Has Cale Makar already surpassed a prime Erik Karlsson in just his first 4 years?

[Stephen]

He was 2nd in Norris voting with 46 first place votes, how on earth is that not recognizing it?

Are you going to hold Makar to the same standard when Josi wins the Norris this year?

I think Makar should have won the Norris over Fox last year and should win in this year over Josi. But if he doesn’t, I’m not sure how it’s different than Karlsson not winning the Norris any given year during his prime. It’s not like he dominated the field vs old Lidstrom, Keith, Doughty, Subban and Hedman.

 

[Adele Dazeem]

Makar can, but right now doesn't hold a candle to prime Erik Karlsson. More like a Mike Green as of now.

 

[GirardSpinorama]

Why? Because his team missed the playoffs, and the Canadian media decided Drew Doughty was going to win a Norris that year no matter what. But that wasn't your point, you said that they didn't recognize Karlsson. By that logic, if Makar is so great, why hasn't he been recognized by the Norris voters? Guy has 0 Norris trophies, obviously nobody thinks he's that great.

Funny how the goalposts continue to move with every post.

Lol blame the media. Karlsson's legendary peak is a product of the media, and a lot of it is because his fall was so spectacular and unfortunate.

 

[Erik Alfredsson]

I think Makar should have won the Norris over Fox last year and should win in this year over Josi. But if he doesn’t, I’m not sure how it’s different than Karlsson not winning the Norris any given year during his prime. It’s not like he dominated the fire vs old Lidstrom, Keith, Doughty, Subban and Hedman.

And I think Karlsson should've won it in 2016 and 2017 (and many people agree). So can we say that Makar needs to win 4 Norris trophies to be on Karlsson's level since we're playing the "deserved to win" game now?

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

So does a Norris only matter if Karlsson wins it?

See how there's no way for any dman to surpass Karlsson when you set criterias that have no meaning.

The numbers are there for all to see. Relative to his contemporaries it’s an off the hook season. And Makar hasn’t demonstrated the ability to dominate to that extent- yet.

As for the Norris voting, it was ridiculous. There no way Karlsson shouldn’t have won. But it’s not the first or last time we’ll see a bad vote happen.

 

[Erik Alfredsson]

Lol blame the media. Karlsson's legendary peak is a product of the media, and a lot of it is because his fall was so spectacular and unfortunate.

That's the best you got? Makar doesn't even have a Norris trophy. You're not even trying anymore, I guess you know when you've lost. It's funny that the only people trying to make legitimate arguments in this thread are the people arguing for Karlsson.

 

[Stephen]

Nobody is saying regular season production is inadmissible. They're saying regular season production without the context considered is misleading. Really not a hard concept to grasp.

And again, if you're such a fan of raw numbers without any context, then Karlsson still stacks up to Makar in that regard, because we're discussing a 7 point difference here while Karlsson had more 5v5 points. 7 points is the difference between Matthew Tkachuk (104) and Mitch Marner (97) this year, is Matthew Tkachuk and undisputedly better player than Mitch Marner? The difference between Josi and Makar this year is 10 points (in favor of Josi). Is Josi an undisputedly better player than Makar? I guess so following this lazy logic.

Like I said very early on in this thread. Makar’s greatness is on display on the ice and that’s where he’s surpassed Karlsson. It’s the fact that he’s one of the best players on the best team pursuing a championship and that’s the highest level you can achieve in team sport.

Where this conversation is already lost in the weeds is we’re already throwing out this current playoff run and Makar’s unreal career playoff numbers (because of team) and playing the era adjusted game. As if you’re comparing real life Makar to some super version of Karlsson who did play on a great team, stayed healthy and won championships.

 

[Stephen]

And I think Karlsson should've won it in 2016 and 2017 (and many people agree). So can we say that Makar needs to win 4 Norris trophies to be on Karlsson's level since we're playing the "deserved to win" game now?

I’m not counting Norris Trophies. I’m saying what’s the shame in not winning the Norris because Karlsson routinely didn’t win it.

 

[GirardSpinorama]

So here's the excuses we've gotten for Karlsson (aka "context")

1. Bad team
2. The media needed doughty to win the Norris in Karlsson's peak year,
Conveniently, Karlsson totally deserved the Hart and Conn Smyth votes.
3. Low scoring era

 

[Erik Alfredsson]

Like I said very early on in this thread. Makar’s greatness is on display on the ice and that’s where he’s surpassed Karlsson. It’s the fact that he’s one of the best players on the best team pursuing a championship and that’s the highest level you can achieve in team sport.

Where this conversation is already lost in the weeds is we’re already throwing out this current playoff run and Makar’s unreal career playoff numbers (because of team) and playing the era adjusted game. As if you’re comparing real life Makar to some super version of Karlsson who did play on a great team, stayed healthy and won championships.

So when you're points get shot down we're back to the "just watch them play" argument? Okay.

So since you value post-season success as the end-all be-all measure of a good player, I guess we can put the lens on the guy in your avatar, as a little experiment. Alfredsson captained his team to the finals, led the team in points and goals too (led the playoffs in fact), while Sundin never made it past the 3rd round. I guess Alfie > Sundin. Eric Staal was the #1 Center on a Hurricanes team that won the cup, he's also better than Sundin. Zetterberg's got a Conn Smythe, better than Sundin too.

I got to say, it's pretty ballsy that the guy with the Sundin avatar is arguing that the differences in teams doesn't matter, and that's all about being the best player on the best team.

 

[Erik Alfredsson]

I’m not counting Norris Trophies. I’m saying what’s the shame in not winning the Norris because Karlsson routinely didn’t win it.

He routinely didn't win it? He's won it two times more than Makar has lmao. Only 9 defensemen in NHL history won it more times than he has.

 

[BlueSeal]

Mackinnon and Rantanen have yet to finish T-4th in league scoring. Karlsson has.

By the way, huge Makar fan, and he's within reach to surpass Karlsson with the Calder and his current skillset. But Karlsson has two Norrises, an assist title, and two top ten scoring finishes, while leading his team in scoring five times.

Close the thread.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

So here's the excuses we've gotten for Karlsson (aka "context")

1. Bad team
2. The media needed doughty to win the Norris in Karlsson's peak year,
Conveniently, Karlsson totally deserved the Hart and Conn Smyth votes.
3. Low scoring era

He doesn’t need excuses. He was the more dominant player -so far.

You’ve simply made bad arguments for your case.

 

[Stephen]

So when you're points get shot down we're back to the "just watch them play" argument? Okay.

So since you value post-season success as the end-all be-all measure of a good player, I guess we can put the lens on the guy in your avatar, as a little experiment. Alfredsson captained his team to the finals, led the team in points and goals too (led the playoffs in fact), while Sundin never made it past the 3rd round. Eric Staal was the #1 Center on a Hurricanes team that won the cup, he's also better than Sundin. Zetterberg's got a Conn Smythe, better than Sundin too.

I got to say, it's pretty ballsy that the guy with the Sundin avatar is arguing that the differences in teams doesn't matter, and that's all about being the best player on the best team.

My points haven’t been shot down. We’re just so caught up in these random Karlsson scoring achievements and era adjusted foolery that the conversation isn’t even able to recognize a 22 year old Makar is going to lead his team in scoring towards a possible Smythe and Cup.

Let me spin it around another way for you. You talk about Karlsson’s scoring finishes relative to all skaters during his prime as some key metric of greatness. Where did Ray Bourque rank in the 80s relative to that era’s scoring races? What about Lidstrom in the 2000s? Is Karlsson a better defenseman than those guys?

 

[wetcoast]

You’re comparing guys in completely different situations…

All players in the NHL are in completely different situations though right?

The Yzerman case upthread is about the same player in different team situations and points our his team success example and I have pointed out EK when he moved to a better team as well.

The problem is that some want to exaggerate one side of the team coin for one player and then not consider being the best player in the playoffs on a better team side of the coin .

Makar is having an excellent final series as well but one wouldn't know it from your posts.

 

[Erik Alfredsson]

So here's the excuses we've gotten for Karlsson (aka "context")

1. Bad team
2. The media needed doughty to win the Norris in Karlsson's peak year,
Conveniently, Karlsson totally deserved the Hart and Conn Smyth votes.
3. Low scoring era

Karlsson doesn't need excuses, he's achieved more than Makar has so far. Those are just explanations as to the very weak arguments you have continuously brought up that literally do nothing to prove that Makar is the better player.

What is convenient is how you completely dropped your entire methodology for determining the better player. I thought it was all about points? Whatever happened to "89>82". As soon as Rob Brown and Kent Nilsson being better than your boy MacKinnon using the same logic gets brought up, now it's all about Norris trophies (even though Makar has 0) and how everybody is just using "excuses". Lmao man oh man, I really wish this was a better debate, I really do.

 

[GirardSpinorama]

He doesn’t need excuses. He was the more dominant player -so far.

You’ve simply made bad arguments for your case.

And yet you've used all of those excuses.

My argument is Makar, who has a career avg better than Karlsson's peak, who is dominating in the playoffs and is the best player on a Cup finalist looking to win a cup, while better than karlsson in every way defensively.

Seems like he's checking all the boxes of being better offensively, better defensively and contributing more to team success.

 

[wetcoast]

agreed or Pronger maybe

If you are going to change Makar to Weber don't do it and pretend that the other guy quoted that, it's intellectually dishonest and if it's not an infraction on here it should be.

The guy said Makar so don't change the name in the quote to Weber.

It's hard to say he hasn't surpassed Karlsson.

Honestly Makar may be the most complete D since Orr. And no I'm not exaggerating.

 

[GirardSpinorama]

Karlsson doesn't need excuses, he's achieved more than Makar has so far. Those are just explanations as to the very weak arguments you have continuously brought up that literally do nothing to prove that Makar is the better player.

What is convenient is how you completely dropped your entire methodology for determining the better player. I thought it was all about points? Whatever happened to "89>82". As soon as Rob Brown and Kent Nilsson being better than your boy MacKinnon using the same logic gets brought up, now it's all about Norris trophies (even though Makar has 0) and how everybody is just using "excuses". Lmao man oh man, I really wish this was a better debate, I really do.

Jamie benn is better than Alfredsson. One scoring title versus none.

 

[Erik Alfredsson]

My points haven’t been shot down. We’re just so caught up in these random Karlsson scoring achievements and era adjusted foolery that the conversation isn’t even able to recognize a 22 year old Makar is going to lead his team in scoring towards a possible Smythe and Cup.

Let me spin it around another way for you. You talk about Karlsson’s scoring finishes relative to all skaters during his prime as some key metric of greatness. Where did Ray Bourque rank in the 80s relative to that era’s scoring races? What about Lidstrom in the 2000s? Is Karlsson a better defenseman than those guys?

His age is irrelevant, we're not arguing whether or not he has the potential to be better. That hasn't been disputed. It's whether or not he's already better.

Yes, prime Karlsson is better offensively than Nick Lidstrom and probably better than Ray Bourque (and Ray Bourque has a top 10 scoring finish, so poor comparable to Makar). What those guys have over Erik Karlsson are far superior defensive games (and far superior to Cale Makar too), and some of the best longevity out of any players in NHL history. Really don't know what this achieves though, since Cale Makar isn't Bourque or Lidstrom, he doesn't have a single Norris trophy, let alone 5 or 7. He has never led defensemen in league scoring once in his career while Karlsson, Lidstrom, and Bourque did it multiple times.

And what happened to the discussion about post-season success? Do you not agree that Alfredsson, Stall, and Zetterberg > Sundin.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

All players in the NHL are in completely different situations though right?

The Yzerman case upthread is about the same player in different team situations and points our his team success example and I have pointed out EK when he moved to a better team as well.

The problem is that some want to exaggerate one side of the team coin for one player and then not consider being the best player in the playoffs on a better team side of the coin .

Makar is having an excellent final series as well but one wouldn't know it from your posts.

As I said earlier, if you make this kind of thread it invites challenge. If it had been “Will Makar pass Karlsson” the thread’s tone would be completely different.

But just like the ‘McDavid is the best ever’ type threads it becomes something else. McDavid is freaking incredible. His game 7 against the Kings was one of the best games I’ve seen a player play. But he’s not better than f***ing Mario or Gretz… and so it turns into “you hate McDavid”… no I dont. I f***ing love the player.

Same with Makar. Great young exciting player. Special career with tons of potential… but somebody has to come out with this stupid comparison saying he’s already exceeded the best blueliner of his generation. It’s stupid.

 

[GirardSpinorama]

As I said earlier, if you make this kind of thread it invites challenge. If it had been “Will Makar pass Karlsson” the thread’s tone would be completely different.

But just like the ‘McDavid is the best ever’ type threads it becomes something else. McDavid is freaking incredible. His game 7 against the Kings was one of the best games I’ve seen a player play. But he’s not better than f***ing Mario or Gretz… and so it turns into “you hate McDavid”… no I dont. I f***ing love the player.

Same with Makar. Great young exciting player. Special career with tons of potential… but somebody has to come out with this stupid comparison saying he’s already exceeded the best blueliner of his generation. It’s stupid.

Karlsson isn't the best dman of his generation. He is barely the best offensive dman of his generation compared to letang. That myth has to stop. Keith and Hedman are undisputedly better.

 

[Erik Alfredsson]

Jamie benn is better than Alfredsson. One scoring title versus none.

...How are you having this much trouble following along to arguments. The point of saying Nilsson > MacKinnon is to prove how stupid your logic of using raw totals and career ppg as legitimate arguments is.

And Karlsson has two top 10 scoring finishes, Makar has 0. Karlsson led all defensemen in points 4 times, Makar has done it 0 times. Matter of fact, this year was the first year he was even top 5 in dmen scoring.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

And yet you've used all of those excuses.

You don’t understand what an “excuse” is. You’ve made bad arguments throughout the thread and they’ve been thoroughly rebutted. Then you move the goalposts and get rebutted again…

Different scoring eras is not an “excuse” for example.

 

[Erik Alfredsson]

Karlsson isn't the best dman of his generation. He is barely the best offensive dman of his generation compared to letang. That myth has to stop. Keith and Hedman are undisputedly better.

If you had any credibility left, it's gone. Are you even interested in having a legitimate debate, or are you just saying shocking stuff to get a laugh? It's pretty disrespectful to Lafleurs Guy who has been nothing but class in this thread and has respectfully provided excellent posts time and time again. You're just intent on saying ridiculous stuff that just makes your argument look silly.