Did including Toews into Top 100 Players instead of Malkin age well?

[Barrie22]

Toews wasn't the only guy that Malking should have been there instead of.

This is true. But its the most glaring player to be put into the top 100 in the list.

Every player also mentioned earlier in this thread about who should not be in the list they atleast have some kind of career numbers to be put into it.

Toews has 1 point per game season (48 points in 48 games) and 1 80 point season.

 

[TheGoldenJet]

If you want to take the "healthy" version of each player, most would take Malkin including myself. All-time rankings are based moreso on what a player was able to accomplish with their talent.

So you would rank Ovechkin over Sid and his PPG finishes?

 

[TheGoldenJet]

Well, he's consistent in that he doesn't drop below 1PPG (except that one season where he had some injury issues IIRC) but he does feel like hot'n cold kind of a player. His PPG at the end of every season of his career goes as following:

1st: 1.09
2nd: 1.29
3rd: 1.38
4th: 1.15
5th: 0.86
6th: 1.45
7th: 1.06
8th: 1.20
9th: 1.01
10th: 1.02
11th: 1.16
12th: 1.26
13th:1.06
14th: 1.36

I don't know if that's different from "normal" starplayers. But compared to OV or Sid it's probably bit more inconsistent.

Pretty darn consistent, especially if you account for his injury-filled/ACL season.

 

[daver]

I mean, what are you using to set Malkin and Sakic apart?

Longevity? That’s nice, but Sakic’s longevity didn’t result in anything meaningful aside from a point lead and a marginal at best PPG lead.

And we have no idea what Geno still has left in the tank. He is one year removed from a 98 point season and is absolutely on fire this year.

This has already been laid out:

Sakic has more Top 5 scoring finishes vs. Malkin's better PPG finishes.

Sakic has the superior playoff resume.

Add in Sakic's era best longevity and it places him ahead.

Again, no issue with picking Malkin over Sakic if healthy but Malkin has been borderline injury-prone.

Suggest you read through this to see why noone would put Malkin ahead of Sakic all-time:

Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time

 

[daver]

So you would rank Ovechkin over Sid and his PPG finishes?

I take Crosby over OV given only Wayne, Mario and Howe have more Top 3 Art Ross and Hart nominations than him in NHL history.

 

[TheGoldenJet]

I take Crosby over OV given only Wayne, Mario and Howe have more Top 3 Art Ross and Hart nominations than him in NHL history.

What about actual Hart Trophies?

 

[Gurglesons]

This has already been laid out:

Sakic has more Top 5 scoring finishes vs. Malkin's better PPG finishes.

Sakic has the superior playoff resume.

Add in Sakic's era best longevity and it places him ahead.

Again, no issue with picking Malkin over Sakic if healthy but Malkin has been borderline injury-prone.

Suggest you read through this to see why noone would put Malkin ahead of Sakic all-time:

Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time

I don’t really understand how Sakic has the better playoff resume.

Malkin has the better peak performance, the better second performance and has a third cup where he was a pivotal member.

 

[daver]

What about actual Hart Trophies?

One more 1st place (won by a hair over Crosby in 2013) is not enough to overcome Crosby's clear advantage in elite seasons/elite level of play.

Sakic and Malkin's best seasons and playoff runs are very close then health becomes a major factor.

 

[BigEezyE22]

If you want to take the "healthy" version of each player, most would take Malkin including myself. All-time rankings are based moreso on what a player was able to accomplish with their talent.

But if Geno were able to accomplish more without being healthy, then what's left.

 

[Reds4Life]

Toews over Malkin is one of the biggest blunders the NHL has ever made.

 

[Voight]

Be a heck of lot healthier for one. Has two great Cup winning playoff runs. A rep for being solid, if not very good defensively.

Maybe Malkin passes him if he was able to put up more full seasons but he is hardly that much better as a player as being made out by the other poster.

I'd argue Sakic's 2001 season is better than Geno's peak.

- Won the Hart in a landslide of sorts, plus the Pearson
- Just 3 points behind Jagr for the Art Ross; his 118 points would have easily won him the trophy any other season from 2000-2004
- 5 goals behind Bure for the Rocket, 5 behind Jagr for the assist title
- Barely lost the Selke to John Madden
- Smythe worthy playoff run

 

[TheGoldenJet]

Malkin has better PPG finish resume already than Sakic has his entire career. Geno has finished top-10 in PPG a marvelous 10 times already against Sakic's 9. Incredibly 6 of those Malkin's top-10 finishes are actually top-3 finishes. Sakic has 3 top-3 PPG finishes. It's safe to say, that Geno is the more skilled offensive threat than Sakic (or Yzerman for that matter).

Well said.

Malkin proved to be a clear top 3 player of his generation, Sakic was not.

 

[Turin]

There were at least 50 players worse than Malkin included.

 

[nowhereman]

Not only do I feel that Malkin is a top 100 player of all time but I think you can make a case that he could finish his career top 50. Toews has made a career out of team success and is a perfect example of a player whose reputation was worth more than his actual on-ice ability.

 

[Gurglesons]

I'd argue Sakic's 2001 season is better than Geno's peak.

- Won the Hart in a landslide of sorts, plus the Pearson
- Just 3 points behind Jagr for the Art Ross; his 118 points would have easily won him the trophy any other season from 2000-2004
- 5 goals behind Bure for the Rocket, 5 behind Jagr for the assist title
- Barely lost the Selke to John Madden
- Smythe worthy playoff run

2009? Actually won the Ross. Put up the best playoff numbers since Lemieux. Actually won the Smythe? Had an argument for the Hart.

 

[daver]

I don’t really understand how Sakic has the better playoff resume.

Malkin has the better peak performance, the better second performance and has a third cup where he was a pivotal member.

The better performance between the two is highly debatable, the 2nd is not. Sakic was much better in the SCF in '01 than Malkin. Sakic in 1997 was much better than Malkin's 3rd Cup run.

 

[daver]

Well said.

Malkin proved to be a clear top 3 player of his generation, Sakic was not.

Who was better than Sakic in "his generation" besides Wayne and Mario? If you can someone else besides Jagr, you may have a point.

 

[nbwingsfan]

It was controversial when it came out (and still is controversial when you look at their careers overall), but Malkin's career has worsened since the list came out whereas Toews had a career year last year points-wise. Not that it makes the list any better, but there's nothing that's been done the last few years that has changed anything between these two players IMO.

He had a career best, but also had three career worsts before that (and is looking awful again this season).

 

[ChaosAgent]

I'd argue Sakic's 2001 season is better than Geno's peak.

- Won the Hart in a landslide of sorts, plus the Pearson
- Just 3 points behind Jagr for the Art Ross; his 118 points would have easily won him the trophy any other season from 2000-2004
- 5 goals behind Bure for the Rocket, 5 behind Jagr for the assist title
- Barely lost the Selke to John Madden
- Smythe worthy playoff run

Malkin's 2011-2012 was simply incredible. That's the best he's ever looked.

The team went Supernova briefly once Sid's concussion saga ended...they were just unreal for about 10 games before Bylsma lost control. Then Bylsma losing control and Fleury's all-time worst series ended up casting them out early. Letang also totally lost control of his game in that Philly series too, if I recall.

I can't argue that Malkin had no playoff success to show for his 2011-2012 season, but it's a fun what-if to contemplate.

 

[Wings4Life]

Toews wasn't the only guy that Malking should have been there instead of.

There were probably 50 players on that list that Malkin should have went ahead of, and that was 3 years ago. That number is much higher today.

 

[Wings4Life]

The last HOH Top 100, done last year, had Malkin at #52, Yzerman at #40 and Sakic at #32.

This means nothing though. Also was done before Malkin hit 1,000 points.

 

[Wings4Life]

One more 1st place (won by a hair over Crosby in 2013) is not enough to overcome Crosby's clear advantage in elite seasons/elite level of play.

Sakic and Malkin's best seasons and playoff runs are very close then health becomes a major factor.

Health is only a factor if it doesn't apply to daver's buddy Crosby.

If you rank Crosby over Ovechkin, you should rank Malkin over Sakic. Can't have it both ways, even if you are Canadian.

 

[Connor McConnor]

Who was better than Sakic in "his generation" besides Wayne and Mario? If you can someone else besides Jagr, you may have a point.

Sakic's career may be better due to longevity but he wasn't better than Forsberg and a lot of his people still have Foppa ahead

 

[daver]

This means nothing though. Also was done before Malkin hit 1,000 points.

It was actually a very well thought out project done by serious hockey HF members. A lot more meaningful than one Pens' fan opinion.

Malkin added nothing to his resume last season.

 

[TheGoldenJet]

Health is only a factor if it doesn't apply to daver's buddy Crosby.

If you rank Crosby over Ovechkin, you should rank Malkin over Sakic. Can't have it both ways, even if you are Canadian.

Pretty much this.