I don’t know if that’s fair. I mean I agree that Oshie was misused here and it was a terrible trade. However, I think you yourself have in the past commonly refered to small sample size for playoff games when comparing two players or when evulating a player for trade who has a reputation as a “playoff performer”.
Perhaps comparing Oshie to Oshie is not that, but I’d still think the fact that the more hockey you play the less hot and cold streaks and team matchups would affect your stats is something to consider.
Also If we compare the teams the Blues faced vs the Caps faced while Oshie was with them.
Blues: SJS, LA, LA, CHI, MIN.
Caps: PHI, PIT, TOR, PIT, CBJ, PIT, TBL, VGK.
Of all the teams the capitals have played in the playoffs, only the 2015-16 PHI and 2015-16/2016-2017 PIT series was defensive in nature that I can see and I’d be hard pressed to say either was better than Minnesota defensively. Some of these series where wide open pond hockey especially in there cup run compared to the grueling defensive battles vs LA and Chicago. Five and Six goal games were not uncommon.
Also of all those matchups the Caps have faced since Oshie joined they have been favorites or even odds to win outside of maybe Pittsburgh. That was hardly the case with the Blues who were only really favored in the Wild series.
I know the Oshie debate gets old so please don’t be hard on tearing me apart
It’s just real interesting that his regular season stats don’t show a larger increase even if Oshie might be preforming better in the playoffs.
That is certainly true, but ultimately a large part of why the Blues traded him was because of the postseason struggles, no? Both his, and the team's in general. Discussing his postseason production needs to be a part of this conversation, because it's a big part of the reason why he was traded to begin with.
While I'd never point to Oshie's last couple of postseason stats and say "see, that's his
real baseline," I think there's ample evidence to suggest that the narratives we were hearing at the time when he was traded were simply false. Oshie can produce in the playoffs. He can be a key cog on a Cup winning team. Etc.
So, why did he find success elsewhere that he didn't find here? It wasn't simply because he had better linemates. He was playing with Backes and Steen back when they were 25-30 goal, 60ish point players. Backstrom and Ovechkin are clearly better, but they're not so much better than they can turn a 25 point guy into a 72 point guy. I mean, that's just common sense, and it's borne out by the fact that Brouwer (and others used in that spot) were routinely throwing up blanks when playing on their wing in the playoffs.
Speaking of Brouwer, he had more success in his one playoff run here than he ever had in Washington. Would you say that's because Backes and Steen were that much more talented than Ovechkin and Backstrom, or because he was simply a better fit for the style of play here?
Along those same lines, I find it hard to attribute that difference to quality of competition differences. For one thing, the differences in quality between playoff quality teams are fairly minimal. Vegas has most series odds in the 55/45 to 60/40 range...virtually coin-flips.
For another, you're probably talking about a 0.5 goals against per game difference from the absolute best defensive team to the absolute worst team in the playoffs, at most (based on their regular season numbers). That's just not that much. Certainly nowhere near enough to explain a 50 point spike in production rate, and that's assuming the worst. More than half the playoff field is within 0.2 GA/G of each other.
This is speaking more to the point that I was addressing earlier with BlueDream, but an individual's relative success simply isn't defined by the quality of his linemates. It's a factor, sure, but not the only one. The fit within the system matters. The stylistic fit with the linemates matters. The usage matters. Etc. If it was only about the linemates, then Stastny would have been a rock star here with Tarasenko. He wasn't, and he had more playoff success in both Colorado and Winnipeg than he ever had here.
Nobody knows how much each one matters. It's probably different in every given case, and I'm certainly not claiming that any of the things mentioned so far (quality of linemates, competition, etc.) don't matter at all. I just don't think "usage" should be dismissed as a non-contributing factor, especially when the proposed alternatives don't seem particularly compelling as full explanations for the change.
Why are these differences emphasized in the playoffs and not the regular season? It's a good question. Here's my best guess.
The regular season doesn't see anywhere near the level of opponent-specific game-planning and preparation that you see in the playoffs. With three games a week, plus travel, there simply isn't time...especially when you often have your own issues to work out and very little practice time to devote to that. The focus is mostly internal (improving what you're trying to do) vs external (focused on what your opponent is likely to do), which in turn means that teams generally are not focused on identifying and exploiting the chinks in your armor.
In addition, a lot of experimenting happens during the regular season. Players are routinely tried out on different lines and used in different roles. That effectively muddies the waters, moderating both the positives and negatives, and having the overall effect of somewhat balancing everything out and bringing it back towards the "baseline."
In the playoffs, things change. A team will be fully prepared for what you're likely to throw at them, and have come up with (and practiced) specific strategies to counter what you're likely to do. That puts your own game under a microscope. Any flaws, weak points, and deficiencies will be targeted, and anything that's performing sub-optimally will find it much harder to get the job done than during the regular season when those targeted pressures to your own game largely aren't there. Any doubts, discomforts, or uncertainties that you have about your own role are likewise magnified as the pressure to perform is ratcheted up significantly...especially if you or the team is struggling.
Put another way, I think it's fairly intuitive to believe that players who are comfortable in their role, and who are being put in the best positions to succeed, are more likely to replicate their level of regular season success in the playoffs (over the long haul) than players who aren't.
In addition, a team doesn't experiment with usage and roles the same way they do in the regular season. They've typically decided what "works" by the playoffs, or what they think will work for each individual series, and they tend to stick with that. The usage waters aren't necessarily muddied to the same extent that they can be during the regular season.
Just some thoughts.
I'd never read more into 5-15 playoff games than I'd take from a full season's worth of regular season games in terms of how talented a player is, or what I'd project him to do next season. That's not what we're doing here, though. I think 30-45 playoff games is enough to evaluate how well a player is being utilized by a team in the playoffs.