Toggle sidebar

Malkin is the best Russian player ever

It should be pointed out that Malkin has led the league in points 2 times before going down with injury. (13-14 and 16-17) A quick look at his game logs will show you he goes down when he starts going on a hot streak which is a damn shame because he's the scariest player in the game when he gets to that level. The last time he didn't get injured in the second half it was 11/12 and we saw how that turned out.
 
Last edited:
Oddbob said:
What is better about Malkin? Winning a Conn Smythe doesn't prove anything, anymore than someone winning the Hart. Conn Smythe is like all the other vote able trophies, it comes down to favourites in the media, more than who should actually win, many times. Like 15-16, Crosby (Media Darling) was less impressive than Kessel, who had a career breakout playoff performance.
Click to expand...

yeah kessel looked much better with his 4 more points playing against scrubs while crosby drew the other teams best players LOL

oh and crosby actually looked like a selke type player you guys seem to love so much when talking about fedorov, but i guess selkes only matter when talking about non pens:sarcasm:
 
It is so hard for teams to matchup against Crosby and Malkin. Over the past 20 years no team has had a 1-2 punch like that. Malkins stats likely wouldn't be what they are without Crosby. Crosby typically draws the top shutdown line, especially true in the playoffs. So a player of Malkins caliber drawing 2nd match-ups... Yeah hes going to put up some impressive numbers. Now one will attempt to argue that when Crosby is hurt Malkin doesn't slow down. Well Nyquist scored nearly a goal per game over a long stretch while Dats and Z were injured. So, not an argument I am interested in entertaining. Malkin has played the majority of his career with Crosby drawing serious attention away from him and that isn't debatable.

During the 2014 Olympics, Datsyuk was the best player on the Russian roster with a knee injury that he shouldn't have played on while Malkin was in his absolute prime. I'm sure some of you people that don't actually watch hockey will find a way to disagree with that statement.
 
Last edited:
haulinbass said:
It is so hard for teams to matchup against Crosby and Malkin. Over the past 20 years no team has had a 1-2 punch like that. Malkins stats likely wouldn't be what they are without Crosby. Crosby typically draws the top shutdown line, especially true in the playoffs. So a player of Malkins caliber drawing 2nd match-ups... Yeah hes going to put up some impressive numbers. Now one will attempt to argue that when Crosby is hurt Malkin doesn't slow down. Well Nyquist scored nearly a goal per game over a long stretch while Dats and Z were injured. So, not an argument I am interested in entertaining. Malkin has played the majority of his career with Crosby drawing serious attention away from him and that isn't debatable.

During the 2014 Olympics, Datsyuk was the best player on the Russian roster while Malkin was in his absolute prime. I'm sure some of you people that don't actually watch hockey will find a way to disagree with that statement.
Click to expand...

With Crosby in the lineup 591 games 677 points. 1.14 ppg

Without Crosby in the lineup 115 games 155 points. 1.34 ppg.

So Malkin does better without Crosby in the lineup. 115 game is not a small sample size but not hugh one but it proven pretty much everytime Crosby is out Malkin takes over. Crosby only played 20 games in 2012 and Malkin has one of the best season when Crosby wasn't around

Wow you don't want to hear facts to prove that you are wrong. 17% of Malkin game was without Crosby. So that means nothing? Do you only hear what you want to hear?
 
Last edited:
Canucks1096 said:
With Crosby in the lineup 591 games 677 points. 1.14 ppg

Without Crosby in the lineup 115 games 155 points. 1.34 ppg.

So Malkin does better without Crosby in the lineup. 115 game is not a small sample size but not hugh one but it proven pretty much everytime Crosby is out Malkin takes over. Crosby only played 20 games in 2012 and Malkin has one of the best season when Crosby wasn't around
Click to expand...

Do you really think Crosby hinders Malkin? Do you really think Malkin would be better off without Crosby on the same team? Which leaves the final question, do you think Malkin would have scored more points on a different team than Crosby?

Your answer is no I am assuming, so what are you trying to say here?

These 115 games aren't consecutive, they are over a career. Yes Malkin is a great hockey player who can create offense on his own, we know that. He steps up just as an elite player should when his team loses a player like Crosby. He is also likely super motivated to show the world he can perform without Crosby as he has always been in his shadow.

This is exactly why I don't even bother posting on here anymore. People post crap data like this and think it means something.

Malkin has played second fiddle to the best player in the world his entire career. Which is fine, Malkin is still a great hockey player. But when tossing ideas around such as Malkin being the best Russian ever, it cannot be ignored. We can NOT just pretend Crosby has no impact here.
 
Last edited:
haulinbass said:
Do you really think Crosby hinders Malkin? Do you really think Malkin would be better off without Crosby on the same team? Which leaves the final question, do you think Malkin would have scored more points on a different team than Crosby?

Your answer is no I am assuming, so what are you trying to say here?

These 115 games aren't consecutive, they are over a career. Yes Malkin is a great hockey player who can create offense on his own, we know that. He steps up just as an elite player should when his team loses a player like Crosby. He is also likely super motivated to show the world he can perform without Crosby as he has always been in his shadow.

This is exactly why I don't even bother posting on here anymore. People post crap data like this and think it means something.

Malkin has played second fiddle to the best player in the world his entire career. Which is fine, Malkin is still a great hockey player. But when tossing ideas around such as Malkin being the best Russian ever, it cannot be ignored. We can NOT just pretend Crosby has no impact here.
Click to expand...

It's crazy how he can put up the numbers he does and win these awards with a talent like Crosby playing above him.
 
haulinbass said:
Do you really think Crosby hinders Malkin? Do you really think Malkin would be better off without Crosby on the same team? Which leaves the final question, do you think Malkin would have scored more points on a different team than Crosby?

Your answer is no I am assuming, so what are you trying to say here?

These 115 games aren't consecutive, they are over a career. Yes Malkin is a great hockey player who can create offense on his own, we know that. He steps up just as an elite player should when his team loses a player like Crosby. He is also likely super motivated to show the world he can perform without Crosby as he has always been in his shadow.

This is exactly why I don't even bother posting on here anymore. People post crap data like this and think it means something.

Malkin has played second fiddle to the best player in the world his entire career. Which is fine, Malkin is still a great hockey player. But when tossing ideas around such as Malkin being the best Russian ever, it cannot be ignored. We can NOT just pretend Crosby has no impact here.
Click to expand...

I won't say Crosby Hinders Malkin But he is capable of playing better without Crosby.

It's possible that Malkin will be better off without Crosby. Yes aside from the 115 games Crosby faces the tougher Match up but without Crosby in the lineup he gets more ice time. With Crosby, Malkin get 19 to 20 mins. Without him it's about 21 mins. There pros and cons in having Crosby around. There are a lot examples when one player is not playing behind a player anymore and they start to produce more or the same. Messier had his best season when Gretzky left. Francis production stats about the same without Lemeuix. Alfredson production increase without Hossa. Mogilny had his best season when Bure was hurt in 1996.

Sure Malkin probably is motivated to show what he can do without Crosby but if there is No Crosby Malkin probably knows his team him more and that's why he produces more

The 115 games is not consecutive. Most of those games in 2008 and 2012. 29 in 2008 which he had 52 points and 2009 when he had about around 80 points. I think it's fair to say if Crosby didn't play at all in those season he would of gotten a 100 point in both of them.

I am shocked that those 115 games doesn't mean anything to you.

Some fans or just people in life in general. They only see one side of the picture and that's it. Try to look at different sides of the picture. Not just one way to look at things in sports
 
KoozNetsOff 92 said:
They might be, but you don't see anyone in the NBA say player X who has a 30ppg but played 60 games had a better season than player Y who has a 25ppg but played 80 games. If Griffin retired today he'd have a better PPG than Tmac, Ewing, Robinson.. Does that make him better? Anyone with half a brain knows he's nowhere close to them. But in hockey you always see the "wow look at Crosby's PPG 5th all time, so he's automatically top 5 offensively".
Click to expand...

Yes you absolutely do. PPG is way more valued in the NBA than total points. Even the "scoring champion" is given to the player with the best PPG and not the player with the most point. There's a 70 game or 1400 point minimum, which means Westbrook and Anthony have both won it recently playing only 67 games, and Iverson won it in '02 playing only 60 games. And while missed games are considered in terms of the most valuable in a given year, they're rarely talked about in terms of who's the best.

As for Griffin, like Sid, he's played his entire career in his prime and hasn't had his averages decline with age like the other 3. It's a poor argument for Sid, though it should be noted that in a lower scoring era, he's still high on the list if we only look at players up to his current age. But using PPG to make a poor argument in one instance doesn't mean it isn't still a valid and important stat to consider.
 
HowsUrBreath said:
LMAO you post their resumes where malkin's is clearly more impressive and you are "still not convinced":laugh:
Click to expand...

Well, if you take into consideration that his best individual season (1x Hart, 1x Art Ross, 1x Ted Lindsay) was a year Crosby played 22 games, then yeah I guess you can say that. Don't get me wrong, he was the best that year but it's an important footnote when the perennial best player in the world is not in the conversation.

Right now he's 347pts behind Fedorov who also won 2 Selkes and a Hart in that span. You can say Selke's aren't a huge argument, but they are even more impressive when you score over 100pts and win them like Fedorov did both times.

Edit: When his career is over there's a good chance Malkin will be the best, but at this exact point in time right now, I just don't think he's the clear cut best. Also, I'd be more willing to believe it if it wasn't on the heels of them winning another Cup.
 
Last edited:
haulinbass said:
Do you really think Crosby hinders Malkin? Do you really think Malkin would be better off without Crosby on the same team? Which leaves the final question, do you think Malkin would have scored more points on a different team than Crosby?

Your answer is no I am assuming, so what are you trying to say here?

These 115 games aren't consecutive, they are over a career. Yes Malkin is a great hockey player who can create offense on his own, we know that. He steps up just as an elite player should when his team loses a player like Crosby. He is also likely super motivated to show the world he can perform without Crosby as he has always been in his shadow.

This is exactly why I don't even bother posting on here anymore. People post crap data like this and think it means something.

Malkin has played second fiddle to the best player in the world his entire career. Which is fine, Malkin is still a great hockey player. But when tossing ideas around such as Malkin being the best Russian ever, it cannot be ignored. We can NOT just pretend Crosby has no impact here.
Click to expand...

Oh okay so when it fits one agenda it's fine but if it's trying to fit another now it's a problem?
 
haulinbass said:
Do you really think Crosby hinders Malkin? Do you really think Malkin would be better off without Crosby on the same team? Which leaves the final question, do you think Malkin would have scored more points on a different team than Crosby?

Your answer is no I am assuming, so what are you trying to say here?

These 115 games aren't consecutive, they are over a career. Yes Malkin is a great hockey player who can create offense on his own, we know that. He steps up just as an elite player should when his team loses a player like Crosby. He is also likely super motivated to show the world he can perform without Crosby as he has always been in his shadow.

This is exactly why I don't even bother posting on here anymore. People post crap data like this and think it means something.

Malkin has played second fiddle to the best player in the world his entire career. Which is fine, Malkin is still a great hockey player. But when tossing ideas around such as Malkin being the best Russian ever, it cannot be ignored. We can NOT just pretend Crosby has no impact here.
Click to expand...

I swear Fedorov played behind Yzerman in his prime too. Should Fedorov's accomplishments be diminished for that? To me it strengthens cases. How many line 2 players ever have been in the discussion for best player in the world?
 
Federov's peak was definitely on par with 71 at least. But I think Malkin remains a top 5 offensive talent for a few more years while Federov's offense tailed off. Combine that with Malkin's two scoring titles and two playoff scoring leads en route to two Cups, this is 71.

If someone wants to say they're equal or Federov is a little better because of his defense, I'm not gonna argue that much.

If Malkin wins another Smythe or scoring title, I think it tips his way without a doubt.

Ovy's peak is probably the best. But he's nowhere near Malkin right now. Longevity goes to 71.
 
KJoe88 said:
I never said Bure was better than Malkin. Pay attention.

And it's absolutely not foolish of me to say Feds was better than Malkin. Because he was.
Click to expand...

many have, yet you call me "foolish"

it is not crazy or foolish to think Feds is better, but it is wrong:)
 
barkovcanfinnish said:
Well, if you take into consideration that his best individual season (1x Hart, 1x Art Ross, 1x Ted Lindsay) was a year Crosby played 22 games, then yeah I guess you can say that. Don't get me wrong, he was the best that year but it's an important footnote when the perennial best player in the world is not in the conversation.

Right now he's 347pts behind Fedorov who also won 2 Selkes and a Hart in that span. You can say Selke's aren't a huge argument, but they are even more impressive when you score over 100pts and win them like Fedorov did both times.

Edit: When his career is over there's a good chance Malkin will be the best, but at this exact point in time right now, I just don't think he's the clear cut best. Also, I'd be more willing to believe it if it wasn't on the heels of them winning another Cup.
Click to expand...

wait? so you think winning a 3rd overall and 2nd in a row hurts his argument for being the best?
 
haulinbass said:
It is so hard for teams to matchup against Crosby and Malkin. Over the past 20 years no team has had a 1-2 punch like that. Malkins stats likely wouldn't be what they are without Crosby. Crosby typically draws the top shutdown line, especially true in the playoffs. So a player of Malkins caliber drawing 2nd match-ups... Yeah hes going to put up some impressive numbers. Now one will attempt to argue that when Crosby is hurt Malkin doesn't slow down. Well Nyquist scored nearly a goal per game over a long stretch while Dats and Z were injured. So, not an argument I am interested in entertaining. Malkin has played the majority of his career with Crosby drawing serious attention away from him and that isn't debatable.

During the 2014 Olympics, Datsyuk was the best player on the Russian roster with a knee injury that he shouldn't have played on while Malkin was in his absolute prime. I'm sure some of you people that don't actually watch hockey will find a way to disagree with that statement.
Click to expand...

this means toews is arguably better than crosby since he was mvp in the 2010 olympica
 
Malkin 2 art ross and 2 playoff scoring titles are very impressive. Easily above Federov at this point. Malkin> ovechkin when it's all said and done
 
Oddbob said:
What is better about Malkin? Winning a Conn Smythe doesn't prove anything, anymore than someone winning the Hart. Conn Smythe is like all the other vote able trophies, it comes down to favourites in the media, more than who should actually win, many times. Like 15-16, Crosby (Media Darling) was less impressive than Kessel, who had a career breakout playoff performance.
Click to expand...

Except this time, Malkin had the most dominant playoff performance since like, Gretzky in '93.
 
haulinbass said:
It is so hard for teams to matchup against Crosby and Malkin. Over the past 20 years no team has had a 1-2 punch like that. Malkins stats likely wouldn't be what they are without Crosby. Crosby typically draws the top shutdown line, especially true in the playoffs. So a player of Malkins caliber drawing 2nd match-ups... Yeah hes going to put up some impressive numbers. Now one will attempt to argue that when Crosby is hurt Malkin doesn't slow down. Well Nyquist scored nearly a goal per game over a long stretch while Dats and Z were injured. So, not an argument I am interested in entertaining. Malkin has played the majority of his career with Crosby drawing serious attention away from him and that isn't debatable.

During the 2014 Olympics, Datsyuk was the best player on the Russian roster with a knee injury that he shouldn't have played on while Malkin was in his absolute prime. I'm sure some of you people that don't actually watch hockey will find a way to disagree with that statement.
Click to expand...

So my 115 game that malkin had 1.40 ppg example without a crosby is Crap data because it's a small sample size. But your olympic example 5 games is smaller

So what is the difference? So your 5 games examples means something and my 115 games examples mean nothing?
 
MRY71 said:
It should be pointed out that Malkin has led the league in points 2 times before going down with injury. (13-14 and 16-17) A quick look at his game logs will show you he goes down when he starts going on a hot streak which is a damn shame because he's the scariest player in the game when he gets to that level. The last time he didn't get injured in the second half it was 11/12 and we saw how that turned out.
Click to expand...

Wasn't McDavid in the lead this year before Malkin's injury?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom