Best Player In the World

[Phenom97]

The way i seen it, trying to be unbiased.

2011: Crosby
2010: Ovechkin/Crosby
2009: Malkin
2008: Ovechkin
2007: Crosby
2006: Thornton
2005: none
2004: Not Sure: Kinda a down year for the NHL.
2003: Forsberg
2002: Forsberg
2001: Lemieux/Forsberg/Jagr
2000: Jagr

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Exactly. Gretzky's 1993-94 is a great example of a season that looks much better on paper than it actually was.

i'm no gretzky-lover, but i think it actually looks so much better on paper than it actually was that it's underrated.

not a single hart vote? well, he wouldn't have been in my top three either so i can understand that. but finishing behind adam graves (who got one second place and five third place votes)? ridiculous.

the award voting that year was kind of all over the place. gretzky got too little of the hart vote, but too much of the AST vote. gilmour got too little of the AST vote, but an appropriate amount of the selke and hart votes.

i think both gretzky and gilmour suffered a bit because they were so incredible in the previous year's playoffs (and gilmour also in the previous regular season) that they were expected to own the '93-'94 season. basically, they set too high a standard and then were each penalized in one voting for the hype they had built up.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

I don't see how Lemieux isn't hands down the best player in the world by '89. And he might've been the best player in the world as early as '88.

 

[Oowatanite]

I think people are being too quick to de-throne Lemieux here.

Here's what happened: In 1994, Lemieux only played 22 games, but there were no games at all played in the fall/winter of 1994 because of the lockout, so he pretty much played all the games he could. Fedorov having one great year doesn't just knock Lemieux off his throne either. Lemieux still had the highest PPG of anyone that season. He misses the spring of 95, but plays the entire fall/winter of 95 and is clearly the best player in the world.

It takes time to lose the title of best player in the world. Looking at it in present day...If Crosby misses the first couple months of the 11-12 season his name will still be in the conversation for best player in the world.

I agree with this post, even though Fedorov won the Hart in 1994 and had a great year scoring 120pts while playing great defensively. I have no dought that if Lemieux played the whole season in 1993-94 he would of blown the competition out of the water like he did the season before and 2 seasons after.

 

[Oowatanite]

I understand that this isn't about 'who had the best season', and is about the consensus. However, I think that anyone who really watched 2001 would say that Sakic was the best player in the world that year.
Jagr was sleep walking through the year until Lemieux came back, and Lemieux did something incredible in coming back, but he wasn't suddenly the best player in the world. He was certainly top 10 though.

Lemieux had 35 goals and 76 points in only 43 games. That's a much higher PPG(1.76) average than Sakic(1.43) had that season. I think Lemieux recaptured his title as the best player in the game that year.

 

[BraveCanadian]

i'm no gretzky-lover, but i think it actually looks so much better on paper than it actually was that it's underrated.

not a single hart vote? well, he wouldn't have been in my top three either so i can understand that. but finishing behind adam graves (who got one second place and five third place votes)? ridiculous.

the award voting that year was kind of all over the place. gretzky got too little of the hart vote, but too much of the AST vote. gilmour got too little of the AST vote, but an appropriate amount of the selke and hart votes.

i think both gretzky and gilmour suffered a bit because they were so incredible in the previous year's playoffs (and gilmour also in the previous regular season) that they were expected to own the '93-'94 season. basically, they set too high a standard and then were each penalized in one voting for the hype they had built up.

You're right.

Only Gretzky could win a scoring title at the age of 33 on a crappy 22nd place team and have it held against him because of his own shadow.

I didn't know about Adam Graves having Hart votes that year.. thats pretty funny that he did and Gretzky didn't. Goes to show what award voting means after the top contenders.

 

[BraveCanadian]

also, 1993 is way off. if based on regular season and playoff, Gilmour was the best overall player that year, with Lemieux his only real competition.

Agreed.

In my heavily biased opinion: in 92-93 and 93-94 there is no player in the world I would rather have on my team than Doug Gilmour.

He was the best player in the world for those two years, especially if you include playoffs.

 

[tazzy19]

I don't see how Lemieux isn't hands down the best player in the world by '89. And he might've been the best player in the world as early as '88.

Gretzky owned Lemieux in 1988. Before Gretzky missed 16 games due to injury, he was on pace for around 190 points, and Gretz finished the season with a much higher PPG average than Lemieux. Then add to that another Conn Smythe trophy, a ridiculous 43 playoff points and records for playoff assists in a season and points in a final series, and Stanely Cup, and it really isn't even close.

 

[tazzy19]

i'm no gretzky-lover, but i think it actually looks so much better on paper than it actually was that it's underrated.

not a single hart vote? well, he wouldn't have been in my top three either so i can understand that. but finishing behind adam graves (who got one second place and five third place votes)? ridiculous.

the award voting that year was kind of all over the place. gretzky got too little of the hart vote, but too much of the AST vote. gilmour got too little of the AST vote, but an appropriate amount of the selke and hart votes.

i think both gretzky and gilmour suffered a bit because they were so incredible in the previous year's playoffs (and gilmour also in the previous regular season) that they were expected to own the '93-'94 season. basically, they set too high a standard and then were each penalized in one voting for the hype they had built up.

Great post, and exactly right on the money. Gretzky was at a point in his career where anything other than winning the scoring title by at least 30 points, would not get him too many Hart votes (see 90-91 where he actually lost the Hart despite winning by 32 points).

 

[seventieslord]

People have selective memories apparently. For most of the 90s gretzky was not such a dominant scorer that there weren't other forwards who brought more to the table overall, or top players at other positions who were at least his equal.

 

[BraveCanadian]

People have selective memories apparently. For most of the 90s gretzky was not such a dominant scorer that there weren't other forwards who brought more to the table overall, or top players at other positions who were at least his equal.

I'd agree with you that around and including 94 onwards that was the case. He could still make plays no one else could, he was just doing it less and less often as he slowed down.

I still find it very amusing that a guy "won a scoring title compiling points" on a bad team -- and you dismiss that like that is an easy thing to do. He was in on 44% of their offense that year and that was a 22nd place club he won a scoring title on.

Like I said, only Gretzky would get put down for leading the league in scoring.

 

[nudie]

Forsberg missed the entire 2002 regular season and wasn't even a 2nd Team All-Star the previous two seasons.

But then he came back in time for the playoffs and won the scoring league despite not even playing in the finals.

 

[tazzy19]

I'd agree with you that around and including 94 onwards that was the case. He could still make plays no one else could, he was just doing it less and less often as he slowed down.

I still find it very amusing that a guy "won a scoring title compiling points" on a bad team -- and you dismiss that like that is an easy thing to do. He was in on 44% of their offense that year and that was a 22nd place club he won a scoring title on.

Like I said, only Gretzky would get put down for leading the league in scoring.

Funny, but so true. Guess that's what happens when you win the scoring title 10 years out of 20...or in other words 50% of the time.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Gretzky owned Lemieux in 1988. Before Gretzky missed 16 games due to injury, he was on pace for around 190 points, and Gretz finished the season with a much higher PPG average than Lemieux. Then add to that another Conn Smythe trophy, a ridiculous 43 playoff points and records for playoff assists in a season and points in a final series, and Stanely Cup, and it really isn't even close.

70 goals for Lemieux that season. Yes, Gretz outpaces him points wise but he misses a fair bit of time. Hence why I think in '88 I think it should be Gretz/Lemieux. Mario definitely warrants mentioning there and back in '88 people were already starting to compare the two.

In '89 it's Mario hands down. Not sure why Gretz is even mentioned there.

 

[emmjayb]

If regular season and playoffs is the criteria, hasek or forsberg might be #1 in 1999, tim thomas is the clear cut best for this year.

So, you think that the consensus is that Tim Thomas is the world's best hockey player right now. Not Crosby, not Ovie, not about 75 other players, but Tim Thomas. That right?

BTW, great thread, some people are just missing the point entirely. If it was just re-listing the Hart/Art Ross/Con Smythe/All-Star teams, that would be a different thread. Its not.

 

[canucks4ever]

Lemieux had 35 goals and 76 points in only 43 games. That's a much higher PPG(1.76) average than Sakic(1.43) had that season. I think Lemieux recaptured his title as the best player in the game that year.

Um no he didnt, sakic was the best two way player that season and come playoffs hes the one who showed up, not lemieux. Being mvp in the olympics 6 months later didnt exactly hurt his claim either.

As for 1962-1969, it realy should be the bobby hull-stan mikita era. Hull just gets favourtism due to nationalism/ethnicty, if mikita was 'candian born', he would be lovedby the media just like crosby. You dont win two back to back harts and not be considered as the best or co-best.

 

[canucks4ever]

So, you think that the consensus is that Tim Thomas is the world's best hockey player right now. Not Crosby, not Ovie, not about 75 other players, but Tim Thomas. That right?

BTW, great thread, some people are just missing the point entirely. If it was just re-listing the Hart/Art Ross/Con Smythe/All-Star teams, that would be a different thread. Its not.

Why should crosby get so much credit for a 41 game hot streak? Ovechkin outperformed him the previous 3 years, but now all of a sudden crosby dominates for half a season and now he's the best! Tim Thomas dominated in the playoffs to a degree far better than any of crosby's playoff runs, that means more than half a regular season.

The greatest goaltending season of the decade easily beats out what crosby did.

 

[emmjayb]

Why should crosby get so much credit for a 41 game hot streak? Ovechkin outperformed him the previous 3 years, but now all of a sudden crosby dominates for half a season and now he's the best! Tim Thomas dominated in the playoffs to a degree far better than any of crosby's playoff runs, that means more than half a regular season.

The greatest goaltending season of the decade easily beats out what crosby did.

You are right, Tim Thomas is the undisputed, consensus best hockey player in the world and everyone knows it. My bad.

 

[Epsilon]

There are (at least) three ways that one can go about answering the question of this thread (although I don't think the thread-starter intended it that way), all of which have appeared so far and all of which are valid in some way:

1. Who was the best overall player for that given year (regular season + playoffs).

2. Who was considered the "best player" at the time by fans/media/etc.; not necessarily based on the previous season alone.

3. Who should have, in retrospect, been considered the "best player" at that time.

 

[seventieslord]

I'd agree with you that around and including 94 onwards that was the case. He could still make plays no one else could, he was just doing it less and less often as he slowed down.

I still find it very amusing that a guy "won a scoring title compiling points" on a bad team -- and you dismiss that like that is an easy thing to do. He was in on 44% of their offense that year and that was a 22nd place club he won a scoring title on.

Like I said, only Gretzky would get put down for leading the league in scoring.

Hey, it's not like I think the last two scoring leaders were anywhere near the best player in the world either... do you?

As for 1994, where would you rank Gretzky? No one would take him over feds or mario or dougie for sure, and then there are messier, at least two goalies and at least four defensemen at the time that I would have a real hard time selecting Gretzky over. I might put wayne at 11th in the world as of thrn, and that is not a slight, it is just putting all aspects of a player into perspective and appreciating other positions too.

I would like to see the 1994-95 THN yearbook and where they had him ranked for an unbiased opinion at the time... and remember, they are gretzky spooners. Of course, I can't look right now, as I am abroad, but someone else can fill us in if they like.

 

[Stonefly]

People have selective memories apparently. For most of the 90s gretzky was not such a dominant scorer that there weren't other forwards who brought more to the table overall, or top players at other positions who were at least his equal.

Indeed. 93-94 He had the worst +/- on his team and had the 4th highest goals against(138) in the league.
Other players were better by this point and it certainly isn't laughable or insulting to Gretzky to say as much.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Hey, it's not like I think the last two scoring leaders were anywhere near the best player in the world either... do you?

No of course not but Gretzky was much better than either of them in his 94 season.

Did the Sedins win the scoring title on 22nd place clubs while outscoring their highest scoring teammate by 44 points?

No, the Sedins were on the 1st place clubs in the entire NHL and those clubs were 1st and 2nd in the NHL in scoring.

As for 1994, where would you rank Gretzky? No one would take him over feds or mario or dougie for sure, and then there are messier, at least two goalies and at least four defensemen at the time that I would have a real hard time selecting Gretzky over. I might put wayne at 11th in the world as of thrn, and that is not a slight, it is just putting all aspects of a player into perspective and appreciating other positions too.

I would like to see the 1994-95 THN yearbook and where they had him ranked for an unbiased opinion at the time... and remember, they are gretzky spooners. Of course, I can't look right now, as I am abroad, but someone else can fill us in if they like.

To be honest I'm not sure where I would rank him overall as an impact hockey player that year. It is very hard to gauge the different positions. I still think he'd be up in the debate. Especially coming off his 93 playoff which was spectacular.

I do know that 92-93 to 93-94 if we're looking at those seasons including playoffs then Gilmour is my #1 for sure. Best player in the world both of those seasons in their entirety.

For forwards in 94 I would personally put Gilmour and Fedorov ahead of Gretzky that year because of their overall play... Mario only played 20 some odd games so he wasn't a factor. I don't think that Oates was good enough defensively to make up a 20 point gap considering he also played on a much stronger team.

Even then I think the argument could be made that Gretzky was just as important a player considering Detroit and Toronto were 100 and 98 point teams that year and the Kings were a lowly 66. Gretzky might have had a 140-150 point season playing with more help considering how much of a playmaker he was by that time.

So I do think that you're selling Gretzky's season very short.

Imagine how bad the Kings would have been without him.

 

[Crosbyfan]

As for 1962-1969, it realy should be the bobby hull-stan mikita era. Hull just gets favourtism due to nationalism/ethnicty, if mikita was 'candian born', he would be lovedby the media just like crosby. You dont win two back to back harts and not be considered as the best or co-best.

I agree that Mikita was considered the more effective player for a while and co-best for a while as well.

Hull was the"star" though, but I don't think Nationality had much to do with it. I think it was mostly that Hull was much more charismatic and with his skill set came a sense that he "should" have been the better player.

Phil Esposito could be snuck in there as well before it became obviously Bobby Orr.

 

[Czech Your Math]

No of course not but Gretzky was much better than either of them in his 94 season.

Did the Sedins win the scoring title on 22nd place clubs while outscoring their highest scoring teammate by 44 points?

No, the Sedins were on the 1st place clubs in the entire NHL and those clubs were 1st and 2nd in the NHL in scoring.

To be honest I'm not sure where I would rank him overall as an impact hockey player that year. It is very hard to gauge the different positions. I still think he'd be up in the debate. Especially coming off his 93 playoff which was spectacular.

I do know that 92-93 to 93-94 if we're looking at those seasons including playoffs then Gilmour is my #1 for sure. Best player in the world both of those seasons in their entirety.

For forwards in 94 I would personally put Gilmour and Fedorov ahead of Gretzky that year because of their overall play... Mario only played 20 some odd games so he wasn't a factor. I don't think that Oates was good enough defensively to make up a 20 point gap considering he also played on a much stronger team.

Even then I think the argument could be made that Gretzky was just as important a player considering Detroit and Toronto were 100 and 98 point teams that year and the Kings were a lowly 66. Gretzky might have had a 140-150 point season playing with more help considering how much of a playmaker he was by that time.

So I do think that you're selling Gretzky's season very short.

Imagine how bad the Kings would have been without him.

Gretzky had plenty of help: Kurri, Sandstrom and Robitaille... d-men like Blake and Zhitnik.

Not many players winning the Ross:

- miss the playoffs
- have a plus-minus of -25
- are not a first team all-star
- don't receive significant votes for Hart
- team has better ES GF/GA ratio without him on the ice
- team has 20% higher ESGA than league avg.

That wasn't your run of the mill Ross-winning season.

I don't see how the Kings having 66 points really helps his cause.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Gretzky had plenty of help: Kurri, Sandstrom and Robitaille.

Not many players winning the Ross:

- miss the playoffs
- have a plus-minus of -25
- are not a first team all-star
- don't receive significant votes for Hart
- team has better ES GF/GA ratio without him on the ice
- team has 20% higher ESGA than league avg.

That wasn't your run of the mill Ross-winning season.

I'm glad you brought up Kurri who was also a minus 24 while having the reputation of being a very good defensive player. Rob Blake was a minus player. Zhitnik was a minus player. This was a very poor defensive team. I don't know why Gretzky gets all the blame.

They were a team that was just plain bad who relied on their powerplay an awful lot.

In particular the goal ratio has been discussed to death and you'll never convince me the LA Kings were better off with Gretzky on the bench than on the ice.

Robitaille (in particular) and Sandstrom were good players for sure but Wayne did outscore Robitaille by 44 points. That is not insignificant.

Has the Art Ross ever been won by a player on a worse placing team? I would hazard a guess that the answer is no.