It actually wouldn't surprise me at all if they made the finals. Pens-Hawks final. They sweep us again. I'm a debbie downer.
I would be with that blue line. The big three can carry their offense and Fleury is a great goalie but they don't have much in terms of puck-movement depth from the blue line.
Quote:
Originally Posted by magic school bus
I think Vancouver fans learned a good lesson about getting to far ahead of themselves. We should probably do the same..
(Pens fans too)
I doubt Vancouver fans learned anything honestly. The only thing holding them in check is that the Canucks have started off slowly. Once they turn it on, you'll hear the same nonsense they've been putting out there for years.
I would be with that blue line. The big three can carry their offense and Fleury is a great goalie but they don't have much in terms of puck-movement depth from the blue line.
Seriously? They probably have the best top four in the NHL. Letang, Martin and Michalek can all move the puck extremely well and Letang in particular has developed into one of the better all-situations defensemen in the NHL. Niskanen can move the puck on the third pairing as well (although that pairing barely has to play with how good the top four is). There are really no holes on that Penguins team.
I'm pleased Crosby did well in his triumphant return. I'm not a particular fan, but I find Crosby-haters incredibly annoying. Okay, so he whines. He's still the best player in the league and a pleasure to watch. Get over yourselves.
Seriously? They probably have the best top four in the NHL. Letang, Martin and Michalek can all move the puck extremely well and Letang in particular has developed into one of the better all-situations defensemen in the NHL. Niskanen can move the puck on the third pairing as well (although that pairing barely has to play with how good the top four is). There are really no holes on that Penguins team.
In the cases of Martin and Michalek, I strongly disagree with their puck moving ability. They are not that good and neither is Niskanen.
Seriously? They probably have the best top four in the NHL. Letang, Martin and Michalek can all move the puck extremely well and Letang in particular has developed into one of the better all-situations defensemen in the NHL. Niskanen can move the puck on the third pairing as well (although that pairing barely has to play with how good the top four is). There are really no holes on that Penguins team.
Pens have an excellent blue-line, but I think now we can at least compete with them:
Murray is slightly worse than Orpik.
Boyle is offensively at least Letang's equal and maybe better, and somewhat inferior to Letang defensively.
Burns is miles ahead of Martin at least this season, and at least a bit better than Martin when he's not in a horrid slump.
Vlasic is almost identical to Michalek.
And the Pens' bottom pair is not that great, they play like 12 minutes a game.
Technically, wingers are still a weakness of the Pens, although with Crosby and Malkin it doesn't exactly matter who's on the wings.
Fleury is much better than Nemo and their bottom six is significantly better than ours, but with Nemo we'll find a way to win and the bottom six will NOT be the same as it is now come playoffs.
I think the main weakness of the Pens is how injury-prone they are. Malkin has these knee problems all the time, and each of their defensemen spend quite a bit of time injured.
Seriously? They probably have the best top four in the NHL. Letang, Martin and Michalek can all move the puck extremely well and Letang in particular has developed into one of the better all-situations defensemen in the NHL. Niskanen can move the puck on the third pairing as well (although that pairing barely has to play with how good the top four is). There are really no holes on that Penguins team.
Niskanen moving pucks?
I'm not sure Michalek is a PMD, buthe's a rock defensively.
Seriously? They probably have the best top four in the NHL. Letang, Martin and Michalek can all move the puck extremely well and Letang in particular has developed into one of the better all-situations defensemen in the NHL. Niskanen can move the puck on the third pairing as well (although that pairing barely has to play with how good the top four is). There are really no holes on that Penguins team.
This is the Zybnek Michalek from the Coyotes, yeah? He wasn't much of a PMD back then... He is a step up defensively from Vlasic, that's about it. I don't know much about Martin's game so can't comment there.
Anyhow, Pens definitely appear to have the inside track out East.
In the cases of Martin and Michalek, I strongly disagree with their puck moving ability. They are not that good and neither is Niskanen.
Michalek's puck moving will always be underrated because he's primarily a defensive d-man but his passes are absolutely amazing. He's a lot like Dan Hamhuis in that they're both extremely effective shutdown defensemen who aren't exactly first-unit PP material and aren't going to create much in-zone offense (although Michalek can shoot the puck) but both can execute breakout passes with the best of them.
And, again, the end result is apparent: the Penguins were the best puck possession team in the league last season. If their defensemen were bad or even average at moving the puck that wouldn't have been the case as they would have been hemmed in their own zone a lot more often than they actually were.
What I said has nothing to do with the defensive side of the ice. Only your statistical fetish has introduced that into the discussion.
You claimed they were better 5-on-5 because your eyes said so or whatever. There's more to even-strength hockey than just offense. Their shot differential at even-strength is poorer than last season but it's being masked by an above-average and likely unsustainable SV% was my point.
Seriously? They probably have the best top four in the NHL. Letang, Martin and Michalek can all move the puck extremely well and Letang in particular has developed into one of the better all-situations defensemen in the NHL. Niskanen can move the puck on the third pairing as well (although that pairing barely has to play with how good the top four is). There are really no holes on that Penguins team.
I'd argue with that top four comment. During their Cup year and the year after, Crosby and Malkin were absurdly dominant, but in the past few seasons Pittsburgh's second-highest scorer has been anywhere from 50 points (which is lower than what Pavs, Clowe, and even Boyle do regularly (and Couture last year)) to under 80 (which is what Thornton and Marleau regularly do). While Crosby has higher point totals than either of the latter two, he doesn't make up the difference.
And if we're talking strictly about goals, well, Marleau and his most-goals-in-3-years-behind-Ovechkin would like to have a word with you.
Even if we ignore Pittsburgh's love affair with injuries, our top four surpass theirs.
Michalek's puck moving will always be underrated because he's primarily a defensive d-man but his passes are absolutely amazing. He's a lot like Dan Hamhuis in that they're both extremely effective shutdown defensemen who aren't exactly first-unit PP material and aren't going to create much in-zone offense (although Michalek can shoot the puck) but both can execute breakout passes with the best of them.
And, again, the end result is apparent: the Penguins were the best puck possession team in the league last season. If their defensemen were bad or even average at moving the puck that wouldn't have been the case.
I've watched too many games of Michalek to know better than that. He has passing skills to a certain extent. He's certainly not a reliable puck-mover. Calling Michalek an amazing puck-mover is like saying Douglas Murray is amazing at it. For their role, sure they do well at it now and again. But they are not guys you want to have the puck on their stick.
And I highly question what you define as best puck possession team and even if you're given that, they obviously couldn't do enough with it to get out of the first round. Getting Crosby back will definitely give them a big boost but that doesn't mean that they're a complete team. They aren't by a long shot.
I've watched too many games of Michalek to know better than that. He has passing skills to a certain extent. He's certainly not a reliable puck-mover. Calling Michalek an amazing puck-mover is like saying Douglas Murray is amazing at it. For their role, sure they do well at it now and again. But they are not guys you want to have the puck on their stick.
And I highly question what you define as best puck possession team and even if you're given that, they obviously couldn't do enough with it to get out of the first round. Getting Crosby back will definitely give them a big boost but that doesn't mean that they're a complete team. They aren't by a long shot.
You're underselling Michalek's puck-moving ability by comparing him to Murray (who I do believe is underrated even among Sharks fans in that regard) but, regardless, the Penguins outshot their opponents by 4 shots a game when Michalek was on the ice last season which means he drove the play in the right direction.
They completely dominated Tampa in that series despite having two of the top ten forwards in the NHL on IR. They lost thanks to an understandably impotent PP and bad shooting luck. It's up to you as to whether you want to hold that series against them but I wouldn't.
Who's more complete than the Pens? I could see an argument for Chicago and Vancouver is close in terms of depth and has better goaltending talent than Pittsburgh but there's no one else that comes all that close.
You're underselling Michalek's puck-moving ability by comparing him to Murray (who I do believe is underrated even among Sharks fans in that regard) but, regardless, the Penguins outshot their opponents by 4 shots a game when Michalek was on the ice last season which means he drove the play in the right direction.
They completely dominated Tampa in that series despite having two of the top ten forwards in the NHL on IR. They lost thanks to an understandably impotent PP and bad shooting luck. It's up to you as to whether you want to hold that series against them but I wouldn't.
Not really. You just can't really prove your position on this. The team's shot differential with him on the ice may point to the puck going to the right place but that doesn't mean it was him pushing the puck in that direction. You're overlooking quite a few factors here. His opponents, his teammates, his starts, and his actual puck possession abilities.
I saw that series last year as a lot of people did. A team doesn't dominate another except on the power play and lose. If they were truly dominant at even strength and short-handed, they would still win that series. The Penguins simply didn't match up well with Tampa and eventually got shut down with their limited potent weapons. That's why they couldn't score more than three goals in that series. That's why they could only score two times at most when they lost. Their shots weren't that dangerous against a team defense that takes away the prime scoring areas and second chances.
Not really. You just can't really prove your position on this. The team's shot differential with him on the ice may point to the puck going to the right place but that doesn't mean it was him pushing the puck in that direction. You're overlooking quite a few factors here. His opponents, his teammates, his starts, and his actual puck possession abilities.
Or that Michalek is just being a sound defensive defenseman (cutting off passing lanes, blocking shots). I don't know how you can accurately correlate less shots to puck-moving.
Or that Michalek is just being a sound defensive defenseman (cutting off passing lanes, blocking shots). I don't know how you can accurately correlate less shots to puck-moving.
Good point. Since Michalek is a shot-blocking defenseman, wouldn't that swing his stats to make it seem like he's creating more offensive chances (like a puck-mover)? If he prevents shots a higher % than most and still has linemates (or himself) that creates an average number of shots for .. then it looks more like he's a puck-mover when you look at shots for/against. Just a theory.
From watching him on ice, i wouldnt call him a puck-mover, but maybe that portion of his game is underrated and i need to take a second look at his play on ice. That is what i took from Les' quote.
Not really. You just can't really prove your position on this. The team's shot differential with him on the ice may point to the puck going to the right place but that doesn't mean it was him pushing the puck in that direction. You're overlooking quite a few factors here. His opponents, his teammates, his starts, and his actual puck possession abilities.
I saw that series last year as a lot of people did. A team doesn't dominate another except on the power play and lose. If they were truly dominant at even strength and short-handed, they would still win that series. The Penguins simply didn't match up well with Tampa and eventually got shut down with their limited potent weapons. That's why they couldn't score more than three goals in that series. That's why they could only score two times at most when they lost. Their shots weren't that dangerous against a team defense that takes away the prime scoring areas and second chances.
He was one of only two Penguins defensemen to begin the majority of his shifts in the defensive zone so the fact that Pittsburgh outshot the opposition while he was on the ice would have to speak to the fact that he or Martin is at least proficient at moving the puck. I haven't seen a ton of Michalek with the Pens but back when he was in Phoenix his first passes were stellar. Even if you're going to maintain that he's poor at moving the puck, he's generating a positive on-ice shot differential despite starting in his own zone more often than not and playing against relatively tough competition; I don't see why his alleged lack of puck movement should be held against him when he's clearly providing a lot of value to the team. You want your defensemen to move the puck so you can gain the blueline and generate chances in the offensive zone. The Pens are attaining that end result when Michalek is on the ice; who really cares how it gets done?
The Penguins generated nearly 60% of the shots when the score was tied or within a goal at even strength in that series. That's territorial domination to a degree that few teams have accomplished in recent postseason history. I watched the series too and Bylsma completely broke down the 1-3-1 with his unique zone entry strategy and the Pens ended up with a large number of odd-man situations in that series if you're going to claim that those shots were from the outside. Let's not forget that they lost that series by one goal in the seventh game. Sometimes the pucks just don't go in over a seven-game sample size. I have a hard time calling Tampa the better team in that series; certainly not at even-strength.
You claimed they were better 5-on-5 because your eyes said so or whatever. There's more to even-strength hockey than just offense.
I didn't just say even strength hockey, I said they look more dangerous at even strength which focuses on offensive effectiveness. You are reading your own agenda into my words.
I like to read about stats as much as the next intelligent hockey fan but I have seen stats say good things about the Sharks only to have it not amount to anything but a heartbreaking loss too often to accept stats as the only justification for anything. Overreliance on statistics is no more valid as any other approach. Stats only say so much, and there is no statistic for luck, a key component for every Cup run.
Stats can tell you about trends but most stats comparisons fall into ranges not much wider than a goal, meaning a single shot in a given game could blow all the stats out the window.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Les Wynan
Let's not forget that they lost that series by one goal in the seventh game. Sometimes the pucks just don't go in over a seven-game sample size. I have a hard time calling Tampa the better team in that series; certainly not at even-strength.
And this is why stats should always be looked at as one of many considerations. That near-historic performance and 25 cents was worth 25 cents at the end of the day.
