Prime Erik Karlsson vs Cale Makar

[JackSlater]

I think they're on a similar level. In terms of which one I'd want, depends on team situation. Karlsson better for elevating a weak team, Makar an easier fit on a strong team.

 

[Gurglesons]

Ahh yes… the same EK65 that had 101 points with the sharks then is traded to a team full of hall of famers and goes on to score half that in the next two seasons? Gotcha good point.

34 year old EK65 is Prime Eirk Karlsson?

 

[avsfan9]

34 year old EK65 is Prime Eirk Karlsson?

Doesn’t matter , different players thrive in different situations. How do you go from 100 points playing with a bunch of scrubs to Crosby and Malkin and score 53 points in less than a year?

 

[ESH]

Didn't Makar finish third overall in scoring and first on his team before?

Not even close. This year right now he’s 9th in scoring and that would be his highest scoring finish so far. This year is actually the first time he’s even finished 2nd in scoring on his own team since his rookie year.

 

[NyQuil]

Ahh yes… the same EK65 that had 101 points with the sharks then is traded to a team full of hall of famers and goes on to score half that in the next two seasons? Gotcha good point.

The difference being that Pittsburgh’s guys are pretty close to being in the HHoF any day now.

 

[Gurglesons]

Doesn’t matter , different players thrive in different situations. How do you go from 100 points playing with a bunch of scrubs to Crosby and Malkin and score 53 points in less than a year?

Mike Sullivan.

 

[Miro4Norris]

Taking the guy who can defend

 

[x Tame Impala]

Ahh yes… the same EK65 that had 101 points with the sharks then is traded to a team full of hall of famers and goes on to score half that in the next two seasons? Gotcha good point.

Exactly. He played on a team of nobodies and was given every opportunity to put up points. Obviously he was supremely talented, as he was able to put those points up in the first place, but it's telling that when he had to share the ice/puck with Burns in SJ or recently on the Penguins his numbers are nowhere near as impressive.

Makar is a proven 1D, Smythe Winner, and Cup winner. He's about to win his 2nd Norris trophy, putting him in company of only 13 other Dmen at 26 year old. Over a PPG in his career, 19th in league scoring since he entered the league. It's Makar without a doubt.

 

[NyQuil]

He's about to win his 2nd Norris trophy, putting him in company of only 13 other Dmen at 26 year old.

Karlsson had two Norris trophies by age 25. Just as a point of reference in this thread.

We are talking primes after all.

 

[NOTENOUGHRYJOTHINGS]

Not even close. This year right now he’s 9th in scoring and that would be his highest scoring finish so far. This year is actually the first time he’s even finished 2nd in scoring on his own team since his rookie year.

You're right. The third in league scoring was playoffs only.

Not a fair comparison as it's only a 20 game sample and the Aves dogwalked the whole league that year.

 

[Luigi Lemieux]

I like Karlsson's hockey iq more. Makar is an athletic freak with ridiculous skating. While Karlsson was no slouch there he was capable of slowing down the game more. Not to mention playing his prime in a much lower scoring and tighter checking league.

Karlsson was still the best dman in the league playing on one leg in 2017. Whereas if Makar loses a step it's over.

 

[x Tame Impala]

Karlsson had two Norris trophies by age 25. Just as a point of reference in this thread.

We are talking primes after all.

Fair enough. Makar in his first 6 seasons will have Norris finishes of: 1, 1, 2, 3, 3, 9. Karlsson in his first 6 had: 1, 1, 7, 18

Makar came into the league a little older so it's a little bit of a wash. Lots of ways to cut this argument.

 

[Midnight Judges]

I’m having a hard time giving any credence to the Norris trophy after Karlsson’s farcical win a couple years back. Aside from offense and group think, are the voters aware of what makes a defenseman effective?

That said, I’m taking Makar. Karlsson was never good in his own end but he was so strong at possession that his deficiencies were vastly outweighed.

No such equivocation is necessary for Makar.

 

[Midnight Judges]

I think they're on a similar level. In terms of which one I'd want, depends on team situation. Karlsson better for elevating a weak team, Makar an easier fit on a strong team.

That may be, but who plans on having a weak team that needs to be elevated? If I’m a GM I’m swinging for the fences.

 

[Jericho111091]

Id probably rank then pretty closely in terms of skill, might lean towards Makar because I'm not sure we've seen his best yet. though what Karlsson was able to do with a lesser cast was always really impressive.

 

[JackSlater]

That may be, but who plans on having a weak team that needs to be elevated? If I’m a GM I’m swinging for the fences.

Sure, but realistically a GM wants to keep his job first and foremost. In an ideal situation I do agree with you.

 

[bambamcam4ever]

Cale isn't as good a playmaker as EK. EK saw the game from above.

And most of you don't know good defensively a prime Karlsson before his skating got f***ed was.

Unforcheckable.

EK was the best player I've ever seen to retrieve the puck on a dump in, then turn and accelerate away from the forecheck.

That said, he's always been quite bad away from the puck in his own zone which made him a liability.

 

[bambamcam4ever]

At 5-on-5 he actually had an even differential (even though the team decidedly did not, which makes it more impressive), but empty net goals (and some shorties) contributed to the ugly +/-

Anyway, everyone knows +/- is for chumps.

An even differential 5v5 isn't particularly impressive for a Norris winner..

 

[Agent Zub]

Karlsson is a tough player to rank. I think he’s really strong as an individual talent and I think he was probably a better offensive player in a situation where the offense runs through him. I’m not sure if Makar could put up the numbers Karlsson did in ‘16 and ‘23 with the teams Karlsson did it on. But while he rarely had an opportunity to be on a team with better forwards, Karlsson’s numbers haven’t been as good when he’s not the focal point, and in some ways it’s questionable if running your offense through the backend is as useful.

I think I have more confidence in Makar in terms of being great offensively with other great offensive players because we’ve seen that from him, and ultimately that’s what you want if you want to win, because you’re never going to be anything more than a Cinderella team with Karlsson and a cast of misfits.

And then we look at defense, and while Karlsson has had periods of strong play like in ‘13, ‘17 and at the Olympics, ultimately he had a lot more periods of weak or mediocre play. Makar has shown to be a lot more consistently good in his own zone.

Based on everything that we’ve seen from them, I would take Makar. But in another reality where Karlsson doesn’t get injured in ‘13 and/or ‘17 and he plays on more competitive teams, maybe things would be different

Karlsson dominates on the national teams, he did great the year San José was a contender. His first Norris he and Spezza were basically the Sedins twins.

I really don't know why Karlsson not being as good on good teams comes from.

When is that true for any player, let alone a dman?


It doesn't make any sense.

 

[Agent Zub]

EK was the best player I've ever seen to retrieve the puck on a dump in, then turn and accelerate away from the forecheck.

That said, he's always been quite bad away from the puck in his own zone which made him a liability.

Id argue what made Karlsson so special was what he could do from the defensive zone. Like you thought your team was safe but either Karlsson launches a bomb of a pass for an odd man rush or singlehandedly skates it out for a chance.

Though I will concede after his injuries he became much less aggressive defender probably because his first step, pivoting, and agility is what got impacted most. So he just started awkwardly poking at pucks.

But If Makar got the same injuries not sure he would have been any different, those injuries were career changing.

 

[Regal]

Karlsson dominates on the national teams, he did great the year San José was a contender. His first Norris he and Spezza were basically the Sedins twins.

I really don't know why Karlsson not being as good on good teams comes from.

When is that true for any player, let alone a dman?


It doesn't make any sense.

San Jose was a contender for one year with him. He struggled to produce the first part of the year and then did better but got injured. It’s an extremely small sample size, and all told he had 45 points in 53 games in the regular season and 16 in 19 in the playoffs. And while his underlying numbers looked great, he once again gave up way more goals than expected (a common theme throughout his career), and his GF% was just good, not amazing. He did fine, but he played better with Ottawa.

The national team is tough to gauge because of how different international hockey is.

And of course, his production drop going to Pittsburgh was dramatic. And while Pittsburgh isn’t good either and Sullivan is a problem for offense from defensemen, you’d expect someone with his IQ and passing to still be more productive than he has been even without being the focal point of the offense.

I don’t think it’s a counterintuitive thought that a player who is very puck dominant isn’t necessarily going to be better with players who need more touches. There’s lot of players who don’t always excel just by playing with better players, and we frequently see some players improve their totals moving from good to bad teams because of opportunity. A situation like San Jose in 2023 for example wouldn’t happen on a better team, becsuse even if he’s feeding better players, they’re also going to take plays away from him. When you’re by far the best layer, the high percentage play is to run things through you most of the time, but that’s not the case with better players.

And like I said, it’s not so much that Karlsson couldn’t succeed on good teams. My point is more that, I think his best seasons were better offensively when you consider league scoring (a la 2016), and the worse team around him, but that I don’t believe that being better in those scenarios naturally would lead him to being better on a good team, because of the above (everyone getting their touches). I think Makar is basically maxing out what could reasonably be expected of Karlsson offensively on a contender. At least, the Karlsson that we saw. Perhaps without injury it would be a different story

 

[Agent Zub]

San Jose was a contender for one year with him. He struggled to produce the first part of the year and then did better but got injured. It’s an extremely small sample size, and all told he had 45 points in 53 games in the regular season and 16 in 19 in the playoffs. And while his underlying numbers looked great, he once again gave up way more goals than expected (a common theme throughout his career), and his GF% was just good, not amazing. He did fine, but he played better with Ottawa.

The national team is tough to gauge because of how different international hockey is.

And of course, his production drop going to Pittsburgh was dramatic. And while Pittsburgh isn’t good either and Sullivan is a problem for offense from defensemen, you’d expect someone with his IQ and passing to still be more productive than he has been even without being the focal point of the offense.

I don’t think it’s a counterintuitive thought that a player who is very puck dominant isn’t necessarily going to be better with players who need more touches. There’s lot of players who don’t always excel just by playing with better players, and we frequently see some players improve their totals moving from good to bad teams because of opportunity.

And like I said, it’s not so much that it’s obvious that Karlsson couldn’t, it’s that he didn’t show it consistently enough to take him over someone who has imo.

Ok watch this though. Basically doubles as a Spezza highlight reel who was another puck dominant player.



Like watching that video it's clear Karlsson would have been even more dominant if he had elite players to pass to and receive the puck from his whole career.

It's not that he couldn’t, it's that he never got to play with players at his level after this.

San José had one year they were a contender with Karlsson ( and almost won a cup) before they lost their depth and Pittsburgh was done before Karlsson even got there. The Karlsson-Pettersson pairing was still one of the best in the league though.

 

[Regal]

Ok watch this though



Basically doubles as a Spezza highlight reel who was another puck dominant player.

It's not that he couldn’t, it's that he never got to play with players at his level after this.

San José had one year they were a contender with Karlsson ( and almost won a cup) before they lost their depth and Pittsburgh was done before Karlsson even got there. The Karlsson-Pettersson pairing was still one of the best in the league though.

I added some more above. I’m not saying that he couldn’t still score at an elite level in Makar’s situation. I’m sure he could connect with MacKinnon like he did with Spezza. My point is that even though I believe he’d be better than Makar offensively on a bad team, I don’t think his production would differ much from Makar on a good team, because I think there’s a bit of a cap on defenseman production as ultimately running things from the defense isn’t as efficient so the puck would run through him less.

 

[centipede2233]

Doesn’t matter , different players thrive in different situations. How do you go from 100 points playing with a bunch of scrubs to Crosby and Malkin and score 53 points in less than a year?

Coaching. You should visit the pens boards to get an idea how loathed mike sullivan is

 

[Duke749]

Makar actually won a Cup and Smythe, something Karlsson merely got sort of close to doing. Makar is significantly better defensively than EK ever was

Is this rage bait?? I mean, Karlsson never had a MacKinnon on his team