Best Player In the World

[TheDevilMadeMe]

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.

In 2002 or 2003, the Hockey News came out with an article declaring Lidstrom the best player in hockey. It stirred a lot of controversy and most people disagreed with it. I was one of the minority who agreed.

 

[BenchBrawl]

In 2002 or 2003, the Hockey News came out with an article declaring Lidstrom the best player in hockey. It stirred a lot of controversy and most people disagreed with it. I was one of the minority who agreed.

Like you said, you were in the minority (and whether you were right or not is irrelevant to the issue of a player having the large scale reputation of being the best (or not), in a big picture sense (not day-to-day or season-to-season)).

I think hockey's top talent level is low when there's no "reputed best player" (though it can be a duo like Ovechkin/Crosby).There's a void to be filled at the top in years like 2002, when Jagr played his first year in Washington.I don't feel like someone really filled that void as the undisputed best player.The era between Jagr and Crosby/Ovechkin has a "year-by-year best player by default" flavor to it.What a ****** era sincerely.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Like you said, you were in the minority (and whether you were right or not is irrelevant to the issue of a player having the large scale reputation of being the best (or not), in a big picture sense (not day-to-day or season-to-season)).

I think hockey's top talent level is low when there's no "reputed best player" (though it can be a duo like Ovechkin/Crosby).There's a void to be filled at the top in years like 2002, when Jagr played his first year in Washington.I don't feel like someone really filled that void as the undisputed best player.The era between Jagr and Crosby/Ovechkin has a "year-by-year best player by default" flavor to it.What a ****** era sincerely.

I agree with this. I think that Lidstrom was just starting to get some support there, when he had his down year in 03-04, which pretty much killed his momentum in this. I think Forsberg pretty much had the title heading into the 2005 lockout though, as he was clearly the best player when healthy the past 2 seasons. But like you said, a lot of that was just simply a lack of competition. 2002-04 was the worst period for top end forwards that I can remember

 

[daver]

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."

Whether it's injuries or inconsistency, something has put him clearly below Crosby in current ratings and kept him from reaching #1 depending on the criteria set out by the OP. Again, after 2008 Malkin would not have been on the #1 tier because his peak at that time was not as good as Crosby's or OV's, both of whom had better rookie campaigns and Crosby had the better playoff resume. After 2009, he definitely was but since it was only for one year, I think it's reasonable that he doesn't get the #1 rating.

The "what if" scenario for both players doesn't change that IMO. Crosby likely gets the 2 or 3 more Art Rosses and puts up at least one peak season that would have been best of the era.

Even moreso, Malkin is still #3 after 2009 and Crosby has entrenched himself since 2011 as the clear #1.

But this is a big "what if". I'm not sure Malkin can get thru a season without something affecting his PPG. According to you, he only has one "healthy" season since 2009. Yes, Crosby gets injured but mainly it has not affected his PPG save for maybe the wrist injury at the end of last year.

 

[plusandminus]

I agree with this. I think that Lidstrom was just starting to get some support there, when he had his down year in 03-04, which pretty much killed his momentum in this. I think Forsberg pretty much had the title heading into the 2005 lockout though, as he was clearly the best player when healthy the past 2 seasons. But like you said, a lot of that was just simply a lack of competition. 2002-04 was the worst period for top end forwards that I can remember

This is at least the 2nd time within a day that you write the bolded. I asked you yesterday, but didn't see a reply so I ask you again...

You mentioned lack of competition in a post some minutes ago. What have you come up with regarding Lafleur in that regard?
When I think of him, I think of lack of competition. There were some good guys around (like Perreault), but wasn't Lafleur "favoured" by peaking at a time when the competition - especially at forward? - was relatively weak? Orr had his injuries, Esposito was past his prime (?), Clarke might have been past his very prime, and guys like Trottier and Bossy were young and Gretzky was not yet in the NHL. No Soviets. Some (a few) very good players in the WHA. And so on...

My own impression is that prime Lafleur played in a poorer competition than every player from 1980 onward. I imagine those prior to him, when players like Orr, Howe, etc. were active also faced harder competition..?

I also think Lafleur was very favoured in having such a great defence (and goaltending) behind him. It must have been an excellent environment for him - the offensive star forward - to thrive in. ?

He also didn't - despite winning Art Ross - score on a very high percentage of Montreal's goals. ?

 

[livewell68]

Whether it's injuries or inconsistency, something has put him clearly below Crosby in current ratings and kept him from reaching #1 depending on the criteria set out by the OP. Again, after 2008 Malkin would not have been on the #1 tier because his peak at that time was not as good as Crosby's or OV's, both of whom had better rookie campaigns and Crosby had the better playoff resume. After 2009, he definitely was but since it was only for one year, I think it's reasonable that he doesn't get the #1 rating.

The "what if" scenario for both players doesn't change that IMO. Crosby likely gets the 2 or 3 more Art Rosses and puts up at least one peak season that would have been best of the era.

Even moreso, Malkin is still #3 after 2009 and Crosby has entrenched himself since 2011 as the clear #1.

But this is a big "what if". I'm not sure Malkin can get thru a season without something affecting his PPG. According to you, he only has one "healthy" season since 2009. Yes, Crosby gets injured but mainly it has not affected his PPG save for maybe the wrist injury at the end of last year.

Prior to his wrist injury, the injuries he had were not the type he could play through as you and others have touched upon. This means that he had time to rest and heal those injuries, not playing through them allowed him to maintain his PPG.

This is what Forsberg benefited from between 2002 and 2004. He had the best playoff of his career after sitting out an entire season and then followed it up with his best PPG season (since 1995-96) in 2003-04. He would then again get a PPG of 1.41 in 2003-04 as well but only played in 39 games. Do you think this was a coincidence?

A lot is talked about how Lemieux scored 76 Pts in 43 games in 2000-01. One, he wasn't even that old, he was 35 years old and two, he sat out for a whole 3 years and gave his body time to heal and rest. He also started the season at the end of December, so for those 43 games he played, his adrenaline was at a high, he didn't have to play long stretches and well he was in better shape health wise than he had been in 5 years. It also didn't hurt that he was a lot healthier than his own teammates and competitors who had already played about 35-38 games prior to Lemieux' comeback and most likely would have been dealing with minor injuries, fatigue, something that gave Lemieux the edge.

The only time Malkin had the novelty of resting somewhat over the past 4 years was right before his 2011-12 season. Again, do you think it was a coincidence that Malkin turned in his best season as a professional after having time to rest and heal his knee?

Another example of this would be Selanne, he pretty much looked done before the lockout. When the lockout occurred, instead of playing overseas like a lot of the other stars did (Lecavalier, Thornton, Jagr, Datsyuk, Kovalchuk), he decided to rest his knee. When the NHL started again, he turned in his best 2 seasons back-to-back since 1998-99. Again, do you think it was just a coincidence that his best seasons in a long time occurred after resting?

Crosby did look like he was going to have his best season in the NHL in 2010-11 before he got injured and that injury did occur at an inopportune time unfortunately. We will never know how well he would have played down the stretch. However the long rest (a whole calender year) allowed him not only to heal his head or misdiagnosed neck injury but also allowed him to heal and rest any other lingering injuries he might have had including the high ankle sprain. It's no coincidence that his best PPG as a professional occurred in 2011-12 and to add to this, he only played in 22 games so there was barely any time to witness a drop in his game, he was playing on all out adrenaline and full bill of health. Even then, that season, I remember even seeing it from Penguins fans themselves saying how Crosby did not look as dominant that season as he did in 2010-11 but still he had his points and high PPG right?

Then we have the 2012-13 lockout season. While many stars flew overseas to hone their skills in the KHL, the Swedish and Finnish Elite leagues as well as the Czech Extraligue, Crosby stayed at home and practiced and trained with a few of his teammates (Kunitz namely) and rested up and stayed fresh.

The NHL started again and while Malkin struggled with lingering injuries that he carried over with him from the KHL, Crosby on a clean bill of health caught fire right away. Not to mention that Kunitz, the player he had been playing and practicing with during the lockout, a player who also rested like Crosby, had his best per game basis season of his career. Again are these coincidences?

For the first time in a long time, Crosby played through an injury and lasted a whole season and while on the surface it looks like a dominant season since he won the Art Ross by 17 Pts, his own personal play suffered from previous seasons as his PPG of 1.30 for the season was the lowest of his career since his rookie season. It also didn't hurt that his most direct competitors and most obvious threat to him winning the Art Ross were injured and missed significant time; Stamkos, Tavares and Malkin all missed significant time. Giroux did also outscore Crosby by a significant amount in the second half of the season.

Context is important. It's not as simple as saying, Crosby got hurt but still maintained his PPG. There is a big difference between playing through injuries (Crosby did in 2013-13 so I'll give him credit for that) or resting and giving time for the body to heal itself.

The biggest test of Crosby's career will be in 2014-15, this season will make or break his legacy and current status as the best player in the world. Although Tavares and Stamkos never actually even scored 100 Pts, they are still young and have a lot of potential and clearly the skillset is there, whether they have done before or not is irrelevant, they are still a legitimate threat to Crosby for leading the league in scoring. Malkin, when healthy can never been counted out either. Will Crosby remain healthy and peak? Will he remain healthy but continue to plateau? Will he get injured, have a good PPG? Will he play through the whole season and regress?

We shall wait and see. Calling this the most important season of Crosby's career is a huge understatement.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

This is at least the 2nd time within a day that you write the bolded. I asked you yesterday, but didn't see a reply so I ask you again...

You mentioned lack of competition in a post some minutes ago. What have you come up with regarding Lafleur in that regard?
When I think of him, I think of lack of competition. There were some good guys around (like Perreault), but wasn't Lafleur "favoured" by peaking at a time when the competition - especially at forward? - was relatively weak? Orr had his injuries, Esposito was past his prime (?), Clarke might have been past his very prime, and guys like Trottier and Bossy were young and Gretzky was not yet in the NHL. No Soviets. Some (a few) very good players in the WHA. And so on...

My own impression is that prime Lafleur played in a poorer competition than every player from 1980 onward. I imagine those prior to him, when players like Orr, Howe, etc. were active also faced harder competition..?

I also think Lafleur was very favoured in having such a great defence (and goaltending) behind him. It must have been an excellent environment for him - the offensive star forward - to thrive in. ?

He also didn't - despite winning Art Ross - score on a very high percentage of Montreal's goals. ?

When Lafleur and Trottier are at their best, its much tougher competition than 2001-02 to 2003-04 when Forsberg was the only all time great at his best and he was injured half the time

And I don't know why you're using Montreal's great depth players to take away from Lafleur

 

[daver]

Prior to his wrist injury, the injuries he had were not the type he could play through as you and others have touched upon. This means that he had time to rest and heal those injuries, not playing through them allowed him to maintain his PPG.

This is what Forsberg benefited from between 2002 and 2004. He had the best playoff of his career after sitting out an entire season and then followed it up with his best PPG season (since 1995-96) in 2003-04. He would then again get a PPG of 1.41 in 2003-04 as well but only played in 39 games. Do you think this was a coincidence?

A lot is talked about how Lemieux scored 76 Pts in 43 games in 2000-01. One, he wasn't even that old, he was 35 years old and two, he sat out for a whole 3 years and gave his body time to heal and rest. He also started the season at the end of December, so for those 43 games he played, his adrenaline was at a high, he didn't have to play long stretches and well he was in better shape health wise than he had been in 5 years. It also didn't hurt that he was a lot healthier than his own teammates and competitors who had already played about 35-38 games prior to Lemieux' comeback and most likely would have been dealing with minor injuries, fatigue, something that gave Lemieux the edge.

The only time Malkin had the novelty of resting somewhat over the past 4 years was right before his 2011-12 season. Again, do you think it was a coincidence that Malkin turned in his best season as a professional after having time to rest and heal his knee?

Another example of this would be Selanne, he pretty much looked done before the lockout. When the lockout occurred, instead of playing overseas like a lot of the other stars did (Lecavalier, Thornton, Jagr, Datsyuk, Kovalchuk), he decided to rest his knee. When the NHL started again, he turned in his best 2 seasons back-to-back since 1998-99. Again, do you think it was just a coincidence that his best seasons in a long time occurred after resting?

Crosby did look like he was going to have his best season in the NHL in 2010-11 before he got injured and that injury did occur at an inopportune time unfortunately. We will never know how well he would have played down the stretch. However the long rest (a whole calender year) allowed him not only to heal his head or misdiagnosed neck injury but also allowed him to heal and rest any other lingering injuries he might have had including the high ankle sprain. It's no coincidence that his best PPG as a professional occurred in 2011-12 and to add to this, he only played in 22 games so there was barely any time to witness a drop in his game, he was playing on all out adrenaline and full bill of health. Even then, that season, I remember even seeing it from Penguins fans themselves saying how Crosby did not look as dominant that season as he did in 2010-11 but still he had his points and high PPG right?

Then we have the 2012-13 lockout season. While many stars flew overseas to hone their skills in the KHL, the Swedish and Finnish Elite leagues as well as the Czech Extraligue, Crosby stayed at home and practiced and trained with a few of his teammates (Kunitz namely) and rested up and stayed fresh.

The NHL started again and while Malkin struggled with lingering injuries that he carried over with him from the KHL, Crosby on a clean bill of health caught fire right away. Not to mention that Kunitz, the player he had been playing and practicing with during the lockout, a player who also rested like Crosby, had his best per game basis season of his career. Again are these coincidences?

For the first time in a long time, Crosby played through an injury and lasted a whole season and while on the surface it looks like a dominant season since he won the Art Ross by 17 Pts, his own personal play suffered from previous seasons as his PPG of 1.30 for the season was the lowest of his career since his rookie season. It also didn't hurt that his most direct competitors and most obvious threat to him winning the Art Ross were injured and missed significant time; Stamkos, Tavares and Malkin all missed significant time. Giroux did also outscore Crosby by a significant amount in the second half of the season.

Context is important. It's not as simple as saying, Crosby got hurt but still maintained his PPG. There is a big difference between playing through injuries (Crosby did in 2013-13 so I'll give him credit for that) or resting and giving time for the body to heal itself.

The biggest test of Crosby's career will be in 2014-15, this season will make or break his legacy and current status as the best player in the world. Although Tavares and Stamkos never actually even scored 100 Pts, they are still young and have a lot of potential and clearly the skillset is there, whether they have done before or not is irrelevant, they are still a legitimate threat to Crosby for leading the league in scoring. Malkin, when healthy can never been counted out either. Will Crosby remain healthy and peak? Will he remain healthy but continue to plateau? Will he get injured, have a good PPG? Will he play through the whole season and regress?

We shall wait and see. Calling this the most important season of Crosby's career is a huge understatement.

The fact that you refer to recovering from a concussion as a "novelty" makes it hard to take you seriously.

There's no reason to think that he has benefited from time off for the same reason that you cannot write off his PPG in partial seasons simply as a "hot streaks". He started two seasons where he had lapped the field by the half-way mark and did not benefit from being more rested than anyone else in both cases. OV played in Europe during the lockout in 2013 and showed no ill effects.

You want to write off the 22 games in 2012 go right ahead, it's not going to change anything in regards to his stature as the best player in the world, and the best over the past 9 years. Unless he goes below 100 points this next season and either OV or Malkin goes well above 100, he isn't losing that title. IMO, Stamkos is two elite seasons away from that title and Tavares needs to crack the Top 5 before being in the conversation at all.

 

[Sens Rule]

Prior to his wrist injury, the injuries he had were not the type he could play through as you and others have touched upon. This means that he had time to rest and heal those injuries, not playing through them allowed him to maintain his PPG.

This is what Forsberg benefited from between 2002 and 2004. He had the best playoff of his career after sitting out an entire season and then followed it up with his best PPG season (since 1995-96) in 2003-04. He would then again get a PPG of 1.41 in 2003-04 as well but only played in 39 games. Do you think this was a coincidence?

A lot is talked about how Lemieux scored 76 Pts in 43 games in 2000-01. One, he wasn't even that old, he was 35 years old and two, he sat out for a whole 3 years and gave his body time to heal and rest. He also started the season at the end of December, so for those 43 games he played, his adrenaline was at a high, he didn't have to play long stretches and well he was in better shape health wise than he had been in 5 years. It also didn't hurt that he was a lot healthier than his own teammates and competitors who had already played about 35-38 games prior to Lemieux' comeback and most likely would have been dealing with minor injuries, fatigue, something that gave Lemieux the edge.

The only time Malkin had the novelty of resting somewhat over the past 4 years was right before his 2011-12 season. Again, do you think it was a coincidence that Malkin turned in his best season as a professional after having time to rest and heal his knee?

Another example of this would be Selanne, he pretty much looked done before the lockout. When the lockout occurred, instead of playing overseas like a lot of the other stars did (Lecavalier, Thornton, Jagr, Datsyuk, Kovalchuk), he decided to rest his knee. When the NHL started again, he turned in his best 2 seasons back-to-back since 1998-99. Again, do you think it was just a coincidence that his best seasons in a long time occurred after resting?

Crosby did look like he was going to have his best season in the NHL in 2010-11 before he got injured and that injury did occur at an inopportune time unfortunately. We will never know how well he would have played down the stretch. However the long rest (a whole calender year) allowed him not only to heal his head or misdiagnosed neck injury but also allowed him to heal and rest any other lingering injuries he might have had including the high ankle sprain. It's no coincidence that his best PPG as a professional occurred in 2011-12 and to add to this, he only played in 22 games so there was barely any time to witness a drop in his game, he was playing on all out adrenaline and full bill of health. Even then, that season, I remember even seeing it from Penguins fans themselves saying how Crosby did not look as dominant that season as he did in 2010-11 but still he had his points and high PPG right?

Then we have the 2012-13 lockout season. While many stars flew overseas to hone their skills in the KHL, the Swedish and Finnish Elite leagues as well as the Czech Extraligue, Crosby stayed at home and practiced and trained with a few of his teammates (Kunitz namely) and rested up and stayed fresh.

The NHL started again and while Malkin struggled with lingering injuries that he carried over with him from the KHL, Crosby on a clean bill of health caught fire right away. Not to mention that Kunitz, the player he had been playing and practicing with during the lockout, a player who also rested like Crosby, had his best per game basis season of his career. Again are these coincidences?

For the first time in a long time, Crosby played through an injury and lasted a whole season and while on the surface it looks like a dominant season since he won the Art Ross by 17 Pts, his own personal play suffered from previous seasons as his PPG of 1.30 for the season was the lowest of his career since his rookie season. It also didn't hurt that his most direct competitors and most obvious threat to him winning the Art Ross were injured and missed significant time; Stamkos, Tavares and Malkin all missed significant time. Giroux did also outscore Crosby by a significant amount in the second half of the season.

Context is important. It's not as simple as saying, Crosby got hurt but still maintained his PPG. There is a big difference between playing through injuries (Crosby did in 2013-13 so I'll give him credit for that) or resting and giving time for the body to heal itself.

The biggest test of Crosby's career will be in 2014-15, this season will make or break his legacy and current status as the best player in the world. Although Tavares and Stamkos never actually even scored 100 Pts, they are still young and have a lot of potential and clearly the skillset is there, whether they have done before or not is irrelevant, they are still a legitimate threat to Crosby for leading the league in scoring. Malkin, when healthy can never been counted out either. Will Crosby remain healthy and peak? Will he remain healthy but continue to plateau? Will he get injured, have a good PPG? Will he play through the whole season and regress?

We shall wait and see. Calling this the most important season of Crosby's career is a huge understatement.

Mario was FAT and totally out of shape. He was not even close to the player he used to be... And he did play on a line mostly with Jagr, who was best in the world. But he was a fraction of prime mario. I don't think people remember how FAT he was in his first half season of coming back. He got leaner and faster in coming seasons. He ripped the league for 43 games at probably 260-270 lbs. He was so fat, and so slow... Yet he scored at almost a goal per game pace, that comeback year.

The best player in the world... Didn't even play for 3.5 years. If Mario had played... He would have crushed Jagr and Lindros and Forsberg. Fat or not fat. Broken back or not. Early 30's Mario sitting at home was almost certainly the best player in the world. With no training, no nothing. He laces on skates and he is best player in the world. He didn't and Jagr dominated, but Mario still was better.

It is like when Jordan retired to play baseball. Akeem was best player in NBA. Jordan was easily best in the world, he just wasn't playing NBA ball.

 

[Czech Your Math]

Mario was FAT and totally out of shape. He was not even close to the player he used to be... And he did play on a line mostly with Jagr, who was best in the world. But he was a fraction of prime mario. I don't think people remember how FAT he was in his first half season of coming back. He got leaner and faster in coming seasons. He ripped the league for 43 games at probably 260-270 lbs. He was so fat, and so slow... Yet he scored at almost a goal per game pace, that comeback year.

The best player in the world... Didn't even play for 3.5 years. If Mario had played... He would have crushed Jagr and Lindros and Forsberg. Fat or not fat. Broken back or not. Early 30's Mario sitting at home was almost certainly the best player in the world. With no training, no nothing. He laces on skates and he is best player in the world. He didn't and Jagr dominated, but Mario still was better.

It is like when Jordan retired to play baseball. Akeem was best player in NBA. Jordan was easily best in the world, he just wasn't playing NBA ball.

Mario had so much talent, but to say that if he played he would have crushed Jagr and Lindros may be going a bit far. A completely healthy peak Lemieux? Well that's another story. However, Jagr kept up pretty well with Lemieux in '96 (until a 7 point game by Mario ~game 73) and '97 (within a few points around the time of his injury). Jagr was at least as productive at ES, and both Jagr and Lindros had stronger possession games. Jagr not having the benefit of rest, especially on a Pens team that was far from assured of playoff spots, still outscored Lemieux during their games together in '01. It has to be remembered that Mario benefited from Jagr (and others) on the PP, while Jagr didn't have much (if any) net positive in PP production due to Mario's presence. So I think it was a lot closer than many will admit.

If you don't participate in the sport, it's a bit absurd to be dubbed "the best" IMO.

 

[Sens Rule]

Mario had so much talent, but to say that if he played he would have crushed Jagr and Lindros may be going a bit far. A completely healthy peak Lemieux? Well that's another story. However, Jagr kept up pretty well with Lemieux in '96 (until a 7 point game by Mario ~game 73) and '97 (within a few points around the time of his injury). Jagr was at least as productive at ES, and both Jagr and Lindros had stronger possession games.

Fat old broken done, had not played for 3.5 years beat at his peak, linemate, best in the world, prime Jagr in GPG and either beat him or was a wash in ppg too. At 35.

I love Jagr. I am not disrespecting him to say if Mario doesn't retire, he owns Jagr and the NHL from age 31-35 and beyond. Gretzky was done as the elite player he was after 92/93 playoffs and 93/94 season (big decline). Mario in his comeback year, incredibly slow and fat, still ripped the league in Gretzkyesque or Marioesque fashion. I mean he DID retire. He DID NOT stay in 100% top shape and play through his entire peak. Though that half season of games. And his 2 year later 90+ point awesome year... Kinda shows that Mario was still a freak at 34, 36,37. Gretzky had declined a lot by then. He could still finish top 3 in points or lead the NHL on helpers. But Mario showed, though being less inclined to being in shape, he was more like a Howe or Bourque. Able to dominate in his mid-late 30's.

Mario... In my mind. Was the best hockey player in the world his entire 3.5 year retirement. No matter how out of shape he got. Take him in any one game, having not been on ice for months or years... And he just is the best. He was that much of a freak. Now I think not having the wear and tear helped him. But he was still Mario. After 93 or 94, Gretzky was no longer Gretzky and just a mortal. Mario really didn't become mortal until a lot later. Injured at times yes. A mere mortal? Maybe, not till the freaking lockout or the year before.

 

[livewell68]

Mario was FAT and totally out of shape. He was not even close to the player he used to be... And he did play on a line mostly with Jagr, who was best in the world. But he was a fraction of prime mario. I don't think people remember how FAT he was in his first half season of coming back. He got leaner and faster in coming seasons. He ripped the league for 43 games at probably 260-270 lbs. He was so fat, and so slow... Yet he scored at almost a goal per game pace, that comeback year.

The best player in the world... Didn't even play for 3.5 years. If Mario had played... He would have crushed Jagr and Lindros and Forsberg. Fat or not fat. Broken back or not. Early 30's Mario sitting at home was almost certainly the best player in the world. With no training, no nothing. He laces on skates and he is best player in the world. He didn't and Jagr dominated, but Mario still was better.

It is like when Jordan retired to play baseball. Akeem was best player in NBA. Jordan was easily best in the world, he just wasn't playing NBA ball.

Fat you say? Jagr by all means came to training camp in 2000-01 out of shape, he wasn't as fit as he had been in past years. Jagr was 230 lbs in his last season with Pittsburgh, if Lemieux was fat, so was Jagr because looking at these clips, Jagr and Lemieux looked about the same weight.

This video was of Lemieux' game back.



He looks nowhere near the 260-270 lbs you claim he was. This was 2000 after all, players across the board were taking training more seriously and that included Lemieux. He wasn't going to come back "fat" as you claim. He was also in better shape both mentally and physically than he was in 1996-97. In fact there were many articles and interviews about Lemieux prior to his comeback, he was already training and riding the bike (something he never did before retiring) and getting his cardio up. In fact he talked about how he lost 20 lbs in his last month before returning.

Now post retirement, at his worst shape possible, he probably only weighs 250 lbs.

Here is a press conference when Lemieux announced his comeback. He doesn't look fat at all. Listen to what he says around the 4:30, he himself says that he was healthier than he had been in years and that his 2000 comeback was going to be the easiest of his career. This press conference completely shoots down your whole post about how Lemieux was fat. He admits that he was training for 2 months.

 

[livewell68]

The fact that you refer to recovering from a concussion as a "novelty" makes it hard to take you seriously.

There's no reason to think that he has benefited from time off for the same reason that you cannot write off his PPG in partial seasons simply as a "hot streaks". He started two seasons where he had lapped the field by the half-way mark and did not benefit from being more rested than anyone else in both cases. OV played in Europe during the lockout in 2013 and showed no ill effects.

You want to write off the 22 games in 2012 go right ahead, it's not going to change anything in regards to his stature as the best player in the world, and the best over the past 9 years. Unless he goes below 100 points this next season and either OV or Malkin goes well above 100, he isn't losing that title. IMO, Stamkos is two elite seasons away from that title and Tavares needs to crack the Top 5 before being in the conversation at all.

I never called his suffering a concussion a "novelty", do not put words in my mouth. As well, I have yet to see you refute the notion that there is an advantage in having time to sit and heal. Over and over you claim that everyone agrees with your point of view and that my point of view is off base. {Mod} It is much harder to score 100 Pts in 82 games than it is to score 66 Pts in 41 games, 37 Pts in 22 games or 56 Pts in 36 games. For those reasons alone, Crosby could not have been considered the best in the world. If Malkin played all 82 games or even the 80 games that Crosby played in, he would have scored 96 Pts at his pace of 1.20 PPG. Crosby would have only won the Art Ross by 8 Pts, considering Malkin was better in the playoffs, the consensus of Crosby being the best in the world would still have been unclear. Crosby only led the NHL in PPG by 0.10. In comparison when Jagr won the Art Ross in 1998-99 by 20 Pts, his PPG was 1.57, Selanne in comparison who scored 107 Pts in 75 games and finished 2nd in scoring, had a PPG of 1.43. Jagr dominated him more than Crosby did Malkin. Like or not, Crosby's PPG of 1.67 in 22 games in 2011-12 and his PPG of 1.56 in 36 games in 2012-13 will never be viewed as highly as Malkin's 1.45 PPG in 75 games in 2011-12 and so even over the past 4 years, Malkin has had the better season. Is Crosby more consistent than Malkin? Sure but doesn't indicate who the better player is.

Have you once actually conceded that Crosby like everyone else has weaknesses? Being humble once in a while and actually admitting an error would be very helpful in making it more pleasant to have these discussions. When I'm wrong, I have admitted it before on many occasions.

Selective memory and revisionist history at its best, almost everyone on here, all posters, even moderators have all agreed that Ovechkin was at one point the best player in the world and that Malkin was also for small stretches (2008-09 regular season and playoffs combined) and in 2011-12 been the best player in the world. So your statement is false.

Take away Crosby's PPG and there is nothing that indicates he's been the best player in the world for the 9 past years. He hasn't won more Art Ross trophies, hasn't won more Hart trophies and hasn't scored more raw points than his peers to even merit that title. In fact as other posters have mentioned, Crosby was 10th in total points scored since 2005. That is too glaring a fact to overlook in regards to declaring Crosby as the best player in the world over the last 9 years. He was the best player this past season but as some questioned the talent pool in 2002-04, the same should have been done for 2013-14. Crosby did not beat a healthy Malkin, or Stamkos or Tavares for the scoring title.

In fact when all three were at their best (Ovechkin, Crosby and Malkin) I would say it was Ovechkin who was the clear cut best player. Malkin and Crosby were pretty even.

 

[daver]

The only time Malkin had the novelty of resting somewhat over the past 4 years was right before his 2011-12 season.

I never called his suffering a concussion a "novelty", do not put words in my mouth. .

Care to rephrase this then.

 

[livewell68]

Care to rephrase this then.

Having the novelty of resting was not a direct commentary on Crosby's concussion. BTW, I have seen it on the main board as well as here, have heard some posters claim that Crosby didn't have a concussion but in fact it was a misdiagnosed neck injury.

Malkin didn't have the novelty of resting and this is most obvious in 2012-13 when he played in the KHL and got hurt while Crosby rested. Resting in this case was a novelty for Crosby, having the concussion/ neck issue was not.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

I never called his suffering a concussion a "novelty", do not put words in my mouth. As well, I have yet to see you refute the notion that there is an advantage in having time to sit and heal. Over and over you claim that everyone agrees with your point of view and that my point of view is off base. {Mod} It is much harder to score 100 Pts in 82 games than it is to score 66 Pts in 41 games, 37 Pts in 22 games or 56 Pts in 36 games. For those reasons alone, Crosby could not have been considered the best in the world. If Malkin played all 82 games or even the 80 games that Crosby played in, he would have scored 96 Pts at his pace of 1.20 PPG. Crosby would have only won the Art Ross by 8 Pts, considering Malkin was better in the playoffs, the consensus of Crosby being the best in the world would still have been unclear. Crosby only led the NHL in PPG by 0.10. In comparison when Jagr won the Art Ross in 1998-99 by 20 Pts, his PPG was 1.57, Selanne in comparison who scored 107 Pts in 75 games and finished 2nd in scoring, had a PPG of 1.43. Jagr dominated him more than Crosby did Malkin. Like or not, Crosby's PPG of 1.67 in 22 games in 2011-12 and his PPG of 1.56 in 36 games in 2012-13 will never be viewed as highly as Malkin's 1.45 PPG in 75 games in 2011-12 and so even over the past 4 years, Malkin has had the better season. Is Crosby more consistent than Malkin? Sure but doesn't indicate who the better player is.

Have you once actually conceded that Crosby like everyone else has weaknesses? Being humble once in a while and actually admitting an error would be very helpful in making it more pleasant to have these discussions. When I'm wrong, I have admitted it before on many occasions.

Selective memory and revisionist history at its best, almost everyone on here, all posters, even moderators have all agreed that Ovechkin was at one point the best player in the world and that Malkin was also for small stretches (2008-09 regular season and playoffs combined) and in 2011-12 been the best player in the world. So your statement is false.

Take away Crosby's PPG and there is nothing that indicates he's been the best player in the world for the 9 past years. He hasn't won more Art Ross trophies, hasn't won more Hart trophies and hasn't scored more raw points than his peers to even merit that title. In fact as other posters have mentioned, Crosby was 10th in total points scored since 2005. That is too glaring a fact to overlook in regards to declaring Crosby as the best player in the world over the last 9 years. He was the best player this past season but as some questioned the talent pool in 2002-04, the same should have been done for 2013-14. Crosby did not beat a healthy Malkin, or Stamkos or Tavares for the scoring title.

In fact when all three were at their best (Ovechkin, Crosby and Malkin) I would say it was Ovechkin who was the clear cut best player. Malkin and Crosby were pretty even.

Ovechkin didn't beat a healthy crosby for his first art Ross and Malkin didn't beat a healthy crosby for his second art Ross. Crosby clearly outpaced stamkos Malkin and Tavares in ppg despite playing way more games. Seriously Tavares? Was barely on pace for 90 points

 

[LeBlondeDemon10]

Having the novelty of resting was not a direct commentary on Crosby's concussion. BTW, I have seen it on the main board as well as here, have heard some posters claim that Crosby didn't have a concussion but in fact it was a misdiagnosed neck injury.

Malkin didn't have the novelty of resting and this is most obvious in 2012-13 when he played in the KHL and got hurt while Crosby rested. Resting in this case was a novelty for Crosby, having the concussion/ neck issue was not.

I think the problem is your use of the word novelty. You almost make it sound like its a luxury. Healing from an injury is not a novelty, but a necessity.

 

[Killion]

I think the problem is your use of the word novelty. You almost make it sound like its a luxury. Healing from an injury is not a novelty, but a necessity.

... ah. Yes. Novelty though as you well know something "new, out of the ordinary, not the norm" as being forced to stop playing during the season as a result of injuries most assuredly is for most players. Of course for many, a matter of course. Injured more than healthy. So used in that context LBD, and I spotted it earlier, good to go.

 

[Czech Your Math]

I think the problem is your use of the word novelty. You almost make it sound like its a luxury. Healing from an injury is not a novelty, but a necessity.

I think luxury actually would have been an appropriate term.

We don't know which players are playing with which injuries and exactly how those injuries affect them. In "normal life", it's a necessity to heal from an injury, but in sports it's often a bit more nebulous.

It seems to me that this "best player when healthy" mumbo jumbo is unique to hockey. I don't think Monica Seles was considered the best after she was unfortunately stabbed by a fanatic. Was Sandy Koufax the best pitcher for years after his retirement, because if he decided to don the cleats again, he probably was still virtually unhittable? Maybe if he just pitched every two weeks, he could have been the best for 15 years. For how many seasons after Barry Sanders retired was he "the best running back in football?"

Only in hockey does such nonsense not garner instant ridicule and in fact become embraced as an actual meaningful notion.

 

[LeBlondeDemon10]

I think luxury actually would have been an appropriate term.

We don't know which players are playing with which injuries and exactly how those injuries affect them. In "normal life", it's a necessity to heal from an injury, but in sports it's often a bit more nebulous.

It seems to me that this "best player when healthy" mumbo jumbo is unique to hockey. I don't think Monica Seles was considered the best after she was unfortunately stabbed by a fanatic. Was Sandy Koufax the best pitcher for years after his retirement, because if he decided to don the cleats again, he probably was still virtually unhittable? Maybe if he just pitched every two weeks, he could have been the best for 15 years. For how many seasons after Barry Sanders retired was he "the best running back in football?"

Only in hockey does such nonsense not garner instant ridicule and in fact become embraced as an actual meaningful notion.

I agree it can be nebulous. However, an injury is not a matter of choice for the most part. Sanders choosing to retire removes him from the conversation. Seles being attacked by a lunatic is a very unfortunate event. Should she still be in the conversation for best active? I'd say yes. Koufax having to retire because of an injury makes the waters even muddier.

 

[crobro]

93-94Doug gilmour

 

[daver]

I think the problem is your use of the word novelty. You almost make it sound like its a luxury. Healing from an injury is not a novelty, but a necessity.

The poster has stated many times that Crosby was treated differently than other players and given more time rest so he returned in a much more rested state thus a reason for an inflated PPG.

I don't think taking "novelty" in the luxury context is unreasonable and frankly is exactly how the poster meant it.

 

[daver]

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.

There's no reason to think that their performances in 2013 were anything other than how they appeared. Malkin had another injury-plagued/inconsistent season like 2010, 2011 and 2014, and the Hart winner that year also played in the KHL and showed no signs of burnout.

Malkin simply does not have the regular season resume of Crosby nor a better playoff resume.

 

[Czech Your Math]

There's no reason to think that their performances in 2013 were anything other than how they appeared. Malkin had another injury-plagued/inconsistent season like 2010, 2011 and 2014, and the Hart winner that year also played in the KHL and showed no signs of burnout.

Malkin simply does not have the regular season resume of Crosby nor a better playoff resume.

Malkin had 65 points in 37 games in the KHL in '13, but struggled with injuries in the NHL that season. Malkin was much better than Ovy in the KHL... Crosby was better when healthy in the shortened NHL season... Ovy stayed healthy and took home the Hart (deservedly or not).

Malkin has the same number of points as Crosby since '07 (Malkin's rookie year)... the same number of Rosses as Crosby... and virtually identical playoff numbers. He just happened to have a couple of his best seasons during Ovy's peak. That doesn't make him much less valuable than Crosby over that time IMO.

Top 3 players in points over 3 consecutive seasons:

'06-'08: Thornton, Ovechkin, Crosby
'07-'09: Ovechkin, Malkin, Thornton
'08-'10: Ovechkin, Malkin, Crosby
'09-'11: Ovechkin, H. Sedin, Crosby
'10-'12: H. Sedin, Stamkos, St. Louis
'11-'13: Stamkos, St. Louis, H. Sedin
'12-'14: Giroux, Malkin/Kessel tied

That's some real "head and shoulders" above everyone else type of dominance there by Crosby.

 

[daver]

Malkin had 65 points in 37 games in the KHL in '13, but struggled with injuries in the NHL that season. Malkin was much better than Ovy in the KHL... Crosby was better when healthy in the shortened NHL season... Ovy stayed healthy and took home the Hart (deservedly or not).

Malkin has the same number of points as Crosby since '07 (Malkin's rookie year)... the same number of Rosses as Crosby... and virtually identical playoff numbers. He just happened to have a couple of his best seasons during Ovy's peak. That doesn't make him much less valuable than Crosby over that time IMO.

Top 3 players in points over 3 consecutive seasons:

'06-'08: Thornton, Ovechkin, Crosby
'07-'09: Ovechkin, Malkin, Thornton
'08-'10: Ovechkin, Malkin, Crosby
'09-'11: Ovechkin, H. Sedin, Crosby
'10-'12: H. Sedin, Stamkos, St. Louis
'11-'13: Stamkos, St. Louis, H. Sedin
'12-'14: Giroux, Malkin/Kessel tied

That's some real "head and shoulders" above everyone else type of dominance there by Crosby.

On-ice performance has been head and shoulders above everyone since 2011.