Is Jamie Benn's Art Ross win the worst of all time?

  • We sincerely apologize for the extended downtime. Our hosting provider, XenForo Cloud, encountered a major issue with their backup system, which unfortunately resulted in the loss of some critical data from the past year.

    What This Means for You:

    • If you created an account after March 2024, it no longer exists. You will need to sign up again to access the forum.
    • If you registered before March 2024 but changed your email, username, or password in the past year, those changes were lost. You’ll need to update your account details manually once you're logged in.
    • Threads and posts created within the last year have been restored.

    Our team is working with Xenforo Cloud to recover data using backups, sitemaps, and other available resources. We know this is frustrating, and we deeply regret the impact on our community. We are taking steps with Xenforo Cloud to ensure this never happens again. This is work in progress. Thank you for your patience and support as we work through this.

    In the meantime, feel free to join our Discord Server

Is Jamie Benn's Art Ross win the worst of all time?


  • Total voters
    257
Hah, quality of player. For a five year stretch during Benn's prime he was 3rd in scoring.

From 2013-14 - 2017-18 Benn was only behind Crosby and Kane, and in front of Ovechkin. And one of those seasons he won the scoring race. This isn't like Reilly Smith winning.
Relative to Art Ross winners?

Gretzky
Lemieux
Howe
McDavid
Crosby
Ovechkin
Beliveau
Jagr
Malkin
Esposito
Mikita
Hull
Lach
Lindsay
Lafleur
Trottier
Dionne
Forsberg
Thornton
Kane
Draisaitl
Iginla
Geoffrion
St Louis
Kucherov
Sedin
Sedin

Please find me one single player on that list you'd pick Benn over in an all-time sense?

There's no shame being dead last amongst those legends, doesn't degrade the quality of player Benn was.

But since this thread is "was Benn's Art Ross the worst of all time" and not "did Jamie Benn suck" the answer is yes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Realgud
Relative to Art Ross winners?

Gretzky
Lemieux
Howe
McDavid
Crosby
Ovechkin
Beliveau
Jagr
Malkin
Esposito
Mikita
Hull
Lach
Lindsay
Lafleur
Trottier
Dionne
Forsberg
Thornton
Kane
Draisaitl
Iginla
Geoffrion
St Louis
Kucherov
Sedin
Sedin

Please find me one single player on that list you'd pick Benn over in an all-time sense?

There's no shame being dead last amongst those legends, doesn't degrade the quality of player Benn was.

But since this thread is "was Benn's Art Ross the worst of all time" and not "did Jamie Benn suck" the answer is yes.
He's right there with the Sedins.
 
Well, false first of all.

But even if so, you're agreeing with me then? You're saying "he's right there" with the other candidates for worst of the bunch?

(Again, "worst" in the context of that list isn't a slight).
I guess. Maybe I took umbrage too much with your post.

My feeling about his Art Ross has always been that the numbers were low, but still earned. And being 3rd in league scoring over a 5 year period while finishing 2nd another time puts you in the damn good player category. People would probably feel differently about that award if league scoring were higher.

Anyways, yeah he's not better than Forsberg but forgive me for not having watched Boom Boom Geoffrion.
 
Relative to Art Ross winners?

Gretzky
Lemieux
Howe
McDavid
Crosby
Ovechkin
Beliveau
Jagr
Malkin
Esposito
Mikita
Hull
Lach
Lindsay
Lafleur
Trottier
Dionne
Forsberg
Thornton
Kane
Draisaitl
Iginla
Geoffrion
St Louis
Kucherov
Sedin
Sedin

Please find me one single player on that list you'd pick Benn over in an all-time sense?

There's no shame being dead last amongst those legends, doesn't degrade the quality of player Benn was.

But since this thread is "was Benn's Art Ross the worst of all time" and not "did Jamie Benn suck" the answer is yes.

Was Conacher left off intentionally? Because I think I would take Benn over him, both all-time and specifically in their Art Ross year.
 
Benn had one hell of a peak. Placed 9-1-2 in scoring over that span, every year he had more than 30 goals, more than 100 hits and was a plus player. It’s easy to forget how good he was back then and how comparatively worse the scoring environment was.
 
Was Conacher left off intentionally? Because I think I would take Benn over him, both all-time and specifically in their Art Ross year.
Wasn't an intentional omission I thought I included him but I will admit I originally thought it was Charlie Conachar who won the Ross. I don't know who Roy is and that might be the only other suitable answer other than Benn.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tarheelhockey
He deserved to win that year. But compared to who could have won it, he is pretty underwhelming.

Benn had one hell of a peak. Placed 9-1-2 in scoring over that span, every year he had more than 30 goals, more than 100 hits and was a plus player. It’s easy to forget how good he was back then and how comparatively worse the scoring environment was.
He will get legit HHOF consideration imo. No art ross winner has missed induction.
 
Wasn't an intentional omission I thought I included him but I will admit I originally thought it was Charlie Conachar who won the Ross. I don't know who Roy is and that might be the only other suitable answer other than Benn.

Roy was sort of like the Marc Staal of the family. Good career but not a guy who should be winning postseason awards
 
I think a good argument can be made that Benn's Art Ross trophy is the weakest in NHL history.

Here's a chart that shows the ratio between the number of points scored by NHL's leading scorer, compared to the average of the next 10 highest scorers:

1688959733622.png


The top ten best results consist of six years of peak Gretzky (1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987), and the one year each from Howe (1953), Lemieux (1989), Esposito (1971 - impressive but clearly boosted by Orr) and Morenz (1928 - you might not have heard of him, but he was probably the best player in hockey history prior to WWII).

The season with the lowest result? 2015, when Benn led the league in scoring, but only scored 11% more than the next ten highest scorers. You can play around with the parameters (look at the next 5 or 15 scorers instead of the next ten) and this season is always near the bottom.

(Note - the graph starts with 1927, which is the first season after the NHL absorbed all of its rival leagues).
 
Agree with this as weird things happen for these reasons sometimes..

Crosby also played through recovering from the mumps in December and his numbers were drastically down that month with a 11-2-3-5 line.



Always some excuse for Crosby, but I’m always willing to deconstruct the myth that gets written whenever Crosby misses time or simply isn’t as good as he should have been.

Mumps likely had a negative effect for a whopping 5 games in December.

The guy had 24 points in his first 13 games. Having a case of the mumps, something that most people who don’t take care of their bodies get over in 1-2 weeks, doesn’t explain why he was substandard for the final 85% of the season.

He already was mired in a slump (by his standards since he was supposedly coming off one of the most dominant Art Ross wins ever) one month prior to sitting out a few games before officially being diagnosed with the mumps on December 14, 2014. He was believed to be through the infectious period by the end of the 15th, which tells us he likely contracted it 5 days before (hence why he played the 8th and probably starting feeling funny on the 9th and then like crap on the 10th and missed the games on the 12th, 13th, and 15th before being cleared to play (still sick I agree, but not contagious) on the 18th. He was likely completely over it sometime between between the December 23rd and 27th.

From November 11th through December 8th, he had 2 goals and 11 points in 15 games. The mumps didn’t have him underperforming then because he didn’t have them.

He missed 3 games. He likely played 5 games with the mumps from the 18th through the 23rd. He had 1 goal and 2 points in those 5 games. Fair enough.

He played 44 of the final 46 games, was mumps free, and collected 47 points. In all the games mump free past his hot 13 game start, he was sub PPG with just 58 points in 59 games, or 3/4 of a season.

He simply underwhelmed and is Art Ross-less past the age of 26 because he wasn’t good enough.
 
Always some excuse for Crosby, but I’m always willing to deconstruct the myth that gets written whenever Crosby misses time or simply isn’t as good as he should have been.

Mumps likely had a negative effect for a whopping 5 games in December.

The guy had 24 points in his first 13 games. Having a case of the mumps, something that most people who don’t take care of their bodies get over in 1-2 weeks, doesn’t explain why he was substandard for the final 85% of the season.

He already was mired in a slump (by his standards since he was supposedly coming off one of the most dominant Art Ross wins ever) one month prior to sitting out a few games before officially being diagnosed with the mumps on December 14, 2014. He was believed to be through the infectious period by the end of the 15th, which tells us he likely contracted it 5 days before (hence why he played the 8th and probably starting feeling funny on the 9th and then like crap on the 10th and missed the games on the 12th, 13th, and 15th before being cleared to play (still sick I agree, but not contagious) on the 18th. He was likely completely over it sometime between between the December 23rd and 27th.

From November 11th through December 8th, he had 2 goals and 11 points in 15 games. The mumps didn’t have him underperforming then because he didn’t have them.

He missed 3 games. He likely played 5 games with the mumps from the 18th through the 23rd. He had 1 goal and 2 points in those 5 games. Fair enough.

He played 44 of the final 46 games, was mumps free, and collected 47 points. In all the games mump free past his hot 13 game start, he was sub PPG with just 58 points in 59 games, or 3/4 of a season.

He simply underwhelmed and is Art Ross-less past the age of 26 because he wasn’t good enough.
It didn't have anything to do with the mumps. It was Mike Johnston's system that slowed down not just Crosby but the whole team. As soon as he was gone the Pens looked like the Pens again.
 
It didn't have anything to do with the mumps. It was Mike Johnston's system that slowed down not just Crosby but the whole team. As soon as he was gone the Pens looked like the Pens again.

At that stage of his career, Crosby had no reason to lose the Art Ross to Benn or Tavares even if Mike Johnston was holding the team back. That would be the equivalent of McDavid losing the Art Ross (fair and square) to Matthew Tkachuk next year. Bad coaching or not, It ain't happening pal.

Looking at Crosby’s 14-15 game log, he had the Art Ross almost locked in by the start of the season with a tremendous start (33 pts in his first 22 games), but really fell of a cliff afterwards (51 Pts in the next 55 games). This was by far the worst strech of Crosby's career by that point. Had maintained a point per game pace during those remaining 55 games, he would've won the Ross despite playing below his standards, but for some reasons, he played WAY below his standards for most of the season, which costed him an Art Ross that was virtually a lock from the start of the season.

Considering he was only 27 and still the consensus best player in the world, the 2014-15 season is Crosby's biggest chokejob and it's a hill I will die on.
 
It didn't have anything to do with the mumps. It was Mike Johnston's system that slowed down not just Crosby but the whole team. As soon as he was gone the Pens looked like the Pens again.

15-10-3 with 67 GF (2.4 GPG) through the day they fired him.

“As soon as he was gone.”

After Crosby’s big bad warden was canned, they immediately go 0-4 and score a total of 3 goals (while letting in 15).

They slide to 21-17-7, making them 6-7-4 with 43 goals (2.53 GPG) “as soon as he was gone.”

They turned it around in the second half, particularly during the last 16 games (and then of course the eventual Cup). Crosby still got his ass blown apart at age 28 by Kane who was…27…the same age Crosby was when he lost to Benn.

Oh, and Benn finished ahead of him again.

Uh oh…

Sure, if we make every excuse in the book, we can make it so any all-timer never had a slump that was his fault.
 
15-10-3 with 67 GF (2.4 GPG) through the day they fired him.

“As soon as he was gone.”

After Crosby’s big bad warden was canned, they immediately go 0-4 and score a total of 3 goals (while letting in 15).

They slide to 21-17-7, making them 6-7-4 with 43 goals (2.53 GPG) “as soon as he was gone.”

They turned it around in the second half, particularly during the last 16 games (and then of course the eventual Cup). Crosby still got his ass blown apart at age 28 by Kane who was…27…the same age Crosby was when he lost to Benn.

Oh, and Benn finished ahead of him again.

Uh oh…

Sure, if we make every excuse in the book, we can make it so any all-timer never had a slump that was his faul
Well I didn't expect you to take it so literally. Yes they lost the first 4 games he coached as it took time for him to implement his system but within a couple weeks of him taking over they began looking much better. Even before they caught fire down the stretch the team look far better than they had under Johnston. My point still stands. They were 28th in goals for under Johnston. He completely stifled their offense. Malkin and Letang also weren't producing with him there. It's not an excuse. It's a fact that team was terrible offensively.

Every excuse huh? No you got me confused with other posters here. I have no problem calling out Crosby when he struggled. Like in 09/10 when his slow start including a career worst 5 game pointless streak cost him a scoring title that year. That was not the case here though.
 
Low numbers are boring, even kids know this; that's why when they argue about numbers it's times infinity, times infinity +1, etc. So yes, it sucked and was the worst win AINEC
 
At that stage of his career, Crosby had no reason to lose the Art Ross to Benn or Tavares even if Mike Johnston was holding the team back. That would be the equivalent of McDavid losing the Art Ross (fair and square) to Matthew Tkachuk next year. Bad coaching or not, It ain't happening pal.

Looking at Crosby’s 14-15 game log, he had the Art Ross almost locked in by the start of the season with a tremendous start (33 pts in his first 22 games), but really fell of a cliff afterwards (51 Pts in the next 55 games). This was by far the worst strech of Crosby's career by that point. Had maintained a point per game pace during those remaining 55 games, he would've won the Ross despite playing below his standards, but for some reasons, he played WAY below his standards for most of the season, which costed him an Art Ross that was virtually a lock from the start of the season.

Considering he was only 27 and still the consensus best player in the world, the 2014-15 season is Crosby's biggest chokejob and it's a hill I will die on.
Yes, he started well that year as did the rest of the team. But the longer Johnston was there, the more he was able to implement his system and it began stifling their offense. Johnston wanted the team to regroup and attack as a 5 man unit coming up the ice. The problem is that gives teams way too much time to set up in the neutral zone and shut down their break out.

As for your McDavid example. In 21/22 he as well as the rest of his team actually did slump hard in the middle of the season due to coaching. He didn't wrap up the Art Ross until the last 5 games of the season. If he had missed 5 games that season there was a possibility of him losing to Gaudreau. Personally I think McDavid is a bit better offensively than Crosby, but even he isn't impervious to slumps and bad coaching.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sanscosm
It was a bad combination of some of the top players having down years, scoring being low and a few injuries thrown in for good measure.

But credit to Benn, it was still an impressive season for him. Putting up a 4 point game in game 82 to clinch it was clutch.
 

Ad

Ad