The best player in the world: 2004

[FrankSidebottom]

Forsberg won the poll with a clear margin and we are moving on to the last pre-lockout year.

Previous polls:
1998 (62% 1 Hasek, 2 Jagr, 3 Forsberg)
1999 (48% 1 Jagr, 2 Hasek, 3 Forsberg)
2000 (72% 1 Jagr, 2 Pronger, 3 Bure)
2001 (33% 1 Lemieux, 2 Sakic, 3 Jagr)
2002 (36% 1 Iginla, 2 Lidstrom, 3 Lemieux)
2003 (52% 1 Forsberg, 2 Naslund, 3 Lemieux)

Click to read more...

 

[Ben White]

If Lemieux is voted in those previous years despite the missed time this should be Forsberg hands down

 

[izzy]

insane that luongo didnt win the vezina this season

robbery and should win this poll

 

[bambamcam4ever]

Forsberg was on pace for 116. St Louis won the Art Ross with only 94.

 

[Despote]

At this point it was apparent you couldn't count on Forsberg to play the games anymore. Best when he played, but when you can play 40% of the time you aren't the best.

 

[blundluntman]

At this point it was apparent you couldn't count on Forsberg to play the games anymore. Best when he played, but when you can play 40% of the time you aren't the best.

I can't agree with this logic. That's like saying a student with a 4.5 gpa isn't the smartest kid in his grade bc he was absent with some sort of illness for a month. If you wanna argue his proneness to injury made him unreliable then sure, but reliability and skill aren't the same thing.

With that being said, it's a toss up between him and Luongo. I think I'll take the latter this time around.

 

[Video Nasty]

Forsberg was on pace for 116. St Louis won the Art Ross with only 94.

His pace is worthless, particularly in this season where he was out and came back at multiple points of the season.

One thing few ever want to acknowledge is that an alternate reality where Forsberg actually plays the most or all of the full slate has unknown ripple effects. We can’t just say that the league-wide final results would stay exactly the same and plug in his fantasy totals as if it were static.

He played the first 9 games then missed 3. Not a big deal.

Came back and played 2 games. Then missed 19 games.

Came back and played 11 games. Then missed 4 games.

Came back and played 9 games. Then missed 17 games.

Came back and played the remaining 7.

Way too scattered, way too much stop and go while everyone else is playing.

Besides, he had 16 points in his first 9 games when everything was well. If one was told he would play 39 games total, that’s a pace of 69 points. Instead he had 55.

You’ll say that he would have kept up his high pace if fully healthy, but we don’t know that and both positive and negative pace is utterly pointless.

Besides, we can play fantasy what ifs for the other players who missed time. Tanguay and Lang both had 79 points in 69 games. Maybe they win the scoring title if they play all the games. Maybe Palffy or Savard are our new winners if they play more than 35 and 45 games respectively.

Ultimately, among forwards, Forsberg stood out the most clearly in the time he did play, especially with the memory of his heater over the last few months of the prior season fresh in our minds, but I always have to take issue with projecting out so favorably, especially when it’s not even consistent.

Luongo feels like the right pick for me.

 

[GoldenKnight]

Martin Brodeur.

Vezina Trophy, Jennings Trophy, 1st All-Star Team.

75 games played.

 

[Toby91ca]

If Lemieux is voted in those previous years despite the missed time this should be Forsberg hands down

Perhaps.....but Lemieux voted the best in 2001 seems to be a mistake....I get the PPG pace, but Jagr's PPG over the same period was better, so that, combined with the fact Lemieux played only half the year doesn't add up for me. So, I'd say the same thing for Forsberg, but perhaps lean more towards Forsberg here than I would Lemieux, but hard to vote for either in my mind.

Really weird year....St. Louis led scoring by a healthy margin, but he really didn't feel like the best player to me.

Forsberg was on pace for 116. St Louis won the Art Ross with only 94.

But in terms of actual points, St. Louis out scored him by close to 40pts.

insane that luongo didnt win the vezina this season

robbery and should win this poll

I don't disagree that Brodeur winning seems arguable, could certainly make a good argument for Luongo, but he wasn't dominant enough to the point I'd call him the best player out of everyone.

 

[Despote]

I can't agree with this logic. That's like saying a student with a 4.5 gpa isn't the smartest kid in his grade bc he was absent with some sort of illness for a month. If you wanna argue his proneness to injury made him unreliable then sure, but reliability and skill aren't the same thing.

With that being said, it's a toss up between him and Luongo. I think I'll take the latter this time around.

To be valuable you gotta be able to show up for the games. Now a counter argument would be that playing a full regular season of games isn't that valuable, as long as your team can make the playoffs and you play in the games that actually matter.

But, even ignoring that missing an MVP type player your team is built around for half a season is a big blow on your teams chances of even making it, unless you're in a dynasty, have we considered that Forsbergs underwhelming playoff performance in 03 and 04 may have been due to having to play through injuries?

A player is only best if they can produce the most value for their team re: winning a championship.

 

[Toby91ca]

Martin Brodeur.

Vezina Trophy, Jennings Trophy, 1st All-Star Team.

75 games played.

And basically half the other goalies in the league had a better save percentage.

 

[blundluntman]

To be valuable you gotta be able to show up for the games. Now a counter argument would be that playing a full regular season of games isn't that valuable, as long as your team can make the playoffs and you play in the games that actually matter.

But, even ignoring that missing an MVP type player your team is built around for half a season is a big blow on your teams chances of even making it, unless you're in a dynasty, have we considered that Forsbergs underwhelming playoff performance in 03 and 04 may have been due to having to play through injuries?

A player is only best if they can produce the most value for their team re: winning a championship.

That's the thing though, being the best and being most valuable are not the same thing. A player can be better than somebody else but be less valuable if they don't give you as much bang for your buck. But they're still better.

 

[Despote]

That's the thing though, being the best and being most valuable are not the same thing. A player can be better than somebody else but be less valuable if they don't give you as much bang for your buck. But they're still better.

If a player isn't able to stay healthy that's a negative re his ability as a hockey player. At this point It wasnt freak injuries, It was that Forsberg was fundamentally unable to play highest level pro hockey consistently.

 

[Video Nasty]

Martin Brodeur.

Vezina Trophy, Jennings Trophy, 1st All-Star Team.

75 games played.

Brodeur had a really good year as he usually did, but I definitely look back at that time period as a bit archaic when it came to voting, kind of like in baseball where a pitcher just couldn’t win the Cy Young if he didn’t have enough wins. In this case, leading in Wins, being 2nd in GAA among goalies with at least 60 starts, and seeing good team results got him the nod.

The teams in front of Brodeur and Luongo are night and day. For Luongo to do what he did for Florida, the massive gap between him and #2 in Saves and Shots, to post a .931 SV% on that volume…for god sakes’ Brodeur played 3 games more yet he faced 630 less shots….insane.

Brodeur is fortunate to have benefited from traditional thinking when it came to Vezina voting at that time.

 

[GoldenKnight]

And basically half the other goalies in the league had a better save percentage.

If by "half" you mean 7 or 8 starting goaltenders, then sure.

None of those had a better GAA, none had as many shutouts, and most importantly, none of them played 75 games.

His main rivals Roy and Hasek had long since faded off, but Brodeur was in his peak at this time and his elite puckhandling (which doesn't show up in your stats) was such an all-world, gamebreaking attribute during this 2003-04 season that the NHL had to create the "Brodeur Rule" at the end of this year to prevent him from doing it again.

 

[blundluntman]

If a player isn't able to stay healthy that's a negative re his ability as a hockey player. At this point It wasnt freak injuries, It was that Forsberg was fundamentally unable to play highest level pro hockey consistently.

It's not a negative in his ability as a player imo. Maybe I'm splitting hairs here but I evaluate the skill level of a player by what they did when they were actually on the ice. Playing more games than somebody else doesn't automatically make you a better player if they're better than you when it comes to individual skills, it just makes you more reliable.

 

[JaegerDice]

Luongo not winning the Vezina this season was larceny. It proved, without a doubt, that NHL GMs have no ****ing clue how to evaluate goalies, and that’s certainly held true since.

 

[Video Nasty]

If by "half" you mean 7 or 8 starting goaltenders, then sure.

None of those had a better GAA, none had as many shutouts, and most importantly, none of them played 75 games.

His main rivals Roy and Hasek had long since faded off, but Brodeur was in his peak at this time and his elite puckhandling (which doesn't show up in your stats) was such an all-world, gamebreaking attribute during this 2003-04 season that the NHL had to create the "Brodeur Rule" at the end of this year to prevent him from doing it again.

What are your honest thoughts on Brodeur facing 630 fewer shots while playing 3 more games than Luongo?

1 of Brodeur’s shutouts saw him face just 9 shots.
9 of them were 25 saves or less. 1 of them was 26. His other one was 32.

He faced 30 or more shots in just 16 out of his 75 games. He faced 40 or more 2 times. 50 or more 0 times.

Compare that with Luongo who faced 30 or more shots 50 times in 72 games. He faced 40 or more 19 times. 50 or more 3 times.

All 7 of his shutouts saw him make at least 26 saves. Another was 29. The rest were 33-42. Three of his shutouts were 1-0 wins. Another two were by scores of 2-0. Brodeur has his own handful of 1 and 2 goal support shutouts, but tested in less of them, as covered. He also has shutouts of 4-5 goals in support and some 3 goal ones too making up the rest. How many more shutouts (and wins) could Luongo conceivably have if some of his high volume, low offensive support, went just a little bit the other way?

The difference in workload and talent around the two was extreme and it’s not all down to Brodeur’s elite puck handling.

 

[izzy]

Martin Brodeur.

Vezina Trophy, Jennings Trophy, 1st All-Star Team.

75 games played.

Luongo managed a .931 across 72 games on an embarrassing roster, in which his backup posted an .879 (Steve Shields who generally posted around .900 or above outside of a season in Boston).

He also managed this through 3 coaching changes, which means different systems. His #1 D was Mike Van Ryn with a teenage Jaybo logging the rest of the minutes

How he managed that season is beyond me, and not winning the Vezina is horrifying

 

[Toby91ca]

If by "half" you mean 7 or 8 starting goaltenders, then sure.

None of those had a better GAA, none had as many shutouts, and most importantly, none of them played 75 games.

His main rivals Roy and Hasek had long since faded off, but Brodeur was in his peak at this time and his elite puckhandling (which doesn't show up in your stats) was such an all-world, gamebreaking attribute during this 2003-04 season that the NHL had to create the "Brodeur Rule" at the end of this year to prevent him from doing it again.

But having 7 or 8 starting goalies with a better save percentage than you is a lot. List probably doubles if you look at everyone that played more than 25 games (I get that it's not fair to compare a 25 game guy to a 70+ game guy though).....I think others already noted Luongo and there is no doubt in my mind he should have won that year.

 

[Video Nasty]

But having 7 or 8 starting goalies with a better save percentage than you is a lot. List probably doubles if you look at everyone that played more than 25 games (I get that it's not fair to compare a 25 game guy to a 70+ game guy though).....I think others already noted Luongo and there is no doubt in my mind he should have won that year.

Yeah, no matter how one slices it, Brodeur ranked low in SV% among his peers.

I would normally only look at goalies with at least 50 starts, but considering voters deemed it okay to vote Kiprusoff and his 38 games as the runner up, if we expand the list to goalies with at least 38 games, Brodeur is 11th.

If we don’t and push it up to a goalie making more than half his teams’ starts, he’s 9th. 50+ starts he’s 8th.

60+ which was more typical then (12 goalies played 60 or more games) and he’s 5th.

70+ and he’s a distant second to Luongo.

I’m not going to do the math, but he must be near the bottom of the league for average shots faced.

Then if we start roping some advanced stats like GPS (5th) and GSAA (10th), it’s clear his win was very fortunate indeed. I think even someone like Denis could conceivably have a more interesting case than Brodeur that season, but I wouldn’t make that argument in good faith.

 

[GoldenKnight]

What are your honest thoughts on Brodeur facing 630 fewer shots while playing 3 more games than Luongo?

1 of Brodeur’s shutouts saw him face just 9 shots.
9 of them were 25 saves or less. 1 of them was 26. His other one was 32.

He faced 30 or more shots in just 16 out of his 75 games. He faced 40 or more 2 times. 50 or more 0 times.

Compare that with Luongo who faced 30 or more shots 50 times in 72 games. He faced 40 or more 19 times. 50 or more 3 times.

All 7 of his shutouts saw him make at least 26 saves. Another was 29. The rest were 33-42. Three of his shutouts were 1-0 wins. Another two were by scores of 2-0. Brodeur has his own handful of 1 and 2 goal support shutouts, but tested in less of them, as covered. He also has shutouts of 4-5 goals in support and some 3 goal ones too making up the rest. How many more shutouts (and wins) could Luongo conceivably have if some of his high volume, low offensive support, went just a little bit the other way?

The difference in workload and talent around the two was extreme and it’s not all down to Brodeur’s elite puck handling.

My honest thoughts on Luongo's season in general is that it was a Vezina worthy season in most years, and he would be a credible top pick in this poll.

Brodeur played 304 more minutes than Luongo (which is >5 NHL games) and was the main reason behind New Jersey's 100 point season. That type of workload would be unheard of in today's NHL.

One of the reasons Luongo faced more shots is because he is an inferior puckhandler. Brodeur's elite play with the puck routinely negated about a dozen scoring chances per game. Further, a low-event shutout can be just as difficult to earn as a high-volume one, particularly as goalies tend to get into a rhythm when facing more shots.

Luongo had a very good year, and I won't argue those who pick him in this poll. It is a reasonable position to argue. But Martin Brodeur in 2003-04 was a proven big-game player at his absolute peak, and literally changed the way the game was played this season. As such, he is a worthy Vezina winner in my eyes, and by extension, a good pick for this poll as well.

 

[OKR]

St. Louis was pretty incredible that season, stats don’t really paint a full picture of how good he actually was. If he was a bigger name player it would be a much more appreciated season.

It’s between him and Luongo imo

 

[Video Nasty]

My honest thoughts on Luongo's season in general is that it was a Vezina worthy season in most years, and he would be a credible top pick in this poll.

Brodeur played 304 more minutes than Luongo (which is >5 NHL games) and was the main reason behind New Jersey's 100 point season. That type of workload would be unheard of in today's NHL.

One of the reasons Luongo faced more shots is because he is an inferior puckhandler. Brodeur's elite play with the puck routinely negated about a dozen scoring chances per game. Further, a low-event shutout can be just as difficult to earn as a high-volume one, particularly as goalies tend to get into a rhythm when facing more shots.

Luongo had a very good year, and I won't argue those who pick him in this poll. It is a reasonable position to argue. But Martin Brodeur in 2003-04 was a proven big-game player at his absolute peak, and literally changed the way the game was played this season. As such, he is a worthy Vezina winner in my eyes, and by extension, a good pick for this poll as well.

Well reasoned and nothing I can pick apart, other than the quality of teams around each player. Absolutely a worthy finalist at least and in reality, the actual winner.

 

[Albatros]

Forsberg, despite missing games he's just too far above the competition. Luongo deserves the second place.