A really interesting discussion piece on Tom Benjamin's blog asking the title question.
It was one of the most interesting sub-plots of the finals, Detroit's Mike Babcock had made it clear he was going to shadow Crosby with Zetterberg and Lidstrom whenever and wherever possible. As we saw, he juggled lines constantly with Bylsma to get the matchups he wanted (and Bylsma to his credit did the same to have Crosby avoid the matchups whenever he could). The result was that Crosby had limited success offensively throughout the series - while Malkin ran roughshod over the lesser defenders/forwards he faced.
Given that the damage Pittsburgh was doing came largely from Malkin's line and not Crosby's, why not switch your best defensive defenseman, and best defensive forward (who wasn't injured ala Datsyuk) onto the guy who was killing you?
Benjamin's answers;
- Because Babcock figured he needed to shut down either Crosby or Malkin
- Because the personnel at hand were much better suited to shutting down Crosby
Mirtle's comment/answer;
- Because in the finals last year Malkin didn't require the best defenders to be shut down
My answers;
- Babcock should have split the responsibilities up. Have Zetterberg shadow Crosby, and let Lidstrom neutralize Malkin
- Malkin is God, and you cannot shadow Malkin because it just makes him angry, so why even bother trying.
Thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Even though Cam and I may have a rivalry with our two star FPs (or FP to be in Malkin's case), I don't think either of us would mind too much if we had the other.
From a FunHL perspective I have acknowleged that Crosby's biggest fault may be that he is more focused on the W than the pts. This is troubling for me in the same way that Stevie Y's 100+pt seasons with the Wings out of the playoffs were far more valuable (as a fantasy GM) than the total-player Yzerman became leading the Red Wings to their Cups.
That said, I think that both Benjamin and Cam are letting their pro-Malkin bias impact their thinking. I, subject to my own pro-Crosby bias, have a different take.
What I think is most impressive about the Flightless Wonders' eventual win, however, is that the Pens were able to win their mini-Stanley Cup series (the final best two out of three) with both of their stars effectively shut out - yes Malkin got an assit in game 7 but the point here is that in games 5, 6 and 7 Malkin was shut down WITHOUT any line-matching.
Why did Babcock, three-time Stanley Cup finalist, one-time champion and likely coach of Canada's Olympic Team, focused on Crosby? Zetterberg, last season's Conn Smythe Trophy winner; Lidstrom, defending multi-winning Norris Trophy winner; number two d-man Rafalski; and, upon his return, Hart Trophy candidate and perenial Selke Trophy winner Datsyuk all assigned to Crosby? Because he felt Crosby was so dangerous that he had to.
Crosby was +9 over the playoffs, and this was after going -3 in the Cup Final against the above All-Star team. Malkin was +3, and even in the Final. He was also, how to put this, more timely and thus more dangerous to the Wings. Crosby's contributions were, IMHO, more often of a pt on the first goal, a pt on a go-ahead goal or on a goal that tied the game. Malkin's pts, again IMHO, were more often piling on against the 'Canes when the game was well in hand or a being in on a late goal when you are already losing by a couple. Yes the hands go up and yes the pts get tallied but the game, the W, isn't really impacted.
Babcock is not a fantasy GM, he's an NHL coach and for him the game is all about the win. With a Cup on the line, the most obvious explanation of why Sid over Geno was that he felt the Wings had a better chance to win of they could shut Sid down.
Just some points in response to Doug;
"the Pens were able to win their mini-Stanley Cup series (the final best two out of three) with both of their stars effectively shut out - yes Malkin got an assit in game 7 but the point here is that in games 5, 6 and 7 Malkin was shut down WITHOUT any line-matching"
- Not to be obtuse but you acknowledge Malkin's assist in Game 7 - the primary assist on the opening score of the game - and then go on to treat his totals as if he were shut out ala Crosby, which he wasn't.
"(why did Babcock match lines vs Crosby)...Because he felt Crosby was so dangerous that he had to."
- Without a doubt I think this is true, but it ignores the bigger picture of the question being asked by Benjamin; given that the Pens have two #1 offensive centers, why did the Pens choose to focus their top defensive players on Crosby when it was Malkin who was killing them? Pointing out that they thought Crosby was dangerous doesn't answer that question.
- You make another point about Crosby's points being more timely - which would be interesting to assess except that he scored so few points in the finals that judging the timeliness of them is difficult. Lets also consider that in the finals (where this debate is taking place) Crosby was at less than .5 pts per game, while Malkin was over a ppg. Simply put, Malkin was putting up the points for Pittsburgh and Crosby wasn't.
I think that Benjamin (and to a point you) hit at something about the different styles at work. Crosby really is a lot like Forsberg in his style of play (that said, Crosby's a better shooter, but not as physically ferocious), and the players the Red Wings have at their disposal are better suited to handling that kind of style than Malkin's.
Malkin in contrast isn't going to have his game disrupted by the kinds of defensive skills Zetterberg possesses. Where Crosby can be effectively shadowed by the speedy Z-berg, Malkin can overpower him.
I had suggested that Babcock made a mistake not in the assignment of Z-berg to shadow Crosby (which I believe to have been highly effective) but in the assignment of Lidstrom and Rafalski. I'd have split Lidstrom from Rafalski and assigned him to contain Malkin in the defensive zone. Malkin was killing the Wings on the half boards and with Crosby sucking up Lidstrom's ice-time for the series Malkin was getting secondary defensive coverage from the likes of Stuart and the rookie Ericksson - and he made them pay.
My point on Malkin's assist was simply that, inspite of the lack of defensive focus on him, it was the only pt he got in three games.
On the timeliness of Crosby's pts, and I really would like to Sabremetric this, was that going into the final (when Babcock and his team had to make their plan) the nature of Crosby's contribution was more of a momentum altering sort than Malkin. Crosby would, more than Malkin, be the heavy lifter - more of a game changer and thus if you can focus your energy on him you are more likely to have an impact on the final outcome. Malkin, phenomenal talent to be sure, is a step below Crosby on that front so if you have to pick one (and I agree - the all-the-eggs-in-one-basket strategy by Babcock looks to have backfired here) then you focus your efforts on stopping Crosby.
What I found interesting about Crosby's playoffs was that the goalscoring prowess was NOT his percieved forte going in. Crosby was the dish to Malkin's sniping threat (a threat born out by Malkin's goal scoring in the playoffs btw). Crosby, particularly in the Washington series, but also against the Flyers, "grew" his game. Had he not shown that, I suspect Babcock might have split his defenses.
There is a much simpler answer guys, which Cameron touches on and Doug intimates...
Crosby and Malkin play 2 different styles of game...
why Babcock did not use Zeterrberg and say Kronwall/Stuart against Crosby AND then use the returning Datsyuk for final the mini-best of 3 series and Lidstrom and Rafalski is baffling. It is for the Cup, Mr Babcock.
And that worries me for 2010 if he is coach...will he miss this again?
Bob's got it right. You use Zetterberg on Crosby because you have a Zetterberg and he matches better against Crosby.
If you had a Hal Gill type to put on Malkin you would, but they simply didn't have that type of guy.
I wonder what this conversation would look like if DET had won.... something along the lines of who was more at fault, Crosby or Malkin ;-) ;-)
Perhaps, I'm curious if anyone has seen a post-mortem with Babcock himself talking about this. I think his perspective would be interesting (though clearly not definitive).
Post a Comment