Dangler99*
Guest
How high do would you rank this achievement and how much weight does it carry when deciding a HOF career?
How high do would you rank this achievement and how much weight does it carry when deciding a HOF career?
Danny Briere for HoF.
Crosby also scored 31 Pts but overall Malkin was that team's true MVP.
...no he wasn't.
...no he wasn't.
This one is stricky because it depends on the overall scoring, your linemates/teammates and it depends on how many games it takes to reach that number.
Also you can be a sub PPG player for most of your career and then have a run in which you put up 30 + Pts, it does not mean you are a sure shot Hall of Fame due simply to this fact.
The Crosby, Malkin debate should be brought up here.
Malkin won the Conn Smythe and scored 36 Pts which is one of the highest totals ever.
Crosby also scored 31 Pts but overall Malkin was that team's true MVP.
See the post below your's.
It's the same argument with Leetch and Messier back in 1993-94.
They were prett even until the Finals where Leetch played at a legendary level in that series and that is why he was given the Conn Smythe.
Crosby and Malkin were pretty even until the Finals where it was Malkin's play that led them to the Cup.
It was even until the Finals, but Malkin's performance (2G, 6A, Even) was certainly better than Crosby's (1G, 2A, -3) against Detroit.
Of course Max Talbot was the REAL MVP.
Crosby was 21 when he score 30+points in the playoffs. Is he the youngest player to do that in History?
Is it safe for me to assume that Sakic's 1996 run is distinctly above Malkin/Crosby?
Only in points. Crosby was clearly his team's MVP at that point. More clearly than Malkin being MVP at the end, which was much more debatable.
Yes. Yes he is.
I would say so, but others may disagree.
What did Crosby do better than Malkin? In 1984 you could argue that Messier made up for scoring fewer points than Gretzky with defense or penalty-killing or faceoffs, but through 24 playoff games, what would the argument be for Crosby?
Neither Crosby or Malkin killed penalties.
Malkin outscored Crosby 16-11 on the PP.
Malkin led the NHL with giveaways (24), but also takeaways (27), which on balance is a little better than Crosby (17 giveaways, 14 takeaways).
So is winning faceoffs at a rate that is 5.8% higher than Malkin enough to make up for having fewer points, even though Crosby had no advantage over Malkin either defensively, or on the powerplay, or as a penalty killer?
Do you really want the Conn Smythe to go to a primarily offensive player who only put up 3 points in 7 Finals games, while not killing penalties, and who was watching in the back as Malkin set up one of Talbot's goals for his 8th point of the series?
As much as a 30+ point run helps, it helps less when someone else has more. And as good as 30+ is, there needs to be the caveat that Espo in 70 only played three rounds...
30+points now is more impressive than the 70's
What did Crosby do better than Malkin? In 1984 you could argue that Messier made up for scoring fewer points than Gretzky with defense or penalty-killing or faceoffs, but through 24 playoff games, what would the argument be for Crosby?
Neither Crosby or Malkin killed penalties.
Malkin outscored Crosby 16-11 on the PP.
Malkin led the NHL with giveaways (24), but also takeaways (27), which on balance is a little better than Crosby (17 giveaways, 14 takeaways).
So is winning faceoffs at a rate that is 5.8% higher than Malkin enough to make up for having fewer points, even though Crosby had no advantage over Malkin either defensively, or on the powerplay, or as a penalty killer?
Do you really want the Conn Smythe to go to a primarily offensive player who only put up 3 points in 7 Finals games, while not killing penalties, and who was watching in the back as Malkin set up one of Talbot's goals for his 8th point of the series?
As much as a 30+ point run helps, it helps less when someone else has more. And as good as 30+ is, there needs to be the caveat that Espo in 70 only played three rounds...
30+points now is more impressive than the 70's
Eh.... What?
That's a bit like saying that scoring 50 goals in the '30ies is less impressive than scoring 50 in the '90ies.
Bottom line : Lafleur's '77 playoffs are probably the most impressive (offence-wise) until Gretzky scored 47 in 18 games (for forwards).
Only in points. Crosby was clearly his team's MVP at that point. More clearly than Malkin being MVP at the end, which was much more debatable.
Is it safe for me to assume that Sakic's 1996 run is distinctly above Malkin/Crosby?
The reason why people consider Crosby the MVP is the cluthcness, so to speak of that points. Crosby was the man in a tough 7-game series against the Caps and got the largest chunk of his points from that series (the seventh game of that was a laugher, but otherwise..). Malkin was the man in a laugher of a series with Pens vs Canes, where he got most of his points in games hat tended to be more of the blowout variety. Yes, Malkin did carry the load in the finals more, but people attribute that to Crosby taking the best checkers of Detroit (which he did).
It's arguably either way.
Here are all the 30+ point seasons:
Gretzky 1985: 47
Lemieux 1991: 44
Gretzky 1988: 43
Gretzky 1993: 40
Gretzky 1983: 38
Coffey 1985: 37
Malkin 2009: 36
Bossy 1981: 35
Gilmour 1993: 35
Gretzky 1984: 35
Gretzky 1987: 34
Leetch 1994: 34
Lemieux 1992: 34
Messier 1988: 34
Recchi 1991: 34
Sakic 1996: 34
Middleton 1983: 33
Stevens 1991: 33
Pederson 1983: 32
Bure 1994: 31
Crosby 2009: 31
Kurri 1985: 31
Kurri 1988: 31
MacInnis 1989: 31
Messier 1990: 31
Simpson 1990: 31
Briere 2010: 30
Messier 1994: 30
I bolded the players who led their team in scoring outright, and underlined those who took home the Conn Smythe.