For my money, the S7 edge still.
That the afterthought that is the Pixel even makes anyone's list shows Android hardware currently in a sorry, sorry state.
I wouldn't call it an afterthought. There are some shortcomings, to be sure, but the Pixel line to me is aimed at a different sort of experience than, say, the GS7 Edge. It's aimed at the general public, the kind of person who doesn't obsess over OS wars or the size of the feature checklist. Does it run quickly? Take high-quality photos? Have a no-nonsense interface? Last a reasonably long time on battery? Great, done, sign me up.
That's part of why the iPhone business is still strong (how well the iPhone 7 fares will be gauged partly by Q4 sales data in January). No, a phone doesn't live or die based on whether or not it has microSD storage, wireless charging or countless software gimmicks -- it's whether or not it covers the fundamentals well. That doesn't mean companies shouldn't push for some of those features, just that Google realizes many users don't care about those perks nearly as much as tech forum users think they should.
You are right that Android hardware is in something of a sorry state right now, though. It's not that there aren't good phones -- I have a soft spot for the HTC 10, for example -- it's that even some of the bigger companies just seem to be falling short, whether it's on software or lackluster hardware. LG's G5 was a mess, the Moto Z's modularity isn't much more than a gimmick and Sony botched the Xperia X line badly enough that it had to release a follow-up a few months later. If you're going to compete the stereotypical Android way (that is, insisting that bigger numbers and more features are always better), at least do it right. Otherwise, you're better off going the Apple/Google route and focusing on quality over quantity.