Best player in the world: 2011

[Midnight Judges]

Not worth it.

Everyone can see.

Indeed. Did you vote for Crosby in 05-06? 08? 09? 10?

If yes, then it says more about you than the players.

There was zero case for Crosby in any of those seasons.

 

[wetcoast]

Indeed. Did you vote for Crosby in 05-06? 08? 09? 10?

If yes, then it says more about you than the players.

There was zero case for Crosby in any of those seasons.

Honestly I'd have to go back and look at I haven't voted in every poll, what I was pointing out that in the 5 previous polls here Crosby has placed in the top 3 and one can make a good argument that he was the best player in the world for that time period.

My guess is that some of the Ovi arguments that you make can be applied to Crosby after 05-06 season that you make for Ovi, weak support ECT... But everyone knows that you downplay one guy then turn a blind eye in regards to Ovi.

The next few polls will be very interesting though.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Honestly I'd have to go back and look at I haven't voted in every poll, what I was pointing out that in the 5 previous polls here Crosby has placed in the top 3 and one can make a good argument that he was the best player in the world for that time period.

No you can't. There was zero case for Crosby in 4 of those 5 seasons. He had no business getting any votes in those years.

You're just going to vote for him regardless.

 

[wetcoast]

No you can't. There was zero case for Crosby in 4 of those 5 seasons. He had no business getting any votes in those years.

You're just going to vote for him regardless.

Like I said reasonable and knowledgeable hockey people can make the top 3 argument for best player but as usual you are arguing an imaginary best season thing.

 

[GreatGonzo]

Honestly I'd have to go back and look at I haven't voted in every poll, what I was pointing out that in the 5 previous polls here Crosby has placed in the top 3 and one can make a good argument that he was the best player in the world for that time period.

My guess is that some of the Ovi arguments that you make can be applied to Crosby after 05-06 season that you make for Ovi, weak support ECT... But everyone knows that you downplay one guy then turn a blind eye in regards to Ovi.

The next few polls will be very interesting though.

The irony

 

[Midnight Judges]

Like I said reasonable and knowledgeable hockey people can make the top 3 argument for best player but as usual you are arguing an imaginary best season thing.

Top 3? No case in 05-06. Yes in 2010. Maybe for the other seasons. Top 1? Absolutely not for any of those seasons - which is what those homer votes represent.

 

[GreatGonzo]

Like I said reasonable and knowledgeable hockey people can make the top 3 argument for best player but as usual you are arguing an imaginary best season thing.

You want to talk about “imaginary best seasons?” Crosbys peak is mainly that, since it was cut short. You go off of what could have been, not what he actually did.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

No you can't. There was zero case for Crosby in 4 of those 5 seasons. He had no business getting any votes in those years.

You're just going to vote for him regardless.

I’m not talking about the specifics of what you cited here but it’s important to remember what the question is. The poll is who is the best player in the world, not who had the best year. Some players may have had better statistical seasons than others but I’d give more leeway towards body of work.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

I’m not talking about the specifics of what you cited here but it’s important to remember what the question is. The poll is who is the best player in the world, not who had the best year. Some players may have had better statistical seasons than others but I’d give more leeway towards body of work.

The bolded is a distinction that so many people in these polls seem to overlook.

For instance, Connor McDavid is currently considered the best player in the world. If McDavid has a "down year" and Jack Hughes ends up finishing slightly ahead for the Art Ross and wins the Hart over him, that doesn't suddenly make Hughes the best player in the world, just like Taylor Hall winning the Hart in 2018 didn't make him the best player in the world.

 

[Midnight Judges]

The bolded is a distinction that so many people in these polls seem to overlook.

For instance, Connor McDavid is currently considered the best player in the world. If McDavid has a "down year" and Jack Hughes ends up finishing slightly ahead for the Art Ross and wins the Hart over him, that doesn't suddenly make Hughes the best player in the world, just like Taylor Hall winning the Hart in 2018 didn't make him the best player in the world.

Just like Sidney Crosby having a nice half season in 2011 doesn’t overcome 3 straight years of being statistically dominated by Alex Ovechkin.

Yet something tells me you didn’t adhere to your own logic.

 

[norrisnick]

The bolded is a distinction that so many people in these polls seem to overlook.

For instance, Connor McDavid is currently considered the best player in the world. If McDavid has a "down year" and Jack Hughes ends up finishing slightly ahead for the Art Ross and wins the Hart over him, that doesn't suddenly make Hughes the best player in the world, just like Taylor Hall winning the Hart in 2018 didn't make him the best player in the world.

Then why include years in the polls at all if it doesn't matter what happened in those years?

Gretzky is still the best player in the world as he hasn't been surpassed and it doesn't matter that he's not as good as he was previously.

 

[wetcoast]

You want to talk about “imaginary best seasons?” Crosbys peak is mainly that, since it was cut short. You go off of what could have been, not what he actually did.

You and MJ are in the wrong thread bo one is voting for best season and if they are they are out to lunch like U2.

For the 20th time the poll is asking who is the best player in the world but U2 keep on distorting.and distracting but it's a bad look.

Then why include years in the polls at all if it doesn't matter what happened in those years?

Maybe because the OP is asking at a specific time?

Gretzky is still the best player in the world as he hasn't been surpassed and it doesn't matter that he's not as good as he was previously.

That's the kind of useless distortion that you are peddling, if you can't make a serious effort why post?

 

[GreatGonzo]

You and MJ are in the wrong thread bo one is voting for best season and if they are they are out to lunch like U2.

For the 20th time the poll is asking who is the best player in the world but U2 keep on distorting.and distracting but it's a bad look.


Maybe because the OP is asking at a specific time?

That's the kind of useless distortion that you are peddling, if you can't make a serious effort why post?

Don’t get me wrong, I gave Crosby the benefit of the doubt this season. He was pulling away from the pack before injuries and no one IMO had a more significant season than him. But you have to understand that’s it’s still a half season and a lot of people won’t agree with it regardless of how well he did.

So no, I never distorted anything. Try again bud.

 

[wetcoast]

Don’t get me wrong, I gave Crosby the benefit of the doubt this season. He was pulling away from the pack before injuries and no one IMO had a more significant season than him. But you have to understand that’s it’s still a half season and a lot of people won’t agree with it regardless of how well he did.

So no, I never distorted anything. Try again bud.

People can read if there was a poll it would be shutdown for being lopsided.

 

[Hippasus]

I ended up voting for D. Sedin. I guess him over Thomas because Thomas was more a product of the Bruins system than Daniel was of the Canucks. It was pretty much a coin flip and now I'm second-guessing myself because of Thomas' numbers.

 

[GreatGonzo]

People can read if there was a poll it would be shutdown for being lopsided.

That’s fine. Crosby won though, didn’t he? What you’re saying is the “best player” doesn’t have to be playing to continue being the best. And there are flaws to that argument whether you like it or not.

 

[TheStatican]

Not sure why you’d bring this up at all.

I'm NOT the one who brought it up, these people did:

He also only led Stamkos by 1 goal (and 10 points) through the same number of games when he went down, so it’s not exactly the beatdown people tend to remember.

hell In 41games in 10-11 Stamkos had 1 less goal and 9 less assists than Crosby and was sporting a 1.37ppg but by the end of the year he had dropped all the way down to 1.11.

This is what gets me. People act like Crosby was lightyears ahead of everyone else - Stamkos was 10 points behind him.

The point is that he had ‘arrived’ and put up a 60 goal year.

You seemed to be confused because this thread is about the 2010-11 season and he did not score 60 goals in this season.

Crosby has zero to do with anything here. Whether he or OV would be better or not is beside the point.

The point is injuries got in the way of what should’ve been an awesome prime.

That's really nice... and it has exactly nothing to do with this thread.

Stamkos’ rookie year was good and then he put up great numbers. Saying he was inconsistent is disingenuous.

It's basic facts:

Stamkos 08-09​	Games​	Goals​	Assists​	Points​	GPG​	PTS​
first half​	40​	4​	14​	18​	0.10​	0.45​
second half​	39​	19​	13​	32​	0.49​	0.82​

Stamkos 09-10​	Games​	Goals​	Assists​	Points​	GPG​	PTS​
first 24 games​	24​	17​	12​	29​	0.71​	1.21​
next 24 games​	24​	8​	10​	18​	0.33​	0.75​
last 34 games​	34​	26​	22​	48​	0.76​	1.41​

Stamkos 10-11​	Games​	Goals​	Assists​	Points​	GPG​	PTS​
up to new years​	38​	31​	25​	56​	0.82​	1.47​
after new years​	44​	14​	21​	35​	0.32​	0.80​

If that's what consistency looks like to you I'd hate to see what inconsistency looks like, but thank you for sharing your opinion.

Up to that point in their careers Stamkos was far less consistent than Crosby which is why it doesn't make much sense to dwell on Stamkos not being too far behind Crosby half way through the season when he was far less capable of sustaining his pace than Crosby was.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

I'm NOT the one who brought it up, these people did:







You seemed to be confused because this thread is about the 2010-11 season and he did not score 60 goals in this season.


That's really nice... and it has exactly nothing to do with this thread.



Actually, it's basic facts:

Stamkos 08-09​	Games​	Goals​	Assists​	Points​	GPG​	PTS​
first half​	40​	4​	14​	18​	0.10​	0.45​
second half​	39​	19​	13​	32​	0.49​	0.82​

Stamkos 09-10​	Games​	Goals​	Assists​	Points​	GPG​	PTS​
first 24 games​	24​	17​	12​	29​	0.71​	1.21​
next 24 games​	24​	8​	10​	18​	0.33​	0.75​
last 34 games​	34​	26​	22​	48​	0.76​	1.41​

Stamkos 10-11​	Games​	Goals​	Assists​	Points​	GPG​	PTS​
up to new years​	38​	31​	25​	56​	0.82​	1.47​
after new years​	44​	14​	21​	35​	0.32​	0.80​

If that's what consistency looks like to you I'd hate to see what inconsistency looks like, but thank you for sharing your opinion.

Up to that point in their careers Stamkos was far less consistent than Crosby which is why it doesn't make much sense to dwell on Stamkos not being too far behind Crosby half way through the season when he was far less capable of sustaining his pace than Crosby was.

Dude, all I did was point out to a poster that it’s not accurate to say that Stamkos’ play was inconsistent. It was injury that caused him to fall off.

I have no idea why you even replied to me.

 

[TheStatican]

Dude, all I did was point out to a poster that it’s not accurate to say that Stamkos’ play was inconsistent. It was injury that caused him to fall off.

I have no idea why you even replied to me.

Yeah, I was that poster.

But I was referring to that point in their careers but since I didn't specify that you took great offense went off on a tangent defending him. I'm sure we're all well aware Stamkos was a great scorer and could have been even better if not for his injury. But while he showed the flashes he was lacking in consistency until the year he hit 60.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Yeah, I was that poster.

But I was referring to that point in their careers but since I didn't specify that you took great offense went off on a tangent defending him. I'm sure we're all well aware Stamkos was a great scorer and could have been even better if not for his injury. But while he showed the flashes he was lacking in consistency until the year he hit 60.

He looked pretty consistent to me.. 51 goals in his second season, 45 in his third and then he breaks out to 60 in his fourth year. Not sure how that’s not consistent.

Then he gets hurt and it’s a different ballgame.

 

[bambamcam4ever]

Stamkos was just never close to the same level. Even if he had a hot (lucky) points streak, you could just watch him and see that he wasn't the same level of dynamic, play-driving forward as someone like Crosby. His stats are more impressive than the impact he actually had. This was also reflected in his disappointing playoff and high-level international career

 

[TheStatican]

He looked pretty consistent to me.. 51 goals in his second season, 45 in his third and then he breaks out to 60 in his fourth year. Not sure how that’s not consistent.

Then he gets hurt and it’s a different ballgame.

Not within those seasons, he had exgerragated hot and cold streaks. He was far more consistent the next couple seasons and that increased consistency is what allowed him to hit 60

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

Not within those seasons, he had exgerragated hot and cold streaks. He was far more consistent the next couple seasons and that increased consistency is what allowed him to hit 60

You gotta be kidding me. 51,45,60 is inconsistent from your 2nd to 4th seasons.

Okay…. Have a nice night.

 

[bambamcam4ever]

The double standards by some to downplay Crosby are hilarious.

Stamkos misses 40 games: What could have been?

Crosby misses 100 games: That artificially raises his ppg

 

[Midnight Judges]

It's basic facts:

Stamkos 08-09​	Games​	Goals​	Assists​	Points​	GPG​	PTS​
first half​	40​	4​	14​	18​	0.10​	0.45​
second half​	39​	19​	13​	32​	0.49​	0.82​

Stamkos 09-10​	Games​	Goals​	Assists​	Points​	GPG​	PTS​
first 24 games​	24​	17​	12​	29​	0.71​	1.21​
next 24 games​	24​	8​	10​	18​	0.33​	0.75​
last 34 games​	34​	26​	22​	48​	0.76​	1.41​

Stamkos 10-11​	Games​	Goals​	Assists​	Points​	GPG​	PTS​
up to new years​	38​	31​	25​	56​	0.82​	1.47​
after new years​	44​	14​	21​	35​	0.32​	0.80​

If that's what consistency looks like to you I'd hate to see what inconsistency looks like, but thank you for sharing your opinion.

Up to that point in their careers Stamkos was far less consistent than Crosby which is why it doesn't make much sense to dwell on Stamkos not being too far behind Crosby half way through the season when he was far less capable of sustaining his pace than Crosby was.

Stamkos was an 18 year old rookie - took time to adjust. That's normal.

Aside from that, what you show here are pretty normal fluctuations. 24 games is a plenty small sample size to have some strange things going on.

You gotta be kidding me. 51,45,60 is inconsistent from your 2nd to 4th seasons.

Okay…. Have a nice night.

95, 91, 97 points in those seasons.

I think in smaller focus it's perhaps more normal for a goal scorer to have more significant fluctuations in points relative to players who get their points primarily via assists.