Is Evgeny Malkin a generational talent?

[Honest M]

Sakic elite, Sundin franchise? Where do you people come up with this ridiculous tripe. Sundin played for a **** team most of his career while Sakic played for a constant cup contender. It's highly debatable if Sakic was even the best player on the Avs and I don't think he was. Sakic could be relied on putting up points every season, just like Sundin, but dominant? Dominant is Peter Forsbergs middle name. That guy was an unstoppable force.

Where Sakic and Sundin played on the same team and during roughly the same period is where a real comparison can be made.
So, let's compare some stats, shall we:
Rookie year for Nordiques (both at age 19):
Sakic - 70gp, 23g, 62p, -36. (88-89)
Sundin - 80gp, 23g, 59p, -24. (90-91)

Although with 10 more games played, it should be taken into account that the transition to NHL ice and play as well as getting accustomed to a new country would have an effect on the first season, at least, for Sundin.

Second season:
Sakic - gp 80, 39g, 102p, -40 (89-90)
Sundin - gp 80, 33, 76p, -19 (91-92)

Clearly a big gap as far as points go. However, Sakic was playing first line minutes centering that line his second season where as Sundin was playing on the second line as Sakic had already solidified his spot. Sakic already on his fourth season with the Nordiques, at the time.

But here's where it gets interesting.. By Sundins third season he's finding more minutes, more responsibility and has solidified himself on the team. Let's see how they both did in the 92-93 season:
Sakic - 78gp, 48g, 105p, -3.
Sundin - 80gp, 47g, 114p, +21.

Following season (93-94):
Sakic - 84gp, 28g, 92p, -8.
Sundin - 84gp, 32g, 85p, +1.

So, where we can compare the two in the same environment and conditions, they're pretty damn close.

I would put Malkin easily above sakic and probably above Crosby and Owie, maybe... but it's not a easy call

 

[Cult of Hynes]

Malkin is better offensively than Fedorov and definitely in the same league when looking at overall performance. I might even give him the edge overall but I doubt I'd even compare them defensively. The thing about Fedorov is that outside of two or three seasons he looked less than comparable with some of the other forwards in the league.

I'd also argue that Malkin doesn't take seasons off so much as have some really poor luck with injuries. The guys sort of like a glass cannon in that he always seems to be injured and sometimes lets it affect his play.

Wrong. I'd say they are on par offensively, and defensively it is not even close. A two time selke winner that put up 56 goals and 120 points in a selke winning season that could also b play the D position is not in the same league as someone who is only offensive gifted and a defensive liability. Fedorov is the better player all around.

 

[KirkAlbuquerque]

hes a HOF for sure, great player, would be the best player on any team besides Pitt, and he's sometimes the best player on Pitt as well.

 

[jhglassman]

Just for fun. Point Shares for Crosby, Ovie, and Malkin ranked from best season to worst.

Sidney Crosby 14.7 13.3 11.1 10.5 10.1 9.0 7.5 5.0
Alex Ovechkin 17.2 15.6 14.5 12.7 11.1 10.5 8.7 8.0
Evgeni Malkin 15.7 13.9 12.6 9.4 8.5 4.1 3.7

Crosby has the worst best season. Ovi has the best worst season (Syd's health obviously). I was surprised that Malkin's top three seasons scored better than Crosby's, however, just from these numbers we would clearly conclude that there is some clear distance between Malkin and the other two. This could change if Malkin puts up a few healthy, motivated seasons, but he better get moving because all three of them are going to start getting old sooner than most people think (especially Ovi who has almost two years on Syd and one on Malkin).

This also doesn't take into account cups and playoffs where you would have to award the most extra credit to Malkin, I guess followed by Crosby and then Ovechkin (though this may not be totally fair as Ovie has generally been very good to even great in losing efforts in the playoffs. Its not his fault that his best team lost to Montreal despite outshooting them roughly a bazillion to four for the series.0

 

[SnapVirus]

Yes he is. You cant be top 5 in the league points wise since the last 5-6 years, without being a generational talent.

 

[Helistin]

Yes.

 

[Srsly]

Wrong. I'd say they are on par offensively, and defensively it is not even close. A two time selke winner that put up 56 goals and 120 points in a selke winning season that could also b play the D position is not in the same league as someone who is only offensive gifted and a defensive liability. Fedorov is the better player all around.

Sorry, I think my post was worded a little less eloquently than it could have been.

What I meant to imply was that Fedorov was in another league defensively but his offense doesn't keep up with Malkin's outside of two seasons where he took it up a notch and finished over 100 points. His Career PPG is far lower than Malkin's unless you look at their peak seasons and compare them directly.

I believe the two are comparable when being discussed as overall players. I wasn't trying to make Malkin out to be a clear cut favorite over Fedorov in every way so much as being better when looking at their careers as a whole and not their peak seasons. Of course one could argue this comparison would be more apt when Malkin is in his mid-late thirties but it's not fair to assume his play would be drastically declining either.

 

[StoneHands]

I think the term "generational talent" gets thrown around rather loosely nowadays. I always considered a generational talent to be a guy who is so talented that we only see one guy like that in a generation if we are lucky. If you want to consider Sakic, Lindros, etc genterational talents then sure, but the last guy who I think was a generational talent is Mario and he hasn't been gone that long, he played with Crosby.

The term generational Talent is obviously subjective. Some people think any first ballot HoF player is a generational talent and then some people, like yourself, think that only the top 3-4 players in history are a generational talent. Nobody is really wrong, I guess. I personally think that Jagr has to be lumped in there any way you slice it. He won 4 Art Ross trophies in a row and 5 in 7 years, the other two being won by Lemieux. When you dominate to that level, I personally can't see any way he's not considered a generational talent.

I don't have a problem with anyone calling those guys generational but were quite a few players that I have seen that I would put in the same category as those guys. Being an older person, if they are generational players then I have seen about 100 generational players in my time. Superstars and generational players just aren't the same to me.

When all is said and done, there's no way in hell that there will be 100 players better than any of those 3.

Orr, Gretzky, and Lemieux were on a completely different level, there is almost always somebody on the level of Crosby, Ovechkin, and Malkin. It is something to see when it happens.

Huh? Crosby, Malkin, and Ovechkin have won 5 of the last 8 Art Ross Trophies and 6 of the last 8 Hart Trophies. Crosby would have also easily won the Art Ross and Hart if he didn't get hurt in 10-11. He was on pace for 60+ goals and 130+ points. Even if he significantly slowed his pace he still would have won both. In 12-13 St. Louis won the Art Ross and Crosby was 4 points behind him despite missing a quarter of the season. When those 3 guys are healthy, especially Crosby, nobody keeps up with them. If they all play 75+ games it's almost a lock that one of the wins the Art Ross and Hart.

That is my opinon, I think when the next player who comes along who is like Orr or Gretzky there will be no doubt as to whether he is a generational player or not, people will be talking about if he is the best player of all time.

I personally think with the amount of people that now play hockey, the technology, the improved youth leagues, couches, and clinics available to kids, that we will never again see someone dominate the the competition way that Gretzky and Orr did. There's just too much competition.

Gretzky had a stretch where he won 7 straight Art Ross stophies and nobody was close to him in any of the 7 years. He won by 29, 65, 72, 79, 73, 74, and 75 points. I know scoring is down but that would basically be like someone scoring 150 points 7 years in a row and nobody else touching 100 during that stretch. In 86-87 for example Gilmour had 105 points, Lemieux had 107 points, Messier had 107 points, Kurri had 108 points and then Wayne had 183. That level of dominance will likely never be seen again. I just don't think that using Gretzky or Orr as the benchmark for generational talents is fair. Those two aren't generational talents, they're lifetime talents.

 

[penguins2946*]

Just for fun. Point Shares for Crosby, Ovie, and Malkin ranked from best season to worst.

Sidney Crosby 14.7 13.3 11.1 10.5 10.1 9.0 7.5 5.0
Alex Ovechkin 17.2 15.6 14.5 12.7 11.1 10.5 8.7 8.0
Evgeni Malkin 15.7 13.9 12.6 9.4 8.5 4.1 3.7

Crosby has the worst best season. Ovi has the best worst season (Syd's health obviously). I was surprised that Malkin's top three seasons scored better than Crosby's, however, just from these numbers we would clearly conclude that there is some clear distance between Malkin and the other two. This could change if Malkin puts up a few healthy, motivated seasons, but he better get moving because all three of them are going to start getting old sooner than most people think (especially Ovi who has almost two years on Syd and one on Malkin).

This also doesn't take into account cups and playoffs where you would have to award the most extra credit to Malkin, I guess followed by Crosby and then Ovechkin (though this may not be totally fair as Ovie has generally been very good to even great in losing efforts in the playoffs. Its not his fault that his best team lost to Montreal despite outshooting them roughly a bazillion to four for the series.0

What are point shares?

 

[PepperKeenan]

Malkin is not a generational talent. Why? Because there is no such thing as a generational talent. Just stupid concept.

 

[StoneHands]

Malkin is not a generational talent. Why? Because there is no such thing as a generational talent. Just stupid concept.

You're wrong. Why? Because I state opinions as if they're fact.

While we're at it, there are no "star" players. Why? Because people aren't stars, they're people.

 

[Luigi Lemieux]

If Malkin wins the art ross this year conversation will begin to cement Malkin as among the greatest of all time. That would give him 3 art rosses, and just look at the list of players that have won 3 art rosses.

Gretzky
Lemieux
Jagr
Lafleur
Esposito
Mikita
Howe
Hull

 

[MastuhNinks]

What are point shares?

A crappy stat that shouldn't be used. Hockey-reference is a great website and resource for hockey stats but that doesn't lend any legitimacy to point shares.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Another weird stat from that site is goals created?

 

[Luigi Lemieux]

Wrong. I'd say they are on par offensively, and defensively it is not even close. A two time selke winner that put up 56 goals and 120 points in a selke winning season that could also b play the D position is not in the same league as someone who is only offensive gifted and a defensive liability. Fedorov is the better player all around.

Fedorov's prime wasn't long enough to be ranked ahead of Malkin.

 

[Beauner]

100% Yes

 

[PepperKeenan]

You're wrong. Why? Because I state opinions as if they're fact.

While we're at it, there are no "star" players. Why? Because people aren't stars, they're people.

Someone being a star is a legit expression in sports/entertainment etc. What does it mean to be a generational talent? I've honestly only heard the expression on this message board. Hockey seems full of generational talents compared to other sports. I was googling the words and 90% of the results were hockey/this forum and the other 10% were "Messi is already one of the best players of his generation" and stuff like that.

It seems odd to have 3-4+ "generational talents" at the same time.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

The two best forwards in history are 5 years apart so the term is loosely based

 

[Flyotes]

Yes from a Flyer's fan.

 

[stepdad gaary]

i dont know why names like Gretzky and Lemieux are being brought up considering they are in a different generation so comparisons are pointless

 

[De Montreal]

He is as good as Ovechkin and Crosby and I think it will be the case for the remaining of their career

 

[Voight]

Hes a tiny step below Sid and Ovy so yea he would qualify as generational.

 

[JFHockey]

No, because I don't think there are any current generational players.

 

[These Are The Days]

It depends on how you want to define it. The answer is no and neither is Ovechkin. Crosby, yes possibly. Guys like Francis Sakic and Yzerman are boarderline.

Gretzky, Lemieux, Howe, Orr were once in a lifetime and none have ever reached their level since. I strongly believe we will see others of Malkin's level one day before we (youngsters such as myself at the age of 26) die. The whole idea of generation means that throughout your entire life there was none better than him until your kids see someone better or as good. It's likely that Crosby is that guy for us in my opinion. He's at a whole other level.

 

[illpucks]

No and neither is Ovechkin. Crosby, yes.

Ovechkin has the best career and has the most dominant season since Gretzky. If you can only choose 1 its Ovechkin. Laughable that you say "neither is Ovechkin".