Best player in the world: 2012

[GreatGonzo]

The stats have never told the whole story on who is the best player in the world

The level of play and everything any said player brings us what it's all about.

Otherwise we would simply call the Art Ross winner the best every year.

well this time around, the Hart Ross winner has an Art Ross already in his resume, a 2nd place finish, 2 Hart finalists, and a conn smythe. This isn’t some Art Ross winner, it’s Malkin.

I think it’s convenient that suddenly stats don’t matter this time around, especially when stats mattered all those other years for Crosby. Whether it be regular season or playoff stats.

 

[wetcoast]

well this time around, the Hart Ross winner has an Art Ross already in his resume, a 2nd place finish, 2 Hart finalists, and a conn smythe. This isn’t some Art Ross winner, it’s Malkin.

I think it’s convenient that suddenly stats don’t matter this time around, especially when stats mattered all those other years for Crosby. Whether it be regular season or playoff stats.

Like I said Malkin is an acceptable answer here but I'm taking Crosby due his maintaining his elite level of play in the previous 2 seasons, heck he has the best continuous consecutive prime of any player not named Gretzky.

Stats do matter but some want to look at counting stats then equate Crosby with Jason Pommerville like the Detroit chapter of the absurd wants to do for one season like it has some merit or is a credible view.

 

[GreatGonzo]

Like I said Malkin is an acceptable answer here but I'm taking Crosby due his maintaining his elite level of play in the previous 2 seasons, heck he has the best continuous consecutive prime of any player not named Gretzky.

Stats do matter but some want to look at counting stats then equate Crosby with Jason Pommerville like the Detroit chapter of the absurd wants to do for one season like it has some merit or is a credible view.

You would give it to Crosby if he had not played at all in 2012. Like I stated, 22 games is hardly enough to dictate how he would have done. And going off of the previous two years where he was still second to Ovechkin, and then only played half a season…well for me that’s not enough to say he’s THE best. But again we will disagree with that.

Malkin our produced Crosby in 2009, I don’t see why we can’t give him the benefit of the doubt that he could have done the same in 2012. He did arguably peak higher than Crosby ever did.

 

[wetcoast]

How is playing at an elite level interspersed with less elite play any worse than playing at an elite level interspersed with not playing at all?

We are talking about the best player in the world so by definition playing at an elite level is going to go farther in the argument than playing at less than elite for many parts of the year.

Everyone that goes down your road is focused on the season but what about impact per game?

Crosby scored at a rate of 1.61 PPG in 11-12 up from 1.61 in 10-11 and his lowest PPG season up t that point was his rookie season of 1,26 so we have a span of well over 400 games were he ahs scored at a 1.40 PPG level followed by Malkin at 1.23 and Ovi at 1.23 as well.

We know that Ovi peaked and then had 2 down years Malkin was all over the place with regular season performance and Crosby was just plain consistent at the highest level in the league over that time period.

We also know that over that same time period he had the biggest per game impact in the playoffs in more games at 1.32 with Malkin at 1.19 (both with 68 games ) and Ovi 3rd at 1.16 in 17 less games

"even if he had a bit of a down year, bad luck or many injuries"

If you go down the road of accepting a handful of games at elite play as your benchmark, it shouldn't matter what if anything happens in those other games right?

But at the end of the day, for me, playing even at say 80% of full capabilities is better than not playing at all, ie 0%.

The thing is that you are falsely equating down year (something Ovechkin had for the second straight year), bad luck or an injury.

All 3 of those things are really different and you now that so look to the above Crosby was constantly elite from season to season in a very large sample there really isn't any guesswork involved except maybe by how much better he was than the pack at any given time.

No one is arguing that Malkin didn't have the best season but once again that's not the question here, if it was the poll would ask "which player had the best season in 2012.

Instead it is asking who was the best player in the world.

 

[wetcoast]

You would give it to Crosby if he had not played at all in 2012. Like I stated, 22 games is hardly enough to dictate how he would have done.

See the previous post Crosby ahd his lowest PPG at 1.26 in his rookie season then seasons of

1.52
1.36
1.34
1.35
1.61

We don't know what he would have ended up with but we have a pretty good track record here

And going off of the previous two years where he was still second to Ovechkin, and then only played half a season…well for me that’s not enough to say he’s THE best. But again we will disagree with that.

so in total this is how those 3 years add up compared to Ovechkin

Crosby

GP 199
Goals116
assists162
points278
PPG 1.40

Ovechkin

GP 230
goals 138
assists166
points304
PPG 1.32

Playoffs are a wash between the 2 guys production wise but Crosby did captain his team to a SC but as we see above even if one has Ovi as the better player the gap is minuscule to say the least.

There is also a reason why Ovi isn't an option in this poll he really didn't have a very good season.

Malkin our produced Crosby in 2009, I don’t see why we can’t give him the benefit of the doubt that he could have done the same in 2012. He did arguably peak higher than Crosby ever did.

You are conveniently skipping over the 2 years in between where Malkin's level of play dipped well below Crosby.

Like I said in my last post Malkin had the better season but the 2 years before kind of hurt his claim here.

well this time around, the Hart Ross winner has an Art Ross already in his resume, a 2nd place finish, 2 Hart finalists, and a conn smythe. This isn’t some Art Ross winner, it’s Malkin.

I think it’s convenient that suddenly stats don’t matter this time around, especially when stats mattered all those other years for Crosby. Whether it be regular season or playoff stats.

Sure but Malkin also had in the 2 previous years to 2012 less than top 5 player type of season and in the previous season had 37 points in 43 games funny you didn't bring that up eh?

 

[biturbo19]

I'm glad that at least someone else is a poster of exquisite taste, voting Spezza here. Which is the correct answer.

 

[GreatGonzo]

See the previous post Crosby ahd his lowest PPG at 1.26 in his rookie season then seasons of

1.52
1.36
1.34
1.35
1.61

We don't know what he would have ended up with but we have a pretty good track record here




so in total this is how those 3 years add up compared to Ovechkin

Crosby

GP 199
Goals116
assists162
points278
PPG 1.40

Ovechkin

GP 230
goals 138
assists166
points304
PPG 1.32

Playoffs are a wash between the 2 guys production wise but Crosby did captain his team to a SC but as we see above even if one has Ovi as the better player the gap is minuscule to say the least.

There is also a reason why Ovi isn't an option in this poll he really didn't have a very good season.




You are conveniently skipping over the 2 years in between where Malkin's level of play dipped well below Crosby.

Like I said in my last post Malkin had the better season but the 2 years before kind of hurt his claim here.


Sure but Malkin also had in the 2 previous years to 2012 less than top 5 player type of season and in the previous season had 37 points in 43 games funny you didn't bring that up eh?

Now look at games played during some of those seasons. Crosby has never maintained that high of a PPG in his career in 2011 and 2012, and we have no way of knowing if he would have. Giving him the credit makes zero sense.

My point was Ovechkin was still the better player In 2010 and considered the best In the world. Do you disagree with this?

You mean the two years he was battling injuries and miss a ton of games? I didn’t leave that out. They were off years for Malkin. Did he not bounce back with a season arguably better than any of Crosbys? It wasn’t his first time being at the top or near it. My Point was at one point Malkin was In the conversation along with Crosby and Ovechkin before 2012

You seem to have so much focus on past years to make a judgement call for this year and it’s puzzling.

 

[norrisnick]

Now look at games played during some of those seasons. Crosby has never maintained that high of a PPG in his career in 2011 and 2012, and we have no way of knowing if he would have. Giving him the credit makes zero sense.

My point was Ovechkin was still the better player In 2010 and considered the best In the world. Do you disagree with this?

You mean the two years he was battling injuries and miss a ton of games? I didn’t leave that out. They were off years for Malkin. Did he not bounce back with a season arguably better than any of Crosbys? It wasn’t his first time being at the top or near it. My Point was at one point Malkin was In the conversation along with Crosby and Ovechkin before 2012

You seem to have so much focus on past years to make a judgement call for this year and it’s puzzling.

Not sure that puzzling is quite the right word for that...

 

[Midnight Judges]

Now look at games played during some of those seasons. Crosby has never maintained that high of a PPG in his career in 2011 and 2012, and we have no way of knowing if he would have.

Actually we have pretty good evidence that he couldn't: The next time Crosby actually played a full season (2013-2014) he was able to sustain a 1.47 PPG/.5 GPG for the first 40-some games, and then in the final 30-some games he massively slowed down to a 1.07 PPG / .32 GPG - which is roughly the level he stayed at for several full seasons after that.

 

[wetcoast]

Now look at games played during some of those seasons. Crosby has never maintained that high of a PPG in his career in 2011 and 2012, and we have no way of knowing if he would have. Giving him the credit makes zero sense.

Put your strawman away no one is sayng that he keeps up that pace but we saw his floor asa rookie and his actual play from being a rookie to 2011 and 2012 didn't get worse did it?

I men we have the statiscatl record right there in front of us.

But I suppose when you go to sleep at night you look both to the east and west in the morning for daylight?

My point was Ovechkin was still the better player In 2010 and considered the best In the world. Do you disagree with this?

He was certainly in the mix sure from 05-06 to 09-10 Ovi and crosby are actually really clsoe no matter which player one prefers.

You mean the two years he was battling injuries and miss a ton of games?

Yes you failed to menation it in that post.

I didn’t leave that out. They were off years for Malkin.

Yes and that's the point not the missed games but the actual games Malkin played in the 2 previous years his actual level of play was down and for Crosby this wasn't the case.

Did he not bounce back with a season arguably better than any of Crosbys?

sure he did but he wasn't that player in 2010 and certainly not in 2011.

It wasn’t his first time being at the top or near it. My Point was at one point Malkin was In the conversation along with Crosby and Ovechkin before 2012

Yes he was but he was also a distant 3rd since the 06-07 season his rookie year so he had season and years where he was in the conversation and 2 years where he really wasn't as his play wasn't there when he did play.

You seem to have so much focus on past years to make a judgement call for this year and it’s puzzling.

I put my focus on everything players don't suddenly appear and are the best overall they build up to it then maintain it or they don't.

Both Malkin and Ovi didn't maintain their elite level as consistently as Crosby did those are the fats I outlined with his PPG and that reflects his coring impact in the games he did play.

 

[Toby91ca]

Here's my thinking on this....and every other year being discussed. These polls are very close to simply calling out who we thought had the best year....perhaps a lot of people voting that is exactly what they are voting for. I certainly don't take that view as the question is "who was the best player that year"....so accumulating the best season shouldn't be the answer, missing a bunch of game technically shouldn't matter either, but it has to at some point. For example....and I'll just use stats and ignore any other variables.....so assume all else is equal here. Player A plays 82 games, wins scoring race by 10pts by scoring 114pts. Player B plays 60 games and is well back in the scoring race at 98pts. I have no problem suggesting Player A had the best season, but Player B would be my pick for best player.

It's never that simple though and never comes down to simply pure stats. With 2011-12 specifically, I absolutely remember at the time feeling Crosby was, without much debate (though not without any), the best player in the world. Malkin, of course, without any doubt, had the best season. This where I'd suggest we can't be so technical and call who we think is the best player the best player regardless (especially when you have a guy like Malkin have a year like that)....but regardless, even if you don't have a clear guy at the top, I have a tough time calling a guy who played 22 games the best player that year. Obviously, he shouldn't get consideration for any awards, which is what some might say....it's not about awards, it's about who is the best, but I do think it has to be somewhere in between, meaning, I think a guy can miss enough time to basically take him out of contention for awards, but still be voted as the best player.

For this year, my vote goes to Malkin. Perhaps the obvious comparison where some games were missed is 2012-13 where by vote easily goes to Crosby.

 

[norrisnick]

All I've learned is that not playing > playing at less than 100%.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Both Malkin and Ovi didn't maintain their elite level as consistently as Crosby did those are the fats I outlined with his PPG and that reflects his coring impact in the games he did play.

Ha! Crosby missed half a season and three quarters of the next season.

That ain't consistency.

 

[norrisnick]

Ha! Crosby missed half a season and three quarters of the next season.

That ain't consistency.

I'd love to see how consistent Crosby would have been had he just played through whatever ailments....

It's the myth of Forsberg all over again.

 

[wetcoast]

Actually we have pretty good evidence that he couldn't: The next time Crosby actually played a full season (2013-2014) he was able to sustain a 1.47 PPG/.5 GPG for the first 40-some games, and then in the final 30-some games he massively slowed down to a 1.07 PPG / .32 GPG - which is roughly the level he stayed at for several full seasons after that.

This is intellectually dishonest in that you know that scoring levels went down right?

Ha! Crosby missed half a season and three quarters of the next season.

That ain't consistency.

Yes we all know that Crosby was injured and since you didn't address his actual play it's safe to say that we can all agree that Crosby was elite and best player in the world caliber.

All I've learned is that not playing > playing at less than 100%.

One needs an open mind to learn anything that's what the rest of us learned.

 

[Midnight Judges]

This is intellectually dishonest in that you know that scoring levels went down right?

It isn't remotely dishonest. Crosby played similar to his partial season pace for the first half of 2014. Then he significantly slowed down.

Scoring in 2014 wasn't significantly different than 2011 or 12 or 13 or 15 or 16 or 17.

Yes we all know that Crosby was injured and since you didn't address his actual play it's safe to say that we can all agree that Crosby was elite and best player in the world caliber.

Yeah I'll speak for me and you can speak for you, thanks.

Crosby was obviously not 'best player caliber' for the long spans of time when he was utterly useless to his team.

 

[norrisnick]

One needs an open mind to learn anything that's what the rest of us learned.

Not sure that it's an open mind that's needed to be hold the viewpoint that not playing is better than playing.

 

[GreatGonzo]

Put your strawman away no one is sayng that he keeps up that pace but we saw his floor asa rookie and his actual play from being a rookie to 2011 and 2012 didn't get worse did it?

I men we have the statiscatl record right there in front of us.

But I suppose when you go to sleep at night you look both to the east and west in the morning for daylight?


He was certainly in the mix sure from 05-06 to 09-10 Ovi and crosby are actually really clsoe no matter which player one prefers.


Yes you failed to menation it in that post.

Yes and that's the point not the missed games but the actual games Malkin played in the 2 previous years his actual level of play was down and for Crosby this wasn't the case.


sure he did but he wasn't that player in 2010 and certainly not in 2011.


Yes he was but he was also a distant 3rd since the 06-07 season his rookie year so he had season and years where he was in the conversation and 2 years where he really wasn't as his play wasn't there when he did play.


I put my focus on everything players don't suddenly appear and are the best overall they build up to it then maintain it or they don't.

Both Malkin and Ovi didn't maintain their elite level as consistently as Crosby did those are the fats I outlined with his PPG and that reflects his coring impact in the games he did play.

Then why give him the benefit of the doubt if there’s no way of knowing?

“Certainly in the mix.” So you won’t admit Ovechkin was the better player still in 2010. Got it.

Malkin still bounced back with an incredible season. Again, a season arguably better than anything Crosby had done. You could say Malkin peaked higher. This season put him back in the conversation.

Crosby did maintain a higher level of play that those two didn’t..especially after 2012. I never said otherwise. but 22 games isn’t enough of an “impact” like you want it to be.

 

[bambamcam4ever]

It isn't remotely dishonest. Crosby played similar to his partial season pace for the first half of 2014. Then he significantly slowed down.

Scoring in 2014 wasn't significantly different than 2011 or 12 or 13 or 15 or 16 or 17.



Yeah I'll speak for me and you can speak for you, thanks.

Crosby was obviously not 'best player caliber' for the long spans of time when he was utterly useless to his team.

You're stretching the definition of similar methinks

 

[Midnight Judges]

You're stretching the definition of similar methinks

From 2011-2013 Crosby was a 1.61 PPG and .56 GPG.

For the first 46 games of 2014 Crosby had a 1.46 PPG and .52 GPG.

So yeah, he was about 10% better in his partial seasons on a per game basis than he was in the first 46 games of 2014. Is 10% offensive output not within the category of similar?

The rest of the way Sid was 1.09 PPG and .32 GPG - which is definitely not similar.

 

[wetcoast]

Now look at games played during some of those seasons. Crosby has never maintained that high of a PPG in his career in 2011 and 2012, and we have no way of knowing if he would have. Giving him the credit makes zero sense

We had a pretty big sample and track record to look at why ignore it?

My point was Ovechkin was still the better player In 2010 and considered the best In the world. Do you disagree with this?

You mean the two years he was battling injuries and miss a ton of games? I didn’t leave that out. They were off years for Malkin. Did he not bounce back with a season arguably better than any of Crosbys? It wasn’t his first time being at the top or near it. My Point was at one point Malkin was In the conversation along with Crosby and Ovechkin before 2012

You seem to have so much focus on past years to make a judgement call for this year and it’s puzzling.

Actually we have pretty good evidence that he couldn't: The next time Crosby actually played a full season (2013-2014) he was able to sustain a 1.47 PPG/.5 GPG for the first 40-some games, and then in the final 30-some games he massively slowed down to a 1.07 PPG / .32 GPG - which is roughly the level he stayed at for several full seasons after that.

We have been over this scoring went down and in the year you are talking about Crosby had a bigger gap than recent winners of the Art Ross right?

 

[GreatGonzo]

We had a pretty big sample and track record to look at why ignore it?



We have been over this scoring went down and in the year you are talking about Crosby had a bigger gap than recent winners of the Art Ross right?

22 and 41 games are not big sample sizes so I don’t know what samples you are referring to. They definitely aren’t enough games to suggest his PPG would have been maintained. Would he have won the scoring race in 2011? Most likely, hard to say he would have dropped off that much. But 2012? Again, who’s to say Malkin doesn’t still out score Crosby? If your going to use “what ifs”, at least play it both ways.

 

[wetcoast]

From 2011-2013 Crosby was a 1.61 PPG and .56 GPG.

For the first 46 games of 2014 Crosby had a 1.46 PPG and .52 GPG.

So yeah, he was about 10% better in his partial seasons on a per game basis than he was in the first 46 games of 2014. Is 10% offensive output not within the category of similar?

The rest of the way Sid was 1.09 PPG and .32 GPG - which is definitely not similar.

Man my mistake this is the 2014 poll I thought it was for 2012.......

22 and 41 games are not big sample sizes so I don’t know what samples you are referring to. They definitely aren’t enough games to suggest his PPG would have been maintained. Would he have won the scoring race in 2011? Most likely, hard to say he would have dropped off that much. But 2012? Again, who’s to say Malkin doesn’t still out score Crosby? If your going to use “what ifs”, at least play it both ways.

If you don't bother to read posts I'm not going to bother to respond.

 

[blundluntman]

The argument for Crosby this year does not make any sense at all to me. Even if you wanna argue his level of play in the small sample size of games he played justifies picking him, you can literally argue that for Malkin as well.

For example Malkin had a streak of 27 games where he posted 48 points. Outside of that, in the games where he and Crosby both played, they had the exact same ppg.

Even when Crosby was playing, they were both basically equal. Not to mention Crosby only played 11 games in a row at most; 8 of those 22 games happened 3 months prior. There's nothing that indicates Crosby would've maintained that level of play. On top of that, Malkin also had another 27 game stretch where he had 48 points on top of the 11 games where he played just as well as Crosby. There's nothing from that seasons that indicates Crosby was better than Malkin. Even if you gave him the benefit of the doubt (which you probably shouldn't), he was Malkin's equal at best.

Even going by the eye test, I'd say Malkin was more dominant that season. I just don't get the argument for Crosby when he had far less opportunities to prove his case.

 

[Video Nasty]

This is intellectually dishonest in that you know that scoring levels went down right?

From 2010-2011 through 2013-2014:

2.79, 2.73, 2.72, 2.74

A decline of 1.8% from beginning to end, aka nothing to write home about.