Toggle sidebar

Around the league part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
BigKing said:
There just weren't any undeniable guys on Florida for the Smythe. Quick's 2014 run gets crapped on a bit, probably because of how insane 2012 was, but his numbers from '14 are very similar to Bobrovsky's and nobody was clamoring for Quick to win in '14.

Barkov finished a -1 for the Finals which isn't too shabby if he's matched up against McDavid the entire time. 21 minutes a night in the playoffs for a team known for its defense. Back to Quick's 2014, he faced 30 shots a game on average while Bob faced 24. If you are the best defensive forward on a team that allows 24 shots a game and you lead the team in scoring, you have a pretty good case.

It isn't sexy though. Either is Bob.

Just as an FYI, Quick faced an average of 27 shots in 2012. Just a mind blowing performance.
Click to expand...
Numbers have no real value. Comparing the save percentages of goalies who have teams playing differeing styles of defense aren't going to be of equal value.

If you remember the Sutter coached teams, they put very little emphasis on blocking shots. Their scheme was based on boxing out and preventing rebounds and secondary attempts while giving Quick cleaner looks at shots. His genius was in making the remarkable secondary saves when called upon, but the team's style was designed to reduce the amount of higher danger chances.

Why would his raw numbers be comparable to those of a goalie whose team didn't provide the same kind of defense? They all face different teams with different offensive approaches.

The numbers don't mean much when the control isn't the same, they are just interesting for conversations sake. My problem with it is like in Smytheking's post (and not him, he is at the top of the hockey internet message board posters food chain) is that these kinds of arguments that use numbers as a crutch are usually just flat out fallacies.

Bobrovsky was outstanding, and he was a massive part of their success from start to finish.
 
bland said:
Numbers have no real value. Comparing the save percentages of goalies who have teams playing differeing styles of defense aren't going to be of equal value.

If you remember the Sutter coached teams, they put very little emphasis on blocking shots. Their scheme was based on boxing out and preventing rebounds and secondary attempts while giving Quick cleaner looks at shots. His genius was in making the remarkable secondary saves when called upon, but the team's style was designed to reduce the amount of higher danger chances.

Why would his raw numbers be comparable to those of a goalie whose team didn't provide the same kind of defense? They all face different teams with different offensive approaches.

The numbers don't mean much when the control isn't the same, they are just interesting for conversations sake. My problem with it is like in Smytheking's post (and not him, he is at the top of the hockey internet message board posters food chain) is that these kinds of arguments that use numbers as a crutch are usually just flat out fallacies.

Bobrovsky was outstanding, and he was a massive part of their success from start to finish.
Click to expand...
But they have real value to winning awards, which is what is being discussed.

To further support your McDavid thesis, his numbers earned him another individual award.

Things like MVP have always had this argument: should someone be able to win it if they are not on a winning team? Mike Trout has won three AL MVPs while only making the playoffs in one of those years.

It begs the question of whether there should be two awards: Best Player and MVP. How can you be the most valuable player if you made it possible for your team to not lose as badly?

McDavid was the best player. Barkov and Bob were more valuable to their team than McDavid was to Edmonton since Florida doesn't win the Cup without them and Edmonton still doesn't win with McDavid.
 
BigKing said:
But they have real value to winning awards, which is what is being discussed.

To further support your McDavid thesis, his numbers earned him another individual award.

Things like MVP have always had this argument: should someone be able to win it if they are not on a winning team? Mike Trout has won three AL MVPs while only making the playoffs in one of those years.

It begs the question of whether there should be two awards: Best Player and MVP. How can you be the most valuable player if you made it possible for your team to not lose as badly?

McDavid was the best player. Barkov and Bob were more valuable to their team than McDavid was to Edmonton since Florida doesn't win the Cup without them and Edmonton still doesn't win with McDavid.
Click to expand...
Edmonton didn’t win with McDavid because of Barkov (and Bobrovsky, to a lesser extent). If Florida has any slightly lesser defensive center there instead of Barkov, we’re probably talking about an Edmonton Cup on the shoulders of McDavid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hockeyville USA, psych3man and AbsentMojo
Raccoon Jesus said:
From Zach Laing, the guy who constantly audits every play for infractions and complains nonstop about the opposition, the guy has every excuse in the book and has been one of the primary offenders of the Mikey Anderson is public enemy #1 club

I'm gonna take that with a grain of salt until it's reported from someone who has seen daylight in the last few years
Click to expand...
McDavid needs a hysterectomy? I hope they can freeze some eggs.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Raccoon Jesus and AbsentMojo
Chazz Reinhold said:
Edmonton didn’t win with McDavid because of Barkov (and Bobrovsky, to a lesser extent). If Florida has any slightly lesser defensive center there instead of Barkov, we’re probably talking about an Edmonton Cup on the shoulders of McDavid.
Click to expand...
Yes. And Bob was fantastic in Game 1 and was very strong while Edmonton was pushing at the end of Games 3 and 7.

But voters will cower to insane numbers. Bob had the trophy without the Game 4 shellacking and then McDavid's great Game 5. Outside of an undeniable performance by a Panther in Game 7, one that would have had the hockey world buzzing, it was going to McDavid no matter what.

That's pretty much what happened too because he was just okay-to-good for a normal player last night but subpar for what he can do. Had the puck on his stick with seven minutes left right in front of Bob and he didn't get a shot off, then he embellished and tried to draw a penalty during the chaos in front.
 
bland said:
The obvious lesson is that you do not need to play 2 minutes of most power plays, that not every shift needs to have Grade A scoring chances when the moment calls for composure, and that offense for offense sake is not how you win Championships.

You know, the same learning curve that most young players go thru after they establish themselves as elite talents before realizing that there is a reason every successful person in every endeavor will tell you that "less is more". The same thing Zegras and Jack Hughes will need to learn before they can reach the next level.

McDavid hasn't passed thru that stage yet because his raw talent exceeds that of every other active player AND he has the weight of his talent creating a hype machine pushing him full stop towards individual glory over team rewards.

He has to demand more restraint of himself and his coaching staff to step back from offensive domination and into the disciplined team game missing in Edmonton. If he can do that, they will get their Cups.
Click to expand...

This is super disingenuous.

So if game seven goes down the exact same way but Henrique pots a goal with Mcdavid on the bench, now Mcdavid has “passed through that stage” because they won?

What more do you expect this guy to do? I need you to actually answer that without appealing to unquantifiable intangibles. Because by every metric of hockey, Mcdavid was the best player on the ice against every team in every series.

Hockey is a team game of extraordinary variance. The Oilers were one bounce away from “getting their Cup.” They’re as good as anyone in the league. Game sevens are a coin flip. Last night it went the Panthers way. If those teams play another 100 games, each may win 50.

Mcdavid is the most impressive statistical hockey player since Mario Lemieux and Wayne Gretzky. And - trigger warning - he’s playing in a much more specialized, modern, and difficult era of the game. No amount of vague, meaningless, Don Cherry-esque platitudes like, “he needs to learn to play the game the right way” will erase that.

The numbers don’t lie, man. Comparing Mcdavid to f***ing Zegras or Hughes in any way is absolute nonsense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fripp, VILARGOD, FrozenKing18 and 5 others
BigKing said:
There just weren't any undeniable guys on Florida for the Smythe. Quick's 2014 run gets crapped on a bit, probably because of how insane 2012 was, but his numbers from '14 are very similar to Bobrovsky's and nobody was clamoring for Quick to win in '14.

Barkov finished a -1 for the Finals which isn't too shabby if he's matched up against McDavid the entire time. 21 minutes a night in the playoffs for a team known for its defense. Back to Quick's 2014, he faced 30 shots a game on average while Bob faced 24. If you are the best defensive forward on a team that allows 24 shots a game and you lead the team in scoring, you have a pretty good case.

It isn't sexy though. Either is Bob.

Just as an FYI, Quick faced an average of 27 shots in 2012. Just a mind blowing performance.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately Conner McDavid deserved the award not Bob.
 
Personally, I have no horse in the Conn Smythe race. McDavid's statistical dominance certainly earns recognition. But honestly, I guess a part of me hoped Barkov or Bobrovsky would have won it so it could amplify just how important both were to shutting down McDavid and winning the cup.

McDavid's already going to be in hockey history for his individual abilities and accomplishments, so it would have been cool to see someone else who did enough to help their team go all the way. I don't think it's some egregious injustice though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hockeyville USA, Schrute farms and FrozenKing18
Walman had 12 goals last year as a defensemen. He didn't get much PP time. His 11 even strength goals were more than any King's dman.

He doesn't have the grit we need, but he would have been a huge upgrade over Englund AND you get a 2nd round pick? I would've taken that.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: KingsOfCali25, Raccoon Jesus, FrozenKing18 and 2 others
Bandit said:
That is sad, but man. Bob really got almost zero love. Not surprised he didn't win but would have thought he'd have gotten more votes than that.
Click to expand...
It's just so hard for a goalie to win the Conn Smythe. You need exceptional numbers. You have to go back to 1989 to see a goalie win it without a GAA under 1.9 and a Sv% under .930. You can talk about defenses and systems and anything else you like, but without exceptional numbers like that, they're just going to give it to a forward who leads in scoring or a defenseman who is close. It's easier.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Omni Owl and King'sPawn
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom