Malkin vs. Sakic/Yzerman

[BenchBrawl]

Just to comment on Sakic vs. Yzerman in here, instead of bumping an old thread and re-opening a can of worms: Current wisdom has it that Sakic was better, but given the choice for a franchise center Yzerman is the easy choice because he was a RHS center.

 

[The Macho King]

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.

Alright take a lap dude.

 

[bobholly39]

Just to comment on Sakic vs. Yzerman in here, instead of bumping an old thread and re-opening a can of worms: Current wisdom has it that Sakic was better, but given the choice for a franchise center Yzerman is the easy choice because he was a RHS center.

By current wisdom - are you saying this is popular opinion, or just stating it as your own personal opinion?

Because i've never heard that take about Steve Yzerman before to be honest. Most of the time people say Sakic > Yzerman (ever so slightly - it is close) - and as such pick Sakic. Picking Yzerman instead over a technicality seems weird if you think Sakic was better.

 

[Staniowski]

Alright take a lap dude.

Would you care to elaborate?

 

[BenchBrawl]

By current wisdom - are you saying this is popular opinion, or just stating it as your own personal opinion?

Because i've never heard that take about Steve Yzerman before to be honest. Most of the time people say Sakic > Yzerman (ever so slightly - it is close) - and as such pick Sakic. Picking Yzerman instead over a technicality seems weird if you think Sakic was better.

I don't understand your post. By current wisdom, I mean that most people on this board think Sakic was better.

The LHS/RHS is a technicality but an important one. Looking recently at the split between great LHS and RHS centers it became apparent how valuable a RHS franchise center really was.

This is not to say it would impact my ranking on a list, but it would definitely impact my choice of who to build a team around.

 

[Iapyi]

Obviously Malkin is a distant third amongst these three.

It's actually an insult to the sport to pretend he is in the same league.

Clear bias for good ole mother Russian.

Humorous.

 

[bobholly39]

I don't understand your post. By current wisdom, I mean that most people on this board think Sakic was better.

The LHS/RHS is a technicality but an important one. Looking recently at the split between great LHS and RHS centers it became apparent how valuable a RHS franchise center really was.

I agree with your first sentence.

I think i misunderstood your first post though. I thought you were also saying that current wisdom states that despite Sakic being better - people still pick Yzerman first because of RHS. Sounds like that's just your own opinion, which makes more sense.

 

[BenchBrawl]

I agree with your first sentence.

I think i misunderstood your first post though. I thought you were also saying that current wisdom states that despite Sakic being better - people still pick Yzerman first because of RHS. Sounds like that's just your own opinion, which makes more sense.

Yes it's my own opinion, but only if we pick them to build a franchise. Not on an all-time list, because unless I'm wrong, it's not harder to play as a RHS center than it is as a LHS center.

Though the main reason why I think a RHS franchise center is more valuable, is because I believe it's easier to find him a strong #2 LHS center than it is to find a strong #2 RHS center to support the LHS franchise center. But perhaps this is actually incorrect and the split equalizes as we get lower on the list.

Sakic/Forsberg and Yzerman/Fedorov are a case of that. The Colorado duo were both LHS, whereas the Detroit duo were a RHS/LHS combo, like for example Béliveau/H.Richard, Lemieux/Francis and Apps/Kennedy.

LHS/RHS split from the recent Top 100 project:

C	HANDEDNESS
Lemieux	R
Mikita	R
Lalonde	R
Yzerman	R
Richard	R
Kennedy	R
Dionne	R
Lindros	R

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

C	HANDEDNESS
Gretzky	L
Béliveau	L
Morenz	L
Crosby	L
Nighbor	L
Messier	L
Esposito	L
Clarke	L
Trottier	L
Sakic	L
Taylor	L
Boucher	L
Apps	L
Forsberg	L
Malkin	L
Schmidt	L
Malone	L
Bentley	L
Lach	L
Cowley	L
Fedorov	L
Thornton	L
Stewart	L
Keon	L
Abel	L

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

 

[GMR]

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.

Huh? Yzerman and Sakic were both far better defensive players in their late 20's and early 30's than Malkin has been.

 

[daver]

Huh? Yzerman and Sakic were both far better defensive players in their late 20's and early 30's than Malkin has been.

So what? It wasn't as important for them to be good at defense according to your standards.

The point is putting an extra emphasis on Malkin not being great defensively is unfair.

 

[daver]

Not sure how much Malkin should be "penalized" for his defensive game. Both Sakic and Yzerman played with better defensive centres like Malkin and only Yzerman has length to his defensive game albeit while his offensive game regressed.

I think if Malkin's offensive resume surpasses theirs, as doubtful as it seems, he should be rated ahead.

 

[The Macho King]

Not sure how much Malkin should be "penalized" for his defensive game. Both Sakic and Yzerman played with better defensive centres like Malkin and only Yzerman has length to his defensive game albeit while his offensive game regressed.

I think if Malkin's offensive resume surpasses theirs, as doubtful as it seems, he should be rated ahead.

This logic only extends to "offense-only" players, because the idea is their only contribution was offensive. I think there's a difference between being elite defensively (which frankly I don't think either Sakic or Yzerman were) which gives a lot of *extra* points (see, Nighbor, Clarke, H. Richard), to being adequate defensively - which I think is the bare expectation for the majority on the list. However there is a subset of players that only provided offense and below adequate/good defense - your Jagrs, Ovechkins, Marios, Coffeys - and they absolutely *should* and *do* get dinged for their defense.

 

[GMR]

So what? It wasn't as important for them to be good at defense according to your standards.

The point is putting an extra emphasis on Malkin not being great defensively is unfair.

It's not unfair for several reasons. In the mid to late 80's being a two-way center didn't have the same importance as you hear about today. That said, both players at that time were better two-way players already than Malkin was in his 20's. On top of that, Malkin is now in his 30's. By the time Yzerman and Sakic were in their 30's, they were considered among the better two-way players in the game. He's simply not at their level on that side of the ice. At any point of his career.

You can make some argument that he's a better PPG player despite Yzerman/Sakic playing in a higher scoring era, etc. However, they blow him away on the other side of the ice. Despite the fact that at some parts of their career, that wasn't as stressed as today. It's not close.

 

[daver]

It's not unfair for several reasons. In the mid to late 80's being a two-way center didn't have the same importance as you hear about today. That said, both players at that time were better two-way players already than Malkin was in his 20's. On top of that, Malkin is now in his 30's. By the time Yzerman and Sakic were in their 30's, they were considered among the better two-way players in the game. He's simply not at their level on that side of the ice. At any point of his career.

You can make some argument that he's a better PPG player despite Yzerman/Sakic playing in a higher scoring era, etc. However, they blow him away on the other side of the ice. Despite the fact that at some parts of their career, that wasn't as stressed as today. It's not close.

I am not sure about this, at least to the extent that it was a notable enough difference to move them clearly above Malkin. And "2-way" player always needs context as Yzerman was a Toews-like player in his 30s while Malkin is still a high end offensive player (at least as of 18/19).

But back to your point about 2-way centers not having the same importance in the '80s. Should we assume that Yzerman, in his 20s, would not have reached the same offensive peak if he played more of 2-way game from the start of his career and happened to play in the current era? Can we presume that Malkin could have reached a higher offensive peak if he played in the 80s where it was less important to play as a 2-way center?

IMO, you are opening a can of worms by holding Malkin to a higher standard than the other two.

 

[daver]

This logic only extends to "offense-only" players, because the idea is their only contribution was offensive. I think there's a difference between being elite defensively (which frankly I don't think either Sakic or Yzerman were) which gives a lot of *extra* points (see, Nighbor, Clarke, H. Richard), to being adequate defensively - which I think is the bare expectation for the majority on the list. However there is a subset of players that only provided offense and below adequate/good defense - your Jagrs, Ovechkins, Marios, Coffeys - and they absolutely *should* and *do* get dinged for their defense.

I agree with this. I think Malkin can be viewed as being adequate defensively, with his biggest flaw being really bad when he is "off" his game (as opposed to the overrating by some he seems to get when he is "on").

No issue with giving Sakic's 00/01 season extra points pushing it to being on the same level as Yzerman's and Malkin's peak but I think a prime Malkin is superior to the 2-way Yzerman.

 

[GMR]

I am not sure about this, at least to the extent that it was a notable enough difference to move them clearly above Malkin. And "2-way" player always needs context as Yzerman was a Toews-like player in his 30s while Malkin is still a high end offensive player (at least as of 18/19).

But back to your point about 2-way centers not having the same importance in the '80s. Should we assume that Yzerman, in his 20s, would not have reached the same offensive peak if he played more of 2-way game from the start of his career and happened to play in the current era? Can we presume that Malkin could have reached a higher offensive peak if he played in the 80s where it was less important to play as a 2-way center?

IMO, you are opening a can of worms by holding Malkin to a higher standard than the other two.

You could answer yes to both questions. More defensive responsibility could make it harder for Yzerman to reach 155 points. Very few Selke trophy winners have finished top 5 in scoring. I know that we're not necessarily talking about Selkes but being a good two-way center in general. However, it's a fair point to make. And Malkin would certainly have scored more points if he played in the 80's. Just like Gretzky would not score 200 points in today's NHL.

I'm not holding Malkin to a higher standard. My point is that Malkin at no point in his career has been considered a solid two-way player. For that reason, I'd rank not only Yzerman and Sakic, but also other centers in the same tier like Trottier and Messier over him. Players like Lemieux or Gretzky are also not great two-way players, but their offensive peak pushes them way beyond the Yzermans of hockey. Malkin is not that great offensively that I can ignore the other side of his game completely. We're not comparing him to Carbonneau or Bergeron here. Yzerman and Sakic were terrific offensive players themselves. If he's better than them offensively, it's not by much.

Also, let's not forget that Yzerman and Sakic are two of the best leaders ever to play the game. While that's hard to measure unless you're in the locker room, I've never heard of Malkin being mentioned as one of the game's great leaders.

We'll have to agree to disagree, but to me, ranking Malkin ahead of Sakic and Yzerman ignores the two-way game and intangibles and makes him into a Jagr or Lemieux like offensive force, where we can just overlook anything but offense. I don't see him on that pedestal.

 

[scott clam]

It's not unfair for several reasons. In the mid to late 80's being a two-way center didn't have the same importance as you hear about today. That said, both players at that time were better two-way players already than Malkin was in his 20's. On top of that, Malkin is now in his 30's. By the time Yzerman and Sakic were in their 30's, they were considered among the better two-way players in the game. He's simply not at their level on that side of the ice. At any point of his career.

You can make some argument that he's a better PPG player despite Yzerman/Sakic playing in a higher scoring era, etc. However, they blow him away on the other side of the ice. Despite the fact that at some parts of their career, that wasn't as stressed as today. It's not close.

Malkin is a better 1 on 1 player. That counts for something.

 

[daver]

You could answer yes to both questions. More defensive responsibility could make it harder for Yzerman to reach 155 points. Very few Selke trophy winners have finished top 5 in scoring. I know that we're not necessarily talking about Selkes but being a good two-way center in general. However, it's a fair point to make. And Malkin would certainly have scored more points if he played in the 80's. Just like Gretzky would not score 200 points in today's NHL.

I'm not holding Malkin to a higher standard. My point is that Malkin at no point in his career has been considered a solid two-way player. For that reason, I'd rank not only Yzerman and Sakic, but also other centers in the same tier like Trottier and Messier over him. Players like Lemieux or Gretzky are also not great two-way players, but their offensive peak pushes them way beyond the Yzermans of hockey. Malkin is not that great offensively that I can ignore the other side of his game completely. We're not comparing him to Carbonneau or Bergeron here. Yzerman and Sakic were terrific offensive players themselves. If he's better than them offensively, it's not by much.

Also, let's not forget that Yzerman and Sakic are two of the best leaders ever to play the game. While that's hard to measure unless you're in the locker room, I've never heard of Malkin being mentioned as one of the game's great leaders.

We'll have to agree to disagree, but to me, ranking Malkin ahead of Sakic and Yzerman ignores the two-way game and intangibles and makes him into a Jagr or Lemieux like offensive force, where we can just overlook anything but offense. I don't see him on that pedestal.

I am not ranking Malkin above those two and do give consideration to their defensive games, when applicable, in the comparison. I just don't it's fair to penalize Malkin's lack of defensive eliteness even harsher due to the era he played. I don't think "2-way" play has even been less or more important in any era. It's a lot easier to teach defense than offense so maybe Malkin should get bonus points for being elite offensively in the "2-way" centre era.

Not to go any further down the hypothetical scenario rabbit hole but for the record, I see Malkin's 11/12 season as being on the same tier as Yzerman's 155 point season based on PPG dominance over their respective peers.

 

[daver]

You can make some argument that he's a better PPG player despite Yzerman/Sakic playing in a higher scoring era, etc. However, they blow him away on the other side of the ice. Despite the fact that at some parts of their career, that wasn't as stressed as today. It's not close.

C'mon, Sakic had one season where he received an elite number of Selke votes. He got some marginal votes in a few other years and Forsberg is generally viewed as the "2-way" C on the Avs dynasty.

I can see this being a tiebreaker if we had to choose between similar offensive resumes but am very hesitant to see this as a gamechanger despite the your narrative.

Yzerman's Selke win garnered him a 10th place in Hart voting. This does not challenge any of Malkin's best offensive seasons. Malkin's 4th place in scoring in 17/18 got him a more impressive Hart finish (7th).

 

[GMR]

C'mon, Sakic had one season where he received an elite number of Selke votes. He got some marginal votes in a few other years and Forsberg is generally viewed as the "2-way" C on the Avs dynasty.

I can see this being a tiebreaker if we had to choose between similar offensive resumes but am very hesitant to see this as a gamechanger despite the your narrative.

Yzerman's Selke win garnered him a 10th place in Hart voting. This does not challenge any of Malkin's best offensive seasons. Malkin's 4th place in scoring in 17/18 got him a more impressive Hart finish (7th).

Forsberg was good defensively but was he better than Sakic defensively? I don’t remember Forsberg ever being a Selke candidate.

I’m not saying Yzerman’s Selke was more impressive than Malkin’s Hart Trophy. I’m just saying he was a more rounded player in his career. Yzerman had elite offensive seasons and also had a Selke. Not in the same season but we’re looking at the overall career. Malkin is never a Selke candidate.

I have no real issue with someone arguing that Malkin was the best offensive player out of the three. I don’t necessarily agree but I can see the argument. However, both players are far better than Malkin when you look at defense, face offs, leadership, and whatever other intangibles you look at.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Forsberg was good defensively but was he better than Sakic defensively? I don’t remember Forsberg ever being a Selke candidate.

Yes. And he was a Selke runner-up in his third season despite missing 17 games.

What makes Sakic a standout is that his offensive peak coincided with taking many of Forsberg’s defensive responsibilities - as opposed to the typical narrative of the star forward whose offense dries up because they’re buying into a two-way system.

 

[Retire91]

Not sure why I struggle with this question. I don't want to undercut Malkin's abilities because they are phenomenal but I just don't see him in the same league as Yzerman and Sakic. I think one way to look at it is if Sakic and Yzerman gave up their 2 way focus and went pure offense their whole careers how many more points would those two have. For example Yzerman might have broke into the top 5 goals scored all time had he not focused on other aspects of the game. Both players also still put up respectable numbers before the rule changes too when hooking was ok and 2 line pass was in play but that is hard to put into perspective with Malkin. Totally different eras. I would just want to see more evidence of Malkin's complete game before this discussion gets legs. I don't personally consider Malkin two way. Yzerman and Sakic were both elite in almost all aspects of the game while also bringing hall of fame offensive numbers. There are so few players in history that fire on that many cylinders. Malkin has been the most offensively dominant player in the world at times and that is also truly rare. But you have to be bigger than that in your one dimensional category to get in the conversation with the other two complete players. Maybe if Malkin averaged 130 points a season over a 5 or 6 year period you can start to overlook a complete game with that kinda peak. But he doesn't have that.

 

[daver]

Forsberg was good defensively but was he better than Sakic defensively? I don’t remember Forsberg ever being a Selke candidate.

I’m not saying Yzerman’s Selke was more impressive than Malkin’s Hart Trophy. I’m just saying he was a more rounded player in his career. Yzerman had elite offensive seasons and also had a Selke. Not in the same season but we’re looking at the overall career. Malkin is never a Selke candidate.

I have no real issue with someone arguing that Malkin was the best offensive player out of the three. I don’t necessarily agree but I can see the argument. However, both players are far better than Malkin when you look at defense, face offs, leadership, and whatever other intangibles you look at.

He has a 2nd and 4th place in Selke voting and according to most Av fans was used more in a 2-way role (i.e. facing the other team's #1 line) while Sakic, like Malkin, was given the offensive role. Unlike Malkin, I believe Sakic faced the other team's #1 d-pairing more often than not.

Malkin gets appropriately dinged for being the #2C behind Crosby allowing for easier matchups but I don't think that Sakic and Yzerman played true #1C roles throughout their careers. It was more of a #1A/#1B C scenario with Forsberg and Federov.

I have no issue with someone choosing those two based on other things they eventually brought to the table over a marginally better offensive resume. I may fall into that category myself. Perhaps Malkin can change that narrative a bit too. I certainly don't think he should lost points for not having those strengths.

 

[daver]

Not sure why I struggle with this question. I don't want to undercut Malkin's abilities because they are phenomenal but I just don't see him in the same league as Yzerman and Sakic. I think one way to look at it is if Sakic and Yzerman gave up their 2 way focus and went pure offense their whole careers how many more points would those two have. For example Yzerman might have broke into the top 5 goals scored all time had he not focused on other aspects of the game. Both players also still put up respectable numbers before the rule changes too when hooking was ok and 2 line pass was in play but that is hard to put into perspective with Malkin. Totally different eras. I would just want to see more evidence of Malkin's complete game before this discussion gets legs. I don't personally consider Malkin two way. Yzerman and Sakic were both elite in almost all aspects of the game while also bringing hall of fame offensive numbers. There are so few players in history that fire on that many cylinders. Malkin has been the most offensively dominant player in the world at times and that is also truly rare. But you have to be bigger than that in your one dimensional category to get in the conversation with the other two complete players. Maybe if Malkin averaged 130 points a season over a 5 or 6 year period you can start to overlook a complete game with that kinda peak. But he doesn't have that.

Hard to call Sakic and Yzerman "complete" when their careers when they were clearly not "complete" throughout their "complete" careers. Didn't Yzerman get called out by the greatest coach of all-time for not being a complete player?

We absolutely saw what both players could do in terms of pure offense. Both players had elite defensive centres on their team in a few seasons to allow them to generate offense which they did in other seasons anyways. If you want to argue that Yzerman's post age 30 offensive resume was hindered given his focus on defense that's fine but to paint these guys as 2-way players, as ambiguous as that term can be, from the start of their careers is simply false.

And how much should we value 2-way play? IMO, in general, it certainly shouldn't raise a forward up to the tier of a clearly superior offensive player (which isn't necessarily the case here anyways). We aren't taking Bobby Clarke here. Malkin shows glimpses of being a force defensively when he is "on", he can look terrible when he is "off".

 

[daver]

Here is how I would rate their best seasons:

Tier 1

Yzerman - 88/89
Malkin - 11/12
Sakic - 00/01 (not quite as impressive offensively but his defensive game brings it up to this level)

Tier 2

Malkin - 08/09
Yzerman - 89/90

Tier 3

Sakic - 95/96
Sakic - 99/00
Yzerman - 88/89
Malkin 07/08
Malkin 13/14

I think most agree that Malkin was perhaps the higher player in terms of offensive ceiling but obviously injuries places him clearly behind.