1996-97 Mario Lemieux vs 2011-12 Evgeni Malkin

[WalterLundy]

1996-97 Mario Lemieux vs 2011-12 Evgeni Malkin

Two players who I’ve gotten to see all of. There have been times throughout Malkin’s career where I’ve seen flashes of a prime Lemieux but never a Mario operating at his best. 2011-12 was a year that reminded me of it. In terms of years that Lemieux played more than 50 games in his prime we have 88, 89, 90, 92, 93, 96 and 97. 1997 Lemieux was the one to me that was close in games played and by most metrics. Which one do you think was better? Teammates and quality of competition should be factored in here as well.

96-97 Lemieux:
76 GP: 50 G, 72 A, 122 P (1.61 PPG), +27

11-12 Malkin:
75 GP: 50 G, 59 A, 109 P (1.45 PPG), +18

Hockey Reference Adjusted stats:

96-97 Lemieux:
76 GP: 52 G, 75 A, 127 P (1.67 PPG)

11-12 Malkin:
75 GP: 57 G, 65 A, 122 P (1.63 PPG)

Adjusted to Historical league average of 2.24 ESG/0.72 PPG/0.10 SHG

96-97 Lemieux:
76 GP: 52 G, 76 A, 128 P (1.68)

11-12 Malkin:
75 GP: 57 G, 69 A, 126 P (1.68)

Dominance over peers:

1997 Lemieux:
Points:
2nd place: 1.12
5th place: 1.26
10th place: 1.39
2-10 average: 1.28
PPG:
2nd place: 1.06
5th place: 1.15
10th place: 1.40
2-10 average: 1.22

2012 Malkin:
Points:
2nd place: 1.12
5th place: 1.31
10th place: 1.40
2-10 average: 1.29
PPG:
2nd place: 1.20
5th place: 1.38
10th place: 1.46
2-10 average: 1.37

Click to read more...

 

[Crow]

I think I should have tried to find more about the quality of competition each faced and considered the quality of their line mates. Two amazing reasons for sure, but raw point totals are much more impressive to me than adjusted when something is this close. There are just way too many factors to evaluate to take the adjustment completely seriously. Any subjective analysis such as eye test is really unreliable for me at this point in time.

 

[Video Nasty]

The fact that Malkin, at age 25 and at the peak of his powers, might still not have had a better individual season than Lemieux’s perhaps eighth best season (at a busted age 31) speaks volumes about the gap between Lemieux and the Big Three of the post-lockout era.

Malkin reminded me of Lemieux as well during times of that season. It’s close, but I still feel like it’s Mario here.

 

[The Gr8 Dane]

Mario but close , Malkin was an animal that season , tough for guys to go against wayne and mario in these

 

[bert]

I'll take the guy who was captain of his team and knew his teammates names.

 

[Regal]

I’m leaning toward giving this to Malkin because he did it while playing mostly with Kunitz and Neal while the ‘97 team loaded the top line and Lemieux was usually playing with Jagr and Francis. Crosby helped Malkin, but only in his 1/4 of the season he played. Lemieux’s best was obviously better, but I think he was at a level closer to the primes of the best non-big 4 types this year. Jagr at the time was arguably better than Lemieux as well.

 

[Staniowski]

I think I'd be more comfortable with a 25-year-old healthy Malkin over a 31-year-old unhealthy Lemieux overall, but it depends. Malkin was great at his best, but he was no Lemieux (anywhere close to his best). But Lemieux had significant health issues, with his back in particular, during the '97 season. His health was even worse during '97 than it was in '96 (which is a big part of why he retired after that season). So, Lemieux '97 wasn't really dependable.

Take 25-year-old Malkin over 31-year-old Gretzky also.

And take 31-year-old Lemieux over 31-year-old Gretzky too.

 

[Midnight Judges]

Put peak Jagr on Malkin's line and see what happens.

 

[centipede2233]

malkin did more with less here. Pretty crazy peak malkin is a slight better player than a 31 yr old broken down Lemieux. Those 90’s really did a number on superstars when it was no holds bar territory.

 

[Bouboumaster]

Lemieux, obviously

Lemieux had a better cast of people with him but he still did all of this with a body that was about to fail him

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Mario at a hard 31 still better than peak 25 year old malkin enough said

 

[Luigi Lemieux]

Would take Malkin here. Lemieux started the year really struggling for the first time in his career. He took off when they put the Lemieux Jagr Francis line together. Fact is Lemieux needed help at that point in his career. Whereas Malkin was a dominant play driver in his prime with much worse linemates.

 

[Cursed Lemon]

People saying that Lemieux was busted might need a reminder that Malkin has never exactly been the picture of health

 

[norrisnick]

Lemieux, obviously

Lemieux had a better cast of people with him but he still did all of this with a body that was about to fail him

Mario was about to fail his body, not the other way round. '95-'97 is the healthiest most in shape he'd ever been after taking off '94-'95 to actually work out for the first time ever.

Hockeycentral | Pittsburgh Penguins | Schedule and Results

 

[Regal]

People saying that Lemieux was busted might need a reminder that Malkin has never exactly been the picture of health

I think people are talking about physical ability more than missed time. Malkin missed lots of time over the years but his body didn’t seem limited physically at that point in his career, whereas Lemieux couldn’t quite do the same things at the level he used to by that point

 

[SillyRabbit]

I think I'd be more comfortable with a 25-year-old healthy Malkin over a 31-year-old unhealthy Lemieux overall, but it depends. Malkin was great at his best, but he was no Lemieux (anywhere close to his best). But Lemieux had significant health issues, with his back in particular, during the '97 season. His health was even worse during '97 than it was in '96 (which is a big part of why he retired after that season). So, Lemieux '97 wasn't really dependable.

Take 25-year-old Malkin over 31-year-old Gretzky also.

And take 31-year-old Lemieux over 31-year-old Gretzky too.

This but moreso because peak Malkin was just that good.

 

[wetcoast]

This but moreso because peak Malkin was just that good.

Ironically both Pens teams lost to Philly in the first round both of these years but at least Malkin had a decent excuse, MAF couldn't stop a beach ball that series and the Mario led Pens did great in the regular season for fantasy purposes but Mario led teams except for 2 times when they were extremely deep weren't all that great reat in the playoffs and part of that is the style and leadership of Mario IMO.

 

[paracord]

Mario, but Geno was great that year.

Even adjusted, Mario put up better numbers. And he was still much more elite in 97 than Malkin ever, and could do things Malkin was incapable of.

 

[blundluntman]

2012 Malkin for me. Had much worse linemates at his disposal and was putting up insane numbers in a pretty low scoring league. 97 Mario is still Mario but he was more mortal at that point in his career. Peak Malkin with Jagr and Francis at his disposal would've been unbelievable. It's still somewhat close but I'll take Geno.

 

[Miro4Norris]

Seems close as long as you dont change Neal and Kunitz to Prime Jagr and Francis. Malkin would have likely added +20 pts more that season playing with superstars

 

[TheGoldenJet]

Voted Malkin.

The two were basically equal offensively as has been outlined above, but Lemieux had the much better linemates, so the edge goes to Malkin.

Outside of his offense, peak Malkin also brought more to the table. Compared to a 30+ Lemieux, peak Malkin was more physical and was also not a liability defensively. Malkin has led the league in takeaways multiple times, unlike Lemieux.

Now if both players were at their peaks, you take Lemieux, but that’s not what this thread is asking.

 

[WalterLundy]

Voted Malkin.

The two were basically equal offensively as has been outlined above, but Lemieux had the much better linemates, so the edge goes to Malkin.

Outside of his offense, peak Malkin also brought more to the table. Compared to a 30+ Lemieux, peak Malkin was more physical and was also not a liability defensively. Malkin has led the league in takeaways multiple times, unlike Lemieux.

Now if both players were at their peaks, you take Lemieux, but that’s not what this thread is asking.

Right I was trying to find comparable statistical seasons between the two. Had I picked 89 or 93 Lemieux as a comparison it is a no brainer and the poll closed.

 

[Gurglesons]

Taking Malkin here.