Who is the best peak player since 2000?

[67 others]

People don't realize how good Sakic's best season is. The guy scored 50+ goals and almost 120 points in one of the lowest-scoring eras in hockey history and was +45. He finished second in Selke voting. Then he led the playoffs in both goals and points and his team won the Cup. It's hard to top a season like that, especially for a forward.

Having Ray Bourque feeding him those outlet passes all year was electrifying. Sakic threw a lot of credit Ray's way(Actually the whole team did)

 

[GlitchMarner]

Just because someone feels Forsberg was a bit better at their best or just in general doesn't mean Sakic doesn't have the best full season, or best playoffs and regular season in the same year. They are close enough that I think there are good arguments for both at their best.

In which season do you think he played at a higher level than Sakic did in 2001, though? In 1996 he was outscored by Sakic in that same season and Sakic was better in 2001 than in 1996.

Maybe in short-term spurts he was better at his best than JS was at his.

He was a guy that "looked" really impressive (some players just have that flare). Don't me wrong: He was a hell of a player. I'm a fan as well.

 

[Sam Spade]

Best Peak level of play: Crosby 2010-2013
Best consecutive peak years: Ovechkin 07-10
Best full season (RS + Playoffs): Malkin 2009
Best RS: Ovi 2008
Best playoff run: Malkin 2009

"Best Peak level of play". Well, that's a new one.

 

[Regal]

"Best Peak level of play". Well, that's a new one.

Not really. It's pretty common to talk about ability and results as two separate things.

 

[Varan]

This question has bee answered numerous times and it's always going to be between Sid/OV. OV usually wins the peak argument but if it's a per game basis, Sid comes out on top.

 

[Ben White]

I'm partial to peaks that are comprised of full/almost full seasons and playoffs (if they are to be included).

Accordingly, the only real candidates for me are Ovechkin from 2007-2010 (2008 being his best season if I had to choose one and 2009 being his best RS + playoffs combo if I had to choose one), Malkin in 2008-2009, Malkin in 2011-2012, Sakic in 2000-2001 and maybe Crosby in 2013-2014 and/or Kane in 2015-2016.

HMs would be Crosby in 2006-2007 and 2009-2010, Thornton in 2005-2006, Stamkos in 2011-2012, McDavid from 2016-2018, St. Louis in 2003-2004, Henrik Sedin in 2009-2010, Karlsson in 2011-2012, possibly Jagr in 2000-2001 and/or 2005/2006 and maybe Forsberg and/or Naslund in 2002-2003.

”Maybe Forsberg/Naslund” lol. If you’re only stats watching and didn’t actually see them play you seriously should sip it. Peak Naslund was never at the same level as peak Forsberg not even close. Maybe your’re too young to’ve seen them play. The same goes for most of your other HM candidates... ah, ok, you have Karlsson 11-12 there... right, you know that’s not even his second best season right? I guess you have no clue what you’re talking about. However it’s a fact that Forsberg has become the hands down most underrated player on HF.

 

[Regal]

In which season do you think he played at a higher level than Sakic did in 2001, though? In 1996 he was outscored by Sakic in that same season and Sakic was better in 2001 than in 1996.

Maybe in short-term spurts he was better at his best than JS was at his.

He was a guy that "looked" really impressive (some players just have that flare). Don't me wrong: He was a hell of a player. I'm a fan as well.

Peak ability and peak season aren't necessarily the same though. There are many things than can go right or wrong within a season that leads to varying totals for players that aren't always indicative of their ability. From that idea I think there needs to be sense that a player's totals are reflective of his play and repeatable to put full stock in them. Sakic was obviously a great player, but that season stands out among his others, in both offensive totals as well as GF% (where Forsberg usually had a significant advantage) to the point where I think it's both a combination of him reaching a height of his play, but also a year where everything goes right. Forsberg in general was a slightly better player while they were on the same team imo, and from 02-03 to his foot injury after the lockout reached a peak level of his play that was higher than Sakic's, but unlike Sakic, didn't manage to have a season where everything goes right. So I would consider him a better player in that period, and if I had him healthy for a tournament, I would take him over Sakic, but if I was looking to get the most value over 82 games, I would take Sakic's '01. It really just depends on how you want to frame it.

It's the same with Crosby, who doesn't have a year as good as Sakic's '01 either, but who is pretty unanimously considered to have the better peak. Or even say Kane, whose '16 season was at least as good offensively relative to league/peer scoring as Crosby or McDavid's best years, but I don't think anyone would argue has as good an offensive peak.

 

[Nadal On Clay]

”Maybe Forsberg/Naslund” lol. If you’re only stats watching and didn’t actually see them play you seriously should sip it. Peak Naslund was never at the same level as peak Forsberg not even close. Maybe your’re too young to’ve seen them play. The same goes for most of your other HM candidates... ah, ok, you have Karlsson 11-12 there... right, you know that’s not even his second best season right? I guess you have no clue what you’re talking about. However it’s a fact that Forsberg has become the hands down most underrated player on HF.

Or not...

 

[tony d]

Ovechkin. All time I still take Crosby but at his best Ovie was better.

 

[Ben White]

In which season do you think he played at a higher level than Sakic did in 2001, though? In 1996 he was outscored by Sakic in that same season and Sakic was better in 2001 than in 1996.

Maybe in short-term spurts he was better at his best than JS was at his.

He was a guy that "looked" really impressive (some players just have that flare). Don't me wrong: He was a hell of a player. I'm a fan as well.

Jesus christ, it doesn’t take too much digging into the stats to realize that Forsberg gets really underrated because of his lack of full seasons. Doesn’t make his peak play any less impressive. He’s 8th all time in ppg, top 10 in playoff points per game, 4th all time in adjusted ppg, the only player besides Gretzky to be involved in 50% of his teams points in a playoff run while being playoff scoring champ, and the list goes on and on. People are so lazy around here that’s why Forsberg gets criminally underrated.

 

[bambamcam4ever]

Not sure what this has to do with the topic, but yes, it makes sense. It means "made up of" or "composed of."

Definition of COMPRISED OF

It is a commonly-used, but incorrect saying. Comprise means "made up of" so what you're saying is "made up of of" which is grammatically incorrect.

Comprise =\= compose. They just sound similar, and people use them interchangably to seem smarter I guess, even though it's not right.

 

[Nadal On Clay]

I would swap RS+Playoffs to Sakic in '01 (close though), but agree with the others.

I really hesitated between Sakic and Malkin. Malkin 36 playoff pts was the deciding factor for me, but I really cant disagree with someone picking Sakic.

 

[GlitchMarner]

”Maybe Forsberg/Naslund” lol. If you’re only stats watching and didn’t actually see them play you seriously should sip it. Peak Naslund was never at the same level as peak Forsberg not even close. Maybe your’re too young to’ve seen them play. The same goes for most of your other HM candidates... ah, ok, you have Karlsson 11-12 there... right, you know that’s not even his second best season right? I guess you have no clue what you’re talking about. However it’s a fact that Forsberg has become the hands down most underrated player on HF.

Jesus, sorry, Peter.

 

[Regal]

I really hesitated between Sakic and Malkin. Malkin 36 playoff pts was the deciding factor for me, but I really cant disagree with someone picking Sakic.

Yea you really can't go wrong with either

 

[GlitchMarner]

It is a commonly-used, but incorrect saying. Comprise means "made up of" so what you're saying is "made up of of" which is grammatically incorrect.

Comprise =\= compose. They just sound similar, and people use them interchangably to seem smarter I guess, even though it's not right.

Okay... I'll keep that in mind for formal writing. Thanks.

 

[GlitchMarner]

Peak ability and peak season aren't necessarily the same though. There are many things than can go right or wrong within a season that leads to varying totals for players that aren't always indicative of their ability. From that idea I think there needs to be sense that a player's totals are reflective of his play and repeatable to put full stock in them. Sakic was obviously a great player, but that season stands out among his others, in both offensive totals as well as GF% (where Forsberg usually had a significant advantage) to the point where I think it's both a combination of him reaching a height of his play, but also a year where everything goes right. Forsberg in general was a slightly better player while they were on the same team imo, and from 02-03 to his foot injury after the lockout reached a peak level of his play that was higher than Sakic's, but unlike Sakic, didn't manage to have a season where everything goes right. So I would consider him a better player in that period, and if I had him healthy for a tournament, I would take him over Sakic, but if I was looking to get the most value over 82 games, I would take Sakic's '01. It really just depends on how you want to frame it.

It's the same with Crosby, who doesn't have a year as good as Sakic's '01 either, but who is pretty unanimously considered to have the better peak. Or even say Kane, whose '16 season was at least as good offensively relative to league/peer scoring as Crosby or McDavid's best years, but I don't think anyone would argue has as good an offensive peak.

That makes sense. Good post.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Including playoffs yes. But Ovechkin's 65 goal season is the best full season, though Malkin was at his best in 2012 when he had 50 goals and 109 points in 75 games and Crosby only played 22 games.

A regular season is not a full season. A full NHL season is the regular season plus playoffs. So it’s still malkin and his 113 points and 36 playoff points for 149 points scored in 2009.

 

[authentic]

In which season do you think he played at a higher level than Sakic did in 2001, though? In 1996 he was outscored by Sakic in that same season and Sakic was better in 2001 than in 1996.

Maybe in short-term spurts he was better at his best than JS was at his.

He was a guy that "looked" really impressive (some players just have that flare). Don't me wrong: He was a hell of a player. I'm a fan as well.

Refer to post #32, but on top of that...

Forsberg from late December of 2002 until late December of 2005 had a stretch of consecutive regular season games where he scored 183 points in 115 games (also +76) which would be an 82 game pace of 131 points, this was up until his ankle gave out for good and he was never the same after that. A third of those games came in a season where 1 player had more than 87 points (St. Louis with 94) and this was after leading the playoffs in points in 2002 without even playing in the finals, the only player to ever do that twice.

 

[Plural]

If we're going with consecutive 3 year peak since 2000 it's OV. If we're going with 3 years since 2000 but can be separated, I'd still probably lean OV but Sid has a good case too.

 

[Plural]

Its either Crosby (if you consider peak ability and not necessarily full seasons or even 3 full seasons as OP suggests) or OV. I think 2011-2013 Crosby is better than Ovs best so i pick him.

Honestly i almost wonder if 2001 Lemieux should get consideration though. Hard to say since yet again he wasnt healthy much.

McDavid will make a run for it but isnt there yet. If this was 1996 instead of 2000 Jagr would have a strong case. Forsberg and Malkin have very very strong peaks but id have them after the other 2 imo

If we just go with the ability it's Sid hands down IMO. He was every bit as good offensively (probably even better) and he was also more than one way forward. I just have some problems with the fact that he only played 99 games during that time (out of 200+ games so he missed more than 50% of the games) compared to OV who played 233 games in his 3 year peak. I don't think we should be looking at too closely on few games missed but that's more than substantial difference.

For the bolded part. Probably not. He fueled up Jagr once he came back but he was used in a way that was the most suitable for him. He was still probably the best player in the world, but it came with the fact that he needed to be sheltered from certain situations. Which kind of hinders the effect for me.

 

[Plural]

Best Peak level of play: Crosby 2010-2013
Best consecutive peak years: Ovechkin 07-10
Best full season (RS + Playoffs): Malkin 2009
Best RS: Ovi 2008
Best playoff run: Malkin 2009

I'd probably slot RS+PO's to Sakic but other than that, seems like a solid list to me.

 

[Plural]

"Best Peak level of play". Well, that's a new one.

Definitely not a new one. We've been talking about the concept in HoH forums for years. In fact, it's essential in evaluating players. Bobby Orr just might have had the "best peak level of play" (or whatever the f*** you want to word it) and it's 100% important to acknowledge it when evaluating his career.

 

[Mitch nylander]

Ovechkin for me. He was so special at his peak.

No season was better then 08 ovechkin since 2000 for Regular Season.


----

Playoff easily malkin in 09

 

[Ben White]

Refer to post #32, but on top of that...

Forsberg from late December of 2002 until late December of 2005 had a stretch of consecutive regular season games where he scored 183 points in 115 games (also +76) which would be an 82 game pace of 131 points, this was up until his ankle gave out for good and he was never the same after that. A third of those games came in a season where 1 player had more than 87 points (St. Louis with 94) and this was after leading the playoffs in points in 2002 without even playing in the finals, the only player to ever do that twice.

This. I can’t believe people’s unwillingnes to look beyond the ”season by season” thinking, 183 points in 115 games is even more impressive since he did that coming back from 1 year injury and hardly any practice, saw his crazy high ppg drop after his injury in 2004 but still managed to string together those impressive numbers you just mentioned. If people could just show any interest in digging deeper in their so called ”facts” I think many more would hold the opinion that 2002 (playoff comeback) - 2005 (mid season injury) Forsberg was probably the most dominant peak player we’ve seen since 2000.

 

[bobholly39]

If we just go with the ability it's Sid hands down IMO. He was every bit as good offensively (probably even better) and he was also more than one way forward. I just have some problems with the fact that he only played 99 games during that time (out of 200+ games so he missed more than 50% of the games) compared to OV who played 233 games in his 3 year peak. I don't think we should be looking at too closely on few games missed but that's more than substantial difference.

For the bolded part. Probably not. He fueled up Jagr once he came back but he was used in a way that was the most suitable for him. He was still probably the best player in the world, but it came with the fact that he needed to be sheltered from certain situations. Which kind of hinders the effect for me.

It's hard to say regarding Lemieux. Honestly i don't necessarily believe great players decline a lot - so i have trouble separating 2001 Lemieux from previous Lemieux in terms of ability - so hard to say. But you're probably right, it's just hard to say for sure.

I agree games played and full seasons should definitely be important, and as such there's nothing wrong with putting OV #1. But if we're talking in terms of strictly top ability i feel as though Crosby was better for some years, as you say.