View Single Post
04-13-2014, 03:20 AM
Registered User
SnowblindNYR's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 25,289
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Crease View Post
If we're omitting the Rangers bad start from statistical analysis on the basis that its not a true indication of what this team is, then shouldn't we account for significant injuries that other teams dealt with but are no longer dealing with? I'm not saying its wrong to omit the Rangers bad start, but the logic can apply to other scenarios as well. And if its not applied to the other scenarios, then it sort of becomes an apples-to-oranges comparison. Anaheim's blueline was decimated for a good part of the beginning of the season. Calgary was missing Giordano for quite a while. Montreal was missing Emelin. I'm sure there are other examples.
This actually plays into what I was about to post. To me getting used to a radically different system is WAY more drastic than injuries. Of course at some point injuries do become a good excuse. That said, teams with sound systems can still be successful. Look at Pitt throughout the years, they're decimated every year and still find themselves as a top team in the east each year. In 10-11, they had no Crosby and Malkin and I believe were a 100 point team that almost beat a good Lightning team. Look at us today, no McDonagh, Girardi, MSL, Hank, or Kreider, and frankly we outplay one of the best teams in the east on their home turf and would have shut them out without our top pairing if Diaz's shot decided to be half an inch off. Also let's take a look at how we faired without our team MVP defensively, granted with some weaker offenses that we faced. 8 goals against in 5 games, 1.6 against, but really less since we played 2 OT games. Once again some poor offenses and it's a small sample size, but to me players not knowing where they should be on the ice is far more drastic than getting NHL players, albeit inferior ones playing a system adapted to.

SnowblindNYR is online now   Reply With Quote