Questioning Jagr on Yahoo's Rangers Mount Puckmore

It's been a long, long time since I blogged about the New York Rangers. A few thoughts: I've generally liked their off-season moves (especially the fact they haven't felt tempted to go out and sign another casual top clogging player). I still don't understand why Marc Staal hasn't signed yet (and it seems he can't figure that out either and is still waiting for an offer sheet). I also can't get why Glen Sather still has a job but when the other Madison Square Garden team owned by James Dolan has a schoolgirl-like flirtation with Isiah Thomas, it makes a little more sense why Sather still is able to have his job--though it doesn't make any Ranger fan more appreciative.

Rod Gilbert was an odd person to leave off the list (SI)

Today, though, I don't want to talk about the Rangers off-season or preview their upcoming season, I want to talk about the Rangers Mount Puckmore, a series on Yahoo!'s Puck Daddy that has been coming up with the four most important people in each NHL organization. Jim Schmiedeberg of Blueshirt Banter compiled the list for the Rangers edition, and while he probably is much more knowledgeable about the Rangers, I have to quibble with one selection. While Brian Leetch and Mark Messier are no brainers, and I can understand the selection of Frank Boucher, I'm not a fan of selecting Jamomir Jagr to the New York Rangers Mount Puckmore over guys like Rod Gilbert, Jean Ratelle, Eddie Giacomin, Mike Richter, Adam Graves or Brad Park.

First of all, Jagr played all of 3 1/2 seasons in New York, and put up gaudy numbers in a time when every hockey player should have been putting up large totals thanks to the new rules after the NHL lockout. Rod Gilbert played parts of 18 seasons with the Rangers and would seem like a much more deserving choice. Here's one knock against Gilbert: he never scored 100 points. Guess what? No one did back then! According to Hockey-Reference's Play Index, from 1963-1977 only 20 guys scored 100 points. In the three full years that Jagr was on the Rangers, 11 other guys did it. And if one season of high marks gets you in, then Adam Graves 50 goal season at the beginning of the neutral zone trap phase should have gotten him.

And on that note, the Yahoo! article says: "Jagr helped restore respectability to a Ranger franchise that sorely needed it, leading the Rangers to the playoffs in each of his last three years with the team." Um, really? Didn't Graves do the same thing during the 90s when he turned around this team's image in New York with his charity work and on the ice with his tough play? And was it really all Jagr these past few years? I mean I know Jagr was great--especially in 2005-2006--but this upsurge had nothing to do with the emergence of a dominant Henrik Lundqvist or a defensive-minded coach in Tom Renney? And since Jagr left, how have the Rangers made the playoffs without the "jolt" of their "new superstar"?  I think that King Henrik--while a really bad choice--would be much better than Jagr.

Schmiedeberg seems to dismiss guys like Gilbert because they didn't win a cup, but 1) neither did Jagr, and 2) do we really discount guys that much for not winning the big one? Ernie Banks and Ted Williams never won a World Series. Patrick Ewing never won an NBA Championship but no doubt he'd be on the Knicks mountain. So what if guys like Gilbert and Hatfield didn't get to hoist the Stanley Cup? Did that not make them great players?

And that's to say nothing of guys like Brad Park or Mike Richter or Eddie Giacomin* who were much more influential to this franchise. While their banners may hang in the MSG rafters, I don't think you'll see anyone clamoring for a "Jaromir Jagr Night" anytime soon. I'm not saying that Adam Graves deserves to have his number retired--I doubt on pure stats he even comes close--but if you want to get into who meant more for a franchise and a community, well there's no one more important than Gravey. I would have easily accepted a guy like Gilbert on there but to snub all these Ranger greats for Jaromir freaking Jagr is crazy, in my opinion. I am grateful for the fact he helped to turn the Rangers from laughing stock to a formidable team, but making him an all-time great for that is very near sighted.

*Side Note: Like in all sports, it's difficult to compare hockey players across eras and across positions. Baseball is starting to get a handle on it with WAR, but hockey's closest thing is adjusting the goals, assists, and points of a player which I assume is much like OPS+ for baseball. Adjusted Goals Created (GC) is a nice stat for offensive players but I'm not really sure how reliable that is to compare players.