Lol, 1 cup between the 3 of them, but yes, nobody has come close to having the same impact
I assume Wayne circa 1984 and Mario circa 1990 would garner the same "help" smilie?
Is Evgeny Malkin a generational talent?
- Thread starter ViD
- Start date
I assume Wayne circa 1984 and Mario circa 1990 would garner the same "help" smilie?
madgoat33
Registered User
- May 16, 2010
- 17,792
- 2,002
About the dumbest comparison(s) I've ever seen. 3 players being propped up way above their peers who have roughly 30 seasons of NHL experience but only 1 cup. Now that is astounding.
Voight
#winning
livewell68
Registered User
- Jul 20, 2007
- 8,680
- 52
I'll post it again about Ovechkin.
Ovechkin has 3 Hart trophies, 1 Art Ross, 3 Pearson Lindsays, 5 Rocket Richard trophies, 5 1st Team All-Star selections (among LW's only Bobby Hull and Ted Lindsay had more selections), 5 top 3 scoring finishes, 7 overall top 10 finishes.
How many players in NHL history have led the league in goals more times than Ovechkin has? I'm sure there about a dozen players that have won 2 or more Art Ross trophies though.
This list only goes up to 2012.
That is the pure definition of Generational. [mod] Ovechkin has had the better career so far.
Last edited by a moderator:
Voight
#winning
People are ridiculous. You cant say Sid is a generational player and Ovy isnt. Its actually mind-boggling.
Cursed Lemon
Registered Bruiser
Nathaniel Skywalker
DIG IN!!! RiGHT NOW!!!
- Oct 18, 2013
- 14,241
- 5,900
So ovechkins career>jagrs career? Cause ovechkin has 12 awards to jagrs 9 and most of those are Richards. Kk got it
livewell68
Registered User
- Jul 20, 2007
- 8,680
- 52
Jagr is already a Generational talent and played during an era where Hasek and Lemieux pried their trade.
Ovechkin though is a Generational talent and when some fans make the stupid comment that Ovechkin isn't generational or that only Crosby or Malkin are clearly out to lunch.
I think Ovechkin BTW is a lot closer to a peak Jagr than either Malkin or Crosby are.
Jagr still has 5 Art Ross trophies and 7 top 2 finishes; that alone is generational. Oh BTW, he'll be passing Esposito soon for 4th all-time in goals.
This. Besides, if you have to debate whether someone is in such an exclusive club, by definition, it probably isn't so.
Last edited:
X is a generational player, and so is his contemporary, Y.
I don't think the word 'generational' means what you think it means.
Ovechkin, Crosby and Malkin are franchise players.
By definition, they can't all be generational players, which is by definition a player who comes along once a generation.
Incidentally, neither would contemporaries Gordie Howe and Maurice Richard. While staggered, their seven-year age difference (1921/1928) just puts them in the same generation.
I'm not sure that there is any real value is ascribing generational status. Two great players who come along at the same time help define greatness, present a foil for great players. They don't detract from great players.
I don't think the word 'generational' means what you think it means.
Ovechkin, Crosby and Malkin are franchise players.
By definition, they can't all be generational players, which is by definition a player who comes along once a generation.
Incidentally, neither would contemporaries Gordie Howe and Maurice Richard. While staggered, their seven-year age difference (1921/1928) just puts them in the same generation.
I'm not sure that there is any real value is ascribing generational status. Two great players who come along at the same time help define greatness, present a foil for great players. They don't detract from great players.
How about:
Mt. Rushmore - Howe, Gretzky, Orr, Lemieux
Pedestal guys - Crosby, Ovechkin, Malkin, Jagr, Yzerman, Sakic, Bourque, Lidstrom, etc.
Greats - Stamkos, Kane, Giroux, etc.
Mt. Rushmore - Howe, Gretzky, Orr, Lemieux
Pedestal guys - Crosby, Ovechkin, Malkin, Jagr, Yzerman, Sakic, Bourque, Lidstrom, etc.
Greats - Stamkos, Kane, Giroux, etc.
How about: our generation is unlucky and we only have several great players, yet not a single generational talent?
Fantomas
Registered User
- Aug 7, 2012
- 13,642
- 7,265
Okay, but playing more minutes also means that one gets more tired.
Furthermore, more icetime sometimes means more defensive/PK duty rather than necessarily greater offensive responsibility.
Son Goku
henlo u stinky egg
I'd say greats are guys like Selanne, Iginla, Sundin, Pederson, Etc. Kane Stamkos and Giroux will get there but not yet.
Son Goku
henlo u stinky egg
Also I can say for a fact, when Malkin is on there is nobody in the league like him, it's like watching Mario all over again. If Malkin played most of the season like we all know he can id bet money that he'd outscore crosby by a fair margin yearly.
Not really.
In case you didn't know, even when Geno is on fire, he usually gets outscore by Sid who has somehow that amazing ability to rack up points even when you hardly notice him on the ice.
On the other hand, Geno is often very visible on the ice and create ton of chances but somehow, it doesn't result in as much points as it results for Sid.
It's all over again the Greztsky- Mario comparaison where, when watching both play, you wondered how the Great one was able to outscore Le Magnifique by that much in so many seasons.
Passing and vision are more often than not the key skills to score in this league, way over skills like dangling or speed skating.
Last edited:
glovesave_35
Name
Malkin outscored a healthy Crosby en route to one of his Art Rosses.
For as great as Crosby is he has a relatively empty trophy case considering the career he has had. I don't think Crosby is far and away the best player. I think he is the best but it isn't by a lot.
The biggest knock you can put against Malkin is that he hasn't been as consistent as Crosby; he is more likely to have a "human" season closer to PPG. Malkin gets a boost from me for having maybe his best season during Crosby's rash of concussions.
There's about a minute difference in average TOI about half of which was spent won the PP and the other half was mostly made up of SH time (good point!). Not sure that means it was any harder to play an extra minute per game.
The extra PP time, attributed to more penalties being called in the DPE era (and probably contributes to the extra SH time too) is still the significant difference. contributing roughly 5% higher scoring levels.
How do you know this, let alone "we"? If he hasn't been "on" for most of a season ever in his career, this hypothetical Malkin myth needs to be put to bed.
Someone broke down the best streaks for both of them and Crosby has the higher scoring samples whether its one game, 10 games, 25 games or 41 games. So if Crosby was on for a full season, he still out produces an "on" Malkin.
In first 33 games of 2008-2009 season, Geno scored 58 pts......dunno if Sid had an as good scoring sample over 33 games.
Not sure but it still doesn't change the main point that Malkin has never been on for a full season. Like almost every other player you can name, he has peaks and valleys; one you certainly cannot name is Crosby. He possibly has been the most consistent elite scorer in NHL history.
