Does Malkin's 2012-13 KHL season add to his legacy?

[K Fleur]

Malkin 2011-12 had his fifteen minutes of fame. But what happened in the shortened 2012-13 NHL season, you may want to ask?

Well:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...c4comp=gt&c4val=&threshhold=5&order_by=points

as you can see, the facts are, contrary to the protestations of others, Stamkos, Staal and Ribeireo all matched or outperformed Malkin be it using raw or PPG scoring data.

So if Malkin's short season KHL season is revealing then his equally shorth NHL season during the same hockey year is equally revealing.

15 minutes of fame? Malkin has 3 1st team all star selections (Staal, and Ribeiro have zero), he has 2 Art Ross trophies (again Staal/Ribeiro have zero), he has a Conn Smythe trophy(once again Staal/Ribeiro have zero).

Yes Malkin has sustained more injuries than Staal/Ribeiro. He has also been a substantially better player than them. (Mod)

 

[Canadiens1958]

2012-13 KHL Season

So you are going to use 1 single season to argue Ribeiro and E.Staal over Malkin then?

Where is the logic there?

The topic at hand is the 2012-13 KHL season and whether it adds to Malkin's legacy?

So it is fair and accurate to contrast the 2012-13 KHL Malkin to the 2012-13 NHL Malkin asking the same question. Which was done. Staal, Stamkos and Ribeiro did very well in this comparison as did other NHL players

 

[GJB]

The topic at hand is the 2012-13 KHL season and whether it adds to Malkin's legacy?

So it is fair and accurate to contrast the 2012-13 KHL Malkin to the 2012-13 NHL Malkin asking the same question. Which was done. Staal, Stamkos and Ribeiro did very well in this comparison as did other NHL players

I get that the topic at hand is about one season but your arguments seem to be about more than that, I mean Malkin's "15 Minutes of Fame", really?

Rookie of the year, 2 Art Ross trophies, Conn Smythe, a Hart and 3 1st All-Star selections.

 

[Canadiens1958]

One Season

I get that the topic at hand is about one season but your arguments seem to be about more than that, I mean Malkin's "15 Minutes of Fame", really?

Rookie of the year, 2 Art Ross trophies, Conn Smythe, a Hart and 3 1st All-Star selections.

2 Art Ross Trophies, 3 1st All-Star selections when one season is being discussed?

No honours, no awards, team or individual, nothing since the 2011-12 ended:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/m/malkiev01.html

 

[Hardyvan123]

The topic at hand is the 2012-13 KHL season and whether it adds to Malkin's legacy?

So it is fair and accurate to contrast the 2012-13 KHL Malkin to the 2012-13 NHL Malkin asking the same question. Which was done. Staal, Stamkos and Ribeiro did very well in this comparison as did other NHL players

Okay let's take 12-13 then for all 3 players

Malkin dominates the KHL with a 37-23-42-65 line
NHL 31-9-24-33
playoffs 15-4-12-16

Eric Staal

NHL 48-18-35-53
WC 8-0-3-3

Mike "Hey look at me almost Malkin" Ribeiro

NHL 48-12-36-49 (6-15-21 at ES 7-21-28 on the PP mmm)
playoffs 7-1-1-2

Still a really weak comp and it's very clear to see which player was elite and which 2 weren't.

 

[tjcurrie]

Why not?

Because it's the KHL

List me off the top of your head what other players were doing to kill time during that lockout, or the previous lockout, or the 94-95 lockout, or any holdout year where said player went and played in some other inferior league elsewhere.

Your list, and 99.9% of everyone else's would be extremely short.

Reason being, nobody cares. If you care, you're in the very very very small minority. No HOF ceremony will dip into said player's missing year.

Nobody cares what Jari Kurri did over in Italy when he left the oilers/NHL for a year. Nobody cares what Neal Broten did over in Germany when he had a brief holdout with Minnesota. Do we even care what Ilya Kovalchuk has been up to since he left the NHL? Nope. Etc. It's pretty moot. I mean we're comparing Mike Ribeiro to Malkin here for cripes sake.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Because it's the KHL

List me off the top of your head what other players were doing to kill time during that lockout, or the previous lockout, or the 94-95 lockout, or any holdout year where said player went and played in some other inferior league elsewhere.

Your list, and 99.9% of everyone else's would be extremely short.

Reason being, nobody cares. If you care, you're in the very very very small minority. No HOF ceremony will dip into said player's missing year.

Nobody cares what Jari Kurri did over in Italy when he left the oilers/NHL for a year. Nobody cares what Neal Broten did over in Germany when he had a brief holdout with Minnesota. Do we even care what Ilya Kovalchuk has been up to since he left the NHL? Nope. Etc. It's pretty moot. I mean we're comparing Mike Ribeiro to Malkin here for cripes sake.

I think that alot of people here and on the HHOF committee won't care but it matters in a players peak/prime.

All 3 players listed above were well out of their peaks and primes when they played in Europe.

 

[Theokritos]

Are we now comparing the Italian or German league to the KHL?

 

[Kyle McMahon]

It's part of his resume as his NHL regular line and the playoff line that year so yes.

Sadly it won't gain much traction here as it would say in 1974 though.

It's somewhat amusing that a partial season in which Malkin irrefutably did not compete against most of the best hockey players in the world should add to his legacy. Yet Original Six and earlier players have their legacies questioned for not competing against phantom/non-existent elite players from Europe, British Columbia, etc.

 

[Batis]

So let me get this straight. A season where Malkin clearly outscored the likes of Ovechkin and Datsyuk (both on a per-game basis and when it comes to actual production) should not add anything to his legacy?

Edit: And before you say that it was only a partial season I will again point out that Malkin outscored Ovechkin and Datsyuk over the entire 12/13 season despite playing clearly fewer games. http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=114872343&postcount=8

 

[Hardyvan123]

It's somewhat amusing that a partial season in which Malkin irrefutably did not compete against most of the best hockey players in the world should add to his legacy. Yet Original Six and earlier players have their legacies questioned for not competing against phantom/non-existent elite players from Europe, British Columbia, etc.

No you are right we should treat the 06 NHL and 2015 NHL exactly the same since nothing has changed right?

that seems to be the view you are promoting with posts like this.

But enough about me, how should we treat players from the 06 era compared to say NHL guys in the 70's (when there are obvious elite caliber players in Europe not in the NHL) and then guys in a fully integrated league with different standards of elite talent to compete with?

Or do we only promote Soviet players in pre NHL days?

Please expand your view as it's much harder to present an idea than it is to simply criticize.

 

[billybudd]

Now that the accuracy issue is settled and assuming the PPG numbers where transcribed correctly we see how top line centers/forwards perform in a 30 team league.

Staal and Ribeiro played on teams that rarely made the playoffs with little linemate support and weak puckmoving, first pass, transition d-men.

Stamkos, Kane(3 SCs) on better teams with better linemates and well above average puckmoving, first pass, transition d-men.

Malkin's numbers on an offensive oriented Pittsburgh team with the advantage of Crosby drawing the oppositions main defensive focus have to be viewed in a league context.

The comparables in question simply show that given ideal circumstances like Malkin had in the KHL - NA coach in Paul Maurice who knew how to tailor an offence around Malkin, support from other forwards and an ideal defenceman in Sergei Gonchar :

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/leagues/seasons/teams/0050272013.html

he will stretch his offensive numbers. Without such support there will be a contraction of numbers.

That might apply to Staal, but not Ribeiro. Not by a long shot. Furthest back we have data, Ribs linemates are

Morrow, Miettenen
Ott, Lehtonen
Morrow, Benn
Morrow, Benn
Eriksson, Ryder/Morrow
Brouwer, Ovechkin
Doan, Moss
Forsberg, Neal
Forsberg, Smith

Malkin's are

Sykora, Malone
Sykora, Fedotenko
Fedotenko, Dupuis
Cooke, Revolving door
Neal, Kunitz
Neal, Revolving door
Neal, Jokinen
Comeau, Kunitz
Perron, Kessel


Even if you want to say the second group is stronger (and you wouldn't have a very solid case), I don't see how it even could be argued to be stronger to any significant degree.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Power Play

That might apply to Staal, but not Ribeiro. Not by a long shot. Furthest back we have data, Ribs linemates are

Morrow, Miettenen
Ott, Lehtonen
Morrow, Benn
Morrow, Benn
Eriksson, Ryder/Morrow
Brouwer, Ovechkin
Doan, Moss
Forsberg, Neal
Forsberg, Smith

Malkin's are

Sykora, Malone
Sykora, Fedotenko
Fedotenko, Dupuis
Cooke, Revolving door
Neal, Kunitz
Neal, Revolving door
Neal, Jokinen
Comeau, Kunitz
Perron, Kessel


Even if you want to say the second group is stronger (and you wouldn't have a very solid case), I don't see how it even could be argued to be stronger to any significant degree.

Missing the PP unit info. Given that 39.1% of Malkin's points come on the PP and he is on the PP fairly often with Crosby and Letang, the info is rather important.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

No you are right we should treat the 06 NHL and 2015 NHL exactly the same since nothing has changed right?

that seems to be the view you are promoting with posts like this.

But enough about me, how should we treat players from the 06 era compared to say NHL guys in the 70's (when there are obvious elite caliber players in Europe not in the NHL) and then guys in a fully integrated league with different standards of elite talent to compete with?

Or do we only promote Soviet players in pre NHL days?

Please expand your view as it's much harder to present an idea than it is to simply criticize.

Well I'd say if Malkin is being evaluated from an NHL-centric viewpoint, the KHL numbers are worthless. Fringe NHL players have put up excellent scoring stats in the KHL.

If we're taking a broader view that sees the NHL and KHL as two very different entities (similar to the difference between the NFL and the CFL in football), this furthers Malkin's resume as a great player. He's shown the ability to be dominant in two different leagues.

The opinion of a lot of people towards the KHL seems to be that of hostility and mocking. Given that, I wouldn't expect very much credit directed Malkin's way for a strong performance. Further to that, and more specific to this section of the forum, people have been skeptical towards accomplishments during conditions where not all of the best players are playing in the same league. Some have gone even further in questioning accomplishments from eras in which all or most of the players are from the same country. I would expect virtually no credit to be given to Malkin for his KHL seasons by somebody who holds that viewpoint, since it was done under conditions with very few North American competitors.

I'm pretty non-punitive when it comes to putting an asterisk next to accomplishments in situations where there may be equally great or better players not present, whether those players are tangibly real (say Crosby not being in the KHL) or hypothetical (a bunch of Scandinavias who did not take up the game not being available as competition to Cyclone Taylor). As such, Malkin deserves credit in my books for being a such dominant player for that half season. It's not his problem Crosby et al decided to sit on the sidelines until the NHL resumed play.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Missing the PP unit info. Given that 39.1% of Malkin's points come on the PP and he is on the PP fairly often with Crosby and Letang, the info is rather important.

well Malkin had a 15-18 split of ES/PP points and Ribiero had a 22-27 split in Washington with a guy named Ovechkin so I doubt that your assertion is going to gain any traction.

Furthermore I'm not inclined to look it up, as the whole premise of Riberio being comparable to Malkin is ridiculous, but Crosby missed 12 whole games and Letang 13 that 48 game season.

At best you are going to get a wash here with linemates and the power play sideshow.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Well I'd say if Malkin is being evaluated from an NHL-centric viewpoint, the KHL numbers are worthless. Fringe NHL players have put up excellent scoring stats in the KHL.

If we're taking a broader view that sees the NHL and KHL as two very different entities (similar to the difference between the NFL and the CFL in football), this furthers Malkin's resume as a great player. He's shown the ability to be dominant in two different leagues.

The opinion of a lot of people towards the KHL seems to be that of hostility and mocking. Given that, I wouldn't expect very much credit directed Malkin's way for a strong performance. Further to that, and more specific to this section of the forum, people have been skeptical towards accomplishments during conditions where not all of the best players are playing in the same league. Some have gone even further in questioning accomplishments from eras in which all or most of the players are from the same country. I would expect virtually no credit to be given to Malkin for his KHL seasons by somebody who holds that viewpoint, since it was done under conditions with very few North American competitors.

I'm pretty non-punitive when it comes to putting an asterisk next to accomplishments in situations where there may be equally great or better players not present, whether those players are tangibly real (say Crosby not being in the KHL) or hypothetical (a bunch of Scandinavias who did not take up the game not being available as competition to Cyclone Taylor). As such, Malkin deserves credit in my books for being a such dominant player for that half season. It's not his problem Crosby et al decided to sit on the sidelines until the NHL resumed play.

I don't expect alot of people of HHOF committee to put alot if any stock into that KHL season and frankly it's just a small part of his resume but it definitely isn't a negative and I usually look at the NHL resume and for a full season missed lockout the year before and after for any said player (same for WWII guys).

Taylor is an interesting example as he never played in the NHL and for his entire career the Canadian talent pool (as it was comprised then) was always split across at least 2 leagues so it's really hard to judge him fairly against later players playing in an all Canadian league never mind with a different makeup of elite talent post.

the point of the hypothetical Scandinavian for Taylor is disingenuous as we know that there wasn't any such player for Taylor to compete with.

But we do know that a guy in the 90's (say Eric Lindros) did have to compete with elite Scandinavian talent as well as some for m the USA and Russia as well.

The impact of non Canadian players is really simple and evident if one looks at the draft.

This year it's quite possible that the first 5 picks will all be non Canadians.

A team only looking at Canadian talent picking first and picking say McLeod would quickly become a joke as there is now competition for that first pick and McLeod (or whichever Canadian is picked first) is in competition with all those other players to get picked.

To say that McLeod is in the same situation as any top Canadian prospect in the 70's is simply wrong.

The landscape has obviously changed.

To not account for it when comparing players from 2 vastly different points in time will make any conclusions suspect plain and simple.

 

[billybudd]

Missing the PP unit info. Given that 39.1% of Malkin's points come on the PP and he is on the PP fairly often with Crosby and Letang, the info is rather important.

Here's their even strength production over the last 9 years, including a variety of additional fields (ice time, first assists, etc).

http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/showplayer.php?pid=458
http://stats.hockeyanalysis.com/showplayer.php?pid=652

If the difference between Ribeiro and Malkin is "the Penguins powerplay is better than the Stars/Capitals/Preds," these numbers should converge, since the Penguins powerplay isn't on the ice for a single minute of this sample. I'll spare you the time; they don't. You're looking at 30 less ES points for Ribs in 1000 more minutes played.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

I don't expect alot of people of HHOF committee to put alot if any stock into that KHL season and frankly it's just a small part of his resume but it definitely isn't a negative and I usually look at the NHL resume and for a full season missed lockout the year before and after for any said player (same for WWII guys).

Taylor is an interesting example as he never played in the NHL and for his entire career the Canadian talent pool (as it was comprised then) was always split across at least 2 leagues so it's really hard to judge him fairly against later players playing in an all Canadian league never mind with a different makeup of elite talent post.

the point of the hypothetical Scandinavian for Taylor is disingenuous as we know that there wasn't any such player for Taylor to compete with.

But we do know that a guy in the 90's (say Eric Lindros) did have to compete with elite Scandinavian talent as well as some for m the USA and Russia as well.

The impact of non Canadian players is really simple and evident if one looks at the draft.

This year it's quite possible that the first 5 picks will all be non Canadians.

A team only looking at Canadian talent picking first and picking say McLeod would quickly become a joke as there is now competition for that first pick and McLeod (or whichever Canadian is picked first) is in competition with all those other players to get picked.

To say that McLeod is in the same situation as any top Canadian prospect in the 70's is simply wrong.

The landscape has obviously changed.

To not account for it when comparing players from 2 vastly different points in time will make any conclusions suspect plain and simple.

Your contention is that Malkin deserves credit for his KHL season. Which is fine, in and of itself. But it's quite inconsistent with your long-standing criticisms of players who excelled in leagues that were not of equal strength (in your opinion) to today's NHL. Surely a KHL featuring players predominantly from one nation could not be considered relevant to the current NHL for comparison purposes, right?

 

[edinson]

Because it's the KHL

List me off the top of your head what other players were doing to kill time during that lockout, or the previous lockout, or the 94-95 lockout, or any holdout year where said player went and played in some other inferior league elsewhere.

Your list, and 99.9% of everyone else's would be extremely short.

Reason being, nobody cares. If you care, you're in the very very very small minority. No HOF ceremony will dip into said player's missing year.

Nobody cares what Jari Kurri did over in Italy when he left the oilers/NHL for a year. Nobody cares what Neal Broten did over in Germany when he had a brief holdout with Minnesota. Do we even care what Ilya Kovalchuk has been up to since he left the NHL? Nope. Etc. It's pretty moot. I mean we're comparing Mike Ribeiro to Malkin here for cripes sake.

I'm not willing to completely ignore parts of a player's resume only because it's played in a lesser league. I realize it's close to impossible to assign a specific value to these games, such as best or second best player in the world, but Malkin was obviously playing at his prime, or perhaps even peak, level so at the very least it should add to the longevity of his prime.

For me, Kovalchuk is definitely adding to his longevity as an NHL level player right now, not that I care much about that since I consider peak and prime more important.

I doubt this half-season of Malkin's prime will ever be a deciding factor, for me or any other poster, in a player comparison on this board since it's such a small part of his overall resume, but I just can't agree with the idea of completely discounting it because it's not in the NHL.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Half Season

I'm not willing to completely ignore parts of a player's resume only because it's played in a lesser league. I realize it's close to impossible to assign a specific value to these games, such as best or second best player in the world, but Malkin was obviously playing at his prime, or perhaps even peak, level so at the very least it should add to the longevity of his prime.

For me, Kovalchuk is definitely adding to his longevity as an NHL level player right now, not that I care much about that since I consider peak and prime more important.

I doubt this half-season of Malkin's prime will ever be a deciding factor, for me or any other poster, in a player comparison on this board since it's such a small part of his overall resume, but I just can't agree with the idea of completely discounting it because it's not in the NHL.

Still has to be balanced against the second half of the 2012-13 hockey season which was played in the NHL and was well below Malkin's KHL 1/2 season performance or his previous NHL full seasons.

Furthermore, Malkin has not come close to replicating his 2011-12 season since.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Your contention is that Malkin deserves credit for his KHL season. Which is fine, in and of itself. But it's quite inconsistent with your long-standing criticisms of players who excelled in leagues that were not of equal strength (in your opinion) to today's NHL. Surely a KHL featuring players predominantly from one nation could not be considered relevant to the current NHL for comparison purposes, right?

You are right I wouldn't weigh the 12/13 KHL season very highly in overall terms.

In fact his NHL PPG would weigh higher for obvious reasons higher standard of league and pretty much all of the elite players back in it as well.

Put another way if the grading was a points system and there is 1000 points in every players resume (roughly 75% regular season and 25% playoffs maybe 80/20, 85/15 depending on team circumstances) then that KHL season is worth maybe 20 to 30 points on his overall 1000 point score.

 

[Czech Your Math]

Your contention is that Malkin deserves credit for his KHL season. Which is fine, in and of itself. But it's quite inconsistent with your long-standing criticisms of players who excelled in leagues that were not of equal strength (in your opinion) to today's NHL. Surely a KHL featuring players predominantly from one nation could not be considered relevant to the current NHL for comparison purposes, right?

I don't see how that is inconsistent.
If some don't believe the NHL of long ago contained as many great players as it does today, that doesn't necessarily mean that they don't want to give the players of that bygone era any credit for what they accomplished. They just may be skeptical that such accomplishments then exactly equate to such accomplishments now.
Similarly, I don't think anyone is proposing that Malkin would have scored at the same rate in '12-13 in the NHL as he did in the KHL.

An all or nothing approach doesn't help bridge the gap in comparing different eras and different leagues.

 

[jigglysquishy]

Furthermore, Malkin has not come close to replicating his 2011-12 season since.

To be fair, no player has reached the level Malkin was at in 11-12. It's like criticizing 1990 Gretzky for not being as good as 1985 Gretzky.

 

[Czech Your Math]

Because it's the KHL

List me off the top of your head what other players were doing to kill time during that lockout, or the previous lockout, or the 94-95 lockout, or any holdout year where said player went and played in some other inferior league elsewhere.

Your list, and 99.9% of everyone else's would be extremely short.

Reason being, nobody cares. If you care, you're in the very very very small minority. No HOF ceremony will dip into said player's missing year.

Nobody cares what Jari Kurri did over in Italy when he left the oilers/NHL for a year. Nobody cares what Neal Broten did over in Germany when he had a brief holdout with Minnesota. Do we even care what Ilya Kovalchuk has been up to since he left the NHL? Nope. Etc. It's pretty moot. I mean we're comparing Mike Ribeiro to Malkin here for cripes sake.

There are obvious differences between holding out and playing in Italy or Germany, and playing in the KHL due to lockout.

During the '12-13 lockout, these were some of the players that played in other leagues:

KHL- Malkin, Ovechkin, Datsyuk, Kovalchuk, Backstrom, Voracek
Swiss- Kane, Tavares, Spezza, Thornton, Zetterberg, Eriksson
AHL- Hall, Eberle
Sweden- Kopitar
Finland- Karlsson
Germany- Giroux, Pominville
Czech- Jagr, Plekanec, Krejci, Hemsky

That's 11 of the top 20 scorers in 2012 and 9 of the top 20 scorers in 2013 that spent at least some time in a pro league prior to the lockout being resolved.

During the '04-05 lockout, these were some of the players that played in other leagues:

Russia- Jagr, Kovalchuk, Elias, Ovechkin, Datsyuk, Gonchar, Malkin, Morozov, Heatley, Richards, Nylander
Sweden- Naslund, Forsberg, Hossa, Alfredsson, Cheechoo, Jokinen, Zetterberg, Gaborik, Huselius, Morrison, D&HSedin
Finland- Jokinen, Nylander
Swiss- St. Louis, Thornton, Tanguay, Heatley, Savard
Czech- Jagr, Elias, Hejduk, Prospal, Straka, Havlat, Palffy
Slovakia- Hossa, Gaborik, Satan
Germany- McDonald
AHL- EStaal, Spezza, Gionta
ECHL- Gomez

That's 11 of the top 20 scorers in 2004 and 16 of the top 20 scorers in 2006 that spent at least some time in another league during the 2004-5 lockout. Of the top 18 scorers in 2006, the only ones that did not play in another league in 2005: Crosby (juniors), Selanne (knee surgery), and Sakic (age 35).

I think time in another pro league should be considered as extra credit, which is sort of how I look at international tournament play. I wouldn't outright penalize players that didn't play in another league, but if a player decides to not play hockey if they can't play in the NHL, that wouldn't exactly help their case either. There are players that never played in the NHL that have quite lofty rankings on HoH based solely/mostly on their play in foreign leagues and international tournaments. I think you have to look at the various factors:

* Was it the player's choice to play in a league other than the NHL?
* Did he have good reasons to play or not play in another league?
* If he played in a league that was not the best available, what reasons had he for that?
* How well did he play in the league chosen, in comparison to what might be expected given his NHL performance before/after that time?

In Malkin's case, I believe he deserves full credit for his KHL time:

* He played in Russia during the '05 lockout, in '06, and during the '13 lockout.
* The NHL was not in session while he played in '05 and '13, and he was still under contract in '06.
* The Russian leagues were the best available in '05 and '13, and he was under contract in '06.
* He performed about as one would expect during those years.

So I would assess his Russian years as follows:

'04-05: His 32 points in 52 games wasn't bad, but would add minimally to his career value (and nothing to his peak/prime value).

'05-06: His 21 goals & 47 points in 52 games was good for 2nd & 3rd and close to the league leaders (23 & 52). I would probably give him credit for a season around the level of his NHL rookie season the following year in '07. This adds to his career value and adds some to his prime value, but probably doesn't help his peak value much.

'12-13: He played 70% of the schedule and did not play the remaining 30% due to the beginning of the NHL season. His number would have equated to being second in goals (to his linemate) and leading in points by 20% over 2nd. At least we know that he was healthy enough to withstand playing 37 KHL games and that he was playing at a very high level. If I had to guess at his performance over an 82 game NHL season (rather than 48), probably top 10 in scoring, perhaps even top 5, despite missing 17 games. This would add some to his career and prime value, but again it may not help his peak value much.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

I don't see how that is inconsistent.
If some don't believe the NHL of long ago contained as many great players as it does today, that doesn't necessarily mean that they don't want to give the players of that bygone era any credit for what they accomplished. They just may be skeptical that such accomplishments then exactly equate to such accomplishments now.
Similarly, I don't think anyone is proposing that Malkin would have scored at the same rate in '12-13 in the NHL as he did in the KHL.

An all or nothing approach doesn't help bridge the gap in comparing different eras and different leagues.

I'm not disagreeing with your premise. My comment was more to point out the paradox of a certain poster being one of the first to rail against the accomplishments of past players who excelled in leagues he perceives as not being equal to the current NHL, while simultaneously jumping in to encourage more credit directed Malkin's way for his performance in a league surely weaker than the current NHL.