At the end of the day, narratives and corsi numbers are all irrelevant. Nash needs to score a goal or else people will say "Wow, Nash didn't score a goal."
It's this type of thinking that is why the Toronto Maple Leafs are one of the most laughably run organizations in the league. Yeah, screw what the metrics tell us are correlative to winning. It's all about heart, grit, and facepunchers man.
edit: at this point I'm unsure what you're defending.
This doesn't surprise me. No one to this point has shown any interest in following anything I've said thus far.
It seems like you're more concerned about shedding light about the significance of small sample sizes rather than talking about Rick Nash or hockey.
No. That is not what I am concerned about. Why don't your read every last post I have made on this. Perhaps light will be shed on what I have been arguing.
When are we allowed to say "Rick Nash needs to start scoring."? I know he is still playing the same way. I know opposing teams are ratcheting up defensive play and goalies are better than usual. So when star players don't produce we just excuse it and say "it's okay, don't worry, you don't have to score." ?
When play actually warrants it. Johan Franzen not only didn't score, but he was not even a decent possession player. Johan Franzen's play deserved criticism, because he didn't play well. Rick Nash has not been Johan Franzen in the playoffs. He's been still a good player doing all the things that are correlated with winning. Why would anyone criticize someone who is playing well and is doing the right things? Because in a small sampling he isn't being rewarded because the opposing goaltender is stopping all of his shots?
Really wanted to stay clear of this discussion.
But in the world of pro sports, how can you argue the bolded?
The two are very closely tied together.
Only three of the top 10 spending teams in the MLB made the playoffs last year. Only three of the top 10 spending teams in the NFL made the playoffs last year.
Large number of dollars spent=/= performance.
How money works is that owners give scarce talent lots of money to play. The better a person is skilled, the bigger paycheck he gets. This, however, does not mean the player should be expected to or will sustain amazing play at every point in time. That's just not realistic, and his contrary to what all statistics have demonstrated. Rick Nash is getting paid well because he has performed well in the past. But, you know, sometimes a player gets locked in a rut. For Rick Nash, it came at a horrible time in the playoffs just as everyone else on the roster has swooned.
But sure, let's let a bad stretch of a couple of games cloud our judgment of a player who has been very good for his career.