I agree, winning is based more on a system, and strong play throughout the lineup. We would have probably won the past two games if you replaced Buff with someone else who was his defensive equal but had little offensive threat, because we played great hockey. BUT just like a great goalie can steal a game (we saw Henrik make a pretty good effort to do just that last night. Miller does it for his garbage team all the time) a great player can assert his will on a game and make an end to end rush with a couple minutes left, and put it away.
You want to outplay the other team every game, but sometimes you wont. And when it's just not there regardless of effort level, (second game in a back to back, you played a hard game the night before, your opponent is fresh) you want the kind of guys on your team that have that x-factor (it's almost like it's own special elite ability) so that you can steal a few games, too.
You take your system that really works, get full buy in, have a guy like 2013 Andrew Ladd wearing the C and working his keister off EVERY game and you get a lot of wins. But it's when you go beyond that and insert a few players who can get find that overdrive gear that so many people just don't have, and that's how you win cups. Those are the guys that catch fire in the playoffs, and when both teams are playing their system, and giving it "110%", you need a way to turn the tide.
THAT's the fascination with "Game Breakers" for me. They're the ace in the sleeve, or the amp that turns to 11 instead of 10.
Interesting note, since the first salary cap lockout, I think, something like 25 to 50% of the cap on each cup winning team has been split between 5 players or less. (this might be from before LA won) I'm trying to find the article for it. But I think it lends itself to the theory of a good system through the team and then a couple of guys that just take control when it's all on the line.
