Goaltending stats are just as much of a team stat as +/-.
- Thunderbolt

So, really, there's little difference between Andrei Vasilveskiy and Antti Niemi?

I don't get this. Why are goalies, possibly the most important part of a team, not considered to be part of the team?

I'd say the Penguins are lucky that they have a player who has enough skill to put up 4 points any given night and a goalie with enough skill to tip their scales most nights.

Now, if they are winning games 4-3 because Tom Kuhnackle scores a hat trick and their 3rd string goalie stop 57 of 60 shots, I'd call that luck. But I wouldn't expect that to be the norm over a best-of-7 series, let alone 4 of them.
- jmatchett383

Crosby doesn't put up 4 point games all the time either though.

So his 4 point game occurring in a 5-4 win rather than a 5-1 win is kind of lucky as well.

Crosby doesn't put up 4 point games all the time either though.

So his 4 point game occurring in a 5-4 win rather than a 5-1 win is kind of lucky as well.
- Feds91Stammer

And he doesn't score 2 points every game either. So I guess any time he scores 2 points is pure luck as well, no?

My point is, over the long haul, you can must have skill as well as some luck to win. If you ran out an ECHL team for an entire NHL schedule, no amount of luck is going to get them the Cup.

Not even sure if you're serious LOL

Steen has to be one of the worst contracts around.
- Rinosaur

The major piece in that deal was Kostin. Steen would be a fine middle 6er.

And he'd still be their best defenseman.

I guess the only solution is to go trade for Victor Hedman.
- jmatchett383

I dunno if I'd consider Hamilton better than Letang. I'd probably throw em into the same tier.

And he doesn't score 2 points every game either. So I guess any time he scores 2 points is pure luck as well, no?
- jmatchett383

Never said 4 points was pure luck... Don't know where you get that from.

Never said 4 points was pure luck... Don't know where you get that from.
- Feds91Stammer

No, you implied that it was. What else would you call something happening outside of the norm?

Either way, the point is that, aside from a very short sample, skill will beat luck in the end.

I also dispute that the term "luck" can be quantified.

You're giving one game examples, which of course exists in hockey, but your examples aren't great to begin with. If Murray outplays the other goalie and they win, unless the other team has hit a bunch of posts, then that's simply a key player of a team out-playing the other team The goalie is part of the team. If Crosby has all of the points, does it matter? He's part of the team too. Why didn't the other team's top line match that?

And no team is getting through a 16 win postseason on luck.
- schwipp

So you're telling me that you evaluate teams solely on wins and losses? You don't look at a game and have the ability to recognize that an individual performance elevated the team to a victory? You would tell me that JUST because Murray stood on his head and the Pens won that they played great or to a lesser extent, outplayed the other team? You would tell me that just because Geno had 4 points in a 4-3 win that the Pens overall as a team played better because Geno went Geno Machino?

Seems foolish.

So you're telling me that you evaluate teams solely on wins and losses? You don't look at a game and have the ability to recognize that an individual performance elevated the team to a victory? You would tell me that JUST because Murray stood on his head and the Pens won that they played great or to a lesser extent, outplayed the other team? You would tell me that just because Geno had 4 points in a 4-3 win that the Pens overall as a team played better because Geno went Geno Machino?

Seems foolish.
- j.boyd919

When I consider a team, I count all 19 (sometimes 20) players who played. So if Murray played well and they won, despite what the 18 skaters on each team did, then I would say that the Penguins were better, because their team as a whole was better at scoring and preventing goals.

I understand the process vs. result argument, and in an ideal world where everything is equal, it holds up perfectly. And I think that we can all agree that players can have individual or small stretches where they get very hot or cold, you can call them luck.

However, I still argue that, to win more than a small handful of games, you generally have to have more skill than luck.

And he doesn't score 2 points every game either. So I guess any time he scores 2 points is pure luck as well, no?

My point is, over the long haul, you can must have skill as well as some luck to win. If you ran out an ECHL team for an entire NHL schedule, no amount of luck is going to get them the Cup.
- jmatchett383

I'm not saying that said player is lucky to have a 4 point night. I am saying the TEAM is lucky that they as a team performed so poorly but one individual's performance elevated them to a victory. I think there's a difference there.

When I consider a team, I count all 19 (sometimes 20) players who played. So if Murray played well and they won, despite what the 18 skaters on each team did, then I would say that the Penguins were better, because their team as a whole was better at scoring and preventing goals.

I understand the process vs. result argument, and in an ideal world where everything is equal, it holds up perfectly. And I think that we can all agree that players can have individual or small stretches where they get very hot or cold, you can call them luck.

However, I still argue that, to win more than a small handful of games, you generally have to have more skill than luck.
- jmatchett383

That's where this conversation ends because we analyze things differently.

I'm not saying that said player is lucky to have a 4 point night. I am saying the TEAM is lucky that they as a team performed so poorly but one individual's performance elevated them to a victory. I think there's a difference there.
- j.boyd919

And I understand that. I truly do.

But when I say "team" I am talking about the collection of all 19-20 players on the ice, including that player. So I wouldn't say that is team was outplayed.

So you're telling me that you evaluate teams solely on wins and losses? You don't look at a game and have the ability to recognize that an individual performance elevated the team to a victory? You would tell me that JUST because Murray stood on his head and the Pens won that they played great or to a lesser extent, outplayed the other team? You would tell me that just because Geno had 4 points in a 4-3 win that the Pens overall as a team played better because Geno went Geno Machino?

Seems foolish.
- j.boyd919

I agree it is foolish. I'm glad I wasn't the one who typed any of that.

That's where this conversation ends because we analyze things differently.
- j.boyd919

Fair enough.

I agree it is foolish. I'm glad I wasn't the one who typed any of that.
- schwipp

Cool. Thanks for the answers.

Sully is infinitely more easy to replace than Kessel.

I dont think Sully is a good coach. How much coaching are you really going to do with 87, 71, 58, 81 etc.....He gave MAF the shortest leash last year, I dont think the players like him much.

Unless it was a Kessel for Faulk trade, Im not sure it makes sense. Unless he really wants out.

I would look to move Sheary+ for someone like Domi.
- sammy87

By your logic, how good of a coach was Scotty Bowman? He won four straight Stanley Cups from 1976-1979 but had nine HOFs on those teams. Won one with the Pens in 1992 with six( five + eventually Jagr) HOFs. So God, how much coaching did he have to do?

Team is a failure in the playoffs for six straight years after the Cup in 2009, with all those guys except #81, and then they win it back to back as soon as he comes in. Yeah, he's an awful coach.

This luck nonsense needs to stop. Luck can be a factor in a game but not over the course of a full playoffs.

The Pens last year were probably the best rope a dope, counter punching team there has been. It didn't always look pretty, but they played responsibly and collapsed in the D zone, blocking a ton of pucks and keeping shots to the outside. Then they would burn teams in transition.

While stats might say they were lucky to win, they played within their system and and won 16 games. This year the Pens had better "stats" but they lost in the second round because they gambled and lost on D way to often.

Cool. Thanks for the answers.
- j.boyd919

I'm assuming you're thanking yourself, since you asked and answered questions that had nothing to do with my original response.

No, you implied that it was. What else would you call something happening outside of the norm?

Either way, the point is that, aside from a very short sample, skill will beat luck in the end.

I also dispute that the term "luck" can be quantified.
- jmatchett383

Nobody is disputing that.

So if Florida wants to give us Trochek, or if NYI wants to give us Barzal, yeah, I'd be cool with a Phil trade. Otherwise... what's the phrase I'm looking for? To hell with this!

Sullivan is starting to make a trend of doghousing players he shouldn't be doghousing. That's usually the sign of a bad coach. I like Sully a lot, but my benefit of the doubt only lasts for so long.

This luck nonsense needs to stop. Luck can be a factor in a game but not over the course of a full playoffs.

The Pens last year were probably the best rope a dope, counter punching team there has been. It didn't always look pretty, but they played responsibly and collapsed in the D zone, blocking a ton of pucks and keeping shots to the outside. Then they would burn teams in transition.

While stats might say they were lucky to win, they played within their system and and won 16 games. This year the Pens had better "stats" but they lost in the second round because they gambled and lost on D way to often.
- MacPatty

Don't teams approach hockey single games at a time?

I'm assuming you're thanking yourself, since you asked and answered questions that had nothing to do with my original response.
- schwipp

Who are you? Where did you come from? Why are your opinions so bad?

I'm assuming you're thanking yourself, since you asked and answered questions that had nothing to do with my original response.
- schwipp

I asked a few questions there and you didn't answer. My questions had everything to do with your original response, but okay.

By your logic, how good of a coach was Scotty Bowman? He won four straight Stanley Cups from 1976-1979 but had nine HOFs on those teams. Won one with the Pens in 1992 with six( five + eventually Jagr) HOFs. So God, how much coaching did he have to do?

Team is a failure in the playoffs for six straight years after the Cup in 2009, with all those guys except #81, and then they win it back to back as soon as he comes in. Yeah, he's an awful coach.

- stevens87

They only won because of Kessel, obviously.

So if Florida wants to give us Trochek, or if NYI wants to give us Barzal, yeah, I'd be cool with a Phil trade. Otherwise... what's the phrase I'm looking for? To hell with this!

Sullivan is starting to make a trend of doghousing players he shouldn't be doghousing. That's usually the sign of a bad coach. I like Sully a lot, but my benefit of the doubt only lasts for so long.
- Victoro311