SidGenoMario
Registered User
2 of the best, and with the worst wingers. I dare anyone in the league to get 36 points in a playoff run with the wingers that Malkin had.
Unaffiliated
Registered User
As far as I'm concerned, no.
Sakic's run was clutch play after clutch play. 6 GWG is ridiculous. That's more than a third of the game-winners.
Malkin was in on .455 of all the Pens goals that playoff season, which puts him in the upper echelon of all-time playoff performances:
in on % of team's goals
Gretzky .494 (1988)
Howe .487 (1955)
Lemieux .463 (1991)
Malkin .455 (2009)
Sakic .425 (1996)
Crosby .392 (2009)
I give the slight edge to Malkin over Sakic despite the 6 GW goals. BTW...Malkin had 3 game winners.
in on % of team's goals
Gretzky .494 (1988)
Howe .487 (1955)
Lemieux .463 (1991)
Malkin .455 (2009)
Sakic .425 (1996)
Crosby .392 (2009)
I give the slight edge to Malkin over Sakic despite the 6 GW goals. BTW...Malkin had 3 game winners.
jcbio11
Registered User
GWG is the dumbest stat ever. How many of them were OT GWG or at least tie breaking GWG?
I think the order of this is a good indication of just how good those playoff years were for them. I might even place Crosby above Sakic, and possibly even Malkin as well.
Why? I saw the entirety of both those playoffs and If I'm picking best overall performance of the 3 of them, I'd pick Crosby. They don't get to the finals or even the conference finals without him, and Malkin doesn't have the performance he does in the finals if the Red Wings whole gameplan wasn't to shutdown Crosby.
I agree with you that GWG is a dumb stat, but it is true that Sakic scored a lot of clutch goals in 1996.
All of Sakic's game-winners were tie-breaking GWG. Five of them were the last goal of the game (2 in OT), and the sixth put Colorado up 2-1 in a game they won 4-1 (and eliminated the Red Wings in the Conference Finals).
Overall, 15 of Sakic's 18 goals came with the score tied or with his team trailing by one goal in the third period, which is very impressive. If somebody figured out a metric to value each goal scored based on how much it changed the team's chance of winning, I'm pretty sure that Sakic's '96 postseason would have the highest score ever. That doesn't necessarily mean he beats Malkin, but it is a point in Sakic's favour.
Unaffiliated
Registered User
I expected people to be familiar with the playoff run (relatively recent). I would have expanded more upon the "GWG" statement more otherwise, since it is mentioned in the OP.
Regardless, Center Shift got the explanation for me. They were all "clutch" goals.
Unaffiliated
Registered User
While I'm not disagreeing about Crosby's performance, which was amazing, its not like Malkin was only good in the finals. They were tied for the scoring lead going IN to the finals, which means that through 3 rounds Malkin had put up just as many points as Crosby. Malkin then put up a bunch more in the finals, which was what eared him a Smythe.
The arguement that they wouldn't have even gotten there w/o a monster performance from Crosby earlier is true, but you can't really dismiss what Malkin did based on that. You have to evaluate the entire playoff run as a whole, not just set some arbitrary cut-off and say "I'm not including Malkin's last 2 playoff rounds because if it wasn't for Crosby they wouldn't have even happened." They did happen, and they were spectacular.
This despite the fact that the teams they faced focused more on shutting down Crosby. It's no coincidence that once Crosby faced by far the best shutdown role, Malkin pulled ahead in points.
lextune
I'm too old for this.
Crosby was the most impressive player in the league for both of Pitts runs to the finals.
I honestly don't know how any fan of hockey could have watched him during those runs and not absolutely loved everything about his game.
The kid is the best player in the world. Ovy is a superlative talent, (Malkin too), but I really don't think it is even that close.
...just my well informed opinion.
I honestly don't know how any fan of hockey could have watched him during those runs and not absolutely loved everything about his game.
The kid is the best player in the world. Ovy is a superlative talent, (Malkin too), but I really don't think it is even that close.
...just my well informed opinion.
3 points in the finals. I know Zetterberg and Lidstrom were shutting him down. That makes it excusable but it's a very good reason not to "love everything about his game."
Hawkey Town 18
Registered User
I can't see him being thought of as better than Zetterberg in 2008, but if you're talking those 2 years combined, then yes.
lextune
I'm too old for this.
I agree that Zetterberg had a superior final, (on a superior team), but I just loved Crosby's game through the first three rounds. Even more so in '09.
In fact somewhere in this section I made a post back then about Crosby having the greatest first three rounds in history that did not end up in a Conn Smythe. Which I still stand by....
....which should not be construed as me saying that Malkin did not deserve his Smythe, he did.
I'm not trying to knock Crosby - he was amazing that entire run. I completely agree they don't win the cup without him. I'm just not convinced that he was somehow more deserving than Malkin, who was just as amazing, IMO, if not more so. And yes, teams did concentrate more on shutting down Crosby. But Crosby also is 1st line, with slightly more ice time, and slightly better wingers (notice I said slightly - Crosby's wingers weren't exactly HOF calibre either).
It goes both ways, IMO. Crosby had to face the better units, but he also had the better players with him (especially Gonchar, the Pens best puck moving d-man, who spent MUCH more time on ice with Crosby than he did with Malkin, especially if you discount PP time). The Smythe could have gone to either and I wouldn't have lost any tears over it. But giving it to the player who put up more points seems to make more sense than the player who put up less, especially if you're going to say "but he had to face better players." Would you give Crosby Malkin's share of Hart votes because he had to face better players too? At some point what Malkin did has to be acknowledged as being spectacular with or without any reasons for why Crosby didn't really produce in the finals. Fact is, 1 still scored against the Wings, 1 didn't. In a close decision, that was probably what tipped the scales.
