In the good old days, when the Stanley Cup playoffs were a more linear and thus more easily predictable phenomenon, the San Jose Sharks would be able to expect swift and cruel punishment for not putting the steel-capped boot into the prone carcass of the Colorado Avalanche.

After all, the Vancouver Canucks had the same opportunity two weeks ago and not only let the Detroit Red Wings off the hook but never saw the light of day again. After winning the first two games of their series, they lost the rest and never had the lead in any game for even a second.

But the Sharks, who coughed up Game 4 like a cat dislodges a hairball, are not the Canucks, and the Avalanche isn't (aren't? ain't not never?) the Red Wings.

The Avalanche can't do what they used to be able to do -- beat you no matter how you want to play. At least they haven't this year. Without Peter Forsberg in the regular season to drive them forward, the Avalanche became a careful, back-to-front team, while the Sharks became what they have never been, a concerted offensive team.

Thus, the contrasting styles that one would have normally expected from these two teams -- Avs on the attack, Sharks in retreat -- have been nearly turned on their ears.

But not entirely. The two teams aren't that easily pigeonholed, even in reverse. Colorado might have given up fewer goals than any other team during the regular season, but with Forsberg, Rob Blake and Joe Sakic, the impulse to go forward is hard to choke down (see Game 2), even if the punishments are clear (see Games 1 and 3).

Plus, the Sharks are not so much better than the Avs that they can punish at will. The teams may have arrhythmic styles, but they are equals nonetheless.

Patrick Roy is a better goaltender than Evgeni Nabokov, true, because Roy is the standard. Blake is better than any Sharks defenseman, because he can go end to end in a straight line while being virtually undetected -- explaining why he has four goals in this series to the one goal the Sharks defense has scored in nine. Forsberg is almost uniquely skilled among centers.

But the Sharks are deeper, and have fewer automatic outs (to shift into baseball parlance). In prior series, the Sharks have been outmanned at several spots. Here, they give away far less, while Colorado is playing largely with three lines and four defensemen.

Thus, what seems like a cardinal sin -- letting the higher seed off the hook -- is more venial.

Of course, the Sharks have to figure out a way not to let Blake work up a head of steam. After ducking out of Game 1 with what most people believe to be a hinky left knee, Blake has scored the first goal in Games 2, 3 and 4 and all of them coming because he jumped into the play before the Sharks could account for him.

And the Avs need to find a way to even out Mike Ricci's advantages behind the net. Ricci, who used to be doughy but dogged in his time in Colorado, is now large and in charge against the boards, and either pulls the puck out of scrums on his own or stalls until a teammate comes to finish the job for him. Other players have had big games (Owen Nolan in Game 3, Sakic in Game 4, Teemu Selanne in Game 1), but Ricci and Blake have influenced the entire series.

Thus, this series has played out more like Ottawa-Toronto -- a war between equals -- than Detroit-Vancouver -- a mismatch waiting to develop. The Sharks may have blown their chance to put the Avs away, but they haven't blown the series on the basis of losing Game 4.

Losing Game 5, on the other hand ... There is, after all, a difference between losing the whip hand and giving it to a team that knows how to use it.

Ray Ratto of the San Francisco Chronicle is a regular contributor to ESPN.com.