Toggle sidebar

Around the league part 2

  • Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates
Status
Not open for further replies.
kingsfan28 said:
If you watched him play last year and the years before you'd understand how he got that label . Sure he got 10 points in 12, but vs DAL 1g 5a in 6 games, then vs EDM 3 goals in game 1, no goals the rest of the way and 1 assist in the last 5 games. He played timid and looked like he was affraid to do anything stupid. Maybe he's grown up this year, or maybe he's just on a heater right now. Still think he's a dick. :nod:
Click to expand...
I would still question the judgment of someone asserting another player's playoff prowess based on very small sample sizes before, and last season he still contributed quite a bit, even if it's not at an ideal level.
 
A lot of Flames fans criticized Tkachuk for disappearing in the series against Edmonton last year.

In game 1, which Calgary won, he had a hat trick.

Over the next 4 games, all of which Calgary lost, he had 1 secondary assist. No points in the final 3 games.

He lacked leadership, character, and mental toughness.
 
As world class as Tkachuk has been this year, I still think trade will look MUCH closer next year for Calgary than at the moment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: YP44
bland said:
As world class as Tkachuk has been this year, I still think trade will look MUCH closer next year for Calgary than at the moment.
Click to expand...
I think the Flames roster is pretty good. This year was probably an aberration.

Pacific will be fairly tough next year. Vegas, Edmonton, Seattle, Calgary, and LA. 5 decent teams. Vancouver could have a bounce back season as well if Demko returns to form.
 
  • Like
Reactions: YP44
bland said:
As world class as Tkachuk has been this year, I still think trade will look MUCH closer next year for Calgary than at the moment.
Click to expand...
Weegar blew a couple games in the playoffs for Florida passing it in front of his own net. They dont really miss him.
 
SettlementRichie10 said:
I’m beginning to come around to the @KingsFan7824 mindset that nothing really means anything in hockey, and it’s all random variance, losers can become winners at the drop of a hat, so who cares.
Click to expand...
So you’re one of these guys eh?
DA591CB1-F8E9-4B84-A910-543F12832412.jpeg
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: johnjm22, SettlementRichie10 and Schrute farms
Maynard said:
If you and your wife want to call each other “mom” and “dad” it’s really none of our business but thanks.
Click to expand...
Hey I thought it was weird too when I was a kid and my parents did it. Then you grow up and have kids of your own and realize you have to talk from their perspective. Yeah it’s goofy, but so is being a parent.
 
  • Like
  • Wow
Reactions: psych3man, Choralone, chris kontos and 1 other person
AbsentMojo said:
Not sure what your point is here...they won presidents year before and swapped out 2 good players for one great one - who repeated his 100 pt season. Seems like a team that was in the mix - that struggled due to many factors like goaltending.
Click to expand...

They had lost more than just swapping a couple top end guys. People looked at Bob, and that defense, and said they're in the mix? What mix? The contender mix, and the just get in mix?
 
I'm not sure what's so 'anything can happen' about Florida.

People said similar things about Quick but he would go nuclear randomly.

Montour's emergence was a surprise--so was Dwight King WCF Kings goal record holder.

Their 'formula' is a lot like many others, but partiuclarly the 2012 Kings, an underperforming regular season team that had all the right parts but got health, luck, and timely hotness.

It's one thing to have question marks, it's quite another to make hope a strategy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kingsfan28 and AbsentMojo
SettlementRichie10 said:
I’m beginning to come around to the @KingsFan7824 mindset that nothing really means anything in hockey, and it’s all random variance, losers can become winners at the drop of a hat, so who cares.
Click to expand...
It’s like in “Moneyball”. Billy Beane used analytics to get a low budget team to the playoffs for years, but he knew the playoffs would be a crapshoot. In the NHL the team with home ice advantage only wins 60-70% of the series. In small sample sizes, how you build your team matters a lot less than for the regular season.
 
lumbergh said:
It’s like in “Moneyball”. Billy Beane used analytics to get a low budget team to the playoffs for years, but he knew the playoffs would be a crapshoot. In the NHL the team with home ice advantage only wins 60-70% of the series. In small sample sizes, how you build your team matters a lot less than for the regular season.
Click to expand...

Sure, but there are still winning formulas for constructing a contending team.

It’s fine if we acknowledge variance, but it’s not *all* variance. If we start using variance as a catch all defense of poor management decisions, that’s no good, IMO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Raccoon Jesus and lumbergh
SettlementRichie10 said:
I’m beginning to come around to the @KingsFan7824 mindset that nothing really means anything in hockey, and it’s all random variance, losers can become winners at the drop of a hat, so who cares.
Click to expand...
You know that is complete and utter BS, and I know you know it.

Games can be won with a bit of luck or a good bounce. Seven game series are won by the better team, and luck has nothing to do with it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: King'sPawn
KINGS17 said:
You know that is complete and utter BS, and I know you know it.

Games can be won with a bit of luck or a good bounce. Seven game series are won by the better team, and luck has nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...

So.....Florida was better this year than Boston?

Seattle was better than Colorado?

To say luck has nothing to do with winning playoff series, and I thought I heard it all....
 
KINGS17 said:
You know that is complete and utter BS, and I know you know it.

Games can be won with a bit of luck or a good bounce. Seven game series are won by the better team, and luck has nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...
That’s easy to say. What defines the better team? Once the series is over, you can sit on your couch and pontificate about why the team that won was the better team, but the truth is you and everyone else couldn’t have predicted what has happened so far.

The cap has enforced parity around the league. The difference between a #1 and #8 is not all that big. It becomes a matter of who makes things happen, who has a little extra gear. Little things get washed out during the regular season, but become magnified during the playoffs. It’s not luck, but it’s also not easily Predictable.
 
lumbergh said:
That’s easy to say. What defines the better team? Once the series is over, you can sit on your couch and pontificate about why the team that won was the better team, but the truth is you and everyone else couldn’t have predicted what has happened so far.

The cap has enforced parity around the league. The difference between a #1 and #8 is not all that big. It becomes a matter of who makes things happen, who has a little extra gear. Little things get washed out during the regular season, but become magnified during the playoffs. It’s not luck, but it’s also not easily Predictable.
Click to expand...
We often can't predict it, because we don't often know or understand which team is better until the series is played. That's why they play the games.

What defines the better team? It is the team that wins the 7-game series. The team that wins proves it over the course of seven games, or by getting to four wins in the series first.

The little things you mentioned that are magnified in the playoffs are the very things smart GMs are looking for when they build championship teams.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: King'sPawn
KINGS17 said:
The little things you mentioned that are magnified in the playoffs are the very things smart GMs are looking for when they build championship teams.
Click to expand...
But what are those things? If smart GMs like Lombardi knew to look for them, He’d still be GM.

The truth is those little things are different for every opponent, every series, and for every year. That’s why it’s so hard to predict who will win a series. That’s why there’s no formula. If there were a formula everyone would be using it.
 
lumbergh said:
But what are those things? If smart GMs like Lombardi knew to look for them, He’d still be GM.

The truth is those little things are different for every opponent, every series, and for every year. That’s why it’s so hard to predict who will win a series. That’s why there’s no formula. If there were a formula everyone would be using it.
Click to expand...
It isn't that there is no formula, it just isn't the same formula every year. GMs must look at the landscape and determine the ingredients needed at different points in the year.

Did Lombardi know what he was doing when he added Williams? Yes.

Did he know what he was doing when he added Richards and then later in 2012 Carter? Yes.

Did he know what he was doing when he added Gaborik in 2014? Yes.
 
Herby said:
View attachment 712441
Click to expand...

As a Hawks fan I was mad as a hornet when that happened - convinced the meaningless game dashed our hopes of finishing with the worst record and best odds to win the Bedard derby. Then the next game (the last game of the season) the Hawks tied the game with 2 minutes remaining to send the game to OT where they ended up losing - but still got the loser point. That meant the Hawks picked up 3 points in the last 2 games of the year and finished 1 point ahead of Anaheim for the last spot in the standings.

But ... it all worked out pretty well ... so no hard feeling toward Buddy Robinson or Andreas Athanasiou or Jujhar Khaira or any of the rest of the slugs who scored in those games.
 
  • Like
Reactions: johnjm22
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom