Best Player In the World

[Epsilon]

I'm glad you brought up Kurri who was also a minus 7 while having the reputation of being a very good defensive player. Rob Blake was a minus player. This was a very poor defensive team. I don't know why Gretzky gets all the blame.

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?

Iginla won the Art Ross in 2001-02 on a 22nd place Flames team, which by the end of the season cared more about padding his totals than winning games. That team got off to a hot start powered almost entirely by some amazing play from Roman Turek, and once he came back down to earth they fell off rapidly. It's the main reason I don't consider Iginla the best overall player for the 2001-02 season (that would be Nicklas Lidstrom).

 

[BraveCanadian]

Iginla won the Art Ross in 2001-02 on a 22nd place Flames team, which by the end of the season cared more about padding his totals than winning games. That team got off to a hot start powered almost entirely by some amazing play from Roman Turek, and once he came back down to earth they fell off rapidly. It's the main reason I don't consider Iginla the best overall player for the 2001-02 season (that would be Nicklas Lidstrom).

I hadn't thought of Iginla, I forgot how poor those Flames were.

Even then we're comparing a 32-35-12-3 and 79 point team to a 27 win, 66 point team.

And that 66 points was in more games.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

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.

this is where my memory and looking at the stats don't match up. i remember almost the same kings team being excellent defensively in the '93 playoffs. but if i look at the +/- stats, zhitnik and mcsorley were both minus players during that run, and i remember them both being better than blake (but what a top three they were, with an impressive last hurrah by old charlie huddy). and how did robitaille end up with far worse minus than anyone else on that team?

but i'll always remember the shadow job zhitnik did on bure. except for one goal where bure carried zhitnik the length of the ice and scored on a spin move with zhitnik on his back where hrudey couldn't have expected him to get a shot off, zhitnik shut him completely down.

Iginla won the Art Ross in 2001-02 on a 22nd place Flames team, which by the end of the season cared more about padding his totals than winning games. That team got off to a hot start powered almost entirely by some amazing play from Roman Turek, and once he came back down to earth they fell off rapidly. It's the main reason I don't consider Iginla the best overall player for the 2001-02 season (that would be Nicklas Lidstrom).

as i recall, it wasn't just turek falling back to earth after he signed that contract extension. early on, conroy and especially dean mccammond were firing on all cylinders. conroy eventually slowed down, and mccammond dried up almost completely. like bure a couple of years earlier, that season showed that even a transcendent talent in the very best year of his career couldn't carry a team very far with zero help.

 

[BraveCanadian]

this is where my memory and looking at the stats don't match up. i remember almost the same kings team being excellent defensively in the '93 playoffs. but if i look at the +/- stats, zhitnik and mcsorley were both minus players during that run, and i remember them both being better than blake (but what a top three they were, with an impressive last hurrah by old charlie huddy). and how did robitaille end up with far worse minus than anyone else on that team?

but i'll always remember the shadow job zhitnik did on bure. except for one goal where bure carried zhitnik the length of the ice and scored on a spin move with zhitnik on his back where hrudey couldn't have expected him to get a shot off, zhitnik shut him completely down.

The Kings were lousy defensively pretty much the entire 90s. After 90-91 I think the best they got was middle of the pack defensively.

In 93 they gave up 340 regular season goals and 90 goals in 24 playoff games for a 3.75GAA in the playoffs. Compare that with the Habs and Roy who had a 2.40GAA.

If Wayne didn't have that monstrous playoffs the Kings wouldn't have gone anywhere that year.

In 94 they placed even worse.

 

[canucks4ever]

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.

Yeah but LA should have finished better than 22 out of 26 teams. Wayne Gretzky, Jari Kurri, Lucky Luc, Blake, Zhitnik and Hrudey. Thats not exactly a terrible supporting cast. The senators, panthers, sharks, ducks, whalers, jets and islanders all had far less talent.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Roughly this if the goal is to stick to larger time frames and ignore season by season

1900-1909: Tommy Phillips, Frank McGee, Hod Stuart, Russell Bowie
1910-1917: Cyclone Taylor, Newsy Lalonde
1918-1921: Cyclone Taylor, Newsy Lalonde, Frank Nighbor
1922-1925: Frank Nighbor
1925-1932: Howie Morenz
1933-1939: Eddie Shore
1940-1944: Bill Cowley
1945-1950: Maurice Richard
1951-1955: Gordie Howe
1956-1959: Gordie Howe, Jean Beliveau
1960-1964: Gordie Howe, Jean Beliveau, Bobby Hull
1965-1969: Bobby Hull, Stan Mikita
1970-1975: Bobby Orr
1976-1979: Guy Lafleur
1980-1987: Wayne Gretzky
1988-1993: Wayne Gretzky, Mario Lemieux
1994-1997: Mario Lemieux
1998-2001: Jaromir Jagr
2002-2004: Peter Forsberg
2006-2007: Nicklas Lidstrom, Joe Thornton
2008-2011: Sidney Crosby, Alexander Ovechkin

Based much of this on comments in this thread. This list is a combination of perception on the time and how I think history does/will remember it.

I'm bumping this old thread because the topic has been brought up in that other thread. Here is my update of this post. Based on research during the centers project, Apps replaces Cowley for the early 40s. And Crosby gets his due alone the last few years.

1900-1909: Tommy Phillips, Frank McGee, Hod Stuart, Russell Bowie
1910-1917: Cyclone Taylor, Newsy Lalonde
1918-1921: Cyclone Taylor, Newsy Lalonde, Frank Nighbor
1922-1925: Frank Nighbor
1925-1932: Howie Morenz
1933-1939: Eddie Shore
1940-1944: Syl Apps, Sr
1945-1950: Maurice Richard
1951-1955: Gordie Howe
1956-1959: Gordie Howe, Jean Beliveau
1960-1964: Gordie Howe, Jean Beliveau, Bobby Hull
1965-1969: Bobby Hull, Stan Mikita
1970-1975: Bobby Orr
1976-1979: Guy Lafleur
1980-1987: Wayne Gretzky
1988-1993: Wayne Gretzky, Mario Lemieux
1994-1997: Mario Lemieux
1998-2001: Jaromir Jagr
2002-2004: Peter Forsberg
2006-2007: Nicklas Lidstrom, Joe Thornton
2008-2010: Sidney Crosby, Alexander Ovechkin
2011-present: Sidney Crosby

 

[Copmuter*]

Lindros & Pronger were in the discussion during their prime

 

[Czech Your Math]

I'm bumping this old thread because the topic has been brought up in that other thread. Here is my update of this post. Based on research during the centers project, Apps replaces Cowley for the early 40s. And Crosby gets his due alone the last few years.

1900-1909: Tommy Phillips, Frank McGee, Hod Stuart, Russell Bowie
1910-1917: Cyclone Taylor, Newsy Lalonde
1918-1921: Cyclone Taylor, Newsy Lalonde, Frank Nighbor
1922-1925: Frank Nighbor
1925-1932: Howie Morenz
1933-1939: Eddie Shore
1940-1944: Bill Cowley
1945-1950: Maurice Richard
1951-1955: Gordie Howe
1956-1959: Gordie Howe, Jean Beliveau
1960-1964: Gordie Howe, Jean Beliveau, Bobby Hull
1965-1969: Bobby Hull, Stan Mikita
1970-1975: Bobby Orr
1976-1979: Guy Lafleur
1980-1987: Wayne Gretzky
1988-1993: Wayne Gretzky, Mario Lemieux
1994-1997: Mario Lemieux
1998-2001: Jaromir Jagr
2002-2004: Peter Forsberg
2006-2007: Nicklas Lidstrom, Joe Thornton
2008-2010: Sidney Crosby, Alexander Ovechkin
2011-present: Sidney Crosby

It would be easy to criticize anyone's list, because it is often a lot less clear than it may seem in hindsight.

However, my main questions about your list would be (starting with expansion):

What about Espo's early years in Boston?
What about Bobby Clarke's peak?
Was Trottier in the mix at some point with Lafleur, before Gretzky became clearly the best?
How is Lemieux the best from '94-'97, except possibly best when healthy. He missed most of '94 and all of '95. I might say Gretzky/Fedorov in '94 and Jagr/Lindros in '95.
How is Forsberg the best from '02-'04? He played 1.5 seasons during that time, and wouldn't exactly have been the clear favorite following the '01 seasons during which Sakic won the Hart, Jagr won the Ross, and Lemieux returned from retirement.
If Lidstrom was in the mix in '06, so was Jagr.
If Crosby was in the mix '08-'10, so was Malkin.
I'm not sure Crosby can be clearly the best in '12, given Malkin's outstanding season.

It's really tough to blend past/present/future all in one, and with hindsight to boot. We need better definitions.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

It would be easy to criticize anyone's list, because it is often a lot less clear than it may seem in hindsight.

However, my main questions about your list would be (starting with expansion):

What about Espo's early years in Boston?
What about Bobby Clarke's peak?
Was Trottier in the mix at some point with Lafleur, before Gretzky became clearly the best?
How is Lemieux the best from '94-'97, except possibly best when healthy. He missed most of '94 and all of '95. I might say Gretzky/Fedorov in '94 and Jagr/Lindros in '95.
How is Forsberg the best from '02-'04? He played 1.5 seasons during that time, and wouldn't exactly have been the clear favorite following the '01 seasons during which Sakic won the Hart, Jagr won the Ross, and Lemieux returned from retirement.
If Lidstrom was in the mix in '06, so was Jagr.
If Crosby was in the mix '08-'10, so was Malkin.
I'm not sure Crosby can be clearly the best in '12, given Malkin's outstanding season.

It's really tough to blend past/present/future all in one, and with hindsight to boot. We need better definitions.

06 Thornton/jagr
07 crosby
08 crosby/ovechkin
09 crosby/ovechkin/malkin
10 ovechkin
11 crosby
12 Malkin/crosby
13 crosby
14 crosby

 

[daver]

If Crosby was in the mix '08-'10, so was Malkin.
I'm not sure Crosby can be clearly the best in '12, given Malkin's outstanding season.

If Malkin had another 100 point season in 09/10 then I agree.

If he had a solid 2013 then I agree.

He has been on the cusp but can't seem to put it together to reach the "best player' status.

 

[billybudd]

I'm bumping this old thread because the topic has been brought up in that other thread. Here is my update of this post. Based on research during the centers project, Apps replaces Cowley for the early 40s. And Crosby gets his due alone the last few years.

1900-1909: Tommy Phillips, Frank McGee, Hod Stuart, Russell Bowie
1910-1917: Cyclone Taylor, Newsy Lalonde
1918-1921: Cyclone Taylor, Newsy Lalonde, Frank Nighbor
1922-1925: Frank Nighbor
1925-1932: Howie Morenz
1933-1939: Eddie Shore
1940-1944: Bill Cowley
1945-1950: Maurice Richard
1951-1955: Gordie Howe
1956-1959: Gordie Howe, Jean Beliveau
1960-1964: Gordie Howe, Jean Beliveau, Bobby Hull
1965-1969: Bobby Hull, Stan Mikita
1970-1975: Bobby Orr
1976-1979: Guy Lafleur
1980-1987: Wayne Gretzky
1988-1993: Wayne Gretzky, Mario Lemieux
1994-1997: Mario Lemieux
1998-2001: Jaromir Jagr
2002-2004: Peter Forsberg
2006-2007: Nicklas Lidstrom, Joe Thornton
2008-2010: Sidney Crosby, Alexander Ovechkin
2011-present: Sidney Crosby

Crosby did win both MVPs in 2007. Not sure how many people would have thought Thornton was better at that time.

That said, the addition of Beliveau from 56 to 64 to the OP's list is quite, quite welcome, imo.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

06 Thornton/jagr
07 crosby
08 crosby/ovechkin
09 crosby/ovechkin/malkin
10 ovechkin
11 crosby
12 Malkin/crosby
13 crosby
14 crosby

Crosby did win both MVPs in 2007. Not sure how many people would have thought Thornton was better at that time.

That said, the addition of Beliveau from 56 to 64 to the OP's list is quite, quite welcome, imo.

I think you guys are missing the point. The point isn't to pick a different player every year or two, it's to find a player who was considered the best in the world over an extended period of time, even if he didn't necessarily have the best season

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

It would be easy to criticize anyone's list, because it is often a lot less clear than it may seem in hindsight.

However, my main questions about your list would be (starting with expansion):

What about Espo's early years in Boston?

Maybe for a year or two between Hull and Orr.

What about Bobby Clarke's peak?

Below Bobby Orr.

Was Trottier in the mix at some point with Lafleur, before Gretzky became clearly the best?

Maybe in the mix, in the same way Forsberg was in the mix when Jagr was at his best , but I think Lafleur is remembered as the best of that period.

How is Lemieux the best from '94-'97, except possibly best when healthy. He missed most of '94 and all of '95. I might say Gretzky/Fedorov in '94 and Jagr/Lindros in '95.
How is Forsberg the best from '02-'04? He played 1.5 seasons during that time, and wouldn't exactly have been the clear favorite following the '01 seasons during which Sakic won the Hart, Jagr won the Ross, and Lemieux returned from retirement.

Again, you are missing the point that this isn't about best seasons, it's about who the best in the world was. And everyone knew that if Lemieux was healthy enough to play during this period, he was the best. Same with Forsberg. The time frame isn't exactly, for Forsberg, it would have been basically from the 2002 playoffs through the lockout. Believe me, the 2002-2004 period was tough to pick because of just how weak it was.

If Lidstrom was in the mix in '06, so was Jagr.

Lidstrom was in the mix for best in the world for several seasons at this time. Jagr had a great comeback season but wasn't in the mix in any surrounding seasons. Again, the point is to try to avoid having a different player each season.

If Lidstrom didn't have his off-season in 03-04, I would have picked him for the entire 2002-2007 time frame. Maybe I should have, anyway.

If Crosby was in the mix '08-'10, so was Malkin.

Nope. I don't think 2 seasons is enough to qualify for this, when there were players at a similar level for longer.

I'm not sure Crosby can be clearly the best in '12, given Malkin's outstanding season.

Again, Malkin had the best season, but was not the best player in the world over the course of several seasons at that point.

 

[bobholly39]

I think you guys are missing the point. The point isn't to pick a different player every year or two, it's to find a player who was considered the best in the world over an extended period of time, even if he didn't necessarily have the best season

Very cool ty for bumping this thread. This is exactly what i was trying to go for in the other thread.

So how do Crosby's years stack up to the rest? I do feel as though Crosby should have at least another 3-4 (and possibly 5-7) years at being considered the best in the world.

Would this rank him #1 all-time, is that possible?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Very cool ty for bumping this thread. This is exactly what i was trying to go for in the other thread.

So how do Crosby's years stack up to the rest? I do feel as though Crosby should have at least another 3-4 (and possibly 5-7) years at being considered the best in the world.

Would this rank him #1 all-time, is that possible?

#1 at what? Number of years in the conversation as the best player in the world? He has a long way to go to catch Howe or Gretzky in that category.

 

[bobholly39]

#1 at what? Number of years in the conversation as the best player in the world? He has a long way to go to catch Howe or Gretzky in that category.

yup.

I'm going strictly by the OP of this thread for now, but let's say we agree with his list, if i counted right:

Howe - 13 years

Gretzky - 11 years

Crosby (as of 2014) - 8 years

He's getting pretty close. If we assume he has another 3-4 years easy as #1 in the world, with possibility of 5+, i think he's getting pretty close?

 

[Czech Your Math]

Malkin's always almost forgotten about, because he's not as durable as Ovechkin, and probably plays through more injuries than Crosby.


'08-'10
Ovechkin 331 points (1.42 PPG) +81
Malkin 296 (1.28) +27
Crosby 284 (1.35) +36

It's more of an argument about who was second during this period, than who was first IMO.

I mean, Crosby was 10th in points from '08-'12. You do have to prove it on the ice enough to be the best player. This isn't some old heavyweight title that can practically be defended at one's whim IMO. Malkin was 3rd in points from '08-12, just 3 points behind Henrik Sedin for second, and with a better PPG than anyone but Crosby. I don't see how he's excluded from the mix.

Really, Malkin has struggled with injuries about as much as Crosby. Perhaps he's just played more with injuries. He's had 8 NHL seasons: his rookie season, 3 full or near-full season in his prime, and 4 seasons in which he had significant injuries. His 3 full or near full seasons after his rookie year: 2 Rosses and a second to Ovechkin, when Ovy was at his very peak. That's actually a better ratio than Crosby, who won Rosses in '07 & '12, but not during full seasons in '09 & '10.

Do I think Crosby was that much better than Malkin in '13? Tough to say, given that while Crosby was skating around with friends, Malkin was dominating a KHL that included Ovy, Kovy, etc. When the NHL finally resumed, Malkin was plagued with injuries, while Crosby was great for a whole 36 games... before getting injured.

Big difference between "most valuable" and "best when healthy" (i.e. best when they decide to play).
I'm not going to penalize Malkin for playing through more injuries than Crosby... nor reward him for not being as durable as Ovechkin.

Sorry to even bring up Jagr, but for example:

'02-'08 Jagr was second to points to Thornton. This was 2.5 years in Washington, and 3.5 years on Rangers (only one full season before he had major shoulder surgery), and from ages 30-36. Somehow you can be second in points over a 6-year span, and not really be considered a contender for best skater... yet finish 10th in points over a 5-year span and be clearly the best player. Sorry, just don't see it.

 

[K Fleur]

Malkin's always almost forgotten about, because he's not as durable as Ovechkin, and probably plays through more injuries than Crosby.


'08-'10
Ovechkin 331 points (1.42 PPG) +81
Malkin 296 (1.28) +27
Crosby 284 (1.35) +36

It's more of an argument about who was second during this period, than who was first IMO.

I mean, Crosby was 10th in points from '08-'12. You do have to prove it on the ice enough to be the best player. This isn't some old heavyweight title that can practically be defended at one's whim IMO. Malkin was 3rd in points from '08-12, just 3 points behind Henrik Sedin for second, and with a better PPG than anyone but Crosby. I don't see how he's excluded from the mix.

Really, Malkin has struggled with injuries about as much as Crosby. Perhaps he's just played more with injuries. He's had 8 NHL seasons: his rookie season, 3 full or near-full season in his prime, and 4 seasons in which he had significant injuries. His 3 full or near full seasons after his rookie year: 2 Rosses and a second to Ovechkin, when Ovy was at his very peak. That's actually a better ratio than Crosby, who won Rosses in '07 & '12, but not during full seasons in '09 & '10.

Do I think Crosby was that much better than Malkin in '13? Tough to say, given that while Crosby was skating around with friends, Malkin was dominating a KHL that included Ovy, Kovy, etc. When the NHL finally resumed, Malkin was plagued with injuries, while Crosby was great for a whole 36 games... before getting injured.

Big difference between "most valuable" and "best when healthy" (i.e. best when they decide to play).
I'm not going to penalize Malkin for playing through more injuries than Crosby... nor reward him for not being as durable as Ovechkin.

Sorry to even bring up Jagr, but for example:

'02-'08 Jagr was second to points to Thornton. This was 2.5 years in Washington, and 3.5 years on Rangers (only one full season before he had major shoulder surgery), and from ages 30-36. Somehow you can be second in points over a 6-year span, and not really be considered a contender for best skater... yet finish 10th in points over a 5-year span and be clearly the best player. Sorry, just don't see it.

Concussions, neck injury's, and shattered jaws aren't really injuries that you can "play through".

 

[daver]

Malkin's always almost forgotten about, because he's not as durable as Ovechkin, and probably plays through more injuries than Crosby.


'08-'10
Ovechkin 331 points (1.42 PPG) +81
Malkin 296 (1.28) +27
Crosby 284 (1.35) +36

It's more of an argument about who was second during this period, than who was first IMO.

I mean, Crosby was 10th in points from '08-'12. You do have to prove it on the ice enough to be the best player. This isn't some old heavyweight title that can practically be defended at one's whim IMO. Malkin was 3rd in points from '08-12, just 3 points behind Henrik Sedin for second, and with a better PPG than anyone but Crosby. I don't see how he's excluded from the mix.

Really, Malkin has struggled with injuries about as much as Crosby. Perhaps he's just played more with injuries. He's had 8 NHL seasons: his rookie season, 3 full or near-full season in his prime, and 4 seasons in which he had significant injuries. His 3 full or near full seasons after his rookie year: 2 Rosses and a second to Ovechkin, when Ovy was at his very peak. That's actually a better ratio than Crosby, who won Rosses in '07 & '12, but not during full seasons in '09 & '10.

Do I think Crosby was that much better than Malkin in '13? Tough to say, given that while Crosby was skating around with friends, Malkin was dominating a KHL that included Ovy, Kovy, etc. When the NHL finally resumed, Malkin was plagued with injuries, while Crosby was great for a whole 36 games... before getting injured.

Big difference between "most valuable" and "best when healthy" (i.e. best when they decide to play).
I'm not going to penalize Malkin for playing through more injuries than Crosby... nor reward him for not being as durable as Ovechkin.

Sorry to even bring up Jagr, but for example:

'02-'08 Jagr was second to points to Thornton. This was 2.5 years in Washington, and 3.5 years on Rangers (only one full season before he had major shoulder surgery), and from ages 30-36. Somehow you can be second in points over a 6-year span, and not really be considered a contender for best skater... yet finish 10th in points over a 5-year span and be clearly the best player. Sorry, just don't see it.

There is no doubt that prior to 07/08 Malkin wasn't close to Crosby therefore he needed a few seasons to prove himself to be on Crosby/OV level. He took a step back in 2010 and 2011 was a write-off.

It's a big stretch to say he plays thru injuries while Crosby only plays when he wants. What about this past playoff? Or last year's playoff with a broken jaw? I can't imagine that returning from essentially a year and half off from hockey and putting up the numbers he did was easy. Maybe because he made it look easy, it gets overlooked.

Malkin has been close but too inconsistent and injury-prone.

 

[Czech Your Math]

There is no doubt that prior to 07/08 Malkin wasn't close to Crosby

Not disputing that Malkin in his rookie year wasn't as good as Crosby in his second.

therefore he needed a few seasons to prove himself to be on Crosby/OV level.

I don't think he needs more than two seasons, which he had: '08 & '09. He was above PPG in his rookie season, so he had a great start to his career... as Crosby and Ovy did.

He took a step back in 2010 and 2011 was a write-off.

The reasons for his "step back" and "write off" seasons are the same: Injuries. Same reason Crosby took a step back in production after '07 and had a write off season in '12.

It's a big stretch to say he plays thru injuries while Crosby only plays when he wants. What about this past playoff? Or last year's playoff with a broken jaw? I can't imagine that returning from essentially a year and half off from hockey and putting up the numbers he did was easy. Maybe because he made it look easy, it gets overlooked.

Not saying Crosby could have or should have played more. Only that what counts is primarily actual, total production... not per-game or "what if" production.

Malkin has been close but too inconsistent and injury-prone.

I think his inconsistency is mainly due to injuries.

Fact is that from '08 (Malkin's rookie year) to present, Crosby and Malkin have the exact same number of points.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Not disputing that Malkin in his rookie year wasn't as good as Crosby in his second.



I don't think he needs more than two seasons, which he had: '08 & '09. He was above PPG in his rookie season, so he had a great start to his career... as Crosby and Ovy did.



The reasons for his "step back" and "write off" seasons are the same: Injuries. Same reason Crosby took a step back in production after '07 and had a write off season in '12.



Not saying Crosby could have or should have played more. Only that what counts is primarily actual, total production... not per-game or "what if" production.



I think his inconsistency is mainly due to injuries.

Fact is that from '08 (Malkin's rookie year) to present, Crosby and Malkin have the exact same number of points.

Step back? Crosby before ankle injury 1.36. 103 points 109 points .... Crosby is 100 point player when healthy. The Same cannot be said for Malkin

 

[Czech Your Math]

Step back? Crosby before ankle injury 1.36. 103 points 109 points .... Crosby is 100 point player when healthy. The Same cannot be said for Malkin

I think some assumptions are being made about Malkin's injuries.
Malkin's injuries may have often been the type that hamper play significantly, but still may be worth trying to play through, in the hopes they will resolve themselves over time. I don't think it's a coincidence in any way that the seasons in which Malkin has missed substantial time, his PPG has gone way down. The 3 seasons, after his rookie season, in which he played at least 75 games, were 3 excellent seasons. The others were nothing close to that, and I would contend that's primarily due to injuries.

Maybe if Malkin sat out as soon as he felt not close to 100% and didn't come back until he felt 100%, then he would be "better?" This is the problem I have with "best when healthy" type of assessments. They reward players for playing less, possibly only when they are at or very near 100%... and penalize players that play through more injuries, despite its inevitable effect on their PPG and such.

 

[daver]

I think you guys are missing the point. The point isn't to pick a different player every year or two, it's to find a player who was considered the best in the world over an extended period of time, even if he didn't necessarily have the best season

Not disputing that Malkin in his rookie year wasn't as good as Crosby in his second.



I don't think he needs more than two seasons, which he had: '08 & '09. He was above PPG in his rookie season, so he had a great start to his career... as Crosby and Ovy did.



The reasons for his "step back" and "write off" seasons are the same: Injuries. Same reason Crosby took a step back in production after '07 and had a write off season in '12.



Not saying Crosby could have or should have played more. Only that what counts is primarily actual, total production... not per-game or "what if" production.



I think his inconsistency is mainly due to injuries.

Fact is that from '08 (Malkin's rookie year) to present, Crosby and Malkin have the exact same number of points.

In the 2007/08 season, Malkin did not do enough to put himself on Crosby/OV's level. Yes he had a great season but Crosby did not show any signs that he wasn't a better player and had the better playoff run and OV had a generational goalscoring season.

No dispute that Malkin's 2008/09 season was better than Crosby's and OV's but he could not follow it up with another 100 point season.

As the mentioned by the OP, one season is not enough to move you in or out of the top spot.

It is very debatable though.

 

[Czech Your Math]

In the 2007/08 season, Malkin did not do enough to put himself on Crosby/OV's level. Yes he had a great season but Crosby did not show any signs that he wasn't a better player and had the better playoff run and OV had a generational goalscoring season.

No dispute that Malkin's 2008/09 season was better than Crosby's and OV's but he could not follow it up with another 100 point season.

As the mentioned by the OP, one season is not enough to move you in or out of the top spot.

It is very debatable though.

I don't see it as one season though.

In '08, he was closer to (peak) Ovechkin than anyone else was to him. That's a truly elite season, and he followed it up with an even better one. So starting as a rookie... he was well over PPG... 2nd to peak Ovy... and won the Ross.

It's my belief that what primarily derailed Malkin's career to this point has been injuries, not inconsistency. He's probably not as consistent as Crosby, at least during the regular season, but let's not pretend Malkin would suddenly regress to ~PPG or less merely due to "inconsistency." He was hurt, in and out of the lineup, and his PPG suffered for it.

It's debatable for sure, but I don't think it's debatable that both Crosby and Malkin have battled injuries, while Ovechkin has seemed to battle "motivational issues."

 

[BenchBrawl]

One point I want to bring is that if a player is considered the best for a number of consecutive years, and in a given year nobody really stood out (including him), then he should remain the best player by default.If a player stood out but only one year, then the best player should still keep his title until the other player really started gaining fame as the best player (which never happens in a single year).

Jagr in 2002 is a good exemple.He wasn't that great in Washington but still considered the best in general.

I don't recall Lidstrom ever being considered "the best" player on a large scale.He was always considered one of the best, and he might have been considered the best by some experts or in one particular year,but he never had a long stretch where "wow, this is the best player in the league" type of aura/reputation around him.

Also, nitpicking but in my opinion 05-06 Jagr > Thornton.