Top NHL player in the 21st Century so far? #6(Inspired by ESPN ranking)

[wetcoast]

6th in a series of polls defining the top 25 so far in the 21st Century.

so right now from the poll results it's

1.Crosby
3. Ovechkin
3. McDavid
4. Lidstrom
5. Malkin

Just like the ESPN poll asks who has been the 6th best player in the 21st Century, NHL only, as in rankings all time if it was just for the 21st Century?

For example only use Lidstrom's resume in the NHL from 2000-2001 onwards.

Also name a player to add from this list of top 25 from ESPN or add your own.



14. Joe Thornton
15. Auston Matthews
16. Erik Karlsson
18. Marc-Andre Fleury
19. Andrei Vasilevskiy
20. Jarome Iginla
21. Anze Kopitar
23. Duncan Keith
24. Victor Hedman
25. Jonathan Quick

Click to read more...

 

[wetcoast]

Kane looks like the easy answer here but Mack has a better and more consistent 7 year prime than Kane and his playoff resume is arguably better as well.

6 years out of 7 top 6 in Hart voting and the 7th year his line was 65-32-56-88 which was still good for 18th in scoring and his play was still top 5ish Hrt worthy when he played.

Took Mack and as far as longevity goes I would take Kopitar over Kane at this point as well if he was in the poll so I'm nominating Kopitar.

 

[Three On Zero]

Chara, add Kopitar

 

[daver]

Kane looks like the easy answer here but Mack has a better and more consistent 7 year prime than Kane and his playoff resume is arguably better as well.

6 years out of 7 top 6 in Hart voting and the 7th year his line was 65-32-56-88 which was still good for 18th in scoring and his play was still top 5ish Hrt worthy when he played.

Took Mack and as far as longevity goes I would take Kopitar over Kane at this point as well if he was in the poll so I'm nominating Kopitar.

Kucherov?

 

[TheGoldenJet]

Brodeur looks like a good choice here with three first team AST, 4 Vezinas, and 3 Jennings, all in the 2000s.

Bit of a drop off after #6 in the next poll.

 

[wetcoast]

Kucherov?

I think that if one looks at both guys, most NHL coaches and GMs would take Mack but they are very close sure.

I'll take the center here.

 

[JackSlater]

It gets less obvious at this point. There are a few picks I would consider, not Kane but a few others.

 

[bobholly39]

I think that if one looks at both guys, most NHL coaches and GMs would take Mack but they are very close sure.

I'll take the center here.

This is supposed to be about better career so far, not a potential redraft right?

Kucherov is 100% above MacKinnon - not even close.
He's also above Kane. At least with Kane - some can play the longevity card above Kucherov - but in my opinion Kucherov's prime/peak/playoffs is already too strong and overtakes Kane.

So - I voted Kucherov.

Brodeur might win - maybe he should. It's still hard for me to consider partial career, vs full, if not Brodeur would be obvious.

 

[HabsQC]

I had Brodeur checked until I saw Jagr.

 

[Bouboumaster]

Brodeur or we riot

 

[Felidae]

I had Brodeur checked until I saw Jagr.

I don't think Jagr has much of an argument up until quite a few spots later. For this century Kane, Mackinnon, Kucherov would be rightfully ranked above him, and that's just for forwards.

 

[blundluntman]

Either Mackinnon, Kane or Kucherov. I’ll say It again, Lundqvist should be voted in before Brodeur since this is 2000-01 onward

 

[Video Nasty]

Either Mackinnon, Kane or Kucherov. I’ll say It again, Lundqvist should be voted in before Brodeur since this is 2000-01 onward

3 Hart Finalists, 4 Vezinas, 7 Vezina Finalists, similar wins and minutes to compare, though Brodeur played about 90 less games to get his (you know, since this starts when he’s 28 and ends when he’s 42), led in shutouts 4 times, 5 All-Star nods, went to 3 Finals, won a Cup, had 2 Conn Smythe worthy runs.

That’s why Brodeur should and will be taken off the board for Lundqvist, despite doing this from age 28 on.

 

[blundluntman]

3 Hart Finalists, 4 Vezinas, 7 Vezina Finalists, similar wins and minutes to compare, though Brodeur played about 90 less games to get his (you know, since this starts when he’s 28 and ends when he’s 42), led in shutouts 4 times, 5 All-Star nods, went to 3 Finals, won a Cup, 5, had 2 maybe even 3 Conn Smythe worthy runs.

That’s why Brodeur should and will be taken off the board for Lundqvist, despite doing this from age 28 on.

I'll paste my case for Brodeur vs Lundqvist down below:

I suppose I'm proactively dying on this hill since Malkin is already winning, but if we're going from 2000's-Present, Brodeur is top 10 at best and might not even have a strong argument over a guy like Lundqvist let alone Malkin/Kane. He has the 1 cup (since we're excluding 1999-00) vs Lundqvist's 0, but as a whole, he's pretty much his equal at best (which I'd call a stretch) and inferior at worst.

Brodeur and Lundqvist are essentially equals as far as post-season resumes go when you look at their numbers outside the win totals. Brodeur has 5 good to elite playoff runs this century vs Lundqvist's 6. I don't think very much changes if the two switch teams.

While I'd say they're arguably equals in the post-season, I'd very confidently say Lundqvist was the better goalie regular season-wise:

Lundqvist: finished top 5 in Sv% 3x and top 10 in Sv% 4x and had a 7 season stretch from 2010 to 2016 that was extremely elite. He had 8/9 elite/good seasons in total.

Brodeur: on the other hand somehow walked away with 4 Vezinas despite only finishing in the top 5 and top 10 in Sv% once respectively (he was 29th in Sv% in 03 and 11th in 04). The common argument is that his numbers were down because of NJ's trap or because of fatigue from playing so many games, but neither reasons do much to prove he was a better goalie individually than his contemporaries (and the former argument may even weaken the latter). I'd say he had 3 elite/good seasons and 3 decent/above-average seasons at best. He was basically in his late 30s for half of his career this century to be fair though.

Outside of team success, the only thing Brodeur truly has over Lundqvist this century is games played per season. As far as Vezinas go, I'd take Lundqvist in 2012 over any of Brodeur's. And I'd take any of his top 6 finishes (excluding 08) over Brodeur's 03 & 04 Vezina wins.

I'm not trying to completely shit on Brodeur, he was obviously a phenomenal goalie (top 6-7 all-time imo) but if we're talking about his resume from 2000-01 onwards, I really don't think he's any better than Lundqvist let alone other guys that still need to be voted for.

I'd take Malkin, Kucherov, Mackinnon, and Kane over him at least.

 

[TruePowerSlave]

If we are picking goalies, gimme Lundqvist any day of the week over Brodeur in the 21st century

 

[I am not exposed]

Kucherov

 

[Video Nasty]

I'll paste my case for Brodeur vs Lundqvist down below:

So Brodeur fluked his way into 7 Vezina finalist nominations with 4 wins and 5 top 5 Hart nominations with 3 finalist finishes from 2000-2001 through 2009-2010?

 

[HabsQC]

I don't think Jagr has much of an argument up until quite a few spots later. For this century Kane, Mackinnon, Kucherov would be rightfully ranked above him, and that's just for forwards.

I remember 2000-2006 Jagr as being utterly dominant. Especially in his last year in Pittsburgh and his years as a NYR. He could have been considered the best player in the NHL somewhere between 2000 and 2006.

Even when he was with Caps, he was leading his team in points and was dominant, while the team wasn't really good.

 

[wetcoast]

This is supposed to be about better career so far, not a potential redraft right?

Yes it's about career to date and if you look closely it's hard to say. That Kuch is 100% above Mack.

Kucherov is 100% above MacKinnon - not even close.
He's also above Kane. At least with Kane - some can play the longevity card above Kucherov - but in my opinion Kucherov's prime/peak/playoffs is already too strong and overtakes Kane.

How is it not even close?

So - I voted Kucherov.

Brodeur might win - maybe he should. It's still hard for me to consider partial career, vs full, if not Brodeur would be obvious.

I agree with this as it's hard to seperate position players from goalies.

 

[Video Nasty]

I remember 2000-2006 Jagr as being utterly dominant. Especially in his last year in Pittsburgh and his years as a NYR. He could have been considered the best player in the NHL somewhere between 2000 and 2006.

Even when he was with Caps, he was leading his team in points and was dominant, while the team wasn't really good.

Jagr was listless and needed Mario to come out of retirement for him to care in 2000-2001. He was the furthest thing from dominant in the first half, which brings us into 2001. Dominant second half because he regained some joy (I don’t blame him, mind you, I think he had to carry too much of the load for too long in Pittsburgh).

2001-2002, 2002-2003, and 2003-2004…also not utterly dominant. An utter disappointment is more like it. Traded to the Rangers and is as pedestrian by his own high standards there as well.

Lockout.

Rejuvenation and a tremendous 2005-2006 season

2022 comments: “My years in Washington, it wasn’t great years,” Jagr said. “I wanted to be the best and it just didn’t work out. Right now I still can’t apologize to the fans in Washington enough. I try my best but it just didn’t work out. When I got traded to New York, I switch everything again and I still love the hockey again.”

Again, I’m approaching it from the angle of acknowledging he’s just a human being and he’s not immune to depression and burn out, which I feel like he suffered from during that time period (burn out in Pittsburgh, I believe he had stress of old gambling debts and the IRS coming after him while in Washington). His play, and the reasons for it, don’t bother me. I don’t think his apology is even necessary.

But I can also comment on seeing it for how it unfolded.

He was utterly dominant (for his stature) for about a season and a half from 2000-2001 through 2005-2006, and they’re on opposite sides of that time frame.

Of course he had his rep up to that point. That’s how it works in real time. He was brilliant in the 90s and the Lemieux comeback helped him cap off four consecutive Art Rosses and a fifth overall. We can’t suddenly turn off the switch and change the league wide perception of him in real time. In 2001-2002, he had some injuries, so it was seen as a one off. Then 2002-2003 was just as disappointing. Then he’s shipped out late in 2003-2004 and there’s more hope for a revival. Then we don’t see anyone play for a year. There’s never really a chance for him to fall too far from his perch, when players like Forsberg can’t stay on the ice enough and merely excellent players like St.Louis are who we’re seeing win an Art Ross.

 

[bobholly39]

Yes it's about career to date and if you look closely it's hard to say. That Kuch is 100% above Mack.



How is it not even close?

I agree with this as it's hard to seperate position players from goalies.

Kucherov has the better regular season resume, and a much better playoff resume. He definitely has the top 2 playoff runs between both players - probably the top 3.

He's definitely above MacKinnon for career to date.

 

[TruePowerSlave]

Kucherov

 

[um]

This is supposed to be about better career so far, not a potential redraft right?

Kucherov is 100% above MacKinnon - not even close.
He's also above Kane. At least with Kane - some can play the longevity card above Kucherov - but in my opinion Kucherov's prime/peak/playoffs is already too strong and overtakes Kane.

So - I voted Kucherov.

Brodeur might win - maybe he should. It's still hard for me to consider partial career, vs full, if not Brodeur would be obvious.

Not even close?!?

Isn’t that a little much?

 

[blundluntman]

So Brodeur fluked his way into 7 Vezina finalist nominations with 4 wins and 5 top 5 Hart nominations with 3 finalist finishes from 2000-2001 through 2009-2010?

Where'd I use the word fluke? My point was very clear, Brodeur benefited a lot from playing on a very strong and trap-centric NJ team where he was able to rack up a lot of wins due to team quality and workhorse minutes. That very obviously played a role in his Vezina voting if you look at his 03 and 04 seasons (as I said, would take a lot of Lundqvist's non-vezina seasons over those two). 2003 in particular is a very serious head-scratcher unless team success is the most valuable metric when evaluating goaltenders. Statistically, there's nothing that implies his body of work was superior to Lundqvist's during this time period. How many of Brodeur's seasons would you actually take over Lundqvist's best years? And do you think Brodeur would fare any better on NY than Lundqvist did?

 

[Regal]

Kucherov has the better regular season resume, and a much better playoff resume. He definitely has the top 2 playoff runs between both players - probably the top 3.

He's definitely above MacKinnon for career to date.

I think you’re overstating things here. Both have 7 years as an elite player since Kucherov missed all of ‘21 and MacKinnon has the better Hart record and Kucherov the better Art Ross record.

Hart top 10

MacKinnon: 1, 2, 2, 3, 5, 6
Kucherov: 1, 2, 6, 8

Art Ross top 10

MacKinnon: 2, 5, 5, 5, 7, 8
Kucherov: 1, 1, 3, 3, 5, 7

Both have a Lindsay but MacKinnon has 2 other Lindsay finalists while Kucherov has 1.

Kucherov has been an elite player since 16-17. Since then he has 724 points in 514 games. MacKinnon has been one since 17-18. But considering Kucherov’s missed time, MacKinnon has played nearly as many games at that level. In MacKinnon’s last 514 regular season games he has 704 points. That’s a difference of only 3 points per 82 games.

Considering MacKinnon is generally better at driving possession and has more points and games played overall as well, I don’t think there’s anything definitive about Kucherov having the better regular season resume.

As for the playoffs, Kucherov has the two 30 point playoff runs, but in one of those he was also limited a bit in terms of his overall ES effectiveness after his injury. MacKinnon has a run of 25 points in 15 games. I’m not sure why Kucherov’s 32 in 23 and somewhat limited ES play is really much better other than the team going further.

And overall their recent playoff numbers are similar. Kucherov has 167 points in 147 for a pace of 93 per 82. MacKinnon has 114 in 88 for a pace of 106 per 82. But obviously Kucherov played more games before his playoff peaks. In his last 88 games he has 109 points, so basically the same as MacKinnon. Does 53 points in 59 extra games really swing things?

I think realistically these two are incredibly close and it’s really just preference.