Top 100 NHL Players

[Pavel Bure]

Once again the stats having to be broken down that far to justify Forsberg just reinforces him being overrated. Pair that with the "think of how many goals he prevented" unmeasurable stat and it's a lock of overrated-ness.

[Gaucho]

Not sure how you could see him play in his prime and say he is overrated. Or maybe I misunderstand what you mean by overrated in this case.

[Pavel Bure]

Not sure how you could see him play in his prime and say he is overrated. Or maybe I misunderstand what you mean by overrated in this case.

When people talk about someone as an all time great but have to use broken down point per game and goals he prevented arguments I feel that screams of being overrated. When someone says Lemieux for instance is an all time great there is no argument, everyone agrees.

[Desiato]

I just think Jagr was by far the best player of an era (clutch and grab) (not to mention a star in the end of one and beginning of another too). The star among the stars. I suppose that's probably some Penguins' bias talking, though, as its hard to see he was that head and shoulders above a player like Sakic during roughly the same time period.

If you exclude Jagr's first two seasons, his career loses a lot of its luster.

lol?

Players in professional sports are judged primarily by championships, regardless of the teams they played for. While Jagr certainly played well during his first two seasons, playoffs and only stanley cups, I don't consider him an essential ingredient to those teams (which were already overflowing with offense and had a guy named Mario) nor a top 5 contributor to those cups.

Post-Mario, Jagr simply didn't get the job done as "The Guy". The reasons don't matter; all-time greats don't get those outs--ask Marcel Dionne. Personally, I think Jagr was a poor leader and role-model. The players who lead their teams to championships played how they wanted everyone else to play.

Therefore, if you exclude his first two seasons, his career does indeed lose much of his luster. Still great. Still one of the best of his generation. But maybe not the best. Above Lindros but below Sakic, Forsberg and Yzerman IMO. He won cups, but they weren't his cups.

[Pavel Bure]

I just think Jagr was by far the best player of an era (clutch and grab) (not to mention a star in the end of one and beginning of another too). The star among the stars. I suppose that's probably some Penguins' bias talking, though, as its hard to see he was that head and shoulders above a player like Sakic during roughly the same time period.

If you exclude Jagr's first two seasons, his career loses a lot of its luster.

lol?

Players in professional sports are judged primarily by championships, regardless of the teams they played for. While Jagr certainly played well during his first two seasons, playoffs and only stanley cups, I don't consider him an essential ingredient to those teams (which were already overflowing with offense and had a guy named Mario) nor a top 5 contributor to those cups.

Post-Mario, Jagr simply didn't get the job done as "The Guy". The reasons don't matter; all-time greats don't get those outs--ask Marcel Dionne. Personally, I think Jagr was a poor leader and role-model. The players who lead their teams to championships played how they wanted everyone else to play.

Therefore, if you exclude his first two seasons, his career does indeed lose much of his luster. Still great. Still one of the best of his generation. But maybe not the best. Above Lindros but below Sakic, Forsberg and Yzerman IMO. He won cups, but they weren't his cups.

So you mean like putting Penguins teams on his shoulders in the playoffs while a torn groin? Or how bout winning scoring titles and MVPs? If that's not playing how they want everyone to play I don't know what is.

[MRandall25]

Players in professional sports are judged primarily by championships, regardless of the teams they played for. .

And Dan Marino? One of the best in his sport. Never won a Lombardi.

Marcel Dionne, Pat Lafontaine, Peter Stastny. All HOF. Never won a Cup.

[Daniel87]

Players in professional sports are judged primarily by championships, regardless of the teams they played for. .

And Dan Marino? One of the best in his sport. Never won a Lombardi.

Marcel Dionne, Pat Lafontaine, Peter Stastny. All HOF. Never won a Cup.

A championship isn't a requirement for HOF entry, but you're certainly judged for not having one. Marino is heavily criticized for never getting a ring.

[MRandall25]

Players in professional sports are judged primarily by championships, regardless of the teams they played for. .

And Dan Marino? One of the best in his sport. Never won a Lombardi.

Marcel Dionne, Pat Lafontaine, Peter Stastny. All HOF. Never won a Cup.

A championship isn't a requirement for HOF entry, but you're certainly judged for not having one. Marino is heavily criticized for never getting a ring.

But until Peyton and Brady, he was statistically the greatest quarterback to play.

What I hate about your argument is that you judge a player on a team trophy. So what if he didn't win one? It means the people who weren't him weren't good. Shouldn't detract from how dominant of a player they are (Jagr was easily a top 3 forward in the years after the 2 Cups).

By your argument, then Mario Lemieux's career after the two cups is just as irrelevant.

[Daniel87]

Players in professional sports are judged primarily by championships, regardless of the teams they played for. .

And Dan Marino? One of the best in his sport. Never won a Lombardi.

Marcel Dionne, Pat Lafontaine, Peter Stastny. All HOF. Never won a Cup.

A championship isn't a requirement for HOF entry, but you're certainly judged for not having one. Marino is heavily criticized for never getting a ring.

But until Peyton and Brady, he was statistically the greatest quarterback to play.

What I hate about your argument is that you judge a player on a team trophy. So what if he didn't win one? It means the people who weren't him weren't good. Shouldn't detract from how dominant of a player they are (Jagr was easily a top 3 forward in the years after the 2 Cups).

By your argument, then Mario Lemieux's career after the two cups is just as irrelevant.

It's not my argument, it's a fact. We both said that you are judged by championships, which you are. Marino will get criticized until the end of time for not having one, whether it's a team game or not. That's the responsibility that "great" players bare.

Ring or no ring, Marino's one of the best qb's of all time. But they'll always be that asterisk in the minds of critics.

Also, that Lemieux comparison was ridiculous. In no way did I insinuate that a player's career is "irrelevant" without a ring. There's also a substantial difference between having 2 and 0.

[André]

Once again the stats having to be broken down that far to justify Forsberg just reinforces him being overrated. Pair that with the "think of how many goals he prevented" unmeasurable stat and it's a lock of overrated-ness.

Not sure how you could see him play in his prime and say he is overrated. Or maybe I misunderstand what you mean by overrated in this case.

When people talk about someone as an all time great but have to use broken down point per game and goals he prevented arguments I feel that screams of being overrated. When someone says Lemieux for instance is an all time great there is no argument, everyone agrees.

Once again one must separate most career success/achievements from best (prime capacity). And I really don't have a problem with using points per game if the sample size is of sufficent size. 500+ games is not a lack of sample size, and so on.

Say that a player joins the NHL next year. He scores 100 points as a rookie, 110 points in 60 games the year after being otherwordly dominant. His third year he gets 40+40 in 50 games and goes on to win the Cup and Conn Smythe after a 45 points playoff run. He displays great allround skill, a good two way game and proves to be clutch. He's after his third year definitely established as best in the world over Sid, Geno, Ovy, Giroux and everyone (it's a strong consensus).

A month later his drunk friend wacks him in the neck on the golf course with his driver after landing the ball in a lake. Said player never competes in the NHL again. How good was he in an all time perspective? HHOF worthy?

Always separate career success/achievements from best (prime capacity). Looking at the latter there's definitely a strong case for Forsberg pretty high all time (not saying top five or anything like that though).

[MRandall25]

Therefore, if you exclude his first two seasons, his career does indeed lose much of his luster. Still great. Still one of the best of his generation. But maybe not the best... He won cups, but they weren't his cups.

This applies to anyone on the Penguins Cup teams, and is where your argument has its greatest flaw.

[Desiato]

Therefore, if you exclude his first two seasons, his career does indeed lose much of his luster. Still great. Still one of the best of his generation. But maybe not the best... He won cups, but they weren't his cups.

This applies to anyone on the Penguins Cup teams, and is where your argument has its greatest flaw.

Only if you take what I said out of context. We're talking about the best players of a generation. So yeah, most of the players on the cup teams are out of that discussion.

I think Jagr is an all-time great and one of the best players of his generation. His eventual HOF admittance has not been in doubt for 15 years. If he had won cups as the leader of his team, didn't die inside and didn't suck in Washington, he'd be in the greatest ever discussions. Unfortunately, there are stains on his legacy.

Had Mario not lead his team to cups, he may not be in the same discussions as Gretzky, Howe and Orr today.

Ultimately, it's a matter of opinion. I place a high value on playoff achievements and a low value on regular season achievements. It's my opinion that Forsberg had a better overall playoff game and did more to help his team win--through leadership, by doing the dirty work, as much as by his actual production.

Jagr-lead teams didn't make it past the second round unless you consider his apparent indifference in 2000 as leadership--which resulted in a public callout by Mario; another mark against him.

Edit:

I've considered this topic a lot today. I re-read box scores and game summaries to refresh my memory. I think the truth is that team wasn't built for late-90s hockey. They overachieved largely because of Jagr. Still, with a healthy groin, who know what could have happened in 1999.

Furthermore, I didn't give Jagr enough credit for his performance in 1992. His regular season performance was essential to get the Pens in the Playoffs where he starred--especially against the Bruins without Mario.

I stand by some of what I said, but I think upon reconsideration, I think he's 2nd to Mario in the 90s.

[shmenguin]

while it's still fresh in our heads, last night was why some pens fans don't understand how stamkos puts up the numbers that he does. one game in itself is meaningless, but this is generally the same performance we usually see from him. i'm sure he would have put a goal or 2 home if he ever got the puck in a decent scoring position, but he certainly hasn't been a guy to put the team on his back and take over a game. not from what we've seen anyways.

before anyone gets sensitive about the fine art of scouting a hockey player, i get that it's a small sample size, and maybe he doesn't match up well against us or something. but if you're looking for the answer to the question, "why do pens fans underrate stamkos?". well...there it is.

[shmenguin]

while it's still fresh in our heads, last night was why some pens fans don't understand how stamkos puts up the numbers that he does. one game in itself is meaningless, but this is generally the same performance we usually see from him. i'm sure he would have put a goal or 2 home if he ever got the puck in a decent scoring position, but he certainly hasn't been a guy to put the team on his back and take over a game. not from what we've seen anyways.

before anyone gets sensitive about the fine art of scouting a hockey player, i get that it's a small sample size, and maybe he doesn't match up well against us or something. but if you're looking for the answer to the question, "why do pens fans underrate stamkos?". well...there it is.

bump

[Pavel Bure]

while it's still fresh in our heads, last night was why some pens fans don't understand how stamkos puts up the numbers that he does. one game in itself is meaningless, but this is generally the same performance we usually see from him. i'm sure he would have put a goal or 2 home if he ever got the puck in a decent scoring position, but he certainly hasn't been a guy to put the team on his back and take over a game. not from what we've seen anyways.

before anyone gets sensitive about the fine art of scouting a hockey player, i get that it's a small sample size, and maybe he doesn't match up well against us or something. but if you're looking for the answer to the question, "why do pens fans underrate stamkos?". well...there it is.

You mean like a break away? Although I'm not one of the people that hates on Stamkos, dude is great, probably the best pure shooter in the game currently. Reminds me of Hull when I was younger and watching hockey.

[shmenguin]

while it's still fresh in our heads, last night was why some pens fans don't understand how stamkos puts up the numbers that he does. one game in itself is meaningless, but this is generally the same performance we usually see from him. i'm sure he would have put a goal or 2 home if he ever got the puck in a decent scoring position, but he certainly hasn't been a guy to put the team on his back and take over a game. not from what we've seen anyways.

before anyone gets sensitive about the fine art of scouting a hockey player, i get that it's a small sample size, and maybe he doesn't match up well against us or something. but if you're looking for the answer to the question, "why do pens fans underrate stamkos?". well...there it is.

You mean like a break away? Although I'm not one of the people that hates on Stamkos, dude is great, probably the best pure shooter in the game currently. Reminds me of Hull when I was younger and watching hockey.

i posted the original after the last tampa game. generally it applies to yesterday's too, but yes, you're right. he had some better looks than he's had in the other games this year.

i don't know if anyone's hating on him. it's just not the same level of reverence that his fans have for him. mainly because he doesn't show up the same way against the pens. i can't argue with his scoring prowess, but it's confusing how he does it.

[MRandall25]

He does it because he plays in the Southeast

[mikey287]

while it's still fresh in our heads, last night was why some pens fans don't understand how stamkos puts up the numbers that he does. one game in itself is meaningless, but this is generally the same performance we usually see from him. i'm sure he would have put a goal or 2 home if he ever got the puck in a decent scoring position, but he certainly hasn't been a guy to put the team on his back and take over a game. not from what we've seen anyways.

before anyone gets sensitive about the fine art of scouting a hockey player, i get that it's a small sample size, and maybe he doesn't match up well against us or something. but if you're looking for the answer to the question, "why do pens fans underrate stamkos?". well...there it is.

bump

I was gonna leave well enough alone until the pointless bump. Basically your response is "well, I/we don't watch him...so that's how we come to our conclusions" right? Watching him every couple months when they play the Pens, right? Ok, sounds good...Stamkos is one of 3 players over 30 goals (31, 37) and his 43...I just don't know what you're getting at besides, "well, I don't know, I don't watch him that much..."

[shmenguin]

I was gonna leave well enough alone until the pointless bump. Basically your response is "well, I/we don't watch him...so that's how we come to our conclusions" right? Watching him every couple months when they play the Pens, right? Ok, sounds good...Stamkos is one of 3 players over 30 goals (31, 37) and his 43...I just don't know what you're getting at besides, "well, I don't know, I don't watch him that much..."

Get over yourself Mikey. You were bewildered why Pens fans underrate stamkos. I'm diplomatically telling you why that is and you turn into some unwelcome lecture.

Read my post after the bump. Im not arguing stamkos' abilities. I'm just illustrating why people are surprised that he's as productive as he is. And you're not getting it because of how sensetive you are about the scouting process.

[mikey287]

Bleh, typed a response, wasn't worth it... Whatever your point is right, I'm over it, myself, the under, whatever it is...

[shmenguin]

Bleh, typed a response, wasn't worth it... Whatever your point is right, I'm over it, myself, the under, whatever it is...

using the term "response" loosely. Whatever...i'm over it...last word...scouts rule...

[mikey287]

Hmm, I meant, I typed a new response, in the box in which I'm currently typing and then erased it because it wasn't worth it. That's what I meant, wasn't referencing a previous response that made it to the board.

[shmenguin]

Bleh, typed a response, wasn't worth it... Whatever your point is right, I'm over it, myself, the under, whatever it is...

using the term "response" loosely. Whatever...i'm over it...last word...scouts rule...

^ not my most mature moment, but this is the 2nd time today where someone takes something very clear that i've posted and just mangles it with their imagination. drives me berserk.