Is Evgeny Malkin a generational talent?

[AmericanDream]

In terms of their entire careers, so far Brett Hull is head of Ovechkin sure, but based on the whole body of work.

As for Jagr, he was the best player in the game for about 7-8 years so yes he is a generational talent.

Brett Hull was never a generational talent, his father was though.

I am not calling Hull a generational talent, I am saying if people want to just throw the term out there and say Ovechkin is a generational talent, then so is Hull who was better and had a better prime.

 

[Stuzchuk]

nope... Since I started Watching hockey (1982), there was : Wayne Gretzky and Mario Lemieux. If you consider Malkin as one, you have to consider a ******** of other players as a Generational Talent

He's a true franchise player though (Like: Sakic, Yzerman, Jagr, Lidstrom were to their team)

 

[Fantomas]

I am not calling Hull a generational talent, I am saying if people want to just throw the term out there and say Ovechkin is a generational talent, then so is Hull who was better and had a better prime.

On what basis did Hull have a better prime?

I have made several posts about Hull's production relative to his peers. It is not better than Ovechkin's and it is definitely far less sustained than Ovechkin's.

 

[leafsfan5]

Maurice Richard was a better goal scorer than Lemieux and depending how Ovechkin's career pan out, Ovy might be second only to Richard.

Ovechkin will not pass the likes of hull, or Lemieux in terms of goal scoring.

 

[Fantomas]

Ovechkin will not pass the likes of hull, or Lemieux in terms of goal scoring.

What does this mean?

If you're talking cumulatively then Lemieux wouldn't be too difficult to pass. I think 700 goals is within reach for Ovechkin. 800 maybe if he stays healthy and consistent.

 

[livewell68]

nope... Since I started Watching hockey (1982), there was : Wayne Gretzky and Mario Lemieux. If you consider Malkin as one, you have to consider a ******** of other players as a Generational Talent

He's a true franchise player though (Like: Sakic, Yzerman, Jagr, Lidstrom were to their team)

Jagr and Lidstrom are generational talents.

 

[Fantomas]

he has 1 less then Crosby and 2 less then Ovechkin...and it is a joke that Messier won it over Hull and his 70 goal season in 91-92...but I am sure if Sid and Alex played in the same time as Gretzky and Lemieux, they would have those numbers

as I said, if you want to consider Ovechkin as a generational talent, then so is Brett Hull and Jaromir Jagr...who both have ahead of Ovechkin

These are not very good arguments. On what basis is Hull even comparable to Ovechkin? Because you feel he should have won more Harts? Why ignore the fact that outside of those three magical years he was not ever again a top-10 point-getter?

Furthermore, the gap between Jagr and Hull and considerable. Jagr dominated the game for a long time. I have no problem ranking Jagr ahead of Ovechkin.

 

[Fantomas]

Here's a thoughtful, well-researched list of the top wingers of all time from the History of Hockey board (some very bright people there):

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1739023

Ovechkin is right there with Bossy and Lindsay in the top 10, and his career isn't done yet.

Brett Hull is 22nd.

 

[livewell68]

Here's a thoughtful, well-researched list of the top wingers of all time from the History of Hockey board (some very bright people there):

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1739023

Ovechkin is right there with Bossy and Lindsay in the top 10, and his career isn't done yet.

Brett Hull is 22nd.

Save yourself the grief. No matter how compelling the stats and arguments, some people will just hate.

Ovechkin and Malkin have both had better peaks/ primes and will eventually have better careers than Brett Hull ever will. No disrespect to Brett who was a great player and one the best goalscorers ever but he was never the best in the game, even in his Hart winning season.

 

[Fantomas]

Save yourself the grief. No matter how compelling the stats and arguments, some people will just hate.

Ovechkin and Malkin have both had better peaks/ primes and will eventually better careers than Brett Hull ever will. No disrespect to Brett who was a great player and one the best goalscorers ever but he was never the best in the game, even in his Hart winning season.

People have a tendency to look at raw numbers (eg. omg hull scored 86 goals, lolz!), but numbers are always a reflection of the era. One has to look at production relative to peers.

Ovechkin's 65 goals is an amazing accomplishment in his time.

 

[Tutu to]

lol at ovechkin being a generational talent.

the guy has not scored more then 80 points in the last 5 years.

Even with Crosby having his worst season in years and ovechkin having his best, Crosby is still doing better.

 

[Stuzchuk]

Jagr and Lidstrom are generational talents.

arguable since I only see 7 in the history of the league (depending who classify them)

 

[illpucks]

Even with Crosby having his worst season in years and ovechkin having his best, Crosby is still doing better.

A goal can yield 2 assists. It doesn't work the other way. It is a lot easier for playmakers to stack up points.

Another example of someone looking at the point chart without watching in game play.

 

[Fantomas]

lol at ovechkin being a generational talent.

the guy has not scored more then 80 points in the last 5 years.

Maurice Richard's career PPG is below one.

You are looking at numbers as if they provide some kind of objective information. But the fact is that league scoring right now is pretty low and this affects everyone.

And yes, Crosby's productivity in spite of this and his health issues is impressive!

 

[Fantomas]

A goal can yield 2 assists. It doesn't work the other way. It is a lot easier for playmakers to stack up points.

Another example of someone looking at the point chart without watching in game play.

Furthermore even if Crosby is better (which is debatable), that does not invalidate Ovechkin's greatness.

The all-time greatest wingers list rates Bobby Hull ahead of Guy Lafleur. Does not mean there's anything wrong with Guy Lafleur.

 

[Tutu to]

Maurice Richard's career PPG is below one.

You are looking at numbers as if they provide some kind of objective information. But the fact is that league scoring right now is pretty low and this affects everyone.

And yes, Crosby's productivity in spite of this and his health issues is impressive!

Crosby is also one of the most complete players in the league. Not to mention He has won a Stanley cup and 2 Olympic golds.

 

[Tutu to]

Furthermore even if Crosby is better (which is debatable), that does not invalidate Ovechkin's greatness.

The all-time greatest wingers list rates Bobby Hull ahead of Guy Lafleur. Does not mean there's anything wrong with Guy Lafleur.

it was debatable in 2010. In 2015 I don't see it. For me Crosby and Malkin are the 2 best players in the league.

 

[Fantomas]

it was debatable in 2010. In 2015 I don't see it. For me Crosby and Malkin are the 2 best players in the league.

This year Ovechkin looks like the better player to me, which can be argued I suppose.

Furthermore we're talking about entire careers, right? And have we forgotten Ovechkin's Hart from a year or two ago?

 

[Stuzchuk]

TO HFBOARDS POSTERS (Some of you): a generational talent is defined by how a player dominates vs other great players of his era and not necessarily how many point he scores by season.

If you look at G.Howe, he never amassed 200pts in a season but was a complete all-around player and was ahead of the league by 15-25pts in front of the closest players (with a severely bruised body)

 

[T1K]

If Malkin played on a different team this thread would be so different. Call me biased if you want, but Geno is the 2nd best forward in the league. Sid, Geno, and Ovy will all go down as all time greats. You can get bogged down with semantics all you want, but those 3 have pretty much have taken turns dominating the league ever since they've joined it. I consider them all generational talents, but it's a matter of opinion really.

 

[Tak7]

nope... Since I started Watching hockey (1982), there was : Wayne Gretzky and Mario Lemieux. If you consider Malkin as one, you have to consider a ******** of other players as a Generational Talent

He's a true franchise player though (Like: Sakic, Yzerman, Jagr, Lidstrom were to their team)

This.

When we grow old and talk about the great players we got to experience and watch, Malkin's name will be there. For many, towards the top of the list as well as it belongs.

But he won't be talked about the way our fathers talked about Gretz & Mario.

That's not a knock on Malkin. More-so the watering down of the term "generational", and the fact that we live in an era where there are several pretty damn great hockey players

 

[MC Ride]

Isn't he like 11th all time in ppg?

 

[MrBrightside]

Isn't he like 11th all time in ppg?

Yes.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/leaders/points_per_game_career.html

 

[Shaftception]

Furthermore we're talking about entire careers, right? And have we forgotten Ovechkin's Hart from a year or two ago?

Even this year hard to argue right this second Ovechkin hasn't been better than Crosby, there's still time for that to be decided depending on whatever is bothering Crosby (or if he's finally declining) but right now it's in his favor. That said, what about his Hart from a year or two ago? You mean the award that is universally on these boards stated as not being indicative of the best player (usually so that Crosby couldn't win it)? Or that he only won it because Crosby missed a month from a broken jaw (using that year in a comparison between the two makes the injury relevant, career wise it balances out the Hart Ovechkin lost to Sedin because he got himself suspended)? Ovechkin's gaudy stats are a much better argument ranking him above Crosby than that Hart is.

And yes all three of Malkin, Ovechkin and Crosby are generational talents, winning 1 Art Ross is about as much a guarantee for HoF induction as the Hart is, and Malkin has 2 of them, the only current players with that many or more are Jagr, Crosby and St. Louis. Only 14 players in history have 2 or more. All 3 of their trophy cases before age 30 are as impressive as the total careers of many all-time greats. If you're stating generational is only defined by the numbers of Gretzky, Howe, Lemieux, etc., then you're ignoring all the factors of the time that inflated said numbers.

 

[shelf]

Laughable on a ton of levels. Lets not forget clutching and grabbing. Yea, Hasek, Roy, Belfour, Brodeur, Joseph, Stevens, Chelios, Lidstrom, Pronger, etc. I could go on and on with the list of hall of fame players / just a tier below hall of fame players that were in the league. Sorry, just stop.



how so? they carried their teams to multiple championships while playing a better two way game and dominating at times. Crosby has "dominated" the game, but the gap between him and his peers like Ovechkin and Malkin etc has not been as large.

Your opinion leaves out the fact that they would be training the way athletes trained today, so yes, their game would translate to todays level because their hockey IQ was extremely high. go back to the crosby worship.

Because Yzermans/Sakics combined zero Art ross trophies and Richard trophies shows just how dominant they were over their peers