I don't understand this "embarrassed" thing. Are some of you aware that what matters is whether you win or lose, not how low-scoring you are?
Like, if you win 12-9 or 2-1, it's the same thing. You win.
In Edmonton's case, I would argue that in the playoffs so far, they've managed to find ways to score a lot as the way to compensate for their defensive averageness and utterly unpredictable goaltending.
If you score your way to a win... You still win.
For me, I am aware that I care about how my team plays and wins. The Avalanche had an excellent regular season record maybe 7-8-ish years ago for example. They won a ton of games. I was not impressed with the team at all, and did not feel they were much of a playoff threat.
Or how about the Flyers the last time they qualified for the playoffs. They struggled against what I thought was a not very strong Montreal team, and Scott Laughton was one of the most pivotal goal scorers/series changers. Things like this concerned me with Philly, I am not super stoked when I think a team looks bad and really sloppy, when some good luck, some unsustainable production, awful streaks of play from the opponent, etc. Are giant contributing factors.
That's just me. I get it, for many people if a team wins they are happy, nothing else matters. If the team is a steaming pile of dog shit and manage to get a win, the stance is to change nothing about the team because nothing is wrong or concerning. Also confidence going forward is super high, because they won. And if a team loses, blow up the core because they suck, and such.
It's just my feelings. When I think a team plays really concerning hockey and has a ton of issues, regardless of a win or loss, I will be concerned about them going forward on account of the tons of issues.
But yes. If you win the cup, that is all that matters. However, I care about a team actually being good and reliable when they are trying to win a cup. So win or lose, I value whether they are actually doing well or not, and whether it is encouraging or not, going forward.
I never said anything about low scoring. Lol this is the Avs vs Oilers. It might be a low scoring or moderate scoring affair, but I am leaning towards expecting it to be a high scoring affair. The score of a game does not inform me as to how either team played. Their play does.
Yes, a 12-9 win with zero context or a 2-1 win with zero context are the same. And in any context they are both a win.
I can however be concerned or not happy with a 2-1 win, or concerned or not happy with a 19-9 win. And I can be happy and not concerned with a 2-1 loss, or with a 12-9 loss. Some 12-9 wins or losses will be some ways, some 2-1 wins or losses will be other ways. The score has nothing to do with it, without seeing the game.
Yes, I don't think anyone would argue with your statement about the Oilers' means of winning thus far. I think they would be pretty foolish to not try to win via heavy offensive production to compensate for other areas. I mean, what, should the Oilers attempt a hardcore, conservative defensive system or something and not play to their strengths? No, I don't think that is wise. And maybe people think Hyman is a lock for 5+ goals vs Colorado, and Kane can't be a liability off the ice, and him having 0 games with 1 goal, but still having the biggest goal pace since Ovie when he won the cup isn't a sign of streakiness and a mark of uncertainty to rely upon, and maybe people think McDavid who has already been very very good but is now playing the best hockey of his career and from game 3 on took control of the cinderella story to make the playoffs kings to a game 7 win, and went on to put up early 80s Gretzky numbers, is reasonable to rely upon continuing. Maybe the terrible plays from Kane, Nurse, Kassian, etc. Are all attentuated by perfectly sustainable production, not at all affected by a swiss cheese glove hand or a flames team making brutal mistakes regularly. Maybe people expect Kane is a lock for a few hat tricks, Hyman is a lock for a half dozen goals, McDrai are locks 2-3+ pts per game, etc. I however think those things are not guarentees. And I hope the series isn't the sloppiest series of the playoffs. I think the oilers ideally would have some structure, would have some discipline, would have some ability to compete up and down the line up when an opposing team is not playing really badly, as a few things.
I don't care what the score is. You can have a 1-0 in 7th OT game that is a circus (be it entertaining or not), and a 19-17 game that is a circus, which will be entertaining for sure (unless you are a fan of one of the teams, though, if you are a fan of the winning team, no matter how awful they are, some may be happy and pleased with the team moving forward because they won).
Lastly: yes, if you score your way to a win, you still win. In fact, it is the only way to win. Barring shoot-out wins in the regular season, you literally cannot win a game without scoring. This is how hockey works. The team who scores the most goals wins. And I think the team matters for the future. Otherwise I could be in a coma for 20 years, wake up and look at the regular season stats 20 years from now. And then tell you my strong feelings about a team based solely on their win/loss record, and make predictions about them moving forward, and say if they were looking good or not. I would prefer also paying attention to if a team is playing good or not, though. And how they are winning by outscoring a specific opponent in a specific time period, not simply if they did or did not.
