Best player in the world: 2001

[bobholly39]

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

Nobody agrees with you.

If you're going to run a series of polls - you can be as bias as you want with your votes and comments - but you should be objective with the poll question and the list of options. If not - what's even the point of doing this?

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. Nevermind that Lemieux faded in the playoffs and scored at a .5 PPG and 0 GPG for the final 6 games of the playoffs.

Sakic had a monster season, and a very nice playoffs. Forseberg 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.

Those voters must have been on acid.

But I agree, Mario was the best.

There are valid reasons to not want to vote Lemieux at #1. Yes he didn't play as much, and if you want to hold that against him, fine. That's not the issue. The issue is him not being an option.

He's absolutely in the running for best player in 2001. Whether or not we vote him that way is supposed to be the point of the polls

 

[bobholly39]

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.

to the bolded....we're not. OP is just being needlessly stubborn, obviously

Hasek was in the 2000 poll and only played 35 games that year.
Peter Forsberg was in the 2000 poll and only played 49 games that year.
etc.

 

[Midnight Judges]

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.

Agree.

The idea that quitting improves one's reputation simply cannot be reconciled with the reality of how a hockey team actually works.

 

[norrisnick]

Nobody agrees with you.

If you're going to run a series of polls - you can be as bias as you want with your votes and comments - but you should be objective with the poll question and the list of options. If not - what's even the point of doing this?





There are valid reasons to not want to vote Lemieux at #1. Yes he didn't play as much, and if you want to hold that against him, fine. That's not the issue. The issue is him not being an option.

He's absolutely in the running for best player in 2001. Whether or not we vote him that way is supposed to be the point of the polls

So... you're upset that the OP is unilaterally limiting voting options but you're just going to sit here and speak for everyone?

 

[Midnight Judges]

Yeah, OP, recommend you re-do this. I'll argue against Lemieux, but leaving him off isn't making the poll series better.

It's a great poll series BTW. Perfect for the offseason where no hockey make us go crazy.

 

[Video Nasty]

It’s Lemieux, but I remember OP leaving him out as an option originally, so it is what it is.

So I default to Sakic. He didn’t win the scoring race, but to hang in as close as he did was really impressive, on top of his all-around terrific play.

Jagr’s first half of listless, disinterested play until Lemieux returned from retirement to literally make him care again does a good job of eliminating him as the choice for me this time.

That second place Hart finish for Lemieux is a really important reminder and pride of evidence for those who didn’t watch or don’t remember that despite Jagr having more points than Lemieux after the comeback, Mario was the one who stirred the drink.

 

[FrankSidebottom]

Lemieux is added, you can change your votes, little complainers

 

[amnesiac]

In reality it is Mario based on the wording of the poll

But BEST SEASON Considering playoffs it’s Sakic fairly easy

Lidstrom and Jagr follow

 

[bambamcam4ever]

What narrative am I searching? Lmao

I have suspicions but I don't know honestly. I guess I'll have to wait for your summary at the end of this poll series.

 

[Midnight Judges]

It’s Lemieux, but I remember OP leaving him out as an option originally, so it is what it is.

So I default to Sakic. He didn’t win the scoring race, but to hang in as close as he did was really impressive, on top of his all-around terrific play.

Jagr’s first half of listless, disinterested play until Lemieux returned from retirement to literally make him care again does a good job of eliminating him as the choice for me this time.

That second place Hart finish for Lemieux is a really important reminder and pride of evidence for those who didn’t watch or don’t remember that despite Jagr having more points than Lemieux after the comeback, Mario was the one who stirred the drink.

Hold on. So Jagr was "listless" and "disinterested" - while Lemieux voluntarily sat out?

But Lemieux doesn't get dinged for being a quitter? At least Jagr was on the ice!

Is quitting held in higher regard than an 85 point pace?!? I don't get it.

That second place Hart finish for Lemieux is a really important reminder and pride of evidence for those who didn’t watch or don’t remember that despite Jagr having more points than Lemieux after the comeback, Mario was the one who stirred the drink.

How well did Lemieux 'stir the drink' after Jagr went down in the playoffs?

 

[jigglysquishy]

It's Sakic here.

Only 3 points back of Jagr while playing a complete defensive game. 30 points ahead of Forsberg.

Incredible playoffs. Lead in goals and points. Really strong defensive play. Does it without Forsberg. Wins the Cup in a Smythe worthy performance.

Wins the Hart. Second for Selke. Second in points.

Really, a near perfect season.

 

[FrankSidebottom]

I have suspicions but I don't know honestly. I guess I'll have to wait for your summary at the end of this poll series.

Of course I may have narratives (like 99% of posters), but this poll series and especially Lemieux omission is not the case. Any summary would be based on poll results, and for the results my vote is literally as valuable as yours.

 

[SUX2BU]

Lemieux

 

[Albatros]

Sakic had probably the best season, but I don't think he was ever the best player in the world. Just the leader of an Av powerhouse together with Forsberg.

 

[Toby91ca]

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.

Yes, in the 43 games they played together that year, Lemieux had 76pts and Jagr had 80pts.

 

[norrisnick]

Hold on. So Jagr was "listless" and "disinterested" - while Lemieux voluntarily sat out?

But Lemieux doesn't get dinged for being a quitter? At least Jagr was on the ice!

Is quitting held in higher regard than an 85 point pace?!? I don't get it.

Yeah, how listless and disinterested do you have to be to not even show up? The mind boggles...

 

[Toby91ca]

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.

What are you talking about? Yes Jagr scored more in those 43 games and paced at 150pts for half the year and then half the year at an 85pt pace but Lemieux paced at 145pts for the whole season? What? If that was true, why did he finish the year at 76pts? He paced at 145pts for half a season and then 0pts for the other half of the season.

I agree 100% that Lemieux should be an option here for best player that year, but let's not skew things too much.

In terms of being #2 in Hart voting that year.....that was stupid voting, no way around it. How can you vote a guy as MVP when he didn't even play half the year? This isn't a Crosby vs. Ovechkin situation like 2012-13. I thought Crosby was the better player, both had 56pts, but Ovechkin had more goals and played all the games....I can see where you can give consideration to Crosby here for MVP, his missed "some" time, but still put up the same amounts of points as Ovechkin (agree with Ovechkin winning Hart, but Crosby certainly deserved consideration). Lemieux in 2001 didn't just miss some games, he missed half the year and he was ~50pts back in the scoring race.....it made 0 sense for him to get MVP consideration. I think what happened was that voters simply loved the comeback story and the fact that he put up great numbers.

 

[KoozNetsOff 92]

Sakic had probably the best season, but I don't think he was ever the best player in the world. Just the leader of an Av powerhouse together with Forsberg.

Agreed. I don't think people read/remember op. Sakic had the best season in 00/01 but was never the best player in the world. Answer here is definitely Jagr.

 

[Video Nasty]

Hold on. So Jagr was "listless" and "disinterested" - while Lemieux voluntarily sat out?

But Lemieux doesn't get dinged for being a quitter? At least Jagr was on the ice!

Is quitting held in higher regard than an 85 point pace?!? I don't get it.



How well did Lemieux 'stir the drink' after Jagr went down in the playoffs?

However you feel about Mario being retired up to that point and the reasons why, it doesn’t mean that Jagr didn’t play listless and disinterested while a floundering team clearly needed a boost and that an immediate switch was flipped the very moment Lemieux stepped back onto the ice.

I’ve always cut Jagr slack here because who wouldn’t be after dragging that team around as much as he did after Mario retired in 1997? This renewed level of interest stayed for half a season before it regressed again in Washington.

You bring up pace. Both Jagr and the Penguins were on pace for 84 points, totals that at surface level with no consideration of a different reality where Mario never would have returned and nothing else would be affected, made them firmly a non-playoff team and Jagr the 14th leading scorer just a year after winning an Art Ross while missing 19 games.

You have to work on being a little more objective with the players you love. I can say that Jagr was often a bored, selfish, malcontent and many of Lemieux’s ailments were self-inflicted due to poor conditioning and his own disinterest in working on it, yet still love and appreciate what both players did bring to the ice.

Lemieux got enough Hart votes to finish second place because the individual and team results were there and very obvious to voters. Jagr and the Penguins had a clean almost right down the middle of results to compare, and the difference between the two halves was night and day.

 

[Toby91ca]

Agreed. I don't think people read/remember op. Sakic had the best season in 00/01 but was never the best player in the world. Answer here is definitely Jagr.

Well, that's where it gets weird though. For example, I would probably suggest Lemieux was the best player, but he didn't really demonstrate it, so hard to show evidence of it. So, I go with who performed the best that year and that was Sakic

 

[Toby91ca]

Lemieux got enough Hart votes to finish second place because the individual and team results were there and very obvious to voters.

I think it was more due to the big comeback story, though impact to the team since he came back is part of it as well. My point is that there is a cut-off somewhere that is makes no sense to give MVP consideration to someone that has missed time. I don't know what that cut-off is, but missing 50% of the games is certainly enough for me to consider someone not eligible.

 

[Felidae]

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.

This doesn't really make sense to me.

Yes Jagr had a mediocre first half, but when they both ended up playing together playing the same amount of games, Jagr had the better numbers. I don't see how that makes Lemieux the better player in this instance. You could say Lemieux boosted his numbers, but it goes the other way as well especially considering Jagr outpaced him in that timeframe.

Feel like they gave Lemieux some grace in Hart voting because he played as well as he did after coming back from retirement. It's a great story and the MVP is narrative heavy after all.

 

[Video Nasty]

I think it was more due to the big comeback story, though impact to the team since he came back is part of it as well. My point is that there is a cut-off somewhere that is makes no sense to give MVP consideration to someone that has missed time. I don't know what that cut-off is, but missing 50% of the games is certainly enough for me to consider someone not eligible.

It was a special circumstance. Voters barely noticed Jagr and the Penguins for most of the first half (37 points in 36 games for Jagr and a 15-14-6-1 record). The Penguins scored 103 goals in 36 games; 2.86 GPG.

2-5-3 record in the last 10 games up through December 26, 2000.

Mario returns looking like he hasn’t missed a beat and is still the best player in the world immediately. Penguins go 27-14-3-2 the rest of the way, score 178 goals; 3.87 GPG, and he propels Jagr to score 84 points and win another Art Ross.

It helps that this was a second half return, keeping it an active storyline all the way to the end in voters’ minds.

Mario coming back and playing awesome in either half with no tangible team results would not see him finish second. He did finish second and it was because voters understood what his comeback meant to that team.

We have hard real results in how the team performed before and after, how Jagr played before and after, how the offense absolutely ripped, and these point to something beyond just Mario returning and playing incredible 3.5 years later.

 

[norrisnick]

It was a special circumstance. Voters barely noticed Jagr and the Penguins for most of the first half (37 points in 36 games for Jagr and a 15-14-6-1 record). The Penguins scored 103 goals in 36 games; 2.86 GPG.

2-5-3 record in the last 10 games up through December 26, 2000.

Mario returns looking like he hasn’t missed a beat and is still the best player in the world immediately. Penguins go 27-14-3-2 the rest of the way, score 178 goals; 3.87 GPG, and he propels Jagr to score 84 points and win another Art Ross.

It helps that this was a second half return, keeping it an active storyline all the way to the end in voters’ minds.

Mario coming back and playing awesome in either half with no tangible team results would not see him finish second. He did finish second and it was because voters understood what his comeback meant to that team.

We have hard real results in how the team performed before and after, how Jagr played before and after, how the offense absolutely ripped, and these point to something beyond just Mario returning and playing incredible 3.5 years later.

So give Mario the Jack Adams.

Jagr was better than Mario, when Mario returned. That doesn't prove that Mario was the better player by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Video Nasty]

So give Mario the Jack Adams.

Jagr was better than Mario, when Mario returned. That doesn't prove that Mario was the better player by any stretch of the imagination.

Cause and effect makes Lemieux the more valuable player that season. It’s that simple.