Discussion in 'The History of Hockey' started by Neutrinos, Oct 2, 2018.
I thought this was an interesting comparison, so have at it!
Who ya taking?
Benn for me. Like him and "his game" better.
Benn overall, Lecavalier for his peak.
Statistics favour Benn, but Vinnie, at his brief peak, was magnificent.
Vinny didn't really have a peak. He had 2 really good seasons and a bunch of average years. Benn has protection has dipped the past 2 seasons, but he's still putting up .90 & .96 PPG in a down season. Benn is better in post season voting, but Benn has only played 20 playoff games.
Benn for me, too. He is still going strong, as well.
Vinnie’s big year came during one of the two outlier years when they called stick infractions more closely.... admittedly he did also lead the league in even strength goals that year, but scoring was up overall.
I'm not trying to be a smartarse here, but isn't that almost the the perfect definition of a peak, albeit a small one?
A peak should be at least 3 years min in my eyes.
How ridiculously arbitrary.
In what way?
It's obviously too early to predict Benn's final status but I would go with Lecavalier here. Certainly in terms of peak play, anyway. From 2004 to 2006, he was in the conversation as best player in the world. I know Benn has his Art Ross and three seasons in a row of 1st/2nd-team All Star, but that speaks (to me) more of the weakness of competition than his personal greatness. (Not wanting to diss Benn, whom I like, but his 2015 Art Ross is perhaps the 'weakest' such in recent memory.)
We're saying Lecavalier had two peak seasons, and that's right, but he also was MVP of the World Cup and had another (probable) peak season, 2004-05, wiped out. Also, he did put up five straight 30+ goal seasons (effectively six, as he missed five games and scored 29 after that). And that doesn't include the wiped out season, or we'd be looking at seven straight. Vinnie was also very strong in the 2004, 2007, and 2011 (post-peak) playoffs, though it's too early to judge Benn on that.
I really doubt that anyone was talking about Lecavalier as the “best player in the world” before his 2006-07 season. And even if people were talking about him in that way was it really much more than the way people talked about Benn after he won the Art Ross and followed it up with a 2nd place scoring finish?
Lecavalier’s best season is probably better than Benn’s, but Benn has the clear advantage in atleast their best 2-4 seasons.
Lecavalier had a great peak from 2006 to the end of 2007. That’s 1.5 seasons where he was among the best in the world. I think considering Lecavalier ahead of someone like Lidstrom or Thornton or Brodeur after that would have been very short-sighted. It’s exactly like calling Benn the best player in the world from 2014-2016 ahead of someone like Crosby.
Okay, 2006 to 2008, whenever it was. Just saying he was briefly in that conversation.
I remember commentators on TV suggesting Vinnie was the best forward in the NHL c.2007, but I don't recall anyone saying that about Jamie Benn, but I could be wrong. Just to clarify, I'm not saying he WAS the best player in the NHL; I'm saying there were people who said that.
Maybe I'm too biased here, as I simply prefer Lacavalier (and I tend to lose interest in players when they go to Dallas).
Well, you chose a number as a hard line, that isn't related to any real-world aspect of the game (i.e., they don't give out awards for "best three year stretch" or anything). That's the definition of arbitrary.
Now, drawing an arbitrary line is necessary if we wanted to do any evenhanded and comprehensive comparison of several players' "peak" - gotta define your parameters - but it's maybe not necessary when just casually discussing one guy.
For what it's worth, I think "peak" can be anything as small as a half-season or so, but "prime" is the word you'd need more for.
Benn beat a 27 year old Crosby for the art Ross. Lecavalier lost to a 19 year old Crosby for the art Ross
In that you have determined a players peak must be "at least three years" when a peak would be when he was at his best, not when he was at his best for a random amount of time that you have decided.
A 19 year old Crosby would beat a 27 year old Crosby for the Art Ross...
Correct, because it's my opinion. That is my criteria, yours is different.
If you want to go by that, someone could consider a 20 game stretch as someone's "peak".
I'm aware thats your opinion. Did you think that was unclear?
My opinion is that your opinion is ridiculously arbritrary.
You are not wrong. More than one commentator said that - in particular, I remember Don Cherry saying that Lecavalier should have won the Hart in one of those years.
As for the topic, I prefer Lecavalier by a little bit, but Benn could still change my mind as his career's not over yet. A big centerman with a nice peak and a Stanley Cup, possibly deserving of a Hart Trophy vs. a rough-and-tumble power forward that's won an Art Ross and can fight. Pretty good choices.
Vinny for peak easily, Benn for consistency(and most likely career).
Well how do you define it then? What do you define as a peak?
Benn on a stacked team wins Cups.
Vinny on a stacked teams is a solid performer, but honesty he was the Kessel in that run compared to Richard and Boyle. The obvious Sid and Geno.
Sure, why not? I don't think it would be crazy to suggest that Sidney Crosby's peak level of play came in one of the partial seasons he played between 2010 and 2013, the highest P/G of which he achieved in only 22 games. And you could argue that said 22 game season wasn't just a hot streak because plenty of people thought Sid was capable of scoring at a 140 point pace, and that having concussion symptoms flare up is not the same as going cold. So if the question is "at what point was Crosby's level of play the highest", you could go with those 22 games, or you could make the argument that he went through similarly hot stretches at other times and usually ended up with somewhat lower totals when he played full seasons. Neither of which is declaring an arbitrary cutoff number.
Now, if you wanted to do a statistical survey that represented peak scoring (say a 3-year VsX), an arbitrary cutoff would be necessary. Not so much if you're discussing an abstract concept.
It's time for Uncle Kevster's story time.
I remember young Vincent Lecavalier. He wasn't that impressive, to be honest. But then came the day Martin St. Louis and Brad Richards arrived. These guys formed one the best trios I've ever seen. They were scoring goals, and when they weren't, they were assisting them. All three of them, just putting numbers on the boards. But one was above all. Now matured, but still young Vincent Lecavalier set the league on fire. If I remember correctly, Vinny's rating in the EA Sports NHL 2004 was as high as 95. That's pretty high, my mans. And a clear sign of dominance. He truly was one the best. Magnificent. A beast. THE God among hockey players. And a handsome devil, if I may add.
Jamie Benn on the other hand. Is he the product of Tyler Seguin's excellence? I mean, look at the man. He's fat. He gets mad easily. He can't even knock out George Parros, and Parros doesn't even play anymore due to brain damage caused by fighting against real agitators. Hell, he can't even knock out George Parros II, and George Parros II is like 6-years old! To me, Jamie Benn is a guy who tries it all, but can't do anything well. And his rating in the EA Sports NHL -series has been declining for three years straight now.
Well, pretty hard to come up with solid arguments after what I just told y'all. Lecavalier is superior in every way. Benn is just a former fat 5th round pick, who is still fat. Case closed, go home everybody.
Separate names with a comma.