Is Evgeny Malkin a generational talent?

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Jagrs 1998-99 can be dissected the same way some want to dissect crosbys 2013-2014

If everyone plays 82 games at there paces

1998-99
Jagr 128
Selanne 117
Sakic 108

2013-2014
Crosby 107
Malkin 98
Stamkos 97

So decide what is more dominant finishing 11 points over prime selanne or 9 points over prime Malkin?

 

[livewell68]

Jagrs 1998-99 can be dissected the same way some want to dissect crosbys 2013-2014

If everyone plays 82 games at there paces

1998-99
Jagr 128
Selanne 117
Sakic 108

2013-2014
Crosby 107
Malkin 98
Stamkos 97

So decide what is more dominant finishing 11 points over prime selanne or 9 points over prime Malkin?

Actually Jagr would have 129 pts.

Also let's just ignore the fact that Malkin was actually on Crosby's team.

In comparison Jagr scored 127 playing on a line with Kip Miller and Jan Hrdina. Also Selanne had Kariya. Who did Jagr have again?

Crosby beating his own teammate by 9 pts is not the same thing is as beating Selanne by 12 pts (strictly taking paces into account).

Also the scoring levels in 1998-99 overall are lower than 2011-12 or 2013-14. It just happens that those 7 players with 100 pts paces were Jagr, Selanne, Kariya, Forsberg, Sakic, Lindros (missing the 7th) who were all great players and better than Giroux and Stamkos.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Actually Jagr would have 129 pts.

Also let's just ignore the fact that Malkin was actually on Crosby's team.

In comparison Jagr scored 127 playing on a line with Kip Miller and Jan Hrdina. Also Selanne had Kariya. Who did Jagr have again?

Crosby beating his own teammate by 9 pts is not the same thing is as beating Selanne by 12 pts (strictly taking paces into account).

Also the scoring levels in 1998-99 overall are lower than 2011-12 or 2013-14. It just happens that those 7 players with 100 pts paces were Jagr, Selanne, Kariya, Forsberg, Sakic, Lindros (missing the 7th) who were all great players and better than Giroux and Stamkos.

128 points. Regardless of teammates or not. Actually it's actually harder to distance yourself from a teammate. Either way jagrs 20 point art Ross win is misleading just like you say crosbys 17 point win. So either you accept crosbys was dominant or jagrs wasent any more dominant

 

[tom_servo]

Actually Jagr would have 129 pts.

Also let's just ignore the fact that Malkin was actually on Crosby's team.

Remember, that was just Malkin's pace. While is it in an indicator of how well Malkin played in his appearances, he finished 30 points behind Crosby and cannot be considered a significant boost to Crosby's finish.

In the end, I would consider Jagr's '99 season superior regardless.

 

[livewell68]

128 points. Regardless of teammates or not. Actually it's actually harder to distance yourself from a teammate. Either way jagrs 20 point art Ross win is misleading just like you say crosbys 17 point win. So either you accept crosbys was dominant or jagrs wasent any more dominant

Misleading?

There are only 2 posters who actually believe Crosby was more dominant than Jagr.

Jagr outscored his nearest teammate by 44 pts in 1998-99.

He outscored his nearest teammate by 30 pts in 1999-00 despite playing in 19 less games than said teammate.

There is no metric that would give either Crosby or Malkin the edge over Jagr in 1998-98. None.

 

[livewell68]

Remember, that was just Malkin's pace. While is it in an indicator of how well Malkin played in his appearances, he finished 30 points behind Crosby and cannot be considered a significant boost to Crosby's finish.

In the end, I would consider Jagr's '99 season superior regardless.

I would like to know what Crosby's pace was last season with and without Malkin in the lineup. Neal wasn't too bad either and neither was Kunitz with his 35 goals.

 

[drganon]

Yeah, I'd say he along with Crosby and Ovechkin are Generational players.
As for the other argument, Jagr>Malkin/Crosby, peak and prime.

 

[K Fleur]

Misleading?

There are only 2 posters who actually believe Crosby was more dominant than Jagr.

Jagr outscored his nearest teammate by 44 pts in 1998-99.

He outscored his nearest teammate by 30 pts in 1999-00 despite playing in 19 less games than said teammate.

There are no metric that would give either Crosby or Malkin the edge over Jagr in 1998-98. None.

And there is only one poster who derails every thread he posts in into endless Jagr vs. Crosby hyberbole fueled drivel.

 

[tom_servo]

I would like to know what Crosby's pace last season with and without Malkin in the lineup. Neal wasn't too bad either and neither was Kunitz with his 35 goals.

Sure, but I can't imagine a difference that could logically discredit Crosby's performance. All those players finished 30-40 points behind Crosby.

He wasn't saddled with Hrdina and Kip Miller, but you can't really blame a guy for being by far the best player in a pool of good players.

 

[livewell68]

And there is only one poster who derails every thread he posts in into endless Jagr vs. Crosby hyberbole fueled drivel.

I didn't start it nor am I the one that's been making the most claims. I think you who know seems to always want to make everything into a Jagr vs Crosby thread while the other poster also made the claim that a peak Malkin was better than a peak Jagr.

So then what a I supposed to do? Let that BS slip?

No, I'm going to defend my favorite player the best way I know how, by using actual stats and facts to back up my claim.

 

[Russian Factor]

Malkin is 11th all time in points per game at this moment in time. To say he isn't a generational talent is to engage in some truly insufferable contrarianism. Don't be that guy

 

[revolverjgw]

No. I don't consider anybody but the best player of a generation to be generational. The kind of player that comes along once in a generation. Howe in the O6, Orr post expansion, Jagr in the deadpuck, Crosby in the post-lockout, with the Gretzky and Lemieux period being the one deviation from the rule, two extreme outliers that co-existed. Degree of dominance doesn't factor into my definition (it's way harder than ever to stand out in today's environment anyway), you just have to be the best player.

So Malkin and Ovechkin get lumped in guys like Beliveau, Lafleur, Messier, Forsberg, etc. As good as it gets without actually being that once-in-a-generation player.

 

[livewell68]

No. I don't consider anybody but the best player of a generation to be generational. The kind of player that comes along once in a generation. Howe in the O6, Orr post expansion, Jagr in the deadpuck, Crosby in the post-lockout, with the Gretzky and Lemieux period being the one deviation from the rule, two extreme outliers that co-existed. Degree of dominance doesn't factor into my definition (it's way harder than ever to stand out in today's environment anyway), you just have to be the best player.

So Malkin and Ovechkin get lumped in guys like Beliveau, Lafleur, Messier, Forsberg, etc. As good as it gets without actually being that once-in-a-generation player.

I would argue that Beliveau and Lafleur were both generational talents.

While I also think Ovechkin is just as much generational as Crosby is.

 

[revolverjgw]

I would argue that Beliveau and Lafleur were both generational talents.

While I also think Ovechkin is just as much generational as Crosby is.

Lafleur has a good case even by my definition, because Orr got hurt and that gave Lafleur an opening to be a top guy for a very short period. But that era is still Orr's to me. It got taken away from him early but it was still his and Lafleur was keeping the seat warm for Gretzky.

Beliveau was no Howe and later on I think Hull was the top guy between Howe and Orr.

Ovechkin has been a PPG guy for the last half a decade, he lost his generational cred with me a while ago.

But deciding on what "generational" actually means is like voting for the Hart, so you're not wrong to consider them to be that. For me they don't make it.

 

[TheAngryHank]

Actually Jagr would have 129 pts.

Also let's just ignore the fact that Malkin was actually on Crosby's team.

In comparison Jagr scored 127 playing on a line with Kip Miller and Jan Hrdina. Also Selanne had Kariya. Who did Jagr have again?

Crosby beating his own teammate by 9 pts is not the same thing is as beating Selanne by 12 pts (strictly taking paces into account).

Also the scoring levels in 1998-99 overall are lower than 2011-12 or 2013-14. It just happens that those 7 players with 100 pts paces were Jagr, Selanne, Kariya, Forsberg, Sakic, Lindros (missing the 7th) who were all great players and better than Giroux and Stamkos.

Remember back in the day on the duce [espn2] Butchy used to call him " Funky Jan Hirdna" good times..

 

[livewell68]

Lafleur has a good case even by my definition, because Orr got hurt and that gave Lafleur an opening to be a top guy for a very short period. But that era is still Orr's to me. It got taken away from him early but it was still his and Lafleur was keeping the seat warm for Gretzky.

He has a 6 year peak that is matched or bettered by very few players in NHL history. Not including Hasek, I can name about 7 players who can make that claim; Gretzky, Howe, Lemieux, Orr, Hull, Esposito and Jagr. That alone makes him a generational talent and not to mention that Lafleur was the best player on the best dynasty in NHL history.

The mid to late 70's is Lafleur's era.

 

[mpp9]

Malkin won a Conn Smythe playing with Talbot and Fedotenko.

I'd say Ovy in his prime and Sid are the only other players who could do that from this generation.

 

[livewell68]

Lafleur has a good case even by my definition, because Orr got hurt and that gave Lafleur an opening to be a top guy for a very short period. But that era is still Orr's to me. It got taken away from him early but it was still his and Lafleur was keeping the seat warm for Gretzky.

Beliveau was no Howe and later on I think Hull was the top guy between Howe and Orr.

Ovechkin has been a PPG guy for the last half a decade, he lost his generational cred with me a while ago.

But deciding on what "generational" actually means is like voting for the Hart, so you're not wrong to consider them to be that. For me they don't make it.

So many posters including myself have tried to break down players based on tiers.

I think you have the Big 4 with Howe, Gretzky, Lemieux and Orr being the obvious choices and in a tier all on their own but the next tier is a list of players who are indeed generational;

Morenz, Richard, Plante, Beliveau, Harvey, Lindsay, Hull, Esposito, Lafleur, Dryden, Bossy, Bourque, Leetch, Chelios, Roy, Hasek, Jagr, Lidstrom.

The 3rd tier you've got Mikita, Shore, Sawchuk, Parent, Clarke, Park, Robinson, Dionne, Trottier, Potvin, Messier, Yzerman, Coffey, Stevens, Belfour, Fedorov, Brett Hull, Oates, Francis, Sakic, Forsberg, Selanne, MacInnis, Brodeur, Ovechkin, Malkin and Crosby fell in this tier although near the top of this tier.

I think in hindsight all 3 (Ovechkin, Malkin and Crosby) will be remembered as generational but being generational doesn't mean it's exclusive to one player per generation either.

 

[revolverjgw]

He has a 6 year peak that is matched or bettered by very few players in NHL history. Not including Hasek, I can name about 7 players who can make that claim.

Gretzky, Howe, Lemieux, Orr, Hull, Esposito and Jagr. That alone makes him a generational talent and not to mention that Lafleur was the best player on the best dynasty in NHL history.

The mid to late 70's is Lafleur's era.

He was only the best player in the league for two years, and even then only because Orr was injured. And that's compounded by that 6 year peak you speak of, it's too short for a real generational player... Crosby won the Hart/Ross 9 years ago and he's in the mix again now and probably will be next year and maybe beyond. Jagr, Howe, Gretzky, Lemieux, obviously all guys dominated for many many years too, and Orr would have. I expect my generational players to remain elite for a long term in addition to winning Harts and Rosses and whatnot. Lafleur to me is the definition of a transitional guy, and he benefited from a true generational player going down young.

 

[livewell68]

He was only the best player in the league for two years, and even then only because Orr was injured. And that's compounded by that 6 year peak you speak of, it's too short for a real generational player... Crosby won the Hart/Ross 9 years ago and he's in the mix again now and probably will be next year. Jagr, Howe, Gretzky, Lemieux, obviously all guys that dominated for years too. I expect my generational players to remain elite for a long term. Lafleur to me is the definition of a transitional guy.

How many players can claim to have a better peak than Lafleur?

3 Art Ross trophies, 3 Pearson/ Lindsay awards, 1 Conn Smythe, 2 Hart trophies, 2 more times where he was a finalist, a 4th and 5th place finish, numerous top 3 scoring finishes (he was only 5 Pts off the leader in 198-79).

Starting in 1974-75 and ending in 1979-80, Lafleur's scoring finishes are 4, 1, 1, 1, 3, 3.

6 consecutive 1st Team All-Star selections (among Right wingers only Jagr, Richard and Howe have had more All-Star selections).

You cannot overlook any of those accomplishments.

 

[livewell68]

He was only the best player in the league for two years, and even then only because Orr was injured. And that's compounded by that 6 year peak you speak of, it's too short for a real generational player... Crosby won the Hart/Ross 9 years ago and he's in the mix again now and probably will be next year and maybe beyond. Jagr, Howe, Gretzky, Lemieux, obviously all guys dominated for many many years too, and Orr would have. I expect my generational players to remain elite for a long term in addition to winning Harts and Rosses and whatnot. Lafleur to me is the definition of a transitional guy, and he benefited from a true generational player going down young.

Couldn't that be said of Jagr then too? If not for Lemieux getting injured so often, would Jagr have won as many Art Ross trophies?

Would Lidstrom have won 7 Norris trophies if not for the weaker competition on defense in the mid to late 2000's?

Or on the flip side, if Gretzky doesn't hurt his back, does Lemieux catch up to him?

Lafleur earned all of the accolades that were bestowed on him. His peak was short lived sure, but what he accomplished in that 6 year peak makes him a no brainer for being included among the generational players.

 

[Zero Requiem]

No. I don't consider anybody but the best player of a generation to be generational. The kind of player that comes along once in a generation. Howe in the O6, Orr post expansion, Jagr in the deadpuck, Crosby in the post-lockout, with the Gretzky and Lemieux period being the one deviation from the rule, two extreme outliers that co-existed. Degree of dominance doesn't factor into my definition (it's way harder than ever to stand out in today's environment anyway), you just have to be the best player.

So Malkin and Ovechkin get lumped in guys like Beliveau, Lafleur, Messier, Forsberg, etc. As good as it gets without actually being that once-in-a-generation player.

How is Crosby generational when Peak Ovechkin was clearly superior to Peak Crosby?

There are only 3 generational players in the history of hockey, Orr, Gretzky and Lemieux.

 

[livewell68]

How is Crosby generational when Peak Ovechkin was clearly superior to Peak Crosby?

There are only 3 generational players in the history of hockey, Orr, Gretzky and Lemieux.

You know, I remember there was this one tough SOB player who was in born in Saskatchewan who I could have sworn won 6 Art Ross trophies and 6 Hart trophies. You know, come to think of it, I think he was nicknamed Mr. Hockey and has the phrase "Gordie Howe Hattrick" named after him.

Those 4 players BTW are transcended players, I would call them the Immaculate 4.

Hockey has been played for far too long though to say that those 4 are the only generational players. Also for all of Orr's accomplishments, his peak is no more impressive at face value than Lafleur's was, just saying.

 

[revolverjgw]

How is Crosby generational when Peak Ovechkin was clearly superior?

Too short a peak, and if he was better, it was by a sliver, because Crosby has always been a 100+ point talent. Crosby has an immense PPG lead over 10 years and he's more complete, he's the better player. A generation is a marathon, not a sprint, and Ovechkin fell behind long ago. The miniscule lead he might have built up at one time is long gone. Generational players don't put up 65 points in a full season during their prime and they surely don't put up 5 years of of PPG play.

Couldn't that be said of Jagr then too? If not for Lemieux getting injured so often, would Jagr have won as many Art Ross trophies?

Would Lidstrom have won 7 Norris trophies if not for the weaker competition on defense in the mid to late 2000's?

Or on the flip side, if Gretzky doesn't hurt his back, does Lemieux catch up to him?

Lafleur earned all of the accolades that were bestowed on him. His peak was short lived sure, but what he accomplished in that 6 year peak makes him a no brainer for being included among the generational players.

A no-brainer if that's good enough for your definition of generational, but it's not good enough for mine. Yeah Jagr did benefit from Lemieux's injuries, but he also proved he could be a dominant player over an ENTIRE generation, including over the threshold of a new era. I've always considered Jagr well above Lafleur for this reason when discussing top RWs despite Lafleur having a better run of hardware for a few years.

And before anybody goes there, yeah I know Orr didn't exactly prove he could dominate over the long term, which seems to contradict my emphasis on longevity, but I think we all know what he would have been capable of and he had nothing to prove there. I'm not worried about his lack of longevity.

 

[Voight]

A no-brainer if that's good enough for your definition of generational, but it's not good enough for mine. Yeah Jagr did benefit from Lemieux's injuries, but he also proved he could be a dominant player over an ENTIRE generation, including over the threshold of a new era. I've always considered Jagr well above Lafleur for this reason when discussing top RWs despite Lafleur having a better run of hardware for a few years.

And before anybody goes there, yeah I know Orr didn't exactly prove he could dominate over the long term, which seems to contradict my emphasis on longevity, but I think we all know what he would have been capable of and he had nothing to prove there. I'm not worried about his lack of longevity.

I couldnt agree more.