Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time

[Troubadour]

Jagr was not awesome in 2001. Not even close. I must have been watching a different team then....who the hell knows. As I've correctly pointed out 2000000 times, Jagr never got by round 2 without Mario while playing in Pittsburgh. Ever. Period. Why is that when Mario managed to get just enough strength to play the Pens managed to go further than usual? But when Jagr "led" the team, the Pens faltered over and over and over.

Going back to 2001. What did Jagr do in the 3rd round against NJ over 5 games? 0 points -2. I'm losing a lot of respect for people who are pushing more bull**** than Donald Trump. 2nd round that year he was outscored by Mario and Straka who each had a GWG. Jags didn't. Yay. He was awesome!!!!!!!!

But hey he did amazing round 1 against the Caps. So that makes the 3 round run "awesome". BTW, Mario was even better. 2001 Mario was better than 2001 Jagr. Let that sink in.

I post year by year breakdowns and there is nothing but excuses.

"He played on awful teams during his prime" (total bull****). Nobody has countered this because you can't. Awful teams don't make the playoffs. Simple as that.

"his production didn't drop that much more than others" (even though his games played were far less than others and only played rounds 1 and 2 vs guys who went deeper in the postseason, more often....so more bull****)

"he was injured" (yeah so was Mario pretty much every damn year from the early 90's onward and he still dominated. Dude couldn't walk his back was so messed up, couple of Smythes though.....more bull****)

Wow, you are testy!

And wrong again.

Jagr very much got past the second round playing without Mario, in 1992.

 

[Troubadour]

IE, I don't even agree with your argument regarding Jagr (hell, I totally disagree with it!), but your post above was long overdue.

Pot calling the kettle black is always long overdue. Jagr is like cats. He has that ability to drive people crazy.

 

[Nick Hansen]

Jagr was not awesome in 2001. Not even close. I must have been watching a different team then....who the hell knows. As I've correctly pointed out 2000000 times, Jagr never got by round 2 without Mario while playing in Pittsburgh. Ever. Period. Why is that when Mario managed to get just enough strength to play the Pens managed to go further than usual? But when Jagr "led" the team, the Pens faltered over and over and over.

I honestly don't really care that much about Jagr but...

Lemieux is number 4 here and quite possibly the biggest 'natural' hockey talent ever, perhaps alongside with Orr. Is that the standard we're subjecting Jagr to? If so, maybe that actually validates his spot on this list.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Wow, you are testy!

And wrong again.

Jagr very much got past the second round playing without Mario, in 1992.

Sigh. Nope.

Mario played most of 2 games in that series and Ron Francis was a friggin' legend. Francis OWNED Mark Messier (may have heard of him) at both ends of the ice. Watched every game as a 13 year old and have since watched it again on multiple occasions.

Jagr was great but was overshadowed by Francis and Barrasso that series.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Nah, Jagr was a major impact piece in the first two rounds of the 2001 playoffs...not as good as 1999 or 1996, sure...but he was also hobbled...then stuck with Milan Kraft, a guy who never had a point in the playoffs in his career...against a Devils team that was an absolute wagon.

We've all already debunked the notion that those Penguins teams were any good...they were 1 or 2 line teams with nothing else behind them. That's not a good team. There's no other way to slice it...it's been chopped up to a fine powder at this point...you can't look at the roster, know who those players are and go "yeah, hey, that's not bad..."

I mean, a defense that's so bad that the top 5 players on the team in ATOI are forwards...that's crazy...we also took a spare forward and shoved him back to D, where he played in the top-4 against Buffalo, as well...because, ya know, the team was so good...

Jagr and Lemieux were the movers in that playoffs. Straka came along as well on a different line.

Jagr points:
Go-ahead assist
Game-winning assist
3-0 assist
Get-within-1 assist in the 3rd
Game-tying assist in the 3rd
Go-ahead assist
Go-ahead assist
Game-tying assist
Go-ahead goal
Game-tying assist
Game-tying assist in the 3rd
Game-winning assist in OT

So, yeah, ok 12 points not great...injured or not...but he was timely, if nothing else. He had to act as NZ puck distributor as well because the Penguins spent a good deal of time playing Kevin Stevens back further to help our not awful really awful defense...so it was just a Lemieux-Jagr breakout for about three lines, and they did what they could and a rusty, old beat-up Kevin Stevens brought up the rear...they broke that up against NJ, putting rookie Milan Kraft with Jagr, and like the rest of the team, they generated nothing...the Penguins scored 4 even-strength goals in the series...

 

[bobholly39]

I'm getting ****ing sick of you calling me that. I was done with this but here you are calling me biased again like a little petulant child because I don't agree with your position. But instead of being able to engage in a thoughtful dialogue, you pout and call me biased.

I'm the one breaking down each and every season in the playoffs, who the Pens had on the roster, who they were playing. You're the one trying to push charts on points per game that are literally cherry picked to make Jagr look better than he actually was. Like you leaving out 2001 for example. Using only a 6 year period on Jagr but 7 or more for other players and THEN failing to disclose that Jagr in that span never went to a Cup final and played far fewer games than others on your chart.

You have been the most disingenuous person in this project. The only thing you do is throw up stats. I've seen it done for years. There is no in depth or context driven narrative for you. It's only numbers, which is why you push somebody like Jagr in the first place. And those stats are usually goal post moving lame attempts to mask deficiencies.

I've been as active as just about anyone throughout this process. Criticized many players, including my boy Crosby (particularly against the notion he's a perfect 10 out of 10 in the playoffs). Made long, in depth posts about numerous players. You?

I've been plenty even keeled thus far but continuing to call me biased is getting on my last nerves.

First of all - i wasn't even addressing you directly. You made a long ass response to my last post - Trump pictures and everything - which i took the time to respond to point by point but which you then chose not to respond to. I took it as meaning you were done discussing him.

My post above was in response to Daver - and the "you" in my post wasn't you specifically - just a you in general. Like - don't do this or you are being biased.

The general issue I have with Jagr is that you're criticizing every single thing about him (some of which is valid, but some of which is also factually wrong - like the chart i posted showed) - but not doing the same for other players.

If you try hard enough to look for nothing but negatives in a player's resume - you'll find a way to tear every player apart. You seem to be doing that mostly for Jagr though, which seems unfair.

As to me cherry picking and excluding 2001 - yes 2001 wasn't a great playoffs for Jagr. But so what? I never claimed Jagr has no faults in the playoffs, and i never claimed he was great in every playoffs. You're the one who claimed he was horrible even at his peak, and that his regular season production vs playoffs was significantly down. I showed you that for a 6 year stretch (94-2000) that is WRONG, his production drop from playoffs to regular season is in-line with other great performers.

Finally - if you're done talking about Jagr - that's fine. It'll only be the 4th time you say so and then change your mind.

 

[Troubadour]

@ImporterExporter

Hello there sir,

I understand you're sick of talking about that Yager guy, but amid the huge amount of words you've uttered, I found that you argued that the argument Jagr played for a bad team was flawed because bad teams do not make the playoffs (ignoring the fact people argue the Pens made the playoffs thanks to Jagr).

Have you, as a knowledgeable fan that you must be, ever noticed that after Mr. Yager had left the Penguins, they really did fail to make the playoffs for like... three years in a row? Four, if we include 05/06?

And... have you ever noticed that while Mr. Yager only ever made it past the second round once playing for the Pens without Mr. Lemieux, Mr. Lemieux never made it past the second round playing without Mr. Yager?

Explain please.

Your sincerely curious and continually amused reader

Me

 

[sr edler]

Sigh.

I thought you were officially done?

My issue with your Jagr critique is that it’s way too centered around team results, disregarding many ill-structured and shallow units he played on. It’s the reversed C58 argument, or just the C58 argument. You should focus on his game instead, because it certainly wasn’t perfect. Mario also never dragged a mediocre team anywhere important without good help, by the way. And no one’s trying to rank Jagr on his level anyway. You also use a kinda emotional and hyperbolic language, which probably doesn’t help the discussion.

As I said earlier, some might have been slightly impressed by older Jagr having a positive impact on his linemates (in a mentor role) and their development as offensive players on different playoff aspiring teams (Giroux, Barkov, etc.). That’s certainly better and more mature in my book at least than directly or indirectly demanding top line minutes the last 7 years of your career when you’re obviously not worth it, and your team missing 7 straight playoffs partly as a result of it. Does it mean the world? No, it doesn’t, and no one has tried to claim it does. But it means something, and something can sometimes move you somewhere.

 

[Troubadour]

Sigh. Nope.

Mario played most of 2 games in that series and Ron Francis was a friggin' legend. Francis OWNED Mark Messier (may have heard of him) at both ends of the ice. Watched every game as a 13 year old and have since watched it again on multiple occasions.

Jagr was great but was overshadowed by Francis and Barrasso that series.

Well, technically, Jagr did get past the second round playing without Lemieux, as the first two games in which Mario participated were obviously not enough to get the team past the second round.

 

[Nick Hansen]

Outside of Gilmour (TML) and Pronger (EDM) (both of whom should make this list comfortably if you ask me) it seems that most of the players ranked on this forum's top 40 SC playoff performer list usually played on great teams through their prime/peak. Jagr didn't. For some reason he didn't do a Pronger or Gilmour type of performance but neither did Ovechkin or some of the guys ahead of him on this list. It is what it is, but I find we seem to be hanging Jagr higher than most because of this.

 

[wetcoast]

1999 he was getting massaged on the bench to keep his groin moving, playing like 25 minutes a night and almost singlehandedly willing us past Cup contender New Jersey too...

I had to re read that comment a couple of times to get it straight.

I wonder if it was the same trainer for Canucks in the 2011 final for Sami Salo.

 

[daver]

Outside of Gilmour (TML) and Pronger (EDM) (both of whom should make this list comfortably if you ask me) it seems that most of the players ranked on this forum's top 40 SC playoff performer list usually played on great teams through their prime/peak. Jagr didn't. For some reason he didn't do a Pronger or Gilmour type of performance but neither did Ovechkin or some of the guys ahead of him on this list. It is what it is, but I find we seem to be hanging Jagr higher than most because of this.

He was on enough regular season teams that finished high in the standings with and without Mario. Jagr needs to bear some of the responsibility for having that success not translate into more playoff success as the Pens seemed to mirror Jagr; all offense and very little defense. We all saw what happened with the Caps when their leader showed a distinct interest in 2-way play.

This seems like it enough to keep him out of the Top 10-15 as the same cannot be said for his immediate peers.

 

[VanIslander]

CHRISTMAS BREAK.

EITHER:

option a: LET'S STOP ON SUNDAY, DECEMBER 23RD FOR A WEEK.

OR...

Option b: POST THE NEXT ROUND OF CANDIDATES AS USUAL ON MONDAY (CHRISTMAS EVE!) BUT HAVE THAT ROUND EXTENDED FOR 2 WEEKS OF DISCUSSION.

Either option a or option b works for those of us swamped between Christmas Eve and New Year's Day. With family, friends, social events, trips, the world juniors and college bowl games (not to mention some of us still have to work!), that week is a write-off!!!!

 

[Michael Farkas]

Hmmm...I'll have more time over Christmas time than virtually any other time I think...

New Year's, and the days leading up to it, completely different story though...I will likely be out of commission from the 28th thru the 1st...

 

[Canadiens1958]

A few points.

Playing hurt(surgery,stabilization required but delayed) in the playoffs is commonplace. Happening since the NHL started. Best medical staff wins.

One or two line teams, basically describes SC finalists championship teams the last 30 seasons.Parity via mediocrity.

 

[ImporterExporter]

A few points.

Playing hurt(surgery,stabilization required but delayed) in the playoffs is commonplace. Happening since the NHL started. Best medical staff wins.

One or two line teams, basically describes SC finalists championship teams the last 30 seasons.Parity via mediocrity.

Bingo.

I'm sorry but after 82 games in the regular season, or 70 as it was decades ago, most guys are playing injured to one degree or another.

Orr could barely walk, even during the back end of his prime. Mario's back was so bad he had people help him dress and get into his skates, then went through chemo and cancer treatments in between all that, which anyone that has been involved with cancer knows how horrible it is on the body. Yet Mario somehow managed to dominate for the Pens far more than he didn't.

 

[The Macho King]

CHRISTMAS BREAK.

EITHER:

option a: LET'S STOP ON SUNDAY, DECEMBER 23RD FOR A WEEK.

OR...

Option b: POST THE NEXT ROUND OF CANDIDATES AS USUAL ON MONDAY (CHRISTMAS EVE!) BUT HAVE THAT ROUND EXTENDED FOR 2 WEEKS OF DISCUSSION.

Either option a or option b works for those of us swamped between Christmas Eve and New Year's Day. With family, friends, social events, trips, the world juniors and college bowl games (not to mention some of us still have to work!), that week is a write-off!!!!

I'd go for extended discussion. I'm going to be traveling but I'll also have some downtime. Don't know if I will be able to guarantee I'll be around for a vote though.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Being hurt =! being nearly incapacitated

There's context and degrees of separation that ought to be considered.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Being hurt =! being nearly incapacitated

There's context and degrees of separation that ought to be considered.

Absolutely.

But there are instances of all time greats being close to the latter yet somehow willing themselves to great performances over and over despite the latter.

 

[daver]

Absolutely.

But there are instances of all time greats being close to the latter yet somehow willing themselves to great performances over and over despite the latter.

So Mario gets a complete pass for missing six games in the '92 playoffs (along with a ton of games in the regular season) but Jagr gets zero consideration for trying to play through his injury in 2001 vs. NJ?

What about the times that Jagr played thru injuries in his Art Ross runs (something I admittedly have no idea about but I question your ability to diagnose Jagr's 2001 injury as being a "willable" injury).

I disagree with the other poster's assessment of Jagr's playoff resume but find your are unfairly applying a standard to Jagr that no other player can measure up to.

 

[Czech Your Math]

Without Jagr, Lemieux made the playoffs once in 10 seasons and won a single playoff series.
With Jagr & Lemieux, the Pens made the playoffs in all seven seasons, won 13 playoff series, and won two Cups.
Without Lemieux, Jagr made the playoffs 11 times, won 9 playoff series, and made the SC Finals once. To put that in some perspective, Ovechkin to date has made the playoffs 10 times and won 10 playoff series.
Restricting it to his playoff prime (thru 2008), without Lemieux, Jagr made the playoffs 8 times and won 5 series. In his career, Lindros made the playoffs 6 times and won 5 playoff series.

Jagr took a backseat to Lemieux until '94, when (due to Lemieux missing most of the season) Jagr led the team in points and finished top 10 in scoring. These are some playoff numbers:

'94-'01 Lemieux 47-24-33-57 (-1), 1.21 PPG; home ice 4 times, won 4 series
'94-'01 Jagr 83-46-55-101 (+18), 1.22 PPG; home ice 7 times, won 7 series

'92-'08 Jagr w/o Lemieux 73-43-51-94 (+29), 1.29 PPG; home ice 3 times, won 5 series

So the notion that Lemeiux was still carrying the Pens during that time, while Jagr was holding them back is false.

How did Jagr fare during his playoff prime ('92-'08) compared to other playoff greats of the past ~25 years (note: the plus-minus w/o is an approximation for context purposes)?

'92-'08 Jagr 145-74-94-168 (+36 with, -43 w/o), 1.16 PPG; home ice 11 times, won 14 series
'93-'08 Sakic 171-82-103-185 (-1 with, +38 w/o), 1.08 PPG; home ice 20 times, won 19 series
'95-'07 Forsberg 144-62-103-165 (+52 with, -6 w/o), 1.15 PPG; home ice 18 times, won 16 series
'07-'18 Crosby 160-66-119-185 (+22 with, +17 w/o), 1.16 PPG; home ice 19 times, won 20 series
'07-'18 Malkin 158-62-103-165 (+10 with, +29 w/o), 1.04 PPG; home ice 19 times, won 20 series
'08-'18 Ovechkin 121-61-56-117 (+13 with, 0 w/o), 0.97 PPG; home ice 13 times, won 10 series

How many series duds did they have during that span?

Series < PPG
Jagr 8/27
Sakic 11/30
Forsberg 5/26 (missed 3 entire series, not counting his o in 1 in '08)
Crosby 9/28 (missed 1 entire series)
Malkin 10/28 (missed 1 entire series)
Ovechkin 8/19

If you account for team series (so Jagr < PPG while playing injured is same as not showing up at all), then none of them have significantly fewer duds than Jagr (Forsberg 8/29 or 9/30 he was < PPG or didn't play... Jagr 8/27).

Plus-Minus-Even in Series
Jagr 16-8-3
Sakic 12-12-6
Forsberg 21-4-1
Crosby 12-11-5
Malkin 12-11-5
Ovechkin 9-7-3

Forsberg stands out here, although obviously generally much stronger teams, esp. during peaks.
Jagr stands out over the others though, despite his weak (esp. defensively) teams.

Sure, one can say Jagr has so many playoff points due to his longevity, but he also had a disproportionate number of playoff games outside his prime (rookie year and age 40+), which makes his playoff PPG misleadingly low. Yes, he had some disappointing playoff series, but these were actually very few during his long prime. His major injuries in 2001 ECF (he was already missing games in round 2) and 2006 have already been discussed. Other than that, there's 6/25 series during his prime in which he was < PPG:

* 1992 SCF vs. Chi: 4-2-0-2 (-2). Not his best series, but he was PPG+ in each of first three rounds. There's been a lot of talk of supposed "empty points," but one point that was when the Pens trailed by a goal with less than 5 minutes left in the 3rd period of game 1 at home (Chicago having won 11 PO games in a row), and Jagr skated through most of the Blackhawks' defense to score the goal that tied the game.

* 1993 Rd1 vs. NJ 5-2-2-4 (+2). Decent series in winning cause.

* 1993 Rd2 vs. NYI 7-3-2-5 (+1). Not a great series, but obviously this was still Lemieux's team (when healthy) and during Mario's magical '93 season he outscored Jagr by a larger PPG % than during this series, so I'm not sure how Jagr would be near the top of the list as to reasons they lost this series (one in which they outscored Isles 27-24 and lost on the infamous game 7 OT goal)... but hey, let's "pen" Pitt's only loss in 3 playoffs on the 21 y/o second line wing, not Lemieux, nor the 4 SHG by NYI, nor Stevens' injury, nor any soft goals among the 19 Barrasso gave up in the last 4 games, etc.

* 1995 Rd2 vs. NJ 5-3-1-4 (-3). Not a great series, but not horrible, especially considering the Devils beat them 4-1 (outscored Pitt 17-8)... after NJ beat Bourque's Bruins 4-1 (outscored Bos 14-5; Oates & Neely combined for 3 pts. & -10) and before they beat Lindros' Flyers 4-2 (outscored Phi 20-14; Lindros 5 pts. & +1) and swept the loaded Prez-winning Wings (outscored Det 16-7; Fedorov & Yzerman combined for 6 pts. & -6, Coffey/Fetisov/Lidstrom combined for 7 pts. & -14). If they did beat the actual champions, they would have had their hands full and then some against the Flyers & Wings.

* 1996 ECF vs. Fla 7-1-4-5 (-3). Yes, Van Biesbrouck got the best of Lemieux (7-1-6-7, -1) and Jagr, along with the Panthers' DPE tactics, after Jagr & Francis got the best of Beezer's Rangers in Lemieux's absence. This was still a shaky Pens team outside of the top 6 (which took a big hit when they lost Francis in final game of round 2) & Zubov, having switched goalies in round 1, until switching again after game 1 of ECF. It was the one series, aside from the '93 loss to Isles, that may have cost them a legitimate shot at the Cup, although they would have been substantial underdogs to Colorado (esp. w/o Francis). While Florida appeared a fluky SC Finalist, they did dispatch of Bourque's Bruins 4-1 and Lindros' #1 seed Flyers 4-2.

* 2007 Rd2 vs. Buf 6-3-1-4 (o). They were a huge underdog to the Sabres, as they would have been against Ottawa & Anaheim, if they advanced.

That doesn't seem like a lot of terrible series, given he was presumably somewhat healthy for 25 series from '92 to '08 (although definitely hurting significantly in both '99 series, games 5 & 6 in '00 after 5 OT in game 4 vs. Phi, and '01 vs. Buf, in addition to NJ). He had 13 series from '95 thru round 2 in '01, and the only two were below PPG. One was round two in '95 against the eventual champion and defensively stifling Devils, when he was 0.8 PPG. The other was '96 ECF when he was 0.7 PPG. But this is Jagr, so ignore that Lemieux was about equally disappointing, that they had just lost Francis for the year, and that Beezer was playing out of his mind while his teammates could hook & hold practically at will. It just seems like a lot of nitpicking and selective memory, more than substance.

It's not like other players haven't ever had off series:

Sakic
'95 NYR 6-4-1-5 (-4)
'98 EDM 6-2-3-5 (o) lost as big favorites
'99 DET 6-1-1-2 (-1)
'99 DAL 7-2-3-5 (0)
'00 PHX 5-1-3-4 (-3)
'00 DET 5-1-2-3 (-1)
'00 DAL 7-0-3-3 (-1)
'01 LAK 5-1-1-2 (-2)
'02 LAK 7-3-1-4 (-1)
'02 DET 7-2-3-5 (-5)
'06 ANA 4-1-1-2 (-4)

I know Sakic was significantly injured for at least a couple of these series, but he still had plenty of duds.

Forsberg's lack of dud series is certainly most impressive. However, with all this talk of "signature runs" and (paraphrasing) "points on teams that didn't win anything," let's remember a couple things about Forsberg:

* Had 11 points in 16 games after round 1 during '96 Cup run.
* Had real stinker of 5-0-1-1 (-2) when lost as favorite vs. Wings in '97 WCF, was medicore 7-2-3-5 (+3) in '00 WCF loss to Stars, and a poor 6-1-2-3 (-1) in Rd2 loss vs. Sharks in '04.
* Receives great praise for strong '99 & '02 performances in which they lost in round 3, but apparently when Jagr lost in rounds 2 or 3, his overall playoff performance was irrelevant.
* Could advance due to Sakic and/or Roy shining, while Jagr generally played on much weaker teams, esp. during his peak.
* Took large portions of seasons off, even an entire season, and missed mulitple playoff series entirely. This is something Jagr didn't do, and couldn't really afford through most of his peak and later prime, as without him his teams would have often missed the playoffs.

Crosby
'09 DET 7-1-2-3 (-3)
'10 MON 7-1-4-5 (-1) lost as big favorites
'12 PHI 6-3-5-8 (-3) not < PPG, but -3 in what was an absolute disgraceful loss
'13 BOS 4-0-0-0 (-2) swept!
'14 NYR 7-1-2-3 (-2) lost as big favorites
'15 NYR 5-2-2-4 (+1)
'16 WAS 6-0-2-2 (-3)
'16 TB 7-3-2-5 (-1)
'16 SJ 6-0-4-4 (o)
'17 OTT 7-3-3-6 (-3)

I know, Crosby won a couple Smythes, despite not leading his team in points either time (and in only 3 of 8 series). I guess this is the part where I am obliged to mention he was outscored by teammates in several series:

* by Hossa in both '08 ECF & SCF.
* by 3 players, including Talbot & Letang in '09 SCF (tied with Kennedy, Staal & Fedotenko)
* by Gonchar & Goligoski in '10 Rd2 loss (tied with Letang & Kunitz)
* by Staal in '12 Rd1 loss
* by Letang & Neal in '13 Rd2
* by 5 players, including Martin & Cooke, in '13 ECF sweep by underdog Boston
* by 3 players, including in Niskanen & Martin, in '14 vs. CBJ
* by 3 players, including Jokinen & Letang, in '14 Rd2 loss to NYR
* by 8 players, including Hagelin, Daley & Dumoulin in '16 Rd2 vs. Caps
* by 3 players, including Kunitz, in '16 ECF vs. TB
* by Letang in '16 SCF (tied with Hagelin & Kessel)
* by 2 players in '17 Rd1 vs. CBJ
* by Guentzel in '17 Rd2 vs. Caps

I don't know what that proves, but another poster insisted that this was somehow important. All I know is that if peak/prime Jagr was 6-0-2-2 (-3) while supposedly "holding" Ovechkin (under PPG in each of previous 6 series, during which he had 25 pts. in 41 games & was -6) to 6-2-5-7 (+2), I don't see his team winning, let alone him getting a trophy. Similarly, if he had 5 in 7 while -1 in ECF, or had 4 in 6 while supposedly "limiting" 36 y/o playoff legend Joe Thornton to 3 in 6. After the first round in '16, Crosby was 43-11-27-38 (even) during their two Cup runs, yet was handed two Smythes. When was Crosby at his playoff best, from '07 thru '09 ECF (42-23-37-60, +19, 1.43 PPG) or from '09 SCF thru '17 SCF (106-34-70-104, -4, 0.98 PPG)? The numbers say one thing, the trophies say another. Give me real data over narratives any day.

Ovechkin
'12 BOS 7-2-3-5 (0)
'12 NYR 7-3-1-4 (-2)
'13 NYR 7-1-1-2 (-2)
'15 NYI 7-2-3-5 (-3)
'15 NYR 7-3-1-4 (0)
'16 PHI 6-3-2-5 (+1)
'17 TOR 6-3-0-3 (+1)
'17 PIT 7-2-3-5 (-5)

We have three phases of Ovechkin:

* His brief '08-10 peak, when he scored 40 in 28 and was +14, while winning 1/4 series (all on home ice).
* His '11-'17 prime, when he scored 50 in 69 and was -9, while winning 5/11 series (7/11 on home ice). Under PPG in 8/9 series from '12 to '17.
* His '18 Smythe run.

I think it's actually Ovechkin that had a long stretch of inconsistency... really, more like consistent mediocre/poor series in the playoffs, after his peak, but during his prime... not Jagr.

 

[daver]

Without Jagr, Lemieux made the playoffs once in 10 seasons and won a single playoff series.
With Jagr & Lemieux, the Pens made the playoffs in all seven seasons, won 13 playoff series, and won two Cups.
Without Lemieux, Jagr made the playoffs 11 times, won 9 playoff series, and made the SC Finals once. To put that in some perspective, Ovechkin to date has made the playoffs 10 times and won 10 playoff series.
Restricting it to his playoff prime (thru 2008), without Lemieux, Jagr made the playoffs 8 times and won 5 series. In his career, Lindros made the playoffs 6 times and won 5 playoff series.

Jagr took a backseat to Lemieux until '94, when (due to Lemieux missing most of the season) Jagr led the team in points and finished top 10 in scoring. These are some playoff numbers:

'94-'01 Lemieux 47-24-33-57 (-1), 1.21 PPG; home ice 4 times, won 4 series
'94-'01 Jagr 83-46-55-101 (+18), 1.22 PPG; home ice 7 times, won 7 series

'92-'08 Jagr w/o Lemieux 73-43-51-94 (+29), 1.29 PPG; home ice 3 times, won 5 series

So the notion that Lemeiux was still carrying the Pens during that time, while Jagr was holding them back is false.

How did Jagr fare during his playoff prime ('92-'08) compared to other playoff greats of the past ~25 years (note: the plus-minus w/o is an approximation for context purposes)?

'92-'08 Jagr 145-74-94-168 (+36 with, -43 w/o), 1.16 PPG; home ice 11 times, won 14 series
'93-'08 Sakic 171-82-103-185 (-1 with, +38 w/o), 1.08 PPG; home ice 20 times, won 19 series
'95-'07 Forsberg 144-62-103-165 (+52 with, -6 w/o), 1.15 PPG; home ice 18 times, won 16 series
'07-'18 Crosby 160-66-119-185 (+22 with, +17 w/o), 1.16 PPG; home ice 19 times, won 20 series
'07-'18 Malkin 158-62-103-165 (+10 with, +29 w/o), 1.04 PPG; home ice 19 times, won 20 series
'08-'18 Ovechkin 121-61-56-117 (+13 with, 0 w/o), 0.97 PPG; home ice 13 times, won 10 series

How many series duds did they have during that span?

Series < PPG
Jagr 8/27
Sakic 11/30
Forsberg 5/26 (missed 3 entire series, not counting his o in 1 in '08)
Crosby 9/28 (missed 1 entire series)
Malkin 10/28 (missed 1 entire series)
Ovechkin 8/19

If you account for team series (so Jagr < PPG while playing injured is same as not showing up at all), then none of them have significantly fewer duds than Jagr (Forsberg 8/29 or 9/30 he was < PPG or didn't play... Jagr 8/27).

Plus-Minus-Even in Series
Jagr 16-8-3
Sakic 12-12-6
Forsberg 21-4-1
Crosby 12-11-5
Malkin 12-11-5
Ovechkin 9-7-3

Forsberg stands out here, although obviously generally much stronger teams, esp. during peaks.
Jagr stands out over the others though, despite his weak (esp. defensively) teams.

Sure, one can say Jagr has so many playoff points due to his longevity, but he also had a disproportionate number of playoff games outside his prime (rookie year and age 40+), which makes his playoff PPG misleadingly low. Yes, he had some disappointing playoff series, but these were actually very few during his long prime. His major injuries in 2001 ECF (he was already missing games in round 2) and 2006 have already been discussed. Other than that, there's 6/25 series during his prime in which he was < PPG:

* 1992 SCF vs. Chi: 4-2-0-2 (-2). Not his best series, but he was PPG+ in each of first three rounds. There's been a lot of talk of supposed "empty points," but one point that was when the Pens trailed by a goal with less than 5 minutes left in the 3rd period of game 1 at home (Chicago having won 11 PO games in a row), and Jagr skated through most of the Blackhawks' defense to score the goal that tied the game.

* 1993 Rd1 vs. NJ 5-2-2-4 (+2). Decent series in winning cause.

* 1993 Rd2 vs. NYI 7-3-2-5 (+1). Not a great series, but obviously this was still Lemieux's team (when healthy) and during Mario's magical '93 season he outscored Jagr by a larger PPG % than during this series, so I'm not sure how Jagr would be near the top of the list as to reasons they lost this series (one in which they outscored Isles 27-24 and lost on the infamous game 7 OT goal)... but hey, let's "pen" Pitt's only loss in 3 playoffs on the 21 y/o second line wing, not Lemieux, nor the 4 SHG by NYI, nor Stevens' injury, nor any soft goals among the 19 Barrasso gave up in the last 4 games, etc.

* 1995 Rd2 vs. NJ 5-3-1-4 (-3). Not a great series, but not horrible, especially considering the Devils beat them 4-1 (outscored Pitt 17-8)... after NJ beat Bourque's Bruins 4-1 (outscored Bos 14-5; Oates & Neely combined for 3 pts. & -10) and before they beat Lindros' Flyers 4-2 (outscored Phi 20-14; Lindros 5 pts. & +1) and swept the loaded Prez-winning Wings (outscored Det 16-7; Fedorov & Yzerman combined for 6 pts. & -6, Coffey/Fetisov/Lidstrom combined for 7 pts. & -14). If they did beat the actual champions, they would have had their hands full and then some against the Flyers & Wings.

* 1996 ECF vs. Fla 7-1-4-5 (-3). Yes, Van Biesbrouck got the best of Lemieux (7-1-6-7, -1) and Jagr, along with the Panthers' DPE tactics, after Jagr & Francis got the best of Beezer's Rangers in Lemieux's absence. This was still a shaky Pens team outside of the top 6 (which took a big hit when they lost Francis in final game of round 2) & Zubov, having switched goalies in round 1, until switching again after game 1 of ECF. It was the one series, aside from the '93 loss to Isles, that may have cost them a legitimate shot at the Cup, although they would have been substantial underdogs to Colorado (esp. w/o Francis). While Florida appeared a fluky SC Finalist, they did dispatch of Bourque's Bruins 4-1 and Lindros' #1 seed Flyers 4-2.

* 2007 Rd2 vs. Buf 6-3-1-4 (o). They were a huge underdog to the Sabres, as they would have been against Ottawa & Anaheim, if they advanced.

That doesn't seem like a lot of terrible series, given he was presumably somewhat healthy for 25 series from '92 to '08 (although definitely hurting significantly in both '99 series, games 5 & 6 in '00 after 5 OT in game 4 vs. Phi, and '01 vs. Buf, in addition to NJ). He had 13 series from '95 thru round 2 in '01, and the only two were below PPG. One was round two in '95 against the eventual champion and defensively stifling Devils, when he was 0.8 PPG. The other was '96 ECF when he was 0.7 PPG. But this is Jagr, so ignore that Lemieux was about equally disappointing, that they had just lost Francis for the year, and that Beezer was playing out of his mind while his teammates could hook & hold practically at will. It just seems like a lot of nitpicking and selective memory, more than substance.

It's not like other players haven't ever had off series:

Sakic
'95 NYR 6-4-1-5 (-4)
'98 EDM 6-2-3-5 (o) lost as big favorites
'99 DET 6-1-1-2 (-1)
'99 DAL 7-2-3-5 (0)
'00 PHX 5-1-3-4 (-3)
'00 DET 5-1-2-3 (-1)
'00 DAL 7-0-3-3 (-1)
'01 LAK 5-1-1-2 (-2)
'02 LAK 7-3-1-4 (-1)
'02 DET 7-2-3-5 (-5)
'06 ANA 4-1-1-2 (-4)

I know Sakic was significantly injured for at least a couple of these series, but he still had plenty of duds.

Forsberg's lack of dud series is certainly most impressive. However, with all this talk of "signature runs" and (paraphrasing) "points on teams that didn't win anything," let's remember a couple things about Forsberg:

* Had 11 points in 16 games after round 1 during '96 Cup run.
* Had real stinker of 5-0-1-1 (-2) when lost as favorite vs. Wings in '97 WCF, was medicore 7-2-3-5 (+3) in '00 WCF loss to Stars, and a poor 6-1-2-3 (-1) in Rd2 loss vs. Sharks in '04.
* Receives great praise for strong '99 & '02 performances in which they lost in round 3, but apparently when Jagr lost in rounds 2 or 3, his overall playoff performance was irrelevant.
* Could advance due to Sakic and/or Roy shining, while Jagr generally played on much weaker teams, esp. during his peak.
* Took large portions of seasons off, even an entire season, and missed mulitple playoff series entirely. This is something Jagr didn't do, and couldn't really afford through most of his peak and later prime, as without him his teams would have often missed the playoffs.

Crosby
'09 DET 7-1-2-3 (-3)
'10 MON 7-1-4-5 (-1) lost as big favorites
'12 PHI 6-3-5-8 (-3) not < PPG, but -3 in what was an absolute disgraceful loss
'13 BOS 4-0-0-0 (-2) swept!
'14 NYR 7-1-2-3 (-2) lost as big favorites
'15 NYR 5-2-2-4 (+1)
'16 WAS 6-0-2-2 (-3)
'16 TB 7-3-2-5 (-1)
'16 SJ 6-0-4-4 (o)
'17 OTT 7-3-3-6 (-3)

I know, Crosby won a couple Smythes, despite not leading his team in points either time (and in only 3 of 8 series). I guess this is the part where I am obliged to mention he was outscored by teammates in several series:

* by Hossa in both '08 ECF & SCF.
* by 3 players, including Talbot & Letang in '09 SCF (tied with Kennedy, Staal & Fedotenko)
* by Gonchar & Goligoski in '10 Rd2 loss (tied with Letang & Kunitz)
* by Staal in '12 Rd1 loss
* by Letang & Neal in '13 Rd2
* by 5 players, including Martin & Cooke, in '13 ECF sweep by underdog Boston
* by 3 players, including in Niskanen & Martin, in '14 vs. CBJ
* by 3 players, including Jokinen & Letang, in '14 Rd2 loss to NYR
* by 8 players, including Hagelin, Daley & Dumoulin in '16 Rd2 vs. Caps
* by 3 players, including Kunitz, in '16 ECF vs. TB
* by Letang in '16 SCF (tied with Hagelin & Kessel)
* by 2 players in '17 Rd1 vs. CBJ
* by Guentzel in '17 Rd2 vs. Caps

I don't know what that proves, but another poster insisted that this was somehow important. All I know is that if peak/prime Jagr was 6-0-2-2 (-3) while supposedly "holding" Ovechkin (under PPG in each of previous 6 series, during which he had 25 pts. in 41 games & was -6) to 6-2-5-7 (+2), I don't see his team winning, let alone him getting a trophy. Similarly, if he had 5 in 7 while -1 in ECF, or had 4 in 6 while supposedly "limiting" 36 y/o playoff legend Joe Thornton to 3 in 6. After the first round in '16, Crosby was 43-11-27-38 (even) during their two Cup runs, yet was handed two Smythes. When was Crosby at his playoff best, from '07 thru '09 ECF (42-23-37-60, +19, 1.43 PPG) or from '09 SCF thru '17 SCF (106-34-70-104, -4, 0.98 PPG)? The numbers say one thing, the trophies say another. Give me real data over narratives any day.

Ovechkin
'12 BOS 7-2-3-5 (0)
'12 NYR 7-3-1-4 (-2)
'13 NYR 7-1-1-2 (-2)
'15 NYI 7-2-3-5 (-3)
'15 NYR 7-3-1-4 (0)
'16 PHI 6-3-2-5 (+1)
'17 TOR 6-3-0-3 (+1)
'17 PIT 7-2-3-5 (-5)

We have three phases of Ovechkin:

* His brief '08-10 peak, when he scored 40 in 28 and was +14, while winning 1/4 series (all on home ice).
* His '11-'17 prime, when he scored 50 in 69 and was -9, while winning 5/11 series (7/11 on home ice). Under PPG in 8/9 series from '12 to '17.
* His '18 Smythe run.

I think it's actually Ovechkin that had a long stretch of inconsistency... really, more like consistent mediocre/poor series in the playoffs, after his peak, but during his prime... not Jagr.

You have a lot of subjective commentary here that, like IE's narrative, seems to hold players to different standards. E.G. two players have similar stats in a respective series; one is a dud because more was expected of them and/or their team, one is not because they weren't the man or the other team was playing great. Jagr (4 points, -3, 3rd on his team in scoring) against the lower seed Devils in '95 is OK but Crosby (5 points, -1, 3rd on his team in scoring) against the lower seed Habs in '10 is a dud. Or OV (5 points, 0, lead his team in scoring) against the higher seeded and defending champ Bruins is a dud.

And you have completely ignored 2-way play in your analysis.

Out of curiosity, out of the six players discussed here, where would you rate each on as playoff performers. According to the HOH project it was:

Sakic #12
Forsberg#18
Crosby #28
Malkin NR
OV NR
Jagar NR

Crosby certainly would be moved up on that list if redone and Malkin likely joins it.

 

[Troubadour]

You have a lot of subjective commentary here that, like IE's narrative, seems to hold players to different standards. E.G. two players have similar stats in a respective series; one is a dud because more was expected of them and/or their team, one is not because they weren't the man or the other team was playing great. And you have completely ignored 2-way play.

Out of curiosity, out of the six players discussed here, where would you rate each on as playoff performers. According to the HOH project it was:

Sakic #12
Forsberg#18
Crosby #28
Malkin NR
OV NR
Jagar NR

Crosby certainly would be moved up on that list if redone and Malkin likely joins it.

He may have a lot of subjective commentary there, but the numbers are pretty telling in themselves and they go way deeper than IE ever dared thinking.

The fact that Czech Your Math is likely a fan really does not change anything about the fact his take is much more insightful and informative than IE's diatribes and TDMM's spiteful remarks. If being a fan is what it takes to come up with something interesting to say, I would definitely rather read just fans like you and him than "critics" who refuse to let up beating a dead horse and stubbornly perpetuate stereotypes we no longer have to make do with because we have finally evolved past the information stone age.

 

[daver]

He may have a lot of subjective commentary there, but the numbers are pretty telling in themselves and they go way deeper than IE ever dared thinking.

The fact that Czech Your Math is likely a fan really does not change anything about the fact his take is much more insightful and informative than IE's diatribes and TDMM's spiteful remarks. If being a fan is what it takes to come up with something interesting to say, I would definitely rather read just fans like you and him than "critics" who refuse to let up beating a dead horse and stubbornly perpetuate stereotypes we no longer have to make do with because we have finally evolved past the information stone age.

There is also a "two wrongs don't make a right" feel here too though. Narrative like "what was an absolute disgraceful loss" seems very diatribish and spiteful to me.

I don't agree that critics are a worse gauge than fans necessarily. In this case, we are seeing both throw out extreme opinions on what may be the most polarizing discussion of the project that are hard to not respond to.

I do agree that IE is taking it much farther out from the general consensus than his fans are. It is ironic, or maybe it is telling, or maybe it is both of these, that his harshest critic and his biggest supporter are both Pens fans.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

How do you know you're a fanboy? When you find that any criticism of your boy to be "spiteful remarks"