"ewing theory" in hockey

[tarheelhockey]

The only players remaining on the Islanders from 2011 are Josh Bailey and Matt Martin.

It seems like a pretty big stretch to say their current success proves something negative about the guy who almost singlehandedly carried those sorry teams.

 

[Mickey Marner]

My issue with the theory is whether it is about the individual or simply the phenomenon where a team immediately steps up in the absence of any star player.

There’s an odd assumption in sports that a team will automatically suck when a star player or two goes down.

My issue is that anecdotally, with the Senators, there are a host of examples where not only did they play better, but it can often be a turning point in the entire season for the better.

A similar situation happens when a player returns from injury. Fans assume the team will improve when the change to ice time and distribution messes with the chemistry, or the team breathes a collective sigh of relief, and starts to lose. That and the star may not be at his best.

So I guess my point is whether this Ewing theory is particular to specific individual players or just simply the natural result of teams stepping up in the absence of any star, Ewing or not.

I’m wondering if we are being unfairly selective in choosing players on teams that underperformed when you can find similar situations on teams that did win championships but we just don’t go looking for them.

For sure, overcoming adversity is a huge part of team-building. Another example is that the Pittsburgh Penguins have a better regular season record without Crosby in the lineup and Malkin is known to step up in his absence. I do believe in the existence of a bad team scorer, that scores hollow points while playing too high in the lineup, but I differentiate that from the Ewing theory.

 

[sabremike]

The Ewing Theory itself is an idiot's delight because the two biggest reasons Ewing never won a title were that his peak coincided with the Jordan Bulls (and if goddamned Charles Smith puts in a layup the Knicks would almost surely have been the 1993 champs) and that the second best player on those teams was John Starks (not exactly Scottie Pippen).

 

[jimmysheva]

Tampa might win the cup without Stamkos

 

[seventieslord]

The only players remaining on the Islanders from 2011 are Josh Bailey and Matt Martin.

It seems like a pretty big stretch to say their current success proves something negative about the guy who almost singlehandedly carried those sorry teams.

Yes, but they have plenty of players remaining from 2017-18, when he was last there. They were awful with him (and mediocre at best for the majority of his tenure there), then the major changes from one season to the next were: 1. They lost Tavares for nothing, 2. They gained Lamoreillo, 3, They signed Trotz, 4. They picked up two "character" players who the team Tavares joined, had deemed no longer useful.

What happened to the Isles? They got significantly better immediately. They've been a better regular season and playoff team than Toronto.

What happened to Toronto? Tavares turned them from a 105 point team that lost in the first round, into...... a 105 point team that lost in the first round. And then a drastic step back the following season.

This definitely speaks to the culture change that Lamoreillo brought, to Trotz' excellent coaching, maybe also to the usefulness of a couple of character plugs, but in all likelihood it doesn't speak only to those things.

Tavares over the past three seasons at even strength sees the 10th most GF/60 while on the ice, but also the 3rd most GA/60. Statistically, he has been the most run and gun forward in the NHL over this time. More than Ovechkin, more than McDavid and Draisaitl, more than MacKinnon. After the events of the past two seasons, it's fair to question whether that is a winning formula.

 

[abo9]

Yes, but they have plenty of players remaining from 2017-18, when he was last there. They were awful with him (and mediocre at best for the majority of his tenure there), then the major changes from one season to the next were: 1. They lost Tavares for nothing, 2. They gained Lamoreillo, 3, They signed Trotz, 4. They picked up two "character" players who the team Tavares joined, had deemed no longer useful.

What happened to the Isles? They got significantly better immediately. They've been a better regular season and playoff team than Toronto.

What happened to Toronto? Tavares turned them from a 105 point team that lost in the first round, into...... a 105 point team that lost in the first round. And then a drastic step back the following season.

This definitely speaks to the culture change that Lamoreillo brought, to Trotz' excellent coaching, maybe also to the usefulness of a couple of character plugs, but in all likelihood it doesn't speak only to those things.

Tavares over the past three seasons at even strength sees the 10th most GF/60 while on the ice, but also the 3rd most GA/60. Statistically, he has been the most run and gun forward in the NHL over this time. More than Ovechkin, more than McDavid and Draisaitl, more than MacKinnon. After the events of the past two seasons, it's fair to question whether that is a winning formula.

Which is still not a knock on Tavares but more on coaching and team culture imo. Lou was trying his hardest to keep Tavares he did not just let him go lol. Is Kyle Okposo the best player he's had the chance to play with during his tenure? It's not Tavares' fault that the Islanders were building a team only around him.

And yeah the Islander's roster is mostly the same, but their D plays much better now, maybe due to maturing, maybe due to Trotz vs Weight system, or a combination of both. I have no doubt the Islanders would do well under Trotz even if Tavares stayed, perhaps even they would be doing better

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

ok i'm getting really really ahead of myself here but jacob markstrom was far and away vancouver's MVP. when he got hurt at the beginning of february, the team went into a crazy tailspin and basically was falling out of the playoff picture that marky carried them to. 3-5-0 before the shutdown, with only one regulation win.

then when play resumed he was playing vezina hockey. he knocked off the wild in the play in, then against the defending champs put up a .930 while averaging almost 40 shots a game, then was very good again against vegas, despite his numbers dropping as the team had been just totally and completely outclassed through four games.

but then he gets hurt, team is down 3-1 in the series, and they turn to highly anticipated rookie thatcher demko. and this is the ewing theory part: the team completely changes strategy with marky not in net. they go into 2003 ducks mode and let enormous volumes of vegas shots through, just making sure demko can see it. they scramble like maniacs to deny any second chances demko doesn't absorb. in games 1-4 they were banking on pettersson, hughes, miller, boeser to score goals and counting on marky to steal every game, like they had in the st louis series. in games 5 and 6, they just totally babcocked it.

in two games, both regulation, demko faced 91 shots. they took marky's already ridiculous workload and added nine more shots each game. for his part, he saved 90. very giguere-like, extremely square to every shot, incredible at absorbing the puck, mentally as dialed in as you basically can be, almost every save looks routine, almost never puts himself in a position to have to make a spectacular save, though he did make a handful when he had to. and he looks absolutely frickin' enormous in the net, and that's saying something considering marky is 6'6 and demko is "only" 6'4.

so none of this is an indictment on markstrom, who played well enough to probably win a conn smythe on a good team. but the team is giving itself a different, and seemingly better, chance to win without relying on marky to be patrick roy.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Yes, but they have plenty of players remaining from 2017-18, when he was last there. They were awful with him (and mediocre at best for the majority of his tenure there), then the major changes from one season to the next were: 1. They lost Tavares for nothing, 2. They gained Lamoreillo, 3, They signed Trotz, 4. They picked up two "character" players who the team Tavares joined, had deemed no longer useful.

What happened to the Isles? They got significantly better immediately. They've been a better regular season and playoff team than Toronto.

What happened to Toronto? Tavares turned them from a 105 point team that lost in the first round, into...... a 105 point team that lost in the first round. And then a drastic step back the following season.

This definitely speaks to the culture change that Lamoreillo brought, to Trotz' excellent coaching, maybe also to the usefulness of a couple of character plugs, but in all likelihood it doesn't speak only to those things.

Tavares over the past three seasons at even strength sees the 10th most GF/60 while on the ice, but also the 3rd most GA/60. Statistically, he has been the most run and gun forward in the NHL over this time. More than Ovechkin, more than McDavid and Draisaitl, more than MacKinnon. After the events of the past two seasons, it's fair to question whether that is a winning formula.

This all just seems extremely, extremely reductive.

The Islanders had 100-point teams in 2015 and 2016. Who was the second-best player on those teams? Candidates include Johnny Boychuk, Anders Lee, and Kyle Okposo. Tavares carried those teams to the playoffs, including a 35-point scoring margin over #2 in 2016, and also showed up in the playoffs in hopeless matchups.

So the theory here is that because Tavares is now on an even stronger team that lost its elimination game, and the Isles have actually put together a real hockey team to claw back to the same level they were with when they had Tavares as a 1-man show, then the problem must be with Tavares and not the Islanders franchise as a whole?

 

[seventieslord]

This all just seems extremely, extremely reductive.

The Islanders had 100-point teams in 2015 and 2016. Who was the second-best player on those teams? Candidates include Johnny Boychuk, Anders Lee, and Kyle Okposo. Tavares carried those teams to the playoffs, including a 35-point scoring margin over #2 in 2016, and also showed up in the playoffs in hopeless matchups.

So the theory here is that because Tavares is now on an even stronger team that lost its elimination game, and the Isles have actually put together a real hockey team to claw back to the same level they were with when they had Tavares as a 1-man show, then the problem must be with Tavares and not the Islanders franchise as a whole?

Perhaps it is reductive. I freely admit that. There are so many moving parts involved that it's practically impossible to say what is responsible to what degree. But at the same time, you seem to be making the case that the Tavares factor is responsible for exactly 0% of it while I'm merely suggesting that maybe it's not 0%. Who's really being reductive here?

The 2015 and 2016 seasons were definitely beast mode seasons, no question about that. But they were a relatively long time ago by now. You talk about "the level they were at when they had Tavares as a one-man show" but those were just two of the nine seasons where that was essentially the case. They weren't the norm; they were the exception. Over his tenure, they were the 24th best team in the NHL.

Also keep in mind that this may not even be an indictment of Tavares the player, at all. We are in a cap world where every dollar must be spent efficiently in order to produce a cup-winning team - one that plays like its payroll is $100M even though it's no more than $80M. It might simply be an indictment of the fact that you can't have success paying Tavares or a player like him the amount of money his pedigree and offensive output dictates and still build a successful team.

 

[wetcoast]

reading that again, i think i should clarify. maybe the more interesting question isn't why sundin and turgeon never led their teams to glory, but why the leafs led by mccauley and an aging gary roberts, or the islanders led by stumpy thomas and ray ferraro were able to do what they did in the playoffs.

I had a quick look at the 93 playoffs and it seems that the NYI and more specifically Ferraro and Thomas aren't exact fits to your idea.

Interesting stuff but basketball, were players play a much higher % of their teams MPG and there is no equivalent of a hot goalie in basketball, make the cross sports comparison extremely difficult IMO.

Also after looking more closely at the Leafs, other than the 2nd round were indeed those 2 guys stood out in the other 2 rounds that year not so much.

Especially in the 3rd round were Sundin was in on 4 of the Leafs 6 goals for.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

I had a quick look at the 93 playoffs and it seems that the NYI and more specifically Ferraro and Thomas aren't exact fits to your idea.

how do you mean?

when turgeon went down in the last game of the washington series, ferraro took over first line center duties and didn't miss a beat, scoring 4 goals and 8 points to upset probably the best of the mario penguins teams, including setting up the game 7 OT winner.

in the last two games of the series, down 3-2, steve thomas scored 5 points from the second line and his center benoit hogue had 4.

derek king and tom fitzgerald both significantly raised their production from the previous series, and brian mullen in his last season came back from the dead to score 4 points in games 4, 5, and 6.

to the extent that not everybody scored more points against pittsburgh than they did against washington, you also have to acknowledge that the islanders beating washington wasn't a gigantic upset, but beating pittsburgh was possibly the biggest upset of my lifetime, maybe only rivaled by anaheim/detroit in 2003.

 

[YippieKaey]

Different sport but this was SO the case when Zlatan Ibrahimovic played for the swedish national soccer team. Everybody else just stopped playing. He still got the job done sometimes but had the other players showed up we might have won something.