Malkin vs. Sakic/Yzerman

[Ace Card Bedard]

I'd put Malkin behind both of them but not by much.

Obviously they're all extremely talented offensively and all 3 had another HHoF worthy center to play with (Fedorov, Forsberg, Crosby.)

I give Yzerman and Sakic the edge for defensive responsibility and for both being captains of their teams.

 

[MadLuke]

Without 99 and 66 in the picture, Yzerman's point finishes blow him away.

Well more dept to it vs one more Art Ross.
Malkin : 1-1-2-4
Yzerman: 1-2-3-5-6-10

For the op question, not sure I would put Malkin above the 2 by this time in their career and both aged quite extremely nicely.

Hard to compare considering Malkin started exceptionally late in the nhl (lockout and one season after that) and the 2 other 2 could not make much in the playoff (or get into the playoff at all) with theirs team for a while.


But after 13 season's regular season's ppg among player with at least 500 games:

Crosby: 1.29 ppg
Malkin: 1.18 ppg
Ovechkin: 1.10 ppg

Lemieux: 2.05 ppg
Gretzky: 2.03 ppf
Yzerman: 1.33 ppg
Messier: 1.31 ppg

Gretzky: 1.50
Jagr: 1.34
Lafontaine: 1.29
Sakic/Yzerman/Selanne: 1.26
Oates: 1.22

 

[billybudd]

Oh- if this thread had been created about 2-3 years ago... I would have been right there thinking that these three names are not out of place being mentioned together.

Lately though, I'm not so sure. I can't help but believe that Malkin put a garish-lookin' skid-mark on his résumé last year. More than a point-a-game, okay, but he was really bleeding even strength goals-against. His minus-25 was last place on a team that was positive 32 in goal-differential, all while racking up a Kane-esque 64% O-zone starts. His team and situationally-adjusted plus-minus had to have been absolutely frightful.

Of course, that one streak of soil doesn't blot out years-and-years of excellence in other campaigns... but it's more than enough to make me turtle into "wait-and-see" mode, to see how the remainder of this act plays out.

Malkin had his worst season as a Penguin last year, but the ugliest of those statistics probably had more to do with the bomb of a season Phil Kessel had on his wing than Malkin's own mediocrity (comparative to his normal).

It's noteworthy that now that they're on different teams, Malkin has bounced back and Kessel has accelerated into what appears to be a career death spiral. That isn't a coincidence. Kessel was killing the Pens at even strength last year.

 

[Staniowski]

If you judge Evgeni Malkin on those criterias, he's also better than Crosby and Ovechkin and everyone since Mario Lemieux (except maybe Jaromir Jagr).

When I watched Malkin on video as a prospect, I couldn't believe he didn't went 1st overall. I had seen little of Ovechkin but still; Malkin looked like the perfect hockey player. The next great thing. Based on that, he underachieved, despite his great career. He only truly put it together for one season in 2012. Even his other Art Ross season didn't feel the same. But granted injuries probably killed his momentum.

In the end, Malkin has been the sum of his parts but not more.

I don't understand why he's not in the process of becoming a strong two-way center now that he's on the wrong side of 30. He has the talent to do it. Or maybe not.

You're reading too much into what I said.

But I've always thought Malkin was better than Ovechkin. Malkin has proven over and over again that he is better offensively than Ovechkin.

 

[Gurglesons]

Pretty comparable to be honest.

As others have said - Malkin is a clear 3rd all time here for career but it's mostly due to lack of longevity (which includes health). It's possible he could still pass one, or both - if he ages well enough/plays long enough, though seems unlikely. But their playoffs are pretty close.

I'd probably do Sakic #1, Malkin #2, Yzerman #3.

I’m really confused how anyone can put Sakic over Yzerman and not Malkin over Sakic. I assume the consideration is Sakic has a better trophy case than Yzerman, but if you are using that argument Malkin should be ahead of both.

I think in terms of overall career I’d go Yzerman, Malkin, Sakic when you consider why Yzerman’s trophy case is light.

 

[seventieslord]

I’m really confused how anyone can put Sakic over Yzerman and not Malkin over Sakic. I assume the consideration is Sakic has a better trophy case than Yzerman, but if you are using that argument Malkin should be ahead of both.

I think in terms of overall career I’d go Yzerman, Malkin, Sakic when you consider why Yzerman’s trophy case is light.

I don't know why that would be so confusing. Sakic and Yzerman have both put up considerably more dominant and healthy seasons than him.

Over 105 adjusted points:
Sakic 4
Yzerman 3
Malkin 3

Over 95:
Sakic 7
Yzerman 4
Malkin 4

Over 85:
Sakic 12
Yzerman 9
Malkin 5

Over 75:
Sakic 15
Yzerman 13
Malkin 9

Basically, he was about as dominant as they were at their bests, but there's so much more meat on the bone for those two.

 

[Gurglesons]

I don't know why that would be so confusing. Sakic and Yzerman have both put up considerably more dominant and healthy seasons than him.

Over 105 adjusted points:
Sakic 4
Yzerman 3
Malkin 3

Over 95:
Sakic 7
Yzerman 4
Malkin 4

Over 85:
Sakic 12
Yzerman 9
Malkin 5

Over 75:
Sakic 15
Yzerman 13
Malkin 9

Basically, he was about as dominant as they were at their bests, but there's so much more meat on the bone for those two.

Neat. Malkin potentially has five more years in the league at minimum if we take his word for it. And he is currently on pace for another 90 plus point season barring any further injuries.

Malkin’s peak is far better than Sakic’s if Geno finishes at around 1300 pts which is highly
likely is Sakic’s somewhat more dominant regular season performance that much better than a player who out-dueled both Ovechkin and Crosby for a Ross when look back at it in a historical context?

 

[scott clam]

I’m really confused how anyone can put Sakic over Yzerman and not Malkin over Sakic. I assume the consideration is Sakic has a better trophy case than Yzerman, but if you are using that argument Malkin should be ahead of both.

I think in terms of overall career I’d go Yzerman, Malkin, Sakic when you consider why Yzerman’s trophy case is light.

Yzerman always gets screwed by the trophy counters. But I would argue that on a game per game basis Malkin is the more dominant player. it's just that Yzerman and Sakic were each the model of consistency.

 

[Gurglesons]

Yzerman always gets screwed by the trophy counters. But I would argue that on a game per game basis Malkin is the more dominant player. it's just that Yzerman and Sakic were each the model of consistency.

Through the first 14 years of Malkin and Sakic’s careers their PPG is marginally different.

Sakic has a Hart, Pearson, Byng, Two Cups and a Smythe. 4 top ten goal scoring finishes and 8 top ten point finishes.

Malkin has a Hart, Pearson, Calder, Three Cups, Two Art Rosses and a Smythe. 3 top ten goal scoring finishes and four top ten point finishes.

I guess I don’t see how Sakic’s consistency isn’t overblown in comparison at this stage tbh.

 

[seventieslord]

Neat. Malkin potentially has five more years in the league at minimum if we take his word for it. And he is currently on pace for another 90 plus point season barring any further injuries.

Malkin’s peak is far better than Sakic’s if Geno finishes at around 1300 pts which is highly
likely is Sakic’s somewhat more dominant regular season performance that much better than a player who out-dueled both Ovechkin and Crosby for a Ross when look back at it in a historical context?

Then get back to me after Malkin has played five more complete dominant seasons, because this will definitely be an interesting conversation after that happens.

 

[Gurglesons]

Then get back to me after Malkin has played five more complete dominant seasons, because this will definitely be an interesting conversation after that happens.

How about the fact Malkin has six top three PPG finishes compared to Sakic in his career?

 

[seventieslord]

How about the fact Malkin has six top three PPG finishes compared to Sakic in his career?

Yep. What could have been, hey?

 

[GMR]

You're reading too much into what I said.

But I've always thought Malkin was better than Ovechkin. Malkin has proven over and over again that he is better offensively than Ovechkin.

Ovechkin hasn't had the luxury of playing with Crosby his entire career. Malkin will of course have more assists because of the position that he plays. Ovechkin is of course the better goal scorer. Malkin's problem is always his health. Since 2013, he's only had one season where he played in 70 games. He doesn't have Ovechkin's durability.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Malkin’s peak is far better than Sakic’s if Geno finishes at around 1300 pts which is highly
likely is Sakic’s somewhat more dominant regular season performance that much better than a player who out-dueled both Ovechkin and Crosby for a Ross when look back at it in a historical context?

I don't see how Malkin's peak is far higher. Sakic's best season (2001) is clearly on par with whichever you think is Malkin's best season. Removing Lemieux and Jagr (who were playing together), Sakic has finished 1st, 1st and 2nd in scoring - is that really any different than Malkin finishing 1st, 1st and 2nd?

A simplistic (but not inaccurate) way of looking at it is their best seasons are roughly even, Malkin has the better 2nd and 3rd seasons, and seasons 4-10 are generally going in Sakic's favour. Seasons 2 and 3 should count more than seasons 9 and 10, but I don't see enough peak separation to make up for huge difference elsewhere.

 

[scott clam]

Through the first 14 years of Malkin and Sakic’s careers their PPG is marginally different.

Sakic has a Hart, Pearson, Byng, Two Cups and a Smythe. 4 top ten goal scoring finishes and 8 top ten point finishes.

Malkin has a Hart, Pearson, Calder, Three Cups, Two Art Rosses and a Smythe. 3 top ten goal scoring finishes and four top ten point finishes.

I guess I don’t see how Sakic’s consistency isn’t overblown in comparison at this stage tbh.

In Sakic's era he was often considered second best of his team's star centres. This in addition to being somewhat overshadowed by Jagr and Lindros in the late '90s. His Hart year notwithstanding.

I think it really wasn't until late in his career where people started to appreciate just how good he really was. But really he was just one of many, many great players of the '90s, just a really hard time to stand out. Same for Yzerman.

Malkin, despite being underrated, I think stands out more, among his peers. This is a guy who has the same number of Art Rosses as Sidney Crosby, despite being the "#2" centre on that team. Malkin also has the size and the nastiness that the 19s did not. He's not the greatest defensive player, but he's far from terrible in his own end. His only real weakness is faceoffs: like a lot of Russians, strangley.

 

[rintinw]

I don't see how Malkin's peak is far higher. Sakic's best season (2001) is clearly on par with whichever you think is Malkin's best season. Removing Lemieux and Jagr (who were playing together), Sakic has finished 1st, 1st and 2nd in scoring - is that really any different than Malkin finishing 1st, 1st and 2nd?

A simplistic (but not inaccurate) way of looking at it is their best seasons are roughly even, Malkin has the better 2nd and 3rd seasons, and seasons 4-10 are generally going in Sakic's favour. Seasons 2 and 3 should count more than seasons 9 and 10, but I don't see enough peak separation to make up for huge difference elsewhere.

Of course it is. If you do the same and remove 2 top players of Malkins era he would be 1st, 1st, 1st on top of 3 Harts and Pearsons. And being 5 times best in P/GP.

And I understand that Lemieux + Jagr were better combination than Crosby + Ovechkin but even if they are not there who is to say there would not be someone like Lafleur / Mikita in their place? Would Sakic still finish 1st, 1st, 2nd?

 

[Staniowski]

Ovechkin hasn't had the luxury of playing with Crosby his entire career. Malkin will of course have more assists because of the position that he plays. Ovechkin is of course the better goal scorer. Malkin's problem is always his health. Since 2013, he's only had one season where he played in 70 games. He doesn't have Ovechkin's durability.

Malkin being a great player has nothing to do with playing on the same team as Crosby.

Everybody is aware of Malkin's injuries, and of the fact that Ovechkin never gets injured. However, when they are both playing, Malkin has been the better player.

Malkin has been a better scorer than Ovechkin everywhere - NHL (regular season and playoffs); best-on-best (Olympics and World Cups); WCs; Russia before coming to the NHL; and KHL during that one season.

Malkin's game is more adaptable and of higher quality.

 

[The Macho King]

Malkin's defense ranges from bad to non-existent. I don't think Yzerman or Sakic were *great* defensive players by any stretch, but they were always responsible. Malkin *can* be good defensively, but he's simply not interested in it.

I think Malkin is a great player, and borderline top 50 all time. But I think he is a distinct step below Y and Sakic, even if he is ultimately fairly close.

If you're giving me each player at their absolute peak? I'll take Malkin because when he's on he's just a freak of nature in a way that I don't think Yzerman or Sakic were. But overall? I'll take the other two.

It's possible that changes though - Malkin isn't necessarily done adding to his resume yet.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Malkin's defense ranges from bad to non-existent. I don't think Yzerman or Sakic were *great* defensive players by any stretch, but they were always responsible. Malkin *can* be good defensively, but he's simply not interested in it.

I think Malkin is a great player, and borderline top 50 all time. But I think he is a distinct step below Y and Sakic, even if he is ultimately fairly close.

If you're giving me each player at their absolute peak? I'll take Malkin because when he's on he's just a freak of nature in a way that I don't think Yzerman or Sakic were. But overall? I'll take the other two.

It's possible that changes though - Malkin isn't necessarily done adding to his resume yet.

No way I'd pass on 2001 Sakic here, as much as I love 2012 Malkin. Not only did he finish 2nd in Selke voting, but he led the league in playoff goals and points and won the cup. Lost the Ross clearly only because Jagr got the Mario boost. He was still 22 pts over the 3rd scorer Elias.

 

[GMR]

Malkin being a great player has nothing to do with playing on the same team as Crosby.

Everybody is aware of Malkin's injuries, and of the fact that Ovechkin never gets injured. However, when they are both playing, Malkin has been the better player.

Malkin has been a better scorer than Ovechkin everywhere - NHL (regular season and playoffs); best-on-best (Olympics and World Cups); WCs; Russia before coming to the NHL; and KHL during that one season.

Malkin's game is more adaptable and of higher quality.

Malkin will be ranked way below Ovechkin when their careers are over. Playing with Crosby has helped his career with team accomplishments (he's been to four Finals and Ovechkin has been to one). However, playing with Crosby has also made Malkin a bridesmaid his entire career. Much like Henri Richard.

 

[GMR]

Malkin's defense ranges from bad to non-existent. I don't think Yzerman or Sakic were *great* defensive players by any stretch, but they were always responsible. Malkin *can* be good defensively, but he's simply not interested in it.

I think Malkin is a great player, and borderline top 50 all time. But I think he is a distinct step below Y and Sakic, even if he is ultimately fairly close.

If you're giving me each player at their absolute peak? I'll take Malkin because when he's on he's just a freak of nature in a way that I don't think Yzerman or Sakic were. But overall? I'll take the other two.

It's possible that changes though - Malkin isn't necessarily done adding to his resume yet.

Yzerman's absolute peak would be in 1989. Sakic likely around 1996 playoffs or 2001 season. I'd take both of their peaks over Malkin's. He's a big guy and has a great skillset, but he's not a great two-way player like Sakic was in his peak and Yzerman in the late 80's reached a higher offensive peak than Malkin did in his prime, with nobodies for linemates.

Also, does nobody honestly care that Malkin can't win a faceoff and has never been considered a good two-way player? In today's NHL, that should be more important than say Gretzky or Lemieux not being Selke candidates back in the 1980's.

 

[Staniowski]

Malkin will be ranked way below Ovechkin when their careers are over. Playing with Crosby has helped his career with team accomplishments (he's been to four Finals and Ovechkin has been to one). However, playing with Crosby has also made Malkin a bridesmaid his entire career. Much like Henri Richard.

There are no official or accurate rankings of hockey players. Rankings are always just opinions. For those who rank Malkin ahead, Malkin will be ranked ahead; for those who rank Ovechkin ahead, Ovechkin will be ranked ahead.

My opinion is that Malkin is better.

It doesn't matter that a good player plays with other good players. Every player needs to be evaluated individually.

Malkin is a better offensive player than Ovechkin.

 

[quoipourquoi]

No way I'd pass on 2001 Sakic here, as much as I love 2012 Malkin. Not only did he finish 2nd in Selke voting, but he led the league in playoff goals and points and won the cup. Lost the Ross clearly only because Jagr got the Mario boost. He was still 22 pts over the 3rd scorer Elias.

Joe Sakic (per-82)
1998-99 through 2000-01
47-66-113, +37
52.7% Faceoff, 2:18 SH TOI/GP

Bob Hartley was getting some incredible hockey out of Joe Sakic despite the responsibilities given. He wasn’t the best on faceoffs (Yanic Perreault), but he was above average.

In this same window, Jaromir Jagr (who took all three Art Ross Trophies) scored at a rate of 50-75-125. I’m not saying that 1999-2001 Joe Sakic is as good as 1999-2001 Jaromir Jagr, but he’s probably not far behind, all things considered.

 

[daver]

Yzerman's absolute peak would be in 1989. Sakic likely around 1996 playoffs or 2001 season. I'd take both of their peaks over Malkin's. He's a big guy and has a great skillset, but he's not a great two-way player like Sakic was in his peak and Yzerman in the late 80's reached a higher offensive peak than Malkin did in his prime, with nobodies for linemates.

Also, does nobody honestly care that Malkin can't win a faceoff and has never been considered a good two-way player? In today's NHL, that should be more important than say Gretzky or Lemieux not being Selke candidates back in the 1980's.

Malkin's level of play on 11/12 is damn close to Yzerman's level of play in 88/89. Both had dominant PPGs vs. their "mortal" peers.

I would put Malkin's offensive peak/prime level of play as being of superior quality to Sakic's and longer than Yzerman's.

As for the bolded, if Malkin needs to be better defensively given he plays in "today's" NHL, it is only fair then to lower the importance of Yzerman's and Sakic's defensive efforts given they played at a time where it wasn't as important. You can't have it both ways. I.e. we would hold Sakic and Yzerman to the same standard if they played today and critique them accordingly.

As for playoffs, I would rate them Sakic, Malkin and Yzerman.

All things considered, Malkin may have simply missed the chance to put up more full seasons in his prime to match/surpass these two but I don't think it is unreasonable to view him as being the most inconsistent player of the three.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Joe Sakic (per-82)
1998-99 through 2000-01
47-66-113, +37
52.7% Faceoff, 2:18 SH TOI/GP

Bob Hartley was getting some incredible hockey out of Joe Sakic despite the responsibilities given. He wasn’t the best on faceoffs (Yanic Perreault), but he was above average.

In this same window, Jaromir Jagr (who took all three Art Ross Trophies) scored at a rate of 50-75-125. I’m not saying that 1999-2001 Joe Sakic is as good as 1999-2001 Jaromir Jagr, but he’s probably not far behind, all things considered.

You're right. This was his age 29-31 seasons and definitely the best 3 years stretch of his career. Too bad he missed 31 games. Plus his 2000 playoffs are a bit of an eyesore.

I'm just not sure how good he really was defensively in 1999 and 2000.