Peak Evgeni Malkin or Nathan MacKinnon right now?

Malkin at his peak vs MacKinnon right now. Who would you take?

  • Malkin

    Votes: 177 56.5%
  • MacKinnon

    Votes: 110 35.1%
  • Too close to call

    Votes: 26 8.3%

  • Total voters
    313

IWantSakicAsMyGM

Registered User
Oct 13, 2011
9,782
3,986
Colorado
Nichushkin's stat growth can be partially explained (mostly, IMO) by his growth as a player, while Neal's stat growth cannot be similarly explained.

If you don't think Nichushkin improved since getting bought out then I guess your opinion makes sense, though I still completely disagree.

On the ice, I can see that argument making sense. I'd still argue that Mack is the primary reason Nuke is a PPG player, instead of a 50-60 point guy, but Nuke obviously got better too.

But, then again, are you 100% positive that Nuke's growth as a player since coming to Colorado wasn't a product of seeing how Mack prepares for the season? Or because of how Mack approaches practice? Or by adding chick pea pasta to his diet? More to the point, do you think Nuke would have definitely improved exactly like this had he signed with the Coyotes instead of Colorado? Just because it's easier to point to what is clearly Malkin's impact on the scoresheet doesn't mean Mack didn't have an ever bigger impact off the ice.
 

hairylikebear

///////////////
Apr 30, 2009
4,177
1,804
Houston
On the ice, I can see that argument making sense. I'd still argue that Mack is the primary reason Nuke is a PPG player, instead of a 50-60 point guy, but Nuke obviously got better too.

But, then again, are you 100% positive that Nuke's growth as a player since coming to Colorado wasn't a product of seeing how Mack prepares for the season? Or because of how Mack approaches practice? Or by adding chick pea pasta to his diet? More to the point, do you think Nuke would have definitely improved exactly like this had he signed with the Coyotes instead of Colorado? Just because it's easier to point to what is clearly Malkin's impact on the scoresheet doesn't mean Mack didn't have an ever bigger impact off the ice.
I'm like 90% confident that the Avs staff and overall change of scenery had a lot more impact than Mackinnon, though he's a special talent and there should be some Mackinnon effect on his linemates. I've never said that Nichushkin's stats aren't inflated by playing with a top tier player, I just think the Malkin effect on Neal was greater. I also believe getting out of Dallas did wonders for him mentally because he was in a constant injury/rehab cycle while he was here + acclimation issues.

The whole personal trainer angle that you're alluding to I think is mostly fantasy. If there was anything wrong with his diet in Dallas it was on him, because our guys also eat well and practice hard.

I think if Nichushkin went to another bad situation he probably ends up in the KHL, but any competent organization such as the Avs would have seem him break out a similar way, maybe with 5-10 fewer points (there's a Makar effect as well)

More to my point though, is that none of this stuff was true about Neal. There was nothing wrong with his time in Dallas, and nothing wrong with his game in Dallas that wasn't also wrong in Pittsburgh, Nashville, and Edmonton.
 

IWantSakicAsMyGM

Registered User
Oct 13, 2011
9,782
3,986
Colorado
I'm like 90% confident that the Avs staff and overall change of scenery had a lot more impact than Mackinnon, though he's a special talent and there should be some Mackinnon effect on his linemates. I've never said that Nichushkin's stats aren't inflated by playing with a top tier player, I just think the Malkin effect on Neal was greater. I also believe getting out of Dallas did wonders for him mentally because he was in a constant injury/rehab cycle while he was here + acclimation issues.

The whole personal trainer angle that you're alluding to I think is mostly fantasy. If there was anything wrong with his diet in Dallas it was on him, because our guys also eat well and practice hard.

I think if Nichushkin went to another bad situation he probably ends up in the KHL, but any competent organization such as the Avs would have seem him break out a similar way, maybe with 5-10 fewer points (there's a Makar effect as well)

More to my point though, is that none of this stuff was true about Neal. There was nothing wrong with his time in Dallas, and nothing wrong with his game in Dallas that wasn't also wrong in Pittsburgh, Nashville, and Edmonton.

I'm like 90% confident that MacKinnon is the guy driving things in Colorado, and has been since 2017. If you want to give credit to the "change of scenery", then Mack absolutely deserves some credit as one of the guys who had a big hand in building the scenery in Denver. Without Mack, they aren't a playoff team for the 2 years before Nuke arrives. Without him, maybe it's still Duchene's team. If the environment Mack helped build is what you're saying helped Nuke turn his career around, then I think that's more impressive than helping Neal score 25 more points but having zero lasting effect on his career.

And I'm not alluding to any personal trainer angle. I was joking about the stories of Mack forcing his teammates to eat chick pea pasta.

I do agree that Neal was still a pretty good player in Dallas. He improved from 37 his first year, to 55 his 2nd year, then was on a 54 point pace in his 3rd season before he got traded to Pittsburgh, but then only scored 6 points in 20 games to finish with 45 on the season. So, maybe some of his 26 point increase was just the natural progression that seems to happen after players hit ~200 games and are mostly adapted to NHL competition. And maybe he still would have been a 70 point player if he went to Flyers instead of the Pens. Before you try to argue these aren't true, please keep in mind that I have just as much evidence to prove these are true as you do to prove what you think explains Nuke's improvements, which you want me to accept as being true (aka none). It's just within the realm of possible explanations, so I can imagine it being plausible.
 

bert

Registered User
Nov 11, 2002
36,112
22,065
Visit site
Malkin's peak 11-12

109 points in 75 games league g/pg 2.73

Adjusted to g/pg of 23-24 (3.12) it comes out as ~124-125 points in 75 games or ~136 point pace over 82 games. MacKinnon currently has 123 points in 72 games. It's pretty close.


To be fair he is lapping the field outside of McDavid and Kucherov. Can't blame him for having so tough competition at the top this year.
Who's the better leader... No contest this is Mackinnon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SeanMoneyHands

Spirits

Avalanche and Vikings
Jul 12, 2014
2,942
2,728
He is a much, much better playoff player. I voted for Malkin though. His peak during that time can’t be quantified with fancy stats. He was the best player in the world two years. I think he is overrated career wise but his peak is higher than Nate.
Can't fault anyone for voting Malkin, he was amazing!
 

hairylikebear

///////////////
Apr 30, 2009
4,177
1,804
Houston
I'm like 90% confident that MacKinnon is the guy driving things in Colorado, and has been since 2017. If you want to give credit to the "change of scenery", then Mack absolutely deserves some credit as one of the guys who had a big hand in building the scenery in Denver. Without Mack, they aren't a playoff team for the 2 years before Nuke arrives. Without him, maybe it's still Duchene's team. If the environment Mack helped build is what you're saying helped Nuke turn his career around, then I think that's more impressive than helping Neal score 25 more points but having zero lasting effect on his career.

And I'm not alluding to any personal trainer angle. I was joking about the stories of Mack forcing his teammates to eat chick pea pasta.

I do agree that Neal was still a pretty good player in Dallas. He improved from 37 his first year, to 55 his 2nd year, then was on a 54 point pace in his 3rd season before he got traded to Pittsburgh, but then only scored 6 points in 20 games to finish with 45 on the season. So, maybe some of his 26 point increase was just the natural progression that seems to happen after players hit ~200 games and are mostly adapted to NHL competition. And maybe he still would have been a 70 point player if he went to Flyers instead of the Pens. Before you try to argue these aren't true, please keep in mind that I have just as much evidence to prove these are true as you do to prove what you think explains Nuke's improvements, which you want me to accept as being true (aka none). It's just within the realm of possible explanations, so I can imagine it being plausible.
For your first paragraph, I'm not going to argue. You would know better if Mack was doing all that for Nichushkin. I think it's probably embellished/exaggerated.

I interpreted the question as who was better on the ice, but it looks like you're also considering franchise impact.

Regarding Neal, fair enough, but you don't get to criticize my use of a hypothetical when it was a response to your question asking me what I would think would happen in a hypothetical scenario.

do you think Nuke would have definitely improved exactly like this had he signed with the Coyotes instead of Colorado?
I think if Nichushkin went to another bad situation he probably ends up in the KHL, but any competent organization such as the Avs would have seem him break out a similar way, maybe with 5-10 fewer points (there's a Makar effect as well)
 
Last edited:

IWantSakicAsMyGM

Registered User
Oct 13, 2011
9,782
3,986
Colorado
For your first paragraph, I'm not going to argue. You would know better if Mack was doing all that for Nichushkin. I think it's probably embellished/exaggerated.

I interpreted the question as who was better on the ice, but it looks like you're also considering franchise impact.

Regarding Neal, fair enough, but you don't get to criticize my use of a hypothetical when it was a response to your question asking me what I would think would happen in a hypothetical scenario.

He's not doing all that for Nichushkin. He's doing all that because of his laser focused determination to win. That's why he prepares for the season like he does. That's why he works as hard as he does at practice. And in the gym. And why he eats chick pea pasta, and doesn't have cheat days. When he's setting that example, I'm pretty sure that's getting everyone else on the team to work harder too, and adjust what they are doing so they can try to keep up.

I'm also not saying that Mack is the only reason Nuke improved, but I don't see how you can really separate Mack from Nuke's improvements either, and completely dismiss him from having any impact. This year, Mack's been on the ice for 39 of Nukes 50 points. Essentially zero impact from playing together? Really?

And, I'm not criticizing your use of a hypothetical, I'm criticizing your use of some pretty questionable assumptions in your hypothetical. For example, I don't know if he turns it around with any other organization, because he only ever turned it around with Colorado. You assume that he does it in multiple other organizations. I don't know if he improves without Mack, because he was playing with Mack when he drastically improved. You assume Nuke's improvement was 100% destined to happen, Mack was just there. Questioning why you're assuming these things in your hypothetical seems like fair game to me. Especially when you started this whole conversation by asking how it's fair to give Mack any credit for Nuke.
 

Turin

Registered User
Feb 27, 2018
22,180
25,647
Mackinnon peak is around malkin

His prime blows Malkin away

Malkin was too injured and inconsistent

2010, 2011, 2013 were terrible years for the 2nd/3rd best player in the world

Mackinnon 2018 - present has a better prime than Malkin from 2008-2016 period
Malkin has 2 Art Rosses, 1 Hart, 1 Lindsay, 1 Conn Smythe, 2 Cups in that span? And that span is from his sophomore season to his age 28 season. It took MacKinnon 5 seasons to even approach the level Malkin was in his 2nd season. And why did you cut it off at 2016? He lead the playoffs in scoring in 2017 enroute to a THIRD Cup that year while being 3rd in points per game in the league. It's true his career has been inordinately hampered by nagging injuries, but the fact that he accomplished what he did despite that is extremely impressive.

Again, not really discounting MacKinnon here but this argument seems a little dishonest.
 

hamzarocks

Registered User
Jul 22, 2012
20,408
13,475
Pickering, Ontario
Malkin has 2 Art Rosses, 1 Hart, 1 Lindsay, 1 Conn Smythe, 2 Cups in that span? And that span is from his sophomore season to his age 28 season. It took MacKinnon 5 seasons to even approach the level Malkin was in his 2nd season. And why did you cut it off at 2016? He lead the playoffs in scoring in 2017 enroute to a THIRD Cup that year while being 3rd in points per game in the league. It's true his career has been inordinately hampered by nagging injuries, but the fact that he accomplished what he did despite that is extremely impressive.

Again, not really discounting MacKinnon here but this argument seems a little dishonest.
you can argue 2008 to 2018 as Malkins Prime of you want sure

My point is he had a bunch of down/injury riddled years

2010, 2011, 2013, and 2015 and 2016 were 5 years he wasnt a fringe top 10 player (maybe 2010, 2015 2016)

Mackinnon since his breakout in 2018 has more consistency and top-end seasons

He's been a top 7/8 player for 7 straight seasons with no down years like those years (best was 1st/2nd in 2018 and 2024, worst like 7th or 8th in 2019) Malkin had which makes his prime more impressive for me.
 

KareemTrustfund

Domiking Simon
Jun 19, 2012
17,484
2,557
Malkin has 2 Art Rosses, 1 Hart, 1 Lindsay, 1 Conn Smythe, 2 Cups in that span? And that span is from his sophomore season to his age 28 season. It took MacKinnon 5 seasons to even approach the level Malkin was in his 2nd season. And why did you cut it off at 2016? He lead the playoffs in scoring in 2017 enroute to a THIRD Cup that year while being 3rd in points per game in the league. It's true his career has been inordinately hampered by nagging injuries, but the fact that he accomplished what he did despite that is extremely impressive.

Again, not really discounting MacKinnon here but this argument seems a little dishonest.
MacKinnon also had the benefit of the league shrinkingthe goalie gear in 17/18 when ppg players quadrupled . Coincidently the same year Mackinnon became elite.

Malkin as recently as 19/20 lead the entire league in points per 60.

MacKinnon is great, I hope he wins the hart. But his peak isn’t as good as Malkins.
 

DearDiary

🐷🐷🐷🐷🐷🐷🐷🐷🐷🐷🐷🐷🐷🐷🐷🐷🐷🐷🐷🐷🐷🐷🐷
Aug 29, 2010
14,750
11,600
MacKinnon never had Crosby to share the load with, so MacKinnon.

Crosby barely played in Malkins peak season (22 games). Neal/Letang were also nowhere near as good as Rantanen/Makar. Peak playoffs Malkin in 2009 was playing with bottom 6 wingers
 

KareemTrustfund

Domiking Simon
Jun 19, 2012
17,484
2,557
Malkin's peak was unfortunately rather short, but he was just wow back then.


I don’t really think it was all that short. I think people don’t quite realize how good he was in some of the years he didn’t win major awards

These are some years people don’t even think about when it comes to peak Malkin but he was every bit as good as he was from 2007-2012

These are his points per 60 finishes in those later years. Three first place finishes. .

19/20 3rd

17/18 1st

16/17 1st

15/16 6th

13/14 1st
 
  • Like
Reactions: authentic

Caser

@RUSProspects
May 21, 2013
13,678
12,470
Riga/Yaroslavl
twitter.com
I don’t really think it was all that short. I think people don’t quite realize how good he was in some of the years he didn’t win major awards

These are some years people don’t even think about when it comes to peak Malkin but he was every bit as good as he was from 2007-2012

These are his points per 60 finishes in those later years. Three first place finishes. .

19/20 3rd

17/18 1st

16/17 1st

15/16 6th

13/14 1st
I'm not arguing that he still was very good, but Malkin v2012 was outright dominant, it was not the same in later years.
 

acor

Registered User
Jan 13, 2012
1,340
372
Malkin BY FAR. Malkin at his peak was best player in league. McKinnon might or might not having best season in league right now, it's debatable- in Malkin case there was absolutely no debate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KareemTrustfund

Despote

Registered User
Mar 21, 2023
1,130
2,228
Malkin BY FAR. Malkin at his peak was best player in league. McKinnon might or might not having best season in league right now, it's debatable- in Malkin case there was absolutely no debate.
Good on Malkin for not sharing the league with McDavid then.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: sanscosm

acor

Registered User
Jan 13, 2012
1,340
372
Your opinion is that Malkin would be "the best player in the league without debate" with Connor McDavid in the league?

Never said that, or anything resembling that.

My opinion is that McKinnon is not in debate with only McDavid, which makes your point invalid.

Sorry, in Malkin's best season, nobody in right mind would suggest Stamkos, or Giroux over him...
 
Last edited:

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad