Post-Game Talk: Caps @ Pens - Game 6. Win and come home (or, just come home)(pt2)Mod warning in OP

[BTCG]

How many players fit your description?

If you mean consistent domination in playoff series, there is basically nobody, then what are we talking about? Crosby has probably disappeared in more series than Ovechkin, and has still advanced farther and won. Is he a "champion" by your definition?

Williams was a champion with the Kings. Now he's not a champion any more? Hossa was a loser with Pens and Wings (iirc), then he became a champion with the Hawks? Did he suddenly become a better player/competitor? Messi/Ronaldo are champions from Barcelona/Real, or losers from Argentina/Portugal? Etc.

I think in the end your side is simply linking "champion" to results, and I am pointing out that usually results have FAR more to do with the overall team than the "champion" quality of a single star player.

IMO, Ovechkin surely has flaws, but I think it's absurd to postulate that he can't be a big piece on a winning team. Let's see a well-oiled team first, for example one where more than one line can score, lol.

Another possible cause of lazy assertions is Ovechkin's contract. It could be that it is in fact difficult to win with a ~10M superstar on the wing. Maybe in part because of that Chicago won't win any more. It's possible, as a complicating factor. But then perhaps your problem with the player has a lot more to do with his contract then his "champion" quality.

I think your side is operating with an idealized concept of a "champion" that is basically a unicorn. You can have two basically equivalent superstars, see them meet in the finals, then whichever one has the better team will win and get the "champion" label, and the other will get the "loser" label. And then people spend pages rationalizing those labels as products of intrinsic individual qualities.

How many players do you think you could put in Ovi's place in these playoffs to transform 2nd round exit into a SC win? And if such players don't exist, gasp, does it mean they are all losers?

First, neither CCF or Dave, and myself included, has called AO a loser. Those are your words!

As to a list of players who elevated their games and turned defeat into victory, it's too long a list to compile.

But... besides Yzerman, the names Darren McCarty, Kirk Maltby, Chris Osgood, and Kris Draper come to mind, and especially Osgood.

In Ozzie, we see an average athlete who played on other teams besides DRW, yet never had a losing record; he elevated his game, and, I believe, like the others, has 4 rings. Not by accident!

 

[BTCG]

This is preposterous. It's one thing to give trite answers about "leadership" because you're prompted by Gormley or something. It's quite another to go on at length as both Alzner and Carlson have done about how Orpik has influenced their career arcs or to voluntarily include mention of him in an article about Russian-style hockey as Kuzy did.

Orpik failed to play too his contract in these playoffs; there's no question. But suggesting that he's not been a net benefit to this team since his signing is just foolish.

It's similar to the situation with Ovi. Both Williams and Oshie--being the new guys--were asked repeatedly about him as captain and said very believable and honest things. No one said, well he fires us up with Herb Brooks-esque dressing room speeches. That would be total BS. They said he leads on the ice. He cares deeply about the team and about winning. He inspires them in those ways. If you listen to people's words, you can often tell what's genuine and what's a sound bite for the camera.

As to the latter, see: Laich, Brooks.

Cali... I don't wish to be mean to you, as you're a very nice person and I enjoy your opinions and mostly agree with them. But this must be said.

The highlighted text indicate a common theme amongst Cap fans.

Many of us know the cost of everything, but the value of nothing.

Forget the cost, the question is: did the said player elevate his game in critical and key situations?

Please, don't be angry with me, I do like and admire you.

 

[BTCG]

How many players fit your description?

If you mean consistent domination in playoff series, there is basically nobody, then what are we talking about? Crosby has probably disappeared in more series than Ovechkin, and has still advanced farther and won. Is he a "champion" by your definition?

Williams was a champion with the Kings. Now he's not a champion any more? Hossa was a loser with Pens and Wings (iirc), then he became a champion with the Hawks? Did he suddenly become a better player/competitor? Messi/Ronaldo are champions from Barcelona/Real, or losers from Argentina/Portugal? Etc.

I think in the end your side is simply linking "champion" to results, and I am pointing out that usually results have FAR more to do with the overall team than the "champion" quality of a single star player.

IMO, Ovechkin surely has flaws, but I think it's absurd to postulate that he can't be a big piece on a winning team. Let's see a well-oiled team first, for example one where more than one line can score, lol.

Another possible cause of lazy assertions is Ovechkin's contract. It could be that it is in fact difficult to win with a ~10M superstar on the wing. Maybe in part because of that Chicago won't win any more. It's possible, as a complicating factor. But then perhaps your problem with the player has a lot more to do with his contract then his "champion" quality.

I think your side is operating with an idealized concept of a "champion" that is basically a unicorn. You can have two basically equivalent superstars, see them meet in the finals, then whichever one has the better team will win and get the "champion" label, and the other will get the "loser" label. And then people spend pages rationalizing those labels as products of intrinsic individual qualities.

How many players do you think you could put in Ovi's place in these playoffs to transform 2nd round exit into a SC win? And if such players don't exist, gasp, does it mean they are all losers?

One other observation:

I'm not saying that elevating their game means doing so in every situation.

They're going to fail sometimes... but not every time.

AO needs to work on those one-timers in the off-season... so next time, he won't wiff (one hopes).

 

[twabby]

What do you consider "evidence", and how can you prove Orpik has made things worse? Let me guess...stats and more stats.

Like it or not, games are decided by stats (goals), not leadership. Unless Orpik provides a positive goal differential either by his on ice actions or through somehow making his teammates better through off the ice actions, what point is there having him?

Sp at some point you have to judge how many goals and games his intangibles are worth. You can just hand wave stats away because the Stanley Cup is awarded to the team that scores more goals than the other team in 4 out of 7 games, for 4 series in a row. Not to the team that has the grittiest leaders.

 

[Alexander the Gr8]

I hate to say it but I've come to agree with twabby on Orpik. If the only thing he provides to the team is veteran leadership and intangibles, whatever they may be, then we must absolutely get rid of him. This is a competitive hockey team, no time for a guy who became a $5.5M anchor on our blue line.

I like Orpik, I really do, I think he's helped our D grow a lot since we brought him here. However, I'm not oblivious to his sharply declining play. He's costing us goals, he's costing us games. He's too slow to follow quick skilled players, so he takes dumb penalties because he's out of position and desperately trying to get back.

Let's trade him, I'm sure there's a team willing to trade for his veteran leadership and intangibles. We'll get a younger and better D in return, hopefully one that doesn't cost $5.5M.

 

[Dr John Carlson]

I value Orpik's leadership. I believe the players when they say he's been a good influence on them.

He's just being paid about 4 or 5 times more than he should, and that's hurting the team.

 

[Devil Dancer]

A three game suspension on a stupid hit and a disastrous double minor in an elimination game seems like negative leadership to me. Is that the guy we really want setting an example for the team?

I'm just worried the team still highly values Orpik, and will count on him to be a top 4 guy next year regardless of his struggles in 15-16. One thing I've learned from Chicago, Detroit and LA fans here on HF is that the best management teams fall in love with bad players all the time. GMBM may have gotten rid of a lot of dead weight, but it doesn't help if he replaces it with more dead weight.

Hopefully I'm wrong.

 

[Calicaps]

Cali... I don't wish to be mean to you, as you're a very nice person and I enjoy your opinions and mostly agree with them. But this must be said.

The highlighted text indicate a common theme amongst Cap fans.

Many of us know the cost of everything, but the value of nothing.

Forget the cost, the question is: did the said player elevate his game in critical and key situations?

Please, don't be angry with me, I do like and admire you.

Not angry, but confused. What do you think I mean?

 

[Empty Goal Net]

A three game suspension on a stupid hit and a disastrous double minor in an elimination game seems like negative leadership to me. Is that the guy we really want setting an example for the team?

I'm just worried the team still highly values Orpik, and will count on him to be a top 4 guy next year regardless of his struggles in 15-16. One thing I've learned from Chicago, Detroit and LA fans here on HF is that the best management teams fall in love with bad players all the time. GMBM may have gotten rid of a lot of dead weight, but it doesn't help if he replaces it with more dead weight.

1) re bolded: Joel Ward's double minor most likely cost the Caps the chance to go to the Conference Finals in 2012. not sure most posters would not welcome him back here.

2) for all players, it's a cost:value consideration, and I believe posters and readers understand that. when he signed with the Caps, I thought Orpik's original term and salary were exhorbitant. still do, and as we move into the out-years, I'm afraid that will become even more evident. best hope is he doesn't fall off further in 2016/17, and an expansion team is willing to take him on in a "leadership" role. (he wears an "A," not gonna argue what he actually contributes because WE DON'T KNOW!)

3) DRW may hang onto players beyond their sell by date, but they also have (had?) a rep for picking up grizzled vets who could still contribute.

 

[BrooklynCapsFan]

It's funny some of the Caps fans here talking about what it takes to win a championship. I honestly think most of you turn off the tv once the caps are eliminated. Because you couldn't be more wrong that championships are won by big name players having huge series. They're won with depth. The kind of depth that allows Malkin and Crosby to combine for a single goal in their ECSF against us and still advance.

2015 Stanley Cup Finals

Kane - 1g 2a
Toews - 1g 2a

2014 Stanley Cup Finals

Kopitar - 0g 2a
Carter - 1g 2a
Doughty - 1g 1a -3

Lucky for these chokers, their teams had depth to carry them to titles.

 

[Calicaps]

It's funny some of the Caps fans here talking about what it takes to win a championship. I honestly think most of you turn off the tv once the caps are eliminated. Because you couldn't be more wrong that championships are won by big name players having huge series. They're won with depth. The kind of depth that allows Malkin and Crosby to combine for a single goal in their ECSF against us and still advance.

2015 Stanley Cup Finals

Kane - 1g 2a
Toews - 1g 2a

2014 Stanley Cup Finals

Kopitar - 0g 2a
Carter - 1g 2a
Doughty - 1g 1a -3

Lucky for these chokers, their teams had depth to carry them to titles.

/thread

 

[Dobe*]

1) re bolded: Joel Ward's double minor most likely cost the Caps the chance to go to the Conference Finals in 2012. not sure most posters would not welcome him back here.

2) for all players, it's a cost:value consideration, and I believe posters and readers understand that. when he signed with the Caps, I thought Orpik's original term and salary were exhorbitant. still do, and as we move into the out-years, I'm afraid that will become even more evident. best hope is he doesn't fall off further in 2016/17, and an expansion team is willing to take him on in a "leadership" role. (he wears an "A," not gonna argue what he actually contributes because WE DON'T KNOW!)

3) DRW may hang onto players beyond their sell by date, but they also have (had?) a rep for picking up grizzled vets who could still contribute.

Joel Ward was also, you know, consistently making good plays that helped us. Orpik's play when he wasn't putting his team shorthanded one way or another amounted to pushing opposing players into Holtby as the red light came on behind him. Oh sometimes he'd also step up deliver one of his monstah hits to throw himself out of position god knows where and give up an odd man rush. If Orpik's name was Erskine or Weber everyone would be comfortable calling out his dog**** play for what it was.

 

[artilector]

First, neither CCF or Dave, and myself included, has called AO a loser. Those are your words!

As to a list of players who elevated their games and turned defeat into victory, it's too long a list to compile.

But... besides Yzerman, the names Darren McCarty, Kirk Maltby, Chris Osgood, and Kris Draper come to mind, and especially Osgood.

In Ozzie, we see an average athlete who played on other teams besides DRW, yet never had a losing record; he elevated his game, and, I believe, like the others, has 4 rings. Not by accident!

Fine, I don't mean to put words in your mouth, but if players who impose their will to win are "champions", what do you want to call others... "non-champions"?

As far as players elevating games, again I think you are missing my (and others') point about the role that team depth and team success plays in all of this. Ovi elevated his game to a phenomenal level in 2009 and still lost... how was that not the performance of a "champion"?

And you did not answer my question about which player in Ovi's place would've been able to carry Caps to SC victory. You're listing role players that played great for Detroit, but the truth is that many such players work just as hard on bad teams and never get the "champion" label because their teams aren't good enough.

Look, I know what you are getting at -- "playoff warrior". But IMO, Ovi has been a leader in that category for the Caps, delivering at a pretty consistent level -- and to say otherwise is pretty much blaming him for team shortcomings. Especially this year, when his line was the only one that worked.

 

[Hivemind]

I value Orpik's leadership. I believe the players when they say he's been a good influence on them.

He's just being paid about 4 or 5 times more than he should, and that's hurting the team.

Bingo. You can get that kind of veteran locker room leadership for a lot cheaper than $27.5M. Paying $5.5M for oft-injured/suspended leadership with substandard play is not a good investment. Go sign Willie Mitchell (if he doesn't retire) or Chris Kelly to provide that for a fraction of a cost of Orpik.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

Orpik is signed to a $5.5 million contract for three more years, plays in the top 4, is expected to be a leader on the defense. I was someone who quasi-defended the Orpik acquisition - acknowledging that he was overpaid - but brought veteran experience and presence to the top 4 that they previously lacked. But he played very poorly and there is no way around it. He took dumb penalties multiple times and got himself suspended in a 1-1 series for three games for an indefensible hit. This is to say nothing of the more "minor" lapses, like getting worked by Voracek on his lone goal.

Orlov, Schmidt, Weber, and Chorney didn't play very well either - but they don't hold the contract, expectations, and experience that Orpik does. Their future with the term is even uncertain in some cases. It's not unfair to hold him to a different standard. If Orpik plays like a solid top-4 D-man, then the team has a solid top four. If he does not - the team does not. And this playoffs (and the better part of the season) - he did not. I don't know what the solution to that is.

Great last playoffs, not so great this after a broken leg and missing half the season and a concussion. 1-1

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

This is preposterous. It's one thing to give trite answers about "leadership" because you're prompted by Gormley or something. It's quite another to go on at length as both Alzner and Carlson have done about how Orpik has influenced their career arcs or to voluntarily include mention of him in an article about Russian-style hockey as Kuzy did.

Orpik failed to play too his contract in these playoffs; there's no question. But suggesting that he's not been a net benefit to this team since his signing is just foolish.

It's similar to the situation with Ovi. Both Williams and Oshie--being the new guys--were asked repeatedly about him as captain and said very believable and honest things. No one said, well he fires us up with Herb Brooks-esque dressing room speeches. That would be total BS. They said he leads on the ice. He cares deeply about the team and about winning. He inspires them in those ways. If you listen to people's words, you can often tell what's genuine and what's a sound bite for the camera.

As to the latter, see: Laich, Brooks.

Good stuff.

 

[BTCG]

Fine, I don't mean to put words in your mouth, but if players who impose their will to win are "champions", what do you want to call others... "non-champions"?

Ummm.... yeah. Excuse me, still laughing. no disrespect, I do respect you, but am shocked you posted that.

As far as players elevating games, again I think you are missing my (and others') point about the role that team depth and team success plays in all of this. Ovi elevated his game to a phenomenal level in 2009 and still lost... how was that not the performance of a "champion"?

Art... you'll note I used the term "key" moments. Do I need to explain what that means?

And you did not answer my question about which player in Ovi's place would've been able to carry Caps to SC victory.

I'll give you a player: AO.

But guess what, he didn't step up... which is the point you cannot see.

You're listing role players that played great for Detroit, but the truth is that many such players work just as hard on bad teams and never get the "champion" label because their teams aren't good enough

Art... no one is ever going to put Kirk Maltby on a ballot for election into the HOF... but I watched the man lose his stick in the SCP, and proceed to block 4-5 shots... he was determined NOT to allow a goal. and guess what... he didn't, and his team rallied, and won. YouTube it, it's one of the gutsiest defensive performances you'll ever see by a forward.

Look, I know what you are getting at -- "playoff warrior". But IMO, Ovi has been a leader in that category for the Caps, delivering at a pretty consistent level -- and to say otherwise is pretty much blaming him for team shortcomings. Especially this year, when his line was the only one that worked.

Yeah... he's the Rockey Colavito of Caps playoff performers: tons of points... none in the clutch.

 

[artilector]

Ummm.... yeah. Excuse me, still laughing. no disrespect, I do respect you, but am shocked you posted that.



Art... you'll note I used the term "key" moments. Do I need to explain what that means?



I'll give you a player: AO.

But guess what, he didn't step up... which is the point you cannot see.



Art... no one is ever going to put Kirk Maltby on a ballot for election into the HOF... but I watched the man lose his stick in the SCP, and proceed to block 4-5 shots... he was determined NOT to allow a goal. and guess what... he didn't, and his team rallied, and won. YouTube it, it's one of the gutsiest defensive performances you'll ever see by a forward.



Yeah... he's the Rockey Colavito of Caps playoff performers: tons of points... none in the clutch.

I think you are laughing without understanding what you are laughing about -- you didn't like the word "loser" for Ovi (although that was the implied sense that I got), so I was wondering if you simply wanted a more polite word for loser.

But finally it's becoming more clear what your definition of champion is. The guy who scores the big goal/makes the big play in playoff OT, smth like that.

What is hard to understand is why you are singling out Ovechkin in this case. You have plenty examples of stars who have done nothing in various playoff series (no clutch points, nor/barely any kind of points), and still won. If it's ok for other teams' grinders to be clutch and carry their stars, where are Caps' clutch grinders? And if they are absent, how is that Ovechkin's fault?

How many star players have carried their team to victory in series where basically all other forward lines went quiet? If they haven't (or rarely succeeded), why the expectation that Ovechkin should be able to do it?

Basically, the sense of your complaint that I am getting is why isn't Ovechkin more like Michael Jordan with 30 seconds left and the score tied. Well, maybe he's more like Charles Barkley. Or Lindros. Or whoever. So what, guy's still a horse that you can obviously (IMO) build a championship team with. Btw, guy like Kobe looked a lot more like Ovechkin than a "champion" without Shaq/Gasol, Datsyuk/Z have "wilted" without Lidstrom, etc.

To me, in the grand scheme of things, Ovechkin's lack of "clutch" plays (in comparison to some absolute best possible, let's say Kane) is maybe 5% (being "generous") of the problem, the other 95% being the supporting cast/tactics etc. What is your intuition about this split? I have the feeling that it's very far from mine. If you think that it's a major contributing factor to Caps' playoffs impotence, then to me it's a statement bordering on the absurd, giving the realities of hockey.

edit: I should qualify my "can obviously win with Ovi" statement. I do think that winning is more difficult when 10-15% of your cap is taken by a star winger. More difficult, but not impossible. And even in this sense, other contracts have damaged the Caps' chances FAR more than overpaying Ovi by some amount over what your "ideal" salary at that spot would be.

 

[BTCG]

I think you are laughing without understanding what you are laughing about -- you didn't like the word "loser" for Ovi (although that was the implied sense that I got), so I was wondering if you simply wanted a more polite word for loser.

What I found amusing was your ability to filter out words that pour oil into the water of your argument; you caught elevate his game... but you felt the need to ignore in key situations.

But... in all fairness, you're not alone.

But finally it's becoming more clear what your definition of champion is. The guy who scores the big goal/makes the big play in playoff OT, smth like that.

There's no hidden meaning in my definition of a champion. Frankly, and no disrespect, but I believe these type of claims serve only to weaken your argument.

What is hard to understand is why you are singling out Ovechkin in this case. You have plenty examples of stars who have done nothing in various playoff series (no clutch points, nor/barely any kind of points), and still won. If it's ok for other teams' grinders to be clutch and carry their stars, where are Caps' clutch grinders? And if they are absent, how is that Ovechkin's fault?

It's not hard to understand: AO was the subject KSD and CCF brought up. And... it's fair to question the performance of a guy who makes as much as AO does.

How many star players have carried their team to victory in series where basically all other forward lines went quiet? If they haven't (or rarely succeeded), why the expectation that Ovechkin should be able to do it?

I really do not get this type of argument. Because others have failed to elevate their game in key situations... we shouldn't question AO's performances? Really?

Basically, the sense of your complaint that I am getting is why isn't Ovechkin more like Michael Jordan with 30 seconds left and the score tied. Well, maybe he's more like Charles Barkley. Or Lindros. Or whoever. So what, guy's still a horse that you can obviously (IMO) build a championship team with. Btw, guy like Kobe looked a lot more like Ovechkin than a "champion" without Shaq/Gasol, Datsyuk/Z have "wilted" without Lidstrom, etc.

So, you're saying that should MJ have failed in every situation in the playoffs, we should still considered him the greatest player of all-time? Again... really?

To me, in the grand scheme of things, Ovechkin's lack of "clutch" plays (in comparison to some absolute best possible, let's say Kane) is maybe 5% (being "generous") of the problem, the other 95% being the supporting cast/tactics etc. What is your intuition about this split? I have the feeling that it's very far from mine. If you think that it's a major contributing factor to Caps' playoffs impotence, then to me it's a statement bordering on the absurd, giving the realities of hockey.

If you think President's Trophies and 2nd round exits are accomplishments, more power to you. But don't chastise those of us who want more.

edit: I should qualify my "can obviously win with Ovi" statement. I do think that winning is more difficult when 10-15% of your cap is taken by a star winger. More difficult, but not impossible. And even in this sense, other contracts have damaged the Caps' chances FAR more than overpaying Ovi by some amount over what your "ideal" salary at that spot would be.

Again, not the point. What KSD (who seems to have been chased off) and CCF (and me) are saying is that at some point in this near-decade of AO's career... it's not out of line to suggest that he should have taken a key situation into his hands and inserted his will upon the situation. He's certainly not underpaid, eh? That's all.

 

[g00n]

Again, not the point. What KSD (who seems to have been chased off) and CCF (and me) are saying is that at some point in this near-decade of AO's career... it's not out of line to suggest that he should have taken a key situation into his hands and inserted his will upon the situation. He's certainly not underpaid, eh? That's all.

Not being a smartass, seriously asking...what exactly does this mean? Not some general "lead and win" type of thing or "try harder" etc. What precisely are you asking for here in terms of actionable hockey instructions?

 

[BTCG]

Not being a smartass, seriously asking...what exactly does this mean? Not some general "lead and win" type of thing or "try harder" etc. What precisely are you asking for here in terms of actionable hockey instructions?

Remember those wiffs of one-timers in the last game? Those were situations that could have changed the outcome of the game.

If I'm AO, I'm gonna practice that shot all summer, rather than spending time on the beach.

 

[Alexander the Gr8]

Remember those wiffs of one-timers in the last game? Those were situations that could have changed the outcome of the game.

If I'm AO, I'm gonna practice that shot all summer, rather than spending time on the beach.

It's not a whiff, he just didn't connect on bouncing pucks. That's on Backstrom not putting enough spin on his saucer passes. Carlson missed a few as well.

 

[BTCG]

It's not a whiff, he just didn't connect on bouncing pucks. That's on Backstrom not putting enough spin on his saucer passes. Carlson missed a few as well.

C'mon. He failed to come near the net on a couple.

A champion assesses his failures and features them by overcoming them. I hate the guy... but the dents on Crosby's Mom's dryer demonstrate this.

He doesn't allow snapshots of himself on a beach.

 

[mrwarden]

What percentage of outcomes is determined solely by 8's performance, in your estimation?

Since our only measure of INDIVIDUAL player success, in your worldview, is Cup. What percentage of the result is driven by this input v all of the others? 100%?

Edit: I feel compelled to finally point out for everyone that the chances of any given team winning 1 or more cups in a given decade is about 17%.

 

[BTCG]

What percentage of outcomes is determined solely by 8's performance, in your estimation?

Since our only measure of INDIVIDUAL player success, in your worldview, is Cup. What percentage of the result is driven by this input v all of the others? 100%?

Warden: try inserting zero into your equation and see what happens.