Best player in the world: 2001

[FrankSidebottom]

So, we are at 1:2 for Hasek and Jagr and moving on to 2001.

Edit: Lemieux is added

Previous polls:
1998 (62% 1 Hasek, 2 Jagr, 3 Forsberg)
1999 (48% 1 Jagr, 2 Hasek, 3 Forsberg)
2000 (72% 1 Jagr, 2 Pronger, 3 Bure)

Click to read more...

 

[LemonSauceD]

Sakic

 

[Coffee]

Seriously ?

 

[bobholly39]

Mario Lemieux.

 

[Shark Finn]

Seriously ?

yes

 

[Jorma Heart]

Seriously ?

Yes.

edit: No. 2001 was the comeback year.

 

[FrankSidebottom]

Seriously ?

Why so?

 

[bobholly39]

Why so?

Because you need to add Mario Lemieux to the list of options. He'd most likely get voted #1.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

If the question is "who had the best season", it's obviously Sakic. Almost 25 years later, I'm not sure if anyone has had such a good regular season and playoffs combined. (Maybe Malkin in 2009).

But if it's "best player"? It has to be Lemieux. Nobody else, not even Sakic, was on his level that year.

 

[FrankSidebottom]

Because you need to add Mario Lemieux to the list of options. He'd most likely get voted #1.

Don’t disagree, but I feel this is not quite right. I mean, he could have won also 98-99-00 polls even being retired and every other poll until like 2005. I just think adding Lemieux would be messing it up, he’s not been a full time player since his first retirement (unlike for example Forsberg who returned relatively young and for full~ish seasons).

 

[norrisnick]

If the question is "who had the best season", it's obviously Sakic. Almost 25 years later, I'm not sure if anyone has had such a good regular season and playoffs combined. (Maybe Malkin in 2009).

But if it's "best player"? It has to be Lemieux. Nobody else, not even Sakic, was on his level that year.

There were hundreds of players well beyond Mario's level the first few months of the season.

EDIT - and if you want to go peak within the season... like half a dozen players had 5 point games that season and Mario only peaked at 4. There comes a point where you only get partial credit for completing only part of the work.

 

[Despote]

But if it's "best player"? It has to be Lemieux. Nobody else, not even Sakic, was on his level that year.

Didn't Jagr outscore Lemieux in the games they played together? Without taking anything away from Mario, It was one of the great comebacks in sports, I'm not convinced he was the best player in the world at that point.

 

[bobholly39]

Don’t disagree, but I feel this is not quite right. I mean, he could have won also 98-99-00 polls even being retired and every other poll until like 2005. I just think adding Lemieux would be messing it up, he’s not been a full time player since his first retirement (unlike for example Forsberg who returned relatively young and for full~ish seasons).

Mario Lemieux didn't play in 98, 99 or 00. He actually did play in 2001 and was 2nd in hart voting. I don't understand the logic of keeping him out.

If you want to rephrase your poll to be "excluding Lemieux - who was the best player in 2001"....fine. But seems bizarre

 

[bambamcam4ever]

Mario Lemieux didn't play in 98, 99 or 00. He actually did play in 2001 and was 2nd in hart voting. I don't understand the logic of keeping him out.

If you want to rephrase your poll to be "excluding Lemieux - who was the best player in 2001"....fine. But seems bizarre

The OP is manipulating polls in search of a narrative. There's really no other explanation for keeping Lemieux out.

 

[bambamcam4ever]

Imagine putting Roman Cechmanek on a poll like this and not Mario Lemieux.

 

[FrankSidebottom]

Mario Lemieux didn't play in 98, 99 or 00. He actually did play in 2001 and was 2nd in hart voting. I don't understand the logic of keeping him out.

If you want to rephrase your poll to be "excluding Lemieux - who was the best player in 2001"....fine. But seems bizarre

I have already pointed this in the OP of the first poll. I get that it’s debatable but it is what it is.

 

[FrankSidebottom]

The OP is manipulating polls in search of a narrative. There's really no other explanation for keeping Lemieux out.

What narrative am I searching? Lmao

 

[Hockey Outsider]

There were hundreds of players well beyond Mario's level the first few months of the season.

EDIT - and if you want to go peak within the season... like half a dozen players had 5 point games that season and Mario only peaked at 4. There comes a point where you only get partial credit for completing only part of the work.

Taken to its extreme, we could argue that Sam Ganger peaked higher than Crosby, Ovechkin, McDavid, Jagr, etc. Obviously, 1 game isn't a large enough sample size. The question is - is 43 games enough to determine a player's level of performance?

Jagr just won the 2000 poll with 70%+ of the votes. He only played 63 games. Maybe we're drawing a line in the sand and saying that 63 games is enough, but 43 isn't. But I don't know if there's a reasonable basis for doing that.

(For the record, I'm planning to vote for Forsberg in 2004. He was clearly the best played in the NHL that season. But he didn't have the best season due to missing too many games).

Didn't Jagr outscore Lemieux in the games they played together? Without taking anything away from Mario, It was one of the great comebacks in sports, I'm not convinced he was the best player in the world at that point.

It's true that Jagr scored more than Lemieux in the games they played together. But Lemieux still finished ahead in Hart voting. And Lemieux played at a 145-point pace the whole season. Jagr spent half the year playing at a 150-point pace, and half playing at an 85-point pace. Jagr had the better season, but Lemieux was the better player.

 

[Zero Requiem]

Lemieux

 

[The Grim Reaper]

Lemieux

 

[Midnight Judges]

Quitting for the first half of the season is a huge knock against Lemieux. It's not some neutral event. If you want to be the best you can't be a quitter. In team sports, quitting is like getting a zero on a test IMO. Nevermind that Lemieux faded in the playoffs and scored at a .5 PPG and 0 GPG for the final 6 games, which (not coincidentally) Jagr was injured for.

Sakic had a monster season, and a very nice playoffs. Forsberg went down after round 2 and they still won the cup with Sakic leading the playoffs in goals and points. This has to be Sakic.

Anyway, I agree Lemieux should at least be an option, but the only way anyone can pick him is if they think leadership and durability are worth precisely nothing.

 

[norrisnick]

Taken to its extreme, we could argue that Sam Ganger peaked higher than Crosby, Ovechkin, McDavid, Jagr, etc. Obviously, 1 game isn't a large enough sample size. The question is - is 43 games enough to determine a player's level of performance?

Jagr just won the 2000 poll with 70%+ of the votes. He only played 63 games. Maybe we're drawing a line in the sand and saying that 63 games is enough, but 43 isn't. But I don't know if there's a reasonable basis for doing that.

(For the record, I'm planning to vote for Forsberg in 2004. He was clearly the best played in the NHL that season. But he didn't have the best season due to missing too many games).


It's true that Jagr scored more than Lemieux in the games they played together. But Lemieux still finished ahead in Hart voting. And Lemieux played at a 145-point pace the whole season. Jagr spent half the year playing at a 150-point pace, and half playing at an 85-point pace. Jagr had the better season, but Lemieux was the better player.

Which further proves the existence of this bizarre notion of many that not playing is better than playing. Lemieux spent half the year at a 0-point pace. Pace quite literally only matters if you actually play. It's wholly meaningless if you're in the press box.

 

[Connor McConnor]

Sakic

 

[blundluntman]

This poll should be redone, Lemieux not being an option really makes it an invalid addition to this series.

 

[um]

Mario Lemieux didn't play in 98, 99 or 00. He actually did play in 2001 and was 2nd in hart voting. I don't understand the logic of keeping him out.

If you want to rephrase your poll to be "excluding Lemieux - who was the best player in 2001"....fine. But seems bizarre

Those voters must have been on acid.

But I agree, Mario should be in the poll.