and I think it's because everyone had literally seen the NHL get worse in the late 90s and early 00s. There were no optimistic assumptions that the quality of hockey had been a straight line of improvement from the beginning, because anyone with two eyes who could remember the last ten years knew better. Some of the worst draft classes in history, no generational prospects since Lindros in 1991, maybe no prospects to match Pronger or Kariya since 1993.
Adjusting is done on the basis of average scoring per game.
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't deny that when the league is unsettled through expansion, regression, or other factors, that needs to be considered. I generally think the league was not truly settled until after the war years and can, to a certain extent, buy an argument that the mid '50s was when you can dismiss this consideration (but not necessarily to the extent that Howe's peak is downgraded).
We saw the biggest single jump in teams in 67/68 but not necessarily a dilution of talent on teams across the board. Over the next 11 years, the league expanded more than three times over and we saw overall league scoring increase, and scoring by the league's best offensive players increase.
In 68/69, many post-peak players hit career highs in PPG and Orr/Esposito introduced "video game numbers" before video games were invented.
Do we see lower point totals by the stars in the '70s and '80s if expansion happens more gradual? Sure.
Does this mean that the relative domination by star players in decreased? You can argue that a Player A has an edge over Player B if they have a similar level of domination if one played in a "weaker" era like the "70s but moving Player B down to the level of Player C; one who is statistically clearly on a lower level, is not reasonable.
Lafleur's best season, and three year peak, is statistically on the same tier as the best of the Non Big Four. That he was just as good in the playoffs is a plus for him.
There is no compelling reason to think that he, or any other player, would do significantly better or worse in another era.
What is the argument that it got "worse" in the late '90s to the early '00s?
Boring to watch? Sure.
More difficult for elite talent to separate itself particularly from '02 to '04? Yep
But that doesn't make a leaguer "weaker". Nope.
We saw the exact same thing after 2010 to 2017. Lower scoring and more parity among the elite scorers.
Since 17/18, we have seen the league's best talent exploit a better scoring environment and hit numbers not seen in over 30/40 years.
I know. Selanne's 98/99 season "adjusts" to a 152 point pace.
This is exhibit #1 in why "adjusting" using league GPG is not only useless, it is used to help to fit a personal bias.
Adjusted to what? To the higher scoring environment of the early 1980s? Yep that makes sense. Kurri and Stastny had similar slightly lower numbers why wouldn't Selanne get 152? He was clearly superior to both Stastny and Kurri.
overpass
Registered User
Bad drafts for almost a decade from 1994 to 2002. Over time the lack of talent entering the league really showed. Which is why the league was dominated by old players of the previous generation, with very few young stars challenging them.
Look at all the players age 35+ finishing high in awards voting in the early 00s. We didn't see that before and we don't see that today.
Look at Ron Francis finishing with his best awards voting at age 38 in 2001-02. That season the top 5 centres in AS voting had all been top 30 scorers in 1992-93, almost a decade earlier. We certainly don't see players like Stamkos, Giroux, Tavares, and Toews still dominating the centre position today. Only Crosby has maintained that level from the last generation.
BigBadBruins7708
Registered User
It wasnt more difficult for elite talent to separate, there just wasnt any.
94-04 is an anomaly in that it's the only era in pretty much 80 years to not have a "generational" elite player come along and take over from the incumbent generational players.
You had an unbroken chain back to the 20s and it continued post 04.
Morenz
Shore
Richard
Beliveau
Howe
Orr
Gretzky
Mario
*404 not found*
Crosby/Ovechkin
McDavid
Last edited:
It definitely was. Someone like Datsyuk would have certainly been a bigger star had he played 40 years earlier.
You choose a statistical outlier to try to make your point.
Avg. age of Top Ten scorers from '93/94 to '07/08:
26.5
27.0
25.3
27.6 ('96/97 - start of DPE)
27.3
26.1
27.9
27.7
29.3 ('01/02)
27.6
27.2
26.0 ('05/06)
28.9
26.7
There are no seasons surrounding '01/02 to indicate that the aging stars from the early to mid-90s were the dominant players in the league.
I would say that from '01/02 to '03/04 there wasn't a superstar talent, a player capable of separating themselves from the pack at their peak (e.g. Jagr/ Sakic/ Crosby/ Ovechkin/ Malkin/ Kane/ McDavid/ Matthews/ MacKinnon/ Kucherov), in the league besides Forsberg but plenty of star talent.
Lower scoring also plays a factor here as we saw again from '14 to '16. It is harder for star talent to separate themselves from the pack when the scoring environment is tight and we see marginal Top 20 talent sneak into the Top 10.
If you want conclude that St. Louis and Iginla, like Jamie Benn (and maybe Daniel Sedin), are weak Art Ross winners, sure, but to paint whole era as weak is not reasonable.
The same thing can be said about Lafleur's peak. It may have come at a time where there could have been another player or two who finishes in the Top Ten during his peak if the WHA did not exist. But he, like Dionne and Perrault, hold their own against the influx of WHA talent in 79/80.
There is no doubt he doesn't win his Art Rosses and that this would make a relatively small change to his relative dominance during his peak.
The whole point of the OP is about tiers of players. I believe it is the majority opinion among the the HOH that Lafleur's peak, be it one season, three seasons, or six seasons, is as good as any other non-Big 4 player. His early years and steeper regression after his peak keeps him clearly out of the Top all-time.
overpass
Registered User
Oh no? Let's take the 99-00 season, and look at the age of the top five finishers.in voting for the Hart, Vezina, Norris, Byng, and Selke.
Every one of these awards had a top five finisher age 35 or older, and 8 of the 25 top five finishers were age 35+. Including Mario, Hasek, Roy, Bourque, Stevens, Yzerman.
Even more damning is the lack of presence by young players in the awards voting. Only 1 of the 25 top 5 spots went to a player younger than 28 (Evgeni Nabokov for the Vezina).
In comparison, last year 11 of the 25 top 5 voting spots went to players under 28, and only 3 to players 35 or older.
It was more of a lack of top end talent maybe but not overall talent. 3rd and 4th liners back then were better than now. Even players that didn't make the NHL were often better than modern day NHLers.
The OP is focused on the point totals of all-time great offensive forwards i.e. those who normally receive the most attention for league's best player. Subjective awards for non-forwards is not relevant to the OP.
Can you provide any concrete evidence that the pack of elite scorers (the Top 20/50) was "weaker" from '96/97 to '03/04?
I am presuming you do not see Jagr's peak as being as being as good as his relative dominance would indicate.
Am I correct?
overpass
Registered User
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.
Forwards who averaged at least a point per game from 96-97 to 02-03, and played in 96-97 and 02-03.
Regular season stats from 96-97 to 02-03
Mario Lemieux: 210 of 574 GP (37%)
Jaromir Jagr: 509 of 574 GP (89%)
Peter Forsberg: 412 of 574 GP (72%)
Joe Sakic: 484 of 574 GP (84%)
Paul Kariya: 477 of 574 GP(83%)
Eric Lindros: 394 of 574 GP (69%)
Ziggy Palffy: 488 of 574 GP (85%)
Teemu Selanne: 542 of 574 GP (94%)
Pavel Bure: 419 of 574 GP (73%)
Mike Modano: 524 of 574 GP (91%)
Pavol Demitra: 426 of 574 GP (74%)
8 of 11 played less than 85% of the available games, and 5 of 11 played less than 75% of available games.
And 5 of these 11 had major injuries that cut them down early in their prime so they couldn't maintain their peak level of play even when on the ice. Lemieux's back, Kariya and Lindros's concussions, Bure and Selanne's knee injuries.
Jagr should have had much better competition for his scoring finishes if not for these injuries.
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.
