Value of Malkin (compared to Crosby)?

[Shady Machine]

Well of course but it still matters.

True. Not sure why I made it seem otherwise

 

[Ziggyjoe21]

They both play at an elite level, and both bring something (slightly) different to the table. We can argue who is better at what talent, but in the end Crosby's marketability puts him over the top, not his on ice skills.

 

[UnderratedBrooks44]

True. Not sure why I made it seem otherwise

Sorry. Yeah normally I'd say they're both about the same but if Crosby can just get back on the straight and narrow playing consistently I think he's capable of anything this era will allow. I can see AO, Stamkos, eventually Tavares, Sedin, etc. having certain years that were decidedly better than Malkin's. Not Crosby though.

 

[Arto Kilponen]

But Malkin is simply, at least to me, so much more fun to watch. And that's really all it's about, right?

I disagree with this. There's a lot of players that are very fun to watch, but that doesn't mean they're great players. Heck, Sean Avery was very fun to watch. Sure, for totally different reasons, but when seeing fun as the only meter, I don't think Avery was far behind Malkin. Again, this says absolutely nothing about how good players they are, but that's exactly the point.

Sorry. Yeah normally I'd say they're both about the same but if Crosby can just get back on the straight and narrow playing consistently I think he's capable of anything this era will allow. I can see AO, Stamkos, eventually Tavares, Sedin, etc. having certain years that were decidedly better than Malkin's. Not Crosby though.

So what are you saying about Stamkos 11-12 or Ovechkin 07-08 seasons?

 

[Shady Machine]

Sorry. Yeah normally I'd say they're both about the same but if Crosby can just get back on the straight and narrow playing consistently I think he's capable of anything this era will allow. I can see AO, Stamkos, eventually Tavares, Sedin, etc. having certain years that were decidedly better than Malkin's. Not Crosby though.

I think we will agree to disagree on that but time will tell.

 

[mgd525]

The one thing I do want to point out is everytime Crosby is out for awhile(in this case a long while) people on these boards start to think they are even or Malkin's better even. I have found myself thinking this was as well at times. It's never the case.

Crosby is healthy again and his problems seem to be over. Due to the lock out and neck/head injuries Crosby hasn't been able to play much and will be rusty ect. When he hits full stirde again we will all be reminded Crosby is the better player. Malkin is more flashy not better.

Some reasons:

Crosby is GREAT at faceoffs, Malkin is anything but.

Crosby almost never makes a bad turnover. Malkin has really cut down on those to his credit.

Malkin is the more talented player but in every area just about Crosby is better due to his determination and unreal work ethic.

Malkin is a more natural goal scorer but he's not better than Crosby.

Crosby is a little bit better at passing. Their both great but i give the edge to Crosby.

To sum it up their close but Crosby when he is on his game is just better imo.

 

[Shady Machine]

I disagree with this. There's a lot of players that are very fun to watch, but that doesn't mean they're great players. Heck, Sean Avery was very fun to watch. Sure, for totally different reasons, but when seeing fun as the only meter, I don't think Avery was far behind Malkin. Again, this says absolutely nothing about how good players they are, but that's exactly the point.

This is silly. We are talking about comparing the two best players in the game and the difference between the two is so small that things like "exciting to watch", "leadership", and "marketability" become the deciding factors. No one asked the question "who is the most fun to watch even if they suck at hockey relative to the rest of the league".

 

[BlindWillyMcHurt]

I disagree with this. There's a lot of players that are very fun to watch, but that doesn't mean they're great players. Heck, Sean Avery was very fun to watch. Sure, for totally different reasons, but when seeing fun as the only meter, I don't think Avery was far behind Malkin. Again, this says absolutely nothing about how good players they are, but that's exactly the point.

I guess if you find Avery fun to watch you value much different things about the game than I do. Different strokes, I guess. But I don't find anything about the brand of entertainment both provide to be remotely similar.

And yeah... like I said... I know my opinion doesn't tell you much about assessing value.

 

[UnderratedBrooks44]

I think we will agree to disagree on that but time will tell.

I'm saying it's possible, I'm not saying I'm counting on it. We're splitting hairs in this thread anyways. From a pure hockey perspective it's a small gap if any.

 

[UnderratedBrooks44]

So what are you saying about Stamkos 11-12 or Ovechkin 07-08 seasons?

How do you mean

 

[Shady Machine]

Not that awards are everything, but I've seen a few posts about Malkin taking a back seat to Crosby when they are both in the lineup. Well, Geno did win the Conne Smythe in 2009 and the Art Ross over Sid while both were healthy. Plus, Geno edges out Sid in overall awards (not that it matters much, but it's still worth noting). Their NHL award accomplishments look like this (not including All Star games since Sid has been injured during several):

Malkin

Hart
Ted Lindsay
2 Art Ross
Conne Smythe
Calder (to be fair, Sid would have won in any other year)


Sid

Hart
Rocket Richard
Art Ross
Lester Pearson (now Ted Lindsay)

 

[Arto Kilponen]

This is silly. We are talking about comparing the two best players in the game and the difference between the two is so small that things like "exciting to watch", "leadership", and "marketability" become the deciding factors. No one asked the question "who is the most fun to watch even if they suck at hockey relative to the rest of the league".

Well BlindWillyMcHurt wrote that And (fun) is really all it's about, right?

So I agree with you. For me "being fun to watch" tells nothing about the player's importance. Sure, it adds marketing value, which is why Rangers signed Avery, but given a chance between Malkin and Avery, no-one would take Avery because he is more fun to watch - other things are way more important.

How do you mean

You said Stamkos or Ovechkin doesn't have better season than Crosby, which I either misunderstood or then I totally disagree with.

edit. Here's the exact quote:
I can see AO, Stamkos, eventually Tavares, Sedin, etc. having certain years that were decidedly better than Malkin's. Not Crosby though.

 

[Shady Machine]

Well BlindWillyMcHurt wrote that And (fun) is really all it's about, right?

So I agree with you. For me "being fun to watch" tells nothing about the player's importance. Sure, it adds marketing value, which is why Rangers signed Avery, but given a chance between Malkin and Avery, no-one would take Avery because he is more fun to watch - other things are way more important.

Eh. I think he was saying that hockey is about being fun to watch. For him, and most fans, it's fun to watch electrifying and talented hockey players. Also, I was using that as an added qualification to decide between two star players that are nearly equal in terms of "who is the better player". I believe he was doing the same. My point is that you kind of cherry picked his statement without using in it's proper context. Not a big deal though.

 

[Shady Machine]

You said Stamkos or Ovechkin doesn't have better season than Crosby, which I either misunderstood or then I totally disagree with.

edit. Here's the exact quote:
I can see AO, Stamkos, eventually Tavares, Sedin, etc. having certain years that were decidedly better than Malkin's. Not Crosby though.

He was referring to the future. In the future he could see those players having better seasons that Crosby's in the same season. He believes Crosby's dominance will not be rivaled by any of these players in the future.

 

[UnderratedBrooks44]

You said Stamkos or Ovechkin doesn't have better season than Crosby, which I either misunderstood or then I totally disagree with.

edit. Here's the exact quote:
I can see AO, Stamkos, eventually Tavares, Sedin, etc. having certain years that were decidedly better than Malkin's. Not Crosby though.

Fair point, but that's why I threw in that "I could see" it happening. Crosby missed 29 games in '07-08 and AO had 65 goals and a few more points than Malkin so...

All in all now that everyone's in their prime that's my boiled down opinion of the two players.

 

[Arto Kilponen]

Eh. I think he was saying that hockey is about being fun to watch. For him, and most fans, it's fun to watch electrifying and talented hockey players. Also, I was using that as an added qualification to decide between two star players that are nearly equal in terms of "who is the better player". I believe he was doing the same. My point is that you kind of cherry picked his statement without using in it's proper context. Not a big deal though.

Hmm... I guess we value different things then. Excitement is what I'm looking for, for example a triple overtime of your favorite team is not necessarily fun, but for sure it is exciting. Those are for me the most important things.

 

[Shady Machine]

Hmm... I guess we value different things then. Excitement is what I'm looking for, for example a triple overtime of your favorite team is not necessarily fun, but for sure it is exciting. Those are for me the most important things.

Those are to me as well. My team winning the Stanley Cup is the most exciting thing. Again though, we were talking about deciding who was the better player. Since the difference is so small, we resorted to who was more exciting to watch. I think you are missing the over-arching points of my post and just picking one sentence and basing your next post on that. Oh well, good talk.

 

[BarnabysBAC*]

Up until last year, Geno took a lot of shifts off. When he is fully committed to trying and working his ass off, we saw what he can do. There have also been times when he fully took over a game (2 years ago when Pens were down 3 goals going into the third and he single handidly brought them back.) Crosby is a great player, obviously, but Geno is the type of player who can take over a game and has a very underrated physical game. IMO, Geno is more valuable than Crosby, and has proved that over the years.

 

[mrzeigler]

re: lower lows

I recall as recently as last season groaning about Sid making a drop pass just inside the blue line. His affection for this (and don't get me wrong — he has curtailed it a bunch since coming into the league) is the only minor complaint I have bout his game. The only real "low" with Sid is his injury history. Of course, a history of injuries doesn't predict a future of them.

After last season, I can't think of complaint about Geno. Maybe that he loops back into his own zone more often than others, but I don't recall this tactic not working (at least to get it back to center ice) for him. How he responded after his knee injury revealed a lot about his character.

 

[JTG]

Malkin is more naturally skilled, IMO. I haven't seen a guy able to puck handle at speed, and do it with such ease like Geno since Lemieux. Geno is definitely a groove type player though. When he's on, he's really on, but he can go through stretches where things just don't work. Sid sort of wills things to happen. He will continuously run into a brick wall until he knocks it down. Not as skilled as Geno, IMO, but with his high end skill and his sheer determination, that's why Sid gets the results he does, and he can sort of be counted on more. Sid is just going to make it happen.

I have much more fun watching a blazing hot Evgeni Malkin. He's an unstoppable force once he gets in the groove. Then again, one of things I hate watching the most is an Evgeni Malkin who is in a slump and taking lazy, stupid penalties. It's a give and take.

 

[Ugene Magic]

Not that awards are everything, but I've seen a few posts about Malkin taking a back seat to Crosby when they are both in the lineup. Well, Geno did win the Conne Smythe in 2009 and the Art Ross over Sid while both were healthy. Plus, Geno edges out Sid in overall awards (not that it matters much, but it's still worth noting). Their NHL award accomplishments look like this (not including All Star games since Sid has been injured during several):

Malkin

Hart
Ted Lindsay
2 Art Ross
Conne Smythe
Calder (to be fair, Sid would have won in any other year)


Sid

Hart
Rocket Richard
Art Ross
Lester Pearson (now Ted Lindsay)

That's nice and all, but Geno won his Conn smythe the year of Sids bad ankle sprain which takes a full year to heal while not straining it, now put in that he's skating 2/3 months later.

I look at it the most easiest way possible.

Take away Malkins wingers, now take away Sids.

Enough said.

Other than injuries to, Sid, Geno can't keep up. Before Sids head issues he was ready to set the bare that I don't think anyone has touched since he himself put up 122. When Geno can do this stuff when Sids playing "fully" healthy, Geno's a notch below.

Unfortunately they lost a half a season so this stuff will have to be relegated to next season.

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

Malkin could MAYBE get you a Brian Strait type guy in a trade.

 

[theicebox]

I would give my left nut for Malkin, and my right nut for Crosby.

I value both of my nuts equally, and I will not be trading them, they are off the market, and will never be placed on waivers. GMs, do not contact me.

 

[The Underboss]

If I had to rate them out of 10;

Crosby= 9.25

Malkin= 8.0

 

[MonsterSurge]

Crosby can make 3rd line players look like 1st line players. Malkin can't do that. However, when Malkin is on his game, he's almost unstoppable.