In Yesterday's post, I not only predicted, but guaranteed that the Coyotes would make the playoffs this year. I think I offered up some good reasons, but I am not here to defend them today. The blog provoked an interesting discussion about who has improved in the summer and who has not; who will make the playoffs and why etc.
I thought I would take a deeper look at some of the reasoning behind people's (including my own) thought processes. Not to criticize anyone (they are all general observations about things more than one or two people said) but just to look deeper into our reasoning.
The Coyotes will not make the playoffs because their offense is horrible.
This is a fair criticism, but I would counter by saying that defense and goaltending are far more important than offense. Teams tend to score goals by having a mobile puck moving defense and getting a lot of powerplays.
My argument is that, OK, the Coyotes don't have a lot of (any?) top-flight scorers, but that they will still score enough goals despite this. If you look at team goals for per game from last season, and throw out the best (Anaheim) and worst (Buffalo) what you have is 28 teams who differ on how much they score by less than a goal.
I think this supports my thought that even on teams that don't have top star forwards, guys still tend to make the most of their career high ice times and PP time and put the puck in the net.
My thinking, and I could be wrong, is that defense and goaltending are more important than who your forwards are. Yes, balance is important. but the Coyotes do have guys like Boedker, Domi, Hanzal and Gagner who have real offensive gifts. It says here their superior D and G will be enough to overcome for the lack of star-power.
Other teams improved more than they did.
This might true, but it does raise a point I think is interesting: People seem to overvalue new additions and under value the chance for incumbents to improve.
For example, Jason Spezza and Ryan Kesler. The teams that had to move them don't seem all that upset about it, looking to get value for aging injury-prone stars at the very end of their prime. It's human nature of course, but the optimism about the teams getting these guys does not jive with the possibly more realistic outlook of the teams moving them. Yes, I know they both requested trades, but that doesn't really factor here.
I am not saying that these guys can't be good for their new teams, but just that if you look over the history of NHL trades and free agency, then it is revealed that most people don't live up to the summer time hype when they change teams.
On the other side, there is never any hype about a guy who might improve, because you can really only guess about it. But, it is not unreasonable to, for example, think that OEL, Boedker, and Hanzal, even a good portion of the rest of their team, might offer an internal improvement greater to that of what most other teams acquired over the summer.
Keep in mind though, that I do the same thing, so I am not criticizing this practice, just pointing it out. For example, I am high on Gagner and way more optimistic about his potential since he came to Arizona.
Gagner didn't break out yet, so he never will.
Since the Coyotes have acquired Sam Gagner, I have heard some terrible logic regarding his potential. On one hand, I am biased to think he will be good, and he might not be, but some of the reasoning I've read is pretty weak.
Just because he hasn't broken out yet, doesn't mean he won't. Just because people have predicted great things for him and they haven't happened yet doesn't mean they won't. Being traded doesn't mean he's worse than you thought - Why is it always "the Oilers gave up on him" rather than "The Coyotes saw something in him"?
Gagner aside, a guy's Norris Trophy voting ranking is not indicative of his value. A guy's deployment on his former team is irrelevant if that team had the worst D in the NHL (See: Gunnarsson, Carl).
The Oilers
I think the Oilers always bring out the worst in people's logic. Just because the Oilers have been bad, doesn't mean they always will be. If you are interested at all in people's tendency to assume the past will always repeat itself, look no further than the Oilers. All you have to do to nearly crash this site is to predict the Oilers will make the playoffs. The fact is, they have a nearly never before seen lineup of young talented players. I don't know if it's because people think it should have already happened or what, but the Oilers are eventually going to be the best team in hockey.
Personally, I think this is the year we see both the Oilers and the Coyotes make the playoffs. The young guys will eventually live up to their potential, and I think this is the year. However, I would be remiss if I didn't end with my worst logical error:
Overrating Youth
For every guy who refuses to believe that last years standings, point totals and results can and will change, there is a guy, like me, who puts way too much stock in a guys potential. Sure, guys will improve, but they can't all do it.
I don't know why, but I've always loved the excitement of potential. Whether it's a high draft pick or a team on the rise, I always have an optimistic outlook. This can be just as big of a weakness as refusing to believe in change. Still, I can't help it. I look at the Coyotes, all I see is potential. I see youth and guys who have high ceilings. I see the same thing on the Oilers.
Actually, maybe I do know why. Take the four professional sports teams I have cheered for and what you have is 2 Championships (Blue Jays, 1992,1993) over 80 odd seasons.
Being optimistic is all I got.
Thanks for reading.