Is Evgeni Malkin a generational talent?

[Zuluss]

In terms of raw talent, I always ranked Malkin above both Crosby and Ovechkin. Alas, he missed way too much time. But still, his one-year peak (11/12) is clearly higher than Crosby's and most likely higher than Ovechkin's.

Also, Malkin's two-year peak (07-09) is currently higher than McDavid's - and this peak does not include Malkin's best season. So let's pause a bit with "he is not on McDavid's level". It is McDavid who is not at Malkin's level - yet. We all hope it is "yet", of course, but there is no guarantee.

 

[The Great Weal]

Durability is a factor.

The poll asks if he is a generational talent, not player, so durability is not a factor.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Guy scored 113 points winning the art ross and then scored 36 points leading the playoffs in scoring winning mvp and a ring. Then won another ring while leading the playoffs with 28 points.....

 

[SotasicA]

He was never, by a clear margin, the best player of his generation. Never in a tier of his own. So no. He is not generational.

 

[Ryder71]

Calder winner, Two time Art Ross winner, Hart winner, Conn Smythe winner, first team all star on multiple occasions, three Cups, high PPG average, Despite injury woes, I say yes.

 

[InfinityIggy]

Franchise player but not Generational, no. Hard to be Generational when you aren't even the best player on your team.

 

[Gurglesons]

He’ll arguably have the second best NHL career by a Russian when he’s done.

 

[Beauner]

Franchise player but not Generational, no. Hard to be Generational when you aren't even the best player on your team.

That's really a poor argument considering the other player is one of the best of all time.

Was Jagr not generational since he played with Lemieux?

 

[InfinityIggy]

That's really a poor argument considering the other player is one of the best of all time.

Was Jagr not generational since he played with Lemieux?

No, Jagr wasn't generational because he wasn't a once in a generation player. One in a generation means you pretty much would need to be the best guy on your team. It's only a poor argument if you don't use the term 'generational' correctly.

 

[Midnight Judges]

The poll asks if he is a generational talent, not player, so durability is not a factor.

I think that's incorrect. Talent can be defined as natural attributes. It's right there in the dictionary. Durability is very much related to natural attributes (as well as on-ice awareness)

For example a boxer with a strong chin has a talent.

 

[Beauner]

No, Jagr wasn't generational because he wasn't a once in a generation player. One in a generation means you pretty much would need to be the best guy on your team. It's only a poor argument if you don't use the term 'generational' correctly.

If hypothetically, Bobby Orr and Wayne Gretzky played on the same team throughout their careers, would one not be considered Generational to you? Which one wouldn't be? That's just a super arbitrary criteria

 

[The Great Weal]

I think that's incorrect. Talent can be defined as natural attributes. It's right there in the dictionary. Durability is very much related to natural attributes (as well as on-ice awareness)

For example a boxer with a strong chin has a talent.

I disagree, certain things are just inevitable.

 

[Randy Randerson]

The tier below generational for me, one of the best players in the game at the time he played but it would be tough to argue that he was ever the best which is core the the premise in my view

 

[SotasicA]

Calder winner, Two time Art Ross winner, Hart winner, Conn Smythe winner, first team all star on multiple occasions, three Cups, high PPG average, Despite injury woes, I say yes.

Wouldn't that logic pretty much make Pat Kane generational, too?

Geno and Kane are both a tier below generational. I'd almost add Ovechkin to that group, too, but since he has recently won a Cup and has added more Rocket Richards, he is starting to have a case at generational. Though that case is hurt by only being 2nd best to Crosby during his career. Might be that neither is generational, actually.

McDavid is already "the next generation" and can be the runaway best of his era.

 

[psycat]

Generational talent but not career/player. Peaked higher than Crosby, McDavid(so far) etc just doesn't have the concistency and/or injury free career.

But I mean it's all semantics. I have previously argued that neither Crosby or Ovechkin are generational(and in that case Malkin certainly aint a generational talent) but if we go by that they are he is aswell.

 

[Ryder71]

Wouldn't that logic pretty much make Pat Kane generational, too?

Geno and Kane are both a tier below generational. I'd almost add Ovechkin to that group, too, but since he has recently won a Cup and has added more Rocket Richards, he is starting to have a case at generational. Though that case is hurt by only being 2nd best to Crosby during his career. Might be that neither is generational, actually.

McDavid is already "the next generation" and can be the runaway best of his era.

Geno's a better all around player than Ovechkin although he pales in comparison as it pertains to his goal scoring prowess. At one time or another all of AO, Sid or Geno could be considered the best. Sid likely for the majority of the time but both AO and Geno had their moments as well.

And keep in mind that in Geno's Conn Smythe year of 2009 he scored 36 points in the 24 games on route to winning the stanley cup. That significant because the last time a player accumulated that many post season points was Gretzky in 1993. So for a quarter of a century no one else did what Geno did then in 2009 even til this day. That along with all his other accomplishments makes him generational in my book. But it's a subjective debate, so we're likely not going to agree I guess.

 

[agent082]

Orr
Howe
Gretzky
Lemieux

Crosby maybe in the future

McDavid has talent to become one in the future.

 

[Thenameless]

Generational talent yes, but not a generational player.

This is about as accurate as can be.

 

[KevinRedkey]

He peaked very high, but for me, that peak alone isn't enough. Had he played like that his entire career then yes.

 

[Filthy Dangles]

Nah he's in that tier just below generational with guys like Sakic, Forsberg, Yzerman imo

 

[Randyne]

Franchise player but not Generational, no. Hard to be Generational when you aren't even the best player on your team.

By points he was the best on his team in 4 RS and 5 PO.

 

[BenchBrawl]

I'd say he was a ''child prodigy-like'' talent. He had everything naturally, offensively-speaking.

Generational talent? No. Maybe he had the potential for it, but he didn't actualize it to this level.

Crosby is a generational talent (and a ''child prodigy-like'' talent too) and the only one playing now who actualized it, and even he still left a lot of potential unfulfilled,

 

[DesertPenguin]

If you want to call him a first ballot Hall of Famer, but say that only Crosby and Ovechkin were generational talents for this era, I'm cool with that.