Best player in the world by year: 1998

[wetcoast]

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.

A lot of this post seems well interesting but there is also this thing called the eye test and for 41 games straight Crosby was emerging into the superstar many envisioned for him it wasn't like he was getting lucky he looked the part.

 

[Frosty415]

The Dominator

You had to witness it.

 

[norrisnick]

A lot of this post seems well interesting but there is also this thing called the eye test and for 41 games straight Crosby was emerging into the superstar many envisioned for him it wasn't like he was getting lucky he looked the part.

How did he look those other 41 games?

Be like saying a driver that won 3 races and DNF'd the rest of the season was the best driver in the world. That's not how things work.

 

[TheGuiminator]

Good poll,

Mario Lemieux was still the best player world in 1998

Best active player though? Flip a coin between Jagr & Hasek

I’m picking Jagr

 

[Video Nasty]

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.

To add on to this portion. Ovechkin even started off the early portion of 2010-2011 better than Crosby, which makes it even less time that the so-called claim was in effect.

And predictably, people are really forgetting about Stamkos that year. He had sole possession of the goals (21) points (38) and PPG leads (1.81) through the day after Thanksgiving (11/26/2010). It wasn’t until Crosby’s hat trick on 12/2/2010 that he pulled into a tie for goals and pushed his points lead past 1 for the first time (4 points at the time).

So Ovechkin was coming off a 3 year stretch where he led in goals and points, won 2 Harts, was a runner up, won 3 Pearsons, won 1 Art Ross and was a 2 time runner up by 3 points each time (while playing 10 games fewer in 2009-2010), won 2 Rockets, and lost by 1 goal again while playing 9-10 games fewer than the players ahead of him.

Then was as good or better during the opening month of the 2010-2011 season.

Then Stamkos went toe to toe with Crosby, who ultimately only was definitively the best player for about a month before going down.

Incredible how much slack Crosby has been given built off a 25 game point streak, followed by scoring 25 points in 14 games in 2011-2012 after the rest of the league played the second half of the prior season, the playoffs, and almost 70 games while he played 8 during that entire stretch.

A lot of this post seems well interesting but there is also this thing called the eye test and for 41 games straight Crosby was emerging into the superstar many envisioned for him it wasn't like he was getting lucky he looked the part.

Not really. He started off with 6 goals and 9 assists for 15 points in his first 13 games of that season. He then went on his 25 game point streak, which was snapped the game prior to the Steckel hit. 25 games straight of brilliance, not 41.

I’ll try to continue to demystify that very short stretch because the tale gets taller with each telling as the years go on.

 

[insomniac]

1998 - Hasek
1999 - Jagr
2000 - Jagr
2001 - Sakic
2002 - Iginla
2003 - Naslund
2004 - St. Louis
2005 - N/A
2006 - Jagr
2007 - Crosby
2008 - Ovechkin
2009 - Ovechkin
2010 - Ovechkin
2011 - D. Sedin
2012 - Malkin
2013 - Crosby
2014 - Crosby
2015 - Price
2016 - Kane
2017 - McDavid

 

[bobholly39]

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

In 2025-2026, I predict Bedard will outscore McDavid by 11 points. So let's now shift the conversation in this thread to encompass who we all predict will be the best player in the world at the start of 2027...

 

[norrisnick]

In 2025-2026, I predict Bedard will outscore McDavid by 11 points. So let's now shift the conversation in this thread to encompass who we all predict will be the best player in the world at the start of 2027...

Why would the 4th and 5th highest scoring players factor in to who the best player in the world is in 2027?

 

[TheStatican]

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

True.
Except Malkin had a brief period where he was clearly the best player as well. In fact his 2011-12 season was the best year anyone had in 20 year period from 2000 to 2020. In the least it's certainly not a given that Crosby would have been better than him that year had he been healthy.

 

[KoozNetsOff 92]

True.
Except Malkin had a brief period where he was clearly the best player as well. In fact his 2011-12 season was the best year anyone had in 20 year period from 2000 to 2020. In the least it's certainly not a given that Crosby would have been better than him that year had he been healthy.

Based on what the op is asking for, Malkin was never the best player in the league. He had the best season in 11/12, but that didn't make him the best player (kind of like Kane in 15/16 or Kucherov in 18/19). Also not to go too far off topic but OV's 07/08 was better than Malkin's 11/12.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Based on what the op is asking for, Malkin was never the best player in the league. He had the best season in 11/12, but that didn't make him the best player (kind of like Kane in 15/16 or Kucherov in 18/19).

But that all depends on what you think a reasonable sample size is to claim someone is the best player.

If you think an 82 game season its sufficient, then you can go with that.

I don't know what what Crosby did from '08-12 (5 year sample) to make himself so unsurmountable to Malkin. Malkin was better than Sid in '08, '09, and '12. Sid was better in '10. Sid was also better for a half season in 2011 (Malkin played through injuries and also missed a lot of time). So as of the end of the 2012 season, Malkin had been the better player for 3 of the past 5 seasons. Crosby was better for 1.5 seasons.

And if Sid's grace period spans years, then Ovie's should span even longer after having been the 3 time consecutive Pearson winner and beating Crosby for the Hart 3 consecutive times. Sure, Sid had a nice streak of games in 2011, but it wasn't a higher level than peak Ovie achieved.

Frankly that all just adds up to an enormous fudge factor wherein homers simply deploy inconsistent standards in favor of their guy in an effort to anoint them to something they didn't earn.

And so I instead default to the actual historical record, especially in situations where both the players and the media agreed that a player was the best/most valuable. And I think 82 games is actually a really substantial sample. Hockey seasons are long.

 

[Toby91ca]

And if Sid's grace period spans years, then Ovie's should span even longer after having been the 3 time consecutive Pearson winner and beating Crosby for the Hart 3 consecutive times. Sure, Sid had a nice streak of games in 2011, but it wasn't a higher level than peak Ovie achieved.

I'm not saying Crosby's steak of games in 2011 was higher than the level peak Ovie achieved as I'm not 100% sure without trying to dig something up, but since you seem to already know, what is the level peak Ovie achieved for comparison?

 

[jigglysquishy]

I'm not saying Crosby's steak of games in 2011 was higher than the level peak Ovie achieved as I'm not 100% sure without trying to dig something up, but since you seem to already know, what is the level peak Ovie achieved for comparison?

After 56 games in the 2009-10 season Ovechkin was on pace for 62 goals and 132 points.

After 51 games he was on pace for 68 goals 138 points.

 

[norrisnick]

After 56 games in the 2009-10 season Ovechkin was on pace for 62 goals and 132 points.

After 51 games he was on pace for 68 goals 138 points.

But you see... Ovechkin didn't get hurt and miss games. That means that run doesn't count as it gets tied to the rest of the season and averaged down.

 

[Midnight Judges]

I'm not saying Crosby's steak of games in 2011 was higher than the level peak Ovie achieved as I'm not 100% sure without trying to dig something up, but since you seem to already know, what is the level peak Ovie achieved for comparison?

jigglysquishy answered, but Ovie's best 50-something game streaks are in a very similar per-game level as Crosby's 41 game streak.

There's also another 41 game stretch from December 2007 to March 2008 where Ovie was pacing for 72 goals and 132 points.

 

[Midnight Judges]

But you see... Ovechkin didn't get hurt and miss games. That means that run doesn't count as it gets tied to the rest of the season and averaged down.

Understand you are being deliberately flippant, but you highlight where it crosses a very clear line IMO - the point where if a player had been shot in the head that day, you'd rate them more highly than if they lived but merely contributed at an elite level.

Ovie has been injured several times in his career (virtually every hockey player has). He's played through injuries and this resulted in him scoring less, but still at a very high level. Is this somehow worse than sitting out? It seems to me that everything a player contributes beyond what an average player can do adds to their legacy. Am I wrong?

 

[norrisnick]

Understand you are being deliberately flippant, but you highlight where it crosses a very clear line IMO - the point where if a player had been shot in the head that day, you'd rate them more highly than if they lived but merely contributed very elite seasons.

Ovie has been injured several times in his career (virtually every hockey player has). He's played through injuries and this resulted in him scoring less, but still at a very high level. Is this somehow worse than sitting out? It seems to me that everything a player contributes beyond what an average player can do adds to their legacy. Am I wrong?

No, but that's never better than the imaginary world where we get to pretend they didn't get hurt and stayed at that super elite level indefinitely.

 

[Bustedprospect]

97 and 98 the Dom was a monster. For 98 Lemieux is the only one that could have challenged him at that time. Jagr is just unfortunate and it took him his best year to even win one Hart.

 

[bambamcam4ever]

To add on to this portion. Ovechkin even started off the early portion of 2010-2011 better than Crosby, which makes it even less time that the so-called claim was in effect.

And predictably, people are really forgetting about Stamkos that year. He had sole possession of the goals (21) points (38) and PPG leads (1.81) through the day after Thanksgiving (11/26/2010). It wasn’t until Crosby’s hat trick on 12/2/2010 that he pulled into a tie for goals and pushed his points lead past 1 for the first time (4 points at the time).

So Ovechkin was coming off a 3 year stretch where he led in goals and points, won 2 Harts, was a runner up, won 3 Pearsons, won 1 Art Ross and was a 2 time runner up by 3 points each time (while playing 10 games fewer in 2009-2010), won 2 Rockets, and lost by 1 goal again while playing 9-10 games fewer than the players ahead of him.

Then was as good or better during the opening month of the 2010-2011 season.

Then Stamkos went toe to toe with Crosby, who ultimately only was definitively the best player for about a month before going down.

Incredible how much slack Crosby has been given built off a 25 game point streak, followed by scoring 25 points in 14 games in 2011-2012 after the rest of the league played the second half of the prior season, the playoffs, and almost 70 games while he played 8 during that entire stretch.



Not really. He started off with 6 goals and 9 assists for 15 points in his first 13 games of that season. He then went on his 25 game point streak, which was snapped the game prior to the Steckel hit. 25 games straight of brilliance, not 41.

I’ll try to continue to demystify that very short stretch because the tale gets taller with each telling as the years go on.

I'm not sure if you've ever come back from an injury and not played a sport for awhile, but insinuating that Crosby gained some advantage from being "rested" is ridiculous. And breaking his production down into increasingly smaller chunks to minimize his production is intellectually dishonest. He scored 159 points in 99 games, find me a stretch like that in OV's career.

 

[jigglysquishy]

The highest 99 game stretch I can find for Ovechkin is

The last 48 games of the 2008-09 season
36 goals 31 assists 67 points

The first 51 games of the 2009-10 season
42 goals 44 assists 86 points

For a 99 game total of
78 goals 75 assists 153 points

Or an 82 game pace of
65 goals 62 assists 127 points

 

[Video Nasty]

I'm not sure if you've ever come back from an injury and not played a sport for awhile, but insinuating that Crosby gained some advantage from being "rested" is ridiculous. And breaking his production down into increasingly smaller chunks to minimize his production is intellectually dishonest. He scored 159 points in 99 games, find me a stretch like that in OV's career.

That’s not what is being argued here, so try to stay focused when I’ll give a comparable example any way.

During his last 47 games of the 2008-2009 season and the first 52 games of the 2009-2010 season, Ovechkin had 154 points in 99 out of a possible 100 games. That is better and a more continuous stretch than 159 points in 99 out of a possible 212 games spread out over parts of 3 seasons.

Next.

 

[tarheelhockey]

While I don’t necessarily disagree with folks saying Lemieux was the best and just happened to be inactive, I think it’s worth really considering whether he was better than Hasek during this specific timeframe. Hasek was sort of like the Lemieux of goalies. He did things nobody else could do, and changed the entire trajectory of that Sabres team. Was Lemieux actually the better player at the time? I don’t think there’s an easy answer to that.

I also think it’s worth at least asking this type of question relative to the Big Four.

 

[jigglysquishy]

While I don’t necessarily disagree with folks saying Lemieux was the best and just happened to be inactive, I think it’s worth really considering whether he was better than Hasek during this specific timeframe. Hasek was sort of like the Lemieux of goalies. He did things nobody else could do, and changed the entire trajectory of that Sabres team. Was Lemieux actually the better player at the time? I don’t think there’s an easy answer to that.

I also think it’s worth at least asking this type of question relative to the Big Four.

I'd also point out that in 1996-97

Lemieux was only 31 (same as Hasek)
On a competent team
Won the Art Ross by 13 points
Lead in PPG and EVP/G

And Hasek still won the Pearson and Hart

 

[innitfam]

Beginning with the 97-98 season through to the 15-16 season:

1998: Hasek
1999: Jagr
2000: Jagr
2001: Sakic (Jagr a close 2nd)
2002: Iginla
2003: Forsberg (Naslund a close 2nd)
2004: Forsberg (MSL a close 2nd)
2006: Jagr (Thornton a close 2nd)
2007: Crosby
2008: Ovechkin
2009: Ovechkin (Malkin a close 2nd)
2010: Ovechkin (Crosby a close 2nd)
2011: Crosby
2012: Malkin
2013: Crosby
2014: Crosby
2015: Price (Crosby a close 2nd)
2016: Kane

McDavid takes 17, 18, 21, 22 and 23 while Kucherov takes 2019 and Draisatl 2020 (McDavid being a very close 2nd).

 

[Regal]

While I don’t necessarily disagree with folks saying Lemieux was the best and just happened to be inactive, I think it’s worth really considering whether he was better than Hasek during this specific timeframe. Hasek was sort of like the Lemieux of goalies. He did things nobody else could do, and changed the entire trajectory of that Sabres team. Was Lemieux actually the better player at the time? I don’t think there’s an easy answer to that.

I also think it’s worth at least asking this type of question relative to the Big Four.

I think it’s also fair to question what Lemieux would be at that point as well. He was still really good in 96-97, winning the Art Ross by 13 points over Selanne. But it wasn’t a “Big 4 Mario Lemieux” type season, and his PPG lead over Lindros and Jagr wasn’t huge (roughly 0.1 PPG). Jagr was already likely the better ES player in 95-96, and he and Lindros were likely better there as well in 96-97. Hasek already beat Lemieux for the Hart and Pearson in 96-97, and beat a healthy Jagr in 97-98. Is a 32 year old Lemieux going to be that much better than a 25 year old Jagr that he’d be better than Hasek? I doubt it.