is Patrick Kane the best in the world?

[Taro T]

Not only isn't he the best in the world, but I'd argue his "clutchness" is overrated, for those who believe in it. See: Sochi Olympics.

Yeah, his grandfather's death hit him pretty hard. He played poorly for a few weeks on either side of the Olympics. If you have other examples, they will likely support your theory better.

[Hoss]

For the sake of being productive and not a dick:

 

I don't think he's the best in the world, but sometimes you can be more important to the league than the best player in the world by always being at your best when it matters.

 

Crosby is clearly the best player in the world, but Patrick Kane has done more and will continue to do more than Crosby. I'd rather be a star on a consistent winner that plays in integral role in their success than a player who is considered the best but only has, mostly, individual awards to show for it.

[apuszczalowski]

I will also say that Crosby is the best player in the world right now, but by only the slightest of margins over Malkin. Those two are the only two at the moment that, IMO, could single handedly take a team on their back and lead them anywhere. There are others that are close, but not quite ... Stamkos and Toews come to mind.

 

I also agree that MacKinnon will be the best player in the world by the time he reaches 25, if not sooner. He is the full meal deal, as they say. By that time Crosby and Malkin could very well be dropping down a notch, or two, as father time will start to catch up on them.

And yet the 2 of them, together, on the same team, have only managed 1 cup win in almost 10 years AND, are tied in a first round series with the Columbus Blue Jackets..............

 

Is Kane the best player in the world? Outside of Buffalo and their fans, No. But he is a great player when he wants to be and is in the top level of talent in the NHL

 

For the sake of being productive and not a dick:

 

I don't think he's the best in the world, but sometimes you can be more important to the league than the best player in the world by always being at your best when it matters.

 

Crosby is clearly the best player in the world, but Patrick Kane has done more and will continue to do more than Crosby. I'd rather be a star on a consistent winner that plays in integral role in their success than a player who is considered the best but only has, mostly, individual awards to show for it.

Thats fine if say Crosby was only interested in personal stats and not being on a winning team (like what people say about Ovi), but its not always the players fault that they can put up great individual stats and not have many team wins/acomplishments. Its not like Crosby is out there being greedy and its preventing the Pens from winning. Chicago has a better team around Kane then the Pens do outside of Crosby and Malkin.

[WildCard]

Kane is not the best overall player, but he is without a doubt the best stick handler and I'd put him up there with best shot and best skating too. I can't wait to have him, McDavid, and Eichel on a line together.(insert ninja face here)

Edited April 24, 2014 by WildCard

[Sabres Fan in NS]

Although McKinnon crossed my mind, there is not nearly enough to go on for him. For all those stating Crosby is the easy answer, right now, I don't agree with that at all. Sid has a better two way game but if I am starting from scratch, I would honestly take Kane right now and he is only getting better. If I am the Sabres, I would be doing everything I possibly could (by the book and not by the book) to lure him to Buffalo.

 

That's why I said MacKinnon (and it is Mac ... :P ) in a few years.

 

For the record I would gladly welcome Kane to the Sabres, as well.

 

And yet the 2 of them, together, on the same team, have only managed 1 cup win in almost 10 years AND, are tied in a first round series with the Columbus Blue Jackets..............

 

Is Kane the best player in the world? Outside of Buffalo and their fans, No. But he is a great player when he wants to be and is in the top level of talent in the NHL

 

Thats fine if say Crosby was only interested in personal stats and not being on a winning team (like what people say about Ovi), but its not always the players fault that they can put up great individual stats and not have many team wins/acomplishments. Its not like Crosby is out there being greedy and its preventing the Pens from winning. Chicago has a better team around Kane then the Pens do outside of Crosby and Malkin.

 

That is why I said "could" take a team anywhere. They are not now, but did in the past.

[Eleven]

Not only isn't he the best in the world, but I'd argue his "clutchness" is overrated, for those who believe in it. See: Sochi Olympics.

 

And yet the 2 of them, together, on the same team, have only managed 1 cup win in almost 10 years AND, are tied in a first round series with the Columbus Blue Jackets..............

 

What's the common denominator?

[WildCard]

Indulge me for a minute here, but can we discuss the logistics/possibility of getting Kane here?

[Sabres Fan in NS]

What's the common denominator?

 

One, or two, great players in a team sport will not necessarily get you anywhere?

 

Or, maybe it wasn't a real question and maybe you weren't asking me.

[LGR4GM]

Indulge me for a minute here, but can we discuss the logistics/possibility of getting Kane here?

There is a very slim possibility Patrick Kane will leave Chicago anytime before he is in his mid 30's. They can pay him what he wants and he has already won there. If I were Kane I couldn't think of good reason to leave a team that seems to be a perennial contender for the cup currently. I expect him to get something like 8yrs 64mil+

[MattPie]

There is a very slim possibility Patrick Kane will leave Chicago anytime before he is in his mid 30's. They can pay him what he wants and he has already won there. If I were Kane I couldn't think of good reason to leave a team that seems to be a perennial contender for the cup currently. I expect him to get something like 8yrs 64mil+

 

The only, and I mean only, way Kane comes here (other than late career) is if he has a burning desire to help Buffalo win a cup.

[Randall Flagg]

Would Chicago be able to sign both Toews AND Kane with relative ease? And, do they plan on it?

 

I would imagine based on the respect the organization has they are more than competent enough to do so, just wondering if anyone has input or specifics

[Hoss]

And yet the 2 of them, together, on the same team, have only managed 1 cup win in almost 10 years AND, are tied in a first round series with the Columbus Blue Jackets..............

 

Is Kane the best player in the world? Outside of Buffalo and their fans, No. But he is a great player when he wants to be and is in the top level of talent in the NHL

 

Thats fine if say Crosby was only interested in personal stats and not being on a winning team (like what people say about Ovi), but its not always the players fault that they can put up great individual stats and not have many team wins/acomplishments. Its not like Crosby is out there being greedy and its preventing the Pens from winning. Chicago has a better team around Kane then the Pens do outside of Crosby and Malkin.

 

I know, but I would say that Kane's game when it matters is stronger than ever. Crosby is neither better nor worse when it matters. His team needs a little something extra.

[Eleven]

One, or two, great players in a team sport will not necessarily get you anywhere?

 

Or, maybe it wasn't a real question and maybe you weren't asking me.

 

It's a real question. The answer begins with a B.

[Iron Crotch]

Why does the best player in the world have to be a forward? I'm going with Shea Weber. ;)

[Eleven]

Why does the best player in the world have to be a forward? I'm going with Shea Weber. ;)

 

You have the first overall pick in the 11HL (the successor to the NHL after I destroyed it) draft. "Tanking" for McDavid is not an option because I have destroyed him too. You would build a team around Weber instead of Crosby?

Edited April 24, 2014 by Eleven

[Byebye]

Does Patrick Kane have some of, if not the best hands in the nhl? I'd say yes. Has he scored some very timely goals? We all know he has. Does all of that plus his accomplishments make him the best player in the world? No, absolutely not. He's not even the best player on his team. Now when I say best player, I mean the player who gives his team the best chance to win every single night. Look at the stats, or watch a game and you'll see toews is a much more responsible, 2 way, give it all you got player. I won't even bother getting into crosby or anyone else. Kane is not the best player in the world by any means. Even if he does have the best hands

Edited April 24, 2014 by Naulter8

[spndnchz]

He soooo good he can score in his own net...

 

[CallawaySabres]

Is this the best reason to start a brand new thread?

 

... Also no.

 

Also, that's fine and dandy for you to have that opinion but the way I see it, if there is a thread talking about what your favorite number is compared to who the best player in the world is, I think I'll stick to this one. If you search out all the threads (which are not a ton) that I have started, you will see that for the most part, they last a bit - which tells me there is some interest there (including this one). Now if you really want to know what my favorite number is, it's 11.

[ubkev]

 

 

It's a real question. The answer begins with a B.

 

Bad goalie! No wait! Bad Bylsma! Damn, so tough to choose only one!

[TrueBlueGED]

Because I don't feel like quoting 5 different people, I'll go ahead and expand upon my lack of belief in "clutch," particularly the way it gets tossed around in conversation.

 

I absolutely believe that some people handle pressure better than others, with some being negatively affected and others being able to go about their business as if it is a regular moment. What I seriously question is whether we we can be certain of somebody being clutch, or measure "clutchness" in any meaningful way, do distinguish it from just being really talented with quality teammates and run of the mill good luck. My second question about the nature of "clutch" is to the degree it actually matters.

 

I'll tackle "knowing clutch" first. How exactly do we define a clutch situation, and when we have that definition set, how do we separate somebody who has come through in the clutch from somebody who has come through in the clutch because they are clutch? We've had the debate here before regarding whether or not Vanek comes through when it matters, or simply scores "meaningless" goals. I would contend that every moment of every game in an elimination based tournament is a clutch moment. I think a goal scored to go up 2-0 in the first period is just as valuable as a goal scored to go up 2-0 in the third period. Others would disagree with this. I think a goaltender stopping a breakaway in period 1 to keep the score within 1 is just as clutch as doing the exact same thing in the third period. I don't think the pressure really changes--it's a huge moment in either case. If you want to contend that scoring an OT winner or a tying goal late in the 3rd is a clutch play, I really won't push against that too much. But that brings me to my next point: just because a player makes a clutch play does not mean that player has something in their makeup which makes them clutch, and thus appreciably more likely to score those types of goals than anyone else.

 

The second point is a player offering up a clutch performance versus being a clutch performer. And yes, I think there's a difference. Joel Ward had a tremendous playoff run a few years back, got a nice contract from Washington, and proceeded to be unable to duplicate it. Our very own Ville Leino was unarguably clutch for the Flyers several years ago, and we know how that turned out. Do players such as this have some sort of genetic uniqueness that allows them to make big plays in big moments, or were they the beneficiaries of good fortune? Crosby scored the golden goal in 2010 on a terrific shot; was that due to a "clutch gene," supreme talent, busted defensive coverage, or a semi-slow reaction by Miller? If I were assessing value, I'd place the latter three reasons as about 100x more important than being clutch. Pat Kane's winner last night was terrific, an elite play...but there was also a mistake by the defender and Miller got caught cheating. Do you really want to attribute causality here to Kane being clutch? I'm sure not sold on doing so. So much of scoring in the NHL is a combination of talent and luck (for example, the defender/goalie botching the play), I have a really difficult time saying somebody is clutch because of a handful of plays.

 

My last point is, even if being clutch is a real thing, how important is it really? We're talking about one fraction of a roster who only plays one fraction of a game. Let's say we agree that Pat Kane is clutch, and that we can agree to define clutch as what happens in the 3rd period. If the Hawks are trailing and need a goal, Kane is going to play at best around 8 minutes in the period? Less than half, and even that may be stretching it. And of course he'll only be one of five (6 w/ goalie) guys on the ice at any given time for his team. Will his "clutch" out-weigh quality of teammates, competition, individual talent, and luck? I wouldn't put my money on it. My argument would be that even if a player is clutch, the number of situations where that quality is the determining factor in success are going to be extremely few and far between, because of everything else at work. Crosby goes from scoring the golden goal, to not recording a point against Boston in the conference finals, to now on a 9 game stretch without a goal. Malkin goes from winning a Conn Smythe to not recording a point against Boston. Tom Brady goes from Mr. Clutch in the playoffs to having a .500 record. Did he forget how to play in the playoffs? So even if clutch does exist, when you take into account all other factors, my assessment would be that it almost never matters.

 

TLDR: I don't think we can accurately determine if a player is clutch or simply came through in the clutch, and even if we could, I'm very skeptical of how much that quality would even matter.

[Byebye]

Because I don't feel like quoting 5 different people, I'll go ahead and expand upon my lack of belief in "clutch," particularly the way it gets tossed around in conversation.

 

I absolutely believe that some people handle pressure better than others, with some being negatively affected and others being able to go about their business as if it is a regular moment. What I seriously question is whether we we can be certain of somebody being clutch, or measure "clutchness" in any meaningful way, do distinguish it from just being really talented with quality teammates and run of the mill good luck. My second question about the nature of "clutch" is to the degree it actually matters.

 

I'll tackle "knowing clutch" first. How exactly do we define a clutch situation, and when we have that definition set, how do we separate somebody who has come through in the clutch from somebody who has come through in the clutch because they are clutch? We've had the debate here before regarding whether or not Vanek comes through when it matters, or simply scores "meaningless" goals. I would contend that every moment of every game in an elimination based tournament is a clutch moment. I think a goal scored to go up 2-0 in the first period is just as valuable as a goal scored to go up 2-0 in the third period. Others would disagree with this. I think a goaltender stopping a breakaway in period 1 to keep the score within 1 is just as clutch as doing the exact same thing in the third period. I don't think the pressure really changes--it's a huge moment in either case. If you want to contend that scoring an OT winner or a tying goal late in the 3rd is a clutch play, I really won't push against that too much. But that brings me to my next point: just because a player makes a clutch play does not mean that player has something in their makeup which makes them clutch, and thus appreciably more likely to score those types of goals than anyone else.

 

The second point is a player offering up a clutch performance versus being a clutch performer. And yes, I think there's a difference. Joel Ward had a tremendous playoff run a few years back, got a nice contract from Washington, and proceeded to be unable to duplicate it. Our very own Ville Leino was unarguably clutch for the Flyers several years ago, and we know how that turned out. Do players such as this have some sort of genetic uniqueness that allows them to make big plays in big moments, or were they the beneficiaries of good fortune? Crosby scored the golden goal in 2010 on a terrific shot; was that due to a "clutch gene," supreme talent, busted defensive coverage, or a semi-slow reaction by Miller? If I were assessing value, I'd place the latter three reasons as about 100x more important than being clutch. Pat Kane's winner last night was terrific, an elite play...but there was also a mistake by the defender and Miller got caught cheating. Do you really want to attribute causality here to Kane being clutch? I'm sure not sold on doing so. So much of scoring in the NHL is a combination of talent and luck (for example, the defender/goalie botching the play), I have a really difficult time saying somebody is clutch because of a handful of plays.

 

My last point is, even if being clutch is a real thing, how important is it really? We're talking about one fraction of a roster who only plays one fraction of a game. Let's say we agree that Pat Kane is clutch, and that we can agree to define clutch as what happens in the 3rd period. If the Hawks are trailing and need a goal, Kane is going to play at best around 8 minutes in the period? Less than half, and even that may be stretching it. And of course he'll only be one of five (6 w/ goalie) guys on the ice at any given time for his team. Will his "clutch" out-weigh quality of teammates, competition, individual talent, and luck? I wouldn't put my money on it. My argument would be that even if a player is clutch, the number of situations where that quality is the determining factor in success are going to be extremely few and far between, because of everything else at work. Crosby goes from scoring the golden goal, to not recording a point against Boston in the conference finals, to now on a 9 game stretch without a goal. Malkin goes from winning a Conn Smythe to not recording a point against Boston. Tom Brady goes from Mr. Clutch in the playoffs to having a .500 record. Did he forget how to play in the playoffs? So even if clutch does exist, when you take into account all other factors, my assessment would be that it almost never matters.

 

TLDR: I don't think we can accurately determine if a player is clutch or simply came through in the clutch, and even if we could, I'm very skeptical of how much that quality would even matter.

 

 

 

I thought when I was done reading this surely I would know who the best player in the world is!

 

Just jokes man, I agree with everything you said here

[Sabres Fan in NS]

It's a real question. The answer begins with a B.

 

Balls ... ?

[chileanseabass]

I think Crosby is the better all-around talent than Kane. The two Cups, while impressive, are not all thanks to him, and I think Toews deserves as much, if not more, of the credit.

 

But what about Kane vs. Stamkos?

[Sabres Fan in NS]

I think Crosby is the better all-around talent than Kane. The two Cups, while impressive, are not all thanks to him, and I think Toews deserves as much, if not more, of the credit.

 

But what about Kane vs. Stamkos?

 

First of all ... I hope you are feeling much better and on the mend.

 

Secondly, Stamkos over Kane. I think he is the better player and does not seem to get involved in many off ice shenanigans.

[Hoss]

I would rank Crosby, Malkin, Stamkos, Weber, Ovechkin, Getzlaf, Toews and probably a few more ahead of Kane. Not a knock, though.