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.
I mostly bolded for my own reading, as I tend to jump around a little bit, I'm not picking apart those specific sentences as a forewarning. Helps me hit your main points (as I see them, feel free to point out anything I didn't address as I'm not attempting to cherry pick you're argument)
I'll be clear and say I do not have any issue looking at PPG when you're evaluating the players, all other things being equal. My main argument was that you're putting to much weight into it for those specific seasons at least.
PPG vs Point finishes is a pretty clear cut area IMO, because I find final results more impressive than extrapolating numbers. Its like when people argue Lemieux is better than Gretzky overall in my mind, sure when he played there is a definite argument that Lemieux was a better player for one reason or another. The only issue is, Gretzky was at that level for much longer and having a larger body of work (when the comparison is close) does get my credit.
I don't see it as career "value" as much as career impact, though it could be splitting hairs. My main issue that I detract for not only malkin, but all players that lose time to injury often in their career (Lemieux, Orr, Lindros, Forsberg, Malkin, Kariya as some examples compared to their respective peers) is that when they are in the game they are having a larger impact on the game if they scored or not compared to if they were in the press box.
When you're looking at a season by season comparison like your first post, games played is a larger factor considering it is a small sample size to begin with. You only have so many opportunities to make an impact, that if you miss 20 games its a big hamper to your resume (for that particular season). When you go into your example over an entire career, I'm leaning towards agreeing with you (though there are some very limited information) that if it was just based on those two, with the one with more seasons/less games having higher ppg MAY have been better. IF the player that had less games hadn't won awards, and the player with full seasons had then its a different story. My big issue with not only this, but hypotheticals in general, is that its always a case of "what if" and a rabbit whole of statements prefaced as such.
I would definitely say I find it impressive that Malkin does have hardware, but in context of who they played with it holds less weight to me. Yzerman in particular having the highest amount of points of anyone not named Gretzky or Lemieux in a season holds as much weight as one art ross to me.
Malkin adding longevity, even if its 5 more 60-70 game seasons, if he plays as well as he has would definitely put him above sakic. Yzerman is a tougher one for me to say, but malkin could definitely get there potentially. Yzerman is definitely more subject to the mystical and stat defying leadership and defensive abilities in his late career, as well as his complete 180 from offense only to one of the best two way centers of all time. I try and avoid arguing "but he was captain!!!111!", but leadership does hold weight because its not easy, its not for everyone, and a good or bad captain does effect a team greatly.
IF both sakic and malkin had 800 games played, then yes I'd say PPG can weigh into the argument more heavily (though there is more to give credit for defensive play to sakic) but you're mixing reality with hypotheticals and, again, I'm not a huge fan of hypotheticals. If you keep malkins PPG the exact same and he had 1000 games played more or less, I'd definitely be more inclined to say malkin is better. But he doesn't, so in my opinion hes not at this point in time.
My issue with Sakic 94 vs. Malkin 15, is that in the end its the same result for points (its not extremely far off). Sure malkin played better in a per game basis, but overall I'd rather have Sakic on the ice and not getting a point than having Malkin in the press box having an AHL call up take his spot on the roster. I honeslty can't fault you for liking malkins season more.
I don't think sakics season adds more or malkins season adds more to be quite honest, their essentially passenger seasons on their career as a whole and I think thats where the issue is. My main argument is for sakic or against malkin. I don't think malkins season adds more simply because results, in the end, matter and neither really does Sakics. Neither alone are impressive, neither won awards, and neither really gets the ticker going. Sure 7th in ppg is impressive, but the guy already won a couple art ross trophies. Does it really matter all that much that he had another season in which he could have been better if he'd played more? The difference between the two players isn't so little that one higher PPG season at this point in time.
