Humm??
Well then, Sid neither as Geno's best seasons (2008-2009 and 2011-2012) are at least equal (or around so) to Sid's best seasons in term of dominance.
Is Evgeny Malkin a generational talent?
- Thread starter ViD
- Start date
Humm??
Well then, Sid neither as Geno's best seasons (2008-2009 and 2011-2012) are at least equal (or around so) to Sid's best seasons in term of dominance.
livewell68
Registered User
- Jul 20, 2007
- 8,680
- 52
Always have the answers I see.
Crosby has not been the most consistent elite scorer, not even close.
I would start with the players that have actually won more than 2 Art Ross trophies.
BTW how about actually producing points in more than just 60% of your games first in a season before being considered consistent.
About that extra minute BS, nice way of spinning the stats to try and push your agenda. If you actually watched hockey in the 90's, you would know that no matter how many minutes they played, they were tough minutes. That is why only usually the elite players played those extra minutes. Crosby has shown that he's more efficient in shorter bursts and hence why he doesn't play more minutes. Last season he played 22 minutes a game and had no gas left come playoff time.
livewell68
Registered User
- Jul 20, 2007
- 8,680
- 52
This makes no sense. Considering that Malkin won 2 Art Ross trophies and has a Hart says he's been on for full seasons.
BTW, Crosby has never been consistent in the same even when "he was on" as you put it.
In 2010-11, he started the season with 16 Pts in his first 15 games before he had the scoring streak. Last season he was outscored by Giroux in the second half of the season, he just has Giroux' wrist surgery and horrible start to # 28 to thank for being able to build that huge early season lead.
Crosby had to score 15 Pts in his last 5 games of the 2009-10 season to win the Rocket and finish second in scoring. That means that in his first 76 games of that season he had just 94 Pts (it would have been his worst PPG finish in a season).
Remove his 41, 22 and 36 game stretches, his consistency and PPG finishes are no better than Malkin's. By those standards, Crosby has never been on for full seasons either.
Always have the answers I see.
Crosby has not been the most consistent elite scorer, not even close.
Always with the agenda.
Crosby's consistency is a combination of PPG and placement in scoring. He's never been below a 100 point pace.
So how do either of you explain the clear difference in career PPG? It's about 15 points per season.
There has to be some point where Malkin isn't up to Crosby's level.
livewell68
Registered User
- Jul 20, 2007
- 8,680
- 52
Crosby played in 2005-06 (higher scoring season in your own words) while Malkin didn't.
Crosby had his best season in 2006-07 (higher scoring season in your own words) while Malkin was a rookie.
Malkin also played a few seasons where he was bothered by injuries all year long, 2009-10, 2012-13 and 2013-14 just to name a few. However it's only Crosby that plays hurt right?
I mean isn't that the reason or excuse fans are using to defend Crosby's below 100 Pts pace this season?
bleedblue1223
Registered User
- Jan 21, 2011
- 51,855
- 14,803
He's not generational, just how Sakic and Forsberg and others weren't generational. There are always players of those caliber in the league, they are still special and great, but they aren't generational.
If we had this conversation about Thornton, people would laugh.
If we had this conversation about Thornton, people would laugh.
I dont know, what generational talent means. I sort players into tiers.
For me, tier 1 contains only those 4 players: Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr, Howe.
Tier 2: Bobby Hull, Beliveau, Jagr, Roy, Hasek, Lidstrom, Messier etc.
Tier 3: Forsberg, Sakic, Ovechkin, Crosby, Malkin etc., where Ovechkin and Croby might in the future advance to tier 2, if their careers continue similarly for a few more years. Will Malkin be there with them? He would have to do more than he has shown so far.
For me, tier 1 contains only those 4 players: Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr, Howe.
Tier 2: Bobby Hull, Beliveau, Jagr, Roy, Hasek, Lidstrom, Messier etc.
Tier 3: Forsberg, Sakic, Ovechkin, Crosby, Malkin etc., where Ovechkin and Croby might in the future advance to tier 2, if their careers continue similarly for a few more years. Will Malkin be there with them? He would have to do more than he has shown so far.
What's the subject? Peak play?
One player's peak is another's player's prime. That's the difference.
Malkin's had one season, where all things considered, he outplayed Crosby - 2009.
Crosby's had four seasons, where all things considered, he outplayed Malkin - 2007, 2010, 2013, 2014.
Nathaniel Skywalker
Registered User
- Oct 18, 2013
- 13,824
- 5,392
2011 as well. And even 2009 which was deemed an off year for crosbys standards....
Crosby 103 points in 77 1.34 ppg
Malkin 113 points in 82 1.38 ppg
.04 difference....
Only playing 22 games is "all things considered" and 2009 has to go to Malkin when playoffs are factored in but certainly is not as definitive as Crosby's better seasons are.
Nathaniel Skywalker
Registered User
- Oct 18, 2013
- 13,824
- 5,392
Pretty much this.
People who point to Crosby's PPG, really need to understand how little it actually means. Mario Lemieux's astounding PPG punctuates his Art Ross Trophies. But he still won the trophies.
Zigmund Palffy put up great PPG numbers. He was well over a PPG for his entire career. Nobody cares, because the actual results matter more than speculative results.
So yes, Crosby might have the best PPG for this era, but he's way too injured. History rarely cares about how injured a player is, and how good they might have been.
It's not unreasonable to think he would have the clear advantage in trophies if not for some bad luck with injuries. C'mon, a puck to the face cost him two.
Did Palffy have a career PPG advantage over his peers at any point similar to Jagr's, Esposito, Hull and Howe?
StoneHands
Registered User
- Feb 26, 2013
- 6,608
- 3,674
You're right, if Gretzky would have shown a little more consistency, maybe he would have won 11 straight Art Ross Trophies instead of 9 in 11 years. I mean seriously, how can you slack off for and entire 2 seasons when you only won 7 Art Ross's in a row? Imagine Wayne Gretzky if he had been more consistent, he could have been on Crosby's level!
WTF? Can you please show me where I equate Crosby's consistency with Wayne's accomplishments.
Chileiceman
Registered User
A generational talent means it has to be contextualized within the generation. I believe that in this generation there are three players, Crosby, Ovechkin and Malkin who are far and away the best.
Now, are those three players better than Yzerman and Sakic? Maybe yes, maybe no. But Yzerman and Sakic played in the same generation as Lemiuex and Gretzky (and even Jagr), who were undoubtedly better than them. Therefore, even if Yzerman and Sakic are better than OV, Geno and Sid, they aren't generational talents, while the those three are.
Now, are those three players better than Yzerman and Sakic? Maybe yes, maybe no. But Yzerman and Sakic played in the same generation as Lemiuex and Gretzky (and even Jagr), who were undoubtedly better than them. Therefore, even if Yzerman and Sakic are better than OV, Geno and Sid, they aren't generational talents, while the those three are.
Well put. If people want to say Crosby is the only generational talent, then so be it, but if they say Ovi is then Geno has to be too.
"Sid who has somehow that amazing ability to rack up points even when you hardly notice him on the ice."
To me this is the antithesis of someone being a generational talent. I would expect a generational talent to have a pretty consistent WOW factor. It's the difference between a Gretzky and a Ron Francis.
Howe had the legendary longevity and a unique blend of skill and toughness. His case is probably the weakest, but then again he has a special stat named after him despite having performed the feat maybe 3 times in his career. He is bigger than life at this point, so he qualifies.
Orr was a revolutionary on the blueline. Nuff said.
Gretzky was a wizard at setting up plays and creating his own space to score at a clip that went from beyond prolific to unfathomable.
Lemieux was simply the most physically gifted player in history.
I would consider other players like Paul Coffey (there has been no better skater ever), the father and son Hulls (for their shooting ability), Ken Dryden (technically superb), Hasek (probably the most imaginative goalie ever) and Roy (also technically superb, using a different style) as special (generational?) talents in specific areas.
Among today's players, none really fit the mold of an overall generational talent. Ovechkin and his blend of a booming shot and wild force of nature style of play probably comes the closest. He certainly fits in comfortably as a specific-skill generational talent. I can see cases being made for Malkin (puck possession) and Crosby (backhand shot), although not as clear as #8.
To me this is the antithesis of someone being a generational talent. I would expect a generational talent to have a pretty consistent WOW factor. It's the difference between a Gretzky and a Ron Francis.
Howe had the legendary longevity and a unique blend of skill and toughness. His case is probably the weakest, but then again he has a special stat named after him despite having performed the feat maybe 3 times in his career. He is bigger than life at this point, so he qualifies.
Orr was a revolutionary on the blueline. Nuff said.
Gretzky was a wizard at setting up plays and creating his own space to score at a clip that went from beyond prolific to unfathomable.
Lemieux was simply the most physically gifted player in history.
I would consider other players like Paul Coffey (there has been no better skater ever), the father and son Hulls (for their shooting ability), Ken Dryden (technically superb), Hasek (probably the most imaginative goalie ever) and Roy (also technically superb, using a different style) as special (generational?) talents in specific areas.
Among today's players, none really fit the mold of an overall generational talent. Ovechkin and his blend of a booming shot and wild force of nature style of play probably comes the closest. He certainly fits in comfortably as a specific-skill generational talent. I can see cases being made for Malkin (puck possession) and Crosby (backhand shot), although not as clear as #8.
- Jan 22, 2007
- 14,416
- 7,129
I agree with this completely. The term "generational talent" gets tossed around like candy these days. The only player I would even consider a "generational talent" right now is Crosby, and it has more to do with his impact from a marketing and perception standpoint, to be completely honest.
In order to be considered a "generational talent," you need to be a player who "comes along only once in a generation... with no equals." I think Crosby, Ovechkin and Malkin can all make a case of "being the best player of their generation" (and Toews/Doughty may also toss their hat in the ring, when it's all said and done).
Right now, the top talent reminds of the Yzerman/Sakic/Hull/Forsberg/Lidstrom era - some elite-level, superstar players who will end up in the HHOF. But I wouldn't consider any of them (other than maybe Crosby) a "generational talent." Such a term should be reserved for the Demigods like Howe, Orr, Gretzky and Lemieux.
