Best player in the world by year: 1998

[Midnight Judges]

BTW, there isn't always a clear cut best player in the world.

 

[wetcoast]

The best player based on talent/abilities but award finishes, injuries, form, etc don't matter? Everyone is just going to give their favourite player because how exactly is that supposed to be measured? Based on the criteria I'd say

97/98-05/06: Jagr
06/07: Crosby
07/08-09/10: OV
10/11-15/16: Crosby
16/17-present: McDavid

Jagr is going to get a run for his money from 97-98 to 05-06 from Lidstrom, Forsberg and Sakic though right?

 

[wetcoast]

Crosby was still the best player in the world after the end of 16-17 don't try to rewrite history

As for this poll it's still lemieux

How can it be Mario when he probably doesn't even have a very good argument for the season before that he had played in and wasn't going to play another NHL game for 4 years?

 

[wetcoast]

No offense to OP, I get your overall premise. But aren’t we basically just re-voting the Hart each year?

That only applies to people who aren't reading the OP and the actual question he is asking but sadly these people are out there in large numbers.

The poll asks about a time period beginning in 1998, so I figured it would make sense to look at the season that started in 1998. You're referring to the 1997-1998 season and the scoring during that season would have included points scored in 1997, which is prior to the period discussed in the OP. In the 1998-1999 season, Jagr outscored Selanne by 20 points and Forsberg by 30 points (note that Forsberg played 78 games to Jagr's 81, so only 3 fewer games).

Even if we are trying to narrow just down to the 1998 calendar year, I don't think there is a realistic claim to be made that Forsberg was better than Jagr when Jagr outscored Forsberg by 41 points over the 1997-1999 seasons and Jagr only played 8 more games during those 2 seasons combined.

I guess you missed posts 6 and 9 in this thread?

To clarify, is this in reference to the 1997-98 season? Or the 1998 calendar year?

1997-98.

 

[Golden_Jet]

Crosby was still the best player in the world after the end of 16-17 don't try to rewrite history

As for this poll it's still lemieux

Really, he didn’t play a game.

 

[Evergreen]

That only applies to people who aren't reading the OP and the actual question he is asking but sadly these people are out there in large numbers.


I guess you missed posts 6 and 9 in this thread?

I didn't see those posts.

 

[Toby91ca]

Missing games is a knock against a player. When Forsberg was sitting in the press box, he was more useless than the lowest scrub in the AHL, except he also had a sizable salary.

Durability is a virtue in all professional sports. If you aren't on the ice, you aren't the best player.

.

100% disagree…we’ll sort of. Missing games is absolutely a knock against a player when talking about awards, but generally speaking the best player is the best player, regardless of that. Reason I suggest, sort of, is because if we are talking about a player that is always injured, then I’d tend to agree, being injured is part of that player’s abilities, but if a guy simply breaks a leg and misses half the year, that’s totally different.

 

[norrisnick]

100% disagree…we’ll sort of. Missing games is absolutely a knock against a player when talking about awards, but generally speaking the best player is the best player, regardless of that. Reason I suggest, sort of, is because if we are talking about a player that is always injured, then I’d tend to agree, being injured is part of that player’s abilities, but if a guy simply breaks a leg and misses half the year, that’s totally different.

And I 100% disagree with that notion. If you aren't reliably on the ice, it doesn't really matter how good you are when you're on it. A team can't count on you, so it doesn't really matter. A guy that scored 80 points in 80 games was better and more valuable than a guy that scored 60 points in 40 games.

 

[psycat]

I take Forsberg over Jagr if difference in points is only 11, and it's not that close.

 

[wetcoast]

And I 100% disagree with that notion. If you aren't reliably on the ice, it doesn't really matter how good you are when you're on it. A team can't count on you, so it doesn't really matter. A guy that scored 80 points in 80 games was better and more valuable than a guy that scored 60 points in 40 games.

Not for all 80 games he isn't.

If one wants to go down that road then the 60 point guy in 40 games has more value in thsoe 40 games than the 80 point guy in 80 games who might very well be a secondary player.

The thing is these things are always brought up in abstract form and rarely ever in concrete examples.

For example in the current season 97-98 is it really an advantage for Jagr to have played in 77 games and Hasek and Forsberg in 72 games?

 

[bambamcam4ever]

And I 100% disagree with that notion. If you aren't reliably on the ice, it doesn't really matter how good you are when you're on it. A team can't count on you, so it doesn't really matter. A guy that scored 80 points in 80 games was better and more valuable than a guy that scored 60 points in 40 games.

This isn't true at all lol. The 60 point player in this example is certainly more valuable. There's no value in simply tying your skates and stepping on the ice.

 

[Ben White]

Voted Jagr. He outscored the second highest scorer (Selanne) by 20 points that season and his next-highest scoring teammate (Straka) by 44 points.

And for the record I don't think McDavid was better than Crosby in 2017. Btw I'm a Flyers fan so I'm anything but a Penguins fan in case anyone thinks my Jagr and Crosby comments are biased.

Wrong. Forsberg was the 2nd highest scorer 11 points behind Jagr with 5 fewer games played and a superior 2 way game. I’d say it’s a toss up between Forsberg and Jagr in 98 who the best player

Missing games is a knock against a player. When Forsberg was sitting in the press box, he was more useless than the lowest scrub in the AHL, except he also had a sizable salary.

Durability is a virtue in all professional sports. If you aren't on the ice, you aren't the best player.

Forsberg was lucky that his team didn't need him to win a cup. For most teams, if they lose their second best player, they aren't able to win a cup. In other words, Forsberg's lack of durability is the type of problem that could cost a team a cup. You think that's a neutral event. It isn't.

You mean Roy was their best player? Fair enough but it certainly wasn’t Sakic. Don’t know how many polls on the Av’s board (you know the people who actually have the answer) there needs to be made with a landslide win for Forsberg for the common NHL fan to accept this.

The poll asks about a time period beginning in 1998, so I figured it would make sense to look at the season that started in 1998. You're referring to the 1997-1998 season and the scoring during that season would have included points scored in 1997, which is prior to the period discussed in the OP. In the 1998-1999 season, Jagr outscored Selanne by 20 points and Forsberg by 30 points (note that Forsberg played 78 games to Jagr's 81, so only 3 fewer games).

Even if we are trying to narrow just down to the 1998 calendar year, I don't think there is a realistic claim to be made that Forsberg was better than Jagr when Jagr outscored Forsberg by 41 points over the 1997-1999 seasons and Jagr only played 8 more games during those 2 seasons combined.

Except that the OP is asking about the 1997-98 season…

 

[Matty Sundin]

Hasek was the last goalie teams were truly scared to play against.

 

[nowhereman]

I have a feeling there will be a lot of confusion over the actual best player and the best season. Guys like Iginla, Kane, MSL, Price, Kucherov, Sedin, Perry, etc. were never the best players in the world, even if they might have had great one-off statistical seasons. I've only ever thought of guys like Hasek, Jagr, Lidstrom, Forsberg, OV, Crosby, and McDavid as legit contenders for the best in the world, interspersed with a bunch of guys who popped up for a year or two.

 

[Regal]

I have a feeling there will be a lot of confusion over the actual best player and the best season. Guys like Iginla, Kane, MSL, Price, Kucherov, Sedin, Perry, etc. were never the best players in the world, even if they might have had great one-off statistical seasons. I've only ever thought of guys like Hasek, Jagr, Lidstrom, Forsberg, OV, Crosby, and McDavid as legit contenders for the best in the world, with a bunch of guys who popped up for a year or two.

I tend to agree, though I think it depends a bit on how specific we want to get. Like, I think if you’re trying to win a game or a series in the middle of the 14-15 season, I think Price would probably be the player to choose. But if you were asked who would you take to start a team from scratch to play a new season in the middle of 14-15, I think most people would still say Crosby.

And I think we can further break it down to success and quality of play. I think sometimes players will play like a best player in the world for stretches or seasons, but it’s short lived, and I think sometimes they might produce at the best rate and win awards for it but it’s more variance induced and not sustainable. For instance, I’d say Duncan Keith was playing like the best player in the world in the 2015 playoffs, won the Conn Smythe and for those couple months I’m not sure you’d want anyone else on your team. Meanwhile, while Kane won a dominant Art Ross in 2016 and the Hart, I don’t think he played much better than in the surrounding seasons, but was generally luckier.

 

[Larry Hanson]

Not the second lowest, there are 17 seasons since 96/97 that are lower. So actual not close to second.

NHL League Averages | Hockey-Reference.com

Check out the latest NHL League Averages including shots, saves, goal averages and more on Hockey-Reference.com

www.hockey-reference.com

??
We're talking about the 01/02 season, the only lower one is 03/04.

 

[KeydGV21]

Absolutely ridiculous.

Imagine leaving the Rocket and Art Ross winner off of your Hart ballot entirely because they play on a bad team, complete BS no matter how you spin it. Iginla scored 52 goals and 96 points during the 2nd lowest scoring season in modern history. His linemates were Craig Conroy and Dean McAmmond FFS.

He was the best player in the world that year and it wasn't all that close, leaving him off a ballot should be grounds for losing future voting privileges.

The Flames missed the playoffs by 15 points that year…

Just what VALUE did he give the Flames?

Hart is for Most Valuable, not best…

 

[Toby91ca]

And I 100% disagree with that notion. If you aren't reliably on the ice, it doesn't really matter how good you are when you're on it. A team can't count on you, so it doesn't really matter. A guy that scored 80 points in 80 games was better and more valuable than a guy that scored 60 points in 40 games.

But now you are talking about who is more valuable. I’m simply referring to who is the best player. If you want to get really theoretical….the best player in the world can be someone that chooses not to play the game…not very valuable to anyone, but if their skills suggest they are the best…then?

 

[Golden_Jet]

??
We're talking about the 01/02 season, the only lower one is 03/04.

Oh and I thought it was 97/98
Weird, can’t keep up to every time it changes, maybe should wait until those threads are up, to avoid confusion
Some posters are talking 97/98

 

[norrisnick]

But now you are talking about who is more valuable. I’m simply referring to who is the best player. If you want to get really theoretical….the best player in the world can be someone that chooses not to play the game…not very valuable to anyone, but if their skills suggest they are the best…then?

I've seen countless players have completely dominant games. Are they suddenly the best player in the world?

What difference does it make if a guy is amazing for a month bracketed by checking line play vs a guy who was dominant for a month surrounded by not playing at all?

Both are still just amazing for a month.

 

[Regal]

I've seen countless players have completely dominant games. Are they suddenly the best player in the world?

What difference does it make if a guy is amazing for a month bracketed by checking line play vs a guy who was dominant for a month surrounded by not playing at all?

Both are still just amazing for a month.

I don’t believe a single checking line player has ever played like the best in the world for an entire month. Also, 40 games is about three months, and most anyone who would be in these discussions has a track record of elite play. I mean if Lidstrom missed half the season in 01-02, everyone would still consider him the best defenseman in the world based on his play in the other half and his play leading up to that season.

 

[norrisnick]

I don’t believe a single checking line player has ever played like the best in the world for an entire month. Also, 40 games is about three months, and most anyone who would be in these discussions has a track record of elite play. I mean if Lidstrom missed half the season in 01-02, everyone would still consider him the best defenseman in the world based on his play in the other half and his play leading up to that season.

Did you miss Franzen's spring of '08? Until he had to sit for a brain bleed in the WCF he had a run of 27 goals in 27 games and was probably going to win the CS. 9 goals in a 4 game playoff series. Career 3rd liner played like a top liner for about a year and a half and had a 2 month run as a superstar.

As for the Lidstrom hypothetical, his elite play that was almost always there is a huge part of what makes him great. Being dependable at all times is significantly underrated around here. Too many people get hung up on a flash of brilliance. And then when it isn't sustainable, pretend that it was because they're dealing with what ifs and not what was.

 

[Toby91ca]

Did you miss Franzen's spring of '08? Until he had to sit for a brain bleed in the WCF he had a run of 27 goals in 27 games and was probably going to win the CS. 9 goals in a 4 game playoff series. Career 3rd liner played like a top liner for about a year and a half and had a 2 month run as a superstar.

As for the Lidstrom hypothetical, his elite play that was almost always there is a huge part of what makes him great. Being dependable at all times is significantly underrated around here. Too many people get hung up on a flash of brilliance. And then when it isn't sustainable, pretend that it was because they're dealing with what ifs and not what was.

Pretty much anyone can have a hot streak, but that’s the difference, you try to figure out if the guy is just on a hot streak or is he really that good? Not always easy. Here’s maybe where we can simply agree to disagree, but take Crosby’s 2010-11 season…in my opinion, he was clearly the best player in the world and it wasn’t close…then he got hurt….doesn’t all of a sudden mean he was no longer the best player. Also, we had seen enough and knew enough about him at the time to know he wasn’t just on a hot streak as well

EDIT: contrast that with Franzen in 2008. I remember at the time thinking he was simply going through a super hot streak. He was still fairly early in his NHL career, but he was older and we did see a decent bit of him by then. I figured we weren’t seeing someone that was breaking out and was going to be a monster for years to come…that was just an educated guess though as he could have been really breaking out….he was never going to maintain the same pace, but it’s possible he would have become a 40-50 goal scorer for a few years…it just didn’t seem likely to me at the time

 

[Midnight Judges]

And I 100% disagree with that notion. If you aren't reliably on the ice, it doesn't really matter how good you are when you're on it. A team can't count on you, so it doesn't really matter. A guy that scored 80 points in 80 games was better and more valuable than a guy that scored 60 points in 40 games.

To the people we're disagreeing with, what is the goal for a player here? -To prove a point or to win championships?

It seems to me championships are the goal, and achieving that is much more likely when the player is on the ice. So there is no way to classify a lack of durability as a neutral attribute for any athlete in any professional sport. No, it is quite firmly and obviously a drawback. I understand that hockey fans, uniquely, think they are being charitable by discounting injuries. But it's not charitable. It's merely not equitable to the durable players who were always there for their teams.

 

[norrisnick]

Pretty much anyone can have a hot streak, but that’s the difference, you try to figure out if the guy is just on a hot streak or is he really that good? Not always easy. Here’s maybe where we can simply agree to disagree, but take Crosby’s 2010-11 season…in my opinion, he was clearly the best player in the world and it wasn’t close…then he got hurt….doesn’t all of a sudden mean he was no longer the best player. Also, we had seen enough and knew enough about him at the time to know he wasn’t just on a hot streak as well

EDIT: contrast that with Franzen in 2008. I remember at the time thinking he was simply going through a super hot streak. He was still fairly early in his NHL career, but he was older and we did see a decent bit of him by then. I figured we weren’t seeing someone that was breaking out and was going to be a monster for years to come…that was just an educated guess though as he could have been really breaking out….he was never going to maintain the same pace, but it’s possible he would have become a 40-50 goal scorer for a few years…it just didn’t seem likely to me at the time

That's the thing though, '10-'11 was right after a 3 year run where Crosby very clearly wasn't the best player in the world. So I always found it kind of silly to anoint him as the greatest player in the world in '10-'11 due to a half season and then a quarter season the year after when 1. he wasn't consistently playing over a 2 year stretch and 2. he wasn't the best player in the world before that anyway. There might be a case here if Crosby were the no-questions asked best player those seasons leading up to '10-'11 but he wasn't. He gets way more mileage out of team accomplishments than almost anyone else. Maybe Toews and Niedermayer. The common thread of course being Canadian heroes.

So again it's this baffling situation where you have a guy rip off 2 Harts/3 Lindsays/1 Art Ross/2 Richards in a three year stretch and then lose his crown as "Best Player in the World" to a guy that played 63 out of 164 games. Yeah, Ovechkin slumped, but a slump was still 70 goals and 150 points over 2 seasons. And he promptly won 7 of the next 8 Richards after that. Why is a dip in production that much more punishing than not playing at all? That's nonsensical.

It makes a hell of a lot more sense to just call Ovechkin the best player in the world until McDavid took over than to have Crosby take the crown due to a half season and then hold onto it til McDavid just... because reasons or whatever... Or to have it change hands half a dozen times. But to go back to Crosby on the basis of a half and quarter season, just doesn't fly with me.