HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Vancouver Canucks
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

The Armchair GM Thread - XLI

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-22-2013, 03:56 PM
  #1
Nuckles
Bleed Assets E'ryday
 
Nuckles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Benning's empty head
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,900
vCash: 50
The Armchair GM Thread - XLI

Last thread: http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh....php?t=1429783

continue

__________________

Fire Benning. Fire Linden. Fire Desjardins. Hire competent people.
Nuckles is offline  
Old
05-22-2013, 04:20 PM
  #2
Bleach Clean
Moderator
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 19,649
vCash: 500
Quote:
Actually the story has changed. Throughout the entire playoffs everyone was complaining after every game that the Sedins were invisible. And now it's "oh well they were good enough, they did their jobs." No, they didn't do their jobs. The Sedins were completely invisible for all 4 games, and Kesler was invisible for all but maybe 2 periods.

The Sedins aren't matching the expected totals. Where are their goals? Henrik and Daniel combined for a grand total of zero goals. That's not good enough coming from $12.2M of cap space

The entire forward corps can be labeled as being invisible, yet the core players still matched their expected _point_ totals. End of story. Refute that first, if you want to make a case of jettisoning the core group, who put up the points, over the rest that were invisible _and_ did not match their expected totals.

You see, the argument keeps shifting. If it's about "offense", at the most basest of levels, the core players came through. They matched their expected point totals. If it's about being noticeable, and not about offense, well then we are talking about something else entirely. So which is it?

Bleach Clean is offline  
Old
05-22-2013, 04:39 PM
  #3
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 59,448
vCash: 696
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
The entire forward corps can be labeled as being invisible, yet the core players still matched their expected _point_ totals. End of story. Refute that first, if you want to make a case of jettisoning the core group, who put up the points, over the rest that were invisible _and_ did not match their expected totals.

You see, the argument keeps shifting. If it's about "offense", at the most basest of levels, the core players came through. They matched their expected point totals. If it's about being noticeable, and not about offense, well then we are talking about something else entirely. So which is it?
Kesler and the Sedins totaled 8 points between the 3 of them over the 4 game series. That's as many points as Logan Couture scored alone. The Sedins averaged 0.75PPG and Kesler averaged 0.50PPG. That's not good enough for me. I'm not sure why you would expect PPG players to drop so significantly, but I'm also looking at how they played as a whole. The play of our core was extremely disappointing.

__________________
The Canucks will continue to suck until the day Benning, Weisbrod, Linden, and Desjardins are all fired.
y2kcanucks is online now  
Old
05-22-2013, 04:45 PM
  #4
Bleach Clean
Moderator
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 19,649
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks View Post
Kesler and the Sedins totaled 8 points between the 3 of them over the 4 game series. That's as many points as Logan Couture scored alone. The Sedins averaged 0.75PPG and Kesler averaged 0.50PPG. That's not good enough for me. I'm not sure why you would expect PPG players to drop so significantly, but I'm also looking at how they played as a whole. The play of our core was extremely disappointing.

Again a different argument. Expected point totals go off regular season totals, normalized by a percentage drop due to harder competition in the playoffs. Sedins, Kesler, and Burrows all made the cut. Per a statistical measurement. It makes no difference if Couture shattered his own expected point totals. That's not the standard being argued here.

It being not good enough for you is irrelevant. This is about objective data, not subjective reasoning. Your opinion does not jive with the data at hand. That's the point here.

If the core meets their expected totals, and the depth players do not, why still point the finger at the core for not overcompensating for the weaker depth? It makes no sense.

Bleach Clean is offline  
Old
05-22-2013, 04:56 PM
  #5
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 59,448
vCash: 696
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
Again a different argument. Expected point totals go off regular season totals, normalized by a percentage drop due to harder competition in the playoffs. Sedins, Kesler, and Burrows all made the cut. Per a statistical measurement. It makes no difference if Couture shattered his own expected point totals. That's not the standard being argued here.

It being not good enough for you is irrelevant. This is about objective data, not subjective reasoning. Your opinion does not jive with the data at hand. That's the point here.

If the core meets their expected totals, and the depth players do not, why still point the finger at the core for not overcompensating for the weaker depth? It makes no sense.
If the core's expected point totals (Kesler + the Sedins) averages out to 0.67PPG (8 points / 3 players / 4 games) then what is the expected point totals of the support players? 0.33PPG? Burrows, Higgins, Hansen, Raymond and Roy combined for 0.3PPG (6 points / 5 players / 4 games).

In reality, the entire team wasn't good enough. You were saying all season that this team had the talent offensively to succeed, and I contested that. Now that I've been proven right you want to dispute semantics about the core. The entire team isn't good enough, and I hold the core players accountable for a huge chunk of that given their roles. Getting a goal or two more by changing the depth players isn't going to change the outcome of this series.

y2kcanucks is online now  
Old
05-22-2013, 05:03 PM
  #6
arsmaster*
semantic romantic
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 25,746
vCash: 500
I would have been content with the Sedin's production if they sawed off their matchup.

Don't know the stats off hand, but I'm pretty sure they didn't.

And their play on the PP basically sunk the ship.

Salt in the wound is they went to Sweden and dominated a tournament almost entirely on the PP.

arsmaster* is offline  
Old
05-22-2013, 05:09 PM
  #7
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 59,448
vCash: 696
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by arsmaster View Post
I would have been content with the Sedin's production if they sawed off their matchup.

Don't know the stats off hand, but I'm pretty sure they didn't.

And their play on the PP basically sunk the ship.

Salt in the wound is they went to Sweden and dominated a tournament almost entirely on the PP.
The Sedins were matched up primarily against Vlasic and Braun. Those aren't exactly big defensive stalwarts (I recall people on here laughing at that thought prior to that matchup), and against Logan Couture. Couture alone outscored both Sedins combined.

y2kcanucks is online now  
Old
05-22-2013, 05:11 PM
  #8
Bleach Clean
Moderator
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 19,649
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks View Post
If the core's expected point totals (Kesler + the Sedins) averages out to 0.67PPG (8 points / 3 players / 4 games) then what is the expected point totals of the support players? 0.33PPG? Burrows, Higgins, Hansen, Raymond and Roy combined for 0.3PPG (6 points / 5 players / 4 games).

I'm not getting side-tracked off the core issue by discussing the depth just yet.

The core performed at their expected rate. That's the point I want to cement here. You have provided no legitimate counter-argument otherwise. No data. No reasonable assertions. The comparisons have been Couture shattering his own expected totals (outlier), and your own subjective take of "good enough". Neither point being relevant.

Essentially, the critique of the core comes down to this. If a proper analysis cannot show that the core players did not in fact match their expected vs. actual point totals, there is no logical reason to find fault in their _production_.


Quote:
In reality, the entire team wasn't good enough. You were saying all season that this team had the talent offensively to succeed, and I contested that. Now that I've been proven right you want to dispute semantics about the core. The entire team isn't good enough, and I hold the core players accountable for a huge chunk of that given their roles. Getting a goal or two more by changing the depth players isn't going to change the outcome of this series.

Talent =/= production. This team had/has the talent. However, the plan, and the execution has been missing even when they break 30 year old records in the regular season for offense and defense. A 1G/G drop is unexpected and unacceptable.

Saying all that, the core still performed at their expected rate, even with these sharp drops in overall team production. So the point stands: The core does what it has needed to do production wise, but everyone else hasn't.

Holding the core players accountable for not overcompensating for weak depth is illogical at its very base.

Bleach Clean is offline  
Old
05-22-2013, 05:12 PM
  #9
Vankiller Whale
Fire Benning
 
Vankiller Whale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,992
vCash: 1800
The Sedins weren't invisible, but they definitely didn't perform up to what was required of them.

Vankiller Whale is offline  
Old
05-22-2013, 05:15 PM
  #10
Bleach Clean
Moderator
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 19,649
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by arsmaster View Post
I would have been content with the Sedin's production if they sawed off their matchup.

Don't know the stats off hand, but I'm pretty sure they didn't.

And their play on the PP basically sunk the ship.

Salt in the wound is they went to Sweden and dominated a tournament almost entirely on the PP.

I'm content with the Sedins' production because I can separate it from their play in order to see where the production issues really lie. The Sedins produced what they were expected to produce. That's them evaluated against themselves, now within the context of the playoffs. Beyond that lies the issues of being noticeable, and other subjective endeavors. But for production, they did what they were expected to do.

Sawing off their match-up, in this case, meant that they had to more than double their expected production. A tall order for any player to achieve.

Bleach Clean is offline  
Old
05-22-2013, 05:16 PM
  #11
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 59,448
vCash: 696
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
I'm not getting side-tracked off the core issue by discussing the depth just yet.

The core performed at their expected rate. That's the point I want to cement here. You have provided no legitimate counter-argument otherwise. No data. No reasonable assertions. The comparisons have been Couture shattering his own expected totals (outlier), and your own subjective take of "good enough". Neither point being relevant.

Essentially, the critique of the core comes down to this. If a proper analysis cannot show that the core players did not in fact match their expected vs. actual point totals, there is no logical reason to find fault in their _production_.





Talent =/= production. This team had/has the talent. However, the plan, and the execution has been missing even when they break 30 year old records in the regular season for offense and defense. A 1G/G drop is unexpected and unacceptable.

Saying all that, the core still performed at their expected rate, even with these sharp drops in overall team production. So the point stands: The core does what it has needed to do production wise, but everyone else hasn't.

Holding the core players accountable for not overcompensating for weak depth is illogical at its very base.
okay I'm done arguing this with you. If you're happy that $12.2M only gets you 3 assists in 4 games from Henrik and Daniel in the playoffs then that's fine. I expect more from our offensive leaders, but if that is all you expect then I can see you saying they met their expected total. I, on the otherhand, recognize this team has been thoroughly embarrassed offensively THREE years in a row and I want a change. I don't fully expect change because I don't think Gillis has the guts to make big changes, but I guess we will see. But if change doesn't happen and the Canucks do what you expect them to do, then I guess the Canucks should also meet your expected results of another first round embarrassment, and THAT is a reasonable assertion for you.

y2kcanucks is online now  
Old
05-22-2013, 05:17 PM
  #12
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 59,448
vCash: 696
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
I'm content with the Sedins' production because I can separate it from their play in order to see where the production issues really lie. The Sedins produced what they were expected to produce. That's them evaluated against themselves, now within the context of the playoffs. Beyond that lies the issues of being noticeable, and other subjective endeavors. But for production, they did what they were expected to do.

Sawing off their match-up, in this case, meant that they had to more than double their expected production. A tall order for any player to achieve.
Going into the series if you were told that the Sedins would produce 0 goals and 3 assists each, would you have been happy? I know I certainly would not have been, and I certainly am not!

y2kcanucks is online now  
Old
05-22-2013, 05:23 PM
  #13
Bleach Clean
Moderator
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 19,649
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks View Post
okay I'm done arguing this with you. If you're happy that $12.2M only gets you 3 assists in 4 games from Henrik and Daniel in the playoffs then that's fine. I expect more from our offensive leaders, but if that is all you expect then I can see you saying they met their expected total. I, on the otherhand, recognize this team has been thoroughly embarrassed offensively THREE years in a row and I want a change. I don't fully expect change because I don't think Gillis has the guts to make big changes, but I guess we will see. But if change doesn't happen and the Canucks do what you expect them to do, then I guess the Canucks should also meet your expected results of another first round embarrassment, and THAT is a reasonable assertion for you.

Again, you have not made a case against expected/actual point totals. That's the only way to gain traction here. And it's not what "I" expect, it's what expected of them based on a larger data set. Other players also have the same data matched against their totals. This is a third party take on point production. As objective as you'll find on here.

If the depth is improved, I expect the team offense to not drop by a drastic 1G/G margin, which should provide enough offensive support. Because the support has always been the issue, going from the data. Anything to the contrary also has to be supported objectively, or it's just fluff, or a futile attempt to want to rid the team of players you dislike. Luckily, managers don't think like this.

Bleach Clean is offline  
Old
05-22-2013, 05:24 PM
  #14
arsmaster*
semantic romantic
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 25,746
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
I'm content with the Sedins' production because I can separate it from their play in order to see where the production issues really lie. The Sedins produced what they were expected to produce. That's them evaluated against themselves, now within the context of the playoffs. Beyond that lies the issues of being noticeable, and other subjective endeavors. But for production, they did what they were expected to do.

Sawing off their match-up, in this case, meant that they had to more than double their expected production. A tall order for any player to achieve.
No.

It meant not letting Logan Couture run rampant on them.

Saw off the matchup means keeping their counterparts in check too.

arsmaster* is offline  
Old
05-22-2013, 05:25 PM
  #15
Bleach Clean
Moderator
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 19,649
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks View Post
Going into the series if you were told that the Sedins would produce 0 goals and 3 assists each, would you have been happy? I know I certainly would not have been, and I certainly am not!

3 assists in 4 games? I'd be fine with it. It would mean someone else is getting the goals, which ups their total. But if the Sedins, Burrows and Kesler are at 3/3/2/2 respectively, and nobody else is chipping in... then it becomes a problem. If talking strictly about production, that is.

Bleach Clean is offline  
Old
05-22-2013, 05:27 PM
  #16
Bleach Clean
Moderator
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 19,649
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by arsmaster View Post
No.

It meant not letting Logan Couture run rampant on them.

Saw off the matchup means keeping their counterparts in check too.

I understand, but that's a the defensive quotient. The argument made by Y2K strictly deals with offense. He attributes the dearth of offense to the inability of the core players. This is incorrect. If anything, they are matching their expected totals, and the depth is falling short. Strictly speaking about production.

Defense is a whole other issue entirely.

Bleach Clean is offline  
Old
05-22-2013, 05:33 PM
  #17
Vankiller Whale
Fire Benning
 
Vankiller Whale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,992
vCash: 1800
Quote:
Originally Posted by arsmaster View Post
No.

It meant not letting Logan Couture run rampant on them.

Saw off the matchup means keeping their counterparts in check too.
From what I saw I don't think the Sedins were responsible for Couture's explosion. Most of his points came from the PP(and the Sedins weren't on the PK) or during Schneider's meltdown in game 3.

Vankiller Whale is offline  
Old
05-22-2013, 05:34 PM
  #18
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 59,448
vCash: 696
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
I understand, but that's a the defensive quotient. The argument made by Y2K strictly deals with offense. He attributes the dearth of offense to the inability of the core players. This is incorrect. If anything, they are matching their expected totals, and the depth is falling short. Strictly speaking about production.

Defense is a whole other issue entirely.
They aren't matching their expected totals. Daniel and Henrik are paid to score too, they didn't do that. Kesler is paid to score in more than just one game. He didn't do that. It's also tougher for our support players to put up similar offensive production as the Sedins when they're not getting any offensive zone starts. With the Sedins eating up most of our offensive zone starts one would expect their production to reflect that.

y2kcanucks is online now  
Old
05-22-2013, 05:41 PM
  #19
Bleach Clean
Moderator
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 19,649
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks View Post
They aren't matching their expected totals. Daniel and Henrik are paid to score too, they didn't do that. Kesler is paid to score in more than just one game. He didn't do that. It's also tougher for our support players to put up similar offensive production as the Sedins when they're not getting any offensive zone starts. With the Sedins eating up most of our offensive zone starts one would expect their production to reflect that.

By the data, they are matching their expected _point_ totals. There's no refuting this.

The Sedins had one of their best 2way seasons as Canucks players. They did the majority of the heavy lifting offensively this year. Here's the article to back up this take: http://canucks.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=667209

Ozone starts don't include neutral zone face-offs.

Bleach Clean is offline  
Old
05-22-2013, 05:46 PM
  #20
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 59,448
vCash: 696
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
By the data, they are matching their expected _point_ totals. There's no refuting this.

The Sedins had one of their best 2way seasons as Canucks players. They did the majority of the heavy lifting offensively this year. Here's the article to back up this take: http://canucks.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=667209

Ozone starts don't include neutral zone face-offs.
Again, no they did not match their expected point totals. You keep repeating the same thing but that doesn't make it true. I expected more than a mere 3 assist each. You might have expected that, but then again if that's true then you should have been asking for more offensive upgrades. Or do you expect our support players to score the same amount as the Sedins?

And the Sedins started in the offensive zone 70% of the time in the playoffs, and finished there only 40% of the time. They were dominated by the opposition. They weren't good enough, and if this team is going to improve we need to move on. I'm fine keeping them for one more year if the change we make is Kesler being moved. I would prefer to move on from the Sedins, but at least we would be making a shakeup to the core.

y2kcanucks is online now  
Old
05-22-2013, 05:54 PM
  #21
Bleach Clean
Moderator
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 19,649
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks View Post
Again, no they did not match their expected point totals. You keep repeating the same thing but that doesn't make it true. I expected more than a mere 3 assist each. You might have expected that, but then again if that's true then you should have been asking for more offensive upgrades. Or do you expect our support players to score the same amount as the Sedins?

The data makes it true. I'm repeating the data. You are saying it's untrue, where's your data?

This deals strictly with points on the board. I know you are trying to make it about goals vs. assists, but this is just about points. That's 4 times you have tried to shift the argument (Couture, goals, Ozone, salary). This is strictly about production. As far as that goes, you have no case.


Quote:
And the Sedins started in the offensive zone 70% of the time in the playoffs, and finished there only 40% of the time. They were dominated by the opposition. They weren't good enough, and if this team is going to improve we need to move on. I'm fine keeping them for one more year if the change we make is Kesler being moved. I would prefer to move on from the Sedins, but at least we would be making a shakeup to the core.

Again with the unrelated Ozone starts. It's not pertinent to this discussion about _point_production_. I'm not arguing anything else right now. Strictly production.

Bleach Clean is offline  
Old
05-22-2013, 05:56 PM
  #22
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 59,448
vCash: 696
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
The data makes it true. I'm repeating the data. You are saying it's untrue, where's your data?

This deals strictly with points on the board. I know you are trying to make it about goals vs. assists, but this is just about points. That's 4 times you have tried to shift the argument (Couture, goals, Ozone, salary). This is strictly about production. As far as that goes, you have no case.





Again with the unrelated Ozone starts. It's not pertinent to this discussion about _point_production_. I'm not arguing anything else right now. Strictly production.
That's because when you look at _why_ point production was as poor as it was for our support players it becomes clear.

Again, I expect better than 0.75PPG from our highest paid players. (Putting it your way since you've made it clear you have no interest in going deeper than just box scoring). I don't think that's unreasonable.

y2kcanucks is online now  
Old
05-22-2013, 05:59 PM
  #23
Vankiller Whale
Fire Benning
 
Vankiller Whale's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,992
vCash: 1800
It's stupid to look at points in a 4 game sample size. A few bounces and they might have gotten none, or twice as many points.

The only way to judge them is by watching them. They did generate some chances, but in general failed to capitalize. Of course, they can't be expected to be dynamite every series, and if they were dynamite, we might have had a chance, but this is why it's important to augment our top-6 with players that can score even when the Sedins aren't at their best game.

Vankiller Whale is offline  
Old
05-22-2013, 06:05 PM
  #24
Bleach Clean
Moderator
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 19,649
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks View Post
That's because when you look at _why_ point production was as poor as it was for our support players it becomes clear.

Again, I expect better than 0.75PPG from our highest paid players. (Putting it your way since you've made it clear you have no interest in going deeper than just box scoring). I don't think that's unreasonable.

You cite a PPG ratio as not being good enough and I'm box scoring?

Oh so now the core is responsible for less scoring from the depth players? Is that 5 strawmans in a row here?

I'm again going to state the point strictly about production. They matched their expected totals. For those wanting more insight as to what I'm referring to, check here: http://nhlnumbers.com/2012/10/3/clut...ame-performers and here: http://canucksarmy.com/2013/4/11/on-...off-production

It's Raymond, Higgins and Hansen that fall outside of one standard deviation of their expected scoring rates. Not the core players. Burrows is the closest to falling short when putting up 29 actual points, to an expected 33.

Edit: I find Eric T. to be particularly good at breaking down data. Will try to post more articles of him here in the future.

Bleach Clean is offline  
Old
05-22-2013, 06:11 PM
  #25
opendoor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 10,928
vCash: 500
Much like Luongo was the scapegoat in previous playoffs I think the team's primary scorers are being targeted by people looking for someone to blame this year. Were they great? No. But it's tough to win games when your team is constantly taking stupid penalties, you have virtually no depth scoring, and your team gives up 3+ goals every night.

That last point is particularly key. An offense should be able to bail out a goalie on occasion, but that cannot be the norm on a successful playoff team. There have been 60 games so far in these playoffs and over half of them saw the winner give up either 1 goal or shut out the opposition. Just under 80% saw the winner allow 2 or fewer goals. You basically can't win in the playoffs if you're allowing more than 2 goals other than the odd game here and there.

The Canucks' recent record has borne this out. In their last 14 playoff games they've kept the opposition to fewer than 3 goals only 4 times and because of that they have a 2-12 record in those 14 games. On the other hand, since the start of the 10-11 playoffs (which is when the team's impotent offense started to show itself) they have a 14-3 playoff record when they keep the opposition to 2 or fewer goals. So for all the hand wringing about the scoring, it's pretty clear that the key to them winning is to shut down the opposition. They don't have to be superhuman, but if you can't keep the other team to 1 or 2 goals 3-4 times in a series you're probably not going to beat a good team.

opendoor 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 09:28 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2017 All Rights Reserved.