Would Jagr have won the Art Ross without Lemieux in 1995-96 and 2000-01?

  • Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates

Does Jagr win the Art Ross in 1995-96 and 2000-01 without Lemieux?

  • He wins neither

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • He wins both, and hits 140+ points in 1995-96

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • He wins both but doesn't hit the 140+ point mark

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • He wins in 2000-01 but not 1995-96

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    12

Felidae

Registered User
Sep 30, 2016
12,779
16,287
We all know Jagr was capable of winning the Art Ross without Lemieux, he did after all win the one the year before. But 1995-96 is probably a top 3 season of his career from a purely statistical perspective.

but it was preceded and followed by 3 of his "weaker" prime seasons before he peaked in 1998-99 and 1999-00, the 2 seasons he created the most separation between himself and his competition.

Without Lemieux, do you think he separates himself from the pack to the same degree and still reaches 140+ points?


As for 2000-01, this one is probably more iffy. From what I remember, he was a PPG and not in the art Ross race before Lemieux came back, though he proceeded to outproduce Lemieux in the games they played together.

So what do you think? And how would an Art Ross in 1995-96 and 2000-01 without Lemieux affect his legacy?
 
I pick that he wins in 1996 but not 2001. He also is shy of 140 in 1996. He had 149, which I figure you have to throw in the Lemieux factor for at least 10 points, but certainly not much more. Jagr was a force back then, just completely on fire. And Sakic is next at 120 and no question about it Jagr outpoints him in 1996 without Mario.

However, it is flipped in 2001. Sakic has 118 to Jagr's 121. Definitely the Lemieux factor plays a role here. 3 points is not that much and Jagr barely won the Art Ross as it was. So without Mario he loses more than those 3 points I think.
 
Before Lemieux return:

Fleury: 51 pts
Sakic: 48 pts, avs had 46 games lefts
Jagr.: 37 pts, pens had 46 games lefts


Not out of reach for Jagr but a good 11 pts lead.

In 2000 in his last 46 games, Jagr scored 63 pts, that really great, but that would push him "only" at 100 pts if he would repeat that feat.

95-96, the one that challenged him in that era was Lindros and he was usually missing games...
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Matsun and Felidae
I pick that he wins in 1996 but not 2001. He also is shy of 140 in 1996. He had 149, which I figure you have to throw in the Lemieux factor for at least 10 points, but certainly not much more. Jagr was a force back then, just completely on fire. And Sakic is next at 120 and no question about it Jagr outpoints him in 1996 without Mario.

However, it is flipped in 2001. Sakic has 118 to Jagr's 121. Definitely the Lemieux factor plays a role here. 3 points is not that much and Jagr barely won the Art Ross as it was. So without Mario he loses more than those 3 points I think.
This all seems correct.

The Pens probably still had a good PP without Mario in 1995-96, but Mario was the main-man. You have to figure Jagr and Francis drop 10-20 points without Mario on it. But Jagr still wins in 1995-96 (as he'd done in 1995).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Perfect_Drug
In 95-96, if we call Sakic his biggest competition, Jagr did beat him by 33 pts at even strength, only 1 pts on the powerplay.

The year before Jagr beat sakic by 8 pts at EV and they were tie at the powerplay (look very similar to 1996)

iN 1997 Sakic did beat Jagr on the pp per 11 pts.

In 1998 Jagr did lead the league in Power play points...

All that to say, with Lemieux having the puck so much, not sure if it helped Jagr PP pts that much that year and he had a lot of room (33pts) to play with.
 
Before Mario's first retirement, didn't he and Jagr play a lot in different lines, at least in even strength?
 
Good to see my fellow history forum voters all pretty much voted the same. I think it's a fairly straightforward choice.

He wins 1996 only, but doesn't hit 140 point.

1. 1996, he was definitely the best point producer in the world, and there's absolutely no reason to think he wouldn't win.

2. At the same time - he had 149 points in 1996. I think being teammates with Lemieux, sometimes a linemate and definitely on the powerplay, added at least 10 points to Jagr. So, he finishes below 140. Probably above 130 though.

3. 2000-2001 - Jagr's season was going nowhere until Lemieux returned. And even with Lemieux returning, he barely won the Ross by 3 points. Mario Lemieux 100% added more than 3 points to Jagr's season, so no, Jagr doesn't win. It's possible without Lemieux returning, Jagr would still turn his own season around and score a lot, but not as much as he did with Lemieux.
 
I guess it depends on the hypothetical. If everything remains the same except Lemieux then I think Jagr wins 95-96 but not 00-01. By 00-01 the firesale was almost complete and Jagr was in the doldrums.. I don't think he gets re-energized the way he did without Lemieux coming back to give him someone to play with..
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad