What is the case for Lafleur over Jagr?

[Psycho Papa Joe]

That's a pretty poor example because Lafleur isn't really ahead of Hull numbers-wise, at least not by a method that uses any sort of context. For example, in Hull's 7th-best NHL season he led the league in goals. What was Lafleur's 7th-best season?

I was making a sarcastic point. Obviously no one in their right mind would rank Lafleur ahead of Hull on an all-time list. We're talking a consensus top 8 player vs a consensus top 25 player.

That said, 70pts in 50 games in 80-81 extrapolated to about a 110pt season. In the three post peak years, Lafleur's numbers are extrapolated to about an average of 100pts a season, which would put him just below the PPG production of the 2nd team all-star wingers those three years. Between 80 and 81 he had a dip in his typical PPG production from about 1.6 to 1.25 PPG due to injuries. His PPG production in 80-81 and 81-82 is still better than all but two of Hull seasons. Thing is, sure Hull played in a lower scoring era, but post expansion, where he had some really bad teams to beat up on, not one of his season's had a higher PPG production than Lafleur in 80-81 and 81-82. Post expansion, Hull is about the same age more or less as Lafleur in his three post peak seasons.

This is why the eye test is far superior to using a computer,which is the point I've been making in this thread. People who saw Hull and Lafleur have Hull ahead. People who saw Lafleur and Jagr have Lafleur ahead. But using a computer would put Lafleur ahead of Hull and Jagr ahead of Lafleur.

His second really big in PPG production came when Jacques Lemaire was named coach. The was a massive dip, but that had more to due with Lemaire changing that edition of the Habs from an offensive team to the biggest trapping team in the league. In the 83-84 season he was headed for a 40 goal, 90pt campaign, and then Lemaire was name coach. Lemaire basically refused to use Lafleur in an offensive role from that point on. The fact an old Lafleur was able to come back 5 years later and record 34 pts in 39 games for the Nords, which was far superior to his numbers at a younger age under Lemaire, shows Lemaire obviously had issues with the man. Lafleur requested a trade, and the Oilers and Jets were apparantly very interested but Serge Savard refused to do it. Apparantly the Jets offered a 1st round pick. Lafleur would have to wait until the Habs lost his rights in order to return to the NHL.

PS We give Lemieux credit for his PPG production in his injury years, but not Lafleur?

 

[Psycho Papa Joe]

What's most difficult to accept is that Jagr is frequently penalized for not being part of a dynasty, yet Hull is not. If team success in the playoffs is so critical, then why is Jagr dinged for not leading hapless teams to the Cup in a 25-30 team league, while Hull is not dinged for winning only one Cup on teams with Mikita, Hall, Pilote, Esposito, etc. in a six team league?

Fair point, but I think the bigger issue with Jagr is not having the ability to make a team a contender, not necessarily winning the cup thing. I think he would be viewed alot more favourably if he had at least lead a Lemieuxless Pens team beyond the 2nd round. But the likes of Hall and Hull do tend to get a free pass. They should have been able to win more cups in the 60's, but were beaten by, less talented, but harder working teams in Montreal and Toronto.

That said, sure the likes of Bourque never lead his team to a cup, but he got them close, which is why he's viewed more favourably. I really don't see how those Boston teams that made the finals were more talented than some of the Jagr lead teams that couldn't get past the 1st or 2nd round.

 

[Dangler99*]

What is Jagr's ppg in pittsburgh without lemieux? Just wondering.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

Fair point, but I think the bigger issue with Jagr is not having the ability to make a team a contender, not necessarily winning the cup thing. I think he would be viewed alot more favourably if he had at least lead a Lemieuxless Pens team beyond the 2nd round. But the likes of Hall and Hull do tend to get a free pass. They should have been able to win more cups in the 60's, but were beaten by, less talented, but harder working teams in Montreal and Toronto.

That said, sure the likes of Bourque never lead his team to a cup, but he got them close, which is why he's viewed more favourably. I really don't see how those Boston teams that made the finals were more talented than some of the Jagr lead teams that couldn't get past the 1st or 2nd round.

The teams Ray went far with in the playoffs were quite clearly better than the Lemieux less Penguins. Just look at the standings in the regular season.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

What is Jagr's ppg in pittsburgh without lemieux? Just wondering.

Way better than it is with him. It's shown in another thread here somewhere I forget which.

 

[livewell68]

Fair point, but I think the bigger issue with Jagr is not having the ability to make a team a contender, not necessarily winning the cup thing. I think he would be viewed alot more favourably if he had at least lead a Lemieuxless Pens team beyond the 2nd round. But the likes of Hall and Hull do tend to get a free pass. They should have been able to win more cups in the 60's, but were beaten by, less talented, but harder working teams in Montreal and Toronto.

That said, sure the likes of Bourque never lead his team to a cup, but he got them close, which is why he's viewed more favourably. I really don't see how those Boston teams that made the finals were more talented than some of the Jagr lead teams that couldn't get past the 1st or 2nd round.

When did the Bruins make the finals? I don't recall that happening.

In fact with a prime Lemieux and a prime Jagr the Penguins made it to the Semi-finals but lost in game 7 to the Florida Panthers in 1995-96.

After that season, when were the Penguins ever talented enough to win the Cup?

They might have had offensive talent (primarly due to Jagr who used to either score or assists on around 50% of his team's goals)

After Lemieux and Francis left, the Penguins were suppose to be a lottery team and rumours of them moving from Pittsburgh started to surface. No hockey pundants had ever picked them to make the playoffs. Jagr led those rather average teams to the playoffs.

Think about this, in all his 11 seasons in Pittsburgh he never missed the playoffs once.

Not even Lemieux can hold a claim to that.

 

[Psycho Papa Joe]

The teams Ray went far with in the playoffs were quite clearly better than the Lemieux less Penguins. Just look at the standings in the regular season.

Talent wise, I don't see a big difference. My point is, Bourque led teams, with similar talent, did better than Jagr lead teams in both the regular season and playoffs. Jagr just wasn't able to raise the level of a team beyond the final 8 or to anything special in the regular season. Bourque was.

 

[Dangler99*]

Way better than it is with him. It's shown in another thread here somewhere I forget which.

K thanks.

 

[Psycho Papa Joe]

When did the Bruins make the finals? I don't recall that happening.

1988 and 1990, plus numerous final 4 appearances.

 

[livewell68]

Way better than it is with him. It's shown in another thread here somewhere I forget which.

In 1994-95 without Lemieux 70 Pts in 48 games (Art Ross) 1.46 PPG

In 1997-98 without Lemieux 102 Pts in 77 games (Art Ross) 1.32 PPG

In 1998-99 without Lemieux 127 Pts in 81 games (his best season, Hart and Art Ross) 1.57 PPG

In 1999-00 without Lemieux 96 Pts in 63 games (Art Ross, lost the Hart by 1 Pt) 1.52PPG

In 2000-01 with Lemieux for only half the season 121 Pts in 80 games (Art Ross) 1.50PPG

In 2005-06 without Lemieux 123 Pts in 82 games (at age 34, 2nd in Art Ross, 2nd in goals, 2nd in Hart, Lester B. Pearson award) 1.50 PPG

Of his 7 best PPG seasons, I count 4 and a half in which he played without Lemieux.

 

[livewell68]

1988 and 1990, plus numerous final 4 appearances.

The Penguing were never talented enough without Lemieux. Even with Lemieux in the lineup, they lacked the defense to win Cups.

In 1995-96 and in 2000-01 they lost in the final 4.

BTW I do recall the Bruins having very sound two-way players and a prime healthy Cam Neely when they made the finals.

Who on the 1997-2000 Penguins teams were more talented than those Bruins players? (outside of Jagr obvsiously)

Kovalev? Perennial underachiever, only had one good season with Jagr in 2000-01.

In fact in 1999-00 Kovalev was 2nd in Penguing scoring with 66 Pts in a full 82 games.

Jagr scored 30 more points (96) in 19 less games (63 games).

 

[Dangler99*]

In 2000-2001 Lemieux basically carried Jagr to the ross.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Oh Well.........

When did the Bruins make the finals? I don't recall that happening.

In fact with a prime Lemieux and a prime Jagr the Penguins made it to the Semi-finals but lost in game 7 to the Florida Panthers in 1995-96.

After that season, when were the Penguins ever talented enough to win the Cup?

They might have had offensive talent (primarly due to Jagr who used to either score or assists on around 50% of his team's goals)

After Lemieux and Francis left, the Penguins were suppose to be a lottery team and rumours of them moving from Pittsburgh started to surface. No hockey pundants had ever picked them to make the playoffs. Jagr led those rather average teams to the playoffs.

Think about this, in all his 11 seasons in Pittsburgh he never missed the playoffs once.

Not even Lemieux can hold a claim to that.

Twice in 1988 and 1990.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/playoffs/

During the era that you consider the greatest ever??????

A little research and knowledge beyond Jagr goes a long way in this section.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

In 2000-2001 Lemieux basically carried Jagr to the ross.

I wouldn't say he carried him. They both benefitted from each other, Mario basically rejuvenated Jagr who was having a down year.

In the 43 games they played together Jagr had 1 more point than Lemieux. In the 2 games Lemieux missed that season after his return, Jagr had 7 points for a total of 84 points in 45 games after Lemieux's return.

 

[Dangler99*]

I wouldn't say he carried him. They both benefitted from each other, Mario basically rejuvenated Jagr who was before Lemieux returned, having somewhat of a down year.

In the 43 games they played together Jagr had 1 more point than Lemieux. In the 2 games Lemieux missed that season after his return, Jagr had 7 points for a total of 84 points in 45 games after Lemieux's return.

Maybe not carried but thrusted him. 44 points in 37 games without lemieux. Compared to 77 in 43 games with him.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Basic issue in Pittsburgh was that the star players - Lemieux and Jagr were not willing to continue with Scotty Bowman who took his methods and ideas to Detroit then Chicago. Don't think that a detailed account of Bowman's success is required.

I don't think thats the case.

While I don't think its possible to overstate the impact that Bowman had in Detroit, Pittsburgh won their first cup with Bob Johnson coaching, not Scotty.

Therefore I don't think it was Scotty's adherence to responsible defense that put the Pens over the hump in the first place.

Also I do agree with you that before his first retirement Mario's leadership wasn't as good as after. I mean he personally played outstanding obviously, but at least in my opinion he was a changed man when he came back after his retirement.

He turned himself into a great captain and ambassador for the game in his second go around. I think he appreciated hockey more.

 

[BraveCanadian]

His second really big in PPG production came when Jacques Lemaire was named coach. The was a massive dip, but that had more to due with Lemaire changing that edition of the Habs from an offensive team to the biggest trapping team in the league.

I thought he was already being held back by the rigorous defensive philosophy of Bowman?

I agree that Lafleur chaffed when Lemaire realized that Lafleur was on the wane offensively (and the team was defensively) and would for the first time have to actually play both ways.. but it sounds like you're trying to use the same argument you've already used.

 

[livewell68]

In 2000-2001 Lemieux basically carried Jagr to the ross.

Jagr was still on pace for 84 Pts (36 games into the season) before Lemieux came back.

In fact Jagr actually outscored Lemieux in the time they were playing together.

Jagr had played 36 games before Lemieux' return.

He played 45 after his return.

Jagr had 37 Pts the first 36 games (without Lemieux).

Jagr scored 84 Pts in the last 45 games (he missed one with an injury) that's a 1.87 PPG.

Lemieux played 43 games and had 76 Pts. That's a 1.77 PPG.

So essentially Jagr still outscored Lemieux in that time span.

He was slumping in Jagr terms but he wasn't having as bad a season as everyone makes it out to be.

He was still 3rd in goals before Lemieux came back. His assists were down a bit, that is all.

Jagr had always been a great 2nd half player back then, so what's not to say he would have gone on a tear anyways?

He was coming off 3 straight Art Ross trophies so to say he would have not won it without Lemieux is a bit unfair.

 

[Dangler99*]

Jagr was still on pace for 92 Pts (36 games into the season) before Lemieux came back.

In fact Jagr actually outscored Lemieux in the time they were playing together.

Jagr had played 36 games before Lemieux' return.

He played 45 after his return.

Jagr had 40 Pts the first 36 games (without Lemieux).

Jagr scored 81 Pts in the last 45 games (he missed one with an injury) that's a 1.80 PPG.

Lemieux played 43 games and had 76 Pts. That's a 1.77 PPG.

So essentially Jagr still outscored Lemieux in that time span.

Even before Lemieux' return, with the pace Jagr was playing at he would have scored 92 Pts and finished 6th in the NHL in scoring. He was slumping in Jagr terms but he wasn't having as bad a season as everyone makes it out to be.

He was still 3rd in goals before Lemieux came back. His assists were down a bit, that is all.

Jagr had always been a great 2nd half player back then, so what's not to say he would have gone on a tear anyways?

He was coming off 3 straight Art Ross trophies so to say he would have not won it without Lemieux is a bit unfair.

Of Course he still had a chance. Like you said he was on pace for 92 points. That would have tied him for 7th Will bure who scored more goals so really 8th in scoring. A distant 26 points from Forsberg's 118 points. Chances are he doesn't win but he still had a chance.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Penguins Defense 1991-1993

I don't think thats the case.

While I don't think its possible to overstate the impact that Bowman had in Detroit, Pittsburgh won their first cup with Bob Johnson coaching, not Scotty.

Therefore I don't think it was Scotty's adherence to responsible defense that put the Pens over the hump in the first place.

Also I do agree with you that before his first retirement Mario's leadership wasn't as good as after. I mean he personally played outstanding obviously, but at least in my opinion he was a changed man when he came back after his retirement.

He turned himself into a great captain and ambassador for the game in his second go around. I think he appreciated hockey more.

Should have been more expansive. Under Johnson - first Penguin Cup the team allowed 305 goals against. Second Penguin Cup under Bowman the Pens allowed 308 goals against. Both years they were behind non-playoff teams in GAA. 1992-93 Bowman's last they allowed 268 goals against - 3rd best in the league but were upset in the playoffs game 7 by the Islanders. Bowman left after the 1992-93 season and was replaced by Ed Johnston who allowed the Pens to return to their offensive ways - preferred by Lemieux and Jagr, while dropping to 16th in goals against.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Other Issues

I thought he was already being held back by the rigorous defensive philosophy of Bowman?

I agree that Lafleur chaffed when Lemaire realized that Lafleur was on the wane offensively (and the team was defensively) and would for the first time have to actually play both ways.. but it sounds like you're trying to use the same argument you've already used.

There were conditioning and lifestyle issues as well. Lafleur did not adapt his habits in other areas as he got older. This was also true for Jagr. Both were flawed.

 

[Psycho Papa Joe]

I thought he was already being held back by the rigorous defensive philosophy of Bowman

I agree that Lafleur chaffed when Lemaire realized that Lafleur was on the wane offensively (and the team was defensively) and would for the first time have to actually play both ways.. but it sounds like you're trying to use the same argument you've already used.

Lafleur was hardly held back by Bowman, but he certainly had the ability to score more if Bowman didn't put such a premium on team defense. In addition, obviously Lafleur wasn't the player he was under Bowman and Bowman's defensive system was a far cry from Lemaire's trapping. Lemaire coaching a late 70's Hab team would have scored less, but allowed even less goals.

At the end of the day, you still need to play with good offensive players, get PP time and get ice time to get points. Lafleur was headed to a 90pt season the year Lemaire took over and basically was removed from any offensive situations from that point on. Lemaire did a good coaching job in Montreal, but to this day I don't see how benching your best offensive player was a positive. Savard should have just done the honorable thing and traded Lafleur at that point instead of basically forcing him to retire. Some people at the time thought is was some sort of professional jealously on the part of Lemaire because he felt Lafleur got most of the glory from the late 70's teams.

 

[livewell68]

Of Course he still had a chance. Like you said he was on pace for 92 points. That would have tied him for 7th Will bure who scored more goals so really 8th in scoring. A distant 26 points from Forsberg's 118 points. Chances are he doesn't win but he still had a chance.

Forsberg scored 118 Pts? I thought Forsberg's career high was 116 Pts in 1995-96?

Forsberg had 89 Pts in 2000-01.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Lafleur was hardly held back by Bowman, but he certainly had the ability to score more if Bowman didn't put such a premium on team defense. In addition, obviously Lafleur wasn't the player he was under Bowman and Bowman's defensive system was a far cry from Lemaire's trapping. Lemaire coaching a late 70's Hab team would have scored less, but allowed even less goals.

At the end of the day, you still need to play with good offensive players, get PP time and get ice time to get points. Lafleur was headed to a 90pt season the year Lemaire took over and basically was removed from any offensive situations from that point on. Lemaire did a good coaching job in Montreal, but to this day I don't see how benching your best offensive player was a positive. Savard should have just done the honorable thing and traded Lafleur at that point instead of basically forcing him to retire. Some people at the time thought is was some sort of professional jealously on the part of Lemaire because he felt Lafleur got most of the glory from the late 70's teams.

I agree with you about having good teammates and offensive zone and PP ice time but I think the problem was that Lafleur didn't realize the Habs were no longer a dynasty and he was actively rebelling against Lemaire for trying to institute a system that would work with what they had available.

Lemaire laid the defensive foundation for the 86 win in my mind.

Secondly, I think that history sort of bears out the fact that Lemaire is loyal and a team guy first and foremost despite what people might have thought at the time.

 

[Dangler99*]

Forsberg scored 118 Pts? I thought Forsberg's career high was 116 Pts in 1995-96?

Forsberg had 89 Pts in 2000-01.

sorry Sakic. My bad.