HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > San Jose Sharks
Notices

Sharks vs Red Wings Cont..

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-20-2012, 10:42 AM
  #201
Naki
Registered User
 
Naki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,234
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Les Wynan View Post
I guess that's why the Sharks had more scoring chances than Chicago and outshot them with the score tied.

But, hey, your revisionist history works too.
How did they do when the score was not tied?

I guess that doesn't matter much since each game was won 1-0 in OT and out shooting a team while tied would be the end all stat to determine who outplayed who.

Naki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-20-2012, 10:48 AM
  #202
stalockrox
Registered User
 
stalockrox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,915
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Naki View Post
How did they do when the score was not tied?

I guess that doesn't matter much since each game was won 1-0 in OT and out shooting a team while tied would be the end all stat to determine who outplayed who.
Whether or not you agree with LW's stats on that series...anyone who watched it knows that the Sharks outplayed the Hawks more often than not.

Niemi had a huge part in that, he more or less stole that series.

stalockrox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-20-2012, 10:54 AM
  #203
Les Wynan*
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,745
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Naki View Post
How did they do when the score was not tied?

I guess that doesn't matter much since each game was won 1-0 in OT and out shooting a team while tied would be the end all stat to determine who outplayed who.
I don't know if you realize this but the score can actually be tied at stages of the game other than 0-0. The vast majority of that series was played with the score tied. The teams combined for 220 shots when the score was tied and 89 shots in all other situations.

Obviously, the Sharks outshot the Blackhawks when SJ was trailing and Chicago outshot them when the Blackhawks were trailing. The trailing team almost invariably outshoots the opposition which is why evaluating performance with the score tied is what makes sense.

Les Wynan* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-20-2012, 10:58 AM
  #204
Naki
Registered User
 
Naki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,234
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Les Wynan View Post
I don't know if you realize this but the score can actually be tied at stages of the game other than 0-0. The vast majority of that series was played with the score tied. The teams combined for 220 shots when the score was tied and 89 shots in all other situations.

Obviously, the Sharks outshot the Blackhawks when SJ was trailing and Chicago outshot them when the Blackhawks were trailing. The trailing team almost invariably outshoots the opposition which is why evaluating performance with the score tied is what makes sense.
If you get out shot while trailing in a game then you clearly did not out play a team. If you are going to toss around stats you can not just make assumptions about who out shot who in other situations.

Naki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-20-2012, 11:00 AM
  #205
hockeyball
Registered User
 
hockeyball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 16,799
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Naki View Post
If you get out shot while trailing in a game then you clearly did not out play a team. If you are going to toss around stats you can not just make assumptions about who out shot who in other situations.
Teams are almost universally outshot when leading, unless the two teams are heavily out-matched. The trailing team is going to take more risks. The defending team is going to play it safe and minimize their risk. That's not saying they take their foot off the gas, but they are not going to be making risky pinches and stretch passes either.

hockeyball is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-20-2012, 11:03 AM
  #206
Naki
Registered User
 
Naki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,234
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by stalockrox View Post
Whether or not you agree with LW's stats on that series...anyone who watched it knows that the Sharks outplayed the Hawks more often than not.

Niemi had a huge part in that, he more or less stole that series.
I really don't remember the sharks outplaying the Hawks more often than not.
They got swept.

People seem to forget that the sharks were turning the puck over in that series more than twice as often as the Blackhawks did.
Shots does not equal out played.
Losing a game where you have 5 power plays to the other teams 0 does not mean out played.

Naki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-20-2012, 11:10 AM
  #207
Les Wynan*
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,745
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Naki View Post
If you get out shot while trailing in a game then you clearly did not out play a team. If you are going to toss around stats you can not just make assumptions about who out shot who in other situations.
You misread the post. The Sharks outshot the Blackhawks while the Sharks were trailing, Chicago did the same when they were trailing. This happens in every single NHL game. Last year, over the course of the entire season, every team in the league was outshot when they held a lead except for the Sharks, Bolts and Pens.

Les Wynan* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-20-2012, 11:10 AM
  #208
hockeyball
Registered User
 
hockeyball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 16,799
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Naki View Post
I really don't remember the sharks outplaying the Hawks more often than not.
They got swept.

People seem to forget that the sharks were turning the puck over in that series more than twice as often as the Blackhawks did.
Shots does not equal out played.
Losing a game where you have 5 power plays to the other teams 0 does not mean out played.
I agree in general. The Sharks were beaten by a superior team. That said, I think the Sharks were teh 2nd best team that year, they just were not better than the Hawks, plus they had some really tough obstacles to overcome (Nabby stunk, Niemi was great, injuries, luck).

hockeyball is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-20-2012, 11:10 AM
  #209
Les Wynan*
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,745
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Naki View Post
I really don't remember the sharks outplaying the Hawks more often than not.
They got swept.

People seem to forget that the sharks were turning the puck over in that series more than twice as often as the Blackhawks did.
Shots does not equal out played.
Losing a game where you have 5 power plays to the other teams 0 does not mean out played.
They turned the puck over more often than the Blackhawks because they had the puck more often than the Blackhawks.

Chicago was a better team than the Sharks that entire season - probably the best NHL team since the lockout - but, for whatever reason, they didn't play very well in those four games and were lucky to win.

Les Wynan* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-20-2012, 11:12 AM
  #210
stalockrox
Registered User
 
stalockrox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,915
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Naki View Post
I really don't remember the sharks outplaying the Hawks more often than not.
They got swept.

People seem to forget that the sharks were turning the puck over in that series more than twice as often as the Blackhawks did.
Shots does not equal out played.
Losing a game where you have 5 power plays to the other teams 0 does not mean out played.
I remember that series quite well - yep, they got swept but the Sharks outplayed the Hawks and sometimes the goalies are the difference and they were in that series.

stalockrox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-20-2012, 11:47 AM
  #211
magic school bus
***********
 
magic school bus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: San Jose, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 13,162
vCash: 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by stalockrox View Post
Whether or not you agree with LW's stats on that series...anyone who watched it knows that the Sharks outplayed the Hawks more often than not.

Niemi had a huge part in that, he more or less stole that series.
We didn't outplay them. Blackhawks scored goals pretty easily, and we had to climb up a mountain to get a puck in the net. At least, that's how I remember it.

magic school bus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-20-2012, 11:54 AM
  #212
Les Wynan*
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,745
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by magic school bus View Post
We didn't outplay them. Blackhawks scored goals pretty easily, and we had to climb up a mountain to get a puck in the net. At least, that's how I remember it.
That's how it went down but just because Niemi had a terrific series and Nabokov had a poor one doesn't mean the Sharks didn't outplay Chicago. SV% over a four-game sample is subject to a crapton of randomness; the Hawks benefited from that randomness.

The Sharks had the puck more often than the Blackhawks, even when the score was tied, and created more scoring chances than Chicago in addition to more shots overall. IMO that's a pretty definitive outplaying.

Les Wynan* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-20-2012, 11:57 AM
  #213
Wedontneedroads
Registered User
 
Wedontneedroads's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 2,796
vCash: 853
Quote:
Originally Posted by Les Wynan View Post
They turned the puck over more often than the Blackhawks because they had the puck more often than the Blackhawks.

Chicago was a better team than the Sharks that entire season - probably the best NHL team since the lockout - but, for whatever reason, they didn't play very well in those four games and were lucky to win.
I'm sorry but you don't win 4 games in a row in the NHL playing poorly and getting lucky. Especially in the playoffs. It just doesn't happen.

The Hawks beat the Sharks because they were a better team. They win a 7 game series 10/10 times that year. That defensive core was one of the best I have ever seen, and the forward depth they had was just ridiculous. As much as I want to say the Sharks should have won the series there is really no ground to stand on with that argument.

Wedontneedroads is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-20-2012, 12:08 PM
  #214
magic school bus
***********
 
magic school bus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: San Jose, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 13,162
vCash: 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Les Wynan View Post
That's how it went down but just because Niemi had a terrific series and Nabokov had a poor one doesn't mean the Sharks didn't outplay Chicago. SV% over a four-game sample is subject to a crapton of randomness; the Hawks benefited from that randomness.

The Sharks had the puck more often than the Blackhawks, even when the score was tied, and created more scoring chances than Chicago in addition to more shots overall. IMO that's a pretty definitive outplaying.
For me, it was more like Chicago tries hard to score a goal. Then they scored easily. (You're saying that was Nabokov being bad, I'm saying that's proof of Chicago being better).

magic school bus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-20-2012, 12:09 PM
  #215
Les Wynan*
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,745
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by irbelikewall View Post
I'm sorry but you don't win 4 games in a row in the NHL playing poorly and getting lucky. Especially in the playoffs. It just doesn't happen.

The Hawks beat the Sharks because they were a better team. They win a 7 game series 10/10 times that year. That defensive core was one of the best I have ever seen, and the forward depth they had was just ridiculous. As much as I want to say the Sharks should have won the series there is really no ground to stand on with that argument.
Absolutely you can. Niemi stopped 94.8% of the shots he faced in that series. Do you believe that's his actual talent level? The answer is obviously no because no goalie in NHL history is capable of posting a 0.948 SV% on anything resembling a regular basis. He got lucky. It happens all the time.

I totally agree with you that the Blackhawks were the best team in the NHL that season, better than the Sharks by a longshot, but they weren't by any means the better team in the first three games of that series. I thought the Hawks were better in Game 4 though.

Les Wynan* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-20-2012, 12:32 PM
  #216
Stickmata
Registered User
 
Stickmata's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,489
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by stalockrox View Post
Whether or not you agree with LW's stats on that series...anyone who watched it knows that the Sharks outplayed the Hawks more often than not.
Wow. Rose colored glasses much?

We got swept and outscored 13-7. And it didn't look any closer on the ice regardless of how many 40 foot wrist shots from bad angles we got on the net. Hawks were clearly the better team that year.

Stickmata is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-20-2012, 12:33 PM
  #217
stalockrox
Registered User
 
stalockrox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,915
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by magic school bus View Post
We didn't outplay them. Blackhawks scored goals pretty easily, and we had to climb up a mountain to get a puck in the net. At least, that's how I remember it.
The first part was Nabby and the 2nd part was Niemi.

There is no question the Blackhawks were the best team that year, but the Sharks, in my opinion, for whatever reason outplayed them - at least through the first 3 games.

stalockrox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-20-2012, 12:40 PM
  #218
magic school bus
***********
 
magic school bus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: San Jose, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 13,162
vCash: 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by stalockrox View Post
The first part was Nabby and the 2nd part was Niemi.

There is no question the Blackhawks were the best team that year, but the Sharks, in my opinion, for whatever reason outplayed them - at least through the first 3 games.
I'm just not sure how anyone can say the best team in the NHL winning a series was luck. I don't buy it.

magic school bus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-20-2012, 12:43 PM
  #219
stalockrox
Registered User
 
stalockrox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,915
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by magic school bus View Post
I'm just not sure how anyone can say the best team in the NHL winning a series was luck. I don't buy it.
I didn't say it was luck and I didn't say the Sharks should've won. Just because one team outplays the other doesn't mean that team will win, it happens all the time.

stalockrox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-20-2012, 12:44 PM
  #220
maryb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 105
vCash: 500
weak first period, period. guessing the coaching staff would say something along the lines of "the guys didnt have their legs under them" granted, probably not used to such an early start. however our passing is horrid. first goal deflected off one of our defenders im guessing in front of niemi, id let that one slide (im trying to remember everything seen from memory so correct me if im wrong)

weak second period, period. really weak first goal for the sharks, completely luck based: not how a talented team such as our should be scoring goals. second goal by detroit should have been stopped or cleared by niemi or defence. sharks looked slightly better than the first.

mediocre third period, scrambled A LOT. another weak goal allowed in, goal by the sharks just driving the net trying to get the puck in. the entire last minute of the period i was appalled. the amount of panic was unbelievable, just trying to get the puck continually to the red wings blue line with long stretch passes and defenders all over the entire neutral zone intercepting. killed a whole 55 seconds of just trying to pass the puck up to the blueline.

overall, weak game by the defence, weak game by the top 6 (minus couture and pavelski, the only 2 to have consistency in their game. thornton third in that catergory). clowe has only been good along the boards this season the way i see it, with an occasional fight/hit and setting up couture every once in a while.

i know it's been mentioned in the past, but whatever happened to clearing the crease by defence? watching what rob blake did in front of our net, and how our D plays now im confused. is it better to blind our goalies with mass amounts of our team and their team in front of them? maybe its just a niemi strategy, because i dont quite see that with greiss in goal.

i love how niemi looks around defenders to see where the puck is coming from, very alert - didnt see nabby do it much from what i remember. never have thought of niemi as a great breakaway goalie, or when he has an open look at the puck and maybe is why we play this style.

give greiss a shot against better opponents, and in the playoffs if niemi falters. i know niemi's not great with time off between starts but maybe he could use it to reflect on his play and rest. use vandermeer more often, he wants/needs play time:

Quote:
Originally Posted by LeeIFBB View Post
18-15-5 with White in the lineup.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sharkbite3 View Post
So 13-4-2 without him.
for a team and media that comes up with all sorts of stats from past and present, how has this not been brought to the coaching staff's attention and if it has why has it not changed?

maryb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-20-2012, 12:46 PM
  #221
Les Wynan*
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,745
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by magic school bus View Post
I'm just not sure how anyone can say the best team in the NHL winning a series was luck. I don't buy it.
A player overachieving his talent level seems like the textbook definition of luck to me. At least in a sports context. Niemi did that and the Blackhawks won despite creating fewer scoring chances than the Sharks, fewer shots even when the score was tied and having less possession. Repeat that series 100 times assuming the same distribution of scoring chances and the probability of the Sharks being swept even once more would very likely be less than 5%.

Les Wynan* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-20-2012, 12:49 PM
  #222
Les Wynan*
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,745
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by maryb View Post
for a team and media that comes up with all sorts of stats from past and present, how has this not been brought to the coaching staff's attention and if it has why has it not changed?
Perhaps because it's a hilariously simplistic analysis that tries to imply the inclusion of a #6 defenseman in the lineup has an enormous effect on a team's record?

Les Wynan* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-20-2012, 01:59 PM
  #223
StreetSharks
#19 Joe Trollton
 
StreetSharks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Frisco
Posts: 5,391
vCash: 327
Quote:
Originally Posted by Les Wynan View Post
Perhaps because it's a hilariously simplistic analysis that tries to imply the inclusion of a #6 defenseman in the lineup has an enormous effect on a team's record?
But he does have an enormous effect.


Anyone who has seen the last 4-5 games has seen White make completely stupid defensive plays that resulted in goals for the opposition.

He's been on the ice for most of the goals scored too.

StreetSharks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-20-2012, 02:01 PM
  #224
Wedontneedroads
Registered User
 
Wedontneedroads's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 2,796
vCash: 853
Quote:
Originally Posted by Les Wynan View Post
Absolutely you can. Niemi stopped 94.8% of the shots he faced in that series. Do you believe that's his actual talent level? The answer is obviously no because no goalie in NHL history is capable of posting a 0.948 SV% on anything resembling a regular basis. He got lucky. It happens all the time.

I totally agree with you that the Blackhawks were the best team in the NHL that season, better than the Sharks by a longshot, but they weren't by any means the better team in the first three games of that series. I thought the Hawks were better in Game 4 though.
Niemi didn't get lucky. He had an amazing defense clearing pucks out from in front of the net. How many rebound chances did the Sharks get in that series? Next to none. It was unbelievable. All Niemi had to do was make the first save. Add to that the extremely poor quality of shots the Sharks got off, and it's not hard to see where his .948 SV% comes from.

Poor shot quality and no second chances is the reason Niemi had that high of a percentage, not luck.

Wedontneedroads is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-20-2012, 02:05 PM
  #225
Les Wynan*
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,745
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by irbelikewall View Post
Niemi didn't get lucky. He had an amazing defense clearing pucks out from in front of the net. How many rebound chances did the Sharks get in that series? Next to none. It was unbelievable. All Niemi had to do was make the first save. Add to that the extremely poor quality of shots the Sharks got off, and it's not hard to see where his .948 SV% comes from.

Poor shot quality and no second chances is the reason Niemi had that high of a percentage, not luck.
I've already linked to the scoring chance totals in that series - the Sharks had more of them. It wasn't "shot quality" driving Niemi's SV% through the roof, it was randomness. You'd be best served to stop buying into the narrative and actually pay attention to what went on in that series.

Les Wynan* is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 09:17 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.