Better full season; Bure 1993-94, Sakic 1995-96 or Malkin 2008-09 ?

[Nadal On Clay]

Bure

GP: 76
G: 60 (1st)
A: 47 (36th)
PTS: 107 (5th)

Playoffs

GP: 24
G: 16
A: 15
PTS: 31

- Richard winner, lost in the finals, outscored his closest teammate by 37 pts in the RS.


Sakic

GP: 82
G: 51 (6th)
A: 69 (8th)
PTS: 120 (3rd)

Playoffs

GP: 22
G: 18
A: 16
PTS: 34

- Conn Smythe winner, 3rd in scoring behind Lemieux (161!) and Jagr (149!), 1 goal shy from tying the single playoff goal record (19)


Malkin

GP: 82
G: 35 (15th)
A: 78 (1st)
PTS: 113 (1st)

Playoffs

GP: 24
G: 14
A: 22
PTS: 36

- Ross + Smythe combo, highest single playoff points total of the century (only Gretzky, Lemieux and Coffey have scored more in a single playoff all time)

Click to read more...

 

[blundluntman]

I voted Malkin but I actually have no clue.

In Sakic's argument, he probably had the same quality of a regular season that Malkin had , hardware aside. Considering Ovi won the Hart and was 3 injured games short of an Art Ross, Malkin was actually the 2nd best player in the regular season. You can argue Sakic was probably 3rd best that year, but it's also arguble the quality of competition is higher for him. Malkin's numbers are in a lower-scoring season than Sakic's though so everything considered I'd say they're dead even.

Their Conn Smythes seem dead even too. Malkin had more points but Sakic had more goals and game winners in 2 fewer games. Can't really argue that the Panthers were tougher than the Red Wings so I guess it evens out?

 

[Namikaze Minato]

I wanted to vote Sakic in my heart but Malkins season was just ridiculous followed by an even more ridiculous post season.

 

[KoozNetsOff 92]

Malkin. Close but clear over Sakic. Bure is well behind.

 

[Regal]

I think it's Malkin slightly over Sakic, with Bure decently behind. Malkin would have likely finished behind Lemieux and Jagr in scoring '96, just as Sakic did, instead of winning the Art Ross, but Sakic was quite a bit behind those two and didn't have much of a lead over the pack. Malkin was pretty far ahead of anyone other than Ovechkin, and was 2nd in points per game to him by a mere 0.01, while Sakic was only 5th. Which makes sense as Sakic only scored 7 more points in a higher scoring league. Adjusted points put Malkin ahead by 2. Sakic was the better goalscorer and better outside of production, but wasn't the defensive player he would become in his late 20s. I think Malkin's production relative to the league is just better enough to put him ahead. And the playoffs is a similar story. He also had less to work with.

 

[Boreal01]

Malkin
Sakic

Bure

 

[avsfan9]

Sakic regular season was more impressive. He scored 51 goals and 120 points and his playoffs were just as good. He scored 2 less points and more goals in 2 less games. Not to mention the reason Sakic didn’t win the Ross is because he was up against Lemieux and Jagr. Arguably 2 of top 5 players to ever play the game

 

[Gurglesons]

Malkin.

 

[Regal]

Sakic regular season was more impressive. He scored 51 goals and 120 points and his playoffs were just as good. He scored 2 less points and more goals in 2 less games. Not to mention the reason Sakic didn’t win the Ross is because he was up against Lemieux and Jagr. Arguably 2 of top 5 players to ever play the game

League GPG in '96 was 3.14 though, and 12 players scored over 100 points, compared to 2.85 for '09, with only 3 players topping 100 points. The 20th place scorer in '96 had the same point totals as the 5th place scorer in '09. They were quite different scoring environments and that needs to be taken into account.

 

[bobholly39]

I prefer Sakic's playoffs, slightly.
But I think Malkin's season is better, by a bigger gap (not huge though). So overall, Malkin, but close.

Bure had a great all around season, but he's a very easy distant 3rd here

 

[avsfan9]

League GPG in '96 was 3.14 though, and 12 players scored over 100 points, compared to 2.85 for '09, with only 3 players topping 100 points. The 20th place scorer in '96 had the same point totals as the 5th place scorer in '09. They were quite different scoring environments and that needs to be taken into account.

Something else that has to be taken into account is the talent pool in both these eras. Take a look at the top 20 players in 96 and the top 20 players in 09. The difference is night and day. Lemieux played 70 games and scored 161 points. You can look at adjusted scoring all you want but only Gretzky could be compared to that level of productivity and Jagr who was great was riding Lemieuxs coat tales as well. That’s why Sakic never came close to the art Ross that year. There is no one in the nhl probably ever again that will dominate their peers the way Gretzky and Lemieux did.

 

[daver]

Something else that has to be taken into account is the talent pool in both these eras. Take a look at the top 20 players in 96 and the top 20 players in 09. The difference is night and day. Lemieux played 70 games and scored 161 points. You can look at adjusted scoring all you want but only Gretzky could be compared to that level of productivity and Jagr who was great was riding Lemieuxs coat tales as well. That’s why Sakic never came close to the art Ross that year. There is no one in the nhl probably ever again that will dominate their peers the way Gretzky and Lemieux did.

You can easily evaluate Sakic's regular season in a vacuum. He was simply not as good as Malkin was in the regular season. Playoffs are quite close.

 

[BraveCanadian]

I think Sakic? He and Malkin are close and I think Bure a little behind.