Do NHL fans overrate the importance of 'depth'?

[Ovi895]

A lot of teams can't execute depth properly. It's not just having the personnel, its having guys that can excel and be effective with 10-12 minutes of ice time (which very few top 6 forwards can), having identity for bottom lines, chemistry, proper deployment, the right kind of support from defense. The random 4th line of Bernier-Carter-Gionta line for the 2012 Devils massacred all opposing lines that year as did the infamous Niedermayer-Pahlsson-Moen in the Ducks cup run. Seattle has found a way for their bottom lines to play like diet 2nd lines and get results from that

 

[snag]

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.

Ha... Sorry. Missed that. Apologies

 

[Chips]

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?

No. It’s possible to get by on crazy stars, but we’ve seen teams go deep without them too if everyone gets playing their best at the right time

And some luck of course. Every round is a week long, every team goes on 1-2 week hot or cold streaks, injuries etc.

You can’t overrate the importance of depth because it increases your odds that, if not all around dominant, at least somebody might be performing.

 

[Mattilaus]

I don't understand why some people think this is a depth vs star players debate. Many things lead to a championship. You need both your stars to perform AND you need good depth. This isn't an either/or situation. Saying you need your stars to perform doesn't mean you don't need depth and saying you need depth doesn't mean you don't need your stars to perform.

 

[BlueSeal]

Depth on a team imo is, if you don't have the skills to be a star player, you do have the skills and drive to be that one guy who scores a goal when it matters the most, that one guy that hits or takes a hit to move the team forward or that guy that, when the opposition hits you the hardest and at your weakest, you grind it out and help your team get back in the fight.

Honestly, It's not insomuch a particular type of player as it is an attitude. A never give up, we're all in this together, lemme help my linemates, it's that particular team mentality. That single mindset is what elevates fourth liners into heroes. And it only works if you fight for the logo on the chest. If you play for the name on the back, you won't get anything other than what you personally earn.

Lacking it, even if your team is skilled up to the nines, is why you don't get far. Look at the Leafs. They ain't got it and that's why the Cats have been winning, because they do and because it's what drives them. Not fame, not fortune, not money, not personal identity.

No amount of skill can ever beat that.

 

[BlueSeal]

watch Edmonton slowly destroy the theory of depth

Better believe the Oilers have depth.

 

[ozzie]

I think a team like the Kraken and early Vegas show depth and a well-balanced roster is extremely dangerous. Unless you have stars, who can be double shifted and have great stamina. This isn't the 80's anymore though, the game is so fast paced with quick shifts. Sometimes fresh legs and overcome top heavy teams.

 

[dukedukowski]

Who needs stars?

 

[thaman8765678]

Ask Oiler and Leafs fans if the team with the best star forwards always win the series.

 

[authentic]

You're just trying to finesse your angle, which is based on Toronto this year and it's not working. Did you see Draisaitl and McDavid scoring at a Gretzky pace last year and getting swept by the deeper Avalanche?

Toronto's top players aren't even consistently outperformed by the other teams top players. Toronto massively outscored Tampa's best players 2 series in a row.

 

[Melrose Munch]

no

look at the oilers
look at the leafs defence

 

[The Cannon of Tesoma]

The depth is more important than stars. Without clear stars you can win, but without depth you cannot.

In fact, optimal Team would be such that every possible piece of it would be interchangeable with high internal skill and utilization parity, as high level as possible.

Such team would be likely also relatively cheap. No 10+ mil roadblocks to build the depth.

 

[hirawl]

Depth is a facilitator. Gives your star players the opportunity to perform at the level needed to win.

 

[ijuka]

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?

See what the Kraken are doing?

It's not about the players' absolute level. It's about how much better they are than their opponents, and for how long.

Let's take a team that has a much better 1st line, but significantly worse lines 2-4. The first lines are out for 20min, the team's better for 20min. The other lines are out for 40min, the team's worse for 40min. Chances are that they'll lose, because they're the better team only a third of the time.

 

[OilersFanatics505]

Teams with depth are doing better in these playoffs and that’s your take?

 

[Mike C]

I think a team like the Kraken and early Vegas show depth and a well-balanced roster is extremely dangerous. Unless you have stars, Keb who can be double shifted and have great stamina. This isn't the 80's anymore though, the game is so fast paced with quick shifts. Sometimes fresh legs and overcome top heavy teams.

Even in the 80s, depth players like Bob Nystrom, Ken Linseman, Claude Lemieux. for example were key contributors. The run to the cup is as much about depth and attrition as it is about skill and talent

 

[Drake1588]

No, depth is important. It doesn't make up for subpar production from stars, though. Cup champions generally get a surge of top-line production from its stars and then solid support from a second tier of scoring-line players and D, followed by clutch bottom-six scoring at opportune moments as well.

Cup-winning teams catch lightning in a bottle and rely on their stars as well as their depth for contributions. If you have performing stars but little depth, that's a problem. If you have depth that produces, but your stars are shooting blanks, that's also a problem.

They come at you in waves. Trying to beat those clubs through matchups doesn't really work because shutting down one player or line won't shut the whole team down.

 

[Cats2TheCup]

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?

Bruins had depth. Panthers didn’t. That was the whole narrative. And people are still clinging to it.

 

[Chet Manley]

There is no definitive formula to winning the cup. None of CHI, LA, TB, WAS, PIT, STL, or COL championship teams look all that alike.

 

[PensandCaps]

How does this contradict my position. The Edmonton Oilers won the series where McDavid and Draisaitl were the top scorers. They lost the series where Makar outscored both, and Rantanen and Landescog tied Drai, who himself had zero goals. This was a simple matter of stars out-performing stars.

4-6 stars vs 2 stars is why they beat Edmonton.

 

[H3ckt1k]

No but a lot of hockey fans aren't smart enough to know what depth is.

Its eerily similar to how a lot of hockey fans aren't smart enough to realize the things that Marko Dano brings to the table.

 

[22 The Maestro]

Kraken fan here. We understand the importance of depth. But it also needs to be cohesive depth playing a team game.

 

[izzy]

A lot of teams can't execute depth properly. It's not just having the personnel, its having guys that can excel and be effective with 10-12 minutes of ice time (which very few top 6 forwards can), having identity for bottom lines, chemistry, proper deployment, the right kind of support from defense. The random 4th line of Bernier-Carter-Gionta line for the 2012 Devils massacred all opposing lines that year as did the infamous Niedermayer-Pahlsson-Moen in the Ducks cup run. Seattle has found a way for their bottom lines to play like diet 2nd lines and get results from that

same type of thing with the sundqvist/barbashev/blais usage during the blues run

 

[Artorius Horus T]

overrate?.. umm.. you mean underrate?
who have ever overrated importance of depth?.

 

[NOTENOUGHRYJOTHINGS]

Oilers didn't lose last year because they lacked depth. They lacked top end talent. In defense and goal.