Best player in the world: 2012

[bobholly39]

Say it if it makes you feel better, but there is no equivalence here.

I voted for Ovechkin for 08, 09, 10, and 11 in this poll series. Malkin in 12, Crosby in 07, and Jagr in 06.

If I was anywhere near the homer the Crosby voters are, I would have voted for Ovechkin every time - like they did. I would have applied the "surrounding seasons" argument to 2007 and the "grace period" for 2011 and 2012. And perhaps the rookie argument for 2006.

You would be applying it wrong.

The only season Ovechkin should have had a grace period argument for was 2011. The problem is - Crosby (who was 2nd in 2010) was much better in 2011, and Ovechkin an off-year, so it weakens the argument considerably.

Want to talk grace period and Ovechkin? Best goal-scorer in the world in 2016? Ovechkin.
2018? Ovechkin.
2017? Despite Ovechkin with only 33 goals and Crosby winning Rocket? Ovechkin.

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

probably Malkin

but HM for Jonathan Quick who was absolutely batshit insane pole to pole, kept a struggling team in the playoff race with no run support and had a great case for Vezina before going nuclear in the playoffs and winning the Conn Smythe

 

[wetcoast]

Yeah I'm not sure how anyone could have Crosby ahead of OV in 05/06. OV beat him in goals, GPG, pts, PPG, hart voting, lindsay voting (OV was a finalist) and tore him a new hole in Calder voting (124-4 first place votes). No playoffs or NHL track record for either one so those excuses don't work. Pretty ridiculous, but as usual there was probably a different criteria for voting Crosby that season.

Obviously it was the biased Canadian media there right?

Anyways only 6 more polls.

 

[bobholly39]

Easy: The homerism for Crosby on this forum is simply a huge cut above the homerism for any other player.

You could make a poll about who the best Shoots and Ladders player in the NHL is and there would be a huge contingent feeling utterly confident that it must be Crosby.

I agree - homerism for Crosby is higher than others, probably #1 on this forum. And yes it probably accounts for some of the votes for him in 2006 and 2009 that made no sense.

Flipside is - Crosby also gets more hate than anyone else on this forum.

So - lots of hate + lots of homerism, it tends to even out.

 

[Video Nasty]

Weird how playoffs were such a big deal in 08-10 to justify Crosby/Malkin votes because people couldn't handle OV finishing 1st, but 2011 and 2012 there's been no mention of playoffs. I voted Malkin because I'm not a hypocrite, but man it's hilarious to see certain people moving the goal posts for certain players. Different year different criteria.

At least Malkin in 2008-2009 makes sense and can be justified without too much hoop jumping. I voted Ovechkin for those three years and Malkin for 2012, but I was briefly tempted by Malkin in the 2009 poll.

In his particular case, he had possibly the finest Cup winning run of the past 20+ years. When a player does something that noteworthy in the playoffs, I think it’s fair to bring it into the equation. He also won the Art Ross while leading the league in assists (which were 5th most from 1999-2000 all the way through 2016-2017 btw) and was runner up to Ovechkin for the Hart and presumably the Pearson. I can see why Malkin got his share of votes. It’s damn fine novel front to back that he wrote that year.

I think some context around all these seasons naturally leads to some changing criteria, but I agree that it’s pretty much the same obvious posters who argue one way one year and then do the opposite if it supports one player in particular.

 

[Toby91ca]

Say it if it makes you feel better, but there is no equivalence here.

I voted for Ovechkin for 08, 09, 10, and 11 in this poll series. Malkin in 12, Crosby in 07, and Jagr in 06.

If I was anywhere near the homer the Crosby voters are, I would have voted for Ovechkin every time - like they did. I would have applied the "surrounding seasons" argument to 2007 and the "grace period" for 2011 and 2012. And perhaps the rookie argument for 2006.

Ok, but you obviously have some homerism.....perhaps your OV homerism is not as high as your Crosby hatred, but what is the argument to suggest OV was the best player in 2010-11?

 

[Voight]

Weird how playoffs were such a big deal in 08-10 to justify Crosby/Malkin votes because people couldn't handle OV finishing 1st, but 2011 and 2012 there's been no mention of playoffs. I voted Malkin because I'm not a hypocrite, but man it's hilarious to see certain people moving the goal posts for certain players. Different year different criteria.

Some people on here would rank Crosby #1 in 2005.

 

[McVespa99]

Can we please hurry up and get to 2018 so I can start copy and pasting the answer

 

[Video Nasty]

Some people on here would rank Crosby #1 in 2005.

When Crosby’s career is finished and in the books, there will certainly be a crowd who argues that he was a top 1-5 player for 20 straight years.

There will be a much larger crowd who claims he was top 10 from beginning to end even though he hasn’t been one for at least the last few years.

Never underestimate the lies some will be willing to go to compensate for missing dominance.

 

[The Gr8 Dane]

Its geno that year

 

[Caser]

To the bolded - I disagree, but if you believe that than you should vote Malkin. And - Malkin was great enough in 2012 that I acknowledge that this may be a possibility.

To me - this is a much more interresting conversation to have than the useless "do injuries count or not" these threads are turning into.



Just depends on the question....be explicit in what you're asking.

Whose the best player in the world today? McDavid.
Last year? McDavid.
2 years ago? McDavid.
Next year, assuming he doesn't decline unexpectedly/no one else surges past him? McDavid.

Now if McDavid only plays 22 games this year due to injury - is he no longer the best player in the world? No, of course he still is.

If while he is absent lets say Makar/MacKinnon/Kucherov/Draisaitl/Matthews or someone else has a crazy good season, I don't see a non-religical reason why the crown shouldn't be passed to that player at least for the time being.

 

[GoldenKnight]

Malkin and especially Crosby were nowhere close to OV in the 08-10 regular seasons but their fans said the playoffs should push them ahead. So by that same logic Thomas should have won 2011 with his Vezina + Smythe. 2012 Kovy. Regular season top 5 pts, 1st AST. Clearly behind Malkin, but closer than Crosby was to OV in 08 and 09 regular seasons. Best skater in the 2012 playoffs, carried NJ to the SCF with a broken back. Am I saying he should win? No, like I said I voted Malkin. I just find it hilarious that certain people aren't even bringing it up anymore, but it was so important when Crosby was getting destroyed in the regular season and OV was dominating.

I can't agree that Kovalchuk was better than Malkin or Crosby in the 2012 playoffs.

Sure, Kovalchuk was at his peak that year and started the playoffs out well too, but he looked much slower and less effective after hurting his back in the 1st round, if we compare him to how he looked during the regular season (where he was elite, but not as good as Malkin). Kovalchuk finished the playoffs with a mere 19 points in 23 games, and a -7 rating.

 

[filinski77]

Want to talk grace period and Ovechkin? Best goal-scorer in the world in 2016? Ovechkin.
2018? Ovechkin.
2017? Despite Ovechkin with only 33 goals and Crosby winning Rocket? Ovechkin.

I don't really agree with this line of thinking. Ovechkin was the best goal scorer in the world on average from 2016-2018.

But I don't agree that he was the best goal-scorer in the world in 2017. The issue is that hockey performance relative to the league is generally so random (outside of certain players for certain small time periods over a career). Players have up and down years, and that's just part of the game.

 

[Voight]

When Crosby’s career is finished and in the books, there will certainly be a crowd who argues that he was a top 1-5 player for 20 straight years.

There will be a much larger crowd who claims he was top 10 from beginning to end even though he hasn’t been one for at least the last few years.

Never underestimate the lies some will be willing to go to compensate for missing dominance.

Its already started with the narrative about his "Selke level defense"

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Just by that logic Mario Lemieux was the best player in 1998, 1999 and 2000 - he just didn't play much, but we could certainly assume he would be the better player in those years.

Mario lemieux was the best player on earth in 1998. He was non active but still the best. Was Ali not the best heavyweight in the world during his 3.5 year exile?

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Can we please hurry up and get to 2018 so I can start copy and pasting the answer

Don't forget to not copy and paste the answer for 2020 (drai) and 2022 (matthews)

 

[Caser]

Mario lemieux was the best player on earth in 1998. He was non active but still the best. Was Ali not the best heavyweight in the world during his 3.5 year exile?

As I mentioned in other post the "best player" thing makes sense just when we are talking about a player's performance in a defined time frame. Otherwise it is more of a religion, as without an actual performance we have to actually believe the assumption that he would've/could've/should've.

As for Ali when he returned he lost to Joe Frazier, who had been undefeated in those years, so here it is more or less safe to assume that in those exile years Frazier was the best and his performance proved it.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

As I mentioned in other post the "best player" thing makes sense just when we are talking about a player's performance in a defined time frame. Otherwise it is more of a religion, as without an actual performance we have to actually believe the assumption that he would've/could've/should've.

As for Ali when he returned he lost to Joe Frazier, who had been undefeated in those years, so here it is more or less safe to assume that in those exile years Frazier was the best and his performance proved it.

By the time ali faced him he only had 2 fights. Had ali took another couple too shake of the ring Rust it would have been different. Facing the 67 ali frazier would have no chance

 

[Offtheboard412]

Full season >> half season.

Kovy missed 1 game and it's pretty well known it was due to injury. Ask devils fans.

I was a Devils fan. I watched every playoff game that year. He was benched for game 2 because he was absolutely awful in game 1.
A half season where you're tied for the lead league in scoring, and matched the Art Ross winner in PPG, and then lead the playoffs in scoring>>>>>>>> finishing 5th in scoring and trailing the leader by 26 points. Go ahead, start a poll.

 

[Caser]

By the time ali faced him he only had 2 fights. Had ali took another couple too shake of the ring Rust it would have been different. Facing the 67 ali frazier would have no chance

Rust is a factor, but isn't any excuse - performance shows that he was worse at that point and the rust factor likely was even worse during the exile. Being a legend isn't a reason to give someone a title he didn't really won.

You know how they say in classical music: "If you didn't practice music for one day it means that you're not a musician anymore for already one day".

 

[bobholly39]

If while he is absent lets say Makar/MacKinnon/Kucherov/Draisaitl/Matthews or someone else has a crazy good season, I don't see a non-religical reason why the crown shouldn't be passed to that player at least for the time being.

That's cool. But again - we're no longer arguing hockey in this case, we're now arguing how you define the word "best" vs how I define the worst "best". To me, injuries shouldn't affect "best", to you it should.

So - we're not even in disagreement, we're just looking at different things.

And if we want to continue arguing in these polls how one should define the word "best", I think these types of arguments would be better suited on a HFLinguistics forum than on a hockey board.

 

[bobholly39]

I don't really agree with this line of thinking. Ovechkin was the best goal scorer in the world on average from 2016-2018.

But I don't agree that he was the best goal-scorer in the world in 2017. The issue is that hockey performance relative to the league is generally so random (outside of certain players for certain small time periods over a career). Players have up and down years, and that's just part of the game.

It comes down to what we're talking about.

Ovechkin didn't forget how to score goals and "suck" at it in 2016-2017. He had an off year, for whatever reason. But he's still the best in the world.

If your focus is a lot more on who had the best year, vs who is the best in an absolute sense - I agree. Crosby best goal-scorer in 2017. Malkin best player in 2012. Thomas in 2011. etc.

 

[norrisnick]

That's cool. But again - we're no longer arguing hockey in this case, we're now arguing how you define the word "best" vs how I define the worst "best". To me, injuries shouldn't affect "best", to you it should.

So - we're not even in disagreement, we're just looking at different things.

And if we want to continue arguing in these polls how one should define the word "best", I think these types of arguments would be better suited on a HFLinguistics forum than on a hockey board.

It comes down to what we're talking about.

Ovechkin didn't forget how to score goals and "suck" at it in 2016-2017. He had an off year, for whatever reason. But he's still the best in the world.

If your focus is a lot more on who had the best year, vs who is the best in an absolute sense - I agree. Crosby best goal-scorer in 2017. Malkin best player in 2012. Thomas in 2011. etc.

To be the best at something, you need to be able to actually do said something.

But if you're not the best in that given timeframe, why should you be considered the best for that given timeframe?

Could just rename all these polls to "who was the most popular player in XXXX?"

 

[Caser]

That's cool. But again - we're no longer arguing hockey in this case, we're now arguing how you define the word "best" vs how I define the worst "best". To me, injuries shouldn't affect "best", to you it should.

So - we're not even in disagreement, we're just looking at different things.

And if we want to continue arguing in these polls how one should define the word "best", I think these types of arguments would be better suited on a HFLinguistics forum than on a hockey board.

I'm just not exactly understanding how it is even possible to define "best" without taking the actual performance into account, how is it not a religion then? I mean, I'm not even sure how Lemieux would react if someone called him the best player in 1998, but likely that it wouldn't be in a positive way.

 

[KirkAlbuquerque]

Crosby