Best player in the world: 2006

[bobholly39]

There truly is no case for Crosby. Anyone care to make one?

Such a drama queen, always

In that poll on history boards - it wasn't made clear initially if it's "best season" or "most impressive season". There were even posts discussing this. I think there's an argument to be made that Crosby as an 18 year old vs Ovechkin was a 20 year old is a "more impressive" rookie season - even if Ovechkin had the "better" season. I'm sure this led for a few more votes for Crosby.

In this poll - as has been pointed out to you many times - many voters seem to be confusing 2005-2006 season with 2006 calendar year (and maybe, 2006-2007 season). I expect that explains some Crosby votes. For either of 2006 calendar year, or 2006-2007 season, I'd have voted Crosby too.

This obsession you have with Crosby is not healthy.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Such a drama queen, always

In that poll on history boards - it wasn't made clear initially if it's "best season" or "most impressive season". There were even posts discussing this. I think there's an argument to be made that Crosby as an 18 year old vs Ovechkin was a 20 year old is a "more impressive" rookie season - even if Ovechkin had the "better" season. I'm sure this led for a few more votes for Crosby.

In this poll - as has been pointed out to you many times - many voters seem to be confusing 2005-2006 season with 2006 calendar year (and maybe, 2006-2007 season). I expect that explains some Crosby votes. For either of 2006 calendar year, or 2006-2007 season, I'd have voted Crosby too.

This obsession you have with Crosby is not healthy.

The poll question was clear.

Some posters changed the question into something different because they wanted to answer Crosby.

If there was a poll about which player is the greatest at pooping, many of you would assume it's gotta be Crosby and wax poetic about his alleged lower body strength.

 

[Beau Knows]

Such a drama queen, always

In that poll on history boards - it wasn't made clear initially if it's "best season" or "most impressive season". There were even posts discussing this. I think there's an argument to be made that Crosby as an 18 year old vs Ovechkin was a 20 year old is a "more impressive" rookie season - even if Ovechkin had the "better" season. I'm sure this led for a few more votes for Crosby.

In this poll - as has been pointed out to you many times - many voters seem to be confusing 2005-2006 season with 2006 calendar year (and maybe, 2006-2007 season). I expect that explains some Crosby votes. For either of 2006 calendar year, or 2006-2007 season, I'd have voted Crosby too.

This obsession you have with Crosby is not healthy.

The funny thing is, after all this whining about Crosby getting some votes for the after 1 year poll. MJ was then unable to manage to give Crosby the nod after their 2nd seasons (he was one of only 7 posters who didn't think Crosby was ahead). He thought they were tied after two seasons, somehow.

In their 2nd years Ovechkin failed to match his rookie season. Meanwhile Crosby improved and bested him by 28 points, becoming the youngest ever winner of the Hart and Art Ross, and even won the Lindsay for good measure.

 

[Cup or Bust]

Had to go with Thornton for that season.

 

[Toby91ca]

The poll question was clear.

Some posters changed the question into something different because they wanted to answer Crosby.

If there was a poll about which player is the greatest at pooping, many of you would assume it's gotta be Crosby and wax poetic about his alleged lower body strength.

Dude, sure there will be some overzealous Crosby fans, but you seem to be in the same ballpark with Ovechkin. You seem to think Ovechkin was on some other planet vs. Crosby in their rookie years. The fact is Crosby was top 5 or 6 in scoring and near the top in 2nd half. He's not my choice for the best that year, but there is like 15 guys to pick from and you seem to think people are just absolute idiots to pick him. He'd be in my top 4 and would come after Ovechkin, but it's not like he was so far behind that it's laughable to pick him.

 

[Connor McConnor]

After the 05-06 season it probably would have been a tossup between 4 or 5 guys including Jagr, Thornton, Lidstrom, Ovi and Crosby.

Also I get why he isn't a candidate but Pronger was considered an extremely dominant player just happened to be playing for a pretty crappy Oilers team.

Only went to the Cup finals and lost our starting goalie but yes, he was a dominant player that year. Roloson and Him carried the Oilers that year

 

[wetcoast]

Only went to the Cup finals and lost our starting goalie but yes, he was a dominant player that year. Roloson and Him carried the Oilers that year

Like I said it's an oversight to not have him on this list for the 05-06 season.

 

[Connor McConnor]

Like I said it's an oversight to not have him on this list for the 05-06 season.

And I agreed with that portion but not sure how a “pretty crappy team” can be that close to winning a Cup while beating Detroit and San Jose that year

 

[wetcoast]

And I agreed with that portion but not sure how a “pretty crappy team” can be that close to winning a Cup while beating Detroit and San Jose that year

The Oilers were a pretty crappy team that rode a hot goalie and Pronger playing 30 MPG every night and Fernando Pisani scoring 14 goals in 21 post season games while notching a career high 18 goals in 80 regular season games.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Dude, sure there will be some overzealous Crosby fans, but you seem to be in the same ballpark with Ovechkin. You seem to think Ovechkin was on some other planet vs. Crosby in their rookie years.

No, I don't.

But Ovechkin was clearly better and he clearly had the better season, and there really is no case for saying otherwise.

 

[Midnight Judges]

The funny thing is, after all this whining about Crosby getting some votes for the after 1 year poll. MJ was then unable to manage to give Crosby the nod after their 2nd seasons (he was one of only 7 posters who didn't think Crosby was ahead). He thought they were tied after two seasons, somehow.

In their 2nd years Ovechkin failed to match his rookie season. Meanwhile Crosby improved and bested him by 28 points, becoming the youngest ever winner of the Hart and Art Ross, and even won the Lindsay for good measure.

Ovechkin had 1 better season. Crosby had 1 better season.

In that span Crosby was 2nd in points and 11th in goals.
Ovechkin was 5th in points and 2nd in goals.

Crosby had 168 primary points. Ovechkin had 166.

So yeah, I don't see a difference.

 

[Hippasus]

The Oilers were a pretty crappy team that rode a hot goalie and Pronger playing 30 MPG every night and Fernando Pisani scoring 14 goals in 21 post season games while notching a career high 18 goals in 80 regular season games.

Take away the number one goalie and 1D and suddenly a lot of teams look pretty crappy. I'd say they were an average team that caught fire at the perfect time.

 

[Beau Knows]

Ovechkin had 1 better season. Crosby had 1 better season.

In that span Crosby was 2nd in points and 11th in goals.
Ovechkin was 5th in points and 2nd in goals.

Crosby had 168 primary points. Ovechkin had 166.

So yeah, I don't see a difference.

When Ovechkin had a "better" season, he had 4 more points. When Crosby had a better season he had 28 more points. Totally even

 

[Midnight Judges]

When Ovechkin had a "better" season, he had 4 more points. When Crosby had a better season he had 28 more points. Totally even

2 more primary points, 23 fewer goals in 2 seasons.

I'm sure you think powerplay secondary assists are some huge accomplishment, but just know that you are wrong.

 

[Beau Knows]

2 more primary points, 23 fewer goals in 2 seasons.

I'm sure you think powerplay secondary assists are some huge accomplishment, but just know that you are wrong.

Yes, if you come up with your own scoring system for points you can make it look closer

Doesn't explain the MVP and Lindsay award of course...but as usual everyone in the hockey world was wrong except for you.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Yes, if you come up with your own scoring system for points you can make it look closer

Doesn't explain the MVP and Lindsay award of course...but as usual everyone in the hockey world was wrong except for you.

I agree Crosby had a better 06-07, but not by nearly as much as you apparently think. Secondary Sid got artificially inflated that season, especially with secondary powerplay assists - 23 or so. That's an awful lot of weight you're attributing to some mundane uncontested perimeter passes.

And by your same token, Ovechkin was significantly higher for the Lindsay and Hart in 05-06, so you don't have a point because the poll you're referring to was after those 2 seasons.

 

[Beau Knows]

I agree Crosby had a better 06-07, but not by nearly as much as you apparently think. Secondary Sid got artificially inflated that season, especially with secondary powerplay assists - 23 or so. That's an awful lot of weight you're attributing to some mundane uncontested perimeter passes.

And by your same token, Ovechkin was significantly higher for the Lindsay and Hart in 05-06, so you don't have a point because the poll you're referring to was after those 2 seasons.

Two seasons where Crosby combined to win the Hart, Art Ross and Lindsay, while Ovechkin had a Calder...

 

[Midnight Judges]

Two seasons where Crosby combined to win the Hart, Art Ross and Lindsay, while Ovechkin had a Calder...

Trophy counting does not define the difference between two players though, which in this case was nothing.

What am I arguing with you for? You voted like a Pens homer who ridiculously claimed Crosby was better in 2005-06.

 

[Beau Knows]

Trophy counting does not define the difference between two players though, which in this case was nothing.

You were one of only 7 posters who didn't feel like Crosby was better after two years. Weird...

 

[Midnight Judges]

You were one of only 7 posters who didn't feel like Crosby was better after two years. Weird..

Yeah, in a forum full of Pens fans and Canadians who somehow can't stop themselves from rampantly saying blatantly false things about Ovechkin. Gee who woulda thunk it.

The people you are referring to claim Ovechkin would have been the 5th greatest player on the 1956 Canadiens, and the 7th best player of that era - behind a zero time MVP 1 time Norris winner who never led the NHL in anything.

So yeah, go ahead and put a lot of stock in that if it makes you feel vindicated. Seems pretty weak to me.

 

[Midnight Judges]

You were one of only 7 posters who didn't feel like Crosby was better after two years. Weird...

BTW you want to talk about who is in the minority, Ovechkin won the Calder 124 to 4. You are with the 4.

 

[Beau Knows]

BTW you want to talk about who is in the minority, Ovechkin won the Calder 124 to 4. You are with the 4.

That's cool, one guy did it at 18 vs 20 though, which makes it extra impressive imo.

BTW the point here was that you claim to be objective, and keep weird Nixonesque lists of people who step out of line w/r/t Ovechkin. Yet you're clearly just as biased as anyone as proven by your vote in the year 2 poll.

 

[Midnight Judges]

That's cool, one guy did it at 18 vs 20 though, which makes it extra impressive imo.

BTW the point here was that you claim to be objective, and keep weird Nixonesque lists of people who step out of line w/r/t Ovechkin. Yet you're clearly just as biased as anyone as proven by your vote in the year 2 poll.

Indeed I am afflicted with a memory that actually functions properly: Another "highly respected" member over there claims Ryan Getzlaf is better than Ovechkin. Another history forum regular had Ovechkin 59th all time - behind 8 players on the 1956 Canadiens. These absurd opinions went virtually unchallenged by the consensus (as did many blatant falsehoods about Ovechkin). Yet these people otherwise largely have no problem discerning fact from fiction. What to make of that?

There is no justifying those types of opinions. They're just meant as insults to the hated Russian - no different from all the Canadian outlets putting Kucherov outside the top 10 or 20 players right now, or when a large consensus of elite mostly Canadian hockey pontificators put Malkin outside the top 100 in 2017 but included Toews. Those are not rational opinions. Nor are they anomalies. It is a clear pattern.

It appears few Canadians are willing to address this obvious pattern. Some do though and they recognize Don Cherry for what he is.

Go to a Russian hockey forum that is populated by tons of Capitals fans and practically zero Pens fans - and many posters with a demonstrated history of falsehoods lobbed at Canadians. See how they rate Crosby. That is no different than what the history forum is like.

 

[Dessloch]

The main question is, Thornton had 2 more points than Jagr. Jagr had endless of more goals than Thornton.

Where are all the people who claim goals are worth much more than assists in almost any other thread?

If Ovie would have had Jagrs season he would have won this poll by a landslide!

 

[norrisnick]

The main question is, Thornton had 2 more points than Jagr. Jagr had endless of more goals than Thornton.

Where are all the people who claim goals are worth much more than assists in almost any other thread?

If Ovie would had Jagrs season he would have won this poll by a landslide!

I voted Lidstrom, but certainly had Jagr over Thornton.