Is Evgeny Malkin a generational talent?

[K Fleur]

Which goes back to the whole argument that people use against Ovechkin (he never led his team to a Cup) or for a Malkin & Ovechkin vs Crosby argument (how Crosby has 2 Olympic Golds and the two Russians have none).

I'm not really one for using much team success much when comparing players, especially not international team success (although I do think Malkin, Ovechkin, and all of team Russia massively underperformed in 2010).

However whether you, or I like it or not, team success will be used by others when comparing comparable players. It's never going to stop.

 

[Voight]

Peak Malkin is better than peak Jagr. Just wanted to throw that out there.

Yea, peak Malkin and his 5 Art Ross' and utter dominance of the league every season. Oh wait.

 

[penguins2946*]

Yea, peak Malkin and his 5 Art Ross' and utter dominance of the league every season. Oh wait.

Peak=/=prime. But keep trying anyway.

 

[roquay]

Short answer: Yes
Long answer: Hell yes

 

[No Quarter*]

I personally think Malkin is the best player in the league and has been since Crosby got concussed.
I compare Malkin with Jagr.
Is JJ a generational play??? Who's to say, I guess some will say yes and some would say no.

 

[Voight]

Peak=/=prime. But keep trying anyway.

Malkins peak was great, but not better than Jagrs.

 

[Bupi]

Ummm Gretzky and Lemieux are part of the same generation. While Wayne's hayday was slightly before Mario was in the league, he was still playing some pretty damn good hockey in the late 80s, early 90s.

Poisson distribution. Don't worry, they'll teach u that in 8th grade.

 

[wizmet12]

PO stats
96 42 69 111
95 41 73 114
58 31 30 61

Yes, Malkin is a G talent

Not sure about Crosby's secondary assists here, probably all of them. thats right 73 secondary assists

 

[daver]

So what is right then?

Being considered a better player because you scored a golden goal in a tournament where you were rather average? Crosby has never dominated an International tournament, Malkin has.

If Crosby had been the player with the Calder, Conn Smythe, 2 Art Ross trophies, 1 Hart, 1 Lindsay, 3 1st Team All-Star selections and been a Hart finalist two more times, the Hfboards contingent would have proclaimed him the Second coming.

I have never seen any fans more biased.

Malkin is without a doubt a Generational talent and there isn't much separating him and Crosby apart from PPG.

Nice try, as an 18 year old to boot

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_IIHF_World_Championship#Scoring_leaders

And please explain how a tie for second in scoring on the Gold Medal winning team with two game winners including arguably the clutchest goal in hockey history is average? (awaits inevitable strawman)

 

[Callista Rhian]

Nice try, as an 18 year old to boot

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_IIHF_World_Championship#Scoring_leaders

And please explain how a tie for second in scoring on the Gold Medal winning team with two game winners including arguably the clutchest goal in hockey history is average? (awaits inevitable strawman)

All true, but I really hate how international tournaments always enter the decision, especially since Malkin and Ovechkin have to re-adapt to a more unfamiliar team while Crosby gets to join up with people whose tapes he studies all the time (not to take away anything from Sid and Team Canada!!)

With regards to Geno? Hell yes he's a generational talent. How can anyone say otherwise?

 

[penguins2946*]

Malkins peak was great, but not better than Jagrs.

Malkin's peak season: 11-12 with a pace of 55 goals and 119 points, no other player had a 100 point pace (not including Sid)
Jagr's peak season: 98-99 with a pace of 45 goals and 128 points, 7 players had a 100 point pace

I'd say Malkin's is easily more impressive.

 

[Pens1566]

Malkin's peak season: 11-12 with a pace of 55 goals and 119 points, no other player had a 100 point pace (not including Sid)
Jagr's peak season: 98-99 with a pace of 45 goals and 128 points, 7 players had a 100 point pace

I'd say Malkin's is easily more impressive.

Try 95-96 for Jagr and then adjust.

 

[daver]

Malkin's peak season: 11-12 with a pace of 55 goals and 119 points, no other player had a 100 point pace (not including Sid)
Jagr's peak season: 98-99 with a pace of 45 goals and 128 points, 7 players had a 100 point pace

I'd say Malkin's is easily more impressive.

Even without looking it up to see who those 7 were I'm going to say those players, scratch that, warriors, are better than anyone who played in 2012.

On a serious note, there is merit in pointing out how far ahead one was from the pack. Even though scoring levels are similar to the DPE it seems it harder for the top forwards to put up points these days based on the less PP time and lower TOI they are getting.

Jagr had almost 5 minutes more in TOI and almost 2 minutes more PP time. It may not be perfect adjustment but Jagr loses about 15 - 20 points if he played at Malkin's TOI and PP time.

 

[livewell68]

Malkin's peak season: 11-12 with a pace of 55 goals and 119 points, no other player had a 100 point pace (not including Sid)
Jagr's peak season: 98-99 with a pace of 45 goals and 128 points, 7 players had a 100 point pace

I'd say Malkin's is easily more impressive.

You'd say that but Jagr's 1998-99 is one of the greatest offensive seasons ever by a player not named Gretzky or Lemieux.

 

[penguins2946*]

Try 95-96 for Jagr and then adjust.

I wasn't using that season because:

-There were 12 100 point players, and 16 players on pace for 100 points
-There were 8 50 goal scorers, and 11 players on pace for 50 goals
-There were 5 players on pace for over 120 points
-There were 6.28 goals/game compared to 5.46 goals/game in 11-12
-Jagr was playing with a guy with a 189 point pace and a guy with a 127 point pace
-The average save% in 95-96 was .898 compared to .914 in 11-12
-A team averaged over 1.73 more PPs per game in 95-96 than they did in 11-12

I don't think it's really fair to use that season.

You'd say that but Jagr's 1998-99 is one of the greatest offensive seasons ever by a player not named Gretzky or Lemieux.

You'd say that because you're a massive Jagr fanboy.

 

[Mynameismark*]

Nope. Last one was Jagr.

 

[Pens1566]

I wasn't using that season because:

-There were 12 100 point players, and 16 players on pace for 100 points
-There were 8 50 goal scorers, and 11 players on pace for 50 goals
-There were 5 players on pace for over 120 points
-There were 6.28 goals/game compared to 5.46 goals/game in 11-12
-Jagr was playing with a guy with a 189 point pace and a guy with a 127 point pace
-The average save% in 95-96 was .898 compared to .914 in 11-12
-A team averaged over 1.73 more PPs per game in 95-96 than they did in 11-12

I don't think it's really fair to use that season.



You'd say that because you're a massive Jagr fanboy.

No, you're not using it because Jagr destroyed everyone not named Lemieux. And those guys he destroyed are HoFers.

 

[penguins2946*]

No, you're not using it because Jagr destroyed everyone not named Lemieux. And those guys he destroyed are HoFers.

Except no, I didn't. You can ignore the actual reasons that I didn't use that season (which were the freaking reasons I posted), but it's not my problem if you want to ignore the facts.

Why would I have anything against Jagr? I'm one of the loudest proponents of JagrWatch and I have a freaking Jagr avatar. I'm not using that season because it's bullcrap to compare the stats of 2 players when 1 of those players played in a drastically higher scoring season.

 

[Pens1566]

Except no, I didn't. You can ignore the actual reasons that I didn't use that season (which were the freaking reasons I posted), but it's not my problem if you want to ignore the facts.

Why would I have anything against Jagr? I'm one of the loudest proponents of JagrWatch and I have a freaking Jagr avatar. I'm not using that season because it's bullcrap to compare the stats of 2 players when 1 of those players played in a drastically higher scoring season.

I didn't say anything about you not liking Jagr. -1 for strawman.

You're harping on magnitudes and ignoring the percentage gap between Jagr and everyone not named Lemieux. That's the point. No one in their right mind would really argue that he was better in 99 vs 96.

 

[penguins2946*]

I didn't say anything about you not liking Jagr. -1 for strawman.

You're harping on magnitudes and ignoring the percentage gap between Jagr and everyone not named Lemieux. That's the point. No one in their right mind would really argue that he was better in 99 vs 96.

And you're ignoring the fact that Jagr played with a guy on pace for 189 points and another guy on pace for 127 points. And if you want to get into who had a larger gap, Jagr's pace was 17.6% higher than Francis's pace (who was 3rd with 127 points). Malkin's advantage over Giroux (who was 2nd in PPG that year) was 20.3%. So no, Jagr doesn't even beat Malkin if you look at it like that.

 

[tom_servo]

Except no, I didn't. You can ignore the actual reasons that I didn't use that season (which were the freaking reasons I posted), but it's not my problem if you want to ignore the facts.

Why would I have anything against Jagr? I'm one of the loudest proponents of JagrWatch and I have a freaking Jagr avatar. I'm not using that season because it's bullcrap to compare the stats of 2 players when 1 of those players played in a drastically higher scoring season.

How about 2000 when Jagr was on pace for ~120 when no one else sniffed 100? Probably robbed of his second straight Hart trophy.

Or 2001 when he outpaced Lemieux for the duration of their time together.

I also think you're unfairly dismissing his '96 season. He would've won the Art Ross without Lemieux.

 

[penguins2946*]

How about 2000 when Jagr was on pace for ~120 when no one else sniffed 100? Probably robbed of his second straight Hart trophy.

If we can't use pace for Crosby to say why he was dominant in his seasons, I don't see why we're allowed to use it for Jagr.

 

[tom_servo]

If we can't use pace for Crosby to say why he was dominant in his seasons, I don't see why we're allowed to use it for Jagr.

But you used it for Malkin.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

If we can't use pace for Crosby to say why he was dominant in his seasons, I don't see why we're allowed to use it for Jagr.

Exactly. If we don't wanna use pace crosby 14 is the most dominating art Ross win since gretzky.

 

[tom_servo]

Maybe I don't know the rules of this debate, but I would think everyone's pace is useful.