Preparation trumps skill?

[canswetoxic]

Team Finland was fantastic, but lets be honest, 9 out of 10 times they would have lost to Russia or Canada. All the puck luck aligned for them. The Sweden game was surprisingly even.

Everything Finns shoot the puck it went in, the luck really on their side this time.

 

[Ippenator]

Jukka Jalonen, if selecting the team would choose the NHLers just like anyone else who has e en a little bit of a clue, and he would choose them without thinking a split second about it because of how vastly superior they are. No matter what he says to sound diplomatic. The proof will be in when the next Finnish best on best team is selected, by whoever is selecting it (provide the have an ounce of understanding for this sport).

You really don't seem to get it at all. I'm not claiming that those NHL players aren't better players by some margin. Just that the margin isn't even close to as big as you keep on claiming. Of course the best available players will get chosen by whomever is the coach. And for sure Jalonen would invite most of the available best Finnish NHL players to his team. But this doesn't still mean that there is a massive difference between the best NHL players and the best players in the top European leagues. Sure enough of a difference for most of the top NHL players to be chosen over the best European league players. But I wouldn't really count on for example players like Ristolainen (awful defensively) and Donskoi (just not good enough necessarily) to be chosen to the Finnish best against best team over some of the best available top European league players like Lehtonen, Manninen or Pesonen.

 

[The Cannon of Tesoma]

@Ippenator and @koyvoo

The top players of NHL are relatively much more better than best players of FEL, but average level of players of NHL and FEL is much more closer and more easily interchangeable, and quality difference between them isn't that "massive" that has become a convention to be claimed.

Coaching in FEL maybe even superior to NHL, on average.

I think Ippenator try say something along these lines.

 

[Backcheckmonster3]

Really? well, he sure came up roses when it mattered. I mean he clearly was the single biggest difference in that game. I said in the gdt before the game started that it would be in the end whoever won the goalie duel, well..................he won it and they won it. Also, what I mean by lower level was level of goaltending play he displayed in that game not what level of league he played in.

Anything less then what he did on Sunday and we are talking about a Canadian gold not a Finnish one, it's that simple. He was the biggest difference maker in that game and was better then anybody else on that ice.

He could have let in a weak puck from the neutral zone in the end and Finland wins 3-2. It´s that simple.

 

[jj cale]

He could have let in a weak puck from the neutral zone in the end and Finland wins 3-2. It´s that simple.

If that was true yes,but only because he would have made all the other countless saves. And those were the saves that mattered, not the fictional neutral zone shot, the real ones he stopped(and there was a load of them)...................that in the end was the difference in the game. Fictional saves or goals don't count, only real ones do.

I don't deal in fiction.

There is no reason not to call it as it is.The guy just wouldn't break, masterful performance.Was he the sole reason they won? no, but he was the biggest reason no question.Anything less then what he did and they don't win that game most likely.

But as I said, the goaltender is part of the team, it does not make their victory any less worthy, I already said that. I mean, in the W.J.C in 1993 in Gavle Canada can kiss gold goodbye if Legace doesn't make countless amazing saves against the Swedes, it just doesn't happen.

It works both ways.

 

[koyvoo]

You really don't seem to get it at all. I'm not claiming that those NHL players aren't better players by some margin. Just that the margin isn't even close to as big as you keep on claiming. Of course the best available players will get chosen by whomever is the coach. And for sure Jalonen would invite most of the available best Finnish NHL players to his team. But this doesn't still mean that there is a massive difference between the best NHL players and the best players in the top European leagues. Sure enough of a difference for most of the top NHL players to be chosen over the best European league players. But I wouldn't really count on for example players like Ristolainen (awful defensively) and Donskoi (just not good enough necessarily) to be chosen to the Finnish best against best team over some of the best available top European league players like Lehtonen, Manninen or Pesonen.

If your going to compare bottom of the barrel guys like Risto and Donskoi to the top level Liiga players, that’s where it might start getting close, but that’s a far cry from the lunacy of suggesting that the best Finnish players from the NHL are only marginally better than the best Finnish players in the Liiga. That’s borderline insane, like for real. There is a huge, tremendous gulf in talent between the best Finnish players in the NHL abd the best Finnish players in the Liiga.

You’re exactly like the French or Portuguese guy who claims there isn’t a massive difference in talent between the best players in the French or Portuguese soccer league compared to the best players in the Spanish or English soccer league just because the teams from those inferior leagues manage to pull an upset in a European competition once in a while.

It’s a though that only comes from the emotion of being from that country that has zero logic or merit to it.

The narrative of this Finnish gold medal being a miracle wouldn’t exist if the level of players from were anywhere near being close to each other.

 

[jj cale]

@Ippenator and @koyvoo

The top players of NHL are relatively much more better than best players of FEL, but average level of players of NHL and FEL is much more closer and more easily interchangeable, and quality difference between them isn't that "massive" that has become a convention to be claimed.

Coaching in FEL maybe even superior to NHL, on average.

I think Ippenator try say something along these lines.

I think Ippenator is right and wrong in his viewpoint. I do agree the play of the average player between the European domestic leagues and the N.H.L there is not a whole lot of difference like you mention here, minimal really. But the top end talent? yeah there is. A best of N.H.L squad I think would decimate a best of European domestic league team.

 

[Ippenator]

If your going to compare bottom of the barrel guys like Risto and Donskoi to the top level Liiga players, that’s where it might start getting close, but that’s a far cry from the lunacy of suggesting that the best Finnish players from the NHL are only marginally better than the best Finnish players in the Liiga. That’s borderline insane, like for real. There is a huge, tremendous gulf in talent between the best Finnish players in the NHL abd the best Finnish players in the Liiga.

You’re exactly like the French or Portuguese guy who claims there isn’t a massive difference in talent between the best players in the French or Portuguese soccer league compared to the best players in the Spanish or English soccer league just because the teams from those inferior leagues manage to pull an upset in a European competition once in a while.

It’s a though that only comes from the emotion of being from that country that has zero logic or merit to it.

The narrative of this Finnish gold medal being a miracle wouldn’t exist if the level of players from were anywhere near being close to each other.

The thing is that I don't even admit that there is a massive difference between the best 1st line NHL players and the best 2nd and 3rd line players in the NHL. Mostly it is about those players getting the right opportunities and pleasing the eye and the mind of their present coach.

Hockey is in general a very evenly distributed game in talent nowadays. That's why there isn't any generational talents at the moment, hasn't been for two decades already, and most probaby won't be in the future, unless there happens some really drastic change in the rules or the setup in some other very meaningful area of game. Some of the hockey people are completely blinded by the three "magical" letters NHL and the points amounts that have been scored by individual players per seasons in the divine NHL. Those points show in general very badly really what kind of skill differences there are between the players inside the NHL and also between the NHL and other top leagues in the world. It's a very tight and even sport between the year by year more widely spred talent pools around the world, with width of talent, tactical understanding of the game and very even physical attributes in general.

 

[The Cannon of Tesoma]

We must always remember that by default almost all Finnish players in NHL have been FEL players before their NHL careers. They have been products of FEL, before getting coup'd by NHL teams: thus continuous export of players from FEL systematically lower the average quality of FEL player pool.

Considering the size of overall Finnish player pool, and ratio and proportion of people entering to NHL from FEL, it would be idiotic to claim that FEL's quality is "massively" lower. If it would, such escape of skill to NHL wouldn't be even possible.

How many rank-and-file FEL players could've make decent NHL career without some - often also out-of-hockey - reason they didn't manage establish them enough fast there and succumbed then to competition and voluntarily made their own choice to move onward rather than keep trying there?

 

[Ippenator]

I think Ippenator is right and wrong in his viewpoint. I do agree the play of the average player between the European domestic leagues and the N.H.L there is not a whole lot of difference like you mention here, minimal really. But the top end talent? yeah there is. A best of N.H.L squad I think would decimate a best of European domestic league team.

Most probably they would, as the whole team would consist of at least by some margin better players than the other team. At least with similar class of coaching it should be quite likely that the NHL team would win, at least in most played games. Maybe not in all games though, if they were to play several games. But most likely they would win most of the games clearly. Still that doesn't mean in my opinion that the talent difference is massive. To me massive is really an enormous difference, and I honestly don't see that still as the difference between the top players in the NHL and in top European leagues.

 

[koyvoo]

The thing is that I don't even admit that there is a massive difference between the best 1st line NHL players and the best 2nd and 3rd line players in the NHL. Mostly it is about those players getting the right opportunities and pleasing the eye and the mind of their present coach.

Hockey is in general a very evenly distributed game in talent nowadays. That's why there isn't any generational talents at the moment, hasn't been for two decades already, and most probaby won't be in the future, unless there happens some really drastic change in the rules or the setup in some other very meaningful area of game. Some of the hockey people are completely blinded byt the three "magical" letters NHL and the points amounts that have been scored by individual players per seasons in the divine NHL. Those points show in general very badly really what kind of skill differences there are between the players inside the NHL and also between the NHL and other top leagues in the world. It's a very tight and even sport between the year by year more widely spred talent pools aroung the world, with width of talent, tactical understanding of the game and very even physical attributes in general.

Man, for about 2/3 of NHL teams there is a big difference in skill between top line players and 2nd or 3rd line players. It may be close for a few teams with great depth or an above average number of star players, but for most teams in the league there is a noticeable difference. Just go team by team through thier depth charts when have a few minutes, and if it isn’t clear to you, I wouldn’t know what to say.

You also need to stop thinking people are so simple to be fooled by perceived gimmicks. Who’s media brainwashed you into believing that? Most even halfway knowledgeable now thst a 100 point NHL season does not equate to being 2x as good as a 50 point season in a euro league. Do really think most people think that? It’s either you really believe most people are overly simple or you believe yourself to be overly intelligent, neither of which would suggest actual intelligence

 

[Ippenator]

Man, for about 2/3 of NHL teams there is a big difference in skill between top line players and 2nd or 3rd line players. It may be close for a few teams with great depth or an above average number of star players, but for most teams in the league there is a noticeable difference. Just go team by team through thier depth charts when have a few minutes, and if it isn’t clear to you, I wouldn’t know what to say.

You also need to stop thinking people are so simple to be fooled by perceived gimmicks. Who’s media brainwashed you into believing that? Most even halfway knowledgeable now thst a 100 point NHL season does not equate to being 2x as good as a 50 point season in a euro league. Do really think most people think that? It’s either you really believe most people are overly simple or you believe yourself to be overly intelligent, neither of which would suggest actual intelligence

Now your arguments are going to constant strawmen created by yourself. Which means that our debate is over.

 

[koyvoo]

Now your arguments are going to constant strawmen created by yourself. Which means that our debate is over.

I’m thinking you don’t fully understand what a straw man argument is. Anyhow, I’m fine with the discussion being over.

 

[jj cale]

Most probably they would, as the whole team would consist of at least by some margin better players than the other team. At least with similar class of coaching it should be quite likely that the NHL team would win, at least in most played games. Maybe not in all games though, if they were to play several games. But most likely they would win most of the games clearly. Still that doesn't mean in my opinion that the talent difference is massive. To me massive is really an enormous difference, and I honestly don't see that still as the difference between the top players in the NHL and in top European leagues.

I would have to agree there is not a massive difference, I would say sizeable but not massive.

I think in a best of seven series played between the best of those two groups ten times the NHL likely wins all of them or maybe loses one series but the games wouldn't be blowouts all the time or anything like that, there would be close games. So sizeable not massive IMO.

 

[The Cannon of Tesoma]

Let's imagine NHL Franchise Helsinki Northern Ragtags and Liiga as its AHL-farm team reserve, Mestis as its ECHL team reserve. In such team would have few stars on level of like Rantanen, Aho, Rask, and few lesser stars while rest of the roster would be composed from above average FEL-franchise players. Finnish Coaching staff and culture. Note that this would include whole Finland as the team's market area from which it draws players, thats still smaller than several markets of various NHL Franchises.

Do you think that such kind Team would be perennially out of NHL playoffs, struggling at regular season standings 25-30?

I do not!

 

[Ippenator]

I would have to agree there is not a massive difference, I would say sizeable but not massive.

I think in a best of seven series played between the best of those two groups ten times the NHL likely wins all of them or maybe loses one series but the games wouldn't be blowouts all the time or anything like that, there would be close games. So sizeable not massive IMO.

this is a bit of semantics already, but for me the right word would be visible. The difference is to me clearly visible but definitely not massive, and not in my opinion even really sizeable.

 

[Backcheckmonster3]

If that was true yes,but only because he would have made all the other countless saves. And those were the saves that mattered, not the fictional neutral zone shot, the real ones he stopped(and there was a load of them)...................that in the end was the difference in the game. Fictional saves or goals don't count, only real ones do.

I don't deal in fiction.

There is no reason not to call it as it is.The guy just wouldn't break, masterful performance.Was he the sole reason they won? no, but he was the biggest reason no question.Anything less then what he did and they don't win that game most likely.

But as I said, the goaltender is part of the team, it does not make their victory any less worthy, I already said that. I mean, in the W.J.C in 1993 in Gavle Canada can kiss gold goodbye if Legace doesn't make countless amazing saves against the Swedes, it just doesn't happen.

It works both ways.

Me neither, that´s why i corrected you.

However i do agree with most things you say.

 

[Hanji]

Team Finland was fantastic, but lets be honest, 9 out of 10 times they would have lost to Russia or Canada. All the puck luck aligned for them. The Sweden game was surprisingly even.

Finland would've lost 9 times out of 10?

They beat Canada twice, outscoring them 6-2. It takes more than luck to do that.

 

[Ippenator]

I’m thinking you don’t fully understand what a straw man argument is. Anyhow, I’m fine with the discussion being over.

Oh, really? Read here and then read your straw men filled posts...

The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:

1. Person 1 asserts proposition X.
2. Person 2 argues against a superficially similar proposition Y, falsely, as if an argument against Y were an argument against X.

This reasoning is a fallacy of relevance: it fails to address the proposition in question by misrepresenting the opposing position.
For example:

• Quoting an opponent's words out of context—i.e., choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent's intentions (see fallacy of quoting out of context).[3]
• Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then denying that person's arguments—thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.[2]
• Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.
• Exaggerating (sometimes grossly exaggerating) an opponent's argument, then attacking this exaggerated version.

 

[koyvoo]

Oh, really? Read here and then read your straw men filled posts...

The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:

1. Person 1 asserts proposition X.
2. Person 2 argues against a superficially similar proposition Y, falsely, as if an argument against Y were an argument against X.

This reasoning is a fallacy of relevance: it fails to address the proposition in question by misrepresenting the opposing position.
For example:

• Quoting an opponent's words out of context—i.e., choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent's intentions (see fallacy of quoting out of context).[3]
• Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then denying that person's arguments—thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.[2]
• Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.
• Exaggerating (sometimes grossly exaggerating) an opponent's argument, then attacking this exaggerated version.

And in my disagreeing that there is a clear difference in talent generally between NHL 1st liners and 2nd or 3rd lines there is none of that.

Neither is there when I say thst your post clearly indicates that you feel most people think that a 100 point NHL season must mean that its 2x as impressive as a 50 point season in a euro league. That is clearly what you implied.

The actual straw man is in this very post of yours I’m quoting now.

 

[The Cannon of Tesoma]

Oh come on guys. Its obvious that Team Finland got some advantage in this tournament for their core being able to train and prepare those several weeks before the D-Day.

No way even Jalonen could just pick some random guys all around European leagues and make it work as a Team in few days. No way.

It can be argued that indeed in this rare case preparation trumped the skill, as that's exactly what happened. Factually. In hindsight.

 

[BullLund]

Goaltending can sometimes trump everything.

Lankinen did an amazing job when it mattered most, considering that he had been a bit shaky before the games against Russia and Canada.

 

[Ippenator]

Neither is there when I say thst your post clearly indicates that you feel most people think that a 100 point NHL season must mean that its 2x as impressive as a 50 point season in a euro league. That is clearly what you implied.

So you don’t yourself have a clue of what a straw man really is in debating. It became very clear and obvious to me now. As this quoted text right here is the clearest and worst kind of a straw man that you can create on these boards. A very classsic example indeed...

 

[koyvoo]

So you don’t yourself have a clue of what a straw man really is in debating. It became very clear and obvious to me now. As this quoted text right here is the clearest and worst kind of a straw man that you can create on these boards. A very classsic example indeed...

No, read your post again. You go further than implying it, you suggest it strongly by saying that most people get dazzled by “magical three letters NHL” and by gaudy point totals in relation to totals in euro leagues.

 

[Ippenator]

No, read your post again. You go further than implying it, you suggest it strongly by saying that most people get dazzled by “magical three letters NHL” and by gaudy point totals in relation to totals in euro leagues.

I still didn’t claim anything like what you put there. About 100 points NHL season being two times more impressive than a 50 points season in Liiga. Or that any people would be thinking like that. You yourself claimed for me to be saying that. So you created a very classic and poor straw man, by proposterously exaggerating and taking out of context what I had posted before. I posted exactly, that most Finnish top NHL players would most probably get around 70 points or even less in a full Liiga season. And maybe someone more, but that I’m practically sure that none of them would get over 85 points. What I said has nothing to do with what you claimed me saying with your classic straw man.

Seriously, just take the lesson, and try to learn first what a straw man is in an argument. Then when you learn what it is, you can start learning how to not create them anymore. They are the worst kind of debating and you will lose all your credibility, if you keep on creating them like you have done here now.