Thread: Speculation: Season a pass or a fail??
View Single Post
Old
04-29-2010, 12:07 PM
  #53
David Singleton
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Dickson, TN
Country: United States
Posts: 1,327
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 101st_fan View Post
For us to be favored means not being the #7 seed .. or the #8 seed. Hell, one of our appearances as the #4 seed was against a team that tied us for the conference lead in wins that season. One of our two appearances as a #4 seed we could have been favorites.

When we're a top three seed, we'll have the expectation to win. As a #7, we're the underdog and to advance requires players going far above and beyond what we saw from our team. We got some damn good play
Yes, we did. We got some breakdowns and errors too, but that's to be fully expected. No one, or team, is perfect.

Quote:
, we needed near miraculous.
No.

What we needed was for this team to average their paltry 17% effectiveness on the PP or for the Blackhawks to only kill their normal 85.3% of kills.

Instead we see a 4% conversion rate (or 96% kill rate by the Hawks).

Losing while playing to one's abilities is one thing. Losing while grossly falling below one's abilities is another thing. Doing it while having two of the best players in the League (Suter and Weber) on the ice makes it even worse.


You and I both like statistics, and you put much more time into it than I do.

That said, the playoffs have never been about seeds or statistics- unless your a member of the media unfamiliar with a team having to choose a favorite. They always have been and always will be about matchups.

This team believed they should beat Chicago because they knew their own abilities and knew what Chicago brought to the table in terms of abilities for the series. And with the exception of the power play and some discipline problems, this team played to their abilities. No one said it would be easy, but it was more than achievable.

The fact they failed isn't the problem for the fans, and likely for the players. It's how they failed. And seeds, statistics, or expectations didn't have a role in that either. Only the players on the ice and the coaches on the bench (both teams).

That's not meant as a harsh statement to them or anyone else in particular.

It's meant to point out that expectations shouldn't be made by seeds or statistics alone (if at all). They should be made by examining how the teams matchup against one another. I don't point that out to you as I know you made your own analysis, but many just follow some random pundit that, after seeing maybe five total Predator games, keeps spouting that Chicago will easily bust Nashville's trap, etc.

My expectations going into the series was that Nashville would win in six or seven games based upon Rinne being as solid as he had been and their team defense being as solid as it was in the latter part of the season. Chicago had several strong offensive players, but Nashville should have been able to neutralize them enough to win (which effectively happened)- and they were missing two large pieces to their blueline. To win, Nashville did have to convert opportunities into goals, including bringing their power play back to the 16% realm. That's where they lost- drastically so.

Thanks 101 for the discussion.


Last edited by David Singleton: 04-29-2010 at 12:15 PM.
David Singleton is offline   Reply With Quote