Who is the best peak player since 2000?

[Midnight Judges]

Wait, who was more durable in your opinion Gretzky or Lemieux? You'd probably say Lemieux since he was bigger right?

Lemieux was big but not durable. Lindros also wasn't durable.

It hurt both their legacies.

Gretzky was notoriously difficult to hit because he had genius level awareness.

 

[Dion TheFluff]

Tim Thomas should be an option

 

[Nadal On Clay]

Lemieux was big but not durable. Lindros also wasn't durable.

It hurt both their legacies.

Gretzky was notoriously difficult to hit because he had genius level awareness.

Lindros is another example of a guy whose career was shortened because of concussions and most importantly because of his style of play. Saying he wasn't durable is just ignorance.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Lindros is another example of a guy whose career was shortened because of concussions and most importantly because of his style of play. Saying he wasn't durable is just ignorance.

Sure, you can quibble over whether it was durability or awareness that did Lindros in. But the result is what matters, and Lindros didn't last long enough to have a great career.

 

[authentic]

Tim Thomas should be an option

I wasn't including goalies, but he is probably the best peak goalie since Hasek.

 

[Dion TheFluff]

I wasn't including goalies, but he is probably the best peak goalie since Hasek.

His 2011 season + playoffs was ridiculous

 

[Machinehead]

120 point Crosby is the best for me, although you could make an argument for Ovechkin.

 

[Machinehead]

Fantasyland.

Let's not confuse peak and prime.

Who's to say 41 games isn't a peak?

 

[Midnight Judges]

Let's not confuse peak and prime.

Who's to say 41 games isn't a peak?

41 games can be a peak, but a 3 year peak is better for their team and exponentially more difficult to achieve.

 

[Ben White]

Nonconsecutive "streaks" like Crosby's or Forsberg's are much less meaningful than if a player actually achieved those levels of productivity in actual consecutive games - which Ovechkin did BTW (he may have missed a game or two).

If you mean ”who contributed more” during a said period that’s right, but that’s not what this is about, is it? It’s about who was ”likely the better player” during their peak. From that perspective it’s more impressive to string together those numbers while being injured in between (which we all know affects said player’s abilities at least for a period of time) than if your’re completely healthy riding your hottest streak.

 

[Varan]

Again, if pointing out how far ahead a player was from a teammate is significant i.e. OV and Backstrom in 07/08, then your point is irrelevant. Who cares if Malkin wasn't his normal self that year.

It is significant of course when we are discussing and comparing players playing at their best, it shows dominance. However context needs to be inserted in the comparison as well.

 

[daver]

It is significant of course when we are discussing and comparing players playing at their best, it shows dominance. However context needs to be inserted in the comparison as well.

So what does Malkin playing below his normal standard have to do with the comparison. If anything, it shows how Crosby was able to step up and produce regardless. I would give OV the same credit in 07/08; Crosby was slightly more impressive.

 

[Turin]

Crosby from 2010-2014 was the best prime. Before the neck injury was the best peak. Snapshot, backhand, deflections, passing, p4p strength, agility on his edges. It’s not an exaggeration to say he won 100% of his puck battles from age 23 to 27 when he really put on upperbody mass. He was even on his way to having an elite one-timer before he got scrambled and rebooted.

 

[Turin]

The problem with your statement is that it lacks context.

Crosby finished the 2009-2010 regular season in force while recording 21 pts in his last 9 games (2,33 PPG)
Crosby had 65 pts in his first 38 games in 2010-2011 (1,71 PPG)
Crosby had 37 pts in 22 games in 2011-2012 (1,68 PPG)
Crosby had 56 pts in 36 game in 2012-2013 (1,56 PPG)
Crosby had 104 pts in 80 games in 2013-2014 (1,3 PPG)

As you can see, Crosby was on a torrid pace at the end of 09-10 and it simply continued into the 2010-2011 season and after. You can't tell me its all of a coincidence that the guy had crazy hot starts in 3 straight years. He wasn't "hot" during those 38 games at the end of 2010, it was just his normal level of play during those years. He was just that dominant and it really is a shame that he got injured. Had he not suffered these concussions, he would most likely be defined as the consensus 5th best player of all time today.

Its totally debatable which one peaked higher on level of play alone. However, if you take full seasons, it is not.

It took Crosby over a year to recover from that broken ankle. If you hadn’t seen his whole career you wouldn’t know it but there was a drop off from 2007 Crosby to Crosby after until about late 2009 in terms of skating. You could tell in 2009/10 he was getting his speed back while at the same time bulking up and improving his shot drastically, which is when he hit his peak at 23. The off-season after 2009/2010 Sid specifically spent in high altitudes training to get his explosivess back, which he did.

As much as people with other agendas want to claim “hot streaks” to Sid’s disrupted prime, people who watched 87 knew that his 1.5 ppg stretch wasn’t a coincidence. It was Crosby getting his speed back while adding ~15 lbs of muscle.

 

[authentic]

Crosby from 2010-2014 was the best prime. Before the neck injury was the best peak. Snapshot, backhand, deflections, passing, p4p strength, agility on his edges. It’s not an exaggeration to say he won 100% of his puck battles from age 23 to 27 when he really put on upperbody mass. He was even on his way to having an elite one-timer before he got scrambled and rebooted.

Honestly just rewatching a ton of his old highlights after his goal in OT last night I don't think there's any doubt he was the best peak player, it's too damn bad he got those concussions and neck injury. Also that was a high ankle sprain he had in 2007, which can be worse than broken ankles actually because they never heal 100%. His strength and edgework were better than ever at his peak but I don't think he quite recaptured that speed and acceleration he had in 2007.

 

[Midnight Judges]

If you mean ”who contributed more” during a said period that’s right, but that’s not what this is about, is it? It’s about who was ”likely the better player” during their peak. From that perspective it’s more impressive to string together those numbers while being injured in between (which we all know affects said player’s abilities at least for a period of time) than if your’re completely healthy riding your hottest streak.

I don't think so, because pretty much all hockey players are nursing an injury during the season. They all get slashed and bruised, sprains, strains, and pulled muscles, etc.

Being the best = producing like the best. That's the whole point of being good at something.

If they aren't on the ice, they aren't the best player. In fact they are worse than the worst player because they provide zero production while incurring a cap hit.

Durability is a virtue in all professional sports.

Hockey is the only sport where people pretend missed games with injuries are a neutral event.

 

[Ben White]

I don't think so, because pretty much all hockey players are nursing an injury during the season. They all get slashed and bruised, sprains, strains, and pulled muscles, etc.

Being the best = producing like the best. That's the whole point of being good at something.

If they aren't on the ice, they aren't the best player. In fact they are worse than the worst player because they provide zero production while incurring a cap hit.

Durability is a virtue in all professional sports.

Hockey is the only sport where people pretend missed games with injuries are a neutral event.

This logic is just... unbelievable

The whole point of comparing players from different eras is to try to find out who was actually the best player in terms of ability, right? The best player was still the best player, injured or not. Anyone can read basic stats, add games and points to come up with simple conclusions based on that. The whole point with a forum like this is that people are more engaged and willing to dig deeper than that to hopefully find out who was actually the best player.

 

[Midnight Judges]

This logic is just... unbelievable

The whole point of comparing players from different eras is to try to find out who was actually the best player in terms of ability, right? The best player was still the best player, injured or not. Anyone can read basic stats, add games and points to come up with simple conclusions based on that. The whole point with a forum like this is that people are more engaged and willing to dig deeper than that to hopefully find out who was actually the best player.

Comparing across eras has nothing to do with this thread. And no, I don't agree that the point is to determine ability. The purpose of comparing across eras is to determine relative achievements.

Ability is useless if a person doesn't achieve. Ability is not the objective.

I think the best player is the one who contributed the most, on the ice, to their team.

You think the best player is the one who woulda coulda shoulda if X, Y, and Z hadn't happened.

It is a case of me preferring reality and actual history vs you preferring imaginary scenarios.

 

[Filthy Dangles]

Ovechkin's best season was better than Crosby's best.

Crosby's best 3 seasons were better than Ovechkin's best.

Crosby was a better player at his peak. Pigeonholing the term 'peak' into something like best single season or 3 is dumb anyway. These 2 guys are generational talents who pretty much were at their "peak" for most of their careers.

 

[KoozNetsOff 92]

Ovechkin's best season was better than Crosby's best.

Crosby's best 3 seasons were better than Ovechkin's best.

Crosby was a better player at his peak. Pigeonholing the term 'peak' into something like best single season or 3 is dumb anyway. These 2 guys are generational talents who pretty much were at their "peak" for most of their careers.

Thanks for the laugh.

 

[cactusjack]

Jan Bulis on January 25th 2006! that was a good 13 minutes!

 

[Midnight Judges]

Thanks for the laugh.

yeah that was a bizarre statement. Ovechkin's 3rd best season was 09-10, he played 72 games, and it was equal to Crosby's best season (also 09-10).

 

[KoozNetsOff 92]

yeah that was a bizarre statement. Ovechkin's 3rd best season was 09-10, he played 72 games, and it was equal to Crosby's best season (also 09-10).

Ovechkin's 09/10 was better than Crosby's. Matched his production in 9 less games, won the lindsay and higher in hart voting.

 

[Regal]

I don't think so, because pretty much all hockey players are nursing an injury during the season. They all get slashed and bruised, sprains, strains, and pulled muscles, etc.

Being the best = producing like the best. That's the whole point of being good at something.

If they aren't on the ice, they aren't the best player. In fact they are worse than the worst player because they provide zero production while incurring a cap hit.

Durability is a virtue in all professional sports.

Hockey is the only sport where people pretend missed games with injuries are a neutral event.

You keep saying this, when it's just plain false. Hockey is the sport where missed games are punished the most, since total goals and points have always been the most highly regarded stats. Averages are used far more frequently in basketball and baseball

Comparing across eras has nothing to do with this thread. And no, I don't agree that the point is to determine ability. The purpose of comparing across eras is to determine relative achievements.

Ability is useless if a person doesn't achieve. Ability is not the objective.

I think the best player is the one who contributed the most, on the ice, to their team.

You think the best player is the one who woulda coulda shoulda if X, Y, and Z hadn't happened.

It is a case of me preferring reality and actual history vs you preferring imaginary scenarios.

Crosby's peak isn't an imaginary scenario though. He actually played those games and people watched him dominate. It has nothing to do with woulda, coulda, shoulda. That's only about putting his play in context because we're used to looking at 82 game samples. Regular season totals are great accomplishments, but they're not the goal either. The cup is, and the player with the highest "ability" is generally going to give you the best chance to win there.

 

[Cotton]

Mario