Is it possible for Malkin to surpass Crosby's legacy

[Cursed Lemon]

Are you people out of your minds?

They both have two Art Ross trophies.

Malkin has a Hart and a Lindsay. Crosby has three Lindsays, a Richard, and two Harts.

Malkin has three 100+ point seasons. Crosby has five.

In their injury-shortened seasons, Malkin has a 1.19 PPG. Crosby has 1.52.

Malkin's playoff PPG is 1.16. Crosby's is 1.2.

Malkin has a Smythe. Crosby had a Smythe-worthy playoffs, scoring only five less points while directly being matched up with players like Lidstrom and peak Datsyuk/Zetterberg.

Crosby was average on an incredibly stacked Olympic team, while Malkin was a centerpiece of perhaps two of the most disastrous Olympic squads in recent history.

There is literally no argument that Malkin has a greater "legacy" than Crosby. Good god.

 

[NewLife]

There is literally no argument that Malkin has a greater "legacy" than Crosby. Good god.

That isn't what is about either.

I think he can before retirement is set.

 

[Cursed Lemon]

That isn't what is about either.

I think he can before retirement is set.

So what is the assumption? That Malkin is just going to go through his whole career like a freight train and Crosby is just going to fizzle out?

 

[discobob]

So what is the assumption? That Malkin is just going to go through his whole career like a freight train and Crosby is just going to fizzle out?

Take a step back and read the thread....notice the words "possible" (as in can it happen) and "to pass" (as in sometime in the future).

 

[NewLife]

So what is the assumption? That Malkin is just going to go through his whole career like a freight train and Crosby is just going to fizzle out?

Since he already are a freight heavy train so yes? Am I assumption that Crosby will fade out ala Heatly, no, more like Ovetchkin.

 

[DearDiary]

So what is the assumption? That Malkin is just going to go through his whole career like a freight train and Crosby is just going to fizzle out?

Malkin plays a type of game that won't be as affected by age like Crosby's will. Malkin doesn't rely on speed and strength as much. His game is based around awareness and stick skill. He doesn't need to play along the boards, outspeed defenders or be physical. Malkin will be able to sustain his play for a long time, Crosby won't.

 

[Aaaaaaaaaaaaa]

Once again some of the usual suspects come out to try and diminish Crosby's accomplishments.

At what point (if one exists), will what he has done "be enough"? 5 Harts? 10? Lead the league in scoring 10 times? 5 Olympic gold medals where he is crucial in the gold medal game?

Answer - it won't matter. Whatever he does, the same people with the same agendas will keep popping up and try to draw asterisks on everything and give us "solid reasoning" for why he is not as good as he should have been.

Just keep trying. Persistence doesn't always make you right, but it's fun to watch you squirm.

 

[Laveuglette]

Am I the only one who can't stand trophies comparisons? Compare players and their benefits to their team, not stupid individual awards voted subjectively.

 

[Cursed Lemon]

Malkin plays a type of game that won't be as affected by age like Crosby's will. Malkin doesn't rely on speed and strength as much. His game is based around awareness and stick skill. He doesn't need to play along the boards, outspeed defenders or be physical. Malkin will be able to sustain his play for a long time, Crosby won't.

If history has shown us ANYTHING, it's that big, driving finesse players are the least durable type of player out of anyone.

 

[Aaaaaaaaaaaaa]

Am I the only one who can't stand trophies comparisons? Compare players and their benefits to their team, not stupid individual awards voted subjectively.

Okay.

Crosby is a much more valuable player to the Pens than Malkin has ever been. This from both a franchise aspect and more importantly, a team aspect. Crosby makes other players better; Malkin is a great player.

 

[rintinw]

Okay.

Crosby is a much more valuable player to the Pens than Malkin has ever been. This from both a franchise aspect and more importantly, a team aspect. Crosby makes other players better; Malkin is a great player.

Malkin doesn't?

 

[Aaaaaaaaaaaaa]

Malkin doesn't?

Not really. Malkin plays far more as an individual than Crosby. If I need someone to go through the entire team and score one big goal to end the game, I am sending out Malkin. If I need someone consistent who will make 20 prime set-ups in a game, I want Crosby.

 

[Perfect_Drug]

Not really. Malkin plays far more as an individual than Crosby. If I need someone to go through the entire team and score one big goal to end the game, I am sending out Malkin. If I need someone consistent who will make 20 prime set-ups in a game, I want Crosby.

Results are the only thing that matters.

They get very similar results.

 

[Perfect_Drug]

Once again some of the usual suspects come out to try and diminish Crosby's accomplishments.

At what point (if one exists), will what he has done "be enough"? 5 Harts? 10? Lead the league in scoring 10 times? 5 Olympic gold medals where he is crucial in the gold medal game?

Answer - it won't matter. Whatever he does, the same people with the same agendas will keep popping up and try to draw asterisks on everything and give us "solid reasoning" for why he is not as good as he should have been.

Just keep trying. Persistence doesn't always make you right, but it's fun to watch you squirm.

It's not about how good he should have been. It's that for a so-called "Generational Player" that is "Clear Cut the best player in the league AINEC", and the most "dominant player of our generation", with comparisons to Gretzky and Lemieux.

Crosby's legacy as the best player in the game is razor thin at best, and the results SHOW this.

He is not outscoring Ovechkin during his career. He has less points than Ovechkin. He has less individual hardware than Ovechkin.

When a player is being OUTSCORED during an era, it's hard to seriously call him the most dominant generational player of that era.



BACK to the topic:

Malkin has outscored Crosby 3 of the last 7 seasons. This season it looks like they will be tied. This means Malkin will have lead their team in scoring 4 of the last 8 years.

And Malkin sure as hell could easily catch up to Crosby's legacy seeing as he isn't on some other plane of dominance over his peers, or even his team mate.

 

[livewell68]

Okay.

Crosby is a much more valuable player to the Pens than Malkin has ever been. This from both a franchise aspect and more importantly, a team aspect. Crosby makes other players better; Malkin is a great player.

Must be that ability to make players around him better that led to Crosby's teams being embarrassed by the Habs in 2010, the Flyers in 2012, the Bruins in 2013 and the Rangers in 2014.

I guess it was Malkin and not Crosby who laid multiple goose eggs in key series matchups.

So nowadays turning James Neal into a 40 goals scorer doesn't equate to making players around him better huh?

 

[Givememoneyback]

Results are the only thing that matters.

They get very similar results.

So, Crosby it is.

 

[BudMovin*]

Not really. Malkin plays far more as an individual than Crosby. If I need someone to go through the entire team and score one big goal to end the game, I am sending out Malkin. If I need someone consistent who will make 20 prime set-ups in a game, I want Crosby.

James Neal says hi.

 

[Cursed Lemon]

Take a step back and read the thread....notice the words "possible" (as in can it happen) and "to pass" (as in sometime in the future).

It's possible that Crosby loses a leg in a Giroux-style golfing accident, but I don't see how it's useful to project unlikely things.

 

[daver]

Malkin has outscored Crosby 3 of the last 7 seasons. This season it looks like they will be tied. This means Malkin will have lead their team in scoring 4 of the last 8 years.

And Malkin sure as hell could easily catch up to Crosby's legacy seeing as he isn't on some other plane of dominance over his peers, or even his team mate.

If we are talking legacy, why would you exclude Crosby's 1st two seasons? Only one or two players in NHL history had a better start than Crosby.

How is Malkin catching up? Take the last 2 seasons, 4 seasons, 6 seasons or their careers and Crosby has him beat in points and PPG everytime. Crosby has consistently been about 0.20 PPG better.

Not dominant over his peers? Look at the best 10-year periods for some of the all-time greats like Jagr, Esposito, Hull and even Howe and they have a similar gap in PPG over their peers.

 

[412 Others]

It's not about how good he should have been. It's that for a so-called "Generational Player" that is "Clear Cut the best player in the league AINEC", and the most "dominant player of our generation", with comparisons to Gretzky and Lemieux.

Crosby's legacy as the best player in the game is razor thin at best, and the results SHOW this.

He is not outscoring Ovechkin during his career. He has less points than Ovechkin. He has less individual hardware than Ovechkin.

When a player is being OUTSCORED during an era, it's hard to seriously call him the most dominant generational player of that era.

steve yzerman played during the same era as Mario Lemieux. steve yzerman scored more points. this means steve yzerman was better. sweet logic.

 

[Shrimper]

Am I the only one who can't stand trophies comparisons? Compare players and their benefits to their team, not stupid individual awards voted subjectively.

I don't think you can look at individual trophies and just say that x has 10 compared to y who has 8 and is therefore better. Have to look deeper than that.

 

[mrv52]

steve yzerman played during the same era as Mario Lemieux. steve yzerman scored more points. this means steve yzerman was better. sweet logic.

Kent Nilsson has a higher ppg than Malkin with about the same amount of games

Kent Nilsson is better than Malkin. Sweet logic.

 

[MastuhNinks]

He would have to have significantly better longevity to make up for the fact that Crosby was the consensus best player in the World during both of their primes.

 

[Perfect_Drug]

steve yzerman played during the same era as Mario Lemieux. steve yzerman scored more points. this means steve yzerman was better. sweet logic.

During Lemieux's career, Lemieux was NOT outscored by Yzerman.

1991-1997. Lemieux's era. Before was Gretzky and after was Jagr.




If this is "Crosby's Era" he isn't even the top scoring player of his era.

So, Crosby it is.

Yes. Crosby is a better player, by a razor thin margin. Their legacies are very similar.


Most players who were heavily injured during their primes are often remembered for what they 'could have accomplished'.

 

[daver]

During his career, Lemieux was NOT outscored by Yzerman.

You are adding in the decade+ where Lemieux didn't actually play.

Add in playoffs and Crosby has more points than OV. That plus a clearly superior PPG puts him clearly ahead; ahead as any other all-time great not named Wayne or Mario over a decade worth of hockey.