Malkin vs Kane

[Sidney the Kidney]

There really was no reason for it. I didn't check it before hand or anything, I just thought that 5 years would be a good time-frame to look at. When I started looking at it I saw that it cut off Malkin's best year. To be fair, 6 years is kind of a long time and I think the past 3 years are the most important here. If someone want's to add Malkin's amazing Ross year that's fine too.

But you're right in the sense that Kane's great Hart/Ross season does skew the averages a tad but it's very recent. I think it's more accurate to include it and just remember to put context on it than it is to remove it.

My point was that their offensive productions have been surprisingly close in the past 5 years and Kane actually has a small edge in regular season production in that time-frame. Both per game and raw totals. I'd wager most people would have not guessed it so I thought it was interesting to put it out there.

Their offensive production has been surprisingly close because of that one career year, though. Especially when the comparison begins immediately after Malkin's big season in 2012.

Taking out Malkin's big year, you have:
33 in 31
72 in 60
70 in 69
58 in 57
72 in 62
----------
305 points in 279 games or 89.6 points per 82 games

Taking out Kane's big year, you have:
66 in 82
55 in 47
69 in 69
64 in 61
89 in 82
----------
343 points in 341 games or 82.5 points per 82 games

Kane's one big season essentially is the only reason the production is close.

 

[Regal]

Their offensive production has been surprisingly close because of that one career year, though. Especially when the comparison begins immediately after Malkin's big season in 2012.

Taking out Malkin's big year, you have:
33 in 31
72 in 60
70 in 69
58 in 57
72 in 62
----------
305 points in 279 games or 89.6 points per 82 games

Taking out Kane's big year, you have:
66 in 82
55 in 47
69 in 69
64 in 61
89 in 82
----------
343 points in 341 games or 82.5 points per 82 games

Kane's one big season essentially is the only reason the production is close.

Using Kane's '12 season skews it just as much. If we're taking out outliers there's no reason to use it. Take it out and Kane's at 87.7. Considering Kane actually did have that big year and it was only 2 years ago and not 6 it's also much more relevant and even if we don't want to use it in the sample, can at least make up the 2 point difference

 

[Plural]

Their offensive production has been surprisingly close because of that one career year, though. Especially when the comparison begins immediately after Malkin's big season in 2012.

Taking out Malkin's big year, you have:
33 in 31
72 in 60
70 in 69
58 in 57
72 in 62
----------
305 points in 279 games or 89.6 points per 82 games

Taking out Kane's big year, you have:
66 in 82
55 in 47
69 in 69
64 in 61
89 in 82
----------
343 points in 341 games or 82.5 points per 82 games

Kane's one big season essentially is the only reason the production is close.

Yeah, but I don't think it's fair to take that season out. It needs to be noted that it's by and far his best season and likely an outlier but if we completely disregard it we're handicapping Kane more than is fair, IMO. You're also including a season for him 6 years a go in place of his peak season that happened two seasons back. Doesn't strike to me as honest comparison.

If you're adamant in taking out his peak season all together (which I don't agree with) then you probably should look his past 4/5 which gives Kane 277 points in 259 games for 87.7 points per season. Which in turn puts them again really close to each other. And if we're being more fair, removing Kane's best per game season should also have us removing Malkin's best per game season in the past 5 years. Which would put his totals to: 233 points in 219 games for 87.2 points per season. Again, giving Kane small, practically negligible edge.

My point being, anyway you slice it Kane has the edge in numbers for the past seasons. Even if we exclude their best seasons in the past 5 years. I still think Malkin is the right pick here, but considering his injury history it's not laughable to suggest that Kane has been better in the recent history.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

Using Kane's '12 season skews it just as much. If we're taking out outliers there's no reason to use it. Take it out and Kane's at 87.7. Considering Kane actually did have that big year and it was only 2 years ago and not 6 it's also much more relevant and even if we don't want to use it in the sample, can at least make up the 2 point difference

But that's just twisting things even more in Kane's favor. Malkin not only loses out on his best season in the past six years (2012), but his totals also include his worst (the lockout year). Meanwhile, we're either including Kane's best (2016) or excluding his worst (2012) from his totals.

The overall point is that if you took out the one outlier season for Kane (2016), his numbers aren't as good as Malkin's. And I think the numbers show that.

 

[Plural]

But that's just twisting things even more in Kane's favor. Malkin not only loses out on his best season in the past six years (2012), but his totals also include his worst (the lockout year). Meanwhile, we're either including Kane's best (2016) or excluding his worst (2012) from his totals.

The overall point is that if you took out the one outlier season for Kane (2016), his numbers aren't as good as Malkin's. And I think the numbers show that.

Absolutely is not twisting it more in his favor. You're just being dishonest now. If you wish to make the comparison from the past 6 years while excluding both guys best season then that's fine. But don't pretend that it's more accurate representation of today than looking at past 5 or 3 seasons. Anyway you slice it (if you're not being biased) the past 5 season puts them really close to each other. That is after taking away Kane's best season.

The numbers in the past 5 years show that Kane is as good per game AND more durable if we exclude his peak season. If we include his peak season he's better.

I honestly think my interpretation of the stats was much more accurate than yours and I'd wager vast majority would agree. And I don't mean Kane is necessarily better than Malkin.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

Yeah, but I don't think it's fair to take that season out. It needs to be noted that it's by and far his best season and likely an outlier but if we completely disregard it we're handicapping Kane more than is fair, IMO. You're also including a season for him 6 years a go in place of his peak season that happened two seasons back. Doesn't strike to me as honest comparison.

If you're adamant in taking out his peak season all together (which I don't agree with) then you probably should look his past 4/5 which gives Kane 277 points in 259 games for 87.7 points per season. Which in turn puts them again really close to each other. And if we're being more fair, removing Kane's best per game season should also have us removing Malkin's best per game season in the past 5 years. Which would put his totals to: 233 points in 219 games for 87.2 points per season. Again, giving Kane small, practically negligible edge.

My point being, anyway you slice it Kane has the edge in numbers for the past seasons. Even if we exclude their best seasons in the past 5 years. I still think Malkin is the right pick here, but considering his injury history it's not laughable to suggest that Kane has been better in the recent history.

My issue with the bolded is that not only are you removing Malkin's 2012 season, but also removing Malkin's second best season during these past few seasons as well.

The problem with this comparison, and my issue all along, is that Kane's one outlier skews results more than any one individual season of Malkin's does. If the exercise requires you to take more than one season out for Malkin to prove a point, it's not a strong argument. I'm taking one season out of Kane's career. One. If Kane's production was on par with Malkin's then he shouldn't be impacted by taking one (outlier) season out and leaving the rest in.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

Absolutely is not twisting it more in his favor. You're just being dishonest now. If you wish to make the comparison from the past 6 years while excluding both guys best season then that's fine. But don't pretend that it's more accurate representation of today than looking at past 5 or 3 seasons. Anyway you slice it (if you're not being biased) the past 5 season puts them really close to each other. That is after taking away Kane's best season.

The numbers in the past 5 years show that Kane is as good per game AND more durable if we exclude his peak season. If we include his peak season he's better.

I honestly think my interpretation of the stats was much more accurate than yours and I'd wager vast majority would agree. And I don't mean Kane is necessarily better than Malkin.

So if everyone would agree with your interpretation, and everyone agrees Kane is just as, if not more, productive than Malkin, then what makes Malkin the overwhelming favorite in this poll? Why are people voting for Malkin, including yourself, if Kane is more productive?

 

[Plural]

My issue with the bolded is that not only are you removing Malkin's 2012 season, but also removing Malkin's second best season during these past few seasons as well.

The problem with this comparison, and my issue all along, is that Kane's one outlier skews results more than any one individual season of Malkin's does. If the exercise requires you to take more than one season out for Malkin to prove a point, it's not a strong argument. I'm taking one season out of Kane's career. One. If Kane's production was on par with Malkin's then he shouldn't be impacted by taking one (outlier) season out and leaving the rest in.

But I'm not removing his 2012 season because it's his best season. I had my cutoff for the comparison as 5 years for both. You're free to include 6 years if you think it's more accurate representation of their current form but I doubt many would agree.

Personally, I don't like your comparison as much since it expands the timeframe so far away. It's a matter of preference but I believe we all agree that the closer we get today, the more accurate picture we get. If you take the past 6 seasons (and exclude their best seasons) Malkin comes out on top. If you take the past 5 seasons (and exclude Kane's best season as an outlier) Kane comes out on top (by the virtue of being more durable) if you take the past 3 seasons Kane comes out on top and if you take the past 2 seasons Kane comes out on top. Point being, the closer we get today the more it seems like Kane is matching Malkin in per game numbers (even if we remove his best season all together which I still find bit dubious) while being more durable.

 

[Plural]

So if everyone would agree with your interpretation, and everyone agrees Kane is just as, if not more, productive than Malkin, then what makes Malkin the overwhelming favorite in this poll? Why are people voting for Malkin, including yourself, if Kane is more productive?

Malkin is the better player, just like I already said. I'm just talking about the numbers and non-biased way of looking at them. I think everyone and their mother would agree that Malkin at his best is better and is more likely to challenge for the Art Ross trophy. Makes sense to pick him. But the way you presented the stats is not formulated honest way.

I'm not challenging you in the idea that Malkin is better player. But that in the past 5 seasons (even if we exclude Kane best season) Kane has matched Malkin's offensive output very close. One could easily argue that he has even surpassed it due to his closer Art season and being more durable. The way you presented the stats made it seem like Malkin has routinely outpaced Kane by 5 points per season in the recent past, when that's not the case. In the past 5 seasons Kane has actually had higher per game pace than Malkin has 3 times. So in the past 5 seasons, Kane has been more durable AND he has scored points on higher pace than Malkin 3 times out of 5.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

Malkin is the better player, just like I already said. I'm just talking about the numbers and non-biased way of looking at them. I think everyone and their mother would agree that Malkin at his best is better and is more likely to challenge for the Art Ross trophy. Makes sense to pick him. But the way you presented the stats is not formulated honest way.

You keep saying this, yet the only thing I've attempted to do is prove that ONE OUTLIER has a bigger effect on Kane's totals, and thus skews the results, more than removing any one of Malkin's years in his career does.

The overall point being, Kane's never proven to ever approach that "outlier" year, and thus including it probably doesn't paint the best picture of what we can expect from him going forward. And that's the reason I keep removing it, because I think Kane minus that outlier is a more accurate picture of what we can expect.

I'm not challenging you in the idea that Malkin is better player. But that in the past 5 seasons (even if we exclude Kane best season) Kane has matched Malkin's offensive output very close. One could easily argue that he has even surpassed it due to his closer Art season and being more durable.

So then I'm asking you, if you believe the stats suggest Kane is more productive AND more durable, why vote for Malkin? If you believe your stats are more "telling", then shouldn't you (and the majority of people) be voting for the guy who the stats suggest will be more productive going forward?

It seems a bit like you're hedging your bets. "Kane's been just as productive, if not more so than Malkin .... but I think Malkin's the better player!". At the end of the 2017-18 season, you've put yourself in a position where you're right either way. Kane finishes with more points? You were right. Malkin wins the Art Ross? You were right.

 

[I am not exposed]

Evgeni Malkin.

Utter joke that Kane was in the top 100 players of all time, but Malkin wasn't.

 

[KoozNetsOff 92]

You keep saying this, yet the only thing I've attempted to do is prove that ONE OUTLIER has a bigger effect on Kane's totals, and thus skews the results, more than removing any one of Malkin's years in his career does.

The overall point being, Kane's never proven to ever approach that "outlier" year, and thus including it probably doesn't paint the best picture of what we can expect from him going forward. And that's the reason I keep removing it, because I think Kane minus that outlier is a more accurate picture of what we can expect.



So then I'm asking you, if you believe the stats suggest Kane is more productive AND more durable, why vote for Malkin? If you believe your stats are more "telling", then shouldn't you (and the majority of people) be voting for the guy who the stats suggest will be more productive going forward?

It seems a bit like you're hedging your bets. "Kane's been just as productive, if not more so than Malkin .... but I think Malkin's the better player!". At the end of the 2017-18 season, you've put yourself in a position where you're right either way. Kane finishes with more points? You were right. Malkin wins the Art Ross? You were right.

There's a difference between saying someone is better and someone is/will be more productive.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

There's a difference between saying someone is better and someone is/will be more productive.

What makes Malkin better if one believes he won't be more productive? We're not talking about Patrice Bergeron, here, where elite defense can offset a lack of points. We're comparing two guys who are primarily known for their offensive production. So if one (Kane) is expected to produce more than the other (Malkin) based on these stats over the past handful of seasons, what makes the latter better?

 

[Plural]

You keep saying this, yet the only thing I've attempted to do is prove that ONE OUTLIER has a bigger effect on Kane's totals, and thus skews the results, more than removing any one of Malkin's years in his career does.

The overall point being, Kane's never proven to ever approach that "outlier" year, and thus including it probably doesn't paint the best picture of what we can expect from him going forward. And that's the reason I keep removing it, because I think Kane minus that outlier is a more accurate picture of what we can expect.

Oh I think you're right in that Kanes best season is more likely a once in a career event and Malkin has much stronger track record. So it makes sense to give some context on his season. I just don't think 6 seasons is more accurate representation of these players than 5 or 3. When I listed the stats I wasn't trying to prove Kane is better pick in this poll, I just wanted to show that in the past 5 seasons Kane has actually either matched or surpassed Malkin's per game numbers quite often.

If we remove his outlier season and still look at the past 5 years, their per game numbers are still essentially tied. We have to go further back, to 6 season to get clear separation between them. I think this shows us that in the recent, Kane has been able to keep up with Malkin in offensive production.

So then I'm asking you, if you believe the stats suggest Kane is more productive AND more durable, why vote for Malkin? If you believe your stats are more "telling", then shouldn't you (and the majority of people) be voting for the guy who the stats suggest will be more productive going forward?

It seems a bit like you're hedging your bets. "Kane's been just as productive, if not more so than Malkin .... but I think Malkin's the better player!". At the end of the 2017-18 season, you've put yourself in a position where you're right either way. Kane finishes with more points? You were right. Malkin wins the Art Ross? You were right.

I think this discussion is more about we talking about different things and that's why we can't find common ground. I'll try to make myself bit more clear. By listing the stats I wasn't making a bulletproof case for Kane. I was just simply listing their respective per game and gross statistics. Those stats in the past 5 season show us that Kane has been somewhat equal to Malkin in production. This of course is not infallible proof of Kane being as good of a player. It's just a combination of their offensive stats from the past 5 and 3 years. Malkin still remains as the better player and even if it could be perceived a tiny gamble (because of Malkin's gruesome injury history) to pick Malkin over Kane it still makes sense because Malkin has proved to be better player than Kane in history. I'm not trying to create a situation where I can eat my cake and have it too, although I can understand why it could seem that way to you.

The only point I had when listing those stats was to show how close these two have been in recent when it comes to offensive production. I'd wager most people didn't know that, since Malkin is so widely regarded as the best offensive player after McDavid and Sid. But the per season and per game statistics from the past 5 season actually point out that Kane and Malkin have been remarkably close in production. Like I said before, in the past 5 seasons Kane has even managed to surpass Malkin's per game production 3 times. That's all. Take the stats as they are. I'm not highlighting any narrative nor am I trying to claim Kane as the better player. They're just stats and the stats show remarkable similarity over the past 5 seasons.

 

[Plural]

What makes Malkin better if one believes he won't be more productive? We're not talking about Patrice Bergeron, here, where elite defense can offset a lack of points. We're comparing two guys who are primarily known for their offensive production. So if one (Kane) is expected to produce more than the other (Malkin) based on these stats over the past handful of seasons, what makes the latter better?

It's his potential for me. The likelyhood of Malkin beating Crosby or McDavid in Art ross race is higher IMO. Will it happen? Hard to say, but if I had to place a bet I'd say Malkin is more likely going to break 100 points than Kane.

I don't think Kane is expected to score more. He just has been scoring more in the past 5 years.

 

[StrangeVision]

Malkin is clearly a better hockey player.

 

[KoozNetsOff 92]

What makes Malkin better if one believes he won't be more productive? We're not talking about Patrice Bergeron, here, where elite defense can offset a lack of points. We're comparing two guys who are primarily known for their offensive production. So if one (Kane) is expected to produce more than the other (Malkin) based on these stats over the past handful of seasons, what makes the latter better?

Because when Malkin plays he's better. The problem is that he misses ~15 games a season so Kane can put up more pts.

 

[Regal]

But that's just twisting things even more in Kane's favor. Malkin not only loses out on his best season in the past six years (2012), but his totals also include his worst (the lockout year). Meanwhile, we're either including Kane's best (2016) or excluding his worst (2012) from his totals.

The overall point is that if you took out the one outlier season for Kane (2016), his numbers aren't as good as Malkin's. And I think the numbers show that.

Laugh all you want but It's not twisting anything. 6 years is completely arbitrary anyway and Malkins '12 stands out as an outlier as does Kanes '16 and '12. Including Malkin's worst is not in any way the same thing because the lockout season is still within a reasonable range for him. His PPG In '15 and '16 is very similar. It's in line with what you would expect. Meanwhile Kane's '12 is literally the worst of his career where he played a position he wasn't suited for and scored at a pace 16 points below his next best year in this sample. In general Kane has been better than PPG since that year so adding it makes literally no sense. It's completely biased to include it. You're a better poster than this. C'mon now.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

I already explained my overall point earlier, so I won't bother re-hashing all that again. However ...

It's not twisting anything. 6 years is completely arbitrary and Malkins '12 stands out as an outlier as does Kanes '16 and '12. In general Kane has been better than PPG since that year so adding it makes literally not sense. It's completely biased to include it.

An outlier is a season that stands out above (or below) what you'd typically find from that player. Kane's 2016 is an outlier because it's the only season in his entire career where he scored 100+ points and 46 goals. It's an outlier because prior to that season and since that season, he hasn't come close to matching 46 goals and 106 points.

So to say Malkin's 2012 was also an outlier is strange considering Malkin's had 100+ point seasons in the past, and has scored 47 goals (only 3 less than his 2012 season) before. For it to be an outlier, it had to be a season Malkin has never had, or even come close to having, at any other point in his career. Which isn't true.

 

[Luigi Lemieux]

Kane's had similar production to Malkin the last 3 years, but that also coincides exactly with a very talented player glued to his hip that he had insane chemistry with who is now gone. I think you'll see his numbers drop back down to his career norms, about a ppg.

 

[Regal]

I already explained my overall point earlier, so I won't bother re-hashing all that again. However ...



An outlier is a season that stands out above (or below) what you'd typically find from that player. Kane's 2016 is an outlier because it's the only season in his entire career where he scored 100+ points and 46 goals. It's an outlier because prior to that season and since that season, he hasn't come close to matching 46 goals and 106 points.

So to say Malkin's 2012 was also an outlier is strange considering Malkin's had 100+ point seasons in the past, and has scored 47 goals (only 3 less than his 2012 season) before. For it to be an outlier, it had to be a season Malkin has never had, or even come close to having, at any other point in his career. Which isn't true.

Outlier for the time period. This shouldn't be hard.

 

[Ryan Michaels]

Malkin's an 85 point C in a down year? Ouch 7 years out of his 11 year career have been down years, must be rough. Playing games counts, I'm not surprised Malkin defenders want to remove Kane's MVP season because...reasons...they live in a world where point pace matters more than points(which as pointed out Kane has still been at least on par on with as of late) so we can absolutely just pick and choose what reality we would like.

The Malkin is a center argument is preposterous, centers have more value than wingers because they drive a line(irrelevant because Kane drives his) or have a more complete game(argument to be made but Malkin is no Selke candidate).

Kane and Toews often get derided for "not being the best player on their team" depending on which argument people feel like making on that day, Malkin outside of hot stretches has objectively never been that guy. I'm not going to start bashing Malkin here, I'm sure some already feel slighted, people know how good he is, teams know how good he is, but when the best player in the world plays on the line ahead of you and with you on the powerplay you are going to have advantages that others don't. Toews? Kieth? Great players on Chicago but Kane has ALWAYS been there main offensive threat, the end on this particular point. Non negotiable

So yes if I'm starting a team today I take Kane, Malkin's peak was better but he has played 82 games twice, give me Kane without much of a second thought.

 

[Human]

Just curious why you decided to start the comparison *after* Malkin's MVP season in 2011-12? Kane's career year was included, but Malkin's wasn't.

You don't think omitting Malkin's best year and including Kane's best year *by far* will skew the results a bit?

zing...

this is exactly how Blackhawks fans never include any of their seasons before 2010 when they count Cups.

 

[NeedleInTheHay]

The guy that just led the playoffs in scoring.

 

[OilerPensfan97]

Crap, voted Kane by mistake. Definitely Malkin.