Who will hit more point by the end of the career: Kane or Malkin?

[DRW895]

10 years ago it seemed Kane had no any chances, but now he`s exremely close and 2 years younger.
How do you think?

Click to read more...

 

[VanIslander]

Stats aside....

Malkin is the better set-up in offensive zone distributor, Kane the better off-the-rush shoot or dish off.

Both top-100 talents.
Neither Lafleur or Bathgate.

 

[MadLuke]

Kane is just 12 pts behind and seem like the surgery-therapy went well, 2.33 year younger

 

[Crosby2010]

Malkin is now finally starting to look his age and be under a PPG. I don't know if Kane is going to have a sustained amount of a resurgence in Detroit, but if he does it could be him. Close call though.

 

[DRW895]

Stats aside....

Malkin is the better set-up in offensive zone distributor, Kane the better off-the-rush shoot or dish off.

Both top-100 talents.
Neither Lafleur or Bathgate.

Lafleur was absolutely legendary player

 

[Hobnobs]

Stats aside....

Malkin is the better set-up in offensive zone distributor, Kane the better off-the-rush shoot or dish off.

Both top-100 talents.
Neither Lafleur or Bathgate.

Both are better than Bathgate.

 

[VanIslander]

Both are better than Bathgate.

Bathgate has a clearly much better Vs.X over both the 7-year and 10-year spans, has a Hart and two other Hart finalist seasons, and played with NOBODY (HHOF skater wise during his peak years with the Rangers).

 

[Hobnobs]

Bathgate has a clearly much better Vs.X over both the 7-year and 10-year spans, has a Hart and two other Hart finalist seasons, and played with NOBODY (HHOF skater wise during his peak years with the Rangers).

Unlike Malkin who won the Hart with notable hofers, Neal, Kunitz, Tyler Kennedy and Steve Sullivan as his wingers.

Good he has a Hart and all but the other two has Smythes because they actually performed in the post season unlike Bathgate.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Both are better than Bathgate.

Certainly, Malkin is.

 

[Matsun]

Apparently Andy Bathgate will somehow finish his career with more points than either of them.

 

[WarriorofTime]

Apparently Andy Bathgate will somehow finish his career with more points than either of them.

No, Malkin and Kane both passed him seasons ago. McDavid just passed him recently.

 

[jigglysquishy]

From an all time standpoint, Malkin>Bathgate>Kane is pretty easy. They're all decently far apart, though Bathgate is closer to Kane than Malkin.

All are behind Lafleur.

 

[WarriorofTime]

From an all time standpoint, Malkin>Bathgate>Kane is pretty easy. They're all decently far apart, though Bathgate is closer to Kane than Malkin.

All are behind Lafleur.

Patrick Kane is unquestionably better than Andy Bathgate. 3rd in NHL in points in late 50s is equal to about 15th in the 2010s because you have to adjust for size of the league (a median 1st on his team level producer).

 

[daver]

Patrick Kane is unquestionably better than Andy Bathgate. 3rd in NHL in points in late 50s is equal to about 15th in the 2010s because you have to adjust for size of the league (a median 1st on his team level producer).

From '46 to '66, the 3rd place scorer was, on average, the same % behind the leading scorers (#1,#2) as the 5th place scorer was from '00 to '20.

Bathgate's prime (55/56 to 63/64):

NHL Stats

The official source for NHL Stats including skaters, goalies, teams stats and more.

www.nhl.com

2nd in points
3rd in PPG

Beliveau - 1.19
Howe - 1.14
Bathgate - 1.12

Ross finishes - T1, 2, 3, 3, T3, 4, 4, 4, T5,


Kane's prime (09/10 to 19/20):

NHL Stats

The official source for NHL Stats including skaters, goalies, teams stats and more.

www.nhl.com

1st in points
T3rd in PPG

Crosby - 1.25
Malkin - 1.16
Kane 1.09
Stamkos - 1.09

Ross finishes - 1, 3, 5, 8, 9,

Bathgate is pretty close to prime/peak Beliveau and a prime (post-peak) Howe. That is hard to ignore unless you are going to start completely ignoring hockey before the 1980's. Kane is a bit farther away from Crosby and, more notably from an older Malkin.

Playoffs close gap a bit. Not sure about Bathgate's all around game but usually most forwards compare well to Kane, who would be on the list for those who contribute the least besides offense among forwards in the Top 100 all-time.

Malkin was at #52 in the last Top 100. I doubt he has moved up since then.

Bathgate was 62nd, and Kane was 93rd. He added a 3rd place and an 8th place since then. Maybe he has moved up into the 70/80 range.

 

[WarriorofTime]

From '46 to '66, the 3rd place scorer was, on average, the same % behind the leading scorers (#1,#2) as the 5th place scorer was from '00 to '20.

Bathgate's prime (55/56 to 63/64):

NHL Stats

The official source for NHL Stats including skaters, goalies, teams stats and more.

www.nhl.com

2nd in points
3rd in PPG

Beliveau - 1.19
Howe - 1.14
Bathgate - 1.12

Ross finishes - T1, 2, 3, 3, T3, 4, 4, 4, T5,


Kane's prime (09/10 to 19/20):

NHL Stats

The official source for NHL Stats including skaters, goalies, teams stats and more.

www.nhl.com

1st in points
T3rd in PPG

Crosby - 1.25
Malkin - 1.16
Kane 1.09
Stamkos - 1.09

Ross finishes - 1, 3, 5, 8, 9,

Bathgate is pretty close to prime/peak Beliveau and a prime (post-peak) Howe. That is hard to ignore unless you are going to start completely ignoring hockey before the 1980's. Kane is a bit farther away from Crosby and, more notably from an older Malkin.

Playoffs close gap a bit. Not sure about Bathgate's all around game but usually most forwards compare well to Kane, who would be on the list for those who contribute the least besides offense among forwards in the Top 100 all-time.

Malkin was at #52 in the last Top 100. I doubt he has moved up since then.

Bathgate was 62nd, and Kane was 93rd. He added a 3rd place and an 8th place since then. Maybe he has moved up into the 70/80 range.

Kane played in the tougher era (global vs. entirely Canadian with no robust feeder leagues if a player didn't get a C form or establish themselves quickly), scored more, won more, stayed healthier than his contemporaries to be a decade leading scorer. Bathgate never won in an Art Ross despite only being in a 6 team NHL, significantly curtailing the number of candidates. Not sure what being "pretty close" to a guy only winning 1 Art Ross there has to do with it. Those stretch of seasons had a bunch of sub-90 point Art Ross winners, and I think top liners were still getting double shifted in those days. I have no doubt Kane is just being underrated by a history of hockey poll which I don't take as gospel. Not sure what you mean by "an older Malkin", Kane and Malkin are only 842 days apart (two years, three months, nineteen days). If anything Malkin should fall a bit from his past rank as his age 32-37 resume is a bit weaker than others likely beneath him.

 

[The Macho King]

Patrick Kane is unquestionably better than Andy Bathgate. 3rd in NHL in points in late 50s is equal to about 15th in the 2010s because you have to adjust for size of the league (a median 1st on his team level producer).

That's not how it works. The best players in the world are playing in the NHL (Soviet era aside but outside of like Kharlamov who is a notable Soviet during Bathgate's era?) whether there are 6 teams or 600 teams. It lessens the significance of I'd say Top 10 vis a vis a bigger league, but in my mind it doesn't make a dent in top 1/2/3 because the top 1/2/3 were going to be there producing no matter how big the league was.

Kane played in the tougher era (global vs. entirely Canadian with no robust feeder leagues if a player didn't get a C form or establish themselves quickly), scored more, won more, stayed healthier than his contemporaries to be a decade leading scorer. Bathgate never won in an Art Ross despite only being in a 6 team NHL, significantly curtailing the number of candidates. Not sure what being "pretty close" to a guy only winning 1 Art Ross there has to do with it. Those stretch of seasons had a bunch of sub-90 point Art Ross winners, and I think top liners were still getting double shifted in those days. I have no doubt Kane is just being underrated by a history of hockey poll which I don't take as gospel. Not sure what you mean by "an older Malkin", Kane and Malkin are only 842 days apart (two years, three months, nineteen days). If anything Malkin should fall a bit from his past rank as his age 32-37 resume is a bit weaker than others likely beneath him.

Also - Bathgate didn't win the Art Ross on a tie breaker. He finished 1st in points.

I think Kane versus Bathgate is an interesting conversation (and it probably hinges on how much weight postseason play gets), but regular season Bathgate is certainly in the discussion.

This does feed into the meta point of weight of Art Ross trophies depending on era, but I come firmly down on "the best win no matter how many teams are in so I don't care." The widening of the talent pool tends to increase the *margin* of the wins by the best players, but it doesn't change who wins them. Outside of the one era from like 2002-2015, the Art Ross is generally a *very* concentrated award.

Let's look at it this way. Going into this season, who would you think are the favorites for the Art Ross? McDavid is certainly on the list. MacKinnon certainly. You'd probably have Kucherov on there if you weren't an idiot. Pastrnak, Panarin are established point scorers. Draisatl obviously has a shot as a recent winner.

Aaaand I just named the 5 top scorers + a guy who is going to clear 100 points in a down year. The best players are going to be the best players no matter what the league looks like.

 

[WarriorofTime]

That's not how it works. The best players in the world are playing in the NHL (Soviet era aside but outside of like Kharlamov who is a notable Soviet during Bathgate's era?) whether there are 6 teams or 600 teams.

This falsely assumes that there was a 32 NHL teams worth of talent, plus another 32 AHL teams worth of talent, plus 28 ECHL teams worth of talent, plus everything in Europe with KHL, SHL, Liiga, NLA, DEL, etc. worth of talent, all out there playing hockey in their prime ages and focusing full time on it. That is obviously not the case and a bit silly. Kane was a "1st offensive level producer" as was Bathgate, so they should be given apples to apples comparison, for Bathgate that was against about 5 other guys and the couple that could challenge regardless of being more the 1B. For Kane that's 31 other guys plus however many that could challenge regardless of being more the 1B. If you were discussing that the 32nd guy may have a tougher time establishing himself as a "1 forward" in a smaller league, that could have a bit of relevance, but this does not apply when discussing players that have clearly already passed a threshold to be a worthy top offensive point producer, ala Patrick Kane who would not struggle to be put into a role to thrive in offense given his talent level in any era.

The fact is just because a league was smaller, it still functions much of the same way. Younger players have to come in and break their way in. If they don't, they fizzle away and don't get seen again. Those that do will by and large hold their roster spots and their top line spots as long as they maintain production. It's not like the NHL had de novo tryouts every season. For players like Bathgate, the pool of players they were competing against for top scorer was pretty small because not many people got similar opportunities.

 

[The Macho King]

This falsely assumes that there was a 32 NHL teams worth of talent, plus another 32 AHL teams worth of talent, plus 28 ECHL teams worth of talent, plus everything in Europe with KHL, SHL, Liiga, NLA, DEL, etc. worth of talent, all out there playing hockey in their prime ages and focusing full time on it. That is obviously not the case and a bit silly. Kane was a "1st offensive level producer" as was Bathgate, so they should be given apples to apples comparison, for Bathgate that was against about 5 other guys and the couple that could challenge regardless of being more the 1B. For Kane that's 31 other guys plus however many that could challenge regardless of being more the 1B. If you were discussing that the 32nd guy may have a tougher time establishing himself as a "1 forward" in a smaller league, that could have a bit of relevance, but this does not apply when discussing players that have clearly already passed a threshold to be a worthy top offensive point producer, ala Patrick Kane who would not struggle to be put into a role to thrive in offense given his talent level in any era.

The fact is just because a league was smaller, it still functions much of the same way. Younger players have to come in and break their way in. If they don't, they fizzle away and don't get seen again. Those that do will by and large hold their roster spots and their top line spots as long as they maintain production. It's not like the NHL had de novo tryouts every season. For players like Bathgate, the pool of players they were competing against for top scorer was pretty small because not many people got similar opportunities.

That's my point - it's the same pool. He's competing against Gordie Howe, Bobby Hull and Stan Mikita, Whoever is on the top line for the Habs. It's no different than now where if you want to win the Art Ross you're competing against McDavid/Draisatl, Kucherov, MacKinnon, Pastrnak and Panarin. Clayton Keller and Nick Suzuki are not winning the Art Ross no matter what.

No matter how big the league is, there's only 5/6 real contenders for the Art Ross in the majority of seasons. Every now and then you get a Sedin, Benn, Dickie Moore, but more often than not you're talking about a very limited universe of dudes. And that's irrespective of league size.

 

[WarriorofTime]

That's my point - it's the same pool. He's competing against Gordie Howe, Bobby Hull and Stan Mikita, Whoever is on the top line for the Habs. It's no different than now where if you want to win the Art Ross you're competing against McDavid/Draisatl, Kucherov, MacKinnon, Pastrnak and Panarin. Clayton Keller and Nick Suzuki are not winning the Art Ross no matter what.

No matter how big the league is, there's only 5/6 real contenders for the Art Ross in the majority of seasons. Every now and then you get a Sedin, Benn, Dickie Moore, but more often than not you're talking about a very limited universe of dudes. And that's irrespective of league size.

I don’t think that’s necessarily the case, players like Jonathan Huberdeau and Johnny Gaudreau can challenge towards the top one year and fall off the next. JT Miller can never go back to back top 10 in points at ages we wouldn’t expect if there was never an opportunity to do so. A wider league gives a larger group to contend in seasons where they put it all together.

 

[The Macho King]

I don’t think that’s necessarily the case, players like Jonathan Huberdeau and Johnny Gaudreau can challenge towards the top one year and fall off the next. A wider league gives a larger group to contend in seasons where they put it all together.

You saw that in the O6 era too. Dickie Moore won two Art Ross trophies - the guy is a borderline top 100 player. Those guys were top LWs in the game - they were making a roster if there were 4 teams in the league.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Patrick Kane is unquestionably better than Andy Bathgate. 3rd in NHL in points in late 50s is equal to about 15th in the 2010s because you have to adjust for size of the league (a median 1st on his team level producer).

Man, that was easy. Glad we could wrap up most of an entire sport's history with this one sentence.

 

[MadLuke]

Patrick Kane is unquestionably better than Andy Bathgate. 3rd in NHL in points in late 50s is equal to about 15th in the 2010s because you have to adjust for size of the league (a median 1st on his team level producer).

The size of the league make it so that a Martin St-Louis get a chance to play instead of staying in mtl farm team all his career, that create a group of if they get hot enough with a high shot percentage like William Karlsson get a top 10 scorer finish when they would never have if the NHL was a 12 teams league right now.

But there is a fast diminishing return, specially in the highest spot, people good enough to have a significant change at a top 5 finish in points would probably get a good spot even if the league was only 16 team right now. One difference would be how different the league-strategy-play style and how good you are when everyone is good, a bit like how AHL-NHL-KHL player ranking can change or regular season/playoff, how many center are shifted to the wing-d once pro or late in their development and so on.

Size of the league past a certain amount of team, I am not sure how interesting it is, double the size of the NHL tomorrow does beating the 20th place by 10% become as impressive than beating the 10th place by 10% now, not necessarily at all.

 

[WarriorofTime]

Size of the league past a certain amount of team, I am not sure how interesting it is, double the size of the NHL tomorrow does beating the 20th place by 10% become as impressive than beating the 10th place by 10% now, not necessarily at all.

Not overnight of course. We saw this when the League doubled in size overnight. A bunch of guys were able to extend out their careers and get second winds in their careers, see Johnny Bucyck. This makes sense because you now put a bunch of Minor League players into the top league so existing top league players get a big benefit of facing former minor leaguers. It takes a bit for the talent systems beneath to catch up, but over time, more young players make and stick around the League and are facing NHL-level competition from ages 20-27 and so by a decade or so it will catch up. Of course, you expect the number of say, Junior teams and the teams that feed into them to catch up to support that increasing number as well. Now this last part I'm not necessarily saying would happen if all of a sudden the NHL decided to double from 32 teams to 64 teams, as given the overall cost, demographic shifts and how much junior/minor hockey has already proliferated and I don't think there's necessarily ample room to have say 120 Major Junior Canadian hockey teams or 120 NCAA D1 teams barring some major population shifts in society, but that sort of growth did definitely occur during the era of NHL expansion.

 

[MadLuke]

And because of how thin the link between nhl teams and anything juniors became, not sure how much it would happen, would take a giant amount of time. Would expansion be a good proxy for the size of the talent pool that would be obviously different, but the league economics and market is a bigger force here, when a new franchise cost $500 millions + arena + new a city, the league will take the $500m regardless of the perceived talent dilution issue and in the other way around team would not appear just because there enough talent for it...

Pro spot can influence 10 years old and their parents commitment to the sport, but not by much, we still would have less Quebec kids dreaming to be in the nhl with a 64 team league than during the glory day of the Habs and the sport. It is quite irrational decision, specially at that age with some believe that trying-dedication by itself is not a bad thing to do specially in a team sport.

 

[WarriorofTime]

Pro spot can influence 10 years old and their parents commitment to the sport, but not by much, we still would have less Quebec kids dreaming to be in the nhl with a 64 team league than during the glory day of the Habs and the sport. It is quite irrational decision, specially at that age with some believe that trying-dedication by itself is not a bad thing to do specially in a team sport.

It's a bit of an invisible hand rather than a fully consciously aware decision. More NHL teams draft kids from juniors (I don't think fewer rounds here makes a difference, rather the drafting with a realistic chance of making it to the NHL). More people follow juniors/more junior teams get created, more players make it into juniors, more parents put their kids on paths to get into juniors, more teams beneath juniors are created, etc.