Thats not true though. Every player has a role they are good at and any good coach will use them to the best of their abilities. You don't just send them out there and say "do whatever you want, I don't care" You pair them with people who can help them and compliment their abilities. This is why Neal was with Geno instead of Sid. Neal was the best winger on the pens but they didn't put him on the top line because his abilities were more suited for the line with Geno. There will always be role players on every team. Some roles will fade into not being important like a goon. Others are absolutely needed like a big bodied guy who can hold his ground when screening the goalie. If you have to much of the same thing it will cause it will have people on the same team working against each other by accident.
- Zac_O

It's true in the sense that their individual strengths aren't going to override their positional responsibilities. If the puck goes from down low in one corner to the point on the opposite side, it's not like Hornqvist is going to be standing in front the entire time because that is his defined role. Having more players that crash the net hard is not going to be an issue on the same line.

Well, like Zac said, there is only so much room in front of the net. I am of the opinion that every line needs a guy whose role it is to camp out in front of the net (and similarly ever defensive pairing needs a guy who can clear the front of the net). With what is allowed in today's NHL, the days of tic-tac-toe passing leading to goals are all but over. Not to mention that defenses and goalies are too good to get beaten by these kinds of plays that the Pens always seem to be trying to set up. Instead, goals are increasingly being scored by screens, tips, and rebounds. Having defined roles means there is no question or confusion as to where everyone should be. And if you have two guys in front of the net it means you don't have anyone in the slot or faceoff circle, not to mention you have two forwards deep which can lead to counter attacks the other way.
- thevelvetfog1

I'm not a firm believer in having a net front guy per line but I am a huge believer in game meshing. For my salt, the best mesh of players for a scoring line is NF-PLY-SNP. I'm also a big fan of lines that have three extremely good forecheckers. Even if they're not talented scores, they can keep cycling the puck in the offensive zone to no end and wear down the opposition until the big guns are rested. Basically what Cooke-Staal-Kennedy were and what people though Glass-Vitale-Adams were but weren't.

Ty, the Boston blogger has his Bruins all time team. I think ours would destroy the Boston one to be honest. Who's on yours? Mine is:
Line 1
Crosby Lemieux Jagr
Coffey Letang
Line 2
Recchi Malkin K. Stevens
L. Murphy Zubov
Line 3
Tocchet Francis Kessel
Gonchar U. Samuelson
Line 4
A. Kovalev Straka Kunitz
Goalies- Barasso and the 2007-2009 Fleury
- Dcoms

Do we have to take into account at what stage in their careers they were at when they played in Pittsburgh or is it the players at their peak? If it's at their peak replace Straka and Kunitz with Trottier and Robitaille (and flip Kovalev and Robitaille)....and maybe replace Ulf with Carlyle

It's true in the sense that their individual strengths aren't going to override their positional responsibilities. If the puck goes from down low in one corner to the point on the opposite side, it's not like Hornqvist is going to be standing in front the entire time because that is his defined role. Having more players that crash the net hard is not going to be an issue on the same line.
- jfkst1

It's true in the sense that their individual strengths aren't going to override their positional responsibilities. If the puck goes from down low in one corner to the point on the opposite side, it's not like Hornqvist is going to be standing in front the entire time because that is his defined role. Having more players that crash the net hard is not going to be an issue on the same line.
- jfkst1

I have no doubt they would be able to still do their positional duties. But when Geno has the puck in the top of the slot and both Horny and Plot go to screen the goalie (which is what they will do because its been what they do for a long time now) they will just get into each others way and be more likely to block a teammates shot. On top of that it'll leave two players deep in the offensive zone instead of just half way in making it more likely for the other team to have a break away if a turn over occurs. With Kessel being on Sids line and Geno wanting Plotnikov on his line this could be soemthing to watch out for.

Take Stevens off the Line 2, move Recchi to the right side, and put Luc Robitaille on the left wing.

Also, remove Kunitz and add Joey Mullen on Line 4.
- cap1681

Robitaille was done by the time he came to Pittsburgh. Stevens was a goal scoring machine, and he was tough too, no way I would take him off for Robitaille. And Mullen, I guess there's an argument there, but meh.

[quote=willi]
Do we have to take into account at what stage in their careers they were at when they played in Pittsburgh or is it the players at their peak? If it's at their peak replace Straka and Kunitz with Trottier and Robitaille (and flip Kovalev and Robitaille)....and maybe replace Ulf with Carlyle
Will

Has to be the player they were when they played for the team and has to be the moder era (1980-present.) Trottier and Robitaille were not so great by the time they got here, role players at best

Robitaille was done by the time he came to Pittsburgh. Stevens was a goal scoring machine, and he was tough too, no way I would take him off for Robitaille. And Mullen, I guess there's an argument there, but meh.
- Dcoms

Stevens had 2 50 goal +110 point seasons and he was a beast

Do we have to take into account at what stage in their careers they were at when they played in Pittsburgh or is it the players at their peak? If it's at their peak replace Straka and Kunitz with Trottier and Robitaille (and flip Kovalev and Robitaille)....and maybe replace Ulf with Carlyle
Will

Has to be the player they were when they played for the team and has to be the moder era (1980-present.) Trottier and Robitaille were not so great by the time they got here, role players at best
- Dcoms

Gotcha....agree with your above assessment of Stevens. He had 4 or 5 monster season in Pittsburgh. Loved the way he played

Do we have to take into account at what stage in their careers they were at when they played in Pittsburgh or is it the players at their peak? If it's at their peak replace Straka and Kunitz with Trottier and Robitaille (and flip Kovalev and Robitaille)....and maybe replace Ulf with Carlyle
Will

Has to be the player they were when they played for the team and has to be the moder era (1980-present.) Trottier and Robitaille were not so great by the time they got here, role players at best
- Dcoms

Two players that played into the 80's that were great players was Dave Burrows (although he played his last season in 81 for the Pens) and Rick Kehoe (played until '85).

Both of those guys were GREAT Penguin players.

Too bad we didn't keep Naslund.

Gotcha....agree with your above assessment of Stevens. He had 4 or 5 monster season in Pittsburgh. Loved the way he played

- willi

I guess Rob Brown, Randy Carlyle, John Cullen, Darius Kasparitis, Robert Lang, Joe Mullen, James Neal, Brooks Orpik(703 games as a Penguin), Jordo Staal, and Rick Tochet are my runner ups/ honorable mentions. It'z carzy how there is exactly 2 and only 2 goalies that matter at all. We must have the worst goaltending depth on our all time team in the whole league. Good thing we have so many guys that are at right about the point per game level which is the stat I used the most. The only defensemen to average more than a PPG was Zubov and obviously Coffey who's point totals most forwards would envy.

Two players that played into the 80's that were great players was Dave Burrows (although he played his last season in 81 for the Pens) and Rick Kehoe (played until '85).

Both of those guys were GREAT Penguin players.

Too bad we didn't keep Naslund.
- madmike71

Burrows had 132 points in 573 games and most of the 10 years he played falls outside of the modern era. Kehoe however had 636 in 722 and had 5 years in the modern era so he would be an honorable mention. And trading Naslund for Stojanov is actually worse than the Despres trade, a lot worse actually.

Aussie come on man. This argument is ludicrous. Doesn't matter how smart you are. Studying increases your chance of passing a test, but you can be dumb as nails and go into a test without studying and guess on everything and still come out with a perfect score, but the chances of that happening are slim to none.

Take two guys of equal intelligence. One studied for three hours and one studied for fifteen minutes. Who do you think has the greater chance of doing well on a multiple choice test? The one that studies. However, the one that studied less can still pull of a better grade by getting incredibly lucky with guessing.

To put it in hockey terms, the amount of time studying is shots generated (possession) and the guessing is shooting percentage. In order for someone who generates less shots to score more goals than someone that generates more shots they need to have an astronomical shooting percentage which comes down to a lot of puck luck.

So in some, a team that benefits from a high shooting percentage (doesn't study) can win a game or more games down a certain stretch than a team that generates more scoring opportunities, but it is largely unsustainable. The Leafs from a few years ago are a wonderful example as well as the recent Montreal teams. That's the point of Corsi. Not determining single games, but determining sustainability in order to better build your team.
- Victoro311

Ok! Now we are putting in parameters.

A 'general' comment was made in regards to studying - more study = better results was what was said?? There was no identification on students intelligence! The smartest student will fair better over a student that has little understanding of a subject no matter how much that student studies. Do you agree with that?

Now seeing the responses of those that commented shows just how the 'non' stat people see 'some' of the comments made by a few of you.

Your general comments on general data - Corsi is formulated exactly the same as +-, are sometimes absurd when not put in their correct parameters of context which occurs regularly.

All players are not equal, all teams are not equal. Nick Spalding may have 10 shots on goal & score zero goals. Sid Crosby may have 1 & score a goal.

Understand what I'm saying?

Wow, you're freaking miserable when wrong. Everyone but you is aware its not an exact science, its a higher probability over the course of a season. Can someone score a goal in one of the first few shots while another team has over ten in the first period with nothing? Yes. Does that make your bitter point correct? No.
- Guile

Some statements I've seen may suggest different opinions!

You were pretty adamant about what you said, so justify your statement with some examples?

A lot of games finish with very similar shots on goal totals but the score is very different. You are taking an event & generalising it's outcome. I'm simply putting it into a more exact statement (& showing you examples), & not 'generalising'. Stats people love generalising when they cannot explain a result they formulate - it's not rocket science - & it's definitely not science!

If more shots on goal = more goals you would most definitely be able to construct a formula & show how many shots it takes to score. You cannot as there are so many other 'events' that need to be taken into account.

You can say that more clouds (I've had a weather discussion about Analytics ), will = more rain. Is that a correct statement? No only 'certain' clouds produce rain & in only certain conditions. More shots = more goals? More clouds = more rain? By your logic it does.

Ok! Now we are putting in parameters.

A 'general' comment was made in regards to studying - more study = better results was what was said?? There was no identification on students intelligence! The smartest student will fair better over a student that has little understanding of a subject no matter how much that student studies. Do you agree with that?

Now seeing the responses of those that commented shows just how the 'non' stat people see 'some' of the comments made by a few of you.

Your general comments on general data - Corsi is formulated exactly the same as +-, are sometimes absurd when not put in their correct parameters of context which occurs regularly.

All players are not equal, all teams are not equal. Nick Spalding may have 10 shots on goal & score zero goals. Sid Crosby may have 1 & score a goal.

Understand what I'm saying?
- Aussiepenguin

Give it up Aussie. Its not this complicated. Its not about comparing Spaling to Crosby. Spaling having 10 shots on goal is more likely to result in a goal than Spaling having 1 shot on goal. And a large sample size is required for these generalizations.

More shots generally mean more goals over a period of time. If you want individual skill sets taken into consideration, include shooting percentage.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/awe-inspiring-close-up-footage-6355925
- Dcoms

I saw that last night after commenting on here! Karl is classic. He has been known to go to the equivalent of the Oscars here & do his morning TV show still drunk - he is a classic!

Give it up Aussie. Its not this complicated. Its not about comparing Spaling to Crosby. Spaling having 10 shots on goal is more likely to result in a goal than Spaling having 1 shot on goal. And a large sample size is required for these generalizations.

More shots generally mean more goals over a period of time. If you want individual skill sets taken into consideration, include shooting percentage.
- YouMeAndDupuis9

We see statistical data differently. I dislike 'general' comments enormously but it seems most here are ok with that. I guess more clouds do really = more rain!