HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Philadelphia Flyers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Miscellaneous NHL Talk Part VIII

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-29-2013, 04:56 PM
  #576
Appleyard
HFB Partner
 
Appleyard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Manc/Shef/Utrecht
Country: Netherlands
Posts: 9,812
vCash: 500
Since the lockout (05 ofc)

2006: Carolina 2.71 GPG over Edmonton 2.57 GPG
2007: Anaheim 3.2 GPG over Ottawa 2.2 GPG
2008: Detroit 2.83 GPG over Pittsburgh 1.66 GPG
2009: Pittsburgh 2 GPG over Detroit 2.42 GPG
2010: Chicago 4.16 GPG over Philadelphia 3.67 GPG
2011: Boston 3.28 GPG over Vancouver 1.14 GPG
2012: LA 2.67 GPG over New Jersey 1.33 GPG
2013: Chicago 2.43 GPG over Boston 2.5 GPG

We had the 2nd most GPG of any of the 16 teams who have contested a final since the lockout. 3.67 GPG wins any other Cup final since then. We were also one of the most consistent 10 offences in scoring in Finals history... including winners, and still lost.

Heck, the last time a team scored more than 3GPG and lost was The North Stars in 1981.

The last time a team scored more than 3.67 GPG in a Stanley cup series and lost?

Flyers in 1980!

Since the Stanley Cup has been awarded to the victor of a series of games, in 1914, there have only been three losers with more GPG than the 2010 Flyers, us in 1980, the 1973 Black Hawks and 1918 Vancouver Millionaires.

The last team to score 4 or more goals in 4 games and lose the finals?

No one... ever, we are the only one.

Teams scoring 4 or more goals in 5 games, including winners?

1991 Penguins... that is it, we score another goal in game 6 (to win) and we have the greatest offence in the history of the Stanley Cup Final in terms of consistency.

The last team to score 3 or more goals in 5 games and lose the finals?

1942 Detroit Red Wings... the only other team, and they scored more than 3 only once.

Saying we could have scored more, regardless of who scored them, is pretty infeasible, as we would have had to be the best consistent, high scoring offence in NHL history to score just 1-2 more goals.

If Carter and Richards score 1 more goal each we have the 2nd highest GPG in history of losers (after 1980 Flyers!), are the most consistently offensive team in the history of the Stanley cup (including winners) and Chicago still would have had more GPG than us!

From a statistical standpoint we scored as many goals as could be asked for, any more and we are the most consistent high scoring team in Finals history... as it is (with 4 or more in 4 games) less than 5 other winners were as consistently good as us offensively in 2010!

Our Goaltending was almost entirely to blame, both from the 'eye' test, and statistically. Like 90%. I have never seen so many soft goals given up in a Finals as we gave up in 2010.

Our Goalies SV% was .872... in a finals. If our goaltending is even average, or slightly below, we win.

Appleyard is offline  
Old
07-29-2013, 05:04 PM
  #577
Appleyard
HFB Partner
 
Appleyard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Manc/Shef/Utrecht
Country: Netherlands
Posts: 9,812
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snotbubbles View Post
A lot of revisionist history here.

Boucher let in the GWG in game 1.
But Leighton did let in 5 goals at .75 SV%... and at least 2 were routine saves if I remember correctly. If Leighton is even below average we are a few goals up by the time the 3rd comes around.

It seemed everytime the Black Hawks got the puck they shot, from anywhere, knowing that Leighton would let a softy in.

I am not a massive Leighton hater either like some! But he was dog.

Appleyard is offline  
Old
07-29-2013, 05:24 PM
  #578
DrinkFightFlyers
Provolone & The Neck
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: Isle of Man
Posts: 14,682
vCash: 470
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by CS View Post
Based on his numbers so far, he's a 30-point defenseman when given adequate EV and PP time. His production per offensive minute suggest this fact. He's also at the very least in the discussion with Meszaros defensively if not better. He doesn't hit as much as Meszaros, and he gives up some size. Still he's demonstrated that he's hardly a pushover along the boards and plays well positionally in eyeball tests. Advanced statistics back all of this up.
He hasn't demonstrated anything. He's played 60 games over three years in the NHL. His first two seasons in the NHL (3 games and 30 games) were unequivocally not that of a top four defender, nor was there anything that would indicate that he WILL be one. Potential to be one, maybe. But it was far from a lock. His next 27 games, he played better, for sure, but still nothing that would make me say he is now a top four guy, or a guy that is destined to be one. He has a shot, for sure, but right now, he is not one. And 60 mediocre NHL games does not a top four NHL defender make. I'm not knocking the guy. I'm not saying he sucks. I just think he is overrated here. He may one day be a top 4 defender, but he isn't now and I don't think he is a lock to be one either.

Quote:
So, no this is not another "hard-on" HFboards player. You're thinking of Lauridsen. I haven't seen a single person claiming that Gustafsson having higher potential than he has. A top 4 PMD is what we're expecting, and based on all the evidence, it is what we're getting out of a 24-year-old. Meanwhile, people were penciling Lauridsen into the top 4 in place of Coburn. There's a significant difference there.
That's the problem. You are expecting it based on 60 mediocre NHL games. If you want to say you are expecting that for Morin or Haag, guys with pedigrees who have that high trajectory who are 18 or 19, that's fine. That makes sense. But Gus is 24 and has played 60 NHL games, none of which would make an objective observer say he is or soon will be a top 4 guy. Again, I'm not saying he won't be, but it is far from certain.

Quote:
That said, even if you believe Meszaros to be a significantly better player than Gustafsson, which has been proven to be inaccurate, there are a slew of other factors involved:

1. ROLE/COST RATIO: whoever of the two is in the lineup will be playing third fiddle behind Timonen and Streit making their impact on the roster lesser. For the price, 1m trumps 4m for a 3rd pairing defenseman any day.
So Gus is cheaper. Big deal. If they are both on the team it doesn't matter how much money is on the ice or in the press box. Irrelevant if we are simply talking about who is to play. Again, if we are talking about which guy I would rather trade, it would be Mez because of the cost and his injury problems. But if we are talking about who is playing, it would Mez because he is better.

Quote:
2. AGE. Gustafsson isn't a decade younger or anything, but he is younger enough for it to be a factor.
So Gus is younger (by a shocking 2.5 years). Big deal. If someone is better than him, they should play.

Quote:
3. HEALTH. Gustafsson has had a minor injury here and there, but he's nowhere near the glass-man that Meszaros has become.
So Mez gets injured. Big deal. If he is healthy, let him play until he gets injured. Worst case scenario he gets hurt and Gus plays anyway. He may not get injured in the press box, but he's not contributing either. No point in keeping him in the press box to avoid an injury. Simply makes no sense.

Quote:
4. TEAM NEEDS. The Flyers have enough physical guys. Sure, Meszaros isn't a shut-down heavyweight like Schenn or Grossmann, but he's not the most finesse guy. With Timonen and Streit getting on in years, some youthful finesse on the back-end will go a long way.
When healthy, Mez is a pretty effective PMD who is ALSO physical. IIRC, Mez was never a shut-down type of player. He was always a PMD/2-way type of guy. So I'm not sure this really helps your argument.

Quote:
5. DEVELOPMENT. Gustafsson's development has become a very important cog for the organization's continuity on the back-end leading into the developmental track of Morin, Hagg, and Gostisbehere. You don't want to stunt it.
This is really the only legitimate argument I see here. Obviously Gus not playing will hurt his development. Again, to me, this is nobig of a deal because I don't his future with this team is as instrumental as many of you. I think he's a bottom pairing, replaceable guy with a shot at being top 4. Letting him play more would give us a better picture and him a better chance, but if Mez is the better player like I suspect, I don't think it would be a smart move for the team to play Gus over Mez. You don't play guys at the NHL level over someone else who is better to hope for them to develop unless you are in the midst of a rebuild, which I don't think this team is.

Quote:
6. LONG-TERM PLANS. Meszaros doesn't fit into the team's long-term plans. That's very clear. Sacrificing Gustafsson, who does, just to benefit Meszaros' value seems extremely counter-productive particularly when Gustafsson could use extended NHL experience before we need him in a much larger role next year.
Again, not something I would consider if both players are on the roster already. If we were talking about acquiring Mez, I may agree with you...you don't want to trade assets or waste a contract space on a guy who will be gone in a year if you have his replacement lined up. But if both guys are on the team, you don't just bench someone because they won't be here next year (see the response to development).

Quote:
There is no reason, absolutely none, to have Meszaros in the lineup for Gustafsson. None.
Most of these appear to be arguments supporting the idea of getting rid of Meszaros rather than getting rid of Gus, which I am in full support of. If I could trade one, it would be Mez every single day, and for many of the same reasons you have mentioned. But, if we are simply talking about who will be playing if both are on the roster/healthy and only one spot remains, the only thing that matters (or should matter) is who is the better player. You want to put the best team on the ice every night, not put the best contracts/youngest players/guys with the most potential/whatever on the ice. Worries about money, age, and getting injured should not affect your lineup on a nightly basis if both guys are on the roster and healthy.

DrinkFightFlyers is offline  
Old
07-29-2013, 05:29 PM
  #579
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Doof Warrior
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 50,914
vCash: 500
Mez has played 73 games in the last two seasons. Gus has played 57 games in the same span. It's not like there's a huge difference in sample size that makes it an unfair comparison.

In that span Gus has done better overall than Mez, all things considered. He is the better option.

__________________
Down in the basement, I've got a Craftsman lathe. Show it to the children when they misbehave.
Beef Invictus is offline  
Old
07-29-2013, 05:39 PM
  #580
DrinkFightFlyers
Provolone & The Neck
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: Isle of Man
Posts: 14,682
vCash: 470
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Appleyard View Post
Since the lockout (05 ofc)

2006: Carolina 2.71 GPG over Edmonton 2.57 GPG
2007: Anaheim 3.2 GPG over Ottawa 2.2 GPG
2008: Detroit 2.83 GPG over Pittsburgh 1.66 GPG
2009: Pittsburgh 2 GPG over Detroit 2.42 GPG
2010: Chicago 4.16 GPG over Philadelphia 3.67 GPG
2011: Boston 3.28 GPG over Vancouver 1.14 GPG
2012: LA 2.67 GPG over New Jersey 1.33 GPG
2013: Chicago 2.43 GPG over Boston 2.5 GPG

We had the 2nd most GPG of any of the 16 teams who have contested a final since the lockout. 3.67 GPG wins any other Cup final since then. We were also one of the most consistent 10 offences in scoring in Finals history... including winners, and still lost.

Heck, the last time a team scored more than 3GPG and lost was The North Stars in 1981.

The last time a team scored more than 3.67 GPG in a Stanley cup series and lost?

Flyers in 1980!

Since the Stanley Cup has been awarded to the victor of a series of games, in 1914, there have only been three losers with more GPG than the 2010 Flyers, us in 1980, the 1973 Black Hawks and 1918 Vancouver Millionaires.

The last team to score 4 or more goals in 4 games and lose the finals?

No one... ever, we are the only one.

Teams scoring 4 or more goals in 5 games, including winners?

1991 Penguins... that is it, we score another goal in game 6 (to win) and we have the greatest offence in the history of the Stanley Cup Final in terms of consistency.

The last team to score 3 or more goals in 5 games and lose the finals?

1942 Detroit Red Wings... the only other team, and they scored more than 3 only once.

Saying we could have scored more, regardless of who scored them, is pretty infeasible, as we would have had to be the best consistent, high scoring offence in NHL history to score just 1-2 more goals.

If Carter and Richards score 1 more goal each we have the 2nd highest GPG in history of losers (after 1980 Flyers!), are the most consistently offensive team in the history of the Stanley cup (including winners) and Chicago still would have had more GPG than us!

From a statistical standpoint we scored as many goals as could be asked for, any more and we are the most consistent high scoring team in Finals history... as it is (with 4 or more in 4 games) less than 5 other winners were as consistently good as us offensively in 2010!

Our Goaltending was almost entirely to blame, both from the 'eye' test, and statistically. Like 90%. I have never seen so many soft goals given up in a Finals as we gave up in 2010.

Our Goalies SV% was .872... in a finals. If our goaltending is even average, or slightly below, we win.
Just out of curiosity, in all of these series (or most), were the leading scorers on the winning teams their best offensive players? I don't know that they are or aren't, but regardless of what would have won a statistical Stanley Cup, it didn't win that one. I'm not asking the rest of the team to have had a better series, I'm asking the best players on the team. You can't win a SCF without your goalie playing well. But you also can't win a SCF without your best players on offense producing offensively. Ask the Canucks, Bruins, Devils, and Flyers that.

DrinkFightFlyers is offline  
Old
07-29-2013, 05:43 PM
  #581
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Doof Warrior
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 50,914
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
Just out of curiosity, in all of these series (or most), were the leading scorers on the winning teams their best offensive players? I don't know that they are or aren't, but regardless of what would have won a statistical Stanley Cup, it didn't win that one. I'm not asking the rest of the team to have had a better series, I'm asking the best players on the team. You can't win a SCF without your goalie playing well. But you also can't win a SCF without your best players on offense producing offensively. Ask the Canucks, Bruins, Devils, and Flyers that.
Off the top of my head, I'm modestly sure Edmonton has won a Cup where Gretzky wasn't the best offensive player in the Finals. That's about as extreme an example as you can get...the greatest offensive player of all time, and his team manages to win without him producing at his normal rate.

I highly doubt they could have won with the worst starting goalie in the Finals of all time, though.

Edit: 1984, I believe.

Beef Invictus is offline  
Old
07-29-2013, 05:49 PM
  #582
DrinkFightFlyers
Provolone & The Neck
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: Isle of Man
Posts: 14,682
vCash: 470
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
Mez has played 73 games in the last two seasons. Gus has played 57 games in the same span. It's not like there's a huge difference in sample size that makes it an unfair comparison.

In that span Gus has done better overall than Mez, all things considered. He is the better option.
Two issues with this comment. First, Mez's 62 games prior to his injury were better than Gus's entire career. Second, you don't just throw out the rest of a guy's career because he got injured and played poorly in 11 games while struggling to recover from said injury. His career isn't over. Mez was a good defenseman when he went down. If he is healthy, I think he'll be that good again, not as good as he was in Ottawa, but back to where he was two years ago, which is better than Gus is now.

As for Gus, as I said, I don't think you could really argue that Gus's first real season with the big club showed that he was or would soon be a top 4 guy. Last season he showed improvement for sure, but again, nothing earth shattering. Certainly not much to pencil him in as a top four guy, which is what some people are doing.

DrinkFightFlyers is offline  
Old
07-29-2013, 05:53 PM
  #583
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Doof Warrior
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 50,914
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
Two issues with this comment. First, Mez's 62 games prior to his injury were better than Gus's entire career. Second, you don't just throw out the rest of a guy's career because he got injured and played poorly in 11 games while struggling to recover from said injury. His career isn't over. Mez was a good defenseman when he went down. If he is healthy, I think he'll be that good again, not as good as he was in Ottawa, but back to where he was two years ago, which is better than Gus is now.

As for Gus, as I said, I don't think you could really argue that Gus's first real season with the big club showed that he was or would soon be a top 4 guy. Last season he showed improvement for sure, but again, nothing earth shattering. Certainly not much to pencil him in as a top four guy, which is what some people are doing.
Oh, we don't throw out a career based on injury? Good, I'll call Blair Betts and ask him to return. The fact is, Mez has had a string of very troubling injuries. Hell, one of them came while making a routine hit! Routine plays bang the guy up...shoulder and back issues are a huge cause for concern, especially in a guy with Mez's capabilities and cap hit relative to those capabilities. We are 3 years removed from Mez's good season. It's safe to stop considering that season, because he's yet to come remotely close to replicating it.

As for Gus, he WAS top 4 last season. It wasn't an assumption, it was a reality, and he did fine in that role for a decent stretch.

Beef Invictus is offline  
Old
07-29-2013, 05:54 PM
  #584
DrinkFightFlyers
Provolone & The Neck
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: Isle of Man
Posts: 14,682
vCash: 470
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
Off the top of my head, I'm modestly sure Edmonton has won a Cup where Gretzky wasn't the best offensive player in the Finals. That's about as extreme an example as you can get...the greatest offensive player of all time, and his team manages to win without him producing at his normal rate.

I highly doubt they could have won with the worst starting goalie in the Finals of all time, though.

Edit: 1984, I believe.
What were the stats line? Was Gretzky shut down like Richards and Carter were? Did Messier lead the team?

The Sedins were held to 2 points each. Kovalchuk and Parise to 1 point each. Marchand had 0 points and Horton had one I think. Richards and Carter had two points each. If Messier and Gretzky had two points each, my guess is they wouldn't have won.

DrinkFightFlyers is offline  
Old
07-29-2013, 05:56 PM
  #585
DrinkFightFlyers
Provolone & The Neck
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: Isle of Man
Posts: 14,682
vCash: 470
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
Oh, we don't throw out a career based on injury? Good, I'll call Blair Betts and ask him to return. The fact is, Mez has had a string of very troubling injuries. Hell, one of them came while making a routine hit! Routine plays bang the guy up...shoulder and back issues are a huge cause for concern, especially in a guy with Mez's capabilities and cap hit relative to those capabilities. We are 3 years removed from Mez's good season. It's safe to stop considering that season, because he's yet to come remotely close to replicating it.

As for Gus, he WAS top 4 last season. It wasn't an assumption, it was a reality, and he did fine in that role for a decent stretch.
Ok. Mez is done (or at least not as good as Gus). Gus is top 4. I give up.

DrinkFightFlyers is offline  
Old
07-29-2013, 06:04 PM
  #586
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Doof Warrior
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 50,914
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
What were the stats line? Was Gretzky shut down like Richards and Carter were? Did Messier lead the team?

The Sedins were held to 2 points each. Kovalchuk and Parise to 1 point each. Marchand had 0 points and Horton had one I think. Richards and Carter had two points each. If Messier and Gretzky had two points each, my guess is they wouldn't have won.
The Sedins were facing one of the greatest goaltending performances in Finals history. Kovalchulk and Parise faced a performance nearly its equal...NOBODY on those teams were producing, and in Vancouver's case it was a team that actually had strong depth.

EDIT: And, they were simply outplayed by the other team. On the other hand, the Flyers did everything they needed to offensively...team's that produce like the Flyers did tend to win the Cup, but not if they have a slob in net.

Marchand and Horton are not Boston's best offensive players, I don't know where you're getting that.

As for Gretzky, I can't find them. It was discussed in the HoH forum; Gretzky was apparently decently contained, and the rest of his team made up for it. Just like Richards and Carter were contained, and the rest of the team made up for it. You're chasing ghosts here in an attempt to diminish Leighton's blame. No matter what you say, the Flyers offense was not an issue. Individual performances by a broken footed Carter and a Richards paired against Toews didn't matter. The offense was good enough anyways. I seriously don't know how or why you refuse to accept that.

The fact is this: Leighton was the worst starting goaltender a team has rolled into the Finals with, ever. I've checked, and I can't find anyone worse. The defensive play in front of him was solid; hell, it's how they dragged him to the Finals to begin with. To win with that pile of garbage stinking of the crease, they would have needed to put on the greatest offensive performance of all time, beating out some all time great dynasty teams and doing it in the cap era. Basically, what you're saying should have happened is/was impossible and utterly absurd to demand.

Leighton was the chief problem. Richards and Carter not producing was a very minor one.


Last edited by Beef Invictus: 07-29-2013 at 06:13 PM.
Beef Invictus is offline  
Old
07-29-2013, 06:27 PM
  #587
DrinkFightFlyers
Provolone & The Neck
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: Isle of Man
Posts: 14,682
vCash: 470
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
The Sedins were facing one of the greatest goaltending performances in Finals history. Kovalchulk and Parise faced a performance nearly its equal...NOBODY on those teams were producing, and in Vancouver's case it was a team that actually had strong depth.

EDIT: And, they were simply outplayed by the other team. On the other hand, the Flyers did everything they needed to offensively...team's that produce like the Flyers did tend to win the Cup, but not if they have a slob in net.

Marchand and Horton are not Boston's best offensive players, I don't know where you're getting that.

As for Gretzky, I can't find them. It was discussed in the HoH forum; Gretzky was apparently decently contained, and the rest of his team made up for it. Just like Richards and Carter were contained, and the rest of the team made up for it. You're chasing ghosts here in an attempt to diminish Leighton's blame. No matter what you say, the Flyers offense was not an issue. Individual performances by a broken footed Carter and a Richards paired against Toews didn't matter. The offense was good enough anyways. I seriously don't know how or why you refuse to accept that.

The fact is this: Leighton was the worst starting goaltender a team has rolled into the Finals with, ever. I've checked, and I can't find anyone worse. The defensive play in front of him was solid; hell, it's how they dragged him to the Finals to begin with. To win with that pile of garbage stinking of the crease, they would have needed to put on the greatest offensive performance of all time, beating out some all time great dynasty teams and doing it in the cap era. Basically, what you're saying should have happened is/was impossible and utterly absurd to demand.

Leighton was the chief problem. Richards and Carter not producing was a very minor one.
Ok, I'll throw the towell on in this one too. Top offensive performers are excused if other players step up, even in the Cup Finals. Leighton is the main reason they lost AINEC.

DrinkFightFlyers is offline  
Old
07-29-2013, 06:33 PM
  #588
hockeyfreak7
Registered User
 
hockeyfreak7's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 10,897
vCash: 500
DFF, I'm not quite sure what you're arguing. Sure, if Richards and Carter had played better, we could have won the Cup. But if Pronger played better, you could say the same. Hell, had Briere played better we would have won the Cup, too!

Every player has room for improvement. It just so happens that Leighton has an entire ocean of improvement. It's one thing for a player (in this case Richards and Carter) to be mediocre (even then, it's debatable); it's quite another to be downright...well, I can't even think of a proper adjective for Leighton's performance. That bad.

The entire series we were keeping it close in spite of Leighton. We were actually playing against him in that sense. We were not playing against Richards and Carter.

hockeyfreak7 is offline  
Old
07-29-2013, 06:38 PM
  #589
DrinkFightFlyers
Provolone & The Neck
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: Isle of Man
Posts: 14,682
vCash: 470
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyfreak7 View Post
DFF, I'm not quite sure what you're arguing. Sure, if Richards and Carter had played better, we could have won the Cup. But if Pronger played better, you could say the same. Hell, had Briere played better we would have won the Cup, too!

Every player has room for improvement. It just so happens that Leighton has an entire ocean of improvement. It's one thing for a player (in this case Richards and Carter) to be mediocre (even then, it's debatable); it's quite another to be downright...well, I can't even think of a proper adjective for Leighton's performance. That bad.

The entire series we were keeping it close in spite of Leighton. We were actually playing against him in that sense. We were not playing against Richards and Carter.
My argument was that your best players have to show up to win the Cup, even if your not-so-best players show up. Richards and Carter were your two best offensive players. Richards led the team in scoring during the regular season and playoffs up to that point. It is not too much to ask for him to generate more offense. He doesn't have to have a series like Briere had, but two points in the Cup Finals from Richards shouldn't be acceptable, even if he played well defensively and other players stepped up. But I withdrew my argument because I am wrong. Your best players don't have to show up if other players do. The impact of a goal or two more from Richards and or Carter would not have had the same impact as a better series from Leighton. I agree with the majority.

DrinkFightFlyers is offline  
Old
07-29-2013, 06:39 PM
  #590
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Doof Warrior
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 50,914
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
Ok, I'll throw the towell on in this one too. Top offensive performers are excused if other players step up, even in the Cup Finals. Leighton is the main reason they lost AINEC.
Nobody is saying top offensive performers don't have to step up, but you're trying to remove all context from Richards' and Carter's Finals performances. In that particular case, it didn't matter that much because so many others stepped up. If nobody else had stepped up, their performance would have been far more obnoxious. And again...context. There was stuff going on that explained their performance. On top of that, neither one could be described as "horrific." Overall, it simply wasn't that much of a factor compared to the goaltending, which can definitely be described as "horrific."

As Appleyard has shown with stats and many have been saying, the team's skaters as a whole were good enough to win. They didn't win because the goaltending was terrible.

Beef Invictus is offline  
Old
07-29-2013, 06:43 PM
  #591
CS
Bryzgalov's Blueline
 
CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Lumberton, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 14,009
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
He hasn't demonstrated anything. He's played 60 games over three years in the NHL.
Stop thinking about what Gustafsson has or has not achieved. The argument at hand is whether or not he is a better player than Meszaros. This is Meszaros vs. Gustafsson and you keep changing the subject. This is not Top 4 Defenseman vs. Gustafsson. This is a very specific discussion based on who would be better to have in the lineup. While you say that you are for trading Meszaros to play Gustafsson, you would rather play Meszaros if both are in the lineup. Remember that they are playing in the 3rd pairing role regardless of who is playing.

Also, stop saying "60 mediocre games." They were split half and half between mediocre games in a limited role and extremely solid games in a much larger role.

Now that we have that settled and clearly understood, we can get back into this discussion.


From the minute Meszaros fell to injury on March 1st, 2012, he has not been the same "top 4" Meszaros that you expect. When he did return from injury for 11 games, he was easily the worst defenseman in the lineup. Statistics I posted back that up fairly thoroughly. Then he went down with another injury. He has had 3 injuries since that March 1st date, and by the end of August, it will be a year and a half since he could be considered a "top 4" defenseman. I don't know about you, but when a player hasn't been playing at a "top" level for a year and a half, I no longer consider him at that level anymore. He has just as much to prove if not more than Gustafsson, since Gustafsson has proven he can log effective minutes at the NHL level in a top 4 role regardless of whether or not you want to call him a "top 4" defenseman.

Let's conduct an experiment using Gustafsson's 57 NHL games in the last two seasons and Meszaros' 62 NHL games in 2011-12. I'm going to omit Meszaros' 11-game injured stint in 2012-13 on the basis that he was injured and not on the top of his game. This is to compare Meszaros, as a top 4 defenseman, against Gustafsson, as whatever you want to consider him at this point in his career. I want to re-emphasize that I am using Meszaros' HEALTHY STATISTICS from 2011-12.

Average Quality of Competition CORSI
Meszaros: -0.923
Gustafsson: -0.019

Average CORSI Performance Against Competition
Meszaros: -1.70
Gustafsson: -0.08

Average Points Per Season At 15 Even Strength Minutes Per Game
Meszaros: 25.83
Gustafsson: 19.13

Average Points Per Season At 2 Powerplay Minutes Per Game
Meszaros: 5.67
Gustafsson: 2.75

Average Hits Per Season At 18 Minutes Per Game
Meszaros: 165.77
Gustafsson: 43.61

Average Blocked Shots Per Season At 18 Minutes Per Game
Meszaros: 101.38
Gustafsson: 103.63

Gustafsson was a more productive defensive player and a less productive offensive player against tougher average competition.

Meszaros was a less productive defensive player and a more productive offensive player against weaker average competition.

Meszaros and Gustafsson were about equal at blocked shots while Meszaros kicked Gustafsson's ass at hitting, which was to be expected.

This was the level of competition between Meszaros and Gustafsson BEFORE Meszaros got injured. He wasn't even definitely a better player before his 3 injuries and what amounts to basically a year and a half of recovery. How is he one now?

CS is offline  
Old
07-29-2013, 06:48 PM
  #592
DrinkFightFlyers
Provolone & The Neck
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: Isle of Man
Posts: 14,682
vCash: 470
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
Nobody is saying top offensive performers don't have to step up, but you're trying to remove all context from Richards' and Carter's Finals performances. In that particular case, it didn't matter that much because so many others stepped up. If nobody else had stepped up, their performance would have been far more obnoxious. And again...context. There was stuff going on that explained their performance. On top of that, neither one could be described as "horrific." Overall, it simply wasn't that much of a factor compared to the goaltending, which can definitely be described as "horrific."

As Appleyard has shown with stats and many have been saying, the team's skaters as a whole were good enough to win. They didn't win because the goaltending was terrible.
You can't say "context" and act like you aren't saying your best players don't have to show up. If Richards and Carter generating more offense, even only slightly, the series is totally different. They are expected to generate offense. The team relies on them to generate offense. When your primary scoring doesn't show up, you are in an uphill battle, regardless of goalies or defense or secondary scoring. That is why they are the primary scoring. Secondary scoring should not be carrying your team, that's why its called secondary. But it doesn't matter because I'm dropping this argument and agreeing with you.

In this context you are right. Richards and Carter are excused because Briere scored so much and Leighton sucked. The team as a whole played enough to win but Leighton brought them down and lost the series. The two best players on your team and your leading scorer from the regular season and playoffs not showing up did not bring them down. It was Leighton.

DrinkFightFlyers is offline  
Old
07-29-2013, 06:49 PM
  #593
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Doof Warrior
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 50,914
vCash: 500
OK. Let's play a game:

Find where I said "your best players don't need to show up."

Go.


Edit: And yes, I get you're trying to be sarcastic. However, you actually ended up being correct when you did that. Yes, Richards and Carter not scoring was a minor factor compared to how terribly Leighton sucked.

Beef Invictus is offline  
Old
07-29-2013, 06:54 PM
  #594
Appleyard
HFB Partner
 
Appleyard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Manc/Shef/Utrecht
Country: Netherlands
Posts: 9,812
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
Off the top of my head, I'm modestly sure Edmonton has won a Cup where Gretzky wasn't the best offensive player in the Finals. That's about as extreme an example as you can get...the greatest offensive player of all time, and his team manages to win without him producing at his normal rate.

I highly doubt they could have won with the worst starting goalie in the Finals of all time, though.

Edit: 1984, I believe.
Crosby sucked in 09. Points in 2 games out of 7. Malkin and Talbot shouldered the offence! Fedotenko, Staal and Kennedy also did more than him.

Selanne for the Ducks in 07 is comparable... he was no where tbh apart from in one game, couldn't score for love nor money after coming into the series as the leading scorer in the Playoffs and the regular season, and far and away there best forward and Mr. Clutch for them that year. He ended up getting demoted and Perry and Getzlaf took the slack... But they also had awesome goaltending as well as secondary players stepping up.

Datsyuk and Zetterberg in 08 was not 'Normal' either if I remember correctly, were Filppula and Samuelsson not the best offensive players for them as they had easy minutes as Dats and Zetterberg neutralised Crosby and Malkin and were out against them almost all the time? I still remember Zetterberg having one amazing game though... and they probably put up points even while not carrying the team offensively, so maybe not the best comparison.


Last edited by Appleyard: 07-29-2013 at 06:59 PM.
Appleyard is offline  
Old
07-29-2013, 07:24 PM
  #595
healthyscratch
Registered User
 
healthyscratch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Philly
Posts: 5,834
vCash: 633
When you lose two Stanley Cup Finals game by the scores of 6-5 and 7-4, goaltending is the main reason you lost, not your goal scoring. Pretty amazed this debate has raged on this long.

healthyscratch is offline  
Old
07-29-2013, 07:42 PM
  #596
Flyersfan1493
Formerly Go For It
 
Flyersfan1493's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Collegeville, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 4,647
vCash: 500
The annual Carter/Richards v. Leighton debate? Must be the off-season. Next up: The whole Carter/Richards Dry Island saga.

Flyersfan1493 is offline  
Old
07-29-2013, 07:45 PM
  #597
DrinkFightFlyers
Provolone & The Neck
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: Isle of Man
Posts: 14,682
vCash: 470
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beef Invictus View Post
OK. Let's play a game:

Find where I said "your best players don't need to show up."

Go.


Edit: And yes, I get you're trying to be sarcastic. However, you actually ended up being correct when you did that. Yes, Richards and Carter not scoring was a minor factor compared to how terribly Leighton sucked.
Ok:

Quote:
It doesn't matter how good or bad your best players are if you have the worst starting goaltender in the long history of the Stanley Cup Finals, and he plays accordingly.
I would respond to that as saying: well if Carter and Richards scored a little more (seeing as how they were the best offensive players on the team), you would be hard pressed to argue that it wouldn't have made the same impact as improved goaltending.

DrinkFightFlyers is offline  
Old
07-29-2013, 07:49 PM
  #598
LegionOfDoom91
Registered User
 
LegionOfDoom91's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 20,516
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Go For It View Post
The annual Carter/Richards v. Leighton debate? Must be the off-season. Next up: The whole Carter/Richards Dry Island saga.
A couple of dead horses are getting beat right now.

LegionOfDoom91 is offline  
Old
07-29-2013, 07:50 PM
  #599
The Palm Isle
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Philly
Country: Australia
Posts: 264
vCash: 500
I can't see how anyone who's watched this team the past two years would want to give Mez precedence over Gus.

It's too bad he got hurt, but frankly half his issues were always mental anyway. He's not very sound positionally and takes some ill-advised gambles away from the puck.

Gustaffson was their most consistent defenseman other than Schenn in the second half of last season. Then he goes over to Europe and by all accounts is one of the steadiest players at the WC.

Meanwhile, Mez is sorting through catastrophic injuries to multiple parts of his body and was sort of dodgy to begin with.

The Palm Isle is offline  
Old
07-29-2013, 07:59 PM
  #600
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Doof Warrior
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 50,914
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrinkFightFlyers View Post
Ok:



I would respond to that as saying: well if Carter and Richards scored a little more (seeing as how they were the best offensive players on the team), you would be hard pressed to argue that it wouldn't have made the same impact as improved goaltending.
As for the first part, you've clearly missed my point. If goaltending is as terrible as it was with Leighton in net, there's basically nothing that can realistically be done. It just doesn't matter. It doesn't matter because the goaltending is such a humongous issue that all other issues pale in comparison. You cannot win a Cup with a minor league player in net.

As for your second part, we've already shown you how ridiculous it is to realistically expect that team to produce any more goals than they did, especially when they have to cover for the slob in net at the same time. You might as well get frustrated about Briere not scoring a hat trick in every game. Here, let me make you a diagram showing how much each issue really mattered relative to each other:



As you can see, the issue of a guy with 2 broken feet and another guy engaged in a defensive duel with his counterpart not getting the team to score more goals than any other team in the Finals, ever, is relatively minor compared to the crippling handicap of MFL, who is the worst starting goalie any team has ever carted out in the Finals. Ever.

Are Richards and Carter the worst centers to ever take the ice in the Finals? I submit that they aren't. Therefore, they aren't worse than having by far the crappiest starting goalie the Finals have ever seen, considering how crucial goaltending is.

Beef Invictus is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:43 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.