Better playoff run: Malkin or Sakic?

Better playoff run: Malkin or Sakic?


  • Total voters
    32

daver

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
25,998
5,854
Visit site
Pros for Malkin

More points 36 vs. 34
Higher % of his team's goals - 45% vs. 42.5%
Less support from linemates
Better SCF against far superior opponent
Played on arguably a weaker team - #8 seed vs. #2 seed

Pros for Sakic

Higher PPG (1.55 vs. 1.50)
More goals (18 vs. 14)
Much bigger gap between him and the 2nd leading scorer on team
His WCF was better than Malkin's SCF against arguably a better opponent
 
Last edited:

Ivan13

Not posting anymore
May 3, 2011
26,141
7,095
Zagreb, Croatia
Sakic scored 18 goals, not 16, only guys to score more were Leach and Kurri with 19 respectively. The answer is Sakic.
 

danincanada

Registered User
Feb 11, 2008
2,809
354
I think I have to go with Sakic as well. He was fairly one dimensional to me but that wrist shot was so deadly.

Malkin took full advantage of what he was dealt but I think his opponents were weaker. The road to the finals wasn't impressive in terms of teams he faced and then he faced a seriously beat up powerhouse team in the finals. Even if just Datsyuk was healthy it would have made it a lot harder on Malkin as a match up. Instead he drew Filppula and Brad Stuart had a pretty bad series on D, while the main shutdown players mostly focused on Crosby and shut him down. Sakic faced better defensive teams with far better defenders overall, even though the finals seemed easy. Generally he would have drawn the top shutdown guys instead of a young Forsberg.
 

daver

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
25,998
5,854
Visit site
I think I have to go with Sakic as well. He was fairly one dimensional to me but that wrist shot was so deadly.

Malkin took full advantage of what he was dealt but I think his opponents were weaker. The road to the finals wasn't impressive in terms of teams he faced and then he faced a seriously beat up powerhouse team in the finals. Even if just Datsyuk was healthy it would have made it a lot harder on Malkin as a match up. Instead he drew Filppula and Brad Stuart had a pretty bad series on D, while the main shutdown players mostly focused on Crosby and shut him down. Sakic faced better defensive teams with far better defenders overall, even though the finals seemed easy. Generally he would have drawn the top shutdown guys instead of a young Forsberg.

I find this an interesting dynamic in the centre duo discussion. Crosby clearly has been the #1 C on the Pens and generally draws the other team's top d-men and goes against the other team's # 1 line which usually includes a very good defensive centre. I don't know if this is a clearcut with Sakic/Forsberg or Yzerman/Fedorov.
 

Ivan13

Not posting anymore
May 3, 2011
26,141
7,095
Zagreb, Croatia
I think I have to go with Sakic as well. He was fairly one dimensional to me but that wrist shot was so deadly.

Malkin took full advantage of what he was dealt but I think his opponents were weaker. The road to the finals wasn't impressive in terms of teams he faced and then he faced a seriously beat up powerhouse team in the finals. Even if just Datsyuk was healthy it would have made it a lot harder on Malkin as a match up. Instead he drew Filppula and Brad Stuart had a pretty bad series on D, while the main shutdown players mostly focused on Crosby and shut him down. Sakic faced better defensive teams with far better defenders overall, even though the finals seemed easy. Generally he would have drawn the top shutdown guys instead of a young Forsberg.

Excuse me?
 

daver

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
25,998
5,854
Visit site
I think I have to go with Sakic as well. He was fairly one dimensional to me but that wrist shot was so deadly.

Malkin took full advantage of what he was dealt but I think his opponents were weaker. The road to the finals wasn't impressive in terms of teams he faced and then he faced a seriously beat up powerhouse team in the finals. Even if just Datsyuk was healthy it would have made it a lot harder on Malkin as a match up. Instead he drew Filppula and Brad Stuart had a pretty bad series on D, while the main shutdown players mostly focused on Crosby and shut him down. Sakic faced better defensive teams with far better defenders overall, even though the finals seemed easy. Generally he would have drawn the top shutdown guys instead of a young Forsberg.

Regardless of how beat up they were, it took a last second save in Game 7 to beat them rather than a four game sweep. Mention of the matchups is much more relevant.
 

danincanada

Registered User
Feb 11, 2008
2,809
354
Excuse me?

I think he still had a way to go in terms of all around play. Not that it wasn't more than adequate and better than Malkin in '09. Sakic wasn't all over the ice winning battles, it was more about getting open enough to rip his wrist shot. That's my opinion from what I remember anyways.
 

danincanada

Registered User
Feb 11, 2008
2,809
354
Regardless of how beat up they were, it took a last second save in Game 7 to beat them rather than a four game sweep. Mention of the matchups is much more relevant.

Inevitably people are going to think '09 Red Wings and how stacked the team was. The Pens got fortunate they didn't have to face that team any where near 100% though so that context has to be added when talking about Malkin, too.

A healthy Datsyuk, who centered Hossa and Holmstrom until injuries hit, would have made his life a lot harder.



BTW, can anyone believe they called a high sticking penalty on this hit?

Edit: I see the high stick now. It was actually before the hit.
 
Last edited:

daver

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
25,998
5,854
Visit site
Inevitably people are going to think '09 Red Wings and how stacked the team was. The Pens got fortunate they didn't have to face that team any where near 100% though so that context has to be added when talking about Malkin, too.

A healthy Datsyuk, who centered Hossa and Holmstrom until injuries hit, would have made his life a lot harder.



BTW, can anyone believe they called a high sticking penalty on this hit?

Edit: I see the high stick now. It was actually before the hit.


I don;t see how this changes how Malkin should be viewed. If anything, the fact that the Pens won by the narrowest of margins makes his series leading 8 points that much more important.

If the Wings won going away and Malkin still put up 36 points, then objectively it still would have been a very comparable run to Sakic's just less the Cup. If you want to play the "what if" game, give Malkin Sakic's linemates or put him on the Avs.
 

danincanada

Registered User
Feb 11, 2008
2,809
354
I don;t see how this changes how Malkin should be viewed. If anything, the fact that the Pens won by the narrowest of margins makes his series leading 8 points that much more important.

If the Wings won going away and Malkin still put up 36 points, then objectively it still would have been a very comparable run to Sakic's just less the Cup. If you want to play the "what if" game, give Malkin Sakic's linemates or put him on the Avs.

I know. All the talk of strength of opponents has to be put into context though because the Red Wings weren't what some could claim them to be due to health issues and Malkin didn't really have to face any teams with really strong defensive players, and even the Red Wings lacked that since they weren't healthy and focused more on Crosby. That's all.
 

Canadiens1958

Registered User
Nov 30, 2007
20,020
2,781
Lake Memphremagog, QC.
I know. All the talk of strength of opponents has to be put into context though because the Red Wings weren't what some could claim them to be due to health issues and Malkin didn't really have to face any teams with really strong defensive players, and even the Red Wings lacked that since they weren't healthy and focused more on Crosby. That's all.

What precluded the Wings from adjusting the focus situationally?

Other teams used this approach to overcome injuries.
 

danincanada

Registered User
Feb 11, 2008
2,809
354
What precluded the Wings from adjusting the focus situationally?

Other teams used this approach to overcome injuries.

That's a question for Mike Babcock, not me. In my mind it was a "pick your poison" type of situation. They generally stuck the Zetterberg and Lidstrom combo on Crosby and shut him down and asked the Filppula with Kronwall/Stuart combo to handle Malkin. It almost worked. If they had a healthy Datsyuk there would have been far more options but to me the most probable would have been tasking Datsyuk's line with going against Malkin and leaving Zetterberg's line for Crosby. I have a hard time not believing that would have worked far better (Red Wings Cup) but who knows.
 

daver

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
25,998
5,854
Visit site
I know. All the talk of strength of opponents has to be put into context though because the Red Wings weren't what some could claim them to be due to health issues and Malkin didn't really have to face any teams with really strong defensive players, and even the Red Wings lacked that since they weren't healthy and focused more on Crosby. That's all.

The Wings came into the SCF with a GAA just over 2.00. Their GAA for the SCF was 2.00. Don't see how you can say they weren't as effective defensively in the SCF as they were in their other three series. And this was against the best offensive team in the playoffs and the 4th best from the regular season. If Crosby produced at a more expected rate this may have only gone five or six games but he didn't making Malkin's performance that much more notable.

As I said, talking about matchups is more relevant than the Wings as a team. If the Wings hadn't focused on Crosby then perhaps Malkin doesn't produce as much but Crosby likely would have produced more so the end result would not have changed.
 
Last edited:

vadim sharifijanov

Registered User
Oct 10, 2007
28,916
16,469
i'm not going to speak to which run was better, but just to throw in some series-by-series accounting of the two conn smythe winners and the load they carried relative to their other superstar center--

round one, COL vs VAN: sakic murders vancouver, in a series that was closer than we would think in hindsight. vancouver is without bure, but has a pretty deep team led by linden on one line and mogilny on the other. colorado was the better team at ES, but vancouver's powerplay, QBed by tikkanen, kept things interesting. fun fact: gino odjick scored the GWG in both vancouver wins.

sakic scored the OT winner in game five, then scores the late third period GWG to break a 2-2 tie and take the series, in his hometown, in front of friends and family.

sakic: 7 goals, 4 assists
forsberg: 4 goals, 6 assists

round two, COL vs CHI: sakic and kamensky are the big guns in this series, potting six goals each. colorado was down 2-1 in the series before sakic scores two goals including the OT winner to even the series at 2-2. kamensky is the big hero in the next two games, scoring four goals and an assist, including assisting on ozolinsh's series-winning double OT winner (which sakic also assisted on).

sakic: 6 goals, 2 assists
forsberg: 1 goal, 1 assist

round three, COL vs DET: the real stanley cup finals. in game seven, sakic scores the first three points as colorado cruises to a 4-1 victory.

sakic: 4 goals, 6 assists
forsberg: 2 goals, 2 assists

round four, COL vs FLA: kind of an afterthought. sakic gets a single goal, the go-ahead and eventual game-winning goal in the second period of game three. forsberg scores a hat trick in game two blowout; sakic got four assists. if it had been a more challenging opponent, and the series stretched to 6-7 games, would sakic have set the all-time single-season goals record?

sakic: 1 goal, 4 assists
forsberg: 3 goals, 2 assists

so that year at least, sakic was unequivocally the man on his team up front. you could make a decent argument that kamensky was more important than forsberg.

---

round one, PIT vs PHI: malkin and crosby split duties pretty evenly. and you look at that deep and tough philly team, with mike richards, carter, and giroux at center, and briere, gagne, hartnell, knuble, and lupul all on the wing and they needed to have both malkin and crosby (and staal).

malkin: 4 goals, 5 assists
crosby: 4 goals, 4 assists

round two, PIT vs WAS: the three best players in the world in the same series. was this the real SCF? i think you have to say crosby took the reins in this series, and it really felt like the series hinged on crosby vs ovechkin, especially with the dueling hat tricks of game two. but malkin was great too, put his stamp on game five to take the 3-2 series lead, two points including the OT GWG.

malkin: 2 goals, 8 assists
crosby 8 goals, 5 assists
(ovechkin: 8 goals, 6 assists)

round three, PIT vs CAR: similar to the florida sweep, only without the defense. malkin went nuts.

malkin: 6 goals, 3 assists
crosby 2 goals, 5 assists

round four, PIT vs DET: similar to the washington series, where pittsburgh fell behind 2-0 only to take it in seven. this is where malkin won his conn smythe. games six and seven belonged to the role players, especially talbot, but malkin was huge in games three and four to get pittsburgh back into the series, scoring five out of seven non-EN points.

malkin: 2 goals, 6 assists
crosby 1 goal, 2 assists

---

and finally,

goals that both malkin and crosby were both in on: 8 PP, 4 ES
goals that both sakic and forsberg were both in on: 3 PP, 0 ES
 

Jim MacDonald

Registered User
Oct 7, 2017
705
180
I'll take Burnaby Joe. Wish the Wings didn't have to play against that guy so much! Six game winners in 96 playoffs beat Malkin's 3 in 2009. Bests Malkin in plus/minus versus his 2009. Scored more goals on less shots. Plus with Malkin's 09 run you have the post-lockout rule changes with the offensive emphasis, inability to hold your guy up a little on D. Sakic had the two line pass to deal with etc. It's a bit surprising the more I analyze that it really isn't as close as it may seem.
 

The Panther

Registered User
Mar 25, 2014
19,266
15,863
Tokyo, Japan
They're certainly two of the best performances in the past 25 years. I'll also go with Sakic, here. He was right at his peak and just so clutch. The only thing he didn't do was light it up in the Finals, but when you face an expansion team and your goalie has a .974 in the series, you don't need to. Anyway, Sakic still tied for most points in the Finals, even though it was by far his 'weakest' series. Epic performance by Sakic in '96.
 

VanIslander

A 19-year ATDer on HfBoards
Sep 4, 2004
35,340
6,506
South Korea
I have always thought Sakic's 2002 Olympic success benefitted a lot from linemate Iginla.

And i have no doubt Forsberg has been greater in the postseason if we're considering Avs' forwards.

Yet this thread's question is interesting, given Crosby never had a Malkin-like dominant postseason.
 

The Panther

Registered User
Mar 25, 2014
19,266
15,863
Tokyo, Japan
And i have no doubt Forsberg has been greater in the postseason if we're considering Avs' forwards.
I'm not seeing that at all.

I might rank Forsberg slightly higher than Sakic as an overall player, if we're talking about peak/prime level, assuming full health, etc., etc. But Sakic is universally known to be one of the greatest clutch playoff performers ever (maybe the greatest?), and led the playoffs in scoring twice (same as Forsberg but in full Cup runs, with better totals). The two players' overall point totals are too similar to call one over the other, but Sakic played more playoff games and more at an advanced age.
 

danincanada

Registered User
Feb 11, 2008
2,809
354
The Wings came into the SCF with a GAA just over 2.00. Their GAA for the SCF was 2.00. Don't see how you can say they weren't as effective defensively in the SCF as they were in their other three series. And this was against the best offensive team in the playoffs and the 4th best from the regular season. If Crosby produced at a more expected rate this may have only gone five or six games but he didn't making Malkin's performance that much more notable.

As I said, talking about matchups is more relevant than the Wings as a team. If the Wings hadn't focused on Crosby then perhaps Malkin doesn't produce as much but Crosby likely would have produced more so the end result would not have changed.

Those two ifs are highly questionable. Crosby didn't produce at an "expected rate" because he finally faced elite shutdown players so who expected what? They did focus on Crosby though, leaving Malkin to get to face lesser players most of the series and missing a healthy Datsyuk made that even more possible. That's my whole point. Yeah, Malkin took full advantage of getting Filppula or a 3rd or 4th line checking centre and Kronwall/Stuart instead of their best. That's why I don't put quite the value on his finals as if he had to go head to head with Datsyuk. It doesn't mean it wasn't still a great performance but it's not as impressive as facing either Zetterberg or Datsyuk's line with Lidstrom backing them up in the match up game. Brad Stuart coughed up the puck to Malkin a few times and generally had a poor series so it's a lot different than facing Lidstrom.

I tend to think Sakic faced tougher match ups in his run than Malkin so I find it a little more impressive.

If Malkin was still having a great series going against the healthy Datsyuk, Babcock had all sorts of options. He could have taken Holmstrom off the line at ES and went with Hossa-Datsyuk-Filppula, who were all strong two-way forwards at the time. Then Zetterberg checks Crosby, outplaying him like he did both series, and if they match Malkin with Datsyuk's line, or god forbid outplay Malkin's line, then it's a whole different series. That's my IF scenario which is worth nothing because that's not what happened.
 

Big Phil

Registered User
Nov 2, 2003
31,703
4,148
It is actually incredible when you think of it that Malkin had 36 points and only Coffey, Gretzky and Lemieux have ever had more in a postseason.

Despite that, I'll have to go with Sakic. He had more goals, he had 6 game winners to Malkin's three (Sakic's was a record until Richards beat it in 2004). Plus two overtime winners at a crucial time. I know we think of Colorado that year as only having Detroit to contend with but they were actually down 2-1 to Chicago and needed triple overtime to tie the series. Who tied it? Joe Sakic. He was everywhere for the Avs that playoff. Not to mention there was a big gap after him. Forsberg didn't have a lights out postseason that year, he had 21 points and Kamensky had 22 but that was it until you got to Sakic. It was Sakic as a no-brainer for the Conn Smythe.

Malkin arguably wasn't the Conn Smythe favourite even going into the final. He and Crosby had 28 points each after three rounds. Then the Wings focused on Crosby and Malkin did his part with 8 points (and a memorable fight) in the final. Even though he scored an overtime goal that was critical against Washington I think there are less of those moments where he bailed the Pens out compared to Sakic. There is that classic hat trick game with the behind the back top corner goal (how did that go in?) against the Canes, but that series was over before it started. Plus, Crosby was right there with him getting 31 points. Yes, there was a gap after that, a BIG gap, with Guerin being the next best at 15 and Fleury stood on his head at times just like Roy in 1996. But I think if anything you have to give it to Sakic because he was a little more central to the Avs winning.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BenchBrawl

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad