Better goalscoring tools, Evgeni Malkin or Sidney Crosby

[daver]

So you're saying that Malkin has more seasons where he paced for 40+ goals? How exactly does that refute what I said?

Also, other than give Crosby credit for a season when he only played 41 games, why make the cutoff 40 games? Why not 60?

Out of ten seasons he played 60 games, he paced for 40 four times. Sounds a bit different than "three of his five 70+ game seasons" don't you think?

Noone objectively is going to question Crosby's 32 goals in 39 games season as one that reasonably should not be included in this discussion.

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

Out of ten seasons he played 60 games, he paced for 40 four times. Sounds a bit different than "three of his five 70+ game seasons" don't you think?

Noone objectively is going to question Crosby's 32 goals in 39 games season as one that reasonably should not be included in this discussion.

There is a difference between being "on pace" for something and actually doing it, right? So, what's the issue with focusing on the seasons where these two players actually scored 40 goals, instead of trying to extrapolate using their pace over smaller sample sizes?

Also, why wouldn't we exclude a season where he only played 41 games? It's only half a season, which makes trying to extrapolate his numbers to a full season a guess at best. Or am I allowed to call MacKinnon a 120 pt player because he once scored 60 points over a 41 game stretch?

 

[tony d]

I went with Crosby.

 

[daver]

There is a difference between being "on pace" for something and actually doing it, right? So, what's the issue with focusing on the seasons where these two players actually scored 40 goals, instead of trying to extrapolate using their pace over smaller sample sizes?

You don't look at Malkin's body of work and say "if only he could have put up more 70+ game seasons, he would have hit forty goals most of the time.

You say that of the five seasons he played 70+ games, he hit 40 goals three times, I would say that the fact that of the five seasons hit played between 60 and 70 games, hit 30 goals once is just as relevant.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

Also, why wouldn't we exclude a season where he only played 41 games? It's only half a season, which makes trying to extrapolate his numbers to a full season a guess at best. Or am I allowed to call MacKinnon a 120 pt player because he once scored 60 points over a 41 game stretch?

I agree to a certain extent it's hard to extrapolate what he would have done over a full 82 games that season (ie. we can't just assume he'd continue exactly at that pace and finish with 64 goals that year). However, common sense would suggest that if you're counting "40 goal seasons" for each guy, then it's almost a guarantee that Crosby's 32 goals in 41 games would have resulted in one more 40 goal season for him. Unless you think it's realistic he'd go from scoring 32 goals in 41 games, to only scoring 7 or less goals in the next 41 games?

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

You don't look at Malkin's body of work and say "if only he could have put up more 70+ game seasons, he would have hit forty goals most of the time.

You say that of the five seasons he played 70+ games, he hit 40 goals three times, I would say that the fact that of the five seasons hit played between 60 and 70 games, hit 30 goals once is just as relevant.

It's almost like getting injured in the middle of the season and missing 12-22 games had a negative impact on his on-ice performance.

No, he probably wouldn't have hit 40 goals most of the time, but he probably would have had at least 1 or 2 more 40 goal seasons. Malkin has more 40 goal seasons, more seasons on pace for 40 goal seasons, and is only roughly 1 goal per 82 games behind Crosby in terms of career GPG rate, which could easily be attributed to the minor injuries that have caused him to miss 12+ games in 8 of his 13 professional seasons. You even pointed out that he has more seasons where he was on pace for 40 goals than Crosby, so I really don't see what point you're trying to argue here.

 

[IWantSakicAsMyGM]

I agree to a certain extent it's hard to extrapolate what he would have done over a full 82 games that season (ie. we can't just assume he'd continue exactly at that pace and finish with 64 goals that year). However, common sense would suggest that if you're counting "40 goal seasons" for each guy, then it's almost a guarantee that Crosby's 32 goals in 41 games would have resulted in one more 40 goal season for him. Unless you think it's realistic he'd go from scoring 32 goals in 41 games, to only scoring 7 or less goals in the next 41 games?

A hard slash on the hands resulting in a broken thumb could realistically slow down his goal scoring rate to the point where he wouldn't hit 40, despite the hot start. I agree that it's unlikely, but so is getting hurt and missing 41 games. I also agree that he'd likely hit 40 goals that year, but still don't think a 41 game sample is enough to be relevant.

 

[daver]

It's almost like getting injured in the middle of the season and missing 12-22 games had a negative impact on his on-ice performance.

No, he probably wouldn't have hit 40 goals most of the time, but he probably would have had at least 1 or 2 more 40 goal seasons. Malkin has more 40 goal seasons, more seasons on pace for 40 goal seasons, and is only roughly 1 goal per 82 games behind Crosby in terms of career GPG rate, which could easily be attributed to the minor injuries that have caused him to miss 12+ games in 8 of his 13 professional seasons. You even pointed out that he has more seasons where he was on pace for 40 goals than Crosby, so I really don't see what point you're trying to argue here.

If we want to play the hypothetical game, Crosby was on a goalscoring tear before getting a concussion (83 goals in 120 games). Who knows how many more 50 goal seasons he could have put up at his peak.

 

[daver]

A hard slash on the hands resulting in a broken thumb could realistically slow down his goal scoring rate to the point where he wouldn't hit 40, despite the hot start. I agree that it's unlikely, but so is getting hurt and missing 41 games. I also agree that he'd likely hit 40 goals that year, but still don't think a 41 game sample is enough to be relevant.

Wow, in one post earlier you have no issue claiming an uninjured Malkin puts up 1 or 2 more 40 goal seasons but cannot give Crosby the same benefit of the doubt.

 

[daver]

It's almost like getting injured in the middle of the season and missing 12-22 games had a negative impact on his on-ice performance.

Seems like a weak excuse. He was injured in the middle of two his 40 goal seasons, he seemed to be able to battle through those injuries.

 

[Mickey Marner]

Crosby is a smarter and more resourceful player off the puck in the ozone, especially down low. He also has the GOAT backhand which is the hardest for goaltenders to stop/read/predict. Malkin is definitely more dangerous beyond the hash-marks, and has an excellent slapshot that he can use in full motion, not just stationary.

Crosby being the better scorer in closer proximity to the net makes his goal-scoring more repeatable, so he wins.

 

[Los merengues]

Malkin definitely has better goal scoring tools like size and shot. The things that make Crosby a great goal scorer are the things that make him a great player i.e his his insanely high iq and ability to position himself, but those aren’t goal scoring tools.

Not to sound like an asshole or try to be strawman. But I'd argue that anything that contributes positively to a players goals total in fact is a goal scoring tool.

 

[Ctrain2k]

Not to sound like an ******* or try to be strawman. But I'd argue that anything that contributes positively to a players goals total in fact is a goal scoring tool.

Whenever somewhere uses the term “tools” it usually refers to the physical traits.

 

[Huck Cheever]

Skillset to score?

Malkin has about every physical tool and skill over Crosby. Crosby has work ethic and IQ over Malkin but Malkin has way more of a skill
set to score.

 

[Los merengues]

Whenever somewhere uses the term “tools” it usually refers to the physical traits.

Well If that is the case I do agree. My view on that subject though is different also. But I guess on the light of everyones favorite "all the tools no toolbox" - saying it does make sense.