Do NHL fans overrate the importance of 'depth'?

[LeafsandSharksfan]

You need to win as many line match ups as possible, and that involves getting better play in your 3/4 lines and 2nd and 3rd pairings than your opponent.

 

[FerrisRox]

It's a common refrain when the stars we love and admire fall out of the playoffs early.

'Oh, well, he/they simply didn't have the support around him to succeed. If only the bottom 6 or 4-through-6 defensemen had been better, they surely would have had the time/space necessary to overcome.'

At what point is it BS rationalization to let star players off the hook for simply failing to perform or being outperformed by the best players on the other team?

On the contrary, I think depth is underrated.

But it's worth pointing out, I don't think I ever really hear people talking about depth in the manner you are referencing it. I do not hear "depth" being blamed when star players fizzle. Depth isn't responsible for making time or space for star players. That's an impossibility as your depth players and your star players are generally not on the ice together.

But some teams heavily over-play their star players cause their depth players are a liability and it leads to the star players being more tired and tired players are more prone to mistakes.

Teams with good depth have third and fourth lines that aren't just "what's left over" but they are actually lines with a role (checking, shutdown, physical, forecheck, etc.). A team with good depth can use their third line for match ups, or roll their big physical fourth line to wear down their opponents and make them hear footsteps.

Teams that don't have good depth are filling those lines with AHL guys on entry level deals or veterans barely hanging on and signing league minimum contracts.

Those teams get exposed in the playoffs all the time.

 

[Roksta]

Look at Seattle. They don't really have star forwards but they have effective players all through their line-up and they're doing surprisingly well

 

[snag]

Look at Seattle. They don't really have star forwards but they have effective players all through their line-up and they're doing surprisingly well

Depth is important. But when the other team has relatively equal "depth" (also note the games played), you need to be able to shut down their nuclear weapons.

And I am happy Schultz and Ebs are enjoying success in Seattle

 

[SEALBound]

Oilers are a 3 man team at the moment. Helps when it's the two best players in the league. I would suggest they are the exception and not the rule.

 

[Poppy Whoa Sonnet]

NHL fans underrate depth. Carolina's outplaying NJ right now cause of depth. Seattle, like Vegas, became playoff teams almost immediately because of depth. The thing is a team can't have just depth, it needs to score goals and that requires elite offensive talent in the NHL cause the team defenses and goaltending is just so good especially now.

Also teams and fans tend to just learn lessons from whatever team wins the cup. If Edmonton wins the cup this year, then the lesson will be "depth doesn't matter you just need superstars" which is way too simple explanation of how Edmonton wins a cup, but their PP is gamebreaking as a result no doubt.

 

[Nostradumbass]

It's a common refrain when the stars we love and admire fall out of the playoffs early.

'Oh, well, he/they simply didn't have the support around him to succeed. If only the bottom 6 or 4-through-6 defensemen had been better, they surely would have had the time/space necessary to overcome.'

At what point is it BS rationalization to let star players off the hook for simply failing to perform or being outperformed by the best players on the other team?

Seattle vs Colorado.

 

[Oneiro]

The Athletic had an article on this.

Is star power or depth more valuable in the NHL playoffs?

Would you rather have more strong players or fewer weak players? Is a team as strong as its strongest links or as weak as its weakest links?

theathletic.com

"There’s a sweet spot in the chart above: the 80th percentile. The team that has more skaters in the league’s top 20 percent has won 66 percent of series since 2010 — a shade higher than when looking at which team is favored."

BOS, NJ, TOR, FLA were at the top of the list as far as difference-maker type players on the roster. Make of that what you will. With Svech and Patches, CAR would've been 2 on the list.

Go back and look at cup winners. Teams like STL are the exception, not the rule. You need multiple great players, usually picked in the top 5 of the draft to win it all.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

It's a common refrain when the stars we love and admire fall out of the playoffs early.

'Oh, well, he/they simply didn't have the support around him to succeed. If only the bottom 6 or 4-through-6 defensemen had been better, they surely would have had the time/space necessary to overcome.'

At what point is it BS rationalization to let star players off the hook for simply failing to perform or being outperformed by the best players on the other team?

I think it's a lot more complex than the scenario you're presenting.

I don't necessarily think a team's stars have to outperform the other team every single game or every single series or be blamed if their team loses that series. I think there should be an expectation that a team's depth should be good enough to pick up their stars at least a once or twice per series.

Where I think the excuse becomes "bs" is if a team's stars never seem to come up big and people just want to excuse their failures on lack of depth.

Just from following the Pens during Crosby/Malkin's primes, I think there were clear playoff runs where the lack of depth hurt the Pens and when adequate depth saw them go deep because even as good as both guys were, there were games here or there where they weren't at their best and needed a 3rd or 4th liner to chip in a key goal that night to get the win.

 

[leafsfan5]

Colorado is literally a case study of what happens when you lose significant depth

 

[SK13]

Look at Seattle. They don't really have star forwards but they have effective players all through their line-up and they're doing surprisingly well

Seattle is pretty much the leagues only successful example of depth-in-place-of-top-end talent now, and the numbers tell us they will fall off a cliff next season without substantial improvement in their roster.

Essentially, they shot 0.6% better at 5v5 than any other team in the NHL. That's twice as big of a gap as any team has had since 13-14. Last year, the St Louis Blues also shot at an unsustainable level 5v5. They're still a good 5v5 offense and were #3 in the NHL with a 9.6 5v5 SH%.

But 1% difference on a team that shoots ~2100 even strength shots a year is the difference between 209 goals and 188 goals. That loss in offense would actually put the Kraken out of the playoffs entirely.

Just like it contributed the largest portion of a 50 goal loss in St Louis.

 

[KingPuckChoo]

Did you block our 4th liner Klim Kostin laying a beatdown on your team in game 6 out of your memory or something?

Game 6? That game that would have never happened once McDrai is removed from your roster?
Yeah saw that

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

Colorado is literally a case study of what happens when you lose significant depth

I'd argue Tampa is too. Losing guys like Palat and McDonagh have had a bit impact on their lineup.

 

[nturn06]

You disagree that the Colorado Avalanche stars outperformed the Oilers stars?

Correct me if I am wrong, but the difference between the Avs stars and the Oilers stars was couple EN goals, wasn't it?

Are you really claiming that the Avs swept the Oilers because of two EN goals?

Besides, when the Oilers goalie could not stop a beach ball all series, scoring a bit more does not necessarily mean "outperform".

 

[AuraSphere]

For my own edification, can you guys point to a team that won the cup despite their own top players being consistently outperformed by the opposition's top players?

This is such a flawed and illogical question, the better question is name when top players overperform but still can't suceed - aka McDavid/Drai last year while their depth just wasnt enough.

 

[snag]

Game 6? That game that would have never happened once McDrai is removed from your roster?
Yeah saw that

But they are on the roster. Boof***inghoo.

People need to stop picking shit apart like this. Shoulda coulda woulda ain't based in any sort of reality other than the fact they result in DIDN'T

 

[ClydeLee]

Colorado is literally a case study of what happens when you lose significant depth

They're no different to me than looking at Tampa, Pittsburgh, Chicago, or LA it's often the same story.

Mainly, This thread is odd from a Hawks fan, surprised it doesn't have some data. I saw someone like JFresh Or Dom from the Athletic try to analysis this comparing winners vs losers in playoff rounds.

But comparing championship teams years they won vs why they didn't, they always have those stars or cores who are mostly the same. Its depth that matters.

Why did the Penguins finally win in 16 & 17 vs the teams of 15, or 18 & 19. It's mainly depth. Same for Tampa, they never had enough to role 4 lines 3 pairs until 2020. Then they lose some key depth the last 2 years and it dwindles. The Hawks in 2012, 2014, or 2016 weren't teams that could roll 4 lines. Now the Avs in the past and this year(though Landeskog is a star that was gone) are teams with less depth. Those are factors that take teams to the next level.

 

[KingPuckChoo]

But they on the roster. Boof***inghoo

circular logic will never end it seems!

therefore McDrai is your team

now reply: ya but have you seen how strong Foegele is with the puck??? Obvious depth!

Then i say, yeah but Foegele is a nothing player, and without McDrai, he's absolutely not considered depth, he brings nothing

then you say: ya but McDrai is part of the team... can you say there's no depth with the likes of Yama, nurse, etc

then i continue
then you continue
then i continue
then you continue

regardless, my stance is, Edmonton has 2 massive players on their roster alongside 10 Todd Ewens and 6 Lyle Odeleins

and yeah, they need to skate, hit, do some hockey stuff
that's not depth my man

refer to 2012, 2014 for depth



so ill let you one last shot and destroy me good with a solid mic drop and ill let you be, i dont care, i know what i see, and what i see is TWO PLAYERS playing as a TEAM

nothing else

 

[Nemesis Prime]

edit

 

[snag]

But 1% difference on a team that shoots ~2100 even strength shots a year is the difference between 209 goals and 188 goals. That loss in offense would actually put the Kraken out of the playoffs entirely.

209 goals ain't getting you in the playoffs either. Unless you are a defensive juggernaut with stellar goaltending

 

[TLEH]

Don’t think depth or stars are overrated or underrated. What is not acknowledged enough is the luck involved in the sport.

 

[snag]

circular logic will never end it seems!

therefore McDrai is your team

now reply: ya but have you seen how strong Foegele is with the puck??? Obvious depth!

Then i say, yeah but Foegele is a nothing player, and without McDrai, he's absolutely not considered depth, he brings nothing

then you say: ya but McDrai is part of the team... can you say there's no depth with the likes of Yama, nurse, etc

then i continue
then you continue
then i continue
then you continue

regardless, my stance is, Edmonton has 2 massive players on their roster alongside 10 Todd Ewens and 6 Lyle Odeleins

and yeah, they need to skate, hit, do some hockey stuff
that's not depth my man

refer to 2012, 2014 for depth



so ill let you one last shot and destroy me good with a solid mic drop and ill let you be, i dont care, i know what i see, and what i see is TWO PLAYERS playing as a TEAM

nothing else

And I will say it AGAIN... McDrai are such outliers at the top they skew everything else.

But hey, you watched them for 6 games this year. Good for you.

And there's your mic drop... I am done here.

 

[powerbomb]

Lol? Let me know when one or two good lines was ever enough in the most grueling playoff sport. In the same way that the non-star athletes that anchor a line in football are vital to team success, make no mistake, those grinders logging meaningful minutes are critical to eventually tilting the ice in a game and a series.

 

[SK13]

209 goals ain't getting you in the playoffs either. Unless you are a defensive juggernaut with stellar goaltending

That post is siscussing 5v5 goals only. Seattle led the NHL, easily, with 209 and would lose a bit more than 20 if they drop a percentage point. Which they are almost definitely going to do, since no team that shoots as high as they did at 5v5 has ever really managed to stay in that range year over year.

 

[Pablo El Perro]

Some might overrated it, but, in the playoffs, your bottom six has to contribute to make it past a round. A good example, imo, is the Avs last year. Sure, their top players brought it, but guys like Nuke were vital to winning the cup.