Salary Cap: Pens '23-'24 Salary Cap Thread: "But if you don't get the President of the Pittsburgh Penguins on that phone, you know what's gonna happen to you?"
- Thread starter Zirakzigil
- Start date
-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
- Status
Headshot77
We saw him heading straight for the mountains
So, the two best Penguins seasons by points percentage were the two seasons they didn't play a full season? Almost sounds like the shortened season is providing bad data and not that they were some superteam.
Headshot77
We saw him heading straight for the mountains
What are you talking about Rakell has had plenty of stretches of looking awesome in this top 6. Don't let recency bias cloud the past.
AuroraBorealis
Back-to-back hater
No team has ever missed the playoffs with 97+ points in this format.
Since the maximum amount of points you can get in a season is 164, that means you can freely drop 67 of them and still make it, guaranteed. Any more than that and a team loses complete control of its own destiny. The Pens have lost 4 already.
Well, I suppose it's possible this year's East sets a new record, but that seems unlikely. So far we're at an 8 year and 16 conference sample of the bar never passing 97 points, in the Wild Card format. Two seasons don't qualify, since they were shortened due to covid.
Since the maximum amount of points you can get in a season is 164, that means you can freely drop 67 of them and still make it, guaranteed. Any more than that and a team loses complete control of its own destiny. The Pens have lost 4 already.
Well, I suppose it's possible this year's East sets a new record, but that seems unlikely. So far we're at an 8 year and 16 conference sample of the bar never passing 97 points, in the Wild Card format. Two seasons don't qualify, since they were shortened due to covid.
Jacob
as seen on TV
- Feb 27, 2002
- 50,648
- 27,974
Darren McCord
Registered User
- Dec 15, 2015
- 10,385
- 8,884
You miss the point. Most of that was with line one. He looks awesome with Jake and Sid not some much with geno
Ugene Magic
EVIL LAUGH
Other than the score sheet he has positive impacts with Smith and Geno. I'm not worried there, though, I do prefer him on Sids line.
Ryder71
Registered User
- Nov 24, 2017
- 25,236
- 12,046
Sidgeni Malkby
Registered User
Last year he looked great with Geno. So it's either Smith's game is messing him up or something else.
Rakell seems to be struggling overall, He hasn't really been that noticeable on the PP either. When you have 2 lines firing, you don't mess with it just to get a player going. Rackell isn't hurting the line, so he has time to figure it out.
TheGoldenJet
Registered User
Smith-Malkin-Rakell is a fantastic line, not sure what games some on here are watching.
pistolpete11
Registered User
- Apr 27, 2013
- 12,342
- 11,484
He was 'fine' with Geno last year. Nothing more. 48 GF% , 54 xGF%.
Anyway, the point of dropping Rakell to L3 is more about a way to infuse some offense into the bottom 6 than it is to get Rakell going. He's not hurting L2, but he's not helping either. A lot of guys can just be there.
It's a fantastic line because Malkin and Smith are on fire and meshing well. Rakell is just along for the ride so far.
Darren McCord
Registered User
- Dec 15, 2015
- 10,385
- 8,884
Rakell has 1a
Malkin has 3g 4a
Smith has 2g 2a
Safe to say Rakell has been fine but mostly a passenger to them
Again he was good but not great. He was much better with Sid. Most of his pts came with Sid or on the PP. I am not knocking Rakell just saying the lines as is are not the most productive version possible as illustrated last year
Ragamuffin Gunner
Lost in the Flood
KrisLetAngry
MrJukeBoy
League min + 1 million if make cup finals.
I am not interested in hurting us on the salary cap next year.
he had something like 7 shots last game and was alittle bit better, also had some good looks, he will be fine
TheGoldenJet
Registered User
From DK’s Friday Insider: he’s quoting Eller about why the third line hasnt got it going yet, and what do you know, his answer translates essentially into “the coach wants us to play this way first” lol…just what we suspected…
“I asked yesterday why his line's still seeing so many one-and-done zone entries -- puck goes in, puck comes right back out -- and all he had in response was this hockey thesis: “Yeah, so I think right now we’re kind of playing a really low-risk game where we’re putting pucks north all the time. We’re getting out of our zone. We’re getting it deep. We’re not turning pucks over at the blue line. We’re not trying to do too much. But at the same time, the next step right now is getting the forecheck to be more effective, which means we have to force turnovers off getting the puck deep and getting on the forecheck. That’s the part of the game that’s lacking a little bit now, and that’s what’s stopping us from getting extended zone time. So, the first step is, when we get it in deep, which we are most of the time, we have to get it back. And now, we’ve got to do better of working three together, breaking up plays with sticks, getting bodies, keeping the puck alive. Right now, that’s what’s stopping us from getting more offense, I think. So, that’s the first step. Once we do that, then we can talk about, ‘How do we cycle? How do we find the open lanes? How do we find the open ice?’ We’ve got to get the puck right now and keep it alive. Right now, we’re not spending a ton of time in our zone. We’re playing responsible. We’re not giving up a lot, you know, but we’re not generating as much as we’re capable of. I think that’s where it starts for me."
“I asked yesterday why his line's still seeing so many one-and-done zone entries -- puck goes in, puck comes right back out -- and all he had in response was this hockey thesis: “Yeah, so I think right now we’re kind of playing a really low-risk game where we’re putting pucks north all the time. We’re getting out of our zone. We’re getting it deep. We’re not turning pucks over at the blue line. We’re not trying to do too much. But at the same time, the next step right now is getting the forecheck to be more effective, which means we have to force turnovers off getting the puck deep and getting on the forecheck. That’s the part of the game that’s lacking a little bit now, and that’s what’s stopping us from getting extended zone time. So, the first step is, when we get it in deep, which we are most of the time, we have to get it back. And now, we’ve got to do better of working three together, breaking up plays with sticks, getting bodies, keeping the puck alive. Right now, that’s what’s stopping us from getting more offense, I think. So, that’s the first step. Once we do that, then we can talk about, ‘How do we cycle? How do we find the open lanes? How do we find the open ice?’ We’ve got to get the puck right now and keep it alive. Right now, we’re not spending a ton of time in our zone. We’re playing responsible. We’re not giving up a lot, you know, but we’re not generating as much as we’re capable of. I think that’s where it starts for me."
LOGiK
Registered User
- Nov 14, 2007
- 18,427
- 9,118
Impossible to guage an athlete solely from stats alone. Especially team based sports, such as hockey. Hockey because it is subjective rule sets, why 2 assists and not just 1? Then why 2 and not the entire team? If not the entire team --everyone who touched the puck before the goal / opposition touches the puck?
That whole second assist should've been in the trash bin long ago.
So at least look at goals / assists / points / +/- and all that of the line mates involved.
KrisLetAngry
MrJukeBoy
Well when tasked with a low risk low reward style I do believe this happens.
It's a big problem when the low risk side starts failing and we got no reward though.
Yep, that’s why the coach is a moron lol…the style of two top lines being high risk and two bottom six lines being completely risk averse is not a way to win two-thirds of the games, which is necessary to get into the playoffs
Jacob
as seen on TV
- Feb 27, 2002
- 50,648
- 27,974
It seems like we’re trying to win like Billy Beane in Moneyball with a razor thin margin of error.
We will win when our top 6 scores >2 and our bottom 6 defends near perfect and our goaltending is solid and there are no major F-ups anywhere, and we need all that to happen 2 out of every 3 games.
We will win when our top 6 scores >2 and our bottom 6 defends near perfect and our goaltending is solid and there are no major F-ups anywhere, and we need all that to happen 2 out of every 3 games.
Our top six, while good, and our goaltending isn’t good enough for this approach…if we had a Thachuk-Matthews-Pastrnak first line, maybe, and Sorokin in goal lol…we will be .500, as we are now, with this approach…we will win against the mediocre to poor teams but not the top half teams
Darren McCord
Registered User
- Dec 15, 2015
- 10,385
- 8,884
Eye test says the same to me. But it’s just an opinion. I hope to be wrong as things move forward
Tender Rip
Wears long pants
With all my (earned) respect for you and your avatar, can we not agree that Pens being a team spending to the cap in a cap-league makes Billy Bean references off if not absurd?
Nevermind that the explanation of the problem is otherwise meaningful, I’d say the issue is exactly that we’ve sucked at being Moneyballers, in the sense that we haven’t identified pieces bringing the needed elements on the cheap. PP net front, speed on the PK, complimentary scoring, projectable D-men with size etc. etc.
Of course there are short term examples like Erod and lucking into Gaudreau as a wsiver get and subsequent AHL call-up, but basically the bottom 6 for the first four games was a nice illustration of someone not getting Moneyball, because there was so little of the “more value for less” mindset there.
- Status
