Best player in the world: 2015

[norrisnick]

You are voting for best season the idea of best player in the world has more nuance than stat and trophy counting.

Heck the OP even included it his initial post but you already know that and just refuse to acknowledge it.

The idea is a very telling phrase there. "The idea of best player" is meaningless in the face of "who was" the best player.

Just because a shit ton of people are convinced player X is the best player it doesn't override that player Y is better if player Y outplays player X.

Playing better at one point in time doesn't make you that player in pepertuity. If you don't play as well as you played 2-3 years ago... Guess what? You aren't as good as you were 2-3 years ago and shouldn't be ranked as such.

 

[wetcoast]

The idea is a very telling phrase there. "The idea of best player" is meaningless in the face of "who was" the best player.

Just because a shit ton of people are convinced player X is the best player it doesn't override that player Y is better if player Y outplays player X.

Playing better at one point in time doesn't make you that player in pepertuity. If you don't play as well as you played 2-3 years ago... Guess what? You aren't as good as you were 2-3 years ago and shouldn't be ranked as such.

The inverse is also true though just because any player had the best season doesn't make him the best player in the world.

Using your logic Jack Hughes is better than MCDavid right now.

Look everyone gets your viewpoint and it has been pointed out what the OP is asking and you are only looking at part of the question.

That's why there are seperate threads for " best season" which primarily relies on counting stats and trophies with zero nuance.

 

[norrisnick]

The inverse is also true though just because any player had the best season doesn't make him the best player in the world.

That season it absolutely does. The 2-3 seasons after? Absolutely not.

Using your logic Jack Hughes is better than MCDavid right now.

I think you are finally getting it. No one has played as well as Hughes so far this year. Guess what that makes him?

Look everyone gets your viewpoint and it has been pointed out what the OP is asking and you are only looking at part of the question.

I can speak for the OP just as well as you can.

That's why there are seperate threads for " best season" which primarily relies on counting stats and trophies with zero nuance.

I've been telling you this for a while now. The place to discuss '12-'13 or '13-'14 are those threads. The place to discuss '14-'15 or '15-'16 are those threads. If you want to put together a series of 5-year discussions knock yourself out.

 

[wetcoast]

That season it absolutely does. The 2-3 seasons after? Absolutely not.


I think you are finally getting it. No one has played as well as Hughes so far this year. Guess what that makes him?

I can speak for the OP just as well as you can.

I've been telling you this for a while now. The place to discuss '12-'13 or '13-'14 are those threads. The place to discuss '14-'15 or '15-'16 are those threads. If you want to put together a series of 5-year discussions knock yourself out.

Hughes is not the best player in the world right now but since you are using a limited scope you will get a limited answer like that.

I'm not speaking for the OP I'm reading and understanding maybe instead of dying in a hill you could stop and learn something

 

[norrisnick]

Hughes is not the best player in the world right now but since you are using a limited scope you will get a limited answer like that.

I'm not speaking for the OP I'm reading and understanding maybe instead of dying in a hill you could stop and learn something

If the learning is ignoring what happens on the ice to pick the best player, I'm good. Thanks.

 

[GreatGonzo]

If you are really about your own standards @wetcoast then you would vote McDavid in 2017 simply based on what he would go on to achieve in the league. The same reasons you vote for Crosby, like in 2007.

 

[wetcoast]

If the learning is ignoring what happens on the ice to pick the best player, I'm good. Thanks.

The only person ignoring anything here is you.

I look at the whole picture.

If you are really about your own standards @wetcoast then you would vote McDavid in 2017 simply based on what he would go on to achieve in the league. The same reasons you vote for Crosby, like in 2007.

You are still hung up on that example of the observation I made at the time but keep on with the misconstrue of others posts.

 

[norrisnick]

The only person ignoring anything here is you.

I look at the whole picture.

Right. Not ignoring anything.

"Best player in the world: Whenever"

 

[GreatGonzo]

The only person ignoring anything here is you.

I look at the whole picture.


You are still hung up on that example of the observation I made at the time but keep on with the misconstrue of others posts.

Im just pointing out your own standards and how much past and future seasons dictate your voting, which they do. You voted for Crosby in 2007 because of what he would go on to accomplish. You voted for him in 2012 because what he had already accomplished, and you most likely voted for him in the last 2 polls based on, once again….what he had accomplished years prior.

“I look at the whole picture.” If that’s what you would like to call it, fine. All I’m saying is at least be consistent.

 

[wetcoast]

Right. Not ignoring anything.

"Best player in the world: Whenever"

You say whenever I say whatever.

 

[wetcoast]

Im just pointing out your own standards and how much past and future seasons dictate your voting, which they do. You voted for Crosby in 2007 because of what he would go on to accomplish. You voted for him in 2012 because what he had already accomplished, and you most likely voted for him in the last 2 polls based on, once again….what he had accomplished years prior.

“I look at the whole picture.” If that’s what you would like to call it, fine. All I’m saying is at least be consistent.

No you are categorically wrong.

Let me say this again when I look at the question I ask who are the guys in the mix and are they climbing their career arc or going down ( it's a guess in real time given age previous seasons progression and ultimate ceiling)

I pointed at that doing that in 2007 one can look back presently and look at the history.

The first time you brought it up I corrected you by what I meant, after all not everything is clear but by continually twisting words after being clarified is on you.

I have posted here alot and how I evaluate players is well known by anyone who has read even 10 per cent of my posts.

 

[norrisnick]

No you are categorically wrong.

Let me say this again when I look at the question I ask who are the guys in the mix and are they climbing their career arc or going down ( it's a guess in real time given age previous seasons progression and ultimate ceiling)

I pointed at that doing that in 2007 one can look back presently and look at the history.

The first time you brought it up I corrected you by what I meant, after all not everything is clear but by continually twisting words after being clarified is on you.

I have posted here alot and how I evaluate players is well known by anyone who has read even 10 per cent of my posts.

So you voted for Ovechkin, that year right? On the basis of foresight and hindsight and Alex being better than Crosby in '06, '08, '09 and '10? Right? That's how that works?

 

[pi314]

Ovechkin scored 25 more goals than Crosby, but ok.


Ovechkin also had 200 more hits than Crosby.

And Crosby did that while also being able to pick his own goalie out of a police lineup.

 

[GreatGonzo]

No you are categorically wrong.

Let me say this again when I look at the question I ask who are the guys in the mix and are they climbing their career arc or going down ( it's a guess in real time given age previous seasons progression and ultimate ceiling)

I pointed at that doing that in 2007 one can look back presently and look at the history.

The first time you brought it up I corrected you by what I meant, after all not everything is clear but by continually twisting words after being clarified is on you.

I have posted here alot and how I evaluate players is well known by anyone who has read even 10 per cent of my posts.

You’re basically saying everything I just said. Your standards are based on the foresight and of one’s career…only coming into 2015, you had to back peddle and start looking are Crosbys career as a whole and that’s why you felt he was the best player.

Problem with that is, Ovechkin was widely considered the best player in the world for the next 3 years after that, and then many years later, Crosby started losing ground in the scoring department and began losing scoring titles to lesser players, even in the playoffs.

You give Crosby a pass for basically being up there with the best without having to prove he actually was. But for you, he was based on what he had already accomplished.

 

[norrisnick]

You’re basically saying everything I just said. Your standards are based on the foresight and of one’s career…only coming into 2015, you had to back peddle and start looking are Crosbys career as a whole and that’s why you felt he was the best player.

Problem with that is, Ovechkin was widely considered the best player in the world for the next 3 years after that, and then many years later, Crosby started losing ground in the scoring department and began losing scoring titles to lesser players, even in the playoffs.

You give Crosby a pass for basically being up there with the best without having to prove he actually was. But for you, he was based on what he had already accomplished.

There is no amount of consistent logic that allows for voting for Crosby in '07, '11, '12, '15, and '16. The rules are ever changing. You can make arrangements for some of them, but those arguments won't be consistent with the other years.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

View attachment 758675

Just going to leave this here because some people are struggling so mightily with it

This is how I was interpreting the question as well.

"Who had the best season?" is usually straightforward. The biggest challenge is figuring out how to weigh the regular season vs the playoffs. But usually we can narrow it down to 3-4 players.

"Who's the best player?" is more subtle. I've interpreted it like this - at the conclusion of that season, knowing what actually happened, if I could pick any player to build my team around, who would I choose?

Sometimes we have a different answer to "best player" and "best season" due to injuries. The overwhelming consensus today is McDavid is the best player in the world. Does anybody dispute that? If his current injury causes him to miss 15 games, and MacKinnnon or someone else wins the Hart and/or Art Ross in 2024, we can say they had the better season. But that doesn't change the widespread viewpoint that McDavid is the league's best player. And that's what the question is asking.

We also need to consider the reality that sometimes a player will have an unsustainable hot streak (or cold streak). Not to pick on Jose Theodore, but look at his 2002 season. Through early March he was very good. He was playing better than he had over the past couple of seasons, and he was going to contend for the Vezina trophy. Then, during the final third of the season, he was impossibly good. In his last 17 games, he maintained a 94.8% save percentage. That's beyond the level of peak Hasek. It was obvious to everyone, even at the time, that it was an unsustainable hot streak. Theodore (probably) deserved the Hart, because you need to give out that trophy based on what actually happened on the ice. But, to the best of my recollection, nobody considered Theodore the best player in the league, because it was obvious that there's no way he was going to repeat his performance.

Even the annual yearbook from The Hockey News ranked Theodore 14th after the 2002 season, behind players like Lidstrom, Jagr, Sakic and Forsberg. Theodore may have outperformed all of them in 2002, but it was due to a few of them struggling with injuries (Forsberg, Jagr), and Theodore was obviously playing at an unsustainable level. Theodore with a 1-in-10,000 fluke season may have outperformed an "average" season from Lidstrom. But past performance is relevant because it informs your expectations. At the time, most fans were reasonably confident that Lidstrom would perform at the same level again, and most fans were sure that Theodore wouldn't.

"Best season"? Take the results at face value - whatever happened on the ice is what counts. "Best player"? Look at the context.

 

[norrisnick]

This is how I was interpreting the question as well.

"Who had the best season?" is usually straightforward. The biggest challenge is figuring out how to weigh the regular season vs the playoffs. But usually we can narrow it down to 3-4 players.

"Who's the best player?" is more subtle. I've interpreted it like this - at the conclusion of that season, knowing what actually happened, if I could pick any player to build my team around, who would I choose?

Sometimes we have a different answer to "best player" and "best season" due to injuries. The overwhelming consensus today is McDavid is the best player in the world. Does anybody dispute that? If his current injury causes him to miss 15 games, and MacKinnnon or someone else wins the Hart and/or Art Ross in 2024, we can say they had the better season. But that doesn't change the widespread viewpoint that McDavid is the league's best player. And that's what the question is asking.

We also need to consider the reality that sometimes a player will have an unsustainable hot streak (or cold streak). Not to pick on Jose Theodore, but look at his 2002 season. Through early March he was very good. He was playing better than he had over the past couple of seasons, and he was going to contend for the Vezina trophy. Then, during the final third of the season, he was impossibly good. In his last 17 games, he maintained a 94.8% save percentage. That's beyond the level of peak Hasek. It was obvious to everyone, even at the time, that it was an unsustainable hot streak. Theodore (probably) deserved the Hart, because you need to give out that trophy based on what actually happened on the ice. But, to the best of my recollection, nobody considered Theodore the best player in the league, because it was obvious that there's no way he was going to repeat his performance.

Even the annual yearbook from The Hockey News ranked Theodore 14th after the 2002 season, behind players like Lidstrom, Jagr, Sakic and Forsberg. Theodore may have outperformed all of them in 2002, but it was due to a few of them struggling with injuries (Forsberg, Jagr), and Theodore was obviously playing at an unsustainable level. Theodore with a 1-in-10,000 fluke season may have outperformed an "average" season from Lidstrom. But past performance is relevant - at the time, most fans were reasonably confident that Lidstrom would perform at the same level again, and most fans were sure that Theodore wouldn't.

"Best season"? Take the results at face value - whatever happened on the ice is what counts. "Best player"? Look at the context.

See... Who do the most people think should have been better isn't very compelling. Take pre-season polls and the results at the end of the season and the prevailing wisdom would have been wrong more often than not during this entire exercise.

So what value is there in voting on who the most people thought was going to be the best player in 2012 if those people were wrong?

It's like saying the Leafs are the best team every summer. Getting enough fans to believe isn't going to manifest it.

If the voting standards are who would you build around? Lidstrom through 2010, Keith through 2015, Hedman since then. Pretty uninteresting...

 

[bambamcam4ever]

Some real top-of-the-mountain activity going on recently.

 

[bambamcam4ever]

See... Who do the most people think should have been better isn't very compelling. Take pre-season polls and the results at the end of the season and the prevailing wisdom would have been wrong more often than not during this entire exercise.

So what value is there in voting on who the most people thought was going to be the best player in 2012 if those people were wrong?

It's like saying the Leafs are the best team every summer. Getting enough fans to believe isn't going to manifest it.

If the voting standards are who would you build around? Lidstrom through 2010, Keith through 2015, Hedman since then. Pretty uninteresting...

If it's not interesting it's only because there's less change. It doesn't make sense logically that a player will suddenly get better, than fall off, then improve again. A player's numbers will get influenced by external factors, but the best players usually remain the best for several years. Hell, this is even why ppg leaders are more stable than points leaders.

But I personally think it's much more interesting than just comparing counting stats.

 

[Felidae]

I'll be a bit of a contrarian and say Karlsson.

He was just 3 points behind Crosby as a defenseman.

He finished 4th in points leaguewide, which is the highest any defenseman has finished in scoring other than Orr and Coffey. His season more than any other this year was nearly unprecedented territory. Should have won the Norris.

 

[wetcoast]

I'll be a bit of a contrarian and say Karlsson.

He was just 3 points behind Crosby as a defenseman.

He finished 4th in points leaguewide, which is the highest any defenseman has finished in scoring other than Orr and Coffey. His season more than any other this year was nearly unprecedented territory. Should have won the Norris.

I think you last sentence is the most important one.

How can any player be the best player in the world when they are second at their position?

Sure EK had a great playoffs but still.

 

[GreatGonzo]

I think you last sentence is the most important one.

How can any player be the best player in the world when they are second at their position?

Sure EK had a great playoffs but still.

Crosby was second in his position in 2017, and second in playoff scoring though.

 

[wetcoast]

Crosby was second in his position in 2017, and second in playoff scoring though.

The main argument for EK was the postseason though.

For Crosby it was regular season,playoffs 2 way play and his track record of excellence coming into the season.

Staying power and consistency matters.

 

[GreatGonzo]

The main argument for EK was the postseason though.

For Crosby it was regular season,playoffs 2 way play and his track record of excellence coming into the season.

Staying power and consistency matters.

That’s literally the only argument for Crosby in 2016 and 2017, playoffs. Both in which he was second in scoring to his own teammates. You literally just asked the best question, how can one be THE best when they aren’t even the best are their own position? Or better yet, how does the best player lose a scoring race with Phil Kessel?

You are really going to push the “two way play” agenda huh. It’s desperate at best. Crosbys defensive game continues to be overrated.

Consistently being 2nd doesn’t make someone the very best. That’s something you continue to push and it’s nonsense.

 

[wetcoast]

That’s literally the only argument for Crosby in 2016 and 2017, playoffs. Both in which he was second in scoring to his own teammates. You literally just asked the best question, how can one be THE best when they aren’t even the best are their own position? Or better yet, how does the best player lose a scoring race with Phil Kessel?

You are really going to push the “two way play” agenda huh. It’s desperate at best. Crosbys defensive game continues to be overrated.

Consistency being 2nd doesn’t make someone the very best. That’s something you continue to push and it’s nonsense.

The difference is that EK until this past season has never been defined as the absolute best Dman in the league in Norris voting, Crosby had been and was still a top scoring player along with all of the attributes he brought to his game.

Some diehard EK fans will try to pump him up but that's all it is.