Value of Malkin (compared to Crosby)?

[domaug*]

If I had to rate them out of 10;

Crosby= 9.25

Malkin= 8.0

then Tavares would be 6.0

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

What if Malkin gets where he was in 2009, 2012 ?
What if he will score in PO 2013 the same way he scored in 2009 PO?
I think anything is possible this season for him too.

Let's not forget that this points issue is a secondary thing. Points are needed only to win the SC, otherwise they are USELESS, or just to entertain fans, no more.
Let me remind that Malkin's superperformance (and his points of course) in 2009 PO was not IN VAIN, WAS NOT USELESS. Stanley Cup is a proof.
It seems to me that a lot of fans always keep talking about Crosby's potential in the future, not merits in the past: "Sid will put up a helluva number of points this season that will allow Pens to win SC".
May be. He is a great player and he can do it for sure. But Malkin too can do it. We've seen it already.
It's not fair to forget the player's merits. Especially for Pens fans

It can easily be argued that Crosby deserved the Conn Smythe just as much as Malkin did that year. He was tied with Malkin going into the Finals point-wise, where Babcock identified Crosby as the main threat and consistently matched Lidstrom and Zetterberg against him. He also had a more refined all-around game.

Geno had a "superperformance". But so did Sid.

As far as merits, Crosby's had the misfortune of going down to injury twice when he was leading the league in scoring. He's also never produced nearly as poorly as Malkin's '10-'11 campaign.

 

[od71]

It can easily be argued that Crosby deserved the Conn Smythe just as much as Malkin did that year. He was tied with Malkin going into the Finals point-wise, where Babcock identified Crosby as the main threat and consistently matched Lidstrom and Zetterberg against him. He also had a more refined all-around game.

Geno had a "superperformance". But so did Sid.

Be honest, we all know had Crosby been on the same level with Malkin, Conn Smythe would have gone to Sid, no doubt about it.

Again, I don't quite understand your point, Sid was as good as Malkin because (or despite, choose what you want) Crosby was shut down by Lidstrom&Co, that's why he deserves Conn Smythe as well as Malkin? Where is logic? Are you trying to put in question Malkin's Conn Smythe?

As far as merits, Crosby's had the misfortune of going down to injury twice when he was leading the league in scoring. He's also never produced nearly as poorly as Malkin's '10-'11 campaign.

About merits: Is Crosby's misfortune of going down to injury his merit? I was talking about merits, not injuries. Again: if Crosby had not had inguries MAY BE he would have won SC or MAY BE WOULD NOT. We don't know it. It's an "if" situation. Of course, it's a pity he had injuries. Better for Pens he had not them.

Even mpp9 states that Geno is "currently the best player on the planet."
Because it's justified by Hart, Ted Lindsay and Art Ross trophies 2012

 

[Kshahdoo]

Most russians consider Malkin the best, most canadians and americans think Crosby is. It always was, is and will be this way. And I think Pens' fans should be more worried about will Crosby and Malkin win another SC together or not. Because if not, then who will care who is better. You must win to be the better.

 

[WayneSid9987]

Still a huge question mark for Sid is his durability.
This heavy game action half season should be a good test for him.

I have to give the nod to Geno, coming off a monster season and racking up points in the KHL. Sid has alot to prove though and it will be interesting how he approaches this half season.

I think you'll see Sid ease back into things and not go full boar like when he first came back and also during the playoffs, he was just pushing himself too much imo. You could tell he was struggling somewhat at times in the Flyers series. He just needs to stay healthy and get games in and see where that takes him.

Easing back into things is a tough thing for Sidney Crosby to do though.

 

[captain cubicle]

Malkin is far more electrifying. Crosby is kinda a boring superstar. Like them both obviously but genos my dude.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

Be honest, we all know had Crosby been on the same level with Malkin, Conn Smythe would have gone to Sid, no doubt about it.

No, not at all. Malkin won it because he produced with the opportunities he had, even though it was by virtue of drawing easier match-ups.

Again, I don't quite understand your point, Sid was as good as Malkin because (or despite, choose what you want) Crosby was shut down by Lidstrom&Co, that's why he deserves Conn Smythe as well as Malkin? Where is logic? Are you trying to put in question Malkin's Conn Smythe?

I'm not putting into question Malkin's Conn Smythe. I'm saying Crosby had outperformed Malkin in the playoffs on the whole going into the Finals, which is why Babcock chose to dedicate two of the best defensive players in the league at their position to stopping him, and not Malkin. Malkin did his part and performed against the lesser defensive match-ups, though.

I'm not saying Malkin didn't deserve the Conn Smythe. I'm saying it was a toss-up, so using it as some sort of trump card in determining the better player is misguided. Crosby was outstanding those playoffs.

About merits: Is Crosby's misfortune of going down to injury his merit? I was talking about merits, not injuries. Again: if Crosby had not had inguries MAY BE he would have won SC or MAY BE WOULD NOT. We don't know it. It's an "if" situation. Of course, it's a pity he had injuries. Better for Pens he had not them.

The Stanley Cup is a team award. The year a player's team wins the Stanley Cup is not automatically his best individual performance...I'm not sure why you believe it would be.

When Crosby played in those injury-derailed seasons, he was the most productive player in the league. Awards are not the sole indicator of merit.

Even mpp9 states that Geno is "currently the best player on the planet."
Because it's justified by Hart, Ted Lindsay and Art Ross trophies 2012

mpp9 said that? Well, that settles it then.

 

[od71]

I'm not putting into question Malkin's Conn Smythe. I'm saying Crosby had outperformed Malkin in the playoffs on the whole going into the Finals, which is why Babcock chose to dedicate two of the best defensive players in the league at their position to stopping him, and not Malkin. Malkin did his part and performed against the lesser defensive match-ups, though.

Disagree. Especially against Hurricanes. Even Paul Maurice said that Geno produced most damage for them.
By the way, Babcock lost.

The Stanley Cup is a team award. The year a player's team wins the Stanley Cup is not automatically his best individual performance...I'm not sure why you believe it would be.

Agree. But we can see player's contribution and who played the key role. It's worth noting that Pens won SC in a year when Malkin won scoring race both in regular season and PO and joined Gretzky, Guy Lafleur, Phil Esposito and Mario Lemieux as the only players since 1968 to sweep the regular-season and playoff scoring titles in the same season. Too many records Malkin set in 2009. Yes, Sid was good too but it's strange to think that he outperformed Malkin in 2009. I don't even know how it's possible to argue about it.

 

[JQR]

Ferrari vs Lambo.

 

[od71]

Ferrari vs Lambo.

Agree

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

Disagree. Especially against Hurricanes. Even Paul Maurice said that Geno produced most damage for them.
By the way, Babcock lost.

The Hurricanes do not constitute the rest of the playoffs.

I'm not sure what Babcock losing has to do with anything.

Agree. But we can see player's contribution and who played the key role. It's worth noting that Pens won SC in a year when Malkin won scoring race both in regular season and PO and joined Gretzky, Guy Lafleur, Phil Esposito and Mario Lemieux as the only players since 1968 to sweep the regular-season and playoff scoring titles in the same season. Too many records Malkin set in 2009. Yes, Sid was good too but it's ridiculous to think that he outperformed Malkin in 2009. I don't even know how it's possible to argue about it.

I never said he did - I said he played as well as anyone in the playoffs that year. Malkin was the better player in the regular season.

 

[od71]

I'm not sure what Babcock losing has to do with anything.

Just a hint that Babcock's made wrong choice

 

[Old Gregg]

Just a hint that Babcock's made wrong choice

If babcock had put lidstrom and zetterberg on malkin, I think crosby would have had the more dominant finals and a Conn smythe. I doubt either care as they won the cup.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

Just a hint that Babcock's made wrong choice

How so? And how is that supposed to affect the discussion?

 

[od71]

If babcock had put lidstrom and zetterberg on malkin, I think crosby would have had the more dominant finals and a Conn smythe. I doubt either care as they won the cup.

It's your opinion. My opinion is different. Geno would have torn up them easily because he was ON. When he is on we all know there is hardly anyone who could stand against him.
Again: it's an "if" situation. The fact is that history doesn't know what would have been in that case.

Always believed this: Geno's high is Lemieuxesque (or prime Jagr), in the sense that he just totally controls the flow of the game.

Great/'On' Geno > Great/'On' Sid.

I agree with this. And at the same time I agree that Malkin's lows had been lower than Crosby's

 

[KIRK]

If babcock had put lidstrom and zetterberg on malkin, I think crosby would have had the more dominant finals and a Conn smythe. I doubt either care as they won the cup.

Malkin was too big for Zetterberg and Lidstrom to handle. Anytime they ended up on the ice together (games three and four especially), Malkin was too much for them.

Detroit's real problem in that series was that the one guy they had who could have handled Malkin would have been a healthy Datsyuk.

 

[KIRK]

It's your opinion. My opinion is different. Geno would have torn up them easily because he was ON. When he is on we all know there is hardly anyone who could stand against him.
Again: it's an "if" situation. The fact is that history doesn't know what would have been in that case.

I agree with this. And at the same time I agree that Malkin's lows might be lower than Crosby's

Yes, they are . . . and Sid has hit his 'great' more consistently.

 

[od71]

Yes, they are . . . and Sid has hit his 'great' more consistently.

Who knows, in any case I won't argue about it. The only thing I stated that Malkin's 'great' has led to the SC. And it's not fair for fans to try to diminish his merit.

 

[Darth Vitale]

This seems about right.

I appreciate your rigorous peer review. So let the numbers be written, so let them be done.

Link to mathematical formulas?

Are you questioning my authority? All right... all right.... HERE.

 

[KIRK]

No, not at all. Malkin won it because he produced with the opportunities he had, even though it was by virtue of drawing easier match-ups.



I'm not putting into question Malkin's Conn Smythe. I'm saying Crosby had outperformed Malkin in the playoffs on the whole going into the Finals, which is why Babcock chose to dedicate two of the best defensive players in the league at their position to stopping him, and not Malkin. Malkin did his part and performed against the lesser defensive match-ups, though.

I'm not saying Malkin didn't deserve the Conn Smythe. I'm saying it was a toss-up, so using it as some sort of trump card in determining the better player is misguided. Crosby was outstanding those playoffs.



The Stanley Cup is a team award. The year a player's team wins the Stanley Cup is not automatically his best individual performance...I'm not sure why you believe it would be.

When Crosby played in those injury-derailed seasons, he was the most productive player in the league. Awards are not the sole indicator of merit.



mpp9 said that? Well, that settles it then.

What makes you think Zetterberg and Listrom would've shut Geno down? Because they shut Sid down?

Anytime he ended up on the ice against them, he totally dominated. He was too big, too physical for Zetterberg. And, with Lidstrom, he was just brilliant . . . Lidstrom would step up, and Geno would dump and outmuscle him to get the puck; Lidstrom stayed back, and he was in trouble.

Fact is, Detroit had the same problem with Geno that Carolina did: With Datysuk not 100%, they had nobody who really matched up well against him defensively.

Oh, and lest we forget, in the 16 games (starting game 3 Washington) that Geno was blessed to get Talbot and Fedotenko, Geno > Crosby in pretty much every game in the rest of the playoffs.

The Conn Smythe was Sid's going into the ECF. It was a tie doing into the SCF. Geno took it in the SCF, and it was not just because of what he did offensively. He picked the pockets of guys like Hossa, Franzen, and Lidstrom so much that he could have been charged with grand larceny.

 

[KIRK]

I appreciate your rigorous peer review. So let the numbers be written, so let them be done.




Are you questioning my authority? All right... all right.... HERE.

O'k, well that settles it then . . .

 

[The Underboss]

GTFO

8.0? Kessel and Hossa are 8s.

That's quite a big gap. I strongly disagree. I could see Sid 9.25 and Malkin 8.75 but any gap larger than that is wrong IMO.

Okay so maybe I rated Malkin a little low, I would go 8.5 to 8.75 for him.

then Tavares would be 6.0

I would put Tavares up around 7.75 to 8.

 

[Ugene Magic]

Crosby is the standard used for Generational talents these days so anything other than Sid being 10 totally throws off numbers.

Malkin has only been thrown into the conversation, and nothing ever was fact.

Crosby wasn't the best player in the league he "is" the best player in the league.

I know this fact is hard to take for some, but no one said anything was fair.

Unless the injury has actually stopped Sid from being himself (which we still don't know fully) he doesn't lose that title.

Does anyone get the title due to some one being injured in any other sport? No, unless it has forced him into retirement.

Crosby out with injury, and ____?____ wins Artross and is the new best player hands down.

Bla, bla, bla.....

These players should be thankful they even got the chance.

 

[Florentino Ariza]

My simple analysis is that Crosby is the more complete superstar; what with faceoffs and his defensive game being better. Malkin is a better stickhandler so I think that makes him incredibly fun to watch sometimes, and he is very creative; he uses the whole ice when he is on his game, too, sometimes skating all the way around from behind the net to the blue line in the opponent's zone. Crosby is capable of these things but does them less. . . .both of them can dominate a game, I think Crosby plays with more determination though, which in and of itself is fun to behold. I think Crosby more than Malkin exhibits that trait - that he will not be stopped - you can see it in the way he skates, he is much more north-south whereas Malkin is an east-west player often times.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

What makes you think Zetterberg and Listrom would've shut Geno down? Because they shut Sid down?

Because they were arguably the two best defensive players at their positions and were consistently line-matched to play shutdown defense against one player.

Anytime he ended up on the ice against them, he totally dominated. He was too big, too physical for Zetterberg. And, with Lidstrom, he was just brilliant . . . Lidstrom would step up, and Geno would dump and outmuscle him to get the puck; Lidstrom stayed back, and he was in trouble.

Curious how with all that supposed domination he couldn't notch a single ES point with Lidstrom or Zetterberg on the ice.

You'd think it would've translated into at least a single point. Guess putting up numbers against those two isn't as easy as you make out.

Fact is, Detroit had the same problem with Geno that Carolina did: With Datysuk not 100%, they had nobody who really matched up well against him defensively.

The fact is that he wasn't on the ice with them enough to make a judgement.

Oh, and lest we forget, in the 16 games (starting game 3 Washington) that Geno was blessed to get Talbot and Fedotenko, Geno > Crosby in pretty much every game in the rest of the playoffs.

Not the case at all. Crosby was better for the remainder of the Caps series (outgoaled him, outpointed him, and out "3 starred" him), though it was great that Malkin finally got into gear from Game 3 on.

The Conn Smythe was Sid's going into the ECF. It was a tie doing into the SCF. Geno took it in the SCF, and it was not just because of what he did offensively. He picked the pockets of guys like Hossa, Franzen, and Lidstrom so much that he could have been charged with grand larceny.

Malkin did play with great anticipation that series. But again, he was consistently facing lesser match-ups, and for all your trumpeting of domination against Zetterberg and Lidstrom, he didn't put up one shred of ES production against them - which is what people are criticizing Crosby for failing to do enough.