Is Evgeny Malkin a generational talent?

[DFC]

Did you just mention Crosby in the same breath as Lemieux, Gretzky and Orr

while dismissing Sakic and Messier as nothing special?

Crosby is at the level of Sakic and Yzerman.

I didn't dismiss them as nothing special. I agree that Crosby's at a level with Sakic and Yzerman, actually. But he's also clearly the best player of his generation while neither of those two were. Crosby's sort of a generational player by default. He's the most dominant player we have.

But in the 80 and even the 90s, there was really no argument as to who was dominating (and not in a "loose" use of the term "dominating"). It was Gretzky, then it was Gretzky and Lemieux, and then it was Lemieux. I think there's an argument to be made for Jagr too.

My issue is only with how the term itself is used. When people say Franchise player, they tend to mean the best of a franchise. Generational player should be the best of a generation, IMO.

 

[mikethelegacy]

Did you just mention Crosby in the same breath as Lemieux, Gretzky and Orr

while dismissing Sakic and Messier as nothing special?

Crosby is at the level of Sakic and Yzerman.

Jesus that's comical. Different game completely. Defense and net minding is ten times what it used to be. Not to mention the salary cap has nearly leveled the playing field, so stat padding against crappy teams isn't possible anymore.

No doubt Yzerman and Sakic were great, but come on dude, Crosby is better by far.Your opinion is that the above named players' game would translate to today, when every single athlete is stronger, faster, more conditoned and a lot closer in skill level to their peers. I have the opposite opinion. I think players have never been better than they are now and I truly believe that the only players game who may translate to today's game is Lemiuex. You can dance around in this league anymore untouched. You don't get wide open passing lanes to get 8 assists in a game anymore. The game today is almost unbearable to watch because it's so damn robotic and defense is so good and scoring is so low.

 

[Birko19]

If you consider guys like Yzerman or Sakic generational players then so are Malkin, Crosby, and Ovechkin, if not then no.

Imo the only sure fits for such term are Gretzky, Orr, Lemieux, and Howe, all the others are debatable.

 

[Acallabeth]

If we consider Crosby and Ovechkin "gt"s, he definitely is as he's as good.

 

[DFC]

Jesus that's comical. Different game completely. Defense and net minding is ten times what it used to be. Not to mention the salary cap has nearly leveled the playing field, so stat padding against crappy teams isn't possible anymore.

No doubt Yzerman and Sakic were great, but come on dude, Crosby is better by far.Your opinion is that the above named players' game would translate to today, when every single athlete is stronger, faster, more conditoned and a lot closer in skill level to their peers. I have the opposite opinion. I think players have never been better than they are now and I truly believe that the only players game who may translate to today's game is Lemiuex. You can dance around in this league anymore untouched. You don't get wide open passing lanes to get 8 assists in a game anymore. The game today is almost unbearable to watch because it's so damn robotic and defense is so good and scoring is so low.

That's all a given. But you can't judge different players of different eras against each other, you can only judge them by what they did against their peers. The players of yesteryear didn't have the benefits that today's players enjoy (training, equipment, etc), but if Mark Messier with his exact genetics was born in 1988, he'd probably be an incredible hockey player right now, given that he would very likely train the same as all of our elite athletes today. Sidney Crosby, in 1988, would be about as well trained as your best athletes were in 1988. He'd be among the best players of that era, but even with all the players who were scoring a lot in that era, there were 1 or 2 (Yzerman in particular, Messier, later Jagr) who were regularly scoring well above their peers while not scoring as much as Gretzky and Lemieux. That's probably where Crosby would sit too.

 

[The Thin White Duke]

Jesus that's comical. Different game completely. Defense and net minding is ten times what it used to be. Not to mention the salary cap has nearly leveled the playing field, so stat padding against crappy teams isn't possible anymore.

No doubt Yzerman and Sakic were great, but come on dude, Crosby is better by far.Your opinion is that the above named players' game would translate to today, when every single athlete is stronger, faster, more conditoned and a lot closer in skill level to their peers. I have the opposite opinion. I think players have never been better than they are now and I truly believe that the only players game who may translate to today's game is Lemiuex. You can dance around in this league anymore untouched. You don't get wide open passing lanes to get 8 assists in a game anymore. The game today is almost unbearable to watch because it's so damn robotic and defense is so good and scoring is so low.

Yeah, only the REAL generational players like Sam Ganger can pull something like that off.

 

[FlaPantherSwe*]

No Sid and Ovi are the born in 80's generation players cant hand it out like candy on halloween. Elite player and future hof hell yes but lets keep the title rare as it should be.

 

[DFC]

If you consider guys like Yzerman or Sakic generational players then so are Malkin, Crosby, and Ovechkin, if not then no.

Imo the only sure fits for such term are Gretzky, Orr, Lemieux, and Howe, all the others are debatable.

Yeah, this is where I fall in too. It's not that I don't think Malkin is great, or that Sakic was great, etc. It's the term "generational," to me, should mean best of the best.

I think a better subject than Malkin, by that standard, is Lidstrom. Because, with him, I'm really not sure. I don't know if he was ever the best player in the league, but he was the league's best defenseman for a very, very long time. I'd definitely call him a generational defenseman.

 

[Sprague Cleghorn]

Jesus that's comical. Different game completely. Defense and net minding is ten times what it used to be. Not to mention the salary cap has nearly leveled the playing field, so stat padding against crappy teams isn't possible anymore.

No doubt Yzerman and Sakic were great, but come on dude, Crosby is better by far.Your opinion is that the above named players' game would translate to today, when every single athlete is stronger, faster, more conditoned and a lot closer in skill level to their peers. I have the opposite opinion. I think players have never been better than they are now and I truly believe that the only players game who may translate to today's game is Lemiuex. You can dance around in this league anymore untouched. You don't get wide open passing lanes to get 8 assists in a game anymore. The game today is almost unbearable to watch because it's so damn robotic and defense is so good and scoring is so low.

Do you know that Sakic only retired 5 years ago?

 

[Wrath]

Define generational talent. This is what these arguments (is ____ elite/generational/superstar etc.) always boil down to.

Some people say generational = only big 4 (Gretzky, Orr, Howe, Lemieux) level. By this definition, definitely not.

Others say generational = best in generation (and generation is usually defined in these hockey discussions as 10 year period, some people say 20 year period). Well, Ovechkin and Crosby sort of have a stranglehold on that claim. Unless Malkin has another two hart seasons or something I don't think he can wrestle that title from them. Malkin loses best in position for generation to Crosby too.

Others say generational = been best player in the league at some point in time. Malkin won the Hart in 2012, and the Smythe in 2009, so I'd say by this definition he would be considered generational.

Others say generational = noticeably better than the just "elite" hockey players like Giroux, Getzlaf, Toews, etc. Well, I'd argue that he's definitely considered generational by this definition. He is (was?) solidly above any player drafted since 2004 besides Crosby and Ovechkin.

 

[Rangerfan4life90]

I don't see how he isn't a generational player.

 

[DFC]

Do you know that Sakic only retired 5 years ago?

Yeah, people often forget there are players who played well in both eras. Jagr is the best example. Still somehow manages to score in today's game, in his 40s, despite the game having advanced so far that no one from years past would possibly be able to adapt to today's game.

 

[Plub]

Yes. Wasn't this established quite a few years ago?

The term is getting watered down. Franchise player, IMO, is a guy who's going to be the best on your franchise. Generational talent means a guy who's the best in the NHL. Not just "one of the best." It's a term we can use to separate the Gretzkies, Lemieuxs, Orrs, Howes, and even Crosbies from the rest.

Once in a generation.

How does Crosby fit the others? If Crosby is a generational talent, so are Ovi and Malkin. Crosby hasn't separated himself from the other two in the way the other guys you mentioned did in their time. So its all three or none.

Gonna need a heck of a lot more than that to even be mentioned in the same sentence as Gretzky Howe Orr and Lemieux

Yet Crosby routinely is. Double standard, no?

I'm not trying to take away from Crosby. I'm trying to show how silly some people sound when saying he is a generational talent, but Geno is not.

 

[gamer1035]

If a hockey career is 10 years, then 1 generational talent per decade.

So in 100 years, 10 generational talents.

Is Malkin a top 10 player of all time? Under the original definition, is he the best player this generation (or the last 10 years)?

 

[The Thin White Duke]

Do you know that Sakic only retired 5 years ago?

It's pretty clear players from last generation could still score goals in today's NHL, New Jersey has 115.

 

[Wrath]

Do you know that Sakic only retired 5 years ago?

And like, 3 years before he retired he scored 100 points.

******* snowblowers

 

[AstroDan]

Yeah, people often forget there are players who played well in both eras. Jagr is the best example. Still somehow manages to score in today's game, in his 40s, despite the game having advanced so far that no one from years past would possibly be able to adapt to today's game.

Bold statement. How do you arrive at that conclusion?
Something in the water today, maybe? Evolution?

 

[x Tame Impala]

Thread about semantics IMHO

 

[Unpredictable1]

I didn't dismiss them as nothing special. I agree that Crosby's at a level with Sakic and Yzerman, actually. But he's also clearly the best player of his generation while neither of those two were. Crosby's sort of a generational player by default. He's the most dominant player we have.

But in the 80 and even the 90s, there was really no argument as to who was dominating (and not in a "loose" use of the term "dominating"). It was Gretzky, then it was Gretzky and Lemieux, and then it was Lemieux. I think there's an argument to be made for Jagr too.

My issue is only with how the term itself is used. When people say Franchise player, they tend to mean the best of a franchise. Generational player should be the best of a generation, IMO.

I'm so with you I just ordered you a pint at the bar. Grab a chair.

 

[vanarchy]

Amazing talent. Yes, absolutely.

 

[bluefan]

Yes. One of the few players who can be a one man show.

 

[DFC]

Bold statement. How do you arrive at that conclusion?
Something in the water today, maybe? Evolution?

Through sarcasm, my good sir.

 

[illpucks]

Jesus that's comical. Different game completely. Defense and net minding is ten times what it used to be. Not to mention the salary cap has nearly leveled the playing field, so stat padding against crappy teams isn't possible anymore.

No doubt Yzerman and Sakic were great, but come on dude, Crosby is better by far.Your opinion is that the above named players' game would translate to today, when every single athlete is stronger, faster, more conditoned and a lot closer in skill level to their peers. I have the opposite opinion. I think players have never been better than they are now and I truly believe that the only players game who may translate to today's game is Lemiuex. You can dance around in this league anymore untouched. You don't get wide open passing lanes to get 8 assists in a game anymore. The game today is almost unbearable to watch because it's so damn robotic and defense is so good and scoring is so low.

So Crosby doesn't stat pad against terrible teams? 8 points in 2 games vs the Sabres...Please try to see past your bias.

You are talking like 5000 years of human evolution has passed in 20 years of ice hockey. Laughable.

Everyone is faster? No

2012 Carl Hagelin 13.218 seconds
2011 Michael Grabner 14.238 seconds
2009 Andrew Cogliano 14.31 seconds
2008 Shawn Horcoff 14.395 seconds*
2007 Andy McDonald 14.030 seconds
2004 Scott Niedermayer 13.783 seconds
2003 Marian Gaborik 13.713 seconds
2002 Sami Kapanen 14.039 seconds
2001 Bill Guerin 13.690 seconds
2000 Sami Kapanen 13.649 seconds
1999 Peter Bondra 14.640 seconds
1998 Scott Niedermayer 13.560 seconds
1997 Peter Bondra 13.610 seconds
1996 Mike Gartner 13.386 seconds
1994 Sergei Fedorov 13.525 seconds
1993 Mike Gartner 13.510 seconds
1992 Sergei Fedorov 14.363 seconds

You are talking like the difference would be 23 seconds to 9 seconds. The older fastest players had bulkier skates and still were as fast as the fastest today.

The same goes for every other category you mentioned.

You look at the past like it was easy and worthless. It's a shame because in 20 years someone with that mindframe and look back on today's game and say the exact same thing.

Crosby being mentioned in the same breath as Yzerman and Sakic is a complement. He is not better than them. He is at the same level.

 

[Gurglesons]

If Bylsma would've played Malkin (or Crosby for that matter) extensively on the PK, he would be view in the same light as Federov defensively with the offensive statistic to back it up. I would argue Malkin could quite possibly be viewed as the best Russian forward in history.

 

[Unpredictable1]

If Bylsma would've played Malkin (or Crosby for that matter) extensively on the PK, he would be view in the same light as Federov defensively with the offensive statistic to back it up. I would argue Malkin could quite possibly be viewed as the best Russian forward in history.

I want Malkin yesteryear on the Rangers.

But the bolded, not sure if serious or on this planet.