Is peak Kucherov equal to peak Malkin?

[Sasso09]

Close/ edge kuch or even

 

[boompuffboom]

Angry Geno > any other hockey player

 

[JaegerDice]

Close but not quite up to peak Malkin level

 

[McFlash97]

Peak Kucherov is better.

 

[Regal]

This is comparing Kucherov and Malkin, not Kucherov and McDavid.

But the poster used Kucherov being on McDavid’s level in their argument. Therefore saying he’s not on McDavid’s level is relevant in a counter argument.

 

[GeeoffBrown]

I think Kucherov is a better offensive player but Malkin plays the more important position, so overall I'd take Malkin

But I think at the end of his career, Kucherov will have more points, so it's not an easy call

 

[Fantomas]

I voted equal, but honestly I prefer Kucherov. I think he has more of a killer instinct. Some people are forgetting just how bad and unmotivated Malkin can look at his worst, whereas Kucherov is a gamer 24/7.

 

[WarriorofTime]

But the poster used Kucherov being on McDavid’s level in their argument. Therefore saying he’s not on McDavid’s level is relevant in a counter argument.

We're losing the plot here. Dubious claims were made about Malkin being on Crosby's level, dubious claims about Kucherov being on a better player than Crosby's level doesn't really speak to Malkin and Kucherov at all.

 

[Luigi Lemieux]

I voted equal, but honestly I prefer Kucherov. I think he has more of a killer instinct. Some people are forgetting just how bad and unmotivated Malkin can look at his worst, whereas Kucherov is a gamer 24/7.

Malkin always plays hard, it's a myth that he gets unmotivated. But he played like a riverboat gambler whereas Kucherov is more cerebral and methodical. So if Malkin was off he was really off - and would take bad penalties in frustration as well. But I never questioned his work ethic.

 

[dirtydanglez]

id take him over malkin but it's close

 

[Fantomas]

Malkin always plays hard, it's a myth that he gets unmotivated. But he played like a riverboat gambler whereas Kucherov is more cerebral and methodical. So if Malkin was off he was really off - and would take bad penalties in frustration as well. But I never questioned his work ethic.

i can't read Malkin's mind, but he's been Jekyll and Hyde on many occasions. Whether it's motivation or something else, who can say.

 

[tabness]

hell no lol

Kucherov is only score when the net is empty

 

[Regal]

We're losing the plot here. Dubious claims were made about Malkin being on Crosby's level, dubious claims about Kucherov being on a better player than Crosby's level doesn't really speak to Malkin and Kucherov at all.

Well we are talking about peak and a lot of people at the time did feel Malkin was on Crosby’s level for peak but he just wasn’t as consistent. So I can understand the question of whether Kucherov is as good as peak Crosby in comparison. Meanwhile I don’t believe many people think Kucherov is as good as peak McDavid. He’s been better in two seasons but those weren’t peak McDavid seasons. I agree though, it becomes a bit of a lost plot when you start bringing up other players.

 

[WarriorofTime]

Well we are talking about peak and a lot of people at the time did feel Malkin was on Crosby’s level for peak but he just wasn’t as consistent.

So he wasn’t as good, full sentence. Any golfer that’s ever hit a great shot can’t say they were as good as guys on the pga tour, just not as consistent.

Regardless, bringing Crosby and McDavid into the discussion just muddies it up. Best just to focus on Kucherov and Malkin.

 

[PatriceBergeronFan]

Malkin with the size and attitude gives him the edge.

 

[I Hate Blake Coleman]

I am more of a Kucherov fan and think his peak has the edge. He played through some significant injuries and won the Cup all while maintaining a ridiculous production pace. He's smaller than Malkin but he has that dog in him.

 

[elmaco]

I like Malkin a little more since he is bigger and was literally unstoppable when he felt like it.

 

[Acallabeth]

Malkin definitely looks more impressive with his speed, harder shot and fine dangles at his great size. He also has higher goal scoring seasons playing in the much more defensive and physical league. His 2009 playoff run is absolutely legendary.

Kucherov has the stronger Art Rosses over even better competition than Malkin though, and while he relies on direct physical superiority much less, he is also much more disciplined and patient player.

I think it all boils down to whether we want to choose the best regular season or the best playoffs as the more important deciding factor. I believe that a 82-game sample size is more reliable that a 25-game one, and also that the difference between Malkin's best season and Kucherov's last RS is a bit greater than the difference between their top POs (Kucherov is a great playoff performer himself) so I lean towards Kucherov, and either way it's really close.

 

[User9992]

Kuch won two Art Rosses competing against McDavid (twice) and Mackinnon with 128 and 144 points.

Let that sink in.

 

[authentic]

For peak/taking over a game, it's worth noting that Kucherov outscored Point by 54 points last season. And while 9 players hit 100, he cleared that benchmark by a whopping 44 points.

Not to diminish Malkin's 2011-2012. Both years were outrageous.

When you consider he had 14 empty net points, 130 points on a goalie doesn’t strike me as better than Malkin on pace for 119 in 2012 when 10 players had 80 points.

 

[authentic]

Malkin definitely looks more impressive with his speed, harder shot and fine dangles at his great size. He also has higher goal scoring seasons playing in the much more defensive and physical league. His 2009 playoff run is absolutely legendary.

Kucherov has the stronger Art Rosses over even better competition than Malkin though, and while he relies on direct physical superiority much less, he is also much more disciplined and patient player.

I think it all boils down to whether we want to choose the best regular season or the best playoffs as the more important deciding factor. I believe that a 82-game sample size is more reliable that a 25-game one, and also that the difference between Malkin's best season and Kucherov's last RS is a bit greater than the difference between their top POs (Kucherov is a great playoff performer himself) so I lean towards Kucherov, and either way it's really close.

How does Kucherov have stronger Art Rosses over better competition? The gap between Malkin and the rest of the NHL was larger in points per game and actual points despite missing 7 games, and that’s against the 2nd-5th-10th-30th scorers not just the immediate top end.

 

[Wester]

Well we are talking about peak and a lot of people at the time did feel Malkin was on Crosby’s level for peak but he just wasn’t as consistent. So I can understand the question of whether Kucherov is as good as peak Crosby in comparison. Meanwhile I don’t believe many people think Kucherov is as good as peak McDavid. He’s been better in two seasons but those weren’t peak McDavid seasons. I agree though, it becomes a bit of a lost plot when you start bringing up other players.

I'm not saying peak Kucherov is on peak McDavid level, i'm saying peak Kucherov is on normal McDavid level. So when the previous poster said peak Malkin was on Crosby's level, I interpreted as peak Malkin = normal Crosby level, not peak Crosby. Because if you think peak Malkin is at peak Crosby get outta here.

 

[dalewood12]

Right now I'm leaning Malkin, but it's close.

 

[Acallabeth]

The scoring inflation makes these comparisons very frustrating.

Like, McDavid has a trophy case like a top 5 forward of all time, looks like arguably the most skilled player of all time and scores at a historic rate. And a player who can outscore him twice in full healthy seasons is worse than a guy whose best season total is 30+ points less?

If no, then peak 140-point MacKinnon is better than peak Malkin too? Who was arguably as good as peak Crosby and Ovechkin? Who are generally considered top 10 players of all time?

If yes, then at which point do the modern players surpass the 110-point season from the late 2000s? Mcdavid's 64/153 season wasn't questioned and is considered the best post-Lemieux season, but Kucherov scored just 9 points fewer and it... barely improved his reputation? Panarin just scored 120 points and isn't considered an all-time great at all?

Maybe we should bring the big pads back lol.