The best player in the world: 2004

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

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.

Of course you are.

 

[Toby91ca]

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.

Brodeur playing 75 games vs. Luongo's 72 games doesn't do much to sway people....if Luongo played 60 games, fine, but 72 was still plenty.

In terms of Luongo facing more shots, I'm sure there may be a few due to Brodeur being a better puckhandler, but I'd suggest negligible, NJ was simply a better team, should be no debate there. (Luongo handled the puck well enough to get 3 assists though )

 

[Midnight Judges]

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.

Yeah but Lemieux quit for half the season - which makes him better...uh somehow.

 

[Video Nasty]

Yeah but Lemieux quit for half the season - which makes him better...uh somehow.

What is this “quit” nonsense you keep banging on about?

 

[norrisnick]

What is this “quit” nonsense you keep banging on about?

Well... they inducted him into the HHOF somehow...

 

[Video Nasty]

Well... they inducted him into the HHOF somehow...

Ah, retirement. Normally quitters don’t get the induction time waived. Strange.

 

[norrisnick]

Ah, retirement. Normally quitters don’t get the induction time waived. Strange.

The HOF only inducts quitters...

 

[Wings4Life]

St. Louis or Luongo for this year.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

On the topic of "Lemieux was a quitter", here's a post I made in another thread:

Lemieux's comeback is more complicated than him deciding to simply come out of retirement. It was at least partially a business decision.

The Penguins filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy during the 1998-99 season. They owed Mario Lemieux more than $30M USD (he had agreed to defer some of his salary to give the franchise some breathing room, financially). Other players were collectively owed tens of millions of dollars, but nobody else was close to Lemieux. He probably realized there was no realistic prospect of getting repaid, so he agreed to convert the debt into equity. That had to get approved by the courts, and the NHL. If Lemieux didn't do that, there's a good chance the Penguins would have gone bankrupt (or, at the very least, to a different city).

Right at the start of the 1999-2000 season, Lemieux had just forgiven most or all of that $30M USD (I don't know if he got anything in cash), in exchange for a majority stake in a near-bankrupt franchise. The Pens had a pretty good season (Jagr won the Art Ross, and upset the much stronger Capitals in the first round) but their situation was still precarious. They were still averaging less than 15,000 attendees per home game (they were over 16,000 just a few years before).

Lemieux came out of the retirement in December 2000. This was a challenge with the NHLPA, since was simultaneously a player and an owner, which presented an obvious conflict of interest. (It's conceivable - and I don't have evidence for this, just a theory - that Lemieux's delayed start was due to needing to get the necessary approvals from the NHLPA. Either way, he was the majority owner of a large business, in a difficult financial situation - which would have created stress and demands on his time that literally no other player in the NHL was dealing with). Attendance jumped 5% over the year before (and that's the average for the entire year - presumably we'd see a bigger increase looking just at the games since Lemieux made his comeback). They sold out 26 games that year (more than any season since 1993).

I'm not sure how all this should be taken into account. Maybe we can say Lemieux was being a greedy owner, trying to maximize his franchise's value, playing and skipping games as he pleased. Maybe he was a heroic player, coming out of retirement to save the nearly-bankrupt team, and risking tens of millions of dollars in the process. Either way, there's no precedent for this anywhere in NHL history, and the situation is more complicated than Lemieux randomly deciding to come out of retirement one day.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

No clear cut winner. I went with Luongo but could’ve gone with many others.

 

[Ben White]

L

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.

Rubbish argument. He lead the league in ppg despite playing on one foot. Had he been fully healthy his ppg finish would be utterly insane that season, his level when playing was head and shoulders above the competition. The only argument to somewhat downplay his performance that season from a historical perspective I can accept is that the competition wasn’t as strong as some other years, but to say he wasn’t the best player in 2004 is utterly mad.

 

[TheGoldenJet]

St. Louis or Roberto Luongo were the best this year.

Not impressed with an older Forsberg’s 30 game hot streak.

 

[bobholly39]

On the topic of "Lemieux was a quitter", here's a post I made in another thread:

Lemieux's comeback is more complicated than him deciding to simply come out of retirement. It was at least partially a business decision.

The Penguins filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy during the 1998-99 season. They owed Mario Lemieux more than $30M USD (he had agreed to defer some of his salary to give the franchise some breathing room, financially). Other players were collectively owed tens of millions of dollars, but nobody else was close to Lemieux. He probably realized there was no realistic prospect of getting repaid, so he agreed to convert the debt into equity. That had to get approved by the courts, and the NHL. If Lemieux didn't do that, there's a good chance the Penguins would have gone bankrupt (or, at the very least, to a different city).

Right at the start of the 1999-2000 season, Lemieux had just forgiven most or all of that $30M USD (I don't know if he got anything in cash), in exchange for a majority stake in a near-bankrupt franchise. The Pens had a pretty good season (Jagr won the Art Ross, and upset the much stronger Capitals in the first round) but their situation was still precarious. They were still averaging less than 15,000 attendees per home game (they were over 16,000 just a few years before).

Lemieux came out of the retirement in December 2000. This was a challenge with the NHLPA, since was simultaneously a player and an owner, which presented an obvious conflict of interest. (It's conceivable - and I don't have evidence for this, just a theory - that Lemieux's delayed start was due to needing to get the necessary approvals from the NHLPA. Either way, he was the majority owner of a large business, in a difficult financial situation - which would have created stress and demands on his time that literally no other player in the NHL was dealing with). Attendance jumped 5% over the year before (and that's the average for the entire year - presumably we'd see a bigger increase looking just at the games since Lemieux made his comeback). They sold out 26 games that year (more than any season since 1993).

I'm not sure how all this should be taken into account. Maybe we can say Lemieux was being a greedy owner, trying to maximize his franchise's value, playing and skipping games as he pleased. Maybe he was a heroic player, coming out of retirement to save the nearly-bankrupt team, and risking tens of millions of dollars in the process. Either way, there's no precedent for this anywhere in NHL history, and the situation is more complicated than Lemieux randomly deciding to come out of retirement one day.

There were definitely some financial motivations/reasons for wanting to come back too - but I don't know that this is a bad thing.

I know I read in an interview recently that Lemieux says he just started training for a comeback after the 2000-2001 season had already started (November maybe?). If so - and assuming it's true - I think it really was a last minute decision and that's why he didn't start playing at start of season. He took a few weeks to train, and then made his return.

 

[Evergreen]

Forsberg

 

[Albatros]

St. Louis or Roberto Luongo were the best this year.

Not impressed with an older Forsberg’s 30 game hot streak.

Make of his "streak" what you will, but it lasted from October to April.

 

[Deas]

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.

With the very best point producers during their relative prime I have not found evidence of more games played in a season = significantly lower p/g. Especially with very high p/g in the neighbouring seasons as well. And the eye test showing they were at a dominant level during that period of their career.

The general tendency to want to downplay pace is with the best players overstated in my opinion.

 

[Ben White]

St. Louis or Roberto Luongo were the best this year.

Not impressed with an older Forsberg’s 30 game hot streak.

Funny streak that lasted from April 2002 til December 2006…

 

[Midnight Judges]

With the very best point producers during their relative prime I have not found evidence of more games played in a season = lower p/g. Especially with very high p/g in the neighbouring seasons as well. And the eye test showing they were at a dominant level during that period of their career.

The general tendency to want to downplay pace is with the best players overstated in my opinion.

Yet we can find numerous cases where a player's highest PPG/GPG were sustained for 20, 30, 40, 50 consecutive game stretches and not for 80 consecutive game stretches. It's not that they surely can't, it's simply that it's less likely.

 

[MessierII]

Weird year I am genuinely unsure who to go with

 

[Deas]

Yet we can find numerous cases where a player's highest PPG/GPG were sustained for 20, 30, 40, 50 consecutive game stretches and not for 80 consecutive game stretches. It's not that they surely can't, it's simply that it's less likely.

Of course we can do that overall, but with the elite point producers it is alot less present. I’ve listed the rank in p/g year by year for every well known player and with the top tier they show overall they maintain their pace very well over full seasons compared to injury riddled seasons.

Crosby by the way might look like an exception with the paces he held during his shortened seasons but one has to remember those were age wise also his prime years. It’s just a damn shame he got those injuries. I’m not saying he’d a 100% maintain those paces, but there are no strong indications of significant drops.

Eye test, pace in neighbouring seasons, status among peers and experts/media etc, his pace over 700 career games plus tremendous playoff showings - it’s hard to label Forsberg a streak master due to shortened seasons. Also we should factor in the amount of games he played hampered.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Of course we can do that overall, but with the elite point producers it is alot less present. I’ve listed the rank in p/g year by year for every well known player and with the top tier they show overall they maintain their pace very well over full seasons compared to injury riddled seasons.

Crosby by the way might look like an exception with the paces he held during his shortened seasons but one has to remember those were age wise also his prime years. It’s just a damn shame he got those injuries. I’m not saying he’d a 100% maintain those paces, but there are no strong indications of significant drops.

There sort of is though.

In 2014 Crosby started the season at a 1.46 PPG and a .54 GPG, but then the last 36 games he played at a 1.09 PPG and .32 GPG.

This was his first time playing a full season since 2010. First 46 games are quite similar to his half and quarter season peak play from 2011-2013, then he falls off to a significantly lower pace as time wears on.

Then he goes 1.09 PPG and 1.06 PPG for the next two full seasons.

 

[Toby91ca]

There sort of is though.

In 2014 Crosby started the season at a 1.46 PPG and a .54 GPG, but then the last 36 games he played at a 1.09 PPG and .32 GPG.

This was his first time playing a full season since 2010. First 46 games are quite similar to his half and quarter season peak play from 2011-2013, then he falls off to a significantly lower pace as time wears on.

Then he goes 1.09 PPG and 1.06 PPG for the next two full seasons.

I think it's more a function of streaks...all players will go on hot streaks and those can happen at any time of the season.

 

[Deas]

There sort of is though.

In 2014 Crosby started the season at a 1.46 PPG and a .54 GPG, but then the last 36 games he played at a 1.09 PPG and .32 GPG.

This was his first time playing a full season since 2010. First 46 games are quite similar to his half and quarter season peak play from 2011-2013, then he falls off to a significantly lower pace as time wears on.

Then he goes 1.09 PPG and 1.06 PPG for the next two full seasons.

He is an interesting case on this topic among the greats. I mentioned him as an exception with a possible explaination of why. You are right his neighbouring seasons after the shortened seasons are at a lower pace. The first season after those crazy paces seasons were at 1.30 though. I think the very eye-catching dropoff after that indicates there were other reasons for it. Curiously his wrist issues began in 2014 and years later after finally being rid off those he was among the best in p/g again despite high age.

I notice you left the main point hang. I think a case for calling Forsberg a streak master due to shortened seasons is weak, for mentioned reasons.

I also realize people focused on durability, longevity and career/season totals don’t like the pace-argument. I agree of course what happened or didn’t happen in reality matters, but do see signs of pace being downplayed due to lesser games too much with the very top producers.

 

[Midnight Judges]

I think it's more a function of streaks...all players will go on hot streaks and those can happen at any time of the season.

Agree, and I certainly wouldn't hang my hat on 1 example, or even 20 examples. We have thousands to go by.

 

[BraveCanadian]

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.

Who does? Do people think that save percentage and other stats based on it are a silver bullet that NHL GMs missed the class on or something?