Some things I noticed with your argument on this one:
Sakic was 19th in scoring that year sure, but of those 13 are or will be in the HHOF (Jagr is the will be). So I think the other guys point kinda stands on that season., since arguing alone based on PPG is weak at best.
Yzerman your faulting a guy who was 13th in scoring behind 11 HHOF players because of his PPG alone, which I don't think is a solid argument in your case. Though poddubny's higher ppg is kinda funny. Genuinely never heard of him myself so that was interesting.
I really don't see that as nostalgia, thats a genuine point.
If you want a single season, how about 2011 when malkin was 194th in points and 38th in points per game because thats worse than either of yzermans or sakics seasons, or does that not count for you because malkin wasn't playing nearly half the season? Genuinely I'm curious, thats not a rhetorical question. Do you also count Malkins 2013 season where he was 64th in scoring and 14th in PPG or no?
Its all well and good that Malkin may have scored at a better rate in 2015, but he was still behind 17 other players in the points race. I don't think there are 10 players in front of malkin that year that will make the HHOF. I can count 4 definites with Crosby, OV, and the sedins and the rest range from a couple probables to fat chances. That can make the season on par with yzermans and sakics to me.
When you look at comparing the seasons, I don't really get how you are saying malkins 2015 is better than sakics 94 and yzermans 87. If you're looking at PPG sure, but I would much rather have Sakic and Yzerman actually playing the games than an alternative call up in malkins case.
Malkin may have a higher PPG in some seasons compared to his peers, but the fact he didn't play as much in some of those DOES detract from his argument if hes better than, on the same level as, or worse than sakic or yzerman.
So a few things. First - I don't see what the issue is about looking at PPG when trying to evaluate players all time.
Put it this way. Say you look at an 800 game sample size for 2 players. Or even 800 vs 1000 games (not every player plays the same amount of games, and usually with enough games played extra longevity starts being diminishing returns). But let's start with 800 vs 800.
Player 1 player 10 seasons of 80 games.
Player 2 plays 12 seasons of ~66 games. So you compare 10-12 seasons in a player's prime.
Wouldn't PPG be a more accurate way of comparing those 2 players than just point finishes? I mean if you're looking at Hart within a season (most valuable to his team) - sure it's easy to make a case why most of the time the guy with 80 games is more valuable than the guy with 66 games, unless there's a huge gap in per game performance. And further - if you were trying to determine which player had the overall better career "value" - again maybe more games start to matter. I don't think that career "value" is the biggest component of an all time ranking though. You have the better career by combining better overall play (ppg counts to establish who plays better), counting awards/achievements, playoffs, etc.
Sticking to the example of the 2 players with 800 games each. Well player 2 looks really crappy with 0 completed seasons, and 0 actual end of season awards, right? And Awards absolutely should and do count in a player evaluation. Ok - but for Malkin - he *DOES* have awards. In fact he has more than Sakic/Yzerman. He still doesn't have a "lot" of them since he didn't finish seasons very often, but the seasons he did play in full he won more end of season awards. ie his Peak is good and strong enough.
Outside of peak - you still need longevity. So I agree that if Malkin plays ~700 career games, and Sakic plays ~1400 career games, the gap is very wide, it's hard to argue that the first player had the better career unless there's a huge gap in performance (ie a Lemieux or Orr level player, which Malkin is nowhere near). So yes I agree that Malkin needs to add longevity to overtake Sakic all-time. I think the gap with Yzerman is wider though, so think it's much closer today.
But - outside of peak and career numbers - why is it relevant to a player's all-time ranking if the "rest" of his career is made up of 65 game seasons, or 80 game seasons? If Malkin has 12 65 game seasons vs Sakic's 10 80 game seasons - does it really matter in an all time sense? Wouldn't it be more relevant to try to ascertain who was "better" during the 800 game as a whole - thus making PPG more interesting?
I am genuinely asking. I am not 100% sure that this is the best way to look at it - but I think it's logical and makes sense. What do you think?
Going back to 1994 for Sakic. He still finished behind Robert Richel, Ray Sheppard, Dave Andreychuk and Brendan Shannahan in points. And even if the last 2 are HOF'ers they only have 2 and 1 top 10 finish ever, so hardly big threats to the scoring race. Malkin has never had seasons in which he played so bad offensively. Did he have seasons where he played very few games? Yes of course. But the ones where he played over 50% of games he was always close to the top performer on a per-game basis. Which shows he was a more consistent performer, and a "better" player on a per game basis more often.
I'm not even trying to give too much importance to one bad season. Sakic could have had the worst 1994 ever but still end up a better overall player than Malkin. So it's less about finding the one season that makes him look bad. What I am saying though is that Malkin overall was always near the top of league on a per game basis, Sakic much less so. And the gap between the 2 in that metric is too wide to be explained by "more HOF'ers in the 90s". The bar for the HHOF isn't all that big after all - the bar for being placed in the top 15 centers all time is. Both Malkin and Sakic have no reason to ever be behind certain HOF'ers in a scoring race - and certainly not regularly.
Regarding Malkin. Yes his 2011 and 2013 season look bad, the 2 you mentioned. But he did play 43 and 31 games respectively those years. They're also the only 2 times he was outside the top 10 in PPG. I figure because of small sample size, maybe give him benefit of doubt. I also didn't count partial seasons for Sakic/Yzerman in my earlier analysis in that sense.
So why wouldn't 2015 Malkin be more useful to his all-time ranking than 1994 for Sakic? In 2015 - Malkin was the 7th best forward on a "per game" basis in the league, playing 69 games. Sakic was the 30th best forward in the league on a "per game" basis in 1994, playing 84 games. I think 2015 helps Malkin's resume more than 1994 helps Sakic's resume. So I think PPG finishes can absolutely count more than even point finishes when trying to compare 2 players all-time rank. You still need other stuff to complement them - but Malkin has a lot of that other stuff too.
