TEAM is important, no doubt about it. But a TEAM without star power will only get you so far, and it rarely if ever wins a cup by itself. Edmonton doesn't win because they have failed to build a team around McDavid and Draisaitl. On the flip side, the Capitals don't win the cup a few years ago without Ovechkin, no matter how many "good" team players they have. So both ingredients are needed. Its true that the Bruins top line for example were not top 5 picks, but they all developed into elite offensive players in the league. Your best players have to be legitimate top players in the league if you want a realistic shot at a cup. This is the problem with the Flyers right now, they have depth but no real top end talent, at least not yet. We'll see how their current group of young players develop. So the answer to me, which I didn't see anything in Bill's post that stated otherwise, is you need top end talent surrounded by a solid and deep team.
- jd250

1. The issue of teams drafting high and not winning is actually explicitly covered in my analogy: it corresponds to the failure rate (90%) of the better strategy. High, but irrelevant, as the failure rate is even higher in the other one.

2. By no stretch of the imagination is teamwork, coaching, character, and everything else ignored. Just like when you are comparing treatments, you are not diminishing the role of nutrition, social support, exercise, education and everything else that also affects the odds of treatment success. Rather, they are not the focus of the current discussion, so you control for them. That is not the same as saying they are not important.

The only thing that remains is to provide the actual rates of relative success. I will do that. It will take a couple of hours or work and a little bit of arithmetic, simple but tedious, so I have been lazy in avoiding it and hoping to get by. But like drafting late and hoping to get by generally doesn't work, so does avoiding grunt work in discussions, so I am not surprised I will have to do it.

Not that such data would mean anything to MJL. His thousands of idiotic responses will continue in his mind to be a valid substitute for the utter refusal or inability to think.

TEAM is important, no doubt about it. But a TEAM without star power will only get you so far, and it rarely if ever wins a cup by itself. Edmonton doesn't win because they have failed to build a team around McDavid and Draisaitl. On the flip side, the Capitals don't win the cup a few years ago without Ovechkin, no matter how many "good" team players they have. So both ingredients are needed. Its true that the Bruins top line for example were not top 5 picks, but they all developed into elite offensive players in the league. Your best players have to be legitimate top players in the league if you want a realistic shot at a cup. This is the problem with the Flyers right now, they have depth but no real top end talent, at least not yet. We'll see how their current group of young players develop. So the answer to me, which I didn't see anything in Bill's post that stated otherwise, is you need top end talent surrounded by a solid and deep team.
- jd250

Yes, so to sum up, you don't have to have players drafted in the top 5 to win the cup. You just have to have very good players and a very good team. Also need some breaks along the way.

I get that and agree with you on that point. But no team would coach a defenseman to guard an opposing player all the way to the top of circle or higher. This is not the first time I have seen Sanhiem do this BTW, he and Myers routinely leave their zones of responsibility, which for defenseman should never get above the dots even on rotations within a diamond, and drift way too high leaving the slot uncovered.
- jd250

A defenseman needs to limit how far he goes out. Teams will attempt to draw a defenseman up to isolate a 2 on 1 down low. The mistake you make is thinking that the slot is always covered by a defenseman. Not always the case. Such as with the Islanders PP goal against the Flyers recently. Where Lindblom lost his check back door.

The only thing that remains is to provide the actual rates of relative success. I will do that. It will take a couple of hours or work and a little bit of arithmetic, simple but tedious, so I have been lazy in avoiding it and hoping to get by. But like drafting late and hoping to get by generally doesn't work, so does avoiding grunt work in discussions, so I am not surprised I will have to do it.

Not that such data would mean anything to MJL. His thousands of idiotic responses will continue in his mind to be a valid substitute for the utter refusal or inability to think.
- PT21

My response was echoed by Bill Meltzer, who I consider to be one of the best local hockey analysts around. Nobody is going to have any interest in your calculations. Just as they had no interest in the nonsense you posted concerning Coututier. If my responses were so idiotic, they wouldn't bother you so much. Evidenced by your comment here. Your comments are so devoid of any real logic or any actual relevant hockey knowledge that they are easily refuted and require very little actual thinking. Lucky for me! LOL. I'm just only one who is willing to constantly waste time refuting the dribble that you post.

A defenseman needs to limit how far he goes out. Teams will attempt to draw a defenseman up to isolate a 2 on 1 down low. The mistake you make is thinking that the slot is always covered by a defenseman. Not always the case. Such as with the Islanders PP goal against the Flyers recently. Where Lindblom lost his check back door.
- MJL

Oh yes, I agree with you on this point. The problem I see is when one of the Penalty killers does not stay disciplined and leaves his area of responsibility, the others penalty killers don't have time to react and the goal is scored. So for e.g. if Sanheim decides to follow a player without the puck all the way above the circle, his area his uncovered and by the time the other penalty killers can react its too late. This is what I see all too often and what it causes is Sanhiem's teammates are not confident in him doing his job in a disciplined way and try to cover for him which causes things to break down. This impacts the goalies also because they can't 100% focus on the shooter because they are worried that the passes are not covered.

Yes, so to sum up, you don't have to have players drafted in the top 5 to win the cup. You just have to have very good players and a very good team. Also need some breaks along the way.
- MJL

Thank you. And I just want to add that Couturier is a legitimate top 10 center in this league; he is the Flyers equivalent to Patrice Bergeron. What the Flyers need now is their version of Marchand and Pastrnak. Will that be TK and Farabee some day? I certainly hope so. BTW, I'm loving Foerster right now, exactly the type of skill this team needs, good shot, great on shoot outs. Fingers crossed he stay healthy and keeps it up!

My response was echoed by Bill Meltzer, who I consider to be one of the best local hockey analysts around. Nobody is going to have any interest in your calculations. Just as they had no interest in the nonsense you posted concerning Coututier. If my responses were so idiotic, they wouldn't bother you so much. Evidenced by your comment here. Your comments are so devoid of any real logic or any actual relevant hockey knowledge that they are easily refuted and require very little actual thinking. Lucky for me! LOL. I'm just only one who is willing to constantly waste time refuting the dribble that you post.
- MJL

I want to clarify a few things going forward:

You:

1. I am not bothered with anything that happens in social media. The medium has generated incentives for volume over quality behind anonymous/no repercussion handles, and your presence is one of the results, and it is far from being one of the worst examples, actually.

2. I largely skim/ignore your posts not because they bother me, but b/c there is nothing of personal or public interest in discussing stuff with you. Usually someone quotes something to which I would like to reply, or something is worth clarifying, such as now. After this, I am out again of such discussions.

3. The above does not mean that there is anything personal here or I am not a well-wisher or that I ignore your presence rather than your posts or wish you were gone. That is silly.

Bill:

1. Even if a trio of Lamoriello, Babcock and Holland said something, they would still be wrong if the data contradicts them. That's why data exists, to confirm or refute opinion.

2. But if you want to play that game, plenty of great hockey minds think otherwise about the value of drafting high to long term success. This includes Babcock, Mario, Shanahan and Sacic.

3. I have deep respect for Bill. But the fact that you do is essentially a kiss of death for him. His professional career is likely over, and its your fault.

Language aka a petty and snarky aside:

Taps dribble. Dribble does not mean what you think. Just like fortitude doesn't mean what you think it meant.

That's it. Bye again.

I want to clarify a few things going forward:

You:

1. I am not bothered with anything that happens in social media. The medium has generated incentives for volume over quality behind anonymous/no repercussion handles, and your presence is one of the results, and it is far from being one of the worst examples, actually.

2. I largely skim/ignore your posts not because they bother me, but b/c there is nothing of personal or public interest in discussing stuff with you. Usually someone quotes something to which I would like to reply, or something is worth clarifying, such as now. After this, I am out again of such discussions.

3. The above does not mean that there is anything personal here or I am not a well-wisher or that I ignore your presence rather than your posts or wish you were gone. That is silly.

Bill:

1. Even if a trio of Lamoriello, Babcock and Holland said something, they would still be wrong if the data contradicts them. That's why data exists, to confirm or refute opinion.

2. But if you want to play that game, plenty of great hockey minds think otherwise about the value of drafting high to long term success. This includes Babcock, Mario, Shanahan and Sacic.

3. I have deep respect for Bill. But the fact that you do is essentially a kiss of death for him. His professional career is likely over, and its your fault.

Language aka a petty and snarky aside:

Taps dribble. Dribble does not mean what you think. Just like fortitude doesn't mean what you think it meant.

That's it. Bye again.
- PT21

Nobody cares about your clarifications. They're not honest. #3 in the Bill section proves that you're full of poop when you say it's not personal. You have no credibility. Your words always betray you. You just can't seem to figure that out. Despite being a scholar and an academic.

You just posted more dribble. As well as not being able to spell Sakic. I'm not at all surprised that you have no clue of what slang is. This is why you're nicknamed Sheldon. You also don't understand hockey data well.

You'll just never get it. It's not an objection to the value of drafting high.

Like I said before, you couldn't possibly ignore me. You don't have it in you.