is Patrick Kane the best in the world?

[Weave]

PP slapper is an interesting choice of handles.

[PP Slapper]

PP slapper is an interesting choice of handles.

I have no idea what ur talking bout ;)

[mjd1001]

Speaking of the 'best in the world', I'm not sure how far I want to push this, but in a few games I watched this Year, Crosby looked good, but not great, and I have watched most of the playoff series against Columbus and not only isn't he scoring, but he is a turnover machine and Defensive liability out there. So my question is this:

 

Is it just a slump he is in?

 

Is his first full season in a long time (plus the Olympics) and heavy ice time causing fatigue to set it?

 

Or are we at a time where someone like Stamkos has 'caught up' to him as the most dangerous overall player? And in 2-3 years we might be talking about Mckinnon (or some other 20-25 year old) as the best player and not the 30+ year old Crosby?

 

Crosby is great, and I don't watch every game he plays, but when I do, I just don't seem a dominant force like I remember Lemieux, Jagr (at his prime), Lindros, and even Brett Hull being.

[Jsixspd]

When you get a Toews and a Kane on your team.... you got a helluva foundation for a team. I've been admiring these Blackhawks for a few seasons now. They're successful without being a bunch of cheap friggin' thugs (Bruins)who care nothing at all for the well-being of their fellow hockey players.

[North Buffalo]

Had to think about this topic for a while, though Kane is not the best player in the world, with the word clutch was thrown around quite a bit in this thread, neither description encapsulates Kane's talent fully.

 

I think the question is who do you think is the best pure goal scorer. If I were debating it would between Kane and Ovi. No I don't think either are the best players right now, but if I needed a goal as a coach, those two would be my first choices.

 

Yes, they both go to sleep sometimes especially on defense, but given an opportunity and having all the skill offensively, I would chose one of those two with Cindy coming in a close second. Crosby still seems to be playing a little slow from his injuries.

 

If asked the question 5 years ago, the debate imo would be between Crosby and Datsyuk. I would take Datsyuk first. In his prime he had and still has in short bursts, Kane's stick handling ability with Toews' overall game. I would also answer out of the recent players mentioned Datsyuk as the best player overall ahead of Crosby, Malkin is a lunchbox in his prime.

 

That being said, obviously Gretsky and Lemieux were above all of these guys and on D as far as goal scorers, I am surprised that Phil Housley was not mentioned.

[Jsixspd]

http://youtu.be/REAqCB9vfbU

 

Disgusting.

 

 

Holy moley!!!!! That is off the hook!!!!

 

Maybe he's something of an ######, but I sure wished he was OUR ###### instead of somebody else's. :)

[mjd1001]

Had to think about this topic for a while, though Kane is not the best player in the world, with the word clutch was thrown around quite a bit in this thread, neither description encapsulates Kane's talent fully.

 

I think the question is who do you think is the best pure goal scorer. If I were debating it would between Kane and Ovi. No I don't think either are the best players right now, but if I needed a goal as a coach, those two would be my first choices.

 

Yes, they both go to sleep sometimes especially on defense, but given an opportunity and having all the skill offensively, I would chose one of those two with Cindy coming in a close second. Crosby still seems to be playing a little slow from his injuries.

 

If asked the question 5 years ago, the debate imo would be between Crosby and Datsyuk. I would take Datsyuk first. In his prime he had and still has in short bursts, Kane's stick handling ability with Toews' overall game. I would also answer out of the recent players mentioned Datsyuk as the best player overall ahead of Crosby, Malkin is a lunchbox in his prime.

 

That being said, obviously Gretsky and Lemieux were above all of these guys and on D as far as goal scorers, I am surprised that Phil Housley was not mentioned.

 

As far as best pure goal scorer, I think #1 is a guy you didn't mention: Stamkos. Right now I put him and Ovechkin 1 and 1a, but Ovechkin is the 1a.

 

As far as Gretzky goes...I don't want to get all "analytical", but I think he was great, but I sometimes question how great. Look at "adjusted stats" where it isn't just how many goals you scored in a season, but how many you scored compared to everyone else (the thinking is, if the rules were different or goalies had different equipment, etc, how did you compare to the rest of the league) The point is...Gretzkys best 5 years were great, but not quite as much as we think when 50 goal scorers weren't uncommon and that era also had some 70 and even 80 goal years by other players. I mean the year Gretzky scored 92, Denis Maruk had 60. 10 players had over 50.

 

Don't get me wrong, 92 and 87 goals are great, maybe, probably the best goal scorer ever. But 90 and 80 and 70 goal seasons when others are getting 50 and 60 wouldn't be much better than someone getting over 60 today (like Ovechkin and Stamkos have done in the last few years)

 

The following link isn't the final say in anything, but it is an interesting point of view for discussion: http://www.hockey-reference.com/leaders/goals_adjusted_season.html

Edited April 28, 2014 by mjd1001

[MattPie]

Speaking of the 'best in the world', I'm not sure how far I want to push this, but in a few games I watched this Year, Crosby looked good, but not great, and I have watched most of the playoff series against Columbus and not only isn't he scoring, but he is a turnover machine and Defensive liability out there. So my question is this:

 

Is it just a slump he is in?

 

Is his first full season in a long time (plus the Olympics) and heavy ice time causing fatigue to set it?

 

Or are we at a time where someone like Stamkos has 'caught up' to him as the most dangerous overall player? And in 2-3 years we might be talking about Mckinnon (or some other 20-25 year old) as the best player and not the 30+ year old Crosby?

 

I don't watch him much either, and it's almost always through the eyes of playing against the Sabres. I have to wonder if it has to do with the concussions. I remember him being pretty clutch and the go-to guy when he was younger.

[X. Benedict]

As far as best pure goal scorer, I think #1 is a guy you didn't mention: Stamkos. Right now I put him and Ovechkin 1 and 1a, but Ovechkin is the 1a.

 

As far as Gretzky goes...I don't want to get all "analytical", but I think he was great, but I sometimes question how great. Look at "adjusted stats" where it isn't just how many goals you scored in a season, but how many you scored compared to everyone else (the thinking is, if the rules were different or goalies had different equipment, etc, how did you compare to the rest of the league) The point is...Gretzkys best 5 years were great, but not quite as much as we think when 50 goal scorers weren't uncommon and that era also had some 70 and even 80 goal years by other players. I mean the year Gretzky scored 92, Denis Maruk had 60. 10 players had over 50.

 

Don't get me wrong, 92 and 87 goals are great, maybe, probably the best goal scorer ever. But 90 and 80 and 70 goal seasons when others are getting 50 and 60 wouldn't be much better than someone getting over 60 today (like Ovechkin and Stamkos have done in the last few years)

 

The following link isn't the final say in anything, but it is an interesting point of view for discussion: http://www.hockey-re...ted_season.html

 

Goal numbers aside, Gretsky would have been the best player in any generation. He was an even better passer than shooter. His vision was unreal.

[thewookie1]

I don't think he's the best player in the world, maybe the best shifty forward in the West (now that Datsyuk is in the East)

 

That being said, while I firmly believe Kane and Toews are on their own great players; together I think they're the best pair in the NHL. Why not Perry & Getzlaf? ..... Stanley Cups. In an odd way Kane and Toews complete each other's style. Kane being the carefree, crafty, imaginative, playmaking scorer that he is while Toews is the serious, business-like player with almost mechanical consistency. Not to say that they don't have a bit of the other's main traits, but I think you get the idea. They are Yin & Yang, when either are injured you see how the team falters; they keep a balance of sort.

[North Buffalo]

As far as best pure goal scorer, I think #1 is a guy you didn't mention: Stamkos. Right now I put him and Ovechkin 1 and 1a, but Ovechkin is the 1a.

 

As far as Gretzky goes...I don't want to get all "analytical", but I think he was great, but I sometimes question how great. Look at "adjusted stats" where it isn't just how many goals you scored in a season, but how many you scored compared to everyone else (the thinking is, if the rules were different or goalies had different equipment, etc, how did you compare to the rest of the league) The point is...Gretzkys best 5 years were great, but not quite as much as we think when 50 goal scorers weren't uncommon and that era also had some 70 and even 80 goal years by other players. I mean the year Gretzky scored 92, Denis Maruk had 60. 10 players had over 50.

 

Don't get me wrong, 92 and 87 goals are great, maybe, probably the best goal scorer ever. But 90 and 80 and 70 goal seasons when others are getting 50 and 60 wouldn't be much better than someone getting over 60 today (like Ovechkin and Stamkos have done in the last few years)

 

The following link isn't the final say in anything, but it is an interesting point of view for discussion: http://www.hockey-re...ted_season.html

 

If you saw those two guys play, and yes in a vacuum, you might be able to make that statement, but in real time Lemieux and Gretsky were unbelievable and Gretsky's dominance was not only his ability to score but also to set up goals which made him imminently more dangerous than Lemieux, but both were phenominal. The Lemieux/Jagr combo was sick when Lemieux was healthy.

[X. Benedict]

If you saw those two guys play, and yes in a vacuum, you might be able to make that statement, but in real time Lemieux and Gretsky were unbelievable and Gretsky's dominance was not only his ability to score but also to set up goals which made him imminently more dangerous than Lemieux, but both were phenominal. The Lemieux/Jagr combo was sick when Lemieux was healthy.

 

Gretsky's vision trumps Lemieux's reach. But it is Mozart vs. Beethoven. They were both masters.

[Johnny DangerFace]

I don't think he's the best player in the world, maybe the best shifty forward in the West (now that Datsyuk is in the East)

 

That being said, while I firmly believe Kane and Toews are on their own great players; together I think they're the best pair in the NHL. Why not Perry & Getzlaf? ..... Stanley Cups. In an odd way Kane and Toews complete each other's style. Kane being the carefree, crafty, imaginative, playmaking scorer that he is while Toews is the serious, business-like player with almost mechanical consistency. Not to say that they don't have a bit of the other's main traits, but I think you get the idea. They are Yin & Yang, when either are injured you see how the team falters; they keep a balance of sort.

 

I agree with all this. Malkins and Crosby have to be in the conversation, bits it's close. I do like the idea that Kane and toews compliment each other perfdctly. Good point

[deluca67]

Gretsky's vision trumps Lemieux's reach. But it is Mozart vs. Beethoven. They were both masters.

I wish they would do studies of the brains of players like Gretzky and Lemieux. What is it that enables them to see the game the way they do and preform at the level they do. It's goes well beyond starting young, dedication and hard work. There has to be something more to it.

[nfreeman]

I wish they would do studies of the brains of players like Gretzky and Lemieux. What is it that enables them to see the game the way they do and preform at the level they do. It's goes well beyond starting young, dedication and hard work. There has to be something more to it.

 

I'm sure you're right, and I will volunteer my son to procreate with Paulina Gretzky as often as needed until the next one is delivered to the Sabres.

[LGR4GM]

I'm sure you're right, and I will volunteer my son to procreate with Paulina Gretzky as often as needed until the next one is delivered to the Sabres.

nfreeman... you are my father.

[MattPie]

I wish they would do studies of the brains of players like Gretzky and Lemieux. What is it that enables them to see the game the way they do and preform at the level they do. It's goes well beyond starting young, dedication and hard work. There has to be something more to it.

 

I tend to agree. I know from my experience rec sports, even at that level I just don't see the ball (or whatever) move the as well as other people do. It's like the "frame rate" of my eyes isn't as quick as others. And that's just the literal vision, not the processing of where stuff is and where it's going.

 

For instance, I just took this test and averaged 239ms for 5 clicks, which is slower than average. When taking a similar test with a bunch of my motorcycle friends, I was behind almost everyone despite many of my friends being 50 or 60+ years old (I'm 37). I'd be curious to see other people's results here.

http://www.humanbenchmark.com/tests/reactiontime/

[chileanseabass]

For instance, I just took this test and averaged 239ms for 5 clicks, which is slower than average. When taking a similar test with a bunch of my motorcycle friends, I was behind almost everyone despite many of my friends being 50 or 60+ years old (I'm 37). I'd be curious to see other people's results here.

http://www.humanbenc...s/reactiontime/

 

Interesting stuff. I averaged 350 ms for 5 clicks.

[dEnnis the Menace]

Interesting stuff. I averaged 350 ms for 5 clicks.

 

I averaged 254 for 5 clicks.

 

I found the more clicks I did, the higher and higher my time got. By the time I got to 20 - 25 clicks, my rxn time was up to 278ms. very interesting

[MattPie]

I averaged 254 for 5 clicks.

 

I found the more clicks I did, the higher and higher my time got. By the time I got to 20 - 25 clicks, my rxn time was up to 278ms. very interesting

 

Same here, I think after another 5 or so I was around 260. I wonder if there's some in-built issue with the test. I notice in their stats that the reaction times are creeping up month-by-month.

Edited May 1, 2014 by MattPie

[Eleven]

286. I'll try it again drunk and see if I have Johnny Fever powers.

[Jsixspd]

I wonder if the latency (ping) of the internet connection has any effect? Or cordless vs wireless mouse?

 

You can also anticipate it. I got a 33 ms by guessing when to click.

[spndnchz]

I was anywhere from 215 to 320. :flirt:

[Jsixspd]

My average, not cheating, was 230-240

[Sabres Fan in NS]

I averaged 254 for 5 clicks.

 

I found the more clicks I did, the higher and higher my time got. By the time I got to 20 - 25 clicks, my rxn time was up to 278ms. very interesting

 

305 for 5.

 

My fastest was the first ... 400. It all went downhill from there. My worst was the last one at 226.

 

The damn thing must be rigged.

 

EDIT:

 

Am I reading the results wrong?

 

:censored: is a lower number better?

 

I'm tired and can't get my head around this stupid thing.

Edited May 1, 2014 by Sabres Fan In NS