How so? It is pretty accepted that Malkin wracked up an unusual amount of 2nd assists in their easy first round win against the Jackets. After that, Crosby was clearly their best player.
He clearly was not.
We can agree to disagree, its okay. I don't mind.
There is the argument there to say he was better in the Finals vs. Nashville which is okay.
But overall throughout the four rounds, I don't think there is argument for that he was clearly better. At best up towards equal. It's not a huge "robbery" per se, but Malkin was robbed of his 2nd Conn Smythe in my opinion.
Malkin had more goals, more points, better in even strength overall (more goals, better plus/minus, Crosby had more assists), more power play points, a short handed point, more blocks and more hits, while playing on average a minute and 20 seconds less per game. Which in the finals Crosby was playing 3 more minutes per game than him.
The argument of heavier load, it goes to a degree, but to me there is two things. I don't think Malkin would be much worse of with the "heavier load" and I don't think Crosby did enough offensively with the argument. If he going to be top 5 all time as some say, he also need to score more vs. those opponents than he did to earn that accolade. I think some of his effort is perceived better than it was.
There is a pretty good chance given their opponents faced that if the ice time was even, Malkin again would have a bigger points lead than 1 point.
Make no mistake, I'm all for Crosby being among the teams best players, but I don't personally think that in either of his 3 cup wins, he has been "the one" where he clearly stood out as the best. For sure he was good and among the best and because of them having a better team that most pretend them to have had, he won 3 cups as a very important piece of it.
