What Does it Mean to be "Good" in Hockey

[kipwinger 8,670]

Gonna hit you dudes with another random hockey thought since I'm bored today. See what you think.

Pretty much everyone thinks that in order to win the Stanley Cup you have to have "elite talent" right? But do you really? I was just thinking about Nick Lidstrom. Almost everyone agrees that he's one of the two or three best defensemen to ever play the game. The elite of the elite. And pretty much everyone agrees that defense is a really really important position right? So for 22 seasons we had the best player at an extremely important position. So why did he only win 4 Cups? The knee jerk reaction for most people might be "maybe he was on a bad team". But he wasn't. He never missed the playoffs and he played the majority of his career with other legendary players (Yzerman, Shanahan, Fedorov, Konstantinov, Fetisov, Larionov, Hasek, Chelios, Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Hossa). He was also rarely ever injured. So why only four?

I have an answer, but I want to hear your thoughts first.

[kipwinger 8,670]

Another thought:

It's hard to score in the NHL. Teams may only score two or three times a game on 30-40 shots.

So if you're bad defensively, but good offensively, you have to do the hard thing (score) a lot more often to win. But if you're good defensively you don't have to do the hard thing (score) nearly as often to win right?

[Scott R Lucidi 675]

I think the Wings had 2 things that held them back from more cups - the strongest overall player pool of all time, and injuries.  First, had we not lost Konstantinov, we win 2-3 more cups.  We are a true dynasty with #16 playing out a healthy career with #5.  Next, the influx of Europeans and Russians in the early 90's made 5-6 teams very strong.  Red Wings, Avalanche, Devils, Stars, Sucks, Penguins all had powerhouse players.  Up until the early 90's, it seems that the concentration of good players would only be on 2 teams, 3 tops in any given year.

[Axl Foley 320]

16 hours ago, Scott R Lucidi said:

I think the Wings had 2 things that held them back from more cups - the strongest overall player pool of all time, and injuries.  First, had we not lost Konstantinov, we win 2-3 more cups.  We are a true dynasty with #16 playing out a healthy career with #5.  Next, the influx of Europeans and Russians in the early 90's made 5-6 teams very strong.  Red Wings, Avalanche, Devils, Stars, Sucks, Penguins all had powerhouse players.  Up until the early 90's, it seems that the concentration of good players would only be on 2 teams, 3 tops in any given year.

Don't forget Fischer and Grigorenko too.

[Axl Foley 320]

21 hours ago, kipwinger said:

Gonna hit you dudes with another random hockey thought since I'm bored today. See what you think.

Pretty much everyone thinks that in order to win the Stanley Cup you have to have "elite talent" right? But do you really? I was just thinking about Nick Lidstrom. Almost everyone agrees that he's one of the two or three best defensemen to ever play the game. The elite of the elite. And pretty much everyone agrees that defense is a really really important position right? So for 22 seasons we had the best player at an extremely important position. So why did he only win 4 Cups? The knee jerk reaction for most people might be "maybe he was on a bad team". But he wasn't. He never missed the playoffs and he played the majority of his career with other legendary players (Yzerman, Shanahan, Fedorov, Konstantinov, Fetisov, Larionov, Hasek, Chelios, Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Hossa). He was also rarely ever injured. So why only four?

I have an answer, but I want to hear your thoughts first.

You don't need "elite talent". What you need is:

1. A really good defensive/check line that can limit your opponents top line offense.

2. A better bottom 9 nine than your opponent.

3. A true top pair on defense. 

4. A bottom 4 D corp with at least 3 guys who can play 2nd pair and a mediocre 6 and 7.

5. A goalie who will not lose you games.

6. A veteran backup goalie if your starter fumbles.

7. A good balance of RH and LH shots.

8. A game plan that emphasizes fundamentals.

9. Selfless players willing to give up individual stats for the sake of the team. Particularly your Captain and Assistants.

10. Guys with solid playoff experience, even if they are past their prime.

That would be my top10.

Edited February 29 by Axl Foley

[kipwinger 8,670]

Just now, Axl Foley said:

You don't need "elite talent". What you need is:

1. A defensive/check line that can limit your opponents top line offense.

2. A better bottom 9 nine than your opponent.

3. A true top pair on defense. 

4. A bottom 4 D corp with at least 3 guys who can play 2nd pair and a mediocre 6 and 7.

5. A goalie who will not lose you games.

6. A veteran backup goalie if your starter fumbles.

7. A good balance of RH and LH shots.

8. A game plan that emphasizes fundamentals.

9. Selfless players willing to give up individual stats for the sake of the team. Particularly your Captain and Assistants.

10. Guys with solid playoff experience, even if they are past their prime.

That would be my top 10.

Would you agree that between 1995-2005 we had all or most of those things more often than not?

[The 91 of Ryans 3,019]

It 100% depends on whether Uncle Gary wants you to win. The only answer. 

I think Wings travel in the Western Conf probably wrenched a few cups away from them. 

[GMRwings1983 8,801]

Four Cups in 22 years is really good.  They could have won more but could have also won less.  Most dynasty teams don't win more than four titles.  It was technically 4 in 12 years between 1997-2008.  

Edited February 29 by GMRwings1983

[Troy McClure 347]

23 hours ago, kipwinger said:

Pretty much everyone thinks that in order to win the Stanley Cup you have to have "elite talent" right? But do you really? I was just thinking about Nick Lidstrom. Almost everyone agrees that he's one of the two or three best defensemen to ever play the game. The elite of the elite. And pretty much everyone agrees that defense is a really really important position right? So for 22 seasons we had the best player at an extremely important position. So why did he only win 4 Cups? The knee jerk reaction for most people might be "maybe he was on a bad team". But he wasn't. He never missed the playoffs and he played the majority of his career with other legendary players (Yzerman, Shanahan, Fedorov, Konstantinov, Fetisov, Larionov, Hasek, Chelios, Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Hossa). He was also rarely ever injured. So why only four?

Lidstrom was a mistake

[Axl Foley 320]

1 hour ago, kipwinger said:

Would you agree that between 1995-2005 we had all or most of those things more often than not?

Mostly. which is why we had 4 SCF appearances and 5 Conference Finals during that time. If you look at the years we lost: 

95: too green. too little playoff experience.

96, 99, 00: lost to the Avs, an equally talented team, who themselves won only twice in the same span. we used 3 different goalies in the 99 playoffs too.

01: lost in an upset to the Kings in the 1st round, despite having roughly the same team as before.

03: lost in a 1st round sweep to the Ducks, who went all the way to the SCF. That was the 1st playoffs without Bowman as coach. Osgood was gone. Yzerman missed most of the season and was playing on one leg in the playoffs.

04: injuries to key players during the season. team was not fully healthy for the playoffs. goaltending controversy as CuJo and Hasek did not get along at all. Wings used 5 goalies that season. CuJo was in GR. Hasek was not conditioned after coming out of retirement. Legace played poorly in the playoffs and got pulled. Offense dried up and the Wings lost in the 2nd round to the Flames, who advanced to the SCF.

05: lockout year 

So overall, in 10 playoffs:

3 Stanley Cups

4 Stanley Cup Finals Appearances

5 Western Conference Finals Appearances

And the 5 years they did not reach at least the WCF:

99 Avs and 01 Kings are the only teams we lost to during that span who did not reach the Stanley Cup Finals. 00 Avs, 03 Ducks, 04 Flames all did. So we were losing to contenders when we did lose.

I would say that is to be expected even among the best teams. Wings had equally talented intraconference rivals in Colorado and Dallas for much of that time. Sprinkle in some goalie issues, injuries, and just plain bad luck along the way.

Edited February 29 by Axl Foley

[town123 212]

Really good post Eddie..

 

[kipwinger 8,670]

A few of you smart dudes nailed it IMO.

Here's what I'm thinking. You know how Usain Bolt looks like he's blowing everyone away when he runs? But the reality is that he's only a fraction of a second faster? That's because he's faster in relative terms but not absolute terms right? The guys he's smoking to the finish line are the ten fastest dudes on earth. And in a straight up, simple, competition (like track) he's faster and that's all that matters. But if they were all sprinting to put out a fire, or grab a baby that crawled onto a roadway, the difference in their times of arrival are infinitesimal. The perceived difference is huge, the practical difference is tiny.

Another way of thinking about it is this. If one guy scores goals at a rate of 1 per game, and another guy scores goals at 1.25 goals per game, the second guy is better than the first guy by a lot in relative terms. But in absolute terms that difference is negligible. They're both really really good as scoring goals. What's more, if you need one goal to win a game in overtime they're both more or less equally likely since there's no such thing as fractional goals. It would take four games for the .25 advantage to come into play mathematically.

Nick Lidstrom was much better than anyone else in relative terms, but not absolute terms. The difference between him and Scott Neidermayer or Sergei Zubov wasn't REALLY that big. Everyone we played against and lost to (in the playoffs) during our dynasty years was really really good too. Maybe not Lidstrom good, but good enough to win a complex competition from time to time. That was true even though the Red Wings had a number of such players on the team. So even with five or six such talents on a team we lost more than we won (not games, championships). But what if you could only have one or two guys like that on a team. Would there be much advantage at all?

Is Auston Matthews' 1.34 points per game this year is way more impressive than Elias Petterson's 1.2 points per game in relative terms but almost imperceptible in any given game? Especially when one of those guys makes 5 million dollars more than the other. Next season Petterson will make 11 million and a year after that Matthews will probably make 15 million. Is the juice worth the squeeze? Like, obviously Matthews is a much better goal scorer in relative terms. But basically it's like the difference between getting a 99% or 100% in a test in grade school. The difference in reality is nothing.

Edited March 4 by kipwinger

[Troy McClure 347]

1 hour ago, kipwinger said:

A few of you smart dudes nailed it IMO.

Here's what I'm thinking. You know how Usain Bolt looks like he's blowing everyone away when he runs? But the reality is that he's only a fraction of a second faster? That's because he's faster in relative terms but not absolute terms right? The guys he's smoking to the finish line are the ten fastest dudes on earth. And in a straight up, simple, competition (like track) he's faster and that's all that matters. But if they were all sprinting to put out a fire, or grab a baby that crawled onto a roadway, the difference in their times of arrival are infinitesimal. The perceived difference is huge, the practical difference is tiny.

Another way of thinking about it is this. If one guy scores goals at a rate of 1 per game, and another guy scores goals at 1.25 goals per game, the second guy is better than the first guy by a lot in relative terms. But in absolute terms that difference is negligible. They're both really really good as scoring goals. What's more, if you need one goal to win a game in overtime they're both more or less equally likely since there's no such thing as fractional goals. It would take four games for the .25 advantage to come into play mathematically.

Nick Lidstrom was much better than anyone else in relative terms, but not absolute terms. The difference between him and Scott Neidermayer or Sergei Zubov wasn't REALLY that big. Everyone we played against and lost to (in the playoffs) during our dynasty years was really really good too. Maybe not Lidstrom good, but good enough to win a complex competition from time to time. That was true even though the Red Wings had a number of such players on the team. So even with five or six such talents on a team we lost more than we won (not games, championships). But what if you could only have one or two guys like that on a team. Would there be much advantage at all?

Is Auston Matthews' 1.34 points per game this year is way more impressive than Elias Petterson's 1.2 points per game in relative terms but almost imperceptible in any given game? Especially when one of those guys makes 5 million dollars more than the other. Next season Petterson will make 11 million and a year after that Matthews will probably make 15 million. Is the juice worth the squeeze? Like, obviously Matthews is a much better goal scorer in relative terms. But basically it's like the difference between getting a 99% or 100% in a test in grade school. The difference in reality is nothing.

Pettersson isn't actually much worse than Matthews, and that is why superstars are terrible - a manifesto by kipwinger

[kipwinger 8,670]

26 minutes ago, Troy McClure said:

Pettersson isn't actually much worse than Matthews, and that is why superstars are terrible - a manifesto by kipwinger

I'm nothing if not self indulgent.

 

[Dabura 12,228]

Hockey's a chaotic, free-flowing game of millimeters, so little things - including unquantifiables - can make all the difference.

When we acquired Shanahan, that was a gamechanger. He wasn't prime years Gretzky, but he was exactly what we needed. People laughed when I said the Panthers acquiring Matthew Tkachuk was similar. Those people aren't laughing now. Swagger, self-belief - these things are golden.

[kipwinger 8,670]

Question, in the era of analytics why hasn't plus/minus seen a rehabilitation as a useful stat? The possession argument is basically that if you're on the ice and your team gets a shot, or a shot attempt, or a blocked shot, or a missed shot then you get a "plus" because your team had possession in the offensive zone. Even if you did nothing to contribute to the shot attempt. And if you're on the ice and the opposition gets a shot attempt you get a minus, even if you did nothing to help give up the shot.

So why not a goal for vs. a goal against?  I never hear analytics bros going to bat for +/- as a stat and I don't understand why?

[Scott R Lucidi 675]

13 hours ago, kipwinger said:

Question, in the era of analytics why hasn't plus/minus seen a rehabilitation as a useful stat? The possession argument is basically that if you're on the ice and your team gets a shot, or a shot attempt, or a blocked shot, or a missed shot then you get a "plus" because your team had possession in the offensive zone. Even if you did nothing to contribute to the shot attempt. And if you're on the ice and the opposition gets a shot attempt you get a minus, even if you did nothing to help give up the shot.

So why not a goal for vs. a goal against?  I never hear analytics bros going to bat for +/- as a stat and I don't understand why?

This just isn't true.  Analysts OFTEN use plus/minus as a metric to support a player's usefulness.  It's still kept as a star for that reason, despite having possession metrics stats now that help decipher further how a player impacts the flow for their team by deployment.  I only use the stats as a check against what I see.  I usually watch goals against one extra rewind to see who is causing the breakdown in the defense and if it could have been avoided with a better play.  Chiarot and Petry are consistently failing to transition the puck effectively to a forward, and this leads to a large amount of opposition opportunity.  It was on full display last night because the other team's shots were going in, but it's like this almost every game even when the goalie is making the saves.  The possession metrics of Chiarot and Petry validate the "eyeball test".  This team got handcuffed by its GM.  That's just unacceptable to me.

[kipwinger 8,670]

2 hours ago, Scott R Lucidi said:

This just isn't true.  Analysts OFTEN use plus/minus as a metric to support a player's usefulness.  It's still kept as a star for that reason, despite having possession metrics stats now that help decipher further how a player impacts the flow for their team by deployment.  I only use the stats as a check against what I see.  I usually watch goals against one extra rewind to see who is causing the breakdown in the defense and if it could have been avoided with a better play.  Chiarot and Petry are consistently failing to transition the puck effectively to a forward, and this leads to a large amount of opposition opportunity.  It was on full display last night because the other team's shots were going in, but it's like this almost every game even when the goalie is making the saves.  The possession metrics of Chiarot and Petry validate the "eyeball test".  This team got handcuffed by its GM.  That's just unacceptable to me.

I was specifically talking about the analytics crowd and their fans. THOSE people seem to be okay with a plus/minus system centered on shot attempts, but openly mock the old school plus/minus system based on goals. I'm wondering why they'd embrace one and reject the other.