HOH Top 60 Centers of All Time

[Canadiens1958]

Does that make Malkin any worse?

Geoffrion level potentially.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

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.

in which seasons did geoffrion have an off year that wasn't caused by an injury?

for the 2nd part, i'm saying he is the same.

 

[bobholly39]

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.



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



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



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



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



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



Yzerman finished behind prime Gretzky/Lemieux in 1989.

Playoffs.



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.

Ron Francis? Again you're just throwing out random names.

No it's not enough for a player like Ron Francis (or Recchi) to accumulate/compile a bunch of points to end up very high on an all time list, because neither/nor were consistently the best in the world/won the awards.

Ron Francis has 2 top 5 point finishes, and 4 top 5 PPG finishes. His highest PPG finish is 4th place. His highest point finish is 4th place. He has 0 individual awards (unless you want to count the 1 Selke and few Byngs). So no - a player like Ron Francis or a player like Mark Recchi accumulating points doesn't mean much.

A player like Malkin? Yes. Because he's already as good/better in point finishes than the players he's being compared to. So if he were to accumulate enough points (ie add longevity) it absolutely could be enough to catapult past those 2 guys.

Also:

Malkin point finishes are: 1, 1, 2 , 2* (so far this year, still TBD by end of year)
Malkin PPG finishes are: 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3* (so far this year, still TBD by end of year) 4, 7, 8

Sakic point finishes are: 2, 2, 3, 4, 5, 5, 6,6, 8, 10
Sakic PPG finishes are: 2, 3, 3, 5, 5, 6, 6, 7, 8,

Yzerman point finishes are: 3, 3, 4, 7, 7, 10,
Yzerman PPG finishes are: 3, 4, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9,

My initial post on this subject was asking how Malkin looks vs Sakic/Yzerman. I'm not suggesting he's already passed both over them - but as of now i'd say he's definitely still behind Sakic (though with enough added longevity seems quite plausible to pass him as his best seasons are better than Sakic's) but is very, very close to Yzerman, and possibly already ahead. In fact looking at just offense I'd say Malkin is definitely ahead of Yzerman as of now. The only things Yzerman have on Malkin are leadership and better defensive play. And of course a lot of longevity.

So it's close.

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.

You are waaaay underselling the importance of winning 2-3 cups on a team as the "main man".

Lemieux won 2 cups in Pittsburgh as "the man". It's the last example I can think of where a team won with 1 player as clearly the best/team built around him. Maybe Messier in 94 and Roy in 93, but that's 1 cup, not 2 or 3. Almost every cup champ since then has had at least an explosive duo, or overall team of stars, or great system, etc.

So yeah. If Crosby goes away and team stays mostly intact (ie don't swap Crosby out for a McDavid or such) - and if Malkin were to lead his team to 2-3 more cups as the main/best player on the team - heck yeah that would catapult his stock exponentially so. Messier/Mikita level? Maybe, maybe more. Hard to say. But it's such a random hypothetical that i'm not sure why you even brought it up. It's also simply not going to happen.

 

[Nadal On Clay]

Geoffrion level potentially.

So because he only played one 82-game season, he is at the same level at Geoffrion who played 2 full seasons?

 

[Nadal On Clay]

in which seasons did geoffrion have an off year that wasn't caused by an injury?

for the 2nd part, i'm saying he is the same.

They certainly had similarities during their careers, however, that does not make Geoffrion any close to Malkin.

 

[bobholly39]

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?

Maybe I am underrating Geoffrion. I admit i'm not as familiar with his body of work. You're right they do seem somewhat comparable, especially if we're not looking too much at comparing Richard to Crosby, which i have some issues with.

 

[Nadal On Clay]

Ron Francis? Again you're just throwing out random names.

No it's not enough for a player like Ron Francis (or Recchi) to accumulate/compile a bunch of points to end up very high on an all time list, because neither/nor were consistently the best in the world/won the awards.

Ron Francis has 2 top 5 point finishes, and 4 top 5 PPG finishes. His highest PPG finish is 4th place. His highest point finish is 4th place. He has 0 individual awards (unless you want to count the 1 Selke and few Byngs). So no - a player like Ron Francis or a player like Mark Recchi accumulating points doesn't mean much.

A player like Malkin? Yes. Because he's already as good/better in point finishes than the players he's being compared to. So if he were to accumulate enough points (ie add longevity) it absolutely could be enough to catapult past those 2 guys.

Also:

Malkin point finishes are: 1, 1, 2 , 2* (so far this year, still TBD by end of year)
Malkin PPG finishes are: 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3* (so far this year, still TBD by end of year) 4, 7, 8

Sakic point finishes are: 2, 2, 3, 4, 5, 5, 6,6, 8, 10
Sakic PPG finishes are: 2, 3, 3, 5, 5, 6, 6, 7, 8,

Yzerman point finishes are: 3, 3, 4, 7, 7, 10,
Yzerman PPG finishes are: 3, 4, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9,

My initial post on this subject was asking how Malkin looks vs Sakic/Yzerman. I'm not suggesting he's already passed both over them - but as of now i'd say he's definitely still behind Sakic (though with enough added longevity seems quite plausible to pass him as his best seasons are better than Sakic's) but is very, very close to Yzerman, and possibly already ahead. In fact looking at just offense I'd say Malkin is definitely ahead of Yzerman as of now. The only things Yzerman have on Malkin are leadership and better defensive play. And of course a lot of longevity.

So it's close.



You are waaaay underselling the importance of winning 2-3 cups on a team as the "main man".

Lemieux won 2 cups in Pittsburgh as "the man". It's the last example I can think of where a team won with 1 player as clearly the best/team built around him. Maybe Messier in 94 and Roy in 93, but that's 1 cup, not 2 or 3. Almost every cup champ since then has had at least an explosive duo, or overall team of stars, or great system, etc.

So yeah. If Crosby goes away and team stays mostly intact (ie don't swap Crosby out for a McDavid or such) - and if Malkin were to lead his team to 2-3 more cups as the main/best player on the team - heck yeah that would catapult his stock exponentially so. Messier/Mikita level? Maybe, maybe more. Hard to say. But it's such a random hypothetical that i'm not sure why you even brought it up. It's also simply not going to happen.

Not that important, but that Leetch guy had 11G and 34PTS in 23GP during those playoffs. So yeah, it’s very rare that a team wins the SC with one player being very ahead of his teammates.

 

[Canadiens1958]

So because he only played one 82-game season, he is at the same level at Geoffrion who played 2 full seasons?

Other way around.Geoffrion only played a full season once Geoffrion also won the Ross twice and Hart once, Calder once.Geoffrion lead the league in goals twice. Careers are very similar,except Geoffrion played in an era when missing 10 or more RS games usually eliminated AST consideration but both have three. Geoffrion would have a rookie AST if awarded .

 

[Canadiens1958]

Ron Francis? Again you're just throwing out random names.

No it's not enough for a player like Ron Francis (or Recchi) to accumulate/compile a bunch of points to end up very high on an all time list, because neither/nor were consistently the best in the world/won the awards.

Ron Francis has 2 top 5 point finishes, and 4 top 5 PPG finishes. His highest PPG finish is 4th place. His highest point finish is 4th place. He has 0 individual awards (unless you want to count the 1 Selke and few Byngs). So no - a player like Ron Francis or a player like Mark Recchi accumulating points doesn't mean much.

A player like Malkin? Yes. Because he's already as good/better in point finishes than the players he's being compared to. So if he were to accumulate enough points (ie add longevity) it absolutely could be enough to catapult past those 2 guys.

Also:

Malkin point finishes are: 1, 1, 2 , 2* (so far this year, still TBD by end of year)
Malkin PPG finishes are: 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3* (so far this year, still TBD by end of year) 4, 7, 8

Sakic point finishes are: 2, 2, 3, 4, 5, 5, 6,6, 8, 10
Sakic PPG finishes are: 2, 3, 3, 5, 5, 6, 6, 7, 8,

Yzerman point finishes are: 3, 3, 4, 7, 7, 10,
Yzerman PPG finishes are: 3, 4, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9,

My initial post on this subject was asking how Malkin looks vs Sakic/Yzerman. I'm not suggesting he's already passed both over them - but as of now i'd say he's definitely still behind Sakic (though with enough added longevity seems quite plausible to pass him as his best seasons are better than Sakic's) but is very, very close to Yzerman, and possibly already ahead. In fact looking at just offense I'd say Malkin is definitely ahead of Yzerman as of now. The only things Yzerman have on Malkin are leadership and better defensive play. And of course a lot of longevity.

So it's close.



You are waaaay underselling the importance of winning 2-3 cups on a team as the "main man".

Lemieux won 2 cups in Pittsburgh as "the man". It's the last example I can think of where a team won with 1 player as clearly the best/team built around him. Maybe Messier in 94 and Roy in 93, but that's 1 cup, not 2 or 3. Almost every cup champ since then has had at least an explosive duo, or overall team of stars, or great system, etc.

So yeah. If Crosby goes away and team stays mostly intact (ie don't swap Crosby out for a McDavid or such) - and if Malkin were to lead his team to 2-3 more cups as the main/best player on the team - heck yeah that would catapult his stock exponentially so. Messier/Mikita level? Maybe, maybe more. Hard to say. But it's such a random hypothetical that i'm not sure why you even brought it up. It's also simply not going to happen.

Resorting to fantasy metrics now. Not the measure. All that matters is that consistantly throughout their career, Recchi and Francis tended to be the best player on the ice in most situations and played like it. This is the core of Tarheels point.

 

[Nadal On Clay]

Other way around.Geoffrion only played a full season once Geoffrion also won the Ross twice and Hart once, Calder once.Geoffrion lead the league in goals twice. Careers are very similar,except Geoffrion played in an era when missing 10 or more RS games usually eliminated AST consideration but both have three. Geoffrion would have a rookie AST if awarded .

Yeah my bad, I switched them.

I mean, wouldn’t it be easier to play a full 70 games season than a full 82 games season even considering the different eras? I think so, I could be wrong though.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

They certainly had similarities during their careers, however, that does not make Geoffrion any close to Malkin.

how do you figure? an hour ago you didn't even know he existed

 

[Nadal On Clay]

how do you figure? an hour ago you didn't even know he existed

There’s a difference about ignoring a fact about a player who played his last season in 1968 and simply ignoring that a player exists.

 

[Troubadour]

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

Yeah right, the only (important) difference being Malkin is still going, and going strong, thus his legacy keeps changing almost from day to day

 

[daver]

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.

So in Malkin's case, not being the #1C is a weakness r

ather than a strategic deployment, regardless of who the #1C ​

is. How can you not say that any member of these other centre duos had weaknesses rather than being used strategically since they either were not the #1C or did not play the #1C role completely:

Wayne/Messier
Forsberg/Sakic
Yzerman/Fedorov
Belliveau/Richard

 

[Canadiens1958]

So in Malkin's case, not being the #1C is a weakness r

ather than a strategic deployment, regardless of who the #1C ​

is. How can you not say that any member of these other centre duos had weaknesses rather than being used strategically since they either were not the #1C or did not play the #1C role completely:

Wayne/Messier
Forsberg/Sakic
Yzerman/Fedorov
Belliveau/Richard

Malkin was the #1 center only when Crosby was injured.

Those listed above either complimented each other as a LHS/RHS duo, that brought elite offence and defence or stylistically - agressive / cerebral.Malkin does not bring such attributes.

You missed the best pairs BTW. Ted Kennedy/Syl Apps Sr or Ted Kennedy /Max Bentley. RHS/LHS with complimentary skills.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Ron Francis? Again you're just throwing out random names.

Not going through this again, it’s like the Recchi thing. It’s a counter-example, not a comparison.

No it's not enough for a player like Ron Francis (or Recchi) to accumulate/compile a bunch of points to end up very high on an all time list, because neither/nor were consistently the best in the world/won the awards.

Malkin has also not been consistently the best on the world.

And you’re hitting the nail right on the head. Just scoring points isn’t enough. That needs to be accompanied by something more, in order for a player to elevate over this level of competition. Yzerman didn’t get where he is on this list just by scoring points. Neither did Messier, neither did Mikita. Point scoring may eventually get Malkin into a comparison with them, but he will lose that comparison if points are the entirety of the argument. There has to be more meat on that bone.

In fact looking at just offense I'd say Malkin is definitely ahead of Yzerman as of now. The only things Yzerman have on Malkin are leadership and better defensive play. And of course a lot of longevity.

So it's close.

You are waaaay underselling the importance of winning 2-3 cups on a team as the "main man".

Lemieux won 2 cups in Pittsburgh as "the man". It's the last example I can think of where a team won with 1 player as clearly the best/team built around him. Maybe Messier in 94 and Roy in 93, but that's 1 cup, not 2 or 3. Almost every cup champ since then has had at least an explosive duo, or overall team of stars, or great system, etc.

So yeah. If Crosby goes away and team stays mostly intact (ie don't swap Crosby out for a McDavid or such) - and if Malkin were to lead his team to 2-3 more cups as the main/best player on the team - heck yeah that would catapult his stock exponentially so. Messier/Mikita level? Maybe, maybe more. Hard to say. But it's such a random hypothetical that i'm not sure why you even brought it up. It's also simply not going to happen.

I didn’t say Malkin needs to single-handedly drag an average team to the Cup, that simply doesn’t happen ever. But from the standpoint of comparing centers to each other, he’s not even “the man” like Kopitar in LA, or Toews in Chicago, or McDavid in Edmonton. Being a #2 behind the best player in the world gives him a distinct advantage in feasting on second-rate defenders who are forced to match up unfavorably. We all talk about this in detail come playoff time, when the Pens’ vaunted 1-2 punch creates matchup havoc for their opponents. Crosby also takes on the leadership mantle, and plays a better all-round game. Crosby IS a guy who could very well finish top-5 on this list. Malkin has the luxury of playing at 80% speed for a large portion of his career and not being absolutely devoured for it because he’s not in the same kind of spotlight as his first-line teammate.

At this point, perhaps the most apt comparison is to Sergei Fedorov at the same age. Fedorov of course was a different kind of player, but of a similar caliber and in a similar role. I think Malkin exceeds him by a fair margin, but if you think about Fedorov’s career track through age 30 you see a lot of the same ups and downs, and you already see the patterns of skillset and behavior that would have Yzerman end up with the 16-places-stronger legacy — longevity, consistency, leadership, defense.

 

[bobholly39]

Not going through this again, it’s like the Recchi thing. It’s a counter-example, not a comparison.



Malkin has also not been consistently the best on the world.

And you’re hitting the nail right on the head. Just scoring points isn’t enough. That needs to be accompanied by something more, in order for a player to elevate over this level of competition. Yzerman didn’t get where he is on this list just by scoring points. Neither did Messier, neither did Mikita. Point scoring may eventually get Malkin into a comparison with them, but he will lose that comparison if points are the entirety of the argument. There has to be more meat on that bone.







I didn’t say Malkin needs to single-handedly drag an average team to the Cup, that simply doesn’t happen ever. But from the standpoint of comparing centers to each other, he’s not even “the man” like Kopitar in LA, or Toews in Chicago, or McDavid in Edmonton. Being a #2 behind the best player in the world gives him a distinct advantage in feasting on second-rate defenders who are forced to match up unfavorably. We all talk about this in detail come playoff time, when the Pens’ vaunted 1-2 punch creates matchup havoc for their opponents. Crosby also takes on the leadership mantle, and plays a better all-round game. Crosby IS a guy who could very well finish top-5 on this list. Malkin has the luxury of playing at 80% speed for a large portion of his career and not being absolutely devoured for it because he’s not in the same kind of spotlight as his first-line teammate.

At this point, perhaps the most apt comparison is to Sergei Fedorov at the same age. Fedorov of course was a different kind of player, but of a similar caliber and in a similar role. I think Malkin exceeds him by a fair margin, but if you think about Fedorov’s career track through age 30 you see a lot of the same ups and downs, and you already see the patterns of skillset and behavior that would have Yzerman end up with the 16-places-stronger legacy — longevity, consistency, leadership, defense.

I acknowledge that you've not flat out said anywhere "Malkin is like Recchi or Malkin is like Francis". I'm not trying to play dumb or anything. But you do still bring up these comparisons that shouldn't really have any place here because they're not relevant. It would be like me countering you wanting to rate Sakic or Yzerman high for leadership with "but Toews isn't a top 15 center all time". Well - what about Toews? Toews is a great leader but not the same profile player as those 2, so why is he relevant? He isn't - just like Recchi/Francis aren't a relevant counter to discussing the possibility of Malkin having better offense than Yzerman/Sakic and maybe ranking higher.

I love your response about Malkin having a superior offensive resume to Yzerman. Very well articulated and thought out. So much so that i'm not sure really sure how to counter that smiley - so i'll leave it at that.

To me it feels like you're being way too conservative in your assessment of modern players whose careers aren't yet over. Crosby "could very well finish top 5 on this list"? I'd argue more people (even on HOH) seem to believe Crosby could retire today and already be top 5 - #4 even - than the opposite. I'd argue Crosby is definitely ahead of Mikita as of now - and very possibly of Morenz (a bit harder to compare such an older era, so i won't say "definitely" blindly). I think Crosby is already very close to Beliveau.

Sergei Fedorov is a name you can bring up that is at least somewhat relevant here for a change, so that's good. I agree that Malkin exceeds him by quite a bit already though.

I also don't think it's fair to knock Malkin on consistency. Malkin's actually been quite consistent in his career. As much as Crosby? Nope - but then again I think Crosby has one of the top 3 consistent high level primes of all time. But we're not comparing him to Crosby, we're comparing him to Sakic and Yzerman and he's been a more consistent performer than them.

Malkin finished top 10 in PPG across the league in every single one of his seasons except for 3:

Rookie season. Let's give him a pass, he did win the calder and have a better rookie season than both Sakic/Yzerman.
2011 - played 43 games
2013 - played 31 games

In every other season he's played at least 57 games and in every one of those years he's been top 10 in PPG.

Yzerman missed top 10 in ppg his first 4 seasons. Also in 95, 96, 97. That's 7 seasons (and every year after 97 too - but i stopped it there at age 31, to be like Malkin's age this year)

Sakic missed top 10 in ppg his first 2 seasons. 1993. 1994. 1997. 1998. 2002. 7 seasons up until age 31-32.

So yeah. Malkin has been a higher caliber player since his entry in the NHL and his whole career than Sakic/Yzerman were through the same point - and i'd say by a decent gap.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I acknowledge that you've not flat out said anywhere "Malkin is like Recchi or Malkin is like Francis". I'm not trying to play dumb or anything. But you do still bring up these comparisons that shouldn't really have any place here because they're not relevant. It would be like me countering you wanting to rate Sakic or Yzerman high for leadership with "but Toews isn't a top 15 center all time".

If I were saying that we should rank players mainly on leadership and then consider points/defense/whatever to be some sort of tiebreaker, then "that would make Toews top-5 all time, which is obviously wrong" would be a perfectly valid counterpoint. I don't see the problem here, the example IS relevant when exposing a faulty principle.

I love your response about Malkin having a superior offensive resume to Yzerman. Very well articulated and thought out. So much so that i'm not sure really sure how to counter that smiley - so i'll leave it at that.

I was laughing at the construction of the argument. "Malkin is ahead in X, and Yzerman is only ahead in A, B, and C. So it's close!"

To me it feels like you're being way too conservative in your assessment of modern players whose careers aren't yet over.

History board. No credit until things actually happen in real life. Any of these guys could fall down the stairs tomorrow and it would be all over.

Crosby is arguably top-5 already, I agree. He is an example of a player who checks every box. In contrast to Malkin who checks some boxes but not others, hence it is going to be hard for him to surpass guys who check them all -- even if he's slightly superior in a particular category. At age 31, he's at the point where he is going to need to do something a little "off the beaten path", whether that means blowing people away with surprisingly huge scoring seasons, reinventing himself as a two-way force, becoming a true leader on a successful team, or whatever. It's not going to happen if he has a typical mid-30s decline, which is what I was saying in the first place. He needs that strong finish, one way or another, or this conversation is moot.

I also don't think it's fair to knock Malkin on consistency. Malkin's actually been quite consistent in his career. As much as Crosby? Nope - but then again I think Crosby has one of the top 3 consistent high level primes of all time. But we're not comparing him to Crosby, we're comparing him to Sakic and Yzerman and he's been a more consistent performer than them.

Malkin finished top 10 in PPG across the league in every single one of his seasons except for 3:

Rookie season. Let's give him a pass, he did win the calder and have a better rookie season than both Sakic/Yzerman.
2011 - played 43 games
2013 - played 31 games

In every other season he's played at least 57 games and in every one of those years he's been top 10 in PPG.

Yzerman missed top 10 in ppg his first 4 seasons. Also in 95, 96, 97. That's 7 seasons (and every year after 97 too - but i stopped it there at age 31, to be like Malkin's age this year)

Sakic missed top 10 in ppg his first 2 seasons. 1993. 1994. 1997. 1998. 2002. 7 seasons up until age 31-32.

So yeah. Malkin has been a higher caliber player since his entry in the NHL and his whole career than Sakic/Yzerman were through the same point - and i'd say by a decent gap.

This is all hammering at PPG because we know that's where Malkin's going to look best, while ignoring the large spans of time that he was either injured or ineffective. It's the Forsberg argument turned into a zombie to haunt us again.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

I acknowledge that you've not flat out said anywhere "Malkin is like Recchi or Malkin is like Francis". I'm not trying to play dumb or anything. But you do still bring up these comparisons that shouldn't really have any place here because they're not relevant. It would be like me countering you wanting to rate Sakic or Yzerman high for leadership with "but Toews isn't a top 15 center all time". Well - what about Toews? Toews is a great leader but not the same profile player as those 2, so why is he relevant? He isn't - just like Recchi/Francis aren't a relevant counter to discussing the possibility of Malkin having better offense than Yzerman/Sakic and maybe ranking higher.

I love your response about Malkin having a superior offensive resume to Yzerman. Very well articulated and thought out. So much so that i'm not sure really sure how to counter that smiley - so i'll leave it at that.

To me it feels like you're being way too conservative in your assessment of modern players whose careers aren't yet over. Crosby "could very well finish top 5 on this list"? I'd argue more people (even on HOH) seem to believe Crosby could retire today and already be top 5 - #4 even - than the opposite. I'd argue Crosby is definitely ahead of Mikita as of now - and very possibly of Morenz (a bit harder to compare such an older era, so i won't say "definitely" blindly). I think Crosby is already very close to Beliveau.

Sergei Fedorov is a name you can bring up that is at least somewhat relevant here for a change, so that's good. I agree that Malkin exceeds him by quite a bit already though.

I also don't think it's fair to knock Malkin on consistency. Malkin's actually been quite consistent in his career. As much as Crosby? Nope - but then again I think Crosby has one of the top 3 consistent high level primes of all time. But we're not comparing him to Crosby, we're comparing him to Sakic and Yzerman and he's been a more consistent performer than them.

Malkin finished top 10 in PPG across the league in every single one of his seasons except for 3:

Rookie season. Let's give him a pass, he did win the calder and have a better rookie season than both Sakic/Yzerman.
2011 - played 43 games
2013 - played 31 games

In every other season he's played at least 57 games and in every one of those years he's been top 10 in PPG.

Yzerman missed top 10 in ppg his first 4 seasons. Also in 95, 96, 97. That's 7 seasons (and every year after 97 too - but i stopped it there at age 31, to be like Malkin's age this year)

Sakic missed top 10 in ppg his first 2 seasons. 1993. 1994. 1997. 1998. 2002. 7 seasons up until age 31-32.

So yeah. Malkin has been a higher caliber player since his entry in the NHL and his whole career than Sakic/Yzerman were through the same point - and i'd say by a decent gap.

You're giving an awful lot of credit to Malkin for large chunks of missed games. In your example above you're essentially declaring a Sakic season (2002) where he finished 5th in league scoring to be inferior to a Malkin season (2016) where he had 58 points and missed 25 games.

The fact is, Malkin managing to finish into the top 10 in points per game in bunch of seasons where he missed 15-20 games is not greatly impressive in an all time sense, especially considering the relatively weak top-end competition on those leaderboards. First-half -of -his-career Sakic and Yzerman were competing against what is probably the deepest field of offensive talent in history and were injured less frequently. There's basically no argument at all that seasons like Sakic in 93 or 94 (full seasons of around 100 points) were worse than Malkin seasons of 70 points where he was a minus player in spite of a teammate at the same position getting tougher opponent matchups.

 

[bobholly39]

I was laughing at the construction of the argument. "Malkin is ahead in X, and Yzerman is only ahead in A, B, and C. So it's close!"



History board. No credit until things actually happen in real life. Any of these guys could fall down the stairs tomorrow and it would be all over.

Well I value offense quite a bit. So yes I think a case can be made that Malkin is close to Yzerman all time by virtue of better offensive resume, yet lacking in defensive resume, and leadership. Longevity matters less if i'm saying Malkin is already ahead of Yzerman on offense for his whole career, which I think I am.

Also. I'm talking right now, today. If they retire today. I'm not talking about making future projections, only things that already happened in real life. You are being too conservative in your evaluation of both Malkin and Crosby I feel - if they retired today. You seem to back off a bit on Crosby which I agree with more - but I feel you're being too conservative on Malkin's resume so far.

I admit I am making one projection for Malkin in terms of his regular finish season this year - i am assuming he finishes top 5 in points and PPG. Which with 10 games left i think is a pretty safe assumption to make.

This is all hammering at PPG because we know that's where Malkin's going to look best, while ignoring the large spans of time that he was either injured or ineffective. It's the Forsberg argument turned into a zombie to haunt us again.

Yes I agree - Malkin and Forsberg are very, very comparable. Slight edge to Malkin imo. The difference being that Forsberg retired with 708 games played at age 37. Malkin has 774 games played as of age 31 - and roughly same amount of playoff games.

But that's the point though. Since I have Malkin already slightly ahead of Forsberg - I don't think it's unrealistic to try to compare him to Yzerman today. Sakic - no he's still behind, but i think with realistic longevity he might one day surpass him, but we'll have to see.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Well I value offense quite a bit. So yes I think a case can be made that Malkin is close to Yzerman all time by virtue of better offensive resume, yet lacking in defensive resume, and leadership. Longevity matters less if i'm saying Malkin is already ahead of Yzerman on offense for his whole career, which I think I am.

Also. I'm talking right now, today. If they retire today. I'm not talking about making future projections, only things that already happened in real life. You are being too conservative in your evaluation of both Malkin and Crosby I feel - if they retired today. You seem to back off a bit on Crosby which I agree with more - but I feel you're being too conservative on Malkin's resume so far.

I admit I am making one projection for Malkin in terms of his regular finish season this year - i am assuming he finishes top 5 in points and PPG. Which with 10 games left i think is a pretty safe assumption to make.



Yes I agree - Malkin and Forsberg are very, very comparable. Slight edge to Malkin imo. The difference being that Forsberg retired with 708 games played at age 37. Malkin has 774 games played as of age 31 - and roughly same amount of playoff games.

But that's the point though. Since I have Malkin already slightly ahead of Forsberg - I don't think it's unrealistic to try to compare him to Yzerman today. Sakic - no he's still behind, but i think with realistic longevity he might one day surpass him, but we'll have to see.

You think that as of today, a guy with 921 points has a better offensive profile than a guy with 1,755 points?

 

[bobholly39]

You're giving an awful lot of credit to Malkin for large chunks of missed games. In your example above you're essentially declaring a Sakic season (2002) where he finished 5th in league scoring to be inferior to a Malkin season (2016) where he had 58 points and missed 25 games.

The fact is, Malkin managing to finish into the top 10 in points per game in bunch of seasons where he missed 15-20 games is not greatly impressive in an all time sense, especially considering the relatively weak top-end competition on those leaderboards. First-half -of -his-career Sakic and Yzerman were competing against what is probably the deepest field of offensive talent in history and were injured less frequently. There's basically no argument at all that seasons like Sakic in 93 or 94 (full seasons of around 100 points) were worse than Malkin seasons of 70 points where he was a minus player in spite of a teammate at the same position getting tougher opponent matchups.

It's a lazy argument to say the 90s was full of star and more competitive than the modern era. I don't agree with this. It's just an opinion - and i've heard it before and often it tends to be very influenced by nostalgia. Back it up by actual examples and proof first, and then we'll talk.

I do agree that Malkin missing 15-20 games per year matters of course. I'm honestly not sure how much it matters though. If he has the peak (and he does - he's arguably #1 for peak out of those 4 players) - and if he ends up with enough career longevity (Forsberg has 708 career games total - Malkin is at 774 by age 31, good chance he finishes with a respectable number, even if obviously behind Sakic/Yzerman) - should it matter all that much in an all time sense that his prime is full of pretty strong per-game seasons of 60-65 games, instead of fuller seasons of 80 games but less good on a per-game basis?

I'm not sure that it should hurt him all that much.

He'd have the peak to show he can do it over full seasons
He'd have the career longevity to show he's had an accomplished career
I think seasons of 60-65 games and few of 75-80 games wont matter too much

 

[bobholly39]

You think that as of today, a guy with 921 points has a better offensive profile than a guy with 1,755 points?

Maybe.

Yzerman has a career PPG of 1.09 adjusted. Malkin at 1.33 (using Hockey-Reference which I know isn't 100% accurate, but still)
Malkin has more end season awards (offensively) than Yzerman
Malkin has better playoffs as well (offensively especially)

Ron Francis has 1798 career points. Mark Recchi has 1533 points (see what I did there? ). I'd say Malkin has a better offensive profile than both those guys as of today too. Don't you think so?

 

[Sentinel]

Maybe.

Yzerman has a career PPG of 1.09 adjusted. Malkin at 1.33 (using Hockey-Reference which I know isn't 100% accurate, but still)
Malkin has more end season awards (offensively) than Yzerman
Malkin has better playoffs as well (offensively especially)

Tail end of career matters. I will be absolutely stunned if Malkin plays till 40 and his PPG doesn't take a sharp dive.

Malkin's playoffs are better offensively than Yzerman's but overall? They both have one CS, they both won three Cups and lost once in the Finals. I will even be generous and equate Steve's legendary one-leg Cup in 2002 to Malkin's crippled 2016 Cup. But one thing I know: Steve never had anything as dismal as Malkin's (and Crosby's) 2015 playoffs.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Maybe.

Yzerman has a career PPG of 1.09 adjusted. Malkin at 1.33 (using Hockey-Reference which I know isn't 100% accurate, but still)
Malkin has more end season awards (offensively) than Yzerman
Malkin has better playoffs as well (offensively especially)

Ron Francis has 1798 career points. Mark Recchi has 1533 points (see what I did there? ). I'd say Malkin has a better offensive profile than both those guys as of today too. Don't you think so?

I'm going to take something of a shortcut in this conversation and use hockey-reference's adjusted points to even out the numbers for era.

N.B.: I do this fully knowing that these numbers are biased against players from the 1980s and early 1990s, which means all three of the non-Malkin players in this conversation. But I don't want to have to do a bunch of complicated adjustments by hand just to make an easy point.

Here are the four players' adjusted points, in order from best season to worst.

Does Malkin have the best offensive profile among these four, even with a pro-Malkin bias in the data?

Well, he has arguably the best peak if you're judging players solely on their best 4 or 5 years. However, it's pretty clear that each of these players sustained a level of offensive production above Malkin's typical season. And I think it's pretty clear that he has MUCH better argument against Recchi and Francis than he does against Yzerman, who was consistently the most productive of these players while also spending a number of years as a fantastic leader and a Selke quality defender.

This is exactly what I mean by, Malkin either needs to have an abnormally productive mid-30s or he needs to develop an argument that isn't solely based on point scoring. His points alone, as they stand, aren't enough.