When his career finishes, where does Evgeni Malkin rank all time for you?

[Our Lady Peace]

Evgeni Malkin, Future 1st ballot HOFer. Complete career. Sadly missed a lot of time year after year but you can't deny the success.

3 Stanley Cups
1 Conn Smythe
2 Art Ross
1 Hart
1 Ted Lindsay
1 Calder

Season: 1007 games, 1171 points
Playoffs: 177 games, 180 points

Click to read more...

 

[TheGoldenJet]

Malkin finishes in the top 30 on my list.

In his prime, he matched prime Crosby and prime Ovechkin point for point, award for award. Injuries took away his longevity, but he was always looked at as one of the Big 3 of his generation. More physical than Crosby and with a better hockey IQ than Ovechkin, Malkin is set to retire with the highest PPG among all Russians in the 40 year history of Russians playing in the NHL, ahead of greats like Ovechkin, Fedorov, etc.

 

[amnesiac]

maybe 45-55?

16th alltime in PPG so far, which is quite high. WIll obviously be a bit lower as his career ends.

 

[Wings4Life]

Top 30 all-time, IMO.

The most underrated superstar of his generation.

 

[jigglysquishy]

I have him as the 20th highest centre of all time.

Somewhere around top 50.

My centre rankings for transparency
1. Wayne Gretzky
2. Mario Lemieux
3. Jean Beliveau
4. Sidney Crosby
5. Howie Morenz
6. Phil Esposito
7. Mark Messier
8. Frank Nighbor
9. Stan Mikita
10. Joe Sakic
11. Bobby Clarke
12. Bryan Trottier
13. Cyclone Taylor
14. Steve Yzerman
15. Connor McDavid
16. Syl Apps
17. Newsy Lalonde
18. Henri Richard
19. Frank Boucher
20. Evgeni Malkin
21. Milt Schmidt
22. Peter Forsberg
23. Marcel Dionne
24. Ted Kennedy
25. Joe Malone

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

Top 30 pretty easily

 

[GoldenKnight]

Around 30th all-time seems accurate for Malkin.

Using the VsX-PPG stats from @Hockey Outsider which describes a player's best 7 seasons (higher is better):

Sidney Crosby 1.02
Evgeni Malkin 1.00
Mike Bossy 0.97
Alex Ovechkin 0.96
Bryan Trottier 0.94
Steve Yzerman 0.93
Peter Forsberg 0.93
Joe Thornton 0.92

This does indicate Malkin was a borderline generational level player in his prime years. Three top 3 finishes in Hart voting, 6 major individual awards, tremendous international record and NHL playoff career. Add 3 Cups on top of that and the fact he will eclipse 1200 points this season given health, Malkin has a solid case for a top 30 spot when it's all said and done.

 

[bobholly39]

Voted 31-40

When history board did a top 100 ranking in 2018, he was slotted 52nd. One spot behind Forsberg at 51

For easy reference with centers, Yzerman was ranked 40th, Sakic 32nd.

Is Malkin ahead of Yzerman? Sakic? Will he be when he retires? I voted 31-40 as I see him a similar caliber as those 2, so somewhere in between seems fitting

 

[jigglysquishy]

Voted 31-40

When history board did a top 100 ranking in 2018, he was slotted 52nd. One spot behind Forsberg at 51

For easy reference with centers, Yzerman was ranked 40th, Sakic 32nd.

Is Malkin ahead of Yzerman? Sakic? Will he be when he retires? I voted 31-40 as I see him a similar caliber as those 2, so somewhere in between seems fitting

The biggest knock on Malkin is health.

Since 2012, he's had one season playing over 85% of his team games. He's been elite, but lacks the finishes to boost him.

I don't think he overtakes Sakic or Yzerman or Trottier.

 

[bobholly39]

Malkin finishes in the top 30 on my list.

In his prime, he matched prime Crosby and prime Ovechkin point for point, award for award. Injuries took away his longevity, but he was always looked at as one of the Big 3 of his generation. More physical than Crosby and with a better hockey IQ than Ovechkin, Malkin is set to retire with the highest PPG among all Russians in the 40 year history of Russians playing in the NHL, ahead of greats like Ovechkin, Fedorov, etc.

I think you mean peak, versus prime. Peak, absolutely, as good as either of them, depending on the season or playoff run, or what you prefer.

Where he's actually quite weaker against Crosby and Ovechkin is his prime.

Ovechkin's prime is fantastic because he missed so little time, and although he wasn't as good throughout the rest of his prime as he was in his 3 year peak, he was still a machine of consistency with 50 goal seasons/rockets repeatedly.

Crosby's prime was fantastic, because although he missed a lot of times (partial seasons, or stretches of games), he never had a "bad" year. Above ppg each year, and can be argued amongst the best players in the league each season. His "worst" season is probably 2017-2018, but he was still 10th in scoring and saved the Pens season with an insane run when they were out of playoffs, to rise up standings, and then took foot off the gas at end. I certainly don't consider this a "bad" season.

Malkin's prime is a bit different. Still really good, but unlike Ovechkin he missed a ton of time and didn't churn out all those really strong seasons. And unlike Crosby, he does have some bad years in there. Crosby's lowest ppg season is 1.06. And because of league scoring being low that year, that's still a season where Crosby finished 2nd in hart (2016, won the smythe too). In contrast, 8x (including so far this season) Malkin has been at 1.06 ppg or below, including 3x below ppg.

Malkin is a great player, but there's a reason we're asking if he ranks in the top ~30-50/60 vs ~top 10 like the other 2. His prime was nowhere near as consistent as Crosby or Ovechkin. Still great, just not the same caliber

 

[Lavar Ball]

31-40

 

[TheGoldenJet]

I think you mean peak, versus prime. Peak, absolutely, as good as either of them, depending on the season or playoff run, or what you prefer.

That would depend on your definition of what a forward’s prime is.

If you define a forward’s prime as best 3-5 years, then prime is the right term to use. If you use a more extended definition of prime (eg. Best 6-10 years), then you’re right to say the terminology should be different. It depends on how many years you feel a forward’s prime actually lasts. I do think we are saying the same thing, as I already outlined Malkin’s longevity being shorter than the other two in my post above.

 

[Toby91ca]

That would depend on your definition of what a forward’s prime is.

If you define a forward’s prime as best 3-5 years, then prime is the right term to use. If you use a more extended definition of prime (eg. Best 6-10 years), then you’re right to say the terminology should be different. It depends on how many years you feel a forward’s prime actually lasts. I do think we are saying the same thing, as I already outlined Malkin’s longevity being shorter than the other two in my post above.

Best 3-5 years or best 6-10 years statistically is different from a players prime years. Prime is basically meant to be when a player is in his prime physically, fastest, etc.....which then suggests would have the potential to put up the most points per year, but it doesn't always result in that due to injuries during those years....general scoring of the entire league, etc.

I think most players prime years are between 22-27, something like that.

 

[KoozNetsOff 92]

40-50 because he only has 4 elite seasons. He might be "better" and have a higher PPG than some of the players ahead of him, but he lacks the hart/pt/goal/AST finishes which are way more important.

 

[Video Nasty]

Maybe a top 10-15 most talented player ever, but I’d put him somewhere in the 40-50 range. Health matters, especially if you don’t rack up an unusual amount of hardware to compensate and you go a really long time since being a top 1-5 player in the league. Barring whatever he ends up with this season, he’s topped 74 points once in the last 11 years. No All-Star nods, no awards or finalist nominations whatsoever to speak of during that time period. Just one season not missing at least 13 games.

I think a ranking in that range is more than fair, all things considered.

If one started watching hockey in 2005-2006 and doesn’t give a damn about the game’s past, I can see why 40-50 might seem low, or downright blasphemous.

 

[wetcoast]

I have him as the 20th highest centre of all time.

Somewhere around top 50.

My centre rankings for transparency
1. Wayne Gretzky
2. Mario Lemieux
3. Jean Beliveau
4. Sidney Crosby
5. Howie Morenz
6. Phil Esposito
7. Mark Messier
8. Frank Nighbor
9. Stan Mikita
10. Joe Sakic
11. Bobby Clarke
12. Bryan Trottier
13. Cyclone Taylor
14. Steve Yzerman
15. Connor McDavid
16. Syl Apps
17. Newsy Lalonde
18. Henri Richard
19. Frank Boucher
20. Evgeni Malkin
21. Milt Schmidt
22. Peter Forsberg
23. Marcel Dionne
24. Ted Kennedy
25. Joe Malone

Came here to say this, although a case can be made for several players around him being lower or higher on that top 25 scale but sure top 50ish among position players, not sure if he cracks top 30 of all time though.

 

[Luigi Lemieux]

#1 all time in ppg among Russians, 2x art ross, lead playoffs in scoring twice. About 30th seems right, 31-40 is also fair. I'll lean top 30 since his skill and talent is among the best ever.

 

[The Old Master]

the biggest knock on Geno is his health. but that's something the player has no control over. so i think that should be thrown out. compare healthy to healthy is far more fare way to look at it to pick the best player.

 

[The Devilish Buffoon]

the biggest knock on Geno is his health. but that's something the player has no control over. so i think that should be thrown out. compare healthy to healthy is far more fare way to look at it to pick the best player.

Height, bone structure, biology, etc. are also things players have no control over. I adore Malkin and his play at his peak was a form of dominance that, by my eye, is pretty unmatched, but... his injury history is notable.

 

[Gurglesons]

30ish.

 

[Turin]

Top 30. Compilers can’t compare, Geno Malkin was a top 5 forward in the game for a decade. Won every award besides a rocket that a scoring forward would win, some multiple times. Lead the playoffs in scoring during Cup runs twice.

 

[psycat]

Top 30 if you discount everything prior to 1970s hockey, otherwise 10-20 spots lower than that.

the biggest knock on Geno is his health. but that's something the player has no control over. so i think that should be thrown out. compare healthy to healthy is far more fare way to look at it to pick the best player.

Sure but is he even clear cut above someone like Lindros, Fedorov or Forsberg in this case? Or is he the only one you wan't to give such treatment?


Let's say Crosby, Ovechkin, McDavid are slamdunks for being above him of the ones currently in the league but by your metric he is no better than Kane, Kucherov, Draisaitl, Hedman, Karlsson, Makar etc.

If you value career more I am still not fully convinced he should be above Hedman, Kane and when all is said and done Draisail, Kucherov, Makar might very well pass him.

 

[jigglysquishy]

Top 30 if you discount everything prior to 1970s hockey, otherwise 10-20 spots lower than that.

This is ultimately what these polls come down to. Polls asking the term "all time" and ignoring half of hockey history.

 

[TheGoldenJet]

This is ultimately what these polls come down to. Polls asking the term "all time" and ignoring half of hockey history.

It’s not the polls’ fault if you don’t like the result.

Maybe it’s time to reconsider, are you underrating Malkin if most people rank him higher than you do?

 

[jigglysquishy]

It’s not the polls’ fault if you don’t like the result.

Maybe it’s time to reconsider, are you underrating Malkin if most people rank him higher than you do?

I have him ranked around the median amongst the HoH posters.

It's not my fault the main board doesn't know anything about pre 1970s hockey.

Edit: I just double checked. HoH had him at 19. That's where I have him excluding McDavid.

I have him at 11th amongst post expansion centres (considering Esposito post and Mikita pre).