ShareThis Page

Crosby, Malkin silenced again in season-ending loss

| Friday, June 7, 2013, 11:00 p.m.
The Bruins' Jaromir Jagr knocks down the Penguins' Sidney Crosby in the first period during Game 4 of the Eastern Conference final on Friday, June 7, 2013, at TD Garden in Boston.
Chaz Palla | Tribune-Review
The Bruins' Jaromir Jagr knocks down the Penguins' Sidney Crosby in the first period during Game 4 of the Eastern Conference final on Friday, June 7, 2013, at TD Garden in Boston.

BOSTON — They sat side by side in the Penguins' locker room, Sidney Crosby and Evgeni Malkin, the two greatest Penguins — and maybe players — of their generation. Crosby sat dignified and quiet, while Malkin sat with his head in his hands for the longest time.

They'll forever sit side by side at the bottom of the score sheet of the 2013 Eastern Conference final, too.

The mega-powers were silenced by the Bruins in a 1-0 setback in Game 4 of the Eastern Conference final. Neither player earned a point in the series.

They weren't able to muster much of an explanation, either.

“I tried,” Malkin said. “I tried. If you're not (shooting), you're not scoring goals. Sometimes I'm not scoring and I'm nervous and I have good chances — I don't know, try to shoot quicker? Sometimes I can wait and get an empty net. It's tough.

“I have no confidence. You know, zero goals.”

Malkin launched 21 shots on goal during the series.

Boston goaltender Tuukka Rask stopped every one.

Crosby knows the feeling.

The undisputed greatest player in hockey endured the most miserable playoff series of his career.

Crosby actually played his finest game of the series in Game 4 and was probably the game's best player, other than the unflappable Rask.

But the player who was built to score points at will came up empty against the stingy Bruins.

“If you look back, chances were there,” Crosby said. “You try to fight, try to get rebounds. Sometimes they come to you, sometimes they don't. We scored two goals all series and I didn't score any points. It doesn't sit very well.”

The Penguins entered the series averaging 4.27 goals per game in the postseason, the NHL's highest mark through 10 playoff games since the 1990 Edmonton Oilers. They also led the NHL in goals for a second consecutive regular season.

But no NHL team has won the Stanley Cup and led the league in goals since the 1992 Penguins.

Crosby gave the Bruins plenty of credit, saying they're among the finer defensive teams he's ever encountered — “They don't give you anything,” he said — but refused to give Boston all the credit.

Rather, Crosby acknowledged he and his gallery of future Hall of Fame teammates simply failed.

“For whatever reason, we just weren't able to capitalize,” he said.

The Penguins did themselves no favors with the man advantage. They entered the series clicking at 28.2 percent with a man advantage and had the second best power play during the regular season.

They went 0 for 15 against the Bruins.

“Maybe we should have scored a power-play goal at some point,” left wing Chris Kunitz said.

Crosby and Malkin are the engine that runs the power play.

The engine, for reasons even they don't seem to understand, was never ignited.

For the fourth straight time since 2009, someone other than Crosby will raise the Stanley Cup.

“To get two goals in this entire series,” Kunitz said, “is something we never would have imagined.”

Josh Yohe is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. Reach him at or via Twitter @JoshYohe_Trib.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.