Assuming Kucherov wins third Art Ross, he is above which of these groups of players...

[DFC]

But how can you have Jagr below players with 1 and 2 Art Ross respectively if you place such value on them?

Because Crosby was the best player of his generation and Ovechkin is the best goal scorer in the history of the game. I don't think the gap is huge or anything. I think most lists would rank Crosby above Jagr. Crosby has always gotten a bit of a pass on his lack of scoring titles, rightly or wrongly.

Art Rosses aren't the only thing a player can achieve to rise through the ranks, but they are the thing Kucherov has done. That said, he's also been TB's best playoff performer, despite his lack of a Conn Smyth.

 

[Erika]

Top 20 for now, potential top 10 by the end of his career. He is that amazing.

If he was a north american player, he would have more recognition in the media.

 

[psycat]

Because Crosby was the best player of his generation and Ovechkin is the best goal scorer in the history of the game. I don't think the gap is huge or anything. I think most lists would rank Crosby above Jagr. Crosby has always gotten a bit of a pass on his lack of scoring titles, rightly or wrongly.

Yes but Jagr was also the best of his(sans Lemieux and nobody of the players we discuss have anything on him), and he did win scoring titles and also had his fair share of injuries preventing him from winning more.

Ovechkin might be the greatest/best goalscorer of all time(greatest id agree with simply due to numbers, best not so sure) but he is severly lacking as a player compared to someone like Jagr outside of that. It's like Jagr is a 8.5/10 goalscorer, Ovechkin 9,5 but then Jagr is a vastly superior playmaker(like 9/10 compared to 6/10 in terms of all time greats), better international career, arguably playoff aswell.

Wrongly for sure. Thought a truly generational offensive talent like McDavid coming along would show what Crosby is not but guess people refuse to see because there always "got to be" one in the league I suppose. Now Crosby got an all-time great career but he is for me the Lidström of forwards, concistently amongst the best but never truly standing out.

Anyway kinda derailing the thread at this point so ill leave it here. Actually have a hard time judging where I would personally rank Kucherov for what it's worth.

 

[Foppberg]

Slightly below group B

 

[kevsh]

D

I'd also have Bossy in that group as well, but as the poll is laid out, he's trending top as high as top 15.

If Kuch keeps up his level of play for ~5-6 more years, and based on his his style of play (not speed, agility or strength-based, but unreal vision and precision) I believe he certainly can, top 10 isn't out of reach.

 

[GlitchMarner]

Another thing in Kucherov's favor is, because his game is SO cerebral, he should age well. Injuries could of course derail that, but he and McDavid should be the favorites for next year's Art Ross. He's been an incredibly consistent top scorer.

Yeah, this was probably MacKinnon's best shot at an Art Ross. He should be a top scorer again, but McDavid is two years younger and Kucherov, while two years older, doesn't rely nearly as much on speed and athleticism to score at a high level.

Hopefully both McDavid and Kucherov will be healthy next year and we'll get to see them battle it out for the scoring title.

 

[DFC]

Yes but Jagr was also the best of his(sans Lemieux and nobody of the players we discuss have anything on him), and he did win scoring titles and also had his fair share of injuries preventing him from winning more.

Ovechkin might be the greatest/best goalscorer of all time(greatest id agree with simply due to numbers, best not so sure) but he is severly lacking as a player compared to someone like Jagr outside of that. It's like Jagr is a 8.5/10 goalscorer, Ovechkin 9,5 but then Jagr is a vastly superior playmaker(like 9/10 compared to 6/10 in terms of all time greats), better international career, arguably playoff aswell.

Wrongly for sure. Thought a truly generational offensive talent like McDavid coming along would show what Crosby is not but guess people refuse to see because there always "got to be" one in the league I suppose. Now Crosby got an all-time great career but he is for me the Lidström of forwards, concistently amongst the best but never truly standing out.

Anyway kinda derailing the thread at this point so ill leave it here. Actually have a hard time judging where I would personally rank Kucherov for what it's worth.

I think Crosby wins out most debates vs. Jagr. You might be right, but your opinion is in the minority.

Ovy is closer. I just can't discount that the guy's been more/less good for 40 goals minimum for 20 years. To me that longevity wins out, but I see the case against it.

Basically, I see Kucherov as just outside the all time top tier. There's sort of a buffer tier between 1st and 2nd, and I think he's in that.

 

[TheGoldenJet]

Malkin is in the Trottier/Bossy tier of players, for sure.

 

[GoldenKnight]

Why do I get the feeling that MacKinnon sacrificed a scoring title/MVP trophy this year by going out and winning the Four Nation's MVP, only to break down at season's end in his 83rd game.

 

[psycat]

Malkin is in the Trottier/Bossy tier of players, for sure.

Could make an argument that all players in B and C are pretty much interchangeable with one and another so there's that. Heck id probably add Brett Hull to that bunch based on peak alone.

 

[The Macho King]

Why do I get the feeling that MacKinnon sacrificed a scoring title/MVP trophy this year by going out and winning the Four Nation's MVP, only to break down at season's end in his 83rd game.

Kucherov is ahead of him in per game scoring. There's no what if with Kucherov.

 

[tabness]

Group A is generous, a clear example of a player who's statline flatters him immensely, empty calorie points, the other standouts in this soft era you can sort of see doing well in others, but Kucherov never impressed me much

 

[authentic]

Group A is generous, a clear example of a player who's statline flatters him immensely, empty calorie points, the other standouts in this soft era you can sort of see doing well in others, but Kucherov never impressed me much

Someone mentioned he racks up points in blowout games more so than MacKinnon, and MacKinnon scores more tying or go ahead goals in close games. Not sure if that’s true or not.

 

[tabness]

Someone mentioned he racks up points in blowout games more so than MacKinnon, and MacKinnon scores more tying or go ahead goals in close games. Not sure if that’s true or not.

I had a script that actually ran through these numbers historically but unfortunately got lazy in the past few years to get the recent year data and now the NHL changed the way the expose the data lol...

As is Kucherov feasts on points on various favorable situations to a degree that isn't matched by him actually driving the play. He also plays in an era which greatly minimizes the impact to the areas where he is lacking physically.

Which is fine and all, and he's obviously a genius and an all time playmaker, but you know what, so was a guy like Adam Oates, who also had a ton of points and all but nobody at the time thought he was as good as his statline.

 

[Staniowski]

Is he actually better than Lafleur though?

Yes, in my mind, there is no doubt. Both great passers, but Kucherov is better. And an overall better offensive player.

Kucherov is the smarter player. Lafleur just played on instinct. He was great at it, but it was also his greatest weakness.

 

[hamzarocks]

True, but it’s unlikely he wins his second Hart and Lindsay this season.

I am confused who will get the hart/lindsay?

It looked like Mackinnon for a while then Draisaitl but both arent being mentioned as much now, with Draisaitl having injuries and Mackinnon being viewed as worse than Makar this year.

If Mcdavid had played 75 games this year he'd be a name to toss in that list but sadly too many games missed

I think Kucherov should get at least 1 of the hart and lindsay of not both

 

[ViD]

When you win 3 Art Rosses over arguably a top 5 player all time you’re certainly top 20

 

[hamzarocks]

I had a script that actually ran through these numbers historically but unfortunately got lazy in the past few years to get the recent year data and now the NHL changed the way the expose the data lol...

As is Kucherov feasts on points on various favorable situations to a degree that isn't matched by him actually driving the play. He also plays in an era which greatly minimizes the impact to the areas where he is lacking physically.

Which is fine and all, and he's obviously a genius and an all time playmaker, but you know what, so was a guy like Adam Oates, who also had a ton of points and all but nobody at the time thought he was as good as his statline.

Oates wasnt contending for rosses ever really in his career.

Adam Oates is a Mitch Marner Comparison historically

Kucherov is a Jagr/OV comparison if he can have another year or two like the last two

 

[wetcoast]

When you win 3 Art Rosses over arguably a top 5 player all time you’re certainly top 20

So does Phil Esposito having 5 Art Ross trophies while Orr played make him top 10 all time?

Comments like this always puzzle me as trying to squeeze something into a box that might not be there,

Either a guy has a top 10 resume all time or he doesn't.

The slow start to Kuch's career is probably going to be the difference between top 40,30, 20 when it's all said and done as he is still on his journey and while some people don't want to look at it, I'll as again why not?

For me a more interesting question is how the all time wingers list shakes up (and when do they pass Lafleur on the all time list ) with Kuch and Draisaitl currently ascending?

 

[Fantomas]

I'd say he's roughly on par with Sakic.

 

[La Bamba]

Kucherov doesn't get enough respect. He's in the Joe Sakic/Peter Forsberg tier for me. Two cups and 2 Art Ross' in an era with McDrai

 

[bert]

Roughly on par with Lafleur, but not above. He doesn’t have a Conn Smythe, which isn’t the only factor, but comes into play in comparisons like this.

He could have 2 pretty easily though. He's top 25 for me and the most underated player of this era.

 

[bert]

Kucherov doesn't get enough respect. He's in the Joe Sakic/Peter Forsberg tier for me. Two cups and 2 Art Ross' in an era with McDrai

He's way ahead of both for me.

 

[Fatass]

I think he's tracking for top 20ish. Still missing the rocket and conn smythe. The top guys have won everything so you have to start nitpicking.

I like how you define how we rank players as “nitpicking”. Because that’s exactly what we do with these guys. They are all great. We tier them. Then we literally pick nits to decide which is higher or lower.
Kucherov is fantastic. Which tier of greatness is he in? Not in the top 10 for me. 11-20? Maybe? But I’d say he’s more likely in the 21-30 range. Then it’s nitpicking time to decide where in that group he’d fall.
I don’t agree with the OP’s tiering of some of the great players so can’t vote in the poll.

 

[Garbageyuk]

He could have 2 pretty easily though. He's top 25 for me and the most underated player of this era.

“Pretty easily”? If that was the case he’d have them instead of having 0.

Best not go down that road. If we start splitting hairs like that, Crosby should have zero, Ovechkin as well, and Gretzky should have 4.

You lose the plot pretty quick that way, and it just becomes fantasy.