No, not just me. Make no mistake that the brass and GM's of a team have goals for a club and the players know it too. Some team's goals in a year are to simply make the playoffs. Some teams are to win a round and some team's goal is to win the cup. There in lies the different levels of pressure. Thats not to mention expectations of fans and media pressure with respect to those scenarios.

What you're talking about is desire to win. That's two completely different things.
- MattStrat

And once you make the playoffs things are different. YOU EXPECT TO WIN.

Absolutely. The players, GM, and coach all expect to win. But that doesn't mean that the GM goes all-out to construct the best roster possible for the present (i.e. trading away futures for rentals, etc.). Usually, that is only done by the team that are near the top of their division.

Absolutely. The players, GM, and coach all expect to win. But that doesn't mean that the GM goes all-out to construct the best roster possible for the present (i.e. trading away futures for rentals, etc.). Usually, that is only done by the team that are near the top of their division.
- jmatchett383

SJ - Kane
VGK - Tatar
NSH - Turris, Hartman
WPG - Stastny

PIT - Brassard, Sheahan
WSH - Kempny
TBL - McDonugh, Miller

BOS - Nash, Wingels, Holden
TOR - Plekanec

While they are to different degrees all remaining teams in the playoffs made moves to better their teams.

My point stands that this pressure thing is BS.

And once you make the playoffs things are different. YOU EXPECT TO WIN.
- Feds91Stammer

Nah.

SJ - Kane
VGK - Tatar
NSH - Turris, Hartman
WPG - Stastny

PIT - Brassard, Sheahan
WSH - Kempny
TBL - McDonugh, Miller

BOS - Nash, Wingels, Holden
TOR - Plekanec

While they are to different degrees all remaining teams in the playoffs made moves to better their teams.

My point stands that this pressure thing is BS.
- Feds91Stammer

Nah.

Nah.
- MattStrat

- Feds91Stammer

hahah

So you think the organizational , media, player, coach , etc pressure was the exact same for the Preds and Avs in round 1?

hahah

So you think the organizational , media, player, coach , etc pressure was the exact same for the Preds and Avs in round 1?
- MattStrat

@Machette: Because individual play doesn't equal team play. I'd say its no different than if a skater willed a team to victory. Take a hypothetical where the Caps are killing the Penguins shift in and shift out and put up 5 goals, but Sid is on his game and scores 4 goals on his own and the Pens win 6-5. I think its totally valid to say the Caps in general outplayed the Pens but couldn't stop Sid whenever he was on the ice. Same goes for goaltending. If a goaltender's epic game single handily gave his team a W despite his team in front of him getting hemmed into the D zone for the majority of the game, I think its more accurate to say that the goalie won the game rather than the apposing team got outplayed.

SJ - Kane
VGK - Tatar
NSH - Turris, Hartman
WPG - Stastny

PIT - Brassard, Sheahan
WSH - Kempny
TBL - McDonugh, Miller

BOS - Nash, Wingels, Holden
TOR - Plekanec

While they are to different degrees all remaining teams in the playoffs made moves to better their teams.

My point stands that this pressure thing is BS.
- Feds91Stammer

And all of those teams I think are legit contenders. If you'd asked me if I thought it was absurd to have any of them in the SCF, I'd say no.

Now, if you had Philly giving away first rounders/top prospects for short-term gains, I'd say it was horrible management, because they're more than 1 piece away from being a true contender. Same for Colorado and New Jersey,

But I agree on the "pressure" part.

@Machette: Because individual play doesn't equal team play. I'd say its no different than if a skater willed a team to victory. Take a hypothetical where the Caps are killing the Penguins shift in and shift out and put up 5 goals, but Sid is on his game and scores 4 goals on his own and the Pens win 6-5. I think its totally valid to say the Caps in general outplayed the Pens but couldn't stop Sid whenever he was on the ice. Same goes for goaltending. If a goaltender's epic game single handily gave his team a W despite his team in front of him getting hemmed into the D zone for the majority of the game, I think its more accurate to say that the goalie won the game rather than the apposing team got outplayed.
- Victoro311

So when you say a team was "outplayed", you mean that the opposing team had more shot attempts? I'd call that the other team having more shot attempts.

Teams are made up of individuals. A team is the collected efforts of the individuals. So if one member of the team is able to give his team an insurmountable advantage, I'd say that his team is the better team, whether that be a skater or goalie.

That's just my view on it.

I think the Penguins can overcome a Malkin injury but it would be tough and obviously the margin from there becomes thin. Rowney won't (or shouldn't) play much so the top 3 centers would all play more. As long as we can avoid back to backs and overtime I really don't think it would be all that bad. Personally, I have and have had a ton of faith in Sheahan. I like his game and I think our top 3 lines are all effective right now and should all be positive against the Caps at 5v5. Hopefully our special teams is clicking and we roll

hahah

So you think the organizational , media, player, coach , etc pressure was the exact same for the Preds and Avs in round 1?
- MattStrat

Nope. Never said that either....

Nope. Never said that either....
- Feds91Stammer

Seems like the pressure is on to explain yourself.

Again, I ask the question: Why are goaltenders not considered part of a team? If they outplayed the Penguins, they would have scored more goals than the Penguins in more games.

Did they have a heavy advantage is shots and puck possession time: absolutely. Does that often contribute to winning: again, absolutely. But one of the biggest parts of your team outplaying the other team has to do with how well your goalie plays compared to the other team's goalie. Last year, the Penguins' team outscored the Capitals team in 4 out of 7 games, and that is why they were the better team (IMO).
- jmatchett383

I don't subscribe to that. Why we do hear countless sound-bytes of players saying (for example):"Freddy really stole one for us tonight" or "Mason kept us in it".

It's because on-the-whole, these players know they were outplayed. If you play any team sport, you know there are games that you win, where you probably 'should have' lost, but you don't...and the reverse of that (more frustrating).

Goaltender is a unique position that can dramatically impact the outcome of a game, even when the rest of the team is being visibly abused.

Does that negate the fact hypothetical tender's team got a beat-down? No, and they definitely weren't the 'better' team, they just managed to score more/claw their way to a shoot-out.

Take this last series, Caps outplayed the Jackets in games 1 and 2, they weren't the best team game 3, and the Jackets were by far the better team in game 4 or 5?

My point, is that being outplayed, does not translate to losing, when it occurs in a small sample like a playoff series. Hence playoff drama, excitement, whatever...

Over 82 games, teams that get outplayed on average, slowly sink down the standings.

Caps in 5 (lol) if they can outscore the Antarctic Chickens.

So when you say a team was "outplayed", you mean that the opposing team had more shot attempts? I'd call that the other team having more shot attempts.

Teams are made up of individuals. A team is the collected efforts of the individuals. So if one member of the team is able to give his team an insurmountable advantage, I'd say that his team is the better team, whether that be a skater or goalie.

That's just my view on it.
- jmatchett383

I'd say outplayed is more than just shot attempts. I think that you get out played if for the majority of the game you can't exit your zone and create a sustained offensive cycle. Obviously shot attempts are a big indicator of that but not the only vital part.

Your last point is valid, I just disagree with it. I think you're perfectly capable of outplaying a team and get beat by one guy.

I don't subscribe to that. Why we do hear countless sound-bytes of players saying (for example):"Freddy really stole one for us tonight" or "Mason kept us in it".

It's because on-the-whole, these players know they were outplayed. If you play any team sport, you know there are games that you win, where you probably 'should have' lost, but you don't...and the reverse of that (more frustrating).

Goaltender is a unique position that can dramatically impact the outcome of a game, even when the rest of the team is being visibly abused.

Does that negate the fact hypothetical tender's team got a beat-down? No, and they definitely weren't the 'better' team, they just managed to score more/claw their way to a shoot-out.

Take this last series, Caps outplayed the Jackets in games 1 and 2, they weren't the best team game 3, and the Jackets were by far the better team in game 4 or 5?

My point, is that being outplayed, does not translate to losing, when it occurs in a small sample like a playoff series. Hence playoff drama, excitement, whatever...

Over 82 games, teams that get outplayed on average, slowly sink down the standings.

Caps in 5 (lol) if they can outscore the Antarctic Chickens.
- ghostibator

So to you, define being "outplayed." Is it giving up more shots? The other team possessing the puck more? Having a higher CF%?

To me, these are all indicators that one team has a higher probability, all things equal of winning more often. But I wouldn't consider that "outplaying" them because in hockey, things are not all equal.

So to you, define being "outplayed." Is it giving up more shots? The other team possessing the puck more? Having a higher CF%?

To me, these are all indicators that one team has a higher probability, all things equal of winning more often. But I wouldn't consider that "outplaying" them because in hockey, things are not all equal.
- jmatchett383

By this premise its totally pointless to even discus game flow because the only measure of whether or not you had the better of it is if you won or not. I don't totally dismiss this train of thought, but I do believe its boring and not nuanced.

I'd say outplayed is more than just shot attempts. I think that you get out played if for the majority of the game you can't exit your zone and create a sustained offensive cycle. Obviously shot attempts are a big indicator of that but not the only vital part.

Your last point is valid, I just disagree with it. I think you're perfectly capable of outplaying a team and get beat by one guy.
- Victoro311

Well, take the mid-90's Devils. They'd regularly get outshot/outchanced/etc. But they limited the shots to the outside, they had a goalie who could erase most of the mistakes, and they were incredibly opportunistic with their counter-rushes.

So basically, their game plan to winning was to be "outplayed" because their system was built around it.

By this premise its totally pointless to even discus game flow because the only measure of whether or not you had the better of it is if you won or not. I don't totally dismiss this train of thought, but I do believe its boring and not nuanced.
- Victoro311

I'm just old-fashioned. I think that the "possession" metrics are a useful tool, but I don't think they're an indicator of which team was better without putting some context behind them.

If one team takes 50 slap shots from the slot and miss the net on all 50, and the other team takes 5 slap shot from the slot and scores on all of them, I'd say the team that took the 5 was better at that particular metric, because simply being in a good scoring position does not necessarily make you a better player/team.

So essentially, you can discuss game flow to show which team's skaters were dictating the pace of the game, but it is not indicative of which team did a better job of playing.

Well, take the mid-90's Devils. They'd regularly get outshot/outchanced/etc. But they limited the shots to the outside, they had a goalie who could erase most of the mistakes, and they were incredibly opportunistic with their counter-rushes.

So basically, their game plan to winning was to be "outplayed" because their system was built around it.
- jmatchett383

Not all scoring chances are created equal.

Is there a stat that shows how often a team beats other teams to the puck?

Is there a stat that shows how often they turn turnovers into scoring chances or goals, or just basically how opportunistic a team is?

Possession is/can be a flawed stat. Do they time how long a team spends in theirs or the other team's end?

Say the Pens spend two minutes in the attacking zone with no scoring chances, didn't they still outplay the opposition for that moment?

Well, take the mid-90's Devils. They'd regularly get outshot/outchanced/etc. But they limited the shots to the outside, they had a goalie who could erase most of the mistakes, and they were incredibly opportunistic with their counter-rushes.

So basically, their game plan to winning was to be "outplayed" because their system was built around it.
- jmatchett383

They also had one of the best goalies of all time who was capable of sustaining that type of play similar to the early aught teen Rangers. I think when you have a goalie that can do that on a night in, night out, year in, year out biases, the conversation shifts somewhat because its something that both coaches have to expect and scheme around.

My point is when random variance sets in that you can't and shouldn't scheme around. Crosby is great, but you can't expect a 5 goal performance every night from him. Holtby is great, but I don't think Trotz schemes around allowing 47 shots through and trusting Holtby to stop 45 of them. I think that if the skaters underperform their game scheme, which usually involves shot suppression and sustained offensive zone cycling, and allows the other team to succeed at theirs, they got outplayed regardless of how well some of their individuals play.

Not all scoring chances are created equal.

Is there a stat that shows how often a team beats other teams to the puck?

Is there a stat that shows how often they turn turnovers into scoring chances or goals, or just basically how opportunistic a team is?

Possession is/can be a flawed stat. Do they time how long a team spends in theirs or the other team's end?

Say the Pens spend two minutes in the attacking zone with no scoring chances, didn't they still outplay the opposition for that moment?
- Rinosaur

Now, granted, if you outchance a team by a 3:1 ratio but lose 3-2 because the other team tried icing the puck and it takes a funny bounce and catches the goalie sleeping for one goal, and a wrister from the blue line goes off a defender's skate and ends up 2 feet to the left of where it's going, yeah, that's luck. Technically, I don't even think those would count as "scoring chances", which seems very counter-intuitive to me.

Now, granted, if you outchance a team by a 3:1 ratio but lose 3-2 because the other team tried icing the puck and it takes a funny bounce and catches the goalie sleeping for one goal, and a wrister from the blue line goes off a defender's skate and ends up 2 feet to the left of where it's going, yeah, that's luck. Technically, I don't even think those would count as "scoring chances", which seems very counter-intuitive to me.
- jmatchett383

As I think you stated earlier, all these metrics when are in favor of one team it shows a higher probability for success, but they don't paint the full picture.

There are plenty of times I've watched games where one team is losing the stats battle, but the eye test appears totally different.

They also had one of the best goalies of all time who was capable of sustaining that type of play similar to the early aught teen Rangers. I think when you have a goalie that can do that on a night in, night out, year in, year out biases, the conversation shifts somewhat because its something that both coaches have to expect and scheme around.

My point is when random variance sets in that you can't and shouldn't scheme around. Crosby is great, but you can't expect a 5 goal performance every night from him. Holtby is great, but I don't think Trotz schemes around allowing 47 shots through and trusting Holtby to stop 45 of them. I think that if the skaters underperform their game scheme, which usually involves shot suppression and sustained offensive zone cycling, and allows the other team to succeed at theirs, they got outplayed regardless of how well some of their individuals play.
- Victoro311

And again, I would agree that, especially in a short sample like a playoff series, funny bounces and players playing above/below their norm are going to be factors. I do no believe that "luck" does not exist, simply that it can't be quantified.

As for the examples you gave, I would concede that, in general, the one team's skaters out played the other team's skaters, yes. But I still consider the performance of the goalie a critical part in the team as a whole.

That may seem like splitting hairs, but that's where I stand.