I was responding to the idea that we should rank players by offensive points and then use the rest as tiebreakers. My point was precisely that Recchi has a great point-scoring profile, but that’s about it. There are guys with fewer points who belong ahead of him because they were better hockey players. Luc Robitaille is another example from the same era, guys with fewer points are rightly ranked ahead of him.
I know you weren't necessarily saying Malkin and Recchi are directly comparable but you still did bring him up and indirectly imply it. And I don't see the comparison at all.
Malkin is a top 2 player on his team, and has been for all of their cup runs/seasons. And limiting it to "top 2" is actually disingenuous to him as it should be more of a 1a/1b situation. Similar to Forsberg/Sakic or Gretzky/Messier - but i'd argue even moreso, as both those other teams had more depth and starpower than the Pitt teams do. So no - the Recchi comparable makes no sense at all. Malkin is anything but a compiler of points . If you want to make a Marc Recchi comparable in current day Pitt maybe Kessel is more appropriate.
Virtually all of the players in the upper portion of this list have a similar argument, so this doesn’t make Malkin distinctive among them.
A lot of players on this list have a similar argument of being a top 3 player or so for some 10 years in the league I agree. Mikita, Beliveau, Esposito, etc. But I was talking specifically about both Yzerman and Sakic - and i don't think either of those 2 have the same argument. Malkin >> Sakic + Yzerman in terms of being a top 3 player in the world for x amount of years.
In the late 90s/early 2000s (extrapolate any 10 years you feel is most advantageous to Sakic) - Sakic had some great years, but players who were very often argued/seen as better than him included Forsberg, Lindros, Jagr, Hasek, Roy, Lemieux...might be forgetting a few. I think Malkin stands out more in his era than Sakic does in his as a top 3 player in the world (or more) for more years.
And I think Yzerman's case is even weaker than Sakic's in that criteria.
So no - you coming back to say "virtually all players in the upper portion of this list have a similar argument" is too broad of a generalization and i think it isn't true for Sakic or Yzerman. Malkin looking so good against comparables in his era is a plus for him vs Sakic or Yzerman.
If by “enough” you mean “significantly more than”, sure. But the likelihood of that happening is not strong.
Nothing’s impossible, and Yzerman himself is an excellent example of how a strong second half can completely change the conversation from how people perceived a player in his 20s. But there are plenty of Hawerchuks in this league too, so we have to wait and see how it unfolds for him. I’d say a Messier/Yzerman type finish is less likely.
Ok - again you bring up Hawerchuk and you loose me. How is he in anyway relevant to Malkin? Malkin is a much higher caliber player than Hawerchuk, and has been his whole career. Is it possible from here on out Malkin's career path emulates Hawerchuk? Sure, maybe. It's also technically possible Malkin starts scoring 216+ points a year and makes Gretzky look like a chump, but i'm not sure it's wholly relevant here.
You seem to be seriously underrating/undervaluing Malkin's accomplishment and carer to date. His career up to age 31 alone is so accomplished that he's in the running to already surpass Yzerman/Sakic if he retired today. That's my argument. ie - if he retires today, he's ahead of Forsberg, and close to Sakic/Yzerman. I'm not saying he's ahead of the latter 2 - he still does need some longevity and maybe a few more accolades too, but he doesn't necessarily need an all-time great 2nd half to his career to do so.
I don’t think it’s too hard to figure this stuff out. Malkin isn’t recognized as a leader, and people don’t talk about him elevating his teammates on or off the ice. If he were a leader of men, someone would have said something about it by now. The silence tells us all we need to know. But you’re right, it’s not a negative. Maybe he’s just a shy guy or something, and there’s nothing “wrong” about that. It’s just not a positive.
What is a negative, on the intangibles side, is his reputation for lazy or disinterested play. In a race as competitive as “top 20 centers of all time”, that is enough to put him behind an equally talented player who could be counted on to show up consistently.
Yzerman specifically is where he is because he’s recognized as being not only a superstar but also one of the greatest captains of all time. I don’t know how that could be missed when talking about him, it was a enormous part of his contribution to the powerhouse Red Wings.
I'm glad you agreed with the idea that even if Malkin weren't a great leader, it's not a negative, it's more of a neutral, whereas Sakic and Yzerman being good leaders are "positives".
I don't know. I can't say for sure what his leadership skills are. Other posters in this thread have given good examples of reasons why Malkin could be seen as a good leader (his game 6 guarantee, him stepping up in important times on the ice, etc). I don't really have a big case to make for him being a strong leader or not myself - I still don't think it should be too big of a component in a player evaluation overall. And again you're generalizing with your "his reputation for lazy or disinterested play". There are at least as many examples as the opposite than there are of this.
If at the end of their careers we were to rate Yzerman an 89 on 100 and Malkin a 93 on 100 before taking into account leadership - i don't think leadership alone gains Yzerman 5 points to pass Malkin. If instead Malkin was a 90? Ok maybe 1-2 points bonus. So it can make a difference for guys like Sakic and Yzerman - (and Crosby, and Messier, Beliveau, etc) - but it's more of a differentiating factors when everything else is really close imo.
