HOH Top 60 Centers of All Time

[GlitchMarner]

You are aware that Malkin actually had more success without Crosby, right?
But this is all pure speculation. Malkin at his best is more dominant than McD. Better goalscorer too.

Yes, I am.

I think Malkin at his best in an absolutely outstanding player.

I made a thread on this topic on the main board.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/threa...ler-would-he-be-the-top-centre.2466081/unread

 

[Nadal On Clay]

But Malkin is the one moved from the key center position.

So you’re telling me that it hurts his legacy that one of the 10 best players of all-time is playing C before him to take faceoffs on the power play?

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Malkin is in the game for a couple more trophies this year, so I think your take on him sounds a bit too definite. He most likely won't get the Hart, but Art and Maurice Richard remain within reach. Also, while injury prone, to me at least, he gives the vibe of having more tiptop hockey left in him than Sid or Ovi. I think that of these three, his potential to notably move up the all-time ranks is the highest.

maybe, maybe not. but isn't the current discussion where malkin ranks RIGHT NOW?

seems on par with boom boom geoffrion to me.

a calder, a hart, two art rosses, retro conn smythe, led the playoffs in scoring twice, rocket richard's shadow

a calder, a hart, two art rosses, conn smythe, led the playoff in scoring twice, sidney crosby's shadow

geoffrion was ranked 43rd on HOH's top players list. the closest centers on either side were yzerman and syl apps (ahead) and joe malone and frank boucher (behind). if we convert those names to the centers list, that puts malkin somewhere in the mid-teens. feels right to me, but obviously he almost certainly will add accomplishments and ftr i see him reaching at least the sakic/yzerman/trots level before all is said and done.

 

[GlitchMarner]

Is Stamkos close to cracking the top 60 yet? What about Toews or Kopitar?

 

[tarheelhockey]

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.

This is weird for me because I made it perfectly clear that I wasn’t comparing Malkin to Recchi, but you’re still trying to argue with me about it.

Again — I brought up Recchi because someone said (paraphrased) “we should rank players by point scoring and then use the rest as a tiebreaker”. I pointed at Recchi as an example of a player who would be overvalued if we did it that way. Which is why we don’t do that.

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.

a) Malkin might be “in the running” as a top-3 player during particular stretches of the past decade, but let’s be real here... he has not been a top-3 player over the past 5 years. During that time we’ve had Karlsson win two Norrises and four 1ASs, McDavid explode onto the scene as the next generational player, Kane be a consistent superstar along with one of the greatest single seasons ever, and of course Crosby and Ovechkin continue to pad their already generational portfolios. Malkin’s not in THAT conversation at all. His argument during the past half-decade is more against the Benns and Girouxs of the league.

b) During Yzerman’s best 10-years, Gretzky, Lemieux, Bourque, and Roy were all clear-cut stronger players than their positional equivalents from 2008-18. So no, Yzerman was not a top-3 or even a top-5 player during that period. And Malkin would not have been either.

c) Forsberg, Lindros, Lemieux were naturally more dominant players than Sakic, but they all spent a lot of time watching from the sidelines. This is particularly true of that run of his from 2001-04, where he was the league’s best center. Of course one could argue that he was benefiting from a lack of competition.

d) Before we even talk about him being ahead of these two, Malkin still needs to show that he belongs ahead of Dionne, Schmidt, Apps, Richard, Boucher, Lalonde, Taylor, and Trottier. I’m open to being educated about how Malkin compares better to his peers than Dionne or Richard, but on the surface I seriously doubt that’s true.

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.

This is like the Recchi thing. I am obviously not arguing Hawerchuk over Malkin. The next part of your post addresses my actual comment:

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.

It’s relevant because I’m making the exact point you are making here, that the second half of Malkin’s career is a complete unknown and we would not do well to make assumptions about it. Maybe he’s a Hawerchuk, maybe he’s an Yzerman. We don’t know.

For the purposes of this project, all we can do is rank him according to his accomplishments as of today. This is the history board, not the future speculation board.

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.

No he’s not, and I believe you are in a minority on that position.

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.

His counter-examples are the reason he’s on this list in the first place. His long stretches of indifferent play are why he’s not ranked higher.

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.

Malkin’s career is not better than Yzerman’s as of right now, so I refuse to humor that example.

 

[Canadiens1958]

So you’re telling me that it hurts his legacy that one of the 10 best players of all-time is playing C before him to take faceoffs on the power play?

Crosby is not a top 10 all time.

In the context of the Penguins PP Malkin is 3rd in scoring amongst the 8 forwards used. Basically not the critical piece you want him to be.

 

[Nadal On Clay]

Crosby is not a top 10 all time.

In the context of the Penguins PP Malkin is 3rd in scoring amongst the 8 forwards used. Basically not the critical piece you want him to be.

What does that even have to do with Malkin’s ranking? He stills leads his closer teammate by 10 points despite missing 4 games. Btw, Kessel has 36, Crosby 35 and Malkin 34...

EDIT: Just for fun, who is on your top 10?

 

[MXD]

Is Stamkos close to cracking the top 60 yet? What about Toews or Kopitar?

I think both are arguable at this point.

 

[GoGoSens]

Crosby not being in the top 10 is not right.

 

[bobholly39]

This is weird for me because I made it perfectly clear that I wasn’t comparing Malkin to Recchi, but you’re still trying to argue with me about it.

Again — I brought up Recchi because someone said (paraphrased) “we should rank players by point scoring and then use the rest as a tiebreaker”. I pointed at Recchi as an example of a player who would be overvalued if we did it that way. Which is why we don’t do that.



a) Malkin might be “in the running” as a top-3 player during particular stretches of the past decade, but let’s be real here... he has not been a top-3 player over the past 5 years. During that time we’ve had Karlsson win two Norrises and four 1ASs, McDavid explode onto the scene as the next generational player, Kane be a consistent superstar along with one of the greatest single seasons ever, and of course Crosby and Ovechkin continue to pad their already generational portfolios. Malkin’s not in THAT conversation at all. His argument during the past half-decade is more against the Benns and Girouxs of the league.

b) During Yzerman’s best 10-years, Gretzky, Lemieux, Bourque, and Roy were all clear-cut stronger players than their positional equivalents from 2008-18. So no, Yzerman was not a top-3 or even a top-5 player during that period. And Malkin would not have been either.

c) Forsberg, Lindros, Lemieux were naturally more dominant players than Sakic, but they all spent a lot of time watching from the sidelines. This is particularly true of that run of his from 2001-04, where he was the league’s best center. Of course one could argue that he was benefiting from a lack of competition.

d) Before we even talk about him being ahead of these two, Malkin still needs to show that he belongs ahead of Dionne, Schmidt, Apps, Richard, Boucher, Lalonde, Taylor, and Trottier. I’m open to being educated about how Malkin compares better to his peers than Dionne or Richard, but on the surface I seriously doubt that’s true.



This is like the Recchi thing. I am obviously not arguing Hawerchuk over Malkin. The next part of your post addresses my actual comment:



It’s relevant because I’m making the exact point you are making here, that the second half of Malkin’s career is a complete unknown and we would not do well to make assumptions about it. Maybe he’s a Hawerchuk, maybe he’s an Yzerman. We don’t know.

For the purposes of this project, all we can do is rank him according to his accomplishments as of today. This is the history board, not the future speculation board.



No he’s not, and I believe you are in a minority on that position.




His counter-examples are the reason he’s on this list in the first place. His long stretches of indifferent play are why he’s not ranked higher.



Malkin’s career is not better than Yzerman’s as of right now, so I refuse to humor that example.

Sorry but you keep changing the goal post. I went back and re-read all the replies.
You started by saying:

I just can't imagine a world where Malkin is recognized at the level of Sakic and Yzerman. He doesn't have that kind of profile in the league... it would take something totally unforeseen, like Crosby disappearing and Malkin becoming the captain of the Pens and leading them to another 2 or 3 Cups. Just scoring a lot of points isn't going to get it done, when comparing him to guys who were the central figures and captains of teams even better than the present day Pens.

Then the other poster called you out and implied that yes - if Malkin has a clearly better offensive resume it should be enough. And you responded with "well unless you think Mark Recchi needs to be higher on the list".

Bottom line is Malkin is absolutely in contender-ship for a very high slot on an all-time centers list - both if he retired today and if he continues his career with whatever realistic projections you want to make. He has been a higher caliber player in the league for longer at this point in his career than both Yzerman and Sakic had at the same point. You flat out saying that "you can't imagine a world where Malkin is recognized at the level of Sakic and Yzerman" hints at bias. Profile in the league....what does that even mean? That he's underrated? Ok - maybe. But we're supposed to be properly evaluating players here, not just going with hype and popular opinion.

Scoring a lot of points - enough points - will be enough to overtake Sakic and Yzerman. If he has significantly better offense than they do - why shouldn't he overtake them?

As of today, Malkin has:

3 top 10 scoring finishes (adding a 4th this year)
Yzerman has 7, Sakic 9.
But if you look at ppg finishes? Malkin has 8 (adding a 9th this year), Sakic 9, Yzerman 7.
Forsberg has 5 top 10 finishes for points, and 8 for ppg

So yes - Malkin doesn't have many high scoring finishes in the regular season, because since his 4th year in the year he's only played above 70 games once, in 9 years (this year should be 2nd time). But his high point per game finishes in seasons where he played 60-69 games should still count, and speak to his overall abilities as a player, which is a huge component of what we look at when evaluating careers and players all time imo.



If we look at top 5 finishes, Malkin looks quite easily the best of the 4:

Malkin has 3 top 5 point finishes, 6 top 5 PPG finishes (primed to add a 4th and 7th this year)

Sakic has 6 top 5 point finishes, 5 top 5 PPG finishes

Yzerman has 3 top 5 point finishes (you can maybe give him 1 more in 92, where he finished 7th and both 99 and 66 ahead of him), 4 top 5 PPG finishes

Forsberg has 4 top 5 point finishes, 5 top 5 PPG finishes. (You can maybe give him 2 more top 5 PPG finishes since he finished 6th in 96 and 97 when Lemieux was 1st)

So yeah. As of today - Malkin looks to be in very good company among those 4 players, his offense actually seems the best of the bunch in the regular season (especially if you allow for a final 10 game of this season projection, where he'll easily finish top 5 in both points and ppg)

ACTUAL Art Ross? Malkin has 2. Forsberg (1), Sakic (0), Yzerman (0) have 1 combined.

Playoffs.

Malkin has 3 conn smythe worthy runs (2008, 2009 and 2017). Arguably the strongest run between the 4 players (though Sakic himself has a great one too). So it's not like he's lacking much there. He's definitely behind Sakic for playoffs as of today - but not sure i'd have him behind Yzerman.

Going back to your original post on the topic - how Malkin doesn't have a certain profile in the league, and how for him to surpass Sakic/Yzerman he'd have to win 2-3 more cups as the main guy in Pitt with Crosby gone - i'm sorry but that's ludicrous. If Crosby retires tomorrow - and if Malkin leads Pitt to 2-3 more cups as the best player on the team - that's not grounds for him passing Sakic/Yzerman, that's grounds for him reaching Mikita/Messier territory.

Yeah. You are underrating Malkin quite severely here imo.

 

[bobholly39]

maybe, maybe not. but isn't the current discussion where malkin ranks RIGHT NOW?

seems on par with boom boom geoffrion to me.

a calder, a hart, two art rosses, retro conn smythe, led the playoffs in scoring twice, rocket richard's shadow

a calder, a hart, two art rosses, conn smythe, led the playoff in scoring twice, sidney crosby's shadow

geoffrion was ranked 43rd on HOH's top players list. the closest centers on either side were yzerman and syl apps (ahead) and joe malone and frank boucher (behind). if we convert those names to the centers list, that puts malkin somewhere in the mid-teens. feels right to me, but obviously he almost certainly will add accomplishments and ftr i see him reaching at least the sakic/yzerman/trots level before all is said and done.

The Geoffrion comparison to me seems a bit lazy.

Malkin/Crosby is much more a 1a/1b situation, and has been most of their career, than it is Malkin being in the shadow of Crosby. I do think Crosby is comfortably ahead of Malkin as he's been consistent and played more full seasons to their end, and also has the overall better playoff resume, but the gap isn't that wide.

I'd guess the gap between Richard and Geoffrion is much bigger.

Maybe you can argue somewhat of a parallel there - but that's it, because Malkin is quite a bit higher imo.

You can maybe say Messier played in the shadow of Gretzky. You can't say Malkin played in the shadow of Crosby anymore than you can say Forsberg played in the shadow of Sakic.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

The Geoffrion comparison to me seems a bit lazy.

Malkin/Crosby is much more a 1a/1b situation, and has been most of their career, than it is Malkin being in the shadow of Crosby. I do think Crosby is comfortably ahead of Malkin as he's been consistent and played more full seasons to their end, and also has the overall better playoff resume, but the gap isn't that wide.

I'd guess the gap between Richard and Geoffrion is much bigger.

Maybe you can argue somewhat of a parallel there - but that's it, because Malkin is quite a bit higher imo.

You can maybe say Messier played in the shadow of Gretzky. You can't say Malkin played in the shadow of Crosby anymore than you can say Forsberg played in the shadow of Sakic.

i'm comparing geoffrion to malkin. i'm not comparing richard to crosby. the distance between each guy and his teammate doesn't really matter, just that geoffrion and malkin both have gotten to take a lot of years "off" as "just" as really really good player, not an MVP calibre one, because they were trading off "the man" responsibilities with another player.

i mean, for a player of his calibre malkin has non-historically significant seasons at the ages of 23 and 24, and again between 26 and 30. to me, that's geoffrion-level patchiness.

their respective points/game finishes, counting malkin this year:

1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9

1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 7, 8

eleven year samples for both. but both guys had a bunch of years where they played too few games to translate those high points/game years into full elite seasons.

in his prime eleven seasons, geoffrion has the most total playoff points, is fourth in playoff points/game, behind a teammate (beliveau is .09 higher), howe, and mikita. in his eleven seasons to date, malkin has the second most playoff points, behind crosby. he is third in playoff points/game, a teammate (crosby is .06 higher) and getzlaf. their points/game are even identical: geoffrion is 1.06, malkin is 1.05, both in low-scoring eras.

maybe you are underrating geoffrion?

 

[tarheelhockey]

Sorry but you keep changing the goal post. I went back and re-read all the replies.
You started by saying:

Then the other poster called you out and implied that yes - if Malkin has a clearly better offensive resume it should be enough. And you responded with "well unless you think Mark Recchi needs to be higher on the list".

I’m only going to address this once more because it was clear the first time and now I’ve made 3 subsequent posts re-stating it.

Here are the two posts back-to-back:

Other poster: Even if he has a clearly better offensive resume? Isn't scoring points ultimately going to get it done regardless of one's role and perception of leadership.

Me: Not unless you think Mark Recchi needs to be a lot higher on the list. Points are important but they’re only one part of the résumé.

Obviously not comparing Malkin and Recchi, and not moving any goalposts. The point is perfectly clear — unless you think players like Recchi and Turgeon should be ranked much higher than they are here.

He has been a higher caliber player in the league for longer at this point in his career than both Yzerman and Sakic had at the same point.

True in Sakic’s case, not in Yzerman’s.

You flat out saying that "you can't imagine a world where Malkin is recognized at the level of Sakic and Yzerman" hints at bias.

What bias? My diehard love of the Wings and Avs?

Scoring a lot of points - enough points - will be enough to overtake Sakic and Yzerman. If he has significantly better offense than they do - why shouldn't he overtake them?

Ron Francis has way more points than Sakic, why shouldn’t that be enough?

So yes - Malkin doesn't have many high scoring finishes in the regular season, because since his 4th year in the year he's only played above 70 games once, in 9 years (this year should be 2nd time). But his high point per game finishes in seasons where he played 60-69 games should still count, and speak to his overall abilities as a player, which is a huge component of what we look at when evaluating careers and players all time imo.

This is the old Forsberg argument reborn. Players need to be on the ice and performing in order to get credit.

If we look at top 5 finishes, Malkin looks quite easily the best of the 4:

Malkin has 3 top 5 point finishes, 6 top 5 PPG finishes (primed to add a 4th and 7th this year)

Sakic has 6 top 5 point finishes, 5 top 5 PPG finishes

Yzerman has 3 top 5 point finishes (you can maybe give him 1 more in 92, where he finished 7th and both 99 and 66 ahead of him), 4 top 5 PPG finishes

How does this make Malkin “easily” the best? He has HALF as many top-5 finishes as Sakic!

ACTUAL Art Ross? Malkin has 2. Forsberg (1), Sakic (0), Yzerman (0) have 1 combined.

Yzerman finished behind prime Gretzky/Lemieux in 1989.

Playoffs.

Going back to your original post on the topic - how Malkin doesn't have a certain profile in the league, and how for him to surpass Sakic/Yzerman he'd have to win 2-3 more cups as the main guy in Pitt with Crosby gone - i'm sorry but that's ludicrous. If Crosby retires tomorrow - and if Malkin leads Pitt to 2-3 more cups as the best player on the team - that's not grounds for him passing Sakic/Yzerman, that's grounds for him reaching Mikita/Messier territory.

The fact that you think this alone would elevate him to Messier/Mikita territory shows just how thoroughly you are disregarding defense and leadership in this conversation.

 

[Canadiens1958]

i'm comparing geoffrion to malkin. i'm not comparing richard to crosby. the distance between each guy and his teammate doesn't really matter, just that geoffrion and malkin both have gotten to take a lot of years "off" as "just" as really really good player, not an MVP calibre one, because they were trading off "the man" responsibilities with another player.

i mean, for a player of his calibre malkin has non-historically significant seasons at the ages of 23 and 24, and again between 26 and 30. to me, that's geoffrion-level patchiness.

their respective points/game finishes, counting malkin this year:

1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9

1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 7, 8

eleven year samples for both. but both guys had a bunch of years where they played too few games to translate those high points/game years into full elite seasons.

in his prime eleven seasons, geoffrion has the most total playoff points, is fourth in playoff points/game, behind a teammate (beliveau is .09 higher), howe, and mikita. in his eleven seasons to date, malkin has the second most playoff points, behind crosby. he is third in playoff points/game, a teammate (crosby is .06 higher) and getzlaf. their points/game are even identical: geoffrion is 1.06, malkin is 1.05, both in low-scoring eras.

maybe you are underrating geoffrion?

Also between Geoffrion and Malkin, combined they have played only 3 complete seasons, 1 and 2 respectively.

 

[daver]

The fact that you think this alone would elevate him to Messier/Mikita territory shows just how thoroughly you are disregarding defense and leadership in this conversation.

Well, he would the "man" for those Cup wins, which seems to be a big selling point for Yzerman and Sakic, and I guess the assumption is he would be still elite offensively which should make his defensive game a moot point if it doesn't change.

 

[daver]

Ron Francis has way more points than Sakic, why shouldn’t that be enough?

What are his best Art Ross finishes and notable playoff runs? This seems like a really poor attempt to double down on your original claim that Malkin almost literally cannot put up enough offense to pass Sakic and Yzerman.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Well, he would the "man" for those Cup wins, which seems to be a big selling point for Yzerman and Sakic, and I guess the assumption is he would be still elite offensively which should make his defensive game a moot point if it doesn't change.

It would definitely elevate him in the former point, up to the level of the elite “the man” players.

But if you’re comparing him to Mikita/Messier (now we’re talking top ~5 guys all time at the position) then no defense is not moot. Those guys were elite offensively AND defensively. It can be moot for Gretzky or Lemieux but not for Malkin, he’s never been THAT good offensively.

 

[daver]

Crosby is not a top 10 all time.

In the context of the Penguins PP Malkin is 3rd in scoring amongst the 8 forwards used. Basically not the critical piece you want him to be.

He is #1 in PP points per game in the NHL, T2 in points, 3rd in goals, and 3rd in PPG. How much more critical do you want him to be?

 

[tarheelhockey]

What are his best Art Ross finishes and notable playoff runs? This seems like a really poor attempt to double down on your original claim that Malkin almost literally cannot put up enough offense to pass Sakic and Yzerman.

I mean sure, he could explode for more elite seasons in his mid 30s, it’s possible but unlikely. Like I’ve said all along, careers can have unpredictable twists.

 

[Canadiens1958]

He is #1 in PP points per game in the NHL, T2 in points, 3rd in goals, and 3rd in PPG. How much more critical do you want him to be?

True for many in the context of their respective era or prime. Throw in defencemen and goalies and Crosby or any other modern quickly sinks out of top 10 consideration. Even before considering overall game attributes.

 

[daver]

But if you’re comparing him to Mikita/Messier (now we’re talking top ~5 guys all time at the position) then no defense is not moot. Those guys were elite offensively AND defensively. It can be moot for Gretzky or Lemieux but not for Malkin, he’s never been THAT good offensively.

I thought Mikita was generally considered elite defensively until later in his career similar to Yzerman. Anyways, this is complete speculation. I think he is in the class of #10 to 15 centres but is lacking a decent amount of full seasons. His role with the Pens should be more of a reflection of playing his whole career with Crosby rather than him lacking leadership and a solid 2-way game.

 

[daver]

True for many in the context of their respective era or prime. Throwin defencemen and goalies and Crosby or any other modern quickly sinks out of top 10 consideration. Even before considering overall game attributes.

I thought it was obvious that I was pointing out how offbase you were in trying to paint Malkin as being "only" 3rd on his team in PP points just like everyone else is pointing how offbase you are in painting Malkin as having weaknesses since he defers the #1C position to Crosby.

It would be appreciated if you would respond to the topic rather than deflecting.

 

[Canadiens1958]

I thought it was obvious that I was pointing out how offbase you were in trying to paint Malkin as being "only" 3rd on his team in PP points just like everyone else is pointing how offbase you are in painting Malkin as having weaknesses since he defers the #1C position to Crosby.

It would be appreciated if you would respond to the topic rather than deflecting.

First,Malkin does not defer to Crosby, he has had opportunities to make the #1 center job his. Never did. Ten seasons to work on his weaknesses as a #1 center with no results.

I did respond. Crosby is still a ways from Top 10 All Time. Hence Malkin is even further away.

 

[Nadal On Clay]

i'm comparing geoffrion to malkin. i'm not comparing richard to crosby. the distance between each guy and his teammate doesn't really matter, just that geoffrion and malkin both have gotten to take a lot of years "off" as "just" as really really good player, not an MVP calibre one, because they were trading off "the man" responsibilities with another player.

i mean, for a player of his calibre malkin has non-historically significant seasons at the ages of 23 and 24, and again between 26 and 30. to me, that's geoffrion-level patchiness.

their respective points/game finishes, counting malkin this year:

1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9

1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 7, 8

eleven year samples for both. but both guys had a bunch of years where they played too few games to translate those high points/game years into full elite seasons.

in his prime eleven seasons, geoffrion has the most total playoff points, is fourth in playoff points/game, behind a teammate (beliveau is .09 higher), howe, and mikita. in his eleven seasons to date, malkin has the second most playoff points, behind crosby. he is third in playoff points/game, a teammate (crosby is .06 higher) and getzlaf. their points/game are even identical: geoffrion is 1.06, malkin is 1.05, both in low-scoring eras.

maybe you are underrating geoffrion?

In which seasons Malkin had an “off” year that wasn’t caused by an injury?

For the 2nd bolded part, what is this supposed to mean? That doesn’t make him worse than Geoffrion.

 

[Nadal On Clay]

Also between Geoffrion and Malkin, combined they have played only 3 complete seasons, 1 and 2 respectively.

Does that make Malkin any worse?