Why was Jagr so underwhelming in the playoffs?

[connellc]

It's crazy how snake bitten he was at the end of his career. 37 goals without a playoff goal is pretty amazing for his caliber. I remember asking Chris Chelios about how much longer he could play (he was 44 at the time ) and Cheli told me that players "respected' him during the regular season, and the reason why his playoff stats were so bad was because he would no longer get that space/respect. Take that for what it's worth.

 

[FourHourParekhtion]

This is honestly my issue with him. A couple of "signature runs" is what wins Cups. I value peak playoff performance much higher than even RS.

The man literally has two rings. He had 24 points in 21 games on the Penguins second cup.

So what’s your issue with him?

Just because you didn’t see it doesn’t mean it never happened.

 

[JackSlater]

He wasn't, but playoff stats are more situation dependent than regular season stats are and Jagr played a lot of prime years on one line teams against high seeds. Even though then, for the years he was playing those stat lines are still elite most of the time.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Never thought of Jags as underwhelming n the playoffs.

He played on average teams in his prime. No one was expecting them to win.

 

[Troubadour]

I mean, you could argue that Jagr was not the sturdiest mentally. But also, he left and the Pens failed to make the postseason 5 years in a row. So part of it was him having to play his best throughout the reg season to even make the playoffs, which obviously left him with little in the tank come spring.

I understand the playoffs are more intense, hence "I value playoff performances over the reg season ones" posts, but you still have to perform in the regular season to make the playoffs, and the nineties (red line, no goalie equipment fix to make scoring easier, Ds regularly wrestling the star players to keep them from scoring) were far more draining physically. So I happen to see some of the great playoff performances, even the ones after the DPE, in the context of piggybacking on someone else's hard regular season work, Jagr's 07/08 included.

It's simply easier to look good in May when you looked average from October to April. And it's easier to get injured in April when you average 24 minutes a night all year long.

 

[sr edler]

It's crazy how snake bitten he was at the end of his career.

The only snake bitten player known to me was Sami Salo, who was bitten by a snake once at a golf course. Jagr was just buried on Boston's 3rd or 4th line that year he had 0 goals in 22 games, playing under Julien.

 

[PistolPete]

This is honestly my issue with him. A couple of "signature runs" is what wins Cups. I value peak playoff performance much higher than even RS.

You need a team to help out with that.

No player can heave a team into a deep playoff run himself.

 

[sr edler]

I think on some of those late 90s/early 00s 'burg teams Kasparaitis was essentially a 1st pairing D, or perhaps even their de-facto 1D? (per overall usage)

Imagine if those Chicago, LA or Tampa teams winning Cups, instead of running Keith/Seabrook, Doughty/Mitchell and Hedman/McDonagh they ran some combo of Kaspar/random plug.

 

[VanIslander]

My guy Marleau, and that Jagr, lacked the gear-up intensity of playoff hockey.

They were totally unlike a Forsberg, Tikkanen and Yzerman.

 

[PistolPete]

My guy Marleau, and that Jagr, lacked the gear-up intensity of playoff hockey.

They were totally unlike a Forsberg, Tikkanen and Yzerman.

Isn't Marleau's PO average with SJ higher than his RS average?

 

[Greatzsky 99]

how is this underwhelming?
his first stint in NHL

 

[VanIslander]

Isn't Marleau's PO average with SJ higher than his RS average?

I've watched almost every playoff game of his career, being a fan since his draft year. And he CAN have a higher gear of effort, grit, physicality and play-through contact that defines playoff hockey. But not enough times.

I loathe Detroit but admire Yzerman's play even in losses. I love Marleau and cheered his Sharks but haven't often been satisfied with his play in the losses.

 

[Felidae]

Jagr was a very good playoff performer at his peak. Here's how he ranked during his best seven years:

View attachment 1049858

He led the NHL in per-game production. I'm not sure what else he could have been expected to do. (Granted, the Penguins didn't go on as many deep playoff runs as the Red Wings and Avalanche, so this probably inflated Jagr's pace somewhat - but it's still a really good result).

From the same timeframe you used except the regular season

Jagr sees a higher drop off from regular season to postseason PPG than Lindros, Sakic and especially Forsberg, Fedorov (who isn't on the top 10 but has a 0.99 PPG in the RS)

A lot of that is probably being on weaker teams seeing as Lemieux has an even bigger drop off (but he was also 30-35 and took a 3 year hiatus...)

But Sakic, Fedorov and Forsberg also played more rounds which lowers PPG (facing tougher opponents, wear and tear, etc)

then there is Lindros who is in a similar position to Jagr in terms of fewer GP in the postseason, but doesn't see his production drop nearly as much.

 

[Michael Farkas]

that Jagr, lacked the gear-up intensity of playoff hockey.

I know what it was like to go through it. It was 1999. I was travelling the Yangtze in search of a Mongolian horsehair vest...

 

[VanIslander]

Once in a blue moon.

Ask any Caps fan about Jagr.

 

[The Macho Man]

I dont this his playoffs are a negative when rating him. But they're also not a positive. Most of the players he is compared with can point to more success and moments of elevated play that dragged teams deeper than they had a right to be.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Once in a blue moon.

Ask any Caps fan about Jagr.

So, the ONE playoff series he played in Washington (where he led the team in assists and points) overshadows his whole career...?

How often do blue moons happen?



In any case, I don't need to ask any one about him...I watched his career.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I dont this his playoffs are a negative when rating him. But they're also not a positive. Most of the players he is compared with can point to more success and moments of elevated play that dragged teams deeper than they had a right to be.

One could argue that 1999, 2000, and 2001 fit that criteria.

I guess one thing I'm trying to figure out is - what's the bar here? It's certainly not stats (because he has those), which is fine. But what needed to happen? He needed Ron Tugnutt to beat the Legion of Doom? Who else in this era is overcoming that? Forsberg and Sakic had, well, each other for starters...that's a dream team most of the time. None of the Red Wings teams apply here. The Devils actually had a philosophy most of this time.

What skater during this time was dragging teams to or near the Final in this era with any shred of regularity?

 

[MadLuke]

I do not think the blemish was not elevated the penguins when they were low, it is 93-96.

The 2001 Devils, good luck, took 7 games for Colorado, when Colin White-Daneyko are playing 16 minutes hockey, peak Jason Arnott only 15 something because Holik-Madden-Gomez are there.

That said, not just 0 points, he played "only" 20 minutes a night (while he was playing 23 in the regular season and the previous series), out in 5, you could prefer much of a fight, some build up injury going on ?.

2001 Penguins are not a great team by any means (Hedberg first year in net, Ference your #1, etc...), but you have Lemieux-Straka-Kovalev-Lang, go out scoring some goals in the way.

1997 you loose to peak Lindros on its way to the finals, you were still loaded a bit, Lemieux, Francis, Nedved, Kevin Hatcher-Woolley, interesting playoff piece for an interesting potential bottom 6, old Mullen, Stu Barnes, but with the Francois Leroux, Wilkinson, Tamer type playing, not an easy road to the cup against those great no-cap era teams (feel better with the chance if it was still Zubov there). That ok

1996 to the panthers (single goal, -3), 1993 to the Islanders, those are more the kind he probably which to redo and could have turned to his legacy boat around.

Some were just weird and when you watched it, you did not think about starting any narrative about Jagr and the playoff, say the 1998 series against Montreal one I particularly watched attentively, it was by moment a bit like team Canada versus Malkin in his last junior tournament.

27+ minutes a night for a forward in a series with a single OT, 9 points in 1998 hockey against a team dedicated at stopping him.

 

[Vilica]

When we talk about the clutch and grab era like this, it's often in the context of saying players were fouled repeatedly with no penalties called. Pittsburgh played 83 playoff games between 94-95 and 00-01, and had 376 power play opportunities, or 4.53 per game. They scored 62 power play goals, or about a 16.5% conversion rate. In the regular season, they converted on 19.7% of 4.58 power play opportunities per game. They scored 3.37 goals per game in the regular season during that time, and 2.72 goals per game in the playoffs, as they only scored 226 goals in their 83 playoff games. Jagr was 44+51=95 in 77 games, or 19.5% G% and 42.0% P%, completely respectable and reasonable numbers for a player of his caliber. [They scored 17 goals in the 6 games he missed in the playoffs.]

In contrast, Edmonton's played 73 games (so far) in McDavid's 4 deep runs. They've had only 224 power play opportunities, or 3.07 per game, but they've scored 69 power play goals, for a 30.8% conversion rate. In the regular season, they had 2.95 power play opportunities per game, and scored on 27.4% of them. They've scored 274 goals, or 3.75 per game in the playoffs, compared to 3.54 goals per game in the regular season. McDavid's been 32+95=127, or 11.7% G% and 46.4% P%, again completely reasonable numbers for an elite player.

Pittsburgh also had a whole lot more roster turnover, as Mario Lemieux's 41 games was the 5th most games played by a Penguin during that time - Jagr had 77, Ian Moran 61, Martin Straka 48, Robert Lang 45. Five Edmonton players have played all 73 games (RNH, Kulak, McDavid, Draisaitl, Bouchard), and to get to 41 games played, you have Ekholm at 42 and Corey Perry at 39 as the 14th and 15th most games played.

After recounting all of those stats, my original point has been a bit lost. The clutch and grab era might have a reputation of open season on star players, fouling them repeatedly, but when you look at power play opportunities, there were many more during that era than there are nowadays. Pittsburgh spent about 3 minutes more per game on the power play than Edmonton has in the playoffs, and it is undoubtedly easier to score on the power play than it is at even strength. They didn't do as much with it, evidenced by Edmonton scoring more power play goals in 150 less opportunities.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I think folks that lived through those games recognize that there were more PIMs but also much more clutching and grabbing. It did not balance or anything categorically similar to what happened on the other side of the lockout, for instance.

So, sure, he drew 3 power plays...under today's rules it would have been 10+. That's not an advantage...

 

[frisco]

This is a very odd thread. 200 playoff points and he's underwhelming? Here's a list of point/game playoff seasons for Jagr and some of his contemporaries:

Jagr-11
Modano-3
Sakic-9
Crosby-9
Brett Hull-8
Iginla-3
Federov-6
Mario-7
Kariya-3
Bure-4
Patrick Kane-5
Malkin-7
Ovechkin-7
Forsberg-9
McDavid-6
Draisaitl-7
St.Louis-4
Lindros-3

That's a pretty damn good record of consistently high playoff production for Jagr vs. his peers.

My Best-Carey

 

[Reindl87]

Absolutely, the biggest stain in his career are his sub par playoff performances for his own standard. He had good years, but he had many underwhelming ones, too. 2001, 1993 and 1996 particularly come to mind. In all of these years Pittsburgh reaches the Cup final if Jagr doesnt disappear.

 

[authentic]

Jagr was great in the playoffs. In the DPE, he and Forsberg were by-far the two best playoff scorers.

I remember Scotty Bowman said in the '92 playoffs that Jagr was already the 2nd best hockey player in the world.

Along with Sakic as well.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Jagr was pretty beat up in 2001 too, IIRC. He missed a game or two even due to injury. He also had to shift to being more of a NZ play facilitator than his normal arrangement with the hasn't-played-in-years Lemieux. Also, the last gasps of Kevin Stevens were on that line, and he was nothing more than a net guy at that point. So Jagr had to do a lot of the work - and sometimes NZ play doesn't always get reflected in the stat sheet.

Good example of Jagr's worth here:



He brings every resident of Buffalo over to him, to allow Lemieux a 1 on 1 with Hasek.

Jagr chips it to Stevens and then just grabs two Buffalo Sabres to open up a chance for teammates...



Jagr was in all kinds of wrestling matches with Doug Gilmour, I think he tried to kill Vaclav Varada at some point. In game 6 and 7 with the series on the line, he stepped up and was hunting pucks down and getting them back all over the wall. His "boards-to-the-middle" rate in this era must have been the league's best.

Sure, 12 points isn't great. But he was timely if nothing else...
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