Speculation: Acq./Rost. Bldg./Cap/Lines etc. Part LXXVII (New Year, New Lines)

[g00n]

Ah, wrong. The one thing all Cup winning teams have is a true, bone fide number one dman (Carolina being the only exception in the last 20 years). Lidstrom, Keith, Doughty, Letang, Chara, Stevens, Pronger, Neidermeyer, they are the key.

I'm pretty confident just about every Cup winning goalie in that same 20 year period has had Vezina/elite level stats or better in the playoffs. You can't win with a Cup with a mediocre goaltender. The teams you face deep in the playoffs are too good.

Those Cup winning teams had a lot more than a #1D, too.

 

[Hivemind]

In terms of his PPAs, that's to be expected given the formation they've deployed on the PP since Oates arrived. He's almost exclusively a finisher on that unit. It's not like an overload PP formation, built around movement. It's much more structured and has clearly defined roles for each participant, including Ovechkin.

In terms of his overall game, while we still see flashes of it, Ovie's simply not the gamebreaking, explosive player he once was. We all know that. There's no way he's going to consistently break through opposing defenses by himself. He's still an elite talent, but his game has been forced to evolved as he's aged. We saw him struggle for a couple seasons with this evolution, as his numbers took a dive as he tried to force that same youthful style to work. Ultimately he had to change how he played. He had to become more reliant on his linemates gaining the zone and dishing him the puck. He had to start playing deeper in his own zone defensively to allow his team to gain possession. He had to start driving the net more for dirty goals. He found ways to stay relevant and assert his position as one of the greatest goal scorers the game has ever or will ever know. But he's no longer capable of taking over games himself on a regular basis.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

His current goal pace is in line with last year. Points? Not sure. He got beat by ****ing Crosby again this past fall. He has no ****s left to give about anything not called the Stanley Cup or the Olympics, and I have a hard time being bothered by it myself.

I have a hard time when your leader has no ****s left. Part of the core problem imo but that's for another discussion.

 

[Hivemind]

I'm pretty confident just about every Cup winning goalie in that same 20 year period has had Vezina/elite level stats or better in the playoffs. You can't win with a Cup with a mediocre goaltender. The teams you face deep in the playoffs are too good.

Those Cup winning teams had a lot more than a #1D, too.

The Blackhawks won a Cup with Antti Niemi providing only .910 sv% tending in the playoffs. Their most recent cup involved Corey Crawford getting benched for 4 games during the playoffs. The Penguins started three different goaltenders during their Playoff run last year.

Also Michael Leighton was 2 games away from a Stanley Cup.

Generally speaking, your point has a lot more to do with selection bias than it does with team construction. You've already mentioned that they don't need a Vezina contender, but rather a goaltender that's playing hot at the right time.

 

[txpd]

Does his current points pace even feel like he's treading water? Put away the faux outrage and face life. He's trending downward considerably this season so far overall. Not criticizing, just saying it would be nice to see an explosion back to previous glory days.

Last time I checked he had the exact same number of goals as last season. this is with fewer power play goals. his assists are off. Do you want to blame him for that fact after playing a goodly number of games with Kuzy who wont shoot and with a defense that is not scoring?

Are you sure?

 

[Calicaps]

I have a hard time when your leader has no ****s left. Part of the core problem imo but that's for another discussion.

Fair point.

 

[billcook]

It's not even about points anymore, it's that his power play assists continue to plummet for no apparent reason. He has been primary shooter on PP for all his career save for peak seasons from Green and Semin (2009,2010), that's no excuse why he can't score yearly 15-20 assists there let alone more than 5. FIVE FREAKIN ASSISTS

I don't buy that he could under Oates and can't under Trotz

In terms of his PPAs, that's to be expected given the formation they've deployed on the PP since Oates arrived. He's almost exclusively a finisher on that unit. It's not like an overload PP formation, built around movement. It's much more structured and has clearly defined roles for each participant, including Ovechkin.

Yeah, that's why he has 26 PPA in 126 GP for Oates and 16 PPA in 187 GP for Trotz.

The Blackhawks won a Cup with Antti Niemi providing only .910 sv% tending in the playoffs. Their most recent cup involved Corey Crawford getting benched for 4 games during the playoffs. The Penguins started three different goaltenders during their Playoff run last year.

Also Michael Leighton was 2 games away from a Stanley Cup.

Generally speaking, your point has a lot more to do with selection bias than it does with team construction. You've already mentioned that they don't need a Vezina contender, but rather a goaltender that's playing hot at the right time.

Yes, there is no question than Norris calibre defender is a lot more important than 'star' level goaltending. Great deal of examples of precisely that.

 

[Revelation]

We'll agree to disagree on 70. Grubby needs an extended stretch of play to prove he's a legit #1 IMO.

I don't see a precipitous drop in play coming from Holtby otherwise.

Don't get me wrong 70 is a great goalie... good focus, tracks the puck well, good positioning, no weaknesses glove hand/blocker/5 hole. But he still largely benefits from our system and lets in crap shots from time to time in the playoffs, and doesn't really make amazing saves that keep your team alive. He's a good consistent goalie with great technicals but he's not gonna win us a round like a Lundqvist/Quick/Tim Thomas type goalie had for their teams. Only time he looked unstoppable was vs Boston.

Schneider didn't really have much experience before New Jersey traded a big piece for him and most agree he's a top 5 goalie now and was an excellent up and coming goalie then. Grubauer looks like that too. But unless Holtby is injured or starts sucking really bad I don't see him getting a chance to have enough starts here.

 

[g00n]

The Blackhawks won a Cup with Antti Niemi providing only .910 sv% tending in the playoffs. Their most recent cup involved Corey Crawford getting benched for 4 games during the playoffs. The Penguins started three different goaltenders during their Playoff run last year.

Also Michael Leighton was 2 games away from a Stanley Cup.

Generally speaking, your point has a lot more to do with selection bias than it does with team construction. You've already mentioned that they don't need a Vezina contender, but rather a goaltender that's playing hot at the right time.

Niemi was an outlier. Crawford was over .920 for the playoffs in each of his Cup years, iirc.

2 games away is not winning. The Pens having depth in net doesn't change the fact that you're much, much better off with a top goaltender in net than not.

Point being, again, Holtby is a proven playoff performer. Shuffling a few forwards while trading that away is not the winning formula. Does this team win a Cup with Grubauer and Subban or Weber or whoever?

 

[ovikovy817]

I said a few weeks ago that this board will be funny to follow during the regular season (after the first comments on "fire trotz") but I would never imagine that people would like to trade Ovi and Holtby.
Now I'd like even more to see Caps win the Cup and Ovi/Holtby to be #1 and #2 candidate for Conn Smythe.

 

[Revelation]

The point is after this season the window shrinks badly unless they take some gambles. Kuznetsov and Alzner will need raises, Oshie might leave, Williams probably will, Ovechkin/Backstrom/Oshie will probably all be regressing a little faster (if they keep Oshie). There's also Vegas poaching players and adding a ton of uncertainty. They'll probably need to add 2-3 impact pieces and get very good depth players to keep competing. If they manage to clear Holtby's cap, get good pieces for him that can either impact the roster or be traded for impact players AND Grubauer proves a worthy replacement. Yeah, it's destabilizing goaltending but assuming they don't get past the 2nd round this year again that's a calculated risk. But done right there's also a lot of reward.

By my count they'll need to do something like sign Radulov (or some other player of that caliber, I can't think of any other available) and switch Eller for a more impact 2/3C like Hanzal while keeping Oshie to get better. The less resources they trade for forward help the better - they should be putting all their resources into getting the best LD they can to put with Carlson or Niskanen. Orpik would have to go obviously.

Ovechkin-Kuznetsov-Radulov
Johansson Backstrom-Oshie
Burakovsky Hanzal Vrana
??? Beagle ??? (maybe Wilson?)

Alzner Carlson
Edler/Scandella/Goligoski Niskanen (probably can get a great LD from Vegas/teams that can't protect one based on how the dispersal draft is set up)
Schmidt/Orlov/Bowey/veteran acquisition(s)

Grubauer
??? (good backup we can entice to sign cheap for tandem option)

 

[Revelation]

Niemi was an outlier. Crawford was over .920 for the playoffs in each of his Cup years, iirc.

2 games away is not winning. The Pens having depth in net doesn't change the fact that you're much, much better off with a top goaltender in net than not.

Point being, again, Holtby is a proven playoff performer. Shuffling a few forwards while trading that away is not the winning formula. Does this team win a Cup with Grubauer and Subban or Weber or whoever?

Well we have 4 years worth of evidence that they don't make it out of the 2nd round with Holtby and no Subban/Weber/whoever.

Also, replace [Grubauer] with [Murray] or [Jones] in that sentence since they all proved about the same amount before getting a chance to start but were all unquestionably capable of being NHL starters. Or maybe [Talbot]. It's not like we're talking about Jhonas Enroth here.

 

[Carlzner]

So your ideal plan would include trading Holtby for one of Edler/Scandella/Goligoski????

 

[Ovechkins Wodka]

I would love doing Webber for Holtby and yes I think that gets us the cup.

Will never happen but we have never had a real #1 defender in the ovie era

 

[Hivemind]

Niemi was an outlier. Crawford was over .920 for the playoffs in each of his Cup years, iirc.

2 games away is not winning. The Pens having depth in net doesn't change the fact that you're much, much better off with a top goaltender in net than not.

Point being, again, Holtby is a proven playoff performer. Shuffling a few forwards while trading that away is not the winning formula. Does this team win a Cup with Grubauer and Subban or Weber or whoever?

Once again, I'm not advocating for trading Holtby. I just don't buy your argument. It's the result of selection bias more than an actual comment on roster construction.

 

[g00n]

Once again, I'm not advocating for trading Holtby. I just don't buy your argument. It's the result of selection bias more than an actual comment on roster construction.

What does this even mean? What generalization about Cup teams being made isn't rife with "selection bias" of some kind? You can't have a fan discussion like this without some imperfect criteria and data. This isn't a clinical study and we can't control for all variables. Just use your head and some logic to make some observations. Goaltending is very important in any sport that has it (except maybe lacrosse). Even more so in a grueling championship series or four.

 

[Ovechkins Wodka]

Don't forget Holtby carries a large cap hit. And we have one of the highest rated goalie prospects that could give us years of cheap service years

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

Or years of mediocrity....

 

[g00n]

Well we have 4 years worth of evidence that they don't make it out of the 2nd round with Holtby and no Subban/Weber/whoever.

Also, replace [Grubauer] with [Murray] or [Jones] in that sentence since they all proved about the same amount before getting a chance to start but were all unquestionably capable of being NHL starters. Or maybe [Talbot]. It's not like we're talking about Jhonas Enroth here.

Every year Caps fans jump on the bandwagon for whatever novelty seemed to be the difference maker for the previous year's Cup champ. This is no different. It's a big risk and there's no real argument for it other than that.

 

[Hivemind]

What does this even mean? What generalization about Cup teams being made isn't rife with "selection bias" of some kind? You can't have a fan discussion like this without some imperfect criteria and data. This isn't a clinical study and we can't control for all variables. Just use your head and some logic to make some observations. Goaltending is very important in any sport that has it (except maybe lacrosse). Even more so in a grueling championship series or four.

It means that Corey Crawford, Chris Osgood, and Antti Niemi have combined for four Stanley Cups in the past decade. It means that two rookie goalies have won since the lockout, and one of which declined pretty sharply afterwards (the other with results TBD). It means that the Vezina trophy winner has only intersected with the Stanley Cup champion once since 2004 and three times in the entire history of the award. Plenty of mediocre goaltenders have won Stanley Cups. The selection bias comes into play when you only look at the stats from a successful period of play (say while their team is winning 16 games out of ≤ 28).

Unless you have some formula for determining or controlling when superior play will arise out of a goaltender, you're not really commenting on ideal methods of roster construction but rather limiting your data set to a non-representative sample. What you're doing is purely describing past results, but not isn't particularly useful for predicting future outcomes. Thus why it's not a good way to evaluate roster construction.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

Crawford, Osgood and Niemi were mediocre on their Cup runs?

And again, you're talking about 4 of the most loaded teams of their era's so sure if you want to provide that type of loaded HOF roster, maybe you can make due with average goaltending. Everyone else in the real world has to do it differently.

 

[Hivemind]

Crawford, Osgood and Niemi were mediocre on their Cup runs?

Since I apparently have to spell it out for you:
s e l e c t i o n b i a s

 

[g00n]

It means that Corey Crawford, Chris Osgood, and Antti Niemi have combined for four Stanley Cups in the past decade. It means that two rookie goalies have won since the lockout, and one of which declined pretty sharply afterwards (the other with results TBD). It means that the Vezina trophy winner has only intersected with the Stanley Cup champion once since 2004 and three times in the entire history of the award. Plenty of mediocre goaltenders have won Stanley Cups. The selection bias comes into play when you only look at the stats from a successful period of play (say while their team is winning 16 games out of ≤ 28).

Unless you have some formula for determining or controlling when superior play will arise out of a goaltender, you're not really commenting on ideal methods of roster construction but rather limiting your data set to a non-representative sample. What you're doing is purely describing past results, but not isn't particularly useful for predicting future outcomes. Thus why it's not a good way to evaluate roster construction.

Have you looked at Osgood and Crawford's save% in those recent Cup years? Tracks exactly with what I said. All 3 years over .920 which is Vezina territory. And I said Vezina quality STATS for most, not Vezina winners required to win Cups.

We're also not talking about a mediocre goaltender getting hot. We're talking about a Vezina trophy winner who also is statistically one of the best playoff goaltenders.

Almost every Cup winner in the past 15-20 years has had a goalie playing at a very high level for most of the playoff games. That's a fact. That's no more about SELECTION BIAS than observing the non-causal correlation that (surprise) good teams have a legit #1 defenseman. Well, plenty of teams that DON'T win Cups have those guys. And plenty of rookies and first time goaltenders and mediocre goaltenders DON'T win Cups.

Which trend would you bet your house on?

 

[Nordic*]

What ever happened to Burakovski?

Zero development the last two years?

 

[billcook]

What ever happened to Burakovski?

Zero development the last two years?

He was playing great and was a little unlucky first 15 games, now he plays poorly and not getting any luck either.